What I always find fascinating is that the accuracy of these guns in real combat scenarios NEVER seems to match up with the theoretical accuracy from the propaganda sheets. Every real battleship battle I've watched videos about states miss after miss after miss from the big guns. I still love the idea of them though 😁 I own most of the Cobi "lego" battleships and they are on shelves on my office wall.
This video does not consider the fact that the Iowas 16inch gun has a dispersion of 600m to 800m. The Yamato has a dispersion of 400m making it more accurate than the Iowas. At a closer distance, nothing can beat the damage caused by an 18.1 inch shell.
As early as the sea battles off Guadalcanal American ships were using radar to more accurately land their shells. Early on a lot of captains didn't trust these new fangled machines. They'd have been happy to use muzzle loading muskets instead of cartridge firing repeating rifles in the Civil War. But by 1944 it was standard operating procedure to use radar to lay down fire. The Japanese were still struggling to understand, accept, and use radar as the war drew to a close. Few of their ships even had radar and proper doctrine was still being developed by the IJN while the US Navy was using it to great effect. The Yamato class battleships were tougher and could hit harder, but one could factor in Japanese ships getting hit by radar assisted gunfire long before their accurate fire could come into play. I'm not saying, I'm just saying. 😉
The advantage in range accuracy of the Mark 8 over Yamato's foretop optics and its Type 22 radar was marginal (approx. 50 and 70 yards respectively). This only affects where the shells are plotted to land. Where they 'will' land depends on shell dispersion- which radar fire control cannot effect. The Iowas- in fact, all U.S. fast battleships of the period- had a shell dispersion rate which was half again as large as that of the Yamatos (1.9% vs. 1.3% for a nine- gun salvo). This more than offset the marginal advantage of the Mark 8. Combat experience bore all this out. None of the Iowas obtained a main battery hit on any warship of destroyer size or larger during WW2. Off Samar, Yamato obtained multiple first- salvo hits on two different U.S. vessels at over 20,000 yards range- one of which was aimed solely by the ship's radar (the Type 22 provided for radar assisted gunnery). She also dropped two shells right alongside a carrier from over 34,000 yards, taking it out of front- line service for the rest of the war. No other battleship obtained this standard of gunnery during WW2.
@@manilajohn0182 Cool, cool, cool. I won't dispute this but I will say there are threads on this topic in Qu-ra and Re--it and the general consensus among those who also relate technical data on the radar systems is that Japanese radar was more primitive and crude and the IJN was still trying to figure out the best ways to use it. It's all well and good to speculate on how things would play out in ideal conditions and remove the human factor. But as I noted, American admirals fared poorly in battles off Guadalcanal because they were unfamiliar with the new gadget, didn't know how to best use it, and simply didn't trust it. There is no reason to think Japanese captains and admirals would behave any differently. I think it reasonable to give the Americans a marked benefit with their radar and experience over crude Japanese radars that sailors were still trying to understand and use effectively. The general consensus is that Japanese radar at the time did little more than alert the Japanese to the presence of ships and the general direction. The motion of the ship in the waves, among other reasons, made Japanese radar inaccurate and unreliable. American radars were far ahead with stabilizers. But again, I won't argue your points. I'll go along.
@@davidely7032 By late 1944, the Japanese were using the equivalent of British late 1941 naval radar. The real advantage of the U.S.N. Mark 8 radar range keeper was remote power control, which was the ability to maintain the ship’s main battery on target in both range and bearing in all visibility conditions- but the U.S. Navy never developed tactics to take advantage of this during WW2. That said, naval- based fire control radar only aids in plotting where the shells will land. Where they will actually land depends on shell dispersion, which is caused by factors such as rigidity of the firing vessel, the proximity of the guns in a turret, when the guns are fired, when the shells actually leave the barrel, and the effect that the shockwave produced by a shell in supersonic flight has on the flight path of a neighboring shell. These were factors which the Japanese made great efforts to reduce. The Type 98 fire control system (developed for the Yamato class) incorporated a discharge delay unit to ensure that no two guns could fire simultaneously and that no two shells could leave the barrel simultaneous. They likewise used the average of the range to target from the foretop and after optical rangefinders and the Type 22 radar. This all paid dividends off Samar. By comparison- off Truk in February of 1944, Iowa engaged the cruiser Katori in clear visibility conditions using the Mark 8 at an average range of less than 14,500 yards. Katori had already been hit by a torpedo and from 2- 7 bombs, multiple 8” and 5” hits from U.S. heavy cruisers and destroyers, was making 1- 2 knots (one report had her dead in the water) and was already sinking. Iowa fired 8 salvos totaling 46 round for no hits. Per the ship’s after- action report, all eight salvos were straddles. Don't rely on Quora or Reddit, my friend. Those are opinion sources, and they may or may not be accurate. Cheers...
@@manilajohn0182 I'm not relying on anyone's opinion (including yours). I still think it reasonable and even likely that given the reluctance of US sailors to rely upon and learn the best use of radar which didn't happen until a couple of years of practice came about, then the Japanese navy with their history of sticking to the old ways (demanding more battleships over carriers, for example) were likely to need a few years to perfect what radars they were using in late 1943. That being said, I don't really care. I'm happy to go along with the idea, with your idea, that radar wouldn't give the US the victory in an Iowa vs. Yamato clash. I don't think this video factored in the radar aspect and I never said radar would bring the US a victory. I do think US radar competency would have offered an advantage, however small, to the US. But not a deciding advantage. Plenty of history books have stated that the US used radar to great advantage from 1943 onwards. I've yet to find a history book that said the Japanese became masters of radar in any battle. If mentioned the consensus is that the IJN never had a solid grasp on how to effectively use radar. They gained some benefits from radar, but nothing noteworthy. Again, I concede that radar would not have flipped the script but I maintain it would have helped the US and done little for the Japanese.
Beautiful graphics! And a plausible scenario if they had met face to face in a titanic slugfest at 5000 yards. At that distance, it's a point-blank battle. Both will fire and both will take major damage, and will probably sink together. Yamato's 18.1" guns are the biggest the world at the time and still holds the record today.
Yamato was supposed to be the greatest battleship of all time, and it gets beaten by a smaller one with smaller guns because it had better technology. Hilarious.
@@Aditya_arts2008the Iowa guns were better. They had higher muzzle velocity and the Yamato’s armor was made from worse materials and had a worse layout than the Iowa
These two vessels can barely be compared. With the sole exception of maximum speed, the Yamato class were superior to the Iowa class in every area of comparison- and this includes gunnery accuracy as well. The marginal range accuracy of the Mark 8 Radar Range Keeper over Japanese optics and the Japanese Type 22 Radar (approx. 45 yards vs. 89 and 109 yards respectively) was more than offset by the significant shell dispersion of the Iowa class over that of the Yamatos (1.9% of range for a nine- gun salvo vs. 1.3%). The reason for this is that the U.S. Navy never attempted to construct the most powerful battleship ever made. The Iowas were in fact treaty battleships with the 10,000 ton- escalator clause worked into the design. They were designed to escort aircraft carriers and to be able to overtake and destroy the Japanese Kongo class fast battleships.
US was ready to disregard washington treaty to build USS missouri which it's hull is already laid out but the war ended sooner and scrapped the whole thing If missouri was commisioned or finished it wouldve been the largest and survived to see Gulf War as well delivering probably even higher caliber than Yamato sibce missouri isnt restricted by washington treaty unlike the rest of the US battleship as well as not concerned whether she can pass through panama canal with her fat body 😂
You are talking about the Montana class. Missouri was the third Iowa class to be commissionned. The Montanas would have had 12 16" guns in four turrets, although there were ideas (well, at least for one of the two more Iowas that were laid down) to fit heavy cruiser guns on a Battleship hull, since they provided more effective shore bombardement.
it didn't disregard any treaties the iowa's were built within the rules of London naval treaty. The U.S. navy wanted the 70,000 tons montana's with 12 16 inch 50's with thicker armour at 28 knots like the yamato's
Yamato also obtained one first salvo hit (from a six- gun salvo which was aimed solely by the ship's Type 22 radar because Yamato lacked a visual to the target until about a minute after firing) on USS Gambier Bay from just under 22,000 yards- and three first- salvo hits on USS Johnston from over 20,000 yards.
@@supremecaffeine2633 No other battleship in WW2 ever delivered multiple first- salvo hits on different vessels- and none of the Iowas ever obtained a main battery hit on any warship of destroyer size or larger in WW2.
First off this comparison should have been done using the New Jersey, the most decorated Battleship in United States history. Second, New Jersey's crews and captains kept her in such a condition that she was always pulled back into service first. Are was also known for her far superior damage control
You didn't mention the use of spotter planes to report the fall of shot much like drones are being used today in Ukraine to allow gunners to adjust the range.
What I always find fascinating is that the accuracy of these guns in real combat scenarios NEVER seems to match up with the theoretical accuracy from the propaganda sheets. Every real battleship battle I've watched videos about states miss after miss after miss from the big guns. I still love the idea of them though 😁 I own most of the Cobi "lego" battleships and they are on shelves on my office wall.
The primary reason why they don't is shell dispersion.
I think the real question in these kinds of vids is, "Can the Yamato take on two Iowa class BBs". Good vid.
I tried that and the awnser is no
Only planes can kill both beast.
That yamato is just our coral today lol.
@@frednone and can the Iowas armor resist penetration from an 18.1 inch 3,200 lbs shell.
The technological and metallurgical advantages of the Iowa class are insurmountable. Yamato is a great ship but not a match.
This video does not consider the fact that the Iowas 16inch gun has a dispersion of 600m to 800m. The Yamato has a dispersion of 400m making it more accurate than the Iowas. At a closer distance, nothing can beat the damage caused by an 18.1 inch shell.
Except the nukes the Iowa class was capable of firing from it's 16 inch guns.
@@UPRailRoad-xg8cb the Iowa does not have that capability during WW2
Yamato had less dispersion? Where I can find info about that?
@@helljumper4565 internet
As early as the sea battles off Guadalcanal American ships were using radar to more accurately land their shells. Early on a lot of captains didn't trust these new fangled machines. They'd have been happy to use muzzle loading muskets instead of cartridge firing repeating rifles in the Civil War. But by 1944 it was standard operating procedure to use radar to lay down fire. The Japanese were still struggling to understand, accept, and use radar as the war drew to a close. Few of their ships even had radar and proper doctrine was still being developed by the IJN while the US Navy was using it to great effect. The Yamato class battleships were tougher and could hit harder, but one could factor in Japanese ships getting hit by radar assisted gunfire long before their accurate fire could come into play. I'm not saying, I'm just saying. 😉
The advantage in range accuracy of the Mark 8 over Yamato's foretop optics and its Type 22 radar was marginal (approx. 50 and 70 yards respectively). This only affects where the shells are plotted to land. Where they 'will' land depends on shell dispersion- which radar fire control cannot effect. The Iowas- in fact, all U.S. fast battleships of the period- had a shell dispersion rate which was half again as large as that of the Yamatos (1.9% vs. 1.3% for a nine- gun salvo). This more than offset the marginal advantage of the Mark 8. Combat experience bore all this out. None of the Iowas obtained a main battery hit on any warship of destroyer size or larger during WW2. Off Samar, Yamato obtained multiple first- salvo hits on two different U.S. vessels at over 20,000 yards range- one of which was aimed solely by the ship's radar (the Type 22 provided for radar assisted gunnery). She also dropped two shells right alongside a carrier from over 34,000 yards, taking it out of front- line service for the rest of the war. No other battleship obtained this standard of gunnery during WW2.
@@manilajohn0182 Cool, cool, cool. I won't dispute this but I will say there are threads on this topic in Qu-ra and Re--it and the general consensus among those who also relate technical data on the radar systems is that Japanese radar was more primitive and crude and the IJN was still trying to figure out the best ways to use it. It's all well and good to speculate on how things would play out in ideal conditions and remove the human factor. But as I noted, American admirals fared poorly in battles off Guadalcanal because they were unfamiliar with the new gadget, didn't know how to best use it, and simply didn't trust it. There is no reason to think Japanese captains and admirals would behave any differently. I think it reasonable to give the Americans a marked benefit with their radar and experience over crude Japanese radars that sailors were still trying to understand and use effectively. The general consensus is that Japanese radar at the time did little more than alert the Japanese to the presence of ships and the general direction. The motion of the ship in the waves, among other reasons, made Japanese radar inaccurate and unreliable. American radars were far ahead with stabilizers. But again, I won't argue your points. I'll go along.
@@davidely7032 By late 1944, the Japanese were using the equivalent of British late 1941 naval radar. The real advantage of the U.S.N. Mark 8 radar range keeper was remote power control, which was the ability to maintain the ship’s main battery on target in both range and bearing in all visibility conditions- but the U.S. Navy never developed tactics to take advantage of this during WW2. That said, naval- based fire control radar only aids in plotting where the shells will land. Where they will actually land depends on shell dispersion, which is caused by factors such as rigidity of the firing vessel, the proximity of the guns in a turret, when the guns are fired, when the shells actually leave the barrel, and the effect that the shockwave produced by a shell in supersonic flight has on the flight path of a neighboring shell. These were factors which the Japanese made great efforts to reduce. The Type 98 fire control system (developed for the Yamato class) incorporated a discharge delay unit to ensure that no two guns could fire simultaneously and that no two shells could leave the barrel simultaneous. They likewise used the average of the range to target from the foretop and after optical rangefinders and the Type 22 radar. This all paid dividends off Samar.
By comparison- off Truk in February of 1944, Iowa engaged the cruiser Katori in clear visibility conditions using the Mark 8 at an average range of less than 14,500 yards. Katori had already been hit by a torpedo and from 2- 7 bombs, multiple 8” and 5” hits from U.S. heavy cruisers and destroyers, was making 1- 2 knots (one report had her dead in the water) and was already sinking. Iowa fired 8 salvos totaling 46 round for no hits. Per the ship’s after- action report, all eight salvos were straddles. Don't rely on Quora or Reddit, my friend. Those are opinion sources, and they may or may not be accurate.
Cheers...
@@manilajohn0182 I'm not relying on anyone's opinion (including yours). I still think it reasonable and even likely that given the reluctance of US sailors to rely upon and learn the best use of radar which didn't happen until a couple of years of practice came about, then the Japanese navy with their history of sticking to the old ways (demanding more battleships over carriers, for example) were likely to need a few years to perfect what radars they were using in late 1943. That being said, I don't really care. I'm happy to go along with the idea, with your idea, that radar wouldn't give the US the victory in an Iowa vs. Yamato clash. I don't think this video factored in the radar aspect and I never said radar would bring the US a victory. I do think US radar competency would have offered an advantage, however small, to the US. But not a deciding advantage. Plenty of history books have stated that the US used radar to great advantage from 1943 onwards. I've yet to find a history book that said the Japanese became masters of radar in any battle. If mentioned the consensus is that the IJN never had a solid grasp on how to effectively use radar. They gained some benefits from radar, but nothing noteworthy. Again, I concede that radar would not have flipped the script but I maintain it would have helped the US and done little for the Japanese.
Beautiful graphics! And a plausible scenario if they had met face to face in a titanic slugfest at 5000 yards. At that distance, it's a point-blank battle. Both will fire and both will take major damage, and will probably sink together. Yamato's 18.1" guns are the biggest the world at the time and still holds the record today.
both my favourite said by daniel peter
I like how always iowas 3rd main guns blows up
Loving your videos. Keep up the fantastic work!
Love it
Yamato was supposed to be the greatest battleship of all time, and it gets beaten by a smaller one with smaller guns because it had better technology.
Hilarious.
Cool to see the concept of immunity zones brought up, a good video about this topic
In real life the yamato wins because the yamato has more guns and its big than iowa❤
Iowa is big but yamato have powerful armor and more effective guns
@@Aditya_arts2008the Iowa guns were better. They had higher muzzle velocity and the Yamato’s armor was made from worse materials and had a worse layout than the Iowa
no over the horizon tactics wouldve been used, as noone knew yamatos specifications.
These two vessels can barely be compared. With the sole exception of maximum speed, the Yamato class were superior to the Iowa class in every area of comparison- and this includes gunnery accuracy as well. The marginal range accuracy of the Mark 8 Radar Range Keeper over Japanese optics and the Japanese Type 22 Radar (approx. 45 yards vs. 89 and 109 yards respectively) was more than offset by the significant shell dispersion of the Iowa class over that of the Yamatos (1.9% of range for a nine- gun salvo vs. 1.3%).
The reason for this is that the U.S. Navy never attempted to construct the most powerful battleship ever made. The Iowas were in fact treaty battleships with the 10,000 ton- escalator clause worked into the design. They were designed to escort aircraft carriers and to be able to overtake and destroy the Japanese Kongo class fast battleships.
US was ready to disregard washington treaty to build USS missouri which it's hull is already laid out but the war ended sooner and scrapped the whole thing
If missouri was commisioned or finished it wouldve been the largest and survived to see Gulf War as well delivering probably even higher caliber than Yamato sibce missouri isnt restricted by washington treaty unlike the rest of the US battleship as well as not concerned whether she can pass through panama canal with her fat body 😂
Missouri was finished with all the other Iowa’s before the war ended what are you talking about bro
You are talking about the Montana class. Missouri was the third Iowa class to be commissionned.
The Montanas would have had 12 16" guns in four turrets, although there were ideas (well, at least for one of the two more Iowas that were laid down) to fit heavy cruiser guns on a Battleship hull, since they provided more effective shore bombardement.
@@Rio_1111 yep I somehow put Missouri in there 🥲
it didn't disregard any treaties the iowa's were built within the rules of London naval treaty. The U.S. navy wanted the 70,000 tons montana's with 12 16 inch 50's with thicker armour at 28 knots like the yamato's
If night then its bye bye Yamato
Nice graphics.
Yamato did hit USS while plain at over 30km, but the shell only grazed the hull
Pretty sure the ship's name was White Plains.
It was a near miss, not a graze.
Yamato also obtained one first salvo hit (from a six- gun salvo which was aimed solely by the ship's Type 22 radar because Yamato lacked a visual to the target until about a minute after firing) on USS Gambier Bay from just under 22,000 yards- and three first- salvo hits on USS Johnston from over 20,000 yards.
@@manilajohn0182 Both of those were well within accurate firing ranges for most battleships.
@@supremecaffeine2633 No other battleship in WW2 ever delivered multiple first- salvo hits on different vessels- and none of the Iowas ever obtained a main battery hit on any warship of destroyer size or larger in WW2.
On lagi kah min❤
Yamato hydroplanes would provide long range fire directions
So would the Iowa's.
Jesus loves you
Bump
First off this comparison should have been done using the New Jersey, the most decorated Battleship in United States history.
Second, New Jersey's crews and captains kept her in such a condition that she was always pulled back into service first. Are was also known for her far superior damage control
Cringe
Considering all 4 Iowa class ships are still floating.
The Yamato is a really shitty coral reef
Iowas had air superiority, the Yamato at the point of the war had nothing hence why it got blowed up
If US really did have those advantages, they wouldn't avoid it like plague
You didn't mention the use of spotter planes to report the fall of shot much like drones are being used today in Ukraine to allow gunners to adjust the range.
you forgot about the 650 mm thick ammor
660
You forget that it is only the frontal plate gun armor.
Very good Animation as usual