Could USS Iowa have stood up to the might IJN Yamato if the two had met?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лют 2018
- How would have USS Iowa fared against IJN Yamato? This video explores the tactics of the hypothetical battle that never was, goes into strengths and weaknesses of both ships and explains what was important in such clashes of behemoth ships!
Thanks to World of Warships for sponsoring this video! First 300 viewers to use the code PLAYWARSHIPS2018 can get 250 doubloons, 1,000,000 Credits, HMS Campbeltown premium ship, one port slot and 3 days premium time when you click here → bit.ly/2nwVniF
Music by Matija Malatestinic
www.malatestinic.com
Vote for country pairs you'd like to see in future videos in the poll, over at our website:
www.binkov.com
You can also browse for a Binkov T-Shirt or other Binkov merch, via the store at our website, using the aforementioned link.
If you really like Binkov's videos, you can support him via Patreon.
www.patreon.com/user?u=3606614
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos!
ua-cam.com/users/BinkovsBatt...
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook!
binkovsbattl... - Розваги
Actual combat experience in WWII shows the importance of damage control during battle. Many US carriers suffered immense amounts of damage, yet survived thanks to superior damage control procedures and better trained crews.
Like Lexington?
In a carrier slugfest you would be correct. The IJN thought they had sunk US carriers that had limped away and it happened a lot. Yet damage control in a battleship fight proved to be insignificant DURING the fight.
Meh...the LUCK was the most important...
@@VersusARCH
A lowly US seaman went to his captain with an idea to drain all fuel from the gasoline lines and flood them with inert gas, after the Lexington was sunk. His idea was implemented. If a lowly seaman had approached his captain in the IJN he would have been beaten to a pulp with a stick.
Not sure in BB fights it was that much of issue, more in CVs. Hood vs Bismarck proved that ... damage control may not even start and fight is over. And Bismarck only had 380mm guns.
fun fact: later on in their lives the iowa class was given W23 nuclear shells, each shell contained a 15-20 kiloton warhead, imagine 9 nuclear bombs being fired at you.......
yamato: *nervous sweating*
@@solomongrundy4905 no i don't get it form anywhere i haven't read any comic books dude you know what ill just delete the comments
@@solomongrundy4905 "I sErVeD oN WhIsKy" Yeah, cause pp can determine everything about you, like you could take that from anywhere in the internet hmm?
@@solomongrundy4905 The only reason why the Missouri is so widely known is the Japanese surrendered on her decks. The only reason why the Missouri was chosen was President Truman was from Missouri. The reason why the Missouri is my personal favorite battleship that's still afloat is I re-enlisted on board her 2 Oct 1999 in Pearl Harbor. (The USS Oregon BB-3 is my favorite, since I'm from Oregon)
BB 64 Just from your last comment, I doubt you had any experience on the Whisky and if you actually did I question your competence. Your last comment shows us a lot about your maturity and it’s not looking so well. Try NOT to make Navy Veterans look bad. This is shameful...
Yamato: Ho? You're approaching me? Instead of running away, you're coming right to me?
Iowa: I can't beat the shit out of you without getting closer.
Yamato: Come closer I’d you want to
yamato: *ho ho then come as close as you like*
Yamato: I´ve still got a higher range than you. HoHo!
(Lot of aircraft carrier enter combat)
Yamato : ah shit here we sink again
Hahaha KanColle x JoJo. XD
One blatant thing you've missed . The IOWA had centimetric radar . The Yamato had " Graff Spee " 1939 german radar . Like a candle against a searchlight , and a fantastically accurate searchlight ! The American ship could throw up a smoke screen and , radar wise , accurately " see "and through it . It could totally stay hidden in the dark ...........
One thing for sure, it would have been one hell of a battle.
Not really, the truth is that Japanese steel was far inferior to American steel, you are talking about on 15-20% better protection from the same thickness, based on low end estimates, and 20-25% better protection, based on high end estimates, in comparison between the steels, also, the iowa had an all or nothing armor scheme, where almost 80% of its armor, protecting critical areas
lastly, we have to talk about the Mark 8, 2700lb APCBC, a round with armor penitration, that was only around nearly equal to the Yamato's 18 inch guns
Also, american gunnery, navagation, and naval warfare training, once the US finally got involved was far superior, and able to turn out recruits, that were as competent as most navy's veterans
@@DragonstarFighter also to add they did test the 16 inch on a piece of armor from the unfinished yamatoo ship and in testing 16 inch was more then enough to pen at range
@@DragonstarFighter Yes but Yamato's 18.1" amour-piercing shells were far more effective than US Navy 16" shells. Proof: At Pearl Harbor the Type 99 amour-piercing shells were fitted with fins and used as bombs. Look at the USS Arizona, USS Oklahoma, USS West Virginia and USS Texas. The shell/bombs penetrated the entire depth of the Oklahoma and detonated underwater, blowing bigger holes than direct hits would have caused. The most telling factor would be Iowa's SJN surface ranging RADAR which gave precise ranges out to 40 Km, despite spray. Iowa would have vastly better "target solutions" than Yamato. Yamato is the more stable gun platform, but Iowa has gyroscopically balanced guns. Real world results: Both ships would be incredibly damaged, and would break off the action while screaming all the time by radio for submarine/aircraft aid. Especially aircraft would put "PAID" to either sides ship(s). "The battleship (dreadnought) is rendered obsolete by the emergence of Naval Aviation"-Admiral Yamamoto 1927
@Ricky Earp Did Yamamoto really say that in 1927? He would’ve been one of the first to realize that if true.
Ricky Earp You’re using an example of modern munitions bombing old dreadnoughts sitting in port to a modern fast battleship with better protection and quality of armor
To my mind, the outcome of the battle would depend almost entirely on the actions of the Iowa's captain. The two most significant differences between Iowa & Yamato was that Iowa had a nearly 6 knot speed advantage and her gunnery systems. The speed advantage meant that the Iowa could choose whether to engage at all, when to do so and at what range. The Iowa's gunnery radar was capable of achieving complete blind fire meaning that they didn't have to establish any visual contact to fire. Yamato's radar was decent for range but couldn't resolve tightly enough to give a usable bearing to determine a firing solution. Something else that deserves mention is that Yamato's computers weren't as good as the Iowa's; the Yamato could either fire or actively maneuver but she couldn't do both. If she wanted to maneuver, she'd have to cease fire and if she wanted to fire, she'd have to drive at a constant course and speed.
If the Iowa's captain was competent, my guess is that he'd maintain a range that would enable him to track Yamato but be outside of gunnery range until nightfall then engage from long range and gradually move in. This was the recommendation made by the captain of the Washington following the night battle of Guadalcanal based upon his observation that the Japanese weren't using radar like the US was. In this scenario, the Iowa could fire on Yamato while actively maneuvering, while the Yamato's ability to respond would be very limited. If she tried to fire, she'd be creating a very easy solution for Iowa and likely take heavy damage in the process. If she tried to maneuver, she couldn't return fire and would still likely take damage as Iowa's radar was so accurate that it could read shell splashes.
All that said, I could easily see the battle ending with Yamato heavily damaged but not sunk and Iowa out of shells. But Yamato's only real chance to win, barring the Iowa's captain being dumb enough to try to fight a close range battle in daylight or taking an unlucky hit that would slow Iowa to the point that the Yamato could close, would be to simply try to ride out the bombardment and just hope their armor held.
How do you think other US fast battleships would fare (North Carolina class, South Dakota Class, Montana Class although it was only a design and was never commissioned, also what about US standard battleships i.e. Tennessee Class, Colorado Class, New Mexico class)
I think you are correct. With better radar, the Iowa wants a night engagement
@@tennesseecurtiss5741 - The major difference between the NC and SD related to the Iowa was the speed. Both classes were about as fast as the Yamato so the ability to choose the time and range of the engagement would be very limited. None of those ships could dictate the terms of the engagement so I think it would come down to the shooting and again, I'd give the edge to the U.S. I'd say that the NC would be much more vulnerable given their lighter armor. I think a Yamato v. NC or SD would be a more even match but I do think either U.S. ship could defeat a Yamato given their much more accurate guns.
When it comes to the standards, its much more difficult for the U.S. They could only make 21-23 knots which would mean that they had no capacity to determine the range. They did get updated radar and gunnery computers so I think they would inflict damage on a Yamato but the flipside is that a Yamato could close them to a much closer range and absolutely devastate a standard while their 14" guns, while hardly peashooters, would be nowhere near as effective as the 16" with Super Heavy AP. Countering this, at least to a degree, is the fact that the standards were almost never operating alone so a Yamato would likely face more than one of them. If even a 2v1, I think the standards might be able to achieve a mission kill, ie take out the Yamato's directors or otherwise reduce her ability to engage and force her to withdraw but sinking her would probably be out of the question.
While an excellent analysis, the key factor is that we must ignore hindsight. Battleship captains, especially the rookies that actually ran the Iowa at the time, would've engaged at their comfortable 24 km range. At that range, Iowa would've lacked penetrating power, whereas the Yamato would've been able to pierce heavy armor, including the citadel
@@jessblues848 Iowa's AP shell had a better penetration than other ships for their caliber and their shell velocity was higher than yamato because of barrel length so difference is less.
The fact that the Iowa is even close to equal or better than Yamato even with smaller guns, less armor, and about 15,000 tons less weight, is a testament to the quality of Iowas manufacture and design and the skill of the sailors that manned her.
Wikipedia had a edit war to hide Yamato sinking itself.
I believe that the Iowa would win even in 1943 because they would probably still keep distance even though the video says other wise
They were too simplistic in the armor analysis. Not only was iowa made of stronger steel the armor was designed to survive hits whereas Yamato was just regular old steel plating that once damaged wouldn't really serve any more resistance.
@@bwl57 exactly
Its 100% better...yamato would not stand a chance. Yamato was just bigger. It had bad accuracy and was slow. Yamato is an overrated war machine from a obsolete military doctrine.
Both ships would swiss-cheese each other above the waterline and limp away asking “why the hell did we just do this?”
more like "why the hell were we patrolling without an escort anyway?"
Finally Wargaming actually picks someone competent to make a warships video :) woo! Not like some of those other sponsored channels. Good job Binkov!
iChaseGaming yay IChase!
Hi chase!
True to that bro.
Yep this guy actually answers the question of Iowa vs Yamato as opposed to Real Life Lores thumbnail bait (and they didnt even answer the question in the vid sigh*) . Certainly informative and a breath of fresh air away from that crap...
wasnt expecting you to watch this channel
Fuck, I thought this was; The Warsaw Pact vs NATO (The Ground War).
No? Am I the only one?
a random person lol no. You no are singles
a random person lol Bro it shows 2 battleships what'd ya mean?
This is not a Binkow video its a WOW add.
We all were expecting that
Tano Strelok no follow him on facebook
Iwoa vs Yamato FIGHT!
Bismarck: Log out....
F for Bismarck LMAO
Bismarck would stand no chance against either ship. Nor her sisters
@@JRock3091 Thats not right, Bismarck would have goodchance becquse of great technology, also a very good armor and very good accuracy
@@brokenwolf2568 the bismarck can't win against the uss missouri because the accuracy of each shot only accounts for short-range while the uss missouri has excellent fire-control systems and a few knots more in speed.
@@brokenwolf2568the yamato would clap the bismarck in short-range since she has bigger guns and both have shit non-periscope fire-control systems
As a battleship 1980's sailor, I found your research and information to be very informative and intriguing. All bases especially night and rainy as well as crew experience was well researched. Radar seemed to be the key back then as for today it's all about distance.
What ship were you on?
@@f40carz93 My dude look up how many battleships were active in 1980....
Let me know if you still cant figure it out.
In the late 80s, all 4 iowas were reactivated. The original comment does not have any specific date as well, so it’s fair to assume he was on board when they were reactivated
@@f40carz93 Exactly so id hardly say he was serving on the Nevada would you?
Perhaps next time phrase your question more appropriately?
@@brentonherbert7775 I don’t at all get what you are trying to say
TAKE THAT FLAT EARTHERS!!!
Lmao :D
Tattle Boad he was talking about when Binkov was saying about the ranges where the ships could see each other from,where it looked like they were on two sides of the globe and the earth was drawn round
LOOOOL thats exactly what I was thinking about
Loooooooooool me toooooo..... They don't made radars for ballistics calculation without any reason
Fake news and propaganda.
Earth is flat fact!
Before watching I am going to place my bets on the Iowa. The Yamato relied on visual targeting, while the US had insane radar targeting systems.
Ballistic performance was arguably better as well. Ppl talk about gun barrel diameter as the end-all metric. "Yamato has 18 in guns, I win bye bye." The Iowa had radar-guided fire control, which meant it didn't need to actually see a target to fire on it; computers are generally more reliable at precise tasks. The Iowa also had longer barrels to increase the range and velocity of the shells. The ship needed to fit through the Panama Canal so they had to make everything smaller, w/o sacrificing performance. The Iowa also had "super heavy" shells, which essentially means denser. Pack more mass into lesser volumes and you have less surface area per unit of mass and (given greater acceleration and mass) more force. If you apply the force to a smaller area you have greater pressure. This is a simplistic but useful way of thinking about armor penetration. The Yamato was also made of poorer materials b/c Japan had a far less mature industry. The Iowa was faster meaning it could dictate the initial terms of engagement, which is a massive advantage. Even though the Iowa had lesser max range, the Yamato's accuracy at those ranges was pretty abysmal. At any given range, the Iowa was more accurate. Additionally, the "modern" US battleships of the time could all maintain a firing solution while doing crazy maneuvers, which other ships could not do. The only advantages the Yamato had was optics (rendered moot by radar fire control) and overall armor.
@@solomongrundy4905 Longest range hit in combat was around 26k yards. Yammatos longer range would be irrelevant.
@@solomongrundy4905 Best Optics < Best Radar
@@solomongrundy4905
Someone's been playing too much World of Warship. You know that stuff's not real, right?
@@solomongrundy4905 One thing to consider with the optics. The smoke from Yamato's own guns would blind their spotters for a period of time after every shot.
From 1944 onward, US Navy radar-directed fire became frighteningly accurate. This became apparent in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. US forces were able to blast away with impunity against IJN forces. Only when IJN forces closed the distance dramatically could they compete, but by that time they were usually severely damaged with their ability to wage war compromised.
Actually, from 1942, American ship radar was very good.
The Washington vs. the Kirshama was evidence of that earlier in the war
I heard when one of the Iowa classes (Missouri?) Was reactivated during the 80s or 90s they opted to not touch the radar for fear of ruining the extreme accuracy of the ship
@@michaeldaniels-dq1opsame. They could have updated the aiming system. But the analog system was already just as good, if not more efficient.
At the Battle of Surigao Straits in October 1944, U.S.S. West Virginia, repaired and modernized after Pearl Harbor, detected the opposing Japanese force at 42,000 yards (23.8 miles) distance, and scored a first-salvo main battery hit on IJN battleship Yamashiro upon opening fire about a minute later. Although the precise distance of her hit can only be estimated, it undoubtedly ranks as one of the longest ever in the annals of battleship gunnery at sea. And this was a WWI-vintage vessel, not a modern fast battleship.
The U.S.S. Missouri versus Yamato would have been an epic duel, but the markedly superior U.S. radar and electro-mechanical fire-control computers of the U.S. vessels would have given them an insurmountable advantage if employed properly and in an timely manner. The fire control systems on the Iowa class battleships were so good that as late as the 1980s, solid-state systems could not surpass or improve upon their performance.
The American advantage in radar and fire-control negates - if not outright neutralizes - the caliber and range advantage enjoyed by the Japanese super-battleship, when considering a match-up of this kind.
It is poetic in a way that the victors in the last battleship-to-battleship engagement in history were composed in part of resurrected survivors of Pearl Harbor. Somehow closes the circle that way...
You are literally the only one to consider the fact that neither side could calculate the odds against them when in major engagements. I've tried arguing this but people wouldn't listen. TY.
Yamato is *THICC*
Fliyo MB noob
Who would win? one thicc boi, or one quick boi.
>Keane looks like she eats a lot f tater tots
MegaPhoenix Prunus Ah I see you are a man of culture as well
Who doesn't like Thicc battleship? XD
Why not 1984 Iowa? Versus space battleship Yamato
would be unfair, Yamato would be able to take it out from orbit with missiles or wave motion gun
enterprise vs space battleship yamato.
That might be interesting. Just let Iowa have all of her experimental munition as well, likes reactive shell that out range Yamato or even nuclear warhead.
still a miss match is is a dedicated space warship going against a surface ship which can't even get into range of the orbiting yamato.
How about a super-modern Iowa with railgun-launched nuclear missiles? Is it pushing it? I don't care, it's fighting a flying battleship
...But, what damage could one hit do? 4:03
DKM Bismarck: Hold my beer...
WWII ship taken down by a WWI biplane. So take that Bismarck
@@sethgilcrist8088 W11? W1?
Ya World War 2 , World War 1
@@sethgilcrist8088 False.
Fairey Swordfish was by no means a WWI plane. It's actually a 30's aircraft (first flight in 1934, introduction of service in 1936) that proved itself to be so incredibly good that it was one of the few planes that lasted through out the whole war. It outlived its supposed replacements, two of them in-fact.
Whether or not Swordfish delivered the final blow to Bismarck is up to debate, because royal navy threw everything at bismarck.
@@sethgilcrist8088 Shut up virgin
The problem with Yamato is that so often it’s underrated by people who don’t know what they’re talking about. There was a guy on Quora who said that Yamato would be hard-pressed to beat a pre-dreadnought… gimme a break. This vid is one of the most accurate ones out there. Thanks binkov for making a great and accurate video!
Well considering yamoto was hard pressed to beat a single plucky little destroyer that was half sunk....
Yeeeeeah id wager a pre dreadnaught would have fun with yamoto too before yamoto hit anything lmao.
I want to see a REAL battle.
Sealand verse the Vatican City, in a 1 v 1 battle
Sealand has no military, therefore the Vatican automatically wins.
@@andrewleonard475 sealand's inhabitants got some guns if i remember correctly
The Papacy does have approximately ten thousand holy warriors to call upon when war is declared. Sealand is gonna have a rough one unless their brown water Navy is equipped with good antipersonnel weaponry.
That Bad BLU Spy and it’s 1 billion followers....
@@WRGOP You _did_ catch on to the CKII reference, did you?
I think you had about the best assessment between these two battleships. Very well done. The only part I need to say is that I think even though the sailors were green in 1943, the knowledge of damage control techniques gained from the US Aircraft Carriers during the battles of 1942 would have influenced the Iowa's ability to fight off damage.
Yeah pretty sure they were last used in operation desert storm
@@lefatmonke1077yea they were brought back in the 80s
Yamato was so highly thought of by the IJN command she sat in port a great deal rather than being exposed to a random strike by a US submarine. So much time in port she was referred to as the "Hotel Yamato" by some in the IJN.
Just like Tirpitz.
Yamato sitting in the Inland Sea thousands of miles from the raging naval battles in the South Pacific, or swaying at anchor at Turk, still far removed, was cause of great resentment on the part of the smaller vessels of the Japanese fleet, the destroyers and cruisers who shouldered so much of the load of naval warfare in the South and Central Pacific. It isn't any wonder that the sailors began referring to her as a "floating hotel" for senior officers, and her sister ship Musashi in the same manner.
The real tragedy from the Japanese standpoint is that the timidity of the brass - the navy and army senior officers and political leadership back in Tokyo - cost them the window of opportunity to really influence the war in a dramatic way toward Japan's ends by using the super battleships when their employment might have proved decisive early in the war. By the time the high command finally assented to their use, their window of opportunity had passed and the days of battleships themselves. By then, American air power was so overwhelming that there could be only one outcome for these magnificent but doomed ships.
Then a freak hit renders all calculations and strategies academic.
Just ask HMS Hood about that one...
Or Bismarck, rendered uncontrollable by one lucky torpedo from an obsolete biplane...
The hms hood was sunk because of its slightly armoured deck being penetrated
Hood had a glass deck...like a boxer with a glass jaw
@@Jamo_7811 Nope. A deck hit wouldn't have been able to penetrate down to the magazine. And they were far to close for plunging fire. Instead, it seems most likely that it was freak hit, that thanks to the through of the bow-wave managed to hit below the armour belt.
I ageee with the op. The point the op was making is that both ships have insane destructive power with their shells. I would say the likelihood of a catastrophic hit between the two would be much higher than simple calculations would have you think.
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth - Mike Tyson
The greatest weapon you can have on the battlefield is insane luck
Some very nice info on both ships here. Great work! I'd definitely go for Iowa's agility and better radar as the winner.
I shit myself lol
uss montana would like to know your location
Parody5Gaming how intriguing..
@@parkersturtevant5621 design A 150, h class
alsace class, design b 65, O class, and alaska class have joined the chat
Well the lowa had a better version know has uss new jerseys which had cruise missles and anti ship missle which would probably used against the kriov missle cruiser
In a night fight, Iowa. In a daylight battle, Yamato.
Dont forget the "luck" factor
Just like Bismarck vs Hood on Denmark Strait, each admiral doing the right thing but unlucky for Hood.
What luck factor?
@@ajalvarez3111 are ever watch black hawk down?
the moment the all soldier jump out of helo and rpg came out then the pilot take evasive maneuver and the last man fall
That is "luck" factor
Just like i said before, like bismarck and hood on demark strait, both Gunther Lutjens and Lancelot Holland doin the right thing but bismarck land its bullet right to hood ammo depot
@@ajalvarez3111 or the simple way is " the shit u dont know whats gonna happen"
Yeah Bismarck got lucky but paid for it later on.
You never know with the luck factor and it's always there.
In some situations it might have been a toss up. The Yamato was a formidable platform with the largest rifles ever place on a war ship. But I agree the Iowa Class Battleships had the advantage. In terms of Radar directed fire control, no question the Iowa class would have prevailed. Particularly at night, like the USS Washington (with the exact same armament as the Iowas) did over the IJN Kirishima in November 1942. Destroyed it at night in about 15 mins.
WASHINGTON had 16” 45s. IOWAs had Mark 7 lightweight 16” 50s. Significantly better.
Iowa battleship fire systems were so good they were not replaced when reactivated in 1984
I WOULD TO KNOW WHO CRAZY PERSON IS THAT ACTUALLY BELIEVES THE YAMOTO COULD DEFEAT THE THE IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIP! I HEARD HE HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE ASYLUM HE ESCAPED FROM!!!
@@kimberlywilliams7543 yamato guns were many times stronger than the iowa. It would probably take a single, decent shot to sink it. But it probably wouldn't hit it very quickly. The battle is a huge gamble and anyone could win.
@@toddhoward7649 Guns being many times stronger? What exactly does that mean? I think the ammunition used and the targeting systems have a major role when considering the efficiency. When Yamoto fired with the main heavy guns (100+ shots?) at Samar, there very few hits (none?) although a few close hits caused damage secondary guns may to have done more damage. As for the secondary 155 guns taken as system components from light cruisers, very little modification was done as far as I know and they just provide some major weak points in the battleship (at least one early gun hit at or close to a 155 turret made a huge hole). A lot of the AA was underperforming as far as I understand it with poor or non-existing automation aids for aiming and one of the worst AA guns at that stage of the war. Even when they beefed up AA later the result was way below US standard. Comparing the AA guns or the AA systems all by themselves could indicate that Japan was not able to adapt enough and cling to Yamato much as a symbol more than an efficient tool for the job at hand at a later stage of the war.
@@toddhoward7649 That is incorrect. The guns were VERY close in penetrating power. Unless a ships gets the 1 in 1 million lucky shot like Bismarck did on Hood, Battleships can absorb many, many hits and still fight. There was not a huge difference in firepower between these two.
@@SealofPerfection also, Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship proper.
I’m still waiting for a Space Battleship Iowa Anime
Watch Star Treck...
I like this idea.
It happened already, Japan just miss translated the Name in to Yamato. JK XD
It is already out there
No I lied only in the year 3000
Both battleships when they see each other:
Finally a worthy ship our naval battle will be legendary
Why didn't this comment blow up? THIS IS *GREAT*
Wow, that was thorough. I was in the Field Artillery and that I would get all this. I have to give it to all the swabbies out there doing this. Great job and much respect from an Arty guy.
Thanks cannon cocker
Brain - "Damn those are 2 sexy girls."
Thanks Kancolle Collection
Hoteru ja arimasen!
-Yamato
aint real
Thanks for telling the obvious.
Hokata Same here
Kancolle... 'Never thought ships could be so attractive!!!'
"Wargaming has released historically accurate ship" LMAO
laughs in USSR battleship line
Laughs in Petropavlosk
i come from the future *they f*cked up the bridge in the game*
"These ship fires in the game are out of hand and ruin the game"
*"REMEMBER TSUSHIMA COMRADE!"*
"Actual navies don't fight with coal dust covered ships..."
*"REMEMBER TSUSHIMA COMRADE!"*
This duel almost happened at the Battle of Letye Gulf. Had the US stationed TF34 at the San Benadeno Strait. The USS Iowa and 5 other fast battleships, 2 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers and 18 destroyers would have been in position to confront the IJN Yamato and the 3 other battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers and 11 destroyers of the Central Force.
There are some extremely detailed info on Iowa class guns from the navy, I believe. Iowa had high velocity, penetrator armor piercing shells. Perhaps 5 types of shells. Special treatments to improve life of cannon tubes. Very interesting!
I've set foot all throughout USS Iowa, amazing thing.
You really outdid yourself this time, even the sponsor really worked out for this video. Great stuff
Do the classic Wargaming strategy: HE spam and light it on fire first.
I might put my bets on the USS Johnson.
USS Johnston's crew would board Yamato.
IJN Yamato used main guns!
It wasn't cery effective...
USS Johnston used charging like a madlad!
It was very sh*tty!
IJN Yamato got scared!
IJN Yamato fled!
The Iowa class lived on till 1990s, and with Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles that totally negate most of the arguments here. Impressive how they retro fit the ship, especially when visited in person (in Hawaii, the mighty Mo). But I like this video taking a pretty comprehensive view of all factors.
Wargaming WoW has Yamato at Tier X vs Iowa at Tier IX, I believe it's because of the armor and the penetration power of the Yamato.
ousi00 which is exactly why i sadly believe yamato is better, i honestly hate to face that truth
@@alchemist6819 Lol no it wouldn't.
Imagine if the Yamato battleship was still around and modernized with modern weapons and systems etc it would be a powerhouse lol
Another amazing video, Binkov! Keep up the fantastic work! :D
Excellent analysis! Truly informative!
Great video, enjoyed the animated graphic examples and comparative data. Had not heard of “World of Warships”, but after hearing your theories on battleship tactics, it sounds like fun. Thank you!
A great versus with my two favorite battleships of all time.
Kancolle!
@@Mudkun lol I forgot both battleships are in Kantai Collection
Ohio national guard vs North Korea.
Not even a question. Ohio wins hand's down.
Ohio National Guard vs Fort Polk's Geronimo 🤣😂
HAHAHAH Buckeyes!
Lol whut?
I guess you don’t remember you and most of the Western world fighting North Korea to a draw 65 years ago.
*Wyoming national guard
"Minor Victory" means that it could go the other way by human error or just pure luck. Seeing this battle would be a spectacle.
Wow this was a very good video, exceptionally informative and interestingly presented. Nice job, thanks for sharing
I took a tour of the USS New Jersey (Iowa class) once. Very cool ship
I've been there as well. I need to go back. Really awesome.
I took a tour when I was a kid on the Mighty Mo. It was great but you only got to go on the deck. That was around 1970 when it was in Bremington, Washington.
I’m going there for my birthday!
You mean the one in Camden, NJ
Let's remember two things: the prompt and unplaned disassembly of IJN Kirishima - courtesy of USS Washington. And the actions of Taffy 3, especially USS Johnston. - Iowa was able to run circles around Yamato and could jump from a rain school to another or just position herself in the setting sun and pound Yamato into oblivion by precise radar guided fire. Count in the superior american damage control.
Or, you know, just shadow Yamato with superior search radar and wait until night.
"both ships would be moving making them harder to hit"
World of warships: I'm about to ruin this man's whole career
The means/manner of death of IJN Musashi indicate that such a theoretical battle line confrontation could last (barring any "lucky" or unfortunate hits upon either) quite a long time. To me it's always been significant (and sad?) that neither the Yamato class or Iowa class played any decisive role in real WWII surface combat.
Awesome video as always binkov Lenin would be proud my commissar :-)
At extremely long ranges (like 32-36km), neither ship could penetrate the other's turrets, and most likely couldn't penetrate the belt armor on the sides to the hull either. But they most likely could smash through the deck armor, as it wasn't nearly as thick as the belt/turrets on either ship.
The World of Warship commerical videos are everywhere!! Every infographics video about Warships!!!
In the real world, Japanese gunnery was usually fairly mediocre. Some sources would claim it was atrocious. As long as Iowa remained at the limit of her range and engaged from very much afar using her speed and very sophisticated radar controlled gunnery, she'd have an excellent chance of winning. She wouldn't need to penetrate much of Yamato's armor, either, instead achieving a "soft kill" by taking out her rangefinders and directors. However, the super heavy 16 inch 50 cal shell most likely could penetrate Yamato's armor at certain ranges and angles. Remember, Japanese armor was average quality, while American armor was usually very good. Japanese damage control was also almost an afterthought compared to the US Navy, where it was darned near a religion, so damage would become progressively harder to repair in contrast to Iowa.
This is all an academic exercise, a fun what if, but everyone (and, there are many) who claim that by virtue of her size that Yamato would always win need to look at more than simple stats. Handled smartly, I'd take Iowa 8 or 9 times out of 10.
It's widely accepted that just Iowa's superior Radar FCS alone would be enough to more accurately target & track Yamato class battleships.
You have to remember that if Iowa is sailing at, or close to, her maximum rated speed it also makes it harder for her guns to train on a target. It goes both ways.
You're correct about the not needing to penetrated Yamato's belt, although it could.
You are very incorrect about the quality of Japanese armour though. The way the IJN smelted their armour plates was based off an older British method called Japanese Vickers Hardened (VH) face-hardened, non-cemented armor. At the time, the Japanese were trying to smelt armour that was cheaper and more effective to produce. Halfway through the war, Japanese metallurgists had in fact superior armour specifications for new ships that were PLANNED on being built. It was far less brittle and stronger, with less thickness, than the company that smelted the armour for Iowa's armour profile. This new type of stronger armour was to be added to Yamato class ships, but they were sunk before they could be reinforced.
You're also correct on inferior Japanese damage control. But you have to take in mind that CURRENT US navy damage control is practiced religiously. In WWII, both Japanese & American damage control standards were both bad. The Americans however learnt from their mistakes and made damage control a priority over time, not initially.
No. Post war US Navy tests showed that the only way USN 16” shells were penetrating the Yamato’s armour were from brand new guns firing perpendicular to the armour at point blank range-and even then it just cracked it... it didn’t completely go through.
You need fire directors for coordinated gun laying.. but rangefinders were built into the turrets.. and they would be nearly impossible to destroy.
Also.. the Iowa was more of a battlecruiser... with only a 12” Belt armour. It would not fair so well if hit... and it’s fragile electronics would be the first to suffer.
The Iowa’s never faced enemy battleships and never operated under less than full air superiority.. so they were never tested.
Can any of you speak to the Iowa's armor while only being 12 inches, being angled to provide greater overall protection. While the Japanese were considering thinner, higher quailty upgraded armor, it didn't exist for the two ships in service, therefore cannot be considered in any comparison, correct?
@@Bartonovich52 even then just cracked it, son here is a photo of jap armor with a 16 inch hole in it www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USNavyMuseum/OtherExhibits/pages/32Yamato26InchArmorPlate.htm
another factor not taken into account, but would definitely be involved, is damage control from hits. IJN used a doctrine of only training specific damage control personnel in damage control, while USN trained EVERYONE in damage control. This has a significant impact on a ship's ability to stay 'up' in combat, and was the undoing of several IJN warships during the war itself, particularly battles of Coral Sea and Midway.
What we have to keep in mind though is that a marginal victory either side is just a slightly more probability for that ship to win that scenario when repeated over say a hundred times. While the Iowa is more likely to hit, the Yamato is capable of hitting too, and should both ships get the range, suddenly the battle changes in favor of the Yamato due to armour/guns. All it takes however is a hit to a certain part of the ships and the probability changes again.
Excellent extrapolation of a theoretical situation. Bravo Comrade Binkov.. As a knowledgeable student of WW2 I am impressed. I could add a bit more to this scenario, but I digress. I hate to rhyme., sorry.
One of my new favorite military channels. Would love to see Binkov have a couple more muppet friends!
One important factor here is that at the time the USA did not know the specifications of Yamato's armour, as he mentions the author is assuming that Iowa sits at the sweet spot, however if we look at WW2 battleship combat almost all fights occurred between 15,000 and 23,000 yards. Now that said the sensible option is to do what the USA actually did and not get close enough to Yamato's big guns and instead send overwhelming air power
Iowa would likely do significantly more critical damage with a superior fire control system that lasted into the 80s, far better armor fabrication methods, and superior shell/powder quality. She also enjoyed superior maneuverability. Both would probably survive the encounter. It is unlikely either could land the tremendous amount of hits required to sink the other.
The air defense shells of Yamato damaged the gun so much that it would fail if used.
I was a guest of my neighbor's father (he was the ship Dentist, a Cmdr) in 1984 when Reagan had just visited the Iowa (BB61) in NY harbor. We travelled from NY to Norfolk where she was berthed. Iowa wasn't as big as my Dad's boat (Dad was XO of CVN-69, Eisenhower, which I also got the opportunity to spend 2 weeks out at sea in '79) but Iowa's blazing 16" guns were awesome to experience first-hand. I could feel the fire blast as it exited the barrels & the ship was moved about 30' sideway when they were all fired in unison. That was pretty fun & bad ass....I was 17 at the time in High School.
Yamato actually faced American fleets on several occasions.
In June, 1942 she was Admiral Yamamoto's flagship during the Midway Battle. The Japanese were defeated.
In December, 1943, Yamato was torpedoed by an American submarine, which necessitated repairs in Kure, Japan. A second defeat for Yamato.
In October, 1944, Yamayo engaged the US Navy in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Light American Escort Carriers and destroyers engaged Yamato when it's mission was to destroy the American beachhead, and turned back Yamato without firing a shot to complete that mission. The light forces of the US Navy were incredibly courageous to turn back the mighty Yamato, in yet another victory for the US Navy against a Japanese fleet containing Yamato as the principle warship.
Finally there was the April, 1945 effort of another fleet containing Yamato attacking the US Navy at Okinawa. Except for one destroyer, the entire fleet was destroyed by American air forces before it got anywhere near a US Navy ship.
So here are four engagements Yamato had with the US Navy, losing every one.
The one vs one ship battle described in the video is an interesting theoretical issue, but not the way navies actually fight with major capital ships such as Yamato.
And this is not to dismiss Yamato as a most remarkable ship and as the biggest battleship in history along with it's sister ship. But Japan didn't make it's navy work with what Yamato offered, while the United States navy became highly skilled in using it's immense naval forces, especially near the end of the war.
What about a theoretical battle between Yamato and the cancelled Montana Class Battleship?
Yamato would be at a disadvantage in terms of weight of broadside and effective range but it's likely the two ships would be relatively comparable in most respects except Yamato had a bit heavier armor then what was planed for Montana however, I've read that the armor on US ships was of higher quality. I think Iowa cripples Yamato maybe 6-7 times out of 10 and Montana cripples Yamato 7-8 times out of 10. There was a good deal of progress made on the American ships where, by the end of the war, Yamato was starting to fall behind.
Ironically the Yamato was the most advanced battleship (at least in terms of armor and firepower) of a bygone era of naval warfare. Battleships (dreadnoughts) had not decided WW1 as many thought they would and they didn't decide WW2 in the Atlantic and Pacific. Yamato and Musashi never once engaged in the massive fleet battles they were built for and were sunk by carrier launched planes. Not that they played no role at all, but aircraft carriers had shown that they were much more versatile.
Not advanced as it was very well engineered, but let down by the immature or under developed technologies the Japanese had available.
WW2, ironically, showed everybody that BBs were an outdated concept. The US was kinda stubborn and tried to keep the Iowas as late as 2006, but eventually decided to retire the ships and the concept of BBs altogether. Still, I am a fan of the Iowas. Beautiful ships.
Wish Yamato and Musashi were in Guadalcanal...
@@WadcaWymiaru Washington would've sunk them.
@@benn454
Oh yeach?
North Carolina wasn't able to sunk the WWI era battlecruisers.
(the were scuttled AFTER the battle)
Hell, even the cruisers perform better.
Yamato and Musashi were too big to be even bitten by Carolina cannons!
Yamatos belt armor was 410 mm inclined 20 degrees ( effective thickness of~436.3 mm of fine steel, 60 degree would give 820)
How to tell? Thickness/cos(angle)
Turret faces were 650mm, also slopped.
546 mm protected the barbette.
Bulkhead armor 350-300 mm.
The sides of the conning tower were protected by 500 millimeters.
/You sait the Washington has a chanse aganist that armored beast?/
Belt of armor 292 millimeters (11.5 in) thick, sloped 15° outwards at the top would be able to defeat 16-inch (410 mm) shells from a distance of 12,000-20,000 meters ~13,000-22,000 yd. (about Kii-Class that Yamato is based)
best analysis of this battle yet
Fascinating to think about, of course the winner would change from one engagement to the next.
The Yamato anti-aircraft shells (beehive rounds) would damage the barrel of the gun when fired. They could get about 19 shells fired before the rifling of the gun would need to be repaired. Also during the early parts of the war. IJN sailors were excellent at fighting at night and the USN tended to be more cautious during that time.
Kancolle Season 2
can't wait
don't care about it, just give us Shinano
I thought S2 was cancelled
GawsHawg there's no season 2
Dimas Bramantyo they mean the second season of the game
"a proper tactical simulation" - you made my day!
Nice analysis
Yes !!!! Please do IJN CV tactics vs USN CV tactics !!!!
think I'll take Admiral Nelson's advice, "No Captain can do wrong by putting his ship next to the of the Enemy,"...or something to that effect🤗
But in Nelson's days, the point was to board the enemy ship and defeat the enemy crew in close quarters fighting with pistols and cutlasses. If you tried to rely on your ship's cannon only, chances were the enemy would target your sails and rigging and then you would not be able to keep up with the enemy or maneuver properly.
AudieHolland, Well, the French were always going after the rigging & sails but didn't serve them very well. British guns were pretty effect at the Nile, Trafalgar, 1st of June (Nelson not in that one don't think) w/o too much boarding. Still I know Nelson wasn't opposed to boarding like his "bridge" to board a first rater the 112 gun San Josef, forgot the name of the battle & the bridge with the Spanish Navy but can come back in a bit with answer in a bit...internet or my old fashion books.
Battle Cape St. Vincent & the bridge was the 80gun San Nicolás, from 74 HMS Captain to board San Joséf. Wiki says 114 gun, but the Spanish 1st were classified as 112's in most books I have except for the famous Santísima Trinidad that seems to vary between 130-140
He was also famous for saying "Just head right for them"!
Excellent analysis worthy of a career at the pentagon.
Great video
Yamato would stand any chance against Iowa only in daylight and perfect visibility.
Iowa with her speed advantage would easily avoid fighting under those conditions.
In all other cases Iowa with her radar controlled gun targeting would quickly disable Yamato firing controls making Yamato sitting duck for target practice.
The Japanese Navy was known to be the best nighttime fighters in the world. I doubt Iowa would win in a night fight.
@@jakedubs So true!
@@jakedubs no they weren't? The hell you getting your information? An would most certainly win a night fight against Yamato.
@@jjhester6586 The Guadalcanal campaign proved this
@@metaknight115i doubt the Japanese did more night fighting after Guadalcanal, as the americans learned hard that they should also be careful of night raids.
結論:日本もアメリカも凄い
This video was soo good.
A few things to note here. When the yamato was being built, the Japanese suffered from industrial set backs and time constraints limiting her full potential. The yamato was a very powerful warship however she was commissioned at a time when BBs were becoming obsolete at the hands of carriers so it would be fun to see her when BBs were in their prime. Another thing to note is that the US had ordered the Montana class to be able to properly and more confidently engage with ships that were around the level of the yamato class.
Also american navy was hiding their Iowa batleship from direct engaing with yamato or musashi ,their tactis was cowardly fighting from distanca with aviation,if Iowa batleship was superior to Yamatto they will engage him directly at least thre Iowa against one Yamato because Usa in this time has 4 battleship Iowa and Japanese only two battleship type Yamato
@@VelimirLefelmanWhile the Yamato was busy being the world's worst submarine the USS New Jersey sunk an island
Yamato never actually was in a gun battle so saying that Yamato's crew was more experienced is a stretch. US Battleship Washington, also brand new, had no trouble dispatching IJN battleship Kirishima, which was much older. Also, as you point out, with radar directed fore control and a faster ship, it would be extremely foolish for Iowa to do anything other than attack at night. At the battle of Suragao Straights, which took place at night, IJN battleship Yamashiro scored zero hits against the flotilla of US battleships she was facing. Likely strategy for Iowa v. Yamato one on one would be to delay til and pepper Yamato with shells at range giving plunging fire on Yamato's deck armor. for Iowa to do anything else would be malpractice on the part of her captain. Also Washington suffered zero casualties in the battle (at night) against Kirishima.
South Dakota was hit with 10-12 shells from Kirishima at close - only optics were used despite being in the darkness... South Dakota had a management issue with its engines - resulted in the loss of power for the Radar fire control systems. Washington arrived with fully functional radar and had to bail South Dakota from taking a further beating from Kirishima...
As an interesting note, while Yamashiro didn't hit Oldendorf's ships at all, the West Virginia (a rebuilt Colorado-class ship armed with 16-inch guns and the latest generation of radar fire control) was able to achieve hits with 5 of her first 6 salvos at night from 20km. She actually had a firing solution at 27km, but held her fire until Nishimura's ships were closer.
100% agree, unless you teleport both of the ships in a lake and force them to fight for death, Iowa would win every time
It was very interesting, that this old BC/BB Kirishima from the WWI could beat a new american battleship until next battleships arrival.
Yamato was in a gun battle in the Soloman islands
in return Iowa was also in a gun battle at Truk.
World of warships is taking over UA-cam.
bob1012350 and world of tanks
WoT is eh
Haruna Kai Ni world of warships on the other hand... pft it has a conqueror in it so u guess its bad too
Conq is op
And that's a bad thing?
A direct pitched fight with other battleships is the one thing Yamato was explicitly designed for
Very interesting, and entertaining.
USA had SuperHeavy 16" rounds that had comparable penetration, damage to yamatos 18" while being far more accurate, higher ROF.
BB 64 real life isn’t world of warships with citadels
@@solomongrundy4905 Yamatos armor which was much thicker was of inferior metal quality which led to it being softer, Which was both a weakness and strength same as Iowas high hardened steel in its qualities but reversed. Iowa doesnt have to fully penetrate it just has to blast it to pieces something its far better at due to its advantages.
@@solomongrundy4905 Battleships are not attempting to penetrate the armor of the turret faces, they're usually attempting to plunge fire into the decks or beltline ideally to hit a powder magazine or machinery. And both ships, Yamato and Iowa, were capable of penetrating each other. And Iowa had other advantages over Yamato besides radar gunnery, Iowa was also faster, had a slightly faster reload speed, greater gun caliber, better damage control, could "fire on the run", better quality armor, etc. This all adds up to greater odds of hitting Yamato and better able to manage damage. Yamato's main advantage was her heavier broadside had an advantge at flatter trajectories, meaning that if Iowa chose to close on Yamato it's possible Yamato's hits could do more damage.
So it depends how both ships approached the fight. If Iowa used her speed and maneuverability to kept her distance she would likely pick Yamato apart over a long period of time. If Iowa closed on Yamato and made it a straight up slugging match Yamato would have an advantage in weight. In a sense, Yamato is stronger but Iowa is smarter, both have an advantage to press. In either event, whoever survived would sail away with heavy damage. It would cost either ship a lot to cripple or sink the other. This is one reason why Japan was doomed. For every Yamato they could build the USA could build 4 or 5 Iowas and, outnumbered like that, Yamato would be screwed.
@@solomongrundy4905 Oh, I see. So when I bring up characteristics of both ships that point to a different conclusion you don't want to talk about it because it's all "arguable and speculation" but when you the same thing backed up by far less, or no, reasoning it's perfectly reasonable. You are as biased about what other people bring to the table as you are about what both of these ships brought to the table.
In fact, if I wanted to be as glib as you are about Iowa to the Yamato, I can just as easily say that Yamato had some serious weaknesses and was just a bigger version of older British designs. Do some research on those weaknesses. Study Yamato's whole career where she beardly did anything useful to anyone and was sunk by a flurry of air power in a futile attempt to beach herself as a sad last stand. In fact, in reality, as a warship, the Yamato-class was an abject failure that contributed almost nothing to the war effort for the Japanese other than burning a shitload of oil and getting thousands of young Japanese men killed. As least the f@#&ing Iowas still floats and brought her crews home.
I might say that about Yamato, if I were as glib and biased as you are.
@177SCmaro just don’t man, I’m BB 64 is biased and all that but we are not talking about what the two ships did in world war 2, we are talking about who would win in a 1v1.
I was expecting a scenario where both just broadsided one another
My father served on the Iowa from 1944 to 1945. He loved that ship and thought it could beat anything Japan had.
Both ship's were both incredible. But in my opinion, it would ultimately come down to the competency of the crews with each taking the respective advantages of their ships
Do a hypothetical combined German-Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union scenario in 1941
Bullet-Tooth Tony if we don't factor in the Allies you could likely see a collapsed Soviet Union in 1942 or 1943
King Homer even if they did take out Moscow they would have to contend with the bloodbath at Stalingrad then they would have to push past the Urals while the Japanese took unnecessary land in Siberia
+Timber-Wulf Russia certainly did not have the leadership or combat experience to successfully hold off both the Germans and Japanese at the same time. it would have flipped the nightmare of a war on 2 fronts onto the Russians instead.
Bullet-Tooth Tony yes still it’s constant and would be longer than a year and a half with stubborn soviets
+Timber_Wulf
And to be fair to the Japanese they did peform quite well against the Soviets in the Soviet Japanese border conflict. The Soviets suffered 32,000 casualties while the Japanese had 20,000. And this was only a fraction of the Japanese army.
You forget to tell us that only real peace can bring us all together :(
That ain't the point here boi.
^ You see atleast this European is right in the head.
Shatter Fox he puts that at the end of the video
bring yamato/musashi back
Brīva Eiropa And here we see how a rabid nativist can rapidly change the subject in any discussion.
I'd be interested in seeing Vanguard v Yamato (or for theory Iowa), especially at night or in heavy seas.
I think battleships should be brought back and redesigned for modern use. I think it would be cool to see a nuclear powered battleship. No turrets, just missile launch tubes and a fuck ton of AA defense. Have room for a few helicopters on the rear deck, possibly a small hangar for said helicopters, kind of like an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer... but bigger.
A very important error was made in this video pertaining to the capabilities of the 406mm MK7 guns of the Iowa Class Vs the 460mms of the Yamato. Both guns had nearly identical performance until 1944 when the MK7 recived a shell known as the 6-8 round which exceeds the capabilities of the Type 91 of the Yamato by a massive margin. That and the original round for the Mk7, the 1-5, was capable of penetrating and successfully fusing on the Yamato's belt up to 23 KM, as, at that range, it still had 426.72mm of effective penetration. People heavily underestimate the efficacy of the Mk7 and it's rounds, I highly recommend browsing the Okun Naval penetration database if you want a better grasp on the capabilities of most of the naval weaponry of the second world war, frankly, the IJN fielded very outdated weaponry with some exceptionally poor performance in comparison to their adversaries.
False
navweaps com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.php#Armor_Penetration_with_APC
navweaps com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php#Armor_Penetration_with_AP_Mark_
In W.O.W.S.
USS Iowa is a Teir IX Battleship
and
IJN Yamato is a Teir X Battleship
Three points: One, the Iowa class battleships' 16 inch guns had a greater muzzle velocity than Yamato's 18 inch guns, which helped the Iowa class punch above its weight class. Two, American damage control was always superior to Japanese damage control. Three, there were FOUR Iowa class battleships (Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Missouri) compared with a single Yamato.
Point one is false. Point two is a myth due primarily to exploding Japanese carriers caught with their aircraft on deck, and a few other vessels which took magazine torpedo hits or their on- board torpedoes detonated. Point three is valid- but it's worth remembering that the Iowas were treaty battleships with the 10,000- ton escalator clause worked in. They were designed to escort carriers and to catch and destroy the Kongos. They were little more than slightly up- gunned and armored versions of the South Dakotas, but with an additional five knots' speed, and were in no way designed to take on the Yamatos.
Nice assessment. I think it would come down to a combination of Mechanical Computers, Crew Skill and Execution, and a little bit of luck.
恥ずかしいコメントしてる日本人が居てほんと申し訳ない。
Iowaも大和も本当に素晴らしい戦艦だと思います。
How about Bismarck class vs Littorio class
My money´s on Littorio, althout they had a very complicated armor arrangement. Seems kinda difficult to predict what a shell could do to it...
yes, please
Preston Zhukov The littorio class would run like fuck as they always did.
bismarck was not made for calm seas, so where would make a big difference
Going with bismarck, both have impressive side armor, but bismarck has the better armor over all and better advanced firing radar 380mm vs 381mm roma has one extra gun. Secondaries are impressive on both, but the plunging fire from the bismarcks high velocity guns would do more, since bismarck was also proven to tank the damage from the rodney and king george the 5
I walked Iowa on Dec of 2019 and its so cool&Big compared to the pictures i used to see back then.
Maybe I missed it, but I believe you failed to mention that Yamato had to slow down to get accurate range finder reading as Iowa could still sail at 32+ knots and have extremely accurate reading. I go visit the USS New Jersey all the time in Camden NJ and that's one thing I learned a while back about the Iowa class is that unlike most battleships including other US BBs they could run at flank speed and still accurately fire their 16 inch guns
The speed of the firing vessel had nothing to do with the ability of the gunnery officer to plot a firing solution on the target. However, a steady course was vital in the days prior to radar range-finding. Before the advent of radar based range-finding, a warship could maneuver or fire accurately; it could not do both.