Find a flaw.
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Find a flaw.
>>30324568
It's not the Showboat.
It's not in active service.
>>30324568
the hull armor is too thin at the bow, only about 1.5 feet thick compared to 3.5 feet at the mid and stern
>>30324568
If you want an actual flaw, the Navy never fully fixed the harmonic vibrations caused by the propellers.
All the American Fast Battleships suffered from vibration problems to a degree, with the North Carolina having the worst of it.
The Iowas had vibration problems at high speed, which also means speed loss since energy is being wasted shaking the ship and not moving it forward.
When they inspected the Iowas in the 80's for reactivation, they found hairline cracks in the rear bulkhead connectors because vibration stressed that part of the hull and was only dampened by the 13 inches of rear bulkhead armor.
>>30324581
Iowa killed a cruiser, showboat killed a destroyer.
man, put on a trip so i can filter you already.
fucking faggot, kys.
sage
>>30324678
And Sister Showboat killed a battleship.
>>30324568
It's not the Alabama
>>30324568
Halsey denied her glory.
>>30324581
This forever and always.
>>30324678
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Katori
A slow training cruiser made even slower by a torpedo hit.
Massachusetts knocked out two destroyers, a cruiser AND a battleship.
Beat that, Iowa-fags.
>>30324701
A battlecruiser, and only after it knocked out the electronics on another battleship.
>>30324742
Still a cruiser.
>>30324725
Honestly, I think it was for the best.
As it is, the almost unanimous consensus was/is "Battleships are old and busted, carriers are the new hotness"
Had the battlebarges had their moment, you'd have a lot more people wanting to waste money on a dead end that could have instead been used to make carriers that much better.
Battleships are infinitely cooler though.
>>30324767
>Still a cruiser.
A fucking garbage cruiser that was slow, poorly armed, and already damaged. That wasn't a fight, it was an execution. The straddles at extreme range on a destroyer in the same engagement were more impressive.
>>30324769
Nah. Even had they been able to blow up more than a few ships during the war we had already made them into floating AA platforms and had plans to make one of the existing hulls into a missile ship.
>>30324798
Why? Neither one could fight back.
>>30324769
The Surigao strait didn't change anyone's minds and that still happened.
What it did was deny us a last-gen battleship fight. As it was, the only one we ever got was King George V vs the Bismarck.
>>30324568
I can't see the plot
>>30324874
What do you mean by plot?
>>30324861
But that was just a kid and his friends beating a cripple with some sticks. Bismark was already spent and couldn't even hit anything with its return fire.
>>30324568
A pointless waste of resources by the time they came out.
>>30324884
Plot! PLOT!
Something which makes things much more interesting!
>>30324678
>Iowa killed a cruiser
A training """"cruiser"""".
>>30324818
>Why? Neither one could fight back.
The destroyer could at least make more than like 10 knots.
>>30324935
Ah, so this?
>>30324956
When the thing shooting at you is still faster, you're dead either way.
>>30324943
A fairly light cruiser, but an armed warship nonetheless.
>>30324909
Precisely my point. It wasn't a proper fight.
And I know proper fights are rare because you don't win by having an equal chance of winning. Which is why it's a shame.
>>30324568
Not this badass
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Texas_(BB-35)
>>30324969
Exactly
>>30325042
Not sure how badass one can be when you're just a floating bombardment platform. I mean that's what all battleships are but when the enemy can't really fight back it's not that badass.
>>30325074
One did shoot back at New Jersey...I think the captain finally called off the bombardment after they'd been at it for 45 minutes.
>>30325069
>>30324983
Maybe it couldn't have escaped, but it at least had the maneuverability to make itself a difficult target.
>>30325177
If you run you, just die tired.
>>30324568
>takes 87 years to start
>time from idle to underway is longer since lolsteam
>it has a great tendency to hurt you
>sub-par amount of medical stations and areas (they would actually use the officers mess as an ER in a mass casualty)
>good, but could be better DCC wise
>eh range on the main guns
>despite being built for it, never used in ship to ship combat so we have no idea how it would do
I love the iowa class, hell, I just saw and went in all the engineering shit on the mo, but there are some real flaws.
>>30324568
>Ivan we need delete Iowa
>Fire moskit
>da tovaridj komandir
>No more Iowa
>>30324983
The destroyer was faster.
Not enough anti air.
Not enough armour to defeat a direct hit from a 16" AP.
Not enough compartmentalisation in the double hull, a torpedo hit will flood 20%.
Analogue fire control.
Antiquated radar.
Guns have a two hundred and ten foot error at twelve miles.
Can not hit anything beyond twenty miles.
>>30324678
Fifteen battle stars says fuck yo cruiser.
>>30326045
>Not enough anti air.
>has more AA throw weight than any other ship of WWII
>>30324568
Flaw? This isn't /v/?
They should use these old bastards as anti-piracy ships. Perfect for murdering poorly equipped Africans, and just that silhouette would put the fear of America back into their hearts.
>>30327476
Far from perfect, they dont have anything worth using anything but the M2s on.
Like using a car to find and squash an ant. Pointless.
>>30326315
Check back when you get selected to be the ship that carried the US President.
>>30324767
Washington still performed pretty fucking outstanding during the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal though. After the 4 Destroyers accompanying them went down and South Dakota's circuits got fried, Washington pretty much essentially soloed the Japanese fleet by herself. Managed to sink Ayanami and Kirishima and walk away without a single scratch.
>>30324568
It's not the New Jersey.
Did anyone mention massive insane crewing requirements?
The fact that any shaped warhead can burn through its armor?
>>30329598
USS New Jersey is still in service dealing with the high crime rate in Camden too.
What is the most accomplished post-dreadnaught battleship? it feels like they didn't get a chance to really shine before carrier took the spot light
.
>>30329726
Warspite
>>30327248
Which is very much NOT ENOUGH even by WWII standards, as ships being extremely vulnerable to air is THE reason carrier took the spotlight.
>>30324756
My nigguh, fall river life.
>>30325310
... compared to what
>>30326045
>Not enough armour to defeat a direct hit from a 16" AP.
Also this is bullshit, it can deflect a standard 16 inch shell, just not the "super-heavy" 16 inch shell (which only the US had.)
It was built in the Age of the Carrier.
>>30324670
Also, the TDS was fundamentally defective, as on the North Carolinas.
>>30324767
>still a cruiser
A training boat with guns. Any IJN destroyer from the Fubuki-class up outgunned Katori in both artillery and torpedoes, on top of being significantly faster.
>>30329694
It was ENTIRELY ANALOGUE.
Of course it takes a ton of crew.
>>30329726
Bismarck
>>30330158
Everyone else's was underarms you mean. US fleets had ample AA defenses backed by radar guidance, allowing them to harass anything in range and make it next to impossible to effectively attack them.
According the the US Navy they shot down over 3000 Japanese aircraft with naval AAA and shot at another 8000 with such effectiveness that they couldn't accomplish their mission.
Quick question that might be stupid, but did US Battleships use their 16" guns for Anti-Air?
>>30333602
Only for really big planes.
>>30324581
>It's not the Slowboat.
FTFY
If hotel and her sister survived the war, what would the USA had done with them? Examine it and then put it next to a nuke like Nagato or would they retain it for shore bombardment till parts ran out.
>>30333719
Park it in Norfolk and use it as hotel for navy bigwigs.
>>30324568
It's not Montana.
>>30333719
Probably use them as hotels. Even the limitless resources USN would think it costs too much to keep them running.
>>30324568
Navy
>>30324568
It's missing treads and deserves to be on land
