The 8in Automatic Guns of USS Salem

[@vtbmwbiker]

When I toured her back in the 90's there wasn't the plexiglass in front of the guns. I could get right up next to the loading trays. This encourages me to go looking for those photos. It was an amazing tour and some of her old crew were tour guides.

[@lmo1960]

You likely toured Mount 83, which has been open since day one. There are chains and grating to keep people out of the loading areas (dangerous), but they're easy to bypass. This video is in Mount 82, which has been restored by the USS Newport News crewmembers. To keep it pristine, they put up plexiglass shields.

[@jay-by1se]

As an engineer I think of all the software we have now, these were all designed and drafted on paper, by hand!!! I think that required a different level of intelligence than we have today in engineering to be honest.

[@clankplusm]

Look into the Saturn 5 engines. The reason we can’t make them anymore is they were all hand made hand crafted works of art and all of the notes etc were thrown out by the machinists on how to really iron things out with them

[@Ganiscol]

Has nothing to do with intelligence, just the application of it.
Also, do you think software writes itself? To write mechanical or any engineering software, you need to know how that stuff works down to the smallest detail. Computers and software are only a tool to make work more efficient.

[@Au60schild]

My M.E. father says "thank you" and you are most welcome.

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

Having worked with microcontrollers interfacing with mechanical actuators, i can only imagine how hard it was to design the entire fire control solution system to be accurate having that little computing power.

[@willymac5036]

Not a different level of intelligence, but certainly a different level of labor. It took a dozen (or more) engineers to accomplish the work that one can do today.

[@claywilson2751]

Waiting for Ian at Forgotten Weapons to do a in depth breakdown on this.

[@starshipmechanic]

that'd be a great crossover

[@seafodder6129]

Wonder how long it'd take Ian to break one down to parade rest...

[@RattelP-sx8tx]

And disassemble the guns

[@alexhemsath6235]

Or Othais from C&Rsenal…imagine the grunting as he lifted it onto the table. 😏

[@barahng]

Not exactly an obscure gun though

[@paulpeterson5214]

----- The people that designed and built these ships had their stuff together for sure!

[@studinthemaking]

They had an unlimited war time budget. And very little bureaucratic interference.

[@lordorion5776]

@@studinthemaking unlike today

[@b4ds33d]

You had to back then, if you didn’t, you didn’t work.

[@lordorion5776]

@@b4ds33d back then like in WWII it wasn't so much that "you didn't work" as your country was going too loose the war and if Japan won they would have become a serious threat in the pacific but Germany probably wouldn't of stopped until they lost or held control over every thing in Europe and possibly North America

[@b4ds33d]

@@lordorion5776 I wasn’t speaking on the military and ww2 specifically.

[@Jimorian]

Ryan's like a kid in a candy store on this one! Love the enthusiasm for the subject and amazing engineering behind it all.

[@itsprobablydean]

yeah he seemed real amped up for this one haha.

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

While the ammo capacity is questionable for shore bombardment work, when these ships were in the blueprint doodling stage, there was still the chance of ship on ship combat, in which case, 1350 rounds is a pretty sizeable contribution to a battle, and by then a return home for reloading is well earned!!
As far as greatest gun/gunships, IMHO the Navy missed the boat by not running with the 1970s version of these guns that they tested on the USS Hull. The 8in is a huge step up from the 5in, and hits a sweet spot between shell weight, rpm, and mount weight/mass. The Spruances and Ticos were actually built with additional strengthening to carry that 8in gun. I believe the notion was even entertained but shelved for the Arleigh Burkes. The prototype still exists at Dahlgren, and even today, dusting it off and upgrading ships from the 5in seems like a worthwhile idea...

[@mrz80]

I'm sure the Marines would appreciate it. In all the Congressional hearings over reactivating/keeping/replacing big-gun ships, the two constituencies most in favor of the heavy guns were first the Marines, who wanted heavy artillery they didn't have to haul ashore with them, and second carrier ground-attack pilots, who had quite the institutional memory of how many Intruders were shot down trying to knock down Vietnamese bridges and bunkers. Having New Jersey sitting off shore heaving eighteen exploding Volkswagens a minute at the problem sure beat feeding A-6 squadrons into the meat grinder of an AA-rich target environment.

[@Whitpusmc]

@@mrz80 Well said! As USMC Officer I certainly appreciate the ability to suppress enemy shore defenses and the Iowa’s were the best of the best in that department!

[@lairdcummings9092]

With base-bleed or RAP shells, the 8" guns could have near-cruise-missile ranges with an immediate response time and huge rate of fire. Play some games with changing angles of fire, and you can have single-tube multiple shell time-on-target salvoes.
Add precision targeting aids, such as laser or GPS guidance, drone spotting, and you then have precision, high-volume, long-range support *without putting pilots at risk.*
I'm sure the Air Force would hate it.

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

@@mrz80 Absolutely!!! But with the Iowas gone, the 5in is all we have. They were on the right track with that new gun, and it would have helped fill the void. The failed Zumwalts were the new incarnation I guess, but we forgot the lessons about lots of cheap, dumb ordnance being the cure for the Marines problems. Of course, the future of amphib assaults are in question, and the Marines seem to be running away from that as fast as they can, so maybe its all moot anyway...

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

@@Whitpusmc They were certainly a powerful holdover, and had no peers after WWII!!! Sadly, I ALMOST got to witness it first hand, as I had orders to Missouri just before Desert Storm, but, a last minute change in orders...😞😞 It would have been my second time aboard, as Id visited her as a kid in Bremerton just before she was reactivated...

[@Mishn0]

Worcester is pronounced "Wooster". Or if you're from Mass, "Wuhstah"
Also, parbuckling those shells into the hoist actually looks like a fun job.

[@daemonknight9413]

I was just about to post the same thing about the pronunciation. Thank you.

[@TheWhoFan4]

I watched Ryan record this on the Salem, I knew immediately that this would generate a ton of corrections in the comments.

[@dalecomer5951]

It's not "Worster?"

[@LordEvan5]

If Worcester is Wooster why isn’t Dorchester Doorster

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@LordEvan5 Who ever said English pronunciation is logical? If 'Featherstonehaugh' can be pronounced 'Fanshaw', then 'Worcester' can be pronounced 'Wooster'.

[@Crazyasianman286]

Outside of the Iowas, the Des Moines Class is the one class of ship I’d love to see make a modern come back

[@B52Stratofortress1]

Both classes are worse than useless in modern warfare. Which is why they were retired. The whole "reactivate these ships" debate only exists because they were saved as museums. They were not saved for the sake of future use. Had they been scrapped, the debate wouldn't exist.

[@Mike-hp2dd]

@@B52Stratofortress1 Depends on the type of warfare. The ability to loiter and give fire support to amphibious troops within a littoral combat zone has been greatly diminished to the point where it's almost non-existent via naval gunfire. The fact is that we have yet to be in a combat zone where we can put to the test whether or not air power alone will suffice. New Jersey was used to stunning effect in Vietnam (as were the heavy cruisers St. Paul and Newport News), and all four Iowa's were used to great effect in Korea (as were Baltimore class heavy cruisers). A conflict on the Korean peninsula for instance - would be tailor made for big naval rifle support. Your point is well taken in regards to crew size and maintenance costs in peacetime however.

[@gdrriley420]

@@B52Stratofortress1 no they aren't, a modern Des Moines would project power very well while being cheap compared to carriers. if we ever get into a war with china or anyone in the pacific a lot can be done with 15 miles of range with a shell flying faster than every second.
shells are a lot cheaper and easier to make

[@CH3TN1K313]

@@B52Stratofortress1 Is this why Russia invests so heavily into artillery? Being able to mark a ship tens of miles offshore and repeatedly hit target with car sized shells is a capability the navy has been trying to replace every since retiring their gun ships. This is why they dumped all that cash into the 155mm AGS. With modern CIWS, and VLS modules, having about two triple gun turrets of 203mm or 406mm would be perfect in a modern conflict, while still leaving room for those modern systems I mentioned. Also, people overlook the aspect of armor, most modern antiship missile use a shaped charge. Poking a hole in hundreds of millimeters of armor is a lot easier to deal with than having that same charge blow the side of a ship open that's made of light plates of steel or aluminum.

[@alexdunphy3716]

@@B52Stratofortress1 LRAPs and gps/ins guidance would like to have a word with you. Current land based 6" guns are hitting ranges of 70km while most anti ship missiles NATO fields are only 125km-220 range and hardly any can be carried or afforded. Modern 8" guns would be close to 100km range. Ramjet assisted shells have also been developed recently that give ranges close to 180km for 6" shells

[@johnterryhoenig3467]

Shout out to the camera person. Thanks for doing what you do!
Also thank you everyone that makes this possible. I enjoy the videos and hope to visit you some day.

[@alanbare8319]

I believe the New Jersey uses what is called an interrupted thread style of breech block.

[@realityhitsmehardbro]

Welin breech block, just like he said.

[@vaderdudenator1]

Indeed

[@vaderdudenator1]

The more steps the shorter the angular throw

[@Tagawichin]

The brass case on the 8in gun made the Welin breech block unnecessary. The case expands to seal the high pressure, just like a rifle or pistol. So it just needs the breach block to support the back of the case.

[@tommyblackwell3760]

As an old Army guy who did Basic at Ft Sill (home of Field Artillery), I'm sitting here giggling at the thought of 8" guns being used in the AA role!

[@axmajpayne]

If you think that's something, the Japanese Yamato class battleships had anti-aircraft shells for their 18" guns!

[@evensgrey]

@@axmajpayne Yes, but the Japanese never really had the right kind of fire control and target tracking capability to make that work. It was more, "Well, we've got these guns ANYWAY, and we seem to be having a hell of a hard time getting into surface gun battles, so we might as well use them for AA duty." Yamato did use her AA capabilities at the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Unfortunately, it was against planes on her own side.

[@lairdcummings9092]

Why not 8" guns though? 150mm AA guns* were a thing. This isn't much of a step further.
*Japanese Type 5, only 2 built, deployed very late in the war, but highly effective in their single wartime engagement.

[@evensgrey]

@@lairdcummings9092 Army personnel usually view an 8 inch gun as a very large gun. It isn't like on a ship, where the main and secondary guns have lots of supporting machinery to make it relatively easy to bring up projectile and propellant and load the guns. Most land-based artillery requires the shells to be handled by muscle power alone to get them to the gun and into loading position. Even then, you might not have any powered assistance on a land-base gun because you might not have electrical power available where you need to put it, even if the model you're using has the capability. This is less of an issue with AA guns, because a lot of those are installed in friendly territory where you can readily get things like electrical power, but even so, most of them are a lot smaller than 8 inches. During WWII, the standard German AA gun was 88 mm, the US standard was 90 mm (the US also had a 120 mm A gun, but this was considered a super-heavy AA gun), and the British standard was a 3.7 inch (just under 94 mm) AA gun. All of these have a huge advantage in terms of ease of shell handling. Until gun-laying RADAR systems became available late in the war, the highest feasible rat of fire was needed to improve the odds of taking down enemy aircraft. To fire fast, you need to be able to bring in ammunition fast, and that means it has to be light enough for each man to be able to carry at least one shell by himself.

[@lairdcummings9092]

@@evensgrey yep. But that was then. Then along came the necessary innovations. And, since this *was* a naval system, supporting systems *were* available.

[@haroldhenderson2824]

Imagine the difference in tactics IF a Salem-class met a Hipper-class or a Mogami?
8 rounds a minute would be like having two ships shooting at you, constantly.

[@BigDongWong]

"I'm still not convinced the F-35 flys"
Well now we know Ryan is also an aviation expert too. Probably the best statement I've heard on the F-35.

[@vaderdudenator1]

We do know they can crash tho as of a few days ago 😂

[@tominiowa2513]

The F-35 was designed not to work out of the gate, so more taxpayer dollars would be spent to fix the problems. All part of the Leave No Defense Contractor Behind program.

[@arsarma1808]

@@vaderdudenator1 Even counting that crash it's safety record is better than basically any American 4th gen (perk 100k flight hours). It's a phenomenal plane, and I would expect fans of history to operate within context rather than headlines.

[@wstavis3135]

Corps pilots are loving the 35. Tells me enough.

[@johngaltline9933]

@@arsarma1808 I'm not sure I want to cheer lead a 20 year old design that costs more than twice as much to operate than the planes it replaced, while not providing any substantial improvement in mission capability. (Meaning that while the f35 can do more things than any of the planes it replaces, it doesn't actually need to do all of those things in any given role, making a specialized plane for each task as was used in the past a far better solution. A jack of all trades is never a master of any.).
As for loving a plane, I would really hope they would at twice the operating cost, never mind the initial costs to build and design the thing. Kinda like taking someone out of a solid working jeep and putting them in a G Wagon and asking how they like it. Sure, it's nice, but it doesn't actually do the job any better than the old clunker they had... it just costs a boat load of money.

[@johnbeauvais3159]

For most impactful rifle I’d probably have to give it to the 5”/38. Most impressive would be the 16”/50 because there’s nothing like hurling a Volkswagen at a couple thousand feet per second to let someone know they’ve displeased you.
And for style points the 2 5”/25 guns some of the Balao and Gato class had because becoming a commerce raiding pirate roving the Empires home waters just gets the imagination going

[@YourLordMobius]

"there's nothing like hurling a Volkswagen at a couple thousand feet per second to let someone know they've displeased you"
Great summary.

[@trplankowner3323]

lol, and when the Captain says "this object offends me" to the Gunner, there's nothing quite like having a 16" naval rifle to get the job done. I've heard The Chieftain say something similar on his channel, always thought it sounded "naval", but lots of tank terminology does. My favorite is "clear my sky".

[@evensgrey]

@@trplankowner3323 A modern carrier commander can give similar orders that have greater practical effect at much greater range, but they lack the sheer spectacle of firing a few volleys of 16 inch shells downrange.

[@trplankowner3323]

@@evensgrey Yes, normally those birds have designated missions they're supposed to be doing. Anyway, if the ship's captain can actually see something he doesn't like, it's time for the guns! The CAP should stop anything before it gets that close, but the Navy was a tad off on making that happen during WWII.

[@evensgrey]

@@trplankowner3323 Well, the weapons on the CAP are far more effective, have much longer ranges, and the effective range at which they can run out and engage is far larger than it was then. Also, the guns and other anti-air weapons have much large engagement ranges and are much more accurate and powerful these days.

[@user-wl7pj7xt4v]

The video of I’ve been waiting for. These guns are marvels of engineering

[@geofffikar3417]

That loading/firing system is amazing.

[@bkjeong4302]

And pretty much pointless, given when they entered service. Which echoes the pointlessness of WWII-era battleship designs across the world.

[@user-wl7pj7xt4v]

@@bkjeong4302 There’s always going to be a need for big dumb naval guns.

[@mikec7848]

battleship cove did this same video awhile ago

[@AdamosDad]

In Vietnam the USS Newport News (CA-148) would fire our 8" all night then put out to sea and re-arm all day, no rest for the wicked.
We also on the News, had deck houses for extra 8" rounds

[@stevenmoore4612]

The shell auto loading process is just fascinating! Especially being that these ships were heavy cruisers! They could dish out a lot of firepower in a short period of time!

[@JP-su8bp]

Regarding magazine size, I think it's entirely adequate for a naval engagement. If the ship needs to reload because it has fired a large number of shells in a short amount of time, well, that's a good kind of problem to have.

[@swaghauler8334]

13 Bravo (Army cannon crewman) here. Our Chief of Smoke (Platoon Sergeant) used to say: "They don't pay us to bring it back."

[@wesleyhurd3574]

If you've gone through that many shells, there is a good chance that you will also need to resupply food, fuel and other necessities.

[@PortCharmers]

Everybody knows that the best twist dancers of the fifties learned their chops by loading battleship shells on a greased steel deck.

[@bigstick6332]

Nimitz had a plan to modify the Iowa’s and SoDak and NC to be able to load shells through the back of the gun house and then use the hoists to take them down to the magazines. This was a post war proposal he wanted implemented.

[@starshipmechanic]

awesome video, and thanks again for letting me hold the light in the magazine, I just wanted to be involved, you guys really do have one of the best jobs out there and you do great work, what a great series of videos on such an awesome ship.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Thanks for your help!

[@robertboykin1828]

8" automatic canons using nukes. What's the name of that ship, WRECK HAVOC ?

[@davecrupel2817]

Imagine flying towards this thing, expecting some moderate AA fire.
And then you see the main guns train up towards you....

[@williamlloyd3769]

Loading and unloading the 5”/38 cal guns on USS Hollister (DD-788) was always an all hands event. Although we could use the shell and powder hoist in reverse to stow the magazines it was a manual process to get it from the pier up to the deck and through the gun house.
Visiting Seal Beach Weapons Station was always a tedious process as we were a reserve ship and only manned at 60%. Sometimes we got assistance from other DESRON 27 destroyers.
It was more fun to go to the San Clemente gunnery range and offload rounds on the targets.

[@Blackcloud_Garage]

"They don't build them like they used to". So true. The WWII engineers designed and built systems in very little time, cost effective, worked as promised right away and still functions eighty years later. These days it takes decades for a new piece of military equipment to reach the war fighter, it's waaaayyyyy over budget, doesn't work and is so complicated it is never truly operating at 100%. I wish we could go back to the old ways.

[@ghost307]

I remember a saying in Vietnam that while you were trying to read the calipers on your fancy rifle the enemy would bash your skull in with a rock.

[@Decybello]

that statement is around 15% true and the rest is BS (calculate it on you abacus)...but that said - it's popular to say something like this (no idea why is that), not providing any examples (cause those would be veeeery fast countered or just proven BS)...

[@Blackcloud_Garage]

@@Decybello RAH-66 Comanche, F-35, USS Gerald R Ford, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), Army Combat Uniform (ACU),
Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), DD(X)/Zumwalt-class of destroyers are just a few.

[@Bramon83]

Bro they were not cost effective. We went full send, fk the cost.

[@jimdandytheboss]

@@Blackcloud_Garage Like he said, bs. Most everything you just named have run way over cost due to numerous people demanding additional mission profiles, leading to drastic redesigns.

[@ah244895]

I imagine engineers during the 20s-50's were as good as you get. Many probably grew up on farms where they had to be good with their hands, and good at improvising fixes on the fly to real problems. As an engineer or draftsman they were in the their wheelhouse when designing guns, ships, planes. Look at all that came out of WW2.
Put a current crop of Boeing engineers in charge of designing something, and well.... The war would be lost ...

[@bearcatracing007]

Problem is Boeing engineer's are controlled by accountants these days.

[@Urbicide]

The brass powder casing of the 8" 55 caliber is the largest brass casing ever used by the US military. I have a pair standing watch in the foyer, with 1 on each side of the front door.

[@Yaivenov]

What is the wall thickness of the casing near the mouth?

[@Urbicide]

@@Yaivenov I don't have a micrometer to measure the case wall thickness. I'll try to borrow one from a friend & post it here for you. The 2 I have were never fired, & were pulled down to remove the powder & the primers were punched out. The case mouths still have the crimp used to hold the wadding in place.

[@Urbicide]

@@Yaivenov I was able to borrow a digital vernier caliper today. The whole case has a slight taper to it. The case mouth opening is crimped inward at about a 13.5* angle, about 2" in, to retain whatever material is used to seal the powder charge. The brass is shrunken down from the loading dies in this area, with some tiny striations in the brass, so I can only give you an approximate average. I got .068 to .072" case wall thickness. It would be interesting to compare with a case that has been actually fired. Hope this helps.

[@kimmer6]

@@Urbicide I have seen pictures of the rolled brass at the mouth of the case. Mine is straight. It must have been fired. My front door gets a steel 5''-54 umbrella holder but the hat holder is an 8'' unfired projectile from the Army howitzer. There is a fellow who makes inert museum display pieces in California. I took a picture of his 16'' barrel slice and in the background is an 8''-55 case and correct HC projectile. It's at 1:00 in the video. The blue 16''-50 is mine but the floor will cave in if I put it by the front door. At the end of the video is one of two of his 16'' high capacity inert shells at the museum entrance. He has an impressive ordnance collection in there as well as a nicely restored drone target helicopter. ruclips.net/video/sgjCYDIZiDU/видео.html

[@julianfell666]

I read somewhere that Scharnhorst/Gneisenau had fast loading guns like this. Does anyone know? They were 280 mm (11 inch).

[@nekomakhea9440]

The idea of an 8" caliber machinegun is awesome

[@tonytrotta9322]

The 8 inch 55 caliber guns of the Des Moines could be loaded at any angle with a 335 lb. projectile a velocity of 2500 feet per second and a range of 17 miles. The Northampton Class heavy cruisers with 8 inch 55 caliber guns had to be lowered to the load angle and elevated after every salvo but, a 260 lb. projectile a velocity of 2800 feet per second and a range of 18 miles.

[@TheLockonstratos002]

Love these in depth videos, I have seen the training video on the USS Salem and thought the 8" guns and the autoloading system was very cool. This video showed more of the behind the scene mechanisms that allowed the gun to be fire this rapidly, really love this content

[@2manycatsforadime]

yeah I bet the handlers loved the break when they spent the last round.

[@davidparadis490]

Ryan's depth of knowledge regarding these ships never fails to amaze me.

[@barahng]

Well, it is his *job* after all.

[@jetdriver]

GREAT video. I’m so impressed by the gun system on these ships. And I’m equally impressed by the material condition of the Salem. Especially considering her all volunteer crew and where she is bear they that ship is in AMAZING shape. A big BZ to all of those who are working on her.
Yes I agree that she’ll stowage was a major limitation on these ships. With that rate of fire they should have been designed with at least double the shell storage.

[@Farmer-bh3cg]

The Navy developed an extended range (83NM!!!!)6 inch shell for current use on the Zumwalts. The program was cancelled when cost per round grew to $800,000 per shell... {can you say Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars per shell?...) For comparison , the army 155MM shell for the 155MM towed howitzer cost around a hundred bucks a shot.

[@garywayne6083]

I have a 155 round here, good to know I didn't overpay for it! haha

[@aidan11162]

The reason the cost per round grew to such a degree is that the planned numbers of ships (zumwalts) that would have provided economies of scale per shell were cut massively.

[@Farmer-bh3cg]

@@aidan11162 I understand that the Zumwalts production run was curtailed because their cost ballooned to $4,500,000,000 each excluding R&D costs. Any way you slice it, the costs are prohibitive. just as a note, My dad commanded a Fletcher class in WW11. Its cost was about $11,000,000. Damaged off Okinowa, it was deemed a CTL, never repaired, and used to scavenger parts off of. After the war ended it was scrapped.

[@MandolinMagi]

And the Army's round only goes 30-40km

[@malkavianstr450]

There is no way you can get a new artillery round for 100$, that is way off.

[@jjosephm7539]

I was in that fire control room when it was in Philadelphia Naval Yard in the 90's. We towed the USS Salem to Boston. The Delaware Bay Pilots sure didn't appreciate the way that tow was all over the Deepwater channel on our trip outbound.
The tug was the Esther Moran with 6000 HP.

[@Farlomous]

today's destroyers I would say are more of a heavy destroyer. I think heavy cruisers would still have a lot of usefulness even if they were predominantly cruise missile based. 700 ft. with 2 turrets of 3 8" guns forward and a heavy battery of cruise missiles aft would give, imo, a lot of versatility for the ship.

[@echomande4395]

If anyone were to reimplement a traditional gun heavy cruisers I doubt they would build gun systems like Salem's. In the 1970s the USN experimented with an 8 inch automatic gun on USS Hull. A derivative of that gun or something built to fire rigid modular charges like the PzH2000 can, to avoid case issues. I would imagine that the ability to fire guided shells would be a requirement as it was in the 1970s.
The gun on USS Hull could apparently fire about 12 rounds per minute in the 1970s. I would not be surprised if a new gun cruiser ended up having 2 two gun turrets, one fore and one aft, with a VLS array behind the forward turret.

[@jacksons1010]

There is no role for big guns in any modern navy. The USN built the Zumwalt-class with a pair of 6” guns on each, and decided it wasn’t worth the cost to buy ammunition for them. Those useless guns are the largest mounted on any active navy ship on Earth. That should tell us all we need to know about the “versatility” of a new gun cruiser.

[@AdamMGTF]

@@echomande4395 a reply that ticks all the boxes. Your spot on.
As an addendum. Looking at the Falklands conflict. A lot of internet historians love to point out that had the GBG reached the RN fleet. She would have used her USN WW2 vintage guns to sink the entire fleet one after another and no gun the royal navy had could have stopped her.
All this is true.
Except she was sunk by a nuclear submarine at the literal edge of the combat zone.
I grew up building models of big gun warships and propeller driver aircraft. Would it be "cool" to see big guns on ships again? Yes. But only if you fancy equipping your airforce with piston powered propeller aircraft at the same time.
Let's be honest. The reactivation of the Iowa's was political. It made no tactical sense. Yet. The fact the USN could afford to activate them is the reason the ussr lost the cold war.
I got carried away. To the OP. The problem with heavy ships with lots of missiles is they cost too much. If 100 missiles cost $100,000,000 then you can have ONE "heavy cruiser" that can fire 100 missiles OR you can put them 100 missiles onto 20 smaller ships which can be in 5 places at once. And can also deal with ASW, support litterol and asemetric warfare and be a part of a fleet anti aircraft umbrella.
So why on earth would you have a "heavy destroyer/crusier".
Well.
You wouldn't. And that is why no modern navy does such a thing
I know that sounds condecending. I don't mean it that way. I'm just very old and don't know how to "type" the internet in a nice way.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

Yeah, I do like the idea of having guns for backup, but if missiles are reliable enough, then yeah, let's take those.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

@@jacksons1010 If the tailguns actually worked, I imagine it'd be different. Maybe in 50 years we'll see it attempted again.

[@leftnoname]

I truly didn’t realize just how advanced Des Moines class cruisers’ main battery system was. 30000 yards range of reliably auto loaded increased weight 8” shells is amazing.
Ryan, I guess a speculation scenario video about Des Moines vs any WWII battleship/battlecruiser is in order.
One may wonder what happens to a heavily armored ship under a barrage of 8” AP shells. Plunging fire…Into the deck…

[@jamesharding3459]

A Des Moines against a Scharnhorst would be interesting. Largely resistant to 8" fire but typical German gunnery, against a glass cannon spraying 8" into the sky with postwar American fire control. My money's on the Des Moines.

[@leftnoname]

@@jamesharding3459 I’d say Des Moines could achieve a mission kill on any (or at least most) battleship. The only question is whether she could have survived the encounter herself.

[@friartuck103]

You should invite Ian from Forgotten Weapons to come do a couple videos with you guys. That would be most excellent... 🎸

[@Melody_Raventress]

Rock on!

[@fishsquishguy1833]

Thanks for making this Ryan! I’m lucky to see the Salem every day as I work on the other side of the chain link fence that runs along her boardwalk to her gangway. She really has beautiful lines and I love how sleek she looks. Sadly doesn’t get the attention she deserves especially since COVID. Got a really good tour during a birthday party for my nephew. Tour guide took 3 of us all through her which was awesome. She still seems like a really complete ship that hasn’t had a lot of parts removed compared to the USS Massachusetts.

[@gregscott989]

I was on the USS Newport News, also a Des Moines class cruiser, in the early 1960's. We didn't actually shoot that much...even with shells (not missiles) it's pretty expensive because you had to go to Puerto Rico to fire live ammunition...but I remember that the 5 inch guns were much louder than the 8 inch. Not quite sure why but probably had something to do with the fact that the 5 inch barrells were so much shorter than the 8 inch.

[@jamesleaty7308]

Higher velocity , More crack from sound waves.

[@ShortArmOfGod]

It's the shorter barrel. The muzzle velocity is only 100 FPS different and has no practical difference on the noise levels.

[@tonytrotta9322]

USS Newport News: At 1 a.m. on 1 October 1972, while in action off the Demilitarized Zone, Newport News sustained an in-bore explosion in her center 8-inch gun of number two turret. A defective auxiliary detonating fuze caused the projectile to detonate almost immediately upon firing.[7][8] A total of 20 sailors were killed and another 36 suffered serious injuries from toxic gas inhalation.[9][7] The barrel proper was blown forward from the gun. After making its way to Subic Bay in the Philippines,[10] the ship was out of commission for several weeks as its damaged gun was removed and its port plated over. The explosion had caused extensive damage to the center gun mount

[@Cthippo1]

I read that as "The barrel was blown forward out of the gun, making it's way to Subic Bay in the Philippines". I was thinking "Damn, it got some range out of that charge!"

[@robertslugg8361]

@@Cthippo1 At least it wasn't a nuke shell!

[@seldoon_nemar]

I looked up a video of the 3 inch firing, and surprise, it was a training video on the USS Salem. Now this! Amazing how they got all this done back in the day

[@04u2cY]

@ 10:36 while in the gun pit my brain was in so much pain just thinking how the hell those engineers and those drafts men come up with the drawings and design of such marvel machines operating in unison and it's all done with slid ruler pencil paper and eraser it's a real shame that it's a lost art today never to be seen ever again.

[@itsmezed]

I wonder, if the Iowas had been made later or served longer, would we have seen an autoloading version of the 16"/50?

[@solarissv777]

imagine the size of the propellant charges (they have to be one piece)

[@stevewindisch7400]

Because of the extremely high rate of fire, this could be the most powerful gun system ever made in terms of putting explosives on target. Considering you could fire 4 or more for every BB main shell, it might well be.

[@vaderdudenator1]

But at double the diameter, 16” shells can carry 4x the payload

[@stevewindisch7400]

@@vaderdudenator1 Fair enough, assuming they both fired top speed (almost never happened with BB's), it is about 5 of these 8" salvos for every 16 inch salvo. The 16 inch "HC" high explosive shell held 153.6 lbs. of explosive. Five of the 8" shells would be a total of 21.34 x 5 = 106.7 lbs of explosives (considerably less explosive than I expected). The muzzle velocities at the barrel were the same (2,500 ft./sec.) . But there would be 5 incidences of kinetic strike verses 1 heavier one; and who knows how to quantify that ;) Also, one would suspect an infantry officer would often prefer a brisk constant barrage that could go on for a long time rather than 2 a minute per barrel. Either way, no one would want to be there under those shells.

[@vaderdudenator1]

Effectiveness is very much an open question but as far as putting explosives on target per unit time, the Iowas always win 😂

[@stevewindisch7400]

@@vaderdudenator1 Well since I did start out saying "ever"... and then went by weight of explosive... It would not be the Iowas after all. The British BL 15-inch Mk I naval gun "HE 8crh" shell had a bursting charge of 224 lbs (the basic gun on HMS Vanguard, Warspite, and many others). Reload being about the same as an Iowa.

[@evensgrey]

@@vaderdudenator1 Well, no, not really. US guns tended to be a little on the light side for bursting charges. For shore bombardment where you aren't trying to take out any super-hardened targets, a high firing rate for a medium-weight gun it more useful because you can saturate an area much more effectively. But there are almost always some super-hardened targets that need something on the crazy high end to destroy, and for that no gun the US has ever fielded beats the 16 inchers on the Iowas. (The 18.1 inchers on the Yamatos might have been even better at it, but they hardly got to fight any surface actions, never mind trying shore bombardment.)

[@phurst4793]

This is one of the best videos I have seen on this channel!

[@HughTube-ni6kb]

Mechanical computers AWA the 8"55 system is arguably the finest analog weapon system ever made. That it was designed so quickly, with so few bugs off the bat, is incredible.

[@blakewerner4368]

i was on the news (ca 148) and we had them, sort of funny i don't remember seeing any of those carts to handle the powder, we just rolled them. i was in t3 mag, and then later t2 powder handling rm. in t3, the only mag i was in, we didn't have those racks either, or at least we had them stacked in way deeper, but i may of just forgotten by now. we just had them standing tight and packed in pretty deep though, it was better to just be able to turn around and slam them in the rolly poly with yer knees. we had a guy lose a hand in one of those. well they said he did, they highlined him off and we never saw him again. but we all learned to not stick yer hands in that side of it. i don't remember those indicators either though, so i may be just forgetting now. when we were on the gunline we would reload every other day pretty much. in the mag we would sleep on them when it was going slow, that tells you how crowded in we had them, which was sort of a drag, cause the plastic pucks on the top would push in just enough were the ether smell in the mag would make you sleepy if it was a slow day. in t2 i was in the handling rm. on a typical day on the gunline we were in condition 3 mostly, there was only like 3, maybe 4 of us, but mostly 3 since it screwed up card playing when it was slow. 1st thing you did was get a whole pile of powder lined up all around you so we didn't have to go over to the "doors" and then when we started shooting we could just barely roll'm over and slam them in with our knees. i got "kneesels" to this day thanks to that, and i have no regrets either. we mostly just would shoot one or 2 barrels at a time if i remember correctly (this was late 60's) so we didn't have to stack them up around all the elevators, just 1 and 3 for example. i thought they were pretty nice guns, except that after we shot a bit we would have to go topside and take the empties to the o1 level amidships and secure them. got your shirt dirty as they were sooty and we carried them on our shoulder. i think we thought they were 80lbs when empty ...and dirty. we would turn them in for reloading at subic so by the time we got there we had a sh*tpile of them, except for the time we traded some for scrap in hong kong and got new teak on parts of the deck. 1st, 2nd, and sidecleaners had plywood nailed down under t1 n t2 where the brass ejected to keep them from chewing up their part of the deck as well. to ease on the holystone, maybe, .....but i was in 3rd division and we had no plywood around t3.
2 tours after i was gone t2 blew up. killed them all. so i guess the auto load thing screwed up that time. they ended up scraping the news over it. i always felt bad about that. she was a good ship. anyway one of the things you made me remember was how coveted a piece of canvas tarping was on the komshaw market. we (powder handling room crew) used to all have a cherished piece of canvas maybe 28" or so by 3'. you could get it from the bosun in the sail locker for coffee or peanut butter tins, paint, jp4, that sort of thing, or get it from a short timer before he left i suppose. we would spread them on the deck to lay on and sleep or set in the handing room. it was cold decking and oily. it kept you cleaner at least.
here's another one, the 5 inch shell casing were like a goldish cad plated steel?.. they just went overside and sunk when they were ejected. but one time for what ever reason we had a 8in powder casing go overside. they don't sink but just barely float, with perhaps 8 or 10 inches stickin up, not much. but them what knows said we had to sink it cause it was a navigation hazard to the fishin boats that were always around us. (we usually were shooting more than a good swim from shore but pretty close 1mi maybe less? i was below decks anyway, so what do i know) we spent the better part of the day trying to run it over and sink it, course i would think the wave swell would just move it out of the way. the OD probably had a good time with it though. they could of just had the marines on board sink it with a machine gun i would think. another time we spent the better part of my shift trying to target a water buffalo in a field somewhere. our spotter flew a cesna, (we called him thunder grunt, our call was thunder) never got him was what i heard, he finally wandered out of range. it's pretty strange the things you do when yer a kid. I got a nephew who recently enlisted, went into the nuke schooling, said he was gonna be on a carrier. "don't believe a thing they tell you" i told him. "yer gonna grow up a bubble head!" but he loves it anyway so i'm glad for him.

[@gibsondrummer]

The 5” 38 caliber gun with the proximity fuse won the war in the pacific along with the aircraft carrier and the grumman hellcat
The era of the all gun capital ships was doomed by ever increasing naval airpower and eventually proper doctrine for the submarine and of course torpedoes that worked !
The ship launched fire and forget cruise missile was the last nail in the proverbial coffin for large caliber naval guns

[@alexdunphy3716]

That's a miscalculation. Carriers were successful I'm WW2 because their planes could be updated as soon as new ones flew away from the factories, but battleships had to go into port to have a new anti aircraft battery refitted. This makes a huge difference when air defense on ships was complete speculation. Battleships still played a massive role in the war, they keep enemy ships away from you.

[@adieduff8423]

That proximity fuse tho. Genius and Godsend in timing. Can’t overlook the role of the Lord.

[@clydecessna737]

"...whichever Iowa is closest to you."

[@ericjohnson8482]

I find it interesting that the guns use a falling wedge for a breech block. John Browning invented that with the 1878 and 1885 Browning and Winchester single shot. They lock at a 5* angle. Falling block breeches have faster lock times and are amazingly strong.

[@gary16217]

The 16 inch guns have Whelan, interrupted, stepped thread breachblocks with the Debang obturation system.

[@oml81mm]

Wellin interrupted thread

[@mrjumbly2338]

I feel this type of ship would be great to have in service today, if only a couple the presence alone is a sign of power projection and would be an honor to serve aboard. I was a Gunners Mate and feel I really missed out in the hay day of guns. great tour and I really liked the training footage.

[@aldolajak1267]

Less than a week ago, the Navy’s next Virginia-class fast-attack submarine was christened New Jersey, which when commissioned will wear SSN 796.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Check out our community page for pictures of the event!

[@anthonylee6322]

My dad was the Admiral's writer in the late 1950s from 1957 till 1959. He was retired in 1964 as a chief yeoman . He would have got his star and E-8 but didn't want to back to see with two young children . age 3 and 8.

[@ATrainGames]

What a TREMENDOUS tour and great information! Thanks for sharing!!!

[@ryanc5195]

To add greater ammunition capacity, I would suggest having a shelf with another pallet of shells on top of the current one. Once the bottom pallet is all used up, lower the shelf down to the floor, where the shelf's end will be chamfered so that the carts can get onto the shelf for shells. judging by the height of the magazine I think there can be 2 more of the pallet shelves on top.

[@emmabird9745]

Your best so far Ryan. I think I know how it works now!
I agree with Ryan C below that a second tier could be added for more ammo. A device a bit like the coal pusher in steam locomotive tenders could feed the rows of charges forward before lowering the upper tier, or a feed belt type system might automatically move the upper tier charges back and down to the floor, and thence forward. Given the ingenuity of the gun designers then a charge feed machine should have been easy for them.
Keep up the good work, Ryan, I love your videos.

[@andrewvida3829]

Back in 2005/2006 when I was doing my MBA, I'd go to the navy yard and watch the breakers dismantle the DesMoisnes. It was some sad stuff. I asked the crew if there was any way I could have the screw box and breech plug from one of the main guns. They were well willing to do that for the sake of preservation, except they'd have gone to prison for losing control of very large ordnance components. It was worth a try.
I watched them tow the hulk away, destined for final scrapping in Texas. IIRC, the USS Grapple was involved in that operation. It'd been tied up at the pier for better part of a year.

[@P245Sig]

I wish there was more footage of the 8"/55s in action.

[@christopherwhitfield3037]

Your best video so far imho. Your passion radiates from your face Ryan. What an awesome design, If this ship could close in a battleship,any battleship, it could destroy their superstructure in about 60 seconds. Truly phenomenal.
I dont think it needed more ammo on board.it just needed to have its own dedicated supply ship tagging along.

[@carmatic]

as an engineer at heart, i would have loved the extra space in the powder room to implement some design of mechanism for stacking and delivering the powder casings... its probably going to be like a giant version of what you see in a handheld automatic weapon's magazine

[@Birdy890]

I was thinking of a system that'd look like a upside-down p-90 magazine. Stack them 2-4 high, on their side, then let them roll towards the loader which then spins around and all the human has to do is pivot it upwards and drop it in. If it's reliable enough for a PDW, why not a cannon?

[@alonespirit9923]

There might have also been a limit to how much explosive material they wanted in one place.

[@RickLowrance]

Pretty cool. I guess I'll have to go see this ship. I thought I was done with Massachusetts when I saw the Smith & Wesson factory.

[@starshipmechanic]

there also the battleship Massachusetts and other ships at Battleship cove, and the Cassin young and Constitution at the old Charleston Navy yard

[@shr3dthegnar1]

We appreciate you. Thank you for fighting to keep history alive.

[@richvanderwoude8667]

Love that Parbuckle for moving the 8" Shells

[@JCT442]

One of the lessons of WWII in the Pacific was the old 8" CAs had the range but didn't have the rate of fire needed to destroy IJN destroyers effectively before they launched their Long Lance torpedoes which tore up cruiser lines of battle through 1943. The 6" CLs had the rate of fire but not the range to deal with IJN destroyers torpedo attacks. These three Des Moines class CAs provided the firepower of a CA with the rate of fire of a CL. I'll never understand why only CA 148 was used in Vietnam along with the Baltimores & some Clevelands... a mystery why CA 134 & 139 sat in Philly after 1961.

[@DavidSiebert]

Seems like this system could be automated even more today. That loading arm could so use hydraulics. Maybe it is time to bring this style gun back into service on a new class of gun-armed ships. Maybe two 3 gun turrets with two very large VLS.
BTW the F35 works. The TR3 version will be fantasic.

[@mrjumbly2338]

Maybe fit out the Zumwalt's with real guns

[@h.db.9684]

The 16in uses an “interrupted thread” mechanism.

[@renaissanceman4054]

never clicked a video so fast in my life

[@Timo-yi4bl]

Brilliant video! So much dedication and love for the subject. Thank you very much for creating this.

[@lloydflack3835]

About the armour. While the maximum thickness of the armour on the Des Mojnes class was not very different from that of the Baltimore and Oregon City classes the extent of the armour was. On the older cruisers there was heavy armour protecting the machinery the magazines were not heavily protected. On the Des Moines class the magazines were heavily protected as well.

[@geraldtodd6633]

I would want more ammo, especially with rapid firing guns like these on the Salem. Very interesting, this is the first time I've seen anything about these automatic 8 inch guns.

[@kevingraves1217]

Thank you Ryan for sharing your massive amount of knowledge again and with such great enthusiasm ! I always look forward to all your videos, keep up the great work sir.

[@slmyatt]

John Ringo and Tom Kratman wrote sci fi book Yelloweyes, in which USS Salem combines an AI and the spirit of the ship to become sentient.

[@getongab]

The breach for the 16 inch guns is called an interrupted screw.

[@gdrriley420]

a modern version with 200-250 rounds per barrel would fill the shore bombardment needs and project power very well while being cheap compared to a super carrier.
put 4-6 guns up front with rear being vertical launchers and then lots of AA
lot easier to make 6-10 of these to double the number of available task forces.

[@fire304]

It's a question of range. Sure these guns can shoot 15 miles, but the enemy's towed artillery can shoot 10, so you can only reach 5 miles inland while keeping your boat "safe." And if the enemy has anti shipping missiles like an Exocet on a mobile launcher you're never safe.
At that point take the beach using air and missile support, then land conventional artillery for a fraction of the cost of a ship...

[@gdrriley420]

@@fire304 exocets do well against armor? I don’t believe there’s any anti ship missile right now that does well against 5-10in of armor. You’d have to use anti tank but those have issues against a ship.
Well you can work your way inward. The second you get inbound shells you can start raining down rounds faster then they’ll be able to move. And how many crews train to fire indirectly at a moving target that can change direction any way it wants?
Field guns fire much slower especially 155mm and aren’t exactly first thing you land.
Planes and rockets are expensive and losing them because you don’t have all the AA gone hurts

[@ArtyomBlin7595]

@@gdrriley420 Anti Ship Missiles have now 300-900 kg of explosives... You get hit in your bridge or radar and you are done for. it does not need to penetrate the hull... just to take out your fire control - bridge - turrets or radar and you are a mission kill. Also now days 155mm arty with specific ammo can reach 45km so you would be in range for guided 155mm ammo and that would wreck you. it just isnt viable anymore. what would be viable would be a battleship with railguns when they are availiable. 100km range . Beast of armor and enough space to put a nuclear reactor.

[@fire304]

@@gdrriley420 not my opinion, this is why the Navy gave up big gun ships and the Marines were ok with it.
And as for penetrating the armor, you don't have to. Only parts of the ship have that much armor and a considerable percentage of the ships crew are not protected by it (my guess is 1/3 to 1/2 of the crew are only protected by light armor, some by none at all). A single shell or missile can knock out a fire director, kill dozens of sailors, start fires, force the ship to sail back to the US for repairs... That's the same net effect as sinking her, she's gone for months. A single torpedo absolutely can kill her!

[@quickdHemi]

My great uncle was Commanding officer of the Salem from Jan to Oct of 1955 Capt Jack Maginis

[@ypaulbrown]

Your presentation gets better and better....really good stuff 👏 cheers, Paul

[@evensgrey]

Actually, I think the US Navy no longer has genuine cruisers. It still operates the Ticonderoga class missile cruisers, but those are only called cruisers because they have more extensive fleet command facilities than were considered appropriate for their originally planned designation as destroyers, which they ended up with when two classes of true missile cruisers were cancelled. They're built on a hull very similar to the slightly lighter Spruance class destroyers, and are about the same mass as the heavier versions of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers (and quite a bit lighter than the Zumwalt class destroyers). The Ticoderogas and Arleigh Burkes are comparable in weight to treaty-era heavy cruisers, but being from the era of missiles, lack the kind of armor protection that gun cruisers had. (Could you build a heavily armored missile cruiser or missile destroyer? Sure, but all that would do is spur potential enemies to develop missiles that would be able to efficiently kill armed missile ships. As I have observed elsewhere, the reason nobody has a naval weapon system that can efficiently kill an Iowa class battleship is they haven't been in service for 30 years. There's no point in building a weapon system to defeat a threat that isn't there. If the US was to bring the Iowas back into service, you can bet China would quickly find an effective counter. Adapting the guidance on there recently revealed hypersonic missile to effectively engage the Iowas would do the trick, as an Iowa would definitely be rendered combat ineffective by a near-miss with a reasonable sized nuke. A direct hit would probably vaporize a significant portion of the ship and shred the rest of her.)

[@user-ux9my7io4p]

Very impressive! If the construction of the next battleships hadn’t been cancelled, it would’ve been fascinating to see this technology on their guns!

[@kendog52361]

Speaking solely about the powder storage, I would make it 2 levels, meaning that the powder was stacked two shells high. It would mean being able to take the upper shells down, safely, and moving the shelving away when it's empty, but that could probably double the amount of powder storage, with minimal fuss.

[@josephpicogna6348]

Wonderful program, just like being back on board.

[@RalphReagan]

I've got to visit!

[@alanbare8319]

I'd be curious to see how well the USS Newport News's 8"/55's performed during her operations off the coast of Vietnam.

[@leftyo9589]

there are video's of her on youtube off vietnam firing.

[@alanbare8319]

@@leftyo9589 I meant as in terms of reliability.

[@johnking1896]

I would say building a larger magazine for shells and powder for the most part makes sense, as you get into a heavy shelling mission keeping the ships on the line adds to the battle going 'YOU'RE' way with less risk of getting caught by an enemy that only needs to have ONE break in the rate of fire.

[@bigrebone]

Great video. Thanks. My Dad served on the USS Baltimore in WW2.

[@dirkgall4630]

I like to see you do a story of the Alaska battle cruiser's 12" guns. They had 3 turrets (two forward and one rear) with 3 guns each. The 3 battle cruisers had a short life and were scrapped after the war. It is a shame they did not keep them, they were beautiful, a smaller version of the Iowa class battleships.

[@brianbranson2306]

navy word games, destroyers are basically cruisers now

[@justinmoe3171]

The destroyer designation doesn’t refer to size, but role and armament

[@michaelsommers2356]

A ship with a single five-inch gun as its main battery is not a cruiser, no matter what you call it.

[@tominiowa2513]

People are lazy when speaking. Less than a decade after their introduction, torpedo boat destroyers were being called "destroyers".

[@johngaither9263]

During the battle of Surigao Straight the 6 USN cruisers fired a total of 3,100 6" and 8" rounds. They are credited with doing more damage to the IJN fleet than the 4 US battleships did. There were no Des Moines class cruisers then.

[@baumj618]

About time! was nice to run into you on the Salem, last Spring. Cheers!

[@foivosapostolos1211]

Most definetely more shells. Around 200 per barrel as a minimum. Or multiple rocket launchers on deck on the 12 inch category for barrages, leaving the guns for accuracy bombardment

[@majscrap2629]

Been on the Salem twice. I don't think they let you down there. The turrets, yes. Very cool.

[@rays7437]

The USS Iowa is about an hour drive for me. I wish they did all you guys do. I love your videos, thanks.

[@travelmate8104]

Can you do a video on how this compares with the Alaska class "Battle Cruiser" both in vessel to vessel to vessel (New Jersey, Alaska, and Salem) and the gun systems on board?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Done! ruclips.net/video/DDrt_NCZNvg/видео.html

[@peterpiper_203]

My dad served on her
I took my son there when he was a boy
We stood where my dad once stood from photos I had of him on board

[@tomtrenter3208]

The 8 inch 55 cal., Mark 16 gun on the Des Moines class CG's was the first US heavy cruisers to use a cased propellant and a sliding breach as opposed to a bagged propellant and interrupted screw thread breach of the previous class cruisers.

[@jasonfedeli]

Neat. This was my dad’s sister ship. He was on the Newport News

[@direbearcoat7551]

Wow! I don't know what to say! They really did a great job designing this battle cruiser!

[@jeffkutz4917]

To expand the capacity I would have explored the possibility of using all that wasted space above the current storage racks. Some sort of powered equipment to double-deck the powder canister racks to get the top canisters down to the deck level to move them like the current practice does the job. The ability to potentially double your ammunition load within the same magazine space would be worth some time in thought.

[@thissailorja]

Im a pretty avid player of World of Warships and the Baltimore is one of my favorite ships to play. I know there is some difference between the Salem and Baltimore but the Heavy Cruisers can really give above its weight for sure. The 8" gun was amazing. Its really pretty sad that no heavy punch guns are still used. Missiles can be spoofed, and destroyed before they reach targets, gun projectiles cant be. Only missed by the gunners doing the shooting. Keeping one class with maybe 2 ships of the 8" would be good with bigger storage. Thats quite a lot of wasted space in that magazine. Just my opinion.

[@tominiowa2513]

Gun projectiles are slower and have more predictable flight paths than modern hypersonic cruise missiles. Modern rapid fire gun systems can track and hit incoming shells - whether or not that will disable the fusing or pre-detonate the shell is another question.
DEW defense systems are certainly in development, if not ready to be put in service at short notice (the Russians have announced a laser defense system, but its capabilities are unknown).

[@bohba13]

something to keep in mind, the Des Moines class is the same length as the Japanese Fuso class battleships.