/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

Ankaa ankaa michidzure ankaa chinbotsu gekichin ankaa da.

[Anonymous No.]

Get off of that battleship, United States Navy. You are an arm of the most advanced military the world has ever seen, you don't even use those anymore.

[Anonymous No.]

【信濃艦長　安倍】「――データリンク照準ッ！！　全砲一斉射――撃てー
ッ！」\e

[Anonymous No.]

【信濃艦長　安倍】「――データリンク照準ッ！！　全砲一斉射――撃てー
ッ！」

[Anonymous No.]

Why would a battleship on the ocean need flamethrowers? Not very smart when there is water all around them.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6902786
地獄で参照してください

[Anonymous No.]

【信濃艦長　安倍】「提督……今日を境に、人類は必ずや攻勢に転じます！
！」

[Anonymous No.]

>>6902818

[Anonymous No.]

>>6902786
Aw shit, I didn't need to puzzle this one over even with rikaichan! Looks like my grinding in nipponese is starting to pay off.

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

>>6902818

Oh boy here we go!

[Anonymous No.]

This thread isn't moe enough.

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

[Anonymous No.]

IT'S THE BATTLESHIP YAMATO!

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

By Mar T. Supnad
Warship Musashi, the Japanese military's biggest and most powerful battleship in the Philippines in World War II, will be refloated, as preparations are underway for the 64th anniversary of the historical "Sibuyann Sea Battle" that sunk the vessel, a visiting Japanese official bared yesterday.
In a meeting at a hotel at the Century Park Hotel in Manila, Japanese government representative Kiyoshi Goto and Tishihiko Suzuki, CEO of Asian Countries and Islands Optical Fiber Communication and Philippines Property Asia or AIPAC declared their intention to work with Philippine government counterparts to refloat the Musashi which was bombarded and sunk by American forces on October 24, 1944.
"The purpose in refloating the warship is in honor of the friendship between the Japanese and the Filipino people," said Goto, adding that the their delegation will visit the site of the sunken warship in Sibuyan Sea today.
Suzuki said all the expenses for refloating the ship is being worked out by his company and the Japanese government as they plan to enshrine it on Carabao Island "as a symbol not of war but of friendship," and also serve as a tourist attraction in the Philippines."
For his part, General Dominador C. Resos Jr. (retired), president of the Romblon Cultural Heritage Association, Inc. (ROCHAI), bared that a big event is being cooked up for the Sibuyan Sea Battle's 64th anniversary.
"Foreign dignitaries, including US Ambassador Kristie Kenney, Japanese top officials and others to witness once again the greatest and deadliest Naval battle ever recorded in the history of World War II, the battle of Sibuyan Sea that happened on October 24, 1944," said Resos.
Once dubbed as the world's biggest battleship, the Musashi had a crew of 1,023 when it sanked 1,000 meters down to the seabed of Sibuyan Sea.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6903104
I always thought it was odd that Japanese almost never talk about the Musashi. It's always Yamato this, Yamato that. They were both the same class of ship.

I mean, I get the whole thing with Yamato being special, but damn, they totally ignore the Musashi. That's pretty sad...

[Anonymous No.]

>>6903073

[Anonymous No.]

>>6903116
The Yamato almost made it to the end of the war.

It was also the flagship of the fleet and first in her class.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6903116
At least Musashi was in action and had strategic value. Shinano got sank before it was done outfitting.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6903338
Yes, but like all things we cherish the ones who did it first. No matter how many people do it better later.

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

>>6903116

It's part of the whole Japanese WW2 "mythos" that the Yamato and Musashi were intended to be saved specifically for a decisive clash of battleships, similar to the battle of Tsushima decades earlier.
Musashi lost this opportunity when she was sunk along with a good part of the fleet in a battle of combined arms. She was lost as one in the crowd.
Yamato too lost this opportunity but ended in a more memorable way, as she was lost during a mission planned especially for her, as a result of a massive allied effort planned entirely with the aim of sinking her.

There is also the part that "Yamato" is a symbolic name for Japan - "Musashi" doesn't bear the same weight.

So there is really no arguing that one is better or more deserving than the other. Just chance and circumstance put Musashi in a less memorable situation.

[Anonymous No.]

♫宇宙の彼方、イスカンダルへ……♪

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

On the other hand "Fusou" too is an alternate name for Japan, and Fusou and Yamashiro are mainly just remembered two of the ugliest ships ever built.

I really don't see why that would be.

[proREMIRIAt Elite Force Commander !rSDMROXTB. No.]

I liked that song

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

It's such a wondrous design philosophy. Nothing quite puts the WAR in WARship like 26 guns and a personal Castle Greyskull.

[Anonymous No.]

had yamato made it to the end of the war it probably would have been dismantled as part of disarmament

better to be bombed into oblivion than torn apart in drydock?

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

>>6904485

Nobody's safe. The lonely queen of the North got bombed too oblivion and still ended her days as road filling.
Then again a Norwegian fjord is a bit more accessible than the bottom of the Pacific.

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

A bit of a shame since the Tirpitz never really bothered a fly.
Not sure if any other manmade object has had quite such a big impact on history just by being in the way and a quite a headache for nearly everyone involved.

[Anonymous No.]

I don't get all this huurrr battleships suck, air carriers are better shit. Yamato was unescorted. It's not a fair comparison. Every capital ship should have 6+ destroyers forming a circle around it, scanning the horizon for enemy aircraft, and escorting it into battle so she can get into position near the enemy's ships.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904512
But if you're going to have a huge escort like that you might as well just have the destroyers escorting an aircraft carrier so you can have those guns firing on enemy ships and also jets bombing them at the same time.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904512

Battleships did sometimes have supporting battlegroups like that though. The biggest ships typically stayed closer to the center of larger formations.

Also, battleships roles were mostly reserved for anti-air support for carrier escort, and shore bombardment during WWII.

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

>>6904512

Time and economy.
Battleships as they were were extremely costly and took up to five years to build, plus shakedown. Carriers on the other hand were mostly built on cruiser hulls and were still in their infancy, so most of the flaws known in our time were either unknown or ignored then.

As it were, the leaders of the time put their battleships to poor use, and suddenly there weren't a whole lot of them left anymore. Carriers were better for the kind of tactics they preferred, so nobody was all that enthusiastic about spending half a decade and a sizeable portion of their budgets on new battleships.

[Anonymous No.]

How would you like to be on the deck when those guns are fired?

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904535
Ok, why not have a fleet consisting exclusively of destroyers and torpedo boats?
They're fast and small, aiming at them with a deck gun should have been nearly impossible in the 1940s.
They get in range, fire a few torpedos at the biggest ships they can find, and run off

If carriers and battleships are so expensive...

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904580
I'm no war expert dude but aren't Battleships primarily for shore bombardment?

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

Nowadays things are a bit different, though, and the factors that removed the battleship from the spotlight have gone and painted themselves from one corner into another. With missiles and radar and stuff, naval battles are expected to take place at extremely long range, so there's been a move away from armour and firepower towards range and concealment.
Supposedly the reason the Iowas were returned to service was the Soviet love for missile cruisers. Don't know if it may be propaganda or misinformation, but supposedly everything vital on the Iowa is immune to anything the Kirov carries. There simply are no naval weapons designed to destroy heavily armoured ships in common use anymore.

>>6904531

Was a good idea, but failed to include the human factor. Remember Force Z.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904603
>Don't know if it may be propaganda or misinformation, but supposedly everything vital on the Iowa is immune to anything the Kirov carries. There simply are no naval weapons designed to destroy heavily armoured ships in common use anymore.
Even if a couple hits won't sink a battleship, I've read somewhere that Iran's plan for fighting US battleships is just to fire a couple hundred sunburn missiles from destroyers and coastal batteries, to overwhelm Aegis defenses and a battleship's natural resistance to being sunk. Where quality won't work, choose quantity.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904580
You may rule the seas, but enjoy getting wiped on the land.

Battleships and carriers fulfill the role of artillery. Their most useful purpose is to pound coastal targets into oblivion so ground forces can move in, moreso with carriers due to their incredible operation range.

In the end, a fleet dedicated completely to anti-ship operations with complete domination of the seas is meaningless since there wouldn't be much they could do afterwards.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904617
And by battleships, I mean cruisers and carriers. I'm a retard. Disregard my point.

[Anonymous No.]

lol iosys

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

>>6904580

They fill different functions. Destroyers can't carry artillery (in before monitors) or provide air support - originally their function was mainly to hunt and destroy larger ships.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904620
so i guess it's entirely circumstancial, and depends from who is fighting who, where, with what objective, in what context, etc. i shouldn't have tried to compare things in a vacuum.

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

>>6904617

Not sure if that would be enough to sink her, but that would be guaranteed to ruin any electronics or other instruments and make her quite useless for the foreseeable time.

In the end, the modern design philosophy is being able to avoid getting hit. The design philosophy of the time was being able to get hit and take it... with varying amounts of success.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904617
You don't need to sink a ship to destroy it, just starting a fire inside is enough

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/01/indian-warship-sunk-during-day-at-sea-for-military-families/?hp
t=T2

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

>>6904656

Exactly, but doesn't automatically make it a flawed concept. France and at one time the US attempted similar plans, to counter the British and the Brazilian navy respectively.
Not much came of either for the reasons above - there is only so much time and resources available, and there's a limit to how far you can go focusing on solving one problem and nothing else.

... which is why focusing entirely on submarines hasn't turned out to be an entirely sound concept either.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904603
>With missiles and radar and stuff, naval battles are expected to take place at extremely long range

People keep saying that all the time, but it's debatable whether it's yet true for ships or for aircraft. Everyone thinks their missile technology is the best, only to see it crumble on actual use. See: Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, technology has progressed, but be wary of claims for which there isn't any proof to back it up. The most recent example of anti-ship missiles in use is the Falklands War, I believe. Didn't stop the British.

>Supposedly the reason the Iowas were returned to service was the Soviet love for missile cruisers.

Iowa battleships were brought back to replace/complement US Navy's aging cruisers as part of Reagan's '600-ship Navy' plan. Of course, their reinforced armor did indeed make it more resilient against anti-ship missiles.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904603
I don't believe there's such as thing as being "immune" to missile hits.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904714
I don't think the falkland experience is a good example of anything... if you check the argentinean air force inventory in wiki, you'll see they had only 5 missiles. Most of the damage to the british fleet came from old fashioned iron bombs.
And taking into account the range limitations of the aircraft used, I would say on average the missiles were very effective. They just didn't have enough to make a difference.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904672
Definitely something to consider.

I think that was a big factor in WW2.

On paper, Japanese ships were generally superior to American ships. But American damage control prevailed, whereas Japanese navy's lack of it did not.

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

Again, all of this is strictly hypothetical since realistically, if the Iowa and the Kirov (or whatever they call her these days) ever were to duke it out, there likely wouldn't be any battle. It'd take either a major effort or astronomically blind dumb luck to get either within range of the other, and even then the actual engagement would probably just be one long series of untested plans crumbling when put to actual use.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6903047
What in the hell world nation is that from? The circle and star suggests American but what the hell is that red circle in the middle? Communism?

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904772
US.

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

Even then, that scenario too is hypothetical since the likelihood of dedicated warships like these being deployed today, even in the event of a major war, is next to zero. More likely they would be wasting away in port with politicians desperately looking for an excuse to get rid of the money sinks.

Again, war is expensive. Human lives don't go in the budget, but money does.

[Anonymous No.]

>>6904772

[Anonymous No.]

>>6902849
>>6902786
kinda sad that those ships are now obsolete at the time the military realize the true potential of aircrafts as dominant weapons of war, still, they're just big target practice like tanks for powerful aircrafts

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

>>6904962

Well, you never know.
Give /k/ a yell about arsenal ships and/or waterlaunched missiles and see what happens.