Iowa vs Yamato comparison

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

My point, since you seem to have missed it, was that while Yamato's radar was sufficient to give warning, it was not sufficient to lay its guns, meaning it still needs fair weather in daylight to actually lay its guns well.

As for the turning-radius, given Iowa's superior speed, that doesn't amount to much. A Fletcher can outturn either battleship under discussion, but I doubt you'd put your money on it. If Yamato wants to stay in a small spot of sea under the fire of radar-directed guns, have at it.

 

[GrauGeist]

My point, since you seem to have missed it, was that while Yamato's radar was sufficient to give warning, it was not sufficient to lay its guns, meaning it still needs fair weather in daylight to actually lay its guns well.

As for the turning-radius, given Iowa's superior speed, that doesn't amount to much. A Fletcher can outturn either battleship under discussion, but I doubt you'd put your money on it. If Yamato wants to stay in a small spot of sea under the fire of radar-directed guns, have at it.

I bowed out of the discussion because Yamato fan-boy disregards facts.

Yamato and Musashi would have had their ass handed to them by the Iowa and South Dakota class BBs because the IJN used optics and colored shells to range-find for their fire control while the USN was using Radar-directed fire control.
Even the pre-war USN battlewagons had RCF and raped IJN elements during the Battle of Leyte.

So let fan boy carry on - it's good entertainment.

 

[The Basket]

Japan had limited resources so putting all eggs in the Yamato was not ideal.

Could have had more Kongos or Nagato.

Or more carriers.

So the concept of 1v1 is false. Maybe for smaller ship but usually it's either a fleet action or 1 v many dog pile. The classic 1v1 battleship duel is a no.

Japan needs to build a navy. Not win at Top Trumps.

 

[glennasher]

Considering how difficult it was for the Japanese to hit the destroyers and destroyer escorts during the Leyte Gulf action (they frequently misjudged how small the destroyer escorts were and shot over them), I think I'd rather have a flock of smaller ships and more torpedoes than a hulking big battleship without radar. They sure made the Japanese very circumspect and caused them to break off and withdraw. Sure, they (the Japanese) sank some of the little ships, but the little ships turned them back. Period. Anyway you count it, they mission-killed the biggest, baddest battleship the Japanese had. With tin cans.

 

[SaparotRob]

Echoes of the Jeune Ecole.

 

[Capt. Vick]

A friend of mine who was a battle ship junkie, had two things to say about the Yamato.

1) It was a dirty ship, exhaust wise.

2) The 18" shells had a tendency to tumble as opposed the the 16" shells fired by the Iowa and her ilk.

I have no reason to doubt him, except if presented with facts.

 

[SaparotRob]

A friend of mine who was a battle ship junkie, had two things to say about the Yamato.

1) It was a dirty ship, exhaust wise.

2) The 18" shells had a tendency to tumble as opposed the the 16" shells fired by the Iowa and her ilk.

I have no reason to doubt him, except if presented with facts.

I find that last sentence extremely profound. Copyright it.

 

[The Basket]

1) It was a dirty ship, exhaust wise.

We have all been there bro.

 

[GrauGeist]

This is a fantastic article on the great debate.

It covers in detail quite a bit of what's been discussed here, as well as expanding on several aspects that we haven't talked about.

The Ultimate Gunfighters! USS Iowa Class Battleships Versus IJN Yamato Class | SOFREP

 

[The Basket]

The piece is a bit one sided. I guess. No mention of dirty exhaust.

I am sure I mentioned most of the issues. Apart from the mattress being removed and the crew having to sleep on planks. Physical abuse of junior ranks was so common it wasn't even a thing anymore.

I like the fact they bring up the flak gun Type 96. How that can defeat an Iowa is one hell of a golden BB.

Perhaps we need to focus on aspects of Yamato rather than the full pallette.

Next thread will be how good Japanese tanks were. Shortest thread in history.

Maybe we should talk about Japanese aircraft too. Shock horror.

The Mitsubishi Zero was called Zero coz it had Zero armour....and now I run away....smirking

 

[glennasher]

This is a fantastic article on the great debate.

It covers in detail quite a bit of what's been discussed here, as well as expanding on several aspects that we haven't talked about.

The Ultimate Gunfighters! USS Iowa Class Battleships Versus IJN Yamato Class | SOFREP

That link was REALLY informative. Thank you for that. I had no idea (zero, zip, zilch) as I'd never even thought about studying up on Japanese ships. Now I know a little something about it. Thanks again.

 

[SaparotRob]

Great article. I wonder at what range the 16" shell was fired from against Shinano's turret face armor?

 

[GrauGeist]

That link was REALLY informative. Thank you for that. I had no idea (zero, zip, zilch) as I'd never even thought about studying up on Japanese ships. Now I know a little something about it. Thanks again.

You're welcome.
I am surprised that the article didn't mention the USS Gambier Bay's demise during the Battle, but it was comprehensive none the less.

I have to say, that the brittle armor was something I wasn't aware of, but making the point that if torpedoes could breach Yamato class warship armor, then shell impacts would certainly be disastrous.

Great article. I wonder at what range the 16" shell was fired from against Shinano's turret face armor?

It's been years since I read the report, but the test distance as I recall, was in the neighborhood of 40,000 yards.

Also keep in mind, that all tests were done with inert shells.
In otherwords, the damage done to the armor plate examples, was the result of the shell's impact.

 

[The Basket]

A few points if I may.

The Yamato had weak torpedo defence due to poor design of the join of the torpedo bulge to the armour belt. So not necessarily due to bad metal. The loss of Shinano is directly based on this

The armour used was British designed armour from the Kongo. This was pre ww1. Nothing wrong with it apart from 30 years out of date. So it wasn't as good as the latest armour. But still ok.

The navy test which blew a hole through Shinano turret face armour was done at very close range. I am not sure how far but it was close. Talking a few metres or maybe a few hundred. But it was fired 90 degrees to the armour so the armour was not sloped which was unrealistic. Also the gun range was unrealistic.

It wasn't to test the gun but the armour itself. The armour was simply not designed to be this thick so was not perfect.

My view still stands that Iowa would have still won due to fire control.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Shinano was lost because it had a skeleton crew while in transit and the water tight doors weren't working.

But again, the point is, the Yamato and Mushasi both had their hulls breached by lighter, air dropped torpedoes. Not the larger, deeper running torpedoes that the Archerfish struck the Shinano with.

The USN's 16" shells were making holes up to 100 feet across and 60 feet deep during shore bombardments. Find a conventional torpedo (meaning non-nuke) that has that kind of energy.

The USS North Carolina (BB-55) was torpedoed by the IJN's I-95 near Guadalcanal (the same sub that sank the USS Wasp) and she steamed back to Pearl for repairs.

Also, the USS Colorado (BB-45) got into a slugging match with Japanese large caliber shore batteries during the invasion of Tainan.
She took damage and casualties from their fire, but she remained in action and eliminated their positions with accurate return fire.

 

[EwenS]

The Shinano was lost because it had a skeleton crew while in transit and the water tight doors weren't working.

Shinano's crew can hardly be described as "skeleton". Incomplete? Yes, but then the ship herself was incomplete and being moved to a port where this could be carried out more safely, or so it was believed. Inexperienced? Yes, because the ship was on her first ever voyage.

Wiki puts her full crew at 2,400.

She sailed with a crew of 2,175 plus some 300 Dockyard workers and 40 other civilians.

Lost in her sinking - 1,435. Rescued - 1,080.

Imperial Flattops

www.combinedfleet.com

 

[The Basket]

Not saying that Yamato ain't weak or strong. I not got any money in the game. But the loss of Yamato and Musashi was more due to being dogpiled

You can also include PoW and Repulse in this.

Quite a few ships survived being hit by torpedo. Prinz Eugen survived a torp strike.

Odd fact that the Shinano kill was not given until after the war. USN had no knowledge of Shinano so was unwilling to give the kill.

 

[Acheron]

I trust this page has been mentioned already?

Nihon Kaigun

combinedfleet.com

Specifically this one:

Battleship Comparison

www.combinedfleet.com

Also, there is a youtube channel I like, not being an expert I cannot vouch for its accuracy, let me know if you now that it is not:

https://www.youtube.com/c/Drachinifel/videos

For the matter at hand:

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Drachinifel is very good with his facts for the most part. Some of his opinions ... they can verge on the goofy.

 

[Acheron]

Drachinifel is very good with his facts for the most part. Some of his opinions ... they can verge on the goofy.

Anything coming to your mind? I have an only shallow understanding, so I have no idea what mainstream opinions and what are more unconventional ideas are.