This is the USS Missouri Say something nice about her

Nice guns

>>33078916
Lewd

>>33078918
It isn't lewd to appreciate some nice, bug and powerful guns, anon

Quietly waiting for her to become a shipgirl

Honestly she was my idol when I was younger. I love the shape of her body.

>>33078941
You're going to be waiting awhile.

We didn't even get a new foreign girl this event.

>>33078903

Her hull is impressive and I am looking forward to get another dose of the manifest breastiny her sister showcases

>>33078903
She's got a nice stern.

>>33078903
Fucking rusting hulk of steel i hope you get turned into an artificial reef!

>>33078903
Did you just assume it's gender?

its seen combat unlike these manchildren who treat their weapons like dolls

1942 called, it want its torpedo magnet back.

File: anti-ship_missile.webm (3MB, 1200x674px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1200x674px

>>33079280
>torpedoes
1917 called; they need your torpedoes to sink the Lusitania.

>>33078903
I've been on the Iowa. If it's basically the same, it's a badass machine.

>>33078903
Salvos or GTFO

File: t3_5nsd28.jpg (458KB, 2491x1857px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 2491x1857px

a photographic reminder of why these barges got stuffed and mounted rather than replaced

the iowa class was obsolete before their keels were even laid down

>Butthurt planefags

File: USS_Liberty[1].jpg (71KB, 740x571px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 740x571px

>>33079310

You could have sunk Lusitania with a grapplehook and a candy wrapper.

But 1967 is also on the phone. They'd like for some US navy unit defend the USS Liberty from the Israeli attack. "What's this? An Imperialist ship? How inconvenient."

>>33078903
American.

>>33078903
You are the best place to sign surrender agreements.

>>33079566
>best to surrender and bow down

File: 2120049_orig.jpg (204KB, 1049x639px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1049x639px

>>33078903
She'd look good in white.

>>33079243
How many SUPERIOR JAPANESE STEEL containers did it sink?

>>33078903
THIGGGG ;DDDDDDD

Her 5"/38 dual purpose mounts were among the most effective AA weapons fielded by any Navy prior to the jet age.

File: 1487390221412.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

I love warships and anime

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WC6FFYLRQE

>>33078903
Kind of unrelated, but can someone give me the rundown on what the difference between battleships, battlecruisers, pocket battleships, and heavy cruisers are?

>>33081509
After the Doppler fuses were put in the shells, especially. Those increased effectiveness, what- 7 fold?

>>33078903
Aye fatty bum bum, want another cream cake?

>>33081590
If she can still squeeze into her Panama Canal, she's not fat!

File: USS-Mass1.jpg (152KB, 505x329px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 505x329px

>Massachusetts has the distinction of having fired the US Navy's first and last 16-in (406 mm) shells of the war.[3]

Neat

File: HMS Nelson.jpg (244KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1280x960px

HMS Nelson - three turrets at the front, smaller guns at the rear.

She was the best part of that World In Conflict level

File: 1VeeHOM.jpg (388KB, 1450x964px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1450x964px

>>33078903
That's a nice ship

File: Italian_battleship_Roma_(1940)_starboard_quarter_view.jpg (75KB, 1200x537px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1200x537px

>>33082591
There are a lot of nice ships in this world
Some are just a lot nicer than the others

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

2MB, 3000x2123px

>>33079322
>If it's basically the same
One fewer working turret though.

>>33079426
literally just sitting here trying to figure out how I'd actually do that with a grapplehook and a candy wrapper. That's a challenge I'd love to accept.

>>33078903
Thank you for your service <o

>>33081557
This is my understanding of it:
BATTLESHIPS (BB)-Designed to be the biggest hardest hitting ships that aren't outclassed by anything
BATTLECRUISERS (BC)-A continuation of the cruiser design philosophy: be faster than everything that out guns you and out gun everything faster than you. Usually designed for Convoy Raiding.
Pocket Battleships -(BB) Rare ships that were built mostly by germany in world war two. Identical to cruisers in terms of speed and armor, but with larger guns.
Heavy Cruisers- (CA)-Ships designed to bridge the gap between light cruisers and battleships. Goal of beating light cruisers while being able to keep up with friendly light cruisers.

>>33081557

>battleships
Slow, Heavy Brawlers

>Fast battleships
As the name says, sacrifice a little armour for speed, HMS Hood is an example of what can go wrong

>battlecruisers
Cruisers with battleship guns (10"+)
Tended to be lightly armored and try match normal cruiser speeds

>pocket battleships
Other name for Battlecruisers ,particularly german ones, a little slower and better armored than British counterparts in their day though

>heavy cruisers
Any Cruiser with 8" gun main battery

>Light Crusier
Any cruiser wing 6" or less main battery

>>33084227
then again...

What about the Scharnhorst and genaisenau? Do they count as battleships or battlecruisers?

I mean, take Hood for example. Cruiser armor with battleship guns. NOt quite a BB and not quite a cruiser. Battlecruiser

Scharnhorst had battleship armor, but (almost) cruiser guns. Half cruiser, half battleship?

or am i overthinking here?

File: Japanese representatives on board the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay to participate in formal surrender ceremonies. September 2, 1945.jpg (95KB, 970x790px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 970x790px

>>33079566
>>33080385
Came here to post this.

Also you're a big guy.

You are beautiful and I love you.

>>33084260

classy fellas

>>33084255
>Scharnhorst and genaisenau?
Battleships,
Heavy Crusiers use 8" guns, 11" are Battleship guns, hence the Battle cruisers (cruisers with battleship guns) using mainly 11"

>Hood for example. Cruiser armor with battleship guns
Wrong, HMS Hood had battleship belt armor, it was her weak deck armor that got her sunk.

As Stated she was a Fast Battleship

>>33078903

Good streamline for maneuevers. I'm Army, not Navy, but I think any human can appreciate a good boat. I mean, if you're a dude and you don't get a little gleam in your eye for impressive structures and machines, you're gonna need a sex change.

>>33078903
>This is the USS Missouri
Say something nice about her

Dear lord, are those some fine lines. That is an absurdly good looking chunk of Naval Architecture..

>>33084255
>>33084300

To further explain, HMS Hood is often refered to a a Battlecruiser these days rather than explaining the Fast Battleship concept to people who don't follow naval designs

In ship design, the limiting facto in ship speed is usually beam to length as a ratio, if its short and wide it is a stable platform, as seen on may Battleships.

Hood was both long and wide, She was Battleship tonnage, but Cruiser hull layout.

This meant she was several knots faster in open water, she sacrificed only an inch on her belt armor but a lot on deck armor to keep weight down

File: 1440208713098.jpg (208KB, 1440x1048px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1440x1048px

>>33084352
>>33084300
thank you!

I'm trying to learn here, and it's always nice to listen to someone helpful

have an iowa

File: Kirishima.jpg (198KB, 2046x688px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 2046x688px

>>33084182
Almost none of this makes sense.

>>33084227
This is better, with a few notes attached:

Hood was a battlecruiser (as built) which didn't recieve an adequate (deck)armor upgrade before WW2. Had she recieved the full upgrade she would have been a fast battleship, by anyone's standards.

Fast battleships were basically more modern battleships that could do 30+ knts. There were two types of fast battleships during WW2: rebuilt battlecruisers (upgraded armor + engine to carry it) and new battleships, built after the 'battleship holiday', during which no new battleships were built by anyone. Therefore the new ones were substantially better than the old WW1 era designs. The new (fast) battleships were also superior to the rebuilt battlecruisers, see the sinking of Kirishima for example.

The original design philosophy of battlecruisers (pre-WW1) was to have the battleships-caliber guns on a faster unit, but they were still intended for actions with the main battle fleet (forming a vanguard for teh slower battleships). Their role included (but wasn't limited to) fending of cruisers, who were no match for their heavy main armament. They were never intended for commerce raiding by anyone other than Germay, who never got around to building and using them for that purpose anyway (all capital ships built by germany during the interbellum were battleships). The idea was stupid, anyway.

Classifiying ships can get confusing very fast, especially with battlecruisers. Each navy has it's own system.

Continued.

Missouri fired continuously like this for 2 days prior to the D day landings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2piJQYJdYCQ&spfreload=10

File: Great Britain- 2016.jpg (103KB, 644x845px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 644x845px

>>33084710

"Pocket battleship" was an informal name given, by the British press, to the German Deutschland-class ships, who themselves refered to them as ´panzershiffe´. Here things get confusing, because they would have been classified differently by different navies. In the Royal Navy, they would have been battlecruisers (BC, due to having more than 8-inch guns). The U.S.N. never really liked the idea of battlecruisers and would have probably called them 'large cruisers' (CB, see also the Alaska-class). It's only one class of ships, so it doesn't really matter. The differences in classifications makes them a bit problematic. Kind of an in-betweener of battlecruisers and heavy cruisers, but most of these things mean something slightly different in each nations navies.

Heavy cruisers are a indeed cruisers with 8-inch guns, but the distinction was made by the London Naval Treaty of 1930. They were the natural evolution of the cruiser, getting heavier guns (cruisers had, for decades, been armed with 6-inch guns). The distinction between heavy and light cruisers was made so as to impose a limit on the construction of the former via an international treaty. Light cruisers continued to be built by everyone, because there were no limits placed on them and they were cheaper to build. For the US and UK, this was important because of their vast global ambitions, they needed a larger number, not heavier guns. For Japan and Germany, the opposite was the case. Limited resources meant they needed heavier firepower for the ships they could construct.

Continued.

File: 1469924699671.gif (285KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 500x365px

>>33084745
All heavy cruisers were designed to engage their equivalent counterparts in major surface actions. This was the case for most light cruisers, too, but there were also 'sub-groups'. The most noteble were the destroyer leaders (lead ships of destroyer squadrons) and the AA-cruisers. The former were not always that different in design to 'surface action light cruisers', although most were for economic reasons (it's more a distinction of role). The AA-cruisers did have specifically designed main armaments (often times on a smaller hull, too), because of the impracticallity of using a 6-inch gun for AA defense. A 6-inch gun was to bulky to keep track of fast airplanes, so they were limited to 5-inch weaponry at most. The destroyers of the period used the same guns, so in some respects AA-cruisers are another in-betweener.

>>33084745
>5 inch gun
>length of a toothbrush
Please tell me that article satire

>>33084710

>the poor bastards just chilling on the observation deck at J

>>33078903
Your sister was better

File: proofs.png (273KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1920x1080px

>>33084772

You tell me :^)

>>33078903
you'd make a good kancolle.

>>33084772
>Please tell me that article satire

now do you understand why Brits mock /k/ when it tries to use the Daily Mail (who that article was by) as a reliable source for any argument?

the rest of its articles are as bad as that one

I wish her a happy retirement!
She can enjoy things like: sitting around the harbor, collecting bird shit, being a tourist attraction. All the things she didn't have time to do when battleships were relevant

>>33084903
>becoming a newsite is as easy as making shit up
Why aren't I running a successful newsite right now?

>>33084925

well, no. you need to actually have some degree of journalism, to research the articles, to find the press releases, etc.

in this instance, the Daily Heil merely had the misfortune to hand the news article about the Navy's planned 5-inch gun, to a journalist who thought that it was a 5-inch long gun.

its not "fake" news, or the like, its just utterly inept reporting.

Unlike the countless numbers of articles about "Paedo Asylum-Seeking Gypsies are taking your jobs, Britain! (And they want to remove the Queen!)" or the likes.

>>33084925
Because you are lazy. It's super easy, because 99% of the people can't see if an article is fake news or not.

>>33084903
The Daily Mail even got banned from wikipedia, citing them is discouraged because of their unreliability.

/pol/ still cites them, tho.

>>33084977
>"Paedo Asylum-Seeking Gypsies are taking your jobs, Britain! (And they want to remove the Queen!)
Yeah
Everyone knows' its the Arabs.

>>33084925
You're not making enough shit up, apparently.

>tfw Truman loved his shipfu more than his wife

>>33078941
She's pretty hot in chinkcolle

>>33084227
>8 inch guns
NAVY PLS GIB

File: Salem03.jpg (789KB, 2288x1712px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 2288x1712px

>>33085210

>>33085337
USS Salem : 108 8" shells per minute.
I know EXACTLY why I have this boner

>>33078903
I got to take a tour of her when I was a little kid and she was still an active duty vessel.

Was the coolest moment of my childhood.

>>33079322
Missouri is well kept, she doesn't have that funny smell the old ships tend to have, like the hms Belfast; Freon as fuck

>>33085337
Sally girl, I'm so sad you'll never sail again...

>>33085337
I'm not a battleshipfag but we should bring back bigger guns

>>33084227
>>33084182

Both of these are wrong on most accounts.

BB, BC (never actually used), CV, ect are USN distinctions for hull types, so not appreciably applicable for any other navy but for simplicity sake:

Battleships, BB, are ships of the battle line, designed to destroy enemy ships of all sizes, smallest to largest, with naval artilery at long range, while possessing armor and armament able to complete that mission. Speed was, for almost all nations, treated as a secondary design features, with armor and armament taking precedence.

Battlecruisers, BC for the USN (which never actually launched a battlecruiser unless you consider the Alaska class one, which for many reasons it was) are CRUISERS, and I stress this as much as possible in an engineering and design sense, CRUISERS, upscalled to battleship sizes, possessing the armaments of a battleship, or close as possible, while maintaining a hull design to allow for high speeds, with the design intent of hunting down enemy cruisers and scouting for the battle line. They are *not* battleships armor removed. Weight/displacement have little to do with speed, so if I took say a Pennslyvania class (22 knots) and shaved off all the armor, it wouldn't all of the sudden hit 30 knots. At best it would gain 1 or 2 knots. Speed has MUCH more to do with beam to length ratio. Also design intent is very important as BC's were not designed to defeat BB's, and Jutland proved this dangerously true.

Pocket Battleships don't exist. It was a propaganda term coined by british papers to object to Germany building ships again despite the ToV's. The only class was the Duetshland Class, which were just heavy cruisers (and rated as such by the end of the war) that carried a heavier battery (11" as opposed to 8"). It is worth noting that at the time of design, the smallest BB guns in use were 14" and 16" guns were becoming more common. The Graf Spee and her sisters had more in common with Battlecruisers than Battleships.

>>33086156

Cont'

Heavy Cruisers, CA's were, under the WNAT, any ship armed with 8" guns under a certain displacement. They were differentiated from Light Cruisers, CL's, only having 6" guns. That is about it. An 10,000 Ton ship with 6" guns was a CL, the same ship with 8" guns was immediately rerated as a CA. This was shown with the Mogami class which was originally built with 6" guns, and thus counted as a CL, but was designed specifically to allow easy replacement with 8" guns to turn it into a CA.

>>33086083

That's not a battleship, it's a heavy cruiser. Those guns are literally half the size (8") of say the Iowa class, (16")

>>33078903
sexy woman....i like her curves...i want to be inside her

>>33084255

Design intent, i.e. what is it made to fight against, is what decides what a ship is. Scharhorst were, although USED against merchant ships, were *designed* to fight enemy battleships, and carried armor to back that up. In a very real sense they are the polar opposite of a battlecruiser. While a Battlecruiser is a cruiser built on battleship scale to maintain speed but cruiser armor, Scharnhorst was a battleship built to cruiser size, with insane amounts of armor (actually having thicker, more extensive armor than the Bismarck Class) while sacrificing armament (using originally 11" guns, although were always intended to have the same 15" guns later used on Bismarck).

Hood is actually a longer story than just a BC or Fast Battleship. She was originally intended, before being laid down, to be a Fast Battleship, as an all around improvement of the Queen Elizabeth Class, the first Fast Battleships made, with armor, armaments, and speed all improved. However Britian had a facination with Battlecruisers and felt the most recent class, R class, had been a bit of a bust, and as a result were hesitant to build more Battleships and instead retooled her as a battlecruiser. She was laid down the same day as Jutland. This caused her to be redesigned yet again, into an up-armored battlecruiser. Again, simply bolting armor on doesn't make you a battleship (nor does removing armor make you a battlecruiser). Her design intent never strayed from Battlecruiser and was always intended to be used against cruisers alone. That said, she dedicated a comparable amount of displacement to armor of other fast battleships, but it was allocated poorly. She was built to pre-Jutland standards and did not use the "All or nothing" armor scheme and thus wasted valuable displacement armoring useless parts of the ship, poorly, instead of only armoring the most important parts as thickly as possible.

In short, the Hood was a battlecruiser.

File: 1467604136339.jpg (415KB, 2000x1478px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 2000x1478px

>>33078903

Useless, waste of money class. Step aside, actually useful battleship stomping through that can actually claim a 1 on 1 kill.

>>33080700
>>33084373
>>33084723
Battleships: Utterly fucking useless 99.5 percent of the time. But absolutely fucking godlike in their niche.

>>33084182
>BATTLECRUISERS (BC)
It's CC you dumb fuck.

>>33086083
I'm a fan of the Boston class. Missiles in the back, but 16 8ins up front.

>>33086560
>>BATTLECRUISERS (BC)
>It's CC you dumb fuck.

Both are acceptable as given that no BC/CC was ever launched (Alaska's were CB's) and the navy itself at various times used either BC/CC or BOTH BC/CC, for the USN it is acceptable to use either hull prefix.

>>33079369
>the Iowa class was obsolete before their keels were even laid down
The 4 Iowa class battleships killed more people than all other battleships combined though.
>yfw the USS Missouri fought against the Japs, the Norks, the Chinese, the Syrians, the Lebanese, the North Vietnamese, the Chinese again, and the Iraqis

>>33080738
wtf she's not French.

>>33086665
New Jersey was the only Iowa that shelled 'nam

>>33086688
Shit, you're right.

File: 91a4bd28ee1f2021517bb083fde2ae82.png (559KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1024x1024px

>>33085133

>>33086688
>>33086735
I wonder which of the 4 Iowa's killed the most people.

The Missouri's tied for the most conflicts with the Wisconsin, but Vietnam was a loooong fucking war with a lot of ordnance spent, especially when compared to Lebanon and Iraq.

>>33086784
Jersey has the most battlestars. (19 to Mo's and Iowa's 11, and Wisky's 6.)

How would a nation make battleships relevant again?

>>33086887
>4 battle stars for Lebanon
>Missouri only gets 3 for the Gulf War
>Wisconsin gets 0 for the Gulf War
That's horseshit. Missouri had more separate and distinct engagements in the Gulf War than the Jersey had in Lebanon, and fired more total munitions by both count and weight.

>>33087042
Destroy every plane ever made and the capability to reproduce them.

File: USS_Gerald_R._Ford_(CVN-78)_on_the_James_River_in_2013.jpg (238KB, 1920x1093px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1920x1093px

>>33087042
Ben dun befo'

>>33087050
Fucking this.
>NJ only has TWO fire missions during the Lebanese Civil War, neither last more than 1 day
>is never fired upon
>4 battle stars
>only on station 5 months
Its skipper must've been the Navy's fucking golden boy or some shit.

File: Screenshot_3.png (296KB, 594x467px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 594x467px

>>33085115

>>33086675
That's Roosavelt's great white fleet, you dunce.

>>33086775
why does her undershirt have beads?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NBHnwrZwVg

Looks like some maintenance going on.

I always visit her whenever I'm in Hawaii, its probably always one of the highlight of the trip, she's an amazing piece of Americana and I'm glad the Navy got the maximal possible use out of her. I just miss when they still used the mess hall on her, I remember being younger and I thought that was the coolest thing to be eating where my Grandpa's friends might have ate, he was a naval aviator during the last part of the war.

>>33081913
I am still angry that "World In Conflict" isn't supported anymore.

I want my glorious 1980's theme wargame in Windows 10

File: image.jpg (3MB, 2853x2141px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2853x2141px

>>33086665
>The 4 Iowa class battleships killed more people than all other battleships combined though.
He's still right, you know. If it's not a carrier, escorting one, or a submarine it's irrelevant.

>>33086665

Nope. The USS North Carolina is the most decorated US Battleship of all time. She participated in more bombardments than ship to date. If you are looking at classes a whole, the North Carolina class would by far be the most deadly US battleship class in both bombardment amounts and enemy surface combatants sunk.

It'll Be a cold goddamn day in hell before I recognise missoura

>>33090620

cont'

Put it another way. The Iowa's, as a class, only had barrels replaced 16 times, over the classes entire lifetime. Each barrel was good for around 300 EFC shots. The North Carolina class's barrels, which were good for about 350 EFC, were replaced 22 times, and those 22 times were over a MUCH, MUCH shorter period of time.

File: 1461723348347.jpg (53KB, 800x407px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x407px

Did somebody say lewd?

File: rudders_and_screws_of_an_Iowa-class_battleship.jpg (445KB, 1917x1281px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1917x1281px

>>33092923
That's not lewd.

>>33092984
whoa, blue board man

File: IMG_0746.jpg (1MB, 1936x2592px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1936x2592px

>>33092984
>not having your screw pose for you

File: battleship_USS_New-Jersey_BB62_during_1980s_modernized.jpg (1MB, 2840x1910px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2840x1910px

>>33093020
>>33093106

>>33093174
>no photography

File: __iowa_kantai_collection_drawn_by_body_mahattaya_ginga__30a67041287e2969d4b8172dbf329d82[1].jpg (139KB, 752x1062px)

139KB, 752x1062px

>>33093174
>>33092923

The real sterns are a lot more wrinkly than the fanart.

>inb4 photoshop

>>33094371
t-thicc...

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

87KB, 802x960px

>Captain's Log; Supplemental: The aft was fat.

File: 1452275604719.jpg (181KB, 1017x682px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1017x682px

>>33094558
>>33094371

File: Greenpeace_protests_alongside_USS_Iowa_BB61_1989.jpg (663KB, 2610x1719px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 2610x1719px

>>33094595
Here, lube yourself up with some liberal tears.

>>33094621
If that was today, they would of been lit the fuck up.

That gives me a boner thinking about it, actually.

File: zero.jpg (411KB, 1500x940px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1500x940px

天皇陛下万歳!

>>33094689
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cPhRVLvY1I

>>33094558
...Dat aft tho...

Was there ever a sub ballsy enough to fire his torpedoes on a battleship and cause severe damage?

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

607KB, 2846x2222px

>>33094689
>Whattaro yoo ronna dool; sprash me?
~Quote from man stabbed by airburst shrapnel

File: USS-Sealion-SS315.jpg (110KB, 1874x1455px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1874x1455px

>>33094757
>Was there ever a sub ballsy enough to fire his torpedoes on a battleship and cause severe damage?

>>33094757

Wasn't Tirpitz sunk by a submarine?

>>33094371
Moar.

We need MOAR.

File: HMS_Barham_explodes.webm (3MB, 956x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 956x720px

>>33094810
No, Tirpitz was sunk by a Lancaster.

>>33086775
>chinkshit

>>33094787
Wasn't the Kongo super old and already damaged anyway?

File: 1481784095104.jpg (264KB, 2048x1529px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 2048x1529px

>>33094865
She may be chink shit but I like her better than kancer's Iowa

File: Revenge-class_HMS_Royal-Oak_in_1936.jpg (283KB, 1709x1200px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1709x1200px

>>33094881
>super old
Launched in 1913; re-built in 1929 and 1935.
>and already damaged anyway?
No.

File: b1f97c32aeec7bf560b5201332cb0b7d1477410969_full.jpg (97KB, 600x753px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x753px

>>33094881
You leave Kongo alone!

>>33094909
shittaste detected

File: 4e9.jpg (77KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 540x720px

>>33094943
I don't think I'll ever get to use this picture other than now.

I read the Iowas had a compromised torpedo defense setup. Something about the designers trying an innovative approach that ended up being less effective than hoped.

>>33078903
The shading on the numbers look nice

>>33096276
>you'll never be shittalked by Kongo
Why even live?

>>33084984
>/pol/ still cites them, tho.
Are you saying /pol/ isn't a credible source?

>>33096436

Basically they put the armor plate all the way down to the 3rd bottom and hoped it would work because adding blisters would slow it down and make it unable to fit through the Panama canal.

Though it does have internal voids that are filled with fresh water or fuel that act as some protection, it's mostly guesswork at that point because they're not real blisters.

When evaluating it at later dates it was determined that just like the rest of the navy it was better to have the towed torpedo decoys, countermeasures and the escort fleet deal with it and just not get hit rather than add them during modernization.

We've yet to see anything other than intentional scuttling of a supercarrier so the new compartmentalization or other armor is anyone's guess.

>>33096493
But it doesn't seem like Kongo to shit talk someone like that though.