User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:41:59 PM EST
[#1]
Is Casey Ryback aboard?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:46:01 PM EST
[#2]
The USS Missouri had a much better fire control system. So I'm going with that ship.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:46:15 PM EST
[#3]
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:49:26 PM EST
[#4]
Quoted: So say it's 1945, and the USS Missouri, and the Yamato encounter each other across open ocean just outside gun range, neither ship has an escort, and both are alone, they are both fully armed, fueled, and crewed, which one wins? All else being equal, the Iowas win. Why? Fire Control RADAR. ETA: For values of 'equal' excluding the main guns: training, crew fitness... m |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:51:02 PM EST
[#5]
gunnery computer. Sayonara, Yamato.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:53:39 PM EST
[#6]
Whichever boat aims best, the most, and the fastest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:53:43 PM EST
[#7]
Japs were shit for damage control, its why they lost in the Pacific!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:55:11 PM EST
[#8]
Quoted: Japs were shit for damage control, its why they lost in the Pacific! That too... You can never underestimate damage control during battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:58:15 PM EST
[#9]
Both would sink from the other's full broadside. The difference would be armor, damage control, and most importantly, aim. I don't know what kind of fire control the japs had, and the missouri's armor wouldn't have withstood one of the 18" shells.
If either one gets a hit in the powder room, its toast. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:00:22 PM EST
[#10]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:00:52 PM EST
[#11]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:05:12 PM EST
[#12]
Sorry, double post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:08:18 PM EST
[#13]
LOL!!!!
Iowa class battleships were superior to Yamato in EVERY WAY. Hell, even the 16" guns hit almost just as hard as the 18" guns on the Yammy. Radar, Fire control, Speed, everything was better on the Iowa class than Yamato or any other battleship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:13:58 PM EST
[#14]
The Japanese 18” guns outrange the American 16” guns. This looks like a big advantage for the Japanese at first. 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 Japanese ship has significantly thicker armor. But this Japanese advantage also disappears under scrutiny. When it comes to armor not all steel is created equal. The Missouri’s armor is made from drastically superior steel. Because of this its armor protection is probably significantly superior to the Yamato. The Yamato’s guns fire a much heavier shell. But their rate of fire was about half the rate of fire of the Missouri’s main guns. Secondary armament goes to the Yamato. Anti aircraft firepower goes to the Missouri by a huge margin. Neither should be a significant factor in this engagement except for the fact that the Missouri commander won’t have to be as concerned about air attacks. (none are coming but he can’t know that for certain.) Damage control goes to the Missouri. And since both ships will take hits in this fight this will be a critical advantage. Missouri is something like 10-15% faster. Overall then, the Missouri’s fire control and damage control gives it the edge. It would be a good fight though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:19:22 PM EST
[#15]
Quoted: So say it's 1945, and the USS Missouri, and the Yamato encounter each other across open ocean just outside gun range, neither ship has an escort, and both are alone, they are both fully armed, fueled, and crewed, which one wins? Two different technologies... Yamato is old school, the Missouri was cutting edge. Missouri wins barring freak incidents. -V |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:20:14 PM EST
[#16]
Fire control comp, steel quality, water tight WTF, damage control, yada da yada da....I'll give it to the American boat, because we're fucking better.
Don't believe it? Hiroshima. Naga-who? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:21:38 PM EST
[#17]
somebody needs to post up a pic from the test of a 16" gun against a Yamato class turret at 30k yards...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:25:16 PM EST
[#18]
Missouri
Now, if we fast-forward 35 years, and to Missouri vs Kirov... The Missouri gets smoked, most likely without getting a shot off.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:34:21 PM EST
[#19]
30k yards yields those pics Quoted: somebody needs to post up a pic from the test of a 16" gun against a Yamato class turret at 30k yards...   |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:37:05 PM EST
[#20]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:37:58 PM EST
[#21]
Missouri is faster.
Yamato is better armored. Missouri can turn like a destroyer. Yamato can't fire a broadside (her arc of fire is limited). The Missouri can. The Missouri has superior radar fire control and an early computer to help calculate ballistics. Missouri wins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:42:41 PM EST
[#22]
Quoted: Yamato is better armored. http://www.hmdb.org/Photos/32/Photo32305o.jpg not so much  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:59:56 PM EST
[#23]
Quoted:
Missouri is faster. Yamato is better armored. Missouri can turn like a destroyer. And obtain fire control solutions while doing so, day or night with ordnance that can defeat the opponent's armor Yamato can't fire a broadside (her arc of fire is limited). The Missouri can. The Missouri has superior radar fire control and an early computer to help calculate ballistics. Missouri wins. FIFY... 
ETA: I really wish that such a battle had occurred just because....if it was only virtual dead. It didn't work that way in 1944 though so I'm happier that the battle never happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 10:09:24 PM EST
[#24]
Missouri
Now, if we fast-forward 35 years, and to Missouri vs Kirov... The Missouri gets smoked, most likely without getting a shot off.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 10:35:25 PM EST
[#25]
Quoted:
Didn't the Yamato have some insane guns, well outside the reach of the Missouri? yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 10:36:10 PM EST
[#26]
The Missouri should win the engagement. First Missouri had radar aimed 16" rifles. Yamato relied of splashes. Missouri had better armor, in spite of the Yamatos was thicker. The Armour piercing rounds the Missouri carried was equal to the power of Yamatos 18" shells.
So if Yamato didn't get in a lucky shot, Missouri had the advantage, especially at night engagements. 
This picture is of what the battleship Massachusetts done to the French Battleship Jean Bart in 1942 in "operation torch". One 16" shell did this damage. I think the Missouri would do OK against the japs, don't you think? Remember one other thing. The Massachusetts had shorter 16" guns than the Missouri, so the Missouri 16" rifles has more power than the earlier class of American Battleships. The Massachusetts came from the last of the South Dakota class of battleships. The Iowa class was 3 years newer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 11:01:08 PM EST
[#27]
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. Sorry, but the range of the E2's radar is well under the range of the Wave Motion Gun. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 11:04:08 PM EST
[#28]
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.... We had a topic about this,a year or two ago.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 11:50:33 PM EST
[#29]
I voted Yamato for the hell of it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2010 11:55:11 PM EST
[#30]
The Yamato has the Wave Motion Gun and can fly.
It's not even close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 12:06:05 AM EST
[#31]
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.... The Soviet nuclear battlecruiser Kirov... Their flagship. It was armed with some VERY, VERY dangerous supersonic AShMs, which would very easily wipe out an Iowa-class (which was almost completely lacking in anti-missile defenses) in a 1v1 un-assisted engagement, before the Iowa got to 16" range... Essentially, the exact same reason the Iowa-class would beat one of it's Jap contemporaries, 1-v-1: Generation gap and more effective weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 12:08:19 AM EST
[#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.... We had a topic about this,a year or two ago. Yes, we did... Back when vitto113 was still around, and contributing... Very interesting discussion... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 12:38:32 AM EST
[#33]
Quoted:
30k yards yields those pics Quoted:
somebody needs to post up a pic from the test of a 16" gun against a Yamato class turret at 30k yards... http://www.wade8a.com/pmimages/plate02.jpghttp://www.hmdb.org/Photos/32/Photo32305o.jpg DAMN!!!! I bet that rang like a bell when it hit! LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 12:50:41 AM EST
[#34]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 12:52:57 AM EST
[#35]
Quoted:
So say it's 1945, and the USS Missouri, and the Yamato encounter each other across open ocean just outside gun range, neither ship has an escort, and both are alone, they are both fully armed, fueled, and crewed, which one wins? In historical context, the Missouri. The Yamato's crew didn't have much practice with their 18" guns in 1945, both fuel and ammunition shortages took their toll. The Missouri's crew was much more practiced. Missouri wins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 2:37:14 AM EST
[#36]
MO: night engagement, radar controlled main battery = bye bye YoMo
So far away no flashy flashy no boomy boomy only exploding Japanese ship parts and darkness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 2:53:45 AM EST
[#37]
Fire control system FTW!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 2:57:07 AM EST
[#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.... We had a topic about this,a year or two ago.
Kinda boils down to the old time-tested gun vs. missile argument... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 3:33:20 AM EST
[#39]
I read an article many years ago (mighta been in Sea Classics or something) that stated that MISSOURI's 16 inchers were flatter shooting (and had longer range) than the YAMATO's 18.1 inch rifles. The article stated that all else being equal, the MISSOURI could have remained just outside YAMATO's range and tore her to pieces.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 4:04:32 AM EST
[#40]
Yamato and her last second afloat, the destroyers near her were severely damaged by that blast.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 4:25:21 AM EST
[#41]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 4:28:52 AM EST
[#42]
Not sure how durable the Iowa class ships were but the Yamato (or Musashi, I don't remember which) took like 27 bomb and 9 torpedo hits before it sunk. I think the 18" guns would give the gunnery edge to the Yamato.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 4:31:20 AM EST
[#43]
Quoted:
. I think the 18" guns would give the gunnery edge to the Yamato.  Not really...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 4:32:42 AM EST
[#44]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 4:40:23 AM EST
[#45]
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. Um. It was in service in gulf war I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 4:48:49 AM EST
[#46]
Quoted:
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. Um. It was in service in gulf war I. I'm trying to figure out your point. In 1980, with Carter as President, USS Missouri was not in service, having been decommissioned in 1955. During the 80s, with Reagan as President, USS Missouri was modernized and placed back into service, in 1984. Desert Shield started in August/September 1990. Desert Storm started in January 1991. USS Missouri was decommissioned in 1992. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 5:17:53 AM EST
[#47]
Missouri.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 5:22:41 AM EST
[#48]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 5:33:56 AM EST
[#49]
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. Well, I think Yamamoto was pretty much finished with construction (except potential future sideways expansion,) when he was shot down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2010 5:37:07 AM EST
[#50]
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. Replace the Harpoons (blast fragmentation warhead and pop-up attack profile ain't gonna affect a WWII BB nearly as much as a modern ship,) with non-nuke Tomahawks. |
|
|
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.
