PDA

View Full Version : A little OT: Yamato VS Iowa



Sergio_101
12-09-2006, 11:05 AM
Fantasy slugfest, choose a winner.
Please no flame, just the facts and statistics.

Sergio<form action="http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums" method="POST" name="VOTE">

Sergio_101
12-09-2006, 11:05 AM
Fantasy slugfest, choose a winner.
Please no flame, just the facts and statistics.

Sergio<form action="http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums" method="POST" name="VOTE">

Bewolf
12-09-2006, 11:07 AM
close distance: Yamato (armor, optical range finding, guns)

long distance: Iowa (radar, high muzzle velocity, speed)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

JG53Frankyboy
12-09-2006, 11:09 AM
just before this will run also for 20+ pages

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4401006444/p/1

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and who will win ?
the ship that can set the first lucky hit in the ammo storages of the foe............

Sergio_101
12-09-2006, 11:28 AM
Bismark is not in the same class as the Iowas and Yamatos.
Not relevent in this discussion.

I do agree that the first direct hit
will likely determine the outcome.
But in a fantasy scenario we can't do more
than guess the first hit. Iowa should have
the edge in that catagory because it should
be able to get in a better position, but
luck has it's value. It's never 100% certain.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

mynameisroland
12-09-2006, 11:34 AM
Remember what the longest range hit was ? 26700 yards If I remember correctly by HMS Warspite.

So before it degenerates in to the Iowa pounding the Yamato at 40,000 yards it would need to have around a 1000 rounds per 16 inch gun to achieve a few hits.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Taylortony
12-09-2006, 11:42 AM
HMS Victory, being built of wood and canvas it will be impervious to the radar of the Iowa, so will be able to get in close and lob a few cannon balls off, then dissapear back into the fog............ there has to be fog, there always is.........

jarink
12-09-2006, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
starting on a clear morning...

Starting at 50 NM seperation, paralell course due north. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which one is to the East? They would have a distinct advantage since observers on the other ship would be looking into the morning sun.

Anyway, I chose the Iowa since I think it look better. Not that it matters for a fantasy slugfest, but the Iowa saw more action and was useful for something besides a target. (Did Yamato even fire a shot in anger at anything besides aircraft?)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip) and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg

BSS_CUDA
12-09-2006, 01:09 PM
Yamato fired on Taffy3 during the battle of Leyte Gulf. and By the way Iowa.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Executive Officer
U.S.Navy retired

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/Mopars/CUDA.jpg

BSS214.com (http://BSS214.com)
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

Antoninus
12-09-2006, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taylortony:
HMS Victory, being built of wood and canvas it will be impervious to the radar of the Iowa, so will be able to get in close and lob a few cannon balls off, then dissapear back into the fog............ there has to be fog, there always is......... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would be better to board the Iowa. Most of Vitcory's crew should be much more experienced and better equipped for boarding actions and close quarter fighting than the crew on Iowa.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

goshikisen
12-09-2006, 02:07 PM
It'd have been interesting to have Iowa and Yamato in PF.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/goshikisenbw.jpg

Chuck_Older
12-09-2006, 02:12 PM
I think Iowa would kick Yamato's butt. In fact, almost any State of the Union could

PS

goshikisen-

I picked up all three of the Mifune "Samurai" films a while back on DVD. Criterion Collection. Great quality

goshikisen
12-09-2006, 02:19 PM
Seven Samurai - a brilliant film. I know Criterion released a new edition of the Seven Samurai about a month ago which is even better than their first release.

Kurosawa's Samurai/Feudal Japan films are all quite good. Heck - any of Kurosawa's films are good.

I'll vote for the giant underdog - Yamato.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/goshikisenbw.jpg

fighter_966
12-09-2006, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
just before this will run also for 20+ pages

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4401006444/p/1

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and who will win ?
the ship that can set the first lucky hit in the ammo storages of the foe............ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would have happened without Swordfishes..Bismarck could have beat Prince of Wales too...

fordfan25
12-09-2006, 02:51 PM
could go eathert way in truth, in open water i would rather be on the iowa. at close range or in a area closed in i pick the yamato. iowa has better abilty to direct fire and speed to keep the range and position in her favor.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Chuck_Older
12-09-2006, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by goshikisen:
Seven Samurai - a brilliant film. I know Criterion released a new edition of the Seven Samurai about a month ago which is even better than their first release.

Kurosawa's Samurai/Feudal Japan films are all quite good. Heck - any of Kurosawa's films are good.

I'll vote for the giant underdog - Yamato. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no no, not Seven Samurai, the "Samurai" Trilogy, in which Mifume plays Musashi- the films are:

Musashi Miyamoto
Duel at Ichijoji Temple
Duel at Ganryu Island

They aren't Kurosawa films, they are by Hiroshi Inagaki http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Mifune's fantastic in these films

Tater-SW-
12-09-2006, 03:10 PM
If I had to be aboard one or the other, I'd prefer Iowa, heck, even a South Dakota. IJN damage control was abysmal as well, so include that.

Fire control is far far better on the US BBs. If air power is even a wisp of a threat, there is no comparison of the AAA capability, and US ship, heck, even a CA is probably scarier if for no other reason than the 5/38 DP with radar-fused shells.

Amazing that anyone seriously gives the fight to the Yamato given the scenario.

tater

mynameisroland
12-09-2006, 03:17 PM
If your on the South Dakota you'd better hope that the very shallow 12.1 Inch belt armour can magically keep out 18.1 Inch shells.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Sergio_101
12-09-2006, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
If I had to be aboard one or the other, I'd prefer Iowa, heck, even a South Dakota. IJN damage control was abysmal as well, so include that.

Fire control is far far better on the US BBs. If air power is even a wisp of a threat, there is no comparison of the AAA capability, and US ship, heck, even a CA is probably scarier if for no other reason than the 5/38 DP with radar-fused shells.

Amazing that anyone seriously gives the fight to the Yamato given the scenario.

tater </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damage control was nearly non existant on IJN ships.
RADAR prox fuses on the projectiles was only
one of the many advantages of the Iowa class
over the Yamato.
Iowa had the same weight of fire and better range.
Accuracy should have been at least equal
with optics.
RADAR gives the Iowa a big advantage at long ranges.
Iowa class had the first automated computers
for calculating trajectories.
If it was working properly that's another advantage.

Yamato had to get in a long range hit.
If both got within effective combat range
there is little doubt the Iowa would had the day.

BUT I also doubt either could have finished the other
off without a magazine hit.
Iowa having excellent damage control would
have the edge if both were pulverized.

Oh, I negleted to make a scenario about sea conditions.
We are more or less assuming relitive calm.

In rough seas the Yamato would have beed screwed.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

ElAurens
12-09-2006, 03:41 PM
Another factor in the Iowa's favor is the quality of her armor, not just the quantity. US armor was of the surface hardened type, and was quite expensive by world standards at the time.

And to throw some more water on the Bismarck, um, so to speak, the legend of her "invincibility" is more a story of poor tactical choices made by the British. To wit, the Brits got too bloody close.

Plunging fire would have punched the German ship's ticket in a right hurry.

Be sure.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

mynameisroland
12-09-2006, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Another factor in the Iowa's favor is the quality of her armor, not just the quantity. US armor was of the surface hardened type, and was quite expensive by world standards at the time.

And to throw some more water on the Bismarck, um, so to speak, the legend of her "invincibility" is more a story of poor tactical choices made by the British. To wit, the Brits got too bloody close.

Plunging fire would have punched the German ship's ticket in a right hurry.

Be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

German steel and British steel ranked higher than US face hardened armour. British armour was between 5 - 8% superior for any given thickness.

As for your comments on the Bismarck you are ignoring the facts. The British opened fire at 24,000 yards plus. Given that the visibility around the British Isles and in the Atlantic in December isnt very good this is long range gunnery. You wouldnt be able to see your enemy at 40,000 yards much less hit him.

The Hood needed to close the range because the Hood had weak deck armour. Plunging fire works both ways, why play to the Germans hand? Bismarck owns Hood in pretty much every scenario might as well make a fight of it and close range while reducing your own vulnerable decks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

mynameisroland
12-12-2006, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Thanks Roland, I read those sites.
I guess it's how you interpert the text.
But I came away with the feeling that
the British and American armour was more or less equal
The German stuff, while good was second to both
and the Japanese stuff was suckoid but massive.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"British post-1935 "Cemented Armor" (CA) seems to have been <span class="ev_code_RED">the most resistant of all types</span> when used in battleship thicknesses (10 inches (254 mm) and up)."

No interpretation needed here. The book, that I am missing, says that British cemented armour was superior to US cemented armour of the same thickness by between 5-8 %.

This doesnt sound like much but when you try to match the KGV classes 15 inch main belt with US armour plate it needs to be 15.75 / 16.2 inches - which is quite a difference if you consider its 100s of tons were talking about.

So ignoring German armour and only looking at US and British, British face hardened armour was superior while US Homogenous armour was superior.

One interesting note is that the British used face hardened armour on turret fronts while the US used Homogenous armour- wonder why?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

Ishmael932
12-12-2006, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ishmael932:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
Yamato fired on Taffy3 during the battle of Leyte Gulf. and By the way Iowa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to go with the Iowa as well. Radar-controlled gunnery had proved itself during the Solomon Islands campaign. The combination of radar-directed fire control and rate of fire would have offset any IJN advantage of superior optics and greater shell weight.

Remember Taffy 3 was just destroyers and jeep carriers, yet they fought so furiously against Kurita's Center Force off Samar that Kurita thought he really was facing Halsey's Task Force 58. This is what led to Kurita breaking off the action and retiring from the battle.

Here's a link to a great website dealing with the battle:

http://www.bosamar.com/

I do think it would have been an interesting battle had TF58 been off Samar as they should have been instead of chasing the decoy force up off Cape Engano. That would have brought at least two Iowa-class ships(Iowa and New Jersey) along with the Indiana and South Dakota as well.
That said, it would have been the carrier air groups that probably would have done the bulk of the damage had they been there.

On a side note, I have actually been aboard all four Iowa-class ships in my life. A friend and I shinnied up the mooring lines of Iowa and Wisconsin while my ship was in drydock in Philly in 1977 next to where they were tied up in mothballs. I actually smoked a doob in the captains chair of USS Iowa at the time. The New Jersey and Missouri I went aboard in the early 80's during the Fleet Week celebrations in san Francisco. As I remember, the Missouri was in the first Fleet Week and the Jersey came the following year.

On another side note, an old shipmate of mine was serving aboard USS McMorris(DE-1026) in 1969 when the New Jersey deployed to Vietnam. He witnessed the following incident.

The New Jersey received a fire-support mission to neutralize Tiger Island, an island controlling the approaches to the Red River and Haiphong and bristling with 8-inch shore batteries. This concentration had been shooting at our destroyers off the coast. 97 salvoes after opening fire on the island, New Jersey ceased fire and there was no more island. The USS New Jersey is the only ship in any navy to actually sink an island. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>agreed Taffy 3 gave them a h3ll of a fight. the courage of those destroyer captains and crews showed was awe inspiring. 5 little destroyers engaging those heavies like they did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif and yet they drove them off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif some of my most favorite stories of the war are the battle of Surigao straights, when they bulk of the U.S. force was made up of Pearl Harbor surviving BB's the Japanese must have thought they were looking at a ghost fleet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif and the whole Battle off Savo Island. wholly **** BB's slugging it out at less than 5000 yards http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif talk about pissin your pants close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re Surigao Straits:

A few months ago, my wife & I were at the local Indian Casino for the buffet and met a retired Chief Gunner's Mate who served aboard USS California(BB-44) all through the war. He was at mass on the base during the Pearl Harbor attack, which saved his life, and went on to be the Mount 51 captain on the forward 14-inch gun mount through the war. We talked for about a half hour as I used to live in Vallejo, Ca. where she was built. He was awarded two Bronze Stars for his service, one for the Surigao Straits battle and the other for his role in evacuating his mount during the Lingayen Gulf landings when his mount took a Kamikaze hit. He told me the Surigao Straits Battle was his greatest memory, paying the Japanese back for Pearl. I told him that one of my old shipmates on USS Elmer Montgomery(FF-1082) was a plankowner on USS California(CGN-35). When he found out I was a tin-can sailor, he said he really respected destroyer sailors and the job they did during the war. We shook hands, saluted each other and went our seperate ways.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

As my daddy used to say:
Just remember son, no matter where you are at sea, you're never more than 7 miles from land... Straight Down.
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9459/noscumallowed0032yc.th.jpg (http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=noscumallowed0032yc.jpg)

Blutarski2004
12-12-2006, 06:06 PM
Did some poking around in my reference books and the ever-wonderful Navweaps site.

I vote for IOWA over YAMATO in a one-on-one gun duel.

[1] A 5 to 6 knot speed advantage gives IOWA the option to choose and maintain the engagement range. By keeping engagement range above 30,000 yards, neither ship can penetrate the other's vertical belt armor but both can penetrate the other's horizontal deck armor. This essentially negates YAMATO's armor protection advantage.

[2] IOWA's FC radar not only confers an advantage in poor visibility conditions, but is also superior to optical range-finders for ranging purposes under clear conditions.

[3] IOWA's FC radar provides an real-time reading of the range-rate, the single most important requirement for accurate naval gunnery. Possession of the correct range rate means a good FC solution without the need for any ranging fire. Optically based FC cannot provide this degree of efficiency. Range rate relies upon correct values for both target speed and inclination. Neither can be measured with sufficient precision by optical means and must be obtained and maintained by estimation and ranging fire.

[4] IOWA's main battery has remote power control for both deflection and elevation. This permits her gunfire to be more accurate (in reasonable weather conditions) when the ship is under helm and maneuvering. YAMATO's main battery relies upon an updated "follow the pointer" gun control system which requires continuous manual corrections to be made.

[5] IOWA's FC system includes an electrically-powered gyro-driven "stable-element" which automatically ensure that the guns are only discharged when the ship is in a perfectly vertical state. YAMATO's FC system still relies upon manual cross-levelling.

[6] Based upon wartime experience, IOWA will have a much better damage control capability.


I also don't see a major advantage to YAMATO's greater tonnage. HOOD excepted, it is remarkably difficult to actually sink a large armored capital ship by distant gunfire alone. Defeat and loss is usually preceded by crippling systems damage - loss of motive power, steering, FC, for example - with the actual sinking performed by scuttling or coup-de-gras torpedo fire.


That's my take.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Snow_Wolf_
12-12-2006, 08:08 PM
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c399/Big_Bad_Wolfy/SuperYamatoTorp*****.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/jy_ee.jpg

The three most common expressions (or famous last words) in aviation are: "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh S--t!!!!"

Warship_NWS
12-12-2006, 09:12 PM
Guys, I have seen this debate more times then I care to count, so pardon me for putting in my 2 cents. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

The Iowa would have the advantage in terms of fire control/gun stabalization, redundant fire controls, speed, damage control, and radar. Yamato had radar but the range was very limited and not nearly as accurate and it would have been quite likely she would have never been able to get in range to use it effectively.

It comes down to who hits who first the hardest in naval gunnery.. its that simple. The Iowa in combat test runs using our Fighting Steel Project averaged a rate of 5-10x the number of hits for every hit in return from the Yamato even in perfect weather conditions. On average, it took about 5-10 major calibre hits historicaly to render capital ships combat ineffective or greatly reduced in combat capability. Yamatos ability to fire her guns further out means nothing as she could not even target a ship that far. Also, even if the Iowa shells didnt penetrate entirely through the turret armor of the Yamato the shock effect alone would have good odds of knocking out barrels, turret alignment, concussion to the crew, etc..

However.. as was proven in naval combat on several occassions if you lose your fire controls due to damage the battle is pretty much over. A capital ship has only one reason for existing at all.. to fire its guns accurately and effectively, otherwise its scrap metal or nothing more then an armored cruise liner. All that thick belt and deck armor DID NOT protect the fire control systems and capital ships were known to even have their fire controls shot out by cruiser fire much less capital ship guns! If one ship is hitting the other at a higher rate then the ship that is being hit has a greater chance of losing its fire controls, that is simply the way it was. Sinking is not needed to put a ship out of action and historicaly very few capital ships that were smashed topside ever returned to fight again and the IJN could ill afford to repair the likes of the Yamato due to major damage.

The only real advantage of the Yamato was a 20% higher shell throw weight per minute at max ROF.. but that was in turn countered by the fact that you could only fire at max sustained ROF *IF* you were on target otherwise you were just wasting shells. The ship on target more often (straddling or hits) would be the one with the better fire controls, especially high grade radars, and that ship would be able to fire more shells more often due to not requiring ranging fire as often. Point being, even the weight of shellfire difference is completely countered by the Iowas gunfire accuracy.

Another factor not normaly considered.. the turret elevation rate on the Iowa was twice as fast which can aid in faster loading times when loading at fixed angles at longer ranges, especially if your using a faster ROF due to being on target with better gunnery.

Bottom line.. the fight would favor the Iowa. The only way for the Yamato to win is to have AT LEAST very good visiblity to the Iowa and hit her hard before being crushed in return. The odds were not in her favor on any count however for that to happen unless she got quite lucky with quick early hits in the right spots on the Iowa. There is no doubt the Yamato was a dangerous ship but her big guns and heavy displacement did not give her some mythical powers. A combat ship must be seen as an entire weapon system, not just the parts that impress people the most on paper.

Thanks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Christopher Dean
NWS Online Combat Gaming Store
http://www.nws-online.net

Phil_C
12-12-2006, 09:13 PM
has the wreck of the Yamato been located and photographed? im suprised that more attention hasnt been paid to it like Hood, Bismarck and other ships. I sure would like to see what she looks like now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_______________________
My "ride"--&gt; Alienware Area 51-7500--&gt;
Intel Dual Core Extreme 3.2Ghz,Windows XP_SP2,Dual 512 Gf7900 GTX, 4Gb Ram,160Gb HD,52x32x52xCDR/W, 16xDVDR/W, Sound Blaster Audigy 2Zs, logitech 5.1 surround sound speakers

Nimits
12-12-2006, 10:18 PM
All discussion about armor protection and shell calibre aside, both the Yamato and Iowa had sufficient firepower to cause damage to the other if a shell hit its target. The battleship that put the most shells on target the quickest was going to win. In a straight up slugging match with no surprises or lucky fatal hits, the Iowa's superior fire control would allow her to hit the Yamato first, and keep on hitting her. By the time the Yamato got the range, she would already have suffered significant damage. I would put all my money on the Iowa.

leitmotiv
12-13-2006, 12:00 AM
While I would never dispute the Americans enjoyed a far superior battery control system, and that a YAMATO would be dependent on fine weather for good shooting, one does have to remember the Germans, with a technologically inferior fire control system, shot with remarkable precision at Jutland until the atmospheric conditions of the fleet action were so against them they failed to match the devastating shooting run of IRON DUKE on KONIG, for example, in which the former made full use of her superior fire control system to hit the latter repeatedly in what was definitely the most brilliant shooting of the battle. Certainly WASHINGTON demonstrated the superiority of American fire control systems in the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. I still favor the bruiser, YAMATO, over the greyhound, IOWA. Barring a catastrophic director hit, YAMATO, with her vast bulk, and heavy protection, could absorb a deal more damage than the IOWA---thus, out of sentimentality, I'm placing my money on Sonny Liston, not Ali, heh heh.

Also, with the IOWA class having the 16" 50 cal. calibration problem which affected their shooting prior to 1945, they would have had trouble scoring at long range.

Warship_NWS
12-13-2006, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still favor the bruiser, YAMATO, over the greyhound, IOWA. Barring a catastrophic director hit, YAMATO, with her vast bulk, and heavy protection, could absorb a deal more damage than the IOWA </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All that protection, bulk, size, etc.. means nothing if your fire controls and/or guns are smashed. Being tougher to sink is irrelevant if your ship cant shoot straight. Remember, battleships were little more then elaborate floating artillery batteries. Below the decks were 2 primary portions of the ship.. engineering and ammo. The bulk of the fighting ability was above the deck. As to absorbing more punishment, lets keep in mind that within the first few hits on the Bismarck she was useless as a fighting ship.. all hits after that mostly just moved metal around and killed crew. The first 4-6 major calibre hits ended the Bismarcks life as a battleship (not even getting into the torpedo hit that already meant she was never going home again.) Point being, the Yamato, like the Bismarck, had 3 big turrets and 2 main FCDs.. take those out and you have little more then a big chunk of floating scrap metal.

Thanks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Christopher Dean
NWS Online Combat Gaming Store
http://www.nws-online.net

leitmotiv
12-13-2006, 12:40 AM
We all know contingency reigns in any human activity. If either lost primary control in the first few minutes, it would be unfortunate. Like Napoleon, I'll bet on the bigger battalions, and not on high tech. High tech didn't save Beatty's bacon at Jutland. Remember SOUTH DAKOTA's debacle at Second Guadalcanal---the far superior, vastly higher tech warship self-destructed due to some circuit breakers, and had to accept punishment without being able to respond. Tech is not an instant guarantee of success---as we witness every day on the war fronts.

Warship_NWS
12-13-2006, 12:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, with the IOWA class having the 16" 50 cal. calibration problem which affected their shooting prior to 1945, they would have had trouble scoring at long range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, according to our research.. that report was bogus with no official verification, and even if it was true it would not have been difficult for the gunners to manualy make compensations to adjust for any calibration problems.

The gunnery shown at Truk by New Jersey and Iowa also counters that claim with one CL sunk by Iowa just after 4 salvos at an estimated range of 20-25kyds and both Iowa and New Jersey STRADDLING a DD moving away at 35kyd+ on the first salvo according to various sources.

Thanks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Christopher Dean
NWS Online Combat Gaming Store
http://www.nws-online.net

Warship_NWS
12-13-2006, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
We all know contingency reigns in any human activity. If either lost primary control in the first few minutes, it would be unfortunate. Like Napoleon, I'll bet on the bigger battalions, and not on high tech. High tech didn't save Beatty's bacon at Jutland. Remember SOUTH DAKOTA's debacle at Second Guadalcanal---the far superior, vastly higher tech warship self-destructed due to some circuit breakers, and had to accept punishment without being able to respond. Tech is not an instant guarantee of success---as we witness every day on the war fronts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, I, nor did anyone else, ever state the technology was the win all solution or guarantee of anything. However, you cant argue the fact that radar could see through smoke and poor visibility.. that alone gives you a tremendous advantage over visual capable only gunnery, not even getting into the ranging updates compared to optical rangefinding. Also, there were no real technologicaly major advantages at Jutland for either side so I dont understand your point there. Both sides were stuck with visual only gunnery and the gunnery on both sides was relatively evenly matched considering the gunnery accuracy and fire controls for the day.

The fast US battleships were in many ways overbuilt. They didnt have just a single FCD, they had redundant backups. As to the South Dakota.. the fuzing problem was NOT A FAULT OF THE SHIP. That was a problem with a technician applying incorrect wiring. The South Dakota, although recieving numerous hits, was in no serious jeapordy of being sunk. The damage for the most part did not greatly affect her fighting ability. As to your technology question.. well, tell that to the Kirishima which was pulverised within minutes by radar directed gunnery in the same engagement by Washington that was fought with the South Dakota, the Scharnhorst which was hit almost immediately by radar directed gunnery by the DoY, or the Yamashiro who likely could never even detect the battleships firing at her. Keep in mind, there only very scant few chances for capital ships to engage enemy ships with radar, especially high grade radars, during WW2 but when it was put to good use it proved to be devastating and a serious advantage over visual only gunnery.

Point being, technology applied with proper tactics and training can make a world of difference in combat and history has proven this fact countless times.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Christopher Dean
NWS Online Combat Gaming Store
http://www.nws-online.net

leitmotiv
12-13-2006, 01:57 AM
I am afraid you are rather naieve about pre-WWII fire control. As anybody with a modicrum of understanding knows, there was, in fact, a huge difference in fire control systems between the May 1916 High Sea Fleet and the Grand Fleet. The Germans did not have aloft director control, the elevation of the main battery guns was controlled from within the turrets, and they did not have even an early manual fire control computer such as the Dreyer Tables. When IRON DUKE had a opportunity to shoot with the optimum conditions for her director and the Dreyer Table, straight course, close range, and target not taking radical evasive action, she hit KONIG over and over again (see Campbell's JUTLAND, and for details of the fire control developments in the Royal Navy by 1914, see Sumida's IN DEFENCE OF NAVAL SUPREMACY). Of course we all know that wargaming is often the best way to develop odd ideas about weapons and tactics, as your naval forum often demonstrates!

whiteladder
12-13-2006, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">has the wreck of the Yamato been located and photographed? im suprised that more attention hasnt been paid to it like Hood, Bismarck and other ships. I sure would like to see what she looks like now </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


an actual still.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> </pre>http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/206/yamatowreck03jx2.jpg

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2529/yamatowreck02qo4.gif

more at http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Japonia/Battleships/1941_...Yamato_wreck_01.html (http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Japonia/Battleships/1941_Yamato_class/Wreck/_Yamato_wreck_01.html)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5248/whiteladder4ws6pf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Sergio_101
12-13-2006, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Thanks Roland, I read those sites.
I guess it's how you interpert the text.
But I came away with the feeling that
the British and American armour was more or less equal
The German stuff, while good was second to both
and the Japanese stuff was suckoid but massive.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"British post-1935 "Cemented Armor" (CA) seems to have been <span class="ev_code_RED">the most resistant of all types</span> when used in battleship thicknesses (10 inches (254 mm) and up)."

No interpretation needed here. The book, that I am missing, says that British cemented armour was superior to US cemented armour of the same thickness by between 5-8 %.

This doesnt sound like much but when you try to match the KGV classes 15 inch main belt with US armour plate it needs to be 15.75 / 16.2 inches - which is quite a difference if you consider its 100s of tons were talking about.

So ignoring German armour and only looking at US and British, British face hardened armour was superior while US Homogenous armour was superior.

One interesting note is that the British used face hardened armour on turret fronts while the US used Homogenous armour- wonder why? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roland, your extreme nationalism has always clouded your judgement.
Read with an open mind (you are not capable of that).
British and American armour are indeed nearly
in a tie, German armour is a close second.
IMO none of it can stop a 16" or 18" AP round anyway.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

WOLFMondo
12-13-2006, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

Roland, your extreme nationalism has always clouded your judgement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pot calling the kettle black?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

fighter_966
12-13-2006, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warship_NWS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still favor the bruiser, YAMATO, over the greyhound, IOWA. Barring a catastrophic director hit, YAMATO, with her vast bulk, and heavy protection, could absorb a deal more damage than the IOWA </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All that protection, bulk, size, etc.. means nothing if your fire controls and/or guns are smashed. Being tougher to sink is irrelevant if your ship cant shoot straight. Remember, battleships were little more then elaborate floating artillery batteries. Below the decks were 2 primary portions of the ship.. engineering and ammo. The bulk of the fighting ability was above the deck. As to absorbing more punishment, lets keep in mind that within the first few hits on the Bismarck she was useless as a fighting ship.. all hits after that mostly just moved metal around and killed crew. The first 4-6 major calibre hits ended the Bismarcks life as a battleship (not even getting into the torpedo hit that already meant she was never going home again.) Point being, the Yamato, like the Bismarck, had 3 big turrets and 2 main FCDs.. take those out and you have little more then a big chunk of floating scrap metal.

Thanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh Bismarck Had 4 big turrets 380mm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Warship_NWS
12-13-2006, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Eh Bismarck Had 4 big turrets 380mm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well aint I the big duh, yes I knew that just wrote faster then I was thinking (plus the Scharnhorst class - Bismarcks more or less sister class - had 3 big turrets and she was part of my postings)..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif LOL! That is what I get for writing at 2am. Ironicaly, didnt help any though, 1 big hit knocked out 2 of them at one shot in her final fight! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Christopher Dean
NWS Online Combat Gaming Store
http://www.nws-online.net