My brother borrowed my Iowa class but when he brings it back, I'll measure the armor. Fired the guns last 4th of July, broke every window in the county, but since I own a glass company it worked out pretty good.
You would have to wait until he gives it back. Because presently he has an Iowa class battleship, which means he isn't doing anything he doesn't want to.
I almost got an Iowa class to moor offshore near my place, but I ran into two issues: 1. The government agency that does marine administration kept sending my registration application back with "VERY FUNNY" written across it, and 2. The fuel cost was a bit of a deal breaker. Not exactly cheap to get it to Australia.
She said to me, "Is that an Iowa Class in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" I replied, "Call me when you wake up!" She never called. Objects are closer than they appear. Shit. Run. Run!
"You guys don't necessarily have your own Iowa-class battleship at home", that sentence stings. It is one of my greatest weaknesses not to have my own Iowa :(
I was considering it, but had to let it go, as parking around here's a real bitch. Had a great spot out front to park, but alas, a quick measurement reminded me of my uncle, a Baltimore Port pilot had on a plaque on the wall. "When your draft exceeds the water's depth, you are most assuredly aground".
One of the things that usually gets cut from a project to save the budget are “as built” drawings. As an engineer who often inherited old process plant, I always tried to find as builts. If I couldn’t, then I knew I had trust but verify before starting a modification.
Concerning the design or "Issued for Construction" (IFC) drawings vs. as-built drawings, when making changes in an existing plant/unit we would always field verify the dwgs to prevent any nasty surprises. So I understand Ryan's reluctance to fully trust the original dwgs.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 Which did not cover the rudder. An electrical problem similar to the South Dakota's caused the Bismarck's force field to fail when they needed it most.
Not about ships, but battles from antiquity or the medieval period are notorious for the inconsistencies in the primary record. You could have three or four sources and they all differ about number, disposition of formations, what important events happened and in what order. It doesn't help that many of the closest sources we have about some of these battles are either the commanders themselves, who are obviously biased, or are some random chronicler, who wasn't there or lived decades later or something.
It's not any different in more modern times, each side exaggerates their kill counts and lowballs their own casualties to make themselves look better. Or, if not giving casualty numbers, overestimates the enemy strength in a battle they won, to make it seem more impressive. See Rorke's Drift, where 150 Brits held off 3000-4000 Zulu, with 17 British dead for 351 Zulus killed -- according to the Brits, so I'd guess the real numbers to be somewhere in the middle. Also the New Year's fireworks in Ukraine -- Russia says 89 of their soldiers were killed, Ukraine says 400+
Which is all absolutely true and fair and very important points to keep in mind. Which is why folks like Ryan try to get a consistent story. He has original blueprints and matching production records for the steel plate used in the decking, and he's physically verifying that with the physical artifact he has access to.
@@DeliveryMcGee No kidding, the war in Ukraine is the best modern example there is that the victor writes history. I remember back when it was month two of the invasion where both sides were claiming 40,000+ casualties on the other side, with sub 10,000 casualties on their own. Clearly both sides cannot inflict 40,000+ casualties and both suffer less than 10,000. Whoever wins gets to make the final count.
I was on a Canadian museum destroyer (Haida) for a winter party, in Toronto. It is not warm in Toronto in January. And heating an uninsulated steel box is ... difficult. So no dream of owning a battleship. $1 Million a day when active: that might cover the heating bill here. Doubt one could get through the canal anyway. Fan for a long time, production quality has improved incredibly, great work! And Ryan is way smoother and more comfortable now, you are great too!
Audio quality is night and day compared to the older stuff. Great strides on their YT, hopefully it's translated into funding to help care for the NJ. It's certainly helped educate and entertain a lot of people .
Been on it many times when active. Used to stop in Tahsis most times they traveled in threes. Early mid 70's. I had a tour guide, one of my moms high school boyfriends had scrambled eggs on his shoulder. He seemed set on making sure l got to crawl everywhere. Just remember guys snapping up straight as we walked through areas. First place l saw a nude chick, a picture on a locker door. I remember him running diversion on my mom and a guy giving me a grin and closing the door. I was about 8 '72-73? A month later in came a sub. And the jets from Comox doing runs at the mill down the inlet about 15f off deck then going straight up full burn.....when a jet is just sub sonic you hear a low growl about half a second befoŕe he goes by. Had one buzz the government warf about 50 feet away at eye level head turned looking right at us then gone. Then into the clouds full burn. I will never forget that. Some dips wife and her stupid phone call about mid 80's put a stop to that, stupid cityslickers, go back to where its "safe" we're fine....
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Yep - most of the official archives were burned around the surrender, what info is left are mostly things that leaked out beforehand and were saved. I think OC meant though what info the Japanese had on the *Iowas* though, although that might have been part of what got destroyed afterwards and probably would have gotten confiscated post-surrender during the occupation anyways.
@@tomfeng5645 Actually, the records were not destroyed. The difficulty is in having them translated. Works such as Shattered Sword, by Tully and Parshall and Kaigun, by Evans and Peattie rely heavily on official documentation by the Imperial Navy. I believe both books mention the large amount of primary source documents available to them for their research. Both books are excellent and well worth the read. The destruction of records did pertain to officials trying to cover up war crimes
One I am constantly hearing about is that the 16 inch guns can move the battleship sideways which i know is not correct. Getting tired of all the lies out there.
To this day, I run in to people on various Navy related FB groups that believe this. For years I would try to talk sense into them, now days, I try to avoid it all.
You can't completely absorb the recoil, but any movement of the ship is going to be so small that it would be functionally impossible to measure it in any useful way. Certainly less than a millimetre even for a full broadside, and you're not going to be able to fix the position of the ship before firing to a high enough degree of accuracy to notice.
It's simple physics. "Blooping" nine 2700 lbs (12.1 ton) of heavy shells out the barrels is not going to move 57,000 tons of ship sideways, period. Throw in ten of the baby 5" and your just making more noise!
I had one guy argue till he was blue that the concussion of the guns would kill anyone on the deck. Still argued it after I pointed out that all the videos of the iowa class firing were filmed by guys holding cameras on deck, and showing a picture of USS Iowa firing her guns in WW2 with a 40mm gun crew standing on the foredeck covering their ears.
During NGS bombardments in Vietnam, these battleships did execute a course-correction regularly to compensate for the drift that firing broadsides caused...... The shells, gasses and the pressure of the gas against the side of the ship do have a slight impact but the ship will move sideways so slow that the water doesn't put up a fight and therefore the small drift is quite persistent. Think a course-correction of 1 or 2 degrees every couple of salvos (ball-parking it).
Ships evolutionary development can change from first of class and drawings are often updated . It makes context important but many mysteries can be explained by looking at originals . It's always an interesting detective story on ships that have had a long career , and with New Jersey and her sisters the answers are still there to be found . As always another interesting video .
Great job as always, Ryan! Love your videos and the effort you put into them. One idea for a future video might be why those edges of the hatch are beveled, and why it's supported on those hinge arms, rather than on sort of an oversized door hinge (I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but other folks might like to hear your explanation).
I'm a HONORABLE DISCHARGED NAVY VETERAN, born in NORFOLK but now live in VIRGINIA BEACH. HOW COOL it would be if NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, or NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING were chosen to do NEW JERSEY'S next DRYDOCKING.👍 Then once NEW JERSEY was finished it could pull up right beside BATTLESHIP WISCONSIN for say a whole week of combined tours of both BATTLESHIPS. MAN-O-MAN would that be OUTSTANDING!💪☠️⚓️🇺🇸
There are enough large scale yards … if you can fit a Ford, you can fit an Iowa. Norfolk - “dogs and sailor keep off the grass.” (But we will gladly take you money and jobs). And yes I’m retired Navy from Chesapeake.
What I've learned from this video: To really be a successful Amateur Historian, you really need a Battleship at home.... "Muuuuuum! Can we have a Battleship pleeeeeeeease?"
about 20 years ago I read papers on the procurement requirements on the armor and it doesn't go by inch depth it goes by pounds per square foot times the required steel which is STS(density x volume), it further has requirements as per the treatment to make it the required type of armor, and the amount of allowable inch depth variance--usually something like 1/4" on some panels and could be more or less. The slabs or panels are made nearly flat so the entire panel will be roughly the same thickness except where milled down for connections and such. That paper also addressed that no connections would be made with out drilling and riveting, or driving a key along a seem such as in the joint between the deck and side armor. I heard many years ago the the New Jersey had a refit that was to change the boilers from coal oil to navel fuel and lighten the armor since they had to tear apart the armor citadel anyway they would lessen the armor "box" such that they welded the panels instead of using rivets and that could explain the variation in armor thicknesses.
In the late 1950’s when the nuclear submarine USS George Washington was built, Revell came out with a model kit of the ship. At that time there was a great hullabaloo about how did Revell get the plans, security breaches, etc., etc., etc. - I of course ran right out and bought and built a kit as soon as I could. Then, in the early 70’s while stationed in Panama, the ship was making a transit through the canal and I got the chance to ride through the Panama Canal on a submarine (By the way, my only “sea duty” in my six years in the Navy). One thing that struck me was that the model of the USS George Washington was nothing at all like the real ship. I always wondered if the Revell model was a bit disinformation aimed at the USSR. Jack
when talking about armor. I think there is some funny thing going on with information of HMS Hood armor information, that you can find around, some are not surprisingly when talking about all changes that have been done to her over time. And all those theories about what sunk her, a shell from above, or a newer one, a shell down at waterline (hull wave) hitting under armor plate
I went to my backyard to see if I could fit an Iowa Class battleship. Short answer is no. The long answer is that it depends on how many of my neighbors houses I'd be able to flatten.
Translation of the legend from the image at 2:06 from my American girlfriend who is fluent in Russian: *Plans for the armoring of the battleship .* The figures represent thickness of the the armor in millimeters
There is another situation that applies to battleship construction and that is the "As Built" situation. When the ship designers layed out how the battleship is to be constructed, they more times than not failed to realize that certain parts of the ship like armored decking thickness or shape, may not fit as planned during construction. It's up to the ship builder to modify the part and then modify the blueprint to reflect what was actually installed. The modified blueprints would then be sent back to the ship designer to be updated. It's those blueprints you actually need to have to verify what was installed.
Ah, the joys of Configuration Management (or at least that's how I understand it today). As-Designed, As-Built, Redlining, Requests For Waivers of Non-Conformity and so on ... 2 years on and I have yet to master it ...
How were the steel plates shipped from Illinois to New York or Philadelphia Navy Yards? Rail? Are there any pictures of these in transit? I find the construction of the vessels fascinating!
I would thing that it would certainly have to be via rail. If there are pictures, they're probably not to interesting. You would mostly see flatcars with some big flatish slabs of iron on them. Some specific pieces would be more interesting to look at I guess but meh.
Holmes in "His Last Bow", provides the German spy von Bork with 'untrustworthy' information regarding mine field locations, ship gun accuracy and range, as well as British ship speed.
On deck armour it should be noted that even in the late 1940's the level of deck armour in current ships(such as the Iowas and KGVs or later Vanguard)was known to be woefully inadequate given RN tests against Nelson using the 2000lb AP bomb(and remember at the time such things as Tallboy and Grand Slam were in service)and the RN conclusion was that to defend a battleship against all current known aerial threats a ship needed deck armour composed of a minimum of 12" thick cemented armour and this of course is UK cemented armour with a resistive capability the same as US cemented armour about 15%,possibly as much as 20% thicker for a given thickness
With the armor having been heat treated to face harden it, welding wouldn't have worked well. Instead the plates had pins or biscuits with neighboring plates. On the backside they'd bore out a shallow hole a tap it for a large bolt thru the ships steel framework - the plates were for protection and not structural elements themselves.
After measuring my own Iowa class Battleship at home, i discovered that one inch equals 25,4mm. Typical metrics: give them an inch and they'll grab 0,4mm extra.😂
The hinge is mounted under the deck, right about where the hatch sits above it. I'm not sure exactly why they do this, but it could be so that the hinge pin can't be blown off if something explodes.
Recently, i wondered how the accesspoints of the citadels were constructed. I never found anything on the plans i own or in this new internet. Yet here it is, and i didn't even look for it 😁
Would you not have parallax error by measuring a surface that’s cut at a 45 degree angle (I’m eye balling that)? Wouldn’t that be 6” of effective armor to a round coming in at a 45 degree plunge? However at 90 degrees straight down?
I imagine that specific measurement was just for show, with a more accurate one being done earlier. However, note how Ryan bends the tape measure at a 90 degree angle and projects the bend above the angled surface. He is still measuring the vertical height of the armour, albeit somewhat haphazardly.
The drawings all depend on the final revisions. The question that continues to befuddled me is the way that they were welded together. If you saw the video of the Bismarck at her present resting place, they were in the port, where Bismarck was actually built, there is an armour plate that was created for the ship but was not used. It was thick.
In Czech language, there is a book by probably the greatest Czechoslovak naval historian Miloš Hubáček, and the book states that the Tirpitz battleship had significantly upgraded deck armor in comparison to Bismarck. I always found it technically unfeasible, but when it states it with such certainty, my word is typically of much less significance when it comes to debates about those ships.
7:40 I've been trying to figure out how to get my Iowa Class Battleship delivered. Problem is I live in Colorado, with no navigable rivers, and these battleships seem to be "super-Trailermax" class (too big to put on a trailer). Still working on figuring out how to get it onto one of the reservoirs around here, which might be big enough to sail it in circles, but never would be able to get up to full speed before running aground or crashing into the dam.
ive seen some soviet sources over estimating armor thickness with the German tanks, they cleared it up after the war. but they had to get there hands on the tanks, take them apart and study them. That wasn't going to happen with a iowa of course so im assuming there guessing using equipment from the lend lease program. the soviets spent a lot of time studying the m4 tank and its armor afterwards. there later steels and cannon powders, and other info they learned was used in later machines. T62 and t64 in particular
Ahh yes the Soviets studied the M4 Sherman's advanced composite armor that was way ahead of its time and created the T-64, an MBT with composite armor over 500mm RHAe
6 inches of horizontal armour is right in line with the level of protection the British gave the Nelsons, KGVs, and Vanguard, which makes sense given the armour schemes of these ships were all designed to defeat 1,000lb AP bombs.
I know one myth about HMS Hood. There was no way Bismarck's guns could have destroyed her by penetrating the deck armor. At the range they were fighting, the Bismarck's shells could not have exceeded 11 degrees which Hood's armored deck was more than enough to bounce. Plus, at 11 degrees, if that shell that hit near the main mast that they claim killed her had come in at 11 degrees, it would have just recked the Admiral's cabin and come out above the port side belt armor and into the sea, and there was an "overshoot" seen at the same time or right after the hit to the mainmast. Which at 11 degrees could NOT have happened unless it had passed THROUGH the Admiral's cabin. To pass through the deck it would have had to hit a very VERY narrow strip at over 20 degrees, which was the angle HOOD'S own guns would have had at 30,000 yards. Bismarck's guns were higher velocity so they had less deck penetration at closer ranges. It's why Holland knew he had to close the distance. The unlucky shell dove under and probably did not even hit the water as Hood's own wake created a dip along her sides at high speed which exposed the armor and a bit below it.
@@KJAkk Yes, I know. He and I actually spoke a bit about why I thought the shell hitting the deck near the mainmast could not have destroyed her but passed out above the port side armor. Before he made the video he was researching and found my argument interesting enough and plausible. He mentioned it.
It sounds like you already have this understanding, but for those who aren't familiar with the armor scheme, I'll point out that Hood's armor deck was not horizontal over its entire surface. It was common in those days for the deck to be horizontal along the center section (that is, down the centerline) but angled downward along the sides directly inboard of the belt protection. The idea was that shells would not be able to hit that sloped section without first having to penetrated the main belt, but it assumes an enemy firing at relatively short range from a 90deg target angle, or thereabouts. This reflects the way battle lines would normally engage. But Hood was charging Bismarck at a sharp angle in order to close the range and had just begun to turn toward a 90deg target angle when the fatal shell hit. So it was possible for a German shell to hit above the main belt, easily penetrating the upper belt and then hitting the armor slope at an angle that was also easily penetrated. Hood was actually very advanced in her armor scheme in that her horizontal armor did extend all the way to the top edge of the main belt, but only in the area of the main magazines. Her midships did not have this modern feature, and a shell penetrating there from a sharp target angle would have little trouble sending blast and fragments into the after portion of the vitals--that is, into the aft magazines--and we know the aft magazines were the site of the fatal explosion.
@@Tiornu Still at 11 degrees of angle for the incoming shell, the shot would have bounced off the armored deck. She had enough protection for the situation she was in. In order to hit the slope without passing through the main belt, it would have needed to come in at 20 to 25 degrees. Any steeper and it would have actually bounced off the upper belt as if it had hit a 6 inch thick deck. The drawing out there showing how the shell might have done it was using Hood's own gun performance at 30,000 yards which would have the shell coming in at 20 degrees. Np, the shell that got her went UNDER the exposed main belt because the wake Hood generated caused a tough along the middle part of her waterline. With no water protecting the vitals under the belt it had a chance. Had it hit the water and then gone in, the fuse would probably have gone out and not detonate as it did against Prince of Wales.
Question for the curator: If the Navy were to suddenly come to you and give the museum written approval to reactivate any and every system on the ship that you choose to reactivate, anything from the boilers and engines all the way to the laundry and weapons systems, which systems would you choose to reactivate, and why, with the knowledge that the museum society would have to pay for all required work to reactivate them?
Hey Ryan, I'm not sure if you've ever shown it but I would love to see the chiller plants for the ship that cooled the magazines, refrigerator, and or any other application that needed some level of cooling. Thank you!
Near the end of WW-II, what was the typical dispersion pattern, length and width, of the fall of shot from a broadside of Iowa/NJ's 16" guns at maximum range? What was the range for both the 1,900 pound HC and 2,700 pound APCBC shells using the full six bag charges?
1:09 I'm skeptical about the two-tone indication of the different layers of metal in the armored deck hatch. I'm no metallurgist, sailor, shipbuilder, or museum curator, so my opinion isn't worth much, but from where I'm looking at it (again, I'm not even there, this is just from the video), all I can see is a second color where some sort of treatment or patina has been either applied or removed, like with a scouring pad on an angle grinder. Something to ensure a watertight fit? But either way, wouldn't that entire assembly be a separate part from the deck? Slotted into where they cut out a rounded-corner square hole? I would think it would likely be a single piece of one kind of metal, then.
Not related to battleships, but I'd like to see a video that covers the timeline and methods used to correct the dud rate on Mk 13, 14, and 15 torpedoes during WW2. The timeline is the part of the story that's the most unclear, but even the information about the Navy's work to fix the problems seems to lack clarity and some sources have minor contradictions. Also, did the Navy ever consider shipping Mk 10s as a short-term fix? Thanks.
Inconsistencies about the Iowa’s? How about each one is a different length, which is not true. All are 887 ft 3 in. One that really gets us going here on the Wisconsin is that when the bow of the USS Kentucky was grafted onto the Wisconsin after the Eaton collision, the Kentucky increased the length of the Wisconsin which is false
Reminds me of how various fans of the US navy on RUclips often claim that "New Jersey could achieve better penetration to Yamato's guns due to a higher muzzle velocity" because of Naval Legends and Fat Electrician, when Yamato had a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet per second compared to Big J's 2,500 feet per second, not to mention Yamato fired a shell around 500-600 pounds heavier, using almost twice as much gunpowder up to a farther max range. I believe that Yamato on average could penetrate between 1-4.3 more inches of steel depending on the range. I've also heard many people repeat that "new Jersey was just an enlarged and faster South Dakota". Armor was slightly increased. The bulkheads were increased. Same goes for the belt, increased from the 10.7-12-inch belt on South Dakota to the 11.7-12-inch belt on New Jersey. Most obviously, New Jersey carried better radar and 50 cal guns, which solved the "overpowered deck penetration, sub par belt penetration" problem on South Dakota. Oh, and don't get me started on the whole "New Jersey could aim accurately from max range" bulls. No battleship could aim accurately beyond 25-26,000 yards, as gun stability and shell dispersion prevented this, two things not even modern satellite radar could solve.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Yes, but that wouldn't stop New Jersey's shells from dispersing too much to be accurate beyond 25-26,000 yards, as well as her gun stability.
@@metaknight115 you can always fire them one at a time. Not to mention that Naval weapons continued Research into extended range ammunition well after World War II.
Great material. Btw a question @Battleship New Jersey , Did the Iowa class bb's had different armor thickness on the forward turret plates? as there are roumors that 1 turret on the first build had 1 inch thinner plate on if i remember correct 2nd turret forward plate.
Original Designs are academic only, buried & forgotten are the AS Builts consisting of, Red Lined, Engineering Change Notices, & Waivers for NonConformances. Academic designs will be argued for decades, but until the AS Builts are referenced, it is all academic.
One thing I have always believed in (I am ok if corrected) is that I feel the Iowa class armour could stand up to a 'modern' missile against it main armour though I understand the radar, directors and other outside stuff would be highly vulnerable. Unlike a modern warship that has thinner armour and composites that are at risk regardless of defences or decoys. If I am wrong - I am ok with being corrected but surely the Iowa Main Armour can take that punishment ? I have had this view since I was a teenager and I hope to learn if I was right or wrong. Thank you.
Even if the armor takes the hit, it is still a mission kill and the ship has to return to port for extensive repairs. The seaworthyness is always significantly damaged, no matter the ship.
@@juliusEST Not necessarily. Yes the ship will have to be repaired eventually but the damage from modern ASM's that are not designed to penetrate armor would be minimal. The ASM would detonate between the STS shell plating and the armor belt resulting in a lot of superficial damage but nothing that would drastically impact the seaworthiness of the ship. Some ASM's are designed with a pop up maneuver where they pop up and then try and plunge through the deck of the ship. These missiles would do even less damage to an Iowa class ship. They would penetrate through the weather deck and explode between the weather deck and the main armored deck, again causing superficial damage but nothing that would impact the functionality or survivability of the ship. The Russians do have some ASM's like the P-700 that carry a massive warhead that more than likely would mission kill or outright sink her with multiple hits.
On the convers, pretty much any modern ship would not be battle worthy if a single broadside from the Iowa class battleship landed on them, either AP or HE rounds, as they would definitely penetrate almost all the way through the hull, and the HE rounds would go off well inside the ship.
I'm pretty sure such a hit from a modern ASM would be comparable to a kamikaze attack. As it happens, we *did* have battleships hit by such attacks during ww2. You can look at the historical record to see how effective you think they where. For my money, I would say that where nearly totally ineffective. Virtually every account will say that ship x was hit at y time but remained in action for the duration of her mission. Seems that it was mostly the AA crews up on the decks that suffered casualties from them.
Until quite recently Anti Ship Missiles have actually be very 'dumb'. Only the very latest missiles which are just getting into service have the capacity to target specific ships and locations on said ship. The biggest issue the Iowa class would have with ASMs is that her armor scheme is internal so any ASM is going to cause significant damage to even the side of the ship. It will certainly not sink an Iowa class nor take her out of action to get hit amidships with a HE ASM but it's going to cause damage. However, put a dual purpose HEAT warhead on a ASM and suddenly it will cut through her armor like nothing. Granted the hole will be small and the jet might not hit anything vital but it will get through. There was also the reality that armor did nothing to stop newer torpedoes from breaking the back of ships and armor also gets in the way of service life. Getting to the ships vital to replace them becomes quite a chore when you have to get through many inches of armor. Rebuilding a ship was always a less cost effective manner then just building a new one back in the day of battleships. In terms of what you got for the cost. The only reason it happened interwar (especially by the Japanese) was that there was a treaty that banned building new ships. So rebuilding what you had was the only way.
More like chinese spies. When I still had a clearance we would get a briefing every once in a while and they would catch hundreds of them every few months trying to sneak onto base, take pictures, honey trap people in town, you name it they tried it. This stuff is so common it would probably blow peoples minds. Real life spying is done in numbers, its not like the Bourne movies or whatever. Most espionage is done from the inside by people that just plain want money, thats why you can't have a security clearance if you have a lot of debts.
I could fit it in the harbour, it is smaller than some of the container ships that dock there, though only the passenger liner terminal would be able to berth it. Conveniently also right next to the maritime museum as well.
Siegfried Breyer alleges Iowas had a totally different armor scheme than the South Dakota’s. An external armor belt flush with hull. Where did that come from?
I was visiting the Cabrillo national monument and Fort Rosecrans used to have a costal defense battery with 2 16"/50 caliber guns known as the Mark II Model 1's that thanks to the elevation, could fire a 16in one ton shell 30 miles. (These guns have since been destroyed and sold for scrap) My question is this, what is the difference between the the guns of the Iowa class Battleship and the guns of the costal defense batteries like Fort Rosecrans' Ashburn Battery?
Here's an intresting question. Given the advances in explosives and armor plating, if a magic gennie gave the U.S. government and navy a zillion dollars that could only be used for a modern battleship, how would the armor be different if done today ?.
They would develop better airframes to deliver precision munitions and not waste the money on floating targets that have no use if they are not carrying said better airframes. 'Navies' get in the way of commerce and are just a nuisance to capitalism.
@@ATEC101 You missed the condition of the hypothetical. It's a magic genie giving the US a zillion (indeterminately large number) dollars that also somehow doesn't crash the currency. Essentially, what would the US navy build if battleships were still current doctrine and they had a blank check. The answer would probably be a combination type armor. Spaced armor, probably some form of corrosion resistant NxRA unit armor on the outer side, possibly with a small arms and bump/scratch protective layer on top of that. Under the ERA, probably similar specs to what the Iowa had in later years for armor just using newer alloys and formulations. The idea of protection via mass is still a solid concept, it's why we still build bunkers and other safe rooms with a combination concrete, steel, and large amounts of earth. Mass is king when it comes to protection. However, to reduce mass, and thus make it easier to float and move, NxRA or whatever classified modern equal is out there would likely be used as a first line of defense. Considering things launched at a battleship anymore would likely be of the HEAT warhead variety and not just a big HE warhead.
Question, are you sure it is class B laminated onto STS? Yes you can see two different colors of steel but you don't see it on the hatch. Could the coloration differences be from friction from opening and closing the hatch? There are also chips in what appears to be a protective coating around the lip and the same color steel as what you are saying is STS is visible underneath. It is my theory that it is some sort of protective coating to prevent corrosion vs two different types of steel.
I'm not 100% sure, but the armor was added later during construction. So the deck came first and the armor on top. You can see it when you leave the armored part there is a step down. A guess the hatch was manufactured out of one piece, what would make sense. Since if they had tried to bolt it on to the sts hatch plate and would be create a weak spot. On the deck armor you have "one solid plate", that won't move anywhere.
I have a copy "Jane's Fighting Ships of W.W.2 " Iowa Class 16" side armour other armour not Reported; see Alabama Albama 16' side 18" turrets 6" upper deck 4" main deck as can be seen Jane's got it wrong or the U.S. Navy kept it quiet. Armour on Vampire 1/4" on Forty Mil. mounts. Stephen
Yes I think Gary Works could do it but it would take large investments in new tools, manpower and a lot of money. However the real issue is actually that the USA is chronically behind China in ship building capacity due to Govnemrent subsidy of ship building in South Korea, Japan, France and Germany over the last 50 years so that needs to change. The best idea is to allow the companies in those countries to build the new facilities in the USA and own them meaning that the home country will lose some of their industry but get to own the facilities the USA. Perfect solution. This is what is also being done by TSMC in Phoenix Arizona the new massive chip factory is owned and operated by Taiwan's TSMC. The same needs to be done with Ship building.
Even good smart people believe all kinds of things. My own father swears that the armor is 16 inches thick. Where on the ship I don't know. He also says the "last commanding officer" told him that the ship is preserved so it can be called up for duty in a couple of months. ??? Where do people get this stuff?
Could any modern day steels serve as a comparable substitute should the Marines ever convince the Navy to reinstate and update/modernize these lethal Ladies?
The key to the armor (Class-A) is the heat-treated face hardening with some mix of alloys. Modern day steel if thick enough, would probably be called Class-B armor. However, more steel means someone just needs a larger shaped-charged warhead to counter it.
Best quote @ 7:40: "You guys don't necessarily have your own Iowa class battleship at home. Some of you might."
Bought mine on E-Bay
@@GaryCameron Good deal. I tried Amazon, but they were sold out.
@@mpeterll should've used Pepsi Points.
I was going to check my Iowa class battleship out back but its pretty chilly out and I didn't feel like putting on a coat. 😕
DHL is still shipping mine, it's been "in transit" for the last 3 years now, I suspect it might have been diverted
My brother borrowed my Iowa class but when he brings it back, I'll measure the armor. Fired the guns last 4th of July, broke every window in the county, but since I own a glass company it worked out pretty good.
I'd lock him in the brig for not bringing it back in a timely manner.
@@GeneralKenobiSIYE New Jersey doesn't have a brig though...
I think
@@jaffacalling53 There is a Brig
You would have to wait until he gives it back. Because presently he has an Iowa class battleship, which means he isn't doing anything he doesn't want to.
@@henrycarlson7514 well one of them doesn't have a brig
I almost got an Iowa class to moor offshore near my place, but I ran into two issues:
1. The government agency that does marine administration kept sending my registration application back with "VERY FUNNY" written across it, and
2. The fuel cost was a bit of a deal breaker. Not exactly cheap to get it to Australia.
Worst day of my life was when I went to the store and only realized when I got there that I left my Iowa-class battleship in my other pants.
She said to me, "Is that an Iowa Class in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"
I replied, "Call me when you wake up!"
She never called.
Objects are closer than they appear.
Shit. Run. Run!
"You guys don't necessarily have your own Iowa-class battleship at home", that sentence stings. It is one of my greatest weaknesses not to have my own Iowa :(
I felt personally attacked.
I was considering it, but had to let it go, as parking around here's a real bitch.
Had a great spot out front to park, but alas, a quick measurement reminded me of my uncle, a Baltimore Port pilot had on a plaque on the wall. "When your draft exceeds the water's depth, you are most assuredly aground".
One of the things that usually gets cut from a project to save the budget are “as built” drawings. As an engineer who often inherited old process plant, I always tried to find as builts. If I couldn’t, then I knew I had trust but verify before starting a modification.
Like renovating an old house or barn, only to find out that there isn't a single 90 degree angle in the place!
Concerning the design or "Issued for Construction" (IFC) drawings vs. as-built drawings, when making changes in an existing plant/unit we would always field verify the dwgs to prevent any nasty surprises. So I understand Ryan's reluctance to fully trust the original dwgs.
Damn! I thought this was going to be an expose on how battleship armor in WWII did actually include forcefields.
That's just the Bismarck, I read it somewhere
@@waverleyjournalise5757
That's just SCP-4217
@@waverleyjournalise5757 Which did not cover the rudder. An electrical problem similar to the South Dakota's caused the Bismarck's force field to fail when they needed it most.
Not about ships, but battles from antiquity or the medieval period are notorious for the inconsistencies in the primary record. You could have three or four sources and they all differ about number, disposition of formations, what important events happened and in what order. It doesn't help that many of the closest sources we have about some of these battles are either the commanders themselves, who are obviously biased, or are some random chronicler, who wasn't there or lived decades later or something.
It was revealed to me in a dream
It's not any different in more modern times, each side exaggerates their kill counts and lowballs their own casualties to make themselves look better. Or, if not giving casualty numbers, overestimates the enemy strength in a battle they won, to make it seem more impressive. See Rorke's Drift, where 150 Brits held off 3000-4000 Zulu, with 17 British dead for 351 Zulus killed -- according to the Brits, so I'd guess the real numbers to be somewhere in the middle. Also the New Year's fireworks in Ukraine -- Russia says 89 of their soldiers were killed, Ukraine says 400+
The bible comes to mind.
Which is all absolutely true and fair and very important points to keep in mind.
Which is why folks like Ryan try to get a consistent story. He has original blueprints and matching production records for the steel plate used in the decking, and he's physically verifying that with the physical artifact he has access to.
@@DeliveryMcGee No kidding, the war in Ukraine is the best modern example there is that the victor writes history. I remember back when it was month two of the invasion where both sides were claiming 40,000+ casualties on the other side, with sub 10,000 casualties on their own. Clearly both sides cannot inflict 40,000+ casualties and both suffer less than 10,000. Whoever wins gets to make the final count.
I was on a Canadian museum destroyer (Haida) for a winter party, in Toronto. It is not warm in Toronto in January. And heating an uninsulated steel box is ... difficult. So no dream of owning a battleship. $1 Million a day when active: that might cover the heating bill here. Doubt one could get through the canal anyway. Fan for a long time, production quality has improved incredibly, great work! And Ryan is way smoother and more comfortable now, you are great too!
Audio quality is night and day compared to the older stuff. Great strides on their YT, hopefully it's translated into funding to help care for the NJ. It's certainly helped educate and entertain a lot of people .
Wait. The Haida are from the west coast. What's that ship doing in Toronto?
Pop over the Peace Bridge and check out the cruiser in Buffalo.
Been on it many times when active. Used to stop in Tahsis most times they traveled in threes. Early mid 70's. I had a tour guide, one of my moms high school boyfriends had scrambled eggs on his shoulder. He seemed set on making sure l got to crawl everywhere. Just remember guys snapping up straight as we walked through areas. First place l saw a nude chick, a picture on a locker door. I remember him running diversion on my mom and a guy giving me a grin and closing the door. I was about 8 '72-73? A month later in came a sub. And the jets from Comox doing runs at the mill down the inlet about 15f off deck then going straight up full burn.....when a jet is just sub sonic you hear a low growl about half a second befoŕe he goes by. Had one buzz the government warf about 50 feet away at eye level head turned looking right at us then gone. Then into the clouds full burn. I will never forget that. Some dips wife and her stupid phone call about mid 80's put a stop to that, stupid cityslickers, go back to where its "safe" we're fine....
Drach is like a British frigate to Ryan’s American first rate… also just a great time to see New Jersey. Awesome content please keep it up.
it would be interesting to go through with a japanese historian on what information the japanese had on the ships
That actually would be pretty interesting, yeah. We honestly hear very little about the the Japanese perspective on things in the west.
On the older ships, there's still quite a bit of documentation, but the Yamatos specifically had almost all of the records related to them destroyed.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Yep - most of the official archives were burned around the surrender, what info is left are mostly things that leaked out beforehand and were saved.
I think OC meant though what info the Japanese had on the *Iowas* though, although that might have been part of what got destroyed afterwards and probably would have gotten confiscated post-surrender during the occupation anyways.
Hard to do they really don't acknowledge the war even happened. Very limited info on the topic in Japan for the public.
@@tomfeng5645 Actually, the records were not destroyed. The difficulty is in having them translated. Works such as Shattered Sword, by Tully and Parshall and Kaigun, by Evans and Peattie rely heavily on official documentation by the Imperial Navy. I believe both books mention the large amount of primary source documents available to them for their research. Both books are excellent and well worth the read. The destruction of records did pertain to officials trying to cover up war crimes
One I am constantly hearing about is that the 16 inch guns can move the battleship sideways which i know is not correct. Getting tired of all the lies out there.
To this day, I run in to people on various Navy related FB groups that believe this. For years I would try to talk sense into them, now days, I try to avoid it all.
You can't completely absorb the recoil, but any movement of the ship is going to be so small that it would be functionally impossible to measure it in any useful way. Certainly less than a millimetre even for a full broadside, and you're not going to be able to fix the position of the ship before firing to a high enough degree of accuracy to notice.
It's simple physics. "Blooping" nine 2700 lbs (12.1 ton) of heavy shells out the barrels is not going to move 57,000 tons of ship sideways, period. Throw in ten of the baby 5" and your just making more noise!
I had one guy argue till he was blue that the concussion of the guns would kill anyone on the deck. Still argued it after I pointed out that all the videos of the iowa class firing were filmed by guys holding cameras on deck, and showing a picture of USS Iowa firing her guns in WW2 with a 40mm gun crew standing on the foredeck covering their ears.
During NGS bombardments in Vietnam, these battleships did execute a course-correction regularly to compensate for the drift that firing broadsides caused......
The shells, gasses and the pressure of the gas against the side of the ship do have a slight impact but the ship will move sideways so slow that the water doesn't put up a fight and therefore the small drift is quite persistent. Think a course-correction of 1 or 2 degrees every couple of salvos (ball-parking it).
Ships evolutionary development can change from first of class and drawings are often updated . It makes context important but many mysteries can be explained by looking at originals . It's always an interesting detective story on ships that have had a long career , and with New Jersey and her sisters the answers are still there to be found . As always another interesting video .
Great job as always, Ryan! Love your videos and the effort you put into them.
One idea for a future video might be why those edges of the hatch are beveled, and why it's supported on those hinge arms, rather than on sort of an oversized door hinge (I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but other folks might like to hear your explanation).
Here's a bit of a deep dive into the hatch: ruclips.net/video/jHU4Dv-U8YY/видео.html
I'm a HONORABLE DISCHARGED NAVY VETERAN, born in NORFOLK but now live in VIRGINIA BEACH.
HOW COOL it would be if NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, or NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING were chosen to do NEW JERSEY'S next DRYDOCKING.👍
Then once NEW JERSEY was finished it could pull up right beside BATTLESHIP WISCONSIN for say a whole week of combined tours of both BATTLESHIPS.
MAN-O-MAN would that be OUTSTANDING!💪☠️⚓️🇺🇸
There are enough large scale yards … if you can fit a Ford, you can fit an Iowa. Norfolk - “dogs and sailor keep off the grass.” (But we will gladly take you money and jobs). And yes I’m retired Navy from Chesapeake.
@@vrod665 OUTSTANDING!
I am impressed by how much your ability to present has improved over the last two years.
I thought the larger deck armor thicknesses came from the combination of the layers. Main Deck+Armor Deck+Splinter Deck.
That depends on the class of ship and nation.
What I've learned from this video:
To really be a successful Amateur Historian, you really need a Battleship at home....
"Muuuuuum! Can we have a Battleship pleeeeeeeease?"
about 20 years ago I read papers on the procurement requirements on the armor and it doesn't go by inch depth it goes by pounds per square foot times the required steel which is STS(density x volume), it further has requirements as per the treatment to make it the required type of armor, and the amount of allowable inch depth variance--usually something like 1/4" on some panels and could be more or less. The slabs or panels are made nearly flat so the entire panel will be roughly the same thickness except where milled down for connections and such. That paper also addressed that no connections would be made with out drilling and riveting, or driving a key along a seem such as in the joint between the deck and side armor. I heard many years ago the the New Jersey had a refit that was to change the boilers from coal oil to navel fuel and lighten the armor since they had to tear apart the armor citadel anyway they would lessen the armor "box" such that they welded the panels instead of using rivets and that could explain the variation in armor thicknesses.
In the late 1950’s when the nuclear submarine USS George Washington was built, Revell came out with a model kit of the ship. At that time there was a great hullabaloo about how did Revell get the plans, security breaches, etc., etc., etc. - I of course ran right out and bought and built a kit as soon as I could. Then, in the early 70’s while stationed in Panama, the ship was making a transit through the canal and I got the chance to ride through the Panama Canal on a submarine (By the way, my only “sea duty” in my six years in the Navy). One thing that struck me was that the model of the USS George Washington was nothing at all like the real ship. I always wondered if the Revell model was a bit disinformation aimed at the USSR.
Jack
Love when Ryan casually whips out his measuring tape.
I wish he’d whip something else out…
"Excuse me while I whip this out" ;-) Couldn't resist.
when talking about armor. I think there is some funny thing going on with information of HMS Hood armor information, that you can find around, some are not surprisingly when talking about all changes that have been done to her over time. And all those theories about what sunk her, a shell from above, or a newer one, a shell down at waterline (hull wave) hitting under armor plate
I went to my backyard to see if I could fit an Iowa Class battleship. Short answer is no. The long answer is that it depends on how many of my neighbors houses I'd be able to flatten.
If you had an Iowa class BB, you could flatten as many as you like. Probably all at the same time.
I have several Iowa Class battleships. They have all been fitted for space battle and are currently off earth. Great video!
Translation of the legend from the image at 2:06 from my American girlfriend who is fluent in Russian:
*Plans for the armoring of the battleship .*
The figures represent thickness of the the armor in millimeters
There is another situation that applies to battleship construction and that is the "As Built" situation. When the ship designers layed out how the battleship is to be constructed, they more times than not failed to realize that certain parts of the ship like armored decking thickness or shape, may not fit as planned during construction. It's up to the ship builder to modify the part and then modify the blueprint to reflect what was actually installed. The modified blueprints would then be sent back to the ship designer to be updated. It's those blueprints you actually need to have to verify what was installed.
Ah, the joys of Configuration Management (or at least that's how I understand it today). As-Designed, As-Built, Redlining, Requests For Waivers of Non-Conformity and so on ... 2 years on and I have yet to master it ...
Yep. That's why he says that he doesn't trust the blueprint alone.
How were the steel plates shipped from Illinois to New York or Philadelphia Navy Yards? Rail? Are there any pictures of these in transit? I find the construction of the vessels fascinating!
I would thing that it would certainly have to be via rail. If there are pictures, they're probably not to interesting. You would mostly see flatcars with some big flatish slabs of iron on them. Some specific pieces would be more interesting to look at I guess but meh.
Since shipyards are on seaways it’s not out of the question that huge plates would be transported via barge.
Hands down.....my favorite episode...keep up the great work Ryan...I myself have seen that diagram many times.....only sad that myth was de-bunked...
Holmes in "His Last Bow", provides the German spy von Bork with 'untrustworthy' information regarding mine field locations, ship gun accuracy and range, as well as British ship speed.
that is a very smart thing to do, for one of the most important things in warfare period was information on the enemy
I asked Santa for an Iowa for Christmas, I could hear him laughing all the way from the North Pole :)
On deck armour it should be noted that even in the late 1940's the level of deck armour in current ships(such as the Iowas and KGVs or later Vanguard)was known to be woefully inadequate given RN tests against Nelson using the 2000lb AP bomb(and remember at the time such things as Tallboy and Grand Slam were in service)and the RN conclusion was that to defend a battleship against all current known aerial threats a ship needed deck armour composed of a minimum of 12" thick cemented armour and this of course is UK cemented armour with a resistive capability the same as US cemented armour about 15%,possibly as much as 20% thicker for a given thickness
Awesome, and fascinating stuff!
Would it be possible to share the digitized microfiche that you showed us in the video in some way or form?
How would these plates be joined? Full pen Submerged Arc? That would be the fillet joint from hell and miles of it!!
Pity the Japanese workers who built the Yamatos.. Although their method of joining the plates was flawed.
With the armor having been heat treated to face harden it, welding wouldn't have worked well. Instead the plates had pins or biscuits with neighboring plates. On the backside they'd bore out a shallow hole a tap it for a large bolt thru the ships steel framework - the plates were for protection and not structural elements themselves.
After measuring my own Iowa class Battleship at home, i discovered that one inch equals 25,4mm. Typical metrics: give them an inch and they'll grab 0,4mm extra.😂
Спасибо! очень интересно. Хотелось бы еще и люк сам посмотреть, как устроен, как закрывается.
He already did it.
ruclips.net/video/jHU4Dv-U8YY/видео.html
The hinge is mounted under the deck, right about where the hatch sits above it. I'm not sure exactly why they do this, but it could be so that the hinge pin can't be blown off if something explodes.
Recently, i wondered how the accesspoints of the citadels were constructed. I never found anything on the plans i own or in this new internet. Yet here it is, and i didn't even look for it 😁
I believe there is a counterweight below the deck that you don’t see from this angle that helps with opening and closing the hatch smoothly.
Solid!
Top KEK!
Peace be with you.
Would you not have parallax error by measuring a surface that’s cut at a 45 degree angle (I’m eye balling that)? Wouldn’t that be 6” of effective armor to a round coming in at a 45 degree plunge? However at 90 degrees straight down?
Wondering the same thing. At 1:28, did he measure the hypotenuse?
I imagine that specific measurement was just for show, with a more accurate one being done earlier. However, note how Ryan bends the tape measure at a 90 degree angle and projects the bend above the angled surface. He is still measuring the vertical height of the armour, albeit somewhat haphazardly.
1:29 He ran the tape up vertically then bent 90 degrees to level with the deck then read at the bend. Should be within an eight or quarter inch.
Love the winter beard.
Never give the enemies the secrets haha
it is interesting how much covert ops revealed on both sides- Jay Forman has an excellent video on Map Men of a Soviet recon map of England
Since this is about a Naval Vessel; it's not a Myth but a Sea Story.
The drawings all depend on the final revisions. The question that continues to befuddled me is the way that they were welded together. If you saw the video of the Bismarck at her present resting place, they were in the port, where Bismarck was actually built, there is an armour plate that was created for the ship but was not used. It was thick.
In Czech language, there is a book by probably the greatest Czechoslovak naval historian Miloš Hubáček, and the book states that the Tirpitz battleship had significantly upgraded deck armor in comparison to Bismarck. I always found it technically unfeasible, but when it states it with such certainty, my word is typically of much less significance when it comes to debates about those ships.
7:40 I've been trying to figure out how to get my Iowa Class Battleship delivered. Problem is I live in Colorado, with no navigable rivers, and these battleships seem to be "super-Trailermax" class (too big to put on a trailer). Still working on figuring out how to get it onto one of the reservoirs around here, which might be big enough to sail it in circles, but never would be able to get up to full speed before running aground or crashing into the dam.
Basicly, a SWAG... Scientific Wild Ash Guess - Ryan...
ive seen some soviet sources over estimating armor thickness with the German tanks, they cleared it up after the war. but they had to get there hands on the tanks, take them apart and study them. That wasn't going to happen with a iowa of course so im assuming there guessing using equipment from the lend lease program. the soviets spent a lot of time studying the m4 tank and its armor afterwards. there later steels and cannon powders, and other info they learned was used in later machines. T62 and t64 in particular
Ahh yes the Soviets studied the M4 Sherman's advanced composite armor that was way ahead of its time and created the T-64, an MBT with composite armor over 500mm RHAe
@@TheNicestPig you mis understood. they made use of the better steel mix and learned from it. T64 was scary machine in its day
What a tease sitting next to that hatch and not showing us what's in it 🥺
At 5:49, Ryan said that hatch was over a former 40mm magazine.
Gneisenau belt armor thickness is often listed as thicker than Bismarck, but original drafts show it as the same thickness
6 inches of horizontal armour is right in line with the level of protection the British gave the Nelsons, KGVs, and Vanguard, which makes sense given the armour schemes of these ships were all designed to defeat 1,000lb AP bombs.
I know one myth about HMS Hood. There was no way Bismarck's guns could have destroyed her by penetrating the deck armor. At the range they were fighting, the Bismarck's shells could not have exceeded 11 degrees which Hood's armored deck was more than enough to bounce. Plus, at 11 degrees, if that shell that hit near the main mast that they claim killed her had come in at 11 degrees, it would have just recked the Admiral's cabin and come out above the port side belt armor and into the sea, and there was an "overshoot" seen at the same time or right after the hit to the mainmast. Which at 11 degrees could NOT have happened unless it had passed THROUGH the Admiral's cabin. To pass through the deck it would have had to hit a very VERY narrow strip at over 20 degrees, which was the angle HOOD'S own guns would have had at 30,000 yards. Bismarck's guns were higher velocity so they had less deck penetration at closer ranges. It's why Holland knew he had to close the distance. The unlucky shell dove under and probably did not even hit the water as Hood's own wake created a dip along her sides at high speed which exposed the armor and a bit below it.
Here is an interesting video on what was said above by Drachinifel for those who are interested.
ruclips.net/video/CLPeC7LRqIY/видео.html
@@KJAkk Yes, I know. He and I actually spoke a bit about why I thought the shell hitting the deck near the mainmast could not have destroyed her but passed out above the port side armor. Before he made the video he was researching and found my argument interesting enough and plausible. He mentioned it.
It sounds like you already have this understanding, but for those who aren't familiar with the armor scheme, I'll point out that Hood's armor deck was not horizontal over its entire surface. It was common in those days for the deck to be horizontal along the center section (that is, down the centerline) but angled downward along the sides directly inboard of the belt protection. The idea was that shells would not be able to hit that sloped section without first having to penetrated the main belt, but it assumes an enemy firing at relatively short range from a 90deg target angle, or thereabouts. This reflects the way battle lines would normally engage. But Hood was charging Bismarck at a sharp angle in order to close the range and had just begun to turn toward a 90deg target angle when the fatal shell hit. So it was possible for a German shell to hit above the main belt, easily penetrating the upper belt and then hitting the armor slope at an angle that was also easily penetrated. Hood was actually very advanced in her armor scheme in that her horizontal armor did extend all the way to the top edge of the main belt, but only in the area of the main magazines. Her midships did not have this modern feature, and a shell penetrating there from a sharp target angle would have little trouble sending blast and fragments into the after portion of the vitals--that is, into the aft magazines--and we know the aft magazines were the site of the fatal explosion.
Yeah but let's be real HMS Hood got blasted unlucky
@@Tiornu Still at 11 degrees of angle for the incoming shell, the shot would have bounced off the armored deck. She had enough protection for the situation she was in. In order to hit the slope without passing through the main belt, it would have needed to come in at 20 to 25 degrees. Any steeper and it would have actually bounced off the upper belt as if it had hit a 6 inch thick deck. The drawing out there showing how the shell might have done it was using Hood's own gun performance at 30,000 yards which would have the shell coming in at 20 degrees. Np, the shell that got her went UNDER the exposed main belt because the wake Hood generated caused a tough along the middle part of her waterline. With no water protecting the vitals under the belt it had a chance. Had it hit the water and then gone in, the fuse would probably have gone out and not detonate as it did against Prince of Wales.
Question for the curator: If the Navy were to suddenly come to you and give the museum written approval to reactivate any and every system on the ship that you choose to reactivate, anything from the boilers and engines all the way to the laundry and weapons systems, which systems would you choose to reactivate, and why, with the knowledge that the museum society would have to pay for all required work to reactivate them?
Great video Ryan. Thanks!
Hey Ryan, I'm not sure if you've ever shown it but I would love to see the chiller plants for the ship that cooled the magazines, refrigerator, and or any other application that needed some level of cooling. Thank you!
Thank you, I was not able to sleep at night for many years just thinking about it.
Near the end of WW-II, what was the typical dispersion pattern, length and width, of the fall of shot from a broadside of Iowa/NJ's 16" guns at maximum range? What was the range for both the 1,900 pound HC and 2,700 pound APCBC shells using the full six bag charges?
1:09 I'm skeptical about the two-tone indication of the different layers of metal in the armored deck hatch. I'm no metallurgist, sailor, shipbuilder, or museum curator, so my opinion isn't worth much, but from where I'm looking at it (again, I'm not even there, this is just from the video), all I can see is a second color where some sort of treatment or patina has been either applied or removed, like with a scouring pad on an angle grinder. Something to ensure a watertight fit? But either way, wouldn't that entire assembly be a separate part from the deck? Slotted into where they cut out a rounded-corner square hole? I would think it would likely be a single piece of one kind of metal, then.
Not related to battleships, but I'd like to see a video that covers the timeline and methods used to correct the dud rate on Mk 13, 14, and 15 torpedoes during WW2. The timeline is the part of the story that's the most unclear, but even the information about the Navy's work to fix the problems seems to lack clarity and some sources have minor contradictions. Also, did the Navy ever consider shipping Mk 10s as a short-term fix? Thanks.
The Sovie's were able to get accurate enough information courtesy @ The Cambridge 5 to reverse-engineer a Nuclear Bomb though!
Inconsistencies about the Iowa’s? How about each one is a different length, which is not true. All are 887 ft 3 in. One that really gets us going here on the Wisconsin is that when the bow of the USS Kentucky was grafted onto the Wisconsin after the Eaton collision, the Kentucky increased the length of the Wisconsin which is false
The new Jersey is listed at 887ft 7in long
Reminds me of how various fans of the US navy on RUclips often claim that "New Jersey could achieve better penetration to Yamato's guns due to a higher muzzle velocity" because of Naval Legends and Fat Electrician, when Yamato had a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet per second compared to Big J's 2,500 feet per second, not to mention Yamato fired a shell around 500-600 pounds heavier, using almost twice as much gunpowder up to a farther max range. I believe that Yamato on average could penetrate between 1-4.3 more inches of steel depending on the range.
I've also heard many people repeat that "new Jersey was just an enlarged and faster South Dakota". Armor was slightly increased. The bulkheads were increased. Same goes for the belt, increased from the 10.7-12-inch belt on South Dakota to the 11.7-12-inch belt on New Jersey. Most obviously, New Jersey carried better radar and 50 cal guns, which solved the "overpowered deck penetration, sub par belt penetration" problem on South Dakota.
Oh, and don't get me started on the whole "New Jersey could aim accurately from max range" bulls. No battleship could aim accurately beyond 25-26,000 yards, as gun stability and shell dispersion prevented this, two things not even modern satellite radar could solve.
You have spotter aircraft able to provide long range shooting information.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Yes, but that wouldn't stop New Jersey's shells from dispersing too much to be accurate beyond 25-26,000 yards, as well as her gun stability.
@@metaknight115 you can always fire them one at a time. Not to mention that Naval weapons continued Research into extended range ammunition well after World War II.
Bismarck hit Hood at 18000 yards
Great material. Btw a question @Battleship New Jersey , Did the Iowa class bb's had different armor thickness on the forward turret plates? as there are roumors that 1 turret on the first build had 1 inch thinner plate on if i remember correct 2nd turret forward plate.
Myths or legendary stories? Who knows for sure.
You should visit Missouri to confirm your theory.
Honestly, wouldn't mind having an Iowa class battleship in my back yard
Original Designs are academic only, buried & forgotten are the AS Builts consisting of, Red Lined, Engineering Change Notices, & Waivers for NonConformances. Academic designs will be argued for decades, but until the AS Builts are referenced, it is all academic.
Nice seeing the old girl being taken care of
Great video thank you
One thing I have always believed in (I am ok if corrected) is that I feel the Iowa class armour could stand up to a 'modern' missile against it main armour though I understand the radar, directors and other outside stuff would be highly vulnerable. Unlike a modern warship that has thinner armour and composites that are at risk regardless of defences or decoys. If I am wrong - I am ok with being corrected but surely the Iowa Main Armour can take that punishment ? I have had this view since I was a teenager and I hope to learn if I was right or wrong. Thank you.
Even if the armor takes the hit, it is still a mission kill and the ship has to return to port for extensive repairs. The seaworthyness is always significantly damaged, no matter the ship.
@@juliusEST Not necessarily. Yes the ship will have to be repaired eventually but the damage from modern ASM's that are not designed to penetrate armor would be minimal. The ASM would detonate between the STS shell plating and the armor belt resulting in a lot of superficial damage but nothing that would drastically impact the seaworthiness of the ship. Some ASM's are designed with a pop up maneuver where they pop up and then try and plunge through the deck of the ship. These missiles would do even less damage to an Iowa class ship. They would penetrate through the weather deck and explode between the weather deck and the main armored deck, again causing superficial damage but nothing that would impact the functionality or survivability of the ship.
The Russians do have some ASM's like the P-700 that carry a massive warhead that more than likely would mission kill or outright sink her with multiple hits.
On the convers, pretty much any modern ship would not be battle worthy if a single broadside from the Iowa class battleship landed on them, either AP or HE rounds, as they would definitely penetrate almost all the way through the hull, and the HE rounds would go off well inside the ship.
I'm pretty sure such a hit from a modern ASM would be comparable to a kamikaze attack. As it happens, we *did* have battleships hit by such attacks during ww2. You can look at the historical record to see how effective you think they where.
For my money, I would say that where nearly totally ineffective. Virtually every account will say that ship x was hit at y time but remained in action for the duration of her mission. Seems that it was mostly the AA crews up on the decks that suffered casualties from them.
Until quite recently Anti Ship Missiles have actually be very 'dumb'. Only the very latest missiles which are just getting into service have the capacity to target specific ships and locations on said ship. The biggest issue the Iowa class would have with ASMs is that her armor scheme is internal so any ASM is going to cause significant damage to even the side of the ship. It will certainly not sink an Iowa class nor take her out of action to get hit amidships with a HE ASM but it's going to cause damage.
However, put a dual purpose HEAT warhead on a ASM and suddenly it will cut through her armor like nothing. Granted the hole will be small and the jet might not hit anything vital but it will get through. There was also the reality that armor did nothing to stop newer torpedoes from breaking the back of ships and armor also gets in the way of service life. Getting to the ships vital to replace them becomes quite a chore when you have to get through many inches of armor.
Rebuilding a ship was always a less cost effective manner then just building a new one back in the day of battleships. In terms of what you got for the cost. The only reason it happened interwar (especially by the Japanese) was that there was a treaty that banned building new ships. So rebuilding what you had was the only way.
So there are myths about the Iowa's armour
I wonder if there have been Soviet spies on a tour of the ship whilst a museum ship
More like chinese spies. When I still had a clearance we would get a briefing every once in a while and they would catch hundreds of them every few months trying to sneak onto base, take pictures, honey trap people in town, you name it they tried it. This stuff is so common it would probably blow peoples minds. Real life spying is done in numbers, its not like the Bourne movies or whatever. Most espionage is done from the inside by people that just plain want money, thats why you can't have a security clearance if you have a lot of debts.
How I'd love my own battleship. Might struggle to,get it here. She's a bit big for the canal here!!
I could fit it in the harbour, it is smaller than some of the container ships that dock there, though only the passenger liner terminal would be able to berth it. Conveniently also right next to the maritime museum as well.
@@SeanBZAlet me guess, Sydney harbour?
@@tomnewham1269 About 4000km west of it.....
Sean. Meet me behind the old whale meat warehouse and we’ll fight.
Siegfried Breyer alleges Iowas had a totally different armor scheme than the South Dakota’s. An external armor belt flush with hull. Where did that come from?
Spooky armor myths oooooooo
I'll fact check ya Ryan. Haha. I've got Kentucky in my backyard!
Hope you can make a video about the argentine battleships Moreno and Rivadavia built in the USA :D
If so, let me know if you need data :)
Great share
I was visiting the Cabrillo national monument and Fort Rosecrans used to have a costal defense battery with 2 16"/50 caliber guns known as the Mark II Model 1's that thanks to the elevation, could fire a 16in one ton shell 30 miles. (These guns have since been destroyed and sold for scrap) My question is this, what is the difference between the the guns of the Iowa class Battleship and the guns of the costal defense batteries like Fort Rosecrans' Ashburn Battery?
In 1775, Benjamin Franklin was quoted to say that everything on the internet is true.
Just to make sure I’m not going crazy, when measuring the thickness you did the geometry to convert the slope to perpendicular distance right?
you can see he forms a corner with the tape so he is not measuring along the angle. I thought the same
@@pizzaivlife was watching on the phone, that detail missed me. Thank you
Here's an intresting question. Given the advances in explosives and armor plating, if a magic gennie gave the U.S. government and navy a zillion dollars that could only be used for a modern battleship, how would the armor be different if done today ?.
They would develop better airframes to deliver precision munitions and not waste the money on floating targets that have no use if they are not carrying said better airframes. 'Navies' get in the way of commerce and are just a nuisance to capitalism.
@@ATEC101 You missed the condition of the hypothetical. It's a magic genie giving the US a zillion (indeterminately large number) dollars that also somehow doesn't crash the currency. Essentially, what would the US navy build if battleships were still current doctrine and they had a blank check.
The answer would probably be a combination type armor. Spaced armor, probably some form of corrosion resistant NxRA unit armor on the outer side, possibly with a small arms and bump/scratch protective layer on top of that. Under the ERA, probably similar specs to what the Iowa had in later years for armor just using newer alloys and formulations. The idea of protection via mass is still a solid concept, it's why we still build bunkers and other safe rooms with a combination concrete, steel, and large amounts of earth. Mass is king when it comes to protection. However, to reduce mass, and thus make it easier to float and move, NxRA or whatever classified modern equal is out there would likely be used as a first line of defense. Considering things launched at a battleship anymore would likely be of the HEAT warhead variety and not just a big HE warhead.
How is the thicker armour joined? Are the plates welded or riveted?
0:10 Wait.... What.... You can't believe everything on the internet? I found a site on the internet that told me it was all correct! 😁👍
Ryan, I know you are well aware of the copies of plans in government archives showing the USS CONSTELLATION (1854) is really USF CONSTELLATION (1797).
Question, are you sure it is class B laminated onto STS? Yes you can see two different colors of steel but you don't see it on the hatch. Could the coloration differences be from friction from opening and closing the hatch? There are also chips in what appears to be a protective coating around the lip and the same color steel as what you are saying is STS is visible underneath. It is my theory that it is some sort of protective coating to prevent corrosion vs two different types of steel.
I'm not 100% sure, but the armor was added later during construction. So the deck came first and the armor on top.
You can see it when you leave the armored part there is a step down.
A guess the hatch was manufactured out of one piece, what would make sense. Since if they had tried to bolt it on to the sts hatch plate and would be create a weak spot.
On the deck armor you have "one solid plate", that won't move anywhere.
I guess it was explosion welded?
How do you open that hatch??!
Those armored hatches are spring loaded, real easy and o open and close at their weight. Some used counter weights for ease of opening and closing.
What do you mean I can't believe everything that's been said on the Internet?
I don't have an Iowa in my backyard :( but my neighbor had a SoDak (BB-59) in theirs... I wonder?
Could you please talk more about STS Steel
what's with that table in the background? seems like an odd place for one
This is a berthing place, where sailors slept. So it's just a card table.
I have a copy "Jane's Fighting Ships of W.W.2 "
Iowa Class
16" side armour other armour not Reported; see Alabama
Albama
16' side
18" turrets
6" upper deck
4" main deck
as can be seen Jane's got it wrong or the U.S. Navy kept it quiet.
Armour on Vampire 1/4" on Forty Mil. mounts.
Stephen
Unfortunately no, Ryan, I do not have an Iowa at home. But I do have a South Dakota parked next door
The Russians are just jealous that none of the Iowas burst into flames at the pier.
"Today, we're going to talk about how you can't believe everything you see on the internet."
But . . . you're on the internet . . . .
I used to have 2 but the state of Hawaii stole one from me and the state of new jersey stole the other one .
Is the United States of America still capable of producing Battleship grade armor? Or are all the factories gone?
I'd guess No, and I'd guess Armor has improved too much since to want to reproduce it.
Not currently. They would have to produce the infrastructure to make large pieces of armor first. The biggest obstacle is making new barrels.
Yes I think Gary Works could do it but it would take large investments in new tools, manpower and a lot of money. However the real issue is actually that the USA is chronically behind China in ship building capacity due to Govnemrent subsidy of ship building in South Korea, Japan, France and Germany over the last 50 years so that needs to change. The best idea is to allow the companies in those countries to build the new facilities in the USA and own them meaning that the home country will lose some of their industry but get to own the facilities the USA. Perfect solution. This is what is also being done by TSMC in Phoenix Arizona the new massive chip factory is owned and operated by Taiwan's TSMC. The same needs to be done with Ship building.
Chemically composition of Steel used? Yes, that can be recreated. facilities for doing so? No.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 not so much armor has improved. More that's not used. Warships today don't have thick armor.
Even good smart people believe all kinds of things. My own father swears that the armor is 16 inches thick. Where on the ship I don't know. He also says the "last commanding officer" told him that the ship is preserved so it can be called up for duty in a couple of months. ??? Where do people get this stuff?
Just sea stories. Most people tend to embelish facts when re-telling a story. 16" seems to be referring to the side armour or turret armour?
4th, 6 January 2023
New Jersey 's deck armour design is less complicated than what ships like the Hood or Warspite used
Could any modern day steels serve as a comparable substitute should the Marines ever convince the Navy to reinstate and update/modernize these lethal Ladies?
It's probably chemically possible. It's more of a Manufacturing process issue. Current steel plants are not set up for production of such items.
The key to the armor (Class-A) is the heat-treated face hardening with some mix of alloys. Modern day steel if thick enough, would probably be called Class-B armor. However, more steel means someone just needs a larger shaped-charged warhead to counter it.
Ship yard blueprints 😂