Peasant

2 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

 

And Yamato can into 27.4 or higher. So can musashi. Actually Musashi can into higher speed by almost a knot. (28). Iowa cannot sustain that speed.

And the figures I have given are for full load. So I'll assume 27/28 area for Yamato, 32 max Iowa. Load changes speed :/

1 minute ago, Akula_941 said:

It is simply just cringe to read your post, here:

I don't read Japanese unfortunately.

Can you tell me the meaning?

2 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Where did you get the 27 knots for the Yamato and the 30 knots for the Iowa?

Nav Weps, and Fischer Archives

6 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

But... it didn't.  Reality bites.

F6F was also a much more survivable airframe.  Not that it mattered by the time they saw the fight. The Japanese squandered their pilots and didn't build up institutional memory from the successes of the Kido Butai which was monumentally stupid.

It did in A6M8. Which is derived from the 1942 plan. Which began execution in 1945.

The Zeroes armor would not have helped the Japanese in any meaningful way. Nor would have the self sealing tanks. It would have achieved some aircraft crashing into the sea/not being involved for a series of battles in 1943 though.

Monumentally stupid? Do you think they had anything to use otherwise? Send them to training? You can say it's stupid but look at how feasible your plan is.

4 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

If you have the fuel to run them. Yamatos were absolute fuel hogs in a Navy with... challenges to their fuel supply. Nagato's IMHO, were the much more practical ship.

 

Yeah that's pretty well illustrated by oil production map at the time. Really shows.

If you think it through again, Nagato has very limited ability to be used in battle without dying or taking critical damage.

It can't beat most American battleships, it's AA screen is weaker, it's from 1920, it's FCS is less advanced, and it's, generally, fucked.

1 minute ago, Belesarius said:

The Zero was a pretty beast airframe in 41 when up against Buffalos and early marks of Wildcat.  Not so hot against even the F4F. Absolutely totally fucking outclassed by the F6f and F4U.

 

F6F has lower p/w performance because of the airframes weight. It's less maneuverable and while it does roll faster, the Zero losing dogfights comes down more to tactics and the engines altitude performance.

Had the Zero an improved engine, which the A6M8 proves it can handle, the F6F would also be outclimbed.

3 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

If the Zero was so good, why isn't there a Zero 2?

Japan lost WW2

kamikaze is because lacking count of experienced pilots and too many airplanes. Zero is actually showing it's main flaw in Kamikaze attacks. 

2 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

@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. 

 

 

Check the shells again. 

Tsushima strait showed a battleship that suffered from structural issues, was made around WWI, was neglected for modernization, and came under overwhelming firepower in a surprise attack is vulernable.

Although the battle did demonstrate poor accuracy.

Never denied that the Yamato's FCS was more primitive. Only claimed the main guns have superior mechanical accuracy.

And that the Yamato relied on spotter aircraft for BVR potential. 

Careful what you claim about speed. Yamato is capable of 27 knots, or some higher based on the weather. Iowa is rated for 30 knots or 32 knots not sustained. Musashi is claimed at around 28.

28+7 = 35 knots; only achieved in shallow water at low loads.

27+7 = 34 knots: you're struggling to get that speed.

2 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

 

The test pilot of the Akutan Zero about the Zero:

 

You just said it turned.

Now it's a roll?

Again Akutan model is not completely representative of many production Zero. But I think it is so. It is an earlier model with 12m wings.

The roll is not optimized like the turn is.

1 minute ago, N-L-M said:

>superheavy shells don't real

>radar surface gunnery radar don't real

>superior speed don't real

>superior reloading equipment don't real

>DP secondary battery don't real

>actual TDS don't real

>Panama canal trafficability don't real

>fuel efficiency don't real

>Judging battleships by ideal 1v1 slugfest at known range in ideal weather and visibility instead of what battleships actually do

 

Newsflash: you're retarded.

Super heavy shells still inferior to Yamato's Type 91 AP :/

Yamato's Type 1 AP outclasses Type 91

I didn't deny that. But it won't over turn the odds.

Superior speed is a virtual non factor in comparisons of firepower and dueling ability.

Superior reloading equipment how?

127mm AA of Japan less DP than 5" but the main difference is investment. 5"/38 on American ships really isn't "dual purpose" beyond being a 127mm gun.

Does Iowa get to use inefficient engines and inferior electronics? Oh that's right...

Battleships actually do? What?

Bombardment? Yamato's superior firepower wins hands down.

Dueling? Yamato wins

Not being torpedoed to death? Most (modern) Americans win.

7 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Isn't the Zero basically the Japanese equivalent of Nascar? Only capable of making left turns.

No.

It is a 1941 plane that was maneuverable but was slow to roll because of span, aspect ratio, and somewhat questionable weight reduction choices.

In the same generation as BF 109, Spitfire, Yak, etc.

Somewhat like the Yak, it was stuck with the same engine through most of the war. Unlike the Yak... It was radial powered and couldn't cut weight anymore.

Initially it was successful, but because of a myriad of issues, much less with the design than the limitations of Japan as a nation at the period, it suffered from a poor combat record as the war drew on.

Also Japanese industry was really behind so many were literally hand made. Quality control was a bit "eh" and the early war American captured one is a patched up crashed plane that doesn't perform to spec.

Then some Japanese Zeroes clubbed the Brits latewar.

If you are trying self sealing tanks; it cuts the range alot. Modern fighters are said to lack that feature completely.

11 minutes ago, Toxn said:

This contradicts what you just said.

I... Actually said that... I didn't see it. 

I meant battleship battleship duelist. But if you are going to compare battleship design to battleship design Yamato is definitely better than Iowa in raw power.

Iowa's main winning counts come in forms like anti aircraft FCS.

Iowa's just a bigger less efficient version of it's predecessor as a design.

So if I am to argue that point as it is said. (My bad hard to do on phone) Then I will say. If you wanted maximum efficiency you would never have built the Iowa class in the first place.

6 minutes ago, Toxn said:

@Peasant okay, I know I've been poking you in the eye here. But I think the following is important for even-handed discussion of a given design's strengths and weaknesses.

 

First, you have to identity the problem that the design was supposed to solve. IE: did it succeed on it's own terms? It's important to ask this question on all levels: the tactical, operational and strategic.

 

Then you need to consider the real situation that the design found itself in. Again, it's important to consider whether the design could cope with the real world on all levels.

 

Only then, once you've put everything into context, can you start talking about something so nebulous as which design is 'the best'.

I didn't even talk about best. The idea I raised was that when dueling battleship to battleship Yamato will (probably) win.

Somehow this became a matter of the best by whatever criterion that was demanded.

I didn't realize a winner of a battleship duel suddenly became the best multirole warship. *sarcasm*

I don't intend to argue too much, but the facts in archives ring true.

My greatest issue ATM is not being able to read the archive anymore.

Your own site has the Fischer archive listed.

41 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The zero crap is almost as bad as his bb fantasy lol. 

 

Leave some scraps I can't do a real responce from my phone.

It really isn't a bad aircraft.

29 minutes ago, Toxn said:

"If only they'd fought the battle of Jutland again like we designed for".

 

Poor argument.

For the role it was designed to do, namely, beat battleships, being the precise criteria I just laid out, it was very good.

Yamato being a product of the IJN's doctrine, should be appreciated as such.

12 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Zero

 

No self sealing fuel tanks, goes up in flames with a burst of .50 cal. Hauled to the Naval yard by a water buffalo team.

 

Lol.

 

At least he's living up to the user name.

 

The Zeroes lack of self sealing tanks in early models is rectified later. That was later changed.

The reality is self sealing tanks are bad for range. And when padding the distance in particular, the Zero did that.

The main thing that kept the design back, was the Navy's refusal of a more powerful engine. Mitsubishi experimented to that end on it's own accord in 1945.

"A burst"? You'd have to actually hit the fuel tanks to ignite the fuel tanks.

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The Yamato only ever fired a shot in anger once, so shows what you know.

It actually fired around 100 shells to a degree of effect in 1 battle.

So it's not *a* shot, no.

Though it did achieve shooting down friendly aircraft...

And even then, Yamato managed to score hits far beyond what it's Western counterparts had achieved.

It's suicide mission presented no targets for which the main cannons could effectively engage.

You are changing the target. You said Iowa was still floating? That has nothing to do with the design of the ship. That outcome is already decided.*

Now you are claiming BS.

*: Even if Japan surrenders without suiciding Yamato, Yamato is given to America, and then almost certainly nuked at crossroads if Nagato is anything to go by.

8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Well, the Iowa's a museum, and the Yamato's at the bottom of the East China Sea.

And Iowa never fought a major battle against anything other than a third world country/overwhelmingly favorable odds. Nor did the Iowa get involved with a suicide mission where the US sent an entire fleet armed with precisely what it's designers sacrificed protection against (many torpedo bombers) to achieve best anti BB performance.

Poor argument.

14 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Waifutrager/DiagonalSushi, is that you?

His information is out of date. Things like the decapping formula and hand waving away Yamato's technical accuracy and sufficient ability to generate fire control solutions. He disregards that Yamato can actually handle BVR if you include all on board systems (spotter aircraft), instead of comparing specific solutions.

Relative lack of understanding of Yamato's armor and simply hand waving it. He even over evaluates Yamato's TDS, because if you look at the facts it really does a terrible job against torpedoes. It's not particularly the joint as much as the entire design is conductive towards reserve buoyancy instead of actual protection.

I don't think he's realized that Iowa doesn't have a sufficiently hard, or thick plate to decap Yamato's shells.

He has cherry picked his information.

You can even see it in his armor evaluation where he tries to analyze Yamato's armor but gives it a stat modifier based on... Jack shit actually.

And IIRC, he subscribes to the myth that a battleship can simply wheel about at 30 km "dodging" enemy gun fire, because the radar FCS is suddenly able to increase technical accuracy.

I'm not sure who you mean by the other people though.

25 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

WEEABOO'S BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS!

I'm personally convinced Combined Fleet is talking out of his ass, and the information seen in the technical archives paint a very bleak picture for any WW2 era BB that intends to duel with the Yamato.

Things like, Iowa can pierce Yamato citadel max distance 23km/40?, versus Yamato pierce Iowa citadel max distance 30km/38km. Yamato has more technically accurate guns with sufficient fire control to handle BVR

This being the reasoning used by WG's technical assistants to place Yamato above Iowa in tiers.

Though they fail to represent Yamato's scouting complement.

Indeed it is in fact likely the Yamato will find the Iowa first, simply because of this spotting advantage.

Yamato's gunnery record in her only major engagement is actually quite good. First volley tight straddle pattern on a jeep carrier at over 30 km? Repeatedly?

I do not mean Iowa "straddling" so loosely that it's subject target was only aware it was straddled twice.

While Yamato's TDS is quite poor at preventing torpedo damage it works fairly well as reserve buoyancy. This being a product of Japanese engine technology of the era forcing increased beam.

17 minutes ago, Toxn said:

This is low quality trolling.

You wanna have a fight BB to BB Yamato wins everytime.

You want a BB to take hits, Yamato wins every time so long as it has nothing to do with torpedoes.

You want a BB to survive, Yamato wins hands down.

Sure the AA tech is inferior to Iowa, but the design itself has the necessary characteristics to be best BB.

Iowa overrated.

On 10/18/2015 at 5:08 PM, Donward said:

I... I'm not sure. Considering that every single piece of equipment produced by the United States was better than anything produced by the Germans or the Japanese.

 

Ummm... Colt M1911A1?

> A6M Zero

> Yamato

Oh.

Zeroes main issues in combat had a lot more to do with situation, pilot training, flying culture of IJN air arm, and technological issues. In reality, the Zero could fight toe to toe with an F6F.

Technological is radio issue, leading to difficulty co-ordinating battles.

It might not help the Japanese used a lot of hand signals in dogfights, so when the Americans increased the battle area by going faster and higher, they ran into serious issues.

Stuff like splitting up Japanese fighter groups was much easier than it's American counterpart.

Also being handicapped by weak engine tech.

Yamato best BB ever built.