USS Missouri vs. Yamato - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - USS Missouri vs. Yamato (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 12/19/2010 6:37:13 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

Not to split hairs, but the Jap battleship (not battlecruiser) was the Kirishima and it had damn near sunk the USS South Dakota before the Washington stepped in and lit it up. Still had to be scuttled by the Japs before it went down.

The IJN Kirishima sank on her own, she took over 20 16" projectile hits mostly around the waterline, the Kirishima's Damage Control Officer confirmed this.

Wouldn't the Yamato class be that much harder to destroy? They both took quite a beating from the air before going down. I don't know how well our Iowa's would stand up to that damage considering they were more lightly armored than the shorter SoDak's.

Posted: 12/19/2010 6:51:07 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

Not to split hairs, but the Jap battleship (not battlecruiser) was the Kirishima and it had damn near sunk the USS South Dakota before the Washington stepped in and lit it up. Still had to be scuttled by the Japs before it went down.

The IJN Kirishima sank on her own, she took over 20 16" projectile hits mostly around the waterline, the Kirishima's Damage Control Officer confirmed this.

Wouldn't the Yamato class be that much harder to destroy? They both took quite a beating from the air before going down. I don't know how well our Iowa's would stand up to that damage considering they were more lightly armored than the shorter SoDak's.

The Yamato had inferior steel used in her armor, she had shitty damage control, the US Mk 8 AP projectiles had no issues cutting through Yamato class armor belts, and the US ships had FAR better Fire Control Systems directed by radar. The US Battleship pretty much can decide when or where to fight at will and in many different weather conditions; good luck trying to hide in the fog or at night or by laying smoke.

Lets face it, the US designed better and more survivable ships!!!!

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:07:34 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

The Japanese used dye in their projectiles for spotting purposes...each gun had a different color. Vets of these battles say the shell splashes were in color...red, green, yellow, blue...etc..

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:11:04 AM EDT

[#4]

This sort of engagement almost came to pass a couple of times during the Leyte Campaign. Halsey's decisions ensured the Iowas would be robbed twice of the opportunity for a line engagement. He, without informing anyone, had them leave the San Bernardino Strait and join him in the hunt for Ozawa's decoys which let Kurita go through unmolested. Had that not been done two Iowas and four older fast battleships would have been in a position to cross the T of the Jap battle line which included at that point the Yamato and I believe three other battleships along with a large cruiser line and destroyers. When Halsey found out 7th Fleet was under surface attack and the battle line was sent south he changed his mind and had them reverse course and head north again before sending only the two Iowas south which prevented the battle line from either engaging Ozawa (the cruiser line did though) or Kurita although they did catch one of Kurita's destroyers I believe. That would have been an interesting fight as well, two Iowas crossing the T of or having a running engagement with a Jap battle line that included four battleships including the Yamato.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:22:56 AM EDT

[#5]

I'm going with the Mighty Mo' for all the reasons stated here already.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:24:58 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Missouri

Now, if we fast-forward 35 years, and to Missouri vs Kirov...

The Missouri gets smoked, most likely without getting a shot off....

Hold on a sec. We taking Missouri from WWII or Missouri from Desert Storm? Two different ships.

ETA - Never mind Dport on station.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:30:39 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

The Yamato had inferior steel used in her armor, she had shitty damage control, the US Mk 8 AP projectiles had no issues cutting through Yamato class armor belts, and the US ships had FAR better Fire Control Systems directed by radar. The US Battleship pretty much can decide when or where to fight at will and in many different weather conditions; good luck trying to hide in the fog or at night or by laying smoke.

Lets face it, the US designed better and more survivable ships!!!!

Musashi sank after being hit with 17 torpedoes and 19 bombs, like it or not the Yamato class clearly could take obscene amounts of damage. The Iowa's were built as fast battleships and as a result, their armor belt was designed to withstand 16" projectiles at 45degrees, meaning the Iowas armor was designed to protect it at range, but against smaller lighter shells not 4000lb'ers. One round from the Yamato could do some serious damage. Yes the Iowas were superior with firecontrol radar and would probably win this fight, I just don't think it would be a complete white wash like some think.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:31:44 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

The USS Missouri had a much better fire control system. So I'm going with that ship.

+ Better quality steel.

+ A gun which could penetrate the armor belt. Despite being two inches smaller, it was a high velocity gun with a great AP shell.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:37:11 AM EDT

[#9]

Slight hijack, has anyone seen the pic of the four Iowa class BBs steaming in a line abreast formation? I saw it pasted on one of the turrets of the USS Wisconsin, but have never seen it anywhere else. I thought that was one awesome pic.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:38:07 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The Yamato had inferior steel used in her armor, she had shitty damage control, the US Mk 8 AP projectiles had no issues cutting through Yamato class armor belts, and the US ships had FAR better Fire Control Systems directed by radar. The US Battleship pretty much can decide when or where to fight at will and in many different weather conditions; good luck trying to hide in the fog or at night or by laying smoke.

Lets face it, the US designed better and more survivable ships!!!!

Musashi sank after being hit with 17 torpedoes and 19 bombs, like it or not the Yamato class clearly could take obscene amounts of damage. The Iowa's were built as fast battleships and as a result, their armor belt was designed to withstand 16" projectiles at 45degrees, meaning the Iowas armor was designed to protect it at range, but against smaller lighter shells not 4000lb'ers. One round from the Yamato could do some serious damage. Yes the Iowas were superior with firecontrol radar and would probably win this fight, I just don't think it would be a complete white wash like some think.

You don't have to sink it, you have to knock out the three 18 inch gun turrets. Then you can take all the time in the world to sink it. That's what happened when the KG V and Rodney engaged the Bismark. They knocked out her guns in a few minutes, rendering her combat ineffective. It took much, much more pounding to sink her but she was largely not a threat during this time. Missouri's accuracy would be a tremendous advantage in terms of getting off the early shots needed to knock out the turrets.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:50:34 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The Yamato had inferior steel used in her armor, she had shitty damage control, the US Mk 8 AP projectiles had no issues cutting through Yamato class armor belts, and the US ships had FAR better Fire Control Systems directed by radar. The US Battleship pretty much can decide when or where to fight at will and in many different weather conditions; good luck trying to hide in the fog or at night or by laying smoke.

Lets face it, the US designed better and more survivable ships!!!!

Musashi sank after being hit with 17 torpedoes and 19 bombs, like it or not the Yamato class clearly could take obscene amounts of damage. The Iowa's were built as fast battleships and as a result, their armor belt was designed to withstand 16" projectiles at 45degrees, meaning the Iowas armor was designed to protect it at range, but against smaller lighter shells not 4000lb'ers. One round from the Yamato could do some serious damage. Yes the Iowas were superior with firecontrol radar and would probably win this fight, I just don't think it would be a complete white wash like some think.

You don't have to sink it, you have to knock out the three 18 inch gun turrets. Then you can take all the time in the world to sink it. That's what happened when the KG V and Rodney engaged the Bismark. They knocked out her guns in a few minutes, rendering her combat ineffective. It took much, much more pounding to sink her but she was largely not a threat during this time. Missouri's accuracy would be a tremendous advantage in terms of getting off the early shots needed to knock out the turrets.

Yes yes I understand that, but do you understand that unlike the Bismarck with a jammed rudder spinning around in circles ( and tyring to engage multiple targets), the Yamato's would be firing back? I always enjoy reading these threads around the net about which battleship was superior to others, but the real deal bottom line is who received what damage first. Just about all battleships could in fact take out eachother on any given day regardless of so called armor design. When comparing ships with Mk7 16"/50 vs. 18.1"/45 both which have similar rate of fires and could easily penetrate eachothers armor, it would be who hit first and hit what and where and how often. Now granted that does put things in favor of the Iowas, but as (using your example of the Bismarck) the Hood and PoW tell a different story. Yes yes I know the BC Hood had thin top armor etc and the Bismarcks fire control were taken out almost immediately the point is, all it takes is one good shot.

Posted: 12/19/2010 8:09:40 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

I hope you are not thinking of the time when the South Dakota was basically bait.
nine 16-inch and around forty 5-inch shells hit the IJN

Posted: 12/19/2010 8:31:39 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Japanese also were severly lacking in damage control training. Plus their vessel lacked the water-tight compartments that were SOP on allied vessels. And if memory serves, the Yamamoto was not finished in construction.

The Yamato was badly damaged during the Leyte Gulf campaign.....her bow was holed by a torpedo, she went down by the bow, but was able to still fight. She made it back to Japan only to be wasted in a stupid kamikaze attack.

This exactly

Yamato was dispatched on a one-way voyage to Okinawa, where it was intended that she should protect the island from invasion and fight until destroyed. Her task force was spotted south of Kyushu by US submarines and aircraft, and on 7 April she was sunk by American carrier-based bombers and torpedo bombers with the loss of most of her crew.
The battlle lasted all day with many waves of planes hitting her.

Posted: 12/19/2010 8:34:46 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

I hope you are not thinking of the time when the South Dakota was basically bait.
nine 16-inch and around forty 5-inch shells hit the IJN

The Japanese were pretty good at night engagements.......they took out 4 Allied Cruisers in one night fight.

edit to correct #

Posted: 12/19/2010 8:39:36 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

Not to split hairs, but the Jap battleship (not battlecruiser) was the Kirishima and it had damn near sunk the USS South Dakota before the Washington stepped in and lit it up. Still had to be scuttled by the Japs before it went down.

This, but South Dakota suffered bad luck when they lost electrical power. An error in engine room switchboards left South Dakota powerless: without her radars, she no longer had a grasp on the complicated tactical situation. South Dakota, under fire from at least three ships, took 42 hits, causing considerable damage.

Posted: 12/19/2010 8:44:02 AM EDT

[#16]

Couple of things.

Yamato

Had 18.1 inch guns that easily outclassed those on the Iowa. They had over 20% yield compared to the the US guns. They shot world class rounds.

Firecontrol not so world class. They would shoot colored rounds that would bracket a target then zero in optically. No over the horizon ability.

As far as armor is concerned, the Yamato had thicker armor but it was more brittle. It was also not distributed well and there were weak spots.

The Musashi and Yamato took an insane number of bombs and torpedos to sink them. People who think their survivability was limited are wrong.

Iowa

Faster 5-10 knots, lighter by 20000 tons. There would be a good chance the Iowa could run away and lose the Yamato.

16 inch guns controlled by rudimentary radar but able to shoot with decent accuracy over the horizon.

BUT the firecontrol system was delicate and many times light damage would take it out of commission.

Then it would be regulated to optical aiming like the Yamato but the Iowas optical systems were no where as good as the Yamatos.

The armor was good but it was all or none approach. All machinery and vital ship systems were armored the rest not so much.

The final determinate would be luck. If I were the Yamatos captain I would close and try to knock out the Iowas radar and firecontrol systems. Then its over.

Posted: 12/19/2010 8:46:14 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

Not to split hairs, but the Jap battleship (not battlecruiser) was the Kirishima and it had damn near sunk the USS South Dakota before the Washington stepped in and lit it up. Still had to be scuttled by the Japs before it went down.

This, but South Dakota suffered bad luck when they lost electrical power. An error in engine room switchboards left South Dakota powerless: without her radars, she no longer had a grasp on the complicated tactical situation.[4] South Dakota, under fire from at least three ships, took 42 hits, causing considerable damage.

Prior to the battle, Preston's primitive SC radar equipment was interfering with the more advanced set on the Washington, so it was shut off.
some good reading
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/index_lundgren.htm

Posted: 12/19/2010 8:48:38 AM EDT

[#18]

Missouri unless the japs got in a lucky shot.

The American gun directors and rangefinders were far superior. Not sure how the Japs aimed their guns. But they would either walk them to the target or find range by shooting a short round then a long round until they closed the gap. The Americans could just light the Yamamoto up with radar and start dropping lead until they saw smoke.

80's Missouri vs 80's Kirov?

Odd fight. The Missouri was brought back as Reagan-era naval dick-waving to counter the Kirov at the propaganda and economic level, not intended to actually fight each other. But I'm pretty sure that the Rooskie battlecruiser's nasty supersonic cruise missiles would have absolutely bitch-slapped anything they were aimed at, including 2ft of belted battleship armor. The Kirov's only limitation is that it would have to get close enough to target the American BB. I'm not sure what they use to target their missiles, so they could probably just launch them in a general direction and the missile's own seeker will go and find a target. Of course the Mo has Harpoons and Tomahawks, but those are kind of pokey, even though their hit probability is still higher. Regardless a single hit from the big russian missiles would absolutely ream the Mo even if the warhead did not go off.

Realistic scenario: Submarine sinks Kirov. Victorious American sailors on battleship go find some pussy on shore leave while the guys stuck in the sub share bunks.

Posted: 12/19/2010 9:16:35 AM EDT

[#19]

80's Missouri vs 80's Kirov...........

The Missouri was not in it's WW2 configeration. The Missouri was upgraded with the most advanced weaponry available; among the new weapons systems installed were four MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, eight Armored Box Launcher (ABL) mounts for 32 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles, and a quartet of Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS) gatling guns for defense against enemy anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft.

If Missouri worked as intended, the Russians would be destroyed.

Posted: 12/19/2010 9:20:22 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

80's Missouri vs 80's Kirov...........

The Missouri was not in it's WW2 configeration. The Missouri was upgraded with the most advanced weaponry available; among the new weapons systems installed were four MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, eight Armored Box Launcher (ABL) mounts for 32 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles, and a quartet of Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS) gatling guns for defense against enemy anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft.

If Missouri worked as intended, the Russians would be destroyed.

Problem was that Missouri was not armed with any medium or long range AA defense. No Aegis, no Standard, no Sea Sparrow. Not saying Kirov is going to win but Missouri alone has a huge vulnerability to Kirov's ASMs.

Posted: 12/19/2010 9:55:42 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

I hope you are not thinking of the time when the South Dakota was basically bait.
nine 16-inch and around forty 5-inch shells hit the IJN

No, IJN took far more hits!!! Here is a diagram showing all the hits the USS Washington put IJN Kirishima.

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:01:00 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

gunnery computer. Sayonara, Yamato.

This.

Toured the USS New Jersey last summer.

Through all the decades of refitting and all the technology improvements, they still used the original fire control for the main guns.

Couldn't find anything to do it better, and she fought into the 90's!

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:01:43 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

I hope you are not thinking of the time when the South Dakota was basically bait.
nine 16-inch and around forty 5-inch shells hit the IJN

No, IJN took far more hits!!! Here is a diagram showing all the hits the USS Washington put IJN Kirishima.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee46/eodtech2000/eod/Kirishima16hits.jpg

WOW!!! I didn't realize how accurate those guns were!!!

Damn all those shots in precisely the right spots is friggin crazy. I figured the goal was too simply hit the boat, kind of in the right spot. That placement is amazing.

What kind of range are we talking on those shots?

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:03:21 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

I know this is hypothetical, but Y'all are forgetting about the Nimitz. They would likely have an E-2 up and would detect the Yamato well outside gun range. A couple of Harpoons from an A-6 would make short work of the Japanese BB.

It was the carriers raping battleships over a pinball machine that brought the era of battleships to an end.

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:06:10 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

I hope you are not thinking of the time when the South Dakota was basically bait.
nine 16-inch and around forty 5-inch shells hit the IJN

No, IJN took far more hits!!! Here is a diagram showing all the hits the USS Washington put IJN Kirishima.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee46/eodtech2000/eod/Kirishima16hits.jpg

WOW!!! I didn't realize how accurate those guns were!!!

Damn all those shots in precisely the right spots is friggin crazy. I figured the goal was too simply hit the boat, kind of in the right spot. That placement is amazing.

What kind of range are we talking on those shots?

8,400 to 12,650 yd

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:11:46 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, IJN took far more hits!!! Here is a diagram showing all the hits the USS Washington put IJN Kirishima.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee46/eodtech2000/eod/Kirishima16hits.jpg

WOW!!! I didn't realize how accurate those guns were!!!

Damn all those shots in precisely the right spots is friggin crazy. I figured the goal was too simply hit the boat, kind of in the right spot. That placement is amazing.

What kind of range are we talking on those shots?

USS Washington opened up at 8,000 yards so it was pretty much point blank range. Now if you look at the Battle of Surigao Strait, there the older BB's outfitted with new radar sets opened up at much more impressive ranges and scored good hits.

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:12:39 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

I hope you are not thinking of the time when the South Dakota was basically bait.
nine 16-inch and around forty 5-inch shells hit the IJN

No, IJN took far more hits!!! Here is a diagram showing all the hits the USS Washington put IJN Kirishima.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee46/eodtech2000/eod/Kirishima16hits.jpg

The first numbers I posted were from the accounts on the Washington, If you read the article instead of just look at pictures you would have realized this. This is not a personal attack just stating what was documented in the article for the original estimations.
This is one of the best studies of a sea battle I have read, it is really worth the time.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/index_lundgren.htm

Ikeda’s sketch of her damage is probably the most important new piece of evidence as to Kirishima ’s damage. The 20 major caliber and 17 secondary caliber hits is far more consistent with what may be expected by the number of major caliber shells and secondary shells fired at their respected ranges. In addition all the hits that struck the ship below the waterline would have been observed by Washington as a miss due to the shell throwing up a splash. Some hits so close together may have been observed as single hits so the 8-9 hits viewed optically becomes a realistic estimate but falls short of actual damage.

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:20:36 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

I hope you are not thinking of the time when the South Dakota was basically bait.
nine 16-inch and around forty 5-inch shells hit the IJN

No, IJN took far more hits!!! Here is a diagram showing all the hits the USS Washington put IJN Kirishima.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee46/eodtech2000/eod/Kirishima16hits.jpg

The first numbers I posted were from the accounts on the Washington, If you read the article instead of just look at pictures you would have realized this.

Ikeda’s sketch of her damage is probably the most important new piece of evidence as to Kirishima ’s damage. The 20 major caliber and 17 secondary caliber hits is far more consistent with what may be expected by the number of major caliber shells and secondary shells fired at their respected ranges. In addition all the hits that struck the ship below the waterline would have been observed by Washington as a miss due to the shell throwing up a splash. Some hits so close together may have been observed as single hits so the 8-9 hits viewed optically becomes a realistic estimate but falls short of actual damage.

Yes, due to the night engagement, Adm Lee couldn't determine how many hits were scored. God, it must have impressive to have a good view of that engagement, the water plumes had to have been huge and with all the other 5" projectiles being fired - just wow!!!

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:23:44 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

The US used extremely effective radar targeting and could put first round hits on target, something the Kaigun was technically incapable of. They had to fire ranging shots before they could even hope to connect.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

I hope you are not thinking of the time when the South Dakota was basically bait.
nine 16-inch and around forty 5-inch shells hit the IJN

No, IJN took far more hits!!! Here is a diagram showing all the hits the USS Washington put IJN Kirishima.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee46/eodtech2000/eod/Kirishima16hits.jpg

The first numbers I posted were from the accounts on the Washington, If you read the article instead of just look at pictures you would have realized this.

Ikeda’s sketch of her damage is probably the most important new piece of evidence as to Kirishima ’s damage. The 20 major caliber and 17 secondary caliber hits is far more consistent with what may be expected by the number of major caliber shells and secondary shells fired at their respected ranges. In addition all the hits that struck the ship below the waterline would have been observed by Washington as a miss due to the shell throwing up a splash. Some hits so close together may have been observed as single hits so the 8-9 hits viewed optically becomes a realistic estimate but falls short of actual damage.

This is the article I was referring to, and that diagram was the one I was remembering. There are WAY more than just 8-9 16" hits on Kirishima.

Also, if you read the article and other sources, she was built as a WWI-style battlecruiser and only later reclassified as a BB (much like many of the Kaigun's other older "BBs", which were really reclassified BCs with mediocre overhauls). She was not built with BB-class armor and her internal arrangement was absolutely abysmal for effective damage control against BB-class AP hits. There is video evidence from a ROV inspection of the wreck that suggests even more hits than documented on that diagram. Some of those hits are phenomenally well-placed and couldn't have been planned better to cause maximum destruction, especially once you trace their paths through the internal systems and realize just how far-reaching and insurmountable their effects ultimately were.

Washington flat-out took Kirishima by the throat and ate her soul. And she did it in the dead of night.

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:23:54 AM EDT

[#30]

In June of 1947, BuShips issued its report on South Dakota’s battle damage. This report counted 26 hits and gave the author’s conclusions as to the types of shells that had inflicted the damage found during their examination. This report concluded that South Dakota had been hit by a single 14-inch shell, eighteen 8-inch shells, six 6-inch shells and one 5-inch shell.

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:35:44 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
In June of 1947, BuShips issued its report on South Dakota’s battle damage. This report counted 26 hits and gave the author’s conclusions as to the types of shells that had inflicted the damage found during their examination. This report concluded that South Dakota had been hit by a single 14-inch shell, eighteen 8-inch shells, six 6-inch shells and one 5-inch shell.

IIRC, the 14" projectile was a "High Capacity" type used for bombardment not the AP style.

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:55:43 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Missouri

Now, if we fast-forward 35 years, and to Missouri vs Kirov...

The Missouri gets smoked, most likely without getting a shot off....

45+35=1980. USS Missouri wasn't in service in 1980. When she did get into service she was outfitted with CIWS.

The best gun the Kirov had was a 130mm gun, basically a 5" on steroids. In a gun-battle the Missouri wins handily.

In a missile battle, the Kirov had the SS-N-19, but the Missouri would have had TASM and Harpoon. The winner would depend on who got the first shot off. If they're steaming parallel just outside of 16" gun range, I'm going with the Missouri.

I had the reactivation date off...

What I was thinking, is that IIRC Kirov actually had a decent set of air defenses... And the US antiship missile systems were always subsonic and smaller - presumably easier to shoot down, and less damaging per-hit... And that the Russian missiles have a range that exceeds 16" guns, so there wouldn't *be* a gun battle...

OTOH, the Iowa has very, very limited ADA (I would assume, based on the principle that there would never be a 1v1, and the BBs would always be traveling with a CVBG (and thus anti-air escords))...

So when you take away satellite support from both sides, air support from both sides, and just stick them in a pure, unassisted 1v1... I'd guess that the newer Russian ship beats the 'updated' Iowa-class...

But this is something I am NOT an expert in - you, OTOH, are...

Posted: 12/19/2010 10:57:48 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
The Japanese also were severly lacking in damage control training. Plus their vessel lacked the water-tight compartments that were SOP on allied vessels. And if memory serves, the Yamamoto was not finished in construction.

You`re thinking of the Shinano, Yamato`s incomplete sister ship that was converted to an aircraft carrier. She was being moved to safer shipyard to finish her conversion when she was encounterd by USS Archerfish, torpedoed and sunk.

Posted: 12/19/2010 11:11:11 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
The USS Missouri had a much better fire control system. So I'm going with that ship.

This.

Posted: 12/19/2010 11:17:07 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
But the limiting factor is not range, it’s accuracy. Neither ship can hit a battleship sized target at the gun’s maximum range. As a practical matter the American ship with it’s radar fire control will greatly outrange the Japanese ship.

The 16 inch guns on the Iowa are regarded as some, if not the most, accurate naval guns ever deployed.

Posted: 12/19/2010 11:24:52 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
The USS Missouri had a much better fire control system. So I'm going with that ship.

That, by far.

Posted: 12/19/2010 12:15:35 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
80's Missouri vs 80's Kirov...........

The Missouri was not in it's WW2 configeration. The Missouri was upgraded with the most advanced weaponry available; among the new weapons systems installed were four MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, eight Armored Box Launcher (ABL) mounts for 32 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles, and a quartet of Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS) gatling guns for defense against enemy anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft.

If Missouri worked as intended, the Russians would be destroyed.

One point of correction, RGM-84 vice AGM. There is a difference.

Posted: 12/19/2010 12:23:18 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Missouri

Now, if we fast-forward 35 years, and to Missouri vs Kirov...

The Missouri gets smoked, most likely without getting a shot off....

45+35=1980. USS Missouri wasn't in service in 1980. When she did get into service she was outfitted with CIWS.

The best gun the Kirov had was a 130mm gun, basically a 5" on steroids. In a gun-battle the Missouri wins handily.

In a missile battle, the Kirov had the SS-N-19, but the Missouri would have had TASM and Harpoon. The winner would depend on who got the first shot off. If they're steaming parallel just outside of 16" gun range, I'm going with the Missouri.

I had the reactivation date off...

What I was thinking, is that IIRC Kirov actually had a decent set of air defenses... And the US antiship missile systems were always subsonic and smaller - presumably easier to shoot down, and less damaging per-hit... And that the Russian missiles have a range that exceeds 16" guns, so there wouldn't *be* a gun battle...

OTOH, the Iowa has very, very limited ADA (I would assume, based on the principle that there would never be a 1v1, and the BBs would always be traveling with a CVBG (and thus anti-air escords))...

So when you take away satellite support from both sides, air support from both sides, and just stick them in a pure, unassisted 1v1... I'd guess that the newer Russian ship beats the 'updated' Iowa-class...

But this is something I am NOT an expert in - you, OTOH, are...

Just because our missiles are slow doesn't mean they are easily shot down.

If they are just outside of gun range, the winner is the first to get the shot off.

Over the horizon, the Kirov launches its helo, finds the Mighty Mo and volleys off her Shipwreck missiles. Game, set and match to Kirov.

Inside gun range, Kirov is toast.

Russian damage control sucks by the way.

Also to the poster who said the Harpoon is blast frag...really? Really? You believe that?

Posted: 12/19/2010 12:33:12 PM EDT

[#39]

RADAR fire control would have ruled the day.

Posted: 12/19/2010 12:55:04 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?

Theoretically, yeah. But they used optical targeting and not very good optical targeting at that.

For reference, in one of the only straight-up battleship fights of the Pacific, the USS Washington absolutely raped an IJN battlecruiser. As in, dozens of 5" and 16" hits and absolutely savaged it beyond recognition. And that was in the dark.

I hope you are not thinking of the time when the South Dakota was basically bait.
nine 16-inch and around forty 5-inch shells hit the IJN

No, IJN took far more hits!!! Here is a diagram showing all the hits the USS Washington put IJN Kirishima.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee46/eodtech2000/eod/Kirishima16hits.jpg

Damn, that's some accurate fire right there.

Posted: 12/19/2010 12:55:14 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Missouri

Now, if we fast-forward 35 years, and to Missouri vs Kirov...

The Missouri gets smoked, most likely without getting a shot off....

45+35=1980. USS Missouri wasn't in service in 1980. When she did get into service she was outfitted with CIWS.

The best gun the Kirov had was a 130mm gun, basically a 5" on steroids. In a gun-battle the Missouri wins handily.

In a missile battle, the Kirov had the SS-N-19, but the Missouri would have had TASM and Harpoon. The winner would depend on who got the first shot off. If they're steaming parallel just outside of 16" gun range, I'm going with the Missouri.

I had the reactivation date off...

What I was thinking, is that IIRC Kirov actually had a decent set of air defenses... And the US antiship missile systems were always subsonic and smaller - presumably easier to shoot down, and less damaging per-hit... And that the Russian missiles have a range that exceeds 16" guns, so there wouldn't *be* a gun battle...

OTOH, the Iowa has very, very limited ADA (I would assume, based on the principle that there would never be a 1v1, and the BBs would always be traveling with a CVBG (and thus anti-air escords))...

So when you take away satellite support from both sides, air support from both sides, and just stick them in a pure, unassisted 1v1... I'd guess that the newer Russian ship beats the 'updated' Iowa-class...

But this is something I am NOT an expert in - you, OTOH, are...

Just because our missiles are slow doesn't mean they are easily shot down.

If they are just outside of gun range, the winner is the first to get the shot off.

Over the horizon, the Kirov launches its helo, finds the Mighty Mo and volleys off her Shipwreck missiles. Game, set and match to Kirov.

Inside gun range, Kirov is toast.

Russian damage control sucks by the way.

Also to the poster who said the Harpoon is blast frag...really? Really? You believe that?

I did, but I see I was incorrect––I was confusing the WDU-18 with the WDU-21, and apparently AGM (or RGM) 84 with 88, for reasons of fast reading and idiocy, I assume.

Posted: 12/19/2010 6:28:09 PM EDT

[#42]

I wonder how effective the tactic of using the main battery firing a broadside of HE projectiles fuzed to burst among a volley of missiles would fare against the Kirov's salvo. The Japanese certainly were not very effective using that tactic against aircraft but there are differences there.

Posted: 12/19/2010 6:58:01 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

I wonder how effective the tactic of using the main battery firing a broadside of HE projectiles fuzed to burst among a volley of missiles would fare against the Kirov's salvo. The Japanese certainly were not very effective using that tactic against aircraft but there are differences there.

Useless. Missiles like the SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK the KIROV would have launched are traveling at extremely high speeds in their terminal phase. The window of opportunity to engage at that range is very very short, consequently you have to use a dedicated automated CIWS system or point defense missiles to engage. Which is why BB's of the Reagan/Bush era traveled in SAG's, escorted by at least one AEGIS cruiser for area air defense and one SPRUANCE class destroyer to lead ASW defense. Throw in some Frigates for additional air and subsurface defense, plus the HARPOON capability they all brought to the dance and you had a pretty effective battle group.

Oh, and back to 1944, YAMATO did have an OTH detection and correction mechanism, the 6 or 7 E13A1 "Jake" Floatplanes she embarked.

EDITED FOR SPELLING

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:08:39 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

The USS Missouri had a much better fire control system. So I'm going with that ship.

Yup.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:23:33 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But the limiting factor is not range, it’s accuracy. Neither ship can hit a battleship sized target at the gun’s maximum range. As a practical matter the American ship with it’s radar fire control will greatly outrange the Japanese ship.

The 16 inch guns on the Iowa are regarded as some, if not the most, accurate naval guns ever deployed.

Probably true, but the range on the guns is over twenty miles. I’ll defer to people who know more about naval gunnery. But hitting a maneuvering ship sized target at 20+ miles when you are also moving would probably just be a matter of dumb luck.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:29:09 PM EDT

[#46]

The Mighty Mo.

US naval fire control was markedly better in WW2 than Japanese fire control. As a result, American naval gunners were far more accurate.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:48:34 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I wonder how effective the tactic of using the main battery firing a broadside of HE projectiles fuzed to burst among a volley of missiles would fare against the Kirov's salvo. The Japanese certainly were not very effective using that tactic against aircraft but there are differences there.

Useless. Missiles like the SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK the KIROV would have launched are traveling at extremely high speeds in their terminal phase. The window of opportunity to engage at that range is very very short, consequently you have to use a dedicated automated CIWS system or point defense missiles to engage. Which is why BB's of the Reagan/Bush era traveled in SAG's, escorted by at least one AEGIS cruiser for area air defense and one SPRUANCE class destroyer to lead ASW defense. Throw in some Frigates for additional air and subsurface defense, plus the HARPOON capability they all brought to the dance and you had a pretty effective battle group.

Oh, and back to 1944, YAMATO did have an OTH detection and correction mechanism, the 6 or 7 E13A1 "Jake" Floatplanes she embarked.

EDITED FOR SPELLING

The Japanese had a fragmentation shell designed for AA purposes to be fired out of the 18.5's...they were rarely used [if at all] because of worries of damage to the guns bores.

Posted: 12/19/2010 7:55:28 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But the limiting factor is not range, it’s accuracy. Neither ship can hit a battleship sized target at the gun’s maximum range. As a practical matter the American ship with it’s radar fire control will greatly outrange the Japanese ship.

The 16 inch guns on the Iowa are regarded as some, if not the most, accurate naval guns ever deployed.

Probably true, but the range on the guns is over twenty miles. I’ll defer to people who know more about naval gunnery. But hitting a maneuvering ship sized target at 20+ miles when you are also moving would probably just be a matter of dumb luck.

I was on the "Mighty Mo" before the Navy decommissioned her in Long Beach Calif, and I was told that they can hit a target 20 miles away, and that was the equivalent of a 1 MOA, ie 1" groups at 100 yds. By the time the target realizes what's happening, it will be too late, "BOOM!"

Posted: 12/19/2010 8:07:38 PM EDT

[#49]

Very interesting discussion - The information here is damn good and quite intriguing.

Posted: 12/19/2010 9:06:50 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Very interesting discussion - The information here is damn good and quite intriguing.

yup
I just finished reading "Sea of Thunder"........highly recommend it.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - USS Missouri vs. Yamato (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us