Tell me you know about the imperial Japanese navy

They never had a chance. Even if they had been tactically and strategically perfect, pulling all the right moves at exactly the right moments, they still would have lost simply because they were Bambi going up against Godzilla.

It was a complete waste of steel and men. Japan never had the slightest chance of beating the US in a long fight. Even in a one-on-one war against the UK, Japan would have eventually lost.

*unsheathes CBG*

nothin personnell...tojo

>Even in a one-on-one war against the UK, Japan would have eventually lost.

*sinks your battlecruisers*

Nothing personnel round eye devils!

>Even in a one-on-one war against the UK, Japan would have eventually lost.

Not at all. The Japanese could basically sink an arbitrary number of RN ships after letting them come to the Pacific because RN carrier doctrine was garbage and never really improved.

Even in fleet battles, the RN barely traded 1-1 with the fucking Kriegsmarine, objectively a far inferior navy to the IJN in quality.

Yes, but the UK had access to a much larger resource base than Japan did. Japan could have seized various parts of Asia, of course, as it did historically, but it would have taken years for it to exploit its conquests to reach parity with the UK. That's why I say that in the long run, the UK would have beat Japan one on one, and beat Japan badly in fact.

Yeah, jokes aside, Japan would have easily defeated the UK in a 1 vs 1.

>Yes, but the UK had access to a much larger resource base than Japan did.

The UK didn't use that industry even remotely effectively though. There's a reason that, even while being heavily subsidized by the USA, the WW2-era UK was massively outproduced in almost every metric by Germany, despite having an ostensibly similar industrial base.

>Japan could have seized various parts of Asia, of course, as it did historically, but it would have taken years for it to exploit its conquests to reach parity with the UK. That's why I say that in the long run, the UK would have beat Japan one on one, and beat Japan badly in fact.

The UK would not be able to commit to a multi-year in Southeast Asia in the first place. Plus the RN had other commitments (this is why fucking Italy was able to shut down the Med for Britain for three years), the IJN didn't.

>The UK would not be able to commit to a multi-year in Southeast Asia in the first place. Plus the RN had other commitments (this is why fucking Italy was able to shut down the Med for Britain for three years), the IJN didn't.
Sure it could. I said one-on-one, remember.

A one on one war does't erase all the RN's commitments from existence, even if Germany and the UK are not at war.

You don't really have a "long run" in naval warfare. Replacing a battleship or aircraft carrier is as easy as replacing a tank that gets blown up or something. The fact that you can't easily replace ships means that you simply can't afford to lose them at all. It all comes down to one decisive battle where you either win or lose.

>The UK didn't use that industry even remotely effectively though. There's a reason that, even while being heavily subsidized by the USA, the WW2-era UK was massively outproduced in almost every metric by Germany, despite having an ostensibly similar industrial base.
Not the guy you're responding to, but that's simply wrong. The UK massively outprodced Germany, not the other way around.

The history of the Pacific theater shows that to be false. Obviously the theater was won by US production of ships that overwhelmed initial Japanese victories.

Production of steel, coal, oil, iron ore, aircraft, artillery, and tanks say no (despite, again, the UK being heavily subsidized by the USA while Germany was having the crap bombed out of it by the USA).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Britain produced more surface vessels. That's it. An especially telling comparison is steel production. In 1941, Britain produced 12.3 million tons, and Germany produced 32 million tons.

ww2-weapons.com/british-arms-production/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Industrial_output

You do realize that construction of a battleship takes about 2 years in WW2 and requires as much steel as an armored division, yes?

>the WW2-era UK was massively outproduced in almost every metric by Germany, despite having an ostensibly similar industrial base.

Are you serious?

The USA is a special case on top of having a more powerful industry than most of the other great powers combined.

>Replacing a battleship or aircraft carrier is NOT as easy as replacing a tank that gets blown up or something.

This is what I meant to say.

The UK doesn't have nearly the production capacity of the USA. Not even close.

So if Japan had decided to ignore the US and focus on the Commonwealth, would they have gotten any closer to Australia?

They would be in Delhi by summer 1942 and Melbourne by Christmas the same year

> steel, coal, oil, iron ore
You only get by counting the UK separated from her empire but Germany alone. Sure, Britian didn't produce any oil, but individual colonies/dominions like Canada, Egypt, and Trinidad would individually outproduce Germany, let alone all together. . digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0277ah.pdf (Page 6 of the PDF) Furthermore, they are not direct military production, they are resources that are in turn used to create military production. Especially owing to third reich inefficiency, this was not always done well.

>Actual weapons
You might want to actually read your own link. Tanks are the only one the Germans outproduced the Brits in.
>Aircraft.
>British Empire, Total 177,025
>Germany and territories, Total, 133,387

That of course overlooks that it was the British, not the Germans which went into strategic bombing in a big way; an Avro Lancaster requires enormously more resources to construct than a Ju-87, what with weighing about 5 times as much.

>Artillery
Again, from your own link

>British Empire, 226,113
>Germany and Territories, 73,484.

That of course ignores other things, like

>Germany was having the crap bombed out of it by the USA).
The UK dropped more tons of bombs than the Americans did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

>RAF Bomber command, 964,644 tons
>U.S. 8th air force, 623,418 tons.

And of course we will be completely ignoring how the u-boat campaign both forced otherwise fungible production to be going to things other than convoy defense, as well as direct loss of production from import shortage, because it's only fair to count economic damage when the Allies are doing it, right?

American ships were just plain better in addition to being more numerous. Better damage control. Better radar. Better fire control. Better armor, and often better guns. The only area where Japan held a definitive advantage was torpedoes.

>Better armor, and often better guns
That's not what Java Sea said

I'm skeptical, but I also want to believe for how dramatic that would be.

A few of these would clear the way real quick

>Tanks are the only one the Germans outproduced the Brits in.
not really if you consider just pure tanks

they outproduced germany on tanks too

Just ask the Kirishima about it.

BUT MUH SLIM

>Better armor, and often better guns

That's pretty much correct. Java sea was at the beginning of the Pacific war. By 1943 the Japanese odds in a fight weren't all that good.

>The UK dropped more tons of bombs than the Americans did.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Ussb-1.svg

They didn't actually, they just dropped more on Germany specifically. And with lesser effectiveness. When asked after the war which set of bombing was more effective, UK or American, Albert Speer was dismissive of UK efforts while noting that American bombing nearly brought Germany's whole industry to its knees. He said that, by far, American bombing was much more crucial.

have Washington ask Yamato about armor if we're on the topic of 1939 battleships

Japanese guns and armor didn't change much throughout the war, being superior to the Americans in firepower and in armor until the Baltimore class came along. The Clevelands could give one hell of a fight against the older Japanese vessels, but modern cruisers with 10 203mm guns could out gun any American cruiser

But aren't defeats like that only possible when you severely underestimate your enemy? That's a self-correcting problem.

Yes, let's take a look at that.

>implying Yamato gunners could even hit the Washington.

Is this the classic American literacy meme?
Considering Kirishima nailed the SoDak on her first salvo and jammed a turret in a night battle, yeah she could. Yamato blew out Gambier Bay's keel at Samar after all

Not really. The British Army just wasn't that good when it didn't have the Americans either directly aiding it or providing a lifeline. By and large they were no better equipped than the Japanese until the latter half of the war (again, in significant part thanks to the Americans; the most common British tank was the Sherman) and inferior on a man to man level. Marshall William Slim noted as much, and said that "Our’ material advantages could be used to counter the enemy’s skills." (said advantage being mostly provided by the Americans).

>modern cruisers with 10 203mm guns could out gun any American cruiser

Oh wow. The almighty power of the difference of a single gun.

Also, props for trying to bring up the IJN's greatest mistake as if it were a positive.

works on their screen

A single hit (1) on a slower than slow escort carrier at an optimal range.

All that jazz aside, the Yamato is sexy af.

"Targeted by 5 in (127 mm) gunfire from the destroyers and destroyer escorts, the Japanese cruiser Chōkai was hit amidships, starboard side, most likely by the sole 5 in (127 mm) gun of the carrier White Plains.[53] While the shell could not pierce the hull, the 7 pounds (3.2 kg) bursting charge it contained set off the eight deck-mounted Japanese Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes, which were especially volatile because they contained pure oxygen, in addition to their 1,080 lb (490 kg) warheads. The explosion resulted in such severe damage that it knocked out the rudder and engines, causing Chōkai to drop out of formation. Within minutes, an American aircraft dropped a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb on her forward machinery room. Fires began to rage and she went dead in the water. Later that day, she was scuttled by torpedoes from the destroyer Fujinami."

Death via pop gun

>We hit a carrier escort

Wow, that 69450 ton shi was such a great investment. Nothing else could have sunk that escort carrier. I mean, golly, this was money well spent.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tullibee_(SS-284)#Fourth_war_patrol_and_loss
Did the Americans even have working torpedoes?

The Iowa sank one (1) training cruiser of less tonnage yet still served as the wank material of baby boomers since the dawn of time

The hit was around 31km if I recall

Robert Lundgren's book compiling Japanese and American sources makes an argument for Yamato's shells destroying the Gambier Bay's keel

If only they had it like 15 years sooner when it might have actually been relevant in combat rather than a glorified target for carriers.

The Iowas were also a waste of money, don't ask me to defend them. BB construction should have ended with the Alabama. The Iowas did basically nothing of note throughout their entire carriers.

To think, had they built 3 aircraft carriers instead of this they would have sunk more than just Yorktown and turned the tide of the war, eventually conducting a successful full scale land invasion of Australia, New Zealand, India and later the United States west of the Rockies.

Ask Japanese historians

ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/JANAC-Losses-6.html

t-this is a troll, right?

So no then

There is a book called the Destroyermen where it it is like a running gag that the men will come up with some crazy scheme that involves the Mark 14 torpedo, only to have it inevitably fail and them have to improvise a new plan on the fly.

>Considering Kirishima nailed the SoDak on her first salvo

Exactly 1 shell hit on target

Here's what happened to Kirishima
navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf

Jesus Christ

Six shells
navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis_Summary.pdf

Try to not be a fucking retard for once and consider that Kirshima was a 1915 battlecruiser fighting a 1939 battleship

The MK14 sank the vast majority of of Japanese shipping.

Did Japanese torpedoes sink a similar amount of tonnage?

The type 93 ensured Japanese surface dominance for the first year of the war and destroyed practically the entire US Asiatic fleet and ABDACOM naval forces as well, and the reason why American shipping wasn't targeted was only because of retarded Japanese submarine doctrine

Six hits is slightly better. After all the Sodak was illuminated by multiple searchlights and all and was incapable of returning fire.

Bullshit. The Kirshima was heavily overhauled. It was a contemporary battleship.

That ranks in the top five stupidest fucking shit I've ever read in my life

Japanese torpedoes were undeniably better for the majority of the war. Especially the "long lance" torpedoes used by Japanese destroyers. These things were a menace, capable of sinking a cruiser or crippling a battleship. Very fast, long-ranged, and with a large warhead.

Nagato is my wife.

Unironically the second best navy at the time. Too bad they underestimated just how massive the gulf was between them and #1. Poor doctrine and retarded infighting sealed their fate.

I'll admit i'm semi trolling in this thread but this is flat out nonsense. In straight shootout vs any really modern BB she was in deep shit.

>Damage control

Well obviously. But that's because Japanese ships in general were inferior to their American counterparts.

Oh wow they called her a battleship so she's a battleship! Never fucking mind the 8 inches of armor

I'm sure the Yamato was inferior to the Iowa

Or the Takao to the New Orleans

Or the Fubuki to her contemporaries, which at the time included four stacks with four inch guns

Try to breathe from somewhere other than your gaping mouth your lard assed fucktard

The fact that they considered 8-inches to be acceptable for a battleship is very telling. They were simply outclassed, despite being arguably the number 2 navy in the world. They just couldn't compete with number 1.

kek

Takao is arguably worse, since her turrets and barbettes had only one inch of armor, which was only good against shrapnel and aircraft strafing.

New Orleans had superior fire control, radar, anti-air, maneuverability, agility, and endurance. The Takaos were slightly faster, had 1 more gun, and torpedo.

>I'm sure the Yamato was inferior to the Iowa

It was. A bigger ship doesn't necessarily mean a better ship. I mean, the Yamato would have been great if it had come out sooner. I mean, imagine her at Jutland. But by the time it was commissioned, it was simply an anachronism, destined to be nothing more than target for submarines and carrier-based aircraft.

The New Orleans' early AA consisted of 8 single mount 5 inch guns and some 50 cals. It was only after extensive modifications which overloaded the ship that made the AA superior to Takao. Maneuverability and agility don't matter for shit in surface war fare. Ships don't move around and shoot unless they're of Iowa class or similar displacement.The 2-3 knot advantage was a much bigger deal in the long run. Takao's fire control was decent enough to take out heavy cruisers in night battles

Yamato was better in almost every way relating to surface combat. She had better guns, better armor, and better survivability due to a greater displacement. Iowa had superior fire control, but her mechanical accuracy was inferior since US doctrine focused on wide spreads to ensure a hit if the FCS missed. AA is a non factor in surface combat, and agility in a 50000 ton battleship isn't going to provide any tactical benefit

Yeah, but Iowas were carrier escorts. So if there is an Iowa around, well, time to start running cause you're about to have like a bazillion planes up your ass.

Is that real footage?

That doesn't make it superior to the Yamato. It makes the carriers superior to the Yamato. The Iowa was inferior and would have lost a surface fight

>Ships don't move around and shoot unless they're of Iowa class or similar displacement

Uhh, are you implying that ships did not shoot while sailing at speed?

I'm implying ships don't move back and forth dodging shells and shooting like in video games

Doesn't matter because the Iowa had a solid 6 knot advantage in top speed. An Iowa would never end up in a fight against Yamato unless it was under favorable circumstances, such as having numerical superiority. In any unfavorable circumstance, the Iowa and simply disengage and say sianara.

If it can't fight then it's obviously an inferior ship and cannot match the greatest battleship ever built

That's exactly what USN ships could do, since their fire control systems were gyro stabilized and their turret's traverse was slaved to the fire director.

The destroyers at Samar were capable of trading accurate fire with the Japanese ships while taking evasive maneuvers.

Ship maneuverability is not useful in a battle line because of the need to coordinate. It is useful when the ships come under air attack and need to dodge torpedoes/dive bombers.

>an engagement type that literally never happened between the classes is obviously the best metric to compare them with.

How can it be "greatest" if it can't even catch its prey? That's like a lion that is too slow to hunt moose.

>the purpose of the class is not the best metric to compare them

The concept of the fleet in being would force the Iowa to cede control of the seas if it could only run away

>>the purpose of the class is not the best metric to compare them
But that's wrong you retard. Literally and objectively wrong in the case of the Iowa class

>The concept of the fleet in being would force the Iowa to cede control of the seas if it could only run away
Not "my" half of the response, but no, that's wrong and stupid as well. A fleet in being, by definition, never controls anything. It forces enemies to bunch up and not spread out if it's working, for fear of engaging the fleet if it sorties and loses. That is not applicable to the Iowa class, for reasons that should be obvious.

These large battleships were essentially an anarchism at this point. Neither Iowa nor Yamato should have been built. But if we MUST compare them, then yes, the Yamato would certainly win in a direct engagement, but the Iowa is still better overall by virtue of being more versatile. The Yamato didn't even have high-explosive shells.

>The Yamato didn't even have high-explosive shells.
The Type 3 was a high explosive shell, or at least could be used in the role. Kongo and Haruna put Henderson field out of action with those shells after all

If the Yamato was bearing down on troop transports, would the Iowa's superiority be able to protect them? Of course not, so her role as an escort would fail. A lion that's too slow to hunt a moose could go for its young and force the moose to interfer

>I STILL have no idea what the concept of a fleet in being is, so I bring up something 100% irrelevant.
Try again, retard. And the reverse is also true. If the Iowa is attacking a section of sea the Japanese control, the Yamato's sluggishness means that every ship that isn't right under its guns is dead on the water; which in practice controls a hell of a lot more sea space.

Good luck on hoping the Yamato actually lands a hit at range.

You people know that in a battle lucks defines all?

The Hood was sink by one very lucky shell

Yamato put a type 91 under Gambier Bay at 31km so I don't see the problem with that
The Yamato wouldn't be too slow to fucking respond to an attack considering the Japanese had radar and planes and the ability to spot a fucking battleship moving in. A 6 knot advantage doesn't mean shit if the Iowa's target is close the Yamato, which is also capable of a decent 27 knots. The Yamato would be able to force a fight in the same manner a lion could push a cheetah away from a kill

A single shell into a target that is barely moving.

Not very impressive. IIRC even her Captain noted the poor results from her gunners.

He's right in that the Yamato-class battleships were meant to be capstone of the "decisive battle" doctrine (Kantai Kessen). They were meant to destroy the USN in one final apocalyptic battleship vs. battleship slugfest, where their large guns and thick armor would enable them to crush the opposition with relative ease. The problem is that the USN knew that this was the plan, and thus did everything in their power to avoid having battleship vs. battleship slugfests except in situations where they had supremely favorable conditions, such as they did at Surigao Strait. Carriers were the new center of the fleet, and battleships got relegated to being glorified AA platforms. This right here is what y'all should be talking about. The Japanese were so desperate to kill this thing, they prematurely announced its sinking on three separate occasions.