How much damage would a ww2 kamikaze do to a modern warship?

Probably a lot

>>32247563
they wouldn't be able to get close

File: 524af5ed9591b2321ed06ba64d05874f.jpg (41KB, 564x402px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 564x402px

Not much

>>32247629
Fake

>>32247589

Don't dodge the question

>>32247652
>Fake

No, colourised

>>32247652
fucking idiot

>>32247652
that's not dodging the question, that's just pointing out the absurdity of the question.
Your question is on the same level as asking how much damage a battleship could do to a spacestation.

>>32247652
its a stupid question only a retard would ask

use your brain fagget

>>32247701
Does the battleship have railguns? Or gliders?

Need to know to answer.

Depends on the warship and the kamikaze.

A 100k ton supercarrier is not going to take much damage while a 4000 ton ASW frigate is far more fragile.

Similarly a Zero with a pair of 100kg bomb would do much less damage then a rocket powered Oska with a 1200kg warhead.

>>32247760
it's the HMS Dreadnought

Who cares. Modern warships are obsolete now

>>32247786
nah. They've just been transitioned to protect carriers.

>>32247563
Similar to Exocet/Harpoon AShM.

>>32247563
more damage than a ww2 kamikaze could do to a ww2 warship

File: spencers life.jpg (47KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x375px

>>32247652
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/sussex.html

Holy fuck, amazing how hard a reverse image search is for people these days.

File: IMG_4062.gif (2MB, 400x498px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x498px

>>32247896
Don't make fun of phoneposters

>>32247563
I don't remember where from, but a British veteran testified that his aircraft carrier was hit by a zero kamikaze, but sustained very little damage due to the 4 inch thick steel flight deck. I cant imagine modern warships taking much damage by comparison with that

File: yoro.png (306KB, 561x429px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 561x429px

>>32247563
How much damage could a CIWS do to a kamikaze?

>>32248597
None, it doesn't work. I'd be more worried about friendly ships getting more shot up than the zero

File: 1481145045188.webm (382KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 854x480px

>>32248979

>CIWS doesn't work

>>32249109
Those things are programmed to not sweep the ship, right? It looks like it almost did but stopped at the last minute.

>>32248562
thats 4 inches of armor more than a modern warship has

>>32249226

On the contrary, carriers continue to have protected decks built into them as a necessary precaution: it wouldn't do much good if an 8.8 billion investment sunk because a fighter landed wrong on it.

File: CatHandsEyeTwitch.gif (46KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x450px

>>32247948
See those theee dots on the top left of an image post?

HORY SHITSU IMAGE SEARCH ON MOBIL

>>32249389
Don't be a shitlord this is a safe space