Less an arguement. An axe to grind. 

You just keep getting better.

There is no axe to grind as I thought this was a discussion forum, not a " JFKY is the only one that knows anything" forum.

The "numbers" are that at long range the 16/50 "is" equavalent to the 18.1, But as the ranges got closer the 18.1 starts to outstrip the 16/50. Now I will write this next part slowly for you. The Yamato out weighs the Iowa by about 20'000 tons, this by fact means that the Iowa has to hit ( Big guns) Yamato more often than the Yamato hits the Iowa.

The design of the Yamatos shells does not mean that they would only creat damage if they hit below the waterline. "If" (notice I said if) If they hit the Iowa they will create damage.

The fact that "nobody" knows how this fight would come out in real terms, means that we have to "discuss" the possibilities.

"within" (notice the "within") 40'000 yards, nobody in their right mind expects battleships to hit each other at this range, yet it is possible.

The comparison must be done at battle ranges that would occur during WW2.

Shell for shell, which ship is going to inflict the most damage and which ship is going to recieve the most damage.

So for the model to work both ships would need to slug it out. This removes all the what if, that people can place to prove thier point.

The Sharnhorst was a battle cruiser with 11" guns against a Battleship with 14" guns and destroyer's. The destroyers with "Torpedoes" stopped the Sharnhorst not the 14" guns( which inflicted damage). So this was a realy! good example.

I have studied this for a very long time and assume that people on sites like this, have studied as well. Because of this assumption I dont believe I need to write down numbers, as you have access to that information yourself and presume that you have read it. 

I believe it is you that need to get over your ego and return to discussing the subjects, not try to dictate them.

Not reading so well are you.

I have read these numbers, I have books coming out my wazoo. I study the information on the nett, by people with far more knowledge than I.

Nether the Iowa or The Yamato proved themselves in battle.

When the Americans upgraded the Iowas guns from 16/45 to 16/50 they changed the Iowa from a battleship to a very good battlecruiser.

At no time have I claimed that the Yamato was a better ship than the Iowa, I am discussing Armoured ship against Armoured ship, on a shell by shell basis.

Instead of jumping off your computer chair, waving your arms, yelling at the computer screen this guy knows nothing and being rude to me. Try going back over what I have written and, no wait let me try one more time.

The discussion about which would come out the best is open to all sorts of issue's (My dads bigger than your dad because!). The simple answer is knowbody will ever know.

Lucky shots, when captains would start firing, weather conditions a whole list of things could go wrong, or right.

Example.

The Hood was a great ship until she was sunk and then in retrospec all the problems of her manufacture became more important, If she had not been sunk, then the Hood would be the greatest of all ships. Oh that is funny the Hood was a battlship until she was sunk then she was compared to a battle cruiser.

The Iowa has been a show pony and has never been put to the test. They have fired at land targets and used as carrier escort.

The yamato proved that her armour could take huge punishment from attacks that would have dispossed of other ships very quickly.

The Iowa would have to hit the Yamato more times than the Yamato would have to hit the Iowa. Shell for shell armour for armour the Iowa lose,s (it would be close)

But out at sea it is a different story and anything can happen. To point that all discussion is mute. nothing to win nothing to lose just egos to bruise.

Sorry just read that line again.

I did not accuse you have being "short of facts". I claimed you and others probably have the same information that I have.

I did pock fun at your reading ability though. sorry about that.

This is still a discussion forum is it not.

Quite true, the joint was a problem, The shanano was also sunk on the way to fitting out. It had no water tight measures in place. The shanano was going to be a large waste of money anyway. It was not fast enough and was to be used as a repair depo at sea.

Even wth this fault, no other ship in the world could have sustained the damage that her sister ships took by torpedos and keep going.  

It is confusing, Battleship/ Battlecruiser. By WW2, balistics had over taken Armour and I am sure designers were not confident to call their ships Battleships.  American designers had desided that even 12" deck armour would not keep out the new bombs being designed. It had become an aircraft war, no need for the Montanas. Now that would have been a ship to see.

It would seem that if your ship got sunk it was a Battlecruser and if it survived it became a Battleship.