Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Paul Allen Helps Find Sunken Japanese WWII Battleship Musashi Off Philippines

Posted by samzenpus on from the davy-jones'-locker dept.

mpicpp writes with news about the discovery of a sunken Japanese battleship by Paul Allen and a team of researchers. Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Paul Allen and his research team have found a massive Japanese World War II battleship off the Philippines near where it sank more than 70 years ago, his representatives said Wednesday. The apparent discovery of the wreckage of the Musashi, one of the largest battleships in history, comes as the world marks the 70th anniversary of the war's end. Allen and the team aboard his superyacht M/Y Octopus found the ship on Sunday, more than eight years after their search began, Allen's publicity agency Edelman said in a statement. Detailed images captured by a high-definition camera mounted on the underwater probe confirmed the wreckage as that of the Musashi, it said. Japanese experts said they were eager to study the images to try to confirm the ship's identity. Allen's team found the battleship in the Sibuyan Sea, using an autonomous underwater vehicle in its third dive after narrowing down the search area using detailed undersea topographical data and other locator devices, the statement said. "The Musashi is truly an engineering marvel and as an engineer at heart, I have a deep appreciation for the technology and effort that went into its construction," Allen said.

114 comments

  1. Well, that is one less thing to worry about. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    There was always that off beat chance the battleship is hiding in some isolated bay, continuing the war, not knowing the war had ended, like some soldiers of the Imperial Army in that part of the world. . This discovery will put many people at ease.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Well, that is one less thing to worry about. by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      This discovery will put many people at ease.

      Well, really, just you and that one other guy ... everyone else? Not so much. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. At last... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... a Microsoft executive discovered something.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:At last... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      ... a Microsoft executive discovered something.

      no, he probably stole the coordinates from Apple

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:At last... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Impossible, have you use Apple's mapping ?? He would have likely found the Bismarck had that been the case.

    3. Re:At last... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are just holding it wrong

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:At last... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Bah, if what happened when I upgraded my iPod Touch is any indication ... he'd still be troubleshooting the damned thing.

      Can't say anything about their mapping stuff, but their software upgrade experience is getting annoying of late.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:At last... by jbburks · · Score: 1

      Yes, obviously there can be no defects in Apple software. If it's not working for you, hold it differently. Or restart.

    6. Re:At last... by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not just their upgrade...they seem to really want to replicate Microsoft in its heyday, huge company, really shitty software. They managed to fuck up DNS on OS X....how the fuck do you fuck up something as critical and (relatively) simple and stable as DNS?

      --
      Monstar L
    7. Re:At last... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Funny

      A man using Apple Maps walked into a bar, or a hotel, or possibly a church...

    8. Re:At last... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Impossible, have you use Apple's mapping ?? He would have likely found the Bismarck had that been the case.

      Looking for the Bismarck leads you to St Paul's Cathedral.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:At last... by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, he discovered something the Japanese invented/built over 70 years ago!

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    10. Re:At last... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Oh that'd be a +1 Insightful, if I could!

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    11. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fags like low-brow trolling by other fags. Color me surprised.

    12. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easy, because Steve is dead. He was the only brains at the company. Now they are just a company trying to copy everyone instead of innovate. Look at the big iPhone 6, they are just trying to keep up with everyone else. Apple is nothing more than a company named after a fruit now. Without Jobs, it was already proven that Apple couldn't survive and now that he's dead, the Apple that everyone knew is already dead.

    13. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Closeted anonymous homosexual lashes out and calls others "fags" on the internet as a method of denying his true self. Color me surprised.

    14. Re:At last... by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Eh, Steve wasn't so much an innovator as a man with implacable tastes who really knew how to get his way. THAT is really what led Apple down the path to where it is today. Steve would have never ever accepted something as buggy as OS X right now without screaming at people and ripping their heads off. Tim Cook just seems to think that software quality really isn't that important.

      --
      Monstar L
  3. Musashi by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to at least one expert interviewed by Japanese public broadcaster NHK:

      "Judging from the location, it must be the Musashi," the head of a private museum specializing in the battleship Yamato, Musashi's sister vessel, said the details in the images matched those of the Musashi, which was the only battleship that sank in the area.

    If anything, I'm surprised it took this long to find it. I don't think the water is unusually deep there, or at least, not in comparison to other famous sunken ships.

    1. Re:Musashi by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's likely not an issue of finding the bits of metal. As you say, the water isn't particularly deep. It's more a question of identification.

      A lot of ships were sunk at Leyte Gulf, as well as general merchantman losses in the area during WW2. Remember that when these ships sink, they don't tend to go down in one neat piece. In particular, with warships like Musashi, it's quite common for one or more of the magazines to blow before the ship sinks. That creates a huge explosion and tends to break the wreck into a lot of small pieces.

      Conclusively identifying which piece belongs to which ship has probably required the bulk of the effort here.

    2. Re:Musashi by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A lot of ships were sunk during the battle, but it was a very far-flung battle. I believe Musashi was the only Japanese warship sunk in the Sibuyan Sea during that battle (a Japanese heavy cruiser was crippled during the action). In fact, the sinking was not due to magazine explosions but rather to flooding, finally capsizing. I'd expect the turrets to be quite some distance away, but there's no reason to expect the hull to have broken up badly.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Musashi by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      If I remember right, other than the the Battle of Chibi at the destruction of the Han Dynasty, the Battle of Leyte Gulf was the most massive naval battle in recorded history. I'm thinking the failed 2-3 Mongolian invasions of the Japanese Islands probably had many more ships involved, though.

    4. Re:Musashi by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      If depends on how you define "massive"; Salamis had more ships than Leyte Gulf and was significantly more important to Western history. In fact, it was arguably the most important battle in Western history, but that's a different discussion. :)

      Leyte Gulf usually wins the biggest title on the basis of personnel involved and sheer geographical scope, neither of which have a historical analogue.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Musashi by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you consider it. The Battle of Leyte Gulf comprised multiple actions in and around the Philippines between 23 and 26 October 1944, including the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, the Battle of Surigao Strait, the Battle of Cape Engano and the Battle off Samar, as well as a few other related actions. The Battle of the Sibuyan Sea was geographically separate from the others, being generally west and south of Luzon, while the other three were east or northeast of Luzon and Leyte. The map on the wikipedia article helps illustrate the dispersal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#mediaviewer/File:Leyte_map_annotated.jpg

    6. Re:Musashi by Guy+From+V · · Score: 2

      I'd call the Battle of Tours probably the most important battle in Western history and the Battle of Ain Jalut one of the most important in all history. Those are only my opinions as a historical conflict nerd. I'm sure there are other contenders.

    7. Re:Musashi by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      Not all sunken ships are warships sunk in battle. This is a well traveled waterway, and shipping safety was not always the highest priority.

    8. Re:Musashi by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Tours (and for that matter, the Siege of Vienna) may have saved Western Civilization but Greece was the birthplace of it. We can never say how the Greek cities would have fared as Persian client states but it seems highly unlikely that history would have unfolded as it did if the Greeks hadn't retained their Independence. If you accept Greece as the cradle of Western Civilization then it follows that the Greco-Persian wars were decisive. In that instance it's just a matter of picking the turning point, and Salamis is the best contender. The better known battles of Marathon and Thermopylae weren't turning points, the former bought a ten year reprieve and the latter was a delaying action turned into noble and doomed last stand.

      Salamis was also a naval engagement, which may lead to some bias on my part, though the West has traditionally excelled at sea, so..... :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Musashi by swb · · Score: 2

      I'm curious what the narrative about the cradle of civilization is if the Romans hadn't gotten their shit together. Marius, despite his wealth, is discredited by the Senate and never implements the Marian reforms, the Cimbri and Teutones defeat a sapped Rome, sack Rome and the Romans never manage to become more than a regional power in the Italian peninsula and the widespread influence of Greek-influenced Roman culture never takes hold in Western Europe.

      FWIW, I might proffer the Battle of Breitenfeld as being nearly as valuable to Western civilization as Tours and Vienna. It marked the end of Catholic religious domination, broke the political monopoly of the Catholic Church through the establishment of the modern nation-state with the signing of Peace of Westphalia.

    10. Re:Musashi by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm curious what the narrative about the cradle of civilization is if the Romans hadn't gotten their shit together.

      Who can say? Christianity is associated with Western civilization, for better or worse, and without Rome's political and military influence what happens to it? My guess is it never catches fire. A friend of mine in Israel is fond of joking that Monotheism is "his" and it was a historical mistake for the rest of us to get it.

      A goodly portion of Anglosphere law and culture isn't traceable to Rome, so that might still emerge. Perhaps the Nordic region contributes more to Western civilization. It's impossible to predict the butterflies from the non-emergence of Christianity though. That's a really big deal, as much as it pains this agnostic pagan to say.... :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Fascinating ship by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ah... the Yamato-class. Largest battleships ever built, but largely obsolete before they ever went out to sea.

    For those unfamiliar with the history of the class, the Yamato-class vessels were Japan's final generation of large battleships, which entered service from 1941 onwards. Their 18-inch guns were the largest to be mounted on any battleship during WW2. Four ships were commissioned, but only two - Yamato and Musashi - were completed as battleships. A third, the Shinano, was converted into a carrier, while the fourth was cancelled.

    The two ships that were completed as battleships (Yamato in particular) were of immense symbolic value in Japan during WW2. In addition to this, they consumed vast quantities of fuel and required specialised ammunition that was rarely available in sufficient quantities. For the above reasons, both Yamato and Musashi were held back from the major Pacific Theatre battles until late 1944 (by which time it was probably too late for them to have any impact anyway).

    They were, in essence, the best WW1 warships ever made... except that they were deployed during WW2. The age of the dreadnought-style battleship was on its way out by this point and the era of aircraft carrier dominance had begun. Even if Musashi and Yamato had been deployed for key battles such as Midway and Guadalcanal, it's unlilkely they would have made much difference.

    But they are, nevertheless, spectacular ships. In visual terms, they epitomize the classic battleship profile - long, low and dangerous, with very large guns. Their symbolic value has lasted long beyond the war; the Yamato remains something of a national symbol (albeit a controversial one, with links to the far-right) in Japan and has lived on in popular culture through the sci-fi franchise Space Battleship Yamato (adapted as Starblazers in the US).

    And as for the specifics of this story; there's not much detail given, but I suspect that the challenge was not so much finding the wreck as conclusively identifying it. There are no shortage of Japanese WW2 wrecks in that part of the Pacific; the problem is sorting out which is which in the face of scant records.

    1. Re:Fascinating ship by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yamato was present at the Battle of Midway - it was Admiral Yamamoto's flagship. It didn't take part in any of the fighting though. As for Guadalcanal and the various actions thereof, neither Yamato nor Musashi took part, but there were several notable surface actions that did not involve carriers, and were among some of the few direct battleship on battleship fights of the Pacific War.

      World War 2 was definitely the era of the Aircraft Carrier ascendant, and it's rather telling that the Shinano was completed as a carrier rather than as a third battleship. However, at the time the Yamato and Musashi were built, that realization had yet to sink in anywhere, and the US was still building heavy battleships during the same timeframe, including the Iowa class, and had plans for more. It was only by 1942 that the shift had become apparent, and the two keels laid down for the Montana class were first altered to be two more Iowas (Illinois and Kentucky), and then later cancelled a few years later. The last US Battleship wasn't launched until December 1943 (USS Wisconsin).

      I'm not so sure the challenge was in identifying it though, rather than finding it - as the Japanese expert I quoted above noted, there was only one battleship lost in the Sibuyan Sea, so it's hard to consider that it would be anything but the Musashi.

    2. Re: Fascinating ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan's biggest problem in the Pacific War was their own success at Pearl Harbor. That forced the US Navy to adopt different tactics till they reconstructed their battle line.

      Which meant the Japanese strategy of forcing a decisive battle was doomed to failure. The US wasn't going to try that till after they bled the Japanese dry.

    3. Re:Fascinating ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is why i read slashdot

    4. Re:Fascinating ship by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Ah... the Yamato-class. Largest battleships ever built, but largely obsolete before they ever went out to sea.

      Well, close. It was totally obsolete before it ever went to sea. Unfortunately, no one listened to Billy Mitchell.

    5. Re:Fascinating ship by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They were, in essence, the best WW1 warships ever made... except that they were deployed during WW2. The age of the dreadnought-style battleship was on its way out by this point and the era of aircraft carrier dominance had begun. Even if Musashi and Yamato had been deployed for key battles such as Midway and Guadalcanal, it's unlilkely they would have made much difference.

      Yamato was deployed at Midway. She was part of the body of surface combatants (with one light carrier as escort) kept out of range for the surface action that Spruance wisely declined to permit. The deployment at Midway was a Rube Goldberg contraption that personifies everything that was wrong with IJN thinking in WW2; multiple formations scattered too far apart for mutual support and a requirement that the enemy do what you expect for victory to occur.

      Neither ship was used at Guadalcanal for the same reason that the old American battleships weren't used: Neither side had sufficient tanker assets in theater to keep the old battle-wagons fueled. The USN deployed new design battleships (USS South Dakota, North Carolina, and Washington) but kept the Pearl Harbor survivors on the West Coast. The IJN used two older battle cruisers (Kirishima and Fuso) that weren't as fuel hungry as their bigger/newer cousins.

      They were, in essence, the best WW1 warships ever made... except that they were deployed during WW2.

      The biggest flaw with the IJN was their inferior fire control technology. This is evidenced both in surface actions (Samar being the best case study) and in the anti-aircraft role. The USN had radar directed fire control in 1942, for both surface targets and aircraft. The Japanese paid an extremely heavy price when attacking our ships with aircraft, the two carrier battles in the Guadalcanal campaign (Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz) were Pyrrhic tactical victories at best, with most of the Japanese aircraft losses coming from AA fire.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Fascinating ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for contributing. This is why i read Slashdot

    7. Re:Fascinating ship by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was only by 1942 that the shift had become apparent

      This is commonly repeated but it's a false assertion. The Two-Ocean Navy Act was passed in 1940 and explicitly recognized the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Fascinating ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Iowa-class had a number of distinct advantages keeping it relevant. It was fast enough to escort the aircraft carriers of the day and its main guns were much more accurate than the Yamato's. It also packed numerous secondary and antiaircraft guns, making it far more capable against smaller vessels.

    9. Re:Fascinating ship by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Ah... the Yamato-class. Largest battleships ever built, but largely obsolete before they ever went out to sea.

      Well, close. It was totally obsolete before it ever went to sea. Unfortunately, no one listened to Billy Mitchell.

      The Iconians did. ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Fascinating ship by Grog6 · · Score: 2

      "The Musashi is truly an engineering marvel and as an engineer at heart, I have a deep appreciation for the technology and effort that went into its construction," Paul Allen

      As an American, I have a deep appreciation in the American technology that sent it's sorry ass to the bottom of the ocean.

      I just wish Yamamoto could have been aboard to enjoy the experience. :)

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    11. Re:Fascinating ship by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although the Iowa class's speed allowing it to keep up with the Carrier Task Forces was certainly useful, that wasn't the dividing line between relevance and obsolescence. If anything, I would argue that Battleships are not completely obsolete even today, it's just that they're economically inefficient at the tasks and role they perform. As for secondary and antiaircraft guns, those were a standard factor for pretty much every Battleship, US or otherwise, and certainly not unique in any way to the Iowas.

      The US was building battleships pretty consistently until about 1942, ironically far more so than Japan. In the same 1936-1946 time frame, Japan built the two Yamato class, the USA built and completed ten battleships. Moreover, if you consider the time frame, the Yamato's US contemporary is the North Carolina, not the Iowa. Both were designed in the aftermath of the Second London Naval Treaty, as was Britain's King George V and France's Richelieu - the difference is that Japan didn't sign the treaty, and thus built a ship vastly in excess of what the treaty would restrict. They also did so in secret, meaning that the full extent of Yamato's design and strength wasn't known in the USA.

    12. Re: Fascinating ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Japan's biggest problem was that the US had cracked their code and knew ahead of time when and where they were going to strike.

      Midway is a perfect example, Japan tried to set a trap for the American carriers coming out of Pearl Harbor. But the US turned it into an ambush that pretty much destroyed Japan's naval air power by sinking four carriers and killing a large percentage of their experienced pilots. The same thing happened again at Saipan, when Japan lost three carriers and over 600 aircraft.

      The US hasn't forgotten the value of Intelligence gathering.

    13. Re:Fascinating ship by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Even if Musashi and Yamato had been deployed for key battles such as Midway and Guadalcanal, it's unlilkely they would have made much difference.

      Ummm...Yamato was deployed at the Battle of Midway. She was Yamamoto's flagship. Guadalcanal wasn't really a single naval battle per say. There were a series of naval engagements that occurred as a result of one side or the other trying to reinforce thier ground forces. The naval forces involved in any given engagement ranged wildly from full blown carrier battles to night destroyer skirmishes.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    14. Re:Fascinating ship by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe American technology and signals intelligence saw to it that he couldn't be there to see it, if memory serves correctly.

    15. Re: Fascinating ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US hasn't forgotten the value of Intelligence gathering.

      Except in Congress which gets dumber everyday.

    16. Re:Fascinating ship by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Not to the point that Battleships were considered obsolete, which was the assertion I was replying to. That same act authorized the construction of 7 battleships (though the US did not complete all of those so authorized).

      They were in no way considered "obsolete", at least not yet.

    17. Re:Fascinating ship by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      They were never "obsolete", at least as the term is commonly used. During WW2 they were useful for all manner of things, from escort duty to shore bombardment, and the only reason you didn't see the envisioned clash of battleships in the Pacific is because Halsey blundered at Leyte Gulf and took the battleline with him in pursuit of Ozawa. If he had left Task Force 34 behind, as he should have, it would have been American battleships and cruisers clashing with the Center Force, rather than escort carriers and destroyers.

      As it happened, the Allied battleships performed their envisioned missions with distinction, and even a single German battleship (Tirpitz) was taken seriously enough to tie down most of the Royal Navy's battleships until she was put out of action. It was actually pretty damned hard to sink a battleship with aircraft, even under favorable conditions, as evidenced by Tirpitz, Yamato, and Musashi. To my knowledge there was only one Allied battleship lost at sea to aircraft, HMS Prince of Wales. American battleships were damaged by aircraft at sea, but never sunk or even put out of action.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Fascinating ship by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      They not have been economic for those roles in the 80s and 90s, but compared to the costs of developing the DDX there are extraordinarily more economic.

    19. Re:Fascinating ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The age of the dreadnought-style battleship was on its way out by this point

      the dreadnaughts were long gone by this time, they didn't even survive WWI. see "all or nothing armor"

    20. Re:Fascinating ship by mjwx · · Score: 2

      It was only by 1942 that the shift had become apparent

      This is commonly repeated but it's a false assertion. The Two-Ocean Navy Act was passed in 1940 and explicitly recognized the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier.

      The increase in construction of Aircraft Carriers was a direct result of naval arms limitation treaties like The Washington Naval Treaty and The London Naval Treaty (not including the Second London Naval Treaty as that was almost universally broken). These treaties introduced limitations on the total displacement of all battleships that could be in various powers navies at any one time including the United States and Empire of Japan. After the Washington Naval Treaty was signed many of the battleships under construction were changed to become aircraft carriers to stay within the treaties limitations.

      Aircraft carriers enjoyed a steady rise in numbers and technology as battleships stagnated from the 20's onwards.

      Whilst the US, Japan and UK shifted focus to aircraft carriers, the Germans focused on building submarines and big gun heavy cruisers (pocket battleships) which turned out quite disastrously for them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    21. Re:Fascinating ship by mjwx · · Score: 2

      I believe American technology and signals intelligence saw to it that he couldn't be there to see it, if memory serves correctly.

      OP-20-G broke JN25 with a bit of help from the English, Dutch and Australians who along with the US had been working on JN25 since before the war.

      After Yamamato's plane was shot down Japan guessed that the Americans had broken had broken one of their codes, but they guessed the wrong code.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    22. Re:Fascinating ship by rjune · · Score: 2

      Billy Mitchell most certainly did get listened to. However, the message was not well received and they "shot" the messenger. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... It is worth reading and provides some very good background information.

    23. Re:Fascinating ship by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Those treaties were irrelevant by the time the Two-Ocean Navy Act passed. The Iowa class was free of treaty limits, as was the envisioned Montana class. The North Carolina and South Dakota classes were built within treaty limits and were nearly the equal of the Iowa class. I would have sailed with confidence in those "treaty battleships" against anything put to sea by the Axis Powers, including Yamato and Musashi. They can hit first, at greater range, thanks to their superior fire control, and even if they took hits Allied damage control techniques were better.

      As far as Germany, she never had the resources to compete with the Allied powers at sea, so it really didn't matter what she built. The submarine campaign could have made a difference and it may have made more sense to pour ALL naval resources into subs, although this negates the Norwegian Campaign and who can say what impact that would have had? There's also an argument to be made that every sub launched represented tanks and aircraft that could have been sent to the Eastern Front....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:Fascinating ship by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Although the Iowa class's speed allowing it to keep up with the Carrier Task Forces was certainly useful, that wasn't the dividing line between relevance and obsolescence. If anything, I would argue that Battleships are not completely obsolete even today, it's just that they're economically inefficient at the tasks and role they perform.

      Only on slashdot does someone split hairs between economic obsolescence and functional obsolescence. I suppose the military does too since they have lost all perspective on $ per outcome and only focus on the outcome.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    25. Re:Fascinating ship by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      The age of the dreadnought-style battleship was on its way out by this point

      the dreadnaughts [sic] were long gone by this time, they didn't even survive WWI. see "all or nothing armor"

      You mean they were all sunk?!

      Seriously, it depends on what you mean by a Dreadnought. The term is often used to mean any battleship built after HMS Deadnought if it had more than two main turrets, turbines, and could exceed 20 kts. OTOH, any battleship with >= 13.5" guns (starting with the British Orion class of 1912) is often described as a "Super-Dreadnought". Then there was a further type (starting with the British Queen Elizabeth class of 1915) with guns >= 14" and speed > 25 kts described as the "Fast Battleship" type; most WW2 battleships were of this last type.

      But plenty of the earlier types survived WWI. The USS Arkensas was a 12" gun Dreadnought built in 1911 and was active right through WW2, supporting the Normandy and Okinawa landings. The 1912 Texas class of 1912 was used similarly, and even had reciprocating engines, so arguably was a pre-Dreadnought. The British were still using HMS Centurion, a super-Dreadnought of 1913, for secondary roles in WW2.

      Minor navies also had old Dreadnoughts well into WW2 and after. Turkey had the ex-German Goeben, renamed Yavuz, a battle-cruiser of the Dreadnought era, until about the 1980's I believe (becoming a museum at some point). Greece and some South American nations also had old Dreadnoughts for years after they were obsolete

    26. Re:Fascinating ship by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if that was what Captain Ramius had in mind, in "The Hunt For Red October"? http://www.imdb.com/character/...

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    27. Re:Fascinating ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, someone that knows what they are talking about. One of the US's biggest mistakes was to decom/scrap/museum the WWII battleships. Nothing can replace them.

    28. Re:Fascinating ship by Cramer · · Score: 1

      For shear destruction, one cruise missile equipped with a nuke can do more damage than the entire battery of a battleship. And it's one, very small target that can be fired hundreds of miles away.

      For intimidation, a modern nuclear powered super carrier is a very closer runner. Not that we park carriers close enough to be seen. Park a battleship a mile off shore... Note: the last battleship on active duty wasn't entirely a battleship anymore; it was refitted to launch cruse missiles -- the Missouri still had the deck guns, tho.

    29. Re:Fascinating ship by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Those treaties were irrelevant by the time the Two-Ocean Navy Act passed. The Iowa class was free of treaty limits, as was the envisioned Montana class.

      As I pointed out, the Second London Naval Treaty (1936) was largely violated by all sides.

      But it was the previous naval treaties that lead to the development of the aircraft carrier as aircraft carrier tonnage was not counted in the same pool as battleships. The development of American aircraft carriers went over decades, in fact it was the Washington Naval Treaty in 1920 that caused several large battlecruisers to be converted into aircraft carriers after they were laid down (the Lexington class). The first purpose built carrier the US developed was the Ranger class laid down in 1931.

      I believe that during the war, the US cancelled battleships that hadn't been laid down in favour of making more carriers.

      I would have sailed with confidence in those "treaty battleships" against anything put to sea by the Axis Powers,

      Only the most advanced German ships were capable of matching the ships fielded by the allies and as you pointed out, they weren't that numerous.

      However the battleship wasn't really a match for the aircraft carrier, this was made even worse by the fact that only British ships used radar controlled AA guns (I think the USN introduced this later in the war). If the US hadn't sunk 4 of the Japanese carriers at midway, they would have been significantly more of a threat than both the Yamato battleships put together.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    30. Re:Fascinating ship by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what it's in reference to, as I understand it. At least, that's the most controversial decision by Halsey that I'm aware of, and the most likely candidate for the line:

      "Ryan? I read your book! Your conclusions were all wrong, Halsey acted stupidly."

    31. Re:Fascinating ship by sjames · · Score: 1

      The thing is, there are so many consequences for being the first to go nuclear it actually detracts from the threat.

      OTOH, big deck guns can pound away for days for less than the cost of a single missile.

      The continuous nature of it wears on the enemy in the way a single missile doesn't.

    32. Re:Fascinating ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was only by 1942 that the shift had become apparent

      This is commonly repeated but it's a false assertion. The Two-Ocean Navy Act [wikipedia.org] was passed in 1940 and explicitly recognized the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier.

      Don't be too quick to believe what a politician says when they claim something is the justification for a law. That some people asserted the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier does not mean that this was the majority opinion. There were considerable differences of opinion, and it is a mistake to assert the "shift had become apparent" as early as June 1940.

      Remember, this Bill was passed before Taranto (Nov '40), Cape Matapan (Mar '41), the hunting of the Bismark (May '41), Pearl Harbor (Dec '41), or any of the other early naval battles that demonstrated just how useful carriers could be, in the real world. The difference between the real world -- and the fantasy worlds that politicians tend to live in -- is a huge one in the eyes of military professionals! Certainly the carriers were not seen as the backbone of the Royal Navy, though they were recognized as tremendously useful (in spite of the RAF policies that ensured the aircraft carried were obsolete!).

      Per-war, the vulnerability of carriers was recognized by many. This class would take very heavy losses during the war, showing that the estimation of carrier vulnerability was dead on. Further, the effectiveness of capital ship anti-aircraft weaponry was over-rated (it had been designed for slower aircraft).

      Since nobody tried during the early war years to use carrier aircraft against a full battle fleet at sea and ready for action, it's hard to know how well the aircraft would have done (the US fleet wasn't ready or at sea at Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese didn't have most of their battle fleet with the carriers at Midway, so those battles can't be counted).

      It was expected that capital ships at sea, ready for battle, and in sufficient numbers, would be very hard targets for aircraft, and to a large extent this proved to be true. The Enterprise, for example, dodged no less than 7 Japanese air-launched torpedoes during the battle of Santa Cruz, absorbed a direct bomb hit, and still made it out of the battle.

      Further, the effectiveness of air attack was vastly over-rated during the pre-war years, and it would take a lot of wartime experience and improvements for the actual capabilities of aircraft to come anywhere close to the greatly exaggerated expectations many people had pre-war. By this point, the British and American fleets had done substantial refits to their anti-aircraft capabilities, of course.

      No US Battleship would be sunk after Pearl Harbor, and only 1 British battleship (Prince of Wales, operating largely unsupported on highly suspect orders).

      It's worth noting that Japanese battleships were able to completely shut down Henderson Field after bombarding it from sea. Since this was done at night, and since night air attack was largely ineffective at that time, the only defense was surface warships. The US would eventually commit battleships to this mission (Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal), since the smaller ships took terrible losses going up against Japanese cruisers and battleships.

      The Japanese losses at Leyte Gulf and Okinawa (including Musashi and Yamato) were unusual situations, in that the US and Allied fleets had truly staggering numbers of aircraft with combat tested designs and pilots honed by years of deadly war.

      In reality, if you do the math you'll find that after the signing of this bill (and counting previously approved work such as the 1936 and 1938 bills), the US Navy had plans to end up with roughly equal numbers of carriers and modern battleships (10 previously approved modern battleships, plus the 7 in the 1940 Bill, versus 18 carriers). Count the old battleships as well, and the carriers were outnumbered! Hardly a clear dominance for the carriers.

      It was convenien

  5. Re:Systemd, for or against? by Snarky+McButtface · · Score: 2, Funny
    Should we throw flat, circular objects at you?

    Discuss.

  6. B-SOS-D by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Ironic because it was probably did in by a BSOD

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:B-SOS-D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that supposed to be funny?

  7. float it, point it by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    The Philippines should float it, renew the 18" barrels, add a few missle tubes, and move it to about 10-20 miles from some of China's islands under adverse possession and fill it with concrete.

  8. I found your Battleship by Megahard · · Score: 4, Funny

    Billionaires play Battleship with real battleships.

    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
  9. Paul is obviously into Kancolle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantai_Collection

    1. Re: Paul is obviously into Kancolle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shimakaze is best fleet girl. Would marry.

    2. Re: Paul is obviously into Kancolle by Hartree · · Score: 1

      "Shimakaze is best fleet girl"

      Very nice, but I think I'll vote for Akagi from the anime version.

      (Of course, I'm even more of an Arpeggio of Blue Steel fan. Haruna is da bomb. :)

    3. Re: Paul is obviously into Kancolle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kongou. Born in England, Raised in Japan. Burning Love!

  10. Re:Atlantis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a lot easier and more likely to find a WW2 ship than Atlantis.

  11. Re:Atlantis by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    Much more cross discipline and fun and a lot more people could play and discover.

    Maybe so, but then again the battleship Musashi is not widely regarded as being a myth.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  12. found "near where it sank"? by charyou-tree · · Score: 1

    What, did someone move it after it sank?

    1. Re: found "near where it sank"? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 2

      It was indeed found at rest 1 km below where it sank.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    2. Re: found "near where it sank"? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      A ship sinking in deep water can wind up several miles from the point where the surface closed over it.

  13. Space Battleship Musashi? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    They did it with the Yamato:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9fUryAT8Sw

    The 2010 live action reboot soundtrack was pretty badass:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DEvTKWyfg

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Space Battleship Musashi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knoooows... what dangers that they'll face!

  14. Re:Atlantis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's his money and he can do whatever he damn well pleases with it?

  15. Re:Atlantis by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Atlantis ... fun and a lot more people could play and discover.

    Fun discovering Atlantis? Poe's Law rear's it's mighty head.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  16. Re:Atlantis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This stuff is pretty important to a lot of people. We used to dive Repulse and Prince of Wales and some people would come to tears over finding / touching / seeing them. People's family /countrymen died on these things. Their bones are still there.

  17. hypsometric bathymetric survey of the ocean floor by cadogan+west · · Score: 1

    The real reason he did the survey was to look for the wreckage of a Nazi sub carrying slightly denser than normal gold,,,

  18. Re:Atlantis by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    It's a lot easier and more likely to find a WW2 ship than Atlantis.

    I dunno... we usually get about two discoveries of Atlantis a year.

    (But I'm starting to worry, because I haven't heard of any new discoveries of Atlantis lately.)

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  19. Re:Atlantis by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    1. putzing around in a top notch Yacht in paradise is its own reward. the search for the Musashi was just a side part time effort

    2. allen is from the west coast, of a certain age. so the battle in the Pacific looms large in his upbringing, and he is likewise motivated. your agenda is not his agenda, nor is your agenda magically better than his. in fact, Atlantis is just a myth with a number of sort-of maybe leads. not something you can actually go look for in a specific small area like the Sibuyan Sea

    3. now that he has found Musashi, i hopes he keeps playing around in Southeast Asia, screw the Mediterranean, i wouldn't go, boring. Sulawesi sounds fun, i hope he has security though from pirates. not that his proclivities are my proclivities but the simple point is they aren't yours either. he can do whatever the fuck he wants, and nobody needs some random asshole saying their agenda is superior and must be followed. who the fuck are you?

    but along your line of interests, maybe he will head here, it's not far from the Philippines, i would:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  20. Big discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this interesting news? It is not like WWII happened thousands of years ago and not much known about it and that suddenly a mysterious ship was discovered that everyone has talked about yet never seen. *Everything* about WWII is known and recorded in archives somewhere. I am sure details of these Japanese warships, their design and where they sank is all available in some archive somewhere in Japan.

  21. One-way trip? by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere that the Yamato went out with only enough fuel in it to go somewhere, not come back (though logically it could have gone somewhere half as far and come back fine...). Did this sister-ship get arraigned for a similar trip?

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:One-way trip? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      No - Musashi was sunk by US warplanes in the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, which was a part of the larger engagement of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, and had been part of a group that included the Yamato and a few other ships. Musashi was the only one sunk at the Sibuyan Sea, though a Heavy Cruiser was crippled. Leyte Gulf on the whole though was Japan's last attempt to turn the tide at sea through direct battle, and it was after that when they turned to predominantly suicide tactics and missions instead, such as the idea to run the Yamato aground and use it as a gun platform on Okinawa.

  22. Re:Systemd, for or against? by BoogieChile · · Score: 0

    I think, being geeks and not greeks, we should throw slightly smaller squares of plastic at him instead

    Diskus.

  23. Re:Atlantis by rtb61 · · Score: 0

    Yes, because cities buried underneath water and hidden for thousands of years are a complete and utter myth. http://weburbanist.com/2013/04... and I am the troll HA HA HA.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  24. Re:Atlantis by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    No agenda, just curious, I certainly wont put any effort into the search. I think war worship is really rather outdated though and focusing on other stuff will likely be a lot healthier for everyone. So yeah, my 'agenda' certainly is not what you think it is.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  25. Re:Atlantis by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    you want people to learn from history. studying war artifacts does not promote war. in fact, studying war artifacts might prevent war. like studying the wreck of a slaving ship won't make people become slavers, but might educate future generations about the vile slave trade to affirm our revulsion to slavery

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  26. If the Japanese didn't built the Yamato... by master_p · · Score: 1

    ...we wouldn't have gotten Space Battleship Yamato, one of the most epic stories ever written.

    If one wants to understand the Japanese mentality, they can start with Space Battleship Yamato. The mixture of violence, romance, war, and the fact that the heros of the show would rather die than surrender to aliens, are some important aspects of the Japanese culture.

  27. Finding it by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Finding it was nothing. Elon Musk is the real hero - he was the one who sank it.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Finding it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finding it was nothing. Elon Musk is the real hero - he was the one who sank it.

      That's true. Brian Williams of NBC documented the entire battle from the back seat of Elon's dive-bomber.

  28. Cryptonomicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tech guy finds sunken WW2 ship near the Philippines? Sounds familiar.. :)

  29. Re:Systemd, for or against? by queBurro · · Score: 1

    hello everybody peeps, speak for yourself, being greek, I think we ought to throw food at them Couscous.

    --
    sag
  30. Full of Mirakuru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Betcha that thing is stuffed full of Mirakuru

  31. Just as Neal Stephenson predicted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems way too similar to Cryptonomicon. Is there Nazi gold on that thing?

  32. Sing a-long!!! by tekrat · · Score: 1

    saraba chikyuu yo
    tabidatsu fune wa
    Uchuuu Senkannnnn Muuuuu Saaaa Shiiiiiiiii!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  33. Re:Fascinating ship (Battleship vs Battleship) by jdgoulden · · Score: 1

    There were only two battleship-on-battleship engagements in the Pacific, and neither Yamato nor Musashi were involved. However, Yamato did put its big guns on an escort carrier - the USS Gambier Bay, which sank shortly thereafter.

  34. 8===D~~~ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck all y'all.

    Come on Slashdot, isn't it time to edit this "first post" thread down to the bottom of the page?

  35. Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Musashi is truly an engineering marvel and as an engineer at heart, I have a deep appreciation for the technology and effort that went into its construction," Allen said.

    I do, too, but I have a deeper appreciation for the technology and effort that went into its destruction.

    To those few of you left that served, I offer my sincerest thanks. You are truly deserving of being called 'The Greatest Generation".

  36. Musashi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Yamato and Bismarck sank the turrets fell out. I wonder if the ship settled evenly. I've only seen isolated pictures of Musahi's hull so far... a 25 MM guntub, anchor, catapult.....is the superstructure intact. It did not suffer a catastrophic magazine explosion like yamato.
    .

  37. Are we sure... by keithrc · · Score: 1

    ...that it's not actually the Yamato? What are they doing with it down there?

  38. Re:Atlantis by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    No one said anything about there being no cities underwater. There are obviously quite a few, and your link lists several of them. You know which city isn't listed on that page? Atlantis, the specific single city you mentioned in your first post (not "cities buried beneath water and hidden for thousands of years", but, specifically, Atlantis). You want to know why Atlantis isn't listed on that page? Because it's widely regarded as being a myth. So, yeah, you're the troll.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  39. Re:Atlantis by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Here's some more information about your "lost civilization":

    Atlantis is the name of a fictional island mentioned within an allegory on the hubris of nations in Plato's works Timaeus and Critias, where it represents the antagonist naval power that besieges "Ancient Athens", the pseudo-historic embodiment of Plato's ideal state (see The Republic).

    You understand the meanings of the things I put in bold, right?

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  40. Re:At last... [Apple's Future] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Jobs produced duds also: Lisa, Next, "Cube" Mac, round mouse, 1-button mouse, Apple-TV. The potential problem I see is that Apple may be afraid to gamble because if they fail with a product, then everyone will panic and say they "lost their edge when Jobs died".

    It's not that they cannot find innovators, it's that they don't have enough margin to gamble due to expectations.

    They should tell investors outright: "We have to gamble and have to fail to move forward. Jobs made mistakes, and we'll probably also make mistakes, perhaps even more while we are learning lessons it took Steve a lifetime to learn, but gambling is necessary to Apple's future. There will be duds."

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  41. Penis, penis, penis. I want my penis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    8===D~~~, 8===D~~~, 8===D~~~. I want my 8===D~~~.