Iowa vs Yamato comparison
- Thread starter delcyros
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
Not to mention that maximum rates of fire are rarely achieved in real-world conditions.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
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
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
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.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
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.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
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.
Last edited:
Here is the link to Lundgren's analysis of her loss.
www.navweaps.com
Lundgren Resource - Kirishima Damage Analysis - NavWeaps
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
Here is the link to Lundgren's analysis of her loss.
Lundgren Resource - Kirishima Damage Analysis - NavWeaps
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
<mishandled edit, apologies>
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #252
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Notice that there is a debate whether or not HIEI or KRISHIMA was investigated by Lundgren.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
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.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
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.
- Thread starter
- #256
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
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.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
It's the 5th battleship listed after the aircraft carrier list.
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).
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
This was the world's last battleship on battleship action.
