Iowa vs Yamato comparison

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
The Basket said:
Why doesn't Iowa use it's Tomahawk cruise missiles?

Seems obvious to me.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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??
 
Last edited:
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.



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?



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.



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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
He was joking.
 
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
69 70 71
Replies
1K
Views
46K
Frog
F
S
Battlecruisers vs Cruisers
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
Peter Gunn
Peter Gunn
A
Italian vs. Japanese WW2 Tanks
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
BarnOwlLover
BarnOwlLover
Timppa
Smith vs. Smith
Replies
0
Views
1K
Timppa
Timppa
Lucky13
Bren vs....
2
Replies
24
Views
9K
Elvis
Elvis
Back