H.M.S. Rodney damage

WestPhilly · Post by **WestPhilly** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:10 pm

I hate to straddle the fence, but here I go. I don't think there is any question that the Iowa's were the best BB's ever built- in terms of their combined qualities such as speed, protection, firepower, A.A. ability, endurance etc. However, if we accept as a hypothetical that another BB is willing to stand and fight Yamato, I don't see any BB likely to prevail in a traditional gunnery duel with Yamato.

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:08 pm

I must admit that Bismarcks 15 inch shells weighing 1764 lbs suddenly dont look quite so mighty against 18 inch 3200 lbs

http://www.battleshipyamato.info/

lwd · Post by **lwd** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:16 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:No ship ever built by mankind could hit as hard as Yamato.

As is typical when one gives absolutes you are wrong. A significant number of ships could hit harder than the Yamato.

If we grant the hypothetical superiority of the Iowa Class battleships (that was never put to test against any BB in their whole careers) then, for the same reasons, we must concede that no Battleship ever could shoot so heavy a hit as Yamato.

This seams rather incoherent and depending on how you defined things perhaps incorrect.

Which amuses me is that ONLY allied Battleships could do things better while Axis ones are just target practice for them... tell that to Lancelot Holland or the crews of Beatty´s battlecruisers at Jutland!

Typical strawman.

Lutscha · Post by **Lutscha** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:17 pm

As Brad pointed out Yamato`s main problem was lack of training for her operators in a BB duel otherwise she should have prevailed against any ship except during bad weather or night.

The modern American BBs were certainly her best match due to their firepower though Yamato still has a good IZ while her opponents have none or next to none.

If she does not receive crippling hits intially she should have defeated Iowa or any other BB during daylight imo.

As I understand the allied FC advantage was certainly a major one and only Yamato`s sheer size and armour could make up for that but the other axis ships did not have such to compensate.

Yamato`s main asset was that she definitely looked cooler than all the others...

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm

Gary:

Thanks for the link for Yamato!

Bgile:

I´ not cynical about US warships. But I´m not going to sit quietly when people regard the combat tested German or Japanese Battleships as target practice for invincible or quasi mythical ships as the Iowas. They are as invincible as the Titanic was unsinkable or Pearl unattackable or Scapa Flow unpenetrable or the allies moral unquestionable (all of them allied myths).
On the other hand Bismarck´s hit on Hood was as lucky as the HSF hits on Beatty´s battecruisers which has been plain analysed in this forum. The allied cause owe more to luck than the axis...

Kind regards...

Lutscha · Post by **Lutscha** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:36 pm

The Iowas had a large advantage in firepower, FC, training and IZ which greatly shifted the chances in their favour against any BB except Yamato.
I cannot see any wishful thinking in these points.

I think no one calls the hits on Hood lucky but rather the place of the fatal hit.
I`m sure that anyone agrees that the British got some lucky hits as well. (torpedo and FC-director hits)

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:53 pm

lwd:

I must be missing something because it´s yout logic the one taking water. You are assuming for Iowas so there must be accepted an equal assumption for Yamato. The incoherent argument is not mine.
And as far as I know the heaviest shell was that of Yamato... Or now the Iowa´s broadside is heavier than Yamato?

lwd · Post by **lwd** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:44 pm

Ok lets look at what you said and analize it a bit:

Karl Heidenreich wrote:No ship ever built by mankind could hit as hard as Yamato.

By this I took you to mean that no ship could potentially do as much damage as the Yamato given a hit. This is incorrect.

If we grant the hypothetical superiority of the Iowa Class battleships (that was never put to test against any BB in their whole careers) then, for the same reasons, we must concede that no Battleship ever could shoot so heavy a hit as Yamato.

Why does granting the Hypothetical superiority of the Iowas mean that "no Battlesip ever could shot so heavy a hit"? These are different things and one does not imply the other. Now if you said no other battle ship had a broad side as heavy as the Yamato I would agree. If you said no other ship could fire put out as heavy a weight of fire I'm not sure you are correct. If you said that the damage potential of a hit from Yamato was greater than that of any other ship I would say you are definitly wrong.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:49 pm

lwd:

OK. Which battleship´s shell could do more damage to another BB than that of Yamato? Let´s assume that those shells impact a ship at the same place, same range. The deck armour, for example...

Tiornu · Post by **Tiornu** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:15 pm

Yamato's shells would inflict roughly 20% more striking energy on a target than Iowa's. Yamato's shells contain roughly 20% more explosive, and a more powerful explosive, than Iowa's. There is no question that Yamato's shells had a far greater destructive potential.
If you scrutinize the shell designs, you will find that each has strengths and weaknesses. Personally I prefer the American design. But it's hardly enough to compensate for the size disparity.
"Combat testing" does not make a ship any better or any worse. All it can do is illustrate the qualities that already exist in the design. After all, some ships fail the test.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:52 pm

From 2000 thru 2005 McLaren Mercedes tested their F1 cars prior to any other team and had the more spectacular results in speed and aceleration that confirmed that team´s investment in a new valve design was a succesfull bet. On paper there was no better car...
... From 2000 until last year McLaren Mercedes was unable to win a single championship or had any advantage against Ferrari or Renault (which at the tests were inferior cars in speed and aceleration). Neither Ferrari or Renault had the revolutionary McLaren valve technology.
The championship is won at the races, not the tests.
Bismarck won hers at DS and we cannot say she lost it on May 27th because she was vastly outnumbered...

dunmunro · Post by **dunmunro** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:56 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:lwd:

OK. Which battleship´s shell could do more damage to another BB than that of Yamato? Let´s assume that those shells impact a ship at the same place, same range. The deck armour, for example...

The shells might do more damage...if they can hit and penetrate. Since Yamato's guns were never renewed, their performance was being constantly degraded, while Allied BBs were having their guns relined constantly. The Yamato was a wasting asset and by 44/45, their guns must have been nearly worn out, or their crews would have never had any realistic gunnery practice, and were unlikely to be in top form, just like Tirpitz at Spitzbergen.

iankw · Post by **iankw** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:57 pm

I hesitate to get involved in this, being merely a Brit coming from a country who made ugly or fatally flawed ships!! However, I think the problem is in your choice of words Karl. You originally said "no ship ever built could hit as hard as Yamato". I think modern ships, firing modern missiles could hit at least as hard as Yamato, but that is opinion only. Your latest post narrows the field a lot by asking "which battleships shells" - I think you may win that point.

Just my 4 penn'orth.

regards

Ian

Tiornu · Post by **Tiornu** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:18 pm

From 2000 thru 2005 McLaren Mercedes tested their F1 cars ...

Do you think your illustration says anything useful? Combat experience merely reveals the qualities already existing in the design. Bismarck did not become a better ship the instant she fought at Denmark Strait. Iowa did not become a better ship the instant she fought at Truk. The experience may show the ship is better or worse than expected, but you don't know which.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:34 pm

iankw:

I hesitate to get involved in this, being merely a Brit coming from a country who made ugly or fatally flawed ships!! However, I think the problem is in your choice of words Karl. You originally said "no ship ever built could hit as hard as Yamato". I think modern ships, firing modern missiles could hit at least as hard as Yamato, but that is opinion only. Your latest post narrows the field a lot by asking "which battleships shells" - I think you may win that point.

As always there is truth in your post. I know that there isn´t a more powerful punch than that of Yamato.
About your statement about ugly and fatally flawed ships I believe that you are wrong there. As a matter of fact the British Battleships were the only ones (almost) that fought against their enemy´s Battleships in the kind of battles they were designed to fought: In the Mediterranean against the Italians, in the North Atlantic against the Germans.
The fighting record of the RN in these kind of combats is far greater than that of the USN or all the other allies put together (and using optical FC by the way). And the British won so there cannot be so big a fatal flaw, they prove it in combat.
And the British ships aren´t ugly. KGV class had pretty lines and Warspite is one of the most beautiful ships ever as Hood or Repulse are too.