I’m sorry but the missouri dosn’t really stand a chance here. The yamato out ranges her and has thicker armour plating, the things that are really going to count in a ship to ship contest. Red Harvest, its intresting that the Yamato had some issues with its projectile fuses, but if the fuses were that much of an issue then the Yamato wouldnt have made it through all of its previous rounds as its faulty projectiles wouldn’t have done any damage to its previous opponents either. So for the sake of this lets assume that its projectiles arent faulty.
I’m sorry but the missouri dosn’t really stand a chance here. The yamato out ranges her and has thicker armour plating, the things that are really going to count in a ship to ship contest. Red Harvest, its intresting that the Yamato had some issues with its projectile fuses, but if the fuses were that much of an issue then the Yamato wouldnt have made it through all of its previous rounds as its faulty projectiles wouldn’t have done any damage to its previous opponents either. So for the sake of this lets assume that its projectiles arent faulty.
I disagree for several reasons. Range is irrelevant if you can’t hit the target, but your target can hit you. And there is a substantial difference here. Secondly, having large caliber shells hitting is still a problem for the target even if they don’t detonate. The difference is that when they detonate properly a single hit can prove fatal (see the Hood.) So in comparing these one must consider the probability of proper detonation. It would be wrong to assume that all are faulty, but it would be equally wrong to assume that they work 100% of the time. It’s more qualitative than quantitative. It seems foolhardy to base the outcome purely on the size of the gun and/or armour without considering the quality of the projectiles, the fire control, damage control or speed. Battleships were fighting packages, not stationary gun mounts.
In previous match ups the quality of the projectiles wasn’t an issue for the Yamato as the opponents were completely outmatched. (It was however decisive for Jean Bart/Richelieu as the propellant and projectile had the worst problems of all the contenders.) The Yamato’s prior foes didn’t have any offsetting advantages to compensate. What makes this final round interesting is that both of the contestants have various aspects that compensate to a degree from other disadvantages they may have.
This sort of match up is close enough that there are specific strategies that could decisively skew the probability of a win. In real life I see a meeting of these two as coming down to “quirks” rather than a specific decisive advantage for either. The more shells one lands on target, the greater chance that some quirk of the design/range etc. will produce a decisive outcome. But there is no guarrantee It might be something simple like knocking out radar, bending a screw, jamming the rudder, starting a fire in some secondary guns, knocking out the optical fire direction, etc. that tips the balance.
Let’s review the specs…
IJN Yamato (1945)
62,300 tons
863 ft long
127-1/2 ft beam
36 ft draught
12 boilers driving 4 steam turbines, 4 three blade props
Speed = 27 knots
2500-2800 crew
Armament:
Nine 18.1" guns in two forward, one aft turret (45 caliber throwing a 3200 lb AP shell at 2559 ft/sec out to 45, 960 yards at 45 degrees elevation)
Six 6.1" guns in two turrets (forward and aft)
Twenty-four 5" guns
Many smaller caliber anti-aircraft guns
No torpedoes
Armour:
26" main turret face
16" primary belt
7.9" deck
WWI era armour composition (non-cemented Vickers hardened)
Good anti-torpedo bulges/blisters/compartments
Aircraft:
Four Aichi E13A seaplanes (230 mph, 1 rear facing 7.7 mm mg)
& three F1M2 seaplanes for spotting (220 mph, two 7.7 forward firing mg’s, 1 rear facing 7.7 mm mg.)
Other:
Main battery control optics had 15 meter base length.
10 cm wavelength radar, 2 kW output
Tactical diameter (turning circle) 640 meters.
IJN’s damage control was poor compared to other major navies
USS Missouri (1945)
48,100 tons
867 ft long
108 ft beam
36 ft draught
8 boilers, 4 shaft turbines
Speed = 33 knots/hr
1921 man crew (~2700 in 1945)
Armament
Nine 16" guns in two forward, one aft turret (50 caliber throwing a 2700 lb APC shell at 2500 ft/sec out to 42,345 yards at 45 degrees elevation)
Twenty 5" guns
Many smaller caliber anti-aircraft guns
No torpedoes
Armour:
19.7" main turret face
12.1" primary belt
7.5" deck
Special treatment steel, face hardened
Other:
Main battery control optics had 13.5 meter base length.
Ford Mark 8 Range keeper analog fire control computer for main guns
Radar fire control (blindfire) including maintaining solution during radical manoeuvers
3 cm radar, 50 kW output
Main gun elevation rate 12 degrees/sec
Questionable anti-torpedo protection
Tactical diameter (turning circle) 744 meters
USN’s damage control was excellent
Aircraft:
Three-OS2U Kingfisher seaplanes (164 mph, two 7.62 mm machine guns)
Now that the contestants have been fully introduced and the setting reviewed, the time has arrived for each of us to explain how we think the engagement might unfold. I’ll expand on this tomorrow but this is my summary of concerns/ideas:
1. The Missouri will win the fight if she can keep the fight “over the visual horizon.” The reason is radar fire control and blindfire capability that the Yamato is completely lacking.
2. The Missouri has a 6 knot speed advantage and therefore can maintain separation.
3. Extreme range favors the Missouri’s APC round in penetrating the thick deck armour of the Yamato.
4. Missouri can maintain firing solutions during radical manoeuvers, the Yamato cannot. (Lack of gyro stabilization for the Yamato’s system will impact her gunnery.)
5. The Yamato has heavy enough guns that if she can find the target, she will soon cause severe damage.
6. The broad beam of the Yamato makes her a more stable firing platform.
7. If the Yamato can knock out the delicate radar, the Missouri will be in serious trouble.
8. Yamato will gain “air supremacy” and be able to use radio controlled spotting through its aircraft–it is slower and probably less reliable than radar fire control, but it helps.
9. Yamato has an excellent turning radius and will need to “chase the splashes” to avoid taking hits…but in so doing loses her offensive punch.
10. It will take a lot of hits on the Yamato before critical damage can be expected.
11. Yamato will have to use evasive movements while at the same time trying to close the distance to ~25,000 yards where her gunnery can be effective. No easy task against an opponent with a massive speed advantage.
12. The one plus side for Yamato in pursuit vs. Missouri in “maintain separation” mode is that Japanese BB will at times have 2 forward turrets in action against only a single rear facing turret. However the speed differential is such that the Missouri will often have all three turrets in action.
13. If the fight is still going on and the range closes to about 15,000 yards the 6.1" cruiser guns on the Yamato can start pouring in effective fire as well–sufficient to knock out secondary systems.
SO when it’s all said and done… This comes down to chance?
we’re thinking 60% Yamato
You’re thinking 60%+ Missouri?
A lucky shot for either is going to be bad. That said, the Yamato can take a bit more of beating.
Shall we roll dice? LOL… Missouri @ 4, with 2 hits, Yamato @ 3 with 3 hits?
Get the Naval Mini’s out and see what happens
U.S.A. all the way!
U.S.A. all the way!
I think that’s the biggest part of this problem. There’s even historical basis for this, the facts and abilities of the Yamato are underepresented, and overlooked. The sheer bulk of the ship, the lack of over technical parts prone to failure, the beating it can take, the stability, the vastly superior optics.
The Americans didn’t even know what they were fighting, that’s what’s going to tip the scales in the Yam’s favour.
After-all this is going to take place in the carribean, anything can happen, and the Japanese don’t care if they get killed, so long as they kill Americans.
Got to be DICE!
There’s even historical basis for this, the facts and abilities of the Yamato are underepresented, and overlooked.
What is in Missouri favor is superior technology, which can discount the “size” issue of Yamato. The longer range guns require air spotters to even utilize the longer range, plus the Japanese technology for its ‘radar’ and fire control are inferior.
There’s even historical basis for this, the facts and abilities of the Yamato are underepresented, and overlooked.
From what I’ve seen of axis comments the exact opposite is true.
The extra range is worthless because it is over the visual horizon of those fine optics. Aircraft spotting over the horizon will work against stationary targets or ones that maintain an even course and speed (assuming you don’t have to maneouver), but it won’t work in this scenario. And the optics are mated to a much inferior fire control system even when radar is removed from the equation. Yamato is firing her guns without knowing the exact roll. Good luck hitting a moving, course changing target something like a minute away flight time firing blind when you can’t even be certain of your own angular elevation. (Buy some lotto tickets while you are it.) You will expend all of your ammo for nothing.
Besides, she probably wouldn’t even make it to the Caribbean because she couldn’t fit through the canal! :evil:
Outside of 25,000 yards and over the horizon the Missouri can connect with its state of the art radar fire control. If the battle is fought at this range the Yamato is not going to score hits and that infernal radar will remain intact. (Ditto for a night battle, so 12 hours out of a given day, the Yamato loses.) At extreme range the worst the Missouri can do is a draw.
Here is how I would try to use the Yamato to advantage:
I would launch my full complement of aircraft, gaining air superiority for gunnery spotting. I would push the BB’s powerplant for every bit of speed it could muster and head directly for the Missouri. My objective would be to close within 25,000 yards where my optics based gunnery should be sufficient to score hits on the USN BB.
The problem is that the Missouri’s skipper isn’t going to sit there waiting for me to close the range. He’s going to be firing even outside my visual range, perhaps with broadsides. This is where my aircraft help. I will have them announce each salvo so that I can perform a prompt heading change each time. There is sufficient travel time at long range for this to be effective. This is costly though as it reduces closure speed toward the enemy. The alternative would be to head straight in without evading…but I don’t think Yamato’s decks, fire control, and the like will survive the punishing 2700 lb APC rounds falling from steep angles.
As my opponent begins to appear on the horizon I’ll begin firing my forward guns, attempting to time the salvos to just before the Missouri fires (this of course relies on timing the roll rate as well), then alter course again. Hopefully, this will succeed in getting off a salvo 2 out of 3 times for every time the opponent fires. It will also allow some honing of the aircraft assisted spotting.
If I make it to 25,000 yards without suffering a critical hit, I will begin relying on a shallower approach angle, so that I can bring all three turrets to bear. If I score a hit I will maintain course and fire rapidly, willing to take a hit while I have a good firing solution. If I notice the opposing gunnery is becoming erratic I will assume that their fire control/radar is damaged, and I will stubbornly maintain course, firing broadsides.
If somehow the fight continues without one of us suffering grievous harm, I will be trying to reach about 15,000 yards where my 6.1" light cruiser turrets should be reliably connecting. The hope is that they will cause enough havoc to knock out some of the command and control or the 5" turrets. At this range, I would expect the Yamato to have a decisive advantage from the main battery assuming my fire control is still essentially intact.
If on my long approach the Missouri turns away, I’ll willingly exchange blows with my 2 forward turrets against her aft turret.
Of course, the problem with this is that I don’t have the initiative, the commander of the Missouri does. Having more advanced technology and a much faster ship gives the Missouri standoff capabilities. Her skipper will dicatate what range the battle is fought at.
Now from the helm of the Missouri:
The captain of the Missouri gets to dictate how the fight will transpire. Ask any boxer, chess player, general/admiral, this is a huge advantage. The Yamato is physically the most powerful and potentially most durable battleship ever built. The Yamato will likely absorb a great deal of punishment before being taken out of action, and her big guns are capable of penetrating the Missouri…if they can connect. So it would be unwise to conduct a fight within the big girl’s effective striking range. Fortunately, the USN skipper has two major advantages–a 6 knot/hr edge in speed, and a radar fire-control system that allows over-the-horizon engagement.
Combined, the two advantages above should be decisive. The Missouri must find the limit of its own range, while staying outside that of the Yamato. Patience is a virtue, and the Mighty Mo’s speed will allow her to turn for broadsides or to fire over her shoulder while maintaining separation, re-establishing it as needed. (One question I have is how effective was the radar gunnery when directed over the aft hemisphere–I suspect it will be somewhat diminished because of directional interferences/feedback from various apparatus.) Firing at extreme range results in plunging fire that can penetrate or spall the poorer quality (but thicker) armour of the Yamato. Japanese damage control was poor compared to other major combatants. So let’s light some fires in auxilliary systems/armaments, hope for a lucky hit against something critical. Wait for the smoke on the horizon…or the sounds of secondary explosions in the acoustic gear.
Never allow the Yamato to close over the horizon. Spend every shell if you must trying to score. If you cannot kill or cripple her that way, then withdraw to fight another day. Run in massive circles if you must teasing the Yamato to fire until she expends all of her ammo and runs out of fuel. (The Missouri has over twice the cruising range.) Fought this way, Yamato’s only hope is a lucky hit in a frustrating chase…the golden BB.
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, my estimation of how to best employ both boats against one another. Is there a better solution for either or each, if so, please provide it? To me the problem can be stated as this: how does the Yamato plausibly close within its own real gunnery range to blast the Missouri? Answer that question satisfactorily and I will graciously award the Yamato my vote. For now I withhold my vote to hear arguments pro/con.
This comes down to probabilities of outcomes. There is no walking away winner during the day…at night at range the answer is obvious.
U.S.A. all the way!
I think that’s the biggest part of this problem. There’s even historical basis for this, the facts and abilities of the Yamato are underepresented, and overlooked.Â
I agree with Gar on this one, I think the only reason that Missouri has gotten this far is because of some serious Jingoism which is looking to whatever it can to discredit the Yamato in favor of the “good guy” missouri
I agree with Gar on this one, I think the only reason that Missouri has gotten this far is because of some serious Jingoism which is looking to whatever it can to discredit the Yamato in favor of the “good guy” missouri
What a load of rubbish. :roll: Project much?
None of the ships before this even came close to matching up on specs with the Missouri (or the Yamato.) The rather obvious bias has been that of the axis-philes…which have been nearly content/reality free.
Rather than whining, how about presenting a plausible argument for how one would win with the Yamato. Explain how you are going to get into a position to score any hits. I did my best to put together a scenario that gave Yamato a chance for connecting (ignoring half of every day to do so.)
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.
