This era of ship design is by far my favorite but it is also the funniest. It can pretty much be characterized by every country asking: “How many guns and how much armor can we slap on this floating hulk before it tips over or sinks?”
HMS Agincourt (built for the Turks before they came into WWI on the side of the Kaiser): 7 double 12" turrets. "A Turret for each day of the week," and named in honor of each of the days... Sunday, Monday, etc...
@@pastorjerrykliner3162 I have to point out that she was not built for the turks, she was offered to them while she was already under construction, she was originally brazilian.
@@fernandomarques5166 And was then continued to be built for the Turks ;). Also, it was not that Turkey joined the Kaiser and therefore GB kept Agincourt but exactly the other way around: GB seized Agincourt, and Turkey was pissed off by this. Plus the Germans, uhm, kindly offered them Goeben, making Turkey join war against the Allies.
@@535phobos Well why they were really pissed off, is Britain seized Agincourt and Erin and refused to give them their money back. Goeben and Breslau were crewed by Germans in the Black Sea and a railway line was also promised as part of the inducement by Germany to side against England. I think I read that in the book Jutland by Captain Donald Macintyre RN. Macintyre's description for the reasons seem more clear than the nebulous crap about the place these days, though it is possible Macintyre was wrong. Macintyre, I believe, said the two German ships and the railway line were quickly thought up at the time the British refused to give Turkey her money back. The Germans pounced so to speak and came up with a something worth nothing for free scheme to get Turkey to ally with Germany ie a ships crewed by Germans and a railway that was never going to be built. Germany also later tried this tactic with Mexico with the Zimmerman Telegrams which was a ridiculous and hilarious proposal but Mexico was having none of it because Germany had no capacity to make good on the inducement. Of course it backfired when the US got wind of the Telegram. Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare (particularly considering the zeitgeist of Lusitania in the US) and her ignoring the Sussex Pledge because the US was supplying ordnance and finance to the allies breaking what Germany considered neutrality, ultimately brought America into WW1. The Zimmerman Telegram was BS and Mexico knew it but it enraged the US. Germany was her own worst enemy. The Wikipedia entry about the reasons the Ottoman Empire entered WW1 are appalling. All it says is, with some other meaningless crap is, "The reasons for the Ottoman action were not immediately clear."
You can tell Ryan really enjoys his work. In tonight's video he is very animated and excited to be at U.S.S. Texas BB-35. Great to see the younger generations interest in battleships and there preservation.
One thing worth mentioning, in early American triple turret design, was that due to blast effect of the close proximity of the barrels, accuracy was affected. Twin turrets were more accurate. Americans started to stagger fire the middle gun in order to correct that. You will notice the later American turrets were wider (North Carolina class onward), this help mitigate this effect and American Battleships became much more accurate.
Or, just do what the 90s Iowa crews did and fire the guns independently in quick succession. Center gun firs, left gun second, third gun last, all within a quarter to half second of each other. Edit: proofreading
@@edgardox.feliciano3127 Staggering fire had been done in WW2, just not all guns were staggered. As mentioned, they would fire the two outer guns first with a split second delay which then fire the middle gun. The distance between the outboard guns especially on WW2 era 3-gun turrets were quite sufficient. it was always the middle gun that was the problem, so delaying just that worked perfectly fine. Also firing the middle gun last is the most ideal because the blast pressure from the two outboard gun would more or less cancel each other. Where as firing the middle gun would exert pressure onto the outboard guns. So its better to fire outboard before firing middle.
@hognoxious I've always wished that Battleships would always be in Service. Although, I know it's over for them, but can we at least have the 8" rapid-fire, triple-gun turrets, of the U.S.S. Salem back?!
I'm glad you mentioned HMS Agincourt. In addition to her seven turrets and fourteen guns she enjoyed the wonderful nickname of the Gin Palace. I'll drink to that.
On several occasions Agincourt fired a full broadside at Jutland and was reported blown up, by crewmen on other ships observing her and the battle. Such was the spectacle of all seven turrets fireing together in quick succession. She would then appear out of her own gunsmoke non the worse for wear. Taking into account the rather 'thrown together' crew on board, what a magnificent effort she made during the battle.
@@sirmalus5153 Yes I read that story too. She was said to be very comfortably fitted out as she had been built for the Ottoman Sultan. So when she was instead requisitioned for the Royal Navy life on board was rather more pleasant than on other battleships. If you're going to sea, you should do it in style😁😁.
@@bahoonies Thus the name Gin Palace, the well appointed interior spaces reminding the Tars of a luxurious drinking establishment. Also, the Turks raised the money to build the Agincourt by getting their civilian population to donate the funds. The Turkish people were so angry when Churchill confiscated her that it helped make up their government's mind to join the Central Powers against England. The Germans replaced the Agincourt by donating the battleship Goeben to the Turks. Churchill later regretted his confiscation order.
My understanding is that she was built for a South American country... Brazil(??) I dont recall exactly which, but it was to be the end-all for the little mini arms race in S America...
@@wheels-n-tires1846 She was originally destined for Brazil, but a warming of relations between Brazil & Argentina, combined with a collapse of the Brazilian rubber boom, led to her being sold to the Ottoman empire before completion. At Jutland, she was the only capital ship in the Grand Fleet not fitted with a Dreyer Fire Control Table.
Imagining the 12 16 inch guns that would have been the Montana's is surely impressive to say the least. Great video, visiting the Texas is definitely on the bucket list.
@@AsbestosMuffins I don't know about that as the US believed that their 16in "super heavy" had reached an acceptable plateau and how much heavier 18in guns would have been, especially 12 of them. Montana still needed acceptable speed in the high 20's. To give her the same protection she would have had, 27kts, AND 12 18in guns you're looking at possibly an incredably exspensive 100,000 ton battleship. Not saying it would be impossible but 12 16in guns would have still got the job done with no need to build a new, bigger gun.
In my opinion,the Iowa class was the epitome of the battleship. A good balance of speed and heavy armor,plus the 16 inch.50 cal. (Or was it .58 cal?) was about as big a shell as was efficient. The 18's on the Yamato were heavier but didn't really have much more range and wore out barrels faster than the 16's. This is all info dredged up from my slightly stroke damaged memory from books I read 30+ years ago. So if I misremembered,please don't rip my ass! Love this channel!
It's surprising to learn Yamato and Musashi were around long enough to wear out their barrels. How many rounds fired represent the design life of very large bore naval artillery?
I think it was more the fact they didn't have the high quality steel for the barrel liners more than firing a huge number of shells. Half the time the Yamato didn't have even a half load out of powder for her guns!
I'm amazed that you didn't mention the ultimate turret farm, HMS Agincourt. It had seven turrets, including both a superfiring pair at the bow, and a triplet at the stern just so it can cram in as many 12-inch guns as possible.
Also the 15-in 42 caliber was arguably one of the best guns of the period so it's still competitive with the latest and greatest in all but range because it was just that good of a gun.
@@trentbyington5957 we're talking about British guns not American. The 15-in 42 could not hold a candle to the 16-in 50 but then again the 16-in 50 was arguably the second best battleship gun ever deployed. As far as what I can tell about the British 16 inch gun it would have been better than the 15 in 42 but not better by enough to where it's like if we don't have it then these ships just aren't worth putting into service but it would have been a noticeable increase in firepower
@@trentbyington5957As Ryan has observed on occasion, accuracy at extreme ranges was problematic because the target could compound the issue during the flight of the shells. Example, the USS Edsel evading gunfire before being slowed by carrier aircraft. The record of the longest hit on another battleship belongs to the 15" 42.
I was picturing turrets roaming the countryside, and large ranches where they're rounded up and put onto battleships. Did you see Cher's video clip of a Battleship rodeo?
@@nikolatasev4948 And right next to it some old farmer set in his ways growing massive Armstrong cannons. These were 103 ton cannon capable of firing a 1 ton projectile at 472m/s. 1877 technology with black powder. Muttering 6km range was enough back in my day. Amazing how much gun technology progressed over such a relatively short history of massive naval guns.
My favorite style of battleship are the good ol' Nelsol and Rodnol. There's an elegance to their function-over-form design and they managed to do quite a lot with many factors working against them.
I love this story of Rodney giving scharnhorst (I think) a good scare when scharnhorst was capturing a merchant ship or it was doing something with a merchant should I forget exactly what, and based off reports Rodney knew this and decided just come charging over the Horizon at top speed and very nearly got into gun range if not actually popped a couple shells off but missed before scharnhorst could GTFO
@@SamwiseOutdoors it may have been Nelson but given all of the amazing stuff that Rodney did it was most likely Rodney. Especially considering the fact that on several occasions Rodney mysteriously exceeded her maximum rated top speed
@@the_undead Rodney was kind of magic in a weird way. She had so many close calls, and saw newer and more modern ships get sunk while pulling through unscathed. What a career.
I think it was Rodney that was doing shore bombardment for the Normandy landings. Someone called in an artillery strike on a shallow part of a river to prevent a German armor column from crossing, so Rodney lobbed a 16" shell on location and again after a while and again for hours. Would you want to cross a location after just seeing 1 ton shell explode there?
I also love the 3-gun American standard battleship design. It's probably because I had so much exposure to those as a kid before I really learned much about other nations' battleships, but 2-gun turrets just... feel like something is missing.
Yeah, they're missing a gun! 🤣 (I had to do point out the obvious before someone made a snide comment, a two gun turret is one gun short of a three gun turret)
Agreed. The only two gun battleship I like is his majesty the Bismarck and his sister the Tripitz if that’s how you spell it. I think those were the class before the H44 concept came around
To me the triple turrets on the US ships was a good trade-off between weight savings and redundancy in-case of battle damage. I thought the French went a interesting route with their Quad turrets by putting the steel divider down the middle to give increased survivability.
The barrels on the Jean Bart and Richelieu were where also twin linked , sharing a common trunion. Two barrels would elevate and depress together. This was an effective solution to the mechanical problems arising from a more complex design that would have allowed each barrel to elevate and depress independently.
THE BIGGEST FRENCH BATTLEWAGON(S) ENDED UP AT ABOUT 47,000 TONS WITH 15" GUNS....THEY SEEMED TO REALLY TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE WASHINGTON TREATY OF 22..WHEN ANTICIPATING THE ITALIANS NEXT SHIP(S). .WHEN I WAS A KID ( 8 YOA), THEY BROUGHT BB 60 HOME WHERE IT STILL RESIDES ON THE NORTH END OF MOBILE BAY....FINALLY GOT TO TOUR IT IN NOV 2006........I HAD TEARS IN MY EYES.....LIGHTER 40 K TRUE WEIGHT, SHORTER , 680 FT LONG WITH 16/45 MK VII GUNS (ABOUT 6 FEET SHORTER THAT THE IOWA CLASS) WERE VERY SLIGHTLY LOWER IN VELOCITY..... LIKE SAY....2750 LB SHELLS AT 2300 2700 FEET PER SECOND WITH A RIDICULOUS TERMINAL VELOCITY....OH WELL GUNTER, SUJI ADOLPH UND HIROHITO.......YOU WON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIGGEST SHELL ON THE 7 SEAS EXCEPT FOR THE GIANT 70,000 TON IJN BEHEMOTHS; STILL MORE FULL OF 1920S TECHNOLOGY OR WERE BEFORE THEY WERE "BISMARKED", "GNIESENAUED", "TIRPITZED", OR "SCHARNHORSTED"....( 35 K TONS WITH 11 INCH GUNS IT NOT A POCKET BATTLESHIP..MISTUH CHURCHILL"!!...IT'S A VERY HEAVY CRUISER ON A TOO HEAVY TOO SLOW PLATFORM.....WE HAD CRUISERS THAT FAR OUTCLASSED THESE "POCKET BATTLESHIPS" WITH SPECIAL 12" GUNS THROWING 1200 LB SHELLS DISPLACING 33OOO TONS MAKING 37 KNOTS (40 MPH) ON WATER SAME LENGTH AS THE IOWAS AND 73 FEET ABEAM. THE IOWA'S 16" 56 FOOT BBL AND THE 16' 62 FOOT BARREL OF OF THE IOWAS HIT ASK THE KIROSHIMA, KONGO AND EVEN THE JEAN BART, THE MISGUIDED FRENCH BATTLEWAGON SPANKED ON OUT IN NORTH AFRICA IN 1942..ABOUT HITTING POWER, SECTIONAL DENSITY FLIGHT TIME OF SHELLS AND ....OPPONENTS OF MK VI AND MK VII NAVAL GUNS PROGRAM DIDN'T HANG AROUND VERY LONG.....A FRIEND WAS ON THE ARKANSAS (OLDEST SHIP IN THE USN AFTER THE UTAH WAS SUNK AT PEARL DEC 1941) HE SHOT JAP PLANES DOWN IN SEA BATTLES LIKE MAYBE LEHTI GULF OR PHIILPINE SEA....AN 18 YEAR KID PLUCKED UP FROM THE DUSTY ROADS OF SHELBY COUNTY ALABAMA PLACED INTO THE JAP ZEROS AND OSCARS SHOOTING GALLERY AND DUELING WITH THE GUNS OF POINT DU HOC THAT RAINED SO MUCH DEATH AT NORMADIE TIL BRAVE ALLIED DESTROYERS AND EQUALLY LOW DRAFT CRUISERS PULLED IN PARALLEL TO THE BEACH AND SWEPT THOSE STWGWR 34S AND 42 AND THOSE 88S OFF LIKE A BROOM WITH 4 TO 10 INCH GUNS....WE WON'T SEE THAT LEVEL OF NATIONAL COOPERATION AND UNITY AGAIN...AND WE ALL MISSED IT
@@funkycat9629 THE BIGGEST FRENCH BATTLEWAGON(S) ENDED UP AT ABOUT 47,000 TONS WITH 15" GUNS....THEY SEEMED TO REALLY TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE WASHINGTON TREATY OF 22..WHEN ANTICIPATING THE ITALIANS NEXT SHIP(S). .WHEN I WAS A KID ( 8 YOA), THEY BROUGHT BB 60 HOME WHERE IT STILL RESIDES ON THE NORTH END OF MOBILE BAY....FINALLY GOT TO TOUR IT IN NOV 2006........I HAD TEARS IN MY EYES.....LIGHTER 40 K TRUE WEIGHT, SHORTER , 680 FT LONG WITH 16/45 MK VII GUNS (ABOUT 6 FEET SHORTER THAT THE IOWA CLASS) WERE VERY SLIGHTLY LOWER IN VELOCITY..... LIKE SAY....2750 LB SHELLS AT 2300 2700 FEET PER SECOND WITH A RIDICULOUS TERMINAL VELOCITY....OH WELL GUNTER, SUJI ADOLPH UND HIROHITO.......YOU WON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIGGEST SHELL ON THE 7 SEAS EXCEPT FOR THE GIANT 70,000 TON IJN BEHEMOTHS; STILL MORE FULL OF 1920S TECHNOLOGY OR WERE BEFORE THEY WERE "BISMARKED", "GNIESENAUED", "TIRPITZED", OR "SCHARNHORSTED"....( 35 K TONS WITH 11 INCH GUNS IT NOT A POCKET BATTLESHIP..MISTUH CHURCHILL"!!...IT'S A VERY HEAVY CRUISER ON A TOO HEAVY TOO SLOW PLATFORM.....WE HAD CRUISERS THAT FAR OUTCLASSED THESE "POCKET BATTLESHIPS" WITH SPECIAL 12" GUNS THROWING 1200 LB SHELLS DISPLACING 33OOO TONS MAKING 37 KNOTS (40 MPH) ON WATER SAME LENGTH AS THE IOWAS AND 73 FEET ABEAM. THE IOWA'S 16" 56 FOOT BBL AND THE 16' 62 FOOT BARREL OF OF THE IOWAS HIT ASK THE KIROSHIMA, KONGO AND EVEN THE JEAN BART, THE MISGUIDED FRENCH BATTLEWAGON SPANKED ON OUT IN NORTH AFRICA IN 1942..ABOUT HITTING POWER, SECTIONAL DENSITY FLIGHT TIME OF SHELLS AND ....OPPONENTS OF MK VI AND MK VII NAVAL GUNS PROGRAM DIDN'T HANG AROUND VERY LONG.....A FRIEND WAS ON THE ARKANSAS (OLDEST SHIP IN THE USN AFTER THE UTAH WAS SUNK AT PEARL DEC 1941) HE SHOT JAP PLANES DOWN IN SEA BATTLES LIKE MAYBE LEHTI GULF OR PHIILPINE SEA....AN 18 YEAR KID PLUCKED UP FROM THE DUSTY ROADS OF SHELBY COUNTY ALABAMA PLACED INTO THE JAP ZEROS AND OSCARS SHOOTING GALLERY AND DUELING WITH THE GUNS OF POINT DU HOC THAT RAINED SO MUCH DEATH AT NORMADIE TIL BRAVE ALLIED DESTROYERS AND EQUALLY LOW DRAFT CRUISERS PULLED IN PARALLEL TO THE BEACH AND SWEPT THOSE STWGWR 34S AND 42 AND THOSE 88S OFF LIKE A BROOM WITH 4 TO 10 INCH GUNS....WE WON'T SEE THAT LEVEL OF NATIONAL COOPERATION AND UNITY AGAIN...AND WE ALL MISSED IT
I'm a sucker for the two quads forwards arrangement. Even aside from the aggressive pursuit of tonnage efficiency, it gives such wide arcs where all main guns can be brought to bear and I can't help but appreciate the implied elan of a design that can fire all guns in pursuit, even at the cost of not being able to fire any if it's being pursued. I also feel like it gives the most room for modernization for the missile era, as you have the aft deck wide open for such things without compromising the main battery.
An interesting tidbit: Both Nevada and Pennsylvania (Arizona's sister ship) Made real reputations for themselves for gunnery during WWII. Nevada for her incredible accuracy on D Day especially. Nevada also proved to be obnoxiously difficult to sink, lol.
Nevada was the only all or nothing battleship sunk in anything resembling a gun battle, so I wonder if her resilience can be attributed to the armor layout?
For the ultimate in turret farm insanity, I need to find and link that French 1890’s idea for a battleship-sized armored cruiser armed solely with guns of roughly 6” caliber. Over 50 of them.
Love the term turret farm. As Drachinifel says on his channel on naval history: the American navy loves to cover their ships in guns that way each and every sailor from captain to cook, gets the opportunity to exercise their 2nd ammendment rights. I hope you and he get to team up when he comes to visit the US this year.
It is being restored right now. It is being disassembled. All gun turrets have already been removed and sent for repairs. It will eventually be relocated but still remain in Texas.
05:30 - Credit where credit is due - The Austro Hungarians and Russians pioneered the triple turret. 07:39 - Vanguard was a utilisation of existing turrets. The Lions were to have had triples...
The Italians actually started with triple turrets on their first dreadnought type battleship Dante Alighieri and succeeding classes. The Russian designs were based on the Italian ones.
@@admiral_franz_von_hipper5436 Well, that's up for debate. The Italian ship was the first to be built with a triple turret, but the Austro-Hungarian battleship was the first to enter service. So, it really just depends on what you consider to be first, the first made, or the first used.
@@horationelson2440 The Austro-Hungarian design was made in response to the Italian triple turrets, so it was the Italian design that caused AH to mount triple turrets on their battleships. The Austrians may have put the first ship with triple turrets out, but it was the Italians who were the first to implement them.
Ryan describing the 12 x 14" guns. My favorite thing this week. I played it for my wife and she said there is another "me" out there and shook her head.. Awesome job as always.
Love the Texas. I grew up 15 miles from San Jacinto and I've spent many, many hours exploring her. This was in the 1970s and they actually had convicts doing maintenence on her. They were invariably polite and helpful. We'd always slip them some weed as a toke(n) of our appreciation.
One reason that European powers liked the twin turret well into the 1930's particularly for cruisers was hydrodynamic efficiency it allowed you to design a ship that needed less power for a given speed that would still fit into a dock of moderate size an important consideration for countries with limited budgets and still having colonial holdings across the world where ships might need to be docked. For the Japanese it would appear that their main consideration was that they would always be outnumbered by the most likely enemies so a desire for a ship theoretically capable of firing on more than one opponent led to the 6 twin gunhouse arrangement they used in their 14 inch battleships it also gave commonality with the Kongo class battlecruisers
My favorite is the 3 main turrets and the 5 inch gun turrets backing up the main turrets. The Iowa class style. Because I was a battleship sailor on the Big J from 1984 - 1990. Enjoyed the vid. I hope we can make the New Jersey BB-62 the most mentioned battleship over the Mighty Mo one day.
You should take a look at an old Italian battleship. It's called the Andrea Doria. It featured a 3-2-3-2-3 setup in 12" guns so it could bring 13 barrels to its sides. When they remodeled it they dropped the center gun so it was like the Nevada with a 3-2-2-3 setup. Another odd arrangement I like is that of the Pensacola and its 2-3-3-2 of 8" guns or the battleship Kearsarge (BB5) mounting 13" guns in 2 dual turrets then throwing a set of 8" dual turrets ontop of those.
Awesome work! Personally favour the two forward and one aft design-makes for some really sleek looking battleships, from the Iowa and preceding classes of fast BB's, to the legendary Yamato class, and even for the Ferrari-styled Italian BB's.
Most of the ships sunk at Jutland by magazine explosions were not particularly “turret farms”. Indefatigable was A-Q-P-X layout and was struck in the X turret causing flash down into the magazine. Queen Mary was A-B-Q-X and had a similar mechanism as well and the Lion had a similar incident, but was saved by the turret crew. Invincible may have received a direct hit to the magazine or turret trunk. The main magazines that exploded on each ship were X, Q, and Q respectively. Defence and Black Prince were probably the closest to a “turret farm” and both sank by magazine explosion; they were also armoured cruisers, so they did not have good protection against major caliber shells. On the Germans, the pre-dreadnought battleship Pommern sank by magazine explosion, but it was caused by a torpedo. In terms of turret damage, most of the ships that fought in the battlecruiser action suffered the loss of multiple turrets; battleship Warspite with her A-B-X-Y configuration is one of the well-known examples.
As I read, the problem wasn't that they were full of magazine spaces, it was a problem with charge handling. They didn't close the doors as much as they should. Yeah, they got shots off a few seconds faster, but, well, the result is in the books. And the ships are on the bottom. As it were.
@@davidatkinson47 Yup, their charge handling process was the issue, not the abundance of magazine spaces. They actually just kept the magazine and hoist doors open and stored charges in the turret itself.
I heard it was a consequence of where they were stationed. There were not opportunities to practice accurate firing so they were instead drilled to fire more rapidly. Some compromises of safety protocols occurred to increase the rate of fire a bit more.
"Lives in battleship land." When I was a kid- that's where I wanted to live! You are a lucky man and thank you for your great videos- an expert and real enthusiast.
I enjoy watching your channel so much. You are very knowledgeable about battleships. I consider myself very educated when it comes to battleships. However. I'm not anywhere near your level of expertise yet. My first battleship visit was Alabama when I was 9 yrs old. I fell in love with them ever since. I always had a fascination with several of the Tillman class designs. Especially the design that called for 24 16in guns in 4 sextuplet turrents. Or. I know it was never a actually design plan for a German battleship and it's totally fiction. The design scheme for a German battleship with 8 32in guns.
I do love the standard type of US battleships. Certainly the best when it comes to shear volume of fire. Three entire classes would use the 12 gun design with the 4 triple turret layout. The Pennsylvania class is one of my favorite out of the bunch, though that's because I like the aesthetics of the tripod mast over the lattice mast. I also love the look the Modernized Tennessee class. A good combination of old and new design.
Another excellent presentation. For a future consideration, I would like to hear/see what the large housings stop the tripods on the Pearl Harbor era battleships looked like and how they functioned. I haven't been able to find any information/photographs for reference. Thank you in advance.
I'm not sure about interior, what I do know is that each floor on the American ones represent the different weapons aboard ie; 3 story, highest=aa spotter Mid=Main gun spotter Lowest=secondary....
Those two super firing triples foreword and one aft on BB55 are just plain bad ass looking. Loved visiting her, standing foreword looking aft at those beasts up front.
Ryan - Great job in continuing to improve your video making skills. Early videos were pretty tough to watch in my opinion. However, you really did a great job in recent past and this is one of your best. Thank you keep up the good work.
With modern technology, the quad turret I feel could offer a lot of options in ship designs. A modern battleship with the same length as New Jersey and group with little wider beam with 2 quad turrets forward would allow you a lot of space aft to install a couple of Ohio class style VLS silos carrying 200-300 tomahawks or more would allow for a lot of fire power to counteract any of the Russo-Chinese ships as well as provide the opportunity for massive shore bombardment for Marine landings if needed. Pair them with a cheaper smaller carrier with 40 plane attack wing and you have a task force that can project excellent power in emergencies when the bigger carriers aren't immediately available. Cheaper over all than a Ford class carrier that isn't even fully operational in a useful manner.
Another subject you could cover is the switch from the casement mounting of the secondary armament as on the Texas and other 'Standard' US battleships and the RN dreadnaughts up to the Queen Elizabeth class, to turret mounted secondary armament as on the New Jersey.
I think Ryan said in one video how battleships are very photogenic and I think the 4 triple turret design of the Montana Class would have made for a very impressive weapons platform. As a side note the Montanas would have made for an awesome broadside show with 12 16inch guns shot at once!
Another significant consideration is how much simpler twin turrets are. You can just take all the hardware for loading a single gun, and mirror-image it to the other side. A triple turret, on the other hand, has to figure out how to squeeze an entire third gun's worth of hardware in the middle. That gets messy. Even more barrels means major design headaches. Britain's one delve into quadruple turrets was a nightmare of engineering problems and reliability problems. The French quads were actually two twin turrets side-by-side that happened to be mounted on the same rotating platform.
Very interesting. I am amazed at how quickly the technology changed from wooden battleships in the early 1860's to all steel ships of the late 1800's, that is only 30 years or less. Would love to see a presentation on that period of time.
My favorite turret farms are the Ise and Hyuga. 6 twin turrets in 3 superfiring groups. They looked nicely balanced, better than Fuso and Yamashiro. I agree with the American designers. I love the 4-triple ships. Pennsylvania and Arizona after their 1930's refits were gorgeous ships. I built a model of Arizona when I was a kid. Before that I hadn't realized 4-turret ships existed. I thought it made her "better" than the Iowas (give me a break, I was like 12). Too bad the Montanas came too late to be finished.
I like turret farms. In fact the IJN Fuso as it is in World of Warships is my favourite ship of that type. It is just fun to effectively shot gun another ship with that broadside :) Interesting Video with some aspects I didnt know.
Welcome to the USS Texas! I see TD gave you inside tour! Will you do a discussion about how the internal decks are laid out vs NJ and other later BB's? Below second deck its either banging your head or tripping over something, and it gets worse on the platforms! To everyone: She is an old gal and needs LOTS of TLC! Please visit and be generous to maintain this 110 year old lady!
The approach drive to the Texas is quite a unique experience. The body of water that it sits in is very narrow and surrounded by hills. The superstructure becomes visible long before the water does. The ship appears to be completely land locked until you get within yards of the ship. My guess is that its not going to be easy getting into dry dock……
I agree with four 3-gun turrets being the best and I think the Montana layout which was a return to the 12 gun arrangement would've offered the best of everything.
@@algrayson8965 why not put anti-ship missiles on the battleship too? Oh yes they already did. Lol Technically hypersonic missiles are faster than Jets so really a carrier would be dead meat by the same token as a battleship would be but the carrier has much less armor to protect it. Kind of a dumb argument to say that a missile can hit a ship when they can also hit carriers just as easily meaning that carriers would be just as obsolete as battleships and all everyone will ever own are "anti ship"missiles launched from rowboats.
There are pros and cons for both philosophies. The destruction at Jutland was less down to the design of the ships and more to the crews bypassing certain safety protocols in an attempt to increase the rate of fire. I'm glad you mentioned Agincourt though it wasn't exactly unique in that respect (I'm thinking of the Wyomings).
Another problem that the center turret battleships had was that the boilers were forward of the center turret while the engines were aft of that turret, The result was routing the steam lines around the central magazine which cause continuing problems with temperature control in the powder rooms
Dont have any sources but I remember a lot of discussion on various forums regarding turret layouts was dictated by the assumed battle scenario nations would end up in. By the time of the standards the US was shifting its focus on the pacific, where battles would be at longer range due to weather conditions but ships would need to operate longer distances. So the weight saving of concentrating all your guns in less turrets made sense to maximize operational range, and the longer range of combat would allow ships to disengage easier when damaged.
I just found your channel and you remind me so much of my old friend hunter,bro was a nut for warships and old ones at that. I wish I could show him your channel,really interesting as someone who’s favorite ship os the grey ghost also I think Germany was the only one who used 2 guns in a turret with way more firepower than the other twin turrets,they were either 16-18 inches which were huge
I've always liked ten-gun battleships like the Nevada-class and the Italian treaty battleships... It's mostly an aesthetic preference, and it requires production of two separate turret designs instead of focusing on one, but five guns in either direction is a nice balance between odds-over-dispersion and topside weight/number of guns.
Hey Ryan, are you guys going to be there when they move the Texas to drydock? It would make some great videos and not to mention I guess some more experience for when New Jersey's time comes to make a move to drydock for servicing.
I’m partial to the turret layout on Nelson and Rodney. Of the three 1920s battleship classes Nelson and Rodney have the most effective armor scheme, the heaviest broadside and the median speed.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 from wiki. " In calm weather, the Nelson-class ships were very manoeuvreable, but the large surface area of the superstructure gave them a large amount of weather helm and they could be a handful in confined spaces with a strong wind as was demonstrated when Nelson ran aground off Southsea beach in 1934."
@@Frankon81 Well, if asked whose opinion to believe, that of Admiral of the Fleet the Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, or that of wikipedia, forgive me for preferring the former.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 when going full power on the calm see nelson handled super well. The problem was when she was going low speed in bad weather. Her hull was basically working as a large sail.
Great video! Not sure 'bout the "Bismarck is a drednought" though and there in fact were german batttleships that had tripls guns like the Graff Spee and the Sharnchorst (to be fair they were "pocket battleships".Anyways kepp up the great work.
Having war gamed for a few decades as the IJN in the Pacific Theater (because everyone else wanted to be the "good guys" and be America), I'm a bit biased (in favor) of the Japanese ships. Having both the Yamato class battleships out by mid-1942 actually brings balance to things because the U.S. battleships are tougher (overall) than their Japanese counterparts (if not sunk outright at Pearl Harbor) and it takes the superior firepower of those two behemoths to counter them in surface actions when fleets close for it (which happens surprisingly a lot - most of the battles take place with the carriers leading, but a lot of people will seek out a surface action still, which can lead to decisive engagements). I personally love the Kongo-class battleships (they're fast battleships afterall) because of their ability to screen the slower, older ships and the heavier Yamato-class ones. But as for the turrets, it only matters who hits farthest first (i.e. Yamato 😅) and who does the most damage fastest and I've found the U.S. battleships were very tough and annoying opponents and many of the IJN battleships were forced to withdraw early due to them, but the Yamato-class really did some damage to "Battleship Row" (understandable though too) and in my opinion the Japanese had naval superiority in the Pacific until after the Battle of Midway.
Like the profile on the 3x3 IOWAS. No gun fights anymore and they sure worked good in Nam and the Middle East! Did pretty good against the Aliens in "Battleship" also! 😁
I absolutely adore the modern US BB aesthetic. Also here is the Objectively correct BB layout: Raised bow for Improved seakeepeing, superfiring AB triple Turrets, staircase- like superstructure with ridiculously high towers, XYZ triple superfiring triple turrets going from X (same height as B) to Z (a deck below A, lowered aft deck). Firing arcs> number of guns. All Main guns should have good forwards and backwards arcs to a point of obsession, sacrificing secodaries and superstructure if necessary. Main battery caliber should be either ~16" with heavy shells or 18-20" with light/ APDS shells (16" is probably better.) Secondaries go on the superstructure staircase. Lowest level (secondary): ~4 (or however many you can fit) triple ~5" turrets. Dual purpose, long barrels, high velocity. (tough it would be hilarious if you could fit a couple of Salem's autoloading 8" guns on either side instead) above that: (tertiary): 6 30mm gatling cannons (they had the technology) in that dreaded early dreadnought hexagon layout. Again long barrels, high velocity. For Aircraft, speedboats and if computers allow it also shells/missiles. Optionally leave some positions along the bow, stern and sides for .50cals, LMGs, flamethrowers or tear gas launchers to deter the pirates of Somalia or for clearing mines. And maybe have a couple guys with rocket launchers as backup AA if available. Fire control and radar should be a priority and have extra budget and space dedicated to it. Propulsion: Geared steam turbines with auxilary diesel engine/ gas turbines. Pure oil or coal dust hybrid firing. NO nuclear reactors anywhere near my frontline battleship. Speed should be similar to the Iowas but with the increased length, perhaps 35 knots would be doable? Armor: Not all that much. Just blow the enemy up first. Decent armor on citadel/ barbettes. Inward slope on the main belt for improved protection at range. I do see some value in bow/ stern armor, As the firing arcs allow for angling the whole ship in closer range battles, making these the most hit parts but also improving the effectiveness of armor in those areas. Deck armor should be focused on the vital areas, as it can't (shouldn't) be angled. Or just park some artillery or cruise missiles on an old cargo ship and call it a day. No armor is best armor. Or go full Project Wingman, build a pyramid out of 6 quad railgun turrets and call it the eminent domain. Also anyone who dares to propose defiling my mathematically perfect ship with casemates, wing turrets or torpedo launchers gets to go on a blind date with the firing squad. How did I do? Is that thing going to pull a Vasa?
If you ask me, the Arkansas and Agincourt are simply gorgeous. Id take a gun farm any day of the week, not only is it the best looking, its much easier to turn it into a amazing fireworks display!
Not technically a battleship but my favorite turret layout is from the USS Monitor. Nothing but turret above the waterline. If it were redesigned to have the turret sink below the deck when not in use they might have been able to make a stealth ship that can only be seen from above while it's turret is hidden.
I would love to visit the Texas.. since I live in the state next door.... but I'll probly wait until the restoration is complete in 2 years if all goes as planned.. I've even gotten World of Warships (simulator game) to help out in trying to raise funding for it years ago... fun to play when your suck at home..
Well the Gin Palace definitely has the most turrets, although to me the Fusion/Ise classes are the epitome of turret farms with 6 twins in the larger 14" caliber and a decent 12" armour belt as opposed to Agincourt having battle cruiser amounts of armor only a 9" belt like Queen Mary
I like the all heavy guns forward arrangement of the NelRods and Richelieus. All of the heavy guns can fire at the enemy in a Battle of the North Cape style pursuit when Duke of York chased down and sank the Scharnhorst.
The Tennessee class would be my idea of the best American "classic" design. BUT the slow speed of the standards is something I just can't get over. Also the single rudder.
Visited the Texas. Was an 18 y/o in the Philly yards when they brought two Iowa class out of mothballs. Being towed slowly by us, everybody just stopped and watched.
The greatest turret farm afloat, the HMS Agincourt, 7 main gun turrets. It had to be something to watch that ship at Jutland cutting loose. The biggest turret farms in the US, the Wyoming and Arkansas, six main gun turrets.
The 4 3-gun individually firing turrets are what I would prefer. Imagine with the technology we have today what we could design and build??? But we already know there are weapons that would reduce it's survivability to obsolescence before conception ... but to dream ... ..
@@Predator42ID How many Hypersonic missiles or SMART Torpedoes though? There is no unsinkable ship and with the modern weapons platforms today and in the near future putting a 50,000 ton city in the water is problematic at best for cost to benefit alone ... but it would be nice ...
@@Predator42ID A big problem with the battleships is although they'd survive to win a battle they'd still have substantial damage that required them to be returned to drydock to repair. That process can take a long time, potentially longer than the war has left. Better than sinking but not as much as you'd think. Solving that requires a lot more than just making armour thicker and tougher. CIWS helps but not enough. Smaller ships are actually the better solution here. Split the functionality across 5 ships, try to avoid taking any damage, and if 1 gets damage you can drydock just the 1 instead of all 5. Also generally cheaper to have 5 small ships than 1 giant ship.
I recall at one point Ryan covered a room that had been converted into a weight room in the 80’s, did the New Jersey have any dedicated exercise areas in its original design?
A bunch of times you can also hear about a gun jam, having triple guns per turret also helps in that respect. Instead of losing a quarter of your punching power in front or rear aspect engagements, you only lose a sixth
Vanguard had twin turrets because she was built to carry the left-over 15 inch guns removed from the Courageous class when they were converted to aircraft carriers. These guns and turrets had been sitting around since the '20s and, without too much modification, seemed the quickest way to put together a modern battleship . The King George V class carried a mix of 2 quads and a twin, the twin because of weight and ballance issues with 3 quads.
Excellent and fun video. Shouldn't everyone like turret farms? I have read conflicting information why the Bismarck and Tirpitz had double turrets, most sources say weight concerns and another very detailed book on Bismarck claims shell dispersion. Thoughts? I have to say my choice is the quad turret, two front and two in back. This is 2022, we can make that work! Cool, insightful video. Very cool old ship!
This era of ship design is by far my favorite but it is also the funniest. It can pretty much be characterized by every country asking: “How many guns and how much armor can we slap on this floating hulk before it tips over or sinks?”
HMS Agincourt (built for the Turks before they came into WWI on the side of the Kaiser): 7 double 12" turrets. "A Turret for each day of the week," and named in honor of each of the days... Sunday, Monday, etc...
@@pastorjerrykliner3162 I have to point out that she was not built for the turks, she was offered to them while she was already under construction, she was originally brazilian.
@@fernandomarques5166 And was then continued to be built for the Turks ;).
Also, it was not that Turkey joined the Kaiser and therefore GB kept Agincourt but exactly the other way around: GB seized Agincourt, and Turkey was pissed off by this. Plus the Germans, uhm, kindly offered them Goeben, making Turkey join war against the Allies.
not really with the Iowas, they have a massive amount of reserve bouyancy and are very seaworthy.
@@535phobos Well why they were really pissed off, is Britain seized Agincourt and Erin and refused to give them their money back.
Goeben and Breslau were crewed by Germans in the Black Sea and a railway line was also promised as part of the inducement by Germany to side against England.
I think I read that in the book Jutland by Captain Donald Macintyre RN. Macintyre's description for the reasons seem more clear than the nebulous crap about the place these days, though it is possible Macintyre was wrong. Macintyre, I believe, said the two German ships and the railway line were quickly thought up at the time the British refused to give Turkey her money back. The Germans pounced so to speak and came up with a something worth nothing for free scheme to get Turkey to ally with Germany ie a ships crewed by Germans and a railway that was never going to be built.
Germany also later tried this tactic with Mexico with the Zimmerman Telegrams which was a ridiculous and hilarious proposal but Mexico was having none of it because Germany had no capacity to make good on the inducement.
Of course it backfired when the US got wind of the Telegram. Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare (particularly considering the zeitgeist of Lusitania in the US) and her ignoring the Sussex Pledge because the US was supplying ordnance and finance to the allies breaking what Germany considered neutrality, ultimately brought America into WW1. The Zimmerman Telegram was BS and Mexico knew it but it enraged the US. Germany was her own worst enemy.
The Wikipedia entry about the reasons the Ottoman Empire entered WW1 are appalling. All it says is, with some other meaningless crap is, "The reasons for the Ottoman action were not immediately clear."
You can tell Ryan really enjoys his work. In tonight's video he is very animated and excited to be at U.S.S. Texas BB-35. Great to see the younger generations interest in battleships and there preservation.
I was thinking that someone behind the camera was doing something that almost made his laugh.
I would love to volunteer on a British museum ship but I would have no way to get to them at the moment
"Younger generations"
He looks old enough to be my father, and I'm not exactly what you'd consider a small child.
@@jamesharding3459 I would guess Ryan is about 30.
You can look at almost any of his videos and see just how much he enjoys this, it's really amazing
One thing worth mentioning, in early American triple turret design, was that due to blast effect of the close proximity of the barrels, accuracy was affected. Twin turrets were more accurate. Americans started to stagger fire the middle gun in order to correct that. You will notice the later American turrets were wider (North Carolina class onward), this help mitigate this effect and American Battleships became much more accurate.
Or, just do what the 90s Iowa crews did and fire the guns independently in quick succession. Center gun firs, left gun second, third gun last, all within a quarter to half second of each other.
Edit: proofreading
@@edgardox.feliciano3127 Staggering fire had been done in WW2, just not all guns were staggered. As mentioned, they would fire the two outer guns first with a split second delay which then fire the middle gun. The distance between the outboard guns especially on WW2 era 3-gun turrets were quite sufficient. it was always the middle gun that was the problem, so delaying just that worked perfectly fine. Also firing the middle gun last is the most ideal because the blast pressure from the two outboard gun would more or less cancel each other. Where as firing the middle gun would exert pressure onto the outboard guns. So its better to fire outboard before firing middle.
Yeah, in the triple gun turrets each barrel had a delay, so the ballistics of the shells, wouldn't affect one another.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Thank you and Ronald for that explanation!
@hognoxious I've always wished that Battleships would always be in Service. Although, I know it's over for them, but can we at least have the 8" rapid-fire, triple-gun turrets, of the U.S.S. Salem back?!
I'm glad you mentioned HMS Agincourt. In addition to her seven turrets and fourteen guns she enjoyed the wonderful nickname of the Gin Palace. I'll drink to that.
On several occasions Agincourt fired a full broadside at Jutland and was reported blown up, by crewmen on other ships observing her and the battle. Such was the spectacle of all seven turrets fireing together in quick succession. She would then appear out of her own gunsmoke non the worse for wear. Taking into account the rather 'thrown together' crew on board, what a magnificent effort she made during the battle.
@@sirmalus5153 Yes I read that story too. She was said to be very comfortably fitted out as she had been built for the Ottoman Sultan. So when she was instead requisitioned for the Royal Navy life on board was rather more pleasant than on other battleships. If you're going to sea, you should do it in style😁😁.
@@bahoonies Thus the name Gin Palace, the well appointed interior spaces reminding the Tars of a luxurious drinking establishment.
Also, the Turks raised the money to build the Agincourt by getting their civilian population to donate the funds. The Turkish people were so angry when Churchill confiscated her that it helped make up their government's mind to join the Central Powers against England. The Germans replaced the Agincourt by donating the battleship Goeben to the Turks. Churchill later regretted his confiscation order.
My understanding is that she was built for a South American country... Brazil(??) I dont recall exactly which, but it was to be the end-all for the little mini arms race in S America...
@@wheels-n-tires1846 She was originally destined for Brazil, but a warming of relations between Brazil & Argentina, combined with a collapse of the Brazilian rubber boom, led to her being sold to the Ottoman empire before completion. At Jutland, she was the only capital ship in the Grand Fleet not fitted with a Dreyer Fire Control Table.
Absolutely loving the “Road trip” series! Ryan bringing attention to other museums and their history and channels. Keep up the great work!
I am glad to you see you using your voice to help save Texas thanks for all you do!
Imagining the 12 16 inch guns that would have been the Montana's is surely impressive to say the least. Great video, visiting the Texas is definitely on the bucket list.
It would have been the heaviest broadside ever afloat, even eclipsing Yamato.
had they known yamato's true specs, montana would have been 12, 18" guns
@@AsbestosMuffins
I don't know about that as the US believed that their 16in "super heavy" had reached an acceptable plateau and how much heavier 18in guns would have been, especially 12 of them. Montana still needed acceptable speed in the high 20's. To give her the same protection she would have had, 27kts, AND 12 18in guns you're looking at possibly an incredably exspensive 100,000 ton battleship. Not saying it would be impossible but 12 16in guns would have still got the job done with no need to build a new, bigger gun.
naahh imagine the tillman IV-2 with 15 18 inch guns or the tillman IV-1 with 13 m18 inch guns in 4 twins and a triple..
@@chrisbruce5711 Four twins and a triple is only 11 guns, not 13.
In my opinion,the Iowa class was the epitome of the battleship. A good balance of speed and heavy armor,plus the 16 inch.50 cal.
(Or was it .58 cal?) was about as big a shell as was efficient. The 18's on the Yamato were heavier but didn't really have much more range and wore out barrels faster than the 16's.
This is all info dredged up from my slightly stroke damaged memory from books I read 30+ years ago. So if I misremembered,please don't rip my ass!
Love this channel!
It's surprising to learn Yamato and Musashi were around long enough to wear out their barrels. How many rounds fired represent the design life of very large bore naval artillery?
I think it was more the fact they didn't have the high quality steel for the barrel liners more than firing a huge number of shells.
Half the time the Yamato didn't have even a half load out of powder for her guns!
Funny you consider the Iowas to be the epitome of battleships, when realistically they fall more into the battlecruiser design definition.
Thank you again Battleship New Jersey and Ryan Szimanski for covering our local Battleship Texas!
I'm amazed that you didn't mention the ultimate turret farm, HMS Agincourt. It had seven turrets, including both a superfiring pair at the bow, and a triplet at the stern just so it can cram in as many 12-inch guns as possible.
In fairness Vanguard got twin 15" turrets as they had them in stock and Lion's triple 16" turrets were being troublesome to develop
Also the 15-in 42 caliber was arguably one of the best guns of the period so it's still competitive with the latest and greatest in all but range because it was just that good of a gun.
@@the_undead I’m not a expert but shouldn’t the 16” 50 cal of the Iowa be much better or is it inbetween the older 16” guns and the Iowa’s
@@trentbyington5957 we're talking about British guns not American. The 15-in 42 could not hold a candle to the 16-in 50 but then again the 16-in 50 was arguably the second best battleship gun ever deployed. As far as what I can tell about the British 16 inch gun it would have been better than the 15 in 42 but not better by enough to where it's like if we don't have it then these ships just aren't worth putting into service but it would have been a noticeable increase in firepower
@@trentbyington5957As Ryan has observed on occasion, accuracy at extreme ranges was problematic because the target could compound the issue during the flight of the shells. Example, the USS Edsel evading gunfire before being slowed by carrier aircraft. The record of the longest hit on another battleship belongs to the 15" 42.
Though the issue with the Lion classes armaments was with the 16 inch guns themselves, not the triple turret design.
I was picturing turrets roaming the countryside, and large ranches where they're rounded up and put onto battleships. Did you see Cher's video clip of a Battleship rodeo?
I think this would be a Turret Ranch. I was thinking turrets in neat rows, sprouting from well tilled earth.
@@nikolatasev4948 And right next to it some old farmer set in his ways growing massive Armstrong cannons. These were 103 ton cannon capable of firing a 1 ton projectile at 472m/s. 1877 technology with black powder. Muttering 6km range was enough back in my day.
Amazing how much gun technology progressed over such a relatively short history of massive naval guns.
@@nikolatasev4948 Maybe orchards of turret trees.
I used to view Sonny and Cher on the television when I was a youth.
My favorite style of battleship are the good ol' Nelsol and Rodnol. There's an elegance to their function-over-form design and they managed to do quite a lot with many factors working against them.
I love this story of Rodney giving scharnhorst (I think) a good scare when scharnhorst was capturing a merchant ship or it was doing something with a merchant should I forget exactly what, and based off reports Rodney knew this and decided just come charging over the Horizon at top speed and very nearly got into gun range if not actually popped a couple shells off but missed before scharnhorst could GTFO
@@the_undead I've never heard that before! That's awesome!
@@SamwiseOutdoors it may have been Nelson but given all of the amazing stuff that Rodney did it was most likely Rodney. Especially considering the fact that on several occasions Rodney mysteriously exceeded her maximum rated top speed
@@the_undead Rodney was kind of magic in a weird way. She had so many close calls, and saw newer and more modern ships get sunk while pulling through unscathed. What a career.
I think it was Rodney that was doing shore bombardment for the Normandy landings. Someone called in an artillery strike on a shallow part of a river to prevent a German armor column from crossing, so Rodney lobbed a 16" shell on location and again after a while and again for hours.
Would you want to cross a location after just seeing 1 ton shell explode there?
I also love the 3-gun American standard battleship design. It's probably because I had so much exposure to those as a kid before I really learned much about other nations' battleships, but 2-gun turrets just... feel like something is missing.
The 3 gun turrets are cool, but I am starting to like the 2 gun turrets more.
Yeah, they're missing a gun! 🤣
(I had to do point out the obvious before someone made a snide comment, a two gun turret is one gun short of a three gun turret)
Symmetry...
Agreed. The only two gun battleship I like is his majesty the Bismarck and his sister the Tripitz if that’s how you spell it. I think those were the class before the H44 concept came around
I dunno, the twins on the Colorados look pretty impressive - mostly because of their length relative to the ship's beam.
To me the triple turrets on the US ships was a good trade-off between weight savings and redundancy in-case of battle damage. I thought the French went a interesting route with their Quad turrets by putting the steel divider down the middle to give increased survivability.
The barrels on the Jean Bart and Richelieu were where also twin linked , sharing a common trunion. Two barrels would elevate and depress together. This was an effective solution to the mechanical problems arising from a more complex design that would have allowed each barrel to elevate and depress independently.
@@drewburt4315 so, in other words, it's a twin turret that has an upgrade to fire double shots.
THE BIGGEST FRENCH BATTLEWAGON(S) ENDED UP AT ABOUT 47,000 TONS WITH 15" GUNS....THEY SEEMED TO REALLY TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE WASHINGTON TREATY OF 22..WHEN ANTICIPATING THE ITALIANS NEXT SHIP(S). .WHEN I WAS A KID ( 8 YOA), THEY BROUGHT BB 60 HOME WHERE IT STILL RESIDES ON THE NORTH END OF MOBILE BAY....FINALLY GOT TO TOUR IT IN NOV 2006........I HAD TEARS IN MY EYES.....LIGHTER 40 K TRUE WEIGHT, SHORTER , 680 FT LONG WITH 16/45 MK VII GUNS (ABOUT 6 FEET SHORTER THAT THE IOWA CLASS) WERE VERY SLIGHTLY LOWER IN VELOCITY..... LIKE SAY....2750 LB SHELLS AT 2300 2700 FEET PER SECOND WITH A RIDICULOUS TERMINAL VELOCITY....OH WELL GUNTER, SUJI ADOLPH UND HIROHITO.......YOU WON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIGGEST SHELL ON THE 7 SEAS EXCEPT FOR THE GIANT 70,000 TON IJN BEHEMOTHS; STILL MORE FULL OF 1920S TECHNOLOGY OR WERE BEFORE THEY WERE "BISMARKED", "GNIESENAUED", "TIRPITZED", OR "SCHARNHORSTED"....( 35 K TONS WITH 11 INCH GUNS IT NOT A POCKET BATTLESHIP..MISTUH CHURCHILL"!!...IT'S A VERY HEAVY CRUISER ON A TOO HEAVY TOO SLOW PLATFORM.....WE HAD CRUISERS THAT FAR OUTCLASSED THESE "POCKET BATTLESHIPS" WITH SPECIAL 12" GUNS THROWING 1200 LB SHELLS DISPLACING 33OOO TONS MAKING 37 KNOTS (40 MPH) ON WATER SAME LENGTH AS THE IOWAS AND 73 FEET ABEAM.
THE IOWA'S 16" 56 FOOT BBL AND THE 16' 62 FOOT BARREL OF OF THE IOWAS HIT ASK THE KIROSHIMA, KONGO AND EVEN THE JEAN BART, THE MISGUIDED FRENCH BATTLEWAGON SPANKED ON OUT IN NORTH AFRICA IN 1942..ABOUT HITTING POWER, SECTIONAL DENSITY FLIGHT TIME OF SHELLS AND ....OPPONENTS OF MK VI AND MK VII NAVAL GUNS PROGRAM DIDN'T HANG AROUND VERY LONG.....A FRIEND WAS ON THE ARKANSAS (OLDEST SHIP IN THE USN AFTER THE UTAH WAS SUNK AT PEARL DEC 1941) HE SHOT JAP PLANES DOWN IN SEA BATTLES LIKE MAYBE LEHTI GULF OR PHIILPINE SEA....AN 18 YEAR KID PLUCKED UP FROM THE DUSTY ROADS OF SHELBY COUNTY ALABAMA PLACED INTO THE JAP ZEROS AND OSCARS SHOOTING GALLERY AND DUELING WITH THE GUNS OF POINT DU HOC THAT RAINED SO MUCH DEATH AT NORMADIE TIL BRAVE ALLIED DESTROYERS AND EQUALLY LOW DRAFT CRUISERS PULLED IN PARALLEL TO THE BEACH AND SWEPT THOSE STWGWR 34S AND 42 AND THOSE 88S OFF LIKE A BROOM WITH 4 TO 10 INCH GUNS....WE WON'T SEE THAT LEVEL OF NATIONAL COOPERATION AND UNITY AGAIN...AND WE ALL MISSED IT
@@millardfillmore1331 why is everything in CAPS.
@@funkycat9629 THE BIGGEST FRENCH BATTLEWAGON(S) ENDED UP AT ABOUT 47,000 TONS WITH 15" GUNS....THEY SEEMED TO REALLY TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE WASHINGTON TREATY OF 22..WHEN ANTICIPATING THE ITALIANS NEXT SHIP(S). .WHEN I WAS A KID ( 8 YOA), THEY BROUGHT BB 60 HOME WHERE IT STILL RESIDES ON THE NORTH END OF MOBILE BAY....FINALLY GOT TO TOUR IT IN NOV 2006........I HAD TEARS IN MY EYES.....LIGHTER 40 K TRUE WEIGHT, SHORTER , 680 FT LONG WITH 16/45 MK VII GUNS (ABOUT 6 FEET SHORTER THAT THE IOWA CLASS) WERE VERY SLIGHTLY LOWER IN VELOCITY..... LIKE SAY....2750 LB SHELLS AT 2300 2700 FEET PER SECOND WITH A RIDICULOUS TERMINAL VELOCITY....OH WELL GUNTER, SUJI ADOLPH UND HIROHITO.......YOU WON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIGGEST SHELL ON THE 7 SEAS EXCEPT FOR THE GIANT 70,000 TON IJN BEHEMOTHS; STILL MORE FULL OF 1920S TECHNOLOGY OR WERE BEFORE THEY WERE "BISMARKED", "GNIESENAUED", "TIRPITZED", OR "SCHARNHORSTED"....( 35 K TONS WITH 11 INCH GUNS IT NOT A POCKET BATTLESHIP..MISTUH CHURCHILL"!!...IT'S A VERY HEAVY CRUISER ON A TOO HEAVY TOO SLOW PLATFORM.....WE HAD CRUISERS THAT FAR OUTCLASSED THESE "POCKET BATTLESHIPS" WITH SPECIAL 12" GUNS THROWING 1200 LB SHELLS DISPLACING 33OOO TONS MAKING 37 KNOTS (40 MPH) ON WATER SAME LENGTH AS THE IOWAS AND 73 FEET ABEAM.
THE IOWA'S 16" 56 FOOT BBL AND THE 16' 62 FOOT BARREL OF OF THE IOWAS HIT ASK THE KIROSHIMA, KONGO AND EVEN THE JEAN BART, THE MISGUIDED FRENCH BATTLEWAGON SPANKED ON OUT IN NORTH AFRICA IN 1942..ABOUT HITTING POWER, SECTIONAL DENSITY FLIGHT TIME OF SHELLS AND ....OPPONENTS OF MK VI AND MK VII NAVAL GUNS PROGRAM DIDN'T HANG AROUND VERY LONG.....A FRIEND WAS ON THE ARKANSAS (OLDEST SHIP IN THE USN AFTER THE UTAH WAS SUNK AT PEARL DEC 1941) HE SHOT JAP PLANES DOWN IN SEA BATTLES LIKE MAYBE LEHTI GULF OR PHIILPINE SEA....AN 18 YEAR KID PLUCKED UP FROM THE DUSTY ROADS OF SHELBY COUNTY ALABAMA PLACED INTO THE JAP ZEROS AND OSCARS SHOOTING GALLERY AND DUELING WITH THE GUNS OF POINT DU HOC THAT RAINED SO MUCH DEATH AT NORMADIE TIL BRAVE ALLIED DESTROYERS AND EQUALLY LOW DRAFT CRUISERS PULLED IN PARALLEL TO THE BEACH AND SWEPT THOSE STWGWR 34S AND 42 AND THOSE 88S OFF LIKE A BROOM WITH 4 TO 10 INCH GUNS....WE WON'T SEE THAT LEVEL OF NATIONAL COOPERATION AND UNITY AGAIN...AND WE ALL MISSED IT
Thank you Ryan for displaying our beautiful old ship. Because of you New Jersey is now tops on my list to visit. I would love to meet you.
A turret farm is my favorite type of farm
Modern VLS systems really do turn them into something more like missile gardens
I love the BNJ channel! You do a wonderful job explaining clearly all about this insanely complex ship!
I was born and raised really close to the U.S.S. Texas and visited a couple times. Would love to see her preserved for many future generations.
I'm a sucker for the two quads forwards arrangement. Even aside from the aggressive pursuit of tonnage efficiency, it gives such wide arcs where all main guns can be brought to bear and I can't help but appreciate the implied elan of a design that can fire all guns in pursuit, even at the cost of not being able to fire any if it's being pursued.
I also feel like it gives the most room for modernization for the missile era, as you have the aft deck wide open for such things without compromising the main battery.
An interesting tidbit: Both Nevada and Pennsylvania (Arizona's sister ship) Made real reputations for themselves for gunnery during WWII. Nevada for her incredible accuracy on D Day especially.
Nevada also proved to be obnoxiously difficult to sink, lol.
As in the thing was too stubborn to sink after multiple attempts?
Nevada was the only all or nothing battleship sunk in anything resembling a gun battle, so I wonder if her resilience can be attributed to the armor layout?
Was Nevada one of the ones they nuked....and didn't sink?
@@cp1cupcake Twice!
@@cp1cupcake Yep.
For the ultimate in turret farm insanity, I need to find and link that French 1890’s idea for a battleship-sized armored cruiser armed solely with guns of roughly 6” caliber.
Over 50 of them.
Oh man, I wanna see that.
Please fine it I wanna see that
...were the guns positioned as broadside...? 😉
Sounds like something I'd do playing Sword of the Stars, and here the French are doing it in real life
Have you found it yet?
Love the term turret farm.
As Drachinifel says on his channel on naval history: the American navy loves to cover their ships in guns that way each and every sailor from captain to cook, gets the opportunity to exercise their 2nd ammendment rights.
I hope you and he get to team up when he comes to visit the US this year.
Battleship Texas is a gem,and she should be preserved! The only remaining battleship that could shoot torpedoes!😳 ! Thank You for your work!👍
Headed to dry dock later this year thankfully!
@@snakeshift9172 They finally got that all worked out? That's great to hear. Hopefully it doesn't take too long to open it up to the public.
Mikasa could fire torpedos too.
Texas' torpedo capability was removed in 1925.
It is being restored right now. It is being disassembled. All gun turrets have already been removed and sent for repairs. It will eventually be relocated but still remain in Texas.
I was a ham radio operator at one time and they had antenna farms. Very informative, thank you Ryan. I would love to have seen the Montana class.
05:30 - Credit where credit is due - The Austro Hungarians and Russians pioneered the triple turret.
07:39 - Vanguard was a utilisation of existing turrets. The Lions were to have had triples...
The Italians actually started with triple turrets on their first dreadnought type battleship Dante Alighieri and succeeding classes. The Russian designs were based on the Italian ones.
@@admiral_franz_von_hipper5436- My oversight. Thank you.
@@admiral_franz_von_hipper5436 Well, that's up for debate. The Italian ship was the first to be built with a triple turret, but the Austro-Hungarian battleship was the first to enter service. So, it really just depends on what you consider to be first, the first made, or the first used.
@@horationelson2440 The Austro-Hungarian design was made in response to the Italian triple turrets, so it was the Italian design that caused AH to mount triple turrets on their battleships. The Austrians may have put the first ship with triple turrets out, but it was the Italians who were the first to implement them.
Ryan describing the 12 x 14" guns. My favorite thing this week. I played it for my wife and she said there is another "me" out there and shook her head.. Awesome job as always.
There's something kind of nostalgic about twin turrets. 15", 14", still formidable and aesthetically pleasing as well.
Love the Texas. I grew up 15 miles from San Jacinto and I've spent many, many hours exploring her. This was in the 1970s and they actually had convicts doing maintenence on her. They were invariably polite and helpful. We'd always slip them some weed as a toke(n) of our appreciation.
One reason that European powers liked the twin turret well into the 1930's particularly for cruisers was hydrodynamic efficiency it allowed you to design a ship that needed less power for a given speed that would still fit into a dock of moderate size an important consideration for countries with limited budgets and still having colonial holdings across the world where ships might need to be docked. For the Japanese it would appear that their main consideration was that they would always be outnumbered by the most likely enemies so a desire for a ship theoretically capable of firing on more than one opponent led to the 6 twin gunhouse arrangement they used in their 14 inch battleships it also gave commonality with the Kongo class battlecruisers
My favorite is the 3 main turrets and the 5 inch gun turrets backing up the main turrets. The Iowa class style. Because I was a battleship sailor on the Big J from 1984 - 1990. Enjoyed the vid. I hope we can make the New Jersey BB-62 the most mentioned battleship over the Mighty Mo one day.
Thank you Ryan for promoting the Battle Ship Texas
You should take a look at an old Italian battleship. It's called the Andrea Doria. It featured a 3-2-3-2-3 setup in 12" guns so it could bring 13 barrels to its sides. When they remodeled it they dropped the center gun so it was like the Nevada with a 3-2-2-3 setup. Another odd arrangement I like is that of the Pensacola and its 2-3-3-2 of 8" guns or the battleship Kearsarge (BB5) mounting 13" guns in 2 dual turrets then throwing a set of 8" dual turrets ontop of those.
Awesome work! Personally favour the two forward and one aft design-makes for some really sleek looking battleships, from the Iowa and preceding classes of fast BB's, to the legendary Yamato class, and even for the Ferrari-styled Italian BB's.
I love these videos! I have an old battleship book that lists a lot of this info.
Thank you so much Ryan & team for the cross-promotion of this truly unique ship!
Love your work sir, and staff!
Good job on this! You put a lot of interesting info into a relatively short length presentation.
Most of the ships sunk at Jutland by magazine explosions were not particularly “turret farms”. Indefatigable was A-Q-P-X layout and was struck in the X turret causing flash down into the magazine. Queen Mary was A-B-Q-X and had a similar mechanism as well and the Lion had a similar incident, but was saved by the turret crew. Invincible may have received a direct hit to the magazine or turret trunk. The main magazines that exploded on each ship were X, Q, and Q respectively. Defence and Black Prince were probably the closest to a “turret farm” and both sank by magazine explosion; they were also armoured cruisers, so they did not have good protection against major caliber shells. On the Germans, the pre-dreadnought battleship Pommern sank by magazine explosion, but it was caused by a torpedo.
In terms of turret damage, most of the ships that fought in the battlecruiser action suffered the loss of multiple turrets; battleship Warspite with her A-B-X-Y configuration is one of the well-known examples.
As I read, the problem wasn't that they were full of magazine spaces, it was a problem with charge handling. They didn't close the doors as much as they should. Yeah, they got shots off a few seconds faster, but, well, the result is in the books. And the ships are on the bottom. As it were.
@@davidatkinson47 Yup, their charge handling process was the issue, not the abundance of magazine spaces. They actually just kept the magazine and hoist doors open and stored charges in the turret itself.
I heard it was a consequence of where they were stationed. There were not opportunities to practice accurate firing so they were instead drilled to fire more rapidly. Some compromises of safety protocols occurred to increase the rate of fire a bit more.
Fortunately, HMS New Zealand had supernatural protection.
"Lives in battleship land." When I was a kid- that's where I wanted to live! You are a lucky man and thank you for your great videos- an expert and real enthusiast.
When you talk about turret farm, the ships that come to mind for me are Cruiser Light Anti Air, the Atlantas for short.
Thank you for the good videos and preserving history
The only thing better than a turret is more turrets.
Use gun. And when that don't work, use more gun
Exactly! More is more…
I enjoy watching your channel so much. You are very knowledgeable about battleships. I consider myself very educated when it comes to battleships. However. I'm not anywhere near your level of expertise yet. My first battleship visit was Alabama when I was 9 yrs old. I fell in love with them ever since. I always had a fascination with several of the Tillman class designs. Especially the design that called for 24 16in guns in 4 sextuplet turrents. Or. I know it was never a actually design plan for a German battleship and it's totally fiction. The design scheme for a German battleship with 8 32in guns.
I do love the standard type of US battleships. Certainly the best when it comes to shear volume of fire. Three entire classes would use the 12 gun design with the 4 triple turret layout. The Pennsylvania class is one of my favorite out of the bunch, though that's because I like the aesthetics of the tripod mast over the lattice mast. I also love the look the Modernized Tennessee class. A good combination of old and new design.
This is my philosophy 90% of the time in Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts
Another excellent presentation. For a future consideration, I would like to hear/see what the large housings stop the tripods on the Pearl Harbor era battleships looked like and how they functioned. I haven't been able to find any information/photographs for reference. Thank you in advance.
I'm not sure about interior, what I do know is that each floor on the American ones represent the different weapons aboard ie; 3 story, highest=aa spotter
Mid=Main gun spotter
Lowest=secondary....
Thanks for everything you do
Those two super firing triples foreword and one aft on BB55 are just plain bad ass looking. Loved visiting her, standing foreword looking aft at those beasts up front.
Ryan - Great job in continuing to improve your video making skills. Early videos were pretty tough to watch in my opinion. However, you really did a great job in recent past and this is one of your best. Thank you keep up the good work.
With modern technology, the quad turret I feel could offer a lot of options in ship designs. A modern battleship with the same length as New Jersey and group with little wider beam with 2 quad turrets forward would allow you a lot of space aft to install a couple of Ohio class style VLS silos carrying 200-300 tomahawks or more would allow for a lot of fire power to counteract any of the Russo-Chinese ships as well as provide the opportunity for massive shore bombardment for Marine landings if needed. Pair them with a cheaper smaller carrier with 40 plane attack wing and you have a task force that can project excellent power in emergencies when the bigger carriers aren't immediately available. Cheaper over all than a Ford class carrier that isn't even fully operational in a useful manner.
We were going to build them bigger. Even dig a bigger canal for those bigger ones. But, uhh, are you French?
Saw the Texas a few years ago...amazing stuff
Another subject you could cover is the switch from the casement mounting of the secondary armament as on the Texas and other 'Standard' US battleships and the RN dreadnaughts up to the Queen Elizabeth class, to turret mounted secondary armament as on the New Jersey.
Very interesting. A lot goes into it, I had know idea. Thank You.
I think Ryan said in one video how battleships are very photogenic and I think the 4 triple turret design of the Montana Class would have made for a very impressive weapons platform. As a side note the Montanas would have made for an awesome broadside show with 12 16inch guns shot at once!
Another significant consideration is how much simpler twin turrets are. You can just take all the hardware for loading a single gun, and mirror-image it to the other side. A triple turret, on the other hand, has to figure out how to squeeze an entire third gun's worth of hardware in the middle. That gets messy. Even more barrels means major design headaches. Britain's one delve into quadruple turrets was a nightmare of engineering problems and reliability problems. The French quads were actually two twin turrets side-by-side that happened to be mounted on the same rotating platform.
Very interesting. I am amazed at how quickly the technology changed from wooden battleships in the early 1860's to all steel ships of the late 1800's, that is only 30 years or less. Would love to see a presentation on that period of time.
For me, I think my favorite layout is HMS Agincourt's. There's just something about 7 twin twelve inchers that speaks to me.
It's also my favorite, but that wording in your comment may be a bit compromising.
My favorite turret farms are the Ise and Hyuga. 6 twin turrets in 3 superfiring groups. They looked nicely balanced, better than Fuso and Yamashiro.
I agree with the American designers. I love the 4-triple ships. Pennsylvania and Arizona after their 1930's refits were gorgeous ships. I built a model of Arizona when I was a kid. Before that I hadn't realized 4-turret ships existed. I thought it made her "better" than the Iowas (give me a break, I was like 12). Too bad the Montanas came too late to be finished.
Nice to see him support the USS Texas foundation!
I like turret farms. In fact the IJN Fuso as it is in World of Warships is my favourite ship of that type. It is just fun to effectively shot gun another ship with that broadside :)
Interesting Video with some aspects I didnt know.
Welcome to the USS Texas! I see TD gave you inside tour! Will you do a discussion about how the internal decks are laid out vs NJ and other later BB's? Below second deck its either banging your head or tripping over something, and it gets worse on the platforms!
To everyone: She is an old gal and needs LOTS of TLC! Please visit and be generous to maintain this 110 year old lady!
excellent presentation !!!!
Battleship Land sounds like a really awesome place to live.
I think the 3 (or four) triple turrets of American design was the most efficient. Thanks for another great video Ryan!
The approach drive to the Texas is quite a unique experience. The body of water that it sits in is very narrow and surrounded by hills. The superstructure becomes visible long before the water does. The ship appears to be completely land locked until you get within yards of the ship. My guess is that its not going to be easy getting into dry dock……
Texas is my favorite. Love the turret farm
I agree with four 3-gun turrets being the best and I think the Montana layout which was a return to the 12 gun arrangement would've offered the best of everything.
16” gun range ≈ 23 miles. Antiship missile range ≈ 300 miles.
@@algrayson8965 why not put anti-ship missiles on the battleship too? Oh yes they already did. Lol Technically hypersonic missiles are faster than Jets so really a carrier would be dead meat by the same token as a battleship would be but the carrier has much less armor to protect it. Kind of a dumb argument to say that a missile can hit a ship when they can also hit carriers just as easily meaning that carriers would be just as obsolete as battleships and all everyone will ever own are "anti ship"missiles launched from rowboats.
I think the Montana class turret layout is superb and the best use of the armament.
There are pros and cons for both philosophies. The destruction at Jutland was less down to the design of the ships and more to the crews bypassing certain safety protocols in an attempt to increase the rate of fire. I'm glad you mentioned Agincourt though it wasn't exactly unique in that respect (I'm thinking of the Wyomings).
Great video from the battleship.
Another problem that the center turret battleships had was that the boilers were forward of the center turret while the engines were aft of that turret, The result was routing the steam lines around the central magazine which cause continuing problems with temperature control in the powder rooms
Great video!
I'd like to see you do a similar one on Dewey's flagship Olympia.
Dont have any sources but I remember a lot of discussion on various forums regarding turret layouts was dictated by the assumed battle scenario nations would end up in. By the time of the standards the US was shifting its focus on the pacific, where battles would be at longer range due to weather conditions but ships would need to operate longer distances. So the weight saving of concentrating all your guns in less turrets made sense to maximize operational range, and the longer range of combat would allow ships to disengage easier when damaged.
I just found your channel and you remind me so much of my old friend hunter,bro was a nut for warships and old ones at that. I wish I could show him your channel,really interesting as someone who’s favorite ship os the grey ghost also I think Germany was the only one who used 2 guns in a turret with way more firepower than the other twin turrets,they were either 16-18 inches which were huge
Tirpitz and Bismarck mounted 8 15" guns in four turrets which was quite common in WWII.
I've always liked ten-gun battleships like the Nevada-class and the Italian treaty battleships... It's mostly an aesthetic preference, and it requires production of two separate turret designs instead of focusing on one, but five guns in either direction is a nice balance between odds-over-dispersion and topside weight/number of guns.
great presentation
Hey Ryan, are you guys going to be there when they move the Texas to drydock? It would make some great videos and not to mention I guess some more experience for when New Jersey's time comes to make a move to drydock for servicing.
I’m partial to the turret layout on Nelson and Rodney. Of the three 1920s battleship classes Nelson and Rodney have the most effective armor scheme, the heaviest broadside and the median speed.
Didnt Nelson's had problems with handling in rough seas?
@@Frankon81 Not according to one of her early captains, a certain Andrew Cunningham, who said that she handled as well, if not better, than a QE.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 from wiki. " In calm weather, the Nelson-class ships were very manoeuvreable, but the large surface area of the superstructure gave them a large amount of weather helm and they could be a handful in confined spaces with a strong wind as was demonstrated when Nelson ran aground off Southsea beach in 1934."
@@Frankon81 Well, if asked whose opinion to believe, that of Admiral of the Fleet the Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, or that of wikipedia, forgive me for preferring the former.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 when going full power on the calm see nelson handled super well. The problem was when she was going low speed in bad weather. Her hull was basically working as a large sail.
Great video! Not sure 'bout the "Bismarck is a drednought" though and there in fact were german batttleships that had tripls guns like the Graff Spee and the Sharnchorst (to be fair they were "pocket battleships".Anyways kepp up the great work.
Having war gamed for a few decades as the IJN in the Pacific Theater (because everyone else wanted to be the "good guys" and be America), I'm a bit biased (in favor) of the Japanese ships. Having both the Yamato class battleships out by mid-1942 actually brings balance to things because the U.S. battleships are tougher (overall) than their Japanese counterparts (if not sunk outright at Pearl Harbor) and it takes the superior firepower of those two behemoths to counter them in surface actions when fleets close for it (which happens surprisingly a lot - most of the battles take place with the carriers leading, but a lot of people will seek out a surface action still, which can lead to decisive engagements). I personally love the Kongo-class battleships (they're fast battleships afterall) because of their ability to screen the slower, older ships and the heavier Yamato-class ones.
But as for the turrets, it only matters who hits farthest first (i.e. Yamato 😅) and who does the most damage fastest and I've found the U.S. battleships were very tough and annoying opponents and many of the IJN battleships were forced to withdraw early due to them, but the Yamato-class really did some damage to "Battleship Row" (understandable though too) and in my opinion the Japanese had naval superiority in the Pacific until after the Battle of Midway.
Like the profile on the 3x3 IOWAS. No gun fights anymore and they sure worked good in Nam and the Middle East! Did pretty good against the Aliens in "Battleship" also! 😁
I absolutely adore the modern US BB aesthetic. Also here is the Objectively correct BB layout:
Raised bow for Improved seakeepeing, superfiring AB triple Turrets, staircase- like superstructure with ridiculously high towers, XYZ triple superfiring triple turrets going from X (same height as B) to Z (a deck below A, lowered aft deck). Firing arcs> number of guns. All Main guns should have good forwards and backwards arcs to a point of obsession, sacrificing secodaries and superstructure if necessary. Main battery caliber should be either ~16" with heavy shells or 18-20" with light/ APDS shells (16" is probably better.)
Secondaries go on the superstructure staircase.
Lowest level (secondary): ~4 (or however many you can fit) triple ~5" turrets. Dual purpose, long barrels, high velocity. (tough it would be hilarious if you could fit a couple of Salem's autoloading 8" guns on either side instead)
above that: (tertiary): 6 30mm gatling cannons (they had the technology) in that dreaded early dreadnought hexagon layout. Again long barrels, high velocity. For Aircraft, speedboats and if computers allow it also shells/missiles.
Optionally leave some positions along the bow, stern and sides for .50cals, LMGs, flamethrowers or tear gas launchers to deter the pirates of Somalia or for clearing mines. And maybe have a couple guys with rocket launchers as backup AA if available.
Fire control and radar should be a priority and have extra budget and space dedicated to it.
Propulsion:
Geared steam turbines with auxilary diesel engine/ gas turbines. Pure oil or coal dust hybrid firing. NO nuclear reactors anywhere near my frontline battleship. Speed should be similar to the Iowas but with the increased length, perhaps 35 knots would be doable?
Armor:
Not all that much. Just blow the enemy up first. Decent armor on citadel/ barbettes. Inward slope on the main belt for improved protection at range. I do see some value in bow/ stern armor, As the firing arcs allow for angling the whole ship in closer range battles, making these the most hit parts but also improving the effectiveness of armor in those areas. Deck armor should be focused on the vital areas, as it can't (shouldn't) be angled.
Or just park some artillery or cruise missiles on an old cargo ship and call it a day. No armor is best armor.
Or go full Project Wingman, build a pyramid out of 6 quad railgun turrets and call it the eminent domain.
Also anyone who dares to propose defiling my mathematically perfect ship with casemates, wing turrets or torpedo launchers gets to go on a blind date with the firing squad.
How did I do? Is that thing going to pull a Vasa?
If you ask me, the Arkansas and Agincourt are simply gorgeous. Id take a gun farm any day of the week, not only is it the best looking, its much easier to turn it into a amazing fireworks display!
Not technically a battleship but my favorite turret layout is from the USS Monitor. Nothing but turret above the waterline.
If it were redesigned to have the turret sink below the deck when not in use they might have been able to make a stealth ship that can only be seen from above while it's turret is hidden.
I would love to visit the Texas.. since I live in the state next door.... but I'll probly wait until the restoration is complete in 2 years if all goes as planned.. I've even gotten World of Warships (simulator game) to help out in trying to raise funding for it years ago... fun to play when your suck at home..
It’s fascinating to me that the Navy is experimenting again with the sort of turbo-electric drives they used in some of the standard types.
I think we all know that HMS Agincourt deserves to be called the true 'Turret Farm'.
Well the Gin Palace definitely has the most turrets, although to me the Fusion/Ise classes are the epitome of turret farms with 6 twins in the larger 14" caliber and a decent 12" armour belt as opposed to Agincourt having battle cruiser amounts of armor only a 9" belt like Queen Mary
Turret Calendar.
I like the all heavy guns forward arrangement of the NelRods and Richelieus. All of the heavy guns can fire at the enemy in a Battle of the North Cape style pursuit when Duke of York chased down and sank the Scharnhorst.
The Tennessee class would be my idea of the best American "classic" design. BUT the slow speed of the standards is something I just can't get over. Also the single rudder.
Visited the Texas. Was an 18 y/o in the Philly yards when they brought two Iowa class out of mothballs. Being towed slowly by us, everybody just stopped and watched.
The greatest turret farm afloat, the HMS Agincourt, 7 main gun turrets. It had to be something to watch that ship at Jutland cutting loose. The biggest turret farms in the US, the Wyoming and Arkansas, six main gun turrets.
The 4 3-gun individually firing turrets are what I would prefer. Imagine with the technology we have today what we could design and build??? But we already know there are weapons that would reduce it's survivability to obsolescence before conception ... but to dream ... ..
@@Predator42ID How many Hypersonic missiles or SMART Torpedoes though? There is no unsinkable ship and with the modern weapons platforms today and in the near future putting a 50,000 ton city in the water is problematic at best for cost to benefit alone ... but it would be nice ...
@@Predator42ID A big problem with the battleships is although they'd survive to win a battle they'd still have substantial damage that required them to be returned to drydock to repair. That process can take a long time, potentially longer than the war has left. Better than sinking but not as much as you'd think. Solving that requires a lot more than just making armour thicker and tougher. CIWS helps but not enough.
Smaller ships are actually the better solution here. Split the functionality across 5 ships, try to avoid taking any damage, and if 1 gets damage you can drydock just the 1 instead of all 5. Also generally cheaper to have 5 small ships than 1 giant ship.
I recall at one point Ryan covered a room that had been converted into a weight room in the 80’s, did the New Jersey have any dedicated exercise areas in its original design?
Pretty sure if you'd asked for one of those back in the 40's you'd probably be given a stick and a stone and told to knock yourself out
@@pjbth No - they had 55 pound dumbells galore - you'd get stuck in that magazine all the time and never allowed near the big guns
As a matter of fact yes, powder passer, and shell deck gunners mates
@@pjbth Don't forget the seemingly endless supply of stairmasters.
The deck.
A bunch of times you can also hear about a gun jam, having triple guns per turret also helps in that respect. Instead of losing a quarter of your punching power in front or rear aspect engagements, you only lose a sixth
Vanguard had twin turrets because she was built to carry the left-over 15 inch guns removed from the Courageous class when they were converted to aircraft carriers. These guns and turrets had been sitting around since the '20s and, without too much modification, seemed the quickest way to put together a modern battleship . The King George V class carried a mix of 2 quads and a twin, the twin because of weight and ballance issues with 3 quads.
Tennessees and Colorados are my favouite battleships of all time, i love cage masts
Excellent and fun video. Shouldn't everyone like turret farms? I have read conflicting information why the Bismarck and Tirpitz had double turrets, most sources say weight concerns and another very detailed book on Bismarck claims shell dispersion. Thoughts? I have to say my choice is the quad turret, two front and two in back. This is 2022, we can make that work! Cool, insightful video. Very cool old ship!
You have been working out!
Enjoyed the presentation mate the only thing is that you forgot the British & French quad turrets of the Prince of Wales & Richelieu.