IOWA vs YAMATO - Which Battleship Would Win in an All Out Fight?

[@szlash280z]

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.

[@manilajohn0182]

The primary reason why they don't is shell dispersion.

[@m_hub3957]

they miss because the targets do not want to be hit and maneuver an Iowa can put its shells into a football stadium, on the playing field from full range but if the target moves while the shells are in flight (up to 60 seconds), you can still miss but one hit from a 16" is very damaging the Washington hit the Kirishima up to 21 times in a night fight, they reported 9 hits, the damage reported showed up to 21 likelt 16" hits

[@su-57stealthfighter73]

@@m_hub3957 of course USS Washington would land more hits on IJN Kirishima because the battle occured at close range of 8,500 yrds even the USS Texas can do that ...

[@JCP_323]

Loving your videos. Keep up the fantastic work!

[@frednone]

I think the real question in these kinds of vids is, "Can the Yamato take on two Iowa class BBs". Good vid.

[@Ijbtone643]

I tried that and the awnser is no

[@subaru22b18]

Only planes can kill both beast. That yamato is just our coral today lol.

[@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020]

@@frednone and can the Iowas armor resist penetration from an 18.1 inch 3,200 lbs shell.

[@su-57stealthfighter73]

​@@subaru22b18Too deep to became coral reefs ,Arizona is more suited ...

[@thenaturalmidsouth9536]

2 vs. 1? I don't think there's any way the Yamato could defeat 2 Iowa class ships at once. 18 16 inch guns beat 9 18 inch guns any day, all day.

[@envitech02]

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.

[@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020]

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.

[@UPRailRoad-xg8cb]

Except the nukes the Iowa class was capable of firing from it's 16 inch guns.

[@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020]

@@UPRailRoad-xg8cb the Iowa does not have that capability during WW2

[@helljumper4565]

Yamato had less dispersion? Where I can find info about that?

[@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020]

@@helljumper4565 internet

[@su-57stealthfighter73]

​@@helljumper4565If you want some evidence there's a series of photograph taken during Battle of Leyte gulf when Yamato engaging USS White Plains at the estimate range of 34,544 yrds ,and on her 3rd salvo Yamato manage to damage the USS White Plains with super close straddles( 1 or possibly 2 18.1"inch shell exploding couple feet away on its hull) and broke it's keel .. there's another photograph of USS Gambier bay also engaged by Yamato at estimate range of 22,000 yrds (notice how tight the salvo was)...

[@sanaijaz5916]

I like how always iowas 3rd main guns blows up

[@Unterseeboot]

Very good Animation as usual

[@T0ffik1]

Horizont range is wrong at 2:12 - yamato managed to score a stradle (but a one that actually did dmg to the ship) at 31km range while being in a squall (US shells werent designed to make underwater hits like IJN's and German). This is confirmed by US, but not confrimed by IJN (as all records from most things were destroyed). So we can safely assume that Yamato could get the same range of stradles like Iowa - as least history shows that. Also the direct rangefinder that was responcible for targeting for turrets was not on the top of the mast (that was lower then Yamato's rangefinder tower anyways - and radar still is affected by curve of earth). So no, Iowa didnt had range of detection advantage - actually in naval combat it had disadvantage (or at best was somewhat even). Guns on yamato were also somewhat more accurate by dispersion and ship it self was more stabile what made it a better shooting platform. There is so much inaccurate data in this clip thats its worrisome. Next most important thing that is completely messed up here. Ships speed has nothing to do when in combat. They werent going at max speed!! Their speed was much more reduced, and since Iowa had a bad designed front, it was a very wet battleship and its combat speed was relatively low to its max speed. Both bb's had similar combat speed, and to it, making a sharp turn to avoid getting into immunity zone from Iowa (around +-800m turning circle compared to Yamato's 500+m) would make her lose most of its speed and then she would be already in deadly range of Yamato's while Yamato in immunity zone. Regaining the speed would take like 20-30minutes or more. There is a reason why Graf Spee with diesel engines while being slower in top speed was able to outrun British ships in combat, as it gained speed faster thanks to them. Fleet engages (specially that US had air superiority + could decipher IJN codes) would be won by US, without air superiory and deciphering codes, could go both ends (like the early war showed), but direct combat yamato would most likely won if his crew wouldnt be brainless bots.

[@martinhaigh8345]

In a real encounter, Iowa would use her speed advantage to shadow Yamato out of range, and call in an airstrike.

[@level98bearhuntingarmor]

Cool to see the concept of immunity zones brought up, a good video about this topic

[@chestercained.tenias414]

Love it

[@douglasbaty3097]

Dec2024: The Iowa was a newer ship with better radar and fire control. As you pointed out, this gives it a slight edge in range and in poor visibility. Just don't get too close to Yamato's massive 18" guns. However, our WWII started with Pearl Harbor, which proved that the 20 mile range of a battleship was useless against the 200 mile range of an aircraft carrier. Seems a shame that the torch was passed before we even built the Iowa. It was a work of art which I assembled from a plastic kit when I was a kid. I still think the Iowa has beautiful lines that evoke awe and power. Retired in Sacto.

[@davidely7032]

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. 😉

[@manilajohn0182]

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.

[@davidely7032]

@@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.

[@manilajohn0182]

@@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...

[@davidely7032]

@@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.

[@Leo_dont_shoot_video]

@@davidely7032 At the time of main use, Iowa was beyond Mark VII and was running the Mark XIII radar, which was a 3cm, 50 kW unit with vertical stabilizers. It was substantially better than the Mk 2, Mod 2 10cm 2kW unit on Yamato. Iowa was completely capable of blindfire (over the horizon). Further, even US vessels two generations behind (NC/Washington) were capable of keeping a solution even while performing radical movement. Per Parshall and Tunney "In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns. This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot (effectively) and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other." Parshall and Tunney went so far as to propose that SoDak, if handled properly, had a better than even chance of taking out Yamato. ref: www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

5:12 yeah, but no it had a serious vulnerability at the bows where hull flares out.

[@DonWan47]

The technological and metallurgical advantages of the Iowa class are insurmountable. Yamato is a great ship but not a match.

[@Lordanpl]

Does the scenario include a situation where Iowa would use high-explosive shells to hit the crew and superstructures such as the bridge or fire control center?

[@chopinnocturne5858]

Considering all 4 Iowa class ships are still floating. The Yamato is a really shitty coral reef

[@rickhunter6513]

Iowas had air superiority, the Yamato at the point of the war had nothing hence why it got blowed up

[@vgrg7841]

Nice graphics.

[@evanleo7633]

Yamato did hit USS while plain at over 30km, but the shell only grazed the hull

[@cleverusername9369]

Pretty sure the ship's name was White Plains.

[@supremecaffeine2633]

It was a near miss, not a graze.

[@manilajohn0182]

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]

@@manilajohn0182 Both of those were well within accurate firing ranges for most battleships.

[@manilajohn0182]

@@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.

[@m_hub3957]

too much is made of penetrating the armor Hood was likely sunk by a deck fire started by an 8" shell that spread Hiei was crippled by 80+ 8" and 5" hits, none likely went through her armor hits can cause damage even if they do not penetrate

[@Thor_Asgard_]

no over the horizon tactics wouldve been used, as noone knew yamatos specifications.

[@Doncroft1]

Yamato was BUILT for this exact scenario: dominating other heavy surface gunships. But the age of the aircraft carrier spelled her doom. Yamato even struggled vs escort carriers and destroyers because of how naval battles had changed. Yamato would have dominated the Battle of Jutland, but that was a different war.

[@peterackson883]

both my favourite said by daniel peter

[@4evaavfc]

I think the IOWA class were better more modern ships. They would be much harder to hit than Yamato and their high velocity 16in shells were a match for the bigger calibre guns of Yamato.

[@TomCat777]

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

[@Aerostarm]

Cringe

[@brucevaughn2886]

Once carriers were out in force, battleships of any type were irrelevant. Had they not already been available, they would not have been built. It would have been the equivalent of pouring money into the development of smoothbore blackpowder cannon when rifled guns using modern propellents were acknowledged to be superior.

[@qasimmir7117]

Not quite but close. Battleships were needed to protect the carrier groups from a potential surface attack from cruisers, destroyers, and battleships. Naval aviation removed the battleship’s leading capital ship status. Guided anti-ship missiles later made them obsolete.

[@GaryCameron]

Just send in the destroyer Johnston and the mighty Yamato runs away...

[@kookie3834]

you do know that yamato was the one that blew her up right(along with kongo)

[@Doyoulikemynewhat]

If night then its bye bye Yamato

[@scottcooper4391]

The other American 16 inch 50's on the 35,000 ton battleships would have been comparable to the iowas in hitting power

[@Unhinged_Pegasus69]

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.

I thought that the Yamato had spotter planes they could launch to direct and correct the aiming?? Although still just taking semi blind shots with low hit probabilities like Iowa's long range shots it would not have the guns silent out of visual range.. A single hit from an 18 inch shell would be very bad for Iowa so this theory of staying at range and being safe is not factual..

[@EDIT.OFFICIAL.AGENCY.O1]

On lagi kah min❤

[@foivosapostolos1211]

Yamato hydroplanes would provide long range fire directions

[@supremecaffeine2633]

So would the Iowa's.

[@janerciencia2469]

In real life the yamato wins because the yamato has more guns and its big than iowa❤

[@Aditya_arts2008]

Iowa is big but yamato have powerful armor and more effective guns

[@rebelfriend9006]

⁠@@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

[@manilajohn0182]

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.

[@qasimmir7117]

And that speed advantage allows an Iowa-class to dictate the course of the battle. That gunnery accuracy will mean little if it cannot catch a ship and get it within effective range while Iowa can stay in the critical window and eventually, dispersion or not, will eventually land hits on Yamato and cripple her. After that it’s a case of sending in a destroyer to torpedo her or close the range to point blank and try and hit her waterline.

[@manilajohn0182]

@@qasimmir7117 In naval gunnery there is no "effective range". There existed only the maximum range of the gun and the knowledge that gunnery accuracy fell off as the range increased due primarily to shell dispersion, which the navy little understood. The U.S. Navy knew nothing about the Yamato class BBs (they first learned the actual particulars of them four months after Yamato was sunk) and estimated that they displaced approximately 45,000 tons and had 16" guns comparable with the North Carolinas and South Dakotas, with armor to withstand them (the balanced armor concept). Their belief was that the new 16" .50 cal. gun of the Iowa class combined with new fire control radar (the Mark 8) would provide them with the advantages necessary to engage a Yamato class BB outside of its immunity zone against the 16" .50 cal. gun, but while the Iowa class was inside its own immunity zone against the Japanese 16" gun. In actuality, the situation was reversed. The Yamato class was equipped with the 18.1" .45 cal. gun and with armor to withstand it, while the Iowa class had a minimal immunity zone even against its own gun. Moreover, the very marginal range accuracy of the Mark 8 over Japanese optics and the Japanese Type 22 mod 4 Radar offered no advantage because of the factor of shell dispersion. The result was that while the Americans believed that they would have a clear advantage over the Japanese, it was the Japanese who held that advantage. During WW2, none of the Iowas obtained a main battery hit against any vessel of destroyer size or larger and Iowa's gunnery against Katori off Truk was lamentable. Meanwhile, Yamato obtained one 1st salvo hit on USS Gambier Bay from just under 22,000 yards (from a six- gun salvo aimed solely by the ship's Type 22 mod 4 radar because of a lack of a visual to the target until about a minute after opening fire), three 1st- salvo main battery and three 1st- salvo secondary battery hits on USS Johnston off Samar from over 20,000 yards, and she dropped two shells a few feet from USS White Plains from just over 34,000 yards away. One of these exploded and the damage removed White Plains from front- line service for the remainder of the war. I'm not trying to crack on the Iowas, but this is the history. Source material is from the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance. Immunity zone of the Iowas vs. the 18.1" gun: Citadel 24,800- 29,800 (5,000 yards); Turret Faceplates 24,700- 31,600 (6,900 Yards); Barbettes 26,500- 31,600 (5,100 Yards); Steering 24,700- 28,800 (4,100 Yards); Control Tower 26,500- 31,600 (5,100 Yards). Immunity Zone of the Yamatos vs. the 16" .50 cal. gun: Citadel 17,000- 34,500 (17,500 Yards); Turret Faceplates (Impenetrable); Barbettes 16,600- 36,800 (20,200 Yards); Steering 19,100- 33,400 (14,300 Yards); Control Tower 16,600- 33,400 (16,800 Yards).

[@ryanhendrickson6012]

One word, radar.

[@enigmagrieshaber5555]

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 😂

[@dajuanvariste4751]

Missouri was finished with all the other Iowa’s before the war ended what are you talking about bro

[@Rio_1111]

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.

[@enigmagrieshaber5555]

@@Rio_1111 yep I somehow put Missouri in there 🥲

[@jackwardley3626]

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

[@robinsonthegreat7502]

Bump

[@catcatcheung]

you forgot about the 650 mm thick ammor

[@manilajohn0182]

660

[@Christianwhyallhandlestaken]

You forget that it is only the frontal plate gun armor.

[@donherion377]

Unless the Yamato got lucky radar controlled guns would beat optics every time....while Yamato had thicker armor it was not qualitatively better. The Iowas could fire faster, move faster and maneuver faster. And if escorted a couple destroyers cloud lay smoke screens that would make Yamato a sitting target, allowing an Iowa could dictate the battle.

[@bahoonies]

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.

[@randomdude8202]

If US really did have those advantages, they wouldn't avoid it like plague

[@Leo_dont_shoot_video]

I am not aware of any cases where the US Navy ran from the Yamato.... Due to fuel consumption, Yamato was never on the water for very long.... Like Tirpitz, she just wouldn't come out and play.

[@qasimmir7117]

No, it’s because a battleship action wasn’t needed when they had air superiority. It is also questionable about how knowledgable the US Navy was about Yamato’s true capabilities in which case you can see why they would be cautious about engaging her ship-to-ship.

[@richardmeyer2743]

Can't quite understand everything this guy is saying because of his horrible accent

[@madman3460]

Jesus loves you