Battleship thread.

File: 9c1b7782.jpg (1MB, 1600x1043px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1043px

>muh Queen Elizabeths

File: yamato-colour132.jpg (21KB, 671x352px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 671x352px

Yamato was the peak of Battleships. She could take on any other face to face and win. Too bad things move so rapidly that she as well as other battleships were sitting ducks for planes.

>>2565497
The Iowa class's better FCS means they'd beat the Yamato in a gunnery duel.

>>2565497
this >>2565501

big guns and armor is important sure, but the small things like FCS and Radar are what makes all work fine

>>2565501
I've no doubt an Iowa could win. Still, while the Iowa was fast and packed a very accurate punch it wasn't especially well armored. The Yamato could deal a severe mauling with a small degree of luck.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alexpl

File: HMS-Rodney.jpg (174KB, 1204x767px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1204x767px

Best boat coming through.

>>2565501
>le fcs meme

>>2565651
>Actually hitting what you're aiming at is a meme now.

>>2565663
FCS wasn't some miracle system like you are led on to believe. The Japanese actually had superior tech.

>>2565697
No they didn't. They had vastly inferior tech.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

>>2565434
The Bismarck

>>2565704
Thats from an American site.

>>2565497
>slow, bad aa-suite, dedicated anti-ship secondaries instead of all dp, poor subdivision, poor tds, unnecessarily large caliber main guns in an attempt to combat shit shell quality

>>2565697
What? Is this bait?

>>2565697
Ahahahah

File: 8FEED0C8-2AEC-4C55-BEE8-962DBB111E71-631-000000DF7A5E7EA7.jpg (159KB, 709x432px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 709x432px

>>2565497
*blocks your path*

>>2565897
So?

File: Henriiv014oq5.jpg (546KB, 2406x1518px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 2406x1518px

>>2565434
I think we can all agree, that pre-dreadnoughts are the sexist battleships ever made, and of those, despite the flaws, the tumblehome design is the sexiest.

>>2565497
That pathetic jap dick compensator, the "Pride" of the IJN, was sent running with its tail between its legs by the most hilariously small and out gunned task force comprised of literal tin cans. The TBM's didn't even have torpedoes yet they were able able to scare the Yamama into running like a black maid in a cartoon when a mouse shows up.

File: 6qmvrsC.jpg (81KB, 850x587px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 850x587px

>>2566968

File: 7550d041808467689f5199122c09850f.jpg (50KB, 736x430px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 736x430px

>>2567014

>>2565663
The nips had better optical FCS while the burgers had better radar FCS which allowed firing up to 30km which was over the horizon. However, American doctrine made them engage at ~20km because firing over that range had abysmal accuracy and did little other than wearing the barrel away. In Surigao, Nishimura was spotting 40km away but the burgers didn't start firing until 20km because firing beyond that was a waste of ammo and barrel life. However, the height of Yamato's rangefinders meant that by the time Americans can fire with decent accuracy, they would be within Yamato's firing range.
>>2566006
>unnecessarily large caliber main guns in an attempt to combat shit shell quality
There is no such thing as unnecessarily large calibre guns if you are willing to build a battleship to such a displacement.

File: Peresvet1901.jpg (339KB, 1800x1107px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1800x1107px

>>2567030

>>2566922

Being vulnerable to aircraft was a trait that all battleships shared. It wasn't a special weakness for the Yamato. It was a weakness of all battleships and is a very large part of why people stopped building BB's after WW2 was finished.

>>2565501

>The Iowa class's better FCS means they'd beat the Yamato in a gunnery duel.

It's important to realize that the Iowa is going to have to hit the Yamato many, many, many times to actually disable the Japanese battleship, whereas the Yamato only has land 1 solid broadside on the Iowa to put her out of business. There is a reason why the US used planes against the Yamato and her sister instead of trying to engage her with battleships.

>>2567756
>It's important to realize that the Iowa is going to have to hit the Yamato many, many, many times to actually disable the Japanese battleship, whereas the Yamato only has land 1 solid broadside on the Iowa to put her out of business.
u wot m8

>>2567566
>The nips had better optical FCS while the burgers had better radar FCS
nigga what, the japs fcs was outdated as fuck, it was WW1 tier

in average 1 out of 75 shots hit the target

>>2565592
>third turret cockblocked by second turret
really activates my almonds

File: Fuso1944-nowatermark.png (2MB, 3465x2024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3465x2024px

>>2568540
>not having two turrets blocked by super structures
Nelson class is like a little baby

File: 2r2tz78.jpg.png (348KB, 918x636px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 918x636px

>>2568562
>not having three turrets blocked by superstructure
Get on Agincourt's level.

>>2565862
*Tirpitz

>>2568909
>7x2
ok cool I guess

File: dreadnought-star-destroyer.jpg (265KB, 630x1896px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 630x1896px

The big gun battleship is coming back.

>>2567566
That works for Japs as well...they ain't hitting anything at 40km, and not much at 20km, while radar FC means the US is hitting at 20km.

>>2569082
Yamato's recorded a 20 mile hit aka the longest successful gun strike by a battleship.

File: get rekt spaghettiniggers.jpg (68KB, 944x592px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 944x592px

>>2569185
No. The longest gun strikes from battleships were
>Scharnhorst hitting HMS Furious at ~28,000 yards and sinking it
>HMS Warspite hitting Giulio Cesare at 26,000 yards at Calabria

At 20 mile shot against a ship would be damn near impossible with modern technology, let alone with WW2 Japanese tech.

>>2568951

neat gizmo

File: cnn.png (241KB, 990x412px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 990x412px

>>2569229

The event that he's referring to is a theory that as far as I can tell, is advanced by one guy (and nobody else) named Robert Lundgren, who based on his small body of work seems to be something of a battleship fanboy who wants to dispute the common wisdom that aircraft carriers were the dominant capital ships of WW2. Indeed, he goes so as to suggest that Japan should have built more battleships and fewer carriers.

Anyway, in one of his books, he advances a theory that the Yamato actually scored a 31 km (about 20 mile) hit on the American CVE-66 "White Plains" during the Battle Off Samar. The basic thrust of his theory seems that one of the Kamizakee attacks that hit the CVE was actually a hit from the Yamato's main guns and the crew misreported it in the after-action because the shots were fired from so far away that the crew didn't know where they came from in all the chaos and simply assumed that it was a kamikazee hit.

If this strains plausibility and sounds like a desperate attempt to bolster the Yamato's reputation and make WW2 battleships seem more important, then that's probably because it looks like exactly that.

>>2568107
Nips had the best optical FCS with a 30m rangefinder on the Yamato which was unparalleled.
>>2569082
No one is hitting anything at 40km.

>>2569386
Did the Japanese Navy consider 30km to be within the effective range of the Yamato's main guns?

>>2569386
To be fair, he's right that BBs weren't obsolete. They're necessary if you want the enemy BBs dead now, rather than after several strikes (look how Kurita's Center Force only lost two ships during the air attacks in the Sibuyan Sea). On the other hand, if you're capable of waiting and making multiple strikes, then your carrier fleet will fucking murder any BB fleet.

File: WNJAP_18-45_t94_Yamato_construction_pic.jpg (302KB, 1280x1042px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1280x1042px

>>2569432

The guns could exceed 40 km at maximum elevation (45 degrees). At that distance, the shell would have 98.6 seconds of travel time in the air before impact. But nobody could have lead a shot to hit at that distance. So I'm going to estimate that the real maximum effective range was somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 km because at that distance the projectiles would have a travel time of less than 30 seconds which seems much more doable in terms of aiming. Firing the guns at ranges way beyond where you can actually hope to score hits accomplishes nothing but wearing down the barrels.

As for what the Imperial Japanese Navy themselves thought? Impossible to know. They burned most of documents regarding the Yamato and its specifications after they lost the war, and interrogating the crew wasn't an option because they all went down with the ships. And many of the documents we do have a riddled with intentional errors, such as listing the main guns as 40 cm to hide their true size.

>>2565697
Find a copy of Japanese Destroyer Captain.
Author was in engagements from Guadalcanal onwards. >>2565697
He was very impressed when he witnessed a first salvo hit due to American radar.

>>2569610
>They burned most of documents regarding the Yamato and its specifications after they lost the war
Time-travel raids of historians to recover documents lost to history when? Because that sounds like a fucking awesome idea for a game.

>>2569778
I think the closest thing to that would be Darkest of Days, though "going back in time with future guns to shoot people from the past to ensure history proceeds as it needs to" is the closest I can think to "go back in time to recover lost documents"

Though shooting at a roman legion with a assault rifle from the future is neat

>>2569820
I was thinking more /tg/ than /v/.

>>2569848
I dunno if there's any boardgames with that particular premise but if all else fails you could always just get a few friends, pick a system you like, and make something up

>>2569229
You have no idea how long I have been searching for that painting. I guess searching for 'get rekt spaghettiniggers' isn't that accurate

Post good navy march music. I'll start

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_MCBwKUMQo

>>2571084
It's the third result when you search "battle of cape matapan"

File: Uss_north_carolina_bb.jpg (67KB, 740x586px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 740x586px

>>2566922

underrated post, lol@operation ten-go

>>2565651
>>2565663

The Iowa could peg Yamato over the horizon all day and literally at night without Yamato being able to retaliate.

>>2565704
>>2565897

Nothing is wrong with combinedfleet.com most of his info is from :

https://www.amazon.com/Naval-Weapons-World-War-Two/dp/0870214594

which is pretty much the best book you can read about ww2 naval guns.


>pic related is my fav ww2 BB

File: wowsport.jpg (603KB, 1889x959px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 1889x959px

Rather than posting my B.A in History from a good school. I feel posting a pic of my port in WoWS is a better way to present my credentials when it comes to arguing about ships that were obsolete by about 1935...

>>2572214
>Admiral Steven Seagal
Shouldn't he be on the Missouri as a cook?

>>2567939
He's just saying that a full broadside of 18 inch shells landing on the less armoured Iowa would fuck it up big time.

File: 4.jpg (529KB, 1891x951px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1891x951px

>>2572521


I mainly use him on Mo(i love that ship so much great firepower, good frontal armor, radar, best bb speed in the game), but I recently got a friend into the game and he bought a Tirpitz and wants to play a lot of t8 so I just movef Seagal to the NC do I can play with my friend.

my fav ships to play are:
>Bismarck-full secondary build
>Mighty Mo- full AA build
>Yamato- balanced build
tied for 4th
>NC-AA build, GKF- secondary build

>>2567756
Yamato had pretty shitty AA, America had primitive-but-capable radar guided central AA control with 3" and 5" guns, as well as the capable Bofors. Most of Yamato's AA was gimpy manually aimed 25mm dakdaks.

>Britain had pom poms and a prayer

File: PqMMSra.png (92KB, 2003x818px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 2003x818px

beep beep, most effective design for the tonnage coming through

>>2572214
>WoWS
>proving that you're -right- about anything
Anon, I...

>>2572767
3-inch AA wasn't really a thing during WW2. It was the fiddycals, 1.1"s, and 5-inchers at first, then 20mm, 40mm, and 5-inchers with VT later.

>>2572908
I'd rather have an Iowa class than 2 Dunquerque class vessels.

>>2572071
>The Iowa could peg Yamato over the horizon all day and literally at night without Yamato being able to retaliate
US combat manuals dictate that engagement should be started at 22,000yd which is ~20km. This was followed when the USN engaged Nishimura in Surigao Strait, when they were spotted at 40km but didn't fire until ~20km. The Iowa would likely fire within the same range which was well within Yamato's horizon with its high rangefinder. Firing over your effective range did little more than waste your ammunition and wear out your barrels.

>>2572767
This, also the japs didnt had a central AA fire control and their AA guns were shit, add the fact that they had terrible radar that could only detect airfleets at 50 km and a single plane at 30

>>2573222
>>2572767
Yamato had fire control directors. They were not radar guided and rather primitive compared to their American counterparts with director separate from the rangefinders.
However, the main weakness in for the Japanese guns are their mounts rather than the FCS which was passable. Not great, but better than nothing.

God I hate this Yamatofag

>>2573253
t. iowafag

>>2573141
rather have a pair of QEs quite franly

>>2574093
But they're so slow. That might not matter much in a pure gunnery duel with another battleship, but that's not everything a BB does.

>>2574124
sure they are slower than a dunerque but the are better armed and armored for very similar tonnage and better able to fight another battleship.

and while you are correct in stating that thats nt everything a battleship does its a very important part of it, and for the rest if i want a escort i would be better off with the same tonnage in cruisers or destroyers rather than a pair of battlecruisers

>>2574185
Given that carriers were the primary striking arm in WW2, I think that the single most important characteristic of any BB is enough speed to keep up with a carrier force. A QE does what? 24 knots? Maybe that'll keep up with the Argus, but not a real carrier.

>>2574191
North Carolina class could escort and keep up with a carrier group. Why not a QE?
Oh wait, they did.

>>2569253

Some of the more outlandish but realistic features:

>railgun powered by nuke, could have a range of two hundred kilometers, could fire cheap ammunition

>tethered quadcopter with laser weapon, so it can be powered directly by the nuke, knock down missiles on their way in, alter the course of dumb shells

>60 knots top speed

>a few flights of drones for anti-submarine work

>missiles in banks like the arsenal ship concept

>super-cavitating torpedoes, can't really guide themselves, but move underwater at 200 knots

Anything over the horizon will have a bad day. Anything beyond the horizon could have a bad day too.

Put one of these next to a supercarrier, make some fast destroyers as pickets, add an unknown number of submarines underwater nearby, and you've got naval win-mode.

>>2573237

When did Japan get RADAR?

>>2574249
On ships? 1943

Only a very few selected ships had it, not even the mayority carriers

File: Warspite_Full.png (436KB, 570x696px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 570x696px

>>2569229
>Over 70 replies in battleship thread
>Ctrl-F "Warspite"
>Only one
>Ithoughthiswasabattleshipthread.jpg
>Only mention is Warspite setting record
>mfw

File: 20140317090241.jpg (69KB, 846x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 846x600px

>>2575330
Warspite is love
Warspite is life

>>2565592
What was the point of adding three turrets in the front? Did the designers have something in mind when designing HMS Rodney?

>>2576741
Muh weight savings, muh shorter belt armor.

>>2565434
Vanguard was a grotesque frankenstein shit. Build from random parts found in storage and only useful as an AA escort. Bleurgh.

>>2576741
Treaty limitations. Weight was limited by the Washington Naval Treaty, but the RN wanted a 3X3 configuration with 16in guns. So to keep weight down by shrinking the total area being armored, they grouped all the turrets together.

>>2572071
No boat like the Show Boat.

File: Photo01bbPOW1941SingaporeMQ.jpg (48KB, 743x522px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 743x522px

>>2572692
>>2565592

What was with the brits and retarded turret configurations? 2x-4x on the bow and 4x stern on The Prince of Whales. wtf was that? They had to send it to sea with construction workers on board to continue working on the guns to accompany the Hood on their way to getting BTFO by Bismarck/Eugen. Luckily the Japs sank that piece of shit with such little effort.

2x-2x bow, 2x-2x stern, or 3x-3x bow, 3x stern is the best design. The 3x-3x bow, 3x-3x stern on the Montana would have been too heavy and. It's best than the USN never built it. The main reason USN BB were the best of ww2 was because they could serve as fleet carrier escorts.

>>2577814
15 battlestars. easily the most based USN BB. I loved the Enterprise sailor's quote in Enterprise 360 that the first time they were escorted by NC they thought it had been hit by bombs and was burning, but really it was just it firing about 40,000 lbs of hot metal into the air to help keep Big E protected.

>>2577871

>The 3x-3x bow, 3x-3x stern on the Montana would have been too heavy

Not for a 72104 ton (full load) battleship.

>>2577871
KGVs were meant to be triple quads, but the top quad caused balance issues or something. It was the same thing with the NorCars before the US said "ha ha we escalator clause now" and swapped the quad 14s for triple 16s.

>>2569386
"Lundgren upends the conventional wisdom by showing that the battle line was an essential tool for the exercise of seapower"

How is that upending anything? Who says it wasn't?

>>2577934
Conventional wisdom has that by WW2, especially in the Pacific, it's the carrier air group, not the battleship battle line, that is the primary tool of exerting seapower.

>>2577961
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the battle line wasn't essential. "Essential" isn't the same as "primary" or "only". You still needed guns to escort your carriers, plus coastal bombardment was still hugely useful.

What are the benefits/drawbacks of a 7-8" secondary armament vs 6" secondary armament on pre-dreadnought (post-KC) era (eg Germans and Americans vs British)?

How effective would a pre-dreadnought with a normal main battery but with a secondary battery of two echeloned 8" twin turrets be versus the other ships of its day (1896-1905)?

>>2577970

>You still needed guns to escort your carriers

You can do this with cruisers, or even other carriers.

>>2577970
I haven't read the book myself, and I can't speak to the accuracy or precision of the review, but judging from the comments of the other anon,>>2569386
I'm betting the book does in fact mean it as the BB was the primary weapon of the Pacific, and that statements like

>The Japanese Navy's undue reliance on aircraft carriers alone was a key factor in its loss of command of the sea

can't neatly be fitted into an understanding that they were necessary but non-primary. After all, I can't think of any time that the Japanese CVs, straying from their battleship escorts as they did on occasion, were particularly put in danger because of it, and I don't think any of them were sunk by naval gunfire. And that therefore, he really does mean "primary", which would upend conventional wisdom if proven.

>>2567577
Dubs for the nose gun

>>2577998
Fair enough. I'm just railing against the stupid "hook" description, which seems so common with historical book publishing.

File: a58072636ef63688f02ef0bed74f309e.jpg (67KB, 700x529px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 700x529px

Get on my level

>>2567030
FRANCE YES

>>2577984
The Americans used 203 mm guns on their battleships, but essentially nobody else did. This was because the Americans didn't have access QF 152 mm guns used by others , so substituted by a powerful but slower firing, cruder, weapon. Eventually they switched over to 152 mm guns, although some naval officers did like the old 203 mm guns.
From my recollection of reading a book on US battleships a year, maybe two, ago, there was a benefit in that a lot of ships had armor that protected against 152 mm guns, but not against 203 mm guns.
However, it was problematic because the 203 mm guns had a lot slower rate of fire than the 152 mm guns. The quick firing 152 mm guns would be able to pummel the upper decks and set afire an enemy battleship, and effectively render it combat ineffective, much more effectively than an 203 mm gun.
As combat ranges started increasing, both as gunnery became more accurate and as torpedoes became more effective, the advantages of a 152 mm gun became much less, since if you were shooting at that range you had to wait for the fall of shot to land and your accuracy was less. This meant that instead of it being rate of fire that was important, it was the effect of the gun. Thus heavier guns started coming to the forefront, and pretty much all the pre-dreadnoughts made the shift to guns of 194 mm, 203 mm, 234 mm, 240 mm, and 254 mm
This quickly ended though since the same logic meant that if you're shooting at long ranges, you might as well as shift all to big guns. As rate of fire improved on these guns (it was dismally low initially, like 1 shot every 5 minutes iirc), you could get much better firepower at long range.
So technically I guess that there is a short period where 203 mm guns make some sense, after gunnery had moved beyond the 152 mm ranges but before the heavy guns had fast enough reload, but it is pretty short lived, just probably a few years between 1900 and 1905.
You could fit more guns though, Danton had 12 for example.

>>2577998
>>2578012

i just bought it, it will probably take at least to read it since this weekend since this weekend is MLB opening weekend and the only thing I love more than BBs is baseball.

i'm a big time BB fanboy, but i'm highly skeptical on this guy's argument on how BB were still needed during ww2. it really seems like cruisers were much cheaper to built, did great AA, and could also shell coastal defenses effectively.

>>2578079
a week*

>>2578079

>it really seems like cruisers were much cheaper to built

A cruiser could cost more than 1/3 the cost of a battleship, and a battleship would easily be able to defeat more than 3 cruisers in a head-on fight. Compare the cost of a Baltimore-class vs. an Iowa-class. As far as (non-carrier) surface combatants go, battleships were the undisputed kings until missiles came along.

>not using light cruisers as destroers squad flagship
>not using the heavy cruisers as spearhead of destroyer squads
shaking my ricefarmer hat family

>>2578208
Not him, but if the cruisers are CV escorts, it's not a head on fight. They're not there to engage in a gunnery duel, they're there to buy time, guard the carrier (if necessary, allowing it to flee), and in any even likely wouldn't be unsupported, as that aircraft carrier is likely going to be scrambling planes. The Battle off Samar was an absolute shitshow from the American PoV, but it nonetheless showed how even tinier vessels than cruisers could hold off battleships, at least long enough for the planes to start chewing on them.

File: King-Edward-Class.png (182KB, 1068x883px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1068x883px

>>2577984

The secondary battery of a pre-dreadnought battleship would usually be composed of quick-firing 6-inch guns, but there were designs that experimented with larger secondaries. These were sometimes referred to as intermediate batteries. An example of a pre-dreadnought battleship featuring an "intermediate" battery would the USS Indiana, which featured four 8-inch twin gun turrets, two for each side of the ship. But the concept reached its peak with Lord Nelson-class battleships, with intermediate battery composed of ten 9.2-inch guns.

The most obvious benefit of an intermediate battery is that it increases the amount of damage that your ship is able to do against armored targets. A secondary battery composed of 6-inch (152 mm) guns is not going to be effective against armor, except perhaps at very close range. An intermediate battery composed of 9.2-inch (234 mm) guns is going be much more able to punch through armored sections of an enemy ship, especially at a distance. The 9.2 could reach well over 20,000 yards with a 172 kg shell whereas contemporary 6-inch guns maxed out at 10,000 yards with a 45 kg shell.

The major downside to having an intermediate battery is that it takes long to load/aim/fire the guns. The gunnery crews will also get worn out more quickly, further reducing the overall rate of fire. But perhaps the most serious problem is that it makes it more difficult to differentiate between splashes. The splash from a 9.2-inch gun and a 12-inch gun can look very similar from a distance. This may confuse the gunners who must be able tell splashes apart in order to make appropriate corrections after a miss.

>>2578790
Danton or Satsuma both had more (12 in place of 10) 240mm/254mm guns of larger size than the British Lord Nelson-class. I'd say they represented the peak of the idea.

>>2578208

Three cruisers can be in three different bodies of water at one time.

In naval combat, more numbers is almost always preferable, where in land combat reserves can be the soundest decision. At the same time, if your ships aren't in an area, they aren't controlling that area.

So do we go with the big fleet that can definitely win, or the smaller fleets that can definitely be everywhere?

File: Roma-Sinking.jpg (109KB, 800x1177px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x1177px

>"Haha stupid Germans, Roma will soon be safe with the Allies. Oh Luigi, you are a smart one!... wait... why are we being shadowed by a Luftwaffe bomber... what did they drop... evade it! Why is is following us!?"

umm...don't want to be that guy but doesn't this belong on >>>/k/ ?

>>2579219

When was the last battleship built?

>>2579203
At least is not the Aquila

>>2577961
True enough, but let's not forget the batteships as AA platforms. Big ass boats = lots and lots of flak that can be thrown into the air. BBs like the North Carolina and later ships carried insane amounts of AA guns.

>>2579597
Reading back over thread, looks like there are two North Carolina fans here.

OK, so know little or nothing about the history of naval warfare, but the big battleships are just so damned impressive.. so I should know more about them.

Any good books on the history of battleships? In general is good, but particularly WWII even better...

>>2579604

Considering it had 15 stattlestars and escorted the Enterprise before Midway (aka: snapping the Jap spine) it was an amazing AA platform. The SoDak and Iowa classes improves upon it. But NC (the USN's 3rd best class of BB) had better AA than any other nation's 1st class ww2 BB.

The NC deserves worship, not just fanboys.

File: Power at sea.jpg (17KB, 241x346px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 241x346px

>>2579684

Not directly a book about battleships, but if you want to get to the theory and practice of WW1 era naval warfare, pic related is really good.

Although, be warned, he kind of throws rocks at the whole concept of battleship fleets, even as far back as WW1.

File: 1.png (650KB, 974x677px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 974x677px

>Barnacles! What could be worse than a giant battleship?

File: 2.png (547KB, 974x677px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 974x677px

>>2580096
>Oh I know!

File: 3.png (632KB, 974x677px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 974x677px

>>2580097
>Two giant battleships!

File: 4.png (482KB, 974x677px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 974x677px

>>2580100
>Navy?

File: 5.png (329KB, 974x677px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 974x677px

>>2580102
>Yeah industry?

File: 6.png (485KB, 974x677px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 974x677px

>>2580104
>I don't think these battleships can get much bigger.

File: 7.png (575KB, 974x677px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 974x677px

>>2580107
>Nonsense!

>>2566968
>>2567014
>>2567030
I don't even know what the fuck is going on with these, My mind doesn't even register them as ships, just some sort of metal construction.

>>2577998
Wait, I thought the Japanese were more interested in battleships and though of carriers as mere support.

Anyways, I was given the impression that CVs were always the way to go because planes out-range any naval gun, do not put an expensive ship at risk during attack, and were generally more flexible in the tasks they could carry out (recon, bombing, aircover, shore bombardment).

Add to that WWII carriers were apperently cheaper and easier to produce than battleships because they didn't need all that heavy armor and weapons. Just storage and maintenance facilities for the planes.

File: 3d7355d997987f8c8b5ad7b58394798d.jpg (112KB, 1169x650px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1169x650px

>>2580376

Pre-dreadnoughts have a very messy diesel-punk look to them. They make dreadnoughts look like sleek spaceships in comparison.

>>2579935
Thanks

>>2575330
Warspite is Iowa's bitch.

>>2583039
No proofs, and Warspite actually did shit in WW2.

File: WIN_20170329_181605.jpg (155KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1280x720px

Hey, guys, look what I got!

File: WIN_20170329_181626.jpg (111KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1280x720px

>>2584359

>>2584365
Thought that would be more readable -- original piece of teak deck removed from BB55 during restoration

>>2580096
>>2580097
>>2580100
>>2580102
>>2580104
>>2580107
>>2580108
Quality posting

What about the Shinano?

>>2568909
In defense of the british designers of that boat, they would have prefered smaller numbers of bigger guns but the buyer - brasil I think - wanted more guns than any of their local rivals and had already got 12 inch ammo from previous purchases so wanted to keep the 12 inch guns and just have more of them, hence 14 guns and a 7x2 configuration

>>2568951
>USS Vidya

>>2578280
The BB was still the centre of the fleet. It wasn't until after Midway that the carrier became the centre of the fleet. Reminder that in naval construction, the ship built lagged by years due to construction time. Cruisers and battleships used in WW2 were build before the CV became supreme.

>>2579176
The fleet with more numerous ships is better in commerce raiding but they will not be able to control shipping lanes like a heavier battle fleet can.

>>2580488
Most navies were more interested in battleships as the centre of the fleet rather than carriers because until the advances in aircraft in the 30s, shipborne aircraft had pitiful payload and range, which is why early carriers had heavy 8" secondary armaments. Compared to that, a battleship had a lot more staying power and can deal more damage with its heavy guns. In the late 30s, everything changed due to advances in aircraft.
However, you have to keep into account that warships take years to build and most ships that fought were built way before carriers were proven to be the decisive parts of the fleet.
>>2576741
You can have a shorter belt to protect the citadel, which means heavier armor or more weight devoted to other things.

Maybe I'm just naive due to a complete lack of military experience in my life, but I'm hard pressed to believe that everybody on a given ship is either working or sleeping at all times. So, during World War 2, what did sailors at sea do with their downtime, assuming they have any?

>>2565497
>Be IJN
>Cruisers, Carriers, and even Destroyers are what won the earlier battles.
>No one remembers them.
>Japanese people only know of Yamato in the first place thanks to a cartoon.
The only ships that seem to get honored are Yukikaze and Zuikaku. But at least those two fought hard.

>>2585377
>The BB was still the centre of the fleet.

Not really. You don't have strikes like Pearl Harbor or the invasion of the Phillipines being carried out by BB. Even as early as fighting in the Med you have a notion that a carrier is equal to a battleship.

> Reminder that in naval construction, the ship built lagged by years due to construction time.

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

>Cruisers and battleships used in WW2 were build before the CV became supreme.


Some of them were. Others, especially the more modern ones, were not. KGVs, Iowas, North Carolinas, etc. all were built after the clear supremacy of carriers.

>but they will not be able to control shipping lanes like a heavier battle fleet can.

Sure they can. Malta just about controlled the shipping lanes to tripoli with a couple of corvettes against 6 battleships the Italians had.

Also, I think you're overlooking the impact of the naval treaties in the interwar years. There just wasn't much warship construction in the 20s and 30s in general, at least not compared to the 1910-1920 period.

>>2566006
Don't forget how it's also the mother of all gas-guzzlers.

>>2585440
>Even the impotent Japanese Submarine force scored more against USN than their Battleships.

>>2585449
>Not really. You don't have strikes like Pearl Harbor or the invasion of the Phillipines being carried out by BB. Even as early as fighting in the Med you have a notion that a carrier is equal to a battleship.
They were part of a special task force for those strikes. Naval doctrines of the day all favored battleships in decisive battles because the power of strike craft weren't demonstrated in naval warfare until Midway.
>What the hell does this have to do with anything?
Naval doctrine can easily render ships being built obsolete. Most WW2 ships were built before CVs reigned supreme and additional AA guns were often shoehorned in afterward to fit the new battlefield.
>Some of them were. Others, especially the more modern ones, were not. KGVs, Iowas, North Carolinas, etc. all were built after the clear supremacy of carriers.
They were all laid down before the supremacy of carriers and the Iowas were changed to glorified floating AA platforms before completion while the NC had additional AA shoehorned in after completion.
>Malta just about controlled the shipping lanes to tripoli with a couple of corvettes against 6 battleships the Italians had.
Malta controlled shipping mostly through the airport. Big battle fleets are good for controlling shipping lanes because they act as deterrence against smaller commerce raiders which cannot act effectively against a large force controlling the sealane. That's the idea behind the Mahanian doctrine anyway.

>>2585395
Cards, board games, reading, spend time in the commissary.

>>2585395
They had lots of sex.

>>2585495
>Naval doctrines of the day all favored battleships in decisive battles because the power of strike craft weren't demonstrated in naval warfare until Midway.

But that's wrong you fucking retard. The Japanese were the only people who were still clinging to the Mahanian notion of a decisive battle to settle it all in one day at all, and even they were focusing on their carriers, not their battleships, to bring it about. Between WW1 and WW2, the only battleships under construction were the Yamatao class ones. Meanwhile, they were practically spitting out new carriers of all types of designs.

> Most WW2 ships were built before CVs reigned supreme and additional AA guns were often shoehorned in afterward to fit the new battlefield.

But most of the carriers too, were built before they "reigned supreme", especially under your rather inane assertion that this was post-midway that everyone woke up to the fact.

>They were all laid down before the supremacy of carriers

I suggest you look up when these ships were laid down, especially the Iowas. Not to mention how long they were under construction, with the ones that were cancelled having a lot more to do with the war appearing to end than a realization that battleships were useless.

> Big battle fleets are good for controlling shipping lanes because they act as deterrence against smaller commerce raiders which cannot act effectively against a large force controlling the sealane

If they can catch them, which they often can't.

>That's the idea behind the Mahanian doctrine anyway.

Mahanian doctrine was idiotic and pretty much never followed post WW1. For fuck's sake, it doesn't even acknowledge that you might have different levels of shipping between nations and consequent vulnerability to things like commerce raiding.

File: Uss_lexington_cv2.jpg (77KB, 800x632px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x632px

>>2585495

"The modern development of aircraft has demonstrated conclusively that the backbone of the Navy today is the aircraft carrier. The carrier, with destroyers, cruisers and submarines grouped around it, is the spearhead of all modern naval task forces."

Representative Carl Vinson, 1940

>>2585638
And yet they still needed the BBs as a crutch until the aircraft could actually hold their own.

>>2585649

Cause they had already built them. They kept using battleships because they had already been made, and at great expense!

>>2585574
>The Japanese were the only people who were still clinging to the Mahanian notion of a decisive battle to settle it all in one day at all
That's how war works, military theorists like to pretend they don't anymore so they just call them "turning points" now.
>even they were focusing on their carriers, not their battleships
But of course, planes are cheap and battleships are expensive, also they were incredibly fickle about using their battleships, had they actually applied Yamato battles could have ended very differently, thought the war would likely end the same.
>post-midway that everyone woke up to the fact.
It was never a fact, carriers were unable to inflict any serious damage on a battleship unless it was a surprise attack, they outnumbered them three to one or another ships was shelling it at the time.
>than a realization that battleships were useless
Such a realization never happened as battleships were the safeguard of the carriers, and could still strike down any other ship below its class.

>>2585660
You're forgetting they did their job VERY well.

>>2585674
>That's how war works

What? Because, no, that's wrong. You never had either fleet decisively destroyed in a single battle, nor was that even the Americans plan in the Pacific war; and to categorize that all war works like that is just wrong.

>It was never a fact, carriers were unable to inflict any serious damage on a battleship unless it was a surprise attack,

Just in one, obvious counter-example, you have the whole "oh no where did my rudder go" for the Bismarck. Not to mention that you needed surprise for pretty much any decisive fleet action, otherwise the guy with the inferior fleet does the old

>Let's run the fuck away.

You're also ignoring that with the much wider range of vision, the carrier is enormously more likely to achieve that surprise. There's a reason why there were 12 WW2 era battleships sunk on the open water (I'm not even going to count port-strikes) by aircraft alone, and only 6 by naval gunfire alone.

>Such a realization never happened as battleships were the safeguard of the carriers

Except when the carriers decided to break away from their protectors. Do you know how many WW2 fleet carriers were sunk by naval gunfire? A hell of a lot less than battleships sunk by airpower. The only one I can think of is the Glorious. Even submarines did far better.

>>2585696

>You never had either fleet decisively destroyed in a single battle

Not him, but that's basically what happened at Midway. Japan lost their carriers and never recovered.

>>2585703
>Not him, but that's basically what happened at Midway.

No, it isn't. Japan had been slowing down their offensives for some time, and it would take a year and a half between Midway and Tarawa, the first time the Americans would go on to storm a beach a la D-Day in Europe.

>Japan lost their carriers and never recovered

Do you know how to count? Kaga, Akagi, Soryu, and Hiryu went down at Midway. I guess that was in fact the whole fleet, and Shokaku, Zuikaku, Ryujo, Hiyo, Junyo, Taiho, Amagi, Shinano as a carrier, and Unryu NEVER FUCKING EXISTED! Nor did any of those eleven light carriers!

>>2585696
>Just in one, obvious counter-example, you have the whole "oh no where did my rudder go" for the Bismarck.
That was a design flaw.
>otherwise the guy with the inferior fleet does the old
It's not that simple.
>There's a reason why there were 12 WW2 era battleships sunk on the open water (I'm not even going to count port-strikes) by aircraft alone, and only 6 by naval gunfire alone.
Yes there is, and that reason is japan didn't into AA and the US had a rage boner for CVs.
>Do you know how many WW2 fleet carriers were sunk by naval gunfire?
Not many of course, the low armor design of CVs make them faster, however only the US had ships that could chase them effectively (pacific theatre.

>>2585714
>No, it isn't.
It certainly is, Midway is the universal moment the tide turned for Japan, or as one might call it, the decisive battle.
>I guess that was in fact the whole fleet
It might as well have been, a carrier is useless without it's fighters, and the fighters entirely depend on the pilot, after Midway Japan lost it's experienced pilots, there for the whole of the airforce suffered and by extension the carriers lost the effectiveness of their main weapon.
>Nor did any of those eleven light carriers!
They might as well have never existed, same for BB to CV conversions.

>>2585714
Shinano and Unryu may as well not have existed and are non-factors.
You are correct about the others. That said the fact the IJN decided to use Ryuujou as a decoy says a lot about her and them. Contrast the treatment the Americans gave Ranger, pretty much coddling her.

>>2585738
>That was a design flaw.

Funny how there's always an excuse. What was the one for the Tirpitz?

>It's not that simple.

Why isn't it? You won't take on a shore battery with your battleship fleet, so they can always retire to port. You need a way of forcing battle.

>Yes there is, and that reason is japan didn't into AA and the US had a rage boner for CVs.

Which does a great job of explaining all the ships that went down from port attacks, the Marat, the Prince of Wales, the Iron Duke, and the Roma. For fuck's sake, the entire Japanese battleship force sunk a grand total of ZERO battleships. Over in the Atlantic, you have the Hood, the Shcharnhorst (which is barely a battleship as it is) and whichever stupid French BB it was sunk at Mers El Kebir. Battleships just weren't effective. You had very little means to actually force a confrontation when you had the advantage.

>>2585749
Actually most of their carrier qualified experienced fighter pilots were at land bases throughout the Pacific. What really matters is the loss of hangar personnel who died when the hangars went Kaboom.

>>2585749
>It certainly is, Midway is the universal moment the tide turned for Japan, or as one might call it, the decisive battle.

Too bad that's not how Mahan defined a decisive battle. And of course, the tide turning at Midway had a lot to do with the new carriers that America was bringing on to line in the closing months of 1942.

>It might as well have been, a carrier is useless without it's fighters, and the fighters entirely depend on the pilot, after Midway Japan lost it's experienced pilots,


You had 248 Japanese aircraft destroyed at Midway. Are you seriously claiming that there were only 250ish experienced Japanese pilots in all of the IJN? Not to mention that the attrition rate was already quite high before it.


>They might as well have never existed, same for BB to CV conversions.

Why not? Between them, they carried more planes than the 4 carriers lost at Midway. I also liked how you completely ignored the other, non-light carriers.

>>2585752

They had pilots assigned to them, even if they were sunk in short order. They were considerable investments of time and resources. Why shouldn't they count?

>>2585753
>What was the one for the Tirpitz?
Nothing, she performed admirably considering her condition.
>Why isn't it?
Because a whole fleet cannot just "turn and run"
>Which does a great job of explaining all the ships that went down from port attacks
Of course it does, any ship is as good as dead if it's caught in port.
>the entire Japanese battleship force sunk a grand total of ZERO battleships
That's going to happen when your command refuses to let you engage for fear of losing their morale piece.

>>2585760
Either way the japanese handled their pilots poorly.

>>2585771
Unryu and Shinano were being used as suicide plane transports. Like I said they were non-factors. Their assigned pilots were instead used as interceptors at land bases.

>>2585771
>And of course, the tide turning at Midway had a lot to do with the new carriers that America was bringing on to line in the closing months of 1942.
I would think so as they didn't have much of a fleet left to fight with, had the pacific battleship fleet been afloat results would have been the same.
>You had 248 Japanese aircraft destroyed at Midway. Are you seriously claiming that there were only 250ish experienced Japanese pilots in all of the IJN? Not to mention that the attrition rate was already quite high before it.
Considering the attrition rate, yes. That's going to happen when you don't rotate your crew.
>Between them, they carried more planes than the 4 carriers lost at Midway.
Quantity and quality.
>I also liked how you completely ignored the other, non-light carriers.
That's because they actually matter.

>>2585789
I never said they didn't. Even with the Zero's long operational time and range, there were still a lot of operational losses. Even worse the land base pilots could only fight for a few minutes at best before needing to return to Truk when fighting near Henderson field. They would also be tired as fuck.

>>2585395
Distilling alcohol if you're on a shitty ship.

>>2566968
Looks like something from a Miyazaki movie tbqh

>>2576595
that superstructure is amazing

based brits

>>2585782

>Nothing, she performed admirably considering her condition.

She had a huge impact on British naval operations just by existing. Churchill seemed downright obsessed with Tirpitz during certain points of the war. At one point in the war, Church received a (false) impression that Tirpitz was making a sortie into the Atlantic. He ordered a group of American & British warships, charged with escorting a convoy that was carrying supplies to the Soviet Union, to abandon the merchant vessels and go hunt for Tirpitz. The defenseless merchant convoy was quickly overwhelmed by u-boats and German aircraft.

>>2586940
Blame the fact that her big sis blew up Britain's collective waifubote.

File: a8831cd7c28d4f5fd43e51073c033236.jpg (215KB, 1450x895px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1450x895px

>>2586940

The Tirpitz had such an amazing run considering the forces it was up against. It's a shame every fucker that ever took a HS/College history class probably heard of the Bismarck but not the Tirpitz.

>>2585395
Rolling eggs on the deck with their noses

>>2585449
>Not really. You don't have strikes like Pearl Harbor or the invasion of the Phillipines being carried out by BB. Even as early as fighting in the Med you have a notion that a carrier is equal to a battleship.
Good grace, you are retarded

>>2579203
reee delet this

>>2565434
Did the Russians ever make any good battleships?

>>2585782

>Nothing, she performed admirably considering her condition.

She was destroyed by bombers, without shooting any of them down. Hardly a stellar argument for battleships being better than airpower.

>Because a whole fleet cannot just "turn and run"

Yes they can. They do so quite often.

>Of course it does, any ship is as good as dead if it's caught in port.

Not by battleships they can't.

>That's going to happen when your command refuses to let you engage for fear of losing their morale piece.

That is, possibly, applicable to the Yamato. Not to any of the others.

>>2585795

>I would think so as they didn't have much of a fleet left to fight with, had the pacific battleship fleet been afloat results would have been the same.

But the Japanese still had considerable naval assets, even if you're only counting the carriers. In fact, they still had their two best, the Shokaku and Zuikaku.

>Considering the attrition rate, yes. That's going to happen when you don't rotate your crew.

So, you mean, it was actually important because of the attrition rate BEFORE the battle, and thus it wasn't actually Midway that destroyed the Japanese corps of experienced pilots.

You have no argument.

>>2587168

You might want to look up battles like Cape Spartivento, or the strike at Taranto.

>>2587301
>You might want to look up battles like Cape Spartivento, or the strike at Taranto
Saying that the carrier was as important as the battleship by using that argument is retarded

The aircraft carrier was consider an attrition weapon before 1943

>>2587301
>Taranto
Did not prevent the Italians from shorties like the British were hoping.
We give them a lot of shit but Regina Marina did their best to carry on.

>>2587574
>shorties
Sorties.

>>2587301
>Of course it does, any ship is as good as dead if it's caught in port.
>Not by battleships they can't.
Am I retarded? What the hell are you saying?

>>2581455
>those lifeboats
>double crows nest/mast things
>turrets underneath the superstructures
>square windows
>fence all the way around
wtf is going on here which direction is that even supposed to go

>>2587486

>Saying that the carrier was as important as the battleship by using that argument is retarded

>Saying that the carrier was as important as the battleship by showing an engagement where the carriers were able to fend off the battleships is retarded.

You dind't look up the battle, did you?

>The aircraft carrier was consider an attrition weapon before 1943

Actually, you just don't read any military literature at all? An attrition weapon is there to destroy enemy front line assets; this is in opposition to a maneuvering weapon, which is supposed to slip around those front line assets and hit at whatever's in the softer rear.

For starters, Carriers did quite well at hitting the rear, far better than battleships, which you can check with things like the Indian Ocean raid or Operation Starvation. Secondly, battleships were even more of an "attritional" weapon than a carrier.

>>2587574

So? It messed up their fleet pretty badly and was a victory that could not have been achieved by a battleship.

>>2587668

The ability of a battleship to strike at a ship in port is extraordinarily limited. AFAIK, the only WW2 attempt (which admittedly was successful) was the attack on Mers El Kebir. Carriers, on the other hand, can send their airplanes to hit ports relatively easily.

>>2587069
I guess that can happen when your entire life consists of sitting in a harbor getting bombed.

>>2584359
>>2584365
>>2584369

Anybody else got any battleship memorabilia around the house?

>>2589268
I don't have it around the house, but I live about 15 minutes away from the battleship New Jersey museum they turned it into.

One of these days I should actually take pictures, I go several times a year, so I usually don't bother, you know?

File: l_p0028865513.jpg (68KB, 650x680px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 650x680px

>>2589268

>>2574185
According to navweapons the Dunkerque-class has better armor vertical armor penetration by a large margin (ie. at around 23,000 meters it was 342mm for the Dunkerque vs. 279mm for the Queen Elizabeths), and Strasbourg's armor isn't that much worse, 2 inches less of belt armor (but sloped), and much better deck armor. Not to mention the Dunkerque-class ships have much better characteristics otherwise like their dual purpose batteries against aircraft.

>>2587301
>She was destroyed by bombers, without shooting any of them down.
After taking several halfton bombs and considering it was a surprise attack, it''s pretty good.
>They do so quite often.
Not without a skirmish.
>Not by battleships they can't.
Elaborate.
>Not to any of the others.
Outdated warships, real challenge there.
>But the Japanese still had considerable naval assets
Largely outdated, poorly constructed and a subpar crew an asset rarely makes.
>and thus it wasn't actually Midway
Midway was the nail in the coffin.

File: battleship Tirpitz-BB4.jpg (250KB, 1828x1139px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1828x1139px

>>2585782
>>What was the one for the Tirpitz?
>Nothing, she performed admirably considering her condition.
>performed admirably
>admirably

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz

After completing sea trials in early 1941, Tirpitz briefly served as the centrepiece of the Baltic Fleet, which was intended to prevent a possible break-out attempt by the Soviet Baltic Fleet. In early 1942, the ship sailed to Norway to act as a deterrent against an Allied invasion. While stationed in Norway, Tirpitz was also intended to be used to intercept Allied convoys to the Soviet Union, and two such missions were attempted in 1942. This was the only feasible role for her, since the St Nazaire Raid had made operations against the Atlantic convoy lanes too risky. Tirpitz acted as a fleet in being, forcing the British Royal Navy to retain significant naval forces in the area to contain the battleship.

In September 1943, Tirpitz, along with the battleship Scharnhorst, bombarded Allied positions on Spitzbergen, the only time the ship used her main battery in an offensive role. Shortly thereafter, the ship was damaged in an attack by British mini-submarines and subsequently subjected to a series of large-scale air raids. On 12 November 1944, British Lancaster bombers equipped with 12,000-pound (5,400kg) "Tallboy" bombs scored two direct hits and a near miss which caused the ship to capsize rapidly. A deck fire spread to the ammunition magazine for one of the main battery turrets, which caused a large explosion. Figures for the number of men killed in the attack range from 950 to 1,204.

>>2589398
>After taking several halfton bombs and considering it was a surprise attack, it''s pretty good.

If the Germans were surprised at Catechism, they have absolutely nobody to blame, since that was the 5th strike on Tromso. And who cares how many bombs it took to sink the thing? That's not a mark of success if the ship still goes down.

>Not without a skirmish.

Objectively wrong. Consider Operation Berlin, where the Scharnhorst and Gnisenau were able to shadow a convoy guarded by the Malaya for 2 days without actual engagement. It is very easy to just turn and run on the water, assuming you're faster than the opposition.

>Elaborate.

It's insanely risky to send your battleships into an enemy port to try to sink their shit. That's why people don't do dumb stuff like that.

>Outdated warships, real challenge there.

Given that they were roughly as modern as the U.S. pre-war carriers, and no more or less modern than any of the battleships sunk by other gunships in WW2, I don't think you have a point.

>Largely outdated, poorly constructed and a subpar crew an asset rarely makes.

Shokaku, Zuikaku, Taiho, all sunk at Philippine Sea, were all more modern than any of the carriers that went down at Midway. And you've yet to actually demonstrate there were "subpar crews", you've just asserted it.

>Midway was the nail in the coffin.

No, unless you have a very funny definition of the nail in the coffin. It broke the momentum of the IJN. The Nail in the Coffin probably was Philippine Sea, cutting the Japanese off from their oil source and despite your inane assertions, being the one where they lost the greatest concentration of fleet assets in a single battle.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Why are you such a Battleshipboo? I don't think I've ever seen anyone so desperately grasp for excuses as to why the BB lose to planes.

Reminder that the Akagi was a piece of junk

>>2589789
In the three deck configuration? Yeah she was. But she and Kaga were heavily modernized and were probably slightly better than the Lexingtons due to having three elevators.

>>2589433
>Tirpitz acted as a fleet in being, forcing the British Royal Navy to retain significant naval forces in the area to contain the battleship.

You just blew your snark germanophobia the fuck out. Congrats.

>>2589238
>Actually, you just don't read any military literature at all? An attrition weapon is there to destroy enemy front line assets; this is in opposition to a maneuvering weapon, which is supposed to slip around those front line assets and hit at whatever's in the softer rear.
>For starters, Carriers did quite well at hitting the rear, far better than battleships, which you can check with things like the Indian Ocean raid or Operation Starvation. Secondly, battleships were even more of an "attritional" weapon than a carrier.
where the fuck did you read that bullshit?

File: Royal navy WWII.gif (649KB, 1600x1457px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 1600x1457px

>>2589825
> fleet in being

This wasn’t much of an issue for the Royal navy.

"At the start of the Second World War in 1939, the Royal Navy was the largest in the world, with over 1,400 vessels, including:

7 aircraft carriers - with 5 more under construction
15 battleships and battlecruisers - with 5 more under construction
66 cruisers - with 23 more under construction
184 destroyers - with 52 under construction
45 escort and patrol vessels - with 9 under construction and one on order
60 submarines - with 9 under construction"

The German blue water navy was a pointless waste of resources that did fuck all throughout the war.

>>2589839

https://www.amazon.com/Maneuver-Warfare-Handbook-Westview-Military/dp/086531862X

File: 4L_5Z3MLwqe.jpg (87KB, 900x624px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 900x624px

post neat stories

>"Arriving first on the scene with the British Tribal-class destroyer Maori, Piorun charged at Bismarck by herself, while Maori manoeuvred for position to fire her torpedoes."
>"before commencing fire on Bismarck, Commander Plawski sent an unknown message on the airways, with sources ranging from "This is a Polish ship" to "3 salvos for the glory of Poland"
>"Alone, Piorun exchanged fire with Bismarck for half an hour with neither side scoring any hits. After a Bismarck salvo landed a mere 20 yards from the ship, Plawski was ordered to pull away by Admiral Vian of the 4th Destroyer Flotilla"
>"low on fuel and having lost sight of Bismarck, Admiral Vian ordered Commander Plawski to return to England. However, Piorun readied her torpedoes and lingered for another hour before ultimately heading to England."

>this dinky little destroyer went toe to toe by herself with the Kriegsmarine's mightiest ship and got out unscathed

>>2589865
where the fuck did they find the room
to construct all these ships

>5 (f i v e) aircraft carriers under construction on a tiny rock off the coast of France

>>2565434

Why exactly did "fast battleships" become a thing? What's the advantage of sacrificing armor just to move a few knots faster? A more heavily armored battleship, with larger guns, will always win a head-on fight even if it is slower.

>>2590334
This might come as a shock to you, but battleships needed to fight things that weren't other battleships. They also, on occasion, needed to protect other ships. And sometimes, you needed to get from point A to point B quickly! Speed can help with these kinds of things that occur to those of us who aren't cripplingly autistic.

>>2590350

>but battleships needed to fight things that weren't other battleships

A battleship will defeat any smaller vessel (except an aircraft carrier) easily, regardless of speed.

>>2590362

>A battleship will defeat any smaller vessel

If it can catch it. Which a slow battleship will often have trouble doing.

>>2590368

You can't outrun a 16-inch shell.

>>2590369

Of course not, but you can sight the battleship long before it's in range of that 16 inch shell and avoid combat, or engage if you think the odds are in your favor, say, if you have 3 of your fast battleships ganging up on his one slower but better armored one.

Seriously, if you don't understand why speed is important to a battleship, because you can only conceive of warfare as a series of "fair" fights in vacuums, then you're either so addicted to things like Call of Duty that it's rotted your brain, or you're just so naturally retarded that you're unable to grasp any sort of military calculation at all. Either way, it's not pretty.

>>2590334
Advances in propulsion technology meant that not as much had to be sacrificed.

File: battleship Iowa armor.jpg (906KB, 3200x1341px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 3200x1341px

>>2590334
>Why exactly did "fast battleships" become a thing? What's the advantage of sacrificing armor just to move a few knots faster?


But they weren’t sacrificing armor, the more advanced tech of the period allowed higher speeds with the same level of protection (which rendered battlecruisers irrelevant).

Iowa-class:
45-52,000 tons
887 ft
212,000 hp
37 mph

armor:
310mm belt
290mm bulkheads
290-440mm barbettes
500mm turrets

South Dakota-class:
35-45,000 tons
680 ft
130,000 hp
31 mph

armor:
310mm belt
280mm bulkheads
290-440mm barbettes
460mm turrets

>>2590486
But Iowas were a sacrifice in relative armor, with the whole 50% heavier for effectively the same armor and weapons to hit that 33 knots. If the US had built anything at Iowa size but only 28 knots they'd be calling the Iowas battlecruisers.

The improvement in technology moved the speed of battleships to 28-30 knots rather than the WW1 21-24.

>>2590092
>William S. Lind
gee, no wonder

>>2590716
Do you actually have a point? I'm still waiting for some kind of coherence in your bizarre criticism that carriers were "attritional assets"

File: battlecruiser Lexington-class.png (44KB, 1876x450px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1876x450px

>>2590551

You have to look at ship construction within the time frame they were designed, where in the planned post-WWI Lexington-class battlecruisers would have had 8-16” guns and a speed of 38 mph, like the later Iowas but with much lighter armor then the Iowa-class fast battleships. You also have to remember that the Iowas were 200’ longer then the South Dakotas, (roughly the same length as the unbuilt Lexingtons) the extended length needed to increase the speed.

File: is this the face of mercy.jpg (3KB, 90x110px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 90x110px

>>2590716
L I G H T R A I L

>>2590092
>>2590722
Lind is a fucking nut. I assume you missed /k/ doing a Let's Read of his book Victoria, where, among quite a lot of other things we learned that he:
>believes that tanks aren't meant to fight other tanks
>is a RMA denialist who's never gotten over the Gulf War proving that high-tech systems like PGMs and stealth will fucking clobber low-tech systems
>believes that dive bombing with dumb bombs is more effective than use of PGMs

>>2590870

I'm still waiting for your bizarre definition as to what an "attritional asset" is that for some reason includes Carriers and not Battleships and is also an implied slur on the carrier vis a vis the battleship.

>>2590870
>believes that dive bombing with dumb bombs is more effective than use of PGMs
Lmao what was his argument for this bullshit?

>>2590887
Or maybe there's another person who isn't the one who was talking to you who's just taking the chance to shittalk Lind.

I haven't got a clue why a carrier is supposed to be an attritional asset and a battleship isn't, maybe it's something to do with how carriers usually aren't capable of destroying a fleet in a single engagement (but then again, battleships rarely do that too).

>>2590907
>Lmao what was his argument for this bullshit?
I dont know, I'm just repeating things I saw on /k/.

>>2590907
Dive bombing is accurate enough (he seriously fell for the stuka propaganda) and dumb bombs are a ton cheaper than smart bombs.

Of course, this runs into the problem of dive bombers have to actually dive on the target, and against anyone with something resembling air defense that usually ends with a lot of destroyed dive bombers. Also the bit where dive bombers aren't actually that accurate, and can't hit shit at night.

File: PAF OV-10 dropping a paveway bomb.jpg (7KB, 513x286px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 513x286px

>>2590927
>Dive bombing is accurate enough (he seriously fell for the stuka propaganda) and dumb bombs are a ton cheaper than smart bombs.
>dumb bombs are a ton cheaper than smart bombs.
LMAAAAAAO What century is this nigger living in keeeek PGMs are like, what, 30? 40? 50 year old technology? They're everywhere nowadays and even third world countries can afford them.

I live in a poor as fuck country (the Philippines) and our prop planes drop Paveways. 20 years ago they used to dive bomb but thought the safety of using PGMs is worth the extra buck.

>>2590972
Considering his utopian fiction is literally "victorian era best era technology is the devil", apparently the 19th.

>>2590411

Let's think of this in practical terms:

Rodney was 23 knots. Bismark was 30 knots. Bismark was 7 knots faster, but it didn't make any difference because Bismark lost all the extra speed after it got torpedoed. So I'm wondering if the extra 7 knots was even worth it to begin with. Why not just having thicker bulkheads to keep out torpedoes better? A slower battleship allows for more armor.

>>2590486

If you decide to make a battleship go fast, then there are always going to be some sacrifices for that. The Iowa-class were extremely fast at 32 knots (top speed) but they paid for it by sacrificing protection. They didn't have any more protection than the preceding South Dakota-class despite being over 10,000 tons heavier. Screw around with Spring Sharp a bit. You'll soon discover that making anything fast requires sacrifices in other areas.

>>2590989
>Rodney was 23 knots. Bismark was 30 knots. Bismark was 7 knots faster, but it didn't make any difference because Bismark lost all the extra speed after it got torpedoed. So I'm wondering if the extra 7 knots was even worth it to begin with. Why not just having thicker bulkheads to keep out torpedoes better? A slower battleship allows for more armor.


And if the Bismarck was built to a 23 knot speed and packed on more weapons and armor, the Royal Navy would have dumped 5 battleships on it like ducks on a beetle, because they had 16 BB and the Germans had 3, 5 if you count those 2 pre-dreadnoughts the Entente allowed them to keep post WW1 as a joke. The entire German naval strategy, such as it was, centered around using their asymmetric vulnerability (Britain imported overseas material extensively, Germany did not) to slip around or past the overwhelmingly stronger royal navy. A super-armed and armored 23 knot battleship is 100% completely fucking useless for them, because it cannot do this, and it was only the Bismark's battlecruiserish qualities, being able to outrun what it couldn't outfight, that made it worth anything at all.

Speed is really important in just about any facet of war. If you can't actually bring your firepower and staying power to where it's needed, It's pretty damn worthless. Why not take your question and go further, make something that only goes 10 knots and is bristling with even more cannons and armor? Or a floating derrick that is fitted out for bear but doesn't actually move? Real life war isn't about fair fights between opposing classes of armament that are more or less even, it's about doing as much damage to the enemy as cheaply as possible, and being able to move faster than the other guy is a big, big fucking part of that.

>>2568951
Le meme boat

>>2590989
Higher speed allows the fleet to outmaneuver the enemy fleet both in and out of combat. This makes it easier for you to cross your opponent's T, for example, or refuse combat if one of your BBs runs into an enemy ambush (like what Bismarck could have done if she hadn't run into a fellow fast battleship and a battlecruiser and instead met two Rs or Nelrods at Denmark Strait).

It is sacrificing some capabilities for speed, but that speed lets it be more effective. There's a reason the US dropped the 21 knot battleline all the way back with the 1920 South Dakotas, because a battleline that can't keep up with the enemy can't force them to engage.

>>2591032
>>2591036

I knew there was an answer but I couldn't figure it out. I already knew that the Germans needed fast ships to get around the British fleet and into the Atlantic, but that was only because they were painfully outnumbered throughout the entire war.

I just kept thinking about Rodney vs. Bismark. Rodney seems like the better ship in every way other than speed. More armor. Better guns. Bismark is a lot bigger, but has less armor and smaller (and 1 fewer) guns, so all that extra displacement must be going purely towards propulsion. I couldn't really figure out why you'd want a Bismark vs. a Rodney other than if you wanted to just completely avoid combat, and at some point you're going to have to fight otherwise why'd you even build a battleship in the first place?

Crossing the T seems like the answer, because it allows the Bismark (or any fast battleship) to get itself into a position where it can use its full firepower whereas its opponent cannot. Although Rodney's weird design seems like it would lessen the effect of crossing T's with it. Unless you somehow came up behind it.

>>2590989
>Rodney was 23 knots. Bismark was 30 knots. Bismark was 7 knots faster, but it didn't make any difference because Bismark lost all the extra speed after it got torpedoed. So I'm wondering if the extra 7 knots was even worth it to begin with. Why not just having thicker bulkheads to keep out torpedoes better? A slower battleship allows for more armor.
Because if Bismarck was 23 knots and tougher, instead of being jumped by Prince of Wales and Hood, she'd have been jumped by basically all the RN's capital ships except the Revenges (who were nominally 23 knots, but by WW2 were 19 on a good day if you didn't need those engines tomorrow) because now they can all catch her.

>>2591103

I still think that a slower, tougher design might have been better. Especially since trying to sneak out into the Atlantic really didn't work anyway, even with fast battleships. Bismark and Tirpitz were most useful acting as a fleet-in-being to tie up British resources.

>>2591133
>I still think that a slower, tougher design might have been better. Especially since trying to sneak out into the Atlantic really didn't work anyway, even with fast battleships

But it did. Operation Berlin was enormously successful, and that was the basis for the Bismarck attempt. And when you get right down to it, the Germans didn't have much else they could try. Putting Tirpitz as a fleet in being itself only had a (minimal) impact on the Artic convoys, by that time a tertiary supply route to the Soviets; and placed under a friendly air umbrella. It was a big, big step down from the sort of use that you had before, even in failure.

Furthermore, a "slower, tougher" design is going to be less useful as a fleet in being. The Tirpitz could plausibly have struck at PQ 17. A slow ship threatens a far smaller area in the same amount of time, and gives a greater reaction possibility on the part of the defenders. It can't patrol as wide of an area, which is actually pretty important when you're raiding convoys. You seem very, very fixated on battleship vs battleship duels, when in the reality of naval combat, especially by WW2, they just weren't that important.

>>2589447
>That's not a mark of success if the ship still goes down.
It's a testament to it's durability.
>assuming you're faster than the opposition.
Out running two ships, what an achievement.
>That's why people don't do dumb stuff like that.
Only if they have coastal artillery.
>I don't think you have a point
Several were from WWI.
>were all more modern than any of the carriers that went down at Midway
ie. poorly constructed and rushed.
>And you've yet to actually demonstrate there were "subpar crews", you've just asserted it.
Well all of the competent ones died.
>No, unless you have a very funny definition of the nail in the coffin.
Eh, nail in the coffin, turning point, beginning of the end, either will do.
>Seriously, what is wrong with you?
I'm on a serbian water polo forum aren't I?
>Why are you such a Battleshipboo?
Because they're some of the most awe inspiring machines ever made.
>I don't think I've ever seen anyone so desperately grasp for excuses as to why the BB lose to planes.
And you never will because they don't.

>>2591157

Armor isn't just useful against other battleships. That is usually how it is talked about, but it has other benefits, too. Horizontal armor (deck armor) is very important for stopping dive-bombers from killing your ship. I do think you're onto something there, though, about the faster ship being about to threaten a larger area. The enemy knows that they will have less warning time and thus is forced to devote more resources to being prepared in advance. This to me sounds like the "true" answer.

>>2591183
> The enemy knows that they will have less warning time and thus is forced to devote more resources to being prepared in advance. This to me sounds like the "true" answer.

No, it isn't, and I'm the one who said it. The "True" answer is this; the best battleship is the one that helps you achieve your operational and strategic goals. Those will vary from country to country and from war to war. So Germany in WW2, who needs convoy raiders because really that's the only thing they can do given how the Royal Navy outnumbers them by about 5:1 and has more crew experience, needs ships that are fast and can outrun their enemy guarding them, because force preservation is a much higher priority than it is for the British. For someone like the Americans, who primarily used their battleships as carrier guards, the primary purpose of that speed was to be able to keep pace with the CVs; things like armor were less at a premium, because after all, they were only expected to engage other capital ships as a last resort, and were more expected to be fending off enemy planes at the sort of distance the carriers fought at. Et fucking cetra. There is no one "objectively correct" design at a given displacement. There's merely what you need at the moment.

>>2591206

Well, yeah. In theory. But every country building battleships had them increase in speed over time. So higher top speed was seen as a universally desirable trait, even if it meant making some sacrifices in terms of armor protection to acquire that speed.

>>2591234
Escalating speed was just another feature of the arms race, just like escalating firepower and armor.

File: battleship Iowa-class New Jersey.gif (1MB, 1728x1474px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1728x1474px

>>2590989
> Why not just having thicker bulkheads to keep out torpedoes better?

The Brits got a lucky torpedo hit the Bismark’s rudder, even the Yamato would have been screwed.

> If you decide to make a battleship go fast, then there are always going to be some sacrifices for that.

Except by late 1930s, you did not have to sacrifice armor or firepower while achieving higher speed, as the Iowa-class and other fast battleships show.

The U.S. was going to build new battleships one way or another, as that was the thinking at the time, so why not build a battleship that has the same armor and firepower but is faster?

>>2590092
Anon, do you want me to start quoting his """"novel""""

reminder that the USS Olympia is waiting for you to visit her in the Philadelphia side of the river!

File: I was a flagship once.jpg (2MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3648x2736px

>>2591592

File: back in the day, sinkin' the bitches, stoking the coals.jpg (1MB, 1552x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1552x1080px

>>2591600

happier days

>>2590334
they didnt sacrifice armor.

better propulsion and design made the difference

>>2592078

So they broke to laws of thermodynamics?

Any time you decide to make something fast, you have to make sacrifices in other areas to make it happen.

>>2591552

>you did not have to sacrifice armor or firepower while achieving higher speed, as the Iowa-class and other fast battleships show.

The Iowa's showed the opposite. They have the exact same armor thickness as the preceding South Datoka-class despite being over 10000 tons heavier. This is because all the extra displacement is devoted entirely to propulsion (and a slightly more powerful main battery). This is exactly why the Navy wanted to go back down to 28 knots for the Montana-class, so that they could have a more heavily armored ship capable of withstanding Yamato guns.

>>2592258
Iowas confirmed for battlecruisers.

>>2591606
WEW, dat Great White Fleet

>>2591562
Not him, but i kinda want you to....sounds like a fun read

>>2592247
>Any time you decide to make something fast, you have to make sacrifices in other areas to make it happen.

Or propulsive technology gets better...

>>2593915
Which is why post-treaty BBs were usually at 28 knots. Iowa is going above and beyond that.

>>2590887
Not him but...

Isnt the carrier role to hostigate the enemy fleet and weaken it as it advance to meet in a decisive battle of battleships? Or atleast that was for the japanese navy.

that sounds like attrition to me.

>>2593977
To add the attack of pearl harbor and midway were suppose to pave the way to a japanese decisive victory by cripping the american pacific navy.

>>2593977
Well, for starters "attrition" is simply achieving victory by destroying your enemy's tactical, front line assets. So if you do have a strategy based around "Carriers fuck up their battleships, and have your own battleships finish them off" then both are attritional assets, operating in a 1-2 punch.

Secondly, while the Japanese were holding for a decisive, Mahanian style battle, they actually did all their attacking with the carriers, not the battleships. In fact, their battleships would go on to sink a grand total of 0 carriers or battleships of either the Americans or the British. Some of that was disunity even among their own command infrastructure (Yamamoto, for instance, was a huge carrier fan), but it's surprisingly elusive to find anything pointing to them saying that they'll finish off the Pacific fleet with battleships.

Hell, Yamomoto's own planning wasn't even to have a Mahanian style decisive battle. He just wanted to hurt the Americans long enough for the Japanese to establish a tough defensive perimeter and hope that the Americans would give up rather than incur the costs in blood and treasure necessary to break that kind of defense.

I'm not saying that by a lot of usage, Japanese carriers, or carriers in general weren't "attritional assets", they often were. But there's nothing wrong with that, and so were most warships; the only real exception on a large scale would be things like submarines in the timeframe of WW2, and even then, you have significant exceptions, like how the Japanese preferred to use the things.

>>2594011
And where were the Japanese battleships in either of them?

File: battleship Montana BB-65.png (422KB, 3648x724px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 3648x724px

>>2592258
>They have the exact same armor thickness as the preceding South Datoka-class despite being over 10000 tons heavier.

And yet the Iowa-class was FASTER, how do you not get that?

> This is exactly why the Navy wanted to go back down to 28 knots for the Montana-class

The Montana-class was a pre-war concept that never made it off the drawing board, as the Navy realized slow ass battleships were pointless.

“Both the Iowa and Essex classes had been given higher priorities: the Iowas as they were fast enough to keep up with and defend the Essex-class carriers with 20mm and 40mm guns, and the Essexes because of their ability to launch aircraft to gain and maintain air supremacy over the islands in the Pacific and intercept warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

The entire Montana class was suspended in May 1942, before any of their keels had been laid. In July 1942, the construction of the Montana class was canceled following the Battle of Midway and the corresponding shift in naval warfare from surface engagements to air supremacy and from battleships to aircraft carriers.”

>>2591600
This made me sad.

>>2594249
Not him, but the Montana class was hardly slow; they were supposed to be able to do 28 knots, which was the same as the North Carolina class, which were themselves considered "fast battleships".

>>2572908
Absolutely lovely.

>>2594249

>And yet the Iowa-class was FASTER

I never denied that, so I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that the increased displacement of that Iowa-class over its predecessor was devoted almost entirely to propulsion. If they had kept the 28 knot requirement for the Iowa, they could have built a much more heavily armored ship with that 45,000 ton standard displacement. By insisting on a 32 knot requirement, the Navy forced the designers to re-use the same armor scheme from the South Dakotas despite being a much more tonnage to work with.

Am I saying that this was the wrong decision? No. The Iowa's needed that 32 knot speed in order to fulfill their role as carrier escorts. That was the correct decision. But that doesn't mean there weren't any trade-offs in the design.

>>2589211
To be fair it's French and they've never known how to build ships anyway.

What were Yank pre-dreadnoughts and WWI/interwar period battleships like?

I notice everyone likes discussing the German navy (such as it was), the Royal Navy, and of course Iowa and Yamato.

>>2594540

What exactly do you mean by "inter-war battleship"?

>>2591097
Its because Bismarck was a shit and overrated design that had a bad turret set up, a terrible x3 shaft propulsion system, and was designed by dysfunctional autists (even more so than the average krauts).

>>2594558
Designs that appeared between the world wars.

>>2594540
US pre-dreads tended to feature secondary batteries of 8-inch guns and tertiaries of 5 or 6 inches until the last two classes, which went to 7s.

Dreadnoughts were fucking amazing. The US independently came up with the dreadnought design, the first US dreadnoughts, the South Carolinas, were 2x2/2x2 superfiring on both ends and were designed contemporarily to HMS Dreadnought herself (but got built later), and the Wyomings had all-or-nothing armor on a design from 1911! The early 1900s USN was the best at theory work in the world.

>>2594609
>Wyomings
Fuck, Nevadas.

File: BB-6 Kentucky.jpg (1MB, 1600x1292px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1292px

>>2594540
>Pre Dreadnoughts
Behold.

>>2594678
That's a pretty ship.

File: the boast of the red white and blue.jpg (524KB, 2174x2010px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 2174x2010px

>>2593768

A E S T H E T I C

E

S

T

H

E

T

I

C

>>2594375
USN obviously did not think 32 knot was necessary for carrier escorts since it assigned South Dakota to carrier groups.

>>2590287
The UK has more ports per coastline than any other country irc.

>>2596846

They obviously did because they demanded that they next batch of battleships be much faster.

>>2599044
Which is why the Montanas immediately went back to 28?

>>2599089

The Iowa-class ships were always intended as carrier escorts and so they prioritized speed whereas the planned-but-never-built Montana-class was meant for fighting other battleships and thus sacrificed some speed for the sake of heavier armor.

File: s511-13.jpg (451KB, 3000x1425px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 3000x1425px

>>2599089
Funny that you keep mentioning muh Montanas when that class also had multiple +30 knot design studies.

>>2599180

Well, the original Iowa concept was a 35-knot "cruiser-killer" (aka battlecruiser), armored only against 8-inch gunfire. Even there, speed was scaled back to allow for a more balanced, better armored ship.

>>2590287
Coastline/area ratio. Britain's coastline is about 12,000 miles long; France's is 7000.

There is also major ports every few miles along the coast, after millennia of habitation.

The annual shipping output of my town, Sunderland, was greater than that of the entire USA.

>>2599180
Which were rejected? The NorCars had 23 knot studies, but that doesn't mean they weren't fast BBs.

>>2595679
beautiful desu

>>2589865
What were the other 919 ships?

>>2600568
Not him, but probably smaller vessels. Things like minelayers and minesweepers, trawlers, corvettes, that kind of stuff.

>>2600568

I feel like there must be some error here. I can't find any record of other ships.

>>2600583

https://ww2-weapons.com/fleets-1939/

>>2600609
No idea then.

>>2600598
You can find a decent number if you've got a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships or similar. Like mine from 42, which has a ton of minesweepers and god knows how many trawlers.

>>2600809
>Jane's Fighting Ships
when can I find the Jane's book?
fucking hell I had been looking and nothing

>>2600866

https://www.amazon.com/Janes-Fighting-Ships-World-War/dp/0517679639/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491094933&sr=8-1&keywords=jane%27s+fighting+ships+of+world+war+ii

Seems to be on Amazon.

>>2599044
USN used South Dakotas as carrier escorts late in the war, many years after the Iowa class was designed and procured and built.

>>2600978

What else would they have done with them?

>>2565497
Battleship X would like a word. A battleship so secret not even the sailors could keep written word about it so they coined the term battle ship X. It is said to have been stripped down after the war. Fortunately there is a replica based off of the sailors description.

>>2565592

>Can't fire its main guns without damaging itself because of "all-or-nothing" armor scheme taken to the logical extreme

>>2565434
https://youtu.be/uEmveOkf5cs

>>2601046
The South Dakota?

>>2601046
Isn't that just South Dakota's nickname they used for the presses?

File: 8f3e10a39cc99ab10507b42fc95bfbb5.jpg (40KB, 640x486px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x486px

>>2601084
*sinks you're panzerschiffe*

>>2573220
Not everyone follows the book. Consider the engagement in Truk with two Iowa-class BBs chasing the IJN DD Nowaki. On the extreme range on their guns in a high speed tail-end chase yet they scored two-three straddles with their salvos.

>>2569229
Duke of York hit Scharnhorst at a similar distance at North Cape

Tell me about Minas Geraes.

Did Brazil have a chance in becoming a power?

>>2594534
Dunkerque and Richelieu were beautiful, reeee

>>2569778
Assassins Creed

>>2601004
If 32 knot was a requirement for carrier escort, how could a boat that couldn't do 32 knot escort carriers?

File: USS_California_(BB-44)_-_80-G-211831.jpg (168KB, 1280x998px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1280x998px

>>2602246
Refit US dreadnoughts looked fat.

File: 1458754821649.png (39KB, 321x322px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 321x322px

>>2602504
T H I C C

>>2602479

They could, just not very well.

>>2589865
>The German blue water navy was a pointless waste of resources that did fuck all throughout the war.

What are submarine wolf packs that did more damage than any other ships in the Atlantic?

>>2602866

that ultimately did more damage to Germany in the long run

File: USS West Virginia at Puget Sound July 1944.jpg (146KB, 1280x957px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1280x957px

>>2602526

POST THICK HULLS

File: novgorod_photo.jpg (35KB, 600x329px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x329px

>>2603863

File: USS Tennessee.jpg (2MB, 1602x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1602x2000px

>>2603863
*notices torpedo bulge*
Owo what's this?

File: HARD.gif (558KB, 367x265px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 367x265px

>>2567014
>>2567030
>>2567577
>>2578790
>>2581455
>>2595679
>>2596803

UUUUUUGGGHHHH

T H I C C

File: BSTX_2954.jpg (222KB, 1760x796px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1760x796px

If you like Dreadnoughts the USS Texas is still on display in Houston

can someone explain to me why am I supposed to feel sexually attracted to battleships?

>>2604081
You'ren't, battleships are for plebs that can't appreciate cruisers.

>>2604081

I wasn't aware this was a phenomenon.

Now there's not anything wrong with appreciating the design and lines of a war machine.

They're simply cool, if you've forgotten, then you can ask any kid what it means.

>>2602504
Is that pic compressed laterally? Ship looks short, and men on the aft deck look very tall...

>>2604055
Nice.

>>2604475
That's just the superior American physique

File: lady-iowa-lucu-juga.jpg (255KB, 1258x649px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1258x649px

>>2604251
Or ask a Nip.

File: AA ACALIFORNIA.jpg (304KB, 1600x1229px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1600x1229px

>>2604475
Standards were short&fat.

>>2604510
>>2604487
But that doesn't explain the 9 foot tall guys on the aft deck.

File: 800px-Ostfriesland_original.jpg (243KB, 800x1024px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 800x1024px

>>2602866
And many of them sunk without ever getting to sink anything after a certain year.

>>2605993

the footage of that test is on youtube

it's pretty neat, their first sorties were gas bombs, smoke, and then phosphorus, before they brought in the HE and torps.

>>2604504
This design is miles better than canon desu

>>2606178
>canon Iowa
You have no idea how mad she made me.

>>2606234
A slutty design befitting a slutty bote.

>>2606321
>only served one country
>a slut


Iowa's just boring, I guess. Barely any surface combat, didn't really do much other than shore bombardment and escorting the carriers. Why not Washington, who actually did shit/was a fucking murdermachine because of Ching Lee?