RFC equipped Yamato vs. Iowa

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

RFC equipped Yamato vs. Iowa

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Being this an hypothetical naval scenario forum then we can assume that the Japanese had an operational RFC system on board Yamato in mid 1944.
And then Yamato had an encounter with the all mighty Missouri and this unique weapon that guarantees a "win" against everything the enemies of freedom could throw against her: RFC. Because this is the sum up of all the virtues that allied warships had for WWII. Isn´t it? Not the 18" supergun and supershells Yamato had, nor the massive armour or anything else. It goes, strictly, to the RFC.
Being even with the RFC system then I must assume that now there is no argument or theoretical naval penetration formulae that, somehow, proofs that Iowa is still the winner in such a combat?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: RFC equipped Yamato vs. Iowa

Post by Tiornu »

Yamato doesn't need radar to defeat Iowa.
She did have radar for gunnery ranging in 1944.
WestPhilly
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:15 am
Location: philadelphia, usa

Post by WestPhilly »

Concur with above, but I think in this case even the victor would be left a shambles.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd »

Radar hardly guarantees a win it just gives the side that has it a big advantage in many (not all cases).

In this case a Yamato vs an Iowa with both having equivalant radar fire control the Yamato has a number of advantages that add up to it haveing a better than even chance of winning. If you matched these two up say a 100 times I wouldn't be at all surprised if a plurality of the cases had both of them badly beat up and no clear winner.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Tiornu:
Yamato doesn't need radar to defeat Iowa.
She did have radar for gunnery ranging in 1944.
That´s not what you and others had wrote in this forum before. To most of you the RFC is a guarantee that any allied BB could beat any axis BB with ease, anytime. And I have been fighting this notion since more than a year. :evil:

And of course that Yamato had a radar, but it was not an "allied" one so it must be not that good... :silenced:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:... To most of you the RFC is a guarantee that any allied BB could beat any axis BB with ease, anytime.
Not from what I've seen. It does help a lot in most circumstances but clearly there are cases where it won't and I have yet to see someone on this board say different
And of course that Yamato had a radar, but it was not an "allied" one so it must be not that good...
Indeed it wasn't as good as the US and Britain had. Note that it gave ranging data as opposed to range and bearing.

Part of it is radar becomes a combat multiplier when combined with things like the stable center of US BBs and for fleet operations.

Another part may be that you read too much into peoples words.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I´m not crazy:
Djoser
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 40
Location: Daytona Beach Florida USA Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:04 am Post subject:


________________________________________
Not to knock the Yamato class, but what with radar-directed gunnery and the generally higher state of training, an Iowa alone--or especially an Iowa with almost any other battlewagon(s) in concert, as would have certainly been the case--would have won handily, I imagine.

Look how poorly the Bismark did in inflicting damage on her opponents, though she took a fearful battering before being sunk/scuttled.

Now a more daunting prospect would have been if Yamato had taken part in the night battle at Guadalcanal vs. the Washington and South Dakota, instead of the Kirishima. This would have been before radar gunnery, and during a period of time when the Japanese training was on a par with U.S. standards.
Brad Fischer
Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 22
Location: USA Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:44 pm Post subject:


________________________________________
As dangerous and lethal as Yamato is, this isn’t even close to a ‘fair fight’ (which is the way it’s supposed to be). Yamato would quickly bludgeoned to death in very short order. It wouldn’t even be surprising it she didn’t even score a hit on the American ships. Undoubtedly the Mark 8 equipped ships would do the most damage and the results probably similar to Surigao Strait except at longer range. To be honest West Virginia, Tennessee, and California from Surigao would have been sufficient (probably more than sufficient) by themselves in dealing with Yamato.

Brad Fischer
Tiornu
Supporter


Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Posts: 710
Location: Ex Utero Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:13 am Post subject:


________________________________________
Yamato cannot hit what she cannot see. Even if the visibility that day is sufficient for assigning targets and spotting salvoes at 40,000 yards, a simple smokescreen could eliminate any chance for Yamato to hit anything.
At 34,000 yards, the descent angle for 46cm shells is ~35deg; for 16in shells, ~40deg.



Lutscha
Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 57
Location: Germany Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject:


________________________________________
I think he refers to a less steeper angle together with an increased danger space for Yamato´s guns.
The problem remains, that the American RFC is still simply better.
An now....

lwd:

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
... To most of you the RFC is a guarantee that any allied BB could beat any axis BB with ease, anytime.


Not from what I've seen. It does help a lot in most circumstances but clearly there are cases where it won't and I have yet to see someone on this board say different
:think:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I´m not crazy:
...
Not to knock the Yamato class, but what with radar-directed gunnery and the generally higher state of training, an Iowa alone--or especially an Iowa with almost any other battlewagon(s) in concert, as would have certainly been the case--would have won handily, I imagine.
....
Note the bolding. Doesn't sound to me like they are saying Iowa will win no matter what because of her RFC.
As dangerous and lethal as Yamato is, this isn’t even close to a ‘fair fight’ (which is the way it’s supposed to be). Yamato would quickly bludgeoned to death in very short order. It wouldn’t even be surprising it she didn’t even score a hit on the American ships. Undoubtedly the Mark 8 equipped ships would do the most damage and the results probably similar to Surigao Strait except at longer range. To be honest West Virginia, Tennessee, and California from Surigao would have been sufficient (probably more than sufficient) by themselves in dealing with Yamato.
...
Quite clearly we're talking here about Yamato engaging a number of other BB's. Yamato was strong enough to possibly win an engagement with a couple of older BBs especially if she can hit them at ranges they can't respond to. If the shoe is on the other foot or there are more opposinb BBs. In this case apparently both of the above are factors and probably additional ships on the US side as well.

Yamato cannot hit what she cannot see. Even if the visibility that day is sufficient for assigning targets and spotting salvoes at 40,000 yards, a simple smokescreen could eliminate any chance for Yamato to hit anything. ...
Again it doesn't say RFC is magic just that under the above conditions Yamatao is in trouble. Of course this means whenever she encountered a US BB late in the war she'd be in trouble but that's the reality of it.

...
The problem remains, that the American RFC is still simply better.
Not sure what the context of this one is but it's a statement of fact. It doesn't claim that RFC is a magic wand.
An now....

lwd:

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
... To most of you the RFC is a guarantee that any allied BB could beat any axis BB with ease, anytime.


Not from what I've seen. It does help a lot in most circumstances but clearly there are cases where it won't and I have yet to see someone on this board say different
:think:
I have yet to see someone on this board say different. Try reading what is written without putting too much spin on it.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

That´s not what you and others had wrote in this forum before.
Please indicate where I have contradicted myself. I will be interested to see what you take as a contradiction.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Well,

At last, after all these months, I´m not alone as the one who states that Yamato was THE Battleship of battleships and that RFC is not the "magical" device so many have claimed.
I rest my case...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

What case? Please cite the "many" claims that radar is magical. If you cannot do so, then please stop whining.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Wow! Wow! I had to stand for the last sixteen months reading about the virtues of the RFC and now, that for some reason the common ground about it has changed, I must obey and keep quiet? No, just no.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

You've been reading? Really? What? You say there have been many claims about magical radar, but you can't cite any. You said I had changed my stance regarding Yamato, but you can't cite any support for that either. Now you say no, just no, you will not stop whining. For once, I actually believe you.
I'm not referring to an occasional hyperbole but to your ongoing inability or unwillingness to process views that disagree with yours. If you say "5" but someone else says "9," you complain about people saying "30 billion." You might find it more profitable to engage in serious, adult discussions, but no one will force you into it.
Brad Fischer
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:48 pm
Location: USA

Post by Brad Fischer »

She did have radar for gunnery ranging in 1944.


The Type 22 is a very poor FC radar; it had horrible range and bearing resolution and its accuracy wasn’t very good either (range accuracy was 2.5 times worse than the Mk 8 Mod 1 for instance). It didn’t have a plan view display either, but in any case its enormous range resolution would preclude any ability to distinguish the fall of shot from the target or even between ships in formation. It was probably a help but not a real advantage over her optical suite; particularly since the radar’s range accuracy was only about 40-50% better vis-à-vis the optics at medium to long range.

-------------------------------------------->


There is obviously no guarantee in any engagement. As radar developed during the war, it evolved into a very useful instrument to such a degree that it did affect a substantial shift in the fire control paradigm. Comparative analysis between optical only shooting and late war radar shooting shows a very lucid shift in the observed hit percentage during gunnery exercises. Certainly late war surface engagements broadly support this trend where allies equipped with late war radar tended to overwhelm their opponents.

In many cases throughout the period of the battleship, the side that won usually out shot the other; gunnery ability was generally the decisive factor whether it is by pure volume of fire or innate accuracy of individual units. It was of course advantageous to be bigger and if everything was equal then that’s what one would strive for but things aren’t equal. A look back at many of the surface engagements during both world wars shows that gun were rarely decisive in the sense of a quick kill. Many many times ships were hit and penetrated but continued to fight with effectiveness. Certainly that is generally not a acceptable risk in ship design but often changes in combat situations.

Even more important than the nuts and bolts, training was a paramount factor in overall battle efficiency. The Japanese desire to retain the two giants for the decisive battle robbed them of valuable training opportunity. Of course my survey may have some holes, but from such sources as the TROM files and various Japanese research publications such as Senkan Yamato and Senkan Yamato no Kenzô indicate that Yamato herself only fired her main battery in practice 5 times her whole career. Worse yet the fidelity of those practice was lacking, twice they fired on moored targets and three times they only fired one salvo.

That is hardly effective practice. In a broad comparison to the American fast battleships during the war, in terms of number of practices that represents about half the annual training budget for a single ship. The American practice was for the firing ship to expend about 6-10 salvos at moving maneuvering targets during an exercise. To relate directly to Iowa herself, she fired 4 main battery practices in the first half of 1944 alone and this doesn’t count the bombardment work ups (which were generally HiCap ammo but still at sleds) and the live practice off Truk. Perhaps controversially, I would tend to favor even an American South Dakota class over one of the Japanese giants based on historical events. Better tools and better training.

Brad Fischer
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Post by dunmunro »

The Yamato's guns had short barrel life by RN or USN standards and they could not be relined, rather the entire gun had to be replaced! Needless to say this would have a discouraging effect on realistic gunnery practice..."A great disadvantage of this type of construction was that the gun could only be relined by completely boring out the inner A tube. This was so expensive a process that it was considered to be more practical to simply replace a worn out gun with a new one, although it does not appear that either battleship was ever regunned during the war. This may be seen as a reflection of the brief combat life of these ships." from Navweapons.
Post Reply