Iowa vs Yamato comparison

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

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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
I know dude, but sometimes you must reply the same way as the other one did. It worked didn't it.
Click to expand...
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
 
mew said:
This is a forum for Yamato vs Iowa comparison.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Rn vs IJN
74 75 76
Replies
2K
Views
75K
Admiral Beez
A
S
Battlecruisers vs Cruisers
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
6K
Peter Gunn
A
Italian vs. Japanese WW2 Tanks
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
machine shop tom
Smith vs. Smith
Replies
0
Views
1K
Timppa
Bren vs....
2
Replies
24
Views
10K
Elvis
Menu
Log in
Register