A couple of facts strike me about this discussion: 1) data on the accuracy of the Japanese 18 inch has not been discussed, and 2) and a number of assumptions have been made about Iowa's reported accuracy or true rate of fire.  It's been about 28-30 years, but I recall an exerpt from "Battle History of the Japanese Imperial Navy, 1941-1945" by Paul S. Dull stating that in (I think 1943) Musashi conducted a night fire towed-target exercise, with a target range of around 22,000 meters (this may have even been radar directed).  I also seem to recall a statement indicating that the Japanese were quite satisfied with 12% hits--which would be quite high.  The Yamoto class did have features to enhance the accuracy, such as a timing circuit ensuring that all barrels fired within .10 seconds, moreover, the Yamoto easily possessed the largest optical range finder's of any battleship.  Rate of fire may have also been discussed, but a caculated rate of 1.2 rounds per minute per barrel comes to mind.  In contrast, Washington scored 9 hits out of 75 rounds fired at the Kirishima using radar fire control at ranges of 8,000 yards.  The rate fire works out to 1.3 rpm, well under the theortical maximum for the North Carolina, South Dakota, or Iowa class, which essentially fire the same gun (albiet Iowa's is five calibers longer).  In short, I am not convinced the Iowa would have engaged with substantially greater accuracy in night-time or daytime engagement, though it would have clearly had the advantage of a longer range fire control radar (12.5 vs. 17 miles, if I am correct).  (Personally, as a member of 2nd ANGLICO, I have spotted both the 5" and 16" guns on an Iowa class.  After nearly getting my ass shot out from under me, I wasn't terribly impressed with the intial accuracy--though it did get better after protracted fire.)

 

In short, if accuracy and the rate of fire of the ship's was similar--which I believe it was--then by virtue of sheer volume and compartmentation, heavier deck armor (which for practical purposes was impenetrable by the 16"), heavier and more extensive bulkhead armor, and much heavier turret armor, I believe advantage would have gone to the Yamoto.  Btw, the historical exercise appears to ignore that the Yamoto not only possessed six 6" guns, but twenty-four 5" AA guns with nearly the range of our 5"/38.  I am also unconvinced how much of a role these would play, as it would require the ships to close to under 17,000 yards, and by that time, I doubt there would be much in the way of secondary armament remaining.  I really wish we could have that battle, and settle this dicussion once and for all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

History is written by the victors.

No matter how official-looking, no matter how many charts and tables I can put up on the web, that doesn't necessarily make it true.

As a science teacher, I remind any 'theorist' who says 'numbers don't lie', about Einstein.

As a history teacher, I remind anyone who says 'we know this to be true because it's in writing' to remember Randoph Hearst and the Spanish American War. Or even today's Iraq.

As someone who lives and works in countries around the world, I'd remind them that even in the 'court of public opinion', we require both sides be heard, which in this case, we don't.

If you think men say what they think women want to hear, it applies equally to the defeated reports to the conquerors.

 

Let me give you an example.

I can show everyone newspaper clipping from my home town and college saying I run the 40 in 4.4 seconds, and show you clippings from the same papers and people saying you run it no faster than 4.8. Therefore everyone should agree that I would win any race between us right?

 

Even if we dismiss the Japanese claims(which we do), here is how I see it.

 

The Iowa's radar at least accurate has a range of 40,000 yards, her guns 41,000.

The Yamato's giant optics can see 45,000 and guns fire 46,000 and she has the advantage in spotter planes(something naval gunners of the period find remarkably missing in these modern debates).

The Iowa had a 5 knot speed advantage which should allow her to close so it isn't just 'you can hit me but I can't even hit you you bugger'.

The Yamato has an equally superior turning radius, 680 to 800 which means that even if our shells landed exactly where we aimed, she can be further from that point by the time our shells arrive than we could be(and captains do adjust course even if the enemy hasn't straddled them yet).

The Iowa's optimal radar accuracy is about 31,000 which goes nicely with her optimal gun performance at between 30-35,000.

Ton for ton, the Iowa is more efficient use of resources than the Yamato.

Unfortunately the Yamato has too much advantage in sheer numbers either way. The Jagdtiger's 128mm wasn't as penetratively efficient gram for gram as the King Tiger's 88/71, but it would still blow away any tank in the field by sheer kinetic energy.

Even with gunnery radar at point blank range in ideal night conditions we've scored only 9/75 hits against a battleship at 10,000 or so and totally missing a similarily distanced cruiser, and the history of the RN and Kriegsmarine prove that 'numbers do lie' and what weapons' range promise don't always come true in practical reality.

Yet we admit the Yamato had made first-salvo hits at 40,000 yards even with some barrels loaded with the wrong ammunition.

Once damage is taken, even non-penetrating, radar will be increasingly crippled if not knocked out.

The Yamato has the clear advantage in spotter planes, which as the British and Germans proved, can see over squalls and rain and heavy seas that hinder even radar.

Some self-proclaimed expert(like I used to do actually on behalf of the Iowa) may show you an American record from someplace claiming an Iowa shell holed the front armor of a Yamato's angled turret face at 40,000 yards, though again, remember why everyone believes I'll beat you in a sprint. Someone may even claim to have fired a Yamato gun and shell at an Iowa armor, to at least try to prove they've studied both sides of the story, but again, I'd be sceptical.

It's all theoretical, hypothetical and from one-sided source.

History tells us 'never let me be my own judge, jury and executioner'.

So remember to take anything you read on the web, no matter how much more official looking than my bleeb here, with a grain of salt. Including my blabbering here.

 

Anyone who is a lawyer or who took debate in school, will know that the key is to make the audience only believe your evidence, even prevent any other opinions from being heard. Remember my sprint analogy.

 

Adm Nimitz was unusual in that he took personal care to observe every stage of the American navy and his ships from design, to testing, trial runs even repairs, and he wouldn't risk taking on a Yamato with even 2 or 3 Iowa's. Actions speak louder than words. To me, his action speaks louder than any 'theorists' words. At the very least, it shows HIS confidence in these 'theories'.

 

What do I think prsonally?

15 years ago I felt the Iowa would take the Yamato. But like Toland, I've changed my mind over the years as I learnt that the world isn't always going to be the way I want it to be, no matter how one-sided I look at a topic. I am, after all, tall, incredibly handsome and a genius with more woman-craving hair on my head than back;)

 

In good weather and visibility in daylight I'd have to go with the Yamato.

In bad weather(ironically the Iowa sits deeper in the water than the heavier Yamato and their captains complained of her 'wet bow' and vulnerable bow section), since what we call 'high seas' hindered surface and targeting radar too, I'd regretfully go with the Yamato if she could actually see me ,however fuzzy, or be helped by spotter planes.

At night, I'd go with the Iowa(at least until radar knocked out) from 30-35,000 yards, anything further it's anyone's game and any closer I risk the Yamato's superior night optics. These 'experts' will dismiss Japanese claims of Yamato's own gunnery radar effectiveness at 20,000.

 

I talked with one fellow who 'claimed' to have been a gunner on the South Dakota who also said they feared having even a small fire on board that the Japanese could use to focus on even at distance. By the way all, if we contributed a real dollar for every prayer we made to cancer victims, we'd have a cure by now.

 

The range advantage cannot be dismissed so easily as most do here. Even if it is only 1/20 chance of hit, as long as he can hit me and I can't hit him, he has ALL the advantage. You can claim your armor is invincible to penetration all you want, but only for the first couple of hits, after that, anything breaks apart even just by kinetic energy ie) Jagtiger.

 

The superior turning radius hurts my Iowa's speed advantage effort to get into and maintain my ideal range. If he chooses to play the Mohammed Ali card and try to keep his reach advantage in play, the longer the battle goes on the worse my case becomes. I have to close on him fast without crossing his T, and every minute till I do will be hell and to his advantage.

 

Apparently I have to be lone voice here and side with the voice-less here and go with the Yamato over the Iowa in most cases. So be it, I'm sure the forum host will appreciate that consensus reduces, not increases, forum participation ;).

 

But remember what I said, just because you read it on the web, or from books from one country or sold to one market, doesn't make it true. The actual naval experts of the period were continually proven wrong. Numbers can lie. Computers and programs are made by humans, and do make mistakes. Real scientists don't say a 'theory' is fact.

 

Famous American Pacific War veteran and author John Toland admittedly completely reversed his opinion on 'cold hard facts' of the war in later decades. He makes an excellent point. Authors make more money saying what will sell more books/ videos and get more funding. In this case 'the victors'. I've met with authors even engineers in other countries who have flat out said they'll write, edit and report anything we'll pay for. But in this debate, we do only hear from 'one side of experts'. Try to keep that in mind.

 

I vote Yamato.

You have two demonstrated examples of operational battleship gunnery as benchmarks to compare actual results for field testing to verify your hypothesis.

 

Radar nightblindfire by the USS Washington, a North Carolina class battleship fighting during the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal against wildly maneuvering Japanese warships.

 

Daylight optical fire by the HIJMNS Yamato against Americann ships off the island of Samar during the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

 

Comparison of actual shooting results indicate that of 100 shells fired by either ship?

 

USS Washington scored twice as many hits per shell expended in the range merge as Yamato.

 

At least on the accuracy argument you fall flat on your face.

 

On the SMASH argument......................

link

Well Mr Herald;

 

at least I didn't go around insulting anyone who didn't hold with my opinion as  you have done here.

You seem to prove my point about the topic however, and our 'open-mindedness'.

 

No, I have not acted as a ww2 spotter for ww2 ships against other ww2 ships, but I suspect few of us including you have.

 

But at least I am not using only one source for my claims.

 

I've studied and even been privileged enough to talk with people like the following from whom I learn from to make such assertions:

 

Paul Stillwell...Director History Division US Naval Institute

Eric Grove...National Strategist University of Hull

Hatsuho Naito, Naval Historian, Tokyo

Norman Friedman, Naval Historian, New York

Mark Peatti, Hoover Institution Stanford University

Kyoshi Ikeda, Naval Historian Tokyo

and others.

 

While in other countries like Britain, I've even seen old interviews at their museums and on sale from their own museum book shops etc from people like the guys who were RN spotters agaisnt the Germans throughout the North Sea Campaign and how to the end of the war. How even with the replacing of the Types 293/4/5 radars, how desperate either side was to shoot down eachother's spotters, day or night in fact(that was surprise to me). That's where I get my assertion you call me ignorant for in regards to 'Radar spotting on shell splashes was limited to 21,500 or less while initial detection was out to 45,500'.

I have also been fortunate, thanks to our granddad's generation, been able to talk with veterans on our side, and from my own living overseas, talk with veterans of the other side too. I even did a lecture to veterans in Las Vegas once on propaganda and man did the stories of equipment and such not living up to promises come out.(and yes, the wives did come along ;). If you think their(vanquished) veterans look at things differently, same thing with engineers and scientists. But don't believe me, you go be 'open-minded' enough to consult the other sides' opinions. Oh, but that's right, you insult even one of your own who might disagree, so that doesn't bode well for say a Japanese source on their own weapons and armor does it?

 

Even the recent History TV series on Battleships, these American and British experts, including American veterans would claim that human visual was still prefered over radar dots on a screen. Whether it was the German Fritz guided rocket by wire or radio or even as we do today, tv monitor, or the wire-guided torpedos, we still prefer to have a human set of eyes using this technology as goggles actually spying the target itself, rather than dots on the computer screen like you see in the movie 'Guns of Navarone'.

 

I know some science purists call this the 'sabot' principle, where gun crews are accused of resisting technology out of pride, ego, job security or sincere fear, but even when using spy satellites today, we don't just program to take a photo of this bench in Bagdhad at this moment of the day, we still actually have real people guiding and controlling the machinations and seeing 'real time' the effects, even pushing the click button.

 

I once did a lecture for a veterans convention in Las Vegas on propaganda, and when touched on this issue, was amazed at the stories and excitement of actual veterans against equipment that didn't live up to promises and 'theories' and all. (and yes, wives were invited along too ;).

 

As for the 'wildly maneuvering'. After our first successful raking of the Kirishima 'at point blank range' by our 16", there-after, 9/75 at 10-20,000 is hardly impressive especially given the maneuvering limitations of the islands on either side. If I recall correctly, and being human I am fallible, the Kirishima was foolishly still targeting the badly hurt Washington(who's radar was knocked out, by cruiser fire no less) and not even firing back at the South Dakota(who's radar was 'operating perfectly'). The cruiser before the Kirishima, was, if I recall correctly, 6 miles away? (12,150 yards) As for maneuvering, you assume that the Yamato is going to be nice and just go in a straight line all the time?

According to you, obviously I'm alone in the world there again.

 

I'm not saying that the battle was indicitive of either side's 'normal' efforts. The Kirishima, despite supposedly the same night training as the cruisers, couldn't hit the broad side of a battleship ;) that night, but the cruisers couldn't seem to miss. American officers quoted as saying outside the Kirishima, Japanese accuracy at night was 'uncanny' and 'unbelievable'.

Nor do I say that the 9/75 hits by the South Dakota? on the mauled and listing Kirishima umpteen thousand yards away is 'normal'.

 

What I am saying, and you keep missing the point, is that this should be proof of 'scientific claim fallibility' unpredictability, even with 'numbers don't lie' technology.

If a witness is on the stand and says he's tested his theory at home and it worked to his satisfaction so he can't be wrong, but the other lawyer can prove that to be a lie, how much can we believe in that witness's future assertions of 'absolutes'? The witness should never say he can't be wrong in the first place.

 

I have no doubt that our armor improved vastly over the years, what I do doubt is our claims on enemy armor not.

The first link I got on google search for the Iowa was a page that described that the armor hadn't held up in practise as well as promised and that the superior internal design to aid damage control and procedures also didn't 'come up to snuff' and had to be corrected as well.

 

Nathan Okun claims to be a veteran physicist and missile weapon's range tester for private American contractors, who has a hobby, self-taught and self-tested, combines his own figures with those he likes from the American gunnery testing range. I do not guarantee that his quotes are accurate, only that the below quotes come from his own claims.

 

Quote for Nathan Okun's own quoting in regards to supposed post-war testing of Japanese material:

(I am not insulting anyone, not calling anyone a liar, all I'm doing is saying this is what someone else is saying someone else says, get my point?).

 

 

Unlike you, I don't want to deliberately insult anyone, nor call anyone a liar, but I find it difficult to believe, especially after talking with Japanese historians and experts who of course won't be published in any of our material to contest our claims, that we actually took Yamato or Musashi turret armor(which btw, isn't the same as that claimed to be going on the Shinanio 'someday') to prove our point.

Nor has anyone proven to me, so far, that we had taken a Yamato 18" gun and tested its various shells against our Iowa armor at any range.

 

I remind you, I'm not even introducing claims from the other side here(Japan's), just working on our own claims, and it comes up suspect.

 

When British facts and figures on the same topics disagree with his formula and result, well of course they must have done something wrong. So no way under Father Neptune's sea-sky and equator initiation are we going to consult Japanese facts and figures on their own equipment. No sirree bob!

 

According to even Okum's source, we were so disappointed with our 'A' Grade armor we go on about here, that we replaced it in many cases back down to our 'B' Grade.

Not only do the British disagree with the American and his conclusions, some have pointed out that the Americans describe all Japanese armor, not just that built in Britain for her ships in ww1, on British terms, not actual Japanese records. This raises the historical suspicion that, as we've all done before and since, we were filling in missing Japanese data with old British data. And remember, the British have admitted to doing the same thing historically too, and I'm sure the Japanese have padded their numbers out of patriotism or contract grants too. Americans aren't the only people who are 'human' lol.

 

According to the first search I got on the Iowa on google, the Iowa's damage control design and function, wasn't up to snuff either and in practise, and like the Yamato's(oh sorry, we shouldn't try to tell their side of the story), was ordered redesigned and corrected even after the war.

 

Fans of Okun's own quotes may note that we(I did too) conveniently ignore indicate we were so concerned about this invincible 'A' class armor we were replacing it back with 'B'.

 

All this calls into question the veracity of our claims regarding our armor and damage control.

 

Again, I have no doubt we improved immensely in armor and design, no doubt.

What I do doubt is that the other side didn't, and that seems indicated in even their own notes even without consulting Japanese claims(which believe me, disagree alot more than our British cousins do here).

 

Back in 1989, I took a break from teaching and got hired to help with some British engineers taking sabbatical to Japan to try to hunt down and research 'the real numbers' and seek out 'eyeball proof' of records, data and formulas the Japanese refused to share with us. This was a 'wake-up call' for me, as they explained how, now that the old guard was starting to pass on, they hoped to find the real numbers, not those edited by those we ourselves employed. I was surprised at how much we wrongly assumed about our former enemies, even post-war. You can see evidence of this hinted at in Okun's quoting. 

 

You see, to this day we've never had total access to all Japanese pre and war-time records and sciences. Call it being bad sports or what have you, they saw no reason why we should profit from their efforts. 

In science, when we don't have the actual data or equation to plug into our own 'universal theory', we make things up and fill it in. But again, the fact that you insult and attack me(from America) so, only proves we aren't interested in their side of the story doesn't it?

 

It's not just science I want more proof on here, it's anything, we are human after all.

'Historical fact' we accept claims the Sinking of the Maine and we were the victims in the Spanish American War, when in fact newspaper mogul Randolf Hearst's 'unquestioned authenticity and self-checked journalistic facts', were lies.

'Historical fact' says the Japanese re-wrote their post-war constitution, when in fact, MacArthur ordered Americans including a woman to do so.

 

For a long time no-one thought to question Einstein's Theory and formula, after-all, he was the most famous, most acclaimed and most articled/printed expert/authority in the field wasn't he?

Yet, lo and behold, the 'absolute' was in fact wrong. And this is in the field of physics as well. We're not just talking 'subjective' history, but 'cold hard science'.

This fellow who claims to be a physicist, should know that and should know better than to say 'numbers don't lie' and 'my formula is the one, only and best' etc. By definition, scientists aren't supposed to talk that way.

 

I've just received a page from a buddy here saying I'm wasting my breath.

That the reason you've flamed me here is like a 'wrastling' move, so that I respond or complain and both our posts removed.

 

Ah well, so be it.

 

If this forum administrator wants to do that or allow people to insult others here,

I don't want to be here either.

 

Rum for the quarter-deck!

hail the coxswain, Mr Biggs

 

Cheers all