Iowa vs Yamato comparison

[syscom3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Delcyros, what was the other board you mentioned?

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

 

[delcyros]

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]

Sorry pal but the link soes not work.

Henk

 

[delcyros]

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]

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

Henk

 

[delcyros]

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

 

[Henk]

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

Henk

 

[mew]

So technically USS Iowa losses right?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

I love your phone's auto correct.

I hate this phone.

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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.