Toot toot, Iowa class reporting in! Comeback in 30 minutes.

File: iowa fags BTFO.jpg (2MB, 3000x2123px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2123px

>>32775486
Threadly reminder

File: cargo29n-4-web.jpg (38KB, 750x434px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 750x434px

>>32775486

How would a modern destroyer fare against a battleship? A new destroyer has paper thin armor (compared to a BB) and has much smaller guns.

>>32775552
i like the part where they try to pin it on the faggot

>>32776896
considering the destroyer has missiles, pretty damn well.

File: 433534dc8970c9649a0e3f88cd9d0a38.jpg (20KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x300px

>>32776981

>he thinks any missile short of a nuclear warhead would hurt the armor of a battleship

>>32777009
I don't even know how to respond to a post this stupid

>>32777020
You don't. That's the trick.

>>32777020

>your battleship was designed to shrug off 16 inch shell hits
>some kiddo believes a few small missiles will kill it

Life is suffering

How come people only shit on the Iowa's?

NOBODY talks about a harpoon sinking the Yamato! Why?!

>>32777385
missiles are a lot bigger and more powerful than 16 inch shells. Are you ok?

>>32777385
>harpoon

>>32777450

No they aren't

>>32777385
Funny thing is, Iowa's weren't designed to be protected from its own 16" shell.

>>32777465
yes, they are.
look up the missiles of an arleigh burke class.

>>32777483
so its a good thing it only shot itself once

>>32776908
The thinnest excuse in history.

>>32776896
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/greatest-naval-match-ever-uss-zumwalt-vs-battleship-who-wins-17151

>>32777385

>your battleship was designed to shrug off 16 inch shell hits

The Iowa's weren't really designed to stop 16-inch guns actually. They only had about 12-inches of main belt armor, which means that most other battleships would be able to penetrate them if they got close enough.

The Yamato, on the other hand, was actually designed to be immune to 16-inch guns. Both types of ship would be easy prey for anti-ship missiles, however.

File: warspite.jpg (184KB, 1280x907px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1280x907px

>>32777385
He doesn't understand how an all or nothing armour scheme works.
Hint: some areas are completely unarmoured.

>>32776896

Lots of variables you don't give

Assuming in range of each other, and the BB is stock WW2 with radar FC.

BB wins, as a single straddle of 16" will hull a DDG; 8 Harpoons won't sink a BB. SM-2s and other SAMs won't do more than 5" and similar on the upperworks of any fight with BBs we've seen.

I've wargamed it out with fairly realistic systems, and BBs wreck shit if they're in range

>>32777450

8 Harpoons won't hull a BB unless it's a hit on the magazine -- which it won't reach in the first place simply because it's won't penetrate enough.

A Harpoon weighs about the same as a 16" shell, but penetration will be way less, and probably won't breech the armor.

Hypersonic and heavy ASuW missiles, like Klub, will probably penetrate, but after armor effects won't be as good as a 16".

Whilst I think BBs are "obsolete" in that you can armor and arm up something the size of a Burke with comparable armor and an autoloading big gun, they aren't going to lose a fight against anything afloat today if they're within range.

>>32779072

Yep.

BBs can drop a fucking shitload of ordinance.

>>32779020

>he doesn't understand the floating raft armor scheme

Hint: all unarmored parts on an Iowa could fall off and it would still float.

You are NOT going to sink an Iowa with missiles meant to kill unarmored ships.

>>32779203
Your BB has been crippled by the efforts of a single destroyer but it still floats, what do you do now? Wait for the enemy to launch bigger missiles?

>>32777537
kek

>>32777796
>national interest
Take your shit rag out of here. I don't care what side they are arguing, national interest is shit that is approximately on par with youtube comments when it comes to defense issues.

>>32779210

Lol

In theory the best modern AShMs can do against an Iowa is that, but it'll take a lot of missiles to bust through to the engine even if it wasn't armored.

And yes, the Iowa would likely float until new missiles were developed and deployed.

More likely, whatever the Iowa is after will nope out after expending its missiles and doing absolutely no critical damage.

>>32779239
The radars are by their very nature not armoured, what will you do without sensors?

A million tonne floating hunk of steel would be rather hard to sink but that doesn't mean it'd be a good ship either

>>32775552
>iowa fags BTFO

literally

>>32778047
> Both types of ship would be easy prey for anti-ship missiles, however.

[citation needed]

File: 1458097250243.jpg (66KB, 468x667px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 468x667px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFevxqmg92s

>>32779271

It won't be hard for the ship to figure out which direction the missiles were coming from and close the distance. The battleship has a huge amount of personnel to spare. It has so many spare parts and so much machining equipment you can practically build another ship!

The crew can repair the damage, build new helicopters in the rebuilt hangar, and continue the hunt against a ship with no way to sink it.

YOU ASSHOLES DONT GET IT.

You are NOT going to sink a battleship and in a 1v1 the battleship will win every time because no navy ship can sink it for all its missiles and it has enough parts and crew to fix whatever damage is done to it.

Only a carrier can kill those old battleships.

Its a damn shame battleship design was never allowed to have evolved to protect against planes.

File: 1474548680789.png (1MB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x960px

neutron bomb>then battleship

>>32779337
Is this some new delicious BB thread pasta?

>>32779210

Outside of its range?

What era are we dealing with?

There's nothing saying you can't put 16 Harpoons on a BB -- they're kill a DDG in return outside of 16" range

Depending on the Harpoon will depend on damage too -- 8 that pop up and come down will do damage, but 8 that hit the waterline won't do much.

>>32779404

No they won't.

Gotta penetrate the magazine or turret to do damage.

I don't think you realize how much steel there is for those harpoons to have to penetrate... A single turret alone weighs more than a destroyer.

>>32779444

They'll probably punch through the deck and superstructure, but yes, they won't reach the magazines and they most likely won't bother the turret roofs (not that you'll get more than 1 of 8 turret hits -- most Harpoons will hit amidships anyway).

Sunburn, Shipwreck and similar, might make it through, but you'd have to do the math to say it either way.

BBs and their protection, are greatly underestimated against missile threats -- the threats they were designed against were equal and better than those missiles.

>>32779623

You have to consider that its a 1v1.

Can you even swarm shipwrecks or can you only launch one every ten seconds?

That gives the Iowa's CWIS a decent chance.

And the battle bridge has 8 inches of armor. Nothing except a carrier or sub can kill an Iowa.

Those are the only ships that have a chance at actually sinking a BB that's fully crewed with competent people.