Why do Japs idolize the Yamato so much when it was a complete

>>31575699
Because they're fucking dumb and are bad at naval combat.

They didn't even hit our oil reserves at pearl, they thought visual ranging was better than Radar and they wouldn't use that super specialsnowflake battleship because "muh grorious nippon"

Why do people idolise German super weapon projects or railway guns?

The Yamato is the largest war machine ever constructed for direct action. The fact it existed alone is impressive.

>Why do Japs idolize the Yamato so much

This is called "begging the question"

It means you start your question with an assumption that you've taken as fact.

>>31575699
>Why do Japs idolize the Yamato so much when it was a complete failure and didn't do shit before it got sunk by a few bombers?

For the same reason anyone gives a shit about the Alamo.

"At least we tried."

>>31575903
But at least we won that war.

File: yamato_museum_01.jpg (124KB, 1440x600px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1440x600px

>>31575886

There actually are lots of Japanese who go apeshit over the Yamato.

There is, for example, an entire museum dedicated to just this ship. Among many other, and usually weirder, ways in which they've demonstrated their fixation on this ship.

File: OHFUG.gif (84KB, 400x246px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 400x246px

>>31575699
Why do the Brits think their ship designs are so good. Wasn't built to protect itself against treaty standard 14in guns.
>"Our navy must we As big as two of our neighbors"

>>31575699

Because it was the greatest battleship ever constructed.

Why do Americans idolize air power so much when it's a dishonorable way of winning wars?

it was over 300 planes IRL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shAq8XUxdPk&spfreload=10

File: sexy beast.jpg (269KB, 1800x1428px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1800x1428px

>>31575943
>dishonorable
Get shrekt scrub

>>31575943
>pearl harbor

>>31575943
That's why the Japanese crashed all their planes into American ships right

File: 1418774960046.jpg (63KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x375px

>>31575943

All it had was big guns. Communications and targeting was pitifully outdated. Armor inferior to American counterpart, lower speed, et cetera.

>>31575943
Don't make us bomb your Volcanoes.

File: leade 9761.jpg (26KB, 350x431px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 350x431px

Ain't nothin then or today that can match the power of the big gunsI'll tell ya that much, boy when those 16"s opened up everyone would just stand in awe for 20-30 seconds before continuing with our duty.

File: 018.gif (2MB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 580x433px

>>31575851

>bad at naval combat
>naval battles around Guadalcanal

Dude there surface commanders were excellent. We just killed most of there pilots in 1942 and the fleet was obsolete

>mfw savo island, naval battle of guad, tassafronga

them 16's and five O's opening up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2piJQYJdYCQ&spfreload=10

>>31576010
>refused to rotate their pilots and surface commanders

>didn't develop effective ASW

You forgot those.

>>31576042

They were good at night fighting with bb, cc and dd

>>31575943
>when it's a dishonorable way of winning wars?
I can hear your katana unsheathing and your fedora tipping from here.

>>31576055
Ehhh, the US still did better due to their use of Radar.

>>31575883
This is pretty much the reason why I think the Yamato and her sister ship Musashi are such amazing ships.

They also just look cool in general.

>>31576130
They look sexy as hell, but they're not practical compared to carriers and Iowa's which are more fuel efficient and in the case of carriers, can strike from far farther than any gun could ever shoot.

>>31575699
>was a complete failure and didn't do shit before it got sunk by a few bombers?

it was disappointing but it scored MANY kills

>japan builds the biggest battleship ever
>americans are literally incapable of comprehending what is interesting or unique about this
>americans spend their entire day nitpicking tiny pointless details about its construction or just verge into senseless babble about how they won the war, as if that magically causes the ship to have never been constructed in the first place

It's a big ship.

Big ships are cool.

It's really not that complicated, Ameriboos. Perhaps if you hadn't blown it up because you were afraid of 1 lone battleship all by itself and out of ammo, we'd have something left to remember it by.

>>31575886
>It means you start your question with an assumption that you've taken as fact.

The japs have been making animes about turning the Yamato into a spaceship for decades. They wouldn't do that if they didn't care about the ship.

File: 18050.jpg (296KB, 1024x767px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1024x767px

>>31576960
Honestly she probably would have been scuttled (Along with Musashi if she survived too) anyways because "They lost, who cares about this shit".

Maybe Japan will make science fiction a reality and pull her up from the seabed and make a spaceship out of her.

>>31576986
I think it's mainly because since the Yamato and Musashi are considered feats of engineering, they're (But mainly the Yamato) idolized as symbols of the Japanese spirit and resolve or some shit.

>>31576960
It's not even just that it's huge, It's a fucking aesthetic beauty too. I mean just look at it.

>>31575928
What are you on about?
KG5 class armour was still better than two of its main competitors that were south dakota class, bismark class, littorio class, and sharnhorst class.

It was only ever surpassed by Yamato and nelson class.

Nelson class especially so with 70 degree sloped armour at a 30 degree angle of attack thats constantly going to close range until it launches its torpedos

File: 7hcEJbg.jpg (122KB, 1024x598px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1024x598px

>>31577001
Japan had some pretty aesthetic ship designs in general.

>>31575992
>American counterpart
There was no american counterpart. The iowas were basically battlecruisers with enough propulsion technology to armor them like battleships.

The yamatos were the greatest traditional lineships ever constructed. Its a shame they just threw yamato away, it would have made a great museum.

>>31577032
Ive never been a fan of those wierd sweeping stack merger things. Ive heard it was to make all their ships look more similar or something but it just looks odd to have that little gap, and that curve.

File: LeMay holocaust.jpg (193KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x739px

>>31575943
>war
>honorable
This is why the nips lost, you know.

>>31577142

desu, the Allies weren't even the good guys. We weren't even the slightly better guys. We're just the evil guys that won.

>>31577142
>>31577145
Hell the Japanese did some pretty damn dishonorable stuff themselves, as did all sides, but I came here to talk about botes and not >another Japanese war crimes denial thread

File: ijnatago.jpg (1MB, 1600x1129px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1129px

>>31577158

Here.

ps: Tojo did nothing wrong.

>>31577145
>We're just the evil guys that won.
aka good guys

File: tumblr_o3qtxx3qmO1soir95o1_1280.jpg (202KB, 1280x572px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1280x572px

>>31577127
I think the swept back stacks and relatively low freeboards are the reasons why I like late war IJN cruisers and the Yamato class of battleships.

>>31577158
>did some pretty damn dishonorable stuff
>some

>>31576948
>it was disappointing but it scored MANY kills
Such as?

>>31577314
USS Hoel, USS Johnston, USS Gambier Bay

File: cGIay9e.png (3KB, 280x272px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 280x272px

>>31577314
Well it uhhh....
It hit a carrier with its guns once.

File: never ever.png (187KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 327x316px

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_sunk_by_the_Imperial_Japanese_Navy

>No mentions of the Yamato dealing any decisive blows
Still think it's a neat looking ship though.

>>31577127
>The yamatos were the greatest traditional lineships ever constructed.

Depends on how you define great.

Biggest? Yes.

Best quality? The Yamato was deficient in a lot of little ways. Mostly it had to do with the USN being slightly ahead of the tech curve as compared to the IJN, particularly in the field of radar gunnery and damage control.

>>31577127
>The iowas were basically battlecruisers with enough propulsion technology to armor them like battleships.
Iowa's top speed was 33 knots, Yamatos was 28 which is the same as KGV or North Carolina which were also fast battleships.

>>31577368
The yamato was huge though.

I see the evolution of BBs as basically standard battleships and battlecruisers kind of merge towards the end into the later era fast battleships and then the earlier 'fast battleships' are nebulous anomalies that kind of fit in as side branches, with the yamato being the high point of standards and the iowa being the high point of the combined battlecruiser/fast battleship philosophy. Pure battlecruisers only ever being built due to propulsion technology deficiencies.

If battleships had continued to be a thing you would have the two distinct styles.

>>31577361
Greatest in that it has the heaviest broadside of any ship ever built with armor designed to protect it from guns of equivalent power.

Its 18 inch guns were fairly equivalent to the later US 16 inch with super heavy shells. You can call its firepower roughly equivalent to iowa but iowa was only armored against the earlier 16 inch shells that existed when she was being constructed. The yamato was designed for a slugging match with itself. Thats what defines a pure battleship, being able to sit there and trade shots with itself.

A distinction must be made between a ship design and individual ships themselves. As i see it, that the yamatos were built legitimizes the design as something that is proven. This means we can think of the ship class abstractly with out falling into a sort of endless paper ship oneupsmanship. We can take the class as a whole as its design produced under ideal circumstances with ideal materials. Deficiencies in specific materials in the actual produces ship can be strikes against the individual ships, but not the ship class itself.

>>31577423
>Could handle a slugging match with itself
>But not a couple of Helldivers and Dauntlesses

>>31575699
The name.

Imagine the US building the largest ship of the fleet calling it USS Holy Land America.

>>31577436
>>Could handle a slugging match with itself

Pretty useful, desu.

What with all those other Yamatos the enemy has and all.

>>31576637
>can strike from far farther than any gun could ever shoot.
That's because you think small.

>>31577441
>Imagine the US building the largest ship of the fleet calling it USS Holy Land America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(CV-66)

Already done, nearly 60 years ago.

>>31577445

Aircraft can deliver munitions farther than any gun can throw them.

>>31575699
All things considered there was a point in time that the Japanese navy nearly reached par with the British navy.
Japans problem was naval doctrine, and production capability once the war was really underway

>>31577451
The evolution of aircraft, ground based artillery, and anti-ship missiles more or less put the battleship of old to bed; but I'm obviously preaching to the choir here.

>>31575927
Musashi is actually larger than Yamato (both are of the same class but Musashi had more tonnage and was a few feet longer)

>>31577442
Being able to handle a slugging match with itself is a standard for battleship design. At the end of the day a battleships job is to sail in a line and shoot at other battleships, its main definition is its ability to withstand damage, which is one of the reasons battleships went obsolete and why keeping them around purely for shore bombardment is a retarded idea.

Other nations certainly had plans for ships comparable to the yamato, they just didnt build them. The US might have if not for the panama canal restriction, it certainly had the industry to do it before everyone realized battleships were on the way out anyway.

Japan just picked the wrong superweapon projects. yamato and then death rays

>>31577436
planes are op
But you have to be fair here, if you add up the displacement of all the ships involved in ten-go the IJN would have lost in a line battle just as easily if carriers were swapped out for sodaks or something. Yamato a best but numbers mean a lot.

kind of surprised that the Japanese seems to ignore the Zuikaku. She was the closest thing Enterprise had to a rival and the most successful IJN carrier of the war.

Considering how many people love the zero you would think their best carrier would be more well known.

File: Unknown.jpg (6KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 275x183px

>>31577465
Ain't nothing to match the raw power of the big guns, those 16's will knock um dead I'll tell ya that much.

>>31577494
>tfw we could have had autoloading 16 inch guns by now capable of firing 10 rounds a minute

>>31575699
>Why do Burgers idolize Freedom so much when it was a complete failure and didn't do shit before it got sunk by a few SJWs?

>>31577508
>Not 30 RPM 16" Gatling Guns

>>31577461
>All things considered there was a point in time that the Japanese navy nearly reached par with the British navy.
There was never such a point. They had a slight edge in carriers and heavy cruisers because Brits had lost a bunch of boats to the Huns but the Brits were greatly stronger in other areas.

File: kancolle_zuikaku_37[1].jpg (209KB, 928x1280px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 928x1280px

>>31577493
Zuizui is love.

>>31575943
Honor goes right out the window with western powers as soon as you start committing war crimes against them

>>31577520
>wanted to link operation lions den audio recording demonstrating 9 8 inch 10rpgpm firing as newport news bombarded targets
>file no longer exists

There goes a part of history.

So fucking hard to find good examples of large naval guns firing continuously.

>>31577000
Almost def. not. If we got our hand on Musashi or Yamato intact we would sell or museum ship it, but more than likely they would have went on to serve in the JMSDF.
Reminder that some jap destroyers, frigates and subs captured intact were bought up by China or other powers

>>31577127
The Yamatos were super heavy battleships, the US had a class of SHBB's in the works, the Montana class, that was cancelled.

The Iowa is a fast battleship, and it's kind of unfair to label them battlecruisers due to their heavy armarment and decent armor.

That said for battlecruisers the US probably retired the Alaska class too soon

>>31577423
Speaking of battle cruisers/heavy cruisers, the chinese are building a class of large Guided Missile Cruisers - these will probably be HCG or HCGN *Heavy Cruiser Guided Missile - Nuke Powerplant) I don't think they'll match the Kirov class though in size (Russia was underway at restoring all of it's Kirovs)

>>31577465
The role of aircraft is being mitigated by measures designed to counter them - chiefly CIWS/ Counter Missile, Phased Array (AEGIS) systems, super long range naval SAMS/ABM's.
On the one hand we may see a return to larger ships, esp considering larger ship = larger VLS cells with larger diameter warheads.
Then again I'm probably completely wrong and the future is probably Submarines and ocean going stealth missile corvettes

>>31577593
>it's kind of unfair to label them battlecruisers

I dont know. They have battleship sized guns, but their primary goal was to meet a certain speed requirement.

Im a fairly simple person, so i like to classify things simply. As i see it the purpose of a battle_anything is to carry the strongest naval weapons of its time. A battlecruiser does this with a primary design goal of meeting some speed, and whatever propulsion it has left over goes into armoring it. A battleship does this with a primary design goal of armoring itself against said weapons, and it goes however fast it is able to after the fact.

The iowas certainly use a battleship armor scheme. My argument is that at the time they were built propulsion technology advanced to a point that 'battlecruisers' could be constructed in such a way, leaving more traditional battlecruisers an obsolete concept (alaska was a 'large cruiser', no battlecruisers here! Nope!)

I realize things are never going to uniformly fit into a classification scheme, but this feels like the right way to look at it to me. I wont call it a battlecruiser, but it was built primarily to function as a carrier escort as its primary design consideration, meaning after fitting the guns on it getting it to go a certain speed was design priority. As i said i think traditional bb and fast battleships sort of merged into the later era fast battleship, wereas traditional standards would become superbattleships like yamato.

If things went on you would see those two things. Gigantic huge battleships designed to laugh at your weapons and smaller fast battleships designed to go fast and restricted to engaging other fast battleships and maybe older generation heavy battleships. Iowas would have been designed to do things like hunt down kongos or something if one got too close to a carrier, any of the major BB threats at the time were understood to be something that you engage with air power.

>>31577638
At the end of the day look at the tonnage, fast clearly does not mean lighter than a BB in the Iowas case.

If you want something to nitpick at take a look at the coastal battleships in use by the Scandi countries/countries in the baltic sea

>>31577547
Best boat

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

864KB, 907x1300px

I know this is all bait, but I'm bored

>shit tier AA armament compared to everything the USN had, a Fletcher had more effective AA fire than the Yamato did
>No radar aiming of the guns
>no dual purpose guns
>It's throw weight was literally sub 50k despite having more AA guns than most ships
>never made a single HE shell for the main guns
>poor quality steel used in construction
>terrible damage control

I'd take a North Carolina or South Dakota class over it any day desu

File: dae.jpg (138KB, 980x1040px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 980x1040px

>>31577127
>The iowas were basically battlecruisers

>>31577638
>Im a fairly simple person

You're obviously simple minded that's for sure.

>>31577638
>>31577593
wasn't the "official" difference between a battleship and battlecruiser is whether the ship in question can resist their own gun?

>>31578923
No.

By that definition the Yamato wasn't a battleship either.

>>31575927
That's not that big of a ship wtf

>>31577127
>The Iowa isn't a battleship guise!
>Even though it has the same armor and armaments as battleships, it's built so it's faster!
Is a Ferrari not a car because it's built faster than a Saturn?

File: 1475534751685.png (570KB, 600x941px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 600x941px

>>31578962
Saturn is a planet, dingus.

>>31577145
>The allies tried to invade everything and/or told our troops that if they didn't die their family would be killed and also tortured our POWs to death
>No wait, that didn't happen
>Not even the slightly better guys

File: 1416366508606.gif (981KB, 1064x589px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 1064x589px

>>31577145

>>31575851
>they thought visual ranging was better than Radar
It was. The jap radar was dogshit, while the American's were the best on Earth.

>>31577314
well if you count the 2500 crew that died with it, then yeah it scored quite a lot of kills

>>31576986
>There was one anime series

>Therefore an entire nation is obsessed

>>31579210
It finished off an already-crippled escort carrier.

That's it though.

>>31576055
Because the banzai attacks were so effective.

>>31577335
Ah yes, the 70,000 ton battleship scored great victories over two 2500 ton destroyers and an escort carrier armed with but one 5" gun. Truly victories fought with insurmountable odds.