Exactly. LOL, this IS indeed a naval geek version of “bar arguments”!
In my opinion, the fire control, radar implementation, and tactics were so completely far ahead of anything the Japanese had in WWII.
The IJN had superb seamen and ship handlers, and in the early engagements where we weren’t employing radar effectively, they cleaned our clock in just about every single way imaginable. Their destroyer captains and crews were nearly unmatched for intelligence, aggressiveness and war fighting capability, best in the world early in the war.
But, we learned our lessons, for the most part. We learned how to use the radar, when it worked, when it didn’t, and how to employ it in surface actions. (Interestingly, the lessons of the Long Lance torpedo took a long, long time to percolate to everyone. There were still senior officers in 1943 who were discussing naval tactics without updating their “theories” with the capabilities of the Long Lance we discovered oh so well and were still discovering into the late Autumn of 1942. The superior capabilities were known, but we apparently weren’t disseminating that information to our captains and crews effectively. I wonder how much of it was simple word of mouth versus official discussion...
We also learned damage control until the US Navy was the best in the world, bar none, and I still believe we are to this day (or were until they began putting women on US Navy vessels, I don’t know after that)
The Japanese were pretty good shipbuilders before the war and early on, and their training and tactics were excellent. However, as the war wore on, they quality of both went downhill.
I think an Iowa class, with a 1944 crew and the technology on the vessel, would prevail in a match against either the Bismark or the Yamato. It had the advantage in nearly everything except perhaps throw weight.