Did Japan build formidable battleships?

>>34582293
yamato is like better than iowa

File: battleship_comparison_HIJMS_Yamato_HMS_Vanguard_USS_Iowa.jpg (249KB, 1280x967px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1280x967px

>>34582293
>would the Yamato and others have been on par with the Bismark or even the Missouri?
Yamato was far more formidable than Bismarck.

File: yamato and mushasi.jpg (12KB, 189x267px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 189x267px

>>34582293
The Yamato and her sister would have been the queens of the seas, if it weren't for the reason you pointed out (age of carriers).

Assuming no carriers, same production rate and unlimited resources, if you had put the Americans and Japanese to build a fleet of battleships, the Japanese would have won 10/10 times.

File: haruna.jpg (43KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x400px

>still making "Yamato is biggest so it's the bestest" shitposts without reading link related
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

tl;dr Burger fire control radar would completely push Yamato's shit in, and I admit this as an enormous weeaboo boatfucker

>>34582293
Japanese battleships were not really that good. Nor was the Bismark for that matter - the Hood was just that old and out of place - but that is a different topic.

Most Japanese battleships were comparable to Britains' WWI leftovers, the Revenge and QE classes. Only less suited for their theater of operations then the British ships due to poor range and lack of strategic fuel reserves.

The Yamato class had a short period of being the best brawler around but it ate too much fuel to be usable in the Pacific. Once the Iowas came on line they were the best around with their god-tier FCS, which Japanese battlewagons sorely lacked.

>>34582293
No.

>>34582339
Not to mention Jap doctrine was based around never getting hit which is a ridiculous assumption. Their damage control was shit tier, and even the Yamato barely carried any pumps.

File: port_bow_view_uss_iowa_bb_61_nov_30__1987_by_desertstormvet-d8j8ih5.jpg (127KB, 953x589px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 953x589px

It goes deeper than that. I'd wager that a Japanese-built Battleship crewed by Americans vs an American-built Battleship crewed by Japanese would result in a victory for the American crew.
Ship design means very little when your damage control practices are poor.

That being said, Japanese Battleships were quite good at the time since they borrowed so heavily from the Royal Navy and British shipbuilders. The Yamato and Musashi would have been the best Battleships in the world had they been built during WW1. But they were not built then and so their rivals would have been the South Dakota and Iowa classes, which were more modern, the Iowas were faster, and both had much more advanced radar than anything the Japanese ever had during WW2. The radar proved its worth at the Battle of Surigao Strait. All the Americans would have to do is use their superior speed to open distance and wait for nightfall, and there wouldn't have been a thing the Japanese could do to effectively fight back against radar-directed fire.

They'd still most likely rendered less relevant by more strategically and tactically maneuverable cruisers and destroyers. They were just too slow to shine in a big ocean.

File: 1499164236694.png (619KB, 700x964px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 700x964px

>>34582377
> I'd wager that a Japanese-built Battleship crewed by Americans vs an American-built Battleship crewed by Japanese would result in a victory for the American crew.

america fuck yeah!

>>34582379
Fervent defenders of Jap Battleships will try to set up the most favorable engagements to make their ships win.
>what if they met during a clear day?
>What if carriers and aircraft weren't anywhere around?
>What if there were no other ships around?
>What if a Japanese shell hit the American radar early on and knocked it out?
>What if the Iowa was crewed by mentally handicapped monkeys?
>What if the Yamato was sucked into a time storm and popped out at Jutland?

File: Formidable-Massias.jpg (179KB, 778x532px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 778x532px

>>34582293
No, but the French did

>>34582390
>>What if the Yamato was sucked into a time storm and popped out at Jutland?
I'd actually like to know the answer to this one.

>>34582377
>I'd wager that a Japanese-built Battleship crewed by Americans vs an American-built Battleship crewed by Japanese would result in a victory for the American crew.
Damn, Jap ships are that good huh?

I guess you guys haven't seen the accuracy reports from the Japanese. The Iowa has half the dispersion at range than the Yamato at dock, whilst at speed in open water.

Before 1943, I would agree than the Japanese would have curbstomped the Americans, but the advances in fire control, radar, damage control and crew training meant that the US had the best battleships.

>>34582404
japs were against germany in ww1

>>34582404
>I'd actually like to know the answer to this one.
They probably wouldn't know who to shoot at.

This is probably some obscure one-shot already.

>>34582425
The Japs on the Yamato would be from WW2. They're not gonna just gonna start opening fire on the Kaiser's ships.

>>34582409
More like Japanese damage control practices are that bad. Their water tight door discipline is shit too.

Everyone shits on battleships during WW2, but did they actually provide any real contribution during the war?

>>34582293
>The Yamato class never had a single HE shell produced for its main guns

This still blows me away. They had the fucking designs for all these different shell types, and they only made AP rounds.

>>34582574
The American battleships were the lynch pins of the fleet air defence artillery suites. A SoDak or Iowa could throw almost 50,000 lbs of radar aimed, proximity fused high explosive AAA per minute.

If the Axis battlewagons had been as dangerous to airplanes as an Iowa or SoDak, the carrier admirals wouldn't have prevented the construction of post-war Battleships. But the best of the Axis battleships had less than half the throw weight and lacked proximity fuses or radar gun direction.

File: Battleships super image.jpg (455KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1600x1600px

>>34582574
For the Germans they worked as commerce raiders.
The For Americans they provided a lot of AA cover for the carrier groups as well as fire support for amphibious landings.
For everyone else they didn't do so much.

>>34582574
The only thing did was provide higher throw weight of AAA, everything else they did could have been done by a cruiser, after WWI battleships were largely symbolic weapons.

>>34582619
You can count German battleship sorties using your fingers and toes, the Italian BBs saw more action than S/G/B/T did.
>For everyone else they didn't do so much.
RN battleships saw as much, if not more, action as the USN battleships, they had two years head start remember.

This seems like a good thread to ask; why don't we use heavy armor on our ships anymore? It seems like the 16" inch shells of years past had WAY more destructive potential than today's AShMs, but they still armored up. Was armor supposed to help with near misses rather than actual hits?

>>34582610
>By the end of the war, a US Fletcher class had more effective AA than the Yamato did, all because of fusing and radar

Dual purpose guns 4 lyfe

>>34582632
Many have argued they weren't that effective in the 1st world War either due to their accuracy being extremely poor at range because of their lack of effective fire control. They'd still have to close to cruiser tier ranges to land hits outside of luck.

>>34582692
Thick armor belts on ships are largely pointless, sure they'll make the ship difficult to sink but they can't stop mission killing hits to the superstructure.

>>34582692
Shells flight paths are very predictable. You can armor your sides and if you stay at a certain range you are guaranteed to have the enemy's shells hit only your armored portions due to parabolic arc.

Missiles can go wherever they want.

Furthermore, radar and whatnot are now the most mission critical components, and the main target rather than the magazine. Can't armor those.

Yamato or Musashi would have absolutely rekt the Bismarck, but I'd have serious concerns if bringing it up against the Missouri.

I expect that a Yamato class might have beaten a South Dakota if they, you know, were warped 12,000 yards away from each other on a clear day. I'm not so sure about an Iowa-class.

Under real-life conditions they were almost certainly worse than either, due to factors other than the size of the main battery and the thickness of the armour.

>>34582336
Arguable. the Iowa had radar based fire control which gave it an advantage in bad weather and night fighting.

>>34582528
They honestly thought counterflooding was important to gun accuracy.

The US, however, had their asses handed to them by the British Royal Navy in it's Prime so they learned to just assume shit will be fucked and planned on how to deal with it.

Hence things like All or Nothing armor layouts.

>>34583307
>The US, however, had their asses handed to them by the British Royal Navy in it's Prime
What, when?

File: TSUSHIMA.webm (3MB, 425x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 425x240px

>>34582293
yes. they kicked Russia's ass. basically destroyed their entire pacific fleet in one battle

>>34582692
Mostly, it's an expense thing. Battleships costed a small fortune each and all that armor didn't help against torpedoes and plunging fire.

>>34582574
They provided anti-aircraft fire, but this was done more cheaply with Atlantas and other cruisers.

>>34582580
They dis have shinseki :D

>>34583314
American revolutionary war. War of 1812. Sure, we won smaller battles due to better wood but we never really won against the 1st rate ships.

>>34582574
Artillery for beach landings.

>>34583323
they did offer some terrific shore bombardment.

>>34583314
Imaginationland.

Japan's military, with some exceptions here and there, was a really good WW1 military trying to fight ww2.

Their admirals and generals basically had the attitude "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Since their arms had won previous wars. then there wasn't any point in updating. Though I guess they forgot the lesson of Battles of Khalkhin Gol.

>>34583318
Hah. The Russian fleets were some shit ships and crews. And then Japan learned the wrong lessons from Tsushima.
* just finished Shattered Sword

>>34583360
>shit ships
mostly the best ships russia could buy from the british.

problem was the russian crews.

>>34583332
USA had no comparable first rates. Or second rates. Or third- you get the picture.
The six frigates were mostly kickass, but were only six. Each would run from a more powerful British squadron if possible.

>>34583337
>>34583339
That shore bombardment didn't do much good, generally.

Weren't a bunch of the jap ships originally built by the brits

>>34583460
Yes, although the only one I remember is Kongou. Way I hear it, the Iowa class was built explicitly to counter the Kongou class.

File: Kongou.(Kantai.Collection).full.1620374[1].jpg (136KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 640x640px

>>34583470
>when senpai notices you.

>>34582293

The Yamato was a fine ship but it was an anachronism. If the Yamato had existed in the 1920's it would have been without peer. But by the 1940's battleships in general had lost their usefulness, in large part due to the rapidly growing striking power of aircraft.

>>34583048
>I expect that a Yamato class might have beaten a South Dakota if they, you know, were warped 12,000 yards away from each other on a clear day. I'm not so sure about an Iowa-class.
It's about the only way that Yamato could stand a chance, the SoDaks could produce first salvo hits past 28,000 meters on fleeing destroyers at night, never mind a target like Yamato, and Yamato's longest confirmed hit was at 24,000 in perfect conditions.

(Her skipper claimed a hit at 30,000 once, but that's been pretty thoroughly debunked)

An Iowa would be even worse.

>>34583271
The Iowas and SoDaks earned hits at night at longer ranges than the Japanese ever managed in clear bright day. The Japanese gun directors just weren't good enough to take advantage of her optical advantages.

>>34583483
Burning love is difficult to miss. But it's only good if it doesn't mean burning piss.

>>34582339
his site is good but hes biased in some points (but alot less than most stuff you read )

File: 1488433399612.png (286KB, 376x360px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 376x360px

>>34583497
>If the Yamato had existed in the 1920s it would have been without peer

not really since in peacetime it would have probably been outed pretty quickly as being above treaty leading to the entire washington naval treaty being shit up a wall

suddenly the USN and RN would be laying down crazy surface heavies like the pre-treaty british K3 class battlecruiser (30 knots, 54,000 t, 18 inch guns)

>>34583524
True, but the Yamato's armor was thicker than the Iowa's and her guns were bigger as well. It's entirey possible that the Yamato could close into effective range while the Iowa was broadsiding her. An Iowa wouldn't want to turn tail because it would cut her firepower by 2/3rds

>>34582619
Holy shit Alaska is a big girl

File: hmsrodney.jpg (174KB, 1204x767px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1204x767px

>>34582411
>I guess you guys haven't seen the accuracy reports from the Japanese.
Then link them.

>>34584058
Iowa has enough of a speed advantage to keep her guns clear and still control the distance, and Yamato doesn't have enough armor to shrug off the big 16s, Iowa can pen Yamato at ranges Yamato can't reliably hit Iowa, but Iowa can count on scoring hits.

>>34584381
>Yamato doesn't have enough armor to shrug off the big 16s, Iowa can pen Yamato at ranges Yamato can't reliably hit Iowa
Some proof would be expected.
Though 1vs1 engagement with no limits where to run is quite stupid.

>>34583318
England built ships for Jap in that era though,they didn't built it themself.

File: 9f6db42b65196c343d99d0a133aea652.jpg (125KB, 1280x926px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1280x926px

Don't mind me, just posting the most aesthetic cruiser ever built. Shame they both got sunk, and the nips though they were too top heavy and only built two of them.

>>34583318
>>34583360
Are there any k-approved or good movies (from either side POV) of that battle?
Assuming no english ones, don't mind needing subs just a name from which to find them

>>34584738
sshhhh,..
For the Emperor !!!

File: 10r4a43.jpg (545KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 1600x1000px

>>34584949
>just posting the most aesthetic cruiser ever built
Agreed 100%

>>34585023
idk about movies but, i found a pretty good documentary on YT.

Naval Legends - Battle of Tsushima

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ink4S1adrhw

File: c2a6c10c1cd35a714deddee7bdb1a85a.jpg (75KB, 462x620px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 462x620px

>>34584517
Nothing on the surface of this gay earth can shrug off 16" gun fire.

File: 012879542.jpg (84KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x600px

Iowa vs Yamato hypothetical fights has been argued to death and back, and most people agree Iowas would of bested the Yamato in combat conditions that didn't involve brawling or some dumb shit like 15000m starting position in the daylight. With that being said, how would the two preeceding classes of BBs that came before the Iowas fare? The NCs and Dakotas both had very similar FCS and used radar similar to the Iowas, with major differences being that NCals were treaty BBs and the Dakotas were a offshoot? of them. Would the armor difference and different 16' guns make a difference?

>>34585118
At an ideal perpendicular within 15km? sure.

At nearly 30km into the bow? Maybe not. The shape of the Yamato's deck armor and the angle of plunging fire add up to a hard sell for penetration.

>>34585151

The big change here is that you no longer have to factor in the speed of Iowa. The biggest strength of the Iowa over the Yamato is the fact that it can simply turn around and run away if it ends up in a fight that it would rather avoid. If the Iowa finds itself faced with the Yamato, the Iowa can easy maintain a safe distance. It may choose to snipe away at the Yamato from a safe distance, with the help of radar-assisted gunnery, or it may choose to disengage and return with buddies later. North Carolina can't do either. If it encounters the Yamato, it will have to stand and fight as best as it can, meaning that it will have to directly contend with the thicker armor (and larger guns) of the Yamato.

File: Yamato-armorsheme-DE_-_magazines_cut.svg.png (101KB, 579x898px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 579x898px

>>34585118
To penetrate turret face they'd need to be at around 10km.
>>34585151
>some dumb shit like 15000m

Even if side of the ship is at 90 degrees, the belt is still 400mm angled 20 downwards and of course shells hit it from upward angle.
I don't remember how to calculate armor effectivenes increase caused by the angle, but roughly it seems that they would need to be within 20km.

Deck armor penetration comes possible only above 30km and estimates suggest below 1% accuracy for that range.

But would how much about Yamato's armor thicnes they would realistically know?

>>34585425
Im actually impressed with how fast the Yamato was, for having a weaker engine and weighing a fuck ton more, I would;ve expected the speed difference to be even greater between the two, how did the nips manage that?

>>34585529
Moving on water just is so different than on land.
Iowas needed huge power increase over South Dakotas just for ~5 more knots.

Maybe the best example of going overboard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkent-class_destroyer
>130,000 shp
>43.5 knots
Most WWII destroyers with better armament had less than half of that shp and reached respectable 37 knots.

>ITT world of warships fanboys argue about hypothetical bullshit
there is a reason of why the US navy decided to engage yamato with planes instead of brawling it,it's safer,faster,easier and stack more damage.

File: tomato.png (565KB, 1024x1134px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1024x1134px

I really like tomato and sushi

>>34583506
It's important to remember that the South Dakota and North Carolina classes both had the same munitions as the Iowa and fired the Superheavy AP round, albiet with less force due to shorter cannons.

>An Iowa would be even worse.

I've got a pic somewhere of the Iowa doing a shot demonstration where the target was the central plaza of the Pentagon from varying ranges when there was some debate as to whether the cannons were worth keeping at some point during a point when the USN considered replacing them with swing arms.

File: USS_New_Jersey_BB-62_salvo_Jan_1953.jpg (1MB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2400px

on the subject of battleships, could a situation exist where the Iowas would be recommissioned again? I know I've read that modernizing them again would cost upwards of billions of dollars, but could anything warrant doing it?

>>34586181
The only thing I could even fathom would be making it nuclear powered and replacing the big 16s with big railguns

File: USS Iowa shot demonstration.gif (20KB, 938x575px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 938x575px

>>34585999
Here we are

>>34586181
If prolonged coastal shelling was heavily needed and air superiority could be absolutely guaranteed they could possibly be used for that.

The ships are kept combat capable as museums, and if they were essentially just being used as battery ships they would not need a lot of updating.

>>34586736
Though what the would you be up against that the Iowas could crack that the aircraft present couldn't?

>>34586181
>could a situation exist where the Iowas would be recommissioned again?
Not anymore, they've been through that rigamarole twice and neither time was it worth the cost
>...could anything warrant doing it?
Just fuckstick elected representatives like McCain demanding it because BIG GUNS! BOOM BOOM BOOM PEWPEWPEW RATATATATATAT! IOW, BBs are the BRRRRT of the sea: only uninformed fudds actually esteem them

For BBs in general, the one thing that separates a BB from an especially large cruiser or battlecruiser is large amounts of armor - and heavy passive armor is never going to make a comeback. See the Kirov/Admiral Ushakov class for a modern-ish example of an especially large cruiser

>implying the Bismarck was better than the Missouri
What did he mean by this?

>>34582293
The Iowa had better gunnery than both, neither are on the level of an Iowa class. The USN had better radar ranging when most of the IJN relied on visual.

If the IJN wasn't using the yamato it would have been awesome.

>>34586779
Aircraft would still be doing bunker busting/precision strikes, but artillery is better for continuous bombardment.
I've read it's harder on morale for the opposing side to under fire for hours at a time, and if you wanted to do more damage to a large are of unarmed targets for cheaper it's the way to go. Maybe softening up a city or suburb before a big attack.

I still don't see it happening though, as U.S forces have switched off that doctrine, just like they don't carpet bomb anymore.

>>34586181
No, the machines used in building these ships are gone, and would have to be re-engineered from scratch.

Also, seriously no. There have been advancements since. They offer nothing any longer.

>>34586181
no one knows how to make their guns or ammo anymore. they are both basically a lost art that would have to be rediscovered.

>>34586880

It's not really that complicated and we have plenty of diagrams.

>>34586181
shore bombardment can be cheaper than air strikes :^)

File: destroyer.png (188KB, 656x663px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 656x663px

>>34585043
>most aesthetic cruiser ever built

>>34586991
That's not a DDG1000

File: Nachi.jpg (230KB, 1300x621px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1300x621px

>>34586581
When was that excactly?
According to stuff in navweaps they were able to keep the shells in 250 yards after 1980s modernization. (Yes I know that won't matter in a thread about WWII.)

Yamato only has test results saying:
"Spreads of salvos were reasonably small, (about 500 to 600 yards at maximum range)."
I suppose all estimates for combat accuracy sank or burned?
Are there such records from post WWI battleship which didn't yet use radar fire control for main guns?
That would be better than nothing even if Yamatos had the best optical fire control.

Also does anyone know if the scout/observation seaplanes on board battleships or cruisers had much use even when land or carrier planes weren't around raping them? Were they used for artillery spotting ever? Would it have been better to just put more AA in their place?

>>34584738
France taught them before tsushima though

>>34586983
>shore bombardment can be cheaper than air strikes :^)
Not when your shore bombardment weapon has such a short range that your ship can get hit by every ASM that can be launched from land or air. How cheap is battle damage? Let alone a complete loss?

>>34586991
>The Type 055 destroyer (NATO code name Renhai[9]) is a class of guided missile destroyers being constructed by indigenous efforts for the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy Surface Force.

ugh

reverse search finds chink sites only too

is it a guided missile she hides in her panties

File: IMG_2011.jpg (99KB, 800x547px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 800x547px

>>34583328
They had this dude?

>>34584949
There were 4 completed Takao-class cruisers.

I like the Tone class myself. They just look so fucking weird.

>>34587035
implying isis has any antiship missiles

>>34587178
no warships that use guns have enough range to hit ISIS,what's left of their territory is not close to any body of water.

>>34586181
If all the carriers of the Atlantic fleet were sucked into a black hole and there was an enemy invasion fleet on it's way, Ticos would still be a better option to try and intercept the enemy ships. Are the BBs even seaworthy anymore? Not trying to troll, I know they still float and sail nominal distances but can they keep up with the rest of the battlegroup? I think in a no-carriers situation (they only one where BBs are viable) the best bet would be to sortie out with DDs and Ticos to try and intercept and float the BBs to the most likely landing zones to be used as makeshift coastal arty.

Of course there's always the option of reactivating them for propaganda/shits and giggles purposes, but that's less "we need capitol ships NOW" and more "fuck of Ivan and Chang, my dick is bigger than yours."

File: 15c3cb82b4dc241b0b9ed66bb109e769.png (537KB, 800x1075px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 800x1075px

>>34587046
Can't find the right picture, but in kancolle the Akizuki-class had their pants designed after the ships red bow.
Look at the bow on those chink destroyers.

>>34587260
>Of course there's always the option of reactivating them for propaganda/shits and giggles purposes, but that's less "we need capitol ships NOW" and more "fuck of Ivan and Chang, my dick is bigger than yours."
This already happened though. Thanks a lot, president Alzheimer

The IJN was woefully unprepared for modern warfare. Speaking tubes instead of radios, visual targeting instead of computers, ridiculous weapon systems like the oxygen torpedo that sank more of their own ships than anything else, and personnel that were only too happy to die for the emprah without accomplishing a goddamn thing.

File: missile~.jpg (4MB, 4608x2592px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4608x2592px

>>34587046
I have a guided missile in my panties for you anon-kun~

(don't you faggots derail the thread because of this, I just wanna make anon happy)

>>34583332
Sorry but in the war of 1812(13 and 14) the Royal Navy lost a first rate ship of the line to a constitution class frigate and the order went out to never engage with less than three

>>34587873
>the Royal Navy lost a first rate ship of the line to a constitution class frigate

which ship? because constitution only ever fought ships smaller than herself

being able to pick and choose fights was the key to constitution's success

>>34583318
You got a source for this it looks interesting?

>>34582293
>low quality steel

>>34582619
The German ships lasted like 20 seconds as commerce raiders

>>34586181

when I took a tour of the Missouri they did say that they were not allowed to make any irreversible changes.

But that was years ago before they finally struck the last 2 Iowas from the reserve list.

>>34587014
>>According to stuff in navweaps they were able to keep the shells in 250 yards after 1980s modernization.
The FCS for the 16s wasn't touched in the modernization. That may have been taking into account fire corrections from the drone.

>>34591182
The ones that didn't get shrekt east of the channel did alright for themselves. Graf Spee, for instance fucked shit up for the couple of months before she got cornered.

>>34582619
I find it odd that the Alaska was a ship in a class of states before it was even a state.

>>34582293
The Yamato had the best throw weight in the Pacific on it's main battery. They had great optical sighting so in either daylight or low light, it would have been a bad motherfucker. If memory serves, the Yamato's 18.1" guns have a slight range and dispersion advantage be to the even the 50 Calibre 16" guns on the Iowa when shooting AP.

The Japanese did not have good radar gunnery, which would have tipped things in favor of the American superdreads if the engagement was joined at night.

I would imagine in a sustained slugfest, barring a battery hit, it likely would have been decided by damage control, which would have put things in the US's favor.

Or at least that is what this sperg here thinks.

Everyone likes to focus on the big 18 inch guns even though they were inferior to the Iowas mk 7's due to their calibre. The Iowas had better guns, radar fire control, and superior damage control.

>>34583506
What was the range when she hit the white plains? I thought that was close to 28k... I might be misremembering.

>>34592057
It wasn't. Her sister ship was Guam, a territory (like her).

>>34582692
The 16" guns on the USS Iowa have a bursting charge of 67.69 kgs, a Harpoon missile has a 221 kg shaped charge warhead.

>>34592138
Around 34k yards according to the Wiki, although I thought the hits were disputed whether if came from the Yamato or not?
In comparison, Iowa and New Jersey scored a couple of straddles on the IJN destroyer Nowaki on Truk, at 35k yards with all ships involved maneuvering at more than 30 knots.

>>34587873
eh? the primary issue the royal navy had was that it didnt have any first rates readily available, nor many 2nd or 3rd rates in the theatre and those that did had trouble holding a frigate in a engagement, the USN ships tending to run.

the US frigates victories came at the expense of smaller more lightly built frigates built for scouting and raiding, the US frigates were designed as 'heavy frigates' specifically to hunt and engage european style frigates.

the order you are referring to specified not to engage a US heavy frigate with one of the lighter RN ones unless a ship of the line was also present or a couple more frigates. The Chesapeake/Shannon fight proved that a RN frigate could take on and beat the lighter US frigates

The IJN wasn't even a close match to the most modern navy in the world at that time.
The USN fire-control system alone was such a massive advantage, even without the Japanese fucking up basic things like structural fuel tanks in their cruisers, they wouldn't have had a chance.
Fletchers blew everything the IJN had out of the water, doubt they would have even needed an Iowa to sink the Yamato.

>>34592527
I will never not laught at this picture. Not to mention the photoshopped ones

>>34587031
Yeah,but those ships that fight in Russo-Japan war are all built from british.