[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 / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / 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] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



>thinking the Iowa-class was good
>>
She blacked.
>>
>>38215145

Put giant wings on it and use it as an AC-130.

Imagine those guns raining down on you.
>>
File: 1518141161508.jpg (151 KB, 851x1280)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
>>38215145
>thinking the Iowa-class was not good
>>
>>38215167
>12.1 inches of side armour
>guns which could easily be outperformed by French and Britbong guns
>>
>>38215331
But we weren't fighting the french or the britbongs
>>
>>38215388
40cm/45 Type 94 naval gun
>>
>>38215410
Which had inferior performance to 16”/50 mk7.
>>
>>38215331

12.1" at 19 degrees, equivalent to a 14" vertical belt at point blank and gaining effectiveness more rapidly as range increases the fall angle of shells striking it.

Also, no gun or shell produced by England or France actually matched or came close to matching the 16"/50 firing the Mark 8 shell. The French 15" fired a trash shell that repeatedly exploded in the barrel and suffered literally mile wide dispersion because the muzzle velocity was too high and the barrels placed too closely together. Also the shell hoists blew massive cock and could barely supply one round per minute per gun.

The British 14" used to arm the new KGV's in 1940 was just about equivalent in power to a gun used to arm US battleships in 1917, and nowhere near the performance of modern 15" and 16" weapons.
>>
>>38215410

Actual diameter is 46 cm or 18.1". The shell itself is actually trash and all metric of its performance apart from explosive mass are matched by a shell that weighs nearly 600 pounds less than it.

Blame the special "diving shell" cap design, its utter shit. It fucks all over the Japanese 14" and 16" rifles performance as well.
>>
>>38215456
A well-written and good answer, anon.
Now, watch as OP goes into a tirade of "no u", "lol buttblasted mutts" and similar, as is common in bait-threads
>>
File: 1528319191082m.jpg (70 KB, 1024x416)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>38215331
>HV 55cal 16" guns
>Being outperformed by 14" 45cal guns.

What is this, WW1?
>>
>>38215512
Although to be fair, the belt on the Iowas wasn't thick enough to protect against the Mk. 8's. It would need to be at the very least 15.5" thick to provide the equivalent of 16.4" thick when angled back at 19 degrees. Deck armor would need to be increased to 6.75", and standard displacement would have increased to 51,500 tons (granted, with the newer 5"/54cal secondary battery)
>>
>>38215592

50 calibers actually, but anyways yeah. The performance of the British 14”/45 Mark VII with its 757 meter per second muzzle velocity firing a 1590 lb shell was fairly lackluster, although better than Japanese weapons of the same caliber.

It’s about on par with the old American 14”/45 firing the new 1500 lb shells at a slightly higher velocity, and slightly worse than the somewhat more modern 14”/50 firing the same shell at 823 meters per second.
>>
>>38215631

Literally no ship in the world apart from Yamato had any degree of protection against the 16”/50 firing the Mark 8 shell, so really it can’t be seen as a major failing of the Iowa in that regard. Iowa protection against any gun other than its own, the Japanese 18.1”, and the Italian 15” railguns is perfectly fine.
>>
I love the Iowa, but I'm more fond of the North Carolina

...and King George V
>>
>>38218823
My nigga
>>
>>38215145

OP is probably a buttmad slavaboo World of Warships player.

And when World of Warships comes out with a ridiculously overpowered Soviet battleship line that shits all over the other battleship lines while using nothing but vapor-ware and designs drawn on napkins at a bar, OP will be crowing how Soviets Stronk!
>>
For the lineage of the battleship to end, the Iowa class was a good finale. Decades, even a century, of development culminating in a class of ships that saw action in numerous major conflicts for over half a century.
>>
I just want to see a sim where you play the part of a Japanese pilot attacking a US task force, so I can understand what that amount of AA looks like. Is that too much to ask?
>>
>>38215456
Righteous post!
>>
>Battlecruiser
>>
>>38221182
IL-2 had some pretty intense AA fire.
I doubt anything will be able to simulate the real thing while still feeling balanced or enjoyable gameplay wise. It was very random with the entire sky getting filled and whoever made it, or got hit, often came down to having good or bad luck.
1:08 onward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqfvYf5sMWA
>>
>>38215456
>16"/50 firing the Mark 8 shell
>>
>>38221242
Was just about to post this video. For sim AAA, albeit for the Vietnam era, Wings Over Vietnam with the WOV Gold expansion mods provides some of the most savage flak you'll ever experience.
>>
>>38215691
how the hell do you make a 15 inch gun that outrange a 18 inch gun?
>>
>>38221487
Make a really shit 18 inch gun, that's how.
>>
>>38215145
cringe
>>
>>38221487

By making it fire at ludicrous velocity.
>>
>>38221239
You mean fast battleship. Just because the Iowas can't protect against their own shells (and by extension, the Yamato's 18.1" shells) doesn't mean that they're weak against everything else.
>>
Since this looks like a shitpost anyhow; does anyone else have the morbid curiosity to see what would happen to a cruise liner if shelled by a 16" Mk8 salvo?
>>
>>38225946
Overpenetrations? I doubt that a cruise liner has sufficient steel to arm AP rounds
>>
File: 752-158e16434e7b.jpg (273 KB, 1000x850)
273 KB
273 KB JPG
>>38225962
Could always hit an engine block, given how modern ships are diesel-electric with generators scattered throughout the hull for redundancy/compartmentalization...
>>
>>38225962
That would be my guess as well. Maybe if it was at a high angle, plunged down, and hit machinery. Otherwise you would just have a hole that could be patched or isolated.
>>
>>38215456
A informed opinion on /k/? Get the fuck outta here.
>>
>>38225946
It'd have some holes about 3 ft wide in it. The only times an Iowa engaged in ship to ship it used HE.
>>
>>38215456
How about the Jap 18" on Yamato vs the Brit 18" from the Furious?
>>
>>38226353
the 457's on the Furious had similar shell weight to the Yamato's (both were ~320-3300lbs) but the latter fired at nearly 800m/s with a standard charge while the former was under 700m/s with a standard charge, and only hit 738m/s with a supercharge. Postwar powder developments allowed for a 757m/s muzzle velocity with a standard charge.
>>
>>38215145
The Iowa class would kill the shit out of any battleship of the time, it was fast, well armed and armored, it's radar system completely changed the way Battleships fought.

Every other battleship was just "lol make it bigger" but the U.S. made it BETTER. The Iowa is Sanic levels of fast, making hits nearly impossible to get on her.

Iowa may not be as THICC as other battleships, but she is fast and fit.
>>
>>38227223
That's because it's just a high-end battlecruiser, albeit on that's on par with BBs designed in the 30s: the problem with the battlecruiser was that it came too soon, not any inherent flaw
Once tech made armament better than armor, speed and throw weight/range became all that mattered
>>
File: kirov_cruiser_plans.jpg (207 KB, 1820x1200)
207 KB
207 KB JPG
>>38227492
Sinking what you want rather than tanking any return fire was the way of the future-the French saw it coming with the Richelieus and Dunkerques, and the Russians made it happen over the course of the Cold War...
>>
>>38215145
>3000 pounds of rape 9 times over
>delivered 20 miles away
>COULD FIRE NUKES
>>
File: OSA 2.gif (5 KB, 1000x330)
5 KB
5 KB GIF
>>38227640
Ship to Ship missiles are hot.
>>
>>38221242
I remember setting up attacks on navy groups in IL-2 as a kid. I remember Japanese destroyers being pretty easy to get away from unscathed, though hard to hit. The King George V battleships/Brit aircraft carriers absolutely wrecked my shit no matter how I tried to attack them though, and the Lexington/Essex/Yorktown carriers were pretty rough as well.
>>
>>38226426

Shell weight isn't everything when it comes to destructive power. Hardening techniques for the shell body and armor piercing cap design progressed insanely fast during the inter-war years.

Although the British 18" may seem directly comparable on paper to the Jap 18.1", in practice its always going to perform worse than the gun firing a shell that's over two decades younger at a higher velocity.

Now, that's not to say that you can't just make a new shell for the Bong gun either, but at the same time an old gun is an old gun. Newer rifles have better liners, and can way as little as half of one made twenty years before it (moving away from wire-wound barrels saved a shitload of weight).
>>
>>38215592
>True American
>Rights "given" by the Constitution
Are you fucking joking
Whoever made this doesn't know shit about being a "true American"
Yes I am triggered
>>
>>38227492
Not a battlecruiser, nor was it designed as one
>>38227714
True.
>>
>>38227492
What's with that 17" plate in Iowa? Does it extend long and wasn't it enormous weight increase? Was it considered good and why it was not repeated in Montana?
>>
>>38228021
I think that's just the barbette wall...
>>
File: bulges.jpg (54 KB, 591x895)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>38228035
How confusing, but I should have guessed. Why not to take the cut from same section of each ship?
>>
>>38228078
*notices your bulges*
OwO what’re these?
>>
>>38228107
love handles
>>
>>38228107
BIG
U
L
G
E
S
>>
>>38215145
Iowa too much for you to handle?
>>
File: eM5zgWY.png (75 KB, 587x292)
75 KB
75 KB PNG
Did the Pugliese system ever work?
>>
>>38228370
Sort of. It worked well against contact detonations but close misses would overstress the hull connections.
>>
>>38228423
What about modern cavitation torpedos?
Most battleships would already have a bad time, but the Italians use the double bottom to move water as ballast-breaking it would flood all the balancing chambers...
>>
>>38228167
OwO
>>
>>38228471
Against modern torpedoes? I'd most likely guess "no". The Russians claimed that the Project 23 could withstand 3 WWII era torpedo hits (not sure on how large the warheads were) on either side or 2 underwater explosions.
>>
File: 014851.jpg (975 KB, 2000x1566)
975 KB
975 KB JPG
>>38228078
Dat West Virginia. Taking my favorite class of ships and making them even better.
>>
>>38221487
excellent sectional density, ballistic coefficient, higher velocity, and in a practical sense, having excellent fire control.

As long as we're on the subject of Battleships, Ive always been a fan of HMS Vanguard. It was a drier, better stabilized competitor to the Iowa, albeit slightly slower and with lighter guns.
>>
File: 016142g.jpg (845 KB, 1500x1037)
845 KB
845 KB JPG
Gorgeous
>>
File: images (17).jpg (16 KB, 410x551)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>38228078
>>38228107
>>38228167
>>
>>38228471
Its possible itd work at absorbing the keel fucking shock, but considering the ship then falls into a void in the water, idk senpai. Probably toast.
>>
>>38229578
>HMS Vanguard
Never liked the kink in her bow-pic related might've been neat, given that direct fire forward is useless
Also, felt that the RN should have committed to sanic speed to make up for the lackluster guns:a 40-knot BB keeping pace with Enterprise in a drag race would have been a sight to see...
>>
>>38229806
Enterprise never could hit 40 knots. It just seems faster than other ships because a) it's nuclear powered, and b) it accelerates quickly without the need to build up steam pressure in the boilers.
>>
File: HMSNelsonoriginal.jpg (162 KB, 1218x864)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
There is a real appeal to the Nelson and Rodney. They just look really imposing.
>>
>>38229962

They were the strongest battleships in the world until 1941.
>>
File: QUIyh80.jpg (49 KB, 800x442)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
Not often you see two of them in one photo
>>
File: All_Four_Iowas.jpg (2.53 MB, 2781x2084)
2.53 MB
2.53 MB JPG
How about a class photo?
>>
>>38230438
Even better
>>
Sisters in the same photo is always cool. Though slightly sad if some/both/all didn't make it through to the natural end of their lives.
>>
File: 04020207.jpg (1.12 MB, 2214x2824)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB JPG
Mini Iowa (sort of)
>>
>>
>>38230781
>Alaska-class
It's a pity they didn't repurpose the 14" shells from the standards...
>>
>>38230892
Why though? That's more weight that needs to be added and the 12" superheavy AP already penetrated nearly as much as the 14" AP.
>>
>>38230945
Because developing a new shell and gun used up R&D time/money and having a 4x2 arrangement is better for weight distribution
On the other hand, they could've gone French and had 2 3-gun 14" turrets up front and aviation facilities on the stern...
>>
>>38231359

Literally doesn't matter, now fuck off.
>>
>>38231359
Okay, then were are they going to get the mounts and gun barrels?
>>
>>38231400
Wow, rude
the 8" guns from the Des Moines were amazing, and the autoloading triple turrets are the icing on the cake

>>38231464
From the surplus for the standards-a bunch were in shore forts
>>
File: IMG_3536.jpg (516 KB, 1536x2048)
516 KB
516 KB JPG
>>38229698
>>38230386
>>38230781
not sure is this has ever been uploaded or not, one of my grandpas old war photos
>>
>>38231509
Yea nah. The only reason to use older mounts is if you need the ship immediately and can't afford to develop newer ones. See HMS Vanguard.
In addition, forcing 14" guns on it means that its armor is now insufficient, which means a tonnage increase, which means you now need more shp, which means the ship needs to be larger, which means you now need a sufficient underwater protection scheme since you've now got what is essentially a battleship, not a large cruiser. Brilliant fucking idea, anon.
>>
>>38231574
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8%22/55_caliber_Mark_71_gun
The 8" was so good that the navy was considering it as late as the 70s
The 12" was just pointless

The Alaskas had substantial tonnage: may as well make it a good use by using up old supplies that would quadruple post-war as the standards were decommissioned
Armor was on the way out as the day of the missile came into its own-no need to stick to the "offense=defense" rule
>>
>>38231601
That 8" was tested because the then-current 5" was considered insufficient for shore bombardment.

Okay, you think it should have gotten 4 14" duals? You would need to redesign the entire hull to fit them. While ~300 tons may have been saved if the old duals from the New Yorks were used, you'd still need to add a lot of weight with a longer hull and a fourth barbette. Using the triples from the New Mexicos or Tenessees, you're now at just under 3600 tons just in the mounts. In addition, more weight would need to be dedicated to armor protection, which would be even heavier due to the extra length of the hull. So now you've got a "cruiser" that displaces at least 40,000 tons, using guns that are no better than the 12 inchers it actually had, and is now even more difficult to maneuver because it's only got a single rudder and is another 20m longer.
>>
>>38231752
>Redesign
The damn thing went through every possible configuration before it was finalized
I'm saying that's what they should have gone with from the start as a way of recycling resources
Maybe a 3-2-2-3 arrangement like the Nevada-class for weight, and the TDS was supposed to be crap anyhow; do any post-war ships even have anything besides compartmentalization and fuel tanks along the waterline?
>>
>>38231565
Must have been neat to see. Can you believe that even after off loading all her AA guns, main gun ammunition, and fuel, and having come under American air attack in the harbor, the Japanese were preparing to send Nagato out to fight in the early days of August 1945? The order was never issued and she was secured by American sailors.
>>
>>38215456
Good post.
>>
>>
>>
File: Capture.png (340 KB, 858x763)
340 KB
340 KB PNG
>>38231851
And not one of them had 14" guns. The vast majority of designs were looking at 12" guns, with the possibility of rearming the current 8" cruisers with 10" guns. The configuration differences between the various designs were mainly where to put the aviation facilities, number of turrets, and protection against both its own shells and 8" cruiser fire.
>>
>>38231863
I am a connoisseur of boat autism.
>>
>>38231972
Don't worry, there's more where that came from.
>>
File: nathan.png (105 KB, 1585x437)
105 KB
105 KB PNG
Get fucked Bongbois.
>>
>not using 16" VT fused shells as AA weapons
>>
>>38215145
>>
File: 016268.jpg (483 KB, 3250x2676)
483 KB
483 KB JPG
>being this aesthetic
>>
>>38227492
It's not a battlecruiser.
>>
File: 021123b.jpg (213 KB, 1024x835)
213 KB
213 KB JPG
>>
>>38227492
I see you left out the North Carolina profile, faggot.
Enough with the “Iowa = battlecruiser” faggotry.
>>
>>38215145
>>38228190
Git fuck'd, OP.
>>
>>38231851
USA didn’t need to recycle resources.
>>
>>38235674
^ this
In addition, the 12" guns performed just as well as the older 14"/50cals in terms of belt penetration and performed better with deck penetration.
>>
>>
There were numerous reasons for choosing to use nine 12" rifles instead of six 14" rifles. The first being that the 14" was an old weapon that had a slower breach mechanism and was much heavier than (for the time) modern rifles. This meant that the turret would need stronger bracing, trunions, blast stiffening, elevation mechanisms, etc.

Second was that the newer weapon was meant to counter heavy cruisers and other potential super-cruisers. In that kind of fight, rate of fire outweighs individual shell weight. The new 12" mounts fired at nearly twice the speed of the old 14", and could still easily deal with anything near or at its weight class. Not only that, but it roughly matched the usual 3-4 RPMPG managed by 8" guns of the period, so you're literally throwing a 1,140 lb shell as often as most heavy cruisers are struggling to fire one that weighs ~300 lbs.
>>
>>38215145
Whatever drugs you were on should have worn off by now.
>>
>>38235463
>I see you left out the North Carolina profile, faggot.
Bottom left, nigger.
>>38235261
The Iowa was built around speed to the point that calling it a fast battleship seems insufficient
>>
>>38236379
And yet it's not a battlecruiser. It was designed to be a battleship and designated as a battleship
>>
>>38236379

Its both armed and armored like a battleship, it just happens to be fast as fuck. Hence the terminology "fast battleship". There were three other classes in the 30+ knot club as well: Bismarcks, Richelieus, and Littorios. None of them are battlecruisers either.

Its not the 1910s anymore, you're allowed to do both.
>>
File: pocket BB.jpg (694 KB, 1920x1080)
694 KB
694 KB JPG
Wir sind die Herren der Welt
Die Könige auf dem Meer.
>>
File: 1509148835204.jpg (17 KB, 420x420)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>38215592
It should read "All rights and responsibilities endowed by the creator". Separation of church and state is nice but the lack of faith in modern days has really fucked some peoples understanding of where the rights listed in the Constitution come from.

>>38215145
OP, the Iowa was the best damn BB to ever grace the waves, it is a tragedy that naval air power and guided missiles have made it so her guns will likely never sing again.
>>
File: 1519966510321.jpg (147 KB, 1476x1028)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
>>38236802
Tirallala, Tirallala, Tirallala, Tirallala
HOI HOI!
>>
>>38236802
>can't even win against two obsolete light cruisers and a "heavy" cruiser with no armor belt.

Sad.
>>
>>38237112
They damaged the British cruisers pretty heavily. Though even if Langsdorff did fight through to the open sea, he had no where to take the Graf Spee. He would just be pursued and eventually intercepted.
As typical of WW2, the surface actions of the Kriegsmarine are good but not good enough to escape and recover from battle. Only surface engagements I know they undeniably won were the sinking of HMS Glorious (Where the British badly blundered into that situation) and the Battle of the Denmark Strait (Where Bismarck took enough damage for Lütjens to decide to retreat and head for Brest.)
>>
>>38236564
In the age of the Carrier you had to do both to be even semi relevant
>>
>>38228190
I was legitimately surprised to have to go like 50 posts to find KanColle Iowa. I was expecting a first post like this.
Not sure if I'm proud or ashamed of /k/.
>>
>>38237936
The actual naval autists arrived before the anime autists this time.
>>
HMS Lion > Iowa

*Sips tea*
>>
>>38238321
>comparing hypothetical statistics of unfinished ships
Lion vs Montana is more fair
>>
File: lion Iowa.png (388 KB, 1026x761)
388 KB
388 KB PNG
>>38238321
>still has flat 380 mm turret faces vs Iowas 482 sloped at 45 degrees
>barbettes are still 100 mm thinner (~340 vs 439)
>belt is still a giant vertical slab of belt plate except for over about half of the frontal magazines, meaning a thicker belt is needed to be effective, which wastes weight
>same flawed 5.25" from the KGVs and Vanguard.
>same flawed SPS


Yeah, nah. The only real improvement is that she at least has a decent 16" gun instead of fucking re-used WW1 relics or some 14" with entirely uninspired performance.

This is the best case scenario for Lion, the difference in IZ is literally <1km to her advantage, but her turrets and barbettes are much more vulnerable.
>>
File: 1519523641824.jpg (187 KB, 1280x960)
187 KB
187 KB JPG
>>
File: 016037.jpg (1.36 MB, 8000x2909)
1.36 MB
1.36 MB JPG
Chieftain from Wargaming did a video summary of the USS Alabama's history. Hope they decide to do this for other ships.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eubgJj8Ortw
>>
>>38215145
Just remember at one point in time nuclear shells were made for the Iowa's main guns. Every other battleship btfo.
>>
File: South Dakota.jpg (86 KB, 740x478)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>38240020

South Dakota is a fine ship
>>
File: 1456555363080.gif (1.08 MB, 1728x1474)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB GIF
>>
>>38228167
>HMS Glatton
more like HMS Glutton
>>
>>38238090
Come now, there's plenty of overlap between them.
>>
File: dcgv.jpg (29 KB, 356x218)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>38215167
seems legit
>>
>>38240928
Theoretically speaking, the fissionables in those shells should have degraded by now.

...I have mixed feelings about that.
>>
>>38240928
Make it a premium round on WOWS
>>
>>38242223
Still waiting for the 80's upgrade to MO
>>
>>38240928
Sabot rounds from the atomic annie artillery, if memory serves.
>>
>>38240628
I like Chieftain but Jingles is better at talking about ships.
>>
>>38244856

Jingles just waffles on about some random shit that has no bearing on the initial topic.
>>
File: 016261i.jpg (842 KB, 3115x3931)
842 KB
842 KB JPG
>>38244856
Well one's a tanker and historian, and the other's a guy who did 20 years in the Royal Navy and who has a girlfriend half his age.
Chieftain is really good since he gets to go through archives and has his own knowledge on it. His dry sense of humor always wins me over too.
Jingles gives some good book recommendations and is just relaxing to watch.

>>38244914
Well that's what Jingles does. And he does it well.
>Take a drink every time the old man starts a thought, gets distracted, tries to return to it, and then gets distracted again.
>Take a drink every time he misidentifies a ship in a gameplay video (double it if he correctly identifies it the next time it is spotted)
>>
>>38244963
I still love those giant helmets used by the gun captains so that they could fit a headset and talker underneath.
>>
>>38244990
I remember seeing one for the first time at a militaria show and going "What the hell is that thing?" Then I saw aWW2 headset on the same table and put together what it was.
>>
>>38215456
angled armor with a decaping sheet was inferior to straight up belt that's why it was abandoned in every design after in every nation apllicable. Additionally it's not much of a feat the Britisn already had the Nelsons in the 1920's with 14.1in at 15 degrees.

not to mention the inferiority of American class A plate was such that they had already abandoned making it out of embarrassment

>no gun or shell produced by England or France actually matched or came close to matching the 16"/50 firing the Mark 8 shell
an abjectly false statement with the combat use of the 18in bl mark I on multiple occasions with it's 1500kg shell. The four produced 16in mark II destined for the Lioon were also roughly equivalent in close range penetration and would have had little difficulty penetrating Iowas battle cruiser thick armor at average Atlantic ranges

Need I remind you that even hms hood had a belt of 12.3 inches at 12 degree's and a 5 inch deck.

Iowa was little more than a battle cruiser, and her lack of any actual front line combat usage proves that American commanders were aware as such.
>>
>>38215661
meanwhile in reality the mark VII 14in gun was the most successful battleship gun of ww2 sinking more battleships than any other model of gun during the war.

Look at the pathetic American always so concerned with size.
>>
>>38238463
>vs monatana
>ship laid pre war in 1938 vs ship laid after after britain had already sunk the entire German navy
heh good joke
>>
>>38238682
>thinking sloping matters in naval combat
>posts chart that blows himself the fuck out
You angling world of tanks retards are the worst
>>
>>38245501
>>38245522
>>38245573
>>38245595
Does anyone else smell tea and scones?
>>
File: knowyourmeme08.jpg (116 KB, 1280x720)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
>>38245762
looks like I win, pathetic
>>
>>38245501
>angled armor with a decaping sheet was inferior to straight up belt
Well, sort of. In terms of weight an external belt was slightly better than an internal one. In addition, the Iowa didn't have a decapping plate.
>not to mention the inferiority of American class A plate was such that they had already abandoned making it out of embarrassment
Heavy Class A plate stopped being used and Class B was used in its place, but Class A was still used for plates 7" thick and under (in which case it was the best face-hardened armor in the world).
>an abjectly false statement with the combat use of the 18in bl mark I on multiple occasions with it's 1500kg shell. The four produced 16in mark II destined for the Lioon were also roughly equivalent in close range penetration and would have had little difficulty penetrating Iowas battle cruiser thick armor at average Atlantic ranges
The 18" BL Mk. 1 penetrated ~460mm at 15k yards, the Mk 7 penetrated over 120mm more at the same range. The Lion's 16" guns were outperformed by the 16" Mk. 7 with the Mk. 8 shell across all ranges. There's alsoa good chance that the Iowa would have an immunity zone against the Lion, especially from 20,000 yards and up since that's how the Iowa was designed to fight. Just a reminder that even at close in range the Bismarck never had its citadel penetrated despite having belt armor that was over an inch thinner (LoS) than the Iowa's angled belt.
>Need I remind you that even hms hood had a belt of 12.3 inches at 12 degree's and a 5 inch deck.
Okay, and? That doesn't make the Iowa a battlecruiser, that makes the Hood a fast battleship in all but name.
>Iowa was little more than a battle cruiser, and her lack of any actual front line combat usage proves that American commanders were aware as such.
Wrong. The only combat between battleships that happened between the Iowa's commissioning and the end of the war was at Surigao Strait. It's not because the Iowas were inferior combat ships.
>>
>>38245501
>>38245987
The reason why the Iowas never saw frontline combat was because the age of the battleship was dead aside from acting as AAA platforms, shore bombardment, or C&C platforms.
>>
File: bismarkded.jpg (148 KB, 1369x838)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
>>38245997
>The 18" BL Mk. 1 penetrated ~460mm at 15k yards
legitimate source please the math of 1506kg shell at 736m/s isn't working out even close to that
>Bismarck never had its citadel penetrated
except it did and beyond that the far thicker conning tower was holed
>(in which case it was the best face-hardened armor in the world).
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php
Scientifically wrong. Lies like this are embarrassing
>the age of the battleship was dead aside from acting as AAA platforms, shore bombardment, or C&C platforms.
Myth propagated by American centric historians and abjectly false. Battleship warfare dominated the atlantic thought the war


*sigh* gg ez
>>
>>38245501

Except Nelson's armor profile was compromised by the shallowness of its belt, which was necessitated by its style of side protection system.

The USN never abandoned heavy Class A plating on ANY of its designs, nor were there issues in making it at great thicknesses (barbettes on South Dakota and Iowa were 17.3" of class A). When it came to vertical protection surfaces, only the turret face and lower belt extension was Class B, the former being superior at extreme obliquity, the latter being more suited for its job as a layer of the SPS.

The 18" shell used by the Monitors was an ancient shell with inferior ballistic qualities, outperformed by modern 16" and 18" weapons. If you really want to try pulling experimental and never used weaponry, then the American 18"/48 and Japanese 20" are both probably tied, although no information on the 20" survived.

Also lmao, Hoods 12" belt was 1/3 the height of Iowa's, with the rest of its coverage being 7-5". Nowhere on Hoods deck was 5" thick either, but nice try.
>>
>>38245595

Matching 15" of vertical armor for the weight of 12" doesn't seem to really blow anyone out except for you, Bongcuck.
>>
>>38246100
>Myth propagated by American centric historians and abjectly false. Battleship warfare dominated the atlantic thought the war
Come down to the Pacific and try that, oh wait

[Laughs in Force Z]
>>
>>38246100
>legitimate source please the math of 1506kg shell at 736m/s isn't working out even close to that
British Super Heavy Guns pt. III, from the NavWeaps page.
>except it did and beyond that the far thicker conning tower was holed
The upper belt was holed, but the main armor belt and citadel were not. The conning tower maybe was penetrated.
>http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php
Scientifically wrong. Lies like this are embarrassing
It's called scroll down to here, faggot:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Average_WWII-Era_Class_%22A%22_Armor
"The thick face added to the scaling effect, though not nearly as much as the face of MNC had, making thick U.S. World War II Class "A" armor somewhat inferior to German KC n/A or British CA, but also working in reverse so that U.S. World War II Class "A" armor 7" (17.78cm) or less in thickness was the best face-hardened armor used by anyone ever."
>Myth propagated by American centric historians and abjectly false. Battleship warfare dominated the atlantic thought the war
A grand total of 5 battles (Denmark Strait, North Cape, Second Narvik, Casablanca, and the Channel Dash), and two of them didn't even have enemy battleships in the area. Wow, what domination of battleships.
>>
>>38246100

You can't just use mass and velocity, cap and body design matter just as much, and the British 18" shell was an old design by WW2.
>>
>having a nice and civil warships thread
>crooked tooth shitposter arrives

Abandon ship.
>>
>>38246100
>Battleship warfare dominated the atlantic thought the war
wtf?
>>
>>38247248

He also conveniently ignores that the RN was begging the USN to send over its newest battleships to act as a watchdog for Tirpitz at Scapa, and that a comparison of the relative capabilities of the new American and British ships nearly caused a scandal in England over how poorly the KGVs stood up against the North Carolina's and South Dakota's.




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.