Japanese AA Weapon?

Did the Japanese battleship Yamato ever fire an AA salvo during WW2?

A visiting friend of mine in the Navy told me the Japanese had a
battery-fired AA weapon that was actually fired in battle.

I guess it didn't work as the ship was sunk!

Anyone know what this weapon was?

I can't find anything on it online and my friend can't remember the
name of it.

Kenneth Williams

"Kenneth Williams" wrote in message
...
Did the Japanese battleship Yamato ever fire an AA salvo during WW2?

A visiting friend of mine in the Navy told me the Japanese had a
battery-fired AA weapon that was actually fired in battle.

I guess it didn't work as the ship was sunk!

Anyone know what this weapon was?

From
http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm

"As were most Japanese warships, the Yamato and Musashi were provided with a
special anti-aircraft incendiary shrapnel shell officially designated as
"Type 3 Common" but nicknamed "San Shiki" (The Beehive). This round weighed
2,998 lbs. (1,360 kg) and was filled with 900 incendiary tubes made out of
rubber thermite and 600 steel stays. A time fuze was used to set the
desired exploding distance, usually about 1,000 meters (1,100 yards). These
projectiles were designed to burst in a 20 degree cone extending towards the
oncoming aircraft with the projectile shell itself being destroyed by a
bursting charge to increase the quantity of steel splinters. The incendiary
tubes ignited about half a second later and burned for five seconds at 3,000
degrees C, producing a flame about 5 meters (16 feet) long. "

Keith

Hi

The Yamato had the following weapons dedicated for the anti-aircraft role

Six pairs of 5 inch guns

Twelve pairs of 25 mm guns

Four pairs of 13 mm guns

Cheers...Chris

I think I have identified the source of confusion here. The big guns
on the Yamato are referred to as 'the main battery'. This is a term
stemming from the old sailing ships. So when you hear someone casually
mention 'the main battery fired antiaircraft shells' one unfamiliar
with the term might assume a battery-activated antiaircraft gun. BTW
those San-Shiki shells were used but weren't effrective on aircraft.
They were also to be used to destroy merchant shipping should the case
arise. I suspect they also may have tumbled out of their racks and
detonated when the Yamato rolled onto her beam ends and blew the ship
in half. FWIW Bismarck also fired her main battery at the Lancasters
coming in to sink her on that last mission - but to no avail. Wonder
what it was like when the Tallboys came down. Richter 9?
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...


FWIW Bismarck also fired her main battery at the Lancasters
coming in to sink her on that last mission - but to no avail. Wonder
what it was like when the Tallboys came down. Richter 9?
Walt BJ

I think you meant Tirpitz there.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...


FWIW Bismarck also fired her main battery at the Lancasters
coming in to sink her on that last mission - but to no avail. Wonder
what it was like when the Tallboys came down. Richter 9?
Walt BJ
I think you meant Tirpitz there.
Keith

OOPs - mea culpa - senior moment - trying to think of more than one
thing at once. Hell, I used to be able to do that. Tirpitz it was.
Walt BJ

Bismarck also fired her main battery at the Lancasters
coming in to sink her on that last mission

This actually was fairly common. There are many motion pictures
showing USN ships banging away in order to create waterspouts in front
of low-level kamikaze attacks. I should think that was often done
against torpedo bombers, who had to fly at low level.

(To be sure, that's different from firing AT the aircraft.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Bismarck also fired her main battery at the Lancasters
coming in to sink her on that last mission

This actually was fairly common. There are many motion pictures
showing USN ships banging away in order to create waterspouts in front
of low-level kamikaze attacks. I should think that was often done
against torpedo bombers, who had to fly at low level.


In the case mention (Tirpitz not Bismarck) the aircraft were flying
at 12000 ft so the guns must have been aimed at the aircraft
presumably more in hope than expectation of actually doing any good.

Keith

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Bismarck also fired her main battery at the Lancasters
coming in to sink her on that last mission

This actually was fairly common. There are many motion pictures
showing USN ships banging away in order to create waterspouts in front
of low-level kamikaze attacks. I should think that was often done
against torpedo bombers, who had to fly at low level.



Also used by RN ships on (at least) the Malta convoys.

--
Errol Cavit |
I've heard a tape of collected kakapo noises, and it's almost impossible to
believe that it all just comes from a bird, or indeed any kind of animal.
Pink Floyd studio out-takes perhaps, but not a parrot.
Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_

On 30 Oct 2003 21:24:43 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

Wonder
what it was like when the Tallboys came down. Richter 9?
Walt BJ

IIRC 3 of them hit the ship. Clean underwear time all round methinks.


greg



--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.