Tell me you know about the imperial Japanese navy.

Yes, I do know about the imperial Japanese navy.

>>2816873
all you know*

yes I know about the japanese navee

here is its anthem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC_mV1IpjWA

>>2816865
A bit of help for you.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/

>>2816865
America won, the end

File: __nagato_kantai_collection_drawn_by_enosan__62e389f855e405d42fef0d585461d0c4.png (2MB, 2121x3450px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2121x3450px

Their ships give me a special feeling that I like.

File: AAAAHHHHHHHH.jpg (58KB, 327x318px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 327x318px

>>2816884
holy kek

>>2816865

>tfw you'll never a ww2 submarine captain

>>2816865

They messed up big at midway by not having good damage control crews and being flexible in their carrier doctrine.

They also relied too heavily on destroyer doctrine which bit them in the ass.

File: USA USA USA.png (69KB, 933x750px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 933x750px

>>2816865

They never had a chance. Even if they had been tactically and strategically perfect, pulling all the right moves at exactly the right moments, they still would have lost simply because they were Bambi going up against Godzilla.

>>2816865
It was a complete waste of steel and men. Japan never had the slightest chance of beating the US in a long fight. Even in a one-on-one war against the UK, Japan would have eventually lost.

File: USN pacific.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

*unsheathes CBG*

nothin personnell...tojo

File: Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse_Scene_-_Hawai_Mare_oki_kaisen_1942_(04)_wmplayer_2013-07-17.jpg (249KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 800x600px

>>2817022

>Even in a one-on-one war against the UK, Japan would have eventually lost.

*sinks your battlecruisers*

Nothing personnel round eye devils!

>>2817022
>Even in a one-on-one war against the UK, Japan would have eventually lost.

Not at all. The Japanese could basically sink an arbitrary number of RN ships after letting them come to the Pacific because RN carrier doctrine was garbage and never really improved.

Even in fleet battles, the RN barely traded 1-1 with the fucking Kriegsmarine, objectively a far inferior navy to the IJN in quality.

>>2817056
>>2817067
Yes, but the UK had access to a much larger resource base than Japan did. Japan could have seized various parts of Asia, of course, as it did historically, but it would have taken years for it to exploit its conquests to reach parity with the UK. That's why I say that in the long run, the UK would have beat Japan one on one, and beat Japan badly in fact.

>>2817067

Yeah, jokes aside, Japan would have easily defeated the UK in a 1 vs 1.

>>2817076
>Yes, but the UK had access to a much larger resource base than Japan did.

The UK didn't use that industry even remotely effectively though. There's a reason that, even while being heavily subsidized by the USA, the WW2-era UK was massively outproduced in almost every metric by Germany, despite having an ostensibly similar industrial base.

>Japan could have seized various parts of Asia, of course, as it did historically, but it would have taken years for it to exploit its conquests to reach parity with the UK. That's why I say that in the long run, the UK would have beat Japan one on one, and beat Japan badly in fact.

The UK would not be able to commit to a multi-year in Southeast Asia in the first place. Plus the RN had other commitments (this is why fucking Italy was able to shut down the Med for Britain for three years), the IJN didn't.

>>2817096
>The UK would not be able to commit to a multi-year in Southeast Asia in the first place. Plus the RN had other commitments (this is why fucking Italy was able to shut down the Med for Britain for three years), the IJN didn't.
Sure it could. I said one-on-one, remember.

>>2817107
A one on one war does't erase all the RN's commitments from existence, even if Germany and the UK are not at war.

>>2817076

You don't really have a "long run" in naval warfare. Replacing a battleship or aircraft carrier is as easy as replacing a tank that gets blown up or something. The fact that you can't easily replace ships means that you simply can't afford to lose them at all. It all comes down to one decisive battle where you either win or lose.

>>2817096
>The UK didn't use that industry even remotely effectively though. There's a reason that, even while being heavily subsidized by the USA, the WW2-era UK was massively outproduced in almost every metric by Germany, despite having an ostensibly similar industrial base.
Not the guy you're responding to, but that's simply wrong. The UK massively outprodced Germany, not the other way around.

>>2817118
The history of the Pacific theater shows that to be false. Obviously the theater was won by US production of ships that overwhelmed initial Japanese victories.

>>2817122
Production of steel, coal, oil, iron ore, aircraft, artillery, and tanks say no (despite, again, the UK being heavily subsidized by the USA while Germany was having the crap bombed out of it by the USA).

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

Britain produced more surface vessels. That's it. An especially telling comparison is steel production. In 1941, Britain produced 12.3 million tons, and Germany produced 32 million tons.

https://ww2-weapons.com/british-arms-production/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Industrial_output

>>2817118
You do realize that construction of a battleship takes about 2 years in WW2 and requires as much steel as an armored division, yes?

>>2817096
>the WW2-era UK was massively outproduced in almost every metric by Germany, despite having an ostensibly similar industrial base.

Are you serious?

>>2817132
The USA is a special case on top of having a more powerful industry than most of the other great powers combined.

>>2817153

>Replacing a battleship or aircraft carrier is NOT as easy as replacing a tank that gets blown up or something.

This is what I meant to say.

>>2817132

The UK doesn't have nearly the production capacity of the USA. Not even close.

So if Japan had decided to ignore the US and focus on the Commonwealth, would they have gotten any closer to Australia?

>>2817203
They would be in Delhi by summer 1942 and Melbourne by Christmas the same year

>>2817152
> steel, coal, oil, iron ore
You only get by counting the UK separated from her empire but Germany alone. Sure, Britian didn't produce any oil, but individual colonies/dominions like Canada, Egypt, and Trinidad would individually outproduce Germany, let alone all together. . http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0277ah.pdf (Page 6 of the PDF) Furthermore, they are not direct military production, they are resources that are in turn used to create military production. Especially owing to third reich inefficiency, this was not always done well.

>Actual weapons
You might want to actually read your own link. Tanks are the only one the Germans outproduced the Brits in.
>Aircraft.
>British Empire, Total 177,025
>Germany and territories, Total, 133,387

That of course overlooks that it was the British, not the Germans which went into strategic bombing in a big way; an Avro Lancaster requires enormously more resources to construct than a Ju-87, what with weighing about 5 times as much.

>Artillery
Again, from your own link

>British Empire, 226,113
>Germany and Territories, 73,484.

That of course ignores other things, like

>Germany was having the crap bombed out of it by the USA).
The UK dropped more tons of bombs than the Americans did.

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

>RAF Bomber command, 964,644 tons
>U.S. 8th air force, 623,418 tons.

And of course we will be completely ignoring how the u-boat campaign both forced otherwise fungible production to be going to things other than convoy defense, as well as direct loss of production from import shortage, because it's only fair to count economic damage when the Allies are doing it, right?

>>2817132

American ships were just plain better in addition to being more numerous. Better damage control. Better radar. Better fire control. Better armor, and often better guns. The only area where Japan held a definitive advantage was torpedoes.

>>2817238
>Better armor, and often better guns
That's not what Java Sea said

>>2817227
I'm skeptical, but I also want to believe for how dramatic that would be.

File: opera_2017-05-16_11-02-50.png (23KB, 316x424px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 316x424px

>>2817258
A few of these would clear the way real quick

>>2817230
>Tanks are the only one the Germans outproduced the Brits in.
not really if you consider just pure tanks

they outproduced germany on tanks too

>>2817247

Just ask the Kirishima about it.

>>2817267
BUT MUH SLIM

>>2817247
>Better armor, and often better guns

That's pretty much correct. Java sea was at the beginning of the Pacific war. By 1943 the Japanese odds in a fight weren't all that good.

>>2817230
>The UK dropped more tons of bombs than the Americans did.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Ussb-1.svg

They didn't actually, they just dropped more on Germany specifically. And with lesser effectiveness. When asked after the war which set of bombing was more effective, UK or American, Albert Speer was dismissive of UK efforts while noting that American bombing nearly brought Germany's whole industry to its knees. He said that, by far, American bombing was much more crucial.

>>2817300
have Washington ask Yamato about armor if we're on the topic of 1939 battleships

>>2817311
Japanese guns and armor didn't change much throughout the war, being superior to the Americans in firepower and in armor until the Baltimore class came along. The Clevelands could give one hell of a fight against the older Japanese vessels, but modern cruisers with 10 203mm guns could out gun any American cruiser

>>2817267
But aren't defeats like that only possible when you severely underestimate your enemy? That's a self-correcting problem.

File: 6539649353_1b7aff7a7a_z.jpg (300KB, 638x640px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 638x640px

>>2817318

Yes, let's take a look at that.

>>2817318
>implying Yamato gunners could even hit the Washington.

File: opera_2017-05-16_11-17-00.png (75KB, 1349x264px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1349x264px

>>2817331
Is this the classic American literacy meme?
>>2817332
Considering Kirishima nailed the SoDak on her first salvo and jammed a turret in a night battle, yeah she could. Yamato blew out Gambier Bay's keel at Samar after all

>>2817328
Not really. The British Army just wasn't that good when it didn't have the Americans either directly aiding it or providing a lifeline. By and large they were no better equipped than the Japanese until the latter half of the war (again, in significant part thanks to the Americans; the most common British tank was the Sherman) and inferior on a man to man level. Marshall William Slim noted as much, and said that "Our’ material advantages could be used to counter the enemy’s skills." (said advantage being mostly provided by the Americans).

>>2817318
>modern cruisers with 10 203mm guns could out gun any American cruiser

Oh wow. The almighty power of the difference of a single gun.

File: The Mistake.jpg (81KB, 744x451px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 744x451px

>>2817318

Also, props for trying to bring up the IJN's greatest mistake as if it were a positive.

File: sunda-strait.jpg (71KB, 960x559px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x559px

>>2817352
works on their screen

>>2817345
A single hit (1) on a slower than slow escort carrier at an optimal range.

>>2817357
All that jazz aside, the Yamato is sexy af.

>>2817318
"Targeted by 5 in (127 mm) gunfire from the destroyers and destroyer escorts, the Japanese cruiser Chōkai was hit amidships, starboard side, most likely by the sole 5 in (127 mm) gun of the carrier White Plains.[53] While the shell could not pierce the hull, the 7 pounds (3.2 kg) bursting charge it contained set off the eight deck-mounted Japanese Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes, which were especially volatile because they contained pure oxygen, in addition to their 1,080 lb (490 kg) warheads. The explosion resulted in such severe damage that it knocked out the rudder and engines, causing Chōkai to drop out of formation. Within minutes, an American aircraft dropped a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb on her forward machinery room. Fires began to rage and she went dead in the water. Later that day, she was scuttled by torpedoes from the destroyer Fujinami."

Death via pop gun

>>2817345

>We hit a carrier escort

Wow, that 69450 ton shi was such a great investment. Nothing else could have sunk that escort carrier. I mean, golly, this was money well spent.

>>2817372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tullibee_(SS-284)#Fourth_war_patrol_and_loss
Did the Americans even have working torpedoes?

>>2817383
The Iowa sank one (1) training cruiser of less tonnage yet still served as the wank material of baby boomers since the dawn of time

>>2817360
The hit was around 31km if I recall

Robert Lundgren's book compiling Japanese and American sources makes an argument for Yamato's shells destroying the Gambier Bay's keel

File: Alabama-iii.jpg (32KB, 623x362px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 623x362px

>>2817365

If only they had it like 15 years sooner when it might have actually been relevant in combat rather than a glorified target for carriers.

>>2817388

The Iowas were also a waste of money, don't ask me to defend them. BB construction should have ended with the Alabama. The Iowas did basically nothing of note throughout their entire carriers.

File: ahaa.png (8KB, 599x605px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 599x605px

>>2817357
To think, had they built 3 aircraft carriers instead of this they would have sunk more than just Yorktown and turned the tide of the war, eventually conducting a successful full scale land invasion of Australia, New Zealand, India and later the United States west of the Rockies.

>>2817385
Ask Japanese historians

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/JANAC-Losses-6.html

>>2817427
t-this is a troll, right?

File: opera_2017-05-16_11-37-05.png (50KB, 1145x349px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1145x349px

>>2817434
So no then

>>2817449

There is a book called the Destroyermen where it it is like a running gag that the men will come up with some crazy scheme that involves the Mark 14 torpedo, only to have it inevitably fail and them have to improvise a new plan on the fly.

>>2817345
>Considering Kirishima nailed the SoDak on her first salvo

Exactly 1 shell hit on target

Here's what happened to Kirishima
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf

File: 1490988788980.png (43KB, 706x669px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 706x669px

>>2816884
Jesus Christ

>>2817458
Six shells
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis_Summary.pdf

Try to not be a fucking retard for once and consider that Kirshima was a 1915 battlecruiser fighting a 1939 battleship

>>2817449
The MK14 sank the vast majority of of Japanese shipping.

Did Japanese torpedoes sink a similar amount of tonnage?

>>2817467
The type 93 ensured Japanese surface dominance for the first year of the war and destroyed practically the entire US Asiatic fleet and ABDACOM naval forces as well, and the reason why American shipping wasn't targeted was only because of retarded Japanese submarine doctrine

>>2817463
Six hits is slightly better. After all the Sodak was illuminated by multiple searchlights and all and was incapable of returning fire.

>>2817463

Bullshit. The Kirshima was heavily overhauled. It was a contemporary battleship.

>>2817475
That ranks in the top five stupidest fucking shit I've ever read in my life

File: kaiten-torpedo.jpg (83KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1200x600px

>>2817467

Japanese torpedoes were undeniably better for the majority of the war. Especially the "long lance" torpedoes used by Japanese destroyers. These things were a menace, capable of sinking a cruiser or crippling a battleship. Very fast, long-ranged, and with a large warhead.

>>2816921
Nagato is my wife.

>>2816865
Unironically the second best navy at the time. Too bad they underestimated just how massive the gulf was between them and #1. Poor doctrine and retarded infighting sealed their fate.

>>2817475
I'll admit i'm semi trolling in this thread but this is flat out nonsense. In straight shootout vs any really modern BB she was in deep shit.

File: cccccc.png (130KB, 1649x374px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1649x374px

>>2817485

>Damage control

>>2817502

Well obviously. But that's because Japanese ships in general were inferior to their American counterparts.

>>2817512
Oh wow they called her a battleship so she's a battleship! Never fucking mind the 8 inches of armor

I'm sure the Yamato was inferior to the Iowa

Or the Takao to the New Orleans

Or the Fubuki to her contemporaries, which at the time included four stacks with four inch guns

Try to breathe from somewhere other than your gaping mouth your lard assed fucktard

>>2817525

The fact that they considered 8-inches to be acceptable for a battleship is very telling. They were simply outclassed, despite being arguably the number 2 navy in the world. They just couldn't compete with number 1.

>>2816884
kek

>>2817525

Takao is arguably worse, since her turrets and barbettes had only one inch of armor, which was only good against shrapnel and aircraft strafing.

New Orleans had superior fire control, radar, anti-air, maneuverability, agility, and endurance. The Takaos were slightly faster, had 1 more gun, and torpedo.

File: a50340ca40dbb1452b53d221eb422ea9.jpg (43KB, 326x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 326x500px

>>2817525

>I'm sure the Yamato was inferior to the Iowa

It was. A bigger ship doesn't necessarily mean a better ship. I mean, the Yamato would have been great if it had come out sooner. I mean, imagine her at Jutland. But by the time it was commissioned, it was simply an anachronism, destined to be nothing more than target for submarines and carrier-based aircraft.

>>2817593
The New Orleans' early AA consisted of 8 single mount 5 inch guns and some 50 cals. It was only after extensive modifications which overloaded the ship that made the AA superior to Takao. Maneuverability and agility don't matter for shit in surface war fare. Ships don't move around and shoot unless they're of Iowa class or similar displacement.The 2-3 knot advantage was a much bigger deal in the long run. Takao's fire control was decent enough to take out heavy cruisers in night battles

>>2817637
Yamato was better in almost every way relating to surface combat. She had better guns, better armor, and better survivability due to a greater displacement. Iowa had superior fire control, but her mechanical accuracy was inferior since US doctrine focused on wide spreads to ensure a hit if the FCS missed. AA is a non factor in surface combat, and agility in a 50000 ton battleship isn't going to provide any tactical benefit

>>2817650

Yeah, but Iowas were carrier escorts. So if there is an Iowa around, well, time to start running cause you're about to have like a bazillion planes up your ass.

>>2817038
Is that real footage?

>>2817664
That doesn't make it superior to the Yamato. It makes the carriers superior to the Yamato. The Iowa was inferior and would have lost a surface fight

>>2817650

>Ships don't move around and shoot unless they're of Iowa class or similar displacement

Uhh, are you implying that ships did not shoot while sailing at speed?

>>2817687
I'm implying ships don't move back and forth dodging shells and shooting like in video games

>>2817678

Doesn't matter because the Iowa had a solid 6 knot advantage in top speed. An Iowa would never end up in a fight against Yamato unless it was under favorable circumstances, such as having numerical superiority. In any unfavorable circumstance, the Iowa and simply disengage and say sianara.

>>2817704
If it can't fight then it's obviously an inferior ship and cannot match the greatest battleship ever built

>>2817690

That's exactly what USN ships could do, since their fire control systems were gyro stabilized and their turret's traverse was slaved to the fire director.

The destroyers at Samar were capable of trading accurate fire with the Japanese ships while taking evasive maneuvers.

Ship maneuverability is not useful in a battle line because of the need to coordinate. It is useful when the ships come under air attack and need to dodge torpedoes/dive bombers.

>>2817712
>an engagement type that literally never happened between the classes is obviously the best metric to compare them with.

>>2817712

How can it be "greatest" if it can't even catch its prey? That's like a lion that is too slow to hunt moose.

>>2817720
>the purpose of the class is not the best metric to compare them

>>2817723
The concept of the fleet in being would force the Iowa to cede control of the seas if it could only run away

>>2817729
>>the purpose of the class is not the best metric to compare them
But that's wrong you retard. Literally and objectively wrong in the case of the Iowa class

>The concept of the fleet in being would force the Iowa to cede control of the seas if it could only run away
Not "my" half of the response, but no, that's wrong and stupid as well. A fleet in being, by definition, never controls anything. It forces enemies to bunch up and not spread out if it's working, for fear of engaging the fleet if it sorties and loses. That is not applicable to the Iowa class, for reasons that should be obvious.

>>2817729

These large battleships were essentially an anarchism at this point. Neither Iowa nor Yamato should have been built. But if we MUST compare them, then yes, the Yamato would certainly win in a direct engagement, but the Iowa is still better overall by virtue of being more versatile. The Yamato didn't even have high-explosive shells.

>>2817754
>The Yamato didn't even have high-explosive shells.
The Type 3 was a high explosive shell, or at least could be used in the role. Kongo and Haruna put Henderson field out of action with those shells after all

>>2817750
If the Yamato was bearing down on troop transports, would the Iowa's superiority be able to protect them? Of course not, so her role as an escort would fail. A lion that's too slow to hunt a moose could go for its young and force the moose to interfer

>>2817776
>I STILL have no idea what the concept of a fleet in being is, so I bring up something 100% irrelevant.
Try again, retard. And the reverse is also true. If the Iowa is attacking a section of sea the Japanese control, the Yamato's sluggishness means that every ship that isn't right under its guns is dead on the water; which in practice controls a hell of a lot more sea space.

>>2817776
Good luck on hoping the Yamato actually lands a hit at range.

You people know that in a battle lucks defines all?

The Hood was sink by one very lucky shell

>>2817789
Yamato put a type 91 under Gambier Bay at 31km so I don't see the problem with that
>>2817787
The Yamato wouldn't be too slow to fucking respond to an attack considering the Japanese had radar and planes and the ability to spot a fucking battleship moving in. A 6 knot advantage doesn't mean shit if the Iowa's target is close the Yamato, which is also capable of a decent 27 knots. The Yamato would be able to force a fight in the same manner a lion could push a cheetah away from a kill

>>2817807
A single shell into a target that is barely moving.

Not very impressive. IIRC even her Captain noted the poor results from her gunners.

File: CV-6 Enterprise.jpg (544KB, 1186x770px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 1186x770px

>>2817750

He's right in that the Yamato-class battleships were meant to be capstone of the "decisive battle" doctrine (Kantai Kessen). They were meant to destroy the USN in one final apocalyptic battleship vs. battleship slugfest, where their large guns and thick armor would enable them to crush the opposition with relative ease. The problem is that the USN knew that this was the plan, and thus did everything in their power to avoid having battleship vs. battleship slugfests except in situations where they had supremely favorable conditions, such as they did at Surigao Strait. Carriers were the new center of the fleet, and battleships got relegated to being glorified AA platforms. This right here is what y'all should be talking about. The Japanese were so desperate to kill this thing, they prematurely announced its sinking on three separate occasions.

>>2817829
A shell under a ship moving at 19 knots from 31 kilometers is impressive considering the Gambier Bay is smaller than a light cruiser

>>2817807

"Decent" speed doesn't matter if you can't keep up with the thing you're trying to kill. Let's be generous and say that the Iowa has a top speed of 32 knots whereas the Yamato has a top speed of 27 knots. That's still a 5 knot advantage. The Iowa will never have to engage the Yamato unless conditions are favorable. The Iowa is free to engage, and disengage, at will.

>>2817853
It's free to disengage and let the Yamato go kill transports at its leisure

You don't build battleships to run away

Not even the French did that, seeing how all of their turrets are in the front

>>2817729

It wouldn't cede sea control because by 1940, sea control was established by carriers. If the Yamato wants to challenge sea control it has to chase down the carriers, which guess what, it can't do.

>>2817863
I'm sure the six fleet carriers of the Japanese navy could do that for the Yamato instead. The Americans had four fleet carriers in total around this time if I recall

>>2817807
>The Yamato wouldn't be too slow to fucking respond to an attack considering the Japanese had radar and planes and the ability to spot a fucking battleship moving in.
So, you mean that the Yamato isn't going to be the one protecting their own shit, it's going to be airplanes, which the Iowa is actually far better suited to defend itself against.

>A 6 knot advantage doesn't mean shit if the Iowa's target is close the Yamato, which is also capable of a decent 27 knots.
Still not understanding the whole "control the sea-lanes" thing. The Japanese had a lot of merchant vessels. Here's a list of just the ones that got sunk.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/JANAC-Losses-4.html

The Yamato can't protect everything at once, unless you line up the entire merchant marine into a mega-convoy clustered around the big ship. The faster Iowa can threaten more things simultaneously than the Yamato can defend, and consequently, controls more of the sea.

>>2817842
One single hit. One. 1.

From the ship that was supposed to be the king of the BBs. The more one looks at that battle the more one is inclined to put it down to sheer luck.

>>2817861

>Using the Yamato to raid convoys

Bad idea. Convoys frequently had destroyers acting as escorts.

>>2817871

>The Americans had four fleet carriers in total around this time if I recall

Gentle nudge that the exact numbers are listed here:

>>2816966

>>2817872
A nation with ten carriers at the start of the war could easily track down one 50000 ton battleship. Surface commerce raiders were not effective against aircraft carriers
>>2817873
I only talk about the one hit because it was at range. Yamato scored several hits according to Reynolds, Garzke and Dulin. Sank the Gambier Bay as well. The Iowa sank one light cruiser of less tonnage and less speed than Gambier Bay, and the rest of the Iowa class didn't do shit
>>2817881
How many in the Pacific? I also didn't count Japan's 4 other light carriers, 3 of which were combat worthy enough to add to the tally.

>>2817876
Imagine a DESRON of Fletchers vs the Yamato!

>>2817807
>Yamato put a type 91 under Gambier Bay at 31km
[citation seriously needed]

>>2817884
>A nation with ten carriers at the start of the war could easily track down one 50000 ton battleship. Surface commerce raiders were not effective against aircraft carriers
Remember how we're comparing the Yamato and the Iowa? And how you're moving the goalposts massively? And how if we're allowing for CVP interference for the Iowa's attacking convoys, we can do the same for the Yamato's hypothetical attack on a military convoy?

How do you manage to dress yourself?

>>2817884
>rest of the Iowa class didn't do shit

Shot down Japanese aircraft and shelled Japanese defenses as well as the holy home islands of Japan itself.

>>2817891
The World Wonder'd: What Really Happened Off Samar by Robert Lundgren

>>2817900
If we go back to Iowa vs Yamato, then the Yamato could sail to fucking Hawaii and conquer the damn thing. Point is the Yamato could do whatever the fuck it wanted throughout the Pacific without the Iowa being able to challenge. The Yamato has freedom to run anywhere it wants, and the Iowa's only merit is that it is faster. Ships also have cruising speeds of around 15-16 knots, and most of the time they would be traveling this fast. Scout planes from the Yamato could keep track of the Iowa unless it's always racing at full speed and burns through all of its fuel.

>>2817913
>Point is the Yamato could do whatever the fuck it wanted throughout the Pacific without the Iowa being able to challenge

Hysterically funny stuff here.

>>2817914
Is running away a new form of challenging your enemy? Some Justin Trudeau shit going on here

>>2817913
>If we go back to Iowa vs Yamato, then the Yamato could sail to fucking Hawaii and conquer the damn thing.
No, it can't. Battleships can't take land territory, retard.

>Point is the Yamato could do whatever the fuck it wanted throughout the Pacific without the Iowa being able to challenge.
No, that isn't the point. Your (retarded) claim was that the "fleet in being concept" would enable the Yamato to chase away the Iowa, completely ignoring what the Fleet in Being concept is, why it can't apply to two ships cruising the ocean, and why that's a meaningless measurement anyway. The Iowa's speed (and superior range) means it can cover more sea more efficiently, while the Yamato can never actually engage it. If they're both going a pirating, the Iowa will catch and sink more crap. If the Yamato tries to shadow the Iowa, it will never catch it. Your mother and father were very likely brother and sister, and I am done responding to your twaddle.

>>2817921
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm

>>2817913
Naming a title isn't providing a source. Come on, there were a bunch of AARs of the battle off samar. Which one shows those characteristic 18" hits?

>>2817931
Thanks for posting a shitty opinion from before this millenium
>>2817929
If you're actually arguing that the Iowa can control the seas better than the Yamato through its power to run away, then you're actually fucking braindead

>>2817921
State of the art FC combined with better overall crew training vs optics with a crew that can't even handle damage control outside of a few specialists.

>>2817936
They are are rather much versed in naval matters than you are.

>>2817941
The world's best optics could easily compete with radar guided FCS
>>2817945
You can't seriously say that when the Yamato is given an armor rating of 10 for having a 16" armor belt and 9" of deck armor and the Iowa a 9.5 for having 4 inches less belt and 3 inches less deck armor

>>2817861
>Yamato go kill transports at its leisure
are you retarded?

>>2817953
>The world's best optics
source?

>>2817953
Congrats, you've given the Bismark-boos a mighty competition. It was all for the best that the Yamato went down via air attack. Would have been a true shame to go under under after being pummeled by a bunch of antique 2nd line battleships off Okinawa.

>>2817983

You mean Surigao, because the battleships that were sent to kill the Yamato at Okinawa were all post 1940 ships.

File: 1472467749820.jpg (43KB, 446x456px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 446x456px

>>2816884

>>2818103
Idaho, New Mexico, Tennessee, West Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado.

They were ordered to prepare for a surface action vs Yamato. I have a file somewhere with the info pertaining to the BBs and their cruiser/destroyer support. The track Yamato would have took would have put her in the Okinawa area right at the time of day when visibility was going down and radar would have been really needed.

bumping the fleet

>>2817385
Damn did you get salty over those long lances exploding.

>>2817203
Leaving aside the fact that this would never happen because the US wasn't going to stand aside and do nothing whilst Japan casually took over SE Asia, and it was the US embargo that was strangling Japan's raw material supplies, it still probably doesn't end in Japan's favour. By Feburary 1942 when everything had more or less gone their way and they were poised next to Australia, they had about 3 divisions available for an invasion, if they wanted to go ahead with it (which they didn't plan to. They'd already discarded the idea in favour of just isolating Australia). Australia at that point had 25 home militia divisions which, whilst obviously no-where close to the quality of a battle-hardened IJA division, would none-the-less have given a decent account of themselves, doubly so on home soil. Plus you had the Australia divisions coming back from the Middle East, though I'll allow that the IJN could potentially intercept and stop those forces coming back.

Now that's without taking account of supplies. Japan didn't start the war with a huge merchant fleet, but resupplying an invasion of the East coast of Australia would have been difficult even without opposition due to the distances involved. I think you'd see the Japanese make strong initial gains, but they'd get bogged down eventually in greater and greater numbers of Australian troops. Bear in mind too that there was a colossal divide between the IJA and IJN, so don't expect many re-enforcements.

>>2817475
With armor and guns barely equal to rebuilt Renown and American large cruisers.

>>2818166

> Around 10:00 on 7 April, Task Groups 58.1 and 58.3 (TG 58.1 and 58.3) began launching almost 400 aircraft in several waves from eight carriers (TG 58.1: Hornet, Bennington, Belleau Wood, San Jacinto; TG 58.3 Essex, Bunker Hill, Hancock and Bataan) that were located just east of Okinawa... After being informed of Mitscher's launches, Spruance agreed that the airstrikes could go ahead as planned. As a contingency, Spruance ordered Admiral Deyo to assemble a force of six battleships (Massachusetts, Indiana, New Jersey, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Missouri), together with seven cruisers (including the large cruisers Alaska and Guam) and 21 destroyers, and to prepare for a surface engagement with Yamato should the airstrikes prove unsuccessful.

File: working torpedos.jpg (71KB, 800x631px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x631px

>>2817385

Certainly looks that way.

File: 110317_obama_laugh_ap_283_regular.jpg (13KB, 523x283px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 523x283px

>>2817913

>If we go back to Iowa vs Yamato, then the Yamato could sail to fucking Hawaii and conquer the damn thing.

>>2816865

What's the difference between standard displacement, normal displacement, light displacement, and full load displacement?

>>2819367
>standard displacement
A Washington Naval Treaty term that specifies ship's displacement in full war load but without fuel or reserve water.
>normal displacement
Ships displacement when fully outfitted and with two thirds of supposed supplies&ammo&etc. aboard.
>light displacement
Ships displacement without fuel, cargo, crew, etc.
>full load displacement
Ships displacement with when it is loaded to the point of its maximum allowed draft.