Anyone else upset about the fact that the Battleship - arguably the most aesthetic and magnificent naval ship class...

Unfortunately for Battleships, speed outperformed armour as a form of armour and cost less resources.

Carrier groups were formed as an alternative because they were way more effective at counting both large battle fleets, airpower and submarines while still being capable of bombarding coastal targets.

>speed outperformed armour as a form of armour
Oh, is that why the battlecruiser concept was a complete and utter failure ?

No its because it had the same weapons as battleships

weren't they just mostly for bombing land?

>put high-caliber guns on a unarmored hull
>Jutland ensues
Battlecruisers were literally never useful and were just an amusing example of Anglo autism.

>Jutland proves that battlecruisers are terrible
>Germans also used battlecruisers during the exact same engagement

Yeah but they actually are terrible though.

Modern navies use groups of submarines, destroyers, lighter cruisers and carriers for a reason

Bismarck was spotted and tracked by Sunderland and Norfolk [I think]. Or are you referring to later on after, sinking Hood? It was already damaged then and was going towards La Rochelle, I think

>Anyone else upset about the fact that the Battleship - arguably the most aesthetic and magnificent naval ship class, never really had the chance to shine?
>what are tsushima and lissa?

The battleship was the king of the seas in the late 1800s. Even ruled during WWI, though governments thought them too valuable to lose.

You really can't compare modern ships with missiles to Jutland-era naval combat at all. Even if the names are sometimes the same, the ships do different things. Carriers didn't even exist when Jutland occurred, and "destroyers" of the Jutland were just extra-large torpedo boats designed to protect capital ships from smaller torpedo boats. The battlecruiser was introduced as a logical upgrade to the "armored cruiser" concept, and it worked fine for that purpose. And again, saying "Jutland proves that battlecruisers suck" doesn't work because the Germans were using battlecruisers in the same engagement, and it was the German battlecruisers which inflicted the heavy losses onto the British battlecruisers.

Battleships were quite useful for the USN during WW2 for shore bombardment in the Pacific campaigns, working alongside escort carriers which used their small compliment of planes to spot targets for the battleships, and strike positions that were out of reach of the big guns. That might not be as glamorous as decisive battles on the high seas, but it was an important job and they did it well.

Battlecruisers>Dreadnoughts.

but what about gallipoli, the whole pacific theatre, d-day landings etc.

Gallipoli probably hurt the prestige of battleships more than Jutland did.

>shore bombardment and getting torpedoed
>either escorting carriers or shore bombardment, the only 2 capital ship vs capital ship fights were obsolete japanese battlecruiser ineffectually flailing at modern american battleship before getting annihilated in couple salvos and turret farms getting bullied by bunch of standards & destroyers
>even more shore bombardment

Don't forget Guadalcanal. Or does OP think IJN Kirishima was sunk by USS Washington's floatplane?

Poorly modernized pre-WW1 battlecruiser getting sunk by almost 30 years younger ship is hardly worth of remembering.

The Kongo-class actually gave the USN quite a lot of trouble for such ancient, poorly armored ships. They weren't a bad design by any means.

>ctrl+f North Cape
>no results

>Later in the evening of 26 December, Admiral Fraser briefed his officers on board Duke of York: "Gentlemen, the battle against Scharnhorst has ended in victory for us. I hope that if any of you are ever called upon to lead a ship into action against an opponent many times superior, you will command your ship as gallantly as Scharnhorst was commanded today"

But they had a chance to shine. For decades you could just have the fuckers patrol somewhere and cut off all marine traffic and the other side could do nothing about it. There was no cost effective feasable way of killing them.

>pic
Does that huge ship takes a 20 meters slide recoil or is it just a photographic effect?

what's wrong with shore bombardment

but then...

I never quite understood what was it about the HMS Dreadnought's design that made it such a watershed in naval design. Could someone explain it?

All big gun turret design
new fire control system
faster than all previous battleships before it.
The second it was laid down every single battleship before it became completely obsolete.

>2 to 3 knots faster than any other modern battleship afloat
>all big gun main battery that both increased ship's available firepower and made fire control easier because the crew didn't have to try to differentiate between splashes from main battery and splashes from intermediate sized secondary guns

The Dutch were trying to buy their own version of the Scharnhorst before the war, in order to better defend their colonies in the Pacific. They had some very specific requirements for what they wanted, like being able to accelerate from 20 knots to 30 knots in 15 minutes or less, with a top speed of 32 knots or greater. The primary armament was to be an improved version of the 11-inch gun turrets found the Scharnhorst. Secondary armament was to consist of 120 mm DP guns, as well as a battery of 40mm AA guns. Would have been really dank if the design had actually been built.

The 1906 HMS Dreadnought was the first battleship to incorporate the lessons of the Russo-Japanese War into the design. It used steam turbines to go really fast (at least it was fast in comparison to previous types of battleship) and it was highly compartmentalized so that if a portion of the hull was starting to flood with water, the crew could seal off the damaged areas to prevent the ship from sinking. But the biggest innovation was the emphasis on large-caliber guns. Previous generations of battleship had favored having larger numbers of smaller caliber guns in order to overwhelm the enemy during close-range engagements. The Battle of Tsushima demonstrated that it was possible for battleship to be disabled by long-range gunfire before the smaller guns even had a chance to do anything.

>HMS Invincible
>blew up at Jutland

12 inch guns and steam turbines
the turrets and electronic fire control were new though used in pre-dreadnoughts
it meant it could reach those speeds with more armor and bigger guns too

Why is naval warfare such a fucking bore holy shit

Brits had been using 12-inch guns on their battleships since mid-1890s.

not actually the irl invincible, that was just the name given to the battlecruiser I made in Rule the Waves.

naval warfare is the most patrician type of warfare that brainlets, nu-males and women will never ever get

your mom has been taking 12 inch guns since the mid 1990s

...

You just have to expand your conception of "battleship" to include wooden ships-of-the-line and ironclads, in addition to dreadnoughts.

>getting triggered over anime on an anime website

>You'll never live in the timeline where Germany wins WW1 and there is a really dank American-German battleship arms race in the aftermath

America had some pretty ambitious designs ready and waiting for rapid construction just in case Germany ended up winning the war. Germany also had some pretty ambitious designs in mind for their post-war naval empire.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1920)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_20_α-class_battleship

>Not just pumping out endless waves of submarines
Wew lad

The USS New Jersey has one more battle star earned from the conflicts in Korea (4), Vietnam (2), Lebanon (4) combined than it does for WW2. I toured it this early summer.

A fuck-off huge floating artillery piece vaporizing anorexic commies and durka durka mohammed jihads isn't exactly as glorious as pure naval warfare, but it filled a niche. The Bismarck and Yamamoto should have been used for the same purpose instead of being sent to die

>The Bismarck and Yamamoto should have been used for the same purpose instead of being sent to die

Completely different situations, really. The Bismark was realistically never going to be anything other than a really heavily armed commerce raider. Germany's situation did not allow for anything else. As for Yamato, the Japanese generally couldn't do naval bombardment during WW2 because they were constantly trying to conserve ammunition. In the autobiography "Japanese Destroyer Captain" the titular character (the author of the book) gets very frustrated by the fact that he's never allowed to do any bombardment. Anytime he asks for permission, he gets a very firm "NO" because conserving ammunition was always the bigger priority. The Kongo-class battleships bombardment of Henderson field on Guadalcanal is the only notable exception to this rule, and that was simply because the Japanese were absolutely desperate to get rid of that airfield.

>but it filled a niche.

Niche that can be fulfilled by a 10k ton cruiser or monitor that is far cheaper to operate and man than a +50k ton battleship.

Those are pretty meh compared to stuff like G3s or 13-class.

You don't say...

>arguably the most aesthetic and magnificent naval ship class
Battleships are actually ungainly by necessity. Cruisers tend to be the truly beautiful boats.

>The Bismark was realistically never going to be anything other than a really heavily armed commerce raider. Germany's situation did not allow for anything else
The KM heavies were meant to match up with the French navy in scenarios where Germany and France squared off witout British involvement.

>The Kongo-class battleships bombardment of Henderson field on Guadalcanal is the only notable exception to this rule, and that was simply because the Japanese were absolutely desperate to get rid of that airfield.
And the Henderson field was operational the next morning. I guess Japanese navy general staff knew naval warfare a little bit better than you.

I said that they were desperate to get rid of the airfield. I never said that they succeeded in getting rid of the airfield.

Aye, you two are right. I was under the impression though that Yamato specifically was sent out for the last time with honor playing a role, like a bigger midget sub or kamikaze. Losing the ship in a peace treaty not an option.

Also that taking a ship out of mothball is cheaper than building an entirely new one for a role they didn't really need in the grand scheme of the Cold War, and has worthwhile propaganda value. Or else why did Reagan do it?

>Yamamoto
Well he could float but I don't think he had much dakka.

>Or else why did Reagan do it?
Reagan was literally senile.

Reagan was waging a meme war.

>anime website
There are dedicated sections for anime
this isn't one of them

>so this... is the power... of japanese engineering.... woah.....

The official reason for how Yamato was utilized during her last mission was simply to act as a diversion to allow the Kamikazes, the really stars of Operation Ten-Go, to do their thing. Everybody knew that it was a suicide mission, to the point where many of the captains involved actually refused to do it at first, saying that while they weren't afraid to die, they refused to die pointlessly. Once the mission was explained to be a diversion, they accepted their fate and did as they were told.

Hello newfag, you seem to be under some serious misapprehension about this website, so let me take the opportunity to clear things up.
Veeky Forums is an anime website. Everyone who posts here has come here because they like anime. Then separate topical boards sprang up to channelize discussion of various topics between anime-lovers.
/k/ is a weapons board for anime-lovers.
/sp/ is a sports board for anime-lovers.
/int/ is just a shithole.
/v/ is a vidya board for anime-lovers.
And so on.
Now kindly lurk more. Lurk for at least two years before you start posting.

I'm currently re-reading A Glorious Way to Die by Russell Spurr about the final mission of Yamato, highly recommend it. Honor certainly played a decisive role in her ultimate fate, the short version is while the Army was fighting hard on Okinawa it seemed like the Navy was doing very little, the latter's massive losses from earlier campaigns notwithstanding. The very real risk of Yamato being sunk at her moorings was also justification for going out in a blaze of glory. The humiliation of having to surrender the ship wasn't as big a factor, at least not on the surface, while privately many high-ranking Japanese had concluded that the war was unwinnable they were not about to voice it publicly,

Spurr cites a story from the author of a book called Destroyer Captain, I'm guessing the same book (Tameichi Hara)? It was about the last-minute conference Rear Admiral Komura held with his destroyer captains upon receiving their orders for the kamikaze mission, how they all pretty much agreed it was a stupid plan and wanted to be sent out as ocean raiders instead.

>being this new

>destroyers
>ocean raiders
It's sad but you have no idea how stupid you sound right now.

>Tameichi Hara

Yes, him. Operation Ten-Go is the ONLY part of the entire book where he actually says "fuck this, I am not doing that" after receiving the order. Throughout the book, he often receives orders that he doesn't like, but he never once even considers disobeying until this point. Only after the mission is explained to be a diversion for the Kamikazes does he accept it.

Hara was a destroyer captain for most of the war, but at that point in time, he'd been placed in charge of a light cruiser.

...

Or did you mean this one that is currently on display at the edge of Tokyo bay?

I'm only repeating what the destroyer captains were arguing for, they wanted a chance to go down fighting and their plan was to go out alone and hit the US naval supply lines.

Battleships shelled a lot of islands in the Pacific. That's pretty useful I guess.

Pretty much this.
LoGH style battles are our future.

The German battlecruisers sacrificed firepower instead of armor.

It's a shame none of these survived. The "tower" design was neat

Tbh yanks should have had her scrapped following WW2.

It won't be quite like that since LoGH battles are meant to be a direct parallel to 19th century naval warfare, not 20th.

No it's the shockwave from the guns disrupting the water.

Why? The Mikasa never fought against the US, and America got its revenge anyway by nuking the Nagato.

See
>It was about the last-minute conference Rear Admiral Komura held with his destroyer captain

>In WW2 it was made useless by Aircraft and did fuck all besides sitting in port all the time
Battleships saw constant ship 2 ship action in WW2, including a number of battleship vs battleship actions.

What point are you trying to make exactly

They survived long enough to be used as test targets for hydrogen bombs.

Do you not habla English, you dirty spic?

user you should get yourself checked.

Nitpicking a bit, the battleship pictured is Fuso, her and her sole sister ship Yamashiro were both sunk during the battle (more like massacre) of Surigao Strait, incidentally the last battleship versus battleship engagement ever. Nagato did have the "pagoda mast" and was indeed sunk during the Baker nuclear test, It wasn't a hydrogen bomb however.

Meant for

boat

You are actually disgusting

Newer destroyers are very large and very heavy. The Flight III of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer class are 9800 tons. That is deep into light cruiser weight range. The thing that was going to end Burke production, the Zumwalt class, is 14800 tons. It is heavier then a stranded load Baltimore-class cruiser. That is a WWII era heavy cruiser.

>/int/ is just a shithole
Well, hard to argue with that.

Modern destroyers are effectively a completely new class of vessel that are given the name "destroyer" simply for the sake of continuity. They aren't simply more "advanced"; they are expected to be able to do things that are completely outside the scope of what a WW2-era destroyer would be expected to do. For example, no WW2 destroyer was ever expected to launch aircraft, whereas it is standard for any modern destroyer to have an aviation hangar and flight deck. No WW2-era destroyer would have been expected to carry out strikes against land targets outside of visual range, but that's exactly what modern destroyers do with cruise missiles. Modern destroyers are essentially mini-battleships in terms of what they are expected to accomplish.

>tfw we didn't get to see the full fruits of the combat revolution of and mechanization of WW2 because the atomic bomb
life isn't fair

Lads, what if we designed a ship that had big guns like a battleship, but was fast like a cruiser. A "battlecruiser" if you will. Who needs armor if you're fast, am I right? Asking for a friend. Also, flash proof magazines are for pussies and the Hun. Just don't get shot lmao.

The Royal Navy battlecruiser losses at Jutland can largely be attribute to the navy's decision to not install flash proof loading systems in their turrets. The Germans learned this lesson after Dogger Bank and had fixed their turrets before Jutland. It had very little to do with the lack of armor.

Also they had inferior shells which failed to penetrate the German ships and exploded on contact
The high seas fleet would be annihilated if iy wasnt for faulty propellants