Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USS Iowa vs. IJNS Yamato??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    talking out in the field today. Hi' what's your name? "My name's Bob Fliber!" Bob, what do you do? "I'm in artillery!" Thank you, Bob. Can we play anything for you? "Anything! Just play it loud! Okay?""


    Classic.:))
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

    Comment


    • #32
      Is Dreadnaughthelper back? I'm trying to recall instances of hits to Italian faceplates. This didn't take place in battle, so it must have been a controlled trial. I have basically no information on Italian firing trials, so I'd love to hear about this incident.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Stitch View Post
        Is the overpressure from a main gun that destructive? I had no idea the blast pressure was so high . . . .
        When I was on the Iowa, I was responsible for the Flag Intel Center on the O-3 level. It had a metal door inside, and an armored hatch outside. When the main guns were firing, we had to close the armored hatch. I forgot to secure the hatch once, and the force from turret two firing blew the metal door off the hinges and into a glass light table used for imagery analysis. As you can imagine, it broke the glass. The senior chief never let me forget that one. But after that, no one forgot to secure that hatch again. :)

        Comment


        • #34
          Yamato and Over pressure

          Because I just found this sight here is my 2 cents on this subject. If the battle between Iowa and Yamato happens during the day under clear visibility I believe Yamato will have a slight advantage simply due to the fact she has a much wider immune zone. Her optics and fire control under these conditions are just fine and do not believe the critics that she could not hit the broadside of a barn from the inside. She is an extremely dangerous opponent and Iowa was simply never designed to withstand 18.1" gunfire.

          At night or in poor visibility the situation changes. Iowa is capable of blind fire and Yamato is not. Here Iowa can fire at ranges beyond visibility and Yamato can not respond. Yamashiro could not see the US battleline and had to engage US cruisers instead. This advantage should not be underestimated and is similar to both Kirishima's situation and Yamashiro's as already mentioned. Iowa's fire-control is fully capable of hitting her under these condition very quickly and can easily reduce her ability to respond so that destroyers could approach and attack to finish her off.

          Concerning overpressure. The 16"/50 produces the greatest overpressure for any US ship built. The construction standards placed into battleship design far exceeds any other ship type because of this. Battleships first had to withstand their own armament and are extremely resistent to blast damage. You can not even compare a WWII 10,000 ton cruiser to a battleship when it comes to construction standards. Much of the outer shell of Iowa and South Dakota even on their bow was made up of 30 lbs HTS steel and STS steel and her framing and support structure far more robust. HTS steel is only slightly below armor grade and of course STS is armor grade. Once you reach the turrets the thickness increases.

          USS San Francisco had 17 lb mild steel for her outer shell. Significantly thinner and even lower in steel quality. Of course her 8-inch battery does not produce the level of overpressure that is even close to the 16"/50. So again the construction standards between a battleship and a large cruiser is comparing apples and oranges.

          The best example really is at Bikini where Nevada had a WWII atomic bomb detonate within a ship length or about 600 feet from her. She survived the blast in remarkably good condition and the overall findings of Bikini was that battleship protection was still considered very well suited for nuclear warfare. The findings concluded that the battleships suffered the least amount of damage than any other ship type exposed and Pennsylvania due to torpedo damage was very close to sinking anyway. Of course these weapons today have grown much more powerful then in 1945. The point I am making is that battleship construction standards due to the overpressure produced by their main armament made them highly resistent to blast weapons. Even on a ship designed in 1914.

          Comment


          • #35
            Because I just found this sight here is my 2 cents on this subject. If the battle between Iowa and Yamato happens during the day under clear visibility I believe Yamato will have a slight advantage simply due to the fact she has a much wider immune zone. Her optics and fire control under these conditions are just fine and do not believe the critics that she could not hit the broadside of a barn from the inside. She is an extremely dangerous opponent and Iowa was simply never designed to withstand 18.1" gunfire.


            Speed? Manuvering? Better Fire Control radar, surface search radar, shot clock timing and gunnery experience from her crew, train rate, elevation rate etc will all play into that scenario. Iowa may not have been built to withstand 18.1" gunfire but the Yamatos themselves were never designed to withstand 16" plunging gunfire. Dangerous beyound doubt. However not undefeatable from a class almost half her weight and faster in day time or night time makes no difference.
            Last edited by Dreadnought; 27 Feb 09,, 18:34.
            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

            Comment


            • #36
              Pennsylvania due to torpedo damage was very close to sinking anyway.

              Out side her torpedo damage Pennsylvania faired very well according the test damage reports once she was reboarded and reinspected.
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #37
                Yamato

                I was not saying Iowa could not defeat Yamato in a daylight battle but it was my opinion she has a slight advantage. Her armored citidel was designed to deal with 18.1" gunfire though at extreme ranges (36,000 + yards) it matters little because most BB caliber shells can penetrate any armor at these ranges. In fact if Iowa can fire beyond the range of visibility she holds the same advantage she does at night.

                That would be Iowa's best strategy taking advantage of her superior radar and firecontrol system. However if her Captain takes her to within the expected immune zone of the 16.1" guns (20,000-30,000 yards) that they believed she was armed with Iowa is sailing into the kill range for Yamato while Yamato enjoys a rather large immune zone.

                I have done a lot of work on Samar and I am still gathering more data and getting it translated. Using the same technique I used for the Kirishima battle I have plotted each ships position down to one minute intervals. I have only used primary documentation but from both the US and Japan. I know for a fact Yamato damaged White Plains at over 30,000 yards +. I don't have my notes with me for exact ranges. I know USS Johnston was hit directly by 3 18.1" shells at a range of 22,000 yards. This was a snap shot in that Johnston came out from behind her own smoke screen appeared for maybe two minutes before she disappeared again into the rain squall. Yamato fired one salvo hitting her with three 18.1" shells and three 6" shells. The shock of impact broke her gyro in half something that should have withstood over 2,000 ft lbs of shock.

                I know it was Yamato that hit Gambier Bay that took out her first engine room causing her to fall back. This too was over 20,000 yards. I also know Yamato should be credited with sinking Hoel with her secondary battery as she passed her to Hoel's port side.

                In fact Haruna was the first to hit Gambier Bay and she also hit Kalinin Bay with her main battery. Kongo severly damaged Heerman, sank Samuel B Roberts and probably contributed to Gambier Bay when she was dead in the water.

                Nagato likely hit Hoel with a single main caliber round and definately rounds from her secondary on Hoels starboard side.

                The cruisers hit Kalinin Bay, Fenshaw Bay, and Gambier Bay.

                The light cruisers/destroyers sank Johnston. Overall the Japanese battleships inflicted the majority of the damage on the US fleet this day something that most people will have a hard time believing. This is why I am still gathering even more reports and primary documentation to make the case ironclad. If you look at most books currently written on Leyte Gulf check out the bibliography and see if they used any Japanese documentation. I have been amazed on how few use any. Most simply re-hash Samuel Elliot Morison's work and while this is good he did make some mistakes and I may have more information than he did.

                Yamato's gunnery was far more accurate than most people realize. One thing I can not explain is after she scored a hit she often switched targets instead of following up on her success. This was not unique to her either many of the Japanese ships after gaining hits simply stopped firing and switched targets. I am hoping as the DARs (detailed action reports) are translated the text will clue me in.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Well, we can look at it a few different ways. A battleship such as Yamato against an escort carrier such as Gambier Bay and White Plaines. Gambier Bay and White Plaines were not only a wooden decked carriers (and extremely light armor wise) but they were about as slow as a mass trasportation bus and couldn't get out of her own way so they wouldnt be that hard of a target to hit nor sink considering what firepower she was facing.

                  As far as Johnston, Jonston stood by and took one hell of a beating for a DD nothing more could be said about her gallantry.


                  A good destroyer story, one you wont forget The USS Edsal. That 1 DD took on an entire Japanese attack force all by herself. She was sunk but she showed how gallant her crew really was and how poor of shot the Japanese actually were. She had no big guns only the skill of the helm.

                  A snippet from the story:

                  Three days earlier, on February 25, Admiral
                  Nagumo’s Carrier Strike Force (carriers Soryu and
                  Akagi) sortied from Staring Bay at Kendari,
                  Celebes, and entered the Indian Ocean with the
                  mission “to cut off any escape of the Allied Forces.”
                  Nagumo’s Support Force consisted of the Third
                  Battleship Division (battleship Hiei and Kirishima)
                  and the Eighth Cruiser Division (heavy cruisers
                  Tone and Chikuma).As fate would have it, destroyer
                  Edsall had the misfortune to meet this formidable
                  force on the afternoon of March 1, 1942

                  The rest of the story of the Edsall http://www.usshouston.org/images/edsall.pdf

                  Her name goes down with many other USN Destoyers but she was unique.
                  Last edited by Dreadnought; 27 Feb 09,, 19:53.
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Edsall

                    Certainly Edsall did a fantastic job of salvo chasing and avoiding as long as possible Japanese gunfire. I have notes on her as well but I am at work so they are not with me. If my memory is correct there was a lot of critisim within the Japanese navy on how many shells were required and she may have been disabled by aircraft which is why she did not escape. Tiornu may be able to help me.

                    I just finished chemotherapy for cancer and I have discovered my short term memory is not as good right now. I have not worked in detail on these subjects for several months.

                    In one on one debates there are too many real life varibles to consider to come up with an accurate estimate of what would really happen. If this was football I would only give Yamato a 3 point advantage meaning it is a very close thing. At night however I would give Iowa a 28 point advantage. In fact I think it is no contest. So one needs to clarify the scenario with far greater detail then the two ships met in the open ocean. Place both ships in restricted waters and it becomes a brawl with who ever sees who first and can hit first.

                    In Edsall's case Japanese gunnery was extremely bad. In the battle near Alaska and I can't spell the true name but it began with a (K) Japanese gunnery was bad. It has been my experiance posting on these discussion boards that the majority of people believe Yamato could not hit anything. This is simply not true.

                    Thanks for the conversation I enjoyed it.

                    Rob

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by lundgrenr View Post
                      Certainly Edsall did a fantastic job of salvo chasing and avoiding as long as possible Japanese gunfire. I have notes on her as well but I am at work so they are not with me. If my memory is correct there was a lot of critisim within the Japanese navy on how many shells were required and she may have been disabled by aircraft which is why she did not escape. Tiornu may be able to help me.

                      I just finished chemotherapy for cancer and I have discovered my short term memory is not as good right now. I have not worked in detail on these subjects for several months.

                      In one on one debates there are too many real life varibles to consider to come up with an accurate estimate of what would really happen. If this was football I would only give Yamato a 3 point advantage meaning it is a very close thing. At night however I would give Iowa a 28 point advantage. In fact I think it is no contest. So one needs to clarify the scenario with far greater detail then the two ships met in the open ocean. Place both ships in restricted waters and it becomes a brawl with who ever sees who first and can hit first.

                      In Edsall's case Japanese gunnery was extremely bad. In the battle near Alaska and I can't spell the true name but it began with a (K) Japanese gunnery was bad. It has been my experiance posting on these discussion boards that the majority of people believe Yamato could not hit anything. This is simply not true.

                      Thanks for the conversation I enjoyed it.

                      Rob
                      Myself, I would not guarantee a victor either Yamato or Iowa as chance prefers the ready. It would be a truelly classic battle with one victor and one venquished no doubt in as much Hood and Bismark played out. I strongly feel that Yamato was quite capable of hitting lots of things and have read quite alot of material on her and Musashi. I would be asking these people where their information comes from so that I may read it as well. Most of the time here in the battleships forum we do try to provide as much information as possible so that others may read and comment upon. I think you will find the WAB much different then most discussion boards and much information to interact with. Sorry I missed meeting you Rob, Welcome to the WAB. I look forward to more discussion and as I can tell you like in depth discussion instead of arguments over the peripherals. And on a side note congrads at beating a killer.:)

                      Dread
                      Last edited by Dreadnought; 27 Feb 09,, 20:31.
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        We have this disscussion with much technical data.......many numbers on armour and FC and possibilities. What remains certain to me though, one cannot deny the amount of damage that Yamato and Musahi too before going under......I can't think of any other ships that took that kind of beating........both in hopeless scenarios. Even Warspite, battered and beaten, didn't take half as much. Nor did Bismark or any of the Iowa's. We at least need to give the Yamato's credit for 'actually' being pulverized into a pulp. They certainly went down colours flying....

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by BMF12 View Post
                          We have this disscussion with much technical data.......many numbers on armour and FC and possibilities. What remains certain to me though, one cannot deny the amount of damage that Yamato and Musahi too before going under......I can't think of any other ships that took that kind of beating........both in hopeless scenarios. Even Warspite, battered and beaten, didn't take half as much. Nor did Bismark or any of the Iowa's. We at least need to give the Yamato's credit for 'actually' being pulverized into a pulp. They certainly went down colours flying....
                          The USN prolonged her life and Musashi's by holing both sides of their hulls, They pretty much counter flooded them for the Japanese. Had they torpedoed only one side of the ships they would have gone down much faster then they had. In the end they met their end the very same way the Japanese started out the war although both IJN ships were in the open sea instead of moored as in Pearl Harbors case. Ironic huh?;)
                          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Musashi`s sinking was also speeded by a large number of near-misses which exploded around the unprotected area.They also cauesd great flooding.From the beginning to end,Musashi suffered more than 10000 or 15000tons(I cannot remeber the exactly number,but it may up to 20000tons,including the damage control`s counterflooding) flooding before she sunk,I don`t think Iowa can do 70% of that,even also in both sides.

                            However,the torpedos which hit the old US battleship were Type 91 Mod 2,they only filled with about 150-170Kg TNA.But the ones which hit Yamato and Musashi,were MK13 which filled with 272Kg Torpex.So we cannot compare Yamato class with the old battleships,it`s not meaningful.

                            And in Surigao,I think the number of shells which hit IJN ships(both cruisers` and battleships`)was less than 20,and the battleships`shells which hit Yamashiro might only two.(I rember Yamashiro was only hit by 3-5 shells.Mogami was only hit by 4 8in shells.).The hit possibility was not very great which directed by MK8 and MK3 radars.

                            Yamato`s GM was higher than 3.6m and Iowa`s was lower than 2.8m or 2.7m.This kind of situation would lead to a worse spread in Iowa than Yamato.Though Iowa was equiped with greater fire control systems,it couldn`t decrease the spread of her main guns much.(It just like you can give a staff to a gimp,but it cannot make him become a healthy man)

                            The data from the anatomy of the ship,the Battleship Yamato says her Type 94 main gun with Type 91 AP shell could penetrate 566mm armor with a range of 20000m.This data was comformed by one of my friends which had seen a copy version of IJN Navy Technical Department`s file.This was a great advantage of Yamato.

                            And thickness of her main belt was 103mm thicker than Iowa`s,it made they were not with same class protection.You may say the quility of ClassA was greater than VH,but a US report shows there`s only 7% different between 13in ClassA and 15in VH(there`s no 16.1in VH`s report,I can only use the 15in one to instead of it).By the way,the thckness of Shinano`s turrent face armor should be 65cm,the US report said it couldn`t be campared with any US armor because its thickness is not comparable with them.

                            Meanwhile,Yamato`s convolution diameter was 690m at 26kts.I think it was far greater than Iowa`s.And her No.22 Mod 4 radar also could be used to direct gun fire,of course,the rader`s performence of Yamato was much worse than MK8.

                            Iowa`s only advantage was night or low visibility battle.But if in a real open sea surface night battle,I think there would be a lot of Long Lances between Yamato and Iowa.
                            Last edited by Thorongil; 01 Jun 09,, 19:27.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Musashi`s sinking was also speeded by a large number of near-misses which exploded around the unprotected area.They also cauesd great flooding.From the beginning to end,Musashi suffered more than 10000 or 15000tons flooding before she sunk,I don`t think Iowa can do 70% of that,even in both sides.

                              *One must take into mind first and foremost that Japanese damage control teqniques were nowhere near on par with the USN. This has been reinforced by IJN sailors to the point where Japan lost warships she should have never lost due to extreme poor damage control and unsustained ships conditions. And a well placed torpedo to open up the bow will allow the sea to pry the ship open for you and collapse or strain the forward bulkheads as well. Ergo, slowing the ship to reduce the sea pressure on the bulkheads themselves or the weight of the ship itself will drive the bow under and do enoumous damage or even sink her. All for the price of a few well placed torpedoes in the bow and circumnavigating all that protective armor in one short stroke.

                              *Yamato and Musashi were also approximately 20-25,000 tons heavier then the Iowa's owing to the 18.1" guns and armor. This is where the stigma comes from of the worlds largest battleship. Yamato and Musashi were only beamier and heavier but not longer (Iowas were 86'-4" longer) in any case. This is where people get confused in words terminology. So by design criteria Yamato should be able to ship more water being 20-25,000 tons heavier. Thus, she must displace her own weight in order to float with a matter of emergency displacement.

                              However,the torpedos which hit the old US battleship were Type 91 Mod 2,they only filled with about 150-170Kg TNA.But the ones which hit Yamato and Musashi,were MK13 which filled with 272Kg Torpex.So we cannot compare Yamato class with the old battleships,it`s not meaningful.

                              This can be argued as technology for torpedoes and armor both play big hands in the same outcomes. Japanese torpedo technology was much better at the time of Pearl Harbor and the BB's sitting at Pearl Harbor were not suited to the newer Japanese torpedoes and none of those BB's had conditions (water tight or battle tight) set at the time. They were moored (sitting ducks), having maintence done and being resupplied and well as shore leave so basically very skeleton crews onboard with exception to the Arizona, Oaklahoma and Utah. Musashi and Yamato were caught in the open sea, fully crewed with battle conditions and watertight conditions already set plus they had escorts to protect them and were waiting for the USN planes that were coming. So in short of the two comparisons the Japanese were much better off then the Americans in almost any case argument that can be made bar none to date.

                              And in Surigao,I think the number of shells which hit IJN ships(both cruisers` and battleships`)was no more than 20,and the battleships`shells which hit might only two.(I rember Yamashiro was only hit by 3-5 shells.Mogami was only hit by 4 8in shells.).The hit possibility was not very great which directed by MK8 and MK3 radars.

                              *One also keeps in mind several factors in the night engagement:

                              1)Intelligence: The US had already known they were going to come through the straits thats why they set up PT boats and destroyers before the straights opened up to allow for radical manuvering all the while the battleline of cruisers and battleships were steaming back and forth waitng to cross the Japanes "T", a manuver more sought in naval engagement then any other to date. And the Japanses ships until they turned to fire presented an extremely narrow target (only the beams of their ships) but once turned was a completely different story and a much larger target to range upon.

                              2) Firing arcs and masking of radars. The BB's had to fire overtop of the cruiser line that was already firing on the Japanese ships. That creates turmoil itself if one considers gunnery arcs. Having the two different radar sets made a big difference in aquiring the target and being masked by either another BB's superstructure and what you are using for reference in the gun fire control radars. I mean were talking a constant barrage of splashes and radar echoes. One would have to know exactly what they were ranging on.
                              This article is somewhere along those lines about the targeting echoes from the radar during the gunfire barrage of both the cruisers and the BB's. One must also keep in mind that once the FCR is damaged you better have either a very skilled helmsmen to bring the second FCR into sight for target aqusition or excellent gun crews and overly great optics. But all this had to transend with minutes. Minutes that more then likely seemed like hours for the man that were there.

                              Performance of US Battleships at Surigao Strait

                              Yamato`s GM was higher than 3.6m and Iowa`s was lower than 2.8m or 2.7m.This kind of situation would lead to a worse spread in Iowa than Yamato.Though Iowa was equiped with greater fire control radar,it couldn`t decrease the spread of her main guns.

                              I'm having problems with understanding Yamato's GM? Once you explain the "GM" then I will reply. Please do explain this GM term.

                              Somehow,the data from the anatomy of the ship,the Battleship Yamato says her Type 94 main gun with Type 91 AP shell could penetrate 566mm armor with a range of 20000m.This data was comformed by one of my friends which had seen a copy version IJN Navy Technical Department`s file.This was a great advantage of Yamato

                              *The 16" 50 caliber Mark 7 rifles were slightly less as credible at the IJN 18.1 inch having almost as much penetrating power with a smaller gun and a lighter projectile. Plunging fire from an open range would have more then likely easily made up that difference in penetrating Yamato/Musashi deck armor and since the Iowas are faster then can dictate that range in open water. (There are many other factors in this to consider including the machinery,FCR,gun crews etc.) So really Yamato/Musashi really doesnt have that great of an advantage overall to begin with if anything IMO the Iowas in firing cycle alone.

                              And thickness of her main belt was 103mm thicker than Iowa`s,they were not in same class.You may say the quility of ClassA was greater than VH,but a US report shows there`s only 7% different between 13in ClassA and 15in VH(there`s no 16.1in VH`s report,I can only use the 15in one to instead of it).By the way,the thckness of Shinano`s turrent face armor should be 65cm,the US report said it couldn`t be campared with any US armor because its thickness is not comparable with them.


                              *I wouldnt either except nor explain Yamato's armor in any such terms however it would not matter unless you are at point blank range firing at direct horizontal trajectory. Plunging fire does not need to penetrate the turret armor nor belt only the deck armor, bridge armor, magazine for smaller AA guns etc,powerplant or any other vital the ship has. And Yamato/Musashi belt was not as strong as they make it out to be and that has been noted in several books paricularly at the seems.

                              Iowa`s only advantage was night or low visibility battle.But if in a real open sea surface night battle,I think there would be a lot of Long Lances between Yamato and Iowa.

                              *Disagree greatly, The Iowas for one were at sea and gunnery practice more then Yamato and Musashi both combined. The USN was under no fuel restrictions as the IJN were and more often then not the two Japanese battlewagons were always regulated to the safety of their moorings. As mentioned before there are numerous other important things to consider in such a battle and it could go either way but there are many simple things you immediately overlook:

                              1) Range and speed, The Iowas in just this simple case have it all over the IJN in other words they have more staying power and can dictate which range to engage at, greater speed also equals faster manuvering.

                              2) Long Lances, Well, IICR Yamato nor Musashi ever carried them for affixed launchers, Perhaps and this is a big "if" maybe their floatplanes were rigged for carrying them they might have them aboard but you certainly are not going to launch float planes while underfire and manuvering at high speed, if anything the IJN floatplane hangars would be a detriment to the order of battle and no doubt go up like a match if any damage occured in the facinity. And in closing anybody that properly knows or has read from the Japanese experts on ship design during the WWII years will tell you all you had to do was throw a lit match and disasters happen due to poor ventilation and ofcoarse the notorious odor that all ships have paint and fuel oil vapors. I smell like them on a regular basis.;)
                              Last edited by Dreadnought; 01 Jun 09,, 20:40.
                              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                *The 16" 50 caliber Mark 7 rifles were slightly less as credible at the IJN 18.1 inch having almost as much penetrating power with a smaller gun and a lighter projectile. Plunging fire from an open range would have more then likely easily made up that difference in penetrating Yamato/Musashi deck armor and since the Iowas are faster then can dictate that range in open water. (There are many other factors in this to consider including the machinery,FCR,gun crews etc.) So really Yamato/Musashi really doesnt have that great of an advantage overall to begin with if anything IMO the Iowas in firing cycle alone.

                                MK7 can only penetrate about 510mm armor at 20000yards(not meters),and at this range,Yamato`s belt would equal to much thicker than 510mm.And with her Type 94s,she could easily penetrate Iowa`s belt.The only problem is Okun`s Decap thoery,but there is no large caliber guns test can proof his conclusion in BBs.

                                If you want to use MK7 to penetrate Yamato`s horizontal armor,the range must farther than 35000yards.Can you find any hit record at this range?The only one damage record may just belonged to Yamato herself which her near-miss shell damaged White Plain.Oh,by the way,I really want to learn something about the battle of Turk,which Iowa fired upon Sendai.

                                *I wouldnt either except nor explain Yamato's armor in any such terms however it would not matter unless you are at point blank range firing at direct horizontal trajectory. Plunging fire does not need to penetrate the turret armor nor belt only the deck armor, bridge armor, magazine for smaller AA guns etc,powerplant or any other vital the ship has. And Yamato/Musashi belt was not as strong as they make it out to be and that has been noted in several books paricularly at the seems.

                                You must remeber one thing.In Shinano`s original design,the belt was decreased to 400mm and deck was decreased to 180mm.Why?It was just because the 410mm and 200mm ones were too thick to against US 16in guns though they were equiped with 2700lbs shells.And I don`t need any book to listen me about VH`s quility,because US after-war reports have show it was exellent.


                                This can be argued as technology for torpedoes and armor both play big hands in the same outcomes. Japanese torpedo technology was much better at the time of Pearl Harbor and the BB's sitting at Pearl Harbor were not suited to the newer Japanese torpedoes and none of those BB's had conditions (water tight or battle tight) set at the time. They were moored (sitting ducks), having maintence done and being resupplied and well as shore leave so basically very skeleton crews onboard with exception to the Arizona, Oaklahoma and Utah. Musashi and Yamato were caught in the open sea, fully crewed with battle conditions and watertight conditions already set plus they had escorts to protect them and were waiting for the USN planes that were coming. So in short of the two comparisons the Japanese were much better off then the Americans in almost any case argument that can be made bar none to date.

                                Moreover,I have got the detailed data of Musashi`s flooding condition when the 6th air raid ended.About 10000tons in each broadsides` unprotected area,7000tons in protected area,7000tons in bow and 1000tons in astern,total weight was up to about 35000tons,all of this data were including the counterflooding waters.And Musashi still held for 5 hours until she sank.Awesome!

                                The reserve buoyancy of Yamato Class was more than 57450tons in trial displacement.

                                Long Lances, Well, IICR Yamato nor Musashi ever carried them for affixed launchers

                                I didn`t say they had.I just meaned the real night battle was the IJN DesRons` job.


                                Range and speed, The Iowas in just this simple case have it all over the IJN in other words they have more staying power and can dictate which range to engage at, greater speed also equals faster manuvering.

                                Speed is useless in this case if it is a 1 vs 1 duel.It is not a battlecruiser against an armored cruiser.Yamato`s immune zone was far greater than Iowa`s.Speed advantage would just work in this two classes BBs in battleline engagment,but there`s no battleline in 1 vs 1 duel.

                                And the range,I cannot get your meaning about this.Why?Because you were saying this while Yamato had greater immune zone and greater gunfire record than Iowa.


                                I'm having problems with understanding Yamato's GM? Once you explain the "GM" then I will reply. Please do explain this GM term.

                                Higher GM means greater transverse stability and greater ability against capsizal.At the first case,do you remeber the differeces in stability performence between Vanguard and New Jersey in a maneuver?Yamato`s stability was certainly greater than Vanguard`s.
                                Last edited by Thorongil; 02 Jun 09,, 13:54.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X