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

maruben Irrelevant 6/23/2009 10:09:21 AM

Irrelevant... WHY?

Please recall that the thread started with

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.

If my english is still in good shape, the discussion is just about guns, 1-to-1.

That is the frame of the discussion, please stick to it.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 U've addressed the issue of SMASH. 6/23/2009 10:24:43 AM

Irrelevant... WHY?

Please recall that the thread started with

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.

If my english is still in good shape, the discussion is just about guns, 1-to-1.

That is the frame of the discussion, please stick to it.

Directly on point. A bomb that punches into the bubble and wrecks the citadel armor dismounting it and opening you up to the sea is just an indicator of what a shell strike could do. SMASH IS SMASH.

Quote Reply

JFKY Maruben 6/23/2009 10:41:42 AM

Why not just make it about secondary batteries, only or about the capacity of their search lights, then?

The THREAD may be about gun, only, 1:1 but that is a pointless discussion...it wasn't going to be gun-only, 1:1. It was going to be aerial bomb, torpedo, and gun, several units on several units....I can't think of single 1:1 battleship fight....battleships maneuvered in groups of two....

In this case it would have been 4 US Battleships (or more) v. 2 Yamato's....and the Yamato's and the US ships would have been supported by cruisers and destroyers, yielding torpedo attacks...and in the US case and if the Japanese had been lucky enough, a/c attacks as well, aerial bombs and aerial torpedoes....to discuss this in anything other than a historical context is akin to the "Saturday Night Live " skit asking, "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?" You can ask it, but the question and answer are both meaningless.

Lastly, much of the discussion has focused on a 1:1 fight, what Qasi and others don't like hearing is that the Iowa would have won it...

Quote Reply

quasi1 smash 6/23/2009 3:05:29 PM

The balistics of bombs is different from that of Shells. A bomb is delivered at nearly right angles to the Deck. By the end of the war American designers had worked out that even 12" deck armor could not keep dive bombers out. Bombs deliver more distrutive power then shells.

So smash is not smash.

The Thread is a hypothitical meeting of the two ships, both ships had radar, the main difference was (I believe) in the gunnery computers.

It is not I that can not accept that the Iowa would win. It is you that can not accept that the Iowa could lose.

Quote Reply

JFKY 6/23/2009 3:48:58 PM

It is not I that can not accept that the Iowa would win. It is you that can not accept that the Iowa could lose.

Funny you're the one that keeps talking about shooting at 40K yards...and the power fo the 18" gun, and keeps dismissing all evidence to the contrary. But OK, you can accept that Yamato could lose...it's just not likely no matter what those pesky numbers say....

It's possible Yamato beats an Iowa, in restricted waters, close range, with destroyers getting their torpedo hits in....but beyond that not so likely and the more its an open sea engagement where the Iowa's fire control and speed advantage can come into play, the less likely a Yamato win is. And even at close range the deluge of 12.7 cm/L38 secondary fire is going to hurt Yamato, badly...after all it was the 20 cm., 15 cm. and 12.7 cm. fire that allowed Hiei to be destroyed.

Bottom-Line: "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong....but that's how the smart money bets."

Quote Reply

JFKY Qasi1 6/23/2009 3:57:13 PM

the main difference was (I believe) in the gunnery computers.

No it was not simply the fire control computers. Yes, the Iowa had a superb fire control computer that could allow the Iowa, or really ANY US Fast Battleship to maneuver and shoot. But there was more than that...the Japanese fire control radar was not as short-waved as the US radar. Japanese radar was good for RANGE, US radar was good for RANGE and DEFLECTION. The Japanese had to close to optical fire control range to measure angular distances, for deflection....the US did not, meaning the Iowa had a significant range advantage on the Yamato...a range advantage, a night advantage, a bad weather advantage...an overall advantage, meaning that the Yamato was NOT going to get the first shot in.

And that is NOT accounting for the superb stable vertical and fire control that the USN had installed on all its warships, but in this case the Fast Battleships....

So yes both ships had radar, only one ship had radar AND the excellent fire control....that would be the US Fast Battleships, not just the Iowa's but ANY of the Fast Battleships, the South Dakotas, the Washingtons, or the Iowas all had this system...meaning all of them had a fire control advantage over the Yamato, not just the Iowas.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Thjere os no difference in KINETICS or PHYSICS. 6/24/2009 3:51:39 AM

So smash is not smash.

The Thread is a hypothitical meeting of the two ships, both ships had radar, the main difference was (I believe) in the gunnery computers.

It is not I that can not accept that the Iowa would win. It is you that can not accept that the Iowa could lose.

Point one: If I hit you with a 1 kilogram 10 cm^3 square pillow at 1300 meters per second or a 1 kilogram sheet of styrofoam at the same dimension in the center of your chest with your relative velocity =0; I will kill you just as dead with your arms, legs and head separated from your torso by the strike effects and your torso turned into shredded bone and hamburger.

Point two:

Read the report sections on centimetric techniques .

Blob detector and air raid warning is not SG.

Refuted. Also don't make physics errors like you just did again. Consider that a friendly suggestion.

Herald

Quote Reply

quasi1 Refuted 6/24/2009 8:46:27 AM

Not sure what you are on about here, We already know that the Japanese radar was not as good as the Americans, but they had it.

Shoot all the polystyrene you like at me, if I am wearing enough armor whats the point.

What physics mistake??? heres a FREINDLY SUGGESTION

Get it into your head The Iowa does not shoot Bombs. The 1000lb AN-mk33 dropped on the Yamato by AIRCRAFT!! carry HE of 63.5kg the AP-mark 8 shell carries HE of 18.55kg.

The bombs are dropped at a near vertical angle at the deck of a ship. The shells come in at an angle.

Heres your Physics. The bomb has a bigger payload and the Iowa does not fly.

Try basing some of your discussion around Two battleships fighting it out.

The trouble is you can't, nobody can. The Yamato is an enigma and you can not prove that the Yamato could not hit The Iowa. You can not prove that the Iowa can sink the Yamato. There are only Ideas and unfortunately you are not open to ideas. You berate people who do not agree with you and spout numbers.(polystyrene???) I noticed a letter from an Iowa veteran, that states the the Iowa was not up to the job, I dont see you Berating him.

I joined this site thinking, I could chat with some people with the same interest's in Ships and WWII that I have, What I find is some internet bullies(nerds) that are so full of themselves, that they consider all others as knowing nothing. Seriously if we were face to face, I dont think you would have the balls to talk to me the way you treat people on this site and I assure you, I would kick your arse around the room if you tried. It is one thing to have knowlege it is another to use it wisely.

The Discussion is this. If the Iowa( by it,s self) meet the Yamato ( by it's self). NO OTHER SHIPS OR PLANES. Given the knowledge that the captains of the ships had at say 1942 to 1944. Given What is known about armor penetration. (not simulated tests), How would the Battle pan out.

I am bored with this and am going to move on to other things. I wait for your tyrades of belittlement and your ego boosting but will not reply. Good buy and good luck.

Quote Reply

JFKY Qasi1 6/24/2009 11:06:23 AM

Not sure what you are on about here, We already know that the Japanese radar was not as good as the Americans, but they had it.

Yes, and it wasn't as good as US radar...the difference was profound...the US had the ability to shoot blind, apparently at 30K yards or more...to measure range and deflection and spot fall of shot and make corrections, meaning that the Iowas or ANY US fast battleship was going to be engaging the Yamato LONG BEFORE the Yamato could return the favour. How many times does that have to be stated? Its a measurable difference in capacity, meaning that the US could, conceivably begin getting hits far beyond the range of the Yamato!

The Yamato was STILL limited to optical fire control for measuring deflection...and optical fire control achieved no hits beyond 26.5 K yards! For several minutes the Yamato was going to be pummeled without any effective response...conceivably the Iowas or the South Dakotas could hold the range at 30 K yards and pound the Yamato into scrap!

The bombs are dropped at a near vertical angle at the deck of a ship. The shells come in at an angle.

But there's a bit more to this than armour thickness or bombs coming from an angle...1) the Yamato WAS vulnerable to damage from the 40.6 cm/L50 AND the 40.6 cm/L45...the L/45 was going to be coming in at a steep, relative, angle due to the elevation of the tube to reach out to 30K yards...It mimics a bomb! The L50 could be fired with 3, not 4 bags of powder and could mimic the L46....the Yamato was open to "top attack"...

Further, Herald posits that a bow hit will shred the bow, allowing water in, speed to slow and maneuverability to be compromised. A stern hit destroys the steering gear. Even without those a series of 40.6 cm hits is going to start fires, let in water, and degrade if not destroy Yamato's fire control...and mind you all this is BEFORE Yamato can effectively respond, because of the fire control differential (which is more than radar BTW.)

In short, the armour package of the Yamato may or may not be vulnerable to attack, I believe it IS, but irrespective of that, the WHOLE of the Yamato is still vulnerable to 40.6 cm hits! Hiei was rendered combat ineffective by numerous hits from weapons that, theoretically, could not or did not penetrate the armour. Let Yamato take 4-5 40.6 cm hits, from either a South Dakota OR an Iowa, or for that matter a North Carolina and I'm pretty certain that the Yamato is going to be "feeling it." Fires, flooding, and collateral damage (communications and the like) will accrue.

Try basing some of your discussion around Two battleships fighting it out.

I would say that a significant portion of it has been....I would take it out further and say that a South Dakota or a North Carolina would give a good account of themselves, as long as there was sea room to allow it to remain a long-range gunnery duel.

But beyond that, it's pointless to discuss this in a vacuum. Battleships didn't operate as singletons. They operated in pairs, at least, and with the support of destroyers and cruisers. Neither the US nor the Japanese navies expected the conflict to be between the Nagato/Yamato and the Colorado/Iowa...they both expected it to be a clash of gun-lines and supporting forces! To talk about battleship conflict absent a/c and torpedoes is pointless, historically. Neither navy would ever have planned to fight such an engagement. BOTH navies understood that air power and light vessels were INTEGRAL to the "Super-Jutland"/ Decisive Fleet Battle that was supposed to end the war, in both Japanese AND American interwar planning...to talk about "the Yamato v. the Iowa" to any naval officer of the era 1935-45 would have been incomprehensible.

And that's why Yamato's vulnerability to torpedoes reveals it to be a poor design. Because the ship was vulnerable to attack from a predictable and inevitable source, destroyers or submarines. I think many naval folk would acknowledge this...it's like discovering that you Muscle Car is unstable at speeds over 150 KPH. That's a design flaw, and a bad one.

So now you're just arguing from "negation"...You can't "prove it"....You're right I can't...but you can't "prove" your point either. So what's the point of posting then? Yours is the refuge of someone who doesn't like the turn the argument is taking and so now you want to get out of having to make a case.

Whilst we cannot KNOW or PROVE that Yamato would lose, we can make arguments that advance that case. And an argument is a set of supported statements designed to advance a case. Herald, and to a far lesser extent I, have been advancing SUPPORTED statements, i.e., "The Yamato would NOT have been firing at 40 K yards, because..." "Yamato would NOT have gotten the first shot in BECAUSE....." "Yamato was NOT invulnerable to 40.6 cm fire BECAUSE...." Your problem is you don't seem to like the facts that are coming your way.

I joined this site thinking, I could chat with some people with the same interest's in Ships and WWII that I have, What I find is some internet bullies(nerds) that are so full of themselves, that they consider all others as knowing nothing. Seriously if we were face to face, I don't think you would have the balls to talk to me the way you treat people on this site and I assure you, I would kick your arse around the room if you tried. It is one thing to have knowledge it is another to use it wisely.

You haven't been bullied, you've been "debated." And you didn't come out the winner in it. So you thought you'd find like-minded people here, and that's LITERALLY what you wanted "like-minded people", you know people that thought LIKE YOU. Well you found people that share your interest, but not your conclusions...Sorry about that. So, your response is to call people who don't agree with you, "nerds" is it? Had we agreed with you we'd be what, neat guyz? Get over it, dude...all you had to do was find better evidence. Mostly you keep and kept saying, "You can't KNOW that, for sure." Well yeah, we all know that, but we can make some stabs at knowing...you could have too. Instead of having your prejudices confirmed you found them challenged...and you didn't like that.

I am bored with this and am going to move on to other things. I wait for your tirades of belittlement and your ego boosting but will not reply. Good buy and good luck.

Shorter, version, "Waaaaa'aaaaah, you're mean and I'm taking my ball and going home."

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Physics is physics 6/24/2009 2:22:58 PM

A 15 megajoule impact event is a 15 megajoule impact event. Most dive bombers were not 0 present incidence drop on deck armor. The angle of the dive rarely exceeded 75% to the present face. More often it was 50% or less.The projectile used often was less than 500 kilograms and impact was much less than 7 megajpoules. At rannges of about 25000+ meters the present was near 40 degrees plunge to the plate. So what was your point?

You see I don't understand where you can argue the nonsense you argued. DATA is DATA. You also made a science mistake that a rookie would not make.

You don't like it?

Tough.

Herald

Quote Reply

Leech 6/25/2009 5:25:43 AM

What do you think, what outcome of next fights would be:

1)Yamato vs Iowa

2)Bismarck vs Iowa

3)Yamato vs Bismarck

Bismarck-41 700 t standard; 50 900 t full load; 30 knots; main belt 145-320 mm (with oil tanks outside armor giving extra protection); deck 110-120 mm; main gun turrets 130-360 mm; Armament: 8x38 cm main guns (42 000 m range for AP shell; 2 rpm); 12x15 cm; 16x10.5 cm

Iowa-45 000 t standard; 52 000 t full load; 33 knots; main belt 310 mm; decks 190 mm; main gun turrets 130-360 mm; armament 9x406 mm main guns (2700lb shell; ~38 000 m range; almost same penetration power as Yamato 456 mm shells; 2 rpm); 20x127 mm (rest is small anti-air which cannot count in ship-to-ship)

Yamato-71 111 t standard; 73 000 t full load; 27 knots; main belt 410 mm; decks 200-230 mm; main gun turrets 650 mm face; 265 mm roof; armament 9x456 mm main guns (2 rpm; 42 000 m range)

Quote Reply

Leech 6/25/2009 5:31:46 AM

What do you think, what outcome of next fights would be:

1)Yamato vs Iowa

2)Bismarck vs Iowa

3)Yamato vs Bismarck

Yamato-71 111 t standard; 73 000 t full load; 27 knots; main belt 410 mm; decks 200-230 mm; main gun turrets 650 mm face; 265 mm roof; armament 9x456 mm main guns (2 rpm; 42 000 m range)

Quote Reply

Leech 6/25/2009 5:36:16 AM

What do you think, what outcome of next fights would be:

1)Yamato vs Iowa

2)Bismarck vs Iowa

3)Yamato vs Bismarck

Yamato-71 111 t standard; 73 000 t full load; 27 knots; main belt 410 mm; decks 200-230 mm; main gun turrets 650 mm face; 265 mm roof; armament 9x456 mm main guns (2 rpm; 42 000 m range)

Quote Reply

Leech 6/25/2009 6:00:30 AM

What do you think, what outcome of next fights would be:

1)Yamato vs Iowa

2)Bismarck vs Iowa

3)Yamato vs Bismarck

Yamato-71 111 t standard; 73 000 t full load; 27 knots; main belt 410 mm; decks 200-230 mm; main gun turrets 650 mm face; 265 mm roof; armament 9x456 mm main guns (2 rpm; 42 000 m range)

Quote Reply

Leech 6/25/2009 7:26:18 AM

What do you think, what outcome of next fights would be:

1)Yamato vs Iowa

2)Bismarck vs Iowa

3)Yamato vs Bismarck

Yamato-71 111 t standard; 73 000 t full load; 27 knots; main belt 410 mm; decks 200-230 mm; main gun turrets 650 mm face; 265 mm roof; armament 9x456 mm main guns (2 rpm; 42 000 m range)

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 24, 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