Iowa vs Yamato comparison

[WARSPITER]

With hindsight then would Yamato be built? Why not build 3 more Shokakus? Would they be useful?

The IJN thought not as Shinano was not made into a battleship.

So basically 3 giant Uber expensive paperweights were made.

So did Yamato achieve a military aim?

Yes and no. They achieve the old fleet in being but actually didn't do much more. Bit like Tirpitz.

But all a bit tangled. The IJN would have done more if Yamato was melted down and made into mess tins.

Next up. Datsun Cherry v Dodge Charger.

Shinano is another good example, never saw action and went down to four (?) torpedoes. Not great as a return on investment.

 

[Conslaw]

Think you outdid take just about any 70,000 ton combination of US warships and beat Yamato. With its superior speed, Iowa could hang out at a range where it had a 3% chance of main battery hit, but Yamato had less than 1%. Meanwhile a squad of destroyers could lead a Cleveland-class. Raiser in behind a smokes teen to a point where the Cleveland could use its fire control radar to bury Yamato in hundreds of 6" shells, starting fires and wrecking the topside. This would let Iowa creep in closer and finish her off.

 

[SaparotRob]

Don't the IJN have escorts too?
The thread is Iowa vs Yamato so…….
(The Clevelands were pretty cool.)

 

[WARSPITER]

Putting a Cleveland in that close to Yamato would be a very risky tactic. Yamato had plenty of secondary firepower which
was more than capable when it came to fighting a light cruiser.

 

[mew]

Don't the IJN have escorts too?
The thread is Iowa vs Yamato so…….
(The Clevelands were pretty cool.)

Iowa vs Yamato. Not Iowa with escorts vs Iowa with escorts right?

 

[mew]

I can't back this up with any documentation but I cannot help but believe that after the actions of 14 November, 1942, Admiral Lee's tactics and methods were applied to the rest of the fleet. The late Admiral Scott had his forces practice night fighting earlier (still needed work). I can't help but believe the USN's night fighting ability would be much improved when this clash of the titans would've happened. Mid 1944? The USN adapted with experience.

Of course one would change and adapt. And even still what I meant that kirishima did not have radar but Yamato has, so Yamato wouldn't end in the same situation as Kirishima. Besides it's a 1v1 right?hyphothetical 1v1

 

[SaparotRob]

Iowa vs Yamato. Not Iowa with escorts vs Iowa with escorts right?

I think I know what you meant.

 

[Conslaw]

Iowa vs Yamato. Not Iowa with escorts vs Iowa with escorts right?

Look, If you are going to buy 70,000 tons of warships, you could get 1 70,000 ton battleship, or you could get 1 45,000 ton battleship (Iowa) 1 x 12,000 ton cruiser (Cleveland) and 13,000 tons worth of destroyers, roughly 4 or 5. Heck, to take on 70,000 ton Yamato, I'd take 25 American destroyers of any class, and even with bad torpedoes, Yamato wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course one would change and adapt. And even still what I meant that kirishima did not have radar but Yamato has, so Yamato wouldn't end in the same situation as Kirishima. Besides it's a 1v1 right?hyphothetical 1v1

Once again: the Yamato's radar was not capable of directing gunfire. All it could do was track the battleship shooting at it. Yamato wouldn't be surprised like Kirishima was, but it's still shooting optically, with all that that entails.

The US Navy had several fire control systems in use during World War II, however most share the same general characteristics as the most modern system used by the US Navy's battleships, the Mark 38 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS). This system is centered on the Mark 8 rangekeeper that is the heart of its operation and is used to compute various data such as target, gun orders, director train, time of flight etc.; all the necessary data to hit a moving target. The components that fed information into the Mark 8 rangekeeper were:

Mark 38 Director3
Rangefinding equipment (Stereoscopic rangefinders and radars Mark 3, 8 and 13)
Stable Vertical (Gyro for determining true horizontal plane)
Gyro Compass, and Pitot Log
Miscellaneous Data (wind data, projectile data wear assessment, spot corrections etc.)
The Mark 8 utilized this information to generate the following orders to the guns via electrical output directly:

Elevation Orders
Train Orders
Sight Angle

The Imperial Japanese Navy utilized a different system which was based upon information and techniques practiced by the British Royal Navy. This data was passed on to the Japanese during the interwar period. The components that fed information into the Type 92 Shagekiban computer were:

Rangefinders
Type 94 Hoiban4 director
Type 92 Sokutekiban5
Ship's master Compass
Miscellaneous Data (Ballistic corrections, wind correction, spot correction)

Note that the computer in this system computes future target position and basic gun orders, ONLY. The Type 92 Shagekiban computer then produces the following outputs that are sent back the Type 94 Hoiban director:

Lateral Deflection
Super Elevation6

The output values from the Type 92 Shagekiban computer are added differentially to director setting and training. Afterwards, parallax, roll and cross roll corrections are added and the orders are sent to the guns via a follow the pointer system.7

History and Technology - Overview of USN and IJN Warship Ballistic Computer Design - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Note the lack of any radar input into the Japanese system.

 

[SaparotRob]

Think you outdid take just about any 70,000 ton combination of US warships and beat Yamato. With its superior speed, Iowa could hang out at a range where it had a 3% chance of main battery hit, but Yamato had less than 1%. Meanwhile a squad of destroyers could lead a Cleveland-class. Raiser in behind a smokes teen to a point where the Cleveland could use its fire control radar to bury Yamato in hundreds of 6" shells, starting fires and wrecking the topside. This would let Iowa creep in closer and finish her off.

Remember, this is a one v. one. With that said, how about an Alaska, 2 De Moines and two or three Fletchers?

 

[SaparotRob]

If I got any tonnage left, U.S.S. Olympia too.

 

[SaparotRob]

Screw it, I'll take H.M.S. Warspite and spot you Musashi as well.

 

[russ455]

Going by tonnage, 90 PT boats with radio communications

 

[Conslaw]

Remember, this is a one v. one. With that said, how about an Alaska, 2 De Moines and two or three Fletchers?

That's would be an interesting set up. I think the equal tonnage matchups are more interesting than the single ship to single ship. That was what was great about the Fighting Steel game (especially with the Fighting Steel Project modifications), you could set up matchups like that.

 

[Glider]

That's would be an interesting set up. I think the equal tonnage matchups are more interesting than the single ship to single ship. That was what was great about the Fighting Steel game (especially with the Fighting Steel Project modifications), you could set up matchups like that.

Just a question, what tonnage. Designed, full load, with what modifications, take your pick

 

[mew]

Look, If you are going to buy 70,000 tons of warships, you could get 1 70,000 ton battleship, or you could get 1 45,000 ton battleship (Iowa) 1 x 12,000 ton cruiser (Cleveland) and 13,000 tons worth of destroyers, roughly 4 or 5. Heck, to take on 70,000 ton Yamato, I'd take 25 American destroyers of any class, and even with bad torpedoes, Yamato wouldn't stand a chance.

Erm who said the tonnage had to be the same??? If you going with 70000tonnage I go with this:

Or I could just go with a-150 an upgraded Yamato. Numbers do play a huge part in reality. So don't screw with the numbers for it really turn the tide real quick.
And for your info, Yamato's turning radius is 640m, Iowa's is 820-840m. Good luck with that, for I could do the same to fight your Iowa. Your Iowa would be pretty good damn dead.

 

[mew]

Once again: the Yamato's radar was not capable of directing gunfire. All it could do was track the battleship shooting at it. Yamato wouldn't be surprised like Kirishima was, but it's still shooting optically, with all that that entails.

The US Navy had several fire control systems in use during World War II, however most share the same general characteristics as the most modern system used by the US Navy's battleships, the Mark 38 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS). This system is centered on the Mark 8 rangekeeper that is the heart of its operation and is used to compute various data such as target, gun orders, director train, time of flight etc.; all the necessary data to hit a moving target. The components that fed information into the Mark 8 rangekeeper were:

Mark 38 Director3
Rangefinding equipment (Stereoscopic rangefinders and radars Mark 3, 8 and 13)
Stable Vertical (Gyro for determining true horizontal plane)
Gyro Compass, and Pitot Log
Miscellaneous Data (wind data, projectile data wear assessment, spot corrections etc.)
The Mark 8 utilized this information to generate the following orders to the guns via electrical output directly:

Elevation Orders
Train Orders
Sight Angle

The Imperial Japanese Navy utilized a different system which was based upon information and techniques practiced by the British Royal Navy. This data was passed on to the Japanese during the interwar period. The components that fed information into the Type 92 Shagekiban computer were:

Rangefinders
Type 94 Hoiban4 director
Type 92 Sokutekiban5
Ship's master Compass
Miscellaneous Data (Ballistic corrections, wind correction, spot correction)

Note that the computer in this system computes future target position and basic gun orders, ONLY. The Type 92 Shagekiban computer then produces the following outputs that are sent back the Type 94 Hoiban director:

Lateral Deflection
Super Elevation6

The output values from the Type 92 Shagekiban computer are added differentially to director setting and training. Afterwards, parallax, roll and cross roll corrections are added and the orders are sent to the guns via a follow the pointer system.7

History and Technology - Overview of USN and IJN Warship Ballistic Computer Design - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Note the lack of any radar input into the Japanese system.

Which means that Yamato wouldn't get into krishima's position is enough. Considering how Kirishima fired at damaged warship with all its brute scoring multiple hits but not penatrating a single armour plate. The difference was kirishima was unprepared. As if it was ambushed. But either ways your comment was really informative.

 

[The Basket]

Big v Small.

Problem is 3 smaller battleships can be more useful than 1 giant battleship.

1 Italian frogman can disable a battleship. So 72,000 tons of Japanese steel or Mario?

Don't need bigger guns, just bigger Italians.

If a fellow gentleman was to say Yamato was a collosal white elephant then I wouldn't be offended.

If your collosal white elephant has to run home to dry dock after been hit by a torpedo from a submarine then your unsinkable battlewagon is not unsinkable or a battlewagon.

But I will give the IJN credit for trying to change Shinano. Probably the only time the IJN saw the logic of their situation.

 

[SaparotRob]

How effective would a UDT attack be against a leviathan maneuvering at about 25 kts in open ocean?

 

[The Basket]

How effective would a UDT attack be against a leviathan maneuvering at about 25 kts in open ocean?

He has to swim harder.

This Forum is going downhill if I'm the brains of this outfit.