I thought the admiral was covering his ears because it was loud. I can only imagine that these two fighting would sound like a tornado fighting a hurricane.
Both ships would be capable of penning the other, as the penetration power of the Iowa's 16 inch guns was roughly the same as the larger 18 inchers on the Yamato due to a number of factors. But the real issue was that US Radar was so far advanced compared to IJN radar that the Iowa would have a firing solution long before the Yamato, and be able to put effective shells on target before the Yamato ever could.
I'm sure there's boat experts floating around who could explain in better detail.
I thought the admiral was covering his ears because it was loud. I can only imagine that these two fighting would sound like a tornado fighting a hurricane.
It's more like he doesn't want to lose his waifus in that way.
I'm sure there's boat experts floating around who could explain in better detail.
The experts, the ones who know whats good for them, have embraced detente. Essentially: one can imagine quite realistic situations in which both emerge victorious, by the numbers, singly, among task forces, among historical task forces, in historical conditions, and these are of such variety that they are not in and of themselves decisive.
Essentially, it depends who got the jump on who. If the Iowa surprised the Yamato, the Iowa would have a fair if not large chance of winning. If the Yamato surprised the Iowa, it'd be a toss up.
In addition to what @TotallyNotADuck brought up, there is an additional very important factor that most people fail to realize when comparing these two ships...
Only one of these ships actually had an 'immune zone' to the other's guns, and it wasn't the Yamato.
The Iowa's deck armor scheme was, over all, good; yet, at only 6" thick her armored deck didn't quite compare to that of the monstrous 9.1" thick armored deck of the Yamato. However, this is where the capabilities of the individual guns come into effect. The 18.1"/45cals of the Yamato were designed primarily around defeating belt armor and deck armor as an after thought; the 16"/50cals of the Iowa on the other hand were explicitly designed to both equally well, and for this reason the US developed 'Reduced Charge' loads for the 16"/50cals and trained in their use. At any range past about ~19000 yards up to maximum, the 16"/50cals could chew through the deck armor of the Yamato. Comparatively, The Yamato's 18.1"/45cals could only penetrate the Iowa's deck armor between ~27000 yards and maximum range.
Now, their belt armors are an interesting subject. The Yamato may have had a behemoth 16.1" thick belt (inclined at -20 degrees), but the Iowa had what was simply an amazing Belt Armor scheme. She had a 12.2" belt (inclined at -19 degrees) backed up by a ~1.5" thick STS shell plate that served to sheer the AP cap off incoming projectiles up to 18.6" in diameter, effectively rendering the projectiles as fairly weak HE shells. At any range inside of ~24000 yards, the Iowa's 16s could penetrate the belt armor of the Yamato. Comparatively, because of the Iowa's shell plate, the Yamato could only penetrate the Iowa's belt armor inside of ~18000 yards.
Considering all of this, the Iowa would actually have an immune zone between ~18000 and ~27000 yards. The American standard practice with their Battleships was to close to ~20-22000 yards for accuracy's sake, which would put the Iowa nicely in her immune zone verses the Yamato.
A classic web reading on this subject is http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm Pay special attention to where the writer notes that he did not calculate for advantages that would have been in the Iowa's favor because things were already too lopsided.
IIRC, Yamato's belt armour due the deficiencies of Japanese metallurgy at the time, was nominally only 20% superior than the thinner belts of the Iowas. And the armour scheme on the Yamatos were pretty faulty and the IJN never fully fixed the weak joint that connected the upper and lower belts.
Someone actually made it into a 4-way melee, bringing in Bismarck and Italia for Hitler and Mussolini. No source, since I saw it on Facebook. You could probably find it floating around imgur or flickr soon enough.
The Yamato would emerge victorious in any hypothetical one on one situation barring a scenario at night, with heavy mist, yet calm seas. And in that event the Iowa best make her few shots count.
To put it quite simply, the 18 inch gun can penetrate the entirety of the Iowa at any range. In addition, due to the lavish usage of STS throughout the Iowa's superstructure, shells that might have normally overpenned would be fused and detonated despite the Iowa having an All-or-nothing design. The de-capping layer, assuming it works as intended, would make incoming shells come in at poor angles, but the sheer kinetic force of an 18 inch shell would still penetrate any point of the Iowa.
The Yamato on the otherhand has a theoretical immunity zone between 20000m-35000m, this is assuming the shells land at a flat angle, an unlikely venture due to the heavily sloped nature of the Yamato's armour scheme. This is also not accounting for the fact that the Yamato's deck armour sloped into it's belt armour, offering effectively an extra 6 inches of armour to her citadel.
In addition the Mark 8 APC shell of the Iowa has a very small bursting charge, made smaller with the USN's usage of Ammonium Picrate as their primary explosive, which was a relatively inert explosive (this saved many USN ships in WW2 as magazine fires weren't catostrophic but rendered the shells less powerful). In comparison the Japanese use of TNA and 25% heavier shell is nearly thrice as destructive.
In effect the Iowa can be crippled and destroyed at any point in it's encounter with the Yamato. Whereas the Yamato can both deflect shells fired by the Iowa and has a much larger displacement for resisting more shells. As we see in the battle of Jutland, British Battlecruisers lasted 11 minutes against German warships as their armour was simply ineffective whereas the German armour kept them protected.
I can get into detailed aspects regarding fire control. The Iowa obviously has superior fire control, but too many discredit Japanese fire control, which was by all means quite accurate in surface combat (it was atrocious for AA fire but that's besides the point)
The Kinetic force of the Japanese 18in Type 91 projectile that has been decapped is actually quite pathetic, comparatively; capable of maybe 50% of its otherwise theoretical performance. You have to realize, physics is not on the side of a tumbling round, especially a Type 91, when it comes to defeating face hardened steel - it would most likely just flatten against the Iowa's 12.1" armor belt, and create a rather large dent in it at worst. Keep in mind that Kinetic Energy alone does not determine penetration. The density and construction of the particular projectile are extremely important, and the Type 91 was sub-par in every field except underwater hits (including construction and materials).
As for the Yamato's supposed immunity zone... Nathan Okun, the world's leading expert on naval armor, insists that the Yamato's armor scheme would be easily defeated at any range by the Iowa's 16"/50cals. You are failing to factor in the 16"/50's deck penetration capabilities with reduced charges, which was actually far, far superior to the standard performance of the 16"/45s (by virtue of a 1,800fps muzzle velocity out of a 50cal gun compared to 2300fps out of a 45cal gun). By the calculations that I've seen, at 19000 yards the 16"/50s would already be chewing through roughly ~8.9" of armor deck (9.3" by 20000 yards). Now, I can't recall exactly, but I seem to remember that the Yamato's Turret roof was only 12" thick... which the 16"/50s could punch through at around 25-28000 yards. If the Iowa per chance hit the turrets, it's game over for that turret. 3 or 4 times and it's and quite possibly the Yamato herself considering the poor compartmentalization of the ship (now, compare that to the Iowa, which actually did have a turret explosion and survived - not actually anywhere near sinking).
You are also failing to consider that it was standard practice in Anti-Surface warfare for the Iowas to belt out shells almost as fast as they could get them loaded (40 seconds on average) - they had a computer to keep track of the shots and could adjust based on the old data from 3 or so broadsides ago. Comparatively, the Yamatos had to wait for the fall of shot to tell if they were bracketing; so in effect the Iowas were belting out 2 to even 4 times as many shells - especially at long ranges. That is the power of an excellent fire control system compared to one that was merely adequate.
At best for the Iowa, it is as I outlined in my post above. At worst for the Iowa, it's a 50/50 toss up.
I'm a total noob on naval warfare (or anything related to military whatsoever) but I AM a science graduate(sort of), so I wish to learn. So, anyone please enlighten me in this regard. According to the post, Iowa's rounds seem to bite through more armor when hit from longer distances. Are naval artilleries supposed to work this way, or is it just a misunderstanding on my part? If the former, then care to give me the details?
Military science sure is a hard field to study(at least for me), but damn, it is still attractive.
According to the post, Iowa's rounds seem to bite through more armor when hit from longer distances. Are naval artilleries supposed to work this way, or is it just a misunderstanding on my part? If the former, then care to give me the details?
To a certain extent, any artillery piece will work like that, actually.
But longer ranges only serve to assist the penetration of deck armor. Not belt armor (where the reverse is true). See, Deck Armor of the time was, by necessity, designed to resist glancing impacts from 'straight lay' Naval guns (near misses and deflections), and accordingly they were designed to resist impacts from closer to 0 degrees obliquity. This meant homogeneous steel armor was used instead of the face hardened armor of the belt. However, at longer ranges the guns would have to fire at much higher angles in order to hit the deck (or even the ship), which means a steeper angle of fall, which means the angle of impact against the deck armor is closer to the head-on 90 degrees obliquity that it was not designed to face. Because of their training with reduced charges, the Iowas (hell, even the South Dakotas) could intentionally gimp their shots to drastically increase the angle of fall, which made penetrating deck armor relatively easy for them.
That being said... Well, I'll just use an analogy that is technically wrong but still gets the point across a little easier in layman's terms. At the farther ranges (of high-angle shots with steeper angles of fall), the projectile became less and less like a naval shell and more and more like a aerial bomb. In the case of the 16in AP Mk8 shells, that would be a 2700lb armor piercing bomb that is still moving at roughly 1000fps.
To a certain extent, any artillery piece will work like that, actually.
But longer ranges only serve to assist the penetration of deck armor. Not belt armor (where the reverse is true). See, Deck Armor of the time was, by necessity, designed to resist glancing impacts from 'straight lay' Naval guns (near misses and deflections), and accordingly they were designed to resist impacts from closer to 0 degrees obliquity. This meant homogeneous steel armor was used instead of the face hardened armor of the belt. However, at longer ranges the guns would have to fire at much higher angles in order to hit the deck (or even the ship), which means a steeper angle of fall, which means the angle of impact against the deck armor is closer to the head-on 90 degrees obliquity that it was not designed to face. Because of their training with reduced charges, the Iowas (hell, even the South Dakotas) could intentionally gimp their shots to drastically increase the angle of fall, which made penetrating deck armor relatively easy for them.
That being said... Well, I'll just use an analogy that is technically wrong but still gets the point across a little easier in layman's terms. At the farther ranges (of high-angle shots with steeper angles of fall), the projectile became less and less like a naval shell and more and more like a aerial bomb. In the case of the 16in AP Mk8 shells, that would be a 2700lb armor piercing bomb that is still moving at roughly 1000fps.
I see. Basically it works kinda a similar way to tank armors, then? Tanks usually face horizontal enemy fire more often, so their guns are less armored than the bodies. In case of battleships the deck armor is designed to withstand different kinds of impacts than the belt is, and near-vertical hit is not one of them(at least for Yamato it seems).
Wonder if I got your point all right. Thanks for sharing another interesting piece of knowledge.
I see. Basically it works kinda a similar way to tank armors, then? Tanks usually face horizontal enemy fire more often, so their guns are less armored than the bodies. In case of battleships the deck armor is designed to withstand different kinds of impacts than the belt is, and near-vertical hit is not one of them(at least for Yamato it seems).
Wonder if I got your point all right. Thanks for sharing another interesting piece of knowledge.
You got my point correct. The Tank analogy is actually better than what I came up with.
Also, the Yamato actually had the best deck armor of any warship to ever float; it's just that the US guns were excellent at deck penetration due to their lower muzzle velocities and the ability to lower it farther via reduced charges.
Effectively, extreme ranges and high muzzle velocities from Naval Guns (such as the Yamato's 18s and the Nagato's 16s) make for good belt penetration, but bad deck penetration. (This also hods true for the Iowa's full-charge loads) Low-ish (but not too low) Muzzle Velocities (and high angled shots) make for excellent deck penetration, but horrible belt penetration. The Reduced Charges of the 16"/50s were pretty much as low as it was sensible to go, which basically made them the most powerful deck penetration guns ever built.
In order to decap a shell, the decapping belt not only needs to be roughly 20% the thickness of the shell (the 1.5 inch decapping belt of the Iowa is well short of the 4 inches required(, it requires significant space between the decapping layer and the hardened armour belt for it to have any effect.
Also the rounded caps of US shells tended to be very easy to decap, which may have lead to their skewed results in regards to US testing of the concept.
Also the penetration chart I provided is directly from Nathan Okun's calculator. Can you provide any source or link that verifies your claim that the Iowa can penetrate the Yamato at any range?
Also you seem focused on the Type 91 shell which admittedly has many deficiencies. However there is considerable evidence that the Yamato was stocked with (if not exclusively) with the newer Type 1 shell which had very impressive results regarding deck penetration, due to its flatter cap that allowed it to normalise even at extreme ranges.
You also seem to be failing to account for the angle of which your proposed reduced charge shells would hit the Yamato's deck at (Aside from the absurd notion that this is a uniquely american concept, any naval gun that is loaded with individual powder bags can do the same), the most optimistic angle you can expect is a 50 degree angle. In addition, the 3 inch upper deck armour is well situated to decap incoming Mark 8 shells. And again I would like to inquire as how you came to any information that suggests that the 12 inch turret armour of the Yamato would be penetrated. In addition a turret explosion is quite different from a magazine explosion and is rarely fatal to the ship (Hyuuga had a turret expolosion too). Also IJN ships were considered to be very well compartmentalised, and their turrets were by most accounts considered to be well flashfire protected.
Now as a counterpoint, the Iowa did not even have hardened frontal turret armour due to the inability of producing Class A armour plating in the required thickness. Instead Class B armour was used, leading to the Iowa having a very vulnerable turret.
Your claim that the Iowa can belt out as many shells as possible is either an outright fabrication or lends itself very poorly to US doctrine. Both sides would fire roughly 1 round a minute as they range their shells, usually with HE. Firing off AP rounds before you can adjust your fire is a surefire way to exhaust your stock before any effect. In addition the Yamato's advantage in range allows it to begin ranging fire sooner then the Iowa in addition to affording itself a superior position. Once bracketing both sides fire at roughly the same rate.
Your claim that the Iowa can belt out as many shells as possible is either an outright fabrication or lends itself very poorly to US doctrine. Both sides would fire roughly 1 round a minute as they range their shells, usually with HE. Firing off AP rounds before you can adjust your fire is a surefire way to exhaust your stock before any effect. In addition the Yamato's advantage in range allows it to begin ranging fire sooner then the Iowa in addition to affording itself a superior position. Once bracketing both sides fire at roughly the same rate.
Yamato would take a while to find its range. IIRC its gunfire walked right over either White Plains, Gambier Bay or another escort carrier and kept on walking out at the Defence of Taffy 3.
Okay, so, I was bored waiting for something to happen; thus I wrote up a rather long response to @PhyscoRedFerret
Spoiled for eyerape length
PhyscoRedFerret said:
You may need to read Nathan Okun's revised article regarding decapping...
...the 1.5 inch decapping belt of the Iowa is well short of the 4 inches required
Firstly, it's 13.99% for most BB shells (including both the Yamato's and the Iowa's), not 20% (the image claimed 'about', note). This is reduced by ~45% due to the fact there is reinforced cement behind the Iowa's decapping plate that the shell must also tear through, making the required thickness only 1.39". Notice in the image you linked, the presence of concrete increased the effectiveness of the decapping plate by 30%, and that was just concrete. This is how the Iowa's decapping plate defeats the Yamato's 18.1 inch projectile. On top of that, I'm guessing you missed the part where he addressed the Vittorio Neneto and Iowa-class battleships, indicating that the listed decapping plate thicknesses are largely misleading and much, much greater in most areas via the support system holding up the plate (steel, concrete, etc). For these reasons, Mr. Okun still stands by this statement: "The Iowa class' slightly thicker outer plating, however, would de-cap all projectiles up to 18.6" (47.3cm) in diameter." - Natan Okun, Armor Protection of the KM Bismarck (C) [emphasis mine] (note, he had been speaking of the South Dakotas before this, which had similar, but lesser, construction) I on the other hand would say that the 1.5" decapping plate on the Iowas would decap up to 19.5" projectiles, but I defer to the expert. The Yamatos 18.1 inch shells would be decapped.
PhyscoRedFerret said:
Also the rounded caps of US shells tended to be very easy to decap
...but still effectively had a tungsten penetrator molded into the shell (how did you think the whole 'Super Heavy' thing worked?) and therefore retained Armor Penetrating capabilities due to their extreme sectional density. Incidentally, there have been conflicting studies that claimed the US Mk8 AP shells were not that severely affected by their design. It came down to about 3-5% difference.
PhyscoRedFerret said:
Also you seem focused on the Type 91 shell which admittedly has many deficiencies...
...(if not exclusively) with the newer Type 1 shell...
Most data indicates that the Yamatos' AP shells were primarily Type 91s, which they had more of. However, from what I've read, the Type 1 was only a more effective deck penetrator at long ranges because of the 'better normalization'. At long ranges. As in past the 27,000 yard range I already admitted the Iowa was vulnerable at. At shorter ranges, it actually performed horribly against belt armor because of the flat cap (like asking a wadcutter bullet to penetrate body armor). The Type 91 was superior in this role at such ranges. So, pick your poison.
PhyscoRedFerret said:
Can you provide any source or link that verifies your claim that the Iowa can penetrate the Yamato at any range?
The guys at Combined Fleet, including Nathan Okun, have done a very nice write up on why the Iowa would most likely trash the Yamato. That being said, they do not go into the details on the Reduced Charge loads because they are quite adamant that the Iowa does not need any more advantages, and they still determine that the Iowa would most likely defeat the Yamato. Here is the details on the gunnery. http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_guns.htm#6 Notice that the Iowa can defeat the Yamato's belt armor at ~23000 yards; and, considering the decapping, the Yamato would be unable to penetrate the Iowa's belt or deck armor at this range, giving the Iowa an effective immune zone.
Also, the ballistics of the Reduced Charge rounds are not exactly classified.
PhyscoRedFerret said:
You also seem to be failing to account for the angle of which your proposed reduced charge shells would hit the Yamato's deck at
Sad attempt to mock me. Regardless, at 28,000 yards, the angle of fall would be roughly 48 degrees and the striking velocity would be roughly 1590fps. This should give roughly ~12.3" penetration. At maximum effective range (roughly 33,000 yards), angle of fall for the the reduced charged shell would be around 65 degrees (68, IIRC) and the striking velocity would be roughly 1273fps. Penetration should be about 14 to 15 inches. But my figures are rather quick and dirty, so they may not be the exact numbers.
PhyscoRedFerret said:
Aside from the absurd notion that this is a uniquely american concept...
Kibehisa said:
the 16"/50cals of the Iowa on the other hand were explicitly designed to both equally well, and for this reason the US developed 'Reduced Charge' loads for the 16"/50cals and trained in their use.
I didn't say that no one else cut the charges, I said the Iowas had 'Reduced Charge' loads (as in, prepackaged powder bags specifically for this purpose) and, most importantly, they trained specifically for this. Need I explain to you how important training is?
Aside, the Iowas carried prepackaged Reduced Charge powder bags specifically for this purpose that gave them optimum performance (every time, no guessing) in this role, the Yamatos did not (and did not even practice/prepare for this).
PhyscoRedFerret said:
In addition, the 3 inch upper deck armour is well situated to decap incoming Mark 8 shells.
Not actually true, but quite frankly it wouldn't matter. Decapping is almost pointless against deck armor - it's homogeneous steel, not face hardened.
PhyscoRedFerret said:
In addition a turret explosion is quite different from a magazine explosion and is rarely fatal to the ship (Hyuuga had a turret expolosion too).
This is true, I admit, but you're missing something...
Kibehisa said (with emphasis added):
If the Iowa per chance hit the turrets, it's game over for that turret. 3 or 4 times and it's and quite possibly the Yamato herself considering the poor compartmentalization of the ship...
1 strike, game over for the turret. But just the turret. To take out the ship this way, the shells would have to penetrate the various levels inside the turret and set off the magazine. This is actually possible, considering the penetration of the first 2 or 3 rounds would compromise the entire turret roof and allow the 3rd or 4th (more than likely the 4th) clear access to the magazines.
PhyscoRedFerret said:
Also IJN ships were considered to be very well compartmentalised
Not by American standards. (Which were, admittedly, a little over paranoid, having lost more than one ship to training accidents.)
PhyscoRedFerret said:
and their turrets were by most accounts considered to be well flashfire protected.
Not a factor as the shell would have to penetrate to the magazine to cause catastrophic damage.
PhyscoRedFerret said:
...leading to the Iowa having a very vulnerable turret.
Incorrect. The US performed studies that suggested that it was virtually impossible to produce quality Face-Hardened armor in thicknesses of greater than ~16.5-18 inches (leaving alone the fact they could not even produce Face-Hardened Armor of that thickness). As in, literally impossible (with the technology of the time). The manufacturing process would leave the armor brittle and vulnerable to failing when hit by shells much smaller than what it should have otherwise defeated. Therefore, they felt comfortable in utilizing Homogeneous Steel in the Turret's Face Plate. Post-war, this decision would be vindicated by extensive studies (nations, such as the USSR, were still considering Battleships up until roughly the Korean War, keep in mind). Considering how American Homogeneous Steel was quite simply the best in the world at the time, this was not actually a weakness. It did its job well enough and had the advantage of being more resistant to bombs. This 'it was oh so weak' thing is something that only became 'true' because people on the Internet kept claiming it.
PhyscoRedFerret said:
Your claim that the Iowa can belt out as many shells as possible is either an outright fabrication or lends itself very poorly to US doctrine. Both sides would fire roughly 1 round a minute as they range their shells, usually with HE. Firing off AP rounds before you can adjust your fire is a surefire way to exhaust your stock before any effect. In addition the Yamato's advantage in range allows it to begin ranging fire sooner then the Iowa in addition to affording itself a superior position. Once bracketing both sides fire at roughly the same rate.
Please recall the massive change in tactics resulting from the introduction of fire control radar. Especially good fire control radar. Following the Kirishima-Washington battle, the US learned to put a lot of faith in their radar and gunfire fire control computers. A lot of faith. From the beginning to the end of the battle.
And guess what the US Radar/Fire Control combination allowed them to do? Get a targeting solution on an enemy Battleship at over 60,000 yards - that is both range and bearing (and way beyond what they could actually shoot); and Detect 16" shell splashes and air bursts at ranges of up to 44,558 yards (which is also farther than the 16"/50s can even shoot). By that range, the Iowa actually had four different radar units tracking the target,so they could be quite confident in the results if all of them agreed with each other.
The Yamato could only fire up to 45,790 yards, and could only use her Type 22 Radar at the very pathetic range of up to only 26,329 yards - for range estimations only. 200 yard error ratio estimations. At 40,500 yards, the US radar was producing results that were accurate up to just 90 feet. In other words, well within the CEP of the 16in guns (more accurate than the guns could shoot). Not exactly an estimation. On top of that, the Type 22 did not provide bearing or shell splash feedbacks, making it next to useless in that regard. It just told them that something was there and a guess at how long they had to react to it. They had to rely on Floatplanes to spot over the horizon. Floatplanes that would quickly be dispatched by either the Iowa's Curtiss SC Seahawks (assuming Operation Ten-Go configuration for both vessels) or heavy AA batteries (up to and including the 16in guns, which were also rated for AA). Even though the Iowas didn't need them, they still launched their Floatplanes because redundancy. The Iowa did not need to watch for shell fall, they trusted their equipment.
So, this bit you said here:
In addition the Yamato's advantage in range allows it to begin ranging fire sooner then the Iowa in addition to affording itself a superior position.
No.
And, by the way, it was also standard US practice to drench any target in HC fire before committing AP shells. The reason for this was that the HC shell bursts would disorient and/or kill exposed crew, destroy AA guns (killing more crew), possibly set off secondary magazines which were almost never well armored (killing yet more crew and possibly tearing a hole in the deck armor), 'soften' the weather deck for the AP shells (possibly even penetrate the weather/bomb deck/s before detonating, as the HCs actually did have minor AP capabilities - thus possibly killing even more crew), destroy floatplane equipment, and - the primary target - potentially damage or destroy any radar or other targeting equipment - up to and including the optical range finders (the important bits of which were, by necessity, nowhere near as well armored as the Conning Tower). So, those initial salvos which you claim were wasted were not the limited resource that you claim they would have been, and still served an important tactical purpose.
Also, assuming they enter the battle with only a half load, the Iowas could keep up their salvos at maximum fire rate for roughly an hour and a half using nothing but AP shells. I don't think they would be concerned about wasting shells.
Now, on the overarching topic. Contrary to what it may seem, given my banter, I am still adamant that the Iowa only enjoys maybe 7/10 odds against the Yamato. If the Yamato were to rush the Iowa and try to brawl, she would probably gain the upper hand as the Iowa would have probably attempted to oblige. On the other hand, if the Iowa attempted to play it safe and hold well back, the Yamato could score a hit (although at that range it would be luck for either side) and cut clean through the Iowa's admittedly weak deck armor (weak only when compared to the Yamato). Even in the Iowa's play box (20-30,000 yards), the Yamato could get a lucky hit off on some of the Iowa's more sensitive areas (bow, radar) and level the playing field (of course, the Iowa's optics were not that bad, and at that range she could still play). Of course, the same is true of the Iowa against the Yamato. 'Critical Hits', as wargamers say, happen.
The Yamato was a gorgeous and overall well designed ship, in my opinion. She just didn't have the best defensive weapons in the world (her AA guns, I mean). If only she hadn't been used in a suicide mission, she probably would have survived the war and we could just go visit her today. I mean, considering how close the US came to keeping the Nagato and how facinated the technical mission to Japan was by her (Yamato), the Yamato would have almost assuredly became a 'living' museum right then and there (if not pressed into service in the 50s/80s).
Okay, so, I was bored waiting for something to happen; thus I wrote up a rather long response to @PhyscoRedFerret
Spoiled for eyerape length
Firstly, it's 13.99% for most BB shells (including both the Yamato's and the Iowa's), not 20% (the image claimed 'about', note). This is reduced by ~45% due to the fact there is reinforced cement behind the Iowa's decapping plate that the shell must also tear through, making the required thickness only 1.39". Notice in the image you linked, the presence of concrete increased the effectiveness of the decapping plate by 30%, and that was just concrete. This is how the Iowa's decapping plate defeats the Yamato's 18.1 inch projectile. On top of that, I'm guessing you missed the part where he addressed the Vittorio Neneto and Iowa-class battleships, indicating that the listed decapping plate thicknesses are largely misleading and much, much greater in most areas via the support system holding up the plate (steel, concrete, etc). For these reasons, Mr. Okun still stands by this statement: "The Iowa class' slightly thicker outer plating, however, would de-cap all projectiles up to 18.6" (47.3cm) in diameter." - Natan Okun, Armor Protection of the KM Bismarck (C) [emphasis mine] (note, he had been speaking of the South Dakotas before this, which had similar, but lesser, construction) I on the other hand would say that the 1.5" decapping plate on the Iowas would decap up to 19.5" projectiles, but I defer to the expert. The Yamatos 18.1 inch shells would be decapped.
...but still effectively had a tungsten penetrator molded into the shell (how did you think the whole 'Super Heavy' thing worked?) and therefore retained Armor Penetrating capabilities due to their extreme sectional density. Incidentally, there have been conflicting studies that claimed the US Mk8 AP shells were not that severely affected by their design. It came down to about 3-5% difference.
Most data indicates that the Yamatos' AP shells were primarily Type 91s, which they had more of. However, from what I've read, the Type 1 was only a more effective deck penetrator at long ranges because of the 'better normalization'. At long ranges. As in past the 27,000 yard range I already admitted the Iowa was vulnerable at. At shorter ranges, it actually performed horribly against belt armor because of the flat cap (like asking a wadcutter bullet to penetrate body armor). The Type 91 was superior in this role at such ranges. So, pick your poison.
The guys at Combined Fleet, including Nathan Okun, have done a very nice write up on why the Iowa would most likely trash the Yamato. That being said, they do not go into the details on the Reduced Charge loads because they are quite adamant that the Iowa does not need any more advantages, and they still determine that the Iowa would most likely defeat the Yamato. Here is the details on the gunnery. http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_guns.htm#6 Notice that the Iowa can defeat the Yamato's belt armor at ~23000 yards; and, considering the decapping, the Yamato would be unable to penetrate the Iowa's belt or deck armor at this range, giving the Iowa an effective immune zone.
Also, the ballistics of the Reduced Charge rounds are not exactly classified.
Sad attempt to mock me. Regardless, at 28,000 yards, the angle of fall would be roughly 48 degrees and the striking velocity would be roughly 1590fps. This should give roughly ~12.3" penetration. At maximum effective range (roughly 33,000 yards), angle of fall for the the reduced charged shell would be around 65 degrees (68, IIRC) and the striking velocity would be roughly 1273fps. Penetration should be about 14 to 15 inches. But my figures are rather quick and dirty, so they may not be the exact numbers.
I didn't say that no one else cut the charges, I said the Iowas had 'Reduced Charge' loads (as in, prepackaged powder bags specifically for this purpose) and, most importantly, they trained specifically for this. Need I explain to you how important training is?
Aside, the Iowas carried prepackaged Reduced Charge powder bags specifically for this purpose that gave them optimum performance (every time, no guessing) in this role, the Yamatos did not (and did not even practice/prepare for this).
Not actually true, but quite frankly it wouldn't matter. Decapping is almost pointless against deck armor - it's homogeneous steel, not face hardened.
This is true, I admit, but you're missing something...
1 strike, game over for the turret. But just the turret. To take out the ship this way, the shells would have to penetrate the various levels inside the turret and set off the magazine. This is actually possible, considering the penetration of the first 2 or 3 rounds would compromise the entire turret roof and allow the 3rd or 4th (more than likely the 4th) clear access to the magazines.
Not by American standards. (Which were, admittedly, a little over paranoid, having lost more than one ship to training accidents.)
Not a factor as the shell would have to penetrate to the magazine to cause catastrophic damage.
Incorrect. The US performed studies that suggested that it was virtually impossible to produce quality Face-Hardened armor in thicknesses of greater than ~16.5-18 inches (leaving alone the fact they could not even produce Face-Hardened Armor of that thickness). As in, literally impossible (with the technology of the time). The manufacturing process would leave the armor brittle and vulnerable to failing when hit by shells much smaller than what it should have otherwise defeated. Therefore, they felt comfortable in utilizing Homogeneous Steel in the Turret's Face Plate. Post-war, this decision would be vindicated by extensive studies (nations, such as the USSR, were still considering Battleships up until roughly the Korean War, keep in mind). Considering how American Homogeneous Steel was quite simply the best in the world at the time, this was not actually a weakness. It did its job well enough and had the advantage of being more resistant to bombs. This 'it was oh so weak' thing is something that only became 'true' because people on the Internet kept claiming it.
Please recall the massive change in tactics resulting from the introduction of fire control radar. Especially good fire control radar. Following the Kirishima-Washington battle, the US learned to put a lot of faith in their radar and gunfire fire control computers. A lot of faith. From the beginning to the end of the battle.
And guess what the US Radar/Fire Control combination allowed them to do? Get a targeting solution on an enemy Battleship at over 60,000 yards - that is both range and bearing (and way beyond what they could actually shoot); and Detect 16" shell splashes and air bursts at ranges of up to 44,558 yards (which is also farther than the 16"/50s can even shoot). By that range, the Iowa actually had four different radar units tracking the target,so they could be quite confident in the results if all of them agreed with each other.
The Yamato could only fire up to 45,790 yards, and could only use her Type 22 Radar at the very pathetic range of up to only 26,329 yards - for range estimations only. 200 yard error ratio estimations. At 40,500 yards, the US radar was producing results that were accurate up to just 90 feet. In other words, well within the CEP of the 16in guns (more accurate than the guns could shoot). Not exactly an estimation. On top of that, the Type 22 did not provide bearing or shell splash feedbacks, making it next to useless in that regard. It just told them that something was there and a guess at how long they had to react to it. They had to rely on Floatplanes to spot over the horizon. Floatplanes that would quickly be dispatched by either the Iowa's Curtiss SC Seahawks (assuming Operation Ten-Go configuration for both vessels) or heavy AA batteries (up to and including the 16in guns, which were also rated for AA). Even though the Iowas didn't need them, they still launched their Floatplanes because redundancy. The Iowa did not need to watch for shell fall, they trusted their equipment.
So, this bit you said here:
No.
And, by the way, it was also standard US practice to drench any target in HC fire before committing AP shells. The reason for this was that the HC shell bursts would disorient and/or kill exposed crew, destroy AA guns (killing more crew), possibly set off secondary magazines which were almost never well armored (killing yet more crew and possibly tearing a hole in the deck armor), 'soften' the weather deck for the AP shells (possibly even penetrate the weather/bomb deck/s before detonating, as the HCs actually did have minor AP capabilities - thus possibly killing even more crew), destroy floatplane equipment, and - the primary target - potentially damage or destroy any radar or other targeting equipment - up to and including the optical range finders (the important bits of which were, by necessity, nowhere near as well armored as the Conning Tower). So, those initial salvos which you claim were wasted were not the limited resource that you claim they would have been, and still served an important tactical purpose.
Also, assuming they enter the battle with only a half load, the Iowas could keep up their salvos at maximum fire rate for roughly an hour and a half using nothing but AP shells. I don't think they would be concerned about wasting shells.
Now, on the overarching topic. Contrary to what it may seem, given my banter, I am still adamant that the Iowa only enjoys maybe 7/10 odds against the Yamato. If the Yamato were to rush the Iowa and try to brawl, she would probably gain the upper hand as the Iowa would have probably attempted to oblige. On the other hand, if the Iowa attempted to play it safe and hold well back, the Yamato could score a hit (although at that range it would be luck for either side) and cut clean through the Iowa's admittedly weak deck armor (weak only when compared to the Yamato). Even in the Iowa's play box (20-30,000 yards), the Yamato could get a lucky hit off on some of the Iowa's more sensitive areas (bow, radar) and level the playing field (of course, the Iowa's optics were not that bad, and at that range she could still play). Of course, the same is true of the Iowa against the Yamato. 'Critical Hits', as wargamers say, happen.
The Yamato was a gorgeous and overall well designed ship, in my opinion. She just didn't have the best defensive weapons in the world (her AA guns, I mean). If only she hadn't been used in a suicide mission, she probably would have survived the war and we could just go visit her today. I mean, considering how close the US came to keeping the Nagato and how facinated the technical mission to Japan was by her (Yamato), the Yamato would have almost assuredly became a 'living' museum right then and there (if not pressed into service in the 50s/80s).
Any confrontation between would almost inevitably involve US carrier planes taking pot shots at Yamato every chance they could get. And considering Yamato's limitations in regards to AA fire while the main guns are operating, Iowa could mess up Yamato just by sitting outside of range, forcing them to have main guns ready, but AA unmanned. Cue the planes attacking, Yamato rushes to man the AA, Iowa closes to the immune/normal range zone while the main battery can't fire. Dead hotel.
Heck, you might even be able to pull this off using Iowa's Seahawks with 250 lb bombs, if they target the sensor systems.
The real question is, with the two of them fighting under the conditions depicted here (standing still one panel apart with all guns fully trained), who survives the opening salvo?
The real question is, with the two of them fighting under the conditions depicted here (standing still one panel apart with all guns fully trained), who survives the opening salvo?
Iowa. If a damage control goddess represents the best of IJN damage control, average USN damcon must be some super duper rare damcon goddess with multiple uses.
The real question is, with the two of them fighting under the conditions depicted here (standing still one panel apart with all guns fully trained), who survives the opening salvo?
Fully trained into the air, it looks like.
Otherwise we'd already see shell impacts before recoil can push them back that far (angle-wise) and it would contribute to the falling.
Okay, so, I was bored waiting for something to happen; thus I wrote up a rather long response to @PhyscoRedFerret
Spoiled for eyerape length
Firstly, it's 13.99% for most BB shells (including both the Yamato's and the Iowa's), not 20% (the image claimed 'about', note). This is reduced by ~45% due to the fact there is reinforced cement behind the Iowa's decapping plate that the shell must also tear through, making the required thickness only 1.39". Notice in the image you linked, the presence of concrete increased the effectiveness of the decapping plate by 30%, and that was just concrete. This is how the Iowa's decapping plate defeats the Yamato's 18.1 inch projectile. On top of that, I'm guessing you missed the part where he addressed the Vittorio Neneto and Iowa-class battleships, indicating that the listed decapping plate thicknesses are largely misleading and much, much greater in most areas via the support system holding up the plate (steel, concrete, etc). For these reasons, Mr. Okun still stands by this statement: "The Iowa class' slightly thicker outer plating, however, would de-cap all projectiles up to 18.6" (47.3cm) in diameter." - Natan Okun, Armor Protection of the KM Bismarck (C) [emphasis mine] (note, he had been speaking of the South Dakotas before this, which had similar, but lesser, construction) I on the other hand would say that the 1.5" decapping plate on the Iowas would decap up to 19.5" projectiles, but I defer to the expert. The Yamatos 18.1 inch shells would be decapped.
...but still effectively had a tungsten penetrator molded into the shell (how did you think the whole 'Super Heavy' thing worked?) and therefore retained Armor Penetrating capabilities due to their extreme sectional density. Incidentally, there have been conflicting studies that claimed the US Mk8 AP shells were not that severely affected by their design. It came down to about 3-5% difference.
Most data indicates that the Yamatos' AP shells were primarily Type 91s, which they had more of. However, from what I've read, the Type 1 was only a more effective deck penetrator at long ranges because of the 'better normalization'. At long ranges. As in past the 27,000 yard range I already admitted the Iowa was vulnerable at. At shorter ranges, it actually performed horribly against belt armor because of the flat cap (like asking a wadcutter bullet to penetrate body armor). The Type 91 was superior in this role at such ranges. So, pick your poison.
The guys at Combined Fleet, including Nathan Okun, have done a very nice write up on why the Iowa would most likely trash the Yamato. That being said, they do not go into the details on the Reduced Charge loads because they are quite adamant that the Iowa does not need any more advantages, and they still determine that the Iowa would most likely defeat the Yamato. Here is the details on the gunnery. http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_guns.htm#6 Notice that the Iowa can defeat the Yamato's belt armor at ~23000 yards; and, considering the decapping, the Yamato would be unable to penetrate the Iowa's belt or deck armor at this range, giving the Iowa an effective immune zone.
Also, the ballistics of the Reduced Charge rounds are not exactly classified.
Sad attempt to mock me. Regardless, at 28,000 yards, the angle of fall would be roughly 48 degrees and the striking velocity would be roughly 1590fps. This should give roughly ~12.3" penetration. At maximum effective range (roughly 33,000 yards), angle of fall for the the reduced charged shell would be around 65 degrees (68, IIRC) and the striking velocity would be roughly 1273fps. Penetration should be about 14 to 15 inches. But my figures are rather quick and dirty, so they may not be the exact numbers.
I didn't say that no one else cut the charges, I said the Iowas had 'Reduced Charge' loads (as in, prepackaged powder bags specifically for this purpose) and, most importantly, they trained specifically for this. Need I explain to you how important training is?
Aside, the Iowas carried prepackaged Reduced Charge powder bags specifically for this purpose that gave them optimum performance (every time, no guessing) in this role, the Yamatos did not (and did not even practice/prepare for this).
Not actually true, but quite frankly it wouldn't matter. Decapping is almost pointless against deck armor - it's homogeneous steel, not face hardened.
This is true, I admit, but you're missing something...
1 strike, game over for the turret. But just the turret. To take out the ship this way, the shells would have to penetrate the various levels inside the turret and set off the magazine. This is actually possible, considering the penetration of the first 2 or 3 rounds would compromise the entire turret roof and allow the 3rd or 4th (more than likely the 4th) clear access to the magazines.
Not by American standards. (Which were, admittedly, a little over paranoid, having lost more than one ship to training accidents.)
Not a factor as the shell would have to penetrate to the magazine to cause catastrophic damage.
Incorrect. The US performed studies that suggested that it was virtually impossible to produce quality Face-Hardened armor in thicknesses of greater than ~16.5-18 inches (leaving alone the fact they could not even produce Face-Hardened Armor of that thickness). As in, literally impossible (with the technology of the time). The manufacturing process would leave the armor brittle and vulnerable to failing when hit by shells much smaller than what it should have otherwise defeated. Therefore, they felt comfortable in utilizing Homogeneous Steel in the Turret's Face Plate. Post-war, this decision would be vindicated by extensive studies (nations, such as the USSR, were still considering Battleships up until roughly the Korean War, keep in mind). Considering how American Homogeneous Steel was quite simply the best in the world at the time, this was not actually a weakness. It did its job well enough and had the advantage of being more resistant to bombs. This 'it was oh so weak' thing is something that only became 'true' because people on the Internet kept claiming it.
Please recall the massive change in tactics resulting from the introduction of fire control radar. Especially good fire control radar. Following the Kirishima-Washington battle, the US learned to put a lot of faith in their radar and gunfire fire control computers. A lot of faith. From the beginning to the end of the battle.
And guess what the US Radar/Fire Control combination allowed them to do? Get a targeting solution on an enemy Battleship at over 60,000 yards - that is both range and bearing (and way beyond what they could actually shoot); and Detect 16" shell splashes and air bursts at ranges of up to 44,558 yards (which is also farther than the 16"/50s can even shoot). By that range, the Iowa actually had four different radar units tracking the target,so they could be quite confident in the results if all of them agreed with each other.
The Yamato could only fire up to 45,790 yards, and could only use her Type 22 Radar at the very pathetic range of up to only 26,329 yards - for range estimations only. 200 yard error ratio estimations. At 40,500 yards, the US radar was producing results that were accurate up to just 90 feet. In other words, well within the CEP of the 16in guns (more accurate than the guns could shoot). Not exactly an estimation. On top of that, the Type 22 did not provide bearing or shell splash feedbacks, making it next to useless in that regard. It just told them that something was there and a guess at how long they had to react to it. They had to rely on Floatplanes to spot over the horizon. Floatplanes that would quickly be dispatched by either the Iowa's Curtiss SC Seahawks (assuming Operation Ten-Go configuration for both vessels) or heavy AA batteries (up to and including the 16in guns, which were also rated for AA). Even though the Iowas didn't need them, they still launched their Floatplanes because redundancy. The Iowa did not need to watch for shell fall, they trusted their equipment.
So, this bit you said here:
No.
And, by the way, it was also standard US practice to drench any target in HC fire before committing AP shells. The reason for this was that the HC shell bursts would disorient and/or kill exposed crew, destroy AA guns (killing more crew), possibly set off secondary magazines which were almost never well armored (killing yet more crew and possibly tearing a hole in the deck armor), 'soften' the weather deck for the AP shells (possibly even penetrate the weather/bomb deck/s before detonating, as the HCs actually did have minor AP capabilities - thus possibly killing even more crew), destroy floatplane equipment, and - the primary target - potentially damage or destroy any radar or other targeting equipment - up to and including the optical range finders (the important bits of which were, by necessity, nowhere near as well armored as the Conning Tower). So, those initial salvos which you claim were wasted were not the limited resource that you claim they would have been, and still served an important tactical purpose.
Also, assuming they enter the battle with only a half load, the Iowas could keep up their salvos at maximum fire rate for roughly an hour and a half using nothing but AP shells. I don't think they would be concerned about wasting shells.
Now, on the overarching topic. Contrary to what it may seem, given my banter, I am still adamant that the Iowa only enjoys maybe 7/10 odds against the Yamato. If the Yamato were to rush the Iowa and try to brawl, she would probably gain the upper hand as the Iowa would have probably attempted to oblige. On the other hand, if the Iowa attempted to play it safe and hold well back, the Yamato could score a hit (although at that range it would be luck for either side) and cut clean through the Iowa's admittedly weak deck armor (weak only when compared to the Yamato). Even in the Iowa's play box (20-30,000 yards), the Yamato could get a lucky hit off on some of the Iowa's more sensitive areas (bow, radar) and level the playing field (of course, the Iowa's optics were not that bad, and at that range she could still play). Of course, the same is true of the Iowa against the Yamato. 'Critical Hits', as wargamers say, happen.
The Yamato was a gorgeous and overall well designed ship, in my opinion. She just didn't have the best defensive weapons in the world (her AA guns, I mean). If only she hadn't been used in a suicide mission, she probably would have survived the war and we could just go visit her today. I mean, considering how close the US came to keeping the Nagato and how facinated the technical mission to Japan was by her (Yamato), the Yamato would have almost assuredly became a 'living' museum right then and there (if not pressed into service in the 50s/80s).
With all those factors combined, theres also another reason, the iowa was planned and constructed later than the Yamato, it wouldn't be surprising that they developed better technologies to build a more battle-efficient ship compared to building it earlier
I just love how all these keyboard warriors assume that the USN would be stupid enough to send one battleship against Yamato. IRL, they'd probably send her sisters to back her up, along with every other fast battleship they had.
I just love how all these keyboard warriors assume that the USN would be stupid enough to send one battleship against Yamato. IRL, they'd probably send her sisters to back her up, along with every other fast battleship they had.
Someone asked what would happen if the two battleships went into a duel. Answering that question doesn't mean that people assume it would ever happen. Besides, a faction in a war whom has perfect intelligence at all times will never lose a battle.
I just love how all these keyboard warriors assume that the USN would be stupid enough to send one battleship against Yamato. IRL, they'd probably send her sisters to back her up, along with every other fast battleship they had.
Oh look! A keyboard warrior calling others keyboard warriors. xD