This assumes that the design of the ship existed at the time, of course.
Battleship Showdown, the Final Match
-
Project? I dont think so, you should avoid making psychological analysis of people based on a post in a board game forum.
It’s not really rubbish, I mean, the Yamato has already (hypothetically) gone up against the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto and the German Bismark and beaten them both. At no time during those two encounters was any mention made about the Yamato’s armour being inferior WW1 grade stuff or about her 18in gun shells having faulty fuses. Now I could see the counter to the armour be that both the German and Italian ships using the same grade armour as the Yamato so not really being a factor in those two battles. However the Yamato’s big gun shells being faulty and not detonating when hitting their targets is a BIG problem. How would she have been able to beat the Germans and Italians if her ammunition was faulty? Why was this major flaw only brought up when she was facing the American Missiouri? It seems like something like that would have see the Yamato getting knocked out way eariler, if not against the Italians then definitely by the Germans. However it seems to only matter when she is fighting the Americans.
Now in past battles the Missiouris big advantage has been having superior armour and greater range with its guns over its opponents. Granted that is an extrealy simplified version of the argument but this is what it basically boils down to when we’re talking naval battles. Now that the roles are reversed and the Missiouri is facing a ship that has greater range and thicker armour you argue fervently that these things dont matter, and dis-credit the Yamato for having these things.
This is just my observation but it seems like a bit of a double standard is being applied here to favor the American ship.
-
The Missouri’s big advantage is its ability to find the target much more accurately than the Yamato and it’s ability to cope with taking on water. The Yamato would sink before the Missouri.
Missouri had superior radar based fire control and Yamato just had radar for naval search. Also, Missouri had greater range and i think speed, so really the only thing the Yamato had was thicker plating against torpedoes, and bigger guns which based on the other factors cannot compensate for the greater ability of Missouri to hit it’s target.
I actually like the Yamato better for “looks cool” factor, but in reality Missouri was better.
I have been on a guided tour of the Missouri in Hawaii and have really explored this ship.
-
Project? I dont think so, you should avoid making psychological analysis of people based on a post in a board game forum.
Then perhaps you should stop projecting your own bias onto those you with whom you disagree. When you start throwing accusations at me as you have done, then you can expect my response to be blunt. It is you and Gargantua that have made the “wouldn’t have a chance” type statements with no real support–not the other side. So if anyone has completely discounted the other side, it is the anti-US faction.
It’s not really rubbish, I mean, the Yamato has already (hypothetically) gone up against the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto and the German Bismark and beaten them both.
Neither of those boats had the advantages that the Missouri has. You have failed to demonstrate a double standard.
At no time during those two encounters was any mention made about the Yamato’s armour being inferior WW1 grade stuff or about her 18in gun shells having faulty fuses. Now I could see the counter to the armour be that both the German and Italian ships using the same grade armour as the Yamato so not really being a factor in those two battles. However the Yamato’s big gun shells being faulty and not detonating when hitting their targets is a BIG problem. How would she have been able to beat the Germans and Italians if her ammunition was faulty? Why was this major flaw only brought up when she was facing the American Missiouri? It seems like something like that would have see the Yamato getting knocked out way eariler, if not against the Italians then definitely by the Germans. However it seems to only matter when she is fighting the Americans.
The design of the Japanese AP round was intended to penetrate for water line based hits as I understand it and therefore deployed a long delay fuse. That is problematic for this engagement, with the design of the “overweight” American round exceeding that of the Japanese round. (This year/type 91 design apparently was an even bigger problem in the projectiles for the 8" IJN heavy cruisers.) It doesn’t eliminate all of the mass based differences that favor the Japanese round, but it does make the comparison more of a toss up than it would be otherwise.
Since neither the Germans nor Italians employed US based ammunition (or radar or fire control, etc.) and the Bismark fired a round much less massive (only 1764 lb) and only 15" guns how does this in any way support your claim of bias?
Now in past battles the Missiouris big advantage has been having superior armour and greater range with its guns over its opponents. Granted that is an extrealy simplified version of the argument but this is what it basically boils down to when we’re talking naval battles. Now that the roles are reversed and the Missiouri is facing a ship that has greater range and thicker armour you argue fervently that these things dont matter, and dis-credit the Yamato for having these things.
That is worse than crap, it is a lie. There was no need to go into greater detail in the other comparisons (same as for the Yamato) because the opposition lacked any offsetting advantages. One has to sharpen the pencil when the match up is close…as in the defeat of the French BB at the hands of the Bismarck and the reasons I gave for it being so. But apparently you were applying some sort of double standard there because I didn’t hear you complaining that the French boat had thicker armour (belt, turrets, deck) and heavier rounds (1949 lb) and therefore should win. (Perhaps I missed your defense and conclusion that the Bismark would lose.)
This is just my observation but it seems like a bit of a double standard is being applied here to favor the American ship.
It seems that you are the one applying the double standard.
But I’m still waiting for you to explain how the Yamato is going to win the match up. If there is a compelling case to be made on the merits of the ship, make it. (At present it appears that you can’t support your argument and instead are resorting to impugning the character of others.)
I tried to make a case for the Yamato, but it still seems to come up short. If someone can explain how the case could be made better, I’m all ears.
-
Red, i like your scenarios and all, but i can see a problem with the Yamato one. if you launch all of your aircraft to gain air superiority, the Missouri has the AA firepower to take them down, the USN by the end of the war had the greatest AA defense in the world with the combination of guns, fire control and etc.
-
What happens on a foggy rainy night
-
Red, i like your scenarios and all, but i can see a problem with the Yamato one. if you launch all of your aircraft to gain air superiority, the Missouri has the AA firepower to take them down, the USN by the end of the war had the greatest AA defense in the world with the combination of guns, fire control and etc.
The aircraft wouldn’t be attacking, but spotting outside of the BB’s air defense reach. I admit that I don’t know how far this AA reach extended in practical terms. There would be limits to what the 5" guns could hit, but the aircraft would be able to get in a good position to observe splashes and note changes of course, they would just have to find the stand off position.
I guess one could also consider a case of loading all seven of the aircraft with their meager bomb loads, climbing to max altitude and going kamikaze. Seems like a waste of a good spotter to me.
-
The spotter planes are float planes. They don’t fight anything. They have to be float planes because they need to be retrievable.
They probably don’t have any defence at all. They have poor maneuverability and are slow and easy fodder if they fly over any proper warship.
Recon was done at high altitude for the most part.
-
They actually did some dogfighting with these float planes (the F1M’s which mounted the pair of forward firing machine guns) although that wasn’t their intended purpose. The floats wouldn’t help their dogfighting prowess.
Remember that fighters began WWI as scout/artillery spotting aircraft that then began engaging one another. The two models listed for the Yamato both carried rear mounted machine guns for defense, while one also had forward firing wing mounted guns. A light machine gun in the rear isn’t terribly effective though, unless someone tries to saddle up on your six not realizing it is there.
Anyway, the 7 to 3 aircraft advantage and part of those being configured so that they could attack other seaplanes is why I assumed the Yamato would be able to keep some planes in the air for spotting.
I don’t see them being much of a kamikaze threat, they just aren’t fast enough, probably wouldn’t do well in a dive, and they can’t carry any heavy bombs/torpedoes. About the only thing they have for any punch is the engine and fuel slamming into the target. That’s not likely to be effective against an armoured target like a BB (or rather it might be like firing BB’s against armour plate.) :wink:
-
At best they could only target functionality, like a command deck, or radar tower. But I also agree, the Japanese didn’t use thier spotter planes as Kamikaze’s during the war, they certainly wouldn’t use them in this conflict.
Unless the fate of the war was at stake…
-
I voted the Yamato
-
Since nobody came up with a plausible suggestion for how the Yamato closes the range to one where her gunnery is effective, I’ve decided to vote for the Missouri.
This one comes down to putting rounds on target without your opponent being able to touch you. (The same reason aircraft carriers ruled the seas.) In the early 1945 timeframe the fire control of the Missouri is so much better, with blindfire/over the horizon capability that there is no doubt about who is going to be able to do that. If the Yamato were the faster boat, then things might work out differently, but with Missouri’s 6 knot speed advantage I don’t see how the Yamato can close. Aircraft spotting might give the Yamato a slim chance at connecting with a round over the horizon, but it is essentially a “hail Mary” into the endzone with a 7 point deficit…even if you connect once, you need more to win.
The fight could go either way or favor the Yamato if: 1. Missouri’s fire control/radar was 1942 vintage for the analysis. 2. Or the Yamato and the Missouri start the fight within the visual horizon (for example both of them cruising diagonally toward one another unawares and clearing an island at the same time.)
If the Yamato starts out with the Missouri in its effective gunnery range, or works into that without taking substantial hits, then I would put my money on the Big Y. For the Missouri wandering into the range of slugger who can take also take punches is not a good move…
-
@Red:
Since nobody came up with a plausible suggestion for how the Yamato closes the range to one where her gunnery is effective, I’ve decided to vote for the Missouri.� Â
wow, quite a shock, let me call the papers! :roll: Â :lol:
You keep talking about the Missouri having greater range but according to the stats i’ve seen the Yamato could fire a high explosive or armour piercing shell 42Km (or 26miles) with their main guns while the Missouri could only fire armour piercing shells 32km (or 20miles) with their main guns. So how dose the Missouri have greater range? Also i’ve not seen any mention of the faulty fuses of the Yamato’s main gun 18 inch guns having any issue with their fuses or not detonating. So no one has come up with a plausible suggestion because there isnt a need for one, Yamato’s main guns already out-range the Missouri.
-
You keep talking about the Missouri having greater range but according to the stats i’ve seen the Yamato could fire a high explosive or armour piercing shell 42Km (or 26miles) with their main guns while the Missouri could only fire armour piercing shells 32km (or 20miles) with their main guns. So how dose the Missouri have greater range? Also i’ve not seen any mention of the faulty fuses of the Yamato’s main gun 18 inch guns having any issue with their fuses or not detonating. So no one has come up with a plausible suggestion because there isnt a need for one, Yamato’s main guns already out-range the Missouri.
He is not saying that. Yamato had greater range but it was not effective or usable range to target ships because it required spotter planes to assist in that and Yamato targeting technology was not as advanced as Missouri. If both ships are in range the Missouri would hit her targets with greater accuracy and if damaged the Missouri would be better coping with damage control due to a number of factors.
So yes the Yamato has greater range, but this range need a big “*” beside it because to obtain the range it needed perfect information over the horizon from her 6 slow moving float planes.
Against a Battleship these float planes would probably be shot down. The utility of having the spotters would be against a less defensive ship like transports or destroyers.
The Missouri had adequate flak batteries.
-
Yes, but this is a pre-set scenario, not a real war time battle, they know who they’re facing off against and the area involved is confined to the Caribbean if im not mistaken. In an open, real world, fog-of-war, fight, I could see all that mattering, but these are two ships involved in some kind of bizzare alternate universe blood sport gladitorial arean fight, so I think that’s kind of irrelevent
-
but these are two ships involved in some kind of bizzare alternate universe blood sport gladitorial arean fight
Love the wording
-
but these are two ships involved in some kind of bizzare alternate universe blood sport gladitorial arean fight, so I think that’s kind of irrelevent
How does that effect the fact that the longer range required spotter float planes and that targeting with use of this information is problematic?
It works alot better if the target was a stationary land target like an Island.
-
I just think precision isnt going to matter. The Yamato and the Missouri are just sailing around the limited space of the caribbean and if anything the large number of float planes at the Yamatos disposal sounds like it would be an advantage, helping it find the Missouri, after that its free to blast away. I mean if the Yamato buts enough shots down range it should be able to hit something, and if the Missouri wants to hit the Yamato its going to have to close making it more likely one of the Yamato’s shells will hit. Its a fight to the death and the Missouri will gain nothing by avoiding confrontation.
-
wow, quite a shock, let me call the papers! :roll: � :lol:
I was undecided as to how this would end up when we started. (Unlike you I had not made up my mind on cursory glance or preconceived notions.) However, I want to congratulate you on making it clear to me that the Missouri would win. The lack of any effective argument from the axis side sealed it for me.
You keep talking about the Missouri having greater range but according to the stats i’ve seen the Yamato could fire a high explosive or armour piercing shell 42Km (or 26miles) with their main guns while the Missouri could only fire armour piercing shells 32km (or 20miles) with their main guns. So how dose the Missouri have greater range? Also i’ve not seen any mention of the faulty fuses of the Yamato’s main gun 18 inch guns having any issue with their fuses or not detonating. So no one has come up with a plausible suggestion because there isnt a need for one, Yamato’s main guns already out-range the Missouri.
What an incredibly obtuse and/or willfully ignorant comment. This has been spelled out for you a number of times. The Yamato can’t hit targets she can’t see, the Missouri can. Even with a spotter plane the Yamato is going to be guessing at solutions (against a maneuvering target) because her fire control isn’t designed for this. And one of the comments that I’ve seen about the gunnery of the Japanese cruisers and BB’s in WWII was that it was surprisingly poor.
But since you want to throw in the part about the fuse/projectile design, it is one more strike against the Yamato. Even a lucky shot from her 18 inch guns will more likely than not fail to burst.
There, happy now? You’ve only strengthened the argument for the Missouri more. :-D
-
Ok, look, i’ve tried to be nice about this but i’ll just come out and say it, I dont believe any thing you’ve said about the Yamato’s faulty fuses, you have either grossly mis-understood something you read or have completely fabricated it because I have found absolutely nothing about it in my research, so im counting it as a non-issue.
Second, You keeping going on about the Missouri’s fire control system but seem to unaware that this wasnt a new concept. Most WW2 battleships and all of the ones listed here had fire control systems. The only difference for the Missouri was that it’s fire control system was also linked up to its Radar, but thats it. All this “great advantage” dose is save the Missouri’s crew the extra step of having to manually input coordinates.
Thats another thing, the Yamato had radar. While it wasnt linked up to its fire control system they would be able to detect the approach of the Missouri and have a rough idea of where it was. Further more they could then use this information, relay it to their fire control system and plot out a firing solution based on the coordinates. While this would be a guess at best it would become increasingly easier for the Japanese to plot out fire solutions on the Missouri as it would have to close range of its guns to be able to hit. In any scenario the Yamato can wait and force the Missouri to charge in at it and cross the very little, “T”, which would give the Yamato the ability to fire broadside. The Missouri would have to sail through a gauntlet of heavy caliber shells to get with in range too.
@Red:
And one of the comments that I’ve seen about the gunnery of the Japanese cruisers and BB’s in WWII was that it was surprisingly poor
According to who? This is an extreamly broad statment which is remarkably difficult to substantiate. While I wont say that Japanese gunnery is exceptional, I would have to say for this scenario its at least as good as everyone elses. If anything, review the battle off savo island in 1942 where the japanese wrecked an allied fleet, in pitch dark. Sounds like decent gunnery to me
-
I just think precision isnt going to matter. The Yamato and the Missouri are just sailing around the limited space of the caribbean and if anything the large number of float planes at the Yamatos disposal sounds like it would be an advantage, helping it find the Missouri
Yes but under ideal conditions those float planes are scouting a target that has limited means to fight back. The Missouri is the most potent threat possible giant 6 slow scout planes. Most likely those planes would be shot down, not to mention the Missouri has its own ‘scout planes’.
The Yamato never once used it’s planes for scouting.
The bottom line is the added range is negligible considering the target and the Yamato’s own inferior ability to locate targets, while the Missouri had radar based fire control.
You then have to asses the differences in armor and ability to sustain hits without causing the hull to list. The yamato had inferior ability to cope with flooding control, so at an earlier point the Yamato would list and have zero ability to fire effectively.
I know the yamato looks really cool and most would like to have Japan have a better ship, but really the Missouri is a better ship on average.
Suggested Topics
