Yamato in San Francisco

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Yamato in San Francisco

Post by fontessa » 30 Oct 2021 05:10

高い城の男 The Man in the High Castle was a SF (Sience Fiction) wrretn by Philip Kindred Dick in 1962. Note it was published 59 years ago. In 1963, it received the highly acclaimed and prestigious Hugo Award for Best Novel. This is a virtual history depicting the United States, which was defeated in World War II and was divided and ruled by Germany and Japan. This setting is maybe unpopular with Americans. I also felt not much confortable. The movie was distributed by Amazon Prime Video. Yamato passes through the Golden Gate Bridge appears just a little in a part of Episode 2 of the third season. Only this scene is good. But as expected, it was unpopular in the United States, and the movie ended in the fourth season.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MxGGrbhmO8


高い城の男.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ijnfleetadmiral
Member
Posts: 2796
Joined: 19 Feb 2012 19:37
Location: Corinth, MS

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by ijnfleetadmiral » 30 Oct 2021 05:25

That was probably the best scene in the whole series. I like to think it was a nod to all of us IJN enthusiasts out there who yearned to see a 1950s-60s IJN. Given YAMATO's following, what was the reaction to this scene in Japan?
SFC, MS State Guard - First Always!

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by fontessa » 30 Oct 2021 18:57

Hello ijnfleetadmiral,
ijnfleetadmiral wrote:
30 Oct 2021 05:25
That was probably the best scene in the whole series. I like to think it was a nod to all of us IJN enthusiasts out there who yearned to see a 1950s-60s IJN. Given YAMATO's following, what was the reaction to this scene in Japan?
Amazon Prime Video has only about 5 million users in Japan. Ratings for "The Man in the High Castle" vary from one star to five stars. The You Tube Video I quoted was uploaded three years ago and is currently accessed around 9,400. Unfortunately, it hasn't become very popular.

fontessa

Teitoku
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 24 Oct 2020 23:14
Location: Spain

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by Teitoku » 31 Oct 2021 21:19

I saw her during quarantine. For me a 7/10. Some good scenes:
https://youtu.be/8ZCaDzq-kjQ
https://youtu.be/QburByLi_KU
I like that the personality of the Navy was open to dialogue and moderate against the extremism of the Army as it really happened.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by fontessa » 01 Nov 2021 02:29

Teitoku wrote:
31 Oct 2021 21:19
I saw her during quarantine. For me a 7/10. Some good scenes:
https://youtu.be/8ZCaDzq-kjQ
https://youtu.be/QburByLi_KU
I like that the personality of the Navy was open to dialogue and moderate against the extremism of the Army as it really happened.
Thanks!

fontessa

Fatboy Coxy
Member
Posts: 715
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 16:14
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by Fatboy Coxy » 04 Nov 2021 10:35

I watched all four seasons, and found it quite enjoyable, some things were quite reasonable to take forward as a basis for an alternative future. I didn't understand why Japan was so desperate for oil though, i would have thought that the capture of the Dutch East Indies would have satisfied their needs.

Regards
Fatboy Coxy
Regards
Fatboy Coxy

Currently writing https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/ ... if.521982/

User avatar
ijnfleetadmiral
Member
Posts: 2796
Joined: 19 Feb 2012 19:37
Location: Corinth, MS

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by ijnfleetadmiral » 04 Nov 2021 10:55

Fatboy Coxy wrote:
04 Nov 2021 10:35
I didn't understand why Japan was so desperate for oil though, i would have thought that the capture of the Dutch East Indies would have satisfied their needs.
From one of the episodes, it showed a plan on the wall that contained most of the Combined Fleet. They were running all five YAMATO-class ships. I imagine that might’ve been a contributing factor, just a little, as to why they were so desperate for oil. :lol: YAMATO and MUSASHI were notorious gas hogs; hence why they spent much of the war at anchor.
SFC, MS State Guard - First Always!

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by fontessa » 06 Nov 2021 08:14

Fatboy Coxy wrote:
04 Nov 2021 10:35
I didn't understand why Japan was so desperate for oil though, i would have thought that the capture of the Dutch East Indies would have satisfied their needs.
Indeed, Japan cleverly captured the Dutch East Indies. However, the route to Japan was blocked by US Navy submarines, so could not carry enough crude oil to Japan.
ijnfleetadmiral wrote:
04 Nov 2021 10:55
YAMATO and MUSASHI were notorious gas hogs; hence why they spent much of the war at anchor.
There is the site which calculated "fuel efficiency" of IJN ships from the released data. According to it Yamato and Musashi were not necessarily "gas hogs". The battlefield was not what was expected when Yamato and Musashi were built, and IJN could not find the place to use them. In other words, IJN valued them too much.
https://www.savag.net/low-fuel-consumpt ... 9%E3%80%82
Akagi: 0.395t / km
Kongo: 0.349t / km
Ymato: 0.2662t / km
Fuso: 0.233t / km
Zuikaku: 0.223t / km
Tone: 0.154t / km
Nagara: 0.135t / km
Asasho: 0.068t / km
Kagero: 0.067t / km

fontessa

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1048
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 16:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by Eugen Pinak » 08 Nov 2021 12:18

fontessa wrote:
06 Nov 2021 08:14
Fatboy Coxy wrote:
04 Nov 2021 10:35
I didn't understand why Japan was so desperate for oil though, i would have thought that the capture of the Dutch East Indies would have satisfied their needs.
Indeed, Japan cleverly captured the Dutch East Indies. However, the route to Japan was blocked by US Navy submarines, so could not carry enough crude oil to Japan.
ijnfleetadmiral wrote:
04 Nov 2021 10:55
YAMATO and MUSASHI were notorious gas hogs; hence why they spent much of the war at anchor.
There is the site which calculated "fuel efficiency" of IJN ships from the released data. According to it Yamato and Musashi were not necessarily "gas hogs". The battlefield was not what was expected when Yamato and Musashi were built, and IJN could not find the place to use them. In other words, IJN valued them too much.
https://www.savag.net/low-fuel-consumpt ... 9%E3%80%82
Akagi: 0.395t / km
Kongo: 0.349t / km
Ymato: 0.2662t / km
Fuso: 0.233t / km
Zuikaku: 0.223t / km
Tone: 0.154t / km
Nagara: 0.135t / km
Asasho: 0.068t / km
Kagero: 0.067t / km

fontessa
Very interesting data. Thank you once again, Fontessa.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3372
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by Takao » 15 Nov 2021 12:37

fontessa wrote:
06 Nov 2021 08:14
Fatboy Coxy wrote:
04 Nov 2021 10:35
I didn't understand why Japan was so desperate for oil though, i would have thought that the capture of the Dutch East Indies would have satisfied their needs.
Indeed, Japan cleverly captured the Dutch East Indies. However, the route to Japan was blocked by US Navy submarines, so could not carry enough crude oil to Japan.
ijnfleetadmiral wrote:
04 Nov 2021 10:55
YAMATO and MUSASHI were notorious gas hogs; hence why they spent much of the war at anchor.
There is the site which calculated "fuel efficiency" of IJN ships from the released data. According to it Yamato and Musashi were not necessarily "gas hogs". The battlefield was not what was expected when Yamato and Musashi were built, and IJN could not find the place to use them. In other words, IJN valued them too much.
https://www.savag.net/low-fuel-consumpt ... 9%E3%80%82
Akagi: 0.395t / km
Kongo: 0.349t / km
Ymato: 0.2662t / km
Fuso: 0.233t / km
Zuikaku: 0.223t / km
Tone: 0.154t / km
Nagara: 0.135t / km
Asasho: 0.068t / km
Kagero: 0.067t / km

fontessa
Fontessa,

Could you provide some clarification on the fuel consumption rates, such as propeller RPM or ship speed.

As you can see here;
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/re ... el-BB.html
Fuel consumption varies greatly as speed increases.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by fontessa » 16 Nov 2021 13:47

Hello Takao,
Takao wrote:
15 Nov 2021 12:37
Could you provide some clarification on the fuel consumption rates, such as propeller RPM or ship speed.

As you can see here;
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/re ... el-BB.html
Fuel consumption varies greatly as speed increases.
I found the data below;
Note "fuel efficiency" is the reciprocal of my previous post.

2nd - 4th picture’s data were based on 艦船燃料消費量及航続距離調査票 (艦政本部第4部) Ship Fuel Consumption and Cruising Range Survey Sheets edited by Ship Administration Headquarters 4th Department (Boilers and turbines Manufacturing). It corrected Official Trial Data as 1st Picture. But we can not see it in Tokyo.

燃料消費 大和級.jpg

燃料消費 金剛級.jpg

燃料消費 扶桑級 伊勢級.jpg

燃料消費 長門級.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3372
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by Takao » 17 Nov 2021 03:19

fontessa,

Many thanks for that information.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by fontessa » 18 Dec 2021 13:39

fontessa wrote:
06 Nov 2021 08:14
There is the site which calculated "fuel efficiency" of IJN ships from the released data. According to it Yamato and Musashi were not necessarily "gas hogs". The battlefield was not what was expected when Yamato and Musashi were built, and IJN could not find the place to use them. In other words, IJN valued them too much.
https://www.savag.net/low-fuel-consumpt ... 9%E3%80%82
Akagi: 0.395t / km
Kongo: 0.349t / km
Ymato: 0.2662t / km
Fuso: 0.233t / km
Zuikaku: 0.223t / km
Tone: 0.154t / km
Nagara: 0.135t / km
Asasho: 0.068t / km
Kagero: 0.067t / km

fontessa
Aside from fuel economy, it took 6,000 tons of heavy oil to fill Yamato's fuel tank. This would have been a heavy burden for the heavy oil stockpile of Truck Atoll stored in three heavy oil tanks with a capacity of 10,000 tons. Moreover, the IJN suffered from a serious shortage of tankers, so all tanks were far from full. So it is correct that ijnfleetadmiral said "Yamato and Musashi were notorious gas hogs". As a result, Yamato and Musashi could hardly move from the anchoring area and were ridiculed as "Yamato Hotel" and "Musashi Palace" by the crew of other ships who were driven into a tough battle.

The 1st Picture is the famous photo shows Yamato and Musashi in the anchoring area between Natsushima and Harushima. Yamato and Musashi differed in detail. The distinguishing point on the exterior was the "opening angle" of the rear mast - Musashi was wide and Yamato was narrow. The Admiral Flag was not displayed on the rear mast of flagship Musashi. This indicated that the Combined Fleet Commanding Officer had left her. By the way, IJN restricted the meaning of the term “Flag Ship”. In this case, “Flag” meant Admiral Flag, Vice Admiral Flag, or Rear Admiral Flag. The 2nd picture shows them. For the Destroyer Division commanded by a CAPT or a CDR, the ships they boarded were called a "司令駆逐艦 Leading Destroyer" rather than a "Flag Ship." And it was said that aircraft carriers could train take-off and landing in the wide-area on the north side without worrying about enemy submarines.

The 58th Task Force (Commanded by VADM Marc A. Mitscher with 9 aircraft carriers and 590 airplanes) stormed the Truck Atoll on February 17 and 18, 1944, causing very large damage to the IJN to make it decide to withdraw from there. The 3rd Picture shows Natsujima. Adding to the existing 3 heavy oil tanks, 2 were under construction. All these were destroyed. The 4th picture shows Natsujima under attack. We can see heavy oil tanks with fire smoke. After it, IJN Combined Fleet retreated to Lingga Ancorage, safe and rich in heavy oil, but far from the battlefield. The 5th Picture shows the position of Lingga Ancorage. It was too far.


大和 武蔵 トラック.jpg

大和_将官旗.jpg

夏島.jpg

夏島 重油タンク.jpg

リンガ泊地.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by fontessa » 29 Dec 2021 06:21

In 1935, when the withdrawal from the London Naval Treaty was confirmed, the study of “Ship 140”, which corresponded to the non-treaty era, began. By the time the design was finalized in 1937, 23 design proposals were considered. I would like to show some of them here. IJN, which had been forced to be numerically inferior to Britain and the United States under the disarmament treaty, always aimed for superior performance of individual ships. For “A-140”, the caliber of the main gun was chosen as 46 cm, which was "difficult to operate by US Navy." This was because the battleship with 46 cm guns could not pass through the Panama Canal - to be exact, the lock. As shown in the first picture, the lock was barely wide enough for a battleship with 40 cm guns to pass through. Especially in Missouri, the US Navy seems to have been forced to make great efforts to pass through the locks. That is why IJN decided to build battleships with 46 cm guns, judging that "US Navy will not build them."

Plan Number
The Plan Number assigned was “A-140”.
A for battleships
A-64: Fuso class
A-91: Ise class original
A-92: Ise class
A-102: Nagato class original
A-114: Nagato class
A-127: Kaga class (Battleship)
A-140: Yamato class original
B for Battle Cruisers
B-46: Kongo class
B-64: Amagi class
C for cruisers
C-26: Tenryu class
C-33: Tama class
C-37: Mogami class
C-38: Tone class
C-41: Agano class
C-42: Oyodo class
C-46: Ibuki class

A-104
The required performance from the Naval General Staff to the 4th Department of Shipping Administration HQ was as follows.
- Main gun: 8 or more 46 cm guns
- Secondary armament: 12 15 cm guns or 8 20 cm guns
- Speed: 30 knots or more
- Cruising range: 8,000 nautical miles at 18 knots
- Armor: Full defense against 46 cm bullets within a range of 20-35 km
- Torpedo protection: Can withstand at least 300 kg of charge
In response to this, CAPT FUKUDA Keiji 福田啓二 (S.B. 1914), the chief planner, put together “A-140” as a starting point. Like the Royal Navy's Nelson class battleship, it
three main turrets were concentrated in front. It was his favorite ship shape.

A-104A
The Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff requested A-140 to use a diesel engine together to save fuel and responded accordingly. The main gun was three 50 calibers 46 cm triple turrets. This gun height was maintained until it was later reduced to 45 calibers on the "A-140G". The blue letters in the upper right indicate the performance.
Line 1: Main gun
2nd line: size, Length x Width x Draft
3rd line: Maximum Speed / Engine Power and Cruising Range / Cruising Speed

A-104B2
An orthodox arrangement in which two main turrets were distributed to the front and back as Nagato class battleship.

A-140G
”G” of “A-140G” meant it was the proposal from the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff. The A-104As and A-04Bs were supposed to have a barrel of 50 calibers. However, due to weight reduction, it was reduced to 45 caliber. Further slowdowns were tolerated, and the A-140G became the basis for future designs.

A-140G1-A
”G” of “A-140G1-A” meant it was also the proposal from the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff. Following the design of the "A-140G", "A-140G1-A" was born as a design proposal to make it even smaller.

A-140I
HIRAGA Yuzuru 平賀穣 (S.B.1901) was transferred to reserve in 1931, but still had a great influence on Naval Shipment Administration HQ. He did not agree with Fukuda's "concentration of all main turrets". “A-140I” was his private proposal. In it, He distributed the main turrets to each of the front and rear of Triple x 1 and Dall x 1 turrets. This meant that the Navy had to make two types of turrets, which was questionable in terms of cost-effectiveness. And the number of secondary gun turrets was reduced to 2. There was also a question as to whether it could be achieved within the proposed size and weight.

A-140F
“F” of “A-140F” meant the proposal of FUKUDA Keiji. He approached “A-140I” and assigned the main turrets to 2 at the front and 1 at the rear. And the number of secondary gun turrets backed to 4. At this point, the Yamato shipshape we are accustomed showed up.

A-140F5
After obtaining some variants based on "A-140F", "A-140F5" was finalized as the final plan.

A-140F6
No, there was one more big change left. Until now, the engines were a mixture of turbine and diesel, but due to concerns about the reliability of a diesel, IJN changed to only a single turbine with "A-140F6".

On August 21, 1937, the Minister of the Imperial Japanese Navy issued “the first ship” manufacturing instruction "Secretariat Secret No. 3301". The construction of her started on November 4, 1937. On March 3, 1940, the Navy named "Yamato" and "Shinano" as candidates for the ship name of “the first ship”, and on March 6, Emperor selected "Yamato". After the official test performed on October 18, 1941, Yamato was commissioned on December 16, 1941.


大和 パナマ運河.jpg

大和 (案) 0.jpg

大和 (案) 1.jpg

大和 (案) 2.jpg


大和 (案) 3.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by fontessa on 29 Dec 2021 06:36, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: Yamato in San Francisco

Post by fontessa » 29 Dec 2021 06:26

I would like to show “Post Yamato”.

Yamato class battleships were;
1st ship: Yamato
2nd ship Musashi
3rd ship: Shinano
4th ship: Not named (Tentative number 111)
5th ship: Not named (Tentative number 797)
6th ship: Not named (Tentative number 798)
7th ship: Not named (Tentative number 799)
The construction of 5th - 7th ships was decided with the 5th Navy Arms Enhancement Plan (1940).

Yamato 大和
The construction of the 3rd ship Shinano and the 4th ship (Tentative number 111) was planned to follow Yamato’s design. Of course, I know that actually Shinano was converted into an aircraft carrier and the 4th ship (Tentative number 111) was not started.

Modified Yamato 改大和
The construction of the 5th ship (Tentative number 797) was planned according to Modified Yamato’s design. Major modified points were;
(1) AA Guns was changed from Type89 40 caliber 12.7 cm to Type 98 65 caliber 10 cm
(2) The number of Secondary Gun Turrets was reduced to 2 from 4

A-150 Super Yamato 超大和
The construction of the 6th and 7th ships (Tentative numbers 798 and 799) was planned according to Super Yamato’s design. For the time being, the Plan Number was given as A-150, but the specifications were close to the desire.
(1) The main gun has changed from a triple 45 caliber 46 cm to a triple 45 caliber 51 cm.
(2) No secondary gun turrets (No space for them)
(3) Same AA Gun System as Modified Yamato

Harima 播磨
This is a complete delusion told in the novel “Red Sun Black Cross” by writer 佐藤大輔Sato Daisuke, big battleship lover. Harima was the monster in 1950 of his novel world. I would like to post about him later.

Attachment
AHF allows us to paste up to 5 images in a single post. There is still room, so I would like to attach the summary table of 23 tentative plans for A-140. Red squares show the plans I have attached their pictures to my previous post.


改大和.jpg

超大和.jpg

大和_播磨.jpg

大和 A-140 推移.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”