Montana Class BB

[Dilandu]

When using Super heavy shells, the 16"/50 gave armor penetration equal to the 18" gun. But it delivered it at a higher rate of fire, and with fewer reliability issues. As is with 16" guns, the Montana class would have delivered a heavier broadside than the Yamato class did. And delivered it more often. I think the Navy sticks with the 16"

Agreed. Large number of 16-inch barrels with higher volume of fire is preferable on long distances.

 

[Scott Kenny]

SecNav Daniels also ordered the USN to be dry before Prohibition, no alcohol allowed onboard, because he didn't drink.

I think the number of main guns installed on the Montana-class battleships depends on the USN's intelligence on Japan's new battleships.If the U.S. Navy had known between 1938 and 1940 that the main gun of the Yamato class was 18.1 inches, then it is certain that the design of the Montana class would have been around an 18-inch or larger caliber, never 16 inches. I think 9-18"(3x3) is the most reasonable scheme.

Depends on rates of fire. Most of the 18"+ guns were very slow firing compared to the 16" guns.

The Yamato threw 9x3200lb AP shells every 45 seconds or so, total weight of 28,800lbs per volley. Montana with 12x16" 2700lb AP is throwing 32,400lbs per volley, every 30 seconds. That's a 4600lb advantage per volley.

In two minutes, the Yamato would throw a total of 86,400lbs; while a 16" Montana would throw 129,600lbs, over 50% more weight of shells! An Iowa would throw 97,200lbs in 2 minutes, 11klbs or ~12% more than the Yamato.

When using Super heavy shells, the 16"/50 gave armor penetration equal to the 18" gun. But it delivered it at a higher rate of fire, and with fewer reliability issues. As is with 16" guns, the Montana class would have delivered a heavier broadside than the Yamato class did. And delivered it more often. I think the Navy sticks with the 16"

Agreed, being about to throw shells almost as heavy at twice the rate of fire give a huge advantage to the Montana class with 4x Iowa turrets.

Now, if the USN 18" monster could somehow have a sub 45second reload time... 3800lb superheavy shells at either 4x2 turrets or 3x3 is a different discussion entirely.

 

[Jacky]

I'm not so sure. USN and many other navies generally came to conclusion that guns heavier than 16-inch are more problematic than advantageous.

In 1938, at the beginning of BB-61 project, there was "slow" battleship scheme which equiped with 9-18 inch main guns(3x3). It looks like an enlarged version of the South Dakota class.

 

[Jacky]

SecNav Daniels also ordered the USN to be dry before Prohibition, no alcohol allowed onboard, because he didn't drink.


Depends on rates of fire. Most of the 18"+ guns were very slow firing compared to the 16" guns.

The Yamato threw 9x3200lb AP shells every 45 seconds or so, total weight of 28,800lbs per volley. Montana with 12x16" 2700lb AP is throwing 32,400lbs per volley, every 30 seconds. That's a 4600lb advantage per volley.

In two minutes, the Yamato would throw a total of 86,400lbs; while a 16" Montana would throw 129,600lbs, over 50% more weight of shells! An Iowa would throw 97,200lbs in 2 minutes, 11klbs or ~12% more than the Yamato.



Agreed, being about to throw shells almost as heavy at twice the rate of fire give a huge advantage to the Montana class with 4x Iowa turrets.

Now, if the USN 18" monster could somehow have a sub 45second reload time... 3800lb superheavy shells at either 4x2 turrets or 3x3 is a different discussion entirely.

There is a big mistake. As people of the future era, we can know all the information on both the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy. But from the perspective of the US Navy at that time, it was impossible for them to obtain the armor-piercing performance of the Yamato-class. So US Navy could only consider it from their own perspective. If it is so simple to obtain the opponent's ammunition performance, then why should the battleship's defense capability be based on the armor-piercing performance of its own main gun?

 

[Jacky]

When using Super heavy shells, the 16"/50 gave armor penetration equal to the 18" gun. But it delivered it at a higher rate of fire, and with fewer reliability issues. As is with 16" guns, the Montana class would have delivered a heavier broadside than the Yamato class did. And delivered it more often. I think the Navy sticks with the 16"

You are just comparing 16" super heavy shells to 18" light/normal shell. But what about 16-inch super heavy shells versus 18-inch super-heavy shells?

 

[Firefinder]

You are just comparing 16" super heavy shells to 18" light/normal shell. But what about 16-inch super heavy shells versus 18-inch super-heavy shells?

The 16 still comes out on top unless you want to triple the Turret weight.

A 18 inch super heavy weigh in north of 2 tons on anyscale. They are fucking heavy and not being moved short of a fully mechanicized system to shove them from their loading trays to the breech.

At best you are getting a salavo a minute meaning that a 12 gun 16 SH will beat it out in both weight and volume of fire.

Not to mention you can build more 16 inch armed ships which carry more ammo.

Cause 1 vs many fucking sucks like that no matter how good the 1 is...

And counterally to popular belief.

If the Yamato or Montane faced the 3 Colorados which been upgrade it, the Colorados will be the victors from shear numbers, not the bigger ships.

 

[SSgtC]

There is a big mistake. As people of the future era, we can know all the information on both the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy. But from the perspective of the US Navy at that time, it was impossible for them to obtain the armor-piercing performance of the Yamato-class. So US Navy could only consider it from their own perspective. If it is so simple to obtain the opponent's ammunition performance, then why should the battleship's defense capability be based on the armor-piercing performance of its own main gun?

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. You're kinda talking in circles.

You are just comparing 16" super heavy shells to 18" light/normal shell. But what about 16-inch super heavy shells versus 18-inch super-heavy shells?

In order to fire 18" super heavy shells, the turrets on the Montana class would have to be enlarged with fully automated handling equipment. The shells were 3,850 pounds (compared to the 2,700 pounds of the 16" SH). That's a lot of extra weight. But here's the thing, the Navy did test them using the 18"/47 Mark A gun. And they determined that the 16"/50 Mark 7 was the better option. They determined that there was no practical amount of armor that the 18" could penetrate that the 16" couldn't. To fully armor a ship against 18" shells would have made the ship so large as to be impractical. So the greater volume of fire that the 16" could provide was deemed to be more valuable than the incremental increase in armor penetration that the 18" could provide

 

[Dilandu]

In order to fire 18" super heavy shells, the turrets on the Montana class would have to be enlarged with fully automated handling equipment. The shells were 3,850 pounds (compared to the 2,700 pounds of the 16" SH). That's a lot of extra weight. But here's the thing, the Navy did test them using the 18"/47 Mark A gun. And they determined that the 16"/50 Mark 7 was the better option. They determined that there was no practical amount of armor that the 18" could penetrate that the 16" couldn't. To fully armor a ship against 18" shells would have made the ship so large as to be impractical. So the greater volume of fire that the 16" could provide was deemed to be more valuable than the incremental increase in armor penetration that the 18" could provide

Well, French Navy in 1920s have another argument in favor of 18-inch guns. They calculated that 18-inch AP shell could carry so powerful bursting charge, that its behind-the-armor destructive effect would be more comparable to HE shell, causing much greater damage.

 

[Jacky]

The 16 still comes out on top unless you want to triple the Turret weight.

A 18 inch super heavy weigh in north of 2 tons on anyscale. They are fucking heavy and not being moved short of a fully mechanicized system to shove them from their loading trays to the breech.

At best you are getting a salavo a minute meaning that a 12 gun 16 SH will beat it out in both weight and volume of fire.

Not to mention you can build more 16 inch armed ships which carry more ammo.

Cause 1 vs many fucking sucks like that no matter how good the 1 is...

And counterally to popular belief.

If the Yamato or Montane faced the 3 Colorados which been upgrade it, the Colorados will be the victors from shear numbers, not the bigger ships.

The 16 "/50 Mark 7 is the best choice under the limitations of Naval Treaties.

Iowa class main turret weight(16 "/50 Mark 7 three gun turret)：1,728.4 - 1,735.4 mt (NavWeaps) or 4,030,000 lbs (REACTIVATION OF 16-INCH THREE GUN TURRETS IN THE BATTLESHIP, 1987). And the Montana-class main turret weighs more because the Montana class main turret has thicker armor. Based on the drawing of 18 "/48 Mark 1 three guan turrest, its weight is 4,850,000 lbs. The latter is 26.78%~27.28% or 20.35% heavier than the former. If we take the weight of the main turret of the Yamato class as a reference(46 cm/45 Type 94 three gun turret weighs 2,774 mt), It is 59.85%~60.50% or 51.75% heavier than the triple 16 "/50 Mk 7 turret. Battleships in a 3x3 arrangement with three 18-inch triple turrets weighed up to 181.5% of the weight of three 16-inch triple turrets( Yamato vs Iowa). The 18-inch main gun turret of the 3x3 is 19.89% heavier than the 16-inch main gun turret of the 3x4 ( Yamato vs Montana, assume that the Montana turret is as heavy as the Iowa turret). That's why tripling the weight is impossible.

With the fire control capabilities of WWII battleships (range, bearing, rate of change of range and bearing, corrections), it was impossible for the main guns to fire at a theoretical rate of fire. It makes more sense to compare the amount of ammunition dropped in a single round of fire.

One Yamato or Montana vs Three modern West Virginia, please show a picture from C-BB/S1-1(370) Battleship-Protection Characteristics, July 13 1942. The BB-45's main armor belt and armor deck are respectively penetrated by AP Mark 5 at 25,700 yards and 15,500 yards. The BB-67's main armor belt and armor plates are respectively penetrated by AP Mark 5 at 16,500 yards and 34,500 yards. Therefore, BB-45 has no immunity zone for 16"/45 Mark 5 and Mark 8, while BB-67's immunity zone for 16"/45 Mark 5 and Mark 8 is between 16500 and 34500 yards. More importantly, the maximum range of the 16"/45 Mark 5 and Mark 8 is 35,000 yards (@30 degrees maximum elevation).

If there were no tonnage restrictions under the Naval Treaty, and the USN could obtain information on the Yamato-class's use of 18-inch main guns, the USN would inevitably invest in 18-inch main guns. Even a battleship equipped with 18-inch main guns will cost more.

 

[Jacky]

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. You're kinda talking in circles.


In order to fire 18" super heavy shells, the turrets on the Montana class would have to be enlarged with fully automated handling equipment. The shells were 3,850 pounds (compared to the 2,700 pounds of the 16" SH). That's a lot of extra weight. But here's the thing, the Navy did test them using the 18"/47 Mark A gun. And they determined that the 16"/50 Mark 7 was the better option. They determined that there was no practical amount of armor that the 18" could penetrate that the 16" couldn't. To fully armor a ship against 18" shells would have made the ship so large as to be impractical. So the greater volume of fire that the 16" could provide was deemed to be more valuable than the incremental increase in armor penetration that the 18" could provide

We must consider the issue of gun caliber from the background of that era. The USN began development of the 18"/48 Mark 1 gun before the Washington Naval Treaty. After the Naval Treaty came into effect in 1922, the USN converted the 18"/48 Mark 1 to the 16''/56 Mark 4 gun and tested. The use of 18"/48 Mark 1 was considered in the battleship designs of 1927~1928 and 1938, but the USN rejected it. The reasons are as follows:
1) excessive weight. Due to tonnage restrictions, a 45,000-long-ton battleship cannot maintain sufficient protection while equipped with 18-inch main guns. So The 16-inch guns are the best choice under the limitations of Naval Treaties. Your point of view only shows that.

2) too short barrel life. This is a process issue, as the 16"/50 Mark 7 made with the new process is lighter than the 16"/50 Mark2. Japan could build a 46 cm/45 Type 94, and there was no reason that the United States couldn' 't build an 18-inch naval gun.

3) in The impact angle of the bullet is too small within the normal shooting distance. Ammunition issue. This is because the ballistic trajectory of the 18"/48 Mark 1 gun when firing standard bullets is too low. The too small impact angle results in weak horizontal penetration at medium and long distances, and the vertical penetration is also reduced due to the loss of kinetic energy. In addition, according to data assembled by the Special Ordnance Board in 1926, comparing the firing of 16 "/45 guns, 16 "/50 guns and 16 "/56 guns, when firing distances were greater than 15,000 yards, the shells were more likely to hit horizontal armor than vertical armor. Therefore, lowering the muzzle velocity to obtain a more curved trajectory could achieve an efficient strike on the deck, which is an reason of the USN to develop the super-heavy shell.


The USN had never obtained accurate information that the Yamato class was equipped with an 18-inch main gun, and the USN had always stubbornly believed that the new battleships of the Imperial Japanese Navy were only 45,000 long tons and equipped with 16-inch main guns. This was one of the reasons why new battleships had always been equipped with 16-inch main guns.

Armor-piercing performance must take distance into account. If the distance factor were ignored, then there would be no parctical amount of armor that 18 inches could penetrate but 14 inches couldn't. BuOrd estimated that a ship with 16-inch (40.6 cm) side armor and 6.25-inch (15.9 cm) deck armor would have no immune zone whatsoever from the "super-heavy" 18" (45.7 cm) AP projectile. That's what 18 inches is all about.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well, French Navy in 1920s have another argument in favor of 18-inch guns. They calculated that 18-inch AP shell could carry so powerful bursting charge, that its behind-the-armor destructive effect would be more comparable to HE shell, causing much greater damage.

That is actually a pretty decent argument. Being able to stuff 150-200lbs of HE into your AP shell would make them a lot more dangerous.

We must consider the issue of gun caliber from the background of that era. The USN began development of the 18"/48 Mark 1 gun before the Washington Naval Treaty. After the Naval Treaty came into effect in 1922, the USN converted the 18"/48 Mark 1 to the 16''/56 Mark 4 gun and tested. The use of 18"/48 Mark 1 was considered in the battleship designs of 1927~1928 and 1938, but the USN rejected it. The reasons are as follows:
1) excessive weight. Due to tonnage restrictions, a 45,000-long-ton battleship cannot maintain sufficient protection while equipped with 18-inch main guns. So The 16-inch guns are the best choice under the limitations of Naval Treaties. Your point of view only shows that.

2) too short barrel life. This is a process issue, as the 16"/50 Mark 7 made with the new process is lighter than the 16"/50 Mark2. Japan could build a 46 cm/45 Type 94, and there was no reason that the United States couldn' 't build an 18-inch naval gun.

You're talking gun/liner WEIGHT, which has nothing to do with EFC lifespan of the liner.

 

[uk 75]

I was surprised to find that the planned N3 battleships for the Royal Navy were to have triple 18" guns. Given the issues the RN had with Nelson/Rodney and their 16" guns this may have been optimistic.
The Lion class were laid down but like the Montanas never completed. Whether their guns would have been better?.
As neither of the two Yamatos were sunk by gunfire it is perhaps academic.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was surprised to find that the planned N3 battleships for the Royal Navy were to have triple 18" guns. Given the issues the RN had with Nelson/Rodney and their 16" guns this may have been optimistic.
The Lion class were laid down but like the Montanas never completed. Whether their guns would have been better?.
As neither of the two Yamatos were sunk by gunfire it is perhaps academic.

The wiki article makes it sound like the British were planning on 16"/45s of a new design, with superheavy shells.

From my point of view, I'd hope that they used US style shells, if only to be able to also draw ammunition from American stocks.

 

[Cjc]

The wiki article makes it sound like the British were planning on 16"/45s of a new design, with superheavy shells.

From my point of view, I'd hope that they used US style shells, if only to be able to also draw ammunition from American stocks.

Those were for the g3 battleships (i belive the uk called them battlecruisers), faster versions of the n3.

Also people keep saying navys found that anything bigger then 16 inches wasn't worth it then give zero examples. The only ones shown here (the us comparative tests) have far more to do with treay limitations and technical issues then anything inherent with increasing the gun caliber. Pretty clearly seen by Japan jumping for 18 inches when they stoped carring about treaty limitations (even more then they already were anyway) and the rn studying 20 inch guns Pretty extensively all the way back in ww1. Seems pretty clear that gun sizes stoped at 16 inches because of politics and the death of the battleship not out of any issues with increasing the gun size to 18 inches by its self.

 

[Jacky]

You're talking gun/liner WEIGHT, which has nothing to do with EFC lifespan of the liner.

Weight is the first reason, liner life is the second. Test results of the 16"/56 Mark 4 prototype showed that its actual lifespan was only 45 rounds. The estimated life of the projected service version was 125~225 rounds which is lower than 16"/50 Mark 7. This is that liner life is an issue of process.

 

[Jacky]

The wiki article makes it sound like the British were planning on 16"/45s of a new design, with superheavy shells.

From my point of view, I'd hope that they used US style shells, if only to be able to also draw ammunition from American stocks.

Based on NavWeaps, new APC of 16"/45 Mark IV weighs 2375 lbs whic is lighter than AP Mark 8.

If the RN wanted to finish building the Lion class, I think the best option would be to purchase the 16"/45 mark 6 and AP Mark 8 from the USN.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

If the RN wanted to finish building the Lion class, I think the best option would be to purchase the 16"/45 mark 6 and AP Mark 8 from the USN.

UK was industry was perfectly capable of designing and building 16" guns, but other competing wartime priorities came first.

The 1945 Lions weren't expected to be completed until 1952, plenty of time to finish the design of and build the Mk III guns and Mk IV mountings.

 

[Tzoli]

By 1945 the Mark IV gun was in order and proposals were made for a /50 calibre gun as well.

 

[EwenS]

UK was industry was perfectly capable of designing and building 16" guns, but other competing wartime priorities came first.

The 1945 Lions weren't expected to be completed until 1952, plenty of time to finish the design of and build the Mk III guns and Mk IV mountings.

Britain successfully built three 18" guns in WW1 but had no really suitable ship to mount them in (Furious was too lightly built). They saw action in fixed mounts in a couple of monitors.

United Kingdom / Britain 18"/40 (45.7 cm) Mark I - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Lion class:
3 ordered in 1939 (4th ship order was due to be placed in Nov 1939)
2 laid down June/July 1939.
Second pair suspended on outbreak of WW2.
Work on first pair suspended, initially for a year, a couple of months later. Suspension of that pair later extended.

BUT work on guns and turrets for the first pair continued until 1943. 5 x 16"/45 Mk.II/III were produced for them.

United Kingdom / Britain 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Marks II, III and IV - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

 

[Yellow Palace]

Depends on rates of fire. Most of the 18"+ guns were very slow firing compared to the 16" guns.

Rate of fire is less of a concern for long-range battleship gunnery, of the kind the USN preferred. Even with radar, there's not a lot of benefit to firing your next salvo before the previous salvo lands and you've corrected aim. There are tricks to get around this, but they basically all involve firing smaller salvos more often.

Assuming similar ballistics to the 16"/50 Mark 7, a 30-second cycle time means you're ROF limited inside of 20,000 yards, and time-of-flight limited beyond that. A 45-second cycle time pushes that out to about 27,000 yards. A big chunk of the 16-inch gun's increased firepower is from just carrying more of them - which, of course, the MONTANA class did in spades.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Juist a small intewrjection, having three smaller ships against the Yamato etc. How many hits would it take to take one of those smaller ships out of the fight? How long before those threee shipos are down to one and none?

Just a thought.

 

[Firefinder]

Juist a small intewrjection, having three smaller ships against the Yamato etc. How many hits would it take to take one of those smaller ships out of the fight? How long before those threee shipos are down to one and none?

Just a thought.

So long as they dont use RN powder practices...

Enough hits to last to see the Yamato sunk.

Hell think post war studies on both sides agree that 3 USN Standards or two Fast BBs was enough to confirm a victory with acceptable casualties against the Yamato.

Party cause Yamato could only shot one at a time. Trying to do separate Turret targeting resulted in 2 of the turrets limited to the far weaker local fire control. Not to mention that you needed more then the 3 shots to get a good target solution for the basically manual fire control.

Throw in that the Fast BBS could maneuver while maintaining target solutions?

 

[Tzoli]

Yamato had 5 main gun rangefinders: the main one on top of the bridge conning tower, a smaller on the aft superstructure between the funnel and aft 15,5cm turret and each 46cm has it's own integral rangefinder. So it is not necessary to use the local rfs for determining the firing solution. Also you guys forget the sheer penetration power and range of the 46cm shells and non of the USN Battleships could withstand a hit from her, maybe only at very oblique hits.

 

[Tzoli]

But as usual this discussion quickly escalated into the Yamato VS Iowa/Montana debate.

 

[Dilandu]

But as usual this discussion quickly escalated into the Yamato VS Iowa/Montana debate.

Add "Sovetsky Soyuz" for more fun)

 

[Jacky]

So long as they dont use RN powder practices...

Enough hits to last to see the Yamato sunk.

Hell think post war studies on both sides agree that 3 USN Standards or two Fast BBs was enough to confirm a victory with acceptable casualties against the Yamato.

Party cause Yamato could only shot one at a time. Trying to do separate Turret targeting resulted in 2 of the turrets limited to the far weaker local fire control. Not to mention that you needed more then the 3 shots to get a good target solution for the basically manual fire control.

Throw in that the Fast BBS could maneuver while maintaining target solutions?

Could you please list more details of post war studies? I am interested in these studies.

Based on C-BB/S1-1(370) Battleship-Protection Characteristics, July 13 1942. The BB-45's main armor belt and armor deck are respectively penetrated by AP Mark 5 at 25,700 yards and 15,500 yards. The BB-67's main armor belt and armor plates are respectively penetrated by AP Mark 5 at 16,500 yards and 34,500 yards. Therefore, BB-45 has no immune zone for 16"/45 Mark 5 and Mark 8, while BB-67's immunity zone for 16"/45 Mark 5 and Mark 8 is between 16500 and 34500 yards. More importantly, the maximum range of the 16"/45 Mark 5 and Mark 8 is 35,000 yards (@30 degrees maximum elevation).

According to the Battleship-Protection Characteristics, in the normal combat range, standard battleships cannot cause effective damage to Yamato, but Yamato can. I think 3 standrad BBs cannot defeat Yamato.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

According to the Battleship-Protection Characteristics, in the normal combat range, standard battleships cannot cause effective damage to Yamato, but Yamato can. I think 3 standrad BBs cannot defeat Yamato.

Outside armor speak, they couldn't even hope to close with Yamato. Yamato fully dictates the range of this fight, and could close or disengage pretty much at will. 3 Standards have very little chance, outside somehow catching her at close range due to environmental or geographical factors (weather and land masses) - both are pretty unlikely.

 

[Dilandu]

According to the Battleship-Protection Characteristics, in the normal combat range, standard battleships cannot cause effective damage to Yamato, but Yamato can. I think 3 standrad BBs cannot defeat Yamato.

Rather simple. While any damage to Yamato accumulate, damage to one of Standards would not affect two others. Sure, Yamato concentrating fire on one Standard would inflict sigfnificant damage (maybe even knock it out). But Yamato would be also hit, and its vulnerable parts - fire control directors, superstructure, unarmored bow and stern - would suffer damage.

With her central fire control degraded, Yamato ability to dealt damage to remaining two Standards would be significantly decreased. While the other two Standards, not damaged and now facing little threat from Yamato fire, could pound her as hard as they wish. Yamato would be forced to either flee (assuming it could still maintain full speed - unarmored bow flooding due to HE hits may cause her to lose speed advantage), maintain safe distance (and succumb to accumulated damage from multiple hits, even if none would pierce her armor), or try to close distance to compensate for fire control degradation (and thus lose the invulnerability - on close distance 14-inch and 16-inch guns of Standards would be perfectly able to penetrate her armor).

 

[Dilandu]

Outside armor speak, they couldn't even hope to close with Yamato. Yamato fully dictates the range of this fight, and could close or disengage pretty much at will. 3 Standards have very little chance, outside somehow catching her at close range due to environmental or geographical factors (weather and land masses) - both are pretty unlikely.

Why should they close? They only need to be able to hit Yamato with their HE's. There are three Standards, damage to one did not harm the others. While any damage to Yamato would accumulate. And while Yamato armor would be invulnerable on long ranges, her unarmored parst - especially fire control directors in the superstructure - would succumb to HE hits regardless to range. And with central fire control knocked out, Yamato long-range fire would become basically useless. Yes, Yamato would certainly be able to knock out or even destroy one of Standards before her fire control would be disabled, but the other two would still be in perfect fighting shape.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Why should they close? They only need to be able to hit Yamato with their HE's. There are three Standards, damage to one did not harm the others. While any damage to Yamato would accumulate. And while Yamato armor would be invulnerable on long ranges, her unarmored parst - especially fire control directors in the superstructure - would succumb to HE hits regardless to range. And with central fire control knocked out, Yamato long-range fire would become basically useless. Yes, Yamato would certainly be able to knock out or even destroy one of Standards before her fire control would be disabled, but the other two would still be in perfect fighting shape.

Would they be firing HE, though? It's a great hindsight thought, but I do not suppose they would. Maybe when they're done wasting any AP ammunition they have?
I am also not sure if they could even begin engaging (with any semblance of accuracy, anyway) anywhere near the same range as what Yamato and her rangefinders are capable of. Either way, I suspect Yamato would run out of ammunition before any serious damage to her upper works is done, leaving her with minimal amounts of repairable damage and the Standards much more likely to have been seriously damaged in some shape or form. That, at least, is a victory, even if none are actually sunk in the engagement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Would they be firing HE, though? It's a great hindsight thought, but I do not suppose they would. Maybe when they're done wasting any AP ammunition they have?
I am also not sure if they could even begin engaging (with any semblance of accuracy, anyway) anywhere near the same range as what Yamato and her rangefinders are capable of. Either way, I suspect Yamato would run out of ammunition before any serious damage to her upper works is done, leaving her with minimal amounts of repairable damage and the Standards much more likely to have been seriously damaged in some shape or form. That, at least, is a victory, even if none are actually sunk in the engagement.

By the time Yamato and Musashi were in the water and able to fight, the US battleships had radar rangefinders.

A second advantage is that the IJN was very focused on the Single Decisive Battle, so the Yamato would likely press the attack regardless of being outnumbered 3:1.

I'd actually expect the US to attempt a night battle, where the US radar rangefinders can allow them to get hits well beyond the visual range of the Japanese ships.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

By the time Yamato and Musashi were in the water and able to fight, the US battleships had radar rangefinders.

A second advantage is that the IJN was very focused on the Single Decisive Battle, so the Yamato would likely press the attack regardless of being outnumbered 3:1.

I'd actually expect the US to attempt a night battle, where the US radar rangefinders can allow them to get hits well beyond the visual range of the Japanese ships.

I may be misremembering, but I believe I recall the US having issues with their early radar during combat, and is something that wouldn't be properly solved until later on.

I might have agreed on the "pressing because of decisive battle" aspect if the Yamato was accompanied by a fleet, but that would be going out of the bounds of the scenario (1 v 3). Japanese tactics don't amount to the seaborne variant of banzai charging in all instances; they are perfectly capable of recognizing a threat and a potential disadvantage where there is one - and to be honest, there is, even if it's "only three old American battleships".

It would be in a night battle where the Yamato would actually be at any sort of true disadvantage. Shooting at gunflashes in the night at long range isn't particularly a good means of landing hits. During the day, I'm not sure if the types carried by the Standards are enough. From what I heard from someone much more learned in the IJN than I am, Yamato was able to straddle at 40,000 yards during one engagement (Samar, against units of Taffy 3), which is at least indicative of the effective gunnery range of the class.

So, my end belief is that during the day the Yamato is at an advantage, especially during the initial phase at long range, and this advantage is kept by keeping that range (as I understand it, this was also the intended use of Japanese heavy cruisers, part of the reason for their high speed). She's at a disadvantage against USN radar-guided gunnery at night, pretty much wholesale, and would need to distance herself to avoid unnecessary damage.

 

[Dilandu]

Would they be firing HE, though? It's a great hindsight thought, but I do not suppose they would. Maybe when they're done wasting any AP ammunition they have?

On long range? Most likely, since HE destructive power aren't decreasing with distance, and they would assume that new Japanese battleship have superior armor anyway.

I am also not sure if they could even begin engaging (with any semblance of accuracy, anyway) anywhere near the same range as what Yamato and her rangefinders are capable of. Either way, I suspect Yamato would run out of ammunition before any serious damage to her upper works is done, leaving her with minimal amounts of repairable damage and the Standards much more likely to have been seriously damaged in some shape or form. That, at least, is a victory, even if none are actually sunk in the engagement.

Actually they would. US fire control systems are significantly better than Japanese, more automatic. Japanese have better optics, but their system as a whole was not as advanced as American; too many manual operations, too many sources of error. And Japanese gunners on battleships were generally less trained than American - due to simple cost limitations. Replacing the worn-out barrels often were too costly for Japan... especially on Yamato-class, where you basically need to replace the whole gun.

 

[Dilandu]

Either way, I suspect Yamato would run out of ammunition before any serious damage to her upper works is done, leaving her with minimal amounts of repairable damage and the Standards much more likely to have been seriously damaged in some shape or form. That, at least, is a victory, even if none are actually sunk in the engagement.

The actual data from USN pre-war exercises:

"The Navy’s gunnery exercises provided further support for the idea
that the concentrated fire of a battleship division could rapidly inflict
crippling losses. During an exercise in fiscal year 1935, the battle line
achieved 60 hits for 1,179 shots on a target raft at a mean range of
27,450 yards. Had the target been battleship-sized, there would have
been roughly 3.33 hits per minute per ship. With about 20 hits necessary
to sink a battleship, the concentrated fire of a three-ship division could
destroy an enemy battleship in approximately two minutes."

Even if we assume that Yamato is two times as durable as Standard battleship (i.e. she need 40 hits to be knocked out), and her hits are twice as efficient (i.e. she need just 10 hits to destroy a Standard), the ratio aren't in her favor. To score ten hits on any Standard, Yamato would need 3 minutes. During the same three minutes she would be hit 27 times - and while she accumulates damage, two of her Standard opponents aren't even scratched.

Even if we assume then that Yamato fire is not degraded at all (which is difficult to imagine after almost 30 hits), it would still took her another 3 minutes to knock out second Standard battleship. During the same three minutes she would be hit 18 times - and 27+18=45, i.e. the number of hits would exceed even the double allowance we assumed for Yamato.

Basically, even that simplified statistics demonstrate that Yamato could not win three-to-one battle.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

On long range? Most likely, since HE destructive power aren't decreasing with distance, and they would assume that new Japanese battleship have superior armor anyway.


Actually they would. US fire control systems are significantly better than Japanese, more automatic. Japanese have better optics, but their system as a whole was not as advanced as American; too many manual operations, too many sources of error. And Japanese gunners on battleships were generally less trained than American - due to simple cost limitations. Replacing the worn-out barrels often were too costly for Japan... especially on Yamato-class, where you basically need to replace the whole gun.

Is there an American historical precedent or any sort of guidance to reflect that? Logically speaking, it's the correct choice against something like Yamato, where AP fire would be largely ineffective at either damaging upper works or holing the vessel sufficiently to sink her.

The actual data from USN pre-war exercises:

"The Navy’s gunnery exercises provided further support for the idea
that the concentrated fire of a battleship division could rapidly inflict
crippling losses. During an exercise in fiscal year 1935, the battle line
achieved 60 hits for 1,179 shots on a target raft at a mean range of
27,450 yards. Had the target been battleship-sized, there would have
been roughly 3.33 hits per minute per ship. With about 20 hits necessary
to sink a battleship, the concentrated fire of a three-ship division could
destroy an enemy battleship in approximately two minutes."

Even if we assume that Yamato is two times as durable as Standard battleship (i.e. she need 40 hits to be knocked out), and her hits are twice as efficient (i.e. she need just 10 hits to destroy a Standard), the ratio aren't in her favor. To score ten hits on any Standard, Yamato would need 3 minutes. During the same three minutes she would be hit 27 times - and while she accumulates damage, two of her Standard opponents aren't even scratched.

Even if we assume then that Yamato fire is not degraded at all (which is difficult to imagine after almost 30 hits), it would still took her another 3 minutes to knock out second Standard battleship. During the same three minutes she would be hit 18 times - and 27+18=45, i.e. the number of hits would exceed even the double allowance we assumed for Yamato.

Basically, even that simplified statistics demonstrate that Yamato could not win three-to-one battle.

I don't think it's so simple. 20 penetrating hits, maybe. I think the most you get out of a long-ranged battle is a mission kill, but even that wouldn't make her helpless due to a fantastical amount of redundancy for those rangefinders.

 

[Dilandu]

don't think it's so simple. 20 penetrating hits, maybe. I think the most you get out of a long-ranged battle is a mission kill, but even that wouldn't make her helpless due to a fantastical amount of redundancy for those rangefinders.

Not that fantastic. Without main directors, Yamato would be forced to rely either on small directors for secondary cannons (assuming they wouldn't be destroyed), or turrets own directors (whic are placed low). Her long-range fire capability would be seriously degraded. Against two undamaged Standards, with fully operable fire control, it's a doomed proposition.

 

[Tzoli]

You seem to be overestimating the effectivitness of first generation of fire control radars. I've seen a video of it and it was quite difficult to read what is happenning on the screen that the radar operator was using.
Also what do you think how likely was to hit the top of the conning tower of a moving target from another moving object from the distance of 20km+ by a 356mm shell?

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Not that fantastic. Without main directors, Yamato would be forced to rely either on small directors for secondary cannons (assuming they wouldn't be destroyed), or turrets own directors (whic are placed low). Her long-range fire capability would be seriously degraded. Against two undamaged Standards, with fully operable fire control, it's a doomed proposition.

I agree with Tzoli that it would be difficult to hit the primary 15m rangefinder itself. Although not impossible, it's rather well-protected due to its height. There is also the 10-meter aft rangefinder. While lower than the primary rangefinder, it's of adequate size to engage at respectable combat distances. (Bismarcks carried a 10.5 meter main and secondary rangefinder, for comparison).
That 15m rangefinder, while active, is going to give Yamato a big advantage during any daylight engagement. That thing is ginormous, and Japanese optics are no joke.

 

[1Big Rich]

The first ships to consider 16" guns were the New Mexicos; an eight-gun battery was considered for the Pennsylvanias, but it was for a notional 15" gun.

I have never seen anything about the USN considering a 15" gun.

CV12 is correct; there was an early preliminary of BB-38 with 15in guns. I don't know that actually building such a gun was ever considered or if it was just to see what a 1in caliber increase would like.

We discussed the preliminary briefly over on the BC Board

All the World's Battlecruisers-The USN's Revenge?

WD Martin sent me a link to the shipscribe site, and I stumbled across this Spring Style preliminary to Pennsylvania See more USN Spring Style drawing

www.tapatalk.com

Regards.

 

[Dilandu]

You seem to be overestimating the effectivitness of first generation of fire control radars. I've seen a video of it and it was quite difficult to read what is happenning on the screen that the radar operator was using.
Also what do you think how likely was to hit the top of the conning tower of a moving target from another moving object from the distance of 20km+ by

I'm not talking about targeting rangefinder; I'm talking about statistical improbability of fire control survival after multiple 14-inch/16-inch hits into superstructure.