'>>61570078
Didn't have the range, didn't have the accuracy, didn't have the speed to determine the engagement, didn't have the escorts to force a favorable fight.

Yamato struggled to sink destroyers at near point blank range during the Battle Off Samar. Actually hitting things was a big issue for Yamato because the crew got so little opportunity to gain experience.';

'>>61570078
>She would beat Iowa in a 1v1
in a daylight engagement with the iowa deliberately sailing into a head-to-head engagement with the yamato

>anything else is cope.
iowa was capable of blindfire, purely using radar
in any night time engagement with limited visibility, the iowa will win since she can continuously hammer the yamato inside their zone of vulnerability without fear of return fire

the iowa is also 5kt faster, enough to avoid any unfavorable engagement
iowa is also capable of firing while taking evasive action, the yamato can only accurately fire while sailing in a straight line against enemies in a straight line
the iowa can win a long-range engagement even when within the yamatos zone of immunity by constantly taking evasive action while also throwing return fire until the yamato has had its less armored super structure reduced to splinters

the yamato would win a straight up fight, but the iowa has tons of technological advantages that give it the edge in any kind of hit and run engagement

>>61570104
the yamato had excellent optical sights but radar was about 10 years out of date
if she met the iowa in open ocean in clear skies, then she would actually have good accuracy
the problems are mostly from range-only radar and a ballistic computer that only offered partial solutions';

'>>61570104
Yamatos GUNS had longer range and better accuracy and the best rangefinders in the world. Iowa had radar so in practice would be more accurate especially in rough weather. But Iowa is never going to be able to shoot at Yamato while Yamato can't fire back. And if both sides are sitting at maximum range neither gets sunk, just goes on for a few hours until one side runs away or has allies show up';

'>>61570164
>and the best rangefinders in the world
yamato used radar range-finders, same as the iowa
but the iowa radar was vastly superior, capable of finding both range and velocity while the yamato was solely range

>Iowa had radar so in practice would be more accurate especially in rough weather.
as mentioned above, both had radar
but the yamato had much worse radar

>. And if both sides are sitting at maximum range neither gets sunk, just goes on for a few hours until one side runs away or has allies show up
iowa has the advantage at very long range thanks to the ability to fire over the shoulder and ability to plot real-time firing solutions

if the yamato wants to hit the iowa, she needs to sail in a straight line or else her computers cant get a good solution
and then once the firing solution is plotted, it is entirely up to the captain to second guess whether the iowa will zig or zag, the whole time having sailed in a predictable straight line or else have to re-calculate everything
iowa can easily calculate a firing solution even while turning and will automatically re-calculate to any movements the yamato makes

so after hours of firing at each other, the iowa could have whittled the yamato down to a blazing hulk despite scoring zero penetrating hits
the yamato also had all-or-nothing armor scheme that made a kill shot unlikely except at close range, but would have allowed a slow death by a million cuts';

'>>61570078
>DISPLACED TWICE MUCH
Displacement isn't everything. Bismarck for example was overweight for her capabilities, because of inferior (heavier) German design.';

'>>61570203
It's not everything but the difference between Iowa and Yamato is massive. A very well designed 35,000 ton battleship can take a less well designed 40,000 or 50,000 ton battleship (maybe) but not anything bigger. You wouldn't expect any 10,000 ton cruisers to defeat a prinz Eugen or Des Moines either.';

'>>61570078
>DISPLACED TWICE MUCH
Iowa - 57540 tons
57540 x 2 = 115080 tons
Hotel - 72810 tons
115080 > 72810
>115080 - 72810 = 42270
>KGV 42076 tons
>2 Iowas equal 1 Hotel plus 1 Bong eye tumor in weight';

'>>61570270
>Hotel
???';

'>>61570078
Retard.
>Slow
>literally HALF the range
>vastly shittier fire control system
>vastly shittier radar
The whole SOLO 1V1 ME BRO thing is fucking retarded anyway, same as using tanks that way. Battleships were long since combined arms units, nobody would have them unescorted, and that made speed and range even more important since if your BS can't keep up with your carriers they're even more worthless target practice. But even in an imaginary scenario like that Iowa still wins barring extraordinary bad luck (which could happen to either side, and would be more likely on the worse trained worse experience nip side anyway).';

'>>61570078
>She would beat Iowa in a 1v1, simple as.
It is known.
>12" belt "battleship"
>RFLMAO';

'>>61570240
IMO Algérie (13461 tons) would have far better chances against Prinz Eugen (19042 tons) than a Baltimore (17031 tons) thanks to the quality of German naval engineering.';

'>>61570310
Speed was important because see how Jutland battle went
>enemy sees your superior force turns around and runs away
>what are you gonna do, slowpoke?';

'>>61570357
Baltimores had radar directed guns, Algerie didn't.';

'>>61570359
Running away from a fight doesn't count as a win or make you a superior combatant. It's a point in favor of the Iowa as the better design, more flexible, cheaper, faster.

4 Iowas is better than 2 yamatos but Yamato > Iowa';

'>>61570370
Yes and? That doesn't change the fact that Eugen was extremely underwhelming ship for her displacement, does it.';

'>>61570384
>Running away from a fight doesn't count as a win or make you a superior combatant.
iowa can control the range of the engagement
if the iowa wants to stay at long range and use its superior FCS and radar to mission-kill the yamato, the yamato is not fast enough to close the distance

the iowa can also choose to engage the yamato at night, because the yamato is not fast enough to stay within sighting distance of the iowa';

'Daily reminder that Bismarck was scuttled, not sunk.';

'>>61570407
And her guns and engines were blown up by Germans to stop the super-secret Hitlerium formula from failing in British hands.';

'>>61570384
But it does.
Basis of the NAVAL strategy (and any strategy but it's more profound in the seas because of the ships mobility):
Bring more/stronger ships and kick enemy ass using that advantage.
But what if you run into superior enemy force? Just run away to live another day, and use saved ships to kick enemy ass in advantageous fights.
Such cat and mouse game created big need for speed, to force weaker enemy to rights you , so they can't run away. So Battlecruiser was born (and Iowa is essentially battlecruiser).';

'>>61570399
>just linger at the range where enemy guns would punch right through your deck
SMART! Hood captain Ralph Kerr would approve.';

'>>61570394
You said Algerie would do better than Baltimore at killing Prinz Eugen.
I think Baltimore would do better. Radar directed guns means it would be more accurate and therefore kill Prinz Eugen faster and with less risk of being hit and sunk itself.';

'>>61570430
at maximum range, yamato would struggle to hit the iowa thats pulling evasive action
iowa would not have it easy either, but it would be able to land a lot more hits while being able to avoid';

'>>61570285
Didn't leave port, so it was a hotel';

'>>61570432
Read the post again ESL-kun, I said that Algérie would have far better chances against Prinz Eugen than it would have against a Baltimore, or, in other words, Algérie vs. Prinz Eugen would be more likely to end in Algérie's victory than Algérie vs. Baltimore.';

'>>61570436
Yamato holds record for longest range hit in history of the battleships against much smaller target than Iowa.';

'>>61570078
Could never catch Iowa even if she wanted.';

'>>61570451
>or, in other words, Algérie vs. Prinz Eugen would be more likely to end in Algérie's victory than Algérie vs. Baltimore
In my defence the original sentence is lots more ambiguous...

Yeah no shit. Baltimore is not comparable with any of those ships. Radar directed guns, early-40s tech and post-treaty build makes it a totally different beast.';

'>>61570459
like mentioned earlier, the yamato FCS can only generate partial solutions and the capatain needs guesswork to compensate for the yamatos own evasive action and the target
the iowa can caulculate a full solution based on both, and her job is made easier by the fact the yamato will need to sail in straight lines to get a better solution

this massively tilts long range gunner in favor of the iowa';

'>>61570078
>it was superior in engagements that would never occur in the real world';

'>>61570459
HMS Warspite holds record for longest range hit in history of the battleships';

'>>61570496
32>24';

'>>61570430
In all probability, Bismarck did not penetrate Hood's deck, the range of the engagement was far too short for Bismarck to achieve any sort of plunging fire and their own gunnery tables recognise this as such. The most probable path was a penetration of her upper belt.';

'>>61570078
Accuracy is the meta

Iowa has a much better probability of hitting Yamato than vice-versa in all conditions, and her 16" would have no problem with Yamato's armor scheme. Yamato's bow is also basically unarmored, any severe damage there makes the ship unable to maneuver (as seen with Musashi). Iowa is also faster, which is huge in a naval duel

My money is on the Iowa.';

'>>61570525
Actual hit > near miss';

'She would beat a couple of spaghetti boys in a spicy speedboat. She displaced
2,500 times as much, bigger guns.

DISPLACED 2500 TIMES AS MUCH';

'>>61570078
Seethe harder, Tojo';

'Yamato has raw power but Iowa has technological edge.
Sadly we will never know. Fuck Halsey.';

'>>61570384
Yamato was worthless at range and night fighting. On top of that, acutal RUN TIME range:
>Iowa-class: 15000 nmi
>Yamato-class: 7200 nmi
Iowa can literally run the Yamato until it's out of fuel and sitting dead in the water. GG.';

'>>61570459
LMAO IMAGINE THE IMPERIALBOO ACTUALLY BRAGGING ABOUT LEYTE GULF
>massive grorious nippon armada with 4 BS including yamato (folded over 1000 times)
>facing Taffy 3, some slow escort carriers and 3 destroyers with 3 even tinier dinky destroyer escorts screening with a maximum 5" gun
>japanese run off
yeah congratulations on incredible victory I guess';

'>>61570104
>Didn't have the range
Yamato outranges the Iowa, by at least 2 or 3 kilometers.
>didn't have the accuracy
Here's Yamato's *first salvo* on a CVE from range at least 32km. This scored a near hit (or depending on whether making direct contact with the ship's keels counts as a hit, a direct hit that would make it the longest range hit in naval surface combat history). Kurita's center force visually sighted the taskforce they're after before the taskforce even picked them up on radar.

Meanwhile, Iowa had a dismal performance against a stationary target in Truk lagoon in operation Hailstone, and in the same engagement she and NJ completely failed to hit a Japanese destroyer, both with optic FCS and radar-guided.

Fun fact for the huff farting brainlets ITT; Optical FCS is, and was viewed as superior to radar-guided FCS. Radar was still an emergent tech at the time. In the aforementioned engagement the Iowa and NJ gunlayed optically, even at the escaping Nowaki, before switching to radar-guided blindfire once the ship was lost. All gunfire directed at Nowaki missed horribly at a range of about 32k yards.

>didn't have the speed to determine the engagement
Speed difference of, *checks notes*, three or four knots. This comes at the cost of having a very thinly armored bow, one that even the secondary batteries on Yamato will go through, quickly negating any negligible difference in speed. Also, Iowa's height to width ratio was much higher than Yamato's, meaning it was much less maneuverable than Yamato in turns.

>favorable escort
lol

>Yamato struggled to sink destroyers at near point blank range during the Battle Off Samar
Yamato ripped up the DD it fired on and scored at least 3 hits at a range of 22k yards. It was busy engaging the actually valuable targets, the CVE's, and it sunk one with only three salvos, you retarded faggot. It's truly ironic you bring up this comparison, knowing how the Iowa and NJ failed to score a single hit on a Japanese DD.';

'>>61570981
what dank shithole have you crawled out from?';

'>>61571020
the very same one that spawned you, you will have a sibling soon.';

'Who the fuck is actually still shilling for the Yamato after all these decades (and isn't a Japanese nationalist)?';

'>>61571032
Your mother joke never fails.';

'In regards to torpedo protection. Iirc the Iowas had a high-tech experimental solution, some kind of layered gas-filled blister — or something like that. It was supposedly an effort to get good torpedo protection without relying on a giant bulge. Basically, it didn’t work, but Yamato had a big fat bulge and do theoretically had superior torpedo resistance. When it was put to the test Yamato’s torpedo bulge DID in fact hold fast when struck, but a "structural flaw" in the hull caused buckling and flooding as a result. Question: was that ACTUALLY a structural flaw, simply the expected outcome from eating a large torpedo blast bulge or no? Just how hopelessly obsolete against submarines were battleships?';

'>>61570981
>Fun fact for the huff farting brainlets ITT; Optical FCS is, and was viewed as superior to radar-guided FCS
not even close
the yamatos optical sights were useless without radar in the first place, since they were ranging the fall of shot with radar, to detect the splashes
even the primitive blind fire capabiltiies of WW2 was far in advance of anything in existence at the time, by allowing it in the first place
yamato is not capable of blind fire, she requires all solutions from the battery to be checked by the gunner, and in the heat of combat this may rely entirely on their intuition, the iowa is capable of plotting and firing using solely radar

>Speed difference of, *checks notes*, three or four knots.
flank speed difference of about 6kt, an extreme advantage in favor of the iowa, since its estimated that you need a 5kt advantage to dictate engagement terms';

'>>61570981
>very thinly armored bow,
Yamato and Musashi have exactly the same problem. Which is what killed Musashi';

'>>61570078
>snipes you with radar';

'>>61571110
Torpedoes wouldn't matter in a 1v1 BB fight, but Yamato's torpedo protection had a design flaw in the jointing between the upper-belt and lower-belt armor that created a rupture-prone seam just below the waterline';

'>>61571110
>Just how hopelessly obsolete against submarines were battleships?
only two battleships were ever lost to submarines in fleet action during WW2, the HMS royal oak and the kongo
1 other was sunk in harbor, the royal oak

battleships were rarely targeted by subs because they always had heavy escorts and more often than not simply outran their submarine pursuers
and even then, the kongo was sailing in for repairs after the disastrous philippine island campaign, and so was opportunistically finished off while their crew was already damaged rather than actually defeated while at full strength with a full escort';

'>>61571150
>only two battleships were ever lost to submarines in fleet action during WW2, the HMS
Barham';

'>>61571183
>typed royal oak twice by accident
yeah, meant to say barham

but subs wouldnt have the ability to reliably threaten battleships until the end of WW2 with always-submerged designs like the type XXI, which would allow them to move submerged for long periods of time';

'>>61571113
>the yamatos optical sights were useless without radar in the first place, since they were ranging the fall of shot with radar, to detect the splashes
this nigger has never heard of the arcane invention known as spotter aircraft, lol. why even bother with Iowa fags?';

'>>61570078
>chinks couldn't build the stack or tower straight
Some things never change.';

'>>61570078
radar directed superheavy 16" with US fire control computational equipment means Iowa can maneuver radically and maintain solution, Yamato cannot.
saying all you like, hits count, misses don't.';

'>>61570407
>he didnt die from being shot, he commited suicide by bleeding out';

'>>61571232
if the spotter aircraft alone could cover all bases, then they wouldnt have needed to range out shots with their radar in the first place
but they did, because it was important, because optical sights alone were insufficient and inferior to actual radar-assisted fire-control';

'>>61571232
So much much in the way of additional forces backing it up does the Yamato need to beat the Iowa alone?';

'>>61571255
Yamato had its own spotter planes';

'>>61570525
miss = hit
absolute state of people';

'>>61571254
>but they did, because it was important, because optical sights alone were insufficient and inferior to actual radar-assisted fire-control
source: literally your gaping anus
Yamato relied on her spotter planes at Samar, and scored a near miss (or a hit) on her first salvo 34km away, on a CVE.
Rangefinding and correction is possible even from the surface, up to near the maximum range of the ship. Even fire beyond the horizon was possible with a simple tool called horizon calculator.

Go educate yourself before harping on about shit you don't understand please.';

'>>61571282
>Go educate yourself before harping on about shit you don't understand please.
anyone with even slight education knows that purely optically-sighted guns are not capable of half what purely radar-controlled guns are capable of';

'>>61570981
>USS White Planes
the absolute speed demon monster of maneuver and evasion in the middle of flight ops.';

'>>61570078
op is a retard.
the fact youre comparing a super heavy battleship designed to fight only other battleships, to a battleship that was designed as an AA escort allrounder that only offers protection against japanese 14inch guns and maybe 15inch at extreme long range and its still going to be heavily US sided should give you a hint on how out of touch japanese design bureau's really were.';

'>>61570981
And yet Yamato lost badly to some destroyer escorts and escort carriers with 3 more full BS on its side lmao. In the most ideal possible conditions, with the defenders having to worry about keeping the nips away from vulnerable fixed landing positions, no big open ocean maneuvering, daylight, defenders who were much slower then the IJN ships on top. And yet they lost.

Fucking pathetic. Yamato was a proven piece of shit that never accomplished anything.';

'>>61571321
>, to a battleship that was designed as an AA escort allrounder that only offers protection against japanese 14inch guns and maybe 15inch at extreme long range and its still going to be heavily US sided should give you a hint on how out of touch japanese design bureau's really were.
the Iowa was designed to be immune to its own 16in guns at normal combat ranges
it just happened to be upgraded to longer 16in guns later on that could penetrate its own armor at medium range, but still had decent zone of protection against it

it wasnt designed specifically as an AA escort either, it was just very good at that job due to its high AA complement and high flank speed to keep pace with carriers';

'>>61571345
oh shit i just double check yh it is immunity against 16 inch guns, its been a while since i read up on ships';

'>>61570152
>straight fight
It's not even a straight fight, it's a STUPID fight. The Iowa destroys the Yamato in any engagement, unless the crew actively and knowingly plays to the Yamato's strengths the Iowa completely dominates any engagement.';

'>>61571394
> unless the crew actively and knowingly plays to the Yamato's strengths
Which is, to be fair, not impossible. There wasn’t really a lot known about the Yamatos until very late in the war. For example, the USN thought that they had 16 inch guns rather than the 18.1” they actually had. So it’s not impossible that the Iowa could make mistakes based on faulty information.';

'>>61571498
Sure nothing is IMPOSSIBLE and this is all a retarded fantasy scenario, but by the time of any conceivable engagement Americans were plenty battle hardened, they weren't retards and while they may have hated the IJN starting off with a massive bloody nose meant nobody took them for granted either. America started on the back foot but psychologically that was a good thing. So I really doubt they'd just march right on in like retards vs feeling out their enemy at night and max range, and they'd figure out pretty fast that they were faster and had better shooting even somewhat smaller guns. In a solo situation in particular like OP's gay shit they'd be very paranoid and cautious, and they'd detect Yamato long before hand due to better radar.';

'And another thing. Yamato obviously wasn’t the equal of modern American ships — nothing was — but it’s a fact that it was a super battleship which more-or-less worked. Do we tend to overstate how bad Japanese industrial capability was?';

'>>61570078
have you read anything about the few times Yamato actually were in battle?';

'>>61571601
>Do we tend to overstate how bad Japanese industrial capability was?
>infantry never deploy submachine guns
>artillery is WW1 tier
>build all of one (1) fleet carrier after declaring war
>not enough cruisers
>ASW? what's that?
Not at all.';

'>>61571601
>>61571686
P.s.
>"medium" tank is the weight of American light tank';

'>>61571618
show some respect
it saved the earth from gamilon scum';

'>>61571601
>Do we tend to overstate how bad Japanese industrial capability was
no, that's the running trend for the mutts in WW2, and it led to debacles like Savo Island, Tassafaronga and many others.';

'>>61571601
>Do we tend to overstate how bad Japanese industrial capability was?
No. If anything it gets understated. Modern wars require enormous mass production, not ultra fancy one-offs used solo. In WW2 America produced more aircraft/ships/arty then all of the Axis powers combined and it wasn't even close. Here's JUST production of aircraft carriers, 1939 to 1945:
>Carrier type: Fleet Light Escort MAC Total
>USA 19 9 115 0 143
>UK 6 7 6 19 38
>Japan 9 5 5 0 19
>Total 34 21 126 19 200
4chan oftens fucks formatting and I can't be assed to do the non-breaking space unicode trick so dunno if that'll be clear or not, but tl;dr is out of 200 carriers total the US made 143, or 71.5% of them, while Japan made... 19. Total. 9.5%. 143 aircraft carriers to 19. Just aircraft carriers, not all the escorts and support ships and everything else. US produced around NINE THOUSAND (9000) of those. 1200 of which were major combat ships, but all the rest of it mattered too, you need logistics, you need fueling, you need landing craft and so on. Hell, ice cream ships to keep up morale!

Then of course aircraft production and so on, but frankly it's hard to understate how fucking massive the US industrial machine was and how pathetic Japan's was.';

'>>61571601
This is an underrated point, it's basically a Maus that actually worked';

'>>61571299
no shit, blind fire provides the ability to open and gunlay in specific use cases. your claim that it has better correction or that correction is impossible without it is false, so is the claim that it is more accurate than optical FC. US ships utilized blind fire only when visual contact was not possible, for reference. Infer from that what you will.

>>61571312
Katori was moving at 0 knots at Chuuk lagoon and Iowa had a worse fare against her.';

'>>61571818
“Worked”';

'>>61571804
Tbf, the United States had an entire continent's worth of resources and manpower to pull from compared to Japan's one shitty island and handful of second-rate colonies, so something like Japan vs. the UK would be fairer, even if, in that regard too, Japan comes off lacking.';

'>>61571953
>the United States had an entire continent's worth of resources and manpower to pull from compared to Japan's one shitty island and handful of second-rate colonies
Nobody's disputing that, nobody's expecting miracles of the Japs
We're just pointing out that we're not
>overstating how bad Japanese industrial capability was';

'>>61571827
>no shit, blind fire provides the ability to open and gunlay in specific use cases
which is basically all of them
the ability to fire at targets that cannot be directly sighted vastly increases the number of conditions and ranges you can engage the enemy at

iowa mechanical FCS was so accurate that they deemed it not worth replacing with modern digital computers, it was already able to hit targets with a precision that exceeded what its 16in guns were capable of
and was able to literally fire on point targets in vietnam, still using its WW2-era mechanical fire director';

'>>61571979
US was literally expecting japanese radio sets to be as good as theirs due to their relatively good pre-war electronics
only to find they had stuck with their 10 year old designs due to inability to manufacture better sets, the only radio set they had that was equal to its US counter-part was the battalion HQ set, manufactured in such small quantity that it was only reserved for operational communication

they literally overestimated what their enemy was capable of';

'Before or after the refit?';

'>>61571686
>>build all of one (1) fleet carrier after declaring war
They completed Unryu, Taiho and Shinano during the war, and two more of the Unryu class was basically complete
>But they were started before the war
So was the Essexes

That said, nip shipbuilding never came close to the UK or US.';

'>>61570270
>1 Bong eye tumor
Rude.';

'>>61572094
Oh, and I even forgot about Amagi and Katsuragi';

'>>61572033
I'm sure this is a fact based on real information, not just some fuddlore you pulled from the depths of your rectum, especially knowing how the US bureau of ordinance consistently underrated everything the Japanese had and their whole yardstick was "if we can't make it, no one can"';

'>>61572094
Only Unryu was laid down after Pearl and operational before the surrender
>So was the Essexes
Only Essex and Yorktown were laid down before Pearl; Yorktown only 6 days before';

'>>61572130
>consistently underrated everything the Japanese had
Looks at USS Alaska';

'>>61571953
>Tbf
>the UK would be fairer
>fair
Anon, admitting up front that LIFE ISN'T FAIR is overused edge response in some cases, but this is one of the ones where it isn't. There isn't any "fair" in war, you fight with what you've got, and if it's not enough you lose and the other side wins and that's it. If you just completely underestimate it somehow that's your fault. If you aren't prepared that's your fault. If you know it won't be enough then you need to figure out how to make up the difference with a different area of power, be economic, political, or cultural. If that won't work then you shouldn't fight the war in the first place.

"Relative" makes sense in some comparisons but not when it comes to war industrial power. Absolute it what matters. Japan started it, they got to pick the time/place/manner, they deserve no further fairness. That they had awful industrial capacity in comparison to the US is an objective fact.

And it's worth noting even that was at least a small percentage their fault. Without the Pearl Harbor surprise attack and tons of other bullshit and warcrimes etc by the nips, the US would probably not have been quite as committed to true absolute total war in the Pacific.';

'My fav Yamato stat is one Turret weighed more than a Fletcher class Destroyer';

'>>61572740
>one Turret weighed more than a Fletcher class Destroyer
and did less lmao';

'Yamato as an actual design was good, smooth in the water thanks to the bulbous bow and turned fairly well for a ship of her size. Able to take extreme punishment before finally losing buoyancy. It's Japan's folly that they couldn't capitalize on what they had an upgrade the ships. Look at the original configuration, all that empty deck space.
An American or British ship would have seen all that upgraded with dual-purpose mounts, good AA guns, fire directors. Japan could not built effective fire control radars or efficient AA guns- so their answer became "Slap more 25mm on it" and we see the results of that in 1945.';

'>>61571601
Nah, both the Yamato and Musashi were built pre-war when Japan had no external pressures. Once Pearl Harbor kicked off, they never had the resources or time to build any new battleships while the US was still casually shitting more out despite the fact they were already transitioning away from battleships to carriers.';

'>obvious bait in the OP
>/k/ still falls for it';

'>>61573026
>OP posts a thread about Yamato and Iowa
>/k/ proceeds to discuss Yamato and Iowa
>LOL YOU FELL FOR THE BAIT YOU RETARDS

Man, I would HATE for more threads to be like this.';

'>>61572920
Dual 10cm DP could do something but still no VT fuse.
All in all they were good ships, could pretty much mog all BBs from any other country except the US.';

'>>61573043
What, where OP acts like a stunted tojoboo with his own alt. history books?';

'>>61573055
>but still no VT fuse.
The VT fuse was actually itself a pretty insane industrial achievement. An enormous proportion of the entire electronics production capacity of the US went exclusively into VT fuse production, and relentless effort into driving down cost and driving up scale such that we ended up producing tens of millions of them, and it cost us something like a billion in 1940s money which would be like $18 billion today, just on fuses. Although if anything that still understates it because of how much more efficient electronics has gotten.

So yeah that too would have been impossible for Japan to replicate, on top of all the other stuff impossible for Japan to replicate. The US did a bunch of projects in the war that were very much "barely on the verge of possible with technology at the time" and made them happen with sheer industrial/scientific/economic might all concentrated in one country.';

'>>61570726
>we don't live in the timeline where Halsey kept it in his pants and sent a decoy force off against the northern decoy force, then successfully hid his main force in Lagonoy Gulf until Center Force came through the San Bernardino Straits, then sailed out to give them a broadside or three (and some spicy sausages from the DDs) while the carriers pound the shit out of Center Force. Again.';

'>>61573055
I was specifically thinking about the 100mm from the likes of Akizuki. I guess the IJN looked at putting them onto battleships during refits but they were heavier mountings than the older 127mm guns. Plus the ammunition supply was tighter for the newer guns.
Looking at how to reasonably refit a Yamato, my 'ideal' would be:
>Remove all beehive rounds to remove temptation of firing at planes and concussing the AA gunners
>Using the 100mm mounts, four or five per side, even if it meant more weight and cutting into the spaces below
>Quicker-firing work done by Type 5 40mm (Copy of Bofors), place tubs as needed
>More radar direction for these new weapons
All simple ideas that I'm sure would be complex in execution but this would be if Japan had the time/resources to produce the better designs they already had. Though nothing done was going to solve issues like limited sailing range, lack of VT fuses, or getting swarmed by hundreds of planes.';

'>>61573153
Slight self correction, I guess Japan never actually did build a Bofors. They examined some captured examples but didn't (successfully) pursue making their own.';

'>>61573183
IIRC they did have some Pom Pom mounts kicking around, could build on that.';

'>>61573094
>another episode of muttcels thinking they invented proximity fuses
>cramming magnets into shells to replicate the effect of mines is "barely on the verge of possible with technology at the time"';

'>>61573607
Show the 20+million prox fuses your country made and deployed in WW2 anon. We'll wait (for your cope) :^)';

'Except the Yamato used hand loaded guns, not mechanically assisted ones. As in guys in a crane had to winch stuff up. Pretty sure all other battleships used mechanical loading. HMS Vanguard did I know (last battleship built). Plus they had actual better FCS than Yamato did. Yamato just had big guns. HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse being sunk by aircraft explained how useless lone battleships were and Midway showed how much better carriers were.';

'>>61572014
>>iowa mechanical FCS was so accurate that
That it had abysmal performance in the only time it went live. Buckle up, historylet, you're about to get schooled.

A Naval War College study performed during World War II estimated that an Iowa Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship Bismarck would be expected to achieve the following hit percentages. Range Percentage hits against a broadside target Percentage hits against an end-on target Ratio 10,000 yards (9,144 m) 32.7 22.3 1.47:1 20,000 yards (18,288 m) 10.5 4.1 2.56:1 30,000 yards (27,432 m) 2.7 1.4 1.92:1

the Iowa knocked out its own FCS radar for 20 minutes at Truk. it took approximately 50 16" rounds to sink the Katori at only 15,000 yards (in other words, near point blank range). this was one of the backwards of the Iowa, its FC layout was inferior. which resulted in the poor performance at Truk, preceded by the even more poor performance by the USS Washington against the IJN Kirishima, where both SoDak and Washington's rounds all-missed at 16k yards, the Washington had to close to 7K yards to sink the Kirishima.

the Katori is 426ft by 50ft or approximately half the size of Bismarck...now if 1 ship is at 15,000yrds and the bigger at 30,000yrds the radar signature/blip would be the same size

so 10% of 42 =4.2... 5% of 42=2.1 now 2.5% of 42= 1.05

so take the % of hits and the radar blip size of Katori at 15,000yrds and change 'only' the range to 30,000 yards, to see how shit the Iowa performed at Truk.

The above was done with visual fire solutions, later on, both NJ and Iowa picked up Nowaki at 31k Yards and fired at her, without hitting a single shot, until radar contact was lost at 39k yards. Nowaki performed only a short turn to port a few minutes before being lost and was not maneuvering.';

'>>61573607
>How to let other people know I know absolutely nothing about VT fuzes without outright saying it.';

'>>61573607
we did, because we are the best and strongest nation. that's why we made and fielded them before anyone else and built all of them.
but I enjoy turdoid cope, so please continue.';

'>>61573666
>we did, because we are the best and strongest nation
at devouring burgers and having LGBT parades, maybe. worry about your next election more than bickering about how great you were 80 years ago, mcmutt.';

'>>61573657
>half the size of
oh sweaty, do you know how math works? it's one quarter the size. the Bismarck was 4 times the area.';

'>>61573691
I'm not brain dead enough to calculate area like some kind of real estate architect but thanks for the input, it will be filed under "absolutely retarded takes".';

'>>61570496
>>61570525
Massachusetts' hit was at longer range.
>But it wasn't a moving target
You didn't specify that.';

'>>61573712
>shells don't hit the area of the ship, they only interact on one dimension
damn dudes, we got an expert in the chat.';

'>>61573646
How do you hand load a 46cm shell? Did they have Son Goku in the turret?';

'>>61570078
>displaced twice as much
that just means Iowa has more ass to smack';

'>>61573782
I literally explained it because I knew somebody like you would say something. They used a hand winch. I said so. It wasn't fully automatic like something like the Vanguard. They were bulky and heavy.';

'TWO
INTERSTELLAR
WARS
GAIJIN';

'>>61570078
I want to get squished by these two prows.';

'>>61573782
Ignore him, he's talking out of his ass, Yamato's loading mechanism extremely well mechanised https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3rvxlz03U';

'>>61570078
Your mom displaces twice as much as Mike Tyson, it doesn't mean she can take him in a fight.';

'>>61574843
it's honestly wild an agricultural island nation barely out of feudalism is what gave birth to this.';

'>>61574950
Industrialization is hell of a drug. China didn't catch the train and got their shit pushed in twice.';

'>>61574950
it's no different from India being a fucking nuclear power while 1/6th of its population shit in the open, 1/4th don't have indoor plumbing, and the nation ranks 135th out of 191 countries in GDP per capita';

'They are very pretty ships. Iowas are going to win the race though.';

'while we talk about fire control i just wanted to say the Mk.40 auxiliary director is extremely cute';

'>>61573657
>Buckle up, historylet, you're about to get schooled.
>fucks up basic math';

'>>61573657

Didn't Iowa hit 7 out of those 46 rounds fired for a hit % of 15? She also reportedly scored hits on her second salvo and straddled every salvo after.
iirc Nowaki was also straddled multiple times by Iowa and New Jersey at extreme range and those set the record for the longest range straddle, this is significant imo because once you start straddling a ship its mostly up to chance if you achieve a hit and for that same reason the Yamato's straddles against White Plains at Samar show how accurate her FCS could be.';

'>>61573607
>prox shells
>magnetic
Point at this retard and laugh.';

'>>61575818
Wasn't Yamato's fire control at the limits of optical?';

'>>61573760
>umm sweaty, please calculate the area of the ship, not the size of the target
>trust me, projectiles fired horizontally from barrels that are elevated by only a couple degrees might actually land on the port deck
you didn't have to samefag with another tranime image, your post has now also been filed under "Dunning Kreuger" effect exhibits

>>61575818
Iowa hit a stationary Bismarck battleship sized target at 14k yards, she needed 13 minutes to sink something that would be considered too easy to be even a training target. There's nothing to be proud of here.
>Nowaki was also straddled multiple times by Iowa and New Jersey
the sailors on Nowaki reported splashes as far as 100 meters, this wasn't 'extreme long range', it was 31k yards. long range, but not extremely so.

Yamato scored multiple hits on destroyers in Samar, including hits from 17,600 yards off, these were destroyers sailing at flank speed conducting zigzags and maneuvers while laying smoke screen, in suboptimal visibility.';

'>>61570310
Yamato has a roughly 4% chance to hit at 30k yards, which is more than Iowa ever showed lmao.';

'>>61571110
Yamato's TDS was flawed in that an explosion overpowering it or striking a specific area (closer to the waterline) would cause significant amounts of damage which other TDS would mitigate.
At the end of the day her TDS never really worked because America slapped Torpex into all their torpedos, making them about twice as dangerous as usual.';

'>>61573646
Yamato's turrets were some of the more automated ones ever put aboard a battleship, there was no people with 'cranes and winches' to move shells.';

'>>61575951
>continues to talk out his ass
Wew lad.';

'>>61575951
time to sink is immaterial in this case imo, the hits scored were irrecoverable and the loss of the ship was given.

The last straddle of the Nowaki was by the New Jersey at 35k yards.

Yamato scored 3 hits on one destroyer at Samar with her main battery, and hits on Johnston and possibly Hoel with her secondary. Good shooting for sure, but still at very close range for a BB.';

'>>61570152
spbp
based autist';

'>>61570459
It wasn't even a hit. It was a near-miss that still did damage because escort carriers were unarmored and lightly built.';

'>>61573132
>Stand aside, I'm coming through. This is Ching Lee.
It would have been a goddamn bloodbath. The Yamato was built to sink US standards. Not Iowas commanded by olympic gold-medal sharpshooters.';

'>>61572130
>their whole yardstick was "if we can't make it, no one can"
Tbf, that was a pretty accurate yardstick';

'>>61573607
What proximity fuse predated the VT?';

'>>61573094
If the VT fuse had been produced by any country other than the United States, it would have been considered an unironic wunderwaffe. But alas, the atomic bomb overshadows all else.';

'>>61576864
they only had impact and timed fuzes available for munitions prior to the VT
it was a genuine challenge to miniaturize the fuze enough to survive being launched out of a shell

without microchips, the only electronics they had available were vacuum tubes
so the had to engineer a lightbulb to be able to survive 30,000Gs of force
and since the shell was a good that was expended in high quantity, it had to be cheap and easy enough to manufacture in the thousands
which was the real challenge, the germans came up with 30 different proximity fuze ideas throughout the war, but none could be made in large quantity

proximity fuzed for dropped bombs had existed for a while because they only had to withstand 100Gs at most
but being able to fire a proximity fuze out of a gun was an engineering masterpiece';

'>>61576830
>Lee and Spooner ended the 1920 Olympics with 7 medals each, the most anyone had ever received in a single year's games. Boris Shakhlin was the next person to reach 7, in 1960. It would not be until Alexander Dityatin in the 1980 games that anyone would beat the record.';

'>>61573153
> Remove all beehive rounds to remove temptation of firing at planes and concussing the AA gunners
What? No. That’s retarded.
You get rid of the beehive rounds because they accomplished precisely fuck all';

'>>61570078
If Iowa- even SoDak- stayed at long range, Yamato's deck would be penetrated while the USN BB was relatively safe.';

'>>61570407
Both.';

'>>61570526
If Hood was heeling to starboard during it's turn?';

'>>61570582
>Yamato's bow is also basically unarmored
tbf so is Iowa's.';

'>>61572920
No. Shallow and wide made for poor fuel economy.';

'>>61573657
>and Washington's rounds all-missed at 16k yards
Washington didn't shoot until the killshots.';

'What a shit thread by some delusional weeabo.';

'>>61570078
Her fire control was shit and after the Spanish American war the Americans trained more than other nations on practice firing with their ship guns.';

'>>61577021
That depends how far into her turn Hood actually was when she was hit, her rudder is over but it takes some time for a ship that large to answer the helm. It's possible but unlikely that she was far enough into her turn for the heel to be a particularly significant factor.';

'>>61576922
It's cracy what kind of medal farms early modern Olympic games were for a good shooter. In few cases there were just a handful of participants in dozen different shooting games.
>>61577087
His math is shamefur and unhonorable at best, but in any case freeaboos have always been claiming enormous daylight accuracy gap based on their wet dreams. Spotter plane assisted fire was still considered the most accurate until end of the war. My guess is radars still got errors when shells fell behind the target, too close to each other etc.
>>61576999
Specially this is vatnik level delusion if you bother checking any accuracy and penetration tables, which are against target sailing in straight line. Yamato's deck can only be pierced from extremely long ranges, where shell flight time allows even a small change of course to throw your correctly calculated solution off. You are more likely to melt your barrels before scoring a meaningful hit. Would they even try if they didn't know how well armored Yamatos were?

I'm not even claiming Yamato would win, but that they had poor fire control isn't much more than a myth. Unfortunately battleships were the biggest dick wave for any country, which brings in the most retarted people to argue about them. Overall US had top of the line equipment in most cases during WWII, but when someone brings up the worst ones, we always find few mutts defending those things with few exceptions.';

'>>61577517
>but in any case freeaboos have always been claiming enormous daylight accuracy gap based on their wet dreams
based on the literal capabilities of their FCS

>but that they had poor fire control isn't much more than a myth
yamato FCS needed 8 people for its rangefinder alone, the iowa FCS needed 8 people in total
yamato FCS is a generation behind iowa FCS in capability

> where shell flight time allows even a small change of course to throw your correctly calculated solution off.
the iowa would have an actual solution ready at the time the gun fires
yamato can also only plot a firing solution based on a straight line, the iowa can plota firing solution while maneuvering
at long range, yamato will not be landing hits where the iowa can';

'>>61570726
Isn't this the futa artist';

'>>61576890
>If the VT fuse had been produced by any country other than the United States, it would have been considered an unironic wunderwaffe. But alas, the atomic bomb overshadows all else.
It's hard to understate how insanely big a deal it was really. In AA alone estimates were that it made 5" guns SEVEN TIMES (7x!) more effective just like that, which is while. But not just for AA, a lot of people don't realize they were used on artillery as well towards the end and were such a big deal that Patton said both that it saved Liege and required revision of the tactics of land war. It devastated unprepared germans who thought they were safe from timed fire due to awful weather. But the VT meant shells would always airburst above the ground for far wider circles of infantry devastation without any range calculations regardless of whether, just shoot them.';

'>>61576802
What ship had armored bottom again?';

'>>61578073
VT fuzes weren't used against ground targets in Europe under fear that captured duds would just give the tech to Germany.';

'>>61578073
So….when the Japanese were shocked over how accurate American AA fire was, what they were actually experiencing was the power of VT fuses?';

'>>61578073
>s hard to understate how insanely big a deal it was really. In AA alone estimates were that it made 5" guns SEVEN TIMES (7x!) more effective just like that, which is while.
US NAVY estimated VT fuse 5" was only twice as effective.

Also fun fact: Germans late war after cacluations and trials started to use contact fuse only AAA rounds and they had reports as low as 2000 rounds per kill with them, while time plus contact fuse required 4000 rounds and time fuse only requireed 8000 rounds, in 88mm caliber).';

'>>61578095
>VT fuzes weren't used against ground targets in Europe under fear that captured duds would just give the tech to Germany.
This isn't true, you're confusing Pentagon holding off on using them for awhile due to that with never using them. Yeah, early on in particular everyone was worried, but ultimately as the war started getting towards key stages Eisenhower demanded they start using everything and got his way. He got at least a couple hundred thousand of them to deploy with artillery during the Battle of the Bulge, end of 44. By that point (arguably well before that point, like right after D-day but Pentagon was slow) it no longer even mattered if Germany got the tech or not, their industrial base was devastated and ever more so and it didn't matter what designs they had, they just couldn't produce enough anymore. Germany had no shortage of cool tech in 44 or start of 45, but it no longer could do anything but slightly delay the inevitable.';

'>>61578108
>US NAVY estimated VT fuse 5" was only twice as effective.
OSRD estimated 7x. Honestly I haven't read the source in fucking ages and I only ultra vaguely recall hearing about the Navy one now that you mention it, so I'm not going to pretend to know which estimate was closer. That said even "only" 2x would be a big deal, and it's indisputable they made a major difference in the most objective test case of dealing with V1 attacks on the bongs. Coastal AA went from like 20% intercept rate to 75-80% intercept rate. The VT was sensitive enough to detonate if it was close to birds even.

Again how that translated vs kamikazes ultimately would have to check sources on but since max guns on a ship are limited as is max ammo even simple double digit increases in intercept still add up.';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'>>61578108
>US NAVY estimated VT fuse 5" was only twice as effective.
ignoring that twice is a ridiculous amount to improve a weapon by, it actually quadrupled efficiency
average expenditure of rounds went down from 1000 down to 250 per kill

>Germans late war after cacluations and trials started to use contact fuse only AAA rounds and they had reports as low as 2000 rounds per kill with them
contact fuze was near useless because it necessitated a direct hit
there is a reason virtually all post-war guns had proximity fuzes, with the US selecting the 3in gun to replace the 40mm because it could hold the VT';

'>>61578189
>>61578200
woooooooooooow it took 4 of you to beat me???';

'>>61570424
I’ve wondered why this “strategy” wasn’t taken to the extreme: Make a series of ships all capable of say 35kts. Battleship/carrier in the middle for removing large armed enemy vessels. 4 cruisers for removing small armed enemy vessels or merchants (omit if you’ve a carrier). Then many destroyers capable of 40 kts for radar pickets/ submarine screening/ bolstered AA defense.

Then in addition many custom built 35knt supply ships for ammo/fuel. The fleet becomes a moving port to either go after enemy armed vessels, or providing they’re too strong go after their merchants.

Big flaw to this idea I presume is the enemy just has to make a slightly faster battleship.';

'>>61578386
You just invented the fast carrier task force.';

'>>61576855
lol, no it wasn't you retarded faggot.';

'>>61577533
>yamato can also only plot a firing solution based on a straight line
TIL shooting aircraft is impossible without radar.
hint: it isn't. this thread is filled to the brim with retarded fuddlore spewed by Iowa fags.';

'>>61570981
>*checks notes*
I've seen your faggotry before on other topics. You're here to stir shit up and argue even when you're obviously wrong';

'>>61579785
>TIL shooting aircraft is impossible without radar.
No, you got BTFO so you strawmanned yet again. Nobody in modern (last century or more) military gives a shit about "possible" people care about statistical quantities.
>hint: it isn't.
Yeah, it EFFECTIVELY is except via air intercept, which is why V1 intercept before radar and VT was <20% and thus semi-worthless. Or on the other side mass bombing actually worked pretty well. Same with kamikaze shit. Oh good, "only" 80+% of enemy warheads are nailing you. "Only" 3 of the kamikazes slammed into you and wrecked your shit mission killing your ship until repairs, but it's a moral victory you got some right?

Cope and seethe about your garbage weeb ship that accomplished diddly shit the entire war before sinking like a bitch with the rest of IJN scum.';

'>>61578464
Wow you’re right, only difference is i would’ve gone with 6x illustrious class style carriers able to take 60 aircraft each. 4 as active airstrips, 2 as maintenance.';

'>>61579863
>No, you got BTFO so you strawmanned yet again

your original goalpost
>yamato can also only plot a firing solution based on a straight line
my refutation
>it is factually incorrect, you simply have to add own ship's movements to calculations
your current goalpost
>ackshually it was possible, just not good
my refutation to that
>discarding your uninformed rant in the trashbin where it belongs';

'>>61578095
>VT fuzes weren't used against ground targets in Europe under fear that captured duds would just give the tech to Germany.
The VT were used in Europe and captured intact by Germans. The US had developed ways to jam VT fuzes before that. If Germans didn't do the same (idk) was because war state hopeless by the D-Day...';

'>>61580004
>your original goalpost
Not my post, try again. And your claim was that radar made no difference in shooting of aircraft, in response to a post about BS main gun FCS vs another BS. I responded to your retarded claim and did you the favor of not even going into how it made no sense anyway. Seethe harder about how badly the nips and krauts got btfo.';

'>>61580035
>Not my post
should've guessed, you're way too retarded for even that.

didn't read the rest of your post, dismissed.';

'>>61570424
>Iowa is essentially battlecruiser
Retarded tag for a retarded take.';

'>>61580045
>retard tourist can't handle more then 140 characters at a time, runs off whenever his retardation gets called out
Sad.';

'>>61578281
>contact fuze was near useless because it necessitated a direct hit
well it was opposite and like everybody used their high caliber AAA wrong.';

'Before VT, didn't everyone use manually set fuzes before firing and the shells explode by themselves at a set distance after firing? Who would use contact fuze for AA anyways?';

'undefined';

'The entire premise of this thread only works if you disregard the fact that Yamato and her escorts got dad dicked by a handful of DDs and DEs in the most ideal conditions for the IJN. Daylight, defenders have little strategic maneuver options (had to defend a fixed landing zone), and they had a massive gun and displacement advantage. OP is high on pure fucking copium.';

'>>61581575
>imagine being an AA gunner on or near the turrets';

'>>61581684
They had alarms which sounded prior to the main guns firing...alarms which are reported to have gone unused during Ten-Go...';

'>>61581684
all the AA guns, including even the small caliber ones, were fully enclosed for this.';

'>>61581628
>The entire premise of this thread only works if you disregard the fact that Yamato and her escorts got dad dicked by a handful of DDs and DEs in the most ideal conditions for the IJN
Mutt alt history hours? mutt alt history hours.
>daylight
>most ideal conditions for the IJN
For a poster whose entire knowledge of WW2 seems to be misconstrued anecdotes and factoids (I can reply to every single post you've made ITT, your retardation is easily recognisable through a sea of anonymity), you seem to not know one of the most commonly known factoids about the IJN.';

'>>61581902
>the nip seethes
Yamato opened fired at 7AM, the majority of the engagement off Samar was during the day. Please stop embarrassing yourself, Toshiba';

'>>61582008
I believe that when he says
>you seem to not know one of the most commonly known factoids about the IJN
He is referring to Japan's supposed superiority at night fighting, failing to realize by this point in the war the US held the advantage in that respect.';

'>>61581902
The IJNaboo absolutely collapses into samurai tears if you mention the cursed phrase of mutt evil "Taffy 3". Say it not in his presence!';

'>>61578386
You've just reinvented from base principles fleet strategy from the turn of the (20th) century.
Speed has always been an essential factor in naval tactics, otherwise everybody would go round in 15kt behemoths bristling with guns and armour

>>61581684
Main gun turrets aren't supposed to fire when AA is firing';

'>>61578386
Because high speed is a pain in the ass to achieve, and worse to maintain';

'>>61583129
>combinedfleet
I really should scrape and archive their site
massive amounts of info from a glorious band of autistic weeb fucks';

'>>61582153
>Speed has always been an essential factor in naval tactics, otherwise everybody would go round in 15kt behemoths bristling with guns and armour
this was once considered with the standard type battleships, which topped out at 20-22kt
the idea being that you couldnt sail faster than the slowest battleship when in a battle line anyways and it got harder to maintain formation at highspeeds

standard-types could form a formidable battle line that would be very hard to remove, but could not force engagements against enemies
so while a tactical juggernaut, their strategic function would have been a giant roadblock more for denying the enemy space than proactively destroying them
which was the reason why they were replaced with fast battleships who accepted they would fight in loose battle lines if it meant having the speed to engage the enemy at will';

'>>61583291
>this was once considered
all the way up to the coastal defence ships of WW2
>standard type battleships
21 knots was the top speed of battleships at the time, and just about every battleship of the period was built roughly around that speed, give or take a knot';

'>>61583291
>standard
>could not force engagements
The primary purpose of the USN battle line was to go on the offensive and take territory. The enemy (i.e., Japan) would not be able to run in that circumstance; they would have to give battle. A decisive battle in the course of the offensives would be a secondary bonus.';

'>>61570078
She would win in a close range fight but at long range the Iowa's FCR would give her the upper hand.';

'Honestly, it’s kind of amazing how good the 16in50 was. NavWeaps, I’m I’m reading the chart correctly suggests it’s better than the 18.1 inch.
At under 30k yards, she’s getting belt pens, which really doesn’t seem right.
This is of course assuming the Iowa doesn’t speed off and gather up a bunch of Fletchers to do the actual work.
I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in a North Carolina(My love) or South Dakota though.';

'>>61583579
> the chart correctly suggests it’s better than the 18.1 inch.
Faster, more mass per area means potentially better pen even with the same design and materials.';

'>>61583579
> it’s better than the 18.1 inch.
Correct,
See, the thing about the Yamatos was that everything about them was big. Big guns, big armor, big numbers of AA gun.
But nothing about any of those things were good. Just big.';

'>>61583579
>NavWeaps
>reliable
I know mutt insecurity is the driving force behind these posts, but even navweaps has at least two widely varying tables for most data points depending on which cheap osprey tier book they're sourcing from.';

'>>61583899
is there a better source for data?';

'>>61580247
>utterly btfo
>claims victory
based retard';

'>>61583579
I'm assuming their using late/post war super heavy shells that gave up most of their explosive charge for pure penetration out of a brand new barrel.';

'Reminder.';

'>>61584522
Why don't you build BB with all guns in the front (4x2) and turn nose to enemy?';

'>>61584553
Boy have I got a class of ships to show you.';

'>>61584553
Because then you have to sail directly at the other guy';

'>>61584473
>late/post war super heavy shells that gave up most of their explosive charge for pure penetration
no, all armour-piercing battleship shells are like that, no matter the size

Armour-piercing warheads which used the Miznay-Schardin shaped charge effect were only introduced in the late stage of WW2, in antitank rounds and the Panzerfaust, and is a big part of what killed the battleship: you can develop 5" shaped-charge shells that penetrate battleship armour belts, allowing any destroyer-sized craft to punch through a battleship. Sic semper BB.';

'>>61584553
Because it comes with tactical tradeoffs i.e. you are powerless if you're sailing away from the enemy. Unless you're the Royal Navy or the allied French Navy, and you need to squeeze battleships into a tight treaty-defined tonnage budget, and you have enough battleships anyway that you expect not to be running away.';

'>>61584725
Lmao no. Shaped charges are good at penetration but against something with the internal space of a battleship they're worthless';

'>>61586416
They're not worthless. They will still penetrate and can do significant blast and incendiary damage to the insides of whatever compartments they penetrate, especially when additional HE fill is added such as with dual-purpose warheads.
Hence any destroyer and cruiser could potentially punch hundreds of shells through a battleship's belt, with the right shell design.';

'Looking back on it when all was done, Battleships were one of the biggest wastes of steel in the theater. The times they fired in anger can be counted on one hand, and out of those, in many their presence was already superfluous.';

'>>61586416
>Shaped charges are good at penetration but against something with the internal space of a battleship they're worthless
the Japanese made shaped charges size of the entire aircraft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KlFxbF8hrs&t=65';

'>>61583899
Still waiting on that better source.';

'>>61584736
>Because it comes with tactical tradeoffs i.e. you are powerless if you're sailing away from the enemy.
When you sail away you deploy smoke screen and shooting would be low effective anyway.

Were even in WWI/WWII Naval history cases when fleeing ships were needed fire for escape? Like they stopped chasers with their rear guns?';

'>>61588439
>when fleeing ships were needed fire for escape?
usually thats because the chasing force fears torpedoes';

'>>61570459
velly implessive';

'>>61590154
actually, it's the L sounds that Japs have difficulty with, because there is no L sound in their language
>lolicon
>roricon
>legal
>regar
>light
>right
so they would actually pronounce "velly implessive" as
>verry impressive';

'>>61570164
>Yamatos GUNS had longer range
they had longer range (3 kilometers drop on Iowa), but neither ship is going to ever land a hit on a moving target the wide ocean at their maximum ranges. They would probably both have to close-in to below 22 miles to have a realistic chance of hitting something. Once they do it's a toss up on which ship gets lucky and lands the so-called "effective salvo" first, honestly. In daylight conditions even Iowa wouldn't rely on its SG based FCS and would probably utilize its optics just like Yamato. We only have Yamato to sample here, it landed some pretty tight straddles on Taffy 3's CVE's ~34 kilometers (21.3) miles out, including one very close near miss. There's a lot of dickriding of radar FCS and blindfire ITT but that is only useful (to a certain extent) in night time conditions and depends on how good the radar contact is & local atmosphere/geography. One thing, though; if both ships have their FCS taken out of play, Yamato would probably have a pretty strong edge with local FC thanks to the optics and essentially invulnerable turrets.';

'>>61583782
>Faster
pretty sure the 18.1" had higher velocity. The charge inside the 18.1" AP shells was also around 220% larger than the ones on Iowa's 16" main guns, and Japanese TNA is rated at 1.05 above the TNT baseline (US-D explosive powder was rated at 0.95)';

'>>61590841
>There's a lot of dickriding of radar FCS and blindfire ITT but that is only useful
in every possible scenario';

'>>61590841
>SG based FCS
say what?';

'>>61584473
If you mean the USN Mark 8 16" 2,700 lb shells, they are heavier mostly because they are longer.';

'>>61590992
source?';

'>>61590899
>pretty sure the 18.1" had higher velocity.
You right, my mistake. The barrel is longer (L50) but the new AP mark 8 shells are heavier than the mark 5 so it's somewhat slower than the Yamato's 46cm.';

'>>61575951
>you didn't have to samefag with another tranime image
ANIME WEBSITE, NIGGER';

'>>61570600
Given that the IJN specifically designed their AP shells to maximize underwater travel distance, it's reasonable to credit Yamato's 3rd salvo on White Plains as a hit. The shell performed as designed, traveling a long distance underwater and detonating under White Plains' bilge keel. It's no different than a magnetically triggered torpedo in it's effect.';

'Yamato was actually a stable ship in bad weather. Iowa was a nice weather boat.';