Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Alfreuson

WG Military Historian confirms Montana > Yamato?

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
140 posts
740 battles

From the "[Video] Armada: Yamato" page (which is actually an advertisement for Yamato):

 

"...In fact, it is due to this same secrecy that nobody knows for sure if her rival, the American Iowa-class battleship was actually superior than Yamato, or vice versa. Let the score be settled once and for all in a final showdown, on the seas in World of Warships!" ---Tadamasa Miyanaga

 

Using simple logic as follows:

 

From his implication: Iowa = Yamato

 

Montana > Iowa

 

Therefore, Montana > Yamato... :sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

I still would have wanted somewhere in history Yamato and any of the Iowas had a salvofest and see what had happened but WoWS is the only way we can see that happen with you at the helm of either ship. oh well, we can dream of the Iowa, Montana and BB-65-2 vs No. 13, Yamato and A-150 for dream tag.

 

as for the Montana > Yamato thing, its probably from some people touting the Montana as the "Yamato Killer" had it floated out of the dry dock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
266 posts
3,486 battles

with research and speculation.... I'd say...

 

Montana

if we're just going to talk about the stats on paper

 

 

 

Armament: Montana

 

with both having 30 seconds of firing cycle, Montana still have the edge by having better shell quality. The 18" Type 91 shell was intended for underwater penetration. which would most likely happen when you're in a short-ranged, flat trajectory firing position or from a distance, they need the shell to fall short to at least hit the belt. Gotta blame Japan's love for torpedoes, so they made a shell that would work like torpedoes(quite reasonable since a hole below the waterline is dangerous than a hole above the waterline).

 

The heavy 16" shell(no.. lets not put the mythical 16" nuke shells)might match or even surpass the power of an 18" shell. Only 25% lighter yet effective for both long and short distance battles

 

Regarding the guns, the Yamato have a total broadside weight(# of guns x shell weight)of 28,917lbs while Montana having 32,400lbs. These values would be useless if the enemy has a better armor layout.

 

Last would be the fire control. You have the range, and the possible damage but you still need to ensure that you'll hit. A missed shot is ZERO damage. Now, the Yamato relies with her rangefinders and planes(which spotter planes ain't that much effective compared to actual gun optics and radar). She has a radar but only with Limited features where she can detect Montana but not capable of calculating her range to fire. Montana on the other hand, is armed with a radar firing off from the Yamato's line of sight. Things would get harder in night battles. Even though Japanese were trained to spot ships with the naked eye in the darkness of the night, the radar is still more effective. We had Washington and Kirishima's encounter can be the best example.

 

 

Was considering about the ship's secondary weapons although they might not end up using it, knowing that it would be a long range battle. The only edge with the Yamato would be the 6.1" guns. her 6" DP guns were not that much impressive cause of the shell velocity(fixed shells suck for naval gunnery) and low rate of fire. Not a good gun for surface and air targets plus the structure of some of her 6" guns were open, leaving the crew vulnerable. The Montana's 6" guns were better. somehow good when dealing surface and air targets. Plus, Window shells(chaff) were compatible to these guns, allowing Montana to troll Yamato's already-terrible radar for a better chance of pre-emptive strike.

 

 

 

Armor: Montana

 

Actually, they almost have the same armor thickness. But they differ with the turret(Yamato having 3.5" thicker)  and the deck(Montana hilariously having 0.3" or 1.3" thicker). The layout is the deciding factor. Yamato having her plates placed randomly(can't pick a better term for "poor layout") and having poor quality, it's actually prone to penetration and it might end up having the crew not realizing that there could be a hole in their belt already and taking water. Montana would most likely sling shells till it gets easy to punch holes through it. Putting more armor solved this but the Montana having the same amount but better quality beats it. Good quality plates would rip the ballistic cap and make the shell brittle and render the explosive content near useless(it's actually the think that makes the naval AP shells do actual damage.) before it enters the ship interior.

 

my thoughts about this... (do take note with the term speculation anyways)

 

 

I'll also say that even South Dakota is theoretically enough to go against Yamato and sink it.

 

 

Yamato is just overrated. That's all I can say about that without enraging her fans given there's lots of stuff that is definitely wrong about her

Edited by Kotono_Amaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
930 posts

Yamato is just overrated. That's all I can say about that without enraging her fans given there's lots of stuff that is definitely wrong about her

 on a Battleship vs Battleship basis (and historically), Yamato could have kicked US Battleship ass because literally no one in the US Navy knows that Yamato could have carried monster guns until the end of the war. And given the "All or nothing" doctrine of the US, a careless US Battleship CO could have just get his ship wrecked if he engaged it head on.

 

 

From his implication: Iowa = Yamato

 

Montana > Iowa

 

Therefore, Montana > Yamato... :sceptic:

Wait, I dont get the logic here.

 

Montana is better than Yamato because Montana is better than Iowa? Does having an extra turret of triple 16 inch guns makes the Montana better than the Iowa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

 on a Battleship vs Battleship basis (and historically), Yamato could have kicked US Battleship ass because literally no one in the US Navy knows that Yamato could have carried monster guns until the end of the war. And given the "All or nothing" doctrine of the US, a careless US Battleship CO could have just get his ship wrecked if he engaged it head on.

 

Wait, I dont get the logic here.

 

Montana is better than Yamato because Montana is better than Iowa? Does having an extra turret of triple 16 inch guns makes the Montana better than the Iowa?

 

RNGesus says yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CLAY]
Alpha Tester
945 posts
5,648 battles

 

my thoughts about this... (do take note with the term speculation anyways)

 

 

I'll also say that even South Dakota is theoretically enough to go against Yamato and sink it.

 

 

Yamato is just overrated. That's all I can say about that without enraging her fans given there's lots of stuff that is definitely wrong about her

 

just a couple of basic mistakes in your earlier writeup.

1. the ballistic cap is to help with flight of shell, the piercing cap is to help with penetration.

2 their are NO 6in DP guns on either ship, the DP guns on both are of 5in (127mm)

 

 

However that being said there is a photo of a piece of 26in Japanese armour showing the hole left after a US 16in round went though it in some post war testing. now it was a "simulated impact at about 30,000 yards of range" test so how good their testing quality was i'll leave up to debate, but the US 16in gun and 'heavy shell' are mostly likely a close match to the Yamato's 18.1in guns.

I believe both ships could kill each other, I just think the % of times would be in favour of the Montana.

Edited by BigWaveSurfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

I will never in all of my life understand why people feel the need to compare weapons.

A single dude with an 1960s machinepistol and a couple clips can easily resist an entire platoon of highly trained and experienced soldiers equipped with

top notch modern assault rifles if he's fortified himself in a 3 storey house.

 

That is if they actually try to storm the house instead of doing what every sane soldier would do, i.e. blow up the house with a couple grenades or a

well placed missile...

 

Well, I guess people just love to throw around numbers and statistics that don't apply to real life, because... reasons \o\ \o/ /o/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

It's all part of the game

 

What game?

The only realistic way to find out which one is better is by having them being used in combat.

The problematic however is, that no battle is the same, the conditions can never be the same and people operating those machines aren't the same either.

 

Hence why I'll never understand why one would compare two weapons, because there is no way to make a perfect comparison.

And without a perfect comparison you can't clearly state X is better than Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
266 posts
3,486 battles

 

just a couple of basic mistakes in your earlier writeup.

1. the ballistic cap is to help with flight of shell, the piercing cap is to help with penetration.

2 their are NO 6in DP guns on either ship, the DP guns on both are of 5in (127mm)

 

 

However that being said there is a photo of a piece of 26in Japanese armour showing the hole left after a US 16in round went though it in some post war testing. now it was a "simulated impact at about 30,000 yards of range" test so how good their testing quality was i'll leave up to debate, but the US 16in gun and 'heavy shell' are mostly likely a close match to the Yamato's 18.1in guns.

I believe both ships could kill each other, I just think the % of times would be in favour of the Montana.

 

1.) my bad. I'm referring to the other cap(since it's an APCBC)

2.) thanks for correcting it. about time to see i put 6" instead of 5" lmao

Edited by Kotono_Amaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,779 posts
341 battles

If I remember correctly Montana was supposedly built to match Yamato in terms of fire power (hence the extra gun turret) but the war ended in favor for the CV's and it was pretty much "Muh Air superiority" at the end of the war rather than "Muh superior BB flagship"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
50 posts
59 battles

How many of the hundreds of variable did they put into this research? It's nice to be sentimental about ships of years gone by but using hypotheticals to support your research is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

US don't even need to Montanas to beat the Yamato.

 

I'll give you all of the 2 Yamatos to fight 4 US Iowas - Pretty sure Iowa wins 9.5 out of 10 fights.

USN had way better "Soft" equipment - FCR, Radar, Speed, Damage Control, AAs, ROF, Hell even Aerial support.

 

B-But 18 inch gun sound Awesome! - Well you better HIT first.

B-But Yamato had better range! - If the Yamato can spot them Right at their Maximum Effective Range.

B-But Yamato had better armor! - Yes, but any 16 inch shell hit is still devastating. IRL your "On Paper" stats are not as relevant as you think.

B-But Better Crews! - Tell that to US Crews and see how they react - especially Enterprise and All US ship's Damage Control team.

 

And Retia is right - There's no need to compare ships that never encountered. It never happened, and hence there Never will be a conclusion.

 

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
25 posts
4,377 battles

As a matter of fact this is no so true in this game. Sure I agree that Iowa or even North Carolina class is comparable to Yamato in REAL-LIFE situation due to its radar system,  BUT~ the absense of advanced radar auxiliary of YAMATO does not affect Yamato's ability in game at all whatsoever according to the in game mechanism they both have similar Max dispersion hence the accuracy is similar, chance to citadel is big and precision is purely decided by a player's skill. Therefore I thought there is no point making assumptions on their real life capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,063 posts
509 battles

Both ships sadly do not have the same max dispersion as some people in this topic have stated and also have different Secondary engagement distance and AA arrangements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
771 posts
1,374 battles

To my memory Montana wins, easier to get citadel hits on Yamato, though in saying that its not exactly hard to hit the citadels on montana either. 

its honestly a close fight, both ships tend to end up at 20k hp and then the one that gets the last citadel hit first wins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
4,798 posts
1,924 battles

To my memory Montana wins, easier to get citadel hits on Yamato, though in saying that its not exactly hard to hit the citadels on montana either. 

its honestly a close fight, both ships tend to end up at 20k hp and then the one that gets the last citadel hit first wins. 

 

This - it's all about the Balancetm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×