[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/a/


Why is the Iowa class so superior when compared to the 'mighty' Yamato?
>>
Because murrica
>>
Both ultimately useless, but the Yamato class was cooler.
>>
>>100374249
Because it has FREEDOM
>>
But it's not.
>>
>>100374249
>>/k/
>>
Because it had better air support
>>
>>100374249
Battleships were only good for dickwaving.
>>
superior manufacturing
>>
Your Iowa class couldn't even take a Kongou Death Star cannon. Yamato could have easily used its mirror system to send the cannon back at Kongou. Iowa a shit.
>>
File: 1315119171704.jpg (49.53 KB, 300x282)
49.53 KB
49.53 KB JPG
Because Iowa was a fleet workhorse whose battleships played critical roles in crucial battles throughout the war and the Yamato was a useless yamato nadeshiko that was ultimately gangraped to death by a couple hundred aircraft.

But hey at least Yamato was salvaged and retooled as a space battlecruiser so its all cool.
>>
>>100374249
Elevens can't build for shit
>>
Its not better, Yamato was fucked by a large number of aircrafts and the AA rounds it had were bad designed, almost useless
Yamato vs Iowa alone Yamato would rape
>>
Actually had better fire and damage control systems. With more battlefield experiences on top.

>>100374620
This and it had VT rounds which made its AA weapons more effective than what the Japs had.
>>
Yamato vs Iowa probably would result in mutual destruction, as battleships are tactical rubbish.
They were most useful at bombarding coasts, something the planes from aircraft carrier was capable of and could do much better.
>>
>>100374724
>Yamato vs Iowa alone Yamato would rape
Stay delusional.

>>100374249
Higher speed, better maneuverability, more compact (compared to Yamato), better AA suite, and most importantly:

The ability to hit the Yamato first because the Japanese can't into FCS and sighting systems. Good luck to the Yamato relying on their stupid pagoda bridges trying to take out an Iowa that can fire over the horizon.
>>
>>100374952
Hood vs Bismark?
>>
File: 1382322733314.jpg (938.39 KB, 1024x1488)
938.39 KB
938.39 KB JPG
I want to torpedo Musashi.
>>
>>100374981
this

FCS is everything
>>
>>100375090
Bismark all the fucking way.
Prince of Wales also a shit
>>
>>100375090
Like clubbing a baby seal. I know the Brits have had some great scores using antiquated pieces of shit like the Swordfish who flew so slow it trolled the Bismark's AA systems but choosing to send the old fossil Hood didn't turn out as great. They should've seen it coming in such a straight up penis-measuring contest.
>>
>>100374981
Iowa class ships had orders of evading direct combat at all cost vs Yamato class
Also the Yamato had a copy of the FUmo22 german radar which was responsible of the Hood sinking
>>
File: 1325019474349.gif (2 MB, 319x264)
2 MB
2 MB GIF
>>100375477

>tfw manning the radar system during Yamato's final battle
>>
>>100375608
Maybe the radar operator didn't have his eyes wide open
>>
>>100375477
>Iowa class ships had orders of evading direct combat at all cost vs Yamato class
Because it's more cost effective to rape them with planes and submarines.

>Also the Yamato had a copy of the FUmo22 german radar which was responsible of the Hood sinking
Out of date by then. Technology and the dynamics of the battlefield change very fast.
>>
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
>>
>>100375691
Well maybe i fuck up with the term rape, congratulation you won an internet discussion
>>
the real question is why would anyone consider Yamato waifus to be pure
>>
In the end, didn't the Yama
>>
>>100375477
Yamato never had radar fire directors, just search radar. The Japs had one in development though; which would've turned Yamato into a long-range bombardment monster.
>>
If Iowa is so good how come she isn't in Kantai?
>>
>>100376356

because Iowa is a white pig
>>
>>100376162
They must be plump tsunderes
>>100376356
Out of Kantai's league
>>
>>100375894
>being this mad

You posted something wrong, he corrected you, quit being a baby
>>
>>
>>100375608
That gif made me giggle like a 10 year old girl
>>
>>100376862
You should. It's pretty fun.
>>
>>100376862
Read the manga, it's way better than the show. Although the show was still fun to watch.
>>
File: BB-76Ms221946.png (771.04 KB, 3999x1321)
771.04 KB
771.04 KB PNG
>tfw the 16"/50 Mark 7 had equivalent armor penetration to the 46cm/45 Type 94 guns on the Yamato
>And Iowa had exactly as many while being able to sail circles around it

I think Iowa vs. Yamato would be a fair fight though, since Iowa has paper armor.

Recall though, the Americans had everything ready to build the Montana Class, which had no less than twelve 16"50s - far and away greater firepower than the Yamato's nine 46cm/45s (Which as I said, are only really equivalentto a single 16"/50). Combine this with still superior speed and better armor technology and Montana would've easily won over.

Oh yeah, it's also worth noting that Americans had these funny things called "radar" and "fire control systems", aspects which their Japanese counterparts all but utterly lacked.
>>
>>100377714

but Montana fucking sucks
>>
File: 11798040.jpg (69.18 KB, 800x600)
69.18 KB
69.18 KB JPG
>>100377799

That it does, when compared to the Iowa. But it's still the closest real American counterpart to Yamato in terms of role and objective, and it's still 100% better than Yamato.

It's also worth noting battleships are certainly not entirely dead - missile battleships (AKA Arsenal Ships) seem pretty viable still and new railgun technology seems to be just waiting for a capable platform to carry it all.

(Note: Pic is not a battleship, it's an amphibious assault ship for lack of anything better to post)
>>
>>100374249
Why is this being discussed hear?
>>>/k/
>>
>>100378228
It doesn't matter how viable you think they are, if no-one is operating one or even planning to it's a pretty dead type of warship.

And no the Kirov does not count, it's got essentially no armour.
>>
>>100378228
I can't wait for glorious railgun battleships.
>>
>>100375090

Hood was an overgunned heavy cruiser wanting to be a battleship. It's deck armor was so thin that even a sneeze could penetrate it. Which is exactly what the Bismark did.
>>
>>100378228

Yeah, the Zumwalts are basically the next gen battleships. I don't know if they'd have the power plants to support the hilariously high energy costs of a railgun though.
>>
>>100378535
It was a battlecruiser, the whole point of it was to be an overgunned heavy cruiser to have the speed to hunt down enemy heavy cruises and the firepower to sink them. Being used as to as a psuedo-battleship wasn't what it wanted to be doing.
>>
>>100378456

No one is operating one because no one can afford to maintain a fleet of advanced 21st century battleships with proper escorts and stealth complements. China only has enough money for a defensive shore line fleet. Japan is putting all its eggs in notCarriers. Russia does fuckall with its ships. UK only wants to make ships that can complement a US fleet. Everyone else would rather have a light or hybrid carrier. Its a matter of priorities in a peace time world where there is only one real naval power.
>>
File: smcrtn14.jpg (323.84 KB, 1480x1201)
323.84 KB
323.84 KB JPG
>>100378456

Yeah, I guess I shouldn't say "battleship", more like "battlecruiser". There's absolutely no point in equipping armor on ships nowadays.

They'll also probably be smaller, no Yamato-sized crap anymore.

Pic obviously unrelated.
>>
File: 2482489998_a29084a483.jpg (172.47 KB, 375x500)
172.47 KB
172.47 KB JPG
>>100374620
Say again?
>>
>>100375477
Yamato and her sister ship were far too expensive to build and keep fueled and running. The admiralty were so nervous over damaging them that they avoided combat several times.

Iowa class? Hell yeah, we'll churn those bitches out and drive them through the gates of hell itself. We even refloated battleships that were sunk at Pearl, put them back into service, and used them against the Japanese.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/ph-salv.htm
>>
>>100378957

Using a near-infinite supply of ping-pong balls, no less!
>>
>>100378724
The reactor we use for our huge ass carriers would support railguns. Hell, they're using a kind of railgun catapult to launch planes off the new ones.
>>
How do the JSDF vessels fare in the world of modern navies?
>>
>>100379236

But the money required to maintain those reactors range in the fuckhuge of dollars. There is no way to get authorization for a nuclear powered railgun battleship when people will just ask "why don't we just use all the missiles in storage instead"
>>
>>100379342
Uh, yeah there is. It's already done.

"The US Navy outlined a requirement for a minimum 150% increase in the power-generation capacity for the CVN 21 carrier compared with the Nimitz Class carriers. The increased power capacity is needed for the four electro-magnetic aircraft launchers and for future systems such as directed energy weapons that might be feasible during the carrier's 50-year lifespan."

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/
>>
File: 136_1.png (449.80 KB, 600x800)
449.80 KB
449.80 KB PNG
>>100374981

Yamato class was actually significantly more maneuverable. By about 1/3.

It had more powerful guns.

It had much more powerful armor.

It had the most advanced visual targeting system on the planet (even american experts analyzing the plans after the war agreed).

And it actually had a FC computer. USN had more advanced radars, but difference wasn't big. Look at the performance of US radars at Surigao Strait. They were overrated as hell.
>>
>>100379307

The JSDF naval fleet is mostly tuned to protect sea lanes and deter possible land incursions by the Chinese fleet. They would probably excel at keeping the Chinese sub fleet out of Japanese territory; but like the Chinese, they can't operate far from home. And who knows how they'll fare in the future, since China is too busy adding knockoff stealth destroyers and carriers to its fleet while Japan is adding, like two conventional size carriers over the next 10 or so years for no good reason.
>>
>>100379307
As they're supposed to, pretty decent for defending your immediate sea lanes from interdiction, useless if you want to conduct any sort of operation an ocean away.
>>
>>100379397

That doesn't mean Congress will authorize new contracts for other battleship chassis. Theres still some bitter feelings over the last stint between the defense committees and the Pentagon with the stealth destroyer bullshit.
>>
>>100376817
The fuck? I said i lost
I even congratulate him
>>
>>100379610

I really don't see the battleship ever coming back. Sure there's probably thousands of 16 inch shells mothballed somewhere and operating a battleship is considerably cheaper than the modern Nimitz carrier, but the main thing the Navy is doing is automating shit. The new Ford carrier has it's crew compliment cut by a fourth if memory serves over the Nimitz. an Iowa requires a crew of over 2,000.
>>
File: 335769.jpg (53.43 KB, 600x400)
53.43 KB
53.43 KB JPG
>>100379407

>Yamato class was actually significantly more maneuverable. By about 1/3.

That's because we're talking a speed difference of almost ten knots, of course the slow fucker is going to maneuver better.

It had more powerful guns.

They were bigger and had slightly more range. They by no means had notably superior actual hitting power.

>It had much more powerful armor.

This I can support.

>It had the most advanced visual targeting system on the planet (even american experts analyzing the plans after the war agreed).

Still not going to help when Iowa can hit a target from beyond the horizon.

>And it actually had a FC computer. USN had more advanced radars, but difference wasn't big. Look at the performance of US radars at Surigao Strait. They were overrated as hell.

Dude, I'm not talking more advanced radar > less advanced radar. I'm literally talking radar > no radar. Yamato wasn't equipped with radar, no Japanese ships were save for some late-model destroyers and possibly a cruiser or two.
>>
>>100379787
Due to lower maintenance needs, mostly. They won't have to constantly work on those steam catapults on the new ones since they don't have them anymore.
>>
File: SpecialsNo75.png (313.77 KB, 640x480)
313.77 KB
313.77 KB PNG
>>100379787

Arsenal ship had a crew of like, thirty.

If they really needed to, they could just control it remotely via AEGIS, no crew whatsoever.
>>
>>100379787
Pretty certain you could automate a lot of the jobs that crew of 2000 used to do after a refit if you really wanted to run an Iowa class battleship for something.
>>
>All of the modern war vessels are now destroyers or other small vessels
R.I.P Battleships
>>
File: 1.jpg (39.28 KB, 330x281)
39.28 KB
39.28 KB JPG
>>100374249
UTEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
>>
Did they ever explain how they managed to completely retrofit a WWII battleship that had been laying on the sea floor of the Pacific Ocean to be capable of getting into the vacuum of space without any type of mechanical failure or pressure loss?
>>
>>100380217

It won't be long before the Navy seriously contemplates drone destroyers, drone electric subs, drone spamming the Pacific as a viable war strategy.
>>
>>100380484
Wave energy.
>>
>>100379407
Since the Iowa will likely hit fire from when when Yamato's visual range, wouldn't the shells land over its protected belt?

Bigger guns sure, but without radar FCS I don't see their range be putting to its maximum usage.
>>
File: 38966194.png (575.42 KB, 910x1200)
575.42 KB
575.42 KB PNG
>>100380217
>huge cowtits cruisers rendered inefficient by modern military technology
destroyer stronk
>>
>>100380486

Hell. There's already drone bases popping up all over Africa for the military. I'm actually surprised there isn't more UAVs being deployed in the Navy.
>>
>>100380484

Its hull was folded by samurai steel over ten thousand times
>>
>>100380486
>Drone Destroyers
So basically the future would be like RTS battles. I can imagine some South Korean starcraft nerd hacks the system and takes over the whole world using his awesome reflexes
>>
>>100380642
Fuck the guns, ramming speed!
>>
>>100380606
>Plump battleships and petite destroyers all destroyed by a long, mighty torpedo
>>
>>100380630

If the Navy spends all its allowance money on UAVs, it won't have any left over for new carriers silly.
>>
you kancolle shitters keep finding ways to bypass my filters, first the unicode text now this
>>
>>100380707
2hu is ded
>>
>>100380546

But it was sitting on the bottom of the sea floor with about 200 years worth of salt water and whatever fish droppings and human waste flowing all over it.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier and safer to just refit an AEGIS Missile Cruiser or Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier rather than dig up a rusted hunk of metal and launch it into space?
>>
/a/ - Anime & Manga
>>
>>100380689
Despite how hacking is popularly portrayed, very little reflexes or even intelligence is used. Just systematic and very thorough planning and execution.
>>
>>100380707
>get rustled by things you don't like
lel
>>
>>100380704
A carrier for every president. Clearly, the only way to circumvent this is have Obama go 8 more years.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.