Had the IJN and USN battleships fought head to head in the Pacific Theatre, no carriers involved, who would've came out on top? Japan didn't have nearly the amount of resources but their battleships/cruisers seemed to out class the United States at the time.
I suppose the obvious question becomes, which ships?
But either way, the USN had vastly superior FCS, ranging and shot correction as they used radar. Comparing armor and shot, the USN also had an advantage due to a robust metallurgy industry which allowed them to manufacture better steel as well as having better quality iron to work with. As much as I like a lot of IJN vessels, they were just clearly outclassed in terms of quality at the start of the war and the gap only widened as time went on.
>1500 THREE O'CLOCK. HEY, Yamato! Let's fight for real now! In exercises, of course. Okay?
>>29825803
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
Even the weeaboo admin of this IJN info site admits that Yamato would get her shit pushed in by superior USN Fire Control Radar and damage control tactics.
Japan was using manual gun laying and rangefinding for far too long, and it took its toll.
>>29825803
>when
>which ships
>what weather
>what range
>day/nigh?
and so on.
>>29825803
>but their battleships/cruisers seemed to out class the United States at the time.
Not even close. On the few occasions our ships fought their ships they either had more weight in one ship than the rest of the Murcan fleet combined or they lost horribly.
>>29825803
When they did it generally didn't end well for the Japanese. Granted they were pretty lopsided encounters, but it wasn't just because of numerical superiority.
>>29826068
Didn't Yamato out range the Iowa class by more than a few miles? The US might have had better targeting but what's the point if they're out of range?
>>29826171
Whats the point of that range if you cant land your shells?
>>29826171
Battle off Samar would like to have a chat with you. Pretty much as >>29826180 said, Jap range finding and shot bracketing didn't work very well for them.
>>29826180
Stay out of their range and keep lobbing? They'll hit eventually and when they do it'll be a bad day.
>>29826171
When the Yamato has a fire control radar that bottlenecks usable range at 27,000 yards and doesn't even lay guns while the Iowa has an all-weather gun laying radar that gives blindfire capability beyond the horizon...
Gun range means jack shit if your optics aren't as good as the enemy's.
>>29826171
Maximum range, the Yamato won. However, the quality of its shells was sub par compared to USN, RN and even the KM. I remember there was some site similar to >>29826021
where they mathed it out using IJN and USN numbers on penetration and material and it ended up being something pretty impressive like in order for either the Yamato or Iowa class to effectively pen either the deck or belt they'd have to be within 20mi of each other.
>>29826225
Excuse me, not 'effectively pen', that should be 'reliably pen'. Besides, the IJN fleet as a whole was limited by visual horizon which is how the whole pagoda nonsense came about.
Eh, the USN would win it easily. Any gun battles in the Pacific proved that the USN could land their shots accurately on the first salvos, while the IJN had quite low accuracy. Now, I can't find any source about the fire control systems mounted on the Yamato, but I seriously doubt Japanese technology was remotely close to what the US was fielding.
>>29826204
Except the Iowa is much faster than the Yamato and would close up quickly.
How about the Kongo class, did they really have any advantage from their speed or was it just Japan making due with what they had?
>>29826223
>When the Yamato has a fire control radar that bottlenecks usable range at 27,000 yards and doesn't even lay guns while the Iowa has an all-weather gun laying radar that gives blindfire capability beyond the horizon...
The Japs never trusted radar fully and went for visual aiming (with spotter planes to confirm, in cases where they couldn't see from the ship). To be able to distinguish hits, jap ordnance had dye packs so they could tell which hits were from which ship...
Their grid aiming technique was quite outdated compared to american all weather long range radar assisted aiming.
My money is all on the americans kicking arse if admirals of equal skill face off in equal circumstances.
>>29825803
Battle of Surigo Straight says us
>>29825803
Well the US had more subs so no matter what they would have won.
>>29826171
The West Virginia, an old and undergunned Super Dreadnought, was able to hit the Yamashiro at 22800 yards on a first salvo in the dead of night. Jap fire control, even on their modern ships, couldn't come anywhere close to replicating that.
>>29826339
Early war though, their torpedoes were shit. Like tragically, embarrassingly shit.
I forget the specifics but there was some Japanese merchant vessel, the Akitsu... something? There's tons of Akitsu ____ ships though so that doesn't narrow it down....
ANYWAYS this thing was dead in the water. Threw a prop or something. Motionless. A sitting duck.
A US sub fired ALL OF HER TORPEDOES at it (I think that amounted to 30-ish?)
Effective hits: 0. All of them were duds, or didn't track, or dove under before impact.
US torps early war were unmitigated shit.
>>29826339
This is about capital ships though, cruisers and battleships. No subs or planes involved.
>>29826417
I don't think you understand my meaning, the US submarine fleet utterly fucked Japan's logistics chain. While this is a no carrier situation production of new carriers and newer naval fighters were canned because materials from captured territories could no longer make it to the home islands.
So if they wanted to refit, repair, or build new ships in this hypothetical scenario, they'd be fucked.
>>29826171
How far can lob your shells doesn't matter nearly as much as how far you can actually hit something with them. Yamato can't be confirmed to have hit anything, meanwhile Iowa and New Jersey both have ship kills.
>>29826428
That's not what the thread says, just no carriers.
You fuck.
>>29826417
Source because I mis-remembered and most of that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tinosa_%28SS-283%29
>On 24 July 1943, Tinosa encountered the cargo ship Tonan Maru No. 3, the largest tanker of the Japanese fleet, 19,262 tons, sailing from Palau to Truk. Codebreaker warning had put Tinosa in a perfect position to shoot the tanker with a spread of four torpedoes. None exploded. The boat's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander L. R. (Dan) Daspit recorded in his log, "Target had been carefully tracked and with spread used [torpedoes] could not have run properly and missed."
[They maneuvered and made another attempt the next day. 2 connected and did blow]
>They hit and exploded disabling Tonan Maru's engines. With the target dead in the water Tinosa found herself in an ideal firing position, moving in to fire on the tanker at the submarine equivalent of point blank range. The torpedo appeared to hit its target but did not explode. Daspit and crew continued to fire torpedoes one at a time at this (for 1943) huge tanker. All of them hit. None exploded. Daspit's log gives time of firing of each and states over and over again "fired [nth] torpedo. Hit. No apparent effect." Daspit recorded about the sixth one since Tonan Maru had become a "sitting duck", "... Hit. No apparent effect. This torpedo hit well aft on the port side, made splash at the side of the ship and was then observed to have taken a right turn and to jump clear of the water about 100 feet (30 m) from the stern of the tanker. I find it hard to convince myself that I saw this.
>He took his sub to the other side of the target and fired the eighth and ninth torpedoes even as he saw a destroyer approaching from the east. As Tinosa went deep they heard the last torpedo hit and stop running. Daspit recorded in his log, "No explosion. Had already decided to retain one torpedo for examination by base."
15 shots, 2 successful detonations.
>>29826476
It says "Had the IJN and USN battleships fought head to head in the Pacific Theatre"
>>29826499
"no carriers"
Nothing about subs, this isn't world of warships.
>>29826461
Oh yeah, no contest there. I get your meaning now, I thought you were talking like "subs vs ships, let's do this!" and talking leeroying a bunch of subs at an IJN battle group.
Which would be silly.
>>29826511
We're right though, a sub isn't a battleship. Simple as that.
>>29826512
Oh god no, while entertaining that would be suicide.
>>29825803
Such an engagement did occur. It was known as the Battle of Surigao Strait. It was one of the biggest lopsided slaughters in history. While most of the work was indeed done by destroyers, the Yamashiro got whacked by battleships. In this engagement, I think the big difference between American and Japanese battleships is made obvious. Quite simply, the Americans fired the first salvo in the engagement, AND SCORED HITS. This is massive. First salvo hits at twelve and a half miles. Any battleship on battleship engagement must be viewed in the light of this. American radar controlled gunnery would have allowed the Americans to hit first and hit often.
>>29826530
Didn't say anything about DD's either, Taffy 3 did a fine job.
If you want battlegroup vs battlegoroup, then look at the Battle of Surigao Strait.
>>29826580
Yeah but nobody said battlegroups. Thread is literally supposed to be about capital ships. No small shit allowed.
>>29826021
This. Nippon: visual fire control, hand-cranked turrets. US: radar fire control, mechanized turrets. There's not much else to say.
>>29826461
>US submarine fleet utterly fucked Japan's logistics chain
Not until they fixed their torps (over the strenuous objections of BuOrd), and by that point (late '43) the war was already over. Nippon just hadn't realized it.
>>29826562
Surigao Strait is a pretty bad example given it was literally just a battleship and a heavy cruiser getting the shit kicked out of them by like fifty american ships.
>>29826594
Then too bad that's not what the thread says, it just says no carriers.
>>29826652
US production VS Japanese production.
US accuracy VS Japanese accuracy.
It's a perfect example.
>>29826656
But it only mentions battleships. Please read the whole OP.
>>29826676
It only says no carriers.
If you want BB vs BB you'll need a new thread.
>>29826656
The first bit implies other ships aren't allowed, carriers are just the only ones explicitly denied and battleships are the only ones explicitly allowed.
Basic logic here.
>>29826687
This is basic logic if you're willfully ignorant of what a battlegroup consisted of.
If OP wanted BB vs BB, he should have made a thread about BB vs BB.
(even then it would be US)
USS Houston
The USN would git rekt.
Our crews were out of practice.
Our ammunition was defective.
We couldnt fight at night.
Even with our best ships we would have lost. It took us a year to mobilize.
>>29826705
OP here, sorry I didn't word it exactly but I figured people would infer what I was talking about.
>>29826736
>USS Houston
Well sure, if you put a cruiser against a battleship.
>>29826705
He said BB vs BB.
>>29825940
>IT'S SIX O'CLOCK. ADMIRAL, where'll we go for dinner? Oh! Yamato? Sounds fun! Let's go!
>SEVEN O'CLOCK. YA-MA-TO, thanks for inviting us to dinner. Let's start our Yamato Hotel dinner then.
>EIGHT O'CLOCK. Yamato Hotel's dinner's great! Huh? But I'm praising you... Yamato, WHY?
>NINE O'CLOCK. Ah, so that's what it was. What're you saying, Yamato? You're a great battleship, you know. And beautiful, too.
>>29826736
>USS Houston
No.
>>29825803
In 1941/42 it would have been quite the interesting fight. Only modern US BBS would have been the North Carolinas.
Now if we add cruisers and destroyers to the mix it could have been the decisive battle the IJN planned for.
>>29826145
>Two modern BBs vs a old WW1 battlecruiser
Here is your (you)
>>29826776
Apply the houstons issues to the whole fleet. And yes we lose.
>>29826562
Did we have that fire control capability in 1941, though, or was it added in 1943-44?
>>29826819
>The conditions of one ship are applicable to an entire fleet.
>>29826824
It got that good in 44/45.
In 1941 the US had still an edge in radar but it was not really understood by commanders.
Somebody needs to add all the WWII classes (with each refit package over the course of the war) to CMANO.
>>29826830
Your right. They just decided to let one ship go crap.
The one roosevelt personally visited.
Im sure the rest of the navy was tiptop.
Just like Pearl Harbour's defenses.
>>29826877
No carriers in this thread, thus naval aviation is irrelevant, pearl would never have happened.
>>29826877
>Im sure the rest of the navy was tiptop.
It clearly was, you melon. The USN took it all the way home, the IJN on the other hand are currently sitting at the bottom of the ocean
>>29826887
I wasnt refering to carriers or planes.
No AAA, all the ships moored together. Radar but no idea what to do with it.
The japs could have done as much damage if they just rolled up with the fleet and started shelling.
>>29826877
Pearl Harbor was in tip top shape, just note for outside attacks. We were expecting saboteurs, hence why most aircraft were in the open where it'd be easier to monitor them all and the ammo was all in lockers.
>>29826949
Planes on Radar are different than ships.
No, they couldn't have.
>>29826938
Nice shitposting! ;^)
>>29826887
This would actually play right into the hands of the IJN. They wanted the USN to come out and fight.
Imagine the standard BBs forming up in line to fight Yamato, Musashi, Nagato, Mutsu and the Kongos.
Then the cruisers and destroyers launch all their Long Lances...
>>29826938
Dont be a dweeb. Our Carriers bought us the time to prepare. Pearl could have happened without carriers.
A whole fleet bottled up in one place.
The japs could parked subs just outside and rekt us that way.
Or park the whole IJN just outside.
>>29827035
Yeah and their accuracy was shit, and they lost surface engagements with US vessels.
(daily reminder the long lance blew up thier own ships, this isn't world of warships)
>>29827039
Now that's shitposting.
>>29826812
Which is why I said lopsided encounters.
>>29826824
That's a bit more of a complicated question. The Mark 8 FCR was a 1944 invention, and those are what scored the first hits. However, the Mark 3, in the early war, was still very capable, generating straddles on their first salvo.
>>29827035
It'd end poorly for the Japanese. Their spotter aircraft wouldn't be giving shot corrections and anything bigger than a DE on the American side would have radar, so they'd be outshot, outnumbered, and outgunned(Japan only had 2 ships with guns bigger than the Americans, the rest were all smaller), and completely outplayed.
>>29826652
That's why I pointedly only mentioned the fact that they achieved hits on the first salvo.
>>29827062
>the long lance blew up thier own ships
How many ships were lost due to their torpedos blowing up? What percentage?
>>29826819
Only if you apply Taiho's damage controll skills to the rest of IJN.
Iowa class ships at radar and analog fire control computers. The IJN BBs could not possible match the accuracy and precision of fire of the Iowas.
>>29827090
Hoel, I think it was, crippled a cruiser that way at Samar.
>>29827062
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tassafaronga
Does the term "chasing splashes" mean something to you?
The houston was 12 years old.
Built 11 years after ww1.
Hardly a relic when she sank.
>>29827076
>However, the Mark 3, in the early war, was still very capable, generating straddles on their first salvo.
Always? In every battle?
>>29827098
Also known as "how not to stop a fire"
>>29827109
Does the term "pogoda mast" mean anything to you?
>>29827098
Japan had a large number of instances showing they sucked at damage control. Take Shokaku and Kongo, for example.
>>29827103
That's one ship in the whole war. Quite impressive for such a "dangerous" weapon.
>>29827142
You mean pagoda mast? What has it to do with the discussion? Oh, you are shitposting again.
>>29827151
They lost six ships overall due to Oxygen detonations, multiple were damaged.
>>29827162
>tries to say that the US wouldn't see the IJN strike group on radar
>gets called out because the pogoda mast is easy as fuck to see on radar
You're so cute.
>>29826824
The radar on the NC class was able to track the first shell out of a turret and then correct the aim of the following guns in the turret.
That's how far beyond the USN was to the IJN who still had visual ranging (which was actually great for visual, but it's still visual).
>>29827151
Considering I didn't even have to look that instance up, it doesn't speak very highly of its safety record.
>>29827181
They had radar on dec 7.
They thought the japs were b-17s.
>Sure they would have recognized the jap navy.
>Right after they started firing.
>>29827227
You know where the Japanese fleet was during pearl yes? There was this volcano in the way...
They were specifically outside the range of US radar and patrols.
>>29826254
>Excuse me, not 'effectively pen', that should be 'reliably pen'.
no that should be
>reliably penetrate
you WoT faggot
>>29827236
What im getting at, is the US wasnt ready.
The japs caught us with our pants down.
Take away carriers and aircraft, our pants were still around our ankles.
>>29826949
The US wasn't expecting an air attack, and they knew very well that Hawaii was waaaaaaay out of the IJN's combat range. Their biggest fear was from spies and saboteurs, which was why security seemed so lax against a full scale air raid.
>>29827168
Source please?
I can actually find these:
Mikuma -> hit by at least 5 bombs at the Battle of Midway leading to secondary explosions of torpedos and aa ammuniton
Would have most likely sunk anyway regardless of torpedos.
Suzuya -> bomb hit sets off torpedo which leads to a fire which sets off more torpedos.
That's one for the count!
Chōkai -> got hit by gunfire and a torpedo, a later hit sets off a torpedo which leads to loss of power. Ship scuttled by DD.
Let's count that as the second one.
Since Surigao Strait is a dead end, let's look at what happened in the only other battleship on battleship engagement- the Second Battle off Guadalcanal. What can be derived from this incident?
Long story short- only a little. In the battle, the South Dakota suffered an electrical failure before beginning to take hits, which resulted in her mauling.
Washington had the Kirishima on radar, but refrained from firing because they couldn't tell if it was the South Dakota or not. When it started shooting, its identity was revealed, and in the course of about 5 minutes, the Kirishima was crippled, and a short resumation of fire later it was sinking. The Kirishima didn't know the Washington was there until it was already under fire.
What can we learn from this? First of all, that night battles are chaotic as hell. Secondly, the radar gunnery control allowed the Washington the ability to rapidly annihilate the Kirishima, despite the difficulty of observing shellfall at night.
>>29827227
>>29827285
The Japanese never would have sailed into visual range of Pearl. If they didn't have their own carriers, there would have been nothing stopping them from getting attacked by ground based planes. And even if the surface fleet DID cause damage, they'd basically be trapped because they wouldn't have the fuel to actually get back to Japan at that point, leaving them sitting ducks.
>>29827285
No, not at all because we still had radar and patrols, they weren't in range of Pearl with anything except their carriers.
This is a no carrier thread.
>>29827299
All three of those count, nice try.
>>29826223
You won't hit anything reliable at 27k yards anyway.
>>29827299
>not counting the Mikuma
Look, mate. Her sister ship, the Mogami got hit by 6 bombs at that same time. This while her bow was caved in because she rammed the Mikuma while maneuvering at night. The reason she survived- She dumped her torpedoes overboard.
>>29827321
If you want to be anal about and think it makes a difference after getting hit be 5 bombs.
Still looking for other examples.
>>29827343
>Mogami
>sister
>>29827343
You are right, that's a good point. Let's say all three count then.
Still compared to all the ships equipped with Long Lances it's not that bad considering that 2 of those cases happened later in the war.
>>29827288
So its out of the realm possibility that japan could have used a different strategy.
Maybe gone full wolf pack with subs?
Or just steam the whole fleet to pearl?
To be honest we werent expecting any attack.
We circled the wagons, then sent everybody on weekend leave.
So much for high alert!
>>29827389
They're of the same class, dipshit.
>>29827451
Yes, but Mogami is a cute boy.
>>29827392
Yeah, I figure the Long Lance was well worth it. I'm another anon who just took exception to not counting the Mikuma is all.
>>29827458
At most a reverse trap, otherwise known as the best kind of trap.
>>29827419
>Maybe gone full wolf pack with subs?
Maybe if the Japanese had any subs of note. However, Japanese sub strategy was fucked from the get go because the Japanese saw them as force multipliers for the surface fleet rather than as interdiction and commerce raiders like how the Germans and Americans actually used them.
>Or just steam the whole fleet to pearl?
That would have been a one way ticket for the IJN in more ways than one. Figuratively, they'd be driving right into a fortified enemy port with lots of airbases, artillery, and a protected harbor to keep the ships out of harms way. Literally, they just didn't have the fuel to sail to Hawaii and back. Even if they could have blockaded Pearl Harbor, there was no way for them to get home and they eventually would have been overwhelmed by reinforcements from the mainland and the Atlantic.
>We circled the wagons, then sent everybody on weekend leave.
Yes, because high command rightfully believed that it would be the Pacific island holdings like the Phillipines that would get hit first. Nobody expected that Japan would have the balls to sneak a carrier fleet into striking range of Pearl.
>>29827330
If you're a Japanese battleship maybe.
>>29827308
Washington fired at Kirishima at 9000yrds though and it was iluminated by it's own guns. It's not an good example either since both Washington and South Dakota had Kirishima more than outmatched.
Though Washington surely did a good job at staying undetected .
The japanese were willing to experiment with new ideas in sub tech.
Aircraft subs, transport subs, oxy fueled torpedoes, etc.
Without carriers perhaps they would have focused on subs instead.
>>29827631
Have a look at:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
The Accuracy During World War II part.
Also nice shitposting. ;^)
Fuck retards like Kongou.
>>29827647
South Dakota couldn't shoot back. It was almost entirely Washington's work.
>>29827782
Of course. But I meant from a theoretical point of view.
>>29827779
She's not retarded, just British.
>>29827695
Except Nip subs were pretty much shit. And their doctrine didn't help.
Also, their vaunted I-400's were even shitter than usual. They were fuckhuge yet could only carry three (supremely shitty) seaplanes.
>>29828730
suicide yourself
Burningu rabu!
>>29827818
>>29827824
>>29828835
FUCK RETARDS LIKE KONGOU
>>29828755
I-400s were the biggest and longest ranged submarines of the pre nuclear age.
Japan's submarine doctrine was shit. They should have allowed them to roam free to attack American logistics.
>>29828975
I say Kongou, you say
>>29827782
South Dakota was the tank, and Washington was dps.
>>29829032
Washington was a better ship.
>>29829037
That's not how life works.
>>29829117
That's how it literally worked.
>>29829032
Fuck
>>29829205
>>29829032
Desu?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wucuqR5ceVQ
>>29829522
You used the wrong video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBFfc5246fM
>>29829533
Shit.
>>29826496
>Dan Daspit
Da Spit
>>29829032
>>29829364
>>29829522
You will die a virgin. Sorry.
>>29829533
That was hilarious.
>>29829124
Not at all.
>>29829607
Already married to a wonderful wife. Its too late for you now.
>>29829006
They also had abysmal diving depths, made a massive target for depth charges/hedgehogs and sonar, had a massive pressure weak-spot in the form of the float plane hangars doors which failed on more than on occasion when submerged.
Despite being so large, they were no faster, nor more heavily armed than other submarines with nearly the same range, which were only 1/2 of the weight.
It
Was
Shit
>>29827039
>Or park the whole IJN just outside
and gave their entire fleet run out of fuel on the return leg.
The pearl harbor fleet was as big of a operation the IJN could put together, they scrounged up every tanker available to support the mission.
>>29826649
>Nippon: visual fire control, hand-cranked turrets. US: radar fire control, mechanized turrets. There's not much else to say.
/thread
>>29825803
since OP is shit about info, I'm making up a battle.
ships;
>ijn; fuso
>usn; south dakota
>both have full combat load of 1944
location;
>solomon islands, coral sea to be exact
>battlefield size; 60x60km
weather;
>clear, high visibility with a 5kn east-to-west wind
support;
>none, 1v1 battle
time of day/year;
>july 1944, both ships have the most recent upfits/extra shit of that time, adjust accordingly.
>battle starts at 1730 zulu time
pic very related.
>>29829882
How far away are they from each other at the start?
>>29829882
SoCuck wipes the floor with Fuso.
>>29827700
I'd caution you to actually read through sources before you lecture people, but in this case you clearly did. So I'm baffled, did you skip the part about nine 16" guns capable of firing two rounds a minute, or are you bad at math?
But thanks for your tactical input that getting hit with a 16" shell every couple minutes is no big deal ;^)
>>29829911
35 klicks
>>29826289
They were Battlecruisers. They weren't bad battlecruisers, but that was what they were. Speed, decent firepower, crummy armour. That's a BC in a nutshell.
>>29829882
>South Dakota vs a fucking Fuso
>state of the art fast battleship built in 1941 versus an upgraded battleship that was considered obsolete in 1920
Gee.
>>29830309
Fusou da
>>29830399
Fusou da
>>29825803
USN reports on captured IJN fire control systems ala 1945-1946.
>>29830498
If anyone interested point out what you would like to see from the table of contents.
>>29830546
Just link the PDFs.
>>29830546
Don't expect any good pics. Its all terrible copies because all the originals either are sealed away or destroyed.
>>29830399
>>29830476
>>29825923
Throw in superior damage control as well. USN ships were able to recover from blows that would sink an IJN vessel.
>>29827695
'The side I want to win will make adaptations to counter my bizarre scenario, the side I want to lose will not. Then they will lose'
>>29830309
This is /k/ these days...
>>29829923
>getting hit with a 16" shell every hour is no big deal
fixed it for you
This is why any reasonable commander would try to close the distance.
Longest range hit without radar and radar controlled gunlaying was Warspite's 26,000 yards.
Look at the USN's instances of long range hits at night. Early war, the IJN wins their wet dream decisive BB fight, late war the USN wipes the floor with them BB vs BB.
>The loss of Scharnhorst demonstrated the vital importance of radar in modern naval warfare. While the German battleship should have been able to outgun all of her opponents save the battleship Duke of York, the early loss of radar-assisted fire control combined with the problem of inclement weather left her at a significant disadvantage. Scharnhorst was straddled by 31 of the 52 radar-fire-controlled salvos fired by Duke of York.
>In the aftermath of the battle, the Kriegsmarine commander, Großadmiral Karl Dönitz remarked, "Surface ships are no longer able to fight without effective radar equipment."
>>29832048
Ill make a scenerio where i take away someones advantage.
Then assume even though they were smart enough to surprise me once, theyre to stupid to adapt and change.
My point is this. Even in a world without carriers. The Japanese could still have rekt us the first year of the war.
Not because they could build more or better ships or because they were better fighters ( in 1941 they were).
In 1941-1942 we weren't ready to fight.
Period. The US fleet vs the IJN, the US gets fucked.
A year later its a totally different story.
>>29825803
take off the weeb goggles faggot
>>29826204
>Stay out of their range
>a fucking Iowa
>>29827039
>>29833910
>In 1941-1942 we weren't ready to fight.
Is that why the USN won more than half the battles and came out ahead in both of the major carrier battles it lost?
>>29825940
>>29826771
boatfags pls leave
>>29827035
Okay my weeb friend but the standards performed better then pretty much every jap BB in terms of damage control during the war.
United States purely because of the fact that their officers weren't retarded
>hurr lets take our most prized, biggest, propaganda worthy battleship and run it onto an island so the sailors can fight on the ground
>>29834140
>Neither the Yamato or Musashi were ever given HE rounds and instead had full loads of Heavy AP for their primary battery
>They expected them to not be completely worthless in helping IJN ground forces when the bursting charge most likely wouldn't even have been triggered unless it hit a cliffside
Full retard.
>>29825803
USN battleship doctrine was focused on supporting aircraft carriers. Japanese doctrine too, but to lesser extent. That gives Japanese an edge(on top of having 2 battleships that were bigger and nastier than anything USN could dream of), but on the other hand we know how "well" did their damage control crews fare during the war which evens it out. Then you have Americans having far better fire control systems.
IJN would get destroyed quickly.
>>29830309
I'm trying. IJN couldn't into building new ships anyway. They're similarly armed, of comparable size (length and tonnage) and both good ships. Would be one hell of a fight.
>>29825803
USN
The IJN had two Yamato class ships while the USN had 6 Iowas. Even if we assume that a yamato can reliably beat a Yamato the USN is still coming out ahead.
>>29836191
>USN had 6 Iowas
Anon, you realize two were never finished right?
>>29834007
No.
>>29836191
If you're going to count the Illinois and Kentucky, at least give them the Shinano, anon.
>>29833982
I mean it's also why the US lost every single one of it's SEA holdings in 1942. That was a thing.
>>29837284
Wasn't that one going to be a carrier?
>>29837447
She was a carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano
>>29827824
What's the difference?
>>29838343
All British are retarded, but not all retards are British?
>>29830498
>USN reports on captured IJN fire control systems ala 1945-1946.
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK UPLOAD THIS TO MEDIAFIRE OR SOMETHING
>>29832254
>taking a 16 inch superheavy shell that can punch right through Yamato's deck armor is no big deal
It's a big deal, anon. I've analyzed the Yamato vs Iowa fight before, and IMO Iowa's best bet is to stay at extreme range, where her fire control advantage is most telling, and her armor scheme is most effective.
>>29837369
>the US lost every single one of it's SEA holdings in 1942
Philippines and Guam were the only SEA holdings and the US never expected to be able to defend them.
>>29838841
>he doesn't know
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ_toc.htm
Early in the war it's not so clean cut (depending on circumstances) but later on it's a one way battle.
"West Virginia's radar picked up Nishimura's force at a range of 42,000 yd (38,000 m) and reached a firing solution at 30,000 yd (27,000 m). After tracking the force, at 3:52 am West Virginia fired her eight 16-inch (406 mm) main-battery guns at a range of 22,800 yd (20,800 m) and struck the leading Japanese battleship with her first salvo. Five of her first six salvos struck Nishimura's ships"
>>29826417
>>29826496
Despite their torpedoes being "bad", they still managed to sink around 150 Japanese ships in 1942 (their "worst year"), while having a higher percentage of torpedoes hit than in the following years. The USN studies on their war time patrols, looking at their own logs and cross checking with Japanese logs after the war, also came to the conclusion that it took roughly 3.2 torpedoes to sink a ship, which means that roughly 450+ torpedoes hit and exploded in 1942 when they were at their "least reliable".
Not bad for being a "bad" torpedo.
>>29839156
The Germans had a similar problem early in the war interestingly enough with the G7a TI torpedoes, leading Dönitz to say "Never before in military history has a force been sent into battle with such a useless weapon."
>>29839266
>http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ_toc.htm
that was specifically the torpedoes used during operation weserubung. where germany employed subs in an offensive fleet role.
and it was not only the g7e but also the g7a at the time.
they didnt really use the g7e much.
