 |
| |
|
|
steelehc
|
 |
Alaska
Dec 2001
time: 20:18
|
|
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
|
 |
By means of the Internet, I am all places at once
Mar 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
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.
quote:
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.
Last edited by Khan Singh on 31-03-2002 at 19:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lefty Scaevola
|
 |
San Antonio TX USA
Oct 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
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
|
|
Alaska
Dec 2001
time: 20:18
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
By means of the Internet, I am all places at once
Mar 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
Last edited by Khan Singh on 13-04-2002 at 08:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Not being an expert on this I have just been lurking. However I finally saw something I can comment on.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Darkshade
|
 |
Evil HQ, Adelaide, South Australia
May 2001
time: 14:18
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Khan Singh
|
|
By means of the Internet, I am all places at once
Mar 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
Need Iowas for gunfire support
Well, I sort of like battleships, but I have to disagree. When are we going to need this sort of gunfire support? Are we planning to invade lots of fortified islands any time soon?
If our troops need fire support, airplanes should be able to get the job done---with the additional benefit that planes can attack targets more than 10 miles inland from deep water.
The Iowas were fine ships in their day, but even 60 years ago it would have been hard to justify their upkeep on the basis of gunfire support. Today it's just ridiculous.
As the Iowa explosion demonstrates, battleships were almost as great a danger to themselves as they were to other ships. While the Iowa incident was not actually a disaster, it came perilously close to being one. A magazine explosion was a real possibility. And those are never really enjoyable for people on the vessel.
Despite the navy's assertion that nothing bad could possibly happen while loading cloth bags of 50 year old gunpowder into a gun barrel with a hydraulic ram (what could go wrong? ), the fact is that battleships are inherently dangerous. So are aircraft carriers, of course. But aircraft carriers give us decisive capabilities, instead of mere support capabilities. So it is worth spending our time and money to make them work. And spending lots of money to perfect a redundant fire support platform is not.
Too bad really. You could build a really cool BB with modern technology.
quote:
One of the first Ships to have computer |
Sure, although that doesn't mean that Yamato was just shooting over iron sights at the general direction of her target. Yamato had a "computer" too, an analog predictor operated from range and speed data from her excellent optical rangefinders. This was definitely not as advanced a system as Iowa's late war radar/computer prediction. It was more like a slide rule compared to Iowa's pocket calculator.
But high-tech or not, slide rules do work. Iowa was built with slide rules. So were the moon rockets. Yamato's prediction of the target point was probably as good as possible given the accuracy of her optical rangefinding.
Which ship is it at Suisun Bay?
quote:
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 |
Anti-air: True. Proximity shells ruled. Iowa maybe even had as much AA firepower as the entire IJN.
Torpedo system: True, but Iowa had the same problem, combined with a much smaller reserve of stability. In a gun battle Yamato would have been able to absorb far more underwater damage than Iowa. Iowa's narrow hull might have been in danger of capsizing with only 5 or 6 shell hits on one side.
Fire Control, 3-10 Iowa hits for each Yamato hit: Ridiculous. At what range, under what conditions? Maybe in a dense fog this sort of ratio might be achieved. But the Japanese were aware of their inferiority in radar and would avoid engagements under dramatically unfavorable conditions. Given the danger posed by Japanese destroyer squadrons, the Iowas would not be able to force an encounter.
Shock Damage: Shock damage was a problem for all big gun battleships and Yamatos did have the biggest guns. But there is no reason to think that shock damage would stop the Yamatos from carrying out their battle role. Consider that Rodney experienced so much shock damage that the British decided to go back to 14" guns. But that didn't stop Rodney from destroying Bismark.
One more overall comment: Iowa partisans are so eager to prove that she could beat Yamato that they seem to latch onto every single advantage that Iowa had, assign to those advantages the maximum multiplicative benefit that they could possibly deliver, and then multiply the whole mess of overvalued advantages together to reach whatever value they think they need. By the time they finish their arguments, they would be having you believe that Iowa had ten times the effective firepower of Yamato, vastly superior armor and a better haircut. They seem to imply that the whole idea of a Yamato class battleship being able to take on an Iowa is just ridiculous.
Well, it just ain't so, people. I'm not denying that there is some multiplicative benefit to the Iowa's many advantages. But multipling zero times anything is still zero. And from a strict design standpoint, Iowa has zero power compared to Yamato.
The all-or-nothing theory of Battleship design, the design theory behind both ships, is based on the idea that sufficient armor stops all attacks and insufficient armor stops no attacks. In theory, at least, Iowa has no defense against Yamato. Her armor is not as thick as the penetrative capability of Yamato's shells, so, in theory, all of Yamato's shells will penetrate.
When fighting Yamato, Iowa might as well not even have armor. In fact, that would probably be better. Yamato's long delay shell fuzes had a nasty habit of passing right through unarmored ships and out other side before exploding. Iowa, however, while she does not have enough armor to stop these shells outside her protected areas, has just enough armor to slow them down so that they explode inside the ship.
Yamato is the other side of the coin. She has sufficient armor to stop Iowa's shells outside her vital protected areas. So she has a complete defense against Iowa's attacks. Unless Iowa can hit Yamato with essentially no chance of Yamato hitting back, Yamato should win.
This is just the theory, of course. Actual combat is chaotic. But you can't ignore the basic reality that Yamato's protection was adequate and Iowa's was not. The idea that Iowa could hit Yamato without any chance of being hit just does not comport with actual facts of combat in the Pacific. Iowa's advantages made her a great ship. But even those advantages were probably not enough to overcome the fundamental advantage Yamato had.
Last edited by Khan Singh on 02-04-2002 at 03:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"I'm surprised nobody has brought up the USS Yamato yet..."
Well, it never really dominated anything. Other ships of the same class were more effective, and were never meant to be primarily combat vessels anyway.
The Defiant Class escorts or (even better) Akira Class heavy cruiser/Carrier (up to 100 fighters on a pass-through arrangement deck, 4 phaser arrays, and 15(!) torpedo launchers) would be a better choice from the timeline-contemporary vessels.
Wraith
"Madness has no purpose, or reason...but it may have a goal."
-- Mr. Spock
Last edited by Wraith on 01-04-2002 at 03:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Well, it never really dominated anything. |
It was the sistership of the enterprise, and most likely also a federation flag ship.
quote:
and were never meant to be primarily combat vessels anyway. |
The first batch wasn't, but the second batch certainly was (when the dominion wars started, the unfinished galaxy class ships were finally build and send into combat). The Galaxy class vessels played a crucial role during the battle to retake DS9. Eventhough the Sovereign was bigger and more powerful, to few of those were around to make a real difference against the dominion.
quote:
The Defiant Class escorts or (even better) Akira Class heavy cruiser/Carrier (15 torpedo launchers!) would be a better choice from the timeline-contemporary vessels. |
The defiant is a fast and relatively powerful ship, but it had trouble beating even an Excelsior class ship (the Lakota). Though the Lakota was heavily upgraded, it still wouldn't qualify as the best federation starship around.
I'd pick the sovereign class above the akira class though.
Semi-official stats:
Class: Akira
Ships: Akira, Rabin, Spector, Thunderchild
Size: 464x316x87m
Decks: 15
Crew: 500
Date: 2363 (judging by the registry numbers)
Class: Sovereign
Ships: Sovereign, Enterprise
Size: 680x240x87m
Decks : 24
Crew: 700
Date: 2372
This makes the Sovereign quite a bit bigger and more modern than the Akira.
More semi-official stats:
Class: Akira
Torpedo tubes: 15 (!)
Phaser type: X
Phaser banks: 4
Class: Sovereign
Torpedo tubes: 8
Phaser type: XII
Phaser banks: 12
So the Akira does have a lot more torpedo tubes, but far fewer and less powerfull phaser banks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"It was the sistership of the enterprise, and most likely also a federation flag ship."
However, if you're going to choose one of the Galaxy class for dominance, the Enterprise herself makes a lot more sense than the Yamato.
--"I'd pick the sovereign class above the akira class though."
I'll have to look into the Sovereign class a bit. The Akira also had the unique fly-through deck for carrier operations, as well as some unique torpedo tube placements (including on either side of the main disk). It'd probably come down to differences in engine power and shields.
Looks like the Sovereign is faster, but the Akira is more maneuverable. Now, if they did an upgrade on the Akira with the new phasers...
Besides, it's got the cooler name 
And why the Sovereign class as opposed to the Excalibur class?
Wraith
"Mr. Worf, scan that ship."
"Aye, Captain... 300 DPI?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Darkshade
|
|
Evil HQ, Adelaide, South Australia
May 2001
time: 14:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
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.
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.
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. |
Sorry, misread that first bit. Late at night and all.
Only NJ was bought out of mothballs for Vietnam, then put back in for several years, until the seachange in US military policy of the early 80s.
I'm sure they will fix the powder when they put them back into action; the razor gang isn't running about rabid now.
And to Khan, one did point out that BBs can be used for more than just gunfire support. But there is a gap there that endangers the lives of troops on the shore. It is not just for heavily defended islands, but further inland. The majority of the worlds population dwells near the sea in the littoral zones.
They can fire a lot further than 10 miles, and this is enhanced with extended range munitions.
As I said on the matter of airsupport as a substitute, it is not instantaneous, and represents a much greater risk of expensive equipment and personnel, when compared to a supersonic shell that the enemy have no means of interdicting.
A battleship is not a redundant fire support platform, nor is it a danger to itself and other ships. By the argument ye present, any vessel that carries combustible material, munitions, missiles or fuel is a danger to itself and other ships, and one freak occurence that was the result of corner cutting is not a firm enough basis for the stringent condemnation that ye put forth.
The battleships were fully modernized in the 1980s, and have spent most of their lifespan in inactive service, giving them a much lower effective age. They provide a most decisive warship.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:18
|
|
Beware, Russians are coming!!! 
The largest and the most powerfull battleship of all times....... the flagman of Russian Northern fleet. Here it comes.... Petr Velikiy!!!
VITAL STATISTICS
DISPLACEMENT: 24,300 tons, 28,300 tons (full load)
ARMAMENT: 20 x SS-N-19 Shipwreck (Granit) SSM (range 300 nm); 1 x 2 SS- N- 14 Silex (Rastub) ASW missile (range 30 nm); 12 x SA-N-6 (96 total) Grumble (Fort) SAM (range 60 nm, up to 90,000 feet in altitude); 12 x SA-N-4 (40 total) Gecko (Osa-M) SAM (range 6 nm, up to 80,000 feet); 2 x 1 3.9 inch (100 mm) DP guns (range 4.8 km); 8 x 1 AK-630M gatling gun AA CIWS (range 4-5 km); 2 x 5 533 mm torpedo tubes (20 torpedoes; 1 RBU-6000 (Smerch-2) ASW position (96 rockets); 2 RBU-1000 (Smerch-3) ASW positions (72 rockets); 2 KA-27 PL Helix ASW helicopters; 1 KA-25RT Hormone-B SSM guidance helicopter;
PERFORMANCE: 140,000 shp, 2 nuclear reactors, 2 steam plants, 32 kts (17 kts steam only); 14,000 nm range
Beware of Russian Carrier Killer.
 Attachment: piotrvelikyphoto5.jpg
This has been downloaded 54 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
|
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
However, if you're going to choose one of the Galaxy class for dominance, the Enterprise herself makes a lot more sense than the Yamato. |
That's certainly true.
quote:
I'll have to look into the Sovereign class a bit. |
From First Contact:
Geordi: The (sovereign class) Enterprise-E is the most advanced starship in the fleet
From startrek.com:
On the sovereign class: This class of Federation craft was the most advanced type of starship in 2373.
quote:
The Akira also had the unique fly-through deck for carrier operations, as well as some unique torpedo tube placements (including on either side of the main disk). It'd probably come down to differences in engine power and shields.
Looks like the Sovereign is faster, but the Akira is more maneuverable. Now, if they did an upgrade on the Akira with the new phasers... |
I re-watched the space battle in First Contact again. In it, the the Thunderchild (akira class) fired photon torpedos, while the Enterprise (sovereign class) fired quantum torpedos.
Top speed of the Akiras is warp 9.8, for up to 12 hours. Top speed of the sovereign hasn't been established yet, though it's likely it's above warp 9.9, since the Sovereigns are also used as explorers. The upgraded Galaxies also had a top speed of 9.9, while the Intrepids could go up to 9.975.
Also, the Akiras are older than the Galaxies (just look at the registry numbers). And when the Galaxies first appeared, they were Starfleet's most powerful and advanced ships. The Sovereign is an improvement over the Galaxy even, so it must be quite a bit more powerful than the Akira.
I expect both classes to have different combat roles as well. The Akira has a lot more torpedos to fire, but fewer phaserbanks. With the Sovereign it's the other way around. Phasers are more powerful and usefull at close ranges, and torpedos are more often used at longer distances. It's likely the Sovereign's would be among the ships leading an attack, and it's up to the Akiras to provide cover fire an attack from the second row. In the battle to retake DS9 you can see the Galaxies (the predicesors of the sovereign) go in along with the more manueverable Mirandas and Excelsiors. The Galaxies would draw fire away from the smaller vessels, and take on the big Galor class destroyers at close range. In First Contact, we also see the Sovereign class Enterprise in a somewhat similar role in protecting the Defiant and drawing the Borg's fire away from the smaller vessel, and engaging the cube at close range as well. It's therefor also likely that the Galaxies, and the Sovereigns, have powerful shields and a strong hull to be able to take the punishment.
It is true that the Akira is more manueverable, though in general it seems like the most manueverable starships (excluding the defiants) are also the weakest. Not sure if this applies to the Akira as well.
In a direct battle between a Sovereign class and an Akira class, the Akira has the upper hand at first. When the distance between the two ships is still fairly big, the Akira can fire torpedo after torpedo on the Sovereign, though tje Sovereign is designed to take the beating and will close in fast. As soon as the Akira comes within phaser-range of the Sovereign it is all over for the Akira. The Sovereigns huge number of XII phaser banks would probably cut right through the Akira's shields. Although we don't know much about the Akira's shields and hull, it's unlikely it's stronger than the Sovereign's (considering the beating those ships can take).
quote:
Besides, it's got the cooler name |
That's true enough.
quote:
And why the Sovereign class as opposed to the Excalibur class? |
I'm not really familiar with the Excalibur class...I may be mistaken, but wasn't that a prototype ship, and not one actually in service?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-03-2002 04:42
|
