So this is what happens when a Harpoon hits a ship. Really gets

If that's real it makes modern naval warfare against comparable nations a tad more terrifying.

>>32538510
>when a Harpoon hits a ship
>Anti-ship missile
>ship
The fuck did you think would happen?

File: rbs15.png (1MB, 809x607px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 809x607px

>>32538510
RBS15

File: rbs.png (2MB, 1352x951px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1352x951px

>>32538557
Another.

File: Moskit_anti-ship_missile.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

Not bad, not bad.

However,

Post more ship-Rekt pictures, this stuff is good.

>>32538622
Thats two missiles, not one, and I believe they're P-500s, not P-270s

>>32538510
this is why we spend so much on antimissile defenses.

>>32538510
is that pic seaworthy?

>>32538622
Something to keep in mind also. Those were two missile and fired at short range. Much of the fuel in the missiles were still on board.

>>32538622
>anti-ship missile
>hits shp
>ship doesn't sink

keep in mind this is a WOODEN mock-up of a ship. Real ships are METAL. This shitty piece of crap couldn't even sink a WOODEN ship lmao.

>>32538996
>Thinks entire ships sink like his 5 inch plastic bath toy does

>>32538510
>>32538522
Did you guys think it would just make a hole and slowly sink while the crew abandoned it in an orderly fashion?

File: 243664.jpg (491KB, 1164x705px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1164x705px

>>32538510
To that tin can cruise ship, yes. An Iowa battleship would absorb dozens of Harpoons.

>1/8 inch of "armour" and kevlar vs 14+ inches of battle grade steel

>>32541295
I love battleships, but you are being delusional.
The same thing would happen to Iowa that did Bismarck. Every weapons, fire control, and command system would be knocked out and it would just be the hull left floating.
Real impressive your hunk of armor is when it's incapable of fighting back.

File: new_jersey.jpg (76KB, 800x539px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 800x539px

>>32541334
sure thing, kiddo

>>32541334
>The same thing would happen to Iowa that did Bismarck.
>Implying American surface ships ever fight alone

>>32538510
Keep in mind it hit the helicopter bay/garage, an open space...think of it as shooting a person in the head and the exit is near the eye socket, the already open cavity makes a bigger gorey hole.

File: 120405-G-RS249-005-USCG_responds_to_Japanese_vessel_in_Gulf_of_Alaska.jpg (2MB, 1500x2100px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x2100px

>25mm has no stopping power

>>32541627
>Who cares if the turrets are destroyed, FCS knocked out, and steering is crippled?
>At least our citadel is still afloat

File: Sinking north gooks.webm (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>32541718

That was a hit to the hangar bay. It looks bad but if it hit anywhere else the damage would look much smaller.

This vid always amazes me. Everyone thought FFGs were worthless in battle and now that the last one's been decommed it turns out they're are damn hard to sink. That's with all the hatches wide open, no damage control, and no active countermeasures. Impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Utth7DT8I

>>32538676
First hit is a P1000 Vulkan from Varyag (Slava Class of the Pacific Fleet), second hit is a P270 Moskit from the Bystryy (Sovremmennyy Class of the Pacific Fleet).

The footage is taken from a Vostok Exercise, forgot if it was 2013 or 2014. The P1000 Vulkan showcases its dive to the waterline during the terminal phase while the P270 showcased (albeit on a different video) its evasive maneuvers (path corrections) during terminal phase.

>>32541870
So it was 2014

>Today S-300 missile systems destroyed two missile targets launched from surface craft. Two Granit anti-ship cruise missiles were successfully launched from nuclear powered submarine cruisers Tver and Omsk from submerged positions. Simultaneously a cruise missile launched from the Varyag cruiser hit an enemy surface target. Target destruction was confirmed by Forpost drones.

>>32538996
dude, ships can take up to hours to capsize and sink.

>>32541295
Please go back to whatever hole you crawled out of and die. No one wants you and your battleship wank around.

>>32538622
Cool, what Jerry Bruckheimer movie is this?

File: its a battlewagon thread.gif (2MB, 320x239px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x239px

>>32538652
>>32541295

>>32541734
Yeah, those are only protected by 19 inches. Good point.

>>32542035
oh look, it's the chink

File: harpoon.jpg (178KB, 1536x1012px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1536x1012px

>Recommision Iowas
>nothing but harpoons
>rule the seven seas

>>32542075
Armor thickness doesn't matter on ships like it used to, much like with tanks.
The best defense now is to not get hit at all, and that is where speed, maneuverability, and reduced radar signature come into the picture. Those things combined with advanced anti-missile systems. Sure you could put those anti-missile systems on battleship, but you're very little by doing so. You still have a very big, and relatively slow, target.

When they do these exercises does the target ship have ammunition and fuel? Because in real combat the ship would have both and the warhead could set them off making the damage worse. Anyone know?

>>32541681
It's also directly above the engineering spaces, which very well could have been knocked off-line by the shock.

File: 373588.jpg (330KB, 874x1554px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 874x1554px

>>32542108
>Armor thickness doesn't matter on ships like it used to, much like with tanks
That's why tank don't have armor now...

Oohhhhhhhhhh.........

>>32542124

They generally have all weapons and any high value or easily removable equipment removed simply becasue that shit is expensive yo and can still be used on other ships. They also remove as much of the fuel as possible for environmental reasons.

I'm sure there were plenty of tests back during the Cold War though that had the ships much more well stock to document possible war time damages, but again, that shit is expensive and not really done anymore.

In the Army, when we did breaching training, we didn't use real doors, we mostly used layered plywood sheets with hinges or steel doors with replaceable lock sections. Sure it's not 100% representative, but its close enough and costs less.

>>32542178
Keyword is THICKNESS.
Having a few inches of steel doesn't matter on your tank anymore, you need composites that end up having more strength than the equivalent amount of steel.
Yes, people armor their tanks but it is no longer with huge amount of solid metal. It's all composites that are layered and tanks have become more mobile and given better vision/detection systems so they do not get hit in the first place.

>>32541870
>>32541870
Finally found it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvigKyp_hcs

At 3:08, the Moskit does a serpentine motion which others say is evasive maneuvers while others say is course correction.

File: torpedo.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>32538652

>>32541295
>>32542035
>>32542088
>>32541958
>>32541334
>>32541677
>>32541627
>>32541734
>>32542075
>>32542108
>>32542178
>>32542335
Gomenasai, my name is Iowa-sama

I’m a 74 year old American Senkan (Battleship for you gaijins). I draw Anime and Manga on my tablet, and spend my days perfecting my art and playing superior Japanese games. (Disgaea, Final Fantasy, Persona series)

I train with my 46cm guns every day, this superior weapon can punch clean through steel because it is folded over a thousand times, and is vastly superior to any other weapon on earth. I broke the Washington Naval Treaty two years ago, and I have been getting better every day.

I speak Japanese fluently, both Kanji and the Osaka dialect, and I write fluently as well. I know everything about Japanese history and their bushido code, which I follow 100%

When I get my Japanese visa, I am moving to Yokosuka to attend a prestigious Naval School to learn more about their magnificent culture. I hope I can become flagship for the combined fleet or an offshore battery!

I own several kimonos, which I wear around town. I want to get used to wearing them before I move to Japan, so I can fit in easier. I bow to my elders and seniors and speak Japanese as often as I can, but rarely does anyone manage to respond.

Wish me luck in Japan!

>>32542598
is this the new copypasta?

>>32542178
This is why the west will fall.

http://2point8photo.tumblr.com/

File: Kursk_wreck.jpg (92KB, 600x386px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x386px

>>32538622
If you think that's impressive, look what a Russian torpedo can do.

File: 20,000 keks.png (533KB, 459x612px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 459x612px

>>32542598
>American Senkan

I lost

File: 172.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

>>32541627

>>32542783
Only nuclear powered cruse missile submarine ever sunken by a torpedo. Russia 1, USA 0.

File: Ship boom boom.webm (2MB, 844x456px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 844x456px

>>32538510
This thread need more explosions!

>>32542335

Yeah, and you can do the same thing to ships.

I always wondered why ships don't have a standoff plate a few meters off the hull; thick enough to ensure detonation of the missile and to absorb much of the explosion.

>>32538996
well if everyone on board would be dead, does it really matter if it sinks or not

>>32543062

It does, yes.

You can repair a damaged ship much more cheaply than making a new one

If it sinks, it's gone for good

File: iowaacute.png (461KB, 440x770px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 440x770px

>>32542598
Forgot my pic

>>32543032
The missiles don't explode on contact, they breach the armor and detonate inside. Standoff armor is useful on shaped charge weapons, but not for this.

>>32543032
That's the idea behind a torpedo blister but those and other armors add a lot of weight. Ships are a lot more complicated than some think they are, designers need to be wary of displacement. Then even if you armor the hull, the top and superstructure are vulnerable, but adding more armor to those increase top-heaviness and reduces the stability of the ship when rolling.
I supposed you could put ERA on a ship, but then you also run the risk damaging sensitive equipment and possibly hurting crew when it detonates.
Plus any penetrating hit through a ship is going to destroy some kind of system or introduce flooding. Which goes back to the stability issues mentioned earlier, where even small flooding can has disastrous results.

Unless you make ship of Pykrete, your ship will never be able to have every section heavily armored or virtually impervious to flooding/sinking.

>>32542335
Way to move the goal post, faggot.

File: 1445123398232.png (421KB, 571x401px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 571x401px

>>32542598
>I broke the Washington Naval Treaty two years ago, and I have been getting better every day.

File: face.png (52KB, 166x192px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 166x192px

>>32538510
That ship is very unhappy about its current predicament.

>>32543158
There was no goalpost moving.
I said in the first post that armor thickness was irrelevant today, not that armor itself was.
Reading comprehension is important.

>>32538510
You silly cunt, that was caused by someone ND'ing their .45ACP side arm.

>>32543148

I highly doubt an ASuW missile would be able to punch through 2" of steel without it being completely shredded, anon.

The missile bodies are very fragile.

>>32543150

You could incorporate stand off plating into stability, though

It'd actually provide better rolling mechanics as long as the parts near the waterline are perforated to allow waves through

File: 1482728685813.jpg (144KB, 636x779px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 636x779px

I'll take, "What is a CIWS" for $200, Alex.

>>32542075
19" of steel that will sink like any other ship.

>>32543261
You aren't wrong, the missile's engine, control system, skin and fuel cell are much too fragile to breach armor.

The two hundred kilogram warhead moving at 250 meters per second however is hardened for just that kind of thing.

>>32538510
>Poor little white boy : the aftermath

File: 60.jpg (20KB, 255x240px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 255x240px

>>32543407
Waking up every morning and realizing you'll always be a nigger, so you bring race into everything; the aftermath.

>>32543421
>He didn't get the (admittedly very bad) joke: the aftermath

See, "poor little white boy" is the name of a gay porn movie, with a little white boy and black men. A lot if black men. Don't ask me how I know.

File: Leith Harbour.jpg (115KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x533px

>>32542104

>tfw you should be drawn the romanticism of 19th century Moby Dickesqe open boat whaling when "boats were wood and men were iron"
>tfw actually more interested in the excess of edwardian industrial harpoon gun whaling at the end of the known world in South Georgia and the Antarctic Ocean

using only flensing knives and steam driven bonesaws they could cut up an entire 150 ton Blue Whale within 20 mins of it being landed on the flensing plan at Leith Harbour so the whole whale(oil,blubber, meat, bones and all) could be turned into margerine in huge steam powered rendering plants

The Blue Whale is the biggest animals to have ever lived and the only thing they didn't render was the blood(over 8 tons of it in each whale)

>>32543315
>CIWS
HAHAHAHA

>>32543205
Armor is important, but thickness is irrelevant? That's fucking idiotic. Composite armor systems do the same thing as steel in a compact, lighter package. But 19" of steel armor is still going to stop almost anything, including a modern AShM, which has nowhere close to the sectional density to punch through, and the explosives aren't shaped penetrators.

File: Backfire with AS-4 Kitchen.jpg (97KB, 1200x853px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1200x853px

>>32543678
>and the explosives aren't shaped penetrators

[angry Backfire noises]

>>32542703
>copypasta from /jp/ in 2009
>new

>>32543678
> But 19" of steel armor is still going to stop almost anything, including a modern AShM, which has nowhere close to the sectional density to punch throug

Not in any way true. If battleship shells could, then missiles that weigh more and travel faster can (well maby not the body of the missile, just an AP warhead)

Also, nuclear anti shipping missiles is a thing.

>>32543513
The men where Iron because of the PTSD from having to slowly cut up the gentle giant that is a whale while it scream and moaned as they butchered it.

Imagine being cut to pieces while alive by creatures only 5 inches tall that are using millimetres long tools. The sounds would haunt you for life.

>>32544121
Not that anon, and I think BBs would be retarded to activate and get shit on, but..

Even huge ass AShMs like the Granit are mostly guidance, body and fuel. Mark 7 AP shells are all penetrator.

>>32544153
Fair enogh, but doesnt Granits weigh something like 4 times as much too?

I have only personally been close to german 40 cm shells, and they were somrthing like 850 kg

>>32544131

I don't get it, did the men get PTSD from having raging erections all the time?

File: CzqXotwXgAAP1O4.jpg large.jpg (28KB, 316x410px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 316x410px

>>32542431
Is that a wire guided torpedo?

>>32543391

I doubt it'd hold up, and I doubt they're made to detonate after any appreciable armor, rather after a specific amount of time after hitting the thin skin on all ships.

They're large caliber, and they'd have little actual penetrating ability for armor plating, and their velocity, even supersonic ones, really isn't anything noteworthy.

Whilst I think BBs are obsolete simply because of their size and zero need for heaps of large guns, I can see someone putting an armor package that could keep out currently designed ASuW missiles

>>32544153
Granit uses titanium to armor its warhead from shrapnel based interceptors and CIWS munitions. Titanium is also good when it has 7 tons of mass behind it and travelling at Mach 2.

>>32544218

>putting an armor package

That is, putting it on FFG to large DDG sized vessels, or over the area where ASuW hits (usually the midsection)

File: don'tcutyourself.jpg (102KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1280x720px

>>32544197
Aren't the school holidays over yet?

>>32544219

Titanium is less strong than armor plating, albeit lighter and still pretty good in that since ships aren't running around with face hardened RHA, it doesn't matter.

>>32544218

It would be very easy to just make the warheads of Ashms go throu 2 in RHA of needed. So sure, it might protect against current missiles wich isnt designed to do that, but replacing the warhead with an AP one would take the Russians what, 2 weeks?

>>32538850
Same hit location and damage on an Arleigh Burke destroyer would wreck any helos on board, ignight JP5 helo fuel storage and maybe hit torpedo storage and rear missile pads.

Best case scenario, no chain explosions, half your missiles are still safe to fire and you can run back to port with full propulsion, worst case the back half of your ship is no more and the front half sinks

>>32542879
Norway...

>>32542480
Doesn't look too bad, it almost seems as if most of the explosion bounced off.

>>32538510
Isn't that bit already a cavity? Seems to me that in reality that's quite superficial damage

>>32542783
isn't that a foxtrot class? Which was a russian submarine? What am I missing here. Is that a polish emblem on the tower?

>>32541334

This is why Arleigh Burkes and LCS, smaller faster more stealthy and more points

>>32544490
thats the kursk you dolt

>>32544502
I thought the windows on submarines thing was a one off. oh well.

>>32541627
>He thinks this paper thin foil will stop a 1 tonne shaped charge
Sage and hide bbfag.

>>32543678
>explosives aren't shaped penetrators
Lol.

>>32544219
Won't do jack shit. That 7 tons of mass will just get squashed under its own inertia and blow apart when the missile hit the armor.

>>32544164
Weight and velocity are not the only things that matter in armor penetration, the most important factor is the construction of the projectile. When the projectile pierces through the armor, the armor also destroys the projectile, ie Newton's 3rd law of motion. A heavy and fast projectile but has weak construction will just simply disintegrate upon hitting the armor plate instead of pierce through it.

There are reasons why most AP rounds are usually a solid slug of dense high-hardness material instead of a big hollowed shell made of several layer of thin metal and a titanium tip.

>>32545050
>Weight and velocity are not the only things that matter in armor penetration, the most important factor is the construction of the projectile. When the projectile pierces through the armor, the armor also destroys the projectile, ie Newton's 3rd law of motion. A heavy and fast projectile but has weak construction will just simply disintegrate upon hitting the armor plate instead of pierce through it.

There are reasons why most AP rounds are usually a solid slug of dense high-hardness material instead of a big hollowed shell made of several layer of thin metal and a titanium tip.

And what would prevent anyone from installing such a warhead inside a large anti-shipping missile?

>>32541734
And while you are celebrating you get rammed by the still fully functional warboat.

Also its hard to knock a turret out they are the most heavily armored part.

>>32545050
The point I was making was that these missiles has a warhead of similar size as a battleship shell, and you could just throw a battleship shell inside one if you wanted.

>>32545068
The turrets only contain guns, and they are shortrange and will not even hit the ASHM-equipped vessel.

>>32545080
The point is the battleboat can still float on over to your coast line and bombard your ports and cities and your puny missiles cannot into stopping it.

Purpose of a warship is to clear way for invasion forces anyway, fighting other warships is just a secondary job that happened to naturally extend out of the nature of lineships being so heavily armored as to take on defensive fortifications that other lineships were the only thing that could reasonably be expected to stop them.

>>32545091
Enjoy running out of ammunition and food when your supply ships are missiled.

Also, enjoy torpedos

>>32545109
>supply
Your port will be obliterated before i get hungry

>torpedo
Put down that goalpost this instant

>>32545060
>>32545076
A battleship's 16" 1200kg AP projectile contains only 18.5kg of explosive. So unless you guy manage to hit the BB's magazine, a shitload of missiles is required to deal some damage to the BB. There is also a reason why an Iowa carry 1200+ rounds of 16".

At this point, convert the missile to top-attack, using incendiary warhead or just use simple HE warhead to deal external damage makes more sense than refitting them with AP warhead.

File: sperm whale.jpg (200KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 600x400px

>>32544131

>Sperm Whale
>gentle giant

lel

also

Sperm whales can't vocalise outside of echolocation pings it creates with its Spermaceti Junk which acts like a natural big frontal sonar array

whales were definately dead when they got flensed.

generally after the whale is harpooned and tired out by dragging small whale boats one the ship's mates would sail up and stick a whaling lance in the whales blowhole aka "giving her the iron"

whales are the hemophiliacs of the ocean and they will quickly bleed out from a lance wound and "turn fins out " i.e flip upside down like the fucking Tirpitz dead

>>32545311
Well I'm convinced that doesn't sound traumatic at all.
But then bull fighting doesn't seem to bother matadors either so what do I know.
Both are degenerate.

>>32538996
The ship was effectively gutted so destroying the hull is redundant.

>>32541734
As long as the ship hasn't sunk you can drag the ship back to port and get the rest fixed. A good citadel also stops you from getting destroyed by a single lucky hit to the magazine.

File: rbs1.png (1MB, 1337x966px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1337x966px

>>32543261
but what

>>32545213
That must be the reson why everyone uses heavily armored ships today.

Also, if the missile carries a BB shell, then that would be equal of hitting the ship with a BB shell, and that doesnt do any damage, it means the Iowas guns was worthless against ships...

File: rbs2.png (1MB, 1339x972px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1339x972px

>>32545458
if i told you;

>>32545091
>>32545109
>implying you can even get close to a port in a battleship (that's already taken a missile hit) and not be bombed to death by land based aircraft

>>32545437
Didnt help the japs battleships

>>32544131
Generally speaking, the whale was dead by the time they butchered it. Not because it was humane but because the whale weighs 14 tons and if it fights back it can capsize a ship.

File: rbs3.png (949KB, 1338x971px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 1338x971px

>>32545463
you're wrong?

>>32545420
Did you get lost on the way to PETA or something?

>>32545458
>>32545463
>>32545475

Kek

File: rbs4.png (1MB, 1335x952px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1335x952px

>>32545475
eh?

>>32544253
Depends on the kind of AP they choose to go with.

APHE is basically a solid steel casing but the steel would need to be nearly as thick as the armor or it would crumple against the hull. This is especially true at super sonic speeds since the missile's frame is going to shatter regardless. Thicker armored shells are not only more expensive but also heavier so that'll end up limiting range and maneuverability.

HEAT, shaped charges for those of you that need to lurk more, would easily pierce several feet of steel armor. Granted, the space between the hull and the citadel would help but a bit enough warhead is still going to punch right through. On the other hand, jets of high pressure copper are a lot less damaging than five hundred pounds of high explosive inside the hull. HEAT warheads will hurt a BB but you might need a dozen hits before you kill it.

>>32538850

Depends on what you print it out on anon. If you used regular paper for the pic, but then laminated it, that would float.

>>32538510
>still floating
BOAT IS FINE

>>32545544

I was thinking of APHE, like anti shipping costal artillery shells were designed during the cold war.

>>32545544
>>32545576

To further elaborate, the Granit missile (yeah, I know its fuckhuge and doesnt really represent the avrage ashm) carries a 850 kg warhead similar in weight as a 2000 pound Mk 84. The warhead could be replaced with the 2000 pound bunker buster BLU-109

>>32545213
>a shitload of missiles is required to deal some damage to the BB
Lol, that tinfoil bb armour. Not even talking about any torpedo cracking bbshit in half. Sage and hide bbfag.

>>32543551
Most modern naval ships will have about 4 layers of inbound missile protection. Anti-missile intercept missiles are first, then CIWS, then you've got last minute things like short range [redacted] that can take a very huge portion of the destructive power away from the internal of the ship.

>>32545213
>A battleship shell will not damage a battleship

Do you have legit autism?

>>32545472
That's because the Japanese navy had a different armor scheme than the US. Yes, they had armored citadels but there was less emphasis on it. The US used an all or nothing armor scheme which heavily armored the citadel and nearly ignored the rest.

During the naval battle of Guadalcanal, we saw this come into play with the IJN Kirishima absolutely whaling on the USS South Dakota but was unable to sink her. Meanwhile, the USS Washington managed to sneak up besides the Kirishima and landed a solid volley into her side which later led to the Kirishma's sinking.

So we see that not only did the citadel armor of the US navy ships keep them from sinking but we also see that by merely existing the USS South Dakota was keeping the japanese fleet distracted.

>>32545612

That's also forgetting ECM through seduction or [redacted]

The only reason we don't carry missiles that could wipe out a Battleship in 1 or 2 hits is because battleships don't exist.
If battleships existed we would arm destroyers with something to kill them.

>>32545600
>BLU-109
Might work but the WW2 era battleships had face hardened steel armor so I'm not sure if the warhead casing can stand up to that.

Also, if the missile hits at a bad angle I don't see any angle normalization aids so it might just bounce.

Lots of maybes.

>>32545726
That and they'd be horribly expensive.

..actually, that thing about battleships not existing isn't entirely true. The USS New Jersey has been pulled back into action so many times that it's become iconic for the US navy.

File: Littlejack.jpg (22KB, 440x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 440x200px

Harpoon Cannon...FIRE

>>32544217
they still mostly are wire guided. Proven tech,very difficult to jam or fool when behind there is practically a small supercomputer taking care of signal processing business. Also you can call it off a second before impact.

>>32542448
>>32542466

Looks almost like overpenetration? Did they leave a hole through the decks and a bottom also?

>>32545982
Not expensive compared to the battleship it is blowing up

>>32546065
What happens with the wire once the torpedo explodes? For that matter, what happens with the wire of the Modern AT missiles?

>>32545982
Large cruise missiles are not prohibitively expensive, there were many Soviet SSMs that could've proven deadly to a BB.

>>32538510
One source says it was actually a Naval Strike Missile. I might be wrong, but it looks possible.

>>32542598
>I speak Japanese fluently, both Kanji and the Osaka dialect, and I write fluently as well.

Iowa-sama, you actually sound like how Tsurunen Marutei-sama speaks Finnish nowadays.

>>32546113
I think he meant the battleship

>>32545982
>>32545544
>>32545091
>>32545068
>>32545050
>>32544218
>>32541295
>>32541627

How stupid are you? Do you really actually believe that we should go back to 1940's ship design because you have a hard on for hardened steel? BB's are done for. There is no need for a heavily armored ship when we have so many options to send one to the bottom of the ocean easily. Even if you made something that was armored enough to stop current ASHM then they would just design another missle that could. You can only armor a ship so much before it becomes a liability. I know trolling /k/ is easy but fuck dude.

>>32542879
Just when do these Navy guys learn there's a thing called camera stabilizer. A basic gimbal doesn't even cost that much. Even the fucking ISIS quadcopter drone pilots have their visual shit together nowadays.

Otherwise, nice explosion.

>>32538996
thats only a short edit, the full video shows the ship sinking not even 2 minutes later. There is also video of a moskit splitting a ship in half at the bulkhead

So modern naval warfare is basically rolling the die and hoping your ship somehow evades high explosives, right? Because it seems like all this shit is more or less instantly crippling.

>>32546172
Its norway, what do you expect?

>>32545554
Underrated

>>32541860
I feel like they should have put a camera in every room/hallway - I would have loved to see the internal damage and flooding.

Friendly reminder that the Perry's are being replaced by what are basically 2 large ocean going corvette classes with aluminum hulls

File: FEED ME ARGIES.jpg (2MB, 2208x1656px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2208x1656px

>>32543199

In the meantime, the QE carrier is getting impatient.

>>32546115
It gets sucked back into the launcher like a piece of spaghetti

>>32546193
Peacetime navies are always kind of crappy full of sleak looking boats that are undergunned and underarmored and based on wierd flawed ideas... 'sealth', 'protected cruiser'.

Just wait for a real war to start and they will be strapping shit on every square inch of free deck space, uparming and armoring everything, have all kinds of high powered electronic dodads sticking out the top that make stealth meaningless, ciws out the ass. Be glorious

>>32545731
>so it might just bounce
>1000 kg shaped charge
>will bounce off the tinfoil bbfags call armour
lol bbfag btfo

>>32542104
Recommisioning the Iowa would require some method of drastically reducing the crew required.
When it was upgraded and thrown into service in the 80's the CIWS, Missile systems, improved modernized bridge/radar room etc only took around 150 people from the ships complement, the ship still needed a 900 something crew to be fully crewed. As a result the Iowa was never fully crewed - granted this is something that can be said for alot of ships in peacetime, but at any given time in the 80's Iowa was almost 200 men short.
It would need to be automated to the point where it has the complement of a Cruiser

>>32546156
>Do you really actually believe that we should go back to 1940's ship design
No. BB are deprecated.

See, pointing out that BB are capable of laughing at modern day weaponry (with the exception of torpedoes) is not advocating that BB should be built, its shooting down a bad argument that "muh missiles" would obliterate a ship which is orders of magnitude more robust and sturdy than anything floating right now.

A battleship today would be really cool, and would even constitute a threat that would need to be countered, but its also not cost effective or where any money should be spent.

>>32546251
That makes sense. Because they have no real trial and error process (what sinks our ships vs what prevents them from getting sunk) they're relegated to computer models and mock scenarios as to what is effective or not.

It would be smart to have all this tech tested. Have a ship group be forced to defend itself against a "realistic" attack using dummy warheads and such and see how well it fares.

File: kim jong un fun sub.jpg (47KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 620x387px

>>32544514
Nope

>>32543032
That would severely impact performance in rough sea states.
Everyone seems to forget that modern naval ships are designed to function, with full capability, in combat, over sea state 5, they are designed to survive sea state 9 - although I imagine a serious impediment to capability at sea state 7 esp. in terms of ASW

>>32545554
Kek

>>32546269
Not to mention the fact that the boilers/turbines are worn out and need to be replaced. Wich in turn would mean opening up the whole ship.

>>32538510
And they used those to hunt whales?????

>>32546305
What's sea state 9? Interstellar water planet?

>>32546284
>BB are capable of laughing at modern day weaponry
Except they do not. Even a corvette can fuck bbshit up and all bbshit will be able to do is autistically firing its shitty 19 century antique guns into nothing. Stay rekt, bbfag.

>>32543079
That ship took two supersonics that ripped through the front of the hull and came out the back. You aren't repairing that.
Besides that video is a cut. The full video shows sinking not even 2 minutes later

>>32546113
>>32546129
But keep in mind the Aegis systems currently in play. You'd need maybe twenty ship killers to even land a hit on a battleship and you might not be able to kill it with one hit. And that's assuming you just grafted the aegis system off of an Arleigh Burke onto a ship 6 times it's size.

In all likelihood you could need a hundred missiles to take down an Iowa class with a current gen aegis system. Most ships don't carry that kind of firepower even if you add their anti-air armament. You'd need to send an entire fleet after one ship.

>>32546156

The only reason we don't see battleships that size anymore is because there's no weapon system big enough to require a battleship scale weapon. Before we had 16" rifled cannons that could lob shells a good 20 miles and you could only mount them on a battleship because it was the only thing that could carry them and not tip over when giving a broadside.

Now we have SSMs that you could mount on a fishing boat. The Chinese navy is essentially a bunch of speed boats with AShMs. They could challenge the USN just by running us out of ammo.

>>32542431
Anti-ship tampon.

What's the survival rate of proximity to an anti-ship missile hit? Is it mostly a high explosive?

>>32541295
'Hmmm, I bet that's guaranteed to get idiots replying......yep'.
Just don't fucking reply guys.

>>32546316
Okay, prove it.

>>32546315
Did you ever watch Star Wars II: Attack of the clones?

>>32546264
>Shaped charge
The BLU-109 is a delayed fuse APHE warhead.

Do your research, you sound like an idiot.

>>32546383
Yes. Sea state 9 is Kamino then, I assume.

>>32546411
Yep.

>>32546206
Norway, Really? Now those guys should absolutely have their kit set and ready to run.

The Vikings are both very wealthy and tech-savvy. Well they do invest in their personal ceremonial rape hats quite a lot, but that's not an excuse from them for not having a proper camera gear to do quality kaboom videos in /k/.

>>32542335
So if we tacked on some ceramic plates on top of a battleship we could plausibly make it practical again?

Actually, ceramic add-ons for warships isn't a bad idea against APHE but wouldn't do much against HEAT. That would require something like five feet of slat armor.

>>32546421
What do ships and their crew even do in that kind of weather? Float around and wait for it to pass?

>>32546333
You just reinforced the point that armor is not necessary as anti air armament is the best protection currently available.

You also seem to be under the delusion that large rifled guns are in anyway comparable in terms of accuracy and effectiveness to SSMs. SSMs are more accurate (especially over range), can be used on smaller vessels, and can have great penetration.>>32545458 showed the RBS15 (a small, Aircraft launch able missile) punching through heavy armor plate. That and the KH-22 ASM made in the 60's produced a hole of 12m in depth on its target.

The idea that armor cannot be defeated by current, or even dated, missiles is a myth, an easily debunked one at that. You also seem to forget that battleships produce a massive hydro acoustic signature that any sub located in the same damn ocean will hear.

>>32546065
Can confirm, most torpedoes are at the very least partially wire guided. They need the cable anyway to give the torpedo targeting data so adding another couple hundred yards for updates isn't really a problem.

>>32546315
Bad Hurricane tier.

Naval ships spend more time in bad seas than they do in combat, and disaster relief is one of the most common missions for navies. They have to be able to go into hurricanes.

Granted some ships, like carriers and amphibious assault ships, need alot of preparation to do this. A carrier at combat load (hangar full and planes are parked on deck) will need to fly off it's excess aircraft and clear the deck of everything to enter sea state 8+ safely

>>32542335
>Keyword is THICKNESS.
That's what your mother said.

File: 21631 grad sviyazhsk.jpg (41KB, 800x420px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x420px

>>32546360

>>32546470
Plus, some of those fuckers still turn back to the source, sub or ship. It is very Very rare nowadays but still something you can't simply ignore as a situation.

File: tu-22m3 with kh-22 (1).jpg (675KB, 1200x853px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1200x853px

>>32546385
Who the fuck cares about BLU-109?

>>32546466
>You just reinforced the point that armor is not necessary as anti air armament is the best protection currently available.

Defenses are best when layered. Did you know that modern navies often use anti-air missiles for killing ships? The hulls are so thin that even the fragmentation warheads are enough to penetrate the hull.

>You also seem to be under the delusion that large rifled guns are in anyway comparable in terms of accuracy and effectiveness to SSMs. SSMs are more accurate (especially over range), can be used on smaller vessels, and can have great penetration

Now where did I claim that? Rather, I was saying how the 16" guns demanded a battleship to mount them, modern AShMs don't so battleships are simply not cost effective. The argument of AShM always defeating armor is a red herring.

As for torpedoes?
https://news.usni.org/2013/06/20/navy-develops-torpedo-killing-torpedo

Never mind that every surface ship in the world produces a hydro acoustic signal and that every surface ship in the world can be sunk by a well placed torpedo but at least a battleship has a chance of surviving as long as it can avoid a direct hit to the keel.

Remember, the Yamato took 11 torpedoes before sinking. size alone provide some protection against torpedoes.

>>32546549
>a battleship has a chance of surviving
It doesn't, bbfag.

>>32546499
Yes, when talking about your skull.

File: WNUS_16-50_mk7_Missouri_projectiles_flight.jpg (40KB, 650x451px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 650x451px

>>32546316
>19th century antique guns
If they had these fuckers in the 1800s we would have been fighting WWII with fuckin cruise missiles and ICBMs.

>>32546576
Comparing it to a dragon dildo her bbfag excuse for a son takes up his ass.

>>32546538
Well when >>32546264 came up I assumed you were keeping up with the conversation rather than just shitposting.

Besides, I covered HEAT warheads back >>32545544

And besides, the penetration of a shaped charge is dependent on it's diameter not it's weight. Everybody knows that.

>>32546538
>Tu-22M
After reading Red Storm Rising this thing thoroughly terrifies me

>>32546567
So...the Yamato? 11 torpedo hits? Sit back down unless you have an argument to make.

>>32546549
Those were also shitty WWII torpedos with the explosive charge of a duck fart.

>>32546606
Hey anon,

ICELAND. ROMANCE.

File: HMS_Inflexible_(1881).jpg (84KB, 1073x750px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1073x750px

>>32546593
Lol, bbfag autist trying to protect his 19th century artillery barge.

>>32546606
Vampires? Vampires!

>>32546549
>Did you know that modern navies often use anti-air missiles for killing ships?

SM series can be used in SSM role, but only when all other weapons are expended. Also it isn't the warhead as much as it is the incredibly high speed of projectile (old SM went mach +3).

>Never mind that every surface ship in the world produces a hydro acoustic signal

Yes but smaller ships produce smaller signals (for the most part). Also no, torpedoes have advanced a fucking ton since the second world war, and damn near every torp hits the keel unless its been programmed not to. Air-launched WWII torps are nothing compared to modern torps, everything from fuel to warhead has been improved immensely.

Also lets make a list of what the supposed future BB has:
-Aegis radars (and presumably VLS for SM series SAM)
-16inch gun
-Anti torpedo weapon

The cost for such a ship would be absolutely unacceptable, that is if you could even find enough space for all of these things aboard an Iowa sized BB. Iowa did not have room for VLS and had to use deck launchers for harpoons and tomahawks, it had no SAMs.

>>32546599
>Also, if the missile hits at a bad angle I don't see any angle normalization aids so it might just bounce.
>the missile
>I assumed you were keeping up with the conversation rather than just shitposting
Oh, the irony.
>I covered HEAT warheads
>HEAT
>AT
Read a book, delusional bbfag. Although even 4 kg ATGM from 70s can pierce bbshit tinfoil "armour".
>penetration of a shaped charge is dependent on it's diameter not it's weight
It's dependent on both and missiles lack neither.
>>32546613
11 80 years old torpedoes can sink bbshit and he is still trying to defend it. Bbfags, bbfags never learn.

>>32546687
>11 torpedoes
Anything is gonna sink if you put 11 torpedoes into it...

>>32546614
But those shitty WW2 torpedoes did hole ships below the water line, same as modern ones. A battleship, however, is large enough to compartmentalize the damage. They can seal off the breached compartments to preserve buoyancy.

>>32542260
That's no fun :( Thanks for the information /k/omrade!

>>32546705
Modern torpedos are designed to break a ship's back, not poke holes under the waterline.

>>32546659
>lets make a list of what the supposed future BB has
A place in a museum of scaled models of retarded ideas that will never be created, because no one cares about autistic fantasies of assburger manchildren.

>>32546705
Modern torpedos are intended to explode under the ship, creating a huge airbubble that breaks the keel.

>>32546705
You absolute moron, you dont realize that modern torps are typically set to detonate below the keel?

That and the holes from modern torps will be far larger and far deeper.

>>32546705
No. Modern Torpedos explode below the ship, thats way worse than a direct hit.

Well, maybe fancy shit like shkval and other supercavitating torpedo's goes for direct hits, I don't really know.

>>32546716
We tried that with the Mk 14, I'm pretty sure. Didn't work so well

>>32546700
So no reason to build bbshit. Which is why no one builds it.

File: download (1).jpg (21KB, 208x242px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 208x242px

>>32546623
>>32546634

File: adcap destruction.jpg (71KB, 640x413px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x413px

>>32546733
The Mark 14 didn't work so well in general, at least at first. A modern ADCAP is leaps and bounds ahead of it.

>>32546733
>Mk 14
I sincerely hope you aren't implying that torpedoes haven't improved from a terrible 1940's design.

File: 1480033208880.jpg (117KB, 503x644px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 503x644px

>>32542783
underrated post

>>32546747
Well, duh. Modern ADCAPs are gonna be better than the shitty old Mk14 torps, what with guidance and considerably more powerful warheads.

>>32546775
I'm stupid, but I'm not that much of a fucking retard. What I was TRYING to say was that we attempted to do that early on but it failed. Of course our torpedoes have advanced, it's been almost eighty fucking years

>>32546687
So...what is your argument.

>Read a book, delusional bbfag.
Which one?

>Oh, the irony.
And yet you have no facts or sources to support you.

>>32546659
>The cost for such a ship would be absolutely unacceptable

That's actually my point. The only reason why we don't have battleships isn't that they can't be defended or that one missile hit would kill it but rather that there's no benefit to building one big rather than building a warship small.

>SM series can be used in SSM role, but only when all other weapons are expended.

It still means that a ship that can only carry a half dozen AShMs can also use it's smaller and more plentiful SAMs to kill ships.

Did you know that the Arleigh Burke only has 90 VLS cells?And that these cells need to be split between AShMs, Cruise missiles, SAMs, anti-sub torpedoes, and anti-ballistic missiles? And it can't reload these missile cells outside of a dedicated port? Realistically, you might have 30 missiles capable of taking out another warship without resorting to your SAMs.

Really, it's almost enough to justify recommisioning the USS New Jersey just to rip the #3 turret out and replace it with a reloadable VLS system. Almost. Maybe if you can replace the #1 and #2 turrets with triple railgun mounts when the navy finally delivers.

File: download.png (6KB, 283x178px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 283x178px

>>32546825
>triple railgun mounts

>>32546315
Heres an experimental trimaran in sea state 5 - remember this is the minimum fully capable in combat rating for modern corvettes and frigates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4kmjMto6Xw

Rougher seas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCRaSvSXQ8U

This is a megatanker in what is claimed to be sea state 8 but is probably 7.

This is sea state 8 or between 7-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfEo6E6nElE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG5SouF96TQ

Sea state 8-9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf_KtMzdC54

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

It's also important to note that sea state 9 means over 14 meter tall wave height - 45 feet so we are talking cat 4 and above Hurricane

>>32542127
Look closer. The center of the explosion was in the engines compartment.

>>32546825
That tinfoil bbshit "armour" stands no chance against even 60s weaponry, let alone the modern one. Which is why no country in the world is retarded enough to produce them anymore, just like no one uses tallships in combat.
>Which one?
The one that will explain you the meaning of "AT" part in "HEAT" abbreviation. So basically a dictionary.
>you have no facts
Fact is the argument was about missiles and your crippled bbfag reading comprehension prevented you from realising it.

>>32546465
Keep forward movement
if you are not moving you have no steering

Aim into the waves
If you get hit on the side by waves you start rocking side to side , if you are rocking badly and get hit by a wave at the wrong time it can capsize you

Half the crew gets seasick and uses it as an excuse to lay down
The other half laughs at the seasick people and all the shit falling down everywhere because it wasn't properly stowed

I used to enjoy climbing the ladders during bad seas because you could do things like let go of the rungs when the ship is at a high point then grab on after the ship dips and be 4 rungs higher.

>>32546825
>Arleigh Burke only has 90 VLS cells
>only
Bbfag, please. It's enough to fuck up most navies in the world. And what can useless bbshit littoral artillery barge do? Autistically shoot its antique 19 century guns into nothing and eat a torpedo or a missile. Lay down and stay fucking rekt, bbfag.

>>32546957
That actually sounds like a lot of fun desu.

>>32546549
The reality, and all BB fags should heed this, is the only ships in naval service that will continue to grow larger and larger, are submarines. A mega sub is much more feasible than a return of the BB. Hell if BB fags are lucky and a serious war changes the paradigm the best we'll get is a return of the battlecruiser - something allowing for stealth and armor and enough room for a ton of defenses and armament with automation allowing for a crew the size of a destroyer, something like this will be more feasible with advances in production and automation

>>32547004
wat

>>32546951
>The one that will explain you the meaning of "AT" part in "HEAT" abbreviation. So basically a dictionary.
Ah, so you either don't understand how shaped charges work or haven't been paying attention.

So, a shaped charge pierce armor with a super high pressure jet of molten copper. It's weakpoint is that the jet can only travel so far depending on how wide the warhead is.

However, HEAT rounds don't produce an explosion on the business end of the jet. This means unless you hit something that does explode like a fuel bunker or ammo storage the warhead just pokes a hole in the ship.

Modern AShM warheads are APHE. A chunk of explosives in a steel case. Once the shot pierces the hull the explosives are set off and we all know what happens when you set off a bomb in an enclosed space.

Now keep in mind that warships like to keep the explosive stuff below the waterline so you can't really use the supersonic nap of earth approach, you'd need a top down shot. Strictly speaking, top down is better because of lighter deck armor but it's less ideal for dodging point defense.

What the hell is the battleship strike group supposed to do? The cannons are unsuitable for use against long range maneuvering targets and if you decide to develop some cannon fired missiles then might as well use a VLS.

The battleship is unable to engage virtually any of the serious threats it faces, it can only defend itself and maybe survive, and that's no way to wage war, shelling sandniggers with a BB is probably not cost efficient.

>>32546976
90 missiles split between 4-5 different jobs. That's basically 20-30 missiles. If you're up against another Arleigh Burke you might run out of missiles before killing it.

>>32541295
Don't worry anon, they hate me and my gliders too.

>>32542108
Modern naval vessel are armored. I don't know where you got your information. I worked ten years designing and building them at Newport News Shipbuilding.

>>32546730
>Modern Torpedos explode below the ship
True. A 15 to 50 square foot hole is something to expect.

>maybe fancy shit like shkval and other supercavitating torpedo's goes for direct hits

Kekkings.

For the rest of you, the joke is that you really can't sonar through the bubble you reside in. You really can't even disturb the water that much to make a claim, tbqh.

Some scenarios say that just shoot guns into water or blow some small charges around the ship here and there in a constant manner. Lesser fuzzy algorithms are done in just by randomness.

>>32546825
That's a solid point about VLS. Granted the capabilities are great but it's not a bad idea to have a reloadable box launcher somewhere on the ship that can take VLS munitions. For a cruiser the size of the Burke it shouldn't be hard to do. An aimable reloadable box would also give you an advantage with SAMs so you can put more AShM's in your VLS cells

>>32547060
Of course they are, kevlar, spall lining and thin ballistic steel coated with wunderkund bed liner tier coatings, but the fact of the matter is a 84mm Carl G can still penetrate.
Ships are going to have APC tier armor

>>32546995
I agree that we're going to see a lot more SSGNs. With one of those you could sail from Los Angeles to China, fire off enough missiles to set a naval port ablaze, then return home without surfacing once. Not that this is a good idea but it's possible.

Unfortunately, you can't really do anti-air or act as an HQ like the USS New Jersey or most fleet carriers did and if you're found and fired upon you're pretty much screwed.

>>32546087
Half of the missiles on a typical loadout for a russian warship have fragmentation warheads that detonate some distance from the ship and kill everyone in half of the ship. It has less chance of actually sinking the ship tho, but the idea is that the fragmentation warhead "paves" the way for a follow-up strike that has less offensive ECM and point-defence weapons remaining to fight it.

>>32547051
For the artillery barge/Arsenal ship concept a heavy cruiser/battle cruiser with a few 8" (203mm) railguns would probably be the sweet spot. Once you start pushing over 203mm rounds become less economical compared to missiles, plus a 203mm gun could fit on a normal cruiser

>>32547128
Subs can do anti air, not great and certainly limited when it comes to counter munitions, but the capability is there

>>32547036
>He keeps using "HEAT" to refer to shaped charge
Read a book, bbfag.
>unless you hit something that does explode
So essentially almost any point of bbshit, since bbshit has to house a gigantic engine and metric fuckton of antique 19 century ammunition.
>the warhead just pokes a hole in the ship
A hole wider than the gape left in an ass of a bbfag by a dragon dildo that he uses on a daily basis.
>Modern AShM warheads are APHE
Not all of them.
>you'd need a top down shot
Oh, what a coincidence, this is exactly one of the flight profiles.
Stay fucking rekt, bbfag.

>>32547056
Most navies in the world do not operate anything comparable to Burkes and even a corvette can sink bbshit.

>>32547128
A submarine pack is probably the safest place to be in a full blown war.
Sub countermeasures, stealth, etc have come a very long way since WW2

>>32547130
So, a shaped charge by default then. Thanks.

File: burrs.jpg (181KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1600x1200px

>>32546780

>>32543158
are you retarded?

>>32547174
China is developing a cruiser class and Russia still has a battle cruiser and some of it's normal cruisers left. Not as capable as current mod Burkes.

A big reason why most navies don't operate cruisers anymore is because multipurpose Frigates and Corvettes can satisfy their naval defense needs, to say nothing of the modern destroyer

>>32547211
Which is why most of them won't stand a chance against even one Burke. While bbshit will be sent to the bottom of the ocean even by a fucking corvette.

>>32547174
>And even a PGM missile boat can sink a BBshit

Fixed that for you.
A patrol boat with missiles

File: HEAT schematic.png (853KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 1440x810px

>>32547163
>"HEAT"
Not the anon you replied to, but HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) actually implies to a shaped charge always, ever since WW2. Pic related.

>>32547162
They have stinger missiles for emergencies only. They have no Anti-Air capability that doesn't put the sub in undue risk.

>>32547118
Armor is installed around critical areas, its wasteful and counter intuitive to armor every portion of the ship when the nature of modern naval combat favors speed and mobility.

>>32547187
No, no.
Missile with a fragmentation warhead is just a big fucking single-shell shotgun loaded with a buckshot consisting of incendiary shards. Works wonders these days because lolnoarmor

>>32543465
I'm more interested in how he didnt know tbqh

>>32541334
>Every weapons, fire control, and command system would be knocked out and it would just be the hull left floating.

Not if the battleship were operating as part of a battle group and modern countermeasures were available. It would take multiple missile hits to end the fight. Armor buys time to respond to hits.

If your battleship is a stationary target with no defense then it's fucked, like the Ostfriesland when Billy Mitchell sank it, but that was just a demo.

>>32547130
The missiles aren't russian. They were taiwanese HF-3's.

>>32547232
Russia has 3 slavas, 1 Kara in reserve, one active Kirov with at best 2 that can be brought back into service and at best 20 Sov's/Udaloy destroyers while the US navy alone has like 22 Tico's and too many Burkes to count.

I don't think there ever was a contest, hell even their huge as fuck sub fleet is now slightly below US navy numbers

>>32538622
>>32541860
>>32542448
>>32542466
not to throw more fuel on the fire but these look very much like overpenetrations, and
>>32542480
looks like the missile bounced off.

The best really looks to be:
>>32542879

Given all this, I have to wonder about the effectiveness of antiship missiles even when they hit. From what I understand about HSV 2 and the exocet strikes on Gloucester and Sheffield, most of the damage wasn't caused by the warhead, but rather by the fires started in the aftermath of the strike. Hopefully the naval strike missile changes that and makes the actual warhead decidedly more lethal. Anyone have knowledge about AShMs that don't have an overpenetration problem?

>>32542035
Damage was suitably contained. No problem and the ship remained combat effective. Please refer to numerous naval battles in numerous wars where a single turret loss didn't end the fight.

>>32547244
>HEAT
>AT
>AShM
>AT
Seems like you're in a desperate need of a dictionary too.

>>32547260
>putting SHORADS on a fucking submarine
Isn't it only the Germans and the Russians that even bother with such a thing?

>>32547260
There is shit under development for longer ranged work, but it's going to require a third party to paint the target. As is stands now there are several systems that can be adapted to subs to launch IR SAM's underwater

>>32547266
Ah, ok. It is then like some air-to-air missiles. Thanks.

>>32547296
Which still operate in CSGs and you didn't count SSGNs, maritime bombers and a bunch or frigates and corvettes armed with AShMs too, but that's not even the point. The pint is a single Burke can do what even a fleet of bbshit craptubs can only dream of.

>>32547301
>Damage was suitably contained.
Losing almost 50 people for asinine reasons isn't "suitably contained"
>No problem
Tell that to the Hartwig family
>and the ship remained combat effective.
The ship was not in or near combat

>>32547312
Oh, I did? (I'm the anon you replied here >>32547244 )

Where did I got it wrong? How does it work then?

>>32542035
what the fuck happened here?

>>32547301
>No problem
Everyone in the turret died.

>a single turret loss didn't end the fight.
This wasn't an engagement, it was a catastrophic failure that was the result of the ships age.

>>32547373
The last two letters of "HEAT" abbreviation, look up their meaning.

>>32547375
Homosexualism. Bbfags gonna bbfag.
>During the investigation, numerous leaks to the media, later attributed to U.S. Navy officers and investigators, implied that Hartwig and another sailor, Kendall Truitt, had engaged in a homosexual relationship and that Hartwig had caused the explosion after their relationship had soured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

>>32547354
It remained usable. Fifty people is a sentimental loss. I didn't say it was near combat, I said it remained combat effective. Learn to read and consider casualties from an effectiveness perspective.

The explosion was suitably contained and did not destroy the ship. People die. Get over it. Tough shit for the Harwig family. The loss is unfortunate but that is all. Containment worked as it often has in war.

>>32547376
>>a single turret loss didn't end the fight.
Typo should have been "didn't end the ability to fight".

>>32547402
>Gays in the navy

I thought this was a meme outside of subs, I mean they travel to every port in the world were there is no shortage of pussy

>>32547414
>>32547404
It was self inflicted damage that showed the ship was too old to fight. The navy would be in deep shit if they were to continue sending sailors out on ships knowing full well there was a good chance that many of them would die in accidents with old, outdated equipment.

>>32547402
>>32547421
>The victims' families, the media, and members of the U.S. Congress were sharply critical of the U.S. Navy's findings. The U.S. Senate and U.S. House Armed Services Committees both held hearings to inquire into the Navy's investigation and later released reports disputing the U.S. Navy's conclusions. The Senate committee asked the GAO to review the U.S. Navy's investigation. To assist the GAO, Sandia National Laboratories provided a team of scientists to review the Navy's technical investigation.

>During its review, Sandia determined that a significant overram of the powder bags into the gun had occurred as it was being loaded and that the overram could have caused the explosion. A subsequent test by the Navy of the overram scenario confirmed that an overram could have caused an explosion in the gun breech. Sandia's technicians also found that the physical evidence did not support the U.S. Navy's theory that an electronic or chemical detonator had been used to initiate the explosion.

>In response to the new findings, the U.S. Navy, with Sandia's assistance, reopened the investigation. In August 1991, Sandia and the GAO completed their reports, concluding that the explosion was likely caused by an accidental overram of powder bags into the breech of the 16-inch gun. The U.S. Navy, however, disagreed with Sandia's opinion and concluded that the cause of the explosion could not be determined. The U.S. Navy expressed regret (but not an apology) to Hartwig's family and closed its investigation.

>>32546310
Well if its at that point they should put a nuke plant in it.

>>32547376
>ships age.
yeah because it was in an age of faggots.

>>32547440
>concluding that the explosion was likely caused by an accidental overram of powder bags into the breech of the 16-inch gun
"Accidental", because otherwise it could hurt gay agenda.

>>32547509
>>32547525
They wanted a scapegoat, and a dead one was the most convenient. Only idiots believe this.

>>32547500
good to know its just that easy

>>32547566
A dead faggot does sound like a convenient scapegoat

>>32547652
just like aviation mishaps, sometimes it's just easier to blame it on a dead pilot

>>32547665
Thats typically what happens when their is a crash or failure of some kind. In the Soviet Union they rarely decided on the failure being on the aircraft, it would often end a pilots career.

Its easier to pin the blame on a single person rather than an entire system, as it might otherwise result in a lengthy, costly investigation and some higher ups getting burned.

File: Screenshot from 2017-01-05 22:50:56.png (762KB, 1108x932px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 1108x932px

>>32547389
>The last two letters of "HEAT" abbreviation, look up their meaning.

Anti Tank. Anti Armour, Anti Protection. Anti sandbag/hesco. Anti...

Looks like either kinetic Tungsten carbide/depleted Uranium, or shaped charge to me.

Solid TC/DU projectiles can be shot from a rifled barrel and they are still armour penetrating as ever. In fact, they can't do their work in any other way but as coriolis force stabilized projectiles.

Shaped charges can't have that at all, due to scattering effect of angular forces around the impact axis. In other words, shaped charges can't be shot from a true rifled barrel to be effective. You can deploy shaped charges only as non-rotating projectiles like from missiles, rockets or extremely low twist rate barrels like 120mm Rheinmetal guns.

Just for a curiosity I edited the image I posted here >>32547244

The Left one (b) shows why HEAT rounds are non-rotating. The molten metal punch remains as well projected 4000 m/s or faster penetrator in to the armour.

The Right one (c) (and pay attention to the top portion of the image, showing the existence angular rotation) is a shaped charge under vast axial rotational force, just like shot from a common rifled barrel. The molten metal punch disperses and doesn't penetrate.

Or is it a Combination of these all? What was it, AShM? What? ASS HIM?

O God I don't want to be a Naval target of ASS HIM.

Ohhh Dear God, what are we up to: Abbreviations thrown around.

We are all doomed.

>>32547823
>Anti Tank
Exactly. So how about you stop using this abbreviation in regard of AShMs.

>>32548324
>AShM
Ah. So, you sexy expert you,
How do they exactly work? Can you tell?

>>32546825
If you want to have a dedicated missile barge for a fleet it seems like it would be more effective to have a SSGN. Is it really that difficult to communicate with subs that you would need a surface ship with a large mast? Or is there some other issue?

>>32541295
oh boy here's this guy again

>>32546305
Perhaps you can offer some insight into this question: Do navies ever use severe storms, hurricanes, etc. as cover to operate in? It seems like they would be an effective defense against infrared tracking systems, but what about radar and sonar? Would a country attempting an invasion of an island or mainland ever use a storm making landfall as their timeframe?

>>32547421
Nigga there's fags in all the branches and you know it.

>>32547823
>You can deploy shaped charges only as non-rotating projectiles like from missiles, rockets or extremely low twist rate barrels like 120mm Rheinmetal guns
You are now aware that they solved HEATs rotational issues in WW2

>>32546723
>>32546727
>>32546730

That doesn't work on an armored ship that can support its own weight on just its ends
You can't "break the keel" of a battleship

File: 7QsXoq3.jpg (95KB, 188x480px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 188x480px

>>32547823
>shaped charges can't be shot from a true rifled barrel to be effective
Nigga what?
There are mass-produced 30mm HEDP for shooting out of ADEN/DEFA/M230 which go through around 50mm. And that's a rifled barrel.
Do yourself a favor and look up postwar ammo, particularly for the US 90mm, Brit 105mm (including US issue M432), and Russian 100mm.
The only ones to use a slip ring at the time to seperate the warhead from the barrel's effects were the French with the Obus G.

File: 1460059534779.png (201KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1920x1080px

>>32549124
>You can't "break the keel" of a battleship

>>32548378
They work exactly as anti-ship missiles and have nothing to do with anti-tank warfare.

File: national_geographic_world_war_ii_shipwrecks_377_1920x1080_16408.jpg (212KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1920x1080px

Every time there is one of these threads I play this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thGTxU7_TGs&index=5&list=PLeYE4glz2P7Ykmi2T1O83hgKofVF3AcYN

>>32538863
>>32538996
missile fuel can't melt wooden ships

>>32547324
The Israelis had the option on the Gal class boats back in the eighties.

>>32549032
>hurr if you need a missile barge its better to spend 5+ times as much building an SSGN that will hold only a fraction of the missiles

makes sense to me m8

>>32546741
I don't get it... is there a tl;dr for context or should I just be patient and read the book when I graduate?

>>32549250
tl;dr women and fish > CAS choppers

>>32549124
Its more effective the heavier the ship. The keel is broken by the weight of the ship itself, not just the warhead of the torpedo.

>>32549106
Yes there were designs to stabilize shell flight, but the actual HEAT issue is to land while not rotating. Everything else is of course against physics and laws of nature.

Son, I hope you will someday learn that there is no going against the laws of nature. Although 4chan community may advice otherwise. :)

>>32549124

An underkeel explosion can be a death knell for a Battleship. HMS Audacious was struck by a mine 25 ft below her keel(not <5 ft below like a torp). it destroyed the compartment it was under and took out the bulkheads to the surrounding compartments causing massive flooding which made the ship flounder. With wire guidance you can steer the ADCAP under the fore magazines and rest in RIP Iowa.

>>32546115
Torpedo wires get severed at the launcher, and I'd assume the same holds true for missiles.

>>32549131
Any of those are/were not particularly effective, if you do your research, please.

It's interesting to go against the laws of nature, isn't it. Faith based things just don't work.

>>32541295
This desu desu

File: a133390.pdf - 2017-01-06-09-31.png (40KB, 846x598px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 846x598px

>>32549450
>spin compensated liners may be used, especially when associated with spinning warhead applications. Spin compensation (i.e., causing the jet to spin enough to compensate for the spin of the warhead) may be achieved by metallurgical spin compensation or by the use of fluted liners (fluted liners contain raised ridges either on the outside or inside surface of the liner to allow the jet to form with a given angular momentum to compensate for the rotation of the warhead in flight).

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b102693.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a133390.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220095.pdf

>>32549152
Ah, so you're a grammer nazi. A missinformed grammer nazi at that.

the anti-tank part is only representative of shaped charges initial use. There's no reason it can't be applied to anti-ship weapons.

>>32549673
But they never worked in real life, kiddo. No one uses them. Come On.

It's funny to see someone using a reference how 30mm shaped charge goes through 50mm of actual ballistic protective steel like SSAB Armox 500.

There are 50 BMG rifle rounds in field use that do the same. Even 7.62 NATO M993 round goes through almost an inch (22mm proof tested) of the same material.

I repeat once again, and as many times I bother to do so:
Faith based Aviation doesn't work
Faith based Medicine doesn't work
Faith based Weapon doesn't work

>>32547438
Actually, my understanding was that the person manning the gun was psychologically unstable and blew up the gun in an act of suicide.

>>32549941
Sure, totally not a cover story to keep some of brass's boots out of the fire. You know, the one that no one outside of the navy sincerely believes and was totally disproven by the subsequent investigation.

>>32539028
Dildos sink?

>>32549318
Nice.

>>32549782
Grammar.

File: 1476906918776.webm (2MB, 466x370px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 466x370px

>>32543315

File: wat2.jpg (39KB, 278x352px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 278x352px

>>32544131
>>32545420
are you ok?

File: 7. Developing jet from shaped charge.png (220KB, 432x353px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 432x353px

>>32549503
No, that anon is right. You're just retarded. Compared to the timescales of high explosives forming liner jets in a shaped charge(microseconds, tens of them), the centripetal acceleration felt due to rifled spin is basically nothing. It would not even hasten the breakup of the jet were it to fire into thin air.

>>32538996
Looks pretty fucking metal to me