The mighty Kirov vs the mighty Iowa

Yes, Iowa’s radar was far more advanced than Yamato’s. In fact, the Japanese never had a dedicated fire-control radar. It’s possible that Yamato did generate FC data via radar at Samar, but if it came to that, Iowa had countermeasures and I don’t believe Yamato had any.
Nuke1 has an important point, and to go a step further, radar doesn’t necessarily need incoming fire to knock it out; outgoing can do the job just as effectively.
Some time ago, Norman Friedman wrote an article for USNI Proceedings in which he argued that Iowa was to be favored over Yamato in a gunfight. So who ya gonna believe, me or the most respected battleship researcher in America? (I have to find a better way to word that.) Actually Friedman’s essay shows the bent that routinely skews the Iowa-v-Yamato hypotheticals in Iowa’s favor. It chooses a scenario that plays entirely to Iowa’s strengths and then assumes that matters proceed without a glitch.

the problem is that the “immunity zone” of the Yamato was effectively much better than the Iowa. These latters could have been superior as strategical warships , but who knows if they were able to withstand a 460mm shell? the 310mm armour belt of the Iowa, as example, wasn’t cleary enough until (theorically) 35,000 mts while the iowa cannot hope in more than 25,000. Naturally there are few possibilitites for everyone to hit something moving at more than 25 km. i personally tend to see the Iowa plus like the ultimate battlecruisers than the ultimate battleships. Montana could have the real answer to the Yamato, but they never became.
Apart this, the first shell (1400kg) that eventually stroke the Iowa, can mauled severly the radars of every ship..

“Iowa loses? AAAATTT!! Wrong answer”
Yes, I know there’s a tendency to romanticize about Iowa taking on big bad Yamato, as well as a tendency to couch the “versus” in terms of a scenario that plays to Iowa’s strengths. There’s also a fair amount of outright misinformation, including some I noticed in another thread here. But in the end, the disparity in the two ships’ relative vulnerability is too great a disadvantage for Iowa to overcome. Could she defeat Yaamto? Certainly. Is that the most likely outcome? No.

USN radar was far better than Japanese: Iowa would have seen Yamato first and would have had better aim at greater range. Also, I think USN had better damage control.

“what would those be?”
Iowa has no Immune Zone against 46cm shells. Yamato has a decent IZ somewhere around the 20-30,000yd band. I’ll let someone else run the calculations.

“but the often cited reason for a victorious IOWA is due to its higher accuracy at longer range.”
Iowa would likely be more accurate any any range, assuming her radar is working. Even when visual range is clear, radar can be a help.

“A range that the Yamatos couldn’t effectively engage.”
Yamato could top-spot her salvoes at ranges beyond 40,000 yards, depending on the conditions.

“Imp. Japanese warships are also known to be extrememly unstable due to their tendency to be very top heavy.”
Please note that a topheavy ship will be a steadier gun platform. However, this is not an issue here. Both Yamato and Iowa are in the “sweet spot” of stability. Iowa had a GM of 9.26 feet, while Yamato had a bit more stability with a GM of 9.81 feet. Thus they are both between 8-9% in GM/beam ratio. (A well designed ship will be in the 5-10% range.) In fact, Yamashiro, Nagato, and Kongo all showed perfectly fine stability figures, so it would be a mistake to foresee a problem. These were not Tomozurus.

“apparently the Higher muzzle velocity of the Iowa”
Yamato had a higher muzzle velocity.

“the superior rangefinding equpiment”
I like radar, but otherwise, wouldn’t we have to say Yamato had the superior rangefinding equipment?

“the better top speed”
I don’t know how Iowa’s speed advantage, impressive though it is, would be much of a factor except in allowing her to escape if things turn against her. However, the one-on-one duel is such an artificiality that who knows?

Having said all that, I still see Iowa as the better ship. She’s a lot more versatile than Yamato.

The WW2 Yamato loses….but the 2199 space battleship Yamato would kick butt!!!!!

versus the Enterprise? I doubt it… :rolleyes: 😀 😀 😀

The WW2 Yamato loses….but the 2199 space battleship Yamato would kick butt!!!!!

Actually, in a japanese navy forum, the Yamato lost on that forum too, and that was a bunch of Japanese navy enthusiasts who FAVOR Japanese navy ships…apparently the Higher muzzle velocity of the Iowa, the superior rangefinding equpiment, the better top speed and a few other bits led to the conclusion the Iowa class would PROBABLY come out on top…but nothing is ever guaranteed, is it? I’ve heard of Avengers shooting down Zeros in the pacific, a scenario that one would think would NOT be feasible…but it HAPPENED…

M

the two ships’ relative vulnerability is too great a disadvantage for Iowa to overcome.

what would those be? Nobody will know, but the often cited reason for a victorious IOWA is due to its higher accuracy at longer range. A range that the Yamatos couldn’t effectively engage. Imp. Japanese warships are also known to be extrememly unstable due to their tendency to be very top heavy…although the Yamato is very beamy.

“Iowa loses? AAAATTT!! Wrong answer”
Yes, I know there’s a tendency to romanticize about Iowa taking on big bad Yamato, as well as a tendency to couch the “versus” in terms of a scenario that plays to Iowa’s strengths. There’s also a fair amount of outright misinformation, including some I noticed in another thread here. But in the end, the disparity in the two ships’ relative vulnerability is too great a disadvantage for Iowa to overcome. Could she defeat Yaamto? Certainly. Is that the most likely outcome? No.

Yamato vs Iowa….Iowa loses? AAAATTT!! Wrong answer, we covered that one…at least in these forums, the Iowa class won…but hey, thanks for playing!

M

Long Beach was pretty much pure air deffence wasn’t she? She WAS ugly tho………..But as long as we are discussing things that can’t happen…..how bout CSS Tennessee vs HMS Drednaught?

Garry,

effectively Soviets experimented a kind of (nuclear) ballistic missile with anti-ship capability, named SSN X 13 (?). this never entered in service, but i am pretty confident that this was the “ultimate” anti-ship weapon.

Vortex, with very modern tecnologies, even a 127mm have more range than teh 406, but this not explain nothing: AFAIK. despite developements planned, no “super” 406 100 miles+ shells were deployed.
The question is not that 20 SSN 19 can sink a Iowa and 20 406mm can sink the Kirov, insthead we can argue that Musashi and Yamato can match Essex carriers: 20 460mm are enough also for them. We can argue that if a WWI battleships comes in front a port filled of modern warships, with 30+RF guns it can sink them in few minutes: why not? But it was not a realistic case.

As the torpedoes and bombs used vs Mushasi and yamato it has always wondered me how the Musashi resisted at 50% more hits than Yamato and it was able almost to save her ( if only a port was available within 30 km!). improved weapons or weak point hitten on Yamato?

But as explosive and destructive power, the other problem is the speed. If the hit is made by a subsonic bomb it’s a thing: differenlty, it’s a huge problem.
Losat missiles shows well how the KE is important to pierce an armour. If a SSN 19 or a SA-n 6 hits a target, it’s not only the HE cahrge, but also something like 400-500 MJ of KE that are more than a tank gun reserve fired at 0 mts. Supersonic-Hipersonic weapons could make a different outcome than a slower system. A very heavy and or very fast can pierce armoured structures , like Fritz.X and tallboy showed, the problem is the KE available ( weight plus speed ) expecially if the warhead have also a semi-piercing warhead.

Yamato’s remains were located and examined in 1985 and again examined, more precisely, in 1999. She lies in two main parts in some 1000 feet of water. Her bow portion, severed from the rest of the ship in the vicinity of the second main battery turret, is upright. The midships and stern section is upside down nearby, with a large hole in the lower starboard side close to the after magazines.

Yamato vice Musashi sinking: Yamato was listing to port with a fire raging in the aft superstructure, then exploded and sank. Musashi went down by the bow and sank, it did not explode like Yamato. Perhaps Yamato got an unlucky hit on a magazine or perhaps the fire caused the explosion of munitions (Japanese damage control prodecures and equipment were far less developed than those of US, same reason why they lost some CVs – including half-sister carrier Shinano – when USN managed to save many a stricken CV)

misc

“About the capability of the Shipwreck missiles, i would remember the sad fate of the Roma battleship, sunk by two Fritz-X”
I know nothing about modern weaponry; can the Shipwreck specifically attack decks? If it cannot, it won’t have the trajectory of a plunging Fritz-X and simple armor-penetration won’t matter much. Does the warhead have any delay action?

“Iowa vs Yamato”
Yamato.

“or Iowa vs Tirpitz”
Iowa.

“how bout Nagato vs Maryland?”
Maryland never got a thorough modernization. During most time periods, I would tend to favor Nagato.

A better comparrison would be Kirov against the Long Beach!

Garry,

effectively Soviets experimented a kind of (nuclear) ballistic missile with anti-ship capability, named SSN X 13 (?). this never entered in service, but i am pretty confident that this was the “ultimate” anti-ship weapon.

Vortex, with very modern tecnologies, even a 127mm have more range than teh 406, but this not explain nothing: AFAIK. despite developements planned, no “super” 406 100 miles+ shells were deployed.
The question is not that 20 SSN 19 can sink a Iowa and 20 406mm can sink the Kirov, insthead we can argue that Musashi and Yamato can match Essex carriers: 20 460mm are enough also for them. We can argue that if a WWI battleships comes in front a port filled of modern warships, with 30+RF guns it can sink them in few minutes: why not? But it was not a realistic case.

As the torpedoes and bombs used vs Mushasi and yamato it has always wondered me how the Musashi resisted at 50% more hits than Yamato and it was able almost to save her ( if only a port was available within 30 km!). improved weapons or weak point hitten on Yamato?

But as explosive and destructive power, the other problem is the speed. If the hit is made by a subsonic bomb it’s a thing: differenlty, it’s a huge problem.
Losat missiles shows well how the KE is important to pierce an armour. If a SSN 19 or a SA-n 6 hits a target, it’s not only the HE cahrge, but also something like 400-500 MJ of KE that are more than a tank gun reserve fired at 0 mts. Supersonic-Hipersonic weapons could make a different outcome than a slower system. A very heavy and or very fast can pierce armoured structures , like Fritz.X and tallboy showed, the problem is the KE available ( weight plus speed ) expecially if the warhead have also a semi-piercing warhead.

Would a Kirov’s systems even work? How is their maint going?

Iowa counters (modern day equipped) with Tomahawks, Harpoons and if within range of 16″ guns (26 miles) unleashes a few broadsides, whole different story, Kirov is in trouble…not to mention the armor plating of the Iowa class is MUCH more protective than the Kirov’s…

I WHOLLY disagree with the Kirov taking out an Iowa class ship, in ANY situation…

M

Your joking surely, Even IF the Iowa could lauch it’s 32 Tomahawks (Assuming they are the B version) and 8 Harpoons those missiles are seriosuily sub sonic compared to the supersonic SS-N-19’s of the Kirov.

It’s a no brainer as said above, Kirov 100 times out of 100

Lame as this is…….how would a Kirov do against a Ticonderoga?

well, this one is obvious if you assume the combat system on the Kirov is as advertised….the Kirov can out absorb punishment (simply because it’s bigger) and out missile the Tico. But, there’s a reason why there’s lot more Ticos than Kirovs….If it weren’t for the 1st gen phase arrays on the Long Beach, this is a lot better match to the Kirovs, in size (although still smaller) and loadout capabilities. But, the USN didn’t go that way. The King (carriers) is alive and well in the USN so no need to please the Queen (everything else) unless it pleases the King. 😀 😀 😀

Lame as this is…….how would a Kirov do against a Ticonderoga?

The Japanese Yamato was struck by some ten torpedoes, mainly on the port side, and several bombs before she sank. Musashi and her consorts were attacked by hundreds of U.S. Navy carrier aircraft. This battlewagon was hit by some nineteen torpedoes and seventeen bombs. Though her heavy protection withstood this massive damage to a degree probably unsurpassed by any other contemporary warship, Musashi capsized and sank about four hours after she received her last hit.

Just to give an idea of how much punishment BBs can take.

Standard USN air droppable torpedos weighed 1005kg/2216 lbs and had warheads with 262kg Torpex. Typical aircraft armaments in these cases consisted of 454kg/1000lbs and 227kg/500lbs. Respectively, these contained about 241kg and 119kg of HE explosive.

Name Type Bomb-Weight HE-Weight
AN-M30 GP 100 lb 54 lb
AN-M57 GP 250 lb 123 lb
AN-M64 GP 500 lb 262 lb
AN-M65 GP 1,000 lb 530 lb
AN-M66 GP 2,000 lb 1,051 lb
AN-M56 Light Case 4,000 lb 3,245 lb
AN-Mk1 Armor-Piercing 1,600 lb 215 lb

By comparison, the SS-N-19 Shipwreck weighs 7000 kg and has a 750kg conventional high explosive or a 500 kiloton nuclear warhead. The 1,800kg 48N6 missile of the S-300PMU1/SA-N-6/SA-10 GRUMBLE contains a
145kg high explosive warhead.

Assuming Mk13 torpedos and 500lb bombs were used, it took at least some 3 tons of explosive to sink Yamato (and 7 tons to sink Musashi). That’s the same weight of explosive as in 4 (9) SS-N-19 or in 21 (48) SA-N6. More missiles would be required if the warhead weight of these russian missiles includes anything other than explosive.