Slitherine

quote:

6. Yeah, I am well aware that Kirishima didn't have a prayer against Washington anyway. As far as fire-control is concerned, though, the facts are as follows: Washington fired seventy five 16" shells at Kirishima and hit her with between six and nine shells. At the same time, Kirishima was shooting at South Dakota (which was bathed in searchlights) and hit her once for sure, and maybe twice. If Kirishima shot back at Washington, she didn't hit her. In other words, radar turned in a much better hit percentage than optics, even when the optics were wielded by the best night fighters in the world at the time.

quote:

That's incorrect. Each shell from Yamato inflicts 20% more striking energy, and the shell detonation is more than 20% more powerful than you'd get from an Iowa shell.

quote:

The appropriate links have been provided. Given that Iowa's belt armor was immune to Japanese shells....

quote:

Again, it has already been pointed out that Yamato's armor is almost as good as Iowa's, even superior in some cases. And again, this is irrelevant as the end result of the two ships' armoring is that Iowa is more vulnerable than Yamato. There's nothing wrong with the placement of Yamato's armor. It's a basic All-or-Nothing system.

quote:

Nathan's data there is incorrect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"Sorry, I don't think that you understood." No, I understood, don't worry. However, your experience is not entirely applicable here, as Iowa's original radar suite did not survive even to 1947. Her gunnery radar was changed less than three years after her completion. It was reliable out to about half the range your talking about.

quote:

"Nathan's data there is incorrect."
"So you say."

quote:

Since her secondary magazine was poorly isolated from her main magazine, this hit WOULD have destroyed her had she not first sunk because of the numerous air-dropped torpedoes that penetrated her armor belt.

quote:

A US 16" shell had far more pentration than an air dropped 1000 pound bomb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The Dunnigan and Nofi book does not warrant a reference here.
First of all, they are way off about the armor quality. Japanese homogenous armor was somewhat inferior to US homogenous armor (about 12% in this context), but against the largest shells, Japanese face-hardened armor is BETTER than US armor.
Second, the armor stats they give are just ridiculous. Any comparison of belt protection must go into a good degree of detail to give any worthwhile understanding. For now, I'll say simply that Iowa's belt was 12.1in, not 12.9in. (Maybe they're including the backing plate as part of the belt.) The Iowa armor deck was a lamination totaling 6in (effectively about 5.6in). The Yamato deck was 9.1in on the sloped outer portion and 7.9in on the centerline. Iowa's faceplate is also a lamination.
The penetration figures are useless. Penetration of 34in...of what? I'm guessing the book is quoting USN figures which derive from the old Thmpson "F" formula, a system not even meant for use with face-hardened armor. Yamato's guns defeat 41.6in of US armor at the muzzle. Iowa's guns, whose new-gun velocity was 2500f/s, defeat 33.9in of Japanese armor at the muzzle. Iowa cannot defeat Yamato's belt at 25,000 yards, and while an improved shell entered service c1945, I doubt either one can effectively defeat the other's belt at that range. The belts are steeply inclined in both ships. Iowa cannot defeat Yamato's faceplates at any range.
Iowa does not have a deeper beam than Yamato; Yamato has both more beam and more draft. Yamato's guns had a minimum firing cycle of 30 seconds, which is about the same as Iowa's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

I think there are some people who take the difference between hyper-super dreadnoghts too seriously. Basically each of the modern, fast battleships (i.e. hyper-super dreadnoughts) have the capabilty to defeat each other. That means a King George V can sink Yamato or a Vittorio Veneto can sink an Iowa.

I think you make an excellent point. At the ranges invollved in this type of confrontation,
getting a hit on the opposition might be a matter of skill, training, balistics, and fire con-
trol---but exactly what was hit and the damage done is almost totally luck. Some ships
will have a better chance against others, but freek occurances seem to have been just
as important in the outcomes.

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In battle with Luskan off Johore POW blew Kongo out of water with a single salvo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Night Time Surface Combat, near Pearl Harbor at 112,68

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 121, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage 16/56/26

Allied Ships
PT PT-22, Shell hits 10, heavy damage
PT PT-25
PT PT-28
PT PT-29, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
PT PT-30, Shell hits 52, on fire, heavy damage
PT PT-42



better send some DD as escorts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Night Time Surface Combat, near Pearl Harbor at 112,68

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 121, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage 16/56/26

Allied Ships
PT PT-22, Shell hits 10, heavy damage
PT PT-25
PT PT-28
PT PT-29, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
PT PT-30, Shell hits 52, on fire, heavy damage
PT PT-42



better send some DD as escorts.

But, the "immune zone" deflector shield thingy must have been experiencing fluctuations in the warp core!

Perhaps they were "proton torpedoes" that scored the hits.

Obviously, the PT skippers were experienced at hunting Wombats back home in Beggar's Canyon.

quote:


I think the PT boats were too small for Yamato's wave motion gun to hit. It may look bad for Yamato now but the damage always seemed to be repaired by the next episode.