identical ships - why?

[captainsmirk]

Well the British Victory at Gibraltar during the War of Spanish Succession was apparently helped in no small fashion by a Spanish sailor walking into the main magazine of the fort at Gibraltar with a lit match...

Can anyone say "KABOOM!"?


Nick

 

[Myrm]

No matter how much you try you simply can never ever completely overtake the human abilty to do the truely stupid at the wrong time

 

[brimax2]

Allow me to "pile on" along with DM and Fitzwalrus. If you want a laugh Chern, look up the Yamato :wink: . It is listed with Iowas stats of 45,000 tons standard displacement and armed with 9-16" guns. This was of course due to the incomplete intelligence of the Allies and the well-kept secret of the Yamato and Musashi's true capabilities. Like said before, it's fun to look at what was thought at the time and then go to the Conway's for the "true facts".

I don't know what version of "Jane's" you are referring to, but the one I have lists the Yamato with 9 18" guns with a displacement of69,990 tons fully loaded.

I would post the page, but not sure if that would fall into the fair use law.

 

[BuShips]

Allow me to "pile on" along with DM and Fitzwalrus. If you want a laugh Chern, look up the Yamato :wink: . It is listed with Iowas stats of 45,000 tons standard displacement and armed with 9-16" guns. This was of course due to the incomplete intelligence of the Allies and the well-kept secret of the Yamato and Musashi's true capabilities. Like said before, it's fun to look at what was thought at the time and then go to the Conway's for the "true facts".

I don't know what version of "Jane's" you are referring to, but the one I have lists the Yamato with 9 18" guns with a displacement of69,990 tons fully loaded.

I would post the page, but not sure if that would fall into the fair use law.

I haven't looked at my copy in many (many!) years, but I think it was a Jane's reprint (unaltered from the original) and was the 1944-45 dated edition very likely. No one knew the true statistics of the Yamato class except a few inside of Japan. What I'm saying is that it was a secret well-kept during the war years, as was the Japanese type 93 24" torpedo. I'd be very curious what the stated year of perspective of your copy is (and not necessarily the printing date). If the ship is listed as what you stated, it should be a later published edition that was looking "over its shoulder" at past history at what was only known after Yamato, Musashi and Shinano were long settled on the seabed of the Pacific. The Japanese really did an excellent job of "stealth-construction" as a 400 ton camouflage net was utilized to mask snooping eyes on the Musashi and part of the dockyard was roofed over for the Yamato. A purpose-built cargo ship was made from the keel up in order to move the massive triple 18.1" turrets to be mounted to the ship without being seen. Their own public was told the names of the ships were for other ships that were being built (iirc cruisers). Really, it was quite an accomplishment and they fooled the world. To bad the aircraft carrier made them into dinosaurs.

 

[DM]

I don't know what version of "Jane's" you are referring to, but the one I have lists the Yamato with 9 18" guns with a displacement of69,990 tons fully loaded.

What version of Janes have you got?

 

[BuShips]

I don't know what version of "Jane's" you are referring to, but the one I have lists the Yamato with 9 18" guns with a displacement of69,990 tons fully loaded.

What version of Janes have you got?

Why, the "revised" edition of course :wink:. I'm being a bit silly :roll:. I know, you are asking the "year" or at the very least the publishing date. I'm pretty sure mine was the 1944-45 edition, with all of the charming trivia left intact.

 

[brimax2]

The "Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II" I have came as a two book set, the other book dealing with the airplanes of WWII. The reprint copyright date is 1989, but the original was 1946/1947.

The editors note says "This volume is reproduced from the 1946/47 aditio of Jane's Fighting Ships, which was the first wholly uncensored issue of this famous book to appear following the opening of hostilities in 1939."

Also he claims, "However, this volume does represent the best compendium of informationon the navies of the world at the time of first publication."

Now I have only seen the WWII issue of Conways one time, but I don't believe it was filled with as much info as Janes.

 

[BuShips]

brimax2, imho Conway's trumps Jane's hands down. The date on your edition makes sense, as the publisher had access finally to the info from all nations, with secrets finally revealed. My edition (reprint as well) was one edition back, with only allied guesses to fill the Yamato pages with. If you can get a copy cheaply enough, I'd suggest it as a great companion to your current volume. I might reverse that advice for myself, and start looking for the 1946-47 edition as a companion to mine.

edit for spelling...

 

[brimax2]

I have already looked for Conways online, but couldnt find it. Not even powells has that edition. I know there is a pretty big used book store in LA, but cant remember the name of it.

 

[BuShips]

I have already looked for Conways online, but couldnt find it. Not even powells has that edition. I know there is a pretty big used book store in LA, but cant remember the name of it.

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1860-1905
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906-1921
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1922-1946
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1947-1995

I did a search on Powell's site, and found a range from $60.00-$80.00 (used). Perhaps if you used the text above for the search words it might help you out. Remember, these are worth the price :wink:

I own the middle two, as they cover the period that I am most endeared with. Good luck in your quest! I'd even find a way to put library-quality (acid free) jacket protectors on them. I did and mine have aged quite well since I got them in the early 80's .

 

[Chernobyl]

According to ONI 41-42 Japanese Naval Vessels (dated Nov 9 1942)
Yamato and Musashi are listed as BB-11 and 12 respectively, of unknown or unique class.

Tosa and Owari are listed as 13 and 14, and as "reported building"

There are no silhouettes given in the section for the BBs under "N _ _ Notes" pretty sad to see racial slurs like that used in official documents back then, but maybe I shouldn't be suprised...

Under Japanese naval ordanance,

Tosa, Owari, Musashi, Yamato, they're incicated to have 9 main guns, a nominal bore of 16", caliber is left blank, actual bore is listed as "16" ?"
there is lots of information there for other ships - range at certain angles, penetration, muzzle velocity, but the yamato appears to be unknown at this time.

Chern

*edited for content* sorry folks don't mean to offend!

 

[BuShips]

Thanks Chern. It looks like you are getting some use out of your ONI CDs, heh :wink:. As far as racial slurs, for me I make a conscious effort to always spell out "Japanese" out of general courtesy. Once about fifteen years ago (before there was a public Internet) I was a member of "Prodigy", something that existed even before the days of AOL. It was something that I consider now as a specialized BBS of sorts. Later, they allowed access to the net like AOL did. Anyway, I was doing discussions back and forth about WW2 history and like we all try to do I clipped off words and used acronyms, etc. I didn't ever use racial terms, but I did begin using abbreviations. Someone complained that I was using slurs with "Jap." in the text, and I found myself banned :shock: :roll: . I got onto the telephone and had to tell the Prodigy rep. (oops, I abbreviated, lol) er- representative that there was indeed a significant difference between using a period and not using one. I did get back on and flamed (um, educated!) the little pipsqueak that had complained. Even after "winning" that lesson in proper English, I began to skip abbreviating certain words :wink:. Never meaning to offend, I still think it deserves discussion in the frame of reference of war propaganda and how a nation feels the need to "dehumanise" its enemies in order to make them easier to kill. :shock: It's SOP in war after all and part of the total history. Sort of like erasing any references to the swastika as used by Nazi Germany or deciding like MGP did with the VaS cover to include it as accurate history. Oops, bad example, as they were mainly on the bow and stern decks for Luftwaffe air recognition and were painted over grey at the time of the sinking. In James Cameron's "Expedition Bismarck" they were visible on the shipwreck due to the fresh paint not "sticking" I suppose. It all can be part of the history, if handled properly in context sometimes. I've noticed some American veterans "getting over it" and not using the old slurs and I've noticed some that didn't. War is hell for sure, and I can understand it sometimes even if I do not agree with it. It's not a clear-cut thing.

 

[DM]

I was a member of "Prodigy",

Bu, I never realised you were a firestarter

 

[Chernobyl]

Yes, I suppose you're right, but I believe its important to recognize that it was done back in those days..."those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and so forth. I've edited my post above to remove the word, though you can probably tell what it used to say. sorry folks I didn't mean to offend anyone by quoting the document, and though nobody really said to change it it's probably for the best I edit it out...

anyway, must go now, BSG is on... :lol:

Chern

 

[jfox61]

I think also we have to take into consideration that for the allies in WWII Pearl harbour and the treatment of their prisoners was fresh in their minds. But I think Buships is 100% right about the dehumanisation factor. The enemny is always the bad guy and anything that can get your blood up is fair game. But I do have to say that we also live in an age of political correctness. do we stop calling all races by their nicknames some of which are taken as a sign of friendship even though they were originally derogatory . words like Yank Brit jock limey pom. Just as an aside to show how time does heal and attitudes do chang I have 2 Japanese colleagues where I work on the Railway. They are 2 of the nicest most friendly and polite people I have ever met. One actually translates all my modelling resources for me that I purchase from Japan.

 

[jfox61]

Twisted Firestarter :twisted:

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1922-1946

I 'discovered' this on my bookshelf last night... seems I must have bought it sometime in the past when I was a Millitary Bookclub member!

Big book...

Wulf

 

[BuShips]

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1922-1946

I 'discovered' this on my bookshelf last night... seems I must have bought it sometime in the past when I was a Millitary Bookclub member!

Big book...

Wulf

You discovered the best all-around reference book for naval forces in WW2 sitting there on your shelf? Sheesh, maybe your luck will rub off on me and I'll look around to randomly find an ounce of gold that I didn't know that I had, lol. Congrats on that, anyhoo! :wink: I'm sure that you will find it "illuminating", as it has a wealth of data in it.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

You discovered the best all-around reference book for naval forces in WW2 sitting there on your shelf?

It was probably the 'Book of the Month' at some time when I wasn't interested in boaty things. Since I invariably forgot to cancel them, I ended up with a lot of Books of the Month before I cancelled my membership...

Wulf

 

[DM]

I know the feeling. I've jsut cleared out the pile of books and models on the floor of my study to "declutter" the house whilst we have potential buyers looking round and during that exercise I found 2 copies of "The Drama of the Scharnhorst" and 3 copies of a rather good book on US sailing warships!