Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class
capt soap    9/17/2005 12:55:11 PM
How would this fight turn out? the Iowa's 16 inch guns against the Yamato 18 guns? The iowa had radar,which one would sink the other 1 on 1.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36   NEXT
Herald12345    I'm a little tired of this.   6/26/2009 1:45:32 PM
\
 
 
 
 
Victim is Jean Bart, mugger is USS Massachusetts: a South Dalota Class.

EXTRAPOLATE.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Man   6/26/2009 1:50:11 PM
the French Navy couldn't catch a break...first the British and then the US navy!
 
Quote    Reply

Leech       6/26/2009 2:18:13 PM

Hood may have been the SYMBOL of British Naval Power, to the General Public, but the RN knew she was:

1) Vulnerable and in need of rebuild; and

2) Clapped out and in need of extensive refit in 1939.

 

However, the press of naval needs prevented Hood from being either rebuilt or refitted....The British on that fateful May morning knew that Hood had serious weaknesses, and Adm Holland had planned to obviate them, but that plan failed, and even in the battle that took place Holland tried to minimize the risks that he and the RN knew existed in fighting the Hood with a battleship.

 

Bottom-line: as a SYMBOL HMS Hood was peerless, as a COMBAT UNIT, Hood was seriously compromised and the Royal Navy knew it.
Plus Prince of Wales with only two out of ten guns operative...  Bismarck was more powerful than any battleship afloat in 1940-1941, and Hood was originaly built as battlecruiser. Germans, however, planned to produce six H-39 class battleships, which were basically Bismarck class, but enlarged and with several weak points removed (largest Bismarck's weakness was the fact that her manouverability was greatly reduced without rudder, which, in combination with inadequate anti-air defense proved fatal-the same weakneses will cause sinking of the Prince of Wales near Kuantan 3 days after attack on Pearl Harbour. However, while I said that both Bismarck's and Prince of Wales' anti-air artillery was inadequate, they had unordinarily strong AA defences for that time. Bismarck and PoW are used as examples of air force outclassing dreadnoughts, but that is not completely true-Bismarck's AA fire control computer was not calibrated for ancient Swordfish bombers which attacked her, while Prince of Wales' AAFC computer was not even operative beacouse of climate in Singapore (and Malaya itself). Bismarck was doomed by torpedo jamming his rudder, PoW also, while Hood was doomed by its weak deck and goodwill ambassador missions which did not left time for necessary refit. And Bismarck was designed with facing Hood in mind-so it can be stated that he fulfilled his purpose.
 
Quote    Reply

Leech       6/26/2009 2:25:32 PM

the French Navy couldn't catch a break...first the British and then the US navy!

Well, these were all military needs. British navy wanted to make sure that Germans don't get any French battleships in operative condition, which could turn the odds in German favor; and French originally resisted to American troops during "Operation Torch", althought they later fought Germans together.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/26/2009 2:36:17 PM




Hood may have been the SYMBOL of British Naval Power, to the General Public, but the RN knew she was:



1) Vulnerable and in need of rebuild; and



2) Clapped out and in need of extensive refit in 1939.



 



However, the press of naval needs prevented Hood from being either rebuilt or refitted....The British on that fateful May morning knew that Hood had serious weaknesses, and Adm Holland had planned to obviate them, but that plan failed, and even in the battle that took place Holland tried to minimize the risks that he and the RN knew existed in fighting the Hood with a battleship.



 



Bottom-line: as a SYMBOL HMS Hood was peerless, as a COMBAT UNIT, Hood was seriously compromised and the Royal Navy knew it.


Plus Prince of Wales with only two out of ten guns operative...  Bismarck was more powerful than any battleship afloat in 1940-1941, and Hood was originaly built as battlecruiser. Germans, however, planned to produce six H-39 class battleships, which were basically Bismarck class, but enlarged and with several weak points removed (largest Bismarck's weakness was the fact that her manouverability was greatly reduced without rudder, which, in combination with inadequate anti-air defense proved fatal-the same weakneses will cause sinking of the Prince of Wales near Kuantan 3 days after attack on Pearl Harbour. However, while I said that both Bismarck's and Prince of Wales' anti-air artillery was inadequate, they had unordinarily strong AA defences for that time. Bismarck and PoW are used as examples of air force outclassing dreadnoughts, but that is not completely true-Bismarck's AA fire control computer was not calibrated for ancient Swordfish bombers which attacked her, while Prince of Wales' AAFC computer was not even operative beacouse of climate in Singapore (and Malaya itself). Bismarck was doomed by torpedo jamming his rudder, PoW also, while Hood was doomed by its weak deck and goodwill ambassador missions which did not left time for necessary refit. And Bismarck was designed with facing Hood in mind-so it can be stated that he fulfilled his purpose.
Huh?
 
 
Read the two paragraphs under The Battle
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Leech   6/26/2009 2:39:16 PM
Considering the quality of British AAA, the 4 cm Pow-Pom and the quality of the HACS Fire Control System, the PoW was pretty much doomed in 1941.  The Brit's just sucked rocks when it came to air-sea issues in the inter-war period and never really caught up....not great Flak, not so good fire control, miserable aircraft for the carriers, in terms of fighters, especially and bad doctrine for fighters, any way...one of their better fighters was the US Wildcat....and they loved the US 12.7 cm gun...and used whenever possible US fire control...the Oerlikon and the Bofors were foreign designs...and that's pretty much a result of the RN's own policies 1919-1939.
 
Quote    Reply

Leech    Read two paragrphs...   6/26/2009 2:56:22 PM
Thanks on that .pdf, I will read it whole when i catch some time tomorrow.
 
Quote    Reply

Leech       6/26/2009 3:12:14 PM
Oerlikon and Bofors are Scandinavian design (probably from Sweden) and many nations in WWII used them-Germans mounted 20mm Oerlikon cannons on their torpedo boats, and US used both 40mm quadruple Bofors cannons (160 rounds per tube per minute; 0,9 kg round; range 6700 m, 7400 m vertical) and 20mm Oerlikon (450 rounds per tube per minute; 0,14 kg round; 3300 m range; 450 rptpm). Japanese used their own type of 25 mm AA cannon (0,27 kg round; 5000 m range; 5900 m vertical; 220 rptpm).
 
 
Quote    Reply

Leech       6/26/2009 3:16:27 PM

British had naval version of Spitfire (Supermarine Spitfire?), and I think that it should be pretty good, given performance of standard Spitfire in 1940.-1941.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Japamese used 25 mm HOTCHKISS    6/26/2009 3:33:39 PM

Oerlikon and Bofors are Scandinavian design (probably from Sweden) and many nations in WWII used them-Germans mounted 20mm Oerlikon cannons on their torpedo boats, and US used both 40mm quadruple Bofors cannons (160 rounds per tube per minute; 0,9 kg round; range 6700 m, 7400 m vertical) and 20mm Oerlikon (450 rounds per tube per minute; 0,14 kg round; 3300 m range; 450 rptpm). Japanese used their own type of 25 mm AA cannon (0,27 kg round; 5000 m range; 5900 m vertical; 220 rptpm).

 


Seems like I'm running into all kinds of errors today.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy