Could the Yamato defeat the Iowa?

[DTomato]

My look at a gun duel between Yamato and Iowa, with expert commentary from Jon Parshall, author of the excellent Shattered Sword book on Midway. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/575dd7671214

[dr.hal]

History really lost out on an interesting potential confrontation when Halsey took the four Iowa's north with him.... sigh.....

[jcjordan]

Well I'd say if played in game the Yamato would probably win w/ crew exp being better than Iowas. In real life it'd be a matter of who got lucky first to get the edge but would say the Iowas would have a leg up w/ technical advantage/actual crew experience at time of war.

[wdolson]

This is an old argument here.

Basically the conclusion of that article makes this debate sort of moot. Battleships never engaged without other forces in the area.

A battle in 1943 at night would have favored a force built around Yamato. The US still hadn't perfected night fighting on the surface and there were few air units trained to operate at night.

The only time the two may have met in combat was at Leyte Gulf where many factors would have worked against Japan. By Leyte Gulf many US ships had advanced fire control radars. At Surgio Strait the couple of old BBs with it devastated the last of the Southern Force without ever getting a visual contact. I believe most of the fast BBs had this radar setup by then.

The battle, if Halsey had read the tea leaves correctly, would have happened at the exit of the San Bernadino Strait where the Japanese force was line astern and the US would have been waiting with the T already crossed. The Yamato, if it had realized the threat in time would have only been able to bring it's front two turrets to bear on an enemy it couldn't see.

The total Japanese force would have been 4 BBs, only one designed after WW I against a US force built around 6 fast BBs, the oldest having been commissioned in 1941. As for age of design, all 6 American BBs were contemporaries with the Yamato or a little newer.

Add to this the superiority of the rest of the US force. If this battle happened at night, which would give Japan the best advantage, TF 38 still had night attack Avengers with radar. It would have meant a much smaller strike force available, but the US still had air assets it could have employed against the Japanese force. A day combat would have meant facing a numerically superior enemy force at the top of its game on the surface while dealing with a huge strike force coming from above. That is if Halsey had chosen to pass on the carriers off Cape Engano to the north which was just there for bait anyway.

In the end it's all just armchair admiral talk. It's always possible for the weaker force to win. That usually requires one or more critical mistakes on the part of the stronger opponent and a good dose of blind luck. By the time the Iowas started arriving, the US had the luxury to bring very large forces to a fight. That means the Japanese would have needed a lot of luck and some American incompetence to succeed.

Just my 2 cents. On a sort of sociological note, I find it interesting that interest in battleships still exists. They have been obsolete for more than 70 years. It's sort of like pining for iron clad ships of the line in 1930. For all the press that was written about battleships, they really saw very little ship to ship action over the entire time they were part of the world's navies. The times battleships engaged each other is even rarer.

A battleship looks big and mean, but in the end they were pretty much expensive showboats. They turned out to be useful for shore bombardment, but if someone purpose built a ship for that mission, they could have built a much cheaper ship. A carrier is much better bang for the buck, even if they don't look as sexy.

Bill

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

History really lost out on an interesting potential confrontation when Halsey took the four Iowa's north with him.... sigh.....

Just FYI, only two Iowas were available at Leyte Gulf. The other 4 BBs in Halsey's fast BB force were pre-Iowa fast BBs. Smaller and a little less potent, but still much more advanced designs than the other Japanese BBs at Leyte.

Bill

[spence]

A battle in 1943 at night would have favored a force built around Yamato. The US still hadn't perfected night fighting on the surface and there were few air units trained to operate at night.

The Japanese cruisers and destroyers managed to put in pretty decent performances in the Solomons through most of 1943 but frankly the IJN Battlefleet NEVER showed any competence at night battle (or day battle for that matter). IJN doctrine for the Battlefleet envisioned a daytime engagement against the enemy. The fast Kongo's may have had some role to play in night battle but the actual performance of Hiei and Kirishima in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal does nothing whatever to support the idea that the IJN BBs had any advantage in night battle. Then again the fate of the USS South Dakota doesn't support any advantage to the USN (in late 1942). But the USS Washington had practiced and emphasized radar directed gunnery and in the same battle utterly destroyed HIJMS Kirishima in only a few minutes of fire. The performance of the 4 BBs of the main force of the IJN Battlefleet at the Battle Off Samar was nothing short of pathetic.

Poor Japanese leadership certainly played a significant role in all the battles of the IJN Battlefleet. IJN leadership was very much adverse to risking their ships in a Nelsonian manner even, as off Samar, when the entire point of the battle was to go for broke. Taken as a whole the performance of Japanese BBs in all of their battles in WWII does nothing to support any significant "experience" advantage to any IJN BB.

[wdolson]

A battle in 1943 at night would have favored a force built around Yamato. The US still hadn't perfected night fighting on the surface and there were few air units trained to operate at night.

ORIGINAL: spence
The Japanese cruisers and destroyers managed to put in pretty decent performances in the Solomons through most of 1943 but frankly the IJN Battlefleet NEVER showed any competence at night battle (or day battle for that matter). IJN doctrine for the Battlefleet envisioned a daytime engagement against the enemy. The fast Kongo's may have had some role to play in night battle but the actual performance of Hiei and Kirishima in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal does nothing whatever to support the idea that the IJN BBs had any advantage in night battle. Then again the fate of the USS South Dakota doesn't support any advantage to the USN (in late 1942). But the USS Washington had practiced and emphasized radar directed gunnery and in the same battle utterly destroyed HIJMS Kirishima in only a few minutes of fire. The performance of the 4 BBs of the main force of the IJN Battlefleet at the Battle Off Samar was nothing short of pathetic.

The South Dakota was put out of action by a lucky hit which caused a circuit breaker to pop. This knocked out a significant portion of the ship's electrical systems until the problem could be troubleshot.

Admiral Lee in the Washington was one of those commanders who learned all about his weapon systems and learned to use them to maximum effect. He was also very aggressive in combat. A combination that turned the tide of that battle.

The Kongos were upgraded battlecruisers. They were probably the lightest battleships in the world. Between the wars their primary advantage was speed, but that was matched by US fast BBs with much more up to date systems.

Poor Japanese leadership certainly played a significant role in all the battles of the IJN Battlefleet. IJN leadership was very much adverse to risking their ships in a Nelsonian manner even, as off Samar, when the entire point of the battle was to go for broke. Taken as a whole the performance of Japanese BBs in all of their battles in WWII does nothing to support any significant "experience" advantage to any IJN BB.

Kurita was a particularly bad choice to lead a suicide mission. His father was an ancient history scholar and Kurita grew up surrounded with the great works of literature of the Far East. He was literate in medieval Japanese and Chinese and could read the ancient texts in their originals.

The Code of Bushido was a corruption of the samurai code. Kurita knew the original samurai code and knew where it had been corrupted. The samurai code said it was honorable to save the lives of your men if the cause was hopeless, but that had been removed from the Code of Bushido. Kurita was a very popular admiral among those under him because while he always tried to take objectives, he never put people unnecessarily in harms way.

There were other admirals in the IJN qualified and brainwashed enough to pull off the suicide mission the Central Force was tasked with, but Kurita was not one of them.

The IJN BB force also suffered from getting rusty. The US kept all their warships active doing something, but for most of the war the IJN BBs rode at anchor somewhere out of the way. They probably did try run training, but probably very little live fire training due to the wear on the gun barrels. Additionally hitting stationary, or near stationary targets in practice is a very different exercise from hitting a warship moving in unpredictable directions as every navy in the world learned when they had to fight a surface battle.

The cruiser and destroyer force of the IJN got a lot more practice in the real world. After 1942 the IJN kept their CAs safe, but the CLs and DDs were regularly in harm's way. This kept the crews skills up and even if they weren't regularly in combat situations, they were familiar with the stresses of combat. When the IJN BBs went into action, the crews had seen little or no actual combat. Even air attacks. While they may have been on board for some time, they were green to the stresses of live fire combat.

The IJN would have been better off if they had cycled crew members back and forth between the smaller and larger warships. It would have improved overall experience levels.

Bill

[Rexor]

If, unlike the realistic and very sound appraisal of wdolson above, you wish to indulge in a fantasy match-up between the two (as if they were to meet in some alternate reality one on one without any supporting vessels), I would still rather be serving on the deck of the Iowa (though only barely). Assuming the crews were of equal experience and ability, Yamato's 18.1-inch gunnery wasn't superior enough to Iowa's 16-inch to really matter. The impact, penetration, and devastation from both were overwhelming. It reminds me of sunblock lotion--do you really need 75 when 45 will do the trick? As for range, I doubt the Japanese guns were greater enough to trump Iowa's excellent speed. Yamato was better protected (I believe), but it wouldn't have saved it from Iowa's superior targeting computers. Simply put, it's hard to balk the widely-held notion that the Iowas were the ultimate BB design.

[Nami Koshino]

ORIGINAL: Rexor

Simply put, it's hard to balk the widely-held notion that the Iowas were the ultimate BB design.

Shhh. The Bismarck fanboys might hear you. They're convinced they could have have gotten away with winning WW2, if it hadn't been for those meddling Swordfish. [;)]

[topeverest]

I've actually playtested this very battle, both with escorts and without. In the game at least, It can be said that the Iowa attack radar makes it definitively superior. Only a lucky torpedo hit or critical hit will turn the tide. Night is utterly owned by the Iowa, day has the Yamato doing about 30% the damage it receives on average. Considering historical battles in 44, I don't think these tests are anomalous.

[JocMeister]

I also tested this in a sandbox game. The Yamato didn´t to very well neither at night nor day when I tried it either. Pretty cool to watch though. [:)]

[koniu]

In do my own test games:
4BB+8DD for both sides. Japan have Yamato and Musashi +2 Kongo's (or slow BB)against 4 Iowas and 8 fletches.

What i get is 50% of engagement end with USN victory. 25% engagements end with tie. And 25% with IJN victory. Average, and don`t have clean number. What i learn is that speed is very important. Instead of having slow BB i use in few tests fast CAs in Japanese TF. I get better results. I think because CAs together with DDs can occupy enemy destroyers while Yamatos can start duel with Iowas.

As for firepower I saw more times Yamato armor bouncing 16" shell comparing times when Iowa armor bouncing 18" Yamatos shell. Number of hits is different story. here winner is Iowa. Yamato is mostly killing fishes

As for real world battle. I am Japan fan but if i need to bet money i will bet everything on Iowa

[Encircled]

Didn't Greyjoy manage to sink the Yamato with a PT boat?

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

... Just my 2 cents. On a sort of sociological note, I find it interesting that interest in battleships still exists. They have been obsolete for more than 70 years. It's sort of like pining for iron clad ships of the line in 1930. For all the press that was written about battleships, they really saw very little ship to ship action over the entire time they were part of the world's navies. The times battleships engaged each other is even rarer.

A battleship looks big and mean, but in the end they were pretty much expensive showboats. They turned out to be useful for shore bombardment, but if someone purpose built a ship for that mission, they could have built a much cheaper ship. A carrier is much better bang for the buck, even if they don't look as sexy.

Bill

To me, the OP's original question is a bit like "Will the Chief's beat the Bronco's in the playoffs?" Well, the answer is always ... maybe. It is, at best, a question of probabilities and unknown factors.

With regard to your comment above ... interesting. My concern has always been this: One day we wake up, and things have changed. In the constant to-and-fro of technology, some nation has developed an anti-aircraft missile/laser/energy beam that can basically clear the skies. If this were to ever happen, the US Navy would be neutered save for the submarine force. I think (?) the largest caliber gun currently installed on US Naval vessels is a rapid-fire 5" mount. While that is nothing to be trifled with, it is not exactly a weapon made to dominate the seas.

The Air Force, at one point, got rid of guns in fighters and opted for only missile armament. That changed during Vietnam when the hammer of reality hit them square in the face. I hope the navy doesn't suffer a similar revelation of knowledge.

Regards,
Feltan

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Feltan
To me, the OP's original question is a bit like "Will the Chief's beat the Bronco's in the playoffs?" Well, the answer is always ... maybe. It is, at best, a question of probabilities and unknown factors.

With regard to your comment above ... interesting. My concern has always been this: One day we wake up, and things have changed. In the constant to-and-fro of technology, some nation has developed an anti-aircraft missile/laser/energy beam that can basically clear the skies. If this were to ever happen, the US Navy would be neutered save for the submarine force. I think (?) the largest caliber gun currently installed on US Naval vessels is a rapid-fire 5" mount. While that is nothing to be trifled with, it is not exactly a weapon made to dominate the seas.

The Air Force, at one point, got rid of guns in fighters and opted for only missile armament. That changed during Vietnam when the hammer of reality hit them square in the face. I hope the navy doesn't suffer a similar revelation of knowledge.

Regards,
Feltan

Nobody knows for sure where technology is going to take us or what will happen next. However, looking at the trends, drones continue to get more sophisticated and I suspect they will start replacing manned missions more and more in the next few years. Drones are a lot cheaper than manned aircraft and turning them into kamikazes if necessary is not necessarily beyond the realm of possibility. If someone did introduce a super AA system, I suspect the tactics would evolve to overwhelm any such system with targets until one of the swarm of drones could nail the AA site. Essentially merging drone and cruise missile technology.

If aerial warfare becomes the domain of unmanned drones, I suspect we'll see an arms race as many countries, some which can't afford a large manned air force today will be deploying large forces of drones. We may also see a proliferation of aircraft carriers as smaller ships would be able to carry the punch of a super carrier today. A ship the size of a WW II Essex class carrier could probably deploy as many drones as a super carrier's air group.

All sorts of countermeasures will be employed like jamming the drone's control frequencies, but then designers will start making drones with sophisticated AIs that can carry out missions with no ground control.

I can't know for sure, but I think the era of big ships with guns is dead for the same reason we no longer use wooden warships with sails armed with muzzle loader, black powder guns. The technology has made them obsolete. Sailing ships have a majesty that a screw driven ship can't match which is the reason some navies still keep a few around for parade boats. Nice to look at but useless in a modern fight.

Who knows what the future holds though.

Bill

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: wdolson


Who knows what the future holds though.

For what it's worth the first test of a drone launched from a sub has been made. So, a submerged carrier is a possibility now too.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/wh...ine-2D11702851

[Puhis]

Yamato would win, definitely. Because there's a secret most people don't know about (Space) Battleship Yamato...

[koniu]

Iowa guns cant shoot on that big angle.
Yamato 1, Iowa 0

[Mundy]

Going by what happened at Samar, and even the Edsall, IJN gunnery never seemed to be that outstanding, while USN DDs and DEs were landing hit after hit while dodging on the run in.  It took the IJN forever to finally start hitting the CVEs.  The USN was pretty dialed in by that point in the war in their use of radar.

While Yamato's guns were bigger, I don't think they would have landed enough hits compared to the Iowas.

Ed-

[crsutton]

Whoops! Here we go again..[;)] No, the Iowas had the latest radars and fire control systems from the start. (I think) This alone would have made it a no contest situation. In a night fight the Yamato would have been well straddled long before being able to return fire. Probably true in day action too as, with the exception of along the equator, visibility during the day in the tropics is usually less than ideal. Remember, as lovely as she was the Yamato was pre war technology. War tends to refine existing technology and an vessel commissioned a year or so after the Yamato would have been far more advanced. To look at them it would not seem so but it is like comparing a chevy to a lexus.