Paul Allen Helps Find Sunken Japanese WWII Battleship Musashi Off Philippines 114
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.
Well, that is one less thing to worry about. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, really, just you and that one other guy ... everyone else? Not so much. ;-)
At last... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
no, he probably stole the coordinates from Apple
Re:At last... (Score:5, Funny)
Impossible, have you use Apple's mapping ?? He would have likely found the Bismarck had that been the case.
Re:At last... (Score:5, Funny)
You are just holding it wrong
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:At last... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:At last... [Apple's Future] (Score:2)
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 ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At last... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:At last... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, he discovered something the Japanese invented/built over 70 years ago!
Re: (Score:2)
Musashi (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Musashi (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 be
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fascinating ship (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.
Re:Fascinating ship (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
They were in no way considered "obsolete", at least not yet.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ryan? I read your book! Your conclusions were all wrong, Halsey acted stupidly."
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The increase in construction of Aircraft Carriers was a direct result of naval arms limitation treaties like The Washington Naval Treaty [wikipedia.org] and The London Naval Treaty [wikipedia.org] (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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 f
Re:Fascinating ship (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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. :)
Re:Fascinating ship (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Fascinating ship (Battleship vs Battleship) (Score:1)
Re: (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 ha
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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... [wikipedia.org] It is worth reading and provides some very good background information.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 describe
If the Japanese didn't built the Yamato... (Score:2)
...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.
B-SOS-D (Score:1)
Ironic because it was probably did in by a BSOD
float it, point it (Score:1)
I found your Battleship (Score:5, Funny)
Billionaires play Battleship with real battleships.
Re: (Score:2)
"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. :)
found "near where it sank"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A ship sinking in deep water can wind up several miles from the point where the surface closed over it.
Space Battleship Musashi? (Score:2)
They did it with the Yamato:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9fUryAT8Sw [youtube.com]
The 2010 live action reboot soundtrack was pretty badass:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DEvTKWyfg [youtube.com]
hypsometric bathymetric survey of the ocean floor (Score:1)
One-way trip? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finding it (Score:1)
Finding it was nothing. Elon Musk is the real hero - he was the one who sank it.
Sing a-long!!! (Score:2)
saraba chikyuu yo
tabidatsu fune wa
Uchuuu Senkannnnn Muuuuu Saaaa Shiiiiiiiii!
Are we sure... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Discuss.
Re: (Score:1)
Diskus.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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.)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, because cities buried underneath water and hidden for thousands of years are a complete and utter myth. http://weburbanist.com/2013/04... [weburbanist.com] and I am the troll HA HA HA.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Atlantis ... fun and a lot more people could play and discover.
Fun discovering Atlantis? Poe's Law rear's it's mighty head.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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