Jracule

Challenge Accepted : Yamato vs. Iowa

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

46 posts in this topic

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!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

" 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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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.

 

1024px-Battleship_YAMATO_full_size.jpg

 

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1024px-Battleship_YAMATO_full_size.jpg

 

 

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...


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

Because once again,

 

Once battles were no longer being settled by gunnery duels, battleships had to evolve into more multi-role vessels. 

 

If you are going to be an intelligent admiral, you have to look beyond big guns and look at the larger scope.

 

You certainly can't think " I know the Yamato's strengths so I'll only use the ship in situations where the strengths matter." Japan knew the strengths as well, however the reason they couldn't do precisely what you are suggesting is combat is fluid and doesn't go according to plan.

 

What you need is a ship that offers the better chance at adapting to changing circumstances. That is what the Iowa offered over the Yamato. Need to bombard a shore? Done. Need to escort a carrier? Done. Need to refuel some destroyers? Done.

 

As to why the Iowa was relevant to carrier escort, it should be obvious. Because it can be used for it. No one is ever going to turn away additional protection over something like "intended roles"

 

You had a large ship, able to bring large amounts of firepower equal to a couple of cruisers or several destroyers to bear on targets more accurately. Unlike destroyers, it has the range to match a carriers endurance (destroyers had be dispatched for refueling several times). During bad weather, it can still keep pace with a carrier while destroyers and cruisers could fall behind.

If you have a ship that can do all of that, it would be silly to turn it away.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Once battles were no longer being settled by gunnery duels, battleships had to evolve into more multi-role vessels. 

 

A Battleship's only role combat role is gunnery.

 

If you have a ship that can do all of that, it would be silly to turn it away.

 

It's not silly if I have to turn away the greatest Battleship ever built.

 

Edited by Sventex

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A battleship's only combat role is gunnery. - Japan thought so too. Worked out pretty good for them right? Meanwhile, the US, Britain, and France all thought differently at the end. Results speak for themselves.

 

It's not silly if I have to turn away the greatest battleship ever built. - Well, that might work. After you handicap the fleet, you can use that pride and honor to float home after everything is sunk. :D

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

A battleship's only combat role is gunnery. - Japan thought so too. Worked out pretty good for them right? Meanwhile, the US, Britain, and France all thought differently at the end. Results speak for themselves.

 

It's not silly if I have to turn away the greatest battleship ever built. - Well, that might work. After you handicap the fleet, you can use that pride and honor to float home after everything is sunk. :D

 

 

 

So when has a Battleship...not used it's guns in combat?  The Gulf War with the tomahawk missiles?  What other combat role can a Battleship even do without it's guns?  Launch a catapult fight to depth charge a submarine?  Even anti-aircraft escorting requires the use of the AA guns.

 

So a Yamato would automatically cause her own fleet to be sunk?  Because 26kts is too slow?  Because getting close too another fleet means sinking?  I guess an Iowa Fleet would be really good at retreating to survive another day I suppose...?  I figure an Iowa Fleet and a Yamato Fleet of equal strength would just tear each other to pieces in battle.

Edited by Sventex

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So when has a Battleship...not used it's guns in combat?  The Gulf War with the tomahawk missiles?  What other combat role can a Battleship even do without it's guns?  Launch a catapult fight to depth charge a submarine?  Even anti-aircraft escorting requires the use of the AA guns.

 

So a Yamato would automatically cause her own fleet to be sunk?  Because 26kts is too slow?  Because getting close too another fleet means sinking?  I guess an Iowa Fleet would be really good at retreating to survive another day I suppose...?  I figure an Iowa Fleet and a Yamato Fleet of equal strength would just tear each other to pieces in battle.

 

You were fixated on ship to ship gunnery. Hence why I said multi-role, as in AA and the like. 

 

Yamato's disadvantages are always going to reduce the effectiveness of the fleet. Especially in our scenario of two equal fleets.

 

It's already been established that carrier operations are going to cause the carriers to leave Yamato behind. So what are you going to do? Leave it behind while your escorts are going to stick with the carriers?

Or worst case, you can divide your units. Now you have two fleets that are nowhere near as effective as a whole cohesive unit. 

 

The carriers will decide the battle long before the Iowa and Yamato ever see each other. The question becomes which is going to support the carriers better.The answer is obvious.

 

Like I said, you can defend your favorite ship all you want, but have to acknowledge the failures.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were fixated on ship to ship gunnery. Hence why I said multi-role, as in AA and the like. 

 

Yamato's disadvantages are always going to reduce the effectiveness of the fleet. Especially in our scenario of two equal fleets.

 

It's already been established that carrier operations are going to cause the carriers to leave Yamato behind. So what are you going to do? Leave it behind while your escorts are going to stick with the carriers?

Or worst case, you can divide your units. Now you have two fleets that are nowhere near as effective as a whole cohesive unit. 

 

The carriers will decide the battle long before the Iowa and Yamato ever see each other. The question becomes which is going to support the carriers better.The answer is obvious.

 

Like I said, you can defend your favorite ship all you want, but have to acknowledge the failures.

 

 

 

A Battleship is an armored ship covered in guns, of course it's going to be involved in gunnery.  The 5" Mark 12's are guns.  The Bofors are guns.  The Oerlikons are guns.  All of which can be used in a naval battle or air battle, it's all gunnery.

 

Why would a fleet have to abandon it's Battleship?  You said I'm the admiral, and I would never do such a thing.  Why does a fleet half to move at top speed?  The US wouldn't have built all those 21kt battleships if it thought it was a good idea to ditch the slowest ships in a fleet operation.  The fleet was meant to hold together at a slow speed, and I don't see victory in a naval battle being dictated by ship speed.  Sure speed is better when it comes to grand strategy, but when fleet A needs to sink fleet B, it's going to come down to tactics, firepower, armor and luck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.