"The ultimate duel of dreadnoughts." Topic

"It would have been the ultimate duel of dreadnoughts. In one corner, Japan's Yamato, weighing in at 65,000 tons, the biggest battleship in history. In the other corner, Iowa, at 45,000 tons the pride of America's World War II battleship fleet. In reality, the two ships never met in battle. But what if they had, in a cataclysmic clash of seagoing titans?

One researcher can offer an answer, or at least a very educated guess. Jon Parshall, historian and author of the superb Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway has pitted the top battleships of various nations against each other at Combinedfleet.com, the go-to site for information on the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Among the battleships he compares are Yamato and Iowa, based on five criteria: guns, armor, underwater protection, fire control and "tactical factors" such as speed and damage control…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

There were a few interesting comments on a similar subject in this thread back in May too ,
"Yamato V US Battleships" Topic
TMP link

And,

IJN Yamato vs USS Iowa

"I think you should review Strafford Morss' article in Warship International, No. 2, 1986, pp. 118-136. This will provide details on just how poor our intelligence was about the Yamato class, and where a "desired" range should be maintained in light of the information we had. We assumed the Yamato had 12" side armor and 6.4" deck plating. It was thus calculated that the ship had a 1,000 yard advantage (31 vs 30K) over a So. Dak./Iowa class in terms of deck protection against the 16"/45 caliber guns we thought it was armed with versus the US 16"/45 gun against the Yamato's deck. We now know the Yamato's deck armor was far thicker and that it's guns were larger, but let us remain in the hazy past. In terms of the inner edge of the immune zone, ONI assumed the Yamato's belt was 12" thick, but didn't assume it was angled. The ship was thus supposedly vulnerable to the US 16"/45 guns at about 14K, at least according to our estimations. Conversely, the US ship was supposed to be proof from 16"/45 fire out to 21K.

Accordingly, the Yamato's calculated IZ was 21-31K against the US 16"/45, while the Iowa/South Dakota were accorded an IZ of 14-30K against the Japanese 16"/45. The zone wherein the US ship was supposed to have enjoyed an IZ advantage was thus 14-21K. Of course, the 16"/50 would shrink the inner edge calculations of Yamato's IZ and slightly expand its outer edge, although the Iowa's own vulnerability against the Yamato's guns would be nearly the same as in the South Dakota Class due to its nearly identical armoring scheme.

Based on this information, the US commander would have thought it "safe" to rapidly close to under 31K to avoid deck penetrations, and to quickly seek the sweet spot at 14-21K. The numbers of hits expected at 26K and beyond, which is relatively constant, was expected to only be 0.75-1.0 rounds for every three minutes (as in Morss' example of 18 hits in 65 minutes at 34K while 296 rounds were expended). I find these numbers overly optimistic, but they certainly imply a rapid approach will help avoid the possibility of a hit that could penetrate decks at 30K and beyond."
link
Robert

Dummy it down for me a bit. Who would have won?

Wunnerfull Wunnerfull, Wunnerful.

Tell me, is the battle going to take place during the day or at night?

If at night, A Baltimore class heavy cruiser will send the Yamato to the Bottom with almost no loss to itself. Gunnery directed radar, massive rate of fire, all before the Yamato can even see the cruiser.

All your constipational fixation on armor is worthless.

Day or night what sends ships to the bottom is not hits into vital areas (besides the Hood sunk through an 8" hit on a torpedo mount that wasn't jettisoned) is FIRE. Even small caliber shells finding their way into the vast unarmored spaces of a big battleship is going to start lots of lovely fires and knock out lots of systems that are not armored, and worse! block the free access of damage control parties trying to get to afflicted areas. Not to mention all those bodies and blood laying around. Damage control on Japanese ships, all Japanese ships was abysmal!

If at night, the Iowas would massacre the Japanese before the latter even knew they were there.

If during the day it gets worse. Sure the Japanese have the Yamato, but across the way there's going to be THREE Iowas, or at least half a dozen Massachusetts Douth Dakotas.

By 1944-45 the simple fact of naval warfare was-- if you were seen--you were dead.

The Japanese compensated for lack of sophisticated tracking and guidance radar by having very superb range-finding optics, which were unmatched even by the Germans – naturally that stuff found it's way into the nation's dominance in cameras post-war, but that's another story. So don't simply discount the lack/inferiority of radar on the IJN side.

It was no 8" hit from Prinz Eugen that sank the Hood…

There was a comparison between a rowboat and s Kriegsmarine H-44 class Battleship and the rowboat won LOL.
link
I wonder how a engagement between a Yamato class and a Montana-class battleship would have went. Robert

I've gamed that several times using Seapower.

The Yamato has seriously big guns, but their rate of fire was atrocious.

The 16"/50s on the Iowas had a much higher rate of fire, which gives a big advantage to the Iowas.

I genuinely have no idea which ship would win a one on one encounter.

However Lion in the Stars, if you look at the gun types on this site link you'll see the rate of fire wasn't that different between both ships.

At the end of the day I suspect, as in all battles of more or less even opponents, lady luck would have decided the outcome.

A few more things to add to the discussion…

Based on post war research, the Japanese 18.1"/45 was found to be nearly identical to the US 16"/50 in penetration. So in that respect, its a push. Yamato had a lower rate of fire, but rarely does a ship use its maximum ROF, so that is also a push. Where the Iowa class shines is radar fire control. The second generation sets on the later ships were a magnitude better than anything prior. This was shown dramatically at Surigao Strait where the US ships with the later radar excelled in their shooting. Day or night, the US ability to put shells on target is going to determine the outcome.

And Otto- A Baltimore??? Come now, you know better…

And finally, Cuchulainn put it best- Luck is always the unknown in any naval battle…

I've always liked this Comparison page . Robert
link

Kaoschllemged2, thanks for the link. Very nice. I was surprised the the South Dakota, despite being 10,000 tons lighter, had virtually the same armor thickness as the Iowa.

Yes Robert, an interesting link, but too much hand waving in places, leading among other things to over-rating of the US designs, and under-rating of the British.

MH

I guess it does show that when you are looking at comparisons you are really reading someone's views, opinions and biases. . Robert

" I was surprised the the South Dakota, despite being 10,000 tons lighter, had virtually the same armor thickness as the Iowa."

The extra tonnage is the cost of increasing the speed. Pushing the top speed of a design can be brutally expensive in tonnage. Adding 5kts meant going from South Dakota's 130000 hp to Iowa's 212000 hp. More hp, larger powerplant means more tonnage.

the hp/speed comparison is also affected by hull size and shape. the bigger the ship, the lower the power/displacement ratio needs to be to attain the same speed. My DDG was 1/10 the tonnage of a CV but had 1/5 the shaft horsepower, same top speed.

@Cuchulainn: I guess that's a fault of Seapower rules, then, because Seapower gave the Iowas better than double the sustained rounds per minute of the Yamatos.

@ Lion in the Stars, I don't know Seapower (I play the Fletcher Pratt rules), so can't comment on them, but that site I linked you to is generally held in high regard…

Happy New Year by the way! :o)