>To shreds, you say?

>>63918238 (OP)
Gurorape.

>>63918238 (OP)
>all that bridge-rape

>>63918238 (OP)
>And her sister? To shreds you say.

how do you respond without sounding mad?

That looks like a bad day

>>63918238 (OP)
what happened to the dudes in the (J,K,L,M,N) zone?

were they ok?

>>63918339
I wouldn't say anything. I would commit seppuku, and that's what everyone did.

>>63918345
Returned to Nippon under their own power.

Reminder that to sink the yamato it took 300planes from multiple carriers, a dozen torpedoes, multiple 2000lbs bombs and it still refused to sink.
Nothing americans ever produced would be able to withstand such damage

>Washington log @ 0107:
>Cease firing. Main battery target burning and heading away. Enemy BB ceased firing. Main battery continued to track the burning ship for ten minutes. During this time, she made a turn of at least 500 degrees.
Washington smugly watching Kirishima shudder and limp aimlessly in the aftermath of her brutal rape is certainly a mental image

>>63918238 (OP)
>all those waterline hits
Big oof.

>>63918366
>what is the star spangled banner
Our fucking flag is tougher than grorious nipponaru steer

>>63918366
>*laughs in triple-redundency of USS Johnston*

>>63918366
Is the Yamato here in the thread with us now

>>63918238 (OP)
>8-inch belt
>fast battleship
And Hood was called a battlecruiser with 12-inch belt.

>>63918369
Lesbian relationships really do be abusive.

>>63918238 (OP)
>Still lasted longer than Bismarck did against Rodney

>>63918345
With their final breaths they cursed Japanese naval architects for producing the world's largest 5in catcher's mitt.

>>63918238 (OP)
>Admiral Ching Lee uses Marksmanship
>It's Super Effective!

Imagine if it was Yamato who got jumped and the utterly insane degree of smugness that American shitposters would be able to harness if Washington won that engagement

>>63918369
https://files.catbox.moe/u5vjdo.jpg

>>63918347
This stile of anime is okay
>>63918369
This one is not

>>63918383
I have heard a vague line that two of the reconstructed Kongos shouldn't be called Fast Battleships due to how the internal sub-divisions were/n't modified in terms of protection. Not sure if Kirishima was one of them

>>63918366
Still lost lmao

>>63918366
The is cope.

>>63918405
Personally, I'm of the opinion that getting down into the seaweed with very specific characteristics of subsystems to determine classification is retarded. I generally subscribe to the platypus model: it's okay if you break from certain elements of a classification, so long as you meet most of them for practical purposes

>>63918395
On one hand the range was close enough for Washington to pierce Yamato's belt, so a victory is possible. On the other hand, South Dakota would be in rough shape after taking those 46cm shells.

>>63918447
South is a big tough girl, she can take it

>>63918238 (OP)
DO IT AGAIN CHING

>>63918390
Wasn't that the Bong's fault? It is a British design ships after all, and everyone knows that British battlecruisers are built to explode...

>>63918542
Gigachad.

>>63918585
Don’t forget he also won a shitload of Olympic gold medals

>>63918591
>>63918585
WITNESS HIM

>>63918564
The brits didn't put the pagoda mast on it.

>>63918591
>>63918632
And used to shoot ship rats for fun with guns he built himself. The most /k/ of admirals.

>>63918648
The only American Admiral with more Nippon Spirit than Fukyu Niggah.

>>63918383
Naval classifications across time and space rarely acknowledge the passage of time and the progress of technology.

Reminder that she returned to port under her own power.

>>63918383
All four Kongou were pretty much battlecruisers, similar to HMS Tiger BC. The Kongou herself was even built in Britain.

>>63918366
Sounds like they shouldn't have let the other team get so many shots on goal.

>>63918784
Technically she did succumb to the battle damage and sank, it was just she happened to be in her port and could be recovered. Still, love her. Very sleek looking design, proven quality, and a neat fish badge (Which also shows you just how much water she took on for Jutland.)
Though someone will always say that Seydlitz got lucky at Dogger Bank. Suffering a heavy hit that lit off powder charges, which knocked out the rear turrets. Very nearly suffered the fate that some British BCs did.

>Ja, ist gut. Compartment needed more airflow anyway and the skylight creates a pleasant atmosphere.

>>63918829
>this much freeboard when the red line is supposed to be the waterline
vatniks really hate IJN ships dont' they, some of soviet paper battleships have less freeboard than the monitors so you can't hit them easily.

>>63918875
That's just the paint job.

>>63918916
Just look at the small freeboard of this papership.

>>63918916
Compared to a real ship.

>>63918916
One of the reason I quit this bullshit of a game was due to the pro-russian bias.
Another soviet paper ship with no freeboard because it's harder to hit in game.
IRL they'd fucking sink when a storm hits.

>>63918238 (OP)
>light guns hitting support structures, comms, and bridge
>heavy guns going for water line, guns, and citadel

That’s some outstanding naval gunnery right there Itellyouwhat!

>>63918977
The biggest bullshit as of late are the South American battleships. Armor that just bounces and eats shells unless you manage to hit them on the prow/stern. While having secondaries that outrange many destroyers.
Those and the "experimental" ships that operate without logic (Haha instant reload burst fire and more damage) are quickly turning every game into misery.

>>63919001
I haven't followed the game for a while, last time I checked it was the subs, before that, cancer carriers. I still remember when the RTS style carriers with finite planes actually needed some skills to play.
They made the conscious decision to make the game worse and people are okay with it.

>>63918238 (OP)
>number 20
Damn.

>>63918238 (OP)
Suprisingly only 200 men out of her 1300 strong complement went down with the ship.

I prefer her sister

>>63918395
That would've ended really badly for Washinton, given the Yamatos did in fact have radar-only blindfire capability.

>>63919109
>Yamato
>radar directed blindfire
I certainly don't doubt Yamato's fighting capabilities since their optical fire control was top notch but I don't believe she was capable of radar blindfire or Battle off Samar would've ended differently.

>>63919109
>the Yamatos did in fact have radar-only blindfire capability.
From what I can tell, not at that point in time

>
The Japanese Type 22 radar, also known as Mark 2 Model 2, saw wide operational use in the war, being installed on surface ships and submarines. Though nominally a surface search radar, it was also used for air search and for fire control.
>The first set was tested in October 1941 and a pre-production version called the Model 103 was experimentally shipped on Hyuga just before the battle of Midway. Mass production was authorized by the end of 1942 but no materials were allocated.
>Production: 300 sets. Fitted to modern destroyers in summer 1942, to Kongo-class battleships 1942-10, to light cruisers 1943-6, to the Yamatos 1943-10, and to other destroyers 1944-9.

>>63918366
Who won btw?

>>63918339
just show them modern america demographics lol

>>63918238 (OP)
>absolutely slaughtered by a Chinaboo

>>63918591
And they were going to refuse him for Bad Eyesight

>>63918632
You missed his most impressive feat.

He Forced BuOrd to Do Something Useful.

>>63919062
I see it... I can actually see it...

>>63919286
(Shhh, nobody tell him about Japanese demographics in response...)

>>63919344
Worthy of Canonization.

>5-inch
oooh im so scared. just fucking brace your core before impact.

>West Virginia: returned to service
>California: returned to service
>Nevada: returned to service
>Pennsylvania: remained in service
>Tennessee: returned to service
>Maryland: returned to service
>Helena: returned to service
>Raleigh: returned to service
>Honolulu: remained in service
>Cassin: returned to service
>Downes: returned to service
>Helm: returned to service
>Shaw: returned to service
>Oglala: returned to service
>Vestal: returned to service
>Curtiss: returned to service
>Sotoyomo: returned to service
>YFD-2: returned to service

what was the point lmao

>>63919547
Ironically enough, they might've permenantly sunk more if they declared war and went to the open seas. We did pretty piss-poor in those first naval engagements.

>>63918366
USS Yorktown only sank because a DD's entire depth charge magazine went off underneath her keel.

It's incredibly annoying how little battleships did in WWII

>>63919621
Alan Zimm did an interesting analysis of that idea
>Compare this situation with that of the attack on the Prince of Wales and Repulse. There, 51 torpedo bombers took off on the mission and 49 torpedoes were launched achieving 6 to 8 hits, or a hit percentage of 12 to 16%.
>In that engagement, the two battleships were escorted by destroyers with no area air defense capability. Most of the AA capability was vested in the Prince of Wales. A single devastating torpedo hit, the first to hit the ship, disabled most of the Prince of Wales’ AA capability. There was a loss of electrical power aft, and the ship took on an immediate 11 degree list, enough so that the 5.25-in AA guns on the high side could not depress sufficiently to engage torpedo bombers. Not one of the eight 5.25-inch gun turrets could be trained due to a loss of electrical power.
>The six mounts of 8-barrel 2-pounder pom-poms had problems with their ammunition, causing the guns to jam. Stoppages were frequent; one of Prince of Wales’ pom-poms suffered 12 failures, another eight. With power lost all the pom-poms aft were frozen.
>With Prince of Wales’ AA weapons largely out of action, Repulse had little to contribute to the defense. She was a WWI vintage ship with only eight hand-operated 4-inch AA and two pom-pom mounts.
>And yet, against this anemic AA opposition, the Japanese achieved only 12–16% hits.

And compared to Pearl Harbor:
>A torpedo hit percentage of 15% underway (the historical average during the war in the Pacific) against the fleet off Pearl Harbor would have given six hits out of the 40 torpedo-armed B5N Kate carrier attack bombers. Battleships at sea could be expected to sustain at least four aerial torpedo hits without sinking. To sink four battleships at sea would have required a minimum of sixteen hits, or 40% of the available torpedoes, very close to the 48% hits the Japanese achieved against stationary targets in a surprise attack.

>>63918366
>Laughs in Saratoga
>A fucking nuke was need to take down CV-3 and even that one didn't work, so it was nuked again.

>>63919662
I'm more thinking:
>sinking them in a shallow harbor with various recovery vessels and such
VS.
>sinking them where there is no recovery

>>63919296
>Chinaboo
He wasn't. He was called "Ching" because his last name was Lee. That's it.

AAAAAAAAAAA

>>63919684
He allegedly did have an affinity for the Far East.

>>63919527
I'm pretty sure each and every one of these 5-inchers can kill a contemporary tank, even today's tank would not enjoy taking one.
>>63919685
Still not enough AA.

The Japanese fleet conducted reconnaissance and reporting for the possible presence of the US fleet at the Lahaina anchorage.
If an attack had occurred here, almost in the open sea, the damage would have been greater.

>>63919062
God I remember the event for these ships in WoWS years ago.

>>63919527
>oooh im so scared. just fucking brace your core before imp-ACK!
t.

>>63919547
'cause it took months or Years to fix some of these ships. The California (BB-44) was under repairs and refit until January 1944. For a long time it was basically just the US carrier fleet all on it's own. In fact the USS Enterprise and USS Vestal were the only active assets in the western Pacific.

Was it only buying time? Of course it was. Yamamoto knew that Japan couldn't win a war of attrition with the US even with Germany's help. The idea was to sucker punch the USA, seize some territory, and then force a peace settlement.

Of course, Americans being Americans, we took Pearl Harbor as a personal insult. Next thing you know, Admiral Yamamoto is assassinated with .50 cals and the Emperor is telling Japan to calm the fuck down.

>>63919527
Isn't that basically a 127mm gun?

>>63919682
Oh I get that, it's just that the sinking part was actually questionable in an open water battle

>>63919680
She was still afloat even after the second one, but the accidental discovery that shallow-water bursts are just about *the* worst way to set off a nuke in terms of localized fallout resulted in a decision to *not* put damage control parties at risk in an effort to save her (which certainly would have been successful).

>>63918979
Probably a side effect of muzzle velocity. I'd have to check the engagement range, but on general principle the 5" would have been coming in at a steeper angle and thus more likely to strike the upperworks.

"stopping power"

>>63920284
>356mm

>>63918383
>Hood was a battlecruiser
is the litmus test (dare i say, the shibboleth) of the true naval historian

>>63918689
in this case it's just naval historians repeating ancient propaganda: the Japs declared the Kongos "battleships" and the Brits declared the Hood a "battlecruiser" so everyone followed suit without taking a look at the specs

>>63919527
>just fucking brace your core before impact
I bow to experience

>>63919702
a direct hit from a 127mm HE shell is going to ruin any vehicle's day, yes

>>63919219
>>63919265
Even after Yamato got Type 21 and 22 radars, she still didn't have true blindfire capability, because their fire directors couldn't directly control the turrets. That being said, Yamato's accuracy at Samar was just as good as anything the Iowas achieved, scoring some of the longest range hits in history. The problem was that most of them went in one side and out the other against the tin cans. Also, the Japanese light cruisers and destroyers did almost nothing in the battle, saying that they were going to chase down Taffy3, then hiding in the squalls, launching some torpedoes at nothing, and running away from imagined enemy torpedoes.

>>63920369
might it have been poor stabilisation of the Japanese turrets that contributed to the relative inaccuracy of their cruisers and destroyers' fire?

>>63918238 (OP)
>Local Japanese milf gets her citadel penetrated by half blind good ole boy.
I actually really like the Kongos.

>>63920316
"All-or-Nothing" really proved itself.

>>63920373
No, the heavy cruisers got plenty of accurate fire in, the light cruisers and destroyers didn't because they never even got close.

>>63918238 (OP)
>Shot 20
How?

>>63920470
Probably pic rel
>Japan even developed a shell optimized for under-water attacks

>>63920477
Japs... always with the wunderwaffen.
>Admiral-sama! There's too many of the Yankees, what are we going to do?!
>Unleash our final attack!
>*sweeps purple pompadour back dramatically, cape swirling*
>Gunner!
>Hai!
>Load Super Sentai Hadouken Typo Kyu-ju-ichi Hyper Underwater Shell desu!
>Dame... korewa...!
>Do it!
>Hai! Super Sentai Hadouken Typo Kyu-ju-ichi Hyper Underwater Shell... junbi!
>*points finger dramatically at US fleet*
>UTEI!

>>63920470
The shell landed just short of the main hull and kept taveling underwater well enough to hit the rudder, would be my guess.

>>63920490
It was mostly a specialized cap that was designed to flatten out the underwater trajectory (I think France had something similar), but the massive problem with them is that they required a retardedly long fuse setting (IIRC 0.7 seconds) which meant that if it struck an unarmed section of the ship it would often pass all the way through and blow up after leaving the target ship

>>63919653
big expensive assets that you're too afraid to lose will always lead to these sorts of things, outside of rare examples.

heavy cruisers were functionally forced into the battleship role most times in ww2.

>>63920504
>if it struck an unarmed section of the ship it would often pass all the way through and blow up after leaving the target ship
yeah, so like many Jap weapons, it was really a sidegrade that came with disadvantages which might make it no better, on average, than conventional weapons

>>63920504
>IIRC 0.7 seconds
Found a couple references to 0.4s, so consider this amended

>>63920514
until the second half of the war, carriers were rare enough that battleship surface action groups were still capital ships of the fleet

cruisers heavy and light were the true do-it-alls of the fleet: carrier escort? a CA's job. surface attack, or any antiship work? a CA's job. trade raids and escort? cruisers. anti-air? CL. shore bombardment? cruisers. coordinating destroyer squadrons? CL.

battleships were only used to lead major assaults which would certainly meet heavy enemy opposition.

>>63920540
that's why they loved fleet carriers. they were still big expensive assets, but they could bombard the enemy from much further away without risking the ship. they were committed to fleet actions to a much higher degree in the pacific for this reason.

>>63918383
IIRC Kongous classification went: battlecruiser -> bulged and lost speed -> battleship (cope) -> re-engined and gained speed -> fast battleship (even more cope)

>>63920580
oh, everyone knew carriers were the next big thing, that's why the naval treaties attempted to keep them in check

my only point is GOD I LOVE CRUISERS

>>63918366
>I can get into a fight against five guys, get punched in the face 55 times, and then lose
Not exactly anything to brag about buddy.
Also, reminder that only the Japs were incompetent enough to face such numbers. And maybe the N*zis.

>>63918238 (OP)
>>63918338
To shreds, allright.

>>63918383
kongo was a battlecruiser, yes
hood was a fast battleship

>>63918875
>vatniks really hate IJN ships dont' they
I wonder why...

>The front fell off...

>>63918341
I think it was at night. One of the Guadalcanal Naval battles was just the two fleets blasting away at each other at point blank range in the dark.

>>63921560
>1 hole
>ded
And that's why guided missiles killed battleships

>>63918933
>>63918942
>>63918977
>>63919001
>>63919015
War Thunder has done the same shit lately, newest update added Iowa, Yamato, Bismark and fucking Sovetsky Soyuz.
Take a guess which is objectively the best battleship?

>>63918366
>it still refused to sink
It was beached you dribbling retard.

>>63921610
iirc Kirishima died in the naval equivalent of a banzai charge against overwhelming odds

>>63921619
it was a dd torpedo that hit the magazine, anon. a single torpedo can hull any single warship to have sailed.

>>63921151
does the oil sheen come from the wreck? After all these years?

>>63921610
Both first and second Guadalcanal were night battles. Both were absolute clusterfucks too.

>>63921718
Kirishima was there to bombard an airfield and maybe fight a couple of cruisers and destroyers, she wasn't expecting to run into 2 battleships.
>>63921728
Plenty of ships could take a single torpedo, provided they have enough displacement. The Yamatos were the most extreme example, taking a dozen each, but plenty of battleships and carriers took a torpedo or two without much trouble.
>>63921766
And Savo Island, and Cape Esperance, and Tassafaronga....

>>63921820
The problem is that one torpedo hit usually slowed down a capital ship enough that subsequent hits were easier

Ching did the thing.
South Dakota played whipping boy so Washington could shine.

>>63918369
>enemy BB
you mean enemy CC, a battlecruiser

>>63921820
There is a big difference between an aerial torpedo and a ship launched one.

Even with a single torpedo, the amount of explosives and the type of explosives used at the beginning and end of the war are vastly different.
Torpex, which is tuned for underwater explosion and bubble pulse, is said to be 1.6 times more powerful than TNT.

>>63918238 (OP)
>4 hits through the magazines
this chart is clearly bullshit because this BC didn't suffer from secondary explosions and sank to water accumulation. The real official accepted figure of main caliber hits is 6-9.

>>63918366
That was because of pic rel. After the reports from the subs came in, Spruance ordered TF 54 (a bunch of old standard battleships) to intercept and destroy the Yamato's flotilla. Even this late in the war, Spruance was keeping to his roots as a big gun navy advocate and was going to pull those battleships off their Shore bombardment duty.

Meanwhile, Admiral Mitscher, who commanded the Fast Carrier Task Force, was getting the same reports from the subs shadowing Yamato. He was an early aviator and had spent the entire war arguing with the battleship officers. He decided this was as good a point as any to shut them the fuck up forever. So without asking for permission, he immediately launched a massive strike on the Japanese. Mitscher only told Spruance about it after it was already on the way.

The whole point was to utterly gang rape the Yamato and emphatically prove that the battleship era was over. Could they have done it with drastically fewer planes? Yes. But that would have taken longer and the point of the massive strike was to make a point.

>>63921951
I only count 2 hits to the mags, hits #19 and #16

>>63921733
yep, it leaks 2-9 quarts a day, there's still half a million gallons in the ship. They can't remove it because its a designated war grave and memorial but also they could easily bust the tanks while doing it and release it all at once which would be a far larger disaster than it slowly leaking it away over a few hundred years

>>63921718
suicidal banzai charge you say?

>>63921887
That's true, but North Carolina took a Type 95 (sub launched, but just as powerful as a mk 14) and survived. There no way that a ship as big as Yamato couldn't have taken at least a couple of mk 14s.

>>63921619
It was a pretty big hole.

>>63922237
> There no way that a ship as big as Yamato couldn't have taken at least a couple of mk 14s.
Counterpoint: Taiho

>>63922237
Yamato would still be combat ineffective after a single torpedo hit. What's your fucking point?

>>63918366
It took that much to sink her in short time. This was not a drawn out protracted battle where survival and tactical goals were prioritized, this was the equivalent of a guy facing down a hit squad and trying to take out as many of them as he could. How many torpedos and bombs would have been enough to pull back and let her sink is anyone's guess but the only goal the US had was sinking the Yamato then and now.

>>63922468
>Yamato would still be combat ineffective after a single torpedo hit
Not necessarily, a hit to the thicker parts of the TDS could have minimal impact. Sure you're going back to port for repairs, but you can still fight. Pretty sure Bismarck reported one of her torpedo strikes doing basically fuck all

>>63922208
wasn't Karel Doorman caught before he had a chance to flee?
that was actually what happened to the British fleet at Ceylon. they were heading west but simply couldn't outrun aircraft

>build airfield
>it gets captured the day after completion
>drags you into a death spiral of attrition
>dooms your empire

>>63922160
I refuse to believe that with today's technology you can't drill a hole, insert a glorified hosepipe, and slowly recover all that oil
most likely they figure the environmental impact is not worth the cost of the above operation

>>63922557
NAYRT but whereas some capital ships survived one torpedo hit, I don't think any survived two, Bismarck and Musashi included

>>63922719
The problem is it's rusted to shit. Oh, and it was bombed and nothing about it is guaranteed stable.

>>63922761
if we can do neurosurgery we can surely do that

>>63922719
of course they could, but again war grave/monument so not allowed(over a thousand dead crew inside), and disturbing the hull by drilling into it could cause the thing to pop and leak everything at once, hull was heavily warped and weakened when it was bombed, blew up, and burned for days along with being submerged in seawater for three quarters of a century. The amount it leaks is a negligible drop in the bucket compared to the normal daily pollution that comes from being an active port so it's not worth the risk

>>63922460
That was an exceptional circumstance and you know it. She was in no danger of sinking from the torpedo hit, it was the awful damage control that did her in.
>>63922733
Yamato and Musashi were still combat operational after taking several (aerial) torpedoes. Slowed, yes, but 2 mk 14s wouldn't take them out of a fight, just make them an easier target for future hits.

>>63922779
We 'can', it's not worth the risk.

>>63922781
> That was an exceptional circumstance
And Yamato couldn’t be victim of an exceptional circumstance because…?

>>63921951
That chart is based off a survey of the wreck and observed hits during the battle for places that were too damaged. IIRC the magazines were flooded after the barbette hits, which eventually led to massive shell detonation after sinking likely due to extreme heat from raging internal fires

>>63923232
Because she only carried enough aviation fuel for a couple of seaplanes, not an entire carrier air group, genius.

>>63922733
Depends on what you're looking for, Yorktown and Hornet were hit by two torpedoes, crippling them, but there were still towing attempts. Lexington looked like it was going to limp away from two torpedo hits.

Yamato and Musashi took a large amount of damage over a relatively short period of time, I don't believe its easy to define what they could have survived, but they likely could've limped away from two torpedoes. Bismark wasn't going to get away after its two hits, but it wasn't sinking from them.

So I guess it really depends if you count surviving as returning to port or not immediately sinking due to damage from the torpedoes.

>>63923448
And aviation gas explosion is the only plausible exceptional circumstance?

>>63923616
>And aviation gas explosion is the only plausible exceptional circumstance
That's how Taihou went. As for Yamato, there's nothing potentially explosive anywhere a single torpedo could hit. Even Prince of Wales, with her poor torpedo defense system, wasn't sunk by a single torpedo, just crippled enough to be vulnerable for more.

>>63924172
>poor torpedo defense system
in practice no worse than any battleship, because it was overspecced in design
the real issue was that the torpedo hit crippled POW's shafts, as it did Bismarck

>>63923616
>I guess it really depends if you count surviving as returning to port or not immediately sinking due to damage from the torpedoes
>Depends on what you're looking for
I should explain; my POV is that in all engagements, two torpedo hits were sufficient to mission-kill any capital ship and render it sufficiently damaged / slowed down that its enemies could catch up to it or land the killing blow more easily. thus in practice, two torpedo hits was all it took to essentially doom the ship.

in the case of Bismarck and Musashi, each ship shrugged off one torpedo hit, which detonated causing minor flooding. these first hits caused them to lose only a few knots in speed, significant but not ordinarily deadly, and they could still make best speed to port.
the next torpedo hit however damaged their rudders / engines enough to inflict crippling damage to the ships.

in Bismarck's case, it was unsteerable and the British fleet caught up and sank it. in Musashi's case it was already under heavy air attack but even if no further hits had landed, its main engines had flooded, it was virtually dead already.
both ships could have been towed with some difficulty but I didn't figure that in.

>>63918238 (OP)
>BB vs cruiser

yeah

>>63921709
No it wasn't.
Dribbling retard needs to check the mirror.

>>63921718
Not even.
Kirishima was part of a balanced surface action group that opened fire first.
They focused on bruising South Dakota and missed Washington.
The 4 DDs that were the BB's ad hoc screen were all sunk.

>>63921151
The IJN ships were manned, at GQ, and ready.

>>63920316
These hit descriptions have been revised; see navweaps.com

>>63924404
right, turns out I was thinking of the IJN battleships at Surigao

I also didn't realise how much of a fight Hiei put up

>>63924449
Nobody actually saw Hiei sink....

>>63922733
The issue is that they typically took a lot more than just TWO torpedoes. So it's hard to judge for sure.

>>63924510
I did.

>>63924537
We do have reports of the extent of the damage taken from the first few torpedoes in many cases however. Following hits are of course harder to judge. But the point is that in most if not all cases, the 2nd successful hit (and detonation) would result in essentially a mission kill.

>>63924443
Either way, those 14-inch hits weren't sufficient at point black range. SoDak armor scheme was doing work.

>>63920351
Hood is technically a "next generation super dreadnought" of WWI. closer in design philosophy to the iowa battleship than a battlecruiser.

T. Amatuer naval historian

>>63921718
You are thinking of Fuso and Yamashiro

She's very pretty

>>63918369
I want that brat to molest me.

The steering gear room at the stern, where the width of the hull narrows and it is difficult to defend, is a major weak point.
Bismarck headed toward the British fleet, and Hiei became stuck in a circular motion.

>>63919432
The red would be her shoulder pads.

>>63924800
The only shells to hit South Dakota's belt were 8" shells. Every penetration estimate gives Kirishima's 14" guns enough energy to penetrate SoDak's belt at that range, given that they are broadside on and actually loaded with AP and not Type 3s.

>>63920316
Imagine being one of the guys in that forward Oerlikon crew when that 6" whizzes through.

>>63921560
>Still manages to sail 1564 nautical miles ass backwards while missing 25% of her.

>>63918366
We have a lot of planes. That’s why we won. We lost 11 of them half of those that were lost got squirted on when the fat bitch ahegaod.

>>63925313
They wouldn't be manning the Oerlikons in a battleship duel
But if you want a story about that... in one of the destroyers attacking the Scharnhorst, a shell blasted the gun director tower and killed all the crew except one, who was thrown out of the tower and onto the bridge below.

>>63919527
>2700 dead off the coast of Samar

>>63921011
Kill yourself, reddit scum.

>>63925694
hahahah jelly noodle-penis. Go watch anime.

>>63921733
Yup. All the way out the harbor.

>>63922460
>Armor your flight deck
>Succumb to filthy gaijin fish
Baka

>>63925710
To be fair, based on the first two years, Jap boats were more at risk from bombs than torps.

>>63925278
I'm not so sure.
The features I circled in red are after-market stereoscopic rangefinders, kitbashed by the japs onto the bridge superstructure for fire control.
They're a critical sensor system, and they really stick out like a sore thumb.
Science tells us that ahoge girls can transmit & receive signals from their hair curls. Almost like Vril.
Her side mounted hair poofs are quite flambuyoant, much like those telescopes. The entire bridge superstructure is naturally a shipgirl's head, wouldn't you agree? It's not her shoulders.

You could claim the antenna array would be her hair poofs. But the artist chose to out them out of frame, and to emphasize the obnoxious kitbashed rangefinders more center-frame. Near her hair poofs.

>>63925907
From SBD launched bombs, specifically.

Only like 2 or 3 recorded incidents of horizontal B-17/24/25/26 hits on shipping in the entire war, by contrast.

>>63921820
>Plenty of ships could take a single torpedo, provided they have enough displacement.
a full-sized torpedo hitting your magazine is gonna have a high chance of a 1 hit on any warship out there.

>>63925402
hot

>>63926004
Which is why, generally speaking, magazines had a considerable amount of protection to prevent that. Even Norcal who had to skimp a bit due to treaty limits survived a torpedo hit abreast her mag since the TDS absorbed enough of the blast

>>63925930
Yeah, but those few instances of a B17 hitting a ship are cool af.

>>63925907
許してくれ, famalamadingdong.
私はこの言葉を知らなかった;"irony."

>>63925922
>Science tells us that ahoge girls can transmit & receive signals from their hair curls.
Never change, /k/.

>>63925284
Wrong.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis.php

>>63926089
Cruisers did not have the room for torpedo defense.

>>63925227
Transom stern.

>>63926142
I know you don't expect me to read all that.

>>63920477
Whats funny is that we similar things with APFSDS ammo, where the nose design will greatly impact how it travels through a reference block, not to mention a live armor array
t. did testing on a bunch of 30mm apfsds against LVL 6 targets a few years nack

>>63925284
There's one smack dab on the rear turret barbette, penetration there would be disastrous.

>>63926255
only if you serve in Beatty's squadron and leave magazine doors open so as to shoot faster

>>63918375
Is that good or bad?

>>63926142
That is what I was referencing. If you actually read it, you would see that I'm right.
>>63926255
Yes, but I was talking about the belt, the barbette has thicker armor.
>>63926151
Good thing we weren't talking about cruisers.

>>63926779
Are you a Nip or a Burger?

>>63918366
fair fights are for suckers

>>63919547
I remember there was this one WiTP AAR called "the Elephant Vanishes" where the japanese player decided to stay near pearl for a second day of strikes and Nevada, on fire and fueled only by hate, manages to stumble out of pearl and somehow intercept the kido butai, sinking like half of it

>>63920477
that shit was so funny
>doing a sinkex on Tosa since she has to be scrapped per the WNT
>one flunk shot goes underwater and hits below the belt
>the japs think they have hit on a super secret technique
>design their shells for explicitly this purpose
>this makes the shells worse at regular engagements
>think that everyone else will also be using this technique
>armor their ships to counteract it
>manage to get exactly one diving shell hit that worked as intended in the entire war

>>63927207
how TF would Nevada have ploughed through two battlecruisers, three cruisers and ten destroyers to do that?

but anyway... that's why carriers avoided confined bodies of water, and battleships were used as carrier escorts even after WW2.

>>63927227
Sheer hate

>>63927220
I remember the US discovered the trick after the war, thought it was so unlikely that it wasn't worth gambling on, and critiqued it by saying they were better off using HE rounds for a depth charge effect.

>>63927207
>>63927227
night action, specifically
>bloodied nevada kicking the kido butai's door down way past midnight, thompson gun clutched in her one good hand

>>63918366
The Grey Ghost would like a word with the Emperor

>>63918366
>Nothing americans ever produced would be able to withstand such damage

>>63926779
Well generally you want the water to stay outside the ship.

>>63925694
Takes one to know one, or what, faggot?

>>63921011
This onion sucks. How do you get identified before acquired?

>>63928907
Acquired meaning locked or lased. Generally people are gonna wanna look and ID before they lock their target and give away their position.

>>63928907
>don't get seen
>don't get identified
>don't get aimed at
>don't get fired upon
You *can* skip the ID part, but that's typically considered bad sportsmanship.

>>63928956
You need to be detected after being there and before being identified, which is a major step.

>>63928956
>t. USS Vincennes

>>63926197
Fake and gay.
Long rod penetration nose is destroyed and turned into the same mushroom form regardless of the initial shape after 1.5D penetration depth.

>>63928907
Acquired means there's a weapon aimed at you.
>>63928956
Only You can Prevent Friendly Fire.

>>63928907
>invests all point into
>don't be penetrated
Mix maxing meta/

>>63927868
>>63927873
This. If there's one thing the USN was better at it was damage control. US ships would take hit after penetrating hit only to hose down the fires, seal off the flooding, and limp back to dock.

On the flip side, you had the Akagi which took one hit to an elevator hatch and the entire Hanger Deck catches fire.

>>63918366
Forgot to mention earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano
>converted into a carrier from the third, unfinished Yamato-class hull
>completed 19 November 1944
>sunk ten days later, 29 November 1944
>killed by merely four torpedoes from a single sub
For all intents and purposes exactly the same hull, but shattered like glass at first contact (partially due to an incompetent crew).
So get double fucked frogposter.

>>63929236
Shimano could have easily survived that if the damage control wasn't retarded
>This ship is unsinkable, don't bother closing the watertight hatches
>>63929105
No such thing, even the thickest piece of hardened steel ever made (Shinano's turret face armor) is sitting in DC with a huge hole in it.

>>63929357
>Post-war analysis by the U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan noted that Shinano had serious design flaws.
>Specifically, the joint between the waterline armor belt on the upper hull and the anti-torpedo bulge on the underwater portion was poorly designed, a trait shared by the Yamato-class battleships; Archerfish's torpedoes all exploded along this joint.
>The force of the torpedo explosions also dislodged an I-beam in one of the boiler rooms, which punched a hole into another boiler room.
>In addition, the failure to test for watertightness in each compartment played a role as potential leaks could not be found and patched before Shinano put to sea.[40]
>The executive officer blamed the large amount of water that entered the ship on the failure to air-test the compartments for leaks.
>He reported hearing air rushing through gaps in the watertight doors just minutes after the last torpedo hit—a sign that seawater was rapidly entering the ship, proving the doors were unseaworthy.[41]

>>63921560
Well Senator why did the front fall off?

>>63927941
He was saying waterline hits = bad aim = oof.

Underwater propulsion was also used in the British Red Angel rockets after the war.
In the end, it was a difficult phenomenon to create intentionally.

>>63930582
really depends on armor layout and engagement distance

I think it's funny how everyone spent so much money on battleships envisioning long range artillery duels, but then in the actual war all the did was get gangbanged by airplanes and the few battleship vs battleship engagements were night battles at point blank range.

>>63929236
>Shinano
>Hull isn't even completed, watertight sealing and bulkheads aren't even properly sorted out
>Somehow you're comparing this to Yamato
How's life with a double digit IQ?

>>63930675
I think they were used wrong, you aren't going to get them into battles where the enemy runs away faster than they can except once in a blue moon.. but against targets that cannot run away at all.. like forts or cities..

>>63919062
for me it's the cuter sister

>>63929147
>If there's one thing the USN was better at it was
better machinery
by the late-30s the US was the world leader in ship propulsion. everything is due to them managing to save like 10% of weight and volume off their engines vs. everyone else, and translating that into more of all the other useful shit
they also had 2 years of extra rearmament time while everyone else was fighting a war

>>63930675
>the few battleship vs battleship engagements were night battles
because that's when carriers couldn't operate

>everyone spent so much money on battleships envisioning long range artillery duels
because naval treaties limited the construction of new fleet carriers, and airplanes made massive leaps in performance in the late 30s that made them viable

in the early 30s, this was the US Navy carriers' principal torpedo bomber

>>63930675
That’s really only 2nd Guadalcanal. Casablanca was daylight and at times very long range, in the 25-30kyds band, Surigao was at night but on average about 20kyds distance. Most of the surface fighting against Bismarck was during the day, though range varied wildly. Dakar was mostly daylight, as was Mers el Kebir. North Cape was fought in darkness, but that had more to do with it being polar night during December than anything else, as the battle began in what should’ve been the morning. At times the range also opened up enough for Scharnhorst to be penetrated through the deck by plunging fire. IIRC most of the battleship vs battleship actions of the British and Italian navies in the Mediterranean were daylight, and fire was also exchanged at very long range.

>>63931142
>better machinery
That's an understatement, they were using fucking turbo-electric for some of their battleships which obliterated the turbine-shaft weakness of every warship, had huge efficiency savings, and could be swapped into reverse instantly instead of after a hefty waiting period for the gearing systems to decouple.

>>63931185
>IIRC most of the battleship vs battleship actions of the British and Italian navies in the Mediterranean were daylight, and fire was also exchanged at very long range.
sorry I thought it was understood that I was talking about battles between first tier naval powers

>>63931414
I don't think you can really call Japan 1st Tier. Well, maybe on number of carriers.

>>63931428
Japan was probably the second most powerful naval power in WW2, not that it mattered because the US could take on the whole global navy in 1940's and come out on top.

>>63931453
Japan was probably number one through Midway, and number two through Nov 1942. After that point the attrition suffered during the Guadalcanal campaign I think knocks them permanently to third place

>>63931428
You're replying to a troll, but the major naval powers as of 1939 was definitely RN, USN and IJN

>>63927052
It lists at least 3 14" hits and several 6".

>>63926174
Remain ignorant, then.

>>63927052
>Good thing we weren't talking about cruisers.
>any warship

>>63931453
>Japan was probably the second most powerful naval power in WW2
Possibly around '41/'42 desu when Shoukakus entered service and before they lost Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Souryu, and even then that is fairly arguable. In 1939 it pretty clearly was USN > RN > IJN, and by 1944 it was back to USN > RN > IJN.

>>63927378
>after the war
USN was aware at least by the Montana design studies.

>>63931626
>In 1939
The RN had by far the largest navy with many more cruisers, destroyers and a couple extra battleships
It was the 2nd Vinson Act that conclusively pushed the US to the very top
The RN of course also took significant losses in the first 9 months of the war
1941 probably was a watershed year

>>63931428
>Well, maybe on the most important factor

>>63931685
Combined arms, dipshit
If the Kriegsmarine had gone up against the IJN those carriers would look real pretty on the seafloor

>>63931626
>In 1939 it pretty clearly was USN > RN > IJN, and by 1944 it was back to USN > RN > IJN.
You'd have to double check naval registers, but my understanding is that in 1939 the USN was something close to an obsolete force in being. Their newest battleship was built in '22 and North Carolina wouldn't be commissioned until '41. I don't think they were ahead on aircraft carriers either. The RN and USN had the same treaty limitations, but the USN had even worse peaceniks in government than the RN in the early 30s and afaik as a result had a really anemic navy at the outbreak of war despite the tonnage.

>>63931739
This must be a troll post. What combined arms from the Kriegsmarine? They literally never had a single carrier, and their battleships and battlecruiers were qualitatively and quantitively outmatched by Japanese equivalents.

>>63931739
are you serious? the only thing the krauts had that would be a danger to the nips was their submarines. even with only carrier divisions 1 and 2 the japs would have fucked up any yuro navy.

>>63931795
>I don't think they were ahead on aircraft carriers either.
the yorktowns were by far the best treaty carriers, and even the lexingtons were better than anything the bongs built.

>>63931799
Poor anti-submarine warfare from the Japanese.
The American subs already wrecked havoc, imagine what a navy build around submarines would achieve.

>>63931799
Krieg submarine spam would have in short order left the Japs with nothing but destroyers

>>63932031
>even with only carrier divisions 1 and 2 the japs would have fucked up any yuro navy.
the RN had twice the number of cruisers and twice the number of destroyers the Japs did

>>63932046
deck parks, son
in the Pacific, the Illustrious class carried the same number of aircraft the Yorktowns did

>>63931622
In order to disprove that not every warship was susceptible anon only needed an example and previous discussion was centered around battleships and carriers. Cruisers were essentially brought up out of nowhere.

>>63931645
I think the problem is 1941 US and IJN get a lot more focus and there isn't as much interest in what either of them were like in 1939.
USN and IJN took some heavy losses in 1942, depending on what we're looking at it could've flipped a few times


>>63932064
Germans didn't have that many subs in 1939.

>>63930686
See: >>63929367

>>63918366
>Nothing americans ever produced
Enterprise

>>63932230
The beatings Yamato/Musashi took showed their TDS worked fine enough, it took over half a dozen torpedos to one side to take them out. No other warship afloat would survive that.
Shinano was incomplete and had functionally unrestricted flooding as a consequence.
Additionally the Americans swapped to Torpex, which nobody could anticipate, Yamato's (and most other battleships as well) were not designed for those levels of explosive power.

>>63930675
There actually was a number of gunfights and Japan specifically trained for night fighting since aircraft wouldn't be effective if they couldn't see.

Moreover, WW2 was the war where naval aviation proved it'self. Most of the warships were holdovers from WW1 and the Interwar period where they weren't quite sure if Carriers were ready for primetime.

>>63927052
>>63931622
I'm the anon who said
>any warship
and I was thinking of battleships and carriers at the time
sorry, I wasn't clear and I was lazily phoneposting, so I didn't specify whether cruisers were included

>>63932174
>>63932583
my appreciation for the naval battles of WW2 sharpened when I quit doing stupid shit like comparing 1944 warships with 1939 warships

>>63932513
>half a dozen
Wasn't 4-6 torpedos the expectation?

>>63931612
>What is belt armor?
Check where those 14" and 6" hits landed.

>>63932622
>I quit doing stupid shit like comparing 1944 warships with 1939 warships
To be fair "How much can warship technology change in only 5 years?" is a perfectly valid question.

>>63932651
Musashi was hit on both sides and thus took more torpedos to sink, because even-flooding takes more water than capsizing the ships by targeting just one side.
Hence Yamato went down far easier in comparison, they just hit her a bunch in one side and she flipped, similar to how Guam is threatened by capsizing by too many US troops there.
In WW2 it was not uncommon for battleships to go down to only 2-4 torpedos. So the Yamato class was pretty resilient given that it was facing torpedos that weren't even considered when designed.

>>63933229
>battleship twice the mass of a treaty battleship has more buoyancy
no shit, really

>>63922733
I looked this up, I believe HMS Ramillies is the only capital ship to be struck by two torpedoes and survive.

>>63933229
The Yamato and Musashi had a rather mediocre TDS, the armored torpedo bulkheads were too rigid and prone to displacement from their mountings, permitting flooding around them. Worse, in the Yamato's case, a poorly designed and constructed joint between the armored belt and the torpedo bulkhead proved prone to failure and drove its supporting structure backward, puncturing the inboard holding bulkhead. What did help was how large they were, the number one factor in TDS effectiveness is thar T
The greater the distance between the point of impact on the side hull and the holding bulkhead, the more likely the system would protect the interior compartments.

>>63921987
>American man uses the most powerful naval force ever assembled to prove a point and shut someone the fuck up
My God I love my country

>>63931142
No American damage control has always been the cream of the crop in Naval tech. Still is to this day, and it showed well into the Soviet flagships of the 80s. Damage control is culture not feature

>>63932121
>in the Pacific, the Illustrious class carried the same number of aircraft the Yorktowns did
from what I can find when victorious was in the pacific in 1943 she carried 60 planes, while saratoga had 90 and enterprise and hornet were similar.

>>63918366
Nah, it didn't take that many airplanes, that's just how many we decided to use.

>>63932583
>There actually was a number of gunfights
the only battleship engagements I know of are kirishima getting double teamed at guadalcanal, and yamashiro getting gang raped by the entire 7th fleet. if you count any battleship shooting hiei sank some cruisers, yamato and nagato shot at some destroyers, and iowa sank a cruiser.

>Moreover, WW2 was the war where naval aviation proved it'self. Most of the warships were holdovers from WW1 and the Interwar period where they weren't quite sure if Carriers were ready for primetime.
that was my point. they spent all of their budget on battleships because that was what won the last war only for them to be useless because of the new thing. all of the carriers we have now would probably end up the same way in ww3.

>63934020
>all of the carriers we have now would probably end up the same way in ww3.
oh, it's actually a stealth
>hurr durr china stronk
troll

>>63933972
because those figures count spares, which is not entirely wrong, but doesn't accurately reflect how many it could realistically operate
as such, if you look at the Battle of Midway, the actual operational airframes were:
>Yorktown, 71 aircraft
>Enterprise, 72
>Hornet, 73
and
>Akagi, 60
>Kaga, 72
>Hiryu, 57
>Soryu, 56

when Illustrious and Saratoga operated together, Illustrious managed 54 aircraft by using deck parks; Saratoga, 69 (nice)
bear in mind that Saratoga is half again the displacement of Illustrious.
Indefatigable, which is similar in weight, carried 48 internal and 25 deck for a total of deployed 73 aircraft.

>>63933833

>>63934197
nice table
>Bismarck
is posted twice however
and was essentially lost after 2 hits (jammed rudder)
>Scharnhorst II
took a full double salvo
>Yamashiro
flooded half her main battery after 2 hits
>Repulse
took a full salvo
>POW
took crippling shaft damage after 2 hits
>Hiei
was really killed by shellfire which jammed her rudder
>Musashi
was crippled after 2 hits

I want to fuck battleship New Jersey

>>63934256
You had your chance when she was all tied up squirming in drydock.

>>63934103
american carriers had more and bigger planes than bongoloid ones at every point because of hangar design. saratoga was a fat bitch because she was a battle cruiser conversion. if you want to compare similar displacement look at the essex class which had over 100 planes.

>>63934332
the Essex class was a clean-sheet post-Treaty design and once again this "over 100" would include spares

their British equivalents would be the Audacious class, although even it was originally smaller (by about 10% all around) and had to be modified. it could carry up to 100 of earlier, smaller aircraft and around 75 of the later larger types
British carriers also were designed for rougher sea conditions, for the North Sea

>>63933101
>To be fair "How much can warship technology change in only 5 years?" is a perfectly valid question.
Also treaty compromises vs non treaty ships. I guess its also interesting to look at modernization.

You're also going to get a really poor comparison of naval powers without taking into account that there was a difference between the old ww1 ships and the more modern ones.

>>63934496
>the Essex class was a clean-sheet post-Treaty design
Please do some basic research before posting. The Essexes were post treaty, but due to the war they were heavily based on the Yorktowns. The Midways were the clean sheet design.

>>63934278
>when her powder bags are begging for a power ramming

>>63934725
>Please do some basic research before posting. The Essexes
were developed from the Yorktowns in the same way most carriers are developed from preceding classes, that is, they were vastly different. You can't just take a treaty warship, embiggen it by 20% and call it done, and that was not what they did. They had the luxury of figuring out a new design with lots of new features.

>>63934496
>this "over 100" would include spares
I'm trying to find sources that state how many aircraft were actually operational. this website says
>http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/E/s/Essex_class.htm
>By the end of the war as many as 102 aircraft were operated (6 fighters, 66 fighter-bombers, 15 dive bombers, and 15 torpedo bombers.)
but maybe you have a better one
>it could carry up to 100 of earlier, smaller aircraft
is this talking about wildcats or the shitty biplanes the bongs went into the war with?

>>63934856
the lead ship of the audacious class was launched a year after the first midway, so comparing it to the essex class which actually fought in the war is totally dishonest.

>>63918366
Next you're going to enlighten us with your titanic intellect by telling us it took 5 shermans to kill a tiger

>>63935172
RIP in spaghetti, never forghetti.

>>63935172
>the Guadalcanal area
Jeez

>>63935279
The Great Rapening.

More like Operation Ten Oh-No

>>63935172
>Nagato
It's not fair bros. I could have saved her.

>>63935108
Wildcats
>shitty biplanes
in 1939 the USN was flying picrel, which weren't much better than Gloster Gladiators

>>63935150
I had thought you would have known, Mister Basic Research, that previous British carrier classes were Treaty-influenced "war emergency" carriers the way you claimed the Essex class was, regardless of completion times which on the British side were delayed due to priority given to ASW escorts
the Maltas and Midways were the first ships where the designers were told "you know what, the sky's the tonnage limit"

>>63929236
>>63929357
>>63929367
Entire tale of that ship is a clusterfuck.

>>63935784
you can cope all you want but the audacious class was a contemporary of the midway class. the first essex class was launched before the first audacious was even laid down, and 14 of them fought in actual battles.

It would have been better if the UK had planned a next-generation battlecruiser like the US and Japan, rather than the Courageous class, as the basis for their aircraft carriers.
Couldn't they have used the sister ship of the Hood, whose construction was cancelled?

>>63935834
lexington and akagi performed in spite of the fact that they were cruiser conversions, not because of it. the best thing about them was the fact that it saved their countries from the mistake of actually building a battle cruiser.

>>63935279
They don't call it "Ironbottom Sound" for nothing.

>>63935784
Oh, you're br*tish, that explains a lot.
>>63935172
>Using Mao lane instead of Kancolle
Can't even get Shimakaze's location right.

>>63935964
Hirohito studied marine biology. He published quite a few papers. He also donated his entire navy as artificial reefs.

>>63933867
They were only ever hit by torpedos larger than their TDS was designed for, no shit they failed.
They also kept getting hit right at the weakpoint joint, which was actually shallower than most torpedos were designed to strike out.

>>63935833
I accept your concession

>>63935974
I'm not

>>63936330
The Essex class started as a treaty era design. After the war started the designers were given a few thousand extra tons and a very tight time table. They had no choice but to start with a Yorktown class and enlarge it a bit. They didn't get the armored flight deck they wanted, they got an elevator stolen from Wasp, they got engines stolen from Atlanta, nothing about it was "clean sheet". Please read a book or at least watch Drach's videos on carrier development.

>>63936459
> tight time table. They had no choice but to start with a Yorktown class and enlarge it a bit
>nothing about it was "clean sheet"
not really
they essentially pieced together the Essex from existing technologies, this is what made it resemble USS Hornet, but the dimensions and placement of the various sections made it quite a different carrier
the US Navy had the luxury of discussing it while not at war (1939-40) whereas the Illustrious class onwards were all designed while under the gun
>They didn't get the armored flight deck they wanted
There was a debate over armored flight deck or armored hangar deck as in typical US Navy practice; the armored hangar deck school still held sway at this stage. they thickened it considerably
>Please read a book
I've read several on carrier development of varying quality
Friedman has the most detailed information, although he's just as dull as
>Drach
who's a boring fucker who's just reciting the same information in a monotone with minimal summary and critical analysis

>>63936541
>they essentially pieced together the Essex from existing technologies
That's what "not a clean sheet design" means.

>>63936600
neither does "clean sheet" mean every single component must be brand-new

high iq: comparing ships that fought each other, or at least were active at the same time, since as donald rumsfeld said "you go to war with the army you have not the one you want"
midwit iq: comparing ships that were built around the same time
low iq: coping about "design conditions"

you might as well say that the current hms floating skate park can't be compared to the ford class because they couldn't afford to make it better. actually I think I've already seen that argument get posted here.

>>63936759
>high iq
>Rumsfeld
Ironing.

>>63918366
>Nothing americans ever produced would be able to withstand such damage
but we COULD produce and the nips could not

>>63936759
>you have to use the specific parameters of comparison I cherrypicked because you just have to okay!
trying too hard

>>63935279