PDA

View Full Version : what if battle ship fights



fordfan25
07-11-2004, 09:35 PM
which do you guys think woulda one in a stright up fight one of the iowa class ships or the yamoto ? i ask just in fun and becouse im a huge battle ship fan and never get to talk about them lol.what would be the advantages and disadvantages of both. and would range from each other figure in to wich would win. and count that both crews were equaly skilled.

fordfan25
07-11-2004, 09:35 PM
which do you guys think woulda one in a stright up fight one of the iowa class ships or the yamoto ? i ask just in fun and becouse im a huge battle ship fan and never get to talk about them lol.what would be the advantages and disadvantages of both. and would range from each other figure in to wich would win. and count that both crews were equaly skilled.

Fliger747
07-11-2004, 09:57 PM
An interesting question, that might have gotten answered if the "Batle of Bull's Run" hadn't occured at Leyte Gulf!

The 16"50 cal weapon mounted on the Iowa's was probably the finest weapon of it's type ever built. With the 2700# heavy armor piercing round, it was capable of penetrating just a well as the Yamato's heavier 18.1" round. The US fire control systems were considerably superior, as was the quality of US armor arangement. The significant speed advantage of the Iowa's would alow them to control the engagement as well.

However in such a duel, luck plays a big factor, as a lucky hit early in an engagement can make all the difference. Witness the swordfish torpedo hit to the rudder of the Bismark!

It was for good reason that the US Navy always promoted "lucky" officers.

fordfan25
07-11-2004, 10:20 PM
lol then i guess id be stuck a privet forever lol

Latico
07-12-2004, 12:50 AM
Don't know how a fight between the Yamato and an Iowa Class would turn out, but I set up a ship to ship fight between the Tripitz with screen and a couple of Russian BB's with their screens in the Gulf of Finland. Had several static ams set up so I could watch the battle. Maaaaan it was awesome. They were throwing everything the had at each other for a good 30 minutes.The Tripitz finally went down after being hit with 4 torps from a Russian sub and all of it's screen ships where sunk by the Russian fleet. The Russian fleet lost about 3 or 4 ships I think.

But I must say that it didn't seem that any of the ships were very accurate with their big gun fire.

McCallaway
07-12-2004, 06:14 AM
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

fordfan25
07-12-2004, 09:21 AM
i wounder how bad *** that montana class BB woulda been if it had been compleated.

Fliger747
07-12-2004, 10:36 AM
The Montana's had several advantages over the Iowa's, 12 rifles instead of nine, somewhat better armor and torpedo protection, bought at the expense of a beam too wide for the Panama Canal and about 4 knots less speed.

The Iowa's remained in comission postwar jut because of their speed, enough to keep pace with the fast cariers!

Sakai9745
07-18-2004, 02:00 PM
Iowa vs. Yamato... hmm. Interesting to say the least. I would dare guess that it would be interesting. Firepower, shell for shell, goes to Yamato, while speed goes to Iowa. Other factors to consider, which would need a little research. Without any additional looking into history, I would dare guess that Iowa might have a slight edge (considering FC radar and speed), but might get into serious trouble if those 18.1" guns of Yamato started hitting.

Al - SF, Calif

"Defense Dept regrets to inform you that your sons are dead cause they were stupid."

theRealAntEater
07-18-2004, 03:10 PM
Why is Iowa's equipment simply "better"?
From what I've heard, japanese optical rangefinding equipment was far superior to US, while Radar was very inferior.
Also one factor plays for Yamato:
The US simply had no idea how good she really was. The USN only found out the class was armed with 46 cm guns after the war was over!
It was assumed that Yamato and Musashi were 16" (40,6 cm) armed ships comparable to the US South Dakota class. Until the massive raids on Kurita's force in October 1944 in the Palawan Passage (where Musashi was sunk) all the USN had about these ships were a few very blurry reconaissance photos from high altitude.
So if Iowa or her sisterships would have engaged these ships based on what they were assumed to be (vastly inferior), they would have made tactical mistakes.
In Battleship ages, each captain had almost a kind of "tactics catalog" in which engagement tactics for each potential enemy vessel were recomended and the optimal engagement range (the range where the enemy's guns cannot damage you, but your guns can damage him) was specified. These catalogs and theories were peacetime work, based on what naval attache's reported on foreign vessels. In those times, no nation published the real armor thickness of their vessels in international references like Jane's or Weyers. The numbers given in these were almost always too low.
But secrecy for the Yamato class was paranoid. There was never any official statement given to naval attaches about the construction of new battleships during the 1930s. In fact, the first foreigner to see Yamato was the german naval Attache in early 1942!
Even among the crew, details were not exactly known. Aside from the Artillery specialists, the crew was told the Yamato had 40 cm guns. Of course sailors do talk, and soon there was a saying among her crew that Yamato had "the biggest 40 cm guns in the fleet". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
True displacement and armor were never given to anybody but officers. I think the Japanese never fully announced the existence of those ships even to the Japanese public. They were build behind literally a veil of secrecy: the whole building yards was covered with an enormous camouflage net, which dried the supply of fisher nets of over a year. For the guns, a special transport ship was build to ship them to the yards. I think there has never been any ship constructed in such secrecy as Yamato and Musashi.
So an Iowa engaging Yamato and Musashi would have been in for a very bad suprise...

[This message was edited by theRealAntEater on Sun July 18 2004 at 02:27 PM.]

Brakovitch
07-18-2004, 04:38 PM
I think a lot would depend on crew training and morale too. One of the most successful British capital ships was the Warspite, an old Battleship that was launched in 1915 I believe.

Fliger747
07-20-2004, 12:19 AM
The biggest problem with optical gun direction is range finding. RADAR as used in the MK 38 system was the best that such systems for large Naval rifles ever got. The radar used could even spot shell splashes to arrive at correction! Optics just aren't up to the task at 25-35,000 yds, not to speak of being over the horizon or obscured by smoke and haze. My experience in the sub tropics and tropics is that visibilities seldom run to the range of the weapons at sea level.

Japanese optics were good at NIGHT, and at shorter ranges as in crusier and destroyer engagements, or similar ranges. By 1944 U.S. RADAR was darn good, in 1942 it was not.

After mid 1944, the US had the luxury of engaging or not. The 7th Fleet Battle wagon's could have intercepted Yamato on it's last sortie, but it was so much less riskier to dispatch it with aircraft.

Never fight "fair".

McCallaway
07-20-2004, 01:55 AM
Iowa was better than Yamato from a stricly technical point of view. But in this kind of fight, there are a lot of other things that count : morale as said above, crew experience, commanders ability, luck...

Anyway, it would have been one hell of a fight !

Eagle_34
07-20-2004, 03:01 AM
What always surprised me is that very few Battleships in WW2 were actually sunk by naval gun fire.

The Bismarck for example got pounded by 14" shells yet she was only sunk after 4 torpedo's from the Dorsetshire struck her.

These ships were near indestructible.

Brakovitch
07-20-2004, 03:17 AM
My dad fought in British Destroyers during WWII and he and his peers always thought the German Battleships were so much better than the British ones. This widely held opinion of the time might have the bad performance of the British Battle Cruisers at the Battle of Jutland as its root. I think the crew spaces in the Bismark and Tirpitz may have been above the waterline and they might have had more watertight spaces but I think the Scharnhost and Gniesenau sank pretty easily at the Battle of the North Cape.

theRealAntEater
07-20-2004, 03:38 AM
Gneisenau never sank: She recieved a hit in her forward magazine in a RAF bombing raid shortly after the Channel dash. Her bows burned out and her artillery was removed for coastal use (her "C" Turret still exists in Norway). It was planned to fit her with six 38 cm guns (same as on Bismarck and Tirpitz) but this was never carried out. The ship was finally scuttled as a blockship when the russians arrived in Gotenhafen. The russians salvaged and scrapped her.
Regarding Bismack, it is pretty much established now that not even Dorsetshire's torpedoes sank her. She was scuttled. While topsides was a slaughterhouse, the stokers did not know that the situation was serious until the order to scuttle came.
And Scharnhorst sank against a huge british force, with her screws still turning over when she sank.

tfu_iain1
07-21-2004, 06:18 AM
well, german vessels were few in number, but benefitted from more modern design

Inadaze
07-21-2004, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brakovitch:
My dad fought in British Destroyers during WWII and he and his peers always thought the German Battleships were so much better than the British ones. This widely held opinion of the time might have the bad performance of the British Battle Cruisers at the Battle of Jutland as its root. I think the crew spaces in the Bismark and Tirpitz may have been above the waterline and they might have had more watertight spaces but I think the Scharnhost and Gniesenau sank pretty easily at the Battle of the North Cape.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw a decent documentary on Jutland.

The Battle of Jutland showed that the RN had some serious Powder Discipline problems.

To promote a faster rate of fire, shells were stockpiled in turrets and corridors for easier loading, also blast doors were left open, as soon as the turrets were hit it caused a chain reaction of explosions leading directly to the magazines going BOOM!

Unfortunately, after the battle, the main RN Commanders were exonerated and promoted in most cases. This led to the investigation of why so many British ships had suffered catastrophic explosions being fudged over and the real lessons not being properly learnt.

I'm not sure if this is a similar reason to the Hood going down so quickly against the Bismarck.

German Ships definately had superior armour to their RN counterparts, but they also employed much stricter and safer ammunition control. German shells were moved to the turrets in brass casings to protect against flash explosions, and in general had a much stronger system of blast control in place.

I got the feeling from the program, that some ships undertook proper ammo handling while others were alot sloppier, it depended on the Commander.

S! Inadaze

Fliger747
07-21-2004, 10:43 AM
Debate still exists as to the loss of HMS Hood. Hood was big, fast, (beautiful) but lacking in adequate horizontal armor. This in the era of long range gunfire and aerial bombs was a perssitant problem for older ships, and frustrating in the design of newer ones.

Armor piercing shells, even 15" ones have very little explosive. Hood blew herself up (just like Arizona), apparently when one of the long range shells came through the thinner deck armor (possibly diagonally through the aft engineering spaces) and touched off the aft magazine.

Admiral Holland was attempting to close the range as quickly as possible to reduce Hood's vunerability to long range shellfire, but in doing so took a risk, as a ship is more likely to be hit when heading directly to an opponent, as gunfire at long range is more accurate in bearing than range, especially if the bearing isn't changing much.

However, better to be lucky (than good) any day.