Jump to content


Challenge Accepted : Yamato vs. Iowa


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

Jracule #1 Posted 11 May 2017 - 06:19 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,595
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

My publisher challenged me to write an article more controversial than my last:

Iowa class Battlecruisers

 

Challenge Accepted:

Yamato vs. Iowa 

 

Of course, this one is in a "which one is more useful to the fleet" rather than "lets pretend battles were won by two particular battleships slugging it out".

 

Agree or disagree? Any critiques? There was more information I wanted to include, but I was limited to 2500 words this time. I will release the uncut article later. 



Lert #2 Posted 11 May 2017 - 06:34 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,549
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

There a reason you didn't go into armor / damage control under a heading of survivability? I would argue that the ability to take it on the chin and remain not only afloat but in fighting state helps the fleet by eating fire that then doesn't go to the fleet it's sailing with.

 

You do touch on air and subs being the largest threats in your conclusion, but I would've still liked to see a while section dedicated to survivability.


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx #3 Posted 11 May 2017 - 06:36 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 855
  • Member since:
    03-02-2015

Here we go again, another 250 page thread before it gets mod locked.

 

Weebs vs All American Circlejerkers, lets give it up for Round #263!



Ace_04 #4 Posted 11 May 2017 - 06:56 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,474
  • Member since:
    06-01-2015
Not a bad write-up.  Thanks for the read :read_fish:

[-K-] Kraken

"In war, there are no atheists.  Both sides are asking God for help" - Cmdr. Terry Goddard


Kombat_W0MBAT #5 Posted 11 May 2017 - 07:07 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,530
  • Member since:
    10-30-2015

Informative. Thank you.

 

Admittedly, I wish there were citations.



Jracule #6 Posted 11 May 2017 - 07:13 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,595
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostLert, on 11 May 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

There a reason you didn't go into armor / damage control under a heading of survivability? I would argue that the ability to take it on the chin and remain not only afloat but in fighting state helps the fleet by eating fire that then doesn't go to the fleet it's sailing with.

 

You do touch on air and subs being the largest threats in your conclusion, but I would've still liked to see a while section dedicated to survivability.

 

I had to cut the part due to word count limitations. Once I am free from that restriction, the full edition will be put out. 


I had to cut sections on armor, radar, sea keeping, and command capability

 

A quick description of the cut out armor section would be as follows:

  • Yamato had better armor (not in effectiveness of layout either, but due to sheer volume) however, by WW2 vertical armor (belt) was not as critical as slugging matches were few and far between. 
  • The most important criteria for protection was horizontal (deck) and torpedo protection. Both are areas in which each ship had strengths and weaknesses. As far as superiority in this section goes, both ships would be fairly equal.  
  • For a fleet action, both ships should be able to handle the occasional air attack. 
  • Both ships had the durability to survive substantial damage and continue providing coverage to their respective fleets. 

 

Basically, I rated this a tie. Each ship would be able to handle the most common forms of attack against them. 


Edited by Jracule, 11 May 2017 - 07:13 PM.


Chobittsu #7 Posted 11 May 2017 - 07:35 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,283
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
This will always be a subject of intense debate... and it gets on my nerves how often the yanks furiously masturbate over their ship while die-hard imperialists beat their chests and shout "HONOUR" more often than Zuko from AtLA.
Personally, I'd prefer the Yamato, she soaked up an insane level of damage before falling, while the Iowa is generally untested in such direct combat (Yamato is also bloody iconic, while Iowa looks like pretty much any other American ship of the era). However, both ships have their merits and downfalls. And don't even bother bringing up the Montana... that ship was never meant to be a "Yamato killer", she was designed before the USN had any idea of Yamato's true specifications.

The ships, as built, would be a fairly even match. Yamato for pure armour and firepower, Iowa for damage control and fire accuracy. The reason we never saw them meet was because America did probably the smartest thing it could have; avoided the fight. Why risk the casualties, possible defeat and loss of valuable assets when you can just sail around it? They'd already broken the IJN's codes and knew when and where Yamato would be sortied. People always poke at Yamato being a "hotel", and sure, it did spend a lot of time in Trukk, however it DID sail frequently in search of a fight, the Americans just never engaged. Instead, they waited until she was vulnerable, then they struck.


CorgiFleet_33 - Dec 18, 2016    -    Corgi_Fleet_71 - Feb 17, 2017


CapnCappy #8 Posted 11 May 2017 - 07:44 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,048
  • Member since:
    10-01-2015

View PostChobittsu, on 11 May 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

The ships, as built, would be a fairly even match. Yamato for pure armour and firepower, Iowa for damage control and fire accuracy. The reason we never saw them meet was because America did probably the smartest thing it could have; avoided the fight. Why risk the casualties, possible defeat and loss of valuable assets when you can just sail around it? They'd already broken the IJN's codes and knew when and where Yamato would be sortied. People always poke at Yamato being a "hotel", and sure, it did spend a lot of time in Trukk, however it DID sail frequently in search of a fight, the Americans just never engaged. Instead, they waited until she was vulnerable, then they struck

 

I think the US knew by 1943 that naval battles were down to carriers and destroyers. Battleships were really shore bombardment vessels. Why have a battleship slug it out with another one when you could just send flights of planes (or a submarine) and guarantee a kill without endangering valuable (expensive) assets and thousands of men?


 

Everyone in the Pacific was sure working hard to churn out planes and carriers and ignoring new builds of battleships. Heck, the fact that they added flattops to battleship and cruiser bottoms should tell you exactly what they thought. Air power = sea power.


 

We sure do love our big ships but it's really the lowly airplane that defeated the battleship.



Jracule #9 Posted 11 May 2017 - 07:49 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,595
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostChobittsu, on 11 May 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

This will always be a subject of intense debate... and it gets on my nerves how often the yanks furiously masturbate over their ship while die-hard imperialists beat their chests and shout "HONOUR" more often than Zuko from AtLA.
Personally, I'd prefer the Yamato, she soaked up an insane level of damage before falling, while the Iowa is generally untested in such direct combat (Yamato is also bloody iconic, while Iowa looks like pretty much any other American ship of the era). However, both ships have their merits and downfalls. And don't even bother bringing up the Montana... that ship was never meant to be a "Yamato killer", she was designed before the USN had any idea of Yamato's true specifications.

The ships, as built, would be a fairly even match. Yamato for pure armour and firepower, Iowa for damage control and fire accuracy. The reason we never saw them meet was because America did probably the smartest thing it could have; avoided the fight. Why risk the casualties, possible defeat and loss of valuable assets when you can just sail around it? They'd already broken the IJN's codes and knew when and where Yamato would be sortied. People always poke at Yamato being a "hotel", and sure, it did spend a lot of time in Trukk, however it DID sail frequently in search of a fight, the Americans just never engaged. Instead, they waited until she was vulnerable, then they struck.

 

​Except that was the whole point of the article. By World War II, there would hardly be any direct combat.

 

A Battleship's value in World War II came from how well it supported the fleet. 



Jim_Byrnes #10 Posted 11 May 2017 - 08:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 594
  • Member since:
    04-06-2016

View PostxX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx, on 11 May 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

Here we go again, another 250 page thread before it gets mod locked.

 

Weebs vs All American Circlejerkers, lets give it up for Round #263!

 

Wow! Someone has issues.... Circlejerkers??  :facepalm:


Living proof you can have a blast while learning what not to do!

IJN Nagato Fuso Kongo Ishizuchi ARP Kirishima ARP Kongo ARP Hiei ARP Nachi ARP Takao  Mogami Atago Myoko Fujin Shiratsuyu Fubuki

USN Atlanta Farragut German BB Tirpitz Sharnhorst Gneisenau Bismarck CA Prinz Eugen  Russian CA Molotov and Blyskawica

 

Sventex #11 Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:07 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,689
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

The article has some flaws, there's no discussion of armor, a critical thing for Battleships.  They served as command ships and needed to provide protection for their Admirals.

 

Another thing that is missed was the date the ships were commissioned, which is important when you talking how fleets.  The Yamato was commissioned December 1941, right at the start of Pacific WWII, while Iowa was commissioned February 1943, and ended up missing most of the war.  An unfinished ship is of little value to a fleet and the Iowa ended up in less action then the Yamato.  I bring this up because the Battleship Jean Bart was commissioned in 1949.  She may have been a beast of a ship, but her late completion date made her utterly useless in WWII, losing easily to the USS Massachusetts.  The Yamato was an older ship, but she was built just in time for the war and could provide protection for her fleet for years before Iowa was even ready.

 

For the record though, I agree with the final assessment:

"In areas most important to supporting the fleet, the Iowa soundly beats the Yamato. It has the range to keep pace with the carrier forces and operate across the entirety of the Pacific. Its fast enough to support allied ships and chase down enemy ships. Last but not least, it offers over 50% more anti-air firepower than the Yamato, an important attribute at a time when naval airpower was dominant. The Iowa was designed to go beyond the traditional battleship roles.

Of course, the battleship was in its hour of twilight during World War II. However, the Iowa offered up just enough to remain relevant unlike older dreadnoughts like the Yamato that were designed for a style of combat long gone."

I just think you excluded a little too much information that made the Yamato look bad.  But I do end up agreeing that had for some reason Yamato was sunk at port, and raised by the US after the war, there would have been little use for a super-battleship apart from being a trophy. Giving it advanced radar and US AA wouldn't have been worth the cost of operating the ship in a post-WWII world.

 

View PostCapnCappy, on 11 May 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

I think the US knew by 1943 that naval battles were down to carriers and destroyers. Battleships were really shore bombardment vessels. Why have a battleship slug it out with another one when you could just send flights of planes (or a submarine) and guarantee a kill without endangering valuable (expensive) assets and thousands of men?
 

 

Because Battleships did not have to go it alone.  A Battleship with strong air cover would not be an easy target, and indeed, little could stop it from causing a lot of damage.  A ship was the most efficient way of hauling those giant artillery guns.  I've played other games where I relegated CVs to be subsidiary to Battleship, providing nothing but dedicated air cover to them with great success.


Edited by Sventex, 11 May 2017 - 09:21 PM.

"The world is not beautiful; and that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty."
 


xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx #12 Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:11 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 855
  • Member since:
    03-02-2015

View PostJim_Byrnes, on 11 May 2017 - 04:29 PM, said:

 

Wow! Someone has issues.... Circlejerkers??  :facepalm:

 

Nah, I don't have any issues. I'm just saying that these kind of discussions draw the worst of the IJN and USN fanboys out from the dank caves where they usually dwell.

Edselman #13 Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 615
  • Member since:
    07-24-2013
If this is true, then why do American secondaries suck in the game?

Sventex #14 Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:15 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,689
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostEdselman, on 11 May 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

If this is true, then why do American secondaries suck in the game?

 

The devs believe the 5"/38 was a terrible naval gun.

"The world is not beautiful; and that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty."
 


Edselman #15 Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 615
  • Member since:
    07-24-2013
Comparing the Iowa and Yamato is kind of difficult since they were build with completely different purposes. I think the question is which ship accomplishes its purpose better. I think the Iowa was meant to protect carriers with its AA, bomb shore targets, and destroy weaker opponents. I think the Yamato was designed to be a "super battleship" that could operate alone against any other opponent. In this sense, It can be argued that the Iowa could accomplish its goal better than the Yamato but pretty much all arguments in the game are ship on ship and the Iowa is inferior to the Yamato one on one in clear weather.

Edited by Edselman, 11 May 2017 - 09:21 PM.


Sventex #16 Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:24 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,689
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostEdselman, on 11 May 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Comparing the Iowa and Yamato is kind of difficult since they were build with completely different purposes. I think the question is which ship accomplishes its purpose better. I think the Iowa was meant to protect carriers with its AA, bomb shore targets, and destroy weaker opponents. I think the Yamato was designed to be a "super battleship" that could operate alone against any other opponent. In this sense, It can be argued that the Iowa could accomplish its goal better than the Yamato but pretty much all arguments in the game are ship on ship and the Iowa is inferior to the Yamato one on one in clear weather.

 

If we're talking about purposes, the Yamato was a clear failure.  She was designed to engage multiple Battleships at once, and win, but the IJN couldn't actually risk the ship in such a battle, utterly defeating the purpose of her existence.  Pearl Harbor also caused Yamato's obsolesce.  I'm sure the designers envisioned the Yamato and Musashi facing off against a battleline of New Mexico class and Colorado class Battleships. 

Edited by Sventex, 11 May 2017 - 09:33 PM.

"The world is not beautiful; and that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty."
 


Jracule #17 Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:33 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,595
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSventex, on 11 May 2017 - 04:07 PM, said:

The article has some flaws, there's no discussion of armor, a critical thing for Battleships.  They served as command ships and needed to provide protection for their Admirals.

 

Another thing that is missed was the date the ships were commissioned, which is important when you talking how fleets.  The Yamato was commissioned December 1941, right at the start of Pacific WWII, while Iowa was commissioned February 1943, and ended up missing most of the war.  An unfinished ship is of little value to a fleet and the Iowa ended up in less action then the Yamato.  I bring this up because the Battleship Jean Bart was commissioned in 1949.  She may have been a beast of a ship, but her late completion date made her utterly useless in WWII, losing easily to the USS Massachusetts.  The Yamato was an older ship, but she was built just in time for the war and could provide protection for her fleet for years before Iowa was even ready.

 

​Read the 3 different explanations for why armor was not counted. 

 

You realize that the Yamato spent the majority of 1942 and 1943 just sitting at port or shuttling troops around? Hardly what I would call action. Lets not forget the fact that when she did put to sea, her slow speed required her to operate away from the fleet. This in turn required her own escorts which detracted from the fleet as a whole. 

 

How much better would Japan carriers have fared at midway had they had a battleship and its escorts that was able to keep pace with them. How much stronger would the fleet as a whole have been? Instead, Japan had to waste precious escort ships to babysit a battleship that couldn't even take part. 


I would argue that a ship that couldn't operate with the fleet is more detrimental. Give me a battleship with 50% more anti-air firepower and the speed to actually keep up with my other ships. 


Edited by Jracule, 11 May 2017 - 09:36 PM.


Sventex #18 Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:55 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,689
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostJracule, on 11 May 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

 

​Read the 3 different explanations for why armor was not counted. 

 

You realize that the Yamato spent the majority of 1942 and 1943 just sitting at port or shuttling troops around? Hardly what I would call action. Lets not forget the fact that when she did put to sea, her slow speed required her to operate away from the fleet. This in turn required her own escorts which detracted from the fleet as a whole. 

 

How much better would Japan carriers have fared at midway had they had a battleship and its escorts that was able to keep pace with them. How much stronger would the fleet as a whole have been? Instead, Japan had to waste precious escort ships to babysit a battleship that couldn't even take part. 


I would argue that a ship that couldn't operate with the fleet is more detrimental. Give me a battleship with 50% more anti-air firepower and the speed to actually keep up with my other ships. 

 

If she's shuttling troops around, or sitting in port on standby, she's a heck of a lot more useful then a Battleship that hasn't been completed yet.  A ship that hasn't even been finished yet is a huge liability, as the French can attest.  While the Yamato sat in port in 1941, 1942, was it because she was incapable of leaving? Or because it was not nesseassy for her to leave?  Pearl Harbor did the nasty thing of doing her job for her.

 

The Jean Bart had monstrous AA firepower, it didn't do her any good because they hadn't installed them in time for WWII.  Time is an important factor in viability, and weapons that enter too late in the war, lose their usefulness.  The Iowas ended up being untested and unchallenged.  I doubt even an Iowa could have resisted the 400 planes that sunk the Yamato.  But history has been carved into the stone already.

Spoiler

 


Edited by Sventex, 11 May 2017 - 10:01 PM.

"The world is not beautiful; and that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty."
 


Jracule #19 Posted 11 May 2017 - 10:17 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,595
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSventex, on 11 May 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

 

If she's shuttling troops around, or sitting in port on standby, she's a heck of a lot more useful then a Battleship that hasn't been completed yet.  A ship that hasn't even been finished yet is a huge liability, as the French can attest.  While the Yamato sat in port in 1941, 1942, was it because she was incapable of leaving? Or because it was not nesseassy for her to leave?  Pearl Harbor did the nasty thing of doing her job for her.

 

The Jean Bart had monstrous AA firepower, it didn't do her any good because they hadn't installed them in time for WWII.  Time is an important factor in viability, and weapons that enter too late in the war, lose their usefulness.  The Iowas ended up being untested and unchallenged.  I doubt even an Iowa could have resisted the 400 planes that sunk the Yamato.  But history has been carved into the stone already.

Spoiler

 

 

​ So we are going to ignore the whole detracting from the fleet concept?

 

Let's look at this from another point of view. 

 


You are an admiral. You have a fleet. A few carriers, a few cruisers, destroyers, support craft, etc, etc. 


You can choose either the Yamato or the Iowa. Which are you going to choose? 


Edited by Jracule, 11 May 2017 - 10:20 PM.


Sventex #20 Posted 11 May 2017 - 10:37 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,689
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostJracule, on 11 May 2017 - 02:17 PM, said:

 

​ So we are going to ignore the whole detracting from the fleet concept?

 

Let's look at this from another point of view. 

 


You are an admiral. You have a fleet. A few carriers, a few cruisers, destroyers, support craft, etc, etc. 


You can choose either the Yamato or the Iowa. Which are you going to choose? 

 

If it's WWI, I'll choose the Yamato.  If it's WWII, neither because their both ineffectual and a waste of resources. By the time Iowa launched, the fleets didn't need her anymore, and the Yamato isn't an escort. If I had to choose, I'd choose the Yamato, since a fleet built around her would be an effective force in 1941.  With dedicated air cover, she's unstoppable.  So what if the fleet escorting her is slowed to 26kts?

Edited by Sventex, 11 May 2017 - 10:55 PM.

"The world is not beautiful; and that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty."
 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users