Iowa vs Yamato comparison

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?



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.



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.



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

Users who are viewing this thread

Back