Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#16

Post by mescal » 28 Aug 2009, 15:39

Hehe,

that's the link I gave above :D

Looks like we have the same sources ... :)
(And I do not think that our interpretations are so different.)
Olivier

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#17

Post by LWD » 28 Aug 2009, 15:51

Looked back and saw you did indeed. I should remember to check back to make sure I get the full context.

In a "normal" battle between the 3 BBs I suspect one US BB would indeed be in very bad shape no matter what else happened. In this particular case however there would be a distinct possiblity of the two US ships simply bearing Yamato in fire. The 5" hits alone could present a serious fire control problem for Yamato and 20+ hits from 2700 16" shells all from under 20,000 yards are going to hurt any ship.


Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2065
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 00:17
Location: Israel

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#18

Post by Von Schadewald » 30 Aug 2009, 11:45

Would a KGV have no option but to flee a Yamato?

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#19

Post by LWD » 30 Aug 2009, 15:05

There are always options. Whether or not a KGV would choose to engage a Yamato would depend on the circumstances. Certainly in general it would have a poor chance of winning but there are circumstances under which it could prevail and others under which the sacrifice might be worth it.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#20

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 31 Aug 2009, 15:07

Really interesting discussion. I'd have thought more arguments for severe damage to the USN ships. Also interesting is the remark about the USN radar being unable to identify 'splashes' that night.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#21

Post by LWD » 31 Aug 2009, 16:38

The radar environment was not good that night and radar was still fairly new.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#22

Post by mescal » 31 Aug 2009, 18:24

Hello,

A little bit of food for thought :

The scenario of Yamato off Guadalcanal leading to an engagement with 2 US fast battleships appears in the FFO (France Fights On) alternate timeline.

A battle involving Yamato & Nagato vs North Carolina & Washington can be found on the Naval Fiction Board on the Navweaps forum.

According to the author of the post, the battle has been seriously wargamed (but I do not know the rules used)
The outcome (in short) :
Sunk : Washington & Nagato
Extreme damage : North Carolina (should be a complete total loss)
Moderate damage : Yamato.
(Nota : Yamato got a quick critical hit on North Carolina)
Olivier

robdab
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 16:45
Location: Canada

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#23

Post by robdab » 19 Sep 2009, 19:54

As I've suggested previously, how about sending Yamato to Hawaii with the Kido butai ?

The history of her comissioning is well laid out at http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm and indicates why she wasn't declared operational and "battle ready" until May 27'42, just in time for the Midway mission.

Had the political/IJN will been present though, I think that she could have gone to Oahu earlier instead.

As the buildup for war gathered speed in Japan, her sister Musashi's work crews could have been diverted, many months earlier, to rush the Yamato's construction schedule. At the same advanced date, her soon-to-be gunners could have begun their training so that events like the historically embarassing March 30'42 gunnery test failure would NOT occur.

She was certainly fast enough to escort the Kido Butai's 6 carriers and could easily escape the old and slow US battleships based at Pearl harbor, if necessary.

What better warship to take on Oahu's 4 big 16" coastal defense guns ?

Or to deal with an American battleship or two that might somehow surprise the Japanese carriers in the darkness around Oahu as they rushed in close on the night of Dec.6-7'41 ? Historically the Japanese sent along two fast battlecruisers just in case some quick US heavy cruisers got lucky and made such a dash but both were only lightly armored and wouldn't stand up well to any 16" US battleship shells. Yamato would have.

Had Yamamoto directly ordered that Pearl Harbor's support facilities (fuel tankfarms, fleet oilers, dry docks and submarine base) be destroyed then Yamato could have provided a back-up attack method for the Kido Butai's warplanes. An insurance policy just in case the IJN warplanes were still too busy with any USAAF fighters to hammer those American targets.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#24

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 20 Sep 2009, 19:14

The Yamato was not formally commissioned until mid December 1941? Even if this is accelerated by a couple months I'd be skeptical of the level of crew training and ship handling capabilities of the bridge watch after just a few weeks of work up. Neither would it be smart to risk a ship that had not completed a complete set of sea trials. Photographs of the Yamoto going down with Honolulu in the back ground on 8 Dec would certainly change the morale equation. having it dead in the water or beached would be even more interesting.

But, of course we know that fairy dust and endless twisting can discount all that?

robdab
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 16:45
Location: Canada

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#25

Post by robdab » 20 Sep 2009, 23:04

.
Carl Schwamberger wrote:The Yamato was not formally commissioned until mid December 1941 ?
That is what the Combinedfleet.com source that I provided indicates.

Geez Carl, I was having more fun when you were boycotting replying to my posts. What need I type to have you return to that status ? LOL.
Even if this is accelerated by a couple months I'd be skeptical of the level of crew training and ship handling capabilities of the bridge watch after just a few weeks of work up. Neither would it be smart to risk a ship that had not completed a complete set of sea trials.
Agreed but i had thought that more than just a couple of months of construction schedule acceleration might be possible if the number of workmen devoted solely to her was nearly doubled by delaying her sister, the Musashi ?

I was assuming that when FDR unexpectedly moved the US Pacific Fleet to a new Oahu homeport in June of 1940, the Japanese MIGHT have reacted to such a thinly veiled threat by doing all that they could to speed Yamato's completion. Just in case their "Decisive Battle" with the American's Pacific Fleet arrived more quickly than they had planned on.

An accelerated Yamato schedule could thus have begun long before Yamamoto was able to force his Oahu attack order thru the IJN's higher command.

Transfering EXPERIENCED gunners from older IJN battleships such as the Nagato (which was scheduled to remain in a very distant support role in th Bonin Islands on Dec.7'41) should have eliminated at least two months worth (March 30'42 - May 27'42) of the historical Yamato "operational date" delay. Thus leaving about 4 months to be shaved off of her construction schedule if she was to be declared "combat ready" (not just commissioned) by November 27'41 so as to be able to sail from Hitokappu Bay, Kuriles with the historical Kido Butai carrier strike force.

Thus some 22 months (June 1940 - March 1942) worth of originally scheduled construction and sea trials time would have to be done in just 18 month's (June 1940 - November 1941) time instead. A 19% time reduction to be compensated for by a nearly 100% increase in construction manpower and an earlier that historical start to her crew's training.

All because FDR wouldn't heed Adm.Richardson's concerns about re-basing the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, rather than at San Diego.

I've never built a battleship and so don't know if a 19% schedule speed-up can realistically be accomplished with a nearly 100% increase in manpower. But if I had to place a bet on that outcome, I'd guess that yes, such could be squeezed into 18 months instead of 22.

What is it that qualifies your scornful battleship construction schedule opinion Carl ?
Photographs of the Yamoto going down with Honolulu in the back ground on 8 Dec would certainly change the morale equation. having it dead in the water or beached would be even more interesting.
Very patriotically spoken Carl.

How would you suggest that such an event might have come about ? More of your own fairey dust perhaps ? LOL.

I'd suppose so but the historical Japanese eargerly took on that same risk with the 6 carriers and 2 battlecruisers of the Kido Butai, didn't they. And we all know how that turned out for them by the end of Dec.7'41. In fact, having the huge and well armored Yamato along as a "bomb & torpedo magnet" might serve to further protect those 6 fragile KB carriers, if the defending Americans "got lucky" and located the Kido Butai for attack. Yamato was far better equipped to withstand the 1941 vintage small bombs and faulty US torpedoes than were those 6 IJN carrier decks.

As Midway so well demonstrated some 6 months later.

johnbryan
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 03 Apr 2002, 23:36
Location: Holly, Michigan, USA

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#26

Post by johnbryan » 23 Sep 2009, 05:30

robdab wrote:.
Carl Schwamberger wrote:The Yamato was not formally commissioned until mid December 1941 ?
That is what the Combinedfleet.com source that I provided indicates.
Even if this is accelerated by a couple months I'd be skeptical of the level of crew training and ship handling capabilities of the bridge watch after just a few weeks of work up. Neither would it be smart to risk a ship that had not completed a complete set of sea trials.
Agreed but i had thought that more than just a couple of months of construction schedule acceleration might be possible if the number of workmen devoted solely to her was nearly doubled by delaying her sister, the Musashi ?

I was assuming that when FDR unexpectedly moved the US Pacific Fleet to a new Oahu homeport in June of 1940, the Japanese MIGHT have reacted to such a thinly veiled threat by doing all that they could to speed Yamato's completion. Just in case their "Decisive Battle" with the American's Pacific Fleet arrived more quickly than they had planned on.

An accelerated Yamato schedule could thus have begun long before Yamamoto was able to force his Oahu attack order thru the IJN's higher command.

Transfering EXPERIENCED gunners from older IJN battleships such as the Nagato (which was scheduled to remain in a very distant support role in th Bonin Islands on Dec.7'41) should have eliminated at least two months worth (March 30'42 - May 27'42) of the historical Yamato "operational date" delay. Thus leaving about 4 months to be shaved off of her construction schedule if she was to be declared "combat ready" (not just commissioned) by November 27'41 so as to be able to sail from Hitokappu Bay, Kuriles with the historical Kido Butai carrier strike force.

Thus some 22 months (June 1940 - March 1942) worth of originally scheduled construction and sea trials time would have to be done in just 18 month's (June 1940 - November 1941) time instead. A 19% time reduction to be compensated for by a nearly 100% increase in construction manpower and an earlier that historical start to her crew's training.

All because FDR wouldn't heed Adm.Richardson's concerns about re-basing the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, rather than at San Diego.

I've never built a battleship and so don't know if a 19% schedule speed-up can realistically be accomplished with a nearly 100% increase in manpower. But if I had to place a bet on that outcome, I'd guess that yes, such could be squeezed into 18 months instead of 22.

Photographs of the Yamoto going down with Honolulu in the back ground on 8 Dec would certainly change the morale equation. having it dead in the water or beached would be even more interesting.
Very patriotically spoken Carl.

I'd suppose so but the historical Japanese eargerly took on that same risk with the 6 carriers and 2 battlecruisers of the Kido Butai, didn't they. And we all know how that turned out for them by the end of Dec.7'41. In fact, having the huge and well armored Yamato along as a "bomb & torpedo magnet" might serve to further protect those 6 fragile KB carriers, if the defending Americans "got lucky" and located the Kido Butai for attack. Yamato was far better equipped to withstand the 1941 vintage small bombs and faulty US torpedoes than were those 6 IJN carrier decks.

As Midway so well demonstrated some 6 months later.

You are neglecting or forgetting a number of important necessaries in the life of any major warship, ie. the all important "shake down cruise" and sea trials that could take up to six months duration to ensure that both crew and ship were truly ready to go to sea and if necessary, do battle with an enemy. Shake down cruises put both ship and crew through a number of drills to see how both would behave both in battle, after experiencing damage, or even in a heavy sea.

Also, simply taking one crew off a battleship and putting them onto another won't cut it, because although they are both batleships, they are completely different and will require extensive crew training in order to attain the needed level of proficiency to sustain everyday operations, as well as battle.

robdab
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 16:45
Location: Canada

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#27

Post by robdab » 24 Sep 2009, 04:26

.
johnbyran, thanks for your reply to which I respond below,

You are neglecting or forgetting a number of important necessaries in the life of any major warship, ie. the all important "shake down cruise" and sea trials that could take up to six months duration to ensure that both crew and ship were truly ready to go to sea and if necessary, do battle with an enemy. Shake down cruises put both ship and crew through a number of drills to see how both would behave both in battle, after experiencing damage, or even in a heavy sea.

As I thought that I explained in my previous posting, I assume that providing Yamato with at least a core group of experienced IJN battleship gunners should help to elminate the two month long period of extra gunnery training that was historicaly required when the Yamato's new gunnery crew failed her long range gunnery trials on March 30'42.

Because of that single gunnery failure she was not declared "fit for combt" until May 27'42, just in time for Midway. Please remember though that the rest of her crew had already had 4 months of training for combat, at the same time as that failed gunnery training had been underway. Just because a gunner or two misread a range dial doesn't mean that the remainder of the crew wasn't fit and ready to fight their ship. It just means that one or two men failed under the pressure of having Admiral Yamamoto himself on board to witness their gunnery trials. Perhaps if he had NOT been on board on that day ...

Completing the ship's construction 4 months earlier than the historical Dec.16'41 date would still give the same historical 4 month long "sea trials", "shakedown cruises", drills and crew training time period that was needed in the real world, according to Combinedfleet.com

The principle question still remains, could 22 months of remaining battleship construction schedule be further compressed into 18 months, by doubling the number of skilled warship contruction workers ? I continue to believe, yes.

Also, simply taking one crew off a battleship and putting them onto another won't cut it, because although they are both batleships, they are completely different and will require extensive crew training in order to attain the needed level of proficiency to sustain everyday operations, as well as battle.

I'm not suggested that a direct transfer of an entire battleship's crew since that would leave an older IJN battleship stranded, crewless, at the start of the Pacific War, just when Japan needed all of the warships that she could get. Exactly the reason for accelerating the Yamato's construction schedule which WAS historically done anyway according to page #54 of:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=TAyRtKK ... ng&f=false

Rather, some experienced crewmen would be contributed by each of the IJN battleships then afloat to form a training cadre of "old salts" to speed the training of Yamato's new crew. It is MUCH easier/faster for an experienced pilot to "qualify" on a new aircraft type, than it is to train a "green" pilot, from scratch, to fly it effectively in combat. The same would be true for experienced 16" gunners from IJN battleships Nagato & Mutsu who were upgrading to 18" guns, rather than training an entire new gunnery crew of raw recruits. i'm sure that there would have been differences but at least the "old salts" in charge of the small groups of raw gunners would have a solid understanding of gunnery basics and effective training techniques.

johnbryan
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 03 Apr 2002, 23:36
Location: Holly, Michigan, USA

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#28

Post by johnbryan » 24 Sep 2009, 07:15

johnbyran, thanks for your reply to which I respond below,

You are neglecting or forgetting a number of important necessaries in the life of any major warship, ie. the all important "shake down cruise" and sea trials that could take up to six months duration to ensure that both crew and ship were truly ready to go to sea and if necessary, do battle with an enemy. Shake down cruises put both ship and crew through a number of drills to see how both would behave both in battle, after experiencing damage, or even in a heavy sea.

As I thought that I explained in my previous posting, I assume that providing Yamato with at least a core group of experienced IJN battleship gunners should help to elminate the two month long period of extra gunnery training that was historicaly required when the Yamato's new gunnery crew failed her long range gunnery trials on March 30'42.

Nevertheless, bringing a battleship's crew to maximum fighting proficiency is but one facet of their overall training. There are many other time consuming tests to overcome, ranging from coping with simple sea sickness to every day sailing operations, to dealing with battle damage. At the same time, the design of the ship itself must be tested to see how it will behave after taking damage ranging from enemy shell hits, to bomb strikes, or more importantly, torpedo damage. The overall sea trials show how the ship will behave in a major storm, with a major list, or after propellor damage also must be taken into account. All of these tests must be taken before a ship be judged worthy of naval operations.

Because of that single gunnery failure she was not declared "fit for combt" until May 27'42, just in time for Midway. Please remember though that the rest of her crew had already had 4 months of training for combat, at the same time as that failed gunnery training had been underway. Just because a gunner or two misread a range dial doesn't mean that the remainder of the crew wasn't fit and ready to fight their ship. It just means that one or two men failed under the pressure of having Admiral Yamamoto himself on board to witness their gunnery trials. Perhaps if he had NOT been on board on that day ...

Your words only prove that if a vitally important part of the crew fail in their mission, through lack of hands-on, familiarization training, the entire crew fails in their mission.

Completing the ship's construction 4 months earlier than the historical Dec.16'41 date would still give the same historical 4 month long "sea trials", "shakedown cruises", drills and crew training time period that was needed in the real world, according to Combinedfleet.com

The principle question still remains, could 22 months of remaining battleship construction schedule be further compressed into 18 months, by doubling the number of skilled warship contruction workers ? I continue to believe, yes.

If that were so, then the Bismarck and Tirpitz would have taken an active role in Opeation Sealion. Keep in mind also that the HMS Prince of Wales was almost sunk on her maiden voyage by the Bismarck because she had not yet passed all of her virification trials and still had construction workers aboard, trying to make her battle ready in the midst of her first battle.

Also, simply taking one crew off a battleship and putting them onto another won't cut it, because although they are both batleships, they are completely different and will require extensive crew training in order to attain the needed level of proficiency to sustain everyday operations, as well as battle.

I'm not suggested that a direct transfer of an entire battleship's crew since that would leave an older IJN battleship stranded, crewless, at the start of the Pacific War, just when Japan needed all of the warships that she could get. Exactly the reason for accelerating the Yamato's construction schedule which WAS historically done anyway according to page #54 of:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=TAyRtKK ... ng&f=false

Rather, some experienced crewmen would be contributed by each of the IJN battleships then afloat to form a training cadre of "old salts" to speed the training of Yamato's new crew. It is MUCH easier/faster for an experienced pilot to "qualify" on a new aircraft type, than it is to train a "green" pilot, from scratch, to fly it effectively in combat. The same would be true for experienced 16" gunners from IJN battleships Nagato & Mutsu who were upgrading to 18" guns, rather than training an entire new gunnery crew of raw recruits. i'm sure that there would have been differences but at least the "old salts" in charge of the small groups of raw gunners would have a solid understanding of gunnery basics and effective training techniques.

[All crews of all warships of the embattled nations in WWII commonly had cadres of "old Salts" shipping out with green crews to provide those crews with much needed leavening and experience amassed through long years of personal experience.

robdab
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 16:45
Location: Canada

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#29

Post by robdab » 24 Sep 2009, 18:10

.
johnbyran, what point exactly are you geting at ?

Nevertheless, bringing a battleship's crew to maximum fighting proficiency is but one facet of their overall training. There are many other time consuming tests to overcome, ranging from coping with simple sea sickness to every day sailing operations, to dealing with battle damage. At the same time, the design of the ship itself must be tested to see how it will behave after taking damage ranging from enemy shell hits, to bomb strikes, or more importantly, torpedo damage. The overall sea trials show how the ship will behave in a major storm, with a major list, or after propellor damage also must be taken into account. All of these tests must be taken before a ship be judged worthy of naval operations.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your items but I do not understand what point it is that you are trying to make ?

Historically the Japanese planned for some 4 months of crew training from her commissioning date of Dec.16'41, which was to end with her firing tests on March 30'42. Yamato failed that firing test and so had to undergo another two months of training before being declared combat ready. Please note that being declared Yamamoto's new flagship as of Feb.12'42 cannot have helped with that training process and in a rushed completion scenario such as I have propsed, need not have been done.

From the Yamato's TROM at combinedfleet.com we know that Yamato historically began her sea trials on August 12 '41and her fitting out began on Sept 5 '41. Those aspects of her acceptance process were already DONE during the 4 months BEFORE she was commissioned on Dec.16 '41, not afterwards as you seem to be suggesting. Correction of deficiencies found during those sea trials was done at Kure, between Dec.21'41 and Feb.10'42, within that planned 4 month training period.

Your words only prove that if a vitally important part of the crew fail in their mission, through lack of hands-on, familiarization training, the entire crew fails in their mission.

Not if the Oahu mission does not include over the horizon firing at American targets some 23 miles away. LOL. Everything else, they successfully passed testing on.

If that were so, then the Bismarck and Tirpitz would have taken an active role in Opeation Sealion. Keep in mind also that the HMS Prince of Wales was almost sunk on her maiden voyage by the Bismarck because she had not yet passed all of her virification trials and still had construction workers aboard, trying to make her battle ready in the midst of her first battle.

But that is not at all the situation that I suggest for Yamato. Historically her sea trials began on August 12 '41 but by shifting most of Mushashi's shipyard workers over to Yamato, I believe that she could have begun her sea trials on April 12 '41 instead. Some 8 months before the planned Pearl Harbor attack date. Lots of crew training time.

In the Bismarck/PoW reality it was the German's who set the schedule, with the British running to catch-up by sending the PoW to sea with civilian welders still working on board, as a result. In my scenario it is the Japanese who are firmly in control of the Oahu surprise attack schedule, not the Americans. The reverse situation to that of your German/British example.

[All crews of all warships of the embattled nations in WWII commonly had cadres of "old Salts" shipping out with green crews to provide those crews with much needed leavening and experience amassed through long years of personal experience.

I don't think it unreasonable to assume that had Japan previously decided to send it's newest (and ancient national namesake) battleship off on a 6,800 nmile surprise raid on Hawaii, that a few MORE than usual numbers of veteran sailors (and even saltier "old salts" at that) would have gone along. With the time pressure of a fast approaching Kido Butai departure date, any gunner who misread a horizontal range dial would have been displaced instantly by another even more experienced replacement, already on board.

In the real history, the Japanese had the luxury of not having to push hard for Yamato's completion because she was intended only to fulfill a reserve function until the date of the final "Decisive Battle" dawned. She could spend days tied to a wharf as Yamamoto's flagship while wargames were played on board, rather than being out at sea on combat training cruises.

In my Oahu scenario they would have been pushing both the warship and it's new crew as hard as was humanly possible instead, so that she would perform honorably on her first combat mission, Hawaii.

The principle question still remains, could 22 months of remaining battleship construction schedule be further compressed into 18 months, by doubling the number of skilled warship contruction workers ? I continue to believe, yes.

johnbryan
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 03 Apr 2002, 23:36
Location: Holly, Michigan, USA

Re: Alternative story for the battleship Yamato???

#30

Post by johnbryan » 24 Sep 2009, 20:12

I don't believe that your scenerio is workable for the above stated reasons.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”