Could a WW2 battleship stand a chance to sink a modern destroyer?

A WW2 BB-61 didn't have computerized targeting systems. That 5" could prolly put rounds right through the pilot house windows, taking out the entire bridge team.

>>30939122

The destroyer could probably ruin most of the battleships rangefinders and radar while staying safe from the bulk of the battleships armament by maneuvering like crazy. If you include the destroyers homing torpedoes the fight is over unless they destroyer somehow gets too close and too predictable for the gunnery crew to land a hit from the battleship.

>>30939122
Absent the destroyer being a new stealth ship the battleship would pick it up on radar and destroy it from 25 miles away without the destroyer getting close enough to use its 5" guns

it all depends on the circumstances considering that the Iowas 16in guns can hit shit almost over horizon where they start is a big deal

>>30939300

AEGIS could probably draw dicks on the WW2 ships radar screen while the DD's maneuvers too much for the gunnery crew and their electromechanical computer to make a decent target solution. Even if the battleship fired the destroyer could probably detect the incoming shell and move some more.

>>30939353
> Shells moving at 2000 mph
> Maneuver out of the way

K

>>30939383
>2000 mph
1704 mph, and also at any significant range the destroyer could easily move out of the way.

>>30939431
I don't think you understand how fast 1704 mph is. If they are 25 miles apart that gives the destroyer about 3 seconds to detect, react, and move out of the way

>>30939476
>shells follow a flat linear path to the target

>>30939476
And I dont think you understand fucking geometry, the shell does not travel in a straight line. at its maximum range you have upwards of a minute and a half of flight time.

>>30939489
>>30939493
Not to mention the shell is decelerating the entire time due to air resistance, except maybe near the end of its trajectory.

File: brazilianchocolateswap.jpg (19KB, 400x292px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x292px

>>30939188

What happens if a 5" shell from the destroyer goes up the 16" muzzle of the battleship?

>>30939602
Docking.
We call that Docking.

>>30939122
>a modern destroyer?
>Assume the destroyer has no cruise missiles
U wot m8
Does it at least have a helo?

>>30939188
>A WW2 BB-61 didn't have computerized targeting systems.
Wrong.

Scenario:
BB and DDG are out of gun range, but within mutual detection range.
Realistic option 1 - DDG jams the shit out of the BB and sails away to ask for help
Realistic option 2 - DDG jams the shit out of the BB and engages with Standard missiles in surface attack mode. BB superstructure is trashed and on fire, BB is afloat but not combat-capable. DDG retires to safety and to call for help. This counts because OP only said no cruise missiles and SM-2/6 is not a cruise missile.
Fucking retarded option - DDG jams the shit out of the BB and closes to gun range. BB reverts to optical computed gunnery and opens fire inaccurately at 35+km, if they can see well enough to do so(a big if!). DDG must survive the shellfire long enough to close to ~25km. DDG keeps her distance, in the 15km to 25km range. This avoids secondary battery fire(16km for a 5"/38) and ensures that the optically-aimed main battery has a poor chance of hit. The DDG's gun can trash the superstructure of the BB with multiple hits, but even one hit from the BB could be fatal to the DDG.

>>30939732

Would the 16" shell even detonate in a thin-skinned modern destroyer?

>>30939762
I think a better question is "would it matter if the 16 inch shell detonated or flew clean through the destroyer"

I think you would find that the mass and velocity of a 16 inch shell would be more than enough to do terrible things to a modern destroyer.

>>30939762
>Would the 16" shell even detonate in a thin-skinned modern destroyer?
Through-and-through is a possibility, but it would still be a serious wound. And then if it does detonate, the survivors are going to have a very bad day.

>>30939762
Pretty sure a HC round would devastate a modern DDG,

>>30939791
>>30939762
The beam of an Arleigh Burke is about 30 feet and the shell is over a foot in diameter. That's roughly the equivalent of hitting a sports car with a 3-inch naval gun.

>>30939602
it'd make a mess, but not much more. Unless it happened to fly up there while they were loading the cannon. Then it'd be a really big fucking mess. Dunno if it'd touch off the powder magazines, though. They have a system specifically to prevent flames from reaching the magazines, I'd assume they'd consider the turrets taking a direct hit and igniting the powder bags while loading.

>>30939732
OP said no missiles, shitlord. Redevelop your hypothesis.

>>30939913
is that, like, bad?

>>30939979
OP said no cruise missiles. Anon's scenario stands. The SM 2/3's are not cruise missiles.

>>30939995
Depends desu. Since a car and ship are mostly empty space as long as it doesn't explode or hit the driver it won't do much damage other than punch a hole

>>30939995
worse, the car loses some aerodynamic shape, but the Destroyer is instantly going to start taking water, lots of water, killing it's speed and making it more likely to take a second hit, and so on so forth.

>>30939995
>>30940049
There's also inverse-square law, so while the proportions of the car and round are the same, the one on larger scale would be much more devastating.

I was just trying to make the scale of the round and its target more relateable.

>>30940032
There's plenty of space in the guts of a ship that aren't empty, a shot to a number of places ie the power plant, fuel lines or engine would cripple it, while a shot to the magazine could outright destroy it, and even if it only goes through the mess or something it's still going to be on a downward trajectory which means the exit wound stands a good chance of being below the water line.

>>30940145
Ships are lighter than water which is why they float despite being steel, so a hole won't sink it. Also positive air pressure keeps water out.

>>30939122
>without missiles
Wait, do modern destroyers have any anti ship weapons other than missiles? I think your question boils down to, can a WW2 battleship win if the modern one is only allowed to ram in which case WW2 ship would definitely win.

It's sad that we probably won't see glorious naval guns again and surface vs surface action but I'm quite sure that the modern destroyer would win most of the encounters until a specific circumstance completely disables one of its core functions.

>>30940188
no, a ship floats because it displaces more water than it weighs

did you not learn physics in high school?

>>30940188
The ship is "lighter" than water because a good portion of its volume is constituted with air, which is less dense than water. If those parts that have air start to have water, the ship will become heavier until it is more dense than water

I don't even know what you're saying about air pressure, the water will always have a higher pressure than the air unless the hole is exactly at the water level. And in that case, the ship will still slowly take on water until it gets lower, causing the water pressure to increase.

>>30940417
What this guy said

>>30940279
An Arleigh Burke has a single five inch gun, a single CIWS, two Bushmaster mounts, and six anti-sub torpedoes. But yes, the scenario specifically gimps the primary armament of the modern destroyer.

File: HMS_Richmond_MOD_45155880.jpg (2MB, 1947x2514px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1947x2514px

>>30939122
A Harpoon or two could easily sink a Battelship

Assuming you think harpoon is a cruise missile

>Destoryer stays out of range until night
>moves in at full speed with jamming
>launches torpedos well out of the range that wake can be spotted at night
>win

File: 20j1coh.jpg (55KB, 390x639px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 390x639px

>>30940417
>no, a ship floats because it displaces more water than it weighs
this post gave me cancer

>>30940611
I can't find the range of the Mk.54. Anyone?

>>30940651
>basic physics gave you cancer

File: HMS Northumberland + Trafalgar class.jpg (168KB, 1024x849px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1024x849px

>>30940672
Stingray is about 5-7 miles. mk54 weighs almost the same with the same sized warhead, so I imagine they are near identical in range.

>>30940611
>>30940672
They're only carrying lightweight anti-sub torpedoes though.

>>30939732
I took the OP's scenario to be of a WW2 ERA ship, not a modernized by Reagan version

wait, Iowa has 3 main batteries of 3 guns each, 25 mi range, plus what 100 point defense guns?

Arleigh Burke with ~60 mi range radar all kinds of missiles, but then just a 5" with 12 mi range.

The fight would have to be in Tirpitz-like fjords with mountain ranges balancing out the radar advantage until they see each other at 20 miles. Then, even with 1.5 minute air time per shell, 9 guns each fire every 30 seconds. the Arleigh Burke has only so much room to manuever. Meanwhile the Iowa is throwing all of its other ammunition in the path of any missile. I think it'd be closer than a lot of you think.

File: Lynx Falklands-82.jpg (115KB, 1008x707px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1008x707px

They can use the helicopters anti ship missiles and homing torpedoes. No idea how many a ship typically carries for its helicopter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRQXbSC0IJo

>>30941412
Any destroyer that carries a chopper is either a cruiser or a mini carrier

>>30941437
OP said a modern destroyer, pretty much all destroyers from the 60's onwards have carried one

>>30941437
Half of the Arleigh Burkes have helicopters.

>>30941193
That's ridiculously stacking the deck against the destroyer though. You've also got to account for the destroyer's CIWS and missile defense.

>>30941625
>You've also got to account for the destroyer's CIWS and missile defense.

Those aren't going to stop a screaming chunk of metal

Could a <ANTIQUATED MILITARY EQUIPMENT> stand a chance to <VERB> a <CURRENT YEAR MILITARY EQUIPMENT>? Assume <UNREALISTIC CONDITIONS>

>>30940279

They have torpedoes you know; in fact, given how most missiles are likely to be shot down by countermeasures, one can say that the torpedoes are a modern destroyer's main AS weapon.

As for OP's question that depends on what he means by "WW2 Battleship". The Iowas by the time they were retired would absolutely floor a Arleigh Burke even today, but I think the Bismark would struggle to hit it before it got torpedo'd.

File: 1468882159558.jpg (520KB, 831x1172px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 831x1172px

>>30939610

>>30940611
>A Harpoon or two could easily sink a Battleship

Unlikely, a Harpoon is not an armor piercing missile, its a big fucking HE stick.

Now those Russian AShM's that have the titanium nose cones that travel retard fast.. those would hurt a BB.

>>30942745
What about those supersonic missle, like Bramos or YJ-12, which flies at 2.5-3.5 mach? Will they be able to penetrate BB's armor by sheer speed?

>>30939254
>The destroyer could probably ruin most of the battleships rangefinders and radar while staying safe from the bulk of the battleships armament by maneuvering like crazy.

lol fucking what

if anything the modern destroyers are several knots slower than those of the ww2 and you know even 45 knots of the absolute dd speed champion le fantastique (faster than many modern dd by like up to x1.5 times) weren't enough to avoid shots mid air like in muh arcade shooter

battleships also had secondary battery to deal with dd to compliment their slowly loading main caliber guns, i also wouldn't overestimate the accuracy of the modern dd guns, certainly they would be accurate but not that you could destroy the enemy rangefinders unless on a lucky hit and they would likely be not very effective vs the thick armor

i think a ww2 bb would sink a modern dd relatively easy (do the modern dd even have a proper armor) unless being hit by specially designed missiles or homing torpedoes

File: 1387678979853.jpg (24KB, 317x330px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 317x330px

>>30943648

t. world of warships pro

File: 1448597611833.gif (460KB, 352x240px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 352x240px

>>30939188
>A WW2 BB-61 didn't have computerized targeting systems.

>>30943807
what exactly you want to challenge, that the modern dd are slower than the old ones? that it's impossible to avoid a shell in flight and that before it's fired you don't know where it lands anyway? that battleships had secondary guns? that the modern guns don't have the pinpoint accuracy on the distance of a few kilometres? that even the modern 5 inch guns will struggle with the armor of the battleships unless you equip them with some special anti-armor shells which i bet they don't have when nobody uses armor on the sea anymore? that the modern destroyers are not really armored? that it would need a special anti-armor missile or a diving missile or a torpedo (those hit blow the armor belt) to destroy a bb?

your idea of the warship fighting with dd avoiding shells by some magical dodging is taken straight from the arcade platformers

>>30939122

Modern destroyer would jam the living shit out of any radar guided fire control.

The US Mk 45 5" naval gun mod 4 has an effective range of 37km.

I don't know if it could penetrate the belt / deck armour and sink it, but i'm certain it could beat the living shit out of the superstructure with total impunity.

>also you didn't exclude torpedos

>>30943877
A Burke can carry 96 SM-2s. These can be used against surface ships. Good luck stopping 96 missiles that outrange anything a BB has.

File: 1442980209209.jpg (78KB, 338x305px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 338x305px

>>30943877

t. world of warships babby

>>30943905
from the original post
>Assume the destroyer has no cruise missiles

>>30943968
The RIM-67B SM-2 and the RIM-156 SM-2 ER are both ship launched Anti-aircraft Missiles with a secondary anti-ship capability, and are not cruise missiles. Therefore, they fit within the scenario, as was already discussed above.

Didn't one anon with CMANO test this? Modifying the 90's era Iowa to remove its Harpoons and CIWS?

>>30944110
Yes, but if I remember correctly he forgot to give the destroyer SM-2s and it just had Generic training rounds or something.

>>30941711
Different anon here, This reason alone is why I think BBs still hold a small amount of naval value. You can have a ship that can be so technically advanced that it can play with a missle's guidance in a way to make it miss every time, but one cannot convince a bullet so easily.

>>30943021
Maybe. A BBs armor belt was originally made for other large metal objects that were going several times the speed of sound. So it's a bit of a toss up.

>>30944160
And until guns outrange missiles, that point is moot. Battleships are good as a giant naval gunfire support platform, not much else now.

>>30939122
>Assume the destroyer has no cruise missiles
Assume the BB has no ammunition at all.

>>30944197
Right, in their stock form, if retrofitted with a worthy amount of missiles in addition to the guns to make up for that deficit (a la Iowa), it would a very usable modern platform. But at that point I'm sure it would just be cheaper to build a new DD.

>>30944010
they have high explosive warheads i believe so depending on where they hit, the bb could withstand them... probably would be crippled beyond repair though

can you even aim aa missiles at a ship though, without completely remaking their guidance and stuff

>>30944255
So are you suggesting a new Iowa based warship with PVLS and CIWS?

>>30944349
The Standard Family of missiles is all radar guided. If they can track a 5000t frigate optimized for stealth with surface search radar, a 45,000t BB should be easy.

ITT: People that don't know how pussy today's navy is.

Buncha jigs throwing dice in the well deck trying to get Mo money for libo.

Meanwhile real American men with limited technology destroy the fucking DD because today's navy has the ROE of Berkeley California.

>>30944422
Are you suggesting that the USN isn't going to respond in force to a battleship of unknown origin trying to sink their own warship?

Or are you an ArmyFag?

>>30942745
>Now those Russian AShM's

you mean those fired by the most massive fucking guided missile cruiser, that weigh like eight tons and are the size of a telephone pole?

yeah, thats kinda their point

>>30944452
He's probably Chairforce. They're the most perpetually butthurt branch of the military.

>>30944498
That'd be the Marines.

>>30944422
I agree with you only because the battleship would have a greater range and way more armor.

I do agree the battleship would have to shoot first as the destroyer wouldn't open fire without ascertaining intent.

>>30944521
>That'd be the Marines.
Technically they're not an actual branch, which is even worse. The few, the cucked.

>>30941796
Welcome to /k/

File: grandpa naval gunner.jpg (108KB, 1874x224px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1874x224px

>>30943877

>>30939122
If the battleship magically happened to slip into range without being detected by radars, then yes.

But we know that wouldn't happen since battleships are massive.

is this the weekly thread where people try to convince themselves that BB's magically still have relevance in a modern navy?

>proposes a BB vs DD scenario that specifically handicaps the DD.

See guys, battleshits are still useful!

>>30939762
That's what HE shells are for.

>>30944737
Tbh they're more useful than aircrap carriers but that's not saying much.

>>30939602
Those videos would be a hell of a lot better if the audio wasn't entirely them sucking air through their lips and going 'OI OI OI OI OIIII OIIIIII OI' throughout the entire thing.

>>30939476

Ways you can tell someone isn't familiar with naval warfare: this fucking post.

>>30944010

You want RIM-66M, not 67B. 67 isn't used by any ship in current service.

>>30944857
Fuck. Close enough, guess we are using OHPs now.

>>30940651
Yeah. We all know a ship floats because it loves the sky and hates the deep.

>>30944866

OHPs shot the 66E, love.

File: 1468555504564.gif (2MB, 420x428px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 420x428px

>>30944901
Damn it. It's 5 AM, I guess I need to sleep this over.

>>30944911

... y-you can make it better by telling me who that cutie is.

File: 1270763859795.jpg (126KB, 450x373px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 450x373px

>>30944790
>a battleship is more useful than an aircraft carrier.

File: 1452940000949.gif (803KB, 400x446px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 400x446px

>>30944920
SIR I CANNOT HELP YOU THERE EITHER

>>30944935

it's okay darling :<

>>30939122
only in a super sneaky ambush
otherwise the destroyer could just detect it and stay out of its range indefensibly

>>30940855
They had radar and computerized aiming in WW2

>>30939610
kek/10

>>30944790
>a battleship is more useful than a mobile military base

>>30944920
>>30944935
That's Sharo, have a nice day.

>>30939353
>AEGIS could probably draw dicks on the WW2 ships radar screen

If any DoD fags are reading this thread, you absolutely must make this an automatic capability in future systems.

>>30944990

thank you I love you :3

>>30944396
Yes ish, retaining a handful of defining features as well, naturally.

>>30940611
>A Harpoon or two could easily sink a Battelship

Nope. Modern DDG could trash BB's superstructure and make in unusable. But not sink it.

>>30944737
In my opinion, the BBs we are familiar with in history have zero relevance in any situation compared to modern ships.

However, I do think that a modern BB with modern technology and weapons could have great value as a fire-support platform, but nothing more. Shells are cheaper than missiles, and are harder to track in-flight.

I guess I'll ask this here.

What's the biggest gun that's actually worth putting on a modern warship? 76mm?

>>30945455
BS modern torpedos would sink a BB no problem

>>30939572
>the shell is decelerating the entire time

Not quite. Up until the peak of its trajectory it is.

>>30948257
You're thinking of speed on the y axis. He's talking speed on the x axis.

Either way, on both axes, the shell is negatively accelerating the whole time.

>>30948194
ASW torpedoes would struggle against a BB armor. And especially against the anti torpedo bulge.

HIT IT

File: 1470445044484.jpg (196KB, 1920x521px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1920x521px

>>30948417
So, assuming the destroyer can detect the shells as soon as they're launched, how long would it realistically have to maneuver to avoid it? Would it actually be possible?

Also, does pic related count as a 'modern destroyer' for this scenario? It seems like it would stand quite a good chance against a WW2 BB.

>>30940611
>A Harpoon or two could easily sink a Battelship

Nah, a WWII battleship's armor would provide its vitals with a tremendous amount of protection against most modern cruise missiles. The reason battleships fell by the wayside is because you can just build a bigger missile that *can* penetrate the armor much easier than you can build a battleship with thicker armor. When it was a contest between huge guns and thick armor it was possible, but the destruction-to-size ratio of missiles just makes it impossible for armored ships to keep ahead in an arms race.

>>30950555
>Also, does pic related count as a 'modern destroyer' for this scenario? It seems like it would stand quite a good chance against a WW2 BB.

155mm shells are basically 6-inch; so standard for a light cruiser or a "light cruiser" (a heavy cruiser that uses more 6 inchers to make up for lack of 8-inchers through volume of fire.) But the accuracy would be incredible; it'd hit with every shot. Superstructure of BB would be destroyed fast, including its primary rangefinders, but the fucked up ship could keep fighting since none of the vitals would be penetrated - albeit with shit accuracy, and the Zummie would be faster anyways. Therefore she'd disengage without taking a single hit, most likely, but she wouldn't be able to sink the battleship.

Another draw.

>>30950652
>herefore she'd disengage without taking a single hit, most likely, but she wouldn't be able to sink the battleship.

Wouldn't the Zum just load AP or HE rounds?

>>30951329
>155mm AP
>penetrating a WWII battleship's belt

These ships were armored to withstand the guns of their equals - i.e. 14 to 16 inch shells. 155mm is equal to about 6 inch, so... no.

File: Explosion Torpedo.webm (1MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 450x360px

>>30939122

Huh.

Let's see if your "battleship" can survive getting hit by one of these bad boys.

>>30948417

I took him to mean ''deceleration'' as a decrease in velocity. This is how the term is typically defined.

From the point the projectile leaves the guns barrel, it will be undergoing negative acceleration until it reaches the peak of its trajectory.

However, my original point still stands. When the shell reaches the peak of its trajectory, it will be undergoing positive acceleration due to the influence of gravity. This acceleration in addition to the velocity of the shell and the peak of its trajectory will result in a positive change in velocity during the shells descent.

File: SHIP_FFH_ANZAC_HMNZS_Te_Kaha_F77_lg.jpg (172KB, 1024x601px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1024x601px

Can the destroyer use its onboard helo to fore stand-off missiles? If so just cripple the steering gear of the BB then make a torpedo attack

>>30952172
late war bb got a pretty good aa, i don't think a single helicopter would stand any chance

>>30950555

The Zumwalt is a destroyer in name only; it has more in common in firepower and size to a Battlecruiser.

>>30952193
Helicopter doesnt go withon range of guns, hover low off the water and fires missiles then retreats to destroyer

>>30952236
they also had double penetration i mean dual purpose guns, 100-127mm aa guns are rather long range, several km i beleive

>>30952221

The only reason that the Zumwalt is designated as a destroyer (rather than a cruiser) is because there were plans for an even larger sister class of ship that never came to fruition. In my book, any surface combatant displacing more than 10000 metric tons ought to be called a cruiser.

>>30952290

Destroyer just sounds so much cooler

>>30952242
I remember reading somewhere that they couldn't get down low enough on some ships to hit wave skimmers but I dont have a source

>>30939602
>brazilian chocolate swap
i have a feeling this has something to do with poo

>>30952625
well, since they were dual purpose they were intended to hit ships which were, well, the surface level. i think it might be the problem either with part of the smaller caliber aa turrets (20-40mm) or (imo unlikely) with very close targets (in that case a plenty of small caliber aa could shoot it)

File: 1457759467917.gif (4MB, 490x476px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 490x476px

>>30939122
"Could a guided missile destroyer destroy a battleship without its primary armament?"
- Retard

File: battleship shot.gif (20KB, 938x575px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 938x575px

Surprised nobody posted this.

Even after modernization and the addition of mid-late cold war targeting systems, battleship main guns weren't terribly accurate at range. There's a reason battleships lost relevance when aircraft tech matured and then even further when rocketry advances and guided missiles got together.

>>30944995
I imagine at some point, some bored enlisted dude in charge of those fancy new naval lasers is going to draw a dick on the hull of a chinese ship from a few klicks away and it's going to be another one of "Those" stories that gets endlessly retold.

>>30944984
Radar was primitive and "computerized" was....a stretch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4

It could take several minutes to generate a single new firing solution on a target.

>>30951820
Great. Now can you try to make yourself useful and answer my question? >>30950555

>>30939122

Obviously, if the fight is limited to naval artillery, then the battleship is going to have an advantage because the battleship is actually designed to use naval artillery as its primary weapon. The battleship would also be much better armored and able to survive hits from naval artillery as well.

However, the modern destroyer would be able to avoid the fight altogether by simply using its superior speed to run away until the battleship runs out of gas.

>>30953205
>runs out of gas
you mean until its coal bunkers are empty?

>>30953290
huh, reading up on the subject, it entirely depends on which battleship, but if we are talking a Iowa class then it would be Oil, not Gasoline.

>>30939122
yes, the battle ship would win every time. the reason they don't use battleships anymore is because of aircraft and missiles, not because other ships were giving them trouble.

>>30953205
>However, the modern destroyer would be able to avoid the fight altogether by simply using its superior speed

modern destroyers are rather slow, and some battleships like kongo or iowa were about as fast as them (~30kn or a bit more), they also had enough fuel to chase that dd into some corner... would be a weird chase

I would love to see the Destroyer out run a BB61 class BB with 100,000 shaft horsepower.. They were rated at 33 knots plus... Halsey took Iowa and New Jersey back to Layte Gulf at Flank speed to try to head off the retiring Jap task force They outran there Destroyer escorts leaving them hull down . Do not under estimate the Speed of the BBs in any kind of seaway. One HE 16in shell would gut a Destroyer like a trout... The DE Samuel Roberts was hit by many 14in Ap rounds that went right through her.. The japs switched to HE and one hit open a hole the size of a bus...This ended her...

>>30953408
ww2 american dd could run ~36-38 knots though

>>30953397

The Iowa-class is the only line of battleships ever made that would be able to keep up with a modern destroyer for any appreciable length of time. However, even then the destroyer would still be able to use its superior radar to spot the BB and get a good head start before the BB is able to give chase. I imagine that the Iowa would have quite a radar signature, so the destroyer would definitely be seeing the battleship before the battleship is able to see the destroyer. That gives the destroyer plenty of time to put distance before itself and the battleship, perhaps even avoiding the confrontation entirely.

>>30953438
i already mentioned kongo

yet again, the modern destroyers are slower than the ww2 destroyers

>>30953397
heh pretty much every modern ship will keep up its top speed or closes to top speed until juice runs out in case burke it will be 30+ kn

this is not true for ww2 ships and especially not true ww1 coal running kongo it takes time to prepare, it takes time to get burners running and for damn sure it cant sustain 27 kn for any reasonable amount of time for a damn chase

>>30947484

>A railgun battleship could fire hybrid propelled Tomahawk-tier ordinance a few thousand miles
>irrelevant

They'll make a comeback.

>>30951397

That, and everyone is overestimating the firepower of those cannons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125742/US-sink-Japan-tsunami-ghost-ship-cannons.html

>The crew pummeled the ghost ship with high explosive ammunition, and the Ryou-Un Maru soon burst into flames, and began to take on water and list, officials said.
>In about four hours, the ship vanished into the water, said Chief Petty Officer Kip Wadlow in Juneau.

That's a fishing trolley, not a fucking Battleship. Say what you want, it wouldn't take more than a few those Volkswagen Beetles being fired by the Battleship to end The Game and render the Destroyer inoperable.

>>30953448

But we're comparing modern destroyers against WW2 battleships. 30-35 knots is pretty standard for a modern destroyer. Very few battleships could reach those speeds. The Iowa-class was the only battleship type fast enough to go 30-35 knots.

The Kongo was slower than the Iowa, and more importantly it was actually a battlecruiser rather than a battleship. The Kongo had less than 30 cm of belt armor.

>>30953452
i guess they could sustain it for a while on the cost of deteriorating engines, like one soviet dd "tashkent" repeatedly ran around 40-42+kn and when she was scuttled after being damaged by planes her engines were about to give up anyway

kongo was capable of greater 30 knots, 27 knots it's the speed of yamato

also i don't get it, do you imagine them beginning the race like runners on a stadium from being completely immobile?

>>30953559

The WW2 battleship in this scenario is going to want to close the distance as much as possible in order to make the most of its bigger, more powerful guns. However, if the destroyer can use its superior speed to maintain a distance between the two ships, then that makes it far less vulnerable. Consider this chart: >>30952868

>>30953497
If that was anything like a SINKEX, they don't go for sinking hits so they can shoot more.

File: 1458855695407.jpg (406KB, 800x754px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 800x754px

>>30939353
>AEGIS could probably draw dicks on the WW2 ships radar screen

File: 1470570641013.jpg (196KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 517x768px

>>30944893
This post tickled me more than it should

>>30954014
that article is weird
>Safe: A Coast Guard vessel keeps the fire under control as the Japanese ship is sunk

literally what... they extinguish the fire on the sinking ship which they shot themselves

also they proceeded to shoot it just for fun when it was sinking and almost completely sunk

>>30954258
Theyre just training mate, theyd be using it as an excuse to test the fire control team

>>30943886
37 km = 22 miles

Iowa's still got 3 miles over it with it's main battery

>>30944737
>BB's irrelevant
>what is a Modern BB? (See Post Regean USS Iowa).

>>30939188
The destroyer wouldn't last long if it got close enough to do that.