Yamato, waste of time?

Discussion in 'General' started by Spartan089, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. Gascan

    Gascan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    920
    The "football teams of different eras" comment suggests that we know how teams from the same era would perform against each other, because they often did. Teams from different eras, or ships that did not engage each other in combat, cannot be settled as easily, hence this debate. We are quite certain that Washington can take on the Kirishima, not so certain about Iowa and Yamato since they never fought each other.

    I recall reading that the radar fire control on the Yamato at the time of it's last battle was at least equivalent to, if not slightly better than that mounted on the Iowas. I don't know where I saw this, though. I'd like to find out more about this, and would like to see some sources to support some of the opinions expressed here. Evidence for the vulnerabilities of carriers is well documented. The armor penetration test sound very interesting. Can you try and find it again, so we can see exactly what it says?
     
  2. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,306
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    I think you are slightly confused Gascan. The IJN's OPTICAL fire control was superior to that of the USN, but not their radar.

    Here's a brief comparison of the types...not technical, but a good starting point. The IJN's optics were second to none, but radar trumped optics.

    http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm

    Here's a quote from the above page with some of the relevant information about the IJN's radar capability

    "Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.)"
    "

    Here's another good article talking about fire control:

    http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-052.htm

    Finally, here's a link with information on armor penetration. I'm at work, and a little too lazy to surf through it all, but might be of interest to the historical minded.

    http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.htm

    For information on the capabilities of the USN 16"/50 cal mounted on the Iowas:

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

    And finally, for the performance of the 18.1"/45 cal:

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm
     
  3. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,698
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
    Iowas are faster?In what Format? I know in CWC-X it is a 23 second ship and Yamato is 24 sec.

    Adm Stokomoto
     
  4. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,698
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
    In the hobby Yamato has a tighter turning circle than Iowa and has reserve buoyancy. Armored stringer and bulged at the waterline which makes penetrating there very difficult. Better seakeeping and very stable. The step down quarterdeck allows a down angle from the stern turret.
    Insdie the hull there is generous room to house large equipment ie a 20 oz co2 bottle or other equipment. The stern section inside has a short ramp so getting motors close with shorter shafts works well here. A seperate fantail hatch works well for rudder access. The large bulbous bow works on the model at speed as well as the real thing and it slices through the water very nicely.

    The Iowa model is tight in the bow area for setup and the stern has a large ramp. However it's pretty deep too so there is good height clearance. . Plenty of space in the stern for your equipment ie servos ect. The model has no stringer and is a little more vulnerable to bbs hits. The model turns well and tight also and sits a lower in the water than a Yamato so hitting it is a little more difficult unless you focus on the AFT section where it rises a little more and the bow area which is a huge target area.

    No matter which one you decide on Yamato or Iowa class both ships need to fight aggressively to make use of their armament well but choose your targets wisely and stay away from the shallows. Both ships will do well if setup correctly and played tactically well.

    I hope to have an IOWA one day to compliment my Yamato. I like to see these 2 classes pair up in a scenario to see how they work together.

    ADM STOKOMOTO
     
  5. GregMcFadden

    GregMcFadden Facilitator RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,364
    Hey curt, do you have a copy of your ruleset? I just happen to have an Iowa hull in the basement :)

    -Greg
     
  6. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,698
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
    Hey Greg the copy is being xfrered to digital paper currently. Complete with charts. The Iowa does very well in CWC-X. 23 sec speed,can mount 4 cannons max in a side quadrant. However it is allowed to carry 9 units. 1 PUMP 8 cannons. It can mount tripple sidemounts per side or any combo so long as there is at least 1 defending sidemount in a side quadrant. Rotates will work here nicely so long as the max of 4 firing cannons in a side is not exceeded. Iowa 's cannons are not all 50 rd either. 3 of the cannons are 75rd cannons.

    I would have tripple sidemount, dual sidemount and tripple stern but the tripple stern cannons would be 75rd cannons each. Nassstyyy. 475 Rds of awesomeness.

    Yamato gets 10 units but is slower and has only 50rd cannons. No 75rds cannons. Total ammo 450rds

    Should balance these 2 out nicely.

    ADM STOKOMOTO
     
  7. FirePowerDan

    FirePowerDan RIP

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Posts:
    320
    I looked things up and the British and U.S. Navy's had the only true Fire control radar. All the others had surface search radar. It found them but,was no help for directing the guns against targets.
     
  8. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,698
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
    I located a site that goes in depth to what the Japanese were developing and already had. You be surprised to know that they too had fire control radar though not quite as good as the U.S. but on par with the British and advanced in some areas. Japanese had excellent optics. In fog or smoke screen scenarios useless and this is where the U.S and British Radar have the advantage not relying on clear sight for aiming on Targets. Development stopped near the end of the war due to the changing situation and the lack of resources that were dwindling rapidly as the war came to a close. The Japanase would have quickly closed the gap in the Radar field and quite possibly though we will never truly know may have exceeded in advancement in some areas.

    One thing the LAST few battleships did show was that the RADAR was very vulnerable to shell hits. The Sodak lost electrical power quickly which in turn knocked out the radar and she was running around blind in the dark. If it wasn't for the Washington using her RADAR and the Kirishima's sole attention on sinking Washingtion it would have been a different story. Japanese Optics were reisistant to shock damage. My money would still have been on Washington but again a few good hits knocking out a key power supply can tip the balance on any engagement.

    Far as IOWA versus Yamato. In Fog or night time I give the edge to Iowa. But the U.S realized that the Iowa's armour was the main issue and were reluctant to put her in harm's way against Yamato. However realizing this they were building Montana which would be the same speed because of the addtional heavy armour scheme to match Yamato and with the longer length they would be able to mount a 4th turret. This would give Montana a greater broadside throw weight and even land more shells per minute than Yamato could return. Couple that with the superior radar the Monatana would not only be able to go Toe to toe with Yamato but may be able to overwhelm her or stay fighting with it longer and hold out unlike Yamato. Forturntaly that was not necessary as Yamato had no air cover and very little fuel and even if it did against a fleet of carriers and surface ships , subs, and then you have the other allie ships and their consorts there was no chance what so ever to really demonstrate what the ship was capable of.

    A Yamato and Montana clash would have been the pinnacle of battleships clashing.

    ADM STOKOMOTO
     
  9. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,698
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
    I located a site that goes in depth to what the Japanese were developing and already had. You be surprised to know that they too had fire control radar though not quite as good as the U.S. but on par with the British and advanced in some areas. Japanese had excellent optics. In fog or smoke screen scenarios useless and this is where the U.S and British Radar have the advantage not relying on clear sight for aiming on Targets. Development stopped near the end of the war due to the changing situation and the lack of resources that were dwindling rapidly as the war came to a close. The Japanase would have quickly closed the gap in the Radar field and quite possibly though we will never truly know may have exceeded in advancement in some areas.

    One thing the LAST few battleships did show was that the RADAR was very vulnerable to shell hits. The Sodak lost electrical power quickly which in turn knocked out the radar and she was running around blind in the dark. If it wasn't for the Washington using her RADAR and the Kirishima's sole attention on sinking Washingtion it would have been a different story. Japanese Optics were reisistant to shock damage. My money would still have been on Washington but again a few good hits knocking out a key power supply can tip the balance on any engagement.

    Far as IOWA versus Yamato. In Fog or night time I give the edge to Iowa. But the U.S realized that the Iowa's armour was the main issue and were reluctant to put her in harm's way against Yamato. However realizing this they were building Montana which would be the same speed because of the addtional heavy armour scheme to match Yamato and with the longer length they would be able to mount a 4th turret. This would give Montana a greater broadside throw weight and even land more shells per minute than Yamato could return. Couple that with the superior radar the Monatana would not only be able to go Toe to toe with Yamato but may be able to overwhelm her or stay fighting with it longer and hold out unlike Yamato. Forturntaly that was not necessary as Yamato had no air cover and very little fuel and even if it did against a fleet of carriers and surface ships , subs, and then you have the other allie ships and their consorts there was no chance what so ever to really demonstrate what the ship was capable of.

    A Yamato and Montana clash would have been the pinnacle of battleships clashing.

    ADM STOKOMOTO
     
  10. JohnmCA72

    JohnmCA72 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Posts:
    681
    It would be nice to post a link to the site.
    That's a rather strange assumption to make, for 2 major reasons:

    1. "Development stopped near the end of the war due to the changing situation and the lack of resources that were dwindling rapidly as the war came to a close." NO KIDDING!! Japan was being squeezed to death. Raw materials, fuel, food, etc. were in short supply to start with; that was a major reason for the aggression in the 1st place, to secure resources that they didn't have. Starting from an inferior position vs. the allies, with every resource in ever shorter supply, somehow Japan is going to advance their RADAR technology at a rate faster than the allies. Also, I imagine that the war would have tended to restrict travel & communications between Japanese scientists and their counterparts in the rest of the world. Few Japanese scientists would have been attending conferences, publishing papers, reading journals, etc. In other words, information - in particular, information about the latest scientific discoveries & theories related to the field - would have been in as short supply as oil in wartime Japan. That's how science works; people publish their findings, & other experts in the field review them. Everybody learns from everybody else, builds on each others work, and advances the general state of the art. Being "out of the loop" would have been an extreme disadvantage to the Japanese scientists, both in terms of learning from others & having their own work reviewed. An example of the latter refers to the German atomic bomb project: I recall reading (can't remember where) that they had made a miscalculation in the amount of fissionable mass required, that led them to assume that an A-bomb would not be feasible for many years. A major "forehead-slapping" moment was revealed in a bugged room in post-war England after captured German physicists were briefed on the US bomb.

    2. There's an implied assumption that allied technology would not have advanced, or at least advanced at a rate considerably less than Japan's. Given the fully ramped-up wartime effort in the US, this seems very unlikely. Actual (i.e. not "alternative") history shows that RADAR technology did continue to advance in the allied countries, post-war.

    So, despite Japan starting at a disadvantage, in a progressively weakening condition, while the allies (US in particular, Japan's major enemy) at enormous strength and getting stronger, Japan is somehow expected to "quickly" catch up.

    Analogy: 2 runners enter a marathon. Runner A is faster, stronger, better conditioned, allowed to replenish fluids during the race, & has a 2-mile head start. Runner B is slower, weaker,
     
  11. FirePowerDan

    FirePowerDan RIP

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Posts:
    320
    [;)]At Leyte Gulf when Halsey took the bait and went North he was about to I believe form the battle line. From what I read in Samuel Morrisons account in his volume of Leyte Gulf this was done. He then found out what had passed through San Bernedino Straight and sent Sothe battleline towards Leyte Gulf. Best speed was cranked up and the 2 Iowas were leaving the slower BB's behind. What cruisers and destroyers went with or were left with the slower BB's is unknown. So here was a battle that might have been. Iowa's first and the other BB's coming later. There was another carrier Task force that was fueling between Leyte an Palau Island.It was operated by I think Adm. Mc Cain and this was the TF. that attacked the Japanesse Navy as it retreated from the Taffy fight.

    The U.S. intended to fight the Yamato and the vessels she was fighting with. I could try sometime to fight this engagement at a future wargaming convention. I have all the vessels to do this.
     
  12. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,698
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
     
  13. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,698
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
    I think we should get back on to the main point of the topic. Is it a waste of time to build a Yamato? Lets keep this to the models and thier performance capabilities in RC combat and keep the historics out of this. Too much of a hornets nest here.

    TKS
    ADM STOKOMOTO
     
  14. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,698
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
     
  15. FirePowerDan

    FirePowerDan RIP

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Posts:
    320
    I set up a site to talk about historical stuff in research and developement. No one want to use it.
     
  16. JohnmCA72

    JohnmCA72 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Posts:
    681
    I think we should use it, but I don't think that's the right place for it.

    JM
     
  17. JohnmCA72

    JohnmCA72 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Posts:
    681
    I certainly was a waste for the Japanese to build them! A waste, in just about every way imaginable. Not a bad ship for R/C combat, though.

    JM
     
  18. FirePowerDan

    FirePowerDan RIP

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Posts:
    320
    Battleship Admirals.They just did not have the vision of what was to come.
     
  19. FirePowerDan

    FirePowerDan RIP

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Posts:
    320
    Jm Put one up and I will follow it. I really see a need for it. We again talk about our hobby then drift off into historical talk. Put it where it should be. Lets rock.
     
  20. CURT

    CURT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Posts:
    5,698
    Location:
    St. John's Newfoundland , Canada
    Agreed. If people want to debate on thier knowledge and beliefs and opinons of historics and thier sources [:)]yadda yadda yadda then lets have a dedicated section for it. If it gets out of hand the moderators can lock it down.

    ADM STOKOMOTO[:D]