Day or night? Japanese crew were highly trained in night fighting. The Japanese had superior Battleships as they were the true heirs of Admiral Mahan's decisive battle doctrine despite of their early use of air power. The Japanese strategy revolved around provoking a Grand Battle with naval guns and long range torpedoes , and for that purpose, pound for pound, I believe they were superior.

The Iowa also had the major advantage of radar-directed fire control with advanced (for the time) mechanical computers. Battleships thus equipped demonstrated a major advantage over Japanese vessels, able to engage at longer ranges and with more accuracy. If the Iowa used this and her advantages in maneuverability, it's conceivable that she could strike the Yamato from range while avoiding any return fire, giving her a considerable advantage.

Santa, that's an obviously ill-informed statement. Yes, the Japanese strategy revolved around the concept of Decisive Battle, being a single clash between capital ships that determined the outcome of a conflict; however, it was a flawed concept that did not take into account the advances of technology and tactics in the interwar period and did not hold up in practice. The only successful example thereof was the Battle of Tsushima, which was indeed a stunning victory for the Japanese- and happened in 1905. A better example might be the Battle of Jutland, which more fulfilled the concept by involving both belligerents' main fleets, and ended in an inconclusive quasi-stalemate.

However, that's all immaterial, because Decisive Battle is a strategic concept that has no bearing on a clash between two single battleships. What would determine the outcome there would be tactics, training, and technology, the first two of which can be argued, but in the third the Americans had a strong advantage. You may wish to examine your own statement that the Japanese crews were highly trained in night fighting. Yes, because their racial stereotypes regarded the Japanese as having much better eyesight than the Americans, and therefore they would engage at night to catch them by surprise- utterly ignoring the fact that the Americans had far superior radar and didn't need to see them at all!

@ Draugnar

I forgot to mention that I was referring to the Iowa-class ships in their WWII configurations.

@ Santa

At night, I think the Iowa-class's radar-assisted fire control systems would be an even bigger advantage, especially at long range. It's damned difficult to hit a moving target (especially a fast-moving target like the Iowa) at night (or anytime) from 20 miles with visual aiming devices like on the Yamato.

With respect to firepower and armor, they are more closely matched than one would think. The Iowa-class ships had thinner armor, but the fact is that 18 inches of maximum armor is damned difficult to punch through, even if you have 18 inch shells. You would need a direct hit on the superstructure (wouldn't sink the ship but would render it combat ineffective) or right through the deck (plunging fire). A direct hit to the gun house, barbette, or even the armor belt wouldn't sink an Iowa.

Also, the Iowas were packing heavy 2,700 pound armor-piercing shells that are almost as good as punching through armor as the Yamato's 18 inch shells. The Japanese also had much lower quality powder and metals due to supply problems, so in practice their 18-inch guns would not be able to reach their specified range.

All but one of the Iowa-class ships sustained battle or operational damage at some point in their service lives, and all ships are still floating today. The USS Iowa survived a bad typhoon during WWII and also had a real bad turret explosion in 1989. The USS New Jersey made it through the same typhoon. The USS Missouri was accidentally grounded in 1950. So I think that damage-control would have to go to the Iowas.

This one. http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/title.jpg

"Yes, because their racial stereotypes regarded the Japanese as having much better eyesight than the Americans, and therefore they would engage at night to catch them by surprise- utterly ignoring the fact that the Americans had far superior radar and didn't need to see them at all!"

Um... ever hear of Savo Island? The Japanese trained extensively for night fighting before the war. Part of the "decisive battle" doctrine was to wear down the American fleet with submarines, air strikes, and nighttime skirmishes as it sailed west to meet the main Japanese fleet. They even came up with innovations like flashless gunpowder which gave the IJN a serious advantage at night. As for radar, especially in 1942, it was far from perfect and very poorly understood and underutilized by USN skippers and admirals.

However, by the time the Iowa was sailing the Pacific in 1944-45, USN night fighting abilities had caught up with the IJN and improvements to radar gave it a clear advantage even at night. For this reason, I would put my money on the Iowa.

LOL! Starblazers! One of my favorite shows as a kid and the first real "adult" anime imported from Japan! Great show with a *real* storyline. Too bad Saturday morning Japanese animation went back to being all "Pokemon" like with no real story arc. There is some good anime late nights on Cartoon Network and such, but daytime is all dumbed down like U.S. kids aren't smart enough to follow an animated drama with a real story.

Anime blows.

Anime animation does, but good anime has a real story. It's like a serious comic book that auto progresses through the frames. The key to good anime is the same as the key to a good comic book or graphic novel - story. Without story, it may be some good art, but it just doesn't matter.

But this is derailing what is a very good thread so far. Let's get back to discussing the competencies, strengths, and weaknesses of the respectful battleships.

@ Tolstoy

I think that even a glitchy, underutilized, and primitive radar system would outperform the human eyeball at 20 miles on a moonless night.

I'm going to bet on the Yamato, based on Dragnaur's information above. I'll admit that I have very little naval warfare experience, but I'll explain my reasoning nonetheless. Okay, so most of the time that I've heard (firsthand) accounts of conventional naval ship-to-ship battles, the loosers of the conflict will usually describe being blind-sided by their opponent. Having the drop on your enemy seems to be the biggest contributing factor in ship v. ship combat of that nature. However I presume that in the scenario Gunfighter is proposing, both ships are squaring off against each other. In this case things like ROF and payload will become more important, I suspect, then the slight difference in speed or the Yamato's ability (or lack) to turn their guns. Both of those vessels were probably built with at least some capacity to participate in a line battle, and the Yamato would probably be better suited to this due to it's heavier armor.

Oh yeah, Isn't the preferred term round rather than shell?

@Al - my info was incomplete, as has been pointed out by others. Inferior rounds and targetting systems gives a decided disadvantage to Yamato and the advantage to more agile Iowa with better overall firepower in the armor piercing shells, mechanical computerized fire solutions, and radar that is better day or night than spotters with binoculars at providing accurate distance and bearing. I believe that the accuracy alone would give the advantage to Iowa. She would get in more hits and have a better chance at critical weapons and navigation hits than Yamato who would miss at range way more often.

But the other thing is, battleships were part of a battlegroup by WWII. Head to head rarely happened. WWI, that was different, but by WWII, they had destroyers and subs and even carriers flying observation sorties.

Check this out!

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Ranks the Iowa Class the highest.

In the Marines, they taught us guns and shells were on ships. Weapons and rounds were what we carried. So to me, a round is small caliper weaponty aka a bullet. But in practice, the terms are interchangeable.

Combinedfleet.com agrees with several of us that Fire-Control makes all the difference.

@ Draugnar

"This is my rifle, this is my gun...."

Also, keep in mind that the Iowa-class and Yamato carried seaplanes capable of spotting for the big guns, but both ships were packing enough AAA to blow each other's planes out of the sky before they could see the first shell hit. Therefore, I am not factoring in spotting planes for the purpose of this discussion.

There is a group out there called the US Naval Fire Support Association that is arguing that the new DD(X) ships will be unable to provide enough naval fire support to soldiers and Marines in future littoral conflicts. They are advocating reinstating the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin, arguing that the old 16-inch guns can provide as much or more firepower than the DD(X) ships and current destroyers and frigates for a fraction of the cost.

They have some good points. The Iowas have a lot of shock value. Anyone would shit their pants if an Iowa-class showed up off of their shoreline. The 16-inch guns are accurate, deadly, effective, can carry more shells, can work in any weather conditions, and can sustain fire longer than a missile boat or a standard 5-inch gun.

They argue that restoring/overhauling/refitting/modernizing the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin costs the same as one DD(X) boat. While their price figures may be off (The USS Iowa's turret was never completely repaired after the turret explosion in 1989, and no Iowa-class boats reached their top speed after their refit in the 80's, so the engines probably need replacement or serious overhaul) I think it would be something that the US Navy should look into.

Sometimes the old ways is the best ways. What do you guys think?

@Draugnar
Thanks for clarifying. Rounds go in small arms, shells go in ship guns. Got it.

Oh yeah, and thank you for your service.

^ That'll never happen.

The military-industrial complex is not going to sit back and let the military use shells that cost 1/1000th as much as a cruise missile.

(that was at Gunfighter's suggestion of using Iowas for coastal fire support)

@Al - thanks for the thank you, but I was lucky to serve my entire tour during a generally peaceful time, 84-88. Not much of signifigance happened that they needed to call up non-combat MOSs for, so I spent my time marching and playing my trombone...

The Iowa winds hands down.
She would hit the Yamato with an atomic shell.

@ Tolstoy

Which is unfortunate. The Iowas and the 16-inch guns would make for an excellent interim solution to the amphibious gunfire question until railgun technology comes online in 20-30 years.

16-inch guns are very versatile. Guided shells and sabot shells could be used to extend the range of the guns and possibly augment short-range surface-to-surface missile systems already in service.

@ TC

"She would hit the Yamato with an atomic shell."

Bad troll. No nuclear 16-inch shell was ever developed or deployed.

A lot would also depend on weather conditions. Which had the higher freeboard and was the most stable gun platform of the two? This would be vital in rough weather.

Imho HMS Vanguard or either of Bismarck/Tirpitz would give Iowa/Yamoto a battle, particularly in poor weather.

Bismarck and HMS Vanguard would give an Iowa a good fight (their fire control systems were roughly as advanced as the Iowa's), but the Iowa's superior armor, speed, and firepower would prevail.

Yamato vs. Vanguard/Bismarck would be more interesting. The Vanguard and Bismarck had excellent fire control systems, as well as more speed than the Yamato. In that matchup, the winner would be determined by the skill of the commanders. In a long range maneuvering fight, the Vanguard/Bismarck would win. In a head-on, full broadside slugging match at medium to close range, the Yamato would win.

"Santa, that's an obviously ill-informed statement. Yes, the Japanese strategy revolved around the concept of Decisive Battle, being a single clash between capital ships that determined the outcome of a conflict; however, it was a flawed concept that did not take into account the advances of technology and tactics in the interwar period and did not hold up in practice. The only successful example thereof was the Battle of Tsushima, which was indeed a stunning victory for the Japanese- and happened in 1905. A better example might be the Battle of Jutland, which more fulfilled the concept by involving both belligerents' main fleets, and ended in an inconclusive quasi-stalemate.

However, that's all immaterial, because Decisive Battle is a strategic concept that has no bearing on a clash between two single battleships. What would determine the outcome there would be tactics, training, and technology, the first two of which can be argued, but in the third the Americans had a strong advantage. You may wish to examine your own statement that the Japanese crews were highly trained in night fighting. Yes, because their racial stereotypes regarded the Japanese as having much better eyesight than the Americans, and therefore they would engage at night to catch them by surprise- utterly ignoring the fact that the Americans had far superior radar and didn't need to see them at all! "

That is a crock of shit. The Japanese SPECIFICALLY trained at night fighting. Their doctrine called for night battle. It helped them absolutely pummel US naval forces at Guadalcanal and in the Java Sea. And Just because the decisive battle never happened doesn't mean they weren't trained for it. It was the bread and butter of the Japanese Navy, it just never came to pass. The Japanese were actually very successful in traditional surface warfare when they could actually engage in a traditional gun battle. The fact that was a flawed doctrine did not mean they excelled at it. I would like you to retract your statement about racism and acknowledge your own ill informed statement. Again the Japanese specifically trained in Night fighting and they trained heavily in that area.


But honestly I didn't even think of//know of radar assisted firing. I focus on personnel in what i do. That is huge and you are right probably would give the Iowa the edge at night and in the day as well.

And I meant the Sunda Strait not Java Sea (although this might not be the best example due to the difference in size of the forces), and by Guadalcanal I meant the Battle of Savo Island, not the later "Naval Batle of gudalcanal"

In my opinion Yamato would defeat Iowa in one-on-one match up in most of the cases. Japanese navy had better trained crew and in battle with even terms would win the day most likely. Factors that would have to be included in calculation are, weather, time of the day, crew, leadership, gun range, reconnaissance capability and perhaps some other.

In a one on one fight the Yamato would win hands down because of a 27,000 ton weight difference. The guns of the USS Iowa would have difficulty piercing the Yamato's hull at all, let alone dealing significant damage. The Yamato, on the other hand, would be more than capable of gutting the USS Iowa with a single well-placed shot.

If the USS Iowa wanted to have any hope of winning, it would need to land a perfectly aimed shot on the bridge, killing the officers steering the Yamato and limiting its ability to maneuver properly. After that it would simply be a matter of landing shot after perfect shot on the Yamato's 18.1 inch cannons in order to disable its offensive capabilities.

Given an extraordinary amount of luck and unheard of feats of marksmanship, I suppose there's the possibility of the USS Iowa coming out on top. It'd be something of a longshot, though.

@ Kajin and Dejan0707

You are forgetting five key advantages that the USS Iowa has. First, it has radar-assisted fire control technology, so they would be able to score accurate shots on the Yamato from the guns' maximum range of 24 miles. Second, the armor-piercing 16-inch shell could easily punch through Yamato and do serious damage. The 16-inch AP shell could punch through up to but not including 18 inches of armor. The Yamato had 16 inches of side armor, 26 inches of armor on the face of the turrets, and between 7 and 9 inches of deck armor. While the Yamato's turrets would have been impenetrable, the rest of the ship could be easily damaged by the Iowa's guns. Third, the USS Iowa is faster and more maneuverable than the Yamato. The Iowa could easily dodge the Yamato's gunfire and still fire accurately thanks to her radar, whereas the Yamato's crew would have to hit a fast-moving target from miles away with their relatively primitive optical aiming devices. Fourth, the USS Iowa had superb damage control technology and crews. While a single 18-inch shell would devastate an Iowa-class, it would take a direct hit to a powder magazine to actually sink the ship. Fifth, the Yamato, her armor, and her shells were made of lower quality shells because of Japanese supply problems. The 18-inch shells on the Yamato would have less armor penetration ability than the 16-inch shells on the Iowa. Also, the Iowa's armor would be of a much higher quality and therefore more resilient than the Yamato's armor.

On paper, the Yamato appears to be the clear winner. However, upon further analysis, the Yamato has several severe handicaps that would cause her to be sunk by an Iowa-class.

Sinking of Yamato (http://combinedfleet.com/battles/Sinking_of_Yamato)
(April 7, 1945)

"With the battle for Okinawa raging full force, it was decided to send super battleship Yamato on a suicide mission to the island. Ostensibly, her sortie was designed to draw off American air power in order to allow a massive suicide strike (kikusui) by land-based aircraft from Japan to hit the American invasion forces ringing the island. Accordingly, Yamato was fueled for a one-way trip, and sent out with nine escorts led by the light-cruiser Yahagi, skippered by Tameichi Hara. In the event Yamato made it to the island, her orders were to beach herself and make use of her 18.1" guns in support of the land fighting there.

She was met by aircraft (386 total) of Task Force 58 shortly after noon on April 7th. Attacked in waves, Yamato could do little but absorb the punishment inflicted by at least five 1,000 lb bombs and ten torpedoes. By approximately 1420 hours it was all over; Yamato had capsized to port and exploded. Five of her escorts had been sunk as well. A total of 2,498 men had been lost aboard Yamato, 446 from Yahagi, and a further 721 from the destroyers."

Americans lost 12 aircraft.

@ Gunfighter06

I'll cede the point the the USS Iowa was a higher quality craft all around, but even then it would be a long and protracted battle of attrition between the two vessels. It took an extraordinary amount of fire power to sink the Yamato and all vessels based on its design.

The fight might last as much as several hours before the Yamato would be considered dead in the water. If the Yamato managed to score two or three lucky hits in that time the USS Iowa would be done for.

@ flc64

I would argue that 1,000 pound bombs (even AP bombs) have much less armor penetration ability than a 2,700 pound AP shell. The torpedoes are probably what sank her. In any case, neither the Iowa nor the Yamato would be fully sunk by the other immediately. Multiple torpedo hits or dozens of direct shell hits would be required to sink a ship like that. Whoever disabled the other ship first would win.

@ Kajin

It would be a long and protracted battle, I agree. But I think the USS Iowa would be able to linger at the edge of the Yamato's range and score hits on the Yamato at will because of her far superior fire control systems.

@ flc64, I'm disappointed in the quoted material. It says they sent the Yamato on a suicide mission to "draw off American air power". It sounds like it did do that to some extent. But it doesn't indicate whether Yamato's suicide mission succeeded in helping the "massive suicide strike (kikusui) by land-based aircraft from Japan" be successful by drawing off that air power.

Do you have any clarifying information?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze#Main_wave_of_attacks

"The peak in kamikaze attacks came during the period of April–June 1945, at the Battle of Okinawa. On 6 April 1945, waves of planes made hundreds of attacks in Operation Kikusui ("floating chrysanthemums"). At Okinawa, kamikaze attacks focused at first on Allied destroyers on picket duty, and then on the carriers in the middle of the fleet. Suicide attacks by planes or boats at Okinawa sank or put out of action at least 30 U.S. warships, and at least three U.S. merchant ships, along with some from other Allied forces. The attacks expended 1,465 planes. Many warships of all classes were damaged, some severely, but no aircraft carriers, battleships or cruisers were sunk by kamikaze at Okinawa. Most of the ships lost were destroyers or smaller vessels, especially those on picket duty. The destroyer USS Laffey earned the nickname "The Ship That Would Not Die" after surviving sixteen kamikaze attacks, including five hits during this battle."

Christ, the number of times I've seen the phrase "dodge" in reference to a flipping battleship....

Ok. Listen. You don't dodge in a ship that size. Speed is handy so you can play games with range (and maneuverability goes right with that).

Jacky Fisher was a proponent of the idea that speed is armor, but while he was a naval genius, he was dead wrong there. Armor is armor. Which is why at Jutland, heavier armored German battlecruisers got the shit pounded out of them and made it back, and several British battlecruisers, heavier on guns, but lighter on armor, went to the bottom.

There is no way to know who would have won in a 1 versus 1 duel.

1. It never would have happened. Kind of a pointless discussion.

2. If it did, it would literally come down to which ship got a lucky hit in first into the vitals of the ship opposing ship.

tl;dr: Pointless discussion, and a lot of people have some very screwy ideas about naval combat.

"1. It never would have happened. Kind of a pointless discussion."

If Halsey hadn't been such a blockhead (and Kurita such a chicken) at Leyte Gulf, it very well could have happened, and came within a few hours of happening anyway IIRC. Not a simple 1v1 matchup, but certainly a contest that could've answered this question decisively.

@ Jack_Klein

True. It would have come down to the first lucky (let's face it, ANY hit at 20 miles, radar or no radar, is a lucky hit) vital hit.

We are discussing which ship would have made that lucky hit. In my opinion, the USS Iowa would win.

As JK pointed out, speed would be only useful for Iowa to hover around the maximum range (well beyond the horzion) and exploit its FC advantage to harass Yamato. A battleship is not a fast-moving target by any means. Even at maximum range, the ship would cover the ground 3-5 times its own length by the time the shell arrived (around a minute). All that while the other ship's crew already incorporated the sailing speed into account - it's not exactly easy to slow down a battleship in a minute, not to mention that radically slowing down in a battle with another battleship is a recipe for disaster. Maneuvrability advantage is nice because it allows you to reach points in space more afar from each other, which means the other crew has to correctly anticipate your future position to hit you. But again, with a beast the size of a battleship, the difference is not that noticeable. I would still bet on Iowa because of the superior ability to accurately deliver the punishment while minimizing the chance of being hit by hovering at maximum range but also because of the speed which would allow it to disengage before the battle even began. Unless the strategical important of such confrontation was huge, the only sensible tactical move would be to not engage in such battle before the risk would be unnecessarily high.

Now we need to discuss sci-fi ship battles. I-don't-care-about-your-nimble-fighters-I-have-lasers-travelling-at-speed-of-light scenarios.

@Jack Klein.

Re Jutland Battlecruisers.

You're right re the superiority of German battlecruisers' armour and damage control. Several German ships received similar hits, knocking out turrets, to the 3 British ships which blew up. The Germans had learnt from the near loss of Seydlitz at Dogger Bank, and improved their anti-flash systems. The British hadn't, and lost ships because of this.

Then you had the difference in gunsights. German - super accurate but fragile in battle so accuracy deteriorated during a long fight. British - simpler and more robust - so shooting accuracy improved during the battle.

Then there is the contrast between the competent Hipper and the erratic Beatty as admirals...