A. T. Mahan

I lost my NX license and ran into some other technical issues, so I doubt I'll be able to finish the modelling for my submission. I'll explain what the submission was below, though, for your consideration. If some "fluff" or in-universe explanation is desired as to how this was feasible, one can be provided. I also have as a prototype the "B" hull with the newer NERA-optimized frontal geometry with the legacy "A" turret. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have.
 
Believing that the fundamentals of the "T-52" design from the Californian heavy tank competition were sound, I sought to rework it to incorporate the feedback that was given. The idea was to continue maturing the design through successive iterations until it would either A) win something or B) some crucial flaw be found that required restarting. To that end, there were two major areas of work. First, the hull shared the 68-degree glacis of a T-72 family tank. While we had previously made it work as a NERA array, it was kind of dodgy against the threats presented by the Californian RFP without heavy use of our Kontakt-1 knockoff. As the screenshots I posted showed, I had reprofiled the front of the vehicle to be more Abrams-ey, because the M1 family is a perfectly good NATO Box Tank and I like the looks. This provided a very large NERA array space, which would have been able to exceed the protection requirements handily. 
 
Next, I undertook to revise the turret design. My goal was to produce something much more in line with the Object 187/welded T-90 turret, although the turret had a more pronounced bustle, as in the "T-52". In broad terms, the layout of the turret was to be similar to the previous "T-52" turret design -- commander to the right of the gun, gunner to the left. The armor packages were substantially pushed inwards, removing the front overhang that caused the driver issues when attempting to enter and exit the vehicle while retaining the quite substantial level of protection and protection arc of that previous turret. The armor package composition was to be moderately revised, as there were gaps in it that required fixing, but that would have been relatively quick to resolve had not I lost access to the script that had been written to optimize the armor packages. I would like to reiterate that the previous turret frontal armor package design was capable of withstanding 43/59" RHAe tandem charges and 31" RHAe kinetic penetrators before the inclusion of the ERA package. It also had quite satisfactory turret side armor. The reduced turret overall size would also have shaved several tons off of the overall weight, as the protected volume would have been reduced from the previous great excess. A new gunner's doghouse sight would have been designed, with proper two-axis stabilization and provision for the laser rangefinder, as well as a stadiametric auxiliary rangefinder. Ammunition was to have been a derivative of the 125mm combustible-case APFSDS, HEAT-FS, and HE-FS projectiles in a fixed steel case cartridge. Performance would have been satisfactory based on preliminary results, and I may finish working that out because I don't need NX for it. 
 
Mobility was to be moderately reduced from the original 1,562 hp VDS-2240 design due to the lack of FADEC engine controls and thereby reduced specific power output, but the available 1,200hp turbosupercharged diesel V12 in an approximately 50-ton tank is quite solid, and the powerpack offered substantial room for growth in automotive performance. Studies were underway to determine the feasibility of a gas turbine, but I doubt such a power unit would be truly viable in this timeline until perhaps 2270.  The track system was to be the same T158 derivative. 
 
As a note, much of the advanced computer equipment was to be removed, or replaced with much more basic electrical or electromechanical systems, as possible. 

There's plenty of quite large vessels made of glass, including racing sailboats -- the VOR 70s are designed for round-the-world racing and are about 14 tons (metric) all up. The first fiberglass 12-meter yachts are also in the 12-25 ton (metric) range, but they were built in the 70s if I remember correctly. I would suggest that composite structures of this type were very poorly understood at the time, and would be extremely difficult to lay up properly -- while boats with 2-3" thick solid fiberglass hulls were being built in the '60s and '70s because they didn't know how strong fiberglass was, there were also severe quality control issues that needed resolving.
 
Laying up the structure itself would prove difficult, as you need to ensure appropriate resin fill during the layup process and you don't really have vacuum bagging or pre-impregnated heat-activated resins at this time.  Most epoxy or polyester/vinylester resins set in an exothermic reaction, and are also extremely flammable. In very thick layups, like a >12" thick turret front, this could result in the layup heating up sufficiently to spontaneously combust. 
 
Plus, laying up composites is time consuming and miserable work that kills the necessarily quite skilled workers with silicosis from thickening agents and VOC poisoning from the epoxy unless they wear respirators, and if the vehicle gets hot enough it melts. 

The hull is coming along nicely so far -- I have all the gubbins modeled, I just need to make up an NX assembly for them. I'm dreading linking up the tracks again, that took me like two damn days last time.
 

 
And with the armor array in place. Zero guesses for how much of a NATO box tank this thing is going to be. 

FINAL SUBMISSION:
 
AFV-50 — T-52
(Object 138)
A Product of SierraNevadaVagonzavod

Chief Designer
Whatismoo
 
Aeronautical Engineering, Drafting, Armor, and Hypervelocity Threat Projectile Testing Objects (HTPTO)
A. T. Mahan
 
Advanced Technology Bureau, Ramjet Propulsion Development
Hephaestus Aetnaean
 
Digital Computing and Hypersonics, Computational Armor Optimization:
CKFinite
 
Advanced Design Bureau
Flapjack
OnlySlightlyCrazy
 
Space Operations
Crazy
 
 
Table of basic statistics:
 
Parameter
 
Value
 
Mass, combat
 
49 365kg (W/ERA, 47 982 W/O ERA)
 
Length, combat (transport)
 
9.950m
 
Width, combat (transport)
 
Width, with ERA: 4.251m
Width, no ERA: 4.0m
Width over tracks: 3.86m
Height, combat (transport)
 
2.41m
 
Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)
 
231.1 kPa (88.4 kPa)
 
Estimated Speed
 
>75kph (25-33hp/ton)
 
Estimated range
 
460km on internal fuel, 720km with additional external drums
 
Crew, number (roles)
 
3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver-Mechanic)
 
Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
 
125mm Smoothbore Gun 2A35 (30 Ready, 45 Total)
 
Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
 
Coaxial 7.62mm PKT (2000 ready, 4000 total)
Commander's KPVT (100 ready, 500 stowed)
 
 
 
Vehicle designer’s notes: As chief designer of the 2250 Heavy Tank program at SNVZ, we had spent quite some time theorizing about ways to remedy the, frankly, superiority of the Cascadian "Norman" Medium Tank over current Californian vehicles. Our design needed to not only meet the Norman, but exceed it, by enough to ensure that no simple upgrades of the Cascadian design could undermine the qualitative advantage our design held. Where the Norman is, in many ways, a radically re-designed and improved T-55, SNVZ decided to take a similar approach with the far superior T-72. The result is a robust, light weight, technologically advanced, and astoundingly lethal vehicle which can be comfortably operated in all environments which it could expect to face, from the heat of the Mojave to the alpine chill of the Sierra Nevadas.
 
Vehicle feature list:
Mobility:
 
1.    APPENDIX 1: https://mega.nz/#!IQhH3YJA!kXnIfS2rWaeVaA1hM8ouQwpfTQ08K4qW3jNOIY8a_Ig
 
2.     Engine- EVDS-2230-2 V-12, 2,230 cubic inch, 1,562hp, water cooled, FADEC, electronically controlled fuel injection, and twincharged.
 
3.     Transmission- CD-1750 crossdrive-type eight-speed manual gearbox, mounted in VPK-3B powerpack, able to handle much greater power.
 
4.     Fuel- Type, Automotive diesel, 1,200L + 416L stowed in the hull and in auxiliary quick-detach barrels at the rear hull, 460km internal/720km with aux tanks, auxiliary tanks can be jettisoned remotely from driver or commander's position.
 
5.    Under-armor APU (52hp, 15kW), mechanical cooling system for driver-mechanic.
 
6.     Suspension- Torsion-bar, +325mm/-125mm travel, 490mm ground clearance, rotary-type shock absorbers on all arms, modularized easily-replacable design.
 
Survivability:
 
1.     Link to Appendix 1 - https://mega.nz/#!IQhH3YJA!kXnIfS2rWaeVaA1hM8ouQwpfTQ08K4qW3jNOIY8a_Ig
 
 
2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details: https://mega.nz/#!IRhBUaDS!6a01a-Z6tpCzOeqzdGqxoo9poVTBN4RQ-nMIRHVabQU
 
3.     [In Spoiler Box]
 
Firepower:
 
A.    Weapons:
 
1.     Link to Appendix 1- https://mega.nz/#!IQhH3YJA!kXnIfS2rWaeVaA1hM8ouQwpfTQ08K4qW3jNOIY8a_Ig
 
2.     Main Weapon- 2A35 (image in spoiler tag)
 
a.     Type: Smooth Bore Tank Gun
 
b.      Caliber: 125mm L/48
 
c.      Ammunition types and performance (short)
3BR1 APCBC-FS [Modified BR-472 projectile at 1,245m/s] 3OF1 HE-FS [950m/s] 3OF2 DEMO-FS [It’s a oversize HE round to replace the venerable 152mm assault gun in urban combat] 3BK1 Tandem-charge HEAT [55/115mm HEAT, 915m/s] 3BK2 Triplex-charge HEAT [85/115/115 HEAT, 915m/s] 3UBM3 AP-SFRJ: See Appendix 3 for details 3BM2 Hypervelocity Threat Projectile Testing Object: (750x50mm rod at 1,580m/s) 3BM3 Hypervelocity Threat Projectile Testing Object: (850x36.4mm segmented rod at 2,000m/s)  
d.     Ammo stowage arrangement

The AL-type carousel-pattern automatic loader is capable of handling cartridges of 950mm overall length (technically 975 is the physical limit, but it is believed that a 950mm cartridge overall length limit allows significant room for growth while leaving some clearance inside the autoloader). It services the gun in circa 6 seconds, providing a reliable 10-round-per-minute rate of fire. It is fed by a 30-round carousel, with the cartridges arranged vertically around the turret ring. Reloading the autoloader carousel is conducted by the crew, and most of the shells are a single-person lift. Some of the more exotic types, including but not limited to 3BR1, 3BK2, 3OF1, 3OF3, and 3UBM3 are shipped separately as two pieces, and assembled during loading into the autoloader carousel due to the high projectile weight.
 
The vehicle is provided with two hull ammunition racks flanking the driver, which are not able to be loaded from in combat and are NOT capable of storing 3BK2, 3OF3, or 3UBM3. The autoloader separates the turret basket from the hull with a steel splinter-protective bulkhead of 5mm thickness and the driver is unable to maneuver those sorts of ammunition through the loading hatch. Total ammunition stowage for the main gun is 45 rounds, 30 in the autoloader and 15 in the hull storage racks.
 
e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on. 
 
f.      Neat features. -- See Above
 
3.     Secondary weapons- 
Coaxial PKT:
Feeding from left to right with a disintegrating link belt. Mounted in the Mk.18 mount, and provided with 4000 rounds ammunition, of which 2000 is ready. Integrated into the main gun FCS.
 
 
 
 
Commander's KPVT:

 
 
The commander is provided with a 14.5x114mm KPVT heavy machine gun mounted to the cupola, with a sighting and control system for use while under armor. This is provided with 100 rounds of linked ready ammunition, and a further 400 rounds stowed in the turret basket in ammunition cans, with provision made to stow extra ammunition cans to the turret roof for quick reloads. The commander’s KPV can also be used as a manually operated anti-aircraft gun. It was chosen to provide a range overmatch against Mormon forces, as the 14.5x114mm cartridge possesses nearly twice the muzzle energy of the 12.7x99mm round, and has commensurately better long range performance. The Commander’s machine gun is provided with a 1-8x variable power periscopic optical system for use under armor, and back-up iron sights. Control is through electric motors and geared drive, and the gun can be slaved to the sight. It provides light vehicle and anti-infantry capability to 3,000m. The mount is fully stabilized and is able to be used effectively while on the move, and incorporates F50 NGVII image intensifying tubes
 
 
4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. (Also APS system and Semiconductor production) https://mega.nz/#!EBRiRQ6Q!5wYPI0yDpF_8qGgA5KHUR1cHtbtmdFy8nxn5XOECdHc
 
B.    Optics:
 
1.     Primary gunsight
The TPD-2-49 stereoscopic rangefinding sight assembly is a fully stabilized rangefinder and gunsight with day / night capabilities. Day sighting is provided by two sights, a high field of view periscopic unity sight and a 3 to 12 power variable magnification periscopic sight with illuminated reticle. Night sighting is provided by F50 image intensifying tubes mounted in both the periscopic portion of the sight assembly and in the rangefinder. (F50 is part of the Night Vision Generation II image intensifier program discussed in Appendix 3, Part D: Electro-optical Program Night Vision Generation II.) Provision is made for the replacement or augmentation of the image intensifying system with a thermal imaging system when such a system is ready. The sight is arranged so that replacement of the stereoscopic rangefinder with a laser rangefinder system is possible.
Range information from the TPD-2-49 is automatically transmitted to the 7M13 FCS and is included in the gun-follows-sight control scheme: the ballistic solution is continuously updated by the 5E1 and the gun aimed as the range is dialed in. As a result, firing can take place immediately after the correct range is found.
 
2.     
The commander’s hunter-killer cupola with TDD-3 optical complex is provided with a 1-8x variable power periscopic optical system for use under armor. Control is through electric motors and geared drive, and the 125mm gun can be slaved to the sight (commander's override). In combination with the 14.5mm KPVT machine gun, TDD-3 provides light vehicle and anti-infantry capability to 3,000m, as well as hunter-killer and slew-to-cue capabilities. The mount is fully stabilized and is able to be used effectively while on the move, and incorporates F50 NGVII image intensifying tubes for night operations.
 
C.    FCS:
 
1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
TPD-2-49 244cm coincidence rangefinder-sight (GCRS) complex TDD-3 Commander’s Independent Rangefinder-Sight (CIRS) complex 7M13 Electronic Fire Control System 5E1 Turret/Weapon Management Computer (TWMC) 2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system. https://mega.nz/#!EBRiRQ6Q!5wYPI0yDpF_8qGgA5KHUR1cHtbtmdFy8nxn5XOECdHc
 
Fightability:
 
1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
Low Crew Requirements Turret armor defeats >BGM-1 60/160 CE and ≥500mm KE to 161.5° of turret traverse High Degree of Automation Improved battlefield accuracy and see-shoot time through digital FCS Autoloader allows true Fire / Load on the move capability Excellent night-fighting capacity through the provision of Gen-III Equivalent I2 tubes, both in the vehicle and for personnel. Digital systems improve maintenance and wear tracking, allow better supply chain management Power-Pack enables fast maintenance Turret modular armor package design eases growth / upgrades and battle damage repair Semiconductor advances allow rapid development of advanced computing systems Guided KE ramjet round lethal at extended ranges, quite accurate, short flight time Light weight eases infrastructure wear from training maneuvers, increases strategic/operational mobility Small silhouette - Turret exposes same frontal area turned up to 40 degrees off centerline Advanced armor suite and crew Force-Multiplication measures (hard-shell crew helmet, dual-tube night vision devices) Advanced digital radio encryption for safe battlefield communications Text-Messaging through the radio system extends communication range where voice TX is unintelligible Additional Features:
 
Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
Crew Comfort
Upgradeability
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
 

SNVZ design and pre-production staff, including comrade-academicians, comrade-engineers, and comrade-military-technical-advisors. Photo by Comrade Political-Moral Officer Lt. Col Allin Smythee-Redacted, PAFDPMR
 
 

@Toxn We will be submitting our design today

Comrades! The time of your waiting is over! I introduce to you the Sierra Nevada VagonZavod AFV-50 Gun Tank
 

Frontal Dimensions
Frontal Armor
Turret Cheek Armor Array (not to scale)
Top/Side
Vital Statistics(as pictured):
Weight : 52.6 Metric Tons
Crew: 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver)
Length (hull/OAL gun forward): 6.9m/9.3m
Width: 3.9m
Height: 2.4m
 
Engine: Twin Turbocharged+Supercharged V-12 Diesel (880kw/1180hp)
16.73kw/tonne / 22.4hp/tonne
>70 kph on road
 
Armament:
125mm L/48 auto-loaded smoothbore, 30 rounds ready
1x PKT 7.62x54mm Coaxial MG, 3000 rounds
1x KPVT 14.5x114mm AAMG, 500 rounds in 50 round belts
 
 
 
 

@N-L-M The Burke hull is absolutely revolutionary -- prior to DDG-51, the US Navy's hulls had only marginal seakeeping improvements from those of the Second World War. The shitty length-beam ratio compared to previous hulls is intentional, because the GTEs can put down enough power to get the desired speeds even with a mediocre length to beam ratio, while the increased beam and lots of flare makes them some of the most seakindly hulls in the Navy. 
 
I think that a conventional design (IE not a Zumwalt-derivative) AAW/BMD-focused cruiser would need to be at least around 14-16k tons -- it's a pain in the ass to get the appropriate size AN/SPY-6(V) array into a conventional superstructure without fucking the metacentric height and reducing stability. For something like a Zumwalt derivative, it'd probably be fine to replace the B turret with a 64-tube VLS system and a 22' AN/SPY-6(V), and staple Aegis into it. Unfortunately, it'd probably be a monumental shitshow to integrate Aegis into TSCEI, and I'm still not 100% sold on the seakeeping characteristics of the DDG-1000 hull. I think a conventional design shaped by the requirements of the role of a cruiser, i.e. primarily anti-air/anti-surface warfare focused, built as the escort command of a CSG would be the best way to go, at least until the three DDG-1000s have a good couple of years of service and have demonstrated their seakeeping characteristics. 
 
Oh, also, the cost of the actual hull structure and armament mounts is tiny right now compared to mission systems and systems integration that there's no real reason not to keep making ships larger to add capabilities. 

So, something nobody's mentioned is that Chinese air-launched cruise missile threats are nowhere near as dangerous as those posed by the Soviets -- they've got fewer, slower, shorter-ranged launch platforms with smaller, slower missiles, and the US Navy developed extremely effective methods of countering the threat of land-based air power during the Global War Game series -- they determined that the more aggressively a carrier group is fought, as long as there are two or three mutually supporting CV(N)s present, even in confined waters like those of the Norwegian Sea, the more likely it is to survive -- the number of missile carriers and missiles is comparatively limited and the adversary is unable to produce more in a timely manner, while the USN can fairly quickly replace lost aircraft and aircrews, and the quality of the US Navy's integrated air defense system is second-to-none. Furthermore, the USN has only improved it's air defense capabilities since the late-1980s, with the wider fielding of Aegis-equipped ships and the Mark 41 GMLS. The DDG-51 and ESSM revolutionized the US Navy, and ESSM Block II will further advance the ability of the average naval vessel to kill air threats. 
 
Oh, also, if you try to fight a light carrier like a CdG or Kuznetsov or what have you like it's a fleet carrier, you'll get killed. The sortie generation rate, speed, and sustainability of the lighter carriers is disproportionately smaller than the cost savings, to the point of breaking the price-performance curve in the wrong direction (IE they have a relatively very high price for their decidedly lackluster performance). 

So, something nobody's mentioned is that Chinese air-launched cruise missile threats are nowhere near as dangerous as those posed by the Soviets -- they've got fewer, slower, shorter-ranged launch platforms with smaller, slower missiles, and the US Navy developed extremely effective methods of countering the threat of land-based air power during the Global War Game series -- they determined that the more aggressively a carrier group is fought, as long as there are two or three mutually supporting CV(N)s present, even in confined waters like those of the Norwegian Sea, the more likely it is to survive -- the number of missile carriers and missiles is comparatively limited and the adversary is unable to produce more in a timely manner, while the USN can fairly quickly replace lost aircraft and aircrews, and the quality of the US Navy's integrated air defense system is second-to-none. Furthermore, the USN has only improved it's air defense capabilities since the late-1980s, with the wider fielding of Aegis-equipped ships and the Mark 41 GMLS. The DDG-51 and ESSM revolutionized the US Navy, and ESSM Block II will further advance the ability of the average naval vessel to kill air threats. 
 
Oh, also, if you try to fight a light carrier like a CdG or Kuznetsov or what have you like it's a fleet carrier, you'll get killed. The sortie generation rate, speed, and sustainability of the lighter carriers is disproportionately smaller than the cost savings, to the point of breaking the price-performance curve in the wrong direction (IE they have a relatively very high price for their decidedly lackluster performance). 

So, something nobody's mentioned is that Chinese air-launched cruise missile threats are nowhere near as dangerous as those posed by the Soviets -- they've got fewer, slower, shorter-ranged launch platforms with smaller, slower missiles, and the US Navy developed extremely effective methods of countering the threat of land-based air power during the Global War Game series -- they determined that the more aggressively a carrier group is fought, as long as there are two or three mutually supporting CV(N)s present, even in confined waters like those of the Norwegian Sea, the more likely it is to survive -- the number of missile carriers and missiles is comparatively limited and the adversary is unable to produce more in a timely manner, while the USN can fairly quickly replace lost aircraft and aircrews, and the quality of the US Navy's integrated air defense system is second-to-none. Furthermore, the USN has only improved it's air defense capabilities since the late-1980s, with the wider fielding of Aegis-equipped ships and the Mark 41 GMLS. The DDG-51 and ESSM revolutionized the US Navy, and ESSM Block II will further advance the ability of the average naval vessel to kill air threats. 
 
Oh, also, if you try to fight a light carrier like a CdG or Kuznetsov or what have you like it's a fleet carrier, you'll get killed. The sortie generation rate, speed, and sustainability of the lighter carriers is disproportionately smaller than the cost savings, to the point of breaking the price-performance curve in the wrong direction (IE they have a relatively very high price for their decidedly lackluster performance). 

@N-L-M The Burke hull is absolutely revolutionary -- prior to DDG-51, the US Navy's hulls had only marginal seakeeping improvements from those of the Second World War. The shitty length-beam ratio compared to previous hulls is intentional, because the GTEs can put down enough power to get the desired speeds even with a mediocre length to beam ratio, while the increased beam and lots of flare makes them some of the most seakindly hulls in the Navy. 
 
I think that a conventional design (IE not a Zumwalt-derivative) AAW/BMD-focused cruiser would need to be at least around 14-16k tons -- it's a pain in the ass to get the appropriate size AN/SPY-6(V) array into a conventional superstructure without fucking the metacentric height and reducing stability. For something like a Zumwalt derivative, it'd probably be fine to replace the B turret with a 64-tube VLS system and a 22' AN/SPY-6(V), and staple Aegis into it. Unfortunately, it'd probably be a monumental shitshow to integrate Aegis into TSCEI, and I'm still not 100% sold on the seakeeping characteristics of the DDG-1000 hull. I think a conventional design shaped by the requirements of the role of a cruiser, i.e. primarily anti-air/anti-surface warfare focused, built as the escort command of a CSG would be the best way to go, at least until the three DDG-1000s have a good couple of years of service and have demonstrated their seakeeping characteristics. 
 
Oh, also, the cost of the actual hull structure and armament mounts is tiny right now compared to mission systems and systems integration that there's no real reason not to keep making ships larger to add capabilities. 

@Zyklon @LoooSeR I'm sorry about the bold text -- I think it was an issue of copying directly from google docs and not being super familiar with this forum's text editing stuff. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the input.

Show your work on the hydrodynamics calculations you're citing as evidence
 
https://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Britain-Germany-Coming-Great/dp/0345375564
 
https://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Sea-Naval-History/dp/1107036909/ref=pd_sim_14_41?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107036909&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admiralty-Evolution-Warfare-Trafalgar/dp/0140096507/ref=pd_sim_14_43?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0140096507&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Classic-Reprint/dp/1440080003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-1&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Interest-America-Power-Present-Future-ebook/dp/B004TRQVWQ/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-4&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Revolution-1793-1812-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008ZT5YKY/ref=pd_sbs_14_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B008ZT5YKY&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Naval-War-1812-Complete-History/dp/0486818977/ref=pd_sbs_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0486818977&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgievich-Gorshkov/dp/0870219618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-1&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Gorshkov-Challenged-U-S-Navy/dp/1682473309/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-6&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Flood-Tide-America-1944-1945-ebook/dp/B01BJSJMHI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-3&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal-ebook/dp/B004C43FXE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-2&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary-ebook/dp/B001L83PM0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-1&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142474/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfinished-Personal-History-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01LXCAJJ1/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-2&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Skagerrak-Battle-Jutland-Through-German/dp/1783831235/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-8&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Maritime-Classics/dp/1558217592/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-10&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Jutland-30th-June-1916-ebook/dp/B00MDYPLKA/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-19&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Eye-Witness-Account-Great-Battle/dp/B000GL6LGA/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-20&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-German-Perspective-Great-Battle/dp/1860199178/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-22&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History/dp/1591145694/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925982&sr=1-5&keywords=Denmark+Strait
 
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Bismarck-Destroying-Pride-Hitlers-ebook/dp/B009EE9GAI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-1&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Sink-Bismarck-Cecil-Scott-Forester/dp/0553105418/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-2&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Nine-Days-Bismarck-ebook/dp/B0076BSV2K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-3&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/index.html
 
https://www.amazon.com/Military-Strategies-Spruance-Halsey-Philippines-ebook/dp/B01L4O5VRC/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-4&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Big-Gun-Naval-Battle-Surigao/dp/1889901083/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-2&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Surigao-Strait-Twentieth-Century-Battles-ebook/dp/B00866HB20/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-1&keywords=surigao
 
That'd be a good place to start

Tsushima Strait was in 1905. I think you're conflating it with Surigao Strait. There's a big fucking difference, as I outlined in an edit to my initial post in this thread. To summarize, the IJN beat the shit out of the Imperial Russian Navy because their ships were a knot faster, slightly more maneuverable, and had a gun armament biased towards heavy guns. The same thing also happened at the Battle of the Yellow Sea the year before. 
 
Mechanical accuracy means dick all if you can't point the gun in the right direction because the FCS is primitive and incapable of working when you're turning.
 
Spotter aircraft are going to get killed either by 5"/38 fire if it's close enough to give meaningful corrections, or by fighter cover, or by the Curtis SC Seahawks on the Iowa. 
 
Yamato was capable of 27 knots, period. I don't have access to the data anymore (it's probably in the SNAME or RINA journal, or at the DTMB), but I saw some hull testing on the design that they did after the war at the David Taylor Model Basin and it was kinda meh -- it's a pretty efficient hull design with a good bulbous bow, but the Iowa hull form is better suited to high speed, and the powerplant is 62,000hp more powerful than that of the Yamatos. It turns out, when you design a ship that's bluffer, 25,000 tons heavier, and less powerful, it's like five knots slower than a ship with a crazy long L:B and a super fine entry. The Iowas were designed from the get-go to be insanely fast, and they accomplished that handily.
 
Oh, and for the sake of argument, if we assume the Iowas could only sustain 30kts (which, again, is not accurate), they were still 2.5-3 knots faster than the Yamatos, which is double or treble the speed advantage that Togo had over Rozhestvensky at Tsushima. 

@Peasant As Tsushima Strait showed, even a handful of knots speed advantage can provide a decisive advantage. The Iowa class might sacrifice some protection, but in exchange they gain between five and seven knots on the Yamatos. This would allow them to dictate the conditions of the engagement, and as seen at Tsushima (And also at Yellow Sea but I digress), a force with even a 1-3 knot advantage could and would dictate the terms of engagement. 
 
Additionally, the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun with 16" AP shell Mark 8 is so close in performance to the Japanese 18.1" in armor penetration that the difference is immaterial -- it's within +/- 0.75" either way, which is getting awfully close to the tolerancing for the armor. The mounts for the Mark 7 gun were also significantly faster in elevation, 12 degrees/sec vs 8, increasing the rate of fire by reducing the depression to loading/elevation to firing solution time. The Iowas also depressed the gun to the loading angle during run-out, further improving the rate of fire. Their turrets were also twice as fast in train, 4 degrees/second vs 2 degrees/second for the Yamato. This allows tracking at greater ranges and high speeds, especially during the vessel's own maneuvers. I don't really want to do the math to figure out the maneuvers required to invalidate a fire control solution for the Yamato based on train rate, but it's almost certainly not relevant outside maybe 5,000yd in antiparallel courses, but during heavy maneuvering it would be invaluable. 
 
The Iowa class fire control system was fundamentally more advanced than that of the Yamato, and I'm not sure how you arrived at the position that a system requiring manual data transfer and manual tracking of the calculated fire control solution is superior to a system that does not provide those opportunities for human error. Furthermore, the Japanese fire control radars (principally the Type 22 Mod 4) were nowhere near as capable as the Mark 13, nor did the fire control system incorporate a stable vertical, which is a significant problem in a ship that will be expected to maintain a fire control system during maneuver. 
 
Having written that before your most recent post, I'll include a TL;DR:
 
1. They're inferior to a degree that is only very slightly outside the tolerances for the thickness of battleship armor. It's immaterial.
2. You still have to hit the enemy ship, and the mediocrity of the fire control system on Yamato precludes that.
3. Your statement on speed in a gun duel is categorically and demonstrably false, and has been known to be so since 19-0-fucking-5. The IJN won the battles of Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait because of their fleet's superior speed and maneuverability. 
4. The Iowa class' gun mounts reload faster -- see the middle of the second paragraph above for more details. 
5. I don't follow your point, the 5"/38 is a fine DP gun. The 5"/54 that replaced it was better, but the /38 is a great gun and it gets the job done. Heavy secondary low angle armament went out of style with Dreadnought.
6. I'm not sure where you get inefficient engines and inferior electronics from the Iowas. Their powerplant was perfectly fine and extremely reliable, and met specifications, and the electronics fit was in every way superior to that of the Yamato class.
7. Battleships do as they're told. 
8. The Yamato has inferior firepower due to the slower rate of fire. 
9. The Yamato most likely does not win because the Iowa-class would dictate the terms of the engagement, and could simply disengage at will and return in more favorable circumstances, like at night.

Show your work on the hydrodynamics calculations you're citing as evidence
 
https://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Britain-Germany-Coming-Great/dp/0345375564
 
https://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Sea-Naval-History/dp/1107036909/ref=pd_sim_14_41?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107036909&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admiralty-Evolution-Warfare-Trafalgar/dp/0140096507/ref=pd_sim_14_43?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0140096507&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Classic-Reprint/dp/1440080003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-1&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Interest-America-Power-Present-Future-ebook/dp/B004TRQVWQ/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-4&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Revolution-1793-1812-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008ZT5YKY/ref=pd_sbs_14_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B008ZT5YKY&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Naval-War-1812-Complete-History/dp/0486818977/ref=pd_sbs_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0486818977&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgievich-Gorshkov/dp/0870219618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-1&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Gorshkov-Challenged-U-S-Navy/dp/1682473309/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-6&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Flood-Tide-America-1944-1945-ebook/dp/B01BJSJMHI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-3&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal-ebook/dp/B004C43FXE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-2&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary-ebook/dp/B001L83PM0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-1&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142474/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfinished-Personal-History-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01LXCAJJ1/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-2&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Skagerrak-Battle-Jutland-Through-German/dp/1783831235/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-8&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Maritime-Classics/dp/1558217592/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-10&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Jutland-30th-June-1916-ebook/dp/B00MDYPLKA/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-19&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Eye-Witness-Account-Great-Battle/dp/B000GL6LGA/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-20&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-German-Perspective-Great-Battle/dp/1860199178/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-22&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History/dp/1591145694/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925982&sr=1-5&keywords=Denmark+Strait
 
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Bismarck-Destroying-Pride-Hitlers-ebook/dp/B009EE9GAI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-1&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Sink-Bismarck-Cecil-Scott-Forester/dp/0553105418/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-2&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Nine-Days-Bismarck-ebook/dp/B0076BSV2K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-3&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/index.html
 
https://www.amazon.com/Military-Strategies-Spruance-Halsey-Philippines-ebook/dp/B01L4O5VRC/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-4&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Big-Gun-Naval-Battle-Surigao/dp/1889901083/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-2&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Surigao-Strait-Twentieth-Century-Battles-ebook/dp/B00866HB20/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-1&keywords=surigao
 
That'd be a good place to start

Just to clarify, this is what I edited my initial post to add:
 
1. They're inferior to a degree that is only very slightly outside the tolerances for the thickness of battleship armor. It's immaterial.
2. You still have to hit the enemy ship, and the mediocrity of the fire control system on Yamato precludes that.
3. Your statement on speed in a gun duel is categorically and demonstrably false, and has been known to be so since 19-0-fucking-5. The IJN won the battles of Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait because of their fleet's superior speed and maneuverability. 
4. The Iowa class' gun mounts reload faster -- see the middle of the second paragraph above for more details. 
5. I don't follow your point, the 5"/38 is a fine DP gun. The 5"/54 that replaced it was better, but the /38 is a great gun and it gets the job done. Heavy secondary low angle armament went out of style with Dreadnought.
6. I'm not sure where you get inefficient engines and inferior electronics from the Iowas. Their powerplant was perfectly fine and extremely reliable, and met specifications, and the electronics fit was in every way superior to that of the Yamato class.
7. Battleships do as they're told. 
8. The Yamato has inferior firepower due to the slower rate of fire. 
9. The Yamato most likely does not win because the Iowa-class would dictate the terms of the engagement, and could simply disengage at will and return in more favorable circumstances, like at night when the Japanese couldn't see or reliably engage at long ranges. 

Tsushima Strait was in 1905. I think you're conflating it with Surigao Strait. There's a big fucking difference, as I outlined in an edit to my initial post in this thread. To summarize, the IJN beat the shit out of the Imperial Russian Navy because their ships were a knot faster, slightly more maneuverable, and had a gun armament biased towards heavy guns. The same thing also happened at the Battle of the Yellow Sea the year before. 
 
Mechanical accuracy means dick all if you can't point the gun in the right direction because the FCS is primitive and incapable of working when you're turning.
 
Spotter aircraft are going to get killed either by 5"/38 fire if it's close enough to give meaningful corrections, or by fighter cover, or by the Curtis SC Seahawks on the Iowa. 
 
Yamato was capable of 27 knots, period. I don't have access to the data anymore (it's probably in the SNAME or RINA journal, or at the DTMB), but I saw some hull testing on the design that they did after the war at the David Taylor Model Basin and it was kinda meh -- it's a pretty efficient hull design with a good bulbous bow, but the Iowa hull form is better suited to high speed, and the powerplant is 62,000hp more powerful than that of the Yamatos. It turns out, when you design a ship that's bluffer, 25,000 tons heavier, and less powerful, it's like five knots slower than a ship with a crazy long L:B and a super fine entry. The Iowas were designed from the get-go to be insanely fast, and they accomplished that handily.
 
Oh, and for the sake of argument, if we assume the Iowas could only sustain 30kts (which, again, is not accurate), they were still 2.5-3 knots faster than the Yamatos, which is double or treble the speed advantage that Togo had over Rozhestvensky at Tsushima. 

@Peasant As Tsushima Strait showed, even a handful of knots speed advantage can provide a decisive advantage. The Iowa class might sacrifice some protection, but in exchange they gain between five and seven knots on the Yamatos. This would allow them to dictate the conditions of the engagement, and as seen at Tsushima (And also at Yellow Sea but I digress), a force with even a 1-3 knot advantage could and would dictate the terms of engagement. 
 
Additionally, the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun with 16" AP shell Mark 8 is so close in performance to the Japanese 18.1" in armor penetration that the difference is immaterial -- it's within +/- 0.75" either way, which is getting awfully close to the tolerancing for the armor. The mounts for the Mark 7 gun were also significantly faster in elevation, 12 degrees/sec vs 8, increasing the rate of fire by reducing the depression to loading/elevation to firing solution time. The Iowas also depressed the gun to the loading angle during run-out, further improving the rate of fire. Their turrets were also twice as fast in train, 4 degrees/second vs 2 degrees/second for the Yamato. This allows tracking at greater ranges and high speeds, especially during the vessel's own maneuvers. I don't really want to do the math to figure out the maneuvers required to invalidate a fire control solution for the Yamato based on train rate, but it's almost certainly not relevant outside maybe 5,000yd in antiparallel courses, but during heavy maneuvering it would be invaluable. 
 
The Iowa class fire control system was fundamentally more advanced than that of the Yamato, and I'm not sure how you arrived at the position that a system requiring manual data transfer and manual tracking of the calculated fire control solution is superior to a system that does not provide those opportunities for human error. Furthermore, the Japanese fire control radars (principally the Type 22 Mod 4) were nowhere near as capable as the Mark 13, nor did the fire control system incorporate a stable vertical, which is a significant problem in a ship that will be expected to maintain a fire control system during maneuver. 
 
Having written that before your most recent post, I'll include a TL;DR:
 
1. They're inferior to a degree that is only very slightly outside the tolerances for the thickness of battleship armor. It's immaterial.
2. You still have to hit the enemy ship, and the mediocrity of the fire control system on Yamato precludes that.
3. Your statement on speed in a gun duel is categorically and demonstrably false, and has been known to be so since 19-0-fucking-5. The IJN won the battles of Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait because of their fleet's superior speed and maneuverability. 
4. The Iowa class' gun mounts reload faster -- see the middle of the second paragraph above for more details. 
5. I don't follow your point, the 5"/38 is a fine DP gun. The 5"/54 that replaced it was better, but the /38 is a great gun and it gets the job done. Heavy secondary low angle armament went out of style with Dreadnought.
6. I'm not sure where you get inefficient engines and inferior electronics from the Iowas. Their powerplant was perfectly fine and extremely reliable, and met specifications, and the electronics fit was in every way superior to that of the Yamato class.
7. Battleships do as they're told. 
8. The Yamato has inferior firepower due to the slower rate of fire. 
9. The Yamato most likely does not win because the Iowa-class would dictate the terms of the engagement, and could simply disengage at will and return in more favorable circumstances, like at night.

@Peasant As Tsushima Strait showed, even a handful of knots speed advantage can provide a decisive advantage. The Iowa class might sacrifice some protection, but in exchange they gain between five and seven knots on the Yamatos. This would allow them to dictate the conditions of the engagement, and as seen at Tsushima (And also at Yellow Sea but I digress), a force with even a 1-3 knot advantage could and would dictate the terms of engagement. 
 
Additionally, the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun with 16" AP shell Mark 8 is so close in performance to the Japanese 18.1" in armor penetration that the difference is immaterial -- it's within +/- 0.75" either way, which is getting awfully close to the tolerancing for the armor. The mounts for the Mark 7 gun were also significantly faster in elevation, 12 degrees/sec vs 8, increasing the rate of fire by reducing the depression to loading/elevation to firing solution time. The Iowas also depressed the gun to the loading angle during run-out, further improving the rate of fire. Their turrets were also twice as fast in train, 4 degrees/second vs 2 degrees/second for the Yamato. This allows tracking at greater ranges and high speeds, especially during the vessel's own maneuvers. I don't really want to do the math to figure out the maneuvers required to invalidate a fire control solution for the Yamato based on train rate, but it's almost certainly not relevant outside maybe 5,000yd in antiparallel courses, but during heavy maneuvering it would be invaluable. 
 
The Iowa class fire control system was fundamentally more advanced than that of the Yamato, and I'm not sure how you arrived at the position that a system requiring manual data transfer and manual tracking of the calculated fire control solution is superior to a system that does not provide those opportunities for human error. Furthermore, the Japanese fire control radars (principally the Type 22 Mod 4) were nowhere near as capable as the Mark 13, nor did the fire control system incorporate a stable vertical, which is a significant problem in a ship that will be expected to maintain a fire control system during maneuver. 
 
Having written that before your most recent post, I'll include a TL;DR:
 
1. They're inferior to a degree that is only very slightly outside the tolerances for the thickness of battleship armor. It's immaterial.
2. You still have to hit the enemy ship, and the mediocrity of the fire control system on Yamato precludes that.
3. Your statement on speed in a gun duel is categorically and demonstrably false, and has been known to be so since 19-0-fucking-5. The IJN won the battles of Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait because of their fleet's superior speed and maneuverability. 
4. The Iowa class' gun mounts reload faster -- see the middle of the second paragraph above for more details. 
5. I don't follow your point, the 5"/38 is a fine DP gun. The 5"/54 that replaced it was better, but the /38 is a great gun and it gets the job done. Heavy secondary low angle armament went out of style with Dreadnought.
6. I'm not sure where you get inefficient engines and inferior electronics from the Iowas. Their powerplant was perfectly fine and extremely reliable, and met specifications, and the electronics fit was in every way superior to that of the Yamato class.
7. Battleships do as they're told. 
8. The Yamato has inferior firepower due to the slower rate of fire. 
9. The Yamato most likely does not win because the Iowa-class would dictate the terms of the engagement, and could simply disengage at will and return in more favorable circumstances, like at night.

Show your work on the hydrodynamics calculations you're citing as evidence
 
https://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Britain-Germany-Coming-Great/dp/0345375564
 
https://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Sea-Naval-History/dp/1107036909/ref=pd_sim_14_41?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107036909&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admiralty-Evolution-Warfare-Trafalgar/dp/0140096507/ref=pd_sim_14_43?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0140096507&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Classic-Reprint/dp/1440080003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-1&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Interest-America-Power-Present-Future-ebook/dp/B004TRQVWQ/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-4&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Revolution-1793-1812-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008ZT5YKY/ref=pd_sbs_14_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B008ZT5YKY&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Naval-War-1812-Complete-History/dp/0486818977/ref=pd_sbs_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0486818977&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgievich-Gorshkov/dp/0870219618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-1&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Gorshkov-Challenged-U-S-Navy/dp/1682473309/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-6&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Flood-Tide-America-1944-1945-ebook/dp/B01BJSJMHI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-3&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal-ebook/dp/B004C43FXE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-2&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary-ebook/dp/B001L83PM0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-1&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142474/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfinished-Personal-History-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01LXCAJJ1/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-2&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Skagerrak-Battle-Jutland-Through-German/dp/1783831235/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-8&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Maritime-Classics/dp/1558217592/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-10&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Jutland-30th-June-1916-ebook/dp/B00MDYPLKA/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-19&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Eye-Witness-Account-Great-Battle/dp/B000GL6LGA/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-20&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-German-Perspective-Great-Battle/dp/1860199178/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-22&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History/dp/1591145694/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925982&sr=1-5&keywords=Denmark+Strait
 
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Bismarck-Destroying-Pride-Hitlers-ebook/dp/B009EE9GAI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-1&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Sink-Bismarck-Cecil-Scott-Forester/dp/0553105418/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-2&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Nine-Days-Bismarck-ebook/dp/B0076BSV2K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-3&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/index.html
 
https://www.amazon.com/Military-Strategies-Spruance-Halsey-Philippines-ebook/dp/B01L4O5VRC/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-4&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Big-Gun-Naval-Battle-Surigao/dp/1889901083/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-2&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Surigao-Strait-Twentieth-Century-Battles-ebook/dp/B00866HB20/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-1&keywords=surigao
 
That'd be a good place to start

Show your work on the hydrodynamics calculations you're citing as evidence
 
https://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Britain-Germany-Coming-Great/dp/0345375564
 
https://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Sea-Naval-History/dp/1107036909/ref=pd_sim_14_41?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107036909&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admiralty-Evolution-Warfare-Trafalgar/dp/0140096507/ref=pd_sim_14_43?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0140096507&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Classic-Reprint/dp/1440080003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-1&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Interest-America-Power-Present-Future-ebook/dp/B004TRQVWQ/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-4&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Revolution-1793-1812-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008ZT5YKY/ref=pd_sbs_14_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B008ZT5YKY&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Naval-War-1812-Complete-History/dp/0486818977/ref=pd_sbs_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0486818977&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgievich-Gorshkov/dp/0870219618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-1&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Gorshkov-Challenged-U-S-Navy/dp/1682473309/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-6&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Flood-Tide-America-1944-1945-ebook/dp/B01BJSJMHI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-3&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal-ebook/dp/B004C43FXE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-2&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary-ebook/dp/B001L83PM0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-1&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142474/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfinished-Personal-History-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01LXCAJJ1/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-2&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Skagerrak-Battle-Jutland-Through-German/dp/1783831235/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-8&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Maritime-Classics/dp/1558217592/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-10&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Jutland-30th-June-1916-ebook/dp/B00MDYPLKA/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-19&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Eye-Witness-Account-Great-Battle/dp/B000GL6LGA/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-20&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-German-Perspective-Great-Battle/dp/1860199178/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-22&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History/dp/1591145694/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925982&sr=1-5&keywords=Denmark+Strait
 
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Bismarck-Destroying-Pride-Hitlers-ebook/dp/B009EE9GAI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-1&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Sink-Bismarck-Cecil-Scott-Forester/dp/0553105418/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-2&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Nine-Days-Bismarck-ebook/dp/B0076BSV2K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-3&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/index.html
 
https://www.amazon.com/Military-Strategies-Spruance-Halsey-Philippines-ebook/dp/B01L4O5VRC/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-4&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Big-Gun-Naval-Battle-Surigao/dp/1889901083/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-2&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Surigao-Strait-Twentieth-Century-Battles-ebook/dp/B00866HB20/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-1&keywords=surigao
 
That'd be a good place to start

Show your work on the hydrodynamics calculations you're citing as evidence
 
https://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Britain-Germany-Coming-Great/dp/0345375564
 
https://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Sea-Naval-History/dp/1107036909/ref=pd_sim_14_41?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107036909&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admiralty-Evolution-Warfare-Trafalgar/dp/0140096507/ref=pd_sim_14_43?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0140096507&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Classic-Reprint/dp/1440080003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-1&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Interest-America-Power-Present-Future-ebook/dp/B004TRQVWQ/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-4&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Revolution-1793-1812-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008ZT5YKY/ref=pd_sbs_14_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B008ZT5YKY&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Naval-War-1812-Complete-History/dp/0486818977/ref=pd_sbs_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0486818977&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgievich-Gorshkov/dp/0870219618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-1&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Gorshkov-Challenged-U-S-Navy/dp/1682473309/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-6&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Flood-Tide-America-1944-1945-ebook/dp/B01BJSJMHI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-3&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal-ebook/dp/B004C43FXE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-2&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary-ebook/dp/B001L83PM0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-1&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142474/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfinished-Personal-History-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01LXCAJJ1/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-2&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Skagerrak-Battle-Jutland-Through-German/dp/1783831235/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-8&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Maritime-Classics/dp/1558217592/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-10&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Jutland-30th-June-1916-ebook/dp/B00MDYPLKA/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-19&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Eye-Witness-Account-Great-Battle/dp/B000GL6LGA/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-20&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-German-Perspective-Great-Battle/dp/1860199178/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-22&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History/dp/1591145694/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925982&sr=1-5&keywords=Denmark+Strait
 
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Bismarck-Destroying-Pride-Hitlers-ebook/dp/B009EE9GAI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-1&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Sink-Bismarck-Cecil-Scott-Forester/dp/0553105418/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-2&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Nine-Days-Bismarck-ebook/dp/B0076BSV2K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-3&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/index.html
 
https://www.amazon.com/Military-Strategies-Spruance-Halsey-Philippines-ebook/dp/B01L4O5VRC/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-4&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Big-Gun-Naval-Battle-Surigao/dp/1889901083/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-2&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Surigao-Strait-Twentieth-Century-Battles-ebook/dp/B00866HB20/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-1&keywords=surigao
 
That'd be a good place to start

Show your work on the hydrodynamics calculations you're citing as evidence
 
https://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Britain-Germany-Coming-Great/dp/0345375564
 
https://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Sea-Naval-History/dp/1107036909/ref=pd_sim_14_41?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107036909&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admiralty-Evolution-Warfare-Trafalgar/dp/0140096507/ref=pd_sim_14_43?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0140096507&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Classic-Reprint/dp/1440080003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-1&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Interest-America-Power-Present-Future-ebook/dp/B004TRQVWQ/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-4&keywords=Mahan
 
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Revolution-1793-1812-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008ZT5YKY/ref=pd_sbs_14_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B008ZT5YKY&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Naval-War-1812-Complete-History/dp/0486818977/ref=pd_sbs_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0486818977&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6
 
https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgievich-Gorshkov/dp/0870219618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-1&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Gorshkov-Challenged-U-S-Navy/dp/1682473309/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-6&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov
 
https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Flood-Tide-America-1944-1945-ebook/dp/B01BJSJMHI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-3&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal-ebook/dp/B004C43FXE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-2&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary-ebook/dp/B001L83PM0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-1&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142474/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfinished-Personal-History-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01LXCAJJ1/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-2&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Skagerrak-Battle-Jutland-Through-German/dp/1783831235/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-8&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Maritime-Classics/dp/1558217592/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-10&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Jutland-30th-June-1916-ebook/dp/B00MDYPLKA/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-19&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Eye-Witness-Account-Great-Battle/dp/B000GL6LGA/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-20&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-German-Perspective-Great-Battle/dp/1860199178/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-22&keywords=Jutland
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History/dp/1591145694/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925982&sr=1-5&keywords=Denmark+Strait
 
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Bismarck-Destroying-Pride-Hitlers-ebook/dp/B009EE9GAI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-1&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Sink-Bismarck-Cecil-Scott-Forester/dp/0553105418/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-2&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Nine-Days-Bismarck-ebook/dp/B0076BSV2K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-3&keywords=sink+the+bismarck
 
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/index.html
 
https://www.amazon.com/Military-Strategies-Spruance-Halsey-Philippines-ebook/dp/B01L4O5VRC/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-4&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Big-Gun-Naval-Battle-Surigao/dp/1889901083/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-2&keywords=surigao
 
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Surigao-Strait-Twentieth-Century-Battles-ebook/dp/B00866HB20/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-1&keywords=surigao
 
That'd be a good place to start

Oooh please show your work. I think I still have a copy of NavCAD 2014 lying around, or I could just teach myself how to use ANSYS.
 
I don't care if it's important or not, when you're citing things that are not documented in builder's trials that you're claiming you've seen calculations of, fucking show your work. 
 
Also, fuck you if you think CFD was viable before like 1978-1979. You cannot model to any useful degree of accuracy how a ship moves through water without using pretty hefty computers, and it's still not as accurate as well done model testing because there's so much turbulence at the stern and the scale is so large. If there's data on that, it's from builder's trials, acceptance trials, or model test data, and the USN was the only organization in the world with a large enough properly instrumented controlled model basin to do that sort of testing until the '60s or '70s. The David Taylor Model Basin was hands-down one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure, and contributed to the success of the US Navy ship design more than any other single facility. 
 
Now, on to your more recent comments:
 
Length to beam ratio matters more than thrust to weight, and the Iowa has better of both because it's not bluff and stubby. They also have a finer prismatic coefficient
 
The 35.2 for six hours was in open ocean in the Pacific, with IIRC reasonably cold water -- ships are faster in colder water because it's marginally denser and you don't melt things quite as quickly. 
 
As to why Yamato would run, for the same reason Bismarck would -- because it's asinine to go on a todesritt into the waiting lap of a superior force. Knowing the IJN, though, they'd do it and get shredded because all the Iowa has to do is sorta turn around and lead them on until they run out of gas.
 
The Yamato supposedly had some IR equipment of some sort, but even the best IR night vision equipment of 1945 Japan would be laughably useless compared to a functional and well-designed fire control radar.
 
Honestly, I'm kind-of dissappointed in you. You're failing to mention the issues the Iowas had as a result of their extreme fineness forward, namely being quite wet forward of the B turret in rough seas, or that the bulbous bow wasn't as refined as that on the Yamatos, or the pile of other minor flaws in the design. 
 
Oh wait, that'd require you to know what you're talking about, and have some understanding of naval architecture. 
 
Overall, 2/10 the German naval architect who put a twin 6" mount on the bow of an already-front-heavy destroyer was better informed than you and he designed a ship that would sink itself in the intended operating environment