Yamato Battleship vs Montana Class BattleShip

[alecsandros]

... Hello,

What is important to note is sensors and weapons capabilities. Considering both ships launching seaplanes , and fiding the enemy at a considerable range - say 100km - what's left is a pure gunnery battle in a known environment - for both forces.

The heavy batteries on both ships had similar ranges (Yamato slightly larger), initial velocities of shells were comparable (at around 780-790 m/s), and thus times of flight would have been comparable (IOwa's shells probably somewhat faster but not in a decisive way).

From USN Technical Mission to Japan we know that Yamato's batteries produced 400-500meters long patterns at 40km, whereas Iowa's batteries produced similar sized patterns at similar range.

What is decisively different is the way in which the exact range to fall of shot (and to target) is measured: Iowa will measure using several radars, Yamato will also measure using radar, but a much more primitive one. Thus the weight of the range measurement would fall on the optical rangefinders, mainly the foretop main rangefinders (15meters baselength).

Oddly enough, rate of fire for both ships during trials was eerily similar, at 1.5 - 2 shots per minute per gun at elevation required to fire the shells at 40km.

---

All in all, IMHO, the outcome of the battle would rest more on tactics and actual decisions made on the spot, more then on guns and armors.

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

All in all, IMHO, the outcome of the battle would rest more on tactics and actual decisions made on the spot, more then on guns and armors.

Crew skill (=drill) is the other & usually more important part of this. A comparison of relative time spent at drill, and the ability to learn from the training vs rote drill without critical analysis would tell a lot about the advantage in this.

Applying Zimms analysis to the Montanna suggests the battle will tilt significantly to the US side as the range closes to under 20,000 meters.

[T. A. Gardner]

Given the outcome of Samar and Surigao Strait, as well as Savo with the Washington and S. Dakota, I'd say that Yamato would be in a world of hurt. Yamato's firing accuracy at Samar was definitely nothing to write home about, where as the US BB's when they opened fire generally were on target within a salvo or two and devastated it.

[alecsandros]

US battleship gunnery was demonstratably good and very good.
Yamato's artillery had little opportunities for demonstrating true capabilities against battleships... The Japanese at least had a strong conviction about the ship's capabilities...

[James A Pratt III]

The book "The World Wonder'd What really happened off Samar" by Robert Lundgren is a detailed account of the battle including who hit who from my notes: the Yamato:
0700 CVE White Plains near miss or hit 3rd salvo 34.586 yards
0727 DD Johnson 3 18 inch and 3 6inch hits
0740-0800 DD Hoel possible hits
0752 Yamato receives 1 5 inch hit from the Hoel
0800 CVE Gamier bay hit by Yamato and Kongo
0834 Hoel hit by Yamato

[Carl Schwamberger]

... who hit who from my notes: the Yamato:
...

Difficult to draw any conclusions from that. How many rounds were fired to achieve these hits?

[James A Pratt III]

The book didn't say but the near miss/hit on the White Plains if you count it as a hit is possibly the longest hit in naval history. Also most of the many hits on the Hoel were front 5inch and 6 inch gun on the Yamato.