Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Dude??? I have already reacted to this. It did work and it made the person rethink saying the f word to meLike chill the fuck out… dude
Like seriously, you don't have to like be rude dude. Like can you debate in a civil manner?
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 rangesI 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.
Dude??? I have already reacted to this. It did work and it made the person rethink saying the f word to me
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
How bout you tell the man who started it first. If you really want to continue about saying the f word than go ahead. It's not a big thing after all. It's all these comments that are making it bigDebate in a civil manner, or not at all, dude….
How bout you tell the man who started it first. If you really want to continue about saying the f word than go ahead. It's not a big thing after all. It's all these comments that are making it big
Why would there be destroyers when it's supposed to be 1v1, not 1+escorts vs 1+escorts.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.
I Guess the world is bias enough to say such thing.Excuse me, are we in kindergarten?
Then is saying the f word big? Or is it a small thing. Tell me than
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.
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.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.
Does anyone have accounts showing ADM Cunningham using RFC in the Mediterranean? or was RFC not yet perfected?
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.Why doesn't Iowa use it's Tomahawk cruise missiles?
Seems obvious to me.
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??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.
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.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.
He was joking.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.