Outstanding detail Ryan. Yes, we now know that heavier, thicker armor and larger caliber guns can't offset superiority of speed, range, fire coordination & control etc.
7:30 - Also, Japan had plenty of island bases in the western Pacific where the Yamatos could've stopped off to refuel if necessary, while on the U.S. side of the ocean there's literally nowhere to put in from the West Coast until you reach Hawaii.
@@richardhall9815 ...ok, if you think a quarter of a ton is "nitpicking", fair enough. Hey, I know! If you're an American, try it out on your doctor or dietician and see how they respond.😁
Ryan, an interesting talk would be comparing the Yamato with the cancelled Montana class of battleships, I know all the gamers want to argue about which ship would win in a ship VS ship comparison, but I think a technical talk looking at armor, armament, speed, fire control and survivability aspects (compartmentation and damage control) would be interesting.
Ryan looked at the Montana class in an earlier video. It's excellent and may answer many of your questions. ua-cam.com/video/qtoLnOGMDSU/v-deo.html Drachinifel also produced an excellent video talking about the Montana, its design history and includes a number of details that Ryan may not have been able to touch on. ua-cam.com/video/TOnD4H1CqzI/v-deo.html
If I were King, ...... I would build one of those or a Montana. Then I would abdicate. The ship I would recreate? Enterprise CV-6. OR A Wickes class destroyer.
Dracinifel simulated the Battle of Samar, changing it so TF34 met the Centre Force in the San Bernardino Strait. Washington vs Haruna, Alabama vs Kongo, Iowa vs Nagato and New Jersey got the honor of slugging it out with Yamato until Iowa shifted fire to lend a hand. End of the battle left BB-62 in tatters but still afloat and Yamato with a magazine explosion.
Dude, it took 17 to 19 torpedoes, and several bomb hits to sink the Musashi. Plus the Yamota-class bad a 4 mile advantage in range on the 16 X 50 guns on the Iowa-class ships. I dont think two Iowa-class ships could have defeated her alone. They'd have required a lot of help from carrier Aircraft. When she was finally sunk, it wasn't a Battleship or any ship that sunk her. It, like her sister, was 19 aircraft dropped torpedoes, and at least 9 to 11 bombs that sunk her.
@@unitedwestand5100 After the sinking the USN determined that part of the Musashi's resistance was torpedos were hitting her on both sides, essentially creating counter flooding. With Yamato, the concentrated on one side with the torpedos, didn't take as many. And at extreme range, any hit on a moving, maneuvering, battleship is as much luck as skill.
@@timclaus8313 ,. Its name was Yamato, the mightiest warship yet constructed. Displacing 71,659 tons and capable of 27 knots, the Yamato possessed the greatest firepower ever mounted on a vessel-more than 150 guns, including nine 18.1-inchers that could hurl 3,200-pound armor-piercing shells on a trajectory of 22.5 miles. Its massive armor was the heaviest ever installed on a dreadnought-class battleship, making it virtually impregnable to the guns of any ship in the world.
Another excellent fact packed tutorial by an obviously astute keeper of the flame! This episode answered many of my questions about “what if” had they met.It is amazing to me the man hours and resources that must have gone into ships of this caliber. I have always been in awe of these ships and have toured Iowa and Massachusetts.Keep up the good work.
By '43 standards, they were rocket ships. More in line with the speed of destroyers and cruisers than with comparable battleships. Even the NCs and SoDaks were as fast as many of the IJN carriers.
Well done. It's an important point you made about the number of ships. The two Yamatos would likely have fought all four Iowas, something most people don't mention.
In a straight up fight (fully armed and loaded, with no outside support) and if you include Shinano (provided she had never been sank, and yes, I know she's a CV not a BB), the 3 Yamato sisters could have likely anihilated the 4 Iowa sisters.
@@stanleyramsrud5204 I'd argue they'd have to face all 4 Iowas plus the 4 South Dakotas and 2 North Carolinas. (any other battleships would be too slow to keep up) Let's take this one step further. All 5 planned Yamato class battleships vs all 6 Iowa's, 4 South Dakotas, and 2 North Carolinas. Following this, all 5 Yamatos, 2 A-150's vs 6 Iowa, and 5 Montana.
It is easy to say that the Yamatos would beat the Iowas. But. Ship handling, random chance and the perverse nature of things permit many outcomes and many permutations in something as complicated and chaotic as naval combat between gigantic surface combatants. Th action or inaction of many different people and complicated equipment could give one or the other of the ships a major advantage. The weather or an inattentive Signalman could alter outcomes in totally unpredictable ways. If not for an incredible and totally unpredictable lucky shot, Hood and Bismarck may have pounded each other to scrap for six hours and both limped away dragging entrails. Hood and Bismatck were very comparable ships. The greatest strength of the Iowas are their tremendous speed. The Yamatos strength was armor and the biggest guns ever put on a battleship. Muhammad Ail versus George Foreman. Those ships needed to be fought differently to maximize the advantages of each design. Just like Ali and Foreman.
you also have to remember that Yamato class were designed to fight multiple battleships at once, compared to Iowa's more rounded design of escorting carriers and supporting roles.
Re: anti-aircraft defense, the U.S. 5-inch shells included the secret-at-the-time proximity fuse, which made them much more effective than anything the Japanese had.
That combined with the worthless 25mm AA gun really were the downfall of the Yamato. No use for ridiculous citadel armor if a couple of pesky planes with the combined build and operating cost of a Fletcher can drop the most expensive gunship ever put to sea.
The proximity fuse was a pipe dream at the time that the Iowas were laid down, and naval leaders of every major power underestimated the effect of burgeoning aircraft technology in 1937- and even in 1940.
The most expensive? The author of 'Warship Builders', Thomas Heinrich, writes that at $130 million a copy, the Iowa's were the most expensive 'platforms' of the Second World War. I have no idea what Yamato cost, comparatively. Would like to know. Thanks.
@@brianchapman3701 Given almost everything known about the Yamatos is pieced together from surviving documents after everything else was burned, it's hard to estimate. I say that because the Yamato was much larger by displacement, but also because the particularly expensive long-lead items like armor plate was procured in much thicker amounts and higher quantity, and the ships were built in much less efficient yards compared to the Iowas, who had the advantage of being built in perhaps the best naval yards in the world. I don't have a hard figure, I just reasoned it out based on what I understand of the ships and naval construction.
@@Hiiiiii74 I am in no position to argue cogently, I'm no more than an interested reader (and a civilian). With cited sources, author Heinrich includes a table of battleship costs per ton: North Carolina $2,200, Yamato $780. Assuming Iowa costs similar to North Carolina, 58k tons is $127.6 million, Yamato at 70k tons is $54.6 million. Much of the cost difference, iirc, Heinrich writes was because of engineering standards, equipment prices, and crew habitability. I much appreciate your comments and expertise, I'm learning so darn much on this site.
I love channels like you that don’t go all Fat Electrician style American bias and vastly overestimate the Iowa’s abilities and actually give Yamato a fair chance instead of just saying that she was trash because she wasn’t built in the USA
Very true and I would expect the ships would figure out who was shooting at who, along with whatever standing orders the task group commander had in place. In the case of Samar, it was just a back alley brawl with the US destroyers and the DE shooting at whatever was handy when they popped out of the squall, pop a couple of shots, and duck into the rain again.
imho The Iowas were significantly faster, as well as much of the battle group. In most scenarios the Iowas could choose the place and time of battle. Iowas had better fire control for a fluid battlefield, they would spend very little time waiting on a fire control solution. The big advantage, poor visibility. The Iowas owned the night, bad weather, smoke. All of the fast BBs had this advantage, we had 8 of them. Even the West Virginia was dangerous in a blind fight. Furthermore, the US fasties had outstanding damage control an compartmentalization. Iirc an account of the Musashi was listing as counter flooding took effect she rapidly rolled then capsized to the other side. Indicative of a massive internal slosh of flood water in huge engineering spaces.
The battle of the North Cape is a classic example of the impact of radar. If Scharnhorst had her radar operational during that engagement she would have given the Duke of York and her cruisers as much of a pounding as she received.
Small point, but we had 10 fast battleships. From my POV, the biggest difference is Yamato would not have been able to track long enough without considerable disruption to figure out what speed the Iowas were actually fighting at. Wouldn't be 30+ knots due to turning and jinking, but with that much horsepower, the acceleration would have been more than expected. All 3 USN classes of fast battleships could move out smartly.
@@hikerjoe3773 This difference is one of the main factors behind the KGVs being very well protected ships, I believe that they where even better protected than yamato....
'Iowa vs. Yamato: The Ultimate Gunnery Duel' by Norman Friedman and Thomas Hone, Proceedings, July 1983, pp. 122-123. The authors compare the two ships in several categories, including: 1 - Ranges, rates of fire, penetrating potentials of main guns; 2 - Accurate shooting; 3 - How well the armor would resist the shells of the other; 4 - the character of the commanders. Fascinating article. Yamato, they write, was vulnerable night and day because of inferior fire control (the Iowas could create smoke screens, Yamato could not). So much more here. If you have any interest in Iowa vs. Yamato, this article must be read.
Forgive me for saying this, but at first I didn’t like this channel so much. I kept coming back though because the topics were so interesting. I’ve really warmed up to it now though,and I especially like Ryan’s quirky humour. Thanks for all your hard work. I’d love to come and see the New Jersey if it were possible.
How about a comparison between the Nagato and the rebuilt West Virginia. The best WWI era pre-war battleships from each country. Even add Warspite/QE or Valiant as the best of the upgraded RN pre-war ships.
The fire control system of the Iowas was state of the art in the 1940s; however, the crews of the fast battleships had very little experience in using it. A good example of this inexperience can be seen in the performance of the Iowa and New Jersey during Operation Hailstone. Admiral Lee himself declined an offered opportunity from Admiral Mitscher for a night engagement with the Japanese in the run-up to the Battle of the Philippine Sea. His stated reason was that the possible advantage of radar was more than offset by the lack of effective communication and training in fleet tactics, especially at night. It's also worth noting that the resolution of the U.S. Navy's Mark 8 radar range keeper was such that it could only distinguish between two targets (assuming normal vessel separation) when the range dropped to approximately 32,000 yards. The biggest disadvantage of the Iowas was that they lacked effective armor protection to withstand hits from the Yamatos. The Iowas were one of only three classes (along with the North Carolinas and the King George Vs) of WW2 era battleships which did not meet the specifications of the "Balanced Armor" concept. That is, their armor protection was not approximately equal to the effectiveness of their own main battery. The immunity zone (the starting point for analysis of armor protection) of of the Iowa class against their own 16" .50 cal. gun was something on the order of just below 5,000 yards. By comparison, the immunity zone of the Yamato class was approximately 11,000 yards against her own 18.1" gun. Furthermore, the Japanese 18.1" gun had superior armor penetration characteristics as compared to the 16" .50 cal. gun.
The American 16''/50 with SHS actually had superior armor penetration at relevant combat ranges, as the high weight/diameter ratio meant they held their velocity and penetration longer through the air. Yamato's guns held higher penetration point blank, but the 16''/50 had better penetration anything from 20km and out.
@@kuwanger12 Yes, you have a point, and my last sentence should be modified. At 20,000 yards, the 16" with the mark 8 shell did have a slight edge in belt armor penetration. At 32,000 yards, the 18.1' has a very slight edge in belt armor penetration but slightly less deck armor penetration. The difference is extremely minimal, and doesn't change the fact that the Iowa's were at a distinct disadvantage "in good visibility conditions", particularly because they lacked effective armor protection against the 18.1" gun.
From many videos I have watched and article read, the main difference is that the USN and RN could keep a relatively high rate of accurate fire going for a much longer period of time, compared to the Kreigsmarine and IJN, due to a far more automated fire control and training process. Graf Spee and Scharnhorst seemed to keep up effective fire longer than any other axis ship, any navy, but even they were pretty much overwhelmed due to having too many targets to deal with. Most of the other gun battles tended to be short and ugly for the loser.
Fair to say the battleships of every navy took a fair amount of combat time to get fully up to speed and competent. For the allies, the amphibious assaults and supporting shore bombardment gave them plenty of opportunities to get the kinks out of loading and aiming processes.
Shaped charge munitions seem to work quite well for tank & antitank weapons - how practical would they be for ship vs ship combat? How about shaped charge torpedoes, too?
I think Yamato has the slight advantage when it comes to ship v ship in clear weather. Iowa will have a notable advantage if visibility was poor however. And yea Iowa class is the more efficient design per displacement at least.
I am a U. S. Navy veteran. As a rather advanced student of naval history, and of ships and ship types; having read Norman Friedman's excellent book U. S. Battleships , A Design History (I actually OWN his whole series on U. S. ships), as well as many other works on the subject, I believe that in a one on one fight, the Iowa, while able to run away and avoid destruction, would not be able to take on the Yamato in a slug fest. If she tried to get within range to attack Yamato with her 16 inch battery, Yamato would have torn her up, and sunk her. It is a good thing the U. S. learned to rely on their aircraft carriers as their front line of attack.
If you would, please read Friedman's and Hone's article in the July 1983 Proceedings, 'Iowa vs. Yamato: The Ultimate Gunnery Duel'. As a landlubber, I am interested in what those with experience think about certain analyses. Thanks.
@@metaknight115 this would have been an initial plan by any Iowa group (without carrier(s)). But the Navy would not leave an Iowa group alone for long, and (presumably) the US Navy "reinforcements" would find an intercept angle that would take out Yamato.
This superior channel is very insightful for helping people better understand how the two world wars were fought. I am grateful that the IJN poured money into the Yamato class rather than build more carriers.
One of the limiting factors in the size of the Iowas is the need for them to fit through the Panama Canal. This is why the New Jersey is longer and narrower than the Yamato. The Japanese had no need to go through the Canal. The problem for the Yamato and the Musashi is, of course, they were vulnerable to being reduced to scrap metal by large numbers of dive bombers and torpedo bombers. As it was, Taffy 3 was able to hold off Kurita's Centerforce of 4 battleships, including Yamato, and 6 heavy cruisers until Halsey and McCain's carrier fleets could come to the rescue. With those forces on the way, Kurita decided against sacrificing his men for no further gain.
I have read that Halsey sent Iowa and New Jersey on ahead of the of carriers. In Friedman's and Hone's Iowa vs. Yamato article in Proceedings, July 1983, the authors state it was a narrow thing the Iowa's did not get there in time.
One little criticism: there's a shot of the USN twin 3-inch mount during the discussion of the Iowa Class's WWII armament. This mount was not used on the Iowas during WWII.
the "original" plan to take on the Yamato was the ship on ship counter-not the aircraft that did take on the Yamato - the plan included the New Jersey , the Wisconsin and the Missouri - along with I think two of the US Navy's South Dakota class battleships and for sure an couple of US Fletcher class destroyers with the other allied battleships. I am just theorizing the reason for the use of an couple of US Fletcher class destroyers in this "matchup" was probably that use of US Fletcher class's torpedos would keep the Yamato "off balance" from being able to take shot with the 18 inch naval guns while the New Jersey, the Missouri, the Wisconsin , the couple US South Dakota battleships take shots with the 16 inch guns at range. Plus the New Jersey, the Iowa, the Missouri, and the Wisconsin could maneuver better than the Yamato. Plus with the Iowa's speed mean that they could dictate the battle. Each ship has two "non-defensive" weapons 1) is speed and 2) being able to maneuver
The Tribals showed against Bismarck just how invaluable a few good destroyers could be at trolling while the battle line was getting ready for the take down.
Why is the difference between standard and full displacement so much larger for the new jersey (12500 tons vs 5000 tons)? Most of it is probably fuel, but does that explain the entire difference?
Standard displacement is an arbitrary description decided by the Washington naval treaty to give parity to littoral navies and ocean going navies. It doesn't count most provisions, boiler feed water or fuel. We will make a video about this in the future, stay tuned.
Ryan of the Battleship New Jersey- I would like to see a video to be made on the incomplete battleship USS Washington (BB-47) and how it compares to the Battleship USS New Jersey.
We did cover the Colorado Class to some extent here ua-cam.com/video/slDDeO335mU/v-deo.html But stay tuned this week, weve got a special episode that includes a few ships of this class.
The Washington would have just been another original configuration Colorado. Of the standards, my favorite of all is the rebuilt West Virginia, that was one nasty beast when it returned to the Pacific in '44. With the fire control, secondary an AA guns, more of a slow SoDak than a Colorado any longer.
The Yamato was built to fight a decisive all-out battle and the New Jersey was built to speed across the Pacific. Advantage Yamato in a slugfest. But the NJ could swing with the fast Essex carriers and protect them while the Yamato was left behind at Midway. Ironic that the Yamato ran up against Taffy 3 at Leyte Gulf instead of Halsey's force.
The Yamato class ship had an Achilles Heal, any explosive that hit the torpedo blister would pop its seams due to rushing the build and welders only tack weld the internal seams.... one hit and you popped a blister.... that’s why it did not take much for a sub to sink that Yamato class before it was finished and was doing some sea trials!!!
According to Japanese documents. They weren't experienced with making armor as thick at Yamato's (nobody was) and their technique for combining the armor plates wasn't ideal due to their technological inexperience with fusing such thick armor. Most of the armor was riveted to the hull with customized rivets and guns made specifically for the Yamato builds. This is documented in a book about the building of Musashi. The testing of the riveting process to get it through such a thick piece of armor and align correctly is also mentioned in detail in the same book. The method the Japanese at Kure chose when forming the armor was a compromise. Not being able to forge and weld full plates to the thickness required, they chose a laminate design. It seemed good on paper, but when exposed to severe concussion such as a near underwater miss, or hit somewhere else on the ship, the lamination would crack, allowing water to seep in without the actual armor failing as a whole. So from a superficial point of view, the armor's integrity looked sound, but in reality, the shock of a blast would allow water to leech through into the hull. The previously mentioned riveting of the plates to the hull was another weakness that became exposed during combat. The Japanese knew it was inferior to welding the entire hull, but as was said before, they lacked the ability at the time of construction to do it with such thick pieces. All armor plates were made at Kure and were either used their for the construction of Yamato or sailed to Nagasaki for Musashi and Yokosuka for Shinano. The 4th hull construction for Sasebo was cancelled.
The watertight compartment integrity wasn't completed on Shinano when she went to sea to be moved to Kure. The lack of watertight compartments and a skeleton crew manned more by engineers and civilian construction workers more than naval personnel was the main contributing factor to Shinano's demise. Compare this to the 14 torpedo hits it took to sink Yamato, and it was only when she listed her soft unarmored belly out of the water that 2 torps found their way in and got her forward magazine. Musashi also took multiple torpedo hits with only a slow drop in speed before finally taking on so much water at the bow that she couldn't make headway. According to members on Yamato, it was the counter-flooding system that failed the ship due to the archaic design of a lateral bulkhead running the entire length of the ship. The bulkhead (and focus of damage to one side of the ship) kept the counter flooding system from being able to keep up with the water intake. The heavy list was caused by the pumps failing. The armor on both Yamato and Musashi held up to more punishment than any battleships in history with the amount of torpedo and bomb hits they took (direct or otherwise). The armor was flawed, but that's not what sunk the ships.
@@swordmonkey6635 Indeed. After the sinking of the Musashi (which was hit on both her port and starboard sides), the air attacks on the Yamato had learned from the Musashi experience and thus attacked the Yamato on only one side (to get her to flood & list and roll-over sooner).
Its depends on how good and well trained the crew are ie how fast they can load a 16 - 18.1 inch gun less than 30 seconds how fast they can solve problems like destroyed rudder or radar engine failures floodings in coming fire evasive manmovers and how good there aiming and hitting targets.
The hole in that armor plate was made by a shell which was fired from point blank range. That armor was from the faceplate of a main battery turret, and could not be penetrated at all from any realistic daylight combat range. The immunity zone for the faceplates of the Yamato class was something on the order of 34- 36,000 yards.
Ryan, One huge advantage the USN had over the Japanese that you did not mention was in damage control. Japanese and US Navy's damage control capabilities were roughly comparable at the beginning of the war. But the USN made a huge effort to learn from their early losses and improve the equipment and enhance the ability of their crews to fight fires and repair damage so that the ships could make it home and be repaired. By 1944/45, There was no comparison between the two navies. This huge advantage to mitigate damage should have been mentioned.
One of the main drawbacks of the Yamato and Musashi was that the Japanese, in spite of their ballyhooed "die for the emperor," were very reluctant to commit them to battle. Particularly after the Kirishima was sunk by the Washington....until it was too late.
It may be a bit off subject, but, in my opinion, the Washington vs Kirishima battle doesn't get nearly the notoriety it deserves. The loss of the Kirishima was nearly as big a blow to the Japanese as the Hood was to the British, and severely rattled the Japanese High Command.
@@seventhson27 I think the biggest shock was that the Washington, a relatively unknown class of ship at the time, tore Kirishima to pieces in a matter of minutes. Would have been even worse, but Adm. Lee had to protect the SoDak and see if they could recover some of the destroyer crews. Based on IJN reports, confirmed by the actual survey of the wreck, 20 of 76 main gun rounds hit, and somewhere between 20-30 5" shells hit the superstructure. 26% hit rate, even considering the very short range, had to be a terrible shock to the IJN. Pretty much every salvo getting solid and disabling hits.
The Japanese were obsessed with the idea of one final naval battle that would turn the tide of the war ever since the battle of Tsushima, and were reserving Yamato and Musashi for it.
@@timclaus8313 Kirishima, despite being labeled as a fast battleship, was still nothing more than a battlecruiser, only armed with an 8 inches of belt armor, no where near equipped to resist with her own 14 inch guns, let alone Washington’s 16 inch guns
It's not fairly comparable Yamato had better protection and better secondaries. Shell weight's AP 18 inch shell 1460kg 16 inch super heavy shell 1225kg 235kg difference talking the weight of another 9-10 inch shell on top. HE shell weight's 18 inch shell 1360kg 16 inch shell 862kg 498kg difference talking another 12-13 inch shell on top and Yamato's 18 inch shell weren't even the heaviest 18 inch shell made
Yamato was a 45 caliber weapon. Still, the comparatively heavy shell of Iowa and Yamato stacking 134 more pounds of gunpowder in each barrel allowed Yamato to fire her shells at a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet (792 meters) per second, vs Iowa’s muzzle velocity of 2,500 feet (762 meters) per second.
Cue the entrance of "Space Battleship Yamato"/"Uchuu Senkan Yamato" in an anime' series by that name, a.k.a. the "Argo" in the cartoon "Star Blazers" which was edited and re-named for the western television markets.
I’ve watched a few of these comparison videos by this channel between the Iowa’s and other classes of battleship and the Iowa’s “win” every time. So I sought out this video to see how the Yamato’s were compared against the Iowa’s. I sense that whilst in other videos where the Iowa’s have an advantage, say in weight of firepower or armour thickness, this advantage will be very important. However, in this video it seems these aspects of a battleship design turn out to be not so important and other aspects, that the Iowa’s are superior in, become more important. My reading of the battleship design process was that the key elements were: firepower, armour protection and speed. Whilst other areas must not be neglected a ship that was superior in each of these key aspects would be regarded as the superior ship. Just saying for a friend who isn’t from the USA. Otherwise keep up the good work as I’m enjoying the output of this channel.
New Jersey was not a treaty battleship. The reason for the disparity in size is that the beam of New Jersey needed to transit the Panama canal. The North Carolina class was originally intended to have 14" guns but was escalated to 16"
The 5 knot speed advantage and narrower beam should give the NJ a significant advantage in maneuver and choice of where and when to fight, that plus having more fuel and radar, which would be a "live map" advantage giving the NJ options outside of the range of Yamato's guns. The NJ could play for time knowing the Yamato couldn't follow without exhausting it's fuel. Yamato also had to watch out for submarines which the NJ didn't have to, if she ran out of fuel she'd be a "sitting duck" for a sub, which must have occurred to her captain. These must have been weighing on his mind, they'd limit his options which would've made planning extremely difficult at at time when the options available to the Japanese fleet were diminishing, to say the least, and that doesn't take into account that in the final action they were being sent on was a suicidal mission. But even if this wasn't the case the speed and radar advantages would've given the NJ choices of time and place that the Yamato didn't have. Aerial surveillance was another thing the Yamato didn't have. The only hope the Yamato had was to lure the NJ into a "Jutland" scenario where they could slug it out and that wasn't likely. The only captain who'd do that is one whose options are exhausted, and that doesn't describe the captain of the NJ. His job was to win the fight without taking any more casualties than were necessary to accomplish the task, which was the basis of the attack that sank the Yamato.
I have a few corrections. New Jersey's narrower beam gives her less maneuverability, and New Jersey would not have simply been able of fire out of Yamato's effective range. Yamato literally carried 7 sea planes for arial surveillance, and those two catapults on her stern should have showed you that
DK Brown, who was involved in designing British warships said that he thought that the KGV would have had a good chance against the Yamato. Whether fire control was a big difference I do not know.
I read somewhere that the bismark would have almost certainly lost its first shooting match if the Prince of Wales had lead the hood into battle. The Prince of Wales was significantly better protected than anything else around with sub par guns (new and untested) where as Hood had very good guns but poor armour. It wouldn't have taken Hood long to reduce the bismark to scrap if she wasn't being countered by the bismark.
@@metaknight115 US testing of Japanese armour as used on Yamato found it to be very brittle. The 14" shell was a modern design that would have dealt with it. Also, throughout the war the Japanese displayed miserable longer range gunnery, one of the reasons for close night fighting. The British radar and fire control was immensely better, check the Scharnhorst engagement. The Royal Navy put great effort into night training from well before the war. The KGV was better protected than any other battleship, even the Yamato when Japanese armour was taken into account.
@@davewolfy2906 A) Yamato’s armor was the best ever made. I assume that you’re talking about the 26 inch armor from Shinano, that was worn down and in poor condition, with he 26 inch armor on Yamato and Musashi being stronger (even then, the Shinano 26 armor could only be penetrated from 400 feet away, so you can only imagine how powerful Yamato’s armor was) It’s estimated the the gun’s of the USS Iowa, far more powerful than KGV’s guns, could only penetrate Yamato’s belt within 15 Km, so Imagine how difficult it would have been for King George V to penetrate it. Finally, if Yamato’s armor was as brittle as you say, then surly, Yamato should not have taken anywhere near the amount of torpedoes she historically took before sinking. Yamato took 11-13 torpedoes, while her sistership Musashi took 19-20 torpedoes before sinking, the American 1000 pound bombs were completely usssleds, and bounced off the deck armor. If Yamato and Musashi’s armor was so brittle, they would not have taken the kind of punishment and survive for so long. Good job cherry picking your evidence. B) Yamato proved to be very good at a long ranges fight. From 19,000 yards, she hit the destroyer Johnston with several 18.1 and 6.1 shells, and damaged the escort carrier White Plains from 33,000 yards ( sources differ on whether this was a hit or damaging near miss. If the former is correct, and this is the longest ranged naval hit ever fired). Even then, Yamato held the speed advantage, as even though KGV had a slightly higher top speed by 0.54 knots, Yamato had a much higher cruising speed (16 knots vs 10 knots), meaning Yamato could reach higher speed about 6 knots faster, giving her the speed advantage.
@@winlee4884 Personally, I think that Yamato's best chance would be to take them both on at the same time. She would most likely loose if she targeted one ship and hopefully sank it before the other one could get damaging hits in, just ask the Kirishima how that strategy goes. Yamato could definitively sink one ship, and then sink the other. However, Yamato also might not be able to sink them intime to prevent them from getting into penetration range. In my opinion, the battle would depend entirely on luck.
I would be interested how much more weight the Japanese had spent in rivets compared with German and US ships. I guess the latter used a lot more modern welding techniques for the latest ships. But that's just a guess.
Thomas Heinrich, 'Warship Builders', discusses this topic. Being a landlubber, I was surprised at the weight savings and time arc welding offered. Iowa used both rivets and welding in its construction, iirc. Later Iowas had a higher percentage of welding?
@@brianchapman3701 As I recall, BB-65 had a higher percentage of hull welding than the earlier ships and BB-66 even higher still. BB-64 Wisconsin has a portion of BB-66's (Kentucky) bow and the difference in construction styles used between the Philadelphia Navy Yard (BB-64) and Norfolk Navy Yard (Kentucky) is clearly visible from the pier if you know what to look for. Shortly after Wisconsin was moved to the Maritime Museum wife and I went down there to check her out and I pointed the difference out to one of the new guides who had just been hired by the museum. "Dang! I hadn't noticed that, thanks!" I also mentioned that I had been out in the Persian Gulf near Wisconsin when she and sister Missouri were busy making life miserable for the Iraqi Army ashore, how single shots from the main guns would light the night sky like a thunderstorm. "Cool!"
@@robertf3479 Isn't Missouri several 100 tons heavier than her sisters? She was last completed, iirc, yet heavier. If this is so, do you what accounts for the weight difference? Thanks!
@@brianchapman3701 That's a question I can't answer, sorry. While I do know some things about these ships I am no where near being an expert. Just as a wild guess on my part I would suggest the weight might be rivets, or maybe a piece of equipment mounted in MO that the others didn't get (it happens all the time, even with sisters from the same shipyard) or even a bit of reinforcement for a perceived weakness in the hull. Like I said, a wild guess. My first ship, USS Caron (DD 970) was a member of the 31 ship Spruance class. All 31 were built by the same yard in Pascagoula MS, but even during construction changes were made along the way as experience was gained. The final ship in the class, Hayler (DD 997) was different in her engineering and electronics fit from the first ship, Spruance (DD 963) due to experience gained both in construction and operations. There is also the reality that changes to ships are made over the course of their operational life, some major like new weapons systems replacing old or additions made to and pieces removed from superstructure and hull. Not all ships in that class may get those changes. When my old girlfriend Caron was retired after 25 years of service, she had gained weight ... from 7800 tons to about 8000 or so from changes made.
They should have limited weight of broadside instead of gun size. So if we needed to we could build a 18"gun ship in super firing turetsin the front of the ship. She could have a 6 inch secondary battery after.
The choice of names in the class is interesting. Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois and Kentucky are all contiguous, with New Jersey being the outlier. I wonder why?
One rarely discussed aspect of the sinking of the Japanese battleship your motto is that Navy pilots reported a massive explosion aboard the ship while it was listing and heading under. The argument has been made that sailors may have purposely detonated the ships magazines as a way of committing ritual suicide. It makes sense to me because I’d rather go out instantly in a massive explosion then drowned to death.
Yeah, but wasn't there hundreds of U.S. attack aircraft swarming over Yamato? Suicide, or devastating destruction from U.S. air power. If not one, then the other. The result was inevitable, so the means maybe isn't so important? I have read U.S. pilots were so eager to strike Yamato that the attack devolved into a 'pack of wolves' attempting to get ripping bites out of the 'animal'. When Yamato exploded in what almost looked nuclear, a number of U.S. aircraft were obliterated in the blast. So damn sad. nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/explosion-japanese-battleship-yamato-was-epic-118646
I suspect the blast was for the same reason as HMS Barnham, the ship is only designed to be upright and once it keels over X degrees main battery shells start falling out their racks and bouncing around, add in the numerous fires and it was not long for this world.
The Iowas I think would have won the day because they wouldn’t have done a Kamikazi run. We would have pushed a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage which we had the opportunity vs having the 1 bigger ship. There is my 2 cents. Helluva ship though.
Fire control is the great equalizer. New Jersey with her stable element could both maneuver and fire simultaneously with a good solution. Yamato lacked this feature. NJ would score more hits, particularly at long range.
I'm not trying to rain on the Iowas (they were much more valuable as fleet units than the Yamatos), but the historical record shows that none of them ever scored a confirmed hit on any warship of destroyer size or larger. Lack of periodic gunnery practice by the Iowa class was one reason for this. Another was shell dispersion, which was marked on the Iowas during the war (over half again as much as that of the Yamato class). Yamato on the other hand, scored three first- salvo 18" hits on U.S.S. Johnston at just over 20,000 yards range, and dropped two 18" shells right alongside U.S.S. White Plains at just over 34,000 yards range- one of which exploded and knocked White Plains out of front- line service for the rest of the war. The Japanese used a radar- assisted gunnery system which was only slightly inferior to the U.S. Navy's fire control radar system based on the Mark 8. Cheers...
Fire control is simply the ability to tell the guns where to aim and has nothing to do with the accuracy of the guns themselves. Yamato was more accurate than Iowa, with a shell dispersion of 440-550 yards at 46,000 yards vs Iowa’s shell dispersion of 600-800 yards at 41,500 yards.
Bismarck and Tirpitz would not have done well against the USS New Jersey or any other Iowa-class BB. Bismarck's protection scheme did not hold up well when hit by the 16-inch guns of HMS Rodney and New Jersey's guns were even harder-hitting. ua-cam.com/video/VGaGBImx62A/v-deo.html
@@thunderK5 From what I have read bismark had very very good long range accuracy. Unless bismark managed to get lucky (like bismark got lucky against the Hood) I dont think the bismark would have lasted more than 10 min against any of the 16 inch armed US battle ships. The modern 16 inch guns where just so powerful.
I was intrigued when one of Iowa's first assignments post-commissioning (on Washington's birthday in 1943) was the Tirpitz watch. In the accounts I have read, there is no mention that Tirpitz is Bismarck's sister ship. Iowa, in some estimations, is easily superior to the Bismarcks. Here's a Naval Legends link, see mark 6:06. ua-cam.com/video/sv1RTFzJuYM/v-deo.html
.....they were Mogami’s turrets. Mogami’s 6.1 inch turrets were removed when Mogami was being rearmed with 7.9 inch guns, and placed on Yamato and Musashi
This comparison of the Yamato and Iowa classes is somewhat misleading, because it suggests that the two vessels were contemporaries of one another- and they were not. The U.S. contemporary of the Yamato class was the North Carolina class, with the two vessels being laid down just one week apart. The Iowa class were two classes apart from the Yamato class, and the first of them was laid down two and a half years after Yamato. The reasons why these two classes are compared are that each was the most powerful battleship of their nation- but also because it's clear how the North Carolina's measure up to the Yamatos. In fact, the Iowas were originally designed to counter the Japanese Kongo class fast battleships.
Hi ManilaJohn. It's amazing to me just how well the Japanese succeeded in keeping Yamato's very existence a secret for as long as they did. You're correct, the North Carolina was designed and laid down roughly at the same time as Yamato, but NC was designed to stay within the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty, Yamato clearly was not. NC got her 16"/45 caliber main armament instead of the intended 14" because of the clear danger presented by the heavier ships the Axis powers were laying down, as an answer of sorts to the 15" armed Bismarck class IIRC. The South Dakota class was designed from the outset to stay within the same naval treaties with the permitted rise to a 16" main gun, but still with NO IDEA of the monsters Japan was building. I have to wonder what the Allies would have designed and built if they knew of the existence of the Yamato as she was building. A jump from South Dakota directly to a Montana type perhaps? An 18" gun Montana with either dual or TRIPLE turrets?
@@robertf3479 Well said. I think it very likely that had the Americans discovered details of the Yamatos before the war, they would have responded ASAP with a very comparable design of their own- and would have built four or more. Secrecy however, is part and parcel of military operations, and the Japanese pulled off a coup by maintaining it with regard to the construction of the Yamatos. Not that it availed them much in the long run. Had an Iowa met a Yamato on more or less equal terms- and on a relatively clear day- in WW2, the Americans would have been in real trouble. The primary reasons for this are that: 1) the Yamatos had significantly greater armor protection over the Iowa class- which were little better protected than the South Dakota class. The additional displacement of the Iowas was devoted to speed, to enable them to catch and destroy the Kongos, and: 2) The crews of the American fast battleships had little main battery gunnery practice- primarily because they were acting as escorts for fast carrier task forces. In bad visibility conditions on the other hand, the Yamatos would have been in serious trouble, being unable to range in on target while at the same time being repeatedly straddled- and occasionally hit- by enemy salvoes. Which was the better overall fleet unit? On balance, I'd go with the Iowa class. But that's imho. Cheers.
@@manilajohn0182 From my own experience, out on the open sea you rarely have unlimited visibility, there is usually at least some haze close to the surface, especially in coastal waters. On a fun note, I witnessed Iowa sneak up on the John F Kennedy during a wargame off the Virginia Capes. Conditions were pea soup fog and my ship, destroyer Caron (DD 970) was part of the 'Orange Force' as was Iowa. 'Blue Force' (Kennedy and her group) sailed first from Norfolk and 'Orange' the next day. As soon as she was clear of the shipping channel Iowa took off into the fog at Flank Speed, her only electronic signals were from her COMMERCIAL navigation radars (same with the rest of us, 2 DDs and a cruiser.) Just before dark that day I was on the Bridge and spotted Iowa sneaking through a gap in the fog. Next morning Iowa broke radio and electronic silence, radiating her Navy surface search and fire control radars and announced "KENNEDY ... KENNEDY, this is 'Iowaovski,' a Kirov battlecruiser. I have you located less than 20 miles from me and have just simulated launching a full salvo of 'Shipwreck' missiles. I will now PRETEND to be a Yankee battleship." Iowa then fired her main battery (blank charges of course,) lighting up the sky. 'Orange force' is NEVER supposed to win in wargames against a carrier. After the judges (admirals) riding Kennedy stopped rolling on the deck laughing they reset the game. Captain Seaquist of Iowa was never a naval aviator nor (to my knowledge) ever served in a carrier.
@@robertf3479 That's a great story, and many thanks for sharing it. That was quite a coups sneaking up to a carrier, even in peacetime off of the U.S. coast. Audacity, cunning, and perhaps a tad of complacency... I served a hitch in the Corps back in the late 70s, and did 2-3 'Bold Shield' exercises in the Caribbean. You'll get no argument from me regarding visibility in the Atlantic, although I believe that visibility conditions in the Pacific are generally better. The Battle off of Samar is a good example of that, with initial visibility at approximately 40,000 yards. That said, I certainly wouldn't expect hits on target from either Yamato or Iowa at that range. With New jersey straddling Nowaki at 39,000 yards OTOH, who knows?
@@robertf3479 Terrific stories, John and Robert, thank you much. Gotta ask about smokescreens. In the Friedman-Hone article to which I've been referring, it's stated Iowa could make smoke (and Yamato could not, according to the authors), obscuring Yamato's optical fire control. Would like to know more about smoke-making; why the Iowas could use this tactic and the Yamato could not. Thanks again.
Had Yamato been intercepted and brought into a surface battle on it’s way to Okinawa it would have been against multiple American battleships. Not a one on one
@@brianchapman3701 I don't know if it would have been eight BBs, but probably five at least with two Iowa class, two or three South Dakota and one North Carolina (NC herself I think.) As powerful as she was, Yamato would have been smothered by 16" fire. Her single escorting cruiser and destroyers would have been smothered by Baltimore, Cleveland and Brooklyn class cruisers as well as a buttload of Gearing, Sumner and Fletcher class destroyers. There wasn't a surface warship commander who wouldn't want to get in on that action if he could, a final last hoorah for the surface Navy. I venture to say that the cruisers and destroyers alone would have been more than enough to kill Yamato and her supporting group. ADM Spruance reportedly was actually considering dispatching the battlewagons and escorts, making it a surface action until his carrier commander, ADM Mitcher informed him that his tactical deputy, ADM Arleigh Burke had a massive air assault already launching, armed for a sea fight, and requested permission to proceed. "Go ahead." "Overkill is underrated" - COL John "Hannibal" Smith
@@robertf3479 Naturally you are correct but what is the point of comparing designs between nations if you just throw in US Industrial power and numbers. That determines every comparison of this kind in US favour.
@@andersreinholdsson9609 But that is the fact of life. The IJN would have been better off with smaller ships in greater numbers that they would have been willing to commit, and able to fuel. The IJN made the same mistake, though not quite to the same extent, as Germany, going for the big splash instead of enough ships to get the job done.
@@timclaus8313 If you feel that you are being outclassed it is a well known method to use superior quality/asymmetric response. If you are down in personell, oil etc it might also be cheaper to run a Yamato vs 2 smaller ships. They have always strived for the best ships in Japan. F.e. they bought the British battleships which were the largest around 1900 instead of second-tier smaller ships.
The Yamato only has about 152,000 shp to the Iowa's 212,000 shp, despite the former being 45% heavier in displacement and a much wider ship. As a matter of fact, the 65,000 ton Yamato has the same installed power as a 8,500 tons Mogami Class cruiser. It is amazing that it actually makes 27 knots!
@@ThatZenoGuy Well, she never did... At Leyte Gulf, she was slowed by the Nagato and other slower ships so everyone can stay in formation. By the time they got to the landing site, she had taken on water from air attacks the day prior and was quite a bit slower. In any case, they fired a few shells then turned tail and bugged out. -- Given how the war turned out -- with the massive kamikaze efforts later on and the final suicide run of the Yamato to Okinawa -- Kurita Takeo would probably have done more good for Japan if the Center Force had fought to the last ship and the last round then rammed US vessels with every ship they had instead of trying to preserve what's left of the IJN. There would be no opportunity and no fuel to use whatever survived later on. Nagato ended up sitting at her moorings waiting for the war to end, Yamato didn't even make it halfway to Okinawa, while all the Mogami and Kongo ended up sunk piece meal while accomplishing nothing.
@@ThatZenoGuy UNLIKELY... When the Ten-Go flotilla left the inland sea through the Bungo Straits she was documented as going 22 knots. The formation took ~14 hour 30 mins to cover the 266 nautical mile distance from Bungo Straits to her final resting place along the well documented path. This indicates an average speed of 18.3 knots. No doubt due to zig zagging and due to other evasive maneuvers while under attack. -- Fuel Consumption increases exponentially with speed. It is known that the Yamato never had the fuel to return to Japan on her last sortie and it was all the fuel oil the IJN had left. Perhaps, she did not have enough fuel to reach Okinawa at flank speed. Going about 4~5 knots slower would have reduced the fuel consumption by about two-thirds. (Eg. The battleship Fuso could make 23 knots on 40,000 shp but it took the South Dakota Class BBs of similar displacement and length 130,000 shp to go 27.5 knots.)
One thing wrong with most people who compare American warships to Japanese warships, that being no one has even what would come close to a full working plan to either Yamato or her sistership, as much of both ships are left to guess work.
I haven't watched yet but I'll say this. Yamato gunnery in the battle of Leyte Gulf straddled a destroyer at about 28 or 29 thousand yards first salvo and likely hit right through an escort carrier at similar range. So while the Japanese fire direction might have been primitive compared to the US it doesn't matter... it worked. In a long range pounding match the Yamato would have been just as accurate as Iowa. I know people find it hard to believe because they'll immediately say no Iowa was far more sophisticated and therefore accurate but while it is more sophisticated how is it more accurate if Yamato is also hitting the target just the same? Yamato is not as sophisticated, but in long range action in historical record it was just as accurate in it's gunfire. In a slogging match heavier shells striking less armor eventually beats lighter shells hitting thicker armor. Yamato would have been hurt but would have won. Now to watch the video. :)
You assume 'Yamato is also hitting th target just the same?' Would not some of us here question this statement? Authors Friedman and Hone say an Iowa's fire control was far more accurate than not only Yamato, but IJN ships in general.
@@brianchapman3701 I don't know Dude! I reply this above too. Yamato already show her awesome gunnery skills with a green crew when she hit the Jeep Carrier USS White Plain(not Gambier Bay, people mixed this up) from over the Horizon with her Radar. Yes! i know the Jeep carrier are slow but she hit them when the Destroyers have put the smokescreen. She was also maneuvering from those Jeep Carrier planes. Here Yamato was using 6 guns Salvo, so only her front turret for shooting. Compare that to the 2 IOWAs shooting at a destroyer Nowaki(Kagerou Class) and not landing a single hits from both ship, . Granted both the Iowas were chasing the Destroyer. Here, Nowaki can't shot back so it's just the Iowas Shooting. Here, Iowas was using full salvos whereas New jersey was using 3 guns salvos alternating her turrets. Despite shooting less, Iowa shot more Ammo than new jersey
@@SkiperS77 Yamato hit White Plains and Gambier Bay from. White Plains got away, while Gambier Bay's flooding, caused by Yamato’s 18.11 inch shells, got too out of control and she sank. She also hit the destroyer Johnston six time in a single salvo from 20 miles
Something occurred to me today. Had Yamato and her crew not been thrown away uselessly, and survived to be surrendered to the Americans at the end of the war, how likely would it be that Yamato would still exist today? You've alluded to other steel-hulled warships preserved in America during World War II, and the Japanese obviously had preserved Mikasa previously.
Yamato would have been scrapped. The Mikasa was preserved as a memorial by the winning party of a war. The Yamato was the flagship of the loser. It might have had the opportunity to join Nagato at Bikini Atoll and be a dive site today, but it would not have been preserved.
The Philippines engagement against very small guns and 2nd level air crews with 0 experience, shows the armor only matters in a short long range Jutland type engagement. All the hits on the upper structures and guns probably disabled the ship and took out a lot of essential crew. In the heat of battle you can probably continue to function at a lower effectiveness, but the option of continuing on the next day into probably a worse exchange does not seem like a rational choice when you are not defending something.
The US ships off Samar were greatly aided by squalls and haze making it harder for the Japanese to identify the ships they were facing as destroyers and escort carriers. If Kurita's crews had switched from AP to HE rounds earlier in the engagement, it would have been much uglier, much quicker for the USN. As it was, most of the rounds fired just put big round holes through the US ships without exploding inside.
We did wargame several encounters between Yamato and other battleships one on one. The Iowa class pretty much rained hits on the Yamato before it could do any major damage. Against Tirpitz Yamato took a few hits, but ended up overwhelming Tirpitz, Vittorio Veneto was able to stay at range and avoided serious damage, but took one lucky hit and lost two turrets. Richelieu took a huge beating, but scored several good hits and knocked out one turret and cause a major fire in Yamato. Against Rodney lucky shots took out Yamato's fire control, radar and tower, which means Yamato fired blindly with little effect and Rodney could go in for the kill. The consensus was that is not the greatest at hitting something, but when it does, it usually will cause major damage. Other ships need either lucky hits or have a good firing solution to have any effect on Yamato.
Your bias that it won't hit anything would be built into your simulation so it means nothing. You seldom get into a fight with no context. Scharnhorst for example is weak on paper but if it suddenly appeared around the bend of a fjord against yamato at medium range then who knows what would happen.
@@LTPottenger Well these are one on one encounters in open sea without other ships involved. It's a neutral scenario to see how they face up to each other. In most scenarios Yamato was able to see off the enemy which is pretty much in the line of expectations. Against ships with good range or accurate fire control the raw firepower becomes less of an issue and accuracy takes over. You're right that in a scenario, where other ships and conditions would be involved things would be different, but this was a general test, not an absolute one.
I don't know Dude! Yamato already show her awesome gunnery skills with a green crew when she hit the Jeep Carrier USS White Plain(not Gambier Bay, people mixed this up) from over the Horizon with her Radar. Yes! i know the Jeep carrier are slow but she hit them when the Destroyers have put the smokescreen. She was also maneuvering from those Jeep Carrier planes. Here Yamato was using 6 guns Salvo, so only her front turret for shooting. Compare that to the 2 IOWAs shooting at a destroyer Nowaki(Kagerou Class) and not landing a single hits from both ship, . Granted both the Iowas were chasing the Destroyer. Here, Nowaki can't shot back so it's just the Iowas Shooting. Here, Iowas was using full salvos whereas New jersey was using 3 guns salvos alternating her turrets. Despite shooting less, Iowa shot more Ammo than new jersey
This is the battle Log of Samar. (Japanese Points of View) 0335: San Bernardino Strait. Force A exits the strait and proceeds eastward. 0400: Off Samar Island. Force A changes course due south towards Leyte Gulf. 0523: YAMATO's Type 13 radar picks up enemy aircraft. 0544: Enemy carriers sighted on the horizon, hull down, bearing 60 to port, range 23 miles. They are misidentified as six fleet carriers, escorted by three cruisers and two destroyers. 0545: YAMATO opens fire on enemy planes. 0558: Force A opens fire at escort carriers of "Taffy 3": USS ST. LO (CVE-63), WHITE PLAINS (CVE-66), KALININ BAY (CVE-68), FANSHAW BAY (CVE-70) (F), KITKUN BAY (CVE-71) and GAMBIER BAY (CVE-73). Carriers screened by destroyers USS HOEL (DD-533), JOHNSTON, (DD-557), HEERMANN (DD-532), destroyer escorts USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS (DE-413), DENNIS (DE-405), RAYMOND (DE-341) and JOHN C. BUTLER (DE-339). Both of YAMATO's forward turrets open fire at a distance of 20 miles. Of her six forward rifles only two are initially loaded with AP shells, the remainder with Type 3s. YAMATO's F1M2 "Pete" spotter plane confirms that the first salvo is a hit. The carrier starts to smoke. Three six-gun salvos are fired on the same target, then the fire is shifted to the next carrier. It is concealed immediately by a smoke screen made by the American destroyers. 0606: YAMATO continues on an easterly course, firing her 155-mm (6.1-inch) secondary guns. 0651: A charging "cruiser" emerges from behind the smoke. YAMATO engages her from a distance of more than 10 miles and scores a hit with the first salvo. The target is seen burning before it is lost sight of. At 0654, destroyer HEERMANN fires three torpedoes at HARUNA. The torpedoes miss HARUNA, but head toward YAMATO whose crew spots their tracks to starboard. YAMATO turns away to port, steams northward for 10 miles until the torpedoes run out of fuel. Although the maneuver avoids the torpedoes, it puts YAMATO and the Force's commander, Vice Admiral Kurita out of the battle. 0755-0910: Force A sinks GAMBIER BAY, HOEL, ROBERTS and the JOHNSTON. Kurita orders all ships to head north, but at 1020 he reverses course southward and again heads towards Leyte Gulf. 0910: Nine Mitsubishi A6M "Zeke" fighters led by Lt (Cdr posthumously) Seki Yukio of the 201st Naval Air Group's Shikishima-tai kamikaze squadron group fly over Kurita's fleet in search of the U.S. carriers.
Something you didn’t touch on was damage control. If Japanese DC was anything like the carriers all you might have to do is start fires by hitting them a couple times and let their ineptness finish them off. If they’re bunker oil it might take longer but the outcome would probably be the same, Imo.
Well, Yamato and Musashi took amazing amounts of damage before sinking, and the various torpedo hits from subs and hits from US subs and 1000-pound bombs were fixed up very quickly. I guess you have your answer. Even then, Japanese carrier Damage control was still pretty good, excluding Nagumo's dilemma and Taiho. Shokaku and Zuikaku often survived fair amounts of damage, with the latter taking 6 bombs and 7 torpedoes before sinking.
So bigger isn't better. Wow, news flash. However was to next generation (unbuilt) us battleship a better fighting platform? Knowing my luck, you probably already covered that.
I suspect the Yamato would have had a real problem hitting at range, she would rely too much on luck. While the Yamato would be unlikely to explode, however I suspect none of her armour made her immune hence would slowly lose effectiveness, in a one on one she may be able to get away, but out numbered I suspect she would end up a burning hulk and torpedoed.
Actually, its the Iowas which were under armored in a contest against the Yamatos- and significantly so. The Yamato had an immunity zone of approximately 15- 16,000 yards against the 16" .50 cal. gun, while the Iowas had only about a 5,000 yard immunity zone against the 18.1' gun. Generally speaking, the Iowas were in fact no better armored than the South Dakotas, with the extra displacement devoted to additional speed and the slight additional weight of armor distributed over a longer citadel. The resolution of the Mark 8 radar range keeper was such that it could not distinguish between two normally separated targets until the range dropped to about 32,000 yards- well inside the range of Yamato's main battery. Based on the information which they had available on the Yamatos, the Americans would have likely sought an engagement at approximately 22-24,000 yards- a range at which Yamato's citadel was immune and Iowa's was not. Much would have depended on weather conditions, crew training, leadership, and the number and type of escorts. All things being roughly equal, the Iowa's would have been at a distinct disadvantage in clear weather, with the situation reversed in poor visibility conditions.
@@SkiperS77 She also sunk the jeep carrier Gambier Bay, and hit the destroyer Johnston up to six times in a single salvo from the same, or a similar distance
Yamato: You're an overgrown battlecruiser bro New Jersey: Ma radar tho Yamato: My immunity zone is huge you have no immunity at any range. New Jersey: I'm so fast I'll get inside or outside your IZ Yamato: I'll be forced to kill you
Yamato carried an immunity to Iowa’s shells from 18,000-36,000 yards. 36,000 yards is well beyond any battleship’s ability to make hits, which would force Iowa within 18,000 yards for a belt penetration, and we saw what Yamato did to USS Johnston at ranges a good 2,000 yards farther.
@@tacotown4598 Mostly because Yamato, having mistook Johnston for a cruiser, fired AP shells which overpenetrated her hull without exploding. Still, as evidenced by her wreck Johnston still broke in two where an 18.1-inch shell landed later into the engagement.
1. The U.S. Navy's 2,700 lb. shell had a slightly better penetrative ability outside 20,000 yards. The 3,200 lb. shell of the Yamatos had a much greater bursting charge. 2. The quality of U.S. armor did exceed that of the Japanese, but not by any significant amount. U.S. Naval Proving Ground Reports evaluated Japanese heavy armor as slightly inferior to U.S. armor. Britain's Armor Technical Committee on the other hand, rated Japanese heavy armor as superior to all foreign armors. The difference in quality between U.S. and Japanese armor was minimal. 3. The rate of fire of the two vessels were almost identical; two seconds separated their rates of fire (Yamato 28, Iowa 30) at minimal elevation. There’s no known reason to believe that this would differ significantly in combat. 4. The U.S. Navy’s mark 8 radar range keeper was state of the art in 1943- 44. A limitation of the Mark 8 was that it could only distinguish between two targets with a standard combat separation when the range dropped to approximately 32- 33,000 yards. 5. The Japanese by this time were using a radar assisted fire control system based on the Type 22 Mod 4 radar. It was not equal to the Mark 8, although it was superior to any optical system available. The primary limitation of this system was that it was manpower intensive (as compared to the Mark 8) and thus more susceptible to inaccuracy due to crew fatigue or casualties. 6. No optical, radar assisted gunnery, or fire control radar- based gunnery system could compensate for shell dispersion. Shell dispersion rates of the two classes were an estimated 1.9% of range for a nine gun salvo from the Iowa class; 1.1% of range for the Yamato class. 7. Above 20,000 yards, the expected hit average ranged from 3- 6%. Neither radar- assisted gunnery nor fire control radar markedly improved this percentage. The U.S. Navy in this period regarded long range fire as in the 22,000 to 26,000 yard range. This is borne out by U.S.S. Massachusetts' Gunnery department Instructions and historical performance. 8. Below is the immunity zone (in yards) of each vessel's armor in selected areas against the other ship's main battery (with a 90 degree target aspect): Citadel: Iowa 6,800- Yamato 17,500; Control Tower: Iowa 5,800- Yamato 16,800; Barbettes: Iowa 5,800- Yamato 20,200; Turret Faceplate: Iowa 20,765- Yamato 36,800: Steering: Iowa 8,000- Yamato 14,300. 9. U.S. Naval Proving Ground reports described Yamato class main battery turret faceplates as impenetrable at any range by the 16" .50 cal. gun. These estimates were derived from a test on a 26" thick faceplate of a turret originally slated for Shinano prior to her conversion to an aircraft carrier. The faceplate was erected on supports with no mounting to simulate turret support, and with the faceplate perpendicular to the firing gun. The firing gun was 400 feet away from the faceplate. Two rounds were fired, with one being a partial penetration. The fact that the faceplate in its actual mounting was at a 45 degree angle was the basis for Naval Proving Ground estimates that it was impenetrable.
@@metaknight115 Yep, they were one of three classes built after the expiration of treaties which did not meet the "balanced armor" concept in capital ship design. Unlike Japan however, the United States never attempted to construct a "penultimate battleship". Had they gone all out to do so, they likely could have put to sea an 80,000 ton ship with 12 x 18" at approximately 30 knots- but that's just my opinion.
Thanks for the job: so many BB where scrapped after WW2 I think it's nice to preserve the 4 Iowas and the South Dakota class too 👍. Now the facts are : 18.1 inches Guns of yamato are able to pass 16 inches hull armor plating at 30 km and 8 inches deck. Iowa 16 inches Guns are able to pass trough 14.5 inches hull armor plating and 6.5 inches deck at the same range. Even if the Iowa is owing a better accuracy or damage control system he is not able to reach the amunition magazine of the jamanese 1 wich is already able to do it from long range. Soon or later Iowa may have suffered the same fate than the Hood against the Bismarck.
From that distance the Japanese would hardly be accurate. It's more likely the faster ship gets in range and then destroys the Yamato with its far faster and more accurate gun targeting. And never forget these Japanese ships (like pretty much ALL of their ships) were absolute crap at 1)redundant systems 2) Fire suppression. The New Jersey class would be far more likely to be able to fight through damage than the Yamato would.
Those stats are rather arbitrary if you do not quantify what type of armor plate, at what angle is penetrated, by what shell. For belt armor, for instance, Iowa used a belt over 12" thick of a more resistant type of armor than Yamato, which was protected by a 1" outer splinter layer of STS. This splinter layer was capable of decapping incoming shells, reducing their ability to penetrate the belt.
@@remo27 Yamato did hit several targets, and sink the escort carrier Gambier bay from a distance of 20 miles, so she is more than capable of brawling at long range
@@garyhill2740 Gary, Ryan himself who is probably the guy knowing the Iowa the best admitted the Yamato is able to pass trough the Iowa armor and the Iowa isn't...
@@remo27 Saying that japanese BB where bad is absolutely not realistic : the guy in the vidéo already said the the Nagato class was the best post ww1 BB... Now the US nationalist and Iowa lovers will say that their ships where better... but the very Best BB was japanese and he is on the bottom of the sea. ..
i get your point... Yamato was 1/3 greater but was only marginally better to Iowas... That sounds fair, but as fair as you can make this same argument about Nagato vs Iowas... they were close to twice as great, but wasn't 2x as good... and you can ALSO claim that same statement for any 16' vs 15' battleship (USN South Dakota vs HMS Queen Elizabeth) or WW1 16' vs 14' battleships (HMS Nelson vs USN New Mexico). If a battleship its from about the same era its very likely they will be somehow close. Yamatos were the exception, since they were built thinking about 2 steps ahead not just one. They were marginally better than Iowas, but they were better. a 3x Yamato force (only midway changed the fate of shinano) would have beaten a 4x Iowa Force... In my opinion the bulk of IJN battleship lineup with shinano ended as a battleship (3 Yamatos + 2 Nagatos + 2 Ise + 2 Fuso) was a pretty strong contender against the USNavy fast battleships lineup (4 Iowas, 4 South Dakotas and 2 North Carolinas). I'm excluding the standars since they would have missed the action in a battleship encounter against that specific force anyway due to speed restrictions (if not, the 3 Colorados would be enough to make things really onesided for USNavy anyway) BUT on the other hand 1 Yamato required as much resources as 2 Nagatos or 2 Shokaku CVs or as much as 6 light carriers. So i think ultimately Japan wasted valuable resources in ships harder to move. building 2 extra Nagatos and 2 Shokakus and 6 escort CVs would have helped secure the resources Japan planned
Deception for the purpose or protecting military secrets is something which every nation engages in. That being the case, it's pointless to take the avenue of moral opprobrium with the Japanese. Just sayin.
I always thought that the radar and targetting computer gave the Iowa class a huge advatage. They could fire over the horizon with a pretty good chance of hittingt on the first salvo. Whether or not they could do enough damage at that range might not make that feasible though. American spotter planes could be used to harass and shoot down Japananse planes in this scenario. Or, like most BB vs BB action during the Pacific war, it could take place at night. Crew would also make a difference. By 1945 the sailors on Yamoto weren't exactly top shelf swabbies. The good sailors were taken off of the ship as replacements for loses elsewhere. With both crews on equal terms, my heart says Big Mo wins (my Iowa of choice:-)...but my brains says it's a draw!
Yamato was no slouch in her gunnery, accounts remark at her tight shell groupings and at Samar, she got close straddle on USS White Plains on the third salvo, at 32 km. I mean, Iowa class had better fire control, but the way this advantage is protrayed almost makes it sound like it makes Yamato less likely to hit.
Authors Norman Friedman and Thomas Hone rate Iowa's radar fire control 10x superior to Yamato's. Iowa's shell penetrating power is similar to Yamato's, since the sectional density of a U.S. 16/50 shell is greater than an 18.1 IJN shell. In a daylight fight, Iowa, behind its ability to make a smoke screen (Yamato could not, I wonder why) would have its superior radar fire control to range on Yamato. And there's Adm. Charles Lee, an aggressive battleship warrior who was in command of Iowa at Surigao Straight. U.S. doctrine called for him to engage heavily at the greatest range possible. Yamato's commander, Adm. Takeo Kurita, was cautious, not venturesome. (Hope I've represented Friedman and Hone's analysis fairly.)
Radar can't "see" over the horizon. It's extremely unlikely that an Iowa would hit a Yamato at, say, 40,000 yards. The resolution of the Mark 8 radar range keeper could not distinguish between two targets sailing in a more-or-less standard formation at that range. They would appear as one blip on Iowa's radar.
@@brianchapman3701 If I understand it correctly, a Yamato and a Nagato would need to get within about 32,000 yards to appear as two blips on an Iowa's radar. That's very long range for non-radar range finding, but not impossible. While I'm not a "fan" of either vessel, I've never ceased to be amazed over the years at the inclination of posters to see the fire control radar of the Iowas almost as a "lock on target and fire" type of operation, when in actuality it was anything but, particularly because of the relative inexperience of the crews of the fast battleships in main battery practice. U.S. armor quality aside (it was minimally better than Japanese), the Iowas had a very small immunity zone even against the Japanese 18.1" gun- something on the order of 3-4,000 yards.
Everyone likes to compare the Yamato-class to the Iowa-class, but the reality was that it was the Yamato-class versus the Colorado, North Caroline, and South Dakota-class battleships, which it was more than a match for (nearly even in pairs). Once you pair both Yamato-class battleships up with Japan's Nagato-class, Ise-class, or lastly their Kongo-class, I believe Japan actually outmatches the American ships (it would still be a nasty affair). By the time the Iowa-class arrived on the scene, the Pacific War was practically incapable of being won. I've thoroughly enjoyed wargaming the Pacific Theater of Operations as Japan and while Japan could've put up a better fight than it did historically, I don't believe it could've ever won it without conquering America, which would've been next to impossible to accomplish.
I believe that Yamato would have realistically faced battleships on four occasions. The first would be if she was sent alongside Kirishima and Hiei in the battle of Guadalcanal. Following the three annihilating the cruiser force on the 13th, the 15th would be Yamato, Hiei, and Kirishima vs South Dakota and Washington. South Dakota would be quickly sunk by 18.1-inch shellfire and a few long lanced. Washington would be sunk as well, but not before inflicting severe damage on the IJN fleet, perhaps crippling or sinking Hiei or Kirishima, or heavily damaging Yamato. Yamato had three chances to engaged battleships at Leyte Gulf, with Musashi having one. If the pair, alongside Nagato, Kongo, and Haruna met West Virginia, California, and Tennesse, the US force would surly loose. The US had six battleships, but only three could be used effectively as neither their radar or optical systems were advanced. The IJN ship's radar was basic, but their optics were the best in the world. the three US battlewagons would get the first hit, but W1 era 14 and 16-inch guns would be insufficient to sink or even damage Yamato. If the ships, excluding Musashi had met TF-34 at Samar, they would loose. Yamato would initially fair good, but once the WW1 era battleships got picked off, Yamato would be overwhelmed and crippled or sunk. If Iowa and New Jersey made it to Samar before Kurita retreated, Iowa and New jersey were better than 3 of the 4 IJN battleships present, but were facing a 2v4 battle. If the Americans got lucky, they could win, but on paper, they would have been sent running off, with Yamato possibly sinking one of them. All of that is assuming carrier aircraft doesn't damage Yamato enough to send her running off.
The Japanese ships had trouble telling Destroyer Escorts from Capital ships, on a clear day. Given this Fact, and the odds of poor weather or a night engagement, late in the war, fire control of almost any U.S. BB, could be a winner.
Not exactly, they thought the escort carriers were fleet carriers, and by the size comparison the destroyers must be cruisers and the frigates must be destroyers. The fact that they could tell the size difference between a frigate, a destroyer, and an escort carrier at 35,000 yards is a testament to their optical systems. Even if they a bit confused, they got the spirit. During the same battle, USS Johnston claimed to have been hit by three 14-inch shells from the battlecruiser Kongo at 12,000 yards when Kongo was blinded by a rais squall at the far side of the engagement while Yamato claimed numerous hits on a US “cruiser” at 20,300 yards. Later, Hoel and Heerman claimed to have attacked a heavy cruiser squadron when their targets were actually the battlecruiser Haruna followed by the rest of the Japanese capital ships. Meanwhile, USS Gambier bay noted three heavy cruisers closing to point blank range when only the heavy cruiser Chikuma targeted Gambier Bay, who had switched fire to the destroyer Heerman when the fatal damage had been dealt by hits and near misses from Yamato’s main battery. Basically, the entire battle was a confusing mess on both sides.
If I remember correctly and please correct me if wrong. Dahlgrens evaluation of that armour was that it could not be penetrated by any naval gun at any range. The penetration shown was only after the plate had been hit multiple times and fractured.
I'll link the paper discussing the results of the USN's firing tests against Yamato's armor below. The 21'' turret face plate on the Yamato class gun was the heaviest armor ever mounted on a warship. In the Yamato turret armor test, the Iowa class gun (16''/50) shells were fired with no explosive charge and at much reduced powder charges, simulating a range of about 20-36 kilometers. The 15 kilometer ranged shell (muzzle velocity of 620 meters per second) went straight through the plate and sailed on for miles into the Potomac River. The 36 kilometer ranged shell (muzzle velocity of about 500 meters per second) lodged itself 21" into the plate, broke it in half, and caused showers of steel splinters to burst out the far side where the crew would be. It was concluded that a single hit at either range would effectively disable the turret. In neither case the shell was really damaged at all. Both Yamato and Iowa's guns could defeat the other's armor effectively. Getting hunk of steel the size of a small car thrown at you at Mach 2 doesn't do wonders for anything. www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955281.pdf
@@kuwanger12 The hole was created at point Black range at flat angle This were the Final comment of the Shinano armor test At about 40,000 yards, the U.S. Navy 16"/50 firing a 16" Mark 8 Mod 6 AP projectile (the later Mod 7 and Mod 8 designs were post-WWII, so I usually do not count them and they were no better ballistically, to my knowledge) will hit at about 45° downward angle and 1607 feet/second (489.8 m/sec). Just as with a point blank hit at 2500 feet/second (762 m/sec) and 45° obliquity, this hit too will barely hole the plate as the projectile is hitting at 0° (normal) obliquity, though not completely penetrate it. Any slight barrel wear will lower the muzzle and striking velocities and no holing will occur at these or any other ranges, as mentioned. However, this is so far above any real fighting range (even with radar it is hard to see the target due to the earth's curvature interfering, especially in any kind of imperfect seeing conditions) that I do not even consider it in my computations, while putting the gun barrel up to almost touching the enemy turret is also a pipe dream in real life! Thus, no holing or complete penetrations, ever, though possibly some cracking of the plate and possible jamming of the turret if the crack-off plate piece is dislodged badly enough. Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by any gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45°, as they were in the actual turrets!!! Even to completely hole the plate all the way through at that inclination requires a brand new 16"/50 Mark 7 or German 38cm SK C/34 gun at point-blank range firing the latest versions of their respective AP projectiles; it might be cracked at a lower striking velocity, but no hole put entirely through it! And they said guns had completely overmatched all armor - not so!!!
1v1 with noob tactics the Yama would win. Probably. Depending on who got the fire solution right quickest. 1v1 done right the Iowa should track with radar, stay out of range until nightfall, then use superior radar guided fire to mission kill the Yama, potentially closing in to finish her off once fire control etc damaged. Assuming enough ammo remains of course. Bismarck exhausted the Royal Navy supplies and still refused to sink quickly!
The German and Japanese Battleships we're true Battleships that actually engaged other Battleships. The Iowa's we're on the other hand expensive show pieces that did little more than shore bombardment and spent most of their lives in mothballs!
Only Kirishima and Yamashiro engaged enemy battleship. Musashi never came into contact with enemy surface vessels, while Yamato only engaged the small escort carriers, destroyers, and frig..I mean destroyer escorts during the battle of Samar, sinking the escort carrier Gambier Bay and the destroyer Johnston.
One thing I noticed was when you showed what you called the Catacombs of the New Jersey was that if any area of that space was hit & penatrated, it would flood the entire ship.
Why does that matter when Iowa would have sunk to what sank Yamato far easier. It’s like saying a one boxer is better than the other in a fight because the latter wrestler was shot and killed in an armed robbery.
@@595shakerI'm saying why brag one Iowa is better than Yamato because she didn't sink when she would have sank far easier if put in Yamato's position, no air cover and minimal escorts vs 386 carrier aircraft with thousands more well on the way.
@metaknight115 the emperor of Japan should have never sent Yamato on the suicide operation ten go. Japan was done after midway. Especially with the introduction of the f4f wildcat. Now Yamato is an aquarium. So many wasted lives on both sides.
Hi Ryan. I know I'm late but the UA-cam logarithm only just brought this up to me this morning. A single key factor limited the Japanese in building new ships, industrial capacity. She could not begin to match the industrial capacity and ship building capacity of either the U.S. or British Empire, even if they had the raw materials available (which they didn't.) Their thinking became "If we can't match them or beat them in numbers of hulls, we should build ships larger and more capable than anything we foresee them building." This thinking resulted in the laying down of the three Yamato class; Yamato herself, sisters Musashi and Shinano (converted under construction into an aircraft carrier.) Singly, the USN "Standard" battleships were totally outclassed though two together MIGHT have been able to engage and seriously damage one of these monsters at the cost of their loss. It should be noted that the U.S. had no real idea what Japan was planning when the Iowa class design was completed in 1939. The full stats of the Yamato class were not known until after the war, so the Montana class ships that were to follow the Iowa were designed with the best weapons then available rather than design new guns and delay those ships even further. There were USN designs for 18" guns, and IIRC even a very few built for testing but the 70,000 ton Montana class was to be built with 12 of the tried and trusted MK-7 16" firing the 2,700 lb "superheavy" AP round. The final Montana class was larger than Iowa, not capable of using the Panama Canal and slower with a designed flank speed of 27 knots, same as the North Carolina and South Dakota classes. Armor would have been thicker than Iowa's over key areas but NOT as thick as the Yamato class ships, torpedo protection better than Iowa. Compartmentation would have been at least comparable to the Iowa class. Would Montana have been able to go toe to toe with Yamato? I think so, she was designed knowing that the Japanese monster ships existed, with assumptions of armor and armament made even though the exact stats were not known. Even though the 18.1" rifle had a longer range under ideal conditions than the USN MK-7, these 'ideal' conditions necessary for optical rangefinders rarely exist on the open sea. Haze, fog and clouds interfere with optical systems as does smoke laid by a destroyer screen. Radar on the other hand ... Drachinifel pointed out these limitations and advantages in his videos on the Battle off Samar and a "what if" scenario where ADM Kurita was able to get through to the US invasion fleet with ADM Lee's "old" battleships between the Yamato group and the Philippine invasion fleet.
Robert, during the war how much did the United States understand about the size and danger of the Yamato's? Quite a lot, maybe, or not much until after the war? Thanks much.
@@brianchapman3701 As I understand it, intelligence on the Yamato class was lacking all throughout the war. The US knew about their existence but little else until Yamato was first sighted and photographed sometime after Pearl Harbor. From there assumptions and estimates could be made and those were refined with each subsequent sighting. The real breakthrough came during the Philippine campaign when Battle Damage assessments were made based on both submarine sightings by Dace and Darter of Kurita's Center Force and pilot action reports immediately after their attacks on Musashi. The 20 confirmed torpedo hits astounded Navy planners, the 500 and 1000 pound bomb hits were factored in as well as photos taken during and immediately after the action by U.S. pilots were very carefully assessed by photo intelligence analysts. By the time of the Battle of Leyte Gulf and Battle off Samar, the U.S. had already decided to either delay further or outright cancel the Montana class so the new information on the Yamato class was mainly factored into tactical thinking. Note that the torpedo plane attacks on Yamato were conducted using the information gleaned from the after action reports on the sinking of Musashi. ALL of the torpedo planes were to attack Yamato on one side rather than from around the compass, resulting in Yamato capsizing after fewer hits (9 IIRC.) One torpedo plane attacked and hit the starboard side of the ship while everyone else attacked from port. Montana might have been a match for Yamato or not, but we'll never know. She had lighter main guns firing lighter AP shells, but shipped more of them and while the US didn't know it at the time, the Japanese metallurgy had difficulty in providing the 18 and 20 inch thick armor plate properly hardened as needed by these giants. All bluster to the contrary I don't think a single Iowa could have taken her in a 1 on 1 duel though she could have seriously damaged the larger ship. It would take 2 or more of the Iowa, South Dakota or North Carolinas working together with no distractions to ensure a kill. The butcher's bill in return is something I don't like to think about. There are still things not fully known about the Yamato class, though minor I believe. The Japanese did a thorough job of destroying the designs and construction records of the three hulls after the surrender though some records thought destroyed turned up within the last few years.
The Japanese use of main battery guns against aircraft is actually reflected in the secondary battery being very tightly clustered amidships to avoid blast damage from the big guns. However, this resulted in a lot of deck space forward and aft with no AA guns as opposed to US battleships that installed AA guns from bow to stern. It does not seem that the Japanese were correct in this policy. Main Battery guns are not as effective as dedicated secondary AA guns against aircraft. So why did they go this way? It was not just a spot decision to use the main battery in any specific battle. The designers laid out the secondary AA battery arrangement specifically so the main battery could also be used against air attacks.
That clustering to reduce damage from the 18" gun blast applies to the light AA mounts, but not the 5" secondaries. Yamato was designed with a relatively short, compact citadel, making her vitals a harder target to hit. This required her secondaries to be packed closer together because her citadel (and superstructure) weren't as long as most other BBs, such as Iowa.
As to quote the curator in the response to another comment: "We have an entire video planned on the differences with armor, stay tuned. But in short, that did make a slight difference."
@@BattleshipNewJersey A shame indeed, I remember having once read some papers on armor quality and effectiveness comparisons, but an in-depth video on the topic made by you guys would be much more memorable.
Is my thinking exactly. Yamato was heavy and well armored, in theory. The fact is that Japanese steel is of very poor quality which is something the japanese have known about for hundreds of years, hence why Samurai swords are so complicated to make. In reality even thou Yamatos armor was thicker, I think in terms of actual armor protection it was on par with Iowas and Bismarck class ships.
@@bananabana6630 it’s proven in the historical records. They know what each side had technologically at some point after the war. We had access to all their schematics, crew, ship builders and designers.
God damn this channel is good. So entertaining. Few channels I can so easily binge watch.
I just had this channel pop up about a week ago. I love it. Been binge watching with any free time I have.
@@JovinRepairs You watch Drachinfel? Great naval history channel.
Outstanding detail Ryan. Yes, we now know that heavier, thicker armor and larger caliber guns can't offset superiority of speed, range, fire coordination & control etc.
7:30 - Also, Japan had plenty of island bases in the western Pacific where the Yamatos could've stopped off to refuel if necessary, while on the U.S. side of the ocean there's literally nowhere to put in from the West Coast until you reach Hawaii.
The Yamato's main battery used a 3,220lb AP shell, so not just "a couple of hundred" lbs heavier than a US Super Heavy mk8, but fully 520lbs heavier.
Mere nitpicking!
@@richardhall9815 ...ok, if you think a quarter of a ton is "nitpicking", fair enough.
Hey, I know! If you're an American, try it out on your doctor or dietician and see how they respond.😁
@@squirepraggerstope3591 Well, at least my battleship's shells will actually be hitting Yamato, rather than the other way around😎
@@richardhall9815You're making a big assumption. Yamato did straddle the Gambier Bay at over 30000 yards after all.
Iowa class 30 second reload to Yamatos 60 second reload.
Ryan, an interesting talk would be comparing the Yamato with the cancelled Montana class of battleships, I know all the gamers want to argue about which ship would win in a ship VS ship comparison, but I think a technical talk looking at armor, armament, speed, fire control and survivability aspects (compartmentation and damage control) would be interesting.
Ryan looked at the Montana class in an earlier video. It's excellent and may answer many of your questions. ua-cam.com/video/qtoLnOGMDSU/v-deo.html
Drachinifel also produced an excellent video talking about the Montana, its design history and includes a number of details that Ryan may not have been able to touch on. ua-cam.com/video/TOnD4H1CqzI/v-deo.html
The USS Montana Very possibly, almost certainly, the most famous warship never built.
@@daleeasternbrat816 I would say that the Tilmans, N3s, and A-150s Are also pretty famous battleships that were never built
If I were King, ...... I would build one of those or a Montana. Then I would abdicate. The ship I would recreate? Enterprise CV-6. OR A Wickes class destroyer.
It's awesome that you are on the ship, here is the range finder etc. Really appreciate what your doing for viewers and the ship itself
Dracinifel simulated the Battle of Samar, changing it so TF34 met the Centre Force in the San Bernardino Strait. Washington vs Haruna, Alabama vs Kongo, Iowa vs Nagato and New Jersey got the honor of slugging it out with Yamato until Iowa shifted fire to lend a hand. End of the battle left BB-62 in tatters but still afloat and Yamato with a magazine explosion.
That was a good sim. If it had happened as Drach played it out, Japan would have been without a navy a year sooner.
Or somehow Musashi joins in, Iowa vs Yamato and New Jersey vs Musashi.
Dude, it took 17 to 19 torpedoes, and several bomb hits to sink the Musashi. Plus the Yamota-class bad a 4 mile advantage in range on the 16 X 50 guns on the Iowa-class ships.
I dont think two Iowa-class ships could have defeated her alone. They'd have required a lot of help from carrier Aircraft.
When she was finally sunk, it wasn't a Battleship or any ship that sunk her.
It, like her sister, was 19 aircraft dropped torpedoes, and at least 9 to 11 bombs that sunk her.
@@unitedwestand5100 After the sinking the USN determined that part of the Musashi's resistance was torpedos were hitting her on both sides, essentially creating counter flooding. With Yamato, the concentrated on one side with the torpedos, didn't take as many. And at extreme range, any hit on a moving, maneuvering, battleship is as much luck as skill.
@@timclaus8313 ,. Its name was Yamato, the mightiest warship yet constructed. Displacing 71,659 tons and capable of 27 knots, the Yamato possessed the greatest firepower ever mounted on a vessel-more than 150 guns, including nine 18.1-inchers that could hurl 3,200-pound armor-piercing shells on a trajectory of 22.5 miles. Its massive armor was the heaviest ever installed on a dreadnought-class battleship, making it virtually impregnable to the guns of any ship in the world.
Another excellent fact packed tutorial by an obviously astute keeper of the flame! This episode answered many of my questions about “what if” had they met.It is amazing to me the man hours and resources that must have gone into ships of this caliber. I have always been in awe of these ships and have toured Iowa and Massachusetts.Keep up the good work.
Great analysis between the strongest battleship of the time vs the most modern. Thank you!
The speed of the Iowas is what always really impressed me about them. By todays standards, they are vry fast ships.
By '43 standards, they were rocket ships. More in line with the speed of destroyers and cruisers than with comparable battleships. Even the NCs and SoDaks were as fast as many of the IJN carriers.
When I was a kid the Navy vets remarked about the speed of these ships. HMS Hood came close in speed.
Same. Jean Bart And Scharnhorst got pretty close, though
Your opinion on a theoretical battle between Iowa and Bismarck early in the war. You have an excellent channel. Thank you!
Well done. It's an important point you made about the number of ships. The two Yamatos would likely have fought all four Iowas, something most people don't mention.
In a straight up fight (fully armed and loaded, with no outside support) and if you include Shinano (provided she had never been sank, and yes, I know she's a CV not a BB), the 3 Yamato sisters could have likely anihilated the 4 Iowa sisters.
@@stanleyramsrud5204
I'd argue they'd have to face all 4 Iowas plus the 4 South Dakotas and 2 North Carolinas. (any other battleships would be too slow to keep up)
Let's take this one step further.
All 5 planned Yamato class battleships vs all 6 Iowa's, 4 South Dakotas, and 2 North Carolinas.
Following this, all 5 Yamatos, 2 A-150's vs 6 Iowa, and 5 Montana.
It is easy to say that the Yamatos would beat the Iowas. But. Ship handling, random chance and the perverse nature of things permit many outcomes and many permutations in something as complicated and chaotic as naval combat between gigantic surface combatants. Th action or inaction of many different people and complicated equipment could give one or the other of the ships a major advantage. The weather or an inattentive Signalman could alter outcomes in totally unpredictable ways.
If not for an incredible and totally unpredictable lucky shot, Hood and Bismarck may have pounded each other to scrap for six hours and both limped away dragging entrails. Hood and Bismatck were very comparable ships. The greatest strength of the Iowas are their tremendous speed. The Yamatos strength was armor and the biggest guns ever put on a battleship. Muhammad Ail versus George Foreman. Those ships needed to be fought differently to maximize the advantages of each design. Just like Ali and Foreman.
you also have to remember that Yamato class were designed to fight multiple battleships at once, compared to Iowa's more rounded design of escorting carriers and supporting roles.
@@stanleyramsrud5204 not a chance. The Yamamotos would be dead before they even got into range.
Re: anti-aircraft defense, the U.S. 5-inch shells included the secret-at-the-time proximity fuse, which made them much more effective than anything the Japanese had.
That combined with the worthless 25mm AA gun really were the downfall of the Yamato. No use for ridiculous citadel armor if a couple of pesky planes with the combined build and operating cost of a Fletcher can drop the most expensive gunship ever put to sea.
The proximity fuse was a pipe dream at the time that the Iowas were laid down, and naval leaders of every major power underestimated the effect of burgeoning aircraft technology in 1937- and even in 1940.
The most expensive? The author of 'Warship Builders', Thomas Heinrich, writes that at $130 million a copy, the Iowa's were the most expensive 'platforms' of the Second World War. I have no idea what Yamato cost, comparatively. Would like to know. Thanks.
@@brianchapman3701 Given almost everything known about the Yamatos is pieced together from surviving documents after everything else was burned, it's hard to estimate. I say that because the Yamato was much larger by displacement, but also because the particularly expensive long-lead items like armor plate was procured in much thicker amounts and higher quantity, and the ships were built in much less efficient yards compared to the Iowas, who had the advantage of being built in perhaps the best naval yards in the world. I don't have a hard figure, I just reasoned it out based on what I understand of the ships and naval construction.
@@Hiiiiii74 I am in no position to argue cogently, I'm no more than an interested reader (and a civilian). With cited sources, author Heinrich includes a table of battleship costs per ton: North Carolina $2,200, Yamato $780.
Assuming Iowa costs similar to North Carolina, 58k tons is $127.6 million, Yamato at 70k tons is $54.6 million. Much of the cost difference, iirc, Heinrich writes was because of engineering standards, equipment prices, and crew habitability.
I much appreciate your comments and expertise, I'm learning so darn much on this site.
I do enjoy the comparison.the stats and details .also the doctrine .ty for educating me. WW2 is my new hobby interest
I love channels like you that don’t go all Fat Electrician style American bias and vastly overestimate the Iowa’s abilities and actually give Yamato a fair chance instead of just saying that she was trash because she wasn’t built in the USA
Very true and I would expect the ships would figure out who was shooting at who, along with whatever standing orders the task group commander had in place. In the case of Samar, it was just a back alley brawl with the US destroyers and the DE shooting at whatever was handy when they popped out of the squall, pop a couple of shots, and duck into the rain again.
imho The Iowas were significantly faster, as well as much of the battle group. In most scenarios the Iowas could choose the place and time of battle. Iowas had better fire control for a fluid battlefield, they would spend very little time waiting on a fire control solution. The big advantage, poor visibility. The Iowas owned the night, bad weather, smoke. All of the fast BBs had this advantage, we had 8 of them. Even the West Virginia was dangerous in a blind fight. Furthermore, the US fasties had outstanding damage control an compartmentalization. Iirc an account of the Musashi was listing as counter flooding took effect she rapidly rolled then capsized to the other side. Indicative of a massive internal slosh of flood water in huge engineering spaces.
The battle of the North Cape is a classic example of the impact of radar. If Scharnhorst had her radar operational during that engagement she would have given the Duke of York and her cruisers as much of a pounding as she received.
@@Jtretta >> She still would’ve gone down though. Don’t get me wrong they were impressive ships.
@@Jtretta Probably more the cruisers; unless taking out the fire control or radar with a lucky shot, the 11" German guns weren't going to hurt DoY.
Small point, but we had 10 fast battleships. From my POV, the biggest difference is Yamato would not have been able to track long enough without considerable disruption to figure out what speed the Iowas were actually fighting at. Wouldn't be 30+ knots due to turning and jinking, but with that much horsepower, the acceleration would have been more than expected. All 3 USN classes of fast battleships could move out smartly.
@@timclaus8313 Yes ty, I was thinkin we had only 2 South Dakotas
Interesting. Did metallurgy play a role in the different armour thicknesses?
We have an entire video planned on the differences with armor, stay tuned. But in short, that did make a slight difference.
"japanese armor was about .9 as effective as american class b or german wotton. british ducil was 1.1 more effective" -Ryan
@@BattleshipNewJersey Yes! Come on you Brits!
@@hikerjoe3773 This difference is one of the main factors behind the KGVs being very well protected ships, I believe that they where even better protected than yamato....
Indeed much 🙂 The japanese steel was older tech and a little more brittle.
'Iowa vs. Yamato: The Ultimate Gunnery Duel' by Norman Friedman and Thomas Hone, Proceedings, July 1983, pp. 122-123.
The authors compare the two ships in several categories, including: 1 - Ranges, rates of fire, penetrating potentials of main guns; 2 - Accurate shooting; 3 - How well the armor would resist the shells of the other; 4 - the character of the commanders. Fascinating article.
Yamato, they write, was vulnerable night and day because of inferior fire control (the Iowas could create smoke screens, Yamato could not). So much more here. If you have any interest in Iowa vs. Yamato, this article must be read.
Forgive me for saying this, but at first I didn’t like this channel so much. I kept coming back though because the topics were so interesting. I’ve really warmed up to it now though,and I especially like Ryan’s quirky humour. Thanks for all your hard work. I’d love to come and see the New Jersey if it were possible.
Sine you have compared New Jersey with both Hood and Yamato, a comparison with Nagato would be interesting.
How about a comparison between the Nagato and the rebuilt West Virginia. The best WWI era pre-war battleships from each country. Even add Warspite/QE or Valiant as the best of the upgraded RN pre-war ships.
The fire control system of the Iowas was state of the art in the 1940s; however, the crews of the fast battleships had very little experience in using it. A good example of this inexperience can be seen in the performance of the Iowa and New Jersey during Operation Hailstone. Admiral Lee himself declined an offered opportunity from Admiral Mitscher for a night engagement with the Japanese in the run-up to the Battle of the Philippine Sea. His stated reason was that the possible advantage of radar was more than offset by the lack of effective communication and training in fleet tactics, especially at night. It's also worth noting that the resolution of the U.S. Navy's Mark 8 radar range keeper was such that it could only distinguish between two targets (assuming normal vessel separation) when the range dropped to approximately 32,000 yards.
The biggest disadvantage of the Iowas was that they lacked effective armor protection to withstand hits from the Yamatos. The Iowas were one of only three classes (along with the North Carolinas and the King George Vs) of WW2 era battleships which did not meet the specifications of the "Balanced Armor" concept. That is, their armor protection was not approximately equal to the effectiveness of their own main battery. The immunity zone (the starting point for analysis of armor protection) of of the Iowa class against their own 16" .50 cal. gun was something on the order of just below 5,000 yards. By comparison, the immunity zone of the Yamato class was approximately 11,000 yards against her own 18.1" gun. Furthermore, the Japanese 18.1" gun had superior armor penetration characteristics as compared to the 16" .50 cal. gun.
Not immune to falling bombs and swimming torpedoes though.
The American 16''/50 with SHS actually had superior armor penetration at relevant combat ranges, as the high weight/diameter ratio meant they held their velocity and penetration longer through the air. Yamato's guns held higher penetration point blank, but the 16''/50 had better penetration anything from 20km and out.
@@kuwanger12 Yes, you have a point, and my last sentence should be modified. At 20,000 yards, the 16" with the mark 8 shell did have a slight edge in belt armor penetration. At 32,000 yards, the 18.1' has a very slight edge in belt armor penetration but slightly less deck armor penetration.
The difference is extremely minimal, and doesn't change the fact that the Iowa's were at a distinct disadvantage "in good visibility conditions", particularly because they lacked effective armor protection against the 18.1" gun.
From many videos I have watched and article read, the main difference is that the USN and RN could keep a relatively high rate of accurate fire going for a much longer period of time, compared to the Kreigsmarine and IJN, due to a far more automated fire control and training process. Graf Spee and Scharnhorst seemed to keep up effective fire longer than any other axis ship, any navy, but even they were pretty much overwhelmed due to having too many targets to deal with. Most of the other gun battles tended to be short and ugly for the loser.
Fair to say the battleships of every navy took a fair amount of combat time to get fully up to speed and competent. For the allies, the amphibious assaults and supporting shore bombardment gave them plenty of opportunities to get the kinks out of loading and aiming processes.
Shaped charge munitions seem to work quite well for tank & antitank weapons - how practical would they be for ship vs ship combat? How about shaped charge torpedoes, too?
I think Yamato has the slight advantage when it comes to ship v ship in clear weather. Iowa will have a notable advantage if visibility was poor however. And yea Iowa class is the more efficient design per displacement at least.
I can agree
Yamato>>>Iowa Day battle with decent weather.
Yamato>Iowa Night battle with decent weather
Yamato
I am a U. S. Navy veteran. As a rather advanced student of naval history, and of ships and ship types; having read Norman Friedman's excellent book U. S. Battleships , A Design History (I actually OWN his whole series on U. S. ships), as well as many other works on the subject, I believe that in a one on one fight, the Iowa, while able to run away and avoid destruction, would not be able to take on the Yamato in a slug fest. If she tried to get within range to attack Yamato with her 16 inch battery, Yamato would have torn her up, and sunk her. It is a good thing the U. S. learned to rely on their aircraft carriers as their front line of attack.
If you would, please read Friedman's and Hone's article in the July 1983 Proceedings, 'Iowa vs. Yamato: The Ultimate Gunnery Duel'. As a landlubber, I am interested in what those with experience think about certain analyses. Thanks.
@@brianchapman3701 Please post a link, I am unable to find this article online.
@@powellmountainmike8853 I have a hard copy only. Please send me a note at: ttscaleco@gmail.com
Iowa’s best chance at victory was to stay away at far range and hope Yamato did not get a lucky shot.
@@metaknight115 this would have been an initial plan by any Iowa group (without carrier(s)). But the Navy would not leave an Iowa group alone for long, and (presumably) the US Navy "reinforcements" would find an intercept angle that would take out Yamato.
This superior channel is very insightful for helping people better understand how the two world wars were fought. I am grateful that the IJN poured money into the Yamato class rather than build more carriers.
One of the limiting factors in the size of the Iowas is the need for them to fit through the Panama Canal. This is why the New Jersey is longer and narrower than the Yamato. The Japanese had no need to go through the Canal. The problem for the Yamato and the Musashi is, of course, they were vulnerable to being reduced to scrap metal by large numbers of dive bombers and torpedo bombers. As it was, Taffy 3 was able to hold off Kurita's Centerforce of 4 battleships, including Yamato, and 6 heavy cruisers until Halsey and McCain's carrier fleets could come to the rescue. With those forces on the way, Kurita decided against sacrificing his men for no further gain.
I have a terrific photo of Iowa transiting the Canal, bow on. No way to post photos here, corrrect?
I have read that Halsey sent Iowa and New Jersey on ahead of the of carriers. In Friedman's and Hone's Iowa vs. Yamato article in Proceedings, July 1983, the authors state it was a narrow thing the Iowa's did not get there in time.
One little criticism: there's a shot of the USN twin 3-inch mount during the discussion of the Iowa Class's WWII armament. This mount was not used on the Iowas during WWII.
the "original" plan to take on the Yamato was the ship on ship counter-not the aircraft that did take on the Yamato - the plan included the New Jersey , the Wisconsin and the Missouri - along with I think two of the US Navy's South Dakota class battleships and for sure an couple of US Fletcher class destroyers with the other allied battleships. I am just theorizing the reason for the use of an couple of US Fletcher class destroyers in this "matchup" was probably that use of US Fletcher class's torpedos would keep the Yamato "off balance" from being able to take shot with the 18 inch naval guns while the New Jersey, the Missouri, the Wisconsin , the couple US South Dakota battleships take shots with the 16 inch guns at range.
Plus the New Jersey, the Iowa, the Missouri, and the Wisconsin could maneuver better than the Yamato. Plus with the Iowa's speed mean that they could dictate the battle. Each ship has two "non-defensive" weapons 1) is speed and 2) being able to maneuver
The Tribals showed against Bismarck just how invaluable a few good destroyers could be at trolling while the battle line was getting ready for the take down.
Like the "statists" blocking the view, as you pointed the details out.
I’m just "blowing smoke.." Ryan, thank you for all your work.
Why is the difference between standard and full displacement so much larger for the new jersey (12500 tons vs 5000 tons)? Most of it is probably fuel, but does that explain the entire difference?
Standard displacement is an arbitrary description decided by the Washington naval treaty to give parity to littoral navies and ocean going navies. It doesn't count most provisions, boiler feed water or fuel. We will make a video about this in the future, stay tuned.
13:15 - For that matter, _New Jersey's_ belt couldn't even stop a 16-inch shell from _New Jersey._
Does have an imunity Zone!
Ryan of the Battleship New Jersey- I would like to see a video to be made on the incomplete battleship USS Washington (BB-47) and how it compares to the Battleship USS New Jersey.
We did cover the Colorado Class to some extent here ua-cam.com/video/slDDeO335mU/v-deo.html
But stay tuned this week, weve got a special episode that includes a few ships of this class.
The Washington would have just been another original configuration Colorado. Of the standards, my favorite of all is the rebuilt West Virginia, that was one nasty beast when it returned to the Pacific in '44. With the fire control, secondary an AA guns, more of a slow SoDak than a Colorado any longer.
Actual US test Yamato 25inch armor was 0 degree and only had less than 1 mile. Yamato turret 25inch armor was 45 degrees.
The test was conducted from a range of 400 feet.
The Yamato was built to fight a decisive all-out battle and the New Jersey was built to speed across the Pacific. Advantage Yamato in a slugfest. But the NJ could swing with the fast Essex carriers and protect them while the Yamato was left behind at Midway. Ironic that the Yamato ran up against Taffy 3 at Leyte Gulf instead of Halsey's force.
The Yamato class ship had an Achilles Heal, any explosive that hit the torpedo blister would pop its seams due to rushing the build and welders only tack weld the internal seams.... one hit and you popped a blister.... that’s why it did not take much for a sub to sink that Yamato class before it was finished and was doing some sea trials!!!
According to Japanese documents. They weren't experienced with making armor as thick at Yamato's (nobody was) and their technique for combining the armor plates wasn't ideal due to their technological inexperience with fusing such thick armor. Most of the armor was riveted to the hull with customized rivets and guns made specifically for the Yamato builds. This is documented in a book about the building of Musashi. The testing of the riveting process to get it through such a thick piece of armor and align correctly is also mentioned in detail in the same book.
The method the Japanese at Kure chose when forming the armor was a compromise. Not being able to forge and weld full plates to the thickness required, they chose a laminate design. It seemed good on paper, but when exposed to severe concussion such as a near underwater miss, or hit somewhere else on the ship, the lamination would crack, allowing water to seep in without the actual armor failing as a whole. So from a superficial point of view, the armor's integrity looked sound, but in reality, the shock of a blast would allow water to leech through into the hull.
The previously mentioned riveting of the plates to the hull was another weakness that became exposed during combat. The Japanese knew it was inferior to welding the entire hull, but as was said before, they lacked the ability at the time of construction to do it with such thick pieces. All armor plates were made at Kure and were either used their for the construction of Yamato or sailed to Nagasaki for Musashi and Yokosuka for Shinano. The 4th hull construction for Sasebo was cancelled.
The watertight compartment integrity wasn't completed on Shinano when she went to sea to be moved to Kure. The lack of watertight compartments and a skeleton crew manned more by engineers and civilian construction workers more than naval personnel was the main contributing factor to Shinano's demise.
Compare this to the 14 torpedo hits it took to sink Yamato, and it was only when she listed her soft unarmored belly out of the water that 2 torps found their way in and got her forward magazine.
Musashi also took multiple torpedo hits with only a slow drop in speed before finally taking on so much water at the bow that she couldn't make headway.
According to members on Yamato, it was the counter-flooding system that failed the ship due to the archaic design of a lateral bulkhead running the entire length of the ship. The bulkhead (and focus of damage to one side of the ship) kept the counter flooding system from being able to keep up with the water intake. The heavy list was caused by the pumps failing.
The armor on both Yamato and Musashi held up to more punishment than any battleships in history with the amount of torpedo and bomb hits they took (direct or otherwise). The armor was flawed, but that's not what sunk the ships.
@@swordmonkey6635 Indeed. After the sinking of the Musashi (which was hit on both her port and starboard sides), the air attacks on the Yamato had learned from the Musashi experience and thus attacked the Yamato on only one side (to get her to flood & list and roll-over sooner).
Its depends on how good and well trained the crew are ie how fast they can load a 16 - 18.1 inch gun less than 30 seconds how fast they can solve problems like destroyed rudder or radar engine failures floodings in coming fire evasive manmovers and how good there aiming and hitting targets.
Where is that piece of 25" armor that has the hole punched through It ? Looks like it is on display somewhere
It is at the Washington Navy Yard outside their museum
@@BattleshipNewJersey Thanks for that information !
The hole in that armor plate was made by a shell which was fired from point blank range. That armor was from the faceplate of a main battery turret, and could not be penetrated at all from any realistic daylight combat range. The immunity zone for the faceplates of the Yamato class was something on the order of 34- 36,000 yards.
Yamato was a beauty.
Ryan,
One huge advantage the USN had over the Japanese that you did not mention was in damage control.
Japanese and US Navy's damage control capabilities were roughly comparable at the beginning of the war. But the USN made a huge effort to learn from their early losses and improve the equipment and enhance the ability of their crews to fight fires and repair damage so that the ships could make it home and be repaired.
By 1944/45, There was no comparison between the two navies. This huge advantage to mitigate damage should have been mentioned.
One of the main drawbacks of the Yamato and Musashi was that the Japanese, in spite of their ballyhooed "die for the emperor," were very reluctant to commit them to battle. Particularly after the Kirishima was sunk by the Washington....until it was too late.
It may be a bit off subject, but, in my opinion, the Washington vs Kirishima battle doesn't get nearly the notoriety it deserves. The loss of the Kirishima was nearly as big a blow to the Japanese as the Hood was to the British, and severely rattled the Japanese High Command.
If you haven't seen it before, weve got a playlist of videos we've made on various WWII Pacific Naval battles.
@@seventhson27 I think the biggest shock was that the Washington, a relatively unknown class of ship at the time, tore Kirishima to pieces in a matter of minutes. Would have been even worse, but Adm. Lee had to protect the SoDak and see if they could recover some of the destroyer crews. Based on IJN reports, confirmed by the actual survey of the wreck, 20 of 76 main gun rounds hit, and somewhere between 20-30 5" shells hit the superstructure. 26% hit rate, even considering the very short range, had to be a terrible shock to the IJN. Pretty much every salvo getting solid and disabling hits.
The Japanese were obsessed with the idea of one final naval battle that would turn the tide of the war ever since the battle of Tsushima, and were reserving Yamato and Musashi for it.
@@timclaus8313 Kirishima, despite being labeled as a fast battleship, was still nothing more than a battlecruiser, only armed with an 8 inches of belt armor, no where near equipped to resist with her own 14 inch guns, let alone Washington’s 16 inch guns
It's not fairly comparable Yamato had better protection and better secondaries. Shell weight's AP 18 inch shell 1460kg 16 inch super heavy shell 1225kg 235kg difference talking the weight of another 9-10 inch shell on top. HE shell weight's 18 inch shell 1360kg 16 inch shell 862kg 498kg difference talking another 12-13 inch shell on top and Yamato's 18 inch shell weren't even the heaviest 18 inch shell made
What was the difference of the caliber of the main weapons? I know that NJ had 16" 50cal.
Yamato was a 45 caliber weapon. Still, the comparatively heavy shell of Iowa and Yamato stacking 134 more pounds of gunpowder in each barrel allowed Yamato to fire her shells at a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet (792 meters) per second, vs Iowa’s muzzle velocity of 2,500 feet (762 meters) per second.
Iowa is more developed as it survived ww2 till now. If yamato was to be alive, the tech would be beyond impressive for the yamato.
Cue the entrance of "Space Battleship Yamato"/"Uchuu Senkan Yamato" in an anime' series by that name, a.k.a. the "Argo" in the cartoon "Star Blazers" which was edited and re-named for the western television markets.
I’ve watched a few of these comparison videos by this channel between the Iowa’s and other classes of battleship and the Iowa’s “win” every time. So I sought out this video to see how the Yamato’s were compared against the Iowa’s. I sense that whilst in other videos where the Iowa’s have an advantage, say in weight of firepower or armour thickness, this advantage will be very important. However, in this video it seems these aspects of a battleship design turn out to be not so important and other aspects, that the Iowa’s are superior in, become more important. My reading of the battleship design process was that the key elements were: firepower, armour protection and speed. Whilst other areas must not be neglected a ship that was superior in each of these key aspects would be regarded as the superior ship. Just saying for a friend who isn’t from the USA. Otherwise keep up the good work as I’m enjoying the output of this channel.
New Jersey was not a treaty battleship. The reason for the disparity in size is that the beam of New Jersey needed to transit the Panama canal. The North Carolina class was originally intended to have 14" guns but was escalated to 16"
The 5 knot speed advantage and narrower beam should give the NJ a significant advantage in maneuver and choice of where and when to fight, that plus having more fuel and radar, which would be a "live map" advantage giving the NJ options outside of the range of Yamato's guns. The NJ could play for time knowing the Yamato couldn't follow without exhausting it's fuel. Yamato also had to watch out for submarines which the NJ didn't have to, if she ran out of fuel she'd be a "sitting duck" for a sub, which must have occurred to her captain. These must have been weighing on his mind, they'd limit his options which would've made planning extremely difficult at at time when the options available to the Japanese fleet were diminishing, to say the least, and that doesn't take into account that in the final action they were being sent on was a suicidal mission. But even if this wasn't the case the speed and radar advantages would've given the NJ choices of time and place that the Yamato didn't have. Aerial surveillance was another thing the Yamato didn't have. The only hope the Yamato had was to lure the NJ into a "Jutland" scenario where they could slug it out and that wasn't likely. The only captain who'd do that is one whose options are exhausted, and that doesn't describe the captain of the NJ. His job was to win the fight without taking any more casualties than were necessary to accomplish the task, which was the basis of the attack that sank the Yamato.
I have a few corrections. New Jersey's narrower beam gives her less maneuverability, and New Jersey would not have simply been able of fire out of Yamato's effective range. Yamato literally carried 7 sea planes for arial surveillance, and those two catapults on her stern should have showed you that
DK Brown, who was involved in designing British warships said that he thought that the KGV would have had a good chance against the Yamato.
Whether fire control was a big difference I do not know.
I read somewhere that the bismark would have almost certainly lost its first shooting match if the Prince of Wales had lead the hood into battle. The Prince of Wales was significantly better protected than anything else around with sub par guns (new and untested) where as Hood had very good guns but poor armour. It wouldn't have taken Hood long to reduce the bismark to scrap if she wasn't being countered by the bismark.
@@mcduck5 typical British point of view.
How? King George V would not have even been able to penetrate Yamato's armor within reasonable battle ranges
@@metaknight115 US testing of Japanese armour as used on Yamato found it to be very brittle.
The 14" shell was a modern design that would have dealt with it.
Also, throughout the war the Japanese displayed miserable longer range gunnery, one of the reasons for close night fighting. The British radar and fire control was immensely better, check the Scharnhorst engagement.
The Royal Navy put great effort into night training from well before the war.
The KGV was better protected than any other battleship, even the Yamato when Japanese armour was taken into account.
@@davewolfy2906 A) Yamato’s armor was the best ever made. I assume that you’re talking about the 26 inch armor from Shinano, that was worn down and in poor condition, with he 26 inch armor on Yamato and Musashi being stronger (even then, the Shinano 26 armor could only be penetrated from 400 feet away, so you can only imagine how powerful Yamato’s armor was) It’s estimated the the gun’s of the USS Iowa, far more powerful than KGV’s guns, could only penetrate Yamato’s belt within 15 Km, so Imagine how difficult it would have been for King George V to penetrate it. Finally, if Yamato’s armor was as brittle as you say, then surly, Yamato should not have taken anywhere near the amount of torpedoes she historically took before sinking. Yamato took 11-13 torpedoes, while her sistership Musashi took 19-20 torpedoes before sinking, the American 1000 pound bombs were completely usssleds, and bounced off the deck armor. If Yamato and Musashi’s armor was so brittle, they would not have taken the kind of punishment and survive for so long. Good job cherry picking your evidence.
B) Yamato proved to be very good at a long ranges fight. From 19,000 yards, she hit the destroyer Johnston with several 18.1 and 6.1 shells, and damaged the escort carrier White Plains from 33,000 yards ( sources differ on whether this was a hit or damaging near miss. If the former is correct, and this is the longest ranged naval hit ever fired). Even then, Yamato held the speed advantage, as even though KGV had a slightly higher top speed by 0.54 knots, Yamato had a much higher cruising speed (16 knots vs 10 knots), meaning Yamato could reach higher speed about 6 knots faster, giving her the speed advantage.
What is your opinion on a 2 to 1 battle between two South Dakotas and 1 Yamato. For example USS Alabama and USS Indiana vs HIJMS Musashi?
In my opinion, it could go either way
@@metaknight115 I think it would really be up to fate. Whichever ship scores the first crucial hit.
@@winlee4884 Personally, I think that Yamato's best chance would be to take them both on at the same time. She would most likely loose if she targeted one ship and hopefully sank it before the other one could get damaging hits in, just ask the Kirishima how that strategy goes.
Yamato could definitively sink one ship, and then sink the other. However, Yamato also might not be able to sink them intime to prevent them from getting into penetration range. In my opinion, the battle would depend entirely on luck.
You should do a comparison video, the star blazers Yamato/Argo
Do we have any treaties on ship size today?
I would be interested how much more weight the Japanese had spent in rivets compared with German and US ships. I guess the latter used a lot more modern welding techniques for the latest ships. But that's just a guess.
Thomas Heinrich, 'Warship Builders', discusses this topic. Being a landlubber, I was surprised at the weight savings and time arc welding offered. Iowa used both rivets and welding in its construction, iirc. Later Iowas had a higher percentage of welding?
@@brianchapman3701 As I recall, BB-65 had a higher percentage of hull welding than the earlier ships and BB-66 even higher still. BB-64 Wisconsin has a portion of BB-66's (Kentucky) bow and the difference in construction styles used between the Philadelphia Navy Yard (BB-64) and Norfolk Navy Yard (Kentucky) is clearly visible from the pier if you know what to look for.
Shortly after Wisconsin was moved to the Maritime Museum wife and I went down there to check her out and I pointed the difference out to one of the new guides who had just been hired by the museum. "Dang! I hadn't noticed that, thanks!" I also mentioned that I had been out in the Persian Gulf near Wisconsin when she and sister Missouri were busy making life miserable for the Iraqi Army ashore, how single shots from the main guns would light the night sky like a thunderstorm. "Cool!"
@@robertf3479 Isn't Missouri several 100 tons heavier than her sisters? She was last completed, iirc, yet heavier. If this is so, do you what accounts for the weight difference? Thanks!
@@brianchapman3701 That's a question I can't answer, sorry. While I do know some things about these ships I am no where near being an expert. Just as a wild guess on my part I would suggest the weight might be rivets, or maybe a piece of equipment mounted in MO that the others didn't get (it happens all the time, even with sisters from the same shipyard) or even a bit of reinforcement for a perceived weakness in the hull. Like I said, a wild guess.
My first ship, USS Caron (DD 970) was a member of the 31 ship Spruance class. All 31 were built by the same yard in Pascagoula MS, but even during construction changes were made along the way as experience was gained. The final ship in the class, Hayler (DD 997) was different in her engineering and electronics fit from the first ship, Spruance (DD 963) due to experience gained both in construction and operations.
There is also the reality that changes to ships are made over the course of their operational life, some major like new weapons systems replacing old or additions made to and pieces removed from superstructure and hull. Not all ships in that class may get those changes. When my old girlfriend Caron was retired after 25 years of service, she had gained weight ... from 7800 tons to about 8000 or so from changes made.
They should have limited weight of broadside instead of gun size. So if we needed to we could build a 18"gun ship in super firing turetsin the front of the ship. She could have a 6 inch secondary battery after.
The choice of names in the class is interesting. Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois and Kentucky are all contiguous, with New Jersey being the outlier. I wonder why?
Ship names are mostly decided by which congress people are lobbying for them
@@BattleshipNewJersey Still applies today, lol......
One rarely discussed aspect of the sinking of the Japanese battleship your motto is that Navy pilots reported a massive explosion aboard the ship while it was listing and heading under. The argument has been made that sailors may have purposely detonated the ships magazines as a way of committing ritual suicide. It makes sense to me because I’d rather go out instantly in a massive explosion then drowned to death.
Yeah, but wasn't there hundreds of U.S. attack aircraft swarming over Yamato? Suicide, or devastating destruction from U.S. air power. If not one, then the other. The result was inevitable, so the means maybe isn't so important?
I have read U.S. pilots were so eager to strike Yamato that the attack devolved into a 'pack of wolves' attempting to get ripping bites out of the 'animal'. When Yamato exploded in what almost looked nuclear, a number of U.S. aircraft were obliterated in the blast. So damn sad.
nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/explosion-japanese-battleship-yamato-was-epic-118646
I suspect the blast was for the same reason as HMS Barnham, the ship is only designed to be upright and once it keels over X degrees main battery shells start falling out their racks and bouncing around, add in the numerous fires and it was not long for this world.
The Iowas I think would have won the day because they wouldn’t have done a Kamikazi run. We would have pushed a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage which we had the opportunity vs having the 1 bigger ship. There is my 2 cents. Helluva ship though.
Fire control is the great equalizer. New Jersey with her stable element could both maneuver and fire simultaneously with a good solution. Yamato lacked this feature. NJ would score more hits, particularly at long range.
I'm not trying to rain on the Iowas (they were much more valuable as fleet units than the Yamatos), but the historical record shows that none of them ever scored a confirmed hit on any warship of destroyer size or larger. Lack of periodic gunnery practice by the Iowa class was one reason for this. Another was shell dispersion, which was marked on the Iowas during the war (over half again as much as that of the Yamato class).
Yamato on the other hand, scored three first- salvo 18" hits on U.S.S. Johnston at just over 20,000 yards range, and dropped two 18" shells right alongside U.S.S. White Plains at just over 34,000 yards range- one of which exploded and knocked White Plains out of front- line service for the rest of the war. The Japanese used a radar- assisted gunnery system which was only slightly inferior to the U.S. Navy's fire control radar system based on the Mark 8.
Cheers...
Fire control is simply the ability to tell the guns where to aim and has nothing to do with the accuracy of the guns themselves. Yamato was more accurate than Iowa, with a shell dispersion of 440-550 yards at 46,000 yards vs Iowa’s shell dispersion of 600-800 yards at 41,500 yards.
22:00 didn't that plate was shot at close range ?
400 feet.
Are you gonna do the Bismarck next?
We have it on the list for soon!
Bismarck and Tirpitz would not have done well against the USS New Jersey or any other Iowa-class BB. Bismarck's protection scheme did not hold up well when hit by the 16-inch guns of HMS Rodney and New Jersey's guns were even harder-hitting. ua-cam.com/video/VGaGBImx62A/v-deo.html
American vs German engineering. Nice:-) The Germans were technically advanced during the war.
@@thunderK5 From what I have read bismark had very very good long range accuracy. Unless bismark managed to get lucky (like bismark got lucky against the Hood) I dont think the bismark would have lasted more than 10 min against any of the 16 inch armed US battle ships. The modern 16 inch guns where just so powerful.
I was intrigued when one of Iowa's first assignments post-commissioning (on Washington's birthday in 1943) was the Tirpitz watch. In the accounts I have read, there is no mention that Tirpitz is Bismarck's sister ship.
Iowa, in some estimations, is easily superior to the Bismarcks. Here's a Naval Legends link, see mark 6:06.
ua-cam.com/video/sv1RTFzJuYM/v-deo.html
In your opinion what would a modern day New Jersey capital ship be
The brand new submarine USS New Jersey, set to be launched this year.
Good old Axis & Allies Wat at Sea naval miniatures
New Jersey v G3?
I like the 2 155s on yamato,they look like cruiser turrets from mogami.
They are.
.....they were Mogami’s turrets. Mogami’s 6.1 inch turrets were removed when Mogami was being rearmed with 7.9 inch guns, and placed on Yamato and Musashi
This comparison of the Yamato and Iowa classes is somewhat misleading, because it suggests that the two vessels were contemporaries of one another- and they were not. The U.S. contemporary of the Yamato class was the North Carolina class, with the two vessels being laid down just one week apart. The Iowa class were two classes apart from the Yamato class, and the first of them was laid down two and a half years after Yamato. The reasons why these two classes are compared are that each was the most powerful battleship of their nation- but also because it's clear how the North Carolina's measure up to the Yamatos. In fact, the Iowas were originally designed to counter the Japanese Kongo class fast battleships.
Hi ManilaJohn. It's amazing to me just how well the Japanese succeeded in keeping Yamato's very existence a secret for as long as they did. You're correct, the North Carolina was designed and laid down roughly at the same time as Yamato, but NC was designed to stay within the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty, Yamato clearly was not. NC got her 16"/45 caliber main armament instead of the intended 14" because of the clear danger presented by the heavier ships the Axis powers were laying down, as an answer of sorts to the 15" armed Bismarck class IIRC.
The South Dakota class was designed from the outset to stay within the same naval treaties with the permitted rise to a 16" main gun, but still with NO IDEA of the monsters Japan was building. I have to wonder what the Allies would have designed and built if they knew of the existence of the Yamato as she was building. A jump from South Dakota directly to a Montana type perhaps? An 18" gun Montana with either dual or TRIPLE turrets?
@@robertf3479 Well said. I think it very likely that had the Americans discovered details of the Yamatos before the war, they would have responded ASAP with a very comparable design of their own- and would have built four or more. Secrecy however, is part and parcel of military operations, and the Japanese pulled off a coup by maintaining it with regard to the construction of the Yamatos. Not that it availed them much in the long run.
Had an Iowa met a Yamato on more or less equal terms- and on a relatively clear day- in WW2, the Americans would have been in real trouble. The primary reasons for this are that: 1) the Yamatos had significantly greater armor protection over the Iowa class- which were little better protected than the South Dakota class. The additional displacement of the Iowas was devoted to speed, to enable them to catch and destroy the Kongos, and: 2) The crews of the American fast battleships had little main battery gunnery practice- primarily because they were acting as escorts for fast carrier task forces.
In bad visibility conditions on the other hand, the Yamatos would have been in serious trouble, being unable to range in on target while at the same time being repeatedly straddled- and occasionally hit- by enemy salvoes.
Which was the better overall fleet unit? On balance, I'd go with the Iowa class. But that's imho. Cheers.
@@manilajohn0182 From my own experience, out on the open sea you rarely have unlimited visibility, there is usually at least some haze close to the surface, especially in coastal waters. On a fun note, I witnessed Iowa sneak up on the John F Kennedy during a wargame off the Virginia Capes. Conditions were pea soup fog and my ship, destroyer Caron (DD 970) was part of the 'Orange Force' as was Iowa.
'Blue Force' (Kennedy and her group) sailed first from Norfolk and 'Orange' the next day. As soon as she was clear of the shipping channel Iowa took off into the fog at Flank Speed, her only electronic signals were from her COMMERCIAL navigation radars (same with the rest of us, 2 DDs and a cruiser.) Just before dark that day I was on the Bridge and spotted Iowa sneaking through a gap in the fog.
Next morning Iowa broke radio and electronic silence, radiating her Navy surface search and fire control radars and announced "KENNEDY ... KENNEDY, this is 'Iowaovski,' a Kirov battlecruiser. I have you located less than 20 miles from me and have just simulated launching a full salvo of 'Shipwreck' missiles. I will now PRETEND to be a Yankee battleship." Iowa then fired her main battery (blank charges of course,) lighting up the sky.
'Orange force' is NEVER supposed to win in wargames against a carrier. After the judges (admirals) riding Kennedy stopped rolling on the deck laughing they reset the game. Captain Seaquist of Iowa was never a naval aviator nor (to my knowledge) ever served in a carrier.
@@robertf3479 That's a great story, and many thanks for sharing it. That was quite a coups sneaking up to a carrier, even in peacetime off of the U.S. coast. Audacity, cunning, and perhaps a tad of complacency...
I served a hitch in the Corps back in the late 70s, and did 2-3 'Bold Shield' exercises in the Caribbean. You'll get no argument from me regarding visibility in the Atlantic, although I believe that visibility conditions in the Pacific are generally better.
The Battle off of Samar is a good example of that, with initial visibility at approximately 40,000 yards. That said, I certainly wouldn't expect hits on target from either Yamato or Iowa at that range. With New jersey straddling Nowaki at 39,000 yards OTOH, who knows?
@@robertf3479 Terrific stories, John and Robert, thank you much.
Gotta ask about smokescreens. In the Friedman-Hone article to which I've been referring, it's stated Iowa could make smoke (and Yamato could not, according to the authors), obscuring Yamato's optical fire control.
Would like to know more about smoke-making; why the Iowas could use this tactic and the Yamato could not. Thanks again.
Had Yamato been intercepted and brought into a surface battle on it’s way to Okinawa it would have been against multiple American battleships. Not a one on one
Eight BBs, correct? Think I read that recently. Both Iowa and New Jersey, do I recall correctly? If Iowa, must have just returned from the West Coast.
@@brianchapman3701 I don't know if it would have been eight BBs, but probably five at least with two Iowa class, two or three South Dakota and one North Carolina (NC herself I think.) As powerful as she was, Yamato would have been smothered by 16" fire. Her single escorting cruiser and destroyers would have been smothered by Baltimore, Cleveland and Brooklyn class cruisers as well as a buttload of Gearing, Sumner and Fletcher class destroyers.
There wasn't a surface warship commander who wouldn't want to get in on that action if he could, a final last hoorah for the surface Navy.
I venture to say that the cruisers and destroyers alone would have been more than enough to kill Yamato and her supporting group.
ADM Spruance reportedly was actually considering dispatching the battlewagons and escorts, making it a surface action until his carrier commander, ADM Mitcher informed him that his tactical deputy, ADM Arleigh Burke had a massive air assault already launching, armed for a sea fight, and requested permission to proceed.
"Go ahead."
"Overkill is underrated" - COL John "Hannibal" Smith
@@robertf3479 Naturally you are correct but what is the point of comparing designs between nations if you just throw in US Industrial power and numbers. That determines every comparison of this kind in US favour.
@@andersreinholdsson9609 But that is the fact of life. The IJN would have been better off with smaller ships in greater numbers that they would have been willing to commit, and able to fuel. The IJN made the same mistake, though not quite to the same extent, as Germany, going for the big splash instead of enough ships to get the job done.
@@timclaus8313 If you feel that you are being outclassed it is a well known method to use superior quality/asymmetric response. If you are down in personell, oil etc it might also be cheaper to run a Yamato vs 2 smaller ships. They have always strived for the best ships in Japan. F.e. they bought the British battleships which were the largest around 1900 instead of second-tier smaller ships.
The Yamato only has about 152,000 shp to the Iowa's 212,000 shp, despite the former being 45% heavier in displacement and a much wider ship. As a matter of fact, the 65,000 ton Yamato has the same installed power as a 8,500 tons Mogami Class cruiser. It is amazing that it actually makes 27 knots!
Yamato's designers actually note she could pull off 28 knots in a combat scenario.
@@ThatZenoGuy Well, she never did... At Leyte Gulf, she was slowed by the Nagato and other slower ships so everyone can stay in formation. By the time they got to the landing site, she had taken on water from air attacks the day prior and was quite a bit slower. In any case, they fired a few shells then turned tail and bugged out.
--
Given how the war turned out -- with the massive kamikaze efforts later on and the final suicide run of the Yamato to Okinawa -- Kurita Takeo would probably have done more good for Japan if the Center Force had fought to the last ship and the last round then rammed US vessels with every ship they had instead of trying to preserve what's left of the IJN. There would be no opportunity and no fuel to use whatever survived later on. Nagato ended up sitting at her moorings waiting for the war to end, Yamato didn't even make it halfway to Okinawa, while all the Mogami and Kongo ended up sunk piece meal while accomplishing nothing.
@@dwightlooi
She might've been going 28 knots on her last mission, or in testing.
@@ThatZenoGuy UNLIKELY... When the Ten-Go flotilla left the inland sea through the Bungo Straits she was documented as going 22 knots. The formation took ~14 hour 30 mins to cover the 266 nautical mile distance from Bungo Straits to her final resting place along the well documented path. This indicates an average speed of 18.3 knots. No doubt due to zig zagging and due to other evasive maneuvers while under attack.
--
Fuel Consumption increases exponentially with speed. It is known that the Yamato never had the fuel to return to Japan on her last sortie and it was all the fuel oil the IJN had left. Perhaps, she did not have enough fuel to reach Okinawa at flank speed. Going about 4~5 knots slower would have reduced the fuel consumption by about two-thirds. (Eg. The battleship Fuso could make 23 knots on 40,000 shp but it took the South Dakota Class BBs of similar displacement and length 130,000 shp to go 27.5 knots.)
One thing wrong with most people who compare American warships to Japanese warships, that being no one has even what would come close to a full working plan to either Yamato or her sistership, as much of both ships are left to guess work.
I haven't watched yet but I'll say this. Yamato gunnery in the battle of Leyte Gulf straddled a destroyer at about 28 or 29 thousand yards first salvo and likely hit right through an escort carrier at similar range. So while the Japanese fire direction might have been primitive compared to the US it doesn't matter... it worked. In a long range pounding match the Yamato would have been just as accurate as Iowa. I know people find it hard to believe because they'll immediately say no Iowa was far more sophisticated and therefore accurate but while it is more sophisticated how is it more accurate if Yamato is also hitting the target just the same? Yamato is not as sophisticated, but in long range action in historical record it was just as accurate in it's gunfire.
In a slogging match heavier shells striking less armor eventually beats lighter shells hitting thicker armor. Yamato would have been hurt but would have won.
Now to watch the video. :)
You assume 'Yamato is also hitting th target just the same?' Would not some of us here question this statement? Authors Friedman and Hone say an Iowa's fire control was far more accurate than not only Yamato, but IJN ships in general.
@@brianchapman3701 I don't know Dude! I reply this above too.
Yamato already show her awesome gunnery skills with a green crew when she hit the Jeep Carrier USS White Plain(not Gambier Bay, people mixed this up) from over the Horizon with her Radar. Yes! i know the Jeep carrier are slow but she hit them when the Destroyers have put the smokescreen. She was also maneuvering from those Jeep Carrier planes. Here Yamato was using 6 guns Salvo, so only her front turret for shooting.
Compare that to the 2 IOWAs shooting at a destroyer Nowaki(Kagerou Class) and not landing a single hits from both ship, . Granted both the Iowas were chasing the Destroyer.
Here, Nowaki can't shot back so it's just the Iowas Shooting. Here, Iowas was using full salvos whereas New jersey was using 3 guns salvos alternating her turrets. Despite shooting less, Iowa shot more Ammo than new jersey
@@SkiperS77 Yamato hit White Plains and Gambier Bay from. White Plains got away, while Gambier Bay's flooding, caused by Yamato’s 18.11 inch shells, got too out of control and she sank. She also hit the destroyer Johnston six time in a single salvo from 20 miles
Something occurred to me today. Had Yamato and her crew not been thrown away uselessly, and survived to be surrendered to the Americans at the end of the war, how likely would it be that Yamato would still exist today? You've alluded to other steel-hulled warships preserved in America during World War II, and the Japanese obviously had preserved Mikasa previously.
Yamato would have been scrapped. The Mikasa was preserved as a memorial by the winning party of a war. The Yamato was the flagship of the loser. It might have had the opportunity to join Nagato at Bikini Atoll and be a dive site today, but it would not have been preserved.
We would have sunk her so not to share with the Soviets
The Philippines engagement against very small guns and 2nd level air crews with 0 experience, shows the armor only matters in a short long range Jutland type engagement. All the hits on the upper structures and guns probably disabled the ship and took out a lot of essential crew. In the heat of battle you can probably continue to function at a lower effectiveness, but the option of continuing on the next day into probably a worse exchange does not seem like a rational choice when you are not defending something.
The US ships off Samar were greatly aided by squalls and haze making it harder for the Japanese to identify the ships they were facing as destroyers and escort carriers. If Kurita's crews had switched from AP to HE rounds earlier in the engagement, it would have been much uglier, much quicker for the USN. As it was, most of the rounds fired just put big round holes through the US ships without exploding inside.
We did wargame several encounters between Yamato and other battleships one on one. The Iowa class pretty much rained hits on the Yamato before it could do any major damage. Against Tirpitz Yamato took a few hits, but ended up overwhelming Tirpitz, Vittorio Veneto was able to stay at range and avoided serious damage, but took one lucky hit and lost two turrets. Richelieu took a huge beating, but scored several good hits and knocked out one turret and cause a major fire in Yamato. Against Rodney lucky shots took out Yamato's fire control, radar and tower, which means Yamato fired blindly with little effect and Rodney could go in for the kill. The consensus was that is not the greatest at hitting something, but when it does, it usually will cause major damage. Other ships need either lucky hits or have a good firing solution to have any effect on Yamato.
Your bias that it won't hit anything would be built into your simulation so it means nothing. You seldom get into a fight with no context. Scharnhorst for example is weak on paper but if it suddenly appeared around the bend of a fjord against yamato at medium range then who knows what would happen.
@@LTPottenger Well these are one on one encounters in open sea without other ships involved. It's a neutral scenario to see how they face up to each other. In most scenarios Yamato was able to see off the enemy which is pretty much in the line of expectations. Against ships with good range or accurate fire control the raw firepower becomes less of an issue and accuracy takes over. You're right that in a scenario, where other ships and conditions would be involved things would be different, but this was a general test, not an absolute one.
I don't know Dude!
Yamato already show her awesome gunnery skills with a green crew when she hit the Jeep Carrier USS White Plain(not Gambier Bay, people mixed this up) from over the Horizon with her Radar. Yes! i know the Jeep carrier are slow but she hit them when the Destroyers have put the smokescreen. She was also maneuvering from those Jeep Carrier planes. Here Yamato was using 6 guns Salvo, so only her front turret for shooting.
Compare that to the 2 IOWAs shooting at a destroyer Nowaki(Kagerou Class) and not landing a single hits from both ship, . Granted both the Iowas were chasing the Destroyer.
Here, Nowaki can't shot back so it's just the Iowas Shooting. Here, Iowas was using full salvos whereas New jersey was using 3 guns salvos alternating her turrets. Despite shooting less, Iowa shot more Ammo than new jersey
This is the battle Log of Samar. (Japanese Points of View)
0335: San Bernardino Strait. Force A exits the strait and proceeds eastward.
0400: Off Samar Island. Force A changes course due south towards Leyte Gulf.
0523: YAMATO's Type 13 radar picks up enemy aircraft.
0544: Enemy carriers sighted on the horizon, hull down, bearing 60 to port, range 23 miles. They are misidentified as six fleet carriers, escorted by three cruisers and two destroyers.
0545: YAMATO opens fire on enemy planes.
0558: Force A opens fire at escort carriers of "Taffy 3": USS ST. LO (CVE-63), WHITE PLAINS (CVE-66), KALININ BAY (CVE-68), FANSHAW BAY (CVE-70) (F), KITKUN BAY (CVE-71) and GAMBIER BAY (CVE-73). Carriers screened by destroyers USS HOEL (DD-533), JOHNSTON, (DD-557), HEERMANN (DD-532), destroyer escorts USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS (DE-413), DENNIS (DE-405), RAYMOND (DE-341) and JOHN C. BUTLER (DE-339).
Both of YAMATO's forward turrets open fire at a distance of 20 miles. Of her six forward rifles only two are initially loaded with AP shells, the remainder with Type 3s. YAMATO's F1M2 "Pete" spotter plane confirms that the first salvo is a hit. The carrier starts to smoke. Three six-gun salvos are fired on the same target, then the fire is shifted to the next carrier. It is concealed immediately by a smoke screen made by the American destroyers.
0606: YAMATO continues on an easterly course, firing her 155-mm (6.1-inch) secondary guns.
0651: A charging "cruiser" emerges from behind the smoke. YAMATO engages her from a distance of more than 10 miles and scores a hit with the first salvo. The target is seen burning before it is lost sight of.
At 0654, destroyer HEERMANN fires three torpedoes at HARUNA. The torpedoes miss HARUNA, but head toward YAMATO whose crew spots their tracks to starboard. YAMATO turns away to port, steams northward for 10 miles until the torpedoes run out of fuel. Although the maneuver avoids the torpedoes, it puts YAMATO and the Force's commander, Vice Admiral Kurita out of the battle.
0755-0910: Force A sinks GAMBIER BAY, HOEL, ROBERTS and the JOHNSTON. Kurita orders all ships to head north, but at 1020 he reverses course southward and again heads towards Leyte Gulf.
0910: Nine Mitsubishi A6M "Zeke" fighters led by Lt (Cdr posthumously) Seki Yukio of the 201st Naval Air Group's Shikishima-tai kamikaze squadron group fly over Kurita's fleet in search of the U.S. carriers.
Something you didn’t touch on was damage control. If Japanese DC was anything like the carriers all you might have to do is start fires by hitting them a couple times and let their ineptness finish them off. If they’re bunker oil it might take longer but the outcome would probably be the same, Imo.
Well, Yamato and Musashi took amazing amounts of damage before sinking, and the various torpedo hits from subs and hits from US subs and 1000-pound bombs were fixed up very quickly. I guess you have your answer. Even then, Japanese carrier Damage control was still pretty good, excluding Nagumo's dilemma and Taiho. Shokaku and Zuikaku often survived fair amounts of damage, with the latter taking 6 bombs and 7 torpedoes before sinking.
So bigger isn't better. Wow, news flash. However was to next generation (unbuilt) us battleship a better fighting platform? Knowing my luck, you probably already covered that.
I suspect the Yamato would have had a real problem hitting at range, she would rely too much on luck. While the Yamato would be unlikely to explode, however I suspect none of her armour made her immune hence would slowly lose effectiveness, in a one on one she may be able to get away, but out numbered I suspect she would end up a burning hulk and torpedoed.
Actually, its the Iowas which were under armored in a contest against the Yamatos- and significantly so. The Yamato had an immunity zone of approximately 15- 16,000 yards against the 16" .50 cal. gun, while the Iowas had only about a 5,000 yard immunity zone against the 18.1' gun. Generally speaking, the Iowas were in fact no better armored than the South Dakotas, with the extra displacement devoted to additional speed and the slight additional weight of armor distributed over a longer citadel.
The resolution of the Mark 8 radar range keeper was such that it could not distinguish between two normally separated targets until the range dropped to about 32,000 yards- well inside the range of Yamato's main battery. Based on the information which they had available on the Yamatos, the Americans would have likely sought an engagement at approximately 22-24,000 yards- a range at which Yamato's citadel was immune and Iowa's was not.
Much would have depended on weather conditions, crew training, leadership, and the number and type of escorts. All things being roughly equal, the Iowa's would have been at a distinct disadvantage in clear weather, with the situation reversed in poor visibility conditions.
Yamato at Samar show good Barrage fire when she shot at the Jeep Carrier USS White Plains. She was shooting over the Horizons while Manuevering.
@@SkiperS77 She also sunk the jeep carrier Gambier Bay, and hit the destroyer Johnston up to six times in a single salvo from the same, or a similar distance
Yamato: You're an overgrown battlecruiser bro
New Jersey: Ma radar tho
Yamato: My immunity zone is huge you have no immunity at any range.
New Jersey: I'm so fast I'll get inside or outside your IZ
Yamato: I'll be forced to kill you
Yamato carried an immunity to Iowa’s shells from 18,000-36,000 yards. 36,000 yards is well beyond any battleship’s ability to make hits, which would force Iowa within 18,000 yards for a belt penetration, and we saw what Yamato did to USS Johnston at ranges a good 2,000 yards farther.
@@metaknight115 I'll have you know the USS Johnston survived those hits and also a solid 30 times smaller then USS iowa.
@@tacotown4598 Mostly because Yamato, having mistook Johnston for a cruiser, fired AP shells which overpenetrated her hull without exploding. Still, as evidenced by her wreck Johnston still broke in two where an 18.1-inch shell landed later into the engagement.
Ryan is a War at Sea player?
I believe that's the game we used for this video: ua-cam.com/video/LP389D8DzUo/v-deo.html
- Libby the editor
1. The U.S. Navy's 2,700 lb. shell had a slightly better penetrative ability outside 20,000 yards. The 3,200 lb. shell of the Yamatos had a much greater bursting charge.
2. The quality of U.S. armor did exceed that of the Japanese, but not by any significant amount. U.S. Naval Proving Ground Reports evaluated Japanese heavy armor as slightly inferior to U.S. armor. Britain's Armor Technical Committee on the other hand, rated Japanese heavy armor as superior to all foreign armors. The difference in quality between U.S. and Japanese armor was minimal.
3. The rate of fire of the two vessels were almost identical; two seconds separated their rates of fire (Yamato 28, Iowa 30) at minimal elevation. There’s no known reason to believe that this would differ significantly in combat.
4. The U.S. Navy’s mark 8 radar range keeper was state of the art in 1943- 44. A limitation of the Mark 8 was that it could only distinguish between two targets with a standard combat separation when the range dropped to approximately 32- 33,000 yards.
5. The Japanese by this time were using a radar assisted fire control system based on the Type 22 Mod 4 radar. It was not equal to the Mark 8, although it was superior to any optical system available. The primary limitation of this system was that it was manpower intensive (as compared to the Mark 8) and thus more susceptible to inaccuracy due to crew fatigue or casualties.
6. No optical, radar assisted gunnery, or fire control radar- based gunnery system could compensate for shell dispersion. Shell dispersion rates of the two classes were an estimated 1.9% of range for a nine gun salvo from the Iowa class; 1.1% of range for the Yamato class.
7. Above 20,000 yards, the expected hit average ranged from 3- 6%. Neither radar- assisted gunnery nor fire control radar markedly improved this percentage. The U.S. Navy in this period regarded long range fire as in the 22,000 to 26,000 yard range. This is borne out by U.S.S. Massachusetts' Gunnery department Instructions and historical performance.
8. Below is the immunity zone (in yards) of each vessel's armor in selected areas against the other ship's main battery (with a 90 degree target aspect): Citadel: Iowa 6,800- Yamato 17,500; Control Tower: Iowa 5,800- Yamato 16,800; Barbettes: Iowa 5,800- Yamato 20,200; Turret Faceplate: Iowa 20,765- Yamato 36,800: Steering: Iowa 8,000- Yamato 14,300.
9. U.S. Naval Proving Ground reports described Yamato class main battery turret faceplates as impenetrable at any range by the 16" .50 cal. gun. These estimates were derived from a test on a 26" thick faceplate of a turret originally slated for Shinano prior to her conversion to an aircraft carrier. The faceplate was erected on supports with no mounting to simulate turret support, and with the faceplate perpendicular to the firing gun. The firing gun was 400 feet away from the faceplate. Two rounds were fired, with one being a partial penetration. The fact that the faceplate in its actual mounting was at a 45 degree angle was the basis for Naval Proving Ground estimates that it was impenetrable.
Oh damn, that last point makes me really scared of Yamato. New Jersey's armor were not even resistant to her own guns.
@@metaknight115 Yep, they were one of three classes built after the expiration of treaties which did not meet the "balanced armor" concept in capital ship design. Unlike Japan however, the United States never attempted to construct a "penultimate battleship". Had they gone all out to do so, they likely could have put to sea an 80,000 ton ship with 12 x 18" at approximately 30 knots- but that's just my opinion.
@@manilajohn0182 yep
Thanks for the job: so many BB where scrapped after WW2 I think it's nice to preserve the 4 Iowas and the South Dakota class too 👍. Now the facts are : 18.1 inches Guns of yamato are able to pass 16 inches hull armor plating at 30 km and 8 inches deck. Iowa 16 inches Guns are able to pass trough 14.5 inches hull armor plating and 6.5 inches deck at the same range. Even if the Iowa is owing a better accuracy or damage control system he is not able to reach the amunition magazine of the jamanese 1 wich is already able to do it from long range. Soon or later Iowa may have suffered the same fate than the Hood against the Bismarck.
From that distance the Japanese would hardly be accurate. It's more likely the faster ship gets in range and then destroys the Yamato with its far faster and more accurate gun targeting. And never forget these Japanese ships (like pretty much ALL of their ships) were absolute crap at 1)redundant systems 2) Fire suppression. The New Jersey class would be far more likely to be able to fight through damage than the Yamato would.
Those stats are rather arbitrary if you do not quantify what type of armor plate, at what angle is penetrated, by what shell. For belt armor, for instance, Iowa used a belt over 12" thick of a more resistant type of armor than Yamato, which was protected by a 1" outer splinter layer of STS. This splinter layer was capable of decapping incoming shells, reducing their ability to penetrate the belt.
@@remo27 Yamato did hit several targets, and sink the escort carrier Gambier bay from a distance of 20 miles, so she is more than capable of brawling at long range
@@garyhill2740 Gary, Ryan himself who is probably the guy knowing the Iowa the best admitted the Yamato is able to pass trough the Iowa armor and the Iowa isn't...
@@remo27 Saying that japanese BB where bad is absolutely not realistic : the guy in the vidéo already said the the Nagato class was the best post ww1 BB... Now the US nationalist and Iowa lovers will say that their ships where better... but the very Best BB was japanese and he is on the bottom of the sea. ..
Who would win would more than likely the weather and time of day
i get your point... Yamato was 1/3 greater but was only marginally better to Iowas...
That sounds fair, but as fair as you can make this same argument about Nagato vs Iowas... they were close to twice as great, but wasn't 2x as good... and you can ALSO claim that same statement for any 16' vs 15' battleship (USN South Dakota vs HMS Queen Elizabeth) or WW1 16' vs 14' battleships (HMS Nelson vs USN New Mexico).
If a battleship its from about the same era its very likely they will be somehow close. Yamatos were the exception, since they were built thinking about 2 steps ahead not just one. They were marginally better than Iowas, but they were better. a 3x Yamato force (only midway changed the fate of shinano) would have beaten a 4x Iowa Force...
In my opinion the bulk of IJN battleship lineup with shinano ended as a battleship (3 Yamatos + 2 Nagatos + 2 Ise + 2 Fuso) was a pretty strong contender against the USNavy fast battleships lineup (4 Iowas, 4 South Dakotas and 2 North Carolinas). I'm excluding the standars since they would have missed the action in a battleship encounter against that specific force anyway due to speed restrictions (if not, the 3 Colorados would be enough to make things really onesided for USNavy anyway)
BUT on the other hand 1 Yamato required as much resources as 2 Nagatos or 2 Shokaku CVs or as much as 6 light carriers. So i think ultimately Japan wasted valuable resources in ships harder to move. building 2 extra Nagatos and 2 Shokakus and 6 escort CVs would have helped secure the resources Japan planned
9:01 - Officially, the Yamatos' guns were 16-inchers too. (Yeah, the Japanese were lying through their teeth.)
Deception for the purpose or protecting military secrets is something which every nation engages in. That being the case, it's pointless to take the avenue of moral opprobrium with the Japanese. Just sayin.
I think Yamato was officially labled as having nine 40 cm (15.7-inch) guns
Right the panama canal really limits our ship
I always thought that the radar and targetting computer gave the Iowa class a huge advatage. They could fire over the horizon with a pretty good chance of hittingt on the first salvo. Whether or not they could do enough damage at that range might not make that feasible though. American spotter planes could be used to harass and shoot down Japananse planes in this scenario. Or, like most BB vs BB action during the Pacific war, it could take place at night. Crew would also make a difference. By 1945 the sailors on Yamoto weren't exactly top shelf swabbies. The good sailors were taken off of the ship as replacements for loses elsewhere. With both crews on equal terms, my heart says Big Mo wins (my Iowa of choice:-)...but my brains says it's a draw!
Yamato was no slouch in her gunnery, accounts remark at her tight shell groupings and at Samar, she got close straddle on USS White Plains on the third salvo, at 32 km. I mean, Iowa class had better fire control, but the way this advantage is protrayed almost makes it sound like it makes Yamato less likely to hit.
Authors Norman Friedman and Thomas Hone rate Iowa's radar fire control 10x superior to Yamato's. Iowa's shell penetrating power is similar to Yamato's, since the sectional density of a U.S. 16/50 shell is greater than an 18.1 IJN shell.
In a daylight fight, Iowa, behind its ability to make a smoke screen (Yamato could not, I wonder why) would have its superior radar fire control to range on Yamato.
And there's Adm. Charles Lee, an aggressive battleship warrior who was in command of Iowa at Surigao Straight. U.S. doctrine called for him to engage heavily at the greatest range possible. Yamato's commander, Adm. Takeo Kurita, was cautious, not venturesome.
(Hope I've represented Friedman and Hone's analysis fairly.)
Radar can't "see" over the horizon. It's extremely unlikely that an Iowa would hit a Yamato at, say, 40,000 yards. The resolution of the Mark 8 radar range keeper could not distinguish between two targets sailing in a more-or-less standard formation at that range. They would appear as one blip on Iowa's radar.
@@manilajohn0182 You remind me that the above authors discussed this limitation in their Proceedings article. Very helpful, thanks.
@@brianchapman3701 If I understand it correctly, a Yamato and a Nagato would need to get within about 32,000 yards to appear as two blips on an Iowa's radar. That's very long range for non-radar range finding, but not impossible.
While I'm not a "fan" of either vessel, I've never ceased to be amazed over the years at the inclination of posters to see the fire control radar of the Iowas almost as a "lock on target and fire" type of operation, when in actuality it was anything but, particularly because of the relative inexperience of the crews of the fast battleships in main battery practice.
U.S. armor quality aside (it was minimally better than Japanese), the Iowas had a very small immunity zone even against the Japanese 18.1" gun- something on the order of 3-4,000 yards.
Everyone likes to compare the Yamato-class to the Iowa-class, but the reality was that it was the Yamato-class versus the Colorado, North Caroline, and South Dakota-class battleships, which it was more than a match for (nearly even in pairs). Once you pair both Yamato-class battleships up with Japan's Nagato-class, Ise-class, or lastly their Kongo-class, I believe Japan actually outmatches the American ships (it would still be a nasty affair). By the time the Iowa-class arrived on the scene, the Pacific War was practically incapable of being won.
I've thoroughly enjoyed wargaming the Pacific Theater of Operations as Japan and while Japan could've put up a better fight than it did historically, I don't believe it could've ever won it without conquering America, which would've been next to impossible to accomplish.
I believe that Yamato would have realistically faced battleships on four occasions.
The first would be if she was sent alongside Kirishima and Hiei in the battle of Guadalcanal. Following the three annihilating the cruiser force on the 13th, the 15th would be Yamato, Hiei, and Kirishima vs South Dakota and Washington. South Dakota would be quickly sunk by 18.1-inch shellfire and a few long lanced. Washington would be sunk as well, but not before inflicting severe damage on the IJN fleet, perhaps crippling or sinking Hiei or Kirishima, or heavily damaging Yamato.
Yamato had three chances to engaged battleships at Leyte Gulf, with Musashi having one. If the pair, alongside Nagato, Kongo, and Haruna met West Virginia, California, and Tennesse, the US force would surly loose. The US had six battleships, but only three could be used effectively as neither their radar or optical systems were advanced. The IJN ship's radar was basic, but their optics were the best in the world. the three US battlewagons would get the first hit, but W1 era 14 and 16-inch guns would be insufficient to sink or even damage Yamato. If the ships, excluding Musashi had met TF-34 at Samar, they would loose. Yamato would initially fair good, but once the WW1 era battleships got picked off, Yamato would be overwhelmed and crippled or sunk. If Iowa and New Jersey made it to Samar before Kurita retreated, Iowa and New jersey were better than 3 of the 4 IJN battleships present, but were facing a 2v4 battle. If the Americans got lucky, they could win, but on paper, they would have been sent running off, with Yamato possibly sinking one of them. All of that is assuming carrier aircraft doesn't damage Yamato enough to send her running off.
The Japanese ships had trouble telling Destroyer Escorts from Capital ships, on a clear day. Given this Fact, and the odds of poor weather or a night engagement, late in the war, fire control of almost any U.S. BB, could be a winner.
Not exactly, they thought the escort carriers were fleet carriers, and by the size comparison the destroyers must be cruisers and the frigates must be destroyers. The fact that they could tell the size difference between a frigate, a destroyer, and an escort carrier at 35,000 yards is a testament to their optical systems. Even if they a bit confused, they got the spirit.
During the same battle, USS Johnston claimed to have been hit by three 14-inch shells from the battlecruiser Kongo at 12,000 yards when Kongo was blinded by a rais squall at the far side of the engagement while Yamato claimed numerous hits on a US “cruiser” at 20,300 yards. Later, Hoel and Heerman claimed to have attacked a heavy cruiser squadron when their targets were actually the battlecruiser Haruna followed by the rest of the Japanese capital ships. Meanwhile, USS Gambier bay noted three heavy cruisers closing to point blank range when only the heavy cruiser Chikuma targeted Gambier Bay, who had switched fire to the destroyer Heerman when the fatal damage had been dealt by hits and near misses from Yamato’s main battery.
Basically, the entire battle was a confusing mess on both sides.
If I remember correctly and please correct me if wrong. Dahlgrens evaluation of that armour was that it could not be penetrated by any naval gun at any range. The penetration shown was only after the plate had been hit multiple times and fractured.
I'll link the paper discussing the results of the USN's firing tests against Yamato's armor below.
The 21'' turret face plate on the Yamato class gun was the heaviest armor ever mounted on a warship. In the Yamato turret armor test, the Iowa class gun (16''/50) shells were fired with no explosive charge and at much reduced powder charges, simulating a range of about 20-36 kilometers. The 15 kilometer ranged shell (muzzle velocity of 620 meters per second) went straight through the plate and sailed on for miles into the Potomac River. The 36 kilometer ranged shell (muzzle velocity of about 500 meters per second) lodged itself 21" into the plate, broke it in half, and caused showers of steel splinters to burst out the far side where the crew would be. It was concluded that a single hit at either range would effectively disable the turret. In neither case the shell was really damaged at all.
Both Yamato and Iowa's guns could defeat the other's armor effectively. Getting hunk of steel the size of a small car thrown at you at Mach 2 doesn't do wonders for anything.
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955281.pdf
@@kuwanger12 The hole was created at point Black range at flat angle
This were the Final comment of the Shinano armor test
At about 40,000 yards, the U.S. Navy 16"/50 firing a 16" Mark 8 Mod 6 AP projectile (the later Mod 7 and Mod 8 designs were post-WWII, so I usually do not count them and they were no better ballistically, to my knowledge) will hit at about 45° downward angle and 1607 feet/second (489.8 m/sec). Just as with a point blank hit at 2500 feet/second (762 m/sec) and 45° obliquity, this hit too will barely hole the plate as the projectile is hitting at 0° (normal) obliquity, though not completely penetrate it. Any slight barrel wear will lower the muzzle and striking velocities and no holing will occur at these or any other ranges, as mentioned. However, this is so far above any real fighting range (even with radar it is hard to see the target due to the earth's curvature interfering, especially in any kind of imperfect seeing conditions) that I do not even consider it in my computations, while putting the gun barrel up to almost touching the enemy turret is also a pipe dream in real life! Thus, no holing or complete penetrations, ever, though possibly some cracking of the plate and possible jamming of the turret if the crack-off plate piece is dislodged badly enough.
Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by any gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45°, as they were in the actual turrets!!! Even to completely hole the plate all the way through at that inclination requires a brand new 16"/50 Mark 7 or German 38cm SK C/34 gun at point-blank range firing the latest versions of their respective AP projectiles; it might be cracked at a lower striking velocity, but no hole put entirely through it! And they said guns had completely overmatched all armor - not so!!!
@@kuwanger12 www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.php
this is the link for shinano armor test.
Super
1v1 with noob tactics the Yama would win. Probably. Depending on who got the fire solution right quickest.
1v1 done right the Iowa should track with radar, stay out of range until nightfall, then use superior radar guided fire to mission kill the Yama, potentially closing in to finish her off once fire control etc damaged. Assuming enough ammo remains of course. Bismarck exhausted the Royal Navy supplies and still refused to sink quickly!
Not true, as Iowa would just engage Yamato when she first got the chance, as she would have convoys she can't just abandon to hunt Yamato
The German and Japanese Battleships we're true Battleships that actually engaged other Battleships. The Iowa's we're on the other hand expensive show pieces that did little more than shore bombardment and spent most of their lives in mothballs!
Only Kirishima and Yamashiro engaged enemy battleship. Musashi never came into contact with enemy surface vessels, while Yamato only engaged the small escort carriers, destroyers, and frig..I mean destroyer escorts during the battle of Samar, sinking the escort carrier Gambier Bay and the destroyer Johnston.
I believe the Iowa’s were heavier than 45,000 tons Empty, 47,000 tons With no provisions.
One thing I noticed was when you showed what you called the Catacombs of the New Jersey was that if any area of that space was hit & penatrated, it would flood the entire ship.
That space only goes from turret 1 to turret 2, so its big, but not catastrophic big
Ones the greatest battleship ever. The other is the world's largest aquarium 😂
Why does that matter when Iowa would have sunk to what sank Yamato far easier. It’s like saying a one boxer is better than the other in a fight because the latter wrestler was shot and killed in an armed robbery.
@@metaknight115 that literally made no sense at all
@@595shakerI'm saying why brag one Iowa is better than Yamato because she didn't sink when she would have sank far easier if put in Yamato's position, no air cover and minimal escorts vs 386 carrier aircraft with thousands more well on the way.
@metaknight115 the emperor of Japan should have never sent Yamato on the suicide operation ten go. Japan was done after midway. Especially with the introduction of the f4f wildcat. Now Yamato is an aquarium. So many wasted lives on both sides.
Think about it this way. The Game to was George Foreman and the Iowa was Muhammad Ali.
Hi Ryan. I know I'm late but the UA-cam logarithm only just brought this up to me this morning.
A single key factor limited the Japanese in building new ships, industrial capacity. She could not begin to match the industrial capacity and ship building capacity of either the U.S. or British Empire, even if they had the raw materials available (which they didn't.) Their thinking became "If we can't match them or beat them in numbers of hulls, we should build ships larger and more capable than anything we foresee them building." This thinking resulted in the laying down of the three Yamato class; Yamato herself, sisters Musashi and Shinano (converted under construction into an aircraft carrier.) Singly, the USN "Standard" battleships were totally outclassed though two together MIGHT have been able to engage and seriously damage one of these monsters at the cost of their loss.
It should be noted that the U.S. had no real idea what Japan was planning when the Iowa class design was completed in 1939. The full stats of the Yamato class were not known until after the war, so the Montana class ships that were to follow the Iowa were designed with the best weapons then available rather than design new guns and delay those ships even further. There were USN designs for 18" guns, and IIRC even a very few built for testing but the 70,000 ton Montana class was to be built with 12 of the tried and trusted MK-7 16" firing the 2,700 lb "superheavy" AP round.
The final Montana class was larger than Iowa, not capable of using the Panama Canal and slower with a designed flank speed of 27 knots, same as the North Carolina and South Dakota classes. Armor would have been thicker than Iowa's over key areas but NOT as thick as the Yamato class ships, torpedo protection better than Iowa. Compartmentation would have been at least comparable to the Iowa class.
Would Montana have been able to go toe to toe with Yamato? I think so, she was designed knowing that the Japanese monster ships existed, with assumptions of armor and armament made even though the exact stats were not known. Even though the 18.1" rifle had a longer range under ideal conditions than the USN MK-7, these 'ideal' conditions necessary for optical rangefinders rarely exist on the open sea. Haze, fog and clouds interfere with optical systems as does smoke laid by a destroyer screen. Radar on the other hand ...
Drachinifel pointed out these limitations and advantages in his videos on the Battle off Samar and a "what if" scenario where ADM Kurita was able to get through to the US invasion fleet with ADM Lee's "old" battleships between the Yamato group and the Philippine invasion fleet.
Robert, during the war how much did the United States understand about the size and danger of the Yamato's? Quite a lot, maybe, or not much until after the war? Thanks much.
@@brianchapman3701 As I understand it, intelligence on the Yamato class was lacking all throughout the war. The US knew about their existence but little else until Yamato was first sighted and photographed sometime after Pearl Harbor. From there assumptions and estimates could be made and those were refined with each subsequent sighting.
The real breakthrough came during the Philippine campaign when Battle Damage assessments were made based on both submarine sightings by Dace and Darter of Kurita's Center Force and pilot action reports immediately after their attacks on Musashi. The 20 confirmed torpedo hits astounded Navy planners, the 500 and 1000 pound bomb hits were factored in as well as photos taken during and immediately after the action by U.S. pilots were very carefully assessed by photo intelligence analysts.
By the time of the Battle of Leyte Gulf and Battle off Samar, the U.S. had already decided to either delay further or outright cancel the Montana class so the new information on the Yamato class was mainly factored into tactical thinking. Note that the torpedo plane attacks on Yamato were conducted using the information gleaned from the after action reports on the sinking of Musashi. ALL of the torpedo planes were to attack Yamato on one side rather than from around the compass, resulting in Yamato capsizing after fewer hits (9 IIRC.) One torpedo plane attacked and hit the starboard side of the ship while everyone else attacked from port.
Montana might have been a match for Yamato or not, but we'll never know. She had lighter main guns firing lighter AP shells, but shipped more of them and while the US didn't know it at the time, the Japanese metallurgy had difficulty in providing the 18 and 20 inch thick armor plate properly hardened as needed by these giants.
All bluster to the contrary I don't think a single Iowa could have taken her in a 1 on 1 duel though she could have seriously damaged the larger ship. It would take 2 or more of the Iowa, South Dakota or North Carolinas working together with no distractions to ensure a kill. The butcher's bill in return is something I don't like to think about.
There are still things not fully known about the Yamato class, though minor I believe. The Japanese did a thorough job of destroying the designs and construction records of the three hulls after the surrender though some records thought destroyed turned up within the last few years.
The Japanese use of main battery guns against aircraft is actually reflected in the secondary battery being very tightly clustered amidships to avoid blast damage from the big guns. However, this resulted in a lot of deck space forward and aft with no AA guns as opposed to US battleships that installed AA guns from bow to stern. It does not seem that the Japanese were correct in this policy. Main Battery guns are not as effective as dedicated secondary AA guns against aircraft. So why did they go this way? It was not just a spot decision to use the main battery in any specific battle. The designers laid out the secondary AA battery arrangement specifically so the main battery could also be used against air attacks.
That clustering to reduce damage from the 18" gun blast applies to the light AA mounts, but not the 5" secondaries. Yamato was designed with a relatively short, compact citadel, making her vitals a harder target to hit. This required her secondaries to be packed closer together because her citadel (and superstructure) weren't as long as most other BBs, such as Iowa.
We need to think not only of armor thickness and gun size but armor QUALITY....
Far easier to take a look at the two vessel's immunity zones.
As to quote the curator in the response to another comment: "We have an entire video planned on the differences with armor, stay tuned. But in short, that did make a slight difference."
But we never made that video, oops! Soon!
@@BattleshipNewJersey A shame indeed, I remember having once read some papers on armor quality and effectiveness comparisons, but an in-depth video on the topic made by you guys would be much more memorable.
Is my thinking exactly. Yamato was heavy and well armored, in theory. The fact is that Japanese steel is of very poor quality which is something the japanese have known about for hundreds of years, hence why Samurai swords are so complicated to make.
In reality even thou Yamatos armor was thicker, I think in terms of actual armor protection it was on par with Iowas and Bismarck class ships.
The Iowa class had better fire control computers and radar
How would you know this? The whole debate is stupid because the Yamato never fought against another battle ship.
@@bananabana6630 it’s proven in the historical records. They know what each side had technologically at some point after the war. We had access to all their schematics, crew, ship builders and designers.
So? Doesn't mean jack shit when the naval guns themselves can't aim over 20,000 yards.
Obligatory _Space Battleship Yamato_ comment (or Starblazers for many of us in the Western world).
Советский союз/ Sovetsky Soyuz please?😐
Yeah, but the Yamato could go into space! Could the Iowa class do that? I think not!
But Yamato blew up there too....