Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
jonsidneyb
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:28 am

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by jonsidneyb »

I really do not know how a contest like lined out would turn out at all. I am not going to pretend that I am that smart cuz I am not. :D

Being in a two on one situation to my is not a good position to be in. Facing those huge 18 inch guns plus its built in light cruiser if you get in their range would not be good either (I am referring to the 6inch guns she also carried). :(

I do wonder about the speed advantage. I hear it mentioned quite a bit and may be helpful before distance is achieved where one can likely to be hit if you chose not to fight or to press the fight. It seems that in so many historic fights one thing that gets lost quickly is speed. Turning and running might not be an option if you don't like how the fight is going if the other side decides it wants to fight as your speed may be reduced. Having a former speed advantage that is lost early in a fight makes it seem that running if you don't like what is happening a non-option. :shock: The truth is I really don't know but just the way it seems to me.

Since we are speculating and some of us are not in a position to properly analyze this (I am guessing some here can) I will just do what the allies sometimes were able to do. I will cheat.

Since the KGV's are up against Yamato I will just say they are in the Pacific no matter if they are or not. The war in Europe is over and the Brits are now more active in the Pacific. The Richelieu is out there somewhere in the Pacific. The pair of KGV's notify the Richelieu that they want to gang up on Yamato so she joins them.

Much has been said of Richelieu's deficiencies due to her firing arc and the fact she can loose a lot of guns with a single major hit. Perhaps in an engagement where she is the only battleship on one side the arrangement might be a disadvantage but I am starting to think the all forward mounts might be an advantage when she is with a group of battleships.

Now the KVG's have to convince the Richelieu to go on what is likely a suicide run. If they are really convincing they might not make it seem like one.

The KVG's convince the Richelieu the best way to go about this is in a V formation with Richelieu in the center. The KVG's will be spreading wider and wider as the close on the Yamato with Richelieu maintaining the center position. The reason for this as the V extends it will allow the KVG's aft turret to get sort of a over the shoulder shot and contribute the the fire. The Richelieu with all forward firing guns on approach does not have to manuver to unmask any of her guns.

There is none of this stuff like with Hood and Prince of wales against Bismarck of having the aft guns masked for Richelieu, She has 8 guns up front. Richelieu as she gets into range then starts closing on Yamato will force the situation on Yamato. The captains of the KVG's have told Richelieu not to worry, we are here to help you and keep you alive (with their fingers crossed behind their backs). The KVG's do benefit from keeping poor Richelieu alive as long as possible as she heads in on her suicide run.

The Richelieu gets into range to start firing. The KVGs are wide to starboard and port of Richelieu and ahead but because of the angles are not any closer to Yamato then Richelieu is. Richelieu will end up by 50 percent closer then the KVG's will ever be assuming she lasts that long. The KVGs open up with with the forward turrets while still widening the V so the aft guns can come to bear. They are in hopes of getting hits quickly while Richelieu is running towards Yamato firing. The KVG's finally get to the position and the aft guns have been able to contribute a little while before reaching this position. They were seeking and manuver inside of a somewhat limited area while Richelieu is getting closer. They hope that the fire they are pouring on Yamato is enough of a distraction to keep Richelieu alive a little longer. If Richelieu is dead at this point at least the KVG's had a little moment in time where three ships were firing on Yamato.

The KVG's are around 24,000 out at this point but Richelieu again if she is still alive will soon be half of this distance or she is a wreck or perhaps sinking. If Richelieu is gone the KVG's proceed with out her. Now the KVG's convinced Richelieu that all would be well since the guns of three ships would be firing and if by some luck Richelieu has not been hit due to all the distraction fire of the KVG's the next part of the plan goes into affect.

Richelieu is going to turn at an angle to create an arc to by pass Yamato and get around her. That means she will for a moment pass under the fire of one of the two KVG's. She is going to make this arc such that she can just barely keep her main batteries firing on Yamato. At the end of her long arc is on the other side and now Yamato is between three battleships. Richelieu probably didn't make it this far.

At the first moments when the shooting started the KVGs has 6 guns each firing plus the 8 guns of Richelieu. That is 20 guns for a short period of time. As the V widened the aft turrets came into play and it became 28 guns vs 9 really big ones. If the KVG's were able to keep their word to Richelieu then some directors were damaged and the splashes and confusion gave Richelieu a chance to survive (not likely). In any case there is a good chance that Yamato has taken several hits while Richelieu was forcing Yamato to fight.

Maybe the Yamato being under the fire of 28 guns for a little while will do enough damage for the KVG's to prevail on their own.

The allies don't have to have the biggest baddest battleship late war when the British were increasing their activity in the Pacific. They had numbers and may not have had to play a two on one game. The allies could have not just done two on one but three, four, or five on one. :cool:

You don't need the biggest and baddest when you can gang up.
User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Legend »

I agree with jonsydney, the two would have a much better chance if they could somehow get on either side of Yamato, meaning Yamato would be splitting up her battery.

A downside though is the accuracy, the splashes will be in the same position so one ship might get confused by another ship's splashes.

If we throw Reicheliu into the picture we change scenario, but I like it and maybe we could consider that a possibility. I also think if it was three to one, Yamato's commander would be certain to try to run, making it difficult to impossible for the three to get her before air support may come in...

Reicheliu would have been cripled early if Yamato was able to get hits early on, for one hit to any vital area, and there goes half the armament, or the bridge, or the propulsion plant (how good was her armor?). I recommend in this situation for Reicheliu to kite the Yamato (decelerate and stay just out of range) until the KGV's are in position and then accelerate again and close in, with all three attaining full broadsides and closing in from three directions.

In turn Yamato's commander may U-turn and destroy Reicheliu first, getting her before she could make a run for it, and then turn on the chasing KGV's... Or he could turn into one of the KGV's and close the distance and destroy her superstructure and armament and then go for the other two. Again, it depends on the smarts of all the commanders. who is victorious.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
jonsidneyb
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:28 am

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by jonsidneyb »

The reason I came up with Reicheliu was I was thinking of the gun layout. Often subject to critical review. I started thinking this gun layout might be fantastic not for a ship that works alone but for one that works with others. It can pursue and fire with no masked guns. It just has trouble retreating.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by RF »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Two KGV could have defeated Bismarck, but no Yamato, don´t think so.
Agreed. Except that the could I would put as somewhat unlikely, but possible.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by RF »

Bgile wrote:The KGVs would have to depend on destroying Yamato's main fire control director before she did decisive damage to them. They would have to split up so they had a chance to hit Yamato's turrets on the back or side armor. They might be able to silence her before they ran out of ammo. If that doesn't work and Yamato doesn't lose her central FC capability, I think both British ships will probably be sunk.

The same sort of thing could happen to two US battleships. They would have a better chance to knock out Yamato's turrets, though.
Again I agree.

I am not clear why a pair of KGV's should be regarded as being a certain substantial threat to a Yamato in open waters with no other forces involved.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Legend »

If they were the only BB's in the area, and there were no CV's in the area, then yes, I can see them being the only ships bearing down on the Yamato... If I were an escort commander I would keep my ships out of the sight of Yamato, one hit and there goes a destroyer, and another three takes a cruiser down, with the Yamato it's rather like the game Battleship, only a few hits take down your enemy.

If there was an accompanying CV I can see aircraft trying to soften her up before the duel, but not during it due to shell fire.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
irving1941
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:10 pm
Location: Barbados

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by irving1941 »

Why not three or four or all the KGV class versus Yamato? Was the Jap ship so strong it´s needed too many english shiops to defeat it? :think:
User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Legend »

The British weren't stupid enough to draw all their modern BB's into the Pacific! If they did, and managed to find Yamato, and managed to catch up and corner her: the Germans, seeing this weakness, would have surely sent out what surface raiders they had left! Imagine The Twins, Tirpitz, and the Hipper Class all in one formation pummeling convoy after convoy until either the four KGV's get back (Then it's a tossup which force looses more ships), or the US has to come in with a group of our own BB's.

If the Yamato was dueling the British KGV class, then she would surely be put out of comission. I doubt because of the caliber of the KGV's that her hull would sustain serious damage, but her superstructure would be turned into a giant scrap pile! The Yamato might be able to defeat two KGV's without major damage, but any more than that and there are too many targets, too many shells incoming, and too many chances of getting your soft vitals shot off. The Yamato was strong, but not invincable!
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
irving1941
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:10 pm
Location: Barbados

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by irving1941 »

Legend.... :quiet: ... please read my post again. Did you see the way the sentence is constructed? ... with question marks?... What I wanted to say is what you are replying in such a reckless way. Please read that I was meaning the same thing. Read again.
Why not three or four or all the KGV class versus Yamato? Was the Jap ship so strong it´s needed too many english shiops to defeat it?
Again: Was the Jap ship so strong it´s needed too many english shiops to defeat it?

Reading 101 please...
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Bgile »

irving1941 wrote:Why not three or four or all the KGV class versus Yamato? Was the Jap ship so strong it´s needed too many english shiops to defeat it? :think:
Not everyone here is a native english speaker, and sometimes it can be hard to read posts. For example, your second sentence here is not correct english.
irving1941
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:10 pm
Location: Barbados

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by irving1941 »

irving1941 wrote:Why not three or four or all the KGV class versus Yamato? Was the Jap ship so strong it´s needed too many english shiops to defeat it? :think:
Not everyone here is a native english speaker, and sometimes it can be hard to read posts. For example, your second sentence here is not correct english.
All right, all right. What I meant is that human history is full of myths, specially the history of war and of all wars it seems that the second world war is the one with more myths. Have you seen James Cameron´s documentary of Bismarck? He literally says that Bismarck was the Death Star of the era and the greatest battleship of all times. And there are other people that, on the other hand, says completely different thigs as that Bismarck was a non combat worthy commerce raider. Both are myths because Bismack was neither. She wasn´t the greatest battleship nor any Death Star nor just a comemrce raider. She was, by 1941 in the Atlantic the most modern and capable battleship in commision, surely bigger and more powerfull than a KGV which was it´s natural enemy. Neither the italinas nor the french or the british had such a modern battleship by May 1941. But by 1942 there were other ships than could be considered superior to Bismarck in some ways as the Yamato and later the Missouri. There are other myths regarding the superiority of some other ships, as Yamato and the Missouri class, because they were the last ones built and considered bu their builders the great epitome of battleship desgin. Yamato clearly is the heaviest and more combat worthy of both but it´s not the invincible machine that cojld stand to fight and win against two KGV for instance. Tactically ridiculous to say the least. No ship could withstand a combat against even two slightly inferior ships. Not Yamatro, no Missouri and no Bismarck. Other myths goes all the way from the all or nothing armour to the radar spotting system. I dont´regard the all or nothing as a defective armour but it was not the only system that works pretty well, there are others. And the american designers knew this because they were about to change the armour system of the new Montana class and arranged it in a different way from the Missouri box system. The english did exactly that with the Vanguard armour being that one the most modern of all battleships ever built, the last one to be precise. Bismarck wasn´t an all or nothing and she worked pretty fine against a very numerical superrior foe. As for the radar things are not that clear as to say that during the war (i´m not refering about after the war) the system was unbeatable. During the confrontastions of radar equipped vessels the aiming was a mix of radar, starshells and visual contacts on ranges that are not precisely those extreme ones that you often in these threads.
So, no myths after all, just plain good ships that had advatages and disadvantages. No super ship after all. No clear better armoured system nor aiming system. In my personal opinion, and look that it´s just personal, the Yamato stands above all as the great ship but she could have been beaten by the Missouri if certain conditions were met. Bismarck could have won against her contemporary adversaries as things were by 1941, but not so sure after that. As Einsten said, it´s relative.
Now, that´s why I answered this thread the way I did.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Bgile »

Interesting ideas, which of course have been seen here before and I don't have a problem with your general ideas, but ...

"No ship could withstand a combat against even two slightly inferior ships."

Obviously incorrect, since that's exactly what Bismarck did. There is no reason to believe Yamato couldn't have done the same. You don't have to have an invincible ship to do this.

"Yamato and the Missouri class, because they were the last ones built and considered bu their builders the great epitome of battleship desgin."

Well, incorrect again. Yamato was felt to be superior to all other ships at the time by her builders, and she was. Missouri was NOT, and the builders were very much aware of the compromises they had to make. Why would they design Montana if they thought Missouri was "the great epitome of battleship design"? Montana had lots of compromises also. Your statement is completely untrue.

"I dont´regard the all or nothing as a defective armour but it was not the only system that works pretty well, there are others. And the american designers knew this because they were about to change the armour system of the new Montana class and arranged it in a different way from the Missouri box system."

This doesn't sound like they thought Missouri was the "epitome of battleship design". Also, the Iowa class was not an AON design. It was layered. For example, the weather deck armor was only a quarter inch thinner than Bismarck's.

"During the confrontastions of radar equipped vessels the aiming was a mix of radar, starshells and visual contacts on ranges that are not precisely those extreme ones that you often in these threads."

If you read all the threads here you know this has been debated endlessly. Radar gives a big advantage but it isn't always decisive.

"So, no myths after all, just plain good ships that had advatages and disadvantages. No super ship after all. No clear better armoured system nor aiming system. In my personal opinion, and look that it´s just personal, the Yamato stands above all as the great ship but she could have been beaten by the Missouri if certain conditions were met. Bismarck could have won against her contemporary adversaries as things were by 1941, but not so sure after that."

Absolutely, except I still think a good radar FC system was a big advantage in almost any situation. Obviously that's just my opinion also.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by lwd »

Bgile wrote:.... Also, the Iowa class was not an AON design. It was layered. For example, the weather deck armor was only a quarter inch thinner than Bismarck's.....
This is the first time I've seen someone say that any of the modern US BBs weren't All or nothing design. To my understanding layering of the armor is not what makes a BB all or nothing nor is the thckness of the weather deck.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by Dave Saxton »

We need to define what AoN means. American battleships since Nevada are considered AoN. Indeed the Nevada is often cited as the first AoN design. In that context AoN is defined as all or most of the available armour tonnage, with the exception of barbets and turrets, being concentrated over and around the hull's "citidel"; made up of the magazines and machinery spaces, and very little armour tonnage used elsewhere.

With the G3 designs the British adopted the policy of all available deck armour being concentrated into a single plate. I'm afraid that for many this has become the sole definition of AoN. I refer to this as the "strict" AoN concept. However all USN BB's from Nevada to Iowa have two armoured decks. Previously to the North Carolina the thinner deck was placed below the main armored deck, but after NC this relationship was reversed. By putting the thinner deck above it brought to pass the concept of yaw inducement.

BTW, Bismarck's ober deck armour is 1/2" to 1 3/4" thicker than Iowa's weather deck armour. Not so much if your just summing total thickness, but a big difference when it comes to factors such as induced yaw, de-capping, and critcal velocities.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
irving1941
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:10 pm
Location: Barbados

Re: Two KGV's vs. Yamato

Post by irving1941 »

Mr. Bgile:

First let my tell you that your answers, even not in accordance with my posts, are those of a respectful person. That I appreciated a lot.

I still think that no battleship of WWII could stand the double pounding of two contemporary similar vessels. When Bismarck fought Hood and PoW it´s clear that she did destroyed one old battlecruiser and then she broke contact. PoW was no a serious contender because her guns were malfunctioning. Anyway there was another ship in the combat, Prince Eugen, which fought bravely and well damaging both, Hood and Wales.

About the Missouris I have read in this and other forums how americans write about them as sacred cows or something like that, which is why I wrote that they are regarded as the epitome of battleship construction. Which they were because there was not one built after them. So, they are the epitome.

Having said the above then I will say that the incorrect criteria is yours because the Missouri and sisters were an AoN design. They were an armoured box design. And it was a good design, I´m not stating the contrary. I´m stating that there were other designs that were also good, as the armoured belt design that Bismarck used. In fact it was Bismarck´s the one that supported the heavier strikes from any enemy, I belive.

I think we both agree that radar was an advantage but not to the indisputable level. Anyway I think it was used in combination with other systems as starshells and optic rangefinders.
Post Reply