RFC equipped Yamato vs. Iowa

[Bgile]

The engineering layout designed for the Montana class was actually used in the Midway class carriers. I like it a lot from a DC point of view. I don't think I've seen anything else quite like it. It manages to achieve a highly subdivided power plant layout without long outboard shaft runs which we have seen are so vulnerable to torpedoes.

[lwd]

...I agree with you both that a battleship that was ordered deserves more attention than a blatant fiction. I'll point out, though, that Montana's design was never finalized.

Ok am I using the wrong word or was wiki off when they said:

By April 1942, the Montana-class design had been approved;

at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_class_battleship

Except that at some ranges WWII battleships could take 18" rounds from Yamato and the latter was not immune to even smaller rounds.

As Karl has pointed out, American battleships had no IZ against Yamato's guns. There is no range at which any US battleship can be described as able "to take" 18in hits--the ship can only hope the shell doesn't hit something vital....

I thought there were some ranges/angles where the armor would reject the shell and as you say there are spots where even a 18.1" shell won't do critical damage. I consider that taking it. Admit though I wouldn't want to be in the ship doing so.

[jazsa80]

In reading the posts within this, and other, topics one gets the idea that before RFC no ship ever hit anything. It must be the wording or something. All those writing in favor of RFC seem to be held to the fact that a ship lacking in it could not hit the broad side of a barn with a shot gun at 10 paces.

Considering the Tushima straight, Jutland, river Plaite and Savo island battles this surely is not right?

Not entering into the 'who would win' argument it seems to me that to assume for Yamato's lack of RFC she could not land a hit on an enemy ship to be... well dumb.

She had a decent optics system. Although the crew hadnt fired the guns that often, this doesnt mean they didnt drill in gunnery as is also what seems to be suggested. There is no way it can be said that the Gun crews just sat on their laurels whilst sailing around the Pacific. The barrels were young and would fire predictably.

Anyway, in short, I dont think that RFC is the key to a battleship as that would mean all ships before the advent of this technology were useless.

[lwd]

What it means is that ships can engage in combat at ranges over 30,000 yards and have a decent chance of hitting. Both the US and the Japanese wanted to do this and planned on using aircraft spotting to do so. In practice that didn't work out to well for naval engagements. In earlier threads it's been pretty widely acknowledged that that the Iowa really doesn't want to get into a slugging match with Yamato where both sides are using optics.

[marcelo_malara]

Does RFC give instantaneous enemy speed and range?

[Bgile]

Does RFC give instantaneous enemy speed and range?

Instantaneous and continuous range, not subject to human fatigue. Instantaneous bearing for Mk13, but optical bearings were preferred in all cases because they were more precise as a rule.

Target course and speed takes a minute or two, but tends to be very accurate with radar FC. First round salvoes were common, unlike with optical systems.

[jazsa80]

So, in regards to the Yamato vs Iowa question it seems to me that the fact that Iowa was equiped with RFC she would have an advantage most likely to lead to a victory in a one on one duel?

Is their any cases of an Iowa class BB using her RFC to the devasting effect suggested by the posts of many? In fact any of the US BB's using their RFC in ranges over 30000m or yards? Or, better yet, in ranges over that in which the Yamato's optics become ineffective?

-Curious

[Bgile]

So, in regards to the Yamato vs Iowa question it seems to me that the fact that Iowa was equiped with RFC she would have an advantage most likely to lead to a victory in a one on one duel?

Is their any cases of an Iowa class BB using her RFC to the devasting effect suggested by the posts of many? In fact any of the US BB's using their RFC in ranges over 30000m or yards? Or, better yet, in ranges over that in which the Yamato's optics become ineffective?

-Curious

Nope. It repeatedly demonstrated it's ability to fire and achieve straddles at up to 39,000 yds though. In the one actual non practice target at that range they were firing at a destroyer and the chances of hitting a target that small weren't worth the continued expenditure of ammunition.

That doesn't mean hits against a battleship weren't possible though. There just wasn't an opportunity. Aircraft were supreme in the Pacific and the battleship's time was past.

[jazsa80]

So why then is the Iowa's possession of RFC regarded as such an overwhelming force in the defeating of a larger and more heavily armed/armoured foe (Yamato)?

I would have thought that in the case of the battleship, the biggest boat with the biggest guns wins.

Also, I have seen it written that the Yamato's six 6.1" weapons would provide ample ranging and shot fall data in excess of 26km.

In regards to fire control degradation resulting from taking hits, each of Yamato's main turrets was equippied with its own 15m range finder. That would provide a certain degree of redundancy- something the Iowa's lacked (not sure)?

[Bgile]

So why then is the Iowa's possession of RFC regarded as such an overwhelming force in the defeating of a larger and more heavily armed/armoured foe (Yamato)?

I would have thought that in the case of the battleship, the biggest boat with the biggest guns wins.

Also, I have seen it written that the Yamato's six 6.1" weapons would provide ample ranging and shot fall data in excess of 26km.

In regards to fire control degradation resulting from taking hits, each of Yamato's main turrets was equippied with its own 15m range finder. That would provide a certain degree of redundancy- something the Iowa's lacked (not sure)?

I don't know where you read that about the 6.1" weapons or how that relates to battleship guns. I do know that according to US fire control pubs it was pretty much impossible to spot 6" splashes effectively over about 18,000 yds. That was one of the advantages of the 8" gun.

In WWII all Iowa class ships had turret rangefinders, but at extreme range they couldn't see the target because it was completely over the horizon to the turrets. Yamato had a really long base rangefinder in her primary FC position, which would theoretically give her good ranging results at long range. However, late war radar was more accurate than optical systems and was much better at spotting fall of shot. Night combat was obviously completely different using radar.

[lwd]

....
Is their any cases of an Iowa class BB using her RFC to the devasting effect suggested by the posts of many? In fact any of the US BB's using their RFC in ranges over 30000m or yards? Or, better yet, in ranges over that in which the Yamato's optics become ineffective?

Nope. It repeatedly demonstrated it's ability to fire and achieve straddles at up to 39,000 yds though. In the one actual non practice target at that range they were firing at a destroyer and the chances of hitting a target that small weren't worth the continued expenditure of ammunition.
...

I'd give a somewhat different answer. In regards to the first question the answer is no. However the US battle line at Sarigaua did use inferrior radars to "devastating effect". In the engagement mentioned vs the Nowaki two Iowa class BB repeatedly straddled said ship at the ranges mentioned. Not long ago there was evidence posted over on the IJN board that Nowaki may have taken splinter damage. Optics in general (even Yamato's) become ineffective over about 30,000 yards.

[lwd]

So why then is the Iowa's possession of RFC regarded as such an overwhelming force in the defeating of a larger and more heavily armed/armoured foe (Yamato)?

As stated it gives her a good chance of getting hits at longer ranges where the Yamato can either not reply or can't reply with near the accuracy. One need only look at some of the other engagements where radar was present and used well to see the potential impact.

...Also, I have seen it written that the Yamato's six 6.1" weapons would provide ample ranging and shot fall data in excess of 26km...

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_61-60_3ns.htm
Does list them as being able to fire out to 27.4 km. Not sure what that buys you in a BB duel however. It has also been suggested that these turrets represented a significant weakness in Yamato's armor scheme.

[paul mercer]

I believe that the Iowa's had a much faster rate of fire than the Yamato's, therefore presumably more shells mean there would be more chances of scoring a vital hit, not neccessarily penetrating the deck armour or turrets to any degree but by disabling the radar or fire control systems and upperworks in general as apparently happened to the Bismarck (in fact it would be a similar senario). Just how well protected would these systems be against multiple hits from 16"?
Another question, I also read someware that either the South Dakota or Washington (I think) suffered a multiple turret failure after firing their guns due to an electical fault due to the turrets being electrically operated as opposed to hydraulic, was this fault cured in the Iowa class? If not they would be in very serious trouble against a Yamato!

[lwd]

At long range the fall of shot is the primary determinant of rate of fire. So effectivly I wouldn't expect to see much difference in rate of fire between Yamato and Iowa. It is possible I supose that once Iowa had a good "lock" on Yamato they could go to fireing before the last salvo had landed as they would have updates on Yamato's movement via the radar.

As for the electrical problem it's possible that you are referring to the incident off Gaudacanal. If so I believe that problem was fixed.

[Bgile]

I believe that the Iowa's had a much faster rate of fire than the Yamato's, therefore presumably more shells mean there would be more chances of scoring a vital hit, not neccessarily penetrating the deck armour or turrets to any degree but by disabling the radar or fire control systems and upperworks in general as apparently happened to the Bismarck (in fact it would be a similar senario). Just how well protected would these systems be against multiple hits from 16"?
Another question, I also read someware that either the South Dakota or Washington (I think) suffered a multiple turret failure after firing their guns due to an electical fault due to the turrets being electrically operated as opposed to hydraulic, was this fault cured in the Iowa class? If not they would be in very serious trouble against a Yamato!

There was no difference in design rate of fire for the two ships. The firing clocks are both based on a 30 second loading cycle, and as far as I have been able to tell the rumor of slow rate of fire for Yamato was simply a rumor. I'd guess it was someone's belief that a gun that size just couldn't fire at the normal rate.

There is no record I'm ever seen of problems with US 16" guns and their electic motors. There was as stated a problem on S. Dakota due to crew error.

A number of 6" guns can shoot over 25,000 yds. Unfortunately they can't be spotted for at ranges over about 18,000 yds unless you use aircraft or modern radar. Note that Bismarck and PoW both tried to use their secondary batteries against each other down to 15,000 yds to no effect.