Just doing a quick poll of /k/.
I've always liked the Revenge class, good balanced ship that didn't break the budget. The HMS Canada one off for Chile is also high on my list.
What's yours?
>>30168363
hms nelson and rodney were literal sex.
inb4 buttharmed wehraboos crying about muh scuttling
The Pride of the Second Roman Empire, reporting.
>>30168427
The only ship scuttled in WW2 was HMS hood.
>>30168473
...that....that isn't correct at all.
>>30168494
I think he's parodying the Wehrboos who insist that Bismark, Tirpitz, and every other one were scuttled, undefeated.
you know the sort.
>>30168427
What's the point of mounting all the gun turrets on the front if they can't all fire forwards? Turret three looks like it could only fire to the broadside, so you've lost the rear fire arc altogether, without strengthening the front arc.
>>30168473
Arizona was scuttled too
>>30168516
Ah, righty kokey, it's hard to tell who's taking the piss and who's being serious these days.
>>30168524
nelsons were treaty battleships so placing them foreward ment they could share the same armor protection instead of a rear turret being armored alone. It basically meant they could put 9 16in guns and 14in of belt armor yet still make treaty weight
>>30168524
because you don't point right at your enemy, you put him at 45 degrees so you can fire all your guns and still close quickly. That also means you can fire a broadside while making yourself a smaller target.
>>30168524
IIRC it was because Nelson and Rodney had to use gun turrets designed for a much heavier, larger class of warship (the G3) which became illegal after the Washington treaty due to its displacement. Not wanting to waste resources, the RN designed Nelson and Rodney to use turrets and guns already fabricated. In any case, by concentrating the main battery forward you reduce the length and therefore weight of the main armoured belt and thus you can have a well-armoured, well-armed ship under the weight limit of the Treaty.
>>30168524
Putting all the guns up front saved weight because they didn't have to armor the rear. As for why the third turret isn't in a superfiring position above the second turret, raising the turret up that high above the water line would have made the ship top-heavy and unstable.
>>30168524
Firing straight backwards/straight forwards was rarely done, since it damaged your deck and all the fittings on the deck. Likewise, you never fired directly over another turret, since you'd blow out the rangefinders and probably kill/injure most of the crew in the other turret. So the Nelson's arrangement really isn't that crazy, it balanced weight well, allowing the British to build a treaty Battleship with great firepower and armour, and not having to lie about the final weight like pretty much every other nation.
Oh, and the Royal Navy doesn't retreat, so all guns forward makes the most sense!
I love all the US ww1 battleships after being refit with 5"/38s and AA guns, my favorite being the Tennessee class, but my actual favorite picture is pic related of Pennsylvania. It just looks mean.
>>30168620
Standard class ships were pretty good looking, if a bit slow. It's a shame the 14in guns wore down so quickly because of their high velocity shots.
>>30168620
California. Dat layout. I think it had 14 quad mounted 40mm positions or there abouts.
Bismark! Most powerful battleship ever built, and nearly impossible to sink!
>>30168668
Now that's dakka.
>>30168668
THICK
Warspite for the cool factor and personality.
>Been there, done that. A lot.
>Fuck coal
>Assloads of hits, bombs and battledamage. Don't sink.
>Try to ram sub in WW1, it dives. Get revenge in WW2, sink it with your old bi-plane.
>BL 15" are comfy
>Get decent rebuild
>Chill in 'murica when it's time for repairs.
>Go inna fjord
>Based Cunningham
>Relaxed, non-bullshit ship
>Reputation for outstanding gunnery, maintain it despite changing crews.
>Get nice nicknames like Grey Lady for being majestic and long serving
>Traditional pre-battle preperation is to lose control and sail in circles
>Fuck breaker's yards
>CV > BB
>>30168427
Hell im a bit of a wehraboo and even I know that wether or not Bismarck was scuttled or not, is entirely moot by the time the Royal Navy was done with her.
>>30168687
>30168687
'Grossadmiral Raeder, our new battleschips sind sehr unsinklich!'
'Das ist sehr gut, Herr Konstruktor. How many of zem are zere?'
'Ehm...Zwei. Und I hope du did not want any carriers or some more submarines. Also the Britischers have still got several times as many capital ships.'
'...du are a fucking idiot, Hans.'
>>30168829
Don't forget that she was built like a brick shithouse.
Love battleships, fuck boring carriers, they all look the same. Battleships had personality and presence!
>>30168829
>Fuck breakers yard
This so damn much
I was always a fan of the not quite a battleship Lutzow class. Massively overgunned cruisers that could wreck almost anything afloat.
Iowa master race reporting in.
>>30169148
Not a bad choice, but the sacrifices in armor for speed make it a bit questionable. North Carolina or South Dak, pound for pound, were probably better. Still, Iowa was actually built, which is impressive enough, and definitely the longest serving class, which no one can take away from it.
>>30169148
Ive seen this picture dozens of times and this is the first time that I noticed the bridge isn't enclosed yet.
>>30169201
Enclosed Bridges are Bourgeois decadence!
>>30169241
America took sunken battleships, raised them, and rebuilt their entire superstructure. We are the definition of Bourgeois decadence, and proud of it.
For some reason I can't explain, I'm madly in love with the fat look on turn-of-the-century french battleships.
Charles Martel-class. The Bouvet and the Jaureguiberry participated in the Gallipoli expedition in ww1. The Jaureguiberry traded blows with the coastal forts, and the Bouvet exploded on a mine. The captain decided to sink with her instead of evacuating.
>>30168473
I... Dude, seriously?
Even without counting the individual cases: French fleet in 1940 and 1942, danish fleet in 1943, german navy in 1945.
>>30169633
That sloping makes it look like the T-34 of the seas!
>>30168527
And the Yamato
>>30169633
It's still weird to see metal ships that were made before they figured out how to make something that wasn't based on 1500's era warships. Guns lining the sides like that looks kinda cool, but at the same time it just seems so...off.
>>30169163
I'd argue otherwise, as the Iowas were essentially a moderate improvement over the North Carolinas and South Dakotas. That said, there were a few intentional compromises in the name of speed and fitting through the Panama Canal, but you can't have everything.
That said, it's a damned shame the Montanas were never built.
>>30169706
>tfw from Montana
>could have had the biggest baddest bestest ship named after us
>ended up with nothing
>>30169725
South Dakota in WW1 feels the same way.
>>30169735
We're getting a Virginia-Class though, and so is South Dakota apparently.
>>30169706
I suppose we can be thankful the Tillman ships were never made.
15 18"/50 guns, 80,000 ton displacement, 25.2 knot speed, 975 ft long and 107 ft wide, or so specified the designs.
Of course the Brits had planned a battlecruiser, HMS Incomparable, tipping the scales at 46,000 tons, clocking in at 35 knots, and armed with 3 twin mounted 20" guns
USS NEW MEXICO
>>30168668
fuck year
>Armament:
As built:
12 × 14 in (360 mm)/50 cal guns (4x3)
14 × 5 in (130 mm)/51 cal guns
4 × 3 in (76 mm)/50 guns
2 × 21 in (530 mm) torpedo tubes
After reconstruction:
12 × 14 in (360 mm)/50 cal guns
16 × 5 in (130 mm)/38 cal guns (8x2)
56 × Bofors 40 mm (11x4, 5x2)
31 × Oerlikon 20 mm cannons
>>30168829
i've always thought that was a cool looking ship and an awesome name for a battleship
t. burger
West Virginia
Originally the last of the Colorado class and was going to be scrapped before completion (Her unfinished sister USS Washington met this fate instead).
She was sunk in pearl Harbor, raised, rebuilt far more than any of her sisters.
She went on to provide fire support during landings, sink the Japanese Battleship Yamashiro, survive a Kamikaze, and then be present in Tokyo Harbor for the surrender of Japan.
The one that caused the most treehugger rectal trauma.
The North Carolina class is probably my favorite.
North Carolina gets the honor for being the most decorated BB of the USN in WW2(15 Battle Stars) and Washington(13 Battle Stars) participated in one of the important surface engagements at Guadalcanal and has one of the honors of sinking another battleship.
![MG-1-033-27[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/sDidOgU.jpg "MG-1-033-27[1].jpg")
>>30169633
Also, those shipes were equipped with modele 1878 "revolver guns", to be used against small boats, ground targets, and (later, obviously) early airplanes. That are a pretty cool unusual weapon.
This one is a 37mm (60 rounds/minute, range 2500m). There were also versions chambered in 47mm and 53mm.
>>30169912
>Warnung! Atombomba an bord.
German treehuggers? Where does this takes place?
Brits gave their ships great names.
>HMS Glorious
>HMS Furious
>HMS Victorious
>HMS Vengeance
>>30169756
Oh Jackie Fisher...
Then again, not as crazy as Furious was before her conversion to a carrier. 19.5k ton "large light cruiser" armed with 2*1 18-inch guns. Poor thing was built so lightly it couldn't actually firing the 18-inchers without damaging itself.
>>30170456
Oh fuck off, they're always scraping the bottom of the barrel
>Incomparable
>Inflexible
>Irresistible
>Implacable
>Fucking "Indefatigable"
>>30170566
Better than naming your ships after fucking states.
>>30170706
Naming them after states is a great idea. Gives people of state something to be proud of even if their state doesn't have access to the ocean.
I think WW2 USN naming conventions were good:
Carriers - Battles
Battleships - States
Cruisers - Cities
Destroyers - Notable people in American history
>>30171193
I prefer German ship naming conventions - it's a good mix between
>cities/regions
>famous people
>>30171193
Most carriers were actually named after the first generation of US navy sloops and frigates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hornet_(1775)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(1776)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(1799)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_(1799)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(1777)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Intrepid_(1798)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_(1780)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constellation_(1797)
>>30168524
because it allowed a smaller armored area and thus less weight and the Rodneys were treaty battleships designed under strict weight limits, in exchange for accepting slower max speeds and the 3 frontal turrets the RN got 9 16 inch guns on what was for the time a very very well armored hull and direct forward fire was not significantly impaired as when exactly do you get more than 6 guns firing dead ahead anyway
>>30170456
HMS Wot Wot
HMS Afraid of Knives
HMS Wanker
>>30168687
except for that time the RN sunk it
and yes the crew claim to have fired scuttling charges, but frankly thats rather like euthanising a terminal patient, your killing him a little quicker but the outcome is already clear, bismarck was sinking before any scuttling began
>>30170566
>HMS Indefatigable
>Not a cool as fuck name
>>30169053
except they failed to do so, they were overgunned heavy cruisers, armored to no more than cruiser standard
>>30170566
>>30171329
why so rustled anons?
>>30170456
You're forgetting the best one of all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gay_Viking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-class_fast_patrol_boat
>>30171425
Americans, no respect for their father.
>>30171529
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower-class_corvette
>>30170706
HMAS Australia I, only BC/BB operated by the RAN.
>>30171311
here's a better pic of the weebship
I think this thread is a good place to discuss the USS Maine. And more specifically, how retarded of a ship it was.
The Maine was built after Brazil bought a battleship from the UK that could threaten the entire US Navy. It was decided that two new battleships would be built, but the isolationist congress required that at least one of them be designed by an American. That ship was the USS Maine.
The most noticeable feature about the Maine is that the two turrets are on the opposite side of the keel on both sides of the ship. Originally the design could only fire one turret on one side, but the demand was made for it to be able to fire both broadside. The ship gets cut in two at the front where the front turret faces the port side. The fore turret was rarely fired port side, as every time it did, the vacuum created by the shell's wake would cause damage to the ship itself.
Just read the whole wikipedia article, the ship was just a floating birth defect of a ship, that's only ever known for blowing up because of the coal being used by the engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)
>>30171193
WWI, WWII, Still afloat (mostly). BB-35 is my favorite battleship.
Texas needs to hurry up and get this thing out of the water and indoors if possible.
>>30171724
Reminds me of the Ekaterina II (Catherine the Great) class, built with 2x3 12" in a triangular layout.
Pic is the only image I could find that shows it clearly.
>>30171885
>>30171827
I've seen pictures of the Texas where she had a slight list and was running the pumps.
They could do like the did with the Mikasa over in Japan. They took her out the water and placed her in a sea of rocks. I wish that could also be done to the Olympia before her bottom rusts out and she sinks.
>>30171901
Aurora has her lower hull completely rebuilt to keep her floating.
>>30168363
Uss Arizona
Fuso/Yamashiro
Accomplished fuck all in its career, old, obsolete, manned by the worst of the IJN had, and got the shit kicked out of it.
Kind of reminds me of John of Bohemia, the battle is lost, he's old and not a warrior, and he's fucking blind, but fuck it he's going anyway and off he goes with his companions.
The HMS Agincourt, because under the name of "Sultan Osman" in Ottoman service after its sale from Brazil (although built by Britain), it became a massive deterrent to the Russians attacking the Dardanelles through the Black Sea, and possibly managing to bait the Germans into an alliance with the Ottomans, because the Young Turks were willing to hand it over to German control (and with it effective control of Russian naval movements into the Mediterranean) but it had been confiscated by the British anyway.
>>30171361
It took four battleships and two carriers to sink. German engineering confirmed for best engineering!
>>30172389
If Prince of Wales was complete during the Battle in the Denmark Strait I think she and Hood could have taken Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.
>>30172389
Considering it got crippled by a battlecruiser and a half-finished battleship, no, it was found wanting.
>>30172411
Prince of Wales ended the Bismarcks sortie. That's a mission kill right there. Had Hood fired at the right target to start with, and not screwed up it's firing solution, the Bismarck probably would have been sunk in the Denmark straight.
But Hood was slightly overmatched in terms of her combat information and fire control. Prince of Wales was probably the Equal to Bismarck, despite weighing so much less.
>>30172450
That's what I was saying. Prince of Wales penetrated Bismarck and caused significant flooding that forced her make a run for France. But since PoW still had technicians aboard and was experiencing teething problems, she was forced to turn off.
The British needed to do two simple things to win that fight: Correctly identify Bismarck and close the range to prevent plunging fire (This was Holland's plan but he got unlucky and didn't move in close enough.)
>>30168363
For some odd reason, the Royal Sovereigns really tickle my fancy. I find pre-dreadnoughts in general to be aesthetically pleasing in spite of their mismatch of armaments.
Nagato, even the way she was (to be) sunk was badass.
>>30172503
He almost had it as well. They were closing the range quickly. Some actually think that Hood leaning into the turn might have made the angle more favourable for the shot on her rear mag.
>>30168363
God the Texas is pure sex. Too bad she's in poor shape
>tfw not enough monies for her repairs and dry berth
>>30171998
They did this with the Texas back in 1989 but it's the kind of thing that's going to keep coming up as long as we keep a big pile of steel in the water.
Best to just dry dock it permanently and get a roof over it someday if possible.
>>30172747
That was the Pennsylvania, Here's the Texas down at Todd Shipyard in Galveston in 1989. It had been sitting for 41 years on display, most of that spent in the mud of the Houston ship channel. Since the ship channel is just a big dredged out ditch to begin with it fills with silt constantly.
>>30172671
I believe Hood was about 9 miles from Bismarck when she went down. All that really happened was Hood had a bit of shit luck, which was experienced by the Bismarck a few days later when she lost her rudder and again during her final battle when shells went through some of her most armored and vital parts.
That whole episode is just full of one-in-a-million hits.
France had some really sexy ships
I just like this picture
>>30172950
I do too. Very pretty water and a clear sky. Nice day for sailing, too bad there's no boats out.
>>30172088
That pic, especially in thumbnail view, always reminds me of a precarious game of Jenga.
>>30172747
Damn, there sure is a lot of ship under the waterline.
>>30173055
Maybe you keep taking shots at the tower and try to make it all collapse.
>>30168580
Except G3 had a similar layout where the third turret couldn't fire aft and could only be used broadside.
>>30172365
Muh seven centreline turrents
>>30172549
Prettiest ship the IJN had too.
>>30172365
>>30173214
I just like the Brit nickname for her: Gin Castle
>>30173214
A turret for each day of the week.
Ship of my home state
Alaska class cruiser, too goddamn beastly to be considered a Heavy cruiser.
It's a light BB
>>30174905
>It's a light BB
Aka battlecruiser
>>30174905
it was armored to cruiser standard, and not nearly well gunned enough for a battleship.
its either a light battlecruiser or a very heavy cruiser
>>30168468
My nigga
The Littorios might not have been much good, but good lord did they look fine
>>30174905
Looks like the Iowa has some 40mm emplacements on top of the third and second turrets, how the fuck do they survive being on top of that when its fired.
>>30171529
>>30171556
And somehow they didn't dare name that ship Boaty McBoatFace ?
>>30172867
you dont even show the good side of that ship; the ass
Going with Michigan.
![3285[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dG20Yd7.jpg "3285[1].jpg")
The french cruiser Colbert joined Bordeaux today to be dismantled.
Launched in 1956, it was the last french AAA cruiser. It was made into a SAM cruiser in 1970.
Became a floating museum from 1993 to 2006.
Sadly, it was too expensive to maintain, and the port's inhabitants and the threehuggers milited for its end.
It was called the floating Elysée, doing diplomatic missions all over the world, before being replaced by the helicopter cruiser Jeanne d'Arc, also dismantled.
Welcome to France, where nobody cares about history or heirlooms.
I probably joined the navy because I visited it when I was young.I ain't even mad.
>>30170123
To bad shes Stuck in a pond .
The french light cruiser Gloire, with and without dazzle camouflage.
Sadly, pic is too big for /k/, so you have to go there for the comparison:
http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/22/1465125091-light-cruiser-gloire-dazzle-plain.png
>>30175438
They were pretty impressive for Italy, to be fair.
>>30174970
only battleship to sink a submarine
>>30171724
>>30171894
Pre-Dreadnoughs are just so silly.
>>30174920
>>30175353
The "large cruiser" designaton actually works best for the Alaskas. A battlecruiser was a battleship design that sacrifices armor and/or firepwoer for speed. The Alaskas however, in terms of basic design (like engine arrangeent, TDS et.) were literally upscaled cruisers. WHich made them easier to build, but also had a few shortcoming, like having no TDS and a godawful slow rudder for a ship their size.
>>30175951
They were pretty impressive by any standard. Give 'em properly QA-tested shells and powder bags and they've got a good chance to beat the hell out of anything short of a South Dakota, Iowa or Yamato.
>>30176620
or a KGV
the armor on those things was solid even if the guns were a bit weak
>>30177089
I'm glad you brought it up, KGV always gets a bad rap but their service record is impressive for treaty ships.
>>30176552
What would you expect, they were going into unknown territory with new technology after 300 - 400 years of age of sail ships mostly armed with fixed side facing cannons. That being said the ship in that picture is epic looking. It's like a steampunk super-villains mobile headquarters.
>>30177089
I'd give 'em better than even against a KGV. Proper shells means it outguns it and is better protected, as you'd expect from a ship that's been cheating the treaty a bit more and doesn't need as much space/tonnage for cruise range.
>>30169903
The refit Colorados are adorbs.
>>30177381
Since when is a KGV outgunned? The KGV's 14 inch shells were more then adequate against a Littorio.
>>30177489
It's incredible much damage the WV took and then how much work was done to get her back into service. Her damage control teams practically scuttled her so she would sink flat in Pearl Harbor instead of rolling over the Oklahoma. Even though that resulted in killing some men, it saved more men as well as the ship.
>>30177230
Did ANYONE besides the bongs pay more than lip service to the treaty?
>>30177674
I wish we didn't we fucked ourselves over there.
>>30177838
The treaty was a good idea initially. It kept Britain from going bankrupt after WW1. Had it not been in place, and the arms race continued, arguably Britain would have been in a worse place at the start of WW2 then it already was. Britain also saw the advantage of air power relatively early, and they reduced their required Battleship hulls accordingly. The only reason that Vanguard was built is that her Lion hull existed, she couldn't easily be made into an aircraft carrier, and the brits had some spare turrets lying around.
>>30168607
The US actually did some tests with superfiring guns and their effects on personell and equipment and found out that the blast effect didn't affect the turret and equipment much.
Blast damage on deck fittings and other unsecured shit is another matter altogether.
>>30178352
Really? I was reading 'A glimpse of Hell' and it noted that firing the Bravo turret over the Alpha turret was bad practice due to the dangers involved to the men in Alpha.
>>30175469
You don't. AA-emplacements weren't manned during gun engagements.
>>30169633
Steam punk city
>>30177608
Littorio has a notable immunity zone agianst 14in - hell, she has a notable immuntiy zone against british 15- and 16-inch shells. KGV has next to none against Littorios high-velocity 15-inchers.
>>30177674
>implying the Bongs didn't cheat in their own way
"What, we have too many destroyers? Nah, those belong to the canucks/ANZACs/south africans. Just ignore that we have an agreement to take command of them in case of a war."
>>30183600
too bad the italian navy didn't have the fighting spirit of the RN
>>30183600
British Commonwealth was the signatory to the naval treaties, not Britain by itself. Facts are a bitxh aren't they.
>>30183783
Wrong. Also, rather irrelevant given that the treaty specifically limited the Royal Navy - at which point the bongs suddenly became very interested in having the other commonwelath countries buy a lot of ships for *some* reason.
>>30172542
This so much, pre-dreadnoughts are sexy af.
>>30169912
Since when did greenpeace give a shit about stuff other than whales
In terms of looks, USS Texas. In terms of service, USS Washington.
>>30177929
>it was a good idea at first
I agree, it basically stopped the arms race building between Britain and the United States. The bongs didn't want to stop ruling the waves and the burgers were cranking BBs out like hot cakes. The Nips weren't AS big of a threat back then, and I would say the WNT probably was what soured the milk with Japan That being said, it probably stopped the Anglo-American War of 1927 dead in its tracks.
>>30174881
damn
Has World Of Warships added any new countries/branches in the last three months? I haven't really had good enough internet for gaming so I'm hoping that when I go back to World Of Warships in a couple months there's going to lots of new stuff to grind
>>30185148
>>30185148
They don't have too much. Russian Cruisers were added, that's really about it.
>>30170456
My favorites are
>HMS Uproarious
>HMS Curious
>HMS Outrageous
>HMS Spurious
Not to mention HMS Invincible (which wasn't).
The Ark, because Pop-pop was on it.
>>30185165
Lemme guess, they're going to add
>Russian battleships
>russian carriers
>two full Chinese lines
Before they even think about touching the Brits, right?
>>30169758
Remove wire mesh turrets.
BB43 USS Tennessee
>>30173103
>that poor fucker on the observation tower at J
>>30171193
Eh, look at it in another way though, what if all the ships that were named after your state got blown up?
It would kind of suck.
>>30171297
At least some of them were originally laid down as battlecruisers (pretty sure Lexington and Constellation were), so apparently they originally inherited their naming conventions. USN battlecruisers aren't heard about much, since we pretty much abandoned the concept by WWII.
>>30177674
To be fair, it's pretty easy to comply with treaty regulations if they favor you.
>>30185196
I actually wouldn't mind if they added the entire Chinese navy during ww2
It's like eight ships
>>30185036
They need the Black Dragon to guard a place as volatile as Camden, NJ.
>>30185358
Yeah, but it's WG, so they'd probably start off with the lines the Chinese don't have at all, like Battleships or Carriers, and just pull 8-10 ships out of their asses to create a tree.
Not at all practical or even really a battleship, but fuck me if this doesn't get me hard.
>>30168363
BB-63
>>30185400
It looks like the USS Monitor on steroids.
What is that?
USS Wisconsin, most of my family lives in that state so I like it a bit more.
>>30185467
>filename
>>30185492
They house the entire 10th Mountain Division on that thing?!
>>30185500
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Drum_(El_Fraile_Island)
>>30171193
What's the deal with the USN naming new ships after women's anatomy?
Clitoral Combat Ship?
I mean, really?
>>30185467
Harbor defense in Manila bay, when the US was retaking them they basically just said 'fuck it' and pumped it full of gas before igniting it.
>>30185500
>being retarded
>even once
don't do this btw
>>30171534
>britain
>"father of america"
you mean france.
>>30185573
>Not getting it
So what's it like being 90 year old german guy with alzheimer's?
>>30185573
>>30185580
>>30185595
I think you need to stop squabbling and focus on this bit:
>The successful invasion of Luzon by the Japanese Imperial Army in late December 1941 quickly brought land forces within range of Fort Drum and the other Manila Bay forts. Just before the outbreak of war in the Pacific on December 7, 1941, Fort Drum had been restaffed with men and officers of the 59th Coast Artillery Regiment (E Battery). The wooden barracks located on the fort's deck were dismantled to provide an unobstructed field of fire for Battery Wilson. On January 2, 1942, Fort Drum withstood heavy Japanese air bombardment. On January 12, 1942, a Model 1906 3-inch (76 mm) seacoast gun with a pedestal mount was installed at Fort Drum to help protect the fort's vulnerable "stern" section from attack, and it was dubbed as Battery Hoyle. The very next day on January 13, before the concrete emplacement was fully dry and the gun had been bore-sighted or checked for assurance level, it became the first American battery of seacoast artillery to open fire on the enemy in World War II when it drove off a Japanese-commandeered inter-island steamer apparently bent on a close inspection of Fort Drum's vulnerable rear approach. Until that time, the cage mast control tower masked the fire of the rear main turret, while the height of the gun above water created a dead space even had the field of fire been clear.[6]
>>30185658
>The first week of February 1942 saw the fort come under sustained fire from Japanese 150mm howitzer batteries positioned on the mainland near Ternate. By the middle of March, the Japanese had moved heavy artillery into range, opening fire with 240mm siege howitzers, destroying Fort Drum's 3-inch antiaircraft battery, disabling one of the 6-inch guns, and damaging one of the armored casemates. Sizeable portions of the Fort's concrete structure were chipped away by the shelling. The armored turrets were not damaged and remained in service throughout the bombardment.[14] Counter-battery fire from Fort Drum's 14-inch guns and Fort Frank's 12-inch mortars was ineffective. With the collapse of American and Filipino resistance in Bataan on April 10, only Fort Drum and the other harbor forts remained in U.S. hands.
>On the night of May 5, the 14-inch batteries of Fort Drum opened fire on the second wave of the Japanese forces assaulting Corregidor, sinking several troop barges and inflicting heavy casualties.[15] Fort Drum surrendered to Japanese forces following the fall of Corregidor on May 6, 1942 and was subsequently occupied by them until 1945.[16] The 20-ft thick reinforced concrete roof enabled Fort Drum to withstand the concentrated and long continued pounding it received from the Japanese from about February 15 to May 6, 1942. No U.S. personnel in Fort Drum were killed during the siege and only five were injured.[17] The four 14-inch turret guns were never out of action and were still firing effectively five minutes before the fall of Corregidor.[7] As at the other forts in the Philippines, Fort Drum's garrison executed destruction procedures on the guns prior to the Japanese arriving to secure the fort; this is why one 14-inch gun has fallen back inside its turret. The surrender of the Manila Bay forts marked the end of U.S. resistance in the Philippines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqYO9nT4MtU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_C._Kidd
>Admiral Kidd's body was never recovered and to this day he is considered missing in action. U.S. Navy salvage divers located his Naval Academy ring fused to a bulkhead on the Arizona's bridge.
>>30185658
>In 1945 during the offensive to recapture Manila, the heavily fortified island was the last position in the bay that was held by the Japanese.[18] After a heavy aerial and naval bombardment, U.S. troops gained access to the deck of the fort on April 13 and were able to confine the garrison below. Rather than attempting to break in, the troops and engineers adapted the solution first used some days earlier in the assault of mortar forts on Fort Hughes. There, the troops pumped two parts diesel oil and one part gasoline into mortar pits, stood off, and ignited it with tracer bullets.
>At Fort Drum, a similar technique was employed, using air vents on the top deck, but a timed fuse was used rather than tracer fire.[19] Upon ignition, the remaining Japanese were annihilated; the flammable mixture kept a fire burning in the fort for several days. It took 14 days before the fortress could finally be examined.[18] With the Manila Bay forts neutralized, including Fort Drum, Japanese resistance in the Bay area ended.
>>30185658
>>30185548
>>30185551
>>30185678
>>30185686
Forget Alcatraz, Fort Drum would be a nice cozy vacation spot. Without the IJN meddling around of course.
>Upon ignition, the remaining Japanese were annihilated; the flammable mixture kept a fire burning in the fort for several days
fucking hell.....
>>30185400
One day, when the Philippines decides it doesn't want to be corrupt anymore and gets on the same page as everyone else, I want to see her restored. She still technically serves as a light house, but she's in a pretty rough shape.
>>30169633
That thing just looks ready to dive.
>>30185814
>when she turns her turrets on you
>>30172026
Somebody say USS Arizona?
>>30185595
>So what's it like being 90 year old german guy with alzheimer's?
What the fuck?
>>30186269
I have a piece of the Arizona. They shipped it to my great-grandmother in lieu of my great uncle's body, which is still on the boat.
>at least the parts the fish haven't eaten
![sous-marin-surcouf[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iOQvrfI.jpg "sous-marin-surcouf[1].jpg")
>>30185914
I heard you liked submarine battleships?
>>30186564
Did somebody say submersible battleship?
>>30186564
>sub battleships
made irrelevant by sub carriers!
>>30168363
Not a battleship but Ive always loved Merchant aircraft carriers
>>30185686
Wonder if they even gave them a warning of what was coming.
>Hey Tojo, come out
>Fuck you Americans! We wirr rather die in fire
>lol, ok
>>30184639
The treaty counted all ships of Commonwealth nations as part the commonwealth's allotment. You are free to look it up, or, I guess, just as free to continue inventing your own personal version of history as you have.
Probably the Murmansk.
>>30168363
sunken by a torpedo boat its sad to be a hungarien
>>30186969
>>30186992
i cry evrytim
>>30186047
Christ those cannons are huge. I mean, even compared to the ship itself, which was also huge.
>>30185580
France is the mother my good man.
>>30186427
and tourettes syndrome
![145334[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wBThsl3.jpg "145334[1].jpg")
>tfw we will never have a navy again
;_;
>>30187050
Germany has a navy though
>>30185550
I found the captain.
>>30187075
But neither the Austrians or the Hungarians
>>30171285
My great gramps served on Ostfriedland during the battle of Jutland.
>>30186992
Those sailors seem to be taking it easy enough.
>>30186437
>>at least the parts the fish haven't eaten
Fish, worms, fire, plants. Sooner or later, something'll eat you.
>>30187017
>>30185580
>>30171534
Britain is America's wife anon.
America and France however are pic related.
>>30187142
Well it was taking its time to go down so why hurry.
>>30187142
Ya think some of them couldn't swim?
>>30168363
Bismarck. Too easy.
Tirpitz, just because she's so sexy.
>>30187436
better contrast
The Italian dreadnought Dante Alighieri, just look at this crazy ass gun arrangement! The fuckin' madmen!
I choose graff spree
otherwise tirpitz
>>30171614
You're allowed to like any battleship that ever existed, except the Yamato.
>you're not allowed to like the Yamato
>>30187773
>>30188018
Just a little fun fact: the RMS Olympic (Titanic's sistership) sank more ships during wartime than the IJN Yamato.
>>30188068
neat
I like it for its chaotic service record
also that sometime fleet actions look a bit funny
My absolute favourite is the KGV class, nothing beats them in looks.
Some other nice looking botes are the refitted QE class ones, especially Warspite.
Contrary to that, the Colorado class looked better in their pre-war configuration, the rebuilt made them look fat.
>>30168363
The R class seem to get the least attention of all British WW2 BBs, a shame, really.
>>30169148
>>30187439
Good taste, those are pretty much what I imagine when I hear "Battleship".
>>30185097
Eh, the italians kinda ruin their BBs with the terrible can on it they dare to call bridge, especially obvious on their CAs as well.
>>30172867
I prefer Dunkerque and Strasbourg, they look sleak and sexy, while Jean Bart looks horrible with that block as a bridge.
>>30189201
>The R class
Because they were piles of shit? Cunningham had to steam ahead in Warspite when he was chasing Italians and leave Royal Sovereign, or another R class ship, straggling behind because it could only make like 18 knots on the day.
They were bad and outdated even when they were made, and they weren't really modernised at all.
>>30171529
You guys forgot about the Cockchafer
>>30172950
>South_Dakota.jpg
>picture is empty skyline at sea
>>30188123
How?
>>30191539
Olympic served as a troop transport during the First World War. At one point she rammed a German u-boat and sunk it. Conversely, Yamato was only deployed offensively once, and never got within gun range of the American fleet.
>>30191855
I dislike Yamato fags as much as the next guy[spoiler]in fact I fucking hate them[/spoiler] but it did fire at US ships during the Battle Off Samar, and reportedly hit one of the escort carriers.
>>30168363
The Yamato class were legendary
>>30169148
it's hard to see the number, but i think it's a 62, so NJ the first Battleship I've ever been on
>>30171193
i always hated when there are exception to identification systems, or "naming conventions"
>>30168427
Nelsons were such eccentric and sexy ships
>>30168764
If you want thick look no further than SoDaks
>>30193360
I would generally agree, but with some of the American carriers there has to be exception.
Like Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp, etc. but the namesakes of those ships have seen enough action to qualify as battles of their own. Their names are more than worthy of being preserved.
>>30168668
Sorry No shipz here, can someone explain the planes on the front of the ship? how can those take off or land? How did they get there?
>>30193716
there are always exceptions of course, those ones don't nearly bother me as much
