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
JFKY    the Seafire   6/26/2009 3:52:12 PM
Was an OK weapon at best...too weak to be effective at carrier operations, carriage track too narrow for carrier operations, rather short-ranged...it was OK...the Spitfire was a very nice land-based interceptor/fighter...but it didn't translate that well into a SEA-Based one.
 
And it didn't come into service until 1943, IIRC.  The Wildcat was available in 1941 and was a very serviceable a/c....good enough to have "soldiered on", if necessary until 1945 as a front line fighter.
 
According to Wiki the best Seafire variant wasn't available until POST -War, when it was obsolete, due to the jet revolution.  The RN made some very serious mistakes in the inter-war period, some so serious they never really recovered from them in 6 years of combat...a/c design, for the Fleet Air Arm, and Air Defense were at two of those areas.
 
Quote    Reply

Leech    Fighters   6/27/2009 5:30:09 AM
How good was US P-38 Lightning in comparation to Japanese Zero-sen? P-38 was big, double-hull fighter with great range but what with close air combat? I mean, it took 16 Lightnings to down Jamamoto's plane escorted by two Zero's. And British had several versions of Spitfire, while US had P-51 Mustang, which was built to British specifications, and P39 Aircobra, which was not as good a Zero, but Russians regarded it as ideal for low-atitude attacks on eastern front (out of 9559 produced Aircobra's, 4775 was given/sold to USSR).
 
Quote    Reply

Leech    P.S.:Fighters   6/27/2009 5:35:34 AM
There were 14 versions of Spitfire; final version could fly 12200 m high with speed of 710 km/h; it shot down 300 V1 bombs. It remained in service until 1954.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Leech   6/27/2009 9:22:30 AM

How good was US P-38 Lightning in comparation to Japanese Zero-sen? P-38 was big, double-hull fighter with great range but what with close air combat? I mean, it took 16 Lightnings to down Jamamoto's plane escorted by two Zero's. And British had several versions of Spitfire, while US had P-51 Mustang, which was built to British specifications, and P39 Aircobra, which was not as good a Zero, but Russians regarded it as ideal for low-atitude attacks on eastern front (out of 9559 produced Aircobra's, 4775 was given/sold to USSR).


Stop taking it personal....unless of course your family was deeply involved in the RN's air and air defense issues from 1919-39.  Then take it personally.  The P-38 was a LAND-Based fighter.  We sent 16 because we had TWO targets and top-cover...it's called "being thorough."
 
The rest of the screed isn't all that great...I simply said the FAA had poor a/c and that it's best a/c was AMERICAN...and that that a/c, the Wildcat, COULD have soldiered on until 1945 has the front line fleet a/c.  All of which is true...the Wildcat was an excellent NAVAL fighter, it didn't have to fly escort to Berlin-not that the Spit/Seafiire could either.  It had "mastered" the A-6M by 1943 and as that was the a/c that performed the bulk of Japanese combat from 1941-45 the Wildcat could have continued on.  It was replaced, in front line service, by BETTER a/c.
 
Bottom-Line: the USN had better a/c than the RN, hands down...the fact that the FAA used the Wildcat AND the F4U Corsair, suggests that for better or worse the RN/FAA agreed.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Leech   6/27/2009 9:37:32 AM

There were 14 versions of Spitfire; final version could fly 12200 m high with speed of 710 km/h; it shot down 300 V1 bombs. It remained in service until 1954.


And none of which suggests that the Seafire was particularly good NAVAL fighter, sorry.  It was fast, it could reach a high altitude, it shoot down V-1's...all of which go to show what I said previously, it was a very good LAND-based INTERCEPTOR!  Where the ability to fly high, fast, and get to speed and altitude quickly are important.
 
At SEA, it was lacking...it lacked range.  At sea it wasn't just a point-defense a/c.  It was SUPPOSED to be able to escort the strike package into the target area!  At sea it was a very fragile a/c with a narrow ground track...During the opening day days of Operation Husky (Wiki cite) there were 109 Seafires on opening day, falling to ~40 by day 2, why because of aviation OPERATIONAL LOSSES!
 
The Seafire was too fragile for the heavy pounding naval fighters take on landing...It's carriage track was too narrow, according tot he RN, making it hard to operate from the MOVING deck of a carrier-something that a ground-based plane doesn't have to take into account.  The "fixes" to the Seafire, beefing it up, added weight, reduced performance, changed the centre of gravity making the plane harder to handle, and gave it more difficult slow speed characteristics-you know the sort of characteristics a NAVAL-Based plane needs to have in order to land successfully.
 
All-in-all the Seafire was an OK a/c...it was a transplanted GROUND-Based Interceptor into a role it was never designed to fulfill.  The result was an a/c that while good, had severe drawbacks in its new environment.  Meaning, as a NAVAL fighter, it was not that great!
 
Bottom-Line: Seafire is a prime example of the RN/FAA's problems in WWII.  The RN had NO fighter a/c worthy of that name, of an INDIGENOUS design.  The best the British could provide was a cobbled together version of a land-based a/c whose characteristics made it relatively unsuitable for naval applications.  And all this was the result of British Military Policy: creation of the Royal Air Force and Service Policy: RN command decisions in regards to Aviation vessels, and RN/FAA Doctrine Decisions: in regards to the "Optimum" characteristics and usage of naval "fighter" a/c (I put fighter into quotes, because until the Wildcat, the FAA had NO fighters at all, merely a/c it called fighters).  All these decisions were taken in the era 1919-39 and the British and the RN suffered from their results throughout the war and NEVER fully overcame them!
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    JFKY   6/27/2009 10:35:03 AM

What you have to bear in mind is that the RAF was in control of Naval aviation until May 1939 and. The RN had no influence or say in the choice of aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm until then. The RAF considered that the FAA was not important.

Given the political situation, the RAF naturally dedicated the available resources to the development and production of Hurricanes and Spitfires for the defence of mainland Britain. No money was spent by them on developing Naval aircraft.

Even when the RN did get control of the FAA, they had little influence in the decision making process and there was little money to spare for developing new naval aircraft; the money was seen as needed for building new warships.
 
Quote    Reply

Leech    Spitfire   6/27/2009 1:11:03 PM

There was statement about Spitfire and Messerschmidt Bf-109 in book "Battle for Britain" that Messerschmidt had better manouverability than Spitfire, but had weak wings so crews were not hasty to try to get best from their fighters... until too late. And, about Japanese attack on Malaya, and, later, Singapore, I'm not sure RAF had any Spitfire in these areas at all.

 
Quote    Reply

Leech       6/27/2009 1:18:32 PM
And, what do you think, which ship had better AA defenses-Yamato or Iowa?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/27/2009 1:52:11 PM

How good was US P-38 Lightning in comparation to Japanese Zero-sen? P-38 was big, double-hull fighter with great range but what with close air combat? I mean, it took 16 Lightnings to down Jamamoto's plane escorted by two Zero's. And British had several versions of Spitfire, while US had P-51 Mustang, which was built to British specifications, and P39 Aircobra, which was not as good a Zero, but Russians regarded it as ideal for low-atitude attacks on eastern front (out of 9559 produced Aircobra's, 4775 was given/sold to USSR).

Average pilots? No contest., P-38. The Zero close  cover for Yamamoto was not just two planes. It was SIX.

 
Other Zeros reacted from Kahil airstrip during the intercept, number unknown, but the initial numbers are conclusive, at least six Zeroes against four kill section P-38s before opposing top-covers engaged.
 
Who taught you your crap history?
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Iowa.   6/27/2009 1:56:03 PM

And, what do you think, which ship had better AA defenses-Yamato or Iowa?

She wasn't hit and sunk by air attack.
 
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