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.
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.
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.
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?
And I already posted about how far the inaccuracy might be. Firing at long range meant that penatration abilities also decreases.
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.
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.
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.
