Mushasi & Yamato special AA weapon

[ChristopherPerrien]

There is no indication that that Type 3's driving bands were any more injurious than those of any other shell. There is no indication that the shells were improperly balanced or that they caused unusual wear to the barrels. The fuze was not especially quick, and I have not found any mention of any shell prematuring (except for the bomb-induced detonation, which itself may be a bit of misinformation).
Is there any source other than Shiro Hosoya claiming that he overheard something about damage to the barrels? I keep thinking we're discussing something for which there is no evidence.

I don't know Tiornu. The shell was "experimental" and they talk of 600 steel stays just to hold the multitude of phophorus bombs. If even one of these stays failed or anything else happened upon firing, the effect on the shell through centrifigal force would be substancial. I have seen 4" shells take a 30 degree turn upon leaving the barrell of a gun, because a driving band failed, and to see it, it is quite "amusing". On bigger rifled guns, the effect that such an "accident" has on the wear of a barrell is not something that any gunnery expert would want to see.

Chris

[Tiornu]

The shell was "experimental" and they talk of 600 steel stays just to hold the multitude of phophorus bombs.

The shell was not experimental, having been in service with the fleet for two years before the Leyte Gulf. Kongo fired a hundred rounds in one night alone in Oct 1942 without any apparent problems. In fact, the total number of Type 3's fired during the war probably exceeds the number of 46cm AP shells--so which shell is the known quantity?

I have seen 4" shells take a 30 degree turn upon leaving the barrell of a gun, because a driving band failed, and to see it, it is quite "amusing".

It's interesting that you mention a 4-incher, because when I think of driving band problems, I think of the old 4in gun aboard American flushdeckers. It had a reputation for throwings its bands and for coppering the barrel.

So any damage to the bores at all must have been considered meaningful.

There's also a possiblity that the barrels were not the issue at all. It may be that the overheard, misunderstood remark had to do with saving the shells rather than the guns. Musashi was set up to use Type 0 HE shells as AA weapons, but to have done so would have prevented their use in the expected subsequent action with surface targets. The Type 3 was an AA weapon with little use against ships and little more against ground targets. We have to view reminiscences with a critical eye; after all, some testimony would have us believe Musashi's big guns opened fire very early in the fight. This would be no surprise, since the skipper had put a lot of thought into the best use of his AA assets and was supremely disappointed when, early on, his main battery director got knocked out. Why such concern if he didn't want to use his main guns in AA fire?