battleship yamato vs battleship iowa who wins?

>>84430

>>>/k/

>>84446
>battle of samar isn't historical

are you kidding me?

>>84430
SBD Dauntlesses

>>84716
the real answer
but in isolation, the Yamato every time
that's what it was designed for

>>84779
If they could both hit. In isolation Iowa's radar gives it significantly better detection and targeting abilities, particularly at night where Iowa's FCS would almost certainly give it first salvo advantage. Yamato had a radar array, but it was comparably primitive and generally unreliable.

>>84430
the carrier group supporting the Iowa.

>>84430
Does anyone know how their respective armor plating stacked up? The japs seemed to give extremely low priority to protecting their vehicles, espicially if doing so impeded overall maneuverability.

>>84939
>The japs seemed to give extremely low priority to protecting their vehicles, espicially if doing so impeded overall maneuverability.
Varies on ships. Nagato-class was heavily armored, Kongo-class was basically modified world war I-tier battlecruisers with shit for armor. Yamato had a ridiculous amount of armor slathered on, but sheer thickness isn't everything.

File: 1443058094450.jpg (746KB, 1012x716px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 1012x716px

>>85002
>tfw never unsee Kancolle

File: Japanese_Navy_Aircraft_Carrier_Kaga.jpg (403KB, 3577x2107px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 3577x2107px

>>85045
I want to experience paizuri with a carrier.

File: montana.png (248KB, 740x384px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 740x384px

In clear day:
>Yamato

At night
>Probably most likely Iowa

yamato had insanely good optics but shit tier radar, iowa had basic optics but good radar for night shootin

>>84939
>The japs seemed to give extremely low priority to protecting their vehicles
Yamato had insane armor, she was the biggest battleship ever built. Fun fact, even the USN knew Iowa would get its shit slapped by Yamato in a fight, they proposed and almost laid down an entire new class of battleships, the Montana class, to fight Yamato. They ended up turning them into aircraft carriers once they found out battleships on both sides were useless.

pic related of montana, it would have had more dakka than yamato.

as for armor:

>Yamato
belt armor(most important spot to have armor): 16.1"
bulkheads: 11.8"
deck: 9.1"
turret face: 25.6"
barbettes: 21.5"
conning tower: 19.7

>Iowa
belt armor: 12.2"
bulkheads: 11.0"
deck: 6"
turret face: 19.7"
brbettes: 17.3
conning tower: 17.5

yamato was overall a beautiful ship but that steel would have been spent better on other shit like airplanes

File: shokaku.jpg (213KB, 1058x770px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1058x770px

>>85069
>downward pointing exhaust

jap aircraft carriers trigger me like this

>>84430
Sharks

>>85110
>Fun fact, even the USN knew Iowa would get its shit slapped by Yamato in a fight, they proposed and almost laid down an entire new class of battleships, the Montana class, to fight Yamato. They ended up turning them into aircraft carriers once they found out battleships on both sides were useless.

Montana and Iowa classes were developed in parallel. Iowas were prioritized higher as navy wanted to have more fast battleships that could keep up with carriers, as main job for battleship was going to be providing AAA-escort for carriers.

Those were simply cancelled as war ended along with suspending production of last two Iowas. They were bumped behind on production schedule couple times for more carriers and Iowas.

>>84813
Well yeah, considering Yamato would have relied on optics and the 7 recon planes on board. If you actually let Yamato use the planes on board and not count that as isolation, the radar advantage would not be that great.

>>84939
Ships are generally built with armor proportional to their armaments.

>>85110
Even if Iowa gets first salvo, do you really think it could reliably cripple the Yamato before it could respond?