Just curious what others think about a WWII matchup between a Yamato class battleship and one of the Iowa class? Things like 16" vs. 18" guns; armor protection; gunnery skills; radar effectiveness, etc.
Who do you think would win?
Bob
the Yamato was heavily armed and armoured so yeah the Yamato would have blasted the Iowa class Battleships out of the water. It would make the sinking of the hood look like someones idea of a prank with a cherry bomb and a toilet.
Late in the war, would bet on the Iowa. Better trained crew, better radar, sights, etc.
John
helicopters donât fly, they beat the air into submission
I just could not pass this up.You need to read the specs on both ships,the 18" were great but the 16" on the Iowa had longer range and better munistions then the Yamoto class.Even though the Yamoto was a more heavily armed ship,the Iowaâs were faster and with radar gun directors they could hit there target on the first salvo.In a toe to toe sluge fist the Yamoto but at long range and speed the Iowas.Digger
Be kind of neat to load all the data into some kind of simulation game
& have at it âŠIn a one on one scenario,I think the outcome would be
one badly battered Yamato & a sunken Iowa.However, thats
pretty far fetched to think of an Iowa all by its lonesome self .
U.S. support elements would certainly sway the outcome towards
the Iowa winning or at least surviving to fight another dayâŠ
Roowalker
I have a book that asks this question (Iâll have to dig it out tomorrow). And the conclusion is hands down the Iowa class. The Yamato is basicly a glass house. Big guns, and little else. In fact the Hood could have probably taken her. Case in point, Shanino went down after one Torpedo broadside (6 torpâs) from a US Sub.
Respectfully disagree on this view . Granted underwater protection was
not up to US standards,[remember naval air delivered torpedoes took
both Yamato &Musashi] but armor protection re. naval gunfire was
top notch. Also US armor plate was not as effective in shell resistance
as it ought to be re. thickness in comparison to other nations.
This has come up before in a Bismarck vs. Iowa discussion.
Roowalker
I Think you guyâs underestamate the Yamato. do you remember how much it took to sink her? Shinnano was different in that is wasnât quite finished yet and had slightly different amour being an aircraft carrier. No i donât think the Hood would have stood a chance as 1 plunging shot form an 18" would have ended that.
we have to remember that Japanese gunners were excellent, Remember Savo Island. So I think that Yamato would of given Iowa a run for her money but Iowa would have won it the end though, It was more manouverabe and the damage control on american Navy vessels was always excellent, + it was an overall good design.
There thats said now:)
Pick up and read the book: âVictory at Sea, WW2 in the pacificâ by James F Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi. Specificly pages 53, 88, 89, 90, 91, 96, 97, 101, 100, 104, 105, 111, 112, 145, 146, 147, 148, 168, 175, 176, 181, 363, 444, 450, 531, 547, 548, 553, 561, 585.
Iâve read it (I have a copy). Pick one up. Give a read (itâs only 611 pages), and then come back and letâs disscuss this topic again
IowaâŠ
I think the outcome of a battle between an Iowa class battleship and the Yamato would probably depend on the time of day the battle takes place at. If the battle were to take place at night the Yamato would win considering the Japanese are better trained to fight at night. The Iowa class ships had better technology but it was still new and unreliable. If the battle took place during the daytime I believe an Iowa class battleship would probably win but it would be very close.
Iowa!!!
Despite the fact that the Japanese were brilliant and disciplined, Yamato was just huge, practically a floating piece of plastic and slower than Iowa. Iowa was faster with greater range.
Besides, we Americans were just plain madâŠ!
Unfortunately, such questions never include the factors of the engagement?
What range?
What weather?
Is there room for manover? (ie can one side pick its range at will)
For example, if you are dealing with a convergence where neither side can detect each other until they are a couple of miles away, the battle would be one of secondary armament.
Yamato wouldnât have bothered with its guns - it would have rammed Iowa!
Donât forget that the Yamato was later raised and turned into a starship prior to the destruction of EarthâŠ
⊠oh wait, this isnât the Sci-fi forum.
Sorry⊠[;)]
Regards,
Given that all weather and water conditions were equal, I would have to say the Iowa would win, but the cost would be high. Toward the end of the war, Japan was scraping the bottom of the barrel with their skilled personnel. If the Iowa had an experienced commander and crew and could coordinate her attacks using her superior radar and speed, she would win. BUT, thereâs another factor: Chance. If the Yamato were to get in a couple of vital hits with her big guns, the Iowa would be in serious if not fatal trouble.
WrongâŠwrongâŠwrong and wrongâŠIowaâŠregardless of the tactical conditions.
Iowaâs 16" 50 cal. did not have superior range to the Yamatoâs 18"/45 cal. In fact, Iowaâs range is listed as 42,345 yards, while Yamato is listed as 45,960 yards. Yamatoâs muzzle velocity was 2559 ft./sec. compared to Iowaâs 2500ft./sec. Weight of projectile is obviously different too, 3219lbs. for Yamato vs. 2700lb. for Iowa.
With regards armor, Yamato exceeds armor protection versus Iowa in all cases, deck, belt, turret faces, conning tower and bulkheads. However, Japanese armor steel is considered inferior to US steel, so, even with the additional armor, itâs a wash.
Iowaâs combination of an inclined belt, and a highly effective STS-steel shell plate outboard of the belt (which has just enough resistance to strip the AP cap off of an incoming shell) give her a slight edge in my opinion.
So where are the differences?
US damage control is vastly superior to Japanese damage control, the Iowas are considerably faster, more maneuverable, and possess considerably better gunnery radar. Optically, the Japanese had superior optical gunnery after 1943âŠbutâŠafter 1943, optical gunnery didnât matter nearly as much as having good gunnery radarâŠlook what happened to Kirishima against USS Washington during the night battle at Savo. Japanâs reputation for night battles relied heavily on close quarter combat, combined with superior torpedoes. By 1943, that ceases to be a dominant factor.
Yamato carried Mk 2, Mod 2 radar, which, in essence, was not a pure fire control radar.
This radar set was capable of search, but not range determination, due to âthe lack of display units and a plotter, and a broader radiated beam.â At best, these sets were capable of radar-assisted gunnery (in conjunction with the shipsâ other optical systems), but were in no way capable of true blind-fire control.
The Iowa carries MK 13, 3cm bandwidth blind fire radar, capable of range determination. This was proven by the US cruisers at the battle of Kula Gulf, when Cleveland, Columbia, Montpelier and Denver, sank the IJN DDs Minegumo and Murasame without ever physically seeing either of the ships, they were sunk completey by gunnery radar.
Finally, shells and rate of fireâŠ
Japanâs 18.1 inch shells were of the Type 91 varietyâŠif they hit, yes, they did huge amounts of damage. If they missed and fell short, they were designed to travel through the water and impact the side of the target, much like a torpedo. This feature however, impaired much of the ballistics of the projectile. As a result, at long ranges, the shot groupings would be less concentrated than the 16"/50cal US rounds. US rounds had superb ballistics.
The Iowaâs rate of fire is also superior, but not by much. In a 5 minute engagement, Iowa could put up 77 rounds versus 68 for Yamato, this coming predominately from reload times.
It should be noted that firing cycle (minimum time between shots at a âtypicalâ battle range) is calculated at the base loading angle, which for most ships was between 2 and 5 degrees elevation. In a long-range duel, elevation of the gun to a firing angle of 30-40 degrees would account for an decreased rate of fire. Iowaâs guns elevated at 12 degrees per second. Most elevated at around 6 degrees per second. The U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan issued a report on Japanese ordnance which states that Yamatoâs firing cycle was 1.5 rounds / minute (i.e. 40 seconds) at maximum elevation. Maximum elevation is 50 degrees, and loading is performed at 3 degrees. This means that the barrel must travel through a total of 47 degrees down, be loaded, and travel 47 degrees back up to maximum elevation, for a total of 94 degrees of travel. Her barrels elevated at 8 degrees per second, meaning that 11.75 seconds would be spent in transit, leaving a total of 28.25 seconds (40-11.75) for loading.
One also has to consider that the US effectively figured out how to improve the effectiveness of their gunfire at range. Face itâŠflat trajectory gunfire doesnât sink shipsâŠplunging gunfire doesâŠmaking holes from above. This is precisely why HMS Hood was trying to close range against Bismarck, because she was less susceptible to flat trajectory fire, and was highly susceptible to plunging fire at range.
The US Navy worked out the ballistics and range tables for firing the Iowaâs 16"/50 weapons with reduced charges (three charges instead of four) which would still allow for great range (given the 50-caliber barrel), but would also require greater elevation for a given range, and thus provide greater striking power against deck armor. In other words, fire with less powder at a higher angle, and lob the shells into the deck, historically, the weakest part of the structure. We canât underestimate the effects of gravity!!!
At close ranges, these guns fire their shells at very flat trajectories, and shells coming in at flat trajectories tend to ricochet. Itâs very tough to get any sort of armor penetration at obliquities above 70-degrees. This means that flat trajectory weapons donât start getting effective deck penetration until they are much farther away and their shells start coming in at a decent fall angle. The end result is that guns that have poorer ballistics make up for it (to a certain extent) at longer ranges against deck armor because they must fire their guns at higher elevations for a given range, and therefore loft their shells higher, and consequently hit decks with the benefit of gravitic acceleration from a greater height.
So, in the end, Iowa sustains damage, most likely from lucky hits if the range is beyond 25,000 yardsâŠbut Yamato is pummeled, holed, her machinery spaces destroyed, fire control is wiped out, and is completely blind after the engagement, regardless of the range. Time of day or weather doesnât play a factor, because Iowa can see in the dark, rain, or fog thanks to her gunnery radar. Lastly, although Yamato is BIG, only her turret faces were designed to be inpenetrable to any naval gun at that timeâŠnot the rest of her. In fact, in most of her vital spaces, Yamato is only slightly better armored than Iowa.
If you really want the nuts and bolts of this discussion, along with the hard data Iâve provided, you need to get access to the following:
John Campbell, âNaval Weapons of World War Twoâ, ISBN: 0870214594
Nathun Okunâs Extensive Armor Penetration data: http://www.combinedfleet.com/gunarmor.htm
And the following articles written by Mr. Okun, who is an armor and ballisitics expert for the US Navy.
MAJOR HISTORICAL NAVAL ARMOR PENETRATION FORMULAE© by Nathan Okun
TABLE OF METALLURGICAL PROPERTIES OF NAVAL ARMOR AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS©
MISCELLANEOUS NAVAL-ARMOR-RELATED FORMULAE ©
Hope that answers any questionsâŠIâll be more than happy to debate this topic further if anyone wants to!!
Best Regards,
Jeff Herne
Well after Jeff gives us all that very interesting data who can argue this question anymore? Ofcourse one could say using the chaos theory that if someone in the forward magazine of the Iowa got nervous and lit up a Lucky Strike during the battle that there may be a different outcome ! That said let us all remember if these two heavyweights had meet that alot of families in Japan and the U.S. may have ended up as gold star families.
Sorry, didnât mean to rain on the paradeâŠ
OK, neither winsâŠthe ghost of Nelson assumes command of HMS Victory and sinks both of them.
Jeff
Thank you,Jeff. I have an excellent article[got to
find it,however] USNI Proceedings,Spring,1953,
which did state that the USN was very glad that
Naval Air took care of these guys rather than a
surface engagement!! Somehow the idea of
plunging 18" rounds did not appeal to the âbig
shipâ guys of the time!!!
Roowalker