So I looked up the biggest naval battle in history, and it turns out,it's the last time a battleship ever engaged another...The battle of Surigao Strait....Philippines WWII.
Uh, Untchabll is right. H.M.S. Hood was a battlecruiser not a Battleship. She was designed to have the same speed than a cruiser and the firepower of a battleship. Her thin deck armor is the reason why she was blown sky high in less than 6 min by K.M.S. Bismarck.
Battleships are very large vessels, heavily armored, a small number of very large guns. The end of the line for warships armed with guns. They were vulnerable to torpedos, which small, cheap, submarines, airplanes, torpedo boats, torpedo boat destroyers and even not-so-cheap cruisers all carried. And mines and bombs dropped by airplanes. Their military value was too low for their cost, and in small numbers, too big to risk. Ornamental, but pointless. No new ones built since WWII, not worth it.
there are no battleships in service in any navy anywhere in the world. the primary naval warships are aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, and frigates. Naval battles in the future will most likely take place between stealthy destroyers and submarines.
The author are whining about Pearl Harbour as the end of indestructability of the Battle Ship. I seem to remember that the British laid the groundwork for the Japanese, when they raided Taranto navalbase, Italy (1940) with obsolete biplanes and damaged three battleships.
@FysikFyren That's not what he means, and Italy's armed forces were absolute crap.
He's talking about how because the US, a major naval power unlike Italy, had lost the majority of it's battleship forces, it forced the switch to carriers which showed just how powerful they could be at Midway.
The trend was set in the Pacific, Carriers could be much more useful than battleships, and thus soon replaced them as the flagship of a fleet
@FysikFyren and yet, when the Japs invaded Malaya with airfields in Siam, the Brits chose to oppose them how? By sending two battleships, Prince of Wales and Repulse which duly got bombed and torpedoed and sent to the bottom. You'd think that the Brits would know better.
@rozniy. The British was stretched thin all over the globe, but they fell prey to their own arrogance. All reports from China about Japanese aircraft was considered exaggerated. No one, Except the flying Tigers, belived that the Japanese was able to produce aircraft with range and firepower superior to those in the west. It is a bit ironic that the Japanse hadent learned their own lesson when it came to the Midway battle.
OMG i like this movie.The epic main theme gives me goosebumps.Reminds me when i was 6 years old and saw this movie for the first time.I enjoyed it very much.Maybe it's strange but it brings tears to my eyes.
These videos always get it wrong. Battleships weren't eclipsed at Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was a Japanese emulation of the British success at Taranto.
@AMD2ARC True. In fact, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to catch the U.S. carriers in port - not the battleships (although I'm sure they were happy to sink those as well).
@Jomokb76 One of the projects on the drawing boards are new capital ships armed with the new rail gun weapons systems that were successfully fired a few years ago. May not happen with this economy but perhaps one day in the future.
@Lionwolf0777 Yah, transformers capitalized on that info, but yes there are railgun equipped (prototypes?) already at sea. The weapon itself has been tested and developed since the '80s.
I remember this very well it was made some time around 1998 or 1999.Anyone know where you can get a copy of this?Can't fing it throught the history channel website.
In the type of war we are fighting now, the BB is still useful, for bombardment of targets ashore. True, in a modern blue water naval battle, she is nothing but a platform to launch SAMs at incoming AShM (if she was so equipped, she is not) and/or launch large numbers of AShMs herself. And to provide PD for more valuable ships. I have managed to sink enemy surface vessels in Harpoon 3 with the New Jersey, but she was mauled before hand. Ruskies had no response to her when the AShMs were gone
With today's anti-ship missile systems these weapons are totally obsolete, first Gulf war was over twenty years ago. This class of ship isn't even listed in current Navy Ships. These ships would have no chance against a carrier or a SSGN class submarine. Impressive 16" guns but nothing but the battleship is nothing but history now.
Actually, you are SO wrong. From Falklands to recent attack on Israeli corvette, it has been proven that missle + electronics don't provide adequate shielding, and need for artillery support on shore is crucial. After retirement of Soviet heavy ASMs, no modern weaponary is able to deliver destructive power close to one those behemots were built to withstand. And no ship ever fights alone.
@ulooklikeadope The battleships were designed to take hits from battleships. A harpoon or exocet versus the armor belts on the Iowa would not come close to sinking one. Nor do they travel alone. They would have DDG's for Air & sub warfare. They can also carry ASW choppers.
My dream future fire support platform would be a large hull, about 700 ft long, with two 10-inch rapid-fire guns. These would fire 660lb AP and 500lb HE projectiles 40+ miles, with 8-inch and 155mm subcaliber rounds of various types for extended range. All munitions would be guided. GPS fire control would offer the possibility of long range anti-ship fire. Railguns fore and aft could handle hardened bunkers and air targets. Aegis and VLS and powerful EW completes the platform.
I'd like to address the cost issue of the Iowas. Several ideas were proposed to reduce the crew size and ultimately the "$1 million per day" cost, at least in peacetime. First, half the propulsion plant could be shut down and the ships could run on their inner screws, saving huge amounts in fuel, maintenance and crew cost, and still making 27 or 28 knots. Also, one of the 16-inch turrets could be shut down, along with several 5-inch mounts. All this could reduce the crew to 900 men or less.
Since gun fire control was mentioned here, the wikipedia page titled "Ship_gun_fire-control_system" is quite interesting, and should put any such arguments on the subject to rest.
Well if you knew anything of Japanese history in that era you would know that the Japanese would often attack their enemies without officially declaring war, one example is the attack on Port Arthur against Russia in 1904.
If you Americans had developed decent radar and sonar technology no Battleships would have gotten close enough to those Airfields to attack them.
Hence why Battleships are outdated. Any other questions or do you want to take your defeated arguement elsewhere?
@ssmusic214 troll. you clearly dont understand what fire control is or the combat psycology is of the "shock and awe" of a large scale bombardment. you also don't understand the world that battleships lived and operated in. Do Battleships make sence in today's world? Not really, but neither do Carrier groups. Their purpose is to instill fear in our enemies, to give them a moment of pause BEFORE they do something stupid and think things through.
Ultimately the power of the battleship is the same as that of a Squadron of B52s flying overhead. Its called pucker factor. you see them and you say to yourself.... "here comes a world of hurt..." A Carrier Group does the same thing, its just that a Carrier group needs all its support ships to protect it (and the aircraft) from missle and sea-based attacks. A battleship, with her armor, could make due with just a sub escort...
@f1y7rap And Carrier group or B-52 base doesn't have to come within 20 miles of target and risk to operate in shallow waters with only 3 feet below her keel between shifting sandbars.
@ssmusic214 Well, technically, since battleships carried 63 tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 1500 miles, they really didn't need to get that close. Also, the fact that the heavily armored and compartmentalized fast battleship's purpose shifted toward the protection of soft targets such as carriers means they maintain their usefulness as fleet "bodyguards". I'd MUCH rather have a battleship between me and, well, anything, if I were a Carrier captain. Just my opinion.
@AmericanThunder So would I. If I'd lived in fantasy world with unlimited budgets, resources, industrial capacities, etc....
In the real world I would prefer to have 20 small escort vessels rather than 1 battleship (which takes years to build and $1 million a day to operate).
@ssmusic214 I'm no expert on the subject, as you appear to be. I'm just offering suggestions as to possible reasons for the motive of battleship reactivation. I am curious, however, why the Marine Corps and many higher ranking members of the Army are still pushing to get at least two Iowa class BBs reactivated, if these ships are, in fact, obsolete? Something about "Naval Surface Fire Support Gap" or some such. Are you military?
@AmericanThunder The Navy lacks ships that can deliver sustained gunfire. A single 5" gun on most CG's & DDG's does not do much. It is doubtful the Iowa's will return. All are museum ships now.
Erm how is the ability of a carrier to attack another ship out of its range NOT an advantage, if the Japanese had pulled up in battleships, someone would have know what was going on, and that shit wouldn't have gone down the same.
Attacking without declaring war is illegal due to the Geneva convention? I think? Japanese hadn't signed it anyway, and more importantly whats part of our culture isn't part of theres dumbass, the Japanese have employed this tactic more than once.
@gotsda Wow, you're so wrong about eveything the Guniness bk should take you in. Ever heard of night battles? Ever heard of Guadacanal and Henderson Airfield? Ever heard that in the middle of war (already declared 2 yrs ago), 2 Jap battleships, Hiei and Kirishima moved in closed enough at nite to pump in 1000 shells to pulverise Henderson Airfield? Nough said. If the Jap hadn't signed anything, why did it bother to sent a belated declaration of war to USA?
@gotsda The Japs had done it before? When and where? Wait, I know. Just now and in your mind. I don't who to believe. The History said Pearl Harbou was the first and only time (so far) the Japanese had ever attacked another country BEFORE war was declared and any form of military hostility had begun. You said otherwise. Mmmm....I think I'll history bk.
Afghanistan's Taliban rulers were given ultimatum in advance to expel AlQueda from their country and close terrorist camps and bases. They refused and got exactly what they deserved.
Pearl harbour didn't mark the end of battleship. It was an ambush. You could have a nuclear carrier there and still the Japs would have devastated it. The sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales was the real beginning of the end. There the battleship had a fair and square fight with aircraft and was beaten soundly.
@trent8002003 Besides being ambush, Pearl harbor was war crime. Commencing act of war without declaration of war. US had a legal right to hang all of them.
@ssmusic214 Actually, the Japanese sent a formal declaration of war, but it didn't make it to our diplomats before they attacked. Bureacracies, amiright?
@gotsda Dead wrong. AFTER war is declared, then anything goes. You can hit below/above/left or right of the belt. You name it, you can do it and it's still fair game. But only AFTER war is declared. Before war is declared and you start hitting, that's an immoral ambush. That's piracy. And what do you mean by carrier advantages??? If war is not declared, even frogmen attaching explosives to ships could wreck a nuclear carrier or even a whole harbour!
@trent8002003 You are still wrong. Anything does NOT go. We have Rules of War and Geneva Conventions that dictate how you may legally and honorably conduct a war. Example: You may NOT engage anyone bearing a Red Cross. They are Non-Combatants and therefore protected (however, if they start shooting at you then you can return fire) Example: you may NOT engage Hospitals or Schools. They are Unlawful Targets (sometimes even if there are gun emplacements you may not shoot them)
@f1y7rap Don't change the subject. But you just made my point. Thanks. EVEN after war is declared, some acts were still illegal. And governent officials starting wars were tried as war criminals even if they had properly declared wars. That's why the Japs were all the more despicable for instigating hostility BEFORE war was declared. They were double war criminals. Period.
The TARGET sits in a valley directly between hill 487 + 410, and 121 meters north of hill 102.
An Iowa class B.B. - supplied with this information from any forward unit, would totally trash the area identified.
Late WWII, 1945, what was left of the German Navy, cruising the Baltic Sea, was using the same indirect fire tactics to smash huge numbers off Soviet tank and troop concentrations.
@agwhitaker You're not making any sense! Of course in WWII battleships worked great for general area bombardment within 25 miles from shore. But what it has to do with GPS or Radar Fire Control?
You do not need GPS to ID general area.
If you already have EXACT GPS location of the target why you'd need to risk 60 000 ton behemoth with the crew of 3000 coming so close to the enemy if single guided missile launched from small ship, or plane can do the job?
@ssmusic214 actually, when our last battleships were retired, their fire control computers could hit with pin-point accuracy. as-good-as or better than GPS. They could choose to hit, and drop, WTC1 without disturbing WTC2 if they so choosed. GPS "smart" bombs require aditional signals/guidance to get pinpoint accuracy(in otherwords men on the ground) AND they are succeptible to jamming. Once they enter a "jammed" area, they go off their last fix, wich may or may not be the target due to wind
@ssmusic214 Fire Control existed LONG before GPS existed. and it still works on the same principles. And ohbytheway, Fire Control doesn't care if radar is working. you tell the computer where to drop it and it will do so with speed and precision. no matter how much you move. And you still seem to not understand how GPS works, or how succeptible it is to jamming, and WHY the US military uses more than just GPS to target and manuver on land, sea, & air
@f1y7rap For Fire Control Computer to work somebody (or something) has to input ALL the necessary data into the system. If not Radar or GPS, than where that data is going to come from? Clairvoyance?
@ssmusic214 what do you think the Fire Control techs and operators do on a Frigate or Battleship? clearly yo uneed a full education on how these systems work. and since you are trolling around on youtube you are either uninterested on educating yourself or don't know how to. Fire control is not a stand-alone computer. FireControl is not some robot or box that operates on its own. It gets data and radar feeds from other ships, from aircraft aloft, and data the operators input, for starters
@f1y7rap I was in FM Division, Main Battery Fire Control, on USS Wisconsin. The computers were the Mark 8 Ford Rangekeeper and the Mk 48, both old analog systems. Mk. 8 accepted radar or rangefinder ranges, or manual adjustments after spotting the fall of shot. It's an accurate system, but the shells are still "dumb bullets." Supposedly, a new digital system with GPS was planned, a necessity for the long-range 13-inch sabot round. Guided rounds would have completed the modernization.
@agwhitaker Where in the world you got that silly idea about sinking Iowa with "single missile"? I never ever mentioned anything like that. (However knocking out fire control system with single missile is entirely plausible).
And not all land target are "fixed". Some can move faster that Iowa 33 knots.
And why would you want to "pulverize the target area"? To waste amo and cause enormous collateral damage?
I saw the videos of guided munitions going into air vents of the bunkers.
If the coalition hadn't of had overwhelming air superiority those Battleships would of made very very tasty target's. Check on the British ship's in the Falkland's war, they just about got away with it, thanks to some very brave air defence by the Harrier squadron's. If the Argentine's had closer runway's & better/more missile's.. Ship's are very vulnerable. It's a shame because they are such magnificent, beautiful thing's.
If the coalition hadn't of had overwhelming air superiority those Battleships would of made
very very tasty target's. Check on the British ship's in the Falkland's war, they just about got away with it, thanks to some very brave air defence by the Harrier squadron's.
If the Argentine's had closer runway's & better/more missile's..... Ship's are very vulnerable.
It's a shame because they are such magnificent, beautiful, thing's.
But you do understand, that in 1980's noone except Soviets had non-nuclear weapon remotely capabale of threating WW II battleship ? Built to routinely withstand numerous hits from shells 4x as heavy as entire Exocet missile ?
@tharleyify Belgrano was a Brooklyn-class light cruiser, not a battleship. Repulse was a WW1 battlecruiser with poor underwater protection. Prince of Wales was a modern design, but also with inferior torpedo protection vs an Iowa. But your overall point is correct. Torpedoes can sink anything that floats, especially modern torpedoes that explode underneath ships and crack their keel, which IIRC is what happened to Belgrano. But airplanes do not carry topedoes anymore. Think subs.
@AnteyPL Actually, every NATO and Allied country has Mk. 48 or similar torpedoes that explode underneath ships. 3 or 4 such torpedoes could sink an Iowa-class battleship or any supercarrier without resorting to nuclear warheads. Exocets are great for softer targets and can cause considerable damage to capital ships as well, but aren't so great for sinking them.
@acr08807 With Drone tracking overhead and the accuracy displayed by the Iowa class during that time with the proper powder charge, you could expect a first shot hit. As for shell cost: when 16in shells were mass produced the cost per shell was just above 500 dollars each. A pretty good deal compared to the 68,000.00 for a hell fire missle, 80,000.00 for a javelin, or 120,000.00 for a Maverick missle. Remember that you also pay $ for the aircraft to fly the missle to the target.
@MadMilitiaMen How much does the powder to lob the shell cost? Also, how many shots is a gun good for before it needs a new barrel? And why use a Hellfire on a truck when you can use a machine gun? True, the plane has to fly to the target, but the battleship has to sail to the Gulf, too.
@acr08807 The powder is included with shell cost. Barrel life is 290-350 shells. A plane or helicopter monted MG would still cost more as well as be in greater danger. Also, a battleship doesn't sail to Iraq for 1 truck. It waits offshore and can engage mulitple tagets as needed. Better yet, it can stay there and provide constant around the clock support. Aircraft would have to head back to refuel and re-arm. More firepower for a fraction of the cost.
@acr08807 Not as many as you would think. For the same price of keeping an Iowa class off shore of Iraq, you could only get maybe a half dozen choppers and the ship that would launch them, if that. Costs would include, the ship and its crew that carried them there. More expensive aviation fuel. More expensive munitions. The chopper's crew themselves. Repiar costs. All this increased money for less effective fire support, more exposure to danger, and a lesser impact on enemy morale.
@acr08807 The choppers apparently. They have not the range to reach iraq by themselves. Then if you somehow got them over the ocean to iraq, you would need an area to base them. To set it up on land would require supporting security units. Not to mention greater chance of enemy fire. This is all fairly common knowledge you know.
@MadMilitiaMen Last time I checked, military airlift command had plenty of excess capacity in the 90's. Anyway, you can run the figures for yourself--an attack helicopter battalion cost a lot less to move and operate than a battleship did, and it's firepower wasn't limited to 30 miles (or expensive cruise missiles). It's been fun talking to you--you have some interesting thoughts, even though I don't agree with you, but we've probably gone as far toward agreement as we're likely to go.
@acr08807 If your going to bring up military airlift then surely you know that the price will increase even more. Its a major reason for a majority of equipment being carried to iraq by ship instead of aircraft. Also, i have run figures and seen the figures of others. If you seriously think you can move a helicopter battalion for so cheap then you must have forgotten to carry a one or something.Anyway, it's been real.
@acr08807 Barrel life has been greatly extended post-WW2 thanks to 'Swedish additive.' It is in the neighborhood of 1,500 rounds or more, and then you replace the liner. Natch, it's a moot point now. ;)
@MrRealmadridbernabeu The problem isn't big guns. These ships are 70 years old, there's no way they can compete with modern technology like guided missiles. If a new battleship was built like the Zumalt destroyer though, it would be a force to be reckoned with.
@CommandoDude The four Iowa's that were refit in the 80's were equipped with the lastest and most modern technology of the day. They were refitted with Harpoon missles and Tomahawk Cruise missles capable of hitting targets 1,500 miles away and anti-ship missle defense phalanx systems. They could engage 52 targets at the same time for several hours. The main purpose of those 16" guns was for shore bombardment to support amphibious landings. Anything else was "extra"! ;)
@CommandoDude Allow me to disagree. What is it about "guided missiles" which battleships can't compete with? After all, they carried 48 cruise missiles. Most "guided missiles" are for SAM work. Had the Navy wanted to spend more money, it would have been simple to replace a couple 5-inch mounts with Seasparrow systems or RAM launchers. Why would it need anything else? That's what Aegis ships are for. An Iowa suffers no danger from guided missiles. It's torpedoes that are dangerous.
@CommandoDude Allow me to disagree. What is it about "guided missiles" which battleships can't compete with? After all, they carried 48 cruise missiles. Most "guided missiles" are for SAM work. Had the Navy wanted to spend more money, it would have been simple to replace a couple 5-inch mounts with Seasparrow systems or RAM launchers. Why would it need anything else? That's what Aegis ships are for. An Iowa suffers no danger from guided missiles. It's torpedoes that are dangerous.
@CommandoDude Allow me to disagree. What is it about "guided missiles" which battleships can't compete with? After all, they carried 48 cruise missiles. Most "guided missiles" are for SAM work. Had the Navy wanted to spend more money, it would have been simple to replace a couple 5-inch mounts with Seasparrow systems or RAM launchers. Why would it need anything else? That's what Aegis ships are for. An Iowa suffers no danger from guided missiles. It's torpedoes that are dangerous.
so happy to find this documentary here on YouTube today. Had bought the series on VCD probably more than 15 years ago and loved it so much. Thanks for the uploading. it brings back some old memories.
i haven't seen this since i was a little kid, despite spending god knows how much time searching for it. For the love of god please upload this to a download server...please?
The Battleships are the most beautiful warships ever created. Forget the Carriers serving on a battleship is what being in the navy was all about. Its a shame they are gone
@spyderc85 The Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin. I BELIEVE they are all museums now. Just keep in mind that if they're needed again, they can be called back to service. There is a law that states those battleships cannot be rendered unworkable.
Having said that, it IS a shame that they're not on active duty.
@ssmusic214 You can make that case against any ship. Imagine how much it costs per day to operate a Nimitz, or the total cost of delivering four 2,000-pound JDAMS from an F/A-18 off her deck, or to shoot a Standard missile from a Burke. For all the billions that have been spent building and maintaining the Aegis fleet, how many Standards have been fired in anger, and how many targets destroyed, vs how many 16-inch fired, and targets destroyed?
@HopelessDoom1 It is 1000 times cheaper to "deliver 2,000-pound JDAMS" and destroy a target with a single shot than bombard it all day long by naval gunfire (limited to 25 miles vs. 1000s of miles range of F/A-18).
@agwhitaker Sure, provided the weather cooperates for Battleship bombardment. Radar fire control doesn't work for shore targets. You need perfect visibility or artillery correction drone. And it's easier to knock out fire control on battleship than intercept modern aircraft. And 2,000-pound JDAMS destroy targets without humongous collateral damage of battleship bombardment and in 100 times range.
'@ssmusic214 "Radar fire control doesn't work for shore targets."
Huh?
Not too sure where you get your data - or maybe you just make it up.
When the Iowa class were in commission the radar did not not just pick out prominent landmarks for a firing solution, it tracked the trajectory and fall of each 16" shell.
@agwhitaker "Prominent Landmarks" (if you have them) are not targets. You still can not see the targets on radar. If it would be so simple, why would they need correction drones?
@ssmusic214 Given landmarks (the shoreline alone has many points), and good charts, it is a straightforward plotting exercise to aim the shells at a target . You have 2 or 3 landmark positions plotted, you know the target position relative to the known landmarks, you have a firing solution. They did this, a lot, 70 years ago, during WWII.
Nowadays they have G.P.S. (heard of it ?) and ballistic computers which simplify things further.
@agwhitaker GPS doesn't show you location of the TARGET. Only Landmarks. And so does radar used for shore bombardment. You still have to know where the target is. In sea battle radar shows target itself.
And 70 years ago they bombarded shore targets with 1000s of shells for days. Often with little or no results.
@ssmusic214 You seem to have missed the point. A modern carrier + air wing must cost well above $10 billion. Aegis escorts are $1.5 billion apiece for Burkes. The daily cost of a carrier with crew exceeding 5,500 is well above $1 million per day, now add the escorts. F/A-18s cost up to $57 million apiece. And its combat radius is 400nm, not "thousands of miles." BBs with RPVs provided effective fire support in Iraq, and 13-inch long-range guided rounds would be even better.
what about the greatest battleship of ww2 which was the Yamato
YRUPLAYINGTHIS 4 hours ago
'They have their origins in the last century'. Um..what century was this documentary made?
madhammudeux 7 hours ago
im on a boat
mrsploogefest 18 hours ago
So I looked up the biggest naval battle in history, and it turns out,it's the last time a battleship ever engaged another...The battle of Surigao Strait....Philippines WWII.
BKK19 2 days ago
and now the US think that BBs are outdated so now all of America's Battleships are museums or memorials
2015meyer 4 days ago
i love how they did this documentary
railfanatic844 4 days ago
can't wait for the game World of Battleships! Gonna be awesome!
VideoRoom207 5 days ago
-_- it was acc the german super battleship tht was supposed to be unsinkable, but was by the british lol
AliBaBaisRockin 6 days ago
oh battleship can launch UAV
nylonfreakojerkins 1 week ago
@nylonfreakojerkins what nation...
2015meyer 4 days ago
stopped watching as soon as heard the Yankee accent ... bleeding of me ears...
DefectedHuman 1 week ago
@DefectedHuman
Would you have liked a southern drawl instead?
JanetSTiger 1 week ago
I thought this was the film battleship, but it's still interesting
Littlecrewmember 1 week ago 32
lol me too, and agreed nice documentary
Burnitnow567 6 days ago
@Littlecrewmember
besides it's a little bit real
LoneRussianS 3 days ago
I can't watch this, the background music winds me up too much. What the fuck is it's purpose ?
Burnden66 1 week ago 4
@Burnden66 You said it yourself.
ZimJlp 5 days ago
H.M.S. Hood was a Battle cruiser, not a battleship
Untchabll 1 week ago
@Untchabll
your mum's a battle cruiser
MustNotRead 1 week ago
@MustNotRead I bet she has bigguns
TheHeinz64 1 week ago
@MustNotRead
Uh, Untchabll is right. H.M.S. Hood was a battlecruiser not a Battleship. She was designed to have the same speed than a cruiser and the firepower of a battleship. Her thin deck armor is the reason why she was blown sky high in less than 6 min by K.M.S. Bismarck.
OptimusPanzer 1 week ago
England too check out what they did with Dresden (Germany)
one the most coward act ever.
TheMrAlexrj 2 weeks ago
@TheMrAlexrj and exactly what is the act?
OrbitalEnterprise 2 weeks ago
@TheMrAlexrj
Germany started it by bobmbing London a city full of innocent civilians.
Even after Dresden Hitler would not surrender, so whose fault that more German civilians died.
We had to bomb the hell out of you or more of our soldiers would have died.
By that time anyone could see that Germany was going to lose the war.
Digmen1 1 day ago
The Usa was made to bring the new world order and now will be destroyed by it
before the tribulation, only some states will remain in the midst.
TheMrAlexrj 2 weeks ago
Battleships are very large vessels, heavily armored, a small number of very large guns. The end of the line for warships armed with guns. They were vulnerable to torpedos, which small, cheap, submarines, airplanes, torpedo boats, torpedo boat destroyers and even not-so-cheap cruisers all carried. And mines and bombs dropped by airplanes. Their military value was too low for their cost, and in small numbers, too big to risk. Ornamental, but pointless. No new ones built since WWII, not worth it.
wbaiv 2 weeks ago
there are no battleships in service in any navy anywhere in the world. the primary naval warships are aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, and frigates. Naval battles in the future will most likely take place between stealthy destroyers and submarines.
cameron120587 2 weeks ago
The author are whining about Pearl Harbour as the end of indestructability of the Battle Ship. I seem to remember that the British laid the groundwork for the Japanese, when they raided Taranto navalbase, Italy (1940) with obsolete biplanes and damaged three battleships.
FysikFyren 2 weeks ago
@FysikFyren That's not what he means, and Italy's armed forces were absolute crap.
He's talking about how because the US, a major naval power unlike Italy, had lost the majority of it's battleship forces, it forced the switch to carriers which showed just how powerful they could be at Midway.
The trend was set in the Pacific, Carriers could be much more useful than battleships, and thus soon replaced them as the flagship of a fleet
AquaPhoenix2006 2 weeks ago
@FysikFyren and yet, when the Japs invaded Malaya with airfields in Siam, the Brits chose to oppose them how? By sending two battleships, Prince of Wales and Repulse which duly got bombed and torpedoed and sent to the bottom. You'd think that the Brits would know better.
rozniy 2 weeks ago
@rozniy. The British was stretched thin all over the globe, but they fell prey to their own arrogance. All reports from China about Japanese aircraft was considered exaggerated. No one, Except the flying Tigers, belived that the Japanese was able to produce aircraft with range and firepower superior to those in the west. It is a bit ironic that the Japanse hadent learned their own lesson when it came to the Midway battle.
FysikFyren 1 week ago
lol almost disliked then 3 seconds in I see its realy about battleships and not the stupid tailer for new movie.. what has youtube be done to me :/
ILoveyssup 3 weeks ago
wow
sexykrish32 3 weeks ago
bizarre propaganda
Duphe 3 weeks ago
OMG i like this movie.The epic main theme gives me goosebumps.Reminds me when i was 6 years old and saw this movie for the first time.I enjoyed it very much.Maybe it's strange but it brings tears to my eyes.
erdey0zoli 4 weeks ago
damn japs.....
"december 7th...a date which will live in infamy"
bitches please....
"august 6th 1945 the date of retaliation" fuk yeah!!!!
kainheinrich 4 weeks ago
These videos always get it wrong. Battleships weren't eclipsed at Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was a Japanese emulation of the British success at Taranto.
AMD2ARC 1 month ago
@AMD2ARC Hahahaha, no.
kuru72 4 weeks ago
@kuru72 Yes actually. British did it 13 months earlier Japanese took note and repeated on a larger scale.
sickpup4 2 weeks ago
@AMD2ARC True. In fact, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to catch the U.S. carriers in port - not the battleships (although I'm sure they were happy to sink those as well).
442hoeky 3 weeks ago
it did not pass the Gallipoli, and were defeated in World War warships.
cvargel 1 month ago
---
chitgussin 1 month ago
1000 years in the future battleships will be reborn as starships.
Sparty1234561 1 month ago
@Sparty1234561 To fight the Gamilons?
jugheadcg 1 month ago
@Sparty1234561 It will be so awesome... I can't wait. Hopefully I'm alive...
Todd82TA 1 month ago
i just wanna see battleship sailed again...
Jomokb76 1 month ago
@Jomokb76 One of the projects on the drawing boards are new capital ships armed with the new rail gun weapons systems that were successfully fired a few years ago. May not happen with this economy but perhaps one day in the future.
Lionwolf0777 3 weeks ago
@Lionwolf0777 Yah, transformers capitalized on that info, but yes there are railgun equipped (prototypes?) already at sea. The weapon itself has been tested and developed since the '80s.
Burnz2much 3 weeks ago
@Lionwolf0777
do u have sources or link bout the new capital ship
Jomokb76 3 weeks ago
I remember this very well it was made some time around 1998 or 1999.Anyone know where you can get a copy of this?Can't fing it throught the history channel website.
cdubois13 1 month ago
In the type of war we are fighting now, the BB is still useful, for bombardment of targets ashore. True, in a modern blue water naval battle, she is nothing but a platform to launch SAMs at incoming AShM (if she was so equipped, she is not) and/or launch large numbers of AShMs herself. And to provide PD for more valuable ships. I have managed to sink enemy surface vessels in Harpoon 3 with the New Jersey, but she was mauled before hand. Ruskies had no response to her when the AShMs were gone
Sakai070 1 month ago
With today's anti-ship missile systems these weapons are totally obsolete, first Gulf war was over twenty years ago. This class of ship isn't even listed in current Navy Ships. These ships would have no chance against a carrier or a SSGN class submarine. Impressive 16" guns but nothing but the battleship is nothing but history now.
ulooklikeadope 1 month ago
@ulooklikeadope
Actually, you are SO wrong. From Falklands to recent attack on Israeli corvette, it has been proven that missle + electronics don't provide adequate shielding, and need for artillery support on shore is crucial. After retirement of Soviet heavy ASMs, no modern weaponary is able to deliver destructive power close to one those behemots were built to withstand. And no ship ever fights alone.
AnteyPL 1 month ago
@ulooklikeadope The battleships were designed to take hits from battleships. A harpoon or exocet versus the armor belts on the Iowa would not come close to sinking one. Nor do they travel alone. They would have DDG's for Air & sub warfare. They can also carry ASW choppers.
WALTERBROADDUS 3 weeks ago
what is needed is a battleship fitted with Railguns as soon as the kinks are worked out
FantomOmega 1 month ago
@FantomOmega Navy has rail guns in R&D now.
WALTERBROADDUS 3 weeks ago
My dream future fire support platform would be a large hull, about 700 ft long, with two 10-inch rapid-fire guns. These would fire 660lb AP and 500lb HE projectiles 40+ miles, with 8-inch and 155mm subcaliber rounds of various types for extended range. All munitions would be guided. GPS fire control would offer the possibility of long range anti-ship fire. Railguns fore and aft could handle hardened bunkers and air targets. Aegis and VLS and powerful EW completes the platform.
HopelessDoom1 1 month ago
I'd like to address the cost issue of the Iowas. Several ideas were proposed to reduce the crew size and ultimately the "$1 million per day" cost, at least in peacetime. First, half the propulsion plant could be shut down and the ships could run on their inner screws, saving huge amounts in fuel, maintenance and crew cost, and still making 27 or 28 knots. Also, one of the 16-inch turrets could be shut down, along with several 5-inch mounts. All this could reduce the crew to 900 men or less.
HopelessDoom1 1 month ago
Since gun fire control was mentioned here, the wikipedia page titled "Ship_gun_fire-control_system" is quite interesting, and should put any such arguments on the subject to rest.
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@trent8002003
Well if you knew anything of Japanese history in that era you would know that the Japanese would often attack their enemies without officially declaring war, one example is the attack on Port Arthur against Russia in 1904.
If you Americans had developed decent radar and sonar technology no Battleships would have gotten close enough to those Airfields to attack them.
Hence why Battleships are outdated. Any other questions or do you want to take your defeated arguement elsewhere?
gotsda 1 month ago
@ssmusic214 troll. you clearly dont understand what fire control is or the combat psycology is of the "shock and awe" of a large scale bombardment. you also don't understand the world that battleships lived and operated in. Do Battleships make sence in today's world? Not really, but neither do Carrier groups. Their purpose is to instill fear in our enemies, to give them a moment of pause BEFORE they do something stupid and think things through.
f1y7rap 1 month ago
@f1y7rap Idiot! After all that ignoramus nonsense you posted about fire control the only thing left is to change the subject.
ssmusic214 1 month ago
Ultimately the power of the battleship is the same as that of a Squadron of B52s flying overhead. Its called pucker factor. you see them and you say to yourself.... "here comes a world of hurt..." A Carrier Group does the same thing, its just that a Carrier group needs all its support ships to protect it (and the aircraft) from missle and sea-based attacks. A battleship, with her armor, could make due with just a sub escort...
f1y7rap 1 month ago
@f1y7rap And Carrier group or B-52 base doesn't have to come within 20 miles of target and risk to operate in shallow waters with only 3 feet below her keel between shifting sandbars.
ssmusic214 1 month ago
@ssmusic214 Well, technically, since battleships carried 63 tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 1500 miles, they really didn't need to get that close. Also, the fact that the heavily armored and compartmentalized fast battleship's purpose shifted toward the protection of soft targets such as carriers means they maintain their usefulness as fleet "bodyguards". I'd MUCH rather have a battleship between me and, well, anything, if I were a Carrier captain. Just my opinion.
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@AmericanThunder So would I. If I'd lived in fantasy world with unlimited budgets, resources, industrial capacities, etc....
In the real world I would prefer to have 20 small escort vessels rather than 1 battleship (which takes years to build and $1 million a day to operate).
Same goes for firing missiles.
ssmusic214 1 month ago
@ssmusic214 I'm no expert on the subject, as you appear to be. I'm just offering suggestions as to possible reasons for the motive of battleship reactivation. I am curious, however, why the Marine Corps and many higher ranking members of the Army are still pushing to get at least two Iowa class BBs reactivated, if these ships are, in fact, obsolete? Something about "Naval Surface Fire Support Gap" or some such. Are you military?
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@AmericanThunder The Navy lacks ships that can deliver sustained gunfire. A single 5" gun on most CG's & DDG's does not do much. It is doubtful the Iowa's will return. All are museum ships now.
WALTERBROADDUS 3 weeks ago
@trent8002003
Erm how is the ability of a carrier to attack another ship out of its range NOT an advantage, if the Japanese had pulled up in battleships, someone would have know what was going on, and that shit wouldn't have gone down the same.
Attacking without declaring war is illegal due to the Geneva convention? I think? Japanese hadn't signed it anyway, and more importantly whats part of our culture isn't part of theres dumbass, the Japanese have employed this tactic more than once.
gotsda 1 month ago
@gotsda Wow, you're so wrong about eveything the Guniness bk should take you in. Ever heard of night battles? Ever heard of Guadacanal and Henderson Airfield? Ever heard that in the middle of war (already declared 2 yrs ago), 2 Jap battleships, Hiei and Kirishima moved in closed enough at nite to pump in 1000 shells to pulverise Henderson Airfield? Nough said. If the Jap hadn't signed anything, why did it bother to sent a belated declaration of war to USA?
trent8002003 1 month ago
@gotsda The Japs had done it before? When and where? Wait, I know. Just now and in your mind. I don't who to believe. The History said Pearl Harbou was the first and only time (so far) the Japanese had ever attacked another country BEFORE war was declared and any form of military hostility had begun. You said otherwise. Mmmm....I think I'll history bk.
trent8002003 1 month ago
Америка проклятие Земли, америка величайшее зло на Земле!!!
dobrozhelatelru 1 month ago
Battleships can be used to target pirate land bases in Somalia.
knightsofstjoan2004 2 months ago
@ssmusic214 act of war without declaration of war= a war crime, punishable by death?
God damn, looks like Bush with Afghanistan and Obama with Libya are gonna walk to the gallows soon...
ShindentheGreat 2 months ago
@ShindentheGreat Nonsense! Totally senseless gibber!
Afghanistan's Taliban rulers were given ultimatum in advance to expel AlQueda from their country and close terrorist camps and bases. They refused and got exactly what they deserved.
Wouldn't shed any tears for Obama......
ssmusic214 2 months ago
Pearl harbour didn't mark the end of battleship. It was an ambush. You could have a nuclear carrier there and still the Japs would have devastated it. The sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales was the real beginning of the end. There the battleship had a fair and square fight with aircraft and was beaten soundly.
trent8002003 2 months ago
@trent8002003 Correct!
Spykoman05 2 months ago
@trent8002003 Besides being ambush, Pearl harbor was war crime. Commencing act of war without declaration of war. US had a legal right to hang all of them.
ssmusic214 2 months ago
@ssmusic214 Actually, the Japanese sent a formal declaration of war, but it didn't make it to our diplomats before they attacked. Bureacracies, amiright?
warestari2000 2 months ago
@warestari2000 If the message "didn't make it" Whatever they "sent" is irrelevant.
ssmusic214 2 months ago
@ssmusic214 The entire second world was was a war crime. That's why Tojo and Hitler and Mussolini were all war criminals.
trent8002003 2 months ago
@trent8002003 ...and Godwin's Law holds true once again!
blxxdbxth 2 months ago
@trent8002003 Doesn't matter about a fair fight, war isn't fair sunshine and being able to do ambushs is just one of the Carriers advantages.
gotsda 1 month ago
@gotsda Dead wrong. AFTER war is declared, then anything goes. You can hit below/above/left or right of the belt. You name it, you can do it and it's still fair game. But only AFTER war is declared. Before war is declared and you start hitting, that's an immoral ambush. That's piracy. And what do you mean by carrier advantages??? If war is not declared, even frogmen attaching explosives to ships could wreck a nuclear carrier or even a whole harbour!
trent8002003 1 month ago
@trent8002003 You are still wrong. Anything does NOT go. We have Rules of War and Geneva Conventions that dictate how you may legally and honorably conduct a war. Example: You may NOT engage anyone bearing a Red Cross. They are Non-Combatants and therefore protected (however, if they start shooting at you then you can return fire) Example: you may NOT engage Hospitals or Schools. They are Unlawful Targets (sometimes even if there are gun emplacements you may not shoot them)
f1y7rap 1 month ago
@f1y7rap Don't change the subject. But you just made my point. Thanks. EVEN after war is declared, some acts were still illegal. And governent officials starting wars were tried as war criminals even if they had properly declared wars. That's why the Japs were all the more despicable for instigating hostility BEFORE war was declared. They were double war criminals. Period.
trent8002003 1 month ago
these weaponsystems are the reason there is famine in the world.
zweijntje 2 months ago
@zweijntje The world will be better when they, the air craft carriers, and submarines are all melted back to slag; or beaten into plowshares.
RIP: Fr. Phil Berrigan.
RPenta 2 months ago
@RPenta you are absolutely right
zweijntje 2 months ago
The TARGET sits in a valley directly between hill 487 + 410, and 121 meters north of hill 102.
An Iowa class B.B. - supplied with this information from any forward unit, would totally trash the area identified.
Late WWII, 1945, what was left of the German Navy, cruising the Baltic Sea, was using the same indirect fire tactics to smash huge numbers off Soviet tank and troop concentrations.
And if they had G.P.S. ....
agwhitaker 2 months ago
@agwhitaker You're not making any sense! Of course in WWII battleships worked great for general area bombardment within 25 miles from shore. But what it has to do with GPS or Radar Fire Control?
You do not need GPS to ID general area.
If you already have EXACT GPS location of the target why you'd need to risk 60 000 ton behemoth with the crew of 3000 coming so close to the enemy if single guided missile launched from small ship, or plane can do the job?
ssmusic214 2 months ago
@ssmusic214 actually, when our last battleships were retired, their fire control computers could hit with pin-point accuracy. as-good-as or better than GPS. They could choose to hit, and drop, WTC1 without disturbing WTC2 if they so choosed. GPS "smart" bombs require aditional signals/guidance to get pinpoint accuracy(in otherwords men on the ground) AND they are succeptible to jamming. Once they enter a "jammed" area, they go off their last fix, wich may or may not be the target due to wind
f1y7rap 1 month ago
@f1y7rap And how fire control computers suppose to work without GPS if Ship's Radar can not detect the target?
ssmusic214 1 month ago
@ssmusic214 Fire Control existed LONG before GPS existed. and it still works on the same principles. And ohbytheway, Fire Control doesn't care if radar is working. you tell the computer where to drop it and it will do so with speed and precision. no matter how much you move. And you still seem to not understand how GPS works, or how succeptible it is to jamming, and WHY the US military uses more than just GPS to target and manuver on land, sea, & air
f1y7rap 1 month ago
@f1y7rap For Fire Control Computer to work somebody (or something) has to input ALL the necessary data into the system. If not Radar or GPS, than where that data is going to come from? Clairvoyance?
ssmusic214 1 month ago
@ssmusic214 what do you think the Fire Control techs and operators do on a Frigate or Battleship? clearly yo uneed a full education on how these systems work. and since you are trolling around on youtube you are either uninterested on educating yourself or don't know how to. Fire control is not a stand-alone computer. FireControl is not some robot or box that operates on its own. It gets data and radar feeds from other ships, from aircraft aloft, and data the operators input, for starters
f1y7rap 1 month ago
@f1y7rap And where all those "Fire Control techs and operators" get their data from if not from radars or GPS? Tarot cards? Tea leaves?
ssmusic214 1 month ago
@f1y7rap I was in FM Division, Main Battery Fire Control, on USS Wisconsin. The computers were the Mark 8 Ford Rangekeeper and the Mk 48, both old analog systems. Mk. 8 accepted radar or rangefinder ranges, or manual adjustments after spotting the fall of shot. It's an accurate system, but the shells are still "dumb bullets." Supposedly, a new digital system with GPS was planned, a necessity for the long-range 13-inch sabot round. Guided rounds would have completed the modernization.
HopelessDoom1 1 month ago
@ssmusic214 Hi again.
Now, excuse me, a single missile will sink a Iowa class B.B. ?
If the weapon carries a tactical nuclear device, perhaps.
But more likely the missile will carry a conventional warhead.
That is superficial damage.
Land targets are fixed. The 60,000 ton naval unit moves.
During WWII, the large naval unit unit, with good charts and a radar fix on a prominent
landmark, would pulverize the target area.
Today, with GPS, even better rounds on target.
agwhitaker 1 month ago
@agwhitaker Where in the world you got that silly idea about sinking Iowa with "single missile"? I never ever mentioned anything like that. (However knocking out fire control system with single missile is entirely plausible).
And not all land target are "fixed". Some can move faster that Iowa 33 knots.
And why would you want to "pulverize the target area"? To waste amo and cause enormous collateral damage?
I saw the videos of guided munitions going into air vents of the bunkers.
ssmusic214 1 month ago
anyone else come here somehow expecting the new movie "battleship"?
kingvahagn2011 2 months ago
@kingvahagn2011 yes lol
jay2431 2 months ago
Battleships are hardcore and badass.
BarryDennen12 2 months ago
How old is this show? He's talking about Battleships as if they're a current weapon system.
madhammudeux 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If the coalition hadn't of had overwhelming air superiority those Battleships would of made very very tasty target's. Check on the British ship's in the Falkland's war, they just about got away with it, thanks to some very brave air defence by the Harrier squadron's. If the Argentine's had closer runway's & better/more missile's.. Ship's are very vulnerable. It's a shame because they are such magnificent, beautiful thing's.
tharleyify 3 months ago
If the coalition hadn't of had overwhelming air superiority those Battleships would of made
very very tasty target's. Check on the British ship's in the Falkland's war, they just about got away with it, thanks to some very brave air defence by the Harrier squadron's.
If the Argentine's had closer runway's & better/more missile's..... Ship's are very vulnerable.
It's a shame because they are such magnificent, beautiful, thing's.
tharleyify 3 months ago
@tharleyify
But you do understand, that in 1980's noone except Soviets had non-nuclear weapon remotely capabale of threating WW II battleship ? Built to routinely withstand numerous hits from shells 4x as heavy as entire Exocet missile ?
AnteyPL 2 months ago
@AnteyPL After seeing Prince of Wales & Repulse sunk by torpedo planes inWWII
& The Belgrano the Argentine WWII battleship that was sunk in the 80's by the British navy, torpedo again. I was surprised to read your comment.
tharleyify 2 months ago
@tharleyify Belgrano was a Brooklyn-class light cruiser, not a battleship. Repulse was a WW1 battlecruiser with poor underwater protection. Prince of Wales was a modern design, but also with inferior torpedo protection vs an Iowa. But your overall point is correct. Torpedoes can sink anything that floats, especially modern torpedoes that explode underneath ships and crack their keel, which IIRC is what happened to Belgrano. But airplanes do not carry topedoes anymore. Think subs.
HopelessDoom1 2 months ago
@AnteyPL Actually, every NATO and Allied country has Mk. 48 or similar torpedoes that explode underneath ships. 3 or 4 such torpedoes could sink an Iowa-class battleship or any supercarrier without resorting to nuclear warheads. Exocets are great for softer targets and can cause considerable damage to capital ships as well, but aren't so great for sinking them.
HopelessDoom1 2 months ago
6:04 We really sent a battleship to destroy an Iraqi food truck?
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 thats what your taxes go to.
EclipseStrife 3 months ago
@acr08807 A shell is much cheaper then sending an aircraft to go get it.
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen Nobody actually fired 16 inch guns to take out a truck.
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 i'm well aware of that. I simply said that a Shell is cheap.
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen How much does it cost to lob a 16" shell? And how many do you think it would take to take out a truck?
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 With Drone tracking overhead and the accuracy displayed by the Iowa class during that time with the proper powder charge, you could expect a first shot hit. As for shell cost: when 16in shells were mass produced the cost per shell was just above 500 dollars each. A pretty good deal compared to the 68,000.00 for a hell fire missle, 80,000.00 for a javelin, or 120,000.00 for a Maverick missle. Remember that you also pay $ for the aircraft to fly the missle to the target.
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen How much does the powder to lob the shell cost? Also, how many shots is a gun good for before it needs a new barrel? And why use a Hellfire on a truck when you can use a machine gun? True, the plane has to fly to the target, but the battleship has to sail to the Gulf, too.
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 The powder is included with shell cost. Barrel life is 290-350 shells. A plane or helicopter monted MG would still cost more as well as be in greater danger. Also, a battleship doesn't sail to Iraq for 1 truck. It waits offshore and can engage mulitple tagets as needed. Better yet, it can stay there and provide constant around the clock support. Aircraft would have to head back to refuel and re-arm. More firepower for a fraction of the cost.
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen How many helicopters could you keep in the Gulf for the price of keeping a battleship there?
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 Not as many as you would think. For the same price of keeping an Iowa class off shore of Iraq, you could only get maybe a half dozen choppers and the ship that would launch them, if that. Costs would include, the ship and its crew that carried them there. More expensive aviation fuel. More expensive munitions. The chopper's crew themselves. Repiar costs. All this increased money for less effective fire support, more exposure to danger, and a lesser impact on enemy morale.
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen Who needs the ship?
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 The choppers apparently. They have not the range to reach iraq by themselves. Then if you somehow got them over the ocean to iraq, you would need an area to base them. To set it up on land would require supporting security units. Not to mention greater chance of enemy fire. This is all fairly common knowledge you know.
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen Last time I checked, military airlift command had plenty of excess capacity in the 90's. Anyway, you can run the figures for yourself--an attack helicopter battalion cost a lot less to move and operate than a battleship did, and it's firepower wasn't limited to 30 miles (or expensive cruise missiles). It's been fun talking to you--you have some interesting thoughts, even though I don't agree with you, but we've probably gone as far toward agreement as we're likely to go.
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 If your going to bring up military airlift then surely you know that the price will increase even more. Its a major reason for a majority of equipment being carried to iraq by ship instead of aircraft. Also, i have run figures and seen the figures of others. If you seriously think you can move a helicopter battalion for so cheap then you must have forgotten to carry a one or something.Anyway, it's been real.
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen Hey, that gives me an idea. Why not bring back sailing ships? They're cheap to move.
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 Funny how with every comment you lose a little bit of intelligence.
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MadMilitiaMen Funny how you have no understanding of sarcasm.
acr08807 3 months ago
@acr08807 Barrel life has been greatly extended post-WW2 thanks to 'Swedish additive.' It is in the neighborhood of 1,500 rounds or more, and then you replace the liner. Natch, it's a moot point now. ;)
HopelessDoom1 2 months ago
@acr08807 Obviously not. But Iraqis in bunkers did come out and surrender to the RPVs rather than suffer more shelling.
HopelessDoom1 2 months ago
Do you own the copyright on this documentary or is it pirated?
r2d2qq 3 months ago
Think the Hood was more of a Battle cruiser than a Battleship was it not?
Sumoto999 3 months ago
Comment removed
honyasenyou 3 months ago
Comment removed
honyasenyou 3 months ago
0:56 Hood was not a battle ship:)
jurek323 3 months ago
i think 3 people are Japanese
UltraMan597 4 months ago
Got to see some of the Refit of the New Jersey in Long Beach. Those barrels are about 115T ... each!
biscuitninja 4 months ago
i think big guns are useless by now. sometimes inaccurate, guided missiles are much better i think. that's why no battleships are on service by now.
MrRealmadridbernabeu 5 months ago
@MrRealmadridbernabeu The problem isn't big guns. These ships are 70 years old, there's no way they can compete with modern technology like guided missiles. If a new battleship was built like the Zumalt destroyer though, it would be a force to be reckoned with.
CommandoDude 3 months ago
@CommandoDude The four Iowa's that were refit in the 80's were equipped with the lastest and most modern technology of the day. They were refitted with Harpoon missles and Tomahawk Cruise missles capable of hitting targets 1,500 miles away and anti-ship missle defense phalanx systems. They could engage 52 targets at the same time for several hours. The main purpose of those 16" guns was for shore bombardment to support amphibious landings. Anything else was "extra"! ;)
lander4545 3 months ago
@CommandoDude Allow me to disagree. What is it about "guided missiles" which battleships can't compete with? After all, they carried 48 cruise missiles. Most "guided missiles" are for SAM work. Had the Navy wanted to spend more money, it would have been simple to replace a couple 5-inch mounts with Seasparrow systems or RAM launchers. Why would it need anything else? That's what Aegis ships are for. An Iowa suffers no danger from guided missiles. It's torpedoes that are dangerous.
HopelessDoom1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CommandoDude Allow me to disagree. What is it about "guided missiles" which battleships can't compete with? After all, they carried 48 cruise missiles. Most "guided missiles" are for SAM work. Had the Navy wanted to spend more money, it would have been simple to replace a couple 5-inch mounts with Seasparrow systems or RAM launchers. Why would it need anything else? That's what Aegis ships are for. An Iowa suffers no danger from guided missiles. It's torpedoes that are dangerous.
HopelessDoom1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CommandoDude Allow me to disagree. What is it about "guided missiles" which battleships can't compete with? After all, they carried 48 cruise missiles. Most "guided missiles" are for SAM work. Had the Navy wanted to spend more money, it would have been simple to replace a couple 5-inch mounts with Seasparrow systems or RAM launchers. Why would it need anything else? That's what Aegis ships are for. An Iowa suffers no danger from guided missiles. It's torpedoes that are dangerous.
HopelessDoom1 2 months ago
i LOVE documentaries and boy does youtube have the best ones
BayouBluesMan 5 months ago
I remember it's produced by Discovery Channel?
dadatobe 7 months ago
so happy to find this documentary here on YouTube today. Had bought the series on VCD probably more than 15 years ago and loved it so much. Thanks for the uploading. it brings back some old memories.
dadatobe 7 months ago
i haven't seen this since i was a little kid, despite spending god knows how much time searching for it. For the love of god please upload this to a download server...please?
shigiaroah 7 months ago
@shigiaroah Get Realplayer. It includes Realplayer Downloader, so you can download it right here from your browser.
HopelessDoom1 2 months ago
Hisbullah say that if the USS Missouri turns up off Beruit again they will drag it into a suburb and handcuff it to a raidator.
gamesbok 7 months ago
The Battleships are the most beautiful warships ever created. Forget the Carriers serving on a battleship is what being in the navy was all about. Its a shame they are gone
spyderc85 10 months ago
@spyderc85 The Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin. I BELIEVE they are all museums now. Just keep in mind that if they're needed again, they can be called back to service. There is a law that states those battleships cannot be rendered unworkable.
Having said that, it IS a shame that they're not on active duty.
Darthbelal 5 months ago
@Darthbelal Even the USS TEXAS has been remade and refloated.
biscuitninja 4 months ago
@Darthbelal Not too much "shame" considering that operating cost of each is $1 million per day (not counting refits and upgrades).
ssmusic214 4 months ago
@ssmusic214 the price of freedom is never cheap, ever.
Darthbelal 4 months ago
@ssmusic214 You can make that case against any ship. Imagine how much it costs per day to operate a Nimitz, or the total cost of delivering four 2,000-pound JDAMS from an F/A-18 off her deck, or to shoot a Standard missile from a Burke. For all the billions that have been spent building and maintaining the Aegis fleet, how many Standards have been fired in anger, and how many targets destroyed, vs how many 16-inch fired, and targets destroyed?
HopelessDoom1 2 months ago
@HopelessDoom1 It is 1000 times cheaper to "deliver 2,000-pound JDAMS" and destroy a target with a single shot than bombard it all day long by naval gunfire (limited to 25 miles vs. 1000s of miles range of F/A-18).
ssmusic214 2 months ago
@ssmusic214 Sure, provided the weather cooperates.
Aircraft can be intercepted, the crew taken prisoner.
A 16" high capacity round, once fired, can not be intercepted, and renovates an entire city block area where it comes down.
agwhitaker 2 months ago
@agwhitaker Sure, provided the weather cooperates for Battleship bombardment. Radar fire control doesn't work for shore targets. You need perfect visibility or artillery correction drone. And it's easier to knock out fire control on battleship than intercept modern aircraft. And 2,000-pound JDAMS destroy targets without humongous collateral damage of battleship bombardment and in 100 times range.
ssmusic214 2 months ago
'@ssmusic214 "Radar fire control doesn't work for shore targets."
Huh?
Not too sure where you get your data - or maybe you just make it up.
When the Iowa class were in commission the radar did not not just pick out prominent landmarks for a firing solution, it tracked the trajectory and fall of each 16" shell.
agwhitaker 2 months ago
@agwhitaker "Prominent Landmarks" (if you have them) are not targets. You still can not see the targets on radar. If it would be so simple, why would they need correction drones?
ssmusic214 2 months ago
@ssmusic214 Given landmarks (the shoreline alone has many points), and good charts, it is a straightforward plotting exercise to aim the shells at a target . You have 2 or 3 landmark positions plotted, you know the target position relative to the known landmarks, you have a firing solution. They did this, a lot, 70 years ago, during WWII.
Nowadays they have G.P.S. (heard of it ?) and ballistic computers which simplify things further.
Where did I say shooting at a landmark?
agwhitaker 2 months ago
@agwhitaker GPS doesn't show you location of the TARGET. Only Landmarks. And so does radar used for shore bombardment. You still have to know where the target is. In sea battle radar shows target itself.
And 70 years ago they bombarded shore targets with 1000s of shells for days. Often with little or no results.
ssmusic214 2 months ago
@ssmusic214 You seem to lack basic understanding of indirect artillery fire control, let me help.
1. You need to know where you and your gun battery is.
2. You need to know where your target is.
You can get this data from -
A. a G.P.S. position (the military specs.are quite accurate)
B. Good charts and radar.
Finally -" they bombarded shore targets with 1000s of shells for days. Often with little or no results.
Where are the survivors that stated this?
agwhitaker 2 months ago
@agwhitaker And HOW DO YOU KNOW where the target is?
In sea battle radar gives you location of the TARGET (EVEN plots location of the MOVING TARGET)
In shore bombardment it doesn't.
ssmusic214 2 months ago
@ssmusic214 You seem to have missed the point. A modern carrier + air wing must cost well above $10 billion. Aegis escorts are $1.5 billion apiece for Burkes. The daily cost of a carrier with crew exceeding 5,500 is well above $1 million per day, now add the escorts. F/A-18s cost up to $57 million apiece. And its combat radius is 400nm, not "thousands of miles." BBs with RPVs provided effective fire support in Iraq, and 13-inch long-range guided rounds would be even better.
HopelessDoom1 1 month ago
@HopelessDoom1 And how much would new Battleship cost built today?
(That's if US still has industrial capacity to build them here and not in China).
ssmusic214 1 month ago