Yamato really the greatest ship?

>>30520409
Naval history isn't my forte but I wouldn't call it the final evolution. Despite its impressive dimensions it had many shortcomings compared to contemporary classes.
It was a beautiful fucking class though. Would have loved to walk the decks of one of them.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x480px

Yamato is a big bote! Respect Yamato!

File: image.jpg (279KB, 968x1033px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 968x1033px

>>30520419
I'm building an RC version it's impressive to be sure.

I don't know why some of the guns failed to fire at the declared RPM if elevation was too high or too low but the crowding of the central citadel with AA guns did nothing to prevent its destruction sadly

File: throw weight.png (864KB, 907x1300px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 907x1300px

>>30520409
It wasn't. It's FCS was still reliant on optical means which while great for optics, were simply outdated when radar on the old Colorado class built in the 1920s was able to effectively blindfire targets beyond visual range, track its own shells going out and correct follow on shots.

It's AA armament was also woeful for a ship built post '35, especially considering its tonnage. A USN Fletcher class DD was able to provide more effective AA fire than the Yamato could thanks in part to dual purpose guns and radar fire direction. A USN CL of the era could pump out more AA throw weight than the Yamato could as well.

>>30520409
>It's apparently accepted that the IJN Yamato is was the final evolution of the Battleship
It wasn't.

If any ship was it was... I don't know - I'd bet on Iowa or Richelieu and both of those had planned successors to weed out some problems and tech limitations they've faced.

Yamato had poor FCS and it seems that Japanese damage control protocols were either flawed or completely nonexistent, on top of it it had poor AA armament.

>>30520444
>I'm building an RC version
Please film it attacking some ducks. For military science.

>>30520451
Also, shockingly enough, not a single HE shell was ever produced for the Yamato, once again reinforcing the split between the IJN and IJA where the IJN didn't give a single fuck about supporting the Army.

>>30520451
Yamato had radar FCS later in the war.

>>30520409
"Yamato" is a really cool name to me, just my 2 cents

>>30520459
Do not attack the ducks. They didn't nothing wrong, poor DDs.

>>30520409
I only like it when its flying.

Don't even bother making a thread about the IJN on /k/ unless your purpose was to get meme-filled confirmation of your own gook bias.

File: image.jpg (146KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1280x1024px

>>30520451
I always took the use of spotter aircraft to correct its fire to be enough

They did slap on shit tons of AA as the war progressed but still it couldn't help the general shit tier air Defense training.

>inb4 weeaboo

I just find the ship facinating

File: image.jpg (14KB, 517x135px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 517x135px

>>30520459
Sure why not pic related it's the model

>>30520442
UUUU

>>30520469
No, it did not.

>>30520469
I never heard of this
Any sources would be appreciated

>>30520477
>I always took the use of spotter aircraft to correct its fire to be enough
Not after the 30s it wasn't. I mean you could do a lot with good optical gunnery and spotter aircraft but it wasn't ever going to match radar controlled firing and gun laying.

>>30520477
>I just find the ship facinating
Nah, there is definitely something fascinating about it. Despite /k/ being quick to call people weaboos or wehraboos it's pretty common to have an interest in something without blowing it's volatility and effectiveness all out of proportion. It's just interesting.

File: Officers of the Yamato.jpg (2MB, 6588x4878px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6588x4878px

>>30520409

>>30520493
combinedfleet.com

>>30520477
>I always took the use of spotter aircraft to correct its fire to be enough

It's something at least. It's nowhere near as accurate as radar though. The Iowa class for example was able to track the first round that it fired, and adjust the fire from the subsequent gun salvo that followed a fraction of a second later, something that is simply impossible with optical means. Not to mention having radar enables effective night fighting. USS Washington was able to get within 8500 yards of Kirishima at night while being undetected and only was spotted after it opened fire.

>>30520477
>I always took the use of spotter aircraft to correct its fire to be enough
Not really, no.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar

>>30520487
spotted the retard

>>30520409
it's overrated as fuck.
The yamato was such a waste of fuel that they didn't even use it in most of their naval battles because every second it is moving, it's doing unrecoverable economic damage to japan.
It's a complete piece of shit.

>>30520409
>Sunk in 23 minutes

>>30520509
Out of the three radars that were ever fitted to the Yamato, tell me which of these three do you think were used for fire control:

>Mk 1 Model 3

>Mk 2 Model 1

>Mk 2 Model 2

I seriously want to know which one of these you think was used for fire control.

>>30520527
Just admit that you were fucking ignorant and shut the fuck up.

>>30520528
So which one of those do you think was used for fire control.

>>30520503
The Pinnacle of the concept of Battleships, let down by the time period, technology and resources of the nation that built it.

Despite its massive AA suite, there were major issues with almost all of their AA gun types and at the time thats a major issue for any Battleship.

>>30520497
>>30520507
>>30520508

So already it was nuetered by its own lack of technical progression?

>>30520538
>t. furiously googled Yamato fire control
Just ten minutes earlier you were so confident that Yamato didn't have radar fire control, what happened to that?
Your dumb question can be answered by going on the very sauce I posted earlier which you no doubt checked in the course of becoming a Yamato radar fire control expert in the 10 minutes that passed since you conclusively stated Yamato never had radar fire control.

File: Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 8.45.00 AM.png (12KB, 461x99px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 461x99px

>>30520538
So which stupid fag do you think made this post?

>>30520550
>>30520557
I merely provided a list of radars that were installed upon the Yamato class. Now I want to know which one of them you think was capable of providing fire control when one was an air warning radar, one was a tactical air and surface radar and the last was an improved version. None of which was tied to the fire control system of the Yamato and none were ever designed to be.

The only true FCS radar that was planned for the Yamato was the Mark 3, Model 2. It was never installed.

If you're suggesting that all you need for fire direction is surface detection, then you're woefully ignorant.

>>30520562
Mark 2 Model 2 was a fire control radar you ignorant child.
Now go ahead and cry how it doesn't meet your standard for fire control. Dumb faggot.

File: 1295703644666.jpg (20KB, 221x217px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 221x217px

>>30520508
Whoa what in the fucking fruity ass shit happened to Wikipedia?

Why do faggots have to change perfectly functional and simple layouts and interfaces?

>>30520572
>Mark 2 Model 2 was a fire control radar you ignorant child.

It was not. It was a tactical radar with a range of roughly 35km for surface detection. The Yamato never had a dedicated FCS radar installed. The closest you can come to saying that it did was the Mk 2 was used to give speed and direction to AA gunners during Operation Ten-Go, and it was of limited success as history shows. Now if you want to claim that surface detection can aide in fire control, you'd be correct. However to say that a tactical radar like the Type 22 was for fire control is some grade A bullshit.

>>30520609
>dedicated FCS
Whoa lets see those goalposts moving!
I think I've done enough BTFO your sorry ass, m8. I hope you enjoyed learning some history.

>>30520409

Did the Yamato ever support troop landings with shore bombardment? God speed to anyone who would of had to endure that.

>>30520633
Yes she did partner with another ship to hammer troop ships (just going to find out which as I can't remember specifics)

Although she didn't battle often
It was joked by the crew that there were 3 great structures that had no use
1) pyramids
2) the Great Wall of China
3) The Yamato

>>30520544
technical and material progression

>>30520633
Sorry I misread that
no it did not support the IJA in landing but did attack USN troop landing ships and transports

>>30520613
>goalpost moving

>>30520469
>Yamato had radar FCS later in the war.

A "radar FCS" would imply that the radar is tied into the fire control system, would it not?

You will be searching long and hard to find any mention of the Type 22 (Mark 2 Mod 2) having any direct involvement with main, secondary or AA battery fire. Particularly when it was listed as a surface and air detection radar by the IJN and the Mark 3 was what was specifically defined as radar fire control.

The fact that you mentioned "later in the war" in particular would imply that you're specifically referring to the Mark 3 as the Mk 2s were installed quite early in the Pacific War with the USN, RN and RAN..

So really it's regard as THE FINAL SHIP and Greatest of warships is purely opinion and not truly supported by fact

And it's counterparts in the USN were already way more advanced. Despite being restrained by having to fit through the Panama Canal.

So lessons to learn would be
>FCS radar based
>Greater focus on air defense
>A greater diversity in its armaments

>>30520649
The first two did have uses though.
Tamato I'm not so sure about.

>>30520587
you're using the mobile version of wikipedia numbnuts, change the url

>>30520459
Yeah, I think i found what you wanted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4phT2Vukvn0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4phT2Vukvn0

>>30520698
Are you REALLY going to try and convince WW2 japanese veterans on the effectiveness of the great wall?

You've gotta admit that at the very least, for a non-european country the nips put on a fine naval show. Most of their neighbours couldn't put together a rowboat with a bb gun but the Japanese gave it their all. At least America had an opponent worth a shit.

>>30520676
at the end it already had a focus on its air defense, its just that Japanese AA weapons were in general rather shite, from ~100mms down to the 25mms, from the guns themselves to the mounts.

>>30520737
I see your point.

>>30520727
You mean
https://youtu.be/y6laf3-6IjM

File: image.jpg (528KB, 1280x1600px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1280x1600px

>>30520749
I heard reports they failed to fire at the declared rate if the Elevation was too high or two low plus one gun manned by 7 men (I think) was unifficient

>>30520743
Having an opponent worth a shit implies that Japan had a remote chance of winning the war.

They didn't. The outcome of the war was decided the moment the first bomb landed in Pearl Harbor.

>>30520749
They would have been MUCH better served if instead of simply yanking off old turrets from the Mogami they instead built dual purpose guns like the US did. The 5" DP guns the USN used were absolutely fantastic and their ability to throw out effective AA fire cannot be understated. In comparison to the 5" DPs, the the guns from the Mogami ended up being dead weight that saw almost no use.

>>30520782
some of the larger turret mounts had difficulty in traversing and elevating.

temperature management for the high RoF guns was terrible (tech and materially) so they either restricted the RoF or suffered from terrible wear on the barrels themselves stopping accurate and voluminous fire as well adding more to the logistics.

the larger 100mm were known to have extreme durability issues needing barrel replacements after ~100-120 shots and AA Defense DDs were armed with these gus too with spare barrels for continuous usage during battle (swaps during battle)

>>30520805
I disagree. For a nation that a few scant decades ago was still running around playing feudal sword games to prowling through the pacific with contemporary warships I think they did a surprising job.

I'm not a weeb, I fully acknowledge the disastrous decisions they made including the ridiculous separations of logistics and design between navy and army. I just think they deserve a little credit for their industriousness and ingenuity.

File: tfw.jpg (158KB, 775x1000px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 775x1000px

>>30520849
>(swaps during battle)

Jesus

>>30520859
MG42's had spare barrels for that too, although they could swap barrels within 10s rather than what it would take for dual 100mm barrel swaps

File: 1413480625204.jpg (21KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 625x626px

>>30520866
swapping barrels for small arms is very different than swapping barrels for what could be considered artillery

>>30520866
It's a difference of size. You can swap out a barrel of the MG42 with a glove. Replacing a barrel of a cannon, at sea, without a crane, during battle is a horrifying proposition.

>>30520409
No.

>>30520893
>>30520888

yes

File: image.jpg (150KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 960x720px

>>30520849
God in heaven
Shamefur disrpray

File: Yamato_explosion.jpg (250KB, 590x698px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 590x698px

>>30520409
>It's apparently accepted that the IJN Yamato is was the final evolution of the Battleship and if it hadn't have arrived so late (post air carrier revolution) it would have decimated any opponent.

fuck off weeb

>>30520975
>Fails to read thread and my own comments

welcome to the thread your a little late for shit posting

>>30520975
thats exactly the constructive sentiment i expect of /k/ in any thread discussing any nation specific weapons or technology

>>30520992
Yea I suppose having been on /k/ as long as I have, I should have expected fuck witts contributing crap but to be fair 67 replys without a shit post was pretty good.

And I've even got new sources to look at to compliment my model and other literary works so I got what I wanted

>>30520707
>mobile version
What is this faggotry? I've never had a phone with internet on it. Why has the world changed around me to be full of shit?

>>30520633
>>30520649
No, she didn't. The only notable actions she was involved were Battle off Samar and Ten-Go, wherein she accomplished little.

Reminder that the japanese laxed promiximity AA fuses, something that greatly enhanced us aa weapon effectiveness.

>>30520749
The 100mm guns/mounts on the Akizuki-class DDs were great. Everything else was mediocre at best, especially the 25mm.
>>30520849
>extreme durability issues
It's the price you pay for high muzzle velocity.
Btw navweapons.com gives the 100mm a barrel life of around 350-400 rounds
Also considering that a DD carried on average 150 rounds per gun you seem to be repeating a myth.

File: iowa.png (556KB, 811x746px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 811x746px

>>30520409
Hi!MeがIowa級戦艦、Iowaよ。Youがこの艦隊のAdmiralなの?いいじゃない!私たちのこともよろしく!

File: 016261i.jpg (842KB, 3115x3931px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 3115x3931px

The Yamato was the best World War 1 battleship.
Unfortunately for the Japanese, they were not fighting WW1 in the 1940s. The Americans realized this which is why the Iowa was the ultimate development of the Battleship; balancing firepower (Both for surface and anti-air), speed, maneuverability, and armor. It was not made for fighting a past fight, it was made to fight the present and future.

If you want info on the Yamato and her final mission then read the book "A Glorious Way To Die"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Glorious_Way_to_Die

There's also the movie Men of Yamato, which is romanticized but the effects and showing the ship are well done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_(film)

>>30522061
>it was made to fight the present and future
It was not even completely armored against rounds of it's own gun.
The Iowas were lucky that they never had to fight against a Yamato.

>>30522112
Maybe because the US realized that speed and mobility were vital. The Iowa's most important parts were protected by the citadel, but she wouldn't have to worry about being hit when she could out turn and out run what she was facing. Armor is not the end all factor. Had she and Yamato met, the entire fight would be on the Iowa's terms.

>>30522061
>Unfortunately for the Japanese, they were not fighting WW1 in the 1940s.
I'd argue that this is symptomatic of the entire Japanese fighting system. Their army was perfected for WW1. Their Navy was focused on WW1-type engagements. Their entire lack of protection for merchant vessels is also something that Japan learned from their WW1 experience. They prepared for the last war, not the next one. That went poorly for them.

>>30522192
Japan's navy in particular had a massively inflated sense of superiority from their victory against Russia in 1905. Tsushima went so well for them that their entire naval aim became "Build big battleships, encounter enemy battleships, force decisive battle and win".
You're right that they did prepare for WW1 style fighting, as did pretty much every other nations besides Germany. Even the US did and it's clear from their battleship designs up to the Colorado class (And from much more, but this is a naval thread). The biggest difference is that the US learned quickly and Japan did not; then when they finally did get the hint it was far too late.

>>30522181
>Had she and Yamato met, the entire fight would be on the Iowa's terms.
>but she wouldn't have to worry about being hit when she could out turn
>out turn
>turn
Stop! Now!
During the war the capabilities of the Yamato were largely unknown to the USN.
The skipper of Iowa would think he is facing a battleship with 16in guns and most likely close the range to less than 20k yards.
You can see why that might not end so well.
>>30522242
Pretty much this. Ironically the IJN was quite at the forefront of naval aviation but failed to realize it's importance too late.

>>30521120
The link you followed was to the mobile version of the site. Presumably whoever posted that link was on a phone/tablet.

>>30522242
>The biggest difference is that the US learned quickly and Japan did not; then when they finally did get the hint it was far too late
I'd say it's more that the Japanese didn't have the same resources as the US. The Japanese simply didn't have enough resources to produce new warships quickly and efficiently so they couldn't build new designs that capitalized on the lessons they learned. On the other hand, the US was basically pumping out escort carriers, transports, and submarines every month

>>30520508
My grandfather was a 40mm gun mount commander on the USS Gambier Bay, that battle always gets me so hard.

>USS White Plains scoring 6 hits with her single 5" gun and helping sink a cruiser
>Samuel B Roberts getting so close to CAs that they can't depress their guns to shoot back.
>Yamato running away because of one torpedo run
>Carrier planes dropping ground bombs and doing dry gun runs to try and save their own ships

>Halsey being a massive fucking fuck and disobeying orders, making my grandpa sit in a life net for 2 days with shrapnel wounds
>And also preventing a matchup between the Iowa's and Yamato.

>>30520855
I think after the Russo-Japanese War it's hardly fair to call Japan's military prowess suprising. That was the war where they showed that they could take on European powers.

>>30522242
>"Build big battleships, encounter enemy battleships, force decisive battle and win".
Not exactly that. There was a big focus on decisive action, to be sure, but that wasn't just seen in their love of battleships. The way their destroyers and cruisers were set up makes this very clear. The DDs were clearly torpedo boats, and damn good ones. They focused much more on that aspect, as can be seen by the astounding leap which was the Hibiki-class. Cruisers have the same treatment, with one exception. Many of them had quite large scout plane facilities, in order to find the enemy for the decisive battle to occur. This was important, as the Japanese didn't like to weaken the DECISIVE striking power of their carriers by using its planes as scouts. This is in contrast to the Americans, whose dive bombers are even kindly labeled as Scout-Bombers.

> Even the US did and it's clear from their battleship designs up to the Colorado class
The Colorado class was designed in WW1. The first one was laid down DURING WW1. So it's not a case of fighting the last war, but rather the one they were currently in.

Now, there are certainly many things which indicate the US as preparing to fight WW1 again, but I would argue that this was the least true for the USN. Their series of Fleet Problems were quite influential.

>>30520670
Wea-tards don't care about history mate. Theyre too busy masturbating to anime boat girls.

>>30522279
I see no reason to think why any captain of a battleship would get that close without good reason. Iowa had radar and could spot Yamato long before Yamato spotted her. Iowa would know something big and slow was coming and could take position to counter it. The Battle of The Surigao Straight demonstrate what happens when radar-equipped battleships encounter those that do not have radar.
If it came to a point blank duel, Yamato would win. But that is an absolutely unrealistic scenario.

>>30522381
>>Halsey being a massive fucking fuck and disobeying orders
This is wrong. This is very wrong. Halsey thought the straight was covered by the other fleet. The other fleet thought it was covered by Halsey. It was just miscommunication. It happens when you lack unity in the chain of command, and such unity is nearly impossible to achieve on something that scale.

>>30521592
She hit no surface ships but did run from a destroyer and then her and her combined fleet of cruisers and destroyers managed to shoot down...8 aircraft at the cost of all but 2 destroyers.

I suppose that's a better record than what Musashi had, but damn. USS Alabama did more than that.

>>30522112
Except it was, albeit at expected engagement ranges, not point blank slugfests.

>>30522422
Even that's pretty questionable. Iowa's shells would rip through Yamato's armor pretty easily at close range, so it'd all come down to fire control.

>>30522436
Halsey was a hot-headed moron that acted purely on feeling. In some cases it worked. In other cases, it sailed himself right into typhoons.

In the case of Task Force 34, he chased the Japanese Northern Force for no reason. Surely he could have maintained his position and scouted the fleet without taking his entire fleet. I fail to see how BBs would have been effective in a carrier engagement even if he DID engage a fully prepared fleet.

Furthermore when Nimitz sent his message "Where is TF34 the world wonders" he screamed and shouted, ripped his hat apart, and sat still for a whole hour and claimed to be "refueling his ships" while Taffy 3 fought for its life and Kincaid and Sprague were begging for assistance.

Furthermore, as head of the rescue effort, a flag US admiral failed to realize that TIDES were a thing, and hundreds of men died because his rescue was centered in the wrong area.

At least the Navy saw sense and unlike many WWII admirals Halsey only had one vessel named after him instead of a class of vessels. Its disgusting that his name is remembered but heroes like Adm. Sprague died young and forgotten.

>>30520505

Does dark versus white clothing denote any difference?

>>30522516
>Surely he could have maintained his position and scouted the fleet without taking his entire fleet.
He COULD have, but he thought the only straits they could go through were covered, and in any case thought that the Center Force had been turned back already. With that in mind, he sees the last remaining major Japanese carriers in the entire Pacific right there. Believing there is no threat anywhere else, and if there was, the invasion fleets were protected anyways, he goes out to finish off the Japanese fleet. So, with the information that he knew, he made the correct decision. Unfortunately, miscommunication led to the Strait being unguarded. That is not Halsey's fault. You, on the other hand, can't seem to believe that. You're so desperate to latch on to his failures that you can't see how it actually went down.

>>30520451
Don't forget that it also lacked the massive advantage of Remote Power Control tied into the FC. US ships sported this feature even on 40mm mounts; it was probably the greatest advance of the war.

>>30522181
>, but she wouldn't have to worry about being hit when she could out turn and out run what she was facing.
So that's why CL and CA were known killers of those old WW1 style super-dreadnaughts, right?

I wouldn't deny that the Iowas were vastly better and a smarter design but naval warfare didn't really work that way. Either way while her armor might not have been enough to stop 18" shells at close range her armour scheme and quality were better than the Yamato's.

>>30520477

>They did slap on shit tons of AA as the war progressed but still it couldn't help the general shit tier air Defense training.

At it's best, the Yamato only had like 1/3 the AA throw weight of the Iowa class ships, and the American AA equipment was better in every way even before you get to the crew. Higher velocity 5" dp guns, VT proximity fuses, better fire direction and fire control computers, better smaller guns like the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40

The Yamato was boned from the start.

>>30522192
IJN was basically built around
>we are pray for our own Jutland!

>>30520506
>combinedfleet.com
Are we talking about this
>http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
in depth comparison of 7 WWII BB designs? If so, here's what it had to say about the Yamato and radar directed FC (not to mention the lack of any RPC), and the virtues of radar vs optical FC in general:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm
>Fire Control: Radar - Limited FC (as opposed to blindfire)
>The bottom line is that, after 1943 or so, having the world's best optical fire-control systems was largely irrelevant. The night battle between Washington and Kirishima near Savo pretty much settled the point; good radar usually beats good optics in a stand-up fight. And the radar used by Washington off of Guadalcanal was not as good as the sets fitted aboard Iowa.

cont.

>>30520506
>>30523720
>Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.) The bottom line is, then, that the Allied vessels, and particularly Iowa and South Dakota, would enjoy an enormous advantage in gunfire control over their adversaries. She would have the ability to lob shells over the visual horizon, and would also perform better in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions.

cont

>>30520506
>>30523720
>>30523735
>The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.

>>30520506
>>30523720
>>30523735
>>30523744
The really important part is:
>>Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions.
>The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.)
This means that radar-informed (not directed as the Mk2.2 Japanese systems was not tied directly into the FC as it was on US vessels) FC still relied on Optical fire director systems for training the mounts, making them useless without the optical component. Even when the weather was clear in daytime, the radars could only assist optical fire direction out to 27,000 yards, which was well within US BB range.

It was not a true radar-directed FC system, but a workaround to make range finding more efficient in some situations.

They were certainly never capably of true blindfire radar-directed gunnery, which, in conjunction with Remote Power Controlled turrets (another crucial system the USN employed which the IJN lacked), made enormous strides in naval gunnery accuracy and shot placement repeatability at all ranges.

>>30520670

Basically this. Yamato's radar could provide limited ranging information, but was not hooked directly into the fire-control directors. It had (arguably) the best optical FCS ever put on a ship, but by 1943 or so that was a pretty moot point. Also, the Yamato used inferior Vickers Hardened steel in her main armor belt instead of proper Krupp Cemented due to Japanese industrial limitations. VH is about 85% as effective as American Class A plate (used in the Iowa's belt armor) so she had 350mm effective belt armor despite it being 410mm thick.

Combine that with the incredible over-the-horizon engagement ability of the radar-guided guns of the Iowa class, the excellent terminal ballistics of the 16''/50 using the super-heavy shell, and the way the Iowa's armor scheme was optimized for deflecting shellfire at long ranges, and the Yamato's edge was far less than her size and cost would otherwise imply.

>>30522969
>Don't forget that it also lacked the massive advantage of Remote Power Control tied into the FC.

Yes, this. The guns were automatically aimed and laid by the fire control system; pretty much one or two men could control the entire battleship's armament, with the men in the turrets doing nothing but reloading them.

>>30523720
Good series of posts.

>>30523869
Indeed. However, I feel the need to add onto your comment regarding the Iowa class' armor. It wasn't just optimized for deflecting, but also for simply breaking the fuse of an incoming projectile so that the shell would not go off, greatly limiting potential damage taken.

>>30523795
>out to 27,000 yards

lel that's almost close enough for the Iowa's secondaries to open up

>>30522279
>The skipper of Iowa would think he is facing a battleship with 16in guns and most likely close the range to less than 20k yards.
Explain then why during the raid on Truk, Iowa and New Jersey opened fire on a destroyer under the maximum range of their guns, scoring two to three straddles while all combatants were maneuvering at high speeds.

>>30526875

That's because they couldn't catch up to Nowaki, who does 37 knots. Iowa and New Jersey started shooting at 30k yards and the range only increased.

>>30520409

The Titanic's twin ship had a more impressive service record than the Yamato.

>>30522566
Whether they're ninja or samurai

>>30520471

It's one of the names for Japan, and possibly the oldest known name for the Japanese homelands. It has deep spritiual significance for the Japanese. Sort of like "Albion" for the Brits but without any quaintness.

>>30527777
Fair point. Then again that only shows these battleships don't really have to close the gap, especially when they know they're about to engage a battleship sized target. As long as they have the firing solution, they're good to go. Same goes for the WeeVee at Surigao strait who got a firing solution at 27,000 yards and opened fire, hitting her target.

>>30527777
The point of that statement was to show that a very small, fast, and maneuverable target could still be straddled numerous times even at the edge of their engagement distances.

>>30528775
>Same goes for the WeeVee at Surigao strait who got a firing solution at 27,000 yards and opened fire, hitting her target.
Not only that, achieving hits IN THE FIRST SALVO.

>>30528837
>Not only that, achieving hits IN THE FIRST SALVO.
And not only that but doing this in the middle of the night, pitch dark.

>>30520409
"West Virginia's radar picked up Nishimura's force at a range of 42,000 yd (38,000 m) and reached a firing solution at 30,000 yd (27,000 m). After tracking the force, at 3:52 am West Virginia fired her eight 16-inch (406 mm) main-battery guns at a range of 22,800 yd (20,800 m) and struck the leading Japanese battleship with her first salvo. Five of her first six salvos struck Nishimura's ships"

>>30528837
>>30528856
Correction, she picked Yamashiro in her scopes at 42,000 yards, got a firing solution at 30,000 yards, and opened fire at 22,000 yards, hitting her target, in the first salvo, in the middle of pitch black night WITH radar sets that are not as good as the ones fitted on Iowa. What more if Iowa and Yamato actually engaged in a battle. Iowa would've picked Yamato up before Yamato even knew she's being tracked already.

Japan should make a full size replica with modern engines and controls. It would make a good tourist attraction and people would pay to take short cruises on it.

>>30520473
Attack the geese instead. nasty little fuckers all.

>>30520409

Nah, BBs still had a long way to go, and had the Arsenal Ship concept not been shot down, they'd have gone farther. The Iowa before she was decommed. for good had a lot of Tomahawks on top of drones being used as spotters.

>>30520743

Why haven't they removed Japan's naval restrictions so Burgerland has another decent navy to discourage China and its rowboat fleet? Unlike the Euro countries, Japan doesn't seem like it's afraid to show some military might.

>>30529952
>Why haven't they removed Japan's naval restrictions so Burgerland has another decent navy to discourage China and its rowboat fleet?
Seems like they're about to.

>>30529882
>Arsenal Ship
Please stop, there is no reason to put that many missiles onto a single boat when a handful of cruisers can do the same job more effectively. We get it. battleships are cool, but that doesn't make them a good idea in the age of missile warfare.

>>30529096
Better yet, It would make a nice hotel.

>>30529952
The JMSDF is larger and more capable in combat than the Royal Navy, while also possessing plenty of land based aircover. Believe me, they aren't overly restricted. There is only one area in which I believe the JMSDF is lacking due to its constitution, and that is that they don't carry the Tomahawk. Still, it's plenty capable, with the Atago and Kongo class destroyers being equivalent to Arleigh Burkes, including having the AEGIS system.

File: kongou dess.jpg (139KB, 670x502px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 670x502px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4ongdjMgfs

Bongo, bongo, bongo, I don't want to leave my Kongou

File: Old King Tut.gif (1MB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 207x207px

>>30520409
>the final evolution of the Battleship

The Yamato was built in 1937 and was not finished until 1942.
Technically it was built before King George V, and was built the same time as the South Dakota class. The Iowa Class blueprint began construction in 1938 but was modified with more AA defense due to the current uses of naval planes. Unlike the other battleships that were to be capital ships, the Iowa was built as a fast Carrier escort to primarily engage Cruisers. I guess since Pearl Harbor the USN made full use of adopting planes as a primary asset to engage the enemy fleet.

The thing is the Yamato class guns were claimed to be bored out 14 inches, and the only ammunition available was APBC. Thinking in terms of WW1 tactics it would have been acceptable, but everyone knew that HCHE worked the best in beyond the horizon battles when angle of impact would have mostly hit the decks or citadels of ships. The Type 96 AA guns were also considered antiquated as they did not even have a fire control computer linked just like the Germans, and the actual AA was considered Duel purpose as primary an Anti Tank gun with a poor record even against tanks. Now this was considered a Flagship, in a new naval strategy to use planes as bombers against ships. When everyone saw that planes did more damage than any ship in any naval war, they built ships that can fend off planes.

File: 12351234612.jpg (330KB, 692x1074px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 692x1074px

>>30522000
I actually got a VPN, set an alarm for 3AM to actually get in.
Then I found out that sunk ships never came back and god damn some ships were sunk.
This went on for over 3 months until I realized non of my ships would never break level 20 or clear area 2 at this rate.
People actually paid money, to lose a ship that was (fated) to exceed level cap to events.

Now I just use the doujins as fap material or something to warm my heart.

>>30522112
Was any battleship with a good argument immune to its own guns? I highly doubt that.

File: USS_Alaska_(SSBN-732).jpg (72KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x400px

>>30530021

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

In a real engagement, cruisers would go down faster than battleships; probably sooner with modern aircraft.

Subs are where it's at.

Yamato was a cool ship.

My favourite part was when they attached floaters to it to raise the draught (?) and sailed it up the rhine

>>30531645
.......wh.....what?

>>30531508
I can not beleive you used a close quarters slug fest from 1916 to try and guess what would happen in a modern fight, 100 years later. Only one aircraft was involved in Jutland, the Short 184. Effective AA armament wasn't a thing.

>>30531645
Strike Witches please...

>>30524146
>breaking the fuse
How the heck does that work?

>>30533716
It doesn't. What he meant was breaking off the armor penetrating cap on the shell, or angling so the cap won't "dig in" and penetrate. In either case, the shell does not penetrate the armor and either deflects without detonating or detonates against the armor, not behind it.

File: 1465144597303.jpg (9KB, 171x211px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 171x211px

>>30520409
>Yamato really the greatest ship?


Its on the ocean floor so i'd say no

>>30520409
>It's apparently accepted that the IJN Yamato is was the final evolution of the Battleship and if it hadn't have arrived so late (post air carrier revolution) it would have decimated any opponent.
>any battleship doing anything meaningful other than sitting in a drydock
Battleships in the first decades of the 20th century had the same role nukes had in cold war: deterrence. However, unlike nukes, when deployed they sucked so much they were hardly used at all. An italian rowboat with torps on its sides managed to sink the Austro-Ungarian BB flagship in 1918; BBs were outdated the day they were conceived.

Still, they looked insanely good and put up a great show for sure.

>>30531508
>Cruisers are defenseless against aircraft because a bunch of cruisers got sunk by battleships 100 years ago before anybody even considered putting AAA on a boat.

>>30520409
USS New Jersey and her sister ships all outclassed that piece of Jap Shit.

>>30530312
Oh no-no no no no!

>>30534203
Battleships were constantly used in war. Nukez, not so much. Read a book, nigger.

File: 0 (2).jpg (294KB, 847x1221px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 847x1221px

>>30535405
Ho Ho~

Battleships were just the naval equivalent of heavy tanks. They were built to take a lot of incoming fire and return in kind.

But with the advent of the aircraft carrier and improvements in submarine torpedoes they became obsolete. Aircraft bombs could easily penetrate the thin decks of battleships rendering the thick side armor useless. Torpedoes had enough power and range to create holes below the waterline while remaining out of range of a battleships main guns.

Battleships were essentially the trump card of WWI era naval tactics. Aircraft carriers were the trump card of WWII era naval tactics.

>>30520409

No, even the Musashi, her sister ship, was better. But the best ships are the Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers, because if they weren't, it wouldn't make any sense to build them.

>>30535711
I don't think ant torpedo came within a prayer of outranging a BB main guns but you are welcome to provide evidence.
Not to mention you would never hit anything even if a torpedo was good for 25 miles.

>>30520409

Oh and don't forget that the Yamato, Kongou and Nagato got run out of a battle by a hand full of tin can destroyers and jeep carriers. In the same battle, the cruiser Chokai got sunk by the deck gun on a jeep carrier. Not even the actual airplanes, but the fucking deck gun that they decided to put on the White Plains just in case.

>>30535802
There is zero evidence that an escort carrier sank the Chokai with its gun, nor is that narrative found outside of a sensationalist pop history book whose express purpose is to play up the USN sailors role in that battle.

>>30535711
In total war where all resources are committed, focusing on defense is a losing strategy. One months heavy tank is a tin can to the next month's new penetrator. If you designed armor that would defeat it, you couldn't field it in the time it takes to outclass it with a bigger better munition. That goes for tanks, PPG, and capital ships alike

>>30522402
>>30522242
>Even the US did
Except for the part where the US was already shifting to a carrier heavy navy by the time the Nips bombed Pearl Harbor.

>>30535898
Your post reminds me of something interesting; all the carriers in the U.S. Pacific Fleet were underway when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Had this been different the war would have gone on their terms rather than ours.

>>30535995
For a while. Remember the Pacific Fleet was dwarfed by the Atlantic Fleet.

>>30536033
Not even close. PacFleet was the greater of the two in terms of capital ships.

>>30535995
>>30536033
Only very shortly, they would have rushed all new production straight to the Pacific to fill in the gaps, the Nips might have had 3-6 months of reprieve before they started getting pushed back hard.

>>30536091
>>30536033
Atlantic fleet was mostly escorts for merchant shipping and subs for hunting Uboats.

>>30536128
Yes, and? At no point in or leading up to WW2 did the Atlantic Fleet dwarf the PacFleet, not even in terms of destroyers.

>>30536118 again
To add, there was somebody that posted a time table a while back of production rates and fleet strengths that did the math on the carriers being in port during the Pearl Harbor raid resulting in a full loss of the fleet. The numbers came out to show that the end of the war would have been delayed by ~6-8 months at most.

>>30536145
I was agreeing with >>30536091
I was basically saying that the Atlantic fleet wouldn't have been very useful except for maybe diverting some subs to harass.

>>30536176
Ah sorry I thought you were the guy who made the original post.

>>30520409
it doesn't matter. Ships were almost always taken out by a single shell.

If she didn't explode right then and there she would have been scuttled later. Battleships are kinda ehhhh.

Bring back BBs

This thread is really shit.

File: rodney-1935[1].jpg (61KB, 600x376px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x376px

The Rodney was the best class battleship of all time.

File: image.jpg (213KB, 1600x918px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x918px

>>30536533
"No"

>>30536154

Could the Japanese have really done anything in those 6-8 months or would they have been bogged down in New Guinea while getting harassed by Aussies?

>>30536562

Don't ever fucking post to me again.

>>30536562
Oh, they certainly could have gone things.

However, short of pulling an actual Gundam out of their ass, it wouldn't affect the outcome of the war.

>>30535995
Only 2 of the 7 pre-war carriers were in danger of getting hit at Pearl Harbor.

USN still has a fighting chance with 5 carriers and the Essexes underway.

>>30536562
They were stopped at new guinea because of Coral Sea. Now take that away and take away Midway, of course PTO won't happen the same way.

>>30536642
US didn't have 7 useful carriers. The Ranger was incapable of operating in the Pacific and even in the Atlantic completely disabled in even Slightly bad weather.

>>30537038
If they could, they could transfer Ranger. They said she was too slow for Pacific operation but 29.5 knots was still among the faster ships.

And Pacific conditions are better than the Atlantic conditions for carriers.

>>30537205
Ranger was not too slow, it was incapable of launching and retrieving planes in anything but sea state 0. It was not and could not have been transferred. When the USN was desperate for carriers, they asked the Brits for a loan instead of using the Ranger seeing as that was impossible.

>>30537361
Huh, okay then. Still, the 4 hypothetical carriers could still put up a decent fight.

And I don't recall the British lending us carriers. Are you talking about them covering the Solomons for us while the Fast Carrier Task Force with the new Essexes congregated together?

>>30537424
Google USS Robin. Brits loaned us the Victorious and it served with the Third Fleet for a while.

>>30537447
That was the carrier I was thinking of that had patrolled the Solomons while the new Essexes were coming.

Didn't know that they disguised her under the name of USS Robin though.

>>30537494
Robin didn't just cover for the USN, though. it was a USN ship in a USN task force carrying USN air groups under USN chain of command.

>>30537630
Interesting. So was her whole crew replaced by USN sailors and pilots or did her original crew come with her?

>>30531237
You realize that a ship can only be sunk if you go to a new node while they are red, right?

>>30537630
>it was a USN ship
It was crewed by the British and flew the Union Jack.

File: PROOFS.gif (87KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 255x255px

>>30535834

File: yamato on the rhine.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>30531671
He's talking about a scene from the Strike Witches movie.

During the Battle of Leyte a gremlin pops up on Bull Halsey's shoulder and whispers in his ear that Takeo Kurita is sailing through the middle of the philippine archipelago with the Musashi, Yamato and Kongo

Does he break ranks and run at them or does he stay where he's supposed to?

>>30535834
From
>http://www.combinedfleet.com/chokai_t.htm

>At 0851, CHOKAI is taken under 5-inch fire from "Taffy 3" escort carriers and destroyer escort ROBERTS. She receives 6 shell hits to port side amidships, probably from escort carrier WHITE PLAINS (CVE-66).
At 0859, a secondary explosion, probably caused by CHOKAI's own torpedoes on deck, knocks out her engines and rudder. She shears out of formation to port and moves eastward.
After 0905, four TBM-1C "Avengers" from KITKUN BAY’s VC-5 attack a Japanese heavy cruiser (in all likelihood CHOKAI), already being engaged by WHITE PLAINS, using her 5-inch stern gun. Led by Cdr Richard L. Fowler, the "Avengers" score one 500-lb SAP bomb hit to the cruiser’s stern. The pilots observe how the crippled CHOKAI, billowing smoke, begins to slow down. [5]

>>30531237
Kusou as fuck.

>>30538055
>>30538055
>probably hit by white plains
>probably the torpedoes blew up
>we won't say it's because of the hits tho
>also there was a freaking bomb
>dunno which killed the bote
It's not impossible that a CVE sank a cruiser, but your source doesn't sound very confident that it did, and nowhere near as confident as you were based on that vague narrative.

>>30537726
Crew and captain were British, pilots were Americans.

File: 755648c8c5474f82c51ad3b9d1e1f64b.jpg (207KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 800x600px

>>30531237
>>30538264
The kuso-est.

File: 5e9a1e86dde48b55d84fdc45d999477c.jpg (1MB, 1200x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1920px

>>30538335

>>30535711
>while remaining out of range of a battleships main guns.
Not a chance. Maximum range for a Mk14 was about 9000 yds, and even if they could hit anything at that range, the 16"/50 Mk7 on the Iowas could strike out to 24 miles.

>>30531928
>>30535134

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Last I checked, cruisers haven't become any harder to punch a hole through in those last 100 years. A more modern case of a cruiser attempting to take the line of battle and failing. Anything that would destroy a battleship will destroy a cruiser because cruisers are fundamentally a weaker vessel meant to serve the same role at a lesser cost (the Iowas were recommissioned to specifically counter the Kirovs, which make up over 10% of Russia's missile capabilities), especially so since battleships no longer exist.

I'm not battleship fag; I'm smart enough to know that any non-carrier surface vessel larger than a destroyer is a dead-end.

>>30539214
Do you know what the problem with the Falklands was? A lack of AEW aircraft. They couldn't defend themselves because they couldn't see the foe. Despite this fact, two thirds of AShMs shot at the british were defeated by non-kinetic countermeasures, and dozens of Argentine planes were blown out of the sky.

>>30539214

>Last I checked, cruisers haven't become any harder to punch a hole through in those last 100 years.

Active protection, nigga. Lasers, Phalanx CIWS, Aegis ballistic missile defense system; good luck getting your plane through a screen of a dozen cruisers working in unison.

Of course, said technology could be applied to a battleship, and since broadside protection doesn't mean shit anymore it can be degraded to just enough to block the 75 mm that's popular with most ship classes, with the majority of the armor instead being concentrated on the deck and area bellow the waterline. You know, evolve the design.

>>30539455

You do know that if the missile/aircraft manages to bypass the active defensive system it can hit any point of the ship it damn pleases? The only way to armor a ship against missiles is to cover the entire thing in composites, which is retardedly expensive for a single ship that might suffer complications that prevent its use anyway, and is still ultimately vulnerable to torpedoes. There doesn't need to be a battleship because submarines already serve the anti-cruiser role and are less likely to invite costly repairs and maintenence every time they're used, while aircraft/carriers can do shore bombardment just fine.

Cruisers are used...well, they're not really used by any country that isn't the US or Russia.

>>30539535
Your armor is not being hit.

May as well ask here - what is the best naval war film? Not including subs.

>>30520409
>it would have decimated any opponent.

solution: send in allied diver crew of 3-4 men max, with thermite satchel charges, then watch the fireworks

>>30520409
Take Yamato, put Iowa FCS on it.

What happens?

>>30543647
Then you still have a ship that costs too much to deploy to ever leave port, and fires shells with the ballistics of a fucking 18-wheeler.

File: 1467758315627.png (280KB, 664x602px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 664x602px

>>30543716
And there we have it.

>>30537840
Sometimes you get a 20 damage hit during aircraft phase. Sometimes the ship gets hit again during the first turn. Sometimes the enemies just target one ship the entire battle.

File: 19656009890.jpg (406KB, 1334x900px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1334x900px

>>30520409
The Iowa class's superior speed and radar would totally fuck up the overhyped Hotel. And even if they didn't the USN carrier doctrine would still have led to a speedy downfall for the Yamato. I would take the Enterprise's air groups over 1 battleship any day.

So, what came out of the whole Fire-Control radar discussion?

>>30544001
See >>30523795 they pretty much got the last word

>>30543716
Larger shells had better ballistics senpai.

File: 1456037867371.jpg (87KB, 920x614px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 920x614px

>>30543771
The anon you replied to literally just explained to you have sinking works. What are you even trying to say?

>>30522516
He thought he had already decisively beaten Center Force (kill claims were way, way too high), and could go for the trifecta.

He should have left a force behind. CMANO needs a WWII DB so I can play out 2xIowa + escorts vs. Center Force at night.

>>30530030
Rented by the hour, right?

>>30538290
>having to look back at historical events with the only evidence being images and what the crew says
>OMG HOW CAN YOU SAY PROBABLY THIS IS BULLSHIT

And you probably aren't a faggot.

>>30544329
You mean the correct word. The other guy just kept regurgitating 'NO U' the whole time

>>30536154
I think that was somewhere on combinedfleet as well.

>>30544900
I think it's this http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

>>30544886
Not him but doesn't your post invalidate what appears to be your own position, which I assume is that White Plains definitely sank a cruiser with its 5 inch gun? Also what images and crew testimony? None are mentioned in the quoted text about the battle.

>>30544893
What I read was one guy sayig Yamato didn't have radar FCS then later changing his tune to Yamato didn't have modern radar FCS. Probably you.

>>30544912
That's the one.

Good site, I learned a lot from it and from historyanimated.

>>30543518
New Jap Yamato movie.

>>30544975
Not him, but you misread, then.

Yamato:
>had radar
>did not have radar FCS

Radar FCS was planned, but never implemented.

File: rust in pieces.jpg (48KB, 600x320px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x320px

>>30544996
[spoiler] this is how it ends[/spoiler]

>>30545008
Yamato used its radar as a part of its FCS. It wasn't as sophisticated or integrated as the more modern systems but definitely a radar - assisted FCS nonetheless.

>>30545022
Is it gonna be OK?

>>30545022
Omg was any one hurt? What happened?

File: kirov.png (281KB, 3083x1143px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 3083x1143px

I think we all know what the final evolution so far of the battleship type of role really is.

ITT retards who have no clue of naval combat

File: 3cb2df8a6c08603c4529f1842387e88c.jpg (383KB, 900x1063px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 900x1063px

>>30543771
And sometimes, you just need to retreat.

>>30545140
agreed

>>30537447
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victorious_(R38)#Service_with_the_US_Navy

>Victorious was loaned to the US Navy after an American plea for carrier reinforcement. She was not renamed "USS Robin" as sometimes claimed. US carriers used a two-syllable radio call sign, e.g. "cactus", "spartan" ; Victorious used "robin".

>>30545033
No. The only sense in which the radar was "part of the FC" on the Yamato is if you're including all sense-data input devices (optical, radar, sonar, etc) as a "part" of fire control systems, whether they're directly tied in or not.It was radar-assisted Optical Fire Direction. Neither Radar nor Optical were tied into the FC in a direct way. Data was input and calculated manually after shotfall was spotted and then the info to lay in the guns were sent from one of two central FC centers down to the turrets for each individual turret to lay their guns in for the shot. This optical system was changed very little from the way a single gun deck might operate on a ship of the line with a gun deck commander receiving targeting and shot type orders from the captain and that deck commander then instructing his gun captains on which target to shoot at, which shot to use and how to lay the gun in (shoot for rigging, hull, wait for raking shots, etc.). There are artifacts of this naval gunnery system in the British and German Navy as well during WWII.

Only the US directly connected the sensor (radar) to the gun through a closed-loop system. Radar detects targets, target is chosen, option to refine with optics, data is run directly through FC system from the sensors, and the guns are laid in automatically through remote power control - a direct run from the FC to point the guns, with no need for human input or decision cutout during optimal/damage free operation. That is what modern FC is about, and that is why it was such an advantage. The Yamato had no blindfire, very limited range and very poor resolution with the 10cm wavelength. There was simply no way they could match systemic US capabilities in naval gunnery.

>>30547349
Nothing you said contradicts the idea that Yamato used radar for FC though. You are just repeating over and over that Yamato used radar in a more primitive way. Well, no one's denying that.

File: Fabio+Capello1.jpg (37KB, 244x320px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 244x320px

>>30520509

hey its Roger posting from my thinkpad edge e530C

i am an expert on electrical warfare units which includes in certain divisions classes and genuses radar fire control. i can exsplane this to you in a way u will be able 2 understand

AMERICAN FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM HOORAH

basically ford built computers before computers were even invented. the computers could see the radar and calculate where to fire the guns and then keep on recalculating until they sunk the japanese ship or at least hit it, whereupon standard japanese SOP was to destroy there own ship and all committ suicide even if attacked by a destroyer escort on a clear day

JAPANESE FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM CHING CONG POTATOE DINGALINGY DING DONG

worked like this

"Siri, ching chong chingy ding dong" ["the ship is on the horizon 12' NW 13,000 yards"]
"did you say chingy dong ching?" ["the chip is horizontal"]
"NOHYOON Siri! ching chong CHINGY DING DONG!"
"did you say ding dong chingy chong?" ["event horizon dealt with biblical concepts in a postmodern setting, earning a 24% score on metacritic"]

>ship encounters american in row boat
>hasty retreat
>japanese take manual control of FCS
>cant see because slanty eyes
>load timed shell
>takes too long to see target (c above)
>damages ship to mild extent
>everyone dies with honor by killing selves
>ghost ship travels forward in time
>discovered by warren zevon
>he uses it to disappear and take down commercial airliners in south indian ocean

>>30547405
>Nothing you said contradicts the idea that Yamato used radar for FC though.
Oi. Reading comprehension. You should try it. Not even that anon, but I quote: >>30547349
>It was radar-assisted Optical Fire Direction. Neither Radar nor Optical were tied into the FC in a direct way.
>Only the US directly connected the sensor (radar) to the gun through a closed-loop system.

Maybe you should take a minute to actually educate yourself on what a fire control system is.

>>30520444

Declared RPM for a battleship cannon is like stating a rate of fire for a bolt action rifle. It's largely manually operated, so it will differ depending on the personnel manning the gun. Also, the way most main guns are loaded inside turrets on battleships requires the guns to drop to a particular elevation. So if the guns aren't firing at a standard elevation, they have to move the gun back down or up to said elevation.

>>30520409
When optical fire control was the king, the Yamato was the best since the IJN had the best training in that regards. Early engagements the USN spotters were way fucking outclassed by IJN counterparts, leading getting backfooted every engagement by IJN destroyer torpedo runs.

When Japan fell behind in terms of technology, and resources to build, test, implement and refine said technology the Yamato was quickly obsoletized and had nothing to rely on but being 'bigger'. This is in regards to fire control, weapon ballistics, armor composition and distribution, secondary batteries, and AA suite.

Pretty sure SoDak couldve given it more trouble than the disparity in displacement would indicate. Iowa would've fucked it up.

If we put planes into the equation, Yamato is doublefucked.

>>30548564
>Declared RPM for a battleship cannon is like stating a rate of fire for a bolt action rifle. It's largely manually operated, so it will differ depending on the personnel manning the gun. Also, the way most main guns are loaded inside turrets on battleships requires the guns to drop to a particular elevation. So if the guns aren't firing at a standard elevation, they have to move the gun back down or up to said elevation.
Round per minute fired from large bore naval guns is limited by shell/powder elevator speed and hydraulic ram speed at the breech. There is not action in a WWII-era BB where the crew inside the turret are manhandling the actual shells and powder.

In smaller mounts, like the 5" mounts of WWII, there is often a ready locker of rounds available within the turret. The gun crew can often burn through these at a much higher rate of fire before they become dependent on the ammunition elevator for reload and are forced to work at the speed of the elevator. Not all are this way (either no ready locker or the RoF on the gun is not quick enough to matter or the elevator is actually quick, etc) but most were.

>>30545033
>Yamato used its radar as a part of its FCS.

How can you still be clinging to this after having been so thoroughly BTFO?

>>30543647
It still lacks the Iowa's speed, anti-aircraft armament, and is crippled by the Japanese lack of damage control.

>>30549236
>the Japanese lack of damage control.
>damage control
What damage control? I think you mean counter-flooding. This is all the weak-sister scaredy-gaijin "damage control" that is ever needed on glorious nippon ship of destiny.

>>30520409
>designed to counter US numberical superiority with qualitative superiority in fighting qualities
>would have struggled mightily against just one Iowa class, which was only 2/3 the displacement

No.

>>30549296
To be fair, the Iowa was the end result of massive technological improvements and pretty much the pinnacle (as compared to other BBs) of the combined arms naval doctrine - fast, flexible, versatile, strong AA suite, etc.

Considering the older battleships built on quickly-outdated WWI-era naval doctrines, the Yamato was fine, though markedly inefficient.

>>30549355
Just to be clear, the Iowa was laid down only two and a half years after Yamato, and commissioned only two years and two months later.

The South Dakota (about half the tonnage of Yamato) was launched and commissioned about the same time as Yamato, and while SouDak herself had some teething problems with the new electrical systems (more training issues than anything else), I think we'd be very hard pressed to find a naval historian that wouldn't take two SouDaks over one Yamato. Even the South Dakota had 3cm radar directed fire control and remote power control turrets at commissioning in March of '42, along with probably the best armor protection and scheme per ton of any BB ever built. She had roughly equal protection (slightly less on turret face and conning tower) with an Iowa on 15,000 fewer tons. The only drawbacks were having 16"/45 guns instead of 16"/50 (arguable, as plunging fire at range has a better incidence angle) and 4.5 knots slower top speed.

>>30549838
No arguments here, though I'd argue the timeframes are misleading.

Through resource limitations, and a stubborn streak among the Japanese High Command, the Yamato was already outdated the day she was floated.

>>30549913
>the Yamato was already outdated the day she was floated.
Certainly in FC, RPC and AAA. The damage control deficiencies were more doctrinal than technological. I will admit to a lot of curiosity as to how much ground that massive displacement (damage soak, in video game terms if you'll excuse them), armament and slight edge in stability as a gun platform might have made up in, say a one on one fight with an Iowa or two on one against a pair of SouDaks.

>>30549945
i'd wager very little, at least compared to improved fire control. a one-on-one battleship duel is probably the best scenario the Yamato could hope for, and the superior FC suite on the USN battleships puts the Yamato at a significant disadvantage in a fight where one hit can cripple.

Considering speed, the Iowa also has the option of retreating virtually at will, which, considering their superior accuracy at extreme range, is more of an advantage than it might initially seem.

>>30549113
I'm not the guy you argued with literally over 24 hours ago. I do think it's funny that you are so invested in this that you necroed the argument out of nowhere just to get the last word in.

>>30535710
Damn straight I watch that Shit.

>>30539202
>battleship guns
>aiming below water

>>30552108
>this dumbass
>not realizing that battleships had torpedo protection

>>30547405
using radar for assisted fire direction is different from directly tying a radar to your guns for fire direction. The USN used a closed-loop system, something the IJN didn't have.

>>30520409
It's so sad that surface ships are pretty obsolete for anything besides carrying aircraft into battle and being missile launch platforms. Big guns looked so nice.

>>30553555
And ASW.
And recon/sensor nodes.
And getting an entire MEU on the beach at once, perLHA/LHD.
And providing ABM cover.
And mobile UNREP/logistics node.
And providing rotary wing search and rescue to the region.
And keeping two entire wars fully supplied at once.
And...

>>30553600
But aircraft does some of that and remainder is related to them being nice missile platforms. I'll give you landing, logistics and sensor though. But even then they don't have to be carried out by warships.