Best Battleships of WWII

>>33818324

Submarines

>>33818324
Iowas. Then South Dakotas. Then everyone else who thought they could play with the big boys.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

>>33818324
Hotels dont count as battleships OP.

>>33818371
bah dum tsshh

>>33818324
Identify a battleship that has manage to kill a warship in 7 mins. less, then you've got that "best" battleship you're looking for

>>33818452
Is this English? Is my brain broken? I can't parse what the fuck you're trying to say.

>>33818324
There's a reason why every Iowa class ever completed is now a floating museum you can go look take a tour of in person, while Britain and Japan's battleships have spent the last 75 years or so decorating the ocean floor.

>>33818516
Because they were more well-defended? Iowa and Yamato never met.

>>33818573

Yamato would get it's shit pushed in. Its fire control was not as good, and the 18 inch gun was a white elephant with no better power than the 16 in Iowa guns. The only way the Yamato would win a fight is if they dig it up and stick a wave motion gun in it.

>>33818356
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#Battle_of_Surigao_Strait_.2825_October.29

Probably USS California or Tennessee. Last time battleships shot at other battleships. 5 of the 6 were barges from Pearl Harbor that had been rebuilt.

File: IMG_1787.jpg (1MB, 2048x1540px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1540px

Littorio class is the sexiest and that counts for at least 75% of my ranking

>>33818658
Well, by Surigao Strait, even the West Virginia (com. 1923) was able to do the following:
>At 03:16, West Virginia's radar picked up the surviving ships of Nishimura's force at a range of 42,000 yd (38,000 m). West Virginia tracked them as they approached in the pitch black night. At 03:53, she fired the eight 16 in (406 mm) guns of her main battery at a range of 22,800 yd (20,800 m), striking Yamashiro with her first salvo. She went on to fire a total of 93 shells. At 03:55, California and Tennessee joined in, firing a total of 63 and 69 14 in (356 mm) shells, respectively. Radar fire control allowed these American battleships to hit targets from a distance at which the Japanese battleships could not return fire, with their inferior fire control systems.

But that's all irrelevant to my view. If the question is best battleship, to mean that means most useful. For WWII, that means AAA protection for carriers and shore bombardment 99% of the time. To that end, the answer is clearly the Iowas, then the SouDaks, the NorCals and then most of the other British and US BBs plus the post-refit Richelieu.

Nothing else comes even close in terms of radar directed remote power turrets all the way down to 40mm calibres, total throw weight, effective DP armament and radar fuzed AAA shells.

>>33818651
That's hard to say that easily. Yamato had worse fire control, but that doesn't make it incapable of hitting Iowa. It had much better armor and would be capable of sustaining quite a bit of damage, as it did in more conventional combat. I highly doubt the soldiers on the Iowa at the time would feel as comfortable in victory as you seem to be about it.

The ones that stayed out of the range of carrier and land based attack aircraft

>>33818324
Yamato is fucking useless though.

>>33818324
The ones that got converted into aircraft carriers.
Battleships were obsolete in WW2.

>>33818865
>Yamato had worse fire control, but that doesn't make it incapable of hitting Iowa.
Put it this way: in anything but low sea states, clear, sunny daylight and medium to short ranges, the Iowa held very significant targeting and tracking advantages over the Yamato. Excellent radar directed fire control coupled with remote power turrets and an excellent primary battery is a hell of a thing.

The Iowa had very significant or even overwhelming advantages in probability to hit and tracking capabilities (not to mention shot-fall tracking and adjustment) in:
>night fighting
>fog, haze or foul weather
>higher sea states (incredibly advanced gun training and stabilization systems on the Iowa comparatively)
>longer range engagements where Iowa's radar was much more capable of judging course changes
>any kind of running battle where much turning and shooting was required; Iowa could do both simultaneously, Yamato could not

And that's before we address the huge advantages to Iowa in AAA fire throw weight and effectiveness.

>>33819002
>Battleships were obsolete in WW2.
Which explains why the Iowas were still in service into the 90s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsKbwR7WXN4

>>33819034
Obsolete stuff being in service is so common it might as well be a standard.

File: n1BMe.jpg (251KB, 1600x918px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1600x918px

>>33818324
NC class

>>33819034
>obsolete
>video with Cher to try to prove not obsolete
>obsolete on top of obsolete
>with an embarrassed battleship to boot.

>>33820596
Cockroaches, Cher and that motherfucker who gotta ice skate uphill.

These three things are eternal and everlasting.

On paper, the Yamatos

In practice, the Iowas

>>33820888
>On paper, the Yamatos
Only if you ignore FC efficiency, mount characteristics like RPC and stabilization, pretty much anything having to do with the AAA role and of course crew training/DC efficiency.

>>33818865
The real deciding factor would be the state of the respective crews. Yamato's crew was inexperienced and poorly trained in 44'. Yamamoto himself took note of how disgusted he was with their performance during gunnery drills earlier that year.
Add in the stress from the constant air attacks, and you got s crew who won't hit anything.

>>33820888
>muh bigger guns
>muh optical systems
>muh japanese warrior spirit

>>33818324
Submarines followed by aircraft carriers.

The Arizona

File: hsgs7208bs01l-lg.jpg (82KB, 1000x391px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1000x391px

>>33819002
>implying

A battleship is shit, no matter what you do to it

>>33820678
Heh

Dunkerque

>>33818516
Don't really see what you're getting at with the British ships there.
They were old and worth money as scrap, why pay to have it sitting about rotting. People weren't as sentimental and Britain was broke.

>>33821219
>People weren't as sentimental and Britain was broke.

Sadly this is completely correct. It's a huge shame from a modern enthusiast's point of view that we don't have any museum ships left apart from the HMS Belfast, but realistically Britain could never afford to keep around the Warspite, Nelson or KGV unfortunately.

>>33821470
We-we er, well i have a plan to refloat HMS Monarch

>>33821491
That would be sweet! It would be a hell of a job though restoring it to a state where it could be used a museum ship.

Also if it weren't for the the fact that it's a war grave, the HMS Royal Oak could be an easy one to retrieve - hell it even pokes out of the water at Scapa Flow in especially low tides. Most of the superstructure is crushed though sadly, I think it flipped over after sinking

>>33821558
HMS Monarch seems to be mostly intact, though its not in shallow water, would be hard but possible, also one of the only ones not a war grave

>>33818573
>Iowa and Japanese boats other than a training ship never met
ftfy

>>33821470
Out of all of them, warspite should have been kept as a museum.
Or maybe Vangaurd, as it was the last battleship to be built, and typically British, it was finished after the war had ended.

File: 1467040660218.jpg (23KB, 242x206px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 242x206px

>>33818658
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar
>tfw Halsey was a fucktard, and we never got hot Iowa on Yamato action

>>33818324
North Carolina-class

They escorted carrier groups all throughout the war, participated in many shore bombardments, and the one time they got into a BB v BB fight, the Washington obliterated Kirisima without a scratch.

Iowas are technically "better" in the same way the F-22 is "better" than the F-15. The F-15 is still undefeated and costs way less. Same applies to the NC vs Iowa.

>>33820930
>The real deciding factor would be the state of the respective crews. Yamato's crew was inexperienced and poorly trained in 44'. Yamamoto himself took note of how disgusted he was with their performance during gunnery drills earlier that year.
Yamamoto died in 1943.

>>33818324
The ships which were build before carriers became a thing.
Colorados, Nagatos and Revenges.
Everything build after 1920 could have been a carrier.
Old battleships were completely fine for shore bombardment and for anti-air you can use cruisers and destroyers.

File: toot toot.jpg (82KB, 744x496px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 744x496px

>>33818324
HMS nelson
Because fuck you and your Bismark.
More armour than an iowa.

>Sloped armour.
>16 inch guns.
>14 Inch armour with 70 Degree slope to protect against close in and plunging fire.
>Torpedo tubes.
>Frontally focused firepower so you can attack 30 degrees on to close range and slope armour, whilst your opponent attempts to cross the T

>>33818324
Aircraft carriers :^)

>>33821891
so he followed the decoys and got fucked because of it?
I'm only skimming this because I honestly don't feel like reading that entire clusterfuck

>>33824653
>and slope armour, whilst your opponent attempts to cross the T

Are you a World of Warships player by any chance?

File: ee7.png (7KB, 493x402px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 493x402px

>>33824653
this is what battleshit fags actually belive

File: 1492449489535.png (1MB, 1289x911px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1289x911px

Would you a BB-61?

>>33824764
It'll do for wartime conditions.

>>33824742
She actually sank something though thats all that matters

>>33818516
Because by the time America entered the war it was already over and naval tactics had changed to favour aircraft carriers?

>>33824653
Too slow for its era, problematic guns that lack impact for their size, and lack luster AA means no, the Nelson is NOT the best BB.

>>33824821
>thats all that matters

That you listed those other qualities shows that even you don't buy that bit of bullshit.

>>33824863
> AA on a batlleship meaning anything.
If any battleship was attacked by a competent air group the AA would not be able to fend it off.

>>33824873
A9,
hit,you sank my battleship bismark

Carriers

>>33824892
"On that day and the next, American air and submarine attacks, with the fierce anti-aircraft fire of such ships as North Carolina, virtually ended any future threat from Japanese naval aviation: three carriers were sunk, two tankers damaged so badly they were scuttled, and all but 36 of the 430 planes with which the Japanese had begun the battle were destroyed."
Pretty sure AA matters.

>>33824967
>American air ... attacks
>ships
That implies escort & fighter cover?
So tell me why are we slating a BBs AA cover when its not their job?

>>33825015
The North Carolina is still personally responsible for 24 confirmed aircraft kills. It may not have been specifically the battleship's job to kill aircraft, but by WW2 it was EVERY ship's job to have AA defense.

>>33825164
Bismark, Tirpitz really sucked at air defence.

File: 1492802859475.jpg (65KB, 640x620px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x620px

IJN here, gaijin piggu shipfus are inferior to nippon navy, best in the world

>>33825218
Indeed they did. Those German 37mm guns were basically worthless.

The Iowas were built for AA defense, to an extent. Their position in the carrier groups were next to the CV so they offer protective fire and possibly use their armor to absorb hits.
AA defense and coastal bombardment were the two roles the Iowas did the most during WW2.

Aside from the one time when Iowa and New Jersey ran down a Japanese cruiser.

File: 1491711921582.jpg (183KB, 764x1200px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 764x1200px

Built for Breeding

>>33825255
I just don't get it
What about tits that large is appealing
It's retardadly disproportioned and not attractive at all

File: USS_Missouri_firing_during_Desert_Storm,_6_Feb_1991.jpg (2MB, 3000x1976px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1976px

I know it''s 4chan and everything, but just once I wish that just once we could have a thread about Naval ships without boteposting and Kancolle stuff.
Sometimes it can be quite obnoxious.

>>33825274
child rapists

File: 1491264379087.png (441KB, 700x1032px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 700x1032px

>>33825274
Big guns=Big tits

And they're not too big, it's just that her cleavalicious outfit makes them seem even bigger

>>33825323
I'm just glad that the "poi" spam in World of Warships chat has died off.

>>33825372
Still some matches with it. I've been seeing a lot of obvious /pol/ users in chat. Which is equally cringy.

>>33825274
>He likes small tits
>Pedophile detected

>>33825274
Those aren't even that fucking big you pleb. I love petite and loli the most but that is well within acceptable range faghole.

>>33824858
I didn't realize the war ended in early 1942. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

>>33825323
I will never understand it, desu.

>>33825506
>implying America did shit until half way through 1944 and D-Day
>Even the italy campaign in 1943 was laughably pathetic
inb4 you try and pretend that lend-lease was helping and not just lining your countries pockets for the next 70 years.
Fucking american education right here.

File: Lend Lease.png (44KB, 1898x646px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1898x646px

>>33825506
Best meme.
War for the Soviet Union began in July, 1941 (Before that they were helping the Germans)
War for the United states began in December, 1941 (Before that they were helping their eventual allies)

But somehow some believe that that those six months difference, during which the USSR was getting its shit pushed in all the way to the gates of Moscow, determined the outcome of the war. Hilarious.

>>33825569
Why does everyone forget about the hellhole that was the Pacific theater?
If you're a bong you have no room to talk. Your only claim to fame in the war was an evacuation.
If you're an aussie, you're welcome.

>b-but lend lease doesn't count.
Without us propping up the Soviets they would've all starved. Without us propping up your shitty little island you all would have starved. The RN was fuck huge, but they couldn't stop a handful of u-boats wrecking all your shipping.

File: 016261i.jpg (842KB, 3115x3931px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 3115x3931px

USSR: Fight in one theater the whole time, declare war on Japan the week before the war ends (How's that for "joining after it's over"?)
Lose a massive amount of people due to idiotic decisions, claim you did the most because you have the highest bodycount.

UK and USA: Fight in numerous theaters simultaneously; North Africa, Europe, Pacific, while also sending convoys to the USSR.

But since this is a Navy thread, we could compare the performances of the American, British, and Soviet Navies...

>>33825733
>Soviet Navy
It's a rare feat to be completely irrelevant even when compared to the Italians in WW2.

>>33825688
>Why does everyone forget about the hellhole that was the Pacific theater?
SEP.
>Without us propping up your shitty little island
You'd be speaking Sino-German based on the fusckig trading mess you lot started post WW1.

Didn't like Europe and Canada trading with Japan so made it almost impossible.

Reap the Whirlwind.

File: Malta.jpg (164KB, 960x689px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 960x689px

>>33825770
Italians were in the Med. America mostly was not.
>Why does everyone forget about the hellhole that was the Mediterranean.

Based on the performance of the ABDA against the IJN and considering how the US was the only country in that joint command with a powerful ship construction base, I would conclude that the US was the reason the Pacific Theater was not lost to Japan.

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

605KB, 1449x2230px

>>33825770
The Italian Navy had some good stuff. Decent Battleships and their Cruisers were being bought/copied by the Soviets.
Italy in general gets perhaps a little too much hate. The one area where they failed miserably was their leaders commanding, but their soldiers and tech (Minus a few atrocious examples) wasn't too bad.

File: blow tanks and then Christmas.webm (3MB, 616x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 616x480px

>>33825880
It's a nice sunny place without jungles.
British vs Germans stayed somewhat civilized.

>>33825903
>our tankettes are adequate for combat!
>who needs production lines or machine-packed ammunition!? that's gay! Inefficient production methods and next to worthless ammunition is the way of the future
>what does 'air supremacy mean? what is a "plane"? what is a "fuel injector"?
>rivets on everything
>untrained soldiers
Yeah, please keep telling me how Italy was good

File: oooo.jpg (21KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x200px

>>33825903
Once the Vici French had a slap they were the next biggest surface threat in that theatre.
From the Times of Malta.

>>33824863

>Too slow for its era

The Nelson-class battleships were commissioned in 1927. They were plenty fast for that time.

File: 1493627030341-1.jpg (7KB, 128x112px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 128x112px

>>33821001
What is this?

>>33825903
>Italian ww2 production aircraft's shitty engine literally makes the plane constantly lean
>so they make one wing longer than the other
>now it stalls constantly and can barely climb at all
>sends it into combat as main fighter aircraft

>>33826033
Smoke Funnel.

Dumb Design since it expel the smoke into the windows.

Kek

>>33826033
Exhaust. Same thing as a smokestack but vented out to the side to keep it out of the way of the flightdeck.

>>33825977
Not Him..

But Italian Navy was ok, but Air Force and Army are Sandnigger tier.

File: macchi_mc_202.jpg (132KB, 1024x590px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1024x590px

>>33826044
You're talking about the M.C. 202.
Every propeller-driven aircraft has torque, which will slightly pull the plane to one side, something the pilot must account for. The Italians made the left ling slightly longer to cancel out the effect but it did create other problems. Kind of hard to argue that the changes were worth it but the 202 was a decent fighter.

Other ways of dealing with torque are to use trim on control surfaces or cancel out the effect by having two engines spinning propellers opposite directions (Example being the P-38 Lightning).

The torque was not indicative of poor design, it's just the nature of propeller aircraft.

File: few.jpg (41KB, 468x286px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 468x286px

>>33825977
>what is a "fuel injector"?
What is Miss Shilling's orifice. :)

>>33824692
tl;dr

>Subs and patrol aircraft spot all 3 IJN forces--Northern (decoy carriers), Southern (a small surface force split into 2 groups), and Center (the big boys).
>Halsey's planes pound the snot out of Center Force, and report sinking multiple BBs and that Center Force is retreating
>Southern Force is sailing straight into a trap set with a bunch of repaired Pearl Harbor BBs and a massive escort force
>Halsey decides that it is now safe to complete the trifecta by exploiting his advantage of interior lines to go wipe out the Northern (decoy) force
>Halsey considers leaving some BBs behind, but either forgets or decides not to (he was on one of those BBs and wouldn't have wanted to miss sinking Japan's last carriers)
>But wait! The pilots were wrong--only Musashi was sunk, and the Center Force turns around again after dark, and passes through the strait unopposed
>Southern Force, as expected, gets ambushed and mauled in one of the most lopsided surface duels in history
>Halsey launches airstrikes around dawn that will go on to wipe out the Northern Force carriers
>Meanwhile, a group of escort carriers and a half dozen tin cans sees Center Force coming over the horizon...
>USN loses 1 CVE, 2 DDs, 1 DE
>IJN loses 3 CAs
>Thinking they just ran into Halsey's entire fleet, and that Halsey's BBs must be just over the horizon, the IJN commander runs away
>Soon after the battle ends, a new phase of the war begins, as the first planned kamikaze attack sinks another CVE

>>33825234
As were the USN 1.1"; thankfully, they were replaced (mostly by 40mm Bofors), and at any rate, the ubiquitous 5"/38 did most of the work--and I don't believe any of the Axis powers had anything like it.

>>33825637
I saw a claim once that the Germans were intercepting and decrypting Soviet radio communications on a regular basis, right up until early 1942, when we sent them thousands of miles of military-grade telephone cables.

Suddenly, the Germans had no idea where or when the enemy was massing.

>>33818324
Yamato
All who say it's Iowa are screeching Ameritards.

>>33828013
You mean the ship that did nothing but get torpedoed and sink?

>>33825903
Didn't their own air force bomb them?

File: USS_Langley_(CVL-27)_and_battleship_in_typhoon_1944.jpg (283KB, 1009x705px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1009x705px

>>33824653
>piss-poor seakeeping due to the requirement to fire directly forward at zero degrees of elevation

Most of Britain's battleships would have sunk if they had been part of Task Force 38.

>>33828060
To be fair that's not because it was a bad ship, just used poorly

>be mutsu
>second most powerful BB class in IJN navy
>explode at harbor doing nothing

>>33818844
Was coming here to say USS West Virginia.

Rather old BB but absolutely crack gunnery performance.

>>33818865
>It had much better armor

Imagine being on a ship taking hits with a crew woefully undertrained and underequipped for damage control.

>>33824653
Oh boy, the fleet oiler has arrived

>>33821219

The RN was once the greatest navy in the world, and all you have to show for it is HMS Victory, which granted is a great achivement, but isn't she rather lonely all by her lonesome?

I'm sure Warspite would have made a great tourist attraction. The Iowas pay for themselves!

File: Sideview_of_No4_turret_of_japanese_destroyer_Harutsuki_at_Maizuru_in_1945.jpg (29KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x300px

>>33827113
Closest thing to the 5" I can think of. Bad barrel life though.

>>33826014
No. They weren't.

>>33828013
Yamato had shit construction, relatively poor armor, guns inferior to the 16"/50 (look up something besides diameter), worse aiming, no real fire control computer, slower, lower pressure/ inefficient boilers, wide and shallow underwater hullform...
Facts say Iowas.

>>33831278
Can you imagine what the post-Philippines Pacific theatre would have been like for the USN if they hadn't lucked into the very best DP medium deck gun of the entire war, maybe ever?

>>33825903
>literally no naval radar.
Granted the Soviets don't seem to have made much progress with naval radar either.

>>33825880
While it was no park compared to Guadalcanal I wouldn't call it a Hellhole.

>>33831278
It was a good gun and maybe the short barrel life would have made more sense in a nation that could produce more.

>>33831789
>compared to Guadalcanal
Nothing really compared to conditions in the Pacific Theatre. Nowhere else was anywhere near as consistently miserable, not even the Ostfront. At least they got a summer to break the crushing horror.

>>33831326
If they had something decent like >>33831278
or Brititsh 4 inch gun, it would not have been much different against aircraft, if they still had radar fuse shells.
The 5"/38 twin turrets were largest, heaviest and likely the most expensive DP mounts so there is a reason why most navies kept it small.

>>33832066
>The 5"/38 twin turrets were largest, heaviest and likely the most expensive DP mounts so there is a reason why most navies kept it small.
I don't know about heaviest and largest - in a mass per gun/volume per gun metric they surely kicked the shit out of single mounts. And that's before we figure in firing rate and RPC/stabilization features.

>>33827067
>>33824692
>>33821891

I can't blame Halsey too much for leaving in the first place, he was just operating off of the intel he had available.

What I can blame him for is not acting on the transmissions from Taffy 3. If he had turned around, or atleast sent his BB's back, as soon as those messages were received the retreating Center Force would have ran smack dab into TF 34.

>>33818324
Iowa class, sexiest battleship to sail the sea

>>33832099
This. The delay is the real killer in the situation. Strategic and tactical mistakes are forgivable in an incomplete information game. Failing to correct them in a timely manner is not.

>>33818324
>best battleships
>WWII
kek

>>33819034
Iowas were in service into the '90s because of out-of-touch fudd politicians having their fingers on force structure. USN brass hated the things, sailors and officers serving on them hated them. Only dipshits with a big gun fetish liked them. Same as the A-10 and John McCain today.

>>33828060
>did nothing
It may have taken out Gambier Bay

but yeah, an expensive white elephant

>>33824396
He came back to yell at them.

>>33832076
You can't look up basic things like wieght or size yet you know about stablization?
I can't even find when that came. Anybody got a source?
But twin mounts without RPC?
They would have been seriously handicapped.

>>33832234
>I can't even find when that came.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-052.htm
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm
>The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
The beauty of RPC, excellent radar directed fire control and advanced stabilization. The synergy makes for incredible efficiency.

Other interesting links on this subject:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-006.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-087.htm
And a full run down of US BB performance at Surigao Strait:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-079.htm

>But twin mounts without RPC?
>They would have been seriously handicapped.
Lacking RPC is not the same thing as lacking power assist. Remote Power Control means the turrets are directly linked into and traversed by the Fire Control computer. Without it, you can still have power assist, just in local control, which severely limits effectiveness during maneuver and speed of adjustment to fall of shot. The US (and by extension Brits and selected refitted French ships) were the only ones with true RPC during WWII.

>>33819236

Like the entire RUN.

>>33832263
I asked about stablization of 5"/38, not battleship mainguns.

>>33832288
I've got copies of the original turret specs somewhere around here. Let me see if I can dig them up. As I do, the TLDR is that all of the USN mount designs with RPC, especially the ones meant for DP/AAA, had stabilization along with full radar direction from about 1939 on. That's everything from 40mm BOFORS on up. This, more than anything, was why USN (and RN) ships were so much better off by about 1943 onward. When you almost triple the net commissioned displacement of your navy over the course of the war, you tend to have a much, much higher fraction of ships equipped with the newest toys.

Stand by.

>>33832175
>USN brass hated the things, sailors and officers serving on them hated them.
If you're in the Navy and you hate serving on an Iowa-class battleship, your dick should be fed to sharks.

>>33832300
>had stabilization along with full radar direction from about 1939 on
How does this compare to jap and german tech, btw? Whenever i think of Japanese AAA, my mind always go to those poor fucks using un-powered 4x25mm cannons aimed by the divine spirit

>>33832318
See: >>33832263
>Lacking RPC is not the same thing as lacking power assist. Remote Power Control means the turrets are directly linked into and traversed by the Fire Control computer. Without it, you can still have power assist, just in local control, which severely limits effectiveness during maneuver and speed of adjustment to fall of shot. The US (and by extension Brits and selected refitted French ships) were the only ones with true RPC during WWII.
They had local controlled turrets, which especially in anything but the shortest ranged AAA was very inefficient comparatively. Also, the lack of radar fusing and a seriously fucked set of gun calibres for medium and light AAA completely screwed the Japanese.

Their AAA efficiency was actually even LOWER than their fire rate and throw weight would suggest (pretty abysmal comparatively by 1944 to start with). Poor fuckers didn't have a chance once their naval aviation was gutted.

File: US navy 1938-44.png (54KB, 737x572px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 737x572px

>>33832318
It was the rich mans way of war like some Germans said.
All the old frontline ships were stuffed full of newest AA, because you can.
And Japs had industry to only stuff more shitty manual 25mm. Their electric industry was doing bad in every field.
Yet best way to defeat enemy planes was with your own planes.

File: HMS Warspite is not impressed with your gunnery.jpg (190KB, 1505x1037px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1505x1037px

>>33818324
Depends on how you define "best".

>Most capable
Iowa class.
Nine 16in guns, absurdly effective AAA and god-tier FCS made it an amazing ship.

>Actually doing shit.
Queen Elizabeth class.
The twin 15in turrets were the definition of "good enough" and the Royal Navy actually used its battleships, which lead to the QEs seeing a lot more use, and success, then any other class.

>>33832450
>B5
>miss

>>33832309

Well, the Iowas were designed to be comfortable for their officers, but not so much for the normal crew.

File: 1410503937228.jpg (13KB, 173x179px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 173x179px

>>33818338
Say that to Germany.

File: Bearn.jpg (110KB, 1024x619px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1024x619px

>>33826047
>>33826033
Funnels were directed downwards to avoid hot exhaust disrupting aircraft landing. Different countries tried different experiments to work around that problem. Japs had inverted funnels, US just built them super tall, french had a "cooling chamber" installed underneath etc. etc..

File: When sudoku commits you.jpg (53KB, 960x876px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x876px

>>33832889
tfw someone fires a sidewinder and it goes after your own carrier

>>33826014
Nagato was commissioned 10 years earlier and was already faster.

>>33825903
>Littorio class
>basically no AA to talk of
>Shitty guns that couldn't hit anything to save their life and had a barrel life three times worse than the average because "muh range"
>"revolutionary" torpedo belt system was a complete distaster and basically gave less protection than no torpedo belt at all
>No radar when even French BBs had one added
>Generator room located outside the armored citadel
>Piss poor range compared to its contemporaries

And that's not even mentioning the legendary brilliance of Italian military officers

>>33825637
US could produce so much shit as a "little help" no wonder why japs were fucked from the beginning, this gives me an impression that jap commanders were a bunch of morons or misinformed of the actual US might