Yamato vs. Iowa - who would have won?

Modeling Subjects Ships
21

Absolutely Roo,

But remember, in 1953, we didn’t know about the major deficiencies in the Type 91 artillery. Basically, the Iowas win because of several factors…

At long range, Iowas gunnery is more accurate due to radar and excellent, predictable ballistics. Yamato’s is less accurate, the bad ballistics, lack of gunnery radar, means she’s lobbing very big shells but probably not hitting with anywhere near the accuracy of the Iowas. Advantage: Iowa

At medium range, accuracy improves if opticals are used, but the trajectory is considerably flatter, reducing the effectiveness of plunging fire. The damage could be significant if the Iowas is in fact struck by the Type 91 falling short and impacting the side the ship. Still, the USN uses reduced charges and increases the elevation, still getting the same high-arc trajectory in their rounds…advantage: Iowa.

At close range, it’s anyone’s guess…more than likely, Iowa wouldn’t allow Yamato to get in close, because US radar is superior, and no admiral in his right mind is going to rush headlong into a fight with a heavyweight. Smart tactics, obviously, would be to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. Since Iowas obviously has speed and maneuverability advantages, why risk putting yourself into a close quarters situation?

Let’s say for arguments sake that Iowa’s search radar is down, and we’re close quarters, Savo or Surigao Strait. In a nighttime slugfest in 1943-45, it boils down to who get hit first and worst…obviously. Protection-wise, they’re both about the same, with the exception of the turret faces. But…if fire control is wiped out, then we’ve got big guns…and we’re blind. Advantage: None.

Maybe we should continue this with say…Bismarck versus SoDak or North Carolina? :slight_smile:

Jeff

22

Remember that at Savo Island, the Japanese were shooting at point blank range. If anyone was shooting well that night, it was Astoria, who sqeezed off something like a dozen salvos - hitting Chokai and knocking out a turret - before being overwhelemed by the Japanese force.

Also, at the Battle of the Java Sea, the Japanese fired an extraordinary amount of ordinance, only to achieve a few hits (Exeter being one of them). I don’t recall the exact ratio, but it was 1 hit for every 700 rounds fired, or something absurd like that (Granted, the ABDA force didn’t fare much better). DeRuyter and Java were sunk by torpedoes, Exeter was hit by Haguro’s gunfire and Houston and Perth escaped (for the moment) unharmed.

Then there is also the Battle of the Komadorski Islands, in which the Japanese shooting was circumspect. So, let’s not crown them the sharpshooters of the Pacific because they shot up four sleeping Allied cruisers at Savo Island.

23

Jeff, I really didn’t consider 18" ballistics, ie.,
dispersion of fire at long range …I’ve now got
to agree that Iowa would probably prevail.
As far as Bismarck vs. North Carolina,I’ve
stood in the conning tower of North Carolina,
[just up the road in Wilmington] & tried to
visualize just such a scenario…
whats your take on this?
Roowalker

24

I don’t think Yamato would have completely blasted the Iowa out of the wate, not only was iowa much faster and more maneuverable but her guns were more accurate and had a higher muzzle velocity and could be loaded faster than Yamatos. it’s worth noting that because Yamato relied on range finder’s and radar inferior to iowas that she wasn’t nearly as accurate in rougher seas and inclement weather condition, however despite what some people believe Yamato was extremely accurate having made a hit on escort carrier Uss White Plains at a range of 33,000 yards and 3 direct hits on the destroyer Uss johnston at 19,000 yards. So if Iowa and Yamato were to ever square up it would be pretty clos, coming down to the better crew, Yamato was accurate but Iowas accuracy was just a little better

25

All of this misses an important point.

It’s the same point that gets glossed over in Tiger versus Sherman debates.

Yamato would have never faced just one Iowa alone in a two-ship slug fest. USN in the Pacific operated in Task Forces and Groups. By late '43, IJN was not going to be able to support Yamato in a fleet action. That, presuming some sort of convoluted situation where combat naval aviation was not available.

Against USS Washington in early '42, with Long Lance torpedoes beyond number lacing the waves? No contest. That’s scores of ships facing hundreds. A year later it’s hundreds of ships facing thousands.

26

If only Halsey had formed and left Task Force 34 to guard San Bernadino Strait on the night of October 24/25. Six fast battleships and their escorts against the the Japanese Central Force. It could have been another Surigao Strait

27

True in real life scenarios,but the OP isn’t talking real life,we’re talking a one on one slugfest.

In real life,Yamato would be swarmed by hundreds of planes like she was.

28

Unless the fleet carriers were out of position/range, as happened on the morning of October 25 1944.

29

Hmmm!

I have the tendency to cave toward the YAMATO in a night action, but would definitely give the Iowa class some credit here for sustainability. I do believe in an ultimate slugfest the Iowa would win, but at a heavy cost!

30

Iowa; radar, enough to give her the edge.

31

Here’s the thing - by the time Iowa and Yamato were in use, the USN was building complete air superiority while the IJN was killing their own best pilots and planes. After the USN had a few years of beating up IJN ships, the IJN commanders were exhausted, low on trained men, aircraft and fuel. The Yamato couldn’t even kill all of Taffy 3, and you think she’d stand up against an Iowa with air superiority and all her modern escorts.

32

I think were talking about a theoretical match up of Iowa and Yamato,each at their best,with their best crews no other factors such as airpower or weather.

What would happen then?

33

I think one on one in their ww2 prime, unless an Iowa got an early compromizing shot in the Yamato wins more often then not. I think the speed of Iowa, better rate of fire and her radar even things up a bit but probably wouldn’t win the day in a slugfest that she didn’t score hard and early in.

34

Such a matchup of an early 1943 Yamato against a single early 1944 Iowa would have brought a smile to the IJN.

Bill

35

I’m a bit late to the party, but I’m about to blow holes in everybody’s theories.
Stand by for broadside! :boom:

Hood vs. Bismarck. Iowa vs. Yamato. Montana vs. H39. So many battleship scenarios, whether real or imagined. But who would have prevailed?

It’s not as easy as you think. Time and time again, I see this scenario, question, poll, etc. played out countless times on naval websites and forums. Too many times, people seem to think that just because the Yamato (or some other ship) had bigger guns, or better armor, or better radar, etc., that that ship would have prevailed in battle. Too many times, people seem to base their arguments on just ONE point (or maybe a few) without looking at “the bigger picture” so to speak. Just because a ship has bigger guns, or thicker armor, or better fire control, etc. does NOT necessarily mean in any way the ship will win. Or as an old phrase goes: “Bigger does not necessarily mean better.”.

Other factors need to be considered in a battleship vs. battleship fight. Things such as, but not limited to:

a) Propulsion, speed, and maneuverability of the ship.
b) Location, weather, and sea conditions of the battle area.
c) Strategies and tactics used by the crew.
d) Skills, experience, and training of the ship’s crew.
e) What is the morale level of the crew? Good or bad? Do they have that “fighting” spirit?
f) How good are the radars and fire control systems?
g) Armor thickness of main belt, decks, gun turrets, etc.
h) Damage control systems?
i) How fast can the ship’s guns be loaded, elevated, and trained on target?
j) Time of flight for the main gun shells to reach their target. Seconds or minutes?
k) How near or far away are the battleships/fleets that are fighting each other?
l) Who is commanding the battleships and/or the main task force?
m) Do the battleships have any escorts and/or air cover with them?

I find it funny how a lot of people say in their comments that “technology” (Guns, radar, armor, or other hardware.) is the main deciding factor. No, it isn’t. Granted, having better or more “technology/hardware” will help, but it ultimately comes down to the “human element” that is using that technology to gain the upper hand so to speak on an adversary. A 16" gun, radar unit, searchlight, torpedo launcher, etc. are all tools. And like any tool, it takes a good skilled, trained, and experienced person to use it effectively and efficiently. Without good skills, training, and experience of the crew, the individual “tools” used on the ship, or even the “whole” ship itself, will not be at it’s best.

And of course, let’s not forget all the people who designed and constructed the ship and all it’s systems. How good were their skills, experience, and training? And how good were the factories, drill presses, and other machinery that made all the steel and parts/systems for the battleship?

PEOPLE are what makes a ship (or anything else) great. Not the gun, radar, or anything else. Too many times, I’ll hear people saying “The Yamato is the greatest battleship ever.” or “The Yamato’s 18” guns were the greatest ever produced." or some other comments. So what? Big deal.

Having the largest battleship in service does not make it great.
Having bigger (or more) guns on your ship does not make it great.
Having a thicker armor belt on your ship does not make it great.
Having a faster speed does not make your ship great.

And on and on I could go. A ship doesn’t win a battle all by itself. It takes a good crew who knows it’s systems and can operate it effectively and efficiently that will come out on top.

And last, but not least, if people are basing their whole argument/debate on just ONE point such as the ship having bigger guns, better radar, etc., then you’ve just immediately lost your entire argument. If you are going to compare 2 or more ships (or tanks, aircraft, cars, or anything else), then you need to consider EVERYTHING about those items. The PRO’s and the CON’s. Educate yourself about not only the object you are trying to discuss, but also your opponent’s too. Trying to win a debate/argument with just ONE point makes you look weak, foolish, and you didn’t do your research.
I mean, what’s the point of even talking to someone if they just blindly shoot their mouth off by saying “The Yamato will automatically win because it has bigger 18” guns!" and that person not considering all other facts, options, and information regarding those 18" guns…or the other person’s ship/systems as well? You’ll just end up wasting not only your own time, but somebody else’s as well. Do your research, folks. Knowledge is power. :wink:

36

Thats why the words “with all things being equal” make a difference.

37

I think history clearly shows the answer.

The Iowa/Mo had a few or a few dozen carriers nearby most of the time, that was the deciding factor not size of rifles or thickness of armor.

Game over.

1 Like