Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36   NEXT
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

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
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics