Speaking of Yamato...

[Shipwreck]

I suspect I'm in the minority, but I think you have to skew the scenario in Iowa's favor in order for her to have an even chance of coming out on top. To favor Iowa, we can set the battle at extreme range in limited visibility where Iowa's Mk 8 radar allows accurate gunnery that Yamato cannot match, and we can remove any other players (and radar echoes) from the playing field. If we have a confined Guadalcanal-type setting with escorts and islands getting in the way, Yamato could well crush Iowa like a grape.

+1

[Dreadnought]

I suspect I'm in the minority, but I think you have to skew the scenario in Iowa's favor in order for her to have an even chance of coming out on top. To favor Iowa, we can set the battle at extreme range in limited visibility where Iowa's Mk 8 radar allows accurate gunnery that Yamato cannot match, and we can remove any other players (and radar echoes) from the playing field. If we have a confined Guadalcanal-type setting with escorts and islands getting in the way, Yamato could well crush Iowa like a grape.


Cant say I necesessarily agree to that. Iowa could take every measure of beating the Yamato could. Confined waters? One would have to look at just how manuverable the two ships were. How skilled the helmsmen and damage control parties would also factor greatly into the matter outside of gunnery. That would determine alot in confined waters but to state Yamato would crush Iowa like a grape. Sorry disagree. Especially in a one on one engagment. Barring the escorts what would any islands have to do with the scenario?

[Tiornu]

I'm not sure maneuverability is a factor. If there were torpedoes or salvo-chasing involved, maybe.
I don't see how the 48,000-ton Iowa can be said to equal the 64,000-ton Yamato in ruggedness. Yamato has an immune zone against Iowa's shells, while Iowa has none against Yamato's shells. Under what conditions can Iowa penetrate Yamato's turret armor?
Islands can create a confused picture in a night engagement, which helps explain why Washington shelled Savo Island during the Guadalcanal battle.

[Dreadnought]

I'm not sure maneuverability is a factor. If there were torpedoes or salvo-chasing involved, maybe.
I don't see how the 48,000-ton Iowa can be said to equal the 64,000-ton Yamato in ruggedness. Yamato has an immune zone against Iowa's shells, while Iowa has none against Yamato's shells. Under what conditions can Iowa penetrate Yamato's turret armor?
Islands can create a confused picture in a night engagement, which helps explain why Washington shelled Savo Island during the Guadalcanal battle.

Manuverability in close settings will be a major factor as all Naval military colleges including Eta Jima tought never to have capital ships in close settings. Reason being undependable charts as far as depth and coral goes. If one were to run aground she's a sitting duck. It has been ignored before by commanders and some made out ok and others didnt make it at all. Leyte was a good example of this close quarters manuvering on part of the BB's.

Several times Yamato basically ran away from torpedoes because her manuvering would not have been up to par also Washington did the very same thing during the night battles of Savo. A primary target on Yamato would probably put the turret/turret face dead last on the list. Firing from a lethal range would target the bridge (as so many were by USN bombers etc), and amidships where here FCR and secondary FCR radars would have been located as well as a better chance of penetration by plunging fire on the decks. The bow and stern sections were also very poorly armored. That, the Yamato would be doubtfull to stand up to especially with the Iowas better FCR which we know Yamato lacked in and has been noted.

Also Yamato's FCR was not quite up to par holding targets in a gunnery solution while attempting to manuver at speed. A habit of the IJN captains during WWII was more or less putting the wheel "hard over" into very large looping turns. We also need take into mind Iowa could produce 5-7 knots difference in speed and the Iowas handled very well at high speed. In fact the faster the speed the better the manuvering for those class of ships. Also note Yamato was a total gas hog limiting her range and keeping her close to home in the later months of WWII. No time for fueling when under battle conditions and we also know the Japanese were being starved for oil by this point.

Quote:This was Yamato's weakest point compared to its Allied counterships. Yamato was using Mk2 Mod2 gun-control radar with a wavelength of 10cm and power output of 2kW, compared to for example USS Iowa which had 3cm wavelength and 50 kW power output. According to Combinedfleet, Yamato was cabable of shooting accurately to 27.000 yards. Yamato was relying on the information carried from the spotplanes, but was not able to take advantage of the full blind-fire radar fire control, something that the Americans had developed a bit further. Therefore during fast manouvers such as dodging torpedoes, keeping accurate fire up against the enemy targets wasn't easy.

Yamato the Ultimate Battleship

[Tiornu]

Reason being undependable charts as far as depth and coral goes. If one were to run aground she's a sitting duck.

No, the primary reason for avoiding confined waters was the increased danger of short-range encounters and the torpedoes they involve. Maneuverability does not let you avoid an unmarked rock.

Several times Yamato basically ran away from torpedoes because her manuvering would not have been up to par also Washington did the very same thing during the night battles of Savo.

No, Yamato "ran away" from torpedoes once, and it was because of her maneuverability that she avoided being hit.

Firing from a lethal range would target the bridge (as so many were by USN bombers etc), and amidships where here FCR and secondary FCR radars would have been located as well as a better chance of penetration by plunging fire on the decks.

Iowa would be ranging on the forward superstructure because that is what everyone would be ranging on--the highest point on the target. That is of no particular consequence because even a tight shell pattern is 200-300 yards long. It was not possible to "target" specific features on the enemy ship.

The bow and stern sections were also very poorly armored.

Yamato has thicker bow and stern armor than Iowa.

Also Yamato's FCR was not quite up to par holding targets in a gunnery solution while attempting to manuver at speed.

The radar would not have much trouble, but the fire-control computer would. This doesn't matter because Yamato would not be maneuvering much.

A habit of the IJN captains during WWII was more or less putting the wheel "hard over" into very large looping turns.

No. Not during a gun fight. If Iowa were an aircraft making an attack, then yes.

We also need take into mind Iowa could produce 5-7 knots difference in speed and the Iowas handled very well at high speed.

The USN did not consider speed to afford a significant advantage in battle except while running away.

According to Combinedfleet, Yamato was cabable of shooting accurately to 27.000 yards.

Yamato was capable of firing accurately to 40,000m under top spot.

Therefore during fast manouvers such as dodging torpedoes, keeping accurate fire up against the enemy targets wasn't easy.

Agreed.

[Dreadnought]

No, the primary reason for avoiding confined waters was the increased danger of short-range encounters and the torpedoes they involve. Maneuverability does not let you avoid an unmarked rock.

*Agreed with your point, However the USN was operating in unknown waters to them during WWII and Annapolis doctrine stated never to risk capital ships in such a confined enviroment without being able to manuver the ship. Not just because of torpedo attacks but they do contribute as well. Admiral Lee learned this firsthand at Savo and Halsey knew he was breaking doctrine but he had no choice but to commit the ships.

No, Yamato "ran away" from torpedoes once, and it was because of her maneuverability that she avoided being hit.

*Yamato ran away from torpedoes or "combed them" on more then one occassion. This is not meant to be a knock against her actually it was a standard manuver and one that bore good results on both sides of the engagement.


Iowa would be ranging on the forward superstructure because that is what everyone would be ranging on--the highest point on the target. That is of no particular consequence because even a tight shell pattern is 200-300 yards long. It was not possible to "target" specific features on the enemy ship.


*Turret #1's Astigmatic rangefinder (differs from Turret #2 & #3) was meant for precisely this on the Iowa class battleships. Ranging in on smaller finer features such as searchlights etc. Agreed on the shell patter dispursment. Standard practice for aiming points always included the bridge, amidships in the area of the powerplant stacks,FCR, etc.

Yamato has thicker bow and stern armor than Iowa.

*One torpedo hit prior from SS Skate showed the Japanese that the 16.1" @ 20^ armor belt could even be displaced by a single hit. The quality of the armor itself was not of the same face hardened armor the U.S. used on the Iowa's and some even rank it as inferior to the U.S. face hardened armor. The joints which connected them (upper and lower belt) were always in question by the Japanese once she was torpedoed.

The radar would not have much trouble, but the fire-control computer would. This doesn't matter because Yamato would not be maneuvering much.

*Not manuvering? Against a faster opponent in confined waters? You cannot manuver such a ship without speed and you surely wont win sitting still relying on your gunnery to save you against an opponent with much better FCR and slightly smaller guns even in a night battle. For those ships like any other it would more or less run and gun at flank speed or better which is where the Iowa will lose the Yamato. Although Iowa could keep Yamato in her FCR sights much better then the Japanese FCR could hope for.


No. Not during a gun fight. If Iowa were an aircraft making an attack, then yes.

*Gunnery fights were primarily on parallel courses and very rarely perpindicular with open range.

The USN did not consider speed to afford a significant advantage in battle except while running away.

* USN rule of thumb for the Iowa design was for a fast battleship, capable of defeating the Kongo's with no trouble, Keeping up with the Essex class carriers and being able to set the range for engagement. USN doctrine tended to prefer gunnery at longer ranges in order to make the most of plunging fire against a larger albeit slower opponent.. Speed was very much a signifigant factor in their design (to the point of several arguments) and in the way they would be employed during a gunnery duel.

Yamato was capable of firing accurately to 40,000m under top spot.

*Capable and what will be is often two different things. Capable implies all else is perfect and zero defects in the solution among other factors. That is not to state that her guns were not accurate but the possibility still exists of missing just like everybody else.

*I dont have any numbers for the Iowa class during WWII but I do know from witness accounts they were fairly accurate to the horizion and then some landing shells in the wake of a WWII DD being used for taget practice to test the main battery.

Agreed.

Agreed

[Tiornu]

Turret #1's Astigmatic rangefinder (differs from Turret #2 & #3) was meant for precisely this on the Iowa class battleships. Ranging in on smaller finer features such as searchlights etc.

Yes, except we should leave off the "etc." The coincidence rangefinder was to fix on light sources during a night engagement, for which the stereoscopic sets were ill suited. The purpose is not to target specific features on the enemy ship but simply to get a range to the target--that is, the rangefinder was used to find ranges, not to aim at finer features. They weren't trying to shoot out the searchlights with 2700-lb shells. The fact that US battleships replaced these coincidence rangefinders with advanced radar illustrates the point.

One torpedo hit prior from SS Skate showed the Japanese that the 16.1" @ 20^ armor belt could even be displaced by a single hit.

I'm not sure how this follows from the topic of bow and stern armor. We do know how Yamato would fare with torpedo damage, and it would be interesting to know how Iowa would fare.

Not manuvering? Against a faster opponent in confined waters? You cannot manuver such a ship without speed and you surely wont win sitting still relying on your gunnery to save you against an opponent with much better FCR and slightly smaller guns even in a night battle.

As you yourself noted, gunfights were usually conducted on roughly parallel courses. Not a lot of maneuvering. If you look at the track charts for Washington and SoDak off Guadalcanal, you see a lot of straight lines.

USN rule of thumb for the Iowa design was for a fast battleship, capable of defeating the Kongo's with no trouble, Keeping up with the Essex class carriers and being able to set the range for engagement.

I don't recall seeing any material, published or otherwise, indicating a tactical imperative for the high speed. The need was for a high-speed strike group capable of catching Japanese fleet elements that were attempting to avoid an engagement. The carriers were capable of doing this, but only at the risk of encountering Japanese high-speed detachments led by heavy cruisers and Kongos. Iowa was to provide the counter for this eventuality. As previously noted, the USN did not consider speed to be tactically significant in a battle, except for purposes of getting away. Setting the range of an engagement was not mentioned.

I dont have any numbers for the Iowa class during WWII but I do know from witness accounts they were fairly accurate to the horizion

Yes, Iowa too was capable of accurate gunnery at extreme ranges, though the optical equipment would encounter the horizon at a shorter range than Yamato's.

[Nathan45]

The real reason Iowa would stand a good chance at beating Yamato would be training, by 1944 the training standards of the two navies couldnt be more different. Lack of fuel, and in particular a lack of gunfire training for the Yamato would likely have been the decisive factor in a duel between the ships. Yamato apparently had fired a grand total of ~5-6 salvos in her entire life at targets, a total of 54 rounds. In addition, it appears some of her target shoots were at stationary targets.

Sander Kingsepp posted these shoots at the Japanese ships and navy board.

Dec 7, 1941, Suô Nada, Inland Sea: one full salvo (9);
Mar 23, 1942: Inland Sea: same as AA exercise;
Mar 30, 1942, Mitajiri Bight, Inland Sea: same;
April 18, 1943, off Truk, S of Dublon: same;
June 2, 1944, off Tawi-Tawi: two salvoes as offset
battle practice (18), thus 54 shells in all.

I've had these amounts basically confirmed by Brad Fischer. In comparison, USN battleships would fire over 180 full charge AP rounds a year in training (Plus additional HC and calibration training).

There is a excellent article by Brad Fischer and Bill Jurens written in two parts in Warship International on USN Battleship Gunnery. Part 1 is in Volume 42, number 2 pages 167-215 (Confirm that with them before you order of course. :-) Part 2 is in Volume 43, Issue 1. These are probably the best, most in depth look at the subject ever published. Its also clear that effective long range shooting is only possible with extensive training, and that at least at long range, a substantial advantage in training is likely to trump any material advantages in a battleship duel.

That works in reverse as well, wave our magic wand, have a complete Iowa ready for combat in 1942, and I suspect she could be beaten by a Kongo (let alone a Yamato) in night combat at least half the time, despite being far superior in armor and firepower.

That lack of gunnery training for the Yamato's is one of the most puzzling aspects of their careers.

[Tiornu]

Brad has also written a comparison of USN and IJN FC computers, on the Navweaps tech board.

[Dreadnought]

Yes, except we should leave off the "etc." The coincidence rangefinder was to fix on light sources during a night engagement, for which the stereoscopic sets were ill suited. The purpose is not to target specific features on the enemy ship but simply to get a range to the target--that is, the rangefinder was used to find ranges, not to aim at finer features. They weren't trying to shoot out the searchlights with 2700-lb shells. The fact that US battleships replaced these coincidence rangefinders with advanced radar illustrates the point.


I'm not sure how this follows from the topic of bow and stern armor. We do know how Yamato would fare with torpedo damage, and it would be interesting to know how Iowa would fare.


As you yourself noted, gunfights were usually conducted on roughly parallel courses. Not a lot of maneuvering. If you look at the track charts for Washington and SoDak off Guadalcanal, you see a lot of straight lines.


I don't recall seeing any material, published or otherwise, indicating a tactical imperative for the high speed. The need was for a high-speed strike group capable of catching Japanese fleet elements that were attempting to avoid an engagement. The carriers were capable of doing this, but only at the risk of encountering Japanese high-speed detachments led by heavy cruisers and Kongos. Iowa was to provide the counter for this eventuality. As previously noted, the USN did not consider speed to be tactically significant in a battle, except for purposes of getting away. Setting the range of an engagement was not mentioned.


Yes, Iowa too was capable of accurate gunnery at extreme ranges, though the optical equipment would encounter the horizon at a shorter range than Yamato's.

Will certainly come back to this at a later date. Much to due before leaving.

[USSWisconsin]

I would favor the Yamato in a one one one engagement, but realistically -- the Iowa wouldn't seek to engage without an edge, and her speed would permit her to choose. If weather was bad and the Iowa could engage from beyond visual range with her superior radar FC then she would have that edge, But if the Yamato could hit the Iowa on equal terms, her ability to absorb damage would probably decide the engagement. Especially if the Yamato was able to reduce the Iowa's mobitilty with a bow or stern hit. If the Yamato were able to close to < 20,000 yrds; it would be ugly for the Iowa. Fortunately, we never got to see any of the Iowa's heavily damaged in combat, so it is hard to show how much of this they could take. I beleive the fine bows and sterns of the Iowas would have been a weak spot if they were hit there by 18" shells. The massive Yamato's were able to take a lot of damage and still function -- would the Iowa's hold up as well? Also, I beleive the Musashi would have performed a little better than Yamato, due to her improved armor protection (she was built later and had slightly thicker protection).