I am a veteran of the USS Iowa, I served as a gunners mate in 16 inch turret one. I feel the need to correct some inaccuracies in the comments like the Japanese were better at night fighting and such. While it is true the Yamato had the bigger guns and heavier armor it would do little to save her from being savaged by an Iowa class battleship. The Yamato's fire control was through the use of optical range finders. A technology that was light years behind the analog fire control computer the Iowa used. In the battle of Leyte Gulf when the Yamato engage a bunch of escort carriers, they were able to hide from the Yamato in rain squalls. Yamato would need to be at medium range or closer and with PERFECT calm and clear conditions at sea in order to have a chance against the Iowa. The Iowa used something called the MK-9 Range Keeper analog ballistic fire control computer. It was not in the turrets but in a armored location in the citadel. The computer worked from taking data from various sensors like radar and you would input information like the targets range, course, and speed. It would account for its course and speed, outside temperature and humidity, wind speed, sea state, temperature of the powder, how many rounds had been fired through its barrels since they were last relined, corrections for both the curvature and rotation of the earth as well as the rise and fall of the ship in the water. The computer would take all this information and create a firing solution. Once achieved that firing solution was updated in real time meaning it made no difference if the Yamato changed course and speed or the Iowa changed course or speed EVERY single shot should hit the target with the normal dispersion of the guns being the only factor. In practical purpose what this means is the Iowa does not need to use ranging salvos to dial in the guns in order to hit the target. Her first salvo should hit the target. The Yamato on the other had would need the Iowa to sail at a constant speed and course. She would send out a ranging shot and observe the shell splash. Make corrections and fire again, observe the splash and make corrections and fire another salvo. It can take up to seven salvos to get a somewhat accurate firing solution and that is with BOTH ships maintaining a strait line course and speed. If Iowa changes course and speed the Yamato needs to restart the ranging salvo process. In real life we saw a scenario like this, Optical fire control vs the MK-8 Rangekeeper in the battle of the Surigao Strait. A line of old US battleships engaged the Japanese Battleships Yamashiro and Fuso in the middle of the night in pitch black conditions. The USS West Virginia was completely rebuilt after Pearl Harbor and modernized and had the MK-8 Rangekeeper. West Virginia tracked Yamashiro at 42,000 yards and had a firing solution shortly after. She waited until Yamashiro closed to within 22,800 yards and opened fire. West Virginia scored a direct hit on the first salvo and scored hits on 5 of the next six salvos. The Yamashiros inferior optical rangefinders could not see the American ships at that distance at night and she never returned fire. The USS California and Tennessee were also rebuilt after Pearl Harbor and were able to fire an Yamashiro using the MK-8 Rangekeeper. The other three battleships in the US force Maryland, Pennsylvania and Mississippi had older and vastly inferior MK-5 and MK-1 Fire control computers and they were unable to get a firing solution. An Iowa tracking a Yamato would wait until night, she would close in to about 25,000 yards using the MK-8 rangekeeper and pound the Yamato into submission, landing highly accurate fire while the Yamato would be limited to blindly firing into the night and hoping to score a lucky hit. It would be a one sided ass kicking on the Iowa's part.
How'd they keep the ship afloat with your massive balls of steel on board? Also, would each turret have a different target or would they all fire at the same target? Thank you for your service.
@@kriscrespo3736 Due to the inaccuracies of long range Naval gunfire even with a analog fire control computer typically you would fire the main battery at a single target and hop the RNG Gods favor you. That said the Iowa's had two MK-38 Gunfire control directors that acted independently of one another. So you could have two targets with two fire control solutions and have accurate fire on both. There were also backup optical rangefinders, both high up in the superstructure as well as in turrets two and three for local but much less accurate fire control. Turret one sat to low on the waterline which made her optical rangefinder useless so they were removed.
yea there was alot of very just illogical statements that you think barebone research would have dismissed right off the bat like the Fire control system, the night fighting, the more armor thickness better argument which is absolutely a bad argument which its more down to how they treat it than the pure thickness, saying center mass is citadel when the citadel is the armored box
Wow that's good to know. I've always had a fascination with naval warfare even going back to early engagements, so this kind of info is really interesting to me.
It always bothered me that people thought Yamato had a chance, Iowa even out paced it so Iowa could run away at will, not even by a small amount, like 12 moh
I even let the fact that there were only 2 Yamato class go and that the US specifically built 4 Iowas to counter the 2 Yamatos (so a 4 on 2 battle would have been more likely.)
@@josephvarno5623 there were 3 built but they converted the 3rd during construction into the carrier Shinano which was sunk by submarine (USS Archerfish I think) on its way to be finished fitting out...
@@Wolfe351 I don't count that one for the same reasons I don't count Lexington as a battlecruiser. It was never finished out as a vessel of that class.
A few things to note. One of the largest advantages the Iowa has is US had the most advanced Radar systems (and fire control) in the world at the time. While a case can be made for Japan having superior night fighting at the beginning of the war (really the main cause of this was poor command on the US side although it is sometimes cited that the Japanese had a slight edge in naval optics) this is completely flipped on its head during Guadalcanal as seen by the actions of USS Washington. Also the claim of shell arcs being advantageous to the Yamato is inaccurate, the US used lower velocity guns/ammo than most other countries with super heavy AP shells. While this increased flight time, it created fairly steep shell arcs that would land on top rather than hit the side at range. Nonetheless would be nice to see a good naval sim. There's a few out there but none that really stood out.
The battle of Surigao a night engagement by battleships actually the last time any major Naval force crossed the T on another in combat and the last battle not containing aircraft. Overwhelmingly won by the US occurred at night.. the Japanese lost 2 battleships the Fuso and the Yamashiro and 3 destroyers.. although of note no Iowa class battleships participated in this fight or it might have been worse for the Japanese Navy. The US battleship force consisted of older Colorado class BB’s that were built in the 1917-1921 time frame. Although when we talk about the guns of the Iowa they used the same guns as the North Carolina and South Dakota class BB’s the the Mark 7 45 caliber 16 inch guns with Heavy AP shells that gave them the same penetration power as the Japanese 18.1 AP shell. So the destructive power is equal. The Japanese were using a new technology for them in arc welded hulls and armor that was a fatal flaw to this class of BB. The hull and armor belt had a tendency to split open and separate. Their secondary batteries were much much slower at firing than the US guns as well as being at a deficit in the fire control. That all said the BB’s had 2 different purposes the Japanese designed the Yamato to get in with more traditional American battleships like the Colorado class which sacrificed speed for more armor and slug it out. The Iowa was designed to chase down and kill the fast battleships like the Kongo class or to a lesser extent the Bismarck class. They used all or nothing armor scheme only armoring the heavily the vital parts of the ship and would stay at range when using its superior fire control and radar to lob heavy AP shells to drop down at high angle in order to slice through the thin deck armor. So unless the Yamato got a penetration hit on a vital target their AP shells might very well pass right through the ship and explode on the other side leaving little significant damage. They would not get into a slugging match in an Iowa class.. think Floyd Mayweather stay out of harms way hit and run defend then find your range to do it again.
In broad daylight without cloud cover, experts say japanese optics could compare with US radar fire control. By night or with heavy cloud cover, the Iowa class BBs would probably just have murdered the yamato and Musashi. But during the day with good visibility, the contest would probably have been much more disputed. US warships had a much much better damage control but Yamato armor was much more efficient. As always luck would have been the final factor.
@@vlad78th the Japanese might come close to comparing to US radar guided fire control in perfect conditions without maneuvering, perfect seas and weather but they were much slower in fire rate and in being able to accurately compensate by comparison and at no time does anybody have perfect conditions. Also when looking at Japanese armor the US post war examination of both Japanese super battleships and recent dives on both ships confirmed that issues the Navy found in their armor was correct. Many sections welds actually failed to remain intact and there were potentially fatal design flaws that that caused separation of the main armored belt from the hull. That all said the turret faces were thick and well defended but at range the falling shells would not be hitting the facing but instead be falling on the top and deck. This is where the poor damage control systems, lack of training combined with use of flammable construction materials including paint and wood is proves lethal.
I love these videos. After the last one where you took Iowas against Kirovs, I thought it’d be cool if you took the USS Missouri Battlegroup during the First Gulf War and have it go against a Kirov Battlegroup. I’d feel like it might even the playing field a bit on a one to one fight, especially when it comes to the Shipwreck Missiles.
The armor on the Iowa was of higher quality than the Yamato. Between that and the fact that it was angled you can consider them equal or maybe even a slight advantage to the Iowa. The Iowa also used a cutting edge fire control radar for the time. This is the reason it had far better accuracy. Finally Damage control was far better on the American side. Drachinifel has done a number of good comparisons here.
Another thing a lot of people don’t point out is the Iowa’s 16 inch guns had higher quality ammunition than the Yamato’s 18 inch guns and could actually penetrate more armor. Really the only thing the Yamato had the Iowa beat in was secondary armament and that’s it.
The armor on Iowa was 10-15% better at the same thickness, which means Yamato's belt was still harder to penetrate than Iowas. British armor was even better than American armor and KGV's effective armor thickness was a bit better than Yamato's.
Iowa armor was better pound for pound which means overall the yamato class was much better protected. Iowa class was not designed to withstand the punishment yamato class was designed to bear. Iowa was designed for speed.
And not just our rangefinders, but also the mechanical computer that plotted fire, based on inputs. In the 80’s and 90’s it was tested against the tomahawks of that era, and was capable of plotting more accurate fire. And the first one was built in like 38 or 39 if I remember correctly, the computer. So 40-50 yrs later was more accurate and reliable than the most modern adopted technology.
God the rangefinder at that time would’ve been so much faster than a Tomahawk’s guidance computer. You know how the F-14b HUD takes a moment to update? It’s not ridiculously slow but there a clear lag? Now think about how smooth and fast the gunsight is in the P-51 is. Analog was faster and more accurate than digital until the early 90s in military tech and the late 90s in commercial tech.
I read somewhere that in a gun fight , the American tactic ( if it ever came to that) against the Yamato class was to steam quickly into range, then fire using the superior range finding on the Iowa class, the quickly steam out of range of Yamato. The Iowa class ships were incredibly manueverable at fast speeds and might have been able to avoid even a single hit.
the iowa also had wats called a super heavy shell which was supposed to give the iowas guns just as much punching and kinetic power as the 18 in guns on the iowa
I think it would have been "more accurate" to have 2 Yamato's, one representing the Musashi. Japan had those 2 in service at one time. On the other side the US had 4 Iowa class battleships active then, so it should have been 4 on 2. Either way, I enjoyed the video as an exercise in theory... but combined fleet tactics wouldn't have only had battleships, there would have been destroyers and cruisers even if we were avoiding aircraft.
I just love the Yamato class ships and always had. Yes they lacked the adavanced radarsystems but in despite of all that they are just beatiful and truly awesome. I Have Yamato and her sistership in wows and if you play them right, they are true beasts.
problem with them in real life is there slower and have less real world firing range and hit probalility then the iowa so in a real macth up the iowa chould chosse when to fight or run away she can fire fire first and have a way higher probability of hit then yamato could that is astronomical advantage.
@@glf001That one joker was pretty funny talking about Japanese night fighting also. Kirishima was man handled by USS Washington at night time. Fair to say South Dakota was in trouble when it lost electrical power (and radars).
Yamato was, of course sunk by aircraft, in April 1945, not Midway. As mentioned, Yamato's fire control was not as good as the Iowa class. In the only time she actually fired at American ships, she only sank one destroyer, and one escort carrier[Battle off Samar, during Battle of Leyte Gulf]
In reality this fight wouldn't even be close. The Yamato class was, for all intents and purposes, little more than a giant WW1 battleship. The Iowa class had literally every advantage. They were 20% faster than the Japanese monsters (that's huge), had a vastly better fire control system, more accurate main armament, a higher rate of fire, much better quality steel armor, better construction standards (the IJN found out....much to their chagrin.....that the armor on the Yamatos was brittle and the welds were flawed, resulting in damage far out of proportion to whatever hit them), and don't get me started on damage control - something that was almost non-existent on IJN warships. Battles are fought in the real world, not on paper and certainly not in Japanese cartoons. The Iowas win this fight 9 out of 10 times.
Seriously, you all need to check out the Battleship New Jersey (an Iowa class battleship) RU-vid channel...they have videos on the guns and all the aiming gear and everything. It's MINDBLOWING to see what they were able to do all the way back in the friggin 40s and 50s. I mean...mechanical computers and all that...it really is amazing!!
They did already 'tons' of video's about that, about trying to stop the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but mostly with modern battle groups. American's, Russians, I think they forgot the Mexicans. 😅
@@Snowwie88 Yeah, I'm talking the Japanese are about to attack, the Americans learned the attack is coming. Maybe they somehow detected the Japanese battlegroup as it approached the islands. Not soon enough to get ships out to sea, but soon enough for the ships to man battlestations ahead of time and for fighters to get up into the air. Would it have been enough to stop the attack on Pearl Harbor?
It has been said but USN had a huge advantage in fire control also including radar fire control which would dramatically increase to accuracy of USN shells. Also If the engagement was at night or bad weather, the advantage would easily go to the Iowa. Also a little known fact is that USN used what was called a "Super Heavy" shell which increased the penetration of the USN 16 inch shells used by the Iowa to have nearly as much penetration as the 18 inch shells fired by the Yamato. The only advantage that the Yamato really had was that it had more armor though not enough to make it immune to the Super Heavy 16 inch shells.
Why wouldn't Yamato be immune to Iowa shells, given that it was a balanced design meant to be immune to its own (18.1-inch) guns? Iowa, on the other hand, was an imbalanced design not immune to its own guns. (I believe it was ultimately calculated to have a very tiny immunity range of only a few hundred meters). So whereas the Iowa shells will require multiple hits to damage Yamato, any hits Yamato scores should penetrate even Iowa's citadel at virtually all ranges and detonate with their roughly 50% heavier explosive charges, which (of course) should be quite damaging. Also, the Iowa-class did very poorly in bad weather. Bad visibility would cripple Yamato, but bad sea conditions wrecked American battleships. USS Massachusetts was so beat up by 18 knot headwinds that it lost use of its forward gun turret in 1943, and USS New Jersey (an Iowa-class) similarly suffered storm damage in an admittedly very heavy Typhoon Cobra and would have been unable to fight in those seas. (see, e.g., www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB59/1943StormDamage.html )
it can even be argued that Yamato has inferior steel quality (for both armor and shell rounds) since Japan was speculated to have some problems with steel smelting compared to the high-grade US/UK steel
@@MasterofOssus Yamato wasn't immune, otherwise the Helldivers that bombed it and the Musashi wouldn't have made a dent in it, for one, and two, the US had access not just to superior resources but superior manufacturing technologies.
In response to your question @Grim Reapers YES I would like u to check out other sims plz, there must be some great ones out there. I think it’s a careful balance between enjoying the sims & reality tho so it’s about finding that sweet spot
I really enjoyed this. The only way to make it better would be to get the battle wagon gun sounds working, steal them from some Gulf war or WWII videos or something. DCS: work on those naval damage models please. It would improve overall engagement realism a lot. Oooo that gives me an idea! Take a thirty second segment of Grump in the last bit with all guns blazing and edit actual Iowa gun sounds into the video! That'd be way cool!
The Yamato was sunk by aircraft at the battle of Okinawa it's was sent on a one-way mission to Okinawa in April 1945, with orders to beach herself and fight until destroyed, thus protecting the island, but was spotted south of Kyushu by US submarines and aircraft, and on 7 April 1945 she was sunk by American carrier-based bombers and torpedo bombers with the loss of most of her crew. And a Iowa Class(USS New Jersey) was at the the battle at the time Edit; Thanks for going through a nightmare for us Cap
the iowa guns where i think radar controlled were the japanese was more optics but they did have a basic radar plus in mss battle the japanse used dye packs so each ship knows where there shells landed
@Grim Reapers as @Red Rapture suggested in these comments what if a Pearl Harbour attack wasn’t a surprise & the USA had time to prepare??? @Grim Reapers have u done this in the past? If not why not lol 😂 & could we plz see something like this. Cheers, oh last question, I want to start DCS, I remember when I was big into FSX I tried DCS for about 2 hours n think I was in a frogfoot n found I was crashing even without being fired upon or nosediving, I think it was G overload or just flight dynamics that r not so heavily modelled in FSX. So I’m not sure if I should try Microsoft’s new sim or DCS but if I try DCS could u explain my best route & what type of kit I need to get going. Thanks
The iowa was top dog in world as far as radar and fire systems. Reason why the analog system wasn't replaces in the 80-90's . The mark7's had the same ballistics essentially as the yamatos 18in guns. But could shoot at farther ranges and could out run and gun the yamato. Everyone said even the Japanese that if clear weather and close the yamato would dominate but at night or in weather the iowa is clear winner.
As @Red Rapture suggested, what if a Pearl Harbour attack wasn’t a surprise & the USA had time to prepare??? @Grim Reapers have u done this in the past? If not why not lol 😂 & could we plz see something like this. Cheers, oh last question, I want to start DCS, I remember when I was big into FSX I tried DCS for about 2 hours n think I was in a frogfoot n found I was crashing even without being fired upon or nosediving, I think it was G overload or just flight dynamics that r not so heavily modelled in FSX. So I’m not sure if I should try Microsoft’s new sim or DCS but if I try DCS could u explain my best route & what type of kit I need to get going. Thanks
Oh another thing. The way armor works is that at certain ranges each BB will have an immunity zone where none of the shells can penetrate their armor be it deck armor or belt armor. These immunity zones are dictated by the size and ballistics of the guns the enemy firing at them. I don't know the exact value but you could have a situation where the Iowa would be immune to the Yamato shells at 12 miles while the Yamato would be penetrated they the Iowa at 12 miles or vice versa. This is yet another reason why it is virtually impossible theorize which ship would win.
Thanks for that info. Somewhere in the back of my brain I was trying to recall where I got the idea that Iowa's preferred battle range was 20000 yards.
Ideally the ships would spread out to give greater maneuver room and reduce the amount of ships in any given salvo's footprint and CEP. "Crossing the T" worked with ships in formation that used fixed-azimuth ranks of cannon in broadsides - it isn't something that translates directly to ships mounting swiveling turrets. I am not a Navy man, so can't say what tactics were developed for multiple battleship surface actions of the kind modeled here - indeed, no such actions ever took place, as technology rendered battleships largely irrelevant by WWII. That said, assuming no aircraft to render the boats big fat targets, and assuming radar and radio, I would think that having three ships concentrate ALL of their fire on one patch of ocean, to increase the size of the stonk footprint and CEP enough to make evasion far more difficult, would be the way to go.
Well that would always be better with cruisers and bb’s as it’d remove one turret firing on you from the enemy, which is slightly better, so of they do start hitting, one less turret, 2-3 guns less that have a chance to damage or kill you.
Part of the reason for a Battle Line was to help with the spread of information. If you can look at the ship in front of or behind you that is hitting the target (has range and direction right) then you can correct your guns to match.
last I played with 'em, the more naval-oriented games and sims focus so much on keeping the ship afloat and managing its different systems, that you'd need a whole team of people just to run a couple of ships. Whereas huge-scale fleet battles, something like this is probably "good enough". Guess it depends on what kind of video you're doing as to what you play it out with.
Ironic you pointing out the Yamato was as heavy as a supercarrier. The third battleship of the Yamato-class, IJN Shinano, was converted mid-construction into an aircraft carrier. She ended up being the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine when USS Archerfish blew her out of the water on 29th November 1944
I don't know if you guys will see this post since its been nearly six days since you uploaded your video. But, I think you should know that there was a third Yamato class battleship that was near, if not more than two thirds complete when the Japanese decided to convert it into an aircraft carrier. When completed, she was the largest aircraft carrier ever built until America built its super carriers. But the turret armor and guns had already been made for the ship. At the end of the war the American military found this armor and decided to test it. What they found was the way the armor was made and sandwiched together actually made it brittle. Making it less effective than its thickness would imply. And they did fire one of the Iowas 16" armor piercing shells at it and it punched right through. But the worst part was how the armor cracked and splintered when hit. Making it pretty much useless against any additional hits, and creating devastating splinter fragments that probably would have killed or injured the entire gun crew even if the shell didn't penetrate it. So the armor was thicker, but no where near as effective as one would think. There are pictures of this test armor showing the hole the 16" shell made if you want to look it up. P.S. The test was performed on the intended turret frontal armor.
Have you ever read Red Storm Rising, the major sea battle that took out a couple aircraft carriers describe in the book might be interesting. The Russian used slow cruise isles that looked like bombers causing all the air units to shoot at them, they expended all the arms which allowed the real bombers to sneak in.
Also you forget the Iowa’s used super heavy shells, they were very comparable to 18” using standard shells, just slightly shorter ranged, and out performed light 18” shells.
If only the japanese dedicated their tech to radar fire control, she is more formiddable than Iowa because her shells packs more power than if only use properly. Yamato is like a samurai filled with greenhorned sailors. She is a good ship only in the hands of true expert engineers, architects, captains and crews. But sadly truth hurts.
I remember reading something that said that even though the Iowa-class guns were 2in smaller than the Yamato-class, the ships used a certain type of shell that gave it better penetration. This shell didnt have the same penetration as the 18in shells did but this certain shell closed the gap. Do you guys know what type of shell this was?
The 2,700 lb. armor piercing shell. It had very slightly superior armor penetration characteristics outside 20,000 yards compared to the Yamato class 18.1" AP shell. This was more than offset by the far larger bursting charge of the 18.1" shell, the far superior protection of the Yamatos over the Iowas (the immunity zone of the Yamatos against the 16" .50 cal. gun was approximately twice as great as that of the Iowas against the 18.1" gun), and the marginal difference in armor quality between U.S. and Japanese heavy armor.
Just a thing on manoeuvrability. At 30 knots the Iowa class has a tactical diameter of 814ft with a length of ship of 860ft, beam on about 106 so roughly 8.1 beam to length ratio. So at 30 knots it will do a 180° turn in less than the length of the ship. Less at say 20 knots, around 750ft I think.
Although the Yamato's guns are 18.1in whereas the USS Iowa is at 16in. That being said the ballistics of both guns are almost identical due to weight and caliber of the guns. Ironically the Iowa's smaller projectile has greater penetration than the Yamato's heavier shell at longer ranges. The radar and fire control system of the Iowa was vastly superior to that of the Yamato. If DCS had accurately modeled both ships then at range the Iowa dominate the Yamato.
Both ships radar and fire control systems were separate systems and neither could see over the horizon giving the optical systems just as much of a chance of hitting as the assisted ones. It would really come down to who got a critical hit or knocked out the enemies main turrets first. To add to your first comment about shell ballistics; Yamato's shells weight about 500lb/230kg more than Iowa's and had a slight range advantage of a couple of miles. During WWII Iowa's carried 1200 16" shells and Yamato 1170 18.1" shells. Iowa has a very slightly better ROF but, this would only be noticeable during a sustained fight. I was the main writer of the realistic WWII naval table-top wargame "2nd Salvo" and we used 'Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II' as our source - Janes are some of the finest research books on all things warfare.
@@Thurgosh_OG the only issue I have with Jane's is they use the published data rather than actual information. For ww2 things are more accurate since most things are no longer classified. It's still the best information available for most information however.
@@hades0572 I'm well aware...I'm talking about things like how fast ships are and similar. Not a criticism just at times a personal frustration. Older warships they have better data on ... from personal observation , declassification and so on... newer ships (tanks etc) a lot of the actual information is classified. As an example in another thread m1a2 has a top road speed of 45mph and off road of 30 mph. I've seem m1's off road at well over 40 mph (since they were passing me) on road at slightly over 60. As a response in the other thread a driver had his tank (governor defeated) at 72mph. An employee of my father was a pilot stationed on the enterprise during Vietnam. Top speed given in Jane's is a bit over 30 knots. He said that from mission take off to landing she had to be averaging 50 mph (42 knots? ) to have had the position he landed at. He also loved it since they usually had good weather to land in...fast enough to stay out of storms.
A piece of turret armor that was meant for Shinano before she was converted to a carrier is no display in Dahlgreen, VA, in case you're in the area and want to see how think 650mm really is.
Angling your armour aides survivability greatly. Sailing broadside on is suicidal. If one team had faced forward at a 35° to 45° angle they would likely have won far sooner. Cap - Crossing the T isn't as valid with WW2 Battleships seeing as 66% of your firepower is at the front of the ship. The complete opposite of What Nelson faced in the age of sail.
You also forgot the Japanese could not produce hardened armor like the United States could. The American shells would not have just bounced off the deck. This is a slugfest that we would like to have seen but we are grateful for not seeing it. The Iowa-class battleship was faster turning than any other battleship also faster than some Destroyers. if they close the barn doors they can stop into lengths of the ship from Full Steam.
Saw a peice I think by naval historian Drachnifal, again I think, that detailed a peice of frontal main Yamato class turret armour intended for the third battleship. It was obtained post war. A 16 inch U.S. projectile was fired at it POINT BLANK. It survived. So they knew a bit about armour. This also means in a battle, the turrets would survived numerous long range rounds.
The performance of Japanese steel plates was said to be 94% of that of America. The Yamato has twice the armor pressure of the Iowa. After all, it is almost impossible for the Iowa's main gun to penetrate Yamato armor.
@@抹茶侍 I think you should see the pictures of the 16-inch shell hitting the turret of an Yamato class battleship and you see that it was more than capable of penetrating it because the way that they did the steel in Japan. End of story
Obviously a ton of inaccuracies forced by the nature of the game, but the biggest would be that the Japanese only ever had two Yamato class ships, while the US built 4 Iowas.
Interesting fact about the armour on Yamato sides. It was bolted, not welded and had issues with moving and falling out of place. The 18 inch guns would actually cause damage to the deck.
I know it has been a while. However, you should really try this battle in World of Warships. There they have the armor correctly modeled. While the Iowas have less armor, proper angling of that armor would still be enough to protect the Iowas from the Yamato guns. Also, there is a range band that the armor is best used at. I believe that the Iowas armor was best used between 15 and 20,000 yards. Farther away, and the plunging fire could defeat the armor. Same if it was too close, the flatter trajectory could get through the sides.
iowa s chance too penetrate yamatos armor is in only 10-15NM range.shells must hit under certain degre because they dont have enough power to penetrate. yamatos guns can penetrate iowas armor in all her fiering range.and also had a radar range finder and fire control computer after her modernisation.thats why they didn't want to send iowa class to surface battles with yamato class so that the USN wouldn't lose its sting
This Would've Been A Classic Battle Of Speed (Iowa) Vs Power (Yamato)! I'll Put My Money On Iowa! Enterprise Vs Zuikaku Would've Made Another 1 On 1 Fantasy Fight! ⚓
Yamato suppressed a massive bombing from a plane in Okinawa for two and a half hours. But will it be more than sinking to the shoddy shells from the warships? What a joke bro 😂😂
Lmao the American 15 inch were super heavy with lower velocity and if it was night fighting then the Americans radar firing system would give a garenteed win... pretty much.. in a day battle then in depend on a lot... like luck
It's funny that Grim Reapers explained painstakingly how unrealistic certain aspects of the simulation were, and none of it mattered. RU-vid commenters being RU-vid commenters, they'll debate and argue about any blessed thing first chance they get.
I think if you can't get an accurate scale of the battle and an accurate way the weapons are used to an accuracy and everything else your scale of War model the true using to fight this battle is incorrect what's the sense in even doing it if you can't do it accurately so I totally refuse to watch this it is incorrect and I Iowa-class if it was correctly done it would beat the Japanese omada
I was excited for this until I realised that half the guns on the yamato weren't firing and no one gave a shit that it mattered massively, then it became a joke at the end when not a single gun was active on any of the yamatos,
Ironically the King George V class was actually better armoured then the Iowa and was more Stable when firing and in rough seas. Had the British not followed the treaty it would have been an interesting vessel right up there with these 2
@@issacfoster1113. Yea, America was Playing by the treaty rules with the 16in 50cal; however, there heavy hitting shells hit just as hard at the 18.1in shells. A lot people also don’t realize that the Japanese armor was also inferior to the much thinner and just as strong American armour. The Mark8 range finding systems also put rounds on target very quick. Honestly, with everything going for it the Iowas should score more hits early on in all engagements, and they should also choose the engagement with their superior speed.
You can say what you what you want about the utility and limits etc. on battleships versus new modern ships... but there is nothing that beats their beauty!
One thing that was neglected was damage control, japan damage control was not very good on any of their ships. Also while Yamato was at the battle of midway, was lost much later in the war than that, in a suicide-mission toward the end of the war.
I was looking for some one to mention that. That is the poor damage control on Japanese ships. Certainly cost them aircraft carriers at Midway. It is supposed that is one reason the Moskva was recently lost, the Russians also have poor damage control.
Thx CAP on Wednesday night I flew an Apache on your battlegrounds server against the Kirov Cruiser - George got 2 hellfire hits before the mega CIWS nuked me...I woke up yesterday to find there had been a mysterious fire in real life and now today she is sunk - in honour of this prophetic flight could you sim something land based vs a kirov?
Iowa test data shows that it's not as accurate at long range as most paper admirals believe, so this engagement is going to happen at a closer range then most think and in that case the Yamato is going to land and Iowa won't hold up. Just imagine if it was the Yamato firing at the South Dakota at the second battle of Guadalcanal and you have your most likely outcome. But I do give Iowa about 35-40% chance. Prefer HMS Vanguard chances my self.
Kudos for a spot- on comment. Shell dispersion rate for the Iowa class was a whopping 1.9% or range for a nine- gun salvo, while that of the Yamatos was 1.3. Most people don't understand the fact that shell dispersion more than outweighs the resolution of fire control radar- or that the resolution of the Mark 8 was only marginally superior to the best naval optics in good visibility conditions.
I have made this suggestion before and you did 'noted' it: 😉😉 - 4 US Nimitz Aircraft carrier groups vs 4 different European Aircraft Carrier groups. Each side with their respective type of planes. F15, F16, F18 hornets, F22 falcons and F35 Lightning for the Americans and the best planes made in Europe, Gripens, Eurofighters Typhoons, Mirage III''s, Tornado's and Sepecat Jaguar's. Each of course with an Awacs and let them slug it out. (We will grab the popcorn and pay indirectly your bills 😅) Just an fictive video to roughly show how American technology compares with European technology. :-)
I think you'd run into server limitations with that. Their attack on Pearl Harbor replays tended to crash servers if they didn't start downing planes before the next group came out. 4 carriers per side plus full complement of aircraft plus screening forces gets you issues.
it was all about the Yamato's secondaries or Main guns not working half the time, it appears the triple 6 inch guns at either end dont fire at all with that mod & they have longer range than the Iowas 5 inch secondaries
The truth is there were four Iowas and only two Yamatos! Chances are if the fleets ever met at night or very bad flying weather, then one Yamato would meet two Iowa and I, for sure, know how that would go down. God favours the largest army.
The naval battles with the U Boats is very cool to watch. These are good once in a while or when you need an onshore battery of missiles from ships in Arma 3 missions.
Simba's taken more hits than Amber Heard = LOL In all seriousness, is there a land launched anti-ship cruise missile available within DCS to demonstrate effectiveness against various classes of vessels?
Definite damage model issues on ships. Somehow the most armor on the ships is the turrets and yet those are the first things knocked out on yamato and red damaged Iowa has 3 turrets still working.
If DCS could model this correctly, the Iowas would simply use their superior speed and fire control to get out a distance and lob accurate shells into a Yamato. They also could turn faster which would another problem for the Yamatos. The Yamato was one of the few Japanese ships to have a fire control radar but it has been compared to what the US had earlier in the war. Fire Control by most Japanese battleships before that was done by optics and using colored tracer smoke that could help them identify where their rounds were hitting and who was firing.
Do not confuse air fire control and naval fire control. Japanese air fire control was awful because it could not cope with the newest fast planes without reliable radar control and proximity fuses and furthermore they had nothing comparable to 40mm bofors. On the other hand, optical naval japanese fire control was superb under perfect conditions, maybe on par with US radar controlled one. Furthermore the Yamato managed to land the further near miss in history under the cover of clouds when one of her shell shattered the back of carrier White Plains, compromising the structural integrity of the ship which had later to abandon frontline duties. A fight between Yamato and Iowa would have been a walk in the park for neither of them. Now US damage control was splendid whereas japanese damage controle was comparatively non existent. Guns were comparable, Yamato has overall more armor and was better protected even if Iowa armor scheme was more efficient pound for pound. US fire control was better under any condition other than perfect weather and broad daylight but japanese fire control was not to be triffled with. The first hit would probably have lost.
@@vlad78th I didn't say it was going to be easy for an Iowa to take on a Yamato class. I merely stated I felt the Iowa would have the advantage due to the reasons I stated.
