This is misleading at best. The pre war battle line was designed to fight as a battle line. CVs were part of the mix but were mostly thought of as scouts. Japanese design was similar they didn't plan on the BBs operating alone but as part of the fleet.
Japanese and American had different doctrines on how they were going to fight the war. Even Yamamoto was expecting that sometine their battleline would decide tha last chapter of the decisive battle. As I stated before, on August 26th, that the Japanese approach of the problem, in strategic and tactical terms of WWII, was the wrong one and the American one the right choise. But, ironically for this thread, that same measure gives Yamato the edge over Iowa.
Straw man. NO one has claimed they were.
Perhaps not in a explicit way but there is no doubt that´s the notion of some of the posters around here. I must admit that there are certain elements that justify the notion.
... They were no more a mutant design than any other ship was. Furthermore it's not at all clear that the Iowa's design came from a maximized Escalator clause.
Norman Friedman claims they were. And he is not alone. (To be clear enough the "mutant" word is mine, the Escalator Clause is from Friedman´s)
There were a bunch of diffent BB plans between the wars. The Iowa desing did inherit some things from these plans but saying that they were going to be 35,000 ton BBs is misleading.
To me they look as oversized North Carolinas or South Dakotas... That´s undeniable...
STrawman. All warships are compromises.
Agree. But there are certain degrees of compromises, some are smaller others are bigger. The Japanese were willing to escalate in order to win the expected combat.
There is no such thing as an ultimate ship of any kind much less a BB. Had things gone differently and the US built the Montanas they would have started designing a better BB next.
No doubt, it´s a logical step to do. Even the Germans were considering in their designing the Super "H". That doesn´t mean a lot. But if one Battleship ever built was closer to be the ultimate that was Yamato.
The Japanese were most defintily not expecting to fight Montana.
My fault, my fault in the writing department, let´s re write it:
"The Japanese were expecting to fight a 63,000 ton battleship, more or less what the Montana´s displacement was expected to be."
I'm not completely sure just what you are saying here. Care to clarify.
Again: Displacement is vital for a vessel to take damage and still be a fighting unit despite it. Designers knew that. The Yamato designers took the concept to the extreme in order to assure their edge over the expected USN vessels, which by the way, according to them, could have been 63,000 tons BBs.
Why? He stated his reasons and they had nothing to do with the design of Yamato.
Were those the only ones?
Are you implying that the Iowa class were designed as smaller ships and then "stretched"? I don't think that is true. They were designed the way they were. IIRC the more powerful gun was added somewhere in the design process, but it wasn't like they cut a piece out of the middle and put in a bigger powerplant.
You referred to Vanguard as though the flat deck was somehow an improvement to seakeeping. In fact, during her design sheer was added to make her less wet forward than the KGVs, which were quite wet. The result was they had to drop the previous requirement that "A" turret be able to fire forward at low elevation. The "flat flush deck" was not an advantage. Quite the contrary, which is why it was done away with in Vanguard.
You also indicated Vanguard was more maneuverable than Iowa, and I believe the reverse was true. She was better in a heavy sea, though. That much is true.
Several prior captains of the Iowas have testified to what superb ships they were, so I'm not too worried about what one admiral had to say, and they seem to have been very good shooting ships. Any ship designed for speed with a very fine bow is going to tend to bury it's nose in heavy seas, and I don't doubt that was a problem.
It's also true that the Iowa class, like any battleship, was a compromise of various demands. Sacrifices were definitely made in the interest of getting high speed. I actually like to think of them as battlecruisers. The Montana class was a return to a design with reasonable speed on good protection. It was similar to Yamato in that way, and of course the ability to traverse the Panama canal as it then existed was compromised.
The Japanese were not expecting to fight Montana. They were expecting to fight a ship designed to pass the panama canal. Like Iowa or North Carolina. But they weren't expecting the US side to get a huge advantage with radar, which wasn't even a factor when Yamato was designed.
I´m not trying to make a point that Iowa was a "bad" ship, not whatsoever. But they had their flaws (Last night I read something about some problems with her ATS at battleship.org but do it too fast). What I don´t understand is why so many became angry when such things are brought forward.
Iowa´s were not the invincible device which (implicitly rather not explicitly) is claimed. And they had their nemesis around: the Yamato Class. Maybe there were other ships that could have done the job either but to be sure of that a lot of research and work must be done first. I agree Iowa´s were very powerfull ships that their commanders never gave the opportunity to test themselves against enemy BB in combat.
Maybe she was the second best Battleship of World War Two and in clear dispute with the Vanguard in the BB´s history for that place. Yamato, according to displacement, armour, armamement, optical and such was the best of WWII and overall.
