How #&^%$* are you against an Iowa/NC/SoDak class battleship with radar/computer guided guns.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

very nice argument on your part Bobbyspongka, I considered bringing up the poor accuracy against a BISMARCK size target earlier but you are much more proffesional then me on the field.

 

 

it amazes me how people just WANT to believe that a western ship managed to hit the farthest target in a naval fight. considering US historians were all off about making the IJN look like a poor navy they would'n have bothered bringing the two record hits at Samar.

 

 

 

I wouldnt go as far as saying it was utter crap, but yeah.......they shelled a lot and couldnt hit squat.

 

first straddle was a hit. confirmed by multiple sources including the aerial Spotter from the centre force. as for hitting squat. the number of shells expanded in this battle was'n squat. they hit more then an average navy would've, Bobbyspongka would still know more on this then I do. compare that to Iowa's pisspoor performance against the Nowaki and Katori at Truk. they could'n hit squat at like 15k yards.

[Madwolf 10,215]

Few things here:

 

Yamato vs the White Plains - The White Plains was hit by the Yamato at great range. I'm okay with this report, but lets not act like the Yamato was going to consistently hit that target. It has been proven time and time again that battleships weren't accurate from those ranges.

 

Iowa in Operation Hailstorm - Okay, the US sunk, with the aid of the USS Iowa, the Katori, Naka, and the Agano, plus 4 destroyers. All the Japanese ships named were light cruisers. The Iowa's attacked the Katori and nothing else. The other two cruisers were attacked and sunk by aircraft. The USS Iowa closed the range to the Katori after evading torpedo attacks and fired 10 salvos at the Katori, with reportedly great results. In fact, they could see holes blasted in her after she was straddled by the 5th salvo, and she sunk shortly after.

 

Yamato vs Iowas between those engagements - The Yamato hit a large, slow, escort carrier at maximum range resulting in minimal damage. The Iowa hit the Katori, a fast light cruiser, and sunk her.

 

I'd love to hear a little about where you guys are getting your information, because some of it I've never heard.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

Yamato vs Iowas between those engagements - The Yamato hit a large, slow, escort carrier at maximum range resulting in minimal damage. The Iowa hit the Katori, a fast light cruiser, and sunk her.

 

 

 

 

Quite honestly, your info is pisspoor. Yamato scored with the first salvo. no fall shots, she straddled that CVE only 3 times and procceeded to heavily damage/sink another CVE, all in a matter of minutes.

 

 

the Iowa fired nearly 50 16" shells and 120-140 (bobbyspongka knows the exact figure) at the Crippled and sitting duck IJN katori and procceded to ENTIRELY MISS the IJN Nowaki. get your info on the right path next time.

[Madwolf 10,215]

 

Quite honestly, your info is pisspoor. Yamato scored with the first salvo. no fall shots, she straddled that CVE only 3 times and procceeded to heavily damage/sink another CVE, all in a matter of minutes.

 

 

the Iowa fired nearly 50 16" shells and 120-140 (bobbyspongka knows the exact figure) at the Crippled and sitting duck IJN katori and procceded to ENTIRELY MISS the IJN Nowaki. get your info on the right path next time.

 

First of all your picture doesn't show anything spectacular. It is of the Iowa engaging a vessel, which I don't see named, at LONG range. Hitting a fast light cruiser like the Nowaki at long range, over 35,000 yards is hardly something that was likely to begin with. You're talking about a vessel that is hard to hit for a slow firing battleship to begin with, let alone beyond the range any other ship ever hit anything with guns. Regardless the Iowa fired only 5 salvos according to that document, which is 45 rounds of ammo. This was done more than likely as discouragement of rejoining the battle instead of any thought of actually striking and sinking her. She disengaged when the ship was beyond radar range, to give you an idea of just how far away she was.

 

In the Battle of Samar the US lost 2 escort carriers, which are extremely slow and vulnerable. We lost the Grambier Bay and the St. Lo which were under fire, at very close range from IJN Destroyers and Cruisers. The Yamato also engaged one of the carriers, a destroyer, and a destroyer escort on which she confrimed hits before they were sunk. The longest officially recorded hit by the Yamato was 10 miles on the destroyer.

 

Again, where are you getting your information from? Referencing someone else who isn't referencing their information is a poor case.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

as my friend BobbySpongka mentioned.

 

 

A Naval War College study performed during World War II estimated that an Iowa Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship Bismarck would be expected to achieve the following hit percentages. Range Percentage hits against a broadside target Percentage hits against an end-on target Ratio 10,000 yards (9,144 m) 32.7 22.3 1.47:1 20,000 yards (18,288 m) 10.5 4.1 2.56:1 30,000 yards (27,432 m) 2.7 1.4 1.92:1

 

the Iowa knocked out its own FCS radar for 20 minutes. it took approximately 50 16" rounds to sink the Katori at only 15,000 yards (in other words, near point blank range). this was one of the backwards of the Iowa, its FC layout was inferior. which resulted in the poor performance at Truk, preceeded by the even more poor performance by the USS washington against the IJN Kirishima, where both SoDak and Washington's rounds all-missed at 16k yards, the washington had to close to 7K yards to sink the kirishima.

 

the Katori is 426ft by 50ft or approximately half the size of Bismarck...now if 1 ship is at 15,000yrds and the bigger at 30,000yrds the radar signature/blip would be the same size

 

so 10% of 42 =4.2... 5% of 42=2.1 now 2.5% of 42= 1.05

 

so take the % of hits and the radar blip size of Katori at 15,000yrds and change 'only' the range to 30,000 yards, thus the Naval College study got the 2.7% @30,000yrds on bismarck size target just like my friend stated last page.

 

 

this bismarck size target was the IJN katori, which no, was'n small sized, the radar blip showed a Bismarck sized target, stop being biased and speculating "small ships, hard to hit", this is'n battlestations pacific, furthermore the Katori was crippled. you've only speculated what happened in the battle of truk so far, you did'n back it up that the Katori was actually conducting evasive manuevers. furthermore, sailors on Nowaki reported 100m splashes, you think that's accurate or do you just lack info on what naval battles mean?

 

The longest officially recorded hit by the Yamato was 10 miles on the destroyer.

 

 

this in itself is un-confirmed. so you only call it confirmed when its 10 miles? me and my friend have provided backing sources, reports, accounts, testimonies, and CPs and AARs and you think you can just dismiss that because you think the yamato was a xxxx BB?

 

 

She disengaged when the ship was beyond radar range, to give you an idea of just how far away she was.

 

ofcourse, another testimony of the inferiority of USN SK rangefinders, especially in combat. if the yamato was engaging this target she would've been tracking it up to 50km, even if its sailing at 40knots, she would've sunk it in a matter of minutes.

 

furthermore, she scored hits at 19 miles, compared to Iowa's struggle to sink a Crippled CL. (stop saying it was a CL sailing at high speeds, it was crippled at the time Iowa opened up on it, for someone who says we don't reference our sources you twist history on intention) and failure to sink an escaping DD while the Kongo managed to score a hit on an evasive DD at Samar, 17 miles far.

[bobbyspongka 70]

Mad wolf
Again, where are you getting your information from? Referencing someone else who isn't referencing their information is a poor case

I've already referenced where I got the resources from,I even post up a link for everybody to read so there know where both are from.in fact they come from navweaps.in fact the Bismarck tests people should know since it is in navweaps Iowa gun page

As for operation hailstone I use the USN narrative on the battle of truk lagoon.and the picture general sultan posted is from the USN archives on the topic of the Iowa class,you can go ask them for a copy

[Madwolf 10,215]

 

as my friend BobbySpongka mentioned.

 

 

A Naval War College study performed during World War II estimated that an Iowa Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship Bismarck would be expected to achieve the following hit percentages. Range Percentage hits against a broadside target Percentage hits against an end-on target Ratio 10,000 yards (9,144 m) 32.7 22.3 1.47:1 20,000 yards (18,288 m) 10.5 4.1 2.56:1 30,000 yards (27,432 m) 2.7 1.4 1.92:1

 

the Iowa knocked out its own FCS radar for 20 minutes. it took approximately 50 16" rounds to sink the Katori at only 15,000 yards (in other words, near point blank range). this was one of the backwards of the Iowa, its FC layout was inferior. which resulted in the poor performance at Truk, preceeded by the even more poor performance by the USS washington against the IJN Kirishima, where both SoDak and Washington's rounds all-missed at 16k yards, the washington had to close to 7K yards to sink the kirishima.

 

the Katori is 426ft by 50ft or approximately half the size of Bismarck...now if 1 ship is at 15,000yrds and the bigger at 30,000yrds the radar signature/blip would be the same size

 

so 10% of 42 =4.2... 5% of 42=2.1 now 2.5% of 42= 1.05

 

so take the % of hits and the radar blip size of Katori at 15,000yrds and change 'only' the range to 30,000 yards, thus the Naval College study got the 2.7% @30,000yrds on bismarck size target just like my friend stated last page.

 

 

this bismarck size target was the IJN katori, which no, was'n small sized, the radar blip showed a Bismarck sized target, stop being biased and speculating "small ships, hard to hit", this is'n battlestations pacific, furthermore the Katori was crippled. you've only speculated what happened in the battle of truk so far, you did'n back it up that the Katori was actually conducting evasive manuevers. furthermore, sailors on Nowaki reported 100m splashes, you think that's accurate or do you just lack info on what naval battles mean?

 

 

 

this in itself is un-confirmed. so you only call it confirmed when its 10 miles? me and my friend have provided backing sources, reports, accounts, testimonies, and CPs and AARs and you think you can just dismiss that because you think the yamato was a xxxx BB?

 

 

 

ofcourse, another testimony of the inferiority of USN SK rangefinders, especially in combat. if the yamato was engaging this target she would've been tracking it up to 50km, even if its sailing at 40knots, she would've sunk it in a matter of minutes.

 

furthermore, she scored hits at 19 miles, compared to Iowa's struggle to sink a Crippled CL. (stop saying it was a CL sailing at high speeds, it was crippled at the time Iowa opened up on it, for someone who says we don't reference our sources you twist history on intention) and failure to sink an escaping DD while the Kongo managed to score a hit on an evasive DD at Samar, 17 miles far.

 

 

The Katori:

 

The USS Iowa fired 59 shells at the Katori. After 5 salvos struck her she was basically sinking, and she sank after only 13 minutes. That is incredibly impressive. Further more, the Katori was far from a crippled ship when the Iowa caught up to her. A screening group of destroyers jumped in before the Iowa and fired 6 salvos of torpedoes at the Katori, which she avoided, and then returned fire with a salvo of her own, of which all missed. While she had already been damaged, she was certainly still able to maneuver. I don't 

 

Iowa Class FCS Problems and the quality of the American FCS vs the Japanese: 

 

I've heard that a US battleship knocked out it's own FCS system during the war, but I don't remember it being the Iowa's. The one thing I do know about the FCS system onboard the Iowa's and South Dakotas was that they were the best in the war. First of all only the Americans, British, and I believe the French developed the capability to blindly fire. In other words, the Japanese couldn't fire at what they couldn't literally see. In poor weather conditions, or at night, the US ended up with the advantage with ships like the Iowas. Also the US was the only nation to develop an FCS that could fire and maneuver accurately. Every other nation could do one or the other. In 1945 they tested the FCS system with the USS North Carolina. They picked a target, put the ship at high speed, performed two 450 degree turns in opposite directions, and then 2 100 degree turns and never lost their firing solution. That is insane!

 

Radar:

 

It is true that the Japanese could out-range the American radar, but they still relied on optical directors to train their guns on target. The Americans, and British however, developed a system that allowed them to train their guns based on radar alone. If was shorter range than the Japanese system, but it allowed them to fire blind. The Japanese radar fitted on the Yamato, the Mark 2 Mod 2, was reportedly capable of reaching ranges of up to 35,000 yards, but there are also reports that it wouldn't go past 20,000.

 

IJN Naka and Nowaki vs KMS Bismark

 

First of all there are two ships you could be talking about here: The IJN Naka, which was a light cruiser, or the IJN Nowaki, which is an OLD IJN destroyer.

 

The Bismark was 241m long vs the Katori being 147m long = 94 meter difference

The Bismark was 36m wide vs the Katori being 15m wide = 21 meter difference

 

The Bismark was 241m long vs the Nowaki being 118m long = 123 meter difference

The Bismark was 36m wide vs the Nowaki being 11m wide = 25 meter difference

 

So yes the Naka was a small sized ship for a battleship to hit at long range, and the Nowaki even smaller. Furthermore, we're already beyond the 30,000 yard mark for hitting the ship 2.7% of the time by being at 35,000 yards. The Iowa fired 5 salvos, and if they were full salvos they would have been a total of 45 rounds had they all been full salvos, meaning that if even 1 hit it would have brought us over our hit percentage of 2.7%. You basically proved my point for me.

 

The 10 mile hit by the Yamato on the US destroyer:

First of all I never have said the Yamato was a poor ship. She was an excellent ship that may have been the most dangerous ship every afloat in her era. However, that 10 mile hit is confirmed by the captain of the Yamato. As far as your information goes, you have yet to provide backing for any of it. All of my info can mostly be found on the Wikipedia page for these events and ships which has been copied almost directly from official USN websites, and is sited as such.

 

The Yamato's ability to engage the Naka/Nowaki:

The Yamato wouldn't have been able to fire accurately on either ship, first of all the Japanese relied on Optical range finders to estimate the range to the target, which while very good, weren't going to be accurate against ships they couldn't see, or could barely see. They also did a poorer job with horizon location, which is important when training your guns. Then keep in mind that the target is around 19 miles away from the Yamato, and it's a ship capable of putting on speed and maneuvering. The other problem is that the shells of the Yamato's 18in guns travel slower than the Iowa's 16in shells, again making them less accurate at that range.

 

One of my biggest problems with your entire argument here is that you're using the Battle of Samar to justify your point, and if anything the Battle of Samar proved one thing: The Radar and FCS of the USN was superior to that of the IJN. At the Battle of Samar the USN, with a far inferior force, took on the might of the Japanese Navy and won thanks to accurate, sustained fire that the Japanese couldn't achieve. Even the St Lo, a lightly armed Escort Carrier, disabled a Japanese Cruiser with her 5in guns because of her fire system.

 

Look, the Yamato was a great ship, no one is arguing that she wasn't. You can argue that she had longer range due to her radar until your blue in the face, and no one is going to put up that big of an argument, because you're right. However, the USN was able to develop a fire control and radar system that was able to work in tandem to put shots accurately on target even if the USN ship was maneuvering and couldn't see. The Japanese navy simply couldn't train their guns on target with the system they had, in those conditions.  The Yamato might have been able to fire shots in the general direction of the Iowa's before the Iowa's could accurately return fire, but there was nearly no chance that she would have ever been hit by those shells. Further more, shell spotting by airplane proved impractical during combat. When the Iowa would have closed the range to achieve a firing solution with her radar and FCS, she would have been able to do so before she came into range of the Yamato's optical FCS. This means that she would have been able to fire on the Yamato, before the Yamato could EFFECTIVELY fire back at her, which she could do by closing the range so she could use her optics to fight back. 

[Crag_r 8,620]

Through reading up on it i think the issue was a near miss by the one of the Yamato's Type 3 rounds, that would be enough to explain the fire on deck as this was an incendiary round designed for Aircraft, with its explosion radius its seems perfectly plausible that a near miss could cause issues. And would also explain why Yamato is not often documented for the longest range hit. 

[Madwolf 10,215]

BTW, that Action Report from the White Plains is being understood wrong:

 

The USS White Plains wasn't HIT by the shells of the Yamato, but "straddled" by them. In other words the shells landed all around her, but she was never struck. She received damage thanks to the enormous forces at work when the 18in shells made impact with the water near her.

 

I was confused by this for a while, because 18in shells would have cut through an unarmored Escort Carrier like butter.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

The USS Iowa fired 59 shells at the Katori. After 5 salvos struck her she was basically sinking, and she sank after only 13 minutes. That is incredibly impressive. Further more, the Katori was far from a crippled ship when the Iowa caught up to her. A screening group of destroyers jumped in before the Iowa and fired 6 salvos of torpedoes at the Katori, which she avoided, and then returned fire with a salvo of her own, of which all missed. While she had already been damaged, she was certainly still able to maneuver. I don't 

 

 

define failing to hit a crippled ship at near-point-blank range its impressive.

 

 

 

 

Iowa Class FCS Problems and the quality of the American FCS vs the Japanese: 

 

I've heard that a US battleship knocked out it's own FCS system during the war, but I don't remember it being the Iowa's. The one thing I do know about the FCS system onboard the Iowa's and South Dakotas was that they were the best in the war. First of all only the Americans, British, and I believe the French developed the capability to blindly fire. In other words, the Japanese couldn't fire at what they couldn't literally see. In poor weather conditions, or at night, the US ended up with the advantage with ships like the Iowas. Also the US was the only nation to develop an FCS that could fire and maneuver accurately. Every other nation could do one or the other. In 1945 they tested the FCS system with the USS North Carolina. They picked a target, put the ship at high speed, performed two 450 degree turns in opposite directions, and then 2 100 degree turns and never lost their firing solution. That is insane!

 

 

once again, the Type 98 sokutekiban,shagekiban and hoiban can track 40-knot targets at a whooping 50 KM. and 35knot evasive vessels and took into account earth values such as curvature, the Yamato class enjoyed 4 units of Type-98 radars fitted in the main tower, and the three main gun turrets. Iowa's SK radar Knocked itself out like any other radar on any other ship (seriously, just look at the bismarck's performance in her only engagement with another BB). the Iowa as demonstrated in Truk killed its own FCs for 20 minutes everytime she fired. leading to poor performance on a Bismarck-size target at near-point blank range. speaknig of radar blips and bismarck size targets. you have'n addressed any of that in our other posts. ask any well acquainted naval historian and he'd concur on the sensitivity of shipborne radars.

 

back to FCs being knocked out, yamato' had FC type 98s fitted in the Turrets. not just the tower, if the tower-FCs got KOed the turret ones continued to function, compare yamato's 3 literal straddles and near-direct hit at samar along with Kongo's main calibre hit against an evasive DD at 17 miles to the Washington & SoDak's inferior performence against one BB from WW1 at Savo island. speaking of that, you have'n addressed this either. and you continued to praise USN search radars despite their clear inferior performance at samar, Kurita saw enemy planes taking  off at 23 with the opics, at that point your glorified SG radars did'n pick up Kurita's centre force yet. they did a minute later though (yawn)

 

 

Radar:

 

It is true that the Japanese could out-range the American radar, but they still relied on optical directors to train their guns on target. The Americans, and British however, developed a system that allowed them to train their guns based on radar alone. If was shorter range than the Japanese system, but it allowed them to fire blind. The Japanese radar fitted on the Yamato, the Mark 2 Mod 2, was reportedly capable of reaching ranges of up to 35,000 yards, but there are also reports that it wouldn't go past 20,000.

 

 

:facepalm:

 

 

 

So yes the Naka was a small sized ship for a battleship to hit at long range, and the Nowaki even smaller

 

Read the above.

 

 

 

Furthermore, we're already beyond the 30,000 yard mark for hitting the ship 2.7% of the time by being at 35,000 yards. The Iowa fired 5 salvos, and if they were full salvos they would have been a total of 45 rounds had they all been full salvos, meaning that if even 1 hit it would have brought us over our hit percentage of 2.7%. You basically proved my point for me.

 

once again, my better acquainted friend can fill us on the detailed CPs and AARs of Truk. worth a mention how at the same time you lower the size of a target you still think the 2.7% percentage would be achieved on it, worth even more mentioning how you think 2.7% is a good percentage. its inferior by BB standards. the Yamato achieved better then this at Samar

 

 

 

 

First of all I never have said the Yamato was a poor ship. She was an excellent ship that may have been the most dangerous ship every afloat in her era. However, that 10 mile hit is confirmed by the captain of the Yamato. As far as your information goes, you have yet to provide backing for any of it. All of my info can mostly be found on the Wikipedia page for these events and ships which has been copied almost directly from official USN websites, and is sited as such.

 

wikipedia? :facepalm:

 

 

as for our sources, for samar we have already provided direct testimonies from the horses' mouth. Bobbyspongka has given you links, other then that I can give you my word on bobbyspongka being a 6+ year researcher on the IJN. on Radars and FCs, the japanese wikipedia testify our words. aside from that we have'n unbacked anything we stated, if you feel you are'n being sourced enough ask bobbyspongka, got a source for the captain of the yamato testifying to a 10 mile hit when the ship CLEARLY straddled TWO CVES at a Whooping 19 miles?

 

One of my biggest problems with your entire argument here is that you're using the Battle of Samar to justify your point, and if anything the Battle of Samar proved one thing: The Radar and FCS of the USN was superior to that of the IJN. At the Battle of Samar the USN, with a far inferior force, took on the might of the Japanese Navy and won thanks to accurate, sustained fire that the Japanese couldn't achieve. Even the St Lo, a lightly armed Escort Carrier, disabled a Japanese Cruiser with her 5in guns because of her fire system.

 

 

 

 

sure, explains the pisspoor USN/australian hit ratio of 2.131% at Savo island VS the superior IJN Hit rate of 12.09%. you are a complete joke. you try to justify truk by saying the Katori was a fast CL (Which you initially said was going off at high speeds, contradicting the real story) and now deny the superiorty of both the Type 98 series and the japanese E-27 Radar which could pick up radar wavelengths at a whooping 300KM. no other search radar can pick up farther then 41KM, and the superiority of japanese gunnary skills at Samar compared to the debacles at Guadalcanal and savo islands and truk lagoon, the escaping Nowaki would'n have escaped, you think it would've but we can simply re-raise the type 98's superiority into matter and bring up how the Iowa killed her FCs with her own salvos as once demonstrated in guadalcanal, Kirishima's two main calibre hits crippled the SoDak's FCs, the Washington was'n able to hit shit at 17k yds and had to get down to 7k yards to hit anything.

 

 

with a far inferior force, took on the might of the Japanese Navy and won

 

you're biased. case closed

 

 

 

 

Look, the Yamato was a great ship, no one is arguing that she wasn't. You can argue that she had longer range due to her radar until your blue in the face, and no one is going to put up that big of an argument, because you're right. However, the USN was able to develop a fire control and radar system that was able to work in tandem to put shots accurately on target even if the USN ship was maneuvering and couldn't see.

 

 

until someone tells you two targets 4k yards close to eachother appear as one in the radar screen of an allied ship. yeah, this was another issue of your 'superior' radar.

 

I'm sure the FCs on the Iowa are gonna be functioning like honey until she opens fire and loses her FCs and gets reduced to a sitting duck while yamato can track 40knot fast targets at 51km and has optics that can see planes taking off up to 35km, if the USN FCs were that good then go ahead and explain the 2.7% drop of accuracy on the Katori and the inferior hit ratios against the kirishima, both can be credited to the sensitivty of USN BB FCs while the Yamato layed a deadly STRADDLE on a CVE at 19 miles without any fall salvos or mis-fire, she crippled the WP with that hit, weather if it can be considered a hit or not but the straddle was so deadly the fuses on the WP were blown out and the TBC radars were KOed to dust. this along with Kongo's hit outrange scharnhorst and warpsite's.

 

 

The Yamato might have been able to fire shots in the general direction of the Iowa's before the Iowa's could accurately return fire, but there was nearly no chance that she would have ever been hit by those shells. Further more, shell spotting by airplane proved impractical during combat. When the Iowa would have closed the range to achieve a firing solution with her radar and FCS, she would have been able to do so before she came into range of the Yamato's optical FCS. This means that she would have been able to fire on the Yamato, before the Yamato could EFFECTIVELY fire back at her, which she could do by closing the range so she could use her optics to fight back. 

 

 

how many times do we have to tell you the exploits of the type 98 plus to to the 2-mile immunity zone of the yamato? you appear oblivious to everything we tell you, the 2.7% accuracy rate on a bismarck size target and the sensitivity of the FCs? aerial spotters were raised before combat initaited, and if we are talking about a realistic scenario then the E-27 and the type 98 would've found out the Iowa was there before she does and raised up aerial spotters, opitcs don't have anything to do with this, stop bringing them up. the yamato has hours of preperation time for firing solutions and launching aerial spotters before the Iowa even realizes something is out there. once again, the japanese wiki on the japanese radars testify what we state.

[Crag_r 8,620]

...I've heard that a US battleship knocked out it's own FCS system during the war, but I don't remember it being the Iowa's...

 

There was a circuit breaker issue with some of the earlier US Battleships in the war, however it was only a case of simply flicking a switch to get it working again. Unlike say the German that would cause structural damage to their radar... Bismark hem

[bobbyspongka 70]

The Katori:

The USS Iowa fired 59 shells at the Katori. After 5 salvos struck her she was basically sinking, and she sank after only 13 minutes. That is incredibly impressive. Further more, the Katori was far from a crippled ship when the Iowa caught up to her. A screening group of destroyers jumped in before the Iowa and fired 6 salvos of torpedoes at the Katori, which she avoided, and then returned fire with a salvo of her own, of which all missed. While she had already been damaged, she was certainly still able to maneuver. I don't

Why we bring up the Katori case is simple,8 hits at 14000yards? So that's impressive then why is Yamatos hits in Samar frowned upon?Iowa fight a slow training cruiser at and sandblast it with shells at 14000yards all for 8hits is impressive?


Iowa Class FCS Problems and the quality of the American FCS vs the Japanese:

I've heard that a US battleship knocked out it's own FCS system during the war, but I don't remember it being the Iowa's. The one thing I do know about the FCS system onboard the Iowa's and South Dakotas was that they were the best in the war. First of all only the Americans, British, and I believe the French developed the capability to blindly fire. In other words, the Japanese couldn't fire at what they couldn't literally see. In poor weather conditions, or at night, the US ended up with the advantage with ships like the Iowas. Also the US was the only nation to develop an FCS that could fire and maneuver accurately. Every other nation could do one or the other. In 1945 they tested the FCS system with the USS North Carolina. They picked a target, put the ship at high speed, performed two 450 degree turns in opposite directions, and then 2 100 degree turns and never lost their firing solution. That is insane!

You never heard of Iowa knocking out her own radar?
Hailstone proves it in fact Both the Iowa class did it how can one simply not know?

Turret two opened with a salvo of three projectiles, followed shortly by a salvo from turret one. The latter knocked the SG surface search radar out of commission

And on Iowa I read from her reports Her main rangefinder the Mk 8mod 2 was knocked out her her gun blasts which loosened the bolts,and blown out generators along with her SG surface search radar.even if we do let you say that the USN have the better FCS what's the point also if we do say she fires first her own guns are just a detriment for her since the blasts will just knock out the FCS just like at truk lagoon!.so if Iowa takes on Yamato this would be a live fire exercise for the IJN Yamato or Musashi.what else will Iowa have to rely on if her radar guided FCS is knocked out by her own guns?

White plains was never hit?
Fine care to tell us what for you defines a hit then?


The After Action Report of Escort Carrier White Plains reports a total of six shells landing in a salvo, with 'four shells dropping microscopically close forward and two aft'. Literally no other battleship in the japanese Centre Force could have fired such a six-round salvo, and as such Yamato was without doubt responsible for the hit. Even though some may say that this wasn't a hit, it caused the White Plains to be 'shaken and twisted violently throwing personnel in some parts of the ship from their feet and much gear to the deck from norma horizontal stowages. Steering control was lost, gyro and radar failed, damage was received in the starboard engine room and all lights were extinguished throughout the ship'. Something that does that much damage is most certainly a hit.

[Crag_r 8,620]

White plains was never hit?
Fine care to tell us what for you defines a hit then?


The After Action Report of Escort Carrier White Plains reports a total of six shells landing in a salvo, with 'four shells dropping microscopically close forward and two aft'. Literally no other battleship in the japanese Centre Force could have fired such a six-round salvo, and as such Yamato was without doubt responsible for the hit. Even though some may say that this wasn't a hit, it caused the White Plains to be 'shaken and twisted violently throwing personnel in some parts of the ship from their feet and much gear to the deck from norma horizontal stowages. Steering control was lost, gyro and radar failed, damage was received in the starboard engine room and all lights were extinguished throughout the ship'. Something that does that much damage is most certainly a hit.

 

Most people would describe a hit as the round physically making contact with the ship in its flight path. That would seem to be the reason the Yamato does not have the claim.

[Madwolf 10,215]

define failing to hit a crippled ship at near-point-blank range its impressive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

once again, the Type 98 sokutekiban,shagekiban and hoiban can track 40-knot targets at a whooping 50 KM. and 35knot evasive vessels and took into account earth values such as curvature, the Yamato class enjoyed 4 units of Type-98 radars fitted in the main tower, and the three main gun turrets. Iowa's SK radar Knocked itself out like any other radar on any other ship (seriously, just look at the bismarck's performance in her only engagement with another BB). the Iowa as demonstrated in Truk killed its own FCs for 20 minutes everytime she fired. leading to poor performance on a Bismarck-size target at near-point blank range. speaknig of radar blips and bismarck size targets. you have'n addressed any of that in our other posts. ask any well acquainted naval historian and he'd concur on the sensitivity of shipborne radars.

 

back to FCs being knocked out, yamato' had FC type 98s fitted in the Turrets. not just the tower, if the tower-FCs got KOed the turret ones continued to function, compare yamato's 3 literal straddles and near-direct hit at samar along with Kongo's main calibre hit against an evasive DD at 17 miles to the Washington & SoDak's inferior performence against one BB from WW1 at Savo island. speaking of that, you have'n addressed this either. and you continued to praise USN search radars despite their clear inferior performance at samar, Kurita saw enemy planes taking  off at 23 with the opics, at that point your glorified SG radars did'n pick up Kurita's centre force yet. they did a minute later though (yawn)

 

 

 

:facepalm:

 

 

 

 

Read the above.

 

 

 

 

once again, my better acquainted friend can fill us on the detailed CPs and AARs of Truk. worth a mention how at the same time you lower the size of a target you still think the 2.7% percentage would be achieved on it, worth even more mentioning how you think 2.7% is a good percentage. its inferior by BB standards. the Yamato achieved better then this at Samar

 

 

 

 

 

wikipedia? :facepalm:

 

 

as for our sources, for samar we have already provided direct testimonies from the horses' mouth. Bobbyspongka has given you links, other then that I can give you my word on bobbyspongka being a 6+ year researcher on the IJN. on Radars and FCs, the japanese wikipedia testify our words. aside from that we have'n unbacked anything we stated, if you feel you are'n being sourced enough ask bobbyspongka, got a source for the captain of the yamato testifying to a 10 mile hit when the ship CLEARLY straddled TWO CVES at a Whooping 19 miles?

 

 

 

sure, explains the pisspoor USN/australian hit ratio of 2.131% at Savo island VS the superior IJN Hit rate of 12.09%. you are a complete joke. you try to justify truk by saying the Katori was a fast CL (Which you initially said was going off at high speeds, contradicting the real story) and now deny the superiorty of both the Type 98 series and the japanese E-27 Radar which could pick up radar wavelengths at a whooping 300KM. no other search radar can pick up farther then 41KM, and the superiority of japanese gunnary skills at Samar compared to the debacles at Guadalcanal and savo islands and truk lagoon, the escaping Nowaki would'n have escaped, you think it would've but we can simply re-raise the type 98's superiority into matter and bring up how the Iowa killed her FCs with her own salvos as once demonstrated in guadalcanal, Kirishima's two main calibre hits crippled the SoDak's FCs, the Washington was'n able to hit xxxx at 17k yds and had to get down to 7k yards to hit anything.

 

 

 

you're biased. case closed

 

 

 

 

 

until someone tells you two targets 4k yards close to eachother appear as one in the radar screen of an allied ship. yeah, this was another issue of your 'superior' radar.

 

I'm sure the FCs on the Iowa are gonna be functioning like honey until she opens fire and loses her FCs and gets reduced to a sitting duck while yamato can track 40knot fast targets at 51km and has optics that can see planes taking off up to 35km, if the USN FCs were that good then go ahead and explain the 2.7% drop of accuracy on the Katori and the inferior hit ratios against the kirishima, both can be credited to the sensitivty of USN BB FCs while the Yamato layed a deadly STRADDLE on a CVE at 19 miles without any fall salvos or mis-fire, she crippled the WP with that hit, weather if it can be considered a hit or not but the straddle was so deadly the fuses on the WP were blown out and the TBC radars were KOed to dust. this along with Kongo's hit outrange scharnhorst and warpsite's.

 

 

 

 

how many times do we have to tell you the exploits of the type 98 plus to to the 2-mile immunity zone of the yamato? you appear oblivious to everything we tell you, the 2.7% accuracy rate on a bismarck size target and the sensitivity of the FCs? aerial spotters were raised before combat initaited, and if we are talking about a realistic scenario then the E-27 and the type 98 would've found out the Iowa was there before she does and raised up aerial spotters, opitcs don't have anything to do with this, stop bringing them up. the yamato has hours of preperation time for firing solutions and launching aerial spotters before the Iowa even realizes something is out there. once again, the japanese wiki on the japanese radars testify what we state.

 

1.) The Iowa didn't fail to hit anything. She blew holes in her and she sank. She fired 59 shells, and the Katori sank. What is so hard to understand?

 

2.) - The Japanese could detect the US at a greater range, but didn't have the capability to engage like the US did. 

 

- The Iowa's disabling their FCS for 20 minutes everytime they fired is blatantly false. You haven't provided any data to prove otherwise. Meanwhile, it is noted in official Navy documents that it did sometimes occur, so during battle it was literally someone's job to sit at the fuse box and push the fuses back into place that popped out. Literally less than a 20 second fix and the entire FCS was operational again.

 

- No one has discounted the redundancy of the Yamato's FCS systems.

 

- The Iowa didn't engage the Nowaki/Naka from point blank range. She engage her at a minimum distance of 30,000 feet which is over 15 miles. She would have around a 2.7% of hitting her at that range if she was the size of the Bismark, which we CLEARLY proved she wasn't. Also radar signature vs actual size are two different things, and we've obviously proven that ships were never engaged from that distance with any hope of actual suscess. Furthermore you need to figure out if you're talking about the Naka or the Nowaki. Naka sunk during Operation Hailstorm, and Nowaki was a few days later.

 

- The South Dakota and Washington issue will be covered tomorrow. I don't have the time atm, I'm about to go to bed.

 

3.) So you're facepalming the fact that I'm saying the Yamato wasn't capable of engaging ships at 31,000 yards with much success? Because as we've proven time and time again, I'm right. It couldn't even hit the White Plains, it straddled her on either side with shells but never hit her. She was damaged from the impact of the shells splashing around her.

 

4.) You don't even know what ship you're talking about and you're facepalming me. If you're talking about a cruiser, the only possible ship close in name is the Naka, which was lost during Operation Hailstorm, as you claim the Nowaki was, which you're clearly mistaken about. Regarldess, the Nowaki is a destroyer, making it even smaller, and even more difficult to hit at 31,000 yards. Furthermore, you're obviously referring to the Naka, since she received minor damage from a torpedo blast prior to being sunk by enemy aircraft as she fled.

 

5.) - Your friend gave you reports he obtained off of a message board, because I googled them and found them. I shall assume they're accurate, but at the same time, it didn't prove that the White Plains got hit, as you seem to think. She was never hit, that isn't what "straddled" means. It is possible she could have hit her if she continued to fire, but she was driven away.

 

- 2.7% to hit at 31,000 yards is a good percentage when you consider this was WWII, and even with the updated FCS in the 1980s the Iowas still aren't snipers at that range. 

 

- And again, the Yamato had a 0% hit rate at the Battle of Samar vs the White Plains because she didn't hit her.

 

6.) - As I mentioned, the Wikipedia article is sourced straight from the USN. The USN has websites that have literally be copied and pasted from onto Wiki. Better yet, the Wiki page sources EVERYTHING at the bottom. Your friend referenced a forum post on a message board and he has a link to it. That isn't impressive.

 

- You have no grasp of range at all. 35,000 yards = 19 miles and one of the longest hits EVER recorded by a gun firing warship, of any sort, was around 27,000 yards. So how is the "projected" performance of the Iowas being 2.7% 31,000 yards piss poor performance? Especially since that's the range the Naka was at. That means for every 50 shells she fired she should have got a hit and set a world record. Sounds pretty good to me!

 

7.) - Why are we talking about Savo Island now? The battle in 1942? That means we're no longer comparing the same thing! So much changed for the USN between 1941 and 1945.

 

- The Katori was mobile enough to evade torpedoes. In my book that is far from crippled. The initial report when she was being attacking by the Iowas was that she only had minor damage.

 

- We've acknowledged repeatedly that the IJN had superior DISTANCE on their radar. Distance isn't everything though. They couldn't engage with their FCS until the enemy was within visible range using the optics. At the end of the war, the USN didn't have this problem because of their own FCS system which could fire "blind" and while turning the ship.

 

- Lets rewind here: The Battle of Samar is the battle in which an Allied force consisting of Cruiser, Destroyers, and Escort Carriers was engaged by the Japanese Center Fleet. It was one of the largest ship to ship battles in history, and despite being out-gunned the USN fought so hard, and hit with so many shells that the IJN thought they were attacking a superior, or at least equal force and withdrew, which saved the flank of the US force to the South. This is the battle you're talking about right?

 

- Why do you keep jumping around to other engagements and ships that aren't part of this discussion? We'll get to the South Dakota and Washington tomorrow. I should have been asleep an hour ago. I have work in the morning.

 

8.) How am I biased? I think you're just wrong.

 

9.) - I don't know if the USN's FCS/Radar system had targets meld together at 4k yards, I've never seen such data, but at that point it's hardly relevant since the enemy is literally within a mile or two of you and you better start watching out for torpedoes.

 

- Again, your criticism of the US FCS system blowing itself out for long periods of time, or even more than several seconds has been proven false.

 

- Doesn't matter that the Yamato can track targets going 40knots because neither ship goes that fast.

 

- The Yamato's FCS allowed her to track ships, but didn't have the ability to train her guns using the radar, only the US and British could do that.

 

- It's great that the Yamato could see planes taking off at 35,000 yards, too bad she couldn't see a ship, so who cares? I also find this a little hard to believe. Her FCS reportedly only worked for targets up to 27,000 yards, then they struggled because they had trouble finding the horizon.

 

10.) - A light cruiser, or a destroyer are both significantly smaller than the Biskmark. Hitting them isn't the same thing.

 

- The Yamato would have been detected by the Iowa's own radar as she closed to engagement range.

 

- Furthermore, the Iowa would've detected the spotter plane with her own Air Search Radar if it had been launched, and the Navy was asleep at the wheel and didn't have their own scout planes searching the sky. You're also confusing surface radar with air search radar. The Japanese didn't have a surface search radar that could detect enemy ships a quarter of the way across the Pacific.

 

- There has never been a documented case of a spot plane effectively helping a ship engage another ship accurately from beyond visible range. Simple has never happened. There is no point of reference, and no way to accurately measure the distance, and then train the guns.

[Madwolf 10,215]

The Katori:

The USS Iowa fired 59 shells at the Katori. After 5 salvos struck her she was basically sinking, and she sank after only 13 minutes. That is incredibly impressive. Further more, the Katori was far from a crippled ship when the Iowa caught up to her. A screening group of destroyers jumped in before the Iowa and fired 6 salvos of torpedoes at the Katori, which she avoided, and then returned fire with a salvo of her own, of which all missed. While she had already been damaged, she was certainly still able to maneuver. I don't

Why we bring up the Katori case is simple,8 hits at 14000yards? So that's impressive then why is Yamatos hits in Samar frowned upon?Iowa fight a slow training cruiser at and sandblast it with shells at 14000yards all for 8hits is impressive?


Iowa Class FCS Problems and the quality of the American FCS vs the Japanese:

I've heard that a US battleship knocked out it's own FCS system during the war, but I don't remember it being the Iowa's. The one thing I do know about the FCS system onboard the Iowa's and South Dakotas was that they were the best in the war. First of all only the Americans, British, and I believe the French developed the capability to blindly fire. In other words, the Japanese couldn't fire at what they couldn't literally see. In poor weather conditions, or at night, the US ended up with the advantage with ships like the Iowas. Also the US was the only nation to develop an FCS that could fire and maneuver accurately. Every other nation could do one or the other. In 1945 they tested the FCS system with the USS North Carolina. They picked a target, put the ship at high speed, performed two 450 degree turns in opposite directions, and then 2 100 degree turns and never lost their firing solution. That is insane!

You never heard of Iowa knocking out her own radar?
Hailstone proves it in fact Both the Iowa class did it how can one simply not know?

Turret two opened with a salvo of three projectiles, followed shortly by a salvo from turret one. The latter knocked the SG surface search radar out of commission

And on Iowa I read from her reports Her main rangefinder the Mk 8mod 2 was knocked out her her gun blasts which loosened the bolts,and blown out generators along with her SG surface search radar.even if we do let you say that the USN have the better FCS what's the point also if we do say she fires first her own guns are just a detriment for her since the blasts will just knock out the FCS just like at truk lagoon!.so if Iowa takes on Yamato this would be a live fire exercise for the IJN Yamato or Musashi.what else will Iowa have to rely on if her radar guided FCS is knocked out by her own guns?

White plains was never hit?
Fine care to tell us what for you defines a hit then?


The After Action Report of Escort Carrier White Plains reports a total of six shells landing in a salvo, with 'four shells dropping microscopically close forward and two aft'. Literally no other battleship in the japanese Centre Force could have fired such a six-round salvo, and as such Yamato was without doubt responsible for the hit. Even though some may say that this wasn't a hit, it caused the White Plains to be 'shaken and twisted violently throwing personnel in some parts of the ship from their feet and much gear to the deck from norma horizontal stowages. Steering control was lost, gyro and radar failed, damage was received in the starboard engine room and all lights were extinguished throughout the ship'. Something that does that much damage is most certainly a hit.

 

- You NEVER hit the White Planes. You got close and the impact of the shells hitting so close damaged the ship. It's not like radar and radios aren't extremely sensitive to that sort of thing on a ship that has no more armor than a destroyer. Carriers weren't made to get hit.

 

- It's not that the Katori attack was "more impressive" than the Yamato missing the White Plains. It was impressive that it was able to sink another combat ship larger than a destroyer in a very short amount of time, which is in stark contrast to your friend claiming that the ship was hard for the Iowa's to hit, which is blatantly false.

 

- Iowa's had men stationed at the circuit breakers to pop back in any tripped fused that occurred during battle as this was known to happen. It was literally fixed in a matter of seconds and had no notable impact on the battles.

 

- The damage caused to that carrier was CERTAINLY not a hit. First of all it would have been reported as such, and secondly it would have completely and utterly destroyed the White Planes. I don't know where you guys get off thinking the White Planes, an Escort Carrier, could even hope to survive a hit of any sort from the Yamato.

[vhaaagen 1,600]

Jesus Christ what a heap of dung fanboism this has become.

Only thing missing from this train wreck of a thread is a german fanboy running in and claiming Bismarck to be the bestest BB ever. 

 

I could dig out heaps of books and links concerning, the radar issue, steel quality etc but seeing how biased this discussion has become I refuse to waste anymore time (simple google search is actually enough).

 

 

Anyways believe whatever you think makes you happy, whether its your beloved Yamato pawning everyone or Santa Claus bringing presents on Christmas Eve.

[Spitfire_ 7,305]

Imagine how screwed you are when the Yamato gets close enough to fire all of its guns.

 

Death in.

3

2

1.

 

On another note, if the players can control the AA guns, imagine how deadly ships with loads of AA guns will be, like the Atlanta class.....or the Yamato.

[Madwolf 10,215]

Imagine how screwed you are when the Yamato gets close enough to fire all of its guns.

Death in.
3
2
1.

On another note, if the players can control the AA guns, imagine how deadly ships with loads of AA guns will be, like the Atlanta class.....or the Yamato.

And that's the things, the Yamato in range is an amazing machine. The Yamato in a blind fire situation is at a disadvantage.

[Crag_r 8,620]

 

On another note, if the players can control the AA guns, imagine how deadly ships with loads of AA guns will be,...or the Yamato.

 

That would be awesome!

 

Or at least look it, the 18.1" Naval gun firing the type 3 round was most common known as harmless fireworks by the American pilots

[Madwolf 10,215]

Yea, the Type 3 shells where good in theory, poor in practice. I'd much rather have the US dual purpose 5in guns for AA threats over the 18in solution. Lol.

[Spitfire_ 7,305]

Yea, the Type 3 shells where good in theory, poor in practice. I'd much rather have the US dual purpose 5in guns for AA threats over the 18in solution. Lol.

Or just the 9999999999 amount of machine guns and flak guns the Yamato has

[Madwolf 10,215]

Or just the 9999999999 amount of machine guns and flak guns the Yamato has

 

Definitely not a ship you want to by the lead man in the flight against.

 

I'll have to do some research on how the quality of the AA of both ships and nations where. I know the Yamato had plenty more AA guns, but it would be interesting to see the effectiveness of the guns themselves. 

[General_Sultan 1,228]

1) I don't know, your problem with getting it that Katori was a crippled bismarck sized target sitting still at point blank range.

 

 

 

2.) - The Japanese could detect the US at a greater range, but didn't have the capability to engage like the US did. 

 

I'm sure, the sailors who watched savo island chronicle down would agree. as well as the ones who witnessed naval guadalcanal. and lets not forget the two CVE's at samar.

 

 

 

- The Iowa's disabling their FCS for 20 minutes everytime they fired is blatantly false. You haven't provided any data to prove otherwise. Meanwhile, it is noted in official Navy documents that it did sometimes occur, so during battle it was literally someone's job to sit at the fuse box and push the fuses back into place that popped out. Literally less than a 20 second fix and the entire FCS was operational again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Iowa battle report testifies what we say. the MK8 was blasted out with her own salvos, she was'n taking hits nor anything yet she was going struggling like a ship under combat due to the sensitivity of her own radars.

 

since we both know you're pretty biased, we're gonna  have to loosen down on you and tell you that other ships aside from the yamato suffered from this, including the bismarck at her duel with hood.

 

- The Iowa didn't engage the Nowaki/Naka from point blank range. She engage her at a minimum distance of 30,000 feet which is over 15 miles. She would have around a 2.7% of hitting her at that range if she was the size of the Bismark, which we CLEARLY proved she wasn't. Also radar signature vs actual size are two different things, and we've obviously proven that ships were never engaged from that distance with any hope of actual suscess. Furthermore you need to figure out if you're talking about the Naka or the Nowaki. Naka sunk during Operation Hailstorm, and Nowaki was a few days later.

 

hit the Ctrl+F button

 

type "Naka"

 

look in any of my posts where I even mentioned The IJN Naka, do that next time before you make up a causi belli to start slinging ad hominem.

 

 

as for actual success, without even mentioning the hit that you would'n want to accept at Samar, that kind of straddle was the thing that proves that IJN FC capabilities were superior at longer range while the debacle to sink a crippled and static CL had a 2.7% which you try to make out as good.

 

the sailors on nowaki even reported 200m splashes, once again, testified by IJN AARs.

 

the 3 straddles landed by the yamato on the WP put her out of actions, hit or not, her fuses went out of actions and so did her keels and alot of equipment, as stated before, personnel were thrown off board along with equipment, this can be less considered a hit by some people but let them believe it, yamato would follow up on the next target, gambier bay, and sink her with another straddle, once again, no falls, and a near miss straddle. this straddle cut through the ship and left a massive hole which led the GB straight downwards. 

 

 

 

 

once again, my friend bobbyspongka has access to the detailed chronicle of events and battle report on this engagement.

 

 

 

 

3.) So you're facepalming the fact that I'm saying the Yamato wasn't capable of engaging ships at 31,000 yards with much success? Because as we've proven time and time again, I'm right. It couldn't even hit the White Plains, it straddled her on either side with shells but never hit her. She was damaged from the impact of the shells splashing around her.

 

so we really have to go through the gambier bay & white plains thing again? Yamato STRADDLED the life out of a CVE at 19 miles, crippling her to a point she was dead at contact with the 1st salvo, she procceeded to participate in the sinking of the GB and delivered the fatal blow that flooded the GB's engine room and sent her to the coral. while Iowa STRUGGLED to sink a sitting bismarck sized target at 14k yards and failed to hit a targt at 30k yards, yamto scored hits at 19 miles away while Iowa could'n nor washington at guadalcanal.

 

 

 

 

4.) You don't even know what ship you're talking about and you're facepalming me. If you're talking about a cruiser, the only possible ship close in name is the Naka, which was lost during Operation Hailstorm, as you claim the Nowaki was, which you're clearly mistaken about. Regarldess, the Nowaki is a destroyer, making it even smaller, and even more difficult to hit at 31,000 yards. Furthermore, you're obviously referring to the Naka, since she received minor damage from a torpedo blast prior to being sunk by enemy aircraft as she fled.

 

 

this is about as nonesensically confusing as the other post you made on the "yamato will rule them all" post you made recently, you are reduced to speculation at the moment, you yourself have'n provided any source and we did (to our best, most our sources come from hard documents, such as Jan skulski's yamato book) while you merely speculated that the katori was a high speed evasive target until we taught you it was crippled, and a bismarck sized target. you went off about how USN Radar was superior til we demonstrated the ability to spot at longer ranges of the yamato, furthermore, you went off about how the yamato had to fully rely on optics when we overstated the exploits of the type 98. how useless and pointless is this becoming?

 

 

 

- 2.7% to hit at 31,000 yards is a good percentage when you consider this was WWII, and even with the updated FCS in the 1980s the Iowas still aren't snipers at that range. 

 

 

 

Recently I've been surfing through a chinese encyclopedia named Baidu.com, other then the other stuff that this site discusses about the Yamato including penetration abilities and barrel life and such, the Chinese source also pointed out that the only available WW2 source about the performance of Iowa's 16" was a 40's full salvo test using HE rounds at a mere 27000 yards, the dispersion was a rather poor 600 m, at 38000 yards, it was even worse - 750m! Yamato. on the other hand, achieved a good 300m at 35 Km, the shell-to-shell dispersion was an insane 30-40 m comparing Iowa's 80 m in 40's and 100 m+ in 80's! So if Yamato fires at Iowa at this far the Iowa will most probably to be hit by almost a whole full salvo and lost her overall combat strength almost immediately while Yamato will take only less than half of the same full salvo of Iowa. Obviously an Iowa from the 80's would get whooped in a BB-on-BB fight with a yamato class.

 

 

 

 

6.) - As I mentioned, the Wikipedia article is sourced straight from the USN. The USN has websites that have literally be copied and pasted from onto Wiki. Better yet, the Wiki page sources EVERYTHING at the bottom. Your friend referenced a forum post on a message board and he has a link to it. That isn't impressive.

 

where's the link? as far as I know he gave a detailed and full chronicle report of the outcome of the battle. don't twist things to fit them with your agenda, its a sign of weak character.

 

 

 

 

- You have no grasp of range at all. 35,000 yards = 19 miles and one of the longest hits EVER recorded by a gun firing warship, of any sort, was around 27,000 yards. So how is the "projected" performance of the Iowas being 2.7% 31,000 yards piss poor performance? Especially since that's the range the Naka was at. That means for every 50 shells she fired she should have got a hit and set a world record. Sounds pretty good to me!

 

 

and I suppose 3 straddles and three extreme near-misses is'n and KOing a ship is'n a world record to you?

 

once again, you stick to western sources and speculation to fit your own standards, just because you WANT TO BELIEVE that a western ship fired the longest range shot in history does'n mean we can happily avoid instances where other ships exceeded it, the yamato according to all reports, Skulski's book, CPs, AARs, opened up at 19 miles and layed 3 deadly straddles that put WP out of commission, that's a world record, followed by kongo's hit ofcourse.

 

 

7.) - Why are we talking about Savo Island now? The battle in 1942? That means we're no longer comparing the same thing! So much changed for the USN between 1941 and 1945.

 

ofcourse you'd try to skip it.

 

 

 

- The Katori was mobile enough to evade torpedoes. In my book that is far from crippled. The initial report when she was being attacking by the Iowas was that she only had minor damage.

 

 

at the beginnig of truk Katori was listing to port and on fire amidships, Iowa closed to near pointblank range and let off nearly 160-170 shells including 45 major calibre shells scoring only 6 hits in comparision to yamato finishing off a ship with only 3 salvos at samar.

 

 

8) you have issues with admitting that your Iowa's FCs could'n hit jackcrud beyond 15 miles as demonstrated by the graph research AND the truk battle. we've laid down every good example to prove it and you took the example as an argument and tried to twist it to fit your standards. trust me bud, by historian level you'd be classified as 4/10. and no, Iowa's FCs issues were'n all about pushing a fuse back in, Truk is an example, the FCs went out for nearly 20 minutes along with the generators but yeah, we have to take your word its all about pushing a fuse back in.

 

 

9) because you extremely lack info, A target at 15,000yrds has a blip of say 4cm for an 800ft BB

Now at 30,000yrds the blip will be 2cm for the same 800ft BB

at 15,000yrds a 400ft Ship will have a 2cm blip

at 30,000yrds a 400ft ship will have a blip of 1cm

look at surigao strait for example the radar screen could not tell the difference between Yamashiro and Mogami apart from 1 being slightly larger than the other and they were 2-3,000 yards apart

 

 

10) take that up with the historians who put up this research. not me.

 

 

11)  like how she was detched literally 30KM away at samar sea, that testifies the inferiority of USN searchradars.

 

 

12) yamato's radars allowed her, as we both stated, to track targets 50km away and pick up radar wavelength 300km away, put it in your head.

 

13) "its great yamato could see planes taking off at 35k yds, too bad she could'n see a ship" once again, we've given you kurita's words from a post war interview and you apparently ignored them in another tirade of ignoring what we say, kurita stated he saw, through rain squalls and clouds and dark weather, 35km away the enemy CVE Force launching planes, a minute before their surface search radars even found them.

 

 

14)  :facepalm:

 

 

 

15) you pick what suits you out of samar, so I see.

[Madwolf 10,215]

1.) The Katori was a light cruiser. The Bismarck was a battleship. They're not even close to the same size, as I've already proven.

The Katori wasn't crippled. As we've proven time and time again.

The Iowa wasn't at point blank range, as we've established, because of the threat of torpedoes, but at 14,000 yards.

Savo island occurred in 1942, Samar in 1945. You're no longer comparing the same issues after all upgrades, attics, etc. are considered. For that matter though the US lost the battle at Savo, but won the campaign for Guadalcanal.

[Madwolf 10,215]

The Naka was a light cruiser.

The Nowaki was destroyer.

They're both about half the size of the Bismarck.