# Iowa vs Yamato comparison



## delcyros (Apr 8, 2006)

Here are my results of the protective armour scheme comparison of both super battleships. Have a read!
Please be kind and tell any errors you encounter. This paper IS NOT INTENDED for commercial use or publication, it´s for You and for discussion. Acrobat reader V 7.0 is required to open the document (17 pages + 5 pages appendix). Excuse grammar mistakes but feel free to correct me anytime.

It seems, as mentioned previously, that Iowa gets the low end of the line in a comparison with Yamato. The better quality of it´s armour (and even this generalization is wrong regarding class A US armour and VH) does not offset the sheer thickness. My renewed version shows that both designs are more equal thanks to the type 91 APCBC problems with the AP-cap. Still, Yamato is in most area´s, except for simple belt penetration superiorly protected.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Apr 11, 2006)

No comments?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 11, 2006)

It is very interesting but I will be honest with you, it is way beyond my knowledge on battleships. I do applaud you on your effort, well done.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 11, 2006)

Im still digesting your orther posts.

You work to fast!


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 11, 2006)

I thought it was right on, and it solidified every thought i have had, Iowa would have to be pretty lucky to win an angagement. One thing i didnt know so much about on Yamato was just how protected the bridge was. That would be a life saver, no matter what vessel (or aircraft) you encounter. The immune zone on Yamato had to be the most impressive thing to me though. 

Iowas underwater protrection, espcially in the bow (though yamato had a somewhat similar bow problem) would make it the loser in my book. A near hit at the waterline, much less a direct hit would doom the poor iowa, and Yamatos secondary amrament would play more of a role when or if the close range broadsides came into effect. Even in a battle of manovere, where broadsides were rarely if ever exchanged, i would give the victory to Yamato, with a tight turning radius, and wider immune zones, it would hold all the advantages.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 11, 2006)

I made a typing mistake in Yamato´s bridge thickness: the sites are 19" as written, but not the roofs, of course (11.8"). I actually calculated with 11.8" but forgot to fix it in the text.

In a close engagement (10.000yrds and less), I would give Iowa a slight advantage due to a significant higher secondary battery output and HE shells with more striking power (more HE-ordenance). According to my ww2 BB encounter records, there is a 60% chance after hit #1 that the radar set breakes down. In this view a higher battery output may play a role for Iowa. Both ships vitals are exposed to each others main guns at these distances, so the one with a lucky hit may blew up the other, rendering this scenario very, very hypothetical. Iowa also had excellent maneuvering charackteristics (according to Naval bulletins, DD had to beware of vessels of the Iowa-class because they were more maneuverable than DD´s!), this seems to have something to do with the general hull design (having the center of weight in the rear part of the ship = closer to the rudderforces), no specific advantage for Yamato, only.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 11, 2006)

I like Iowa, dont get me wrong, but for the battle to get within 10,000yrds, Yamato would have to have started from farther away, and close through its own immune zone, firing the entire way into the close engagement, and most likely hitting Iowa on the way in, diminishing its advantage. The secondary armament, as well as main armament, if damaged would be a huge hinderance to Iowa, and if its vulnerable bow was hit, it would lose the speed, and manouvere advantage it had over Yamato.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 11, 2006)

Unreal work del....


----------



## Henk (Apr 11, 2006)

Great stuff delcyros. Learning quite a lot.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2006)

Dont forget that the Iowa would still be firing its guns at the Yamato doing its share of damage.

If its one thing that was decisevly proven about the IJN, was their damage control philosophy and practice was almost amaturish.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 12, 2006)

I second that. Some of the damage inflicted to Musashi at her last battle resulted from serious methodical damage controll problems AND little or no buoyancy/metacentric reserve once the bow was flooded. (a problem which it would share with Iowa.
I have to defend myself if You say "unrealistic". It obviously isn´t the last word but I sourced my basics (datas for armour qualities and ballistics from Nathan Okun as the calculating programs) and am confident that the results aren´t that wrong.
If you find errors or have points, I neglected (all possible), please tell me, so I may fix it.
The largest controverse I expect to come are from the uselessnes of Iowas and South Dakotas so called "decapping plates", greatly reducing their immune zone against belt hits by almost 8.000 yrds! But as You may read, I explained why.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2006)

Its hard to quantify the lack of skilled damage control parties on board the IJN warships. What if you increased the lethality of the 16" and 5" shells, without it penetrating the armor?

Remember, once fires start in the superstructure, the efficiency of the propulsion and ammo handling crews will degrade.


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 12, 2006)

True.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 12, 2006)

In case of Yamato, some but not all DC-centres are in proximity to the bridge, worsening the working environment for leading damage controll crew by exposing them to shellfire. Yamato soon lost ALL her DC officers in her last battle because of this. Iowa places two main DC centres under the main armoured deck (as did Bismarck) and this may play a role. But don´t forget that the pure destructive force (kinetic + chemical) of a 18.1" AP hit is twice of that from a 16" AP hit.


----------



## hartmann (Apr 18, 2006)

I have a question, the Yamato had the tightes turning circle of all battleships of his type, Is this true? I heard about a 640 m turning circle (really impresive for its size). best regards


----------



## delcyros (Apr 18, 2006)

This is true. The flask-shaped hull with the centre of buoyancy and center of weight placed comparably close to the main and auxilary rudders made such a tight turning radius possible (there are fotos in the net showing Yamato and Musashi evading bombs, you may verify the turining radius from the wakes). But it should be noted that US fast battleships also had a flask-shaped hull design, allowing for a turning radius well under 800 yrds! So Iowa Yamato don´t differ that much but dwarfing the competition of their european BB´s in this respect.


----------



## hartmann (Apr 19, 2006)

Really, very interesting the thread. (my congratulations for your work from Iowa and Yamato in pdf, really impressive). Another question, the "Bismarck" battleships really turned very tight I suppose, giving the fact that they carried twin "¿suspension?" rudders (Spanish: "timones suspendidos"), the reverse of other European ships like KGV, with only a single rudder, and with a turning circle very big for its size. Is this true?. 
Best regards


----------



## delcyros (Apr 22, 2006)

I have checked my books to verify this but I couldn´t do. It is true that the DKM BB have two seperate rudders (and three shafted propulsion) while KGV and Vanguard class have a single rudder (but four shafted propulsion). Hull shape is comparable. I wouldn´t easily give an advantage without good statistics, so I cannot answer this question. I do believe that neither class has a significant advantage in turning circle over the other. Three shafted propulsion has a disadvantage but this is offsetted by the twin rudders.


----------



## Henk (Apr 22, 2006)

Without the rudders the Bismarck could not turn for nothing, its propellers could not help it turn, but the Vanguard had the advantage there because it had four propellers and thus make it turn much better without the rudder.

Henk


----------



## delcyros (Apr 22, 2006)

Once both rudders are knocked out, ok. But such a case was not foreseen by any BB design. One rudder could be knocked out but the other would -in theory- do it´s job. The torpedo hit destroyed the steering controll for both rudders despite beeing heavily armoured. Such a hit would disable Iowa, Vanguard, even Yamato with it´s seperated auxilary steering rooms (during trials they discovered that the auxilary rudders could not stop turning of the ship once Yamato engaged a turn). However, a four shafted design makes for some redundance in such a case and this exactly was a disadvantage in the specific case of Bismarck.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 22, 2006)

I think we can safely say that for any ship of any size, if the rudder or steering gear is damaged, its in trouble.


----------



## Henk (Apr 22, 2006)

Yep, that is why I think the four propeller idea is the best way to go, then you have 2 propellres steering the ship instead of one. Your rudder is the most importend part of the ship, but when they are gone you need the propellers to do the job and keep moving. Also a problem is when the rudder or rudders lock whilst turning in battle due to damage and you then start to sailing in circles like the case with the Repulse. 

I think if your rudder is not so high up like the Bismarck then you have a less chance on getting them damaged in battle, I prefer the single rudder rather than two, the second one will lock for sure if the other one gets damaged. The Yamato's second little rudder was worth nothing. 

Henk


----------



## delcyros (Apr 23, 2006)

Agreed. A torpedo hit will probably jam both rudders (except they are widely spaced). Experience of ww1 showed that twin rudders have some redundance advantage but there are many reasons to prefer four shafted propulsion instead of three shafted ones.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

I agree. The other thing that is also very bad is when your propeller shaft gets hit by a torpedo or shell. I think the chance of that is pretty small, but just think about it.

Henk


----------



## delcyros (May 2, 2006)

I recently had a discussion on another board covering the shell design of the japanese type 91 APCBC 18.1"/45 round. It seems that the type 91 rounds generally have a disadvantage: Unlike all other APCBC-rounds, the type 91 has the armour piercing cap attached to the windscreen (all other designs have the cap attached to the shellbody). In our comparison this undoubtly have some noteworthy effect: Iowas decapping plate, while not sufficiant to decap typical APCBC -battleship calibres will strive off the windscreen of the type 91 round and therefore decap the round! The plate works - not because of itself but because of the design failure of the japanese type 91 APCBC-round (cap attached to windscreen instead of shellbody).
NOTE THAT THE BELT IMMUNE ZONE SHIFTS IN FAVOUR OF IOWA: 
Iowa: 16.600 yrds-45.000 yrds; Yamato: 18.500-42.000 yrds
Very interesting. I will fix the point in the file as soon as I have conclusive informations avaiable.


----------



## delcyros (May 14, 2006)

Have recalculated with the type 91 APCBC-factor. Iowa´s belt therefore cannot be pierced in effective, bursting condition by Yamato (and other japanese battleship rounds using type 91 ammo) from ANY RANGE!. Effective penetration of Yamato´s belt at optimal impact angle´s is possible at closer ranges than 18.200 yrds but ~16.000 yrds seems to me more reasonable for most circumstances. Full and partly penetrating projectiles (ineffective bursting condition) may reach the vitals of both ships (Yamato: ~25.000 yrds, Iowa: ~18.000 yrds) anyway with a significant advantage for the Iowa-class!
Check the renewed pdf for details and keep on reporting mistakes.
Thanks in advance!


----------



## syscom3 (May 14, 2006)

Delcyros, what was the other board you mentioned?

That sounds interesting enough to see what they have to say.


----------



## delcyros (May 28, 2006)

www.forum-schlachtschiff.com

You need to register prior to participate.
However I digeed out more points which question the belt protection of both ships:
quality: US (excellent quality controll for all homogenious plates up to 8" thickness. Beyond this thickness the quality of plates is very questionable, dropping rapidly)
IJN: (mediocre quality for large and very thin thicknesses but excellent quality controll for medium homogenious plate thicknesses (betwen 6" and 10")

There is a significant gap in belt protection of YAMATO and IOWA under the face hardened upper belt! This disadvantage is more significant for Iowa because of the innermounted belt; The internal geometry of the lower (homogenious) belt allows 18.1" projectiles at 21.000 -28.000 yrds to strike the belt ballistically WITHOUT making submerge travel first. Hits at this upper edge of the homogenious belt would be worrisome (reduced elongation at plate edges!) and allows the projectile to penetrate in effective condition.
However, this gap is not easy to hit, special distances and small target areas are required to achieve penetration.
YAMATO also suffers a weaker joint between upper and lower belt (and the dissimilar metal plates of both), however this can only be hit by a submerge travel first (or in an unlikely event a sharp list of Iowa in opposite direction).


----------



## Henk (May 28, 2006)

Sorry pal but the link soes not work.

Henk


----------



## delcyros (May 28, 2006)

sorry, my mistake.

http://forum.schlachtschiff.com/default.asp

But I do suggest to try via Google (most content is accessable for registered users only but via Google you may go through)

cheers!


----------



## Henk (May 28, 2006)

nope still nothing it says the webpage refuse to show it.

Henk


----------



## delcyros (May 28, 2006)

I added the main page, should work now. Unfortunately most articles are written in german...


----------



## Henk (May 28, 2006)

Thanks mate, but where do you join and can you chose the language you want?

Henk


----------



## mew (Nov 4, 2021)

So technically USS Iowa losses right?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 4, 2021)

In a 1v1, it depends on the circumstances. Poor weather or night (especially the former) would work to the _Iowa_'s advantage with its radar-directed fire control. Clear weather, the _Yamato_ will have longer range and perhaps get plunging hits, which would be devastating to _Iowa_.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the speed differential. With a 5-6 kt advantage, the _Iowa_ would be better-placed to determine the terms of engagement, as well. Perhaps get in the blind arc of _Yamato_'s forward armament and attack from the rear? _Yamato_ can't run away, and has only three main guns to both find the range and then plug away. And if the _Yamato_ starts finding the range, leave off combat until a better setup can be found.

I'd imagine the 16" 50s have a higher rate of fire than Yammie's 18s, though Wiki reports that they're close, with a slight theoretical advantage to the 16s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

But how effective was Yamato's fire control radar?
During the Battle of Latte Gulf, USN Battleships ravaged the IJN's warships with accurate radar directed gunfire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 4, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But how effective was Yamato's fire control radar?
> During the Battle of Latte Gulf, USN Battleships ravaged the IJN's warships with accurate radar directed gunfire.



So far as I've read and watched, _Yamato_'s radar was detection-only, and not fire-control. I imagine it could be used for rough guesses, but put Adm Lee on the _Iowa_ and the Americans gain a big advantage in experience on that score.


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 4, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But how effective was Yamato's fire control radar?
> During the Battle of Latte Gulf, USN Battleships ravaged the IJN's warships with accurate radar directed gunfire.


I love your phone’s auto correct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I love your phone’s auto correct.


I hate this  phone.

I corrected that twice before I hit post and it still did it...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> So far as I've read and watched, _Yamato_'s radar was detection-only, and not fire-control. I imagine it could be used for rough guesses, but put Adm Lee on the _Iowa_ and the Americans gain a big advantage in experience on that score.


The big showdown during Operation Ten-Go would have been epic, however.

TF54 intercepting the Yamato would have comprised of New Jersey, Wisconsin and Missouri, backed up by South Dakota, Massachusetts and Indiana.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I love your phone’s auto correct.



I take my coffee into battle against Lattes every morning.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I take my coffee into battle against Lattes every morning.


I think that battle was fought between Starbucks and Dutch Brothers.

It was a terrible sight to behold...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 4, 2021)

Drachinifel has that scenario in one of his longer videos. He set up what and who would be where. Then cool computer graphics of battleships pummeling each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Drachinifel has that scenario in one of his longer videos. He set up what and who would be where. Then cool computer graphics of battleships pummeling each other.


Never watched any of those.
But considering that three of the Iowa class battleships alone would be enough to overwhelm the Yamato, the South Dakota and two of her class entering the fray would be more than enough to assure the Yamato's demise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 4, 2021)

Two nice books on this subject


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 4, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Never watched any of those.
> But considering that three of the Iowa class battleships alone would be enough to overwhelm the Yamato, the South Dakota and two of her class entering the fray would be more than enough to assure the Yamato's demise.


I think the matchup was two Iowas, 2 or 3 treaty BBs against Yamato and 2 or 3 other IJN BBs. It was what ever Admiral Kurita had at Samar and whatever would have to happen to have the USN surface battle group that could have been there. Admiral Lee in charge on U.S.S. Washington.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 4, 2021)

You would pay to see it.

It would be who ever hits first wins so most effective fire control wins.

Just because you are outside the penetration tables doesn't mean you don't fire.

The Kill Zone where Yamato can but Iowa can't is a fair old distance. So certainly more chance than skill.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2021)

The Yamato's 18" guns had a max. range of 26 miles.

The Iowa class' 16" guns had a max. range of 24 miles.

The South Dakota class' 16" guns had a max. range of 23 miles.

Of course, effective ranges will be less than maximum but even still, the ranges seem to favor the Yamoto, however the USN's fire-control negates that advantage.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 5, 2021)

Yamato can go through Iowas armour at longer ranges before Iowa can go through Yamatos armour.

This will give Yamato an advantage before Iowa can close.

Problem is at such ranges the time of flight of the shell could be up to a minute. So even the slightest of zigzagging would negate any advantage.

The probability of a hit at extreme range is not good. And that's on a perfect day.

The first good hit will be a mission kill and once the combat effectiveness of the victim is diminished then it's all over.

The speed and radar advantage of the Iowa will be not much after a visit from an 18 inch shell.

Of course, this is informed after the fact so in actual WW2 combat, the Iowa will not know this and so could find itself charging what it thinks is a peer opponent. That could be a costly mistake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 5, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I love your phone’s auto correct.



Dude, the hipsters kicked ass, I shit you not.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 5, 2021)

The ship that made the first hit would have the edge. With superior RFC, the Iowa's would more than likely get the first hits.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 6, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> The ship that made the first hit would have the edge. With superior RFC, the Iowa's would more than likely get the first hits.


During the Battle of Sumar, the Yamashiro and Mogami were hammered by 16" and 14" gunfire by "old basket master" USN battleships (most of which were damaged at Pearl Harbor) at night with the aid of their radar assisted fire control - so yes, the Iowa class would have been on the ball, but the South Dakota class would have been in the same league.


----------



## ARTESH (Nov 6, 2021)

My fleet consisted of IRIN Chai, HMS Tea and ORP Herbata would overcome any navy. And I forgot to mention that Krasnia Vodka is in reserve.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 6, 2021)

James Hornfischer's Neptune's Inferno is very good book if you are interested in surface ship battles. He praises ADM Lee as the first commander to fight a battle based on what he was told by RFC not what he could be seen. Lee's handling of Washington on November the 14th is an example of a modern battleship with RFC against a Japanese battleship. In Hornfischer's Fleet at Flood Tide, He makes reference to Lee's reluctance to engage in a night action during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Even Lee, with his numerical superiority preferred not to gamble the fast battleships.


Excerpts from Hornfischer's Fleet at Flood Tide:

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 6, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> James Hornfischer's Neptune's Inferno is very good book if you are interested in surface ship battles. He praises ADM Lee as the first commander to fight a battle based on what he was told by RFC not what he could be seen. Lee's handling of Washington on November the 14th is an example of a modern battleship with RFC against a Japanese battleship. In Hornfischer's Fleet at Flood Tide, He makes reference to Lee's to engage in a night action. Even Lee, with his numerical superiority preferred not to gamble the fast battleships.
> 
> 
> Excerpts from Hornfischer's Fleet at Flood Tide:
> ...


Great book.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 6, 2021)

The Iowas did have the speed advantage over Yamato. The North Carolina’s and South Dakota’s not so much. 
This is my pointless factoid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The Iowas did have the speed advantage over Yamato. The North Carolina’s and South Dakota’s not so much.
> This is my pointless factoid.


The Iowa Class sould make 33 knots, the South Dakota class could make 27 knots - which was as fast as Yamoto and Musashi.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 6, 2021)

Yup. In the scenario I mentioned, the Iowas wouldn't be going faster than the slowest ship in the battle line. However, in Drach's scenario, the IJN would be slowed by Nagato. 24 kts I'm thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 6, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The Iowa Class sould make 33 knots, the South Dakota class could make 27 knots - which was as fast as Yamoto and Musashi.



I think sailing speed and RFC make the Iowas competitive with Yamatos. Take away the speed (and hence the ability to dictate terms of combat), the SDs/NCs will be saddled with the circumstances of the opening of the engagement, barring a dumb decision on one side or the other. It becomes a lot harder at that point, I believe.

If I'm the Americans taking on a Yamato, I'd ideally want one Iowa, or two other modern BBs that would split the Japanese fire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 6, 2021)

Anyone got penetration table for the Vickers 14 inch as used by Kongo Ise Fuso?

Could they have gone through the armour of the Washington


----------



## mew (Nov 7, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But how effective was Yamato's fire control radar?
> During the Battle of Latte Gulf, USN Battleships ravaged the IJN's warships with accurate radar directed gunfire.


Dude, Iowa couldn’t score any hits on a destroyer at 20miles. And if that is a poor comparison Iowa missed by like a lot. Yamato on the other hand scored a near miss and damaged white plains at 20miles. If it wasn’t for the black smoke being emitted by a damaged boiler than she would have continued firing at white plains and possibly hit her.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 7, 2021)

mew said:


> Dude, Iowa couldn’t score any hits on a destroyer at 20miles. And if that is a poor comparison Iowa missed by like a lot. Yamato on the other hand scored a near miss and damaged white plains at 20miles. If it wasn’t for the black smoke being emitted by a damaged boiler than she would have continued firing at white plains and possibly hit her.


WTF are you even talking about, dude?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 7, 2021)

You don't remember dude, Dave?


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 7, 2021)

Hey The Basket,

re "Could they *(ie Japanese 14" AP)* have gone through the armour of the Washington"

Short answer is yes.

Longer answer is probably yes, if the hit was close to perpendicular in the horizontal plane, and at fairly short range ~12,000 yds or less, and the round did not break up (too much) on impact. The reason I say if the round did not break up too much is that there is more than enough KE/in2 to allow the round to penetrate if it remained intact, and more than enough KE/in2 to allow large fragments to penetrate at shorter ranges.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 7, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> You don't remember dude, Dave?


Like, no dude.

I'm like, wot, fer sure...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mew (Nov 7, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> WTF are you even talking about, dude?


What the fuck do you think I am talking about. This is a forum for Yamato vs Iowa comparison.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 7, 2021)

Where my car, Dude?

I mean do you have any tables for the Vickers 14 inch? Can't find any.

The thing about having a 2% hit probability is yo fire 50 shells. Sorted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 7, 2021)

mew said:


> What the fuck do you think I am talking about. This is a forum for Yamato vs Iowa comparison.



Maybe you should take a deep breath. It's _only_ a forum.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2021)

For all the dudes and non-dudes out there ( my curmudgeon card is being reprinted) a few thoughts/factoids on battleship gunnery.

For the Iowa time of flight to 36,000yds was 66.13 seconds, decent angle was 38 degrees.
To 40,000 yds time of flight was 79.96 seconds, decent angle was 45 degrees 28 minutes. 

Long range naval gunnery is basically trying to figure out (guess) where the target will be when the shells arrive. From the times above the target ship will have moved about 1/2 mile or more from when the guns were fired. Unless the target is an escort carrier that cannot make 20kts with a tail wind, in which case the distance the ship travels will be less. 

using a action report against a destroyer to figure out performance against a large battleship is not comparing apples to apples. At 20 miles the destroyer is trying not to get hit and is not trying to return fire against the Battleship. If the destroyer captain has the IQ of belly button lint he is making radical changes in course to throw off the battleships predications. (guesses). If a battleship makes radical changes to it's own course it throws off it's own gunnery ( reduces accuracy). 

Battleship is a much bigger target. About 2/3rds longer and nearly 3 times wider. With shells coming down at a steep angle width (beam) of the target ship is more important than height. 

extremely good shooting for a battleship at such ranges would be a majority of it's shells in a 400yd diameter circle ( from memory, please check this) so even against a battleship that was not moving the majority of shells would miss.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> James Hornfischer's Neptune's Inferno is very good book if you are interested in surface ship battles. He praises ADM Lee as the first commander to fight a battle based on what he was told by RFC not what he could be seen. Lee's handling of Washington on November the 14th is an example of a modern battleship with RFC against a Japanese battleship. In Hornfischer's Fleet at Flood Tide, He makes reference to Lee's reluctance to engage in a night action during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Even Lee, with his numerical superiority preferred not to gamble the fast battleships.
> 
> 
> Excerpts from Hornfischer's Fleet at Flood Tide:
> ...


Discretion is the better part of valor. In November 1942, it was absolutely vital that the IJN be engaged regardless of the difficulties or problems. In 1944, it wasn’t so vital. The carriers could hammer them during the day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 7, 2021)

syscom3 said:


> In 1944, it wasn’t so vital. The carriers could hammer them during the day.



Yeah, pretty sure they actually did hammer 'em.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 7, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Thank God for your grandmother's wisdom!
> 
> Murdering Poles -- and all other Slavic peoples -- was high on the list of Germany's war goals. Not as high as murdering Jews and Roma, but it was certainly high on the list.





syscom3 said:


> Discretion is the better part of valor. In November 1942, it was absolutely vital that the IJN be engaged regardless of the difficulties or problems. In 1944, it wasn’t so vital. The carriers could hammer them during the day.


True. ADM Lee won the battle on November 14 with a calm head and high level of training of the crew of Washington. But he also knew first hand that a surface night engagement can turn into a bar brawl in minutes by miscommunication or lack of communication and less than high levels of training. 

Somewhat related, are there any good books on how ADM Cunningham fought the early Mediterranean battles? Were the engagements similar to the surface battles around Guadalcanal and Iron Bottom Sound?


----------



## mew (Nov 7, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Maybe you should take a deep breath. It's _only_ a forum.


I know dude, but sometimes you must reply the same way as the other one did. It worked didn’t it.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 7, 2021)

mew said:


> I know dude, but sometimes you must reply the same way as the other one did. It worked didn’t it.


lmao - no, being a total tool didn't "work". I have real world stuff to take care of before taking time out to visit the interwebs.

First of all, the Iowa likely won't engage at 20 miles, it would wait for it's effective fire zone, which is within 16 miles. But if it did engage at max. range, it's radar fire control would figure a solution.

And your amazingly compact overview of the action during the Battle of Samar is...interesting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mew (Nov 8, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> lmao - no, being a total tool didn't "work". I have real world stuff to take care of before taking time out to visit the interwebs.
> 
> First of all, the Iowa likely won't engage at 20 miles, it would wait for it's effective fire zone, which is within 16 miles. But if it did engage at max. range, it's radar fire control would figure a solution.
> 
> And your amazingly compact overview of the action during the Battle of Samar is...interesting.







That was why Iowa missed. Iowa could slowly close the range to 16miles, but all the while Yamato will be firing at her. And also 




Immunity zones are also crucial

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2021)

mew said:


> What the fuck do you think I am talking about. This is a forum for Yamato vs Iowa comparison.



Like chill the fuck out… dude

Like seriously, you don’t have to like be rude dude. Like can you debate in a civil manner?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2021)

Translation to adult speak. Everyone, please debate in a civil and constructive manner. Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Nov 8, 2021)

mew said:


> This is a forum for Yamato vs Iowa comparison.


Well, actually this is an Aviation and Modeling forum, mainly covers WW2 era aviation and related things. However there is a WW2 General Section / subfurom for non Aviation stuff. Within that section, there is this single thread that comparisons two battleships from two different countries during WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2021)

Printing something larger doesn't make it more correct. 

And look at the destroyer action again, 60 rounds fired by two ships?
30 each or 40/20 or ???? 

Were the ships firing full salvos or half salvos?
Or not all turrets were firing? 

You not only have range error you have bearing error. 

And much like fast ships can dodge bombs dropped from medium altitudes (or higher) or turn away from torpedoes (comb the tracks) a destroyer can alter course changing range and/or bearing while the shells are in flight. 

The furthest hit obtained by anybody's battleship in WW II on a moving ship was under 15 miles. 

Look again at the times of flight for the Iowa's guns. 

30,000yds 50.32 sec.
36,000yds 66.13 sec.
40,000yds 79.96 sec. 

The 36,000yds may very well not be a misprint as the max range for the North Carolina's guns was just about 36,000yds and the time of flight was 79.80 sec. 

Many war games and other evaluations make assumptions. 

IN the Hood/Prince of Wales vs Bismarck action the PoW was taking water over the bow making her forward turret range finders useless. Her first two salvos were 3 gun salvos fired 10 seconds apart (only forward turrets were bearing on the target) Wiki says they were over by 1000 yards but that doesn't make a lot sense. The common reason for firing quick small salvos is to fire them at different ranges to confirm the range to target quicker. Like fire the 2nd salvo 500yds shorter than the first. 
Shell form the PoW damaged/flooded a boiler room on the Bismarck causing slight loss of speed. 
When the PoW returned home and was docked and unexploded shell was found in the wing compartments next to the aft boiler room. It had gone under the armored belt. 

There is an awful lot of luck involved in naval engagements.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 8, 2021)

I was just reading a detailed account of the whole 'Taffy 3' battle, and from the details of that engagement, it really sounds like the radar controlled guns are a huge advantage. A few destroyers, DEs and CVEs were able to maneuer and score telling hits on the Japanese surface fleet largely thanks to that fire control radar. They could shoot accurately from within smoke and squalls and while maneuvering, and meanwhile smoke did not conceal the IJN target. With the radar they could fire directly instead of sighting in volleys with colored dye etc.

In addition, excellent damage control training, discipline and methods (and equipment / design) enabled the American ships to withstand a huge amount of damage, whereas it seemed that sometimes the IJN ships went up in flames more easily.

Because of this, and the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, I would say that maybe the Iowa class had the edge. Prior to that time (late 1942) I give the edge to the Japanese due to the long lance and better night training. The Yamato was a bigger, badder ship but at this point I think with the MK 37 fire control radar etc., assuming the crew were adequately trained to use it and the commander understood how to exploit it, the US ships had the advantage.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 8, 2021)

Another example of the edge given by modern RFC is the Battle of North Cape. Duke of York's first salvo hit and disabled two of Scharnhorst's turrets. The ship that scored first gains an advantage, and Iowa's RFC would more than likely allow her to get the first hits in against Yamato.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## mew (Nov 10, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Like chill the fuck out… dude
> 
> Like seriously, you don’t have to like be rude dude. Like can you debate in a civil manner?


Dude??? I have already reacted to this. It did work and it made the person rethink saying the f word to me


----------



## mew (Nov 10, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I was just reading a detailed account of the whole 'Taffy 3' battle, and from the details of that engagement, it really sounds like the radar controlled guns are a huge advantage. A few destroyers, DEs and CVEs were able to maneuer and score telling hits on the Japanese surface fleet largely thanks to that fire control radar. They could shoot accurately from within smoke and squalls and while maneuvering, and meanwhile smoke did not conceal the IJN target. With the radar they could fire directly instead of sighting in volleys with colored dye etc.
> 
> In addition, excellent damage control training, discipline and methods (and equipment / design) enabled the American ships to withstand a huge amount of damage, whereas it seemed that sometimes the IJN ships went up in flames more easily.
> 
> Because of this, and the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, I would say that maybe the Iowa class had the edge. Prior to that time (late 1942) I give the edge to the Japanese due to the long lance and better night training. The Yamato was a bigger, badder ship but at this point I think with the MK 37 fire control radar etc., assuming the crew were adequately trained to use it and the commander understood how to exploit it, the US ships had the advantage.


They wouldn’t, because technically the battleships all got confused and thought that they destroyed a cruiser, but then that cruiser isn’t dead. And also Iowa wouldn’t have smoke. And neither is it a Cruiser or destroyer that would fight at extreme close ranges


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2021)

mew said:


> Dude??? I have already reacted to this. It did work and it made the person rethink saying the f word to me



Debate in a civil manner, or not at all, dude….

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 10, 2021)

mew said:


> They wouldn’t, because technically the battleships all got confused and thought that they destroyed a cruiser, but then that cruiser isn’t dead. And also Iowa wouldn’t have smoke. And neither is it a Cruiser or destroyer that would fight at extreme close ranges



I don't see that this reply negates any point he made.

The Iowa may not have smoke (in a 1v1 hypothetical battle, of course; with the destroyer escorts, both sides would presumably have smoke), but the visual targeting of the _Yamato_ is still going to be reliant on ambient visibility, which at sea can be an iffy thing simply from natural causes. Those causes will be much less likely to affect any RFC system, meaning that in circumstances of lower visibility, the _Iowa_ will probably be more likely to attain first hits. And _Iowa's_ speed would allow it to start battle at night if so desired, at long range if need be.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mew (Nov 14, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Debate in a civil manner, or not at all, dude….


How bout you tell the man who started it first. If you really want to continue about saying the f word than go ahead. It’s not a big thing after all. It’s all these comments that are making it big


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2021)

mew said:


> How bout you tell the man who started it first. If you really want to continue about saying the f word than go ahead. It’s not a big thing after all. It’s all these comments that are making it big



Excuse me, are we in kindergarten?


----------



## mew (Nov 14, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I don't see that this reply negates any point he made.
> 
> The Iowa may not have smoke (in a 1v1 hypothetical battle, of course; with the destroyer escorts, both sides would presumably have smoke), but the visual targeting of the _Yamato_ is still going to be reliant on ambient visibility, which at sea can be an iffy thing simply from natural causes. Those causes will be much less likely to affect any RFC system, meaning that in circumstances of lower visibility, the _Iowa_ will probably be more likely to attain first hits. And _Iowa's_ speed would allow it to start battle at night if so desired, at long range if need be.


Why would there be destroyers when it’s supposed to be 1v1, not 1+escorts vs 1+escorts.
Then you are changing a lot of variables and the outcome becomes more favourable to which side that has so called better technology. And as I already said although radar gave considerably much more accurate range, it however does not does well at long range due to bearing error. Which means it may miss by quite alot. And I already posted about how far the inaccuracy might be. Firing at long range meant that penatration abilities also decreases.
And Japanese were the first one to scare the Americans in Guadalcanal with night battles. Indeed the first night battle between cruisers in Guadalcanal proved deadly, the only reason it didn’t escalate into something worst was because the Japanese didn’t know that the aircraft carriers had left and withdrew, with at least 60% of their ammo in tact
Iowa can have speed, but Yamato has manuevability.


----------



## mew (Nov 14, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Excuse me, are we in kindergarten?


I Guess the world is bias enough to say such thing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2021)

mew said:


> Then is saying the f word big? Or is it a small thing. Tell me than



I’m saying one final time. Debate in a civil manner (EVERYONE), or debate somewhere else. That includes not acting like a child and using profanity. I’m not going to argue with you. Do you understand?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 14, 2021)

mew said:


> Why would there be destroyers when it’s supposed to be 1v1, not 1+escorts vs 1+escorts.
> Then you are changing a lot of variables and the outcome becomes more favourable to which side that has so called better technology.



I think it should be obvious by now that my opinion is up in the air and dependent upon variables. And quite frankly, smokescreen is the least of the visibility concerns. Haze, mist, and nightfall also impact visual sighting, which is of course why I mentioned them. I didn't see your reply to those points.



mew said:


> And as I already said although radar gave considerably much more accurate range, it however does not does well at long range due to bearing error. Which means it may miss by quite alot.



Of course. No one's arguing that any system is perfect. But If you're in heavy weather, which would you prefer, a radar or a few sets of eyes?



mew said:


> And I already posted about how far the inaccuracy might be. Firing at long range meant that penatration abilities also decreases.



At long range, the fire assumes a more-vertical impact, and that means a 16"/50 shell landing upon 8" of deck-armor, in most scenarios here. There's no 8" plate that'll stand up to a 16" round plunging upon hitting. At 18 -20,000 yds, it ain't hitting the main belt in most cases.

And yes, longer range necessarily implies more inaccuracy -- for _both_ sides. I'll take radar over eyeballs at those ranges, especially at night or in weather. Your mileage seems to vary.

I notice also you never did address my point about the speed differential. Five kts is significant in a battle, meaning that the _Iowa_ has more options to choose the circumstances of battle. That's exactly why those factors matter and why I mentioned them. The ships, after all, have to sail in the sea and in the weather. I'd stand off in the _Iowa_ out of range, track by radar during the day, and close in when night falls or weather sours -- precisely because I have the luxury of a five-kt advantage in speed.



mew said:


> And Japanese were the first one to scare the Americans in Guadalcanal with night battles. Indeed the first night battle between cruisers in Guadalcanal proved deadly, the only reason it didn’t escalate into something worst was because the Japanese didn’t know that the aircraft carriers had left and withdrew, with at least 60% of their ammo in tact
> Iowa can have speed, but Yamato has manuevability.



Well, if you'd like to talk about radar in night battleship actions in the Solomons, we could talk about Willis Lee and the USS _Washington_, which eviscerated _Kirishima_ in about seven minutes. Granted it was closer-ranged, but the _Washington_ scored on the first salvo and by some estimates put fourteen 16" shells into the battlecruiser in seven minutes, not to mention another 20 or so 5" rounds into the upperworks. 

Not sure how well the Japanese spotters did, but it wasn't enough to save their ship, that's for sure -- and that's in visual range. They didn't score one hit on _Washington_, I know that much. Nighttime is radar's friend.

Additionally, the only reason that action happened is because Japanese spotters misidentified the two American BBs as "cruisers" and decided to attack in the first place. That delineates a couple of the problems relying upon visual spotting in less-than-ideal circumstances entails. You may not know what you're fighting, and you may not have a clear picture of where it is. At night, even at "only" 9000 yds, _Kirishima_ whiffed.

Not sure why there's seemingly a burr under your saddle about my points, because I'm clearly of two minds about who would win and in what circumstances between _Yamato_ and an Iowa. Given the right circumstances, either battleship under discussion could take out the other. It would definitely be a matter of weather, seamanship, and first-look/first-shot/first-kill, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 14, 2021)

The IJN was good at night fighting as shown in the night actions off Guadalcanal. However, I keep thinking of Admiral Goto signaling "I am Aoba". His force was in far closer to the enemy than the distances being discussed between King Kong v. Godzilla. So even the IJN didn't have it all its own way at night. 
A ship equipped with a quality RFC system AND a skipper and crew who know how to use it have an advantage, IMHO.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 14, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The IJN was good at night fighting as shown in the night actions off Guadalcanal. However, I keep thinking of Admiral Goto signaling "I am Aoba". His force was in far closer to the enemy than the distances being discussed between King Kong v. Godzilla. So even the IJN didn't have it all its own way at night.
> A ship equipped with a quality RFC system AND a skipper and crew who now how to use it have an advantage, IMHO.


The Battle of November 14th was the intersection of technology and the leader who knew how to use it. ADM Lee was exactly the right leader with a well trained ship, Washington, and the technology. 

Does anyone have accounts showing ADM Cunningham using RFC in the Mediterranean? or was RFC not yet perfected?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 14, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> Does anyone have accounts showing ADM Cunningham using RFC in the Mediterranean? or was RFC not yet perfected?



I know they had scouting radar but can't say if it was slaved to FC.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 15, 2021)

Why doesn't Iowa use it's Tomahawk cruise missiles?

Seems obvious to me.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mew (Nov 15, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Why doesn't Iowa use it's Tomahawk cruise missiles?
> 
> Seems obvious to me.


We are changing too many variables now we compare very modern Iowa to less modern Yamato. The thing about harpoons is that they aren’t meant to penatrate ship armour. They do super structure damage. And Iowa didn’t have a bunch of them. For now we can go back to 1945 pls.


----------



## mew (Nov 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The IJN was good at night fighting as shown in the night actions off Guadalcanal. However, I keep thinking of Admiral Goto signaling "I am Aoba". His force was in far closer to the enemy than the distances being discussed between King Kong v. Godzilla. So even the IJN didn't have it all its own way at night.
> A ship equipped with a quality RFC system AND a skipper and crew who know how to use it have an advantage, IMHO.


They didn’t because Kongo litterally was very old ship. Didn’t have radar. But the first cruiser to cruiser battle saw how underestimated the Japanese were at night battles. Besides we are talking about a 1v1 right?? No reinforcements or that crap. Right??


----------



## mew (Nov 15, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think it should be obvious by now that my opinion is up in the air and dependent upon variables. And quite frankly, smokescreen is the least of the visibility concerns. Haze, mist, and nightfall also impact visual sighting, which is of course why I mentioned them. I didn't see your reply to those points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do take very high note that the kirishima really didn’t have any radar. Also they were focusing down a battleship that was injured. Kirishima never had the penatrating potential or armour to give her even the sleekest of chance to survive. She couldn’t pen the enemy. The only damage was it’s secondaries doing super structure damage. 
Iowa has speed in night battles but Yamato has manuevrebility. In this case it really isn’t who shoots first. The shell types for an instance is different to begin. One more deadly than the other,( however both are still deadly and are pretty much unpredictable) 
Yamato would have the advantage of being trained in night battles while the Iowa will have the advantage of that radar. But a hit to Yamato wouldn’t be as crippling as a hit to Iowa. I can explain why so but for now I don’t have time


----------



## The Basket (Nov 15, 2021)

The answer is 'It depends'

It is highly unlikely Yamato and Iowa would ever get into a 1v1 and certainly unlikely in the time frames available.

The issue here is who can mission kill the other first. Not sink. If the Iowa gets pummeled then she can engage afterburner and fly by. If Yamato gets pummeled then she is helpless as she cannot run away. She has no line of retreat.

A good captain uses the weather to thier advantage. Graf Spee at Coronel is a good example of this. So Iowa can await until it gets dark and then it's open season. Or come out of the sun. Or fog. Or whatever is to hand.

The idea that Yamato and Iowa would duke it out at 10,000 yards like a pair of boxers is not realistic. 

As they say, if you enter a fair fight then something's gone wrong.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 15, 2021)

mew said:


> We are changing too many variables now we compare very modern Iowa to less modern Yamato. The thing about harpoons is that they aren’t meant to penatrate ship armour. They do super structure damage. And Iowa didn’t have a bunch of them. For now we can go back to 1945 pls.


He was joking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Nov 15, 2021)

Similarly, joking, The Japanese intel & espionage would have Tomahawks on board the Yamato by the time they meet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 15, 2021)

mew said:


> They didn’t because Kongo litterally was very old ship. Didn’t have radar. But the first cruiser to cruiser battle saw how underestimated the Japanese were at night battles. Besides we are talking about a 1v1 right?? No reinforcements or that crap. Right??


The Kongos were heavily modernized in the thirties. 
We all wander off topic a bit from time to time.


----------



## Glider (Nov 15, 2021)

Clearly this is a scenario that was never going to happen and just my thoughts on a one to one with no exterior involvement

Assumptions / Thoughts
a) The Yamato is better able to withstand the fire of the Iowa than the Iowa is able to withstand the Yamato, her armour is much thicker, the shells a lot larger and she herself is a lot bigger.
b) Almost any hit from the Yamato is going to penetrate the Iowa yet the same cannot be said about the Iowa's shells. 
c) At long range the Radar with FC linked to it is always going to give an advantage to the USA, however the size of the advantage depends on the time of day and the weather.
d) Please note it's only an advantage. I believe pre-war the IJN were practicing over the horizon shooting and could get some good results with their spotter aircraft. It would be a mistake to assume that the Iowa wouldn't get hit. The Japanese like the RN were well trained to fight at night and training in a confused night battle shouldn't be underestimated.
e) The Iowa can control the initiative due to its higher speed, but once it takes some hits there is a very good chance that this will soon be lost. Then they are in trouble deep.
f) If the range does close down, the 6.1 on the Yamato, are capable of inflicting significant damage to the Iowa
g) Ultimately the advantage will go to the Yamato

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 15, 2021)

mew said:


> Do take very high note that the kirishima really didn’t have any radar. Also they were focusing down a battleship that was injured. Kirishima never had the penatrating potential or armour to give her even the sleekest of chance to survive. She couldn’t pen the enemy. The only damage was it’s secondaries doing super structure damage.
> Iowa has speed in night battles but Yamato has manuevrebility. In this case it really isn’t who shoots first. The shell types for an instance is different to begin. One more deadly than the other,( however both are still deadly and are pretty much unpredictable)
> Yamato would have the advantage of being trained in night battles while the Iowa will have the advantage of that radar. But a hit to Yamato wouldn’t be as crippling as a hit to Iowa. I can explain why so but for now I don’t have time


I can't back this up with any documentation but I cannot help but believe that after the actions of 14 November, 1942, Admiral Lee's tactics and methods were applied to the rest of the fleet. The late Admiral Scott had his forces practice night fighting earlier (still needed work). I can't help but believe the USN's night fighting ability would be much improved when this clash of the titans would've happened. Mid 1944? The USN adapted with experience.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 15, 2021)

Iowa: Call in airstrike
Essex carrier : No prob, Fam.
Yamato sinks.

The End.

I am certainly of the opinion that Iowa wins the day. And even if Yamato does win and survive, it ain't getting home. As soon as Yamato sets foot on the field of honour, it's not surviving.

The Americans can always build another Iowa. The Japanese cannot build another Yamato.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 15, 2021)

mew said:


> Do take very high note that the kirishima really didn’t have any radar. Also they were focusing down a battleship that was injured. Kirishima never had the penatrating potential or armour to give her even the sleekest of chance to survive. She couldn’t pen the enemy. The only damage was it’s secondaries doing super structure damage.



My main point was and is that in a night engagement, radar is superior to eyeballs, especially when your guns are slaved to that radar via a complex RFC system. I know it wasn't a fair fight, but even in a fair fight, radar is a big advantage.

Can you not admit that?



mew said:


> Iowa has speed in night battles but Yamato has manuevrebility.



Turning tight circles won't chase away a faster enemy, and will prove difficult to use for unmasking the main turrets because hard turns disrupt firing solutions. Also, _Iowa_ has a speed advantage any time of day or night, and in most if not all weather as well.



mew said:


> In this case it really isn’t who shoots first. The shell types for an instance is different to begin. One more deadly than the other,( however both are still deadly and are pretty much unpredictable)



Assuming that _Yamato_ is shooting in daylight, you could have a point. At night, the _Iowa_ will almost certainly have a longer _effective_ range given that it isn't relying on optical cues.



mew said:


> Yamato would have the advantage of being trained in night battles while the Iowa will have the advantage of that radar. But a hit to Yamato wouldn’t be as crippling as a hit to Iowa. I can explain why so but for now I don’t have time



Of course the 18.1" shell will do more damage; you needn't explain something so simple to me. Getting the first hits with it in anything but nice weather is going to be a tough order. But although _Iowa_ is shooting smaller shells, it has the advantage of a faster rate of fire, as well as better guidance, as well as higher speed for dodging. And bear in mind that _Yamato_'s belt armor thinned out towards either end of the ship, and the bow showed signs of structural weakness. One can kill a ship without penetrating the main belt.

As I've already said, this battle could go either way, depending on circumstances.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Nov 15, 2021)

Just an observation but lets not forget that the Yamato was commissioned in Dec 41 and the Nearest US BB was probably the S Dakota class, which on commissioning in 1942 had an early Mk3 FC Radar. However the crews often had difficulties and experience with the Mk3 could best be described as mixed. 
If we are looking at like for like in1942, all my money is on the Yamato

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 15, 2021)

I is wandering what Yamato min threat would have been. Hood? Rodney?

Don't get me wrong. Gotta love Yamato. Go up against a ww1 battleship, absorb the shells, remove cigarette and then one shot em straight through the belt.

Like a boss.

And then things like radar and air power and submarines and it just ruined it all. The execution of Yamashiro and Fuso and Kirishima are quite illuminating in this regard.

So how Yamato would do against Little Boy or Fat Man is just as relevant.

I do love battleships but it's telling that neither the full Iowas or Yamatos class was ever completed. Or their replacements finished either.

A bygone age like knights jousting on horseback.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> He was joking.



It should have been obvious.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 16, 2021)

I is thinking.

Put Okha on Yamato. That would be sweet. That would change the dynamic a bit. Perhaps give Yamato a kill radius making it very dangerous to get within gun range.

This was based on a earlier suggestion. The Japanese would only have a cruise missile if it killed the user. And my idea bore fruit.

Perfect for Yasukuni.


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 16, 2021)

Don't forget Yamato's "Wave Motion Gun".

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 16, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Don't forget Yamato's "Wave Motion Gun".


Forgot about that. I remember seeing some documentaries about that - they even included some animated remakes - just as well Yamato didn't get to use it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 17, 2021)

One aspect is none of this happened so there is no proof either way so don't get hang up.

One aspect is the IJN liked diving shells. So diving shells get under the belt so this is a real danger. This could be the end of any Iowa. 

I will have to do research if Yamato carry torpedo. I don't know. Or carried its own torpedo boats.


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 17, 2021)

No torpedoes or boats and her seaplanes didn't have the capacity either.

Yamato certainly didn't have a lot of luck with torpedoes being walloped twice - the second time was the worst result of course.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 17, 2021)

Why not fill the seaplanes with explosives and Kamikaze them onto Iowa? I am doing all the heavy lifting round here!

The seaplanes during Ten-Go were flown off. No point wasting the seaplanes.

Torpedoes on capital ships can be problematic as they are open spaces that can flood. Lutzow is an example here.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 17, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Why not fill the seaplanes with explosives and Kamikaze them onto Iowa? I am doing all the heavy lifting round here!
> 
> The seaplanes during Ten-Go were flown off. No point wasting the seaplanes.
> 
> Torpedoes on capital ships can be problematic as they are open spaces that can flood. Lutzow is an example here.


It's a possibility as she carried six seaplanes and Iowa would be forced to do a few turns giving Yamato a chance for a few free shots.

It's also possible for Iowa to use the three planes she had to do the same.


----------



## Glider (Nov 17, 2021)

The idea that 6 or 3 slow seaplanes are a threat to either of these vessels with their very substantial AA weapons, I find to be more than a little fanciful.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 17, 2021)

Sea plane v. sea plane be a fun sub plot, though.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 21, 2021)

With hindsight then would Yamato be built? Why not build 3 more Shokakus? Would they be useful?

The IJN thought not as Shinano was not made into a battleship.

So basically 3 giant Uber expensive paperweights were made. 

So did Yamato achieve a military aim?

Yes and no. They achieve the old fleet in being but actually didn't do much more. Bit like Tirpitz.

But all a bit tangled. The IJN would have done more if Yamato was melted down and made into mess tins.

Next up. Datsun Cherry v Dodge Charger.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 21, 2021)

WARSPITER said:


> No torpedoes or boats and her seaplanes didn't have the capacity either.
> 
> Yamato certainly didn't have a lot of luck with torpedoes being walloped twice - the second time was the worst result of course.



Not that American torpedoes were terribly good, but that second hit revealed a flaw in the way the upper belt and lower belt were joined on the Yamatos, springing leaks along the seam.


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 21, 2021)

The Basket said:


> With hindsight then would Yamato be built? Why not build 3 more Shokakus? Would they be useful?
> 
> The IJN thought not as Shinano was not made into a battleship.
> 
> ...


Shinano is another good example, never saw action and went down to four (?) torpedoes. Not great as a return on investment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 21, 2021)

Think you outdid take just about any 70,000 ton combination of US warships and beat Yamato. With its superior speed, Iowa could hang out at a range where it had a 3% chance of main battery hit, but Yamato had less than 1%. Meanwhile a squad of destroyers could lead a Cleveland-class. Raiser in behind a smokes teen to a point where the Cleveland could use its fire control radar to bury Yamato in hundreds of 6” shells, starting fires and wrecking the topside. This would let Iowa creep in closer and finish her off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 21, 2021)

Don’t the IJN have escorts too?
The thread is Iowa vs Yamato so…….
(The Clevelands were pretty cool.)


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 21, 2021)

Putting a Cleveland in that close to Yamato would be a very risky tactic. Yamato had plenty of secondary firepower which
was more than capable when it came to fighting a light cruiser.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## mew (Nov 22, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Don’t the IJN have escorts too?
> The thread is Iowa vs Yamato so…….
> (The Clevelands were pretty cool.)


Iowa vs Yamato. Not Iowa with escorts vs Iowa with escorts right?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mew (Nov 22, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I can't back this up with any documentation but I cannot help but believe that after the actions of 14 November, 1942, Admiral Lee's tactics and methods were applied to the rest of the fleet. The late Admiral Scott had his forces practice night fighting earlier (still needed work). I can't help but believe the USN's night fighting ability would be much improved when this clash of the titans would've happened. Mid 1944? The USN adapted with experience.


Of course one would change and adapt. And even still what I meant that kirishima did not have radar but Yamato has, so Yamato wouldn’t end in the same situation as Kirishima. Besides it’s a 1v1 right?hyphothetical 1v1

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 22, 2021)

mew said:


> Iowa vs Yamato. Not Iowa with escorts vs Iowa with escorts right?


I think I know what you meant. 😉

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 22, 2021)

mew said:


> Iowa vs Yamato. Not Iowa with escorts vs Iowa with escorts right?


Look, If you are going to buy 70,000 tons of warships, you could get 1 70,000 ton battleship, or you could get 1 45,000 ton battleship (Iowa) 1 x 12,000 ton cruiser (Cleveland) and 13,000 tons worth of destroyers, roughly 4 or 5. Heck, to take on 70,000 ton Yamato, I'd take 25 American destroyers of any class, and even with bad torpedoes, Yamato wouldn't stand a chance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 22, 2021)

mew said:


> Of course one would change and adapt. And even still what I meant that kirishima did not have radar but Yamato has, so Yamato wouldn’t end in the same situation as Kirishima. Besides it’s a 1v1 right?hyphothetical 1v1



Once again: the _Yamato_'s radar was not capable of directing gunfire. All it could do was track the battleship shooting at it. _Yamato_ wouldn't be surprised like _Kirishima_ was, but it's still shooting optically, with all that that entails.

_The US Navy had several fire control systems in use during World War II, however most share the same general characteristics as the most modern system used by the US Navy's battleships, the Mark 38 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS). This system is centered on the Mark 8 rangekeeper that is the heart of its operation and is used to compute various data such as target, gun orders, director train, time of flight etc.; all the necessary data to hit a moving target. The components that fed information into the Mark 8 rangekeeper were:

Mark 38 Director3
Rangefinding equipment (Stereoscopic rangefinders and radars Mark 3, 8 and 13)
Stable Vertical (Gyro for determining true horizontal plane)
Gyro Compass, and Pitot Log
Miscellaneous Data (wind data, projectile data wear assessment, spot corrections etc.)
The Mark 8 utilized this information to generate the following orders to the guns via electrical output directly:

Elevation Orders
Train Orders
Sight Angle

The Imperial Japanese Navy utilized a different system which was based upon information and techniques practiced by the British Royal Navy. This data was passed on to the Japanese during the interwar period. The components that fed information into the Type 92 Shagekiban computer were:

Rangefinders
Type 94 Hoiban4 director
Type 92 Sokutekiban5
Ship's master Compass
Miscellaneous Data (Ballistic corrections, wind correction, spot correction)

Note that the computer in this system computes future target position and basic gun orders, ONLY. The Type 92 Shagekiban computer then produces the following outputs that are sent back the Type 94 Hoiban director:

Lateral Deflection
Super Elevation6

The output values from the Type 92 Shagekiban computer are added differentially to director setting and training. Afterwards, parallax, roll and cross roll corrections are added and the orders are sent to the guns via a follow the pointer system.7_






History and Technology - Overview of USN and IJN Warship Ballistic Computer Design - NavWeaps







www.navweaps.com





Note the lack of any radar input into the Japanese system.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 22, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> Think you outdid take just about any 70,000 ton combination of US warships and beat Yamato. With its superior speed, Iowa could hang out at a range where it had a 3% chance of main battery hit, but Yamato had less than 1%. Meanwhile a squad of destroyers could lead a Cleveland-class. Raiser in behind a smokes teen to a point where the Cleveland could use its fire control radar to bury Yamato in hundreds of 6” shells, starting fires and wrecking the topside. This would let Iowa creep in closer and finish her off.


Remember, this is a one v. one. With that said, how about an Alaska, 2 De Moines and two or three Fletchers?


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 22, 2021)

If I got any tonnage left, U.S.S. Olympia too.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 22, 2021)

Screw it, I'll take H.M.S. Warspite and spot you Musashi as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## russ455 (Nov 22, 2021)

Going by tonnage, 90 PT boats with radio communications

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 23, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Remember, this is a one v. one. With that said, how about an Alaska, 2 De Moines and two or three Fletchers?


That's would be an interesting set up. I think the equal tonnage matchups are more interesting than the single ship to single ship. That was what was great about the Fighting Steel game (especially with the Fighting Steel Project modifications), you could set up matchups like that.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Nov 23, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> That's would be an interesting set up. I think the equal tonnage matchups are more interesting than the single ship to single ship. That was what was great about the Fighting Steel game (especially with the Fighting Steel Project modifications), you could set up matchups like that.


Just a question, what tonnage. Designed, full load, with what modifications, take your pick


----------



## mew (Nov 24, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> Look, If you are going to buy 70,000 tons of warships, you could get 1 70,000 ton battleship, or you could get 1 45,000 ton battleship (Iowa) 1 x 12,000 ton cruiser (Cleveland) and 13,000 tons worth of destroyers, roughly 4 or 5. Heck, to take on 70,000 ton Yamato, I'd take 25 American destroyers of any class, and even with bad torpedoes, Yamato wouldn't stand a chance.


Erm who said the tonnage had to be the same??? If you going with 70000tonnage I go with this:





Or I could just go with a-150 an upgraded Yamato. Numbers do play a huge part in reality. So don’t screw with the numbers for it really turn the tide real quick.
And for your info, Yamato’s turning radius is 640m, Iowa’s is 820-840m. Good luck with that, for I could do the same to fight your Iowa. Your Iowa would be pretty good damn dead.


----------



## mew (Nov 24, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Once again: the _Yamato_'s radar was not capable of directing gunfire. All it could do was track the battleship shooting at it. _Yamato_ wouldn't be surprised like _Kirishima_ was, but it's still shooting optically, with all that that entails.
> 
> _The US Navy had several fire control systems in use during World War II, however most share the same general characteristics as the most modern system used by the US Navy's battleships, the Mark 38 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS). This system is centered on the Mark 8 rangekeeper that is the heart of its operation and is used to compute various data such as target, gun orders, director train, time of flight etc.; all the necessary data to hit a moving target. The components that fed information into the Mark 8 rangekeeper were:
> 
> ...


Which means that Yamato wouldn’t get into krishima’s position is enough. Considering how Kirishima fired at damaged warship with all its brute scoring multiple hits but not penatrating a single armour plate. The difference was kirishima was unprepared. As if it was ambushed. But either ways your comment was really informative.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 24, 2021)

Big v Small.

Problem is 3 smaller battleships can be more useful than 1 giant battleship.

1 Italian frogman can disable a battleship. So 72,000 tons of Japanese steel or Mario?

Don't need bigger guns, just bigger Italians.

If a fellow gentleman was to say Yamato was a collosal white elephant then I wouldn't be offended.

If your collosal white elephant has to run home to dry dock after been hit by a torpedo from a submarine then your unsinkable battlewagon is not unsinkable or a battlewagon.

But I will give the IJN credit for trying to change Shinano. Probably the only time the IJN saw the logic of their situation.


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 24, 2021)

How effective would a UDT attack be against a leviathan maneuvering at about 25 kts in open ocean?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 24, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> How effective would a UDT attack be against a leviathan maneuvering at about 25 kts in open ocean?


He has to swim harder.

This Forum is going downhill if I'm the brains of this outfit.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 25, 2021)

mew said:


> Which means that Yamato wouldn’t get into krishima’s position is enough. Considering how Kirishima fired at damaged warship with all its brute scoring multiple hits but not penatrating a single armour plate. The difference was kirishima was unprepared. As if it was ambushed. But either ways your comment was really informative.



My point, since you seem to have missed it, was that while _Yamato_'s radar was sufficient to give warning, it was not sufficient to lay its guns, meaning it still needs fair weather in daylight to actually lay its guns well.

As for the turning-radius, given _Iowa_'s superior speed, that doesn't amount to much. A _Fletcher_ can outturn either battleship under discussion, but I doubt you'd put your money on it. If _Yamato_ wants to stay in a small spot of sea under the fire of radar-directed guns, have at it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 25, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My point, since you seem to have missed it, was that while _Yamato_'s radar was sufficient to give warning, it was not sufficient to lay its guns, meaning it still needs fair weather in daylight to actually lay its guns well.
> 
> As for the turning-radius, given _Iowa_'s superior speed, that doesn't amount to much. A _Fletcher_ can outturn either battleship under discussion, but I doubt you'd put your money on it. If _Yamato_ wants to stay in a small spot of sea under the fire of radar-directed guns, have at it.


I bowed out of the discussion because Yamato fan-boy disregards facts.

Yamato and Musashi would have had their ass handed to them by the Iowa and South Dakota class BBs because the IJN used optics and colored shells to range-find for their fire control while the USN was using Radar-directed fire control.
Even the pre-war USN battlewagons had RCF and raped IJN elements during the Battle of Leyte.

So let fan boy carry on - it's good entertainment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 25, 2021)

Japan had limited resources so putting all eggs in the Yamato was not ideal.

Could have had more Kongos or Nagato.

Or more carriers.

So the concept of 1v1 is false. Maybe for smaller ship but usually it's either a fleet action or 1 v many dog pile. The classic 1v1 battleship duel is a no.

Japan needs to build a navy. Not win at Top Trumps.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Dec 3, 2021)

Considering how difficult it was for the Japanese to hit the destroyers and destroyer escorts during the Leyte Gulf action (they frequently misjudged how small the destroyer escorts were and shot over them), I think I'd rather have a flock of smaller ships and more torpedoes than a hulking big battleship without radar. They sure made the Japanese very circumspect and caused them to break off and withdraw. Sure, they (the Japanese) sank some of the little ships, but the little ships turned them back. Period. Anyway you count it, they mission-killed the biggest, baddest battleship the Japanese had. With tin cans.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 3, 2021)

Echoes of the Jeune Ecole.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Dec 3, 2021)

A friend of mine who was a battle ship junkie, had two things to say about the Yamato.

1) It was a dirty ship, exhaust wise.

2) The 18" shells had a tendency to tumble as opposed the the 16" shells fired by the Iowa and her ilk.

I have no reason to doubt him, except if presented with facts.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 3, 2021)

Capt. Vick said:


> A friend of mine who was a battle ship junkie, had two things to say about the Yamato.
> 
> 1) It was a dirty ship, exhaust wise.
> 
> ...


I find that last sentence extremely profound. Copyright it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 3, 2021)

Capt. Vick said:


> 1) It was a dirty ship, exhaust wise.


We have all been there bro.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2021)

This is a fantastic article on the great debate.

It covers in detail quite a bit of what's been discussed here, as well as expanding on several aspects that we haven't talked about.

The Ultimate Gunfighters! USS Iowa Class Battleships Versus IJN Yamato Class | SOFREP

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 3, 2021)

The piece is a bit one sided. I guess. No mention of dirty exhaust.

I am sure I mentioned most of the issues. Apart from the mattress being removed and the crew having to sleep on planks. Physical abuse of junior ranks was so common it wasn't even a thing anymore.

I like the fact they bring up the flak gun Type 96. How that can defeat an Iowa is one hell of a golden BB.

Perhaps we need to focus on aspects of Yamato rather than the full pallette.

Next thread will be how good Japanese tanks were. Shortest thread in history.

Maybe we should talk about Japanese aircraft too. Shock horror.

The Mitsubishi Zero was called Zero coz it had Zero armour....and now I run away....smirking


----------



## glennasher (Dec 3, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> This is a fantastic article on the great debate.
> 
> It covers in detail quite a bit of what's been discussed here, as well as expanding on several aspects that we haven't talked about.
> 
> The Ultimate Gunfighters! USS Iowa Class Battleships Versus IJN Yamato Class | SOFREP


That link was REALLY informative. Thank you for that. I had no idea (zero, zip, zilch) as I'd never even thought about studying up on Japanese ships. Now I know a little something about it. Thanks again.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 3, 2021)

Great article. I wonder at what range the 16" shell was fired from against Shinano's turret face armor?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2021)

glennasher said:


> That link was REALLY informative. Thank you for that. I had no idea (zero, zip, zilch) as I'd never even thought about studying up on Japanese ships. Now I know a little something about it. Thanks again.


You're welcome.
I am surprised that the article didn't mention the USS Gambier Bay's demise during the Battle, but it was comprehensive none the less.

I have to say, that the brittle armor was something I wasn't aware of, but making the point that if torpedoes could breach Yamato class warship armor, then shell impacts would certainly be disastrous.



SaparotRob said:


> Great article. I wonder at what range the 16" shell was fired from against Shinano's turret face armor?


It's been years since I read the report, but the test distance as I recall, was in the neighborhood of 40,000 yards.

Also keep in mind, that all tests were done with inert shells.
In otherwords, the damage done to the armor plate examples, was the result of the shell's impact.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 3, 2021)

A few points if I may.

The Yamato had weak torpedo defence due to poor design of the join of the torpedo bulge to the armour belt. So not necessarily due to bad metal. The loss of Shinano is directly based on this 

The armour used was British designed armour from the Kongo. This was pre ww1. Nothing wrong with it apart from 30 years out of date. So it wasn't as good as the latest armour. But still ok.

The navy test which blew a hole through Shinano turret face armour was done at very close range. I am not sure how far but it was close. Talking a few metres or maybe a few hundred. But it was fired 90 degrees to the armour so the armour was not sloped which was unrealistic. Also the gun range was unrealistic.

It wasn't to test the gun but the armour itself. The armour was simply not designed to be this thick so was not perfect.

My view still stands that Iowa would have still won due to fire control.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2021)

The Shinano was lost because it had a skeleton crew while in transit and the water tight doors weren't working.

But again, the point is, the Yamato and Mushasi both had their hulls breached by lighter, air dropped torpedoes. Not the larger, deeper running torpedoes that the Archerfish struck the Shinano with.

The USN's 16" shells were making holes up to 100 feet across and 60 feet deep during shore bombardments. Find a conventional torpedo (meaning non-nuke) that has that kind of energy.

The USS North Carolina (BB-55) was torpedoed by the IJN's I-95 near Guadalcanal (the same sub that sank the USS Wasp) and she steamed back to Pearl for repairs.

Also, the USS Colorado (BB-45) got into a slugging match with Japanese large caliber shore batteries during the invasion of Tainan.
She took damage and casualties from their fire, but she remained in action and eliminated their positions with accurate return fire.


----------



## EwenS (Dec 4, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The Shinano was lost because it had a skeleton crew while in transit and the water tight doors weren't working.


Shinano’s crew can hardly be described as “skeleton”. Incomplete? Yes, but then the ship herself was incomplete and being moved to a port where this could be carried out more safely, or so it was believed. Inexperienced? Yes, because the ship was on her first ever voyage.

Wiki puts her full crew at 2,400.

She sailed with a crew of 2,175 plus some 300 Dockyard workers and 40 other civilians.

Lost in her sinking - 1,435. Rescued - 1,080.



Imperial Flattops

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 4, 2021)

Not saying that Yamato ain't weak or strong. I not got any money in the game. But the loss of Yamato and Musashi was more due to being dogpiled 

You can also include PoW and Repulse in this.

Quite a few ships survived being hit by torpedo. Prinz Eugen survived a torp strike.

Odd fact that the Shinano kill was not given until after the war. USN had no knowledge of Shinano so was unwilling to give the kill.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 4, 2021)

I trust this page has been mentioned already?


Nihon Kaigun



Specifically this one:


Battleship Comparison



Also, there is a youtube channel I like, not being an expert I cannot vouch for its accuracy, let me know if you now that it is not:


https://www.youtube.com/c/Drachinifel/videos



For the matter at hand:


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Dec 4, 2021)

Drachinifel is very good with his facts for the most part. Some of his opinions ... they can verge on the goofy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Drachinifel is very good with his facts for the most part. Some of his opinions ... they can verge on the goofy.


Anything coming to your mind? I have an only shallow understanding, so I have no idea what mainstream opinions and what are more unconventional ideas are.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Dec 4, 2021)

Acheron said:


> Anything coming to your mind? I have an only shallow understanding, so I have no idea what mainstream opinions and what are more unconventional ideas are.



Oh, I've watched so many of his videos, they all sort of smear together. His love affair with HMS _Hood_ is peculiar to my American reading. Even after the hypothetical refit with upgrades he suggests, I still think it couldn't and shouldn't try to stand up to a proper battleship. He thinks otherwise iirc.


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 4, 2021)

I think Drachinifel may have been alluding to HMS Hood’s classification. It seems the RN classified a ship as a battle cruiser by speed rather than armour (armor). By this metric, the Iowas would have been classified as battle cruisers had they been built by the RN. He brought it up somewhere in one of his many videos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 4, 2021)

In his video about the sinking of the Hood, he claimed that in all likelihood, it was an incredibly lucky shell of the Bismarck that blew up the Hood, does this stand up to scrutiny? His points were compelling, but I lack the expertise to judge them.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 4, 2021)

To me Hood is a battleship and so if given suitable modification would be a battleship still.

Not Yamato or Iowa but certainly on a par with a QE or Nagato.

The loss of Hood will never be known but the idea of the loss is reasonable or plausible.

There was a magazine explosion. How did that happen?

The concept of diving shells is certainly plausible as the IJN played with them and PoW had a dud shell in her hull. So unlikely though it may be, it is more likely than other unlikely scenarios and fits the evidence available.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Dec 4, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I think Drachinifel may have been alluding to HMS Hood’s classification. It seems the RN classified a ship as a battle cruiser by speed rather than armour (armor). By this metric, the Iowas would have been classified as battle cruisers had they been built by the RN. He brought it up somewhere in one of his many videos.



He refers to her as a "fast battleship", which it certainly ain't. He also calls the Ugly Sisters "battleships" even though their guns are 4" smaller than _Hood_'s -- while calling _Alaskas_ "cruiser-killers" despite superior armament and comparable armor to the S&G. There's creaky stuff there.

IMO, and that's all, _Hood, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau,_ _Alaska_ ,and _Guam_ are all battle-cruisers of varying capability. Throwing in "battleship" or "fast battleship" doesn't change the fact that none of them could stand up to battleship-grade armament, as _Hood_ and _Scharnhorst_ both showed.


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 4, 2021)

I don't know what a battle cruiser is but I know one when I see one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 4, 2021)

My view that Scharnhorst was a battleship and had she had her 15 inches guns she would have been formidable.

Alaska has armour akin to Renown so that's ok for cruisers but bad against anything bigger.

But kinda getting into choppy waters of semantics and naval history. 

And Hood was a battleship of sorts. Old and behind though she maybe. A ship like Iowa very much skews the definition of battleship and really is a quantum leap over the leftover ww1 stuff.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 4, 2021)

Battleships went through quite a bit of evolution 25 years. Not as much as fighters planes from 1916 to 1941 but there was a considerable difference.

Unless you study the armor diagrams (and the construction) the Alaska is confusing. A simple of list of thickness doesn't work out well.
The Alaska was pretty much a scaled up Baltimore class cruiser. But it also confused as the internal subdivision got better from 1916/1918 ships to 1930s ships. 

The USN always called the Alaska a large cruiser, never a battlecruiser. What the newspapers or book authors or even what PR guys called it was different. 

The Hood got called a lot of things by the press over 20 years, She might have been justified in some cases as being a fast battleship in 1920s. 
But her deck armor was never good enough for that to stick once the 1930s battleships showed up. She was trapped by her own ledged. She was too new and valuable to be given the extended dockyard refit that would have to really helped her out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 5, 2021)

The story of the Hood is certainly the Ship she was and the ship she is and the ship she will never be.

Hood was too busy waving the flag and putting on the miles for refit.

And when war started she was the only RN big gun ship to have the speed and firepower and armour to catch and match the Scharnhorsts and to a lesser extent, the Deutschlands. So no refit.

Whether on that fateful day, she was fighting fit and should even faced Bismarck is a valid point. But then again, an admiral who didn't join in battle was not up to the Nelson tradition.

6 of one and half dozen of the other.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Dec 5, 2021)

For those from the USA wanting to know more about Hood, a good place to start is the Hood Association website.





H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood







www.hmshood.org.uk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 5, 2021)

Regarding classifications, especially when it comes to battleships vs battlecruisers vs fast battleships, I believe this is topic of much discussion? AFAIK, drachinfel talked about this in some videos, pretty sure when it came to the Alaskas, maybe also the Scharnhorsts.

To me, the first thing to clear up by what principle one divides the big ladies up. One could go by classification or intended role of the creator. I am a bit iffy about that though, as it seems too subjective to me and could be changed by the creator changing their mind. For objective criteria though, I read that while British WWI battlecruisers sacrificed armor for speed, their German counterparts instead sacrificed firepower for speed, not sure how much armor they retained, but it does complicate things further of course.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 5, 2021)

Was the Deutschland class battlecruisers?
I could say it was…from a certain point of view.
It was faster than a battleship and had heavy armament and was certainly designed to fight cruisers.

Was Iowa a battlecruiser? Yes as its speed allowed it to do battlecruiser duties as well as commerce raiding and commerce protection.

So when does a dagger become a sword?

The German battlecruisers were designed to fight British battlecruisers. So the Invincibles and Indefatigable. The later British battlecruisers such as Tiger and Lion had more armour so they could fight out with the Von Der Tann and Goeben.

So when we talk about poorly armoured British Battlecruisers, we are not talking about the Hood or Lion or Renown. We are talking about the Invicibles and the Indefatigables. 

The battlecruiser didnt sacrifice armour as it was only supposed to be armoured against cruisers in the first place. It needed speed to catch up with the cruisers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 5, 2021)

To separate the heavy cruisers from the battlecruisers, could we argue that the later must have guns that can at threaten a battleship? Or do ordinary heavy cruisers qualify for this already?


----------



## The Basket (Dec 5, 2021)

An 8 inch shell from a cruiser will not penetrate battleships armour.

See Prinz Eugen v Hood or PoW.

Prinz Eugen was only a minor threat to Hood but Hood could have one shotted Prinz Eugen like a knife through butter.

A British Battlecruiser always had the gun of the equivalent battleship.

Renown 15 inch same as QE.
Invincible 12 inch same as Dreadnought.
Tiger 13.5 inch same as Iron Duke.

So gun wise same as the contemporary battleship although may have less in a different arrangement.

So a British Battlecruiser will have battleship big guns. A cruiser will not. Also a cruiser has thin armour as they are designed against other cruisers and destroyers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 5, 2021)

As I understand it, a battlecruiser is a large battleship sized hull (or even longer, for speed) without the heavier armor. It carries battleship grade main battery firepower and can out gun any cruiser or outrun any battleship. As calibre increased, the distinctions started to blur. The Sisters (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) may have been designed for larger calibre guns but were instead fitted with 11" guns. They were equivalent to earlier WW 1 dreadnoughts especially considering their armor. The DKM was behind the curve in building large warships thanks to the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles. 
The Alaskas were large heavy cruisers as they were essentially scaled up Baltimores. What makes it "fuzzy" is that the Alaskas had 12" guns. That was not up to par with MOST U.S. battleships but was a common calibre for WW 1 dreadnoughts. 
So the Sisters were battleships with 11" guns while the Alaskas were large heavy cruisers with 12" guns. 
Political correctness aside, I think of the Alaskas as battlecruisers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Dec 5, 2021)

The Basket said:


> An 8 inch shell from a cruiser will not penetrate battleships armour.
> 
> See Prinz Eugen v Hood or PoW.
> 
> ...


Good points here.Tabletop gaming rules are often skewed towards Cruisers and Destroyers lasting more than one turn which makes them
more dangerous to larger ships than they actually were. The latest set we have tried is far more "real" as a hit from larger type on a smaller
type gets more damage dice,. For example, if a battleship hits a cruiser with it's main guns instead of one damage dice per gun hit the number
goes as high as 8 per hit. Nasty as it is for the gamer it is a realistic outcome.

In other words cruisers and destroyers were not in a good place against anything with functional large guns, just as a frigate had no place in
the battle line during the age of sail.


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 5, 2021)

WARSPITER said:


> Good points here.Tabletop gaming rules are often skewed towards Cruisers and Destroyers lasting more than one turn which makes them
> more dangerous to larger ships than they actually were. The latest set we have tried is far more "real" as a hit from larger type on a smaller
> type gets more damage dice,. For example, if a battleship hits a cruiser with it's main guns instead of one damage dice per gun hit the number
> goes as high as 8 per hit. Nasty as it is for the gamer it is a realistic outcome.
> ...


Did you ever play Avalon-Hill's "Jutland"?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2021)

Again there had been major changes in ships in just 10-12 years.

And it was was not as simple as it seemed.
Saying that battlecruiser sacrificed armor for speed was a gross simplification. The Invincible class was about 40 ft longer than the Bellerophon and had one less turret. The Invincible had 41 boilers and 41,000 hp compared to the Bellerophon's 18 boilers and 23,000 hp.
Yes, the battlecruiser had to make sacrifices, but some of it was making room for the docks and water to float the ship at the quayside. Ship size went up quickly.
For the British they didn't make some of the machinery improvements they could have quite soon enough which lead to large and heavy engine rooms which to larger hulls which then led to thinner armor to house the larger engine/boilers rooms.
German Battlecruisers in most of WW I used small tube boilers which didn't require such as much boiler space for the same power. Yes, the Germans did use one size smaller guns but that didn't make a larger part of the difference in of the size. 
Germans also figured righty or wrongly that the higher velocity smaller German guns would still have enough power to the penetrate the British ships in most of the sea conditions in the North Sea. The North sea was not friendly to long range duels. 

By the time of the Hood the British had switched to small tube boilers and oil fuel. The Dreadnought was built on 184lbs per shaft hp. The Hood was planned on 84lbs per shaft hp.
The Hood credited with 33% of it's displacement to protection/armor.
The Invincible was 20%
The Nelson was 29%
The KGV (1936) was 36% 
The Hindenburg (1917) was 34%

A very good argument could be made for the Hood being a fast battleship. Especially considering it used sloped armor that was 2-3" more effective than vertical armor. 
Her deck armor was a different story but just about nobody else had decent deck armor either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Dec 5, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Did you ever play Avalon-Hill's "Jutland"?


Unfortunately no. Our games are generally tabletop with miniatures along with liberal use of non polite society words usually directed
at an innocent party (dice for the most part).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2021)

Acheron said:


> To separate the heavy cruisers from the battlecruisers, could we argue that the later must have guns that can at threaten a battleship? Or do ordinary heavy cruisers qualify for this already


Sort sort of depends.
The Deutschland was a special circumstance, she had 11'' guns but her armor wasn't going to provide much protection to 8" guns

We also have another anomaly in that most Navies stopped making large heavy cruisers from around 1910 to the 1920s. And most of the 1905-1910 armor cruisers ships were already under construction when the Dreadnaught battleship caught the world by surprise. 
The Washington treaty cruisers became defacto battleships as only few battleships were allowed to built. 
The New 8in cruisers also had the most up to date fire control they could obtain which meant they could influenced the battle even it they might costly. 
As older Battleships were refitted with newer fire control and with high (25-30 degree) elevation gun mounts they became much better to deal with the 8" gadflies.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 5, 2021)

Maybe it's the mission and not the ship.

Invincible and Inflexible took on Scharnhorst and Gneisanau and stuffed them. Old school.

Derfflinger was a different matter.

Bit like boxing. Stick to your weight category and you be right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 5, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Invincible and Inflexible took on Scharnhorst and Gneisanau and stuffed them. Old school.


Umm, you mean during WWI at the Falklands, with the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau being obsolescent armored cruisers?

Regarding Battlecruisers having battleship guns, AFAIK, this was true for British battlecruisers but not the German ones of WWI.
Moltke and Seydlitz with 28 cm vs Kaiser and Koenig with 30.5, Derfflinger got 30.5, though then Bayern got 38. Conversely, these battlecruisers had belt armor of around 300 mm, more comparable to battleships than British battlecruisers, no?


----------



## The Basket (Dec 5, 2021)

The German Battlecruisers had the same guns as the equivalent battleship.

So 11 inch guns on Von Der Tann and 11 inch on Nassau.

12 inch on Derfflinger and 12 inch on Konig.

The Bayern did have bigger guns but no equivalent Battlecruiser was built so all German capital ships at Jutland, battleship or Battlecruiser had either 11 or 12 inch guns.

The German Battlecruisers had a minimum threat of 12 inch gun so needed battleship grade armour.

The Invincible had a minimum threat of a cruiser gun so had armour sufficient to meet that threat.

The later Lion and Tiger had more armour as the minimum threat was now Von Der Tann and 11 and 12 inch guns. So the German Battlecruisers and the last generation British Battlecruisers were roughly equal in armour and firepower. 

Tiger had 13.5 inch guns and 9 inch belt. Hindenburg had 12 inch guns and about 12 inches of armour. The reason for the extra armour was due to Rule Britannia, there was a good chance a German Battlecruiser would run into a British Battleship or due to short numbers, the German Battlecruiser was supposed to fill out the Battle line.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 5, 2021)

I will look now at Alaska and Scharnhorst.

Remember Scharnhorst was designed to have 15 inch guns not 11.

11 was a stop gap and 15 was the goal. One must also look at goals. As a merchant raider then Scharnhorst is way over the top. Her armour is massive to sink a tanker.

A battle ship come from line of battle ship. So you line up and knock seven bells out of each other. It's just a phrase.

Alaska is a mixed bag of monkeys as it's short career shows. It's not this and not that so what is it?

Were they designed to go up against Kongos or Deutschland or even Scharnhorst? Odd that in earlier engagement around Guadalcanal then Alaska could have been splendid. It maybe do well.

1944 not so much. Also no torpedo protection is not a good idea. Type
93 torpedo would render an Alaska in twain.

Alaska was not activated for the Korean War. So that is a bad sign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Dec 5, 2021)

Alaska seems to be one of those ships that was a solution to a problem but the problem wasn't defined all that well ?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 5, 2021)

The Alaska class was to be a "bridge" between a Battleship class and a Cruiser class.

It was the only cruiser series in the USN that was assigned it's own unique designation: CB (Large Cruiser)


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2021)

The Alaska was part of answer a military intelligence problem.

I have for before me a 1942 "Jane's fighting ships."

The Yamato is nowhere to be found but can be found is an entry for five 40,000 battleships with 9 16in guns. With names, builders and months/years of landing down. (page 287)
However there is a note of caution about a smaller class of smaller armored ships they might be confused with. 
This is on page 291 and there 4 ships, the Takamatu, the Titibu, the Niitaka and on other building. these are reported to be ships from 12,000-15,000 tons, 30 knots speed and armed with 6 12in 50 cal guns and 12 5in AA guns. Supposedly they had two triple turrets. 
There are careful wordings about the details not being guaranteed. 

The Alaska's may have been a response to these fictitious Japanese ships. 
Nobody knew how successful carriers were going to be be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 5, 2021)

Thanks for that post Sr6. I never knew that. I had read something anecdotal decades ago that the Alaskas were built because FDR wanted battlecruisers. It didn't sound credible.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 5, 2021)

An issue with the Alaskas is the guns were unique to the class of which only 2 were fully operational.

So making unique guns using unique ammunition. That's some logistics burden.

An American Invincible? Convergent evolution? It's odd how somehow America made a Lion class Battlecruiser with a smaller gun.

Hopefully the flash protection wasn't removed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Dec 5, 2021)

Propaganda can be a powerful thing as it can validate heresay.

Propaganda is also an interesting word as it can make you look like one.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2021)

To my rather limited mind, they look like an American Panzerschiff. 

To counter them in one v one combat. What would be required to take on Graf Spee and Alaska would be close to that mark.

So yes you have re-invented the Battlecruiser with the same mission only instead of armoured cruisers, it's Deutschlands as the threat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 6, 2021)

As I see it, the Alaska CB class would be effective cruiser killers and perhaps a contender against battle-cruisers, but against a full-fledged battleship, nope.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Dec 6, 2021)

The war the Alaskas were designed for was never going to happen by the time they went into service in 1945. They were not going to chase down surface raiders. They were not going to meet cruisers in battle. They had some good potential as anti-aircraft escorts, but they were expensive for that role. For shore bombardment, the DesMoines class cruisers (that came hot on their heals) would be far superior. All that being said, the Alaska’s were beautiful ships. I wouldn’t bet against an Alaska with a fully-working radar fire control system against any warship that was firing by sight alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2021)

That depends. The Japanese were Type 93 crazy and fired them things off as if they were candy.

A ship with no torpedo defence is not going to fare well.

Especially a high value target. So in a 1v1 duel against Mogani....yeah why not.

1v1 duel against Kongo? Maybe less so. Of course usual night fog smoke sun in your eyes all feature.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 6, 2021)

The Basket said:


> The German Battlecruisers had the same guns as the equivalent battleship.
> 
> So 11 inch guns on Von Der Tann and 11 inch on Nassau.
> 
> 12 inch on Derfflinger and 12 inch on Konig.


Right on von-der-Tann and Derfflinger, though I believe I still may stand with Moltke and Seydlitz.


The Basket said:


> The Bayern did have bigger guns but no equivalent Battlecruiser was built so all German capital ships at Jutland, battleship or Battlecruiser had either 11 or 12 inch guns.


True, though the next planned battlecruisers, the Mackensen-class, ordered in 1914, had 35cm guns, vs the Bayern's 38 cm. The next planned "Erstaz Yorck" class battlecruisers would have had 38 cm guns, though the next planned battleship class, "L 20e α"-class was to have 42 cm guns. So, all in all, it seems to me that German battlecruisers of WWI tended to have slightly smaller guns then their contemporary battleship-counterparts? Just to be clear, these would be the guns battleships a class ago used, so still quite formidable I would assume.


The Basket said:


> The German Battlecruisers had a minimum threat of 12 inch gun so needed battleship grade armour.
> 
> The Invincible had a minimum threat of a cruiser gun so had armour sufficient to meet that threat.
> 
> The later Lion and Tiger had more armour as the minimum threat was now Von Der Tann and 11 and 12 inch guns. So the German Battlecruisers and the last generation British Battlecruisers were roughly equal in armour and firepower.


von-der-Tann being of course the first German battlecruiser, built 1907-1910. The Lion class was built 1909-1912? I guess the Moltke class would be equivalent, the Lion had 230 mm of belt armor, while the Moltke's had up to 280 mm. Tiger's belt also went to 230 mm, while the Derrflinger's was upped to 300 mm. So it seems to me, that German battlecruisers tended to be better armored than their British counterparts.


The Basket said:


> Tiger had 13.5 inch guns and 9 inch belt. Hindenburg had 12 inch guns and about 12 inches of armour. The reason for the extra armour was due to Rule Britannia, there was a good chance a German Battlecruiser would run into a British Battleship or due to short numbers, the German Battlecruiser was supposed to fill out the Battle line.


That fits what Drachinifel claimed, that the British BCs were developed to hunt down armoured cruisers doing some commerce raiding and later, after clearing the seas of them, found themselves in the battle-line, while the German BCs were designed for a role in the line from the get-go.


The Basket said:


> Remember Scharnhorst was designed to have 15 inch guns not 11.
> 
> 11 was a stop gap and 15 was the goal. One must also look at goals.


You mean classification based on intended role? This is of course a good and reasonable standard of classification. Personally, I have two problems with it:
1: if the navy changes its mind and thus changes the role of the ship, wouldn't that change the class, without a single screw turned on the ship in question?
2: different navies intending different roles for the ships, wouldn't that, too, mean that ships that are virtually identical in their physical characteristics be assigned different classes because their navies had them intended for different roles?

Personally, I would therefor argue to assign classes based on their physical characteristics, especially of course armor, guns and speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2021)

You have to be careful with dates.

The British and German ship building programmes were not the same. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

Moltke and Seydlitz had 11 inch because that was chosen. Not because the 12 inch was not available. It was the wrong decision.

I am not familiar enough on the Mackensens to be able to comment.

USS Alaska is a clear example of wrong ship wrong time.

It had no cruisers or merchant raiders to kill so it became a gloryfied flak ship. So it wasn't exactly best use. Maybe in 1940 it would have been a winner. But by 1945 it was a ship without a role.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 6, 2021)

The Basket said:


> You have to be careful with dates.


I must admit, I just took the years from wikipedia, I hope these are reasonably enough accurate? I would assume one should compare the dates the ships were laid down (instead of launched or commissioned) as I assume by this date, the design was usually mostly finished?


The Basket said:


> The British and German ship building programmes were not the same. So you are comparing apples to oranges.


Ummm, well, I was comparing British and German battlecruisers, the question being in how far the British tended to rather sacrifice armor and the Germans firepower.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2021)

Perhaps we need a History in the Battlecruiser because it seemed to have bounced around quite a bit. 

In part because of Fisher with some truly absurd ships. 

The navies of the world actually didn't build very many Battlecruisers.

The British and Germans were by far the majority.

The American contribution was the Large Cruisers already mentioned and the Lexington at the end of WWI never completed.
The Japanese had the 4 Kongos and 4 somewhat mixed up ships from before the Kongos.
The French had nothing except paper until the 1930s and then you have to decide if the Dunkerque class were small battleships or battlecruisers.
The Italians no battlecruisers as such. They tended to build ships a little faster other ships in WW I but only by about 2kts and did have a bit lighter armor.
The Russians had some battleships much like on the Italian model. Not fast enough to be battlecruisers.
And that is pretty much it as far as actual ships go

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2021)

Let's take the Derfflinger class.

Derfflinger was operational 3 years before Hindenburg. So Hindenburg is 3 years better? Or just constantly delayed?

Queen Elizabeth and Kronprinz were both commissioned roughly same time end of 1914. QE is a goddam starfighter compared to Kronprinz.

When it comes to history and dates one must remember one thing...

William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066.

He didn't invade England because it was 1066.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2021)

Acheron said:


> I must admit, I just took the years from wikipedia, I hope these are reasonably enough accurate? I would assume one should compare the dates the ships were laid down (instead of launched or commissioned) as I assume by this date, the design was usually mostly finished?
> 
> Ummm, well, I was comparing British and German battlecruisers, the question being in how far the British tended to rather sacrifice armor and the Germans firepower.



unfortunately both navies had budget problems and infrastructure problems which tended to limit the ship size as compared to actual military requirements/desires. 

And Fisher kept bobbing his head up and down and mucking things up. 

The start of things was the Dreadnought battleship with turbine machinery. This advanced the "battle fleet" from about 18-19kts to 21 Kts on theory. It actual practice the Battle fleet was closer to 14-16 kts because the reciprocating engines tended to break down at high speeds. 
Most large fleets had one or more large armored cruiser formations to act as a high speed wing to the battleship squadrons. The large armored cruisers were actually in size than the pre Dreadnought battleships, mainly because they had to find space for the boilers. 





The armored cruisers were often credited with speed of 20-23kts and in formation they could move around 4kts faster than the battle fleet (the old ships with two twin guns per ship).

Fisher knocked the world on it's head and built 3 "Battlecruiser" and his 'fast' ships where good for about 25kts. They were were fine for using as an anti raiding ship force but not so good as for using the "fast" wing of a battle fleet. Everybody (or just about everybody) was using armored cruisers of between 8.2in and 10 in guns while they might be able to turn the opposing fleet they weren't when the battleships were firing with their 12 in guns on the armored cruisers (unless when they were chasing cripples.

The next than Fisher screwed up was that Fisher wanted the largest guns he could get into the ship and then the smallest guns he could squeeze into any space that could fit 12pder or 4in guns. 

While the Invincible's where good against the German ACs they were suspect against the old Bucher and the hole design should have been put in the rubbish bin when measured against the Von Der Tann. 





about 1/2 of her 4in guns were mounted on top of her main guns so they can't be sued when the gun mounts are being fired. None of the 4in guns had any protection 
There is a very, very angle when the offside was useable. 





The Von Der Tann had 5.9 in guns (too low in a sea way) but her smaller guns can at least without with many of her gun crew being knocked out by her own guns.
Please note that the offside guns had at lease a somewhat useable ability to fire 8 guns to one side of the ship. 

And as I keep harping on, the British insisted in using the large tube boilers sucked up not only machinery space under the deck, it sucked up a 3rd funnel, it sucked up more space for armor with the larger boiler space and took up hundreds if not over 1000 tons of machinery space that the Von Der Tann could use for the extra armor.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Derfflinger was operational 3 years before Hindenburg. So Hindenburg is 3 years better? Or just constantly delayed?



Well, yes, the Hindenburg was pretty much just delayed.

But since the British Battlecruises from the Lion, Queen Mary and Tiger had some serious flaws (anybody to want mention the Repulse and Renown as built? another Fisher fiasco)


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2021)

HMS Tiger never got the shakedown cruise and was pretty much come as you are.

So Tiger simply was not ready but it was show time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2021)

The only Brit ships I won't defend is the Courageous class.

You can have at that them all day long and twice on Sundays.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2021)

There might have been some excuse for the Invincible's but the excuse got a lot thinner with the Indefatigable. 
With the Australia and the New Zealand the excuse went to the 'your dog ate your home work?'

Then was followed up with the Lion, the Princess Royal and Queen Mary. 








British don't need to have 4 guns training astern because they not don't run away? 

Once again the boiler rooms get in the way of logical layouts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 7, 2021)

German ships had bad coal so there actual operational top speed was lower than spec.

British had excellent Welsh coal and so was able to keep on trucking.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 7, 2021)

The Basket said:


> The only Brit ships I won't defend is the Courageous class.


Not a capital ship, but will you defend the K-class submarines?


----------



## The Basket (Dec 7, 2021)

Concept is good.
Steam engines on a Submarine?
Not good.
I am not sure what I am judging.
It's design or career or it's concept?


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 7, 2021)

Dragging this back to a version of the original question, how would Iowa and New Jersey do against Yamato, Musashi and Shinano (assuming Shinano had been completed as a battleship). I am asking because Shinano was laid down before Iowa and Yamato cost less than Iowa. In fact, Yamato is quoted as costing 250,000,897 Yen by Wikipedia, which using the 3.47 Yen to the Dollar rate for 1937 gives 72 million Dollars and the Yen was worth much less by 1941. By contrast, Iowa cost more than 100 million dollars. Thus my match up is fair in terms of both date and cost.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 7, 2021)

3 Yamato v 2 Iowa is not good for the Iowa.
So the Iowas would exit stage right and redline it to get out of Dodge.

Problem will be that a Yamato will be not getting shot at and will have all day to shoot back. Especially if the Yamato are trying to anvil the Iowas.

So it's raining 18 inch shells. Unless the Iowas can one shot a Yamato in the first salvo.


----------



## Acheron (Dec 8, 2021)

I read that there was an expensive "Special Treatment Steel" (STS) that was better but much more expensive, so navies used it only for criticla parts. Except the US navy because the could afford. Might this have driven up the prices for the Iowas?

Regadring a duel, circumstances seem very important to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Iowas had much better radar-fire-controls, so bad visibility would work in their favor. The Yamatos OTOH would probably profit more from shorter initial engagement range?

On a clear day, at maximum engagement ranges, how long could either ship be expected to find the range and score a hit? How long would the flight time of the shells be and how much might this allow evasive maneuvers to come into play?

Another thing, what about the performance of each side's shells? The Yamato had the bigger ones, but I read criticism about them, supposedly optimized for underwater strikes at the expense of direct strikes?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Dec 8, 2021)

cherry blossom said:


> Dragging this back to a version of the original question, how would Iowa and New Jersey do against Yamato, Musashi and Shinano (assuming Shinano had been completed as a battleship). I am asking because Shinano was laid down before Iowa and Yamato cost less than Iowa. In fact, Yamato is quoted as costing 250,000,897 Yen by Wikipedia, which using the 3.47 Yen to the Dollar rate for 1937 gives 72 million Dollars and the Yen was worth much less by 1941. By contrast, Iowa cost more than 100 million dollars. Thus my match up is fair in terms of both date and cost.


It is not the laying down dates that is important but the completion dates.

Firstly look at the build times for Yamato & Musashi. 49 months and 52 months. Japanese shipbuilding capacity doesn’t allow Shinano to be laid down any earlier than historical. So to complete her as a battleship and assuming no historical wartime delays, you don’t get 3 Yamatos until the third or even fourth quarter of 1944.

While the 4 Iowas were laid down after Shinano that was by only 2-9 months. However the contractual completion dates, which were significantly improved on once war with Japan broke out, would have been

Iowa - Aug 1943
New Jersey - May 1944
Missouri - June 1944 (slipped 4.5 months by Nov 1941 so to beginning of Nov 1944)
Wisconsin - June 1945
Data from BuShips reports.

So, allowing for work ups etc, the window for a three on two battle is very small. The USN can choose to disengage if it is outnumbered using the superior speed of the Iowa. But how likely is such an engagement without both sides having other battleship assets present? By the time Shinano appears there are also 2 North Carolina and 4 South Dakota to bring into the equation.

Comparing cost data between countries tells you nothing due to the different standards of living and technological advancement of the countries concerned. Looking at wartime figures, compared to the US, Britain could build ships cheaper. But the US could build them a lot faster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 8, 2021)

Yamato fired optically so night or bad weather would be against it.

Time of flight for a shell fired at 32,000 feet is 60 seconds.

10,000 ft is about 13 seconds. Very very roughly.

So you are a moving target hitting a moving target and firing 60 seconds in advance where you think it will be.

So about 1-2% chance of hitting.

10,000 ft is 33-22% chance of hitting.

The Japanese liked diving shells which if hit water would travel a bit before exploding. This would delay detonation. So against thin skinned targets then it may not detonate the shell. But against Iowa that's won't be a problem.

So a closer engagement is suitable for both sides but sauce for the goose....

Date and times of ships construction are a red herring and must be treated with care.

Royal Navy was still commissioning Pre Dreadnoughtd even after Dreadnought herself so one must always take the more wider view.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Dec 8, 2021)

By Oct 1943 both Yamato and Musashi had been equipped with radar that, while not designed for the role, could be used for gunnery control. See notes accompanying the Type 22 radar.


Title

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 8, 2021)

The Basket said:


> 3 Yamato v 2 Iowa is not good for the Iowa.
> So the Iowas would exit stage right and redline it to get out of Dodge.
> 
> Problem will be that a Yamato will be not getting shot at and will have all day to shoot back. Especially if the Yamato are trying to anvil the Iowas.
> ...


Where did we get 3 Yamato and only 2 Iowa?, shouldn't it be the other way around?

Also, IJN gunnery was meh to good, Iowa's are (relatively) sharpshooters with super heavy shells.

At any rate our buddy Drach did this:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 8, 2021)

I was replying to cherry blossom.

I didn't question why.

Because I ask how high. Not why.

10 Yamatos v me in a Volkswagen Beetle.

Yamato wins.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 8, 2021)

Not if you keep a Montana in the glove box.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 8, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Not if you keep a Montana in the glove box.


Cigarettes? I don't smoke.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 8, 2021)

The Basket said:


> I don't smoke.


You would if Yamato bracketed your VW...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 8, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> You would if Yamato bracketed your VW...


I would choose a very foggy night.

Using my superior speed to dictate the fight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Dec 8, 2021)

The Basket said:


> I was replying to cherry blossom.
> 
> I didn't question why.
> 
> ...


With gas prizes now, a beetle will win because the others do not dare to move.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 8, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> With gas prizes now, a beetle will win because the others do not dare to move.


Have you tried invading the Dutch East Indies?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Dec 8, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Have you tried invading the Dutch East Indies?


Yes. Those capital japanese ships never even intended getting there.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Dec 8, 2021)

The Basket said:


> 3 Yamato v 2 Iowa is not good for the Iowa.
> So the Iowas would exit stage right and redline it to get out of Dodge.
> 
> Problem will be that a Yamato will be not getting shot at and will have all day to shoot back. Especially if the Yamato are trying to anvil the Iowas.
> ...



Right, but with a six-knot differential you're adding 12,000 yards of range per hour. Get the hell out, track with radar, link up with support, and only then take the task to hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 9, 2021)

The Basket said:


> I would choose a very foggy night.


"It was a dark and stormy night..." isn't that a bit cliche?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 9, 2021)

Acheron said:


> "It was a dark and stormy night..." isn't that a bit cliche?


Cliche is when I compare thee to a summers day.

Cliche? Cliche! I will quote Shakespeare all day long. So if that's want you want then that's what you will get.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 9, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right, but with a six-knot differential you're adding 12,000 yards of range per hour. Get the hell out, track with radar, link up with support, and only then take the task to hand.


Not to mention two Iowa's would never be "alone", aside from the DD escort there's always a CL or CA or two/three and probably a couple of SoDaks thrown in for good measure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Dec 9, 2021)

> "It was a dark and stormy night..."


Ah Shakespeare ... the great Australian bard (Bruce Shakespeare)

"It was a dark and stormy night, the dunny light was dim, I heard a bash and then a crash, Oh gawd she's fallen in".

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 9, 2021)

Shakespeare is much better in the original Klingon.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 9, 2021)

Is that you General Chang?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 9, 2021)

Getting back to the original topic, bet Iowa had a better galley and mess deck.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Dec 10, 2021)

And bigger and better potatoes with thicker skin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 10, 2021)

There is this YouTube channel, the narrator is about as engaging as a dead fish but it's got good videos:



https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleshipNewJersey/videos

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 10, 2021)

IJN got better food than IJA.
At least they got food.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## juhaerik (Sep 17, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My main point was and is that in a night engagement, radar is superior to eyeballs, especially when your guns are slaved to that radar via a complex RFC system. I know it wasn't a fair fight, but even in a fair fight, radar is a big advantage.
> 
> Can you not admit that?
> 
> ...


Actually Yamato has faster rate of fire - though very small, only about 2 seconds. But faster.


----------



## juhaerik (Sep 17, 2022)

Conslaw said:


> Think you outdid take just about any 70,000 ton combination of US warships and beat Yamato. With its superior speed, Iowa could hang out at a range where it had a 3% chance of main battery hit, but Yamato had less than 1%. Meanwhile a squad of destroyers could lead a Cleveland-class. Raiser in behind a smokes teen to a point where the Cleveland could use its fire control radar to bury Yamato in hundreds of 6” shells, starting fires and wrecking the topside. This would let Iowa creep in closer and finish her off.


Thats in THEORY. In practice Yamato did the hitting and Iowa and NJ - missing. Yamato, on top of everything scored longest ranging hit on WP at Samar. Read Capt Sullivans report.


----------



## juhaerik (Sep 17, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My point, since you seem to have missed it, was that while _Yamato_'s radar was sufficient to give warning, it was not sufficient to lay its guns, meaning it still needs fair weather in daylight to actually lay its guns well.
> 
> As for the turning-radius, given _Iowa_'s superior speed, that doesn't amount to much. A _Fletcher_ can outturn either battleship under discussion, but I doubt you'd put your money on it. If _Yamato_ wants to stay in a small spot of sea under the fire of radar-directed guns, have at it.


Yamatos radar was good for range - line was not so good. But, this is how US fats battleships were shooting as well...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## juhaerik (Sep 17, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right, but with a six-knot differential you're adding 12,000 yards of range per hour. Get the hell out, track with radar, link up with support, and only then take the task to hand.


Iowas were considered by Navy as 31.5 knot ships during the war. Again, theory vs practice comes to mind...


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 17, 2022)

juhaerik said:


> Actually Yamato has faster rate of fire - though very small, only about 2 seconds. But faster.



I didn't know that. Where might I read more?



juhaerik said:


> Iowas were considered by Navy as 31.5 knot ships during the war. Again, theory vs practice comes to mind...



Every source I've ever read, including the NHHC, cites 32.5 -- 33 kts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 17, 2022)

juhaerik said:


> Yamatos radar was good for range - line was not so good. But, this is how US fats battleships were shooting as well...



The fire-control computer on the _Iowas _integrated automated radar information, making it much more useful. The two systems are not equivalent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 17, 2022)

I'd still take Warspite against both Yamato and an Iowa. Heck, I'll even spot him Musashi!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 17, 2022)

juhaerik said:


> Actually Yamato has faster rate of fire - though very small, only about 2 seconds. But





juhaerik said:


> Actually Yamato has faster rate of fire - though very small, only about 2 seconds. But faster.


That's so small as to be irrelevant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 17, 2022)

syscom3 said:


> That's so small as to be irrelevant.



Not to mention that maximum rates of fire are rarely achieved in real-world conditions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 17, 2022)

juhaerik said:


> Actually Yamato has faster rate of fire - though very small, only about 2 seconds. But faster.


The Yamato class had a rate of fire of about one round every 1.5 minutes, per gun.

The Iowa class had a rate of fire of two rounds per minute, per gun.

There also needa to be taken into consideration , the difference in the designs between the two weapon systems, training and combat conditions.

The Musashi was more likely to achieve 1.5 rpm than the Yamato, because the Musashi had considerable combat experience. The Yamato spent most of the war tied to a dock.

All the the Iowa class ships had extensive combat experience, so the 2 rpm number was not hard to accomplish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 17, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The Yamato class had a rate of fire of about one round every 1.5 minutes, per gun. The Iowa class had a rate of fire of two rounds per minute, per gun. There also needa to be taken into consideration , the difference in the designs between the two weapon systems, training and combat conditions.


Yamato’s lack of fire control radar vs. the world-leading fire control radar on Iowa will make a difference. In addition there’s the quality of their respective armour.






Yamato Class - Ballistic Tests on the IJN Shinano's Turret Face Armor


This makes for a very interesting read on the ballistic tests and conclusions associated with US Navy 16" guns tested against Yamato Class - Turret Armour. Ballistic Tests on IJN SHINANO's Turret Face Armor



ww2aircraft.net

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 17, 2022)

The radar made a huge difference in laying fire, but the guns were still loaded manually.

The appropiate shell had to be brought up to the bed via lift from below as well as the needed number of silk bags of gun powder, which followed the shell onto the loading bed after the shell was pushed into the breech by a ram.
Once the bags were "rammed" in behind the shell, the breech was closed and locked, which gave control a green light to fire.
Quite a few men were involved in the process, from the men below moving the shells and powder onto the lift, to the men in the turret who each had a specific task to get the round and powder into place as well as operating the bed, ram and breech.

It takes alot of practice to do all this in concert and it's even harder when in battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2022)

The experience of the USS Washington during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal proved that whomever fired first and accurately made corrections is the one who will prevail. The US had superior search radars and gunnery radars. At night and in bad weather, the Iowa's would have tremendous advantages.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 18, 2022)

syscom3 said:


> The experience of the USS Washington during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal proved that whomever fired first and accurately made corrections is the one who will prevail.


No other British designed battlecruiser survived as much damage as Kirishima. Washington scored nine 16-inch hits and as many as forty 5-inch hits, but the Japanese ship survived, with screws turning another three hours before she sank. Let’s see Hood or Renown survive such a pounding.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 18, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> No other British designed battlecruiser survived as much damage as Kirishima. Washington scored nine 16-inch hits and as many as forty 5-inch hits, but the Japanese ship survived, with screws turning another three hours before she sank. Let’s see Hood or Renown survive such a pounding.



I can't remember where I read it, perhaps Tully's Port, but there was apparently a Japanese damage-control officer who argues with some evidence that there were actually as many as fourteen 16" hits on _Kirishima_, aside from the secondary hits you mention, which he doesn't really address.

It certainly took a beating. _Hood_ may have been able to take it, but _Renown_? Not so sure at all.

ETA: I'm going by Drachinifel's "lucky hit" hypothesis on the _Hood_. This video lays it out in detail, and how he explains the armor layout in the same.


----------



## EwenS (Sep 18, 2022)

Here is the link to Lundgren's analysis of her loss.





Lundgren Resource - Kirishima Damage Analysis - NavWeaps







www.navweaps.com

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 18, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Here is the link to Lundgren's analysis of her loss.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From his article:

_Ikeda's sketch of her damage is probably the most important new piece of evidence as to Kirishima's damage. The 20 major caliber and 17 secondary caliber hits is far more consistent with what may be expected by the number of major caliber shells and secondary shells fired at their respected ranges. In addition all the hits that struck the ship below the waterline would have been observed by Washington as a miss due to the shell throwing up a splash. Some hits so close together may have been observed as single hits so the 8-9 hits viewed optically becomes a realistic estimate but falls short of actual damage._

I suspect this is the source of what I read at the Port.







Thanks for this, your knowledge is appreciated.

Counting five main-battery hits below the waterline comports somewhat with what I'd read (14 16" hits), on the assumption that _Washington_ saw the splashes but not the explosions sub-waterline. Certainly not definitive, but just as certainly helpful.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 18, 2022)

<mishandled edit, apologies>


----------



## delcyros (Oct 6, 2022)

Notice that there is a debate whether or not HIEI or KRISHIMA was investigated by Lundgren.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 6, 2022)

delcyros said:


> Notice that there is a debate whether or not HIEI or KRISHIMA was investigated by Lundgren.



Wouldn't the size disparity between 8" and 16" main battery hits make this obvious? No gun heavier than 8" hit _Hiei_, and I'd imagine that the difference in damage would be pretty noticable.

Could you link a source for this dispute? I'd like to read up on it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 7, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Wouldn't the size disparity between 8" and 16" main battery hits make this obvious? No gun heavier than 8" hit _Hiei_, and I'd imagine that the difference in damage would be pretty noticable.
> 
> Could you link a source for this dispute? I'd like to read up on it.


I would tend to agree, the US 16" round can make a real mess of things, in looking over the damage to SoDak which was hit by both 14 and 8" rounds however. There are some images where it's hard to tell but on the whole, it's pretty easy in the photos (as long as there's a point of reference) to tell the difference.

The Hiei however was hit by several dive bombers with perhaps 1,000lb AP bombs so there's that to contend with. But in the end I thought they identified both Kirishima and Hiei because they could see their nameplates, I could be wrong on that however.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 7, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I would tend to agree, the US 16" round can make a real mess of things, in looking over the damage to SoDak which was hit by both 14 and 8" rounds however. There are some images where it's hard to tell but on the whole, it's pretty easy in the photos (as long as there's a point of reference) to tell the difference.
> 
> The Hiei however was hit by several dive bombers with perhaps 1,000lb AP bombs so there's that to contend with. But in the end I thought they identified both Kirishima and Hiei because they could see their nameplates, I could be wrong on that however.



Yeah, I'd completely forgotten about the SBDs -- good catch. But while I can't say whether divers read _Hiei_'s nameplate, I doubt they could read _Kirishima_'s, as the stern is buried in mud.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Oct 7, 2022)

No nameplates were found. It was, IIRC, Bill Jurens, who challanged the ID of "KRISHIMA" for uncertain in direct communication with Lundgren over on the navweaps forum many years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 7, 2022)

delcyros said:


> No nameplates were found. It was, IIRC, Bill Jurens, who challanged the ID of "KRISHIMA" for uncertain in direct communication with Lundgren over on the navweaps forum many years ago.



Search isn't giving me anything using "Bill Jurens navweaps kirishima" as search terms. Also, _Hiei_ was struck by at least two aerial torpedoes the day after the night action, but Lundstrom's report makes no mention at all of torpedo damage, which is odd considering that the wreck is upside-down and the hull is largely visible between the buried stern and the destroyed bow. Such damage should be visible and notable.

I think it's fair to say that, uncited controversy aside, Lundstrom's report of the expedition is a report on _Kirishima_ and not _Hiei_.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 7, 2022)

Tully at combinedfleet has a comprehensive page on IJN shipwrecks including an analisys of the Kirishima wreck based on damage and location.

It's the 5th battleship listed after the aircraft carrier list.



IMPERIAL JAPANESE NAVY MYSTERIES

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 8, 2022)

Interesting that Kirishima was wrecked and sunk by naval gunfire alone and that the only other capital ship to go down from naval gunfire alone in WWII
was the Hood. The battle cruiser/ship didn't really have a massive role in punch ups as the aircraft and small surface ships always seemed to
get in the way of things (damn the torpedoes - and the bombs).


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 8, 2022)

IJN Yamashiro was sunk during the Battle of Surigao Straight by gunfire from USS West Virginia, USS California and USS Tennessee. USS Maryland and USS Mississippi contributed as well as several cruisers. She was literally a three legged cat against a pack of dogs.

This was the world's last battleship on battleship action.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 8, 2022)

Yamashiro copped some of those get in the way torpedoes as well though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 8, 2022)

Yamashiro was hammered by gunfire for over seven minutes by concerted battleship and Cruiser fire.

The few torpedoes at the end were pretty much insignificant...


----------



## delcyros (Oct 8, 2022)

torpedoes striking the belt do not leave much traces unless the main belt is poorly attached to the frame, or alternatively, the belt plate itselfe was awefully brittle (certsinly not a problem for Vickers CA). Strikes on the belt did happen frequently with air dropped torpedoes, particularely if the targeted vessel was already in damaged condition.

I am not holding cards here but I do not shrug off comments made by marine forensics like Jurens for no reason. Best one should keep caveates in mind.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 8, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Yamashiro was hammered by gunfire for over seven minutes by concerted battleship and Cruiser fire.
> 
> The few torpedoes at the end were pretty much insignificant...


The torpedo hits were before the shelling action started and gave Yamashiro a list to port which slowed her as well as causing the
two rear turret magazines to have to be flooded due to fire threat. There was another hit around the bow but it is not known what that
was. Prior to all that there was also an air attack with Hellcats using rockets and strafing the ship. A bomb from a Helldiver caused hull
damage and the ship listed 15 degrees which necessitated flooding of the bilge on the opposite side to even things up. 

By the time the big guns came into play Yamashiro had already lost two turrets and a lot of speed so was by then a sitting duck.

That's the annoying thing when gaming with the big buggers. We really find we are not matching anything close to reality but it is hard
to play using aircraft when they are launched from carriers too far away to be on the board.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 8, 2022)

It is true that Yamishiro took damage both from a near miss by a SB2C on 24 October, requiring counter-flooding to correct the list to starboard and by at least one torpedo on 25 October, causing her to slow with a list to port.

That of course limited her ability to bring the fight, but did not stop her.

The historical part came at about 04:00 when she came into range of the battle line of USN Cruisers and Battleships, engaging in history's last battleship on battleship action.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 8, 2022)

delcyros said:


> torpedoes striking the belt do not leave much traces unless the main belt is poorly attached to the frame, or alternatively, the belt plate itselfe was awefully brittle (certsinly not a problem for Vickers CA). Strikes on the belt did happen frequently with air dropped torpedoes, particularely if the targeted vessel was already in damaged condition.
> 
> I am not holding cards here but I do not shrug off comments made by marine forensics like Jurens for no reason. Best one should keep caveates in mind.




From CombinedFleet.com:

_The Japanese records state that at 1435 two torpedoes hit the HIEI's starboard side amidships and *at the stern*._

[Bolding added -- Thump]

The stern is beyond the belt on these ships.


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 8, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> It is true that Yamishiro took damage both from a near miss by a SB2C on 24 October, requiring counter-flooding to correct the list to starboard and by at least one torpedo on 25 October, causing her to slow with a list to port.
> 
> That of course limited her ability to bring the fight, but did not stop her.
> 
> The historical part came at about 04:00 when she came into range of the battle line of USN Cruisers and Battleships, engaging in history's last battleship on battleship action.


Yamashiro turned away after taking damage from multiple hits and was making according to US records around 14 knots. The ship was able to head away
as the US ships had started to hit their own destroyers and were ordered to cease fire.

From 0407 to 0409 DD's launched multiple torpedoes again at Yamashiro and she sustained three more hits. The last two caused a significant list to port
which soon reached 45 degrees wherein the commander ordered abandon ship. In all Yamashiro took four or more torpedo hits with the last two causing her
to sink.

Either way my post on the two ships sunk by gunfire only was being fussy in that I was meaning no other hits from any other source before, during, or after
the gunfire phase, as in the ships sunk were in no way impeded or damaged by any source other than gunfire.

Overall it also is interesting how the Axis capital ships were not really effective. Japan kept most back for the telling battle that never came, Italy suffered from
a lack of fuel and Germany suffered from a lack of ships. All three navies suffered from either a lack of technology (radar) followed by an inability to match the
advances in technology / methods made by the US and Britain. Germany had started off well with Seetakt radar but was overtaken as the war went on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Oct 10, 2022)

Lack of torpedo hits bears an implicit presumption. Why? Because Lundgren did not visit the wreck when he wrote his 2009 article. I understand he visited the wreck since but no such data was available to him back in 2009, and he was explicit about it. He is also explicit about the fact, that he was allowed access to the video tapes from the 1992 Ballard expedition and that these video tapes were incomplete and only partially covered the ships hull. Now this IS interesting because lack of evidence for torpedo hits could be explained by the lack of systematic visual evidence. Interestingly, no discussion about the ID of the vessel can be found, as it is always _presumed _to be KIRISHIMA.

The KIRISHIMA battle damage article was primarely a historical exercise, not a marine forensic investigation. Video tapes had evidence for only three (!!!) shell hits. Note that the nice hit count on the profile drawing are not the result of forensic evidence but of recollection of the events from eyewitnesses, such as Lt. Ikeda. In many ways eyewitness acounts can be unreliable or misleading. Only very few hits were caught on the old filmtapes and this is signifcant because with such a small number of hits, You cannot differentiate between 8in HC and 16in AP hits. Giving the range of the action was very small and the angle of fall of the 16"/45 was in between 6 and 10deg, it does not surprise that one has to reckon with primarely water ricochet. However, that beeing said, the wreck of HIEI has been identified meanwhiles and I believe that LUNDGRENs ID was correct but this is not borne out from the old article but rather, due to recent work done with Petrel and ROV on the site with much better resolution and completeness of the survey.

2022 article on KIRISHIMA

The new 2019 expedition to the wreck showed that
A) the ships hull breaks were caused when she was still vertical
B) the bow of the wreck was missing and presumed "obliterated" (torpedo hits?)
C) there was an explosion around B-barbette which severed the watertight integrity from port to starboard
In addition data from NAGATOs wreckage strongly points towards the fact that the turrets did not fall out as the japanese had clamps to keep them in place.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 10, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Interesting that Kirishima was wrecked and sunk by naval gunfire alone and that the only other capital ship to go down from naval gunfire alone in WWII
> was the Hood. The battle cruiser/ship didn't really have a massive role in punch ups as the aircraft and small surface ships always seemed to
> get in the way of things (damn the torpedoes - and the bombs).


My take is that capital ships are hard to put down with gunfire alone (unless you're a British Battlecruiser at Jutland or the Denmark Straight (no offense)) because knocking holes in the thing only lets in air for the most part. What was the old adage? Something about if you want to let air in, bomb them, if you want to let water in, torpedo them, or something like that.

One might argue the Bismarck was destroyed by gunfire and the torps were just icing on the cake, but since she was apparently torpedoed I'll agree that excludes her from the club.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 10, 2022)

HMS _Glorious_.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> HMS _Glorious_.


Only counting stuff that had the big bang bangs on board. Good point though as aircraft carriers quickly became the premier ships of the fleet.
Premier is just to differentiate from capital but carriers became the ships to sink.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 10, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Only counting stuff that had the big bang bangs on board. Good point though as aircraft carriers quickly became the premier ships of the fleet.
> Premier is just to differentiate from capital but carriers became the ships to sink.



I had thought the RN considered them capital ships as well by the time of the war? Oh well, I get your point, that you were referring to armed and armored capital ships being sunk gunfire-only.


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I had thought the RN considered them capital ships as well by the time of the war? Oh well, I get your point, that you were referring to armed and armored capital ships being sunk gunfire-only.


Yes. Gun ships for that part but your point is a good one as I think most navies either hadn't realised the potential
of carriers or old schoolers in their old schooners couldn't let go of the big gun ships being the deciders.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 10, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Yes. Gun ships for that part but your point is a good one as I think most navies either hadn't realised the potential
> of carriers or old schoolers in their old schooners couldn't let go of the big gun ships being the deciders.



I know I regard carriers of the era generally as as capital ships, but there's plenty of hindsightium in my opinion, so apply salt as needed. I'm pretty sure both the Japanese and Americans did, contemporaneously, and think the RN did as well, but I have read less evidence on their score.


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I know I regard carriers of the era generally as as capital ships, but there's plenty of hindsightium in my opinion, so apply salt as needed. I'm pretty sure both the Japanese and Americans did, contemporaneously, and think the RN did as well, but I have read less evidence on their score.


You are correct and as it was the true strength of the carrier wasn't known. It didn't 'sink in' (sorry) for a while but once aircraft with longer ranges 
were available the shift in power was undeniable. There was now a true seaborne ability to sink any kind of ship without that ship necessarily being
able to get a shot back except at the aircraft sent. It no longer mattered whether the guns were bigger and had a long range, against a fleet type 
carrier it just wasn't going to happen. Musashi and Yamato are examples of this. All that engineering, expense, and the number of crew required
came to little when both were torpedoed and bombed literally to death using relatively cheap alternatives.

I haven't seen a tally of 'warships' disabled or sunk by carrier aircraft but it will be big list compared to the same done by gun ships in WWII

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Oct 11, 2022)

The terms “capital ship” and “aircraft carrier” were defined for the first time in the Washington Treaty 1922.

Capital ship
There were lists of individual ships already in existence, that were considered “capital ships” broken down into those able to be retained and those to be immediately disposed of. This approach avoided the problem of trying to retrospectively define the term for the myriad of designs already in existence. For new construction it meant ships of 10,000 to 35,000 tons carrying guns of less than 16”.

Courageous & Glorious don’t appear on the lists of “capital ships” even though they had 15” guns, being considered by all parties as “large light cruisers”, which is what the RN had referred to them as from their conception in 1915/16. Furious was considered a carrier either by its past or because it was already under conversion to its flat deck configuration when the conference began.

Aircraft carrier
A ship of no more 27,000 tons with no more than 10 guns of between 6” & 8” calibre. Additional provision allowing any signatory to use up to two existing (edit: capital ship built or building) hulls to build carriers up to 33,000 tons. Latter provision led to the Lexington’s, Akagi & Kaga.
Articles VII-X

Due to various design efforts in the late 1920s especially by the US (eg flight deck cruisers) and Japan (eg Ryujo) it was further defined in the London Naval Treaty 1930 as:-

“The expression ‘aircraft carrier’ includes any surface vessel of war, whatever its displacement, designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft and so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon.’
Other restrictions in Articles III, IV & V.

So the navies of the interwar period thought of capital ships and carriers in the context of these definitions. Two separate types. It was the “capital ship” that formed the core of the fleet. It’s importance is reflected in the Treaties, in that they are the first type to be addressed and, while the Treaties tried to limit most types of war vessel except the smallest, greater efforts were made to limit capital ships than any other type.

In the 1920s and 1930s carrier aircraft weren’t supposed to sink “capital ships”. That this was possible only became clear in WW2.

Interwar the RN viewed them as a tool for finding, shadowing the enemy fleet and then directing the fleet’s gunnery. The emphasis was on the torpedo to slow down an enemy fleet so that the big guns could sink them. The fighter/dive bomber was to damage the enemy carriers and suppress A.A. batteries on capital ships and supporting vessels.

For the US the principal role was finding the enemy and putting his aircraft carriers out of action before the same happened to them. For that the dive bomber was the principal weapon to tear up a carrier’s flight deck and prevent it operating its aircraft. That would allow the capital ships to gain the element of surprise and do their work unhindered. For a period in the early 1930s the USN only had a single TB squadron because it did not favour the torpedo as a weapon.

It is only from 1941/42 that the carrier begins to be seen as the main element of the fleet, starting with the Japanese concentrating their air power in the Kido Butai from April 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 11, 2022)

Excellent summation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 11, 2022)

Agree with pretty much everything you say 
E
 EwenS


As an observation, I think it was Shattered Sword that pointed out that despite three CV's of the same class (Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown) being together (for the first and only time) they still bumbled their way through to victory. Perhaps bumbling is a little harsh, but seeing as how the USN carriers hadn't really worked _together_ as a single task force I cut them a lot of slack. Reading how painful it was to get the strikes airborne on June 4 is dizzying, BUT, they pulled it off. Shattered Sword also pointed out that just a year or so later, ANY USN task group would have put down Kido Butai as a matter of course, how things changed in 12-16 months of combat.

In mid 1942, no one could put together a large strike force as quickly or efficiently as KdB, they were the best in the world at it hands down.

By late 1943 the pendulum had completely shifted. By mid 1944 the USN was launching strikes that make KdB's efforts look like bath tub toys. By 1945 I'm pretty sure that if Halsey or Spruance wanted to pound the Japanese homeland with 1,000 plane carrier strikes they were quite capable of doing so, which would be 10 times the plane count KdB put up at Midway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2022)

Two things were needed to catapult the aircraft carrier to capitol ship rank ( and we should distinguish between large and small carriers, small carriers are not capitol ships) 

1, Independent of the carriers, they needed better aircraft. 
To pick on the US this was the plane that entered service in 1928 with the USS Saratoga. 






2. Numbers of aircraft. The Saratoga and Lexington each carried 36 of these multi-purpose bombers. There were no dive bombers at this time. Fighters were supposed to strafe and use light bombs to aid the attack aircraft. 

72 planes were not going to stop the Japanese battle fleet. Damage some of it, slow it down, sink a few ships yes (if lucky). But the battle would be decided by the remaining battleships (in theory). Range was also shorter than later aircraft. A lot depended on which force could get in it's airstrike first. 

The USS Ranger didn't show up until 1934. 

In 1944 when a US Task force could muster over 400 planes every thing had changed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> By 1945 I'm pretty sure that if Halsey or Spruance wanted to pound the Japanese homeland with 1,000 plane carrier strikes they were quite capable of doing so, which would be 10 times the plane count KdB put up at Midway.



They tried, it didn't end so well. 








Attacks on Kure and the Inland Sea (July 1945) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





They did do an awful lot of damage, however the operation may not have been sustainable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Oct 11, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> They tried, it didn't end so well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


By summer 1945 US carrier operations were entirely sustainable. With multiple carrier groups, off Okinawa between March and June they were able to rotate those groups to ensure there were at least 2 off the island at any one time. Every 3-4 days a group would pull out to refuel and resupply over a day or two. Fuel, ammunition, replacement aircraft and stores were all able to resupplied at sea in the replenishment areas. Every so often a group would take a week out for a rest at Ulithi.

In mid-June TF38 left Okinawa for Leyte. It sailed for operations off Japan on 1 July. The 3 TGs contained a total of 9 Essex class (with air groups containing c75 Hellcat or Corsair fighters, 15 Avengers and 15 Helldivers), 6 Independence class (c25 Hellcats and 9 Avengers) plus the Bon Homme Richard with a night air group. It operated continuously through to the end of the fighting on 15 Aug, and beyond the eventual surrender ceremony on 2 Sept, increasing in strength around mid-Aug. A map of the operations is below. Note the distances covered by the Fleet during this period.







Intrepid, Antietam, Boxer & the light carrier Cabot all joined the fleet off Japan before the end of Aug. Enterprise, Langley, Bunker Hill and Hornet were also all completing repairs / refits on the West Coast in late Aug / early Sept.

Operation Olympic was scheduled for 1 Nov 1945. Carrier operations in support thereof would have begun a few weeks earlier. Plans called for 5 carrier task groups split between the Fifth and Third Fleets. These would have included 13 Essex, 7 Independence plus Enterprise and Bon Homme Richard as night carriers.

By summer 1945 there were sufficient spare carrier air groups to allow air groups to be replaced as an entity every 6 months.


The TF37 (the BPF) sailed from Sydney on 28 June for Manus and onwards to Japan. They joined TF 38 on 16th July with 4 carriers and c260 aircraft and operated as a fourth TG to that force until 12 Aug. At that point the bulk of TF37 withdrew as previously planned, its logistics support being inadequate to maintain the whole force in Japanese waters any longer. KGV, Indefatigable and some supporting cruisers and destroyers remained as TG38.5 to participate in the final surrender arrangements.

Had the war continued a second BPF carrier task group, forming in Sydney around Indomitable and 3 light fleet carriers, would have participated in operations in the East China Sea in late Aug / early Sept. These ships sailed from Sydney on 15 Aug for Manus and on to reoccupy Hong Kong at the end of the month. For Operation Olympic the BPF would have fielded 2 carrier groups with 4 fleet and 4 light fleet carriers.

When the TF37/38 struck the Yokosuka and Kure areas in late July, the USN retained the major targets for themselves. By that stage the large Japanese ships were sitting ducks. Virtually out of fuel, often only partially manned or partially disarmed. Having said that Japanese flak and fighters continued to claim victims right up until the eventual ceasefire on 15 Aug.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2022)

EwenS said:


> When the TF37/38 struck the Yokosuka and Kure areas in late July, the USN retained the major targets for themselves. By that stage the large Japanese ships were sitting ducks. Virtually out of fuel, often only partially manned or partially disarmed. Having said that Japanese flak and fighters continued to claim victims right up until the eventual ceasefire on 15 Aug.



According to Wiki (correction welcome) the operations at Kure resulted in 133 aircraft loss and 102 crewmen. The US was probably in a better positioned to rescue ditched/parachuted crew men. Wiki's text is not clear, there may have been few sorties between the July 24th and the 28th when the major operations were conducted. 

The big day was July 24 with 1747 sorties. but they don't give sortie totals for the other days or break down losses by the day. 

There is a difference between operating as task groups off the coast or even shore bombardment in support of a landing and trying to destroy infrastructure/factories in built up defended areas. Many of the losses suffered July 24-28th were from shore mounted AA guns.


----------



## EwenS (Oct 11, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> According to Wiki (correction welcome) the operations at Kure resulted in 133 aircraft loss and 102 crewmen. The US was probably in a better positioned to rescue ditched/parachuted crew men. Wiki's text is not clear, there may have been few sorties between the July 24th and the 28th when the major operations were conducted.
> 
> The big day was July 24 with 1747 sorties. but they don't give sortie totals for the other days or break down losses by the day.
> 
> There is a difference between operating as task groups off the coast or even shore bombardment in support of a landing and trying to destroy infrastructure/factories in built up defended areas. Many of the losses suffered July 24-28th were from shore mounted AA guns.


USN carrier operations in July/Aug are examined in detail in this book which uses more recent research than that of Morison quoted by Wiki.
Amazon product

24 July - almost 1,400 sorties incl 1,115 strikes against airfields from northern Kyushu to Nagoya and Kure navy base. Plus another 300 from the BPF.
28 July - nearly 2,000.

Those figures from the chapter summaries. Activity is broken down by Task Group and air group in the text but I’m not going through to add them up in detail.

More strikes took place on the 25th before TF37/38 withdrew to refuel and rearm before the next strikes on the 28th.

The main purpose of the carrier strikes in July / Aug 1945 was destruction of the remaining Japanese naval and air power. So the strikes were against ports on both coasts of Japan and airfields throughout the country. Carrier air power was not focussed on factories. Attacking airfields was a particularly dangerous exercise. The Japanese were very clever, setting up dummy aircraft to act as flak traps for the attackers. The shore bombardments did not actually do much damage. They were more about inflicting harm on Japanese civilian morale. An Allied fleet able to bombard the Homeland unimpeded.

Some stats for these operations from Winton’s “The Forgotten Fleet”. Figures are British (to 12 Aug)/US

Number of carriers - 4/16
Number of strike days - 8/13
Aircraft complement - 255/1,191
Sorties on strike days - 2,615/18,163
Offensive sorties on strike days - 1,595/10,678 (against enemy shipping or over enemy territory)
Enemy aircraft destroyed or damaged - 347/2,408
Tons of enemy shipping sunk or damaged - 356,760/924,000
Offensive sorties per complement aircraft per strike day - 1.39/1.39
EA destroyed or damaged per offensive sortie - 0.21/0.22
Tons of enemy shipping sunk or damaged per offensive sortie - 224/90
Combat losses as percentage of offensive sorties - 2.38/1.61
Operational losses as percentage of offensive sorties - 2.0/0.55

Edit:- Note the weather was bad through most of this period due to it being typhoon season. It resulted in lost strike days, difficulty in locating targets and aircraft finding their way back to carriers, larger movements between target areas than planned to avoid it, relocation of refuelling areas at short notice etc. The atomic strike on Hiroshima also upset the strike schedule with the fleet refuelling instead.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2022)

Thank you, That paints a rather different picture.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 12, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I had thought the RN considered them capital ships as well by the time of the war? Oh well, I get your point, that you were referring to armed and armored capital ships being sunk gunfire-only.


Glorius was built like a cruiser not a battle cruiser let alone a battleship.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 12, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I would tend to agree, the US 16" round can make a real mess of things, in looking over the damage to SoDak which was hit by both 14 and 8" rounds however. There are some images where it's hard to tell but on the whole, it's pretty easy in the photos (as long as there's a point of reference) to tell the difference.
> 
> The Hiei however was hit by several dive bombers with perhaps 1,000lb AP bombs so there's that to contend with. But in the end I thought they identified both Kirishima and Hiei because they could see their nameplates, I could be wrong on that however.


The USN did not use AP bombs at that time


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 12, 2022)

The Basket said:


> Yamato fired optically so night or bad weather would be against it.
> 
> Time of flight for a shell fired at 32,000 feet is 60 seconds.
> 
> ...


The RN was commissioning the Lord Nelson class after Dreadnought because they took material from the Lord Nelsons to expedite construct of Dreadnought. They did not order any predreadnoughts after ordering Dreadnought.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 12, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Glorius was built like a cruiser not a battle cruiser let alone a battleship.



Yes, I'm aware of that, thanks.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 13, 2022)

BRETAGNE was also blown up from four major calibre hits. Honorouble mention should go to DUNKERQUE, which through the same action, was also disabled from four 15in hits (critical: two belt penetrating hits), lost all power and slowly settled, so it had to be beached to prevent her from sinking.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

