Iowa class bb vs yamato class

[Marc gto]

its a shame this never happened..but any idea which class is king of the bb's

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Marc gto

its a shame this never happened..but any idea which class is king of the bb's

Iowa, no doubt. I have run this scenario many times and Iowa almost always comes out on top.

[tocaff]

Iowa had superior speed by approximately 6 kts, the best radar of the day, excellent armor protection and her rate of fire was faster too. Both the 16" and 18.1" shells hitting your vessels were deadly, though the Iowa's 9 tubes faster fire made the throw weight of a broadside was very similar. It's a good thing that all of the what ifs were left for the gamers to play with.

[wdolson]

Another factor was the US had better damage control procedures and equipment. That could enable a US BB to stay in the fight longer than their Japanese opponent.

Bill

[niceguy2005]

I think the radar would have made all the difference in the world.

[Gregg]

Both ships had 9 guns, 6 forward and 3 aft.
Iowa's armor was good, but I do think the armor on both ships were more or less equal.
The big difference was Yamato's greater bulk, that would allow her to absorb more damage.
But, better USN damage control would off set that advantage to a degree.
This would truely be a fight that either side could win.
It would likely come down to who scored the first critical hit.
Gregg

[ckk]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Iowa had superior speed by approximately 6 kts, the best radar of the day, excellent armor protection and her rate of fire was faster too.  Both the 16" and 18.1" shells hitting your vessels were deadly, though the Iowa's had 9 tubes vs. 8 on the Yamato so the throw weight of a broadside was very similar.  It's a good thing that all of the what ifs were left for the gamers to play with.

Not what I have seen. Both had 3 triple turrets

[2ndACR]

9 guns each. I am hoping to have a few major suface battles in my PBEM games. My game with Panzerjager, we have both had a bunch of surface battles between our battle fleets off Java. And it is only March 42 or so. I do not think I have lost a BB yet, but he did savage my CV's for the loss of 3 to his 2. I have sunk roughly 9 of his BB's and damaged a couple of others. He has even gone on the offensive and re-taken Tarawa and a few other islands in the Central Pac area.
 
 

[kilowatts]

The 'Combined Fleet' website has a good write up on this topic at http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

IMO niceguy is right on the money. The gunnery officer on an Iowa class BB would have expected a first salvo hit.

[ChezDaJez]

I think the radar would have made all the difference in the world.

That would depend upon the weather conditions and the range at which they fought. Yamato's optics were excellent and could be expected to provide very accurate fire control solutions as long as they could see the target. In poor visibility, Iowa would most definitely have a fire control advantage. But Iowa's radar was also quite sensitive to concussion so a superstructure hit could be expected to have some impact. In fact, Iowa's own guns firing had been known to knock the radar offline.

As far as armor goes, Iowa had the better scheme but Yamato's armor was also quite effective. Damage control would have put Iowa at a distinct advantage over Yamato.

In rough seas, Yamato would hold an advantage due to her broader beam. Iowa was a wet ship forward in all but low sea states. Iowa's speed advantage would allow her to dictate the terms of the battle somewhat and allow her to withdraw at will.

This subject was debated quite extensively (and heatedly) a little over a year ago. All in all, I would not have wanted to be on either ship during this duel. The winner would have been decided by who got the first telling hit(s) I think. Knock out Iowa's fire control and she is now at a disadvantage.

Chez

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: kilowatts
IMO niceguy is right on the money. The gunnery officer on an Iowa class BB would have expected a first salvo hit.

I would agree that I would expect Iowa to get in the first hit, but I think Chez's comments are right on. Weather and range would be a factor. I am assuming that any duel between the two would initiate at long range, thus giving advantage to Iowa, but if the weather was bad who knows.

I am no early war radar expert, but I would not be surprised if bad weather, fog in particular, didn't interfere with radar, all those densely packed water molecules could even render it useless.

Also not mentioned was that at least early in the war Japanese gunners were just better. I suspect this evened out a little by the time Iowa came along but perhaps not. In such a case advantage might swing to Yamato in particular if it were a night time engagment.

[castor troy]

I think if such a battle (one on one which is doubtful) would have occured, both ships would be in a pretty bad shape afterwards. Of course a lucky hit of one of them (like the Bismarck´s against Hood) would bring out a nearly not touched winner and a sunk looser. If the fight would go on longer exchanging salvos then both ships would probably be scrap metal IMO.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: kilowatts
IMO niceguy is right on the money. The gunnery officer on an Iowa class BB would have expected a first salvo hit.

I would agree that I would expect Iowa to get in the first hit, but I think Chez's comments are right on. Weather and range would be a factor. I am assuming that any duel between the two would initiate at long range, thus giving advantage to Iowa, but if the weather was bad who knows.

I am no early war radar expert, but I would not be surprised if bad weather, fog in particular, didn't interfere with radar, all those densely packed water molecules could even render it useless.

No, not in the frequencies they were using - you have to get a LOT higher frequency than the typical metric to 10 cm radar to get that kind of interfenence (i.e. weather radar frequencies.)

Clouds, etc. only provided an advantage for radar equipped ships and aircraft. Radar equipped aircraft used it to bomb through clouds pretty routinely.

[ChezDaJez]

Clouds, etc. only provided an advantage for radar equipped ships and aircraft. Radar equipped aircraft used it to bomb through clouds pretty routinely.

Yes and no. Clouds and snow/rain can obscure targets and land masses if heavy enough. Radar bombing is effective because the beam has to penetrate only a few thousand feet of cloud vertically whereas a surface radar has to horizontally penetrate miles of it. There are many a radar equipped aircraft that flew into "granite" clouds.

Generally speaking though radar is largely unaffected by weather and Iowa would have an advantage. Yamato must see her target to fire effectively, Iowa only has to have line of sight for her radar.

Chez

[RAM]

That would depend upon the weather conditions and the range at which they fought. Yamato's optics were excellent and could be expected to provide very accurate fire control solutions as long as they could see the target.

No, that's not true. While Yamato's optics were top notch, it's not true that it could provide accurate FCS as long as they could see the target, compared with the Iowa. That has two reasons:

a) at extreme ranges you won't see the whole ship, you will see only the upper works. That means you can't see the surface of the water, and that means that you won't be spotting where your shots are falling. You will see only the upper side of the splash, but you can't see where the shots are falling. Battleship FCS depended upon seeing the target, but it also depended on seeing where the shots you were firing fell, so you could do firing adjustement to compensate for any error in the firing solution. If you can't see, precisely, where does the shot fall, you can't correct your firing solution. In the end you will see your target and you will be able to plot a firing solution for it. But you won't be able to do any firing solution correction, and that its a BIG disadvantage.

Iowa's centimetric radar allowed for a precise, and accurate, spotting of shell splashes at long ranges. You don't need the radar wave to hit the actual spot where the shot hits the water, you only need a radar return of the splash itself, so the upper side of the splash you can "see" with radar at long ranges (earth curvature also affects radar) is more than enough for the radar to measure the exact position of said splash.

I recall reading somewhere that at long ranges Iowa's radar offered a 400% improvement of FC solutions over optic rangefingers. The longer the range, the larger the advantage radar offers over optics.



b) the other reason is that, simply said, rangefinders are a single component of the whole mechanics of naval gun fire control. The single most important component isn't rangefinder, it's the fire plotters. You can have the most precise and accurate rangefinder of the world; if you don't have a good plotter to put the range (just ONE of the four variables which matter in a FCS being those Bearing, Heading, Speed and Range) in, you won't still hit anything.

US gun fire plotters were way advanced over the japanese ones. In 1945 the North Carolina proved in a series of tests that she was able to keep a constant and accurate long range fire on a target while doing the wildest evasion moves possible. Previously the firing ship should keep a straight course if it wanted to fire accurately, any change of heading or speed of the firing ship meant the fire solution had to be completely recalculated. The ultra-advanced US plotters of the later stages of the war allowed for this handicap to be forgotten.


So add a) and b). Perfect weather engagement. Both ships establish contact at ,say, 25km. Iowa switches on radar, gets a perfectly accurate FCS from the start thanks to the almost perfect range finder ,heading and speed measurer the radar was, and then it's able to correct the shooting without any problem on a straight-line sailing Yamato, while using the superior speed to keep the range the longest she wants, while doing continuous heading changes to spoil Yamato's fire solution..

Yamato, on her part, turns the optical rangefinder towards the target. The operator gets an approximate measure of the distance from its target, but he can't measure how good or how bad his fire solution is because he can't see WHERE do his shells fall. He is firing half-blind, and to add to that, Iowa is constantly changing course so he has to guess-fire all the time, at a target he can't barely see (he will only see the upper works of the superstructure at those long ranges), and that's maneouvering all the time to boot. And all the time he's in a ship sailing in a straight line (so it can fire the more accurately it can).


There's no possible comparison here: Iowa sends Yamato to hell. Not just because radar, but also because an awesome plotting ability the Yamato can't dream of matching. Weather won't matter a single bit. Perfect weather, Iowa wins. Bad weather, Iowa wins too (Yamato can't see his enemy, Iowa has a clear sight of him).

Only chance for Yamato against an Iowa would be by night in constricted waters, using land masking to surprise the american ship at short range where plotting and radar advantages are the least compared with her own optics. In any other scenario, the Yamato is toast. Plain and simple.

[Knavey]

Bismark would have beat them both!  Together...in heavy seas...and with only her secondary armament.  [:D]
 
Where is Herman when you need him?!!!?  Wasn't he the Bismark advocate?

[wdolson]

Good analysis RAM. The only time the Yamato fired her guns in anger was at the Battle Off Samar. She had the disadvantage of firing armor piercing shells at unarmored targets, so they tended to sail right through. However, I don't believe the Yamato's shooting was all that accurate in that fight. I haven't read up on the battle lately, but I seem to recall that only a few 18" shells hit anything.

Bill

[ChezDaJez]

I do not dispute that Iowa's FC system is superior to Yamato's but I think you are missing the point. You are basing your assumptions on two ships in an open sea, operating independently, firing at each other without any of the other interfering elements and factors. That scenario would never happen. These ships would have had CAs, CLs and DDs in company that would have complicated any battle, not to mention the probably of allied air power being on scene.

You're also assuming that the radar works infallibly, which it does not. Radar systems of the time were extremely sensitive to shock and vibration. There are many noted circumstances of US FC radars being knocked offline by the concussion of their owns guns. They were also subject to misinterpretation. USS Blue's failure to detect the Japanese fleet at a range of less than 10,000 yards led to our defeat at Savo Island. Not only must radar detect the enemy, the operator must also realize that it is the enemy. Having a fair amount of experience operating search radar systems, I can tell you even today they are not perfect, far from it.

It is true that shell splashes can be observed on certain radars... under optimum conditions. One of the early issues with Iowa's FC system was that it wasn't gyro stabilized. That meant if the ship rolled, the radar no longer on the target but pointed into the sea or into the air. The other issue is that if more than one ship is firing at the target, there is no way to distinguish whose shell is whose which negates the ability to use them for spotting. Using shell splashes for spotting was one of those WWII ideas that works great on the gun range, not so well in the heat of battle.

AFAIK, there were no over-the-horizon surface naval battles during WWII. In fact, the longest hit of the war was by Scharnhorst on Glorious (IIRC) at a range susbstantially less than 30,000 yards. So it can be reasonably assumed that a battle between these two goliaths would take place under 30,000 yards at which point the Yamato's optical FC system should be effective. But again, that depends on weather. If visibility is poor, Yamato is at a major disadvantage. If visibility is good, Yamato is still at a disadvantage however she should be able to give a good account of herself.

Yamato also had her own radar FC suite which is less capable than Iowa's but adequate for the job. It is not as automated as is Iowa's nor can it provide automatic train information, something that Iowa's Mk-8 system could do after being upgraded in January 1945. Prior to that Iowa also had to manually pass train information to the guns. The Japanese were also still using A-scan scopes, Iowa's Mk-8 was using PPI displays.

The bottom line is that during late 1944 and 1945, the Japanese were not just at a techological disadvantage but also at a training one. They did not have the fuel to conduct fleet or gunnery drills so could be expected to be far less efficient in battle than the Americans. If the battle is fought in 1943, things are much more even.

But as I said before, I would not want to have a front row seat on either of these ships during a battle. I don't think either one would come away unscathed. Should the Iowa win this battle.... on paper, absolutlely. Would she have won? Who knows... Kind of like saying which football team, with one hundred percent certainty, is going to win any given match.

No wish to get into any debate over this as it cannot be proven either way. Too many variables including luck for one to tell.

Chez

[bradfordkay]

Isn't this the Iowa vs Yamato debate round fifteen?

[ChezDaJez]

Yup. But I couldn't resist. There must be a support group around here to help me with my problem. [:D]

Chez