User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:51:53 PM EDT
[#1]
The Iowa class had better fire control ,first class armor, and the 16 inch guns could penetrate the armor on either of the other 2 ships listed. I would take a Iowa class any day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:53:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Iowa class wins /thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:54:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Without digging out my book on WW II battleships, didn't the Yamato have 18-inch guns?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:54:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Iowa class wins /thread. Yep. Not even really that close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:55:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Two of those three were sunk. I'll take the one FLOATING in Pearl Harbor...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:55:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Iowa class. The Iowa class was laid down later and had the benefit of better advancements over the Bismarck...especially in radar. Not even going to mention the Japanese ship.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:55:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Japanese ship - excessive size, cool points for biggest
German ship - mediocre but lots of 88 love American ship - dominant alpha |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:55:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Without digging out my book on WW II battleships, didn't the Yamato have 18-inch guns? 46cm=18.1" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:56:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Without digging out my book on WW II battleships, didn't the Yamato have 18-inch guns? Iirc not th greatest ap ammo, accuracy/fire control or velocity though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:57:05 PM EDT
[#10]
Obviously the Yamato, because it flies through space and shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:57:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Without digging out my book on WW II battleships, didn't the Yamato have 18-inch guns? Yea but if i nailed ya with 16 inches do you think you'd really notice it wasn't 18 inches 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:57:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Whoever got the first solid hit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 5:58:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Fire control on the Destroyer was very accurate. "Last stand of the Tin Can Sailors" fire control officer telling how he was able to pepper
the super structure of Japanese cruisers with 5" shells. DE Skipper jogged back and forth dodging cruisers shells for the longest time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:00:31 PM EDT
[#14]
The BISMARCK (not Bizmark) let old slow Swordfish torpedo planes disable it's rudder.
The guns could not traverse SLOW enough for those old things. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:01:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Yamato, Battleship. Displacement: 73k tons. 18 inch primaries. 27 knots.
Missouri, Battleship (Iowa class). Displacement: 57k tons. 16 inch primaries. 31 knots. 
Bismark, Battleship (AKA Pocket Battleship). Displacement: 50k tons. 15 inch primaries. 30 knots. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:01:13 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Iowa class had better fire control ,first class armor, and the 16 inch guns could penetrate the armor on either of the other 2 ships listed. I would take a Iowa class any day. I think the Bismark may have had the edge in 41 Iowa wasn't launched until 27 August 1942 yamamoato was the biggest and heaviest witth the biggest guns but was primitive compared to the other two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:01:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fire control on the Destroyer was very accurate. "Last stand of the Tin Can Sailors" fire control officer telling how he was able to pepper the super structure of Japanese cruisers with 5" shells. DE Skipper jogged back and forth dodging cruisers shells for the longest time. And this is related to the three battleships in question how? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:02:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Iowa class for sure.
Its armor was proof against ALL other guns. Yes, even against the 18" guns of the Yamato. But, the Mk VII 16" 50 caliber guns of the Iowa class were also equally able to defeat even the heaviest armor on the Yamato or Bismarck. The Yamato front turret armor was 26" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. No other armor could withstand the Iowa class big guns. No other guns could defeat the Iowa class armor. Iowa class wins, hands down, not even close. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:02:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryHQuoted: http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/title.jpg Obviously the Yamato, because it flies through space and shit.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:04:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whoever got the first solid hit. btw the Japs had some pretty damn good capabilities with targeting & fire control, they kicked our asses in Iron Bottom Sound
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:05:39 PM EDT
[#21]
Overall the Iowa.
The yamatos guns were actually capable of penetrating more armor than the Iowa. A chunk of armor that was a shipyard spare from the yamato class ships was found after the war. The 16/50 popped right through it, it was sub par armor. The Bismarck and tirpitz were bad ass battle wagons and well engineered but the tech on the Iowa wins every time |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:05:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two of those three were sunk. I'll take the one FLOATING in Pearl Harbor... It is damned hard to argue with that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:06:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Yamato front turret armor was 24" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. CJ I don't disagree at all, but how did they test it given that Yamato was at the bottom of the sea? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:08:15 PM EDT
[#24]
The Bismarck and Tirpitz along with the u boats almost brought down the The Royal Navy. The other two ships mentioned in this thread didn't nearly do as much damage to any other fleet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:08:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And this is related to the three battleships in question how? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fire control on the Destroyer was very accurate. "Last stand of the Tin Can Sailors" fire control officer telling how he was able to pepper the super structure of Japanese cruisers with 5" shells. DE Skipper jogged back and forth dodging cruisers shells for the longest time. And this is related to the three battleships in question how? They all had Advanced Fire Control, Look it up. Japanese were using dyed projectiles and human spotters. ETA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:08:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't disagree at all, but how did they test it given that Yamato was at the bottom of the sea? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Yamato front turret armor was 24" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. CJ I don't disagree at all, but how did they test it given that Yamato was at the bottom of the sea? http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USNavyMuseum/OtherExhibits/pages/32Yamato26InchArmorPlate.htm 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:08:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't disagree at all, but how did they test it given that Yamato was at the bottom of the sea? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Yamato front turret armor was 24" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. CJ I don't disagree at all, but how did they test it given that Yamato was at the bottom of the sea? They got some of the armor plating from the turret that was to go on IJN Shinano. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:09:17 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ding btw the Japs had some pretty damn good capabilities with targeting & fire control, they kicked our asses in Iron Bottom Sound Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whoever got the first solid hit. btw the Japs had some pretty damn good capabilities with targeting & fire control, they kicked our asses in Iron Bottom Sound Until the Chin Lee arrived on the scene and trained the USN how to use RADAR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:09:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't disagree at all, but how did they test it given that Yamato was at the bottom of the sea? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Yamato front turret armor was 24" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. CJ I don't disagree at all, but how did they test it given that Yamato was at the bottom of the sea? Google "Navy Yamato armor test" and you'll find the article quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:10:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bismarck and Tirpitz along with the u boats almost brought down the The Royal Navy. The other two ships mentioned in this thread didn't nearly do as much damage to any other fleet. Well if they had built another 100 subs instead of useless battleships they might have actually brought down the Royal Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:12:05 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:12:54 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They did the tests on parts of the incomplete sister ship of the Yamato. Same design, but the war was over before the ship was completed. Shinano, the third ship of the Yamato-class was completed, as an aircraft carrier. That's the reason they had turret armor to test, because it was unused. The Shinano joined her sisters at the bottom of the sea, sunk by a submarine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:13:26 PM EDT
[#33]
I don't know - the 18" guns on the Yamato were really something. She was sunk because the IJN didn't have the fuel to keep her going - so she was used as a decoy and sunk.
Gun to gun against an Iowa ? 3000 lb shells with a 25 mile range. owee. From what I just read the shells fusing had too long a delay and the shells tended to pass through before they detonated. With all the armor of an Iowa, have to wonder if the shells would have worked. speed Yamato 27 knots, Iowas 31 knots - so the Iowas have a 4 knot advantage. Glad we never had to try it. Yamato was sunk by at least 5 1000 lb bombs and 10 torpedoes, so if an Iowa could get in and get hits without taking many of the main gun hits from the Yamato the Iowa could win the day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:14:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Iowa class was the pinnacle of BB's. Superior fire control with a well-trained crew would put a world of hurt, especially at night. Look no further than the battle of Surigao Strait in the Pacific to see a picture of how lop-sided that engagement would be for an Iowa class. At Surigao, the Yamashiro was taken out in just minutes by combined, accurate fire from RA Jesse Oldendorf's task force. The Iowa's improved greatly on fire-control, firepower and maneuverability; it wouldn't be close and at night neither the Yam or Bismarck would know what hit them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:14:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whoever got the first solid hit. This. See HMS Hood for details. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:15:10 PM EDT
[#36]
This link came up the last time this question was asked. I'm not enough of a naval buff to say how accurate any of it is, but it seems like a fairly in-depth consideration of the ships.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:16:37 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yamato, Battleship. Displacement: 73k tons. 18 inch primaries. 27 knots. http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/japan/yamato/images/001-battleship-yamato.jpg Missouri, Battleship (Iowa class). Displacement: 57k tons. 16 inch primaries. 31 knots. http://www.hawaiiforvisitors.com/images/oahu/attractions/uss-missouri-02-usnavy-400x302.jpg Bismark, Battleship (AKA Pocket Battleship). Displacement: 50k tons. 15 inch primaries. 30 knots. http://www.warcovers.dk/greenland/bismarck_pic.jpg I think the GRAF Spee and her two sister ships were pocket battleships ( large gun cruisers- six 11"ers.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:16:48 PM EDT
[#38]
The Bismarck wasn't a pocket battleship, it was a full size.
The pocket battleships (a la Graff Spee) were heavy cruisers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:18:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They all had Advanced Fire Control, Look it up. Japanese were using dyed projectiles and human spotters. ETA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fire control on the Destroyer was very accurate. "Last stand of the Tin Can Sailors" fire control officer telling how he was able to pepper the super structure of Japanese cruisers with 5" shells. DE Skipper jogged back and forth dodging cruisers shells for the longest time. And this is related to the three battleships in question how? They all had Advanced Fire Control, Look it up. Japanese were using dyed projectiles and human spotters. ETA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer Still no link. The thread is about BBs, not DDs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:19:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They got some of the armor plating from the turret that was to go on IJN Shinano. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Yamato front turret armor was 24" thick and in post-war testing, the MK VII rounds ripped through it like cardboard. CJ I don't disagree at all, but how did they test it given that Yamato was at the bottom of the sea? They got some of the armor plating from the turret that was to go on IJN Shinano. Cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:19:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. See HMS Hood for details. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whoever got the first solid hit. This. See HMS Hood for details. Yep, and since Bismark sank her with only 3 salvos, Bismark had some pretty damn good fire control, especially considering it was her very first action. Still, I think Iowa could knock Bismark's dick in the dirt sea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:19:16 PM EDT
[#42]
Missouri's fire control and radar would give it the edge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:20:03 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still no link. The thread is about BBs, not DDs. Fire control computer was the same. Thus, it is relevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:21:00 PM EDT
[#44]
At work we have the majority of the Navy Models from the shipyards when they were commisioned.
Nothing drops my jaw like BB-63. That ship had so many guns and such big balls, that's its amazing it could float. Wish we would have kept a few around for cheap littoral Fire Support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:23:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, and since Bismark sank her with only 3 salvos, Bismark had some pretty damn good fire control, especially considering it was her very first action. Still, I think Iowa could knock Bismark's dick in the dirt sea. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Whoever got the first solid hit. This. See HMS Hood for details. Yep, and since Bismark sank her with only 3 salvos, Bismark had some pretty damn good fire control, especially considering it was her very first action. Still, I think Iowa could knock Bismark's dick in the dirt sea. HMS Hood was a battle cruiser, not a battleship. Not only that Hood was due for a refit that would have added armor, but that refit was not conducted due to wartime requirements. Not a good historical comparison. Prince of Wales, the ship accompanying the Hood and a proper battleship, sustained several hits and kept fighting. Hell, the USS Johnston, a destroyer, took several cruiser and BB hits and kept fighting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:23:14 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bismarck and Tirpitz along with the u boats almost brought down the The Royal Navy. The other two ships mentioned in this thread didn't nearly do as much damage to any other fleet. Actually, the Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Graf Spee, the U-boats, etc were deployed as commerce raiders. They sank a lot of Allied shipping, but other than the Hood, I can't recall any of them actually doing a lot of damage to the Royal Navy itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:24:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. See HMS Hood for details. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whoever got the first solid hit. This. See HMS Hood for details. Hood had almost no protection from a plunging shell. All 3 of the ones mentioned were much more heavily armored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:25:16 PM EDT
[#48]
These threads are so stupid. As long ago as in the middle of WWII, there was no question that a single South Dakota class battleship could easily sink the Tirpitz, with no appreciable risk of harm to the US BB. That's why a single SD class battleship was sent to lure the Tirpitz into a one on one fight, but the Nazi pussies knew better. The planners knew the SD would sink the Tirpitz from beyond the effective range of her guns. The Ship involved was whichever SD class ship served with the British fleet --either the Massachusetts or the Alabama. I don't remember. Look it up.
American battleships were the best of their generation, from the Nevadas forward. They were slower, as if that matters, but otherwise were better in every respect. Better guns, better armor, better fire control, and better damage control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:25:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fire control computer was the same. Thus, it is relevant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Still no link. The thread is about BBs, not DDs. Fire control computer was the same. Thus, it is relevant. Not really. Cruisers, even tenders, had the same fire control system. No relevance in a thread about BBs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2013 6:26:51 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fire control computer was the same. Thus, it is relevant. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Still no link. The thread is about BBs, not DDs. Fire control computer was the same. Thus, it is relevant. Really impressive analog computing technology. SMART people built that! I don't know if we have anybody left who would have the knowhow to build equally good analog computer mechanisms today, or even someone who would know how to design such a thing. It might be a lost art. But then again, it IS EMP-proof so perhaps it's not completely useless tech. |
|
|
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.
