WWW.BATTLESHIPYAMATO.COM NOTE: Argumentative Posts that use profanity or racial slurs will be deleted and the user blocked from this channel. Thank you for keeping the discussion civil.
You seem to know a lot about Yamato. I have a few questions Are there any known cross sections of Yamato's interior? How many main battery hits did Yamato make during the battle of Samar Island? Did Yamato see any action during the battle of the Philippine Sea? Did Yamato have an immune zone to her own guns?
A truly outstanding video. The quality of the graphics were excellent. I learned a lot about the mechanisms and how they worked together. I applaud you for the extreme amount of effort that went into this production. Thank you so very much.
I wish this was in English. Remember this was all designed and built in the 1930's with only a slide rule and extreme craftsme ship Amazing Engineering.
My good friends Father was an engineer, he'd be in his 90s if he was still alive, every time I saw him, he had a small slide rule in his shirt pocket, years after he retired, he still carried that slide rule, pad and pencil, he was a neat guy.
This is amazing engineering from the 1930s, with so many resources used. The precision is amazing as well. think about it, the traverse motor for the turret has 5000Horsepower alone. Crazy stuff.
I have a feeling it's a modern imagining of what it may have been. The Japanese destroyed Yamato's plans before the surrender. Other Japanese battleships used the Kongo's British-designed loading system. BTW, USN 16" turrets only needed 300 hp to train.
@@blackpowder4016 Japan was torch happy when it came to their sekrit dokuments postwar, but it is confirmed the loading system for the 460s was a native design that was considerably heavier than similar sized guns of other nations such as Britain's 457s. This level of automation would certainly account for several hundred tons of steel imo
The crazy thing about this (and, to be fair, every other) 1930s/1940s battleship is that they were all pointless and obsolete on launch. The Allies and Axis both wasted vast sums building these superfluous weapons in an era where it was impossible to use them cost-effectively.
@@bkjeong4302 lol pointless? They remain the most durable and heavily armed ships in history and when used intelligently, swept all surface targets before them. Carriers replaced them because they were cheaper and had longer reach allowing them to kite. There is a push right now to introduce ships like Battleships (but more economical) for missions where stealth defeats the point, such as freedom of navigation patrols
Ronald Thompson You literally mentioned why they were pointless. There is no point in having a ship good at surface engagements if you don’t have to fight surface engagements. Carriers rendered surface engagements nonviable by their much greater range. That rendered other primary combat units, especially battleships, obsolete.
2 yamatos 4 iowas the iowas were faster and built later than the yamato with better protection and a higher rate of main battery fire the yamatos would have bee swamped by 16" gunfire from farther than the yamatos could have seen them and highly accurate radar directed gunfire at that
And there we go again with the IOWA vs Yamato comments again, whereas he just said "For guns of that calibre it truly was an engineering marvel.". Gosh! Chill guys! Both had their own mights.
Very good video about Yamato's main guns. Despite the language barrier I was still able to understand how the system worked. Thank you for uploading this video.
0:03. Type 94 460mm, 45 caliber triple main turret. 0:33. Yamato's range was 30,000 m and could penetrate 430mm of armor. The turret alone weighs 4310 tons, as heavy as a large destroyer. Many new innovations were adopted, such as the round feeding mechanism, etc. inside the turret was covered in heavy armor: a top secret at the time. 1:03. The turret was protected by 660mm armor in the front, 250mm on the top and made of special steel (as was available at the time). It could not be penetrated by 400mm rounds. more to come...
@@sigridqwq5198 arguably, a battleships main use is when its not in combat. It might have sunk in 10 minutes but it made the entire world take japan serious.
I really enjoyed watching and studying this. Not sure if he had access to actual battleship blueprints of the Yamato but the technical accuracy is spot on. Despite the language barrier I was able to understand 90% of this. The thing that really stood out in this video is the propellent loaded off the skip went straight into a flash suppression shielding tube before rammed into the breach of the gun. This is an unseen safety feature that American battleships did not have. I like how the range finder could yaw side to side up to 5 degrees inside the top rear of the gun. I am sure a lot of research went into this. Outstanding work my friend. outstanding.
Phillip Mulligan This is a similar feature to the British 15 inch Mk I. You can see the cage in action in the HMS Vanguard loading movie which stood in for Hood in the movie Sink the Bismarck.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit. The Japanese had some of their ships built or engineered by the British and reverse engineered a lot of the technology during the 1930s. The Kongo battleship is one such example of a British built battleship for export to Japan just before the Washington and London Treaties and before the great depression.. I love playing this ship in World of Warships.
***** Those so called ears are called optical range finders. They work very much like your split prism view finder in a Single Reflex Camera. The naval architects do provide clearance for those large range finders from nearby objects on the ship. There are also other optical range finders mounted around the super structure of the ship to relay information to the CIC and Gunnery Officers.
+Phillip Mulligan What I also find interesting is that the rangefinders (both the turret and superstructure finders) on Yamato were made by Nippon Kogaku, the company that is now Nikon. These viewfinders were of excellent quality (equal or maybe even better than the Zeiss finders on German ships) and Nikon used this technological knowledge when they started making their first rangefinder cameras, the S models.
A very well done animation, the loading mechanism to me is absolutely ingenious. It is all mechanized, there is human action needed to load the powder bags into the Powder hoist however thats pretty standard. I always wondered how the Japanese were able to get 2 rounds a minute with these guns, now I know. Compared to the Americans Iowa Class, the guys have to manually get the 2,700lbs shell into the hoist, with Yamato they have a completely mechanized system. Same goes for putting powder bags into the breach, with 16" Mk. 7 the powder bag hoist has two shelves facilitating the need for the bags from the first selve to be placed in the correct order of one towards the front and two to the back and space in the middle for the other three bags once they have drop from the hoist onto the loading tray. The bags are hundred pounds apiece, this would cause the men to get tired out. To speed things, the first three bags of powder would be ramed into the breach, then it would retract the ram drop the other three bags and ram them home. However with an unexperienced ram operator doing this practice could cause over ramming, in which the bags are pushed to far into the breach causing one of two things. Either a misfire because the bags are too far away from the back of the breech-block for the primer to ignite them, in the case of both Missouri and Iowa premature smoldering of the powder from the friction and pressure of being ram so hard. Iowa's was unfortunate they couldn't close the breach in time cause the death of 47 men, Missouri got lucky, they were barely able to close the breach in time during the Vietnam war. During the rest of the tour of Missouri during the Vietnam war the captain band this practice. With Yamato they just simply unload all the bags on the tray and ram them home automatically by the seams of it. I must say the Japanese did know what they were doing when engineering these turrets and guns.
Very interesting your info regarding the over ramming the cordite bags on the Iowa that unfortunately cost the life of 47 sailors! I'm a bit surprised about this problem as I thought the operator had a preset lever for ramming in the 1st set of bags and then moving on the lever for the 2nd set of bags in order to not over ram those bags, instead I understand that the ramming of those bags is based entirely on the experience of the operator by moving forward the lever as needed, you can see it on the training documentary! Thanks for the info!
Paolo Viti In the case of Iowa the propellant was found to be unstable due to it being from the 1950's and being improperly stored. Also they where bloody experimenting using a propellant that has a higher burn rate than normal. Not %100 sure about Missouri, I was reading up on the Iowas just before writing this comment. I saw on one of the webpages a testimony from a sailor. He was just able to close the breach door before the smoldering powder went off.
james pobog I dont know mate, i was trying to find out more about the Iowa explosion and came across some account about just being able to close the breach in time before the smoldering power went off on one the Iowas during Vietnam Not sure if its true or not.
It was the New Jersey off Vietnam, Missouri was still mothballed, the powder used was WW2 manufacture and starting to deteriorate . that's what nearly got the New Jersey and did get Iowa
Battleship's Gunpowder Tests Confirmed September 19, 1989|JOHN M. BRODER | Times Staff Writer ( L.A. Times) WASHINGTON - The Navy on Monday acknowledged that the crew of the battleship Iowa was conducting "unauthorized experiments" with gunpowder charges in its 16-inch guns at the time of the April blast that killed 47 sailors. The naval board investigating the explosion recommended that the officers and sailors involved in the tests be punished and that a complete inquiry into the improper experiments be conducted by the Navy's inspector general. But the Navy insisted Monday that the gunnery experiments had nothing to do with the explosion in Turret 2--an explosion that the Navy continues to maintain was probably caused by a suicidal sailor, Petty Officer Clayton M. Hartwig of Cleveland. In response to complaints from members of Hartwig's family, Ohio lawmakers have called for a congressional investigation of the blast and the Navy's accusation that Hartwig caused it. Democratic Sens. John Glenn and Howard M. Metzenbaum and Democratic Rep. Mary Rose Oakar have asked the House and Senate Armed Services committees to conduct an independent inquiry. The Navy's four-month, $4-million investigation concluded that the catastrophic April 19 explosion was caused by a deliberate act of sabotage, "most likely" by Hartwig, who was the sailor closest to the breech of the 16-inch gun. Based on testimony from hundreds of witnesses and on extensive laboratory tests, the Navy theorized that Hartwig inserted a homemade detonator between the first and second 110-pound bags of gunpowder in the gun, then ordered the rammer to compress the powder until the bags exploded. The investigation found that the gun was loaded with five rather than the authorized six bags of black powder in a test designed to improve the range and accuracy of the 16-inch guns. Officers also found that the gun was loaded with a high-explosive mixture known as D-846, which is only supposed to be used in smaller quantities than were used and only with lighter projectiles than the 2,700-pound shell loaded into the gun at the time of the blast. Iowa Capt. Fred P. Moosally said he had not authorized and was not aware of the experiment with the powder and the shell in Turret 2. He said he thought the "reduced charge" that the crew was planning to fire meant six 55-pound bags of powder rather than the five 110-pound bags that exploded in the gun barrel. The tests were supervised by Master Chief Petty Officer Steven P. Skelly, an Iowa crew member since 1987. Skelly--who was not in Turret 2 when the blast occurred--is considered to be one of the Navy's top gunners, continually pushing the guns to their limit and trying new combinations of powder and projectile, Navy investigators said. The gunnery experiments aboard the Iowa were informally directed by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren, Va. Along with the FBI, those organizations conducted the laboratory tests that determined that the April blast could only have been caused by a deliberate act of sabotage and not by an accidental misfire. A Navy spokesman said Monday that NAVSEA's role in the Iowa investigation was not a conflict of interest because no other organization had the expertise to study an accident involving 16-inch naval guns. Rear Adm. Richard D. Milligan, head of the team that investigated the Iowa disaster, found that Skelly had engaged in "unauthorized research and development" with the battleship's main guns. He recommended that Skelly be disciplined for exceeding his orders and that Moosally be brought before an investigative panel to answer for his lack of crew supervision. SOURCE:articles.latimes.com/1989-09-19/news/mn-204_1_laboratory-tests
There is a lot of interest in battleships and these were the largest of all. A translation of the Japanese would make the video more useful to more people. Thanks!
Chuck Van, I completely agree with you. These two battleships were the largest battleships ever constructed. A lesson should have been learned from when these two amazing battleships were designed. Never underestimate someone in whom you think is inferior because sometimes they might design something far bigger than you could ever possibly imagine.
Battleships get bashed alot as obsolete dinosaurs but thats rather unfair imo. They were designed to go toe to toe with any other ship, and remain the best armor and firepower for tonnage in history. The catch was they took longer (and more money) to build than carriers, and could not reach as far or be modified as quickly as a plane. Cheap versatility over raw might, which from time to time is still necessary. Freedom of Navigation patrols for example dont work so well unless you are seen, something most modern vessels are built to avoid like their lives depend on it.
@@ronaldthompson4989 what the japanese's war ideology is that if they can conquer another nation, that nation is inferior. its just basic level logic. since most asian nations at the time are already being colonized due to various reasons (some had all out war, some got info leaked by stupid or greedy people, some just failed to response in time or with enough strength) they pretty much have a valid reason to underestimate asian countries. them underestimating the US is probably their biggest mistake
Yeah Bois - now people don't have a reason why Yamato should have 35-40 seconds reload in Wows when it should just stick to 30. Not when she was the first Semi-Auto Reloading Battleship ever built. And could only be matched in complexity by Vangaurd's BL M1 381mm 42cal semi-auto Reloading cycle built 5 years later than Yamato...
I wish you could do the reload cycle for the 100mm 65cal Guns. The most effective long range AA for IJN. That auto reloaded shells - via recoiling of the gun when it was firing - explaining the rapid 20-25rpm.
30 seconds reload on a gun that caliber is beyond impressive, idk why the players dont know that. if you aimed right you could obliterate a cruiser or seriously wound another battleship
lots of talk on here of how amazing the engineering was for the 1930's. The basis for everything you see here had been worked out long before. Lets not forget this is at the end of battleship design/construction. the all round loading turret was perfected at the end of the Victorian era, and there are some great shots in Dreadnoughts in Camera (Sutton Publishing UK) inside plants making battleship guns and turrets up to 1920. The twin turrets for British Dreadnought's were assembled inside the factories and tested for hydraulics, wash-out, electrical circuits etc before being dis-assembled and taken to the dockyards even before the First World War. . The 18" gun had already been evaluated and fitted in HMS Furious but found to be of little use in a single turret. The problems associated with the larger gun were re-discovered by the Japanese in this class of ship; Blast, requiring anti-aircraft guns to be protected; increased beam limiting docking facilities and the shore establishments upgrading lathing, oil baths, forges. etc to build the monster (they had to spend 10,000,000$US on new plant for the armour plates for Yamato alone). These were the problems the British came up against after WW1 when they started to design 18"gunned battleships, the docking facilities weren't available for the larger hulls required for such a jump in gun size, and if you don't think that's a problem consider the difficulties of the Invincible class at Jutland where salvoes of four 12" guns were fired on a total tonnage of 19,000 leading to increased heel and loss of accuracy for the follow-up salvo). The Japanese were already building 16" and that gun did all that was required during the war, They are fantastic ships in engineering terms and the biggest battleships ever built, but in a practical sense were obsolete, the carrier was the main weapon of the navy by WW2, especially in the Pacific. Surface vessels meant battleships had to be retained for possible surface actions but it's interesting that the Japanese navy's final orders to Yamato were to beach herself on Okinawa as a heavy artillery platform, and most of the American ships were used as mobile artillery before beach landings. Maybe if they'd put all those resources for the Yamato class into building carriers and submarines things might have turned out differently but against the industrial capacity of America I doubt it. Still, the Yamato gives us something to marvel at and matches the Italian Littorio for beauty in form.
Extremely good graphics. One mistake is that they have not realised that the breech intercepted screw needs to (a) have cutaways to threads at the fore end if pivoted as shown here OR (b) if it had an all-parallel thread, as shown here , it needs a Vickers pattern carrier to bring the breech block sternwards before pivoting . Their breech closure mechanism would jam ! I personally suggest as the IJN used to the Vickers system in their 14" gun battleships, Yamato probaby continued to use the Vickers system
I'm sorry I know this comment is super old, but I'd like to mention that around the time Yamato was laid down and under construction relations between the UK and Japan had worsened considerably and Japan was already trying to become self sufficient in ship design anyways. It's entirely possible that it the screw was a Japanese design, but I'm not for sure.
I noticed that myself, but I attribute it to limitations of the CAD program. I am quite sure they were aware of the proper design of the breech locking mechanism, but simply didn't detail it as being very difficult to show.
R.U.S.E. 35, Spurr in his excellent "A Glorious Way to Die" noted that Japanese naval architects were still using British design elements even as Yamato class was designed. Indeed, the major watertight bulkhead arrangement was inspired by an earlier (discarded) British pattern... one which apparently contributed heavily to the Yamatos' fatal listing problem.
Only an industrious and technologically advanced country could have produced such a machine, and have caused The West so much trouble. I think the driving force in the Japanese people is inherent, and self evident.
We often see when battle ships are sunk as a result of a battle there is a huge explosion when the capsize and sink . On battle ships and cruisers the gun turrets are so heavy the ships capsize very easily and usually , often then the gun turrets fall out and sink before the ship, after losing its turrets the ship will often right itself before it finally sinks . This is why you seldom see warships lying on the bottom with the guns still on them .The reason the magazine blows up is that there is ammo that has been fused ready to fire . When the ship turns over the ammo falls off shelfs or what ever and detonates . If other ammo is close by they will detonate too this is called a "sympathetic explosion " and happens all of the time . The gun powder can conflagrate (explode softly) and not necessarily set off the war heads , if you look at explosions you can see the difference between them . Best seen when tanks are hit the powder is most likely to go off and it burns profusely until the warheads cook of and then you get the massive explosion of the entire magazine
Ich kann zwar kein Japanisch, aber der Nachbau eines Turms mitsamt der Lademechanik, vermutl. in Blender, ist sehr beeindruckend. Da steckt extrem viel Arbeit drin.
Very impressive. Looks to be more of a auto loader! The flaw of these super battleships was the hull. These ships were always feared when they were encountered!
@Dnomse Reldas theres a training video floating around here somewhere on Iowa's main battery. Similar in function but less automated with considerable manhandling to get the ordinance from one section to the next. Once in the turret its the same
This system was designed before the Iowa class US battleships and if the documentary is correct, the loading mechanism was more automated than later US designs. In Iowa class BB's the powder was rolled into loading trays manually whereas the Yamato's was an automated process. This video was obviously highly classified and used for training or top secret information purposes. It did appear to be a faster loading method.
This video is clearly a modern remake, judging by the computer generated animation. And we don't have any sources/references either, so no idea on the accuracy of this video.
Question. Which heavy cruiser partook in the sinking of USS Hoel alongside Kongo and Yamato's secondary battery? My guess would be Haguro, since Hoel sighted her at 6,000 yards and claimed to hit her with torpedoes (though none actually hit).
The Japanese navy had to build these guns because they were not sure if Great Britain and America would build battleships with 18in guns. Great Britain had actually mounted 18in guns on a monitor during WW1 and the US Navy had already built and tested two examples of their own by 1920. The Japanese Navy, like the Germans and Italians, knew they could never outbuild either country so they decided that each of the few ships they built would be superior. The Yamato's were also broad beamed to have less draught sufficient to enter Tokyo bay, even though it meant a slower ship. In the end, though they were magnificent ships, they were made obsolete, (and destroyed!), by naval air power, which is why the US cancelled the Montana class.
inoue jerry and torpedoes to some degree. Most Naval ships, at least in the United States Navy, have double hulls to provide a little bit more added protection.
Of course, all of this is merely supposition, as all of the original drawings and blueprints were destroyed prior to the occupation. Unless a turret is raised from the wreck, we'll never know about the actual construction of the Yamato class battelships.
Actually plans keep showing up, piece meal, here and there. Enough new material has been unearthed for Skulski to be issuing an updated edition of his masterpiece "Anatomy of a Ship - Yamato (and Musashi)" www.amazon.com/Battleships-Yamato-Musashi-Anatomy-Ship/dp/1844863174/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Although the illustrations were somewhat vague and could not read the texts provided, It was a nicely done video. Japan understands automation for certain.
A truly outstanding video. The Yamato class had a first class radar- assisted gunnery control system as well. Just as importantly, the class had very small shell dispersion (just over half that of the Iowa class). At Samar, the Americans noted the tight groupings of what proved to be Yamato's main battery salvos.
The sad about the Japanese BB's that they were not utilized properly during the course of the war... The Naval High Command were dreaming of the "decisive battle" that never came. The battle wagons languished in either Port of Kure in the Inland Sea or moored in Truk doing absolutely nothing... The destroyer and light cruiser crews used to call the battleships "floating gas stations"....
Well, I think I remember I saw something where they also said that they were too afaird to let Yamato and her sister ship into battle. So they petty much pulled them away when they had the chance to use them in battle. By the time the finaly got used in battle, was it too late. The US had won the seas and air at that time
@Operation, Ya know, it might have been interesting if the Japanese had sailed their BBs right into Hawaii. I doubt that one American carrier would have been much defense, especially if all 6 Japanese carriers sailed right along with the BBs. Just a thought of course.
That right there would have been enough to surrender hawaii. because with all the bbs gorne there would have been nothing left to fight it with. Imagine yamato and mushashi opening up with everything on the intire harbor / town.
WJack97224 Battlestations Pacific lets you play out that fantasy… to an extent. I love the game, just wish it was more massive. But yeah, had Japan sailed their BBs with CAP cover with the CVs steaming right behind them, especially in the early months of the Pacific theater, the IJN would have won. But they didn't and the rest is history.
@Man Upon, Thanks. I suspect the war would have been extended but the US was building carriers at a fierce rate and that likely would have spelled doom for the IJN and then of course the nukes came along and so, I just don't think the Japanese nuke program would have caught up, unless of course they collaborated with the German nuke scientists. Oh, but then with the Pacific less a threat, then Japan might have gone after the Soviets and that would have prevented the shift of a million troops west to defend Moscow. Oh my, the possibilities are many.
What a fearsome battleship she was. Able to destroy anything it chooses. Nothing could touch her. It took hundreds of direct strikes before she finally was vanquished. Just be glad you and I didn't have to confront it.
Absolutely amazing!!!!!! Built by hand, bespoke craftsmanship. As good as or superior to anything America built. Well done on the graphics. A translation of the kanji would be helpful though. BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!
I always wondered why the turrets where the first thing to fall of the ship when sinks. The overall weight of the guns and internal mechanisms must have been heavier than the ship bridge for sure.
It's because the turrets are not actually attached to the ship, but instead are simply put onto bearings and kept there using gravity, since it really doesn't matter if they fall out when the ship capsizes, unlike the superstructure, which is welded to the ship
@@Nothing-xt8gy Not entirely true. It depends on the ship. All of the Iowas have their turrets held in place by flanges. This is to prevent the turrets from getting knocked out of place and jammed from a nearby explosion. It really depends on the design philosophy of the country. America felt that it was a risk not to have them secured, while Germany and Japan didn’t see it as that big of a risk.
Brillant film.... However, one thing is beyond my logic... 6:49 - The wheel on 1st plan with gearwheel on same axis - when the Rack is moved by the hydraulic cylinder, shouldn't turn clockwise, instead of anti-clockwise?
hellooo greetings from Jakarta, this is very interesting video and I enjoyed very much, thank you for sharing this animated engineering marvel, i wonder how much salvo for the gun until the whole turret must align to forward position for reload another warhead & propeller from the magazine below deck?? or the whole turret rotating along with magazine below deck like all US battleship do ??
Anyone else notice the gear on the powder bag rammer is turning opposite of the way it should turn based on the movement of the hydraulic arm that is supposed to operate it?
The animation in this video is excellent and very informative. However, though the use of Japanese is quite natural for the captions, it would have been nice if there had been narration in English.
Though a technological marvel for sure, I now understand why it was said to take 5 minutes to change ammunition types. Once a round was racked, it wasn't leaving till it reached the gun. A serious disadvantage that cost them valuable time.
Its called firing whatever you got in the barrel. Like the T series of tanks. A 125MM HE slamming against your tank might not kill you but it will severely get the message across
How would I go about doing that? I can't seem to send a private message, but if you'll give me your email we can talk about it - are you a native Japanese speaker by any chance?
It is ironic that Japan invented the tactics and methods that would obsolete her own fleet of Battleships, the carrier tactic. Japan had the first modern carriers and were first to truly make use of carriers to sink enemy ships successfully, England fell prey to this tactic yet Japanese generals stubborn and retarded as they were thought using carriers was a coward tactic and Battleships was the only way to uphold true honour. So they kept making Battleships when in reality Japan should kept making more smaller ships, more destroyers, more cruisers, more submarines and way more carriers.
I like how a platform appears just below the powder elevator as the bags are rolled out for ready charge. I guess a group of bags falling down into the magazine might not be a very cool thing. Great animation. Mesmerizing.
It looks like the Yamato took the best of the American shell elevator from the iowas changed the way the shells got reoriented (iowas just flopped them down with the spinning tray) and then took the Brittish flash car method for powder
Wouter d.B. Take a look at the Royal Navy’s horrific ammo handling (the US called these conditions unacceptable). Japan had the worst DamCon among major navies, but UK has to be the second worst. Edit; Japanese DamCon was actually bad on purpose; they literally thought that it was better for a ship to go down fighting than come back to port. Imperial Japan isn’t known for sanity.
Richardsen Basically, the USN wasn’t impressed by Royal Navy battleship ammunition handling in the leadup to WWII, because they believed that the handling practices were too risky. I don’t remember what the British response was, but given that battleships were conceptually outdated in WWII it didn’t turn out to be a big deal in the end.
Is it just me or is the shell/powder handling system overly complicated? Those sliding/rotating/tilting rams, two different rams for shells and powder charges, powder charges loaded/unloaded two times just to be inserted into the hoist ... In comparison, from training vids for US 16"/50 Mk7 guns I would say that those are somewhat more easy to operate.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
WWW.BATTLESHIPYAMATO.COM
NOTE: Argumentative Posts that use profanity or racial slurs will be deleted and the user blocked from this channel. Thank you for keeping the discussion civil.
Arigatou gozaimasu
™
You seem to know a lot about Yamato. I have a few questions
Are there any known cross sections of Yamato's interior?
How many main battery hits did Yamato make during the battle of Samar Island?
Did Yamato see any action during the battle of the Philippine Sea?
Did Yamato have an immune zone to her own guns?
Amo storage looks very Dangerous
A truly outstanding video. The quality of the graphics were excellent. I learned a lot about the mechanisms and how they worked together. I applaud you for the extreme amount of effort that went into this production. Thank you so very much.
I wish this was in English. Remember this was all designed and built in the 1930's with only a slide rule and extreme craftsme ship Amazing Engineering.
NO ,60-70YE COMPUTER
My good friends Father was an engineer, he'd be in his 90s if he was still alive, every time I saw him, he had a small slide rule in his shirt pocket, years after he retired, he still carried that slide rule, pad and pencil, he was a neat guy.
@@tachibanahasegawa3480 What exactly is a 60-70YE COMPUTER?
Me too
Same
This is amazing engineering from the 1930s, with so many resources used. The precision is amazing as well. think about it, the traverse motor for the turret has 5000Horsepower alone. Crazy stuff.
I have a feeling it's a modern imagining of what it may have been. The Japanese destroyed Yamato's plans before the surrender. Other Japanese battleships used the Kongo's British-designed loading system. BTW, USN 16" turrets only needed 300 hp to train.
@@blackpowder4016 Japan was torch happy when it came to their sekrit dokuments postwar, but it is confirmed the loading system for the 460s was a native design that was considerably heavier than similar sized guns of other nations such as Britain's 457s. This level of automation would certainly account for several hundred tons of steel imo
The crazy thing about this (and, to be fair, every other) 1930s/1940s battleship is that they were all pointless and obsolete on launch. The Allies and Axis both wasted vast sums building these superfluous weapons in an era where it was impossible to use them cost-effectively.
@@bkjeong4302 lol pointless? They remain the most durable and heavily armed ships in history and when used intelligently, swept all surface targets before them. Carriers replaced them because they were cheaper and had longer reach allowing them to kite. There is a push right now to introduce ships like Battleships (but more economical) for missions where stealth defeats the point, such as freedom of navigation patrols
Ronald Thompson
You literally mentioned why they were pointless. There is no point in having a ship good at surface engagements if you don’t have to fight surface engagements.
Carriers rendered surface engagements nonviable by their much greater range. That rendered other primary combat units, especially battleships, obsolete.
For guns of that calibre it truly was an engineering marvel.
Hayden Young it was believed by engineers that 2 shells can sink iowa.
Indeed, but like so many Engineering marvels, my bet is it was a nightmare to use and maintain
2 yamatos 4 iowas the iowas were faster and built later than the yamato with better protection and a higher rate of main battery fire the yamatos would have bee swamped by 16" gunfire from farther than the yamatos could have seen them and highly accurate radar directed gunfire at that
And there we go again with the IOWA vs Yamato comments again, whereas he just said "For guns of that calibre it truly was an engineering marvel.". Gosh! Chill guys! Both had their own mights.
yamato's armor was built do withstand its own caliber of guns lmao
It takes over 72 men to operate a 16"/50 gun on an Iowa Class and it seems like it takes fewer men for the Yamato. Looks automated
Noticed that also. Especially the powder bags.
That’s American job creation😬
Until you add up how many people would need to maintain it.
I assume it's because they didn't have the manpower the Americans did.
It seems less secure though
Amazing video! The craftsmanship on the Yamoto is just second to none. Sure wouldn’t want her coming after me! Thanks for sharing.
Very good video about Yamato's main guns. Despite the language barrier I was still able to understand how the system worked. Thank you for uploading this video.
今より技術高いんじゃないかって思わせるぐらいの構造だな。考えた人天才すぎる。アイオワ級は装薬人の手でがやってたけど自動で装填するのはホントに凄いしかっこいい。大好き。大和型戦艦
神機将ニ動カントス。皇国ノ隆替繋リテ此ノ一挙ニ存ス。各員奮戦激闘会敵ヲ必滅シ以テ海上特攻隊ノ本領ヲ発揮セヨ
最高の艦砲や
今の技術では主砲は作れないって聞いたことあったけど、まさかこんなにも複雑だったなんて驚き。そして納得
今より高いということは無いですが、当時の最高峰であったことは確かだと思います。
現代ならばターカイトのように耐摩耗・耐荷重・面粗度の３拍子揃って優秀な素材もあるので、火花を嫌って摺動できなかった部分も遥かに軽量に作れますし、軸受けも小抵抗・高精度・軽量と遥かに進化しています。
ですが実際に設計しようとすると、解決方法は現代とは違えど、クリアしなければならない難題が山ほど出てくるでしょうし、それらをクリアした当時の設計理念が数多く再発見されると思います。そういう意味で、昔の技術を検証するのとても意義深いと思います。
継承しなければならない最も大事なものは設計理念であり、それはいつの時代でも変わりません。
@@channel-ko5cr 今の技術であればこれより高性能なの作れるけど作るのに金がかかりすぎて作れないだけ
0:03. Type 94 460mm, 45 caliber triple main turret.
0:33. Yamato's range was 30,000 m and could penetrate 430mm of armor. The turret alone weighs 4310 tons, as heavy as a large destroyer. Many new innovations were adopted, such as the round feeding mechanism, etc. inside the turret was covered in heavy armor: a top secret at the time.
1:03. The turret was protected by 660mm armor in the front, 250mm on the top and made of special steel (as was available at the time). It could not be penetrated by 400mm rounds.
more to come...
Sinking in 10 Minutes, all fore nothing, Japanes are crazy
Those turrets fell off when the ship capsized.
@@sigridqwq5198 arguably, a battleships main use is when its not in combat. It might have sunk in 10 minutes but it made the entire world take japan serious.
@@aa2339 well yeah, turrets often fall off battleships when they capsize, as they're usually held in primarily by gravity due to their enormous weight
@@aa2339if a battleship capsizes, continued usability of it's main armament isn't exactly the priority to address...
Excellent, well-crafted video. I appreciate and salute your efforts to produce this.
it's amazing how different the mechanism is on these compared to the ones on the South Dakota's and the Iowa's
Never imagined it was that intricate.
everyone had to find their own solutions to the problems of exactly how you load and operate such weapons
I read somewhere that the Yamatos loading system was creatively well designed
The most sophisticated turret on the world's largest battleship. Amazing.
worlds largest, yes, The most sophisticated turret no, that would go to vanguard
This was not new technology.
6:48 - notice about the WRONG turning gear....
that really grinds my gears
@@lokdabest was that Peter or Homer ?, I can't remember..
@@Stu-SB Peter
What was it's cycle time?
I'm sure there are some sitting in armchairs who are saying "I can do it faster."
Increible tecnologia de este maravilloso buque, lastima su fin . GRANDE Yamato, descanse en paz su tripulación.
I really enjoyed watching and studying this. Not sure if he had access to actual battleship blueprints of the Yamato but the technical accuracy is spot on. Despite the language barrier I was able to understand 90% of this. The thing that really stood out in this video is the propellent loaded off the skip went straight into a flash suppression shielding tube before rammed into the breach of the gun. This is an unseen safety feature that American battleships did not have. I like how the range finder could yaw side to side up to 5 degrees inside the top rear of the gun. I am sure a lot of research went into this. Outstanding work my friend. outstanding.
Phillip Mulligan This is a similar feature to the British 15 inch Mk I. You can see the cage in action in the HMS Vanguard loading movie which stood in for Hood in the movie Sink the Bismarck.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit. The Japanese had some of their ships built or engineered by the British and reverse engineered a lot of the technology during the 1930s. The Kongo battleship is one such example of a British built battleship for export to Japan just before the Washington and London Treaties and before the great depression.. I love playing this ship in World of Warships.
***** Those so called ears are called optical range finders. They work very much like your split prism view finder in a Single Reflex Camera. The naval architects do provide clearance for those large range finders from nearby objects on the ship. There are also other optical range finders mounted around the super structure of the ship to relay information to the CIC and Gunnery Officers.
+Phillip Mulligan What I also find interesting is that the rangefinders (both the turret and superstructure finders) on Yamato were made by Nippon Kogaku, the company that is now Nikon. These viewfinders were of excellent quality (equal or maybe even better than the Zeiss finders on German ships) and Nikon used this technological knowledge when they started making their first rangefinder cameras, the S models.
Alexander Nikolis Nice to know this. This may explain why my Nikon D300 and Nocker lenses are so good.
Precision engineering Nippon on a massive scale. And 75 years old as well. Thanks for this.
A very well done animation, the loading mechanism to me is absolutely ingenious. It is all mechanized, there is human action needed to load the powder bags into the Powder hoist however thats pretty standard. I always wondered how the Japanese were able to get 2 rounds a minute with these guns, now I know.
Compared to the Americans Iowa Class, the guys have to manually get the 2,700lbs shell into the hoist, with Yamato they have a completely mechanized system.
Same goes for putting powder bags into the breach, with 16" Mk. 7 the powder bag hoist has two shelves facilitating the need for the bags from the first selve to be placed in the correct order of one towards the front and two to the back and space in the middle for the other three bags once they have drop from the hoist onto the loading tray.
The bags are hundred pounds apiece, this would cause the men to get tired out. To speed things, the first three bags of powder would be ramed into the breach, then it would retract the ram drop the other three bags and ram them home.
However with an unexperienced ram operator doing this practice could cause over ramming, in which the bags are pushed to far into the breach causing one of two things. Either a misfire because the bags are too far away from the back of the breech-block for the primer to ignite them, in the case of both Missouri and Iowa premature smoldering of the powder from the friction and pressure of being ram so hard.
Iowa's was unfortunate they couldn't close the breach in time cause the death of 47 men, Missouri got lucky, they were barely able to close the breach in time during the Vietnam war.
During the rest of the tour of Missouri during the Vietnam war the captain band this practice.
With Yamato they just simply unload all the bags on the tray and ram them home automatically by the seams of it.
I must say the Japanese did know what they were doing when engineering these turrets and guns.
Very interesting your info regarding the over ramming the cordite bags on the Iowa that unfortunately cost the life of 47 sailors! I'm a bit surprised about this problem as I thought the operator had a preset lever for ramming in the 1st set of bags and then moving on the lever for the 2nd set of bags in order to not over ram those bags, instead I understand that the ramming of those bags is based entirely on the experience of the operator by moving forward the lever as needed, you can see it on the training documentary! Thanks for the info!
Paolo Viti In the case of Iowa the propellant was found to be unstable due to it being from the 1950's and being improperly stored. Also they where bloody experimenting using a propellant that has a higher burn rate than normal.
Not %100 sure about Missouri, I was reading up on the Iowas just before writing this comment. I saw on one of the webpages a testimony from a sailor. He was just able to close the breach door before the smoldering powder went off.
james pobog I dont know mate, i was trying to find out more about the Iowa explosion and came across some account about just being able to close the breach in time before the smoldering power went off on one the Iowas during Vietnam
Not sure if its true or not.
It was the New Jersey off Vietnam, Missouri was still mothballed, the powder used was WW2 manufacture and starting to deteriorate . that's what nearly got the New Jersey and did get Iowa
Battleship's Gunpowder Tests Confirmed
September 19, 1989|JOHN M. BRODER | Times Staff Writer ( L.A. Times)
WASHINGTON - The Navy on Monday acknowledged that the crew of the battleship Iowa was conducting "unauthorized experiments" with gunpowder charges in its 16-inch guns at the time of the April blast that killed 47 sailors.
The naval board investigating the explosion recommended that the officers and sailors involved in the tests be punished and that a complete inquiry into the improper experiments be conducted by the Navy's inspector general.
But the Navy insisted Monday that the gunnery experiments had nothing to do with the explosion in Turret 2--an explosion that the Navy continues to maintain was probably caused by a suicidal sailor, Petty Officer Clayton M. Hartwig of Cleveland.
In response to complaints from members of Hartwig's family, Ohio lawmakers have called for a congressional investigation of the blast and the Navy's accusation that Hartwig caused it. Democratic Sens. John Glenn and Howard M. Metzenbaum and Democratic Rep. Mary Rose Oakar have asked the House and Senate Armed Services committees to conduct an independent inquiry.
The Navy's four-month, $4-million investigation concluded that the catastrophic April 19 explosion was caused by a deliberate act of sabotage, "most likely" by Hartwig, who was the sailor closest to the breech of the 16-inch gun.
Based on testimony from hundreds of witnesses and on extensive laboratory tests, the Navy theorized that Hartwig inserted a homemade detonator between the first and second 110-pound bags of gunpowder in the gun, then ordered the rammer to compress the powder until the bags exploded.
The investigation found that the gun was loaded with five rather than the authorized six bags of black powder in a test designed to improve the range and accuracy of the 16-inch guns.
Officers also found that the gun was loaded with a high-explosive mixture known as D-846, which is only supposed to be used in smaller quantities than were used and only with lighter projectiles than the 2,700-pound shell loaded into the gun at the time of the blast.
Iowa Capt. Fred P. Moosally said he had not authorized and was not aware of the experiment with the powder and the shell in Turret 2. He said he thought the "reduced charge" that the crew was planning to fire meant six 55-pound bags of powder rather than the five 110-pound bags that exploded in the gun barrel.
The tests were supervised by Master Chief Petty Officer Steven P. Skelly, an Iowa crew member since 1987. Skelly--who was not in Turret 2 when the blast occurred--is considered to be one of the Navy's top gunners, continually pushing the guns to their limit and trying new combinations of powder and projectile, Navy investigators said.
The gunnery experiments aboard the Iowa were informally directed by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren, Va. Along with the FBI, those organizations conducted the laboratory tests that determined that the April blast could only have been caused by a deliberate act of sabotage and not by an accidental misfire.
A Navy spokesman said Monday that NAVSEA's role in the Iowa investigation was not a conflict of interest because no other organization had the expertise to study an accident involving 16-inch naval guns.
Rear Adm. Richard D. Milligan, head of the team that investigated the Iowa disaster, found that Skelly had engaged in "unauthorized research and development" with the battleship's main guns. He recommended that Skelly be disciplined for exceeding his orders and that Moosally be brought before an investigative panel to answer for his lack of crew supervision.
SOURCE:articles.latimes.com/1989-09-19/news/mn-204_1_laboratory-tests
AWESOME WORK !
There is a lot of interest in battleships and these were the largest of all. A translation of the Japanese would make the video more useful to more people. Thanks!
Chuck Van, I completely agree with you. These two battleships were the largest battleships ever constructed. A lesson should have been learned from when these two amazing battleships were designed. Never underestimate someone in whom you think is inferior because sometimes they might design something far bigger than you could ever possibly imagine.
Battleships get bashed alot as obsolete dinosaurs but thats rather unfair imo. They were designed to go toe to toe with any other ship, and remain the best armor and firepower for tonnage in history. The catch was they took longer (and more money) to build than carriers, and could not reach as far or be modified as quickly as a plane. Cheap versatility over raw might, which from time to time is still necessary. Freedom of Navigation patrols for example dont work so well unless you are seen, something most modern vessels are built to avoid like their lives depend on it.
@lightsouthaha "Asians cant fight" versus a nation that had never lost a foreign war and so couldnt possibly fail. Hubris on both sides
@@ronaldthompson4989 what the japanese's war ideology is that if they can conquer another nation, that nation is inferior. its just basic level logic. since most asian nations at the time are already being colonized due to various reasons (some had all out war, some got info leaked by stupid or greedy people, some just failed to response in time or with enough strength) they pretty much have a valid reason to underestimate asian countries. them underestimating the US is probably their biggest mistake
@@jazmihamizan4987 XD
これが80年近く前の技術とは
恐れ入る
Yeah Bois - now people don't have a reason why Yamato should have 35-40 seconds reload in Wows when it should just stick to 30.
Not when she was the first Semi-Auto Reloading Battleship ever built. And could only be matched in complexity by Vangaurd's BL M1 381mm 42cal semi-auto Reloading cycle built 5 years later than Yamato...
I wish you could do the reload cycle for the 100mm 65cal Guns. The most effective long range AA for IJN. That auto reloaded shells - via recoiling of the gun when it was firing - explaining the rapid 20-25rpm.
30 seconds reload on a gun that caliber is beyond impressive, idk why the players dont know that. if you aimed right you could obliterate a cruiser or seriously wound another battleship
Great Animation and explanation! Yamato's Main guns were a true engineering marvel!
This is amazing. Japanese engineers are almost otherworldly.
@14:47... that long tube, what does it do, is that for sighting the target, while pivoting back & forth dealing or compensating with ocean waves?
@FangABXY FangABXY Ahhh. the word you used "Range finder" really makes even better sense .. Thank you..
lots of talk on here of how amazing the engineering was for the 1930's. The basis for everything you see here had been worked out long before. Lets not forget this is at the end of battleship design/construction. the all round loading turret was perfected at the end of the Victorian era, and there are some great shots in Dreadnoughts in Camera (Sutton Publishing UK) inside plants making battleship guns and turrets up to 1920. The twin turrets for British Dreadnought's were assembled inside the factories and tested for hydraulics, wash-out, electrical circuits etc before being dis-assembled and taken to the dockyards even before the First World War.
. The 18" gun had already been evaluated and fitted in HMS Furious but found to be of little use in a single turret. The problems associated with the larger gun were re-discovered by the Japanese in this class of ship; Blast, requiring anti-aircraft guns to be protected; increased beam limiting docking facilities and the shore establishments upgrading lathing, oil baths, forges. etc to build the monster (they had to spend 10,000,000$US on new plant for the armour plates for Yamato alone). These were the problems the British came up against after WW1 when they started to design 18"gunned battleships, the docking facilities weren't available for the larger hulls required for such a jump in gun size, and if you don't think that's a problem consider the difficulties of the Invincible class at Jutland where salvoes of four 12" guns were fired on a total tonnage of 19,000 leading to increased heel and loss of accuracy for the follow-up salvo). The Japanese were already building 16" and that gun did all that was required during the war,
They are fantastic ships in engineering terms and the biggest battleships ever built, but in a practical sense were obsolete, the carrier was the main weapon of the navy by WW2, especially in the Pacific. Surface vessels meant battleships had to be retained for possible surface actions but it's interesting that the Japanese navy's final orders to Yamato were to beach herself on Okinawa as a heavy artillery platform, and most of the American ships were used as mobile artillery before beach landings.
Maybe if they'd put all those resources for the Yamato class into building carriers and submarines things might have turned out differently but against the industrial capacity of America I doubt it. Still, the Yamato gives us something to marvel at and matches the Italian Littorio for beauty in form.
BATTLESHIP YAMATO'S MAIN GUNS-THAT'S ALL GREAT INDEED ! BRAVO !
Extremely good graphics.
One mistake is that they have not realised that the breech intercepted screw needs to
(a) have cutaways to threads at the fore end if pivoted as shown here
OR
(b) if it had an all-parallel thread, as shown here , it needs a Vickers pattern carrier to bring the breech block sternwards before pivoting .
Their breech closure mechanism would jam !
I personally suggest as the IJN used to the Vickers system in their 14" gun battleships, Yamato probaby continued to use the Vickers system
I'm sorry I know this comment is super old, but I'd like to mention that around the time Yamato was laid down and under construction relations between the UK and Japan had worsened considerably and Japan was already trying to become self sufficient in ship design anyways. It's entirely possible that it the screw was a Japanese design, but I'm not for sure.
I noticed that myself, but I attribute it to limitations of the CAD program.
I am quite sure they were aware of the proper design of the breech locking mechanism, but simply didn't detail it as being very difficult to show.
R.U.S.E. 35, Spurr in his excellent "A Glorious Way to Die" noted that Japanese naval architects were still using British design elements even as Yamato class was designed. Indeed, the major watertight bulkhead arrangement was inspired by an earlier (discarded) British pattern... one which apparently contributed heavily to the Yamatos' fatal listing problem.
金属の摺動部はそれだけで火花のリスクが高まる。インボリュート歯車を採用したピニオン機構ならば限りなくそのリスクは避けられるが、回転部は軸受けの耐摩耗メンテが必要になる。機構・材質・自動と手動のチョイス・メンテナンス性・重量バランス・最終的な兵器としての「性能」と、軍艦というものが技術と国力の集大成だということが良く解る。
戦後に生まれた「大和神話」の本質は、日本は負けたけれどもこれだけのものを造り上げることができたんだ、という一点に集約されるのではなかろうか。戦後に工業・技術立国として邁進した原動力がここにあるように思う。
Only an industrious and technologically advanced country could have produced such a machine, and have caused The West so much trouble. I think the driving force in the Japanese people is inherent, and self evident.
We often see when battle ships are sunk as a result of a battle there is a huge explosion when the capsize and sink . On battle ships and cruisers the gun turrets are so heavy the ships capsize very easily and usually , often then the gun turrets fall out and sink before the ship, after losing its turrets the ship will often right itself before it finally sinks . This is why you seldom see warships lying on the bottom with the guns still on them .The reason the magazine blows up is that there is ammo that has been fused ready to fire . When the ship turns over the ammo falls off shelfs or what ever and detonates . If other ammo is close by they will detonate too this is called a "sympathetic explosion " and happens all of the time . The gun powder can conflagrate (explode softly) and not necessarily set off the war heads , if you look at explosions you can see the difference between them . Best seen when tanks are hit the powder is most likely to go off and it burns profusely until the warheads cook of and then you get the massive explosion of the entire magazine
While not understanding Japanese, it was still interesting to watch.
all that beautiful animation and all I can see is the rack and pinion for the charge feeder going opposite directions 6:45
Could it be that there is a planetary gear reduction that would require it to go the other way, just wondering.
Ich kann zwar kein Japanisch, aber der Nachbau eines Turms mitsamt der Lademechanik, vermutl. in Blender, ist sehr beeindruckend.
Da steckt extrem viel Arbeit drin.
Srs Japoneses nunca vi uma torre de canhoes como estas do YAMATO.Gostei imensamente.Sou de marinha,e gosto de tecnologia naval.ARYGATO,SAYONARA.
Damn..I would love to see the English version. Got pretty excited when I saw it pop up in my recommendations
Would love to see this detail on the rest of the ship. Even the rear hanger, elevator and catapult.
FRANKIEonPC brought me here, thanks for this amazing animation!
"the titan of the seas"
Very impressive. Looks to be more of a auto loader!
The flaw of these super battleships was the hull. These ships were always feared when they were encountered!
These massive turrets just sat on the desk with only gravity held them in place. That is why they fell off when the ship capsized.
Amazing video and a great reference for the Fujimi model kit build, Cheers 😀👍 🇭🇲
Anyone want to try an English subtitled version..? I'd really like to see that! Very cool video otherwise! Thank you for posting!
Great video. I am so amazed what the engineers and computer geeks have created. CAD and CAE just wow me. Thanks.
75years before, we japanese had developed this system・・・how great our big gun engineering of the day.
@Dnomse Reldas the loading mechanisms in iowa class battleships like Wisconsin are roughly the same
@Dnomse Reldas theres a training video floating around here somewhere on Iowa's main battery. Similar in function but less automated with considerable manhandling to get the ordinance from one section to the next. Once in the turret its the same
6:14 is the rack and pinion animation incorrect?
This system was designed before the Iowa class US battleships and if the documentary is correct, the loading mechanism was more automated than later US designs. In Iowa class BB's the powder was rolled into loading trays manually whereas the Yamato's was an automated process. This video was obviously highly classified and used for training or top secret information purposes. It did appear to be a faster loading method.
This video is clearly a modern remake, judging by the computer generated animation. And we don't have any sources/references either, so no idea on the accuracy of this video.
砲塔内部への出入りは霊夢&魔理沙（声だけ）のVR大和で知ったんですが、弾薬庫への出入りの方法がわからないので知りたいです
Question. Which heavy cruiser partook in the sinking of USS Hoel alongside Kongo and Yamato's secondary battery? My guess would be Haguro, since Hoel sighted her at 6,000 yards and claimed to hit her with torpedoes (though none actually hit).
Domo arigato for posting this most omoshiroi video.
The Japanese navy had to build these guns because they were not sure if Great Britain and America would build battleships with 18in guns. Great Britain had actually mounted 18in guns on a monitor during WW1 and the US Navy had already built and tested two examples of their own by 1920. The Japanese Navy, like the Germans and Italians, knew they could never outbuild either country so they decided that each of the few ships they built would be superior. The Yamato's were also broad beamed to have less draught sufficient to enter Tokyo bay, even though it meant a slower ship. In the end, though they were magnificent ships, they were made obsolete, (and destroyed!), by naval air power, which is why the US cancelled the Montana class.
This is amazing!!!
I always wanted to know how those guns worked.
Someone put a lot of time and effort into this. Nice video, big thumbs up from me.
Thanks for the video; it's really impressive. Is there an English translation for all the bullet points?
The Yamato and the Musashi...They was the most big ships in the world... What pieces of technology !!!!
あの時代にこんなにも複雑なものが…
とてつもない技術だ…
摩耗した砲身の交換などのために砲塔を取り外すときに砲弾を補給することを前提としていたため砲弾を補充するためには砲塔を外す必要があった（大和・武蔵の甲板上や砲塔後部などに91式徹甲弾を搭載するハッチは設けられていない）砲身寿命が200発であるが、主砲弾は各砲とも100発程度しか搭載していない
The sad thing about all this is, the age of the dominant battleship was already over by the time she was finished with her sea trials in 1941.
Which is why we keep pulling them out of mothballs... ;-)
dbeierl
When have we done that? The last time a battleship ever fired it's guns in anger was during the Persian Gulf War in 1990.
BB's serves no purpose anymore. Missile cruisers and carriers have much more precise and powerful firepower than any BB ever had.
i think most ship now day only have armored enough to stand machine gun only ?
inoue jerry
and torpedoes to some degree. Most Naval ships, at least in the United States Navy, have double hulls to provide a little bit more added protection.
Of course, all of this is merely supposition, as all of the original drawings and blueprints were destroyed prior to the occupation. Unless a turret is raised from the wreck, we'll never know about the actual construction of the Yamato class battelships.
Actually plans keep showing up, piece meal, here and there. Enough new material has been unearthed for Skulski to be issuing an updated edition of his masterpiece "Anatomy of a Ship - Yamato (and Musashi)" www.amazon.com/Battleships-Yamato-Musashi-Anatomy-Ship/dp/1844863174/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Although the illustrations were somewhat vague and could not read the texts provided, It was a nicely done video. Japan understands automation for certain.
A truly outstanding video. The Yamato class had a first class radar- assisted gunnery control system as well. Just as importantly, the class had very small shell dispersion (just over half that of the Iowa class). At Samar, the Americans noted the tight groupings of what proved to be Yamato's main battery salvos.
The sad about the Japanese BB's that they were not utilized properly during the course of the war... The Naval High Command were dreaming of the "decisive battle" that never came. The battle wagons languished in either Port of Kure in the Inland Sea or moored in Truk doing absolutely nothing... The destroyer and light cruiser crews used to call the battleships "floating gas stations"....
Well, I think I remember I saw something where they also said that they were too afaird to let Yamato and her sister ship into battle. So they petty much pulled them away when they had the chance to use them in battle. By the time the finaly got used in battle, was it too late. The US had won the seas and air at that time
@Operation, Ya know, it might have been interesting if the Japanese had sailed their BBs right into Hawaii. I doubt that one American carrier would have been much defense, especially if all 6 Japanese carriers sailed right along with the BBs. Just a thought of course.
That right there would have been enough to surrender hawaii. because with all the bbs gorne there would have been nothing left to fight it with.
Imagine yamato and mushashi opening up with everything on the intire harbor / town.
WJack97224 Battlestations Pacific lets you play out that fantasy… to an extent. I love the game, just wish it was more massive.
But yeah, had Japan sailed their BBs with CAP cover with the CVs steaming right behind them, especially in the early months of the Pacific theater, the IJN would have won. But they didn't and the rest is history.
@Man Upon, Thanks. I suspect the war would have been extended but the US was building carriers at a fierce rate and that likely would have spelled doom for the IJN and then of course the nukes came along and so, I just don't think the Japanese nuke program would have caught up, unless of course they collaborated with the German nuke scientists. Oh, but then with the Pacific less a threat, then Japan might have gone after the Soviets and that would have prevented the shift of a million troops west to defend Moscow. Oh my, the possibilities are many.
What a fearsome battleship she was. Able to destroy anything it chooses. Nothing could touch her. It took hundreds of direct strikes before she finally was vanquished. Just be glad you and I didn't have to confront it.
It took 12 bomb and seven torpedo hits within two hours of battle to sink Yamato.
can someone explain why it fire alternately ?
basically the top practical application of gunpowder. it's why rockets and guided missiles are here
All that engineering way before it was even possible to visualize it like this. But even in a computer simulation it's insanely complex.
Absolutely amazing!!!!!! Built by hand, bespoke craftsmanship.
As good as or superior to anything America built. Well done on the graphics. A translation of the kanji would be helpful though. BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!
I always wondered why the turrets where the first thing to fall of the ship when sinks. The overall weight of the guns and internal mechanisms must have been heavier than the ship bridge for sure.
It's because the turrets are not actually attached to the ship, but instead are simply put onto bearings and kept there using gravity, since it really doesn't matter if they fall out when the ship capsizes, unlike the superstructure, which is welded to the ship
@@Nothing-xt8gy Not entirely true. It depends on the ship. All of the Iowas have their turrets held in place by flanges. This is to prevent the turrets from getting knocked out of place and jammed from a nearby explosion. It really depends on the design philosophy of the country. America felt that it was a risk not to have them secured, while Germany and Japan didn’t see it as that big of a risk.
Superb animation!!! Would like to see more of this and then German British US etc. etc. too!
They miniaturized that and made the Sony Walkman, another marvel of it's day.
Brillant film.... However, one thing is beyond my logic... 6:49 - The wheel on 1st plan with gearwheel on same axis - when the Rack is moved by the hydraulic cylinder, shouldn't turn clockwise, instead of anti-clockwise?
This grinds my gears
6:56 gear and rack moving opposite direction.
Bandai needs to make a 1/100 scale model of this. I need this on my desk. Make it as detailed as a PG Gundam.
hellooo greetings from Jakarta, this is very interesting video and I enjoyed very much, thank you for sharing this animated engineering marvel, i wonder how much salvo for the gun until the whole turret must align to forward position for reload another warhead & propeller from the magazine below deck?? or the whole turret rotating along with magazine below deck like all US battleship do ??
Anyone else notice the gear on the powder bag rammer is turning opposite of the way it should turn based on the movement of the hydraulic arm that is supposed to operate it?
now I wanna see a modern version of the Type94 Main Gun
just imagine the RoF the 9× guns on the Yamato could do with modern motors and hydraulics
what a monster ship! Amazing!
As a Chinese, even though it was the act of aggression for the birth of Yamato, i do admire the engineering behind during second world war.
How much rounds of these bullets were on a ship?
The animation in this video is excellent and very informative. However, though the use of Japanese is quite natural for the captions, it would have been nice if there had been narration in English.
現代日本における、ロストテクノロジーの一つである。
Though a technological marvel for sure, I now understand why it was said to take 5 minutes to change ammunition types. Once a round was racked, it wasn't leaving till it reached the gun. A serious disadvantage that cost them valuable time.
Its called firing whatever you got in the barrel. Like the T series of tanks. A 125MM HE slamming against your tank might not kill you but it will severely get the message across
Hello, I would like to add English RUclips Captions to your video. Can you allow permission for that?
How would I go about doing that? I can't seem to send a private message, but if you'll give me your email we can talk about it - are you a native Japanese speaker by any chance?
Any english version?
THANK YOU for this video.
The heat in these areas, when they were goin all out, must have been horrific for the crew.....incredible engineering though, that's for damn sure....
Branon Fontaine actually, shouldn’t have been too bad. At least in the Iowa’s the hot gas was blown out the barrel
USN provided ventilation.
The engineers who designed this machine had not computers, only pens and maybe pencils. Smartness will always surpass technology
Basically 18.1 inch main guns , fired 3200 pound projectiles approx. 26 miles .
It is ironic that Japan invented the tactics and methods that would obsolete her own fleet of Battleships, the carrier tactic.
Japan had the first modern carriers and were first to truly make use of carriers to sink enemy ships successfully, England fell prey to this tactic yet Japanese generals stubborn and retarded as they were thought using carriers was a coward tactic and Battleships was the only way to uphold true honour.
So they kept making Battleships when in reality Japan should kept making more smaller ships, more destroyers, more cruisers, more submarines and way more carriers.
I like how a platform appears just below the powder elevator as the bags are rolled out for ready charge. I guess a group of bags falling down into the magazine might not be a very cool thing. Great animation. Mesmerizing.
Truly the Yamatp Class are one of World War 2' Engineering Wonders..
What did the thingy at the back of turret at 14:41 do?
a stereo range finder.
THANKS!
This is one of the best engineered artificial reefs ive ever seen!
It looks like the Yamato took the best of the American shell elevator from the iowas changed the way the shells got reoriented (iowas just flopped them down with the spinning tray) and then took the Brittish flash car method for powder
Shout out to Fukuda Keiji for his masterpiece of engineering.
why are their 4 stations for loading powder when their are only 3 guns?
so many bits and pieces and gears and different elevators and so forth. Was there really no way to simplify this?
No smoking in the propellant cartridge room..
Wouter d.B.
Take a look at the Royal Navy’s horrific ammo handling (the US called these conditions unacceptable).
Japan had the worst DamCon among major navies, but UK has to be the second worst.
Edit; Japanese DamCon was actually bad on purpose; they literally thought that it was better for a ship to go down fighting than come back to port. Imperial Japan isn’t known for sanity.
@@bkjeong4302 One thing are the damage control practices, and another the breach of established protocols.
Richardsen
I’m not talking about Jutland. Even their normal ammunition handling wasn’t that good.
@@bkjeong4302 My apologies. Carry on.
Richardsen
Basically, the USN wasn’t impressed by Royal Navy battleship ammunition handling in the leadup to WWII, because they believed that the handling practices were too risky. I don’t remember what the British response was, but given that battleships were conceptually outdated in WWII it didn’t turn out to be a big deal in the end.
An incredible accomplishment to fight the war from 30 years before.
Is it just me or is the shell/powder handling system overly complicated? Those sliding/rotating/tilting rams, two different rams for shells and powder charges, powder charges loaded/unloaded two times just to be inserted into the hoist ...
In comparison, from training vids for US 16"/50 Mk7 guns I would say that those are somewhat more easy to operate.
very cool, Not sure there were no English subtitles, when the main title was in English. thank you