I'm using my 1:700 Forces ships to talk about how I think the real mighty vessels would fair against each other in a fictional 1 vs 1 battle. As I said in the video, this is all in good, nerdy fun! :D
I live in Norway, 100 meters away from Tirpitz ''Liegeplatz'' i showed two Tirpitz experts from Italy and germany around the fjord this summer. an amazing day, that was.
@@seansands424 She was a modified sister ship but they weren't completely identical. As a matter of fact with her modifications Tirpitz was definitely the stronger of the two ships by far.
Keep in mind that HMS Hood was not a battleship, but a battlecruiser, and was never designed to fight battleships, as she had sacrificed deck armor for speed. Hood could run from anything heavy enough to hurt her, and sink anything fast enough to catch her (Speed = Protection)
philipm06 & Sam Deighton: True, we are comparing ships of a different era and character: HMS Hood was a magnificent ocean greyhound, that swelled the pride of the Royal Navy throughout her long service career, and Bismarck ended up on the ocean floor before her paint was dry. Bismarck was a re-hashed WW 1 design, which planted the seeds of her destruction, and although she proved very difficult to actually sink, it was remarkably easy to render her ineffective as a fighting unit. Battlecruisers were designed to fight cruisers, requiring only big guns and high speed, not heavy armor, and to send them out after battleships was reckless. Admiral Tovey considered ordering Holland to let Price of Wales lead the attack against Bismarck, but decided against it. What a thing to have to live with.
ray west I wouldn't say she was easy to render ineffective. Were she not hit by a lucky torpedo to the rudders, she probably would have been fully capable of escaping to the Atlantic. And Prince of Wales had it's chance--it fought Bismarck alongside the Hood. Two of it's experimental quadruple 14" turrets jammed, and it suffered damage from Prinz Eugen. Either way though. It's pretty obvious that the Bismarck was not a rehashed WWI design--her hull was modern in shape and design, and she was designed and built on Hitler's demand when he wanted to build up the German navy (before the unbuilt H43 and the Yamato-dwarfing H44). It was the most modern ship in the world at the time.
You forgot to mention that the Tirpitz also had torpedos I believe. And if they were able to close the gap by that much to launch the torpedos, that could of been a game changer but that’s a big what if though.
I think you're forgetting that the energy imparted by the higher velocity 16in shells, plus their better armour piercing characteristics, would give Missouri quite an edge over Yamato. The ballistic properties and ability to punch up against thicker or harder armour is what made the Missouri's guns so deadly. The monsters on Yamato could certainly put Missouri's armour to shame, but Missouri's guns are no slouch either. I'd put them on par with Yamato's overall.
The REAL difference would be in the crew. Admiral Willis (Ching Lee) and crew from the Washington, armed with RADAR, would have beat the snot out of the Yamato or Mushashi. This introverted US admiral became without question the most adept and talented BB tactician on the face of the earth. He insisted on exhausting radar to gunnery practice until accuracy was guaranteed. His three salvo nine hits tore the Japanese BB Yamishiro to shreds during an engagement at Guadalcanal. A night time engagement. The Japanese superiority using their dreaded "Long Lance" oxygen torpedo was of far more importance.
I think the over riding factor that no one brings up, except you , is the commander of the ships. Admiral Willis was totally superb commander of battleships. In Guadalcanal however it was Washington & South Dakota that took on the Kirishima. The Douth Dakota was pummeled by Kirishima, her directors knocked out & she was in a bad position if not for Washington, which was undetected by Kirishima. The Iowas show a poor record against cruiser despite superior FC, scoring less than 20% ratio. At faster speeds Iowa class Battleships demonstrated less & less accuracy.I think a good analogy would be in comparing pilots of aircraft. A great pilot , despite having an inferior machine was more apt to score a victory over an inexperienced one, even though they may possess a superior weapon. As you said Admiral Willis (Chin Lee) drove his crew on pin point firing utilizing FC. Other captains did not necessarily do the same. In the battle between Hood & Bismarck Holand tried to close the distance & reduced his fire power, perhaps another tactic would have allowed him to prevail. We shall never know. But I think that the captain is the ultimate X factor and is underrated by most people.
Bismarck made for a very interesting story in my youth, but lets get real. She was designed by a country which had been prevented from building battleships for 20 years, and she was base on a design that was 20 years old. She was built that size because her designers lacked recent experience building large warships. The 15 inch gun was very good, but they came out with the WWI Queen Elizabeth class battleships. The last BB's built by Germany were Baden and Bayern, with matching caliber guns. Twenty years later, Germany starts building battleships again, with the same caliber. Other countries have moved on yo 16 and 18 inch guns. So, all that displacement was wasted on a ship with smaller (and fewer) guns, and a lot of important equipment that was not well protected. And while she was capable of soaking up a lot of punishment at shorter ranges, that was because her armor scheme was designed to do just that. While formidable when she was launched, Bismarck was quickly and decisively surpassed by new construction in other countries.
Not really. RN ended up moving to smaller guns on the kgv class and bl15 at the largest (used on the last bb) Reason was simply carriers signed the end of bbs. Everyone knew the bb days were over except USA and jp.
I very much enjoyed your video, my grandfather was serving in the royal navy at the battle of jutland , i have had an interest in battle ships for as long as i can remember - Ray from A Brief History of Nothing
I think speed is the key. The Missouri was faster and more maneuverable. Combine that with the radar technology, the Missouri would have a better chance of scoring the first hits while being fast enough to keep her distance from all those secondaries
The video author (Shiden Kai) has a lot of valid points, and it makes logical sense that it would come down to the Missouri vs the Yamato. However, while the Yamato does have larger guns and heavier armor, the Missouri's better gun technology and munitions, would put them on "close to" an equal playing field.... at least enough to where the deciding factor may come down to which ship captain utilized the best tactics and strategy, given their ship's strengths and weaknesses. And like the author suggested, IRL (in real life), it could go either way, and nobody could say for sure, without it actually happening.
In a nutshell, I think Missouri would prevail over Yamato. Missouri had a 6 knot speed advantage and excellent all weather radar controlled guns. In the battle of Surigao Strait old American battleships fitted with new radar fire control systems were able to hit and sink Japanese battleships with their opening salvos at great range and at night. The Japanese battleships never even saw the American battleships. Yamato had excellent optical rangefinders which were very effective in daylight but were unable to accurately determine range at night. Missouri however in daylight could keep radar contact with Yamato while using it's superior speed to stay out of range of Yamato's guns then wait for nightfall to close the range and engage Yamato. American radar was not only able to track ships in all weather but was also able to see shell splashes on their radar screens! This gave the Americans a huge advantage in that they could see fall of shot in real time and thus very accurately adjust their aim.
Nice model collection! I have about 30! Holding a model in your hand,comparing others,building,painting,...and of course the history of each one. A fine hobby! Tanks! Aircraft! Ships!
me at the beginning of vid: hmmm u got the tirpitz huh, wonder why him over his more famous brother, Bismark..... *few seconds later .....bismark comes out * "ahh there he is, okay" *introduces hood shortly after * me _wheezing_
Remember the Missouri's guns were radar guided or aimed thus the Missouri could do some wild maneuvering and still score hits where as the Japanese would bracket fire which meant they would have to fire at least three salves to "zero" in on its target. With the ability of the Missouri to maneuver and fire meant bracketing would be difficult if not impossible. So I give it to the "Mighty Mo" and besides the Japanese talk funny.
A range-finder is only useful in clear weather, and in visual range. The advantage of radar targeting is that it's useful in all weather, out of visual range, at night, and etc. Ships I served on had rangefinders as *backups*, but in practice all gunnery was radar-guided.
The Yamato could win when the day was perfect, however the Iowa class could win in any other day, due to radar systems, fire control and speed. Really the Iowa could win 80% of the time because weather isn't perfect.
@@34scot Yamato win 100%. Because the American thought that they fought against 16 inch Japanese battleship. So the US battleship was going to shoot in 16 inch gun battle plans. But the Yamato 18.1 inch guns will gain much more advantage in US battle plan. The 18.1 inch shells could penetrate every inch of the Iowa class battleship ( Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri,....) but the American 16 inch shell could do no harm to Yamato's armour. Moreover, the Yamato's guns are very accurate. ( hit the Gambier bay at very long distance ) The American thought the Yamato's guns were 16 inch. So the Yamato will win 100% .
@@user-tb6uj9hz6k I beg to differ sir, I think your info is incorrect. The US new the Yamamoto class had 18.1" guns. The US went with the mk7 16"50 because it penetrated better than the rounds it was expected to go against.
Michael Jordon Hey Michael. I agree that the North Carolina would have been a more suitable ship for this A/B/C "what if" comparison. Unfortunately, Forces of Valor doesn't make a North Carolina model, so I stuck with the Missouri. Besides, it's fun to talk about the 'baddest of the bad' warships. :D
Yamato was designed to fight other battleships of the time, the American North Carolina , South Carolina and Washington were the big boys at the time. The Americans knew about the Yamato's and purposeful built the Iowa's to fight the Yamato's. The armor was stresses for the 18 inch shells. In post war trials armor plate from the Yamato class were fired on by 16 inch shells and they penetrated. Makes you wonder. The Bismark and sister Tripez were fast much like the American Iowa's fast. 35 knot fast for their size that was impressive. Yamato was rated at 31 knots. For your comparison the USS Washington might very possibly be a better Tripez vs fight. The Washington was up in Iceland at the American start of the war as the American response to the Bismark being used as a surface raider early in the war effort. She stayed in the Atlantic for operation torch and finally crossed thru Panama canal and into the pacific only after that in time to make the night time naval battleship vs battleship slug fest of the Iron Bottom Sound off Guadalcanal. Finally a lot of speculation would come down to hits. In Hood vs Bismark Hood got hit first and repeatedly. While the Bismark was missed most of the engagement weapon accuracy becomes paramount when two big brawlers are slugging it out. Yamato missed often on the small destroyers coming in for torpedo runs and only got a few hits on the destroyers and light "jeep" carriers but would she have missed a larger battleship? To be honest that all she needed on the small targets. In battleship on battleship fights, hits matter, even if the shell doesn't penetrate the armor belt or citadel the direct effect of a shell hit depends on where they land. A 15/16/18 inch shell hitting the turret near to ring without penetration will still disable that turret. Take out the bridge first ouch the ships command is gone. Knock out the targeting optics or radar like with Scharnhorst and she goes blind. For Hood it was terminal, when an armor piercing shell penetrated deep and boom three sailors are left floating in the water. Bismark we now know suffered a total loss of one rudder with the other bent over, plus one propeller was also blown away. At that point she became the worlds largest circling target dummy that could still shoot back but was going to die when the main British force showed up.
St. Nick The Iowas were not built to slug it out with the Yamato, that was the Montana’s job, but the Montana was abandoned in favor of bigger carriers. The Iowa was built to escort said carriers.
Quinn Von Kerman that’s true, but that’s not to say the Iowa Class couldn’t beat a Yamato, if they managed to stay at range or it was in a low visibility situation, I’d say the Iowa class would win without a doubt or at least a stalemate. If Yamato or Musashi got within close range to where her guns could fire accurately, Yamato would win. It depends completely on the situation. Iowa also had a 4:1 fire ratio on the Yamato.
I have 1 predicament about what you explained and that's to factor in weather. the second you factor in any weather the yamato has a worse and worse chance as the weather gets worse. the Iowa and Bismarck classes had radar that could easy pinpoint you through thick and dense weather conditions. they could then send that info to either the fire control recorders and computers as the Americans would have or sent that info straight to the guns and controller as the Germans would have done. the yamato on the other hand was old and not equipped with such systems, they still had the radar and fire control computers but these were nowhere near as advanced as their German or American counterparts. because of this lack of technology the yamato would be at a serious disadvantage during adverse weather conditions as its fire directors would be at a lack of visibility and their spotting aircraft would as well. with fall of shot and enemy position unknown the yamato would be a sitting duck until the faster and more prepared Iowa fired its first salvo. now most likely the Iowa would take advantage of how it was built and it would stay at around 71% of its max range or around 30km. at this range the Iowa could easily take advantage of its sloped belt and its incredibly deck pen and pen trough not the main guns but the secondary gun and inflict major damage to the ammo racks as well as to the superstructure leading to a possible secondary ammo or powder explosion which no ship can take but again its really impossible to say what would really happen so this is just one of millions of possibilities
no the Bismarcks radar system could spot cruiser size targets out to approx 32,000 yard and battleships size targets out to more than 44,000 yards , her 15 inch guns had a range of only 39,000 yards , the problem with them were the ( if you look at what happened in real life) blast of her own guns damaged them
TheCdwechsler you also have to consider that the Bismarck was rushed into battle and damaged her own rangefinder radar in the engagement with HMS Hood when she first fired her 15 in guns, none the less, she had a lot of fire power and contrary to popular use at the time, Germans used radar as a means of rangefinding, so to damage their own rangefinder and score a magazine hit that sank the Hood in 3 min with only 3 survivors is nothing short of spectacular
TheCdwechsler you also might want to consider the Missouri's fire control.The Missouri could take evasive action and still hold its fireing solution.If the fight takes place at night or in poor visibility game over Missouri wins.
Missouri had a much better radar central fire control system than either the Yamato or the Tirpitz. Combine that with the greater speed of the Missouri, it would not be a contest. The Missouri could stand out of range of the either of the opponents with her speed and pound them to rubble with her accurate radar fire control.
Missouri's search and fire control radar was far superior to that of the Yamato, seriously tipping the scales in favor of the Missouri always assuming her commander is able to use that to his advantage in the manner of Duke of York v Scharnhorst.Enjoyed your presentation.
The Iowa class were in fact bigger then the Yamato and has better designed fetchers to reduce weight and add speed so she could keep up with the heavy battlers cruisers that were converted to flat tops I will take the Alaska over the Scharnhorst.
Also we had more testing time; Among US-built battleships, Texas is notable for her sizeable number of firsts: the first US Navy vessel to house a permanently assigned contingent of US Marines, the first US battleship to mount anti-aircraft guns, the first US ship to control gunfire with directors and range-keepers (analog forerunners of today's computers), the first US battleship to launch an aircraft,[10] from a platform on Turret 2,[11] one of the first to receive the CXAM-1 version of CXAM production radar in the US Navy,[A 2] the first US battleship to become a permanent museum ship,[A 3][10] and the first battleship declared to be a US National Historic Landmark.[A 4] Current plans have been set to build a dry berth around the ship to help prevent further deterioration on the historic ship.
The Bismarck for example took 700 hits from 16 and 14 inch guns 12 torpedos and was still sunk by scuttling. If the crew hadnt scuttled it was predicted that it woudlve taken another 2 DAYS of shelling to sink her
Aye, the Bismarck's best weapon was her armour. While in thickness and placement, it was comparable in most respects to HMS Hood, Bismarck had the advantage of a turtleback armour scheme, which improved overall protection of the citadel, effectively making Bismarck immune to anything but the heaviest plunging fire. Bismarck might just be the model battleship of her time. Even the more modern Iowas couldn't compare to Bismarck. She was almost perfectly balanced. Only her relatively weak torpedo protection and exposed rudders presented any serious flaw in her design. I think only Vanguard, the Iowa-Class and the Yamato-Class could ever really match her. Prince of Wales as we know couldn't penetrate Bismarck's armour. Not even Hood's impressive artillery had much of a chance of doing so. Rodney reported bounces and ricochets! The super-steel that was Bismarck's Krupp cemented armour was just that good. Combine that with a turtleback scheme, and you have one seriously tough ship against even the heaviest barrage that could be mustered against her.
Dylan Wight don't forget Prince of Wales put a 15 inch hole in the armor belt . Main fuel tank was ruptured and the Bismarck had to head for repairs immediately.I don't think you guys are giving the south Dakota class enough credit.heavy, shorter .all or nothing armour.
@Randy Johnson The damage sustained from Prince of Wales was hardly lethal, but it was ultimately the damage that mission killed Bismarck regardless of her eventual fate. It was the critical damage that prevented Bismarck from fulfilling her mission, and that's all that matters. That being said, miracles do happen and PoW managing to put a 14in shell through Bismarck's armour was just as unlikely (*HMS Queen Mary laughs derisively*) as Bismark scoring that miracle hit against Hood. South Dakotas were certainly an improvement of the North Carolinas, but an all-or-nothing scheme is only as good as its flooding control. The USN was always at a serious disadvantage in their armour scheme. For one, USN battleships were designed for the Pacific since the Britain and the Royal Navy were responsible for safeguarding the Atlantic. The Pacific favoured faster ships, and this could only ever be achieved by reducing armour *somewhere*. Moreover, long ships are fast ships, but heavy ships are slow ships. So armour had to be sacrificed anywhere but the citadel. The result was a scheme that left much to be desired in hull integrity. If hit below the water line in the bow or stern, even the best protected battleships of the USN would suffer the same problems that befell Bismarck. What we need to remember is Lutjens ordered mission abandonment to effect repairs. Bismarck herself was still in fine fighting condition, but her mission *wasn't* to duke it out with the RN. Prince of Wales, killed Bismarck, not by sinking her (she didn't), but by preventing her from ever fulfilling her mission. In all other respects, Bismarck would have floored Hood and Prince of Wales in the same engagement. One penetrating hit to her fuel tank wasn't fatal, but it was enough to force Lutjens to abandon the mission. As a fighting ship, Bismarck's armour, artillery and superb fire control (as far as Atlantic ships are concerned) was still very much in her favour. Had it been a simple slugging match, Bismarck would have eventually prevailed.
The 18" gun was inferior to the 16" in terms of range, reload time, muzzle velocity, and accuracy. 16" mrk 50 gun was on par with 18" gun, now account for the fact that the Iowas as all US battleships armor were designed to withstand the impact of their own guns that they carried.
Test after the war showed Iowa steel could protect from Yamato's 18.1 inch guns but the YAMATO STEEL COULD NOT PROJECT FROM THE 16 INCH 2700 LBS ROUNDS.
Then again the Missouri never sailed alone at one point she even sailed with all three of her sisters (Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin), that would be a bad day even if Yamato brought Mushashi along.
Fantastic video, some points I'd like to raise, Tirpitz whilst having range disadvantages, she does have a set of torpedoes that could be used at medium to close range that could even out the fight, she is a battleship that was designed with turtle back armor so the closer she gets, the better the chances for her victory. But that said, you are right that at range, she is most likely in a disadvantage given an open seas scenario with good visibility. Missouri vs Yamato, would be a good match up, the Yamato can launch her spotter plane which can spot the missouri even when she's not in line of sight (over the horizon) her spotter will then triangulate with the yamato and plot some firing solution. Now all of this is in theory, but if perfect calculations were taken place and stars aligned, she could in theory hit a target 42km away... I mean you can't even see the mass over the horizon due to the shape of the earth, but if missouri took the hit, it'll be pretty devastating. Missouri on the other hand had radar and better speeds, assuming yamato got off the first few salvos which most are likely to miss at max range, once missouri closes in to her optimal firing range, I believe she will score more hits on the yamato than yamato on her. But both ships would take heavy casualties and personally, I believe it would end up in a stalemate where both ships will be badly crippled or put out of action for the remainder of the war. But in real life, both battleships would never sail without their escorts. Let's thank God that they did not meet in real life, it would be a tragic loss of life where thousands of families would be effected by the meaningless battle.
the big MO used radar to down aircraft the Yamato is hit time and time again from max range.post war tests on the armor piercing ability of the 16"50cal is as good as the Yamato 18"45cal. I go with the Iowa class.
I enjoyed hearing your predictions on this long-debated "fantasy" battle between the last true naval military titans that the world ever had an opportunity to witness. More importantly, I sincerely respect the motivation and humility you classily exhibit in abundance. Especially considering the hoards of hopeless sub-humans who choose to spend their meaningless time on Earth insulting and berating anyone who dare expose themselves by sharing a creatively well-developed thought or project such as this. My hat is off to you, sir.
On the other hand all USA battle ships had Ford instrument analog computers that were faster and more able to find weak points the anything Japan, Germany or Italy had. The same test was run at UT-Austin in 174 and the Iowa had the advantage per there Super Computer system.
Just a thought: Wiki on Russian "World War II saw the end of the battleship as the dominant force in the world's navies. On the outbreak of the War, large fleets of battleships-many inherited from the dreadnought era decades before-were one of the decisive forces in naval thinking. By the end of the War, battleship construction was all but halted, and almost every remaining battleship was retired or scrapped within a few years of its end."
In many of the crucial battles of the Pacific, for instance Coral Sea and Midway, battleships were either absent or overshadowed as carriers launched wave after wave of planes into the attack at a range of hundreds of miles. The primary tasks for battleships in the Pacific became shore bombardment and anti-aircraft defense for the carriers. The two largest battleships ever constructed, Japan's Yamato class, which carried a main battery of nine 18.1-inch (460 millimetre) guns were designed to be a principal strategic weapons, but Yamato fired her main guns in only one engagement, while Mushashi never fired her main guns in an engagement. They were hampered by technical deficiencies (slow battleships were incapable of operating with fast carriers), faulty military doctrine (the Japanese waited for a "decisive battle", which never came), and defective dispositions (as at Midway).[8]
The Germans also had such computers. The Germans and the Americans were the only nations that had RPC (remote power control) from computer to guns. They had been invented by the British (Pollen and Dreyer). The British called their computers “tables” and the USN range keepers.
this was a good video. your assessment were good, but I saw where they tested one of the Yamato's 18.1 inch guns after the end of World War 2 against a slab of the Iowa class's armor. The Yamato's shell didn't punch thru. However, they did a test of the Yamato's armor against an Iowa's 16 inch gun and the 16 incher punched straight through the Yamato's armor. In terms of gun power, Yamato was more powerful, but the Missouri's guns were more accurate and more able to punch through. Also the Missouri had better radar than Yamato, so Missouri could shoot first, see where her shells landed and redirect her fire before Yamato could return fire. With that, both Yamato and Missouri would have killed both Bismarck and Tirpitz. thou Bismarck and Tirpitz were modern ships, their design was based on a world war 1 battleship, so they would have been a good fighting ship, they would have been sunk by Yamato and Missouri with little trouble, if they weren't victims of airpower. as far as the Hood, her battlecruiser design left her weak from her birth, and the Missouri, Tirpitz, and Yamato would have sunk her in the same matter as bismarck
The model I want would be one of the six Pre-treaty South Dakota with the 12 heavy 16 inch 50 caliber guns there were able to fire 26 miles. They were so bad Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Russia and Japan signed a treaty limiting Battleships.
I'm sorry, but your assertion that the Iowa class was not designed to take and inflict punishments on competing battleships is absurd. Naval shipbuilding knew of Yamato. I think the biggest mistake that the US made with the Mk7 16 inch caliber 50, was in the assumption that their rate of fire would be substantially higher than the type 94's on Yamato and Musashi. On the other hand, they were precisely correct that any such dual would come down to gunnery. The penetrative and damage potential of the Mk 7 long rifles, firing the heavy weight AP Shells designed for it, were certainly and respectably within the damage range of the much larger shell from the IJN's 18 inchers. Likewise, I think that the fantasy of the one on one duel obscures a critical concern, which is battleship tactics. It was never desirable, either strategically or tactically, to arrange singular duels with battleships. Their tactics were always to act in concert, allowing for greater concentrations of fire upon the enemy in the least amount of time. The calculus being, that the number of battleships squared represented the relative power of each formation, and the likelihood one could atrit the power of the opposing formation before it could do the same. Had the US not had the requirement of passing through the Panama Canal, we would likely have seen larger main armaments on those battleships completed during the war. Had airpower, and the range to strike first, not rendered mere gunnery ranges so completely obsolete, perhaps such duels might have been settled historically. Either way, and as for the duel, I think that it would have come down to gunnery and who fired first. The Yamato's advantages were significant, but perhaps, not so final as you seem to think they were.
Two point on a post war test done with Yamato's 18.1 inch guns would not penetrate the Iowa Class steel plate. On the other hand Iowa class 16 inch 50 caliber did penetrate very well. With the Ford Analog computers the USA Battleship had more effective fire power. Also the Heavy 16 inch 50 Caliber guns from the Pre-treaty South Dakota that were shore mounted would have reduce the Yamato's to a coffin. The primary difference in the design of the Iowa class was she first goal was to protect the very fast classes of flat tops. South Dakotas: both classes were more of a slug it out ship and the 45 calibers on the post treaty ships had a lining able to last longer then the 50 calibers on the Iowa class.
Except he's not... The Iowa call was a massive break for US strategy, and all in all was basically an elongated South Dakota class, better armed, sure, but the gain was all for the sake of speed. First off, Iowa was not designed to take on comparable battleships, and most certainly not Yamato - who the rest of the world assumed at 410mm (16.1") guns, not 460mm (18.1") guns, something only discovered post-war. Iowa was designed to counter the threat of the Japanese Kongo-class battlecruisers, which had been substantially rebuilt into small fast battleships. They presented the US with a problem, as these small battleships with their 203mm belts and 4x2 armament of 14" guns were more powerful than any US cruiser, and while far weaker than any American battleship (old standard types, the fast BBs are a whole other level), were far faster than any American BB, and could thus disengage easily. Iowa was meant to operate with carriers, not only to provide AA defense as so many American fast BBs did in WWII, but to catch and destroy the fast Kongo-class battleships should they attempt to attack a CV group, as the cruisers were judged insufficient to stop such an attack. That's why the Iowa's, fast as they were, were such a break from American battleship design. The Americans stressed homogeneity in their battle line, hence why all the older 'standard-types' were all capped at a 21 knot top speed. In a battle line, your top speed is limited by the slowest ship, so for the US, they believed there was no sense is splitting your battle line and sacrificing other features (such as armor or firepower) to achieve higher speeds. This is why the design for the Montana-class was a step away from the Iowa's, and back towards more balanced types like the South Dakota. They were slower, but with the loss of speed balanced their firepower and armor out. They were an evolution of your standard American BB type (although much faster than the older standard-types with a designed top speed of 28 knots). Iowa was the deviant meant to deal with the Kongo class, and th rumored supercruiser type ships. They were literally just South Dakotas that gained an extra 200 feet and 10,000 tons in order to elongate the hull for an extra 6 knots of speed over the South Dakota, and armed with more powerful guns. Iowa was an effort to work more speed out of an existing design, and that was pretty much it. Thus, she was somewhat under armored for her size... for example, she had no immunity zone to her own guns, nor to Yamato's 18.1" guns (not that you can really blame her for that), or the Italian 15" gun. She did have a good 4,000 yd IZ against Bismarck's guns, however (from 34 to 38 thousand yards)... just to get in all the top guns of the Axis BBs. The Iowa-class, ironically, in it's designed role, was probably the most likely out of any US BB class to actually get in a 1 on 1 fight with another BB... but this would've been against a BB like the Kongo, and would've been a 1-sided stomp.
DaGreenskin Orc there is plenty of evidence, and or assumptions that point to the fact that the Yamatos accuracy was incredibly poor. First bit of evidence was the fact that several gunnery officers after her launching were commissioned elsewhere soon after, to go with that Yamamoto was incredibly reluctant to the point of ignoring her existence in the early years of the conflict. When a ship like herself would have been able to clear a path with the almost non existent US BB force non operational and the US carriers being in short supply. Many historians point to her lack of use and many other aspects of her career to show just how underwhelming of a ship she was, and how the Japanese navy understood this. The only evidence we have of her engaging US ships was at A Lyte, and she scored very few hits on a large slow escort carrier from relatively close range.
First of all the Iowa class battleship was a larger ship and the 18 inch were not used due to very heavy barrels and Turrets. As far as the Yamato, the site you say I think is correct but this was the AA round (almost 4,000 lbs) that was never fully tested. Yamato spent most of the war at Japan in Port. She did not have air support, etc. The Kongo class was designed in UK and the Kongo was built in the UK and others in the class built In Japan for WWI. For WWII Japan added steel to the ship at the cost of one knot and called her a Battleship.
The armour belt on the Iowa class only went from the 1st main turret to the last main turret the first 200 ft of the Iowa was not armoured nor the last 150 ft ,if any hits from either Yamato or Bismarck would have blown the front of the ship right off, this was exposed when one of the Alabama class, armoured the same way struck a tug boat and damaged that put in dry dock for over 6 month ,the Bismarck had nickel chrome steel armour ,the Rodney's 16 inch shells actually bounced off that armour , if Ludgens was the Captain ,he would have out manuvered both other ships ,he handled Bismarck like a distroyer ,history lesson here ,the world called for -"sink the Bismarck" not the Iowa or Yamato
A single 16" shell from the Rodney actually knocked out two of the Bismark's 15" turrets - quite a feat for the weakest 16" gun afloat. The Bismark was destroyed without landing a single shell on the Rodney or King George.
the Bismarck was not able to use destroyer tactics at this moment because of the damaged rudder. In fact, Bismarck lost all her adventages (speed, agility, etc..) due to the most powerful weapon at surface battlefelds: Planes with torpedos. in my opionion, the sinking of Bismarck was the real beginning of the aircraft carrier era.
in my humble opinion the Iowa class would win in a fight with the Yamato , the Iowa class was faster , slightly greater range , radar controlled gunnery systems , faster rate of fire , the Iowa could standoff at a longer range and just keep shelling the Yamato , with a 5 knot speed advantage and radar controlled guns the Iowa class battleship would hold the most advantages , IF the Iowa class could make it a night action then yep she wins
the Yamato was still larger, and had larger guns, and most people think of it as a stupid heavy ship, but it had very technologically advanced radar, it had 3 spotting aircraft, and its secondaries were insane, so yes, the Iowa class could have the advantage, the Yamato would most likely win. The Missouri hits a deck shot however, good-bye Yamato, however the islands around Japan are large and could hide the Yamato. the Yamato, big as it is, could hide and pop out and fire and get the first shots off
in some cases a larger ship could be a massive advantage, i was not saying in this case it was either, but a larger ship also usually means more armor, so while its larger and easier to hit, it did have lots of armor, like any confrontation, this battle would solely rely on circumstances
Not in terms of raw thickness, but the quality of the armor was better. And the Iowa-class only needs rough parity in armor, not an advantage--the advantages in other areas are enough.
Things that would win or lose a battleship encounter. Tactics, Intel, Range of the weapons, Ability of the shells to penetrate the other ships armor, and most importantly Gunnery (the ability to land the rounds where they can do damage). The last, weakest factor is "Luck" (having the weather in your favor, the "lucky shot" like the one landed on HMS Hood). That's my 2 cents on it. Great video.
What a lot of people forget is the setting the fight is in: The fight happens in a 1v1 scenario where the sole goal is to destroy the opponent. In ww2 that was not the case, they were trying to keep their heaviest ships secure so they didnt need to use up absurd time and resources to repair the ships. So getting near the enemy is not as hard as you might think. Also in an all out fight simply the endurance of how long a ship can stay afloat is especially important. That gives american battleships a distinct disadvantage, since they werent designed to take heavy punishment alone(not saying they couldnt take it, but compared to german and japanese ships it is something that stands out). Basically america actually designed their ships according to their strategy, in that when they take heavy damage they already fucked up. Germany and Japan built them with the idea that when they take heavy damage, their ships should at least take it as well as possible. That basically gave them another disadvantage resource wise in the war, but make their ships good fighters in imaginary 1v1 duels, where a more robust design works out better than a design that takes a bigger disadvantages once its damaged.
yea the Hood is at the bottom of the sea, but so is the Bismarck and Yamato. Although Hood was in no way our most powerful warship, something more like the kg5 or vanguard would be more suited
Missouri has a key advantage over Yamato and that's 6 knots of speed. So she with her 33 knot speed could and would dictate the range the fight was held at. She had good radar and the first of its kind targeting computer. She was more accurate and being thinner she was harder to hit. She also had 30 second reloads Yamato's are longer. Yamato hits harder and can take hits better. She has slightly better range. But when were talking ranges of 23-25 miles its really hard to hit targets at that range making battle maneuvers. Missouri could flee with her speed Yamato cannot. So the question becomes we know Missouri with her radar sees Yamato at 23 miles does Yamato see Missouri at that range well enough to engage. If not then its a no brainier Missouri holds all the cards. If she can then worse case its a draw because Missouri can brake off. But far more likely Yamato is doomed because Missouri pulls back till dark then engages at night when her radar still works and Yamato is Blind at that range. For that matter Tirpitz has radar and 30 knot speed and could also defeat Yamato if she waited for night she also has 4 torpedoes a side.
SithLordmatthew And always take into consideration, the crew. Im pretty sure the crew of Iowa were more experienced but if it were to fight in a slug fest, Yamato would do more damage, if not, sink the Missouri.
I consider this comment to be the most plausible and accurate. sithlordmathew offers up concrete facts...he also mentions something the author of this post failed to address and that is training and tactics....the Iowa class crew was much better trained and supplied. the yamato and musashi spent the majority of their short lives confined to port for fear of being lost. that itself speaks volumes in regards to the opinion the Japanese held concerning the capability and odds of survivability of their ships....if they thought their yamato and musashi had any sort of substantial advantage they would have employed it against American war ships....the Japanese had pretty accurate intelligence as to the whereabouts of American warships in and around Japan and the Philippine sea. they were losing the war and they knew it was all but over....if they thought their great battleships were capable of defeating American battleships they would have sent them into the fight with little hesitation since the battleship was the predominant obstacle preventing the Japanese from destroying American air craft carriers. after all it was the American carriers and Japan's failure to sink them during the pearl harbor attack and the battle of midway that was the most decisive reason for their loss in the Pacific theater of ww2. the Iwo class where the best battleships of ww2 without question....the fact that they are the only battleships still afloat today strongly supports that.
Alex Houghton I never hear of the battleship "tomato"....I assume that all those American torpedoes must have turned it into a giant hulk of ketchup resting on the sea floor.
davy1458 Oh, apologies for making a spelling error. Please, tell me of your obvious proficiency in the English language. Also, really? I get the "ha-ha, he spelled something wrong" but it is in no way comedic or, well, anything other than annoying. Also, again, the Tomato is a fearsome warship. Its massive leaves provide excellent propulsion, it's massive rounded hull distributed the force of attacks across the entire thick hull. Sadly, she was finally sunk by the carrier 'HMS Turpentine' a legendary Scottish aircraft carrier, all the way back in 2083. Your punctuation was incorrect.
Hey Shinden. Like your models! Iowa class BBs vs Yamato discussions seem to be everywhere. I don't know why since neither ship achieved much during WW2 & certainly were not critical to the final result. The 2 Yamatos in hindsight were an enormous waste and the construction materials better dedicated to making 2 more Shokaku carriers. A one on one Iowa class vs Yamato battle was a near impossibility as the Iowas almost never traveled the Pacific alone. The US built 10 modern fast battleships to the IJNs 2. More than likely one or 2 Yamatos would have to face 2 or more times their number. Both ships had their Achilles heels. Most specifically the Yamatos torpedo belt welds were very weak & peeled like an orange when struck. During the war the US knew very little about Yamato in fact some of the Admirals who commanded both ships were not permitted to know the size of the main battery. After the war the USN war gamed Iowa Yamato encounters and a Defence think tank did a computer simulation in the 90s and the Iowa ships won in all cases. However the Iowa Fire control radars however were out in the open and an early hit could knock them out and remove most of the Iowa advantage. Of course in that case she could easily run away.
That was fired from point blank range. Ironically, the armor plating was estimated to be immune to any and every naval shell ever built from all battle ranges
experts have said and Iowa like the Missouri vs a Yamato, the victor would be based on conditions. The Yamato would win In good, but an Iowa can fight just as well in fog, rain, and darkness, giving her an advantage. Don't discredit the Bismark, however, she was to stubborn to just roll over and die. She only got sunk because the British attacked her with planes so old they were to a slow for he AA fire directors, jamming her rudder, letting the British catch up to her. So really, it is a condition game, plus luck of hitting magazines like what ended the HMS Hood.
Not really. The fire control of the Iowa out ranges the ability of the Yamato to fire an aimed shot. Biggest problem is not knowing the true strength of the Yamato an American captain may try to close the distance and throw away its advantage. Closing to 20,000 yards could easily result in an Iowa being hammered by the heaver 18.1 inch guns.
Wrong all torpedo bombers are designed to flow low and slow the Kate, devastator and Avenger all flew low and slow. The bismarck had poorly trained crew and lousy AA protection.
The problem is that Yamato couldn't see over the horizon. After all, it relied on visual targeting. Spotter planes would be ineffective, since they'd just get shot down by AA, fighters, or even the Iowa class's own spotter planes. Plus, it would only work in the day and in clear weather. Also, Iowa-class ships could also shoot over the horizon.
Remember it's the hunter that chooses the ground! Remember it took 700 rounds and 12 torpedoes to sink Bismarck.. actually it was proven the crew scuttled her. Remember the Rodney's guns were 16" on par with a North Carolina most of them bounced off Bismarck's belt armor. My point is either Missouri or Yamato can and will sink the Tirpitz or Bismarck at range. But if the Bismarck or Tirpitz catches either ship in close she can beat them. also the caliber of Bismarck and Tirpitz secondary guns were 155mm were as Yamato's were 127mm and Missouri had 5" 38 cal guns. in a knife fight those big secondary guns go a long way. Take into consideration each ship was designed for different things. It would depend on the Captain s to exploit the opponent s weakness and knowing their ships and crews abilities. no matter which ship is bigger has bigger guns ect. It depends who can land first round hits. who has the most experience.
Agreed. The Rodney's 16" guns were the worst 16" naval guns afloat, and one shell still knocked out two of Bismarck's 15" turrets without hitting either.
The 16 in 45 cal were the same as the North Carolina class but only shot 2048 lbs APR vs 2700 lbs for all US Battleships. Also they did not have the Ford Interments analog computers. The 5 in 38 cal were duel as they were able to do AA as well as ship to ship.
It had been the HE shells of the King George V that bounced off Bismarck's Armor (probably due to a defect in the fuse, since HE shells must explode on contact), so the ship reverted to AP shells, that, like those of the Rodney "cut into the Bismarck like a hot knife through butter". The attempted use of HE shells VS a battleship simply demonstrates that the British didn't want to finish it too soon, and were targetting the superstructure instead of going for the belt (that, at that distance, would have offered the resistance of tissue paper).
*Battlecruiser Edit: to clarify, a battlecruiser is a capital ship, like a battleship. the main difference is that it is faster and has thinner armour, but general comparable guns to a battleship.
@ wibble wobble . Not really. It doesn't fit between battleship and cruiser. Its another doctrine entirely. Hood was for instance larger than all the battleships in the RN and had larger guns than most of them. She was only 3000t lighter than the Missouri for instance. She was also faster than them but had thinner armour. Different design purpose entirely. No battlecruiser should ever have slugged it out with a battleship, but it was often just too tempting when appropriate resources were not available. Sadly war is not entirely predictable and compromises have to be made. Often those compromises get men killed.
yeah, this is why the British lost so many of their Battlecruisers, they simply treated them like battleships, sending them in with the main battle line at Jutland, where their lack of armour cost the Brits dearly. interestingly, the Iowa class was actually faster than the Hood, as it was a much more modern design focused on speed.
@Anthony Sellick That's what I was getting at as lighter than a Battleship. Not quite a Battleship due to lack of armour, and not a heavy cruiser due to it's large guns. It was an outdated and flawed concept, but as you say needs must, can't quite understand why they kept building them though after Jutland. And not just the armour Dash, the lack of safety to increase rate of fire (Blast doors being left open)
i dont know if this has been said but the Iowa class was said to be fitted with the same guns as the paper BB Montana...18In guns. but when the armory staff tested out the US 16in and the 18in guns they found the 16 to do the same amount of damage as the 18in guns
The Montana was to be fitted out with 12 x 16"/50 Mark 7 guns. The Iowa had 9 of these guns. The 18" guns were rejected because you'd only be able to fit 2 per turret for the same weight as 3 16" guns, and there was no need for a larger caliber gun.
This is an very interesting point. The 18 inch was originally tested for the Pre-treaty South Dakota class before the Heavy 16 inch 50 caliber was chosen. After the treaty was signed the Navy gave these guns to the Army for shore battery because they were too heavy for the Iowa class.
The BB 51 Montana was 27% finished had 12 Heavy 16 inch 50 cal Mark 2 guns and sixteen 6 inch 53 cal mark 13. Her 16 inch could out shout the Iowa class because they could handle more powder.
I see this kind of thing in these amature comparisons very often. People tend to focus too much on the design characteristics of the ship itself, while ignoring some of the critical points that may decide these kinds of battles. The first thing is gunnery. It's critical that no matter what kind of armament you have, that you can do little beyond scaring the shit out of your enemy, if you don't hit them. Some of this has to do with secondary systems, like the optics of the German and Japanese guns. A large part has to do with training, and how well your crew aims, and how many shots they are getting off per unit time. This last does depend on the officer corps, the admirals and the captains who readied these ships for war. The second thing, and it is only second because you can never win if you don't actually hit the enemy, is damage control. Standing to, against the best that the Kriegsmarine, the IJN, or Her Majesty's Navy, you are going to get hit. Now I can have no opinion on this, lacking any experience, but I have read the opinions on offer by many officers of many navies... and I think that given the limits of the officer corps and crew training against possible catastrophic damage, that US ships generally have an edge here. USN ships were well crafted to begin with, and were better set up for the exigencies of damage control than almost any other. Given these two points, there was a design philosophy that takes into account how these ships were to be used. The secondary armament on Yamato were indeed impressive. If you are going to steam the ship up next to an island and try to sink it, they would be quite useful. Less flippantly, if you wanted to, or were able to, steam the ship into an inner city harbor, and sink that, they might prove devastating. Against the first line battle lines of another modern navy, however, there would be few scenarios where they would come into action. End of battle, steaming in to finish people off, I'll grant you. In most cases, this did not happen, considering the damaged being caused at extended ranges by Sixteen or even Eighteen inches. Iowas, on the other hand, were never designed for knife fighting. Any admiral or captain who chose to initiate one, must needs have been in a very tight pickel indeed. The secondary armament of dual purpose 5" 38's was a much more useful and modern mix of weaponry, considering the threats that actually pertained once the nations that owned these battleships came into conflict. The notion that Iowa was not designed to take on a ship like the Yamato is, to my mind and reading, the height of absurdity. She was designed to be fast, and to maneuver beyond the effective range of such ships, hitting them with main batteries that were designed with ranges and penetrations that no ship could withstand for extended periods. That was how she was designed, and how she was to be fought, and how here captains and admirals would have used her in a surface engagement. Her radar, her optics, her mechanicals and rates of fire, and all here training were geared toward this end. Likewise, the notion that the design bureau that came up with this class did not know or appreciate the threat of ships like Yamato or Bismarck, Is equally absurd. Granted, that would have been better if we had executed the people responsible for designing our torpedos, or better, put them to work doing something more useful to society like picking crops along with other farm workers; but, overall our ship designs performed well. I'm grateful every day that I never faced the need to serve in such battles, based largely on the sacrifices and service of those very brave men. However, with all things being equal, In a battle between these ships, I would have chosen to be aboard the Iowa class every day of the week, and three times on Sunday.
The Japanese fire control systems were problematic, being unable to develop an accurate firing solution while maneuvering. US gunnery was radar-guided and much better able to track contacts and compute firing solutions on the run. If I was the commander of a US battleship formation and had to take on Japanese battleships I'd want to find them in the dark, in bad weather, at long range. Running dark-and-dirty I'd parallel them and start firing at long range, where they'd have to try and range on my gun flashes. Then turn towards them, close the range by 1-2 miles, turn away to open the range, turn back towards them, speed up, slow down - change something every 30 seconds or so, keep the situation in a state of flux so the Japanese can't develop a good solution, and keep hammering away at long range.
Its interesting to note that the two previous fast battleship classes the north Carolina and the Dakota class used 16/45 mk6 guns while the Missouri used 16/50 inch mk7 guns.although the Missouri's guns had a higher muzzle velocity the navy did conclude that the Carolina and Dakota class had a steeper trajectory on the round witch meant it was more effective during plunging firing than during direct fire.
You are an idiot in thinking about that 1. Yamato is only 27.7kn max speed but Iowa class can go up to 35.5kn 2. Iowas have radar that out matches japanese or german radar even by 1951 3. It doesnt matter in what size yamato’s guns are they’re to big to slow and yet weak enough for mk7 16’ gins of iowas match destructive capabilities
As a guy that one, loves these sort of comparisons and has done plenty of reading on the subject. Some of the most understated facts of a hypothetical duel are 1. The US didn't fully understand the power of the Yamatos guns, the Japanese went to great lengths to disguise her specifications (they labeled her guns 16in specials if it shows you some of the stuff they did). 2. Thanks to that lack of understanding the US would more then likely have gone full speed into a fight with her, ignoring her advantage of long range accurate gun fire and speed which would allow her to dictate the engagement. 3. The Iowa's were not once by themselves alone, and considering the 7th fleet at some points had 4 Iowa's. Even with the Musashi with her it would still be a struggle for the Yamatos. 4. At the end of the day, it was proven that the Iowa's could penetrate the Yamatos thickest armour compartments from the Yamatos engagement range. although this was done with tests after the war, I feel like they were done with great accuracy once I read up on them. So this ultimately shows that it doesn't make a difference in reality when it comes to the overall amour differences overall. 5. Although this is often stated, it really does need to be fully understood, the US radars and computers would render many engagements in her favor. long distance night fights, rough seas, high speed maneuvering shots and hugely ( the use of smoke screen tactics).
I really like his kick ass tiny battleships....so do you I suspect....your comment sounds as tho you have a bit of man toy envy....you must be lacking motion in your ocean I'm guessing.
Uss missouri with its superior secondary battery and 16 guns with greater shell velocity therefore greater penetration power would definitely beat yamato
After the Bismarck was sunk , the Germans hid the Tirpitz in a fjord in Norway! She only went out at night. The Tirpitz was sunk by RAF bombers in 1944. Her remains were cleaned up in 1950's.
@@Admiral_fed-up74 In a nutshell, I think Missouri would prevail over Yamato. Missouri had a 6 knot speed advantage and excellent all weather radar controlled guns. In the battle of Surigao Strait old American battleships fitted with new radar fire control systems were able to hit and sink Japanese battleships with their opening salvos at great range and at night. The Japanese battleships never even saw the American battleships. Yamato had excellent optical rangefinders which were very effective in daylight but were unable to accurately determine range at night. Missouri however in daylight could keep radar contact with Yamato while using it's superior speed to stay out of range of Yamato's guns then wait for nightfall to close the range and engage Yamato. American radar was not only able to track ships in all weather but was also able to see shell splashes on their radar screens! This gave the Americans a huge advantage in that they could see fall of shot in real time and thus very accurately adjust their aim.
The Hood was closing in the distance of what was called the Zone of Immunity in WW2. naval warfare. It is where both a plunging shot and a direct line of fire shot from the enemy would be least effective, and your ships guns would be effective . It was mostly theoretical based on testing of Naval guns and armour. Considering the fatal odd angle plunging round fired by the Bismarck that cut across the Hood's decks, the Hood almost reached it.
USS Missouri would win easily vs Yamato with one simple strategy. The Missouri should use its superior speed to stay out of Yamato's range till nightfall. Once dark close in for the kill. Radar vs Visual targeting.
@ A spatha... damn dude you ever heared of Immunity zone of armor?... Yamatos was vastly higher then iowa's because of it being superior + Iowa having much smaller shells with less penetratin power. Iowas shell wouldnt do much on long range, and to it Radar at times of WW2 wasnt perticulary good, thats why US has the lowest from 5 biggest Navies scored max range hit in WW2. Also ships never fought on max speed, but on combat speed's. as on high speed they were much less stable, and for Iowa being a very wet BB the speed was quite slow for normal standards. Means if you want to shoot your not running away at max speed.
T0ffik1 the Mark 8 shells from Iowa's 16 inch cannons had similar penetration values against Yamato's heavier 18 inch shells, let's not forget that the only advantages that the Yamato's cannon had was, sheer kinetic energy during close combat and long range, and nothing else. And comparing radar to optics is like comparing Windows 10 to Windows 1997
Further, While Yamato had thicker and more armor over the entire ship. The US steel was superior quality including on the interior with better damage control and fire control systems. While You have to give an advantage in armor to the Yamato it's really not much. The Iowa is superor in every other factor other then entirety of armor.
The Iowa class was the best and largest class of battleships WWII. The North Carolina class was better Sea worthy ( per My Dad). Also 16 inch 45 cal had a longer barrel life then 16 inch 50 caliber so was concerted better for pre-landing shore bombardments. BB 35 Texas was the test bed for 5 major navel developments. She was the flag ship for Adm King for the Right coast and defended the food systems for England and Russia etc for the Total WWII period. The Ford Instruments analog computers were fir debugged on HER. (per My Dad)
+Lord Dash Donald Dappington what i ment by fight was a 1v1 fight with any other battleship. Battleships also do roles such as provide a HQ for command, Escort carriers and protect with AA defense, Bombard shorelines and costal defenses ect ect in which Iowa does amazingly well in. she is either the best or at the least in the top 5 for every situation a battleship can undertake thus being the most flexible battleship.
The Tirpitz Armor is superior to the Missouri or Yamato, it was incredibly tough like the Bismark. German Ships even of older design were so Rugged. The Missouri Guns are considered better then Yamato's with Super Heavy Shells , and more accurate & precise. At the Aberdeen Testing grounds their is a sample of the Yamato / Musashi Armor that was Blasted right through by the Iowa class 16" (Mark 7 ) Guns. its something to see , its so thick. Yamatos had crazy thick Deck Armor too. The big thing is to disable their Fire Control then damage their Guns.
The "super armor" of the Bismarck is a myth. The armor its self was inferior to the British and possibly slightly superior to the American armor. The difference is the American armor scheme was much superior to the old school layout of the Bismarck class.
Krupp Armor a myth? German Armor superior to all as are German Guns., British about 12 % better than American ( never shared during the War.) Japanese last. Out of the Hundreds of Hits Bismark took only about half a dozen penetrated . None penetrated the Hull Armor. And the Iowa class were designed with the Bismark in mind, neither the British or American Navy wanted to take the Tirpitz head on. thats why the Tall Boy program happened.
The greatest and most powerful navy that hid its Capital ships after Guadalcanal? not even a year into the war and was getting its ass kicked by American High School Boys, the Navy that had been at War since 1931, that Navy ? you are such a fucking moron,
Where do you get your bizarre fantasies? watch the Bismark expedition. but dont cry. This is someone folks that never even has seen a Battleship , at least I have been on some and under some (in Drydock) and talked to the Men who Manned them.
When the Yamato left port on its Operation Ten Go death ride that IJN task force was quickly spotted by the USN. 5th Fleet Commander Raymond Spruance ordered Task 54 to detach USN surface units to confront the Yamato. The following USN ships which were sent: Massachusetts, Indiana, South Dakota, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin. This strike force included 7 cruisers (including Alaska & Guam) plus 21 destroyers to sink the Ten Go strike force. Commanding Task Force 58 was Admiral Marc Mitchner. He was an aviator sailor. He had been ordered to provide air cover for the USN battleships. Instead, in attacking waves, he sent nearly 400 USN attack war planes. He informed his immediate commander, Spruance, of his plans after the first wave had been launched. The Hellcat & Corsair air sweep found that the IJN had provided no air cover at all. USN pilots radioed this information back to the following torpedo & dive bombers. The fighters then began strafing attacks on the IJN ships. When the bombers arrived they organized themselves and began their co-ordinated effort. Only 10 USN planes were shot down & that included planes destroyed during the Yamato’s explosive end. USN casualties were 12 air crew. The video game side of me would have enjoyed a fleet action but realistically the USN casualties would have been higher & Yamato still would have been sunk.
The Hood was technically a Battle Cruiser. Armor plating was sacrificed to increase speed and maneuverability. Prior to the war she was scheduled to be refit with heavier armor but obviously never got the chance. Her captain knew her weakness. She steamed directly at the Bismarck to make herself a small target and to expose only her thickest armor which was up front. She executed a turn at the moment her guns got in range to allow herself the chance to get off a broadside, intending to steer another head on course after firing her guns. Bismarck caught her in the middle of her turn with a salvo that penetrated Hood between the funnels, igniting the main magazine. Big Boom. Only 2 or 3 survived the massive explosion.
Wiki, Yamato was dispatched on a one-way mission to Okinawa in April 1945, with orders to beach herself and fight until destroyed protecting the island. The task force 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. Unfortunately a 1v1 battle never happened with the Iowa class battleships vs it and more likely the Arizona woulda be a fun shot at it, if it wasn't sank in harbor. When you talk about battleships in that sense, there were dreadnoughts, battleships and battle cruisers of the time. I appreciate that he mentioned what role they were used for, because one isn't designed to fight another. We be even simpler and say the Tiger tank was amazing, against the Sherman's, we just had more of them. And we won.
Nah, Yamato is pretty overrated by battleship enthusiasts. It is bigger, with thicker armor and has larger gun. But it does not mean it is better protected. This can be indirectly observed through Japanese industrial capability. At the time, they don't have competent and the manufacturer technic to produce high power engine for their fighter, so they were forced to go trade off the protection for maneuverability. And the armor used on tank is basically paper, how often do you see a tank get blow up and flip over by home made land mine? As I recall, that happened on their Chinese front. So, going back to Yamato, the thick Amor might not provides the same protection as it's us counterpart with same thickness. And the damage inflicted by the main gun can be just on par with Iowa... oh, by the way, the crew competent will be a big let down. Yamato crews are hand picked. Not solely on their competent, but they have to look handsome( in Japanese culture) as well. So, if you don't have the best hand on deck, you are going uphill when going against elite opponents.
Bismark and Tirpitz 15 inch guns had a higher rate of fire than the other ships and 4 turrets vs 3= More likely to hit there enemy first, and therefore win the fight.
Also, If you like extra Guns the BB35 Texas would be #1 with her 10 14 inch 45 cal. She was Admiral Earnest King flagship and test bed for the Ford Analog. She protected food for England and Russia in convoy formation. The fleet also had several baby flat tops (Jeeps)
Jean Bart !? wtf, she was not even compleated, only half of her guns was even installed, no rangefinder and manned by an untrained skelleton crew, docked in a harbour... At Savo island USS Washington had a good radar, capabel crew and comander, and was undetected but still missed most of her 75 16" shells fired at Kirishima at POINT BLANK range.
Sorry, My point was how powerful the 16 inch 2700 lbs rounds were on the decks. The 45 calibers gave them a steeper angle then the 50 caliber. Me Bad. What you said was all true. Good show
Very cool presentation. Hypothesis is fun, but there's much more to consider than just the mechanical details. The Iowa class BB's and the 2 or 3 preceding classes were designed to fight the Bismark and Tirpitz. The Yamato and Musashi were built under such strict secrecy that I'd be astounded to find that we even knew about them in time to counter-design. But in addition to factors like armor, armament, speed & maneuverability, one has to factor in the intangibles: the ship handling, the motivation, the esprit de corps of both crews. The Americans were free men, fighting to protect their loved ones from enslavement, and enraged by the treacherous attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese were essentially slaves, fighting to enslave others, not even for their own personal benefit, but for the "glory" of the Emperor. Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor had it spot on, when he said, "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve". The USS Arizona is still in commission, and will be as long as there is a United States Navy. When a US Navy ship enters or departs Pearl Harbor, we always render honors to her when passing her. A few years ago, my pastor and I were talking about Yamato and Musashi, and how they were considered unsinkable. He asked me what happened to them. I grinned and replied, "The United States Navy happened to them. They're both at the bottom of the ocean". Six months after Pearl Harbor, we took the offensive from the Japanese at Midway. Two months after that, we were landing US Marines at Guadalcanal. 😉
Yup and looking and conditions at hand he would have made his way back to Norway not like lutjens to France through open waters without radar. I mean what was he even thinking
