Matrix Games Forums

Boy, the servers are running more piggishly than ever today. [:(]

I just wanted to add that the above analysis I provided is not mine per se but rather a simple rehash of what's been thought out and discussed in detail and at length by individuals far more knowledgable than myself on this subject, and for some years now. All I've done is to present in brief the big picture as best a lay might. Should anyone care to pursue it further, perhaps even get into it up close with those individuals who do know their stuff inside and out, I've provided the necessary link to a board where I know these types to habitually reside.

Go for it!

Tristanjohn,

I am going to quibble with you on the extremley fragile point because I don't think it correctly describes what is going on. Warships are extremly tough, the often survive bomb, shell and even torpedo hits and remain able to continue in action.

On the other hand they are vunerable to catastrophic hits. The all time great example of this is the British BCs at Jutland. Several blew up do to catastrophic hits but the ones that did not blow up took huge punishment and kept fighting. Lion took 13 heavy shell hits and Tiger took 15 and they were both fighting hard at the end of the battle.

In World War II some of the systems are a little more fragile but we still see ships surviving multiple bomb and shell hits and continueing in action without serisouly degraded performance. Then we see other ships that take a few hits and thier performance drops off a cliff.

So I don't agree that warships are fragile but they are vunerable to critical damage. This distinction is important because fragile implies that warships are easy to kill which is not really true.

Maybe just semantics but important imho.

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Tristanjohn,

I am going to quibble with you on the extremley fragile point because I don't think it correctly describes what is going on. Warships are extremly tough, the often survive bomb, shell and even torpedo hits and remain able to continue in action.

On the other hand they are vunerable to catastrophic hits. The all time great example of this is the British BCs at Jutland. Several blew up do to catastrophic hits but the ones that did not blow up took huge punishment and kept fighting. Lion took 13 heavy shell hits and Tiger took 15 and they were both fighting hard at the end of the battle.

In World War II some of the systems are a little more fragile but we still see ships surviving multiple bomb and shell hits and continueing in action without serisouly degraded performance. Then we see other ships that take a few hits and their performance drops off a cliff.

So I don't agree that warships are fragile but they are vunerable to critical damage. This distinction is important because fragile implies that warships are easy to kill which is not really true.

Maybe just semantics but important imho.

We're not so far apart, Tom. The main point I wanted to illustrate was that with the advent of more sophisticated weaponry systems came increased failure rate of said systems, this to include collateral damage suffered from one's own fire! Morison gives one example where a USN destroyer, I think this was at Okinawa, but whatever, suffered failure because she was simply too close to one of our battleships which loosed a broadside and that secondary concussive wave was enough to take down this destroyer's systems--whether this was radar failure or what I forget, but Morison is easy to find and so you could read it for yourself. (That would be in Volume XIV, most likely Part II.) Indeed, the Navy went to considerable lengths to get technical people from these system manufacturers to sail with our fleet on a continual basis in order to keep our ships operational in this respect.

So you see it isn't just battleships but all ships of this era which were so prone to failure.

To accept this reality leaves one not a far cry from being able to extrapolate to the point where I stand vis-a-vis a WWII vessels' relatively high vulnerability to any sort of incoming vis-a-vis their most critical operating systems: which I consider first and foremost to be . . . fire control.

After all, what possible good is a ship in a fight with rifles and buoyancy if it cannot hit the broadside of a barn? The answer is no use at all, unless you consider that ship might serve as a sort of decoy target for the enemy, thus drawing fire away from other more viable friendly platforms.

Some ships survive, some ships do not. I don't say all these systems failed all the time, because they did not. But they failed often enough to demonstrate their real-world fragility, especially when compared to the relatively less sophisticated naval weaponry systems of WWI.

In World War II some of the systems are a little more fragile but we still see ships surviving multiple bomb and shell hits and continuing in action without seriously degraded performance. Then we see other ships that take a few hits and their performance drops off a cliff.

There may be one or two cases where ships absorbed multiple hits from inferior fire (read: fire which had been proofed against in design) and still were effective platforms, but I can't think of a single incident where, say, a battleship began to take incoming heavy rounds and still functioned "without seriously degraded performance." In those cases performance was indeed seriously degraded. But feel free to jog my memory. (After my combative and curmudgeon style this is my worst trait, I'm afraid.)

Mostly not so. Turn radius and the relatively more stable platform prove to be ephemeral advantages to gunnery performance in actual use, as the first characteristic would tend to cancel the second out to a degree.

Absolutely not true. The ability to manuever is absolutely critical to a warship and becomes even more critical at long range. The effects of manuever on fire control solutions hampers the targeter far more than the target regardless of radar or optical direction. It is extremely difficult to predict where a ship will be that is zig-zagging. A steady course is required for such a prediction. No fire control computer can do it even today, they can only predict where a ship should be at a steady course and speed. It is also far easier for a ship to adjust for own ship movement than the enemy's.

Yamato could also turn a full circle with a diameter of only 640yds at top speed. Iowa needed at least 840 yds to do so. Yamato also had an auxilliary rudders on either side of the keel some distance forward of the main rudders. This allowed her to perform a sideslip manuever that the Iowa could not duplicate. As gun directors attempt to predict where an enemy ship will be at a certain point in time, the ability to manuever rapidly away from that point can mean the difference between a hit or a miss.

Also, the inability of Yamato to accurately adjust fire on the move in step with (I speak here in a relative sense--nobody's suggesting that Yamato went to sea with a cruddy range-keeping system, it simply wasn't state of the art) Iowa's fast solutions would only be exacerbated by that smaller turn radius should it be employed, and points to a very real shortcoming she had to bear vis-a-vis Iowa's primary strength: the calculation of fire solutions quickly on the fly.

All warships are on the move when firing. If they arent, they are literally sitting ducks. Just because an optical system wasn't "state of the art" has little bearing on its effectiveness in battle. Yamato and Musashi had the finest optical fire control system in the world, far superior to the optical system employed by the Iowa. Iowa's main advantage was with her radar directed fire control. Without it, she is at a slight disadvantage. Yamato certainly had the ability to provide quick and accurate fire control solutions. Granted, not as quick as Iowa, but still sufficiently quick that the guns were not waiting on input before firing the next salvo. Yamato's FC did have a greater chance of induced error due to its labor intensiveness but the solution itself took little time to achieve. Also, Yamato's FC system allowed for the input of radar or optical data and provided more information than did the Iowa's Mk 8 mod 2 system such as bearing rate which can be used to calculate target speed or range independent of an optical or radar range finder.

The latter ship, simply put, could compensate more surely across the board for real-world challenges (the loss of a finder, say) and natural obstacles (difficulty to acquire LOS in foul weather or at night, rough sea states) as these presented themselves. With regard to the latter, it was in those high sea states where the advantage would grow starker still for Iowa, for that's precisely where her technology would tend to show its most brilliant colors.

Radar has the advantage in wet weather or on a dark night however the Iowa had inferior seakeeping abilities at speed. She tend to wallow and bury her bows in large waves. She was a much wetter ship than Yamato, especially when the seas were on the beam. Yamato's strength was her broad beam which provided far superior stability as a gun platform. Her bulbous bow and deck form allowed her to slide through large waves better much better than Iowa. If Iowa were steaming into a heavy sea at speed, "A" turret would most likely have been adversely affected, especially under local control. Its certain that the lower level AAA guns were often unuseable in heavy seas due to constant spray and breaking waves. This doesn't speak well for her seakeeping abilities.

The physical positioning of finders is not much of an issue, except for height, where more, other things being equal, is better, but then other things are not always equal. In any event, one direct hit on any finder means kaput, and it's impossible to predict where those hits might actually strike home. Should a finder go south, however, then Yamato would be in something of a fix, whereas Iowa would still be capable to deliver reasonably accurate fire quickly due her more sophisticated radar. In turn, Yamato would then be reduced to local fire control. Not good.

Height is the primary location requirement for optical and radar range finders as greater height allows for targeting at longer ranges. Range finders mounted on the guns themselves are practically useless at ranges over 15000 yards due to the inability of the rangefinder to interpolate the waterline of the target. As optical range finders most often used mast heights for range calculations, a clear line of sight to the waterline is necessary for accurate range solutions.

Bottom line: the fire-control system of Iowa stood head and shoulders above what Yamato had to work with. It was inherently less complicated to operate and actually required far fewer operators (in fact, the Iowa required just one operator for its computer whereas the Yamato's Type 92 Shagekiban computer required seven operators, not a minor point as human error is always with us and adds up fast) and was intrinsically more accurate in spite of superior IJN optics due to the collective technological advances introduced by the Mark 38 GFCS (Gun Fire Control System) working in cooperation with the Mark 8 rangekeeper,

Iowa's fire control was better than Yamato's but also more prone to breakdown from shock. One thing to note: If Iowa's radar directed firecontrol system was knocked out, Yamato would then have the advantage with her superior optics. And not just the quality of the optics but also from the 15 meter distance netween them which provided an extremely accurate range. Also consider that technology has disadvantages too. If Iowa lost her radar firce control and had to revert to optical means, she is not going to be as proficient with optics as some one who has to use it all the time. To put it another way, if your computer went kaput, would you be as proficient on a typewriter as someone who has to use one every day?

all of this on a more stable platform than Yamato due to the use of a gyro compass system to provide a stable vertical reference for determining the true horizon. With the advent of the Mark 8 Mod 2 rangekeeper in 1943 the performance gap only widened between these potential antagonists. In short, it was not Yamato but rather Iowa which proved to be the more stable gun platform in real-world conditions, the more accurate purveyor of deadly salvos down range, and at a faster rate to boot. (On paper, always, though the performance of this class since World War II would seem to confirm the analysis. Of course, that's been like shooting ducks, not the same deal as face to face with an enemy shooting back at you, but it's all we have to go on save for test shoots.)

As I said above, stability has to do with the hull, not the fire control director, and Yamato was far more stable, especially in a heavy sea. Stabilizing the fire control director is great but it does nothing to reduce the movement of the gun barrels as a ship rolls. Gunfire is only accurate if the barrels can be kept to the correct elevation. Yamato, with her broader beam and reduced roll rate, would have an easier time than Iowa. Obviously a calm sea negates this advantage but ships didn't always get to pick the conditions under which they fought. Yamato also had a greatly reduced pitch rate over the Iowa.

This argument might never die, but the consensus among the techie-types is that Iowa enjoyed a clear advantage in all critical areas of gunnery.

No... the consensus is actually that the Iowa enjoyed a clear advanatge only in fire control direction. Yamato had the greater range, greater throw weight, greater turret protection and greater stability than did Iowa. One point in Iowa's favor was her fuel consumption. She could steam about 4 times further than the Yamato on equivalent fuel stocks.

One other point that is germane is that Yamato also had better torpedo protection than did Iowa, especially in the vicinity of #1 turret. This is important for those shells that land close aboard. Yamato was designed to withstand torpedo warheads up to 860lbs whereas Iowa design requirement was for only a 680lb warhead. Yamato's protection did have its faults, particularly where it joined with the main belt. Iowa torpedo blister also did not extend under the magazines whereas the Yamato's did. Its probably best that the Iowas were never struck by a torpedo(s). It is unlikely she could have withstood half the torpedo hits Yamato or Musashi took.

Pound for pound, Iowa's armor is generally better than Yamato, however Yamato had more and in greater thickness so the overall effect was superior protection. Yamato's armor box was originally designed to defeat a 2200lb AP bomb dropped from 10000 feet and her own guns. Iowa was designed to withstand hits from 16"/45 cal guns, not even her own 16"/50 cal.

Game simulations, no matter how detailed, aren't going to provide the answer either. If they did, the military would just wargame it and call it over. After all, how many war game simulations have consistently duplicated the events at Midway?
There are too many variables to take into account and as I said before, a one on one battle would probably have never happended. In a general fleet engagement, a single Yamato would probably not have survived without some extraordinary luck

The Iowa was probably the best overall battleship ever built but she was built with tradeoffs. The Yamato obviously could withstand tremendous punishment and still manuever. After all, it took more than 300 bomber and torpedo planes to put her down. Musashi, by all accounts, was better constructed than was Yamato even though they were sisters. Musashi took far longer to put down, having been under continuous air attack for over 5 hours. Indeed, it took 4 torpedoes to reduce her speed to 22 knots and a further 10 torps to reduce it to 6 knots. After all that, she still didn't sink until 2 hours after the last attack. I doubt the Iowa would have taken anywhere near that kind of punishment and this doesn't include the multitude of bombs that hit Musashi.

I am not a fanboy of either the Yamato or Iowa but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. I like both ships. Who would win in an actual confrontation between the two? Who knows? A one on one battle between them would have been highly improbable and to say that one would be a clear cut winner over the other is looking at paper only. More likely it would have been a battle involving many other ships and aircraft and at this stage in the war, Yamato and her sister would have succombed to the inevitable, just as they did IRL.

Chez

Of course the problem of finding examples of BBs taking hits is that by and large they did not get hit.

As you know most of the BBs that got hit at all got pounded to death. The only exception I can think of was South Dakota being shot up by Kirishima but S. Dakota was a cripple at the start of the fight. She did go from being totally helpless at the start of the action to mostly helpless at the end, and during that time she was hit but its not a really good case study.

Exeter fought pretty long and hard against Graf Spee inspite of very heavy damage. That is the best WWII example that comes to mind off the top of my head. Some of the DDs on picket duty off Okinawa also fought long and hard after multiple Kamikazi hits which also proves my point about being tough.

The bomb hits on Yorktown at Coral Sea also prove my arguement. They were significant hits but did not take out any critical systems so the ship remained in action. This happened on other occasions with other CVs as well. Its harder to find BB examples in WWII because of the way BBs fought, but there are a number of warship examples.

Prince of Wales took several hits from the Bismark & was still able to follow her for a couple of days.

Yamato?Musashi were impressive ships for sure. I read a book: "A Glorious Way to Die" (or something similar) quite some years back which went into some detail as to some design faults of Yamato: the AAA was too concentrated on the superstructure and something about difficulty in utilizing counterflooding to stabilize the ship. It's been a long time so all I really remember was the author's description of waves of straffing F6Fs preceding the torpedo bombers and blood cascading onto the main deck from the AAA mounts above.

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"The chance of a hit at over 30,000 yards is about the same as being hit by a falling satelite."
Ow! Dang it, what was that?

"Yamato also had much longer range and could, theoretically, maintain a faster rate of fire."
Iowa's gun range was 42,345 yards. Yamato's was 45,275 yards. It's hard to find any practical advantage in that.
Yamato's firing cycle at the loading angle is about half a minute, similar to Iowa's, but Iowa's guns elevate at a rate 50% faster than Yamato's. All in all, I don't see much advantage either way, and in any case, the time of flight at ranges beyond 20-25,000 yards is greater than the firing cycle. So unless they're firing without spotting, the firing cycle will not slow things down for either ship.

"The site below claims that the Royal Navy and Dutch Navy confirmed Japanese claims"
I have looked at this web page, and I am stunned at the number and degree of the errors. Consider:
>>British/Australian and Dutch recon and spotters from the beginning of the war confirmed with accurate measurements that the Yamato’s guns fired well in excess of even Japanese equipment claims of 54 kilometres.<< Let us ask ourselves when the Allies had the opportunity to make this observation. Hm--at the beginning of the war when Yamato was not yet in service...? Wait, perhaps they'll answer this question for us. >>When lending shore bombardment or just testing against land targets, the Dutch and Royal Navies later confirmed with on-sight inspection that the Yamato’s were capable of throwing certain of their shells up to 80 kilometres.<< Ah, but of course, it was when the Allies were observing Yamato perform a shore bombardment mission. Yeah, I remember when that happened.... But wait, there's more! >>the Dutch Navy confirmed the Yamato was absurdly accurate at over 54 kilometres.<< Right. I can confirm that every time Yamato fired on Dutch forces, it was at ranges beyond 54km. After all, Yamato never got within 54km of Dutch forces.
>>On the otherhand, the Iowa’s 16/50 guns were unable to effectively penetrate the Yamato’s vital armour at any provable range.<< One suspects the influence of mind-altering drugs. >>Japanese sources now claim the Yamato decks at 12” rather than the 6”, 7”, 9” or even 12”<< And which sources are those? Is it that Starship Yamato comic?
How much more of this can I stand?
>>However, everytime our Iowas fired, even in poor visibility, they would be giving away their positions for the Yamatos to range on.<< So the Japanese gunnery personnel will be taking rangefinder readings on muzzle flashes? Somebody's been watching too many Combat! reruns.
>>However, the Yamatos and Nagatos were to have top priority for the newer engines which would probably make them at least 33 knots if not more according to comparative engineering calculations on existing power to weight ratios.<< What's that? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have confirmed the influence of those mind-altering drugs. I'll finish with one last quote.
>>The Musashi was sunk after supposedly suffering an estimated 27 bomb and 22 torpedo strikes. The Yamato was supposedly hit by 47 bomb and 27 torpedo strikes. The Yamato was loaded with over 2,000 heavily armed marines hampering crew action and damage control to boot. The Shinano, a carrier conversion, was sunk with skeletal crew by a claimed 14 torpedo hits all to one side(wisely), 6 simultaneous and despite being incomplete with no damage control parties still took over 7 hours for her to sink.<< This passage is completely true, as long as you cut off each sentence after the verb "was."
Caveat Surfer. Was this page created as a deliberate lie?

This "article" from the same web site should give some clues about how reliable any other information presented is likely to be.

http://members.shaw.ca/millerww2/ww2/history/strangetrue.html

*puts on tinfoil hat*
"Yep, the signal is blocked now!"

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

This "article" from the same web site should give some clues about how reliable any other information presented is likely to be.

http://members.shaw.ca/millerww2/ww2/hi ... etrue.html

....more to come in the future

Posted: Dec 22, 2000

Oh wait...

17. A shell fired by Yamato during WW2 overshot and finally after 60 odd years landed on referee Mike, thereby saving us from more of this ´more strange then true´ information. (I hope).

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Mostly not so. Turn radius and the relatively more stable platform prove to be ephemeral advantages to gunnery performance in actual use, as the first characteristic would tend to cancel the second out to a degree.

Absolutely not true. The ability to maneuver is absolutely critical to a warship and becomes even more critical at long range. The effects of maneuver on fire control solutions hampers the targeter far more than the target regardless of radar or optical direction. It is extremely difficult to predict where a ship will be that is zig-zagging. A steady course is required for such a prediction. No fire control computer can do it even today, they can only predict where a ship should be at a steady course and speed. It is also far easier for a ship to adjust for own ship movement than the enemy's.

Yamato could also turn a full circle with a diameter of only 640yds at top speed. Iowa needed at least 840 yds to do so. Yamato also had an auxilliary rudders on either side of the keel some distance forward of the main rudders. This allowed her to perform a sideslip maneuver that the Iowa could not duplicate. As gun directors attempt to predict where an enemy ship will be at a certain point in time, the ability to maneuver rapidly away from that point can mean the difference between a hit or a miss.

You're only bothering to look at that from one point of view, and in any event you manage to completely confuse my original remark.

You also ignore the theory of spreads which tends to defeat salvo chasing and such. Not completely, of course, but it's difficult to race out from under that sort of wide-spread rain of death.

Anyway, in this regard all I said was that Yamato would lose some of her superior "stability" when making such tight turns, and this would lead, to whatever degree, to more degradation of her fire plots and/or a delay in obtaining reliable ones. That point you completely ignore.

Also, the inability of Yamato to accurately adjust fire on the move in step with (I speak here in a relative sense--nobody's suggesting that Yamato went to sea with a cruddy range-keeping system, it simply wasn't state of the art) Iowa's fast solutions would only be exacerbated by that smaller turn radius should it be employed, and points to a very real shortcoming she had to bear vis-a-vis Iowa's primary strength: the calculation of fire solutions quickly on the fly.

All warships are on the move when firing. If they arent, they are literally sitting ducks. Just because an optical system wasn't "state of the art" has little bearing on its effectiveness in battle.

NOTE: Well, you made a logical error there, which I'll just clean up so there's no mistake on anyone else's part: Chez didn't mean to say that Yamato had inferior optics, just the opposite was in fact the case. And of course, the quality of optics has a lot to do with performance in battle, as it must.

Getting back to what you seem to have meant to write: the ultimate quality of a ship's fire-control system has a lot to do with a battle's outcome, I dare say it has nearly everything to do with it. This quality also bears directly on the matter of relative fire-control effectiveness between one ship and another. It isn't as if we're talking about keeping score on a some static range here during exercises. We speak rather to a hypothetical real-time combat where an extra hit or two probably will make all the difference, and moreover, where that extra hit or two will almost assuredly come at the expense of Yamato.

Yamato and Musashi had the finest optical fire control system in the world, far superior to the optical system employed by the Iowa.

I don't know if that's true, first of all. The Germans had the same optics, if not better still. The Japanese took their optical designs from German plans, and as I've already agreed that Japanese optics were far superior to American optics, what's your point in mentioning this?

Iowa's main advantage was with her radar directed fire control. Without it, she is at a slight disadvantage.

I'm not even convinced that's true insofar as Iowa could always get off more rounds faster than Yamato, and while her optics were inferior it is not all that clear that they were that inferior. Perhaps they were, but I don't know; neither would I know how to demonstrate this one way or the other.

Yamato certainly had the ability to provide quick and accurate fire control solutions.

Relative to what?

She was slower in this area than Iowa. That's the only pertinent point in this debate.

Granted, not as quick as Iowa, but still sufficiently quick that the guns were not waiting on input before firing the next salvo.

We need to slow down here.

As a matter of course there is bound to be a delay enforced on Yamato's solutions relative to Iowa immediately after the first salvos are loosed. Yamato must observe her fall of shot, then make the calculations, which are slower than Iowa's. Iowa then gets off her second salvo while Yamato's still figuring hers. Soon enough Iowa is on her fifth salvo while Yamato's still computing her fourth, and like that. Yamato would never catch up, always fall further behind, eventually fall fatally behind.

Yamato's FC did have a greater chance of induced error due to its labor intensiveness but the solution itself took little time to achieve. Also, Yamato's FC system allowed for the input of radar or optical data and provided more information than did the Iowa's Mk 8 mod 2 system such as bearing rate which can be used to calculate target speed or range independent of an optical or radar range finder.

I've no idea what you're talking about there. Are you saying Yamato had some potential for radar-fed critical plotting data and then could actually use this over and above what Iowa employed? If so, you're dead wrong. And the Mark 8 Mod 2 was state of the art. It was somewhat different than the approach used by the Japanese but its real drawback was the indifferent optics.

The latter ship, simply put, could compensate more surely across the board for real-world challenges (the loss of a finder, say) and natural obstacles (difficulty to acquire LOS in foul weather or at night, rough sea states) as these presented themselves. With regard to the latter, it was in those high sea states where the advantage would grow starker still for Iowa, for that's precisely where her technology would tend to show its most brilliant colors.

Radar has the advantage in wet weather or on a dark night however the Iowa had inferior seakeeping abilities at speed. She tend to wallow and bury her bows in large waves. She was a much wetter ship than Yamato, especially when the seas were on the beam. Yamato's strength was her broad beam which provided far superior stability as a gun platform. Her bulbous bow and deck form allowed her to slide through large waves better much better than Iowa. If Iowa were steaming into a heavy sea at speed, "A" turret would most likely have been adversely affected, especially under local control. Its certain that the lower level AAA guns were often unuseable in heavy seas due to constant spray and breaking waves. This doesn't speak well for her seakeeping abilities.

Yamato was not a more stable gun platform in spite of her seakeeping characteristics vis-a-vis Iowa. In fact, the worse the seas became the more the gyro-stabilized Iowa system would pull ahead of Yamato.

The physical positioning of finders is not much of an issue, except for height, where more, other things being equal, is better, but then other things are not always equal. In any event, one direct hit on any finder means kaput, and it's impossible to predict where those hits might actually strike home. Should a finder go south, however, then Yamato would be in something of a fix, whereas Iowa would still be capable to deliver reasonably accurate fire quickly due her more sophisticated radar. In turn, Yamato would then be reduced to local fire control. Not good.

Height is the primary location requirement for optical and radar range finders as greater height allows for targeting at longer ranges. Range finders mounted on the guns themselves are practically useless at ranges over 15000 yards due to the inability of the rangefinder to interpolate the waterline of the target. As optical range finders most often used mast heights for range calculations, a clear line of sight to the waterline is necessary for accurate range solutions.

I don't think you've bothered to read (for meaning) what I've written. You're only repeating me here. [8D]

Bottom line: the fire-control system of Iowa stood head and shoulders above what Yamato had to work with. It was inherently less complicated to operate and actually required far fewer operators (in fact, the Iowa required just one operator for its computer whereas the Yamato's Type 92 Shagekiban computer required seven operators, not a minor point as human error is always with us and adds up fast) and was intrinsically more accurate in spite of superior IJN optics due to the collective technological advances introduced by the Mark 38 GFCS (Gun Fire Control System) working in cooperation with the Mark 8 rangekeeper,

Iowa's fire control was better than Yamato's but also more prone to breakdown from shock.

On that point we've found room for agreement. I've already mentioned in another note in this thread the increased fragility of and required service hours for these new-and-improved systems.

One thing to note: If Iowa's radar directed firecontrol system was knocked out, Yamato would then have the advantage with her superior optics. And not just the quality of the optics but also from the 15 meter distance netween them which provided an extremely accurate range. Also consider that technology has disadvantages too. If Iowa lost her radar firce control and had to revert to optical means, she is not going to be as proficient with optics as some one who has to use it all the time. To put it another way, if your computer went kaput, would you be as proficient on a typewriter as someone who has to use one every day?

She'd have the advantage of her superior optics if weather and time of day so allowed. As it turns out Japanese doctrine and practice was to seek surface engagements at night. They were well aware (as was Admiral Spruance!) of their advantage in that respect over the Americans, so it's odds on that Yamato would have effectively sacrificed whatever advantage she enjoyed with respect to optics. Had Iowa's radar gone haywire under a full moon and a clear night sky then I'll grant you Yamato would have enjoyed an advantage with regard to spotting. But again, what are the odds of that happening? [8D]

all of this on a more stable platform than Yamato due to the use of a gyro compass system to provide a stable vertical reference for determining the true horizon. With the advent of the Mark 8 Mod 2 rangekeeper in 1943 the performance gap only widened between these potential antagonists. In short, it was not Yamato but rather Iowa which proved to be the more stable gun platform in real-world conditions, the more accurate purveyor of deadly salvos down range, and at a faster rate to boot. (On paper, always, though the performance of this class since World War II would seem to confirm the analysis. Of course, that's been like shooting ducks, not the same deal as face to face with an enemy shooting back at you, but it's all we have to go on save for test shoots.)

As I said above, stability has to do with the hull, not the fire control director, and Yamato was far more stable, especially in a heavy sea.

It doesn't matter how stable a ship's hull is. It only matters how 1) accurately and 2) fast a fire-control system can acquire its target. And on both of those points Iowa was a league ahead of Yamato, most especially in heavy seas. Her system was designed to afford her this advantage.

Stabilizing the fire control director is great but it does nothing to reduce the movement of the gun barrels as a ship rolls.

It certainly does if the movement of those barrels is being compensated for on the fly as part of that fire-control solution. Of course the system wasn't perfect, but it sure beat what Yamato had to work with. Iowa possessed that ability, Yamato did not. Check another up for Iowa.

Gunfire is only accurate if the barrels can be kept to the correct elevation. Yamato, with her broader beam and reduced roll rate, would have an easier time than Iowa. Obviously a calm sea negates this advantage but ships didn't always get to pick the conditions under which they fought. Yamato also had a greatly reduced pitch rate over the Iowa.

I'm not sure to what degree Yamato would have gained (or rather lost less ground) to Iowa in calm seas as opposed to heavy seas. And again, you seem to disagree with this, as your message is that Yamato would lose some of her advantage in a calm sea state. I see it exactly opposite. To whatever degree that Yamato did pitch and roll and yaw in a heavy sea, she was incapable of keeping up with these erratic motions the same as Iowa could, this in reference to their respective fire-control technologies and the solutions these provided, and that's why Yamato would be better off in calm seas than violent seas. The worse the weather got the more Iowa's superior technology came into play, and thus the further ahead she drew.

This argument might never die, but the consensus among the techie-types is that Iowa enjoyed a clear advantage in all critical areas of gunnery.

No... the consensus is actually that the Iowa enjoyed a clear advanatge only in fire control direction. Yamato had the greater range, greater throw weight, greater turret protection and greater stability than did Iowa. One point in Iowa's favor was her fuel consumption. She could steam about 4 times further than the Yamato on equivalent fuel stocks.

Fire-control is everything in match-ups of this kind. The first who hits almost always swims away the winner. And you could look that up. (Indeed, it is an age-old naval dictum.)

One other point that is germane is that Yamato also had better torpedo protection than did Iowa, especially in the vicinity of #1 turret. This is important for those shells that land close aboard. Yamato was designed to withstand torpedo warheads up to 860lbs whereas Iowa design requirement was for only a 680lb warhead. Yamato's protection did have its faults, particularly where it joined with the main belt. Iowa torpedo blister also did not extend under the magazines whereas the Yamato's did. Its probably best that the Iowas were never struck by a torpedo(s). It is unlikely she could have withstood half the torpedo hits Yamato or Musashi took.

That would be a one-in-a-thousand chance. Perhaps more like one-in-ten-thousand or one-in-ten-million chance. It'd be like getting bopped on the head by one of Scholl's "satellites." [:D]

But even as far afield as that point is I'll cede it to you if it's so important. Yes, Yamato was better protected. (And given her relatively crap fire-control system vis-a-vis Iowa's she'd certainly need to be!)

Pound for pound, Iowa's armor is generally better than Yamato, however Yamato had more and in greater thickness so the overall effect was superior protection. Yamato's armor box was originally designed to defeat a 2200lb AP bomb dropped from 10000 feet and her own guns. Iowa was designed to withstand hits from 16"/45 cal guns, not even her own 16"/50 cal.

True. In an way, Iowa herself, as advanced as she was in some respects, was a compromise design.

By the way, Yamato's hull design set new standards for hydrodynamic (is that the right term?) design and have been copied (in principle) universally since the end of the war.

Game simulations, no matter how detailed, aren't going to provide the answer either. If they did, the military would just wargame it and call it over. After all, how many war game simulations have consistently duplicated the events at Midway?

None. But except for its three-minute turns, Action Stations! by Alan Zimm did a very good job of simulating surface-ship engagements. This simulation (in its earliest form, before Zimm published the commercial version) was actually used by the Navy as its naval-wargame simulator for tactical exercises at one juncture. Are you familiar with this title? If not, let me know and I'll send a copy to you.

There are too many variables to take into account and as I said before, a one on one battle would probably have never happended. In a general fleet engagement, a single Yamato would probably not have survived without some extraordinary luck

You're confusing me again. Are you saying that you believe the Yamato in a straight fight with Iowa would likely come out the loser? [&:]

The Iowa was probably the best overall battleship ever built but she was built with tradeoffs. The Yamato obviously could withstand tremendous punishment and still maneuver. After all, it took more than 300 bomber and torpedo planes to put her down. Musashi, by all accounts, was better constructed than was Yamato even though they were sisters. Musashi took far longer to put down, having been under continuous air attack for over 5 hours. Indeed, it took 4 torpedoes to reduce her speed to 22 knots and a further 10 torps to reduce it to 6 knots. After all that, she still didn't sink until 2 hours after the last attack. I doubt the Iowa would have taken anywhere near that kind of punishment and this doesn't include the multitude of bombs that hit Musashi.

That's fine and dandy, but look at the punishment Bismarck absorbed (at first shrugged off) before she went down/was scuttled (take your pick). Hell, look how long it required the Navy (and Marines) to finish off Hiei, and she fell a long shot short of either Yamato or Bismarck. Mostly, battleships were incongruous tubs that carried preposterous guns and were so interlaced inside with watertight labyrinthine compartments that, yes, it often required a lot of doing to finally achieve one's demise. But that is not to say they could "take it" all day and still "function."

I am not a fanboy of either the Yamato or Iowa but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. I like both ships. Who would win in an actual confrontation between the two? Who knows? A one on one battle between them would have been highly improbable and to say that one would be a clear cut winner over the other is looking at paper only. More likely it would have been a battle involving many other ships and aircraft and at this stage in the war, Yamato and her sister would have succombed to the inevitable, just as they did IRL.

Well, it's fair to say there's more to this business than what we find on paper, but then again we do have encounters between other battleships where the critical factor of superior fire control ruled the day, so it's not as if we're dancing in the dark, here, either.

Somehow we ended up with a double posting there.

Is anyone else in love with this new forum software? [8D]

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"The chance of a hit at over 30,000 yards is about the same as being hit by a falling satelite."
Ow! Dang it, what was that?

"Yamato also had much longer range and could, theoretically, maintain a faster rate of fire."
Iowa's gun range was 42,345 yards. Yamato's was 45,275 yards. It's hard to find any practical advantage in that.
Yamato's firing cycle at the loading angle is about half a minute, similar to Iowa's, but Iowa's guns elevate at a rate 50% faster than Yamato's. All in all, I don't see much advantage either way, and in any case, the time of flight at ranges beyond 20-25,000 yards is greater than the firing cycle. So unless they're firing without spotting, the firing cycle will not slow things down for either ship.

"The site below claims that the Royal Navy and Dutch Navy confirmed Japanese claims"
I have looked at this web page, and I am stunned at the number and degree of the errors. Consider:
>>British/Australian and Dutch recon and spotters from the beginning of the war confirmed with accurate measurements that the Yamato’s guns fired well in excess of even Japanese equipment claims of 54 kilometres.<< Let us ask ourselves when the Allies had the opportunity to make this observation. Hm--at the beginning of the war when Yamato was not yet in service...? Wait, perhaps they'll answer this question for us. >>When lending shore bombardment or just testing against land targets, the Dutch and Royal Navies later confirmed with on-sight inspection that the Yamato’s were capable of throwing certain of their shells up to 80 kilometres.<< Ah, but of course, it was when the Allies were observing Yamato perform a shore bombardment mission. Yeah, I remember when that happened.... But wait, there's more! >>the Dutch Navy confirmed the Yamato was absurdly accurate at over 54 kilometres.<< Right. I can confirm that every time Yamato fired on Dutch forces, it was at ranges beyond 54km. After all, Yamato never got within 54km of Dutch forces.
>>On the otherhand, the Iowa’s 16/50 guns were unable to effectively penetrate the Yamato’s vital armour at any provable range.<< One suspects the influence of mind-altering drugs. >>Japanese sources now claim the Yamato decks at 12” rather than the 6”, 7”, 9” or even 12”<< And which sources are those? Is it that Starship Yamato comic?
How much more of this can I stand?
>>However, everytime our Iowas fired, even in poor visibility, they would be giving away their positions for the Yamatos to range on.<< So the Japanese gunnery personnel will be taking rangefinder readings on muzzle flashes? Somebody's been watching too many Combat! reruns.
>>However, the Yamatos and Nagatos were to have top priority for the newer engines which would probably make them at least 33 knots if not more according to comparative engineering calculations on existing power to weight ratios.<< What's that? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have confirmed the influence of those mind-altering drugs. I'll finish with one last quote.
>>The Musashi was sunk after supposedly suffering an estimated 27 bomb and 22 torpedo strikes. The Yamato was supposedly hit by 47 bomb and 27 torpedo strikes. The Yamato was loaded with over 2,000 heavily armed marines hampering crew action and damage control to boot. The Shinano, a carrier conversion, was sunk with skeletal crew by a claimed 14 torpedo hits all to one side(wisely), 6 simultaneous and despite being incomplete with no damage control parties still took over 7 hours for her to sink.<< This passage is completely true, as long as you cut off each sentence after the verb "was."
Caveat Surfer. Was this page created as a deliberate lie?

This "article" from the same web site should give some clues about how reliable any other information presented is likely to be.

http://members.shaw.ca/millerww2/ww2/history/strangetrue.html

Yes, they're a bunch of kooks. The Net is lousy with material of the same ilk. Caveat emptor and all that.

Hi, (Mogami's way) I think it's time to end that discussion. It's all about that the Americans want to prove that simply everything which was made in US is better than others. Thats my conclusion after reading this thread. When someone is telling that Yamato was better, you says: "No way, because AMERICAN sources says different".

Yamato had more firepower, was far better protested. Any discussion on fire control (which in both ships was good) have no sense - because targeting was simply a lotteery...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Mostly not so. Turn radius and the relatively more stable platform prove to be ephemeral advantages to gunnery performance in actual use, as the first characteristic would tend to cancel the second out to a degree.

Absolutely not true. The ability to maneuver is absolutely critical to a warship and becomes even more critical at long range. The effects of maneuver on fire control solutions hampers the targeter far more than the target regardless of radar or optical direction. It is extremely difficult to predict where a ship will be that is zig-zagging. A steady course is required for such a prediction. No fire control computer can do it even today, they can only predict where a ship should be at a steady course and speed. It is also far easier for a ship to adjust for own ship movement than the enemy's.

Yamato could also turn a full circle with a diameter of only 640yds at top speed. Iowa needed at least 840 yds to do so. Yamato also had an auxilliary rudders on either side of the keel some distance forward of the main rudders. This allowed her to perform a sideslip maneuver that the Iowa could not duplicate. As gun directors attempt to predict where an enemy ship will be at a certain point in time, the ability to maneuver rapidly away from that point can mean the difference between a hit or a miss.

You're only bothering to look at that from one point of view, and in any event you manage to completely confuse my original remark.

You also ignore the theory of spreads which tends to defeat salvo chasing and such. Not completely, of course, but it's difficult to race out from under that sort of wide-spread rain of death.

Anyway, in this regard all I said was that Yamato would lose some of her superior "stability" when making such tight turns, and this would lead, to whatever degree, to more degradation of her fire plots and/or a delay in obtaining reliable ones. That point you completely ignore.

I do believe it is you that is fixated on one point of view and what point did I miss? That you said ships can't turn and shoot without messing up a fire control solution? Hardly. I chose to disagree with your "point". Zig-zagging induces little error to a fire control solution. The biggest problem is keeping the guns trained, not the FCS. I used an example of her smaller turning diameter which you obviouyl took to mean she would be in a hard turn continuously. Silly you. As I said, a ship can rapidly adjust for its own movement and turns of up to 45 degrees induce little if any delay in shooting.

Of greater immediate benefit is the ability to not be where the enemy is predicting you to be by either salvo chasing or zig-zagging unpredictably (note key word- unpredictably). That requires manueverability and is critical to survival, especially in the face of a better FCS. Do the math. A 27kt ship moves 900 yds in 1 minute. That's the approximate flight time of shells at long range. See the purpose is not to stand toe to toe and slug it out. The purpose is to deliver more punishment to your enemy than what you receive. That means shooting AND manuevering, something that warships of all navies did. Steaming in a straight, predictable line while under fire is tantamount to buying a one-way ticket to the bottom. What is it about that you don't understand?

Salvo spreads? Oh, yeah, the old Sherwin Williams shooting tactic. Paint the ocean with shells! One's bound to hit sooner or later! Salvo spreads were a WWI tactic that were used to compensate for inadequate fire control solutions and were generally unnecessary for WWII naval gunnery. The RN used it early on some of their ships due to the primary optics being located on the main guns. Once they corrected that deficiency, they didn't use it again.

Now if you are referring to salvo bracketing where guns were directed to fire at slightly different ranges, typically 200yd steps, that's a different story. This is where a 3-turreted ship would direct one turret to fire over, under and on the indicated range. This was done to create a "box" around the target after a first hit. The MK 8 system wasn't capable of doing this as it provided the same information to all turrets.

quote:
All warships are on the move when firing. If they arent, they are literally sitting ducks. Just because an optical system wasn't "state of the art" has little bearing on its effectiveness in battle.

NOTE: Well, you made a logical error there, which I'll just clean up so there's no mistake on anyone else's part: Chez didn't mean to say that Yamato had inferior optics, just the opposite was in fact the case. And of course, the quality of optics has a lot to do with performance in battle, as it must.

Now who's missing the point. There's no logical error there. Just because a system is no longer "state of the art" doesn't mean its ineffective. Is that better? Semantics pure and simple, teacher. Their optical systems were state of the art and superior to the Americans. That fire control radar is more accurate and can provide a faster solution doesn't negate the effectiveness of another system nor does it make it less accurate than it was before.

The MK 8's, while generally more accurate, was compromised in many subtle ways. The Mk 8 mod 2 system had a published range accuracy of +/-15 yards and bearing accuracy of +/-2 mils. Quite remarkable except for one little detail. That's the theoretical accuracy of the pulse itself. It doesn't take into account the inherent inaccuracy of the radar PPI display which can be measured in hundreds of yards depending upon target aspect and speed, especially for the crude CRT displays used in WWII. Even today's naval radar displays can have range inaccuracies of 2-4% and bearing inaccuracies of 2-3 degrees, especially when using in sector scan. (That comes from first hand knowledge operating radar systems in the Navy). Range input was provided by the MK 8 operator who had to manually select the target for input. This can result in another induced range and bearing inaccuracy depending upon what part of the radar return he marks. I don't think its unreasonable to assume that the system had a built-in range inaccuracy of 500-1000yds depending on target range, especially if the target is manuevering.

Another important point is target identification. Today, we have decent IFF systems. In WWII, IFF was in its infancy and seldom provided reliable indentification. Blue on blue engagments were common place in WWII and still happen today. They happen because an operator has identified a target through radar detection only without using other means and believes it to be hostile. In WWII, avoidance of blue on blue meant visual identification, something very suited to optics, especially Japanese night optics.

Getting back to what you seem to have meant to write: the ultimate quality of a ship's fire-control system has a lot to do with a battle's outcome, I dare say it has nearly everything to do with it. This quality also bears directly on the matter of relative fire-control effectiveness between one ship and another. It isn't as if we're talking about keeping score on a some static range here during exercises. We speak rather to a hypothetical real-time combat where an extra hit or two probably will make all the difference, and moreover, where that extra hit or two will almost assuredly come at the expense of Yamato.

"static range here during exercises", hmmm..... "hypothetical real-time combat" , hmmm. One's a real shooting exercise, the other is a hypothetical combat.... hmmm.... Let's see...

Hypotethetical: "theorectical, imaginary, supposed"
Exercise: "training to acquire skill in the management of arms and in military evolutions"

I'll take exercise over hypothetical every time.

That radar controlled FCS systems are generally more accurate than optical systems is undisputed, never said they weren't. But in conditions that suited optical range finding, the differences in range determination were negligible. The best data I could find for Japanese optical systems indicated an accuracy of +/- 500yds. This compares fairly well with induced range errors on the MK 8. As far as speed of solution goes, no expert here but I don't think it matters much as long as the FCS could provide accurate targeting data within one gun duty cycle.

quote:
Yamato and Musashi had the finest optical fire control system in the world, far superior to the optical system employed by the Iowa.

I don't know if that's true, first of all. The Germans had the same optics, if not better still. The Japanese took their optical designs from German plans, and as I've already agreed that Japanese optics were far superior to American optics, what's your point in mentioning this?

You don't know if that's true yet you dispute it anyhow. The Japanese did get their intial optics from Germany beginning in 1923. However, they then also hired German technicians and began there own optical research and bythe time war started, had greatly improved them over those of Germany. The actual design of the range finder came from the British-built Kongo. Heres a quote from "Nikon and the Sponsorship of Japan’s Optical Industry by the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1917–1945 JEFF ALEXANDER University of British Columbia"

Each of these 70,000-ton vessels was designed to feature three 18.1-inch turrets, and represented the firm determination of the IJN to outrange all other navies. Superlative artillery, however, also necessitated superlative fire-control optics, and Nippon Kôgaku was therefore tasked with the production of eight 15-metre rangefinders capable of providing images of targets at distances of over 35 kilometres. One of the finished devices was affixed to each of the three main turrets aboard both the Yamato and the Musashi battleships, with a fourth installed on their forward fire-control towers. The creation of these massive instruments involved such a high degree of engineering precision that the standard of accuracy in their prism construction was 60 times greater than that which had been applied to conventional projects. Nippon Kôgaku had not only set new design standards when it had furnished the IJN’s flagship Yamato with the optics necessary to fight, it had also raised the technological capability of the Japanese optical industry as a whole.

Nippon Kôgaku became Nikon after the war.

quote:
Iowa's main advantage was with her radar directed fire control. Without it, she is at a slight disadvantage.

I'm not even convinced that's true insofar as Iowa could always get off more rounds faster than Yamato, and while her optics were inferior it is not all that clear that they were that inferior. Perhaps they were, but I don't know; neither would I know how to demonstrate this one way or the other.

Now who is misinterpreting who? The point here, clearly stated, is that Iowa is at a slight disadvantage in determining a FCS solution if she has to rely solely on optics. She will be slower in providing solutions and accuracy than Yamato, a ship well versed in using optics. Rate of fire hardly matters in this determination unless you are using the Sherwin Williams tactic again.

quote:
Yamato certainly had the ability to provide quick and accurate fire control solutions.

Relative to what?

She was slower in this area than Iowa. That's the only pertinent point in this debate.

Granted she's slower, been saying that. But is that difference going to adversely impact supplying data to the guns. I don't think so. Slower is a relative term. I doubt anyone knows for sure what the actual data relay times were for both ships but they certainly would be measured in seconds, not minutes. The relayed data should arrive in plenty of time to adjust the guns before the next salvo was ready to shoot. Both ships could sustain a rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute per gun.

quote:
Granted, not as quick as Iowa, but still sufficiently quick that the guns were not waiting on input before firing the next salvo.

We need to slow down here.

As a matter of course there is bound to be a delay enforced on Yamato's solutions relative to Iowa immediately after the first salvos are loosed. Yamato must observe her fall of shot, then make the calculations, which are slower than Iowa's. Iowa then gets off her second salvo while Yamato's still figuring hers. Soon enough Iowa is on her fifth salvo while Yamato's still computing her fourth, and like that. Yamato would never catch up, always fall further behind, eventually fall fatally behind.

Here we go again. Need to slow down here? Why? Something you don't understand?
Neither Yamato, nor any other BB, needed to observe their fall of shot before firing the next salvo. That was soooo WWI. Adjustments could be made to the third salvo if necessary. That some navies chose to do so doesn't apply here. In every surface battle that Japanese surface forces participated in, they did not wait to observe the fall of shot before the next salvo went downrange. You imply that Iowa didn't need to observe her shot. By your argument, she should if she wants to be more accurate. Afterall, her FCS was supposed to be able to detect the fall of shot, wasn't it? And don't forget the Yamato had an adequate surface search radar that could also back up the range determined by the optical sights. It just couldn't offer any predictions.

quote:
Yamato's FC did have a greater chance of induced error due to its labor intensiveness but the solution itself took little time to achieve. Also, Yamato's FC system allowed for the input of radar or optical data and provided more information than did the Iowa's Mk 8 mod 2 system such as bearing rate which can be used to calculate target speed or range independent of an optical or radar range finder.

I've no idea what you're talking about there. Are you saying Yamato had some potential for radar-fed critical plotting data and then could actually use this over and above what Iowa employed? If so, you're dead wrong. And the Mark 8 Mod 2 was state of the art. It was somewhat different than the approach used by the Japanese but its real drawback was the indifferent optics.

I quoted this from the Navweps website:

"The Shagekiban receives range information from the rangefinders and target course and speed information from the Sokutekiban. After receiving this information, the Shagekiban now has enough information to generate gun orders. These are then transmitted back to the director where calculations are made for roll in the line of sight, cross roll for elevation and train, and parallax. Once that is done, the director transmits the orders to the guns via a follow the pointer. "

The Shagekiban was capable of receiving manual input from any source including search radar. So if the optical directors were blinded, radar range data could be used to generate a workable solution. Not as fast as optical data because the Japanese search radar had to be trained by hand. It did not rotate automatically.

And where did you get I said "over and above Iowa?" The only difference was that the Japanese system provided bearing rate information that the Iowa did not use. Bearing rate info is useful for computing reasonably accurate course, range or speed information when 2 of the 3 variables are known. We used this info all the time on the P-3s and carried a HP-67 programmable calculator to compute it.

Yamato was not a more stable gun platform in spite of her seakeeping characteristics vis-a-vis Iowa. In fact, the worse the seas became the more the gyro-stabilized Iowa system would pull ahead of Yamato.

You accuse me of misinterpreting your words yet you are the king at it. Let me try this one more time. A rolling ship has a harder time keeping her guns on target. That is the gun barrels at the correct elevation. The FCS can be providing the most outstanding information but it is absolutely useless if the guns can't stay on train. A wallowing ship, with poor seakeeping abilities (Re: IOWA), is going to find it much harder to stay on target in a heavy sea than a more stable ship like the Yamato. Yamato's stability came from her much greater beam (121ft vs 108ft). It has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the fire control solution.

quote:

The physical positioning of finders is not much of an issue, except for height, where more, other things being equal, is better, but then other things are not always equal. In any event, one direct hit on any finder means kaput, and it's impossible to predict where those hits might actually strike home. Should a finder go south, however, then Yamato would be in something of a fix, whereas Iowa would still be capable to deliver reasonably accurate fire quickly due her more sophisticated radar. In turn, Yamato would then be reduced to local fire control. Not good.

quote:

Height is the primary location requirement for optical and radar range finders as greater height allows for targeting at longer ranges. Range finders mounted on the guns themselves are practically useless at ranges over 15000 yards due to the inability of the rangefinder to interpolate the waterline of the target. As optical range finders most often used mast heights for range calculations, a clear line of sight to the waterline is necessary for accurate range solutions.

I don't think you've bothered to read (for meaning) what I've written. You're only repeating me here.

You again missed the point. You say physical positioning of the finders isn't important, except for height. Then you go into some indecipherable gibberish about more being better but things not being equal. What the hell are you talking about?. Are you referring to the number of directors? Yamato had 4 15-meter finders. You also fail to mention what would happen to Iowa's targeting ability if she sustained a similar hit to her primary FCS. Iowa would then also be reduced to local control and in a worse situation than Yamato.

She'd have the advantage of her superior optics if weather and time of day so allowed. As it turns out Japanese doctrine and practice was to seek surface engagements at night. They were well aware (as was Admiral Spruance!) of their advantage in that respect over the Americans, so it's odds on that Yamato would have effectively sacrificed whatever advantage she enjoyed with respect to optics. Had Iowa's radar gone haywire under a full moon and a clear night sky then I'll grant you Yamato would have enjoyed an advantage with regard to spotting. But again, what are the odds of that happening?

So, let me see if I understand what you just said. You said that Japanese doctrine was to fight at night where they had the advantage but the night would also remove the advantage of their optics. What?! Aren't you forgetting the Japanese pratically invented night surface fighting? You say Yamato would only have the advantage on a bright night. You seem to forget that the Japanese night fighting abilities were quite good, regardless of weather. Remember, the first Battle of Savo Island... at night, in the rain, against a radar equipped force? And what advantage would Iowa have on a dark night without radar? What are the odds of Iowa losing her radar? I'ld say pretty damn good the moment she was hit or when her first salvo was fired. You sure can twist things, can't you?

It doesn't matter how stable a ship's hull is. It only matters how 1) accurately and 2) fast a fire-control system can acquire its target. And on both of those points Iowa was a league ahead of Yamato, most especially in heavy seas. Her system was designed to afford her this advantage.

One more time, accurate fire control solutions aren't any good if the guns can't stay on target in a heavy sea. Yamato has the clear advantage here for stability.

quote:
Gunfire is only accurate if the barrels can be kept to the correct elevation. Yamato, with her broader beam and reduced roll rate, would have an easier time than Iowa. Obviously a calm sea negates this advantage but ships didn't always get to pick the conditions under which they fought. Yamato also had a greatly reduced pitch rate over the Iowa.

I'm not sure to what degree Yamato would have gained (or rather lost less ground) to Iowa in calm seas as opposed to heavy seas. And again, you seem to disagree with this, as your message is that Yamato would lose some of her advantage in a calm sea state. I see it exactly opposite. To whatever degree that Yamato did pitch and roll and yaw in a heavy sea, she was incapable of keeping up with these erratic motions the same as Iowa could, this in reference to their respective fire-control technologies and the solutions these provided, and that's why Yamato would be better off in calm seas than violent seas. The worse the weather got the more Iowa's superior technology came into play, and thus the further ahead she drew.

Gees, Louise... Yamato gains an advantage in heavy seas that she doesn't have in a calm sea. Get the picture? Neither ship rolling? No advantage. And there you go again with this fire control solution garbage. Can Iowa's guns stay on target in a heavy sea? Answer: NO. Can she use that fire control solution if the guns can't stay on target? NO. And to whatever degree Yamato did pitch and roll and yaw in a heavy sea, Iowa would be much worse.

quote:

One other point that is germane is that Yamato also had better torpedo protection than did Iowa, especially in the vicinity of #1 turret. This is important for those shells that land close aboard. Yamato was designed to withstand torpedo warheads up to 860lbs whereas Iowa design requirement was for only a 680lb warhead. Yamato's protection did have its faults, particularly where it joined with the main belt. Iowa torpedo blister also did not extend under the magazines whereas the Yamato's did. Its probably best that the Iowas were never struck by a torpedo(s). It is unlikely she could have withstood half the torpedo hits Yamato or Musashi took.

That would be a one-in-a-thousand chance. Perhaps more like one-in-ten-thousand or one-in-ten-million chance. It'd be like getting bopped on the head by one of Scholl's "satellites."

You obviously overlooked the point that Japanese shells sometimes penetrated through the bottom of a ship before exploding. Not likely to happen on the Iowa class, but certainly underwater hits are germane.

But even as far afield as that point is I'll cede it to you if it's so important. Yes, Yamato was better protected. (And given her relatively crap fire-control system vis-a-vis Iowa's she'd certainly need to be!)

My, aren't you gracious? Obviously everything thing else in my earlier post was so important to you that you had a burning desire to nitpick every little point and nuance without providing any new information. You just don't miss any opportunity to display the superiority of your opinions, do you? Whatever.

Chez

Why all this talk of the Iowa? As I said before, the correct contemporary for Yamato in the USN is North Carolina. Just how good were the integrated radar/rangefinding/gunlaying systems on her in 1942?

To answer the thread question: I think Yamato was a beautiful looking ship and it's a real shame that the IJN didn't lay her up somewhere to conserve the fuel and lives she consumed - it's just conceivable she might still exist as a wonderful museum piece. Just.

Steve.

North Carolina in 1942 loses one of the components that makes an Iowa FC system better than Yamato's--main battery RPC. This was not available until 1943.
Since Iowa would likely lose to Yamato in 1944, NC is definitely the underdog in 1942.

Excellent post Chez. Clear, concise, and thoroughly absent of any deliberately condensending attitude.

Just because a system is no longer "state of the art" doesn't mean its ineffective.

Their optical systems were state of the art and superior to the Americans. That fire control radar is more accurate and can provide a faster solution doesn't negate the effectiveness of another system nor does it make it less accurate than it was before.

Particularily agree with this.

Was building it and musashi a mistake? When they were, in fact, built, were they well used? How could they have been better used?

read Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Tchnology in the Imperial Japanese Navy 1817-1941 amazon link
it's a pricey book but very interesting and clarifies why the Japanese made some of the decisions (like building yamato) they did.

waynec - your signature line is VERY familiar, but i can't quite place it... Is it from The Road to Perdition?