Former USN Surface Warfare officer; grew up near the Philly shipyard and was always amazed at the sight of the three lined up together in the basin. Newport News had a lengthy career, and I never understood why the Navy used Baltimores in Korea & Vietnam and used Salem & Des Moines for such a short time, primarily as 6th Fleet flagships. The 8" automatic guns as seen by Newport News off Vietnam would have been well used by Salem & Des Moines off Vietnam as well. They were just superior overall to the Baltimores. In the early '80s, I hoped Salem & Des Moines would be brought back maybe instead of a battleship or two, but Ryan is correct that they just didn't have the capacity for modernization to compare to the Iowas. I recall seeing the grass growing up on the fantail of Des Moines in the '80s. I last saw Des Moines in the mid-'90s after I left the Navy. It was moved to the other side of the basin and was in terrible condition. The yard workers called her "the eyesore." Salem needs help. She needs to be moved to a better location to increase visitor traffic & revenue. I'm concerned about her future. I don't want her to end up in Brownsville like her sisters.
I am a volunteer on the USS Salem, can confirm. Ship is completely invisible from the road, and can only be seen when you go over the bridge seen in the background of the video. The deck of the ship is made out of teak wood, and has not been replaced after being exposed to the elements for the last 70 years. Growing grass on the fantail is a proud tradition that continues to this day, despite how much weed killer I apply. Another thing he forgets to mention is that because the ship is both heated and air-conditioned, it was insulated extensively with the most advanced technology of the time: asbestos. Hot damn, that stuff is everywhere. It covers every single pipe in engine room and emergency diesel generator, and is wrapped around all of the the steam pipes running through the ship. Some of the rooms are inaccessible due to the asbestos. Oh, and buckets of lead paint still show up. We still don’t know how much of the ship was painted with it.
@@chriscunningham9740 thanks for doing your best. Went out of my way to visit her. It’s definitely hard to find. She’s honestly one of the most interesting vessels left. Sucks the boring ships get so many visitors compared to the Salem. I wish you the best of luck.
@@nabox1435 thank you. One of the more ironic thing is that the ship is moored next to the headquarters for Bluefin Robotics, which produces cutting-edge autonomous underwater robots for the US Navy. We fight with them for parking space. They have a gigantic parking lot, which they don’t use on weekends, and they don’t let us use it.
@@chriscunningham9740 Chris, I grew up watching the paint fade and peel on 134 & 139. I was Chief Engineer on two USN warships. I lost an uncle to mesothelioma. I understand what you are saying. Looking at recent drone footage she doesn't look good. I'm not concerned about the superstructure as much as the waterline. She needs more care than you awesome volunteers can handle. She needs a drydocking, sand blasting, and repainting and re-decking. She doesn't have any more asbestos than New Jersey has. Usually encapsulating with paint is an acceptable solution, at least that's what the steam Navy did with our ships built between 1965-1975. I understand she is sagging about six inches midships due to the fact the forward and aft fuel groups are empty and the mainspaces are pulling her down. Probably not a big deal as it's been like that since 1961. She needs help from the State of Massachusetts. My ship pulled into Charlestown and I had a private tour of Cassin Young. Great guys running that museum. I gave them some damage control gear we didn't need. You are carrying out a real labor of love. I commend you and your fellow volunteers for you hard work.
Listening to Ryan explain any topic in amazing detail while I study has become a favorite ritual of mine. Thank you for the great work done by everyone at the museum.
While the Iowa's are just flat out incredible, i think the Des Moines are probably the best gun ships made. I wish they had made all 9 and had all seen service and refit and were still around in use.
What I wish is that the _Des Moines_ autoloader technology was carried over into a new battleship class. And that yet another class after that had come out, using nuclear propulsion, depleted uranium armor and shells like the Abrams tank, and a sleek stealthy look like the new Chinese _Renhai_ class cruisers. I guess you'd have to cut back on the gun turrets to make room for VLS cell launchers, so maybe just one big turret in front and one in back
90 rounds in the air before the first one hit the ground!! I was proud to crew the USS Newport News (CA-148) The last all gun Heavy Cruiser, in service. A note, our 8"55 guns could fire a R.A.P. round just over 20 miles. I think that the Des Moines Cruisers could stand toe to toe with any Japanese Battle ship, except the Yamato and the Musashi, I'm a little prejudiced, but the Iowa's would have a tough fight against the USS Newport News (CA-148)
They are no match for an Iowa in a gunfight vs one another, they are potentially a match in a fight vs the same target - if its not a battleship that can penetrate all of your armor with ease. It doesnt really matter that much if you can pump out so many rounds per minute but cant penetrate the armor of a battleship because 8" just isnt enough.
@@Ganiscol True, 8-inch shells will not breach an Iowa's hull or turret frontal armor but they would make a mess of the super structure, and anything else on deck. In any case I'm not saying a Des Moines-class cruiser could or would take on an Iowa, but we would be more accurate and put more tonnage on target faster .
USS Salem was also a movie star, playing the Graf Spee in the 1956 movie 'The Battle of the River Plate' (a.k.a. Pursuit of the Graf Spee in the United States).
A very watchable film indeed and well made as well. It is also reasonably accurate, but only "reasonably" - There is a certain amount of "poetic licence", but that is the norm for these things, and does not detract from the quality of the film.
Interesting would be to compare them to "Alaska" class - something in between "Iowa" and "Des Moines". I hope to someday have 1:700 models of all of them next to each other.
It comes down to tactics! "Play to YOUR strengths, avoid the strength of your opponent." In close, the rate of fire from a Des Moines would be VICIOUS!
What make Des Memes great is that they have automatic loading 8 inch guns, there's no autoloading naval gun with that size ever existed before. Plus the Des Memes unlike previous heavy cruisers used Powder case unlike the others used powder bags, which makes it safer and quicker to load and fire shellsm
In the 80's I often argued that at that time the primary purpose of the Iowa was to project power , nothing before or since has the PRESENCE of an Iowa!
Do you know what would be interesting? If you guys did a comparsion video on the tiny differences between all four Iowa class battleships. Something us ship nerds would love to see. Great video.👍
The Des Moines class heavy cruisers were incredible ships and we are lucky to still have one around. And even though I think a version with modern radar and missile defense along with nuclear power would be an incredibly valuable asset even today, there's just no comparing throw weight per minute versus an Iowa class. If it's a lightly armored target, then sure- the Des Moines class is almost unbeatable; however, if it's a hardened target then you need that 2700 pound AP shell to get the job done. There's nothing like a 12 ton broadside to say "you have displeased me and I intend to make it clear just how much". A 350 pound shell can kill your enemy, a 2700 pound shell can sublimate them.
Yes,but if you are chucking up to ten times the ordinance,you are discombobulating a lot more surface area. One of those bad boys at the Normandy landings would have made the US beaches a lot less difficult
@@christopherwhitfield3037 The problem would be how close they would have to get to shore and they would have been vulnerable to the German batteries' large caliber guns. Also, many of the targets would have been too hard for the 8" shells to penetrate. Now off the coast of Vietnam, I agree that a Des Moines class cruiser would have been an absolute beast.
@@seatedliberty if you take Omaha beach, the Germans had about 5 X 6 inch French artillery pieces from world war one. And they where on wheels,so their Inaccuracies would have been huge. So probably why they were trained on the beach instead.
@@christopherwhitfield3037 I agree with you, but the big thing is that the German guns would have been taken out by a Des Moines cruiser first anyways, then free to bombard other installations and anti-personnel bunkers / mounts. The old German guns would take 10x longer to get a hit than something like a Des Moines, especially given the rate of fire and number of barrels. I still don’t understand why shore bombardment wasn’t more effective or implemented pre-landing. Those gun bunkers should have EASILY been demolished by shore bombardment. 😕
I would like to see a video comparing USS New Jersey to what would have been the French equivalent of the Iowas, the Alsace class of battleships. The Alsaces would have been upscaled Richelieus armed with either nine 16" guns or three quad 15" turrets for a total of 12 heavy guns.
I believe that the Navy should have used Salem and Des Moines more than they did . Very often the Navy does not get the most out of their existing fleet , a case in point being the Spruance class Destroyers many of which were scrapped at less than twenty years of age.
I agree. I served on USS Kinkaid DD 965. Decom too soon. Also USS Cape Cod AD 43 was taken out of service too soon. Only 13 years in commission. I served on her from 1984-86.
Cost is the answer, as to why the Navy chose to convert lesser gun cruisers to missile cruisers, why these superb gun cruisers were not used off VIetnam, why the Spruance class class DD's were retired early, why some littoral combat ships are now being retired after only 10 years service. If a smaller cruiser can deliver explosive ordinance at $800 per ton, why use a larger cruiser (with a larger crew) to deliver ordinance at $1000 a ton. This is a primary task of account-admirals. MCI
@@RetiredSailor60 I love it when a soldier, sailor, airman or marine gives details of their assignment. It's always interesting. Thank you for your service sir.... 👍🏻🇺🇸
Of 31 ships in class only 3 were decommissioned at 19 years and 3 were decommissioned at 20 years.thw earliest 7 decommissioned were the seven that did not receive the VLS upgrade.
@@icbluscrn it is stronger in a few ways yes but its not nearly as versatile as the two des moines class cruisers in the game. Better AP shells and survivability yes, but worse radar, speed, reload and while more powerful still less useful shell arcs. Plus, its just not as fun, nothing beats a good rapid fire cruiser for fun factor. Petropavlosk is for competitive settings and winning, des moines is fir everywhere else and all round fun while being useful in more situations.
Petro pretty much exists as an excuse for P2W premiums, so that WG can point at it and say "game can't be P2W because you can get this one for free". Also it's not broken, it just happens to be banned in ranked for no reason at all, right? DM however is still an amazing ship, which is all the more impressive considering that it was one of the first T10s and most other older ships have been powercrept into irrelevance.
The Sverdlov class light cruisers were the only real threat during the Des Moines class years of service. An engagement would have been never evem close. I also think the Alaska class would have been a better choice to remain in commission than the battleships. They were cheaper to operate and there were no ships that could stand up to them.
I would like to see a comparison video between the Iowas/Des Moines and the Worcesters. An even more forgotten class of super gun cruisers that actually got built.
I can only imagine that there were more than a few Japanese Naval officers that breathed a sigh of relief upon seeing or hearing about these cruisers- that the war ended before they were commissioned. Even the Alaskas came too late to see any real naval combat- as the IJN fleet had pretty much ceased to exist as a fighting force by that time. As a cruiser commander, just knowing that either of those types of ship was out there, lurking and hunting is the stuff nightmares are made of...
While belt armor was similar In Thickness to Baltimore, it covered a much greater area of the waterline. On the Baltimore’s the main belt ends at the fore and aft centerline 5” mounts. There is only a narrow 3” strake of armor below the waterline abrest of the main armament.
Would love to see a comparison between the Alaska class and the Graf Spee or Scharnhorst A comparison between the Des Moines class and these German "pocket battleships" / heavy cruisers would also be interesting. Tks for all you do, Ryan! Love the content! -Rich
It's cool to see y'all mention World of Warships, I used to play it years ago and had stopped but these videos made me want to play the game again and get things like the Des Moines and Iowa.
I haven't stopped playing World of Warships. Been playing for almost 6 years now. It's the only game I play, period. The game has changed a lot since, you played last so, get ready to be lost for awhile until you learn how all the new features work. Just to prove how much I play, I have 474 ships in my port. Feel free to contact me through this post if you want to talk in-game. I have a discord channel of my own. Cheers and I hope to hear from you and that you get back into playing WoWs. 👍🏻🇺🇸
As a gunnery officer aboard Newport News I can tell you those rapid fire fully automatic main guns were phenomenal. Like firing an AK47 with 270 pound bullets. The nine guns could fire 90 rounds before the first one hit its target. On a raid into Haiphong Harbor in 1972 we fired over a thousand heavy caliber rounds in a four minute raid and following 10 minute running gunfight with three Russian built torpedo and missile boats.
Ryan thank for your work! I didn’t know you were in MA. Yes great vessel! The battleship Texas is “ Quite unique “!!! How effective would her torpedoes be in combat? For a ship at her time, it had promise and right into WW2. A Grand Olde Lady the Texas Is!
It would be stupid to take a battleship in close enough to launch torpedos. They are meant for long range fire. Cheap expendable destroyers can fire torpedos.
One comment, and I don't know what it means, New Jersey and Newport News were both in service during Vietnam. Given that, New Jersey was brought into service and put out of service, Newport News stayed in service for a few more years. As I said, I don't know what this means, but they did have a way to evaluate them.
Newport News was cheaper to operate, basically. She also somewhat justified her existence as a counter to the Soviet Sverdlovs, alongside the remaining converted Baltimores and Clevelands, which mostly still had some of their main guns and the ability to fire Terrier/Talos/Standard in surface mode. (That doesn't sound like much, but every time it's been tested, the results are pretty impressive. Those SAMs hit like a 16" HE. They don't pierce much if any armor, but they're fast, heavy and have a nasty fragmentation warhead.)
USS Pittsburgh CA 72 - A Baltimore Class heavy cruiser: From Wikipedia: The 104-foot section of bow broke off owing to poor plate welds at the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co. at the Fore River Shipyard, Quincy, Massachusetts - On 4 June, Pittsburgh was caught in Typhoon Viper[1] which increased to 70-knot (130 km/h) winds and 100-foot (30 m) waves. Shortly after her starboard scout plane had been lifted off its catapult and dashed onto the deck by the wind, Pittsburgh's second deck buckled, her bow was thrust upward, and then sheared off, although there were no casualties. Still fighting the storm, and manoeuvring to avoid being hit by her drifting bow structure, Pittsburgh was held quarter-on to the seas by her engine power while the forward bulkhead was shored. After a seven-hour battle, the storm subsided, and Pittsburgh proceeded at 6 knots (11 km/h) to Guam, arriving on 10 June. Her bow, nicknamed "McKeesport" (a suburb of Pittsburgh), was later salvaged by the tugboat USS Munsee and brought into Guam. The 104-foot section of bow broke off owing to poor plate welds at the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co. at the Fore River Shipyard, Quincy, Massachusetts. The typhoon damage also earned her the nickname "Longest Ship in the World" as thousands of miles separated the bow and stern. Thanks for sharing your video!
I’ve always wondered why they didn’t do a mix of iowa and Des Moines. 2 of each ship would have been a nice combo to see. Would have saved money and keeping a Des Moines around into the 21st century for shore bombardment would have been a great idea for far less money. If only…
@@alexdunphy3716 You wouldn't necessarily have to put them in the same triple turrets. You could stretch them out in more but smaller double or even singles, say three twins per side? Also, keep in mind, Montana was a bit longer and wider than Iowa thus probably could have accommodated a bit larger secondary.
@@tedeby5351 Don't need those exact turrets, just the guns. Iowa and what would have been the larger Montana-class basically had a cruiser's worth of firepower strapped to each side anyways with 5 twin 5in turrets on each side. I don't see replacing them on Montana with six or so of these 8in autoloaders, perhaps in twin mounts, on each side being that much heavier than ten 5 inchers.
That would basically be a design choice that was rooted out from battleship design even before ww1 - unless you could find a very good purpose to justify their weight and weight of their ammo (and where exactly do you store it and how much of it can you afford to store) it would be a bad design choice.
A comparison video I’d like to see would be New Jersey vs. the Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron (since New Jersey would easily best any single ship of that era)
The Iowa Class battleship is more powerful because they are Battleships but the better question is which is more effective as well as what if the Iowa class ships were given the same upgrades as the Des Moines. Or perhaps of the Montana class had been build with the same upgrades around the same time
In WW2 the Heavy Cruisers USS San Francisco had (17) battle stars and a Pres. Citation, USS New Orleans had (17) battle stars, USS Minneapolis had (16) battle stars, USS Portland had (16) battle stars and Naval Citation and USS Louisville had (13) battle stars and were in WW2 from the very start - 1941 - not the Baltimore Class. Note: (1) Baltimore Class lost a bow in a typhoon due to construction welding issues - cold welds. The Pre-war cruisers never had that problem.
The pre-war cruisers had issues with their hull integrity at the bows as well. A number of them lost their bows to torpedo hits, including the Minneapolis. Granted, this wasn't a direct consequence of the welding done, but those issues were still there in some form or the other.
@@anantr99 No pre-war Heavy Cruisers were lost by typhoon - a torpedo is totally different. The ships were rushed into service and the welding was considered a cold weld from a manufacturing build construction. USS Louisville CA 28 was in (2) typhoons in the Pacific and had damage to hanger doors and sea plane ripped from pontoon.
@@tonytrotta9322 Indeed, Sir. I mean to say that some structural issues were there at any given point of time. The reason for such issues did vary between the different classes, be it treaty restrictions (and thus less armour), or faults in welding.
Even though the total weight of fired ordinance per minute is equivalent, I seriously doubt the 8 inch shells had the striking power of the 16 inch. The Mark 16 8 inch/55 caliber of the Des Moines cruisers threw a 335 pound shell, the Mark 7 16 inch/50 caliber threw a max 2700 pound shell. For area denial or very lightly armored, the 8 inch, for area denial in congested areas or for penetrating power, give me the 16 inch.
Just as you say - against armor or hardened bunkers, the 16" beats anything but a modern penetrator bomb. But for suppressing troops in the open, give me a rain of 8" HE any day. This goes double if the cruiser could get close enough to shore to add the 5" guns to the barrage. That said, I've heard high praise from folks who fought in Vietnam for both New Jersey and Newport News - if you called in fire from either one, the enemy was going to have a bad time. Nowadays, if we're building a fire support ship, I'd rather have a few rapid-fire 203mm guns than a 406, though - missiles and precision airstrikes have taken over the "that installation, right there, needs to die right now" role, whereas rapid-reaction suppressive bombardments, protective fire or strikes against machine gun nests, sniper positions, etc are still good roles for a gun.
As always, very interesting. I normally prefer to read, but when Ryan is offering the explanation, I'll gladly listen. The issue with the three ships in the Des Monise class is the crew compliment. Crewing the three Des Monise would be equal to crewing roughly 14 Ticonderoga class guided missile cruisers. More modern systems would have reduced the Des Monise crew size, but those ships would still require a lot of resources for their capability. In addition, I like stream as much as anyone, but the handwriting for gas turbines was already on the wall. As Phillip Bouchard said, the Navy doesn't always get the absolute maximum out of every ship in commission, but they seem to get enough.
I know Fort Drum in Manila Bay wasn't an actual battleship but a "concrete battleship" but it would be an interesting video if the Iowa's could have knocked out a fully functional Fort Drum or if the concrete protection of the fort plus the 14 inch guns would have won the battle.
Apparently the AP rounds of the Iowas can punch through a maximum of 30 ft of concrete, so Fort Drum aka USS No Go probably wouldn't last. Fort Drum is awesome though. Oh, a good comparison might be whether an Iowa could have taken the same level of punishment in place of Fort Drum.
@@philb5593 It is kind of interesting on why the Japanese navy didn't use battleships to shut down the fort or the US Navy didn't do the same at the end of the war. I don't think the Iowa's would had a problem punching through the side where the six inch guns of the fort was and that would of killed most inside and the 14 inch guns was obsolete when the war began. Maybe the ship draft around Manila Bay would've meant the battleships had a disadvantage for direct fire.
The des Moines are just extraordinary. My question is, considering the rate of fire, a hat emptied the magazines in about two hours, were the rifles lined,and what was the amount of shells fired between either relining,or barrel replacement?
The only cruiser to come close to the amount of weight downrange would probably be the HMS Tiger class with their 4 6" auto guns firing 20rds per minute per gun.
The Tiger class also had an anti-air defence of 3inch guns which had a phenomenal maximum rate of fire. They were limited to 90 rounds per minute in peace time to keep barrel life reasonable. Problem was that the day of the missile had arrived, making them obsolete.
Since there were no torpedoes on these cruisers, it all comes down to the number and accuracy of 8" shell hits on an Iowa vs the same for incoming 16" shells on the cruiser. Early 8" hits would have to knock out the radars and guns of the BB pretty quickly, otherwise, lights out. The speed and maneuverability of the Des Moines might also play a role.
The British had a light cruiser with automatic 6" guns but ( only 2 in her final configuration ) that was decommissioned right before the Falklands conflict- HMS Tiger.....The US had a 6 " gun light cruiser with automatic guns (12 of them) called the Worcester class...but these guns had more mechanical issues than the Des Moines class.
Using the classifications of “Des Moines” and “Iowa” keeps mixing me up. Some guy in the 1940’s: “Let’s really intimidate the enemies of freedom by naming all of our warships after Iowa…”
@@williammacdonald3173 yes I know that very well but some ships they have in the game were in many cases just designs and towards the end of WW2 - if they even ever consider introducing another Iowa in the game it’s gotta be different somehow
The Iowa class battleships not only were larger, and therefore could carry more missiles, but had heavier armor. I'm not sure how well any ship would do when hit by a Soviet AS-4 Kitchen even with a 1 ton conventional warhead, but the Iowa's would be far more survivable against these and smaller missiles. Although I never understood why we didn't put 2 to 4 Sea Sparrow launchers and replace the Mark 38 with Mark 45 guns, which would have made the battleships even more survivable.
I believe the main reason the navy did not mount sea sparrows or mark 45s is power. While the Iowa's are big ships, they have limited electrical generation capacity. The ship service generators had the capacity for all their electrical demands in 1943, but the margins were slim. Modern weapon systems draw more power than their WWII equivalents, due to autoloaders, radars, computers, etc. If an Iowa had been modernized as you suggest, I have doubts to it's ability to power more than 2/3rds of the refitted systems at once.
It was mentioned on this very channel that the only way to even make the Harpoons and Tomahawks sustain the shock of the main battery was to mount them in armored box launchers midships. Where to put Sea Sparrows? I'd rather have the four CIWS than Sparrows - the internal armor belt can deal with any modern sea skimming missiles and the Phalanx should be able to keep the super structure safe long enough.
Hmmm... all sorts of comments here along the lines of: "we should have kept this, we should have kept that... if we only upgraded... etc..." Ummm, no. What the Navy kept, was nuclear attack subs. Because one of those could sink any surface ship before it even knew it was under attack. In fact, in multiple exercises, subs were "sinking" every ship on the opposing team - and the exercises were called off early. A big-gun boat is also just a big sitting-duck. Except in very permissive environments.
As to which id prefer, it would depend on the operations id be doing with it. If its shore bombardment, id want the Des Moines all day. Being able to lay down the same amount of ordnance and on many more targets could be a huge plus. If the operations involved sinking shipping or attacking other fleets, id want the Iowa's or Alaska's on my side, same speed more armor. Now if the Des Moines was built with more speed in mind to compensate for the thinner armor, would be hard not to take them though.
Missiles have their uses, but they are far more expensive than shells. Doing away with the gun ships was wrong. I will always contend that a BB or CA visiting foreign countries puts people in awe. As far as I can find, USS St. Paul (CA-73), a Baltimore class, was the last gun cruiser having served until 1971. I saw her as she UnRepped off Sacramento in the Sea of Japan in April, 1969. Beautiful ship. That leads me to think the Des Moines class should still be operating, or a newer class that could take advantage of guns and missiles.
Ammo cost isnt a factor to consider given the better versatility of missiles due to higher range and precision. Its the crew cost - way too many people needed on the gun ships...
That's mostly what we did in Vietnam, for units like 3rd and 7th Marines regiments . They told us that we had the most accurate gunfire in the theater. USS Newport News (CA-148) Call sign THUNDER
In World of Warships the Iowa is Tier 9 because the Tier 10 US battleship is the Montana, the last and top US battleship design. Much like the Des Moines is the final US heavy cruiser. Those that play know Alaska was placed at Tier 9 so the game developers could make a 4 turret Alaska at Tier 10. Anyway playing as a Des Moines you don’t really want to run into an Iowa at close range…. It doesn’t end well!
@@armansagmanligil1144 Absolutely. Have both DM & Salem. They’re a blast to play since you even hunt DDs with them. Just don’t get to close to any high tier BB. Even staying bow on to them doesn’t work!
Ryan of the Battleship USS New Jersey Museum and Memorial - agree these ships should had seen more active duty service than they actually had- because I believe that the possibility of close range ship to ship fighting exist- despite of those say about missiles- it’s like that the generals and admirals thought close air to air dogfight was over with the introduction of missiles on aircraft-. The F-4 Phantom was originally built without machine gun - but soon after the start of the Vietnam War- the F-4 Phantom was built with a machine gun.
I think that the U.S. Navy should have retained the DES MOINES Class and the IOWAS too. Ryan, I agree with you. These were by far the FINEST and BEST BBs and CAs built by the Navy. I am GLAD that the American people decided to save all four IOWAS. I just wish all three DES MOINES had of been saved too. They almost U.S.S. NEWPORT NEWS. But, unfortunately, those plans fell through.
That's pretty sweet, actually. She was the last active gun cruiser anywhere. Salem remains the last preserved cruiser with 203mm guns, but having Almirante Grau preserved too is nice piece of history. I'm kinda bummed France couldn't maintain Colbert. There is another preserved late-era gun cruiser in Russia, too - Mikhail Kutuzov, a Sverdlov-class light cruiser, with 12 152mm guns and 12 100mm guns.
In terms of a navy dominated by aircraft carriers, Des Moines class was hands down better. They were far cheaper to build and operate than an Iowa for almost the same AA potential. In a gun fight a la Jutland, I'd take an Iowa, but for almost anything else a Des Moines is just gonna be the better call. I mean, just in terms of tonnage you could field 3 Des Moines for close to the same cost as an Iowa and have nearly triple the broadside weight and nearly triple the AA power.
I was not a gunners mate I was a Boatswains mate. I serve from 84 to 88 so President Reagan was my commander in chief and what a great commander chief he was. I was on a 10 cam Uss davidson I Garcia Class Fast frigate
I have seen and heard your statements about rate of fire. What I would like to know is , how long could that ROF be maintained without barrel damage from overheating.
From what I found online barrel life was 780 shots, but the magazines held 150 rounds per gun. Unsure if they could maintain maximum rate of fire through all 150 rounds.
Assume the Cruisers are at their optimal gun range before battle starts How many Des Moines class does it take to win against an Iowa class? I assume optimal range for the cruiser is Knife fight range for an Iowa . Could an Iowa class be sunk by a task force of Des Moines?
Sounds like while the Iowas are now museum ships, the Des Moines class ships could still see use today if they were still around. I think they should've been brought back with the Iowas and modernized back during the Reagan administration. They'd probably be still in service with those gun system upgrades and continual current modernization. It would have been quite the sight to see them in service in 2021. Imagine those guns with GPS computerized modern target systems upgrades. Very deadly to say the least.
The Iowas are superior in every way, we should have finished the 2 we started & then built more. They could have made the 16" guns automatic if they wanted to. No reason to put smaller guns on it & then get closer to shore - if the enemy is in range then so are you.
If you wanna put automatic loading on big guns you have to either switch from Powder Bag to Powder case to make it safer and faster to load and then fire the gun
Making the 16" guns automatic loading capable would have been an epic undertaking, to say the least. The turrets on the Des Moines-class weighed some 450 tons, which was about 50% more than older turrets which were not capable of automatic firing. On top of that, these automatic turrets were also significantly larger (due to the sliding breech system). Extrapolating that onto an Iowa-class hull would give a turret considerably more heavier, and one that might just about be too large to fit into the hull. The automatic loading systems could also face significant issues if not designed perfectly. Just look at how the gun systems of the Worcester-class did (going for lower rates of fire to avoid jamming which could result from the technically-possible higher rates of fire). As you increased the gun size, the chances of such faults went up very quickly. Chances are that even if someone had somehow managed to develop an automatic firing system for the 16" guns, the system would have been too fragile for prolonged use. Next, you mention that the US should have finished Illinois and Kentucky, and then built more Iowa-class ships. While completing the last two ships could have been a decent-ish idea, there was absolutely no point in building more. The era of the battleship was pretty much over by the time the first four entered service. They were very expensive to built, very expensive to maintain, and very expensive to operate. Having more would just be a useless expenditure for ships that would at best, see two to three years of service (in Korea), and spend half a century in mothballs. Thirdly, you spoke about putting smaller guns and getting in close. The cruisers were considerably cheaper to operate than the Iowas were, and their rate of fire meant that they could do almost as well. Yes, there was the possibility of getting attacked back, but these cruisers would still be at a fair distance away from the shore, and the escorts, their own armor, and their defencive systems could make up for this trade-off.
The abandonment of guns in general was a mistake. Imagine a 21st century Des Moines class, with oto melara 5" and 3" guns firing at 30 and 120 rpm with volcano extended range guided shells firing out to 60km, B or C turret replaced with a VLS farm for longer range air defense and and probably some ASROCs. Two 8" turrets of similar but modernized design, using the same advances in technology as has been used in 6" artillery since WW2 giving them a range of 80km, and 150km+ with ramjet projectiles currently in testing. The hanger seems large enough for at least 1 helicopter which could be raised/lowered through the hanger roof for take off and landing. Radar can be updated and space originally for range finders can be used for modern EO sensors and ECM and EW stations. Electricity to power all of that new equipment can be obtained by using some of the design weight originally set aside for engines for generators instead since engines(especially gas turbines) are so much more power dense than they were 70 years ago. The armor on the ship, while still good against many threats today, can be made even better by using more modern steels and innovations in composite armor that have been developed since WW2. Such a ship would have more firepower and survivability than any ship afloat except a super carrier while maintaining high speed, lower operating cost than the flimsy "missile only" designs and be a less risky and more logistically flexible project.
The Navy does not like the big ships unless they are carriers. There is a financial problem of manning a vessel like heavy cruiser to acceptable survivability standards. Older gun ship were so resilient in large part due to abundance of crew to man stations and perform emergency survivability tasks.
@@newhope33 thats why the Iowas got Tomahawks and Harpoons in the '80s... and should any enemy happen to get in main battery range, it only takes one hit out of nine to sink any modern ship. Now, imagine range extension technology on 16" shells like they have on land based artillery with drones spotting for near perfect accuracy. Needless to say that modern anti-ship missiles will do little to actually sink an Iowa, as they are not designed for penetrating that kind of armor (behind void spaces). However, the reason such ships are not in service today is the cost, mainly the cost of operation. Especially the crew. You can buy and operate half a dozen destroyers, if not more, and have much more missiles in the air.
Can you tell me if the Des Moines cruisers were really that easy to ammo rack as how War Thunder portrays them to be. Are their ammo racks really that exposed as you stated they do have a shallow draft.
My favorite CC in WOW is the tier 10 Hindenburg with her 8 torps per side in addition to the guns. I like to hunt BB's with her especially around islands where the element of surprise lets me unload at close range. Why did US cruisers stop using torps? I can understand no smoke in the age of radar but not having a secondary primary weapon seems illogical.
To my understanding, one of the more prominent reasons for the US stopping the use of torpedoes after the Omaha-class in general (with the Atlanta-class briefly reintroducing them) was that they felt cruisers would fight at ranges which was flat out longer than the maximum range of their torpedoes. They didn't expect their cruisers to generally get into ranges where torpedoes would actually be a factor. The Atlanta-class brought back torpedoes, because they were designed as destroyer flotilla leaders and scout cruisers. As such, they were expected to get into close range gunfights, and would be able to use their torpedoes. The fact that they proved to be good AA cruisers and less-than-ideal at gunfights seems to have not been foreseen. P.S. As good as the Hindenburg is in World of Warships, it's a paper design.
![BAK Jay - Find Out (For Your Love) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/10FJO_XBCvY/mqdefault.jpg)
Former USN Surface Warfare officer; grew up near the Philly shipyard and was always amazed at the sight of the three lined up together in the basin. Newport News had a lengthy career, and I never understood why the Navy used Baltimores in Korea & Vietnam and used Salem & Des Moines for such a short time, primarily as 6th Fleet flagships. The 8" automatic guns as seen by Newport News off Vietnam would have been well used by Salem & Des Moines off Vietnam as well. They were just superior overall to the Baltimores. In the early '80s, I hoped Salem & Des Moines would be brought back maybe instead of a battleship or two, but Ryan is correct that they just didn't have the capacity for modernization to compare to the Iowas. I recall seeing the grass growing up on the fantail of Des Moines in the '80s. I last saw Des Moines in the mid-'90s after I left the Navy. It was moved to the other side of the basin and was in terrible condition. The yard workers called her "the eyesore." Salem needs help. She needs to be moved to a better location to increase visitor traffic & revenue. I'm concerned about her future. I don't want her to end up in Brownsville like her sisters.
I am a volunteer on the USS Salem, can confirm. Ship is completely invisible from the road, and can only be seen when you go over the bridge seen in the background of the video. The deck of the ship is made out of teak wood, and has not been replaced after being exposed to the elements for the last 70 years. Growing grass on the fantail is a proud tradition that continues to this day, despite how much weed killer I apply. Another thing he forgets to mention is that because the ship is both heated and air-conditioned, it was insulated extensively with the most advanced technology of the time: asbestos. Hot damn, that stuff is everywhere. It covers every single pipe in engine room and emergency diesel generator, and is wrapped around all of the the steam pipes running through the ship. Some of the rooms are inaccessible due to the asbestos. Oh, and buckets of lead paint still show up. We still don’t know how much of the ship was painted with it.
@@chriscunningham9740 thanks for doing your best. Went out of my way to visit her. It’s definitely hard to find. She’s honestly one of the most interesting vessels left. Sucks the boring ships get so many visitors compared to the Salem. I wish you the best of luck.
@@nabox1435 thank you. One of the more ironic thing is that the ship is moored next to the headquarters for Bluefin Robotics, which produces cutting-edge autonomous underwater robots for the US Navy. We fight with them for parking space. They have a gigantic parking lot, which they don’t use on weekends, and they don’t let us use it.
@@chriscunningham9740 Chris, I grew up watching the paint fade and peel on 134 & 139. I was Chief Engineer on two USN warships. I lost an uncle to mesothelioma. I understand what you are saying. Looking at recent drone footage she doesn't look good. I'm not concerned about the superstructure as much as the waterline. She needs more care than you awesome volunteers can handle. She needs a drydocking, sand blasting, and repainting and re-decking. She doesn't have any more asbestos than New Jersey has. Usually encapsulating with paint is an acceptable solution, at least that's what the steam Navy did with our ships built between 1965-1975. I understand she is sagging about six inches midships due to the fact the forward and aft fuel groups are empty and the mainspaces are pulling her down. Probably not a big deal as it's been like that since 1961. She needs help from the State of Massachusetts. My ship pulled into Charlestown and I had a private tour of Cassin Young. Great guys running that museum. I gave them some damage control gear we didn't need. You are carrying out a real labor of love. I commend you and your fellow volunteers for you hard work.
I was stationed in Philly in the early 80s and I agree the three were right at the front gate and just screamed NAVY! They are magnificent ships!
Listening to Ryan explain any topic in amazing detail while I study has become a favorite ritual of mine. Thank you for the great work done by everyone at the museum.
You are so right.
While the Iowa's are just flat out incredible, i think the Des Moines are probably the best gun ships made. I wish they had made all 9 and had all seen service and refit and were still around in use.
What I wish is that the _Des Moines_ autoloader technology was carried over into a new battleship class. And that yet another class after that had come out, using nuclear propulsion, depleted uranium armor and shells like the Abrams tank, and a sleek stealthy look like the new Chinese _Renhai_ class cruisers. I guess you'd have to cut back on the gun turrets to make room for VLS cell launchers, so maybe just one big turret in front and one in back
90 rounds in the air before the first one hit the ground!! I was proud to crew the USS Newport News (CA-148) The last all gun Heavy Cruiser, in service. A note, our 8"55 guns could fire a R.A.P. round just over 20 miles. I think that the Des Moines Cruisers could stand toe to toe with any Japanese Battle ship, except the Yamato and the Musashi, I'm a little prejudiced, but the Iowa's would have a tough fight against the USS Newport News (CA-148)
They are no match for an Iowa in a gunfight vs one another, they are potentially a match in a fight vs the same target - if its not a battleship that can penetrate all of your armor with ease. It doesnt really matter that much if you can pump out so many rounds per minute but cant penetrate the armor of a battleship because 8" just isnt enough.
@@Ganiscol True, 8-inch shells will not breach an Iowa's hull or turret frontal armor but they would make a mess of the super structure, and anything else on deck. In any case I'm not saying a Des Moines-class cruiser could or would take on an Iowa, but we would be more accurate and put more tonnage on target faster
.
@@AdamosDad yes you could use alot of HE shells and start loads of fires in the superstructure.
@@michaelgrey7854 in the meantime those 16" Super Heavy 2700 lb shells are gutting the Des Moines
USS Salem was also a movie star, playing the Graf Spee in the 1956 movie 'The Battle of the River Plate' (a.k.a. Pursuit of the Graf Spee in the United States).
There is also a great view at the start of the movie where you get to see the spacious hanger. Awsome ship.
A very watchable film indeed and well made as well. It is also reasonably accurate, but only "reasonably" - There is a certain amount of "poetic licence", but that is the norm for these things, and does not detract from the quality of the film.
Interesting would be to compare them to "Alaska" class - something in between "Iowa" and "Des Moines". I hope to someday have 1:700 models of all of them next to each other.
I'd love to think what Admiral Lee could have done with a De Moines, imagine the carnage he could have caused 0.0
Des Moines*^
Watching from Des Moines , Iowa. This is great!
Being in Des Moines is great?
@@tominiowa2513 Absolutely!
It comes down to tactics! "Play to YOUR strengths, avoid the strength of your opponent."
In close, the rate of fire from a Des Moines would be VICIOUS!
What make Des Memes great is that they have automatic loading 8 inch guns, there's no autoloading naval gun with that size ever existed before. Plus the Des Memes unlike previous heavy cruisers used Powder case unlike the others used powder bags, which makes it safer and quicker to load and fire shellsm
Great review. I served on Newport News from 1968 to 1971. Note: the "News" was second fleet flag during those years.
In the 80's I often argued that at that time the primary purpose of the Iowa was to project power , nothing before or since has the PRESENCE of an Iowa!
As someone who grew up in Iowa (and born in Missouri) very close to Des Moines I very much appreciated this video!
Do you know what would be interesting? If you guys did a comparsion video on the tiny differences between all four Iowa class battleships. Something us ship nerds would love to see. Great video.👍
I think we should still keep a few analog gun ships in service. One day we may be defeated by our enemy's mouse.
The Des Moines class heavy cruisers were incredible ships and we are lucky to still have one around. And even though I think a version with modern radar and missile defense along with nuclear power would be an incredibly valuable asset even today, there's just no comparing throw weight per minute versus an Iowa class. If it's a lightly armored target, then sure- the Des Moines class is almost unbeatable; however, if it's a hardened target then you need that 2700 pound AP shell to get the job done. There's nothing like a 12 ton broadside to say "you have displeased me and I intend to make it clear just how much". A 350 pound shell can kill your enemy, a 2700 pound shell can sublimate them.
Yes,but if you are chucking up to ten times the ordinance,you are discombobulating a lot more surface area. One of those bad boys at the Normandy landings would have made the US beaches a lot less difficult
@@christopherwhitfield3037 The problem would be how close they would have to get to shore and they would have been vulnerable to the German batteries' large caliber guns. Also, many of the targets would have been too hard for the 8" shells to penetrate. Now off the coast of Vietnam, I agree that a Des Moines class cruiser would have been an absolute beast.
@@seatedliberty if you take Omaha beach, the Germans had about 5 X 6 inch French artillery pieces from world war one. And they where on wheels,so their Inaccuracies would have been huge. So probably why they were trained on the beach instead.
@@christopherwhitfield3037 I agree with you, but the big thing is that the German guns would have been taken out by a Des Moines cruiser first anyways, then free to bombard other installations and anti-personnel bunkers / mounts. The old German guns would take 10x longer to get a hit than something like a Des Moines, especially given the rate of fire and number of barrels.
I still don’t understand why shore bombardment wasn’t more effective or implemented pre-landing. Those gun bunkers should have EASILY been demolished by shore bombardment. 😕
You'd think an 8-inch shell would be half the weight and firepower of a 16-inch. Nope! The 16-inch is way WAY more powerful
I would like to see a video comparing USS New Jersey to what would have been the French equivalent of the Iowas, the Alsace class of battleships. The Alsaces would have been upscaled Richelieus armed with either nine 16" guns or three quad 15" turrets for a total of 12 heavy guns.
I believe that the Navy should have used Salem and Des Moines more than they did . Very often the Navy does not get the most out of their existing fleet , a case in point being the Spruance class Destroyers many of which were scrapped at less than twenty years of age.
I agree. I served on USS Kinkaid DD 965. Decom too soon. Also USS Cape Cod AD 43 was taken out of service too soon. Only 13 years in commission. I served on her from 1984-86.
Cost is the answer, as to why the Navy chose to convert lesser gun cruisers to missile cruisers, why these superb gun cruisers were not used off VIetnam, why the Spruance class class DD's were retired early, why some littoral combat ships are now being retired after only 10 years service. If a smaller cruiser can deliver explosive ordinance at $800 per ton, why use a larger cruiser (with a larger crew) to deliver ordinance at $1000 a ton. This is a primary task of account-admirals. MCI
@@RetiredSailor60 I love it when a soldier, sailor, airman or marine gives details of their assignment. It's always interesting. Thank you for your service sir.... 👍🏻🇺🇸
Of 31 ships in class only 3 were decommissioned at 19 years and 3 were decommissioned at 20 years.thw earliest 7 decommissioned were the seven that did not receive the VLS upgrade.
@@craigplatel813 What class are you speaking of?
The USS Salem stars as the admiral graf speaking in " Battle of the river Plate"
Interesting to hear Ryan's take on the ships in WOWS (World of Warships).
Yep.
Des moines and Salem are probably some of the best surface ships in the game, knowing they had a similar real world fire rate is impressive.
@@treeherder42 naval legend petropovlosk would like a word with you .
@@icbluscrn You know that was just a captured German boat right?
@@icbluscrn it is stronger in a few ways yes but its not nearly as versatile as the two des moines class cruisers in the game.
Better AP shells and survivability yes, but worse radar, speed, reload and while more powerful still less useful shell arcs.
Plus, its just not as fun, nothing beats a good rapid fire cruiser for fun factor.
Petropavlosk is for competitive settings and winning, des moines is fir everywhere else and all round fun while being useful in more situations.
Petro pretty much exists as an excuse for P2W premiums, so that WG can point at it and say "game can't be P2W because you can get this one for free". Also it's not broken, it just happens to be banned in ranked for no reason at all, right?
DM however is still an amazing ship, which is all the more impressive considering that it was one of the first T10s and most other older ships have been powercrept into irrelevance.
The Sverdlov class light cruisers were the only real threat during the Des Moines class years of service. An engagement would have been never evem close. I also think the Alaska class would have been a better choice to remain in commission than the battleships. They were cheaper to operate and there were no ships that could stand up to them.
Those 8-inch guns are insane.
Plus, they can be loaded at any angle.
I would like to see a comparison video between the Iowas/Des Moines and the Worcesters. An even more forgotten class of super gun cruisers that actually got built.
I think that Salem vs Alaska would have been a more fair comparison
I can only imagine that there were more than a few Japanese Naval officers that breathed a sigh of relief upon seeing or hearing about these cruisers- that the war ended before they were commissioned. Even the Alaskas came too late to see any real naval combat- as the IJN fleet had pretty much ceased to exist as a fighting force by that time. As a cruiser commander, just knowing that either of those types of ship was out there, lurking and hunting is the stuff nightmares are made of...
While belt armor was similar In Thickness to Baltimore, it covered a much greater area of the waterline. On the Baltimore’s the main belt ends at the fore and aft centerline 5” mounts. There is only a narrow 3” strake of armor below the waterline abrest of the main armament.
Modern war ships have no armerd so any would be better then non I would think
I like how you referenced World of warships in your video 😁
Hi Ryan... Do you play World of Warships? And if so, what ships do you play or like the most???
I can just see it now Ryan going Battle Stations. And cruising into Battle.
@@Finallybianca I'd watch that on YT for sure!
The Des Moines class pretty nice but for me my favorite cruiser class the Alaska's!
Would love to see a comparison between the Alaska class and the Graf Spee or Scharnhorst
A comparison between the Des Moines class and these German "pocket battleships" / heavy cruisers would also be interesting.
Tks for all you do, Ryan! Love the content!
-Rich
Great video ryan and libby, thanks! more of this pleeeease!
Your videos always feel like a very enjoyable short seminar class…. Please keep up the good work!
Thank you for the detailed comparison between these 2 great American warships .
I see today that you are getting $500,000 for the teak decking. Wonderful!
It's cool to see y'all mention World of Warships, I used to play it years ago and had stopped but these videos made me want to play the game again and get things like the Des Moines and Iowa.
I haven't stopped playing World of Warships. Been playing for almost 6 years now. It's the only game I play, period. The game has changed a lot since, you played last so, get ready to be lost for awhile until you learn how all the new features work. Just to prove how much I play, I have 474 ships in my port. Feel free to contact me through this post if you want to talk in-game. I have a discord channel of my own. Cheers and I hope to hear from you and that you get back into playing WoWs. 👍🏻🇺🇸
@@windborne8795 I’m recently started playing again to. Drop the discord off you feel like it wondering how to play better
I just started playing about two weeks ago.
I loved the world of warships reference :)
As a gunnery officer aboard Newport News I can tell you those rapid fire fully automatic main guns were phenomenal. Like firing an AK47 with 270 pound bullets. The nine guns could fire 90 rounds before the first one hit its target. On a raid into Haiphong Harbor in 1972 we fired over a thousand heavy caliber rounds in a four minute raid and following 10 minute running gunfight with three Russian built torpedo and missile boats.
I was stationed at the Philadelphia naval shipyard in 86. They were there then cool
Ryan thank for your work! I didn’t know you were in MA. Yes great vessel! The battleship Texas is “ Quite unique “!!! How effective would her torpedoes be in combat? For a ship at her time, it had promise and right into WW2. A Grand Olde Lady the Texas Is!
It would be stupid to take a battleship in close enough to launch torpedos. They are meant for long range fire. Cheap expendable destroyers can fire torpedos.
One comment, and I don't know what it means, New Jersey and Newport News were both in service during Vietnam. Given that, New Jersey was brought into service and put out of service, Newport News stayed in service for a few more years. As I said, I don't know what this means, but they did have a way to evaluate them.
Newport News was cheaper to operate, basically. She also somewhat justified her existence as a counter to the Soviet Sverdlovs, alongside the remaining converted Baltimores and Clevelands, which mostly still had some of their main guns and the ability to fire Terrier/Talos/Standard in surface mode. (That doesn't sound like much, but every time it's been tested, the results are pretty impressive. Those SAMs hit like a 16" HE. They don't pierce much if any armor, but they're fast, heavy and have a nasty fragmentation warhead.)
USS Pittsburgh CA 72 - A Baltimore Class heavy cruiser: From Wikipedia: The 104-foot section of bow broke off owing to poor plate welds at the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co. at the Fore River Shipyard, Quincy, Massachusetts - On 4 June, Pittsburgh was caught in Typhoon Viper[1] which increased to 70-knot (130 km/h) winds and 100-foot (30 m) waves. Shortly after her starboard scout plane had been lifted off its catapult and dashed onto the deck by the wind, Pittsburgh's second deck buckled, her bow was thrust upward, and then sheared off, although there were no casualties. Still fighting the storm, and manoeuvring to avoid being hit by her drifting bow structure, Pittsburgh was held quarter-on to the seas by her engine power while the forward bulkhead was shored. After a seven-hour battle, the storm subsided, and Pittsburgh proceeded at 6 knots (11 km/h) to Guam, arriving on 10 June. Her bow, nicknamed "McKeesport" (a suburb of Pittsburgh), was later salvaged by the tugboat USS Munsee and brought into Guam. The 104-foot section of bow broke off owing to poor plate welds at the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co. at the Fore River Shipyard, Quincy, Massachusetts. The typhoon damage also earned her the nickname "Longest Ship in the World" as thousands of miles separated the bow and stern. Thanks for sharing your video!
I’ve always wondered why they didn’t do a mix of iowa and Des Moines. 2 of each ship would have been a nice combo to see. Would have saved money and keeping a Des Moines around into the 21st century for shore bombardment would have been a great idea for far less money. If only…
Imagine a twelve 16in gun Montana-class with Des Moines main battery as it's secondary. Possibly the ultimate battleship that never was?
I dont think there would have been enough room to fit then, except maybe just one turret per side
@@alexdunphy3716 You wouldn't necessarily have to put them in the same triple turrets. You could stretch them out in more but smaller double or even singles, say three twins per side? Also, keep in mind, Montana was a bit longer and wider than Iowa thus probably could have accommodated a bit larger secondary.
The Des Moines turrets are way too heavy for that.
@@tedeby5351
Don't need those exact turrets, just the guns. Iowa and what would have been the larger Montana-class basically had a cruiser's worth of firepower strapped to each side anyways with 5 twin 5in turrets on each side. I don't see replacing them on Montana with six or so of these 8in autoloaders, perhaps in twin mounts, on each side being that much heavier than ten 5 inchers.
That would basically be a design choice that was rooted out from battleship design even before ww1 - unless you could find a very good purpose to justify their weight and weight of their ammo (and where exactly do you store it and how much of it can you afford to store) it would be a bad design choice.
You may have heard this, the missing Mk. 41 Vertical Stable was reunited with the USS Salem!
A comparison video I’d like to see would be New Jersey vs. the Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron (since New Jersey would easily best any single ship of that era)
The Iowa Class battleship is more powerful because they are Battleships but the better question is which is more effective as well as what if the Iowa class ships were given the same upgrades as the Des Moines. Or perhaps of the Montana class had been build with the same upgrades around the same time
0:28 Alaska Class: Am I a joke to you Ryan?
In WW2 the Heavy Cruisers USS San Francisco had (17) battle stars and a Pres. Citation, USS New Orleans had (17) battle stars, USS Minneapolis had (16) battle stars, USS Portland had (16) battle stars and Naval Citation and USS Louisville had (13) battle stars and were in WW2 from the very start - 1941 - not the Baltimore Class. Note: (1) Baltimore Class lost a bow in a typhoon due to construction welding issues - cold welds. The Pre-war cruisers never had that problem.
The pre-war cruisers had issues with their hull integrity at the bows as well. A number of them lost their bows to torpedo hits, including the Minneapolis. Granted, this wasn't a direct consequence of the welding done, but those issues were still there in some form or the other.
@@anantr99 No pre-war Heavy Cruisers were lost by typhoon - a torpedo is totally different. The ships were rushed into service and the welding was considered a cold weld
from a manufacturing build construction. USS Louisville CA 28 was in (2) typhoons in the Pacific and had damage to hanger doors and sea plane ripped from pontoon.
@@tonytrotta9322 Indeed, Sir. I mean to say that some structural issues were there at any given point of time. The reason for such issues did vary between the different classes, be it treaty restrictions (and thus less armour), or faults in welding.
Even though the total weight of fired ordinance per minute is equivalent, I seriously doubt the 8 inch shells had the striking power of the 16 inch. The Mark 16 8 inch/55 caliber of the Des Moines cruisers threw a 335 pound shell, the Mark 7 16 inch/50 caliber threw a max 2700 pound shell. For area denial or very lightly armored, the 8 inch, for area denial in congested areas or for penetrating power, give me the 16 inch.
Just as you say - against armor or hardened bunkers, the 16" beats anything but a modern penetrator bomb. But for suppressing troops in the open, give me a rain of 8" HE any day. This goes double if the cruiser could get close enough to shore to add the 5" guns to the barrage. That said, I've heard high praise from folks who fought in Vietnam for both New Jersey and Newport News - if you called in fire from either one, the enemy was going to have a bad time.
Nowadays, if we're building a fire support ship, I'd rather have a few rapid-fire 203mm guns than a 406, though - missiles and precision airstrikes have taken over the "that installation, right there, needs to die right now" role, whereas rapid-reaction suppressive bombardments, protective fire or strikes against machine gun nests, sniper positions, etc are still good roles for a gun.
As always, very interesting. I normally prefer to read, but when Ryan is offering the explanation, I'll gladly listen. The issue with the three ships in the Des Monise class is the crew compliment. Crewing the three Des Monise would be equal to crewing roughly 14 Ticonderoga class guided missile cruisers. More modern systems would have reduced the Des Monise crew size, but those ships would still require a lot of resources for their capability. In addition, I like stream as much as anyone, but the handwriting for gas turbines was already on the wall. As Phillip Bouchard said, the Navy doesn't always get the absolute maximum out of every ship in commission, but they seem to get enough.
13:25 harbor shot , there is a NewPort News class LST along the pier. If new footage she is the last.
I know Fort Drum in Manila Bay wasn't an actual battleship but a "concrete battleship" but it would be an interesting video if the Iowa's could have knocked out a fully functional Fort Drum or if the concrete protection of the fort plus the 14 inch guns would have won the battle.
Apparently the AP rounds of the Iowas can punch through a maximum of 30 ft of concrete, so Fort Drum aka USS No Go probably wouldn't last.
Fort Drum is awesome though.
Oh, a good comparison might be whether an Iowa could have taken the same level of punishment in place of Fort Drum.
@@philb5593 It is kind of interesting on why the Japanese navy didn't use battleships to shut down the fort or the US Navy didn't do the same at the end of the war.
I don't think the Iowa's would had a problem punching through the side where the six inch guns of the fort was and that would of killed most inside and the 14 inch guns was obsolete when the war began.
Maybe the ship draft around Manila Bay would've meant the battleships had a disadvantage for direct fire.
The des Moines are just extraordinary. My question is, considering the rate of fire, a hat emptied the magazines in about two hours, were the rifles lined,and what was the amount of shells fired between either relining,or barrel replacement?
The only cruiser to come close to the amount of weight downrange would probably be the HMS Tiger class with their 4 6" auto guns firing 20rds per minute per gun.
The Tiger class also had an anti-air defence of 3inch guns which had a phenomenal maximum rate of fire. They were limited to 90 rounds per minute in peace time to keep barrel life reasonable. Problem was that the day of the missile had arrived, making them obsolete.
Since there were no torpedoes on these cruisers, it all comes down to the number and accuracy of 8" shell hits on an Iowa vs the same for incoming 16" shells on the cruiser. Early 8" hits would have to knock out the radars and guns of the BB pretty quickly, otherwise, lights out. The speed and maneuverability of the Des Moines might also play a role.
The British had a light cruiser with automatic 6" guns but ( only 2 in her final configuration ) that was decommissioned right before the Falklands conflict- HMS Tiger.....The US had a 6 " gun light cruiser with automatic guns (12 of them) called the Worcester class...but these guns had more mechanical issues than the Des Moines class.
which is funny because 8" shells were heavier
Using the classifications of “Des Moines” and “Iowa” keeps mixing me up. Some guy in the 1940’s: “Let’s really intimidate the enemies of freedom by naming all of our warships after Iowa…”
I like "Battleship X". That was pure genius. 😊
Ryan we need the NJ in WoW as a T10 premium ship with Vietnam retro fit secondaries to make it different than the T9 Iowa
WOW is world war era ships
@@williammacdonald3173 yes I know that very well but some ships they have in the game were in many cases just designs and towards the end of WW2 - if they even ever consider introducing another Iowa in the game it’s gotta be different somehow
What Tier would BB-62 be if Katie shells were allowed?
You should come to the UK and film HMS Victory and HMS Belfast
The Iowa class battleships not only were larger, and therefore could carry more missiles, but had heavier armor. I'm not sure how well any ship would do when hit by a Soviet AS-4 Kitchen even with a 1 ton conventional warhead, but the Iowa's would be far more survivable against these and smaller missiles. Although I never understood why we didn't put 2 to 4 Sea Sparrow launchers and replace the Mark 38 with Mark 45 guns, which would have made the battleships even more survivable.
I believe the main reason the navy did not mount sea sparrows or mark 45s is power. While the Iowa's are big ships, they have limited electrical generation capacity. The ship service generators had the capacity for all their electrical demands in 1943, but the margins were slim. Modern weapon systems draw more power than their WWII equivalents, due to autoloaders, radars, computers, etc. If an Iowa had been modernized as you suggest, I have doubts to it's ability to power more than 2/3rds of the refitted systems at once.
It was mentioned on this very channel that the only way to even make the Harpoons and Tomahawks sustain the shock of the main battery was to mount them in armored box launchers midships. Where to put Sea Sparrows? I'd rather have the four CIWS than Sparrows - the internal armor belt can deal with any modern sea skimming missiles and the Phalanx should be able to keep the super structure safe long enough.
@@Ganiscol My point is that for Phalanx systems was insufficient.
Hmmm...
all sorts of comments here along the lines of: "we should have kept this, we should have kept that... if we only upgraded... etc..."
Ummm, no.
What the Navy kept, was nuclear attack subs.
Because one of those could sink any surface ship before it even knew it was under attack.
In fact, in multiple exercises, subs were "sinking" every ship on the opposing team - and the exercises were called off early.
A big-gun boat is also just a big sitting-duck.
Except in very permissive environments.
That bow photo of the CA looks a lot like the Iowas from that angle.
As to which id prefer, it would depend on the operations id be doing with it. If its shore bombardment, id want the Des Moines all day. Being able to lay down the same amount of ordnance and on many more targets could be a huge plus.
If the operations involved sinking shipping or attacking other fleets, id want the Iowa's or Alaska's on my side, same speed more armor. Now if the Des Moines was built with more speed in mind to compensate for the thinner armor, would be hard not to take them though.
Indeed going up against the Iowa's you'd need 40 knots.
That is a hugeeee amount of firepower just pumping out 8" shells.
Missiles have their uses, but they are far more expensive than shells. Doing away with the gun ships was wrong. I will always contend that a BB or CA visiting foreign countries puts people in awe. As far as I can find, USS St. Paul (CA-73), a Baltimore class, was the last gun cruiser having served until 1971. I saw her as she UnRepped off Sacramento in the Sea of Japan in April, 1969. Beautiful ship. That leads me to think the Des Moines class should still be operating, or a newer class that could take advantage of guns and missiles.
Ammo cost isnt a factor to consider given the better versatility of missiles due to higher range and precision. Its the crew cost - way too many people needed on the gun ships...
I do think ships still need guns. I don't think that they are better than the Iowa class battleships but they were the best cruisers.
Great summary of the best gunships ever built, and kudos for the World of Warships shoutout!
lol I was playing WOWS in my Baltimore while watching this
I have heard from people I know in the Marine Corp say that they would really like to have a Navy Ship with a big gun for shore bombardment.
They use helicopters not landing craft.
That's mostly what we did in Vietnam, for units like 3rd and 7th Marines regiments . They told us that we had the most accurate gunfire in the theater. USS Newport News (CA-148) Call sign THUNDER
@@AdamosDad Thank you for your service.
@@pacificdragon1 Thank for the welcome home. You make a good point about guns, I believe in them to.
Thumbs up just for the Wows reference haha
In World of Warships the Iowa is Tier 9 because the Tier 10 US battleship is the Montana, the last and top US battleship design. Much like the Des Moines is the final US heavy cruiser. Those that play know Alaska was placed at Tier 9 so the game developers could make a 4 turret Alaska at Tier 10.
Anyway playing as a Des Moines you don’t really want to run into an Iowa at close range…. It doesn’t end well!
Des moines has miles higher DPM than the iowa, but has to be careful the the iowa doesn't nuke it with alpha
@@armansagmanligil1144
Absolutely. Have both DM & Salem. They’re a blast to play since you even hunt DDs with them. Just don’t get to close to any high tier BB. Even staying bow on to them doesn’t work!
@@christianvalentin5344 you can actually bow/angle tank ships with 16 inch guns, but most high tier bbs have 431+ guns that overmatch you all over.
Ryan of the Battleship USS New Jersey Museum and Memorial - agree these ships should had seen more active duty service than they actually had- because I believe that the possibility of close range ship to ship fighting exist- despite of those say about missiles- it’s like that the generals and admirals thought close air to air dogfight was over with the introduction of missiles on aircraft-. The F-4 Phantom was originally built without machine gun - but soon after the start of the Vietnam War- the F-4 Phantom was built with a machine gun.
You have the coolest job
I think that the U.S. Navy should have retained the DES MOINES Class and the IOWAS too. Ryan, I agree with you. These were by far the FINEST and BEST BBs and CAs built by the Navy. I am GLAD that the American people decided to save all four IOWAS. I just wish all three DES MOINES had of been saved too. They almost U.S.S. NEWPORT NEWS. But, unfortunately, those plans fell through.
Don't know where to go with my question.
But is there footage of 16" shell impacts?
I am very qurious as to how impressive ground zero must look.
Some new Des Moines are what we need. Fill them with Standards and the automatic guns. It would be a great weapon.
That statement about the last gun cruiser you can visit is about to change as the AP Almirante Grau is apparently being saved as a museum
That's pretty sweet, actually. She was the last active gun cruiser anywhere. Salem remains the last preserved cruiser with 203mm guns, but having Almirante Grau preserved too is nice piece of history. I'm kinda bummed France couldn't maintain Colbert.
There is another preserved late-era gun cruiser in Russia, too - Mikhail Kutuzov, a Sverdlov-class light cruiser, with 12 152mm guns and 12 100mm guns.
HMS Belfast, a gun cruiser, is moored in the river Thames in London.
In terms of a navy dominated by aircraft carriers, Des Moines class was hands down better. They were far cheaper to build and operate than an Iowa for almost the same AA potential. In a gun fight a la Jutland, I'd take an Iowa, but for almost anything else a Des Moines is just gonna be the better call. I mean, just in terms of tonnage you could field 3 Des Moines for close to the same cost as an Iowa and have nearly triple the broadside weight and nearly triple the AA power.
I was not a gunners mate I was a Boatswains mate. I serve from 84 to 88 so President Reagan was my commander in chief and what a great commander chief he was. I was on a 10 cam Uss davidson I Garcia Class Fast frigate
I wonder if it would have been possible to make an automatic 16 inch gun on a post war battleship.
I have a photo of Ryan on top of turret # 1 on board Salem.
Fascinating!
The Des Moines class heavy cruisers arguably were the most beautiful and elegant surface warfare ships ever to be commissioned in the U.S. Navy.
I have seen and heard your statements about rate of fire. What I would like to know is , how long could that ROF be maintained without barrel damage from overheating.
From what I found online barrel life was 780 shots, but the magazines held 150 rounds per gun. Unsure if they could maintain maximum rate of fire through all 150 rounds.
I would like to see some comparisons of fleet carriers.
another great video. Be nice to perhaps get an Identification of those folks in video from 38 to 52 seconds.
Thank you
Still waiting for a comparison with the Queen Elizabeths in general or Warspite in particular.
Assume the Cruisers are at their optimal gun range before battle starts How many Des Moines class does it take to win against an Iowa class? I assume optimal range for the cruiser is Knife fight range for an Iowa . Could an Iowa class be sunk by a task force of Des Moines?
Depends on how many Des Moines you are willing to lose to get in close enough to penetrate the belt with those puny 8 inchers. 😉
Sounds like while the Iowas are now museum ships, the Des Moines class ships could still see use today if they were still around. I think they should've been brought back with the Iowas and modernized back during the Reagan administration. They'd probably be still in service with those gun system upgrades and continual current modernization. It would have been quite the sight to see them in service in 2021. Imagine those guns with GPS computerized modern target systems upgrades. Very deadly to say the least.
The lack of armor would be the deciding factor.
Honestly prefer the Baltimore and Des Moines class cruisers over the Battleships for their balance of speed, firepower, versatility, and sleek looks.
Awesome comparison
What would it have taken to develop a Des Moines-style autoloading system for the 16/50?
The Iowas are superior in every way, we should have finished the 2 we started & then built more. They could have made the 16" guns automatic if they wanted to. No reason to put smaller guns on it & then get closer to shore - if the enemy is in range then so are you.
If you wanna put automatic loading on big guns you have to either switch from Powder Bag to Powder case to make it safer and faster to load and then fire the gun
Making the 16" guns automatic loading capable would have been an epic undertaking, to say the least. The turrets on the Des Moines-class weighed some 450 tons, which was about 50% more than older turrets which were not capable of automatic firing. On top of that, these automatic turrets were also significantly larger (due to the sliding breech system). Extrapolating that onto an Iowa-class hull would give a turret considerably more heavier, and one that might just about be too large to fit into the hull. The automatic loading systems could also face significant issues if not designed perfectly. Just look at how the gun systems of the Worcester-class did (going for lower rates of fire to avoid jamming which could result from the technically-possible higher rates of fire). As you increased the gun size, the chances of such faults went up very quickly. Chances are that even if someone had somehow managed to develop an automatic firing system for the 16" guns, the system would have been too fragile for prolonged use.
Next, you mention that the US should have finished Illinois and Kentucky, and then built more Iowa-class ships. While completing the last two ships could have been a decent-ish idea, there was absolutely no point in building more. The era of the battleship was pretty much over by the time the first four entered service. They were very expensive to built, very expensive to maintain, and very expensive to operate. Having more would just be a useless expenditure for ships that would at best, see two to three years of service (in Korea), and spend half a century in mothballs.
Thirdly, you spoke about putting smaller guns and getting in close. The cruisers were considerably cheaper to operate than the Iowas were, and their rate of fire meant that they could do almost as well. Yes, there was the possibility of getting attacked back, but these cruisers would still be at a fair distance away from the shore, and the escorts, their own armor, and their defencive systems could make up for this trade-off.
Hello,
you could do a comparison with the Japanese heavy cruiser Atago.
The abandonment of guns in general was a mistake. Imagine a 21st century Des Moines class, with oto melara 5" and 3" guns firing at 30 and 120 rpm with volcano extended range guided shells firing out to 60km, B or C turret replaced with a VLS farm for longer range air defense and and probably some ASROCs. Two 8" turrets of similar but modernized design, using the same advances in technology as has been used in 6" artillery since WW2 giving them a range of 80km, and 150km+ with ramjet projectiles currently in testing. The hanger seems large enough for at least 1 helicopter which could be raised/lowered through the hanger roof for take off and landing. Radar can be updated and space originally for range finders can be used for modern EO sensors and ECM and EW stations. Electricity to power all of that new equipment can be obtained by using some of the design weight originally set aside for engines for generators instead since engines(especially gas turbines) are so much more power dense than they were 70 years ago. The armor on the ship, while still good against many threats today, can be made even better by using more modern steels and innovations in composite armor that have been developed since WW2. Such a ship would have more firepower and survivability than any ship afloat except a super carrier while maintaining high speed, lower operating cost than the flimsy "missile only" designs and be a less risky and more logistically flexible project.
The Navy does not like the big ships unless they are carriers. There is a financial problem of manning a vessel like heavy cruiser to acceptable survivability standards. Older gun ship were so resilient in large part due to abundance of crew to man stations and perform emergency survivability tasks.
Plus the Navy or BuOrd are too lazy to make spare parts and pay maintenance for such ships like Iowas or Des Memes to be kept in service
That is no excuse fore waste
Gun ships those days would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight, 30 mile range vs misslies with 100's of miles range.
@@newhope33 thats why the Iowas got Tomahawks and Harpoons in the '80s... and should any enemy happen to get in main battery range, it only takes one hit out of nine to sink any modern ship. Now, imagine range extension technology on 16" shells like they have on land based artillery with drones spotting for near perfect accuracy. Needless to say that modern anti-ship missiles will do little to actually sink an Iowa, as they are not designed for penetrating that kind of armor (behind void spaces). However, the reason such ships are not in service today is the cost, mainly the cost of operation. Especially the crew. You can buy and operate half a dozen destroyers, if not more, and have much more missiles in the air.
8" 55 👍
Des Moines Class
The most fit for purpose warships ever built
Can you tell me if the Des Moines cruisers were really that easy to ammo rack as how War Thunder portrays them to be. Are their ammo racks really that exposed as you stated they do have a shallow draft.
My favorite CC in WOW is the tier 10 Hindenburg with her 8 torps per side in addition to the guns. I like to hunt BB's with her especially around islands where the element of surprise lets me unload at close range. Why did US cruisers stop using torps? I can understand no smoke in the age of radar but not having a secondary primary weapon seems illogical.
To my understanding, one of the more prominent reasons for the US stopping the use of torpedoes after the Omaha-class in general (with the Atlanta-class briefly reintroducing them) was that they felt cruisers would fight at ranges which was flat out longer than the maximum range of their torpedoes. They didn't expect their cruisers to generally get into ranges where torpedoes would actually be a factor.
The Atlanta-class brought back torpedoes, because they were designed as destroyer flotilla leaders and scout cruisers. As such, they were expected to get into close range gunfights, and would be able to use their torpedoes. The fact that they proved to be good AA cruisers and less-than-ideal at gunfights seems to have not been foreseen.
P.S. As good as the Hindenburg is in World of Warships, it's a paper design.