What you have to bear in mind is that the RAF was in control of Naval aviation until May 1939 and. The RN had no influence or say in the choice of aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm until then. The RAF considered that the FAA was not important.

Given the political situation, the RAF naturally dedicated the available resources to the development and production of Hurricanes and Spitfires for the defense of mainland Britain. No money was spent by them on developing Naval aircraft.

Even when the RN did get control of the FAA, they had little influence in the decision making process and there was little money to spare for developing new naval aircraft; the money was seen as needed for building new warships.

My very point when I said, British Military Policy...the RAF controlled everything that flew.  Unlike in the US, where the NAvy kept control of its a/c and the Marines, as well, to a lesser extent...

Plus the USN made aviation vessels the command for Naval Aviators, integrating the Air Arm into the Navy,.  The RN kept ship command for line officers, leaving the FAA officers basically passengers on their own vessels...leaving a deep divide between the RN and it's Air Arm.

 

All this occurred in the period 191-39, and the Brit's NEVER really recovered...

She wasn't hit and sunk by air attack.

Here's a hint...a US DESTROYER such as the Sumner or Gearing Class in 1945 could generate more sustained AAA, and more accurate sustained AAA than the Italian BATTLESHIP Vittorio Veneto....That should give you a clue about US AAA capacity by the end of the Second World War.

 

Ordnance:

1) Japan had as light AAA a 13mm Hotchkiss and the 25 mm Hotchkiss.

2) The US had by 1943...the Oerlikon 20 mm, a far superior weapon.

3) The US fielded the 40 mm Bofors, which the Japanese had NO counter-part to

4) The US fielded the finest DP weapon and mount of the war in the Twin 127 mm/L38 mount.

 

Fusing:

By 1944/45 the US was fielding the VT Fuse (radar proximity).  It converted the 127 mm/L38 into a SUPERB AAA!  By the end of the war, IIRC, over 50% of all Flak kills were 127 mm kills.  The Japanese had nothing like this.

 

Fire Control:

The US had the world's best fire control.  Not just surface fire control, but ALL fire control.  The US had opted for a tachymetric HA fire control system, meaning that the FCS had inputs of the dynamic components of the target's characteristics inputted.  The British High Attitude Control System (HACS) did not, for reasons of cost.  British vessels were extremely vulnerable to dive bombers, as their fire control system could not handle rapidly changing target values and all the Brit's could do was fire barrage fire at fixed altitudes at their opponents.  This was at the BEGINNING of the war.

 

By 1944/45 you have Destroyers and Battleships with Radar controlled, proximity fused 127 mm gunfire....

Radar-controlled 40 mm QUADRUPLE and Twin mount Bofors...and

IIRC, manually controlled, but directed mass 20 mm fire.

 

Results:

 

Throw Weight Per Minute: Total AA

Post-Refit Configuration: 19,784 lbs. (Yamato)

48,992 lbs. (Iowa)

Iowa could put almost 2.5 TIMES the weight of AA into the air as Yamato.  And that fire was, on the whole more heavy-consisting of a large number of 40 mm rounds., more lethal-Proximity fused rounds, and more accurate.

 

I'm sorry ANY US Fast Battleship, not just the Iowas, were an order of magnitude better gun platform and naval asset than the Yamato.  (Editors Note: "Order of magnitude" is a literary hyperbole)  Any US Fast Battleship, North Carolinas, the South Dakotas, the Iowas fielded superb 406 mm guns, with superb 2,700 pound AP projectiles, the most advanced and accurate surface fire control system IN THE WORLD-capable of generating hits far in excess of the Yamato's.  They also were superb CV escort vessels, capable of putting an almost literal hurricane of AAA into the air, AAA that was accurate and lethal, again FAR IN EXCESS OF THEIR JAPANESE COUNTER-PARTS.

 

Bottom-Line: almost NO CONTEST, the Iowa class, or for that matter any of the post-1939 battleships, in 1944/45 were much better, unit-for-unit than the Yamato class...and since the clash would have been a clash of gun-LINES, not just ship-on-ship the Japanese surface fleet would have been decimated in short order had it EVER had the mis-fortune to actually meet the US surface force of fast battleships.

 

That's right' but there's still one thing concerning me-one survivor of Bismarck said that main advantage of Bismarck was that she was stable gunnery platform. Iowas are built for speed, and are narrow and long, while Yamato is built for ship-to-ship engagement, and is much wider for same or similar length, which means that it is more stable and could fire her main guns much faster because it would require less time for Yamato to stop swinging than Iowa.

Never heard any complaints about the Iowa Class as stable gun platforms.  They fired target practice throughout the war on simulated surface targets and fired real world fire support missions, in three wars.  Never heard it said that they were an unstable gun platform.

They did displace 45,000 tons, it's not like they were cockleshells.

That's right' but there's still one thing concerning me-one survivor of Bismarck said that main advantage of Bismarck was that she was stable gunnery platform. Iowas are bult for speed, and are narrow and long, while Yamato is built for ship-to-ship engagement, and is much wider for same or similar length, which means that it is more stable and could fire her main guns much faster beacouse it would require less time for Yamato to stop swinging than Iowa.

The Ford Mark II fire control computer had x/y inclinometer input. So when Iowa rolled or pitched her guns circuits were programmed to delay fire until the computer read STABLE ZERO.

 

Just one of the many features of the Ford Mark II that nobody else had. The backup was a x/y roll inclinometer circuit in local control, also not seen in foreign designs.

 

Dead meat is dead meat. The Yamatos were dead meat.

 

Herald

 

 

Does anyone have any data on ROF between these 2 Juggernaughts?

I don't have any hard info, but I'd guess the Iowa would have a higher ROF.
Combined with more accurate gunnery (radar aside)I'd have to go with the Iowa's coming out on top of this clash. (I suppose the Iowa's were powerful enough that there was no need for the the Montana's. Now that would have been very one sided Yamato V Montana!)

Just my 2c

Montana was cancelled beacouse US Navy needed more Iowas to escort their aircraft carriers. Montana was just too slow for that.

We needed aircraft carriers desperately and the scarce steel was diverted to Midways. Even the Iowas were stopped after the initial four  for that reason.

They were stopped beacouse final two ships wouldn't be completed in time to enter war.  This is from Wikipedia:

 

USS Illinois (BB-65)

Illinois was ordered 9 September 1940 and laid down 15 January 1945. Construction was canceled 11 August 1945 when Illinois was 22% complete. She was sold for scrap in September 1958.^[35][36] Illinois' design called for an all-welded hull, lighter and stronger than the riveted/welded hull of the four completed Iowa-class ships. A proposal to redesign the hull with a Montana-class type torpedo protection system was rejected.^[37]

[edit] USS Kentucky (BB-66)

Kentucky was ordered 9 September 1940 and laid down on 6 December 1944. Construction was suspended 17 February 1947 when Kentucky was 72% complete. She was informally launched 20 January 1950 to clear a dry-dock for repairs to Missouri, which had run aground. In 1956, Kentucky?s bow was removed and shipped in one piece across Hampton Roads, where it was grafted on the battleship Wisconsin, which had collided with the destroyer Eaton