Let's say hypothetically two WWII era battleships (In this

>>32844077

A lot of destruction.

A lot of options to destroy them.

>>32844077
They'd raze Manhattan
I mean shit, who could react to that shit?

But in the "long term" (i.e. 2 hours) they'd be bombed to non-extistence

Anything could be made viable in a surprise attack
I mean shit, a wooden barge with a bunch of bowmen could kill a lot of people

>>32844091
They could not raze Manhattan. They don't fire fast enough. We're only looking at ~30 salvos of main battery fire from each ship assuming your 2 hour response time figure is close. Further, gutted and ruined buildings near the shore would quickly block their view, preventing more destruction.

So basically,
>1-2 block radius around the shore is totally fucked in 30min-1hour
>then F18's show up and the IJN goes back to the bottom

>>32844091
That would be fucking phenomenal to see a wooden barge of bowmen attacking a modern city

>>32844077
It depends on how fast the muricans realize they're being bombarded by a ship.
I'd guess most anti ship meassurements are made by tracking all known vassals by satalites or something.
If say its cloudy above the area they might get more time to bombard

>>32844133
I'll call my local Indian reservation tomorrow, see if they can set something up.

>>32844128
this. buildings are pretty tough. 9/11 was a lie and 460mm guns take a long time to load.

>>32844133
How it fells like to play civ

Probably about 30-40 minutes until a F-16 drops some bombs

>>32844160
They can't see over buildings if their in the Hudson as OP said. There's buildings right up to the shore. I don't care how high they can aim, unless we're talking >70 degrees, all elevating the guns will do is mean they hit the 6th floor instead of the 3rd.

Honestly, they'd probably be better off having most of the crew disembark and fight on foot. If they all disembark, we're looking at ~6000 pissed off weebs in a disarmed, nu-male city.

>looking at ~30 salvos of main battery fire from >each ship assuming your 2 hour response >time.

They fired at a rate of 2 rounds per minute per gun, so if they're constantly firing without stopping thats 240 full salvos as well they did have targeting radar and their mast had could look over the horizon up to 38 kms.

It'd take time to scramble bunker busters.

The ships would be able to kill thousands and do billions in damage.

This pasta is ancient.

Be better off ramming Brooklyn Bridge - the ramming plates on Yamato was made of steel folded over and over and over and over until it was thousands of thickness thick - and could penetrate any steel structure.

Except another Yamoto bow of course.

>>32844077

However long it took a former marine like me to swim aboard and assault the bridge with my ccw.

>>32844205
They can only shoot that fast in bursts.

After the first dozen or so rounds, ROF drops to 1 RPM, and even slower as the battle drags on and the more accessible ammo is depleted.

>>32844278

Thank you for your service

>>32844205
>They fired at a rate of 2 rounds per minute per gun, so if they're constantly firing without stopping thats 240 full salvos as well they did have targeting radar and their mast had could look over the horizon up to 38 kms.

Just how explosive are battleship shells? No structure in Manhattan will be able to withstand getting hit by one of their shells and not collapse if it exploded inside of structure not including the new World Trade Center. (possibly? It's one thing to get hit by a plane, it's another thing to get hit by a shell that was meant to pierce up to half a meter of hardened metal)

So if it's hypothetically 240 salvos per ship before they're destroyed that comes out to 480 salvos in total or 4320 shells. Manhattan would be by definition razed, if not razed horrifically mauled with it's skyline destroyed and millions dead.

Both ships would become smoldering wrecks and would cease being operational before sinking considering just how much effort went into sinking both ships historically.

>>32844278
Thank you for my freedom

>>32844077
how long does it take the AF to get jets there with AS capabilities? does the US have subs there?

>>32844278
service you thank for your

>>32844278
>However long it took a former marine like me to swim aboard and assault the bridge with my ccw.


sounds like the new John McClane movie....

>>32844332
They also had 12x 6inch guns each and lots of antiaircraft guns they could pepper the shore with.

>>32844278
Thanks for your service

Semper Fi

>>32844364
Subs can't operate submerged on the hudson due to lack of depth. They could attack the ships while out of range with a ballistic missile, or they could get in the hudson and in range of either ship to fire torpedoes. That would work but the submarine would be in danger of being fired upon an destroyed by a single round.

The nearest airforce base to NYC is Stewart Air National Guard Base which is 70 miles away, though it is unknown and unlikely whether they have any armaments that could harm either ship.

>>32844278
>However long it took a former marine like me to swim aboard and assault the bridge with my ccw.

thank you for your boipucci

>>32844427
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_cruise_missile

no?

>>32844278
Thanks for protecting my freedoms

>>32844202
NYPD is almost 50,000 strong.

That is not an insignificant force.

>>32844364
You don't need "AS capabilities" to sink a WW2 battleship. Any standard USAF jet with some bombs would do the job.

>>32844658

No it would not.

You dumbass.

Even modern anti armor missiles won't sink a battleship.

It'd take a bunker buster or a really lucky shot.

Look at the bomb the British developed to sink the Tirpitz. It was as big as a damn car.

they would fuck up dozens of city blocks, but eventually a hail of cruise missiles would fuck them up, theres a couple burkes nearby too.

>>32844680
Damn, it took a while for the bbfag to show up.

>>32844278
Semper Fi brother.

>>32844658
>You don't need "AS capabilities" to sink a WW2 battleship.

Yes you do. standard AF F-16 loadouts would probably be able to disable the main guns but you wouldn't be able to sink the things. why do you think AS is an actual thing when " some bombs" can do it too?

File: 1479185643957.png (690KB, 850x464px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 850x464px

>>32844077
>US have to destroy such ships without resorting to nukes?
>resorting to nukes
>against 80 year old battleships
The fuck? theyre not made of fucking dragonforce tier adamantium

>>32844077
> Ships appear
> Shelling commences
> Media and people on buildings nearby livestream everything while AP and HE shells rain down. Evil Mix of 400mm battleship and 127mm dual use
> Awesome footage of a media helicopter getting shot down, media bonanza
>
> Buildings close to shore set on fire and/or collapse.
> F16 / F18s eventually show up and bomb the snot out of them
> Takes more than expected due to battleships having actual armor
> Tens of thousands dead, millions in damage, world goes nuts.
> US Coastal cities end up getting harbor defenses just in case more zombie ships appear. Harpoons for days.

>>32844828
how much damage could abrams APFDS do to them at say 2 miles distance?

File: Costa.jpg (362KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1500x1000px

>be msrt
>train my entire life for ship boarding and cqc
>out on the hudson
>yamato appears and begins firing intent on leveling the city
>THIS IS MY TIME
>see the type 94 swing towards my rhib
>mfw

the problem with dive-bombing in WWII was how inaccurate and unsafe it was. missiles would be pointless today in this scenario, because any fighter aircraft could accurately drop multiple 2000lb gravity bombs from an altitude outside the ship's effective AA range. think about it. the whole "modern AShMs could penetrate BB armor" thing is pointless whether it's true or not. you could just drop fucking dumb bombs on it until it doesn't have any functioning guns anymore. with modern weapons systems, it would be impossible to miss a BB even with unguided bombs, since the pilot's HUD straight up tells him where the bomb will land. Dauntless pilots didn't have that luxury.

>>32844842

105mm shell with what, 800-1000mm RHA penetration? You're effectively throwing a lawn dart at an elephant. A shot in the right place MIGHT disable things, but they're small enough that a large ship like that can probably absorb the damage and keep functional.

I guess tl;dr, yeah it'll do minor damage but prolly not enough to make a difference. Plus, boat shoots back.

>>32844903
no, 120mm. could they not ignite the propellant sacks with a few lucky shots to the gun batteries?

>>32844077
after 9-11 they gotta have some fighters ready to go 24/7 in that area. 1 jdam for each turret and its mostly dead. 30mins max i would say

>>32844278
Enjoy punching some dude and subsequently being halved be a katana, friend

>>32844938
30 minutes is assuming that the plane is armed, on the tarmac, fueled, and the pilot is ready to go 24/7, right?

if so i'm pretty sure doing 24/7 watch like that would be grueling on everyone involved if done for even a day, let alone 16 years.

i'm making an uneducated guess here, but i wouldn't be surprised if they had a F-16 or two sitting on the tarmac, ready to have ordinance attached to it and fueled, with a few pilots ready to go within 10 minutes whenever. this is of course assuming that for the most part it's NORAD's job to monitor air traffic, so instead of 9/11 where the air force had something like 10 minutes of warning they'd have upwards of half an hour of warning.

File: tallboy-earthquake-bombs.jpg (125KB, 1200x814px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1200x814px

>>32844715

Its just the history.

BBs were so tough aside from a lucky shot something like THIS BOMB was necessary.

File: Naval Ops Warship Gunner Introwebm.webm (2MB, 352x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x320px

>>32844077

The battleships would not have unlimited ammo.

Also F16s etc could probably drop a load of bombs down the funnels of those Jap BBs = byebye

>>32845240
OMG

A-10 dive down aim down that funnel...
...BRRRRRRRRRRRRT....BOOOM!

Well I'm hard now.

>>32844241
>thousands of thickness thick
W-what?

>>32844137
They'd likely just drop JDAMs on them

>>32844972
>30 minutes is assuming...

Not that anon you're replying to, but alert crews are trained to be off the ground within 5 minutes of a scramble order.

Assuming nearest alert crew for OP scenario is Atlantic City airport it's about 100 miles. Six minute flight if you lean on the afterburners. (Closer to four at the design maximum but that doesn't account for weapons weight and drag)

The real question is how long it'll take to scrounge up and mount gravity bombs or smart bombs onto an air defense fighter. Would a domestic Air National Guard base tasked with air defense even bother to inventory strike/ground attack ordnance?

>>32844993
How fucking dumb are you? Nowadays all shots will be "Lucky"

>>32845254
Grorious Nippon Steer round eye!!

>>32844278
FUCK YEAH GET SUM DEVILED EGG

>>32844077
>and how long would it take for them to get destroyed,
How long does it take for the US air force to:

1: Realise what's happening
2: Decide to respond with VIOLENCE
3: Load armour piercing bombs onto aircraft
4: Fly those to the Hudson river

>>32844278
>NYC
>ccw

>>32845375
well, are alert crews maintained 24/7?

>>32845448
SAC maintained some B-52s flyin 24/7

National Guard could get F-18's F22's and field guns in the area within 15 minutes

>>32844828
You forgot to add:
>Media somehow finds a way to blame all this on Trump.

>>32844077
Oh no two ww2 erabattleships have appeared in the Hudson River, sir what should we do?
>Nukes

Sounds about right

>>32844680
A Yamato class battleship had more armor than the Bismarck by half of it's entire weight, while having a modernized design relative to the time period they were built in.

>how much damage could abrams APFDS do to them at say 2 miles distance?

Superficial damage at best, if it hit the right place you could knock out a radar or range finder. It's the equivalent of shooting 12.7 mm bullets at a tank, it's also good idea to mention that these ships were designed to withstand a hit from their own guns. Historically Musashi took on something like +20 dive bombs and 19 torpedoes to sink, while Yamato took 15 dive bombs and 11 torpedoes to sink (all 11 torpedoes were hit from the same side of the ship to cause her to capsize.)

No ship in WWII withstood even a fourth of what either of those ships went through to sink.

A modern day torpedo could split the keel in half with the way they detonate these days. The biggest issue is being able to get a ship in the Hudson to get in position and fire them at these ships.

>>32844278
Respect devild dog

>>32846492
What depth do modern cavitating torpedos need? The Hudson may be too shallow for them to function.

>>32844658
Most standard loadouts won't get through the turret roofs or the armor deck of a Yamato. You can sweep the deks and wreck superstruture and secondary/AA mounts, but you're gonna need bunker-busters to get into the vitals.

>>32844858
Dude, the freakin muzzle blast from the guns firing overhead is gonna turn most riverboats into confetti.

Like, there's actually been a case of that historically - in the night after Jutland, a bong destroyer ended up running into the Hochseeflotte and in the confusion rammed SMS Nassau. Nassau tried firing one of her 11-inch turrets, but they couldn't depress the guns far enough. The muzzle blast going overhead still tore off most of the superstructure of that poor tincan. Adn that's from a 28cm gun as opposed to the Yamato's 46cm ones.

>>32845542
>field guns in the area within 15 minutes
My ass.

>>32846492
>these ships were designed to withstand a hit from their own guns

They were designed to have an immunity zone against their own guns. That's a very different thing.

>>32845542
>National Guard
>F22
>F/A 18
Shut up and lurk moar

>>32844278
>former marine
>ccw
>NYC
Well crafted bait

>>32844202
I don't need to see it to randomly throw car size explosive packed shells threw a building at it.

>>32845390

You still have to actually PENETRATE the armor.

We would need to use bunker busters calibrated on advice from BB experts.

>>32844077
>normal day in NYC
>or is it
>suddenly battleships
>whatsgoingon.jpg
>*BOOM*
and that's how Trump wins his home state in 2020

>>32844278
thx for cervix debil doge

I'd rather have the entire IJ Army or naval infantry (whoever were on the islands) spontaneously drop into NYC.

[Tendo Hekai Banzai-ing intensifies]

>>32844556
Watch NYPD boards a BB.

File: here_bomb_fuck_u.jpg (49KB, 450x629px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 450x629px

>>32845254

>>32844680
Really? I'm pretty sure the fucking deck isn't made of armor plate. Modern jet drops a bomb through the deck, magazine explodes, ship sinks. Battleships were meant to take damage from the sides, not above you fucking turd.

>>32844222
>bunker busters
y tho?

>>32844993
They were only ever used against one.
The vast majority of world war two battleships were sunk by torpedo's, or 500lb/1000lb dumb, iron bombs.
Go fuck yourself.

>>32845240

>Blowing up a battleship with an F-16 Battle of Yavin-style

That's awesome

>>32844446
>no?
Depends on the warhead strength and more importantly, penetration properties. We've had hundreds of threads on this and have come to the base conclusion that modern AShMs wouldn't be able to penetrate a WW2 Battleship, but could fuck up the superstructure pretty well.
Unfortunately, considering how hard it was to kill this class of ships the first time, I'd say unless they had some 2000 lb bombs with a delayed fuse, the ships could be active for far longer than the first wave.

tldr: it depends and the battleships would take damage, but mission kill time is debatable.

>>32849207
>battleships were designed to take side hits, not top

Those are Pre-WW2 ships you mongoloid. Battleships like Yamato and Mushashi were designed with air attack/ plunging fire from 16inch, 2500 lb shells in mind. You would definitely get deck penetration with modern 2000 lbers, but perhaps not far enough to do mortal damage. You'd fuck its day up pretty quickly, but not USS Arizona style.

File: 1470197345270.png (142KB, 473x462px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 473x462px

>>32849207
>I'm pretty sure the fucking deck isn't made of armor plate
I'm pretty sure you are fucking retarded.

>>32844278
>Thanks for your service
Something you'll never hear from your wife's son.

What if the ships have backup from Godzilla ? I'm sure I'll cost more than a few minutes to sink the ships then.

>>32844372
>You're

>>32844140
not really. nipnongs had pretty advanced assisted loading leaps ahead of everyone in practice. each shell would only take 30 seconds or so each. thing is the damage she would do to her self from non stop firing would be incredible. bent bulkheads ect

>>32844828
And blue states ban battleships, either by name or by listing evil characteristics.

>so, congresswoman, can you tell us what a boat davit is?
>I think it's the hook thing that goes up

>>32849207

>I'm pretty sure the fucking deck isn't made of armor plate.

Well, you'd be wrong. The deck of the Yamato was armored 8-inch thick, and sections of the deck above vital components such as machinery or magazines had even more additional armor underneath all that.

>>32849463

There is no evidence that the Yamato (or any properly designed battleship) would have suffered damage from firing her own guns. The only part of the ship that takes damage while firing is the gun barrels themselves, which is why battleship guns often had a short barrel life.

>>32849463
>>32849611
I don't think they'll last long enough for the long term damage to matter that much.

>>32849611
>The venerable Rodney had fared much worse. The force of the explosion from a shell that had landed in the water close by had jammed her port torpedo tube doors. But this was minor compared to the side effects of the continuous firing of her big guns, several which had actually jumped their cradles. There was damage throughout the ship. Another U.S. passenger on board, a Chief Petty Officer Miller, described the devastation in his report: "Tile decking in washrooms, water closets and heads were ruptured throughout the ship. . . .Longitude beams were broken and cracked in many parts of the ship having to be shored. The overhead decking ruptured and many bad leaks were caused by bolts and rivets coming lose. All compartments on the main deck had water flooding the decks. . ..Cast iron water mains were ruptured and in many instances broke, flooding compartment. . .Bulkheads, furniture, lockers, and fittings were blown loose causing undue damage to permanent structures when the ship rolled." Given the evidence, teh damage from even a single well-placed 15-inch shell would likely have been enormous.

and this is hms rodney using vastly superior English metallurgy and ship design. while firing frankly under powered 930kg 16in shells

>>32849737
I should also note that durring this Rodney loosed nonstop a mere 340 16in shells

>>32844199
/thread

>>32849832
Could a mk83 penetrate yamato's bomb deck?

>>32844241
>thicknesses thick
t h i c c

>>32844278
>former marine

flank you for my cervix

>>32845429
you say "decide to respond with violence" as if fucking battleships shelling a city would NOT cause immediate retaliation

>>32849737

>Given the evidence, teh damage from even a single well-placed 15-inch shell would likely have been enormous.

So does that mean that the Bismark didn't land a single shot during the fight?

>>32844427
>That would work but the submarine would be in danger of being fired upon an destroyed by a single round.
with a modern torpedo they could actually attack from outside the battleships main battery range both the Mk 48 adcap and the RNs spearfish have a range of 50km/31 miles and at that distance could probably be in water deep enough to submerge in

modern torpedos have crazy range and speed

>>32844993
>Not dive bombing the smoke stack in your Stuka
Rudel would be turning in his grave

>>32844993
they used those on the basis that a near miss would be pretty crippling, and indeed a near miss in a earlier raid caused major flooding, while a direct hit overpenetrated and actually went right through tirpitz.

when she was sunk she took 2 direct hits and a near miss and sank in seconds.

however that is not to say that standard bombs were ineffective against battleships, a 2000lb bomb dropped from height was comparable to plunging fire from a battleships main battery in terms of its ability to penetrate armor, so while several hits would be needed to sink a battleship weight of hits would certainly do it

>>32844077
They would have less than a half hour before they got fucked by jets. Still, half an hour with those guns is a fuckton of destruction and casualties.

>>32849451
Quit moving the goalposts.

File: IMG_0177.jpg (81KB, 639x741px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 639x741px

you stupid faggots, have you not been educated by the innumerable BBfag threads? no weapon powerful enough to even DENT a WW2 era battleship exists in any modern arsenal. we could do no more than wait for the iron beast to run out of ammo or, barring divine intervention, sue for peace and begin surrendering our nation to our new BB overlords.

>>32844241

fucking lost it

>>32849232
To bust bunkers

>>32852639
i fucking love this image

>>32844241
what happens if you teleport behind it and cut it with a katana

>>32846492
>Superficial damage at best, if it hit the right place you could knock out a radar or range finder. It's the equivalent of shooting 12.7 mm bullets at a tank

No it isn't. Modern anti-armor weapons are more than powerful enough to penetrate the thickest armor of a battleship. The real problem is that ships are filled with far more empty space than an armored vehicle. A hit to the hull would probably do nothing, but a hit to a main turret or turret barbette would absolutely penetrate.

Even modern shoulder-fired rockets are powerful enough to penetrate the front turret face of the Yamato. It then becomes a matter of whether it will do enough damage to render the turret inoperable- which could be anything from killing turret crews, to damaging machinery, to setting off ammunition.

There is no reason why a modern tank or ATGM team couldn't disable the offensive capability of a battleship at such short range given they'd have the element of surprise both in the sense that they'd be firing from concealed positions in the midst of all hell breaking loose, and in the sense that they're capable of doing orders of magnitude more damage at long range- well outside anything Japan experienced in infantry or armored land combat during the war. Among the Japanese it wouldn't even register that infantry or light vehicles are a potential threat.

Aircraft mounting Hellfires or Mavericks are the far more likely response, and would of course render a Battleship completely combat ineffective, even if it remains afloat. A Hellfire through the top of a main turret is putting that shit out of operation, considering it penetrates upwards of 800mm of steel- substantially more than the Yamato has, anywhere.

>>32844241
Nice work

File: IMG_0681.jpg (43KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x375px

Why stop them?

>>32849207
>Really? I'm pretty sure the fucking deck isn't made of armor plate.
Wrong.
>Battleships were meant to take damage from the sides, not above you fucking turd.
Extremely fucking wrong.

You've gone downhill /k/.

>>32849737
HMS Rodney was a fairly unique design anon, for a start it was the first British ship to use 16'' guns and all of its guns were forward-facing. A semi-experimental 1920s ship is not the same thing as an early 40s conventional BB like the Yamato (granted a very large one).

>>32846725
>>National Guard
>>F22
correct

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/149th_Fighter_Squadron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/199th_Fighter_Squadron

>>32844128
Your forgetting ALL of the secondaries and crew served weapons just spraying shit everywhere.
>>32844364
Submarine base right here in Groton, could have 5+ subs there in less than 4 hours.
>>32844427
Yes, we can. You realize there are like, 200ft deep spots.

>>32844077
>>32844087

We'd have jets there in 15-30minutes max and missiles impacting on target just a few seconds prior.

They'd probably clear a single neighborhood before permanently bowing to Lady Liberty and a bastion of cruise missiles.

>>32844408
but could they pepper your angus?

>>32844133
GATE did something like this

https://youtu.be/dzH9mEaTSwc

The show was OK, but not what people thought it would be. Basically all the fighting people wanted was in the first episode, and a few other shorter fights near the start and end of the series, filled mostly by some poor but slightly interesting military recon into fantasy land I have seen. Big problem was it keep flirting with serious political drama and fantasy harem while being propaganda to "Join the JDF*", any of those part were great but together they brought it down to about average in my opinion.

*to get money to buy anime

Part of me would like to see /k/ review stuff like this, but I sure it would just get "go back to /a/" replies.

>>32846654
You're referring to the HMS Spitfire, which was rammed by the Nassau during the Battle of Jutland. It should be noted that the Spitfire was able to disengage from the Nassau and return to port under it's own power.

>>32844556
How many NYPD officers does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, they just beat the room for being black.