Matrix Games Forums

Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Iowa class bb vs yamato class

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Iowa class bb vs yamato class Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 2:26:12 AM   
Marc gto

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 9/25/2000
From: Batavia,ohio,usa
Status: offline
its a shame this never happened..but any idea which class is king of the bb's
Post #: 1
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 2:54:51 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc gto

its a shame this never happened..but any idea which class is king of the bb's

Iowa, no doubt. I have run this scenario many times and Iowa almost always comes out on top.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Marc gto)
Post #: 2
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 3:32:11 AM   
tocaff


Posts: 4656
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
Iowa had superior speed by approximately 6 kts, the best radar of the day, excellent armor protection and her rate of fire was faster too. Both the 16" and 18.1" shells hitting your vessels were deadly, though the Iowa's 9 tubes faster fire made the throw weight of a broadside was very similar. It's a good thing that all of the what ifs were left for the gamers to play with.

< Message edited by tocaff -- 12/2/2006 9:33:15 PM >

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 3
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 4:34:47 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8081
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
Another factor was the US had better damage control procedures and equipment. That could enable a US BB to stay in the fight longer than their Japanese opponent.

Bill

(in reply to Marc gto)
Post #: 4
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 4:59:12 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
I think the radar would have made all the difference in the world.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 5
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 5:27:56 AM   
Gregg

 

Posts: 101
Joined: 7/26/2004
Status: offline
Both ships had 9 guns, 6 forward and 3 aft.
Iowa's armor was good, but I do think the armor on both ships were more or less equal.
The big difference was Yamato's greater bulk, that would allow her to absorb more damage.
But, better USN damage control would off set that advantage to a degree.
This would truely be a fight that either side could win.
It would likely come down to who scored the first critical hit.
Gregg

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 6
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 7:52:15 AM   
ckk

 

Posts: 1228
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: Pensacola Beach FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Iowa had superior speed by approximately 6 kts, the best radar of the day, excellent armor protection and her rate of fire was faster too.  Both the 16" and 18.1" shells hitting your vessels were deadly, though the Iowa's had 9 tubes vs. 8 on the Yamato so the throw weight of a broadside was very similar.  It's a good thing that all of the what ifs were left for the gamers to play with.

Not what I have seen. Both had 3 triple turrets

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 7
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 7:58:55 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
9 guns each. I am hoping to have a few major suface battles in my PBEM games. My game with Panzerjager, we have both had a bunch of surface battles between our battle fleets off Java. And it is only March 42 or so. I do not think I have lost a BB yet, but he did savage my CV's for the loss of 3 to his 2. I have sunk roughly 9 of his BB's and damaged a couple of others. He has even gone on the offensive and re-taken Tarawa and a few other islands in the Central Pac area.


(in reply to ckk)
Post #: 8
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 4:44:15 PM   
kilowatts


Posts: 111
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Howell,NJ, USA
Status: offline
The 'Combined Fleet' website has a good write up on this topic at http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

IMO niceguy is right on the money. The gunnery officer on an Iowa class BB would have expected a first salvo hit.

(in reply to Marc gto)
Post #: 9
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 5:37:39 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3423
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

I think the radar would have made all the difference in the world.


That would depend upon the weather conditions and the range at which they fought. Yamato's optics were excellent and could be expected to provide very accurate fire control solutions as long as they could see the target. In poor visibility, Iowa would most definitely have a fire control advantage. But Iowa's radar was also quite sensitive to concussion so a superstructure hit could be expected to have some impact. In fact, Iowa's own guns firing had been known to knock the radar offline.

As far as armor goes, Iowa had the better scheme but Yamato's armor was also quite effective. Damage control would have put Iowa at a distinct advantage over Yamato.

In rough seas, Yamato would hold an advantage due to her broader beam. Iowa was a wet ship forward in all but low sea states. Iowa's speed advantage would allow her to dictate the terms of the battle somewhat and allow her to withdraw at will.

This subject was debated quite extensively (and heatedly) a little over a year ago. All in all, I would not have wanted to be on either ship during this duel. The winner would have been decided by who got the first telling hit(s) I think. Knock out Iowa's fire control and she is now at a disadvantage.

Chez


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 10
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 6:00:43 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12510
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kilowatts
IMO niceguy is right on the money. The gunnery officer on an Iowa class BB would have expected a first salvo hit.

I would agree that I would expect Iowa to get in the first hit, but I think Chez's comments are right on. Weather and range would be a factor. I am assuming that any duel between the two would initiate at long range, thus giving advantage to Iowa, but if the weather was bad who knows.

I am no early war radar expert, but I would not be surprised if bad weather, fog in particular, didn't interfere with radar, all those densely packed water molecules could even render it useless.

Also not mentioned was that at least early in the war Japanese gunners were just better. I suspect this evened out a little by the time Iowa came along but perhaps not. In such a case advantage might swing to Yamato in particular if it were a night time engagment.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to kilowatts)
Post #: 11
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 6:51:29 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
I think if such a battle (one on one which is doubtful) would have occured, both ships would be in a pretty bad shape afterwards. Of course a lucky hit of one of them (like the Bismarck´s against Hood) would bring out a nearly not touched winner and a sunk looser. If the fight would go on longer exchanging salvos then both ships would probably be scrap metal IMO.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 12
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/1/2006 7:08:14 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22525
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: kilowatts
IMO niceguy is right on the money. The gunnery officer on an Iowa class BB would have expected a first salvo hit.

I would agree that I would expect Iowa to get in the first hit, but I think Chez's comments are right on. Weather and range would be a factor. I am assuming that any duel between the two would initiate at long range, thus giving advantage to Iowa, but if the weather was bad who knows.

I am no early war radar expert, but I would not be surprised if bad weather, fog in particular, didn't interfere with radar, all those densely packed water molecules could even render it useless.



No, not in the frequencies they were using - you have to get a LOT higher frequency than the typical metric to 10 cm radar to get that kind of interfenence (i.e. weather radar frequencies.)

Clouds, etc. only provided an advantage for radar equipped ships and aircraft. Radar equipped aircraft used it to bomb through clouds pretty routinely.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 13
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/2/2006 6:35:10 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3423
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Clouds, etc. only provided an advantage for radar equipped ships and aircraft. Radar equipped aircraft used it to bomb through clouds pretty routinely.


Yes and no. Clouds and snow/rain can obscure targets and land masses if heavy enough. Radar bombing is effective because the beam has to penetrate only a few thousand feet of cloud vertically whereas a surface radar has to horizontally penetrate miles of it. There are many a radar equipped aircraft that flew into "granite" clouds.

Generally speaking though radar is largely unaffected by weather and Iowa would have an advantage. Yamato must see her target to fire effectively, Iowa only has to have line of sight for her radar.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 14
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/2/2006 11:00:58 PM   
RAM

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:


That would depend upon the weather conditions and the range at which they fought. Yamato's optics were excellent and could be expected to provide very accurate fire control solutions as long as they could see the target.



No, that's not true. While Yamato's optics were top notch, it's not true that it could provide accurate FCS as long as they could see the target, compared with the Iowa. That has two reasons:

a) at extreme ranges you won't see the whole ship, you will see only the upper works. That means you can't see the surface of the water, and that means that you won't be spotting where your shots are falling. You will see only the upper side of the splash, but you can't see where the shots are falling. Battleship FCS depended upon seeing the target, but it also depended on seeing where the shots you were firing fell, so you could do firing adjustement to compensate for any error in the firing solution. If you can't see, precisely, where does the shot fall, you can't correct your firing solution. In the end you will see your target and you will be able to plot a firing solution for it. But you won't be able to do any firing solution correction, and that its a BIG disadvantage.

Iowa's centimetric radar allowed for a precise, and accurate, spotting of shell splashes at long ranges. You don't need the radar wave to hit the actual spot where the shot hits the water, you only need a radar return of the splash itself, so the upper side of the splash you can "see" with radar at long ranges (earth curvature also affects radar) is more than enough for the radar to measure the exact position of said splash.

I recall reading somewhere that at long ranges Iowa's radar offered a 400% improvement of FC solutions over optic rangefingers. The longer the range, the larger the advantage radar offers over optics.



b) the other reason is that, simply said, rangefinders are a single component of the whole mechanics of naval gun fire control. The single most important component isn't rangefinder, it's the fire plotters. You can have the most precise and accurate rangefinder of the world; if you don't have a good plotter to put the range (just ONE of the four variables which matter in a FCS being those Bearing, Heading, Speed and Range) in, you won't still hit anything.

US gun fire plotters were way advanced over the japanese ones. In 1945 the North Carolina proved in a series of tests that she was able to keep a constant and accurate long range fire on a target while doing the wildest evasion moves possible. Previously the firing ship should keep a straight course if it wanted to fire accurately, any change of heading or speed of the firing ship meant the fire solution had to be completely recalculated. The ultra-advanced US plotters of the later stages of the war allowed for this handicap to be forgotten.


So add a) and b). Perfect weather engagement. Both ships establish contact at ,say, 25km. Iowa switches on radar, gets a perfectly accurate FCS from the start thanks to the almost perfect range finder ,heading and speed measurer the radar was, and then it's able to correct the shooting without any problem on a straight-line sailing Yamato, while using the superior speed to keep the range the longest she wants, while doing continuous heading changes to spoil Yamato's fire solution..

Yamato, on her part, turns the optical rangefinder towards the target. The operator gets an approximate measure of the distance from its target, but he can't measure how good or how bad his fire solution is because he can't see WHERE do his shells fall. He is firing half-blind, and to add to that, Iowa is constantly changing course so he has to guess-fire all the time, at a target he can't barely see (he will only see the upper works of the superstructure at those long ranges), and that's maneouvering all the time to boot. And all the time he's in a ship sailing in a straight line (so it can fire the more accurately it can).


There's no possible comparison here: Iowa sends Yamato to hell. Not just because radar, but also because an awesome plotting ability the Yamato can't dream of matching. Weather won't matter a single bit. Perfect weather, Iowa wins. Bad weather, Iowa wins too (Yamato can't see his enemy, Iowa has a clear sight of him).

Only chance for Yamato against an Iowa would be by night in constricted waters, using land masking to surprise the american ship at short range where plotting and radar advantages are the least compared with her own optics. In any other scenario, the Yamato is toast. Plain and simple.

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 15
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/3/2006 2:04:18 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 2968
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline
Bismark would have beat them both!  Together...in heavy seas...and with only her secondary armament. 

Where is Herman when you need him?!!!?  Wasn't he the Bismark advocate?

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to RAM)
Post #: 16
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/3/2006 2:23:56 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8081
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
Good analysis RAM. The only time the Yamato fired her guns in anger was at the Battle Off Samar. She had the disadvantage of firing armor piercing shells at unarmored targets, so they tended to sail right through. However, I don't believe the Yamato's shooting was all that accurate in that fight. I haven't read up on the battle lately, but I seem to recall that only a few 18" shells hit anything.

Bill

(in reply to RAM)
Post #: 17
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/3/2006 5:27:09 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3423
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
I do not dispute that Iowa's FC system is superior to Yamato's but I think you are missing the point. You are basing your assumptions on two ships in an open sea, operating independently, firing at each other without any of the other interfering elements and factors. That scenario would never happen. These ships would have had CAs, CLs and DDs in company that would have complicated any battle, not to mention the probably of allied air power being on scene.

You're also assuming that the radar works infallibly, which it does not. Radar systems of the time were extremely sensitive to shock and vibration. There are many noted circumstances of US FC radars being knocked offline by the concussion of their owns guns. They were also subject to misinterpretation. USS Blue's failure to detect the Japanese fleet at a range of less than 10,000 yards led to our defeat at Savo Island. Not only must radar detect the enemy, the operator must also realize that it is the enemy. Having a fair amount of experience operating search radar systems, I can tell you even today they are not perfect, far from it.

It is true that shell splashes can be observed on certain radars... under optimum conditions. One of the early issues with Iowa's FC system was that it wasn't gyro stabilized. That meant if the ship rolled, the radar no longer on the target but pointed into the sea or into the air. The other issue is that if more than one ship is firing at the target, there is no way to distinguish whose shell is whose which negates the ability to use them for spotting. Using shell splashes for spotting was one of those WWII ideas that works great on the gun range, not so well in the heat of battle.

AFAIK, there were no over-the-horizon surface naval battles during WWII. In fact, the longest hit of the war was by Scharnhorst on Glorious (IIRC) at a range susbstantially less than 30,000 yards. So it can be reasonably assumed that a battle between these two goliaths would take place under 30,000 yards at which point the Yamato's optical FC system should be effective. But again, that depends on weather. If visibility is poor, Yamato is at a major disadvantage. If visibility is good, Yamato is still at a disadvantage however she should be able to give a good account of herself.

Yamato also had her own radar FC suite which is less capable than Iowa's but adequate for the job. It is not as automated as is Iowa's nor can it provide automatic train information, something that Iowa's Mk-8 system could do after being upgraded in January 1945. Prior to that Iowa also had to manually pass train information to the guns. The Japanese were also still using A-scan scopes, Iowa's Mk-8 was using PPI displays.

The bottom line is that during late 1944 and 1945, the Japanese were not just at a techological disadvantage but also at a training one. They did not have the fuel to conduct fleet or gunnery drills so could be expected to be far less efficient in battle than the Americans. If the battle is fought in 1943, things are much more even.

But as I said before, I would not want to have a front row seat on either of these ships during a battle. I don't think either one would come away unscathed. Should the Iowa win this battle.... on paper, absolutlely. Would she have won? Who knows... Kind of like saying which football team, with one hundred percent certainty, is going to win any given match.

No wish to get into any debate over this as it cannot be proven either way. Too many variables including luck for one to tell.

Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 12/3/2006 5:34:05 AM >


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to RAM)
Post #: 18
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/3/2006 7:34:25 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Isn't this the Iowa vs Yamato debate round fifteen?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 19
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/3/2006 6:34:23 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3423
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
Yup. But I couldn't resist. There must be a support group around here to help me with my problem.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 20
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/3/2006 6:37:34 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
You might try the Olympic Club...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 21
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/3/2006 7:36:46 PM   
RAM

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I do not dispute that Iowa's FC system is superior to Yamato's but I think you are missing the point. You are basing your assumptions on two ships in an open sea, operating independently, firing at each other without any of the other interfering elements and factors. That scenario would never happen. These ships would have had CAs, CLs and DDs in company that would have complicated any battle, not to mention the probably of allied air power being on scene.



well the title of the discussion is "Iowa class BB vs Yamato Class". In an one-on one, Iowa wins the battle (real life is different, I'm not saying Iowa will ALWAYS win, I just say that Iowa winning is the most likely outcome of such a battle).

With CAs ,Cls and DDs in company the quality balance goes still to the US ships. Baltimore was an excellent CA while the japanese ones were quite troublesome (serious structural weaknesess), the japanese CLs were nothing but oversized DDs while the US CLs were excellent, etc. If allied air power is in scene, there simply will be no battle (as it happened IRL)

quote:

You're also assuming that the radar works infallibly, which it does not. Radar systems of the time were extremely sensitive to shock and vibration.


Those would be early sets. Latewar centimetric radars weren't that sensitive to concussion as the early models. The old BB line at Surigao kept an accurate and continuous fire over the japanese incoming ships and there was not a single radar casualty in the whole battle. Is a limited example, but it is an example.


quote:

There are many noted circumstances of US FC radars being knocked offline by the concussion of their owns guns.


I know they happened. From memory I know of three cases of US radars going offline, but all happened prior to mid 1943, and none of them happened aboard a battleship.

Is that "Many noted circumstances"?. I would like a list ,if you don't mind putting it here, of US/British centimetric radars going offline because concussion of their own guns, and in special, of those aboard of battleships.

quote:

They were also subject to misinterpretation. USS Blue's failure to detect the Japanese fleet at a range of less than 10,000 yards led to our defeat at Savo Island.


I should've put it more clear but I thought it was still clear enough. I'm speaking about centimetric wavelenght fire control radars here, not the early metric or decimetric radars usual in 1942 which suffered much more with ground and sea clutter. Had Savo Battle happened in 1944, the incoming japanese ships would've been clearly identified as such right from the start. Centimetric radar had an amazing resolution (for the era), to the point that it was used as ground-mapping and navigation radars aboard allied bombers. And they weren't easily cluttered by rough seas or nearby land.

quote:

Not only must radar detect the enemy, the operator must also realize that it is the enemy.


By november 1942 (Tassafaronga's battle) there were still few capable radar operators in the US navy, as the sets were still something new. By mid-1943 (Iowas in-service date), radar operators were, without exception, well trained for their duty.

quote:

Having a fair amount of experience operating search radar systems, I can tell you even today they are not perfect, far from it.


Much less they were in WW2 in absolute terms. But in a modern battle field you must count with EW interferences, something the japanese never used.

quote:

It is true that shell splashes can be observed on certain radars... under optimum conditions.


Centimetric radar offered almost proof-fool splash spotting capabilities except in the rough seas. Early decimetric radar was much less capable in this regard. But Iowa's FC radars were always of the centimetric wavelenght.

quote:

One of the early issues with Iowa's FC system was that it wasn't gyro stabilized. That meant if the ship rolled, the radar no longer on the target but pointed into the sea or into the air. The other issue is that if more than one ship is firing at the target, there is no way to distinguish whose shell is whose which negates the ability to use them for spotting.


Multiple firing ships at the same target are only a nuisance if their shells are of similar calibers. With different calibers the radar can perfectly discriminate between bigger and smaller shell splashes, it's not an issue. And if more than one ship is firing with same caliber weapons to the same target, tha means exactly the same problem wether you're firing under radar FC, or if you do with exclusive optic means.


About the Iowa¡s FC system not gyro stabilized, I agan must ask for sources...never heard Iowa's radar had this kind of handicap...


quote:

Using shell splashes for spotting was one of those WWII ideas that works great on the gun range, not so well in the heat of battle.


Good-working or not, it was the ONLY way of properly set a fire solution correction in battle ,and was the standard way of targetting for battleships.


quote:

AFAIK, there were no over-the-horizon surface naval battles during WWII.


Thats just because the only BB battles which happened in WW2 were limited in scope. BBs were the only ships able to hit targets that far from the firing ship, and so, the only chance for such a combat will be if a battleship is present.

Given that all battleship battles of WW2 happened either prior to 1943 (and thus, before the confirmation of air naval power as the main naval force projection too, and before working blind-fire centimetric radars were in operation), or at night at restricted waters (Surigao), there was no real BB-to-BB battle we can talk about. But it was well established that, after centimetric FC radars such as the US Mk.13 were introduced that the range of the engagements in open sea, had they happened, would've been over 20.000 yards without exception.

That there was only one BB vs BB battle after 1942 (and that one happening at the narrow surigao straits) was the only reason why there never was a BB vs BB over-the-horizon battle ever. And that happened because air power.


quote:

In fact, the longest hit of the war was by Scharnhorst on Glorious (IIRC) at a range susbstantially less than 30,000 yards. So it can be reasonably assumed that a battle between these two goliaths would take place under 30,000 yards at which point the Yamato's optical FC system should be effective. But again, that depends on weather. If visibility is poor, Yamato is at a major disadvantage. If visibility is good, Yamato is still at a disadvantage however she should be able to give a good account of herself.



For the record, the longest range hit of history is a tie between Scharnhorst on Glorious and Warspite on Giulio Cesare. Both events happened at ranges between 26.000 and 26.500 yards. Both hits were achieved in the first volley.

The hint about that after the introduction of centimetric radars those ranges would turn to be usual is what I said before. Radar FC offered a 400% improvement of changes of hitting the enemy over the optic FC at the longest ranges. If with optic fire control hits at 26000 yards were possible, it's clear that with radar, hits at 30.000 yards or above would be well within the capabilities of battleships. And certainly the Iowa was perfectly capable of both fighting effectively at those ranges, and keeping the distance for as much time as she wanted to.


quote:

Yamato also had her own radar FC suite which is less capable than Iowa's but adequate for the job. It is not as automated as is Iowa's nor can it provide automatic train information, something that Iowa's Mk-8 system could do after being upgraded in January 1945. Prior to that Iowa also had to manually pass train information to the guns. The Japanese were also still using A-scan scopes, Iowa's Mk-8 was using PPI displays.


not only that, Yamato's radar was of decimetric wavelenght. It was used as search radar with limited firing assistance (it couldn't adequately discriminate shell splashes, so it couldn't be used for blind fire). Also, it was less powerful than the Iowa's FC radar, so the longer the range of the engagement, the lesser the accuracy of said set's readings.

quote:

The bottom line is that during late 1944 and 1945, the Japanese were not just at a techological disadvantage but also at a training one. They did not have the fuel to conduct fleet or gunnery drills so could be expected to be far less efficient in battle than the Americans. If the battle is fought in 1943, things are much more even.


Well, Iowa entered service mid-1943. At that stage Yamato has no radar whatsoever and the Iowa already has its Mk.13 set in place...for me the conclussion is obvious.

quote:

But as I said before, I would not want to have a front row seat on either of these ships during a battle. I don't think either one would come away unscathed. Should the Iowa win this battle.... on paper, absolutlely. Would she have won? Who knows... Kind of like saying which football team, with one hundred percent certainty, is going to win any given match.


I fully agree with this. You can never know for certain what will happen in real combat. But as you said, on paper, Iowa has got such advantages over Yamato that it's pretty plain to see that IN MOST (not all) real life engagements, the winning ship should be the american one.

That's, at least, my opinion :).

< Message edited by RAM -- 12/3/2006 7:44:11 PM >


_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 22
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/3/2006 7:39:01 PM   
RAM

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Good analysis RAM. The only time the Yamato fired her guns in anger was at the Battle Off Samar. She had the disadvantage of firing armor piercing shells at unarmored targets, so they tended to sail right through. However, I don't believe the Yamato's shooting was all that accurate in that fight. I haven't read up on the battle lately, but I seem to recall that only a few 18" shells hit anything.

Bill



I've never seen anything that points at a single hit by those guns on enemy ships, ever. The only surface action they saw was during Leyte Gulf battles, and as I said, I'm still to see anything that proofs that 18.1'' shells hit anything at that battle.

If someone has documented proof that says otherwise I'd be very interested in seeing it :).

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 23
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/4/2006 1:50:17 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8081
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Good analysis RAM. The only time the Yamato fired her guns in anger was at the Battle Off Samar. She had the disadvantage of firing armor piercing shells at unarmored targets, so they tended to sail right through. However, I don't believe the Yamato's shooting was all that accurate in that fight. I haven't read up on the battle lately, but I seem to recall that only a few 18" shells hit anything.

Bill


quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM
I've never seen anything that points at a single hit by those guns on enemy ships, ever. The only surface action they saw was during Leyte Gulf battles, and as I said, I'm still to see anything that proofs that 18.1'' shells hit anything at that battle.

If someone has documented proof that says otherwise I'd be very interested in seeing it :).


The Battle Off Samar is what the engagement where the Japanese surface force attacked Taffy 3 during Leyte. The Yamato was chasing a much slower task force than a surface fleet built around an Iowa would have been and Taffy 3's escorts were much lighter armed than any BB surface task force, yet Kurita had trouble scoring hits with his 18 inch guns. The carriers were hit and one was sunk by gun fire. I don't know who hit what and couldn't find anything in a quick seach of the web.

This would make an even better argument for the Iowa mopping the floor in a battle with the Yamato. If the Yamato struggled to hit anything at Samar, where the deck was stacked in the Japanese's favor, then it would not have fared well against a well equipped US surface force.

If Halsey had left his fast battleships behind to guard the San Bernadino Strait, as everyone else thought he did, then the Yamato may have had a chance to engage not one Iowa, but all the Iowas, as well as the other fast battleships. It not only would have prevented the disaster off Samar from happening, but it would have settled this issue forever.

Bill

(in reply to RAM)
Post #: 24
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/4/2006 2:07:39 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3423
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

You might try the Olympic Club...


That might work.... except I'd probably fall into one of those huge, man-eating urinals!

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 25
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/4/2006 6:34:36 PM   
GTGSAILOR

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 12/4/2005
Status: offline
I did a midshipman cruise on the Iowa in the 50's. The accuracy of the Iowa's 16" guns is hard to beleive. We did a firing exercise at a target sled. The sled was over 20,000 yards. The Iowa fired one salvo of 16" blind loaded (solid shot) at the sled. Exercise over, no more sled. This was without explosive rounds, direct hit.

The analog computer on the Iowa was extremely accurate and much more advanced than anything the Japanese had. The radar was better than anything the Japanese had but the computer capability would have given the Iowa an significant edge.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 26
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/5/2006 12:43:35 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos


Posts: 1358
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
I think that in the 50's Japanese also had a better radar and computers than Iowa in 1944...

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to GTGSAILOR)
Post #: 27
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/5/2006 3:38:12 AM   
GTGSAILOR

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 12/4/2005
Status: offline
The fire control computer for the main battery in the late 50's was the same mechanical analog computer on the ship when she was commissioned. I think the radars might have been improved by that time but I know the comuter was the same.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 28
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/5/2006 3:43:34 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22525
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

I think that in the 50's Japanese also had a better radar and computers than Iowa in 1944...


Not so sure about that - they Japanese didn't start really developing their electronics industry until the early 1960s, iirc. Of course, they probably did receive radar from their NEW allies - the Americans...

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 29
RE: Iowa class bb vs yamato class - 12/6/2006 1:47:55 AM   
Marc gto

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 9/25/2000
From: Batavia,ohio,usa
Status: offline
wow what great replies!!!i learned alot from you all thanks..so i guess its determined who the kings are!!

(in reply to Marc gto)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Iowa class bb vs yamato class Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.168