Here's a quote for you Biggles.

Newton D. Baker, U. S. Secretary for War, 1921, on Billy Mitchell's proposal to demonstrate the coming importance of air power by sinking a battleship:

"The idea is so damned nonsensical and impossible that I'm willing to stand on the bridge of a battleship while that nitwit tries to hit it from the air."

Should that go under the catagory of "Famous last words?" Or, "People who should know better?"

Ken V.

How about both? I have never underestimated (or overestimated) air power.

Considering how much ordnance it took to sink Yamato and Musashi, I don't agree that they were fatally flawed. Aircraft can always sink battleships that lack effective air cover and support ships. Also, as we proved with our Iowa class, the big gun battleships can be adapted to modern conditions. Of course, Yamato and Musashi didn't survive to find out. If they had survived the war, we could sure have used them off the coast of Korea five years later!

No doubt the YAMATOs were mighty tough. What I meant, though, is when YAMATO was torpedoed by an American sub, the Japanese found her main armor belt was poorly welded. Their solution was to weld another 1500 tons of steel (the tonnage of a WWI destroyer!) onto her and pretend that nothing bad had ever happened. If a hit by just 1 of our (then) lousy torpedoes could do that kind of damage to the biggest gunship ever built, I think you'll agree something went wrong between blueprints and launching.

No doubt the YAMATOs were mighty tough. What I meant, though, is when YAMATO was torpedoed by an American sub, the Japanese found her main armor belt was poorly welded. Their solution was to weld another 1500 tons of steel (the tonnage of a WWI destroyer!) onto her and pretend that nothing bad had ever happened. If a hit by just 1 of our (then) lousy torpedoes could do that kind of damage to the biggest gunship ever built, I think you'll agree something went wrong between blueprints and launching.

You want to talk about poorly welded? At least with the Yamato it took a torpedo to damage her armor. A lot of American ships had their armor FALL off in heavy seas.

During World War II, a lot of American ships had their armor plate welded on by lighting off a compound of powdered iron and magnesium filings laid into the weld joint -- a slight improvement over sticking them on with chewing gum.

One of the problems with Liberty Ships was that they were welded together instead of riveted as was previously done. That kind of welding was in its infant stages, so everybody had a lot to learn on the subject. Many Liberty Ships literally broke apart at sea.

One other thing. Our torpedos were "lousy" because the detonators were not built strongly enough, and subsequently crushed rather than detonated when they hit their target. AND . . . they didn't have anywhere near the range or accuracy of the Japanese "Long Tom" torpedo.
This was one instance where Americans copied the Japanese.

Ken V.

I didn't know that about American armor, Ken. Are we talking warships now?

I didn't know that about American armor, Ken. Are we talking warships now?

Both warships and Liberty ships. (Transport vessels.)

Once the U.S. finally got into the war, the government needed a lot of ships . . . in a hurry! Prior to the war, ocean-going vessels were riveted together -- passenger vessels, merchant vessels, and military vessels.

So, what they did was to weld them together. Welding being a much faster joining process than riveting. The problem was that they used the same joint design, and welding stressed the joints in a different way than riveting did. Riveting made a flexible joint whereas welding was rigid. In a heavy sea, a riveted ship would flex and a welded ship would break up.

This included armor plate. So, ship designers (nautical architects) had to go through the process of analyzing the stresses, and redesigning the joints. They also redesigned the shape of the armor plating to allow the hull to flex without the armor breaking off. In addition, they had to develop new welding processes. Submerged Arc Welding was one of the processes which resulted from this problem. It's a heavy deposit electric welding process where a wire-fed weld is laid (submerged) under a granular flux which is poured into the joint.

Everybody had problems. It was only the U.S. that had the manpower and resources to solve them fairly quickly.

Ken V.

Both warships and Liberty ships. (Transport vessels.)

Once the U.S. finally got into the war, the government needed a lot of ships . . . in a hurry! Prior to the war, ocean-going vessels were riveted together -- passenger vessels, merchant vessels, and military vessels.

So, what they did was to weld them together. Welding being a much faster joining process than riveting. The problem was that they used the same joint design, and welding stressed the joints in a different way than riveting did. Riveting made a flexible joint whereas welding was rigid. In a heavy sea, a riveted ship would flex and a welded ship would break up.

This included armor plate. So, ship designers (nautical architects) had to go through the process of analyzing the stresses, and redesigning the joints. They also redesigned the shape of the armor plating to allow the hull to flex without the armor breaking off. In addition, they had to develop new welding processes. Submerged Arc Welding was one of the processes which resulted from this problem. It's a heavy deposit electric welding process where a wire-fed weld is laid (submerged) under a granular flux which is poured into the joint.

Everybody had problems. It was only the U.S. that had the manpower and resources to solve them fairly quickly.

Ken V.

Good information, Ken. Thank you. I believe I once saw an aerial photo of an American cruiser who's entire bow had broken off in a storm. CA USS Pittsburgh seems to ring a bell, though I might be wrong about that. It was quite a photo!