Civil Battleship Thread #2

>>32574897

What's more important? The upper belt or the main belt? Which should be thicker? Discuss.

Fun fact: The US contemplated building battleships with just torpedo weaponry and minimal main guns during the early days of the dreadnought race.

>>32575195
Would have been more effective if they Kept up torpedo development along with the investment

>>32575148

>what's more important

Air power

File: 14083119757.jpg (197KB, 1500x1205px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1500x1205px

>>32575195
Kaiser Wilhelm II also contemplated a similar warship, which was dubbed "homunculus" because he wanted a warship that was both fast and heavily armored, which were fairly exclusive qualities at the time. It took none other than Tirpitz to put the concept to rest.

It was mentioned briefly in Dreadnought, by Robert K. Massie, if anyone's wondering about the source. I'd also recommend the book to anyone interested in the politics and naval buildup prior to 1914.

Pic semi-related.

How do we make the hull on a modern battleship? Ship building tech has been pretty stagnant for a long time.

I say make it out of a single piece of carbon fiber + graphene reinforced epoxy. It sounds crazy but really it's not that hard, just no one is crazy enough to try it yet. You would build a giant mold like you would any other ship hull. Cranes lift the upper part of the mold up, the CF material is layed out by workers then the upper part has resin injectors built into it and is lowered down compressing the CF fiber, resin is then injected at extreme pressure. Then lift the hull out and cut holes where needed, it can then by covered by high hardness steel and ceramic composite blocks, just glue them to the hull and weld the joins afterwards.

Due to the light weight of CF the hull can likely be 1m or 2m thick and mostly empty inside.

>>32575725
>Ship building tech has been pretty stagnant for a long time.

>What is RCS
If you look out your window on the left you'll notice ship designs have changed severely in the last 10 years.

>I say make it out of a single piece of carbon fiber + graphene reinforced epoxy.
Damn nigger how about no? Graphene and carbon fiber are expensive as fuck to manufacture and you'll have a horrible time repairing any fractures or cracks that develop overtime.

File: mobile drydock.jpg (426KB, 2500x1972px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 2500x1972px

>>32575368
When you have a drydock...but at sea

File: USS_Iowa_inside_floating_drydock_after_Typhoon_Cobra_December_1944.jpg (638KB, 3000x2404px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 3000x2404px

>>32576429
>and your biggest battleship juuust barely fits

>>32576429
>>32576510
This seems like a good idea, why isn't it done still?

>>32576521
It still is; we just don't have as much call to use them.

File: i03733.jpg (80KB, 740x565px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 740x565px

Why did Britain not preserve any of its battleships? Dreadnought, Warspite, Vanguard are all gone and will never come back

File: Royal_Navy_fast_battleship_HMS_Vanguard_1953.jpg (172KB, 1920x1265px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1920x1265px

>>32576542
They were broke as fuck after each world war, and had barely enough money to maintain their most modern warship. Vanguard is the only one for which there is really no excuse.

>>32576542

Both financial and cultural reasons.

Post WW2 UK was broke and the Navy has a culture of being unsentimental when warships go passed their sell-buy date.

>>32575359

This picture makes me want to see an Iowa shell Manhattan.

File: LightCruiserBelfast.jpg (75KB, 800x485px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x485px

>>32576521
There's a few still around, though I don't think any do aircraft carriers.
I know they do subs though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arco_(ARDM-5)

>>32576565
>the Navy has a culture of being unsentimental when warships go passed their sell-buy date.
That's kind of obvious from the way nothing much from WWII got saved, but I kind of wonder how that came about

>>32576694
That'd be something to see.

It's no battleship, but according to the guide, Belfast's guns are aimed at the M25.

File: USS_Vesuvius.jpg (127KB, 938x675px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 938x675px

>>32575195
We also built a warship armed with three enormous spinally mounted pneumatic cannons.

Late 19th century naval design was funny as hell.

>>32577327
muh dick

File: 1473887263470.jpg (445KB, 1132x1600px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1132x1600px

"Who wants to go up in the observation kite?"

File: 1473887338201.jpg (241KB, 1035x1600px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1035x1600px

>>32577355
Looks sketchy ass shit. Like if you lost wind or the ship slowed, you were goin to fall like a rock. Then again, without someone going up we wouldn't have this photo. I got a few really /hr/ ones, not small enough for /k/

>>32577366
>>>/hr/2825513
post em

File: 800px-A_cat_on_HMAS_Encounter.jpg (57KB, 800x502px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x502px

>>32577394
"maximum file size 8 mb"

Goddammit

>>32577392
>USS Iowa
>The ship is named St. Louis

File: uss-iowa.jpg (980KB, 3448x2150px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 3448x2150px

>>32577392
>ST. LOU

File: great white fleet.jpg (524KB, 2174x2010px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 2174x2010px

>>32577392
>>32577340
Love the US white colour scheme.

And >>32577270 is damn cool

File: Zeppelin and SMS Seydlitz.jpg (49KB, 683x321px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 683x321px

Airships and battleships together

File: USS Los Angeles + USS_Patoka.jpg (68KB, 740x581px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 740x581px

>>32577499

File: airship and transports.jpg (28KB, 550x403px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x403px

>>32577510

File: USS Pensylvania, leading Colorado, Louisville, Portland and Columbia.jpg (234KB, 1384x1109px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1384x1109px

>>32577461
Battleship columns look great

File: 04_barbette_d.jpg (58KB, 740x504px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 740x504px

Damage to one of Bismarck's barbettes (Dora?), probably from a 16in shell from Rodney.

> Muh Krupp steel

File: and I rain the unforgiving wrath of vengence upon thee, may god have mercy on your soul for I will not.jpg (861KB, 1395x1479px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 1395x1479px

>>32577537
i love these pictures. they just scream "we're coming to fuck your shit up"

File: HMS_Audacious_crew_take_to_lifeboats.jpg (2MB, 2594x1729px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2594x1729px

HMS Audacious going down off Ireland in 1914 after striking a German mine.

>>32577407
Well shit

File: French Pre-Drednought Carnot.png (2MB, 1800x1054px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1800x1054px

>>32577573
Helps that they're absolutely bristling with guns

File: French battleship Gaulois (1896).jpg (356KB, 1738x702px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1738x702px

>>32577665

File: French Pre-Drednought Hoche.jpg (287KB, 1242x748px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1242x748px

>>32577683

>>32577546
Wherbs like to say that she was scuttled, but truth be told she was completely rekt topside and taking on water- sinking was just a matter of time.

>>32577270
Like a old school bombard ship

>>32577710
Well, it was, but its a moot point anyway. By the time the order to scuttle cam, Bismarck was completely combat ineffective and flooding rapidly. Doomed either way.

File: USS Alabama 1904.jpg (147KB, 700x553px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 700x553px

>>32577340

>>32577665
That looks like a floating apartment building

>>32576542
Well at the time, it was a just a ship, who cared? There's a long list of incredibly famous warships that were either unceremoniously broken up or only just saved from the breakers yards.

File: seydlitz.jpg (54KB, 577x370px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 577x370px

Seydlitz riding a little low in the water after getting a hefty shoeing at Jutland, 1916.

File: seydlitztorpjutland.jpg (140KB, 740x575px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 740x575px

Torpedo damage to Seydlitz, after Jutland

>>32576439
The Greeks fought the ottomans in one of the most interesting battleships battles in one of their wars. Let me see if I can find it.

File: 1280px-USS_Oklahoma_(BB37)-_Salvage,_12-31-43,_7126-43,_Port_side_at_about_fr_60_after_removal_of_main_patch_in_drydock_-_NARA_-_296956.jpg (237KB, 1280x1035px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1280x1035px

Torpedo damage to Oklahoma, after salvage at Pearl Harbour.

File: warspitedamage.jpg (70KB, 736x466px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 736x466px

Frag damage to Warspite's secondary battery, Jutland.

File: WNBR_16-45_mk1_Rodney_torp_pic.jpg (66KB, 800x568px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x568px

HMS Rodney's torpedo room.

File: HMSVictoriasinking1893.jpg (407KB, 1920x1261px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1920x1261px

HMS Victoria sinking after being rammed by HMS Camperdown, 1893

File: Oryol.jpg (131KB, 1280x670px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1280x670px

Borodino class Oryol after getting shot to shit by the Nips at Tsushima.

>>32578452
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lemnos_(1913)

Here it is if anyone is curious.

File: 229ac6523ce19046a9b6ec3d4a1f4677.jpg (75KB, 500x643px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x643px

Extensive torpedo damage on West Virginia after Pearl Harbor.
Final tally, I believe, was seven torpedoes and two bomb hits. they also found one bomb while she was in drydock.

File: h64305.jpg (165KB, 740x610px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 740x610px

Picture of the bomb.
The guy looks like he's wearing his "Oh shit" face.

File: 014804.jpg (52KB, 599x904px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 599x904px

Everything cleaned up, rebuilt, buffed up, and modernized. She's ready to return to the fight.
Barely resembles a ship of the Colorado class.

>>32578536
By accident? Or was it a strange way of scuttling her?

File: vicwreck.jpg (194KB, 465x609px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 465x609px

>>32578767
Accidentally rammed during maneuvers, misjudged distance between warships. Ram bow tore a huge hole and she sank in minutes.

File: neat.jpg (9KB, 227x222px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 227x222px

>>32578729
That's a 16in naval shell converted into a bomb, Same type that killed the Arizona. Nice find.

>>32578767
Accident. The Admiral commanding the line ordered something with flags, that did not exist in any codebook.
He was trying to perform some fleet maneuver to show off his skill and one of his ships (Not understanding what he was calling for) rammed the Victoria.

Sage and hide bbfag.

Modern BB:

>single 14"-16" gun in a turret up front, where missile cells usually are
>not long; 150 yards at most
>heavy armor that can keep out current ASuW weapons
>20-40 cells on the rear deck for ESSM and ASROC/Tomahawk/Harpoon replacement
>2 SeaRAM
>no helo
>small drone hangar; drones provide OTH targeting for the gun

File: Chou-yamato.png (601KB, 1440x1200px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 1440x1200px

>>32578982
kill yourself

File: German_battleship_SMS_Lothringen_passing_under_Levensau_High_Bridge_Kiel_Canal.jpg (790KB, 3500x2773px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 3500x2773px

>>32578596
Neat, thanks.

File: lionturret.jpg (197KB, 2666x1954px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 2666x1954px

bump

File: hms-victoria-1890-battleship-model.jpg (84KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1000x750px

Looking more into the Victoria (Her wreck somehow ended up sticking straight up from the sea floor).
Absolutely beautiful ships. I've never really known that much about Battleships from before the 1900s.

>>32578982
Not really a BB, more like a retarded modern monitor.

>>32578994

It'd work just fine, anon

ASuW missiles suck

I've wargamed it out many times, and a single gun ship that has accurate OTH sensing splatters action groups of missile ships

File: French Le Redoutable at Brest, 1882.jpg (440KB, 2343x1496px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 2343x1496px

>>32577332
>>32577270
>>32577355
>>32577366
Man, I love the way everyone was just kind of experimenting at this time, seeing what would actually work

>>32579023

No

You don't need to 3 turrets with multiple barrels when you have autoloaders and accurate targeting

Armor is better than old BBs

Think an armored Burke with the forward cells replaced by an autoloading 14-16" and no helo

>>32575377
omg those cars in the foreground.

>>32578982

>Modern BB:

>Open Monday - Saturday 8AM - 8 PM
>Open Sunday 8AM - 5PM

>Adults: $20
>Children/Students/Seniors: $12.50
>Admission is free for active or retired members of the US Military

>Free guided tour begins at 12:00 outside the gift shop

>>32579036
For what purpose?

The ONE thing people in favor of bringing back BBs say is "You can use it for coastal bombardment". Well you can't with a single turret.
Your idea has no reason other than to just slap a big gun onto something so you can stroke some boner you have for obsolescent weapons.

There will never be another Battleship in the US Navy, or any navy. The most you will get is some crackpot dictator making a ship, extremely exaggerating claims of its capability, and then calling it a "Battleship".

File: A9WZVf3.jpg (80KB, 800x747px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x747px

>>32574897
>dude what if we make 18in AA shells

Jap logic

File: Nagato_battle02.jpg (18KB, 413x600px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 413x600px

>>32579178

File: USS_Iowa_cancer.jpg (3MB, 2812x1778px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2812x1778px

>>32579080
I laughed.

File: khUf6gy.jpg (50KB, 680x592px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 680x592px

>>32579178
The idea was simple and harmless enough. The only Real issue was the driving bands on the shells wore out the barrels really quickly.
In use they were pretty useless and I don't think I've ever heard of a plane being shot down by one.

They create an unique look in the sky though. even if I've only found two photos showing their use in combat.

File: HMS_Terror_(I03).jpg (55KB, 800x572px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x572px

>>32579116
>Well you can't with a single turret.

Worked pretty well in north africa during ww2

>>32579263
Someone already posted the second one I knew of (>>32579246)

For the love of fuck if you have to post about battleships.
If you really really really have to make these autistic threads.
Can you stop posting fucking Iowas you bunch of fucking faggots.

>>32579290
do you scream at people posting P-51s in plane threads too? get the fuck out

File: f893131b39daec52c3e738ce28f3cec8.jpg (123KB, 1500x988px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1500x988px

>>32579290
Most people here are totally fine just talking about the past and sharing info/images.
It's only a few people in each thread that come in to say how Battleships need to be brought back. the jackass spamming the "Bring them back" threads every day should be barred from creating threads.

Oh, and deal with it.

>>32578982
>heavy armor that can keep out current ASuW weapons
No such thing. Unless you intent to plate the entire ship in at least half a metre of armour and never think of floating it outside a dry dock.

Can we report these threads? Aren't troll threads technically a rule violation off of /b/ and therefor could be removed by a janitor?

>>32579290
There is a difference between inane autistic ramblings over how battleships would be ideal in modern naval combat and discussion within historical context.

File: Yamato air attack color.jpg (166KB, 1280x869px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1280x869px

>>32579333
There is nothing trolling about this thread.

>>32579316
Iowas are posted to death, every thread the same photos nothing new we all know about the fucking iowa it's boring and stale and uninteresting.
There is nothing new to say about it because every day there's is at least one jackoff who has to post "how do we bring them back" and then the thread devolves into "der armor can stop missiles"
I love battleships for the nostalgia as much as anyone just pick a different fucking class.

>>32579351
then why the fuck are you even here

AHHHH THIS THREAD IS STUPID

but i'm gonna be here anyway

>>32579116
You sound like someone that enjoys watching his wife fuck another man.

>>32579361
South American Dreadnought race was some weird shit.

>>32579265
That ships is 100 years old. While it was effective during WW2 for supporting ground forces it would not do much today.
If you absolutely had to have some kind of coastal bombardment shop then your best choice could be:
>Little armor, it is not needed
>Moderate speed
>Most deck space is devoted to launch platforms for missiles/rockets
>One large-caliber turret for sustained fire
But that's not a Battleship. Armor and guns are not the focus.
And even that idea would never be approved because the amount of times in the past four decades (Since Vietnam) where it could have come in use could be counted on one hand.

>>32579346
>>32579346
The very existence of the threads at all is trolling and you know it. It's one poster who swings between this and "Bring them back trump", "make the navy great again", and "there is no reason not to have battleships in modern naval combat!", "We needed IOWAS for desert storm!"

There's a fine line between board specific culture/bantz and autisticly posting the same thing every day purely out of spite and
>i posted it again SO EBIN XD I am a RUSEMASTER XDDD

>>32577270
so air pressure? Cool

File: Tillman_sextuple16.png (65KB, 1161x420px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1161x420px

>>32579351

Fine have some Tillmans instead

>>32579427
>fuck it, we'll just call it the "maximum battleship"

>>32577392
That's a cruiser...

File: Italian Battleship Roma docked.jpg (605KB, 1449x2230px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1449x2230px

>>32579419
So we can't discuss an entire era and type of weapon because a portion of people posting are irrational, trolling, or have an attachment to one platform over another?
Better shut down /k/.

File: 02IyzUY.jpg (337KB, 2400x1481px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 2400x1481px

>>32579466

France made such nice looking ships

>>32576565
Considering their naval history Britain has never been really into ships have they?

>>32579496
Means to an end

File: 1483720079919.jpg (1MB, 1600x1182px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1182px

>>32579496
nonsense. It's about cost.
The fact that a country the size of michigan was able to rule the waves for 100 years or so and after being bankrupt in finances and population after the second world war but still maintains a highly advanced navy is testament.

I'd love to have seen warspite or vanguard kept (might have even encouraged more sign ups to their navy) but I understand that they operate a war fighting navy and have little room for making museums in their budget.

>>32579290
>civil battleship thread

I'm not a fan of the Iowa, but i don't mind her getting posted.

>>32579419
>he clicked so fast to respond that he tagged the same post twice

fuck off faggot.

File: enough dakka maybe.jpg (88KB, 650x431px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 650x431px

>>32579482

File: pCHEE.jpg (596KB, 2400x1331px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 2400x1331px

>>32579482

>>32579572
Only a Tillman IV is enough dakka

>>32579424
Sort of. Assuming those are dynamite guns, they used a powder charge to shove a piston, which forced air into the barrel at high pressure, which propelled the shell.

Why? Because they wanted to use dynamite for the warhead, and it wasn't stable enough at the time to be fired out of a normal cannon without a non-trivial risk of exploding inside the barrel.

TNT immediately made dynamite guns obsolete, of course; just one of the many innovations that fell by the wayside without ever seeing combat in the amazing turn-of-the-century era.

>>32574897
Are there any good simulations of running BBs/steam->WW2 fleets?

Did CMANO ever get any more WWI/WWII stuff beyond that introduced for the Final Countdown scenario? It would seem to be an ideal platform for re-fighting Guadalcanal or Samar (or Jutland).

>>32580182
Rule the Waves does it if you're fine with dreadnought arms race era BBs.
It stops in the 1920's.

File: 7204052750_bf00a916c4_b.jpg (324KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1024x768px

More Jutland mayhem, please.The number of ships rammed in that fight is absurd.

File: HMS_Broke_Jutland_damage,_starboard.jpg (379KB, 807x1000px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 807x1000px

>>32580369
More relevant pic.

>>32580369
>>32580417
I know Jutland was a clusterfuck, but my god it would have been glorious to watch.
What most of the fags who keep saying "how do we bring back battleships" fail to understand that the word battleship is the reason.
Battleship meaning "Line of battle ship" for use to shoot at other ships of the battle line.
Jutland was the last time a true battle line was fought between countries.

>>32580713
Jutland is something amazing. A spectacular battle in its own right, but its impact is something no other battle I can think of has.
That single battle changed, for the next few decades, how: ships were designed and built, how they would be operated, what formations would be used, what weapons, and how intel/communication would work. People from around the world paid attention to Jutland and altered their own fleets accordingly.

>>32580101
Now thats just a tidbit of information i never would have learned outside of /k/. Thank you good sir.

So kinda like that silenced piston ammo used by tunnelrats.

File: Romanian_river_monitor_F-46.jpg (905KB, 4368x2912px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 4368x2912px

>>32574897

Reminder that ironclads and monitors remain in service today. Thick armor and a big gun still count for something, but in the riverine where those carriers and subs can't follow you.

>>32580981
i didn't know this was a thing

it's... amazing

>>32580981
>now i fantisize about a gun boat thread

File: Ashville.jpg (213KB, 746x577px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 746x577px

>>32581028
>>32581028

This is now a gunboat thread.

File: hms-erebus-1915-1946.jpg (319KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1280x850px

>>32580981

bring back monitors

File: GeneralWolfeStarboardQuarter.jpg (43KB, 772x462px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 772x462px

>>32582239
> In the spring of 1918 she was fitted with an 18-inch (457 mm) gun, with which she made the longest-range firing in the history of the Royal Navy - 36,000-yard (20 mi) - on a target at Snaeskerke, Belgium.

File: Yamato.jpg (80KB, 800x465px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x465px

real talk boys, would the yamato and her sister ship pose a significant threat to the U.S. pacific theater IF they were not absolutely rekt by the airforce?

>>32579418
>And even that idea would never be approved because the amount of times in the past four decades (Since Vietnam) where it could have come in use could be counted on one hand.

Do you not realize we keep dozens of large, expensive, manpower intensive ships around just for amphibious operations? A mission that has been on the table a handful of times in the last forty years?

People who bitch that a shore bombardment platform would be niche and expensive never say a peep about the dozens of ships and tens of thousands in manpower we already commit to such a niche mission.

>>32579458
>MAXIMUM FUCK

Ftfy

File: fusion-reactor-3.jpg (29KB, 400x287px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x287px

You know what I'd like to see for a main weapon on a modern battleship? Forget about railguns, why don't they put a fusion reactor on board and vent the reactor's plasma to the gun batteries when they need to fire. Or further compress the plasma in the firing chamber before unleashing them. The plasma would be used to propel the shells.

The barrels will have magnetic coils to help direct the plasma as well as guide shells out of them. In order to prevent the shells from getting melted through by the plasma, there will be some kind of magnetic containment in the shells that would capture part of the plasma energy.

The energy could be used to power the shell in flight similar to a base bleeder or rocket assisted shell. It could also be use to power some kind of next generation explosive warhead. Like say to generate antimatter in flight or at the moment the shell hits the target.

If the ship gets assailed at close range (small torpedo boats, Somali pirates, etc) you wouldn't need to load a shell you could just use the guns to vent the plasma directly in the direction of the target. Surely setting anything on fire in that direction.

>>32586564

Fusion reactors barely even exist yet

>>32586636
One day nuclear will be replaced with fusion and it'll be a fine day to see one put on a ship

>>32586253
When California wasn't an anti gun Communist state...

>>32579555
Context?

>>32586764
Live fire exercises. The ships is BB-4 USS Iowa, she's radio controlled somehow so she can steer and be used as a maneuvering target.

TURN HER INTO A CARRIER

>>32586564
This reads like a Popular Mechanics article. Plasma is difficult to contain, and you want to distribute it all over the ship. That would be costly and uneffective.

>>32587132
A PLASMA cannon would be costly, yes.

File: USS_Iowa_-_NH_63500.jpg (2MB, 2767x2030px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2767x2030px

>>32579461

No, it isn't it is pre-dreadnought battleship. By modern standards it would be probably a frigate by size.

>>32585328
rekt by modern subs

gg, boatslutfag

File: edaf56e48315999505733809f89c1c43[1].jpg (532KB, 1600x846px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1600x846px

I like Fuso, it's so goofy with tall and skinny pagoda and lots of main gun turrets

>>32575195
Still less interesting than ramming craze of the 1870's.

>>32579418

The point was that anon said a single turret is useless for shore bombardment, which is historically incorrect

Multiple vs single turret doesnt really give you anything if you are just doing sustained bombardment. A single turret may even be better since you can have a smaller vessel with a shallower draft.

File: USS_Iowa_BB$_off_Santiago-de_Cuba_1898_Spanish-American_War.jpg (2MB, 1723x1592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1723x1592px

>>32589385
No, that's literally the protected cruiser USS. St. Louis.

>>32590639

To add onto this, last time the Missouri was used for shore bombardment, the ship fired approximately 1 shot every 15 seconds, which means each individual barrel was firing at an average rate of once per 2 minutes (estimated). That rate of fire wouldn't require multiple gun barrels to achieve. And the point about a boat with a shallow draft is also relevant. During this same operation that I just described, the Missouri was operating in water where it only had 3 feet of clearance to the bottom.

Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=293&v=O8VYqhvBpL0

Skip to 4 minutes in.

>>32576510
>Kancolle bondage.jpg

>>32586615

This is a dumb question but how do the gunners actually aim the turrets? I don't see any windows on those turrets.

>>32591180
The turret knows where it's pointed because it knows where it isn't pointed.

>>32579028
We're leaving a period of cultural stagnation, where failure is worse than simply not succeeding.
We're just on the tail end of a period that's lasted no less than 60 years.
In this period, conceptual risks were not taken. When a new concept was introduced, it was maintained to completion, even if was terrible.
The STS is the epitome of this. It should have been scrapped early, like Buran. Buran should never have been built. The shuttle should never have been built as it was.

SpaceX lost, what, 4 full sized boosters on the landing. In the culture that existed 5 years ago that would have killed their company.

That's why Trump was elected. The West is open to new things. People preaching real change will garner more public support than those toeing the line and staying the course. Bernie was an arbiter of changed. Bernie would be president-elect if the democratic party wasn't rotten to the core. The Republican party's worse.

Some new things will fail. Trump is one. But he's different from his contemporaries. He wasn't elected because he was a good candidate, he was elect because he's different.
He's probably going to be a one term president, and in that 4 years the gerontocracy will collapse, and there will be great inroads in destroying what we call in Canada "Capital-L liberalism", that is neo-liberalism.

With the fall of neo-liberalism from the predominant cultural force in society, what is called libertarianism, and "socially liberal, economically conservative" and is in reality classic liberalism will come to foremost prominence.
We'll go to the values everyone claims to hold but no one actually practices.
That change won't happen in 4 years. Maybe 15 is more realistic for the process to complete fully.

File: Alliance-cloudy-L.jpg (201KB, 1536x864px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1536x864px

>>32579520
There are people interested in preserving ships, you just can't preserve ships that literally do not exist any more. The Royal Navy itself also has little interest in the preservation of old ships (since they get fucked over by budget a lot) unless they can serve a purpose in a modern surface fleet.

The National Museum of the Royal Navy (which runs on donations/lottery grants, as it's not directly ran or funded by the Royal Navy) only has;
>HMS Alliance (WW2 Sub)
>HMS X24 (WW2 X-Class Sub)
>LCT 7074 (D-Day Landing Craft that carried tanks, currently being restored)
>HMS Caroline (WW1 Light Cruiser that saw quite a bit of use in WW2 as an anti-sub and convoy escort command ship)
>HMS M33 (WW1 Monitor)
>HMS Holland 1 (the original British Sub built in 1901)