Yamato VS. Missouri Mano A Mano-Who Wins

 It has been done in more than a few threads,different sites,etc. I believe the"last word" is that the superb fire control systems of the Iowa class would have meant many,many hits at long range,(plunging fire)before the Yamato could reply with any degree of accuracy.This long reach sort of negates many of the Yamato's excellent armament and armor features.

Here is a link to a site that has a fairly good comparison chart on the subject that includes battleships from the major powers at the time:   http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

 

roowalker wrote:

It has been done in more than a few threads,different sites,etc. I believe the"last word" is that the superb fire control systems of the Iowa class would have meant many,many hits at long range,(plunging fire)before the Yamato could reply with any degree of accuracy.This long reach sort of negates many of the Yamato's excellent armament and armor features.

Agreed.  Yamato was surprisingly bad in accuracy when firing at the 'Jeep' carriers at Leyte!

read what it took to sink the Yamamoto, and maybe think again.

gary

I'd give the edge to the Yamamoto...I feel that even if the Missouri was more accurate she could withstand a lot more punishment until she delivered the knock-out blow to the US BB...

You can't hit what you can't see. A miss is as good as a mile.

subfixer wrote:

You can't hit what you can't see. A miss is as good as a mile.

True, but assuming that both ships would meet in open ocean during daylight on a clear, calm day, I'd bet that the Yam could take shells until it started closing and laying some on herself...the Japanese were well-kown for their accurate gunnery, even with their limited f/c systems...I mean, the Bismarck was rated the same level of f/c as the Yam (in your link) and it did pretty well against the Hood and others...who knows?

Well, certainly many Japanese ships were very accurate in their gunnery, but in the one time 'Yamato' got into an action where she could unleash her big guns, her gunnery was terrible!  This has happened to other ships at other times.  For example, HMS Tiger was infamous for her lousy gunnery in WW1, even though she was otherwise an excellent ship.  'Bismarck' was a supposedly less 'battleworthy' ship than either Yamato or Iowa, but her gunnery was outstanding on all occasions, and of course, whoever gets the first punch in in a battle between such heavyweights, is liable to win the battle pretty comprehensively (just ask the survivors of HMS Hood!).  Also, there is almost never a clear, calm day on the ocean, and if Yamato met Iowa on such a fictional day, Iowa would be likely to do so much damage to Yamato's fire control so quickly at maximum range that Yamato wouldn't be able to hit the broadside of a barn (or a battleship!), and at that point would just be a helpless target, unable to escape, and unable to engage........

And don't forget, the Iowa had at least a six knot advantage over the Yamato. That is a very significant factor when manuvering and staying out of range at sea.

searat12 wrote:

Well, certainly many Japanese ships were very accurate in their gunnery, but in the one time 'Yamato' got into an action where she could unleash her big guns, her gunnery was terrible!  This has happened to other ships at other times.  For example, HMS Tiger was infamous for her lousy gunnery in WW1, even though she was otherwise an excellent ship.  'Bismarck' was a supposedly less 'battleworthy' ship than either Yamato or Iowa, but her gunnery was outstanding on all occasions, and of course, whoever gets the first punch in in a battle between such heavyweights, is liable to win the battle pretty comprehensively (just ask the survivors of HMS Hood!).  Also, there is almost never a clear, calm day on the ocean, and if Yamato met Iowa on such a fictional day, Iowa would be likely to do so much damage to Yamato's fire control so quickly at maximum range that Yamato wouldn't be able to hit the broadside of a barn (or a battleship!), and at that point would just be a helpless target, unable to escape, and unable to engage........

Maybe...pure specualtion...who knows...when did the Missouri have her gunnery tested???

Well, USS Missouri had radar-directed fire control, which the Japanese never had.  Initially, this wasn't too effective, until we figured out how to make it work properly.  The Battle of Empress Augusta Bay showed just how effective this could be once we figured it out, when a number of US cruisers pasted  a bunch of Japanese cruisers, at night, at long range, and with many first salvo hits.  As the Iowa class had the latest and greatest of this kind of technology aboard (while Yamato had a radar system that could barely register incoming aircraft, with no radar targeting system at all, let alone radar control of the big guns), it seems clear that Yamato would have been hammered repeatedly by an Iowa, without being able to either respond, pursue, or close.  a few 16" salvoes would have rendered Yamato completely blind with no fire-direction at all (think about what happened to Bismarck when her rudder got jammed by tordedo damage), and on this basis, Yamato would quickly be just another helpless target for an Iowa, even though it might take an awful lot of shells to sink her.........

subfixer wrote:

You can't hit what you can't see. A miss is as good as a mile.

I've read the quote over and over again that those Navy battleships couldn't hit anything close to the publized distances we often read about. Tobe exact it was an often made comment by the Navy staff that they couldn't hit anything! That plus taking into the fact that even with the superior velocities of the 16" guns on the Iowa class ship they were almost as good as the 18" rounds used on the Yamamoto. One on one at 15,000 yards would be the best you could hope for out of a Iowa class ship.

gary

Here is a link to range tests carried out on a section of one of the turrets destined for the Shinano http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm 

My feeling is that the Missouri would have used her radar fire control and speed advantage to stay at long range and pepper the Yamato's 8" decks with plunging fire. You only need to look at what happened at Surigao Strait and Savo to see how accurate US Navy radar fire control was at the time.

Hmmmmmm...I need you guys to come over to the thread: "Most Significant Naval Battles???" and help me out with the guys that feel the US would have folded if we had lost Midway...Seems all we needed was one of these Iowa-class BB's to sink the entire Japanese fleet!...LOL...

It is also important to understand that a battleship was never designed to fight alone, which means this discussion is fictional in the extreme.  All you have to do to change the odds significantly is to add one US destroyer to the Iowa, and a Japanese destroyer to the Yamato, and the Yamato flotilla is suddenly far more dangerous than the Iowa flotilla (long-lance torpedoes).  Same thing happens when you add cruisers, more battleships, airpower, and all the other combat multipliers......... The guys who win, get there 'fustest with the mostest!'

 

A very real factor is the issue of damage control in these ships. The US Navy excelled in this and the IJN was sorely lacking. Survivability would go to the Iowa class BBs.

David Harris wrote:

Here is a link to range tests carried out on a section of one of the turrets destined for the Shinano http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm  My feeling is that the Missouri would have used her radar fire control and speed advantage to stay at long range and pepper the Yamato's 8" decks with plunging fire. You only need to look at what happened at Surigao Strait and Savo to see how accurate US Navy radar fire control was at the time.

Savo sound was a completely different animal to a normal naval engagement. You were fighting a battle at virtual point blank range, and if my memory is right the heavies actually had to shoot with barrels at a negative angle! There was no room to manuver; compounded with the rocky shoreline. Then to add insult to injury was the fact that nobody fought a naval warefare battle at night as well as the Japanese.

    A suggested read is the book titled "Destroyer". It has first hand accounts from the destroyers of course, and how little radar helped. Also the book "Return To Guadalcanal" by Ballaird.

    A long distance affair between the Missouri and the Yamamoto might well have played into the hands of the Missouri. But with the reputation that battleships had in WWII I'd bet against it. There was little difference in penetration between the 18" round and the later 16" round from the Missouri. Yet if one is talking long distance you gotta take into fact the basic ballistics of the two rounds. Looking at that factor alone and thinking in terms of 15 miles or more you will now arrive with another new ballgame! It simple physics that works on an inverse proportional ratio. The lighter (in weight) round will loose it's energy much quicker as it travels unless it has a better ballistic co-efficient. In this case it may have a slightly better one, but not enough to really matter. And I thinking about the 2700lb. round; not the AP round that weighed much less. You take these factors into account plus a thicker armor belt and things change fast. If your looking at eight to ten thousand yards I'd say they're close in power, but if your looking at sixteen to eighteen thousand yards I'd go with the 18" everyday of the week. And before you ask I do have a very good idea as to just how accurate the 16" guns on an Iowa class battleship was.

gary 

The truth about Iowa class ships is not aways so easy to gleen. Of two 16"types Iowa's recieved shorter calibre lighter shot type, weight of shot was about 300lbs less, range about 2000 yds less.  The longer rifles were not available during construction, the others plentiful.  The Navy found thier shortcomings negligable.  Touted as having 16" armour,(Which they did in thier turret glacis.)the main belt max was in reality only 12". These design features are compromises which in fact enable these huge vessels to achieve 33kts the fastest dreadnoughts ever, as well as  reasonable endurance.  I must admit ignorance of the yams protection, but armour isn't just thicker is better placment & compartmentilizing goes a long way.  Bismarck's 12.25" belts kept her afloat after 2hrs of the worst battering the R.N. could give,  Bismarck was thoughtfully armoured.  In sumary Big Mo's radar and speed has her dictating the order of battle. Like fighting a mighty brute with astigmatism, sooner or later a sharp middle weight challenger will pick you apart.

I have read a few articles about this "What if" Battle between Iowa and Yamato and to my knowledge in most cases people argued in favour for the Iowa, because of her (undoubtely) better fire control. I toatally agree that the Iowa's had a much better fire control than any Japanese battleship they had Radar which would be a significant advantage. But wait a bit, the Yamato had a much bigger calibre, 18.1 inch compared to Iowa's 16 inch, Due to that she was able to fire at longer ranges or not?  So maybe the Iowa was able to fire more precisely in an engagement were both contenders could see each other the Yamato would have been abe to start to fire earlier, so even if her fire would not be as accurate as the Iowa's fire she would have the chance to hit Iowa even before she would be able to start firing herself against Yamato.

Iowa had better damage control? does that mean that she is able to withstand more hits of a 18.1 inch calibre than Yamato could withstand 16 inch hits. I really do not know what the real result would be, BUT 

If I take the available history I see that Yamato and Musashi took several hits of bombs and perhaps even more torpedoes, so that damage they received before they sank was quite a lot!

How much of such hits would Iowa withstand before sinking?

 

Keep on modeling

René

www.usns.biz 

 

 

 

 

Yes, both Yamato and Musashi took an enormous amount of hits before finally sinking (as did Bismarck).  But a more important question to ask is at one point did these ships become combat ineffective?  A floating piece of wreckage is still just that!  If the rangefinders are taken out, power to the main and secondary turrets are taken out, or the conning tower/bridge is taken out, all the armor and guns in the world just become meaningless chunks of metal.  This is what happened to Bismarck in her final confrontation, with her rudder jammed over so that her targeting systems were completely ineffective (I don't think she had a single hit against the British squadron that was there to finish her off).  Yet, she still floated, and she was still underway, even though she was on fire from one end to the other, with all targeting systems out, and continued to return fire for quite a long time.

A similar situation happened at Savo when the Japanese battlecruisers Hiei and Kirishima engaged a bunch of US cruisers.  While the 14" guns of the Japanese statistically should have simply blown the US cruisers and destroyers out of the water, in fact the intense volume of fire against the Hiei had all of her communications, command and control and range-finding equipment out of commission in very short order, and was just a blazing wreck limping to the North by the end of it.  Looking at Yamato vs Iowa, everyone keeps talking about maximum ranges, but in fact to really make the kill, the range would have to be closed as quickly as possible. 

This is, of course, a potentially very dangerous maneuver (see what happened to HMS Hood!), but is necessary to achieve the kind of volume of fire and accuracy to finish off an opponent.  Yes, Yamato's main guns were bigger, but what rate of fire could they achieve in comparison with the US 16" guns?  What about the volume of fire from all the 5" dual-purpose guns, all Radar-directed?  How maneuverable are the respective ships, which allows one or the other to dodge in-coming rounds?  Finally, one 'lucky hit' by either ship against the other hitting the bridge, or penetrating to vital power systems could finish the battle right then and there, and certainly the weapons of either ship were capable of inflicting such damage.  It is just that an increased rate of fire necessarily increases the odds for one side or the other......

Perhaps a more 'realistic' or comparable confrontation might be between Nagato and North Carolina?  What about a 'what if' that allows Yamato to reach Oldendorff's gunline or old battleships at Leyte?

searat12 wrote:

Yes, both Yamato and Musashi took an enormous amount of hits before finally sinking (as did Bismarck).  But a more important question to ask is at one point did these ships become combat ineffective?  A floating piece of wreckage is still just that!  If the rangefinders are taken out, power to the main and secondary turrets are taken out, or the conning tower/bridge is taken out, all the armor and guns in the world just become meaningless chunks of metal.  This is what happened to Bismarck in her final confrontation, with her rudder jammed over so that her targeting systems were completely ineffective (I don't think she had a single hit against the British squadron that was there to finish her off).  Yet, she still floated, and she was still underway, even though she was on fire from one end to the other, with all targeting systems out, and continued to return fire for quite a long time. A similar situation happened at Savo when the Japanese battlecruisers Hiei and Kirishima engaged a bunch of US cruisers.  While the 14" guns of the Japanese statistically should have simply blown the US cruisers and destroyers out of the water, in fact the intense volume of fire against the Hiei had all of her communications, command and control and range-finding equipment out of commission in very short order, and was just a blazing wreck limping to the North by the end of it.  Looking at Yamato vs Iowa, everyone keeps talking about maximum ranges, but in fact to really make the kill, the range would have to be closed as quickly as possible.  This is, of course, a potentially very dangerous maneuver (see what happened to HMS Hood!), but is necessary to achieve the kind of volume of fire and accuracy to finish off an opponent.  Yes, Yamato's main guns were bigger, but what rate of fire could they achieve in comparison with the US 16" guns?  What about the volume of fire from all the 5" dual-purpose guns, all Radar-directed?  How maneuverable are the respective ships, which allows one or the other to dodge in-coming rounds?  Finally, one 'lucky hit' by either ship against the other hitting the bridge, or penetrating to vital power systems could finish the battle right then and there, and certainly the weapons of either ship were capable of inflicting such damage.  It is just that an increased rate of fire necessarily increases the odds for one side or the other...... Perhaps a more 'realistic' or comparable confrontation might be between Nagato and North Carolina?  What about a 'what if' that allows Yamato to reach Oldendorff's gunline or old battleships at Leyte?

a good post, but since I posted awhile back I've now learned of a couple other items that have have meaning in this what if thread.

* The electronics in the radar systems were very unreliable back in those days, and were most often rendered usless from the concussion of the main guns. They all used vacume tubes in their power supplys as well as the radar units themselves, and they just couldn't handle thatkind of concussion (this is a matter of record)

* Radar systems in WWII were nothing like what we saw in later years. Easilly confused, and were really still in a learning curve at the time. But on the otherhand with the ranges closing fast their faults could have been overcame with direct fire (assuming that an Iowa class ship was capable of doing just that)

    Construction of the two ships was superb, and would now be considered "state of the art." It has been said (claimed?) that there was 21 major hits on the Yamamoto (all on one side by the way) just to sink it. That's a lot of hits! So lets say the two ships engaged at 15K yards, and the Iowa scores three hits and the Yamamoto just brackets the Iowa (ships closing at 15 knots or with the two together closing at about 30mph), but in less than three minutes we're now looking at about 12.5 miles and still closing fast (but now the question is; did the electrical systems in the radar units hold up? If not how quickly can we swap out those tubes?) The two ships once again have at it, and this time both ships score two hits. (did we all think that the Yamamoto wouldn't score one hit?) Now we must think about how much damage the 16" and the 18" guns did. Assuming the ships now are closing at about twenty knots; we're now looking at ten to eleven miles with both ships scoring hits, but the APC rounds don't penetrate the same (simple ballistics). The 16" round actually has better sectional density, but the 18" round with it's heavier mass will break thru armor better (why do the hunt elephants with a .477 Nitro Express instead of a .375 H&H?). The Iowa is now taking hits deep inside it's hull as is the Yamamoto, but which round is doing the most damage? Iowa is now braking off from the engagement and using it's speed to get out of there while it's still afloat and has a reasonable chance at damage controll, and the Yamamoto is in trouble as well but not in danger of sinking.

gary

good arguments searat!

But I still got my doubts about this matter. I do not favour Iowa nor Yamato in such a battle, but I only see all those arguments about some better this  or some better that. Sure the volume of fire is something really important too. But once again. The history tells us that it is highly propable that Yamato could withstand more hits of a smaller calibre without being in danger of being sunk than an Iowa. This is simply a question of armor and their quality. We all agree that Yamatos armour was second to none, If I recall correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Yamato used almost 30 % of its entire weight ONLY for armor and the Iowa was less than 20% So we are talking about some thousand of tons of additional armor that Yamato enjoyed and Iowa lacked. No matter which ship can put up the greater rate of fire, IF Yamato hits Iowa with a 18.1  inch the result will be much more disastrous than when Iowa will hit Yamato with a 16 inch. Just take the weight of each round there is already a consiederable difference. So even if Iowa can hit Yamato three times when Yamato can hit Iowa only 2 times I personally think that Yamato stands a better chance of survival than Iowa. Besides of that secondary guns can only be be fired when both ships have closed each other , until then the entire fight will be fought only with those big guns and that means both ships have the same number of guns and their firing cycle should be pretty much the same (more or less) and just like you said if those guns cannot only damage the hull  they can also dammage (and will certainly do) the superstructure with all those radars and smaller calibre guns as well.

Personally I think that in such a "What if fight" Yamato  stood out a fairly good chance to get away with considerable damage or so, but at the same time Iowa would be running in grave danger of being totally demolished if not sunk simply by those monstrous calibre guns of Yamatosimply because she could fire earlier than Iowa and keep up the fire even when being hit once or twice cause the damage of such 16" hits would not affect here that much

Oh and just to make sure, IF those 2 monsters would slug it out, I really hope that I will be far,  very far away!!

Keep on modeling

René

www.usns.biz

   Any ol' way, in the end, the Yamato and Musashi were sunk by aircraft. The Missouri and her sisters were not. All in all, the ship with the better anti-aircraft defense would win. And yes, I know that by the time the Iowas were out there that Japanese airpower was just about nonexistant with the exception of Kamikazes (fairly effective nontheless). Japanese damage control just plain sucked. A lot of the damage suffered by Yamato was just plain overkill; superfluous and unnecessary, that boat was going down. A few more bombs or torpedoes weren't going to make much difference, the aircrews all wanted a piece of that ship and every pilot who could, planted his ordnance on target.

    This question can be argued until the cows come home but since an actual combat between these two cannot be staged, it remains moot. 

Let me try again...... The comment has been made that US fire direction Radar was unreliable and ineffective, and certainly at times it was (often because of poor training).  Well, I can give you a couple instances where it was very effective indeed!!!  At the battle of Empress Augusta Bay, a force of four American light cruisers and some destroyers opened up on a force of two Japanese heavy cruisers, two light cruisers and the same number of destroyers.  It was at night, and the range of first contact was 20,000 yards.  There were some squalls, and the Japanese float planes either saw nothing, or misidentified the American ships and their location, direction, etc.  USS Montpelier had seen the Japanese force on its radar, and the US force was speeding North to intercept.  First the Americans split off its van destroyer screen in one direction, and its afterguard destroyers in another so as to launch torpedoes, while the cruisers kept on, evntually performing a turn so as to present broadsides.  It was at this point the Japanese lookouts noticed the American destroyers, and started to maneuver, but it was too late, and they were in too confused a formation for such turns, which produced several collisions between the Japanese ships.  Regardless, the US cruisers opened fire on the largest Radar 'blip,' which turned out to be the light cruiser 'Sendai.'  Sendai was hit square by the first three American salvos from the four US cruisers (note, no 'ranging shots' used), immediately burst into flames and sank!

Same thing happened in the classic battle between the US Battleship Washington and the Japanese battlecruiser Kirishima; the first three US salvoes were all hits, and turned Kirishima into a pile of burning wreckage (I don't care what it is; if it is hit by nine or ten 16" rounds, it is combat ineffective, if not sinking)!  With this kind of accuracy due to Radar-directed gunfire, additional hits are not really required, as the victim could be finished off at leisure with torpedoes, aircraft, etc....

Finally, while I certainly agree that the Yamatos would take an enormous amount of punishment before sinking, I must emphasize again that there is a big difference between a ship actually  sinking, and becoming combat ineffective.  Combat ineffective means it can't shoot, move, or communicate, and if any or all of those conditions applied, then that ship was doomed if its opponent was still able to conduct these functions.  USS South Dakota in the above battle with Kirishima and its accompanying cruisers would most assuredly have been destroyed if not for the presence of USS Washington, as the 'Sodak's' internal power and communications all failed with its first salvo, and for just three minutes afterwards was nothing more than a large target for the Japanese, and received some 40 hits during this time (the damage was so bad that 'Sodak' had to return to the States for repairs lasting almost a year)!

The same would apply if Yamato was quickly struck by a few Radar-directed salvos from USS Iowa, while Yamato was still trying to find the range using 'ranging shots' (as it did while firing at the US Jeep carriers at Leyte Gulf).  Yamato might still be afloat, but she would be on fire, directors wrecked, internal communications severed, and possibly her bridge destroyed, and/or even a turret or two knocked out or worse.  At that point, how could Yamato respond effectively?  And as the range closed further, the US guns would just get more accurate, with a higher volume of directed fire, and more and more damage inflicted with less and less chance for Yamato to strike back.  I think under those conditions, USS Iowa would surely prevail, especially as how with her edge in speed, Yamato couldn't even try to escape.....

 When I read up on this subject the what if. The American Fire control systems were given a lot of credit. There was however a major blunder on the American side with intelligence on the Yamato class. Several training scenarios were run where the Americans were trained to use supier speed and maneuvering to place them in what they believed was the best position for them and the worst for the Yamato. In fact these errors would have placed them into the Yamato's sweet zone negating any fire control advantage they had.

 Would have come down to who was luckiest in the end. It's been said that even though the Missouri class Armor was not as thick it was just as effective due to advanced American metalurgy. The compromises spoken of were not in vital areas such as the Gun turret , fire control and engine areas. These were supremely protected. The Yamato made up for weaker tech by increasing the thickness. 1 turrent weighed more than an entire US destroyer.

Who would have won? One on one? Good question. I think it would have come down to luck.

a lot of good arguments here! and a really interesting discussion-- I love it!

I think that the supreme speed of the Iowa was a serious advantage. That way she could dictate the battle and Yamato would have had no chance to even run away in case of some serious damage. Additional Iowa had by far the better fire control/Radar, that was something the Japanese never accomplished. But is speed everything? Just take a look at the engagement of the Scharnhorst against those British Battleship, was it the Renown? As soon as the German Battlecruiser realized what they were up against the simply did what was perhaps their only chance for survival against a much more powerful enemy, the started to run away. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no expert at the German Navy in WWII! As far as I recall they were able to enlarge the distance between their ship and the Brits but they could not outruntheir guns, Scharnhorst was hit by a large calibre grenade in the engine compartmentwith the disastrous result that her superior speed dropped significantly and the British ships could catch up and finish her, otherwise Scharnhorst would have simply run away from their opponents. 

The same could happen to an Iowa during an engagement against Yamato, the biggest problem I see is during those crucial moments when Iowa is already inside the the firing range of Yamato but still outside their own maximum range for her 16" guns. Sure if that "what if" engagement takes place during night or any other weather were visibility is down Yamato would have been in grave danger but if we say that Iowa can hit Yamato with its big guns so Yamato can do that too! and once again, we know that Yamato had one hell of an armour so even when they were hit several time they still could fight back and a  solid hit of a 18" on Iowa could have fatal results for the Iowa. Sure if Yamato would loose all its fire control directors, and perhaps a few more important things she would be nothing more than a floating target but the problem here is that it takes much more to turn Yamato into a burning wreckage than it would take to do something like that to Iowa.  Someone even brought up the fact that the armour of Iowa even so it was thinner was of the same quality as the Japanes steel because of superior metallurgy. I'm sorry to say that but as far as I knew that is simply wrong. Almost the same was said about the armour of Bismarck but some research which was made by the US Navy and the Brits after WWII turned up something totally different! I do not knowe if I'm right but I think I recall reading a report that the US  or were it the Brits tested some of the steel plates which they found in Japan and which should have been used for the Shinano before she was converted into an aircraft carrier. If I recall correctly they even brought these stell plates to the States and did some testing with 16" guns to it. The result was that this armour was in reality of very high quality and nearly inpenetrable for a 16" AP projectile and most distances

I think that the Japanese steel that you are referring to was armor  to be used on Shinano's turrets, not her gun directors, which would be vulnerable to 16" rounds.

Correct.  While gun turrets generally receive the thickest armor, gun directors generally receive little, if any.  This is because a gun director is essentially a giant set of adjustable binoculars inside a sort of revolving tuurt.  The optics are extremely vulnerable to blast effects, and in fact, don't even need to be directly hit to be knocked out.  On a battleship, there is generally an aft fire control station, and a forward control station.  These stations coordinate the information received from the gun directors, and communicate the information to all gun positions so that all the guns are pointing at the appropriate target with the right range and speed info for the gunners.  While these fire control stations are ordinarily armored, it is generally fairly light, and certainly not up to either 16" or 18" shell resistance.  In other words, if the fire control position gets hit, all coordinated communication between gun directors and guns is cut.  If a gun director is hit or otherwise taken out, the battery of guns that director controls is now entirely on its own, or simply silenced.  If enough redundant systems are in place, or good damage control, one of the other gun directors might be able to take over for that battery, and/or the alternate fire control station can step in too (aft or forward).  Of course, smoke can interfere with gun directors, as can flames, and/or electrical failures, so really, it only takes a few good hits to render even the most powerful ship combat ineffective.  Same is true of the conning tower, or 'combat bridge.'  This ordinarily has some of the thickest armor on the whole ship, yet it is surprising how often the vision slit and/or portholes can suffer direct hits, which fill the entirelty of the bridge with shrapnell, killing all personnel.  This happened to the Russians, not just once, but twice at the Battle of the Yellow Sea (where Admiral Makharoff and his staff was killed by a single 12" hit to the bridge of the battleship 'Tsesarevitch,' which caused the ship to reel out of line, breaking up the Russian formation, and costing them the battle.  Same thing happened at Tsushima, where Admiral Rodhzenvensky was severely wounded and most of his staff killed by a hit to the armored conning tower vision slit.  The rest of the ship was fine at the time, but the loss of the admiral, and the loss of steering control not only resulted in the ship destroyed, but the whole battle lost as well.....

Finally, it should be understood that before the use of Radar-fire direction, the standard method of gunnery was to fire a pair of shells at an estimated range to the target, watch the splashes, and adjust the angle of the guns and fire again, watch the splashes, make final corrections and open up with all guns (splash under, splash over, straddle).  This wastes a lot of valuable time, and of course, the enemy ship is going to maneuver to dodge your next set of shots ('chasing splashes') to screw up your calculations.  With Radar-directed firing, no 'ranging fire' is required, as all the relevant information is obtained from the Radar, which means the first full salvo is likely to hit, as is the next, and maneuvering to dodge has much less chance of success........

subfixer wrote:

I think that the Japanese steel that you are referring to was armor  to be used on Shinano's turrets, not her gun directors, which would be vulnerable to 16" rounds.

But taking into the words of several U.S. Admirals (China Lee [some folks called him "Ching"] for one). The Japanese were masters at night fighting and close in fighting using direct and point blank fire. Their crews were recruited for night vision, and were in a constant training process to hone their skills.

   During WWII; armor plate as we call it really was nothing more than a high nickel content mid ten series steel. Anything with a lot chrome would have been too expensive (remember all chrome comes out of Africa), and even though it would have been harder would also have been unsuitable for a ships armor due to hull flex. The Japanese used something similar, but with less nickel in it. Yet some feel that their heat treating processes were very good due to the coal they used. The Germans used their own form of armor plate that really was similar to what the United States used, but with a little less nickel, and virtually no chrome. The main reason for the lack of chrome and carbon in the steel plates was simply hardness. You don't want that with something that moves even the smallest  fraction of an inch as it will crack (remember this). The German heat treat processes were better than ours once again due to the vein of coal they used to heat treat the metal with (that particular vein of coal is to this day regarded as the finest heat treating vein of coal known to mankind). But ships really don't need some wild alloy steel for armor due to building processes. When construction went to welded processes it brought another problem. There was no way to normalize the welds (can you imagine a furnace that big?). This is the main reason why we see those huge armored belts.

    But on the otherside the armor plate used on a tank is much better quality. It will have a little chrome in it (chrome and carbon are what makes steel harden). The welds are smaller and shorter, but are still done via a submerge arc (a submerge arc tends to help aneal the welded area). The Germans used their own formulas for armor plate that had a unique way of heat treating for the day. In that the outter surface (about .10") was much harder than normal armor plate. This is how they got by with a welding process. Yet we've all seen photos of cracked armor from taking a hit without penetration. And of course they also had a "laying plate seperation" problem sort of similar to what we know as "damascusing." This is why ships really don't use all that great of an alloy for armor plate as they just can't.

Before you ask (and I know you will) my data came from a series of people I've known thru the years. Two were ship builders from that era. One was a high level naval architect. And the other happens to be the guy who discovered how to knock out the Tiger tank (still alive by the way)

gary