Musashi took something like 19 torpedo hits and 17 bomb hits I recall.
I have noticed that several people have have said that the Yamato had:
very poor gunnery control
I wish to disagree. While the American ships DID have radar guided guns and therefore had much better gunnery control, the Yamato and indeed all Japanese ships had far superiour optics for gunnery control.
I read a book about Yamato and it said that she carried a 30 meter optical range finder, the biggest ever built!
The Japanese carried the finest naval optics afloat in 1945 and in an optics vs optics single ship fight would do much more damage.
Of course, compared to radar guided fire control, optics is pretty crap!
The other thing I want to query is the quality of the Yamato's armor. I have read several tests conducted on the Shinato's turret armor (3rd Yamato) after WWII by the Americans and how the latest American 16" super heavy shell could easily penetrate the armor etc etc etc.
What is not said is the following (You have to read the detail and cross check to find out!)
1) The shell used was designed
POST WWII
2) The gun used was brand new and had only been fired once before. This is important as a worn gun would have less muzzle velocity and therefore less hitting power.
3) The shell was fired with a double charge. Unpractical in combat as it may go boom in the turret, and lowers the rate of fire.
4) The gun was fired at the armor plate at a range of 1000 yards. Tell me when in combat you would get a battleship that close to an opponent still firing at you???
5) The shell was fired into the armor plate square on (90 degree hitting angle). The section of armor plate they tested was a main turret face plate. These were supposed to be inclined at 60 degrees I think. This would give different protection properties than at the angle tested.
Also, when the Americans tested the armor plate in a laboratory (metal tests) they were surprised to find that it was actually had better percentages of metals than contempoary American armor, and they concluded that it was infact a high quality armor plate.
I think that armor and gun article was online. I will try and find it later if I remember!
EDIT: I am not disputing that she would of been sunk. Just a few details about he construction etc.