When I toured the North Carolina many years ago I was impressed by two things in the Plotting Room used to determine firing solutions for her main guns. The first was a mechanical (analog) computer and second, the thickness of steel surrounding the room. The whole ship was a marvel of 1940’s engineering.
Great video. My only suggestion is since you did such a good job describing all of these different parts of the ship and their armored features, it would have been great to also see them.
The armor itself isn't much to see but the contents of the citadel can be found in many of our videos: Medical: ruclips.net/video/FAdDAUtbpE0/видео.html 5in magazines: ruclips.net/video/aZPLtiQ3DX0/видео.html Broadway: ruclips.net/video/XI_MtImkALM/видео.html Engine Rooms: ruclips.net/video/Y1JXv1_Y7dc/видео.html Boiler Rooms: ruclips.net/video/bs35Vigmu_c/видео.html More on engineering: ruclips.net/video/14IDMMAhGRg/видео.html Marine Corps Berthing: ruclips.net/video/uIptagBQHrg/видео.html Damage Control Central: ruclips.net/video/MgyuaIiVtJw/видео.html
I think your estimation for armor thickness is going to be a tad on the heavy side. The US Navy, and most navies of the era believed heavily in the concept of immunity zones. These are the ranges in which shell fire could not penetrate the armor. For the South Dakota class, this was between 18,000 yards and 30,000 yards against the lighter Mark 5 16" AP shell. That shell, at 2250lbs, was nearly identical to other nation's 16" shells. Of course the South Dakota class, the North Carolina Class, and the Iowa class, never carried these rounds (or if they did, not for long). The 2700lb Mark 8 Super Heavy AP round nearly eliminated the immunity zone for the South Dakota class and made the lighter 16" shells obsolete overnight. Why do I keep bringing up the SoDaks in a video on an Iowa class? Same armor profile. Same IZ. Same problem against the Mark 8 SHAP rounds. It's important, because many claim the US Navy was unhappy with the protection of the Iowa Class. The US Navy design bureaus always operated on a "balanced" armor design in which ships had to have sufficient armor to resist their own guns. The Mark 8 made that nearly impossible. Even the proposed Montana Class with significantly heavier armor would not have been a true "balanced" design. The IZ was still quite small but better than the Iowa class. In truth, the Navy was quite pleased with the protection of the Iowa class. It offered tremendous protection against peer nation battleship caliber rounds in quite a wide range and the ship was faster than most which means the engagement occurred on the Iowa class' terms. Given the advancements in fire control and maneuverability and the Iowas were beyond capable of "slugging it out" if necessary. Anyway, back to the discussion about the comments of 1" of armor for every 1" of gun diameter. Practically no nation followed anywhere close to that post WWI. The US Navy Standards all ran 13.5" of belt armor which provided very good immunity zones against their own guns. The Bismark was 12.6" of armor, Richelieu 13.6, King George the V at 15" (the only one to actually have more than the guns she carried), Vittorio Veneto at 13.8 and of course Yamato at 16.1". It is impossible to resist shells of these calibers at all ranges. The rounds are either moving too fast and have too much mass to stop at close ranges, or are coming down at a steep enough angle to defeat deck armor. The US DID have some "Super Battleship" designs in the Tillmans which were insane and impractical which had armor quantities you spoke of. The reality of naval combat was that gun battles were pretty rare. In them, speed, accuracy of the fire control solution and mechanical accuracy of the guns played a huge role in determining success. To an extent, maneuverability was important too.
I had a friend that welded the escape trunks on Los Angeles class subs. He said it took days. You’d make a welding pass, grind off the flux etc, then have that pass tested and inspected. Then start over with the next pass. Lather, rinse, repeat till you had several inches of very high proof steel welded together and able to withstand immense pressure. Anything they found wrong in a pass and you had to grind it off and start over. Paid good money but was hard and hot work in an enclosed space.
@@Bill_N_ATX I used work in the Plumbers & Pipefitters union many years ago and one job I was at a coal fired power plant, there were guys welding on main steam lines and was the same like you said welding for days on one joint and getting X-ray'ed every pass. Also, they had to pre-heat the pipe and had to be a certain temperature when welding they had these crayon looking temperature sticks they would check constantly. These guys were like the special forces of welders, and getting paid $26 dollars an hour on straight time back in the 1990's was big money.
@@swiftbear , half my family are Local 211 pipefitters in Houston and the other half were Local 84 Ironworkers. It was a never ending battle over which job was better and/or harder. Both paid good money. My Grandfather spent the last 10 years of his working life as a Superintendent for Ebasco building power plants for Houston Light and Power. Power Plant work always paid well but was strict, especially the nuclear plants. Everyone had to be certified and they took no bullshit. Then they added on drug and alcohol testing. That was a tough one since most ironworkers at least drank like fish. The Old Man knew who needed to be watched and who just needed that little nip in the morning to clear his brain. It was hard and often dangerous work and he made damned sure I went to college so I didn’t end up beat up and crippled by the time I was 50 like they all did. They all have my deepest respect. His generation built America as we know it and I don’t think they ever got the appreciation they deserved.
@@Bill_N_ATX It was the same job I was talking about in my last post at that plant I was I think a 2nd or 3rd year apprentice and I remember the guy I was working with he said "big pipe and small pipe pay the same" lol he said that as we where bending tubing for vacuum and air lines, while guys killing themselves on coal pipe and massive steam lines ect. It was a generational thing for my family too Dad was in it, Grandpa was in it, local 490 Steubenville, OH which merged then called 495 Cambridge in my day. I remember my Dad worked at Perry nuclear power plant Ohio in the late 70's early 80s but it was new construction he said he would never go to a nuclear plant after it was "hot" or running. Luckily I realized pretty quick that I did not want to do that the rest of my life and got out and joined a more corporate /office life instead of being broken and abused by your 40's-50's (which my Dad did ruin his back in his mid 40's and went on disability from that line of work) Same thing happen too in Ohio, guys going out to lunch having a few beers or smoking a joint and came back and finished the day lol
Read that one of the weaknesses of the Yamato class battleships was that the thick armor was riveted together and not welded because of the welding difficultly. When torpedoed the shock would pop and break the rivets and let in water.
Just discovered this channel. I am fascinated. Would love more videos about the specific history of this ship. And what I mean, is more coverage of things like artifacts found onboard, sailor art/graffiti. (I loved the marks on the teak deck from the ejected 5in shells..) One thing that comes to mind is that I hear that a sailor was killed up by the forward gun turret, hit by a shell in the Korean war. .Love to know more about about all those little details.. Thanks again for your work here...
Love your videos. I’ve been studying battleships for over 30 years and recently read several very informative in-depth books by William garzke the best I’ve read so far. I always learn something new watching your videos. I was in the navy from 1999 to 2007 as a gsm and volunteered on the uss Alabama BB60. Bravo Zulu look forward to seeing more videos.
I don't understand this sudden surge of the presence of BB New Jersey onto RUclips, but I love it. Keep it coming guys! This has been on my list for some years to visit, really looking forward to it!
Knowing Ryan from his previous museum work, he is really shining. New Jersey is letting him be who he is. This ship knowledge has been stored inside of him since he was a child. He has a thirst for Navy history that is unimaginable to most people.
You have a dream job to be on that ship the best looking ship hands down. When I watch her sister ship the Missouri take the nap surrender I literally tear up. Awesome job!
Japan and the US in its new post-1930 battleships and Japan in many of its post-1930 overhauls of its older battleships (including the KONGOs which were originally rated as battle-cruisers) had a lower side extra armor protection between the bottom of the ship and the lower edge of the waterline armored belt as part of their Citadels. Nobody else had this "lower belt", including the older overhauled US battleships. This lower belt was made of STS in the US warships and equivalent NVNC in the Japanese warships and was thickest where it was connected to the bottom edge of the belt in IOWA and SOUTH DAKOTA and Japanese YAMATO Class battleships, but in the others the lower extra armor layer was separate from the belt, usually inboard somewhat. This extra lower armor was wedge-shaped, tapering into a thinner and thinner layer until, for most designs, about halfway down the hull to the bottom of the ship it reached it minimum thickness in US battleships (about 1.25" STS) that had it, while in the YAMATO Class the top was not as thick as in the new US battleships and tapered slower so that it was somewhat thicker than the US design when it met the ship's bottom. In most of the warships that added it, it ran through the middle of the anti-torpedo side protection layered system and turned out to reduce that system's effectiveness somewhat against torpedoes due to that plate being too rigid, though the effect could be somewhat mitigated in the US battleships by rearranging which spaces were water/oil-filled and which spaces were "voids" (empty seal compartments). Its purpose was to stop shells that hit the water near to and short of the target ship and move more-or-less horizontally underwater to hit the target below the main armor belt protection. The Japanese developed shells -- the Type 88 of 1928 and the much-improved Type 91 of 1931 -- with break-away noses, giving a flat forward face with half of the area that the projectile at its middle-body diameter, which allowed stable underwater nose-first motion for a long distance before it was slowed down so much that it curved downward and sank, and a super-long (0.2 second for the Type 88 and 0.4 for the Type 91 and its slightly improved Type 1 variant) delay to allow a perhaps 200 times the projectile caliber motion underwater before it slowed down too much or the fuze blew it up. This add-on by the US Navy in its new ships seems to indicate that the US Naval Intelligence people found out about this modification to Japanese shells and made sure that they would not work against the new US battleships being designed and built from the mid-1930s on. The Japanese shell design was mostly a complete waste, working properly only once in WWII, to my knowledge, when an 8" Type 91 AP shell penetrated the forward magazine of the US light cruiser BOISE (only the new US battleships had the added lower belt) and, instead of the ship blowing up, it caused a raging fire that destroyed the front end of that US warship -- due to the US using only pure nitrocellulose propellant (slow-burning), the use of brass cartridge cases for the new-type US 6"/47 guns, and the spray of water coming into the damaged compartment through an 8" hole in the hull just above the bottom of the ship. The Japanese designed this shell assuming that the enemy (US) used the same type of British-style "Cordite" double-based nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine mixture that they used, not pure nitrocellulose. Indeed, US Navy analysis of the BOISE damage stated that if the US warship had been using a Cordite-type propellant, the magazine would have detonated like HOOD, water spray and brass cartridge cases being inadequate due to the large fire set off by the exploding shell inside that space. This is a prime example of a very expensive change to an important piece of equipment (a shell of strange design or the extensive armor added against it) that turned out to be of virtually no use whatsoever in actual practice (I like the joke phrase, "As useful as a telescopic sight on a sword").
@@BattleshipNewJersey How about mentioning how the main gun Gas ejection system works. Also... what gives with the 50 caliber classification. I always thought it was based on shell diameter!?
@@woodywoodman2319 The Caliber is a measure of the internal diameter. However it can also be used as a length measurement, so in this case the barrel is 50 times longer than the internal diameter. Basically a shorthand way of saying the gun has an internal diameter of 16 inches and a length of 800 inches Hope this helps :)
@@themadhammer3305 doesn't caliber primarily mean ratio of length to bore diameter? I was under the impression that caliber when referring bore diameter was a mis application that became common parlance. Thanks
Excellent content. This video, and many of your other videos might benefit from inset graphics illustrating the parts of ship under discussion. I think many viewers new to battleships might not realize the real meaning of 'citadel,' even with your excellent explanations. The word itself implies something imposing and visible, such as the superstructure of the ship, which very much resembles a citadel, but which is (of course) not the armored citadel at all. In a similar way, I remember as a young boy thinking the 'conning tower' was the control tower, not the relatively small, low armored structure at the front of the superstructure. Thanks again for all of your content. Best wishes to the BBNJ museum!
Norman Friedman is considered the godfather of US Naval Ship design historians. His books on US Navy ships is pretty much gospel. "US Battleships" is one which spends a lot of time talking about how, why, what the US designed between the civil war and WWII. Pretty solid read.
Looking at the hatch you are leaning on reminded me of the thick hatches on the main deck of the USS Norton Sound AVM-1 a seaplane tender that just made it to the end of WWII in the pacific. They had huge springs on the hinges to make it easy enough to open and close them.
Oh. That one's rather simple. There's a connection on weather deck, each side, that takes shore power and runs right down to the mains distribution... which is also fed from the mains turbines from the engines. About like the main power connection on any building. Also: Telco lines, steam, fresh and flushing water, and sewer. Think of a GIANT R.V. and its hook-up. Just a box on the wall and the wiring etc. run through a trunk somewhere. Such has also been used the other way. One of the Lexingtons was used to power Seattle during a power outage back in the 30s. The Lexes were better for this, having turbo-electric drive.
The connection isn't much... but the distribution will be interesting. Really... schematics and diagrams are needed. And plans to relate those to the actual place they are on the ship. And all this was planned and designed and implemented with NO Auto-Cad... just pencile on paper.
Opened up the door to from our space (Bull Halseys stateroom in WWII) to the O1 port side wing. Took 2 people to close it and dog it. About 12" armor! Show the hydraulics on that hatch you're leaning on. I never saw it operated and wouldn't want to be on it during GQ and it closing!
Good video, good channel. I'm guessing your channel is just starting to take off, your videos are starting to pop up in my recommendations. Haven't seen them all yet, but they're all good so far. You should do some collaboration videos with drac and military history visualised, they'd be great.
Have you done any videos about what happens during general quarters in different compartments around the ship, and/or what a naval gunfire support mission or ship to ship engagement would have been like from an overall perspetive?
You mention the different types of armor. I would like to know the difference and the protective properties of the different types. I can not do the tour because of physical ability belive me if I could I would. This is my favorite RUclips channel. $$$ no problem.
We've been in almost every part of the ship, not inside every tank but most everywhere else. Though once in a while we discover a hatch we'd never seen tucked away under a rack or something.
Battleship New Jersey, can you maybe make a video on how the ship would go about resupply? How did they reload magazines? How did they restock food? Is it logistically very difficult to resupply the depths of the ship given that armor and protection take priority or are there methods to make resupply easier?
Mostly we lower things with a chainfall and lots of help. Resupply itself can come from a crane in port, or from another ship during underway replenishment, or by helicopter.
I would like to see a video on what the crew ate while they were at sea. Did their menu change much when they were in a battle zone, did it change much when they were in battle? Maybe you could talk to some old sailors if there are any left and see what was their favorite and what was their least favorite things like that.
They found that the Iowa class with the armourd citadel made the ships top heavy and as more AA and radar systems were added during the war, they became unstable. It limited the seas they could steam in and prevented them from being run at over 25 knots. The British had the con in a less armoured space below deck level instead, and they were much more stable.
got a cite for that or just more internet crap? Unlike the japanese pagoda masts the US ships did not have that much weight that high, But go ahead and sound stupid
Hi Ryan. Love you channel! I am a huge fan and I love your presentation style. QUESTION- something I have always been dying to know and which I’ve tried to research independently but there seems to be next to no information about it available for public consumption online. So I thought you would be the perfect person to ask- I would love to learn a little bit about **modern** naval armor. You can find a great deal of information about battleship armor online, much like what you’ve been talking about here on this video. However- in today’s ships, with guided missiles being the greatest threat and defense from ballistic projectiles unlikely to be the main concern, hulls seem to be only lightly armored. I assume this is because the primary defense against missiles isn’t armor but rather chaff and other air to air missiles designed to intercept incoming ordinance. However, I would love to know if they still adopt the citadel concept in the modern DDGs for example, or something similar, and if there is any serious armor plating in these ships what variety is it and how is it deployed? And finally, if at some point rail guns become a reality, will the battleship and/or citadel style armor plating make a reappearance in naval architecture? Thank you so much!! I would love if you could make a video on this topic, but if you have time and prefer to answer on this comment section that would be great too. Much appreciated and thank you for this amazing channel!
On the battleship USS Texas, their 14" powder bags were moved by several steps and a couple of hoists from the magazine handling room up to the gun pit. There, they were manually lifted by a handler from the gun pit up to the gun house (oof) where they were placed on the loading tray. By the time of the Iowa Class, the powder hoist lifts the bags from the handling room all the way up to the gun house where they are rolled directly on to the loading tray. Do you have any insight on how and when powder handling came to be so much more streamlined?
They are spring loaded so they do not slam shut, you have to force the hatch closed. Without that you could never get the hatch open, it would be too heavy.
There is footage of Missouri bombarding a village in vietnam but i can't find it Here's New Jersey shooting and splashing in the water ruclips.net/video/vhto0ud4MgA/видео.html&ab_channel=Navyfieldguy
There is a photo out there of what a Mark 7 gun could do to the turret armor from the Japanese battleship Shinano before it became a aircraft carrier...
Hey Ryan, can you explain how the deck of the Iowa Class is laid out? As in how much of the ship is covered by the 1.5" Main Deck, how much of the ship is covered by the 6" Armored Deck, and how much of the ship is covered by the ships Splinter Deck? Does the 6" Armored Deck only cover the ships Citadel? Or does it cover the full length of the ship? It still seems like there's a lot of confusion out there about the Iowa Class' Armor Layout in general, but I feel like the deck is the most confusing for folks. I hangout in a lot of Warship related groups, and play a lot of Naval Combat Games, and I always post links to your videos whenever I can. Thanks for all you do!
@@BattleshipNewJersey That is the video that got me wondering since other than mentioning the guard posted outside of the captain's quarters it only covers the marines berthing, not their actual duties.
Hey, I love your videos :) I was looking at the plans of the new Jersey (from the 80s I think). It shows a room referred to as a TV studio on the 02 level and next door is a 'TV control room'. Is this correct? What was the role of a TV studio on board? For press releases? For crew moral?
The TV studio houses the ship's SITE system. Shipboard Information, Training, and Entertainment. Basically it has a newsdesk for relaying information like a news station would (mostly shipboard relevant info) and they can do talk shows and show movies to the crew (that's the entertainment part) and that system can be used to show training videos to the crew on the tvs around the ship too.
I've seen "studios" built in 10x10 foot spaces for the camera and "talking head"... and less space for the switcher and a couple of "tape" inputs. Plus an "edit booth''. Studio is an over-rated word. :) Just sayin'. They'd have about the same as your local small video house. TeeVee is a grand illusion between how it looks and how little there is (space-wise) of how it's done. It can be fun, however.
I have a question about general quarters and the cooks. Do they continue to prepare meals while the rest of the ship is at general quarters? It seems to me that they'd have to, even during exercises, as having meals delayed by a couple of hours would throw off the schedule of the entire ship, and in the event of a battle, crew would have to man their stations for potentially days at a time, during which they'd need nutrition to keep going. Additionally, how would crews at general quarters receive their meals? Would they be delivered to be eaten at their stations, or would they be relieved and cycled through the galley?
I wonder how you decide to angle the armoured belt? For things like tanks, being subjected to line of sight shots, I suppose with fairly flat trajectories, it's easy, but with high angle plunging fire from long range guns, I guess you have to take into consideration the intended engagement range and go off of that, what angle you most often expect shells to be approaching at...
Were there any procedures on Battleship New Jersey for a nuclear strike or fallout near the ship? I'm assuming this wasn't a consideration during the design of the Iowa class. Thanks for all the amazing content!
Where on the ship is Ryan standing in this video. I was on the New Jersey 40+ years ago and I have forgotten much since then. I do remember accessing my berthing space through a hatch just like the one pictured in the video. Just wondering.
@@BattleshipNewJersey Can you put a remote mic onto the camera? Depending on which space in the ship you are, sometimes your voice echo BADLY, and it is hard to hear/understand you. A mic clipped to your collar would solve that.
Is the armored "Communications tube" between the conning tower and the citadel an actual tube with a ladder that you can climb through? That's what I've seen it called that and have seen pics of the ones scrapped on the New Jerseys cancelled sisters. It just looks like a massively thick pipe trunk that goes from the conn down into the armored box.
You might look into a cross-promotion with World of Warships. I imagine you have a lot of common player/viewers. These concepts play right into the actual gameplay
I always wondered where the safest place was in a battleship. I assume it must have been the ammunition rooms deep down in the ship. On the other hand probably harder to get out if the ship is sinking. I also read about Bismarck having so called 'safe rooms'?! Thanks
Could you discuss the various locations of the helm on warships? Even though the bridge location is by far the most common, I've seen a number of mentions of it being much deeper in a ship.
@@BattleshipNewJersey Thanks! I just watched the video; didn't some warships have the helm down inside the armor as their primary helm? The comments I've seen were in reference to RN ships, but I also remember an old USN training film that appeared to depict the main helm deep in the ship as well.
@@petesheppard1709 RN ships had the helm station in the very bottom of the ship. The attitude of the RN was that the helmsman would be distracted from his job if he had a view of his surroundings.
@@OyvindSn Thank you. I also read the rationale of protection, since the helm was inside the armor, or at least not up high on the ship. I'd like to find more information on the doctrine and changes that occurred.
I've always wondered how effective firing the big guns would be if fire control got knocked out, could you do a video of how fire control redundancy systems would work? I suspect the Bismarck faced such a problem in its last battle.
1. My experience, and in fact preference, in Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts is to try to roughly equally armor the entire ship after giving it at least decent speed and tech, so I kinda want to refute that notion. Then again, what I'm tending to build is more of battlecruisers than battleships, even if I'm using the Iowa hull as a battleship and not a battlecruiser. (Though there is argument to be made that the BC variant of the Iowa hull is better in this regard since it can max out at 46 knots, while iirc the BB variant can only max out at like 36 knots.) 2. Curious about turrets. In UA:D there is an accuracy penalty for turrets with more than two guns. Four gun turrets having a harsher penalty than three gun turrets. Is this born out in anyway with real gun turrets or is this like I suspect just a balancing measure? 3. On the subject of multiple gun turrets, how prevalent were quad gun turrets? What was the largest caliber quad turret built? Were bigger ones considered or planned, but not built? Were there any cases of turrets with more than four guns, besides AA mounts like the British octuple pom-pom mount?
There is an issue with shell dispersion if barrels are too close together. The easy fix is a slight delay from when the guns go off instead of all at the same time. The Europeans love their twin turrets and European historians tend to claim their better for no real reason. Quads show up in only 3 classes, the bigger issue is the barbette is so wide so the ship gets really wide or it has to be mounted really far back in the hull.
Between the Brass and all of the large hatch mating surfaces seems like a lot of polishing! How does the museum work to keep that up or to preserve those surfaces so they don't corrode?
how thick/heavy is that hatch you are leaning against? Is it opened with counterweights or springs? Does the damage control parties inside the citadel have jacks to open these hatches should the springs or counterweights fail? Pictures?
A very good question. Your Engine Crew is down keeping the fires burning and the power on. So there covered. The main battery crews are either in the citadel or inside the turret's own armor along side the most of the guys running the targeting controls. The directors are manned and outside the armor. Your 20mm, 40mm and 5" gun crews are both inside and outside the armored citadel. The 5" crews do at least get armored turrets. 40mm gets armored tubs around them. The mess crews are outside the citadel and generally get assigned to corpsmen duty. Steering locations are both protected and unprotected with protected the one normally used in combat. Damage control teams are moving both inside and outside of the citadel. Most of the bridge crew is inside the armored bridge with some of the thickest armor on the ship. Laundry, print shop and machine shop personal are outside I think. I know with a crew of 2000+ men I'm forgetting services. Well things are suspended during combat. Others kept on as normal.
Are there any original designers of the Iowa class still alive to interview? Maybe you could visit the USNA, and ask some folks in their Engineering department? Actually inviting them to visit, and point out some features on the ship as well?
South Dakota used the same hull form as the Iowa class... the "running joke" at the time was that they added 10k tons of displacement to achieve 5 knots of speed (from 28 to 33) and to float a slightly heavier 16"/50 Mark 7 over the 16"/45 Mark 6 of the South Dakota and Iowas. The main differences between the Iowa and South Dakota class was the thickness of the outer shell plating. Up half an inch in thickness from 1" to 1.5" outer hull plating. Main armor belt was the same, although the shorter South Dakota's had better torpedo defense around the #1 turret due to the chunkier front end. South Dakota, if you recall, was actually involved in an incident which caused quite a bit of damage to her, including damage to the internal belt at close ranges. She survived just fine and my understanding is there wasn't significant enough damage to the armor belt to justify replacing it.
being inside an armored steel box makes for lots of echos. :) The audio is fine, I think. We're listening to technical information, not someone playing the blues...
Describing the letters and colors on the hatches would be helpful to museum goers. I also am curious about what is the primary way for sailors to enter the citadel when the ship is underway. If I am not mistake that hatch you were by would be mostly closed.
Check this out for more info on labels: ruclips.net/video/R5XraTB3aZ8/видео.html And many of the hatches would be closed during general quarters but sailors still have to get around otherwise so hatches like this are left open unless needed to be closed. We do have a video on the hatches too: ruclips.net/video/jHU4Dv-U8YY/видео.html
Are there any actual, official tests to how this kind of armoring scheme would hold up to modern day cruise missiles? I know that if someone got close enough to drop, say, a MOAB on the deck, it would probably be a bad day; but baring something like that, it seems like all the different spacing schemes would make this a tough bastard to sink even today
Look up footage of British Lancasters bombing the German Battleship Tirpitz with their 12,000 lb "Tallboy" bombs. Dropped at a height of 18,000 ft these monsters would reach supersonic speeds before impact. The Tirpitz took four direct hits and multiple near misses before capsizing...tough sob. I can't think of any other battleships that withstood more punishment than Bismarck or Tirpitz and remained afloat.
@@memecat57 Right, right. I guess the point is, it’s impossible to armor against anything on a semi-ballistic trajectory, the size of a school bus, moving at supersonic speeds. I think the benefit of a modern battleship would be against swarms of missiles like the Nsm or LRASM. I’d like to see how it would hold up against something like that.
A cruse missile hit near the waterline would have to get through the 1.5" shell plate, void spaces, either empty or liquid loaded and finally the armored belt. 12" of steel armor would still be hard to penetrate after all of that. Hits not against the armor would do damage like modern ships take with the saving grace that you still have that heavy shell plate. No ship in service has a steel hull that thick in the modern navies. The superstructure is the area that will take the most damage. Even then your bridge will be protected but the crew might die from the shock. Unfortunately nobody has a spare battleship they want to expend in testing.
What are you thoughts/opinions on the German bismarck class, and maybe give some different traditions of the German navy, as an example I've heard the Germans referred to their ships in the masculine
Might also want to check these out: US Mark 6 and Mark 7 gun operation: ruclips.net/video/0OmOQs0ziSU/видео.html&ab_channel=1MightyMo Main Battery Fire Control Training Film: ruclips.net/video/3HoSh3n3CaI/видео.html&ab_channel=PeriscopeFilm US Navy Fire Control Computers: ruclips.net/video/gwf5mAlI7Ug/видео.html&ab_channel=PeriscopeFilm Additional Fire Control Computers: Part 1: ruclips.net/video/lr1uK24SND8/видео.html&ab_channel=Drysart Part 2: ruclips.net/video/5GZa63x3k60/видео.html&ab_channel=Drysart The US Navy Fire Control Computers one is the real magic of US Battleships. The Mark 1A FCC was an important innovation. SUPER important technology.
How did these ships handle synchronous roll? Was it something specifically taught? I'm spitballing here, but it seems like this would be especially perilous if not immediately handled. I'm not an engineer , mariner or sailor of any type. I hope I've asked a somewhat intelligent question. If I'm not using proper terminology, I hope it's clear what I'm roughly trying to ask
We've got it on the schedule for the anniversary next month. While you wait, check out this program we do with kids on board and you can read some first hand accounts of the storm: www.battleshipnewjersey.org/education/
Is it fair to say that a core concept of the citadel is that it has enough bouyancy that the ship will remain afloat even if the rest of the ship floods?
@@BattleshipNewJersey thanks. Might be an idea for a video if there are examples of the citadel concept actually working. Either in part or whole. You guys rock.
How well would this armor handle against a modern day missile? While designed for BB on BB fighting, in Desert storm I know USS Missouri had some missile threats. (I realize CWIS is a really good anti missile system) but If one was to get thru the CWIS would it really be a big deal against such thick armor?
It depends where it hit, if it hit at the waterline the ASM would penetrate the STS layer and probably explode before it hit the internal armored belt. If it had a longer delayed fuse it would impact the armor belt but not penetrate. It would need a dedicated armor piercing tip which no ASM in the world has.
@@allangibson2408 The Iowa's have a triple bottom hull and are designed to withstand torpedo attacks. However new Torpedo's are not impact weapons but are designed to detonate beneath the hill and displace the water and break the keel, snapping the ship in half.
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 The weight of torpedo warheads went up significantly during WW2. The General Belgrano was sunk with a single WW2 vintage torpedo fitted with an impact fuse. Basically torpedoes ended battleships.
@@allangibson2408 The general Belgrano was a light cruiser without any sort of torpedo protection. The Yamato took over ten torpedo hits before sinking. It was airpower that relegated the Battleship to obsolescence.
The problem with showing armor is that basically everything is armor and simultaneously theres nothing to see. We can show you what's in it, and we have. Check out our videos on broadway, the 5in magazines, medical, but we the citadel is just everything around us, ya know?
When I toured the North Carolina many years ago I was impressed by two things in the Plotting Room used to determine firing solutions for her main guns. The first was a mechanical (analog) computer and second, the thickness of steel surrounding the room. The whole ship was a marvel of 1940’s engineering.
Great video. My only suggestion is since you did such a good job describing all of these different parts of the ship and their armored features, it would have been great to also see them.
The armor itself isn't much to see but the contents of the citadel can be found in many of our videos:
Medical: ruclips.net/video/FAdDAUtbpE0/видео.html
5in magazines: ruclips.net/video/aZPLtiQ3DX0/видео.html
Broadway: ruclips.net/video/XI_MtImkALM/видео.html
Engine Rooms: ruclips.net/video/Y1JXv1_Y7dc/видео.html
Boiler Rooms: ruclips.net/video/bs35Vigmu_c/видео.html
More on engineering: ruclips.net/video/14IDMMAhGRg/видео.html
Marine Corps Berthing: ruclips.net/video/uIptagBQHrg/видео.html
Damage Control Central: ruclips.net/video/MgyuaIiVtJw/видео.html
@@BattleshipNewJersey How about some diagrams?
I think your estimation for armor thickness is going to be a tad on the heavy side. The US Navy, and most navies of the era believed heavily in the concept of immunity zones. These are the ranges in which shell fire could not penetrate the armor. For the South Dakota class, this was between 18,000 yards and 30,000 yards against the lighter Mark 5 16" AP shell. That shell, at 2250lbs, was nearly identical to other nation's 16" shells. Of course the South Dakota class, the North Carolina Class, and the Iowa class, never carried these rounds (or if they did, not for long). The 2700lb Mark 8 Super Heavy AP round nearly eliminated the immunity zone for the South Dakota class and made the lighter 16" shells obsolete overnight.
Why do I keep bringing up the SoDaks in a video on an Iowa class? Same armor profile. Same IZ. Same problem against the Mark 8 SHAP rounds.
It's important, because many claim the US Navy was unhappy with the protection of the Iowa Class. The US Navy design bureaus always operated on a "balanced" armor design in which ships had to have sufficient armor to resist their own guns. The Mark 8 made that nearly impossible. Even the proposed Montana Class with significantly heavier armor would not have been a true "balanced" design. The IZ was still quite small but better than the Iowa class.
In truth, the Navy was quite pleased with the protection of the Iowa class. It offered tremendous protection against peer nation battleship caliber rounds in quite a wide range and the ship was faster than most which means the engagement occurred on the Iowa class' terms. Given the advancements in fire control and maneuverability and the Iowas were beyond capable of "slugging it out" if necessary.
Anyway, back to the discussion about the comments of 1" of armor for every 1" of gun diameter. Practically no nation followed anywhere close to that post WWI. The US Navy Standards all ran 13.5" of belt armor which provided very good immunity zones against their own guns. The Bismark was 12.6" of armor, Richelieu 13.6, King George the V at 15" (the only one to actually have more than the guns she carried), Vittorio Veneto at 13.8 and of course Yamato at 16.1". It is impossible to resist shells of these calibers at all ranges. The rounds are either moving too fast and have too much mass to stop at close ranges, or are coming down at a steep enough angle to defeat deck armor.
The US DID have some "Super Battleship" designs in the Tillmans which were insane and impractical which had armor quantities you spoke of. The reality of naval combat was that gun battles were pretty rare. In them, speed, accuracy of the fire control solution and mechanical accuracy of the guns played a huge role in determining success. To an extent, maneuverability was important too.
welding 12" armour would be laborious I reckon... all that heat too..
I had a friend that welded the escape trunks on Los Angeles class subs. He said it took days. You’d make a welding pass, grind off the flux etc, then have that pass tested and inspected. Then start over with the next pass. Lather, rinse, repeat till you had several inches of very high proof steel welded together and able to withstand immense pressure. Anything they found wrong in a pass and you had to grind it off and start over. Paid good money but was hard and hot work in an enclosed space.
@@Bill_N_ATX I used work in the Plumbers & Pipefitters union many years ago and one job I was at a coal fired power plant, there were guys welding on main steam lines and was the same like you said welding for days on one joint and getting X-ray'ed every pass. Also, they had to pre-heat the pipe and had to be a certain temperature when welding they had these crayon looking temperature sticks they would check constantly. These guys were like the special forces of welders, and getting paid $26 dollars an hour on straight time back in the 1990's was big money.
@@swiftbear , half my family are Local 211 pipefitters in Houston and the other half were Local 84 Ironworkers. It was a never ending battle over which job was better and/or harder. Both paid good money. My Grandfather spent the last 10 years of his working life as a Superintendent for Ebasco building power plants for Houston Light and Power. Power Plant work always paid well but was strict, especially the nuclear plants. Everyone had to be certified and they took no bullshit. Then they added on drug and alcohol testing. That was a tough one since most ironworkers at least drank like fish. The Old Man knew who needed to be watched and who just needed that little nip in the morning to clear his brain. It was hard and often dangerous work and he made damned sure I went to college so I didn’t end up beat up and crippled by the time I was 50 like they all did. They all have my deepest respect. His generation built America as we know it and I don’t think they ever got the appreciation they deserved.
@@Bill_N_ATX It was the same job I was talking about in my last post at that plant I was I think a 2nd or 3rd year apprentice and I remember the guy I was working with he said "big pipe and small pipe pay the same" lol he said that as we where bending tubing for vacuum and air lines, while guys killing themselves on coal pipe and massive steam lines ect. It was a generational thing for my family too Dad was in it, Grandpa was in it, local 490 Steubenville, OH which merged then called 495 Cambridge in my day. I remember my Dad worked at Perry nuclear power plant Ohio in the late 70's early 80s but it was new construction he said he would never go to a nuclear plant after it was "hot" or running. Luckily I realized pretty quick that I did not want to do that the rest of my life and got out and joined a more corporate /office life instead of being broken and abused by your 40's-50's (which my Dad did ruin his back in his mid 40's and went on disability from that line of work) Same thing happen too in Ohio, guys going out to lunch having a few beers or smoking a joint and came back and finished the day lol
Read that one of the weaknesses of the Yamato class battleships was that the thick armor was riveted together and not welded because of the welding difficultly. When torpedoed the shock would pop and break the rivets and let in water.
Just discovered this channel. I am fascinated. Would love more videos about the specific history of this ship. And what I mean, is more coverage of things like artifacts found onboard, sailor art/graffiti. (I loved the marks on the teak deck from the ejected 5in shells..) One thing that comes to mind is that I hear that a sailor was killed up by the forward gun turret, hit by a shell in the Korean war. .Love to know more about about all those little details.. Thanks again for your work here...
Love your videos. I’ve been studying battleships for over 30 years and recently read several very informative in-depth books by William garzke the best I’ve read so far. I always learn something new watching your videos. I was in the navy from 1999 to 2007 as a gsm and volunteered on the uss Alabama BB60. Bravo Zulu look forward to seeing more videos.
I don't understand this sudden surge of the presence of BB New Jersey onto RUclips, but I love it. Keep it coming guys!
This has been on my list for some years to visit, really looking forward to it!
Knowing Ryan from his previous museum work, he is really shining. New Jersey is letting him be who he is. This ship knowledge has been stored inside of him since he was a child. He has a thirst for Navy history that is unimaginable to most people.
You have a dream job to be on that ship the best looking ship hands down. When I watch her sister ship the Missouri take the nap surrender I literally tear up. Awesome job!
Japan and the US in its new post-1930 battleships and Japan in many of its post-1930 overhauls of its older battleships (including the KONGOs which were originally rated as battle-cruisers) had a lower side extra armor protection between the bottom of the ship and the lower edge of the waterline armored belt as part of their Citadels. Nobody else had this "lower belt", including the older overhauled US battleships. This lower belt was made of STS in the US warships and equivalent NVNC in the Japanese warships and was thickest where it was connected to the bottom edge of the belt in IOWA and SOUTH DAKOTA and Japanese YAMATO Class battleships, but in the others the lower extra armor layer was separate from the belt, usually inboard somewhat. This extra lower armor was wedge-shaped, tapering into a thinner and thinner layer until, for most designs, about halfway down the hull to the bottom of the ship it reached it minimum thickness in US battleships (about 1.25" STS) that had it, while in the YAMATO Class the top was not as thick as in the new US battleships and tapered slower so that it was somewhat thicker than the US design when it met the ship's bottom. In most of the warships that added it, it ran through the middle of the anti-torpedo side protection layered system and turned out to reduce that system's effectiveness somewhat against torpedoes due to that plate being too rigid, though the effect could be somewhat mitigated in the US battleships by rearranging which spaces were water/oil-filled and which spaces were "voids" (empty seal compartments). Its purpose was to stop shells that hit the water near to and short of the target ship and move more-or-less horizontally underwater to hit the target below the main armor belt protection. The Japanese developed shells -- the Type 88 of 1928 and the much-improved Type 91 of 1931 -- with break-away noses, giving a flat forward face with half of the area that the projectile at its middle-body diameter, which allowed stable underwater nose-first motion for a long distance before it was slowed down so much that it curved downward and sank, and a super-long (0.2 second for the Type 88 and 0.4 for the Type 91 and its slightly improved Type 1 variant) delay to allow a perhaps 200 times the projectile caliber motion underwater before it slowed down too much or the fuze blew it up.
This add-on by the US Navy in its new ships seems to indicate that the US Naval Intelligence people found out about this modification to Japanese shells and made sure that they would not work against the new US battleships being designed and built from the mid-1930s on. The Japanese shell design was mostly a complete waste, working properly only once in WWII, to my knowledge, when an 8" Type 91 AP shell penetrated the forward magazine of the US light cruiser BOISE (only the new US battleships had the added lower belt) and, instead of the ship blowing up, it caused a raging fire that destroyed the front end of that US warship -- due to the US using only pure nitrocellulose propellant (slow-burning), the use of brass cartridge cases for the new-type US 6"/47 guns, and the spray of water coming into the damaged compartment through an 8" hole in the hull just above the bottom of the ship. The Japanese designed this shell assuming that the enemy (US) used the same type of British-style "Cordite" double-based nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine mixture that they used, not pure nitrocellulose. Indeed, US Navy analysis of the BOISE damage stated that if the US warship had been using a Cordite-type propellant, the magazine would have detonated like HOOD, water spray and brass cartridge cases being inadequate due to the large fire set off by the exploding shell inside that space. This is a prime example of a very expensive change to an important piece of equipment (a shell of strange design or the extensive armor added against it) that turned out to be of virtually no use whatsoever in actual practice (I like the joke phrase, "As useful as a telescopic sight on a sword").
I love your videos! I hope you are not experiencing any hardship as a result of being furloughed.
I was wondering why there was a big crack on that armoured hatch,
turns out there was a dog hair on my screen. 😂
😆
Your Dog Cracked the hatch !! Strong dog.
I was hoping you would show a diagram of the citadel.
Could you do an episode of the differing types of hatches found aboard?
Check this out: ruclips.net/video/jHU4Dv-U8YY/видео.html
@@BattleshipNewJersey How about mentioning how the main gun Gas ejection system works. Also... what gives with the 50 caliber classification. I always thought it was based on shell diameter!?
@@woodywoodman2319 The Caliber is a measure of the internal diameter. However it can also be used as a length measurement, so in this case the barrel is 50 times longer than the internal diameter. Basically a shorthand way of saying the gun has an internal diameter of 16 inches and a length of 800 inches
Hope this helps :)
@@themadhammer3305 Thanks. Didnt know that!
@@themadhammer3305 doesn't caliber primarily mean ratio of length to bore diameter? I was under the impression that caliber when referring bore diameter was a mis application that became common parlance.
Thanks
Oh that was a Bismarck dig lol
Thanks for doing this type of video. It is very informative.
Thanks for explaining this and how it affects the design of the ship
Excellent content.
This video, and many of your other videos might benefit from inset graphics illustrating the parts of ship under discussion. I think many viewers new to battleships might not realize the real meaning of 'citadel,' even with your excellent explanations. The word itself implies something imposing and visible, such as the superstructure of the ship, which very much resembles a citadel, but which is (of course) not the armored citadel at all.
In a similar way, I remember as a young boy thinking the 'conning tower' was the control tower, not the relatively small, low armored structure at the front of the superstructure.
Thanks again for all of your content. Best wishes to the BBNJ museum!
This is awesome. Thanks for this ive been trying to find more info about this subject.
Norman Friedman is considered the godfather of US Naval Ship design historians. His books on US Navy ships is pretty much gospel. "US Battleships" is one which spends a lot of time talking about how, why, what the US designed between the civil war and WWII. Pretty solid read.
@@Whiskey11Gaming thanks!
Looking at the hatch you are leaning on reminded me of the thick hatches on the main deck of the USS Norton Sound AVM-1 a seaplane tender that just made it to the end of WWII in the pacific. They had huge springs on the hinges to make it easy enough to open and close them.
Could you show us where shore power is brought into and distributed throughout the ship?
Oh. That one's rather simple. There's a connection on weather deck, each side, that takes shore power and runs right down to the mains distribution... which is also fed from the mains turbines from the engines. About like the main power connection on any building.
Also: Telco lines, steam, fresh and flushing water, and sewer.
Think of a GIANT R.V. and its hook-up.
Just a box on the wall and the wiring etc. run through a trunk somewhere.
Such has also been used the other way. One of the Lexingtons was used to power Seattle during a power outage back in the 30s. The Lexes were better for this, having turbo-electric drive.
The connection isn't much... but the distribution will be interesting. Really... schematics and diagrams are needed. And plans to relate those to the actual place they are on the ship.
And all this was planned and designed and implemented with NO Auto-Cad... just pencile on paper.
Thanks for being such a great source of information. God bless you.
Opened up the door to from our space (Bull Halseys stateroom in WWII) to the O1 port side wing. Took 2 people to close it and dog it. About 12" armor! Show the hydraulics on that hatch you're leaning on. I never saw it operated and wouldn't want to be on it during GQ and it closing!
Great video - thank you!
Good video, good channel. I'm guessing your channel is just starting to take off, your videos are starting to pop up in my recommendations. Haven't seen them all yet, but they're all good so far. You should do some collaboration videos with drac and military history visualised, they'd be great.
Have you done any videos about what happens during general quarters in different compartments around the ship, and/or what a naval gunfire support mission or ship to ship engagement would have been like from an overall perspetive?
THATS A THICK DOOR!!- Charlie Wilson
You mention the different types of armor. I would like to know the difference and the protective properties of the different types. I can not do the tour because of physical ability belive me if I could I would. This is my favorite RUclips channel. $$$ no problem.
Question: have you went through every part of the ship or are there parts of the ship that are not accessable?
We've been in almost every part of the ship, not inside every tank but most everywhere else. Though once in a while we discover a hatch we'd never seen tucked away under a rack or something.
@@BattleshipNewJersey Yep. LA class subs have at least two hatches in crews berthing, behind the racks. Just in general, a lot of hidey holes.
Battleship New Jersey, can you maybe make a video on how the ship would go about resupply? How did they reload magazines? How did they restock food? Is it logistically very difficult to resupply the depths of the ship given that armor and protection take priority or are there methods to make resupply easier?
The Iowa class had 1,000+ man crews for a reason.
Mostly we lower things with a chainfall and lots of help. Resupply itself can come from a crane in port, or from another ship during underway replenishment, or by helicopter.
TY! amazing how much steel is in a BB, also how highly alloyed all that armor is.
I would like to see a video on what the crew ate while they were at sea. Did their menu change much when they were in a battle zone, did it change much when they were in battle? Maybe you could talk to some old sailors if there are any left and see what was their favorite and what was their least favorite things like that.
I've been wondering this for, like, several years, haha.
It would be interesting to see a diagram of the citadel in situ
They found that the Iowa class with the armourd citadel made the ships top heavy and as more AA and radar systems were added during the war, they became unstable. It limited the seas they could steam in and prevented them from being run at over 25 knots. The British had the con in a less armoured space below deck level instead, and they were much more stable.
got a cite for that or just more internet crap? Unlike the japanese pagoda masts the US ships did not have that much weight that high, But go ahead and sound stupid
Hi Ryan. Love you channel! I am a huge fan and I love your presentation style.
QUESTION- something I have always been dying to know and which I’ve tried to research independently but there seems to be next to no information about it available for public consumption online. So I thought you would be the perfect person to ask-
I would love to learn a little bit about **modern** naval armor. You can find a great deal of information about battleship armor online, much like what you’ve been talking about here on this video.
However- in today’s ships, with guided missiles being the greatest threat and defense from ballistic projectiles unlikely to be the main concern, hulls seem to be only lightly armored. I assume this is because the primary defense against missiles isn’t armor but rather chaff and other air to air missiles designed to intercept incoming ordinance.
However, I would love to know if they still adopt the citadel concept in the modern DDGs for example, or something similar, and if there is any serious armor plating in these ships what variety is it and how is it deployed?
And finally, if at some point rail guns become a reality, will the battleship and/or citadel style armor plating make a reappearance in naval architecture?
Thank you so much!! I would love if you could make a video on this topic, but if you have time and prefer to answer on this comment section that would be great too.
Much appreciated and thank you for this amazing channel!
Stay tuned, we are planning on an whole episode devoted to modern weapons and armor!
Very interesting.
Barry
On the battleship USS Texas, their 14" powder bags were moved by several steps and a couple of hoists from the magazine handling room up to the gun pit. There, they were manually lifted by a handler from the gun pit up to the gun house (oof) where they were placed on the loading tray. By the time of the Iowa Class, the powder hoist lifts the bags from the handling room all the way up to the gun house where they are rolled directly on to the loading tray. Do you have any insight on how and when powder handling came to be so much more streamlined?
Would that hatch hurt if it closed on your toe ? ....I think it might .
They are spring loaded so they do not slam shut, you have to force the hatch closed. Without that you could never get the hatch open, it would be too heavy.
Please do a tour about the subject. So whats inside the citadel???
Can you make a video about the captains cabin/how the captain would've served out at sea?
Check this out: ruclips.net/video/xnUIXuBuqk4/видео.html
Question. Does footage exist anywhere of the mark 7 guns hitting something. Lots of firing video but no hits as far as I can find
There is footage of Missouri bombarding a village in vietnam but i can't find it
Here's New Jersey shooting and splashing in the water ruclips.net/video/vhto0ud4MgA/видео.html&ab_channel=Navyfieldguy
Missouri wasn't in Vietnam. But we were!
There is a photo out there of what a Mark 7 gun could do to the turret armor from the Japanese battleship Shinano before it became a aircraft carrier...
@@biggunshop9637 yeah I've seen that. I would love to see something in motion
It is New Jersey Footage then, but i can't find it, it's filmed from an spotter plane
Hey Ryan, can you explain how the deck of the Iowa Class is laid out? As in how much of the ship is covered by the 1.5" Main Deck, how much of the ship is covered by the 6" Armored Deck, and how much of the ship is covered by the ships Splinter Deck? Does the 6" Armored Deck only cover the ships Citadel? Or does it cover the full length of the ship?
It still seems like there's a lot of confusion out there about the Iowa Class' Armor Layout in general, but I feel like the deck is the most confusing for folks.
I hangout in a lot of Warship related groups, and play a lot of Naval Combat Games, and I always post links to your videos whenever I can.
Thanks for all you do!
Who would be sunk if the Iowa vs the Bismarck and the Bismarck wasn't Damaged?🤔👍
I am interested in food that troops eat during WW2 as well as recreation and moral
I would like to know what duties the marines had on board. What did they do on a normal day? What did they do when the ship want to general quarters?
Check th page. There’s a video of that
Yup, here it is, ruclips.net/video/uIptagBQHrg/видео.html
My grandfather was a marine and served on the New Jersey. His duties was an orderly (captain’s servant ), weapons maintenance, and a gunner
@@BattleshipNewJersey That is the video that got me wondering since other than mentioning the guard posted outside of the captain's quarters it only covers the marines berthing, not their actual duties.
World of Warships question.... :)
Hey, I love your videos :) I was looking at the plans of the new Jersey (from the 80s I think). It shows a room referred to as a TV studio on the 02 level and next door is a 'TV control room'. Is this correct? What was the role of a TV studio on board? For press releases? For crew moral?
The TV studio houses the ship's SITE system. Shipboard Information, Training, and Entertainment. Basically it has a newsdesk for relaying information like a news station would (mostly shipboard relevant info) and they can do talk shows and show movies to the crew (that's the entertainment part) and that system can be used to show training videos to the crew on the tvs around the ship too.
I've seen "studios" built in 10x10 foot spaces for the camera and "talking head"... and less space for the switcher and a couple of "tape" inputs.
Plus an "edit booth''.
Studio is an over-rated word. :)
Just sayin'. They'd have about the same as your local small video house.
TeeVee is a grand illusion between how it looks and how little there is (space-wise) of how it's done.
It can be fun, however.
I've never heard of a citadel before
I have a question about general quarters and the cooks. Do they continue to prepare meals while the rest of the ship is at general quarters? It seems to me that they'd have to, even during exercises, as having meals delayed by a couple of hours would throw off the schedule of the entire ship, and in the event of a battle, crew would have to man their stations for potentially days at a time, during which they'd need nutrition to keep going.
Additionally, how would crews at general quarters receive their meals? Would they be delivered to be eaten at their stations, or would they be relieved and cycled through the galley?
I wonder how you decide to angle the armoured belt? For things like tanks, being subjected to line of sight shots, I suppose with fairly flat trajectories, it's easy, but with high angle plunging fire from long range guns, I guess you have to take into consideration the intended engagement range and go off of that, what angle you most often expect shells to be approaching at...
Hello. I asked two weeks ago about the CIC. Did I miss it? You said Thursday. Keep up the great work!! I have been on the Big J a few times.
Thanks
Sorry, we included in a questions video, here you go: ruclips.net/video/lK9ofM6ef5g/видео.html
Were there any procedures on Battleship New Jersey for a nuclear strike or fallout near the ship? I'm assuming this wasn't a consideration during the design of the Iowa class.
Thanks for all the amazing content!
Check this out: ruclips.net/video/m5E6Jgo6VKQ/видео.html
@@BattleshipNewJersey Thank you!
Where on the ship is Ryan standing in this video.
I was on the New Jersey 40+ years ago and I have forgotten much since then. I do remember accessing my berthing space through a hatch just like the one pictured in the video. Just wondering.
Great video! One suggestion; use manual focus on your camera so its not constantly trying to refocus. Hope to see more from you soon.
If only our camera had that option! We're still stuck in the stone age here, our budget goes into the ship instead.
@@BattleshipNewJersey Can you put a remote mic onto the camera? Depending on which space in the ship you are, sometimes your voice echo BADLY, and it is hard to hear/understand you. A mic clipped to your collar would solve that.
Is the armored "Communications tube" between the conning tower and the citadel an actual tube with a ladder that you can climb through? That's what I've seen it called that and have seen pics of the ones scrapped on the New Jerseys cancelled sisters. It just looks like a massively thick pipe trunk that goes from the conn down into the armored box.
Check this out ruclips.net/video/hoMcA9mSEig/видео.html
You might look into a cross-promotion with World of Warships. I imagine you have a lot of common player/viewers. These concepts play right into the actual gameplay
We appeared on their livestream just yesterday actually
I always wondered where the safest place was in a battleship. I assume it must have been the ammunition rooms deep down in the ship. On the other hand probably harder to get out if the ship is sinking.
I also read about Bismarck having so called 'safe rooms'?!
Thanks
Could you discuss the various locations of the helm on warships? Even though the bridge location is by far the most common, I've seen a number of mentions of it being much deeper in a ship.
This mentions part of that: ruclips.net/video/sL21Wl_-Qdc/видео.html
@@BattleshipNewJersey Thanks! I just watched the video; didn't some warships have the helm down inside the armor as their primary helm? The comments I've seen were in reference to RN ships, but I also remember an old USN training film that appeared to depict the main helm deep in the ship as well.
@@petesheppard1709 RN ships had the helm station in the very bottom of the ship. The attitude of the RN was that the helmsman would be distracted from his job if he had a view of his surroundings.
@@OyvindSn Thank you. I also read the rationale of protection, since the helm was inside the armor, or at least not up high on the ship. I'd like to find more information on the doctrine and changes that occurred.
1:37 russian paper ships: haha icebreaker go brrrrr
I've always wondered how effective firing the big guns would be if fire control got knocked out, could you do a video of how fire control redundancy systems would work? I suspect the Bismarck faced such a problem in its last battle.
Check this out:
ruclips.net/video/szxNJydEqOs/видео.html
and this:
ruclips.net/video/59ORVpVl6i8/видео.html
1. My experience, and in fact preference, in Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts is to try to roughly equally armor the entire ship after giving it at least decent speed and tech, so I kinda want to refute that notion. Then again, what I'm tending to build is more of battlecruisers than battleships, even if I'm using the Iowa hull as a battleship and not a battlecruiser. (Though there is argument to be made that the BC variant of the Iowa hull is better in this regard since it can max out at 46 knots, while iirc the BB variant can only max out at like 36 knots.)
2. Curious about turrets. In UA:D there is an accuracy penalty for turrets with more than two guns. Four gun turrets having a harsher penalty than three gun turrets. Is this born out in anyway with real gun turrets or is this like I suspect just a balancing measure?
3. On the subject of multiple gun turrets, how prevalent were quad gun turrets? What was the largest caliber quad turret built? Were bigger ones considered or planned, but not built? Were there any cases of turrets with more than four guns, besides AA mounts like the British octuple pom-pom mount?
There is an issue with shell dispersion if barrels are too close together. The easy fix is a slight delay from when the guns go off instead of all at the same time. The Europeans love their twin turrets and European historians tend to claim their better for no real reason. Quads show up in only 3 classes, the bigger issue is the barbette is so wide so the ship gets really wide or it has to be mounted really far back in the hull.
Between the Brass and all of the large hatch mating surfaces seems like a lot of polishing! How does the museum work to keep that up or to preserve those surfaces so they don't corrode?
Lots of volunteers!
Very interesting!
how thick/heavy is that hatch you are leaning against? Is it opened with counterweights or springs? Does the damage control parties inside the citadel have jacks to open these hatches should the springs or counterweights fail? Pictures?
We made a whole video on this, ruclips.net/video/jHU4Dv-U8YY/видео.html
In short, there are counterweights.
Something tells me this question was inspired by World of Warship's...
How many of the crew had battle stations outside of the citadel?
A very good question. Your Engine Crew is down keeping the fires burning and the power on. So there covered. The main battery crews are either in the citadel or inside the turret's own armor along side the most of the guys running the targeting controls. The directors are manned and outside the armor. Your 20mm, 40mm and 5" gun crews are both inside and outside the armored citadel. The 5" crews do at least get armored turrets. 40mm gets armored tubs around them. The mess crews are outside the citadel and generally get assigned to corpsmen duty. Steering locations are both protected and unprotected with protected the one normally used in combat. Damage control teams are moving both inside and outside of the citadel. Most of the bridge crew is inside the armored bridge with some of the thickest armor on the ship. Laundry, print shop and machine shop personal are outside I think. I know with a crew of 2000+ men I'm forgetting services. Well things are suspended during combat. Others kept on as normal.
Could you do a video of your onboard Machine shop?
Are there any original designers of the Iowa class still alive to interview? Maybe you could visit the USNA, and ask some folks in their Engineering department? Actually inviting them to visit, and point out some features on the ship as well?
Any of those guys, if they're still alive would be over 100 years old, they'd likely have some difficulties getting around the ship.
Is a video on the main belt? The belt is internal and would make repairing very difficult compared to NC and SD and contemporary classes like KG V.
South Dakota used the same hull form as the Iowa class... the "running joke" at the time was that they added 10k tons of displacement to achieve 5 knots of speed (from 28 to 33) and to float a slightly heavier 16"/50 Mark 7 over the 16"/45 Mark 6 of the South Dakota and Iowas. The main differences between the Iowa and South Dakota class was the thickness of the outer shell plating. Up half an inch in thickness from 1" to 1.5" outer hull plating. Main armor belt was the same, although the shorter South Dakota's had better torpedo defense around the #1 turret due to the chunkier front end.
South Dakota, if you recall, was actually involved in an incident which caused quite a bit of damage to her, including damage to the internal belt at close ranges. She survived just fine and my understanding is there wasn't significant enough damage to the armor belt to justify replacing it.
Love these videos, can we donate a lav mic for you to use?
The gofundme link in the description is always open, but also we've gone though a dozen, they've never made a difference
@@BattleshipNewJersey really? That’s a shame but regardless, get my Xmas bonus you’re on my list.
being inside an armored steel box makes for lots of echos. :) The audio is fine, I think. We're listening to technical information, not someone playing the blues...
What procedures and actions would a battleship so under a NBC/CBRN attack and what kinda personal measures would the crew take?
We get into that a little bit here: ruclips.net/video/m5E6Jgo6VKQ/видео.html
Also, we did a whole series on all things nuclear, if youre interested.
@@BattleshipNewJersey oh cool thanks
Describing the letters and colors on the hatches would be helpful to museum goers. I also am curious about what is the primary way for sailors to enter the citadel when the ship is underway. If I am not mistake that hatch you were by would be mostly closed.
Check this out for more info on labels: ruclips.net/video/R5XraTB3aZ8/видео.html
And many of the hatches would be closed during general quarters but sailors still have to get around otherwise so hatches like this are left open unless needed to be closed. We do have a video on the hatches too: ruclips.net/video/jHU4Dv-U8YY/видео.html
Are there any actual, official tests to how this kind of armoring scheme would hold up to modern day cruise missiles?
I know that if someone got close enough to drop, say, a MOAB on the deck, it would probably be a bad day; but baring something like that, it seems like all the different spacing schemes would make this a tough bastard to sink even today
I imagine it would produce similar results as the fritz x vs the roma. A p700 would make a right ugly mess for sure
Look up footage of British Lancasters bombing the German Battleship Tirpitz with their 12,000 lb "Tallboy" bombs. Dropped at a height of 18,000 ft these monsters would reach supersonic speeds before impact. The Tirpitz took four direct hits and multiple near misses before capsizing...tough sob.
I can't think of any other battleships that withstood more punishment than Bismarck or Tirpitz and remained afloat.
@@memecat57 Right, right. I guess the point is, it’s impossible to armor against anything on a semi-ballistic trajectory, the size of a school bus, moving at supersonic speeds.
I think the benefit of a modern battleship would be against swarms of missiles like the Nsm or LRASM. I’d like to see how it would hold up against something like that.
A cruse missile hit near the waterline would have to get through the 1.5" shell plate, void spaces, either empty or liquid loaded and finally the armored belt. 12" of steel armor would still be hard to penetrate after all of that. Hits not against the armor would do damage like modern ships take with the saving grace that you still have that heavy shell plate. No ship in service has a steel hull that thick in the modern navies. The superstructure is the area that will take the most damage. Even then your bridge will be protected but the crew might die from the shock. Unfortunately nobody has a spare battleship they want to expend in testing.
How would the citadel have been constructed? What kind of material in terms of size and shape would have been assembled to be 16 in thick?
An illustration would help
What are you thoughts/opinions on the German bismarck class, and maybe give some different traditions of the German navy, as an example I've heard the Germans referred to their ships in the masculine
Check out this episode we did on Bismarck: ruclips.net/video/SkEnUzL_gRg/видео.html
@@BattleshipNewJersey thank you so much
Can you go over fire control of each aa battery? 20mm 40mm 127mm (the choice is yours)
Check this out: ruclips.net/video/szxNJydEqOs/видео.html
Might also want to check these out:
US Mark 6 and Mark 7 gun operation:
ruclips.net/video/0OmOQs0ziSU/видео.html&ab_channel=1MightyMo
Main Battery Fire Control Training Film:
ruclips.net/video/3HoSh3n3CaI/видео.html&ab_channel=PeriscopeFilm
US Navy Fire Control Computers:
ruclips.net/video/gwf5mAlI7Ug/видео.html&ab_channel=PeriscopeFilm
Additional Fire Control Computers: Part 1:
ruclips.net/video/lr1uK24SND8/видео.html&ab_channel=Drysart
Part 2:
ruclips.net/video/5GZa63x3k60/видео.html&ab_channel=Drysart
The US Navy Fire Control Computers one is the real magic of US Battleships. The Mark 1A FCC was an important innovation. SUPER important technology.
@@BattleshipNewJersey thanks
What areas of the ship would be counter flooded? Where there extra 'voids' or would space be flooded with equipment/living quarters?
should I watch kiss at maddison square garden or a video about the Battleship NJ. hmmmm lol
ryan it's the same hatch!!! ⛵
The Bismarck was sunk by torpedos from planes could the Missouri and NJ suffer the same or is that a dumb question
How did these ships handle synchronous roll? Was it something specifically taught? I'm spitballing here, but it seems like this would be especially perilous if not immediately handled. I'm not an engineer , mariner or sailor of any type. I hope I've asked a somewhat intelligent question. If I'm not using proper terminology, I hope it's clear what I'm roughly trying to ask
Can you talk about the equipment (hatch) your standing by and maybe move the latches and show mating part of latch below deck. Thanks
Check this out ruclips.net/video/jHU4Dv-U8YY/видео.html
At least as a part of the all or nothing design concept.
Interesting
You should do a video on how to read the level and corridor symbology.
Check this out: ruclips.net/video/R5XraTB3aZ8/видео.html
All or nothing,
If i had to answer questions I would litterally just refer to Drachinifel.
Could you do a episode on Typhoon cobra?
We've got it on the schedule for the anniversary next month. While you wait, check out this program we do with kids on board and you can read some first hand accounts of the storm: www.battleshipnewjersey.org/education/
Are those thick hatches counter weighted so they can be more easily opened by the crew?
yes they are, check this out: ruclips.net/video/jHU4Dv-U8YY/видео.html
Is it fair to say that a core concept of the citadel is that it has enough bouyancy that the ship will remain afloat even if the rest of the ship floods?
Absolutely. Thats a core component of the citadel.
@@BattleshipNewJersey thanks. Might be an idea for a video if there are examples of the citadel concept actually working. Either in part or whole. You guys rock.
Actually there is enough money available...just not for this. The Moon mission had an unlimited budget.
Is there a manual way to lift the anchor of an Iowa class battleship? If so, how many men and how long did it take?
DC 1 is in the armor belt
I was curious could you do a video on the marine units assigned to the battleship
Check this out: ruclips.net/video/uIptagBQHrg/видео.html
Is the ship haunted in any places or no
We only had one shipboard battle casualty, but also I don't believe in ghosts. Sorry!
@@BattleshipNewJersey Good no deaths my profile pic is a picture of wisconsin that I took
Are there any Bigger entry-points into the Citadel? For example, to medical areas?
Nothing dramatically bigger, also, this is right near medical.
@@BattleshipNewJersey thank you for responding so quickly. I love your videos!
How well would this armor handle against a modern day missile? While designed for BB on BB fighting, in Desert storm I know USS Missouri had some missile threats. (I realize CWIS is a really good anti missile system) but If one was to get thru the CWIS would it really be a big deal against such thick armor?
It depends where it hit, if it hit at the waterline the ASM would penetrate the STS layer and probably explode before it hit the internal armored belt. If it had a longer delayed fuse it would impact the armor belt but not penetrate. It would need a dedicated armor piercing tip which no ASM in the world has.
A torpedo or subroc would do it. The bottom is the thinnest part of the citadel.
@@allangibson2408 The Iowa's have a triple bottom hull and are designed to withstand torpedo attacks. However new Torpedo's are not impact weapons but are designed to detonate beneath the hill and displace the water and break the keel, snapping the ship in half.
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 The weight of torpedo warheads went up significantly during WW2. The General Belgrano was sunk with a single WW2 vintage torpedo fitted with an impact fuse. Basically torpedoes ended battleships.
@@allangibson2408 The general Belgrano was a light cruiser without any sort of torpedo protection. The Yamato took over ten torpedo hits before sinking. It was airpower that relegated the Battleship to obsolescence.
Could you do another video on the armor plating of the Battlestar Galactica?
I know this isn't the same, but I think you'll appreciate this video anyway: ruclips.net/video/24-0BcsNWQU/видео.html
👍👍😎
Would be nice to actually see parts of the Citadel
The problem with showing armor is that basically everything is armor and simultaneously theres nothing to see. We can show you what's in it, and we have. Check out our videos on broadway, the 5in magazines, medical, but we the citadel is just everything around us, ya know?
That kinda answered my question