Another battleship question: four-gun turrets as opposed to three

[Tranquilis]

@Hypno-Toad

…it may be that what was considered bulbous back in the Iowas’ day is not so much nowadays.

Compare.
Much more pronounced - That’s a bulbous bow. Not so much as on a modern supertanker, but still substantially more than you saw on the Iowa, and the Yamato class were laid down two and ahalf years sooner, so it’s fairly clear that the Iowa’s bow was clearly more conservative, considering that large bulges predated her. I still don’t consider her bow to be bulbous by any but the most narrow and persnickity definition.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

USS Missouri in drydock:

Travel & Experiences

http://www.timryansreelhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Drydock2-300x240.jpg

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/10/ap_navy_missouri_dry_dock_101409/101509_missouri_drydock_story.JPG

The four Iowa-class battleships, together in a rare photo: http://maquetland.com/v2/images_articles/Four_Iowas.jpg

The battleship Wisconsin accidentally struck the destroyer USS Eaton in 1956 and had to get a new bow from the USS Kentucky, then under construction and later cancelled:

http://www.navysite.de/bb/bb64coll1.jpg.
http://www.usswisconsin.org/General/Pics/H%2056-05-06.jpg

Here’s what the Eaton looked like afterwards:

http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures/Collision/C%2008%20USS%20Eaton%20DD-510%20Collision.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/USSEatonDDE-510.jpg/300px-USSEatonDDE-510.jpg

[Elendil_s_Heir]

A bulbous bow didn’t keep this notorious ship out of trouble: http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50422384.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A145A8D52A8CADD9DF00F7D95609BEE337D46E6CC1A8E27389CB01E70F2B3269972

[Hypno-Toad]

@Tranquilis

Compare.
Much more pronounced - That’s a bulbous bow. Not so much as on a modern supertanker, but still substantially more than you saw on the Iowa, and the Yamato class were laid down two and ahalf years sooner, so it’s fairly clear that the Iowa’s bow was clearly more conservative, considering that large bulges predated her. I still don’t consider her bow to be bulbous by any but the most narrow and persnickity definition.

Just because the Yamato has it bigger doesn’t mean that Iowas didn’t have it at all. You’re saying that the Iowas didn’t have a bulbous bow because it doesn’t meet your definition but somehow I’M being narrow?

Besides, that modellor forgot the Wave Motion Cannon. You can’t trust him at all.

[mlees]

@Elendil_s_Heir

A bulbous bow didn’t keep this notorious ship out of trouble: http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50422384.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A145A8D52A8CADD9DF00F7D95609BEE337D46E6CC1A8E27389CB01E70F2B3269972

Browser says I need to log in to that website.

[Mk_VII]

The King George V-class were planned on the 35,000-ton treaty limits (on the assumption that the Second London Treaty limits would endure) and the quadruple mountings were designed to save enough weight to get inside the limit and give the RN the sort of “balanced” design that it wanted. In practise, the mounting proved too complex and unreliable and the successor Vanguard reverted to double mountings (not least because the desire to reuse mountings removed from the Courageous-class).

[Sailboat]

@ralph124c

I understand that the USN’s 16" guns were about eaqual to the Yamato’s 18" guns, in terms of penetrating power.

@Snnipe_70E

The USN had better fire control on the Iowa’s so in a slug fest the Iowa’s would have more hits.

@Magiver

No I was referring to the French battleship Richilieu which had all 8 guns in the front.

@kombatminipig

I recall that the US had a fairly advanced fire control radar on the Iowa class. Could the Yamato class have matched it, and if not, wouldn’t it have given the Iowas a decisive advantage?

@Snnipe_70E

The fire control would have been the advantage Iowa’s, Larger shells advantage Yamato. It would depend who got the first hits in. Yamato takes out the radar fire control first shot Iowa in big trouble. Yamato takes longer to get range and hold range Yamato in big trouble.

Like any Naval battle it all depends.

@Tranquilis

Those are all part of the overall fitout, and figure into the overall assesment. Which is why, despite having an ever-so-tiny a range deficit, and less destructive shells, the Iowas were still considered, ship-to-ship, to be superior. Just slightly.

Armor, range, maneuverability, sea-keeping, and a lot of other factors also count. But, as I mentioned previously, the total combined differences were small enough that a well (or poorly) trained and drilled crew would be a more decisive factor.

For those interested in th3ese questions of which ship would be considered overall superior, there’s a great in-depth comparison at CombinedFleet.com:

Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall – Who’s the Baddest of Them All?

[Snnipe_70E]

Sailboat
Thanks that was interesting. I was suprised the the South Dakota came out so well.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@mlees

Browser says I need to log in to that website.

Huh. Don’t know why; I just found it through Google Images.

It’s a photo of the bow of the ill-fated Exxon Valdez.

[LSLGuy]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Huh. Don’t know why; I just found it through Google Images.

It’s a photo of the bow of the ill-fated Exxon Valdez.

Your link works for me.