Am I understanding that there are idiots out there who consider the battleship a worthwhile weapon. All those sailors crewing it, hundreds of millions in build budget and running costs. Two $1,000,000 missiles and that's your battleship fcuked.
LOTS of moving parts here which could - and probably did, regularly - crush hands, arms, feet, legs, etc. Especially in the midst of hours-long battles as men got exhausted and faint in the below-deck heat.
@jers59 Still Aspousing Nonsense i see then (as usual ; )
As they say "Demand spurs Development & Innovation"
Amusing to see you now putting your own Country down (usually it was everyone else's whom you insult & deride), i guess even you must be coming to realize how much the US depends apon the Old World these days (& they don't come much older than good old China ; )
There will always be Demand for Gunfire Support, denying that only proves how little you really know (about anything).
Battleships were withdrawn for good reason. Sending an irreplaceable ship with 2000+ crew to conduct NGS within 20 miles of shore, likely teeming with DE subs and mines, is dumber than a special needs art class. As GW1 showed, the USN does not know how to do mine clearance. Not glamorous enough. These ships are horribly vulnerable to modern under-the-keel torpedoes and mine explosions. Plus, it'd be easy to design an armour-piercing ASM. The Germans had them in WWII. They sank the Roma with one.
All these guys standing on the lower ammo decks and (in)between the elevevators and machinery would be trapped like a mouse in case of sinking or a direct turret hit.
@ZerokillerOppel1 Most battleships are very hard to get out of in case of fan emergency. Hood sank in minutes and only 3 escaped. The armour does that it HAS to be hard to get in, -and out of the ship so consequensely most casualitites in a battleship war drowns, trapped inside a sinking hull.
But battleships are outdated, it happened during ww2, YES they can be quite efficient as borbardment vessels but that's all.
Hey Guns, You are 100% right. I have seen the rammer controls on the USS NJ and they are just like you described and shown in the video. I can see if your pucker factor went up you could make one heck of a mistake. Now, I'm a bird farm sailor (Former USS America when she was CVA66) and a rate which no longer exists (RM1) but the NJ really impressed me with her capability. Personally, I would have enjoyed being in a turret for at least one shoot (without the scared GMG2) ;-)
With that kinda complexity, it's easy to see how easily a turret can be knocked out of action. A relatively minor hit could be enough to damage just 1 loading component of the long loading process and the turret is rendered inoperable.
@Contrajoe Can't u see so many steps have to be taken before a gun is ready for firing. If any step is interrupted, the gun can't fire. That's only part of the complex mechanism involved in firing a gun. The fire control procedures not included here are even more complex. Range, deflection, windspeed, own speed, enemy speed, salvo's spread all have to be calculated accurately before 1 salvo can be fired and then only for possible correction. You miss 1 step or 1 component damaged, the gun's out/
@Contrajoe Not quite. The gunhouses and the barbettes are armored yes. But the radar, the sighting tops, the communication lines, the rangefinders are all UNarmored. Even the armored gunhouses could suffer terrible concussions from non-penetrating hits resulting in training and elevating mechanisms being knocked out. Carrier operations are much simpler. Each plane is an individual entity. As long as the flight deck remains in operation, all surviving planes could still function.
@trent8002003 Battleships are still tougher than carriers to knock. Just bring some AA weapons and get close. Two bombs in the right place could knock out a whole carrier (bow catapults and the angled lane). You'd need at least 3 to knock out Iowa's big guns, and those would be big bombs. Iowa can still shoot as long as there's a plane or even just ground observers and its guns. That said, I think a modern battleship would be better as even the Iowas have much room for improvement.
@Contrajoe If you're talking sinkability, sure, battleships are much more resilient to damage. But if you're talking about operability in the event of damage, you'll find battleships are just as easy to knock out of action as carriers. Look at Bismarck's last battle. She was hard to sink yes but half her main guns were knocked in the first 15 minutes of action. Once all her main guns were gone by the end of the first hour, she was finished as a fighting unit.
@trent8002003 Bismarck is a poor example. It was surrounded by many hostile ships. And if we're talking about modern battle, Bismarck should not be an example partly because no one has anything as powerful as the weapons used to sink it, save for nukes and Mk 48 torps, but those things would sink any ship at all.
@Contrajoe LOL Nimitz class carrier is naval history most survivable warship ever built from modern armor including kevar to compartminization they putr BB armor and survivability to shame. US destroyer Melvin built in Kearny New Jersey sank jap BB Fuso at Surigao. BB in modern naval war life span is in minutes from cruise missiles with shape warhead to modern torpedos will easily destroy helpless BB whose max range of the guns is measly 23 miles carrier aircraft hundreds of miles
@jers59 What? I can barely read what you typed. As I've outlined many times before, BB's are MORE survivable than carriers. Rocket assisted rounds would increase their range greatly. And torps and cruise missiles would be MORE deadly for CVN's than for BB's...
Furthermore, "modern armor including kevar to compartminization" is a joke. And so was the Fuso.
@Contrajoe kevlar armor and you know it, BB,s were most over priced under used warship in naval history no wonder they were obsolete by 1941 but Billy Mitchell proved that in 1923 sinking, Ostfriesland, Virginia, New Jersey
@jers59 Uh, no, I didn't know it. Kevar could have been something different for all I know. Billy Mitchell proved NOTHING. Any obsolete garbage would be sunk by the laughable bomb runs he did. You forget that in today's world, BB's would have MODERN weapons. Everyone does. I don't know why.
@Contrajoe What modern weapons/ 16/50 and 5/38 designed in 1930,s, obsolete steam plant, environmental sewarge control, living quarters they would have to be converted for woman, radar signiture larger then state og Texas.
You completely ignored the main gist of my last comment. What is the "state og Texas"? I don't think this has to do with BB-35. What I meant was that I don't support the Iowa's; they are done with war fighting. I would support brand new battleships including 16" or 18" guns as the only "not modern" technology. Even then, such guns would undoubtedly incorporate modern techniques. What is "sewarge"? And Nimitz's ain't too small on radar, either.
@Contrajoe And just where are you going to build the armor plating? Those steel mills are long gone, new San Fran, Okland bay bridge steel is fabricated in China yet you think we can build BB armor here . Days of naval gunfire battles are long gone last gun battle surigao october 1944 yet you want to build new BB,s. Lets dig up Gen Custer and bring back the calvery for the army then or new roman legions
@jers59 There are still steel mills in the U.S. This has nothing to do with Roman legions, dude. BB's were powerful in Desert Storm. They still would be today. I don't know why you must so passionately oppose them.
@Contrajoe Hmm, i see Jersey Wersy hasn't changed one bit (he still can't spell Cavalry for Toffee ; )
I agree that one factor missing from present day Naval Battlegroups' is Long Range Gunfire Support, which is insane as it's a well established fact that Artillery is much more effective (& cheaper) for Short/ Medium & Long Range Bombardment than Missiles.
However i'm more for Rail Guns & another type of Weapon called the "Plasma-powered cannon" due to the limits....
@Contrajoe Well to me it's only a matter of time till a suitable Alloy or Rail Cooling Method is found.
After all when the Electric Toaster & the Jet Engine were Invented they each had the very same problem, but time & experimentation prevailed in both cases.
With Plasma Powered Cannons however there isn't any particular Disadvantage when used in a Naval Application, in fact if anything it's an Ideal use of the Technology as it plays to it's inherent strengths.
(which was one factor behind them [and Battleships] falling from favor, due to having a Limited Maximum Range compared to contempory Missiles & Aircraft [35 Miles realistic Maximum for 18.1'' for example]).
In the Purest Sense a Battleship is more though than a Large Gunship, it is the embodiment of the Warship Attribute of "Firepower"
(as all Warships' can be quantified with a differing ratio of Firepower/ Armour/ Mobility & Stealth).
Yes the spare barrels except for two of them are cut up. One is at a museum entrance and the other a naval testing facility. When the navy found them they had them destroyed. More then likely the reson for this is to prevent to battleships from ever returning. Showing the flag with a great gun platform such as a battleship no longer interests the navy brass. It's all about manpower and the giant easter egg aircraft carriers. Just ask the old Captain of the Missouri BB63.
@SCHRUBBE1966 ugh and the new zumwalt ships.... ugh those are a joke. what a waste of money. i can't believe the navy would cut up the spare barrels either... i thought they were required to keep replacement barrels...
@SCHRUBBE1966 they got like three or four barrels layin out on the terminal range at a naval testing facility in VA. They have a single turret still constructed there as well, most likely the naval testing facility you were refering to.
Easy to see in this video how the IOWA suffered that fatal overram back in 1989 which set off the turret explosion. There are no separate settings for ramming the projectile and ramming the powder.
@PotatoGunsRule you are right there was no speed setting on the rammer, The center rammerman that day was GMG2 Lawerence , it was his first live gun shoot , that powder was old and when it got handled alot it would sometimes smoke , I believe that GMG2 pankicked with the smoke he saw and over rammed the powder , with 3 seperate imprints on the rammer handle , there was a fight to bring that handle back, , the powder bags split and sparks from the rammer going back and forth set it off . GMG1SW
Very cramped conditions in those turrets. If your mind wanders or you're just a little bit out of synch, you'll wind up loading your arm into the gun instead of the shell.
having been a gunnersmate on the Missouri BB63 i agree. But the navy won't do it becouse of manning level requirements. 1200 sailors who could be spread out to 4 or five other ships. The navy lied to our captain after the gulf war and decomisioned the ship. But he took us to Australia anyways as a port stop. The Wisconsin was sent home right off. You can see a shot of her in the Movie A few Good men moored in cuba. Plus the navy cut up the spare barrels.
having been a gunnersmate on the Missouri BB63 i agree. But the navy won't do it becouse of manning level requirements. 1200 sailors who could be spread out to 4 or five other ships. The navy lied to our captain after the gulf war and decomisioned the ship. But he took us to Australia anyways as a port stop. The Wisconsin was sent home right off. You can see a shot of her in the Movie A few Good men moored in cuba. Plus the navy cut up the spare barrels.
One thing I'm wondering about is how the projectile handlers manage to keep the projectile vertical when parbuckleing it to the hoist. It would ruin somebody's day and probably cause extensive damage if one of those 2500 pound shells got loose.
Also, is it true that grease was spread on the projectile flats to make it easier to move the projectiles?
What have changed that should make it possible for a BB to sink a carrier, when they couldn't even do it in WWII, before stuff like beyond-horizon radar and AWACS?
@chrthiel That is a silly question. What have changed? HAS, maybe? Anyway, carriers are less armored now and a scramjet round could go 100+ miles. That is what would allow BB's to sink CV's. You should know that Scharnhorst and Gniesenau (I can't spell that last one to save my life) sank HMS Glorious and Yamato at least hit Gambier bay. Battleships can sink Carriers! One last thing, you seem to almost deliberately forget that a modern battleship would be given the same AA & radar as modern ships
The japanese Center Force had 4 BBs, 6 CAs, 2 CLs, and 11 DDs.
And despite being seriously outnumbered and outpaced Taffy 3 won. At the cost of two CVEs, two DDs and one DE, they sank 3 CAs and 3 DDs and drove off the rest. If anything, the Battle off Samar proves that carriers are superior to BBs.
@chrthiel Really? A carrier cannot be unaware? According to CombatReformDOTorg, our carriers are often "sunk" in exercise war games by undetected diesel subs who get within top distance. On the BB note, scram jets may be $1000's now, but they will get cheaper than that. Tomahawks are not going to get cheaper, they've been around for too long.
Please don't drag Sparky, or DynamicPara as he's known around here, into this.
The guy is a complete maniac. Amongst other things, he believes that Aliens are preparing to invade us, that the M113 is airdrop capable and in general that the M113 Gavin as he calls it, is the ultimate vehicle evah. Try logging on to one of the more serious defence forums and ask about him. If you're lucky you'll get out with you eyebrows intact.
@chrthiel Dynmicpara may or may not be crazy, but you cannot help your argument unless you can point out factual inaccuracies in the Info of his that I used. The pages I have read there (MidwayMyth and 21st Century battleships) are agreeable & make more sense than your perspective. A scramjet round would get cheaper because the prototype may be costly, but future production will be less costly.
Give me one good reason why a scramjet round would get cheaper than a missile.
It needs an engine, just like a missile, a warhead, just like a missile, a guidance system, just like a missile, avionics, just like a missile. But unlike a missile it can't be more than 16" in diameters and 72" long.
Please explain how a missile about a third the size of a Harpoon, but with roughly the same performance is ever going to be cheaper. Note that the Harpoon is one of the most numerous missiles in the world
@chrthiel A scramjet round wouldn't have the same performance. Whereas a harpoon has to maneuver a little bit, a Scramjet would go where it is fired through trajectory. A harpoon is $1,200,000. I doubt a scramjet round would be as much. Also, while missiles are often purpose designed (Tomahawk - land attack, Harpoon - Antiship), Scramjet rounds could do everything. One type would do well against ships, land targets, etc, so there needn't be great variety.
@chrthiel I read that and did some other research, and while Mike Sparks seems like a crazy maniac, his info on battleships seems accurate. I can't say that for his other articles though.
But anyway, a missile is plenty capable of penetrating bb armour.
Let's take the Harpoon as an example. Not a particularly great SSM, it is however, a lot faster than a dumb bomb, has the same amount of explosives and the warhead is build in much the same way. Now, why shouldn't it be able to penetrate armour when the dumb bombs could?
And why would a scramjet round get any cheaper when missiles don't? They need the same components, but the scramjet round needs to be smaller and be able to withstand far far higher accelerations. And shell for shell they'd deliver less payload than a missile of equal cost.
@chrthiel No, Samar proves you need radar. The Japanese didn't know what they were fighting. Nice try though. The Iowas are not useless. Look at their history. They always did well, even in Lebanon where carriers failed. Battleships are cheaper. The Iowa can deliver more tonnage in one hour than a carrier in a half a day. Pilots & million $ planes need to be severely jeopardized for CV's to work. Battleships require no such danger.
@Contrajoe And before you say anything, no, it won't hit the side of the ships, it's not that bad a missile. And remember, there's plenty of SSMs out there that can deliver several times as much explosives.
As for subs, that's even more true for BBs since they lack dedicated ASW capabilities.
@chrthiel The Harpoon was made in the late 70's. It, like the exocet, was designed for tin cans that roam the seas today. Battleships have 6+ times as much armor, and probably wouldn't suffer as much. A modern battleship could probably carry ASW and a lot of other equipment of today on an armored platform that has guns. I don't think you want me to say this, but we lost 2 battleships to the element of surprise. When they were on full alert, we still lost 4 fleet carriers, plus many CVLs/CVEs.
@Contrajoe Who says carriers are lerss armored now? Nimitz class super carriers are most armored warships in history with modern armor that out performs obsolete BB armor such as Kevlar armor and in near future Dynamic armor on Ford Class Carriers. Battleships were proving to be obsolete in 1923 by Billy Mitchell and defintly obsolete in 1941
@jers59 No - you are the liar: A nimitz is armored against MODERN threats - ASMs, mark 48-style torps, et. It would not survive a 16" 1,900 pound HE round. Also, Billy Mitchell sank sitting ducks - the Ostriefield (I can't spell German to save my life) and the others were as obsolete as BB's of the day got. An Iowa, with its armor, would withstand most modern threats (FFG Stark withstood 2 harpoons - if an FFG does that, a BB wouldn't have many worries) save for the mark 48 , which sinks all.
@Contrajoe I believe its Ostfriesland the stark was hit by 2 exocets but only 1 exploded, a BB would never get within 500 miles of a carrier before its wreck on the bottom with the many other BB,s such as Yamato, Musashi, Iowas max range of its main guns about 23 miles, carriers hundreds even thousands with aerial refueling, The BB even in its day was rarely used over priced and easy to sink. US destroyer Melvin sunk IJN BB Fuso and DD USS Laffey shot up the IJN Hiei
@jers59 Those destroyers had the help of six of our battleships. A battleship, given modern weapons, would get very close to a carrier, within ramming distance.
@Contrajoe The Fuso was destroyed by Melvin long before the battleships fired there guns infact the BB Yamashiro that was hit by USBB,s was already badly damage by US Destroyers and PT Boats it was PT Boats and Destroyers that struck the japs first, long before they were with in reach of BB guns
@jers59 Those battleships ran away not because of fear of destroyers, but because they didn't know what they were fighting. The lesson has nothing to do with battleships being outdated and everything to do with the need for radar.
@Contrajoe If japs could not tell escort carrier from fleet carrier and destroyer from heavy cruiser maybe those old propaganda ads were right about japs being near sighted and wearing coke bottle glasses. Taranto and Pearl Harbor proved battleships days were over INfact the japs by sinking obsolete scrap iron helped the US Navy by forcing it to build more of the new queen of the sea the aircraft carriers. 4 Montana class and 2 Iowa class BB,s cancelled which was good thing for US Navy
@jers59 That's not true. Those both proved that you cannot let your guard down. If CV's were at Taranto or Pearl, they would have been sunk FIRST. ALso, USN was foolish to cancel the Montana's.
@Contrajoe No the navy would have been foolish building 4 obsolete Montana battleships as they were in building 4 obsolete Iowa class BB It was aircraft carrier and submarine that won pacific in WW2 not obsoleter floating hotals battleships If US had no BB,s in pacific they would still easily win the war maybe quicker with BB material being used to build more carriers and submarines.
@jers59 The only reason CV's worked was because japanese AA was awful, and we had more airplanes than most of the rest of the world combined. If you actually research the topic and go in WITHOUT laboring under USN delusions, you'll find that battleships were very useful and performed better than carriers for shore bombardment.
@Contrajoe Actually destroyers were more valuable then battleships in shore bombardments they came in close almost point blank it was destroyers at Iwo that helped the marines the mosr. BB bombardment moved some sand thats about it.
@Contrajoe WW1 Only 1 big BB battle Jutland no winner in that battle it was draw, WW2 Coral Sea, Midway, Mariana Turkey Shoot, were all carrier battles no BB involved, Most of Leyte Gulf battle was aircraft carriers, Korea US carrier based aircraft from Valley Forge saved the south from north taking over, korea vietnam the gulf were carrier wars I can add Taranto, Truk,
@jers59 Carriers were prominent yes, but you cannot ignore the role battleships played in all of those wars, not to mention the role they could play today. Also, battleships were involved in many of those battles you list, mostly as giant AAA platforms that saved the carriers many times.
@Contrajoe what possible role could battleship with obsolete engineering plant, main battery, secondary battery that uses a lot of man power have today? The military is looking to use less soldiers and sailors not more, pensions and health care are costing to much for US to keep obsolete BB,s around beside waste of fuel oil. New Ford class carrier will have 1000 less crew then Nimitz that is the future not 1938 technology.
@jers59 Battleships based 1930's tech (including the Iowas) are obsolete. I know that. However, the concept of big guns is still laden with potential. A seawolf missile can intercept 5" rounds and other missiles. I needn't point out that many systems in use can knock out even the latest aircraft. However, 16" shell cannot be stopped by the seawolf, but it can only be knocked off course. Sure, lasers can destroy any threat at all, but a 16" shell is a cheaper loss than a $1,200,000 block2 harpoon
@Contrajoe Would have been better for US Navy in 1980,s to put the 2 Des Moines class cruiser, Des Moines and Salem back into service and use worn out NewPort News for spare parts they would have 2 all gun heavy cruisers with fast firing auto loading 8 inch guns 9 guns to ship equal each ship firing 63 8 inch rounds a minute plus 6,5/38 inch guns and put 2 Essex class carriers Bon Homme Richard and Oriskany into service as light attack carriers first with A4 Skyhawks latter F18,s
@jers59 The problem with that is that 8" rounds simply don't have the power that 16" rounds do. Also, the fact you are criticizing me for wanting the Iowas back while you are wanting the Essexes back is HILARIOUS!
@Contrajoe How many rounds per minute can 1barrel on Iowa class BB put out 2, with Des Moines class heavy cruier its 7 which = 63 rounds per minute As for Essex in 1981 2modernized Essex class carriers were more dangerous and more useful then 4Iowa class BB,s that were obsolete in 1943It was essexs that won the pacific war in WW2 along with the submarine. It was Essexs that pulverized the north koreans and chicoms in korean war and it was Essexs that were the backbone of the US fleet off vietnam
@jers59 Essexes were were all that, but the Iowas' played a crucial role in Korea none the less, and in Vietnam, New Jersey alone was such a great performer that the Vietnamese wanted it gone before they talked peace. They didn't mind our carriers, which provided only flies to swat. They did mind our battleship, which, unlike carrier planes, presented a severe threat to them.
@Contrajoe New Jersey had 1 cruise and back to mothballs it was heavy cruisers that provided naval gun fire support for most of the war, St Paul, Canberra, Boston, Newport News, and destroyers all the NVA had to do to avoid BB fire move inland more then 23 miles not so with carrier based aircraft .And it was B52 christmas day bombings along with aircraft on carriers in 1972 that forced the NVA back to peace table not the New Jersey
@jers59 Actually, if you do some research, the NJ DID get forced by the president so that the VC would come to the peace tables. Also, look at how many carrier planes and B-52's we lost.
@Contrajoe Very few B52,s were lost in 8 years of war i will look it up latter and reason so many aircraft were lost was because of the crimminal johnson mcnamara regime that made pilots fly the same route every day, not allowed to bomb the Haiphong docks not allowed to bomb SAM sites johnson having to approve all bombing targets. It was B52 arc light strikes that put the fear in NVA and VC
@Contrajoe My guess with thar fat bastard governor christie cutting everything the New Jersey will be returned to US Navy not to many tourist with common sense come to camden the east coast version of detroit or east saint louis
@katey1dog I was on New Jersey in July the teak deck is rotting, rust, bare minimun staff move the New Jersey to Liberty state park which attracts many tourist
Shameful. I was on her when she was still a commissioned warship. Recently, I toured the NORTH CAROLINA. She was kept very well, some rusted holes in a turret, but nothing too serious.
@katey1dog North Carolina is in trouble have not been drydocked since the late 1940,s badly in need of drydock and hull repairs instead of towing it to Norfolk to drydock it and do the neccessary hull repairs the museum is taking the cheap way out building cofferdam where it is and repairing the hull that way. Of course the bottom of the hull will not be repired. Do the job right as Intrepid museum did and Missouri
@battleship62 New Jersey should never have gone to Camden which is east coast version of Detroit My guess she is returned to navy after the fat bastard governor christie cuts morew funding. Should have gone to Liberty State Park in Jersey City which has many tourist visiting it, could be tied in with the Intrepid in New York
@battleship62 Had friend who stupidly took his familt to aquarium in camden stopped at traffic light the 3 cars in front of him were carjacked he did quick U turn was pulled oveer by cops 1 block away explaines what was happening they gave him ticket anyway
@jers59 That's what I expected was going to happen with a ferry going back and forth between them but go figure. I guess they want visitors to know what it's like to take your life in your hands to be on a military ship.
Why on earth would the USN do that? If it hasn't escaped your notice, their budget is getting tighter and tighter every year, so why should they waste several hundred million dollars on reactivating useless ships?
@chrthiel First of all, they aren't useless. Second, if you would pay attention, I was saying that they could be reactivated. Not that they will be. I also stated it would be best to make new battleships, not to bring back stuff older than our respective parents.
"Why on earth would the USN do that? If it hasn't escaped your notice, their budget is getting tighter and tighter every year, so why should they waste several hundred million dollars on reactivating useless ships?"
Anyway, they truly are useless. They can't do AAW, ASW or ASuW and their NFS capabilities are rather questionable (Historically, 8 inch cruiser fire was far more effective since it was more accurate and had a smaller splash area.) and they are far too expensive to operate.
@chrthiel There is one thing you anti-battleship guys always forget: Guns are not all that a BB offers. It also provides armor, and a modern missile would be very blessed & lucky to do more damage to a battleship than paint stripper.
@pancreasmen Are you on drugs? why do people like you waste other peoples time with retarded statements that Iowas are coming back and can easily sink a aircraft carrier both are lies and you are ignorant
@8;02 I didnt hear them mention the manual elevation controllman or the manual rotation/ training man in the machinery rooms for each indivisual gun, I served in those positions at times of general quarters
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No wonder the battleships became extinct. All that complexity and delicate machinery required to just fire a shell with chancy possibility of hitting the target. Very poor value for money.
Looking at this with them having a higher speed on the ram to load the shell than the powder, if they had designed it to only load both at the lower speed, the Iowa explosion might not have happened. Of course it would have taken an extra second to load the gun then but.......
the explosion happend due to the poweder. the shells and powder were both very old. the powder dated back to korea. it was unstable. it like anyexplosive has a limited shelf life. until it must be used or disposed of. had the ship had fresh powder on it. that explosion would have never had happened.
Mrbob200 true , Iowa was decommissioned for the last time in 1990, and was initially struck from the Naval Vessel Register in 1995. She was reinstated from 1999 to 2006 to comply with federal laws that required retention and maintenance of two Iowa-class battleships. Iowa is currently berthed with the National Defense Reserve Fleet San Francisco and is awaiting donation to a not-for-profit entity for use as museum ship. At present, Iowa is the only member of her class not open to the public
I walked through a 16'' turret, projectile rooms & powder room of the North Carolina (BB-55) in Wilmington. It's fascinating to see here how those guns were operated. The Iowas had greater speed and presumably greater protection.
Yes, we have her here in Camden NJ. I took the tour and got into the gunhouse of one of the main batteries. At the time you couldn't get any further than that. There might be more areas opened to the public now. A word of advice: if you should decide to visit BB62 in Camden, don't stray beyond the waterfront tourist area as this city is a cesspool of criminal activity.
Wonderful film. I lived in Long Beach, Ca. in the late 80's and I knew a few of the sailors on the Missouri when she was stationed there b4 the Navy base was closed. I was invited to take a tiger cruise which means that I flew to Pearl Harbor and
boarded the Mighty Mo and cruised back
to Long Beach. It was great and I'll never forget it!!
some parts are cut off
DrKarot7760 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Am I understanding that there are idiots out there who consider the battleship a worthwhile weapon. All those sailors crewing it, hundreds of millions in build budget and running costs. Two $1,000,000 missiles and that's your battleship fcuked.
PenzancePete 4 weeks ago
@PenzancePete The iowas have 18" of reinforced armored steel plating, modern ships have less then 2".
steamingpoopfart 2 weeks ago
Great movie!
FRA66ER6 1 month ago
LOTS of moving parts here which could - and probably did, regularly - crush hands, arms, feet, legs, etc. Especially in the midst of hours-long battles as men got exhausted and faint in the below-deck heat.
hebneh 2 months ago
this seems like a major pain in the ass lol
HellzNord 2 months ago
@jers59 Still Aspousing Nonsense i see then (as usual ; )
As they say "Demand spurs Development & Innovation"
Amusing to see you now putting your own Country down (usually it was everyone else's whom you insult & deride), i guess even you must be coming to realize how much the US depends apon the Old World these days (& they don't come much older than good old China ; )
There will always be Demand for Gunfire Support, denying that only proves how little you really know (about anything).
TSR1989FF 3 months ago
Battleships were withdrawn for good reason. Sending an irreplaceable ship with 2000+ crew to conduct NGS within 20 miles of shore, likely teeming with DE subs and mines, is dumber than a special needs art class. As GW1 showed, the USN does not know how to do mine clearance. Not glamorous enough. These ships are horribly vulnerable to modern under-the-keel torpedoes and mine explosions. Plus, it'd be easy to design an armour-piercing ASM. The Germans had them in WWII. They sank the Roma with one.
beastatlay 3 months ago
i though this gun is easy to use . now i know it was like this ..
skah07 3 months ago
All these guys standing on the lower ammo decks and (in)between the elevevators and machinery would be trapped like a mouse in case of sinking or a direct turret hit.
ZerokillerOppel1 3 months ago
@ZerokillerOppel1 Most battleships are very hard to get out of in case of fan emergency. Hood sank in minutes and only 3 escaped. The armour does that it HAS to be hard to get in, -and out of the ship so consequensely most casualitites in a battleship war drowns, trapped inside a sinking hull.
But battleships are outdated, it happened during ww2, YES they can be quite efficient as borbardment vessels but that's all.
ovemunk 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
three gun turrets, not a triple gun turrets
Adolphification 4 months ago
Comment removed
Adolphification 4 months ago
In the powder room there is no fire extinguisher, just a sign that says, "In case of fire, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye"
flahr1 4 months ago
Going to the "powder room" has a whole different meaning here.
flahr1 4 months ago
Hey Guns, You are 100% right. I have seen the rammer controls on the USS NJ and they are just like you described and shown in the video. I can see if your pucker factor went up you could make one heck of a mistake. Now, I'm a bird farm sailor (Former USS America when she was CVA66) and a rate which no longer exists (RM1) but the NJ really impressed me with her capability. Personally, I would have enjoyed being in a turret for at least one shoot (without the scared GMG2) ;-)
N707GW 5 months ago
im too much of a pussy to stand in the breach area of one of those guns!
ericsbuds 7 months ago
With that kinda complexity, it's easy to see how easily a turret can be knocked out of action. A relatively minor hit could be enough to damage just 1 loading component of the long loading process and the turret is rendered inoperable.
trent8002003 7 months ago
@trent8002003 How so?
Contrajoe 4 months ago
@Contrajoe Can't u see so many steps have to be taken before a gun is ready for firing. If any step is interrupted, the gun can't fire. That's only part of the complex mechanism involved in firing a gun. The fire control procedures not included here are even more complex. Range, deflection, windspeed, own speed, enemy speed, salvo's spread all have to be calculated accurately before 1 salvo can be fired and then only for possible correction. You miss 1 step or 1 component damaged, the gun's out/
trent8002003 4 months ago
@trent8002003 It's all well armored though. And it's not as complex as the stuff for carriers. Still, It's actually very hard to disable.
Contrajoe 4 months ago
@Contrajoe Not quite. The gunhouses and the barbettes are armored yes. But the radar, the sighting tops, the communication lines, the rangefinders are all UNarmored. Even the armored gunhouses could suffer terrible concussions from non-penetrating hits resulting in training and elevating mechanisms being knocked out. Carrier operations are much simpler. Each plane is an individual entity. As long as the flight deck remains in operation, all surviving planes could still function.
trent8002003 4 months ago 3
@trent8002003 Battleships are still tougher than carriers to knock. Just bring some AA weapons and get close. Two bombs in the right place could knock out a whole carrier (bow catapults and the angled lane). You'd need at least 3 to knock out Iowa's big guns, and those would be big bombs. Iowa can still shoot as long as there's a plane or even just ground observers and its guns. That said, I think a modern battleship would be better as even the Iowas have much room for improvement.
Contrajoe 4 months ago
@Contrajoe If you're talking sinkability, sure, battleships are much more resilient to damage. But if you're talking about operability in the event of damage, you'll find battleships are just as easy to knock out of action as carriers. Look at Bismarck's last battle. She was hard to sink yes but half her main guns were knocked in the first 15 minutes of action. Once all her main guns were gone by the end of the first hour, she was finished as a fighting unit.
trent8002003 4 months ago
@trent8002003 Bismarck is a poor example. It was surrounded by many hostile ships. And if we're talking about modern battle, Bismarck should not be an example partly because no one has anything as powerful as the weapons used to sink it, save for nukes and Mk 48 torps, but those things would sink any ship at all.
Contrajoe 4 months ago
@Contrajoe the mk48 is a super bad bitch.
bigbobkropp 3 months ago
@Contrajoe LOL Nimitz class carrier is naval history most survivable warship ever built from modern armor including kevar to compartminization they putr BB armor and survivability to shame. US destroyer Melvin built in Kearny New Jersey sank jap BB Fuso at Surigao. BB in modern naval war life span is in minutes from cruise missiles with shape warhead to modern torpedos will easily destroy helpless BB whose max range of the guns is measly 23 miles carrier aircraft hundreds of miles
jers59 3 months ago
@jers59 What? I can barely read what you typed. As I've outlined many times before, BB's are MORE survivable than carriers. Rocket assisted rounds would increase their range greatly. And torps and cruise missiles would be MORE deadly for CVN's than for BB's...
Furthermore, "modern armor including kevar to compartminization" is a joke. And so was the Fuso.
Contrajoe 3 months ago
@jers59 Reminds me, what is "kevar" armor? I never heard of such a thing.
Contrajoe 3 months ago
@Contrajoe kevlar armor and you know it, BB,s were most over priced under used warship in naval history no wonder they were obsolete by 1941 but Billy Mitchell proved that in 1923 sinking, Ostfriesland, Virginia, New Jersey
jers59 3 months ago
@jers59 Uh, no, I didn't know it. Kevar could have been something different for all I know. Billy Mitchell proved NOTHING. Any obsolete garbage would be sunk by the laughable bomb runs he did. You forget that in today's world, BB's would have MODERN weapons. Everyone does. I don't know why.
Contrajoe 3 months ago
@Contrajoe What modern weapons/ 16/50 and 5/38 designed in 1930,s, obsolete steam plant, environmental sewarge control, living quarters they would have to be converted for woman, radar signiture larger then state og Texas.
jers59 3 months ago
@jers59 LOWELLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL MENCHAU!
You completely ignored the main gist of my last comment. What is the "state og Texas"? I don't think this has to do with BB-35. What I meant was that I don't support the Iowa's; they are done with war fighting. I would support brand new battleships including 16" or 18" guns as the only "not modern" technology. Even then, such guns would undoubtedly incorporate modern techniques. What is "sewarge"? And Nimitz's ain't too small on radar, either.
Contrajoe 3 months ago
@Contrajoe And just where are you going to build the armor plating? Those steel mills are long gone, new San Fran, Okland bay bridge steel is fabricated in China yet you think we can build BB armor here . Days of naval gunfire battles are long gone last gun battle surigao october 1944 yet you want to build new BB,s. Lets dig up Gen Custer and bring back the calvery for the army then or new roman legions
jers59 3 months ago
@jers59 There are still steel mills in the U.S. This has nothing to do with Roman legions, dude. BB's were powerful in Desert Storm. They still would be today. I don't know why you must so passionately oppose them.
Contrajoe 3 months ago
@Contrajoe Hmm, i see Jersey Wersy hasn't changed one bit (he still can't spell Cavalry for Toffee ; )
I agree that one factor missing from present day Naval Battlegroups' is Long Range Gunfire Support, which is insane as it's a well established fact that Artillery is much more effective (& cheaper) for Short/ Medium & Long Range Bombardment than Missiles.
However i'm more for Rail Guns & another type of Weapon called the "Plasma-powered cannon" due to the limits....
T.B.C.
TSR1989FF 3 months ago
@TSR1989FF Well, if you can make a rail gun that doesn't melt itself, I'm all for it.
Contrajoe 3 months ago
@Contrajoe Well to me it's only a matter of time till a suitable Alloy or Rail Cooling Method is found.
After all when the Electric Toaster & the Jet Engine were Invented they each had the very same problem, but time & experimentation prevailed in both cases.
With Plasma Powered Cannons however there isn't any particular Disadvantage when used in a Naval Application, in fact if anything it's an Ideal use of the Technology as it plays to it's inherent strengths.
The Future?, i'm certain of it.
TSR1989FF 2 months ago
@Contrajoe Part 2/2...
of Gas Expansion in Conventional Guns
(which was one factor behind them [and Battleships] falling from favor, due to having a Limited Maximum Range compared to contempory Missiles & Aircraft [35 Miles realistic Maximum for 18.1'' for example]).
In the Purest Sense a Battleship is more though than a Large Gunship, it is the embodiment of the Warship Attribute of "Firepower"
(as all Warships' can be quantified with a differing ratio of Firepower/ Armour/ Mobility & Stealth).
TSR1989FF 3 months ago
the gun captain dude had a grim lookin face.. anyone else notice that?
juiceman38804 8 months ago
Yes the spare barrels except for two of them are cut up. One is at a museum entrance and the other a naval testing facility. When the navy found them they had them destroyed. More then likely the reson for this is to prevent to battleships from ever returning. Showing the flag with a great gun platform such as a battleship no longer interests the navy brass. It's all about manpower and the giant easter egg aircraft carriers. Just ask the old Captain of the Missouri BB63.
SCHRUBBE1966 10 months ago
@SCHRUBBE1966 Everyone knows it's best to send flies that can get swatted instead of unstoppable bullets.
DUH!
/sarcasm in good humor :D
Contrajoe 9 months ago
@SCHRUBBE1966 ugh and the new zumwalt ships.... ugh those are a joke. what a waste of money. i can't believe the navy would cut up the spare barrels either... i thought they were required to keep replacement barrels...
rawheas 9 months ago
@rawheas They are, so far as I know. It's a wonder that congress won't admonish them!
Contrajoe 9 months ago
@SCHRUBBE1966 they got like three or four barrels layin out on the terminal range at a naval testing facility in VA. They have a single turret still constructed there as well, most likely the naval testing facility you were refering to.
countryfun360 6 months ago
Easy to see in this video how the IOWA suffered that fatal overram back in 1989 which set off the turret explosion. There are no separate settings for ramming the projectile and ramming the powder.
PotatoGunsRule 10 months ago
@PotatoGunsRule you are right there was no speed setting on the rammer, The center rammerman that day was GMG2 Lawerence , it was his first live gun shoot , that powder was old and when it got handled alot it would sometimes smoke , I believe that GMG2 pankicked with the smoke he saw and over rammed the powder , with 3 seperate imprints on the rammer handle , there was a fight to bring that handle back, , the powder bags split and sparks from the rammer going back and forth set it off . GMG1SW
mrgunnersmate 5 months ago
@PotatoGunsRule That's nonsense. There are different speeds.
Contrajoe 4 months ago
you've got MAIL
battle623 10 months ago
Very cramped conditions in those turrets. If your mind wanders or you're just a little bit out of synch, you'll wind up loading your arm into the gun instead of the shell.
kpadmirer 10 months ago
61 men per turret... that is alot of seamen.
KamiKaZantA 10 months ago
@KamiKaZantA Ohh DOES THAT EXCITE YOU, I WANT TO BE A RAMMER.
michaelwright999 8 months ago
Great training film. Makes me want to sign up for the Navy! Too bad none of these 16" guns are functional anymore.
MartyInLa 11 months ago
@MartyInLa: I think we should bring back the battleships!
trevinor3 11 months ago
having been a gunnersmate on the Missouri BB63 i agree. But the navy won't do it becouse of manning level requirements. 1200 sailors who could be spread out to 4 or five other ships. The navy lied to our captain after the gulf war and decomisioned the ship. But he took us to Australia anyways as a port stop. The Wisconsin was sent home right off. You can see a shot of her in the Movie A few Good men moored in cuba. Plus the navy cut up the spare barrels.
SCHRUBBE1966 10 months ago
@SCHRUBBE1966 Really? OMG...the 33 spare barrels are gone now? OMG that sucks....and no I am not being sarcastic.
PotatoGunsRule 10 months ago
@trevinor3 If I were a Marine hitting an enemy beach, that would be #1 on my wish list!
MartyInLa 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
having been a gunnersmate on the Missouri BB63 i agree. But the navy won't do it becouse of manning level requirements. 1200 sailors who could be spread out to 4 or five other ships. The navy lied to our captain after the gulf war and decomisioned the ship. But he took us to Australia anyways as a port stop. The Wisconsin was sent home right off. You can see a shot of her in the Movie A few Good men moored in cuba. Plus the navy cut up the spare barrels.
SCHRUBBE1966 10 months ago
Always have had a fascination with those big guns. RN
Angryrnmedic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Need to marry you Be Naughty girls benaughtyman.info
nadisaniamila 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i will use this guns for Justin Bieber
Basti20697 1 year ago 19
@Basti20697 Not for, against.
Iluvbuckethead1 1 year ago
WHO DISLIKED THIS?!
TheM1Master 1 year ago
@TheM1Master the widow of a Japanese soldier
pizzafrenzyman 1 year ago
@pizzafrenzyman true
TheM1Master 1 year ago
@TheM1Master two people that had their house blown up with one lol.
gimmieanamestupid 1 year ago
its better to give than to recieve
redougulas 1 year ago 50
@redougulas indeed
drewnickel 1 year ago
amazing film, thanks
Sidslotm 1 year ago
I love these old training films. Just awesome!
lakewood85 1 year ago
thanks for posting
roudy1689 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is the best way to search single mom naneedj.info
kumudakamal 1 year ago
TBK1 sucked every swinging dick in the navy, now he posts his faggotry in arfcom team
foxxshox 1 year ago
One thing I'm wondering about is how the projectile handlers manage to keep the projectile vertical when parbuckleing it to the hoist. It would ruin somebody's day and probably cause extensive damage if one of those 2500 pound shells got loose.
Also, is it true that grease was spread on the projectile flats to make it easier to move the projectiles?
Shackamaxon 1 year ago
So thats quite a scary turret, yes? :O :D
GerbilEssences 1 year ago
they cut out some important stuff... like where the primer goes for instance..
2tallbrandon 1 year ago
Look at all those moving parts. Lots of places to get hurt.
bentwoodchair 1 year ago
Comment removed
pancreasmen 1 year ago
@pancreasmen That's assuming a battleship gets close enough, which is more of a possibility than most would have you know.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
What have changed that should make it possible for a BB to sink a carrier, when they couldn't even do it in WWII, before stuff like beyond-horizon radar and AWACS?
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel That is a silly question. What have changed? HAS, maybe? Anyway, carriers are less armored now and a scramjet round could go 100+ miles. That is what would allow BB's to sink CV's. You should know that Scharnhorst and Gniesenau (I can't spell that last one to save my life) sank HMS Glorious and Yamato at least hit Gambier bay. Battleships can sink Carriers! One last thing, you seem to almost deliberately forget that a modern battleship would be given the same AA & radar as modern ships
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
@Contrajoe
What's the point in having a scramjet round capable of 100+ miles whenit'll cost the same as a missile that goes 1000 miles?
Also, HMS Glorious was sunk during the night before anyone knew how to do night time carrier ops and she had no aircraft ready to take off.
Gambier Bay was an escort carrier capable of 19 knots. She was part of the force knoen as Taffy 3 when they went up against the Japanese Center Force.
chrthiel 1 year ago
The japanese Center Force had 4 BBs, 6 CAs, 2 CLs, and 11 DDs.
And despite being seriously outnumbered and outpaced Taffy 3 won. At the cost of two CVEs, two DDs and one DE, they sank 3 CAs and 3 DDs and drove off the rest. If anything, the Battle off Samar proves that carriers are superior to BBs.
chrthiel 1 year ago
In both cases the carrier was caught largely unaware. Today that's impossible.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel Really? A carrier cannot be unaware? According to CombatReformDOTorg, our carriers are often "sunk" in exercise war games by undetected diesel subs who get within top distance. On the BB note, scram jets may be $1000's now, but they will get cheaper than that. Tomahawks are not going to get cheaper, they've been around for too long.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
I know CombatReform is one site, but it is the only source I know off that actually says what happens in exercises.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Please don't drag Sparky, or DynamicPara as he's known around here, into this.
The guy is a complete maniac. Amongst other things, he believes that Aliens are preparing to invade us, that the M113 is airdrop capable and in general that the M113 Gavin as he calls it, is the ultimate vehicle evah. Try logging on to one of the more serious defence forums and ask about him. If you're lucky you'll get out with you eyebrows intact.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel Dynmicpara may or may not be crazy, but you cannot help your argument unless you can point out factual inaccuracies in the Info of his that I used. The pages I have read there (MidwayMyth and 21st Century battleships) are agreeable & make more sense than your perspective. A scramjet round would get cheaper because the prototype may be costly, but future production will be less costly.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Give me one good reason why a scramjet round would get cheaper than a missile.
It needs an engine, just like a missile, a warhead, just like a missile, a guidance system, just like a missile, avionics, just like a missile. But unlike a missile it can't be more than 16" in diameters and 72" long.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Please explain how a missile about a third the size of a Harpoon, but with roughly the same performance is ever going to be cheaper. Note that the Harpoon is one of the most numerous missiles in the world
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel A scramjet round wouldn't have the same performance. Whereas a harpoon has to maneuver a little bit, a Scramjet would go where it is fired through trajectory. A harpoon is $1,200,000. I doubt a scramjet round would be as much. Also, while missiles are often purpose designed (Tomahawk - land attack, Harpoon - Antiship), Scramjet rounds could do everything. One type would do well against ships, land targets, etc, so there needn't be great variety.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@chrthiel Also, care to fill me in about what is so bad about sparky?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Sure, take a look at this article: home(DOT)comcast(DOT)net/~genericdad/m113gavin(DOT)html
The mere fact that people write articles about how insane he is should be a warning sign.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel I read that and did some other research, and while Mike Sparks seems like a crazy maniac, his info on battleships seems accurate. I can't say that for his other articles though.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@chrthiel Mike Sparks: Fighting aliens with self deploying dreadnaught gavins since 1987!
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
But anyway, a missile is plenty capable of penetrating bb armour.
Let's take the Harpoon as an example. Not a particularly great SSM, it is however, a lot faster than a dumb bomb, has the same amount of explosives and the warhead is build in much the same way. Now, why shouldn't it be able to penetrate armour when the dumb bombs could?
chrthiel 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
And why would a scramjet round get any cheaper when missiles don't? They need the same components, but the scramjet round needs to be smaller and be able to withstand far far higher accelerations. And shell for shell they'd deliver less payload than a missile of equal cost.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel No, Samar proves you need radar. The Japanese didn't know what they were fighting. Nice try though. The Iowas are not useless. Look at their history. They always did well, even in Lebanon where carriers failed. Battleships are cheaper. The Iowa can deliver more tonnage in one hour than a carrier in a half a day. Pilots & million $ planes need to be severely jeopardized for CV's to work. Battleships require no such danger.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe And before you say anything, no, it won't hit the side of the ships, it's not that bad a missile. And remember, there's plenty of SSMs out there that can deliver several times as much explosives.
As for subs, that's even more true for BBs since they lack dedicated ASW capabilities.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel The Harpoon was made in the late 70's. It, like the exocet, was designed for tin cans that roam the seas today. Battleships have 6+ times as much armor, and probably wouldn't suffer as much. A modern battleship could probably carry ASW and a lot of other equipment of today on an armored platform that has guns. I don't think you want me to say this, but we lost 2 battleships to the element of surprise. When they were on full alert, we still lost 4 fleet carriers, plus many CVLs/CVEs.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Who says carriers are lerss armored now? Nimitz class super carriers are most armored warships in history with modern armor that out performs obsolete BB armor such as Kevlar armor and in near future Dynamic armor on Ford Class Carriers. Battleships were proving to be obsolete in 1923 by Billy Mitchell and defintly obsolete in 1941
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 No - you are the liar: A nimitz is armored against MODERN threats - ASMs, mark 48-style torps, et. It would not survive a 16" 1,900 pound HE round. Also, Billy Mitchell sank sitting ducks - the Ostriefield (I can't spell German to save my life) and the others were as obsolete as BB's of the day got. An Iowa, with its armor, would withstand most modern threats (FFG Stark withstood 2 harpoons - if an FFG does that, a BB wouldn't have many worries) save for the mark 48 , which sinks all.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe I believe its Ostfriesland the stark was hit by 2 exocets but only 1 exploded, a BB would never get within 500 miles of a carrier before its wreck on the bottom with the many other BB,s such as Yamato, Musashi, Iowas max range of its main guns about 23 miles, carriers hundreds even thousands with aerial refueling, The BB even in its day was rarely used over priced and easy to sink. US destroyer Melvin sunk IJN BB Fuso and DD USS Laffey shot up the IJN Hiei
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 Those destroyers had the help of six of our battleships. A battleship, given modern weapons, would get very close to a carrier, within ramming distance.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe The Fuso was destroyed by Melvin long before the battleships fired there guns infact the BB Yamashiro that was hit by USBB,s was already badly damage by US Destroyers and PT Boats it was PT Boats and Destroyers that struck the japs first, long before they were with in reach of BB guns
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 You gotta remember, those were pre-WWI BB's and they were VASTLY outnumbered.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Yes and 1 US Fletcher class destroyer sank IJN Fuso. Samar Jap BB,s Yamato, Kongo, Haruna, Nagato run away from US destroyers and escorts
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 Those battleships ran away not because of fear of destroyers, but because they didn't know what they were fighting. The lesson has nothing to do with battleships being outdated and everything to do with the need for radar.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe If japs could not tell escort carrier from fleet carrier and destroyer from heavy cruiser maybe those old propaganda ads were right about japs being near sighted and wearing coke bottle glasses. Taranto and Pearl Harbor proved battleships days were over INfact the japs by sinking obsolete scrap iron helped the US Navy by forcing it to build more of the new queen of the sea the aircraft carriers. 4 Montana class and 2 Iowa class BB,s cancelled which was good thing for US Navy
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 That's not true. Those both proved that you cannot let your guard down. If CV's were at Taranto or Pearl, they would have been sunk FIRST. ALso, USN was foolish to cancel the Montana's.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe No the navy would have been foolish building 4 obsolete Montana battleships as they were in building 4 obsolete Iowa class BB It was aircraft carrier and submarine that won pacific in WW2 not obsoleter floating hotals battleships If US had no BB,s in pacific they would still easily win the war maybe quicker with BB material being used to build more carriers and submarines.
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 The only reason CV's worked was because japanese AA was awful, and we had more airplanes than most of the rest of the world combined. If you actually research the topic and go in WITHOUT laboring under USN delusions, you'll find that battleships were very useful and performed better than carriers for shore bombardment.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Actually destroyers were more valuable then battleships in shore bombardments they came in close almost point blank it was destroyers at Iwo that helped the marines the mosr. BB bombardment moved some sand thats about it.
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 um... both were good. BB saved the day alot in WW2 taking out whole formations tanks
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
@jers59 Once again, you have lied. Battleships actually helped a whole lot, from WWI to the 1991 Gulf war. You need to do some research.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe WW1 Only 1 big BB battle Jutland no winner in that battle it was draw, WW2 Coral Sea, Midway, Mariana Turkey Shoot, were all carrier battles no BB involved, Most of Leyte Gulf battle was aircraft carriers, Korea US carrier based aircraft from Valley Forge saved the south from north taking over, korea vietnam the gulf were carrier wars I can add Taranto, Truk,
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 Carriers were prominent yes, but you cannot ignore the role battleships played in all of those wars, not to mention the role they could play today. Also, battleships were involved in many of those battles you list, mostly as giant AAA platforms that saved the carriers many times.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe what possible role could battleship with obsolete engineering plant, main battery, secondary battery that uses a lot of man power have today? The military is looking to use less soldiers and sailors not more, pensions and health care are costing to much for US to keep obsolete BB,s around beside waste of fuel oil. New Ford class carrier will have 1000 less crew then Nimitz that is the future not 1938 technology.
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 Battleships based 1930's tech (including the Iowas) are obsolete. I know that. However, the concept of big guns is still laden with potential. A seawolf missile can intercept 5" rounds and other missiles. I needn't point out that many systems in use can knock out even the latest aircraft. However, 16" shell cannot be stopped by the seawolf, but it can only be knocked off course. Sure, lasers can destroy any threat at all, but a 16" shell is a cheaper loss than a $1,200,000 block2 harpoon
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@jers59 What I'm trying to say is that 16" shells are the closest to unstoppable projectiles that our arsenal could get.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Would have been better for US Navy in 1980,s to put the 2 Des Moines class cruiser, Des Moines and Salem back into service and use worn out NewPort News for spare parts they would have 2 all gun heavy cruisers with fast firing auto loading 8 inch guns 9 guns to ship equal each ship firing 63 8 inch rounds a minute plus 6,5/38 inch guns and put 2 Essex class carriers Bon Homme Richard and Oriskany into service as light attack carriers first with A4 Skyhawks latter F18,s
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 The problem with that is that 8" rounds simply don't have the power that 16" rounds do. Also, the fact you are criticizing me for wanting the Iowas back while you are wanting the Essexes back is HILARIOUS!
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe How many rounds per minute can 1barrel on Iowa class BB put out 2, with Des Moines class heavy cruier its 7 which = 63 rounds per minute As for Essex in 1981 2modernized Essex class carriers were more dangerous and more useful then 4Iowa class BB,s that were obsolete in 1943It was essexs that won the pacific war in WW2 along with the submarine. It was Essexs that pulverized the north koreans and chicoms in korean war and it was Essexs that were the backbone of the US fleet off vietnam
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 Essexes were were all that, but the Iowas' played a crucial role in Korea none the less, and in Vietnam, New Jersey alone was such a great performer that the Vietnamese wanted it gone before they talked peace. They didn't mind our carriers, which provided only flies to swat. They did mind our battleship, which, unlike carrier planes, presented a severe threat to them.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe New Jersey had 1 cruise and back to mothballs it was heavy cruisers that provided naval gun fire support for most of the war, St Paul, Canberra, Boston, Newport News, and destroyers all the NVA had to do to avoid BB fire move inland more then 23 miles not so with carrier based aircraft .And it was B52 christmas day bombings along with aircraft on carriers in 1972 that forced the NVA back to peace table not the New Jersey
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 Actually, if you do some research, the NJ DID get forced by the president so that the VC would come to the peace tables. Also, look at how many carrier planes and B-52's we lost.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Very few B52,s were lost in 8 years of war i will look it up latter and reason so many aircraft were lost was because of the crimminal johnson mcnamara regime that made pilots fly the same route every day, not allowed to bomb the Haiphong docks not allowed to bomb SAM sites johnson having to approve all bombing targets. It was B52 arc light strikes that put the fear in NVA and VC
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 The B-52's did an awesome job, but be sure to research the NJ. BB-62 did a great job as well.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe I was on NJ this july in shit hole Camden they should defintly move it out of camden to Jersey City or next to Intrepid in NYC
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 Yeah, for all its service, the NJ needs a better home.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe My guess with thar fat bastard governor christie cutting everything the New Jersey will be returned to US Navy not to many tourist with common sense come to camden the east coast version of detroit or east saint louis
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59
The New Jersey is fairing better than the Iowa. She's rusting near San Francisco.
katey1dog 1 year ago
@katey1dog I was on New Jersey in July the teak deck is rotting, rust, bare minimun staff move the New Jersey to Liberty state park which attracts many tourist
jers59 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jers59 jers why the fuck have you blocked me????
WanDeRingLunaticc 1 year ago
@jers59
Shameful. I was on her when she was still a commissioned warship. Recently, I toured the NORTH CAROLINA. She was kept very well, some rusted holes in a turret, but nothing too serious.
katey1dog 1 year ago
@katey1dog North Carolina is in trouble have not been drydocked since the late 1940,s badly in need of drydock and hull repairs instead of towing it to Norfolk to drydock it and do the neccessary hull repairs the museum is taking the cheap way out building cofferdam where it is and repairing the hull that way. Of course the bottom of the hull will not be repired. Do the job right as Intrepid museum did and Missouri
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 went to USS New Jersey in July also what a shame. she was my last station in the active Navy
battleship62 1 year ago
@battleship62 New Jersey should never have gone to Camden which is east coast version of Detroit My guess she is returned to navy after the fat bastard governor christie cuts morew funding. Should have gone to Liberty State Park in Jersey City which has many tourist visiting it, could be tied in with the Intrepid in New York
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 jers59 Agreed I lived 20 mi north of that shithole Detroit and camden looks just as nasty. the ship should be moved to an honerable location
battleship62 1 year ago
@battleship62 WW2 started the decline of Detroit and Camden when they needed to fill positions in war factories
jers59 1 year ago
@battleship62 Had friend who stupidly took his familt to aquarium in camden stopped at traffic light the 3 cars in front of him were carjacked he did quick U turn was pulled oveer by cops 1 block away explaines what was happening they gave him ticket anyway
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 That's what I expected was going to happen with a ferry going back and forth between them but go figure. I guess they want visitors to know what it's like to take your life in your hands to be on a military ship.
tryithere 11 months ago
@katey1dog USS Iowa is on its way to LOS ANGELES after Nov 4 2010 vote from port of LA
battleship62 1 year ago
Why on earth would the USN do that? If it hasn't escaped your notice, their budget is getting tighter and tighter every year, so why should they waste several hundred million dollars on reactivating useless ships?
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel First of all, they aren't useless. Second, if you would pay attention, I was saying that they could be reactivated. Not that they will be. I also stated it would be best to make new battleships, not to bring back stuff older than our respective parents.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Contrajoe
"Why on earth would the USN do that? If it hasn't escaped your notice, their budget is getting tighter and tighter every year, so why should they waste several hundred million dollars on reactivating useless ships?"
This one was addressed to Pancreasmen
chrthiel 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Anyway, they truly are useless. They can't do AAW, ASW or ASuW and their NFS capabilities are rather questionable (Historically, 8 inch cruiser fire was far more effective since it was more accurate and had a smaller splash area.) and they are far too expensive to operate.
chrthiel 1 year ago
@chrthiel There is one thing you anti-battleship guys always forget: Guns are not all that a BB offers. It also provides armor, and a modern missile would be very blessed & lucky to do more damage to a battleship than paint stripper.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@pancreasmen Are you on drugs? why do people like you waste other peoples time with retarded statements that Iowas are coming back and can easily sink a aircraft carrier both are lies and you are ignorant
jers59 1 year ago
@8;02 I didnt hear them mention the manual elevation controllman or the manual rotation/ training man in the machinery rooms for each indivisual gun, I served in those positions at times of general quarters
battleship62 1 year ago
my dad was on the iowa during ww2, the fireing knocked the cotton out of his ears
tomanyasses 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No wonder the battleships became extinct. All that complexity and delicate machinery required to just fire a shell with chancy possibility of hitting the target. Very poor value for money.
trent8002003 2 years ago
Looking at this with them having a higher speed on the ram to load the shell than the powder, if they had designed it to only load both at the lower speed, the Iowa explosion might not have happened. Of course it would have taken an extra second to load the gun then but.......
tryithere 2 years ago
the explosion happend due to the poweder. the shells and powder were both very old. the powder dated back to korea. it was unstable. it like anyexplosive has a limited shelf life. until it must be used or disposed of. had the ship had fresh powder on it. that explosion would have never had happened.
archangel670 1 year ago
The faulty rammer also caused the explosion.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Isn't the Iowa open to the public yet?
TheSargeJ 2 years ago
iowa is still in mothball
battleship62 2 years ago
@battleship62 The Iowa is no longer mothball she is looking for a spot to be put in dock
Mrbob200 2 years ago
Mrbob200 true , Iowa was decommissioned for the last time in 1990, and was initially struck from the Naval Vessel Register in 1995. She was reinstated from 1999 to 2006 to comply with federal laws that required retention and maintenance of two Iowa-class battleships. Iowa is currently berthed with the National Defense Reserve Fleet San Francisco and is awaiting donation to a not-for-profit entity for use as museum ship. At present, Iowa is the only member of her class not open to the public
battleship62 2 years ago
San Francisco wont have her they dont want a "war image" placed in there docks she is being reconsiderd in another dock
Mrbob200 1 year ago
its not the whole city of sf mostly the fags
battleship62 1 year ago
or meat gazers
battleship62 1 year ago
Sab Francisco is the Gay capitall
killersaad 1 year ago
@TheSargeJ it was
tomanyasses 2 years ago
you can run but you cant hide. death and destruction from 23 miles. youve gat AIRMAIL.
battleship62 2 years ago
These Iowa Class ships are badass. I wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of theses 16 inchers!!! "F" that!!
GGBundy 2 years ago
"Better to give than to recive" indeed.
KamiKaZantA 2 years ago 14
I walked through a 16'' turret, projectile rooms & powder room of the North Carolina (BB-55) in Wilmington. It's fascinating to see here how those guns were operated. The Iowas had greater speed and presumably greater protection.
towringer 2 years ago
They got the USS New Jersey open for tours in Camden NJ.
stags91 2 years ago
Yes, we have her here in Camden NJ. I took the tour and got into the gunhouse of one of the main batteries. At the time you couldn't get any further than that. There might be more areas opened to the public now. A word of advice: if you should decide to visit BB62 in Camden, don't stray beyond the waterfront tourist area as this city is a cesspool of criminal activity.
hootinouts 2 years ago
Wonderful film. I lived in Long Beach, Ca. in the late 80's and I knew a few of the sailors on the Missouri when she was stationed there b4 the Navy base was closed. I was invited to take a tiger cruise which means that I flew to Pearl Harbor and
boarded the Mighty Mo and cruised back
to Long Beach. It was great and I'll never forget it!!
Rrddbb 2 years ago 3
@Rrddbb Hizbullah say that if the Missouri turns up off Beruit again they'll drag it into a suburb and handcuff it to a radiator.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Thank you so much for sharing this video with us!
gustavorocha78 2 years ago