Let's have a civil Battleship thread

File: 34666.jpg (140KB, 1280x692px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1280x692px

Neat video of the Tirpitz being launched:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU0A52imE1o

File: hms nelson.jpg (40KB, 564x438px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 564x438px

Nelson class because it's so brutal and uncompromising, 16" guns in three turrets, all forward because fuck running away.

>>32548441
Unless if I'm missing something, wouldn't you at least have to be at an angle to fire all of them at a single target?

>>32548740
Apparently it's rare that a battleship was directly head-on to fire (don't know why, minimises aspect, crossing the T etc). Being at a slight angle was more common which would allow all threwe turrets to fire. This arrangeent also reduced the size of the armored citadel and saved weight. The Nelsons were slow but brutal meatgrinders, built after the lessons of Jutland had been learned - armor and guns matter more than speed.

Montana. What could have been...

File: HMS_Malaya_jutland.jpg (42KB, 700x349px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 700x349px

>>32548049
Pic related because my country gifted it to the Empire before WWI. Also, good on you, OP. Make proper battleship threads but not the lel bring back iowa lol threads.

File: tmp_sm.jpg (74KB, 1440x776px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1440x776px

>>32548049
I always really liked the Constitution Class, even if Starfleet never adopted a real 'battleship'.

File: USS_West_Virginia_1944.jpg (72KB, 700x698px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 700x698px

>>32548049
Refit Colorados are super adorbs.

>>32548834
It was designed that way solely to meet the displacement limits in place at the time it was produced. Look it up. It looks cool, but it's actually a stupid design. It did land some good shots on Bismark, though.

File: 3573578.jpg (1MB, 1883x1502px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1883x1502px

>>32549771
DO IT

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

281KB, 3083x1143px

Is new kirov welcome here?

File: 3253534677_c30960177d_b.jpg (328KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1024x576px

B I G M A M I E
I
G

M
A
M
I
E

File: Italian_battleship_Roma_(1940)_starboard_bow_view.jpg (136KB, 1200x655px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1200x655px

>>32548049

The Bismark & Littorio are my favorite. Neither class of ship performed especially well in the war, but damn if they don't look intimidating.

>>32548049
I find the Littorio's to be particularly aesthetic

>>32548740

>wouldn't you at least have to be at an angle to fire all of them at a single target?

So in other words just like every other battleship ever? Very few battleships were designed such that you could fire the main battery directly forward. The only exception that I'm aware of was the King George V class which was designed such that the guns could be fired directly forward if necessary. It turned out to be a useless feature that made the ship "wet" because the bow wasn't high enough to prevent water from splashing into the boat.

>>32550058

Those AA gun mounts were very unreliable, but they look very nice and well protected.

File: EnterpriseE.jpg (230KB, 1920x826px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1920x826px

>>32549796
Heard you were talking shit, gramps.

>>32548049

What's the difference between the main belt and upper belt?

File: Richelieu 2.jpg (126KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x500px

>>32550116
>>32550095
>>32550105
>2017
>not posting her ass

>>32550141
I love the dazzle painting on this one - easy to imagine that it looks like a much smaller ship in low light or bad weather.

File: USS_Iowa_BB61_dat_aft_80s_refit.jpg (87KB, 802x960px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 802x960px

We posting aft now?

File: 1465188006996.jpg (2MB, 1600x1361px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1361px

The North Carolina-class battleships are my favorite. They had the sexy American WW2 Battleship aesthetics and they were both the highest decorated American battleships for WW2.

USS Washington in particular is my favorite. Not many American battleships got to participate in surface action, let alone sink another battleship(or battlecruiser however you want to classify Kirishima). And reading about the 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, it was pretty impressive how this ship pretty much single handedly won them that battle. And it got to go on for the rest of the war fighting in almost all of the naval engagements without losing a single man to enemy bombs or fire. That was one lucky ship.

>>32549817
T H I C C
H H
I I
C C
C C

Big Mamie went to fucking work on the Vichy French navy at Casablanca. Sank two destroyers, a cruiser, assisted sinking another cruiser and destroyer, and disabled Jean Bart.

>>32550964

Sink the Bismarck has some great shell loading footage filmed aboard HMS Vanguard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuO4BfnlDY8

File: 014839g.jpg (634KB, 1500x1052px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 1500x1052px

Favorite Class is Colorado, favorite individual ship is the West Virginia.
WEE VEE

File: USS Texas.jpg (252KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1440x1080px

Look it's The USS Fire support

File: USS_Texas_LOC_hec_08102.jpg (4MB, 3300x2292px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3300x2292px

>>32551765
>tfw no money to save her.

File: a_heavy_German_shell_falls_between_battleships_USS_Arkansas_BB33_and_USS_Texas_BB36_as_they_bombard_Battery_Hamburg_near_Cherbourg_France_June_25_1944.jpg (238KB, 740x590px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 740x590px

>>32551765

File: USS_Consitution_USS_Texas_USS_New_York.jpg (634KB, 1250x902px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 1250x902px

>>32551793

>>32551793
thought she went into dry dock

>>32551537
hnnng that baltic camo

File: battleship_USS_Texas_BB36_bears_President_Calvin_Coolidge_to_Havana_Cuba_1928.jpg (516KB, 1750x523px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1750x523px

>the last time a US President went to Cuba

File: maxresdefault.jpg (501KB, 3154x2001px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 3154x2001px

>>32551818
nope, shes parked in San Jacinto, Literally in front of the San Jacinto monument

>>32550719

Why didn't Washington save her? I hate this state.

Yamato. Those aesthetics are glorious.

File: Yamato_Trial_1941.jpg (886KB, 3430x1756px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 3430x1756px

>>32552152

Gonna have to agree with that.

Those 18-inch guns really make a statement don't they.

>>32551868
Last I heard she was sinking.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>32551868
Huh, I was there a few months ago.
Very turn of the century feeling compared to when I was on the North Carolina a few years back. I'll find some images to post later if you all want.

>>32549995
holy shit, awesome picture

File: wadfgsdfgsdfg.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>32552347
I try to visit every so often to donate at the least.
She needs to be drydocked. I recommend going on the hard-hat tour, you get to go pretty deep below decks and it's rather sad down there. Water in the bay is just far too acidic.

File: sdfasdfdasfdsf.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>32552587

>>32548049
North Carolina Class
USS North Carolina.

File: sdsafsdfdsgf.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>32552631
the bofors needs paint

File: ssedfgsdfgsdfgsadfg.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>32552642
>those patches

I unironically love battle ships, and even though I understand they are no longer useful, I still think they are awesome.

What should I do?

File: 014825a.jpg (272KB, 2000x1444px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 2000x1444px

>>32552890
Enjoy being someone sane that appreciates something awesome, but that knows their time is over.
Look at images (I recommend NavSource for US stuff), watch documentaries, and look back fondly at the past.

When naval warfare was all about a hundred men working a fire director & turret, doing tons of calculations, to send a chunk of metal screaming through the skies, into their opponent.

File: victoryanddreadnought.jpg (280KB, 1024x638px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1024x638px

Pic very related. Currently my background.

File: pic_18.jpg (153KB, 1291x842px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1291x842px

Kirov is fucking huge.

>>32550047
>The only exception that I'm aware of was the King George V class which was designed such that the guns could be fired directly forward if necessary
They had a quad turrent on the stern, so I have no idea how that would work.

File: wrong.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>32552890
>they are no longer useful

>>32552047

Both the NY and Washington congressional delegations tried to save their respective battleships immediately after WW2. The navy denied both base don the "needs of the navy" and promptly blew up the NY during Operation Crossroads and held onto the Washington for 15 years because it was relatively low-mileage and they thought they could get some more use out of her. Then they struck her and left less than 8 months for a museum ship committee to raise the cash to save it.

File: carnik.jpg (67KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x333px

>>32553243

I mean I guess they are useful if your goal is to have short range manpower intensive ships that are marginal in modern combat.

>>32553291
Sustained coastal bombardment. Planes/missles can't do that nearly as effectively. It's admittedly a big hole in current USN war planning.

File: 1473921871837.jpg (1MB, 3386x2500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3386x2500px

>>32553309
Just stop. There's been enough threads ruined by people coming in saying "But they can be used for coastal bombardment".
Even in WW2, where battleships were used extensively for that role, they did very little to be effective. Pretty much every invasion I can think of from Normandy to Okinawa was preceded by a large naval bombardment that did very little to hinder the defenders.
Battleships are for fighting other battleships. That's all they were built for and all they ever did well. That role is non-existent today because it is entirely obsolete.


I love BBs, but let it go. They are not coming back.

>>32553364

Hold me, Anon. I think I'm going to cry.

File: YmAfJsO.jpg (768KB, 3575x2700px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 3575x2700px

>>32553373
It will be okay, Anon. Don't cry. Just remember what things used to be like.
Here's the Oklahoma with a pretty paintscheme.

File: yeaaaaaaaa.jpg (19KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x225px

>>32553291
>>32553309

https://ussmissouri.org/learn-the-history/operation-desert-storm

File: sailors reefing mainsail.jpg (373KB, 1920x1054px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1920x1054px

>>32553068

what is with the spars on Dreadnought's mast

they can't be sail yards so what are they for?

>>32553288

OK, that's even worse goddammit

>>32553243
>>32553291
>>32553309
if you just really a bombardment ship, can't you just build a cheap crusier size ship fitted with howitzers?

>>32548834
>Apparently it's rare that a battleship was directly head-on to fire (don't know why, minimises aspect, crossing the T etc). Being at a slight angle was more common which would allow all threwe turrets to fire. This arrangeent also reduced the size of the armored citadel and saved weight. The Nelsons were slow but brutal meatgrinders, built after the lessons of Jutland had been learned - armor and guns matter more than speed.
Going head-on *maximizes* aspect. Finding the bearing is easy, but getting the range right is trickier. If a ship's head-on, a bigger range error will still produce a hit.

>>32553408

semaphore flags maybe? Dunno.

File: 457848.gif (2MB, 366x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 366x281px

>>32553406
BRING THEM BACK

File: 4884.jpg (184KB, 1190x787px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1190x787px

>>32553364
>WHAT IS KOREA
>WHAT IS VIETNAM
>WHAT IS BEIRUT
>WHAT IS DESERT STORM

stop talking out ya ass, kiddo

>>32553453
Using existing equipment because it was already around.
Korea? Fine. Still a long time ago before rockets/missiles were prominent like they are now. Good for cutting down unfortified positions or waves of Norks/Chinese.
Vietnam? Okay, since the New Jersey was directly mentioned in the peace talks. She had some use for hitting the coastline.

But that was ~40 years ago.
Desert Storm they were mostly launching Tomahawks, which multiple other types of ship can do.
In today's age they would have no advantage compared to cruise missiles, airdropped bombs, and all that other fun stuff. In both Beirut and Desert Storm, Battleships were hanging around because Reagan wanted them to boost Navy numbers and to be symbolic.
All four Iowas are retired now and museums. They are not coming back for a long list of reasons and no replacements will be built.

>>32553494
>Desert Storm they were mostly launching Tomahawks, which multiple other types of ship can do.

https://ussmissouri.org/learn-the-history/operation-desert-storm

stop talking out ya ass, kiddo. you might learn something

>>32553512
Stop heaving your head up yours, you geriatric fool.
BATTLESHIPS ARE GONE AND NOT COMING BACK.

>>32553512
Again, nobody said "We absolutely *need* the Iowas here for support!". It was "Oh neat, the Iowas are around. Let's use them to shell some beaches."
That's how it was in Lebanon as well. The Navy could have just as easily used missiles. But they went with something more symbolic that would send a message.
While psychological warfare foes value, its value is not billions of dollars for a ship that you will get to take out and play with once every decade.

File: fsxmeGY.jpg (239KB, 2048x1529px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 2048x1529px

>>32553542
Blah. I screwed a sentence up.
>While psychological warfare does have value*

>>32553408
>>32553440
Mainly radio antennas - those spark emitters and crude coherer receivers needed huge ones.

File: HMSVanguard_60s_l.jpg (431KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1000x800px

Fast battleship are goat

>>32553413

or just use the autoloading guns on your destroyers and crusiers

during the Falklands War the british heavily bombarded argentine troops using both modern automatic loading 4.5 inch guns on the Type 42 Destroyers and old ww2 style QF 4.5 inch guns on the Leander class Frigates

the glorious old nuclear madman that was USS Long Beach had two 5 inch guns on top of her missiles so I don't see why another proper big Air Defence Cruiser couldn't have the same or a single even bigger gun

plus she would be her own escort(you could even develop or buy a Crowsnest style modular helo AEW systems to further let the ship be the ultimate SAG vessel)

>>32553494
>Desert Storm they were mostly launching Tomahawks, which multiple other types of ship can do.
I don't seem to recall those Iraqi positions surrendering to a UAV because of tomahawk strikes.

While I agree that the Iowa's were not the primary bread winners in Desert Storm but they were an integral part of the Amphib Diversion and message to Saddam that his bunkers/emplacements were worthless in the face of Overwhelming Coalition Firepower.

>>32553642
They were a fucking distraction to get him to move most of his forces near the coast to defend against an invasion.

>>32553642
Exactly, they were more effective as symbols than anything else.
Big morale boosters to friendlies, big source of fear for enemies. But the Iowas are done. Too old, no spare parts, and next to nobody knows how to run them anymore.
Nobody is going to sign off on making a new class of ships that has such a limited role.

If you really want to get technical then any new class of gun-based ships would be more of a Battlecruiser because they would not have the armor Battleships did.

>>32552587
I heard they are going to landlock here in the next few years. While not perfect, it should allow her to last many more years into the future.

Don't know the status of the project. I really think any Texas anons here should do some sort of letter campaign to Abbot to get him to divert some of that sweet oil money to helping keep her safe for another hundred years.

File: 1480910112327.jpg (1015KB, 3478x4250px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 3478x4250px

Is it possible to decorate battleships now days with stealth in mind?

scharnhorst with clipper bow is the most aesthetic battleboat

File: 25_75197_c9976fe584693b4.jpg (206KB, 1120x768px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1120x768px

>>32553408
>>32553440
>>32553579
Does this give you a clue?

>>32553494
Nigga you trolling?

File: royal oak.jpg (72KB, 960x537px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 960x537px

>>32553068
>>32554026
I didn't check the thread before posting!
Here have a similar one you might like though

>>32554026
>>32554047
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NXFCDgyanA

File: prinzeugen_001.jpg (70KB, 800x514px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x514px

>>32553364
you are so wrong m8
you can stop russian tank armies dead in their tracks and even fight them back
check out the service history of the german cruiser "Admiral Scheer" and "Prinz Eugen" from 1944 on in the baltic sea

File: Jean Bart.jpg (637KB, 2973x2185px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 2973x2185px

>>32550278
>Not posting her well equipped sister.

File: admira16.jpg (104KB, 799x455px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 799x455px

>>32554370

File: 1kl83Ip[1].jpg (269KB, 1204x767px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1204x767px

Always liked the asymmetric Nelson and Rodney (Rodney - great name for a battleship, Del Boy). Made an Airfix model when I was a kid

>>32554480

Is there anything actually wrong with that layout besides the fact that you don't have a way to shoot backwards easily?

>>32554489
No idea - must create huge torque when they fired a broadside.

It was designed to comply with 1922 arms limitation treaty, but in -D it always looked as though someone had designed a "fuck off" battleship with 18, 16" guns, started building it at the front then had run out of money.

Rodney is the only battleship to torpedo another battleship - she stuck one into the Bismark

>>32554520
-D = 3-D
Sorry

>>32554520

I wish there were more BB vs BB fights. They just didn't happen as often as you'd think because both sides were very conservative with their battleships.

>>32554558
The Rodney was involved in the hunt for the Bismarck, and her 16" guns caused terrible damage to the German ship. Indeed, once the Bismarck's guns were disabled, Rodney came close enough to fire on essentially a flat trajectory. At that point, one 16" round was seen to hit the front armor of Bismarck's "B" turret, punch through its 14" thick armor, and blow out the back of the turret.

Source
>wonderduck dot mu dot nu/the_misfit_battleships

>>32554370
>>32554399
Neither of which are battleships.

>>32554520
>It was designed to comply with 1922 arms limitation treaty
Except the G-3 design it was based on also had a third turret that couldn't fire astern.

File: the path we all walk.jpg (68KB, 799x569px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 799x569px

why did they kill the QE's...

>>32549173

Why is the Hood so heavy when it looks so small?

File: HMS Dragon.jpg (376KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 960x640px

>>32553687
Warships can still be decorated, yeah

File: HMS Dreadnought and Victory.jpg (1MB, 1600x1182px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1182px

>>32553068
>>32554047
Have a colourised version

File: HMS King George V (Class).jpg (55KB, 369x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 369x600px

>>32555155
Or the King Georges (though from a historic perspective, I guess Warspite should have had the honour, if there was the option)

At least the name is still in service (when the current sub is broken up, at least)

>>32555311
>small
>longer than the yamato

>>32554558
Check out the history of the Washington

>>32553542
>nobody said "We absolutely *need* the Iowas here for support!"
Except for the USN, who said so as late as 2014.

>>32549995
Does anyone know what type of floatplane is present here?

>>32556471
These are different classes... is that Missouri on the right? Who's on the left?

File: US_Iowa-class_battleship_under_kamikaze_attack_at_Okinawa_April_1945.jpg (607KB, 2846x2222px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 2846x2222px

>>32555311
They're only showing their profiles from above the waterline.

>>32556471
Curtiss SC Seahawk.

>>32556572
Thank you

Was there any sort of Naval Treaty restriction that would have kneecapped aircraft carriers to make BBs relevant longer? Something like limiting hangar dimensions

File: USS_Pennsylvania_BB38_off_Panama_1934.jpg (2MB, 5922x4624px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5922x4624px

>>32556570
Those are Missouri and Iowa.

File: USS_Iowa_BB61_leaving_Pacific_anchorage_1944.jpg (642KB, 2519x3200px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 2519x3200px

>>32556600
Merely a restriction on total tonnage allotted to aircraft carriers, (which was why Wasp was a thing).

>>32556600
Because everyone followed the Washington Naval Treaty when it came to battleships.
No. Battleships were replaced as the dominant power because Aircraft Carriers are better and more versatile.

>>32556615
Oh, I thought the conning towers were different.

Radar is different at least.

File: USS_Pennsylvania_(BB-38)_1945.jpg (452KB, 2095x1665px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 2095x1665px

>>32556703
>Oh, I thought the conning towers were different.
Iowa's rangefinder is trained to starboard and you can't see it's outline.
>Radar is different at least.
I believe Missouri has SK2 air-search radar, whereas Iowa still has SK set.

>>32556829
cool, thanks man

>>32554520
It's probably my inner WoWS player escaping, but it seems as though being able to track a ship across the bow with all three turrets, even if one has a blocked line of fire, would be a massive boon in regards to manoeuvring. That way you don't have to wait for your rear turret(s) to swing a full 180+ degrees when switching sides.
I've always just wondered why the Dunkerque and Richelieu layouts never saw more use, especially on smaller ships like cruisers. Having all your firepower capable of tracking across the bow just seems so useful. The citadel being a smaller target seems like it would be worth something, too.

>>32548834
>crossing the T

When you cross the T it's the enemy that's head/ass on, you're showing broadside.

File: PrinzEugen-2.jpg (28KB, 600x359px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x359px

Question for you guys, because I don't feel this needs a different thread:

If you could go back in time and ensure the preservation of any one warship that survived WWII, which would you choose?

I'm inclined to go with Prinz Eugen, personally. She doesn't quite have the prestige of a battleship like Bismarck, but she still lived a hell of a life and is quite possibly my favorite warship ever launched. I've always thought it such a waste that both she and Nagato were sunk in Operation Crossroads, especially given that no Axis capital ships survive to this day. Eugen especially deserved better, after the sort of fight she put up.

File: IMG_8842.jpg (317KB, 1971x859px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1971x859px

One of the Mutsu's 41cm guns.

File: enterprise.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>32557206
The Enterprise.

It's INSANE she was scrapped.

She was in the thick of almost EVERY major battle of WW2 pacific beginning to end. The most decorated USN ship ever. She arguably WON the war for us.

Aesthetically... I'd want to save Yamato.

File: Img_8844.jpg (329KB, 1971x981px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1971x981px

With random schmuck of largely average (western) size for scale.

File: missouri.jpg (39KB, 360x480px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 360x480px

>>32557335

>>32557319
Agreed. The fact that neither Big E will be around for the future is just...depressing. Especially because I'm a bit of a Trekkie.

File: HMS Vanguard (Fast Battleship).jpg (58KB, 1200x454px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1200x454px

>>32557391
The US re-uses names (do they keep battle honours?), so there'll be an Enterprise again.
Seeing how remarkable at least two of them have been, that's quite a rep to live up to.

>>32557206
Warspite (most decorated), any of the King George V class (Duke of York for preference, perhaps) and HMS Vanguard (arguably the last battleship in the world) are all good contenders - it's just a real shame that none of the Royal Navy's battleships got preserved

>>32549173
I always thought the Alaska class was really cool.
>damn near a full Iowa class's armament
>faster
>has a pair of floatplanes
I wish the class concept had developed further into a helipad and hangar capable of handling 4-5 helicopters or VTOLs, while still keeping the dakka in front.

>>32557206
I'd have to save a British ship purely because it's a travesty that they don't save anything above destroyers and light cruisers.

Warspite should have been kept or Vanguard if not just for the prestige of the last battleship launched worldwide.

The Royal Navy might have more sailors if they had some decent ships to inspire people.

>>32557391
>>32557505
IIRC there's a planned Ford class Enterprise carrier. I'm also fairly certain that if we ever get reactionless spacecraft worked out there will be another starship Enterprise in NASA.

>>32557559
>>32557391
The next USS Enterprise is due to start construction in 2018 but congress are trying to delay or extend her construction to make sure there isn't more than 11 carriers.
This will push her in service date back to 2027

File: trump iowa iowa.png (2MB, 1499x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1499x1000px

>>32557612
>congress are trying to delay or extend her construction to make sure there isn't more than 11 carriers.
Somebody's in for a stumping. Fucking Congress.

File: USS_Enterprise_is_struck_by_kamikaze_forward_elevator_is_blown_400_feet_in_the_air.jpg (693KB, 1420x1062px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1420x1062px

>>32557319
>enterprise.webm
>Mk.32 5"/38 mounts

>>32557629
I think it's a law that there has to be eleven, no more and no less, CVs in service.

>>32558112
>Arkhangelesk shipgirl is literally Royal Oak shipgirl with an ushanka and Sean Connery accent
COMRADESH, THISH ISH YOUR CAPTAIN SHPEAKING

>>32558155
There was, but its been wavered for now, its why the US Navy only has 10 now and nobody is getting fired.

I cannot find a picture of the New Jersey in it's Black Dragon paint.

>>32558290
>>32558155
I think Trump said he wants to expand the navy.

>>32559473
this is dangerous topic to get into without derailing the thread more than we already have buuuuuut trump has said a lot of things, we'll see but i'm not holding my breath

>>32559473
I doubt that will include more CVs (If it happens). Probably more destroyers, including Zumwalts, and frigates.

>>32559473
He says a lot of things.

File: battleship_comparison_HIJMS_Yamato_HMS_Vanguard_USS_Iowa.jpg (249KB, 1280x967px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1280x967px

I love battlehips, but the era of huge heavily-armored warships is over.

File: HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_as_seen_from_USS_New_York_1918.jpg (303KB, 1450x1023px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1450x1023px

>>32559947
That's HMS Queen Elizabeth at the end there.

File: 110603-N-SH953-653.jpg (3MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2100x1500px

>>32548049
pre-dreadnought, pre-welding. anything held together with rivets is cool.

cage masts make me moist

but tall ships are still best ships

I have a question, what happened to Italian BB's after the war? If I remember correctly at least one still wasn't sunk and was given to the allies when Italy surrendered.

>>32552890
Get into scale modelling.

File: 03d17172.jpg (156KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1280x960px

Too much burger in this thread.

File: t3_5hka5s.jpg (1MB, 3000x2303px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2303px

burger bb are best bb

File: 1453366857678.jpg (1MB, 3024x1878px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3024x1878px

fuckin nips must have had to ballast the shit out of this thing. looks soooooo top-heavy

File: 014573a USS Colorado.jpg (497KB, 2472x1437px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 2472x1437px

Lattice = Tripod > Stacked mast like Iowa or Bismarck classes > British Castle Style > Tube >>>> Japanese Pagoda

File: Former_Italian_battleship_Giulio_Cesare_now__the_Soviet_Novorosiysk_1950_Sevastopol-2.jpg (1MB, 1795x1205px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1795x1205px

>>32560201
Vittorio Veneto went to Britain and Littorio to USA but both were scrapped without ever entering service because of their obsolescence. Italy kept both Andrea Doria-class ships, and Giulio Cesare went to Soviet Union.

>>32549823
it was actually a very good design especially given its treaty limitations, it did sacrifice some speed but in return had very good protection and armament for its time

>>32553218
the 6 fore guns could fire dead ahead,

>>32557206
Warspite, or vanguard, but warspite for preference

>>32560609
Thanks anon.

>>32558155
>>32558290
There's a Congressional mandate that there be at least 11 operational aircraft carriers at all times. I've never heard about a limit, though.

>>32557519
>>damn near a full Iowa class's armament
NO

are you high?

>>32557938
Enterprise had 5 inch guns did it not?

What ship do you think it is?

>>32560062
Awesome

>>32560198
What the funk is this?

>>32564202
Tennessee Class.

>>32560652
>the 6 fore guns could fire dead ahead,
How is that different from an Iowa, a South Dakota, a North Carolina, a Yamoto et al?

>>32560165
Story?

>>32558032
I'm currently reading this thread from Clydebank, roughly 1 mile from the site of the John Browns shipyard and about 700 yds from the site of the Beardmore yard.

>>32564087
It's an Essex; Enterprise did not have it's 5" guns in Mk32 twin mounts around the island.

>>32564540
sorry, dead ahead at zero elevation

>>32548049
Damn, I never realised it but Iowa is fucking gigantic.

>>32550964
Assuming Rodney there refers to HMS Rodney, my grandad served on her throughout the war.

>>32551868
Haven't they finally secured enough funding to start construction on the dry dock?

I know they finished the study and determined that her keel was still solid enough to hold together out of the water.

>>32550964
The guy at the end looks like Boris Johnson

>>32565867
By displacement they're the second-largest class of battleships ever built, and the longest ever built (which is what made them the fastest ever built).

>>32554489
Apparently, the superstructure could change her course in high winds. The main reason for this design is that they lopped off the back half to fit the treaty limitations.

>>32560498
see
>>32560333
She was a fat bitch.

>>32568468
Nothing about this post is correct.

First off, the superstructure of a 40,000 ton ship, no matter how large, is never going to catch enough wind the impact its maneuvering. That's fucking retarded and you should feel bad for even typing it.

Secondly, the Nelson is just a condensed version of the G3/N3 with its turrets arrayed in a slightly less idiotic fashion. It did save a massive amount of weight and succeeded and cutting the size of the armored citadel by 1/3, without having to compromise on protection.

Read a book nigger.

>>32559573
me either anon.

me either :'(

>>32548441
>22 kts
>run away
From what?

>>32550047
They were designed to fire ahead AT ZERO ELEVATION.
Which was unneeded and stupid to implement (wet ship).

>>32553309
Monitors.

>>32553408
Sails.
No, really.

>>32553542
Shells cost much less than missiles.
Battleships were intended to take what they could dish out. That isn't coming back, but large NGFS is still desired, despite Fort Fumble fuckery.

>>32550073
By unreliable, do you mean the guns jammed often or that they weren't effective?

>>32553630
Long Beach's guns were 5" 38s. They were barely operable in case of electric power loss.
The EDGs were to support reactor restart and emergency power (one launcher/ 55 radar set); if you didn't have either diesel, working guns were not your biggest worry.

>>32555311
Hood had a high power but lower pressure steam plant that took a lot of space and displacement.

>>32557049
>tracking
No. Just no.
And the French layouts maximized firepower at the expense of survivability- one shot can disable half your firepower.

>>32557206
Prinz Eugen and Nagato were the largest Axis ships available, and the USN wanted to see how other construction philosophies would take a nuke.

>>32557319
Pic related is an Essex.

>>32557519
9 x 11" is not almost 9 x 16"
And the Iowas had 4 floatplanes. And torpedo protection.

>>32569504
They had Littorio, but they didn't want to spend the money to tow it to the Pacific.

>>32556454
No, they didn't.

>>32559663
Keep your damn Zumwalts.

>>32568625
Wind loading is a thing, and has it's greatest effect at the worst time- moving into and out of harbor.
Nigger.

Fuso

I like big masts and I cannot lie

Also there's something sentimental in reading about a terribly old and completely outclassed ship with a reserve crew acting as a sacrificial lamb so the "real" navy can have a go at it.

Image cap so no image

>>32569294

The guns were fine. The mountings were not. The machinery underneath the turret was prone to breaking.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_35-50_m1939.php

The design was actually too advanced for the time, requiring 11 different gyroscopes to provide adequate stabilization. A piece of cake with modern electronics but too complicated for a late 1930's battleship.

>>32568625
>First off, the superstructure of a 40,000 ton ship, no matter how large, is never going to catch enough wind the impact its maneuvering

not entirely accurate, the suerstructure on the rodney and nelson did indeed act as a sail in certain circumstances, however those circumstances were very rare, essentially only at very low speed in high wind, docking in a gale was difficult but thats about it

>>32569658
The fucking captains of the ships themselves said that they never noticed anything of the sort, at least nothing more than on any other ship.

You DOUBLE nigger.

>>32570984
>captains said
I'm gonna need a cite for that, quad nigger.

>ctrl+f ARLEIGH BURKE DDG
>"phrase not found"

/k/ pls

>>32548049

Maybe I should rephrase the question.

When I asked what the difference between the "main belt" and "upper belt" is, what I was really trying to determine was which area is thicker in terms of armor. So if you were designing a battleship, would the "upper belt" be thicker than the "main belt" or vice versa?

>>32564540
You couldn't fire dead ahead on those four.
Design trade-off for not having a very wet bow.

>>32549817
I actually prefer the refit Tennessees. Only 14 inch guns but they are laid out very nice and clean, and tons of 40mm everywhere. On mobile so no pics unfortunately.

>>32549817
Only the West Vriginia got that awesome upgrade. It's more similar to the refits the Tennessee class got, the other Colorados kept a lot of their features.
But WV got a new torpedo belt, dual 5in turrets, completely reworked exhaust system, and a new superstructure. Pretty much the only original thing left on her were the main guns.

>>32572643
Upper belt is a waste. See: All or Nothing protection.

Great conversation with awesome pics, many I've never seen before.

Image limit has been reached, shall we continue here?

>>32574897

>>32574897

>>32574897

>>32573483

Why would you want to leave the upper belt unarmored? What makes it less important?