But if you're referring to the Iowa class, the Yamato class weighed in around 70,000 tons and mounted 9, 18-inch gins. The Iowa weighed in around 45,000 tons with 9 16-inch guns.
That said, in a one-on-one dual, I would put my money on the an Iowa except at point blank range.
Well Color me stupid. I had no idea we haven't had any Battleships for a while. I guess the last time I saw one was around 20 years ago.
This guy has really analyzed the performance of the various battleships built.
What is the closest thing the Navy has to a battleship now? A destroyer?
Much better maneuvarability with the Iowas - and better armour
That said, in a one-on-one dual, I would put my money on the an Iowa except at point blank range.
The US Navy wasn't as optimistic. The Iowa Class Battleships were smaller than the Navy wanted, so that they could fit through the Panama Canal, and not as heavily armored as the Navy wanted, so that they were fast enough to keep up with Aircraft Carriers.
The Navy designed and began production on their dream ships, the Montana Class Battleships. These were cancelled before any keels were actually laid, but they would have been a sight to behold: 60,500 tons and a dozen 16" guns.
Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_class_battleship
45,000 tons was the literature tonnage of the Iowas. They were built under the "Escalator Clause" of the Washington Treaty and were in actuality around 66,000 tons displacement. In their modernized form they are closer to 70,000 tons. The North Carolina and South Dakota were actually 44,000 tons displacement. It was/is impossible for these ships of their size, protection and firepower to meet the Treaty criteria.