Where you might find a video on the Iowa class, you will also find 311nonono there as well. He likes to spend his time making up his bullshit information promoting his personal favorties. Don't argue with him either, as information that conflicts his just makes him angry =p
All of these people talking about the Yamato..... one factor is how many were built. Iowa class=4, Yamato class=2. How did Russia and the allies beat Germany? NUMBERS! Also, how long did the Japanese ships serve? Not long! Who won the war? It's just a fact of life, winners always come out looking better then the losers.
The Iowa actually had several advantages over the Yamato that makes it very conceivable that it would win. The Iowa's had the ability to reach 35 knots compared to the Yamato's 27 knots. It also had a better fire control system and a far more experienced crew which you can never discount in a battle. Also the Iowa's were not meant to go toe to toe with other enemy battle-wagons that's what American naval air power was for. And lets not forget that both Yamato's are at the bottom of the ocean
The Iowa is a floating coffin, shit nothing else. It is a just one big word for American propaganda, the ship exaggerates anywhere where you can see it, I wonder what would American faces look like if the Yamato and Iowa got caught in one battle...
The true is of course very painful for them. The Iowa, true and simple, with all her 406mm guns in action can't penetrate or even scratch the Yamato, while the Yamato with all 460mm guns can rip her apart.
@m4mihulja Yamato is a giant, floating coffin, you Croatian, anti-American pig. Remember that the guns on the Iowa was superior both in AP rounds and in armor piercing capabilities to the Yamato. Do remember that the Iowa is faster, has better fire control and had some of the most advanced radar ever designed for its day. You, sir, are a failure. Give it up!
@311nonono Yamato has poor fire control, is a giant pig of a warship, has useless guns, absolute waste and should have no honor. Japan built no good warships. Face it.
I must compliment you on your amazing mental prowess.
“The Yamato is at the bottom of the Pacific”
Wow, let me wrap my head around that, it’s just too awesome to even ponder!
You do an injustice even to the honor of the Iowa and those who server on her that you would resort to such a aberrational mental wanderings into insanity.
If you can just explain the relevance of that statement.
Because some people can say that the Iowa is still floating cause it was hiding like a little girl under the aircraft carrier's skirt, and the Yamato went out like a man.
@311nonono Literally, it is at the bottom of the Pacific, between the Kyushu and Ryukyu to be exact. On April 1945, Operation: Ten Go was Japan's last major naval attack at Okinawa. Yamato and other ships tried to damage the U.S fleet there, but aircrafts destroyed the Yamato. The U.S fleet gained air superiority and used it to its advantage, which was smart. Why send ships to destory ships when you can use waves of aircraft to defeat the enemy? i'd do the same to, send aircraft to sink Yamato.
@311nonono I'm not comparing anything. It's the truth that ther Yamato is at the bottom of the Pacific. I never said the Yamato is crappy against Iowa. Also, the Yamato was "under Japan's mini skirt" staying at Japanese bases at Brunei, Truk, and Kure until called for Battle for Leyte Gulf. Mushashi, a YAMATO class, was sunk there. Another Yamato (well now turned carrier) was sunk 10 days *after* its commissioning by a sub.
@311nonono Can i ever just watch a video on the Iowa class with out having to see you there. Lets just make this easy this time. The Yamato was not a super ship and was actually pretty crappy. Quit bitching on these videos, the door is that way. >>---->
@311nonono Excellent comeback. I was hoping for something a little more intelligent, but judging from your yamato comments, i was hoping for too much.
@311nonono As i said, i was hoping for something more intelligent. Yet here you are and 2 for 2 in the stupid comments section. Want to try and reply back and shoot for 3?
what was so hard to understand about my sentence I asked you why you typed in 19th century english as in why do you use complicated words instead of just typing like everybody else?
I just don't understand all the wannabe shakespears on the internet. I mean really does using words like "prowess" and "ponder" get you more friends or pussy? just speak normally man!!
Thank you explaining what it was you were trying to tell me. But nonetheless I do not agree with your concerns.
I do find puzzling that you believed that “stop trying to use 19th century English” should have been clear.
I have no interest is 19th century English or Shakespearean dreams of grandeur!
If I use the word “ponder” or “prowess” it is because it is both clearer and more to the point. “Ponder” is a lot simpler than saying, ”I considered it deeply and thoroughly”.
We could shrink the language down to a couple of thousand words to make you happy, but then we lose the flavor of the language along with it’s nuances(subtleties) and clarity.
But, if you told me English is your second language and these words just make things more difficult.
I would hope that in the distant future, if one the Iowa class ships ever gets scrapped, someone does not make an equivalent rampage into mental thought and states as follows;
“Who cares about the Iowa, my dinghy is floating and in use, where is the Iowa? it’s just a heap of scrap.”
The respond of American - why is Iowa better than the Yamato (tipical US brainwashed idiot):
1. Improved fire control system - allows a Captain of a ship to click the button in the command tower, and all the fire on the ship will suddenly disappear.
2. Targeting computer - allows a gunners of the artillery to lock or auto aim at the Yamato and hit her in the magazines while Iowa is in Pearl Harbor, and Yamato is in Tokyo bay.
3. Improved radar - allows the Iowa to see the Yamato everywhere...
@battle623 No. The military inventions - such as tanks, ships, planes...aren't comparing like who got sunk, who destroyed something, no. The compares are based on performances.
That's just as I can say - the Type-95 tank is better than the M4 Sherman, because more Shermans were destroyed than Type-95's...stupid, right?
I met a guy recently that was a forward observer in the U.S.Army in Vietnam.They were getting overrun and he called in a fire mission.The voice that answered said they couldn't fire as close as he wanted. He said to fire anyway,the next he knew it sounded like freight trains coming overhead. 3 rounds from an 'Iowa class' scared them as bad as the 'gooks' they were firing at. Trees just lifting out of the ground and slamming back onto the ground.
The Iowa was commissioned in Feb, 1943. A well defended fiord? The Iowa's 16 inch guns had a range of 24 miles. The Germans had no practical counter to that. The Iowa's first mission was to stop the Tirpitz should it have escaped into the North Atlantic or keep jt from doing so.
@isuckaman Halo?! Man, you crazy? Iowa was designed to counter the Yamato, because before her the USN practically had no BB to counter her. And Iowa was launched in Feb. 1943., Tirpitz was sunk in 1944.
And Iowa doesn't have range of guns 24nm, she has 22nm. (6km less).
But in terms of specifications she didn't counter the Yamato, so her only use was nothing else than escorting coward carrier force.
The Iowa's first mission was to hunt out the German battleship Admiral Tirpitz that was the sister ship of the Bismark. But the Tirpitze was sung by British planes in Norwwegian waters before the Iowa was launched. It would have been a great battle but since the Iowa had bigger guns with longer range and a radar controlled firing system, the Iowa would have been victorious.
1: the ship was just known as Tirpitz, not Admiral Tirpitz
2: Iowa was launched on 27th August 1942. Tirpitz was sunk 2th november 1944. Thats a 2 year gap.You are getting mixed up with Operation Chariot, which destroyed the only dry dock big enough to accomodate a Bismarck class battle ship on the Atlantic wall. The reason the Iowa never went after the tirpitz is not even the US are crazy enough ( as far as i know) to attack a well defended Fiord.
the yamato was sunk after an attack made by 386 aircraft and was sunk just after having hit by 8 bombs and 10 torpedoes in a battle of almost two hours.The musashi was sunk after after receiving a massive attack with 17 direct hits from bombs, 18 indirect and 20 torpedo hits.I would have liked to see the Yamato and Musashi fighting 2 iowa.El result would have been a disaster for the USA.The Yamato class had better body armor better weapons and bigger weapons.
yes,yes,yes let the Americans live in the fantasy world.Everyone who is not american is saying that the Iowa wasnt the best ship in the history ,but americans still think it, let them dream.How can they think a boat is the best of the history even if it have not entered in combat?
This programme is awful. How can you compare an Aircraft carrier like Nimitz to an old Battleship!? And how narrow are their comparisons, "fear factor".....What the fuck, non of this mattered, The Nimitz would walk all over this and anyone can figure that! This is just pro-American pure opinionist bullshit. I hope noone actually believes this crap!
@UKIrStokesLARK I think both of you are totally right here. Few days ago I tried with everything to explain to this brainwashed US idiots that Yamato is 5 times better. And after I gave them 10 logical proofs, they kept telling the same different non-sense shit over and, over, and over...
I hope you understand. If you want to see that idiotism go to page 1,2,3,4,5. and see.
You just can't admit. You're here calling the Iowa the best BB without a single real logistic proof.
I gave you about some 10 proofs that Yamato is better than that floating coffin,(better armor, better guns, better range,more armament), and you again, and again are posting comments with saying: the Iowa is no.1
Stop arguing and give me some real proofs, then come back.
Jesus, you are behaving like child of 5 years old, who can't get chocolate.
@m2mihulja What? Wow, Montana would've killed the Yamato. Dumby! You also said in our previous argument how you "hatez america and west for propaganda!" Also, your channel says a lot. :3
@Tyco200 If you idiots even with 50 evidences and proofs - against your 5 (unconfirmed) proofs, can't admit that Yamato is better, the we're done here.
@m2mihulja no the specs i told you just now is confirmed proof which means i win you have nothing aganist the US the south dakota sould almost beat yamato iowa DID beat the yamato the montana would have face it US won im done here your croatian lost
You Americans are stupid idiots. When comes to, for example Me-262 the world's first jet, you said ''ah, that wasn't build at all, fuck that...'' and when comes to protecting your planes, ships and etc., you claim some that wasn't build at all, ph, what Montana - figment crap.
@m2mihulja go to wikipedia idiot see all the specs like how we kicked everyones ass are you rooting for nazis to take over the world? infact the specs of the armor are too long to put on 1 comment so wheres your comeback now?
@DEathgod650 AND IOWA DID???????'!!!!!!!!!! YOU ONE HELL OF ULTRA - RETARDED IDIOT, USS IOWA NEVER, NEVER FIRED HER GUNS AT ANY WARSHIP. SHE ONLY SAILED IN A COWARDLY CARRIER FORMATION, AND BOMBARDED ISLANDS.
YAMATO TOOK PART IN ALL IMPORTANT ATTACKS, AND OFFENSIVES, AND SHE SUNK 5 ESCORT CARRIERS, 7 DD's AND 3 CA's.
@m2mihulja How does the USN building more ships and planes that the Yamatos couldn't defeat make me a moron? Clearly the Yamatos weren't all that if they could be beaten by those 'coward planes, and it would probably take a ton of balls to fly towards the Yamato/Musashi, considering how heavy their weaponry was
@m2mihulja Your the idiot since you cannot spell YAMATO correctly. The Montana was supposed to have 12x 16"/ 50 cal guns Mark 7. 20x 5"/ 54 cal Mark 16. 10-40 Bofors 40 mm AA guns. 56x Oerlikon 20mm AA guns.
@NatedogJr First of all I am not a English or American(I would kill myself if I am)
Second - I am not anti - American, I'm just talking facts and truth here - but you and 1000 more idiots can't admit, and then you put up a argue, brainwashed idiot.
@m2mihulja First of all If you aren't American or English, then what are you? Second, calling me brainwashed really doesn't matter to me at all. Third, on page 2 I quoted, the MONTANA would RIVAL the YAMATO. Again, look up the word RIVAL.
@NatedogJr LOL! Ignore this idiot. I tried debating him a few hours ago. He believes Iowa would be beaten by Yamato... And that apparently, the Mark7s were built in... Britian. This child is deprived of knowledge... Also, he's a Croatian idiot.... :/
@Tyco200 Idiot, you're back! Great! Some things and defeat in Top 10 BB's weren't enough for you. You want to learn some more, sorry I must disappoint you - I concluded that you are mentally deformed - you will have to go in ''lower'' child's class, sorry...
Ha I'm alone up against 100 American brainwashed idiots, and I'm wining...
@NatedogJr So how is that floating tin-can better than God of Yamato, idiot when you just wrote here that she would have almost no differences with Iowa. And ''best BB'', yea right, my ass!
And what's with the armor - you deliberately didn't wrote that because you noticed that Yamato's is better.
@m2mihulja I never said that the MONTANA WAS BETTER THAN THE YAMATO. If You want to know what Montana's armor is look it up. After all, it seems that you cannot trust an American with researching information, SO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!
@m2mihulja is that why it sunk? and cowardly? what the hell? flying at a battleship with one bomb against hundreds of AA fire is cowardly? adn only 60 planes attacked it and if montana was built it would kick japans ass even harder
@killer8479394 If every American always says Montana, Montana... then please tell me the armor and guns of that fictional floating - coffin.
If you Americans didn't dropped the bomb on Japan, they would build the unnamed No.11 , and 13 which not only would have 510mm guns, they would have combat air patrols and bombers in a flight deck at a stern just as IJN Ise had.
So don't shit me about fictional, useless Montana class BB.
@m2mihulja the specs are actually too long to put in one comment but you want the specs? here: 6 inch deck armor 22.5 inch turret armor and 16 inch side belt armor the armerment 12x 16 inch mark 7 guns 20 5 inch dual purpose mark 16 guns 56 20 inch oerlikon AA guns and 40 bofor's 40mm guns with 2 catapult's with 4 OS2U seahawks you think the axis is so great? well 3 montana's could have beat japan singlehandly your logic=my butt
@killer8479394 I didn't said Axis are the best (but objectively they are) but these performances are again under the comparing to Yamato, stupid brainwashed, mentally fucked, totally residual idiots.
@Tyco200 get this: he says yamato where better then why arnt they in service now? and also if a iowa can beat it a montana will treat it like a PT boat
@m2mihulja HAHA!!! The South Dakota of 1939 had very similar belts. They were also built around the time of Yamato! Unless... Evil new-world-order spy planes saw the Yamato and copied her! Also, note the fact that the Iowa at least had better radar guided guns. Yamato had no such. Yamato was also relatively slow.
@m2mihulja Ahaha! What is the use when you CAN'T HIT THE ENEMY WITH THOSE GUNS?! Yamato Cannot hit anything. Please realize that! I have debated you plenty on this already.
@Tyco200 And what is for Iowa in use so-called ''improved radar, fire controls, targeting system...'' when Yamato has 6km wider range than Iowa, and she can hit Iowa with 18 rounds?!
result: Iowas blown up and sinking...
And If Iowa hits Yamato, the Iowas shells will bounce off and ricochet, because Iowa has maximum penetration of 306mm over a distance of 22nm, idiot.
Why there isnt Kirov class missile cruiser on that list, it was the reason why USA recomisioned IOWA class battleship. I guess only real reason why this ship is no.1 is being made in USA.
@NatedogJr The Iowas were already as modern as a battleship could get. The reason they're not being used today (or any battleships for that matter) is because smaller ships can do the job for less cost.
@delta5297 I guess the 16 inch caught my attention. That firepower can knock out enemy surface vessels and gives execellent gunfire support for Marines.
@HerrrOttoFlick you means planes it takes a very good method to sink a Battleship and more than one plane but many planes. Air power is king now point taken.
for all you guys saying that this is not the greatest battleship of all time, I invite you to provide evidence for this fact. And did you also ever consider that the people who decided this are from several different countries and their full-time JOB is studying these ships. Do you really think you know more than them?
This is discovery channel we're talking about here. Specifically their military department.
Aside from the few military persona they interview they don't have any experts. And notice how the people never say that x or y is the best? Pretty telling that.
Plus, there's the whole cherry picking of data (The Iowa class is not the longest serving active warship, in fact it doesn't comes close) and a rather vague definition of active. To me, being mothballed is not the same as being active
So a US ship was ranked number 1 by a US tv show, what a surprise, an Iowa class wouldn't stand a chance against a Russia Kirov class, not tat you would see two big ships battle off 1v1 these days but meh.
@mddelanoy The Kirov class is a battleship, if your going to claim it doesn't count as one because it uses missiles instead of artillery then you have to also say the Iowa doesn't either because it uses shells instead of cannonballs, time moves on...
@llynellyn The Kirov class aren't BBs, not because of their missles, but because of their lack of armor. Also, BBs AND BCs (and everything else for that matter) have been using shells, not shot, since about 1870 or so.
no, the iowa was constantly refitted to keep up with aircraft carriers and technology of the day. Remember that it was also being constantly put in storage warehouses and would only see combat for a few months. While the Nimitz has never been refitted in thirty years and has seen constant service
Reload time on the LIttorio's was a VERY consistent at 1.3/min. And was not subject to human fatigue unlike other ships.
The true test is how many shot you can actually be made per minute, and there are other factors, elevation to load position(except for Richielou), elevation to shot position, etc..
When all is taken into account they are all much closer in actual shots/min. Actual experience on US ship bears this out.
The Littorio had radar by time the Iowa was built (one hit and radar was usually out of action).
It also had better optical gun control than booth Iowa and Bismarck, the telemeters of those ships was extremely precise with a shoot central computer.
Proof is is in the repeatedly excellent shooting of the Littorio and the Vittorio Veneto against British cruisers at extreme range (>30,000 yards)!
They *COMPLETELY* out-classed the 15" guns of the Bismarck class. It was almost embarrassing.
@311nonono The Littorio had MAJOR flaws with it's guns, they wouldn't be able to go head to head with ANY BB fielded at the time. Example A) three triple turrets, armed with long-barreled (50 calibers) naval guns. These provided a very long range (42.8 kilometres (26.6 mi)) and muzzle velocity (870 metres per second (2,900 ft/s)), but consequently suffered barrel lives just half as long as their counterparts in other navies, and inconsistent shell patterning.
Are you are aware that these guns had more range and armor penetrating power than both Yamato and Iowa ? (ecept Yamato at the muzzle).
Are you aware that the guns were specifically designed with on ship 24hour replacement liners ? (a first)
Are you aware that shooting with "good shells" was highly accurate ? and the bad patterns were strictly due to bad amo supplies? (they straddled British cruisers at > 32,000 yards)
Are you aware that it's Terni armor made it's 13.8" belt more penetration resistant than Yamato's 16.1" belt ?
Are you aware how tough this ship was ? When the maganines of Hood, Tirpizs and Yamato blew, Hood and Tirpizs shank in about a minute Yamato sank in a little over a minute. When Roma's magazine blew it stayed afloat for over six minutes !
So how do you come to the conclusion that this ship wouldn't be able to go head to head with ANY BB fielded at the time ?
@311nonono To be fair the Hood was a battlecruiser not a battleship that had serious design flaws, the Yamato had already been pounded to hell and if the magazine of the Roma contained the degree of explosive power the Yamatos had it would have gone down just as fast, if not faster. That being said, the Littorio was a very decent class, but this is all moot now. Battleships are just too vulnerable to aircraft, as proven by the fact time and again the Littorios were bested by aerial attacks.
Fair about what ? The Hood had 15” guns and weighed more than 45,000 tons. The term Battlecruiser was only used by the British Royal Navy and confuses even the RN.
This ship in any other navy would be, and is, known as a battleship, flawed or not.
A magazine explosion is “no comparison to being blown to hell”.
The Bismarck was blown to hell even worse than the Yamato. The Bismarck’s magazines did not blow, and the Bismarck did not sink until her crew helped scuttle it.
The Roma’s advantage was her hull’s strength to weight ratio. Roma’s Terni armor was 20% tougher than Japanese armor and just a little better than British armor.
It’s a lot easier to hold together 45,000 tons rather than 75,000 tons with basically the same hull strength.
The Yamato started to roll and sink when a secondary 6” magazine blew, the roll caused a main magazine explosion after slipping under the waves.
@311nonono An interesting thing I have noted about what we are discussing here, and indeed a common feature of what happens when battleships are discussed, is how well the battleships sunk. My favourite battleship is the Warspite, mainly cus she was defined by how she lived rather than what it took to sink her (after all she met a pretty unceremonious end, being scrapped after running aground). The Littorios may have been better designed but none of them held a candle to that ships career.
@311nonono What the actual hell? surely the only thing you can properly compare ships on is how they PERFORM. its all well and good saying that X had longer range guns than Y, or stronger armour, or a faster engine, but if when it came down to it Y did a better job than X it doesnt fucking matter about any of its features. Case in point you were arguing that the Littorios had the longest range main guns, I offered a counterpoint in the form of a specific ship.
@311nonono Furthermore what the hell is weak about my position of "I liked this ship because it had an impressive career"? You cannot deny that the Warspite DID have an impressive career compared to the likes of the Littorios. Please remember I'm not trying to say that it was a better ship, I'm happy for you to think your Littorios were the greatest things to sail the seas, I'm saying I like another ship more.
@311nonono Yaknow what, fuck it. We are arguing over ships that don't exist any more from two completely different perspectives on what makes a good ship. Talk about pointless.
@SuperYogSothoth I believe that the hit was sabotage, many Italians were Freemasons not loyal to Mussolini but to the Rothschild of England, in the battle of Punto Stilo one of the Italian battle ships did not fire against the British.
@311nonono lol. Longevity was perhaps the wrong word, with it I was referring to their category 'Service Length'. And I did look it up, and the places I looked stated that Littorio's guns were the same size as the Iowa's and their armor very comparable. I don't remember their secondary guns, I don't really care. Have fun with your opinion!
@311nonono NO it was not better than The Iowa class if your really did your home work the Italian Sucked in its duty but it is ships are of sound design but it was crippled but Royal British bi-planes and was turned over to the Allies. Plus you to forget the short life of the main guns barrel life and uneven powder charge.
To its credit, I would say that the Yamato is the second most powerful battleship weapons platform, with Bismarck the third.
Foroneworldunited 6 hours ago
The Yamato was like a Desert Eagle; awesome but impractical; that should solve it.
Foroneworldunited 6 hours ago
YEAH I FROM IOWA!!!! AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!!!!
SCHMIDTYTEEVEE 4 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
USS Wisconsin(BB-64) "Plankowner" (1988-91) 2nd Division Vet here!!
Navdan87 6 days ago
Where you might find a video on the Iowa class, you will also find 311nonono there as well. He likes to spend his time making up his bullshit information promoting his personal favorties. Don't argue with him either, as information that conflicts his just makes him angry =p
MadMilitiaMen 1 week ago
coz yamato go back to base in war
crunchymix 1 month ago
All of these people talking about the Yamato..... one factor is how many were built. Iowa class=4, Yamato class=2. How did Russia and the allies beat Germany? NUMBERS! Also, how long did the Japanese ships serve? Not long! Who won the war? It's just a fact of life, winners always come out looking better then the losers.
DigitalHaze65536 2 months ago
The Iowa actually had several advantages over the Yamato that makes it very conceivable that it would win. The Iowa's had the ability to reach 35 knots compared to the Yamato's 27 knots. It also had a better fire control system and a far more experienced crew which you can never discount in a battle. Also the Iowa's were not meant to go toe to toe with other enemy battle-wagons that's what American naval air power was for. And lets not forget that both Yamato's are at the bottom of the ocean
boondocksaint622 2 months ago
The Iowa is a floating coffin, shit nothing else. It is a just one big word for American propaganda, the ship exaggerates anywhere where you can see it, I wonder what would American faces look like if the Yamato and Iowa got caught in one battle...
The true is of course very painful for them. The Iowa, true and simple, with all her 406mm guns in action can't penetrate or even scratch the Yamato, while the Yamato with all 460mm guns can rip her apart.
My condolences for all those 2000 US crewmen.
m4mihulja 2 months ago
@m4mihulja Yamato is a giant, floating coffin, you Croatian, anti-American pig. Remember that the guns on the Iowa was superior both in AP rounds and in armor piercing capabilities to the Yamato. Do remember that the Iowa is faster, has better fire control and had some of the most advanced radar ever designed for its day. You, sir, are a failure. Give it up!
Tyco200 2 months ago
Technology on the Iowa was far superior to the Yamato.
BigDmanize 2 months ago
@chrisrogerrabbit
Not only is it not number 1, it's not even in the list !
People of MilitaryChannel are just dum dums, aka retards etc.
311nonono 2 months ago
I want one
angryhippo2910 2 months ago
middle finger 3:36
dhong21 3 months ago
as if this thing could come within 1,000 miles of a Nimitz class without being killed
gibson1789 3 months ago
Too bad the Montana class battleship was never built....
NatedogJr 3 months ago
Even the Royal Navy HMS Vanguard proved to be superior to the Iowa:s in US-UK exercises, especially in heavy weather.
martinharnevie 3 months ago
And where is the Yamato ?
What are you guys smoki n g ?
311nonono 4 months ago 13
@311nonono Yamato has poor fire control, is a giant pig of a warship, has useless guns, absolute waste and should have no honor. Japan built no good warships. Face it.
Tyco200 2 months ago
@311nonono The Yamato is at the bottom of the sea.
RoadCaptainEntertain 1 month ago
@311nonono the yamato was sunk dude sorry to burst your bubble
4jrod44 2 weeks ago
And where is the Yamato ?
What are you guys smoking ?
311nonono 4 months ago
@311nonono The Yamato is at the bottom of the Pacific somewhere, the Iowa is a floating museum that can be recalled to active duty when needed.
Darthbelal 3 months ago
@Darthbelal
I must compliment you on your amazing mental prowess.
“The Yamato is at the bottom of the Pacific”
Wow, let me wrap my head around that, it’s just too awesome to even ponder!
You do an injustice even to the honor of the Iowa and those who server on her that you would resort to such a aberrational mental wanderings into insanity.
311nonono 3 months ago 14
@311nonono Well the Yamato is at the bottom of the Pacific.
NatedogJr 3 months ago
@NatedogJr
You guys are just too smart for me.
If you can just explain the relevance of that statement.
Because some people can say that the Iowa is still floating cause it was hiding like a little girl under the aircraft carrier's skirt, and the Yamato went out like a man.
311nonono 3 months ago
@311nonono Literally, it is at the bottom of the Pacific, between the Kyushu and Ryukyu to be exact. On April 1945, Operation: Ten Go was Japan's last major naval attack at Okinawa. Yamato and other ships tried to damage the U.S fleet there, but aircrafts destroyed the Yamato. The U.S fleet gained air superiority and used it to its advantage, which was smart. Why send ships to destory ships when you can use waves of aircraft to defeat the enemy? i'd do the same to, send aircraft to sink Yamato.
NatedogJr 3 months ago
@NatedogJr
Never mind the history lesson.
In COMPARING the Yamato to the Iowa you state; "Well the Yamato is at the bottom of the Pacific"
Justify the RELEVANCE of your statement.
If you think that you can find relevance in you statement.
Then we are in bizzaro world and any stupid thing goes.
If so, then I submit that my statement regarding "a little girl under the skirt" is even more relevant, and a little less stupid.
Hey, why don't we all, at least, try to MAKE SOME SENSE !
311nonono 3 months ago
@311nonono I'm not comparing anything. It's the truth that ther Yamato is at the bottom of the Pacific. I never said the Yamato is crappy against Iowa. Also, the Yamato was "under Japan's mini skirt" staying at Japanese bases at Brunei, Truk, and Kure until called for Battle for Leyte Gulf. Mushashi, a YAMATO class, was sunk there. Another Yamato (well now turned carrier) was sunk 10 days *after* its commissioning by a sub.
NatedogJr 3 months ago
@NatedogJr Ok, funny
311nonono 2 months ago
@311nonono Dude just let it go and move on.....
NatedogJr 2 months ago
@311nonono Can i ever just watch a video on the Iowa class with out having to see you there. Lets just make this easy this time. The Yamato was not a super ship and was actually pretty crappy. Quit bitching on these videos, the door is that way. >>---->
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen
YOU SEE THE DOOR ?
TAKE IT !
311nonono 2 months ago
@311nonono Excellent comeback. I was hoping for something a little more intelligent, but judging from your yamato comments, i was hoping for too much.
MadMilitiaMen 2 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen
As per our prior conversations you have learned intelligence is not your strong point.
And yes, you are hopping too much, if you hope for any further discussions worthy of my time.
You know,,,, Come on now,,,, Don’t be bash-full,,,, Cause you do know,
YOUR JUST A DUMB BLABBER MOUTH !
Look in the mirror,,,, OK ? are you looking ?
Now, How does it feel to be just a stupid lump of flesh ?
311nonono 2 months ago
@311nonono As i said, i was hoping for something more intelligent. Yet here you are and 2 for 2 in the stupid comments section. Want to try and reply back and shoot for 3?
MadMilitiaMen 2 months ago
@311nonono
why are you speaking 19th century english???
Ksharp1fan 1 month ago
@Ksharp1fan
What the hell are you trying to say?
I think you need to just speak plain English, never mind the century.
I hope you realize you do not make any sense.
Try another translator.
311nonono 1 month ago
@311nonono
what was so hard to understand about my sentence I asked you why you typed in 19th century english as in why do you use complicated words instead of just typing like everybody else?
I just don't understand all the wannabe shakespears on the internet. I mean really does using words like "prowess" and "ponder" get you more friends or pussy? just speak normally man!!
Ksharp1fan 1 month ago
@Ksharp1fan
Thank you explaining what it was you were trying to tell me. But nonetheless I do not agree with your concerns.
I do find puzzling that you believed that “stop trying to use 19th century English” should have been clear.
I have no interest is 19th century English or Shakespearean dreams of grandeur!
If I use the word “ponder” or “prowess” it is because it is both clearer and more to the point. “Ponder” is a lot simpler than saying, ”I considered it deeply and thoroughly”.
311nonono 1 month ago 2
@Ksharp1fan
We could shrink the language down to a couple of thousand words to make you happy, but then we lose the flavor of the language along with it’s nuances(subtleties) and clarity.
But, if you told me English is your second language and these words just make things more difficult.
That would be something that I can understand.
311nonono 1 month ago
@311nonono easy man that person does have point the yamato was the ultimate...but you are right to its at the bottom because we kicked its ass
halofighter1993 2 weeks ago
@Darthbelal
I would hope that in the distant future, if one the Iowa class ships ever gets scrapped, someone does not make an equivalent rampage into mental thought and states as follows;
“Who cares about the Iowa, my dinghy is floating and in use, where is the Iowa? it’s just a heap of scrap.”
311nonono 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I DO NOT THINK YOU DID YOUR HOMEWORK ! !
Odd... that, in this series, you excluded the Littorio class of battleships that had the most powerful guns ever placed an any battleship.
These guns out ranged Iowa's guns by FOUR(4) miles and Yamato's gun's by TWO(2+) miles, with more armor penetrating power than both.
311nonono 4 months ago 2
The respond of American - why is Iowa better than the Yamato (tipical US brainwashed idiot):
1. Improved fire control system - allows a Captain of a ship to click the button in the command tower, and all the fire on the ship will suddenly disappear.
2. Targeting computer - allows a gunners of the artillery to lock or auto aim at the Yamato and hit her in the magazines while Iowa is in Pearl Harbor, and Yamato is in Tokyo bay.
3. Improved radar - allows the Iowa to see the Yamato everywhere...
m2mihulja 4 months ago
@m2mihulja If your Battleship is still floating after a war, then your battleship is better.
battle623 4 months ago
@battle623 No. The military inventions - such as tanks, ships, planes...aren't comparing like who got sunk, who destroyed something, no. The compares are based on performances.
That's just as I can say - the Type-95 tank is better than the M4 Sherman, because more Shermans were destroyed than Type-95's...stupid, right?
m2mihulja 4 months ago
I met a guy recently that was a forward observer in the U.S.Army in Vietnam.They were getting overrun and he called in a fire mission.The voice that answered said they couldn't fire as close as he wanted. He said to fire anyway,the next he knew it sounded like freight trains coming overhead. 3 rounds from an 'Iowa class' scared them as bad as the 'gooks' they were firing at. Trees just lifting out of the ground and slamming back onto the ground.
1949man 4 months ago
Google 'Iowa vs. Tirpitz". I'll be waiting for your apology.
isuckaman 5 months ago
Comment removed
zulok1337 4 months ago
Google "Iowa vs. Tirpitz".
isuckaman 5 months ago
The Iowa was commissioned in Feb, 1943. A well defended fiord? The Iowa's 16 inch guns had a range of 24 miles. The Germans had no practical counter to that. The Iowa's first mission was to stop the Tirpitz should it have escaped into the North Atlantic or keep jt from doing so.
isuckaman 5 months ago
@isuckaman Halo?! Man, you crazy? Iowa was designed to counter the Yamato, because before her the USN practically had no BB to counter her. And Iowa was launched in Feb. 1943., Tirpitz was sunk in 1944.
And Iowa doesn't have range of guns 24nm, she has 22nm. (6km less).
But in terms of specifications she didn't counter the Yamato, so her only use was nothing else than escorting coward carrier force.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
The Iowa's first mission was to hunt out the German battleship Admiral Tirpitz that was the sister ship of the Bismark. But the Tirpitze was sung by British planes in Norwwegian waters before the Iowa was launched. It would have been a great battle but since the Iowa had bigger guns with longer range and a radar controlled firing system, the Iowa would have been victorious.
isuckaman 5 months ago
@isuckaman 2 major corrections here mate.
1: the ship was just known as Tirpitz, not Admiral Tirpitz
2: Iowa was launched on 27th August 1942. Tirpitz was sunk 2th november 1944. Thats a 2 year gap.You are getting mixed up with Operation Chariot, which destroyed the only dry dock big enough to accomodate a Bismarck class battle ship on the Atlantic wall. The reason the Iowa never went after the tirpitz is not even the US are crazy enough ( as far as i know) to attack a well defended Fiord.
dalekbitch 5 months ago
Ph, this brainwashed US cave men, thinks here that Iowa can beat the Yamato, yea right, my ass!
Iowa and the rest of floating coffins and tin-cans (S. Dakota, N. Carolina...) can be sunk of Fuso and Ise, and their 12 355 and 380mm guns.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
OK forget about the Yamato, Fuso can punch a big hole on deck of Iowa.
zergmon9999 5 months ago
@zergmon9999 Yeah, the 12 355mm can drill Iowa and make her look like Swiss cheese.
Hold on friend, we'll make through this idiots...
m2mihulja 5 months ago
the yamato was sunk after an attack made by 386 aircraft and was sunk just after having hit by 8 bombs and 10 torpedoes in a battle of almost two hours.The musashi was sunk after after receiving a massive attack with 17 direct hits from bombs, 18 indirect and 20 torpedo hits.I would have liked to see the Yamato and Musashi fighting 2 iowa.El result would have been a disaster for the USA.The Yamato class had better body armor better weapons and bigger weapons.
euskalthrasher 5 months ago
yes,yes,yes let the Americans live in the fantasy world.Everyone who is not american is saying that the Iowa wasnt the best ship in the history ,but americans still think it, let them dream.How can they think a boat is the best of the history even if it have not entered in combat?
euskalthrasher 5 months ago
This programme is awful. How can you compare an Aircraft carrier like Nimitz to an old Battleship!? And how narrow are their comparisons, "fear factor".....What the fuck, non of this mattered, The Nimitz would walk all over this and anyone can figure that! This is just pro-American pure opinionist bullshit. I hope noone actually believes this crap!
UKIrStokesLARK 5 months ago
@UKIrStokesLARK I think both of you are totally right here. Few days ago I tried with everything to explain to this brainwashed US idiots that Yamato is 5 times better. And after I gave them 10 logical proofs, they kept telling the same different non-sense shit over and, over, and over...
I hope you understand. If you want to see that idiotism go to page 1,2,3,4,5. and see.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
You just can't admit. You're here calling the Iowa the best BB without a single real logistic proof.
I gave you about some 10 proofs that Yamato is better than that floating coffin,(better armor, better guns, better range,more armament), and you again, and again are posting comments with saying: the Iowa is no.1
Stop arguing and give me some real proofs, then come back.
Jesus, you are behaving like child of 5 years old, who can't get chocolate.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
NO, YOU DIDN'T ...IDIOT GO TO PAGE 2
I QUOTE YOU: Montana beats the Yamato...
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja What? Wow, Montana would've killed the Yamato. Dumby! You also said in our previous argument how you "hatez america and west for propaganda!" Also, your channel says a lot. :3
Tyco200 5 months ago
@Tyco200 If you idiots even with 50 evidences and proofs - against your 5 (unconfirmed) proofs, can't admit that Yamato is better, the we're done here.
Enjoy in your liar little life, biters.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja no the specs i told you just now is confirmed proof which means i win you have nothing aganist the US the south dakota sould almost beat yamato iowa DID beat the yamato the montana would have face it US won im done here your croatian lost
killer8479394 5 months ago
@killer8479394 I was done a long time ago, but biters were begging me to teach you up some more.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
You Americans are stupid idiots. When comes to, for example Me-262 the world's first jet, you said ''ah, that wasn't build at all, fuck that...'' and when comes to protecting your planes, ships and etc., you claim some that wasn't build at all, ph, what Montana - figment crap.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja go to wikipedia idiot see all the specs like how we kicked everyones ass are you rooting for nazis to take over the world? infact the specs of the armor are too long to put on 1 comment so wheres your comeback now?
killer8479394 5 months ago
If you look closely, you will noticed that USS Iowa is nothing more than copy of the Yamato. Look at the design of bow and stern and conning tower.
Second - in this ''Propaganda channel'' there's no Yamato because they couldn't lie about she's firepower and protection.
Third - these liars said that Iowa has range of fire 24nm (Iowa has a range of 22nm., that's a few km less.)
AMERICANS JUST FACE IT: THE YAMATO IS BETTER.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja The Yamato was sunk. At least the Iowas are still floating.
DEathgod650 5 months ago
@DEathgod650 Iowa wasn't cowardly attacked by 450 planes, moron...
And that's everything you got to say?
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja The Yamato Battleships never lived up the their costs, they didn't do anything significant
DEathgod650 5 months ago
@DEathgod650 AND IOWA DID???????'!!!!!!!!!! YOU ONE HELL OF ULTRA - RETARDED IDIOT, USS IOWA NEVER, NEVER FIRED HER GUNS AT ANY WARSHIP. SHE ONLY SAILED IN A COWARDLY CARRIER FORMATION, AND BOMBARDED ISLANDS.
YAMATO TOOK PART IN ALL IMPORTANT ATTACKS, AND OFFENSIVES, AND SHE SUNK 5 ESCORT CARRIERS, 7 DD's AND 3 CA's.
SO DON'T SHIT ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW!!!!!!
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja OHHH, THEN CLEARLY THE YAMATO OR THE MUSASHI DIDN'T HELP TO WIN THE WAR. THE FUCKING CARRIERS DID
DEathgod650 5 months ago
@DEathgod650 AND IOWAS DID, AH? IDIOT!!!
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja I didn't even say the Iowas did, retard
DEathgod650 5 months ago
@DEathgod650 Yes, you didn't said it personally - you confirmed that exaggerating and lying about her.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@DEathgod650 THEY WOULD HELP IF THE USN DIDN'T HAVE 100 000 SHIPS AND DOUBLE MORE ''COWARD'' PLANES, MORON!!!
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja How does the USN building more ships and planes that the Yamatos couldn't defeat make me a moron? Clearly the Yamatos weren't all that if they could be beaten by those 'coward planes, and it would probably take a ton of balls to fly towards the Yamato/Musashi, considering how heavy their weaponry was
DEathgod650 5 months ago
@DEathgod650 Yes, in contrast of this fool down there, you're right. Tell that to your friend down there.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja MONTANA CLASS BATTLESHIP WOULD RIVAL THE YAMATO!!!! Sadly it was never built.....
NatedogJr 5 months ago
@NatedogJr iowa beat yamato montana would treat yamato as a regular battleship treats a cruiser
killer8479394 5 months ago
@NatedogJr Listen Idiot, that's just as I can say: Sadly that uncompleted No.11 was broken up.
That monster should have 510mm guns, and double armor protection compared to Yamatp.
She would sink all crap of Iowa, and fictional Montana that didn't had blueprints at all.
You just can pray for your lame people and be God thankful that the V-3 rocket didn't hit you.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja Your the idiot since you cannot spell YAMATO correctly. The Montana was supposed to have 12x 16"/ 50 cal guns Mark 7. 20x 5"/ 54 cal Mark 16. 10-40 Bofors 40 mm AA guns. 56x Oerlikon 20mm AA guns.
NatedogJr 5 months ago
@NatedogJr Yea right, you don't know anything about ships, and you're here brine savvying me...ultra - retarded American pig.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja And you don't know anything about spelling. Its spelt YEAH. Retard anti-American.
NatedogJr 5 months ago
@NatedogJr First of all I am not a English or American(I would kill myself if I am)
Second - I am not anti - American, I'm just talking facts and truth here - but you and 1000 more idiots can't admit, and then you put up a argue, brainwashed idiot.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja First of all If you aren't American or English, then what are you? Second, calling me brainwashed really doesn't matter to me at all. Third, on page 2 I quoted, the MONTANA would RIVAL the YAMATO. Again, look up the word RIVAL.
NatedogJr 5 months ago
Comment removed
m2mihulja 5 months ago
Comment removed
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja On page 2, Killer said Montana treats Yamato like a CA treats a DD. I NEVER REPLIED BACK TO HIM.
NatedogJr 5 months ago
@NatedogJr LOL! Ignore this idiot. I tried debating him a few hours ago. He believes Iowa would be beaten by Yamato... And that apparently, the Mark7s were built in... Britian. This child is deprived of knowledge... Also, he's a Croatian idiot.... :/
Tyco200 5 months ago
@Tyco200 Idiot, you're back! Great! Some things and defeat in Top 10 BB's weren't enough for you. You want to learn some more, sorry I must disappoint you - I concluded that you are mentally deformed - you will have to go in ''lower'' child's class, sorry...
Ha I'm alone up against 100 American brainwashed idiots, and I'm wining...
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja SHUT UP, CROATIAN PIGGY FROM HELL! GO BACK TO YOUR MOMA'S WOUMB!!! >:
Tyco200 5 months ago
@NatedogJr So how is that floating tin-can better than God of Yamato, idiot when you just wrote here that she would have almost no differences with Iowa. And ''best BB'', yea right, my ass!
And what's with the armor - you deliberately didn't wrote that because you noticed that Yamato's is better.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja I never said that the MONTANA WAS BETTER THAN THE YAMATO. If You want to know what Montana's armor is look it up. After all, it seems that you cannot trust an American with researching information, SO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!
NatedogJr 5 months ago
@m2mihulja is that why it sunk? and cowardly? what the hell? flying at a battleship with one bomb against hundreds of AA fire is cowardly? adn only 60 planes attacked it and if montana was built it would kick japans ass even harder
killer8479394 5 months ago
@killer8479394 If every American always says Montana, Montana... then please tell me the armor and guns of that fictional floating - coffin.
If you Americans didn't dropped the bomb on Japan, they would build the unnamed No.11 , and 13 which not only would have 510mm guns, they would have combat air patrols and bombers in a flight deck at a stern just as IJN Ise had.
So don't shit me about fictional, useless Montana class BB.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja the specs are actually too long to put in one comment but you want the specs? here: 6 inch deck armor 22.5 inch turret armor and 16 inch side belt armor the armerment 12x 16 inch mark 7 guns 20 5 inch dual purpose mark 16 guns 56 20 inch oerlikon AA guns and 40 bofor's 40mm guns with 2 catapult's with 4 OS2U seahawks you think the axis is so great? well 3 montana's could have beat japan singlehandly your logic=my butt
killer8479394 5 months ago
@killer8479394 I didn't said Axis are the best (but objectively they are) but these performances are again under the comparing to Yamato, stupid brainwashed, mentally fucked, totally residual idiots.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@killer8479394 YES, ANOTHER VICTORY. KILLER AND TYCO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, I AM HAPPY THAT I WAS ABLE TO TEACH YOU SOMETHING TODAY!
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@killer8479394 LOL, ikr? This guy is a RETARD.
Tyco200 5 months ago
@killer8479394 Montana is a monster of a warship! 12 Mark7s. What a dream. Dumby thinks the Mark7s were built in Britian. :P
Tyco200 5 months ago
@Tyco200 get this: he says yamato where better then why arnt they in service now? and also if a iowa can beat it a montana will treat it like a PT boat
killer8479394 5 months ago
@m2mihulja HAHA!!! The South Dakota of 1939 had very similar belts. They were also built around the time of Yamato! Unless... Evil new-world-order spy planes saw the Yamato and copied her! Also, note the fact that the Iowa at least had better radar guided guns. Yamato had no such. Yamato was also relatively slow.
Tyco200 5 months ago
@Tyco200 Listen, dirt-bag the S. Dakota was nothing more than shorter version of Iowa.
And what do those guns mean to you, when Yamato had 25nm range of fire?!
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@m2mihulja Ahaha! What is the use when you CAN'T HIT THE ENEMY WITH THOSE GUNS?! Yamato Cannot hit anything. Please realize that! I have debated you plenty on this already.
Tyco200 5 months ago
@Tyco200 Idiot, those guns aren't shotguns! Yamato in 1944. sunk 3 escort carriers and 4 destroyers at distance of over 24nm.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
@Tyco200 And what is for Iowa in use so-called ''improved radar, fire controls, targeting system...'' when Yamato has 6km wider range than Iowa, and she can hit Iowa with 18 rounds?!
result: Iowas blown up and sinking...
And If Iowa hits Yamato, the Iowas shells will bounce off and ricochet, because Iowa has maximum penetration of 306mm over a distance of 22nm, idiot.
m2mihulja 5 months ago
Why there isnt Kirov class missile cruiser on that list, it was the reason why USA recomisioned IOWA class battleship. I guess only real reason why this ship is no.1 is being made in USA.
54n141n3n 5 months ago
Montana class battleship......THE CLASS OF SHIPS NEVER BUILT BECAUSE OF MISSILES AND AIRCRAFT.
NatedogJr 6 months ago
Comment removed
prowler878 6 months ago
USS Iowa looks beast on this picture when It was in training near an Island called, Puerto Rico.
Saemar900 6 months ago
Common American stupid propaganda,they cannot admit that Yamato was the best battleship ever build. Don't be naive people!
m2mihulja 6 months ago
@m2mihulja Only if the Montana class was built during World War II....
NatedogJr 6 months ago
The Montana class battleship: The Class of Ships Never Built :(
NatedogJr 7 months ago
BB64!!!!!!
jiggs1974 8 months ago
What if the U.S Navy commissioned "Modern Battleships"?
NatedogJr 10 months ago
@NatedogJr The Iowas were already as modern as a battleship could get. The reason they're not being used today (or any battleships for that matter) is because smaller ships can do the job for less cost.
delta5297 9 months ago
@delta5297 I guess the 16 inch caught my attention. That firepower can knock out enemy surface vessels and gives execellent gunfire support for Marines.
NatedogJr 9 months ago
wtf what about the uss ohio!?!?!?!?!?!
blowupuate13 10 months ago
@blowupuate13
I presume your are talking about the Montana class BB-68 and not the 1904 BB-12 ship.
None of the Montana class ever had a keel laid, they only made it to the design phase. None were ever built.
It would have had 12 16"guns much thicker armor than Iowa but slower.
311nonono 10 months ago
@311nonono no USS Ohio (SSBN-726/SSGN-726) nuclear submarine!
blowupuate13 10 months ago
@blowupuate13
Well it's kind of strange, submarines are in a class by themselves and noone is really sure how to guage submarines versus surface ships.
311nonono 10 months ago
@blowupuate13
But, then the way this category was so badly defined "Top Fighting Ships" it's really unbounded.
So, yes you are right. Sub should also be considered.
311nonono 10 months ago
@HerrrOttoFlick you means planes it takes a very good method to sink a Battleship and more than one plane but many planes. Air power is king now point taken.
CDMJDMHHC 10 months ago
@CDMJDMHHC
These guys the "Military Channel / Discovery Channel"
Are just; Military bozzos ! A bunch of cocconuts ! Just big DUMMIES !
Why ? Have Graf Spee (a light cruiser) Have the Hood But No Yamato ! But No Littorio !
Boys and girls; Can anybody say "THIS IS RETARDED" ?
311nonono 10 months ago
for all you guys saying that this is not the greatest battleship of all time, I invite you to provide evidence for this fact. And did you also ever consider that the people who decided this are from several different countries and their full-time JOB is studying these ships. Do you really think you know more than them?
mddelanoy 11 months ago
@mddelanoy
The EVIDENCE is that your experts have the Hood and the Graf Spee(a light cruiser) in this list but NOT the Yamato !
It puts the whole case for the Iowa into question, even if the Iowa should be number one.
NO Yamato, NO experts, JUST expert dummies.
Case closed ! Period.
311nonono 11 months ago
@mddelanoy
This is discovery channel we're talking about here. Specifically their military department.
Aside from the few military persona they interview they don't have any experts. And notice how the people never say that x or y is the best? Pretty telling that.
Plus, there's the whole cherry picking of data (The Iowa class is not the longest serving active warship, in fact it doesn't comes close) and a rather vague definition of active. To me, being mothballed is not the same as being active
chrthiel 11 months ago
@chrthiel Agree 100% (see my previous post just before)
There are so stupid they can't even make the classification for their review correctly.
Could have been; "Top Ten Fighting Ships of WWII" or "Top Ten Battleships of WWII"
With these clowns we're doomed !
311nonono 10 months ago
So a US ship was ranked number 1 by a US tv show, what a surprise, an Iowa class wouldn't stand a chance against a Russia Kirov class, not tat you would see two big ships battle off 1v1 these days but meh.
llynellyn 11 months ago
@llynellyn wait... did you really just compare what is essentially an over-sized missile cruiser to a battleship?? what the heck is wrong with you???
mddelanoy 11 months ago
@mddelanoy The Kirov class is a battleship, if your going to claim it doesn't count as one because it uses missiles instead of artillery then you have to also say the Iowa doesn't either because it uses shells instead of cannonballs, time moves on...
llynellyn 11 months ago
@llynellyn The Kirov class aren't BBs, not because of their missles, but because of their lack of armor. Also, BBs AND BCs (and everything else for that matter) have been using shells, not shot, since about 1870 or so.
Exmech2 10 months ago
@llynellyn your are full of it
CDMJDMHHC 10 months ago
no, the iowa was constantly refitted to keep up with aircraft carriers and technology of the day. Remember that it was also being constantly put in storage warehouses and would only see combat for a few months. While the Nimitz has never been refitted in thirty years and has seen constant service
mrbones652 11 months ago
how could this class possibly top the nimitz!
mrbones652 11 months ago
@mrbones652 Well... the service lenght is better than the Nimtiz.
NatedogJr 11 months ago
And What about the Yamato ? ? ?
311nonono 1 year ago 2
Odd... that, in this series, you excluded the Littorio class of battleships that had the most powerful guns ever placed an any battleship.
These guns out ranged Iowa's guns by FOUR(4) miles and Yamato's gun's by TWO(2+) miles, with more armor penetrating power than both.
I DO NOT THINK YOU DID YOUR HOMEWORK ! !
311nonono 1 year ago 27
Comment removed
AjaxII 11 months ago
@311nonono
reload time to slow, no radar. no challenge for bismarck or the iowas
AjaxII 11 months ago
@AjaxII
Reload time on the LIttorio's was a VERY consistent at 1.3/min. And was not subject to human fatigue unlike other ships.
The true test is how many shot you can actually be made per minute, and there are other factors, elevation to load position(except for Richielou), elevation to shot position, etc..
When all is taken into account they are all much closer in actual shots/min. Actual experience on US ship bears this out.
311nonono 11 months ago 4
@311nonono Bismarck could fire 3round/min.
AjaxII 11 months ago
@AjaxII
The Littorio had radar by time the Iowa was built (one hit and radar was usually out of action).
It also had better optical gun control than booth Iowa and Bismarck, the telemeters of those ships was extremely precise with a shoot central computer.
Proof is is in the repeatedly excellent shooting of the Littorio and the Vittorio Veneto against British cruisers at extreme range (>30,000 yards)!
They *COMPLETELY* out-classed the 15" guns of the Bismarck class. It was almost embarrassing.
311nonono 11 months ago 11
@311nonono this is bull and not true
CDMJDMHHC 10 months ago
@CDMJDMHHC
Wow you are really concise, you formulated you evidence very well.
Very impressive, you must be one of the MilitaryChannel staff.
Really I am awe inspired, you have got to put your thoughts down on paper so that hundreds of years from people will able to reflect on your genius.
We will call it the "Lamentations of CDMJDMHHC" 1000 sheets per roll septic safe.
You are just incredible, you astonish the conscious into unconsciousness.
WORLD SUCKS !
Please….tell us more.
311nonono 10 months ago
@311nonono The Littorio had MAJOR flaws with it's guns, they wouldn't be able to go head to head with ANY BB fielded at the time. Example A) three triple turrets, armed with long-barreled (50 calibers) naval guns. These provided a very long range (42.8 kilometres (26.6 mi)) and muzzle velocity (870 metres per second (2,900 ft/s)), but consequently suffered barrel lives just half as long as their counterparts in other navies, and inconsistent shell patterning.
admstacks 9 months ago
@admstacks
Are you are aware that these guns had more range and armor penetrating power than both Yamato and Iowa ? (ecept Yamato at the muzzle).
Are you aware that the guns were specifically designed with on ship 24hour replacement liners ? (a first)
Are you aware that shooting with "good shells" was highly accurate ? and the bad patterns were strictly due to bad amo supplies? (they straddled British cruisers at > 32,000 yards)
311nonono 9 months ago
@admstacks
Are you aware that it's Terni armor made it's 13.8" belt more penetration resistant than Yamato's 16.1" belt ?
Are you aware how tough this ship was ? When the maganines of Hood, Tirpizs and Yamato blew, Hood and Tirpizs shank in about a minute Yamato sank in a little over a minute. When Roma's magazine blew it stayed afloat for over six minutes !
So how do you come to the conclusion that this ship wouldn't be able to go head to head with ANY BB fielded at the time ?
311nonono 9 months ago
@311nonono To be fair the Hood was a battlecruiser not a battleship that had serious design flaws, the Yamato had already been pounded to hell and if the magazine of the Roma contained the degree of explosive power the Yamatos had it would have gone down just as fast, if not faster. That being said, the Littorio was a very decent class, but this is all moot now. Battleships are just too vulnerable to aircraft, as proven by the fact time and again the Littorios were bested by aerial attacks.
SuperYogSothoth 8 months ago
@SuperYogSothoth
Fair about what ? The Hood had 15” guns and weighed more than 45,000 tons. The term Battlecruiser was only used by the British Royal Navy and confuses even the RN.
This ship in any other navy would be, and is, known as a battleship, flawed or not.
A magazine explosion is “no comparison to being blown to hell”.
The Bismarck was blown to hell even worse than the Yamato. The Bismarck’s magazines did not blow, and the Bismarck did not sink until her crew helped scuttle it.
311nonono 8 months ago
@SuperYogSothoth
The Bismarck’s sister ship, the Tirpitz, sank in less than a minute when it’s HALF EMPTY rear magazine blew!
The point is, half empty or full a magazine explosion is the devastating factor.
The Roma’s main magazines WERE FULL.
The Yamato’s magazines were being drawn down with separate actions that had been occurring over several days and were NOT FULL.
311nonono 8 months ago
@SuperYogSothoth
The Roma’s advantage was her hull’s strength to weight ratio. Roma’s Terni armor was 20% tougher than Japanese armor and just a little better than British armor.
It’s a lot easier to hold together 45,000 tons rather than 75,000 tons with basically the same hull strength.
The Yamato started to roll and sink when a secondary 6” magazine blew, the roll caused a main magazine explosion after slipping under the waves.
311nonono 8 months ago
@SuperYogSothoth
Yes, battleships are obsolete due to aircraft and missiles.
Moot? not as far as people's interest in the subject or it's history.
311nonono 8 months ago
@311nonono An interesting thing I have noted about what we are discussing here, and indeed a common feature of what happens when battleships are discussed, is how well the battleships sunk. My favourite battleship is the Warspite, mainly cus she was defined by how she lived rather than what it took to sink her (after all she met a pretty unceremonious end, being scrapped after running aground). The Littorios may have been better designed but none of them held a candle to that ships career.
SuperYogSothoth 8 months ago
@SuperYogSothoth
A ship’s career is not a feature or a quality of a ship.
The ship’s career is the results of the assignments and actions of men driving the ship.
The comparing of two ship’s careers has no reflection on the features or capabilities of either ship.
If that were the case we could start comparing sloops to an ocean liners.
Resorting to ship’s careers when making a comparison is an indication of a weak position and the need to grasp at straws : P
311nonono 8 months ago
@311nonono What the actual hell? surely the only thing you can properly compare ships on is how they PERFORM. its all well and good saying that X had longer range guns than Y, or stronger armour, or a faster engine, but if when it came down to it Y did a better job than X it doesnt fucking matter about any of its features. Case in point you were arguing that the Littorios had the longest range main guns, I offered a counterpoint in the form of a specific ship.
SuperYogSothoth 8 months ago
@311nonono Furthermore what the hell is weak about my position of "I liked this ship because it had an impressive career"? You cannot deny that the Warspite DID have an impressive career compared to the likes of the Littorios. Please remember I'm not trying to say that it was a better ship, I'm happy for you to think your Littorios were the greatest things to sail the seas, I'm saying I like another ship more.
SuperYogSothoth 8 months ago
@311nonono Yaknow what, fuck it. We are arguing over ships that don't exist any more from two completely different perspectives on what makes a good ship. Talk about pointless.
SuperYogSothoth 8 months ago
@311nonono Also - longest confirmed hit from a moving target against a moving target. Fluke? possibly, but still, further than the Littorio :P
SuperYogSothoth 8 months ago
@SuperYogSothoth I believe that the hit was sabotage, many Italians were Freemasons not loyal to Mussolini but to the Rothschild of England, in the battle of Punto Stilo one of the Italian battle ships did not fire against the British.
Capitancanguro1 8 months ago
@311nonono Um should probably state that means at sea I dunno if it applies on land or whatever.
SuperYogSothoth 8 months ago
@311nonono only 3 ever built, and they barely did anything. Longevity is awful. Iowa's were faster and more heavily armored.
WortWortWortHog 11 months ago
@WortWortWortHog I got a row boat from the 20's. It's 90 years old, still in use, and not in moth balls.
My row boat's longevity is incredable !
Iowa's longevity is awful compared to my row boat, it beats the crap out of Iowa's !
If the above make sense to you, then you statement is acceptable.
311nonono 11 months ago 2
@311nonono lol. Longevity was perhaps the wrong word, with it I was referring to their category 'Service Length'. And I did look it up, and the places I looked stated that Littorio's guns were the same size as the Iowa's and their armor very comparable. I don't remember their secondary guns, I don't really care. Have fun with your opinion!
WortWortWortHog 11 months ago
@WortWortWortHog
I did understand that, by Longevity, you meant “Service Length”.
The Littorio’s guns were actually smaller, 15 inch versus Iowa’s 16 inch.
But they were nonetheless, more powerful.
I see that you have gotten closer to realizing that what you called my “FUN OPINION” is materializing to be the FACTS ! lol.
311nonono 11 months ago
@WortWortWortHog The armor comparison was a mixed bag.
For example, in the all important DECK and BELT armor, the Littorio's armor was thicker than Iowa's.
Besides the main guns, Littorio's secondary guns were also more powerful than Iowa's.
The Iowa's were only 1 kn faster than the Littorios.
The Littori's cruising range was only 1/3 of Iowa's.
Look it up!
311nonono 11 months ago
@311nonono NO it was not better than The Iowa class if your really did your home work the Italian Sucked in its duty but it is ships are of sound design but it was crippled but Royal British bi-planes and was turned over to the Allies. Plus you to forget the short life of the main guns barrel life and uneven powder charge.
CDMJDMHHC 10 months ago