Rearming Yamato

[proditor]

18" is nice and all, but doesn't 20" sound better?  I'm patiently waiting for the Fujimi Super yamato with 20" guns to arrive.  The kit will probably be mostly out of the box for once.

If you're not familiar with his beast, take a gander over here: http://www.modelshipwrights.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2579

[Taiidantomcat]

exciting! 

[CanisD]

1/500 scale "Super Yamato" coming soon from Fujimi.
http://www.hlj.com/product/FUJ61004

[sequoiaranger]

[this is a re-iteration of a former post, now with pictures]

Yes, I am familiar with it---I had two in my wargame twenty years ago. See:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/satsum_f.htm

The illustration on the page I did is a little dark, but you get the idea. Trouble was, even with 18" guns, the overpressure when the guns fired did so much damage to the ship and crew, that 20" would be unbearable. 16" was about the practical upper limit for battleship artillery.

And, calculating "weight of shell per broadside", there really wasn't much to gain (if anything) by six 20" instead of NINE 18". Three more heavy shells in the air means 50% greater chance of a hit, even if it's only a "paltry" 18" shell!

But heck, *I* couldn't help but make a model of one, myself, in 1/1200 scale! The massive hollow barrels are tiny stainless-steel tubing that I use for 30mm cannon on 1/72-scale warplanes!

[rickshaw]

The illustration on the page I did is a little dark, but you get the idea. Trouble was, even with 18" guns, the overpressure when the guns fired did so much damage to the ship and crew, that 20" would be unbearable. 16" was about the practical upper limit for battleship artillery.

Your 1/1200 model is impressive.  However, wouldn't or shouldn't the over-pressure problems be remedied with better design?  Not placing sailors in open mountings or even having open mountings around the main gun turrets?   Redesigning the closed mountings to better resist the over-pressure and closing most of the openings in the superstructure (and redesigning it to be stronger, with inclined walls, etc)?   The openings anyway, are weak points and just as sponson guns and so on were gradually eliminated from more modern battleship designs as they evolved, so could all the various other openings in the armoured superstructure.   Admittedly, that would mean a bigger investment in ventilation and perhaps even air-conditioning systems but it would make larger calibre guns possible.

However, as counter to that, it's interested that HMS VANGUARD - the last battleship launched actually opted for smaller calibre guns but clearly superior fire control systems.  That was designed to make up for the decrease in shell weight by improving accuracy.  While the choice of calibre was partly forced by reasons of economy, it clearly showed that alternatives to the sheer brute force concept were possible.

[sequoiaranger]

>However, wouldn't or shouldn't the over-pressure problems be remedied with better design?  Not placing sailors in open mountings or even having open mountings around the main gun turrets?<

Trouble was, even covered/enclosed areas were damaged with the 18"ers. ESPECIALLY when shooting anything greater than 90 degrees from the centerline. One needed ARMOR around one to be safe---that would geometrically increase the topweight of the ship if every little mount were so equipped. Then there is the human factor, like eardrums, eyeballs, etc.

And for what? Again, the benefits of the larger ordnance was offset by greater "penalties" elsewhere, and it was GUIDANCE of the ordnance that was the problem. Flight time of the shell, wobbling, barrel wear, etc. just made larger seagoing artillery (especially when aimed at other, moving seagoing artillery platforms) increasingly worthless. Bigger was just NOT "better".