Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Michael_200061

Iowa's dispersion+ Iowa vs Yamato

50 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
161 posts
1,373 battles

In topic of Iowa vs Yamato , many has claimed that Iowa could have hit Yamato with superior fire control, while the Yamato would have trouble doing that.

but, dispersion were rarely mentioned.

In Binkov's Battlegrounds' ( very  nice video btw) mentioning 36km being a "sweetspot" for Iowa engagement, but however.....

36 thousand yard's (32km)  maximum dispersion were already at almost 900 yards apart , thats 800m 

while only 3 shot patterns are in the 200 yard( remember Yamato is only 250+m longish and moving), not mentioning of movement of the ship on sea, the movement of target 

what will happen at 36km? I would put my conclusion but it would not be good.

In addition, Iowa's immune zone against 460s were about 23000m~27000m. I would say this would be a better sweet spot.

And wiggling?It would take at least 1 min for Iowa to begin responding to a rudder if, dodging like that was not really a ...practical option. It could be done, but is it really that effective? 

 

while on another hand, Yamato's dispersion was at about 

1944 June 12- 35km test 800m

1944 August test 27km 700m

1944 Sep 27 test 35km 300m

 

in addition, Battle of Samar, , 06:59am, Yamato's  first Ap volley( third if u count the type 3 AA round) straddled USS white plains, a 150m ship. ( and damaged its hull)

at 7:30 am hit Johnston while its wiggle wiggle wiggling at 20km with its main gun.

So guys, what do u think?

(Disclaimer, Im no Yamato fan!)

Source :《丸》1990 December 
《历史群像》2001 October 
《战舰大和のすべて》   原勝洋   2004

IMG_2975.thumb.JPG.f563dcf634b21522ccc82f75300f61b2.JPG 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,938
[HINON]
Supertester
19,246 posts
12,789 battles
6 minutes ago, Michael_200061 said:

So guys, what do u think?

That this all is academic and uses 'sterile', controlled environment testing. Not battlefield conditions. Plus, neither ship would be alone.

But, this being the NA forum, the consensus is going to be that the Iowa will win because reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
161 posts
1,373 battles
5 minutes ago, Lert said:

That this all is academic and uses 'sterile', controlled environment testing. Not battlefield conditions. Plus, neither ship would be alone.

But, this being the NA forum, the consensus is going to be that the Iowa will win because reasons.

I agree. This is a "If" that is not very possible.

i just hope they don't try to argue against facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,265
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,278 battles
17 minutes ago, Michael_200061 said:

i just hope they don't try to argue against facts.

You haven't been here long, have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,328 posts
6,609 battles
37 minutes ago, Michael_200061 said:

I just hope they don't try to argue against facts.

Heh... just watch what happens when Wehraboos meet USN-fanboys, it‘s truly a sight to behold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
161 posts
1,373 battles
12 minutes ago, Umikami said:

You haven't been here long, have you?

Quite a while, I always have hope for people to be a bit mature after while, but maybe not.

Some one actually wanted to use a song written in 1960 to prove an argument against me, I found that really funny and slapped him with the admiralty's report.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,517
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,996 posts
5,967 battles
1 hour ago, SireneRacker said:

Heh... just watch what happens when Wehraboos meet USN-fanboys, it‘s truly a sight to behold.

 

Just watch when weebs meet literally anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,265
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,278 battles
1 hour ago, Michael_200061 said:

Quite a while, I always have hope for people to be a bit mature after while, but maybe not.

I think the motto here is "Never let a few silly facts get in the way of a perfectly good emotional rant!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[-ARP-]
Members
426 posts
3,836 battles

You can argue all you want about how paper one ship is supposidly better than the other, it'll always be different in real life. 

Otherwise two destroyers, a destroyer escort and a secondary gun on an escort carrier wouldn't have been able to sink three heavy cruisers off Samar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,416
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,262 posts
2,029 battles

Iowa's immune zone against Yamato's guns is about 28000-30500 yards (25.6 - 27.9 km).

Yamato's against Iowa's guns (mod 1-5 Mk.8's) is about 22000-34000 yards (20.1 - 31.1 km).

Also, iirc the hit on the DD is disputed and also credited to Kongo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,249 posts
737 battles

I would apply caution when using the term "dispersion". How are you defining that? For instance, one definition is the pattern size around the MPI, and for the 16" Mark 7, I quote Navweaps entry below.

 

Quote

For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

Furthermore, pattern size can also change depending on what your CEP is. Was the Japanese using the same definition for dispersion?

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[JFSOC]
Members
939 posts
2,831 battles

There's two gross parts to this equation:

The first is the gun and mount.  That is a purely mechanical problem involving details like the shell, barrel vibration, and whatnot, that determine the physical dispersion of the rounds.

The second is the fire control system itself.  This has to be included in any discussion of ship mounted weapons as the ship itself is moving.  The US system includes a stable vertical that ensures when the guns are fired that they are on a true horizontal and vertical plane to increase accuracy.  Any but the smallest ship's movement is eliminated.  Yamato doesn't have that level of fire control accuracy.

So, even if the Yamato's guns are more accurate (which I doubt they are), and the shells more stable in flight (again less likely), the Iowa class will make up for some of that by having fired when the gun is more accurately aimed.  That increases repeatability of the accuracy of each salvo.

When you toss in the quality and consistency of the powder, the loading of same and the shell, and any of dozens of other factors, it becomes difficult to predict under battle conditions what the actual accuracy of the guns on a ship will be.  For example, when the Iowa's were first returned to service in the 80's, the powder provided was old, stored stuff from the Korea era at the latest.  The USN, lacking recent experience, initially mixed the batches and re-bagged them with a tare weight.  In service the mixed powder proved wildly variable in consistency and the ships were grossly inaccurate in fire.  That required finding and issuing powder that hadn't been mixed and was from the same production batch and approximate age to get accurate fire from the main battery.  There were also issues with proper storage both ashore and on the ships in terms of the containers for the powder.  All that inexperience added up.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
265 posts

1. Why do you think Iowa had a 900 YARD dispersion?    

2.  That hit chart on the Pentagon....that's a very dead Battleship if what's Iowa could do.  You realize.   That's some good shooting right there. 

See Yamato there in the center?   She's dead.  

building_and_ship_comparison_to_the_pent

Testing at Dahlgren showed the dispersion between the 16" 50 and 16" 45 to be almost identical.  There were no dispersion problems with any of the Iowas, ever.    It's a myth.   

And dispersion is only part of the equation.  You have to be firing on an accurate solution before you worry about how close those shots are landing to the target.   And the US Fire Control is going to have the advantage at any point in WWII, especially after radar really became understood....and especially at long distance.   Late war, US ships with a good radar operator could spot shell splashes within 50-100 yards.   That's a huge advantage when you're up near 20 miles and can barely see the target, regardless of how good your optics are.  

Edited by JuiceEFruit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,561 posts
3,539 battles

Every battle is unpredictable, you could simulate the battle a thousand times but go completely different in real life. Likely hood Iowa would have gotten first hit due to the radar fire control, doesn't matter if it couldn't penetrate the citadel, a 16" shell hitting the deck or super structure will have devastating results. Knowing the IJN during that time they would keep fighting because mission kill wasn't in their dictionary. Every hit is going to further cripple their fighting ability. That said the Yamato had radar range finding and good optics and could have scored a hit and crippled the Iowa, difference is the Iowa would break off at that point if it could and had the speed to do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,196
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,671 battles

We have already discussed this like 30+ times over 6 years on these forums. I'm not going to go into it again. If you want to know just go search for the older threads going over actual dispersion models and other scenarios and you will find that in all of them we found that both ships would mission kill each other and most likely run out of the theatre; however, they would never have had a 1 vs 1 so it's just stupid to speculate on it.

The only thing I will add is that the Iowa didn't have a true immunity zone vs the Yamato, and Yamato did have one vs the Iowa but the issue is that even using Nathan Okun's programming even he had to admit that it's extremely hard to do a proper analysis on the Mod 6+ Mark 8 AP shells and the Japanese Type 91's due to how both had unusual shell designs that are hard to characterize. Especially when an Engineer using an air launch method found that the Type 91's 2 piece AP Cap acted far differently to normal AP Caps when hitting thinner plates as it tended to shock absorb and just strip the head off with the screen and keep the primary AP Cap in tact. Meaning even hitting thicker plates like how Nathan Okun went into with decapping, the Type91 could still retain it's cap depending on impact angle. The Mod 6's were designed to punch deck without the cap so doing a proper model with it is also difficult. Both shells were great at hitting decks using different methods. It's also why it's so hard to design a proper calculator around either one due to how they went in completely opposite directions. The Japanese version happened to just be dumbluck that the flatter AP cap for water diving also gave it a great bitting service to grip at high obliques into deck plate. The US Mod 6's with their extremely round domed and blunted shells which looked like a really big 45 cal Bullet but at 16'' in size allowed them to better absorb shock on impact into a deck without it's cap. Mathematically, it's difficult to design a formula around both of those extremes due to how they react differently on impact to a surface without creating an entirely new formula for each.

Overall, getting a real sense of an immunity zone to one another is extremely difficult due to those variables and the Navweaps based program model updated one using Nathan's program he even states that it's hard to truly quantify the results due to many variables and that in combat many other things could really happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
161 posts
1,373 battles
10 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Iowa's immune zone against Yamato's guns is about 28000-30500 yards (25.6 - 27.9 km).

Yamato's against Iowa's guns (mod 1-5 Mk.8's) is about 22000-34000 yards (20.1 - 31.1 km).

Also, iirc the hit on the DD is disputed and also credited to Kongo...

nah, her range finder were shot out by .50s from fighters, wasnt her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,027 posts

The Iowa had the magical ability to be able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, the Yamato did not. But realistically speaking the Iowa would not get into a fight if it didn't have to, it would simply turn around and steam away at flank speed, leaving the Yamato in the distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
265 posts
6 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

The Iowa had the magical ability to be able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, the Yamato did not. But realistically speaking the Iowa would not get into a fight if it didn't have to, it would simply turn around and steam away at flank speed, leaving the Yamato in the distance.

Totally false.  The Japanese were much more known for disengaging and running away than anyone else.  Maybe the Italians compared in that area.

Any US Battleship would have taken on Yamato without a second thought.   At no point in WWII did the US have a clear picture of what Yamato actually was, other than estimates and such, and even after we thought she had 18" guns she'd have still been engaged without question.   The BB commanders were genuinely mad and disappointed that they didn't get a chance at those ships.   Even the old BB commander at the time was bummed. when the carrier admiral sent him a message needling him that he had engaged them and the old BB's weren't going to get a crack at them. 

No, the Iowa's weren't infallible, but they were some of the best, if not THE best Battleships ever built, when you consider all factors.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[BB22]
Members
8 posts
1,830 battles
1 hour ago, JuiceEFruit said:

Totally false.  The Japanese were much more known for disengaging and running away than anyone else.  Maybe the Italians compared in that area.

Any US Battleship would have taken on Yamato without a second thought.   At no point in WWII did the US have a clear picture of what Yamato actually was, other than estimates and such, and even after we thought she had 18" guns she'd have still been engaged without question.   The BB commanders were genuinely mad and disappointed that they didn't get a chance at those ships.   Even the old BB commander at the time was bummed. when the carrier admiral sent him a message needling him that he had engaged them and the old BB's weren't going to get a crack at them. 

No, the Iowa's weren't infallible, but they were some of the best, if not THE best Battleships ever built, when you consider all factors.   

3

Although I agree that US BB captains would want to engage the Yamato, but they would not charge in recklessly, most likely they would only strike during optimal conditions (at night so they can fire but the Yamato cannot) or wait until they get some support so they don't end up attacking the Yamato and get overwhelmed.

Also the Iowa class battleships were great ships, but they weren't without fault. Compared to other battleships its armour was rather weak, and if the Yamato had landed a shot, the damage would be extensive. There were also trials 1939 conducted (with scale models)  to test the Iowa's class underwater armour and result was.... disappointing.  They repeated the test again in 1943 (with the real ship) and the results were once again not satisfactory. 

Edited by Harkaran532

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,517
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,996 posts
5,967 battles
1 hour ago, Harkaran532 said:

Although I agree that US BB captains would want to engage the Yamato, but they would not charge in recklessly, most likely they would only strike during optimal conditions (at night so they can fire but the Yamato cannot) or wait until they get some support so they don't end up attacking the Yamato and get overwhelmed.

Also the Iowa class battleships were great ships, but they weren't without fault. Compared to other battleships its armour was rather weak, and if the Yamato had landed a shot, the damage would be extensive. There were also trials 1939 conducted (with scale models)  to test the Iowa's class underwater armour and result was.... disappointing.  They repeated the test again in 1943 (with the real ship) and the results were once again not satisfactory. 

 

The SPS on the Iowas and South Dakota’s was considered to be ever so slightly worse than the North Carolina’s, which were considered to be in the running for the best along with Richelieu. There is evidence to support that modifications were made to the system following the caisson tests in 1939, and from what we can tell at least some of them were applied to the South Dakota’s that were then JUST beginning to enter construction, and almost assuredly the Iowas. Further modifications were planned for the last two Iowas which would have further increased resistance, but those vessels obviously were not completed. No ships with the South Dakota style were struck by a torpedo, but it’s not unreasonable to expect them to have closely matched the excellent performance turned in by North Carolina when a torpedo that far outmatched her design struck the narrowest portion of the system, causing almost no internal damage at all.

 

Yamatos SPS is the one to worry about, as it has a habit of collapsing as a result of having literally no deformable bulkheads or alternating liquid loading. All it has is the empty torpedo bulge and then the armor plate, meaning the full force of the blast makes contact with it. The Japanese themselves estimated that it would have taken up to 5,000 tons of modifications to solve that flaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,550 posts
8,238 battles

Hey

In this game there are always arguing against facts; it's called balancing.  I didn't know in real life your radar only had a 8-10 km range and lasted only 30 sec. or so, and even Belfast had torpedos.  LOL

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,517
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,996 posts
5,967 battles
10 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

In this game there are always arguing against facts; it's called balancing.  I didn't know in real life your radar only had a 8-10 km range and lasted only 30 sec. or so, and even Belfast had torpedos.  LOL

 

Pete

 

Theres a reason why this is in the Historical Discussion and Studies section, and not General Game Discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,416
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,262 posts
2,029 battles
5 hours ago, JuiceEFruit said:

Maybe the Italians compared in that area.

Damn Italians, not throwing aways their ships where it didn't appear worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[JFSOC]
Members
939 posts
2,831 battles
3 hours ago, Big_Spud said:

Yamatos SPS is the one to worry about, as it has a habit of collapsing as a result of having literally no deformable bulkheads or alternating liquid loading. All it has is the empty torpedo bulge and then the armor plate, meaning the full force of the blast makes contact with it. The Japanese themselves estimated that it would have taken up to 5,000 tons of modifications to solve that flaw.

The big issue with Yamato's system is it is a dry one.  In fact, it's the only "modern" battleship that had such a system.  Everybody else used liquid loading in theirs.  The problem with a dry system is when you take a hit you are going to flood, and it's going to be thousands of tons of seawater.  This means two things will happen:

1.  You are adding weight so the ship settles deeper in the water and the GM will be reduced.  A liquid loading system is exchanging one liquid weight for another for the most part so you don't get a lot of settling from a torpedo hit.

2.  You will develop a list.  The only means the Japanese design really had to counter a serious list was counter-flooding.  This is a counter-productive and counter-intuitive damage control method as all you are doing is introducing more flooding that will cause more settling and reduce the GM further.

In the case of Kirishima after the Washington hammered her, the DC officer used counter-flooding to an extent that caused the GM to go negative and the ship became unstable.  At that point the DC effort was actually contributing seriously to sinking the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
265 posts
5 hours ago, Harkaran532 said:

Although I agree that US BB captains would want to engage the Yamato, but they would not charge in recklessly, most likely they would only strike during optimal conditions (at night so they can fire but the Yamato cannot) or wait until they get some support so they don't end up attacking the Yamato and get overwhelmed.

Also the Iowa class battleships were great ships, but they weren't without fault. Compared to other battleships its armour was rather weak, and if the Yamato had landed a shot, the damage would be extensive. There were also trials 1939 conducted (with scale models)  to test the Iowa's class underwater armour and result was.... disappointing.  They repeated the test again in 1943 (with the real ship) and the results were once again not satisfactory. 

US doctrine was to open fire at 30k yards.  That's probably when any US fast Battleship would start vs any Japanese Battleship.   No US modern BB would decline a fight with Yamato.    I never said they'd "rush in", but they would certainly open fire and keep firing unless the Yamato scored a few hits first and they were forced to disengage.  

They would not worry about being overwhelmed.   They didn't know what we know about Yamato now, and even if they did they'd still engage.   I agree they might wait until conditions were more favorable, but anyone would do that. 

Not sure what "other Battleships" Iowa's armor would be considered "weak" if compared to.  Turret armor was great, conning tower was great, 12.1" of sloped Class A armor, over 2" of Haydite over .875" of STS, then 1" of deck armor, then another 1.5" of sloped STS over the mags is not "weak".   And nobody's Battleship would not be significantly impaired by 16" 50 caliber rounds, especially when hit at long range.  

The only Battleships that it even remotely mattered anyway were the Germans and Japanese.  I'd take an Iowa over any German ship all day long, if for no other reason but their hideously weak turrets.  The Italians couldn't hit 3 Iowas rafted together, so not really worried about them, either.   Yamato is the only real threat, and only because of those enormous guns.  If she were a 16" ship, it's a mismatch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×