ww2 Yamato vs Iowa class

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 Sorry Leech 7/5/2009 3:18:46 PM

They were often broken down because:

1) They had an underpowered/overworked engine;

2) A weak set of final drives, which broke often;

3) Were difficult to repair; and

4) A part of an army system that didn't emphasize maintenance in the field that much, meaning spares were difficult to procure.

The result was a tank that broke a lot, took a long to repair...resulting in a lot of "hangar queens."

It was an inefficient tank, BTW...had it SLOPED its armour it could have been lighter for a given weight and therefore more maintainable and operationally available...or for the same weight, and its concomitant maintenance issues, would have been MORE survivable....

The Tiger is OVER-RATED...it, like the HMS Hood, may be the SYMBOL of it's service, but like the Hood it was seriously flawed and that's what the professionals thought THEN and think NOW (Mind you, I'm not one of the "professionals" I merely read what they write.)

Quote Reply

Leech 7/5/2009 4:46:57 PM

They were often broken down because:

1) They had an underpowered/overworked engine;

2) A weak set of final drives, which broke often;

3) Were difficult to repair; and

4) A part of an army system that didn't emphasize maintenance in the field that much, meaning spares were difficult to procure.

The result was a tank that broke a lot, took a long to repair...resulting in a lot of "hangar queens."

No one expect Russians saw slope-armor effectivnes in 1940., when construction of Tiger begun; however, Germans quickly learned lession from t-34 and used it on Panther and Tiger II (King Tiger). Moreover, while these problems were common with Panter (in initial model wheels would broke down beacouse of weight 10 tons above planned), I never heard Tiger having these problems, nor that Tigers were greater "hangar queens" than Panther. Every Tiger was repaired in average 10 times during the war, but this was combat damage. Many Tigers which were destroyed by any known criterria, were repaired and returned in their units. With Panther, however, there was other situation, especcially model "D" (initial model). There is log entry from 1. Panzer Division : "...instead that time was used for training crews, it was spent on doing 592 modifications needed to get tanks into operational condition."

Quote Reply

JFKY Leech 7/5/2009 5:47:59 PM

All I can tell you is what I have read...they broke, a lot, and required a LOT of maintenance, because they had overstressed drive components. The Wehrmacht had a poor maintenance program...it focused on short campaigns with FACTORY rebuilds, well into 1943...field maintenance suffered.

The Tiger, regular or King are over-rated...in fact the Heavy Tank was a dead end...it's why the T-34 is revolutionary, it was, as the Soviets called it, a Universal Tank, or as we would style it today, a Main Battle Tank. It might have taken another 20 years for it to die off, but the Heavy Tank was a dead end, the Tiger was just more dead than most.

Quote Reply

elclip1 7/5/2009 8:38:01 PM

Leech Wrote:

Kriegsmarine surface navy wasn't incompetent-it was outnumbered and outgunned 10:1 by Royal Navy alone, not to count US Navy-out of 15 battleships, 6 or 7 were on Atlantic, plus two fast battleships which later came.

Oh I think incompetent is about the right word for the Kriegsmarine. Outside of a handful of operations (Sheer's long cruise and Operation Cerberus), it's hard to find many instances where the surface fleet achieved the objectives set out for it without getting wasted in the process (The Norway operation for example succeeded, but cost the roughly a fourth of it's available ships).

Probably the best and most aggressive sea Admiral KM had was Marschall. He was an "up and at em" type to be sure. HE would have finished off POW for sure. Look at his actions in sinking HMS Glorious. HE ordered an attack when the identity of the enemy ship was still unknown. When asked "what if it is a Battleship" his reply was "we shall attack regardless". Of course Reader tossed this Admiral on the scrap heap.

Of course the best example of the KM's incompetence is the battle of the Berents Sea. A performance so bad that Hitler wanted to scrap the fleet afterward.

Sure they were outgunned, certainly they could at best only pick and choose their opportunities to engage. But for the most part when they did, it was ugly. The merchant raiders did ok, but for the most part, germany would have been FAR better off not building Capital ships at all.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Incorrect. 7/6/2009 12:27:48 AM

Iowa class had good hull and strong machines; North Carolina and South Dakota were built for speed also, but there were limitations of weight; USN intentionally went for shirter, better protected hull.

We chose a hull form that was easy to weld and bolt for the North Carolina. Our high pressure steam turbines worked so we thought we could get away with a smaller less massive power plant in the less curvy and less efficient hull. The North Carolina if it had used the HMS Nelson's hull lines would have driven along at almost 30 knots on her power plant..

How do I know this?

HMS Vanguard 130,000 SHP at 30 knots @ 50,000 tons full load..Efficiency of slip 2.6

USS North Carolina 121,000 SHP @ 27 knots @ 44,700 tons full load Efficiency of slip 2.7

HMS Vanguard average 4333 HP per knot^1

USS North Carolina average HP per knot. 4481 HP per knot^1

These are actually log ratios, but I averaged them over the range to give you a feel for slipperiness and efficiency.

The Vanguard carried a LOT more armor as dead mass on her than North Carolina..

Herald

Quote Reply

Leech 7/6/2009 8:24:19 AM

How do I know this?

HMS Vanguard 130,000 SHP at 30 knots @ 50,000 tons full load..Efficiency of slip 2.6

USS North Carolina 121,000 SHP @ 27 knots @ 44,700 tons full load Efficiency of slip 2.7

HMS Vanguard average 4333 HP per knot^1

USS North Carolina average HP per knot. 4481 HP per knot^1

These are actually log ratios, but I averaged them over the range to give you a feel for slipperiness and efficiency.

The Vanguard carried a LOT more armor as dead mass on her than North Carolina..

Herald

USN battleship doctrine until Iowa class was building better protected but slower ships. North Carolina was not as protected as battleships of other nations but had 9 406 mm guns 3 triple turrets, which was stronger than armament of King George V class, for example; but was relatively slow with 27 knots (in comparation to Iowa). South Dakotas were more-less same, while Iowa put accent on speed. All three classes had strong anti-aircraft armament (North Carolina had 96 40-mm AA cannons.)

Quote Reply

Leech 7/6/2009 9:12:17 AM

T-34 was problematic for both its crews and Germans-they were poor made, maximally simplified (only way for turning of turrett was by using wheel-tank had no hidraulyc system for turning turrett like German tanks, and, in best case, 1 out of twenty tanks was equipped with radio, while every German tank had one radio, command versions two radio units.) T-34 was make-in-garrage tank, while every German tank was state-of-art... exponate for technical museum. Wery deadly exponate in some cases.

Germans had problem with number of tanks avaliable. They produced 29 000 tanks during the war; while Soviets in 1943. produced 1300 T-34s per month.

There is list of 1943. production of tanks:

USSR - total of 20 000 tanks, of that number 15 600 T-34

Germany-total of max. 10 000 tanks; of that number 1768 Panthers, and 3054 Panzer IV.

For Production of 1 Panther was required 2000 work-hours; T-34 required less than half of that time. I personally think that Germans made mistake with Panthers-they should produce Panzer IV. There are some facts-for same amount of time and work it was possible to produce 2 Panzer IV instead of 1 Panther, or 3 Panzer IV instead of 1 Tiger. That means that Germans could produce 15 545 Panzer IV's more instead of all these Panthers and Tigers. 15 545 Panzer IV's more instead of 7095 Panthers (of which first 2000 tanks were heavily unreliable-I think that tanks of first series of Panthers spent more time on repairs than in combat) could make very big difference, especcially on Eastern front; but I dont think anything would change dramatically, expect maybe prolonging war into 1946.

"The tank-versus-tank role is also important. German tank production was limited to relatively small numbers of superior but complex vehicles (in part because of production diversion into self-propelled guns), which put them at a numerical disadvantage. The Soviet decision to build large numbers of T-34s, gradually improving and simplifying the design, proved to be a superior strategy that helped win World War II."

Germans realised that, but too late-only final version of Panzer IV was maximally simplified for production.

"A natural comparison can be made between the T-34 and the U.S. M4 Sherman medium tank. Each tank formed the backbone of the armoured units in their respective allied armies. The T-34 was a "world-beater" at the time of its debut, while the Sherman was a strong contender when introduced in 1942. Both models were upgraded and improved extensively throughout their service life, receiving new turrets with more powerful guns. Both were designed for ease of manufacture and maintenance, sacrificing some performance for this goal. Neither was a match for the heavy German Panther or Tiger tanks in armour or firepower, but the Soviet IS-2 heavy tank and American M26 Pershing were more comparable."

Sherman received 76 mm gun, and T-34 recieved 85 mm gun, both of which were fairly stronger than previous Sherman's

75 mm or T-34's 76.2 mm guns. Both these guns were technically able to penetrate armor of Tiger I (but not front armor of Tiger II), but German crews learned to evade that by turning body of tank 30-40 degrees from enemy, so enemy shells would strike armor at angle.

Also, M-26 Pershing was comparable to Tiger I, but not Tiger 2 who surpassed it in both terms of armor protection and penetration. (Tiger I could penetrate 135 mm armor at distance 1500 m under angle of 60 degrees. Panther could penetrate 115 mm on 1000 m under angle of 60 degrees or 160 mm at 90 degrees, while Tiger II and Jagdpanther were able to penetrate 159 mm at distance of 2

Quote Reply

Leech 7/6/2009 9:21:19 AM

Leech Wrote:

Of course the best example of the KM's incompetence is the battle of the Berents Sea. A performance so bad that Hitler wanted to scrap the fleet afterward.

Kriegsmarine did not expected war with Britain until 1944., at which point they would have 10 H-class battleships and overall strength to fight Royal Navy on equal terms. Hitler messed Raeder's plans when he attacked Poland. Raeder planned (plan Z) to built 10 battleships, 4 aircraft carriers, 3 battlecruisers, 8 heavy cruisers, 44 light cruisers, 68 destroyers and 249 U-boats by 1944., which was meant to challenge naval might of United Kingdom.

Quote Reply

Leech 7/6/2009 9:27:30 AM

If heavy tank was dead, why USSR prodused JS-I and -II tanks, and US produced M-26 Pershing, all of which were meant to counter Tiger and Panther Tanks, and all were, like Tiger, heavy, with strong cannon, but fairly slow and short-ranged.

Quote Reply

Leech 7/6/2009 9:32:29 AM

Also, Panther is often regarded (along with T-34 and Sherman, as one of best tank designs of world war two.

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