The ship with the longer range guns that could actually penetrate the hulls and decks of the enemy battleships won the engagements.
All about range and armour.
So no
Range means shit when your fire control and spotting was trash.
Jap 18.1" guns outranged US 16" guns. However the US had better fire control and fire direction. If the Yamato were to 1v1 an Iowa. The Iowa would've raped it into submission because of its superior fire control.
It all came down to the US having much better radar sets. Everything else was pretty equal, and arguably japanese optical equipment was superior in some cases. Its a moot point tho, since the US raped everyone and everything with carrier aircraft and subs.
>It all came down to the US having much better radar sets
US radar was much better but the actual plotting was a whole generation ahead
the mk1A ballistic computer was able to plot a full firing solution based with both the target and the iowa moving, the yamato fire-director was only able to plot a partial firing solution based on straight line movements for both ships
so in practice, the iowa can still get hits in while both it and the yamato are performing evasive maneuvers
the iowas FCS was also mostly mechanical, with maybe a dozen men to keep thigns running, the japanese one needed about 40+ people
which means the japanese FCS will actually begin to tire over a long battle whereas the smaller number of people involved in the american one means less worry about physical exhaustion and less room for a person to make an error
the radar had a synergizing effect with the FCS, being able to accurately determine both ranging and velocity meant the computer was vastly more precise
yamato could only provide range not velocity
but even with identical radar systems the american one is decisive in just about every metric
yamatos superior optics only give it an advantage in a traditional battleship duel, but its unclear how exactly they were better than the iowas since no surviving example exists to compare them too
though the iowas optical aiming system was decent for its time
Could the extra range even be realized with accurate gunnery? Super heavy shells meant to target thinner deck armor with plunging fire weren't helpful because the range it's beneficial exceeds practical accuracy. Did 18" guns ballistics make up for their reduced firing rate in terms of combat effectiveness?
in reality the only engagement the only ship with 18" guns ever fought in was against ships with nothing bigger than 5" guns and ended with it retreating
If it wasn't for the Washington Naval Treaty, I'm sure we would've seen ships with 20" guns by the start of WW2. Anything larger than that would probably have started pushing the limit of practical use.
Due to the square cube law, the weight of the gun goes up exponentially as you increase caliber. The Japanese had to make the world's largest battleship just to mount 18" guns and it was a giant waste of resources. The 16" guns of the Iowas were more than enough for what the US Navy needed, and they were almost only used for shore bombardment. It's a typical case of the law of diminishing returns. It also doesn't help that a well placed 1000lb SAP bomb from a relatively cheap bomber can destroy a capital ship.
WW2 was crazy with ten aircraft that cost $40k each could sink a $30 million ship. (1940 dollars). The aircraft were also built off an assembly line of automotive efficiency vs a large warship that took years to build.
Rockets have far eclipsed naval guns in both range and velocity. GMLRS impacts its target above mach2. Ballistic missiles have even greater range as do boost hypersonics.
Naval artillery is basically cucked by AShGMs that force navies into deeper water.
As I recall from a few discussions, Iowa vs. Yamato is a rather even fight. One side has larger guns, longer range, and more armour. The other has superior FCS and damage control. Speed about the same, but crew is...well, Yamato is a hotel. I would also count on the US ship having general better quality. Anything could happen, but I'd bet on the Iowa.
I think it's funny how all of these calculations ended up being completely meaningless because all of the battleship engagements that actually happened were point blank clown shows and 2/3 of them were at night.
It's kind of disappointing how rare battleship duels were in the Pacific.
I think it would have been incredibly cool had the Yamato successfully beached itself at Okinawa.
Topkek who’s idea was that? The US would send waves of bombers that could drop from high altitude on a now stationary target.
yamato only had enough fuel for a one way trip
so her mission was to disrupt the allied formations at okinawa until she could no longer function and then beach herself afterwards and just act as a heavy artillery battery afterwards
>It's kind of disappointing how rare battleship duels were in the Pacific.
You're getting too hung up on battleship on battleship. There were plenty of ship engagements in the pacific.
It should be also pointed US had no fricking clue about Yamato guns and armor until after the war when they captured Japanese documents. So it reflects how US Navy would set the BB engagement.
The guy on the right seems like he may be a little taller than the guy to his left. The hat is false advertising, and I'd like to say Warwick Davis and Webster should be included for the sake of diversity (and laughs).
Well in the world of the no aircraft carriers battleship had no choice but push caliber and armor race ro get edge over the enemy.
BTW Japs had 20" gun and program of refitting ships with 20". There 18" BB were build with possibility to swap 3*18" for 2*20".
>"
????
Inches, Francois, inches.
there is always a bigger one
thats a big bullet. What gun?
.45 ACP
Hands down the best pistol calibre on the market
800mm Schwerer Gustav.
The ship with the longer range guns that could actually penetrate the hulls and decks of the enemy battleships won the engagements.
All about range and armour.
So no
Range means shit when your fire control and spotting was trash.
Jap 18.1" guns outranged US 16" guns. However the US had better fire control and fire direction. If the Yamato were to 1v1 an Iowa. The Iowa would've raped it into submission because of its superior fire control.
Your range means shit if you cant hit.
It all came down to the US having much better radar sets. Everything else was pretty equal, and arguably japanese optical equipment was superior in some cases. Its a moot point tho, since the US raped everyone and everything with carrier aircraft and subs.
>It all came down to the US having much better radar sets
US radar was much better but the actual plotting was a whole generation ahead
the mk1A ballistic computer was able to plot a full firing solution based with both the target and the iowa moving, the yamato fire-director was only able to plot a partial firing solution based on straight line movements for both ships
so in practice, the iowa can still get hits in while both it and the yamato are performing evasive maneuvers
the iowas FCS was also mostly mechanical, with maybe a dozen men to keep thigns running, the japanese one needed about 40+ people
which means the japanese FCS will actually begin to tire over a long battle whereas the smaller number of people involved in the american one means less worry about physical exhaustion and less room for a person to make an error
the radar had a synergizing effect with the FCS, being able to accurately determine both ranging and velocity meant the computer was vastly more precise
yamato could only provide range not velocity
but even with identical radar systems the american one is decisive in just about every metric
yamatos superior optics only give it an advantage in a traditional battleship duel, but its unclear how exactly they were better than the iowas since no surviving example exists to compare them too
though the iowas optical aiming system was decent for its time
Could the extra range even be realized with accurate gunnery? Super heavy shells meant to target thinner deck armor with plunging fire weren't helpful because the range it's beneficial exceeds practical accuracy. Did 18" guns ballistics make up for their reduced firing rate in terms of combat effectiveness?
in reality the only engagement the only ship with 18" guns ever fought in was against ships with nothing bigger than 5" guns and ended with it retreating
“They’re getting away”
>14" shot
Did they actually make battleship size guns with zero explosive filler? Wouldnt they be ineffective vs a ship?
a giant supersonic slug of metal crashing through all of the inner decks certainly isn't beneficial (it might hit something important)
That's some tiny men.
Its just camera perspective.
they are 5' 10"
If it wasn't for the Washington Naval Treaty, I'm sure we would've seen ships with 20" guns by the start of WW2. Anything larger than that would probably have started pushing the limit of practical use.
Due to the square cube law, the weight of the gun goes up exponentially as you increase caliber. The Japanese had to make the world's largest battleship just to mount 18" guns and it was a giant waste of resources. The 16" guns of the Iowas were more than enough for what the US Navy needed, and they were almost only used for shore bombardment. It's a typical case of the law of diminishing returns. It also doesn't help that a well placed 1000lb SAP bomb from a relatively cheap bomber can destroy a capital ship.
>1000lb
more like 100lb
WW2 was crazy with ten aircraft that cost $40k each could sink a $30 million ship. (1940 dollars). The aircraft were also built off an assembly line of automotive efficiency vs a large warship that took years to build.
Rockets have far eclipsed naval guns in both range and velocity. GMLRS impacts its target above mach2. Ballistic missiles have even greater range as do boost hypersonics.
Naval artillery is basically cucked by AShGMs that force navies into deeper water.
doesn't matter when 16" can deliver nooks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W19_(nuclear_artillery_shell)
the only reason battleships went away is because they were scared to take it as far as necessary.
kek please elaborate
t. battleship fan
nuclear armed battleships.
As I recall from a few discussions, Iowa vs. Yamato is a rather even fight. One side has larger guns, longer range, and more armour. The other has superior FCS and damage control. Speed about the same, but crew is...well, Yamato is a hotel. I would also count on the US ship having general better quality. Anything could happen, but I'd bet on the Iowa.
>Speed about the same
iowa is 5kt faster, which is enough to allow it to set the engagement
I think it's funny how all of these calculations ended up being completely meaningless because all of the battleship engagements that actually happened were point blank clown shows and 2/3 of them were at night.
It's kind of disappointing how rare battleship duels were in the Pacific.
I think it would have been incredibly cool had the Yamato successfully beached itself at Okinawa.
> beached itself
tactical advantage of this?
Aesthetics
Can’t sink if your sitting in the ground..
yamato only had enough fuel for a one way trip
so her mission was to disrupt the allied formations at okinawa until she could no longer function and then beach herself afterwards and just act as a heavy artillery battery afterwards
Topkek who’s idea was that? The US would send waves of bombers that could drop from high altitude on a now stationary target.
it converts the ship into a set of pillboxes. yeah, they're vulnerable, but its better than dead.
>It's kind of disappointing how rare battleship duels were in the Pacific.
You're getting too hung up on battleship on battleship. There were plenty of ship engagements in the pacific.
It should be also pointed US had no fricking clue about Yamato guns and armor until after the war when they captured Japanese documents. So it reflects how US Navy would set the BB engagement.
5kts is just enough to be able to get out of yamatos effective range and stay there if they yamato ever proved to be too much trouble
The guy on the right seems like he may be a little taller than the guy to his left. The hat is false advertising, and I'd like to say Warwick Davis and Webster should be included for the sake of diversity (and laughs).
Well in the world of the no aircraft carriers battleship had no choice but push caliber and armor race ro get edge over the enemy.
BTW Japs had 20" gun and program of refitting ships with 20". There 18" BB were build with possibility to swap 3*18" for 2*20".