Jump to content


Challenge Accepted : Yamato vs. Iowa


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

sartt #21 Posted 11 May 2017 - 10:56 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 313
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostJracule, on 11 May 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

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. 

 

Yamato wins.

sartt #22 Posted 11 May 2017 - 10:59 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 313
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSventex, on 11 May 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

 

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

 

yeah devs pretty much screwed he U.S Line.

GoldPile #23 Posted 11 May 2017 - 11:27 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,438
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Some Billionaire should build a Yamato and pit it against a temporarily recommissioned Iowa. :trollface:

 

Crews would be a problem though, maybe a waiver?



Jracule #24 Posted 12 May 2017 - 12:08 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

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

View PostSventex, on 11 May 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

 

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?

 

" If its WW1, i'll choose the Yamato" = Didn't you just say that a ship that wasn't around is no good? Now the Yamato is available 20 years early?

" If it's WW2, neither because their both ineffectual and a waste of resources." - Clearly the US Navy didn't think so. As early as the North Carolina class, they figured carriers were going to be the centerpiece of the fleet. However, they had the foresight to build battleships of a more multipurpose nature. 

"Yamato isn't an escort" ​= Of course, because it failed miserably in that regard. Had it been built faster and with better endurance, Japan would have used it as an escort. 
​"With dedicated air cover, she's unstoppable" = So is any other ship. 

"So what if fleet is slowed to 26 knots" = Then you essentially cripple your carriers as they need to the speed to effectively conduct air operations. Kind of hard to have that dedicated air cover if you cannot let your carriers operate in the most efficient manner.  

 

Its cool to like the Yamato and all (being an iconic battleship) however, you cannot invent things to cover up its flaws. 



Yoshiblue #25 Posted 12 May 2017 - 12:40 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 987
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostJim_Byrnes, on 11 May 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

 

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

 

Would make for interesting MXC Most Extreme Elimination Challenge teams.  

Chobittsu #26 Posted 12 May 2017 - 02:46 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,238
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostGoldPile, on 11 May 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

Some Billionaire should build a Yamato and pit it against a temporarily recommissioned Iowa. :trollface:

 

Crews would be a problem though, maybe a waiver?

 

Why use a crew? We have computers and automation now~
Hell! Why waste the metal? We have Wargaming! We just get them to settle it with advanced simulations!


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


Sventex #27 Posted 12 May 2017 - 08:25 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,682
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostJracule, on 11 May 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

 

" If its WW1, i'll choose the Yamato" = Didn't you just say that a ship that wasn't around is no good? Now the Yamato is available 20 years early?

" If it's WW2, neither because their both ineffectual and a waste of resources." - Clearly the US Navy didn't think so. As early as the North Carolina class, they figured carriers were going to be the centerpiece of the fleet. However, they had the foresight to build battleships of a more multipurpose nature. 

"Yamato isn't an escort" ​= Of course, because it failed miserably in that regard. Had it been built faster and with better endurance, Japan would have used it as an escort. 
​"With dedicated air cover, she's unstoppable" = So is any other ship. 

"So what if fleet is slowed to 26 knots" = Then you essentially cripple your carriers as they need to the speed to effectively conduct air operations. Kind of hard to have that dedicated air cover if you cannot let your carriers operate in the most efficient manner.  

 

Its cool to like the Yamato and all (being an iconic battleship) however, you cannot invent things to cover up its flaws. 

 

You didn't mention a date in your scenario.  Anyway, the reason I don't like the Iowa is that it's purpose as an escort could easily be handled by 2 Atlanta class cruisers.  With it's weak armor, it's not going to be chasing other Battleships, so that means it's role will be guarding CVs, which it's not terribly effective at since the Iowa is a gas guzzler compared to the Atlanta class.  That makes Iowa a burden to the fleet.  I've actually found the Iowa makes for a good independent ship.  Her high speed and powerful AA means she can go it alone and hunt down other ships like a Battlecruiser.  But in a fleet escorting CVs, it's the CVs that are going to do all the work, and like the only guns that will see action are the 5"/38s.  Historically the Iowa was mildly useful, but her role could have been easily replaced by an AA cruiser.

 

Since your scenario of pick a ship ignored costs, I picked the Yamato, because she's a better ship.  Having more armor, longer range guns, she's a ship that can form the core of the fleet.  With the CVs dedicated to protecting the Yamato, she becomes untouchable by air or submarine, which means she has to be taken out by surface ship weapons.  Yes, having the CVs loaded with more fighters then torpedo bombers and dive bombers cripple their operational capacity, but that's the point of the subsidiary CV role.  The Yamato will arrive on scene, and deal all the damage to the enemy fleet/port/island in place of the CV.

 

The reason I made these choices was through video games.  Battleships can form the core of fleets, and I've run CVs with 100% fighter loadouts to protect them, with great success.  I've done the same in Battlestations Pacific.


Edited by Sventex, 12 May 2017 - 08:32 AM.

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


MrDeaf #28 Posted 12 May 2017 - 09:02 AM

    Admiral

  • Members

  • 10,929
  • Member since:
    07-16-2015

View PostSventex, on 11 May 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

 

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

 

it really wasn't.

 

pros

  • VT fuse shells (but any shell larger than 76.2mm can fit VT)
  • RoF (until crew fatigue sets in)
  • traverse and train
  • radar fire control (but this is strictly part of the GFCS, not the gun's performance)

cons

  • poor ballistics
  • poor penetration
  • poor protection

 

There is a reason USN transitioned to the better 127mm/54 guns on Montana and Midway


Subscribe to this Thread or Youtube for the latest videos.

The Corgiolis Effect: When you notice you need more torpedoes on your ship


TsundereMusashi #29 Posted 12 May 2017 - 03:46 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 328
  • Member since:
    08-04-2015

View PostGoldPile, on 11 May 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

Some Billionaire should build a Yamato and pit it against a temporarily recommissioned Iowa. :trollface:

 

Crews would be a problem though, maybe a waiver?

 

I'm surprised Japan haven't rebuilt the Yamato. The amount of tourists she'd attract Japan would see profit within a year of her being open to the public.

Jracule #30 Posted 12 May 2017 - 03:54 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

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

View PostSventex, on 12 May 2017 - 03:25 AM, said:

 

You didn't mention a date in your scenario.  Anyway, the reason I don't like the Iowa is that it's purpose as an escort could easily be handled by 2 Atlanta class cruisers.  With it's weak armor, it's not going to be chasing other Battleships, so that means it's role will be guarding CVs, which it's not terribly effective at since the Iowa is a gas guzzler compared to the Atlanta class.  That makes Iowa a burden to the fleet.  I've actually found the Iowa makes for a good independent ship.  Her high speed and powerful AA means she can go it alone and hunt down other ships like a Battlecruiser.  But in a fleet escorting CVs, it's the CVs that are going to do all the work, and like the only guns that will see action are the 5"/38s.  Historically the Iowa was mildly useful, but her role could have been easily replaced by an AA cruiser.

 

Since your scenario of pick a ship ignored costs, I picked the Yamato, because she's a better ship.  Having more armor, longer range guns, she's a ship that can form the core of the fleet.  With the CVs dedicated to protecting the Yamato, she becomes untouchable by air or submarine, which means she has to be taken out by surface ship weapons.  Yes, having the CVs loaded with more fighters then torpedo bombers and dive bombers cripple their operational capacity, but that's the point of the subsidiary CV role.  The Yamato will arrive on scene, and deal all the damage to the enemy fleet/port/island in place of the CV.

 

The reason I made these choices was through video games.  Battleships can form the core of fleets, and I've run CVs with 100% fighter loadouts to protect them, with great success.  I've done the same in Battlestations Pacific.

 

So your entire idea of real life fleet tactics is based on experiences with arcade style games?

 

Now, let's step back into reality. When I said that carriers will be crippled by keeping pace with Yamato it has nothing to do with the aircraft make up. 

 

Aircraft carriers need to travel at high speeds to launch aircraft. You have to steer into the wind and if wind isn't high, you have to travel at high speeds to compensate. If you are going to limit your speeds, you can carry all the fighters you want because you won't be able to launch them. :D 

 

Also, while the whole Atlanta argument probably sounds good, you also need to bring a ship that can provide the surface firepower role. So now your two Atlantas and two Heavy cruisers cost more to operate than the single battleship.

 

Your idea of a "better ship" involves all of the strengths that did not matter in World War 2.



Sventex #31 Posted 12 May 2017 - 04:21 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,682
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostJracule, on 12 May 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

 

So your entire idea of real life fleet tactics is based on experiences with arcade style games?

 

Now, let's step back into reality. When I said that carriers will be crippled by keeping pace with Yamato it has nothing to do with the aircraft make up. 

 

Aircraft carriers need to travel at high speeds to launch aircraft. You have to steer into the wind and if wind isn't high, you have to travel at high speeds to compensate. If you are going to limit your speeds, you can carry all the fighters you want because you won't be able to launch them. :D 

 

Also, while the whole Atlanta argument probably sounds good, you also need to bring a ship that can provide the surface firepower role. So now your two Atlantas and two Heavy cruisers cost more to operate than the single battleship.

 

Your idea of a "better ship" involves all of the strengths that did not matter in World War 2.

 

Well your pick a free Battleship scenario lacked reality.  If I'm going to get a freebie Battleship, I'm going to pick the bigger one with more armor.  Your scenario said I already had a few cruisers, so why would I need an extra Iowa for fire support?  An Iowa is nearly superfluous in a balanced CV fleet.  The Yamato's enormous cost made it a waste, but if it was free, it's an incredibly powerful weapon if escorted properly.

 

Wait, so a WWII CV can't launch fighters while moving at 26kts?  Some of those US CVs only did 15-18kts.  Did they have to use catapults?

 

 


Edited by Sventex, 12 May 2017 - 04:24 PM.

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


Jracule #32 Posted 12 May 2017 - 04:36 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

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

View PostSventex, on 12 May 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

 

Well your pick a free Battleship scenario lacked reality.  If I'm going to get a freebie Battleship, I'm going to pick the bigger one with more armor.  Your scenario said I already had a few cruisers, so why would I need an extra Iowa for fire support?  An Iowa is nearly superfluous in a balanced CV fleet.  The Yamato's enormous cost made it a waste, but if it was free, it's an incredibly powerful weapon if escorted properly.

 

Wait, so a WWII CV can't launch fighters while moving at 26kts?  Some of those US CVs only did 15-18kts.  Did they have to use catapults?

 

 

 

Those carriers that only did 15 to 18 knots (Langley, Bearn, etc.) had their time when aircraft were still light and most were biplanes.

 

By World War II, when aircraft were heavier, their is a reason why those 18 knot carriers were reduced to aircraft transports. They could not manage the newest fighters.

 

Finally, once again, what did Yamato' s larger size and armor do for it in World War Two? Nothing, because those strengths lost their importance. 

 

It's fine and all to like the ship, but splitting hairs to defend its flaws is not getting anywhere.



Sventex #33 Posted 12 May 2017 - 08:16 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,682
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostJracule, on 12 May 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:

 

Those carriers that only did 15 to 18 knots (Langley, Bearn, etc.) had their time when aircraft were still light and most were biplanes.

 

By World War II, when aircraft were heavier, their is a reason why those 18 knot carriers were reduced to aircraft transports. They could not manage the newest fighters.

 

Finally, once again, what did Yamato' s larger size and armor do for it in World War Two? Nothing, because those strengths lost their importance. 

 

It's fine and all to like the ship, but splitting hairs to defend its flaws is not getting anywhere.

 

Huh, I always thought combat fighters had quicker take off speeds.  I figured all that extra speed would been for those planes hauling heavy torpedoes.

 

Japan couldn't keep Yamato's tank topped up, and was too scared to send it to face a lot of Battleships, but with hindsight, and me being admiral, it becomes different.  I'm not hearing why you think Iowa would be necessary as a fleet escort.  The scenarios where a CV fleet with an Iowa would actually use the Iowa apart from bringing extra 5"/38s guns to an air battle are extremely narrow.

 

If we're going with real life, I'd say the Iowa was more useful, but if we're doing fleet specific scenarios where I'm in charge, it becomes different.  With no mention of fuel shortage, or plane shortages, or pilot training problems, the Yamato in a fleet becomes genuinely formidable.  But when you add the historical situation that Yamato found herself in, she became pointless.  And the Iowa was commissioned long after the Battle of Midway, so she wasn't terribly useful either, but in a post WWII world, she could still keep up with a nuclear aircraft carrier, so she remained mildly relevant.  But in any instance that an Iowa-Class did shore bombardment, the Yamato could have done anyway, speed isn't relevant in such cases.  Maybe I haven't done enough research, but has an Iowa class ever done anything that legitimately protected a fleet post-WWII?


Edited by Sventex, 12 May 2017 - 08:23 PM.

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


Edselman #34 Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 607
  • Member since:
    07-24-2013

View Postsartt, on 11 May 2017 - 05:59 PM, said:

 

yeah devs pretty much screwed he U.S Line.

 

Anti-American sediment? . . . Russian game? . . . Hmmmmmm? . . .


 

In all seriousness, it would be assuming if the Navy invited some developers to witness the firing of U.S.N. naval guns of the era to show them how much better the guns are then they are represented in the game. This will never happen, but if it did the stubborn Russians would be too anti-American to change it accurately anyway, being to butt hurt from the whooping they got in the Cold War.



MrDeaf #35 Posted 13 May 2017 - 04:10 AM

    Admiral

  • Members

  • 10,929
  • Member since:
    07-16-2015

View PostEdselman, on 12 May 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

 

Anti-American sediment? . . . Russian game? . . . Hmmmmmm? . . .


 

In all seriousness, it would be assuming if the Navy invited some developers to witness the firing of U.S.N. naval guns of the era to show them how much better the guns are then they are represented in the game. This will never happen, but if it did the stubborn Russians would be too anti-American to change it accurately anyway, being to butt hurt from the whooping they got in the Cold War.

 

The guns use data from the same type of sources collected at navweaps.

USN chose low muzzle velocity to reduce wear on the barrels and it shows in the data.

 

127mm/38 is very mediocre and the only thing that made it good was the radar directed GFCS.

Now, since GFCS in WoWs comes down to the Mk.1 eyeball, having poor ballistics raises the difficulty of good aim.


Subscribe to this Thread or Youtube for the latest videos.

The Corgiolis Effect: When you notice you need more torpedoes on your ship


GoldPile #36 Posted 13 May 2017 - 04:55 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,438
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostChobittsu, on 11 May 2017 - 08:46 PM, said:

Why use a crew? We have computers and automation now~

Hell! Why waste the metal? We have Wargaming! We just get them to settle it with advanced simulations!

 

Some may say a simulation is no substitute over real life.

 

For example, we have robot battles in every form of media possible. But the world freaked out when this video announced.

 



Chobittsu #37 Posted 13 May 2017 - 04:58 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,238
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostTsundereMusashi, on 12 May 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

I'm surprised Japan haven't rebuilt the Yamato. The amount of tourists she'd attract Japan would see profit within a year of her being open to the public.

 

 

View PostGoldPile, on 12 May 2017 - 11:55 PM, said:

Some may say a simulation is no substitute over real life.

 

For example, we have robot battles in every form of media possible. But the world freaked out when this video announced.

 

I heard they scrapped the match over safety concerns

Edited by Chobittsu, 13 May 2017 - 05:04 AM.


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


Sventex #38 Posted 13 May 2017 - 07:42 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,682
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostChobittsu, on 12 May 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

Spoiler

 

I heard they scrapped the match over safety concerns

 

I kind of wish they would complete the mock up.  She looks strange as is.

Maybe it would conflict with their pacifist Constitution, I don't know...


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


Chobittsu #39 Posted 13 May 2017 - 08:21 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,238
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostSventex, on 13 May 2017 - 02:42 AM, said:

I kind of wish they would complete the mock up.  She looks strange as is.

Maybe it would conflict with their pacifist Constitution, I don't know...

 

Completed and scrapped years ago when filming of Otoko Tachi no Yamato was done


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


Sventex #40 Posted 13 May 2017 - 10:34 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,682
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostChobittsu, on 13 May 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

 

Completed and scrapped years ago when filming of Otoko Tachi no Yamato was done

 

Aww, I missed that on their website.  I guess the set was only open for a year.

"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