While the carrier is excellent it is somewhat hampered as it needs sea room to properly conduct air operations. As such it best serves out of sight. A BB OTOH does a very good job getting close to the coastline and giving a very visual reminder to hostile shores.
Carries require large areas of oceans to hide in. They can't operate under fire. Because they have stand so far off they are limited to preplanned missions. A BB can get into coastal waters and fire on targets with little to no travel time for the strike. From the time a call comes in for a a target to impact of a shell or missiles is measured in mins and seconds. They can keep up a rate of fire that would take up the whole carrier air wings capacity. ( Planes fly time to and from plus rearming me d air refueling).
One of the greatest experiences of my life was watching USS Wisconsin fire her guns during one of those shore bombardments, at night, from only about 2 miles away. I was serving aboard USS McInerney (FFG-8), and as we were her escort at that time, we got to see it up close.......it was a truly awesome sight, one I will never forget. Pictures and video do not do it justice, the sound, the shockwaves, the huge column of fire shooting out of the barrels with each round, words cannot convey how powerful they were. I feel truly blessed to be one of the diminishing number of people alive who can say they've seen it in person. And trust me when I say, 2 miles away, on open water, is a lot closer than it sounds.
I was on Princeton, we caught up with the MO in Pearl and cruised with her back to Long Beach. A couple of days out she put on a live fire ex for us. We were about 50 yards ahead off of her starboard bow. Rippled fired all 9 guns and ended with a broad side. It was cool.. She was moored on the next pier over from where we normally docked, even tied up she looked ready to go to flank.. Hard to believe that was 30 years ago.. Feels like yesterday.
RIMPAC 1990. We were the first ship aft, and to the starboard during a Demonstration of the Missouri (USS Texas CGN-39). Probably no more than 100 yards away. We wore earplugs, earmuffs and safety glasses (thank god ). The shockwave was incredible. I still have some great 35mm pics from that day. Was able to take a tour and actually enter a Gun Turret 25 years later during a Make-A-Wish trip for my Nephew. Such a beautiful ship.
I see lots of clips of battleships firing, but almost none of when the shell impacts. Must still be classified or something. Anyone have any info on what damage the shell does?
Battleships are obsolete because big powerful high-tech nations have so many ways of hurting them. However, none of the enemies that the USA has fought since WW2 has been such a foe.
Hey, it's Lindybeige! Somehow I'm not surprised you're here. I bet you would have loved if the Empire maintained one of the KGV battleships as a museum. And since Lindybeige is here, I bet Matsimus is not far...
I disagree. These Iowa-class battleships are some of the most survivable ships ever built. They were built to withstand shells fired from other battleships. I served on a frigate in the 80's and 90's with no armor and only 1/4-inch of steel between me and the ocean. These battleships had varying amounts of armor that culminated in over 19 inches on parts of the turrets. They would also be escorted by ASW ships such as Spruance class destroyers and Knox class frigates for submarine protection, and maybe one or two of our own fast attack subs lurking below. For air defense, they had 4 Phalanx Close-in Weapons Systems, similar to aircraft carriers. Although they carried no air-to-air missile systems, they were always in a battle group with guided-missile cruisers and frigates, just like aircraft carriers. No. They were not considered obsolete because they could be hurt so easily. As far as having no threatening foes since WW2, that is also incorrect. Look at some of the specifications and weapons systems of Soviet-era warships, and you will quickly see that Soviet surface ships and submarines were very powerful and capable. Soviet surface ships were bristling with weapons, and many of their ships were powered by gas turbines. Soviet submarines were deeper diving due to their titanium hulls, and the fastest submarines ever built were the Soviet Alpha Class submarines. The four Iowa-class battle ships were not retired because we were afraid they would get hurt, or for lack of a competent foe.
The U.S. fought both the Soviets and the PRC (mostly as part of proxy wars) after WWII. I think both of those would be considered "big, powerful, high-tech nations." Granted, thankfully, neither of those conflicts got to the point of capital ships openly fighting each other, but it was a not-so-remote possibility for decades. And, unfortunately, the more peaceful stances between each of those nations and the U.S. that characterized most of the 90s and 2000s seem to have largely eroded over the past decade.
I was an artillery forward observer with 3rd Bn; 11th Marines. I spent 6 weeks at Khe Sanh, near the runway, and I saw the USS Wisconsin fire her 16” guns shooting 2,700 lb shells, creating craters 80’ across and about 20 - 30’ deep. The rounds traveled 23 miles to target - not the maximum range. The Navy had their own people on the ground selecting which targets to fire at and directing the adjustment of follow-up rounds. The ground and the air shook like Jello from almost 3 miles away.
2,048 pounds BL 16-inch Mk I naval gun Ordnance BL 16 inch Mark IBarrel length60 ft (18.3 m)L/45Shellseparate charge, AP shellShell weight2,048 pounds (929 kg)Calibre16 inch (406 mm)
@@itsmezed Correct on both accounts. The Iowas' guns were the 16" 50 caliber Mark VII. They primarily fired the 1900lb high capacity and the 2700lb armor piercing.
Why do you think those Iraqi soldiers surrendered to that Drone? By this point, Wisconsin's RPV drones had been seen often enough before the arrival of 16" shells that even the dumbest ground pounder knew that they were being used for target spotting and to spot fall of shot. A single 2300 lb 16" High Explosive shell was as effective as any 'bunker buster' bomb in service, the Armor Piercing rounds (2700 lb) was overkill, able to penetrate up to 20 FEET of concrete, or 18" of class A face hardened steel (same as a battleship's turret face) which Iraq simple did not have and which NO ONE has the ability to make anymore.
Living in Norfolk, I cannot walk anywhere without the pride of the "Wisky" be shown about !! She is THE QUEEN of Downtown Norfolk...a beautiful museum honors her and all who served in our armed services. Many veterans who served on her serve as ship guides and docents...the community support is amazing!! The tours are awesome and so educational...Bless all of our service men and women !!!
Sailing a battleship to an enemy's coastline is a way of saying "I'm about to fuck up your entire day." It's almost too bad that battleships have been superseded by modern cruise missiles, they just don't inspire the shock and awe of a battleship.
The problem is, BBs are too vulnerable to air attack. Modern air-launched anti-ship missiles would spoil an Iowa's whole day before she even knew the attack was inbound. They probably couldn't sink an Iowa outright, but it could ABSOLUTELY render her unable to continue fighting.
I have to agree. The noise and fire is quite the spectacle. But on the other hand when all your shit starts to blow up around you with smart bombs from invisible bombers and terrain hugging GPS guided missiles that makes a pretty convincing point!
@@numbnutz9398 Yea but if you want indirect coastal fire support nothing beats those 16 inch guns that never seem to end. Most of what you say is also a problem for any aircraft carrier and its handled by the support fleet. They have their place, but its not one that's really needed much any more due to where wars are fought now. Things kick off in any coastal theaters and people will give a long thought to reactivating them again, or at least building something new to fill that roll.
@@Awrethien Yup. I visited the Missouri in Pearl a few years ago. I only had a few hours to walk around it but I could have spent days. Just amazing they could build something like that with slide rule and actual blue print ink and drafting tables. Standing under those guns was astounding. We went for a tour around the harbour and what really struck was that for its shear size it looked so sleek from the waterline looking down the ship from the bow. I would loved to have seen her under steam plowing through the waves with my own eyes but floating next to her you could just imagine it. I know they don't fit modern navel warfare doctrine, but it would be amazing if they could find a place again. If nothing for the peacetime intimidation factor.
@@numbnutz9398 According to calculations, a modern battleship fitted with modern damage control systems would be near unsinkable. During testing, modern anti-ship weapons all proved to greatly struggle with ww2 battleship hulls used as test targets. Even in ww2, when given proper damage control systems, battleships still took and absurd amount of resources and firepower to put down, unless facing another battleship, and they usually sank under only two conditions. Multiple torpedo hits below the waterline, multiple shots from another battleship.
As a gunners mate missile tech who served on board the USS Preble DDG 88 from 2005-2008. it was always my wish to have served onboard a battleship (if they were still active duty) I think that was every GMs wish. Those BBs are freaking beautiful!
I toured the Missouri. She is amazing and certainly remained dangerous during the Gulf War. But those who say she is not obsolete are wrong. The crew required to run such a ship is FAR more than on modern ships. Her 16” shells are no longer made. Her power systems are ancient and take up far more space than modern ones do. Though an argument might be made that a modern battleship with massive guns could still be relevant in the 21st century for shore bombardment, the old Iowa class ships are better off remaining in retirement. They still serve the important function of educating our people on their incredible history.
I’m sure this is all accurate, but if we grant that war, as Clausewitz posited, is inherently about achieving political gains, having a vessel or two of the caliber and quality of the Iowas seems like it could be useful for projecting political will. Driving a battleship into a harbor or landing 16” punches that are unstoppable seems like a wonderful way to indicate that the US is serious about its aims in a way that aircraft at 40,000 feet do not. Again, I’m sure you’re right about the costs and complexity, but a battleship offshore anywhere is a powerful presence. The machine itself may be obsolete, but not in terms of their implied statement of political will.
Actually, I served in the Navy almost 20 years ago, and one of the first warfare lessons we were taught was "Projection of Power." Basically, battleships are not obsolete, given that for a surface fleet, projection of power is what it is all about. Given enough air defense, a single battleship would make any modern air carrier battlegroup think twice before engaging it, as air defense could allow a battleship to get close enough to shell an enemy fleet, or, as here, land territory 20 miles in -- more, if a modern battleship has Yamato-class main guns. Plus, it's a lot harder to track incoming gun rounds than it is a missile -- and a lot harder to destroy with a weapon system like CIWS.
@@isaiahwelch8066 - I think a lot of that thought was boosted by Admiral McCain’s “sea power” that, at the time, seemed archaic but is proved over and over again that the Navy can do things no other branch can without making overt moves that might be seen as declaring a war. As for the shells, people like to put forth something about defensive missiles or maybe CWIS, and OK fine. But 9 incoming 16” shells? And then another 9? And then another? Give me a break! Finally, imagine what could be devised to come out of those barrels given the vast changes in tank rounds from WW2 to now: I’d think there could be fin-stabilized, GPS-guided sabot rounds out much farther than the 25 miles or whatever it is. I don’t want to sound like someone saying fighters should still have propellers, but I, like you, really think there’s still a logical place for gunboats like the Iowas, perhaps with one turret rededicated to different weapons.
Battle ships can also make for good resources stations holding emerging supplies for the fleet. Capable of going in to dangerous Waters and projecting power and cover for smaller forces.
Not only are the 16” shells no longer made, the powder that all the battleships fired through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Desert Storm- was all made during WWII. And there is still some in storage, all made before 1945.
Brings back memories. I was on the USS Kennedy returning from Desert Storm and saw the Wisconsin as she tagged along as we returned home. I wish I had been able to see her big guns in action. Now that would have been a sight to remember.
It is. I watched both sisters firing one and two gun salvoes into Iraqi positions at night, they lit the night up from almost 20 miles away. None of the targets they engaged were worth more than one or two shells at a time. No broadsides except in practice. I watched Iowa firing broadsides in practice earlier on, 1985/86 from about 2 miles astern of her, totally awe inspiring and I could FEEL the concussion of the muzzle blasts deep in my chest and abdomen.
We were half a mile on the Mo's Port flank and the shockwave still sucked all the air out of your lungs. Got some awesome photos as I was on the "Snoopy Team".
I was inland during Storm and got to hear what a Cadillac sounded like flying over my head. Those 16” shells make a weird hum and a wooshing noise all at once.
Although not in this video, my grandfather served on the USS Iowa during WWII. He loved that ship. He talked about for the rest of his life until the day that he died. It wasn't until many decades later, that the ship was turned into a floating museum in Long Beach, California, and I was glad that I could take my son to see it.
@Ron Beaubien It's quite possible that my father knew your father. My father was a plankowner on the Iowa, served on her all of WW II. What was your father's station?
@@Linuxgurugamer-vr1vw My grandfather was also a plank owner. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. I was told he was a fireman. Being a kid at the time, I always assumed that he was involved in putting out fires, i.e. damage control.
@@Linuxgurugamer-vr1vw I remember a funny story about my grandfather. After retirement, whenever the USS Iowa was in port during the Reagan years, my grandfather would load up his RV and go see it. Back in the day, things were more lax it seems. He would drive right past the base's gate and give them a salute, park near the battleship, give the Marine standing guard duty at the end of the gangway a sharp salute, walk around the ship and reminisce about his time spent o the ship. Finally, someone would ask him what he was doing there. "Well, I served on the Iowa during WWII," he would reply. They would politely escort him off the ship as visitors were not allowed that day. 😂😂🤣
@@Linuxgurugamer-vr1vw It is quite possible. I have heard that too. Unfortunately, he passed away in 1989. I'll probably only know for sure if I can get a hold of his military records. He often talked about the ship, but not specifically what he did on it.
I once did a paper on how many airplanes the United States lost attacking coastal targets in North Vietnam; the same targets that could have been engaged by 16in guns. The losses were staggering in terms of our human losses, not to mention material losses. If you want to see what a BB off the coast can do, look at the eastern coastal DMZ in Korea, that dip north was due to naval gunfire called in on communist forces. My father witnessed a gun technique where the fuse was set and the gun fired on a fairly flat trajectory and skipped into enemy bunker systems.
It is simply a different world now. No one has bunkers on a coast now unless they are idiots. You simply go over them. Where are the forts? General Patten was right.
@@ezekielhuzarski9171 I think Vietnam is being pushed towards to US, and I think it will be a valuable partnership. I would like to see them involved with the Quad.
@@ezekielhuzarski9171 What I am saying is geopolitical circumstances and pressures are moving the two countries together. Both supply chain and militarily. The US and the Vietnamese have some very aligned strategic concerns. You would be remiss if you didn't consider that. India, Indonesia to be specific in that sphere of influence as well. They feel encroached upon. I honestly feel like the dynamics in SE Asia, could be the next tinderbox. If you cannot see that, take a look at what is happening. None of the countries I mentioned like to be intimidated, and that is what is being attempted right now.
After researching this topic in my spare time for years, my conclusion is this: Battleships are viable in the modern era as a weapon and deterrent measure. Their role has been relegated, primarily, to shore bombardment and leading surface action groups, but in those roles, they are kings. However, for the price of a Battleship, you can have a carrier which has a greater range of capabilities. Aircraft carriers can attack any target with their air arm, and do so with adequate effectiveness. So the choice falls to building fewer general purpose ships in exchange for more specialized but excellent ones, or more jack of all trades ships that can do anything "good enough." Maybe the advent of new technologies like lasers and railguns will bring back the battleship or battle cruiser. Maybe not. But the battleships never stopped being useful. They just stopped being cost efficient.
In my opinion when railguns are perfected battleships will come back ( and lasers in my opinion are good for anti-drone / missile defense but not as offensive weapon, sidenote: lasers will never be good offensive weapon no matter what sci fi tv shows and movies say because you have to spend a lot of power for a laser beam that is getting scattered by atmosphere over greater ranges, and conflict ranges are increasing with new weaponry, in space yes..but you still must get a shitton of power to power it, in atmosphere, never ). A wing on aircraft carrier can strike far but fuel and planes and pilots cost a lot, and it is similar with drones but a bit better because you dont need a pilot, which will probably be able to stay in the air indefinitively with refueling because there is no pilot that gets tired.. Railguns theoretically could strike really far away, you dont need expensive missile or any kind of ammo, it could be just a kinetic impactor. And battleship has the space to generate power for railgun ( nuclear reactor ) and to hoise railgun itself with all additional systems that are needed...and it turns out cheaper in the end because you dont need to pay for fuel for planes/drones or much for ammunition... Offcourse you need drones for target spotting but that nowdays can be done from satelites...
@@DreamskyDance theoretically you can get that power. It's called nuclear power. So lasers could be a mid to close range weapon. But the rail gun has kick at longer. However they are also capable of being put on cruisers...
Well said. When it comes to tech, some things have a way of sticking around in a limited role, or reappearing altogether decades later: cannons on fighter jets, small caliber rifles, snipers, the m14, etc. As technology changes in another direction, there's always inspiration from the past. Sometimes as you said, its just a matter of money and use. At the onset of the next major global conflict who knows what we'll dust off again- its just ashamed that the Iowa's won't get that last taste of salt water one more time...
Railgun research by the US Navy was stoped, it came to a dead end, lasers are useful for defense and little else, the future of the Navy seems to be on hypersonic missiles, submarines, deastroyers and maybe light carriers too with the supercarriers as the undisputed core of the fleets, sadly, no place for battleships.
A friend visited the Missouri I think while she was on station. He said they used a laser light pencil to touch targets on the video feed from the drones. The guns automatically sighted to the target and shells were going down range shortly thereafter. Impressive tech for 1991.
Hmm, as far as I know, when they looked into the sighting and aiming of the main batteries,, they couldn't really improve on it, so they kept it analogue.
@@christopherwhitfield3037 Well, we had an ordnance officer who visited the ship and I can't tell you why as its been a long time. He told us that when he came back aboard the USS Okinawa, HMM-164 rein, 13th MEU, 4th MEB. It's been a long time. That's the way I remember it.
The Wisky is a hell of a thing to see. Video doesn’t correctly portray the size of her. I recently went Norfolk and toured her, amazing experience. Fun facts: the Wisky is bigger then the other Iowa class battleships because she had her entire bow replaced with one from an incomplete Iowa ship, named Kentucky, after a collision. So she’s now like 10 or 20 feet longer then the others. Next fun fact is she is the first and only battleship a ground force ever surrendered to. When she used her drones to paint targets for shelling the Iraq’s knew what was about to happen so the surrendered to it and it stayed there till American forces could arrive I believe. Next: she was hit with 6 inch shell from a land base in Korea which really annoyed her captain who in turn fired a full broadside at the offending shore battery completely obliterating it. A destroyer radioed the captain saying “Temper, temper.” I don’t know why but I always found that funny.
Cus it is that funny! a few 6 inch shells pinging off the side of ship, those 16inch turrets turn in your direction, the words "and thats when they knew, they F@#$ed up" (the shore battery that is) come to mind. After all, besides rektting the superstructure (armored as it may be), whats a 6inch gun gonna do to a BATTLESHIP? Your just going to make it mad, and then you die from 16inch HE shell to the face.
I really love the story of the USS Texas during D-Day, The water was too shallow for the Texas to get close enough, so the captain called for the ballast tanks on one side to be filled so the ship would lean to one side. This allowed the guns to raise enough to shell fortified positions on the coast. Basically the Navy gangster-leaned a battleship so it could hit its targets
Wisconsin is a great ship to see, especially at Christmas. The location on Waterside in Norfolk is a perfect resting place for her. Historic Shipyards around the corner, Ammo depot within site just up the river, and a fleet waiting on the way out to sea. Rifled cannons way be considered obsolete, but that ship will always be in my heart.
@@ThePaulv12 true. Sorry for the I incorrect terminology. Naval Artillery? They are rifled tubes that throw projectiles with the mass of small automobiles over the horizon with devastating results.
@@ThePaulv12 What about the Victorian era breech loaded cannon, in the 19th century. Muzzle loaded naval artillery, on 18th & 19th century warships, were divided into several types. These included cannon, carronades, guns & mortars.
It brings joy to my heart and tears to my eyes to see battleships, sisters too, doing what they were born to do, and know they retired one last time as legends filled with pride and honor that they could serve one last time.
Iowa was the 2nd of the four battleships to be recommissioned during the "600 Ship Navy" buildup. Ironically she was the ONLY one of the four to NOT fire her guns in anger during this period in commission. New Jersey (BB 62) fired into the hills above Beirut Lebanon to protect US Marines after the Marine Barracks suicide bombing. While Iowa was deployed to take over that mission she wasn't used. That mission ended almost immediately after her arrival on station. Missouri (BB 63) and Wisconsin (BB 64) were deployed for Desert Shield and Desert Storm as documented above. Neither Iowa nor New Jersey were available as BOTH had been decommissioned by this point, after the collapse of the USSR. Also, Iowa had not been repaired after suffering the turret explosion. I was stationed aboard USS Nassau (LHA 4) during Desert Storm. If we had been ordered to land the over 10,000 Marines we had in the Amphibious Force, knowing how fearful the Iraqi Army was of the Battleships, I would have been wishing to have all four on station.
There’s nothing I love more than hearing that a ship, aircraft or other historic piece of equipment has been saved from the scrap torch and preserved for future generations.
I was in forward plot when that Saudi officer commented on the battleship (it was the Wisconsin). It's accurate that he said he wished they had a battleship (this was after we took out a bunker for him) but there was also a lot of very excited, repeating "thank you, thank you, I love battleship". It was pretty cool.
They served in WW2, Korea, Viet Nam and Operation Desert Storm. They are not gone, they are serving now as museum ships - but we have been told not to expect them ever to be recalled again. The sailors that sailed and fought with these ships are aging faster than the ships are, so we might not be able to crew them again. But we can dream. They are amazing to behold!
All of the fire control hardware would be replaced with modern computers and range-finding equipment. The same with the crew. They'd need to get training and practice, certainly, but there's nothing about these ships that you need the vets for, other than as instructors. The reason they've been retired though, is that they're largely redundant. A modern missile frigate can reach further inland than the Iowa's main guns, and with much less tonnage. It's not so much that the ships are old, but that we simply don't need those massive guns any more.
Literally everything the Iowas did in all of these wars could have been done more cost-effectively by other vessels. The Iowas are engineering marvels, but strategically they are failures, and they should never have been built.
@@BlackEpyon The superiority of missiles was true even in Desert Storm. The Iowas were unnecessary in that war, like they were in every other war they were involved in.
@@bkjeong4302 And yet, one Iowa was able to fight off the Japanese fleet with their strongest and newest ship in the lead. Guadalcanal - look it up. Their were two Iowas at the start, and one had to retire after taking 7 hits. She was repairable and could still move, but fighting was no longer worth much. The second Iowa finished the job alone.
@@julieenslow5915 The Iowas weren’t ever involved in that battle, or during any part of the Guadalcanal campaign. You’re thinking of the Battle of Second Guadalcanal, which never involved any of the Iowas (it had Washington, a North Carolina-class battleship, and South Dakota, which was the ship damaged and did nothing but get shot at during the entire battle because of it). And the Japanese forces present in that battle wasn’t an entire fleet, but a small task force (albeit one headed by a capital ship). You’re straight-up lying here by claiming the Iowas did anything during a battle they weren’t even present for.
Stats, photos, and video can be impressive, but only go so far. Being present is, shall we say, convincing. I lived on the coast of North Carolina near Camp Lejuene when they did annual war exercises right outside my house. Seeing all the firepower up close and personal is jaw-dropping!
I served in the Med on a fast attack sub, part of the New Jersey and the John F. Kennedy battle group. We could hear the Jersey's guns go off from more than 20 miles away, and more than 400 feet underwater. You could hear it thru the hull. I was a Sonarman, and could hear the shell's whistle (sounds incredible), and the hit when the shell struck its target. Those aboard the Jersey called it, "throwing Volkswagens" because of the 2000+ lbs that each shell weighed at firing. This was during the Lebanon "conflict" (wasn't much of a conflict to be honest.)
I served in Desert Storm and Got to see the USS Missouri fire in anger. To say it was impressive is an understatement. Nothing like dropping a ton of high explosives on your enemies head at 15 miles away. We were half a mile away and could feel the concussion from the big guns.
A fleet isn’t a fleet without a battleship. I wish they would bring them back. I was stationed at 32nd St NavSta San Diego during this time and it brings back memories
As a former Special Evolutions Helmsman and having worked in various positions in Turret Two on the Mo 87-90... the Battleship mantra "Fear God Dreadnaught" is very fitting. Be it steaming through a hurricane or lighting up the horizon, it's empowering, especially for a 17 year old kid growing up on a piece of history. Over the years, I've bumped into folks who were down range, near the receiving end of our work, their statements were on a sliding scale from impressive to terrifying.
I was about 20 miles from the Missouri when this happened. What they don't tell you is, when the Silkworm missile exploded a number of chemical warfare sensors were trigged. Every ship nearby including mine set Conditions Zebra (maximum hull and watertight integrity) and Circle William (Maximum CBR preparedness.) We were "sucking rubber," wearing gas masks for about 2 hours until the word came down that it was a false alarm, possibly triggered by burning jet fuel from the missile. HMS Gloucester and her company did real good that night.
@@diddlebug7241 Lots of big guns? Check. Near impossible to sink? Check. You only have two real counters to a battleship. Hit it multiple times under the water, or throw another battleship at it.
I had never heard how many 16" rounds these two battleships fired in the Gulf War until this video. That's unreal. Didn't realize that many rounds were still viable at that point.
Only a few people knew about the A-bomb project. The Navy ws predicting that the war against Japan would last until 1948 before the home islands would be defeated using ground forces, conventional bombs, and naval gunfire support, and planned for the battleships to be carrying out bombardment missions almost continuously once the first amphibious assault craft would be in range to land troops on the beach. Thus, the surplus of shells was immense. When Iowa had that explosion in the No. 2 gunhouse, the shells and powder were all manufactured in 1945.
Well, they got a long range and preparations for defending against amphibious landings meant a lot of stuff was close to the shore. Have you seen footage of craters made by the New Jersey in Vietnam? That looks like the moon
when we toured the Wisconsin we were told that they fired some thing like 2,000 collectively during wwII and few hundred during Korea and desert storm and that there more 20,000 rounds for the 16in guns remaining.
I was part of a exercises with the of Canada , South Korea , Japan and Australian navies that was held at Pearl Harbor Hawaii in the early ‘90’s. The Missouri was immediately behind my ship ( USS Texas CGN 39 ). About 50-100 yards away at a different pier was a Japanese ship. The Japanese sailors could see their grandfathers nightmare in front of them. After the exercises were over. the Missouri fired her 16” guns for what was supposed to be the last time. We had no idea of Saddam’s insanity or stupidity but found out later. We were several hundred yards away and my ship shook from the power of those guns. Nothing can prepare a person for that.
was onboard my 1st ship in Long Beach when Cher filmed that video, we were across the port and saw the lights and heard the noise but had no idea what was going on
A number of USS Missouri veterans considered Cher's half naked performance on the battleship's foredeck to be disrespectful of the ship, her history and the men who had given their lives aboard her.
LOL... I was on the next pier over from the MO when the were filming that. Me and a buddy went out to shoot some pool, got back to the boat around 10. I can still remember us leaning on the lifelines going "What the f&%k are they doing over there??"
Consider the political impacts: Carrier: safe at sea, over the horizon powerful, but only seen by the foe via its aircraft flying overhead. BB: massive and capable of sailing to within sight of the foe. The foe sees a BIG ship with big guns and a horde of missiles. Which of the two has a deeper, more profound political impact?
Don't forget that old BB can sail in your into a harbor with near impunity thanks to her armor as well. A carrier couldn't operate in that tight of space, plus she couldn't take a hit.
@@E-Brightvoid yes, but do you really want to sail one into enemy waters where she will likely be shot at, when you can have her sit back and be perfectly safe and still do her duty?
@@ZacLowing At this point.. with modern metal, and modern materials like kevlar, it would be cheaper to make a new ship instead of ripping the 16" guns out and putting in railguns or Missle pods.
They may be back in smaller form at somepoint with smart shells, or as arsenal ships. Laser PD systems and better jamming and counter measures may make ships have to get up and personal again at some point, esppecially as Russia and China begin Fielding larger navys.
I would say that his voice is clear and easy-to-understand. However a little on the fast side. I would prefer a little slower delivery just being picky.
Fall River, Mass was my first visit to real military history at age 10. It put the love & appreciation of military engineers & personnel in me. Although I grew up in the space shuttle era & want to see those exhibits, I want more to see every battleship & carrier museum. I now live close to the battleship North Carolina & carrier Yorktown, and have visited both several times. It always leaves me in awe & proud to be an American. I wish we didn't need such things, but mankind is truly incapable of living peacefully.
The "Operations Room" has a fantastic video on these battleships in Desert Storm and how they operated. Also great details on how the Iraqi Navy responded to the Coalition forces with what weapons. All from a bird's eye view!
Lets not forget about the worlds most decorated Battleship USS New Jersey. Iowa and New Jersey were upgraded before Missouri and Wisconsin. We also had drones.
Only reasons BB-61 & BB-62 didn't get a mention was where not in the first gulf. they where starting the decommissioning process before the war so they missed out. It would have been a sight see all four Iowa class fight one last war together nearly 50 years after being built.
No shit!! Hell just seeing even a single fuckin battleship, especially with any one or combination of, however most of all, ALL 9 of her 16” guns firing, would be a terrifying yet awesome sight to behold… but then to see TWO Iowa class battleships!? Now that’s just stupendous… so I can’t even begin to try to comprehend or describe what/how it would feel to be able to bear witness to FOUR of these sexy steel behemoths steaming along together in the same fleet!! Just seeing them would be breathtaking, but to actually see, hear and especially FEEL them in action, bristling from stem to stern, witnessing every last weapon they have then brought to bear on some poor bastard(s) about to be obliterated downrange… it’s honestly kind of hard even just to try to fully wrap my brain around the notion and accurately comprehend it, but hey, a guy can dream, can’t I??
Damn they are so goddam powerfull, 16 inch guns, tomahawks, harpoons, phalanx, targeting drones. I can't imagine what a compound looks after it got shelled by precisely targeted 16 inch HE shells. Sad that US Navy dont use them any more.
If you look at some of the footage in the video, it looks like sailors are armed with what looks like Stinger Missile launchers. I’m guessing they were expecting Iraqi air attack the whole time. So, ya, kinda of concours with there lack of modern AA support.
The Wisconsin. My great uncle’s old ship. He lived long enough to see her recommissioned and put to sea. Did you know she was the first allied ship to enter Hiroshima Bay after the Japanese Surrender? My uncle was among the sailors manning the rails and all those men received high doses of radiation. My uncle died of cancer as did many of his crew mates.
Sad to learn but there's good info to learned from this. As both of those strikes were airbursts IIRC I thought until now that residual radiation would have been quite small.
This grand old Lady is berthed about 10 miles down the road from me in downtown Norfolk, VA at the Nauticus National Maritime Center. She appears to be well cared for.
@@ret7army I think the problem was particles were still raining out so to speak. The gama was not too high. Most of the crew exposed on deck got lung cancer. That’s a beta particle thing.
I believe the Mighty Jingles was in the Royal Navy, aboard the HMS Gloucester. The targeted ship was the USS Missouri. The Gloucester shot down the Exocet that had targeted the Missouri.
I've wondered what it would be like to have a modern battleship. Something like nuclear powerd battle ship with two reactors to create the energy needed for rail guns to launch a 3500lb guided scram jet projectile going super sonic speeds with a range of 150 to 250 miles. Something like that would be a devastating weapon to any navy fleet.
The best aspect the battleships bring to the fight in this day and age is a massive amount of reserve buoyancy and a lot of deck room for bolting on the latest generation of butt kicking hardware. Those 16’ Mk 7’s are respected by any generation that sees them. I think we could build a massive hulled armored missile silo and engineer a new generation of the auto-loading 8” guns that the Des Moines had and run two turrets of those for direct fire missions. The rest could be all missiles and defense systems. No reactors though, you don’t want that taking a hit.
@@BariumCobaltNitrog3n The government has no prerogative to issue homes to people. If you get a government issued home; it will be far from your dream home. If your dream home is a 3-room, sub 750 sq ft concrete apartment, you have shitty dreams.
I am so used to watching military history of my Father's generation, it is wild watching something I lived through and read and saw live repotting from. Awesome, love seeing those old battleships get down and prove they are no where near obsolete. B@d @$$ to be sure.
I'm still one that feels we need a few 21st century battleships in our Navy. Technology has changed so much that we could easily make them way better and more versatile than ever before but having those big guns when you need them is a thing of beauty. I doubt we will ever see it but this video alone proves how valuable they really are!
@@kingoliever1 exactly what i was going to say, wont have the same mental impact though as having a 16" shell fly over your head. Although I'm sure a hypersonic tungsten rod also sounds pretty mean flying overhead. The Navy said they stopped development on railgun systems so either they truly think they wont work or wont be cost effective, the got all the data they need, or they found something better.
The navy hit the same problem they hit on rail gun research in the 1930=1940's we still dont have the means to create enough energy density to make it work woutside of a lab setting. as for battleships. they cost way too much for what they provide. i agree, 16inch rounds provide miracles but the costs to keep the ship operationel compared to the cost and firepower of a burke just makes battleships obsolete and a waste of money.
It's amazing that the technology used in the 1940s to fire those 2000 lb. shells 20 miles with total accuracy were still being used in today's wars !!!
I was in Baghdad during OIF2 in 2004. I got to see the aftermath of a tomahawk attack. They put 3 tomahawks into the Iraqi National Guard headquarters building. All 3 met nose to nose in the center of the building. The only thing left was the shell. It hallowed out the inside.
My dad served on the Elokomin in the Korean War. We're from Wisconsin, generations of us. I've been aboard her as a museum. My dad refueled her in the Mediterranean in the 50's. I'd love to take him to her again now. He spent many a weekend in Norfolk as a young man God bless the US Navy
The drone was the only nod to "modern" in the fire control system for the 16." The WWII era analog fire control computer was ungodly accurate in laying and pointing those big guns ... as the Iraqi Army found out the hard way.
Using conventional gunpowder type guns with guided projectiles would be cool as shit. But I think they would just carry a shit load of missiles really. Missiles can do everything better than conventional EXCEPT LOOK COOL AS HELL!
As do I. I think 16inch forward as there's still a role for those that missiles don't quite fit. Add to that rocket assist and or 8 inch subcaliber rounds. Leave room for the rail guns which might become viable and many, many missiles because they do a number of things very well indeed.
That is why they were brought back. We didn't have anything at the time with which to counter it. Outside of our carriers, we still don't. The Kirov class ships are worthy of respect. The modernized Kirov is definitely a ship to be feared if she means you harm.
@@Angel9932 i do not think the iowa's were reactivated to fight the kirovs, that wouldnt not make sense, the kirovs have longer range, the best the iowa's could do is scare them, which might actually work now that i think about it.
@@kendallhockeriv Negative mate. None of the four are now in a condition where they could be recalled to service. The Navy ended it's responsibility for ship maintenance when the four were scratched from the mobilization availability lists *with the permission of Congress* well over a decade ago. The Navy also "De-militarized" the big guns, locking the turrets permanently in place so that they cannot rotate or the 16" fire. The museums are forbidden to do any work that would make the engines operational again as well as other major systems as part of the contract for receiving custody of the ship. If you doubt me let me refer you to the Battleship New Jersey RUclips site. This is a topic the lead curator for the Museum has spoken of many times.
All four Iowas were in service in the 80s . As a New Jerseyan , I'm partial to "The Big J" - BB-62 - The U.S.S. New Jersey. It's in the Delaware River mored On the Camden side as a museum ship today. I toured it about 15 years ago . One hell of a tour !
I live near Bremerton, WA. The shipyard is huge. When you drive south on Hwy 3, down through Gorst, you can look to the left and see all the big ships that are decommissioned. Our Navy is awesome, and the envy of the world.
I think the biggest thing with a battleship is that it can so far away, but still in sight of the target. You can see the huge explosions of the guns fired. You might be able to see the shells coming in. Then, you get explosions and hear everything else if you live. Something very similar to attack helicopters, A-10s and B-52s. Each one, you know what's coming. You're really looking death in the eye knowing that one shot could be it. In all cases, you can see what's coming and you can't do anything.
Battleships are still viable. An ability to fire huge shells that, unlike rockets, ACTUALLY can't be intercepted, is severely underappreciated as of now. Or at least it was, before the russo-Ukrainian war.
That is true, Still Battleships are Expensive to maintain, not to mention personal. A Battlecruiser would probably be just as effective, BUT i'm not gonna lie nothing beats the sheer intimidation factor of a Battleship.
One of the main challenges facing US carrier battlegroups today is coming within range of land based missiles. In scenarios such as defending Taiwan from China a carrier battlegroup could face what is called missile saturation. Since the carrier and its escorts can only carry a finite number of missiles, a peer enemy such as China could conceivably launch more missiles than the carrier group could defend against. At this point the carrier and escorts would have to rely on CIWS exclusively. One proposed solution to this would be refitting the Iowas as a huge missile truck. By removing the rear turret a huge surface area at the stern would be available for multiple VLS cells - as many as six Arleigh-Burke class destroyers can carry. So without having to build any additional ships the USN could more than double a carrier battle groups missile saturation point with a single ship.
Battleship after an overhaul: “so I started blasting” Serious note the ingenuity on bringing back WW II battleships to be able to compete in a war 50 years after its creation in more than impressive.
GO NAVY! What beautiful ladies! These ships brought a whole lotta whoopass. I understand the arguments against ever recommissioning these amazing ships, but it would definitely be a hell of a sight to see their guns fired in anger again. There is just something so poetic about launching shells the size of a car 20 miles.
You mean a toy car right? Remember, they had 16 inch guns. 1-6 I N C H E S... (406mm), while these are super impressive guns that are no longer used by any navy in the world, they were never launching anything the size of a real car. The rounds they fired were referred to as "Cadillacs" but that's where it ends. Ultimately an Arleigh-Burke class Destroyer with all of its armaments or a Virginia class Block V Submarine (65 Tomahawks) or a converted Ohio class SSGN submarine (154 Tomahawks) is a more effective and cheaper weapons system with greater range and destructive potential. And all three of these are much more defensible that the old Iowa class ships. Sorry, the days of the BB have come and gone.
I was able to visit the Mighty MO when I was stationed in Hong Kong at the US Consulate in 1989. What magnificent ship. In Desert Storm I was based in Saudi Arabia, but could see the battle ships firing and hear the report of the big guns.
At 7:22 it's an Iraqi soldier surrendering to a drone. That was recorded after one of the battleships had pounded the area with 16 inch shells. When they saw the drone surveying the scene the Iraqis would wave their underwear or anything at hand just to stop the next round of shelling. It must have been terrifying to be anywhere near that shelling.
It's a bit simplistic to say that recommissioning the Iowa-class battleships occurred because of the 600-ship Navy goal. There were only four of them. The emergence of the USSR's Kirov class was a major factor, though obviously one which had nothing to do with Desert Storm.
The up graded WWII battleships are awesome. A 16 inch round is devastating. I've read first hand accounts from troops who stormed Pacific islands after the battle ships softened up the defenses before the invasion. They found troops in firing positions without a scratch dead blood coming out of their mouths and ears. The concussion ruptured thier circulatory system and bleed internally. Imagine a3,000 pound shell with 1,000 pounds of TNT coming down on you from 16 miles away.
Not that it makes the prospect of being on the wrong end of an Iowa class salvo any more appealing, but the projectiles have nowhere near the amount of explosive you stated. Here's the real info for the bursting charges in each projectile: AP Mark 8: 40.9 lbs. (18.55 kg) Explosive D HC Mark 13: 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg) Explosive D HC Mark 14: 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg) Explosive D
My grandfather served on all the Iowa class to include the Wisconsin in desert storm. He was fire control for the tomahawk system. He remembers none too fondly the switch from analog to digital computers and complained about the latency of it all. Still have his cruise video and book. If anyone else has the cruise book, hes the one ripping his khakis open to reveal a ninja turtle shirt I sent him for Christmas. No lie.
Honestly, the battleship concept should be reworked into a siege ship. I mean it’s the only place to get mobile artillery in that weight class, as well as being modified with modern sensory equipment and the modular missile launchers on a ship it’s size could be massive. Benefit is something of its weight class would only be needed for wars so mothballing it when not in use is the only viable solution.
It probably wouldn't be a the worst Idea to have a dedicated Artillery Ship. Not a Battleship mind you, just something to mount massive Naval guns to that you can use to shell targets more cheaply than using Missles.
Problem is you need an awefull lot of highly trained people to keep guns of that size in working condition, artillery is cheaper in use, but maintance while you do not use it is high. And you need an dreadnaught class to put that guns onto, the mass of the ship is needed or it would roll over firing not straight ahead... you accelerate the weight of an pick up in split seconds to go over the horizone... They practical need there armor to have the mass to brace against the guns firing. With missles and drones you can put them on everything big enough to carry them and maintance while not in use is pretty low, at worst you have to switch aging circuits not maintance mechanisms designed to turn an insane ammount of steel in an very quick and precise fashion, theese guns are like apparment blocks on turn tables.
I want to see the forgotten Essex class aircraft carriers like the San Jacinto, Franklin, Bennington, and Bataan and how those ships played in WW2 and sinking of Yamato. Those ships are not well known like the Yorktown, Intrepid or Lexington.
The Essex Class Carriers aren't forgotten. San Jacinto and Bataan were Independence Class Light Carriers. Franklin was put out of action a month before Yamato was sunk. Bennington was in mothballs during Korea but served during Vietnam. She's not well known for her WW2 career because she only fought for about 9 months, but she was part of the group that went after Yamato.
I got to watch my son graduate from Naval NPTU aboard the USS Yorktown. He will be a Nuke Officer on an Ohio class SSBN in a few short months. The museum ship is a great place to do this ceremony. Its a worth while tour to see this wonderful ship and the airplanes and other attractions on her. And parked very close to the Yorktown is another special ship, the USS Laffey (DD-724). While not the original USS Laffey (DD-459, that's another wild story that needs to be told ) This Laffey also saw action in WWII both in the Atlantic and Pacific. It assisted in the D-Day invasion and withstood the most unrelenting kamikaze attack of WWII.
The USS Missouri was attacked by two silkworm missiles launched from Iraq, the RN ship HMS Gloucester intercepted the silkworms using sea dart missiles saving the Missouri
@@ColoradoStreaming depending on where they hit. If they hit the central hull or turret face (thickest armor), mostly a huge chunk of steel gone but no bad damage and light loss of life. If they hit a thinner spot like the deck, damage and loss of life. If they hit the bow, heavy damage with loss of life and maybe the ship.
Nice! I know what you mean about the shockwave after the flash of the guns. As a crewman on an M551A1, I spent a lot of time at Graffenwöhr on firing lines, range details in day,night, summer and winter. I remember the time when we were all on line when the track next to us fired a round from their main gun. The instant they fired the gun it flashed then I'd feel the tiny pins pushing all over instantly it came and went.
I've had the privilege of walking the decks of the Missouri as a kid when it was mothballed in Bremerton Washington in the late 60s and early 70s. Truly awesome experience.
Having served in 1st Marine Division during Desert Sheild and Desert Storm, it was a true honor being part of the Marines on board the USS Missouri for her decomissioning. A gorgeous ship to say the least. And the picture of me in full blues with her 16" guns in the background is one of my treasured possessions.
Battleship as a type might have been superseded by carriers...
But a 16'' gun is still a 16'' gun.
And a JDAM, anti ship missile, and torpedo would still send those guns down to the ocean floor.
16" is the MINIMUM barrel length a civilian rifle can be before it's considered to be an SBR! Ha! Those guns must have been TINY! :-P
lmao try getting a jdam past the most barebones of air defense
Anti ship missiles have poor armor penetration as well.
@@Coinz8 yes it will sink them over time, but they can take a beating and continue shells down range
@@losonsrenoster Oh, and I suppose you're going to tell me the projectiles weighed like thousands of pounds hu?! :-P
Nothing is like seeing a Battleship. Carriers are bigger and more capable, but a Battleship stirs emotions.
What we need are AC 130's with naval cannons.
Cold chills. Iraqis be like "holy shit we're sorry!"
Agreed. To even a layman, to an enemy or potential enemy a Battleship LOOKS dangerous ... or comforting to a friend.
While the carrier is excellent it is somewhat hampered as it needs sea room to properly conduct air operations. As such it best serves out of sight. A BB OTOH does a very good job getting close to the coastline and giving a very visual reminder to hostile shores.
Carries require large areas of oceans to hide in. They can't operate under fire. Because they have stand so far off they are limited to preplanned missions. A BB can get into coastal waters and fire on targets with little to no travel time for the strike. From the time a call comes in for a a target to impact of a shell or missiles is measured in mins and seconds. They can keep up a rate of fire that would take up the whole carrier air wings capacity. ( Planes fly time to and from plus rearming me d air refueling).
One of the greatest experiences of my life was watching USS Wisconsin fire her guns during one of those shore bombardments, at night, from only about 2 miles away. I was serving aboard USS McInerney (FFG-8), and as we were her escort at that time, we got to see it up close.......it was a truly awesome sight, one I will never forget. Pictures and video do not do it justice, the sound, the shockwaves, the huge column of fire shooting out of the barrels with each round, words cannot convey how powerful they were. I feel truly blessed to be one of the diminishing number of people alive who can say they've seen it in person. And trust me when I say, 2 miles away, on open water, is a lot closer than it sounds.
I was on Princeton, we caught up with the MO in Pearl and cruised with her back to Long Beach. A couple of days out she put on a live fire ex for us. We were about 50 yards ahead off of her starboard bow. Rippled fired all 9 guns and ended with a broad side. It was cool.. She was moored on the next pier over from where we normally docked, even tied up she looked ready to go to flank.. Hard to believe that was 30 years ago.. Feels like yesterday.
I am jealous, from an Australian.
RIMPAC 1990. We were the first ship aft, and to the starboard during a Demonstration of the Missouri (USS Texas CGN-39). Probably no more than 100 yards away. We wore earplugs, earmuffs and safety glasses (thank god ). The shockwave was incredible. I still have some great 35mm pics from that day. Was able to take a tour and actually enter a Gun Turret 25 years later during a Make-A-Wish trip for my Nephew. Such a beautiful ship.
@@cressida00
Me, too - and I am an American! Too late to see them in action now.
I see lots of clips of battleships firing, but almost none of when the shell impacts. Must still be classified or something. Anyone have any info on what damage the shell does?
Battleships are obsolete because big powerful high-tech nations have so many ways of hurting them. However, none of the enemies that the USA has fought since WW2 has been such a foe.
Hey, it's Lindybeige! Somehow I'm not surprised you're here. I bet you would have loved if the Empire maintained one of the KGV battleships as a museum.
And since Lindybeige is here, I bet Matsimus is not far...
lindy deserves to have his own fully beige painted dreadnought class ready at all times.
I disagree. These Iowa-class battleships are some of the most survivable ships ever built. They were built to withstand shells fired from other battleships. I served on a frigate in the 80's and 90's with no armor and only 1/4-inch of steel between me and the ocean. These battleships had varying amounts of armor that culminated in over 19 inches on parts of the turrets.
They would also be escorted by ASW ships such as Spruance class destroyers and Knox class frigates for submarine protection, and maybe one or two of our own fast attack subs lurking below.
For air defense, they had 4 Phalanx Close-in Weapons Systems, similar to aircraft carriers. Although they carried no air-to-air missile systems, they were always in a battle group with guided-missile cruisers and frigates, just like aircraft carriers. No. They were not considered obsolete because they could be hurt so easily.
As far as having no threatening foes since WW2, that is also incorrect. Look at some of the specifications and weapons systems of Soviet-era warships, and you will quickly see that Soviet surface ships and submarines were very powerful and capable. Soviet surface ships were bristling with weapons, and many of their ships were powered by gas turbines. Soviet submarines were deeper diving due to their titanium hulls, and the fastest submarines ever built were the Soviet Alpha Class submarines.
The four Iowa-class battle ships were not retired because we were afraid they would get hurt, or for lack of a competent foe.
*Laughs in Kirov*
The U.S. fought both the Soviets and the PRC (mostly as part of proxy wars) after WWII. I think both of those would be considered "big, powerful, high-tech nations." Granted, thankfully, neither of those conflicts got to the point of capital ships openly fighting each other, but it was a not-so-remote possibility for decades. And, unfortunately, the more peaceful stances between each of those nations and the U.S. that characterized most of the 90s and 2000s seem to have largely eroded over the past decade.
I was an artillery forward observer with 3rd Bn; 11th Marines. I spent 6 weeks at Khe Sanh, near the runway, and I saw the USS Wisconsin fire her 16” guns shooting 2,700 lb shells, creating craters 80’ across and about 20 - 30’ deep. The rounds traveled 23 miles to target - not the maximum range. The Navy had their own people on the ground selecting which targets to fire at and directing the adjustment of follow-up rounds. The ground and the air shook like Jello from almost 3 miles away.
2,048 pounds
BL 16-inch Mk I naval gun
Ordnance BL 16 inch Mark IBarrel length60 ft (18.3 m)L/45Shellseparate charge, AP shellShell weight2,048 pounds (929 kg)Calibre16 inch (406 mm)
@@Mr.Robert1 I read the HC weighs around 2000 and the ap around 2700, I keep seeing results go back and forth
@@Mr.Robert1 1964 in Vietnam …leftover WW 2 ammo. 2,700 lbs per armor piercing round. 16” X 45 Naval Rifle. 16” times 45 bore diameters = 720”, or 60 feet.
@@thetigerstripes Actually, the Iowas had 16"/50 guns. Also, I believe the only Iowa active for Vietnam was the New Jersey.
@@itsmezed Correct on both accounts. The Iowas' guns were the 16" 50 caliber Mark VII. They primarily fired the 1900lb high capacity and the 2700lb armor piercing.
Nice bunker's yall got there be a shame if i threw explosive filled Volkswagens at them lol
🤣🤣🤣🚙🚙🚙
Why do you think those Iraqi soldiers surrendered to that Drone? By this point, Wisconsin's RPV drones had been seen often enough before the arrival of 16" shells that even the dumbest ground pounder knew that they were being used for target spotting and to spot fall of shot. A single 2300 lb 16" High Explosive shell was as effective as any 'bunker buster' bomb in service, the Armor Piercing rounds (2700 lb) was overkill, able to penetrate up to 20 FEET of concrete, or 18" of class A face hardened steel (same as a battleship's turret face) which Iraq simple did not have and which NO ONE has the ability to make anymore.
Lol,they even had special shells for penetrating concrete!
@@christopherwhitfield3037 hell these things were scary enough then you remember they had atomic shells for the 16 inchers lol
🤣🤣🤣
Living in Norfolk, I cannot walk anywhere without the pride of the "Wisky" be shown about !! She is THE QUEEN of Downtown Norfolk...a beautiful museum honors her and all who served in our armed services. Many veterans who served on her serve as ship guides and docents...the community support is amazing!!
The tours are awesome and so educational...Bless all of our service men and women !!!
Sailing a battleship to an enemy's coastline is a way of saying "I'm about to fuck up your entire day." It's almost too bad that battleships have been superseded by modern cruise missiles, they just don't inspire the shock and awe of a battleship.
The problem is, BBs are too vulnerable to air attack. Modern air-launched anti-ship missiles would spoil an Iowa's whole day before she even knew the attack was inbound.
They probably couldn't sink an Iowa outright, but it could ABSOLUTELY render her unable to continue fighting.
I have to agree. The noise and fire is quite the spectacle. But on the other hand when all your shit starts to blow up around you with smart bombs from invisible bombers and terrain hugging GPS guided missiles that makes a pretty convincing point!
@@numbnutz9398 Yea but if you want indirect coastal fire support nothing beats those 16 inch guns that never seem to end. Most of what you say is also a problem for any aircraft carrier and its handled by the support fleet. They have their place, but its not one that's really needed much any more due to where wars are fought now. Things kick off in any coastal theaters and people will give a long thought to reactivating them again, or at least building something new to fill that roll.
@@Awrethien Yup. I visited the Missouri in Pearl a few years ago. I only had a few hours to walk around it but I could have spent days. Just amazing they could build something like that with slide rule and actual blue print ink and drafting tables. Standing under those guns was astounding. We went for a tour around the harbour and what really struck was that for its shear size it looked so sleek from the waterline looking down the ship from the bow. I would loved to have seen her under steam plowing through the waves with my own eyes but floating next to her you could just imagine it. I know they don't fit modern navel warfare doctrine, but it would be amazing if they could find a place again. If nothing for the peacetime intimidation factor.
@@numbnutz9398 According to calculations, a modern battleship fitted with modern damage control systems would be near unsinkable. During testing, modern anti-ship weapons all proved to greatly struggle with ww2 battleship hulls used as test targets. Even in ww2, when given proper damage control systems, battleships still took and absurd amount of resources and firepower to put down, unless facing another battleship, and they usually sank under only two conditions. Multiple torpedo hits below the waterline, multiple shots from another battleship.
As a gunners mate missile tech who served on board the USS Preble DDG 88 from 2005-2008. it was always my wish to have served onboard a battleship (if they were still active duty) I think that was every GMs wish. Those BBs are freaking beautiful!
I toured the Missouri. She is amazing and certainly remained dangerous during the Gulf War. But those who say she is not obsolete are wrong. The crew required to run such a ship is FAR more than on modern ships. Her 16” shells are no longer made. Her power systems are ancient and take up far more space than modern ones do. Though an argument might be made that a modern battleship with massive guns could still be relevant in the 21st century for shore bombardment, the old Iowa class ships are better off remaining in retirement. They still serve the important function of educating our people on their incredible history.
I’m sure this is all accurate, but if we grant that war, as Clausewitz posited, is inherently about achieving political gains, having a vessel or two of the caliber and quality of the Iowas seems like it could be useful for projecting political will. Driving a battleship into a harbor or landing 16” punches that are unstoppable seems like a wonderful way to indicate that the US is serious about its aims in a way that aircraft at 40,000 feet do not.
Again, I’m sure you’re right about the costs and complexity, but a battleship offshore anywhere is a powerful presence. The machine itself may be obsolete, but not in terms of their implied statement of political will.
Actually, I served in the Navy almost 20 years ago, and one of the first warfare lessons we were taught was "Projection of Power."
Basically, battleships are not obsolete, given that for a surface fleet, projection of power is what it is all about. Given enough air defense, a single battleship would make any modern air carrier battlegroup think twice before engaging it, as air defense could allow a battleship to get close enough to shell an enemy fleet, or, as here, land territory 20 miles in -- more, if a modern battleship has Yamato-class main guns.
Plus, it's a lot harder to track incoming gun rounds than it is a missile -- and a lot harder to destroy with a weapon system like CIWS.
@@isaiahwelch8066 - I think a lot of that thought was boosted by Admiral McCain’s “sea power” that, at the time, seemed archaic but is proved over and over again that the Navy can do things no other branch can without making overt moves that might be seen as declaring a war.
As for the shells, people like to put forth something about defensive missiles or maybe CWIS, and OK fine. But 9 incoming 16” shells? And then another 9? And then another? Give me a break! Finally, imagine what could be devised to come out of those barrels given the vast changes in tank rounds from WW2 to now: I’d think there could be fin-stabilized, GPS-guided sabot rounds out much farther than the 25 miles or whatever it is. I don’t want to sound like someone saying fighters should still have propellers, but I, like you, really think there’s still a logical place for gunboats like the Iowas, perhaps with one turret rededicated to different weapons.
Battle ships can also make for good resources stations holding emerging supplies for the fleet. Capable of going in to dangerous Waters and projecting power and cover for smaller forces.
Not only are the 16” shells no longer made, the powder that all the battleships fired through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Desert Storm- was all made during WWII. And there is still some in storage, all made before 1945.
"Two Veterans of wars long past, lent their mighty voices"
Ahhh to Romanticizing war ships
@@Endorphins27 The Gulf War was probably one of the most justifiable wars ever.
@@afriendofafriend5766 that’s cool. Thanks for sharing.
Brings back memories. I was on the USS Kennedy returning from Desert Storm and saw the Wisconsin as she tagged along as we returned home. I wish I had been able to see her big guns in action. Now that would have been a sight to remember.
It is. I watched both sisters firing one and two gun salvoes into Iraqi positions at night, they lit the night up from almost 20 miles away. None of the targets they engaged were worth more than one or two shells at a time. No broadsides except in practice.
I watched Iowa firing broadsides in practice earlier on, 1985/86 from about 2 miles astern of her, totally awe inspiring and I could FEEL the concussion of the muzzle blasts deep in my chest and abdomen.
I never saw them underway, but I did see the Wisconsin pierside across from the brand new (at the time) Arleigh Burke.
Ear splitting.
We were half a mile on the Mo's Port flank and the shockwave still sucked all the air out of your lungs. Got some awesome photos as I was on the "Snoopy Team".
@@jimmydasquid9951 "Snoopy Team away! Port side!"
I was inland during Storm and got to hear what a Cadillac sounded like flying over my head. Those 16” shells make a weird hum and a wooshing noise all at once.
Thank you for serving
Jesus fuck that sounds insane.
Was it eerie, or did knowing what it was prevent any chance of that?
Love the analogy
@@superdupergrover9857 We didn’t know till later what it was. Just knew it had to be friendly because it was going in the right direction.
Love this so much I watch it over and over again. My Uncle Served on Missouri during Desert Storm.
Although not in this video, my grandfather served on the USS Iowa during WWII. He loved that ship. He talked about for the rest of his life until the day that he died. It wasn't until many decades later, that the ship was turned into a floating museum in Long Beach, California, and I was glad that I could take my son to see it.
@Ron Beaubien It's quite possible that my father knew your father. My father was a plankowner on the Iowa, served on her all of WW II. What was your father's station?
@@Linuxgurugamer-vr1vw My grandfather was also a plank owner. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. I was told he was a fireman. Being a kid at the time, I always assumed that he was involved in putting out fires, i.e. damage control.
@@Linuxgurugamer-vr1vw I remember a funny story about my grandfather. After retirement, whenever the USS Iowa was in port during the Reagan years, my grandfather would load up his RV and go see it. Back in the day, things were more lax it seems.
He would drive right past the base's gate and give them a salute, park near the battleship, give the Marine standing guard duty at the end of the gangway a sharp salute, walk around the ship and reminisce about his time spent o the ship.
Finally, someone would ask him what he was doing there. "Well, I served on the Iowa during WWII," he would reply. They would politely escort him off the ship as visitors were not allowed that day.
😂😂🤣
@@ronbeaubien Fireman was someone who worked in the engines, I believe.
@@Linuxgurugamer-vr1vw It is quite possible. I have heard that too. Unfortunately, he passed away in 1989. I'll probably only know for sure if I can get a hold of his military records. He often talked about the ship, but not specifically what he did on it.
I once did a paper on how many airplanes the United States lost attacking coastal targets in North Vietnam; the same targets that could have been engaged by 16in guns. The losses were staggering in terms of our human losses, not to mention material losses. If you want to see what a BB off the coast can do, look at the eastern coastal DMZ in Korea, that dip north was due to naval gunfire called in on communist forces. My father witnessed a gun technique where the fuse was set and the gun fired on a fairly flat trajectory and skipped into enemy bunker systems.
It is simply a different world now. No one has bunkers on a coast now unless they are idiots. You simply go over them. Where are the forts? General Patten was right.
Now THAT would definitely be something to see and never, ever forget or be remotely able to compare to anything else
@@ezekielhuzarski9171 I think Vietnam is being pushed towards to US, and I think it will be a valuable partnership. I would like to see them involved with the Quad.
@@ezekielhuzarski9171 What I am saying is geopolitical circumstances and pressures are moving the two countries together. Both supply chain and militarily. The US and the Vietnamese have some very aligned strategic concerns. You would be remiss if you didn't consider that. India, Indonesia to be specific in that sphere of influence as well. They feel encroached upon. I honestly feel like the dynamics in SE Asia, could be the next tinderbox. If you cannot see that, take a look at what is happening. None of the countries I mentioned like to be intimidated, and that is what is being attempted right now.
Go Navy
After researching this topic in my spare time for years, my conclusion is this: Battleships are viable in the modern era as a weapon and deterrent measure. Their role has been relegated, primarily, to shore bombardment and leading surface action groups, but in those roles, they are kings. However, for the price of a Battleship, you can have a carrier which has a greater range of capabilities. Aircraft carriers can attack any target with their air arm, and do so with adequate effectiveness. So the choice falls to building fewer general purpose ships in exchange for more specialized but excellent ones, or more jack of all trades ships that can do anything "good enough." Maybe the advent of new technologies like lasers and railguns will bring back the battleship or battle cruiser. Maybe not. But the battleships never stopped being useful. They just stopped being cost efficient.
In my opinion when railguns are perfected battleships will come back ( and lasers in my opinion are good for anti-drone / missile defense but not as offensive weapon, sidenote: lasers will never be good offensive weapon no matter what sci fi tv shows and movies say because you have to spend a lot of power for a laser beam that is getting scattered by atmosphere over greater ranges, and conflict ranges are increasing with new weaponry, in space yes..but you still must get a shitton of power to power it, in atmosphere, never ).
A wing on aircraft carrier can strike far but fuel and planes and pilots cost a lot, and it is similar with drones but a bit better because you dont need a pilot, which will probably be able to stay in the air indefinitively with refueling because there is no pilot that gets tired..
Railguns theoretically could strike really far away, you dont need expensive missile or any kind of ammo, it could be just a kinetic impactor. And battleship has the space to generate power for railgun ( nuclear reactor ) and to hoise railgun itself with all additional systems that are needed...and it turns out cheaper in the end because you dont need to pay for fuel for planes/drones or much for ammunition...
Offcourse you need drones for target spotting but that nowdays can be done from satelites...
@@DreamskyDance theoretically you can get that power. It's called nuclear power. So lasers could be a mid to close range weapon. But the rail gun has kick at longer. However they are also capable of being put on cruisers...
Well said.
When it comes to tech, some things have a way of sticking around in a limited role, or reappearing altogether decades later: cannons on fighter jets, small caliber rifles, snipers, the m14, etc. As technology changes in another direction, there's always inspiration from the past. Sometimes as you said, its just a matter of money and use. At the onset of the next major global conflict who knows what we'll dust off again- its just ashamed that the Iowa's won't get that last taste of salt water one more time...
Geez, we spend about a trillion dollars a year on defense. There’s no reason we can’t have both battleships and carriers.
Railgun research by the US Navy was stoped, it came to a dead end, lasers are useful for defense and little else, the future of the Navy seems to be on hypersonic missiles, submarines, deastroyers and maybe light carriers too with the supercarriers as the undisputed core of the fleets, sadly, no place for battleships.
A friend visited the Missouri I think while she was on station. He said they used a laser light pencil to touch targets on the video feed from the drones. The guns automatically sighted to the target and shells were going down range shortly thereafter. Impressive tech for 1991.
Militarily tech is always decades ahead of civilian tech especially for the US
Hmm, as far as I know, when they looked into the sighting and aiming of the main batteries,, they couldn't really improve on it, so they kept it analogue.
@@christopherwhitfield3037 That was the Iowa the others I have no idea
@@christopherwhitfield3037 Well, we had an ordnance officer who visited the ship and I can't tell you why as its been a long time. He told us that when he came back aboard the USS Okinawa, HMM-164 rein, 13th MEU, 4th MEB. It's been a long time. That's the way I remember it.
We were using the same tech when nes came out with the duck hunt pistol. Where you shoot at a tube tv with no sensors. And it knows where you shot.
The Wisky is a hell of a thing to see. Video doesn’t correctly portray the size of her. I recently went Norfolk and toured her, amazing experience.
Fun facts: the Wisky is bigger then the other Iowa class battleships because she had her entire bow replaced with one from an incomplete Iowa ship, named Kentucky, after a collision. So she’s now like 10 or 20 feet longer then the others.
Next fun fact is she is the first and only battleship a ground force ever surrendered to. When she used her drones to paint targets for shelling the Iraq’s knew what was about to happen so the surrendered to it and it stayed there till American forces could arrive I believe.
Next: she was hit with 6 inch shell from a land base in Korea which really annoyed her captain who in turn fired a full broadside at the offending shore battery completely obliterating it. A destroyer radioed the captain saying “Temper, temper.” I don’t know why but I always found that funny.
Cus it is that funny! a few 6 inch shells pinging off the side of ship, those 16inch turrets turn in your direction, the words "and thats when they knew, they F@#$ed up" (the shore battery that is) come to mind.
After all, besides rektting the superstructure (armored as it may be), whats a 6inch gun gonna do to a BATTLESHIP? Your just going to make it mad, and then you die from 16inch HE shell to the face.
I really love the story of the USS Texas during D-Day,
The water was too shallow for the Texas to get close enough, so the captain called for the ballast tanks on one side to be filled so the ship would lean to one side. This allowed the guns to raise enough to shell fortified positions on the coast.
Basically the Navy gangster-leaned a battleship so it could hit its targets
@@rawhidelamp Honestly a very ballsy move. If they leaned it too far, the recoil could capsize the ship.
These two sister battleships did so much in their life time. Nothing screams firepower more than a battleship too bad their Era is gone ❤
Wisconsin is a great ship to see, especially at Christmas. The location on Waterside in Norfolk is a perfect resting place for her. Historic Shipyards around the corner, Ammo depot within site just up the river, and a fleet waiting on the way out to sea. Rifled cannons way be considered obsolete, but that ship will always be in my heart.
On these ships they're not cannons they're guns. Cannons on ships were muzzle loaded by hand.
Cannons on aircraft are a different story.
@@ThePaulv12 true. Sorry for the I incorrect terminology. Naval Artillery? They are rifled tubes that throw projectiles with the mass of small automobiles over the horizon with devastating results.
@@ThePaulv12 What about the Victorian era breech loaded cannon, in the 19th century.
Muzzle loaded naval artillery, on 18th & 19th century warships, were divided into several types. These included cannon, carronades, guns & mortars.
I have to pull up next to her and admire everytime I'm out that way in my boat......awe inspiring every time
I agree. I went to the Wisconsin on a few occasions when my brother was going to college in Virginia Beach. She’s absolutely beautiful
It brings joy to my heart and tears to my eyes to see battleships, sisters too, doing what they were born to do, and know they retired one last time as legends filled with pride and honor that they could serve one last time.
They went out honorably and as legends
Fortunately, those two are still officially on the roster of the reserve fleet, and are kept in shape to be modernized and recommissioned if needed.
@@markmulder9845 whom? All four are museums now.
Awesome video! I heard that the USS Iowa crew were really happy when they could fire their guns again.
Iowa was the 2nd of the four battleships to be recommissioned during the "600 Ship Navy" buildup. Ironically she was the ONLY one of the four to NOT fire her guns in anger during this period in commission. New Jersey (BB 62) fired into the hills above Beirut Lebanon to protect US Marines after the Marine Barracks suicide bombing. While Iowa was deployed to take over that mission she wasn't used. That mission ended almost immediately after her arrival on station. Missouri (BB 63) and Wisconsin (BB 64) were deployed for Desert Shield and Desert Storm as documented above.
Neither Iowa nor New Jersey were available as BOTH had been decommissioned by this point, after the collapse of the USSR. Also, Iowa had not been repaired after suffering the turret explosion.
I was stationed aboard USS Nassau (LHA 4) during Desert Storm. If we had been ordered to land the over 10,000 Marines we had in the Amphibious Force, knowing how fearful the Iraqi Army was of the Battleships, I would have been wishing to have all four on station.
@@robertf3479 huh, guess the book I read on the Iowa was pretty inaccurate.
There's absolutely nothing that compares to our battleships!!! You put a battleship off the coast of any country and they have to worry about it!!!!
There’s nothing I love more than hearing that a ship, aircraft or other historic piece of equipment has been saved from the scrap torch and preserved for future generations.
I was in forward plot when that Saudi officer commented on the battleship (it was the Wisconsin). It's accurate that he said he wished they had a battleship (this was after we took out a bunker for him) but there was also a lot of very excited, repeating "thank you, thank you, I love battleship". It was pretty cool.
During Iraq 2 my Iranian cab driver said “I love Bush! Bush strong! Iran love him”
that's awesome. neat story
Another ✡ war
@@777jones As a 55 year old American that has dealt with both generations of the Bush family, I wish I could say the same
everyone loves battleship. Unless you are the target. Then you die with a massive amount of respect for battleship.
They served in WW2, Korea, Viet Nam and Operation Desert Storm. They are not gone, they are serving now as museum ships - but we have been told not to expect them ever to be recalled again. The sailors that sailed and fought with these ships are aging faster than the ships are, so we might not be able to crew them again. But we can dream. They are amazing to behold!
All of the fire control hardware would be replaced with modern computers and range-finding equipment. The same with the crew. They'd need to get training and practice, certainly, but there's nothing about these ships that you need the vets for, other than as instructors. The reason they've been retired though, is that they're largely redundant. A modern missile frigate can reach further inland than the Iowa's main guns, and with much less tonnage. It's not so much that the ships are old, but that we simply don't need those massive guns any more.
Literally everything the Iowas did in all of these wars could have been done more cost-effectively by other vessels. The Iowas are engineering marvels, but strategically they are failures, and they should never have been built.
@@BlackEpyon
The superiority of missiles was true even in Desert Storm. The Iowas were unnecessary in that war, like they were in every other war they were involved in.
@@bkjeong4302
And yet, one Iowa was able to fight off the Japanese fleet with their strongest and newest ship in the lead. Guadalcanal - look it up. Their were two Iowas at the start, and one had to retire after taking 7 hits. She was repairable and could still move, but fighting was no longer worth much. The second Iowa finished the job alone.
@@julieenslow5915
The Iowas weren’t ever involved in that battle, or during any part of the Guadalcanal campaign. You’re thinking of the Battle of Second Guadalcanal, which never involved any of the Iowas (it had Washington, a North Carolina-class battleship, and South Dakota, which was the ship damaged and did nothing but get shot at during the entire battle because of it). And the Japanese forces present in that battle wasn’t an entire fleet, but a small task force (albeit one headed by a capital ship).
You’re straight-up lying here by claiming the Iowas did anything during a battle they weren’t even present for.
I was honored to cruise with Missouri during Desert Storm. Man is she overwhelming at sea.
Stats, photos, and video can be impressive, but only go so far. Being present is, shall we say, convincing. I lived on the coast of North Carolina near Camp Lejuene when they did annual war exercises right outside my house. Seeing all the firepower up close and personal is jaw-dropping!
I served in the Med on a fast attack sub, part of the New Jersey and the John F. Kennedy battle group. We could hear the Jersey's guns go off from more than 20 miles away, and more than 400 feet underwater. You could hear it thru the hull. I was a Sonarman, and could hear the shell's whistle (sounds incredible), and the hit when the shell struck its target. Those aboard the Jersey called it, "throwing Volkswagens" because of the 2000+ lbs that each shell weighed at firing. This was during the Lebanon "conflict" (wasn't much of a conflict to be honest.)
I served in Desert Storm and Got to see the USS Missouri fire in anger. To say it was impressive is an understatement. Nothing like dropping a ton of high explosives on your enemies head at 15 miles away. We were half a mile away and could feel the concussion from the big guns.
Targeting system on the 16” guns from WW 2 was so good it didn’t need to be up graded. How cool is that!
Analog gears and wheels ! How incredible is that ? Early 1930’s technology !
@@normfreilinger5655 - That will ruin your whole day.
When your shells weights 1.2 tons you dont need wind correction
Its an interstellar body at that point
@@ozan1234561 Those computers took all of that into consideration. They were insanely advanced.
I mean they used drones so yeah it was upgraded. The actual aiming part: trigonometry didn't change in 50 years
A fleet isn’t a fleet without a battleship.
I wish they would bring them back.
I was stationed at 32nd St NavSta San Diego during this time and it brings back memories
My father was stationed there as well. He was on the Acadia.
@@cracklingvoice I was stationed on the Cushing DD 985
Zumwalt-class armed with hypersonics is going to be the next iteration of the battleship. ;)
@@VisibilityFoggy It was going to be... until it was cancelled.
Look like you guys american gonna use Burke class again
As a former Special Evolutions Helmsman and having worked in various positions in Turret Two on the Mo 87-90... the Battleship mantra "Fear God Dreadnaught" is very fitting. Be it steaming through a hurricane or lighting up the horizon, it's empowering, especially for a 17 year old kid growing up on a piece of history. Over the years, I've bumped into folks who were down range, near the receiving end of our work, their statements were on a sliding scale from impressive to terrifying.
My uncle served on The Missouri around those years, and thru the Gulf War. I know little of naval terminology but he worked in FC or FCC then.
Welcome Home
Special evolution?
@@Yarkoonian Special Evolutions if I recall, were specific to the delicate procedures of entering/leaving Port, and also maybe for UNREP.
I too served on the Mo 89-92 in Engineroom #4 and Repair 5 Aft. Good to see a fellow Shipmate! Hope life has been well to you, Brother.
What incredibly well-produced videos ! Thank you for making such a great Channel !
This video brings back good and bad memories, of when I served in Desert Shield, and later on in Desert Storm. Good video my friend.
Hurrah for HMS Gloucester and the Royal Navy’s hard won experience during the Falklands war on how to intercept missiles
]
I was about 20 miles from the Missouri when this happened. What they don't tell you is, when the Silkworm missile exploded a number of chemical warfare sensors were trigged. Every ship nearby including mine set Conditions Zebra (maximum hull and watertight integrity) and Circle William (Maximum CBR preparedness.) We were "sucking rubber," wearing gas masks for about 2 hours until the word came down that it was a false alarm, possibly triggered by burning jet fuel from the missile.
HMS Gloucester and her company did real good that night.
Carriers are bigger and have a longer arm, but none can deny that everything within range of her guns belongs to the battleship.
Plus the ~1,000mi range of the Tomahawk missile 😁
A battleship is not a weapon to be triffled with.
Very true
Amen
@@diddlebug7241 Lots of big guns? Check. Near impossible to sink? Check. You only have two real counters to a battleship. Hit it multiple times under the water, or throw another battleship at it.
I had never heard how many 16" rounds these two battleships fired in the Gulf War until this video. That's unreal. Didn't realize that many rounds were still viable at that point.
Only a few people knew about the A-bomb project. The Navy ws predicting that the war against Japan would last until 1948 before the home islands would be defeated using ground forces, conventional bombs, and naval gunfire support, and planned for the battleships to be carrying out bombardment missions almost continuously once the first amphibious assault craft would be in range to land troops on the beach.
Thus, the surplus of shells was immense. When Iowa had that explosion in the No. 2 gunhouse, the shells and powder were all manufactured in 1945.
@@akulkis Didnt they also have a warehouse full of replacement gun barrels for when they were eventually worn out from the shelling?
The extra guns were built for the Illinois and Kentucky, which were canceled.
Well, they got a long range and preparations for defending against amphibious landings meant a lot of stuff was close to the shore. Have you seen footage of craters made by the New Jersey in Vietnam? That looks like the moon
when we toured the Wisconsin we were told that they fired some thing like 2,000 collectively during wwII and few hundred during Korea and desert storm and that there more 20,000 rounds for the 16in guns remaining.
I was part of a exercises with the of Canada , South Korea , Japan and Australian navies that was held at Pearl Harbor Hawaii in the early ‘90’s. The Missouri was immediately behind my ship ( USS Texas CGN 39 ). About 50-100 yards away at a different pier was a Japanese ship. The Japanese sailors could see their grandfathers nightmare in front of them.
After the exercises were over. the Missouri fired her 16” guns for what was supposed to be the last time. We had no idea of Saddam’s insanity or stupidity but found out later. We were several hundred yards away and my ship shook from the power of those guns. Nothing can prepare a person for that.
Man you are good at this. I enjoy your videos Sir. Your cadence is spot on.
was onboard my 1st ship in Long Beach when Cher filmed that video, we were across the port and saw the lights and heard the noise but had no idea what was going on
A number of USS Missouri veterans considered Cher's half naked performance on the battleship's foredeck to be disrespectful of the ship, her history and the men who had given their lives aboard her.
@@robertf3479 I wonder which lady had given the most rides. They're about the same age I believe.
@@thomasfountain4920 LOL!!!
LOL... I was on the next pier over from the MO when the were filming that. Me and a buddy went out to shoot some pool, got back to the boat around 10. I can still remember us leaning on the lifelines going "What the f&%k are they doing over there??"
Consider the political impacts:
Carrier: safe at sea, over the horizon powerful, but only seen by the foe via its aircraft flying overhead.
BB: massive and capable of sailing to within sight of the foe. The foe sees a BIG ship with big guns and a horde of missiles.
Which of the two has a deeper, more profound political impact?
Don't forget that old BB can sail in your into a harbor with near impunity thanks to her armor as well. A carrier couldn't operate in that tight of space, plus she couldn't take a hit.
@@erbmiller Would be interesting to see how that armor would hold up against modern anti-ship munitions like the latest Exocet and DF-21D.
A variety of aircraft bombing your cities to dust
@@erbmiller US Carriers are notoriously hard to sink, even on purpose.
@@E-Brightvoid yes, but do you really want to sail one into enemy waters where she will likely be shot at, when you can have her sit back and be perfectly safe and still do her duty?
Shame the Battleships are gone. Had one good run though.
They will be back with rail guns in the next 30 years.
@@cmdr1911 I sure hope so... Would be awsome to see these two legends Rail Gunning enemies from a great distance...
@@cmdr1911 install nuclear power for the rail guns and strip out the old engines for electric.
@@ZacLowing At this point.. with modern metal, and modern materials like kevlar, it would be cheaper to make a new ship instead of ripping the 16" guns out and putting in railguns or Missle pods.
They may be back in smaller form at somepoint with smart shells, or as arsenal ships. Laser PD systems and better jamming and counter measures may make ships have to get up and personal again at some point, esppecially as Russia and China begin Fielding larger navys.
Youve got a really nice voice for this sort of narration.
I would say that his voice is clear and easy-to-understand. However a little on the fast side. I would prefer a little slower delivery just being picky.
Fall River, Mass was my first visit to real military history at age 10. It put the love & appreciation of military engineers & personnel in me.
Although I grew up in the space shuttle era & want to see those exhibits, I want more to see every battleship & carrier museum.
I now live close to the battleship North Carolina & carrier Yorktown, and have visited both several times. It always leaves me in awe & proud to be an American.
I wish we didn't need such things, but mankind is truly incapable of living peacefully.
The "Operations Room" has a fantastic video on these battleships in Desert Storm and how they operated. Also great details on how the Iraqi Navy responded to the Coalition forces with what weapons.
All from a bird's eye view!
yes also Black Hawk Down incident gives insight into encounters such as Ukraine how they are fought
Lets not forget about the worlds most decorated Battleship USS New Jersey. Iowa and New Jersey were upgraded before Missouri and Wisconsin. We also had drones.
I was gonna mention that. I don't know why he didn't say anything about the other two...🤔
Loved the nick name "Black Dragon" New Jersey had
Only reasons BB-61 & BB-62 didn't get a mention was where not in the first gulf. they where starting the decommissioning process before the war so they missed out. It would have been a sight see all four Iowa class fight one last war together nearly 50 years after being built.
No shit!! Hell just seeing even a single fuckin battleship, especially with any one or combination of, however most of all, ALL 9 of her 16” guns firing, would be a terrifying yet awesome sight to behold… but then to see TWO Iowa class battleships!? Now that’s just stupendous… so I can’t even begin to try to comprehend or describe what/how it would feel to be able to bear witness to FOUR of these sexy steel behemoths steaming along together in the same fleet!! Just seeing them would be breathtaking, but to actually see, hear and especially FEEL them in action, bristling from stem to stern, witnessing every last weapon they have then brought to bear on some poor bastard(s) about to be obliterated downrange… it’s honestly kind of hard even just to try to fully wrap my brain around the notion and accurately comprehend it, but hey, a guy can dream, can’t I??
@@hippiesaboteur2556 don't slap yourself too hard it might fall off :)
Damn they are so goddam powerfull, 16 inch guns, tomahawks, harpoons, phalanx, targeting drones. I can't imagine what a compound looks after it got shelled by precisely targeted 16 inch HE shells. Sad that US Navy dont use them any more.
They seem strong, but they have no decent AA defense and are one hell of a target. ASHMs will eat them alive
It would probably look something like Meteor Crater NNL.
If you look at some of the footage in the video, it looks like sailors are armed with what looks like Stinger Missile launchers.
I’m guessing they were expecting Iraqi air attack the whole time. So, ya, kinda of concours with there lack of modern AA support.
My retired Navy father in law would have adored your videos! Thank you for telling amazing stories.
Well done, well edited. Not too long, not too short.
That's what she said
I remember seeing the USS Missouri in action and was extremely thankful
she was on our side … The “Mighty Mo” & “Wisco” will
Never be forgotten !!!
The Wisconsin. My great uncle’s old ship. He lived long enough to see her recommissioned and put to sea. Did you know she was the first allied ship to enter Hiroshima Bay after the Japanese Surrender? My uncle was among the sailors manning the rails and all those men received high doses of radiation. My uncle died of cancer as did many of his crew mates.
Sad to learn but there's good info to learned from this. As both of those strikes were airbursts IIRC I thought until now that residual radiation would have been quite small.
This grand old Lady is berthed about 10 miles down the road from me in downtown Norfolk, VA at the Nauticus National Maritime Center. She appears to be well cared for.
@@ret7army I think the problem was particles were still raining out so to speak. The gama was not too high. Most of the crew exposed on deck got lung cancer. That’s a beta particle thing.
@@robertf3479 I should go visit sometime. I’m all the way across the state near the Smokies and Blue Ridge mountain chains. About 800 miles or so.
@@ret7army As I recall from my studies, both bombs detonated close enough to the ground to suck debris into the fireball so not true "airbursts."
The mighty Jingles was on the ship targeted by that second missile. Now he terrorizes the seas on youtube.
That was such an awesome story!
I believe the Mighty Jingles was in the Royal Navy, aboard the HMS Gloucester. The targeted ship was the USS Missouri. The Gloucester shot down the Exocet that had targeted the Missouri.
jingles needs more subs lmao
I've wondered what it would be like to have a modern battleship. Something like nuclear powerd battle ship with two reactors to create the energy needed for rail guns to launch a 3500lb guided scram jet projectile going super sonic speeds with a range of 150 to 250 miles. Something like that would be a devastating weapon to any navy fleet.
The best aspect the battleships bring to the fight in this day and age is a massive amount of reserve buoyancy and a lot of deck room for bolting on the latest generation of butt kicking hardware. Those 16’ Mk 7’s are respected by any generation that sees them. I think we could build a massive hulled armored missile silo and engineer a new generation of the auto-loading 8” guns that the Des Moines had and run two turrets of those for direct fire missions. The rest could be all missiles and defense systems. No reactors though, you don’t want that taking a hit.
or a dream home for 50 people
@@BariumCobaltNitrog3n The government has no prerogative to issue homes to people.
If you get a government issued home; it will be far from your dream home.
If your dream home is a 3-room, sub 750 sq ft concrete apartment, you have shitty dreams.
@@akaku9 no shit.
Brings back memories. Loved serving on the Big Mo! Thanks for creating and sharing this video!
Gosh I wish battle ships still had a place in our fleet...
They do. They just put them underwater and called them submarines. Ohio SSGNs can put 154 Tomahawks wherever you want them.
I am so used to watching military history of my Father's generation, it is wild watching something I lived through and read and saw live repotting from. Awesome, love seeing those old battleships get down and prove they are no where near obsolete. B@d @$$ to be sure.
Ah, nostalgia.
Ha. My grandfather was on the Wisconsin in World War II and I'm only 34 years old. I barely remember Desert Storm, but I was alive for it.
Why do you censor yourself? You're still saying it. Writing it won't make your god angry.
@@CharliMorganMusic not making any sense, what is censored?
they are so incredibly obsolete though
I'm still one that feels we need a few 21st century battleships in our Navy. Technology has changed so much that we could easily make them way better and more versatile than ever before but having those big guns when you need them is a thing of beauty. I doubt we will ever see it but this video alone proves how valuable they really are!
Rail guns could make them come back maybe.
@@kingoliever1 exactly what i was going to say, wont have the same mental impact though as having a 16" shell fly over your head. Although I'm sure a hypersonic tungsten rod also sounds pretty mean flying overhead. The Navy said they stopped development on railgun systems so either they truly think they wont work or wont be cost effective, the got all the data they need, or they found something better.
Since the pause of the rail gun research means, a 10 years before it sees light qgain
The navy hit the same problem they hit on rail gun research in the 1930=1940's
we still dont have the means to create enough energy density to make it work woutside of a lab setting.
as for battleships. they cost way too much for what they provide. i agree, 16inch rounds provide miracles but the costs to keep the ship operationel compared to the cost and firepower of a burke just makes battleships obsolete and a waste of money.
I agree, them 16 inch guns, are no joke 💯👍🏽💪🏽
God I love battleships one of my teachers served during desert storm on the Missouri the stories he told rest in peace
It's amazing that the technology used in the 1940s to fire those 2000 lb. shells 20 miles with total accuracy were still being used in today's wars !!!
Physics hasn’t changed much since then. Or… ever.
The Navy has done quite a bit of landscaping over the decades.
With mixed results - - the Pacific island hopping bombardments as well as in Normandy were not nearly as effective as everyone planned for.
"You see that island?"
"Yes Sir"
"I Don't want to"
"Understood Sir"
I was in Baghdad during OIF2 in 2004. I got to see the aftermath of a tomahawk attack. They put 3 tomahawks into the Iraqi National Guard headquarters building. All 3 met nose to nose in the center of the building. The only thing left was the shell. It hallowed out the inside.
My dad served on the Elokomin in the Korean War. We're from Wisconsin, generations of us. I've been aboard her as a museum. My dad refueled her in the Mediterranean in the 50's. I'd love to take him to her again now. He spent many a weekend in Norfolk as a young man
God bless the US Navy
Never underestimate the fire power of an American 16 inch naval gun--especially if it has computer/drone aiming capabilities.
The drone was the only nod to "modern" in the fire control system for the 16." The WWII era analog fire control computer was ungodly accurate in laying and pointing those big guns ... as the Iraqi Army found out the hard way.
I was in the Airforce
In 1991 for the second time.
All I can say about the power of these WW2 ships is.
WOW !!!!!
I wonder what a battleship build in modern times would be like.
Using conventional gunpowder type guns with guided projectiles would be cool as shit. But I think they would just carry a shit load of missiles really. Missiles can do everything better than conventional EXCEPT LOOK COOL AS HELL!
Rail guns and a nuclear reactors.
Useless
Id imagine something like the Kirov class battlecruisers.
As do I. I think 16inch forward as there's still a role for those that missiles don't quite fit. Add to that rocket assist and or 8 inch subcaliber rounds. Leave room for the rail guns which might become viable and many, many missiles because they do a number of things very well indeed.
God damn I love what American stands for. Freedom and justice for all with the most bad ass military
Iowa and Missouri are perfect example of why you don't scrap equipment as soon as the war is over
I remember reading that Reagan brought the battleships back to counter the Soviet Kirov class Battlecruiser.
That is why they were brought back. We didn't have anything at the time with which to counter it. Outside of our carriers, we still don't. The Kirov class ships are worthy of respect. The modernized Kirov is definitely a ship to be feared if she means you harm.
@@Angel9932 i do not think the iowa's were reactivated to fight the kirovs, that wouldnt not make sense, the kirovs have longer range, the best the iowa's could do is scare them, which might actually work now that i think about it.
I’m surprised they weren’t put back into mothballs in case of future needs….
They are in a condition to be reactivated if needed. They are not dead, just resting until recalled to service.
The cost was preventative
@@kendallhockeriv not quite it would take months if not a year or more and tens of millions of dollars to get them combat worthy again.
@@kendallhockeriv Negative mate. None of the four are now in a condition where they could be recalled to service. The Navy ended it's responsibility for ship maintenance when the four were scratched from the mobilization availability lists *with the permission of Congress* well over a decade ago. The Navy also "De-militarized" the big guns, locking the turrets permanently in place so that they cannot rotate or the 16" fire. The museums are forbidden to do any work that would make the engines operational again as well as other major systems as part of the contract for receiving custody of the ship.
If you doubt me let me refer you to the Battleship New Jersey RUclips site. This is a topic the lead curator for the Museum has spoken of many times.
@@robertf3479 thank you!
All four Iowas were in service in the 80s . As a New Jerseyan , I'm partial to "The Big J" - BB-62 - The U.S.S. New Jersey. It's in the Delaware River mored On the Camden side as a museum ship today. I toured it about 15 years ago . One hell of a tour !
Big "J" all the way.
You should check out their You Tube channel, pretty cool stuff.
I live near Bremerton, WA. The shipyard is huge. When you drive south on Hwy 3, down through Gorst, you can look to the left and see all the big ships that are decommissioned. Our Navy is awesome, and the envy of the world.
Have you been to Fort Ward? Its cool to see all the old WWI gun emplacements protecting Bremerton.
I think the biggest thing with a battleship is that it can so far away, but still in sight of the target. You can see the huge explosions of the guns fired. You might be able to see the shells coming in. Then, you get explosions and hear everything else if you live.
Something very similar to attack helicopters, A-10s and B-52s. Each one, you know what's coming. You're really looking death in the eye knowing that one shot could be it. In all cases, you can see what's coming and you can't do anything.
Battleships may no longer be the kings of the sea, but they still have their place out on the waves.
It's a beautfull sight to behold
Its all fun and games until the 16inches of freedom come raining down on you
Battleships are still viable. An ability to fire huge shells that, unlike rockets, ACTUALLY can't be intercepted, is severely underappreciated as of now. Or at least it was, before the russo-Ukrainian war.
That is true, Still Battleships are Expensive to maintain, not to mention personal. A Battlecruiser would probably be just as effective, BUT i'm not gonna lie nothing beats the sheer intimidation factor of a Battleship.
CWIS and CRAM can intercept a battleship sized shell and even smaller.
One of the main challenges facing US carrier battlegroups today is coming within range of land based missiles. In scenarios such as defending Taiwan from China a carrier battlegroup could face what is called missile saturation. Since the carrier and its escorts can only carry a finite number of missiles, a peer enemy such as China could conceivably launch more missiles than the carrier group could defend against. At this point the carrier and escorts would have to rely on CIWS exclusively. One proposed solution to this would be refitting the Iowas as a huge missile truck. By removing the rear turret a huge surface area at the stern would be available for multiple VLS cells - as many as six Arleigh-Burke class destroyers can carry. So without having to build any additional ships the USN could more than double a carrier battle groups missile saturation point with a single ship.
Battleship after an overhaul: “so I started blasting”
Serious note the ingenuity on bringing back WW II battleships to be able to compete in a war 50 years after its creation in more than impressive.
GO NAVY! What beautiful ladies! These ships brought a whole lotta whoopass. I understand the arguments against ever recommissioning these amazing ships, but it would definitely be a hell of a sight to see their guns fired in anger again. There is just something so poetic about launching shells the size of a car 20 miles.
You mean a toy car right? Remember, they had 16 inch guns. 1-6 I N C H E S... (406mm), while these are super impressive guns that are no longer used by any navy in the world, they were never launching anything the size of a real car. The rounds they fired were referred to as "Cadillacs" but that's where it ends.
Ultimately an Arleigh-Burke class Destroyer with all of its armaments or a Virginia class Block V Submarine (65 Tomahawks) or a converted Ohio class SSGN submarine (154 Tomahawks) is a more effective and cheaper weapons system with greater range and destructive potential. And all three of these are much more defensible that the old Iowa class ships.
Sorry, the days of the BB have come and gone.
I've been aboard the USS Alabama. Those were strong and noble ships, with many battle stars. Thank you, to all our sailors.
I was able to visit the Mighty MO when I was stationed in Hong Kong at the US Consulate in 1989. What magnificent ship. In Desert Storm I was based in Saudi Arabia, but could see the battle ships firing and hear the report of the big guns.
At 7:22 it's an Iraqi soldier surrendering to a drone. That was recorded after one of the battleships had pounded the area with 16 inch shells. When they saw the drone surveying the scene the Iraqis would wave their underwear or anything at hand just to stop the next round of shelling. It must have been terrifying to be anywhere near that shelling.
Paraphrasing the Captain of the USS Wisconsin in this military campaign: "If we come knocking on your door, you are going to know it was us."
Everybody wants a battleship in their navy... until they have a battleship in their navy.
It's a bit simplistic to say that recommissioning the Iowa-class battleships occurred because of the 600-ship Navy goal. There were only four of them. The emergence of the USSR's Kirov class was a major factor, though obviously one which had nothing to do with Desert Storm.
The up graded WWII battleships are awesome. A 16 inch round is devastating. I've read first hand accounts from troops who stormed Pacific islands after the battle ships softened up the defenses before the invasion. They found troops in firing positions without a scratch dead blood coming out of their mouths and ears. The concussion ruptured thier circulatory system and bleed internally. Imagine a3,000 pound shell with 1,000 pounds of TNT coming down on you from 16 miles away.
Lord have mercy.
DAMN 🧐
Not that it makes the prospect of being on the wrong end of an Iowa class salvo any more appealing, but the projectiles have nowhere near the amount of explosive you stated. Here's the real info for the bursting charges in each projectile:
AP Mark 8: 40.9 lbs. (18.55 kg) Explosive D
HC Mark 13: 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg) Explosive D
HC Mark 14: 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg) Explosive D
gotta love the Mighty Mo' and the sheer power of her big guns. I was aboard her during this time.
My grandfather served on all the Iowa class to include the Wisconsin in desert storm. He was fire control for the tomahawk system. He remembers none too fondly the switch from analog to digital computers and complained about the latency of it all. Still have his cruise video and book. If anyone else has the cruise book, hes the one ripping his khakis open to reveal a ninja turtle shirt I sent him for Christmas. No lie.
Honestly, the battleship concept should be reworked into a siege ship. I mean it’s the only place to get mobile artillery in that weight class, as well as being modified with modern sensory equipment and the modular missile launchers on a ship it’s size could be massive.
Benefit is something of its weight class would only be needed for wars so mothballing it when not in use is the only viable solution.
He totally skips over the part where Steven Seagall saved the battleship from terrorists...
It probably wouldn't be a the worst Idea to have a dedicated Artillery Ship. Not a Battleship mind you, just something to mount massive Naval guns to that you can use to shell targets more cheaply than using Missles.
Problem is you need an awefull lot of highly trained people to keep guns of that size in working condition, artillery is cheaper in use, but maintance while you do not use it is high.
And you need an dreadnaught class to put that guns onto, the mass of the ship is needed or it would roll over firing not straight ahead... you accelerate the weight of an pick up in split seconds to go over the horizone...
They practical need there armor to have the mass to brace against the guns firing.
With missles and drones you can put them on everything big enough to carry them and maintance while not in use is pretty low, at worst you have to switch aging circuits not maintance mechanisms designed to turn an insane ammount of steel in an very quick and precise fashion, theese guns are like apparment blocks on turn tables.
What a fantastic video. Thanks.
If the navy brought back the BB, I’d re-enlist for back to back sea duty bro
I want to see the forgotten Essex class aircraft carriers like the San Jacinto, Franklin, Bennington, and Bataan and how those ships played in WW2 and sinking of Yamato. Those ships are not well known like the Yorktown, Intrepid or Lexington.
Franklin is fairly well known for taking a fat L near the end of the war
Isnt Bataan an independence class light carrier?
@@ghostarmy1106 She was. She was originally planned as USS Buffalo. I prefer the Essex class carrier Bataan.
The Essex Class Carriers aren't forgotten. San Jacinto and Bataan were Independence Class Light Carriers. Franklin was put out of action a month before Yamato was sunk. Bennington was in mothballs during Korea but served during Vietnam. She's not well known for her WW2 career because she only fought for about 9 months, but she was part of the group that went after Yamato.
I got to watch my son graduate from Naval NPTU aboard the USS Yorktown. He will be a Nuke Officer on an Ohio class SSBN in a few short months. The museum ship is a great place to do this ceremony. Its a worth while tour to see this wonderful ship and the airplanes and other attractions on her. And parked very close to the Yorktown is another special ship, the USS Laffey (DD-724). While not the original USS Laffey (DD-459, that's another wild story that needs to be told ) This Laffey also saw action in WWII both in the Atlantic and Pacific. It assisted in the D-Day invasion and withstood the most unrelenting kamikaze attack of WWII.
The USS Missouri was attacked by two silkworm missiles launched from Iraq, the RN ship HMS Gloucester intercepted the silkworms using sea dart missiles saving the Missouri
It is a curious 'What if' if those missiles hit the Missouri.
@@ColoradoStreaming depending on where they hit. If they hit the central hull or turret face (thickest armor), mostly a huge chunk of steel gone but no bad damage and light loss of life. If they hit a thinner spot like the deck, damage and loss of life. If they hit the bow, heavy damage with loss of life and maybe the ship.
Iraqi: *fires missile at Battleship*
Missile gets intercepted.
Iowa class: *turns turrets*
Iraqi: "oh sh..."
We need more battleships.
Nice! I know what you mean about the shockwave after the flash of the guns. As a crewman on an M551A1, I spent a lot of time at Graffenwöhr on firing lines, range details in day,night, summer and winter. I remember the time when we were all on line when the track next to us fired a round from their main gun. The instant they fired the gun it flashed then I'd feel the tiny pins pushing all over instantly it came and went.
I've had the privilege of walking the decks of the Missouri as a kid when it was mothballed in Bremerton Washington in the late 60s and early 70s. Truly awesome experience.
Having served in 1st Marine Division during Desert Sheild and Desert Storm, it was a true honor being part of the Marines on board the USS Missouri for her decomissioning. A gorgeous ship to say the least. And the picture of me in full blues with her 16" guns in the background is one of my treasured possessions.