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 th

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

And be coherent and on topic.

 

You are right about one thing in your emotional tirade though.

 

 

Nor do I accept the citation of authority as authority. E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. Numbers, reports, sources, test results. operational examples. Like your erroneous report on the USS Washington's condition at Second Guadalcanal.

 

[quoting you]

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').

 

As to US damage control superiority? I cite two specific naval cases, HIJMNS Taiho, and USS Franklin.

 

 

And what evidence do you have that the Cosmological Constant, a concept that Einstein intuitively originally plugged into his equations to achieve a stable univers is subsequently an elegant mathematical description of the accelerating spatial rate of expansion problem? This was an error? This proof you have I would love to read. 

 

If you feel insulted, then reread your own posts and note all the errors on science fact, history  fact, your unsubstatiated assertions not backed by concrete evidence, and unsupported opinion and see why I savaged you.

 

Herald

 

 

 

 I am a USS Iowa veteran, I was a Gunners Mate in Turret one and I am a battleship fanatic as well. As much as I loved my ship I Iowa would have come out badly in a one on one engagement against he Yamato. As big as the Iowa was she was relatively lightly armored, her armor package was designed to protect against 16inch 45 caliber guns at range. The 16 inch 45 caliber rounds fired but the South Dakota and North Carolina class weighed 2250lbs. It wasn’t until the introduction of the 16 inch 50 caliber guns on the Iowa did the AP shell weight increase to 2700lbs. The Iowa was not designed to withstand hits from her own guns let alone the slightly more destructive 18.1 inch shells of the Yamato. True the Iowa was faster, and had better fire control, and had a higher rate of fire, it is doubtful she would have remained combat effective after being hit more than a couple of times. The true Yamato killers would have been the Montana class BB’s. The Iowa class battleships were magnificent ships better than any other battleship in the world, with the exception of the Yamato class.

 

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.