/NWG/ Naval General - Japs Can't Into Botes Edition

File: USS_Stewart_(DD-224)_arriving_at_San_Francisco_in_March_1946.jpg (8MB, 5719x4196px) Image search: [Google]

8MB, 5719x4196px

>think about making a new nwg
>check catalogue
>there is already one

Noise

>>53725621
We should spend more time actually talking about boats instead of just posting cute girls desu

Where can I buy miniatures?
I would like to get some Napoleonic ships and I don't know where to buy them

>>53728078
I think that Langton makes at least some 1/1200 Napoleonic boats. No idea about quality though, have never seen their miniatures outside of pictures

File: IMG_2203.png (471KB, 583x1024px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 583x1024px

>>53725621
What are you talking about, the Japs have great botes.

>>53729244
Totally a destroyer, guys.

>>53729315
Not the first time that nips have used an expanded definition of destroyer.

File: t3_4n0hik.jpg (112KB, 1280x666px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1280x666px

>>53730967

File: t3_5c8lgz.jpg (820KB, 3600x2520px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 3600x2520px

>>53732572

File: GHQSantaTrinidad.jpg (77KB, 309x230px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 309x230px

>>53728078
>Where can I buy miniatures?
I would like to get some Napoleonic ships and I don't know where to buy them

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/military-models-napoleonic-micronauts.html

Thank me later anon.

File: 20170121071914_1.jpg (410KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1920x1080px

>>53725621
Do you know how thick the turret armor was on the Tone and Mogami?

25mm.

1 Inch.

Japs can't make boats.

File: artbritishshipshmsrodney.jpg (50KB, 728x534px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 728x534px

If any of you fuckers play in that Bloodwake play by post game, let me know, I've been reading the missions and it seems neat, I'd like to try it at least.
----
>This passage made me hard.

The two battleships fire at each other, heavy salvo after heavy salvo. The command tower of the Iron Duke is hit again, creating further chaos on the bridge, but Hale survives again, even as more of his crew is cut down around him. The salvos from the Iron Duke hammer at the damaged Ise. Another shell hit punches through the belt, erupting below the waterline and tearing another hole into the armored citadel of the ship. Already weakened by the Torpedo strikes and previous hits, this proves to be too much for the vessels pumps to handle, and she sinks lower in the water. Minutes later, steam erupts from the ship's vents as the seawater hits the boilers, and they crack under the thermal differential. The starboard side of the Ise dips below the waterline as she begins to roll, and crew can be seen abandoning her all along her decks.

>>53734958
So you're telling me Japanese boats weren't THICK enough?

>>53734933
I thought I've heard before that you should buy GHQ hulls and Langton sails.

>>53735950
GHQ sails are nice, they come in full and battlesail configs.

>>53727806
It feels more like an ocean liner than a warship...

>>53729994
Well, those carriers I mean destroyers carry helicopters whose primary mission is anti-submarine, hence the 'Destroyer' classification.

>>53735986
That would be pretty neat if you could make them swappable.

File: IxMl4fE.jpg (236KB, 1253x881px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1253x881px

>>53734958
Meanwhile in the USA.
>turret face 203mm

>>53734958
>Counties: 25mm all-around
>French norm: 30mm max

>>53725621
Thank you for Rule The Waves ; I didn't knew this game but I am hooked now

>>53741839
You mean the Cruisers that actually obeyed the treaty and were 10,000 tons, compared to the Tone which weighed 15,000?

>>53742499
They were basically the same serviceable turrets which were designed for Aoba, sightly modified for a different 20cm gun. When you have a turret that works it's more efficient to reuse those turrets and put more effort into literally every other aspect of design. Even if you later learn that it's suboptimal you don't just shit out new turrets on command.

The only reason you saw Nagato and Mutsu getting heavier turrets is because those units already existed for the planned Tosa class and had been put into storage rather than being broken up. And when that happened the ships had to also have massive torpedo bulges added to retain stability and buoyancy.

tl;dr quit talking about naval design as if it works by magic.

>>53725621
>Ospreys
What is an Osprey ?

>>53734933
I'm looking for napoleonic ships too, but more on the 1/30h~ scale in wood ; Anyone know a good shop ?

>>53743444
Short, heavily illustrated paperback book about military history related topics published by Osprey Publishing.

>>53743444
>What is an Osprey ?

A series of a painting guides with delusions of grandeur.

They began as somewhat serviceable guides for painting historical figures and vehicles and then, in true Peter Principle fashion, were 'promoted to their level of incompetence".

While they'd been historically suspect enough when discussing the tropical winter uniforms of the 6 & 7/8ths Moronikan Horse Marines during the Sim Sala Bim Campaign of 1679, the wheels fell completely off when they began doing 'straight" history in the form of weapon, vehicle, battle, campaign, and war books.

They're a monopoly, pure and simple. No other publisher produces anything like the number and variety books Osprey does. That means they don't need to give a fuck because where else are you going to buy anything similar?

>>53742829
>And when that happened the ships had to also have massive torpedo bulges added to retain stability and buoyancy.

There's something that has been interesting me for a while now. Would one theoretically be able to capsize a Nagato-class by damaging and flooding the bulges on one side of the ship? Let's say damage control goes full retard and doesn't do squat.

>>53744426
>>53743444
To be fair, they can be useful as introductory reading for a subject, though the exact quality will depend on the specific author.

>>53744977
>Let's say damage control goes full retard and doesn't do squat.
...So business as usual in the IJN?

>>53743444
>What is an Osprey ?

A history book, in the same way that what McDonald's sells is food.

>>53744982
>they can be useful as introductory reading for a subject

I'd say the opposite. You need a good amount of knowledge to catch the bullshit, or you'll have a gruelling journey in front of you un-learning the incorrect first impression.

Of course, when you do have a good amount of knowledge there probably won't be much reason to stick your nose into an Osprey book.

>>53744977
Not likely. Kirishima foundered due to her own counterflooding measures because there was significant penetration in several adjacent compartments above the waterline which her own damage control exposed to seawater ingress. Nagato had much more substantial underwater protection to begin with and was extensively protected against fragmentation damage of the sort that contributed to the loss of Kirishima on top of having much greater reserve buoyancy.

Also recall that it took several days for flooding to sink Nagato after the Baker shot, and that was damage which compounded sixty near misses in shallow water during the Yokosuka raids. So while it's possible to sink any ship due to uncontained flooding Nagato and Mutsu were better built to handle that sort of problem than any ships their age. Aside from slightly thinner armor over their machinery spaces than you might have liked they were stupidly durable, and even the USN's postwar examinations confirmed as much.

Before her refit in the 1930's it was a different story, but even then not much worse on balance than other dreadnoughts had it.

>>53745295
>A history book, in the same way that what McDonald's sells is food.

No need to be offensive towards McDonald's, at least what they sell at one point had potential to be perfectly serviceable product.

>>53745295
>I'd say the opposite. You need a good amount of knowledge to catch the bullshit, or you'll have a gruelling journey in front of you un-learning the incorrect first impression.

Beat me to it.

>>53745166
>...So business as usual in the IJN?

Quoted for truth. Look at Kongo. Two torpedo hits, but she steams on at ~16 knots for the next two and a half hours, only to suddenly capsize and explode.

The IJN was designed, built, led, trained, and manned by idiot savants. Absolute world class in a very few select areas and pants-on-head retards in everything else.

>>53746980
>idiot savants
Welcome back, chucklefuck. I didn't miss you.

>>53747150

Glad to be back, cumstain.

>>53746980
The IJN couldn\t build a bote without cribbing from the UK.

Would you gentlemen know where to find a record of the colors on a German cruiser circa 1944-45? I've got a Prinz Eugen model kit on its way to being ready for primer.

>>53754503
German Naval Camouflage Volume 2 by Eric Leon & John Asmussen probably could have them.

>>53756599
Cute.

File: IMG_2345.png (412KB, 715x1000px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 715x1000px

>>53757957

>>53752118
>all of the carriers and destroyers don't count
First of all, they do count. The Shokaku class and Akizuki class for example were very fine examples of their respective breeds, and were completely indigenous aside from their light AA designs (cribbed from the French). And THAT was the worst thing about them. Their old battleships, indigenous in design and construction, were fine and modernized well enough compared to any other nation's capital ships of comparable age.

What killed the IJN was their habit of essentially tacking on MORE to established designs, all in an attempt to compensate for small numbers. You saw this become a problem between Fubuki and Kagero, and developing with the Takaos onward, while newer classes that deviated from those patterns came out slowly and there were never enough to go around.

Basically, the Japanese designers knew damn well how to boat. Sometimes they just didn't, for a variety of reasons.

>>53759069
>). And THAT was the worst thing about them. Their old battleships, indigenous in design and construction, were fine and modernized well enough compared to any other nation's capital ships of comparable age.

Tbh even with their much vaunted fast battleship rebuilds to me Kongos always seemed quite bit weaker than the rebuilt Renown, mostly because of their lackluster AA-suite.

>>53759926
Alright, I'm gonna pick this statement apart because there's a LOT wrong with it. First the Kongos aren't "much vaunted" outside the Kancolle fandom, they were just the most frequently deployed because they were quick, had a good cruising range, and there were four of them. Most people who actually know anything agree that they weren't up to snuff to serve as battleships.

Second: the Kongos had a 4x2 main battery while the Renowns were 3x2, which absolutely isn't up to the RN's standards for battleships. The Kongos' secondary battery was intended to face destroyers and light cruisers, which was reduced a bit at a time to allow for more dual-purpose 127mm mounts as the anticipated threat shifted. The difference is that the RN made that shift all at once for the Renowns, in no small part because in Europe land-based aircraft were always a probable threat where the same was less true in the Pacific (recall the IJN had that advantage on THEIR side).

Third, Renown and Repulse were basically made of paper and wishful thinking. The Kongos were more heavily reinforced in key locations, though neither was a match for a proper battleship.

tl;dr you're vastly overselling the RN boats.

>>53762460
>while the Renowns were 3x2, which absolutely isn't up to the RN's standards for battleships.

Well duh, most of RN's CCs had one turret less than their BB counterparts (Orions/KGVs/Iron Dukes - 5 turrets, QE/R - 4 turrets vs Lions/Queen Mary/Tiger - 4 turrets, Refit&Repair - 3 turrets).

>Third, Renown and Repulse were basically made of paper and wishful thinking. The Kongos were more heavily reinforced in key locations, though neither was a match for a proper battleship.

By WW2 Renown had 229mm thick 3.65m wide belt (acquired during her reconstructions during mid-20s) and 127mm deck armor over her magazines, compared to Kongous which had 203mm thick 3.8m wide belt + 120mm thick deck over their magazines. Really, the only areas where Kongous' armor seems noticeably superior are with their bulkheads (203mm vs Renown's 102mm) and barbettes (305mm vs 178mm).

>>53762963
And their turrets.

Again, you are vastly overestimating the RN battlecruisers.

>>53763029
The numbers that I have seen for Kongo-class' turret armor is around 229mm-152mm is which about same as Renown's 229mn-178mm.

>>53763372
Well your numbers are wrong, Kongo's faces were 250mm and the sides were 230mm. The class also had deck armor laid down piecemeal over their main armored decks.

If you're using Jane's or sources that repeat Jane's data uncritically that's your reason, they're slow to replace prewar data and tend not to rely on IJN records for things.

>>53763469
Interesting, the only places that I've checked so far that mention this turret up armoring are Wikipedia and ONI's WW2 recognization charts for Nip capital ships.

>>53764919
Should be in Dulin and Garzke, Wikipedia cites a more recent edition of Jane's so I may be dinging them more for their inaccuracies with Nagato and Mutsu, and iirc USN technical mission agrees with 254mm faces. 9" faces were her specs as-built until the ships in class were refit in the 1930's.

A lot of people also forget that all of the other older capital ships got complex armor additions at around the same time, and many of the IJN's own sources are incomplete due to intentional and incidental destruction of the related archives.

File: 687474703a2f2f692e696d6775722e636f6d2f444561473866562e6a7067[1].jpg (192KB, 1400x915px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1400x915px

>>53725621
Is Shimakaze better with or without a dick?

>>53767143
Chinese version is better desu.

>>53762963
The RN main gun standard was 8+ for spotting. Six was the bare minimum for effective central fire control, but some redundancy was desired.

>>53767143
Yes.

>>53725621
>Japs can't into botes

Threadly reminder that the Yamato would have sunk the Iowa inside of an hour

>>53770837
Reminder that the Yamato's primary accomplishments are hauling a lot of troops and getting fucked by planes on its way to a suicide mission

>>53725621
Thank you so much, I have been looking for a free copy of Rule the Waves for quite a while now.

>>53770837
With what radar?

>>53772760
Type 22 Mod. 4 surface search/fire control radar.

>>53772392
Yamato, one of the few ships to make Biscuits look even somewhat useful in comparison.

>>53770837
The Iowa had better radar and was faster. Not to mention better shell quality made up for the difference in caliber.
>>53773150
Massively inferior to what the Americans were using.

>>53774460
>Not to mention better shell quality made up for the difference in caliber.

Not really; Yamato could pen the Iowa anywhere; the Iowa couldn't pen the Yamato's turrets.

>Massively inferior to what the Americans were using.

Doesn't matter so long as they can get a fix and a hit, because it really would only take one good hit.

>>53774478
The Americans would get a fix and a hit first. You seriously overestimate WWII Japanese radar.

>>53774527
And I think you seriously underestimate the quality of Japanese optical/nighttime bearing-finding systems as well as the firepower advantage, while simultaneously overestimating how much of an advantage the Iowa's radar systems actually provide.

>>53774564
>Optical sights providing any advantage when Radar can find a target in total darkness and drop shells directly on top of it.

Face it, the Japanese strategy in WWII was to use weapons that would have been high tech in the previous war. Their optical sights while excellent, did not provide any actual advantage in the time they were used.

As for the Yamato's radar, it was search radar, any pretensions of being fire control radar are massively inflated. The Iowa on the other hand had actual fire control radar separate from it's search radar. It was good enough to detect shell splashes and use them to correct.

The Yamato only wins this fight if it gets a lucky hit in, The Iowa on the other hand could make it's own luck with superior radar and mobility.

>>53774625
Yeah, no. Have you actually seen fire charts for the Iowa's guns? They're really not that much better than the usual, despite its vaunted radar.

The fight largely does come down to luck, but Iowa has to get a lot more lucky than the Yamato does. Yamato's turrets are invulnerable, and the Yamato can still function to a good degree if its own radar gets knocked out, whereas the same thing happening to Iowa would be much more crippling. And the Yamato can pen and deal massive damage anywhere. The Japanese ship has a serious, undeniable edge.

People, please actually read the primary documents before you start bullshitting. Multiple official reports from Samar credit "dumb luck" that the Japanese capital ships kept straddling but not hitting anything, with frequently described tight dispersal.

Which is the story about battleships of the era: you can drop as many shells as you want in as tight a group as you can manage at the greatest range you can effectively shoot from and STILL not hit anything. Not because you did anything wrong, but because lady Luck was off favoring someone else at the moment.

File: nuclear-submarines-safety-concerns.si.jpg (124KB, 690x388px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 690x388px

>>53777179

>>53777683
Essentially this, yes.

>>53777683
Yup, this....you can paperfight all you want, one (un)lucky hit and it's all over...

>>53778268

Exactly. Among too many other things to list, derping over paper fights ignores, either deliberately or out of stupidity, that Iowa and Yamato wouldn't be stepping into a boxing to fight "mano a mano".

Magically waving away air attacks still leaves several situational factors like time of day, scouting, escorts, consorts, weather, etc.

File: 39d8bf06.jpg (121KB, 1280x884px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1280x884px

>>53780180
If you're adding turrets don't do it halfheartedly.

Be like Agincourt...

>>53781330

Ahhh... Agincourt... The poster child for 5th tier naval power dick sizing...

If we can only afford one ship, Dom Pedro, let it be the biggest with the most turrets and guns!

>>53781570
Tbf if you're a 3rd rate powerr looking to buy a national penis extender and you don't have the rescurces to go and up the caliber ordering a ship with billion or so turrets make some sense.

>>53781570

Very true. Still I have a soft spot for her. Anything that looks like its blowing up whenever it fires full broadsides grabs my attention. She's unique and heavily flawed and that's cool.

>>53758641
This is not Hipper.

>>53781741
Prinz is filling in for her sister, Admiral Not Appearing In This Waifu Mobage.

>>53781257
Most of the time it's deliberate, specifically to cut out such factors and leave it in the hands of the ship crews.

I still opine that Yamato has a massive edge, simply because it does not have to get as lucky as the Iowa to win the fight.

>>53786624
>I still opine

Check out the analysis at combinedlfeet DOT com and see if you opinion wavers a little.

Not changes, mind you, just wavers.

>>53781609
>make some sense.

It makes no sense beyond the "national penis extender" role, especially when it eats up so much of your budget you'll literally have no other ships and even more so when you don't have the technological ability to keep it in operation.

"But she looks so grand there welded to the pier while our enemies blockade all our ports, Dom Pedro!"

It's telling that Brazil decided stop payments and sold her to the Ottomans eight months BEFORE the start of WW1.

>>53786997
I've seen it, and not really since I feel it makes the mistake a lot of people do--assuming the Iowa's radar would be a much bigger advantage than it actually would have been. It does acknowledge the heavy role of luck and mitigating factors though, and does note that Iowa would not have been able to get penetrating hits on the Yamato's armored turrets. So there's that at least.

Essentially my opinion is thus:

1) It's largely going to come down to lucky hits.
2) There is no place on Iowa that Yamato cannot hit for heavy damage.
3) There ARE places on Yamato that the Iowa cannot hit for heavy damage.
4) Therefore,Yamato is significantly more likely to win the fight than Iowa.

>>53787113
>assuming the Iowa's radar would be a much bigger advantage than it actually would have been.

Take it from an old GMG, being able to track shell splashes is a huge advantage.

>Essentially my opinion is thus

Your opinion isn't shared by experts like Nathan Okun, so that's all that really needs to be said about our opinion.

A lucky hit can disable Iowa, but with better fire control you can make a lot of your own luck.

As for not being able to damage certain parts of Yamato, I'll point you to the Bismarck. She too had undamaged portions and yet was mission killed in ~20 minutes because of all the other damage she received.

Finally, Japanese armor was notoriously variable in quality. Okun writes about post-war USN tests of IJN plate resulting the both best and worst pieces they'd ever tested in the same production batch. While Yamato does have those heavy turret faces, you need to wonder about the quality of the armor.

I'm not suggesting the Iowa is a super ship, nor am I calling Yamato a dog. I am suggesting the question is closer than you want to think.

>>53787913
>Your opinion isn't shared by experts like Nathan Okun, so that's all that really needs to be said about our opinion.

Sorry, that was supposed to read:

Our opinions aren't shared by experts like Nathan Okun, so that's all that needs to be said about our opinions.

My bad.

>>53787113
>>53787913
I tried staying out of this, but you're both being a little silly. One of you is ignoring the fact that Yamato has definite flaws in her armor scheme (most notably a shit worthless torpedo defense scheme that would leave her prone to flooding), which is fine because EVERY battleship had flaws. The other is misusing Nathan Okun's material science knowledge (which is itself based on presumptions I take issue with at times) and overestimating the value of radar. You can drop salvos on target all damn day long and still not hit shit if Lady Luck decides not to cooperate, which is true of BOTH ships.

I love seeing data from penetration tests, and I love learning about and reading new archival sources especially since data on Japanese battlebotes is often hard to come by. But this sort of what-if really belongs on the tabletop, because ultimately it cannot be settled by rigorous science and historical sources.

File: Fuck your shit.jpg (234KB, 615x714px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 615x714px

>>53788376
>But this sort of what-if really belongs on the tabletop, because ultimately it cannot be settled by rigorous science and historical sources.

I know, but well. Pic related, really.

>>53787913
>Take it from an old GMG, being able to track shell splashes is a huge advantage.

I personally feel like the even bigger thing about Iowa's radar and fire control systems is that they could hold the guns on target even while the ship was taking hard evasive action. You'd still lose some accuracy and luck could still bite you in the ass, but nevertheless, Iowa could fight effectively under maneuver. Yamato did not have this capability.

>>53788376
>I tried staying out of this, but you're both being a little silly.

You did read the bit where I wrote our opinions don't matter, right?

I brought up Okun and radar as a way of illustrating that our opinions don't matter, that luck would play a role, and that even actual battle wouldn't settle the issue because the 2 ships wouldn't be fighting alone.

Basically, I'm agreeing with you.

File: kgv-01.jpg (71KB, 800x691px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x691px

All these arguments over fire control, but the only valid point is, putting more steel on target faster then the other guy is a function of fire rate.

British learned this during WW1, and they emphasized fire rate all the way until the end of Vanguard in the 50s. Fire control radar was a nice tool, but it was attempting to Macross Missile Massacre the Enemy which mattered.

>>53735020
mfw I was driving a Takao and got my ass kicked by a County

>>53790709
Iowa's fire rate was about the same as Vanguard's; roughly 2 rounds per minute per gun. That said, without good fire control and direction, all the fire rate in the world just means you make a cool Sea World show.

>>53777779
>MOSS Decoy
Give me a fucking ADC

File: 1308027950420.jpg (358KB, 1584x1600px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1584x1600px

Hood is a great looking ship.

>>53790866
Counties were pretty bad ass ships. Takao doesn't stand a chance.

>>53795117
>there are people that actually believe in this

File: hmsHoodVanc.jpg (443KB, 3000x2055px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 3000x2055px

>>53795181
Probably the best lines of any capital ship.

>>53790866
> Wave Status: Ruled

>>53795133
The best part of the County class is that they look posh as fuck. Like ocean liners given capital-grade weapons.

Should I be worried that Rule the Waves was among the first programs that I installed on my new computer?

>>53795194
British battleships always seems to have a weird problem of empty space/weird positioning every other iteration. Hood, Nelson, N3, Vanguard, etc.

>>53797033

>Rule the Waves not being the only program on your computer.

you should just kys tbqh.

File: Vittorio Veneto.jpg (467KB, 2500x2000px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 2500x2000px

>>53798575
Your /vg/ is showing there, mate, best tuck it back in.

>>53795194
She's not bad looking, but she's no spaghetti bote either, anon.

File: interior-of-battleship-roma.jpg (181KB, 1024x715px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1024x715px

>>53796300
Agreed, but did they have the interior to match?

>>53735020

If you direct yourself to Operation Greenbirch you will see the fa/tg/uy fleet in its first mission.

File: 03.jpg (464KB, 2400x1419px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 2400x1419px

>>53799485
>>53799547
If you're gonna post Mediterranean boats then at least post ones that are actually good looking.

File: InteriorUKBB.jpg (822KB, 1200x898px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1200x898px

>>53799547
You tell me anon.

>>53801714
And the regular RN thought that the Canadians were soft because they had ice cream makers?

>>53790709
In this case, wouldn't the Iowa's smaller 16 inch shells have a higher fire rate?

All this talk about luck, and the point remains, that the Iowa's has the capability to make it's own luck with better radar and mobility. The Yamato on the other hand is nothing but unlucky.

If the argument comes down to luck, I'm going to have to hand it to the ship that lasted into the 80s.

>>53794189
It's the 1980s, therefore we must waste precious tube space with gigantic fucking decoys even though we have a perfectly good 3 inch launcher sitting around doing jack shit.

>>53802498
>I'm going to have to hand it to the ship that lasted into the 80s.

That was a more a function of the navy trying desperately to justify a big gun ship, then actually being useful against the Soviets. The Slava would own an Iowa, and the Kirov, the last true battlecruiser, would have annihilated all the Iowas in one salvo.

>>53802498
>In this case, wouldn't the Iowa's smaller 16 inch shells have a higher fire rate?

Yamato could make 2 rounds per gun per minute, but apparently it was often between 1.5 and that. So yeah, Iowa probably has an edge in fire rate.

>>53803529
>and the Kirov, the last true battlecruiser, would have annihilated all the Iowas in one salvo.

To be fair, the '80s Iowa carried enough missiles that one of them could have annihilated all the Kirovs in one salvo.

>>53803529
And to followup my own comment, the Long Beach cruiser would have been excellent against an Iowa as well.

>>53803573
>To be fair, the '80s Iowa carried enough missiles that one of them could have annihilated all the Kirovs in one salvo.

Lols, firstly a TLAM is not effective at ASW at all.
So you are left with 16 Harpoons (range 60 miles on a good day) vs 20 P-700 Granit (388 mi).

The Iowa had no SAMs to defend itself.

The Kirov wins that everytime.

>>53803727
>The Iowa had no SAMs to defend itself.

CIWS and then-modern interception radar would mean it really didn't need any. Doubly so if operating as part of a fleet. (Yes I'm aware of the claimed anti-attack countermeasures; I doubt the Soviets in the 1980s really could have programmed ones that were terribly effective)

>>53803806
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the CIWS system actually worked, instead of living up to the backcronym of Constantly In Work Shop. So R2D2 engages the inbound volley. How many is it going to reliably take down? What is the kill rate? What is the miss data?

CIWS is a last resort weapon. When it spools up, you are already having a bad day. Relying on it to take out sea-skimming hypersonic ship killers would not fill me to the brim with confidence. A Ticonderoga would be safer then an Iowa in that scenario.

>>53802498
RoF for the 16"/50 Mk7 was stated as 2/min. Yamato's 18"/45 Type 94 guns were described as obtaining 2/min in gunnery trials, though in practice she didn't always attain that. In combat both ships would shoot slower than their respective theoretical maximums due to time in flight, with this constraint affecting both ships equally. At closer range, any difference in rate of fire would in theory be negated by weight of shell, and accrued damage would finally be what swung the engagement.

Source: I've read a book. Try doing the same some time.

>>53803806
Frankly, the Kirov is a piece of shit all around. It's designed to be really scary on paper but in practice the ships were expensive as hell for the Russians to even operate, never really achieved a lot of their performance goals, and the sole example still in service isn't in fantastic condition.

>>53803913
>never really achieved a lot of their performance goals

The Kirov was the reason the Iowa was recommissioned. You can say a lot of things about their current navy, but the 70s-80s, you respected the soviet force.

>>53803905
Odds are it would probably take down enough to survive, given that the Kirov's operators probably wouldn't expend literally their entire missile load to take down one ship that can't even attack them back at their best engagement distance. Or if you're talking about all 4 Iowas at once like before, that's 5 missiles per ship, which is dangerous but not an impossible-to-survive scenario by any means.

Also what the fuck are you talking about; the Granit isn't hypersonic. That's the *new* missile that the Russians want to deploy on the last Kirov. I forget what it's called.

>>53803986
>The Kirov was the reason the Iowa was recommissioned.

That and Reagan's small dick that needed to be compensated somehow.

>>53803986
>You can say a lot of things about their current navy, but the 70s-80s, you respected the soviet force.

Eh, that's more "muh missile gap" style fears. The Soviets had a tendency to be great at getting the Americans to overreact to things that weren't nearly as much of a threat as they appeared to be.

>>53803995
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit

Mach 2.5+ at Altitude, 1.6 sea skimming, ramjet powered.

>>53804249
>Mach 2.5+ at Altitude, 1.6 sea skimming, ramjet powered.

Yeah, as I said. Not hypersonic. Hypersonic is Mach 5+.

>>53804282
Mach 2.5+ could be 5+.

>>53804598
Sorry mate, that's reaching and you know it.

>>53804651
And even if it wasn't, it's explicitly limited to 1.6 in sea skimming mode, so...

>1902
>naval disarmament treaty happens
>max caliber 12 inches and maximum displacement 20k tons
>when only guns bigger than 12 inch are -2 quality 13 inch guns available for france&uk, and no one has docks bigger than 19k tons

Pretty reasonable treaty desu, even if I doubt that it will be particularly effective in combating naval arms race.