@Clyde85:
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.
You can’t even read the comments made and understand them or bother to actually search for their basis. I haven’t posted links as that has not worked in the past with the Byzantine posting privilege system the site employs. But if you want to make your stand on this it might be fun to embarrass you…
It’s not a faulty fuze so much as a design choice that made for a long delay/decreased the likelihood of it detonating. Follow the links in some of the other threads and the information is there. There are also some examples out there for this type of fuse where the hits against U.S. ships were counted and the number that failed to detonate were also counted.
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.
The only one “unaware” is you. This is just another strawman (like radar) where you attack an argument that isn’t being made. I’m aware that each nation had its own fire control systems. It doesn’t change the argument in the least.
No, radar is not the “only difference.” The Missouri’s system was more advanced in several ways, radar just being one of them. It was using what amounted to gyro stabilization for an artificial horizon and such. Again, do some actual searching. I believe it also had more direct control from the fire control system without as many intermediate steps. This isn’t my area of expertise, but I was surprised by how many different things were coming together at once for this system.
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.
Everybody already knows they had radar, it has already been discussed and explained several times. The Japanese radar had less than 1/3 the resolution based on wavelength, and with 1/25th as much power output. I’m not well versed in radar, but as for efficacy this would appear the rough equivalent of a 5" gun to a 16" gun. Good luck with that.
And what are the chances of them hitting a maneuvering target at 40,000+ meters with such an inferior system?
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 with all of its guns.
You haven’t even considered the angles or flight time on this have you? Best I can tell there will be over a minute of flight time, then the time for the radio transmission of the splashes to the Yamato, passing this to the fire control/director, correcting the solution manually, then retraining the guns. (If you do a search there are some descriptions out there of some systematic weaknesses in relaying information in WWII Japanese fire control that relate to this.) If you can get off an aimed salvo once every two minutes this way you are probably doing well. And if you stay turned at an angle where all of your turrets can fire and are still heading away at full speed, the Missouri will probably be closing at something like 15 knots. That works out to about 28,000 m/hr. The difference in range of the two gun types is about 3,300 meters. So the Missouri will not be in range for 3,300 meters/28,000 meters/hr = 0.12 hours…7 whole minutes!
So the good news for you is that you can get off maybe 3 or 4 very poorly aimed salvos before Missouri has you in range of her guns. You only get 2 salvos if you cross the T and as a result yield a 30+ knot closing speed. The first shot is only a wild assed guess at your max elevation so I’ll give you that one as time zero…adding one to each of your counts. If you manage to hit anything, chances are it won’t be vital.
From then on out Missouri has your range, can maintain it at will, and will be firing well aimed salvos at perhaps twice the frequency you can muster for poorly aimed ones. Neither boat will be particularly accurate at this range, but the Yamato will be at least a full order of magnitude less accurate, perhaps far less accurate even than that. I’ll fight you all day, all week, all month from this range.
The ship that will get stuck trying to cross the T while in effective range of the enemy guns is the Yamato.
According to who? 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 of savo island in 1942 where the japanese wrecked an allied fleet, in pitch dark. Sounds like good gunnery to me
This isn’t at night at close range, it isn’t a surprise attack, it doesn’t employ the superb Japanese torpedoes, and it isn’t a 1942 confrontation against a green enemy unprepared for night fighting. Other than being nothing like Savo, it is just like Savo. :roll: :wink:
In this scenario the gunnery is no better than the men and fire control systems at the disposal of each crew. The Japanese don’t appear to have a fire control system capable of handling the situation. The Missouri does. The U.S. BB’s demonstrated their long range accuracy (and that of radar fire control), the Japanese did not. That Japanese built a system for visual based engagement. The USN built one that could blindfire over the horizon.