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    Quasi1   6/9/2009 9:23:50 AM
The person who seems to have less an argument and more an axe to grind is you....the Yamato was NOT going to be hitting the Iowas at 40K yards...the longest hit against a moving target was about 26,500 yards, Scharnhorst v. Glorious, 1940.  Examine the Battle of North Cape, the Scharnhorst put very few hits on Duke of York, because  DoY had radar gunfire control and Scharnhorst had lost hers.
The Iowas weren't at risk from magazine hits, because Japanese shells were designed to penetrate underwater, a neat idea, that was unworkable....
The US 16"/50 was a very powerful weapon, the equivalent to the 18.1" of the Yamato....the Japanese adopted the 18.1" as a brute force alternative to developing a higher velocity rifle.
The Yamato's were not particularly great combat vessels...that's what the numbers say....sorry.
Quote    Reply

quasi1    JFKY   6/9/2009 5:30:48 PM

Less an arguement. An axe to grind. 

You just keep getting better.

There is no axe to grind as I thought this was a discussion forum, not a " JFKY is the only one that knows anything" forum.

The "numbers" are that at long range the 16/50 "is" equavalent to the 18.1, But as the ranges got closer the 18.1 starts to outstrip the 16/50. Now I will write this next part slowly for you. The Yamato out weighs the Iowa by about 20'000 tons, this by fact means that the Iowa has to hit ( Big guns) Yamato more often than the Yamato hits the Iowa.

The design of the Yamatos shells does not mean that they would only creat damage if they hit below the waterline. "If" (notice I said if) If they hit the Iowa they will create damage.

The fact that "nobody" knows how this fight would come out in real terms, means that we have to "discuss" the possibilities.

"within" (notice the "within") 40'000 yards, nobody in their right mind expects battleships to hit each other at this range, yet it is possible.

The comparison must be done at battle ranges that would occur during WW2.

Shell for shell, which ship is going to inflict the most damage and which ship is going to recieve the most damage.

So for the model to work both ships would need to slug it out. This removes all the what if, that people can place to prove thier point.

The Sharnhorst was a battle cruiser with 11" guns against a Battleship with 14" guns and destroyer's. The destroyers with "Torpedoes" stopped the Sharnhorst not the 14" guns( which inflicted damage). So this was a realy! good example.

I have studied this for a very long time and assume that people on sites like this, have studied as well. Because of this assumption I dont believe I need to write down numbers, as you have access to that information yourself and presume that you have read it. 

I believe it is you that need to get over your ego and return to discussing the subjects, not try to dictate them.




Quote    Reply

JFKY    Well Quasi1   6/9/2009 9:39:10 PM
I'd recommend you READ SOME NUMBERS at combined once you do that you'll come to see that the Yamato wasn't so great, 20,000 tons larger or no.  And the US Navy knew that the Yamato weighed in at 60,000-plus tons and that it carried 18" guns....knew it from 1944.  You might profitably read some of the articles at as well.  You;'ll learn a few things about NUMBERS and the Yamato...
You'll learn that Yamato's fire control crapped out at 33,000 yards..the Japanese were NOT going to open fire at 40K yards, no fire control...the Iowa's and the SoDak's could MANEUVER and SHOOT, unlike the evidence by the fact that North Carolina completed to 450-degree turns, then two 100 degree turns, at speed, and NEVER lost its fire control solution...
So the Iowa is MANEUVERING and SHOOTING... making it unlikely that the Yamato is going to get any hits...and that's bearing in mind the longest hit was 26,500 Yards....much less hits at 40K or even 30K yards...and the 16"/50's were going to hurt the Yamato...not simply bounce off...the only area INVULNERABLE on the Yamato was the Turret faces...the 16"/50's had a tremendous shell and were going to penetrate Yamato...and if you read down thread you'll see that the 18.1" and the 16"/50 had about equivalent impact scores...more of those pesky NUMBERS.
So I'm sorry but I have SOME NUMBERS, not just a set of assertions concerning people's prejudices.
Quote    Reply

JFKY    A few more facts...   6/9/2009 10:23:03 PM
The Iowa had a full "Blindfire" capacity...which, BTW, works just perfectly in fine weather too.  The Iowa could observe fall of shot, range, bearing, and angular bearings, all without seeing the Yamato....
The Yamato radar allowed range and bearing, but not a full blindfire required that the optical range finder be used.....
The radar horizon is further than the optical horizon.  Meaning that the Iowa was going to be developing fire control solutions BEFORE the Yamato, which was going to have to close the range to begin aimed fire....
Battleships aren't going to waste ammunition at 40K yards...they don't have that much ammunition on board.  No one is going to start firing until a fire control solution is possible...Luck or are just wasting ammunition.
Finally you say:
The Iowa was a well built battle cruiser and the Yamato was a true battleship. Battle cruisers never won fights against Battleships.
What are you talking about?  The Iowas were battleships...If the Iowa wasn't a battleship then the KG V's weren't battleships either at 38K tons or the Richelieu at 35K tons or the Vittorio Veneto at 43K tons, or the Bismarck at 41K tons, or the Queen Elizabeths at 27.5K tons...funny all those ships were battleships....but at 45K tons the Iowa is a BATTLE CRUISER?
And I'm short on "facts?"
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Some things.   6/9/2009 11:26:27 PM
1. The Iowa had a huge float bubble because of her huge hull but her armor citadel was not much better than the South Dakota's. That makes her an oversized Alaska to me.
2. The Yamato had a huge design defect where her armor belt came down to meet her torpedo defense. As was proved on the Shinano, the PUNY Mark 14 torpedoes of the day could rip that seam open like a zipper and defeat the compartmentation defense the Japanese used for their bubble. Any 16' SHW shells that driummed into that joint likewise would open Yamato up like a key rippung open Spam. Two or three low belt hits would do the job nicely. Every Yamato died of THAT defect.and by torpedo strike there, either Mark 13 or Mark 14         
3. The Japanese professionals knew that defect. Why do you think Kurita ran for his life when he saw the Hoel's torpedoes chasing his flagship? 

Quote    Reply

StevoJH       6/10/2009 4:27:46 AM

What are you talking about?  The Iowas were battleships...If the Iowa wasn't a battleship then the KG V's weren't battleships either at 38K tons or the Richelieu at 35K tons or the Vittorio Veneto at 43K tons, or the Bismarck at 41K tons, or the Queen Elizabeths at 27.5K tons...funny all those ships were battleships....but at 45K tons the Iowa is a BATTLE CRUISER?

And I'm short on "facts?"

Strange you should mention that. By World War Two there was little difference between the classifications. For example HMS Vanguard was classified as a "fully armoured battlecruiser" yet it had the thickest and deepest belt of any battleship built. I'm fairly sure, but not 100% sure that the KGV's were also originally classified as battlecruisers though later it was changed to battleship.
Quote    Reply

quasi1    TESTY   6/10/2009 4:38:05 AM

Not reading so well are you.

I have read these numbers, I have books coming out my wazoo. I study the information on the nett, by people with far more knowledge than I.

Nether the Iowa or The Yamato proved themselves in battle.

When the Americans upgraded the Iowas guns from 16/45 to 16/50 they changed the Iowa from a battleship to a very good battlecruiser.

At no time have I claimed that the Yamato was a better ship than the Iowa, I am discussing Armoured ship against Armoured ship, on a shell by shell basis.

Instead of jumping off your computer chair, waving your arms, yelling at the computer screen this guy knows nothing and being rude to me. Try going back over what I have written and, no wait let me try one more time.

The discussion about which would come out the best is open to all sorts of issue's (My dads bigger than your dad because!). The simple answer is knowbody will ever know.

Lucky shots, when captains would start firing, weather conditions a whole list of things could go wrong, or right.


The Hood was a great ship until she was sunk and then in retrospec all the problems of her manufacture became more important, If she had not been sunk, then the Hood would be the greatest of all ships. Oh that is funny the Hood was a battlship until she was sunk then she was compared to a battle cruiser.

The Iowa has been a show pony and has never been put to the test. They have fired at land targets and used as carrier escort.

The yamato proved that her armour could take huge punishment from attacks that would have dispossed of other ships very quickly.

The Iowa would have to hit the Yamato more times than the Yamato would have to hit the Iowa. Shell for shell armour for armour the Iowa lose,s (it would be close)

But out at sea it is a different story and anything can happen. To point that all discussion is mute. nothing to win nothing to lose just egos to bruise.



Quote    Reply

quasi1    Short of facts   6/10/2009 4:48:22 AM

Sorry just read that line again.

I did not accuse you have being "short of facts". I claimed you and others probably have the same information that I have.

I did pock fun at your reading ability though. sorry about that.

This is still a discussion forum is it not.

Quote    Reply

quasi1    herald12345   6/10/2009 4:58:20 AM

Quite true, the joint was a problem, The shanano was also sunk on the way to fitting out. It had no water tight measures in place. The shanano was going to be a large waste of money anyway. It was not fast enough and was to be used as a repair depo at sea.


Even wth this fault, no other ship in the world could have sustained the damage that her sister ships took by torpedos and keep going.  

Quote    Reply

quasi1    stevojh   6/10/2009 5:13:07 AM

It is confusing, Battleship/ Battlecruiser. By WW2, balistics had over taken Armour and I am sure designers were not confident to call their ships Battleships.  American designers had desided that even 12" deck armour would not keep out the new bombs being designed. It had become an aircraft war, no need for the Montanas. Now that would have been a ship to see.

It would seem that if your ship got sunk it was a Battlecruser and if it survived it became a Battleship.

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