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
Herald12345    Follow up.   9/2/2009 6:43:30 AM




Thanks for the reply.  I heard most of the materials to build the Yamato came from all over Japan and it's colonies.  I am in a debate with someone on YOUTUBE who purports that Iowa had no chance against Yamato and after I source-proved that Iowa not only stood a chance but a good chance in a duel with Yamato, this guy started making absurd statements (that he can't back up) and one of them was that Yamato was made entirely of U.S. origined steel.  My position (based on what little I can find) is that Yamato was made of scrap steel and ore from all over the place (including U.S.) and was smelted using techniques taught to them by the British.



 



I have over 30 books on the IJN and even five focused on Yamato and there is nothing in my library or even web based that discusses this topic.



 



If you can dig and find something it would be appreciated.



 



Scott







 

Look to that section that deals with steels.

 

Herald





 
In their smelting processes for PL10-13 plates, for additives, the Japanese were known to use up to 65%-75% scrap steels, sources unknown. The raw stock iron base however is almost certainly Manchurian
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Scottus       9/2/2009 8:01:43 PM
Thanks Herald!  Wow that is an amazing document.  Where did you dig that up at?  Many thanks again!
 
Scott
 
Quote    Reply

Leech       9/28/2009 1:54:35 PM
I thought this topic is dead.
 
Quote    Reply

Leech       9/28/2009 1:56:27 PM




Hi Herald,



 



   You seem to know about what you are discussing here.  You back up your statements with sources and I like that.  I have a question for you...  Do you happen to know the source of the steel used in Yamato's construction?   I have heard various answers but can't find any sources to verify.  Someone said that the steel came from ships purchased from Russia (which were originally purchased from the U.S.) thus making that the Yamato was made of American steel!  I highly doubt this.  The Japanese had their own smelting process (copied after the British) and I find it hard to believe the steel is U.S. sourced.  Any info?



 



Thanks,



 



Scott




That I don't know. The iron Japan imported came from many sources, North American scrapped cars and industrial products was one source, and what the Japanese dug out of Manchuria was another . I would have to really dig to see how much recycled steel went into Yamato. My guess is that it would not be much as armor plate of that era usually started with raw stock steels.   




Herald


 


Right, but question is if Japan had much of it.
 
Quote    Reply

elclip1       10/2/2009 12:00:25 AM
Back to the "which ship wins" discussion...

In Thomas Cutler's Leyte Gulf Book, he briefly discusses the Armor-Piercing rounds developed for the 18.1" guns of Yamato and Musachi.  Apparently, the Type 91 AP round was designed to be a hydrodynamic weapon that would land short of the target and basically torpedo it's way into the side of the target.

Obviously, in the case of Yamato and Musachi, the rounds were never used against a heavy target. If Yamato flung any of them at Taffy 3, I've never read about it and even if they had, I suspect the rounds would have just punched an 18.1" hole in both sides of the lightly armored targets there.

The question is, in an engagement with an Iowa would these rounds have been effective at all? Could they have penetrated under the Iowa's belt?

Brian E

 
Quote    Reply

elclip1       10/2/2009 12:20:44 AM
A bit more:

 In "Battleship Musashi: The Making and Sinking of the World's Biggest Battleship" by Akira Yoshimura.

The author mentions this round as well. According to him, Japan was building a large BB named Tosa that was canceled as a result of the Washington Treaty. The Tosa's hull was used for target practice and it was during these tests that the engineers found evidence that a hydrodynamic shell might work and they were developed for the Yamato class BB's guns. Again according to the book, Japan was concerned enough about another county developing the same kind of shell, that they extended additional armor under the belt to defeat a shell of this type.

There is also a description of the use of this round in the Musachi book, where they are test firing the battery. The description has the rounds splashing short of the target and then large water spouts at the side of the target when the things went off.

Odd

Brian E 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    The Diving Shell   10/7/2009 2:15:29 PM
Was an ineffective weapon and a waste of scarce Japanese resources.  The US' Super-Heavy 40.6 cm shell was a much better weapon and far more lethal.
 
Quote    Reply

cowboyp97dc       10/13/2009 12:01:38 AM

I would have to say that, after a hard fought battle, the Iowa Class would have been the victor.  It is true that the Yamato Class was much, much bigger boasting heaver armor, however her much admired, huge 18.1in main guns would have failed her, as they failed her in every other engagement the Yamato Class fought in.  The 18.1in guns mounted by the Yamato Class were huge, and had great range and destructive capability, but were hindered by horrendous fire control.  In a previous post someone wrote that the Yamato Class were ?proven in battle and the Iowa Class was not? which is true, but not true.  The Iowa Class did exactly what it was built to do- bombard shore defenses and provide superior AA cover for the capital ships- the aircraft carriers.  The Iowa Class never had a chance to prove themselves in a battleship vs battleship encounter, however neither did the Yamato Class.  In fact the only thing the Yamato Class ?proved? is that it could take a lot of damage and provide excellent target practice before being destroyed.  Lets compare them based on actual battles.  The USS Washington (a North Carolina Class ? 2 classes behind the Iowa Class) engaged the Japanese battleship Kirishima and blew her out of the water.  Now the Kirishima was not anywhere as powerful as the Yamato Class, howerver it gives us a good look at how a US battleship with 16 in rifles fought.  The Washington?s guns were not as powerful as the Iowa Class (45 cal compared to the 50 cal of the Iowa) and the Iowa?s fire control was more advanced as well- still the Washington in 7 minutes of battle fired 75 radar tracked rounds on target from her main guns- that is almost 11 16in shells a minute.  The Kirishima was litterly blowen away.  In contrast take a look at the ?mighty? Yamato in her only ship vs ship gun dual battle- the battle off Samar when the Yamato led a strong battle fleet against the tiny Taffy 3 battle fleet.  Yamato had 3 supporting battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 11 destroyers vs Taffy 3?s 6 small unarmored jeep carriers (used for anti-submarine duty), and 7 unarmored destroyers and destroyer escorts.  Just one 18.1 shell from the Yamato would have sent any of Taffy 3?s ships to the bottom.  The airplanes of Taffy 3?s group were armed to deal with submarines and Japanese ground troops-not surface ships, and certainly not battleships- so they are negligable for being able to enflict serious damage durring the battle.  For over 2 hours this huge Japanese task force is unable to defeate Taffy 3 and withdraws, having lost 3 heavy cruisers destroyed, 3 more heavy cruisers damaged, 1 destroyer sunk and 1 more damaged (the Americans lost 2 jeep carriers, 2 destroyers and 1 destroyer escort).  In this battle where the Japanese forces far outmatched the Americans (on paper) where was the great Yamato?s huge artillery?  The Iowa Class would have beaten a Yamato Class in single combat due primarilly to supperior fire controll (Iowa) vs horrendous fire control (Yamato).  The Iowa Class could fire at flank speed with radar controlled precision, whereas the Yamato would have to plot every shot the old fashioned way.  The Yamato, with her superior armor, would have taken a lot of damage before going down- thus given the American crew great target pratice, but in the end huge artillery with no modern fire control is no match for proven, powerful artillery boasting modern fire control systems.  The Japanese simply lost the technology race for ranged artillery.

 
Quote    Reply

cowboyp97dc       10/13/2009 12:07:16 AM
Just wanted to say that in my previous post every time I used punctuation it appeared as a question mark for some reason.  Sorry about that.
 
Quote    Reply

Basilisk Station       11/2/2009 5:13:15 PM

The author mentions this round as well. According to him, Japan was building a large BB named Tosa that was canceled as a result of the Washington Treaty. The Tosa's hull was used for target practice and it was during these tests that the engineers found evidence that a hydrodynamic shell might work and they were developed for the Yamato class BB's guns. Again according to the book, Japan was concerned enough about another county developing the same kind of shell, that they extended additional armor under the belt to defeat a shell of this type.

There is also a description of the use of this round in the Musachi book, where they are test firing the battery. The description has the rounds splashing short of the target and then large water spouts at the side of the target when the things went off.

Brian E 

Sounds like it would be very difficult to employ in actual combat. You'd have to drop the shell in the water at a sufficiently close range and at exactly the correct angle, so that it would hit the ship. There's no indication that the Yamato's fire control system was good enough to manage that. Especially against ships that were faster and able to dictate the engagement range.
 
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