Iowa Class Battleships vs Yamato Class Battleships (Naval Battle 65) | DCS
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2024
- 0:00 Details
2:22 Predictions
4:46 Realism/Restrictions
6:45 0.5 Mile Broadside
8:02 2 Miles Broadside
10:40 Drag Race
11:49 Turn Rate
13:13 3 vs 3 Battle!
40:36 Future
SPONSORS
Winwing: www.wwsimstore.com/STORE
Winwing USA: fox2.wwsimstore.com/STORE
Sponsor Reviews: • Sponsor Reviews
USEFUL LINKS
GRIM REAPERS(CZcams): / @grimreapers
GRIM REAPERS 2(CZcams): / @grimreapers2
GRIM REAPERS(Odysee): odysee.com/$/invite/@grimreap...
GR PODCASTS: anchor.fm/grim-reapers
DCS TUTORIALS: / @grimreapers
DONATE/SUPPORT GRIM REAPERS
MERCHANDISE: www.redbubble.com/people/grme...
PATREON monthly donations: / grimreapers
PAYPAL one-off donations: www.paypal.me/GrimReapersDona...
SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITE: grimreapers.net/
STREAM(Cap): / grimreaperscap
FACEBOOK: / grimreapersgroup
TWITTER: / grimreapers_
DISCORD(DCS & IL-2): / discord (16+ age limit)
DISCORD(TFA Arma): discordapp.com/invite/MSYJxbM (16+ age limit)
OTHER
CAP'S X-56 HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.com/open?id=1g7o...
CAP'S WINWING HOTAS MAPS: drive.google.com/drive/folder...
THANK YOU TO: Mission Makers, Admin, Staff, Helpers, Donators & Viewers(without which, this could not happen) xx
#DCSQuestioned #GRNavalBattle #DCSNavalBattle #Iowa #Battleship #Yamato #GR #DCSWorld #Aviation #AviationGaming #FlightSimulators #Military - Hry
I am a veteran of the USS Iowa, I served as a gunners mate in 16 inch turret one. I feel the need to correct some inaccuracies in the comments like the Japanese were better at night fighting and such. While it is true the Yamato had the bigger guns and heavier armor it would do little to save her from being savaged by an Iowa class battleship. The Yamato's fire control was through the use of optical range finders. A technology that was light years behind the analog fire control computer the Iowa used. In the battle of Leyte Gulf when the Yamato engage a bunch of escort carriers, they were able to hide from the Yamato in rain squalls. Yamato would need to be at medium range or closer and with PERFECT calm and clear conditions at sea in order to have a chance against the Iowa.
The Iowa used something called the MK-9 Range Keeper analog ballistic fire control computer. It was not in the turrets but in a armored location in the citadel. The computer worked from taking data from various sensors like radar and you would input information like the targets range, course, and speed. It would account for its course and speed, outside temperature and humidity, wind speed, sea state, temperature of the powder, how many rounds had been fired through its barrels since they were last relined, corrections for both the curvature and rotation of the earth as well as the rise and fall of the ship in the water. The computer would take all this information and create a firing solution. Once achieved that firing solution was updated in real time meaning it made no difference if the Yamato changed course and speed or the Iowa changed course or speed EVERY single shot should hit the target with the normal dispersion of the guns being the only factor. In practical purpose what this means is the Iowa does not need to use ranging salvos to dial in the guns in order to hit the target. Her first salvo should hit the target. The Yamato on the other had would need the Iowa to sail at a constant speed and course. She would send out a ranging shot and observe the shell splash. Make corrections and fire again, observe the splash and make corrections and fire another salvo. It can take up to seven salvos to get a somewhat accurate firing solution and that is with BOTH ships maintaining a strait line course and speed. If Iowa changes course and speed the Yamato needs to restart the ranging salvo process.
In real life we saw a scenario like this, Optical fire control vs the MK-8 Rangekeeper in the battle of the Surigao Strait. A line of old US battleships engaged the Japanese Battleships Yamashiro and Fuso in the middle of the night in pitch black conditions. The USS West Virginia was completely rebuilt after Pearl Harbor and modernized and had the MK-8 Rangekeeper. West Virginia tracked Yamashiro at 42,000 yards and had a firing solution shortly after. She waited until Yamashiro closed to within 22,800 yards and opened fire. West Virginia scored a direct hit on the first salvo and scored hits on 5 of the next six salvos. The Yamashiros inferior optical rangefinders could not see the American ships at that distance at night and she never returned fire. The USS California and Tennessee were also rebuilt after Pearl Harbor and were able to fire an Yamashiro using the MK-8 Rangekeeper. The other three battleships in the US force Maryland, Pennsylvania and Mississippi had older and vastly inferior MK-5 and MK-1 Fire control computers and they were unable to get a firing solution.
An Iowa tracking a Yamato would wait until night, she would close in to about 25,000 yards using the MK-8 rangekeeper and pound the Yamato into submission, landing highly accurate fire while the Yamato would be limited to blindly firing into the night and hoping to score a lucky hit. It would be a one sided ass kicking on the Iowa's part.
How'd they keep the ship afloat with your massive balls of steel on board? Also, would each turret have a different target or would they all fire at the same target? Thank you for your service.
@@kriscrespo3736 Due to the inaccuracies of long range Naval gunfire even with a analog fire control computer typically you would fire the main battery at a single target and hop the RNG Gods favor you. That said the Iowa's had two MK-38 Gunfire control directors that acted independently of one another. So you could have two targets with two fire control solutions and have accurate fire on both. There were also backup optical rangefinders, both high up in the superstructure as well as in turrets two and three for local but much less accurate fire control. Turret one sat to low on the waterline which made her optical rangefinder useless so they were removed.
yea there was alot of very just illogical statements that you think barebone research would have dismissed right off the bat like the Fire control system, the night fighting, the more armor thickness better argument which is absolutely a bad argument which its more down to how they treat it than the pure thickness, saying center mass is citadel when the citadel is the armored box
Wow that's good to know. I've always had a fascination with naval warfare even going back to early engagements, so this kind of info is really interesting to me.
It always bothered me that people thought Yamato had a chance, Iowa even out paced it so Iowa could run away at will, not even by a small amount, like 12 moh
Yamato was not sunk at Midway. She was sunk by aircraft while doing a sortee against landing forces near Honshu.
What a silly mistake. He said it so confidently too.
I even let the fact that there were only 2 Yamato class go and that the US specifically built 4 Iowas to counter the 2 Yamatos (so a 4 on 2 battle would have been more likely.)
@@josephvarno5623 that Panama canal
@@josephvarno5623 there were 3 built but they converted the 3rd during construction into the carrier Shinano which was sunk by submarine (USS Archerfish I think) on its way to be finished fitting out...
@@Wolfe351 I don't count that one for the same reasons I don't count Lexington as a battlecruiser. It was never finished out as a vessel of that class.
A few things to note. One of the largest advantages the Iowa has is US had the most advanced Radar systems (and fire control) in the world at the time. While a case can be made for Japan having superior night fighting at the beginning of the war (really the main cause of this was poor command on the US side although it is sometimes cited that the Japanese had a slight edge in naval optics) this is completely flipped on its head during Guadalcanal as seen by the actions of USS Washington. Also the claim of shell arcs being advantageous to the Yamato is inaccurate, the US used lower velocity guns/ammo than most other countries with super heavy AP shells. While this increased flight time, it created fairly steep shell arcs that would land on top rather than hit the side at range.
Nonetheless would be nice to see a good naval sim. There's a few out there but none that really stood out.
Hrumph, Hrumph
The battle of Surigao a night engagement by battleships actually the last time any major Naval force crossed the T on another in combat and the last battle not containing aircraft.
Overwhelmingly won by the US occurred at night.. the Japanese lost 2 battleships the Fuso and the Yamashiro and 3 destroyers.. although of note no Iowa class battleships participated in this fight or it might have been worse for the Japanese Navy. The US battleship force consisted of older Colorado class BB’s that were built in the 1917-1921 time frame.
Although when we talk about the guns of the Iowa they used the same guns as the North Carolina and South Dakota class BB’s the the Mark 7 45 caliber 16 inch guns with Heavy AP shells that gave them the same penetration power as the Japanese 18.1 AP shell. So the destructive power is equal. The Japanese were using a new technology for them in arc welded hulls and armor that was a fatal flaw to this class of BB. The hull and armor belt had a tendency to split open and separate. Their secondary batteries were much much slower at firing than the US guns as well as being at a deficit in the fire control.
That all said the BB’s had 2 different purposes the Japanese designed the Yamato to get in with more traditional American battleships like the Colorado class which sacrificed speed for more armor and slug it out. The Iowa was designed to chase down and kill the fast battleships like the Kongo class or to a lesser extent the Bismarck class. They used all or nothing armor scheme only armoring the heavily the vital parts of the ship and would stay at range when using its superior fire control and radar to lob heavy AP shells to drop down at high angle in order to slice through the thin deck armor. So unless the Yamato got a penetration hit on a vital target their AP shells might very well pass right through the ship and explode on the other side leaving little significant damage.
They would not get into a slugging match in an Iowa class.. think Floyd Mayweather stay out of harms way hit and run defend then find your range to do it again.
True. At a distance, the Iowas had the advantage through better gunnery control.
In broad daylight without cloud cover, experts say japanese optics could compare with US radar fire control. By night or with heavy cloud cover, the Iowa class BBs would probably just have murdered the yamato and Musashi. But during the day with good visibility, the contest would probably have been much more disputed. US warships had a much much better damage control but Yamato armor was much more efficient. As always luck would have been the final factor.
@@vlad78th the Japanese might come close to comparing to US radar guided fire control in perfect conditions without maneuvering, perfect seas and weather but they were much slower in fire rate and in being able to accurately compensate by comparison and at no time does anybody have perfect conditions. Also when looking at Japanese armor the US post war examination of both Japanese super battleships and recent dives on both ships confirmed that issues the Navy found in their armor was correct. Many sections welds actually failed to remain intact and there were potentially fatal design flaws that that caused separation of the main armored belt from the hull.
That all said the turret faces were thick and well defended but at range the falling shells would not be hitting the facing but instead be falling on the top and deck. This is where the poor damage control systems, lack of training combined with use of flammable construction materials including paint and wood is proves lethal.
The armor on the Iowa was of higher quality than the Yamato. Between that and the fact that it was angled you can consider them equal or maybe even a slight advantage to the Iowa. The Iowa also used a cutting edge fire control radar for the time. This is the reason it had far better accuracy. Finally Damage control was far better on the American side.
Drachinifel has done a number of good comparisons here.
Another thing a lot of people don’t point out is the Iowa’s 16 inch guns had higher quality ammunition than the Yamato’s 18 inch guns and could actually penetrate more armor. Really the only thing the Yamato had the Iowa beat in was secondary armament and that’s it.
The Iowas could also sail for much longer distance.
Damage control was night and day in favor of the Iowa
The armor on Iowa was 10-15% better at the same thickness, which means Yamato's belt was still harder to penetrate than Iowas. British armor was even better than American armor and KGV's effective armor thickness was a bit better than Yamato's.
Iowa armor was better pound for pound which means overall the yamato class was much better protected. Iowa class was not designed to withstand the punishment yamato class was designed to bear. Iowa was designed for speed.
I read somewhere that in a gun fight , the American tactic ( if it ever came to that) against the Yamato class was to steam quickly into range, then fire using the superior range finding on the Iowa class, the quickly steam out of range of Yamato. The Iowa class ships were incredibly manueverable at fast speeds and might have been able to avoid even a single hit.
I love these videos. After the last one where you took Iowas against Kirovs, I thought it’d be cool if you took the USS Missouri Battlegroup during the First Gulf War and have it go against a Kirov Battlegroup. I’d feel like it might even the playing field a bit on a one to one fight, especially when it comes to the Shipwreck Missiles.
The fire control systems on the Iowa's were simply suprior to the Yamato's
That same fire control was still used during desert storm..
rgr
@@brianjones5117 Mark 1A
@@peterhineinlegen4672 yep a giant manual computer that is a masterpiece of mechanical engineering
@@brianjones5117 they had muzzle velocity radar on each barrel to give them tighter dispersion after the 80's modernization, but even during WW2 they had better radar and ballistic computers.
Actually, the Iowa is leaning correctly for a ship, a boat would lean like the Yamato.
Boats lean into the turn, a ship leans outwards.
And not just our rangefinders, but also the mechanical computer that plotted fire, based on inputs. In the 80’s and 90’s it was tested against the tomahawks of that era, and was capable of plotting more accurate fire. And the first one was built in like 38 or 39 if I remember correctly, the computer. So 40-50 yrs later was more accurate and reliable than the most modern adopted technology.
God the rangefinder at that time would’ve been so much faster than a Tomahawk’s guidance computer. You know how the F-14b HUD takes a moment to update? It’s not ridiculously slow but there a clear lag? Now think about how smooth and fast the gunsight is in the P-51 is.
Analog was faster and more accurate than digital until the early 90s in military tech and the late 90s in commercial tech.
Nerves of Steel Award goes to Grump. That was one of the best fights I've seen.
the iowa also had wats called a super heavy shell which was supposed to give the iowas guns just as much punching and kinetic power as the 18 in guns on the iowa
thx
@@grimreapers np
I appreciate this type of content very much. Thank you for your fantastic work.
You’ve just made my day!!! I’ve always have been curious about battleship to battleship in the Pacific war. Thank you so much.
That was awesome! What a great video, I loved it.
This is what I wanted to see 🔥 thanks for accepting the request.
The Yamato was sunk by aircraft at the battle of Okinawa it's was sent on a one-way mission to Okinawa in April 1945, with orders to beach herself and fight until destroyed, thus protecting the island, but was spotted south of Kyushu by US submarines and aircraft, and on 7 April 1945 she was sunk by American carrier-based bombers and torpedo bombers with the loss of most of her crew.
And a Iowa Class(USS New Jersey) was at the the battle at the time
Edit; Thanks for going through a nightmare for us Cap
good to set this right.
What a stunning turn! Captain Grump!
Unrealistic? Of course, but it IS fun! :) Thanks GR
HAHA I was just asking about something like this on your last video... THANK YOU!!! LOVE IT!!!
lol
Seriously, you all need to check out the Battleship New Jersey (an Iowa class battleship) CZcams channel...they have videos on the guns and all the aiming gear and everything. It's MINDBLOWING to see what they were able to do all the way back in the friggin 40s and 50s. I mean...mechanical computers and all that...it really is amazing!!
Check out "William Barker and the Mk1A Gun Fire Control Computer" and "Fire Control" on their channel.
BB-62!
great job Grump!! good demo by all the GR team of what is possible with DCS naval assets.
Yamato was, of course sunk by aircraft, in April 1945, not Midway. As mentioned, Yamato's fire control was not as good as the Iowa class. In the only time she actually fired at American ships, she only sank one destroyer, and one escort carrier[Battle off Samar, during Battle of Leyte Gulf]
And, as i've read, smoke screens from DDs quite effectively jammed Yamato's ability to get firing solution.
The Yamato's Light AAA was Triple 25mm Mounts (Based on inferior French Hotchcuss Design). Its Radar Suite was generations behind the Iowa's as well.
It has been said but USN had a huge advantage in fire control also including radar fire control which would dramatically increase to accuracy of USN shells. Also If the engagement was at night or bad weather, the advantage would easily go to the Iowa. Also a little known fact is that USN used what was called a "Super Heavy" shell which increased the penetration of the USN 16 inch shells used by the Iowa to have nearly as much penetration as the 18 inch shells fired by the Yamato. The only advantage that the Yamato really had was that it had more armor though not enough to make it immune to the Super Heavy 16 inch shells.
Why wouldn't Yamato be immune to Iowa shells, given that it was a balanced design meant to be immune to its own (18.1-inch) guns? Iowa, on the other hand, was an imbalanced design not immune to its own guns. (I believe it was ultimately calculated to have a very tiny immunity range of only a few hundred meters). So whereas the Iowa shells will require multiple hits to damage Yamato, any hits Yamato scores should penetrate even Iowa's citadel at virtually all ranges and detonate with their roughly 50% heavier explosive charges, which (of course) should be quite damaging.
Also, the Iowa-class did very poorly in bad weather. Bad visibility would cripple Yamato, but bad sea conditions wrecked American battleships. USS Massachusetts was so beat up by 18 knot headwinds that it lost use of its forward gun turret in 1943, and USS New Jersey (an Iowa-class) similarly suffered storm damage in an admittedly very heavy Typhoon Cobra and would have been unable to fight in those seas. (see, e.g., www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB59/1943StormDamage.html )
it can even be argued that Yamato has inferior steel quality (for both armor and shell rounds) since Japan was speculated to have some problems with steel smelting compared to the high-grade US/UK steel
@@MasterofOssus Yamato wasn't immune, otherwise the Helldivers that bombed it and the Musashi wouldn't have made a dent in it, for one, and two, the US had access not just to superior resources but superior manufacturing technologies.
@Grim Reapers I have a request. What if the attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise attack and the Americans were prepared to defend the naval base?
NICE SUGGESTION.
rgr
What if they had a modern carrier and aircraft.... oh wait, they made the movie "The Final Countdown"
They did already 'tons' of video's about that, about trying to stop the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but mostly with modern battle groups. American's, Russians, I think they forgot the Mexicans. 😅
@@Snowwie88 Yeah, I'm talking the Japanese are about to attack, the Americans learned the attack is coming. Maybe they somehow detected the Japanese battlegroup as it approached the islands. Not soon enough to get ships out to sea, but soon enough for the ships to man battlestations ahead of time and for fighters to get up into the air. Would it have been enough to stop the attack on Pearl Harbor?
So cool! Thank you for the video!
Literally everything grump said at the outset was wrong.
Whoopsy...
Ya win some, ya lose some. Either way, Iowa > Yamato.
In response to your question @Grim Reapers YES I would like u to check out other sims plz, there must be some great ones out there. I think it’s a careful balance between enjoying the sims & reality tho so it’s about finding that sweet spot
agree
That was so much fun watching that video thanks:)
the 5-inch gun are effective at around 11 miles
That was amazing , representing,if we only could see those two battle ships colliding! Well done.
Watching your productions are a lot of fun
Oh another thing. The way armor works is that at certain ranges each BB will have an immunity zone where none of the shells can penetrate their armor be it deck armor or belt armor. These immunity zones are dictated by the size and ballistics of the guns the enemy firing at them. I don't know the exact value but you could have a situation where the Iowa would be immune to the Yamato shells at 12 miles while the Yamato would be penetrated they the Iowa at 12 miles or vice versa. This is yet another reason why it is virtually impossible theorize which ship would win.
Thanks for that info. Somewhere in the back of my brain I was trying to recall where I got the idea that Iowa's preferred battle range was 20000 yards.
thx
Iowa class had a very tight turning circle for their size. There’s a story from WWII of a max turn fleet maneuver where Wisconsin turned inside her escorting DDs. The large dual rudders and the 4 props made them wicked nimble.
The curator for the Iowa class battleship New Jersey just did a video regarding the turning circle of those ships. They could turn inside the length of the ship at 20 kn, and Iowa could turn a circle in under 800 feet.
The turning circle of the Yamatos was actually slightly less than that of the Iowas. Just sayin.
I really enjoyed the visual experience. It makes up for the statistical inaccuracies of the ship models.
Youve worked hard Cap thankyou!
Yamato may have the armor, guns, and range by 1 mile on the Iowa but the Iowa like all U.S. ships at the time had excellent radar and FCS
Excellent! Not a squid; but learned a bit about naval combat! Well Done! Very educational, but cool!
I absolutely love the old battleship videos. Any variation you guys can come up with is always awesome! go grump!
That was a crazy turnaround!! I love how much this channel keeps growing in the complexity of the battles!!
I just love the Yamato class ships and always had. Yes they lacked the adavanced radarsystems but in despite of all that they are just beatiful and truly awesome. I Have Yamato and her sistership in wows and if you play them right, they are true beasts.
problem with them in real life is there slower and have less real world firing range and hit probalility then the iowa so in a real macth up the iowa chould chosse when to fight or run away she can fire fire first and have a way higher probability of hit then yamato could that is astronomical advantage.
Remember that winwing technology is your ultimate hardware solution :) 113
The iowa was top dog in world as far as radar and fire systems. Reason why the analog system wasn't replaces in the 80-90's .
The mark7's had the same ballistics essentially as the yamatos 18in guns. But could shoot at farther ranges and could out run and gun the yamato. Everyone said even the Japanese that if clear weather and close the yamato would dominate but at night or in weather the iowa is clear winner.
Nice work Cap, if you want a little more realism, keep your sorties in a line formation. "Ship of The Line", comes from that naval tactic and was used throughout WWII in naval surface engagements. To win and crush the opposition, maneuver your line to cross the "T" of theirs. That way all your shots go down their line no matter if they are short or long, whereas theirs have to be very accurate in range to score hits. Nice work all around gentlemen!
Crossing the T has a couple advantages which is why it's been part of naval warfare for so long.
It helps negate the RPE, and just as important it limits fire from guns to just the ones on the bow (or even better the stern if you can cross the stern ).
It's part of the reason many of the early battleships had guns mounted on wings outbound. Wasn't a good design in the end I think the concept was dropped by the 1920's at the latest.
@@duanesamuelson2256 What is RPE? Interestingly the wing placement was also used on army tanks, to fire down trench lines while keeping the bulk of the tank in defilade from return fire. It was abandoned after Blitzkrieg (combined arms attacks) became the norm.
Loving this fleet on fleet slugfest action! I must say there's been so much naval destruction these last few weeks what do you plan to do next?
Also you forget the Iowa’s used super heavy shells, they were very comparable to 18” using standard shells, just slightly shorter ranged, and out performed light 18” shells.
If only the japanese dedicated their tech to radar fire control, she is more formiddable than Iowa because her shells packs more power than if only use properly. Yamato is like a samurai filled with greenhorned sailors. She is a good ship only in the hands of true expert engineers, architects, captains and crews. But sadly truth hurts.
loved it nice job
Great video's gents. Fun to watch.
I know I'm late to the party, but....yes, the Iowa-class secondary armaments (20 @ 5in/38cll) have a range of 14 nm (22km or so).
For answers about the Iowa class, contact this place.
czcams.com/video/AZvY2s5rRQI/video.html
thx
I think it would have been "more accurate" to have 2 Yamato's, one representing the Musashi. Japan had those 2 in service at one time.
On the other side the US had 4 Iowa class battleships active then, so it should have been 4 on 2.
Either way, I enjoyed the video as an exercise in theory... but combined fleet tactics wouldn't have only had battleships, there would have been destroyers and cruisers even if we were avoiding aircraft.
Yamato vs Iowa, 2 naval legends, facing off in battle! In WoWS we call it thursday😂
In reality this fight wouldn't even be close. The Yamato class was, for all intents and purposes, little more than a giant WW1 battleship. The Iowa class had literally every advantage. They were 20% faster than the Japanese monsters (that's huge), had a vastly better fire control system, more accurate main armament, a higher rate of fire, much better quality steel armor, better construction standards (the IJN found out....much to their chagrin.....that the armor on the Yamatos was brittle and the welds were flawed, resulting in damage far out of proportion to whatever hit them), and don't get me started on damage control - something that was almost non-existent on IJN warships.
Battles are fought in the real world, not on paper and certainly not in Japanese cartoons. The Iowas win this fight 9 out of 10 times.
your work is great. you gotta caption these with which vessel's representative is talking though
Iowa class battleship had radar guidance on the 16 inch guns. Meaning she could fire accurate at longer distance than the Yamato.
There is actually very little difference in shooting accuracy between Yamato and Iowa. Yamato was also equipped with radar, and fire control was controlled by a computer. In fact, the radar control and fire systems of the time had too many flaws. In actual combat, American battleships relied on traditional optical coronation.
I wanna see this at night and in weather. I also wanna know what ammo was being used, HE or AP
This Would've Been A Classic Battle Of Speed (Iowa) Vs Power (Yamato)! I'll Put My Money On Iowa! Enterprise Vs Zuikaku Would've Made Another 1 On 1 Fantasy Fight! ⚓
Cap I've determined that you should enter the Isle of Man TT motorcycle race, 1000 cc class. It will be good advertisement for the channel.
ermmm. Im not sure this will get wife approval...
@@grimreapers I dunno, you have life insurance? She might take out an extra policy...
5:20 How do you get the actual visual of the ships on the Editor ?
icon at bottom of screen.
@@grimreapers Tank U 😇
I really enjoyed this. The only way to make it better would be to get the battle wagon gun sounds working, steal them from some Gulf war or WWII videos or something.
DCS: work on those naval damage models please. It would improve overall engagement realism a lot. Oooo that gives me an idea! Take a thirty second segment of Grump in the last bit with all guns blazing and edit actual Iowa gun sounds into the video! That'd be way cool!
I love how you said the one Iowa you could
My uncle was on a Iowa-class battleship and I remember him saying that they were designed to turn fast so their big guns to get on target sooner
That was awesome!
This is great. Can we get the proposed Montana Class against both?
Happy +200k subscribers Cap
thx
If it is not modeled accurately, then there is no point in the simulation
Nothing in DCS is modelled correctly, it's all guesswork and trying to minimize the error.
@@grimreapers yah, based on your comments during the video, it was not even close.
Do they have a model for the USS Montana ( the one that was never built)
I wonder why the smaller turret pairs on Yamato (3x 6.1 inch, forward and aft) never engaged.
They may not have been fully implemented yet or it may just be buggy as ships seem to be in DCS
Maybe set up to fire at planes? Not sure
You have no Idea how excited I was to see this. You guys did a really good job. Y’all are the GOAT.
the iowa guns where i think radar controlled were the japanese was more optics but they did have a basic radar plus in mss battle the japanse used dye packs so each ship knows where there shells landed
Good to see the Yamato's embracing their one true destiny as coral reefs.
The Iowa Class ship had a big advantage in accuracy and targeting by having one of the first targeting computers ever used in warfare that was a very big technological breakthrough that would give the Iowa a big advantage over older battleship designs and those without targeting computers.
It didn't provide the advantage that you imagine- primarily because of shell dispersion, which was almost twice as great in the Iowas as in the Yamatos. Just sayin.
The Yamato shooting system is also controlled by an analog computer.
The Iowa's in world war II had a radar directed fire which would land shots first salvo, also the secondaries on the Iowa's would land more rounds on Target
You often hear how superior the Iowa class was, but its all hypothetical and theoretical since they never did anything worthwhile in WW2. The longest range battleship hits are from HMS Warspite and Scharnhorst who both share the number one spot with equal range hits. Imo talking about what the Iowa class might have been able to do is like talking about what thousands of fighter jets might have done for germany - both came to late to matter.
@@hernerweisenberg7052 The battle of Surigao Strait give us a really good idea of just how accurate the American targeting systems were. At a range of 13 miles (20.8 km) USS West Virginia opened fire on the Yamashiro, and hit with the first salvo, and hit with 5 of the next 6 salvos. The USS Tennessee and USS California would also open fire and their shells were fairly accurate. These ships were equipped with the same targeting equipment that the USS Iowa had (namely, the Mark 1 firing control computer). The USS West Virginia also had similar armament to the Iowa, with 9 16" cannons in three triple mounts.
We also have the engagement that USS Iowa was in off of Truk, where the Iowa sank the light cruiser Katori at a range of 14,500 yards. Iowa hit the Katori on the second salvo, and Katori sank after the fourth.
I believe that both examples prove that the fire control on the Iowa class was extremely accurate.
@@country_flyboy Yeah they certainly had good targeting systems, but what i was getting at was that in these ship to ship comparisons, people often say those systems were like complete game changers, allowing US ships to score first salvo hits on max range, when in reality they never hit anything in excess of ranges other navys ships scored hits at. Might be they just didn't have to opportunity, maybe the weather didn't play to their favor or whatever, maybe the targets of Warspite and Scharnhorst cooperated better to get hit. In these discussions of x ship vs Iowa i often hear like radar rangefinder->first salvo 16" gun hit on 24nm->x ship destroyed, but if that were this easy, why let that cruiser come so close, that 14,500 yard hit is allmost half the range of those famous Warspite and Scharnhorst hits.
@@hernerweisenberg7052 If I understand correctly, it was because Katori was spotted just beyond that range. The 14500 yard figure was the average salvo range, so they likely fired some salvos at longer distances.
As for your other point, I will again use the Battle of Surigao Strait as a counterpoint, as that is was the closest battleship-on-battleship action comparable. As stated earlier, the USS West Virginia was equipped with the same targeting system as the USS Iowa. The Japanese had the battleship Yamashiro (Fuso was hit earlier by torpedoes and would sink without being engaged by the US battleships). The Yamashiro was equipped with an optical rangefinding system very similar to that of Yamato. During the battle, the Japanese ships were never able to successfully target the US ships. The US battleships equipped with older fire control systems (USS Mississippi, USS Pennsylvania, and USS Maryland) also had trouble acquiring their target, with USS Pennsylvania not shooting at all and USS Mississppi firing its only salvo at the very end.
While they don't have the longest range hits, they were certainly among the most accurate. While overall range is important, these advanced rangefinders gave the US a decisive advantage in effective range, which is the range at which a ship's guns can reliably hit a target.
Also, the longest hit by the Warspite was the only hit Warspite got that battle, with the vast majority of rounds fired falling well short of the Italian ships. The Scharnhorst's hit on the Glorious was after 6 minutes of firing, and the ship would not get consistent hits until the range had closed to 26,400 yards about ten minutes later. It would take about an hour of shooting full salvoes from both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau for the Glorious and her escorts to be sunk, with Scharnhorst receiving a negligible 4.1" hit and a torpedo hit that disabled the rear turret.
In summary, the fire control systems that USS Iowa was equipped with were extremely accurate, with a battle proven ability to provide consistent hits within the first or second salvoes.
Cold Waters is a cool somewhat simulation if you all wanna consider Surface and subsurface naval warfare, but i think it is not online.
I don't know if you guys will see this post since its been nearly six days since you uploaded your video.
But, I think you should know that there was a third Yamato class battleship that was near, if not more than two thirds complete when the Japanese decided to convert it into an aircraft carrier. When completed, she was the largest aircraft carrier ever built until America built its super carriers.
But the turret armor and guns had already been made for the ship. At the end of the war the American military found this armor and decided to test it. What they found was the way the armor was made and sandwiched together actually made it brittle. Making it less effective than its thickness would imply. And they did fire one of the Iowas 16" armor piercing shells at it and it punched right through. But the worst part was how the armor cracked and splintered when hit. Making it pretty much useless against any additional hits, and creating devastating splinter fragments that probably would have killed or injured the entire gun crew even if the shell didn't penetrate it.
So the armor was thicker, but no where near as effective as one would think.
There are pictures of this test armor showing the hole the 16" shell made if you want to look it up.
P.S.
The test was performed on the intended turret frontal armor.
Great fun!
How is the long range shell from the Iowa going to come in flat and hit the armor belt.
Long range shells are high angle.
Good one.
I know this is an old video, but the armor not being modeled is a great disservice to the Iowa. Her hull was STS, which was the same alloy as her armor, and was cutting edge at the time. Yamato used Vickers Hardened steel armor, which was never intended for use in such thick pieces, which lead to "spalling", so the Iowa's round may not pierce through, but the inside of the armor would throw shrapnel at the crew of the Yamato, resulting in potential casualties of the turret crews.
Everybody else chimed in with the problem of the fire control. The New Jersey, Iowa's sister, was the fastest battleship ever recorded, at 36 knots.
1. The difference between U.S. and Japanese armor was positively minimal- and the armor of the Yamatos was far thicker. U.S. Navy proving ground reports estimated Japanese heavy armor as slightly inferior to the best U.S. armor. On the other hand, Britain's Armor Technical Committee estimated Japanese heavy armor was superior to all foreign armors. The Iowas were little more than fast, slightly up- armored, and slightly better armed South Dakotas.
2. The fastest recorded speed of any Iowa class battleship was 32.7 knots.
3. As far as fire control is concerned, the U.S. advantage in fire control radar was visibility- related. In good visibility conditions, the U.S. Navy had no advantage over the I.J.N. in gunnery accuracy- particularly because the shell dispersion in all of the U.S. fast battleships was significant (half again as much as that of the Yamatos for nine- gun salvos).
Is there a way you can do a video to see how ships can stop missiles with only the CWIS?
Not that I know of.
What is the 16" guns ".50 cal length" you mention? Curious
The barrel length is 50 times the diameter of the bore. Bore width is 16". Barrel length is 50 x 16= 800 inches, or just short of 67 feet.
@@manilajohn0182 Holy shit! Thats awesome
Great video, what game is this? I'm heavy into the game Modern Warships but this looks fantastic
What is there in the superstructure that will burn?? No fuel or ammo there.
Ideally the ships would spread out to give greater maneuver room and reduce the amount of ships in any given salvo's footprint and CEP. "Crossing the T" worked with ships in formation that used fixed-azimuth ranks of cannon in broadsides - it isn't something that translates directly to ships mounting swiveling turrets. I am not a Navy man, so can't say what tactics were developed for multiple battleship surface actions of the kind modeled here - indeed, no such actions ever took place, as technology rendered battleships largely irrelevant by WWII. That said, assuming no aircraft to render the boats big fat targets, and assuming radar and radio, I would think that having three ships concentrate ALL of their fire on one patch of ocean, to increase the size of the stonk footprint and CEP enough to make evasion far more difficult, would be the way to go.
Well that would always be better with cruisers and bb’s as it’d remove one turret firing on you from the enemy, which is slightly better, so of they do start hitting, one less turret, 2-3 guns less that have a chance to damage or kill you.
Part of the reason for a Battle Line was to help with the spread of information. If you can look at the ship in front of or behind you that is hitting the target (has range and direction right) then you can correct your guns to match.
Very cool. Have you ever done the Iowa class against the Bismarck?
outstanding
Obviously a ton of inaccuracies forced by the nature of the game, but the biggest would be that the Japanese only ever had two Yamato class ships, while the US built 4 Iowas.
And the US had the two North Carolina and four South Dakota battleships also with 16” guns.
lol yes good point.
I remember reading something that said that even though the Iowa-class guns were 2in smaller than the Yamato-class, the ships used a certain type of shell that gave it better penetration. This shell didnt have the same penetration as the 18in shells did but this certain shell closed the gap. Do you guys know what type of shell this was?
Mark 8 "super heavy" APCBC
The 2,700 lb. armor piercing shell. It had very slightly superior armor penetration characteristics outside 20,000 yards compared to the Yamato class 18.1" AP shell. This was more than offset by the far larger bursting charge of the 18.1" shell, the far superior protection of the Yamatos over the Iowas (the immunity zone of the Yamatos against the 16" .50 cal. gun was approximately twice as great as that of the Iowas against the 18.1" gun), and the marginal difference in armor quality between U.S. and Japanese heavy armor.
As @Red Rapture suggested, what if a Pearl Harbour attack wasn’t a surprise & the USA had time to prepare??? @Grim Reapers have u done this in the past? If not why not lol 😂 & could we plz see something like this. Cheers, oh last question, I want to start DCS, I remember when I was big into FSX I tried DCS for about 2 hours n think I was in a frogfoot n found I was crashing even without being fired upon or nosediving, I think it was G overload or just flight dynamics that r not so heavily modelled in FSX. So I’m not sure if I should try Microsoft’s new sim or DCS but if I try DCS could u explain my best route & what type of kit I need to get going. Thanks
well having a 1/200 scale RC model of the Yamato i noticed the Yamato would, because of the tear-drop shape of the hull want to continue the turn after the rudders were brought back to centre due to the sheer mass of the main section of the hull.
last I played with 'em, the more naval-oriented games and sims focus so much on keeping the ship afloat and managing its different systems, that you'd need a whole team of people just to run a couple of ships.
Whereas huge-scale fleet battles, something like this is probably "good enough". Guess it depends on what kind of video you're doing as to what you play it out with.
I guess somewhere between fun and realism is suitable.
The Yamatos as designed had a weakness in their armor scheme that wasn't discovered until after they had been built. It would have been discovered at close in ranges like this battle was simulated. The turret basket was so huge for the 18.1 in guns that it literally negated the Citadel armor for the turrets. In fact the A turret itself was less than 1 foot away from the outer hull of the ship. The 16 inch heavy shell fired by the Iowa class was designed to pen over 2 feet of armor before going off at close ranges. It would have ripped thru the armor of the turrets in the hulls like butter.
Now I'm curious. If the yamato fire control was equal to that of the iowa, how would a duel between these two go? The iowa would still be able to stay kiting but would the range and accuracy upgrade thanks to the fire control allow the yamato to win? Even then, would the shells even penetrate the iowa at that kind of range?
the Yamato stat you had was the early one with 6.1in turrets on the side..... later which all plastic model kits are based on is they converted the 6.1in into AA guns.....
I used WAR ON THE SEA to set up similar scenario. No Iowa class for US, Just SD class and NC class. 2 v 2 @ 20,000 yards during day saw Japan do more damage but both ran out of ammo before any real damage was done. At night Japan never fired a shot. US unable to sink either Japanese battleship. 4 v 2 was a tie during day engagement.
I just looked but it seems to be single player only?
@@grimreapers It is sadly. Wouldn't work for your purposes but I thought I'd mention it just for another perspective. Love the work you guys do.
About the near grounded Iowa. Can you run a ship aground in DCS and then have it acting like an unsinkable, stationary battleship? (like the Japanese intended with Yamato IRL)
Does DCS take the Coriolis effect into account when shooting the big guns for distance on a N/S line? Just curious if they put that much detail in the game.
It's a myth that the Coriolis effect is going to make a noticeable difference on long range shooting, whether it is guns or cannons. Even at several dozen miles the drift it will cause will only be a few meters which is miniscule compared to other incalculable variables.
Doubt it.
@@rubiconnn No, it's NOT a myth! Long range targeting involves using charts to account for the effect. Even snipers using long range rifles have to take it into account. It can produce a "drift" of up to 4 inches (depending on latitude and direction of the shot) per 1000 yards. Hardly a "miniscule" amount when aiming at a person's head.
@@wallyman292 At 1000+ yards the 4 inches of drift due to the coriolis effect is going to be miniscule compared to the many feet of drift from varying air density, varying wind directions, varying bullet velocity due to small differences in powder load, bullet weight, etc. There is no way to repeatedly accurately shoot a target at that range. Any hits from that distance is pure luck. I think you've been watching too many movies thinking snipers actually shoot people from that far regularly.
@@rubiconnn Regardless of other factors, it remains one itself and is taken into account for long range targeting, if not by snipers, then definitely by the navy when firing their 16" cannons at max range.
Now I’m curious about an 80s refit Iowa against the Yamato 🤔
80s would SMASH it in 3 mins.
@@grimreapers unless of course you give the Yamato's an 80's refit also.
Ironically the King George V class was actually better armoured then the Iowa and was more Stable when firing and in rough seas. Had the British not followed the treaty it would have been an interesting vessel right up there with these 2
America was also making a 4turret 12 16in 80k ton Montano class to be there heavy hitting battleship💪🏻
@@bri-manhunter2654 sadly Undergunned. Iowas 16"50 compensates for that. The Montana would be the slow heavily armored Cousin of the Iowa .
@@issacfoster1113. Yea, America was Playing by the treaty rules with the 16in 50cal; however, there heavy hitting shells hit just as hard at the 18.1in shells. A lot people also don’t realize that the Japanese armor was also inferior to the much thinner and just as strong American armour. The Mark8 range finding systems also put rounds on target very quick. Honestly, with everything going for it the Iowas should score more hits early on in all engagements, and they should also choose the engagement with their superior speed.
Source document: Victory At Sea (copyright 1995) co-authored by James F. Dunnigan (long time wargame designer and Pentagon consultant) had an interesting section on the "Ultimate Battleship Battle" between these two classes of battleships (pages 145-151). A few aspects mentioned was the American armor was 25% stronger due to better steel hardening technology developed during the interwar years. The American 16 inch guns had a higher shell velocity due to the guns increased caliber. At most ranges the destructive power/penetrate was very similar. Rate of fire was 2 rounds per minute for the 16" vs one round per minute for the 18.1 inch. Draft of Iowa's was two feet deeper which made them a more stable firing platform (let alone speed and agility with twin rudders). Radar range finding far exceeded the Japanese capability. Other sources have mentioned the brittleness of Japanese armor and the superior steel cap on the American armor penetrating rounds. Dunnigan opinion was four Iowa's should be able to defeat four Yamato's. The bigger brute does not always wins by sheer mass.
Have you ever read Red Storm Rising, the major sea battle that took out a couple aircraft carriers describe in the book might be interesting. The Russian used slow cruise isles that looked like bombers causing all the air units to shoot at them, they expended all the arms which allowed the real bombers to sneak in.