The captain of USS South Dakota wrote a report after the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. In that battle, South Dakota had taken multiple hits from Japanese 8" and 14" shells. He believed that the conning tower had saved him and the bridge staff from serious harm or death. He excoriated the removal of the conning towers on the ships being rebuilt, and the practice was stopped. A conning tower is like a fire extinguisher: you don't need it until you really, really need it.
Dear Robert Ashley, Thank you for the information, and thank you for reminding me of my Dad, who was there that night aboard the Sodak, part of the Marine compliment. The Captain of the USS South Dakota was Thomas Gatch. I know you know that, but for those who may not...
There was a 12 year old serving on the South Dakota, he fought in the battle of Guadalcanal and was seriously injured from a shrapnel. And earned the bronze star and the Purple Heart for his efforts to help his sailors. And later was thrown in the brig and was dishonorably discharged after his three month setenced.
My dad's ship, U.S.S. L.S.T. 960 was anchored in Tokyo Bay very near to Missouri when the peace pact was signed in 1945. While the whole arrangement was being set up, my dad and a bunch of guys from his ship had an opportunity to go out in an LCVP to take a better look at the battleship. They wanted to go all the way around it. They did, but he said it "took forever" and they were all amazed at just how wide it was. Rounding the bow, they kept on "waiting for a flat side". I always thought that was very cool.
My dad did too. When the Missouri was the only active Battleship in the US Navy. He was mad when he got yanked off and sent to radio school at Great Lakes and ended up being stuck there as an instructor for the duration of the Korean War. He offered to take a demotion and change back to an ET when the NJ came out for Vietnam but the Navy said no to that too. The Navy wasn't about to let an E-9 CT go aboard. So for a second war he got stuck in a desk job. But because Truman did not declare the Second World War over until DEC 31, 1946, dad was entitled to wear a WW II Victory Medal/Ribbon. He finished Boot Camp on Dec 6, 1946.
One of my Grandfathers worked in ship design during WWII, and he often would tell me that there was NO office in the USN busier than the design bureaus. They were constantly deleting, adding, or modifying the structure of the ships in repair & under construction. Because in almost every conceivable area of the military, the amount learned was what he called “a firehose of information”. There was SO much development that by the time a design had been drawn up, approved, and put into action - the fighting had evolved to the point that the ‘change’ had nearly become obsolete. He also said this period was the birth of the modern term ‘the Good Idea Fairy’.
And yet they refuse to give American bbs quicker speeds because the original ships were that slow. Either go with unrealistic values across the board and remove the power creep or nurf the fake lines to realistic values. Pick one...
@@Threesixtyci The South Dakota was built to conform with the limits of the Washington Naval Treaty. It wasn't the 'refusal' of the US government, but a world-wide agreement on limitations for capital ships. At the time the South Dakota was built, its top rated speed of 27 kts wasn't 'slow' for a ship of its size. Bismarck was rated at 30, and Yamato was rated at 27. Both of these other ships were larger than South Dakota. The later Iowa class BB's were designed after the Washington Naval Treaty was violated by Japan and Germany, and were rated at 33 kts.
Honestly that philosophy is what made the US military what it is today. By the end of the war, there were no sacred cows. If you came up with a better idea, it was implemented as fast and as wide as possible. The US Navy was always “haze gray and underway”. They could rearm, refuel and refit at sea, moving toward the next objective. The Royal Navy was the undisputed leader in naval power at the beginning of the war. By ‘45 when they returned to the Pacific, they literally couldn’t keep up. Tradition eats up a lot of time lol.
In kindergarten in 1962, I helped collect dimes to bring the USS Alabama (BB-60) to Mobile, Alabama, where it now sits as a beautiful museum ship. It cost approx $800K to bring the ship from Bremerton, Washington to Mobile Bay - we school kids raised over $100K of that. If you have not visited one of these museum BBs (or any of the WWII vintage ships that are preserved), you should add it to any bucket list. It is hard to appreciate the size of the ships unless you walk the decks and explore the myriad of ship spaces. It will also give some sense of the sacrifices our veterans made during the war. Stand inside of a 16" turret and imagine what it would be like when those massive guns fired. Also gives a better understanding of what it would have taken to build such a massive ship. Battleship Park in Mobile is beautiful facility, located near the Mobile Bay Bridge (I-10) and can be seen from about a mile away. If you ever nearby, you should make a point to visit - it is worth the trip. Thank you Mr. Szimanski and all the curators that work so tirelessly to preserve our naval history!
While in drydock at ADDSCO in 1980, we scavenged parts off the Alabama's power plants for the USS Yosemite. All of those good parts went to the bottom of the sea with the Yosemite in the early 90's.
I just visited the Alabama for the first time last week. Also went aboard the Drum. What an amazing experience. I drove past there over 20 times in my life and always wondered if I would get to do it; so glad I went. They did a good job with the ship. I would love it if they opened up more of the birthing spaces and such but really all those rooms wouldn't add much to the experience I suppose. They could turn it into a hotel lol. Thanks for raising those dimes. Beautiful ship.
The Iowa class ships were built on a "50 year" hull...great channell. USNR vet here. My old reserve unit performed maintenance on the North Carolina.(geez..a looong time ago).
@@michaelmckinnon1591 As used with naval guns, “caliber” refers to how many multiples of the shell diameter the barrel is long. 16” 50-caliber means the barrel is 50x16” long, or 66’8” (800 inches).
I served on a Spruance class destroyer in the late 80s and we were part of the Iowa's battle group. There are a lot of arguments for their being considered obsolete but if you ever have to do an amphibious assault nothing gives you a better edge than a battery of 16" guns. I really don't know what we'd do if the need arose to carry out such a mission today.
Since there's no real fortifications being targeted anymore, the 16" guns really are only better than the 5" ones on the DDs due to range. Anything the 5" can't reach is detailed to air power, whether drone or manned. Modern JDAMs are more accurate and more powerful than 16" shells. Something like an F-18 with two dozen 250lb JDAMs is actually far more effective than the 16" on the BBs. It's really that simple: the 16" guns were replaced by air power, for less cost and more flexibility. The Advanced Gun System is a failure, as were the upgraded 8" guns. It really just turns out that there's no use for such big guns, and the costs associated with trying to make them "smart" projectiles is pretty much the same as arming a plane/drone with a hellfire or maverick missile. Of course, this completely ignores the fact we don't ever do opposed amphibious operations, now or in the future. The Marines and Navy have spent a LOT of money making sure they don't have to, in terms of equipment capability. If you aren't opposed on landing, Naval Gunfire Support is pretty pointless.
@@eriktrimble8784 have to disagree.... The BB can park and loiter. Ready to fire at a moments notice... Aircraft have turnaround time, maintenance, plus have to contend with AA defenses... The range is limited, but for sheer volume of fire, and repeatibility, 24/7, in any weather, a BB for NGFS is not second best to air strikes. There is a place for both, but saying air replaces it for true amphibious assualt support... Have to disagree!!
@@wheels-n-tires1846 You're still thinking of WW2-era amphibious assaults. They don't happen, any more than we have giant carrier battles in the open ocean. The last such one was Inchon in Korea, 70 years ago. We DO NOT do opposed over-the-beach assaults anymore, and the reason is simple: our enemies have figured out that DEFENDING against an amphibious assault is a giant waste of resources. They're better off investing in an armored brigade that can rush around and defend a whole host of places, than spending money on static defenses that 99% won't get used. And again, 16" guns aren't superior to 5" ones for even opposed landings. We found this out in the Pacific Island chain assaults. They are significantly less accurate, and the extra "bang" is actually a BAD thing these days, where we need a lot of precision without collateral damage. The extra range of the 16" over the 5" is pretty useless, as that only exacerbates the inaccuracy, and you need vulnerable spotters to make use of it (in which case, you need aircraft/drones anyway, so why not use them to deliver better ordinance). Modern NGS is best done by high-accuracy, high-ROF medium caliber guns. Somewhere between 4" and 6" seems to be the optimal. 16" guns are really only good for trying to erase a grid square, and, frankly, you can do that a lot easier via air power. Parking or even loitering 10km off the shore is EXCEEDINGLY dangerous for something as exposed as a BB. You don't do that at all, unless you want your big BB to have it's bow and stern blown off by SSMs. Modern NGS is done via high-speed destroyers on specific detailed patterns, which, I might add, are radically better at defending themselves against threats than a BB is. BBs are simply a thing of the past. Everything they do can be done better, faster, cheaper, and safer by something else. Which is why even the Navy doesn't want them. Ever consider why the ONLY "big gun" design for a ship in the past 70 years has been the single gun AGS for the Zumwalts, and when that failed, there hasn't been much of a complaint from the Navy.
I was in Battle Group “C” in the mid to late 80’s. I remember the USS Vincense showing up with all it’s new technology and a “greater than thou” mentality. Couldn’t stand the arrogance of a crew with their heads up their behinds, especially when they landed all the CAP’s at the same time on west pac. I was an OS on watch when it happened, talk about a freak show!
IMO, the best solution for amphibious fire support would be for the Navy to design a functional ~10k ton amphibious support ship armed with the Army's proven MLRS system. The Navy has had too many procurement disasters of late (Seawolf, Zumwalt, and the LCS) from trying to do experimentation/research in what should be high production rate fleet ships. The munitions are affordable and capable: M30 guided cluster munitions with with 70 km range, M31 guided with 200 lb HE warhead, both with 70 km range, MGM-140 ATACMS with cluster munitions rocket or unitary 500 lb HE wahead and 300 km range).
Having walked under the the USS Iowa in drydock at NNSY, I thought that the hull and armor plating could have significant surface streamline improvements. The the armor plate was installed with sharp edges, corners and protrusions that had to cause significant drag at speed. At the time I felt that the engineering spaces were designed with enough power to bulldoze the ship through the water. Now I wonder if hull surface streamline improvements could have allowed for other topside improvements without degrading ship's speed. What do you think?
I loved my time aboard the Battleship New Jersey on Memorial Day 2016 or 17 I can't remember. I was awe struck by it's size and sheer complexity of construction. You are a treasure for sure to take your time to understand this thing like you do. I was a professional video editor in Hollywood and although I can see that you are not reading from a script and are doing this free hand you manage to impart the info in an engaging and entertaining way. Thanks for keeping it alive and real. It is (and it's sister ships which I have visited too) a world wonder and the men who served aboard them are to be commended. Thanks, Tod
Thank you to the narrator for all your personal dedication to both the historical knowledge of our battleships but the sharing of such with us the planet wide RUclipsd communities. YVO Merry Christmas 2020/2021 ....
I made a trip to see the USS ALABAMA and Drum and I was really impressed and I was in awe of the ship itself!!! The Drum blew my mind how small it is on the inside! The Alabama and those guns the 16 inch are just massive to be honest I can't even imagine the destruction that they caused!!!! My dad was a WW2 Navy man who fought in 3 major battles! You had to be a special type of person to do the things that those guys did!!!
My grandfather served on a ship that was torpedoed off Guadalcanal. Edit to say they were mostly boys doing a man’s job better than most men could do. Nothing but respect for that generation.
If that’s big, I can’t even begin to imagine how big the 457 mm/ 18 inch gun on the HMS Furious was, as with the 460 mm/ 18.11 inch guns on Yamato and Musashi
I think one of the main design criteria for the Iowa class battleships was the width of the Panama Canal. This was a highly limiting factor and should have been discussed earlier in your video.
my recollection was that the thought on switching from 40mm Bofors to a 3in AA gun was that it was possible to put a proximity fuse on the 3in but not the 40mm (at the time). Too many people quote press on CV vs BB. there was a bit of back and forth on this. The mid/late 30's was when aircraft engine became powerful enough to carrier bombs and torpedo to threaten a warship (depending). The B-17 was designed to strike naval forces, which turned out to be a sad joke (it might have been able to hit a 22kt battleship, but not a 30kt cruiser, its not the speed, but the power to weight, which affects turn time). Pre-war AA had little ability The 40mm with radar fire control had adequate capability, but it was really the VT on the 5in that changed the game.
Very good point about aircraft development. I have repeatedly made the same case in the BB vs CV argument. In addition, it wasn't until December 1941, with the loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse that everyone realized how deadly aircraft could be to battleships that lacked air cover.
Bingo! The proximity or VT fuse is a game changer. On a 5" shell, enemy aircraft could have been engaged while still in formation and before any individual aircraft committed to an attack.
I think the big reason for the 6-inch AP turrets was due to the issues with the Atlanta light cruisers. They were really good as AA batteries, but they were completely useless against ships their own size. This shown up early in the war.
@@michaelpiatkowskijr1045 The Atlanta was 7000 tons, roughly comparable in displacement to the Japanese light cruisers, example Agano, but no where close to the treaty era Japanese heavy cruisers, typically 11,000 std and 14K full load. The Agano had 6x6in guns and 2.4in armor, versus Atlanta with 16 x5in guns. I would rate this as a fight that could go either way, depending on where and when Agano scores hits with here heavier shells. Atlanta would be in serious trouble against the heavy cruisers with 4in armor (some earlier one were only 8k tons). In few battles, US destroyers raked heavy Japanese ships above deck with 5in fire at close range, knowing there was no point in shooting at the hull. AA was not effective until radar control, and then mostly with the 40mm. The 5in guns were not that good against aircraft until the VT fuse became available.
I built a plastic model of New Jersey when I was 11. This was in 1991, reason I remember it so well is that our house was devastated in a house fire and I was given the kit from a good friend of our family who stayed with us in our temporary home to help arrange things and add moral support. Building the kit gave me some calm in what was a very chaotic time. I am 40 now, but still remember several of the details and feautures of the ship. This while most of my memories from this passage in life are blurred. Cheers and thanks for the video! // Jon (in Sweden)
What the Navy does not like about the Iowas #1 1. They require an insanely large (relatively speaking) and expensive crew to maintain and operate them. If memory serves its the biggest lifetime cost in a Warships lifecycle.
thats what i recall hearing back in the mid 80s when i served navy,did a tear at todd in seattle on a dd.finding spare parts had to be tough too as none were made anymore and the dies were long gone to.we had raiding partys on decomm ships for fire fighting spares ourselves lol
@@Battleship009 True, but for a HUGELY less capable ship - a BB is simply almost an order of magnitude less useful than a CV. Compare the BBs to something like the Tico or Burkes, and you see the manpower difference. Well over 5x.
@@eriktrimble8784 True, which is why for shore bombardment I think a modified Des Moines or Alaska would be suitable, the latter despite having 12" guns which have twice the rate of fire and the barrels lasting longer but none of them remain, oddly enough one of them was under construction was considered to be converted into a guided missile cruiser, but navy decided otherwise. The Des Moines which only one remains has 8 in guns with a high rate of fire thanks to autoloaders, and has a higher top speed than a Tico despite being older.
@@Battleship009 Except even there, the larger guns are pointless. The Zumwalts came the closest to having a shore bombardment idea with additional flexibility. But the AGS failed. It just boils down to any gun-only ship is a one trick pony, and there's no justification for spending a billion on one, when you can buy a Burke for less and get a LOT more. We just don't need Naval Gunfire Support anymore. It's that simple. We use missiles and strike aircraft for the same job. And that will only get cheaper when the Navy admits that the F/A-18 should be replaced with a drone for the strike role (at less than 1/3 the cost, too). The problem with guns is that they're inaccurate. Making them accurate costs MORE than a JDAM (per shell), and almost the same amount as a missile. And the gun is less useful - you can't hit things that don't have a ballistic path from the gun to target. JDAMs and missiles have no such restrictions. Guns simply can't beat a smart-bomb armed drone in terms of effectiveness and cost.
I have always been in love with the Iowa Class Battleships. But unfortunately the advent of the aircraft carrier and anti-ship missile really limited its long term usefulness. Defensively they would have been very difficult to disable or sink. However even with the addition of cruise missiles they would not have been very effective in an offensive role. On a side note, my Scout trip spent the night aboard the New Jersey 15 years ago and I was really impressed with the ship and crew during our stay. Please keep up the good work.
So true. But I read somewhere that roughly 80% of all targets of the US airforce in Vietnam was within range of the 16" main guns of the Iowas. Imagine the savings in lives and planes if the military had used all four Iowas bombarding those targets.
My son and I did the overnight trip with Cub Scouts also. We were able to see a lot of the ship that others who have toured it did not. We didn't see the engine rooms which I would love to see in person. I was also surprised at how small the various areas of the ship are. It's a big ship of small spaces.
@@rizon72 My father recalled a story about his tour in Vietnam. Details have been lost to time and the fact he didn't talk about it, much, but one of the Iowas (It might have been the New Jersey) was shelling an island nearby when there was a giant explosion, the island split in half, and part of it fell into the water. Much was said about the Arclight bombing campaign and the ground penetrating abilities of the 2000lb bomb - but the 16" guns could change the geography.
Technology will always evolve, advance and get updated. However, it's equally neccessary to preserve technology from the previous pages of history as it is to reach the next step. That's why i love the old battleships the US have preserved. Because they show us where we're been. They show us why we were. They show us who we are.
I grew up on BB63, 6th Div, 87-91, stepped aboard at 17 and departed just prior to turning 21... from Special Evolutions Helmsman to Rapid Response Team Member, I did/saw a lot, also scraped plenty of barnacles and did loads of painting. They're great in a Hurricane! it's one hell of a ride, even more fun when you're the one at the Helm; the rise, then comming down and cutting through the waves is an awesome experience. There's a sense of empowerment when you're on such a vessel with a cohesive crew. Kind of funny, my ship and her counterpart are now Museams, never thought of that as a possibility when I walked between them bartering for HPA fittings.
You are the best!Feels not enough to thankyou for your service. You tell us about being at helm of mad unreal best battleship in the 🌎.When u turned no matter how slight did deck slant a bit?Sounds like they were built for speed and anything else required.If you are ever a tour guide on your ship visitors will hang on your words because your story is real especially having the wheel and feeling the huge,sleek ship respond.
@@peterblumberg2314 Greetings. She handled very well. And, yes, did Tour Guide a few times, although I really didn't care for that so much. When the JO saw me on deck while he was giving tours, he liked to get people near wherever I was working and start asking folks about who they thought it was that drove the ship and what kind of qualifications they might have. After a few minutes he would point me out and give them a bit of my info, because of my age most people were floored. I actually met most of the people I ended up hanging out with in Cali because of such during a Highschool Senior Field Trip... they couldn't believe I was their age. Being the Special Evolutions Helsman led to some lengthy stents on the Bridge. In one instence, we left Port, I was driving, which took an hour or two... then we immediatly went into preperation for an UnRep which lasted several hours, so I was stuck. I think we even did a GQ drill. Following that, it was my time to be on watch, which was another 6 hours. It was a very long day. For fun... if I was driving during chow and I recieved a course correction, I would spin the wheel well past what was directed, once the ship started to near the desired course I would throw it back to the course indicated. The result was a notable list... like gunning it when you turn a corner... it was enough throw trays on the Mess Deck and make people stuble abround: I'm laughing now, just remembering people bitching about it. Going through Storms and Hurricanes was fun... although, for me, more fun while not driving. The Helm became somewhat tedious at those times, and with the exception of when we transfered steering to the 08 Level Bridge, the upper most steering platform, it was lack luster because you really can't see from the Citadel. From the 08, all course corrections were noticible and the heavier the seas, the greater the rush... from up there, it was like an inverted pendulum. 30 to 40 degrees, movement is minimal at the base, yet significant if trying to stand or walk. Imagine the ride from the top as it lists from one side to the other, and standing up there exposed during such? it's like the initial drop from a rollercoaster, over and over again... I've never experienced anything comparable. Not even when skydiving. During storms, it was more fun to put on shorts and go out onto the Main Deck just foreward of midship... so those on the Bridge couldn't see... and hold on while the waves crashed; stupid and dangerous, but exciting. While Capt. JJC was Captian of the ship, there were a couple times he appeared on the Bridge, told me to ignore formality, which meant responding to orders when he speaks, rather than repeating everything back as to ensure accuracy, because such was too time consuming in relation to what was taking place: Me driving in circles around a "fishing-boat" with a noticible absence of birds. When something nearly three football fields long locks the steering in one direction for a prolonged period of time, the center of that circle has some rather large waves which come from all directions.. it lifts them up and slams them back down, over and over again. Enjoy the day!
Well there probably would be a lot more air circulation going on if the ship systems were operating and not sitting in the sun all day long as a museum at Pearl but definitely crew comfort was a secondary concern in the 40s when these ships were built.
These older ships like the USS Texas and Olympia need to be moved inside a custom built building that would shield the ships from the elements. We need to consider Iowa class as well because their machinery is getting too old such as the lack of talent needed to operate boilers. Even if the museums shut down for years the ships are out of the water, they may get rusty but nothing like officials debating the idea of sinking them as reefs because of a lack of ship haul integrity . Where is the Navy's pride? They spend billion on these concepts that go nowhere. Museum ships are expensive because they sit in the corrosive salty water. it's like the Shuttle exhibits. Should have ordered a last set of real external fuel tanks for full shuttle stacks to display the shuttles in all of their glory.
I’m from Texas and grew up visiting the USS Texas every year. She’s the last of the dreadnaughts and we hope to save her for another hundred years. But I’ve also visited the Alabama, the Missouri , and the New Jersey. It’s amazing how the ships changed from coal fired triple expansion steam engines to oil fired steam turbines. While none of them were exactly comfortable they were a lot better than the smaller tin cans and even worse the submarines. But without regard they are all beautiful in their own way. I’m glad you are working so hard to save her for future generations.
@@michaelmckinnon1591 , well other than how they are powered, what with destroyers using modified Jet engines and subs using nuclear reactors to build boiler pressure. And all the electronics. And the reliance on missiles for a lot of functions instead of guns. I mean a modern destroyer can knock down a satellite much less a Zero. And subs, especially the boomers, are now strategic weapons. One modern SSBN stuffed full of Tridents II D5 missiles can pretty much put us all back in the Stone Age all by itself. But yeah, other than that, they haven’t changed much.
@@Bill_N_ATX of course the technology changes over time and the weaponry has changed or been added as all militaries do, but Destroyers and Submarines are still confined spaces where there's not much room to move around just as they were in WWII
Great history of the Iowa Class and an inside look into its initial development and ongoing modifications. Sorry to see them go. I am a San Francisco Bay Area resident and often saw the Iowa moored at anchor in Suisun Bay as a part of the reserve fleet. It was very distinctive. You could not miss the bow shape on the near horizon. I was a frequent visitor when it was temporarily moved to Mare Island under tow and then saddened to see it leave the Bay Area for Los Angeles never to return. Thanks for the tour and history of the Iowa Class, especially the New Jersey.
One of the reasons for moving the 5"/38 mounts one deck higher than in NORTH CAROLINA and WASHINGTON in SOUTH DAKOTA and IOWA Classes was due to problems with flooding these mounts in bad weather. MONTANA put its lower 5"/54 mounts back down to the weather deck, but I think those ships had more height to the weather deck from the waterline. The lower belt armor (12" STS tapering to 1.25" in the lower hull, being a downward tilted extension of the waterline 12.2" Class "A" armor-over-1.5" STS belt. This was even thicker than the Japanese lower belts to stop their own Type 91 "diving" AP projectiles designed to act a mini-torpedoes if they hit the water short of an enemy ship and hit that ship below its waterline belt armor. The US was the only non-Japanese nation to make such similar protection against such threats so it seems that the US found out about those Japanese projectiles (originally designs that did this were introduced in 1928 and the Type 91 improved designs introduced in 1931, so there was a long time for the US to find this out -- as the US was the main enemy of Japan in any future war (WWII, as it turned out), such Japanese weapons were important considerations in any US battleships designs during the 1930s and 1940s. The lack of true understanding of the improvements in Japanese torpedoes during WWII had rather bad results for US operations at the beginning of WWII against Japan, so this is not a minor point. Tests dur8ing WWII sho0wed that the over-rigid lower belt bulkhead did indeed compromise the SOUTH DAKOTA and IOWA Classes anti-torpedo systems, most especially where they were narrowed near the bow, as mentioned in this video. As a partially-effective counter to this, the water filled chambers in this system were moved from the two adjacent layers on each side of this too-rigid bulkhead, with a single empty space ("void") behind it and a much wider void between it and the outer hull, to a configuration where all of the spaces in front of this lower belt bulkhead were water-filled and two void layers existed behind it. Since the outermost empty space would always be flooded anyway, this meant that there was less chance of the blast getting through two layers of empty space with a 0.75" HTS bulkhead between the layers and on the final inboard bulkhead. Also, flooding would cause less tilt of the ship as the outermost space was already flooded and would not suddenly add weight to that side of the ship at the torpedo hit region. This problem with a too-rigid lower belt also plagued the Japanese battleships with such systems, as a very bad torpedo hit on MUSASHI tore the lower belt off of the bottom of the waterline belt due to inadequate interlocking there and this flooded a lot of the ship behind the hit that should not have flooded if the tapering lower belt armor plating had not been there. (The Japanese never were able to solve this problem, as it would have required tearing the hull apart and rebuilding the entire lower side hull of the affected battleships.) In MONTANA, the lower belt was separated from the waterline belt and moved to the innermost anti-torpedo bulkhead position, so as to have minimal effect on the underwater side protection.
I wonder if a large bow dome structure could have appreciably increased forward floatation while also improving the flow of water over the bow hull form to reduce that awkward breaking bow wave that the ships generated, and specifically whether a more efficient hull form from such an addition be enough to allow the forward most part of the torpedo defense at the A turret's barbette to be thickened a bit without costing the ship in the speed department. also, you gotta do a video on all the higher tech modification proposals that were projected for the Iowa class had they been selected to be overhauled and returned to active service in the 90's instead of put out to pasture.
Very Informative even to someone like myself who considers himself pretty well versed in battleships after studying for over 55 years. The info on the boat storage and handling was great. As well as the info on 20mm, 5 inch gun, and the 3 inch replacement. Also conning tower alternatives. I have long questioned that narrow bow and the ships torpedo defenses. Also found it interesting how the Navy wanted to stick with the 16 inch guns. Great Video Thanks.
Very informative video and thank you for sharing this. I boarded the USS New Jersey in Dec 2010 and enjoyed every minute of it despite the cold weather.
USS Camden and USS Sacramento each had two of the four main engines originally designated for the USS Kentucky which was never built. It's why they were both a little faster than their east coast cousins Seattle and one more I can't remember. We (Camden AOE-2) could hit 30kts and I was on it when we ran 27kts for two days in order to catch up with the battle group. That's moving on such a big ship. Those forced draft blowers sounded like jet engines!
Coral Sea and Midway spelled the end of the Battleship, and the later advent of AS missiles cinched the deal. But aren't we lucky to have existing examples of this technology preserved for the future generations to see.
@@mikemcghin5394 They do actually. Russia makes 7000 pound supersonic anti-ship missiles. They have enough kinetic energy to punch right through the armor of an Iowa.
@@Elthenar Are you referring to the P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck)? Because while the missile itself is 7000Kg (not pounds), it only features a 750kg (1,700lb) pound warhead. That's slightly less than the Iowa's HE shells. In fact, the Iowas were recommissioned in the 80's explicitly because it was the only hull that could stand up to those nasties. Also @mecallahan1 , it isn't as simple as putting a shaped charge on a ASM, since you could wield on some spaced armor like the Germans did to really nerf the damage it could do, ignoring just how large that missile would need to be to punch through that much armor and still have that small jet actually hit something important. A HEAT shell like what what you're describing wouldn't be very effective.
@@missouripatriot6926 Sadly you'd need to start over from nothing and work up. The few battleships on display will remain there. They won't be relevant in war again. At best, a very expensive support unit like in Desert Storm.
@@protorhinocerator142 Not necessarily, with automation , modern rocket propelled munitions and replacing the rear turret with a Vertical launch system they would probably be useful again, the rolling airframe missiles and the upgraded CIWS they would be extremely hard to attack from the air and modern anti torpedo defenses they would again be a powerful naval unit
@@hauntedhouse7827 But you could do all that with a destroyer. It's a lot cheaper. The battleship really only gets you two things - Lots of armor (nearly obsolete) and big guns (limited range). If you increase the range using rail guns, you can park the ship way back and you don't need the armor. Could you FORCE a battleship to be useful in modern battles? Probably. But it's so much cheaper to do the same thing to a destroyer. The Arleigh Burke is an amazing weapons platform.
Bravo Zulu. Went a couple of places with the NJ while serving on the USS Lynde B McCormick DDG8. One was a shooting drill on that island not too far from San Diego about early '92, I think. We were about a nm ahead of the NJ, took our turn first and impressed the heck out of our selves. When the NJ took her shots, we were well ahead and back a bit, about maybe 2k yards. The concussions were very perceptible and pushed us oberserving back a good step. Then we were impressed with no doubts those guns were for real. We could hold a tad less than 240k fuel oil and refueled from her on multiple occasions. We never let ourselves get down to less than half, but it was always a thrill to sail in company with her and perform evolutions with her that gave us both practice and familiarity working together. BT2 (SW).
I would imagine one thing the Navy would have tried to work on later in the 20th century was reducing the crew headcount through machinery and electronics. Lots of people with no space to house them comfortably.
While it is fun to discuss the merits of a particular BB I am bound to point out that another BB produced has far more benefit to the Navy than any technical improvements. I was fascinated by the savings in weight for an all welded hull version and I presume it would have been much faster and cheaper to build. I found the bow buoyancy and torpedo defense discussion also very interesting.
I am surprised that we haven't moved back toward more heavily armored ships in our navy. I read a study once that anti-ship missiles today would at best be equalivant to a Kamikaze hitting a BB during WWII which didn't do much to BBs that could take dozens of such hits. I know they cost a lot to build but a modern BB with modern AA would be damn near impervious to non-nuclear anti-ship missiles and it would still take multiple modern torpedoes to sink it.
Fascinating information. I had not run across this information before. I had heard of the Tunderbolt mounting but wasn't aware that it was ready for production. That would certainly helped the 20mm stay competitive! The Kamikazes changed the whole AA game. Earlier efforts were two-fold; 1) shoot down the enemy plane or 2) put up enough fire to prevent the ordnance for hitting the target. The Kamikazes eliminated point 2, so the gunners had to literally shoot the plane to pieces to prevent a hit. By the time the 20mm could get hits the plane was on its final plunge. Same deal with the 40mm - excellent system but usually not enough hits to destroy the oncoming plane. The 3" seemed to offer a lot of potential, a good shell with a VT fuse coupled with radar direction. Personally I regard the Iowas as the most beautiful battleships ever built but I can see why that narrow bow section would make them "wet" and reduce the torpedo defense. The added fuel would have been quite helpful not only for the ship's use but to help feed the hungry escorts. That rebuilt superstructure is interesting - much more effective use of space and really opens up AA arcs.
I have a different take on this as a retired chief. Running a battleship takes a lot of corporate knowledge to properly run. The Navy is a political service and the culture isn't conducive to keeping enlisted past 20 years.
I had a Wing Commander put this in perspective years ago. Do you want a 60 year old infantryman running up a hill during battle, probably not. Do you want a 60 year old aircraft mechanic who's been working on the same plane for 40 years? Hell yes. I think the same principle applies to Battleships.
In my first enlistment in the Navy. In deck division we had a few BMSN that had 12 years in. Those threeBMSN were the finest coxswain in the Amphibious squadron. My uncle was a infantry platoon SGT in WW2 at the end of the war he was 38 years old.
You raised the issue with the topweight imposed by the conning tower. There's a really in-depth analysis over on the Navweaps website of the damage taken by USS South Dakota in her encounter with IJN Kirishima off Guadalcanal in 1942. She was struck multiple times by 14" and medium-caliber gunfire. Her CO, Captain Galch, is quoted in the Navy's post-action damage assessment report: The Commanding Officer, SOUTH DAKOTA, in the action report, reference (a), made this comment: "Armor: - Fire control and conning tower have definitely proven their worth. Further agitation for the removal of this weight is definitely suspended. Control stations behind armor should be used more frequently. Too much stress in the past has been laid to the space restrictions at these stations. Had these stations not been utilized during the engagement, control and conn personnel would probably have been destroyed."
There was also a plan drawn up to remove main battery turret number 3 and replace it with an aircraft deck to operate Harrier VTOL strike fighters. I believe there is a model of this proposed conversion in your museum collection, right?
That's right. Model company Nichimo got hold of the plans and actually produced a 1/900 scale kit of the proposed conversion back in the day. It's pretty rare now.
@@Captndavo honestly it would be a fairly balanced warship if they removed turret 1, replaced that with VLS, turret 3 for a flight deck, and added all the weight saved back in as extra armour, CIWS etc,
You provided a lot of content and i cant absorb all of it without listening several more times. Putting the boiler-generator sets in separate compartments sounds like a really good idea.
So easy to fall in love with a ship when she gets to you. We know it's not just a hunk of steel but a hunk of steel big enough to be a place where thousands of crew served and hundreds built her...with thousands of manhours and Rosy the Rivoter hours...the great hope of a nation.
I was working in the Pentagon at the time they were discussing the retirement of the battleships, and there was a sizeable group who wanted to keep them going, and *all* the discussions had to do with reducing the crew by at least half, with the biggest change achieved by cutting out the bottom and replacing the steam plant with electric drives.
The battleship was rendered Obsolete by Carrier Borne Aircraft. What my Navy did not like about these battle wagons was their shear size and how large of a target they made. The Black Shoe Navy held too much sway in the 1930's and during most of WWII. They just refused to yield to air power and if Halsey and Mitscher had their way, there would be no battleships at Pearl. We steamed with the Jersey coming out of the Med and she is an incredibly awesome ship, but her time was before the carriers. It's almost the same thing with Sub's. The old guard insisted that Sub's were no more than picket boats for the fleet. Admiral Lockwood, Mush Morton, Dick O'Kane and others proved that Sub's were an effective attack platform sinking millions of tons of Japanese shipping. The Old Navy held on to it's old ways far too long and had it not been for some of the Leaders I'd mentioned above, the war in the Pacific could have gone on much longer. I worked in N. Camden for many years. Spent most of my life in S. Jersey/Philly and as of yet, I still have not visited the Jersey. She's a fine girl and brought many shipmates through hell. Top of the bucket list along with Yorktown.
@@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188 No. While the Mark 14 torpedo had many faults except for the magnetic detonator they were easily fixed as soon as Admiral King ripped everyone in BuOrd a new one. A more powerful spring in the impact detonator. Moved the depth gauge forward from the rear cone to same place it had been on the mark IX where the torpedo's motion through the water didn't lower the pressure reading. Limiting the maximum deflection of the rudder. Fixing the magnetic detonator would have required adjusting it to the magnetic environment where it was to be used.
Really the Battleship wasn't obsolete until after WWII had started and the attack planes had matured but the air dropped torpedo was the harbinger of doom for battleships but that wouldn't take place until about 1940 and still their value in amphibious operations is enough to justify building them in WWII.
Great set of videos, really enjoyed them. I’m surprised that they were built with so little auxiliary generation. Only 2 diesel generators sounds like they would have real problems if they’d suffered underwater damage. A lot of ships being lost in WW2 due to creeping flooding when power to pumps was lost.
The problem with having a lot of auxiliary diesel gensets is storing the fuel needed for them. The heavy bunker fuel that fires the main steam boilers can be used for really large "cathedral" diesels - the 3 or 4 storey high monsters which power the biggest oil tankers or container ships. But the much smaller, high speed diesel engines used in gensets require the same grade of diesel fuel that cars or trucks use. This generally costs more than bunker fuel, even though marine fuels are usually untaxed. But it is also a more volatile fuel, and while diesel isn't an enormous fire risk, it's still more readily flammable than bunker oil. So there are fire safety issues to consider with large tanks of diesel fuel, such as where to put them in the ship so that they stand the least chance of getting damaged. This is something that even modern nuclear submarines have to think about, because they still have tanks of diesel onboard to fuel their auxiliary generators - which they only ever use if the reactor has to be shut down for some horrifying reason, but they are onboard nonetheless.
@@lloydevans2900 One other thing is that the gensets were probably similar to the locomotive diesels that submarines used, as they were on the ship I was on, and if so simply making enough of them to supply the fleet was a challenge.
@@s.sestric9929 They were Cooper-Bessemer Diesels, not used in locomotives or submarines, but in short supply nonetheless. It was felt that the four independent steam plants gave sufficient redundancy for both propulsion and power generation. Of course, there was the one time that a rogue wave put water into the vents of both our #1 and #2 firerooms' Fuel Oil Service Tanks, resulting in loss of fires within seconds of each other. We were "split" (electrically) fore and aft at the time, so the entire forward half of the ship (including the Bridge and CEC!) went "dark" for a short time. The Captain Was Not Happy!
We operated with USS New Jersey several times, USS Newport News (CA-148) The Last all Gun Cruiser. my time aboard 1968-69-70 Call sign THUNDER flag hoist; November - India - Quebec - Quebec Then onboard the USS Springfield (CLG-7) 71-72 Flag Hoist/Radio Call Sign: November - Whiskey - Delta - Mike "Fair Winds and Following Seas" Brothers
Very interesting video. I love this channel. I have some criticism, tho. The issue I have is sound quality. I know its not in particular your fault, but it can be fixed. Either by equipment or by post editing and narration style videos. I am not a native English speaker, so I had sometimes a hard time to follow you from an accustic point of view. Again, great content, and I know myself how hard it can be to produce videos like these. So dont get me wrong. Your channel is fine and I really hope that you can preserve that mighty battleship for a long time. Since I dont live in the US (I am located in Europe), we have our own museums to worry about. Nethertheless its quite interesting to see content from other museums throughout the world.
The battleships represented a unique period of naval history-but they were pretty much onsolete by the 1930s. Carriers offered much better firepower and were easier to operate. Plust tyhe manning requirements were insane.
Not so sure about the "easier" to operate, tho. I think it was the US Navy that stated that a country which is new into operating aircraft carriers needs about 15 years to get that thing to 100%.
As a fan and aesthete who has no military background, I'm damned pleased the Iowas are preserved today with their beautiful lines that project majesty and power. I don't have to worry about what was best for military efficacy, which, as Ryan and Libby relate, would have led to alterations that made a much uglier ship but a better fighting ship and thus engineered a greater measure of safety for their crews.
It seems like most of the larger war machines were continually being altered to deal with shortcomings and technology upgrades. The process continues. Glen
The stories are that the Iowas were very rollie and not very comfortable in beam seas. Crews suffered from seasickness and hard on the gunnery because of the amount of roll. They tried various things to remedy the issue...especially the keel-strakes, but they never could really fix it.
I play the game, 'World of Warships', the game has the further ships that were not built, or were stopped at the outset and scrapped to build other ships, many ships of different classes are in the game that have been covered in the videos like this one, I recommend that any who are interested in ships that were built before, during or planned for after the war might find WOW's to be of very well planned out, way of learning what many would not know of were it not for the documentaries and differing games.
I’m really happy he got better at speaking to a camera. If he didn’t these video would be unwatchable. Please don’t take that as a slight, I really respect anyone who takes the time to even attempt this. You’ve not only done that but from the later videos I’ve seen you have gotten much better. On a different note these ships inspire awe whenever one looks at them. Maybe not as much, for me in particular, as a super carrier but awe inspiring regardless.
When I was a kid. My neighbor Lenny Walch from Cazenovia WI. an old WW2 guy, Served on the Battleship N.J. .. The stories he would tell.. Another great American hero. RIP Slip Jack vs The Broadway Terror....
The "Battle" in them was much much better than the "Ship". It´s often reported and proofed how they performed relatively poor in heavy weather compared to HMS Vanguard for example which showed much less heeling in certain conditions.
The person who told you that is so full of crap they have it coming out of their ears, there's more pitching up and down on a Nimitz Class than an Iowa Class and as far as bad weather goes, I'd rather be on an Iowa than a Nimitz
@@michaelmckinnon1591 The data is available. In a manouvre in the fifties the Vanguard showed 15 degree heeling where the Iowa showed 26 in the same conditions. Plain facts. The disadvantages of the relatively slim bow are explained in the video. And a carríer like the Nimitz isn´t comparable anyway, it was about comparison to another battle ship. That doesn´t take anything away from the marvellous Iowa-class ships, which always reached their destination, no matter what. I visited the Iowa itself in the eighties in Bremerhaven, Germany and i´m still impressed. But the title of the video was, what the Navy didn´t like about them. Ship building always requires to find a compromise between different characteristics. There is no perfect ship, they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
@@mk.5706 26 degree temperature swing maybe but not pitching deck on an Iowa, Carriers on the other hand rock back and forth like a hyperactive person in a rocking chair and pitch up and down by as much as 45 degrees and occasionally the aircraft have to be chained to the deck so they don't fall off into the sea and below decks so there isn't a fireball.
@@michaelmckinnon1591 I’ve served on two of the older class carriers, the USS Saratoga and the USS Kennedy. The times that pitch and roll became a factor were in obscene sea states of 30 ft waves or more. Even then rolls over 15 - 20 degrees were rare occurrences. Yes they pitched up and down and yess they took water over the bow but in 30 ft seas. Not in everyday sailing. ALL aircraft were tied down ALL the time unless actively being moved, launched or recovered. Just my experiences in the Navy. Yours may have been different.
@@mk.5706 And how loaded was the Iowa at the time vs the Vanguard? It makes a big difference. In head on waves, the Iowas would have just plowed thru while the Vanguard would have bobbed like a cork. And she was not as maneuverable as an Iowa. And with smaller guns, would have been out distanced in range so an Iowa would have won. Plus the Vanguard wasn't battle tested. All four of the Iowas served during the war.
There’s some really good information about these awesome ships. I just wish the audio was a bit better. Actually it’s really bad. It sounds like a omnidirectional mic was used and it picks up everything. Otherwise this is a great video.
THANK YOU‼️ I worked on Iowa, but I learned one hell of a lot from this excellent video. ‼️When you show the old photos, could you please display each one for about 10 seconds?‼️ Your editing is way too fast. I want to really see the old photos. Thanks.
Well, this discussion presupposes that battleships after the war was a thing! In the event only the Russian fleet was to be of any consequence. One should also note that the older battleships were used for shore bombardment. That made sense, as if the Yamato or similar was getting out to smash a landing, they would have to contend with battleships. Now Taffy III performed better than anyone with reason could expect. The problem with the Iowa battleships is: They supposed that the combat would develop according to the japanese gamebook - which it didn't. What the Russian cold war objectve was: To interdict the supply lines of the US across the Atlantic. One should allways ask what a weapons system is supposed to go up against.
I was born in Iowa so that's the reason for my love of the USS Iowa. Silly, I know, but there it is. I'm a 26 year USN veteran. With that real world experience, the US Navy, & all current Navies, see the BB as an impractical weapons platform. Airplanes, missiles, & torpedoes heralded the demise of the battlewagon.
Nothing wrong with that, I was born in Nevada, so I'm a fan of the USS Nevada. :) The battleship that is, I don't know much about the SSBN. I only served 8 years on an aircraft carrier mostly, in the end, the lifestyle didn't suit me. As for the above comment, the problem wasn't just missile defense only (yes other ships have these issues), but the cost of operating them when they only offer limited offensive firepower. Mostly just shore bombardment. Yes they were outfitted with cruise missile, but they are an extremely expensive cruise missile platform. It's about offense, not defense.
@@thissailorja Ships float. That means they can sink. So we should keep all the ones that sink real easily and get rid of the ones that are real tough to hurt. Just to make it right for idiotic youtube comments.
There was only one reason the Iowa class was pressed back into service and that is because the Russians launched the kirov class that could itself smash an entire nimitz class battle group alone with its shipwreck missiles
Makes no sense. only 4 kirov, at any given time only two deploy able. 12 300 mile missile of which 1/4 are used for targeting. A single aegis cruiser can easily defeat 9 vampires assuming they got thru the F14s.
@@kriskelley5216 The Kirov was extremely dangerous in its own right, however you’re forgetting that almost every vessel the Soviets had at that time even down to corvettes (and even submarines) were covered with so many anti-ship missiles that it would have been impossible to hit even a quarter of them in a swarm attack. Any aircraft that was up (assuming the carrier group wasn’t already destroyed) would have been easily boxed by the insurmountable amount of AA missiles.
I was relieved to see this video was from almost 2 years ago... I would be deeply concerned if I'd seen Ryan struggling like this in a new video! Ryan, I hope whatever was making this video so difficult for you hasn't had any lasting effects on your life, and my commiserations if it has!
By the 1980's there was nothing that could seriously threaten them ? .. BTW .. your knowledge of the ship is seriously impressive. I would dearly love to be on one of your tours at some stage
I assumed he forgot half his sentence. And meant to mean in capability, like dropping huge shells on things. There's lots that can destroy them obviously
@@3storiesUp I was aboard the Iowa prior to and during the turret explosion (which sounded like Turret 2 fired all three of its guns simultaneously) and I'd rather be on board an Iowa Class than any Carrier afloat because it's smoother sailing in rough seas and during disaster relief missions it's better to have a Battleship than a Carrier around because it helps the affected feel more secure, politicians ended the Battleship and gave soldiers a pea shooter like the Mattel 16 or it's follow on the Mattel 4 which in combat is like using spit wads
been watching your NJ episodes for a while now. very interesting! on my 4th PBR watching this episode. you put a lot of effort it describing stuff i never would have known; last PBR is for you!
Ryan: One thought is the removal of the aft turret / barbette and placement of a 256 capable VLS within its own 8-10" STS 'citadel' to off set the weight. Remove after 16" director and placing a housing for SPY-5; add more Tomahawk and Harpoon quad launchers, change the 5'/38 to three 8' at main deck level. Addition of RAM and 2-4 CIWS, 20mm auto at 8 total locations (4 port, 4 starboard) along the outer main and second deck (at places of previous 40mm mounts were) for small boat defense. I like the suggestion of compartmentalizing the engineering space and addition of side blisters for further torpedo defense. And if we still have 14" and / or 12" shells remaining, somehow flechette them for firing from 16" tubes.
A nuclear powered battleship with two 16 inch automatically firing turrets. Probably just one gun in each turret. Love the Iowa class battleships. I got to be onboard the USS Missouri (BB-63) for two weeks back in 1990 and rode it from Long Beach up to San Francisco. A treasured experience!
Think President Reagan loved them too when he recommishened. one of them as Commander and Chief. I get confused which conflicts those Iowas were called back under 2 presidents. Since WW2 they were called out often still so hard to keep track without further study.
Im glad we had radar on our ships i cant imagine having all these great ships and then having to use optics to fight the enemy. Specially at night that would of been rough
Oh yea as a master helmsman I love that thick conning tower, it meant I wasn't going to die. I know the rest of the bridge would be gone though. My GQ station was pointer in mount 55.
Mt 1st ship was AOE -2 Camden, (Sacramento AOE-1 class) 1 & 2 used the main engine sets from the Kentucky, 2 each. AOE's were called Fast Combat Support for a reason... 30 knots No Smoke!
How well would the bulbous bows of modern aircraft carriers have worked on the Iowas? They certainly would have added buoyancy and probably reduced the bow wave and wake, of which the carriers have virtually none , best I can tell from videos.
It also lacked a bar/pub onboard which was lamented by people of all navies. Also saying that by the '80s there was nothing around to challenge the Iowas is kind of forgetting how the battleship (Iowa class included) was pretty much rendered obsolete (in the anti-ship role) by both the aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine.
What I love about the Iowa's are 1) they fit my love, admiration, and adoration for naval artillery 2) they have proven themselves successful time and time again with their 50 years in possession of the navy 3) they portray prestige, power, and might 4) they are (almost) untouchable.
Great video, but towards the end there where you were talking inside that narrow space distracted from the content. A voice over while showing that section of the ship would have been a better way to go about it.
Everything you have done is a blessing to the young Men and Women who have no idea what it is like to serve on a ship during General Quarters and under attack !@@ USS Texas was kept at GQ for 45 days of Okinawa Invasion !!! Mental Stress but they all came back alive!!! It was said that Chestet Nimitz wanted Texas to be saved after War as a Museum Ship!!!
A few points, the Iowas were also a fairly rushed effort, and they retained many of their design points from their predecessor in the SoDak. The heavy reliance on copying as much as possible from those designs plus the restrictions of the last years of the treaties and the Panama Canal meant the Iowas were the best whole you could make from the mountain of compromises the USN made to launch them before the US inevitably dragged into war (a goal they ultimately failed to achieve). The Montanas were a wholly new design, taking some characteristics of their predecessors, as well as design detailings from allied Navy battleships, to make a mostly new platform. The Montanas were meant to be the pinnacle design, with the Sodaks and later Iowas rushed as a stop-gap in between. The Iowas being as great as they are is mostly on the grounds that all of their competition had been sunk or rendered fuel-less by the time they really got into the fight. Had the war started later and they been at a Pearl-like attack it would have been interesting to see how their weaknesses to torpedoes in particular would have afflicted their performance/survivability over the older Standards. Of course. It would have also been of interest to see them compared to Yamato, H-39/40, Littorio, etc. of the Axis Navies. Comparing them to the Lion plans or refit Hood plans of the RN is so interesting, as a refit Hood would have made it a true Fast Battleship.
Another thing is that while the Yamato class BB's had thicker amour, it was of an inferior quality (improperly hardened) to what USN & RN BB's were. So the disparity on paper of a Yamato's protection vs allied BB isn't the apex it seems. Now if that carried over to the 18.1" AP shells it wouldn't matter as much unless they were worse than RN WW1 era poor.
You and Drachinifel could have an hours-long debate and commiseration about conning towers - their use, their lack of use, their design, etc. Get me the popcorn!
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The captain of USS South Dakota wrote a report after the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. In that battle, South Dakota had taken multiple hits from Japanese 8" and 14" shells. He believed that the conning tower had saved him and the bridge staff from serious harm or death. He excoriated the removal of the conning towers on the ships being rebuilt, and the practice was stopped. A conning tower is like a fire extinguisher: you don't need it until you really, really need it.
Dear Robert Ashley, Thank you for the information, and thank you for reminding me of my Dad, who was there that night aboard the Sodak, part of the Marine compliment. The Captain of the USS South Dakota was Thomas Gatch. I know you know that, but for those who may not...
2nd Guadacanal and its aftermass, an example of why not to put a lawyer in charge of a battleship.
There was a 12 year old serving on the South Dakota, he fought in the battle of Guadalcanal and was seriously injured from a shrapnel. And earned the bronze star and the Purple Heart for his efforts to help his sailors. And later was thrown in the brig and was dishonorably discharged after his three month setenced.
Bismarcks command team roasted to death in theirs with jammed doors.
Well they would have gotten killed anyway by the hits the Bismark was taking
My Dad served on the Missouri. Always have a place in my heart.
My dad's ship, U.S.S. L.S.T. 960 was anchored in Tokyo Bay very near to Missouri when the peace pact was signed in 1945.
While the whole arrangement was being set up, my dad and a bunch of guys from his ship had an opportunity to go out in an LCVP to take a better look at the battleship. They wanted to go all the way around it. They did, but he said it "took forever" and they were all amazed at just how wide it was. Rounding the bow, they kept on "waiting for a flat side".
I always thought that was very cool.
My dad did too. When the Missouri was the only active Battleship in the US Navy. He was mad when he got yanked off and sent to radio school at Great Lakes and ended up being stuck there as an instructor for the duration of the Korean War. He offered to take a demotion and change back to an ET when the NJ came out for Vietnam but the Navy said no to that too. The Navy wasn't about to let an E-9 CT go aboard. So for a second war he got stuck in a desk job. But because Truman did not declare the Second World War over until DEC 31, 1946, dad was entitled to wear a WW II Victory Medal/Ribbon. He finished Boot Camp on Dec 6, 1946.
The Mighty ‘Mo
It's interesting to see how the ship's design was not static and how quickly and frequently the Navy implemented the hard lessons learned.
One of my Grandfathers worked in ship design during WWII, and he often would tell me that there was NO office in the USN busier than the design bureaus. They were constantly deleting, adding, or modifying the structure of the ships in repair & under construction. Because in almost every conceivable area of the military, the amount learned was what he called “a firehose of information”. There was SO much development that by the time a design had been drawn up, approved, and put into action - the fighting had evolved to the point that the ‘change’ had nearly become obsolete. He also said this period was the birth of the modern term ‘the Good Idea Fairy’.
And yet they refuse to give American bbs quicker speeds because the original ships were that slow.
Either go with unrealistic values across the board and remove the power creep or nurf the fake lines to realistic values. Pick one...
@@Threesixtyci The South Dakota was built to conform with the limits of the Washington Naval Treaty. It wasn't the 'refusal' of the US government, but a world-wide agreement on limitations for capital ships. At the time the South Dakota was built, its top rated speed of 27 kts wasn't 'slow' for a ship of its size. Bismarck was rated at 30, and Yamato was rated at 27. Both of these other ships were larger than South Dakota. The later Iowa class BB's were designed after the Washington Naval Treaty was violated by Japan and Germany, and were rated at 33 kts.
After the Keel is laid, all the bitching is about weight. That rolls for every ship.
Honestly that philosophy is what made the US military what it is today. By the end of the war, there were no sacred cows. If you came up with a better idea, it was implemented as fast and as wide as possible. The US Navy was always “haze gray and underway”. They could rearm, refuel and refit at sea, moving toward the next objective. The Royal Navy was the undisputed leader in naval power at the beginning of the war. By ‘45 when they returned to the Pacific, they literally couldn’t keep up. Tradition eats up a lot of time lol.
In kindergarten in 1962, I helped collect dimes to bring the USS Alabama (BB-60) to Mobile, Alabama, where it now sits as a beautiful museum ship. It cost approx $800K to bring the ship from Bremerton, Washington to Mobile Bay - we school kids raised over $100K of that.
If you have not visited one of these museum BBs (or any of the WWII vintage ships that are preserved), you should add it to any bucket list. It is hard to appreciate the size of the ships unless you walk the decks and explore the myriad of ship spaces. It will also give some sense of the sacrifices our veterans made during the war. Stand inside of a 16" turret and imagine what it would be like when those massive guns fired. Also gives a better understanding of what it would have taken to build such a massive ship.
Battleship Park in Mobile is beautiful facility, located near the Mobile Bay Bridge (I-10) and can be seen from about a mile away. If you ever nearby, you should make a point to visit - it is worth the trip.
Thank you Mr. Szimanski and all the curators that work so tirelessly to preserve our naval history!
While in drydock at ADDSCO in 1980, we scavenged parts off the Alabama's power plants for the USS Yosemite. All of those good parts went to the bottom of the sea with the Yosemite in the early 90's.
Been through this ship and would love to go again
I just visited the Alabama for the first time last week. Also went aboard the Drum. What an amazing experience. I drove past there over 20 times in my life and always wondered if I would get to do it; so glad I went. They did a good job with the ship. I would love it if they opened up more of the birthing spaces and such but really all those rooms wouldn't add much to the experience I suppose. They could turn it into a hotel lol. Thanks for raising those dimes. Beautiful ship.
I went to see the USS Alabama when I was prob 10 or so, I still remember this trip. It had an impact on me. USN retired
@@ronjones9447 I just had a cup of coffee from my USS Alabama mug. I feel inspired to go get groceries now. Thank you Mighty Alabama!
The Iowa class ships were built on a "50 year" hull...great channell. USNR vet here. My old reserve unit performed maintenance on the North Carolina.(geez..a looong time ago).
what was your rate?
At least the New Jersey has its original bow. The Wisconsin is part Kentucky - sort of like the state of Pennsylvania! ;-)
Almost spit out my drink reading this. Well played!
The Kentucky was supposed to be the 5th Iowa Class Battleship
The 16 inch guns on the Iowas was 16 inches wide at the widest and was a lot bigger than fifty calibers wide
@@michaelmckinnon1591 As used with naval guns, “caliber” refers to how many multiples of the shell diameter the barrel is long. 16” 50-caliber means the barrel is 50x16” long, or 66’8” (800 inches).
Wistucky
I served on a Spruance class destroyer in the late 80s and we were part of the Iowa's battle group. There are a lot of arguments for their being considered obsolete but if you ever have to do an amphibious assault nothing gives you a better edge than a battery of 16" guns. I really don't know what we'd do if the need arose to carry out such a mission today.
Since there's no real fortifications being targeted anymore, the 16" guns really are only better than the 5" ones on the DDs due to range. Anything the 5" can't reach is detailed to air power, whether drone or manned. Modern JDAMs are more accurate and more powerful than 16" shells. Something like an F-18 with two dozen 250lb JDAMs is actually far more effective than the 16" on the BBs.
It's really that simple: the 16" guns were replaced by air power, for less cost and more flexibility. The Advanced Gun System is a failure, as were the upgraded 8" guns. It really just turns out that there's no use for such big guns, and the costs associated with trying to make them "smart" projectiles is pretty much the same as arming a plane/drone with a hellfire or maverick missile.
Of course, this completely ignores the fact we don't ever do opposed amphibious operations, now or in the future. The Marines and Navy have spent a LOT of money making sure they don't have to, in terms of equipment capability. If you aren't opposed on landing, Naval Gunfire Support is pretty pointless.
@@eriktrimble8784 have to disagree.... The BB can park and loiter. Ready to fire at a moments notice... Aircraft have turnaround time, maintenance, plus have to contend with AA defenses... The range is limited, but for sheer volume of fire, and repeatibility, 24/7, in any weather, a BB for NGFS is not second best to air strikes. There is a place for both, but saying air replaces it for true amphibious assualt support... Have to disagree!!
@@wheels-n-tires1846 You're still thinking of WW2-era amphibious assaults. They don't happen, any more than we have giant carrier battles in the open ocean. The last such one was Inchon in Korea, 70 years ago. We DO NOT do opposed over-the-beach assaults anymore, and the reason is simple: our enemies have figured out that DEFENDING against an amphibious assault is a giant waste of resources. They're better off investing in an armored brigade that can rush around and defend a whole host of places, than spending money on static defenses that 99% won't get used.
And again, 16" guns aren't superior to 5" ones for even opposed landings. We found this out in the Pacific Island chain assaults. They are significantly less accurate, and the extra "bang" is actually a BAD thing these days, where we need a lot of precision without collateral damage. The extra range of the 16" over the 5" is pretty useless, as that only exacerbates the inaccuracy, and you need vulnerable spotters to make use of it (in which case, you need aircraft/drones anyway, so why not use them to deliver better ordinance).
Modern NGS is best done by high-accuracy, high-ROF medium caliber guns. Somewhere between 4" and 6" seems to be the optimal. 16" guns are really only good for trying to erase a grid square, and, frankly, you can do that a lot easier via air power.
Parking or even loitering 10km off the shore is EXCEEDINGLY dangerous for something as exposed as a BB. You don't do that at all, unless you want your big BB to have it's bow and stern blown off by SSMs. Modern NGS is done via high-speed destroyers on specific detailed patterns, which, I might add, are radically better at defending themselves against threats than a BB is.
BBs are simply a thing of the past. Everything they do can be done better, faster, cheaper, and safer by something else. Which is why even the Navy doesn't want them. Ever consider why the ONLY "big gun" design for a ship in the past 70 years has been the single gun AGS for the Zumwalts, and when that failed, there hasn't been much of a complaint from the Navy.
I was in Battle Group “C” in the mid to late 80’s. I remember the USS Vincense showing up with all it’s new technology and a “greater than thou” mentality. Couldn’t stand the arrogance of a crew with their heads up their behinds, especially when they landed all the CAP’s at the same time on west pac. I was an OS on watch when it happened, talk about a freak show!
IMO, the best solution for amphibious fire support would be for the Navy to design a functional ~10k ton amphibious support ship armed with the Army's proven MLRS system. The Navy has had too many procurement disasters of late (Seawolf, Zumwalt, and the LCS) from trying to do experimentation/research in what should be high production rate fleet ships.
The munitions are affordable and capable: M30 guided cluster munitions with with 70 km range, M31 guided with 200 lb HE warhead, both with 70 km range, MGM-140 ATACMS with cluster munitions rocket or unitary 500 lb HE wahead and 300 km range).
0:27 - Damn Navy...not liking everything about the Iowa Class videos.
😆...it happens, man. Keep up the awesome work!!
LOL Thank you
When I look at the profile of the New Jersey and other Iowa class I believe it has the most beautiful lines I've ever seen on a ship.
Father-in-law was a plank owner on the USS Indiana. Served aboard from 4-42 till 11-44.
Very cool. I served on the USS Iowa BB-61, 1983-87.
Ryan, this is another video that shows the research you did before making this video, well done Ryan.
Having walked under the the USS Iowa in drydock at NNSY, I thought that the hull and armor plating could have significant surface streamline improvements. The the armor plate was installed with sharp edges, corners and protrusions that had to cause significant drag at speed. At the time I felt that the engineering spaces were designed with enough power to bulldoze the ship through the water. Now I wonder if hull surface streamline improvements could have allowed for other topside improvements without degrading ship's speed. What do you think?
I think they should have did away with the armor plate altogether and just switch to forcefields instead.
Makes sense.
I loved my time aboard the Battleship New Jersey on Memorial Day 2016 or 17 I can't remember. I was awe struck by it's size and sheer complexity of construction. You are a treasure for sure to take your time to understand this thing like you do. I was a professional video editor in Hollywood and although I can see that you are not reading from a script and are doing this free hand you manage to impart the info in an engaging and entertaining way. Thanks for keeping it alive and real. It is (and it's sister ships which I have visited too) a world wonder and the men who served aboard them are to be commended. Thanks, Tod
Thank you to the narrator for all your personal dedication to both the historical knowledge of our battleships but the sharing of such with us the planet wide RUclipsd communities. YVO Merry Christmas 2020/2021 ....
I made a trip to see the USS ALABAMA and Drum and I was really impressed and I was in awe of the ship itself!!! The Drum blew my mind how small it is on the inside! The Alabama and those guns the 16 inch are just massive to be honest I can't even imagine the destruction that they caused!!!! My dad was a WW2 Navy man who fought in 3 major battles! You had to be a special type of person to do the things that those guys did!!!
South dakota class battleships are monsters I remember seeing the alabama she is a beast.
My grandfather served on a ship that was torpedoed off Guadalcanal. Edit to say they were mostly boys doing a man’s job better than most men could do. Nothing but respect for that generation.
If that’s big, I can’t even begin to imagine how big the 457 mm/ 18 inch gun on the HMS Furious was, as with the 460 mm/ 18.11 inch guns on Yamato and Musashi
The US subs in WW2 were considered Cadillac’s compared to UBoats
@@daltonhunt4878 the 4 Iowa class are about 200 feet longer
I think one of the main design criteria for the Iowa class battleships was the width of the Panama Canal. This was a highly limiting factor and should have been discussed earlier in your video.
Yeah it wasnt for speed. Dislike
There was a plan to remake the Panama Canal a sea level canal without the locks. That was never done.
Not that big of deal really. They could have just built them on the west coast
Yes you are correct.
@@tylersimplot13 in the vid it seems hes talking talking about how it narrows from mid to front not the ship. Not about the actual width of the ship.
As a native of New Jersey, I’m proud to have an Iowa named after my state!
my recollection was that the thought on switching from 40mm Bofors to a 3in AA gun was that it was possible to put a proximity fuse on the 3in but not the 40mm (at the time). Too many people quote press on CV vs BB. there was a bit of back and forth on this. The mid/late 30's was when aircraft engine became powerful enough to carrier bombs and torpedo to threaten a warship (depending). The B-17 was designed to strike naval forces, which turned out to be a sad joke (it might have been able to hit a 22kt battleship, but not a 30kt cruiser, its not the speed, but the power to weight, which affects turn time). Pre-war AA had little ability The 40mm with radar fire control had adequate capability, but it was really the VT on the 5in that changed the game.
Very good point about aircraft development. I have repeatedly made the same case in the BB vs CV argument. In addition, it wasn't until December 1941, with the loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse that everyone realized how deadly aircraft could be to battleships that lacked air cover.
The VT fuse was also a game changer when American artillery started to use it in TOT barrages late in the war in Europe.
Bingo! The proximity or VT fuse is a game changer. On a 5" shell, enemy aircraft could have been engaged while still in formation and before any individual aircraft committed to an attack.
I think the big reason for the 6-inch AP turrets was due to the issues with the Atlanta light cruisers. They were really good as AA batteries, but they were completely useless against ships their own size. This shown up early in the war.
@@michaelpiatkowskijr1045 The Atlanta was 7000 tons, roughly comparable in displacement to the Japanese light cruisers, example Agano, but no where close to the treaty era Japanese heavy cruisers, typically 11,000 std and 14K full load. The Agano had 6x6in guns and 2.4in armor, versus Atlanta with 16 x5in guns. I would rate this as a fight that could go either way, depending on where and when Agano scores hits with here heavier shells. Atlanta would be in serious trouble against the heavy cruisers with 4in armor (some earlier one were only 8k tons). In few battles, US destroyers raked heavy Japanese ships above deck with 5in fire at close range, knowing there was no point in shooting at the hull.
AA was not effective until radar control, and then mostly with the 40mm. The 5in guns were not that good against aircraft until the VT fuse became available.
I built a plastic model of New Jersey when I was 11. This was in 1991, reason I remember it so well is that our house was devastated in a house fire and I was given the kit from a good friend of our family who stayed with us in our temporary home to help arrange things and add moral support. Building the kit gave me some calm in what was a very chaotic time. I am 40 now, but still remember several of the details and feautures of the ship. This while most of my memories from this passage in life are blurred. Cheers and thanks for the video!
// Jon (in Sweden)
What the Navy does not like about the Iowas #1 1. They require an insanely large (relatively speaking) and expensive crew to maintain and operate them. If memory serves its the biggest lifetime cost in a Warships lifecycle.
thats what i recall hearing back in the mid 80s when i served navy,did a tear at todd in seattle on a dd.finding spare parts had to be tough too as none were made anymore and the dies were long gone to.we had raiding partys on decomm ships for fire fighting spares ourselves lol
Their 1980's refit made it so that the Iowas have less crew than a Nimitz or a Gerald R. Ford.
@@Battleship009 True, but for a HUGELY less capable ship - a BB is simply almost an order of magnitude less useful than a CV. Compare the BBs to something like the Tico or Burkes, and you see the manpower difference. Well over 5x.
@@eriktrimble8784 True, which is why for shore bombardment I think a modified Des Moines or Alaska would be suitable, the latter despite having 12" guns which have twice the rate of fire and the barrels lasting longer but none of them remain, oddly enough one of them was under construction was considered to be converted into a guided missile cruiser, but navy decided otherwise.
The Des Moines which only one remains has 8 in guns with a high rate of fire thanks to autoloaders, and has a higher top speed than a Tico despite being older.
@@Battleship009 Except even there, the larger guns are pointless. The Zumwalts came the closest to having a shore bombardment idea with additional flexibility. But the AGS failed.
It just boils down to any gun-only ship is a one trick pony, and there's no justification for spending a billion on one, when you can buy a Burke for less and get a LOT more.
We just don't need Naval Gunfire Support anymore. It's that simple. We use missiles and strike aircraft for the same job. And that will only get cheaper when the Navy admits that the F/A-18 should be replaced with a drone for the strike role (at less than 1/3 the cost, too).
The problem with guns is that they're inaccurate. Making them accurate costs MORE than a JDAM (per shell), and almost the same amount as a missile. And the gun is less useful - you can't hit things that don't have a ballistic path from the gun to target. JDAMs and missiles have no such restrictions.
Guns simply can't beat a smart-bomb armed drone in terms of effectiveness and cost.
I have always been in love with the Iowa Class Battleships. But unfortunately the advent of the aircraft carrier and anti-ship missile really limited its long term usefulness. Defensively they would have been very difficult to disable or sink. However even with the addition of cruise missiles they would not have been very effective in an offensive role. On a side note, my Scout trip spent the night aboard the New Jersey 15 years ago and I was really impressed with the ship and crew during our stay. Please keep up the good work.
So true. But I read somewhere that roughly 80% of all targets of the US airforce in Vietnam was within range of the 16" main guns of the Iowas. Imagine the savings in lives and planes if the military had used all four Iowas bombarding those targets.
My son and I did the overnight trip with Cub Scouts also. We were able to see a lot of the ship that others who have toured it did not. We didn't see the engine rooms which I would love to see in person. I was also surprised at how small the various areas of the ship are. It's a big ship of small spaces.
@@rizon72
My father recalled a story about his tour in Vietnam. Details have been lost to time and the fact he didn't talk about it, much, but one of the Iowas (It might have been the New Jersey) was shelling an island nearby when there was a giant explosion, the island split in half, and part of it fell into the water.
Much was said about the Arclight bombing campaign and the ground penetrating abilities of the 2000lb bomb - but the 16" guns could change the geography.
My scout troop also stayed on the new jersey a few years back
16" shell cannot be intercepted, and with the current armor of warships they would get annihilated by older battleships
I never lost faith in this guy! I knew he could do it! Good job my man! Simon Whistler, watch out!
Technology will always evolve, advance and get updated. However, it's equally neccessary to preserve technology from the previous pages of history as it is to reach the next step. That's why i love the old battleships the US have preserved. Because they show us where we're been. They show us why we were. They show us who we are.
I like the wind noise - reminds me that I'm on a ship and not in a cushy living room.
We think so too!
@@BattleshipNewJersey serving aboard one was like serving aboard a cruise ship even during storms and high seas
I grew up on BB63, 6th Div, 87-91, stepped aboard at 17 and departed just prior to turning 21... from Special Evolutions Helmsman to Rapid Response Team Member, I did/saw a lot, also scraped plenty of barnacles and did loads of painting. They're great in a Hurricane! it's one hell of a ride, even more fun when you're the one at the Helm; the rise, then comming down and cutting through the waves is an awesome experience. There's a sense of empowerment when you're on such a vessel with a cohesive crew. Kind of funny, my ship and her counterpart are now Museams, never thought of that as a possibility when I walked between them bartering for HPA fittings.
So cool B F. USS Iowa BB61, X4 Div 1983-87, Plankowner.
@@golfhound Nice!
You are the best!Feels not enough to thankyou for your service. You tell us about being at helm of mad unreal best battleship in the 🌎.When u turned no matter how slight did deck slant a bit?Sounds like they were built for speed and anything else required.If you are ever a tour guide on your ship visitors will hang on your words because your story is real especially having the wheel and feeling the huge,sleek ship respond.
@@peterblumberg2314 Greetings.
She handled very well. And, yes, did Tour Guide a few times, although I really didn't care for that so much. When the JO saw me on deck while he was giving tours, he liked to get people near wherever I was working and start asking folks about who they thought it was that drove the ship and what kind of qualifications they might have. After a few minutes he would point me out and give them a bit of my info, because of my age most people were floored. I actually met most of the people I ended up hanging out with in Cali because of such during a Highschool Senior Field Trip... they couldn't believe I was their age.
Being the Special Evolutions Helsman led to some lengthy stents on the Bridge. In one instence, we left Port, I was driving, which took an hour or two... then we immediatly went into preperation for an UnRep which lasted several hours, so I was stuck. I think we even did a GQ drill. Following that, it was my time to be on watch, which was another 6 hours. It was a very long day.
For fun... if I was driving during chow and I recieved a course correction, I would spin the wheel well past what was directed, once the ship started to near the desired course I would throw it back to the course indicated. The result was a notable list... like gunning it when you turn a corner... it was enough throw trays on the Mess Deck and make people stuble abround: I'm laughing now, just remembering people bitching about it.
Going through Storms and Hurricanes was fun... although, for me, more fun while not driving. The Helm became somewhat tedious at those times, and with the exception of when we transfered steering to the 08 Level Bridge, the upper most steering platform, it was lack luster because you really can't see from the Citadel. From the 08, all course corrections were noticible and the heavier the seas, the greater the rush... from up there, it was like an inverted pendulum. 30 to 40 degrees, movement is minimal at the base, yet significant if trying to stand or walk. Imagine the ride from the top as it lists from one side to the other, and standing up there exposed during such? it's like the initial drop from a rollercoaster, over and over again... I've never experienced anything comparable. Not even when skydiving.
During storms, it was more fun to put on shorts and go out onto the Main Deck just foreward of midship... so those on the Bridge couldn't see... and hold on while the waves crashed; stupid and dangerous, but exciting.
While Capt. JJC was Captian of the ship, there were a couple times he appeared on the Bridge, told me to ignore formality, which meant responding to orders when he speaks, rather than repeating everything back as to ensure accuracy, because such was too time consuming in relation to what was taking place: Me driving in circles around a "fishing-boat" with a noticible absence of birds. When something nearly three football fields long locks the steering in one direction for a prolonged period of time, the center of that circle has some rather large waves which come from all directions.. it lifts them up and slams them back down, over and over again.
Enjoy the day!
Went on a below decks tour of the Missouri, hotter than hell, and nothing was running! No ac because of compartmentalized fire control.
Imagine the ship in the South Pacific running the engines all day......It would have been even worse!
Well there probably would be a lot more air circulation going on if the ship systems were operating and not sitting in the sun all day long as a museum at Pearl but definitely crew comfort was a secondary concern in the 40s when these ships were built.
She was nice and cool when I went on board her to take away supplies from medical because she was decommissioning.
These older ships like the USS Texas and Olympia need to be moved inside a custom built building that would shield the ships from the elements. We need to consider Iowa class as well because their machinery is getting too old such as the lack of talent needed to operate boilers.
Even if the museums shut down for years the ships are out of the water, they may get rusty but nothing like officials debating the idea of sinking them as reefs because of a lack of ship haul integrity . Where is the Navy's pride? They spend billion on these concepts that go nowhere.
Museum ships are expensive because they sit in the corrosive salty water.
it's like the Shuttle exhibits. Should have ordered a last set of real external fuel tanks for full shuttle stacks to display the shuttles in all of their glory.
NJ is fortunate enough to sit in fresh water, actually!
I’m from Texas and grew up visiting the USS Texas every year. She’s the last of the dreadnaughts and we hope to save her for another hundred years. But I’ve also visited the Alabama, the Missouri , and the New Jersey. It’s amazing how the ships changed from coal fired triple expansion steam engines to oil fired steam turbines. While none of them were exactly comfortable they were a lot better than the smaller tin cans and even worse the submarines. But without regard they are all beautiful in their own way. I’m glad you are working so hard to save her for future generations.
I had planned to visit BB Texas but is not open for visitors
Destroyers and Submarines haven't changed much since WWII
@@michaelmckinnon1591 , well other than how they are powered, what with destroyers using modified Jet engines and subs using nuclear reactors to build boiler pressure. And all the electronics. And the reliance on missiles for a lot of functions instead of guns. I mean a modern destroyer can knock down a satellite much less a Zero. And subs, especially the boomers, are now strategic weapons. One modern SSBN stuffed full of Tridents II D5 missiles can pretty much put us all back in the Stone Age all by itself. But yeah, other than that, they haven’t changed much.
@@Bill_N_ATX of course the technology changes over time and the weaponry has changed or been added as all militaries do, but Destroyers and Submarines are still confined spaces where there's not much room to move around just as they were in WWII
It is a daunting task to save these awesome ships.
My landlord served on the New Jersey. I love hearing the stories he tells me.
It's insane how many variables and trade-offs one has to consider when it comes to such a big and complex system.
Great history of the Iowa Class and an inside look into its initial development and ongoing modifications. Sorry to see them go. I am a San Francisco Bay Area resident and often saw the Iowa moored at anchor in Suisun Bay as a part of the reserve fleet. It was very distinctive. You could not miss the bow shape on the near horizon. I was a frequent visitor when it was temporarily moved to Mare Island under tow and then saddened to see it leave the Bay Area for Los Angeles never to return. Thanks for the tour and history of the Iowa Class, especially the New Jersey.
One of the reasons for moving the 5"/38 mounts one deck higher than in NORTH CAROLINA and WASHINGTON in SOUTH DAKOTA and IOWA Classes was due to problems with flooding these mounts in bad weather. MONTANA put its lower 5"/54 mounts back down to the weather deck, but I think those ships had more height to the weather deck from the waterline.
The lower belt armor (12" STS tapering to 1.25" in the lower hull, being a downward tilted extension of the waterline 12.2" Class "A" armor-over-1.5" STS belt. This was even thicker than the Japanese lower belts to stop their own Type 91 "diving" AP projectiles designed to act a mini-torpedoes if they hit the water short of an enemy ship and hit that ship below its waterline belt armor. The US was the only non-Japanese nation to make such similar protection against such threats so it seems that the US found out about those Japanese projectiles (originally designs that did this were introduced in 1928 and the Type 91 improved designs introduced in 1931, so there was a long time for the US to find this out -- as the US was the main enemy of Japan in any future war (WWII, as it turned out), such Japanese weapons were important considerations in any US battleships designs during the 1930s and 1940s. The lack of true understanding of the improvements in Japanese torpedoes during WWII had rather bad results for US operations at the beginning of WWII against Japan, so this is not a minor point. Tests dur8ing WWII sho0wed that the over-rigid lower belt bulkhead did indeed compromise the SOUTH DAKOTA and IOWA Classes anti-torpedo systems, most especially where they were narrowed near the bow, as mentioned in this video. As a partially-effective counter to this, the water filled chambers in this system were moved from the two adjacent layers on each side of this too-rigid bulkhead, with a single empty space ("void") behind it and a much wider void between it and the outer hull, to a configuration where all of the spaces in front of this lower belt bulkhead were water-filled and two void layers existed behind it. Since the outermost empty space would always be flooded anyway, this meant that there was less chance of the blast getting through two layers of empty space with a 0.75" HTS bulkhead between the layers and on the final inboard bulkhead. Also, flooding would cause less tilt of the ship as the outermost space was already flooded and would not suddenly add weight to that side of the ship at the torpedo hit region.
This problem with a too-rigid lower belt also plagued the Japanese battleships with such systems, as a very bad torpedo hit on MUSASHI tore the lower belt off of the bottom of the waterline belt due to inadequate interlocking there and this flooded a lot of the ship behind the hit that should not have flooded if the tapering lower belt armor plating had not been there. (The Japanese never were able to solve this problem, as it would have required tearing the hull apart and rebuilding the entire lower side hull of the affected battleships.) In MONTANA, the lower belt was separated from the waterline belt and moved to the innermost anti-torpedo bulkhead position, so as to have minimal effect on the underwater side protection.
I wonder if a large bow dome structure could have appreciably increased forward floatation while also improving the flow of water over the bow hull form to reduce that awkward breaking bow wave that the ships generated, and specifically whether a more efficient hull form from such an addition be enough to allow the forward most part of the torpedo defense at the A turret's barbette to be thickened a bit without costing the ship in the speed department.
also, you gotta do a video on all the higher tech modification proposals that were projected for the Iowa class had they been selected to be overhauled and returned to active service in the 90's instead of put out to pasture.
Weve been slowly working our way through the proposed plans, check out some of our videos from earlier this year.
Very Informative even to someone like myself who considers himself pretty well versed in battleships after studying for over 55 years. The info on the boat storage and handling was great. As well as the info on 20mm, 5 inch gun, and the 3 inch replacement. Also conning tower alternatives. I have long questioned that narrow bow and the ships torpedo defenses. Also found it interesting how the Navy wanted to stick with the 16 inch guns. Great Video
Thanks.
Very informative video and thank you for sharing this. I boarded the USS New Jersey in Dec 2010 and enjoyed every minute of it despite the cold weather.
USS Camden and USS Sacramento each had two of the four main engines originally designated for the USS Kentucky which was never built. It's why they were both a little faster than their east coast cousins Seattle and one more I can't remember. We (Camden AOE-2) could hit 30kts and I was on it when we ran 27kts for two days in order to catch up with the battle group. That's moving on such a big ship. Those forced draft blowers sounded like jet engines!
Coral Sea and Midway spelled the end of the Battleship, and the later advent of AS missiles cinched the deal. But aren't we lucky to have existing examples of this technology preserved for the future generations to see.
We need to keep these operational for after World War III
AS don't have AP warheads
@@mikemcghin5394 How hard would it be to fit an ASM with a shaped charge
warhead?
@@mikemcghin5394 They do actually. Russia makes 7000 pound supersonic anti-ship missiles. They have enough kinetic energy to punch right through the armor of an Iowa.
@@Elthenar Are you referring to the P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck)? Because while the missile itself is 7000Kg (not pounds), it only features a 750kg (1,700lb) pound warhead. That's slightly less than the Iowa's HE shells. In fact, the Iowas were recommissioned in the 80's explicitly because it was the only hull that could stand up to those nasties.
Also @mecallahan1 , it isn't as simple as putting a shaped charge on a ASM, since you could wield on some spaced armor like the Germans did to really nerf the damage it could do, ignoring just how large that missile would need to be to punch through that much armor and still have that small jet actually hit something important. A HEAT shell like what what you're describing wouldn't be very effective.
I know they're obsolete in modern warfare, but man! These amazing ships make my heart soar. So majestic. Pure brute power.
yep, the old ww2 films of 4 or 5 in a line are awesome.
I mean modernize them and other then cost these would be way better then a dam tin can burke
@@missouripatriot6926 Sadly you'd need to start over from nothing and work up. The few battleships on display will remain there. They won't be relevant in war again.
At best, a very expensive support unit like in Desert Storm.
@@protorhinocerator142 Not necessarily, with automation , modern rocket propelled munitions and replacing the rear turret with a Vertical launch system they would probably be useful again, the rolling airframe missiles and the upgraded CIWS they would be extremely hard to attack from the air and modern anti torpedo defenses they would again be a powerful naval unit
@@hauntedhouse7827 But you could do all that with a destroyer. It's a lot cheaper.
The battleship really only gets you two things - Lots of armor (nearly obsolete) and big guns (limited range).
If you increase the range using rail guns, you can park the ship way back and you don't need the armor.
Could you FORCE a battleship to be useful in modern battles? Probably. But it's so much cheaper to do the same thing to a destroyer.
The Arleigh Burke is an amazing weapons platform.
You've earned a PhD in battleships Professor. Well done. These videos are not only informative but just addictive entertainment.
Bravo Zulu. Went a couple of places with the NJ while serving on the USS Lynde B McCormick DDG8. One was a shooting drill on that island not too far from San Diego about early '92, I think. We were about a nm ahead of the NJ, took our turn first and impressed the heck out of our selves. When the NJ took her shots, we were well ahead and back a bit, about maybe 2k yards. The concussions were very perceptible and pushed us oberserving back a good step. Then we were impressed with no doubts those guns were for real. We could hold a tad less than 240k fuel oil and refueled from her on multiple occasions. We never let ourselves get down to less than half, but it was always a thrill to sail in company with her and perform evolutions with her that gave us both practice and familiarity working together.
BT2 (SW).
I would imagine one thing the Navy would have tried to work on later in the 20th century was reducing the crew headcount through machinery and electronics. Lots of people with no space to house them comfortably.
While it is fun to discuss the merits of a particular BB I am bound to point out that another BB produced has far more benefit to the Navy than any technical improvements. I was fascinated by the savings in weight for an all welded hull version and I presume it would have been much faster and cheaper to build. I found the bow buoyancy and torpedo defense discussion also very interesting.
Read somewhere that at towards the end of WW2 the 20mm was nicknamed the doorknocker because it just announced the fact they were under attack.
I am surprised that we haven't moved back toward more heavily armored ships in our navy. I read a study once that anti-ship missiles today would at best be equalivant to a Kamikaze hitting a BB during WWII which didn't do much to BBs that could take dozens of such hits. I know they cost a lot to build but a modern BB with modern AA would be damn near impervious to non-nuclear anti-ship missiles and it would still take multiple modern torpedoes to sink it.
Fascinating information. I had not run across this information before. I had heard of the Tunderbolt mounting but wasn't aware that it was ready for production. That would certainly helped the 20mm stay competitive! The Kamikazes changed the whole AA game. Earlier efforts were two-fold; 1) shoot down the enemy plane or 2) put up enough fire to prevent the ordnance for hitting the target. The Kamikazes eliminated point 2, so the gunners had to literally shoot the plane to pieces to prevent a hit. By the time the 20mm could get hits the plane was on its final plunge. Same deal with the 40mm - excellent system but usually not enough hits to destroy the oncoming plane. The 3" seemed to offer a lot of potential, a good shell with a VT fuse coupled with radar direction.
Personally I regard the Iowas as the most beautiful battleships ever built but I can see why that narrow bow section would make them "wet" and reduce the torpedo defense. The added fuel would have been quite helpful not only for the ship's use but to help feed the hungry escorts. That rebuilt superstructure is interesting - much more effective use of space and really opens up AA arcs.
I have a different take on this as a retired chief. Running a battleship takes a lot of corporate knowledge to properly run. The Navy is a political service and the culture isn't conducive to keeping enlisted past 20 years.
I had a Wing Commander put this in perspective years ago.
Do you want a 60 year old infantryman running up a hill during battle, probably not.
Do you want a 60 year old aircraft mechanic who's been working on the same plane for 40 years? Hell yes.
I think the same principle applies to Battleships.
@@bobsnyder3309 well said. But I do know some old timers that don’t need to run in order to deliver an ass beating.
@@tonylittle8634
😆😋😁😛😅😝😂😝🤣😜
Sounds like a personal experience!
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
In my first enlistment in the Navy. In deck division we had a few BMSN that had 12 years in. Those threeBMSN were the finest coxswain in the Amphibious squadron. My uncle was a infantry platoon SGT in WW2 at the end of the war he was 38 years old.
You raised the issue with the topweight imposed by the conning tower. There's a really in-depth analysis over on the Navweaps website of the damage taken by USS South Dakota in her encounter with IJN Kirishima off Guadalcanal in 1942. She was struck multiple times by 14" and medium-caliber gunfire. Her CO, Captain Galch, is quoted in the Navy's post-action damage assessment report:
The Commanding Officer, SOUTH DAKOTA, in the action report, reference (a), made this comment:
"Armor: - Fire control and conning tower have definitely proven their
worth. Further agitation for the removal of this weight is definitely
suspended. Control stations behind armor should be used more frequently.
Too much stress in the past has been laid to the space restrictions at
these stations. Had these stations not been utilized during the
engagement, control and conn personnel would probably have been
destroyed."
There was also a plan drawn up to remove main battery turret number 3 and replace it with an aircraft deck to operate Harrier VTOL strike fighters. I believe there is a model of this proposed conversion in your museum collection, right?
They also considered replacing turret 3 with vertical launch cells for another four dozen Tomahawks or Harpoons.
That's right. Model company Nichimo got hold of the plans and actually produced a 1/900 scale kit of the proposed conversion back in the day. It's pretty rare now.
Both options were deemed unusable because it reduced weight too much. you wouldn't think that would be a problem until you consider the implications.
@@Captndavo honestly it would be a fairly balanced warship if they removed turret 1, replaced that with VLS, turret 3 for a flight deck, and added all the weight saved back in as extra armour, CIWS etc,
There was a flight deck aft of the gun! I know! I was on the design team!
You provided a lot of content and i cant absorb all of it without listening several more times. Putting the boiler-generator sets in separate compartments sounds like a really good idea.
The USS missouri was important for me cuz thats the first battleship i saw in person. And i loved that ship ever since
So easy to fall in love with a ship when she gets to you. We know it's not just a hunk of steel but a hunk of steel big enough to be a place where thousands of crew served and hundreds built her...with thousands of manhours and Rosy the Rivoter hours...the great hope of a nation.
Completely off topic... but if I don't say it right now I'll die. I look EXACTLY like you Ryan. I could easily pass for your double. Its incredible.
I'll say it's incredible, what with you being a 13 year old Nigerian girl!
I was working in the Pentagon at the time they were discussing the retirement of the battleships, and there was a sizeable group who wanted to keep them going, and *all* the discussions had to do with reducing the crew by at least half, with the biggest change achieved by cutting out the bottom and replacing the steam plant with electric drives.
With nowadays tech I believe we could make one, digitally possible, and all these automation available in college's lessons
I have always wondered about doing a modern diesel/electric conversion on an old triple expansion ship.
Great job! Good information on the Iowas. Would have been cool to see the next generation of battle ship.
you are seeing it--the new generation of BB is the cruiser.
That was 🇺🇸 last generation of battleship ...4 of them all floating today.
The battleship was rendered Obsolete by Carrier Borne Aircraft. What my Navy did not like about these battle wagons was their shear size and how large of a target they made. The Black Shoe Navy held too much sway in the 1930's and during most of WWII. They just refused to yield to air power and if Halsey and Mitscher had their way, there would be no battleships at Pearl. We steamed with the Jersey coming out of the Med and she is an incredibly awesome ship, but her time was before the carriers. It's almost the same thing with Sub's. The old guard insisted that Sub's were no more than picket boats for the fleet. Admiral Lockwood, Mush Morton, Dick O'Kane and others proved that Sub's were an effective attack platform sinking millions of tons of Japanese shipping.
The Old Navy held on to it's old ways far too long and had it not been for some of the Leaders I'd mentioned above, the war in the Pacific could have gone on much longer. I worked in N. Camden for many years. Spent most of my life in S. Jersey/Philly and as of yet, I still have not visited the Jersey. She's a fine girl and brought many shipmates through hell. Top of the bucket list along with Yorktown.
Imagine how much more effective the US submarine fleet would have been early in the war if their torpedoes had actually worked properly.
@@marklawes1859 They learned how to make a proper torpedo from the Germans, I think to remember?
@@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188
No. While the Mark 14 torpedo had many faults except for the magnetic detonator they were easily fixed as soon as Admiral King ripped everyone in BuOrd a new one.
A more powerful spring in the impact detonator.
Moved the depth gauge forward from the rear cone to same place it had been on the mark IX where the torpedo's motion through the water didn't lower the pressure reading.
Limiting the maximum deflection of the rudder.
Fixing the magnetic detonator would have required adjusting it to the magnetic environment where it was to be used.
Really the Battleship wasn't obsolete until after WWII had started and the attack planes had matured but the air dropped torpedo was the harbinger of doom for battleships but that wouldn't take place until about 1940 and still their value in amphibious operations is enough to justify building them in WWII.
Not really, torpedoes in general did. The delivery system did not matter it was the simple fact they hit bellow the armor.
Great set of videos, really enjoyed them. I’m surprised that they were built with so little auxiliary generation. Only 2 diesel generators sounds like they would have real problems if they’d suffered underwater damage. A lot of ships being lost in WW2 due to creeping flooding when power to pumps was lost.
Good point, including HMS Ark Royal (I think that is the right ship).
One of a number lost, with relatively minor damage.
The problem with having a lot of auxiliary diesel gensets is storing the fuel needed for them. The heavy bunker fuel that fires the main steam boilers can be used for really large "cathedral" diesels - the 3 or 4 storey high monsters which power the biggest oil tankers or container ships. But the much smaller, high speed diesel engines used in gensets require the same grade of diesel fuel that cars or trucks use. This generally costs more than bunker fuel, even though marine fuels are usually untaxed. But it is also a more volatile fuel, and while diesel isn't an enormous fire risk, it's still more readily flammable than bunker oil.
So there are fire safety issues to consider with large tanks of diesel fuel, such as where to put them in the ship so that they stand the least chance of getting damaged. This is something that even modern nuclear submarines have to think about, because they still have tanks of diesel onboard to fuel their auxiliary generators - which they only ever use if the reactor has to be shut down for some horrifying reason, but they are onboard nonetheless.
@@lloydevans2900 One other thing is that the gensets were probably similar to the locomotive diesels that submarines used, as they were on the ship I was on, and if so simply making enough of them to supply the fleet was a challenge.
@@s.sestric9929 They were Cooper-Bessemer Diesels, not used in locomotives or submarines, but in short supply nonetheless. It was felt that the four independent steam plants gave sufficient redundancy for both propulsion and power generation.
Of course, there was the one time that a rogue wave put water into the vents of both our #1 and #2 firerooms' Fuel Oil Service Tanks, resulting in loss of fires within seconds of each other. We were "split" (electrically) fore and aft at the time, so the entire forward half of the ship (including the Bridge and CEC!) went "dark" for a short time. The Captain Was Not Happy!
We operated with USS New Jersey several times, USS Newport News (CA-148) The Last all Gun Cruiser. my time aboard 1968-69-70 Call sign THUNDER flag hoist; November - India - Quebec - Quebec Then onboard the USS Springfield (CLG-7) 71-72 Flag Hoist/Radio Call Sign: November - Whiskey - Delta - Mike "Fair Winds and Following Seas" Brothers
Very interesting video. I love this channel. I have some criticism, tho. The issue I have is sound quality. I know its not in particular your fault, but it can be fixed. Either by equipment or by post editing and narration style videos. I am not a native English speaker, so I had sometimes a hard time to follow you from an accustic point of view.
Again, great content, and I know myself how hard it can be to produce videos like these. So dont get me wrong. Your channel is fine and I really hope that you can preserve that mighty battleship for a long time.
Since I dont live in the US (I am located in Europe), we have our own museums to worry about. Nethertheless its quite interesting to see content from other museums throughout the world.
The battleships represented a unique period of naval history-but they were pretty much onsolete by the 1930s. Carriers offered much better firepower and were easier to operate. Plust tyhe manning requirements were insane.
Not so sure about the "easier" to operate, tho. I think it was the US Navy that stated that a country which is new into operating aircraft carriers needs about 15 years to get that thing to 100%.
Thank you for all the video productions
Next video: What Iowa doesn t like about the navy
Why do I keep watching these videos? I'm Canadian, for God's sake!
You've got good taste, maybe??
Driver seat doesn’t tilt back far enough
And not enough cup holders!
@@jz422 ye
As a fan and aesthete who has no military background, I'm damned pleased the Iowas are preserved today with their beautiful lines that project majesty and power.
I don't have to worry about what was best for military efficacy, which, as Ryan and Libby relate, would have led to alterations that made a much uglier ship but a better fighting ship and thus engineered a greater measure of safety for their crews.
It seems like most of the larger war machines were continually being altered to deal with shortcomings and technology upgrades.
The process continues. Glen
i never realized they operated as oilers for their own destroyers. that's pretty cool.
Especially in the vastness of the pacific
The stories are that the Iowas were very rollie and not very comfortable in beam seas. Crews suffered from seasickness and hard on the gunnery because of the amount of roll. They tried various things to remedy the issue...especially the keel-strakes, but they never could really fix it.
Today they would use moving stabilizers like luxury yachts have.
@@fw1421 Not true, my ship had those fitted they were NEVER used they create more problems than they solve
I play the game, 'World of Warships', the game has the further ships that were not built, or were stopped at the outset and scrapped to build other ships, many ships of different classes are in the game that have been covered in the videos like this one, I recommend that any who are interested in ships that were built before, during or planned for after the war might find WOW's to be of very well planned out, way of learning what many would not know of were it not for the documentaries and differing games.
I’m really happy he got better at speaking to a camera. If he didn’t these video would be unwatchable. Please don’t take that as a slight, I really respect anyone who takes the time to even attempt this. You’ve not only done that but from the later videos I’ve seen you have gotten much better. On a different note these ships inspire awe whenever one looks at them. Maybe not as much, for me in particular, as a super carrier but awe inspiring regardless.
Very interesting video! Loved those ships! I’m from Missouri so of course it’s my favorite. Actually lived just down the road from President Truman.
Naval engineering and good old fashion American elbow grease at its finest. Unrivaled speed fire power and an intimidation factor second to none.
I mean yamato beats it in firepower with its 18 inch guns
When I was a kid. My neighbor Lenny Walch from Cazenovia WI. an old WW2 guy, Served on the Battleship N.J. .. The stories he would tell.. Another great American hero. RIP Slip Jack vs The Broadway Terror....
The "Battle" in them was much much better than the "Ship". It´s often reported and proofed how they performed relatively poor in heavy weather compared to HMS Vanguard for example which showed much less heeling in certain conditions.
The person who told you that is so full of crap they have it coming out of their ears, there's more pitching up and down on a Nimitz Class than an Iowa Class and as far as bad weather goes, I'd rather be on an Iowa than a Nimitz
@@michaelmckinnon1591 The data is available. In a manouvre in the fifties the Vanguard showed 15 degree heeling where the Iowa showed 26 in the same conditions. Plain facts. The disadvantages of the relatively slim bow are explained in the video.
And a carríer like the Nimitz isn´t comparable anyway, it was about comparison to another battle ship.
That doesn´t take anything away from the marvellous Iowa-class ships, which always reached their destination, no matter what. I visited the Iowa itself in the eighties in Bremerhaven, Germany and i´m still impressed. But the title of the video was, what the Navy didn´t like about them.
Ship building always requires to find a compromise between different characteristics. There is no perfect ship, they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
@@mk.5706 26 degree temperature swing maybe but not pitching deck on an Iowa, Carriers on the other hand rock back and forth like a hyperactive person in a rocking chair and pitch up and down by as much as 45 degrees and occasionally the aircraft have to be chained to the deck so they don't fall off into the sea and below decks so there isn't a fireball.
@@michaelmckinnon1591 I’ve served on two of the older class carriers, the USS Saratoga and the USS Kennedy. The times that pitch and roll became a factor were in obscene sea states of 30 ft waves or more. Even then rolls over 15 - 20 degrees were rare occurrences. Yes they pitched up and down and yess they took water over the bow but in 30 ft seas. Not in everyday sailing. ALL aircraft were tied down ALL the time unless actively being moved, launched or recovered. Just my experiences in the Navy. Yours may have been different.
@@mk.5706 And how loaded was the Iowa at the time vs the Vanguard? It makes a big difference. In head on waves, the Iowas would have just plowed thru while the Vanguard would have bobbed like a cork. And she was not as maneuverable as an Iowa. And with smaller guns, would have been out distanced in range so an Iowa would have won. Plus the Vanguard wasn't battle tested. All four of the Iowas served during the war.
Just found your channel. I was there when the nj was first opened. Love that ship.
There’s some really good information about these awesome ships. I just wish the audio was a bit better. Actually it’s really bad. It sounds like a omnidirectional mic was used and it picks up everything. Otherwise this is a great video.
I wanted you to know that I appreciate your videos and I can see you know your stuff. Very cool.
They are beautiful ships. The Bismarcks too, but not so much the Yamoto. I also have a weak point for Nelson and Rodney.
They are great but my personal favorite is Richelieu
@@aurdel775 that too.
I think pretty dreadnoughts (particularly British and Japanese) are very pretty. Look at Mikasa for instance..
THANK YOU‼️
I worked on Iowa, but I learned one hell of a lot from this excellent video.
‼️When you show the old photos, could you please display each one for about 10 seconds?‼️
Your editing is way too fast.
I want to really see the old photos.
Thanks.
Well, this discussion presupposes that battleships after the war was a thing! In the event only the Russian fleet was to be of any consequence.
One should also note that the older battleships were used for shore bombardment. That made sense, as if the Yamato or similar was getting out to smash a landing, they would have to contend with battleships. Now Taffy III performed better than anyone with reason could expect.
The problem with the Iowa battleships is: They supposed that the combat would develop according to the japanese gamebook - which it didn't. What the Russian cold war objectve was: To interdict the supply lines of the US across the Atlantic.
One should allways ask what a weapons system is supposed to go up against.
That original Bridge was very Deco/Moderne in style! I liked it!
I was born in Iowa so that's the reason for my love of the USS Iowa. Silly, I know, but there it is. I'm a 26 year USN veteran. With that real world experience, the US Navy, & all current Navies, see the BB as an impractical weapons platform. Airplanes, missiles, & torpedoes heralded the demise of the battlewagon.
Wow. Imagine what airplanes, missiles, and torpedoes mean for all the other ships! Scrap them all!
Nothing wrong with that, I was born in Nevada, so I'm a fan of the USS Nevada. :) The battleship that is, I don't know much about the SSBN. I only served 8 years on an aircraft carrier mostly, in the end, the lifestyle didn't suit me.
As for the above comment, the problem wasn't just missile defense only (yes other ships have these issues), but the cost of operating them when they only offer limited offensive firepower. Mostly just shore bombardment. Yes they were outfitted with cruise missile, but they are an extremely expensive cruise missile platform. It's about offense, not defense.
@@iowa61 Hey man, did you know that they have a car that runs on water?!......
@@thissailorja Ships float. That means they can sink. So we should keep all the ones that sink real easily and get rid of the ones that are real tough to hurt. Just to make it right for idiotic youtube comments.
I visited the New Jersey last year and did the Gun Turret tour. Great experience.
There was only one reason the Iowa class was pressed back into service and that is because the Russians launched the kirov class that could itself smash an entire nimitz class battle group alone with its shipwreck missiles
Makes no sense. only 4 kirov, at any given time only two deploy able. 12 300 mile missile of which 1/4 are used for targeting. A single aegis cruiser can easily defeat 9 vampires assuming they got thru the F14s.
@@kriskelley5216 The Kirov was extremely dangerous in its own right, however you’re forgetting that almost every vessel the Soviets had at that time even down to corvettes (and even submarines) were covered with so many anti-ship missiles that it would have been impossible to hit even a quarter of them in a swarm attack. Any aircraft that was up (assuming the carrier group wasn’t already destroyed) would have been easily boxed by the insurmountable amount of AA missiles.
Real reason is Reagan wanted them and he got them
Reagan when it came to the Iowas was brilliant, everything else questionable
I was relieved to see this video was from almost 2 years ago... I would be deeply concerned if I'd seen Ryan struggling like this in a new video! Ryan, I hope whatever was making this video so difficult for you hasn't had any lasting effects on your life, and my commiserations if it has!
By the 1980's there was nothing that could seriously threaten them ? .. BTW .. your knowledge of the ship is seriously impressive. I would dearly love to be on one of your tours at some stage
I assumed he forgot half his sentence. And meant to mean in capability, like dropping huge shells on things. There's lots that can destroy them obviously
His knowledge is lacking at best and he's obviously never served aboard one at sea
@@michaelmckinnon1591 You are kidding right .. have you watched ANY of the other videos .. he is incredible
@@3storiesUp I was aboard the Iowa prior to and during the turret explosion (which sounded like Turret 2 fired all three of its guns simultaneously) and I'd rather be on board an Iowa Class than any Carrier afloat because it's smoother sailing in rough seas and during disaster relief missions it's better to have a Battleship than a Carrier around because it helps the affected feel more secure, politicians ended the Battleship and gave soldiers a pea shooter like the Mattel 16 or it's follow on the Mattel 4 which in combat is like using spit wads
@@michaelmckinnon1591 I was on board Iowa 1983-87.
been watching your NJ episodes for a while now. very interesting! on my 4th PBR watching this episode. you put a lot of effort it describing stuff i never would have known; last PBR is for you!
I served on the Big J from 87 to 91 Decom. Take care of my girl sir.
We're sure trying to! Thanks for your service!
@@BattleshipNewJersey
Thank ya'll for what you do for her.
Ryan: One thought is the removal of the aft turret / barbette and placement of a 256 capable VLS within its own 8-10" STS 'citadel' to off set the weight. Remove after 16" director and placing a housing for SPY-5; add more Tomahawk and Harpoon quad launchers, change the 5'/38 to three 8' at main deck level. Addition of RAM and 2-4 CIWS, 20mm auto at 8 total locations (4 port, 4 starboard) along the outer main and second deck (at places of previous 40mm mounts were) for small boat defense. I like the suggestion of compartmentalizing the engineering space and addition of side blisters for further torpedo defense. And if we still have 14" and / or 12" shells remaining, somehow flechette them for firing from 16" tubes.
A nuclear powered battleship with two 16 inch automatically firing turrets. Probably just one gun in each turret. Love the Iowa class battleships. I got to be onboard the USS Missouri (BB-63) for two weeks back in 1990 and rode it from Long Beach up to San Francisco. A treasured experience!
Think President Reagan loved them too when he recommishened. one of them as Commander and Chief. I get confused which conflicts those Iowas were called back under 2 presidents. Since WW2 they were called out often still so hard to keep track without further study.
Im glad we had radar on our ships i cant imagine having all these great ships and then having to use optics to fight the enemy. Specially at night that would of been rough
Oh yea as a master helmsman I love that thick conning tower, it meant I wasn't going to die. I know the rest of the bridge would be gone though. My GQ station was pointer in mount 55.
Mt 1st ship was AOE -2 Camden, (Sacramento AOE-1 class) 1 & 2 used the main engine sets from the Kentucky, 2 each. AOE's were called Fast Combat Support for a reason... 30 knots No Smoke!
How well would the bulbous bows of modern aircraft carriers have worked on the Iowas? They certainly would have added buoyancy and probably reduced the bow wave and wake, of which the carriers have virtually none , best I can tell from videos.
:26 “The navy did not like everything about the Iowa class videos”.
For esthetics, I always liked the compact superstructure on the South Dakotas.
Me too but Im prejudiced as the Bama was my first and only BB to ever have visited 3 X
It also lacked a bar/pub onboard which was lamented by people of all navies.
Also saying that by the '80s there was nothing around to challenge the Iowas is kind of forgetting how the battleship (Iowa class included) was pretty much rendered obsolete (in the anti-ship role) by both the aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine.
What I love about the Iowa's are 1) they fit my love, admiration, and adoration for naval artillery 2) they have proven themselves successful time and time again with their 50 years in possession of the navy 3) they portray prestige, power, and might 4) they are (almost) untouchable.
GREAT POST! Very informative.
Great video, but towards the end there where you were talking inside that narrow space distracted from the content. A voice over while showing that section of the ship would have been a better way to go about it.
Closed captioning works if you want to try that.
Everything you have done is a blessing to the young Men and Women who have no idea what it is like to serve on a ship during General Quarters and under attack !@@
USS Texas was kept at GQ for 45 days of Okinawa Invasion !!! Mental Stress but they all came back alive!!! It was said that Chestet Nimitz wanted Texas to be saved after War as a Museum Ship!!!
A few points, the Iowas were also a fairly rushed effort, and they retained many of their design points from their predecessor in the SoDak. The heavy reliance on copying as much as possible from those designs plus the restrictions of the last years of the treaties and the Panama Canal meant the Iowas were the best whole you could make from the mountain of compromises the USN made to launch them before the US inevitably dragged into war (a goal they ultimately failed to achieve). The Montanas were a wholly new design, taking some characteristics of their predecessors, as well as design detailings from allied Navy battleships, to make a mostly new platform. The Montanas were meant to be the pinnacle design, with the Sodaks and later Iowas rushed as a stop-gap in between. The Iowas being as great as they are is mostly on the grounds that all of their competition had been sunk or rendered fuel-less by the time they really got into the fight. Had the war started later and they been at a Pearl-like attack it would have been interesting to see how their weaknesses to torpedoes in particular would have afflicted their performance/survivability over the older Standards. Of course. It would have also been of interest to see them compared to Yamato, H-39/40, Littorio, etc. of the Axis Navies. Comparing them to the Lion plans or refit Hood plans of the RN is so interesting, as a refit Hood would have made it a true Fast Battleship.
Well the Iowas had speed and range against the yamamotos
@@matthewwilson5019 Not to mention fire control.
@@SCComega yup and oh the best and most modern technology of that time, the yamamotos had worse technology than the Iowas.
Another thing is that while the Yamato class BB's had thicker amour, it was of an inferior quality (improperly hardened) to what USN & RN BB's were. So the disparity on paper of a Yamato's protection vs allied BB isn't the apex it seems. Now if that carried over to the 18.1" AP shells it wouldn't matter as much unless they were worse than RN WW1 era poor.
@@relluplewis7112 interesting
You and Drachinifel could have an hours-long debate and commiseration about conning towers - their use, their lack of use, their design, etc. Get me the popcorn!
Might be interested