RFC equipped Yamato vs. Iowa

[lwd]

I have attached answers after asterisks, so please read on...

Why not use the quote function. It's much clearer especially when replies get embedded.

Iowa and New Jersey achieved straddles at 35,000+ yds.

*** using HE shells which give large splash. Why they didn't hit?

Where did you get the info on what ammo they were using? HE shells may make big splashes but the US ones have a longer time of flight. As for why they didn't hit they were firing at a small fast maneuverable target that was doing everything in its power to make sure it didn't get hit. Nowaki also didn't have to worry about spoiling her fire solution.

BTW, seems, Yamato achieved straddle at 40,000 yds:"Both of the YAMATO's forward turrets open fire at a distance of 20 miles. Of her six forward rifles only two are initially loaded with AP shells, the remainder with Type 3s. The YAMATO's F1M2 "Pete" spotter plane confirms that the first salvo is a hit".

That 20 miles is an approximate number and may be statue rather than nautical miles. It may also be in error. When I've seen the range quoted in yards it's usually under 30,000 and I don't think I've ever seen it quoted as over 34,000 yards. Note that the hit part was defintily in error.

Suppose there is no aircraft spotting? For various reasons it wasn't usually available or was ineffective.

*** I don't quite understand question. Aircraft spotting sometimes was effective sometimes not. Just as radar spotting.

Can you name one naval engagmenet where both craft were moving that arial spotting was effective? I can think of at least one where it caused more problems would have occured in its absence. On the other hand I can't think of a single case with the latter radar systems where the shooting wasn't better than it would have been in their absence.

But I want to see documentary evidence which could confirm 16"-14" hits.

The battle rerports claim first salvo straddles and hits I believe. There were sufficient straddles that it would have been almost impossible not to get quite a few hits. On the otherhand I'm not sure how other than the absence of splashes hits would have been determined and once the cruiser line opened up that would have been pretty much impossible.

*** Correctly, Mk13 became available in 1945, when Yamatos were at the bottom of Pacific. Speech about Mk8 & Mk3.

I can't find anything indicating the Iowa's weren't compltedt with the MK13 and Yamato wasn't sunk until April of 45.

.... Accurate gunfire usually in the first place knocked out FC and armament. Seems, Yamashiro is not the case.

??? What are you trying to say here?

If the Japanese could fire at night at 18,000 yds, why didn't they fire at one of the US battleships? Why didn't at least some of their ships fire at Washington while she was destroying Kirishima?

*** I don't know exact answers.

It's pretty clear that Yamashiro was complely unaware of both the cruiser line and the battle line until they opened fire. That would imply either gross deriliciton on the part of her observers or the inability to target them.
[/quote]

But I can add my own questions. Why the American battle line didn't fire at Mogami when Yamshiro was disabled or why didn't separate fire between two targets early in battle?

The BB was considered the primary target. Orders probably should have been given for the cruiser line to fire on Mogami from the beginning. This is not a technical problem but a matter of command decisions, tactics, doctrine, and training.

At 01.13 Atago and Takao each fired eight torpedos at Washington. Why Washington didn't fire at heavy cruisers at the same time?

In the course of this action Washington was very concerned about firing on friendly ships. Launching torpedos has sessentially no signature at night.

This was possibly the best battleship gun ever put into service. Originally intended to fire the relatively light 2,240 pound (1,016.0 kg) AP Mark 5 projectile, the shell handling system for these guns was redesigned to use the "super-heavy" 2,700 pound (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 before any of the USS Iowa class (BB-61) battleships were laid down. This heavier projectile made these guns nearly the equal in terms of penetration power to the 46 cm (18.1") guns of the Japanese Yamato class battleships, yet they weighed less than three-quarters as much.

*** I respect patriotic sentiments. But note that it is subjective opinion and there is no sense to consider gun without mountings. As a matter of fact "According to an American report produced after the war, the most reliable and ACCURATE main-armament weapon of the war was the British twin 15-inch Mk I". Raven & Roberts, British Battleships of WW2, page 411. They assume that "the German twin 15-inch probably ran a close second".

And your point is? If you are considering what makes the best BB gun accuracy is only one part. Penetration and potential damage to the target are also quite important. Bringing up only accuracy and then not even discussing the details is an attempt at cherry picking. Imlieing that it is patriotic motives influencing a poster is attacking the poster and not the post.

New Jersey definitely had problems with dispersion when returned to service. It had something to do with the powder and it's long period of storage. The problem went away when new powder was provided.

*** Not so long period. It's only fifteen years since Vietnam. And I don't understand why powder charges were not checked or tested beforehand. ....

My understanding is that what they did was remix the powder. Based on where and how it had been stored it was no longer uniform and that was the source of the problem. Note the dispersion achieved by the Iowa in 87.

[Serg]

When you do such absurd things as to indicate that at 18Kyds in the dark of night visual FC is better than radar FC I can go no further.

US sources are often critical of their own systems because they want to make them better. You are trying to make a point and you ignore all the good evidence. This is common and everyone does it, but I've just become exhausted trying to debate people who ignore one side of the issue. Perhaps someone else will, but I'm just not up to it anymore I'm afraid. The evidence of these ship's record over 50 odd years of service is quite different from what you picture. They were called back into service many times because their guns were so valuable and yet you somehow think they were not.

Have you ever stood bridge watches and tried to see things on a dark night? It's very difficult, even with flares, and flares are quite limited in range. I don't think they had them that could go 18,000 yds, and searchlights couldn't either. I really think there was some mistake to say that firing that far at night without radar could be all that effective. Maybe on a really clear night with a full moon. You seem to argue that radar was useless, and that is simply absurd.

Why you distort my point? I think that effective blind gunfire (or full RDFC) hardly probable up to end of WW2. More probably usage of combination the radar + optics up to 25,000 yds that give some advantage under simple optical FC. Of course, if optical FC was equivalent.

Did you know that Washington opened fire on Sendai with radar control in elevation and OPTICAL in train? And range were about 18,500yds at that time.

Allso you could read about Japanese magnesium star shells on page 20 of USNTM report O-19 or at least in Lacroix on page 762. And you could know that Japanese had even 16/45 illuminating shells. Certainly, they attempts to make an enormous 18.1" illuminating shell but it was late due to Yamatos loss. However Yamato had 155mm illuminating shells with maximum range at 23,600 yds ( that almost comparable with American radar limit - 25,000 yds). I think it is an upper limit for night actions with participation of the Yamato class battleships, even with using onboard aircrafts in night and/or type 224S radar. In any case it's far better than 17,500 yds for Fuso's 6" battery. Note that Americans had a flares for secondary 5/38 batterys only, with poor ballistics.

It was a very, very effective system when it worked well.

Without arguments such repetition of statements looks as faith.

[Serg]

Why not use the quote function. It's much clearer especially when replies get embedded.

Just to save time. I apologize for discomfort. You guys wrote so many pages that your answers to my previous post were unavailable for quoting.

Where did you get the info on what ammo they were using? HE shells may make big splashes but the US ones have a longer time of flight. As for why they didn't hit they were firing at a small fast maneuverable target that was doing everything in its power to make sure it didn't get hit. Nowaki also didn't have to worry about spoiling her fire solution.

From Action Reports. According to New Jersey 18 rounds of HC projectiles were expended. Iowa's Action Report didn't mention HC directly for last phase. But from explanations about using range table for HC shells clearly that she also fired HC.
Difference in time of flight nonessential due to high initial velocity of HC, 2690 vs 2500 f/s.
Seems I incorrectly formulate my question. If Iowas achieved straddles why they didn't hit Nowaki? The pattern area looks as ellipse situated with long axis along Nowaki hull (target angle about 0*). It is improved hit probability in comparison with another disposition (target angle 90*) in the case of the straddle.

t 20 miles is an approximate number and may be statue rather than nautical miles. It may also be in error. When I've seen the range quoted in yards it's usually under 30,000 and I don't think I've ever seen it quoted as over 34,000 yards. Note that the hit part was defintily in error.

Seems you are right about error. I checked different sources including the Campaigns of the Pacific War by US Strategic Bombing Survey. Here is chronology of initial phase as I perceive it:
06.45 Yamato sighted masts on the horizon at a distance of about 20 miles.
06.58 Kurita ordered to open fire.
07.00 All BBs landed ranging salvos on CVEs. The opening range on Kitkun Bay track according to reconstructed map:
Yamato & Nagato 34,600 yds (Morison wrote that Kurita himself had estimate the opening range as 32-33,000 meters, so unclearly what range is it); Haruna 33,200 yds; Kongo 25,920 yds.
First salvo fell near center of CVEs formaton. Next salvo fell about 300 yds off the starboard bow of the White Planes. She was then straddled repeatedly by yellow, red, green and blue splashes, dye-marked shells of heavy caliber. Morison wrote that she got three 14" straddles in the first four minutes after 07.00. However Haruna had red and Kongo black dyes in their type 91 shells. It is unclear who had yellow, green and blue dyes.
07.03 Kurita ordered a general attack.
07.04 White Plains got the straddle, reported by Capt. Salivan: "... diagonally from port quarter to the starboard bow, four shells dropping microscopically close forward and two aft" (Japanese used forward turrets and 6 shells in salvo probably belong to Yamato). Exploding below the surface (certainly type 91), one shell shook and twisted the vessel violently, throwing men from their feet, damaging the starboard engine room and knocking out all electrical power and stering control for several minutes (it clearly indicated battleship caliber - Serg). One fighter on the flight deck jumped its chock and chewed about three feet out of the wing another fighter with its propeller - Woodward/The battle for Leyte, p166.
07.06 All BBs except Kongo ceased shooting after about four main battery salvos due to enemy smokescreen and rain squall.

Now I come to the conclusion that Yamato near miss White Plains at least about 33,000+ yds.

Can you name one naval engagmenet where both craft were moving that arial spotting was effective? I can think of at least one where it caused more problems would have occured in its absence. On the other hand I can't think of a single case with the latter radar systems where the shooting wasn't better than it would have been in their absence.

I can repeat that the estimation of the separate factor (aircraft or radar) which have influence on hit probability a difficult task in any naval engagement. Don't take quotes below as gospel.
Thomas/Battle of the Java Sea p. 180: "Both De Ruyter and Exeter were straddled by the Japanese fire which proved to be remarkably accurate because of the inestimable advantage of spotting aircraft".
p. 182: "Had the US fighters taken time off to dispose of these spotting aircrafts they could well have influenced the course of the Battle of the Java Sea... But the Japanese accuracy was far greater than that of the Allied gunners... Japanese reports confirm that the Allied gunnery was not accurate, that all salvos fell short at this stage of the battle and that no hits were registered".
If you want examples with latter radar failures then look on latter battles where details are available. Look on the excellent description of the Surigao by R.Bates. There you can easy find that the part of 3600+ cruiser's shells was spent on radar phantoms, just as the Battle of the Pips on a small scale.

The battle rerports claim first salvo straddles and hits I believe. There were sufficient straddles that it would have been almost impossible not to get quite a few hits. On the otherhand I'm not sure how other than the absence of splashes hits would have been determined and once the cruiser line opened up that would have been pretty much impossible.

It's correct. West Virginia log entries confirm that. However it is was only visual observation which probably might be incorrect.
Often observers confuse enemy gunflashes with hits in such conditions.
Exists another methods for confirmation of the hits. For example the interrogation of survivors. Or diving for the wrecks.

I can't find anything indicating the Iowa's weren't compltedt with the MK13 and Yamato wasn't sunk until April of 45.

Unlikely Iowas had Mk13 at that time. On 17 July 1945 Missouri and Wisconsin still had pair of Mk8s but Iowa had Mk13/Mk8 mod2. On 27 April 1945 New Jersey conducted battle practice using two Mk8. Friedman wrote that only by late 1945 most Mk8 installations had either been replaced by Mk13 or converted to the very similar Mk8 mod3. The question with Iowa only, therefore, still remains. Maybe Mr Saxton or Mr Fischer might help here.

??? What are you trying to say here?

If Yamashiro was hit by numerous shells unlikely that she could give so accurate answer after that. As stated she hit DD Grant, straddled cruisers. I think she got few gunfire hits in the better case.

It's pretty clear that Yamashiro was complely unaware of both the cruiser line and the battle line until they opened fire. That would imply either gross deriliciton on the part of her observers or the inability to target them.

It's very like. Especially if her observers were busy by destroyers attack. Destroyers were on position between her and US line of battle.

The BB was considered the primary target. Orders probably should have been given for the cruiser line to fire on Mogami from the beginning. This is not a technical problem but a matter of command decisions, tactics, doctrine, and training.

It's correct also. However they did not know exactly who is who. Some commanders considered Mogami as second battleship.

In the course of this action Washington was very concerned about firing on friendly ships. Launching torpedos has sessentially no signature at night.

Interesting but hardly probable version. In other words Americans commanders were so stupid and incompetent that confuse enemy and friendly ships. Ships which had followed in one column with Kirishima by several minutes early. And one of them was under intensive firing of Washington's secondary guns. It should be noted Japanese had no problem on his side with false identification at the same time.
Seems, the moment of launching must be visible in night in such degree as gunflash. Sometimes the blank torpedo impulse charges used for illusion of torpedo attack.

And your point is? If you are considering what makes the best BB gun accuracy is only one part. Penetration and potential damage to the target are also quite important. Bringing up only accuracy and then not even discussing the details is an attempt at cherry picking. Imlieing that it is patriotic motives influencing a poster is attacking the poster and not the post.

I don't understand statement that the 16/50 "was possibly the best battleship gun ever put into service". In fact it is extract from biased navweaps page. The rumour is without foundation.
I can repeat my point again: 16/50 not accurate weapon. Probably due to excessive dispersion.

My understanding is that what they did was remix the powder. Based on where and how it had been stored it was no longer uniform and that was the source of the problem. Note the dispersion achieved by the Iowa in 87.

Usually clear-headed guyes examine powders prior to using.
I glad to read that the dispersion troubles were corrected in 87. Barely a 45 years passes.

[Bgile]

I can repeat my point again: 16/50 not accurate weapon. Probably due to excessive dispersion.

How can you say the gun had poor dispersion when the exact same gun did so well in tests in 1987?

I glad to read that the dispersion troubles were corrected in 87. Barely a 45 years passes.

Completely irrelevant argument about "clear headed guys". The powder had settled over the years.

I'm glad you seem to agree that there was nothing wrong with the gun itself.

From Malcomb Muir's "Iowa class battleships": "At 38,000 yards the guns were under full radar control, and Spruance ordered cease fire at 39,000 yds." Obviously the radar was capable of tracking a destroyer at 38,000 yds.

Optical bearing was always the preferred method and at least until the mk13 it was more accurate.

One IJN cruiser straddled Salt Lake City (a heavy cruiser) many times at the battle of the Komandorsi Islands before eventually getting a few hits. Obviously straddling a destroyer at very long range will not guarantee hits. It's statistically unlikely to get them because there is so little surface area to hit, so there is luck involved.

[Dave Saxton]

....Did you know that Washington opened fire on Sendai with radar control in elevation and OPTICAL in train? And range were about 18,500yds at that time..........

Just to correct a few details as these misunderstandings are repeated quite a bit. The Washington first detected the IJN ships with it's SG at 9 miles (18,000 yards). The SG was it's search radar not it's fire control radar. The Japanese had already sighted Lee's battle group visually and sent off a sighting report before this occured, but they mis-identified them as heavy cruisers. Lee then allowed them to close until an optical firing solution was also obtained. The Washington opened fire based on an optical solution at about 11,000 yards. The South Dakota was somewhat farther, about 14,000 yards. The IJN ships turned away and laid smoke, so the Washington switched over to full radar control until the FC (mk3) radar began to fall out of radar range at about 18,000 yards. 14 broadsides were fired during this period but no hits were scored. I believe Washington was straddling after the first few salvoes missed over though. Gatch thought that SD had scored a hit with it's opening salvoes, as one of the targets on the radars began to flicker and disappeared, but he was mistaken, and the SD also failed to score any direct hits. The SD was forced to quit shooting when it's first of a series of electrical problems occured. This brought this phase of the battle to an end. The firing vs Kirishima and Kondo's main body of ships occured about 40 minutes later on the other side of Savo Island. In that case the range was about 3,000 yards for SD, and about 5,000-8,0000 yards for Washington.

[lwd]

...According to New Jersey 18 rounds of HC projectiles were expended. ...

Ok lets take a look at this. Say NJ had obtained a hit. That means she would have had a a hit rate of just over 5% now historically a 3% HP against a BB target at under 30,000 yards was considered acceptable. Nowaki was a much smaller target maneuvering so as not to be in the middle of the impact pattern (which a BB would not be in most cirucumstances). Hardly surprising that she wasn't hit is it.

.... The pattern area looks as ellipse situated with long axis along Nowaki hull (target angle about 0*).

It's not clear at all that this caracterization is correct at this range given the fall of shot is around 45 degrees at 39,000 yards. Furthermore sinced Nowaki was maneuvering her hull was probable seldom at 0 degrees.

It is improved hit probability in comparison with another disposition (target angle 90*) in the case of the straddle.....

Even this is not necesarily true especially in this case. If the target was a ship shaped 2 dimensional area on the seas surface it would be but it's not. Note that the navweapons site on this gun give PH for a "bismark sized target" at both orientations and the PH for the broadside target is higher.

[Bgile]

Even this is not necesarily true especially in this case. If the target was a ship shaped 2 dimensional area on the seas surface it would be but it's not. Note that the navweapons site on this gun give PH for a "bismark sized target" at both orientations and the PH for the broadside target is higher.

I think the PH is lower because it is more difficult to straddle an end-on target due to the fact that the shells in a salvo aren't arranged in a circle when they impact. At least, that's my impression ... that the pattern is elliptical.

[lwd]

My impression is that it has to do with the projected area of the target. For instance if hte shells are falling at 45 degrees and the target's hull is a rectangular solid with length = l, width = w and height = h, then :
If it's end on the projected area is ~ .707 * w *(l + h)
if it's broadside on the projected area is ~ .707 * (l *( w + h) + the projected area of the supersturcture that doesn't coincide with that of the hull)
Notet that the l*h term will be larger than the w* h term even without considering the superstructure. This area then has to be projected on to the impact area. The problem with having your t crossed is limited abiltiy to fire back and the fact that most of the rounds are impacting the deck or supersturcture and not the belt.

[irving1941]

A draw if the Missouri uses the radar and the Japs didn´t. A win to Yamato if there is no radar for Missouri. Just read the specs of each ship. Missouri was never intended to fight a naval combat single hand, she was just a carrier escort. Yamato was built to fight the super battle... stupid notion, anyway.

[Legend]

Really? I hear this all the time in concern with the Bismarck... "She is less powerful and should be given more credit, she was designed as a Commerce Raider and not a BB vs BB combat ship!"

Yes, the Iowas were designed as primary carrier escorts, but why not just build the ship's weight in destroyers instead? It would be cheaper! They put the nine 16in guns and heavy carbon steel armor on the Iowas for a reason! All ships called battleships were designed to meet their own in battle, no matter the original build purpose.


Again my friend, I believe we have drawn this conclusion so far:

Iowa would win no doubt in a blindfire duel at night (due to her superior radar), and it would be a draw during a daytime fight (Yamato has much larger caliber guns and better armor but Iowa still has a quicker firing rate and better acuracy due to radar)

The real turning point and factor of the winner is the commander, and luck. Whoever can get their aim on first, blow off their fire directors and kill the bridge, will win almost without a doubt. After shattering the vitals in the superstructure you are fighting a headless chicken with a gun in it's hands: It may get lucky, but not likely.

[irving1941]

Legend... any side could blow the other fire director´s... given luck. In such an hypotheses we have to strike out luck because if not anything can happen: the kraken can come out and swallow Yamato or an asteroid can fall over Halsey´s bridge...
If we rule out luck and, please read (man, you need reading lessons), the title of the thread:

RFC EQUIPPED YAMATO VS IOWA

then you realized what I am meaning. FUrhter explanations? Nope, thanks.

[lwd]

...
Iowa would win no doubt in a blindfire duel at night (due to her superior radar),

Perhaps. Depends at least to some extent whether you are discussing the original thread or not ie Yamato haveing RFC. Even if she doesn't if they encountered each other on a clear moonlit night at say 10,000 yards it's any bodies game.

and it would be a draw during a daytime fight (Yamato has much larger caliber guns and better armor but Iowa still has a quicker firing rate and better acuracy due to radar)

Daytime also would depend on the circumstances. It's not at all clear for instance that Iowa has an apprecialby quicker firing rate under most conditions. Iowa does have the ability to maneuver and maintain a fire contol solution to a much greater extent than Yamato. Also Yamato's shells aren't what I'd call a whole lot bigger than Iowa's and the latter may be superior in design under most circumstances.

[Legend]

I'm sorry, it slipped my mind that we were giving Yamato radar equal to the Iowa's... Ummm. That would greatly increase her chances. You mentioned her maneuvering while firing... even with the radar would she be able to do violent maneuvers to shake off the Iowa's aim? I don't theink they had the computers or equiptment to do that... They would screw up their own aim with all the changing variables.