Battleship Showdown, the Final Match



  • @Clyde85:

    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



  • @poloplayer15:

    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.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    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.)  😉


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    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…


  • '10

    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:  :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.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    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



  • @Clyde85:

    but these are two ships involved in some kind of bizzare alternate universe blood sport gladitorial arean fight

    Love the wording


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    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.



  • @Clyde85:

    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.  😄



  • 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


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    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.



  • @Imperious:

    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.

    Having grown up around Chinese people (older siblings family) and having lived in China, I can assure that is not the case and I have a very deep dis-like, bordering on hatred, of WW2 Japan.

    The scenario, which is literally a battleship version of “celebrity death match”, would seem to favor the Yamato to me. The Missouri is going to have to close, and the Yamato can afford to fire blind (much like a game of actual battleship come to think of it) with a general idea of where the Missouri is, which would become less of an issue the closer the missouri gets. I would think that since the Missouri has to close both sides would just break even on this issue, the Yamato may not be able to accuretly hit at its maximum range but the Missouri would need to get well with in this range to be able to hit.

    The armour is a sticking point though, and I know nothing of the comparative effectiveness of armour used. From what i’ve seen the Yamato’s armour was thicker in all instances (for instance, the Yamato’s main deck had 8.92in of armour where the Missouris was only 7.5in) but if you’re going to get into talk of metallurgy and different alloys and what not I dont know what any of that means, it being well beyond my area of expertise



  • @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: 😉

    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.



  • @Clyde85:

    The scenario, which is literally a battleship version of “celebrity death match”, would seem to favor the Yamato to me. The Missouri is going to have to close, and the Yamato can afford to fire blind (much like a game of actual battleship come to think of it) with a general idea of where the Missouri is, which would become less of an issue the closer the missouri gets. I would think that since the Missouri has to close both sides would just break even on this issue, the Yamato may not be able to accuretly hit at its maximum range but the Missouri would need to get well with in this range to be able to hit.

    The opposite is true.  The Yamato won’t have any precision at these ranges, the Missouri will.  That is fundamental to the differences in the fire control systems and radar–the difference between early war tech, and late war tech.  The Yamato will have to close to be able to connect, but won’t be able to because of the speed disadvantage.

    The armour is a sticking point though, and I know nothing of the comparative effectiveness of armour used. From what i’ve seen the Yamato’s armour was thicker in all instances (for instance, the Yamato’s main deck had 8.92in of armour where the Missouris was only 7.5in) but if you’re going to get into talk of metallurgy and different alloys and what not I dont know what any of that means, it being well beyond my area of expertise

    One of the links I hunted down was to a paper that talked about testing performed by the USN against some of this plate in 1946.  They fired a 16" round with a newer AP type against the 26" turret face of the Shinano (which was finished as a carrier…hence the turret availability.)  There are images available of this.  It was completely penetrated at 1990 ft/sec with a dead on shot of the 16" AP round.  The USN testers rated the plate quality as “0.839” compared to US plate.  In a second test at lower velocity “the projectile nose tip only penetrated 21” (53.34cm) into the plate, though punching a hole entirely through."  And this sort of damage would seem likely to kill the turret–large chunks of steel spalling off at high velocity inside will do that…  Interestingly, Okun assumes a 0.97 plate quality for the Japanese armour and states that the frontal turret armour can’t be penetrated in real world conditions because of the 45 degree slope and falling proj. velocity at range.  (Of course that’s not going to help the deck, etc…from his tables they look very vulnerable at the ranges one would want to fight the Missouri from without the Yamato being able to hit.)



  • Another potential ace for the Missouri:  The USN also worked up tables for reduced powder charges for the AP round (two bags vs. three or something like that.)  I do not know if that capability was put into the fire control computer (esp. with it being mechanical in nature, plus the radar range finding component.)  If it was then the Missouri would have the ability of extending its plunging fire against the vulnerable deck to something less than the current extreme ranges.  This would be an option if extreme over-the-horizon gunnery was not producing hits or if the Yamato scored a lucky hit to Mighty Mo’s propulsion and began closing.



  • Should we crown the winner? Any voters still undecided?


  • Moderator

    the Missouri would have crushed the Yamoto.  It had Fire Control Radar. Doesn’t matter if the Yammy can shoot farther, does no good if you can’t hit your target.

    The Yamato was equiped with three different types of radar. None of these radars were firecontrol specific designs. A 10cm fire control design known as the Mk3Model2, developed from the Mk2Model2, never made it into operation before the end.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yep thats pretty much the sinker.

    Id like to see a poll on the best Great War Battleship


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 1
  • 9
  • 11
  • 25
  • 48
  • 13
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

36
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts