Something I learned not long ago was that Japan was actually building three Yamato class battleships. The third one, the Shinano was converted to an aircraft carrier halfway through constructions. It was the largest aircraft carrier ever built until the US Forrestal class carriers came along. The Shinano was sunk in 1944 by four torpodeos from the submarine Archerfish while it was being moved from Tokyo bay to what was thought to be a safer harbor.
agreed, war brings both the worst and best of human kind, the Yamato was a great accomplishment for an island nation (this coming from an american) but i would expect nothing less from a country with such a history.
Why would Iowa get so close instead of staying at great range and using her radar assisted fire control to score accurate hits while the yamato chases colored shell splashes and prays for a lucky hit?
exactly , the iowa would have seen the yamoto long before . the yamoto would have only known of Iowa's presence once shells started hitting it. yamoto only had spotter air planes.
That's right, no FCS radar was onboard, but In 1944, there were actually two sets of the Mk2Model1 installed with the antennas for each radar installed on the left hand and right hand arms of the main range finder. So it could have allowed a precise fix of an isolated target's bearing by maximizing the signals from the left and right hand radar sets. Yes, no real FCS but a really accurate rangefinder and bearing system, so Yamato was "less accurate in blind shooting but far from blind even during night" ...moreover, the Yamato was built to use the 4 scoutplanes as (very) long range artillery spotters to shoot at moving targets far beyond the horizon line (and FCS radars as well!).
Samuele Gardenghi Neither one of those methods would be quick enough or accurate enough to be effective against a moving target at great range, especially a target moving at 33+ knots.
I was a gunners mate onboard the Iowa in the 80's, during gunnery exercises off Puerto Rico we hit a school bus, on the first shot from 23 miles. Sure it was a stationary target but we hit it on the first shot! The MK 8 fire control system was amazing, even when modernized the Iowa's kept the Mk 8 because modern fire control computers couldn't do the job any better.
Although the Iowa had superior targeting, at THAT range there's no doubt in my mind that the Iowa would have lost. I'm all pro America, I served, but the Iowa would have been shredded by the Yamato's guns. Now at a realistic range, the Iowa could easily have out gunned the Yamato, since it's targeting was heavily reliant on spotter planes, while the Iowa's was radar based.
+burntham113 While I can agree with you on many points, unlike you, I would have doubts in my mind, many factors come into play in such a hypothetical dual, there are tactical factors (who crosses who's "T" 1st) that must be considered, crew training & blind luck.
If fight was like in the Guadalcanal...Iowa would been sunk...when next would be Washington. USS Iowa was commissioned in 22 February 1943 Musashi was commissioned in 5 August 1942. Yamato commissioned in 16 December 1941...
The big question here, is whether can Iowa penetrate Yamato’s armor at all. Again, ships need to penetrate armor if they want it to be destroyed, or will need to knock out its systems. Yamato is not very inaccurate. Yamato scored hits on small, nimble destroyers.
Actually, post war studies showed the 16" super heavy AP round was superior to Yamato's. Iowa's were faster and more maneuverable than the Yamato's with far superior fire control equipment. Yamato's armor was quite brittle and was couple together by rivets which failed under attack. The armor plate on Iowas were solid plate which was far superior in withstanding impact.
Keep in mind that at close range, Yamato would use her secondary 155mm guns to hit above the waterline and her main guns on the belt, still plenty capable of taking out the jutting radar antennae. Hits to the superstructure hurt, but they are unlikely to sink a ship, and at close range, shells ricochet off decks.
Something you guys ought to think about. No dreadnought or superdreadnought battleship ever sank another dreadnought or superdreadnought solely with it's guns. Never happened, not once. Battleships may have crippled or stopped other battleships but all sinkings were either by torpedo, aircraft bombs or scuttling. Please don't start listing off battlecruisers.
DKM Bismarck sunk HMS Hood 24 May 1941 in the Battle of the Denmark Strait USS Washington Sunk IJN Kirishima in Naval Battle of Guadalcanal on 15 November 1942.
BAZINGA! And the first idiot puts his foot in the trap I not only pointed out, but painted luminous orange and illuminated with a searchlight. Both Hood & Kirishima were BATTLECRUISERS. Hood had some armour added to the fore part but not to the stern deck armour were Bismark's (or Prinz Eugen's, it's never been settled) shell penetrated. Kirishima was also an up armoured Battlecruiser, she was not built as a dreadnought and even with the extra armour fitted, she did not have true Battleship armour. The Japanese classed her as a "Fast Battleship", but she was really a lash up.
The Admiral Class Battlecruiser, of which the Hood is the only one ever built, was initiated as a program to develop a new class of battleship to replace the existing Queen Elizabeth Class Battleships of the Royal Navy. The Director of Naval Construction was instructed to prepare designs for a new battleship which “take the armament, armour and engine power of Queen Elizabeth as the standard and build around them a hull which should embody all the latest protection and improvements against underwater attack.” It is only for political reasons that the class was renamed to Battlecruiser. In fact the Hood’s design was equal to the Queen Elizabeths, but 7 knots faster and with much improved torpedo protection. If Anything the correct classification for the Hood would have been a Fast Battleship. Scribbling the words “Crop Duster” on the designs of a B-52 Bomber doesn't make it a Crop Duster……
Are you joking pal? Are you really serious? Everybody, EVERYBODY knows Hood was a Battlecruiser. She was designed on the basis of an enlarged Queen Elizabeth class battleship hull, yes. But she had thinner armour. Some was added during the 30's to her forward deck. But the steel to re-enforce her after part was waiting in dock for when she returned from fighting Bismarck. Which she didn't.
The Hood had main belt armour 1 inch thinner than the queen Elizabeth class battleships, 12 inches compared with 13. While this is thick for a battlecruiser, it was angled outwards which exposed more of of her deck armour, which was a lot thinner than QE. Considering that Hood was over 10,000 tons heavier than QE, her armour was not good. Deck armour was 3/4 inch over her after part, to 3 inchs. Bismarcks deck armour was 3,9 to 4.7 inches, ie Bismark's deck armour was over 4 times thicker all over. In conclusion, if Hood had received her stern deck armour upgrades, she would have gone someway to becoming a fast battleship. But a fast battleship with thin armour.
If we see the miserable score of the Iowa at Truk ragoon 1944, it is clear Iowa could not do the same accurate firing that Yamato had acheived against White plains in the battle of off Samar
Nice job, I agree with the results. I take my findings from several examples. The only single US BB vs JPN BB battle resulted in 20 main gun hits to 0 main gun hits for the Americans. I agree the Washington was a true BB while the Kirishima was only a Battle cruiser and armor and offense both went to the Washington, but she failed to score a main gun hit on the Washington. Furthermore, it is said the Hits sustained to the South Dakota was friendly fire from the Washington. South Dakota's crew hated the Washington's crew for the remainder of the war. Washington had Admiral Lee onboard and I think the books were altered so his reputation would not be tarnished. I also take my example from the poor gunnery an entire Japanese surface warfare fleet displayed in firing on slow unmanueverable escort carriers during the battle of Leyte gulf. Sorry but the Americans had much better targeting systems for 43 onward. It even was demonstrated from the CC vs CC battles and the DD vs DD battles from 43 onward. I will agree that luck can play a huge part in the theoritical battles especially when you have the awesome destructive power of the naval riftles. I would say Yamato may win 1 out of every 7 of these by getting a lucky hit that would disable a major system on the Iowa. I do however disagree with the 20DD vs the Iowa simulation I saw. The long Lance torpedoes would have shredded the Iowa from those fighting distances. There is no way she could have evaded them all, would have been hit many times.
Also, Long Lances were fired that night and not one of them hit either Washington or South Dakota and the Iowa class was faster than either of those classes. Tough to get in position to launch torps when your target is running at 32-33 knots.
Fun video. Iowa's didn't have the penetrating capability even with it's 16" 50 Cal.'s to punch through Yamato class armor. Yamato's sighting capability has been wrongly labeled - crap when they were actually the best in the world. Iowa was designed for speed and was employed for defense or bombardment. Yamato was designed for killing battleships, actually capable of 28 knots, & could out turn Iowa at any speed. Iowa was built as a fast battleship, quite capable of fighting anything else, but had a glass jaw with it's bow, and even with it's speed. Yamato could zero in Iowa with it's 460's just as Iowa was even spotting Yamato, not even in range. I'll cite TaseVids. This, all given if, Yamato's crew had time to actually practice combat and target practice. In WW2, the IJN never could invest the fuel or ammo to do even this. Given this, Iowa would have a better chance of, blinding Yamato's sights, at the very least, and thus stopping a Yamato from being able to fight.
You're actually right on most counts. The Yamato was technologically superior in a lot of ways, but at the same time, it was also inferior. Most of its technology was surprisingly fragile! Even the muzzle blast from her own guns could disable most of the radar systems on the Yamato. Additionally, the Yamato's internal compartmentalization and crew configurations played against its strengths. It also doesn't help that the Yamato was laid down in 1937 and launched in 1940, and put into service on December 1941. In contrast, the Iowa-Class took the South Dakota Class and improved on it, the USS Iowa was laid down in 1940 and put into service in 1943. There's enough of a generational gap here to safely say that the Iowa-Class has the potential to put one over the Yamato in a battle. On paper, the Yamato was very powerful, but in practice, it suffered from a lot of design and doctrinal shortcomings that was very crucial to its combat effectiveness. The radar sensitivity to blast shock, for example, and the lack of gunnery training for its crew.
It's hard to say what exactly was fragile on Yamato, as sadly, we know so little. I do know that Iowa had more issues then has been revealed. I recommend checking out my reference above. Also, don't forget, it took around 400 aircraft to sink Yamato. If the Imperial Navy had implemented these battleship assets, before Midway, who knows what would have happened? Given the battle of the Philippine Sea, perhaps US Admirals would have been withdrawing, if they detected battleships speeding towards US carriers. US Admirals would have had to choose to send attack aircraft after either enemy carriers, or, the fast approaching battleships. A serious dilemma. The US Navy was fortunate to have only encountered at the end of the Navy war. By that time, Japanese Navy air power, was a practically gone.
Drakeslayer Anmon Actually i believe the Iowa, when firing the modern Mark 8 super heavy shell, had around the same armor penetration capability as the Yamato's 18 inch guns
Battleship were the centerpiece of tasks forces. No battleship would fight alone. The US had much more "at sea time" which translates to a better working crew. Consider how poorly the Yamato was handled during the Battle of the San Bernardino Straight. (Battle of the Leyte Gulf) If the IJN task force had been better handled/led it should have been a devastating US defeat. Instead it ending up being a US victory.
It was not unlike the age of sail English vs. France. The Brit were iron men in wooden ships. The French had superior ship design but year after year stuck in Port was a crippling disadvantage
Iowa could never take the pounding from the 63,000 ton Yamato! Yamato had enormous 18 inch rifles that could blast a target 25 miles away! Besides, Japan had very good gunners shown at the battle of Santa Cruz Island, and at Savo. But those engagements were early in the war for the Pacific. From 1944 onwards the US backed by it's industrial might turned the tables on Japan. I did not mention Midway in June 1942 because that was an air born battle since neither fleet saw each other.
Keep in mind that at the point the Yamato and Iowa could've clashed, the experience level of the gunners had dropped severely. The Iowa was faster and the guns, while smaller, could do the same damage. Also, the Americans had great damage control methods. As such even the severe damage she took in this would've been patched up well enough to limp back to Pearl Harbor for repairs. Even then the Iowas armor was superior to the Yamato because it's armor was made better, whereas the Yamato had its armor overheat-treated, which would've weakened it at a molecular level Bottom line is yes the Yamato was bigger, but it was severely flawed in armor, crew experience, and damage control Just trying to set the record straight
The Yamato never took part in any of the early engagements as seldom even fired the main guns. The Iowa class may have been lighter and a smaller gun but the fire control and radar made it a deadly ship. At the point in time the match would have taken the Iowa was a far better ship. Even with weaker armor and a lighter shell the Iowa would have done enough damage that the Yamato would never recover. She burned quickly and damage control was not very good to control flooding in a earlier single torpedo hit.
james haney I beg to differ seldom fire her guns.so what if they no use her in early stages they were busy practising gunnery to which they would refine and surpass their counterparts.I have to dig the link again.but prior to Samar training was done at lingga at 36km or 22miles the 2
bobbyspongka yamato musashi achieved a total 300m shell dispersion and yamato an even more intense 270m dispersion! Which means an insane 30m shell to shell dispersion this is equivalent to the length of the Iowa so by no means were they slack or not as good gunners to the usn since they rivalled this figure 40yrs later
So unrealistic first the Main Turrets from the USS Iowa didn't looked like that . Secondly how can the Iowa that is already badly damaged still fire shells and make hit to the IJN Yamato ?? The Iowa should more hit the water and kill fish than the Yamato . Like always these Historical Games are badly made without even respecting the true ratio from each ship separately . Here we see the Yamato have advantage then suddenly ( prolly the one who played that game ) made it magical to make the Axis sink again -_-
+defiraphi The yamato had much better shooting optics, whereas the Iowa has advanced fire control radar and would have been able to shoot yamato from over the horizon with deadly accuracy.
+Revan Fish Since when is a radar 100% true and working? Thats why the paint of the ships was important back then to disrupt the ennemy radar. The radar couldn't inform if it was a Battleship or a Destroyer unless if they had planes arounds thats another story. But ship to ship it was impossible to hit from 35.000miles and ship sink . Look how the battle was between the Bismarck and HMS Hood they were kinda close to battle . Hood was obsolete pure evidence . Anyways it isn't the radar or technology that makes the ship better it is the Admiral and his feeling and honor that counts and its crew .
my comment was in response to when you said that the iowa should have been hitting water more often, with the old radar the closer one was, the more accurate it was, so the Iowa's hits should have been dead on (most of the time). That said, at that close of a range the Yamato should also have landed just about every hit, and with its bigger 18' guns, should have sank Iowa. EDIT: and yes radar can tell the difference between a destroyer and a battleship, since the radar return signature would have been different sizes. (bigger return=bigger ship like a battleship or carrier) EDIT2: The Hood was a battlecruiser, meaning less armor and guns for better speed, whereas the Bismark was a full blown Battleship, meaning heavy armor and more guns, so no, the Hood was clearly outmatched from the start.
I also have another 1946 Japanese radar short survey written by Roger I. Wilkinson, that says the experiment of Type 22 demonstrated that target echoes were picked up at 60 km, and the duplex system was also a notable feature for USN.
Yeah. Considering in the real world, the Yamato's optimum firing range was basically the Iowa's maximum range, and the difference in gun sizes, I doubt the Iowa would actually win. Don't get me wrong, Iowa is an awesome BB, but Japanese shipbuilding at the time was focused around higher quality ships over numbers, because they knew they would never be able to match the US for sheer output. Yamato was basically designed to wreck multiple BB's.
+Alamandorious Wrong, the Yamato is the biggest WWI battleship ever. Everything about it was 1918 technology. Armor was thick, but not very good. Guns were large, but not very good. Iowa was far more advanced. The mechanical computers with the radar rangefinders make it infinitely more deadly at long range than the Yamato. AP shell weight for the 16" guns was only slightly lower than the 18" guns, but you have to make a hit for that to even matter. Armor was pretty much incomparable. Iowa had far superior quality in the main belts, and in an unheard of practice, most of the ship was made from armor quality steel. Most navies couldn't afford to do so, and most navies thin armor plate was non-structural. So splinter damage would have been a fraction of what would have been experienced in most other ships. Still not armored enough to take a heavy beating from a top class ship, but the RJN had nothing that could be classed with the Iowa. The electronics gap was just too large, with the superior radar making "blind fire" quite accurate for the US battleships. Worse, Ammunition handling and Damage control in the Japanese navy were on par with that legendary WWI British ammunition handling and damage control. So it was likely that a survivable hit would have set off secondary explosions. You can see this throughout the war when they lose ships that shouldn't have been lost.
Ok, let's do some fact checking, shall we? First, Yamato was laid down in 1937 and launched in 1940. Looking at the hull design, you can see the sharp inward angle of the bow, which was something that came about for WW2 era ships because ship designers decided that ramming, which is what forward-swept angles or sheer vertical angles on bows were all about, was no longer going to be a prominent naval tactic...the swept-back bow offered better ability for a ship to cut through water. Secondly, look at the guns. The Yamato's 40 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun guns have a MAXIMUM firing range of 42km, with their EFFECTIVE (meaning the range inside of where they're going to be the most accurate) range being 25km. The Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns have a MAXIMUM firing range of 38km, which means their EFFECTIVE firing range (meaning the range inside of where they're going to be the most accurate) would end up being less (I haven't been able to find a number for this, I will admit, but given the difference in maximum ranges between the two, it is logical to assume this would be less). Let's talk about armor now. Yamato has Iowa beat, hands down, in every category for armor. Belt, waterline, deck, turret face. With the shells of the Yamato being larger and heavier, it would have a MUCH easier time penetrating the Iowa's armor than the Iowa would it. The Iowa does have the speed advantage, and does having the firing computers...but the likelyhood of hitting the first volley is unlikely for both ships, and after that it's a matter of who's going to penetrate who first...the Iowa might be able to land more hits, but the Yamato is more likely to penetrate with each hit, and do significantly more damage with each hit. Couple that with Yamato being capable of firing upon the Iowa sooner, and getting the Iowa within its effective range sooner, I'm sorry but the Iowa has to get lucky to win. The odds are completely stacked against it. Note, too, that the damage control deficiencies were from ships that were laid down prior to the Yamato. All you need to do is look at the Musashi, and the amount of punishment she took before being sunk. 19 torpedo hits and 17 bomb hits...the bomb that managed to sink the Yamato was lucky enough to hit a magazine.
***** Back to grammar school kiddo! No passing grade for math! 3200 lb = 1450 kg 2700 lb = 1225 kg And you assuming that Yamato can actually hit anything. When her actual REAL LIFE service record at the Battle of Leyte Gulf (the only surface battle she ever fought) is total disaster. She couldn't even stop lone US destroyer from coming within torpedo range.
***** The accuracy of naval guns above 30K yards is nearly 0. Hundreds of rounds to a hit isn't unheard of. The Iowa has a massive advantage at longer ranges with its radar and mechanical computers. The 16" guns also have a higher rate of fire making the Iowa have no disadvantage in throw weight.
Alamandorious Yah, you are missing that the Yamato is built with the height of WWI British technology. The guns were still wire wound, limiting performance and making them heavy. Propellants were well behind the current technology. Armor was really bad for its thickness. Google Yamato armor test to see an actual test on the turret face armor for a yamato class ship. Japan had a really huge problem in that they had great people, but no technology other than what they could buy. They bought from the British who were the leaders, and did wonderful things with it. Yet British ideas/technology were put to the test in WWI and found lacking. Worse the economic issues prevented Britain from addressing these. So Japan had little improvements over the 30 years. America on the other hand was continuing to push all the detail technologies that go into a ship. So the Iowa class was equipped better than any other ship in history with all the little things that make the real difference in the real world. The "lesser" battleships like the South Dakota proved to be "invincible" in gun battles vs the IJN.
That's kind of the point of the "all or nothing" armor scheme, which was very effective, by the way. As long as the propulsion and magazines are safe, the ship will usually survive, even when heavily damaged in other parts. See: Hiei's disabling by cruisers, or Hood's destruction, compared to South Dakota's relatively light damage (buoyancy-wise). Plus, this presupposes that Yamato could even find and hit Iowa, which had far superior fire control radar, allowing her to fight in bad weather and at night. And in any case, battles would be decided by air power, not battleship-on-battleship actions, where the AA batteries of USN ships would prove superior.
+FawfulDied fun fact the iowa wold have sunk if facing the same amount of planes yamato did the iowa cannot survive 390 planes attacking it no ship in world war 2 could
+FawfulDied 390 planes is still enough also if we take ohla class planes then iowa can be fucked in about 20 of them or just5 the okha was a japanese triple rocket engine kamikaze aircraft whit a torpedo like bomb on its front ment to penetrate the target then explode it worked as it sometimes overpenetrated the target
The 2 decks above demonstrated their usefulness against bombs, I acquired the same series of 1946 USN intel report and there's a drawing inside demonstrate that none of the heavy bombs ever penetrated the main armored deck, all were exploded around the first 2 deck. None of the vital parts were destroyed by bombs. Iowa, on the other hand , has only one very thin deck above the main armored deck. While Iowa has only 3 decks above the middle vital part, Yamato had 4.
>>---------------------> The real U.S. Commander would never get so close. Placing his vessle at a horrible disadvantage and not using the Iowa's strengths. American fire control and radar on the BB Iowa was light years beyond anything in the IJN, and we knew this at the time. The Iowa could make multiple hits a on a dime, and give you nice cents change.
surearrow I think this is just the way the uploader has spawned the two ships, since I know that ship battles on Silent Hunter are incredibly realistic and engage each other at ranges relating to their real life counterparts.
+surearrow My father was the gunnery officer assigned to the 40mm gun tub atop number three turrent of the big stick. He told me that that their 16's could hit a destroyer running flat out at 20 miles with the second turrent salvo. so hitting the Yamato at twenty-five or even thirty miles would be no problem.
Actually it was the Kirishima that was sunk. Since the "Kongo" class were built around the start of the 1st World War it is not surprising that the 16 inch shells of the Washington were capable of disabling Kirishima which sank about 4 hours later.
i can understand you points you bring but with speed part there is a link on the navweaps site that talks about the Iowa class encountering problems upon reaching 26knots?
Yamato had one advantage over Iowa class her 18 inch guns. Iowa could outmaneuver outspeed and outshoot the Yamato. both ships were about equal in armor however Iowa's gun directors were way better and would hit the Yamato consistently where the Yamato would be very lucky to hit Iowa at distance. the sheer volume of shells landing on Yamato would penetrate her Armour send her to the bottom rather quickly. look what air-dropped bombs of half the weight did to your Yamato when they hit.
Note that on page 10, it states that 'one tube...shows all target echoes up to 60 kilometers'. From this, we can infer that although it could only obtain the range up to 25km, it could detect a target at 60km, allowing seaplanes and eyes to be directed toward the enemy vessel. Fuso and Yamashiro were to rendezvous with Kurita's force to attack US landing forces alongside his battleships.
The Iowa is much beter than the Yamito because the Iowa is a VERY VERY armored battledship and the YamHam(Yamito) is smallerand probably less armored and dosn't shoot hard enough to distroy the mighty Iowa ( which is now in the port of Los Angeles ) (P.S. I live close to the Iowa )
The Yamato is less accurate than the Iowa but the firing range and weight was far superior...also the Yamato had guns that apparently broke the Washington naval treaty because its gun caliber was MASSIVE and its guns were so heavy that when it was sunk...the guns were ripped out of their gun sockets...also the armour was very thick...it took a dozen bombs and guns to cripple the mighty beast and a lucky shot to blow up the gun magazine...the Iowa couldn't take as many bombs as the Yamato did...and they didn't make anymore "all big gun" ships because of the threat of aerial bombardment...it would be a sitting duck in the water...the Yamato focused on firepower...not defence but the Iowa equaled the defence and firepower ...the iowa was considerably smaller than the yamato with less arnaments...the only battleships that could stand up to the yamato one on one was the uss Montana and her sister ships...but if the iowa class battleships ganged up on the yamato by itself they could stand a chance...but the real heroes of WWII were the aircraft carriers......OMG LOL I WORTE AN ESSAY...JK JK thanks for reading (i have tried to be fair on both sides)
Iowa and Yamato are evenly matched. Yamato's armor was thicker but was made out of shit steel. Iowa's guns match the Yamato's since the Mk V shells were insanely heavy for a 16 in. diameter gun.
To all the stupid and ignorant Americans mentioning HMS Hood, Hood was not a battleship she was a BATTLECRUISER and the Germans only sunk her due to a VERY lucky long range hit which happened as she was half way through a turn. Even the Germans knew they scored a lucky hit. Hopefully this will dispel some of the unneeded and unwanted arrogance from Americans.
"Hurr durr, stupid Americans" A batrlecruisers defining feature is gambling on luck. They don't have so much armor, so they HAVE to be lucky. And, as it turns out, gambling on luck isn't a very good idea.
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today," said Admiral David Beatty at Jutland, after observing the two British battle cruisers HMS Indefagitable and HMS Queen Mary disintegrate in a pillar of smoke. (He thought a third had just vanished before his eyes immediately after Queen Mary, but HMS Princess Royal survived.) Yet another of his battle cruisers would shortly disintegrate in a similar manner as the first two, when HMS Invincible also disappeared in a pillar of smoke. It was a bad day for the Royal Navy. What a shame the Royal Navy did not learn from the loss of those three ships and their 3,000 crewmen. Ironically, Rear Admiral Horace Hood himself was killed when Invincible did not prove invincible. Nonetheless, Britain built another ship with the same fatal flaws as the three battle cruisers she lost at Jutland. That ship, HMS Hood, would also disintegrate in a pillar of smoke, at the hands of the new German battleship Bismark. What is past is prologue. It isn't just the Royal Navy that was guilty of ignoring the lessons of the past. Burying your head in the sand when warned of danger is unwise, whether aboard Titanic, at Pearl Harbor, or on dozens of other occasions in memory. Its also wise to heed the lessons that historians can teach us.
excuse me, not all of us are so, the hood was an aged battle "cruiser" fighting a brand new battleship. a cruiser sacrifices armor for speed, in the years following WWI speed was considered an asset but the leadership still wanted the firepower of a capital ship hence the battlecruiser or heavy cruiser in the U.S though they did have smaller guns. yes the united states had them too (this being directed at hazztech and judd49th) they were all made less effective with the creation of the "fast" battleships built to escort the new carriers. the Queen Elizabeth-class, Kongo-class and the North Carolina-class which ended with the Lion-class(2 laid but never finished) the infamous Yamato-class(2.5 of 5 completed, one was converted mid build to an aircraft carrier) and the famous Iowa-class (4 of 6 completed)
is it a video game or what? who played it, the computers or somebody? maybe the player a iowa fans.. i just see to the technical point, yamato has bigger cannon calliber than iowa..amount of guns that yamato had more than iowa and she has a stronger armour, although yamato's speed is slower than iowa
In fact, while the Yamato had more armour, he Iowa's was stronger, as the way it was made. As for firepower, the Yamato did have 18.1 inch guns compared to the Iowa's 16 in guns, but if they can't hit the target they can't do damage, the Yamato was quite more inaccruate than the Iowa as the Iowa class battleships used Radar/computer aided system to help aim the shots. Damage Control, the Iowa Also had better of this, fixing the damage on a ship is a must, the Yamato's was poor. In short what i'm saying is that the Yamato was made mainly for size of the ship, and the size of the guns, In a 1 v 1 Duel, long-range Iowa wins, Short Range, it would be close. Any argument?
well..radar technology huh? but ,the largest battleship yamato was sunk , they couldn't meet each other.. i thought why was by the hundred of aircraft, why not dakota or king george or other battleship-class? too afraid against her? .. the big guns were useless against aircraft..what a shame..
Pradhitya Bayu Using planes was the best way of attacking her. Attacking with a battleship would have high chances of men being killed and/or a badly damaged ship to pay lots and lots of money to fix.
Even if Iowa could spot Yamato early, it would take some time for a firing solution to be reached. In addition, fading became apparent at extreme ranges, meaning for a more accurate solution, she would have to close in to around where Yamato and her optics can also see her. Even if she couldn't see Iowa, keep in mind she also carried 7 seaplanes for spotting, and her many lookouts and their high-power binoculars would see Iowa's masts around the same time Iowa's radar first sees Yamato.
+BlueonGoldZ 20 miles would put both in range of each other. Iowa had better fire control (more accurate shooting) w/ better radar. Iowa was over 5 knots faster. Iowa had Mark 8 super heavy shell. Iowa had 2 round per mintue to the Yamatos 1.5. So many variables. If you put them both in the ocean alone, without knowledge of each others location... w/ just a single scout plane, I'd go Iowa based on its fire control, radar, speed and rate of fire. You can argue that Yamatos range would be a huge factor but hitting a battleship moving 25-30 knots from over 20 miles away is not an easy thing to do, and I think Iowa could close that distance with a good chance of not being hit.
+Gunther Ultrabolt Novacrunch Iowa had better fire control (more accurate shooting) ,,,,,,no, she never could do that. you don,t know the score of Iowa against IJN light cruiser and destroyer, Iowa left the miserable score.
I love reading your debates ! Simple fact is the USA Iowa Class Battleships all Survived and still float today as Museums , plus they survived at least two other wars . The Yamato and Musashi , along with the Bismarck and Tirpitz , are laying at the bottom of the Sea !
+George Baker Jr When you compare the role of the Iowa, to the role of the Yamato it makes perfect sense that the Iowa is still around. Simply put the Iowa was never designed for Battleship vs Battleship combat. She was designed to escort carriers. that's all there is too it It's still afloat cause it did it's job and it did it well, And it didn't try to turn itself into Beach artillery.
Yamato had Type-22 radar with detection range of 37km for 250m long vessels, she had good fire-control and optics, in contrast to older IJN battleships, (the proof is also the Battle of Samar, where she scored longest naval hits and sank 3 USN ships). Also, Iowa's FCS wouldn't play any role here, due to the fact that her guns are too weak to penetrate any vital part of Yamato at long range, and her armor is too weak to withstand Yamato's shell - sounds like Yamato controls the battle.
She sank the Gambier Bay and give kill assistance to others ships, like the Kongo, that sink the Johnston, ship that the Yamato hit +- 15 times. And the radars had 35km of max range, not 37km with a fire control a little bit worst than the Bismarck's one.
Remember that the MK-7 Shells had better PENETRATING POWER than any battleship, she could penetrate some parts of the Yamato's armor at longer distances.
In my opinion the Iowa just have a chance at +35km, distance that they guns can penetrate some parts of the Yamato's armor with radar controled guns. The radar too cant detect the Iowa at bigger distances.
My name is maurice johnson retired ship building here in Baltimore but no more I love the work as welder my father also was a welder 40 years working in ship building I made up my mind at age 12 to work in in ship building it was a good life
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Katori\ The Iowa closed with Katori and fired fifty-nine 16-inch (41 cm) high capacity (non-armor piercing) rounds and 129 5-inch (13 cm), straddling the cruiser with ten salvos. Just after Iowa's fifth salvo, Katori quickly listed to port exposing seven large shell holes about five feet in diameter in her starboard side, one under the bridge about five feet below the waterline another amidships about at the waterline, plus about nine small holes. The damage on the port side was much worse. After being under attack by the Iowa for only 13 minutes, Katori sank stern first, with a port side list at 07°45′N 151°20′E about 40 miles (75 km) northwest of Truk. A large group of survivors were seen in the water after she sank, but the Americans did not recover any. Not saying Wikipedia's history is totally accurate.. it says Katori was a moving target and she was hit by several large calibers. You seem to know very detailed data but i do not know your source. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar At 0730, three 14 in (360 mm) shells from the battleship Kongo, at a range of 7 nmi (8.1 mi; 13 km), passed through the deck of the Johnston and into her portside engine room, cutting the destroyer's speed in half to 17 kn. Moments later three 6 in (150 mm) shells - possibly from the Yamato - struck Johnston's bridge. History Furthermore; Yamato would close to within 2,400 yd (2,200 m) of the American ships when it was attacked by American aircraft. Yamato was much closer than you have reported. The Japanese were using dye still to determine which shells belonged to which ship.. The Yamato's data was so confused she claims to have even sunk an American cruiser.. There were no American cruiser at the location.... Please provide your data source.. I cannot find historical documents to validate your claims.
I have the action report from that battle and Wikipedia is WRONG.it was actually of the 46 main round 2 HOLES were seen.one under the bridge and the other under the waterline.of the 125 secondaries it was littered with only 6 holes.so of the total 171 rounds fired at 14000yards only 8hits landed on the crippled training cruiser katori
please why do people rely on "wiki"? Re Samar;0725 Kongo checks fire as main rangefinder is knocked out by straffing aircraft and enters rain squall and dos not fire again until 0802...Kongo action report US National Archives. 0728 Yamato fires 1 maingun broadside along with super firing secondary,range 21,000yrds. Yamato action report US National Archives approx 0730 Johnston hit by 3 14" or larger then immediately 3 6" shells.now in the BUShips report going from initial penetration to point of detonation the AoF was aprox 18* for both main and secondary hits...Yamato is only ship that is within range for that AoF
Re Truk Lagoon..Katori was "dead in the water" I have ALL the action reports and radar plots and lots of photos during the battle from ALL USN ships and a copy of the ONLY photo that shows Katori being fired upon by Iowa from Iowa...source US National Archives 46-16" not 59...and there was NO sighting of any survivors...2 maingun hits and 6 secondary hits CAG-17/A16-3 atw-172 BB61/A12-1 Serial [0012]
As we both know, it depends on which source has credence. Kurita noted a hit on a carrier at 30,000s yards, presumably just after 07:00. Charles Heinl of the Gambier Bay noted large high angle hits on flight deck (larger than 8") at 08:10. Chikuma and the cruisers were closing to point blank and G.B recieved the below W/L hit that stopped her causing Vieweg to abandon at08:50. After noting the hit on the first carrier, Yamato shifted to a 2nd (Kitkun Bay or White plains....
I have always wondered what it would have been like if the capital battleships of that era were able to engage each other. Missouri against Bismark. Iowa against Yamato. Not submarines, air cover or escort ships, just battle wagons sluggin it out. Nice video.
Di I say it wasn't? I am quite aware of U.S. battleship classes. Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin and New Jersey, all presently mothballed and or floating museums. The next class not built was the Montana class. Perhaps you need to look at my statement again and next time pay a bit more attention before making a snide little statement like that.
Yamato had some of the best optical fire control in the world, better than Iowa, however people just don't understand the quantum leap forward in technology the MK8 was. The Iowa could do s turns all day and not lose her firing solution. The Yamato would have to acquire a new solution every time Iowa or herself moved. If the Yamato was in a turn the MK8 could predict where Yamato would be when the Iowa's shells would land. It doesn't matter if Yamato's guns outranged Iowa
Sorry for delay, I have other things going on. Radars.The Iowa's mk38 had a range of 90, 000 yard. But only had accuracy for use in gunnery control of 45, 000 yds.(221/2 nm) Yamato's Mk2 mod2 was a10cm long pulse width radar with a 5kw output and accuracy to just under 19 miles. So not so innefectual as one would think. Oh, and at ranges like that, you might just visually see the splashes in daylight . at night, no chance..
The details for the mk 8 and Mk 38 is in a USN ordnance pamphlet for radar officers that I have. The 13 info was in a book called "Naval Radar". and I double checked on a site called "NavSource on line...Battleship photoarchive....Radar equipment.
Honor is a concept that has developed alongside and has been a major part of war since the very conception of human warfare. The situation of war is almost universally regarded as a bad thing, but that does not mean that positive concepts can exist alongside or even within it.
A quote from the same page: 'On the other hand, historically the Americans had little idea of Yamato's capabilities, and were likely to have attempted to close the range with her, not knowing the extent of her armoring, or that she was, in fact, armed with truly enormous 18.1" guns, rather than the 16" guns everyone on the American side of the lake assumed was the case. Closing the range with Yamato would likely have resulted in the American ship learning a painful lesson in gunfire supremacy.'
So are you good on the fact Type 22 Radar used on a BB was only out to 25km? Past 25km, the Type 22 wouldn't see it? If it did, what range on the 60km range of the display scope would it give?
The site does not take into consideration that radar is not as resistant as optics. Radar of that time was more prone to being disabled than the more robust optical FC systems.
They were designed for early warning, but were used in radar-assisted FC. The type 96 was by no means bad, but the need to constantly change the 15-round magazines meant that effective ROF was quite low. Additionally, great muzzle velocity meant great muzzle flash, and shell dispersion was also problematic as a result.
Another voice of sanity, at last! I am tired of pointing out that the Yamato and the Iowa would have worn out their gun barrels (non-relineable in the case of the Yamato, which is partly why her crew never got much gunnery practice) and not just have emptied their magazines without hitting each other at these ranges.......
Hard to tell when a ship has had enough nor just how many torps and bombs it actually took. Then from their memroy with Musashi, where the air attacks prolonged her staying afloat but putting holes on both sides of the ship to do as well as counter flooding, they were making sure it went away
In the Technical Mission to Japan, the Mk2 model 2 [ type 22 ] data is given as: Wavelength: 10cm Radiated power: 2kw Pulse width: 10us Range BB to BB: 35km Range accuracy: +/-100 meters Bearing accuracy with lobe switching:0.5* oh yeah thats the US performance figures
I never said Iowa's radar could be 'easily' disabled. I merely said it was possible. You assume that every captain would choose to use hit-and-run tactics. Keep in mind that historically, the US forces knew close to nothing of Yamato's true stats. It is equally likely that the captain of Iowa would believe his ship to be superior and go for a direct attack, guns blazing. Yamato can move and shoot. Extreme maneuvering, however, can affect the aim.
Actually, the Kamikaze Corp was formed during Leyte Gulf in late '44. One could call the under trained IJN pilots of late '42 onward suicide pilots, but they weren't their to crash, but they did die in droves
It says 'shows all target echoes up to 60km', not 'is marked to 60km', for example. If I stated that 'the speedometer will show the speed up to 150kmh' as a fact and from experience, it would imply that the car has been pushed to 150kmh. If I said 'the speedometer is marked to 150kmh', it would not. It states that 'the range obtainable on a battleship was on the order of 25km', not 'it could detect a battleship only up to 25km'.
One tube is the early warning tube and the other is the more accurate rangefinder. Using the slightly flawed analogy, it would be like saying because the (accurate) speedometer read 240kmh when I was driving, the car has reached 240kmh. If it were merely marked to 60km, it would have said something along the lines of '...warning" is marked to 60km'. Since the word 'shows' was used, one can infer that an echo at 60km had been seen.
Ignore what? As this survey was conducted post-war, it meant that there was co-operation between the two sides, which ensured that the US was testing a radar that had not been damaged or tampered with. They may have, had testing been conducted during the war. Again, I ask that you suggest anything that could possibly be better than a contemporary paper. I also request a source that lists what the Iowa's radar could compensate for in 1945. Iowa's radar was faster ONLY under full radar control.
The japanese wikipedia article with citations to books written in japan based on japanese war records also states that the type 22 Surface search radar had a range of 35km. Allow me to re-iterate. The 22km figure was based on US TESTS that did not test the radar to its full capacity.
Moon/star light is enough to see ships at low-med alt, and if you're shooting at my planes, the muzzle flash will be enough to see Iowa, even at relatively high altitude. You can't reach top speed if your boiler crews are asleep. If they stay awake during the day, they won't be able to work as well during the night, and you won't able able to reach your top speed. I'm assuming you're referring to the SG radar, which only had a maximum range of 41km, within the range of my guns.
This is not a discussion of what would happen in a real war. We're discussing what would happen if Yamato and Iowa were pitted against each other in a 1-vs-1 battle, with no real escape, like what was shown in the video. At a range where she could not accurately retaliate, she would zig, but at close range, any sensible captain would maintain a relatively straight course and attempt to cross the enemy's T.
We should know that the MK 13 that were used against Yamato was not small and light, it's 1005kg and contained 600lbs of Torpex equals to 900lbs of TNT. Yamato's belt was designed to take 880lbs TNT power, it was the joint that was dislocated by the torp, yet the explosion only scratched very little surface of the belt armor, so in theory the belt sustained little more that the design limit. The joint weakness was later improvised and only after numerous hits on almost the same spot sank her.
Remember the NavWeapons penetration tables you yourself cited? They show that the US 2700lb 'Super heavy' shells have inferior penetration against japanese armour than the Japanese 460mm shells against US 'class A' cemented armour, which is of higher quality than the 'Class B' homogenous armour, also known as STS armour.
Where the Iowa had the cards vs Yamato, Part 2: Gun Stabilization Secondaries 5"/38 DP Armor Quality (STS, look it up and how the Iowa was covered in the stuff) Besides bigger guns and longer range of those guns (a dubious quality when it's OTH) vs Iowa's ability to see the 16" splashes relative to target) and thicker but lower quality steel armor, what does Yamato bring to the table that makes her stand out and a match for South Dakota let alone Iowa?
Range of Type 22 radar: pwencycl. kgbudge. com/T/y/Type_22_general_purpose_radar.htm - please note where it says this: 20 nm (35 km) aircraft group 10 nm (17 km) single aircraft 13 nm (24 km) BB US SG radar: pwencycl. kgbudge. com/S/g/SG_surface_search_radar.htm and let your friend see this: The radar was initially buggy and sensitive to shock, and the set on Honolulu at the Battle of Tassafaronga seems to have performed poorly. However, later sets proved sturdy, compact, and dependable
The bottom line is that, after 1943 or so, having the world's best optical fire-control systems was largely irrelevant. The night battle between Washington and Kirishima near Savo pretty much settled the point; good radar usually beats good optics in a stand-up fight. And the radar used by Washington off of Guadalcanal was not as good as the sets fitted aboard Iowa.6 Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.) The bottom line is, then, that the Allied vessels, and particularly Iowa and South Dakota, would enjoy an enormous advantage in gunfire control over their adversaries. She would have the ability to lob shells over the visual horizon, and would also perform better in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions. The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
98755785a tanks on land started doing things described in your later paragraph in late 1970's after the advent of computers. while americans did have superior radar systems, i am somewhat skeptical about what you describe there.
Everything he said there is true. The reason why tanks weren't able to do this until the 70s is because they didn't have the size for such a huge fire control center. The table where you plot in data is almost as big as a tanks fighting compartment. Then you have the actual computer that took up a whole compartment, which is bigger then most tanks in its self. Then you have the area to plot in things such as wind speed, humidity, etc. Then you have the radar systems,range finders all much bigger then a tank. There was no possible way to fit all that even inside of MAUS, until the advent of smaller and much more compact computers
The time it takes to repair the damaged radar is a lot of time wasted in the heat of battle. Also, consider this: When Yamato was built, her main guns were classified as 40cm/16in guns, as opposed to the 46cm guns they were in reality. The US forces didn't know that until after the war had ended; it is entirely possible they would have attempted to close the distance, being unaware of Yamato's heavy armour and armament, to a range where the 46cm shells would have wreaked havoc.
Became Operational: September 1944, see notes below War Status: wide operational use in war Installed: surface ships, submarines Purpose: anti-air, surface dectection and gunnery control Wavelength: 10 cm Peak Output: 2 kw Transmitter: magnetron Receiver: crystal Detector: n/a Detected: aircraft, group at 35 km, single at 17 km, surface ship (large) 34.5 km and this is from NAVWEPS....that site you relie on so much!!
8o8 mentioned that it was visual. Kurita told the same. But the point is, even though there was a rain squall that came just right in time seemingly protecting the CVEs, the CVEs still can't escape from being straddled at this great distance. Do you remember the GB book mentioned the chaotic moment that the CVEs were dumping some perfect aircraft instead of scrambled all of them? Regardless whether it was radar or visual, the Japanese really did it even under poor whether.
As for not knowing where the shells were from. No US gun over 6" was issued with flashless or reduced flash propellants so Yamato would know full well where the salvoes were from
oh yeah you said Iowa seems like a battlecruiser.i think i can see that.BC's were used to hunt to CA's right?.i have a war magazine and from what i read the USN sacrificed armour and guns for speed.she was intended to escort carriers and was to fight only venerable battleships and keep CA's away and it was hoped that the CV's they escorted would keep japanese giants and modern battleships away.sounds similar right?
Wow, the USS Iowa is literally down the street from where my family live. I've seen her, and she's a beautiful ship. I've always been more into the old Transatlantic liners, and was very surprised as to how low this ship's hull is. She is impressive in person, but I must admit, I thought BB were much bigger! well, Can't compare her size to the RMS Queen Mary, her neighbor up the port of L.A. and around the corner as they both served different purposes. But an Amazing Ship the USS Iowa is!
Something I learned not long ago was that Japan was actually building three Yamato class battleships. The third one, the Shinano was converted to an aircraft carrier halfway through constructions. It was the largest aircraft carrier ever built until the US Forrestal class carriers came along. The Shinano was sunk in 1944 by four torpodeos from the submarine Archerfish while it was being moved from Tokyo bay to what was thought to be a safer harbor.
Both battle ships are so beautiful! And so are the flag of the rising sun and the stars and strips.
agreed, war brings both the worst and best of human kind, the Yamato was a great accomplishment for an island nation (this coming from an american) but i would expect nothing less from a country with such a history.
Those turrets don't look right on the Iowa, they look more like the New Mexico turrets.
Damn. Good eye!!!!
apiece ofdirt You can look up pictures of the Iowa. It's kinda obvious after you realize it.
+Bob Nub No these are not New Mexico guns they are also not Iowa guns either I don't know what to make of them haha
so you noticed that too huh there smaller than normal
Ya a bit smaller then new Mexico guns same style ig def not Iowa guns though but hey it's a remake Cody Bryant
Why would Iowa get so close instead of staying at great range and using her radar assisted fire control to score accurate hits while the yamato chases colored shell splashes and prays for a lucky hit?
exactly , the iowa would have seen the yamoto long before . the yamoto would have only known of Iowa's presence once shells started hitting it. yamoto only had spotter air planes.
Yamato had radar FCS as well....
Gary Sellars Yamato had no fire control specific radar systems onboard.
That's right, no FCS radar was onboard, but In 1944, there were actually two sets of the Mk2Model1 installed with the antennas for each radar installed on the left hand and right hand arms of the main range finder. So it could have allowed a precise fix of an isolated target's bearing by maximizing the signals from the left and right hand radar sets. Yes, no real FCS but a really accurate rangefinder and bearing system, so Yamato was "less accurate in blind shooting but far from blind even during night" ...moreover, the Yamato was built to use the 4 scoutplanes as (very) long range artillery spotters to shoot at moving targets far beyond the horizon line (and FCS radars as well!).
Samuele Gardenghi Neither one of those methods would be quick enough or accurate enough to be effective against a moving target at great range, especially a target moving at 33+ knots.
I was a gunners mate onboard the Iowa in the 80's, during gunnery exercises off Puerto Rico we hit a school bus, on the first shot from 23 miles. Sure it was a stationary target but we hit it on the first shot! The MK 8 fire control system was amazing, even when modernized the Iowa's kept the Mk 8 because modern fire control computers couldn't do the job any better.
What in God's name are you doing firing 16-inch shells at school buses! Those poor children! 😜
Can I see the video pls
Just didnt understeand how fire controls from 1943 are better than the actual ones, but ok.
Как же пох*й!
@@D.AKULA_TK208
Nothing in the 80's was designed to put that type of ordnance downrange. And the Mark 8 was already very accurate.
Iowa's gun didn't like that
At this range I’d rather have six Fletcher Class Destroyers.
Loved the intro, perfect music to get hype on.
what song is in the beginning
Although the Iowa had superior targeting, at THAT range there's no doubt in my mind that the Iowa would have lost.
I'm all pro America, I served, but the Iowa would have been shredded by the Yamato's guns. Now at a realistic range, the Iowa could easily have out gunned the Yamato, since it's targeting was heavily reliant on spotter planes, while the Iowa's was radar based.
+burntham113 While I can agree with you on many points, unlike you, I would have doubts in my mind, many factors come into play in such a hypothetical dual, there are tactical factors (who crosses who's "T" 1st) that must be considered, crew training & blind luck.
burntham113 who knows, the Iowa may of nocked our the range finder and radar on the Yamato and, on a ship, that can prove to be fatal
If fight was like in the Guadalcanal...Iowa would been sunk...when next would be Washington. USS Iowa was commissioned in 22 February 1943
Musashi was commissioned in 5 August 1942. Yamato commissioned in 16 December 1941...
The big question here, is whether can Iowa penetrate Yamato’s armor at all. Again, ships need to penetrate armor if they want it to be destroyed, or will need to knock out its systems. Yamato is not very inaccurate. Yamato scored hits on small, nimble destroyers.
Actually, post war studies showed the 16" super heavy AP round was superior to Yamato's. Iowa's were faster and more maneuverable than the Yamato's with far superior fire control equipment. Yamato's armor was quite brittle and was couple together by rivets which failed under attack. The armor plate on Iowas were solid plate which was far superior in withstanding impact.
Everybody talking about the ships while I’m trying to figure out what was the music called in the beginning
Keine Lust (Rammstein)
SPANISH AVENGER thanks bro
Keep in mind that at close range, Yamato would use her secondary 155mm guns to hit above the waterline and her main guns on the belt, still plenty capable of taking out the jutting radar antennae.
Hits to the superstructure hurt, but they are unlikely to sink a ship, and at close range, shells ricochet off decks.
Something you guys ought to think about. No dreadnought or superdreadnought battleship ever sank another dreadnought or superdreadnought solely with it's guns. Never happened, not once. Battleships may have crippled or stopped other battleships but all sinkings were either by torpedo, aircraft bombs or scuttling. Please don't start listing off battlecruisers.
DKM Bismarck sunk HMS Hood 24 May 1941 in the Battle of the Denmark Strait
USS Washington Sunk IJN Kirishima in Naval Battle of Guadalcanal on 15 November 1942.
BAZINGA! And the first idiot puts his foot in the trap I not only pointed out, but painted luminous orange and illuminated with a searchlight. Both Hood & Kirishima were BATTLECRUISERS. Hood had some armour added to the fore part but not to the stern deck armour were Bismark's (or Prinz Eugen's, it's never been settled) shell penetrated.
Kirishima was also an up armoured Battlecruiser, she was not built as a dreadnought and even with the extra armour fitted, she did not have true Battleship armour. The Japanese classed her as a "Fast Battleship", but she was really a lash up.
The Admiral Class Battlecruiser, of which the Hood is the only one ever built, was initiated as a program to develop a new class of battleship to replace the existing Queen Elizabeth Class Battleships of the Royal Navy. The Director of Naval Construction was instructed to prepare designs for a new battleship which “take the armament, armour and engine power of Queen Elizabeth as the standard and build around them a hull which should embody all the latest protection and improvements against underwater attack.”
It is only for political reasons that the class was renamed to Battlecruiser. In fact the Hood’s design was equal to the Queen Elizabeths, but 7 knots faster and with much improved torpedo protection.
If Anything the correct classification for the Hood would have been a Fast Battleship.
Scribbling the words “Crop Duster” on the designs of a B-52 Bomber doesn't make it a Crop Duster……
Are you joking pal? Are you really serious? Everybody, EVERYBODY knows Hood was a Battlecruiser. She was designed on the basis of an enlarged Queen Elizabeth class battleship hull, yes. But she had thinner armour. Some was added during the 30's to her forward deck. But the steel to re-enforce her after part was waiting in dock for when she returned from fighting Bismarck. Which she didn't.
The Hood had main belt armour 1 inch thinner than the queen Elizabeth class battleships, 12 inches compared with 13. While this is thick for a battlecruiser, it was angled outwards which exposed more of of her deck armour, which was a lot thinner than QE. Considering that Hood was over 10,000 tons heavier than QE, her armour was not good. Deck armour was 3/4 inch over her after part, to 3 inchs. Bismarcks deck armour was 3,9 to 4.7 inches, ie Bismark's deck armour was over 4 times thicker all over.
In conclusion, if Hood had received her stern deck armour upgrades, she would have gone someway to becoming a fast battleship. But a fast battleship with thin armour.
Iowa had radar it would hit first much more often it's 16 " 50cal had the same armor penetrating ability as Yamato 18" . Hands down Iowa all the way!
Ps. Yamato was run off by destroyers and DE. scoring no hits on any light aircraft carriers
ever herd of taffy 3
If we see the miserable score of the Iowa at Truk ragoon 1944, it is clear Iowa could not do the same accurate firing that Yamato had acheived against White plains in the battle of off Samar
did the Yamato ever even hit a beach little more a ship?
Yamato hit ships once at close range. Of course this was after cruisers did a majority of the work.
*****
Before you start listing those things, you should first ask yourself what makes them "Better"?
Had a lot of fun watching this-thanks for posting!
All hail the mighty Yamato. Like if you agree.
No Iowa win it has good range than Yamato
@@charvelgabales9644
There was no way that Iowa can survive Yamato onslaught...
Nice job, I agree with the results. I take my findings from several examples. The only single US BB vs JPN BB battle resulted in 20 main gun hits to 0 main gun hits for the Americans. I agree the Washington was a true BB while the Kirishima was only a Battle cruiser and armor and offense both went to the Washington, but she failed to score a main gun hit on the Washington. Furthermore, it is said the Hits sustained to the South Dakota was friendly fire from the Washington. South Dakota's crew hated the Washington's crew for the remainder of the war. Washington had Admiral Lee onboard and I think the books were altered so his reputation would not be tarnished. I also take my example from the poor gunnery an entire Japanese surface warfare fleet displayed in firing on slow unmanueverable escort carriers during the battle of Leyte gulf. Sorry but the Americans had much better targeting systems for 43 onward. It even was demonstrated from the CC vs CC battles and the DD vs DD battles from 43 onward. I will agree that luck can play a huge part in the theoritical battles especially when you have the awesome destructive power of the naval riftles. I would say Yamato may win 1 out of every 7 of these by getting a lucky hit that would disable a major system on the Iowa. I do however disagree with the 20DD vs the Iowa simulation I saw. The long Lance torpedoes would have shredded the Iowa from those fighting distances. There is no way she could have evaded them all, would have been hit many times.
South Dakota's hits were not friendly fire, not sure where you got that from but it is incorrect.
Also, Long Lances were fired that night and not one of them hit either Washington or South Dakota and the Iowa class was faster than either of those classes. Tough to get in position to launch torps when your target is running at 32-33 knots.
4 years ago, this battle was revolutionary. Now, it's funny to see the dull modells of the ships
6 years...
Fun video. Iowa's didn't have the penetrating capability even with it's 16" 50 Cal.'s to punch through Yamato class armor. Yamato's sighting capability has been wrongly labeled - crap when they were actually the best in the world. Iowa was designed for speed and was employed for defense or bombardment. Yamato was designed for killing battleships, actually capable of 28 knots, & could out turn Iowa at any speed. Iowa was built as a fast battleship, quite capable of fighting anything else, but had a glass jaw with it's bow, and even with it's speed. Yamato could zero in Iowa with it's 460's just as Iowa was even spotting Yamato, not even in range. I'll cite TaseVids. This, all given if, Yamato's crew had time to actually practice combat and target practice. In WW2, the IJN never could invest the fuel or ammo to do even this. Given this, Iowa would have a better chance of, blinding Yamato's sights, at the very least, and thus stopping a Yamato from being able to fight.
You're actually right on most counts. The Yamato was technologically superior in a lot of ways, but at the same time, it was also inferior. Most of its technology was surprisingly fragile! Even the muzzle blast from her own guns could disable most of the radar systems on the Yamato. Additionally, the Yamato's internal compartmentalization and crew configurations played against its strengths. It also doesn't help that the Yamato was laid down in 1937 and launched in 1940, and put into service on December 1941. In contrast, the Iowa-Class took the South Dakota Class and improved on it, the USS Iowa was laid down in 1940 and put into service in 1943. There's enough of a generational gap here to safely say that the Iowa-Class has the potential to put one over the Yamato in a battle.
On paper, the Yamato was very powerful, but in practice, it suffered from a lot of design and doctrinal shortcomings that was very crucial to its combat effectiveness. The radar sensitivity to blast shock, for example, and the lack of gunnery training for its crew.
It's hard to say what exactly was fragile on Yamato, as sadly, we know so little. I do know that Iowa had more issues then has been revealed. I recommend checking out my reference above. Also, don't forget, it took around 400 aircraft to sink Yamato. If the Imperial Navy had implemented these battleship assets, before Midway, who knows what would have happened? Given the battle of the Philippine Sea, perhaps US Admirals would have been withdrawing, if they detected battleships speeding towards US carriers. US Admirals would have had to choose to send attack aircraft after either enemy carriers, or, the fast approaching battleships. A serious dilemma. The US Navy was fortunate to have only encountered at the end of the Navy war. By that time, Japanese Navy air power, was a practically gone.
Drakeslayer Anmon Actually i believe the Iowa, when firing the modern Mark 8 super heavy shell, had around the same armor penetration capability as the Yamato's 18 inch guns
Guynumber7 But thats the modern shell introduced in the 50's
Dakota Robinson I dont think so.
Battleship were the centerpiece of tasks forces. No battleship would fight alone. The US had much more "at sea time" which translates to a better working crew. Consider how poorly the Yamato was handled during the Battle of the San Bernardino Straight. (Battle of the Leyte Gulf) If the IJN task force had been better handled/led it should have been a devastating US defeat. Instead it ending up being a US victory.
Yamato was designed to fight many ships at the same time and japanese battleships worked alone
I find it ironic that the Japanese built 2 Ultimate Battleships & only used them for desperate measures....late in the War
Härskiboy1803 Yeah that worked out real well for them didn't it.
It was not unlike the age of sail English vs. France. The Brit were iron men in wooden ships. The French had superior ship design but year after year stuck in Port was a crippling disadvantage
+Alexius Nemo the bismark fought alone
The graphics is amazing - its hard to get excited about who can blow each other to bits though
Iowa could never take the pounding from the 63,000 ton Yamato! Yamato had enormous 18 inch rifles that could blast a target 25 miles away! Besides, Japan had very good gunners shown at the battle of Santa Cruz Island, and at Savo. But those engagements were early in the war for the Pacific. From 1944 onwards the US backed by it's industrial might turned the tables on Japan. I did not mention Midway in June 1942 because that was an air born battle since neither fleet saw each other.
Keep in mind that at the point the Yamato and Iowa could've clashed, the experience level of the gunners had dropped severely. The Iowa was faster and the guns, while smaller, could do the same damage. Also, the Americans had great damage control methods. As such even the severe damage she took in this would've been patched up well enough to limp back to Pearl Harbor for repairs. Even then the Iowas armor was superior to the Yamato because it's armor was made better, whereas the Yamato had its armor overheat-treated, which would've weakened it at a molecular level
Bottom line is yes the Yamato was bigger, but it was severely flawed in armor, crew experience, and damage control
Just trying to set the record straight
TheTexanTrumpeteer and fire control which was also a big part
The Yamato never took part in any of the early engagements as seldom even fired the main guns. The Iowa class may have been lighter and a smaller gun but the fire control and radar made it a deadly ship. At the point in time the match would have taken the Iowa was a far better ship. Even with weaker armor and a lighter shell the Iowa would have done enough damage that the Yamato would never recover. She burned quickly and damage control was not very good to control flooding in a earlier single torpedo hit.
james haney I beg to differ seldom fire her guns.so what if they no use her in early stages they were busy practising gunnery to which they would refine and surpass their counterparts.I have to dig the link again.but prior to Samar training was done at lingga at 36km or 22miles the 2
bobbyspongka yamato musashi achieved a total 300m shell dispersion and yamato an even more intense 270m dispersion! Which means an insane 30m shell to shell dispersion this is equivalent to the length of the Iowa so by no means were they slack or not as good gunners to the usn since they rivalled this figure 40yrs later
So unrealistic first the Main Turrets from the USS Iowa didn't looked like that . Secondly how can the Iowa that is already badly damaged still fire shells and make hit to the IJN Yamato ?? The Iowa should more hit the water and kill fish than the Yamato . Like always these Historical Games are badly made without even respecting the true ratio from each ship separately . Here we see the Yamato have advantage then suddenly ( prolly the one who played that game ) made it magical to make the Axis sink again -_-
+defiraphi The yamato had much better shooting optics, whereas the Iowa has advanced fire control radar and would have been able to shoot yamato from over the horizon with deadly accuracy.
+Revan Fish Since when is a radar 100% true and working? Thats why the paint of the ships was important back then to disrupt the ennemy radar. The radar couldn't inform if it was a Battleship or a Destroyer unless if they had planes arounds thats another story. But ship to ship it was impossible to hit from 35.000miles and ship sink . Look how the battle was between the Bismarck and HMS Hood they were kinda close to battle . Hood was obsolete pure evidence . Anyways it isn't the radar or technology that makes the ship better it is the Admiral and his feeling and honor that counts and its crew .
my comment was in response to when you said that the iowa should have been hitting water more often, with the old radar the closer one was, the more accurate it was, so the Iowa's hits should have been dead on (most of the time).
That said, at that close of a range the Yamato should also have landed just about every hit, and with its bigger 18' guns, should have sank Iowa.
EDIT: and yes radar can tell the difference between a destroyer and a battleship, since the radar return signature would have been different sizes. (bigger return=bigger ship like a battleship or carrier)
EDIT2: The Hood was a battlecruiser, meaning less armor and guns for better speed, whereas the Bismark was a full blown Battleship, meaning heavy armor and more guns, so no, the Hood was clearly outmatched from the start.
+defiraphi well said
that;s why they are BATTLESHIPS they take damage and can continuue to deal out punishment !
I also have another 1946 Japanese radar short survey written by Roger I. Wilkinson, that says the experiment of Type 22 demonstrated that target echoes were picked up at 60 km, and the duplex system was also a notable feature for USN.
Yeah. Considering in the real world, the Yamato's optimum firing range was basically the Iowa's maximum range, and the difference in gun sizes, I doubt the Iowa would actually win.
Don't get me wrong, Iowa is an awesome BB, but Japanese shipbuilding at the time was focused around higher quality ships over numbers, because they knew they would never be able to match the US for sheer output. Yamato was basically designed to wreck multiple BB's.
+Alamandorious
Wrong, the Yamato is the biggest WWI battleship ever. Everything about it was 1918 technology. Armor was thick, but not very good. Guns were large, but not very good. Iowa was far more advanced. The mechanical computers with the radar rangefinders make it infinitely more deadly at long range than the Yamato. AP shell weight for the 16" guns was only slightly lower than the 18" guns, but you have to make a hit for that to even matter. Armor was pretty much incomparable. Iowa had far superior quality in the main belts, and in an unheard of practice, most of the ship was made from armor quality steel. Most navies couldn't afford to do so, and most navies thin armor plate was non-structural. So splinter damage would have been a fraction of what would have been experienced in most other ships. Still not armored enough to take a heavy beating from a top class ship, but the RJN had nothing that could be classed with the Iowa. The electronics gap was just too large, with the superior radar making "blind fire" quite accurate for the US battleships.
Worse, Ammunition handling and Damage control in the Japanese navy were on par with that legendary WWI British ammunition handling and damage control. So it was likely that a survivable hit would have set off secondary explosions. You can see this throughout the war when they lose ships that shouldn't have been lost.
Ok, let's do some fact checking, shall we?
First, Yamato was laid down in 1937 and launched in 1940. Looking at the hull design, you can see the sharp inward angle of the bow, which was something that came about for WW2 era ships because ship designers decided that ramming, which is what forward-swept angles or sheer vertical angles on bows were all about, was no longer going to be a prominent naval tactic...the swept-back bow offered better ability for a ship to cut through water.
Secondly, look at the guns. The Yamato's 40 cm/45 Type 94 naval gun guns have a MAXIMUM firing range of 42km, with their EFFECTIVE (meaning the range inside of where they're going to be the most accurate) range being 25km.
The Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns have a MAXIMUM firing range of 38km, which means their EFFECTIVE firing range (meaning the range inside of where they're going to be the most accurate) would end up being less (I haven't been able to find a number for this, I will admit, but given the difference in maximum ranges between the two, it is logical to assume this would be less).
Let's talk about armor now. Yamato has Iowa beat, hands down, in every category for armor. Belt, waterline, deck, turret face. With the shells of the Yamato being larger and heavier, it would have a MUCH easier time penetrating the Iowa's armor than the Iowa would it.
The Iowa does have the speed advantage, and does having the firing computers...but the likelyhood of hitting the first volley is unlikely for both ships, and after that it's a matter of who's going to penetrate who first...the Iowa might be able to land more hits, but the Yamato is more likely to penetrate with each hit, and do significantly more damage with each hit.
Couple that with Yamato being capable of firing upon the Iowa sooner, and getting the Iowa within its effective range sooner, I'm sorry but the Iowa has to get lucky to win. The odds are completely stacked against it.
Note, too, that the damage control deficiencies were from ships that were laid down prior to the Yamato. All you need to do is look at the Musashi, and the amount of punishment she took before being sunk. 19 torpedo hits and 17 bomb hits...the bomb that managed to sink the Yamato was lucky enough to hit a magazine.
*****
Back to grammar school kiddo!
No passing grade for math!
3200 lb = 1450 kg
2700 lb = 1225 kg
And you assuming that Yamato can actually hit anything. When her actual REAL LIFE service record at the Battle of Leyte Gulf (the only surface battle she ever fought) is total disaster. She couldn't even stop lone US destroyer from coming within torpedo range.
***** The accuracy of naval guns above 30K yards is nearly 0. Hundreds of rounds to a hit isn't unheard of. The Iowa has a massive advantage at longer ranges with its radar and mechanical computers. The 16" guns also have a higher rate of fire making the Iowa have no disadvantage in throw weight.
Alamandorious Yah, you are missing that the Yamato is built with the height of WWI British technology. The guns were still wire wound, limiting performance and making them heavy. Propellants were well behind the current technology. Armor was really bad for its thickness. Google Yamato armor test to see an actual test on the turret face armor for a yamato class ship.
Japan had a really huge problem in that they had great people, but no technology other than what they could buy. They bought from the British who were the leaders, and did wonderful things with it. Yet British ideas/technology were put to the test in WWI and found lacking. Worse the economic issues prevented Britain from addressing these. So Japan had little improvements over the 30 years.
America on the other hand was continuing to push all the detail technologies that go into a ship. So the Iowa class was equipped better than any other ship in history with all the little things that make the real difference in the real world. The "lesser" battleships like the South Dakota proved to be "invincible" in gun battles vs the IJN.
How can the Yamato 460 mm gun cant sink the paper ship Lowa?huh?
some place the lowa only have a cruiser armor or none,idiots
That's kind of the point of the "all or nothing" armor scheme, which was very effective, by the way. As long as the propulsion and magazines are safe, the ship will usually survive, even when heavily damaged in other parts. See: Hiei's disabling by cruisers, or Hood's destruction, compared to South Dakota's relatively light damage (buoyancy-wise).
Plus, this presupposes that Yamato could even find and hit Iowa, which had far superior fire control radar, allowing her to fight in bad weather and at night.
And in any case, battles would be decided by air power, not battleship-on-battleship actions, where the AA batteries of USN ships would prove superior.
+FawfulDied fun fact the iowa wold have sunk if facing the same amount of planes yamato did
the iowa cannot survive 390 planes attacking it
no ship in world war 2 could
chris plays This is true, but it would take more planes to successfully attack an Iowa-class than a Yamato-class.
+FawfulDied 390 planes is still enough also if we take ohla class planes then iowa can be fucked in about 20 of them or just5 the okha was a japanese triple rocket engine kamikaze aircraft whit a torpedo like bomb on its front ment to penetrate the target then explode
it worked as it sometimes overpenetrated the target
The 2 decks above demonstrated their usefulness against bombs, I acquired the same series of 1946 USN intel report and there's a drawing inside demonstrate that none of the heavy bombs ever penetrated the main armored deck, all were exploded around the first 2 deck. None of the vital parts were destroyed by bombs. Iowa, on the other hand , has only one very thin deck above the main armored deck. While Iowa has only 3 decks above the middle vital part, Yamato had 4.
>>---------------------> The real U.S. Commander would never get so close. Placing his vessle at a horrible disadvantage and not using the Iowa's strengths. American fire control and radar on the BB Iowa was light years beyond anything in the IJN, and we knew this at the time. The Iowa could make multiple hits a on a dime, and give you nice cents change.
surearrow I think this is just the way the uploader has spawned the two ships, since I know that ship battles on Silent Hunter are incredibly realistic and engage each other at ranges relating to their real life counterparts.
+surearrow he is japanese how do you expect to think and know as the US Commanders?
+surearrow My father was the gunnery officer assigned to the 40mm gun tub atop number three turrent of the big stick. He told me that that their 16's could hit a destroyer running flat out at 20 miles with the second turrent salvo. so hitting the Yamato at twenty-five or even thirty miles would be no problem.
D. Hayes
+D. Hayes thank you my good man!;) ur father served Our Country By Serving on the America's fast battleships The BB-61 USS Iowa Lead ship of the class
the battleship USS WASHINGTON SUNK THE JAPANESE BATTLESHIP KONGO OFF GUADCANAL
Actually it was the Kirishima that was sunk. Since the "Kongo" class were built around the start of the 1st World War it is not surprising that the 16 inch shells of the Washington were capable of disabling Kirishima which sank about 4 hours later.
i can understand you points you bring but with speed part there is a link on the navweaps site that talks about the Iowa class encountering problems upon reaching 26knots?
Yamato had one advantage over Iowa class her 18 inch guns. Iowa could outmaneuver outspeed and outshoot the Yamato. both ships were about equal in armor however Iowa's gun directors were way better and would hit the Yamato consistently where the Yamato would be very lucky to hit Iowa at distance. the sheer volume of shells landing on Yamato would penetrate her Armour send her to the bottom rather quickly. look what air-dropped bombs of half the weight did to your Yamato when they hit.
Bigger guns are no use if you can not hit anything.
Real life performance record of Yamato is total disaster.
Yamato must win...!!
No Iowa sunk the Yamato
At far ranges Iowa win at close ranges yamato win
Note that on page 10, it states that 'one tube...shows all target echoes up to 60 kilometers'. From this, we can infer that although it could only obtain the range up to 25km, it could detect a target at 60km, allowing seaplanes and eyes to be directed toward the enemy vessel.
Fuso and Yamashiro were to rendezvous with Kurita's force to attack US landing forces alongside his battleships.
Iowa had radar directed guns. Yamato didn't. It would have lost.
the yamato has radar directed guns...thought it's inferior...but the japanese nikon optical range finder is superior to the iowas
アイオワが勝つとでも笑
music cool name?
The Iowa is much beter than the Yamito because the Iowa is a VERY VERY armored battledship and the YamHam(Yamito) is smallerand probably less armored and dosn't shoot hard enough to distroy the mighty Iowa ( which is now in the port of Los Angeles ) (P.S. I live close to the Iowa )
i reported his comment and his harassing replys. lets hope the comment gets removed ;)
enderkid9888 woops my bad i ment that guy's comment
Whos comment
The Yamato is less accurate than the Iowa but the firing range and weight was far superior...also the Yamato had guns that apparently broke the Washington naval treaty because its gun caliber was MASSIVE and its guns were so heavy that when it was sunk...the guns were ripped out of their gun sockets...also the armour was very thick...it took a dozen bombs and guns to cripple the mighty beast and a lucky shot to blow up the gun magazine...the Iowa couldn't take as many bombs as the Yamato did...and they didn't make anymore "all big gun" ships because of the threat of aerial bombardment...it would be a sitting duck in the water...the Yamato focused on firepower...not defence but the Iowa equaled the defence and firepower ...the iowa was considerably smaller than the yamato with less arnaments...the only battleships that could stand up to the yamato one on one was the uss Montana and her sister ships...but if the iowa class battleships ganged up on the yamato by itself they could stand a chance...but the real heroes of WWII were the aircraft carriers......OMG LOL I WORTE AN ESSAY...JK JK
thanks for reading (i have tried to be fair on both sides)
kazemi harada they never even met so we shouldn't be fighting about it derp :D
I think Yamato should of won not USS Iowa
Accuracy Power Armor and How Many Gun Yamato had is more Superior than Iowa
In fact Iowa is not even on the level of Yamato
Yeah, Iowa isn't on the level of Yamato. It's a few levels higher.
Iowa and Yamato are evenly matched. Yamato's armor was thicker but was made out of shit steel. Iowa's guns match the Yamato's since the Mk V shells were insanely heavy for a 16 in. diameter gun.
Don't forget the Iowa's fire control. If at a 15 to 20 mile distance the Yamato would get destroyed.
great job, nicely done, thank you for posting :)
To all the stupid and ignorant Americans mentioning HMS Hood, Hood was not a battleship she was a BATTLECRUISER and the Germans only sunk her due to a VERY lucky long range hit which happened as she was half way through a turn.
Even the Germans knew they scored a lucky hit.
Hopefully this will dispel some of the unneeded and unwanted arrogance from Americans.
"Hurr durr, stupid Americans"
A batrlecruisers defining feature is gambling on luck. They don't have so much armor, so they HAVE to be lucky. And, as it turns out, gambling on luck isn't a very good idea.
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today," said Admiral David Beatty at Jutland, after observing the two British battle cruisers HMS Indefagitable and HMS Queen Mary disintegrate in a pillar of smoke. (He thought a third had just vanished before his eyes immediately after Queen Mary, but HMS Princess Royal survived.) Yet another of his battle cruisers would shortly disintegrate in a similar manner as the first two, when HMS Invincible also disappeared in a pillar of smoke. It was a bad day for the Royal Navy.
What a shame the Royal Navy did not learn from the loss of those three ships and their 3,000 crewmen. Ironically, Rear Admiral Horace Hood himself was killed when Invincible did not prove invincible. Nonetheless, Britain built another ship with the same fatal flaws as the three battle cruisers she lost at Jutland. That ship, HMS Hood, would also disintegrate in a pillar of smoke, at the hands of the new German battleship Bismark.
What is past is prologue. It isn't just the Royal Navy that was guilty of ignoring the lessons of the past. Burying your head in the sand when warned of danger is unwise, whether aboard Titanic, at Pearl Harbor, or on dozens of other occasions in memory. Its also wise to heed the lessons that historians can teach us.
judd49th that was magnificent
excuse me, not all of us are so, the hood was an aged battle "cruiser" fighting a brand new battleship.
a cruiser sacrifices armor for speed,
in the years following WWI speed was considered an asset but the leadership still wanted the firepower of a capital ship hence the battlecruiser or heavy cruiser in the U.S though they did have smaller guns. yes the united states had them too (this being directed at hazztech and judd49th)
they were all made less effective with the creation of the "fast" battleships built to escort the new carriers. the Queen Elizabeth-class, Kongo-class and the North Carolina-class which ended with the Lion-class(2 laid but never finished) the infamous Yamato-class(2.5 of 5 completed, one was converted mid build to an aircraft carrier) and the famous Iowa-class (4 of 6 completed)
Hazztech
By the way, thanks Hazztech.
yamato is better than iowa.. yamato is super-battleship class,
Lets see the details as to why the Yamato is better, lets Debate.
is it a video game or what? who played it, the computers or somebody? maybe the player a iowa fans.. i just see to the technical point, yamato has bigger cannon calliber than iowa..amount of guns that yamato had more than iowa and she has a stronger armour, although yamato's speed is slower than iowa
In fact, while the Yamato had more armour, he Iowa's was stronger, as the way it was made.
As for firepower, the Yamato did have 18.1 inch guns compared to the Iowa's 16 in guns, but if they can't hit the target they can't do damage, the Yamato was quite more inaccruate than the Iowa as the Iowa class battleships used Radar/computer aided system to help aim the shots.
Damage Control, the Iowa Also had better of this, fixing the damage on a ship is a must, the Yamato's was poor.
In short what i'm saying is that the Yamato was made mainly for size of the ship, and the size of the guns, In a 1 v 1 Duel, long-range Iowa wins, Short Range, it would be close.
Any argument?
well..radar technology huh? but ,the largest battleship yamato was sunk , they couldn't meet each other.. i thought why was by the hundred of aircraft, why not dakota or king george or other battleship-class? too afraid against her? .. the big guns were useless against aircraft..what a shame..
Pradhitya Bayu Using planes was the best way of attacking her. Attacking with a battleship would have high chances of men being killed and/or a badly damaged ship to pay lots and lots of money to fix.
Even if Iowa could spot Yamato early, it would take some time for a firing solution to be reached. In addition, fading became apparent at extreme ranges, meaning for a more accurate solution, she would have to close in to around where Yamato and her optics can also see her.
Even if she couldn't see Iowa, keep in mind she also carried 7 seaplanes for spotting, and her many lookouts and their high-power binoculars would see Iowa's masts around the same time Iowa's radar first sees Yamato.
Yamato will win!Yamato better Lowa!!!
+Mik Pik Well it's debatable.
Not really. At this distance, the Yamato's guns would've obliterated an Iowa.
BlueonGoldZ Of course at this distance.
+BlueonGoldZ 20 miles would put both in range of each other. Iowa had better fire control (more accurate shooting) w/ better radar. Iowa was over 5 knots faster. Iowa had Mark 8 super heavy shell. Iowa had 2 round per mintue to the Yamatos 1.5. So many variables. If you put them both in the ocean alone, without knowledge of each others location... w/ just a single scout plane, I'd go Iowa based on its fire control, radar, speed and rate of fire. You can argue that Yamatos range would be a huge factor but hitting a battleship moving 25-30 knots from over 20 miles away is not an easy thing to do, and I think Iowa could close that distance with a good chance of not being hit.
+Gunther Ultrabolt Novacrunch Iowa had better fire control (more accurate shooting) ,,,,,,no, she never could do that. you don,t know the score of Iowa against IJN light cruiser and destroyer, Iowa left the miserable score.
what game or system did you use to create this?
brilliant combat but could bring the in closer of a more intesting fight
I love reading your debates ! Simple fact is the USA Iowa Class Battleships all Survived and still float today as Museums , plus they survived at least two other wars . The Yamato and Musashi , along with the Bismarck and Tirpitz , are laying at the bottom of the Sea !
Tirpitz was scrapped (mostly)
This is true , but it was sunk , just in shallow water .
+George Baker Jr When you compare the role of the Iowa, to the role of the Yamato it makes perfect sense that the Iowa is still around. Simply put the Iowa was never designed for Battleship vs Battleship combat. She was designed to escort carriers. that's all there is too it
It's still afloat cause it did it's job and it did it well, And it didn't try to turn itself into Beach artillery.
Yamato had Type-22 radar with detection range of 37km for 250m long vessels, she had good fire-control and optics, in contrast to older IJN battleships, (the proof is also the Battle of Samar, where she scored longest naval hits and sank 3 USN ships).
Also, Iowa's FCS wouldn't play any role here, due to the fact that her guns are too weak to penetrate any vital part of Yamato at long range, and her armor is too weak to withstand Yamato's shell - sounds like Yamato controls the battle.
She sank the Gambier Bay and give kill assistance to others ships, like the Kongo, that sink the Johnston, ship that the Yamato hit +- 15 times. And the radars had 35km of max range, not 37km with a fire control a little bit worst than the Bismarck's one.
Remember that the MK-7 Shells had better PENETRATING POWER than any battleship, she could penetrate some parts of the Yamato's armor at longer distances.
In my opinion the Iowa just have a chance at +35km, distance that they guns can penetrate some parts of the Yamato's armor with radar controled guns. The radar too cant detect the Iowa at bigger distances.
very nice great stuff for sure, i did this a long time back with a very detailed sim, called Action Stations but it was Vs Bismark.
Very exiting but you should have done it from a first person view! Still I liked!
the listing of Iowa was satisfying. great video👌👍
Your a very talented young man.
My name is maurice johnson retired ship building here in Baltimore but no more I love the work as welder my father also was a welder 40 years working in ship building I made up my mind at age 12 to work in in ship building it was a good life
Awesome battle!!!!!!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Katori\
The Iowa closed with Katori and fired fifty-nine 16-inch (41 cm) high capacity (non-armor piercing) rounds and 129 5-inch (13 cm), straddling the cruiser with ten salvos. Just after Iowa's fifth salvo, Katori quickly listed to port exposing seven large shell holes about five feet in diameter in her starboard side, one under the bridge about five feet below the waterline another amidships about at the waterline, plus about nine small holes. The damage on the port side was much worse. After being under attack by the Iowa for only 13 minutes, Katori sank stern first, with a port side list at 07°45′N 151°20′E about 40 miles (75 km) northwest of Truk. A large group of survivors were seen in the water after she sank, but the Americans did not recover any.
Not saying Wikipedia's history is totally accurate.. it says Katori was a moving target and she was hit by several large calibers. You seem to know very detailed data but i do not know your source.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar
At 0730, three 14 in (360 mm) shells from the battleship Kongo, at a range of 7 nmi (8.1 mi; 13 km), passed through the deck of the Johnston and into her portside engine room, cutting the destroyer's speed in half to 17 kn. Moments later three 6 in (150 mm) shells - possibly from the Yamato - struck Johnston's bridge. History
Furthermore;
Yamato would close to within 2,400 yd (2,200 m) of the American ships when it was attacked by American aircraft. Yamato was much closer than you have reported.
The Japanese were using dye still to determine which shells belonged to which ship..
The Yamato's data was so confused she claims to have even sunk an American cruiser.. There were no American cruiser at the location....
Please provide your data source.. I cannot find historical documents to validate your claims.
I have the action report from that battle and Wikipedia is WRONG.it was actually of the 46 main round 2 HOLES were seen.one under the bridge and the other under the waterline.of the 125 secondaries it was littered with only 6 holes.so of the total 171 rounds fired at 14000yards only 8hits landed on the crippled training cruiser katori
please why do people rely on "wiki"?
Re Samar;0725 Kongo checks fire as main rangefinder is knocked out by straffing aircraft and enters rain squall and dos not fire again until 0802...Kongo action report US National Archives.
0728 Yamato fires 1 maingun broadside along with super firing secondary,range 21,000yrds. Yamato action report US National Archives
approx 0730 Johnston hit by 3 14" or larger then immediately 3 6" shells.now in the BUShips report going from initial penetration to point of detonation the AoF was aprox 18* for both main and secondary hits...Yamato is only ship that is within range for that AoF
Re Truk Lagoon..Katori was "dead in the water" I have ALL the action reports and radar plots and lots of photos during the battle from ALL USN ships and a copy of the ONLY photo that shows Katori being fired upon by Iowa from Iowa...source US National Archives 46-16" not 59...and there was NO sighting of any survivors...2 maingun hits and 6 secondary hits
CAG-17/A16-3
atw-172
BB61/A12-1
Serial [0012]
As we both know, it depends on which source has credence. Kurita noted a hit on a carrier at 30,000s yards, presumably just after 07:00. Charles Heinl of the Gambier Bay noted large high angle hits on flight deck (larger than 8") at 08:10. Chikuma and the cruisers were closing to point blank and G.B recieved the below W/L hit that stopped her causing Vieweg to abandon at08:50.
After noting the hit on the first carrier, Yamato shifted to a 2nd (Kitkun Bay or White plains....
Please (from Italy) can you tell me what game are you using? I can also buy it? It 's wonderful ! Thanks ..
I have always wondered what it would have been like if the capital battleships of that era were able to engage each other. Missouri against Bismark. Iowa against Yamato. Not submarines, air cover or escort ships, just battle wagons sluggin it out.
Nice video.
missouri sir is an iowa class
Di I say it wasn't? I am quite aware of U.S. battleship classes. Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin and New Jersey, all presently mothballed and or floating museums. The next class not built was the Montana class.
Perhaps you need to look at my statement again and next time pay a bit more attention before making a snide little statement like that.
Yamato had some of the best optical fire control in the world, better than Iowa, however people just don't understand the quantum leap forward in technology the MK8 was. The Iowa could do s turns all day and not lose her firing solution. The Yamato would have to acquire a new solution every time Iowa or herself moved. If the Yamato was in a turn the MK8 could predict where Yamato would be when the Iowa's shells would land. It doesn't matter if Yamato's guns outranged Iowa
Oh is that Pacific War Encyclopedia that you've in favor? I thought you were talking about Japanese sites? So this is where you got the aircraft idea?
Sorry for delay, I have other things going on.
Radars.The Iowa's mk38 had a range of 90, 000 yard. But only had accuracy for use in gunnery control of 45, 000 yds.(221/2 nm) Yamato's Mk2 mod2 was a10cm long pulse width radar with a 5kw output and accuracy to just under 19 miles. So not so innefectual as one would think. Oh, and at ranges like that, you might just visually see the splashes in daylight . at night, no chance..
The details for the mk 8 and Mk 38 is in a USN ordnance pamphlet for radar officers that I have. The 13 info was in a book called "Naval Radar". and I double checked on a site called "NavSource on line...Battleship photoarchive....Radar equipment.
If the us DBB had been completed and the war had lingered on would the 4th turret on the montana class made the difference
Honor is a concept that has developed alongside and has been a major part of war since the very conception of human warfare. The situation of war is almost universally regarded as a bad thing, but that does not mean that positive concepts can exist alongside or even within it.
A quote from the same page: 'On the other hand, historically the Americans had little idea of Yamato's capabilities, and were likely to have attempted to close the range with her, not knowing the extent of her armoring, or that she was, in fact, armed with truly enormous 18.1" guns, rather than the 16" guns everyone on the American side of the lake assumed was the case. Closing the range with Yamato would likely have resulted in the American ship learning a painful lesson in gunfire supremacy.'
So are you good on the fact Type 22 Radar used on a BB was only out to 25km? Past 25km, the Type 22 wouldn't see it? If it did, what range on the 60km range of the display scope would it give?
The site does not take into consideration that radar is not as resistant as optics. Radar of that time was more prone to being disabled than the more robust optical FC systems.
Ah Battleships... The Navy's punching bag
They were designed for early warning, but were used in radar-assisted FC.
The type 96 was by no means bad, but the need to constantly change the 15-round magazines meant that effective ROF was quite low. Additionally, great muzzle velocity meant great muzzle flash, and shell dispersion was also problematic as a result.
The opening is just badass to me.
Another voice of sanity, at last! I am tired of pointing out that the Yamato and the Iowa would have worn out their gun barrels (non-relineable in the case of the Yamato, which is partly why her crew never got much gunnery practice) and not just have emptied their magazines without hitting each other at these ranges.......
Hard to tell when a ship has had enough nor just how many torps and bombs it actually took. Then from their memroy with Musashi, where the air attacks prolonged her staying afloat but putting holes on both sides of the ship to do as well as counter flooding, they were making sure it went away
I ask you, have you deciphered the Japanese Wiki?
In the Technical Mission to Japan, the Mk2 model 2 [ type 22 ] data is given as:
Wavelength: 10cm
Radiated power: 2kw
Pulse width: 10us
Range BB to BB: 35km
Range accuracy: +/-100 meters
Bearing accuracy with lobe switching:0.5*
oh yeah thats the US performance figures
I never said Iowa's radar could be 'easily' disabled. I merely said it was possible.
You assume that every captain would choose to use hit-and-run tactics. Keep in mind that historically, the US forces knew close to nothing of Yamato's true stats. It is equally likely that the captain of Iowa would believe his ship to be superior and go for a direct attack, guns blazing.
Yamato can move and shoot. Extreme maneuvering, however, can affect the aim.
Actually, the Kamikaze Corp was formed during Leyte Gulf in late '44. One could call the under trained IJN pilots of late '42 onward suicide pilots, but they weren't their to crash, but they did die in droves
It says 'shows all target echoes up to 60km', not 'is marked to 60km', for example.
If I stated that 'the speedometer will show the speed up to 150kmh' as a fact and from experience, it would imply that the car has been pushed to 150kmh. If I said 'the speedometer is marked to 150kmh', it would not.
It states that 'the range obtainable on a battleship was on the order of 25km', not 'it could detect a battleship only up to 25km'.
色々おかしい所が満載なので書かせてもらおう。
1）大和の火力、防御力及びアイオワの火力、防御力。
戦艦は自分の主砲火力に耐えれるように設計されている。（どの国でも基本的に同じ）つまり大和のバイタルパート（主砲塔、弾薬庫、缶室ect）は46ｃｍ砲の直撃に耐えられるようにできている。（数発同箇所に被弾すればその限りではない）
しかしアイオワの主砲は40.6ｃｍにもかかわらず、大和主砲塔天蓋部分及び煙突部分に１発ずつ命中しただけで貫通している。しかも艦上部に被弾したはずが、なぜか艦首喫水線下（水面の下）から浸水しそのまま沈没。（キングストン弁でも開けたのかな？艦首にはないけど）
それに対しアイオワはおそらく右喫水線下に大和主砲が直撃し傾斜しているにも関わらず主砲を発射、命中させている。艦が傾斜した状態で撃っても基本的に命中しないし、むしろ傾斜が一定を超えると主砲を発射できない。（46ｃｍ砲弾が喫水線下に命中したときにアイオワの装甲であの程度の傾斜ですむのかも疑問だが）
2）交戦距離が近すぎること。
昼間の戦艦同士の砲戦でこれほど近距離での砲戦はまず発生しない。（しかもアイオワはレーダー管制射撃で視界外から撃てる。）
副砲や両用砲が届く距離は近すぎる。（見張りは寝てたのかな？）
以上のことからこの動画はただアイオワを格好よく勝たせたいが為の公平さも何もない動画だと思われる。（アイオワの利点すら帳消しにしている。）
もちろん公平に戦った場合もアイオワに全く勝目がないと言うことではないが（主砲の連射速度はアイオワの方が速い）、この動画の通りに大和が被弾した場合、主砲塔は一撃で破壊されることはないし、煙突根元は火災が発生するだけに留まる可能性が高い。（仮に動画の通りに破壊されても沈没はしないが。）
アイオワが大和に勝つ方法があるとすれば、レーダー管制射撃による遠距離射撃と大和よりも優れた発射間隔により、大和が射撃できる距離に入る前に畳み掛ける事ではないだろうか？
（大和はレーダー管制射撃ができないため、「敵の射程外から一方的に撃破する」と言う46ｃｍ砲の戦略は破綻している。）
さんたか こんちには。大和は昭和18年からレーダーを装備し、性能に問題を抱えながらもレーダー射撃をできたようです。レイテ沖海戦では米護衛空母をそれで撃沈したようです。
One tube is the early warning tube and the other is the more accurate rangefinder.
Using the slightly flawed analogy, it would be like saying because the (accurate) speedometer read 240kmh when I was driving, the car has reached 240kmh.
If it were merely marked to 60km, it would have said something along the lines of '...warning" is marked to 60km'. Since the word 'shows' was used, one can infer that an echo at 60km had been seen.
Awesome boss battle!
Ignore what? As this survey was conducted post-war, it meant that there was co-operation between the two sides, which ensured that the US was testing a radar that had not been damaged or tampered with. They may have, had testing been conducted during the war.
Again, I ask that you suggest anything that could possibly be better than a contemporary paper.
I also request a source that lists what the Iowa's radar could compensate for in 1945. Iowa's radar was faster ONLY under full radar control.
Buen esfuerzo de gráfica pero creo que el final habría sido muy diferente, saludos
The japanese wikipedia article with citations to books written in japan based on japanese war records also states that the type 22 Surface search radar had a range of 35km. Allow me to re-iterate. The 22km figure was based on US TESTS that did not test the radar to its full capacity.
I do not think the Yamato could sink Iowa the radar of the Iowa would destroy ed the Yamato as the Iowa is faster in turning and reloading
Moon/star light is enough to see ships at low-med alt, and if you're shooting at my planes, the muzzle flash will be enough to see Iowa, even at relatively high altitude.
You can't reach top speed if your boiler crews are asleep. If they stay awake during the day, they won't be able to work as well during the night, and you won't able able to reach your top speed.
I'm assuming you're referring to the SG radar, which only had a maximum range of 41km, within the range of my guns.
This is not a discussion of what would happen in a real war. We're discussing what would happen if Yamato and Iowa were pitted against each other in a 1-vs-1 battle, with no real escape, like what was shown in the video.
At a range where she could not accurately retaliate, she would zig, but at close range, any sensible captain would maintain a relatively straight course and attempt to cross the enemy's T.
So you are well aware of the series of 1946 USN intel report? I was thinking about sending you the link.
We should know that the MK 13 that were used against Yamato was not small and light, it's 1005kg and contained 600lbs of Torpex equals to 900lbs of TNT. Yamato's belt was designed to take 880lbs TNT power, it was the joint that was dislocated by the torp, yet the explosion only scratched very little surface of the belt armor, so in theory the belt sustained little more that the design limit. The joint weakness was later improvised and only after numerous hits on almost the same spot sank her.
it also depends on deck stranght and side armor speed and monuverbility
Remember the NavWeapons penetration tables you yourself cited?
They show that the US 2700lb 'Super heavy' shells have inferior penetration against japanese armour than the Japanese 460mm shells against US 'class A' cemented armour, which is of higher quality than the 'Class B' homogenous armour, also known as STS armour.
Where the Iowa had the cards vs Yamato, Part 2:
Gun Stabilization
Secondaries 5"/38 DP
Armor Quality (STS, look it up and how the Iowa was covered in the stuff)
Besides bigger guns and longer range of those guns (a dubious quality when it's OTH) vs Iowa's ability to see the 16" splashes relative to target) and thicker but lower quality steel armor, what does Yamato bring to the table that makes her stand out and a match for South Dakota let alone Iowa?
Range of Type 22 radar: pwencycl. kgbudge. com/T/y/Type_22_general_purpose_radar.htm - please note where it says this:
20 nm (35 km) aircraft group
10 nm (17 km) single aircraft
13 nm (24 km) BB
US SG radar: pwencycl. kgbudge. com/S/g/SG_surface_search_radar.htm and let your friend see this:
The radar was initially buggy and sensitive to shock, and the set on Honolulu at the Battle of Tassafaronga seems to have performed poorly. However, later sets proved sturdy, compact, and dependable
A starburst candy that makes everyone happy and enjoy is way better than a savage or ugly troll that scares everyone away.
The bottom line is that, after 1943 or so, having the world's best optical fire-control systems was largely irrelevant. The night battle between Washington and Kirishima near Savo pretty much settled the point; good radar usually beats good optics in a stand-up fight. And the radar used by Washington off of Guadalcanal was not as good as the sets fitted aboard Iowa.6
Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.) The bottom line is, then, that the Allied vessels, and particularly Iowa and South Dakota, would enjoy an enormous advantage in gunfire control over their adversaries. She would have the ability to lob shells over the visual horizon, and would also perform better in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions.
The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
98755785a tanks on land started doing things described in your later paragraph in late 1970's after the advent of computers. while americans did have superior radar systems, i am somewhat skeptical about what you describe there.
Everything he said there is true. The reason why tanks weren't able to do this until the 70s is because they didn't have the size for such a huge fire control center. The table where you plot in data is almost as big as a tanks fighting compartment. Then you have the actual computer that took up a whole compartment, which is bigger then most tanks in its self. Then you have the area to plot in things such as wind speed, humidity, etc. Then you have the radar systems,range finders all much bigger then a tank. There was no possible way to fit all that even inside of MAUS, until the advent of smaller and much more compact computers
The time it takes to repair the damaged radar is a lot of time wasted in the heat of battle. Also, consider this:
When Yamato was built, her main guns were classified as 40cm/16in guns, as opposed to the 46cm guns they were in reality. The US forces didn't know that until after the war had ended; it is entirely possible they would have attempted to close the distance, being unaware of Yamato's heavy armour and armament, to a range where the 46cm shells would have wreaked havoc.
Became Operational: September 1944, see notes below
War Status: wide operational use in war
Installed: surface ships, submarines
Purpose: anti-air, surface dectection and gunnery control
Wavelength: 10 cm
Peak Output: 2 kw
Transmitter: magnetron
Receiver: crystal
Detector: n/a
Detected: aircraft, group at 35 km, single at 17 km, surface ship (large) 34.5 km
and this is from NAVWEPS....that site you relie on so much!!
8o8 mentioned that it was visual. Kurita told the same. But the point is, even though there was a rain squall that came just right in time seemingly protecting the CVEs, the CVEs still can't escape from being straddled at this great distance. Do you remember the GB book mentioned the chaotic moment that the CVEs were dumping some perfect aircraft instead of scrambled all of them? Regardless whether it was radar or visual, the Japanese really did it even under poor whether.
As for not knowing where the shells were from. No US gun over 6" was issued with flashless or reduced flash propellants so Yamato would know full well where the salvoes were from
oh yeah you said Iowa seems like a battlecruiser.i think i can see that.BC's were used to hunt to CA's right?.i have a war magazine and from what i read the USN sacrificed armour and guns for speed.she was intended to escort carriers and was to fight only venerable battleships and keep CA's away and it was hoped that the CV's they escorted would keep japanese giants and modern battleships away.sounds similar right?
40cm砲が対46cm砲用の装甲を貫通するのか...(困惑)
Wow, the USS Iowa is literally down the street from where my family live. I've seen her, and she's a beautiful ship. I've always been more into the old Transatlantic liners, and was very surprised as to how low this ship's hull is. She is impressive in person, but I must admit, I thought BB were much bigger! well, Can't compare her size to the RMS Queen Mary, her neighbor up the port of L.A. and around the corner as they both served different purposes.
But an Amazing Ship the USS Iowa is!
rememeber the battleships had to fit in the panama canal two feet was all that was left on the Iowa bb61