A fair fight?What are you smoking?The montanas were built todeal with Musashi-level enemies-and their radar was only part of the story-cumputerized range keeping was present as well. And the iron rain of air attack and submarine torpedoes which put paid to Musashi and yamato wouldn't have lost their punch-they'd have been there as well.
Most Japanese navy veterans I knew during my service with the USS Midway in the 1980's called the Yamato class the most worthless ship in the Imperial Navy, a complete disasterous waste of man and materials.
What is the game? Obviously it's way out of date. judging by the graphics, but nothing else I've seen gives the same feel for naval combat, in my opinion.
But for all of the arguments, it will always remain a mystery, simply because of the fact it never happened and it never will happen. The Iowa is ship in the reserve fleet, and as for the Yamato, it was attacked and destroyed by 300 US aircraft and sunk about 100 miles north of Okinawa on it's final suicide mission, Operation Ten-Go. So for all of this arguing and debate, unfortunate as it may be, we will never know which ship would win the ultimate one on one battleship duel: Yamato vs. Iowa
The Iowa's crew was among the best trained in the world at that time (after the carrier crews of course). This meant the crew could reload the ship's guns faster, outting out more shells, therefore allowing for more shells to be fired, allowing the range to found in a shorter amount of time, and allowing more shells to be put on the target. The only advantages the Yamato really had was guns of a larger diameter bore, and higher quality steel.
@ussmissouri63 big time higher quality steal but the guns wernt better although larger they are worse in velocity and just the type of shell of whitch the iowa all had better but the yamato class could take almsot twice as mutch as the iowa but it jsut wouldnt have any crew or guns to fire with as they would all be dead, and another is just that the iowas where laid down almost 6 yeards after the yamatos? and commisioned 4 years after? yamatos took longer to build for worse manufactury equipment
The first was it's FCS. The Iowa's Mark VII FCS was so advanced, it enabled it to hit targets almost as far away as the Yamato's 18.1 inch guns. Second was damage control ability. The Iowa's damage control teams were among the best trained in the world at that time, and the Yamato's because of the fact many captains and sailors went down with their ships, there weren't many experienced men to replace them. The final factor was crew quality.
The Iowa and the Yamato were VERY closely matched. If they were put up in a one v one engagement, the ship to survive and sink the other first would probably be very heavily damaged as well, and possibly even sink before it got back to port. But the simple truth remains that while the Yamato did, yes, have it's massive 18.1 guns, which each of the turrets weighed more than a standard Fletcher-class destroyer, the Iowa had 3 factors that gave it large advantages over the Yamato.
lol thats exactly what would the japanese would be getting hammered while there still trying to get their turrets aimed and even if they did get em aimed they might get 1 lucky hit out of maybe 10 yamato was not a very great ship maybe n thought but with the crews and stuff they had yamato would practically be pointless in a gun fight specialy agasint US ships which have the best FCS.
study a-bomb test results at sea (bikini atoll) etc...most iowa bb carried atomic cannon tactical nuke rounds to be used at sea!....glorious german prinz eugen survived atomic bomb test!
ww-2 battleship battles were fought between midnight and dawn...less aircraft after dark!...the huge handicap the jap navy has was oil!...their whole pacific war is for oil etc...(us subs unrestricted sinking oil tankers!)...you can build super-battleships...but japs ran very low on fuel oil to train and deploy them!....think of the logistics!
The reason Yamato sucked was because it was too powerful for its own good. The main guns were so powerful much of Yamato's AA guns required a special blast shield that restricted movement and greatly limited sight, making an aerial attack even more dangerous. While it would likely make short work of even the Iowa, presuming all went without quirks, it was ultimately aircraft that proved its undoing.
It was more likely to be torped because aircraft were beginning to emerge as the main weapon around tht time, but if the US took 1 or 2 maybe 3 battleships an d a few escaorts, they could have easily kicked Yamato's ass in the Ten Go mission, but they used aircraft becuase they knew tht would be the better way to destroy it
It seems necessary to repeat this: the USN tested Yamato class turret armour plate after the war: the 16" guns could not penetrate it! End of story.
The same cannot be said for Iowa.
Wars arent fought "on paper" so on-paper comparisons are only so good. I think it would really come down to luck. The two ships are very different, but come out about even. Iowa has better gunnery, Yamato better protection and much more destructive ordinance. Push.
Let me ask you this it seems on paper & in actual combet the USN BB's had far better TDS then Yamato. you bring up turret armor but was a BB more likely to be torpedoed during WW2 or was it more likely to be hit it's contemporaries guns?
(I thought I already replied to this). Irrelevant, because we are talking about a completely artificial situation: Two BB's meeting and duking it out. If you want to debate two fleets meeting, that's different, but then why bother talking about the BB's anyhow: CV's and their planes would decide that.
Now, if you do want to talk about torps then there's no doubt the Japanese "Long Lance" were far superior to anything any other country had in WWII.
Well ur right there aircraft could kick any ship's ass easy, and the long lance wasd a very technologically advanced torp for its time, but it was only effective if, of course, the torpedoes were made proper adjusments before being launched.
An example would b the battle of samar. The Japanese fired torps to hit some carriers, but they were launched bfore proper adjustments were made, so they, of course, missed.
@wilmanric1 Ok well even though the Yamato did have better armor than the Iowa, the Iowa would win for many factors: One, because it had superior radar and fire control systems, two, because it was much faster than the Yamato, and three because the Iowa was the peak of battleship development at the time. And again, even though the Yamato had larger guns, armor, etc. it lacked an accurate fire control system, which meant that its shellfire were quite inaccurate compared to the Iowa's
Actually ickysdad, the Yamato hit an escort carrier and a couple of destroyers and sank them. Also, the reason y the Yamato had so much more water flood in was because hte Americans had much better damage control teams than the Yamato, and also, the torpedo tht hit Yamato hit her near her bow, which is where the Yamato's armor was thinnest And also the trop tht hot North Carolina hit amidships, which was where her armor was thickest.
several falacies here...There's no prof she hit anything at Samar if you have any sources please give them. Yamato was hit between frames 151 & 173 the upper magazines were flooded so so much for hitting in the weakest place and it wasn't near her bow but aft on the starboard side.North carolina was hit in the way of the forward turret where the TDS was the narrowest.Oh North Carolina's TDS was rated at 700 lbs while post war tests showed Yamato's rated at 600 lbs. Keep trying guys.
Ya on wikipedia it showed pictures of a few ships she hit and sank. And alson the NC's armor was much thicker near the forward turret than Yamato's at the stern on the starborad side. The Yamato's armor was thinnest at both the bow and stern of the ship
Armor doesnt stop torpedoes, but it does cushion the blow, and the TDS was just an anti torpedo bulge during WWII, and while it did absorb the blow, it didnt completely stop it.
People are also forgetting that unlike Allied crews, the Japanese were extremely well trained in night fighting. There are many well-documented instances where in 1942 and 1943 the Japanese could be relied on to make the first sighting, even though the Allied ships had radar. Even after attrition began to reduce overall crew quality in mid 1944, the Allies still could not match the Japanese flair for night-fighting. What finally evened the odds was the US invention of flashless powder in '45.
Lets see: Iowa. Still afloat, proven and used in many battles. Yamato: Not even any confirmed hits, like her sister ship the Musashi they did absolutely nothing spectacular and spent most of the time docked. Also, Yamato deck armor was proven to be faulty as one torpedo hit broke through and cracked the belt, letting in 3,000 tons of sea water. Though impressive spec wise and design wise it would get beaten badly by an Iowa class or Montana class had they been built. They were fluff!
Yamato's armored deck was never penetrated by bombs. The hit you mentioned was on the lightly armored forecastle. The problem Yamato had was a rigid hull. Torpedo hits would cause bulkheads to penetrate other parts of the hull.
If Yamato had radar similar to US fire control radar...Yamato would have a better than 50/50 chance of winning. You think Iowa could handle 20 torps?
Musashi was still afloat 4 hours after taking 19 torpedoes, 17 bombs, and 18 exploding bomb near misses. Iowa wouldn't be able to handle anything near that kind of damage.
She was under attack for 4 hours but she was having troubles after just 6 bombs & 6 torpedoes & certainly doomed after 7 bombs and 9 torpedoes. I've read the Grimes Reports which studied what the Japanese reports said,
The Iowa never got hit by another battleship, though a kamakaze tried to re-do her paint job. The US navy tested the Yamato class armour plate after the war. They discovered the US 16" was able to penetrate the main turret armour only at point blank range, and a 0-degree impact angle. Also, the Main rangefinders on the Yamatos would be higher off the sea, and set wider apart, improving sighting.
and yet one torpedo from the skate flooded her with 4,000 tons of water,the North Carolina hit by a torpedo was flooded with only about 900 tons of water on a ship half the size of the Yamato. Yamato's guns never hit anything either at Battle of Samar.
The Yamato is the only ship ever built that had armour that could not be penetrated by any weapon in existence. USN tests proved that after the war. Iowa's fire control system gave an edge that cannot be discounted--but that doesn't mean the Yamato had no chance to hit back. With better rangefinders, that suggestion is ludicrous. Iif Yamato hit Iowa, she'd be hurt. Yamato's shells were 20% heavier. Iowa's shells were lighter, firing ats. heavier armour.
Although u r right tht the USN does have the advantage, they also have the advantage of both radar directed guns and acuurate fire control systems. The Yamato had to rely on human eyesight in order to aim their guns, which made them far less accurate, beacuse, as we all know, technonlogy is far more advanced than us in many cases, especially in terms of warfare technology.
Check the combined fleet site, yamato specs and gun to gun size. Or better look at my photobucket site and you see plenty Yamato just so you can easily see.
The point is tht the US fleet had better ships and besides if the US had taken a bunch of destroyers and maybe 1 or 2 battleships they could have beaten the Yamato with no air cover
It is irrelevant that the Yamato had 18.1 inchers and the US had 16 inchers. The US fleet had incredibly accurate fire control systems, which enabled them to use their main cannon range to their full advantage. The Japanese ships had only a primitive sort of fire control and the American battleships were unmatched in fire control accuracy because of their technology.
Yamato may not have Radar controlled guns but it did have radar directed guns. It says it in this book Battleships axis and neutral. Sorry but daytime or nightime Yamato always had the advantage. Yes Iowas guns were more accurate but yamato had more armour which meant in order to penetrate its armour the US ships would have to get closer. Which they knew to well and thats why they never confronted it. Only with planes and still took two bloody hours to kill it even though ther were 350+ planes.
No they didn't have the advantage daytime or not . Japanese radar was way behind that of the US. I have "Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War Two" by Garzke & Dulin also. It's detection range for a BB size target was much less then comarable USN radars ,the aforementioned book even states it's detection range. West Virginnina at Surigao scored a hit on her first salvo at 23,000 yards at night. Yamato'sradar would be lucky to detect a BB at that range.
I really hate getting in these situations. By the way i have that book too. It says that Type 21- Kai had in the accurate detection range was 38,227 yards. Now it does say that, and i know how difficult it is to shoot somthing at long distance the bearing errors were at maximum range less than 5* at close range 10*. Effective detection range on a battleship 24,625metres around 27000yds. Effective detection range. That monster could still see you even there radar wasnt as good as the USN.
I know what your saying but knowing a target is there and being able to spot shell splahes is totally different. Now all this being said Yamato's optics were extremely good if not unsurpassed. However at nite or in bad disability a USN BB would have a distinct advantage.
You have got a point. The USN does have the advantage at night or bad visability. you must admit though that yamato wasnt completly blind. People keep sending me messages saying that iowa would kick yamatos ass. sorry for my language but its annoying even when some people dont even look at for info about these ships. Its annoying. So at night Iowa would most likly win. and in daytime yamato would most likly win. its these 50/50 chance things that get people really talking.
I know that game and played lots of times and i can say you cheated, Yamato guns will have fired mutch early because they have a greater range and in the movie we see it taking hits beforhe could point his guns, and then you made the fleet turn around making impossible to fire all guns while US fleet mantained the course and could fire all broad guns
hey, even if the yamato fired earlier it is unlikely that she wouldve scored any hits either, unlike the americans the japanese didnt have the radar fire control. so the yamatos guns effective range was much shorter than the americans.
Do you happen to know what the longest range ever obtained was? Just because Yamato's guns out-range another BB's doesn't mean it can hit at those ranges. Yamato's gunnery at Battle of Samar wasn't exactly good.
"counter" they had the original iowa "16 guns on it how should they counter a range of more than 42 km? its imposible the american's couldnt even build that ships because of this see passage(dont know the name sry) they have to driven through(sry for bad english i am german(and an nf player on ijn side because of the yamato)
the 16 inch guns on the american ships may have had a shorter maximum range but the effective range was much superior to the japanese guns. as said before the americans had radar fire control unlike the japanese.
The designed Montana class would have enjoyed a huge immunity zone to all heavy guns in existence. The 18" shells from Yamato would literally bounce from the decks and belt. When you design a ship(the Montana) specifically to beat another one,(Yamato) it generally does just that.
Flag-waving maybee, Cocksucker . . . .No I'm a muffsucker and proud of it!
stridertenryu your obviously a lover of everything Japanese that's cool I respect & admire Japanese culture I made this video with no prejeduce against Japan, I make my Naval warefare videos as a what-if scenario. Try and understand the Yamato Class super battleships where incredible amazing fighting machines,
But remember this stridertenryu Yamato & Musashi are both sunker tumbs & the Iowa's are floating museums.
so.. why is the biggest battleship in the world (also with the heaviest guns) loosing to a group of destroyers and battleships even though the japanese aloso have support
The 16"/50 cal guns carried by the Iowa class and intended for the Montana class have comparable armor penetrating ability to the 18" guns carrier by Yamato and her sister ship, but they are lighter and faster reloading. Also, America at the time was the only Nation using radar assisted fire control. It's so accurate that even during the 1980s modernization of the Iowa battleships, the original fire control was left intact.
Don't listen to him boys, no amount of Arts degrees qualify as Science in any 1st world nation.
I may only be a retired 25 yr scientist fully tenured 13 more years as University professor, but my ex-husband worked for the US military & he also updated his degrees every 10 years like the rest of us. He never heard of Mr Okun till recently & after looking over his work rejects any claim Jap data used.
BSc teaches you ethical respect for impiricism in the scientific method.
My grandsons had this game & want me to type "why doesn't mr okun point out how flawed this game is with the Yamato face turret armor penetrated at given distances in this simulation if his own claims make that impossible?"
If my ex could keep going back to update his BSc's in various fields with a family of 5, then I see no excuse for someone who wants to be respected as a 'scientific' authority.
You boys don't equate any number of Arts degrees with your full accreditation. Do it right.
For one thing Nathan Okun didn't design this game so take it up with the game designers.. Go on all you want Mr. Okun is highly respected in matters like these.
I had the game myself and this is obviously set in 2 player mode deliberately to make the Japanese look inferior.
I also looked up the quoted sources like Wilmott, Okun and the Naval Report and Icksy did fib, while War100 and cartoon guy did quote them accurately in their criticism of the claims.
Just thought someone should have checked who was fibbing and who wasn't if you don't yourself.
Obviously we threw away this game.
It appears the programmers have the same bias you point out.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Per Wilmott...page 115..."One of the most reliable sources suggests that the Musashi was overwhelmed by as many as 20 torps & 17 bombs,but it would seem that 11 of the torps & 10 bombs were in the final attack, by which time having previously been hit by 9 torps and 7 bombs was in REAL DIFFICULTY and on 2 counts. Now reading that and what the Grimes Report I quoted earlier it seems the Musashi was finished after just 6 bombs & 6 torps depending on waht is meant by "REAL DIFFICULTY".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Also read pages 117-118 of Wilmott on the depth settings of US torps may have helped the Musashi because of thier probably hitting the armored belt versus hitting underneath it. Do some research and see just what one torpedo did to Yamato & Musashi when torpedoed by USN subs.
You fibbed when you claimed Willmott wrote that the Musashi was "a goner" when he did not. He wrote "in very real difficulty" though she'd lost her place in fleet formation she was still able to make 16 knots.
I have also read the Grimes Report & again war & corn quoted correctly & I can find none of your claims there.
I found out who cornerasser is & he has done lectures at our academy, tho i don't like him greatly, I can't find anything wrong in his or war's quotes here like i have yours.
again read sections 20 & 21 of the Grimes Report on Musashi's sinking. What your leaving out is that she was doing 16 knots but had to slow down even farther to 12 knots because of her bow trim. Also what is the difference between "In real difficulty" and being a "gonner"? Those other two posters also were wrong about IJN radar being better the USN's or the Iowa's only being able to spot fire out to 28K.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
section 20 of Grimes report on the Musashi sinking states that by 13:15 she had recieved 6 bombs & 6 torps speed was down to 12 knots, little list or progressive flooding(but evidently some). In section 21 it states 6 bombs & 6 torps recieved "Musashi wasn't fatally damaged or necessarily in jeorpardy unless additional damage was recieved" .She is slowed down to 12 knots , down by the bow taking on some progressive flooding how far is that from being a goner ???
as far as fibbing...Some posters stated that IJN radar was superior to USN radar and was according to the Grimes Reports ..Those posters most certainly lied.
@joaoonda just like irl...towards the end of the war the US had the japanese running...i reallyyy doubt the japanese would have found the american ships before they were spotted....the americans towards the end had superiority at sea, and the air. the IJN had no carriers left to scout....and even if they did those planes would have to deal with the USN FAC. dont get upset..because the japanese were ont he defensive
@hahan00b actually the ijn still did have a good carrier force by leyte gulf, they just had no pilots, for example they had the first steel deck carrier in the pacific whtich was the yamatos sister but her hull was changed into a carrier in mid building, its just the ijn pilots went by a samurai code whitch meant almsot all of them would kill themselves rather then get shot down so pilots didnt live long and every battle one for the ijn was a battle lost of good pilots
Yes it was and I think one of the most beautiful BB's ever built. It's sad that when BB's reached thier zenith as far as quality goes that airpower took over.
By 1944/45 the Yamato class were basically obsolete targets. The Shinano is a good example. Sunk by a submarine before she ever got into the fight! There are two types of ships today. Submarines and Targets!
Yes we should relax BUT awhile back i set out to prove that certain posters were mis-representing certain sources. Certain parties also stated that the Grimes Reports said things that it didn't.
montana classes are huge battleships, at 900+ feet long with four 16" triple turrets, very formidable for the Yamatos, and i see that the US made the first hit and made the Yamato's guns out of commission, but in the real battle, Yamato has a greater range of fire due to it's 18.1" guns
I saw the name Nate Okun mentioned... I know Nate... I serve with him on the O'Callahan in the Mid 80's...
Another interesting engagement I'd like to see is a South Dakota Class take on a Bismarck Class. Other points I saw that are valid is the exceptional quality of US Radar Fire Control as well as the 16"-50 Cal rifle wielded by the Iowas (and planned Montanas) were ALMOST as good as the 18.1" Yamato weapons, which is why USN didn't bother to try to exceed it
US Iowa Class had several advantages vs. Yamato Class:
16" Main Battery had same hitting power as Yamato 18.1* and a higher rate of fire. US had superior radar directed gunnery couple with early gyro stabilized computers to calculate ranges. Iowa class had SLOPED armor which while thinner, could absorb considerable punishment. Iowa class was 6 knots faster and could therefore DICTATE the range chosen for combat.....lastly US had far superior damage control
Nathan Okun, is sadly used by some authors who don't respect the Scientific Method, using his research of US vs Jap weapon capabilities. Having worked as US weapons testor he can't be considered an objective researcher, anymore than Cheney in charge of Haliburton investigations. Using data collected by US military violates the methodology of impirical data collection. Authors who use unscientific claims are sad. These are the same people who don't care that THIS battle was rigged for US victory.
As a science teacher and researcher I wholeheartedly agree.
In Canada we have similar things happen too.
The Police who investigate themselves or the Senate forming a committee to decide whether their latest self-imposed pay-increase was justified.
But America especially seems to have settled into a culture where people think its ok Enron audits itself or politicians can influence Intelligence or as you say, authors use unethical 'scientific' investigations to sell something.
Being from a Mighty Mo family myself(Missouri = Iowa) having served & family served back through war in gunnery & radar, I have to reluctantly agree.
It's embarassing.
My daughter's working to be a scientist & these topics come up in her homework & as perfect examples of unethical research. I have a relative who always claims she can 'scientifically' prove the universe is only 6000 yrs old. Like Okun, she can find authors to publish her work too, SAD. Anything to stroke own ego & make a buck.
So you are saying that only the game of numbers matters? Even if you're right about the research A) no battleship was twice as good as the Iowa's and B) numbers don't count for shit! in midway numberwise America would have been obliterated, but it was a resounding win, save for the obsolete torpedo bombers.
Ur right my navy friends, Icky can't even quote Willmott right. & Friedman HIMSELF is listed as source for Conway's you list, p178 Shinano armor thinner, Yamato immune to own 18" shells 22-33000, range 45960, spotter planes or 49' optics, p7 even 45500 radar could spot splash only 21500, p98 Iowa armor same SD immune to 16/45 only at 20500-26400.
Sadly this is what America has fallen into, & why CNN makes fun 75% still believe Saddam behind 9/11 & had WMDs.
Mr Okun could still be employed by the US military, even the top USN R&D man, however it's self representation, contaminated research from the start.
When Conquerors find resistance & questionable cooperation from the Vanquished, & the Conquerors have final say on what collected information is acceptable; that's bias.
When someone whose career was proving the worth of the Conquerors technology, is in charge of interpreting comparison between product of Conqueror & Vanquished, again bias.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you're disagreeing with Nathan Okun about armor qualities, you're fighting from a hole. You might as well explain your ideals on retail to Sam Walton
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The NAVTECMISJAP and US Navy tests of Japanese equipment after WWII (just like the German NAVTECMISEU) was done to compare actual Japanese information to our own information gleaned during the war. It has NO bias whatsoever. If you do not "know your enemy" realistically, you get your ass handed to you on a sling & that happened quite enough to the US Navy at the start of WWII. Engineers can't have a political bias--the equipment doesn't care about your religion or politics when it kills you!
Someone admits the US wasn't best at something & they attacked as unpatriotic, or foreigner anti-american. I checked back all 108 & those like Corner LITERALLY give book name, page# even quote like me & these "USA must always be #1" just change account names instead of admit wrong.
CG you were right, the fact they/he doesn't see the need for actual Jap data of Yamato to make conclusion about her, let alone need for neutral investigator like even debate rules proves they don't respect truth.
All I seen was casual references to Friedman, Ireland and Conways nothing pertaining to which publication of thiers or whatever. I'm not saying the US is number one at everything an I dare you to oint one case where I have. On the FC data from the Grimes Report several over on Bob Henneman's battlecruiser board said they read it and it doesn't say anything like what your saying. Oh and Washington actually hit Kirishima about 20 times just check the latest Warship International.
No you brought up about Lee scoring only 9 hits out of 75 at 6K in your post 5 months ago. I assumed you were talking about Washington verse Kirishima right? Anyways you were wrong about the range & number of hits. I've read some of the reports and they dion't say what is being said on here. No I'm not Nathan Okun . if you have the "latest" reports then post them or link them so everybody can see them.
Wars family r Mighty Mo people, mine on the Washington so we often joke. A colleague is friends with Howard Wright of the Washington Memorial itself & he ignores ur 20 claim, so take it up with him.
As for range, I thot 8k was closest but war's right Lippman's account on the Bb56 page itself does say 6. Lee does claim IJN accuracy equalled ours.
Jane's War at Sea by Ireland & Grove p190 "Shattered by nine 16" & some forty 5" hits, she(Kirishima) blazed until scuttled about three hours later."
The 20 hits claim was from Warship International after the wreck was explored a few years back. My figures for Washington opening fire is from Washington's own battle report so take it up with her crew at the time furthermore that report would be considered a primary document not a seconadary source . On what Lee said well I've seen no other source other then what you've just stated but tell me how did all those USN DD's get to 6-10K without beoing blowed out of the water if IJN is so good?
I've done search on Warship International and can find no article on the Kirishima.
I've also got the National Geographic Video "The Lost Fleet of Guadalcanal", which unfortunately u can get on Amazon for .99cents, where does Ballard count 20 instead of 9 x 16" hits?
I've checked back my books including recent dvd series written/produced after the dives & can find no 20 number.
I've had a friend ask the Washington Memorial again too just in case.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What's your source for your statement 3 months ago Shinano having weaker armor then Yamato or Musashi? On your statement 4 months ago we could spot our shot to 28K but the japanese could do it to 45K? Or your statement 4 months ago that Spurance,Lee and Kincaid say the japanese could spot thier fire farther then what our radar could? The Kirishima article is in the most recent edition.
Any true fan of world naval-power would have ur questions answered from Janes, Conways even Campbell. Like expecting a dictionary b4 shakespeare. Theres no use giving u Nipponese books not published in English. In 30 yrs ive only heard Grove & Ireland refered to as coffee table work since The Shattered Sword tho Ive been assured by Jon Parshal who ive shared bald jokes with assured me he wouldnt tolerate that statement in his presence so we dont know where this ignorant insolence comes from.
Actually the Technical Report tends to support my view because in section 21 of said report Musashi was in the case Wilmott referred to as "real difficulty" after just 6 bombs & 6 torpedoes . Further even before the devastating final attack she had to slow down to 12 knots and even at that was taking on progressive flooding. it's right there in a primary document based to a large part on interviews with IJN officers and there also is no mention of scuttling that you referred to.
OH no answers to where you got some of your other statements like the IJN spotting thier fire out to 45K? Shinano having weaker armor then Musashi or Yamato? Spurance's,Lee's or Kincaid's statements? I read the technical report and it doesn't say anything about the IJN having near as good of radar as has been put forward here.
I also noticed in another part of youtube where you & wargamer 102 stated the Ki-84 along with the Spitfire XIV were faster then the P-51 However there are some caveats to those assumptions . If the top speed of a Ki-84 is 427 MPH at 20,000 then it isn't faster then the P The -51 or P-47 just faster at that one altitude. The Spit XIV does hit 446 MPH at 25,400' to P-51D 440 MPH at 24,500 but the P-51 is using 100 grade fuel at factory settings ,the XIV is using 21 lbs. overboost on 44-1 fuel
If you still believe you know better than Eric Groves & Bernard Ireland about hits, contact them.
War's range came from Lippman's ComBat Report 6, if you still feel you know better than the actual Washington BB56 Memorial people, Stanley Weintraub, William Manchester & Caleb Carr, then I suggest you contact:
Howard Wright
President
USS Washington BB56 Associate Unit, Inc
Since war102 did show me those sources, he changed my mind. Both our veteran relatives have far more respect for IJN.
You rely on websites, Eric Groves & Bernard Ireland . I read Friedman , Garske & Dulin, Lundstrom ,Chris Shores, Richard Franks ,D. K. Brown and Wilmott. Groves & ireland's books are what you call "coffee table' type books unlike the authors I listed you rely mainly on primary documents. Now Franks in his Guadalcanal book says 9 hits too BUT it was printed in 1990 before the expedition to examine the Kirirshima whereupon Warship International published the findings of.
Btw b4 I returned to be science/history teacher, I was in navy & did international consulting for various countries, military & private because I was impartial. I also work for game co. So yes I use Campbell, Friedman, Grove, Ireland, Watts(both), Morrison, Ballard, Hogg, Preston, Stillwell, Grimes, Stanton, Koenig but also Rahn, Epkenhans, Ikeda, Nakada, Nishihata, Miyazato, Hiroyuko, Naito, Tachibana, Nagagawa, Iwata, Ohira, Yonekura, Sugimoto, Smith, Grether, Wells & more on the walls here.
Very,very Impressive I have quite a few of those authors too. However if you have all thos where have you gotten...
Musashi almost being saved? Wilmott bacsiaclly says she was a gonner by the time she had just recieved 7 bombs and 9 torpedoes. Where's the 2005 document you and wargamer 102 keep bringing up? # months ago you said Musashi was scuttled what's your source on that?
Any1 who reads his book p115-7 knows you are misrepresenting what Willmott writes. He never uses the word 'gonner' instead after 9torp & 7bomb was in 'real difficulty'. He writes shed already survived more damage than ANY other bb could. Because her 16knts meant she couldnt keep her protected place in fleet, she had to try to beach but couldnt because of night? Look up US Naval Technical Mission to Japan 1945-46 urself. Like Parshal, I wont tolerate any1 who disrespects Ireland & Groves work.
U'r sounding paranoid. I typed 'us' as in we. Does Wilmot write for Japanese readers? Of course not. Does he write about as many of our defeats as our victories? Of course not. Does he write as much on the IJN as the USN/RN? Of course not. The bias is natural.
I wrote Nagasawa was biased to IJN. Im biased in more ww2 than Civil War research.
Instead of only attacking those u disagree with to give their sources, why dont u offer up ur book & quote instead? Contribute instead of just tear down.
Don't have or haven't viewed the 2005 document? I have provided sources like Waship International ,oh the issue is 2007,volume 4 for the Kirishima debate. I have started all this because some authors were being quoted out of context like Friedman .
It would help if u didn't rely on a suspect source.
We contacted Warship International when they wouldn't even reprint that issue for orders & asked them to at least confirm your claims, which they won't do.
So then we rented the actual Ballard Expedition Video supposedly quote & nowhere does it make the 20 claim but sticks with the 9.
The Washington Memorial did reply tho but again only corroborated what corn wrote.
We're surprised u don't mention how this vid was obviously rigged.
I think the whole point is that ur source can't be corroborated because its out of print and they refuse to reprint it.
I think the other point is concern that u don't realize that the Ballard Expedition was the very exploration used in recent studies on the Kirishima and other ships there.
U seem to reject all sources I can check in favour of the one source not available for corroboration.
Okun assumes that the Japs & no1 else ever came up with their own formulas & tests. Bad science.
I really don't care if you can't collaborate it that's not my problem. If you really wanted to find & read that issue you would. Just how bad do you really want to find out?
Oh another thing i was right about the Grimes Report. I see you didn't question my last post regarding that thereof. I listed some other websites we could discuss this earlier in this discussion maybe we could go to those?
Man what a bunch of liars!!! I e-mailed Warship International and asked if they Volume Number 44 Issue Number 4 was still in print and you know what??? It still is and is availiable for just around $8.00 -$9.00 . In case you don't know that's the issue with the article about Kirishima being hit by Washington's 16" guns 20 times versus the previous accounts 9 times. As far as you guys on this forum go , as Reagan once said trust but verify.
I don't rely on websites. In fact I've criticised people who do. Lippman, Weintraub, Manchester & Carr are the published historians who've written specifically about the Washington or Guadalcanal battles.
That they share parts of their work on the Washington BB56 Associate Unit Inc
memorial website makes them the most relied upon by the actual Washington veterans themselves. So I'd hardly call that just using some private person or organizations' hobby website.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
My Bachelor of Arts in Physics and Mathematics is because when you combine a BS in Physics and a BA in Math, the Dual Major Degree is always the BA (lowest common denominator) at UCLA. Not my choice.
There is no other source for *correct* face-hardened armor computations than my FACEHARD program and associated docs. Nobody else has ever done a complete study where they evaluated the effect of shockwaves in these hard plates, which is the most important factor in their resistance to hits.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The NAVTECMISJAP and NAVTECMISEU Technical Reports have been available for decades, though usually for microfilm readers/printers only. I used both of the above sets of documents (hard copy bought from the US Naval Historical Center and similar sources) in my evaluation of armor and projectiles, since they supply a lot of information concerning the Japanese and German own designs & tests of their own stuff so that I could correlate with US & British post-WWII tests. HIGHLY TECHNICAL DATA.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
By the way, the YAMATO 66cm VH turret face was tilted back 45 degrees. It is the only plate ever mounted on a ship that cannot be completely penetrated by any shell of any gun ever mounted on a ship, including its own 18.1-inch gun. At point-blank range or when falling at near 45 degress at very long range, the most powerful guns can punch a hole, but that is all. So the turret armor is near perfecvt -- the Japanese did what they set out to do with these ships as to armor!!
The Kaigun Combined Fleet guys are well-known for their bias of heralding the IJN only to the point where they fudge things to make the USN even greater.
Even when listing other authors they can't help but reduce numbers below US like 'Seventh Carrier' IJN Yonaga to carry 104 instead of 148 planes as Albano wrote.
They use biased data from Okun who cherry-picked US-contractor ONLY reports on their product vs Jap w/o even mentioning IJN or neutral data. His own source contradicts itself.
The guy actually writes his own 'biography' as if someone wrote it for him & if you check the sources he gives, they use his work for their work. lol. Talk about looping sources. He writes a report then uses someone who quoted his work as proof of the authenticity of his report.
Just like how Cheney convinced one media of a false report by quoting another media repeated what he said without checking it for themselves.
It seems to be acceptable to lie as long as it is patriotic. Bias.
That is SO weird. I was doing search for research for game to give my boyfriend for birthday and he had said almost exactly the same thing you just did. So weird.
But he's got some more complaint about someone with Bachelor of Arts instead of Bachelor of Science.
He's going into military design himself & keeps whining how unethical we are anymore, just printing and revising things to capitalize on the patriotic mood or whatever, re-write facts to what audience wants to buy he says. Weird man.
What is this music, from Dragonball ?
biggrigga 1 month ago
@biggrigga Space battleship Yamato
calis920 1 week ago
thats right....if japan had better target control radar back then.....probably i will be able to visit yamashiro or ise today....
TheBByamashiro 1 month ago
A fair fight?What are you smoking?The montanas were built todeal with Musashi-level enemies-and their radar was only part of the story-cumputerized range keeping was present as well. And the iron rain of air attack and submarine torpedoes which put paid to Musashi and yamato wouldn't have lost their punch-they'd have been there as well.
rigamarrow 1 month ago
what name have the game????
USSVoyager100 5 months ago
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A FINE BATTLE.
00Xenoscar00 6 months ago
how did you make it if it is a game tell me how to download it please and i might subscribe to u
spitfire12able 11 months ago
THIS IS EPIC!
caelancox 1 year ago
Iowa would have lost to the Yamato considering the face that the Yamato's real gun would have rip the Iowa to shreds
fsxlovers 1 year ago
@fsxlovers If she wasn't taking it by torpedoes and bombs. Then she might have a chance
USSWISCONSIN64 11 months ago
@USSWISCONSIN64 no she wouldent she would have sunk anyway becuase she was outof date and she would have been sraped by now anyway
spitfire12able 11 months ago
@spitfire12able Ok the iowas are over 70 years now and they aren't scraped.
USSWISCONSIN64 11 months ago
@USSWISCONSIN64 Battleships have been replaced by cruise missiles
00Xenoscar00 6 months ago
Most Japanese navy veterans I knew during my service with the USS Midway in the 1980's called the Yamato class the most worthless ship in the Imperial Navy, a complete disasterous waste of man and materials.
animefareast 1 year ago
this video is sooo lame lolz jajajaja can't help it
Omarsito318 1 year ago
What is the game? Obviously it's way out of date. judging by the graphics, but nothing else I've seen gives the same feel for naval combat, in my opinion.
deino117 1 year ago
Iowa could have taken Yamato. American damage control really was second to none.
ShrikeArghast 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you call those ship
adman9991 1 year ago
do you control the ships like virtual sailor? and if yes they are any add ons? thanks
xazoulini1 1 year ago
Has anyone ever done an honest computer simulation of an Iowa/Yamato showdown gunfight?
cxj810 1 year ago
@cxj810 i would if i had the game
spitfire12able 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cxj810 "Has anyone ever done an honest computer simulation of an Iowa/Yamato showdown gunfight?"
I don't know. I think it would require a non-US based games company.
wilmanric1 4 months ago
But for all of the arguments, it will always remain a mystery, simply because of the fact it never happened and it never will happen. The Iowa is ship in the reserve fleet, and as for the Yamato, it was attacked and destroyed by 300 US aircraft and sunk about 100 miles north of Okinawa on it's final suicide mission, Operation Ten-Go. So for all of this arguing and debate, unfortunate as it may be, we will never know which ship would win the ultimate one on one battleship duel: Yamato vs. Iowa
ussmissouri63 1 year ago
The Iowa's crew was among the best trained in the world at that time (after the carrier crews of course). This meant the crew could reload the ship's guns faster, outting out more shells, therefore allowing for more shells to be fired, allowing the range to found in a shorter amount of time, and allowing more shells to be put on the target. The only advantages the Yamato really had was guns of a larger diameter bore, and higher quality steel.
ussmissouri63 1 year ago
@ussmissouri63 big time higher quality steal but the guns wernt better although larger they are worse in velocity and just the type of shell of whitch the iowa all had better but the yamato class could take almsot twice as mutch as the iowa but it jsut wouldnt have any crew or guns to fire with as they would all be dead, and another is just that the iowas where laid down almost 6 yeards after the yamatos? and commisioned 4 years after? yamatos took longer to build for worse manufactury equipment
sDsTriplexXx 1 year ago
The first was it's FCS. The Iowa's Mark VII FCS was so advanced, it enabled it to hit targets almost as far away as the Yamato's 18.1 inch guns. Second was damage control ability. The Iowa's damage control teams were among the best trained in the world at that time, and the Yamato's because of the fact many captains and sailors went down with their ships, there weren't many experienced men to replace them. The final factor was crew quality.
ussmissouri63 1 year ago
The Iowa and the Yamato were VERY closely matched. If they were put up in a one v one engagement, the ship to survive and sink the other first would probably be very heavily damaged as well, and possibly even sink before it got back to port. But the simple truth remains that while the Yamato did, yes, have it's massive 18.1 guns, which each of the turrets weighed more than a standard Fletcher-class destroyer, the Iowa had 3 factors that gave it large advantages over the Yamato.
ussmissouri63 1 year ago
lol thats exactly what would the japanese would be getting hammered while there still trying to get their turrets aimed and even if they did get em aimed they might get 1 lucky hit out of maybe 10 yamato was not a very great ship maybe n thought but with the crews and stuff they had yamato would practically be pointless in a gun fight specialy agasint US ships which have the best FCS.
Pincuishin 1 year ago
Bwahahaha such a catchy tune
BigManInCanada 1 year ago
study a-bomb test results at sea (bikini atoll) etc...most iowa bb carried atomic cannon tactical nuke rounds to be used at sea!....glorious german prinz eugen survived atomic bomb test!
m60a3ttsmilwaukee 1 year ago
ww-2 battleship battles were fought between midnight and dawn...less aircraft after dark!...the huge handicap the jap navy has was oil!...their whole pacific war is for oil etc...(us subs unrestricted sinking oil tankers!)...you can build super-battleships...but japs ran very low on fuel oil to train and deploy them!....think of the logistics!
m60a3ttsmilwaukee 1 year ago
weard
ColeDanMovieStudios 1 year ago
jaspion que isso
BRASIL gostei da musiquinha
SAMUELDUNGAORIGINAL 1 year ago
The reason Yamato sucked was because it was too powerful for its own good. The main guns were so powerful much of Yamato's AA guns required a special blast shield that restricted movement and greatly limited sight, making an aerial attack even more dangerous. While it would likely make short work of even the Iowa, presuming all went without quirks, it was ultimately aircraft that proved its undoing.
CyberWar666 1 year ago
It was more likely to be torped because aircraft were beginning to emerge as the main weapon around tht time, but if the US took 1 or 2 maybe 3 battleships an d a few escaorts, they could have easily kicked Yamato's ass in the Ten Go mission, but they used aircraft becuase they knew tht would be the better way to destroy it
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
It seems necessary to repeat this: the USN tested Yamato class turret armour plate after the war: the 16" guns could not penetrate it! End of story.
The same cannot be said for Iowa.
Wars arent fought "on paper" so on-paper comparisons are only so good. I think it would really come down to luck. The two ships are very different, but come out about even. Iowa has better gunnery, Yamato better protection and much more destructive ordinance. Push.
wilmanric1 2 years ago 2
Let me ask you this it seems on paper & in actual combet the USN BB's had far better TDS then Yamato. you bring up turret armor but was a BB more likely to be torpedoed during WW2 or was it more likely to be hit it's contemporaries guns?
ickysdad 2 years ago
(I thought I already replied to this). Irrelevant, because we are talking about a completely artificial situation: Two BB's meeting and duking it out. If you want to debate two fleets meeting, that's different, but then why bother talking about the BB's anyhow: CV's and their planes would decide that.
Now, if you do want to talk about torps then there's no doubt the Japanese "Long Lance" were far superior to anything any other country had in WWII.
wilmanric1 2 years ago
Well ur right there aircraft could kick any ship's ass easy, and the long lance wasd a very technologically advanced torp for its time, but it was only effective if, of course, the torpedoes were made proper adjusments before being launched.
An example would b the battle of samar. The Japanese fired torps to hit some carriers, but they were launched bfore proper adjustments were made, so they, of course, missed.
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
Well I thought we were comparing attributes of different BB's? Actually when the USN & RN started using Torpex their torpedoes became more powerful .
ickysdad 2 years ago
@wilmanric1 Ok well even though the Yamato did have better armor than the Iowa, the Iowa would win for many factors: One, because it had superior radar and fire control systems, two, because it was much faster than the Yamato, and three because the Iowa was the peak of battleship development at the time. And again, even though the Yamato had larger guns, armor, etc. it lacked an accurate fire control system, which meant that its shellfire were quite inaccurate compared to the Iowa's
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
Actually ickysdad, the Yamato hit an escort carrier and a couple of destroyers and sank them. Also, the reason y the Yamato had so much more water flood in was because hte Americans had much better damage control teams than the Yamato, and also, the torpedo tht hit Yamato hit her near her bow, which is where the Yamato's armor was thinnest And also the trop tht hot North Carolina hit amidships, which was where her armor was thickest.
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
several falacies here...There's no prof she hit anything at Samar if you have any sources please give them. Yamato was hit between frames 151 & 173 the upper magazines were flooded so so much for hitting in the weakest place and it wasn't near her bow but aft on the starboard side.North carolina was hit in the way of the forward turret where the TDS was the narrowest.Oh North Carolina's TDS was rated at 700 lbs while post war tests showed Yamato's rated at 600 lbs. Keep trying guys.
ickysdad 2 years ago
Ya on wikipedia it showed pictures of a few ships she hit and sank. And alson the NC's armor was much thicker near the forward turret than Yamato's at the stern on the starborad side. The Yamato's armor was thinnest at both the bow and stern of the ship
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
wikpedia is notorious for being inaccurate I rely more on Norman Friedman, Garzke & Dulin, Wilmott and others.
ickysdad 2 years ago
wikipedia is constantly being updated and now they always check the articles to make sure no one puts anything tht may be untrue
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
Not necessarily and yes I've seen some misteps by wikpedia.
ickysdad 2 years ago
Oh and armor isn't what stops torpedoes the TDS or rather Torpedo Defence System does and armor isn't used to stop torpedoes.
ickysdad 2 years ago
Armor doesnt stop torpedoes, but it does cushion the blow, and the TDS was just an anti torpedo bulge during WWII, and while it did absorb the blow, it didnt completely stop it.
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
People are also forgetting that unlike Allied crews, the Japanese were extremely well trained in night fighting. There are many well-documented instances where in 1942 and 1943 the Japanese could be relied on to make the first sighting, even though the Allied ships had radar. Even after attrition began to reduce overall crew quality in mid 1944, the Allies still could not match the Japanese flair for night-fighting. What finally evened the odds was the US invention of flashless powder in '45.
wilmanric1 2 years ago
Lets see: Iowa. Still afloat, proven and used in many battles. Yamato: Not even any confirmed hits, like her sister ship the Musashi they did absolutely nothing spectacular and spent most of the time docked. Also, Yamato deck armor was proven to be faulty as one torpedo hit broke through and cracked the belt, letting in 3,000 tons of sea water. Though impressive spec wise and design wise it would get beaten badly by an Iowa class or Montana class had they been built. They were fluff!
ricsim78 2 years ago
Yamato's armored deck was never penetrated by bombs. The hit you mentioned was on the lightly armored forecastle. The problem Yamato had was a rigid hull. Torpedo hits would cause bulkheads to penetrate other parts of the hull.
If Yamato had radar similar to US fire control radar...Yamato would have a better than 50/50 chance of winning. You think Iowa could handle 20 torps?
YamatoForever 2 years ago
The Musashi was in trouble way before 20 torpedo hits she was having real problems after just 6 bomb hits & 6 torpedo hits.
ickysdad 2 years ago
Musashi was still afloat 4 hours after taking 19 torpedoes, 17 bombs, and 18 exploding bomb near misses. Iowa wouldn't be able to handle anything near that kind of damage.
nicoleandclyde 2 years ago
She was under attack for 4 hours but she was having troubles after just 6 bombs & 6 torpedoes & certainly doomed after 7 bombs and 9 torpedoes. I've read the Grimes Reports which studied what the Japanese reports said,
ickysdad 2 years ago
The Iowa never got hit by another battleship, though a kamakaze tried to re-do her paint job. The US navy tested the Yamato class armour plate after the war. They discovered the US 16" was able to penetrate the main turret armour only at point blank range, and a 0-degree impact angle. Also, the Main rangefinders on the Yamatos would be higher off the sea, and set wider apart, improving sighting.
wilmanric1 2 years ago
and yet one torpedo from the skate flooded her with 4,000 tons of water,the North Carolina hit by a torpedo was flooded with only about 900 tons of water on a ship half the size of the Yamato. Yamato's guns never hit anything either at Battle of Samar.
ickysdad 2 years ago
The Yamato is the only ship ever built that had armour that could not be penetrated by any weapon in existence. USN tests proved that after the war. Iowa's fire control system gave an edge that cannot be discounted--but that doesn't mean the Yamato had no chance to hit back. With better rangefinders, that suggestion is ludicrous. Iif Yamato hit Iowa, she'd be hurt. Yamato's shells were 20% heavier. Iowa's shells were lighter, firing ats. heavier armour.
wilmanric1 2 years ago 2
her turret armor couldn't be penetrated the same couldn't necessarily be said of her deck or belt armor.
ickysdad 2 years ago
The the donkey fuck kind of paint scheme is on these boats!?
RoyalWarspite 2 years ago
Although u r right tht the USN does have the advantage, they also have the advantage of both radar directed guns and acuurate fire control systems. The Yamato had to rely on human eyesight in order to aim their guns, which made them far less accurate, beacuse, as we all know, technonlogy is far more advanced than us in many cases, especially in terms of warfare technology.
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
Check the combined fleet site, yamato specs and gun to gun size. Or better look at my photobucket site and you see plenty Yamato just so you can easily see.
G777GUN 2 years ago
Theg777 on photobucket.
G777GUN 2 years ago
The point is tht the US fleet had better ships and besides if the US had taken a bunch of destroyers and maybe 1 or 2 battleships they could have beaten the Yamato with no air cover
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
It is irrelevant that the Yamato had 18.1 inchers and the US had 16 inchers. The US fleet had incredibly accurate fire control systems, which enabled them to use their main cannon range to their full advantage. The Japanese ships had only a primitive sort of fire control and the American battleships were unmatched in fire control accuracy because of their technology.
ussmissouri63 2 years ago
Yamato may not have Radar controlled guns but it did have radar directed guns. It says it in this book Battleships axis and neutral. Sorry but daytime or nightime Yamato always had the advantage. Yes Iowas guns were more accurate but yamato had more armour which meant in order to penetrate its armour the US ships would have to get closer. Which they knew to well and thats why they never confronted it. Only with planes and still took two bloody hours to kill it even though ther were 350+ planes.
G777GUN 2 years ago
No they didn't have the advantage daytime or not . Japanese radar was way behind that of the US. I have "Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War Two" by Garzke & Dulin also. It's detection range for a BB size target was much less then comarable USN radars ,the aforementioned book even states it's detection range. West Virginnina at Surigao scored a hit on her first salvo at 23,000 yards at night. Yamato'sradar would be lucky to detect a BB at that range.
ickysdad 2 years ago
I really hate getting in these situations. By the way i have that book too. It says that Type 21- Kai had in the accurate detection range was 38,227 yards. Now it does say that, and i know how difficult it is to shoot somthing at long distance the bearing errors were at maximum range less than 5* at close range 10*. Effective detection range on a battleship 24,625metres around 27000yds. Effective detection range. That monster could still see you even there radar wasnt as good as the USN.
G777GUN 2 years ago
I know what your saying but knowing a target is there and being able to spot shell splahes is totally different. Now all this being said Yamato's optics were extremely good if not unsurpassed. However at nite or in bad disability a USN BB would have a distinct advantage.
ickysdad 2 years ago
You have got a point. The USN does have the advantage at night or bad visability. you must admit though that yamato wasnt completly blind. People keep sending me messages saying that iowa would kick yamatos ass. sorry for my language but its annoying even when some people dont even look at for info about these ships. Its annoying. So at night Iowa would most likly win. and in daytime yamato would most likly win. its these 50/50 chance things that get people really talking.
G777GUN 2 years ago
I know that game and played lots of times and i can say you cheated, Yamato guns will have fired mutch early because they have a greater range and in the movie we see it taking hits beforhe could point his guns, and then you made the fleet turn around making impossible to fire all guns while US fleet mantained the course and could fire all broad guns
DaMatta11 2 years ago
hey, even if the yamato fired earlier it is unlikely that she wouldve scored any hits either, unlike the americans the japanese didnt have the radar fire control. so the yamatos guns effective range was much shorter than the americans.
haienbleurgh 2 years ago
Do you happen to know what the longest range ever obtained was? Just because Yamato's guns out-range another BB's doesn't mean it can hit at those ranges. Yamato's gunnery at Battle of Samar wasn't exactly good.
ickysdad 2 years ago
cool animation
GENERAL9612 2 years ago
Which classes of US Battleships are included here?
I see some that look like Iowas, but some others have different turret layout.
Graphics are so-so, so they're hard to ID.
Pzgraf 2 years ago
The first 2 are Montanas, the proposed 4 turret battleship which would counter the Yamato. The others look like Iowas and North Carolinas.
HelmutVillam 2 years ago
"counter" they had the original iowa "16 guns on it how should they counter a range of more than 42 km? its imposible the american's couldnt even build that ships because of this see passage(dont know the name sry) they have to driven through(sry for bad english i am german(and an nf player on ijn side because of the yamato)
KoutaSeto 2 years ago
the 16 inch guns on the american ships may have had a shorter maximum range but the effective range was much superior to the japanese guns. as said before the americans had radar fire control unlike the japanese.
haienbleurgh 2 years ago
The Yamamoto got run off the water by the Johnson and Samuell B Adams and they were just 1900 ton destroyers.
lutherheggs 2 years ago 4
.... it got sunk on a suicde mission when attaked by over 260 us aircraft
china1man 2 years ago
it was 400 hundred american air planes "Hell Cat" if I'm not taking wrong...
AnCafeBest 2 years ago
music from Star Blazers? first song.
Gunnerman65 2 years ago
What game is this?
noelchan127 2 years ago
Fighting Steel
JFDhater 2 years ago
the first song on there was from a sci fi in japan based on yamato
s3anco 2 years ago
The designed Montana class would have enjoyed a huge immunity zone to all heavy guns in existence. The 18" shells from Yamato would literally bounce from the decks and belt. When you design a ship(the Montana) specifically to beat another one,(Yamato) it generally does just that.
AmericanThunder 2 years ago
Flag-waving maybee, Cocksucker . . . .No I'm a muffsucker and proud of it!
stridertenryu your obviously a lover of everything Japanese that's cool I respect & admire Japanese culture I made this video with no prejeduce against Japan, I make my Naval warefare videos as a what-if scenario. Try and understand the Yamato Class super battleships where incredible amazing fighting machines,
But remember this stridertenryu Yamato & Musashi are both sunker tumbs & the Iowa's are floating museums.
f3hdemon 2 years ago
@f3hdemon well said
hahan00b 1 year ago
so.. why is the biggest battleship in the world (also with the heaviest guns) loosing to a group of destroyers and battleships even though the japanese aloso have support
wasd853 2 years ago
The 16"/50 cal guns carried by the Iowa class and intended for the Montana class have comparable armor penetrating ability to the 18" guns carrier by Yamato and her sister ship, but they are lighter and faster reloading. Also, America at the time was the only Nation using radar assisted fire control. It's so accurate that even during the 1980s modernization of the Iowa battleships, the original fire control was left intact.
AmericanThunder 2 years ago
WHATS THAT GAME CALLED
sardos666 2 years ago
Fighting Steel i think
98RamMagnum 2 years ago
Mr Okun shame on you!
Don't listen to him boys, no amount of Arts degrees qualify as Science in any 1st world nation.
I may only be a retired 25 yr scientist fully tenured 13 more years as University professor, but my ex-husband worked for the US military & he also updated his degrees every 10 years like the rest of us. He never heard of Mr Okun till recently & after looking over his work rejects any claim Jap data used.
BSc teaches you ethical respect for impiricism in the scientific method.
angiedickinsonski 2 years ago 12
My grandsons had this game & want me to type "why doesn't mr okun point out how flawed this game is with the Yamato face turret armor penetrated at given distances in this simulation if his own claims make that impossible?"
If my ex could keep going back to update his BSc's in various fields with a family of 5, then I see no excuse for someone who wants to be respected as a 'scientific' authority.
You boys don't equate any number of Arts degrees with your full accreditation. Do it right.
angiedickinsonski 2 years ago 11
For one thing Nathan Okun didn't design this game so take it up with the game designers.. Go on all you want Mr. Okun is highly respected in matters like these.
ickysdad 2 years ago
Errr thanks. U just svd me 8 mns of my life.
azz578 3 years ago
This battle ins´t fair. 100% not fair.
The japanese didn´t have a chance!
Americans: 48 16inch guns;
Japanese: 40 14inch guns and 18 18inch guns.
In addition, the Americans began to shoot before the Japanese could even appoint weapons.
The battle was already decided before even to begin!!!
American idiot!
joaoonda 3 years ago 4
True.
I had the game myself and this is obviously set in 2 player mode deliberately to make the Japanese look inferior.
I also looked up the quoted sources like Wilmott, Okun and the Naval Report and Icksy did fib, while War100 and cartoon guy did quote them accurately in their criticism of the claims.
Just thought someone should have checked who was fibbing and who wasn't if you don't yourself.
Obviously we threw away this game.
It appears the programmers have the same bias you point out.
GreyCup1989 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No I didn't fib. Now do you care just to say how I fibbed? Read the Grimes Reports on the pages I specified.
ickysdad 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Per Wilmott...page 115..."One of the most reliable sources suggests that the Musashi was overwhelmed by as many as 20 torps & 17 bombs,but it would seem that 11 of the torps & 10 bombs were in the final attack, by which time having previously been hit by 9 torps and 7 bombs was in REAL DIFFICULTY and on 2 counts. Now reading that and what the Grimes Report I quoted earlier it seems the Musashi was finished after just 6 bombs & 6 torps depending on waht is meant by "REAL DIFFICULTY".
ickysdad 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Also read pages 117-118 of Wilmott on the depth settings of US torps may have helped the Musashi because of thier probably hitting the armored belt versus hitting underneath it. Do some research and see just what one torpedo did to Yamato & Musashi when torpedoed by USN subs.
ickysdad 2 years ago
You fibbed when you claimed Willmott wrote that the Musashi was "a goner" when he did not. He wrote "in very real difficulty" though she'd lost her place in fleet formation she was still able to make 16 knots.
I have also read the Grimes Report & again war & corn quoted correctly & I can find none of your claims there.
I found out who cornerasser is & he has done lectures at our academy, tho i don't like him greatly, I can't find anything wrong in his or war's quotes here like i have yours.
GreyCup1989 2 years ago 6
again read sections 20 & 21 of the Grimes Report on Musashi's sinking. What your leaving out is that she was doing 16 knots but had to slow down even farther to 12 knots because of her bow trim. Also what is the difference between "In real difficulty" and being a "gonner"? Those other two posters also were wrong about IJN radar being better the USN's or the Iowa's only being able to spot fire out to 28K.
ickysdad 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
section 20 of Grimes report on the Musashi sinking states that by 13:15 she had recieved 6 bombs & 6 torps speed was down to 12 knots, little list or progressive flooding(but evidently some). In section 21 it states 6 bombs & 6 torps recieved "Musashi wasn't fatally damaged or necessarily in jeorpardy unless additional damage was recieved" .She is slowed down to 12 knots , down by the bow taking on some progressive flooding how far is that from being a goner ???
ickysdad 2 years ago
as far as fibbing...Some posters stated that IJN radar was superior to USN radar and was according to the Grimes Reports ..Those posters most certainly lied.
ickysdad 2 years ago
@joaoonda just like irl...towards the end of the war the US had the japanese running...i reallyyy doubt the japanese would have found the american ships before they were spotted....the americans towards the end had superiority at sea, and the air. the IJN had no carriers left to scout....and even if they did those planes would have to deal with the USN FAC. dont get upset..because the japanese were ont he defensive
hahan00b 1 year ago
@hahan00b actually the ijn still did have a good carrier force by leyte gulf, they just had no pilots, for example they had the first steel deck carrier in the pacific whtich was the yamatos sister but her hull was changed into a carrier in mid building, its just the ijn pilots went by a samurai code whitch meant almsot all of them would kill themselves rather then get shot down so pilots didnt live long and every battle one for the ijn was a battle lost of good pilots
sDsTriplexXx 1 year ago
War isn't fair! Stop making battles fair!
Cheeseisgood222 3 years ago
yamato was a super battleship
xucphra50 3 years ago
Yes it was and I think one of the most beautiful BB's ever built. It's sad that when BB's reached thier zenith as far as quality goes that airpower took over.
ickysdad 3 years ago
i must say the Nimitz class Carriers look rather beautiful too
EmperorTiger 3 years ago
By 1944/45 the Yamato class were basically obsolete targets. The Shinano is a good example. Sunk by a submarine before she ever got into the fight! There are two types of ships today. Submarines and Targets!
golf7272 3 years ago
Look at the state of these comments. Everybody grab a beer and relax, OK?
defdogg 3 years ago
Yes we should relax BUT awhile back i set out to prove that certain posters were mis-representing certain sources. Certain parties also stated that the Grimes Reports said things that it didn't.
ickysdad 3 years ago
montana classes are huge battleships, at 900+ feet long with four 16" triple turrets, very formidable for the Yamatos, and i see that the US made the first hit and made the Yamato's guns out of commission, but in the real battle, Yamato has a greater range of fire due to it's 18.1" guns
JohnMufasa 3 years ago
A couple of comments...
I saw the name Nate Okun mentioned... I know Nate... I serve with him on the O'Callahan in the Mid 80's...
Another interesting engagement I'd like to see is a South Dakota Class take on a Bismarck Class. Other points I saw that are valid is the exceptional quality of US Radar Fire Control as well as the 16"-50 Cal rifle wielded by the Iowas (and planned Montanas) were ALMOST as good as the 18.1" Yamato weapons, which is why USN didn't bother to try to exceed it
JerBear01966 3 years ago
A few comments here....
US Iowa Class had several advantages vs. Yamato Class:
16" Main Battery had same hitting power as Yamato 18.1* and a higher rate of fire. US had superior radar directed gunnery couple with early gyro stabilized computers to calculate ranges. Iowa class had SLOPED armor which while thinner, could absorb considerable punishment. Iowa class was 6 knots faster and could therefore DICTATE the range chosen for combat.....lastly US had far superior damage control
biancademonet 3 years ago
Nathan Okun, is sadly used by some authors who don't respect the Scientific Method, using his research of US vs Jap weapon capabilities. Having worked as US weapons testor he can't be considered an objective researcher, anymore than Cheney in charge of Haliburton investigations. Using data collected by US military violates the methodology of impirical data collection. Authors who use unscientific claims are sad. These are the same people who don't care that THIS battle was rigged for US victory.
ElmerFuddNRA 3 years ago 5
As a science teacher and researcher I wholeheartedly agree.
In Canada we have similar things happen too.
The Police who investigate themselves or the Senate forming a committee to decide whether their latest self-imposed pay-increase was justified.
But America especially seems to have settled into a culture where people think its ok Enron audits itself or politicians can influence Intelligence or as you say, authors use unethical 'scientific' investigations to sell something.
WMDs in Iraq?
cornergasser 3 years ago 6
Being from a Mighty Mo family myself(Missouri = Iowa) having served & family served back through war in gunnery & radar, I have to reluctantly agree.
It's embarassing.
My daughter's working to be a scientist & these topics come up in her homework & as perfect examples of unethical research. I have a relative who always claims she can 'scientifically' prove the universe is only 6000 yrs old. Like Okun, she can find authors to publish her work too, SAD. Anything to stroke own ego & make a buck.
wargamer102 3 years ago 5
So you are saying that only the game of numbers matters? Even if you're right about the research A) no battleship was twice as good as the Iowa's and B) numbers don't count for shit! in midway numberwise America would have been obliterated, but it was a resounding win, save for the obsolete torpedo bombers.
futurememberUSN 3 years ago
Ur right my navy friends, Icky can't even quote Willmott right. & Friedman HIMSELF is listed as source for Conway's you list, p178 Shinano armor thinner, Yamato immune to own 18" shells 22-33000, range 45960, spotter planes or 49' optics, p7 even 45500 radar could spot splash only 21500, p98 Iowa armor same SD immune to 16/45 only at 20500-26400.
Sadly this is what America has fallen into, & why CNN makes fun 75% still believe Saddam behind 9/11 & had WMDs.
Any wonder the world laughs at US?
ElmerFuddNRA 3 years ago 5
Mr Okun could still be employed by the US military, even the top USN R&D man, however it's self representation, contaminated research from the start.
When Conquerors find resistance & questionable cooperation from the Vanquished, & the Conquerors have final say on what collected information is acceptable; that's bias.
When someone whose career was proving the worth of the Conquerors technology, is in charge of interpreting comparison between product of Conqueror & Vanquished, again bias.
ElmerFuddNRA 3 years ago 4
1st ty gentlemen for avoiding ranting ive seen im monitoring grandson here.
2nd he's the hacker with the pc(one reason im here) so tells me icky & Mr Okun are the same account, i hope like dad & son.
3rd i agree with mr okun/icky that if asked, people should source their statements.
4th he'd like to know exactly which posts have stated lies as accused.
I care zip for Japs or their ships, so i tell g it telling that this game was rigged & for US victory & some haven't spoken against.
ElmerFuddNRA 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you're disagreeing with Nathan Okun about armor qualities, you're fighting from a hole. You might as well explain your ideals on retail to Sam Walton
WouldBeHasBeens 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sounds like a compliment to Nathan Okun if you ask me lol
ickysdad 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The NAVTECMISJAP and US Navy tests of Japanese equipment after WWII (just like the German NAVTECMISEU) was done to compare actual Japanese information to our own information gleaned during the war. It has NO bias whatsoever. If you do not "know your enemy" realistically, you get your ass handed to you on a sling & that happened quite enough to the US Navy at the start of WWII. Engineers can't have a political bias--the equipment doesn't care about your religion or politics when it kills you!
NathanOkun 3 years ago
Someone admits the US wasn't best at something & they attacked as unpatriotic, or foreigner anti-american. I checked back all 108 & those like Corner LITERALLY give book name, page# even quote like me & these "USA must always be #1" just change account names instead of admit wrong.
CG you were right, the fact they/he doesn't see the need for actual Jap data of Yamato to make conclusion about her, let alone need for neutral investigator like even debate rules proves they don't respect truth.
wargamer102 3 years ago 5
All I seen was casual references to Friedman, Ireland and Conways nothing pertaining to which publication of thiers or whatever. I'm not saying the US is number one at everything an I dare you to oint one case where I have. On the FC data from the Grimes Report several over on Bob Henneman's battlecruiser board said they read it and it doesn't say anything like what your saying. Oh and Washington actually hit Kirishima about 20 times just check the latest Warship International.
ickysdad 3 years ago
I've looked at all c120 posts on this tube, YOU are the only one mentioning the Washington & Kirishima. Are u lost?
If calling someone a liar about using authors, be specific as to who said what & why it is a lie.
Instead of relying in private webpages & hearsay, why don't u go read the latest unsealed Grime Report yourself & see?
instead of say 'someone else says it ain't so'?
If u r Okun & that's how you check contrary info, then I see what they mean about lack of Scientific Method.
wargamer102 3 years ago 4
No you brought up about Lee scoring only 9 hits out of 75 at 6K in your post 5 months ago. I assumed you were talking about Washington verse Kirishima right? Anyways you were wrong about the range & number of hits. I've read some of the reports and they dion't say what is being said on here. No I'm not Nathan Okun . if you have the "latest" reports then post them or link them so everybody can see them.
ickysdad 3 years ago
Wars family r Mighty Mo people, mine on the Washington so we often joke. A colleague is friends with Howard Wright of the Washington Memorial itself & he ignores ur 20 claim, so take it up with him.
As for range, I thot 8k was closest but war's right Lippman's account on the Bb56 page itself does say 6. Lee does claim IJN accuracy equalled ours.
Jane's War at Sea by Ireland & Grove p190 "Shattered by nine 16" & some forty 5" hits, she(Kirishima) blazed until scuttled about three hours later."
cornergasser 3 years ago
The 20 hits claim was from Warship International after the wreck was explored a few years back. My figures for Washington opening fire is from Washington's own battle report so take it up with her crew at the time furthermore that report would be considered a primary document not a seconadary source . On what Lee said well I've seen no other source other then what you've just stated but tell me how did all those USN DD's get to 6-10K without beoing blowed out of the water if IJN is so good?
ickysdad 3 years ago
I've done search on Warship International and can find no article on the Kirishima.
I've also got the National Geographic Video "The Lost Fleet of Guadalcanal", which unfortunately u can get on Amazon for .99cents, where does Ballard count 20 instead of 9 x 16" hits?
I've checked back my books including recent dvd series written/produced after the dives & can find no 20 number.
I've had a friend ask the Washington Memorial again too just in case.
They would be the first to claim evidence.
cornergasser 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What's your source for your statement 3 months ago Shinano having weaker armor then Yamato or Musashi? On your statement 4 months ago we could spot our shot to 28K but the japanese could do it to 45K? Or your statement 4 months ago that Spurance,Lee and Kincaid say the japanese could spot thier fire farther then what our radar could? The Kirishima article is in the most recent edition.
ickysdad 3 years ago
Any true fan of world naval-power would have ur questions answered from Janes, Conways even Campbell. Like expecting a dictionary b4 shakespeare. Theres no use giving u Nipponese books not published in English. In 30 yrs ive only heard Grove & Ireland refered to as coffee table work since The Shattered Sword tho Ive been assured by Jon Parshal who ive shared bald jokes with assured me he wouldnt tolerate that statement in his presence so we dont know where this ignorant insolence comes from.
cornergasser 3 years ago 4
Actually the Technical Report tends to support my view because in section 21 of said report Musashi was in the case Wilmott referred to as "real difficulty" after just 6 bombs & 6 torpedoes . Further even before the devastating final attack she had to slow down to 12 knots and even at that was taking on progressive flooding. it's right there in a primary document based to a large part on interviews with IJN officers and there also is no mention of scuttling that you referred to.
ickysdad 3 years ago
OH no answers to where you got some of your other statements like the IJN spotting thier fire out to 45K? Shinano having weaker armor then Musashi or Yamato? Spurance's,Lee's or Kincaid's statements? I read the technical report and it doesn't say anything about the IJN having near as good of radar as has been put forward here.
ickysdad 3 years ago
I'm editing here I meant to add another bomb hit along with 3 earlier torpedoes to the 6 bombs & 6 torpedoes from the 2nd. attack.
ickysdad 3 years ago
I also noticed in another part of youtube where you & wargamer 102 stated the Ki-84 along with the Spitfire XIV were faster then the P-51 However there are some caveats to those assumptions . If the top speed of a Ki-84 is 427 MPH at 20,000 then it isn't faster then the P The -51 or P-47 just faster at that one altitude. The Spit XIV does hit 446 MPH at 25,400' to P-51D 440 MPH at 24,500 but the P-51 is using 100 grade fuel at factory settings ,the XIV is using 21 lbs. overboost on 44-1 fuel
ickysdad 3 years ago
If you still believe you know better than Eric Groves & Bernard Ireland about hits, contact them.
War's range came from Lippman's ComBat Report 6, if you still feel you know better than the actual Washington BB56 Memorial people, Stanley Weintraub, William Manchester & Caleb Carr, then I suggest you contact:
Howard Wright
President
USS Washington BB56 Associate Unit, Inc
Since war102 did show me those sources, he changed my mind. Both our veteran relatives have far more respect for IJN.
cornergasser 3 years ago
Where have I down played the IJN? I'm still waiting for that 2005 document that changed everything in regards to how good the IJN radar was.
ickysdad 3 years ago
You rely on websites, Eric Groves & Bernard Ireland . I read Friedman , Garske & Dulin, Lundstrom ,Chris Shores, Richard Franks ,D. K. Brown and Wilmott. Groves & ireland's books are what you call "coffee table' type books unlike the authors I listed you rely mainly on primary documents. Now Franks in his Guadalcanal book says 9 hits too BUT it was printed in 1990 before the expedition to examine the Kirirshima whereupon Warship International published the findings of.
ickysdad 3 years ago
I meant to say my authors rely almost exclusively on primary documents . I meant to use the thword 'they" instead of "you"
ickysdad 3 years ago
Btw b4 I returned to be science/history teacher, I was in navy & did international consulting for various countries, military & private because I was impartial. I also work for game co. So yes I use Campbell, Friedman, Grove, Ireland, Watts(both), Morrison, Ballard, Hogg, Preston, Stillwell, Grimes, Stanton, Koenig but also Rahn, Epkenhans, Ikeda, Nakada, Nishihata, Miyazato, Hiroyuko, Naito, Tachibana, Nagagawa, Iwata, Ohira, Yonekura, Sugimoto, Smith, Grether, Wells & more on the walls here.
cornergasser 3 years ago 3
Very,very Impressive I have quite a few of those authors too. However if you have all thos where have you gotten...
Musashi almost being saved? Wilmott bacsiaclly says she was a gonner by the time she had just recieved 7 bombs and 9 torpedoes. Where's the 2005 document you and wargamer 102 keep bringing up? # months ago you said Musashi was scuttled what's your source on that?
ickysdad 3 years ago
Any1 who reads his book p115-7 knows you are misrepresenting what Willmott writes. He never uses the word 'gonner' instead after 9torp & 7bomb was in 'real difficulty'. He writes shed already survived more damage than ANY other bb could. Because her 16knts meant she couldnt keep her protected place in fleet, she had to try to beach but couldnt because of night? Look up US Naval Technical Mission to Japan 1945-46 urself. Like Parshal, I wont tolerate any1 who disrespects Ireland & Groves work.
cornergasser 3 years ago 6
Oh just wherer do you get that Wilmott's book is US biased?
ickysdad 3 years ago
U'r sounding paranoid. I typed 'us' as in we. Does Wilmot write for Japanese readers? Of course not. Does he write about as many of our defeats as our victories? Of course not. Does he write as much on the IJN as the USN/RN? Of course not. The bias is natural.
I wrote Nagasawa was biased to IJN. Im biased in more ww2 than Civil War research.
Instead of only attacking those u disagree with to give their sources, why dont u offer up ur book & quote instead? Contribute instead of just tear down.
cornergasser 3 years ago 5
Don't have or haven't viewed the 2005 document? I have provided sources like Waship International ,oh the issue is 2007,volume 4 for the Kirishima debate. I have started all this because some authors were being quoted out of context like Friedman .
ickysdad 3 years ago
It would help if u didn't rely on a suspect source.
We contacted Warship International when they wouldn't even reprint that issue for orders & asked them to at least confirm your claims, which they won't do.
So then we rented the actual Ballard Expedition Video supposedly quote & nowhere does it make the 20 claim but sticks with the 9.
The Washington Memorial did reply tho but again only corroborated what corn wrote.
We're surprised u don't mention how this vid was obviously rigged.
Stuperducker 2 years ago 5
I don't care about a video or simulation just some of the nonsense floating around here. You want me to quote you the article?
ickysdad 2 years ago
I think the whole point is that ur source can't be corroborated because its out of print and they refuse to reprint it.
I think the other point is concern that u don't realize that the Ballard Expedition was the very exploration used in recent studies on the Kirishima and other ships there.
U seem to reject all sources I can check in favour of the one source not available for corroboration.
Okun assumes that the Japs & no1 else ever came up with their own formulas & tests. Bad science.
GreyCup1989 2 years ago
I really don't care if you can't collaborate it that's not my problem. If you really wanted to find & read that issue you would. Just how bad do you really want to find out?
ickysdad 2 years ago
Oh another thing i was right about the Grimes Report. I see you didn't question my last post regarding that thereof. I listed some other websites we could discuss this earlier in this discussion maybe we could go to those?
ickysdad 2 years ago
Man what a bunch of liars!!! I e-mailed Warship International and asked if they Volume Number 44 Issue Number 4 was still in print and you know what??? It still is and is availiable for just around $8.00 -$9.00 . In case you don't know that's the issue with the article about Kirishima being hit by Washington's 16" guns 20 times versus the previous accounts 9 times. As far as you guys on this forum go , as Reagan once said trust but verify.
ickysdad 2 years ago
I don't rely on websites. In fact I've criticised people who do. Lippman, Weintraub, Manchester & Carr are the published historians who've written specifically about the Washington or Guadalcanal battles.
That they share parts of their work on the Washington BB56 Associate Unit Inc
memorial website makes them the most relied upon by the actual Washington veterans themselves. So I'd hardly call that just using some private person or organizations' hobby website.
cornergasser 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My Bachelor of Arts in Physics and Mathematics is because when you combine a BS in Physics and a BA in Math, the Dual Major Degree is always the BA (lowest common denominator) at UCLA. Not my choice.
There is no other source for *correct* face-hardened armor computations than my FACEHARD program and associated docs. Nobody else has ever done a complete study where they evaluated the effect of shockwaves in these hard plates, which is the most important factor in their resistance to hits.
NathanOkun 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The NAVTECMISJAP and NAVTECMISEU Technical Reports have been available for decades, though usually for microfilm readers/printers only. I used both of the above sets of documents (hard copy bought from the US Naval Historical Center and similar sources) in my evaluation of armor and projectiles, since they supply a lot of information concerning the Japanese and German own designs & tests of their own stuff so that I could correlate with US & British post-WWII tests. HIGHLY TECHNICAL DATA.
NathanOkun 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
By the way, the YAMATO 66cm VH turret face was tilted back 45 degrees. It is the only plate ever mounted on a ship that cannot be completely penetrated by any shell of any gun ever mounted on a ship, including its own 18.1-inch gun. At point-blank range or when falling at near 45 degress at very long range, the most powerful guns can punch a hole, but that is all. So the turret armor is near perfecvt -- the Japanese did what they set out to do with these ships as to armor!!
NathanOkun 3 years ago
The Kaigun Combined Fleet guys are well-known for their bias of heralding the IJN only to the point where they fudge things to make the USN even greater.
Even when listing other authors they can't help but reduce numbers below US like 'Seventh Carrier' IJN Yonaga to carry 104 instead of 148 planes as Albano wrote.
They use biased data from Okun who cherry-picked US-contractor ONLY reports on their product vs Jap w/o even mentioning IJN or neutral data. His own source contradicts itself.
wargamer102 3 years ago 7
So true.
The guy actually writes his own 'biography' as if someone wrote it for him & if you check the sources he gives, they use his work for their work. lol. Talk about looping sources. He writes a report then uses someone who quoted his work as proof of the authenticity of his report.
Just like how Cheney convinced one media of a false report by quoting another media repeated what he said without checking it for themselves.
It seems to be acceptable to lie as long as it is patriotic. Bias.
cornergasser 3 years ago 5
That is SO weird. I was doing search for research for game to give my boyfriend for birthday and he had said almost exactly the same thing you just did. So weird.
But he's got some more complaint about someone with Bachelor of Arts instead of Bachelor of Science.
He's going into military design himself & keeps whining how unethical we are anymore, just printing and revising things to capitalize on the patriotic mood or whatever, re-write facts to what audience wants to buy he says. Weird man.
PatriciaDeanneSavik 3 years ago