User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 7:30:03 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
5 nm away parallel courses who wins? Weather? Visibility? The IJN had shit for radar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 7:30:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Does the Iowa have rail guns?
Raccoon launchers? Mine trebuchet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 7:30:55 PM EDT
[#3]
We've done this before, and the consensus is that unless the Yamato got a lucky broadside in the Japanese ship would be disabled in 15 minutes or less.
ETA: At the Battle of Leyte Gulf the difference between the US and Japanese fire control systems was made clear. At the Battle of Surigao Strait old US battleships blasted the Japanese fleet to smithereens while in the dark. At the Battle off Samar, the Yamato had a hard time hitting slow-moving escort carriers in broad daylight. Iowa wins, hands down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 7:33:26 PM EDT
[#4]
the naval equivalent of a 9mm vs .45 thread...
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 7:33:34 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
We've done this before, and the consensus is that unless the Yamato got a lucky broadside in the Japanese ship would be disabled in 15 minutes or less. this |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 7:35:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Superior fire control because of radar and a computer to calculate the shot plus six knox superiority as well as the Yamato's inability to fire a broadside gives the Iowa class the edge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 7:51:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Wave Motion Gun FTW !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:04:08 PM EDT
[#8]
The Yamato's 18 inch guns could have done a lot of damage, for sure, and it was a tough ship, but technologically inferior to the
Iowa class battleships. The Iowas held ALL the cards that mattered, including accurate first shot capacity. Neither the Japanese or Germans had the capacity to make a precision first shot in an engagement, but due to (at the time) sophisticated analog aiming computers, the Iowas could make the first shot count. Now figure in a nine gun broadside of accurately aimed 16 inch, 1.25 ton shells into the equation, and you can see that the Yamato would need to be best at evasive maneuvers, which is difficult considering that the Yamato was considerably more massive than an Iowa BB. In raw firepower, the Yamato looks good, but maneuverability and accuracy of arms is the deciding factor. Additionally, the Iowa's armor was superior to the Yamato's armor, with the Yamato's armor belt known to have issues. But that's not to say that the Japanese couldn't make good armor steel. But they had problems making homogenous high quality armor steel in extreme thicknesses. US armor steel manufacture in extreme thicknesses was much more consistent. So, yes, the Iowas had better armor than the Yamato. The Navy analyzed pieces of Japanese armor plate after the war, and found that some of the 5" thick armor plate that the Japanese had equipped some ships with rated as the best armor they'd ever tested. Here's a cool little report on Japanese armor qualities: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:14:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
5 nm away parallel courses who wins? Weather? Visibility? The IJN had shit for radar. Clear skies, unlimited vis |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:17:45 PM EDT
[#10]
Yamato had better armor, guns were about equal to Iowas. Iowa was faster, more manuverable, had better fire control as has been stated:
Check the stats here for a good read http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:25:03 PM EDT
[#11]
what about a North Carolina class battle ship? It's not on the chart.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:38:15 PM EDT
[#12]
The Yamato gets sunk by airplanes
oh wait |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:39:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Yamato 26" thick turret armor plate captured after the war, the huge hole at upper left is where a USN 16" AP round zipped right through in testing. However, range is unknown. ETA: Quoted:
Here's a cool little report on Japanese armor qualities: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm Well, that report seems to be about this very plate, and the person commenting on it says the test was unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:59:06 PM EDT
[#14]
5 nanometers is pretty close. Would their guns even go low enough to hit each other?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 9:05:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USNavyMuseum/OtherExhibits/images/32Yamato26InchArmorPlate.jpg http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USNavyMuseum/OtherExhibits/images/34Yamato26InchArmorPlate.jpg Yamato 26" thick turret armor plate captured after the war, the huge hole at upper left is where a USN 16" AP round zipped right through in testing. However, range is unknown. ETA: Quoted:
Here's a cool little report on Japanese armor qualities: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm Well, that report seems to be about this very plate, and the person commenting on it says the test was unrealistic. Yikes...spalling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 9:17:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
We've done this before, and the consensus is that unless the Yamato got a lucky broadside in the Japanese ship would be disabled in 15 minutes or less. ETA: At the Battle of Leyte Gulf the difference between the US and Japanese fire control systems was made clear. At the Battle of Surigao Strait old US battleships blasted the Japanese fleet to smithereens while in the dark. At the Battle off Samar, the Yamato had a hard time hitting slow-moving escort carriers in broad daylight. Iowa wins, hands down. Everything I've read about the two confirms this. Yamato was a well made and competently crewed ship, but crippled by poor AA and fire direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 9:19:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
5 nanometers is pretty close. Would their guns even go low enough to hit each other? I'm going to bet that "nm" means "Nautical Miles". Still, I laughed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 9:46:25 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Wave Motion Gun FTW ! http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/Seabee_Mech/useful%20images/yamato.jpg I pretty much have to go with this........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 9:48:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Reading about WWII naval encounters shows that the battles didn't always turn out in favor of the strongest ship or ships.
The one lucky hit that took out steering or wiped out a boiler ar got in a magazine could turn expected results in a heartbeat |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 10:31:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Sounds like a job for.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 11:11:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: We've done this before, and the consensus is that unless the Yamato got a lucky broadside in the Japanese ship would be disabled in 15 minutes or less. ETA: At the Battle of Leyte Gulf the difference between the US and Japanese fire control systems was made clear. At the Battle of Surigao Strait old US battleships blasted the Japanese fleet to smithereens while in the dark. At the Battle off Samar, the Yamato had a hard time hitting slow-moving escort carriers in broad daylight. Iowa wins, hands down. Yep. I agree |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2011 11:40:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USNavyMuseum/OtherExhibits/images/32Yamato26InchArmorPlate.jpg http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USNavyMuseum/OtherExhibits/images/34Yamato26InchArmorPlate.jpg Yamato 26" thick turret armor plate captured after the war, the huge hole at upper left is where a USN 16" AP round zipped right through in testing. However, range is unknown. ETA: Quoted:
Here's a cool little report on Japanese armor qualities: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm Well, that report seems to be about this very plate, and the person commenting on it says the test was unrealistic. this part of that report is interesting: Note that one of these experimental plates––7.21" (18.3cm) VH plate NPG #3133––was patterned on Krupp KC n/A (probably from data traded with Germany during WWII) and was tested by the U.S. Navy at the NPG using 335-pound 8" Mark 21 Mod 3 and Mod 5 (the latter with the super-hard AP cap, which turned out to be required to penetrate that plate intact) during this same test series. It was found to be THE BEST PLATE OF ITS THICKNESS RANGE (6-8" (15.2-20.3cm)) EVER TESTED BY THE U.S. NAVY, even though its steel was of the same rather poor quality as the other VH plates tested!!! This caused the U.S. test conductors to state that obviously they did not understand what it took to make a high-quality Class "A" plate, since the 7.21" VH plate should not have been so good from everything they thought they knew about face-hardened armor!!! Obviously the Japanese could make armor as good as anyone if the specifications had required it!
This type of plate was used fairly extensively on the Bismarck. Good technical breakdown here http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 1:33:28 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Sounds like a job for..... http://spike.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/deadliest-warrior/articles/dw_logo.jpg?quality=0.91 "im giving the edge to the yamato because of her size, her giant guns, and because it's Japanese and they're all samurais and shit" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 1:40:53 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like a job for..... http://spike.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/deadliest-warrior/articles/dw_logo.jpg?quality=0.91 "im giving the edge to the yamato because of her size, her giant guns, and because it's Japanese and they're all samurais and shit" This. DW would fuck it up royally just like everything else. It's impossible to say who WOULD win because it's impossible to say in nautical engagement. The Iowa definitely would have had the upper hand in just about any engagement scenario I can think of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 1:42:20 AM EDT
[#25]
How about a Montana vs a H-44?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 1:52:51 AM EDT
[#26]
2 words DAMAGE CONTROL.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 1:59:34 AM EDT
[#27]
2 words DAMAGE CONTROL.
Exactly, look at how effective teams were on the USS Yorktown in the Battle of Midway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 2:33:38 AM EDT
[#28]
I wonder what would happen if they were both on treadmills?
wave motion gun FTW |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 3:47:19 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: I wonder what would happen if they were both on treadmills? wave motion gun FTW The treadmill would be squashed flat, of course. Battleships are HEAVY.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 4:06:33 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 5 nm away parallel courses who wins? Weather? Visibility? The IJN had shit for radar. Clear skies, unlimited vis Then how the heck did they end up 5 miles away without being spotted???? Iowa is 209 feet tall from keel to mast and her draft is 37 feet, this means a lookout would be 172 feet above sea level, at that height all of Yamato would have been visible at a range of 17.3509 miles. I don't know Yamato's height above the water but if it were similar to Iowa's then Yamato's mast could have been spotted at a range of 34.7328 miles and she would definitely have been spotted by the time she was in range of Iowa's guns. Iowa's guns have a range of 23.64 miles and vastly superior fire control, Iowa would be able to hit Yamato close to the maximum range and with Yamato only having 7.9 inches of deck armor she would be sunk before landing a shot on Iowa. For comparison in 1942 the USS Massachusetts took on the French Battleship Jean Bart, using the same shells as Iowa (but an earlier gun and fire control) she landed hits from over 13 miles away, penetrating 6 inches of deck armor before passing a further 70 feet into the ship and exploding.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 4:08:39 AM EDT
[#31]
Oh I just thought of something...
Does the Iowa have any W23s onboard? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 5:01:22 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Oh I just thought of something... Does the Iowa have any W23s onboard? A broadside of nuclear shells would be hilarious.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 9:58:17 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh I just thought of something... Does the Iowa have any W23s onboard? A broadside of nuclear shells would be hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 3:06:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh I just thought of something... Does the Iowa have any W23s onboard? A broadside of nuclear shells would be hilarious. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/w23-pic1.jpg Right now I'm sporting a hard-on that would impress an elephant.  The idea of a nuclear broadside...what could spell  better than that?CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 8:34:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Sounds like a job for..... http://spike.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/deadliest-warrior/articles/dw_logo.jpg?quality=0.91 With the better close in special weapon, the katana, we are gonna have to give this one to the Yamato 556 times out of a thousand |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 8:38:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: I wonder what would happen if they were both on treadmills? wave motion gun FTW The treadmill would be squashed flat, of course. Battleships are HEAVY. Ok, they are both in giant versions of the pools with currents that are used for training |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 8:44:54 PM EDT
[#37]
Well the reality is that the Yamamoto had to come out and fight first...just saying, you can have the biggest sumo around, but you got to want to put him in the ring.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 8:45:11 PM EDT
[#38]
The Iowas were pretty much the last of the class.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 8:50:09 PM EDT
[#39]
Doesn't matter, the outcome is always the same.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 8:58:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
2 words DAMAGE CONTROL. This, along with superior fire control |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 9:08:34 PM EDT
[#41]
Iowa wins 9 out of 10. The Japanese navy sucked as hard as it is possible to suck in the Battle of Samar. 4 Battleships including the Yamato plus a whole flotilla of cruisers and destroyers get licked and driven off by a handful of destroyers and carrier escorts? The Japanese were having trouble hitting the US ships in broad daylight with total force superiority. Barring the "Golden BB" type shots the Iowa would have mopped the floor with any ship in the Japanese navy in a head to head engagement simply because their gunnery was better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 9:14:51 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Iowa wins 9 out of 10. The Japanese navy sucked as hard as it is possible to suck in the Battle of Samar. 4 Battleships including the Yamato plus a whole flotilla of cruisers and destroyers get licked and driven off by a handful of destroyers and carrier escorts? The Japanese were having trouble hitting the US ships in broad daylight with total force superiority. Barring the "Golden BB" type shots the Iowa would have mopped the floor with any ship in the Japanese navy in a head to head engagement simply because their gunnery was better. I think that had more to do with Kurita than anything else. Ozawa had far less to work with and he accomplished all of his objectives and then some. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 9:43:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
2 words DAMAGE CONTROL. This, along with superior fire control Yup, plenty of other posters talked about other aspects of a warship that make them effective. In WW-II naval combat, it wasn't if you would get hit, but where, and how bad. The USN was the best at fixing up the battle damage, the IJN was at the opposite end of the scale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 9:47:05 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
2 words DAMAGE CONTROL. This, along with superior fire control Yup, plenty of other posters talked about other aspects of a warship that make them effective. In WW-II naval combat, it wasn't if you would get hit, but where, and how bad. The USN was the best at fixing up the battle damage, the IJN was at the opposite end of the scale. I don't know if it's true or not, but I've heard the big IJN ships had really poor watertight integrity (to the point of having very few true watertight bulkheads), and thier DC closures/fixtures were of terrible quality and questionable usefulness. Any input on that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 9:52:40 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
2 words DAMAGE CONTROL. This, along with superior fire control Yup, plenty of other posters talked about other aspects of a warship that make them effective. In WW-II naval combat, it wasn't if you would get hit, but where, and how bad. The USN was the best at fixing up the battle damage, the IJN was at the opposite end of the scale. I don't know if it's true or not, but I've heard the big IJN ships had really poor watertight integrity (to the point of having very few true watertight bulkheads), and thier DC closures/fixtures were of terrible quality and questionable usefulness. Any input on that? Here's some good reading- http://www.combinedfleet.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 10:16:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
2 words DAMAGE CONTROL. This, along with superior fire control Yup, plenty of other posters talked about other aspects of a warship that make them effective. In WW-II naval combat, it wasn't if you would get hit, but where, and how bad. The USN was the best at fixing up the battle damage, the IJN was at the opposite end of the scale. I don't know if it's true or not, but I've heard the big IJN ships had really poor watertight integrity (to the point of having very few true watertight bulkheads), and thier DC closures/fixtures were of terrible quality and questionable usefulness. Any input on that? If they did then they held up amazingly well considering the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 10:24:38 PM EDT
[#47]
this thread needs more pics.
i will return, and there better be some epic photos 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 10:26:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Iowa.
Hands down. Superior radar, Superior fire control systems, 16" guns that hit almost as hard as Yamato's 18" guns. The Iowas were the APEX of battleship design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 2:48:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: And, based on the evidence presented by the 26" thick piece of Yamato-class turret noted above, that's MORE than enough.Iowa. Hands down. Superior radar, Superior fire control systems, 16" guns that hit almost as hard as Yamato's 18" guns. The Iowas were the APEX of battleship design. Note, in that report, it says that a second 16 inch projectile to be used in that testing was recovered UNDAMAGED except for damage to the windscreen and AP nose assembly. After punching 28 inches of decent armor. Has a 16 inch gun's projectile ever actually been fired into another ship during war? I'm have to guess the answer is yes, since the Ohio battleboats got their hands dirty in WWII on several occasions, but I don't know if they've actually put 16 inch projectiles into enemy ships or not. I'd like to see the resulting damage to those ships, if so. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 2:54:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
And, based on the evidence presented by the 26" thick piece of Yamato-class turret noted above, that's MORE than enough.
Iowa. Hands down. Superior radar, Superior fire control systems, 16" guns that hit almost as hard as Yamato's 18" guns. The Iowas were the APEX of battleship design. Note, in that report, it says that a second 16 inch projectile to be used in that testing was recovered UNDAMAGED except for damage to the windscreen and AP nose assembly. After punching 28 inches of decent armor. Has a 16 inch gun's projectile ever actually been fired into another ship during war? I'm have to guess the answer is yes, since the Ohio battleboats got their hands dirty in WWII on several occasions, but I don't know if they've actually put 16 inch projectiles into enemy ships or not. I'd like to see the resulting damage to those ships, if so. CJ The super-heavy armour piercing 16" rounds have been used on other warships. A Jap light cruiser, a French battleship, and a Jap battlecruiser are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Of those three, the first was sunk, the second was sunk in port (I think; it may just have suffered flooding) and had its main battery neutralized, and the third was neutralized and placed in a sinking condition, which was sped up by later attacks. Only the first involved that projectile and the Mk 7 gun; the other two involved the Mk 6 gun which is 45-calibre rather than 50-calibre like the former is. I know that isn't the full list; I'm pretty sure destroyers were hit by such projos in the engagement with the light cruiser (which involved the Iowa and New Jersey) which involved the longest range hits on an enemy warship by gunfire, if I remember correctly. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
