"The Japanese can claim to have the largest calibre gun in the inter-war period" British 18" Mk I gun: "I exist!" The Nagato's are a very under-rated pair of ships. Mutsu's magazine explosion and the shadow cast by the Yamato class means the class never got to show what they could do, even on the few occasions they did sortie, which is the big issue; the Japanese for whatever reason (Especially given the doctrine to go and seek decisive battle), seemed reluctant to deploy their best ships, even when they could have been.
@@timclaus8313 I think it was the fear of losing them after The Battle of Midway. They knew they had gotten ambushed at Midway, which isn't something that could easily be done in the wide expanse of the Pacific. They kept the Yamato-class battleships back in the Caroline Islands (Truk Lagoon) during the Guadalcanal Campaign and sent the Kongo-class instead, which turned out to be a failure too... 🙄
This whole video is relative to the entire Nagato class battleships, so discussing stand alone cannons is not relevant here. If you were to use that same idea in WW II, then the Yamato class battleships did not have the largest gun either! The Germans had the Gustav rail gun that was 31" in bore!
When I was a kid I listened and paid attention to the veterans. First and Second world war vets, Korean and Spanish American War veterans. Many of them expressed the opinion that we underestimated the Japanese in a big way. My friend's dad was a Captain in the Second Marine Division said he had no idea that the Japanese were dangerous at all. Public perception of Japan's military and technical capabilities was inaccurate. Fortunately, we had people who did not underestimate them. General Billy Mitchell was one of those. The Marines said that the Japanese fought with unbelievable ferocity and just plain would not give up. Who wants to fight people like that? They were also building better and more sophisticated equipment han most Americans realized at that time. At the start of the war they had a 21" torpedo that worked every time. We had a 21" torpedo that was a dud most of the time. We learned a costly but valuable lesson there.
@Battleship New Jersey *relates to the brief mention of HMS Hood* I'd be curious to see what you think of Drachinifel's recent analysis of the sinking of the Hood. It conflicts with the common narrative of a 15" shell plunging though the deck, but from what I can see his logic is sound. Another naval historian's perspective on that video would be interesting to see.
Nobody who has looked at the angle of drop the German 380mm shells had at the possible impact ranges puts any money on plunging fire having played any role in the sinking of HMS Hood. The question is always where did the penetration happen, with most focus I've seen looking at the 7" upper belt, though Drachinifel did make a pretty convincing argument as to why that, or a main belt penetration, were unlikely.
@@Neneset Nathan Okun makes a pretty good case for a penetration of the 7" belt that smashed through the 2" armor deck above the machinery spaces of Hood, which then holed the 1" bulkhead aft between the machinery and the aft magazine.
I just saw this video and was transported back in time 20 years ago to the airport in Sacramento CA. There I met Jim Oeswein, who was a CPO in the Navy, and was tasked with restarting the engines of Nagato after the war. He told me the ship was a mess, with the remains of many deceased IJN sailors still on board, but he and his crew got her running. Shame what happened to her after that, but our own USS Nevada suffered the same fate. More details regarding Nagato and of Mr Oeswein's storied life can be found in his book "Sailorboy".
I would love to hear you do a "reaction video" regarding the movie "Battleship" and/or its "mockbuster" "American Warships". Getting a museum ship up and limping for an emergency like those depicted in the film AND taking them into battle against a technologically superior foe is just too good a plot for any writer to ignore. I'm guessing that it would take months if not years to get Missouri steamed up and battle-ready and not hours, but I was a soldier, never a sailor. Sooooo.... money no object/unlimited resources, COULD New Jersey be made operational in a day or two? What about the clubhauling maneuver? Would it have broken the chain, wrecked the ship or just dragged the anchor for a few miles before aliens slagged her with plasma bombs?
I love your videos and I have donated to the ship - this is just feedback. By the way I used to live in Seattle back in the day. Got to go on Missouri back in the 70s. Bremerton is a real treat.
The Navy did a pretty good investigation into the loss of Arizona and bomb penetrating the deck was not given as the reason. Fire along with open hatches was the culprit. One of the hatches open was over the magazine for float plane catapults which is black powder and that is located next to main magazines. Friedman's "US Battleships" has a great chapter devoted to damage at Pearl Harbor.
Really love your comparison videos, and this is about a ship I knew almost nothing about, previously. Wondering if you use a teleprompter or are these off the top of your head? PS: A completely pedantic quibble but the British 5.25” WAS technically larger than 5” and used in an antiaircraft role. I think you accidentally made a blanket statement while focused on ‘Nagato’. PPS: Do you know if USS Missouri’s 5” guns as displayed at Pearl Harbor were ever restored? When I visited the ship in the mid-2000’s they had these terrible concrete or plastic, whatever, fake barrels...they looked wretchedly awful! Cheers!
Ryan I really appreciate and enjoy your videos on the war ships ! A lot of the ships you talk about I built models of back in the 60s and 70s ! I think you do a great job on discussing all the different ships! I work nights as a CNC MILL MACHNIST making AEROSPACE parts for defense industry! When I have time I watch your videos! Fantastic job keep up the great work your doing! Thank you very much Dana K Arizona
Question, Do you know was the USN going to do any major improvement to the two uncompleted Iowa class battleships ? Like any changes in the bow area for sea keeping.
Honestly, I would have loved to see Nagato and Prinz Eugen preserved as war prizes. Prinz Eugen because, as a mechanical engineering student, i would have loved to first hand see the ridiculously complicated and hap-hazard German Propulsion systems. Nagato because, it would be cool to have a Japanese battleship other than Mikasa around
Nagato's 16 in AP shells during WW II, had a special charge which was more powerful than the explosive used in other nations battleships.Originals replaced in late 20s It was also more unstable - speculation is that Mushshi's loss was due to the more unstable shells cooking off after Mushashi hit a friendly mine. The original lower explosive power shells were the ones modified for use at Pearl Harbor. They had an unusually high dud rate either from being dropped at a lower altitude or deterioration of explosive charge.
About the 16 inch shell destroying Arizona, in an actual battle situation wouldn't the shells follow a more parabolic path instead of presumably a straight down dive bomber path?
Battleship New Jersey- was the New Jersey and the rest of the Iowa class battleships able " to project" naval power- as their design ( their speed, naval guns, anti-aircraft guns, the design of their hulls, and the range)?
@@BattleshipNewJersey The US fast battleships were all used in relatively close support of the carrier task forces, providing added AA support. Saved a few carriers, and they could survive those kamikaze hits.
my final statement is: Japan should have built 2 more Nagatos instead of Yamato, 2 more Shokakus instead of Musashi, 3 oilers and 3 escort carriers instead of Shinano - 2 Nagatos would have allowed IJN to have the same number of Battleships - 2 More Shokakus (built before the outbreak of war) would allowed IJN to have 2 more fleet carriers AND their trained pilots, something much more needed, and might have allowed a 6 carrier force at Midway (something that might have resulted decisive, along with the AA radar Shokakus had). - 3 oilers would have proved vital, and 3 escort carriers would allow for 3 convoys protected with air cover at any given time Considering how limited were resources for imperial Japan...
The Japanese lengthened the Nagatos and the Kongos. How do you lengthen a battleship? Do you dock the vessel, cut her in half and float the two halves apart before building a new centre section, or do you extend the bow and stern?
Niclas Johansson I’d think it would be difficult to add much length to the stern. The stern overhangs the rudders and props, and it needs to be supported. Adding even 10-20 feet would put a tremendous strain on the stern supports and cause structural problems. And if you add to the support structure, you’d have to rearrange and lengthen the steering gear. And of course you’d have to armor the steering gear, which adds a lot of weight. By the time you do that you might as well build a new ship. It would be much easier to add to the bow. I think that must be what they did, as they could add length and optimize the hull form at the same time, you wouldn’t have to armor the extension, and you wouldn’t compromise the ship’s structure in doing so. I could be wrong here, but to me that only makes sense.
@@bluemarlin8138 Difficult yes, but still thats how it was done, the ships also at the same time had changes to there machinery, in fact all older IJN capital ships had this done to them and also bulges added. I have 2 models of the Kongo, one as built and the other as it looked in ww2, and its obvious how the stern was rebuilt.
They actually would never do either one as you describe it. They would cut somewhere in between while the ship is supported in drydock instead. They don't add from the middle or very end. That way the big items like boilers and props stay put. These japanese ships were horribly packed so they probably used the extra space for living quarters or to take equipment jammed into other spaces.
@@LTPottenger No, the did not "cut somewhere in between" they lengthened the ships at the stern, adding 7,6 meters to the Kongo, Fuso and Ise class, and 9,1 to the Nagatos, The propeller shafts and the rudder stayed at the same location, the hull above was just widened and extended for more of an "overhang". All ships was also given, in the 30s, a more modern and compact machinery, thereby getting a major increase in power in all but the Nagato and Mutso.
@@manilajohn0182 If you had said there was no physical evidence I would agree. But Drach lays out a ton of compelling evidence to the opposite. The wreck in in bits so saying there is no evidence is obvious since the multiple magazine detonations prevent that. So you are making an empty statement.
The NJ, as with other IA class battleships, also had state of the art radar enabled fire control and the Nagato did not. The radar range detection and fire correction would be more important in battle than the speed advantage of the IA-class ships. Consider what the WV did to the IJN Yamashiro at the battle of the Surigao Strait. WV hit the Yamashiro with the first salvo at a range greater than 12 miles. In most near-peer ship on ship engagements, the side that hits first most often has a significant advantage. Unless Nagato got lucky, a ship like the NJ should hit first and begin degrading the combat effectiveness of a Nagato-class ship rather rapidly.
The Japanese 16" being slightly larger caliber does not automatically equate to being "better". The British 15"/42 is not only widely acknowledged as the best large caliber naval gun ever made by the RN, the USN actually regarded it as one of the most efficient battleship caliber guns to be made. The Nagato horizontal armor was obviously superior to Hood, and understandably so-Nagato was a later build ship. This is probably the only significant way it was superior, particularly if the original design is compared to Hood before Nagato's numerous refits. Had Hood recieved her planned rebuild, she would have been unquestionably the superior ship. Hood has always been vastly underrated by many enthusiasts and historians. She was an excellent ship, and one of excellent potential that was squandered by the RN when they failed to modernize her. (This is not to say the Nagato's were not excellent battleships themselves. They were. Better than Hood? No.)
@YAKUMO RAN @YAKUMO RAN @YAKUMO RAN The British 15" was better than fairly decent. It performed superbly in WW II. One of the two longest range hits scored by heavy caliber guns on a moving target in WW II was scored by HMS Warspite at over 26,000 yds with the 15"/42. One of many instances of accurate and reliable effective fire by the RN weapon. Just because the flash protection of RN ships was relatively poor in WW I it does not stand to reason it remained as poor in much later ships. The issue was addressed. In any case, your reasoning is a little vague to me? Citing that as a reason for Japanese ships being "better" would be like automatically classifying American cruisers as being better than Japanese ones because the U.S. had better compartmentalization. Yes, it is a relevant factor that can be of significance, but it does not directly make a ship more powerful, or more capable of overwhelming an opponent. Further, combat performance of British 15" gun ships in WW II does not indicate any particular problems in the area of flare ups. No 15" gunned Britsh battleships were lost due to that issue.
@@billturner6564 Actually, 3 inches of armor was enough to bounce 15" shells that penetrated Hood's 7" upper belt. The problem was, the machinery spaces were only protected by 2" deck armor. Of course, it has never been proven for sure exactly what destroyed Hood. The penetration of her deck armor is only one theory.
Considering the era where battleships actually mattered, I think radars etc were a little too late. By the time NJ came to service the era of battleship has already ended and battleships were already relegated to anti aircrafts and shore bombardment roles. So I would say that for the era where the main guns of the battleship still mattered in naval combat, the radar systems and whatnot plays no significance. Imagine if we built a battleship today. It will have state of art sensors, missiles and may be even rail guns etc. But would it be a better ship than the battleships on WW1? I would say no, because it is a wrong ship design in an era no longer suitable for such ships to exist, whereas the WW1 battleships made sense and dominated naval warfare, a modern battleship today had little relevance militarily. Thus put in historical context the WW1 ships were better.
Not dissing your video or the Nagatos, but the shell dropped on Arizona is not a good comparison. Dropping a shell from an airplane means that the shell is impacting at about a 90 degree angle, which is optimal. You can't achieve anywhere close to that angle when firing the shell from a gun, and no battleship had an armored deck designed to resist a shell striking at 90 degrees. They were designed to resist the striking angle expected from a gun. Overall, great video, and I agree that the Nagatos were impressive.
Actually at long range the shells from guns do hit at almost vertical angle. The shell tragectories are not perfect parabolas due to air friction. At long range engagements the guns are essentially howitzers.
Their battleships were designed for "one decisive battle" perhaps somewhere close to their home islands. The battleships were never designed for raiding or scouting. Their aircrafts emphasized on range due to their carrier doctrine where they see the best way for the survival of a carrier fleet against an enemy carrier fleet was to be able to hit them at long range outside of the range of enemy aircrafts and then run away fast.
Appears to be such a superior Battleship over the Kongo. They seem to have the capability to slightly outmatch the South Dakota Class in speed and large guns; not so much in armor & 5'' guns for anti-aircraft capability. Speed seems to make the difference in - at the time - for the pre-WWII Battleships including the Hood. I am amazed that they didn't do research in developing more efficient propulsion technology for efficiency and longer range. The Japanese should have developed a better Battleship or a Heavy Cruiser to complement their emerging Carrier Task Force. They would never achieve any advantage against the USA after Pearl Harbor, once the US began their initiative to destroy Japan's ability to wage modern Naval War. Japan knew from the onset that they could not defeat the Americans. In the end it was obvious, they lost the War. Thanks for the Video.
I think the Colorados were better than the Nagatos, if the Nagatos would choose to fight. The standards were designed for fleet actions, not scouting or pursuit.
The entire Japanese battle line were significantly faster, meaning they had an advantage in taking the initiatives precisely during the battle line battles and are more likely to crossing the T.
I I understand correctly, Japanese boiler technology was inferior to U.S. High pressure boiler systems, so was the range disadvantage due to bunkerage or efficiency of fuel used?
You are correct. The US was well ahead of the Axis nations and the British in high-pressure boilers, having developed them in the mid-late 30s and having them be reliable and used on most new combat ships by WWII. The British didn’t really pursue them as heavily in the interwar years, as they (probably correctly) worried that they wouldn’t have time to work out the kinks before they would be at war. Germany had high-pressure boilers, but while theirs were very powerful, they proved extremely complex and unreliable. Japan didn’t put them on a ship until 1942 with the Shimakaze class destroyers as a testbed, and by then it was too late to put them on any larger ships. France may have had the best ones, with the forced-circulation boilers on the Richelieu class, but those didn't really see much combat, and I'm not sure what they sacrificed in terms of efficiency to get the desired performance. I can’t say for sure why the range disadvantage existed, but my guess is that it was a combination of factors. The US incorporated long range requirements into all of its designs, as it expected to have to cross the Pacific. Japan had no illusions about conquering territory outside of the western Pacific, so their fuel and range requirements reflected that. Also, Japan and Germany both went a little overboard with their high-pressure boilers (shocking, I know). While the US kept pressures around 600 psi, Germany and Japan opted to pursue much higher pressures well above 1,000 psi. This was simply too much for the technology of the time to handle, which partially explains their unreliability. It also likely explains their inefficiency, as it presumably takes more fuel to heat the boilers enough to achieve those pressures with WWII technology.
@@bluemarlin8138 Not my primary expertise here, but where would the US early war propulsions plant rate in comparison to the, as I've been told, very efficiently designed plants of the French Richelieu-class? Smaller ship, smaller plant but what I've understood really good use of the tonnage allocated for propulsion.
Tuning3434 it’s really not my area of expertise either, but from what little I’ve been able to find, the French may have been ahead of even the US. Apparently, the Richelieu class used forced-circulation boilers, which made for more efficient steam generation, and which could be shaped to fit better in confined or unusually-shaped spaces. They ended up with the highest engine power on a BB until the Iowas came along, so they had to be doing something right.
@@bluemarlin8138 Most analysis I have read have pointed out that the IJN steam plants were less efficient than USN plants, leaving ships like Yamato with more bunker capacity having a much shorter range than the NC, SODaks or the Iowas. Plus that same technology made the Essex class, the Alaskas, and all the late heavy cruisers as quite fast and with large operating ranges.
@@bluemarlin8138 Between the wars, it does seem that the French and Italian navies really concentrated on speed and efficiency. Of course, operating in the Med, you need to get there, and get back home in as little time as possible.
I don’t think the Japanese bomb made from a 16.1” shell penetrating Arizona’s deck necessarily proves that a long-range hit would have done the same thing. The bomb hit nearly perpendicular to the deck, which is the optimum angle for penetrating armor. A plunging shell fired from a gun is going to hit the deck at probably no more than 25-30 degrees at maximum practical battle range (and probably much less at likely ranges). That relatively shallow angle means it would have to pass through a lot more effective armor thickness than a bomb hitting at nearly 90 degrees, and it may also have ricocheted off the armored deck if the cap didn’t bite. That’s not to say it couldn’t penetrate Arizona’s deck, just that we can’t conclude that based on the Pearl Harbor bomb strike.
We know it would or at least could penetrate because when shot from a gun the velocity is many times greater so it would penetrate many times the armor.
Pottinger's Human the shell would be moving much faster when leaving the muzzle, but by the time it has traveled 10+ miles it has slowed considerably. Also, pure velocity and penetration numbers aren’t the only issue. At a shallower angle, the shell might ricochet if its AP cap doesn’t bite into the deck enough. And even if it does penetrate, it probably isn’t going to pile-drive straight down into the magazines at the bottom of the ship as happened with AZ. It is more likely to continue some horizontal motion and explode in an outboard space like an engine room or the deck above it. Still bad, but not catastrophic.
This is not up for debate it is something calculated easily with basic physics, which they did when designing the ships. There is absolutely no way they will stop it consistently, only at high deflection ie a glancing blow that was not going to do anything anyway. Making any battleship with the entire deck able to withstand heavy fire would be ludicrously expensive. That is why hood went up in smoke. Any ship would have been simply done if it got hit in that manner where it went directly into the magazine even if they put 10" armor on the deck, which is twice what arizona had. That's why we don't make battleships any more their invincibility is an illusion.
Pottinger's Human I don’t want to be rude, but you are making a lot of assumptions without the in-depth knowledge to back them up. Battleships were never designed to be invincible from every threat, but they were indeed designed to repel shell hits to the deck from other battleships at certain ranges. In fact, you can easily look up the ranges at which specific ships were vulnerable to plunging fire from different types of shells. Battleship armor was designed around the concept of “immunity zones” against their own guns (which were assumed to be similar to what they would be facing from contemporary enemy ships). Just using hypothetical figures here, but a ship might be designed to have an immunity zone against its own shells from 15,000 yards to 25,000 yards. Inside 15,000 yards, its own guns could penetrate its belt, and outside 25,000 yards, its own guns could penetrate its deck (due to the increased angle of fall and despite decreased velocity), but between those ranges, its own guns would not penetrate its citadel armor at all. And even against ships with larger guns than their own, most BBs still had some immunity zone. As for HMS Hood, analysis of the Shell flight characteristics and Hood’s armor scheme reveals that she was almost certainly not sunk by a deck hit. The range was simply too close for the shell to have fallen that steeply. Most likely, the shell dove under Hood’s armored belt and into the 4” magazines through a wave trough created by the ship’s bow wave. There is also a chance that it could have penetrated Hood’s upper 7” or 5” belts (not the main 12” belt), and somehow made it down to the machinery spaces adjacent the magazines, but this would depend on how much Hood was heeling to starboard during its turn. Check out Drachinifel’s video on the Hood’s loss. It was just posted this morning and is very interesting. Otherwise, deck penetrations (from shells) killing or severely damaging battleships are very rare, because the long range required for deck penetrations made it very hard to achieve those hits. One of the lightly-armored battlecruisers at Jutland MAY have been killed by a deck hit, but more likely is that one took a direct hit to the magazine, and the other two were hit in a turret and the explosion made it to the magazines due to the crew stacking powder charges in the turrets and removing the safety interlocks that were supposed to prevent turret explosions from reaching the magazines.
At long range engagements the guns are essentially functioning like howitzers and due to air friction the terminal trajectory of the shells do drop very close to vertical.
Your a bit more favorable when considering the Nagato than I am. The big factor is until Samar, when the IJN had no choices left, they did not commit the Nagato, Mutsu, Fuso Yamashiro, Ise and Hyuga to any essential actions. If those 6 old ships were really as good as they were often perceived to be, the IJN would have actually used them around Guadalcanal and other battles. Instead, the Kongo's carried the battle line load that they were never designed for.
It was mainly due to the Japanese naval doctrine of seeking a decisive battleship battle. They kept their best battleships in reserve and sought to only commit them in one decisive battle with the US Navy. The Kongo's were considered less capable and old, and thus expendable. They were therefore the only battleships/battle cruisers the Japanese navy top brass were willing to commit for raiding and vanguard duties. Remember, the entrie Kido Butai, the Japanese carrier fleet was a vanguard force auxillary to their main battleship fleet, not considered as their main naval power under this doctrine.
Thank you for the update on the Nagato battleship. My father's uncle served on the Nagato as a gun captain. Fortunately, I had a chance to ask him many war related questions and listened to his stories. My father served with the US Army 442nd. Combat Regiment. My grandmother's younger brother, on the Nagato, and her son with the US Army, same war but different theater and side, such is war.
As far as I can recall the Soviets never demanded to have the Japanese i-400 they nearly wish to respect them and see them I mean the Soviet Union could have demanded whatever it wanted I mean we weren't going to allow them to have them same thing with the nagato I mean she was property of the United States immediately following the surrender of the Japanese following World War II and it is a shame she wasn't retained as a souvenir or a Memento but I guess the conventional thinking at the time was she was just an enemy Battleship not worthy of preservation that's all so very early in the idea of ships dedicated to the role of a museum even though the USS Oregon had pioneered that and then contemporary speaking the USS Texas but the nagato wasn't retained and it is a disappointment
Inter war means ships which have entered service in inter war period. Nagato was designed during WW1 and began construction during WW1. It was never referred to as a WW1 ship as it missed the war. Like Hood, and the standard battleships in the US Navy, they were the last of pre-treaty warships, whereas SD and NC were treaty warships. The latter two were thus ships of a completely different era. Yamato class were ALSO designed before WW2, and their construction began before WW2. They were never referred to as inter war ships either, because they did not enter service only until after the outbreak of the war.
This video: *exists* Me: Interesting. I could read up on my IJN Battleships/Dreadnoughts My brain, thinking in WoWS: *Ah yes. big ships, bigger guns. the true definition of "biggus dickus"*
Tony Scolaro yes, to a point in some circumstances. You really should find Nathan Okun to answer this, as he is an armor expert and he comments on this page. But in general, Japan had the worst armor quality in WWII. US battleship armor was better, but not as good as British or German battleship armor. (Some people like to say the differences were 25%, but most reasonable estimates are more like 10-12%). With Japan, they were just cursed with poor iron ore and lagged in their industry. With the US, the difference was down to the thickness of the hardened face layer of the armor. Ironically, the same quirk that made US battleship armor slightly less effective also made its cruiser armor the most effective.
Whether it's riveted or not and where it's riveted is the main concern with armor quality. If your armor flies apart at the seam it doesn't matter how strong it is. Some of the japanese ships had to be riveted the armor was just so thick so it made a seam which for some ships caused a problem. The US ships never really got fully welded or even close even by the end of the war so if they really got pounded by shells from a major battleship they would probably have fallen apart pretty quickly. As it turned out this was no longer something to really care about much so it didn't really matter.
Pottinger's Human Man, you are really grasping at straws in your hatred of US battleships. NO SHIP has riveted or welded armor! (Except on the surface sometimes to keep water out.) Battleships had their armor held on to a backing of structural steel (either the hull or an internal backing plate) with huge bolts. At least in US battleships, the edges of some plates had keys machined into them and slid into the edge key of the adjoining plate. That is a VERY secure connection. I’m also not aware of any battleship that has the armor seams aligned with the seams in the hull or backing plate (except for German deck armor, which caused the sterns of several German cruisers to fall off). Not that it would matter anyway, as the chances of shells repeatedly hitting the same seam are infinitesimally small. Finally, the technology to weld 12” pieces of steel together for their full depth didn’t exist at the time, and even if it did, it would destroy the heat treatment that made it armor steel in the first place. I believe some countries welded the top of the edges of some armored joints together, but these were just surface welds to keep salt water out and prevent corrosion. You are correct that the US didn’t use fully welded construction on its battleships, but the main benefit of switching to welding was saving a thousand tons or so of weight.
@@LTPottenger Your right, After November 1942, American Battleships only hit targets, they were never hit by shells. Oh and of course South Dakota taking a 14 inch hit directly to the turret face with no damage at all doesn't count (oops, sorry, with a reduced train speed).
@@bluemarlin8138 I don't have a big hatred for them but the more riveting you have the more quickly it will fall apart and all the old battleships were riveted and the most modern battleships in US were still pretty dicy and had a build that would probably not stand up to much pounding or at least not nearly as much as you would hope for with so much expense. In essence battleships in general were a big sham and never really got tested in real use. They are cool and interesting but the effectiveness was not put to the test much and when it did such as in jutland and ww II you had ships blowing up for no reason or being sunk by a single long range hit and so on.
@@ThatZenoGuy The Japanese 25mm was NOT fine for what it was SUPPOSED to be - educate yourself, posting garbage just makes YOU look bad. p.s. The French are famous for crappy engineering. For examplke I used to own a Renault S-10 - a rolling pile of poorly engineered junk. That is just one example - again, EDUCATE yourself.
Could it be argued therefore, that a heavily armored, modern type of battleship still be justified by survivability? Of course we will have the obligatory, "our missles can defend against anything" argument...
Any battleship would sink after several hits by modern antiship missiles. Today's hypersonic antiship missiles strike from above at 90° vertical and the amount of kinetic energy it carries can literally go through a WW2 era battleship like butter. Furthermore modern submarines can travel at 30+ knots under water and fire guided torpedos with enough destruction power to break a destroyer in half. No torpedo defence can be effective against that kind of destructive power. Thus modern ships almost completely rely on active defence and either you intercept enemy weapons before they hit you or you are just toast. Armour is useless and only contributed to cost used up space and dead weight.
Noticed that some of these (great!) videos, including this one don’t show up in the playlist for your site for some reason unless perhaps they’re mis-categorized. Only saw this one because it came up as a suggested vid after watching several others. Very informative and enjoyable series!
To say that the RN wasted its money by having ships of different speeds shows a profound ignorance of how they would, and we're, deployed. I am surprised.
U are severe with the Iowa class this time. Iowa is owing a far better firepower than the Nagato class. 2700 pounds superheavy shells fired by caliber 50 guns are owing a far better penetration than the 16.1 japanese shells (2 more inches at 22 miles). Wich is meaning the Iowa can pass trough the Nagato armor long range Also the Iowa is owing a far better accuracy. No doubt the Iowa may have defeat the Nagato with ease.
The nagato being a super Dreadnought with 16-inch guns was definitely superior to the battlecruiser HMS Hood with all of the accoutrements and Design Elements present Hood was obese with armor and wasn't adequately effective certainly against vertical plunging shells of her own caliber the Royal Navy as late as 1938 unanimously so it's one of the reasons why multiple attempts to get Hood overhauled was done if they had come across each other in a singular match unfortunately I think the gato would have crushed the battle Cruiser HMS Hood owing to her larger caliber guns and more effective use of armor Ryan I just have to say for the record because you've said it drac said it and I understand and respect you guys but I have to say you guys are incorrect about Hood status you do say your opinion and that's perfectly valid and respectable is lots of flaming Fanboys all across the internet aren't LOL But I have to boil it down to three points You can say it's still debated but there is no debate Ryan the Royal Navy always called the battle cruiser HMS Hood a battle cruiser now we can debate whether she should or shouldn't have been but she is a battle cruiser so let's get into it Number one Hood was not a fast Battleship or a battleship she was a battle cruiser as she was intended to be by the Royal Navy during her construction phase and planning all of her blueprints all of her documents all of her paperwork that I've ever seen at the Imperial War Museum and reading material from good sources such as Colin white and Eric Grove would conclude the fact that she was designed to be a battle cruiser and she was a battle cruiser until she met her demise I do believe she was 4/5 of the way there but she's always and was a battle cruiser during her lifetime and by the people that operated her and the Royal Navy she inhabited that characteristic and never left that Number two they never modernized her in any significant or meaning way they never enhanced her Armament or armor her deck armor was practically non-existent or armor layout was not efficient she did not utilize her materials correctly as vessels of the era when you say she wasn't a major priority I tend to disagree I think during the midst of the war until the peace treaty was signed they were trying to get as many capital ships in the field as possible in the hood was certainly one of them but she was in a bad way by 194041 she was suffering from mechanical deficiencies and it was in dire need of an overhaul by which the British government regrettably could not afford And number three and this is the big one as historians it is our job to be factual and correct to remember and present things as they were intended Ryan the Royal Navy and her Builders and the people that operated her always refer to her as a battle cruiser and I don't feel like calling her a fast battleship is a distinction that is she merits I think it's a mischaracterization of history when we call her something that she was not in every other instance that I can think of when battle Cruisers were thrown up against battleships they almost always ended in catastrophe bismarck's destruction of hood is all the proof that I need that credible historians need to illustrate that hood was deficient in the arena I don't think luck had any role in it than usual I think Bismarck sunk her could because the Bismarck could sink Hood end of story unless something else presents itself I think the fact will always be that the end result Hood was destroyed and owing to the specific conditions of her construction and implementation But in a nutshell that's how I see it people wind collar a battleship or a fast battleship it doesn't do history any due diligence or Justice to the crew of The Hood and the ship herself we need to be factual and correct about things we don't need to emblazon the HMS hood and her crew into different categories because it makes us feel better about the ship's demise She was a battle cruiser forever and always..... as I said lacking any other substantial alterations or improvements and buy her operators of the period HMS Hood was an admiral class battlecruiser incorrectly assigned to take down the high-speed battleship the fast Battleship which I also would concur Bismarck was incorrectly utilized as well she was a more traditional Dreadnought meant to be plugged into a line of battle and unfortunately both ships found themselves plunged into the roles for which they were not devised Commerce raiding was not what the Bismarck was built to do in the face of a battlefleet and going up against another capital ship was not what HMS Hood was designed to do and her destruction is all the proof any of us should need.... a battleship she was not
Just watched the video of Nagato Class and here is a question? As Japan had done with smaller arms where there rifle caliber was slightly larger than american ammo, hence they could fire our ammo in there guns in a pinch but theres wouldn't chamber in our rifles were the 16.1 inch shells intentionally made slightly larger in the event the Americans captured ammunition it couldn't be used by our 16in guns and on the opposite side they were just big enough that if captured our 16in shell could be fired from there guns all be it probably not as accurately or effectively but as "free ammunition" make due with it?
"The Japanese can claim to have the largest calibre gun in the inter-war period"
British 18" Mk I gun: "I exist!"
The Nagato's are a very under-rated pair of ships. Mutsu's magazine explosion and the shadow cast by the Yamato class means the class never got to show what they could do, even on the few occasions they did sortie, which is the big issue; the Japanese for whatever reason (Especially given the doctrine to go and seek decisive battle), seemed reluctant to deploy their best ships, even when they could have been.
I agree, but according to their doctrine, they were saving them dora decisive battle
And Germany: Laughing in Schwerer Gustav at such a small bore...
I would contend that the unwillingness of the IJN to commit them indicates a lack of confidence in them, rather than being underrated.
@@timclaus8313 I think it was the fear of losing them after The Battle of Midway. They knew they had gotten ambushed at Midway, which isn't something that could easily be done in the wide expanse of the Pacific.
They kept the Yamato-class battleships back in the Caroline Islands (Truk Lagoon) during the Guadalcanal Campaign and sent the Kongo-class instead, which turned out to be a failure too...
🙄
This whole video is relative to the entire Nagato class battleships, so discussing stand alone cannons is not relevant here. If you were to use that same idea in WW II, then the Yamato class battleships did not have the largest gun either! The Germans had the Gustav rail gun that was 31" in bore!
When I was a kid I listened and paid attention to the veterans. First and Second world war vets, Korean and Spanish American War veterans. Many of them expressed the opinion that we underestimated the Japanese in a big way. My friend's dad was a Captain in the Second Marine Division said he had no idea that the Japanese were dangerous at all. Public perception of Japan's military and technical capabilities was inaccurate. Fortunately, we had people who did not underestimate them. General Billy Mitchell was one of those. The Marines said that the Japanese fought with unbelievable ferocity and just plain would not give up. Who wants to fight people like that? They were also building better and more sophisticated equipment han most Americans realized at that time. At the start of the war they had a 21" torpedo that worked every time. We had a 21" torpedo that was a dud most of the time. We learned a costly but valuable lesson there.
Domo arigato Mr. Nagato.
@Battleship New Jersey
*relates to the brief mention of HMS Hood*
I'd be curious to see what you think of Drachinifel's recent analysis of the sinking of the Hood. It conflicts with the common narrative of a 15" shell plunging though the deck, but from what I can see his logic is sound. Another naval historian's perspective on that video would be interesting to see.
Nobody who has looked at the angle of drop the German 380mm shells had at the possible impact ranges puts any money on plunging fire having played any role in the sinking of HMS Hood. The question is always where did the penetration happen, with most focus I've seen looking at the 7" upper belt, though Drachinifel did make a pretty convincing argument as to why that, or a main belt penetration, were unlikely.
@@Neneset Nathan Okun makes a pretty good case for a penetration of the 7" belt that smashed through the 2" armor deck above the machinery spaces of Hood, which then holed the 1" bulkhead aft between the machinery and the aft magazine.
Nagato was similar to a Queen Elizabeth...faster speed than rest of standard battle line
Makes sense. Japan really liked to follow British ship design philosophies and trends once they got their own shipyards up and running.
I just saw this video and was transported back in time 20 years ago to the airport in Sacramento CA. There I met Jim Oeswein, who was a CPO in the Navy, and was tasked with restarting the engines of Nagato after the war.
He told me the ship was a mess, with the remains of many deceased IJN sailors still on board, but he and his crew got her running. Shame what happened to her after that, but our own USS Nevada suffered the same fate.
More details regarding Nagato and of Mr Oeswein's storied life can be found in his book "Sailorboy".
I would love to hear you do a "reaction video" regarding the movie "Battleship" and/or its "mockbuster" "American Warships". Getting a museum ship up and limping for an emergency like those depicted in the film AND taking them into battle against a technologically superior foe is just too good a plot for any writer to ignore. I'm guessing that it would take months if not years to get Missouri steamed up and battle-ready and not hours, but I was a soldier, never a sailor. Sooooo.... money no object/unlimited resources, COULD New Jersey be made operational in a day or two? What about the clubhauling maneuver? Would it have broken the chain, wrecked the ship or just dragged the anchor for a few miles before aliens slagged her with plasma bombs?
Nice in depth video series. Many thanks for making these.
There you go again ~15:00, we need a debate between your deckarmor... and Drach's bow-wake theory!
I love your videos and I have donated to the ship - this is just feedback. By the way I used to live in Seattle back in the day. Got to go on Missouri back in the 70s. Bremerton is a real treat.
The Navy did a pretty good investigation into the loss of Arizona and bomb penetrating the deck was not given as the reason. Fire along with open hatches was the culprit. One of the hatches open was over the magazine for float plane catapults which is black powder and that is located next to main magazines. Friedman's "US Battleships" has a great chapter devoted to damage at Pearl Harbor.
Really love your comparison videos, and this is about a ship I knew almost nothing about, previously. Wondering if you use a teleprompter or are these off the top of your head?
PS: A completely pedantic quibble but the British 5.25” WAS technically larger than 5” and used in an antiaircraft role. I think you accidentally made a blanket statement while focused on ‘Nagato’.
PPS: Do you know if USS Missouri’s 5” guns as displayed at Pearl Harbor were ever restored? When I visited the ship in the mid-2000’s they had these terrible concrete or plastic, whatever, fake barrels...they looked wretchedly awful!
Cheers!
These are completely off the top of Ryans head, though occasionally with a post it of commissioning dates and what not.
Ryan I really appreciate and enjoy your videos on the war ships ! A lot of the ships you talk about I built models of back in the 60s and 70s ! I think you do a great job on discussing all the different ships! I work nights as a CNC MILL MACHNIST making AEROSPACE parts for defense industry! When I have time I watch your videos! Fantastic job keep up the great work your doing! Thank you very much Dana K Arizona
There's an image somewhere of the USS New Jersey herself docked alongside the Japanese battleship Nagato...
Ya just look up "New Jersey and Nagato" a very cool photo. Thank you for the heads up!
I have the Rising Sun Flag
Question, Do you know was the USN going to do any major improvement to the two uncompleted Iowa class battleships ? Like any changes in the bow area for sea keeping.
all cool, except in japan they're not called tosa class battleships, but kaga class battleships 加賀型戦艦
Honestly, I would have loved to see Nagato and Prinz Eugen preserved as war prizes. Prinz Eugen because, as a mechanical engineering student, i would have loved to first hand see the ridiculously complicated and hap-hazard German Propulsion systems. Nagato because, it would be cool to have a Japanese battleship other than Mikasa around
You can visit the war prize German U-505 submarine at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. I have been there and it is very well presented.
You can go to Prinz Eugen and see a live X-ray picture of yourself. Not sure how long you would survive, though.
Nagato's 16 in AP shells during WW II, had a special charge which was more powerful than the explosive used in other nations battleships.Originals replaced in late 20s It was also more unstable - speculation is that Mushshi's loss was due to the more unstable shells cooking off after Mushashi hit a friendly mine. The original lower explosive power shells were the ones modified for use at Pearl Harbor. They had an unusually high dud rate either from being dropped at a lower altitude or deterioration of explosive charge.
Ah the Nagato Class...
Forever in the shadow of the Yamamotos, but not expendable enough to risk in battle like the Kongos.
About the 16 inch shell destroying Arizona, in an actual battle situation wouldn't the shells follow a more parabolic path instead of presumably a straight down dive bomber path?
In the 1 v 1 comparison to New Jersey you did not mention that New Jersey also has radar and as a result, superior fire control.
Battleship New Jersey- was the New Jersey and the rest of the Iowa class battleships able " to project" naval power- as their design ( their speed, naval guns, anti-aircraft guns, the design of their hulls, and the range)?
Yes, projecting power is very much what the ship did, especially in her last 2 commissions.
@@BattleshipNewJersey The US fast battleships were all used in relatively close support of the carrier task forces, providing added AA support. Saved a few carriers, and they could survive those kamikaze hits.
How do you feel about shipwreck scrapping that has been happening in the java sea
She and her sister were the poster chid and movie reel stars for IJN recruitment in the 30s and probably even during wartime since Yamato was secret.
Nagato ended up with a weird trunked funnel that a lot of Japanese cruisers had.
That was an attempt to keep funnel gasses away from the bridge. The Brits did the same thing with some of their ships during the interwar period.
my final statement is:
Japan should have built 2 more Nagatos instead of Yamato, 2 more Shokakus instead of Musashi, 3 oilers and 3 escort carriers instead of Shinano
- 2 Nagatos would have allowed IJN to have the same number of Battleships
- 2 More Shokakus (built before the outbreak of war) would allowed IJN to have 2 more fleet carriers AND their trained pilots, something much more needed, and might have allowed a 6 carrier force at Midway (something that might have resulted decisive, along with the AA radar Shokakus had).
- 3 oilers would have proved vital, and 3 escort carriers would allow for 3 convoys protected with air cover at any given time
Considering how limited were resources for imperial Japan...
No, Japan should have built 100's of ASW escorts. U.S. (and other), subs sank an incredible amount of Japanese ships.
But Nagato was far inferior to Yamato, and far more useless.
But wouldn’t be as big as a Yomato
That's not how slipways work lmao.
I have the Nagato Rising Sun Flag . My dad brought it home from WW2
what!? do you sell?
Wasn't the NAGATO at the BATTLE OF LETYE GULF?
Yes she was.
The Japanese lengthened the Nagatos and the Kongos. How do you lengthen a battleship? Do you dock the vessel, cut her in half and float the two halves apart before building a new centre section, or do you extend the bow and stern?
I think, if remembering correctly, that the stern was added in length, for better hydrodynamics. And yes, it was done in a dock.
Niclas Johansson I’d think it would be difficult to add much length to the stern. The stern overhangs the rudders and props, and it needs to be supported. Adding even 10-20 feet would put a tremendous strain on the stern supports and cause structural problems. And if you add to the support structure, you’d have to rearrange and lengthen the steering gear. And of course you’d have to armor the steering gear, which adds a lot of weight. By the time you do that you might as well build a new ship. It would be much easier to add to the bow. I think that must be what they did, as they could add length and optimize the hull form at the same time, you wouldn’t have to armor the extension, and you wouldn’t compromise the ship’s structure in doing so. I could be wrong here, but to me that only makes sense.
@@bluemarlin8138 Difficult yes, but still thats how it was done, the ships also at the same time had changes to there machinery, in fact all older IJN capital ships had this done to them and also bulges added. I have 2 models of the Kongo, one as built and the other as it looked in ww2, and its obvious how the stern was rebuilt.
They actually would never do either one as you describe it. They would cut somewhere in between while the ship is supported in drydock instead. They don't add from the middle or very end. That way the big items like boilers and props stay put. These japanese ships were horribly packed so they probably used the extra space for living quarters or to take equipment jammed into other spaces.
@@LTPottenger No, the did not "cut somewhere in between" they lengthened the ships at the stern, adding 7,6 meters to the Kongo, Fuso and Ise class, and 9,1 to the Nagatos, The propeller shafts and the rudder stayed at the same location, the hull above was just widened and extended for more of an "overhang". All ships was also given, in the 30s, a more modern and compact machinery, thereby getting a major increase in power in all but the Nagato and Mutso.
So, it would seem that Hood was lost to an under-the-belt shot that went through the valley behind a bow wave, rather than through-the-deck shot.
A Drachinifel fan?
@@Philip271828 Potentialy... ))))
@@Philip271828 Yep missed this
That is one possibility- that has no evidence to support it.
@@manilajohn0182 If you had said there was no physical evidence I would agree. But Drach lays out a ton of compelling evidence to the opposite. The wreck in in bits so saying there is no evidence is obvious since the multiple magazine detonations prevent that. So you are making an empty statement.
The NJ, as with other IA class battleships, also had state of the art radar enabled fire control and the Nagato did not. The radar range detection and fire correction would be more important in battle than the speed advantage of the IA-class ships. Consider what the WV did to the IJN Yamashiro at the battle of the Surigao Strait. WV hit the Yamashiro with the first salvo at a range greater than 12 miles. In most near-peer ship on ship engagements, the side that hits first most often has a significant advantage. Unless Nagato got lucky, a ship like the NJ should hit first and begin degrading the combat effectiveness of a Nagato-class ship rather rapidly.
You can’t say the Nagato was a superior ship to the Hood without stating why.
think its the 3" of deck armour that kills hood every time
Well her guns for one, Historians like Drachinifel like to talk about gun caliber counting in a fight, and Nagato had 16" rifles to Hood's 15".
The Japanese 16" being slightly larger caliber does not automatically equate to being "better". The British 15"/42 is not only widely acknowledged as the best large caliber naval gun ever made by the RN, the USN actually regarded it as one of the most efficient battleship caliber guns to be made. The Nagato horizontal armor was obviously superior to Hood, and understandably so-Nagato was a later build ship. This is probably the only significant way it was superior, particularly if the original design is compared to Hood before Nagato's numerous refits. Had Hood recieved her planned rebuild, she would have been unquestionably the superior ship.
Hood has always been vastly underrated by many enthusiasts and historians. She was an excellent ship, and one of excellent potential that was squandered by the RN when they failed to modernize her.
(This is not to say the Nagato's were not excellent battleships themselves. They were. Better than Hood? No.)
@YAKUMO RAN @YAKUMO RAN @YAKUMO RAN The British 15" was better than fairly decent. It performed superbly in WW II. One of the two longest range hits scored by heavy caliber guns on a moving target in WW II was scored by HMS Warspite at over 26,000 yds with the 15"/42. One of many instances of accurate and reliable effective fire by the RN weapon.
Just because the flash protection of RN ships was relatively poor in WW I it does not stand to reason it remained as poor in much later ships. The issue was addressed.
In any case, your reasoning is a little vague to me?
Citing that as a reason for Japanese ships being "better" would be like automatically classifying American cruisers as being better than Japanese ones because the U.S. had better compartmentalization. Yes, it is a relevant factor that can be of significance, but it does not directly make a ship more powerful, or more capable of overwhelming an opponent.
Further, combat performance of British 15" gun ships in WW II does not indicate any particular problems in the area of flare ups. No 15" gunned Britsh battleships were lost due to that issue.
@@billturner6564 Actually, 3 inches of armor was enough to bounce 15" shells that penetrated Hood's 7" upper belt. The problem was, the machinery spaces were only protected by 2" deck armor. Of course, it has never been proven for sure exactly what destroyed Hood. The penetration of her deck armor is only one theory.
Love this channel
HMS refit and repair! lol
New Jersey has a far better fire control system with radar and a better fire control computer.
In a night engagement the USS NEW JERSEY would butcher the NAGATO.
I sure would hope so considering NJ is 20 years newer.
Considering the era where battleships actually mattered, I think radars etc were a little too late. By the time NJ came to service the era of battleship has already ended and battleships were already relegated to anti aircrafts and shore bombardment roles. So I would say that for the era where the main guns of the battleship still mattered in naval combat, the radar systems and whatnot plays no significance.
Imagine if we built a battleship today. It will have state of art sensors, missiles and may be even rail guns etc. But would it be a better ship than the battleships on WW1? I would say no, because it is a wrong ship design in an era no longer suitable for such ships to exist, whereas the WW1 battleships made sense and dominated naval warfare, a modern battleship today had little relevance militarily. Thus put in historical context the WW1 ships were better.
Not dissing your video or the Nagatos, but the shell dropped on Arizona is not a good comparison. Dropping a shell from an airplane means that the shell is impacting at about a 90 degree angle, which is optimal. You can't achieve anywhere close to that angle when firing the shell from a gun, and no battleship had an armored deck designed to resist a shell striking at 90 degrees. They were designed to resist the striking angle expected from a gun. Overall, great video, and I agree that the Nagatos were impressive.
Actually at long range the shells from guns do hit at almost vertical angle. The shell tragectories are not perfect parabolas due to air friction. At long range engagements the guns are essentially howitzers.
Surprised Japanese ships had short range being an island nation
Their planes were made for long range
Their battleships were designed for "one decisive battle" perhaps somewhere close to their home islands. The battleships were never designed for raiding or scouting. Their aircrafts emphasized on range due to their carrier doctrine where they see the best way for the survival of a carrier fleet against an enemy carrier fleet was to be able to hit them at long range outside of the range of enemy aircrafts and then run away fast.
Appears to be such a superior Battleship over the Kongo. They seem to have the capability to slightly outmatch the South Dakota Class in speed and large guns; not so much in armor & 5'' guns for anti-aircraft capability. Speed seems to make the difference in - at the time - for the pre-WWII Battleships including the Hood. I am amazed that they didn't do research in developing more efficient propulsion technology for efficiency and longer range. The Japanese should have developed a better Battleship or a Heavy Cruiser to complement their emerging Carrier Task Force. They would never achieve any advantage against the USA after Pearl Harbor, once the US began their initiative to destroy Japan's ability to wage modern Naval War. Japan knew from the onset that they could not defeat the Americans. In the end it was obvious, they lost the War. Thanks for the Video.
I think the Colorados were better than the Nagatos, if the Nagatos would choose to fight. The standards were designed for fleet actions, not scouting or pursuit.
The entire Japanese battle line were significantly faster, meaning they had an advantage in taking the initiatives precisely during the battle line battles and are more likely to crossing the T.
I I understand correctly, Japanese boiler technology was inferior to U.S. High pressure boiler systems, so was the range disadvantage due to bunkerage or efficiency of fuel used?
You are correct. The US was well ahead of the Axis nations and the British in high-pressure boilers, having developed them in the mid-late 30s and having them be reliable and used on most new combat ships by WWII. The British didn’t really pursue them as heavily in the interwar years, as they (probably correctly) worried that they wouldn’t have time to work out the kinks before they would be at war. Germany had high-pressure boilers, but while theirs were very powerful, they proved extremely complex and unreliable. Japan didn’t put them on a ship until 1942 with the Shimakaze class destroyers as a testbed, and by then it was too late to put them on any larger ships. France may have had the best ones, with the forced-circulation boilers on the Richelieu class, but those didn't really see much combat, and I'm not sure what they sacrificed in terms of efficiency to get the desired performance.
I can’t say for sure why the range disadvantage existed, but my guess is that it was a combination of factors. The US incorporated long range requirements into all of its designs, as it expected to have to cross the Pacific. Japan had no illusions about conquering territory outside of the western Pacific, so their fuel and range requirements reflected that. Also, Japan and Germany both went a little overboard with their high-pressure boilers (shocking, I know). While the US kept pressures around 600 psi, Germany and Japan opted to pursue much higher pressures well above 1,000 psi. This was simply too much for the technology of the time to handle, which partially explains their unreliability. It also likely explains their inefficiency, as it presumably takes more fuel to heat the boilers enough to achieve those pressures with WWII technology.
@@bluemarlin8138 Not my primary expertise here, but where would the US early war propulsions plant rate in comparison to the, as I've been told, very efficiently designed plants of the French Richelieu-class? Smaller ship, smaller plant but what I've understood really good use of the tonnage allocated for propulsion.
Tuning3434 it’s really not my area of expertise either, but from what little I’ve been able to find, the French may have been ahead of even the US. Apparently, the Richelieu class used forced-circulation boilers, which made for more efficient steam generation, and which could be shaped to fit better in confined or unusually-shaped spaces. They ended up with the highest engine power on a BB until the Iowas came along, so they had to be doing something right.
@@bluemarlin8138 Most analysis I have read have pointed out that the IJN steam plants were less efficient than USN plants, leaving ships like Yamato with more bunker capacity having a much shorter range than the NC, SODaks or the Iowas. Plus that same technology made the Essex class, the Alaskas, and all the late heavy cruisers as quite fast and with large operating ranges.
@@bluemarlin8138 Between the wars, it does seem that the French and Italian navies really concentrated on speed and efficiency. Of course, operating in the Med, you need to get there, and get back home in as little time as possible.
What can you say about the Iowa turret accident
This is our official statement on the matter: ruclips.net/video/8D6v48cXvRo/видео.html
I don’t think the Japanese bomb made from a 16.1” shell penetrating Arizona’s deck necessarily proves that a long-range hit would have done the same thing. The bomb hit nearly perpendicular to the deck, which is the optimum angle for penetrating armor. A plunging shell fired from a gun is going to hit the deck at probably no more than 25-30 degrees at maximum practical battle range (and probably much less at likely ranges). That relatively shallow angle means it would have to pass through a lot more effective armor thickness than a bomb hitting at nearly 90 degrees, and it may also have ricocheted off the armored deck if the cap didn’t bite. That’s not to say it couldn’t penetrate Arizona’s deck, just that we can’t conclude that based on the Pearl Harbor bomb strike.
We know it would or at least could penetrate because when shot from a gun the velocity is many times greater so it would penetrate many times the armor.
Pottinger's Human the shell would be moving much faster when leaving the muzzle, but by the time it has traveled 10+ miles it has slowed considerably. Also, pure velocity and penetration numbers aren’t the only issue. At a shallower angle, the shell might ricochet if its AP cap doesn’t bite into the deck enough. And even if it does penetrate, it probably isn’t going to pile-drive straight down into the magazines at the bottom of the ship as happened with AZ. It is more likely to continue some horizontal motion and explode in an outboard space like an engine room or the deck above it. Still bad, but not catastrophic.
This is not up for debate it is something calculated easily with basic physics, which they did when designing the ships. There is absolutely no way they will stop it consistently, only at high deflection ie a glancing blow that was not going to do anything anyway. Making any battleship with the entire deck able to withstand heavy fire would be ludicrously expensive. That is why hood went up in smoke. Any ship would have been simply done if it got hit in that manner where it went directly into the magazine even if they put 10" armor on the deck, which is twice what arizona had. That's why we don't make battleships any more their invincibility is an illusion.
Pottinger's Human I don’t want to be rude, but you are making a lot of assumptions without the in-depth knowledge to back them up. Battleships were never designed to be invincible from every threat, but they were indeed designed to repel shell hits to the deck from other battleships at certain ranges. In fact, you can easily look up the ranges at which specific ships were vulnerable to plunging fire from different types of shells. Battleship armor was designed around the concept of “immunity zones” against their own guns (which were assumed to be similar to what they would be facing from contemporary enemy ships). Just using hypothetical figures here, but a ship might be designed to have an immunity zone against its own shells from 15,000 yards to 25,000 yards. Inside 15,000 yards, its own guns could penetrate its belt, and outside 25,000 yards, its own guns could penetrate its deck (due to the increased angle of fall and despite decreased velocity), but between those ranges, its own guns would not penetrate its citadel armor at all. And even against ships with larger guns than their own, most BBs still had some immunity zone.
As for HMS Hood, analysis of the Shell flight characteristics and Hood’s armor scheme reveals that she was almost certainly not sunk by a deck hit. The range was simply too close for the shell to have fallen that steeply. Most likely, the shell dove under Hood’s armored belt and into the 4” magazines through a wave trough created by the ship’s bow wave. There is also a chance that it could have penetrated Hood’s upper 7” or 5” belts (not the main 12” belt), and somehow made it down to the machinery spaces adjacent the magazines, but this would depend on how much Hood was heeling to starboard during its turn. Check out Drachinifel’s video on the Hood’s loss. It was just posted this morning and is very interesting.
Otherwise, deck penetrations (from shells) killing or severely damaging battleships are very rare, because the long range required for deck penetrations made it very hard to achieve those hits. One of the lightly-armored battlecruisers at Jutland MAY have been killed by a deck hit, but more likely is that one took a direct hit to the magazine, and the other two were hit in a turret and the explosion made it to the magazines due to the crew stacking powder charges in the turrets and removing the safety interlocks that were supposed to prevent turret explosions from reaching the magazines.
At long range engagements the guns are essentially functioning like howitzers and due to air friction the terminal trajectory of the shells do drop very close to vertical.
You can no longer dive on Nagato in an SB2C so she's not as much fun as she used to be.
I have the Rising Sun Flag from The Nagato
Did Nagato hit anything at Samar?
No all miss
Thought she was with the fleet thst bombed pearlharbor
Your a bit more favorable when considering the Nagato than I am. The big factor is until Samar, when the IJN had no choices left, they did not commit the Nagato, Mutsu, Fuso Yamashiro, Ise and Hyuga to any essential actions. If those 6 old ships were really as good as they were often perceived to be, the IJN would have actually used them around Guadalcanal and other battles. Instead, the Kongo's carried the battle line load that they were never designed for.
It was mainly due to the Japanese naval doctrine of seeking a decisive battleship battle. They kept their best battleships in reserve and sought to only commit them in one decisive battle with the US Navy. The Kongo's were considered less capable and old, and thus expendable. They were therefore the only battleships/battle cruisers the Japanese navy top brass were willing to commit for raiding and vanguard duties. Remember, the entrie Kido Butai, the Japanese carrier fleet was a vanguard force auxillary to their main battleship fleet, not considered as their main naval power under this doctrine.
the british 18 inch was 457mm the 18.1 inch on yamato was 460mm
Thank you for the update on the Nagato battleship. My father's uncle served on the Nagato as a gun captain. Fortunately, I had a chance to ask him many war related questions and listened to his stories. My father served with the US Army 442nd. Combat Regiment. My grandmother's younger brother, on the Nagato, and her son with the US Army, same war but different theater and side, such is war.
Largest guns except HMS Furious.
unfortunately nagato wasn't preserved as a museum... i thought the US would like to keep a souvenir...
In complete agreement. Something about this ship... I just think she's a complete beauty.
Believe we had to share with Soviets so we would have sunk her like we did with the subs we captured
As far as I can recall the Soviets never demanded to have the Japanese i-400 they nearly wish to respect them and see them I mean the Soviet Union could have demanded whatever it wanted I mean we weren't going to allow them to have them same thing with the nagato I mean she was property of the United States immediately following the surrender of the Japanese following World War II and it is a shame she wasn't retained as a souvenir or a Memento but I guess the conventional thinking at the time was she was just an enemy Battleship not worthy of preservation that's all so very early in the idea of ships dedicated to the role of a museum even though the USS Oregon had pioneered that and then contemporary speaking the USS Texas but the nagato wasn't retained and it is a disappointment
Also both the North Carolina and the South Dakota are technically inter war. I am curious what definition of inter war you are using.
I'm guessing is when they enter service
@@lordredlead2336 I guess? But they are interwar designs for sure.
Inter war means ships which have entered service in inter war period. Nagato was designed during WW1 and began construction during WW1. It was never referred to as a WW1 ship as it missed the war. Like Hood, and the standard battleships in the US Navy, they were the last of pre-treaty warships, whereas SD and NC were treaty warships. The latter two were thus ships of a completely different era.
Yamato class were ALSO designed before WW2, and their construction began before WW2. They were never referred to as inter war ships either, because they did not enter service only until after the outbreak of the war.
This video: *exists*
Me: Interesting. I could read up on my IJN Battleships/Dreadnoughts
My brain, thinking in WoWS: *Ah yes. big ships, bigger guns. the true definition of "biggus dickus"*
Wasn't US armor superior to Japanese armor for equivalent thickness.
Tony Scolaro yes, to a point in some circumstances. You really should find Nathan Okun to answer this, as he is an armor expert and he comments on this page. But in general, Japan had the worst armor quality in WWII. US battleship armor was better, but not as good as British or German battleship armor. (Some people like to say the differences were 25%, but most reasonable estimates are more like 10-12%). With Japan, they were just cursed with poor iron ore and lagged in their industry. With the US, the difference was down to the thickness of the hardened face layer of the armor. Ironically, the same quirk that made US battleship armor slightly less effective also made its cruiser armor the most effective.
Whether it's riveted or not and where it's riveted is the main concern with armor quality. If your armor flies apart at the seam it doesn't matter how strong it is. Some of the japanese ships had to be riveted the armor was just so thick so it made a seam which for some ships caused a problem. The US ships never really got fully welded or even close even by the end of the war so if they really got pounded by shells from a major battleship they would probably have fallen apart pretty quickly. As it turned out this was no longer something to really care about much so it didn't really matter.
Pottinger's Human Man, you are really grasping at straws in your hatred of US battleships. NO SHIP has riveted or welded armor! (Except on the surface sometimes to keep water out.) Battleships had their armor held on to a backing of structural steel (either the hull or an internal backing plate) with huge bolts. At least in US battleships, the edges of some plates had keys machined into them and slid into the edge key of the adjoining plate. That is a VERY secure connection. I’m also not aware of any battleship that has the armor seams aligned with the seams in the hull or backing plate (except for German deck armor, which caused the sterns of several German cruisers to fall off). Not that it would matter anyway, as the chances of shells repeatedly hitting the same seam are infinitesimally small. Finally, the technology to weld 12” pieces of steel together for their full depth didn’t exist at the time, and even if it did, it would destroy the heat treatment that made it armor steel in the first place. I believe some countries welded the top of the edges of some armored joints together, but these were just surface welds to keep salt water out and prevent corrosion. You are correct that the US didn’t use fully welded construction on its battleships, but the main benefit of switching to welding was saving a thousand tons or so of weight.
@@LTPottenger Your right, After November 1942, American Battleships only hit targets, they were never hit by shells. Oh and of course South Dakota taking a 14 inch hit directly to the turret face with no damage at all doesn't count (oops, sorry, with a reduced train speed).
@@bluemarlin8138 I don't have a big hatred for them but the more riveting you have the more quickly it will fall apart and all the old battleships were riveted and the most modern battleships in US were still pretty dicy and had a build that would probably not stand up to much pounding or at least not nearly as much as you would hope for with so much expense. In essence battleships in general were a big sham and never really got tested in real use. They are cool and interesting but the effectiveness was not put to the test much and when it did such as in jutland and ww II you had ships blowing up for no reason or being sunk by a single long range hit and so on.
The Japanese 25 mm AA gun was a French design - take that as you will.
And the bofors was Scandinavian, what's your point?
@@ThatZenoGuy The Japanese 25mm was pathetic, the Bofors (yes, you should capitalize proper names), were far better.
@@donaldcarey114
The 25mm was fine for what it was, I don't think you understand context.
@@ThatZenoGuy The Japanese 25mm was NOT fine for what it was SUPPOSED to be - educate yourself, posting garbage just makes YOU look bad.
p.s. The French are famous for crappy engineering. For examplke I used to own a Renault S-10 - a rolling pile of poorly engineered junk. That is just one example - again, EDUCATE yourself.
@@donaldcarey114
Nah, the 25mm was a fine enough gun.
Could it be argued therefore, that a heavily armored, modern type of battleship still be justified by survivability? Of course we will have the obligatory, "our missles can defend against anything" argument...
The era of the battleship ended when it was discovered that they were defenseless against aircraft and that there was no purpose for them anymore.
Any battleship would sink after several hits by modern antiship missiles. Today's hypersonic antiship missiles strike from above at 90° vertical and the amount of kinetic energy it carries can literally go through a WW2 era battleship like butter. Furthermore modern submarines can travel at 30+ knots under water and fire guided torpedos with enough destruction power to break a destroyer in half. No torpedo defence can be effective against that kind of destructive power. Thus modern ships almost completely rely on active defence and either you intercept enemy weapons before they hit you or you are just toast. Armour is useless and only contributed to cost used up space and dead weight.
How about the Kongo class
Check this out: ruclips.net/video/S2r5dSEYngw/видео.html
Noticed that some of these (great!) videos, including this one don’t show up in the playlist for your site for some reason unless perhaps they’re mis-categorized. Only saw this one because it came up as a suggested vid after watching several others. Very informative and enjoyable series!
To say that the RN wasted its money by having ships of different speeds shows a profound ignorance of how they would, and we're, deployed. I am surprised.
U are severe with the Iowa class this time. Iowa is owing a far better firepower than the Nagato class. 2700 pounds superheavy shells fired by caliber 50 guns are owing a far better penetration than the 16.1 japanese shells (2 more inches at 22 miles). Wich is meaning the Iowa can pass trough the Nagato armor long range Also the Iowa is owing a far better accuracy. No doubt the Iowa may have defeat the Nagato with ease.
The nagato being a super Dreadnought with 16-inch guns was definitely superior to the battlecruiser HMS Hood with all of the accoutrements and Design Elements present Hood was obese with armor and wasn't adequately effective certainly against vertical plunging shells of her own caliber the Royal Navy as late as 1938 unanimously so it's one of the reasons why multiple attempts to get Hood overhauled was done if they had come across each other in a singular match unfortunately I think the gato would have crushed the battle Cruiser HMS Hood owing to her larger caliber guns and more effective use of armor
Ryan I just have to say for the record because you've said it drac said it and I understand and respect you guys but I have to say you guys are incorrect about Hood status you do say your opinion and that's perfectly valid and respectable is lots of flaming Fanboys all across the internet aren't LOL
But I have to boil it down to three points
You can say it's still debated but there is no debate Ryan the Royal Navy always called the battle cruiser HMS Hood a battle cruiser now we can debate whether she should or shouldn't have been but she is a battle cruiser so let's get into it
Number one Hood was not a fast Battleship or a battleship she was a battle cruiser as she was intended to be by the Royal Navy during her construction phase and planning all of her blueprints all of her documents all of her paperwork that I've ever seen at the Imperial War Museum and reading material from good sources such as Colin white and Eric Grove would conclude the fact that she was designed to be a battle cruiser and she was a battle cruiser until she met her demise I do believe she was 4/5 of the way there but she's always and was a battle cruiser during her lifetime and by the people that operated her and the Royal Navy she inhabited that characteristic and never left that
Number two they never modernized her in any significant or meaning way they never enhanced her Armament or armor her deck armor was practically non-existent or armor layout was not efficient she did not utilize her materials correctly as vessels of the era when you say she wasn't a major priority I tend to disagree I think during the midst of the war until the peace treaty was signed they were trying to get as many capital ships in the field as possible in the hood was certainly one of them but she was in a bad way by 194041 she was suffering from mechanical deficiencies and it was in dire need of an overhaul by which the British government regrettably could not afford
And number three and this is the big one as historians it is our job to be factual and correct to remember and present things as they were intended Ryan the Royal Navy and her Builders and the people that operated her always refer to her as a battle cruiser and I don't feel like calling her a fast battleship is a distinction that is she merits I think it's a mischaracterization of history when we call her something that she was not in every other instance that I can think of when battle Cruisers were thrown up against battleships they almost always ended in catastrophe bismarck's destruction of hood is all the proof that I need that credible historians need to illustrate that hood was deficient in the arena I don't think luck had any role in it than usual I think Bismarck sunk her could because the Bismarck could sink Hood end of story unless something else presents itself I think the fact will always be that the end result Hood was destroyed and owing to the specific conditions of her construction and implementation
But in a nutshell that's how I see it people wind collar a battleship or a fast battleship it doesn't do history any due diligence or Justice to the crew of The Hood and the ship herself we need to be factual and correct about things we don't need to emblazon the HMS hood and her crew into different categories because it makes us feel better about the ship's demise
She was a battle cruiser forever and always..... as I said lacking any other substantial alterations or improvements and buy her operators of the period HMS Hood was an admiral class battlecruiser incorrectly assigned to take down the high-speed battleship the fast Battleship which I also would concur Bismarck was incorrectly utilized as well she was a more traditional Dreadnought meant to be plugged into a line of battle and unfortunately both ships found themselves plunged into the roles for which they were not devised Commerce raiding was not what the Bismarck was built to do in the face of a battlefleet and going up against another capital ship was not what HMS Hood was designed to do and her destruction is all the proof any of us should need.... a battleship she was not
Just watched the video of Nagato Class and here is a question? As Japan had done with smaller arms where there rifle caliber was slightly larger than american ammo, hence they could fire our ammo in there guns in a pinch but theres wouldn't chamber in our rifles were the 16.1 inch shells intentionally made slightly larger in the event the Americans captured ammunition it couldn't be used by our 16in guns and on the opposite side they were just big enough that if captured our 16in shell could be fired from there guns all be it probably not as accurately or effectively but as "free ammunition" make due with it?
Someone fed you bs
Yeah no, nobody was using other nation's shells in their BB's lmao.