The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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     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
Charles99       6/13/2009 10:25:32 PM
I have one question regarding the Yamato-- what was the reason for the 6.1 mounts?  They originaly had four, but they were vulnerable due to potential hits on the turrets/magazines, and would be useless at most ranges the Yamato would be fighting at. It seems almost like a retreat to the older pre-dreadnought mixed battery designs.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    quick question   6/14/2009 1:59:36 PM
A question for Herald....is your information on the accuracy of Iowa gunfire based on a constant bearing between the two ships, or does that accuracy decrease when they are maneuvering in battle?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/14/2009 4:11:11 PM

A question for Herald....is your information on the accuracy of Iowa gunfire based on a constant bearing between the two ships, or does that accuracy decrease when they are maneuvering in battle?

As is true for any maneuvering objects a radical change in track means you have to reacquire or recompute. Optical takes longer as you have to use some kind of interferometry to get a range and then you have to correct for atmosphere altered ballistics as well as compute rate of target movement. Radars with direct time pulsing that can go into an analog calculator gives you a range solution in seconds. Then you just have to compute target velocity for deflection and VOILA. That one  minute difference can be a killer. Chasing shell splashes doesn't work as well to throw off track solutions when the other guy has radar ranging on you.
 
The Iowa's accuracy was for when they had a radar solution on you. It was all or nothing. If they fell back on optics their gunnery was no better than anyone elses'.^1. Hovered  around 10%-15%  I think.  

Herald
 
^1 Despite PoW which was untrained and Hood which was end on aspect against Bismark and thus whose straddles were long axis, British battleship gunnery tended to be very good about, 15% on average. You needed the Ford computer to push it into the 30% range because deflection was always the hard component to estimate. More misses were caused by walkoff than ever by longs or shorts from what I've read in the record.. 
 
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    I believe the secondary battery   6/15/2009 9:59:11 AM
was to deal with lighter vessels, accompanying the enemy battleships, such as cruisers.
 
The US hit it right with the elimination of secondary weapons, and focusing solely on the big gun and the Dual-Purpose Gun, the 12.7cm L/38.  It allowed the US battleships to engage destroyers, and a/c and the like, without adding more top weight and complexity.
 
Herald why do you like HMS Vanguard so much? Serious, non-threatening question.  The Wiki entry on it gives it armed with 5.25" DP Gun.  Wasn't the 5.25" with its 80 pound shell too heavy for rapid fire, manually loaded?  It just seems its DP armament is sub-standard?  Or did the Vanguard have some form of assisted loading that made the 80 pound shell more usable?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/15/2009 10:05:46 PM
 
Herald why do you like HMS Vanguard so much? Serious, non-threatening question.  The Wiki entry on it gives it armed with 5.25" DP Gun.  Wasn't the 5.25" with its 80 pound shell too heavy for rapid fire, manually loaded?  It just seems its DP armament is sub-standard?  Or did the Vanguard have some form of assisted loading that made the 80 pound shell more usable?


She was well built, had a good armor scheme, good propulsion and could make 26 knots in Sea State Four. She carried a mix of British and US radars and gun directors.  She used the inferior RN Type 10 Fire Table analog fire director computer and, its claimed she used a semi automatic ram assist for her 5.25' guns though I've never seen thus sourced authoritatively. That was the worst feature of the design, the 5.25's.
 
Herald 
 
   
 
Quote    Reply

elclip1    When and where   6/19/2009 8:24:45 PM

Given the large number of variables involved, simply trying to make the case for either ship type winning a one on one match almost doesn't make sense. I personally like to ponder what Yamato might have done had she either:

 

A) Been deployed to Guadalcanal instead of Kirishima.

 

or

 

B) Actually run into task force 34 in the San Bernardino Strait.

 

In the case of the former, you would have had the closest thing to a one on one, had the battle unfolded as it did the night USS Washington sank Kirishima. While not an Iowa, the Washington is a fair stand in for one. I submit that had the events of that night unfolded the same with only the swap of Yamato for Kirishima, the outcome might not have been dramatically different, with the exception that South Dakota would have been pummeled even worse than she was. If Washington caught Yamato unaware at the same range as she did the Kirishima, she would have wrecked the big ship's upper works, bridge and directors. It would have been ugly. With no DD's around to finish her off, Yamato might have lived to see another day however.

 

In the other scenario, had the center force found task force 34 waiting in the strait, it would have been very ugly. Yamato, Kondo, Haruna and Nagato would have faced off against Iowa, New Jersey, Alabama and Washington. Both sides would have had a similar number of destroyers and cruisers. Presumably, Halsey would have included a couple of carriers to support the big ships as well.

I am thinking that the results would have been very similar to what happened at Surigao Strait. Worn down by torpedo attacks, the battleships would have run into four US BB's capping their T. With air support, it seems unlikely that any of the Japanese fleet would have survived. They may have managed to deliver some hits and damage, but likely, it would have been a route.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

quasi1    elclip1   6/21/2009 7:38:56 AM

Got back today. At last a reasonably impartial response. Am working on the numbers now for others, but Guadacanal was what Yamato had been designed for and in fact had been sent, but was too late and turned around.

Yamato was designed to fight multiple Battleships and to take punishment from large shells, Torpedoes dropped from were it's Achilles heel.

Washington had the same radar as Iowa (MK13) albeit not as modern, Washington's Captain, was trained in radar and trained his crew, yet at 7000y and about 76 shots later had only Hit Kirishima 6 times. Kirishima was a WW1 battle cruiser that had been modernized for WW2 but was still not up to the standard of a real Battle ship. Kirishima fired 11 inch guns and its turrets were loaded for shore bombardment. 

If Yamato had been in this battle in place of Kirishima, South Dakota would have been wrecked and Washington would have had a fight on its hands. 

This is my argument, there are too many variables to say which ship would win between Yamato and Iowa and to say that Iowa would win hands down is just absurd. 

Up until 1944 the Americans believed that Yamato was around 45k, so the captain of the Iowa would be working on this knowledge. He would want to close the distance and secure his immunity zone (an estimate at 45k around 25ky to 30ky) as quickly as possible(he has the speed but he does not know it) He has the edge on fire control (but he does not know it) Battleships have a limited amount of ammunition so he is probable not going to start shooting until he is within his immunity zone????. Yamato has been designed to shot a great distance and there is a good chance that its captain is going to start shooting as soon as he feels he has a solution. His first salvo's will more then likely be off (maybe). Now all the big variables start.

The Iowa has STS decaping armour, but the Yamatos shell still weighs 3120lbs,even decapped it is still a devastating weapon  and is dangerous in the water near the other ship. The Iowas 2700lbs shell is an excellent projectile, but cannot penetrate the Yamatos vital areas between 25ky and 30ky. The Iowa can hit the Yamato more times than the Yamato can hit the Iowa due to Superior fire control, but the Yamato is designed to take punishment from another Battleship. If the Yamato can hit the Iowa fron 35ky the shell will penetrate the deck and it will do damage to the side armour.

I cannot say which ship would win and I have better things to do then list a whole lot of numbers (but if you want them!) 

If these two ships were to stand at 20ky to 25ky and just shoot shells at each other (oh what a sight) It is my belief and this is to answer the Yamato, Iowa debate that, just by weight of shell, subdivision and armour, Yamato would win. Under battle conditions and what was known about ether ship in 1942 to 1944 is a different story. 

 

 
Quote    Reply

quasi1    elclip1   6/21/2009 7:43:08 AM
The 6.1 guns were taken from a canceled heavy cruiser, I believe they had them there and thought"this will save time and its a big secondary gun. (which it was) Nothing more nothing less and you have admit, they look realy god above the 18in turrets.
 
Quote    Reply

quasi1    elclip1   6/21/2009 7:51:10 AM

The HMS Vangaurd, was for the English a well balanced design based on all their experience gained during the wars, but still controlled by budget. If the Iowa was put up against the Vangaurd, then my money would be on the Iowa. 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Let's take you apart.   6/21/2009 11:44:23 AM

Got back today. At last a reasonably impartial response. Am working on the numbers now for others, but Guadacanal was what Yamato had been designed for and in fact had been sent, but was too late and turned around.

Rejected. The Yamato was designed to stand in line of battle in a Pacific Tsushima or Jutland. 
 
 
 

Yamato was designed to fight multiple Battleships and to take punishment from large shells, Torpedoes dropped from were it's Achilles heel.

Already stipulated and known but the WHY that torpedoes were its weakness you ignore. I already noted that the armor brick was surrounded by one of the worst float bubbles ever designed. When a few rents and holes bow and stern sink you its tome to find the naval architects who designed that ship and feed them to the sharks.
 
Washington had the same radar as Iowa (MK13) albeit not as modern, Washington's Captain, was trained in radar and trained his crew, yet at 7000y and about 76 shots later had only Hit Kirishima 6 times. Kirishima was a WW1 battle cruiser that had been modernized for WW2 but was still not up to the standard of a real Battle ship. Kirishima fired 11 inch guns and its turrets were loaded for shore bombardment.
Mistakes off the bat.
-Kirishima was equipped with 14 inch guns and her ordnance was armor piercing. She was hit at least nine times and probably more by sixteen inch out of  the barrage Washingtojn fored. Not all of Washington's salvoes were aimed at her.
 
 
 
Note the opening ranges to first target, a destroyer......18,500 yards. Note the result. Third salvo.  

If Yamato had been in this battle in place of Kirishima, South Dakota would have been wrecked and Washington would have had a fight on its hands. 

South Dakota was self wrecked and Washington did have a fight in her hands.  If both Americans had performed to Washington specs the fate of a Yamato would be a major question mark.There was enough air power at Henderson field to make this a very ifft proposition for a slowly sinking Yamato, hence why the Jaoanese refusal to risk her in this type of mission.

This is my argument, there are too many variables to say which ship would win between Yamato and Iowa and to say that Iowa would win hands down is just absurd. 

Not so. The post battle assessments show us clearlt what the likely outcomes would be.

Up until 1944 the Americans believed that Yamato was around 45k, so the captain of the Iowa would be working on this knowledge. He would want to close the distance and secure his immunity zone (an estimate at 45k around 25ky to 30ky) as quickly as possible(he has the speed but he does not know it) He has the edge on fire control (but he does not know it) Battleships have a limited amount of ammunition so he is probable not going to start shooting until he is within his immunity zone????. Yamato has been designed to shot a great distance and there is a good chance that its captain is going to start shooting as soon as he feels he has a solution. His first salvo's will more then likely be off (maybe). Now all the big variables start.

 
Once we got a look at one at Truk, from the air, we knew they were at least as big as an Iowa.  The question about gun bore size remained, but we were very worried.. The lack of radar aerials and previous clashes with Japanese battleships gave us a good idea of what electronoics and optics they carried. So you are again in error. We did not know for sure how good Yamato battleship optics were, but we had at least a dozen cruiser clashes with the Tokyo Express to get an idea that these would not actually be too good. at ling range. We'd been hit by and recovered Japanese shells .(South Dakota report cited above), so we knew the streengths and weaknesses of Japanese ordnance at least up to 8'. The percentage of duds we recovered encouraged us. Not all was rosy for Japan in this as you make it out to be.  When your shot up survivors come back with enemy dud shells and unexpkoded bombs in them, you tend to learn quick. 

The Iowa has STS decaping armour, but the Yamatos shell still weighs 3120lbs,even decapped it is still a devastating weapon  and is dangerous in the water near the other ship. The Iowas 2700lbs shell is an excellent projectile, but cannot penetrate the Yamatos vital areas between 25ky and 30ky. The Iowa can hit the Yamato more times than the Yamato can hit the Iowa due to Superior fire control, but the Yamato is designed to take punishment from another Battleship. If the Yamato can hit the Iowa fron 35ky the shell will penetrate the deck and it will do damage to the side armour.

I've seen that crap statistic too many times. 

 
That was against 26' Yamato plate at MER battle ranges that you claim as the Yamato imminity which shattered that plate.. Note the HOLE and the CRATER.. That is what a South Dakota''s  16'/45 can do.  SMASH is SMASH. That was the thickest side armor the Yamatos had. So not even the citadel was safe from ANY modern American battleship 16' guns (Colorodos onward) at long range to medium range. I didn't know that for sure before you angered me. Thank you. I learned something new and cinfirmed what I expected from the math...
 
 

I cannot say which ship would win and I have better things to do then list a whole lot of numbers (but if you want them!) 

I just did. Now I'm not sure a Yamato line could take on a line of South Dakitas and survive!

If these two ships were to stand at 20ky to 25ky and just shoot shells at each other (oh what a sight) It is my belief and this is to answer the Yamato, Iowa debate that, just by weight of shell, subdivision and armour, Yamato would win. Under battle conditions and what was known about ether ship in 1942 to 1944 is a different story. 

Incorrect. I have more data now and that data is DECISIVE. Japanese naval shell design was poor. Shatter was a problem for them as it was not for American artillery. Ours was fusing. As long as the Japanese shells explode outside our armor, miss, or break up and ours get through and explide INSIDE theirs even with 30% fiuse duds?    

The Yamatos were LUCKY they never were in line of battle and faced our puny subs and aircraft. It would be San Bernardino Strait writ large.

 
No Japanerse battleship ever survived a major gun duel with an American one ever. No American battleship ever lost such a gun duel. Why?

 
Quote    Reply

quasi1    take you apart (angry)   6/23/2009 6:05:01 AM

"The Yamatos were LUCKY they never were in line of battle and faced our puny subs and aircraft. It would be San Bernardino Strait writ large."

I dont get this.

In Response

Rejected. Yes you have answered your own argument, The Yamato was designed to stand and fight with and against other Battleships.

Float bubble. The argument/discussion is about battleship on battleship. The torpedo damage to Yamato was from Torpedo,s from aircraft at a shallow depth, also it had multiple hits in the same area's. The Yamato had been built with extensive compartmentalization and counter flooding measures to deal with another battleship attack. I ignore your statement about the &S220;bubble&S221;because you are the only one I have heard make it, and on paper and battle stats I believe that no other ship of the time could come close to taking the damage Yamato and Masushi took. So again I say &S220;if the Iowa could fly, Drop bombs or Torpedo's&S221;great, otherwise GET BACK ON TRACK.

Mistakes off the bat. I don't know why I wrote 11inch instead of 14 inch. Kirishima arrived at guadacanal believing it was clear, its turrets were loaded with high explosive shells to fire at shore targets. Yes it was carrying AP shells. It was hit by large caliber shells at least Six times. One destroying it's steering. Sth Dakota was (from memory) hit by only one 14inch shell and it is uncertain if it was AP or HE. Sth Dakota was put out of the fight with 5&S221; to 8&S221; shells (about 41) and STH Dakota was a good design. The Iowa copied the Dakotas Design with heaver armor. Washington ranged its main Guns on Kirishima and its secondary on the other smaller ships. 
Do really think a line of Sth Dakotas would beat a line of Yamatos.

Source 1. Again the question is &S220;what if&S221; the &S220;Iowa and the Yamato&S221; meet in a battle. I am continually amused by your peoples reference to stuff that has nothing to do with this battle. &S220;not all the salvos were aimed at her&S221; What??? Look at your radar screen and shoot at the biggest target and keep shooting at it. the smaller stuff is for the smaller guns.
 I am not in error over Americas knowledge of Yamato's abilities. &S220;They did not know&S221; Get this, they thought it was 45k. They had the beam wrong and they could only guess at Yamatos fire control. All other information is in retrospect.

Source. I have seen this picture and have read the spec's, This was a test done at a &S220;simulated&S221; range. This &S220;Range&S221; was done at point blank, Straight on, no angle of fall, not a real test. The American government and armed forces have never been involved in propaganda.?

Decisive Data. The Germans armor piercing rounds were said to be inferior to the English, yet the Hood went down.  Out at sea there is no DECISIVE data, There is just what happens.
You people set there at you computer screens and quote numbers. Here is some Decisive Data for you.
At 30ky and under the Iowa could not penetrate the Yamatos magazines through the deck armour and had to get within 25ky to guarantee a possible breach of the side armor, and no amount of foot stamping and anger on your side will overcome the experts At this range The Yamato can penetrate the Iowas deck Armour and with a lucky hit the Iowas side armor.

&S220;I have seen that crap statistic to many times&S221; So you have seen it many times and still believe its crap. So you are right and people like, John Campbell (Naval weapons of world warII), Dulin and Garzke, Nathan Okun and various other reputable authors are all wrong. 


No Japanese battleship ever survived a major gun duel....Why. What major gun battles are you talking about, Guadacanal? Two battleships Hiei and Kirishima where battle cruisers that had received make overs. Hiei was damaged by gunfire and then bombed repeatedly, (not sunk by gunfire) and Kirishima was out classed by two better more modern Battleships. Most Japanese battleships were WWI vintage, out of date, not the armor needed and oh yeah, most were bombed or torpedoed. Please be a bit more specific on this please.

The Question is. How would the Yamato and Iowa fair in a battle.
Answer. It would not be the one sided battle that some people might think.


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    It wasn't propaganda.    6/23/2009 6:44:47 AM
Okun got his facts wrong as did you. 30,000 yards is 30,000 yards simulated as stated in the USN reports.not 40,000.
 
Yamato damage as actuallt recorded.  Remember that each of these three ships was destroyed by hits that a North Carolina would laugh at?
 
It would be DEAD MEAT in a surface gun action..
 
Herald
 
.
 
Quote    Reply

quasi1    its not propaganda   6/23/2009 8:13:08 AM

Whats 40,000 got to do with it, I made no comment about 40,000.

Nth Carolinas!! what???

I have read the page you quote. It does not support your arguement in anyway that I can see. The Yamato was bombed and Torpedoed, now you are saying that the Nth Carolina and the Washington would have just shrugged of these same attacks.

This page also points to the new radar systems that Yamato had installed and that when Yamato fired on the Gambier Bay that Yamato scored a hit with its first Salvoe, then fired on a cruiser and hit that with it's first Salvoe, not bad for shit fire control.

I am confused, are you trying to help your arguement or lose it.

YAMATO vs IOWA in a gun fight, no planes, no torpedos, no bombs.

N.B. Interferometry is a big word to use, but has little to do with Optical Rangefinders.

It is however used with single light sources such as Lasers. I don't think the Japanese were using Laser's. 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You appealed to Okun.   6/23/2009 8:41:34 AM
He's the one who incorrectly said the test shots were gun muzzle against plate and completely botched his conclusions when he criticized the armor proof, ON THAT ERROR. Inly a damned fool foires with no setback. He should have realized that the SMASH data was generated for variant velocities of strike as measured.by variant CHARGE loads used in the 16'/45 test gun.. Now why a supposed expert would make that mistake is beyond me, but that he did make that mistake, when the Navy Master Gunner who conducted the test declares exactly how the strike was simulated and writes it in black and white in an official report has me scratching my head. Further that was the THICKEST plate the Japanese had. Apparently the rest of their armor was nowhere that thick lor that effective.
 
As to radar. The Japanese mounted a primitive ten meter length radar set . It didn't work. 
 
Refutation of first salvo hit on Gambier Bay. Note time of shooting and hit?
 
 
The fact that bombs were blowing chunks of Yamato out through her topedo defense and that she shipped 3000 tonnes of sea water from TWO  bomb strikes similar to the type that South Dakota  received In the Battle of the Philippine Sea.
ought to bother you a lot. The Yamato was lucky her pumps did not fail.
 
Piece of junk. The more I examine her the more confident I am that the USN could handle her, did handle her.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Qasi1   6/23/2009 9:44:10 AM
YAMATO vs IOWA in a gun fight, no planes, no torpedoes, no bombs.
 
Irrelevant.  From the 1930's on the USN intended to fight with gun, torpedo AND bomb...the advent of the CV made that inevitable.  It is only a post-war conventional wisdom that the USN was all about the "Battleship" and the "Gun Club."  The Battle Fleet intended to be supported by CV's.  The first mission: to destroy enemy CV's and the second: attack the enemy's gun-line, with bomb and torpedo, to attrite the gun-line before the decisive clash of BB's....
 
And previous to that, all fleets intended to use the torpedo in surface action.  It was the reason that fleets went to sea with flotillas of "destroyers"...to unleash a torpedo attack on the enemy gun-line.
 
And my point?  To discount the aerial bomb, or the torpedo in a battleship design is foolish in the extreme.  These were reasonable weapons to expect to be deployed against you, EVEN IN A SURFACE "GUNFIRE" FIGHT....The fact that Yamato was vulnerable to them is a sign of a poor design!   Your quote is meaningless, from the 1930's on ANY battleship action HAD to take into account aircraft and torpedoes, they were INTEGRAL to fleet tactics and planning.  There was NOT going to be a "pure" gun-on-gun action, neither the Imperial Japanese or United States Navy planned for such....please read on the various "Plan Oranges" and the Japanese plans to defeat the USN and read on inter war US Naval fleet gaming.
 
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



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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