Most dominating Battleship

[techumseh]

It has to be the Yamato. It was a modern ship, no more a white elephant than any other battleship of the day. Consider the effort expended by the U.S. to sink it and it's sister ship the Musashi. The Yamato took 7 bombs and 10 torpedos, the Musashi took 17 bombs and 19 torpedos!

The trouble is with the concept "dominating". In face of the overwhelming naval and air power of the Americans in 1945, a single ship couldn't dominate anything. One on one with an Iowa, I'd rather be on the Yamato.

[steelehc]

You can't merely look at guns and armor. Yes, they are the biggest peices in the equation, but not all. The Yamatos were slooow especially compared to the Iowa class. Their cruising range was only about 2/3 that of the Iowa class.

Yamato:
ROF: 1.5rpm
Impact velocity at 32,810 yards: 1558fps
Ammo stowage: 180 rounds per gun
Shel weight: 2,998 lbs

Iowa:
ROF: 2.5
Impact velocity at 35,000 yards: 1555fps
Ammo stowage: 404 rounds per gun
Shell weight: 2,700 lbs

The Iowas had a higher impact velocity, even at longer ranges. They could carry more shells, fire them faster, and would emerge victorious in a one-on-one battle with the Yamato.

After one salvo, the Iowas would be hitting, but I'll say two. The Yamato might take six or seven salvoes, but I'll be conservative. They hit after two salvoes, and the Iowa only uses two turrets. The ships start firing at the same time.

After 4.5 minutes, the Yamato has gained its first hits on the Iowa. By this time, she has been hit by 54.
(2.5 rpm)*(4.5 minutes)=11.25
11 salvoes minus two targeting salvoes equals nine.
(9 salvoes)*(6 guns) equals 54 shots.

The Yamato may have had really thick armor. But not that thick. 54 16" shells would destroy far more armor then could be carried on a 65,000 ton ship. In reality, if this battle had happened, the Iowa would have fired more shells, and started getting hits faster. She would take damage, but not enough to sink her.

This should show the superiority of the Iowa class ships.

Steele

[Dr Strangelove]

The Iowas were faster than the Yamato weren't they? So they would avoid closing to firing range until night time, then open fire at extreme range using radar. Once Yamato gets the range by observing muzzle flash, the Iowa turns, throwing off the Yamato's aim, then lines up to fire again.

Of copurse, the Iowas are now equipped with cruise missles, but the Yamato never was, so today's Iowa could rellly stand off out of range and sink the Yamato.

[Khan Singh]

Those rate of fire numbers are just wrong, though I've seen them around a lot. Yamato apparently took 40-45 seconds to load, elevate and fire her guns----at maximum elevation. But that includes 10+ seconds of time to elevate the guns. Her nominal firing cycle at low elevation was probably about 30-35 seconds (maybe less). This is very similar to cycle times achieved on Iowa. I would give the blue ribbon to Iowa by a few seconds, but the difference in rate of fire between the two ships was certainly much less than what you state.

Yamato did elevate her guns more slowly than Iowa, but this was not very important in actual practice, because at long ranges the shells take almost a minute to reach their targets. So in order to observe the fall of shot you have to wait until one salvo splashes until you fire the next. This applied to radar controlled ships just as much as it did to optically controlled one.

After one salvo, the Iowas would be hitting, but I'll say two. The Yamato might take six or seven salvoes, but I'll be conservative. They hit after two salvoes, and the Iowa only uses two turrets. The ships start firing at the same time.

After 4.5 minutes, the Yamato has gained its first hits on the Iowa. By this time, she has been hit by 54.
(2.5 rpm)*(4.5 minutes)=11.25
11 salvoes minus two targeting salvoes equals nine.
(9 salvoes)*(6 guns) equals 54 shots.

Hold on a minute there, chief. You can't be suggesting that Iowa is going to hit with every shot she fires after the first salvo? And at 30,000+ yards? Given the fact that the longest hit every recorded by one battleship against another was a single hit at something like 27,000 yards, this seems a little unlikely.

Iowa could certainly shoot to that range, and, with her speed, could certainly maintain that range. But hit? Maybe once or twice---maybe---before she ran out of shells. Hell, Washington fired 75 16" shells at Kirishima from 6000(!) yards and only hit 9 times.

One or two hits were not going to destroy Yamato. Iowa would have to close the range to have any chance to sink the Palace. And if she closes the range, she dies. There just isn't any range inside 30,000 yrds where her armor can stop Yamato's shells. The best chance she has is at 23-25,000 yrds. At that range Yamato's shells will hit her deck obliquely enough that most of the hits will fail to penetrate. Hits on the side will still be pretty dicey, but it's a dicey biz.

At this range Iowa will hit slightly more frequently and, if she gets lucky, she might hit something important. But since Yamato's armor was designed to stop her own shells, which have considerably more energy than Iowa's (but, I admit, roughly the same penetration), the far more likely result is that Iowa, despite scoring more hits, will suffer far, far greater damage from each hit Yamato scores.

Although Iowa's magazines were fairly well protected, they were by no means invulnerable to Yamato's fire. Or, even easier, a single 18 inch shell falling on one of Iowa powerful boilers could, concieveably, be enough to sink her.

Iowa's speed was impressive and useful, but fast as she was, she wasn't faster than Yamato's shells. In a gun battle, speed is only useful if you use it for something, like crossing the enemy's 'T'. But crossing the 'T' is only really possible in straits, where you don't need speed to do it, or in special circumstances.

Speed is nice to have, of course, but one of the primary lessons of the battleship era was that "Speed does NOT equal protection". In a gun duel between ships of comparable armament, speed by itself means nothing.

As I said in my first post, the Iowas were the most useful battleships overall. But the name of the thread is "Most Dominating Battleship". Yamatos were active at the same time as the Iowas and would almost certainly have beaten them. So they dominate, despite being, overall, wastes of resources.

[Lefty Scaevola]

The yamato for all its bulk had some serious design flaws. A good deal of all that extra weight was devoted to a torpedo defense system that was a substantial failure. Mosrt torpedo hits on it, even with small or medium warhaeads, would produce floding beyond the final bulkhead. The tureets, for all there mass, were not able to properly deal with the 18" guns, most full charge APC (armor piercing capped) main gun fire produced shock damage in the ship. The gun, for all their APC shell weight and muzzle velocity, were inferior in penetration to the america 16"L50 at ranges above 10,000 yards. The fire control was much inferior to the Iowa, which could be expected to produce 3 to 10 hits for each each one by the Yamato (this in my opinion was the most desisive differnece). The Iowa had superior speed and range, and much superior manuverability (being able to turn in a radius shorter than many cruisers). The Anti Aircraft capability of the Ipwa was much greater than the Yamato.

[steelehc]

Originally posted by Khan Singh
Those rate of fire numbers are just wrong, though I've seen them around a lot. Yamato apparently took 40-45 seconds to load, elevate and fire her guns----at maximum elevation. But that includes 10+ seconds of time to elevate the guns. Her nominal firing cycle at low elevation was probably about 30-35 seconds (maybe less). This is very similar to cycle times achieved on Iowa. I would give the blue ribbon to Iowa by a few seconds, but the difference in rate of fire between the two ships was certainly much less than what you state.

If these numbers are wrong, then what are the correct numbers? And how is it that you are the only one who is right about this? 45 seconds per shot is at the midpoint of elevation, about where the guns would be to fire out to 35,000 yards.

Yamato did elevate her guns more slowly than Iowa, but this was not very important in actual practice, because at such long ranges the shells take almost a minute to reach their targets. So in order to observe the fall of shot you have to wait until one salvo splashes until you fire the next. This applied to radar controlled ships just as much as it did to optically controlled one.

Not quite. With the radars that were fitted to the Iowa, shells could be tracked, and their impact could be accuratly predicted, well before they struck. This is the huge advantage that the advanced fire control system gave the Iowa.

Hold on a minute there, chief. You can't be suggesting that Iowa is going to hit with every shot she fires after the first salvo? And at 30,000+ yards? Given the fact that the longest hit every recorded by one battleship against another was a single hit at something like 27,000 yards, this seems a little unlikely.

I didn't say Iowa would hit with every shell, but about 2/3. The American APC shells were heavy enough that they could largely disregard the effects of wind on flight paths. If you get one hit, you can have a sure bet that firing along the same path will result in more hits.

And BTW: The longest hit by a battleship on another battleship was 28,600 yards, by the Scharnhorst upon the HMS Glorious.

Iowa could certainly shoot to that range, and, with her speed, could certainly maintain that range. But hit? Maybe once or twice---maybe---before she ran out of shells. Hell, Washington fired 75 16" shells at Kirishima from 6000(!) yards and only hit 9 times.

Good point. 35,000 yards is a little extreme. Chances are, both commanders in my hypothetical gunnery action would attempt to close the distance, allowing the Iowa commander even more freedom to choose his strategy. Also, the ship carried over 1200 shells, far more then the Yamato.

USS Washington was a Colorado class ship, with the 16"/45 guns, and ten knots slower then the Kirishima. This helps proove the value of speed.

One or two hits were not going to destroy Yamato. Iowa would have to close the range to have any chance to sink the Palace. And if she closes the range, she dies. There just isn't any range inside 30,000 yrds where her armor can stop Yamato's shells. The best chance she has is at 23-25,000 yrds. At that range Yamato's shells will hit her deck obliquely enough that most of the hits will fail to penetrate. Hits on the side will still be pretty dicey, but it's a dicey biz.

Correct. It would take more then one or three hits to sink the Goliath (another Yamato nickname). However, even at 35,000 yards, Iowa would get more then three hits. I may have been too generous, even with all the penalties imposed on the Iowa. I'll cut that number by a third. 18 16" shells would cause a lot of damage. They wouldn't sink her, but at that point, the Yamato would likely be out of action, disabled, or otherwise unable to return fire, at least in any meaningful way.

At this range Iowa will hit slightly more frequently and, if she gets lucky, she might hit something important. But since Yamato's armor was designed to stop her own shells, which have considerably more energy than Iowa's (but, I admit, roughly the same penetration), the far more likely result is that Iowa, despite scoring more hits, will suffer far, far greater damage from each hit Yamato scores.

The main bulkheads and the hull of Yamato were armored sufficiently to protect Yamato from her own guns. However, the turrets, the conning towers, the funnels, the secondaries, the superstructure, and numerous other areas were not so protected. I'm not saying they were unarmored, however, a single 16" shell would cause much damage if it hit one of those areas.

Although Iowa's magazines were fairly well protected, they were by no means invulnerable to Yamato's fire. Or, even easier, a single 18 inch shell falling on one of Iowa powerful boilers could, concieveably, be enough to sink her.

As could a single 16" shell falling directly into Yamato's not-so-powerful boilers.

Iowa's speed was impressive and useful, but fast as she was, she wasn't faster than Yamato's shells. In a gun battle, speed is only useful if you use it for something, like crossing the enemy's 'T'. But crossing the 'T' is only really possible in straits, where you don't need speed to do it, or in special circumstances.

Speed is nice to have, of course, but one of the primary lessons of the battleship era was that "Speed does NOT equal protection". In a gun duel between ships of comparable armament, speed by itself means nothing.

Speed is useful if your guns perform better at long range, and you want to keep the distance long. Speed is useful if you want to run away. Speed is useful if you want to prevent someone else from running away. It has many uses.

As I said in my first post, the Iowas were the most useful battleships overall. But the name of the thread is "Most Dominating Battleship". Yamatos were active at the same time as the Iowas and would almost certainly have beaten them. So they dominate, despite being, overall, wastes of resources.

I disagree, except with the part about them being a watse of resources. The two monster ships were not a luxury that the Empire of Japan could afford. In any case, both were fine ships, and this discussion is IMO largely a matter of opinion.

Steele

[Khan Singh]

The US Naval Report on Japanese Ordnance listed Yamato's fire cycle time as 1.5 rounds/minute at maximum elevation. But her elevation speed was fairly slow. So, at lower elevations she obviously took considerably less time.

Iowas took basically 30 seconds to shoot at low elevations, a few seconds more at higher elevations.

I don't know where you get 2.5 rounds a minute from. That's only 24 seconds to load and fire a 16" gun with bagged propellant. Bismark didn't do much better than that with a semi-cartridged round. American crews were well-drilled and their machinery was top-notch, but they didn't have magic fingers. Based on the best evidence I've seen, in actual service conditions Yamato was probably only slightly slower to fire than Iowa.

With the radars that were fitted to the Iowa, shells could be tracked, and their impact could be accuratly predicted, well before they struck. This is the huge advantage that the advanced fire control system gave the Iowa.

Yeah right. This capability didn't work all that well in the 1980's, let alone the 1940's. An error of 1% of the velocity of the shell would yield an error 5 times larger than the width of the target vessel. The radar and computers of the time were simply unable to do this in real time with an acceptable degree of accuracy. And I don't think this system even became available until late in 1945. Radar was also used to track the fall of shot, but this was no faster than optical spotting.

And BTW: The longest hit by a battleship on another battleship was 28,600 yards, by the Scharnhorst upon the HMS Glorious.

Well, Glorious wasn't a battleship. She was a carrier, converted from a "light battlecruiser" (that had been slated to be equiped with 2 18" guns!).

But okay, 28,000 yards. One hit. And Warspite(?) hit Vittorio Veneto once at slightly less range. Both these ships had gunnery radar and well trained crews. What makes you think that Iowa was somehow going to generate hit percentages 30 times as high as these vessels at a longer range?

USS Washington was a Colorado class ship, with the 16"/45 guns, and ten knots slower then the Kirishima. This helps proove the value of speed.

Speed was of no value. Kirishima lost and was sunk. Granted, it was really no contest with two modern US BBs against one ancient Kongo class. But superior speed played no meaningful part in the engagement.

Washington was not as good a ship as Iowa, certainly, but she was equiped with the latest fire control and radar, and her lower power guns make no difference at this range. Her crew was very well drilled and her gunnery officers, including her captain, were among the most expert in the USN. Certainly her performance provides much better evidence about the capabilities of US gunnery than PR from the Navy. And in this battle the hit percentages were much less than 15%, even at point blank range with full radar (and optical) spotting and US fire control.

It should be noted that in this same action the Japanese managed to score several large caliber hits on South Dakota, despite having no radar acquisition and inferior fire control. The Japanese knew how to hit targets with their guns, even if their radar and computing was not as good as the US.

They wouldn't sink her, but at that point, the Yamato would likely be out of action, disabled, or otherwise unable to return fire, at least in any meaningful way.

On the contrary, this was far more likely to happen to Iowa than it was to Yamato. Everything you say about Yamato is doubly true of Iowa. Iowa was critically dependent on a large array of vulnerable antennas linked to an unreliable electrical system. Combat damage could easily degrade Iowa's capabilities to nothing. Both Yamatos, on the other hand, demonstrated solid performance under intense combat conditions.

Speed is useful to run away.

Indeed. And run away is exactly the best course of action for an Iowa facing a gun fight with a Yamato.

[Ethelred]

Not being an expert on this I have just been lurking. However I finally saw something I can comment on.

Yeah right. This capability didn't work all that well in the 1980's, let alone the 1940's. An error of 1% of the velocity of the shell would yield an error 5 times larger than the width of the target vessel.

They were still using leftover bags of powder from WWII in the 1980s right up to disaster that caused them to give up on the battleships.

They had more variation in the eighties than when the powder was new. The powder had dried out a bit and some had extra pellets to them. Those extra pellets may have caused the disaster. They may also have icreased the innacuracy beyond that due to age.

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not being an expert on this I have just been lurking. However I finally saw something I can comment on.

They were still using leftover bags of powder from WWII in the 1980s right up to disaster that caused them to give up on the battleships.

They had more variation in the eighties than when the powder was new. The powder had dried out a bit and some had extra pellets to them. Those extra pellets may have caused the disaster. They may also have icreased the innacuracy beyond that due to age.

"Disaster that caused them to give up on the battleships"????

You are probably referring to the explosion onboard USS Iowa in Turret Two on April 19 1989, which killed 47 crewmen. Whilst this was a tragedy, it was by no means a disaster, and did not have a bearing upon "giving up on the battleships"

Missouri and Wisconsin both served in Desert Storm after this event, and Iowa herself kept cruising and operational until October 1990.
The BBs were retired (hopefully temporarily) because their purpose of combatting Soviet Surface forces was no longer needed with the collapse of the USSR and the removal of the Soviet Navy as a threat.
It was also part of the cost cutting that hit the military at the end of the Cold War and after the Gulf War.

Iowa and Wisconsin are currently Class A mobilization assets, and as such are held in readiness for use.

[Ethelred]

it was by no means a disaster, and did not have a bearing upon "giving up on the battleships"

I would call a battleship with an explosion on board that killed and maimed and destroyed a turret a disaster. Not on the scale of a major earthquake perhaps but a disaster nonetheless.

There were used while the Navy was still pretending the accident was not an accident and was due to some bizzarre homosexual revenge. After it became obvious they would no longer be able to engage in this slanderous coverup of the real cause they could no longer use the ships without some extensive changes to them so it didn't happen again.

Wether the costs of the changes had anything to do with them no longer being used is open to debate. They were never used to combat Soviet surfaces of course and they were not initially recommisioned for that job. The first time they came out of mothballs was as a bombardment platform in Viet Nam. Hardly something that can be construed as directed at the Soviet navy.

[Sikander]

The reason that they are gone is that they provide too little firepower for the number of personnel used to crew them. One nice advantage of these ships however is that they are unlikely to be seriously damaged by modern anti-ship missles, which by and large are designed to take out those very light DDGs and Frigates.

One of my friends in the Army was a Special Forces guy who was adjusting the fire of the New Jersey in Lebanon (1983 or 1984 IIRC). They were having a terrible time getting the shots on target, in part because the target was in the mountains and they were having to fire at near extreme range to drop the shells into a particular valley. This is a problem inherent in adapting what was designed as a direct fire weapon into an indirect fire weapon.

By the Gulf War they had done a lot to improve accuracy, including a new fire control system which utilized a drone for adjusting fire and BDA. They were only firing one gun at a time from those triple turrets, and they were using direct fire at Iraqi coastal defenses. The were blowing the sh!t out of those bunkers btw.

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I would call a battleship with an explosion on board that killed and maimed and destroyed a turret a disaster. Not on the scale of a major earthquake perhaps but a disaster nonetheless.

There were used while the Navy was still pretending the accident was not an accident and was due to some bizzarre homosexual revenge. After it became obvious they would no longer be able to engage in this slanderous coverup of the real cause they could no longer use the ships without some extensive changes to them so it didn't happen again.

Wether the costs of the changes had anything to do with them no longer being used is open to debate. They were never used to combat Soviet surfaces of course and they were not initially recommisioned for that job. The first time they came out of mothballs was as a bombardment platform in Viet Nam. Hardly something that can be construed as directed at the Soviet navy.

I won't go into semantic debates on what constitutes a disaster, so we will leave that there.
Saying that the battleships were decommissioned because of a coverup of a "bizarre homosexual revenge" has to go down as one of the more strange explanations I have ever heard. I guess William of Occam is bearded in your universe.

They were never used to combat Soviet surface ships. This is evident, as the US and the USSR were never in outright open warfare on the high seas during the period since the launching of the Iowas.
They were initially recommissioned for bombardment during the Korean War. The USS New Jersey alone was recommissioned for bombardment in the Vietnam War, a task it did so effectively that the North Vietnamese threatened to walk out of peace negotiations unless it was withdrawn.

I was referring to the 1980s modernization and reactivation of all four Iowas. The USSR was trying to build up a surface naval capacity, such as the Kirov and its cruiser/carriers, and the USN battleships were bought back into service as part of the US response to the USSR's arms production. Simple as that.

They never saw combat with the Soviet Navy or Soviet forces, and were victims of the 1991-92 cutbacks, which were major.

It is true that they are seen as not "manpower efficient enough" for the apparatchiks of the modern navy, but there does remain a gaping gap in the area of Naval Gunfire Support that is not being filled anytime fast.
With future conflicts likely to be in littoral zones, a powerful vessel that can withstand damage that would sink another vessel type is desirable, in my view.

You can have other ships with light crews, and lots of cruise missiles, but they cannot provide instantaneous support to troops on the shore or inland. They take time to launch and fly, and cost vastly more than a 16 inch supersonic shell. Ditto an airstrike.

The days of battleships taking on each other on the high seas is over, but those still in existence, the extremely good Iowas, still have roles to play.
Not only naval gunfire support, but they can incorporate the duties of the currently unarmed command/flagships. VLS cells can be installed with the removal of further lesser guns, giving more extended range firepower. It can strike mines and keep operating.
http://usnfsa.com has a lot of good stuff on the matter.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Khan Singh
The USN put out a lot of arguments about the tremendous power of 16"/50 caliber guns, partly out of pride and partly to justify recommissioning the Iowa class. But, in truth, I just don't see much reason to think that the guns themselves were actually better than Yamato's.

The 16"/50 caliber gun was good, but, good as it was, it is important to remember that the Yamato's guns were still 18.1". They may not have been especially powerful guns for their size. But they none the less fired a 20% heavier shell at a slightly higher muzzle velocity than the "tremendously powerful" guns of Iowa. Terminal velocity was also slightly higher and the long delay fuze of Japanese "diving" shells would help to defeat the resistive properties of the Iowa's armor scheme, as well as resulting in more hits due to diving through water. Firing cycle was probably only slightly longer than Iowa's, contrary to the numerous claims made over the years that Yamato fired slowly.

If the Iowa's battery did had an advantage over Yamato's, then it came from radar, superior fire control and from better shells. These are important advantages and, as I said, I think it makes Iowa's battery slightly superior overall.

But again, this does not mean an Iowa could defeat a Yamato. Iowa may have had better fire control than Yamato, but this does not mean Yamato couldn't hit targets. On the contrary, by all accounts, including those of Americans off Leyte, she fired tight salvos accurately ---night or day. The Iowa's might have hit Yamato first, but the Yamatos were built to take that kind of punishment. The Iowas were not. Almost any hit by Yamato on Iowa had a high chance of penetrating her armor and exploding in her vitals.

The Iowa's Fire Control was directed by a computer. One of the first Ships to have computer.
Since the Iowa's class never had a Ship to Ship fight, we will never know how good or bad they would have been. One of them is in Suisun Bay some 25 miles from my house.

[Ethelred]

Saying that the battleships were decommissioned because of a coverup of a "bizarre homosexual revenge" has to go down as one of the more strange explanations I have ever heard. I guess William of Occam is bearded in your universe.

Fortunatly for my universe I didn't say that. You did. The conclusion you attached is all yours. It certainly wasn't what I said.

The USS New Jersey alone was recommissioned for bombardment in the Vietnam War, a task it did so effectively that the North Vietnamese threatened to walk out of peace negotiations unless it was withdrawn.

It was quite effective. However you might keep in mind the North Vietnamese often looked for excuses to leave the talks. Anything they could con us on they would do.

I am aware it was used in Korea. I was simply not sure if had been mothballed after WWII or not.

The USSR was trying to build up a surface naval capacity, such as the Kirov and its cruiser/carriers, and the USN battleships were bought back into service as part of the US response to the USSR's arms production. Simple as that.

Fine. Reagan wanted a show. I think the shore bombardment in Viet Nam was what gave them the excuse to spend the money. They had to convince Congress it wasn't just a showpiece.

My point was quite different from the version that seems to have appeared in your head. The money cutbacks meant the needed upgrades would be budget breakers.

The Navy really did try to pin the accident on an alleged and nonexistent homosexual relationship. The fact that it had other causes meant that money had to spent. Now does that make any sense to you this time.

As far as I am concerned they can recommision them again. Just fix it so they won't blow up if the powder is overrammed again. Just making new powder would help a lot.

You seem to missed the real point to my post. The accident was not the point. It was the old powder. It decreased the ships accuracy. I mentioned the rest to show that the powder was old.
The Navy had repacked the bags with extra pellets tossed in on top as was shown in the second accident investigation.

[Wraith]

--"I should pit it with Nadesico with Y-Unit......"

Well, the Nadesico would probably win any extended battle. It does have much better shielding. And that's not even counting Ruri and Omoikane; together they'd probably just hack the Yamato's computers before things got heavy. Although the Yamato is old-school enough that they might be able to run everything manually... hmm...

Wraith
"Let's Gekiga in!"
--- Gekiganger III