What Was The Fate of The Shinano? | Japan’s Ten-Day Supercarrier
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июл 2024
- The modern supercarriers of the US Navy. More than 80,000 tons of moving American foreign policy. Each one of these incredible ships carries more firepower than most nations on Earth and are thus the ultimate expression of US military might. It is said that whenever there has been a crisis anywhere in the world in the last 80 years, the first question the sitting US President has asked is, “Where is the nearest carrier?” The first true supercarrier was the USS Kitty Hawk CV-63 commissioned into US service on April 29th 1961 at a time when a large number of World War II-era carriers were still serving in the fleet. During the later stages of the war there was one carrier in service, albeit briefly, that in terms of scale at least could be considered a direct forerunner to the revolutionary 1961 ship. In this episode we are going to look at the background, conception and ultimately the fate of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Shinano, World War II’s ill-fated supercarrier.
0:00 Introduction
2:03 The End of an Era
10:27 The Third Yamato
16:09 Transfer to Kure
Prefer to listen on the go? Check out the WotW Podcast:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4i0FnOK...
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Google: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
RSS Feed: feeds.buzzsprout.com/988960.rss
🎶🎶 All music from CO.AG
/ @co.agmusic
Narrated by: Will Earl
Written & Researched by: Tony Wilkins
Edited by: James Wade & Kieran Kennerley
History Should Never Be Forgotten...
When the captain of the Archerfish reported the attack to navy officials they refused to believe that such a carrier existed. It wasn't until after the war and examination of Japanese records that the sub was credited with sinking more tonnage in one day than most other subs sank during the whole war.
It was the largest ship by tonnage ever sunk by a single submarine it only took 4 torpedoes before it started capsizing
@@justinthebeau2590 "only 4"? Many ships sunked with less than that
Especially with the reliability of the torpedoes at the time
@@timwhitten9918 That it took the navy brass so long to finally accept that their torpedoes were failing to detonate is tragic and hard to believe. The adoption of the Higgin's boat met similar resistance. Semper Fi!
@@thomascampbell4730 I believe the brass in charge of ordinance had a hand in the magnetic influence devices development and didn’t believe his device was faulty. That’s why it took so long to get the problem fixed. He was berated by at least a couple of sub commanders
The 60,000 ton CV-59, USS Forrestal. was the US first supercarrier 7 years before the Kitty Hawk.
That is so true I'm glad u said it
The USS Forestal was just over 3/4 the size of the IJN Shinano…
The Shinano was 74,000 tons when she set sail in her incomplete state.
I spent a day at sea on board the Archerfish when she visited Sydney in 1964.
Wow ! Did you know at that time it’s history ? Hard to believe a WW2 “Pig Boat” (that was what they were called when I saw them when I was living in Yokuska in 1958) was still working , thanks for the comment !
A day at sea on a submarine?
@@donlove3741 My brother was a cameraman for Movie tone news at the time. He took me and my father who was ex u.s n.with him.I was 13 and VERY seasick.
@@oceanhome2023 The crew were very proud of her history. She had been converted to a research ship at this stage and I think the oldest boat in the fleet.
I was aboard Carbonero SS- 337 when Archerfish tied up next to us at PH in 65. 'The Playboys of the Pacific'.
The "Shitty Kitty", nickname of Kitty Hawk, was NOT the 1st Supercarrier. That was CV-59, the USS Forrestal. She was the lead ship of a 4 ship class and was commissioned 10/1/55. The Kitty Hawk, CV-63, was the lead of a 3 ship class and actually had a 4th modified as the JFK, CV-67. If your wondering why 9 numbers between CV-59 to CV-67 for 8 ships? CVN-65, The Mighty USS Enterprise.
why shitty kitty?
@@jebise1126 Ut was a nickname that was a rhyming phrase as a slang term by the crew. A happy crew is a 'bitching' crew, therefore the name. I served aboard BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) aka USS Nimitz (CVN 68). USS Forestall was Forestfire partly because of it's tragic fire during the Vietnam War and because it made good slang. Some ships have more complementary nicknames as USS Missouri is Mighty Mo or Big Mo which I served upon from 1985 to 1989. USS Enterprise was Big E and USS New Jersey is Big J.
@@ifga16 I served on the USS Belleau Wood(LHA-3) from JAN 1987 to JUN 1989
@@ifga16 I was always partial to USS Wisconsin's Nickname "Whiskey", because after a collision in the late 50's her bow was caved in, and they simply cut it off and welded on the bow from her never finished sister ship, the USS Kentucky, that had been sitting unfinished like a big canoe since WW2.
I agree
My father-in-law was an EM2 in Archer-fish when they sank Shinano.
A good case can be made that the first of the so-called "Super-Carriers" was actually the USS Forrestal (CV-59). Completed in 1955, the 78,000-ton USS Forrestal was the first new U.S. Navy carrier to be designed after WW-II, the first to be designed with an angled flight deck, and the first to be designed specifically to operate modern jet aircraft.
That was my first thought.
The Forrestal was the first supercarrier from conception to service.
A case could be made s well that the first true supercarriers were the nuclear powered Entrerprise class because of their nearly unlimited range and duration.
Before you can make that claim, you first have to prove that the Shinano doesn't qualify.
@@mpeterll First; Shinano was not designed from the outset to be an aircraft carrier. She was a converted battleship. Consequently, despite her size, she would never have been as efficient as a designed-for-the-purpose carrier. Similarly, it is a little-known fact that, early in 1942 the U.S. Navy considered converting the Normandie into what would have been our largest aircraft carrier. However, she would have been nowhere near as efficient as a smaller one designed for the purpose, such as the USS Essex class. However, whatever consideration had been given to that plan was abandoned after the Normandie caught fire. Second; Shinano was not intended to be an "attack carrier", but to be a support ship, somewhat similar in function to the Royal Navy's HMS Unicorn.
@@robertguttman1487 Thank-you for that explanation.
Honestly Id say the Midways were the first supercarriers, Midway herself served during Operation Desert Storm and operated Hornets, which is not something to be coughed at for a ww2 carrier
I read somewhere that Abe ordered all civillians to the flight deck, but he actually said "all hands to the flight deck". His mistake saved many lives as the crew had not been trained on evacuation drills and Shinano had 2 hallways instead of 1, so this allowed many people who were still unfamiliar with Shinano to make it up to the flight deck.
Just yesterday I caught a video by Battleship New Jersey. Apparently the USS Kitty Hawk is now under tow to meet her fate at the ship breakers' yard. End of an era.
Are you sure it's the Kitty Hawk and not John F. Kennedy? BB New Jersey is in Camden NJ near where the JFK is moored. Kitty Hawk was last moored at Bremerton, Wa. I do know Kitty Hawk is scheduled to be scrapped but don't know how the NJ could have filmed it. You can see the demise of numerous carriers being scrapped in Brownsville, TX on Google Earth. I got to watch the Oriskany become an artificial reef and dive spot off the Fl panhandle.
I knew of this ship but never heard the complete story. The details were enlightening. The captain of it did all he could. He was a victim of poor intelligence and timid leadership.
the IJN is just that
fucked up cuz people can't think together
Actually the Navy laid down its first super carrier during the Truman adminstration , the United States. Truman's first Secretary of Defense convinced Truman to cancel it in favor of a huge nuclear armed bomber force for the AirForce. With the Korean War carriers proved the tactical value of having sovereign US airfields deployable to international hotspots. The Navy thus began construction through the late 50s of four super carriers...Forrestal, Ranger, Saratoga and Independence. At the end of the 50s the first nuclear carrier Enterprise was funded along with two conventional super carriers Constellation and Kitty Hawk. Further funding was found to build two more in the early sixties America and John F Kennedy. There were three Midway class 45,000 ton battle carriers built at the end of WW2 which were heavily modernized to operate larger jet air craft also.
Ironically the Nimitz class carrier Harry Truman was originally supposed to be named United States but was changed by Bill Clinton when he was President. The third attempt to name a super carrier United States was also changed by Donald Trump with the renaming of the fourth Ford carrier to Doris Miller honoring a decorated black enlisted man for his courageous actions at Pearl Harbor. Miller later lost his life in the Gilbert Islands in 1943 when his carrier exploded after being torpedoed
I served aboard both the Constellation and the Kitty Hawk
Perhaps 35 years ago, my wife, Elaine answered a local newspaper ad for a typist to transcribe the handwritten notes of a WWII submarine captain. It turned out to be Capt. Enright, a wonderful man who has since passed on. RIP, Joe.
How amazing thank you for sharing! I have bought his book - many many times
I remember this. When the sub captain reported that he had sunk a carrier, at first he wasn't believed. Fortunately, one of his men had saved the drawings that were made through the periscope.
Yes. Archerfish was originally given credit for sinking a 28,000 ton carrier.
This wasn’t the first time poor damage control resulted in the destruction of a Japanese carrier. I’m talking about the Tiaho. This was really the best IJN carrier of the war and debatably the best all around carrier built before the USS Midway. She was sunk by one torpedo although that wasn’t really the cause of her demise. Poor damage control efforts meant that aerosolized gas was vented into the ship turning her into a bomb. Eventually she exploded leading to her rapid sinking.
I’m not sure Taiho is even the best Japanese carrier (she was definitely worse than the Essex-class in terms of design). The Shokaku-class has my vote there.
@@bkjeong4302 The Shokakus were fine carriers and probably the best overall carrier design at the beginning of the war. I think, personally, the Taiho has an edge over the Essex in theoretical survivability compared to the Essex while the Essex has a better air group. As far as overall the Essex proved itself but the damage that took out carriers like Bunker Hill and Franklin probably wouldn't have done anything to the Taiho. Japan could never build enough of them or develop air crews that could take advantage of them.
Wasn't really poor damage control for Shinano she hadn't been fully fitted out most of her internal watertight doors hadn't been installed yet and most of the fire fighting equipment was none functioning, it was just a case of the command staff been spooked by reconnaissance aircraft into moving her to a safer harbor which lead to her been sunk.
@@tcofield1967 durability isn’t a major concern for carriers, though, especially in the Pacific. Air group capacity is much more relevant there.
@@bkjeong4302 well that was the US policy. They wanted durable ships and the Essex class was but if one was operationally lost then it hurt much less than it did for Japan or Great Britain. The Japanese decided to go with a lot of cheaper carriers later on but the Taiho was a plan put into place using the British philosophy, albeit with the ability to handle a larger air group than the Royal Navy Carriers. The results of Coral Sea and the subsequent resulting loss at Midway somewhat bore this out. But Japanese shipyards could never really hope to build the 4-6 Taihos they wanted. So the Unryu class was built instead.
I served onboard the Supercarrier USS Independence, CV-62 from 10/74 through 5/78 and worked in the Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department, Production Control. AZ2 Mark Stephan
Kitty Hawk ???? Uss Forrestal was the first supercarrier .
I see the humor in comparing a battleship conversion to the evolution of cruisers that are carriers. Raw size really is the only thing Shinano has in common.
To be more serious, it is nice to see someone talking about Shinano, even people who know a fair bit about Yamato & Musashi forget about, or simply do not even know about Shinano.
Yeah. You are right although the author did a good job of explaining that Shinano was not a true fleet carrier. All battleship or battlecruiser conversations had inherent limitations due to hull design and original ship plans. Even the Lexington class carriers, considered probably the best conversion, showed real problems due to the original design. Even if she had completed her fitting out and became truly combat capable Shinano would never perform well enough to justify her huge expense.
@@tcofield1967 Well, there is that, but also, carriers are all, part of the lineage of cruisers. Ever wonder why they are CV (notice the C for Cruiser, V is simply fixed wing aircraft, best as anyone can tell, it was just an unused letter).
Battleships are designed to be gun platforms above all else. So they tend to be built like a barrel. You can really see this with older ships-of-the-line in comparison to contemporary frigates.
Cruisers, once they became a proper class instead of just a job description, favor speed and long legs.
For cruisers this means long slender hull forms that are not the best at turning, but have great leangth:beam ratios, so they are fast.
For battleships this means that they will have a relatively wide beam compared to their length. It makes them slower for the same power, but provides a more stable gun platform, makes it easier to maneuver, and provides room for the massive structure that is a battleship main battery barbette and a place for the machinery, magazines and armor (which is often a complex setup involving sloped armor, decapping layers and splinter/spalling protection.) Then you get some oddities like the extended bow of the Iowa class (which is there purely for the hydrodynamic benefit of a longer length in the length:beam ratio, the bows don't even have enough buoyancy for them to float on their own.)
Battlecruisers tended to sit more in line with cruisers. (the "Large Cruiser" Alaska class, Alaska & Guam show this too, look for a photo of one of them docked right next to an Iowa). An earlier name occasionally used back in the time they were being used is telling: "dreadnought armed cruiser" meaning a cruiser with an all big gun design. (The difference with the CB ships is that they have guns much smaller than contemporary battleships, while battlecruisers would have guns of the same grade that contemporary battleships would have, often with a turret deleted from a battleship/battlecruiser pair like you see with the Royal Navy build program.
Now to Shinano. Being a Yamato class ship, you can see from Yamato and Musashi that the hull form they were designed with are those barrel-esque battleship style hulls.
That last bit there, was what my quip about comparing a battleship conversion to ships that actually are part of the lineage of cruisers.
At least Lexington and Saratoga came from a battlecruiser design. Shinano in the end was a joke. A sign that battleships were dead, that the once mighty IJN now needed stopgap carriers. A support carrier with a tiny ability to strike? That is a really really bad joke for what was to be the third of the Yamatos. Not proper fleet carrier, not proper light carrier, not even an escort carrier (those can all fight), she ended up as an airplane transport).
The only bigger joke that the IJN played back then was Taiho.... you know, that bit where doing damage control badly, turns the ship into a fuel-air bomb that decided it is a failure as a carrier, but will excel at becoming a ginormous bomb.
(btw, if you want to see what a 1:1 on length:beam does, look at the Novgorod from Russia back in the 1870s or so, interesting ship tbh)
@@whyjnot420 I agree with about 90 percent of what you said here. Yes, aircraft carriers were designed to similar speed specs as cruisers but their hull design was similar but somewhat different. Even the Yorktown class carriers were longer and had a wider beam then later Baltimore class heavy cruisers. They had to be to maintain stability doe to higher center of gravity.
As for cruisers vs battlecruisers the battlecruiser shares more in line with battleships than standard cruisers of the period. Propulsion, compartmentalization, and overall design were based off dreadnoughts, not the old armored cruiser designs of the period. If anything the CLs and CAs were influenced more by battlecruiser design than the other way around. Yes they were longer but if you look at the width the Rodney and the Hood were almost identical. The Renown and Queen Elizabeth were also identical. They just looked thinner because of the extended length and more efficient hull form. But cruisers were a different design all together.
The biggest reason that the Alaskas were not considered BCs was less because of gun size and more because the ships were designed like cruisers. The Scharnhorst had a similar main battery but was considered a battlecruiser of fast battleship because of the design, not the armament.
You could say about your girlfriend... "Shinano" about the carrier...
Thank you once again. Nice to expand knowledge which is hard to find on YT!
Excellent shooting Archerfish and CPT Enright. Excellent video and information 👌.
Fact is that Japanese ships in general, and carriers in particular, were easier to sink than their US counterparts. Japanese tactics emphasized attack capability over damage control, while in US practice there was a more balanced approach. Two US carriers in particular, the Yorktown and the Hornet, took an almost unbelievable amount of punishment before they finally sank, which is a credit to their planners, builders and crews.
And then there's the Enterprise, which took beating but survived. Yorktown class is just too good
@@visegradi Enterprise and her sisters were the superstars of the carrier battles of World War Two. it’s a shame the Big E wasn’t preserved as a memorial.
@@lumberlikwidator8863 The main characters of WW2 lol
Great documentary very clear presentation and voice! No stupid music straight to the point.
Thank you 👍
Straight to the point, 11 minutes in still nothing on the subject at hand.
There's an excellent book about this that I read several years ago. I don't recall the title, but it's worth a search for those who want to get more detail about how events transpired on both the Shinano and the Archerfish.
I've just bought a second hand copy of this book - Sea Assault by Captain Joseph F. Enright. I think the book was also published with a different title. It's an excellent read.
This might be the other title: Shinano!: The Sinking of Japan's Secret Supership
As an Aussie I'd like to say a thank you to the valiant USA of WW2.👍
Too bad the latest generations are lazy fake men.
@@CFITOMAHAWK2 Not all! Just the ones with the biggest mouths...... lol
Thank you! As a boy that worked alongside those wonderful WW2 vets, several that served in the PTO mentioned about fighting alongside the Aussies, and enjoying them as allies. What a generation those people were.
USS Forestall CV59 (launched 10 years before Kitty Hawk) was almost 200 feet longer than Shinano, and had a full load displacement over 10,000 tons greater.
The sub was the Archer-fish, but the hyphen seems to have been usually dropped. I understand the crew was proud of it, claiming it was the only hyphenated name in the fleet. As a kid, I saw Sigmund Bobczynski, Enright's XO, often, as he was a friend of the family. Great guy.
Great video again gentlemen.
Thanks. Good vid. John
Enjoyed your video so I gave it a Thumbs Up as a support
Your content with period pictures was well done and you have therefore gained a subscriber. You also tell a pretty decent story.
A second reason is that the finishing moments of the video were not defaced with the thrice-cursed content-obscuring rectangles touting other videos in YTs cursed style, damn then. For that you have my sincere thanks. See you in the next one.
Cheers from E. Ontario!
At 9:21 the narrator tells us that a naval aviation victory occurred when the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse were sunk by aircraft. Sorry, carriers were not involved. The ships were sunk by land based medium bombers
They were navy aircraft and under navy command, though not carrier based.
@@tomswift6198 That is the point. In this instance carriers were not involved but the narrative suggested they were.
I noticed that too
Great Vid and much I never knew about this Carrier only a long time ago seeing it in Model form with a model maker who specialized on Japanese WW2 Ships , it was enormous , and I Sub'd as the vid's are well doc'd and the Narration is fast well paced and aggressive just add's to the format.
Love this
Kool vids/Thanks
A great piece of lost history. nice job!
Thanks for this video. It may contain some inaccuracies, but certainly got attention.
The USS Forrestal was the 1st Super Carrier, launched 11 Dec 1954 with a 990 waterline at 59.6K tons. Where as the USS Kitty Hawk was launched 21 May 1960. Although Forrestal & the Saratoga's keels were laid down as an Axial flight deck, they were converted to angled decks during construction. The USS Ranger (CV-61) was the 1st ship actually designed as a super carrier with an angled deck and was launched 29 Dec 1956, I made two cruises on her and several ORE's. Your video although a little inaccurate on the USS Kitty Hawk being the 1st Super Carrier, of which I served a short time on, I really enjoyed the video. Thumbs up! Best Wishes and Blessings. Keith Noneya
The former USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) aircraft carrier has finally begun the 17,000-mile journey from Bremerton, Wash., to the Port of Brownsville for recycling by International Shipbreaking Ltd./EMR Brownsville.
The Navy contracted with the Brownsville shipbreaker late last year to salvage the Kitty Hawk and the JFK. Per the contract, ISL is being paid a penny for each aircraft carrier to be towed here for scrapping. ISL Vice President Robert Berry estimated that the Kitty Hawk will arrive sometime between mid- and late May.
Embarrassingly our very own Lord Semple became somewhat of a Japan fan after the Great War and his time was spent instructing the Japanese people on our shipbuilding methods and all of our knowledge and experience regarding the fledgling aircraft carrier, all official secrets, and instructed them on the art of landing planes on a ship at sea. Its a remarkable tale and I suggest that you Google it at least. 🙏
The Kitty hawk was not the 1st supercarrier in 1961. The 1st super carrier was the USS Forrestall (cva 59) 1069 ft long- 235 ft wide. Launched 1955, weight 98,000 tons
I never knew of this carrier, Thank you
U.S. Navy did not believe the Captain of the Archerfish about the existence of the carrier for quite a while.
@@jeffhallel8211 Correct, they thought it was a fleet carrier by his description. The US didn't even know of Shinano's existence until after the war when naval survivors were interviewed.
@@jeffhallel8211 Yes, He was credited with a smaller carrier. When it came to light that he sunk the Shinano he was awarded the Navy Cross. Everything done in secrecy and all evidence destroyed, but he was proven right.
Great story, thanks to the US Navy this monster never saw combat, this page I enjoy tremendously, thank you for your efford and dedication, JV
excellent history lesson!
Fine video about the IJN Shinano.
very well done video-many facts I did not know including the german battleship/cruiser schanhorst was converted to a carrier...keep up the great work
That would have been a different ship. The battleship Scharnhorst was sunk at the Battle of the North Cape on Dec. 26, 1943. It struck me as odd too that there was mention of it being converted to a carrier.
I enjoyed the video. It was well done but, the Kitty Hawk was not the 1st Carrier that was bigger than the Japanese WW2 carrier.
I served on the USS Independence which is 3rd of the Forestall Class built in 1959 at Brooklyn Navel Shipyard. It was 1096 long and 89,000 tons. 🇺🇲
USS Midway CV-41 is my favorite one for its history and as the first angled deck carrier
The first ship to test the angled deck concept (being a British invention) was HMS Triumph. This was followed by similar tests on the Midway however in both cases the angled deck was painted on rather than fitted.
The first vessel physically fitted with an angled deck was USS Antietam.
The first vessel completed (but not designed with) an angled deck was HMS Ark Royal followed later that same year by the Forrestal (designed with).
Yes, the FID was the first one CVA-59: she started off as the United States. Name after James Forrestal first Sectary of Defense after he jumped out the window of the Naval Hospital. No place like home Long Gray and Underway. :)
Muy buen documento sobre ese gran portaaviones...aunque hubiera agradecido algún mapa o esquema de la trayectoria del shinano y del submarino que lo hundió para apreciar mejor el ataque
I can't remember who, but some years ago a plastic model kit company released a model kit of the Shinano - a model mag reviewer built the kit to show how the ship would have looked when fully operational
Tamiya, Hasegawa, Revell, Zvezda, Nichimo. Doyusha, ARII, UPS have produced model kits of the Shinano. Due to the secrecy of the construction and destruction of all evidence none of the kits are accurate. Only one or two pictures of the ship survived. Would be nice if an accurate kit was made in 1/350 scale. Would be an awesome build.
@@garfieldsmith332 I would love to buy one if it was accurate. I wouldn't be fussy on the scale..
@@jonathanbair523 True. I have the 1/700 Tamiya and have not started it. i do not know how "accurate" it is. I actually bought the 5 or 6 Japanese carriers Tamiya made. Going to start my own little Armada.😊😊 I have heard horror stories of the Doyusha "bath tub toy"; and the UPS was a re-pop a Japanese kit that had lighting and smoking options.!!!! I would agree an accurate model no matter what scale. However unless there was a secret vault of blueprints that went untouched, we will never see such a kit.
I love this story
Are you Ukrainian ? No disrespect just asking.
I just love how Anime and Metal gear Japan was even before that eas a thing. Super carrier supper battleship and the i-400. Japan was wild
The first US super carrier was CV-59. It was smaller than this carrier, but non the less, Forrestal was the first carrier labeled a super carrier.
Excellent presentation/perspective on the mindset of the group of players at the time, … and #aHatTip good day 🙋🏻♀️🕵🏼♀️
I blame Lord Semple and our very own lack of political will and our ubiquitous class system of course.
Sir @@DaveSCameron ? 🙋🏻♀️ I stood silently in front of you for more than five minutes AFTER you wrote your comment, all the time thinking you would say more. Since you did not say anything more afterwards I began to feel? you know, kind of silly standing in front of you, …? and I want to go purchase a hamburger now anyway, so …, I gotta go, and #aHatTip 💂🏻♀️ good day.
@@hanscyrus My good man why on God's green earth didn't you just say? I often self regulate my posts by not wanting to lose any readers by jangling away for multiple paragraphs but do enjoy your hamburger there and perhaps you could pop me a line or two regarding its value and enjoyment Sir? Best wishes 🙏
Sir@@DaveSCameron …, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm a big fan of specifically World War II videos, and the testimonials of those who engaged in the major campaigns. I had thought of inside the initial comment utilizing the goof of asking you if perhaps a couple hours drinking coffee at a #starbucks or at Joe's Tavern destroying a bottle of brandy chatting together would be kind of …? fun, I guess. Because I know any stranger I've ever met would be immediately tipped off by such a insincere proposal such as me right out of the clear blue sky then asking you to chat.
🍺 + (💁🏻♀️📝) = ⁉️
Truth be told I was practicing my scriptwriting techniques upon you, and again, I extend my sincere apologies for disturbing you, to you 🙋🏻♀️ #farewell, then … .
@@hanscyrus I too am sad to hear you feel like this, as I etched nothing to prompt this but best wishes working on the prose, keep at it and you'll reap the rewards, love and Light comrade ✌️👍📚
If memory serves and the book Shinano was accurate one of Capt. Enright's relatives was the Chaplain that wrote the weather prayer for Gen. Patton, during the Battle of the Bulge in Europe.
The Yamato class, were built in great secrecy, as they were meant be a surprise to Japan's enemies. It was well known that the Americans would build battleships of equal size and guns, had the details of the class been known.
The US had to build battleships that fit through the Panama Canal
The Americans actually wanted to do something like that with the Montana-class ( designed without knowing about Yamato’s specs), which was designed to a similar size and speed as Yamato and was planned to have 12 16”/50 guns.
The Japanese, in turn, had a Yamato successor design (the A-150) with six 20” guns, though I suspect this thing would actually have been a downgrade on Yamato due to the smaller number of main guns.
The Montanas and A-150s were cancelled without even being laid down due to the fact both the US and Japan went “oh fuck, we’ve already gone way too far with battleship construction and are putting them into service after they’ve already become obsolete. We just built a bunch of new battleships that we don’t need and that can’t be used for anything that would actually justify the strategic expenditure put into them, and we’re still designing more of them”.
@@robertyoung3992 That was one of the design features of the Iowa ships
The video stated that the Iowas were only 2/3 the size of the Yamatos. This is wrong. Displacement yes, but physical size and firepower, no. The Iowas were actually longer than the Yamatos, and just barely skinny enough to fit through the Panama Canal. The Iowas technically speaking had smaller 16 inch Guns, but due to muzzle velocity the impact of a shell fired from a 16 Inch 50 Cal gun from a Iowa class would be greater than that of the 18 inch shells fired from the Yamato class. The Yamatos had greater range but the Iowas had far better radar technology and range finding equipment, and more accurate guns. 2 Iowas would certainly beat 1 Yamato if they were to ever come into contact. 1 on 1 would be a stalemate with both ships ammunitions being depleted before either one would take enough damage to sink, an Iowa would most likely get in just close enough to accurately hit a Yamato and dip in and out of range of the Yamato, the Iowas would also be able to outrun a Yamato. The South Dakota’s and North Carolina’s were also very potent battleships, not far in capability from the Iowas. The South Dakota’s were essentially smaller less armored versions of the Iowa with 16 inch 45 cal guns.
@@tennesseecurtiss5741
A lot of what you said is inaccurate.
The 16”/50 gun on the Iowas had the same hitting power as the 18” gun, instead of being superior in this regard. And the high muzzle velocity of the 16”/50 actually worked against it in getting the plunging deck hits it was designed for (because getting an arcing trajectory for a deck hit required a range of over 30,000 yards...and live-fire tests with Iowa revealed that the Iowas actually couldn’t hit targets reliably at such ranges, even with radar).
The 16”/50 gun in and of itself wasn’t inherently more accurate than other battleship guns; that was down to the combination of the FCS and the radar providing targeting data to the FCS, not the gun itself (if you want to look at battleship guns that were inherently more accurate than average, look at the British 14” gun found on the KGVs). And even then, the Iowas weren’t as accurate as pop culture history assumes they were-as mentioned above, live-fire tests revealed their effective range (the range at which they can actually hit things reliably enough for combat) was less than the 30,000+ yards the designers had intended, and around 20,000-25,000 yards, which was a similar effective range as pretty much any other contemporary battleship design.
2 Iowas would certainly beat one Yamato, but this has far more to do with the numerical advantage than any other factor. One on one it depends on the time of day, since Iowa’s radar advantage would be decisive at night but not nearly as critical during the day (in daylight, the best WWII-era optical systems could actually match WWII-era radar in terms of effective range and accuracy, but radar still had the upper hand at night simply because it wasn’t reliant on visibility). At 30,000 yards or more neither side is going to actually hit the other side enough to inflict significant damage before running out of shells. At closer ranges under 25,000 yards, Iowa wins at night and either could win during the day-both of them can reasonably hit the other at 25,000 yards or less during daylight hours, and neither of them have enough armour to withstand the other’s fire.
The sort of “dip in and out of range” attack you’ve proposed outright doesn’t work in naval gunnery. You seem to be under the impression naval gunnery duels are similar to people fighting with handguns, when things couldn’t be more different. In naval gunnery, every time you change your position relative to the enemy vessel, you have to find the range again, in the same way an artillery battery on land has to find the range to the target before it can fully open up on the enemy. You can’t just move in, fire once and move back out of range.
The South Dakotas weren’t “less well armoured” compared to the Iowas; they had the same amount of protection, and the reason the Iowas were so much larger was for the sake of greater speed and little else (and naval officers actually complained about this, since it meant the Iowas were much more expensive to build and maintain than the SoDaks-in fact the Iowas cost more per ship than even the Yamatos). It was the North Carolinas that were lacking in armour compared to the Iowas.
Very interesting video regarding the Shinano. I find it strange that this carrier navigated to Kure completely unescorted possibly because of the catastrophic situation in Japan. Out of ignorance I believe that the Shinano was the only remaining carrier in Japan...
There were destroyers escorting her. The video stated that the sub got away from the escorting destroyers, despite them dropping depth charges.
ruclips.net/video/ebpp7EfWQJM/видео.html
"(He) fled knowing that the 3 destroyers would now be hunting his submarine."
@@thisisatonofbs so there was 3 destroyer but apparently they were not very effective. Possibly because obsolete listening devices? Thanks for the info 👍 👍
@@paoloviti6156 Their effectiveness was limited by Abe's belief that he was being attacked my a wolf pack of submarines, rather than one submarine. Had he given them the freedom to engage / drive off / sink the single submarine, Shinano would have escaped.
@@WayneKeen yes, I agree with you but with only 3 destroyers there was not much he could do...
@@paoloviti6156 Short of an aggressive attack in which he sent the destroyers after the sub, and evaded away, you are probably right. And such an approach implies knowledge that was not available to Abe at the time, so it is pointless speculation on my part...
Excellent, RB, Canada.
Yo Canada. We will soon launch the HMCS Bob and Dog McKenzie, eh.
Luv submariners attitude of surface ships being.......TARGETS !
USS Midway: Am i joke to you
Not twice the size, twice the mass!
When people think of size they usually think of dimensions/volume. While the Shinano was certainly wider than the Essex class, it wasn't that much wider and they were of similar length.
The uss coral sea I saw on its last cruise visiting in Halifax Novia scotia 1990
good stuff. never heard of this one before.
I looked through the periscope of It USS Archerfish when she visited CFB Esquimalt in the late 1960s
the Book "Shinano!" Written by Captain Joseph F. E right USN .with James W Ryan.
Documents the events and the construction of the ship.
Great read is book by skipper of Archerfish. Part of my collection of US submarine books by former captains
Interesting.
I love happy endings.
_Shinano_ was a converted battleship, and had an aircraft complement half that of the contemporary American _Essex_ carriers, so there was nothing "super" about it. It had very little in common with _Kitty Hawk_ (other than also having a flight deck).
Shinano was not a supercarrier, it was designed as a transport carrier and had a smaller air wing than the Hiryu. Most of the aircraft it carried were meant for other stations, or to resuply fleet carriers to in the fleet.
I have never seen a war documentary without a single map, chart or video clip, basically with nothing more than narrations accompanied with static photos (also without captions of what they actually show) panning in different directions. So very well done.
A pretty nice video, I'll add that the corners cut during the construction was due to the admirality pushing up the time table considerably and accepting zero excuses essentially setting the date it would sail and be commissioned ahead of time, furthermore the bulkheads and many compartments had not been air tested to make sure they were truly sealed, so this thing set sail in an abysmal state and to add to that, the crew had not had time to learn the ship, and much less about the systems on board, the portable pumps were unfamiliar to them as well as the fact that the speed was kept up for way too long and that had the effect of literally flooding the ship faster, always a good thing when you're the late war IJN
Japanese actor Shouki Fukae was crew in the Shinano. He Wasson lucky to survived the attack.
I agree.
I believe the baby sank.Thanjs war of the world's for this riveting video.
You could trim this to make it more to the point, trying to cover it comprehensively would take hours
The first was the USS Forrestal CV-59. And for the record Shinano was not even finished. She had not even fired a shot. She was still awaiting fitting out. So this article is missing on several levels of facts.
Wait! Wasn’t the USS Forrestal (CV-59) the next super carrier before the Kitty Hawk (CV-63)?
Bad executive decisions always lead to catastrophe. This story is a prime example. If the Shinano was completed in all aspects of safety and construction correctly in what direction would in the Pacific war have taken?
At that point in the war Japan was sending her naval assets on suicide missions, so I doubt it would have made much difference.
The loss of the vessel itself, together with the huge number of crew and shipbuilding workers was a fantastic outcome for those six torpedoes!
That it never lived long enough to be completed, let alone to take the fight to US forces is another great outcome.
Given its size, it should have been able to remain afloat, but was a victim of its own rushed deployment.
Crewed by people wholly unfamiliar with each other or working together, they, and the shipbuilding workers couldn't figure out how to operate systems which were designed to enhance survivability!
Even worse was that uncompleted work meant that seawater was able to enter multiple compartments, and from those, even more compartments, with catastrophic inevitability...
This video is a giant leap on accuracy than presented by 'Dark Doc's. Which was filled with video inaccuracies.
I think for a time about 40 years, the US Navy didn't think the Shinano was real. They said the crew must of had the size wrong...... Then again the Navy also went almost 60 years before admitting the USS Ward fired the first shot of WWII by sinking a IJN mini sub in the harbor... I was lucky enough to get to talk to one of the Ward's gunners as he told me that story that went in the face of what history said had happend.... We now know he was telling the truth about the ship sinking 1 of 6 of the mini subs that was sent to sneak into the harbor.
Filipino here. Here's my modern take for a fictional philippine fleet:
-deck length extended to maybe 842ft,
-had elertric catapult system,
-machinery comparable to today's naval ships,
-5 in. dp guns; usually found on US navy destroyers and cruisers,
-equivalent no. of 25mm bushmaster guns (single manned mount, twin unmanned mount slaved to singles, & tripple unmanned mount controlled by cic; though the twins can be controlled by cic in emergency),
-either 5 in. guided, dual-purpose rockets or dedicated missile system for AA/surface role,
-modern search and track radars
-one sonar array in redesigned bulbous bow, & individual ones running along the hull
As for whatever it originally carried, i'll leave it out as comment's already too long. I'll leave it to your imagination.
Keep on dreaming pinoy
Still live in cemetery neighborhoods?
The "Shitty Kitty," (Kittyhawk), was our sister ship. From the flight deck of the Constellation, I've seen it many times. Ho-hum.
I think he's was a new sub captain on his first mission
🐱 Thank you
Did you ever get the feeling that fate was against Japan and its quest to build the biggest battleships and the biggest carrier. It's almost as if it was Destiny for them to fail. Just think if they could have succeeded and instead of building two super battleships built three supercarriers and had used them at the Battle of Midway instead of what they did. How would that have changed history?
This Captain is the Dick Best story of submarines! One kill but it was a doozy!
Fun fact: IJN Shinano is supposed to be the 3rd Yamato class battleship but converted into a carrier instead because of their loss in the Battle of Midway.
Very good video. One point, the city of Kure is pronounced KOO-RAY, not KOOR.
Actually, it's pronounced 'Koo-reh'...😉
Narrator also messed up the pronunciation of Yokosuka. The stress is (slightly) on the second syllable. Yo-KOH-suka. (The (u' in Yokosuka is often slurred over).
Hey, please talk about IJN Yukikaze Lucky ship or cursed ship
She escort all Yamato class and survive all of them but lost all of what she escort
Might want to chack your facts a bit. The first supper carrier was CV-59 the USS Forrestal.
Is there a particular reason why islands on carriers are always on the starboard side? Great video.
Apparently pilots had a tendency to turn left when landing on airstrips, that and several other reasons that are better explained in Drachinifel's videos about the history of Naval carriers.
Two Japanese carriers active in WWII had their Islands on the port side - Akagi and Hiryu. They were both were lost at the Battle of Midway.
The Japanese for a while toyed with the idea of operating carriers in close pairs, with mirror imaged air traffic patterns, and mirror imaged islands seemed like a good idea. They'd abandoned all that by the time the Shokakus were built.
During a carrier landing, if the pilot got into any trouble, instants (sp) were to bank left also due to the engines torque turning.
10:16 - Are there any post-1860-or-so capital ships that _wouldn't_ be invincible if transported twenty years back in time?
All of them, modern ships literally don't have armor and rely on sensors and other countermeasures to defend themselves. So if they go back to ww2 and get into battleships range, modern ships most likely go down.
Granted not a lot of specifics are known about the Shinano, since the Japanese burned all records of her. But from what little is known, she was not a Super Carrier. She was barely functional as a Carrier. The Japanese did not view her as a Combat Capable Carrier. Instead she was to be used as a "Support Carrier". A floating warehouse and repair shop for airplanes, to store planes, ammo and fuel for the other actual Fleet Carriers, and act as a sort of floating maintenance shop for aircraft. Here's the problem. For a WW2 Carrier to function properly it has to be able to properly flow and cycle aircraft. To do this at anything resembling the speeds needed to be combat capable requires 2 elevators. A forward Elevator and a rear one. A midships elevator is also a nice to have option. This way planes move forward on the flight deck and backwards on the hanger deck. The rear elevator brings them up to spot for launch. The planes launch, fly there mission and land. The rear half of the flight deck is for landing, the front half is for bringing landed planes back down to the hanger using the front elevator. The planes then move rearward through the hanger bay where they are repaired rearmed refueled and made ready for their next mission, where they can be brought up by the rear elevator to start the cycle again. Not being able to do this cripples a Carrier. The Carrier becomes a single launch only ship. She can launch 1 wave of planes. after which she needs to very slowly land her planes one at a time, clear the deck to use the single elevator to bring it down, then land the next etc. This is why when Enterprises forward elevator was badly damaged at Guadalcanal her planes could launch, but would then have to land at Henderson Field and spend the night before they could be very slowly rotated back to the carrier. Shinano had this problem. Shinano had at least 6 different Hangers spread over 3 decks. But none of the Hangers connected, and none had more than 1 elevator. So there was no ability to flow the aircraft through them. And most of the hangers shared its one elevator with at least 2 other hangers. The problem was the Barbettes. The massive round tubs meant to hold the 18.1" gun turrets of the Yamato class Battleships. The ship gets built around them. So Shinano had hers. With no way to remove them short of scrapping the ship. The Flight deck sat at the top of the Barbettes. The Barbettes carved up what needed to be a single broad open hanger space into lots of smaller unconnected spaces. Thus making her all but useless as a Carrier. The only thing Super about her was her appetite for fuel.
Very well done. Thanks for this detailed presentation.
"Super" as in a super sized chunk of scrap metal floating in the ocean.
@@garfieldsmith332 The Shinano is a weird one for history. Everyone thinks 'OMG THE BIGGEST CARRIER EVER! SUPERWEAPON" because it was built on the third Yamato hull. But it really wasn't capable of operating as a Carrier. It only was converted to a Carrier because by that point in the war the Japanese Military Leadership was operating in that mode where you never admit mistakes or try and reverse course. You only go forward in ever more stupid ways. The saner heads in the Admiralty wanted the whole thing scrapped and its precious steel used to build quite a large number of Submarines. Which would have been Militarily Useful in defending Japan. But Pride meant they could not scrap one of the Mighty Yamatos! No matter how useless it might be.
@@andrewtaylor940 Yes, a hasty conversion. The military thinking at the time pf the army really worked against Japan. The navy saw the value of the aircraft carrier and the submarine. Never should have built the Yamato class. And to think they were looking at even bigger battleships. From what I have read the Yamato class early designs were even bigger size ships. Add to that pride there was also the warrior codes. Many captains and admirals went down with their ships and their experience was lost forever. Still the Shinano is an interesting in itself.
@@garfieldsmith332 There is a fantastic Japanese Movie about the political intrigues, infightings and absurdities involved in the High Command's decision to build the Yamato's. called "The Great War of Archimedes". It's sort of a dark satire. But the opening scene is possibly the best rendered and realized WW2 naval battle to be put on screen in the modern era. It shows the death of the Yamato in Operation Ten-Go in astonishing detail and accuracy. It really stands out when viewed next to the horrible Roland Emmerich Midway movie (which I will grant was very respectful of the actual named people, but the CGI and accuracy was horrible). It's from Toho, the Godzilla people.
Without even watching this video I can tell you, Archerfish got her. Not the Archerfish I served on but her forbearer SS311
Why the music playing when the narrator is talking?
It would have been interesting if the full center force Yamato, Musashi, Nagato and two Kongo's had met Halsey with his 2 Iowa's, 3 South Dakota's and Washington (McCain and 2 BB's were away?). Presumably Halsey would lead with the 2 Iowa's to be able to head off a Japanese attempt to disengage. With 6:5 number advantage, the standard plan for the superior force is to match 1:1 with the lead ships, but the last two will gang up against the last Japanese ship. The inferior force should try to stretch their line to prevent this, with some firing allocation to have all opposing ships under fire.
If the Japanese knew this, how should their line look? lead with a Yamato + Musashi (heavies) or lead with the Kongos (fast, but really battlecruisers)? I am going to guess Kongo's followed by Yamato's and Nagato last because she is slowest ship and will likely be sacrificed.
In this arrangement, I would have the Kongo's not bother to try to win but rather evade. Every time Iowa's fire, alter heading to throw off the aim (flight time 1min?). Yamato and Musashi could close and finish off the US 3rd and 4th fourth ships. The US 5 and 6 ships would kill Nagato unless the Japanese 4th lent support. we are now at 4:4. Yamato and Musashi could them finish of the US (formerly) 5 and 6 ships. Of course, if Halsey see's that the Kongo's are just stalling and the Japanese 3 & 4 are the real threats, he could turn and engage them.
All this assumes the carriers were sent north.
The Yamato concept could be correct if 1 Yamato cost less than 2 x 35,000 ton BB's
Kure isn't "Cure", but Koo-Re
Fun Fact: Today is the 82th anniversary since Shinano's keel was laid down.
8:35 - Iowas were about 2/3 the displacement (which is different than size) of the Yamatos, though the Iowa hull was longer and had a deeper draft, The Yamatos had a wider beam
23:00 - "Largest carrier ever build until Kitty Hawk" - By what measure? Really, I want to know.?
Air wing - nearly half that of an Lexington (Though larger than an Independence LIGHT carrier)
Displacement? Forrestal at full load has that beat in '55. Length? Essex had that came length (ish) in '41.
Shinano was slow, under equipped, and no where ready to fight in late '44, even as planned as a support carrier. If she was in service in '41 as a support carrier flying CAP, maybe things would have gone better at Coral Sea, and may have salvaged Midway.
Hindsight as it is, if the resources to get Shinano under steam as a carrier in lat '44 was applied to submarine technology and production, the U.S. and European powers would have had a far harder task of winning the Pacific.
The most interesting thing I found about the Shinano is she only carried 47 aircraft? About the same as the US Independence-class light carrier?
I find it odd that an Independence class light carrier would carry only 30 aircraft and a Casablanca class escort carrier would be credited with 27 aircraft? Sites I have read in the past put the Light Carrier at between 45-48 aircraft?
But I also found such a document "Shinano can carry up to 120 planes" I am curious how Shinano can carry so many planes?
Seems that the Shimano was the Japanese version of the German battleship, Bismark.