The Call To Freedom Will Be Sounded Again: How to Bring Back Battleship NJ

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
  • In this episode we're talking about a 1991 document that was made by the ship's engineering crew about their decommissioning work and what needed to be done to bring the ship back to service.
    For ship blueprints, go to:
    maritime.org/doc
    To send Ryan a message on Facebook: / ryanszimanski
    To support this channel and Battleship New Jersey, go to:
    www.battleship...

Комментарии • 1,3 тыс.

  • @alanbare8319
    @alanbare8319 Год назад +844

    I would like to see more about that document. If the author is still alive, possibly you could interview him. He seems to have a sense of humor!

  • @formula73
    @formula73 Год назад +449

    This is incredible. I’m a shipyard test engineer and I’d quit my friggin JOB to be part of bringing New Jersey back.

    • @theilluminatist4131
      @theilluminatist4131 Год назад +31

      I'm x-Navy and a mechanical design engineer in Aerospace Industry now, but I have told my family the same thing...I'm pulling for San Diego to get one to renovate! See you there!

    • @elijahwerner6130
      @elijahwerner6130 Год назад +12

      I'd just about quit my job just for the privilege of rummaging that second box down!

    • @mustangcircut
      @mustangcircut Год назад +16

      I’m a licensed pipe fitter and hvac tech. You go, I’ll go!!! I’d love to get the Missouri going too!!!

    • @HauntedXXXPancake
      @HauntedXXXPancake Год назад +10

      Naval Draughtsman standing bye :)
      I spend 4 years of my Career rummaging through
      old (sometimes long forgotten) paper drawings to make
      3D CAD models for upgrades. Best Job I've ever had.

    • @redneckswitwheels
      @redneckswitwheels Год назад +6

      30yrs of welding, fab, machining and industrial painting... I even have tools?

  • @jimcronin2043
    @jimcronin2043 Год назад +290

    The greatest takeaway from this video is that there is an indication about how (at least some of) the crew felt about their ship.

    • @camelthegamer7165
      @camelthegamer7165 Год назад +6

      A ship is alive, with heart and soul. The sailors are the heart, the captain is the soul. She lives, breathes and gets mad, Lord have mercy if you're willing to anger her.

  • @MK0272
    @MK0272 Год назад +313

    The Ship still remains in service in a sense. Her days of providing firepower may be past, but she still serves as a recruitment tool for future sailors. A future Chester Nimitz or William Halsey may one day walk her decks as a child and be inspired to seek a career in the Navy. For all we know, one may already be working their way up through the ranks. Certainly the journeys of many other future sailors began aboard her or one of her sisters in the museum fleet. That is not a small thing.

    • @crp5591
      @crp5591 Год назад +23

      Well said! New Jersey and her sisters still serve.

    • @panzerfan
      @panzerfan Год назад +20

      The Iowas are living monuments to the US as a maritime power, and they are the last, best examples of battleships. These majestic ships of state stand with the likes of HMS Victory or IJN Mikasa. I hope they will continue to awe and inspire generations to come after us.

    • @panzerfan
      @panzerfan Год назад +5

      @@kevinthomas895 Soldiers and sailors of NATO are more men pound per pound than the Russians dying in Ukraine neverthless. Don't despair.

    • @crp5591
      @crp5591 Год назад +2

      @@kevinthomas895 Seriously? Way to disparage an entire branch of our military. I have some Navy friends that would like to challenge that little opinion of yours... And one of them is a Marine.

    • @randyfant2588
      @randyfant2588 Год назад +1

      except carrier obsessed blind bats lack enough imagination to understand what a Battleship does yet have the political clout to stay in charge of the Navy. I'm afraid it's going to take another disaster to show people the false usurper of the Carrier as the paper tiger it is. When missiles make manned aircraft useless, but the Navy is ultra-dependent on them with no heavy alternative and gets it's Carrier version of Pearl Harbor (or perhaps more Carrier Salvo Island).

  • @Masada1911
    @Masada1911 Год назад +404

    Honestly, I feel like the topic of bringing back the battleship will be around as long as this channel is lol

    • @ghost307
      @ghost307 Год назад +32

      Along with the 'can we make the turrets operational" arguments.

    • @baronpen
      @baronpen Год назад +43

      The battleship reactivation debate will be around until there's an adequate replacement for them in the naval gunfire support role. That's the only thing that will end it.

    • @aaronbriant3697
      @aaronbriant3697 Год назад +33

      as long as the 4 Iowa BB's are still floating the debate on reactivating them will continue

    • @rubiconnn
      @rubiconnn Год назад +11

      @@baronpen Naval gunfire is a dead concept. VLS missiles do everything better and all modern ships fire the same missiles but just have different amounts of them.

    • @crazybarryfam
      @crazybarryfam Год назад +1

      I feel bad for whoever we bring it back against.. searam and lasers going to make her pretty stout

  • @Quadrenaro
    @Quadrenaro Год назад +68

    Battleship (2012) was such a cheesy movie, but the scene of bringing Mighty Mo back to life is one of the most badass things put to film in the last 10 years. So long as Thunderstruck plays in the background while doing it, I'd approve any budgetary need to revive these old warships.

    • @Hustler9g
      @Hustler9g Год назад +13

      Saw this comment and immediately went to watch the movie because I'd never seen it. I came back to ask for my time back but I should have read more closely to what you said because while yes the rest of the movie was terrible damn did the Missouri looked badass

    • @Quadrenaro
      @Quadrenaro Год назад +15

      @@Hustler9g Oof. Sorry man. The Missouri scene is even better when you realize those were actual veterans who crewed her in the film. Atleast you got to experience that scene.

    • @rssvss
      @rssvss 10 месяцев назад +5

      A while back when I seen that movie, the only reason I continued past the first few minutes was the Missouri. 😅

    • @phillyskyguy9535
      @phillyskyguy9535 4 месяца назад +1

      Apparently Missouri was in drydock at the time of filming. When the drydocking was complete, they actually let Missouri sail and footage was shot for the movie. I literally thought it was cgi in every shot (obviously CGI when doing the impossible anchor drift)

  • @silmarian
    @silmarian Год назад +93

    Thank you for dropping Established Titles and Kamikoto, those scams don't deserve any air time

    • @satagaming9144
      @satagaming9144 Год назад +8

      Shoutout to the $5 walmart knife I just bought that's made of the same steel as those Kamikoto knives, lol. Probably made in the same factory in China too!

    • @cleverusername9369
      @cleverusername9369 Год назад +4

      Idk about that. I was adopted and when I learned my DNA test results and found out I'm mostly Scottish, my gf got me the Established Titles thing and even though I know it's silly and pointless like naming a star or something, it's fun and it meant a great deal to me. I recognize that it's a racket, but it made me happy

    • @johnm7249
      @johnm7249 Год назад

      Perhaps Ryan could have handed the knives to the people who cater events on New Jersey. If I knew some 20 somethings getting married, those knives would be a "lifetime" gift.

    • @silmarian
      @silmarian Год назад

      @@cleverusername9369 I mean, that's fair. But that's not how they advertise themselves, and may put sponsored channels in legal trouble because of false advertising. Probably not in the States, so I'm not worried about BNJ here, but other countries are waaaaay more strict and all it takes is one prosecutor to ruin some poor soul's life (even if not found guilty, defense attorneys are expensive).

    • @ImpendingJoker
      @ImpendingJoker Год назад +1

      @@johnm7249 So good for about 4-5 years? XD

  • @graystoke8229
    @graystoke8229 Год назад +165

    That letter from the last Engineering Officer to a future successor is both cool and terrifying. I feel sorry for the succeeding (prospective) Chief Engineer to read that letter and figure out how to get things back up.

    • @paulprovenzano3755
      @paulprovenzano3755 Год назад +23

      I’ll never be happier than he will be while he’s tearing his hair out, getting this grand old girl back in fighting trim.

    • @DJP-ph7yj
      @DJP-ph7yj Год назад +27

      I think its also a call to, this is our baby - she's in fine condition.
      Here's all the things you need to know about her. We're telling you this, in the hope that out of respect, you'll look after her as well as we did????

    • @largesleepermadness6648
      @largesleepermadness6648 Год назад +14

      The yards would be the ones to get the plants back in working order. Ships crew in the engineering department would assist. That’s the way it is. Lots of inspections and hydro testing of the different systems would ensure a safe reactivating. Former Pit snipe. The way they preserved the systems for deactivating a war ship is proven time and time again. I would bet that all the steam drums have desiccant bags hanging inside and all the reduction gears still have oil on them. People would be surprised how well these systems last if they are laid up properly.

    • @a1nelson
      @a1nelson Год назад +13

      @@largesleepermadness6648 Oil: couldn’t agree more. Although it’s agricultural instead of naval, I can tell you that I’ve worked on many, many tractors and machines. It’s plain to see which ones received oil and grease and which ones did not. I have a 1940 Ford 9N that I know for a fact was used and used over its first 50 years. Yet, it remains tight and fully functional, and even starts faster than my new, fuel-injected vehicles - all because parts weren’t allowed to corrode, wear or seize. If the engineers respected the NJ as much as that note suggests, they’ll have sealed and lubricated everything they had time for.

  • @leftnoname
    @leftnoname Год назад +90

    The care sailors took of the ship shows how much pride they had in what they did.

  • @michaelgraziano8038
    @michaelgraziano8038 Год назад +160

    I would definitely like to see a copy of (and an on-screen review of the areas in) that document. It'd be interesting to see the areas of the ship the last operating crew thought would need attention in a potential reactivation and how they're fairing 31 years on under the museum's stewardship.
    I'm especially curious how much stuff that's on that list is also on the museum's list (or was previously repaired by the museum). I suspect it deals with the mechanical systems moreso than the hull & "routine maintenance" stuff you have to do to keep the ship watertight and in good repair, but I have to wonder how much overlap there's been between the departing engineer's concerns and the museum's over the last 3 decades.

  • @robertf3479
    @robertf3479 Год назад +36

    I was there for the decommissioning of both ships I served in. I really do understand why the ship's company would want to ensure she would be in the best condition possible in the hope she would be able to serve again. When USS Caron (DD 970) was decommissioned in October 2001 we (that current crew and veterans of the ship) were hopeful that she would not be laid up long ... this was less than 30 days after the 9/11 attacks and Caron was a Tomahawk platform, up to 61 cruise missiles in her forward MK-41. When she left Norfolk for Philly everything worked, the Captain and crew did their best to keep her fully equipped and in a state where all she needed for sea and combat was a crew, fuel, ammo and stores.
    Unfortunately it wasn't to be. She was sunk during explosive testing for the advanced DDG program a little over a year later.
    I'm still pissed about it.

    • @jtough7499
      @jtough7499 Год назад +2

      She gave her last full measure to help the next class be better

    • @blackhawks81H
      @blackhawks81H Год назад +2

      At least she wasn't slowly cut up on a beach in India or something.

    • @philipcreighton195
      @philipcreighton195 Год назад +2

      Served on the Caron from '95 - '99 and Spruance from '00 - '01. I was pissed to see what they did to all the Spruances. The Navy got rid of them as quickly as they could because they didn't want there to be a possibility of bringing them back.

  • @thornie123
    @thornie123 Год назад +6

    Quit playing with our heads Ryan! First you laugh at us for ever thinking these old girls could fight again, now you’re waving this piece of hope in front of us! 😭🥺 lol

  • @lexington476
    @lexington476 Год назад +120

    Any idea who wrote the document? . Good chance he's still around. Might be worth giving him a call or doing an interview video.

    • @BornRandy62
      @BornRandy62 Год назад +4

      The title of the document Says from Engineering officer to Prospective engineering officer

    • @adamsears1403
      @adamsears1403 Год назад +12

      @@BornRandy62 Then the question would be, Who was the Engineering Officer/s when New Jersey was decommissioned? Navy probably has records of it somewhere. I was in the Army, not the Navy, but I know there was a paper trail when I signed for each 7 million dollar Abrams at the time.

    • @BornRandy62
      @BornRandy62 Год назад +9

      @@adamsears1403 The letter is probably signed. He didnt show the bottom or the last page. He did mention it being available online. A search will probably bring the answer up also. Department heads are listed prominently in records. CO XO department heads are the hierarchy

    • @jamesgill4035
      @jamesgill4035 Год назад

      This is a great idea! The story's they could tell us!

    • @NoName-zn1sb
      @NoName-zn1sb Год назад

      @@jamesgill4035 The stories

  • @Tuck-Shop
    @Tuck-Shop Год назад +82

    I like how the sponsorship section has been removed in light of information being shared.
    You have my respect and thanks.

    • @CidVeldoril
      @CidVeldoril Год назад +11

      Was it established titles?

    • @Its-Just-Zip
      @Its-Just-Zip Год назад +6

      @@CidVeldoril likely was

    • @ant4812
      @ant4812 Год назад +13

      @@CidVeldoril Yeah, and kamikoto. Both run by the same somewhat dodgey people.

    • @timnor4803
      @timnor4803 Год назад +21

      Established Titles was like a rash that caught lots of great you tube channels in their scam web. I don't hold anything against those that got in for the sponsorship money and I respect those that dropped them when they became informed. 🇺🇸

    • @ChrsGuit
      @ChrsGuit Год назад +4

      @@timnor4803 See, I thought that was cool, but also felt it seemed "sketch"... Like "Is that REALLY legit". I figured they just took your money and sent you a paper and let you THINK you had actually bought something... Kinda like that "buying a star" thing a few years ago... My dad always joked "Yeah, I'd like for a bunch of people who bought that to compare their chart and find out it was all the same star on the same paper

  • @Damen178
    @Damen178 Год назад +78

    I think that as long as the battleships are still floating, there will always be someone thinking we should reactivate them. It's happened before, it just might happen again. If it does, I hope I'm alive to see it.
    And yes, please, go through that document. Just that little bit you shared with us has my curiosity piqued.

    • @fifthcolumn388
      @fifthcolumn388 Год назад +2

      If we’re alive to see it the reactivation of a battleship, it means a world war at this point.

  • @WayneHarris
    @WayneHarris Год назад +111

    I simply love how the Engineering staff wrote a message to potential future versions of themselves. That is fantastic. I would love to see more about this document.
    That said, I don't believe this ship will ever see active duty again..

    • @jearlblah5169
      @jearlblah5169 Год назад +20

      if it ever does see active duty again, that means things are going REALLY wrong in the world

    • @ravenbarsrepairs5594
      @ravenbarsrepairs5594 Год назад +9

      @@jearlblah5169 Things are REALLY going wrong in the world. That said, reactivation is unlikely, if solely for the fact that there are few left that know how to operate the ships systems.

    • @jonathanbair523
      @jonathanbair523 Год назад +7

      @@ravenbarsrepairs5594 She was in service in 91.. So that crew should only be like 50-60 years old... Am sure there is still books on operations of the systems too....I would think allot of the basic skills is still in the fleet, like the 5 inch gunners or engineers...But your right the big 16 inchers would need on the job training in a sim or something odds are, and I would think they would get pulled from a deck gun crew of a 4 or 5 incher or maybe sent to the army/marines for there self propelled gun school..

    • @AnIdiotsLantern
      @AnIdiotsLantern Год назад

      @@jearlblah5169 on the other hand, if something is REALLY that wrong, it would really suck not to have anything to fall back on

    • @NoName-zn1sb
      @NoName-zn1sb Год назад

      @@jonathanbair523 a lot of

  • @kevinbeefchips
    @kevinbeefchips Год назад +70

    That document has got to be one of the coolest things found on the ship. If it is possible to find/interview the author they would probably have some amazingly specific/quirky information and stories about the ship.

  • @willymccoy3427
    @willymccoy3427 Год назад +4

    As retired Navy engineer, I'd love to see that document. I was in Enlisted Manpower when they decommissioned the Iowas. All the ships they retired then broke my heart. At least my old carrier the Lexington was saved.

    • @kevincrosby1760
      @kevincrosby1760 Год назад

      Nothing sadder than watching a video of the ship which you called home for years being towed to Brownsville.

  • @monkeycage2961
    @monkeycage2961 Год назад +18

    it was honestly kind of heart-breaking listening to that document and realising the faith the crew had in their ship and the confidence it would be called up again, and realising that it probably never would.

  • @pjbth
    @pjbth Год назад +36

    Thank you so much for ditching established titles.....I saw where you cut that ad spot out. I know showing that integrity is going to cost financially but I feel so much better about supporting the channel

    • @ilenastarbreeze4978
      @ilenastarbreeze4978 Год назад +1

      yep i noticed that too

    • @parrot849
      @parrot849 Год назад +2

      I don’t have a personal interest either way about the “product” being marketed, but I’m curious about why they dropped Established Titles. I fully realize all they were selling was a piece of paper stating you fantasy-owned, I assumed, a square foot of real estate in some land tract in Scotland, what was specifically deceptive about the concept? Anyone with any sense had to realize it was just a novelty thing and not really worth anything. Kinda like when everyone was buying pet rocks, Chia Pets, or having a star named after you (Which was a similar commercial enterprise for a while by in the 80’s).
      Now, if there were no actual tree or tree seedling planting associated with the purchase, now that would be definitely deceptive advertising.
      Bottom line, trees aside, it’s just an interesting conversation piece. Anyone who thought they had purchased anything of substance had no business processing a credit card or wearing grownup pants.

    • @CidVeldoril
      @CidVeldoril Год назад +5

      @@parrot849 Aside from them claiming it gave you a title, which it doesn't, under scottish law such "souvenier plots" are not land that you own. So basically they tell everyone they'll sell you a piece of land with a title, when in reality they just sell you a certificate, as you can't legally own that land or use that title.

    • @tridbant
      @tridbant Год назад +6

      @@parrot849 they implied in their adverts that you owned the land and therefore you were entitled to become a Lord or Lady. There was no mention that this was a gag or anything.
      Now on their site they do but that was only recently. Before that there was no mention.

    • @pjbth
      @pjbth Год назад

      @@parrot849 they also don't plant the trees They say they donate money to a tree planting charity but who knows if they actually do. The trees planted counter has been at the same number as far back as the Wayback machine goes. If you wanted to plants trees just make a donation to the charity itself and print off a certificate saying you are a lord.
      Better yet send me $50 I'll make a $2 donation and send you a nice piece of paper, I won't even print a bunch of shit on it. Hell throw another 100 on and I'll sell you Chinese dollar store knifes in a presswood box. Ill call them Scamcumi that sounds Japanese

  • @motaz1975
    @motaz1975 Год назад +16

    one thing i have learned in my 47 years is "never say never"

    • @richhoule3462
      @richhoule3462 Год назад +2

      In my 48 years, in this case, NEVER

    • @ghost307
      @ghost307 Год назад

      Any statement containing the terms Always or Never is virtually guaranteed to be false.

  • @JDHitchman
    @JDHitchman Год назад +53

    I look forward to a future video going into that document in greater detail. That is fascinating stuff.

  • @J-1410
    @J-1410 Год назад +6

    I could see the navy doing something like what happened in the 1980s, as in "we need it for numbers, not necessarily for war" and then it ends up in a war anyways. I could see them reactivating it just as a way to "reset the clock" on the boilers.
    In the 1980s, it wasn't universally agreed upon to reactivate them either, yet it happened, the industries that made and supported them were gone or in the process of being gone. All what would be required is an administration that wants it bad enough and money and government would fine a way, it always does.

  • @undissatisfied1557
    @undissatisfied1557 Год назад +46

    I DEFINITELY want to see more on that document. Super super cool.

  • @vixenraider1307
    @vixenraider1307 Год назад +10

    Honestly the very way the crew put her to bed and saved critical items for the Battleship and go though the work of making a full document of problems she had as the end of her last commissioning, makes me think a lot of poeple really though she was gonna be bought back, personally i think the ship and her sisters still have one last commission left in them, maybe a little less for Iowa, but New Jersey Missouri and Wisconsin still have one last ride of greatest in them. New Jersey will rest, but rest lightly, and be ready to hear call for firepower for freedom one last time and make that the endnote to the geatest battleships left and ever built by the good old USA!!!

  • @mistysowards7365
    @mistysowards7365 Год назад +31

    If we ever need a battleship then things have gone unbelievably terrible for our country and navy. But new jersey is probably the only ship available that can take multiple missile hits and still hit back harder.

    • @Alucard-gt1zf
      @Alucard-gt1zf Год назад +4

      Not really
      It's about as fucked as anything else if it gets hit with antiship missiles and anything firing those missiles is going to have a much larger engagement dista ce than the guns on this battleship

    • @Carrpocalypse
      @Carrpocalypse Год назад +3

      @@Alucard-gt1zf Not really. Anti ship missiles aren't designed for the amount of armor the Iowa class carries. They'd need multiple hits in the same spot. That said, a modern torpedo would break it in half. It's enemy subs that are the real worry.

  • @Psycho52599
    @Psycho52599 Год назад +4

    Never underestimate the strength of an elder.

  • @Psycho52599
    @Psycho52599 Год назад +3

    I would love to see all of our battleships rebuilt and modernized. That would be one for the century!

  • @PhilGoldblum
    @PhilGoldblum Год назад +55

    I think the IOWAs should be reactivated on a rotating 10 year basis with one in service at any given time. Returning to their permanent (current) ports at the end of their service rotation. Keeping history and freedom alive. Would also love to see more on that letter - that's an awesome find.

    • @paulprovenzano3755
      @paulprovenzano3755 Год назад +8

      best idea I’ve heard in a year concerning those beautiful sisters.

    • @panzerfan
      @panzerfan Год назад +6

      The problem is that the Iowas, unlike the Constitution, are just so expensive to operate. These steel citidels require several thousand specially trained sailors to properly man and function. I would love to see the US show the flag around the world with these giants of a bygone era though.

    • @Mrdjs1133
      @Mrdjs1133 Год назад +6

      All the Iowas need a lot of work, and that will cost a lot. Iowa herself will need the most work, and that alone will cost too much to be worth the investment.
      Also production lines for every single component will have to be restarted from scratch, and that might cost more than even Iowas rebuild.
      Lastly the ships engines will need to be overhauled. Given the depth of their armor, it's basically impossible to replace the major components in need of it aboard any of the Iowas. So long term maintenance is impossible, and each ship will thus have a very short presumptive 'shelf life.'
      Keep them as museums, don't waste the money.

    • @panzerfan
      @panzerfan Год назад +2

      @@Mrdjs1133 Having said that, i think Iowa should get fixed up. The avent of 3D printing hopefully might make the turret repair tenable.
      I think that the steam turbine is the real source of headache here. There's too few professionals who are able to properly operate and maintain these turbines. When compounded with the part issue, the whole idea of even sailing these vessels become impractical.

    • @jaysonnunley6602
      @jaysonnunley6602 Год назад +1

      @@Mrdjs1133 go away

  • @TheAir2142
    @TheAir2142 Год назад +2

    The museum should add a yearly addendum to that document detailing all modifications the museum has made for either showcasing to the public or preservation of the ship along with any problems the museum staff found but were unable to repair by the end of the year.

  • @markcantemail8018
    @markcantemail8018 Год назад +10

    Ryan We would like to see more on this Document in a Future Video Please .

  • @timothybarham6374
    @timothybarham6374 Год назад +12

    I'm a railfan and everyone in that community always thought a Union Pacific Big Boy steam locomotive would never be restored to service. But UP did restore one Number 4014.
    So I will never say it can't happen again.

    • @Formulabruce
      @Formulabruce Год назад +2

      and THEY even had to Buy it back !

    • @bigstick6332
      @bigstick6332 Год назад +1

      I doubt it cost them $2 billion to do that though. 🤔

    • @tremedar
      @tremedar Год назад +1

      @@bigstick6332 It would cost way more than 2 billion. The industry to maintain these ships is utterly gone. There are no foundries that can make 16 inch guns anymore. All the things they have to restart just to put these back in service and for what? Ships that have a maximum firing range of 25 miles? There are scores of better options for fire support.
      These ships had their day in the sun, but it is time for people to realize that day is long gone and will never come again.

    • @J-1410
      @J-1410 Год назад +2

      @@tremedar They said that when Reagan was president too. Why bring back an old run down WW2 era ship?
      Because a new one will never happen, a functional, useful one anyways. This one, when the next cold war or world war comes around, push comes to shove, you still have a complete ship, during a war time or war threat push it would be reactivated in record time. No bureaucracy on building new ones, just tick off a small part of the public and keep the 'you can't trust the government's word' and you have a new class again.
      The industries you speak of were dying and about gone in the 1970s, yet when money and government is involved, they somehow come back. They're gone again. Money and Government always finds a way, no matter how inefficient or dumb it is.
      As for the future, computerized weapons will eventually find their weakness and "dumb" weapons will come back for certain operations, its why rail guns were investigated and tested heavily.
      War use I don't know, but a future navy may reactivate it just to reset the clock, under the guise of war. They wanted them to leave the boilers alone for a reason, liability isn't it either.

    • @tremedar
      @tremedar Год назад

      @@J-1410 The only way a battleship is ever coming back is if they design a new one, with some unknown main battery that has ranges that can compete with aircraft and missiles, and that is not any traditional gun, probably not even a railgun, not if you want to hit a moving target anyway.
      There is no need of a battleship, we have the supercarriers and the ungodly amount of destruction they can unleash through their air wings. Direct fire guns are there for morale purposes, nothing will ever get in range of them, they'll either be sunk by subs, planes or ship-mounted missiles, and cruisers and destroyers are a far better option for mass missile barrages.

  • @888jackflash
    @888jackflash Год назад +3

    My dad was a radioman on the NJ late 1945-46. It was probably the greatest adventure of his life

  • @danhaas9730
    @danhaas9730 Год назад +11

    I could see New Jersey being reactivated, potentially in the case of a naval war around China and Taiwan. Like you said, she is the only ship that can provide long-range gunnery fire support, which would be needed in any naval war with China, and her armor and size would certainly make her more survivable in that theater than any other active warship.

    • @jwenting
      @jwenting Год назад +1

      her size would make her the biggest target for a DF-21 ever, and a single hit of one of those will sink her, even with just the kinetic warhead rather than a nuclear one (which is the default loadout).
      Which would be a major propaganda victory for the PLAN.
      And her guns would be pretty much useless against China, they don't have the range to hit anything important that's not well enough defended to prevent her getting close enough.
      That same DF-21 btw is why US carriers will have to stay outside strike range of the Chinese mainland, rendering them effectively useless in any war with the PRC.
      The US simply lacks the ABM capabilities to take them out. In terminal phase they're close enough but too fast and at an impossible intercept angle, in boost phase they're out of range.

  • @dalesql2969
    @dalesql2969 Год назад +19

    I'd love to see that document scanned and posted for comments to better inform you in shooting the video about it. Given the complexity of the engineering plant, probably enough material there for a couple hours worth of finished product. If you could find that engineer who wrote it, that would make a great interview as well.

  • @TallboyDave
    @TallboyDave Год назад +11

    Just a random thing I remembered; years ago, I came across the website for the HMS Vanguard Association, and on their website they had a page where they wrote up an alternative history where the battleship had a similar history to the Iowa's, including temporarily being assigned to the US Navy along with a crew, as part of Regan's 600 ship navy programme, which ended with Vanguard being moored in the Pool of London alongside HMS Belfast.

    • @WardenWolf
      @WardenWolf Год назад +1

      Britain scrapped almost all of its naval history, sadly. Once the greatest seapower in the world, now there's scant memory of it left. All her great ships have long gone to the breakers, and nothing bigger than a light cruiser and the drydocked HMS Victory are left. The modern Royal Navy is just a handful of frigates, destroyers, submarines, and a pair of aircraft carriers which don't even have catapults.

    • @scottyd035ntknow
      @scottyd035ntknow Год назад +1

      @@WardenWolf The USA came out of the war with an economy so ramped up and booming that there was actually a lot of trepidation on what would happen when war production stopped. Britain didn't have that luxury and faced a long austerity period after the war. Vanguard was too expensive to operate, was obsolete and they needed the metal. Same with a lot of their stuff... why none of the KGV battleships were preserved either. Even Hood almost 100% would have been scrapped if she had made it through.

  • @Backwoods_Jake
    @Backwoods_Jake Год назад +5

    Completely reactivate one of the most ORIGINAL battleships maybe one of the south Dakotas and then a IOWA, a original for it to be a LIVING museum that runs on it own power and can shoot if needed.
    A Iowa to be updated again and be ready for deployments but still open to be a museum at the same time.
    I love that the Alabama is still original with no modernization it would be awesome for it to be able to move under its own power and shoot again.

    • @jadenhirst9230
      @jadenhirst9230 Год назад

      It would take untold millions if not billions of dollars to do that, not to mention the safety hazards of having a basically active duty ship open as a museum. Would be cool though.

  • @enja001
    @enja001 Год назад +2

    If Iowa was ever recalled into war just the moral boost alone would be priceless and a giant warning to the enemy

  • @daves8074
    @daves8074 Год назад +4

    The document is great, as for the reactivation. I think there is an argument to be made that in today's age where cyberwarfare is central to countering an attack that having an analog based ship would be an advantage and provide redundancy if modern ships were compromised.

    • @toffe88
      @toffe88 Год назад +3

      Commander Adama have entered the chat...

  • @black07rr
    @black07rr Год назад +7

    Word from our sponsor, but no word...wonder if they dropped established titles finally

    • @Masada1911
      @Masada1911 Год назад +1

      I feel like they forgot to edit it in

    • @irbricksceo
      @irbricksceo Год назад +2

      @@Masada1911 Naw, the parent company for Titles and Kamikoto has been the subject of a lot of controversy in the last week or so after a bunch more people made videos calling them out, likely that they made a last minute decision to cut it. Good on them but of course they do still need money, so I can understand.

    • @yesitreallyisme
      @yesitreallyisme Год назад

      And Kamikoto Knives, it's the same company.

    • @ghost307
      @ghost307 Год назад

      @@yesitreallyisme Also Dealdash, where you need to send the money for ALL your bids, not just the winning one.

    • @black07rr
      @black07rr Год назад

      Yup, all company’s owned by 2 shady ass people

  • @G-Man-kc2nm
    @G-Man-kc2nm Год назад +8

    I will stand fast and await my orders! I wish, I would love to serve on such a intimidating ship. My dad just turned 94 and proudly served on the USS Ozbourn DD 846.

  • @Norbrookc
    @Norbrookc Год назад +12

    I don't think they'll be brought back, although I won't say "never." One never knows what may happen in the future. I remember years ago someone asking a B-52 pilot why the Air Force keeps them, even in this day of precision guided bombs. His answer was "Sometimes, you just need to drop a lot of dumb bombs on something, and that's what this can do better than anything else." It may someday be that the Navy decides that sometimes, you just need big guns to shell something, and what can do it better than anything else is an Iowa class battleship.

    • @tremedar
      @tremedar Год назад

      Why not say never? The infrastructure to put one of these back in service doesn't exist anymore, literally everything will have to be rebuilt from scratch. I dare say the only reason they added tomahawk missiles to these ships is because they didn't have enough replacement guns left over.
      They'll crank out a couple dozen missile cruisers with 8 inch guns. They don't need battleships that will do nothing more modern ships couldn't, but bleed the navy's budget.

    • @Norbrookc
      @Norbrookc Год назад +2

      @@tremedar You might be surprised. Look up Watervliet Arsenal, and what they can make. As for budget, the question would be "is it cheaper and faster to return this to service than to build a new ones?"
      Now practically, I'd say it's not going to happen. But then again, most military planners thought that massive artillery duels were a thing of the past, until Russia invaded Ukraine. So, I won't say "never."

  • @milohdd
    @milohdd Год назад +5

    Last year I would have said no, they wouldn't bring an Iowa back - but with the way the world is going and with the state of the littoral combat ships are in i feel like it's less out of the question than it used to be.

  • @scottbruner9987
    @scottbruner9987 Год назад +12

    DEFINITELY do a video on that engineering document. I read the first two paragraphs on pause, and want more

  • @littletimelord2755
    @littletimelord2755 Год назад +7

    I love the hopefulness and optimism that this video demonstrates the sailors of New Jersey had. These sailors clearly loved their ship, and want everyone else to as well. Their dedication is truly inspiring.

  • @trailrunnah8886
    @trailrunnah8886 Год назад +21

    I definitely want to see a video on this document, what you've shown us already is fascinating. I seriously doubt the navy would ever reactivate these ships, but I love the fact that her last crew tried to prepare for that event.

  • @AdmiralKakarot
    @AdmiralKakarot Год назад +19

    I honestly hope they are brought back. Would rather see them used other than as floating museums. But with today's offensive anti-ship weapons, I have a feeling any future tour they would have would be their last. Honestly, I think the Navy should revise the Montana blueprints and make something modern.

    • @GaryED44
      @GaryED44 Год назад +10

      Can you imagine a 21st century Montana? Fully automatic 16 inch main battery. Immense VLS system with Hyper sonic missles!!! Nuclear powered.

    • @garthhancock3373
      @garthhancock3373 Год назад +8

      @@GaryED44 Throw the guided excaliber artillery shell system into the mix on a 16 inch scale. That would be nuts.

    • @The_Lone_Aesir
      @The_Lone_Aesir Год назад +2

      in the Kurov video he did mention the iowas had a major weakness to stand off weapons. They had a limited capacity to shoot down incomming, and didnt have much to fire back with. Also people forget that the Iowas were stupid expensive to operate due to the crew size and her thirsty boilers. So i'm in favor of letting them stay retired.
      I do like the idea of using the montanas as a baseline for something new. Nothing too revolutionary, we dont want another zumwalt&LCS fiasco, but maybe with a dual propulsion system (nuclear for cruising, conventional for combat), a massive power plant, and automation where it makes sense.

    • @AdmiralKakarot
      @AdmiralKakarot Год назад +3

      @@GaryED44 Honestly, we can get the same boom witha smaller gun. Take the gun design on the USS Salem. 9x 8" guns on a rapid reload system. Old design by today's standards, but it wouldn't take much to build a ship with two quad 10" gun turrets with a much more advanced reload system. And with advancements in boring, I could easily see that being a 10inch/70cal gun linked up to today's fire control systems. Long range, deadly accurate, faster projectile.

    • @CidVeldoril
      @CidVeldoril Год назад +5

      @@AdmiralKakarot Yes, but you can't get the same VISUALS with a smaller gun or ship. A Battleship is a statement.

  • @wfoj21
    @wfoj21 Год назад +8

    YES to more on the document. Archeologist versus Curator. Interesting. At least this video did not end with Ryan having to run away from a Loose much larger that 16 inch cannonball chasing him. love the humor from some of the other commenters.

  • @bradley-eblesisor
    @bradley-eblesisor Год назад +15

    I went and donated to your museum to, in a very small way, make up for the integrity loss that happened. I really appreciate your channel and watch often. Thank you crew!

    • @cousin_x_caps7347
      @cousin_x_caps7347 Год назад +6

      What do you mean by integrity loss? Dealing with their recent sponsors whom turned out to be scammers?

    • @tomnewham1269
      @tomnewham1269 Год назад +1

      @@cousin_x_caps7347 I think he means the leak that happened in the dentists room.

    • @philnaegely
      @philnaegely Год назад

      @@cousin_x_caps7347 who was the scammer?

    • @jasonmurawski5877
      @jasonmurawski5877 Год назад

      @@philnaegely established titles. Notice how the sponsorship was never added in, he just says “but first a word from our sponsor” but the video never cuts to it

  • @andypbj267
    @andypbj267 Год назад +1

    You are like the sentinel keeping the ship ready for recommisioning. Very cool.

  • @kman-mi7su
    @kman-mi7su Год назад +16

    It would be cool as heck to see the Big J come back to life with modern updates, but then again, let's pray it doesn't. If we had to, we'd be in some deep shiggidy, probably WWIII. Plus, Ryan might find himself suddenly unemployed or maybe the Navy could bring him on as a historian to chronicle it. Will they come back though? who knows? The military has deemed several weapon systems obsolete before only to realize there suddenly was a need for them in a current conflict or potential threat defense. If the B-52 can last so long and be effective, why not a battleship? Never say never.

  • @123toysoldier
    @123toysoldier 8 месяцев назад +1

    Yes. This is an even bigger find than the missile keys. Writing from 2024, Yes. I'd love to see a comprehensive look at these engineering documents. Thanks for sharing this great piece of history as well as a display of serious patriotism on behalf of the man conceiving this most welcomed of assistance bringing the old girl back. God bless America.

  • @brendansmith8319
    @brendansmith8319 Год назад +4

    I suspect we don't have enough sailors that know how to use onboard systems (boilers, etc.) that USS NJ has. That may be the weak link in trying to reactivate.

    • @tremedar
      @tremedar Год назад +1

      We could figure that out quickly. What *would* be the weak link is the fact that none of the industry needed to maintain these ships exists anymore. There's a reason museum organizations have to scavenge other ships in the hope of finding something they need to keep their own in display quality.

  • @bmused55
    @bmused55 Год назад +7

    As much as I'd love to see these old battlewagons get underway again, I very much doubt they ever will. Tech has progressed far too far for them to be viable anymore.
    If you want to bombard a shoreline, you send tomahawks in now.
    I would LOVE to see a digital copy of those documents. I think the work those people put into preparing the documents for a future crew deserves to be appreciated.
    It would also be cool if you could find one of the people that prepared them to self narrate a page or two!

    • @meepfanmeepster8620
      @meepfanmeepster8620 Год назад

      I mean the point that Ryan was making is that battleships can do something that a tomahawk missile cruiser can't. CHEAP shore bombardment. A tomahawk may have guidance and range over a 16" shell but the shell is a lot cheaper than the missile and the High Capacity (that is the High Explosive) variant has and even bigger boom than a tomahawk.
      Personally I feel that a battleship could also serve in another role as well. Intimidation. Sure we can park a nuclear carrier off of someones coast and that would be fairly intimidating however if you can see it then you can shoot it (with a gun). So we park carriers further away from the shore. However a battleship is more ideal within line of sight so can be more intimidating towards any prospective hostiles.
      edit: spelling

    • @5000mahmud
      @5000mahmud Год назад

      ​@@meepfanmeepster8620 The shell might be cheaper, the ship that carries it isn't. If you really wanted to build a cheap shore bombardment vessel that needed 16-inch guns, you'd build a monitor around a single 16-inch gun and cannibalize any spare guns from the surviving museum ships.

    • @ErinPipes76
      @ErinPipes76 Год назад

      Tomahawks are too expensive for a sustained shore bombardment campaign. If you expended every Tomahawks in the current inventory, you probably still cannot match the firepower of the Iowas aggregate number of 16 inch shells (~5000 x 1900lb HE shells). It was well recognized even at retirement that a carrier could not deliver an equivalent amount of firepower compared to even one Iowa battleship.

    • @MrOccyc
      @MrOccyc 9 месяцев назад

      I agree with you. I get what folks are saying about sustained tomahawk bombardment. However, I think putting a ship in service that can’t defend itself is dangerous. I’m sure our enemy would like nothing more than sink a ship with the New Jersey’s record. It would be a morale disaster if the ship was sunk.

  • @kevinhall2545
    @kevinhall2545 Год назад +4

    The re-commisioning notes document is an absolutely extraordinary discovery. What a profound investment on the part of the past crew in the future of the New Jersey as a vessel and a capital ship of the United States!

  • @danquigg8311
    @danquigg8311 Год назад +4

    Yes, please publish this document.

  • @tankfighter2767
    @tankfighter2767 Год назад +5

    I think that they will bring them back sometime in the future hence why the steam plant is to be left alone (not to increase milage), and I can't wait to see what the document says!

  • @oneparticularharbor144
    @oneparticularharbor144 Год назад +1

    Absolutely post this documents- what an interesting part of her history... can you imagine reading that 50 years from now? Of course better it is actually handed to the next chief engineer for her next re-activation ! Here’s hoping....⚓️

  • @Synergy7Studios
    @Synergy7Studios Год назад +7

    Oh wow, PLEASE do a video about those notes! I'd love to see a scanned copy of the whole thing for us to go through too!

  • @harrykouwen1426
    @harrykouwen1426 Год назад

    The best job in the world you've got on board of her. Finding all these treasures is indeed archeology. She would be a great command ship, the firepower easily expanded with guided artillery for precision shore bombardments. She is absolutely seaworthy and big enough to equip her with all the necessary defence systems, and missile and drone offence systems.
    Lots of the old wiring can be replaced with modern canbus systems. And seperate oldschool backup communication and control systems so no EMp can hurt her capabilities.
    By the way; astoishing how well you all maintain her, an absolute huge respect to you all from an old ship engineer.

  • @mattzabel4162
    @mattzabel4162 Год назад +14

    Hey Ryan, I personally would love to see you go through that document and others like it. Love the videos, hope to see the Big J soon

  • @RandomNJ
    @RandomNJ Год назад +1

    I would love to see them back. I saw one post about a 10 year rotation. I like that idea. As another nation you know you messed up when a battleship is parked off your coast.

  • @kevinnaber790
    @kevinnaber790 Год назад +9

    That document would be great to learn more about and am looking forward to a video about it and perhaps other spaces. Another idea- maybe a live stream of a team of your great volunteers and staff going through those large boxes to catalog and preserve the contents.

  • @raymondrhoads5156
    @raymondrhoads5156 Год назад +1

    It would be nice to see the Iowa class battleship being used. It is a show of power and of peace.

  • @vergil64
    @vergil64 Год назад +8

    id love to see a video on the document.

  • @d.roselester2806
    @d.roselester2806 Год назад +2

    I would love to see the battleships brought back into service. There is just something about them and the firepower that they have that makes them so special.

  • @marianaldenhoevel7240
    @marianaldenhoevel7240 Год назад +3

    That document of a heads-up across time to a future incarnation of engineer gives me chills.

  • @davidware8496
    @davidware8496 Год назад +2

    This dude is super knowledgeable. Wile he is very professional, it’s easy to see that he’s like a kid in a candy shop having access to this ship. This guy has the coolest job ever!

  • @bobbrezniak6386
    @bobbrezniak6386 Год назад +5

    This one is a 2 parter: 1) Kudos again and again to Ryan for your utterly infectious enthusiasm for your role as curator and bringing us along. Each day I check to see the latest episode of "OMG! You guys won't believe what I found today .... and the incredibly claustrophobic stuff I did to show you!" Thanks again for these videos!
    The 2nd part is: Was a video done about the theoretical costs of reactivating this ship?

  • @rabidbigdog
    @rabidbigdog Год назад +1

    Heya Team, thanks so much for dropping Established Titles. It was kinda fun to buy one for $partner, but I now understand they aren't even planting the trees which is REALLY upsetting.

  • @motodanny3972
    @motodanny3972 Год назад +4

    I think the fact New Jersey was put out pretty much intact with props and very loosely welded turrets along with some other things youve shown that aren't on other ships I think the navy at minimum was leaving themselves at least one battleship that could possibly be brought back around in somewhat of a short time frame with not nearly as much work needed. Honestly as much work and money as it would take I think would pale in comparison to what it would cost to build a completely modern BB today. Probably will never happen but man I would take off work and go to wherever she would be setting off from and watch her leave. Truly would be a once in a lifetime opportunity.

    • @tremedar
      @tremedar Год назад

      The challenge is getting all the necessary industry to support such a ship. A modern BB is far more likely as they would certainly equip it with some modern main battery, railguns or dare I say it, a laser weapon of some sort. They'd have to build the industry from scratch regardless, why not go with a technologically up to date option? The guns meant for an Iowa topped out at ranges that would be pedestrian in today's naval war.

  • @maxcaysey2844
    @maxcaysey2844 Год назад +1

    I would love to see these magnificent ships refurbished, modernized and reactivated again! Best naval ships ever made!

  • @danielKUR1985
    @danielKUR1985 Год назад +4

    The last time the BB’s were decommissioned congress mandated that they would be kept in a state to be reactive for a certain period of time. I believe it was until sometime in the late 90’s they were supposed to be able to be reactivated so any support gear/equipment would have stayed with the ship.

  • @jamesturner6949
    @jamesturner6949 3 месяца назад

    They definitely hired the right guy for this job he's a great curator

  • @DavidSmith-cx8dg
    @DavidSmith-cx8dg Год назад +4

    A fascinating discovery , and shows how much New Jersey is loved , but surely unlikely given the age of these ships. Theoretically I suppose with the right money and resources and most important - skills it would be possible to reactivate them . I'm guessing the US. Navy would have to have A desperate need . A lot of hard work , but what a mouth watering prospect to be involved in a project like that .

  • @HelSeher
    @HelSeher 4 месяца назад

    As dire and horrible the circumstances would have to be, I hope this old lady gets to go out and relive her glory days, even if it is for the last time.

  • @Tybell350
    @Tybell350 Год назад +3

    Yes please go through that document further and take us to each part of the ship that it covers so we can see what the remaining issues were that they were dealing with in 1991. Thank you for sharing!

  • @FlorenceSlugcat
    @FlorenceSlugcat Год назад +2

    I see one potential situation that could warrent a return of long range naval heavy artillery.
    That would be, assuming some sort of incredibly accurate AA system gets developed, capable of shooting down pretty much any incoming missile or aircrafts, including bombers, who usually fly higher.
    In this case, being unable to strike using missiles or aircraft, it could make sense to bring such weaponry back.

  • @y0ur_name_here
    @y0ur_name_here Год назад +8

    Would definitely enjoy a full in depth look into that document. Thank you for sharing it!

  • @m.col.6440
    @m.col.6440 Год назад +1

    i honestly think they never should have been retired. they need to bring back the battleships

  • @jon750t
    @jon750t Год назад +6

    Definitely make that video over those documents! Maybe a series on each problem and how it could be fixed. What would it cost, following the notes those guys left you, to reactivate her you think? If money wasn't an object is it possible?

  • @wormyboot
    @wormyboot Год назад +1

    This video ends almost as hard as Marley & Me. That 31 years part, along with the delivery, was an Oscar worthy performance.

  • @jessicabuckman9675
    @jessicabuckman9675 Год назад +6

    Hey Ryan, this video is so cool, if there is more in the future, I'd love to see it.

  • @veleriphon
    @veleriphon Год назад +1

    With the way the world is going, you just never know if something like New Jersey would be needed again.

  • @nightlightabcd
    @nightlightabcd Год назад +3

    I think it doubtful if any of the four sisters will be reactivated. I would like to see them sea worthy and plying the seas again though! Yes I would like to see more about this document! A message from the past!

    • @tremedar
      @tremedar Год назад

      Finally someone who has a realistic idea for what could be done with these ships. Yes, mobile museums one for each coast and perhaps the other two for overseas tours. Would be a massive challenge, but not near as daunting as returning them to active service in the navy.

  • @leetotty7703
    @leetotty7703 Год назад

    As a sailor from the 80's and early 90's navy, I would love to see these ships serve once more. Not only are they exceptional warships, they're also handsome ships that were well designed. Although their weapons are often called obsolete, we've yet to procure a suitable replacement. Anyone whose ever witnessed these ships in action, is left in awe of their capabilities. Our Marines love these ships, for obvious reasons. We as a nation are lucky to have 7 of these fast battleships still around as museums/memorials. I'd love to have your job Ryan, keep up the good work.

  • @markablett4893
    @markablett4893 Год назад +4

    If reactivation of the battleships is ever contemplated, we will be severely challenged by the fact that the defense establishment has been hard at work cutting up the vitally important stockpile of spare 16-inch gun barrels and liners and even destroying the available ammunition. Also, I think that congress people have fallen all over themselves to get the names of the Iowa-class ships conferred upon submarines either built or under construction. What are we to do about that?

  • @YaofuZhou
    @YaofuZhou Год назад +1

    Gives me goosebumps! It reminds me when Battlestar Galactica was reactivated during the process of turning into a museum ship!

  • @austinhughes1924
    @austinhughes1924 Год назад +5

    I think that as long.As all four Iowa class battleships are afloat.And still in ready condition.They’ll still be people wanting to reactivate them.Me included!

    • @DonziFreak
      @DonziFreak Год назад

      Sadly, only 3 are in anything like a "ready" condition, as Iowa's #2 turret still remains basically internally destroyed from that horrible explosion/accident. =(

  • @michaelpiatkowskijr1045
    @michaelpiatkowskijr1045 Год назад +3

    It's unlikely they'll bring back the Iowas. It is more likely than them building a new battleship though. It would be interesting to find out if the New Jersey shares a similar boiler to the Big Boy steam locomotive. The Big Boy does use super heated steam. I'm not sure about the pressure, but both were built at the same time. One Big Boy is operating now. UP 4014 by the Union Pacific Railroad as apart of their heritage fleet. The Big Boy is a massive locomotive at around 140 ft with tender. She also has 4 pistons driving 16 massive wheels. She weighs over a million lbs. Granted, she's not a 45k ton battleship, but she only has a boiler and not much else.

    • @justinfowler2857
      @justinfowler2857 Год назад

      Big boy locomotives run on 300 psi steam. New Jersey runs on 600 psi steam. It's a world of difference.

    • @barto6577
      @barto6577 Год назад +1

      The Locomotive boiler is a "Fire Tube" type. The New Jersey's boilers (8 of them) are "M" design "Water Tube" type

  • @andrewhamons962
    @andrewhamons962 Год назад +1

    The debate of bringing back battleships might be more feasible than we think. The army and navy are currently developing scram jet munitions for the current 155mm howitzer system. If that is successful you could scale that up to a 16 in shell. Affordable hypersonic munitions with some guidance capability would be extremely appealing.

  • @bigstick6332
    @bigstick6332 Год назад +8

    Love this. Definitely want to see a video on the papers you found. Thanks for all the work you do.

  • @Oberkaptain
    @Oberkaptain Год назад +2

    Cool document, my guess is though that Wisconsin would probably be brought back first as it was the last to be decommissioned and it is already here in Norfolk where the required shipyards are located.

  • @ChrsGuit
    @ChrsGuit Год назад +5

    Do I think the battleships will ever be reactivated??? no...
    HOWEVER... I always thought it was very interesting that each Iowa is a museum adjacent to major shipyards capable of doing such a reactivation, and that was sort of a pre-requisite for donation as museum ships...
    When we visited USS Wisconsin for the first time back in 2013, I was kinda disappointed that only the main exterior deck and a couple of interior decks were on the tour... You couldn't even go into the 16" turrets, only poke your head up the ladder.
    I was curious this and casually asked a volunteer about it...
    There were very few visitors on the ship that day, and the volunteer, a retired Navy officer, talked with me a bit about it.
    I asked why there weren't more decks and spaces available as, say, USS North Carolina or Yorktown, and if the museum ever planned to open up more spaces on the ship for tours.
    This gentleman explained that he doubted it... because the ship was essentially "on loan" from the Navy and "still belonged to the Navy" and those spaces were not allowed to be opened, altered or accessible or disturbed in any way by the staff, per their agreement with the Navy...He went on to say that the agreement to display the ship had actually originated in a Congressional Committee.
    He went on to explain that the reason Norfolk got the Wisconsin as a museum was because it could essentially be towed across the bay to the Newport News shipyard and be reactivated if the need arose... especially considering the condition of Wisconsin and the fact Newport News was THE shipyard for the task.
    He pointed out that the older museum ships would never be reactivated and that there was no concern about opening up access and tour spaces on those ships... but that "was NOT the case for Wisconsin".
    Now, this may be totally incorrect... I'm just repeating what I was told by a volunteer on the ship who was a retired Naval officer who was there specifically to answer questions...
    I can only take the gentleman at his word and assume that he was simply giving me information he had recieved from direct knowledge or a credible source within the Museum organization...
    He was very matter of fact and straightforward in the way he said it, so I really had no reason to believe otherwise...

  • @russellalderman6920
    @russellalderman6920 Год назад

    I got a look at New Jersey when she was briefly berthed at the carrier pier at North island while I was stationed there--around 1969. Never saw such a depressed crew. Turned out she was headed for decommissioning after Vietnam. I wound up on the WW2 Ticonderoga CVS-14. Guess I was meant for old ships. Great show. Thanks.

  • @armyguy918
    @armyguy918 Год назад +3

    Anything is possible in regards to reactivating the battleships. At the end of the day it comes down to the needs of the military and if the situation warrants bringing them back to service then the Navy will do it.

  • @Chasred-ml4hm
    @Chasred-ml4hm Год назад +2

    Brings back many memories. Many thanks to all the volunteers who Continue to take care of her. "Fear God and Dreadnought."

  • @MrHuntsHistory
    @MrHuntsHistory Год назад +5

    I had never considered a chapel space being on the ship. Could you spend some time on that in a future video?

    • @kevincrosby1760
      @kevincrosby1760 Год назад +3

      The Navy is very sensitive to Religious Matters, and will absolutely bend over backwards to ensure that your worship needs are met to the greatest extent possible. If your particular religion revolves around the worship of #2 pencils, the Navy WILL ensure that the Chaplain is provided with appropriate training, an Order of Worship, and a box of #2 pencils.
      Obviously, there will not be an ordained clergy for every religion. Most religious services are either non-denominational or conducted by lay personnel who subscribe to a particular religion. Chaplain will probably conduct Catholic and Protestant services. We had an IC2 who was a Church Elder that conducted the LDS services. Baptist services were generally conducted by whoever had the guts to stand up at the pulpit and open his Bible.
      When they passed the word to "maintain silence on the decks during worship services" they meant exactly that. Chapel, Mess Decks, cargo store rooms, Crew's Lounge, etc. would all sprout chairs on Sunday morn. If you worshiped on a different day, you were assigned a space on that day to conduct services, and word was passed to maintain silence in that area during your services.
      If a group of guys wanted to conduct a bible study in the evening, the Chaplain would make arrangements for a quiet place to do so. Our Chaplain would generally attend an evening bible study, sitting quietly in the back and taking notes.

  • @ChainsawFPV
    @ChainsawFPV 4 месяца назад

    You have the most epic job! That letter gave chills as you read the first part. That she was put away with every intention of being used again, speaks of the uncertainty of the world. I hope that letter finds its way into some kind of a display.

  • @GaryED44
    @GaryED44 Год назад +4

    I definitely want to see more of that document!