ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT

JIMF RE:ww2 Montana Class 9/30/2005 8:36:57 PM

"The Montana was cancelled because battleships were obsolete. This was understood by 1942." Obsolete is a bit strong. It was understood after Coral Sea and Midway that Battleships were definitely relegated to the second tier after Aircraft Carriers. Nevertheless, there were battleship engagements off of Guadalcanal in 1942 and at Leyte Gulf, and of course they were extremely useful for shore bombardment. The U.S. continued building the Alaska Class 12" so called Battlecruisers which came into service in 44/45. The Brits built The Vanguard 8x15" guns, entering service in 1945. Also, the U.S., British, and French navies maintained battleships as part of their active fleets through the 1950s. I think the U.S. retired the Wisconsin in 1957, only to bring it, or its sisters out for the Vietnam War.

Quote Reply

eon RE:World War 2 Montana Class and Others 10/1/2005 10:12:39 AM

Interesting thread, here. Some interesting facts to add to it. 1. The Montana herself was 15% complete when cancelled in 1944. At link and /016702.jpg you can find official U.S. Navy photos of the concept models as of 7 Oct 1944. As a point of interest, Montana's steam turbines and reduction gears ended up being installed in the carrier U.S.S. Midway. 2. The Alaska class "Large Cruisers" (they were >not< battlecruisers, and were never referrred to as such by the Navy) were contracted in 1939, with construction beginning in 1940. The story goes that they were intended as a response to the IJN's "B-64" class of BCs. This is in fact exactly reverse of the facts in the case. The "B-64"s, which were never laid down, were programmed by the IJN for the 1943-44 build cycle >after< they learned of the existence of the Alaska-class project. The "Alaska" and her (planned) five sisters (Hawaii, Guam, Phillipines, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa- all named for U.S. Trust Territories) were in fact intended as counters to the German "Panzerschiff", or "Pocket Battleships" (more properly armored cruisers) of the Admiral Scheer class, as well as the twin battlecruisers DKM Scharnhorst and DKM Gneisenau. For this reason, all were to be fitted as flagships for TF and convoy duty, as it was expected that they would most likely be in Atlantic waters where they could expect to encounter the German raiders- and unlike the DE in "The Enemy Below" (starring Robert Mitchum and Kurt Jurgens), they would >not< have been "outgunned and outrun by one of those murdering wolves". As it turned out, the Royal Navy and the RAF disposed of the DKM's surface assets, and only Alaska and Hawaii were ever completed. Both went to the Pacific, where they participated in the Battle of Okinawa. Between them, they fired less than 100 12" main-gun rounds, but a substatial amount of 5" and 40mm AA ammo. Postwar, both were sent to the Reserves in late 1945, finally being withdrawn in 1952-53, and sent to the breakers in 1961. 3. Kentucky was not >entirely< scrapped. In May 1956, while maneuvering in fog off Cape Henry, Washington during an exercise, the U.S.S. Wisconsin (BB-64)collided with the destroyer U.S.S. Eaton (DD-510). (The results can be seen on P.41 of "U.S. Battleships In Action, Part 2", Carrollton, TX; Squadron/Signal Publications, 1984. ISBN 0-89747-157-1.) Wisconsin's smashed-in bow was replaced by that of the Kentucky, which she still "wears" today. 4. The relative ROF of the Yamato and Iowa class is very much in the American vessel's favor. The 18.1" guns on the Yamato had a standard ROF of 1 round/min/tube; that of the 16" /50 cal. guns on the Iowa is 2 rounds/min/tube. in any sustained engagement, the Iowa would have a higher volume of fire. (Source; "Battleships and Battlecruisers, 1905-1970", by Siegfried Breyer.) 5. It was the New Jersey (BB-62) that was reactivated in 1968 for shore-bombardment duty in Vietnam. The other three Iowas (Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin) were not reactivated until 1983, under the Reagan Administration's naval buildup. And to be honest, looking at what they did with them, I'm willing to bet then- Navy Secretary John Lehman was quietly cursing the decision of the Eisenhower Administration to scrap the Alaska and Hawaii- which could have performed 90%+ of the missions profiled for the battleships at significantly lower costs in manpower and finances. Which leads to the question- is the battleship dead, and does the future belong to the "large cruiser"? (Hm. Nuclear-powered large cruiser with hypervelocity guns plus guided missiles. Imagine the possibilities, especially in alternate-1950s SF.......) Cheers. eon

Quote Reply

Alistair C RE:ww2 Yamato VS Iowa 10/11/2005 6:06:30 AM

Hi, Havent been on in a while. Just saw this thread. This type of what if question appears regularly! In response to Basilisk Station's post quote "The Yamato class were extremely tough ships. Of that there is no debate, but they were inferior to the Iowa in almost every category. The Iowas had better quality armor (IIRC, the steel in the Yamato's was somewhat brittle)" unquote. I would like to correct this often upheld and too rarely proven wrong urban legend about the performance of the brittle Yamato class armour in comparison to the Iowa class, and as such her ability to withstand damage. Her class was to be 4 ships but only the Yamato and Musashi were completed, with the 3rd one as a (very large and armoured!) aircraft carrier, the Shinano. The following report, cut and pasted in brief, is from a series of ballistic tests on the Shinano's turret face armour, performed in November 1947. (updated by Nathan Okun). SUBJECT Test of 26" (66cm) Class "A" Main Armament Turret Face (Port) Plate, originally for IJN SHINANO, the third Japanese YAMATO-Class super-battleship (converted into an aircraft carrier, instead, and sunk on its way to final fitting out yard by a U.S. submarine), which made up far left side of turret face looking from inside turret out of gun port, with "D"-shaped cutout making up about half of left curved gun port forming center of long right side of plate. STEEL QUALITY Steel had many tiny pieces of dirt and so forth, being about the same as pre-WWI British Vickers Cemented (VC) KC-type armor steel in quality (VC was used for the first time in the Japanese battleship IJN KONGO, built in Britain, and manufactured in Japan under license thereafter), from which the unique Japanese armors New Vickers Non-Cemented (NVNC), the homogeneous, ductile form of VH used in a number of Japanese post-WWI warships, and VH itself was derived (this steel was not up to U.S., British, or German post-1930 steel quality). Carbon content was raised above VC steel level to increase ease of hardening, some copper added to allow some nickel (in short supply in Japan) to be removed (but not much), slight amount of molybdenum added to increase hardenability still more, and the cemented (carburized) thin surface layer used in VC (and in most other, foreign face-hardened armors) was eliminated with no loss of resistance from VC quality (a good design point). Surface of plate face was very smooth, unlike rough, pebbly surface of cemented plates, such as U.S. Navy Class "A" armor. (Note, here it says her armour isnt up to the quality of post 1930 US UK German manufacturer). CONCLUSION Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by ANY gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45�, as they were in the actual turrets!!! Even to completely hole the plate all the way through at that inclination requires a brand new 16"/50 Mark 7 or German 38cm SK C/34 gun at point-blank range firing the latest versions of their respective AP projectiles; it might be cracked at a lower striking velocity, but no hole put entirely through it! 6-8" of this armour was tested also and found to be the BEST armour available. Even though this armour was of supposed poorer quality. This caused the U.S. test conductors to state that obviously they did not understand what it took to make a high-quality Class "A" plate, since the 7.21" VH plate should not have been so good from everything they thought they knew about face-hardened armor... There is more to the report than this, please GOOGLE Nathan Okun and follow from there. Food for thought isnt it guys...

Quote Reply

blacksmith RE:ww2 Montana Class - JIMF 10/11/2005 11:23:49 PM

The special forces used cavalry in Afghanistan. Should the Army be investing in stables? No. Because cavalry is obsolete. As that Rummy guy said, you go to war with what you've got. And the US had battleships at the beginning of WW II with a number approaching completion. The US also had Douglas Vindicators and Brooster Buffalos and sent young men to their deaths in them. This would tend to disprove that using an item proves it isn't obsolete. The fact that incomplete battleships were being pulled out of shipyards to make way for "higher priority construction" (eg. fleet carriers) should be proof enough of where battleships fit on the pecking order.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/20/2005 3:36:56 PM

Just got my Naval History Magazine.....and what should be inside? A story on this very subject. I'll let one and all know what they say when I read it.

Quote Reply

bunkerdestroyer RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/20/2005 11:21:55 PM

My opinion is that the Yamato would have won hands down earlier in the war when its crew were of higher calibre....In 1945, they still would have won assuming the Yamato had a full crew and they had been at their post for at least 6 months WITH training. Generically speaking, the crews were good. Both sides had radar and both early radars frequently broke down, esp when firing salvos...While the us radar was superior, if the japense radar was just basic, it could still give speed and distance...good enough. When your lobbing 2600-3800lb shells, then I dont think the fight is going to be decided because in 5 minutes, the Iowa loosed 8 salvos(it wont maintain 2rpm)vs 4 or 5 for the Japanese. The yamato's armour was of high quality. remember they (and her sister) were the pride of the fleet and were built to high standards...she also could absorb a much more significant ammount of damage than the Iowa... Her shells were up to 50% heavier and had a much greater range. Even if someone thinks that Iowas ROF was so important, Yamato could have gotten off 3-5 slavos before Iowa got into range..and then well within her range, while Iowa-if not hit yet, would still be trying to find the range. Now if in those 3-5(if not more) slavos-and depending on the direction-say a full 9rd salvo, it is guarentee that at least 1 or 2 of the 27-45 18.1" rounds would have it their target. Then, depending on the angle struck, even if not on the conning tower or range finder/radar, both would have probably been knocked out by the concusion of the blasts....remember it was sensitive equiptment.... I think the Yamato could have easily absorbed several hits and still fully functioned-even if the hits were square-remember they were designed to take hits from 16" guns. The Iowa,on the other hand would have been in trouble just after a hit or two. In addition, like the Hood, the 18.1" could have sank her with just 1 high angle hit... I doubt the Iowa could claim the same... When a 18.1 or a 16" shell hits, there is not much damage control can do, for when the second and third, etc hit, then most would be dead anyway....

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/21/2005 12:21:35 AM

As far as Yamato supposed to be designed to withstand 16" gunfire, I am wondering if they meant horizontal, low-angle impacts...? Most 16" shells weighed about 2700 pounds. IIRC, the USN aircraft that sank Yamato were not equipped with 2700 pound bombs. Anyone care to do the math for me on this one: 2700 pound shells gun-fired at X velocity as compared to 500+ pound AP bombs released at Y velocity (figuring aircraft is diving at Y velocity before braking and peeling away after release), which will have better terminal effects? If the Yamato could be sunk by aircraft carrying ordnance that was marginally comparable to the on-target effects of 16" gunfire, how then can we say that Yamato would've stood up to sustained salvoes from the Iowa? Is it only because the Yamato would've had a decent chance of fighting back against a surface vessel, where it was perfectly armed to respond, as compared to high-angle AA, where it was considerably lacking? (the 25mm AA popular with Japan was woefully inadequate: it didn't have the ROF or ease of mounting maneuverability comparable to 20mm Oerlikons nor the shell weight of 40mm Bofors as used by the USN.)

Quote Reply

Arbalest RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/21/2005 4:04:14 AM

A Nova/PBS program, titled ?Sinking the Supership? I think, examines the history and sinking of the Yamato. The ship was indeed sunk due to airpower. The dive bombers scored 23 hits, the torpedo planes 10. The interesting thing that the program mentions is that all torpedo hits were on the same side of the Yamato, causing enough flooding to roll the ship. This appears to have been the kill mechanism. A Yamato/Iowa gun duel is a tough call. There is a lot of data available on ?http ://www. navweaps.com/?. The ?Naval Weapons? button leads to a lot of calculated armor penetration, velocity-at-range, and angle-of-fall data. As long as the data is from the same formula, it seems to be at least a good indicator of relative performance. The ?Naval Technology? button leads to several articles, among them ?Longest Gunfire Hit on an Enemy Warship?, by Tony DiGiulian, ?What did the USN know about Yamato and when?" by Joseph Czarnecki, and ?The Armor Thickness Necessary to Decap an APC Projectile? by Nathan Okun. There is also a link to ?Nathan Okun?s Naval Gun/Armor Data Page?, which contains many interesting articles, among them, an article on U.S. Naval Gunnery. It seems that the Iowa class had a de-capping layer of armor, outside of the main belt. This feature does not show up in ?Battleships and Battlecruisers . . .? by Sigfried Breyer. According to Okun, decapping a APC round makes a significant difference in armor penetration. Ignoring the Iowa?s decapping armor for the moment, at up to 25,000 yards, both ships would probably have put rounds through each other?s armor everywhere (except for the Yamato?s turret face armor). Including the decapping armor, the Yamato might have had to close another 10,000 yards, maybe not. The Yamato had more powerful guns, but the Iowa?s 2700 AP round closed the gap to 2? more up to maybe 15,000 yards, 1? more thereafter. The Yamato had noticeably more armor everywhere, except that the Iowa had 2 armored decks. Sigfried Breyer?s book has drawings and details. The Yamato was designed to be proof against 16? projectiles (probably the 2200lb variety, not the later 2700lb type) over most ranges, but the entire ship was not proof. Several torpedo hits, all on the same side, rolled the ship. The Iowa?s 5-knot advantage means that the Iowa could control the engagement range, except if the Iowa had to protect something, or in the event of a hit to the propulsion system. The Iowa?s rate of fire (1 rd every 30 sec) is an advantage over the Yamato?s 1 rd every 45 sec., but the hit location would have been more important, as each hit would essentially be a kill, or involve some random damage calculation. 25,000 yards seems to be the maximum effective range for optical sighting, and the hit probability is around 1%. The Iowa?s radar apparently was good for fire control to 35,000 yards. At this range, and beyond, the Iowa could put projectiles through the Yamato?s deck. The Yamato could return the favor through the Iowa?s top AD, but probably not the second. However, the hit probabilities are very low, apparently under 1%. All of this seems to favor the Iowa, but only slightly. However, descriptions of the Bismark?s last action indicates that hits from main guns are very destructive, and that there is a considerable amount of unpredictability in naval gun duels. The South Dakota (9-16? guns) engaged the Kirishima (8-14? guns) and won, but took a lot of damage during the duel. There is a lot of randomness involved.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/21/2005 10:28:02 AM

"There is a lot of randomness involved." Without listing how the engagement starts, location, etc... there is no way to judge. I mean did the Yamato get caught in open ocean or did it come around an island and start the fight at 10,000 yds. Who caught sight of who first? Who moved to exploit their knowledge best? Who had the tactically superior Captain? Is God Better or is Buddha?

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/21/2005 12:18:14 PM

Buddha?????? But I always thought the Japanese were predominantly Shintoist.

Quote Reply

bunkerdestroyer RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/21/2005 3:15:15 PM

The bombs were ap designed to take on ships, not the he used on the home land, in addition, remember howmany bombs she took, and it was not the bombs that sunk her...it was the numerous topedo hits..... and generally speaking, most of the 16" shells would have probably hit at a low angle from )degrees vs the 45-90degrees of a bomb-perfect penetration angle... In addition, you assume 500lb bombs...I think the 500lb were fragmentation to kill the aa gunners and the ones ment to take her out were 1000-2000lbs-more along the lines of 14-15" shells....

Quote Reply

bunkerdestroyer RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/21/2005 3:20:57 PM

Arbalest: Japense gunners were high quality...probably better than us gunners-and with the exception of radar aided battles, they usually proved it... The Yamato's guns had a range of 41000 yrs-far more than the Iowa's if spotter planes gave the alert, or subs, etc, the Yamato's guns could have easily found the range before they were in range, and 1" of the 'decapping armout' is not going to withstand a 3800/4100lb 18.1" shell at any range-think of it..1" extra.

Quote Reply

bunkerdestroyer RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/21/2005 3:22:16 PM

Buddha was an enlightened man who believed in God as the supreme being...

Quote Reply

JIMF RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/21/2005 6:23:29 PM

"Japense gunners were high quality...probably better than us gunners-and with the exception of radar aided battles, they usually proved it..." In "Eagle Against The Sun" the author stated that prior to and at the beginning of the war the U.S. sailors only practiced gunnery during the day. Also, these gunnery competitions tended to be at very long range. The battles off of Guadalcanal in 1942 were at night, and frequently at close range which the Japanese had trained for. Even excluding the U.S. radar advantage I'm not sure the Japanese gunners would have had an advantage in a Yamato vs Iowa class engagement

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class 10/21/2005 6:41:42 PM

"Buddha was an enlightened man who believed in God as the supreme being... " Buddhists do not believe in God, although it is a somewhat confusing topic, for their religion sprung from Hinduism, who do have a God.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT

	News As History - November 25, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us