The four Iowa Class battleships were only armored against 14" shells. Yamato and Musashi packed nine 18.1" main guns and Nagato had 8 16" main canon. Alright, not all naval canon are equal but I'm not too sure what a head to head would have amounted to. The four cancelled Montana class were to have put that argument to rest but it is still interesting to talk about the what if.
@Tull29 The fire control of the Iowas was far more accurate than the Yamato/Musashi, and the armor penetrating ability of the 16"50cal shells were very close to that of the 18" japanese counterparts. Also, Iowas were faster and more maneuverable than Yamatos/Mus. All this aside, I certainly wouldn't want to be onboard either ship during such a conflict. One word... ouch.
@AmericanThunder -agreed with accuracy and penetrating of the American 16" main armament however the books that I have indicate that the Iowas were only protected against 14" shells, a fault that was to be corrected in the Montana class (12 16" main guns and protected against the 18.1" Japaneses shell).
Not trying to argue the point but I am curious as to the truth of the Iowa"s armor protection.
@Tull29 P.S. Iowas were armored against 16"/45 guns with quite a long immunity range, because that was originally what they were designed to carry. The decision was made to fit the longer-barreled 16"/50 guns during construction.
@AmericanThunder - no offense meant, but are we talking overall armament or are we talking turrets, barbettes, main belt, main deck and superstructure?
Oh, what the heck, I'll post the 30mm depleted uranium Armor Penetration ability just for fun: It will penetrate 69mm at 500 meters and 38mm at 1000 meters. So, heh. If you had the nuts to fly a plane at the broadside of a Battleship (which is armed with CIWS), and you flew in close enough for the crew to see the look of sheer terror on your face, and you managed to fire a few rounds before being vaporized, and they hit perfectly squarely on the armor, they would get 2.5" into the armor belt.
@AmericanThunder Actually, CIWS would be knocked out by the 30mm gunfire. Air defense of a battleship is done by DDG"s and CG's. Anti Air warefqare is not eh BB's strong point.
@BernieEOD Well, maybe if the opportunity ever comes along to fly a plane at the broadside of a fully operational Iowa-class BB, you should give it a try and see what happens?
@AmericanThunder I believe we should use them in a sink ex just to see what would happen. As it is, they are in Mothballs never to see service again...As it should be.
@BernieEOD They're actually no longer in mothballs, they've all been donated as museums, with contracts to keep them in good shape in case they're needed again. I think we should keep all 4 of them in good shape, regardless of what they're used for, whether in service or as museums, and treat them with respect, for the rich history and amazing service they've provided us since their launch during WWII. They're beautiful old girls.
@AmericanThunder Iowa is still in Mothballs. ALL of them have been stricken from the Naval Register meaning they will NEVER see service again. In Fact, there is a new USS Missouri (SSN-780) Farther closing the door on these obsolete, expensive showboats whose only purpose was to fill the Japs with fear and hate while moored inside the Golden Gate.
@BernieEOD I believe you're misinformed about the role of a Battleship as it pertains to modern warfare. I also believe you have some kind of deep-seated resentment of these capital ships, for whatever reason, which comes across very blatantly in your wording. Perhaps you should read about "Solving the Naval Fire Support Gap", and why the Marines want at least 2 of the Battleships reactivated.
@AmericanThunder The Marines have not performed an amphibious assault since Inchon. The current MEF doctrine calls for operating well inland and out of range of these obsolete and overly expensive ships. They have been stricken from the register, there is no money to operate these money pits, they are done.
BernieEOD... You are utterly, grossly uninformed. The most cursory review of the IOWAs logs shows virtually all your statements about their operational history to be false. It is quite true they were not employed as aggressively as they should have been in WWII. But their value and achievements are unimpeachable. Your comparisons with plaforms like the F-18 are ludicrous on their face. You have no interest in accuracy, neither historical or technical. Keep spewing...
True, but the Missouri also received some of those same ship-to-ship and ship-to-surface defenses when she was upgraded in the 1980s – actually used in Desert Storm. Add to that the battleship's armer, which is much thicker than a modern naval ships. Nothing to sneeze at.
@Pauahi950 Very true, the armor from the Battleships were extremely impressive. It's even said that the 2000 incident with the USS Cole bombing, that if it were the Missouri for example all that would have happened was smeered smoke on the hull instead of a hole.
@Pauahi950 Actually, the Silkworm missile with its 2,000 lb warhead was a threat taken seriously. When a 20MM CIWS round penetrated the 17 inch thick armor, the myth of the Battleships invincibility was shattered. They are just another target.
@BernieEOD Dude, your statements are utter fantasy. A 20mm round NEVER penetrated the armor of MISSOURI. I know the incident you think you're referring to and your flat wrong.
@BernieEOD I know your comment is 3 months old. In the 80's the U.S. had to re-flag tankers sailing the straits of hormuz to protect them from the threat of Iranian silkworm missiles(don't remember all the specifics). But the Missouri was sent in the escort and a news crew asked the captain about the silkworm threat to his ship. His response was "If one could penetrate our defenses and strike this ship all I would need is a broom too sweep up the dust."
@r1cw Correction, that comment was for an Exocet Missile with its 350 Lb Warhead. Not the Silkworm with its 2000 LB Warhead. The Battleships did not escort any Tankers DDG's and CG's did that job.
Long range ship-to-ship and ship-to-surface missles made this thing obsolete. Because of that, this thing would be just a very large easy to hit target.
@supramanz True,but anti ship missiles would be hard pressed to penetrate her hull,IMO remeber these ship were meant to fight anything of equal armorment 16"/50 cal guns at 3 to 20 miles out.
@supramanz You have no clue whatsoever. To the contrary, the IOWAs remain the hardest to sink ships on the planet. Ships float. They can sink. But the IOWAs are the least "easy" of targets. Armor, redundancy, compartmentalization. In terms of damage resistance, nothing's close to an IOWA.
@iowa61 Absolutely right. Battleships are designed specifically to absorb damage and go on fighting, while other ships are designed to avoid being damaged, and to hide behind battleships. :)
@iowa61 Quite right. The Iowa class spent most of their time sitting in port looking good. The war was won by carriers and submarines. So much so that that battleship construction was halted on 1942 in order to focus on Carriers, submarines, and Amphibious transports. These ships did nothing to win the war and were only show boats in thier careers.
Just think when all the worlds modern weapontry has finally neutralized itself (radio frequency,laser and GPS jammers,heat seeking missliles) the 16'' guns of the Iowa Class Battleships will still fire and hit there targets because nothing can stop them! ;)
Missouri...still the queen of ships even over the mighty Enterprise. What shes seen and survived...what a battle it would have been had Mighty Mo slugged it out with Bismark....
What ? At 24 seconds, the video shows a modern shot, one from about 15 years ago when there was an accident firing the 16 inch guns. It killed like 50 guys. Why would you put this in a tribute video ?
@USSWISCONSIN64 Yeah...it has been so long, I fogot which of the 4 had that accident. My point was tho, that it is a tribute video and that footage seems out of place in a tribute video.
I think the Enterprise CV 6 should have been preserved in the same manner as the Missouri. It is a shame she wasn't. The most decorated ship in US Naval history. The Enterprise and Missouri are great symbols of that era. When the present Enterprise CVN 65 is decommissioned she should be preserved near the Missouri. It would be a big mistake in my mind not to honor CVN 65 and her namesake CV 6 in such a manner.
My father, still alive, still has some of the photos he took at the Signing of Japan's Surrender and an areal surveillance picture of the Missouri 1945. He was a member of the crew of HMS Emperor, Ruler class Escort Carrier . When I next visit him I will copy the photos and list them on the Internet. HMS Emperor was attacked and hit by one of the infamous Kamikaze Aircraft but was also ironically evolved with the Attack on he Japanese destroyer Kamikaze.
Served on the Mo. Can tell you a refitted battlewagon can take on 52 moving targets at one time, for several hours. This includes any aircraft. Also the Iowa class battleships have 19 inches of steel to penetrate. And yes, can also take down targets (including carriers) from MORE than 1500 miles away. The reason for the final decommissioning was political. (New president that downsized the military.) Also a battleships original purpose was shore bombardment, and the center of the battle group.
As for the Carriers vs. Battleships argument; I don't think that's very relevant, as the Battleship's primary role in modern warfare is to provide a hard target to defend soft targets (aka Carriers) from attack. However, since the Battleships do carry 20 kilo nuclear 16" shells and long range cruise missiles, I'd say it's within the power of the battleship to sink any ship within a range of 1500 miles, including Carriers.
@BernieEOD Ah, this old argument. Ok, so tell me, what vessel in our modern Navy delivers ordinance that can penetrate 32 feet of reinforced concrete, can deliver NINE of this ordinance every 30 seconds for a sustained period of time, can withstand a proximity nuclear blast, and last but certainly not least, what other vessel can be brought in safely close to shore for the simple purpose of looking incredibly intimidating to enemy forces? Do you know the Marine Corps wants BBs back, very much?
@AmericanThunder One F-18 Hornet. The cost of operating this obsolete rust bucket is not worth it. The proposed Arsenal ship would have filled the gap. As to the fact that there has been no Amphibious assault since Inchon and that the Corps is now moving ever more inland, these relics are even less useful. Face it, they spent most of their time as show boats where the image was more important than actual performance. The same was true of Germany's Tirpitz and the Yamato.
@BernieEOD Do you actually believe that a single F18 Hornet has the same firepower as an Iowa Class Battleship? Your statement just ended this conversation. Have a good day.
@AmericanThunder LOL The Iowas were obsolete by 1943 Iowa cost $125.000.000 in 1943 a Essex Class carrier that contributed a lot more to the victory in the pacific cost $69.000.000. The Iowas should have been cancelled in 1941 and replaced by more Essex class carriers, Fletcher class destroyers and Liberty cargo ships they all contribute alot more in WW2 then overrated obsolete Admiral barge the Iowa class. By way how many ships did the Iowas sink in WW2?
@jers59 Ok good. I don't think the money spent to build BBs mattered much in the face of America's economic might. But regardless, there were incidents were Battleships saved carriers. The BBs were originally designed to fight other ships, but by the time the Iowas were launched, the carriers had indeed taken over as the dominant force, yes. However, none of this is pertinent to my previous points. Battleships have their place, both for shore bombardment, and for fleet protection.
@jers59 Also, as a minor additional point, let's not forget the psychological effects of a massive ship bristling with huge guns, steaming to within visual sight of an enemy force on land. Carriers dare not get in that close, but Battleships have done just that. Psych warfare is an often overlooked aspect of any conflict.
@AmericanThunder Lets see last amphibious operation Inchon 1950 so the arguement of steaming to visual range of enemy on land is out the window. Recomissioning the Iowas in 1980 was vast waste of money Should have modernized 2 carriers Oriskany and Bon Homme Richard and 2 Des moines class cruisers Des moines and Salem with Newport News used as source for spare parts the fast firing 8 inch guns much more efficient then slow firing 16/50
@jers59 If you want small guns, why bother with 8s? 5" fires even faster. Iowas already had 20 of them onboard, before their refit. In a full scale attack, the carrier's best defense wouldn't be thin-skinned cruisers, it would be a hard target that can absorb damage.
@AmericanThunder Last carrier sunk escort carrier USS Bismarck Sea 1945, Off Iwo Jima 1945 it was 5 inch destroyers that provided the most effective gunnery for the marines they closed in close and gave good covering fire. Des Moines class cruisers could fire 63/8 inch rounds per minute that would devastate battleship, 1 modern torpedo will easily break battleship in two exploding under keel causing large air bubble also modern ccruise missiles with shaped war heads will easily pierce BB armor
@jers59 I definitely agree, a torpedo under the keel will sink any ship afloat. That's why we have destroyer escorts for BBs and CVs. As for a cruise missile or 6" guns being a big threat to a battleship.. keep in mind that the old battleship Pennsylvania(built in 1913) survived both Bikini Nuclear Tests and had to be scuttled afterward. Anyway, fun discussion, thanks for that, neither of us will change our minds, so have a great day.
Pretty sure that no usable powder is left at this point to operate the 16" guns which would be the only reason to reactivate the ship. Plus it is estimated that it would cost $750 million dollars just to get it running again let alone the billions it would cost to retrofit.
Plus the factories don't exist anymore that made the things this ship needs to run like the shells, powder, replacement parts etc.
@unkillsam: I think, it's only a matter of willing. Isn't possible nowaday not to be able to remake any part of the ship by simply reading the plans!... I think it's possible. A battleship is a machine: and any part of a machine can be rebuilt if required. Shells, too, and powder.
The Mighty Mo doesn't have to be proven in ship to ship combat. Her guns did all the talking... Many men in service and retired, respect her for her significance, she is where the war ended! if you go aboard that ship and look around. You see all the history and all the pride those naval men had to be part of that historical day. If you haven't lived it... You shouldn't degrade =] my philosophy down-grade me if you want it's my opinion.
"""They save the Missouri,,,Yet scraped the Enterprise CV-6!?!?!?...........The 2 don't even compare as far as historical significance is concerned!!!"""
this is a good and famous ship for 1 reason- its the only one left
It was never proven in combat and never will be. Some of the real warships should have been saved (prince of wales for example)
in my eyes the HMS Warspite is one of the best battleships ever built, not because of fire power or speed, but because to servived through so many battles and took so much damage but still carried on fighting afterwards.
Whereas the mighty mo never had 1 proper battle,b ship vs b ship
@stargate3d All Iowa Class BB's have been struck from the NVR. Wisconsin is Officially Donated as of 12/14//09. Only USS Iowa is still in Custody of MARAD at Suisun Bay, in Maintainance Catogory "X", meaning she gets no preservation or maintainance. They better figure out what the deal is going to be with Iowa's donation status. Since she is in catagory "X", that ship will be in rough shape when donated. The Other three Iowa Class BB's were in catagory "B" prior to donation.
TheNazgarth, all of the Iowa-class battleships are still afloat.
True, the Missouri was more useful for shore bombardment than ship to ship warfare but she served in WW2, Korea and the Gulf War. When you have 16" guns that fire 1000+ kg shells for 37km, they don't only need to be used for hitting other ships.
The IOWA's were longer, faster, and uparmored versions of the previous North Carolina and South Dacota class battleships that destroyed the Japanese battleship task force in the Phillipines. What makes you think that the IOWA's would not be great ship to ship fighters. They outclassed anything the Japs had except the Yamato and the Yamato was 3 knots slower thent the IOWA's so it would never be able to close in a firefight.
The YAMATO class was wider, thick armored and had more fire power.
Plus the YAMATO had greater range (gun)than the iowas.
I did not say the iowas wouldn't be an effective fighting force, but against the YAMATO'S they would be out classed, one "lucky" hit can destroy a battleship and 18 inch has greater chance of making armor fail.
But i may be wrong---we will never know for sure, it was the dawn of a new age---planes.
Torenico, Bismarck wasn't originally designed to defend against planes. For a battleship to be effective against air targets in today's world, you simply build it with armored SAM farms below decks. Flying over one of these ships would be comparable to flying over an area of land covered by hundreds of SAM sites. I wouldn't want to be that pilot.
@torenico actually they have investigated that, national geographic has a documentry out there where they found the torpedos and shells never actually penetrated the second layer of the hull, they found that "the torpedos did not cause signifigcant damage and flooding to sink her" meaning the germans are probably right when they said they scuttled her.
Yamato had thin bulkheads throughout, because Japan lacked funding to armor the internals, the way the US did. IJN AP shells were of an inferior design to the US AP. It was found that the US 16" AP shells would penetrate armor similarly to the IJN 18.1" AP shells. Not only was the Iowa class substantially faster than Yamato, the US used Radar Assisted Fire Control, which meant the Iowa had a *FAR* greater chance to hit a target at long range than the Yamato.
@AmericanThunder First of all Iova radar would go offline from chock of her own guns., To fragile parts. Second these test with Ap shells were done after the war, from point blank, and with shells whitch were at development stage in ww2 it is pure usa weapons manufactors propaganda. While Yamato AP rounds in real combat situation actually pierced destroyer to other sode and didnd even detonated
@kickazzdrummer666 "USS" United States Ship, is a Commissioned ship of the US Navy, and crewed by US Navy personnel. "USNS" United States Naval Ship, is a non Commissioned vessel owned by the US Navy, but crewed by Civilians. The USNS ships are under Military Sealift Command, as opposed to US Navy Combatant Commands.
My father, Victor Donald Snow Sr., served as a naval ensign aboard the USS Missouri in 1946. He told me the story of his service that included returning the body of the Turkish Ambassador to the United States to his homeland, where the U.S. soldiers were greeted by thousands of Turks.
Yeah, as Pauahi says, "see below" because below is where you'd have to go to see the Yamato ... at the bottom of the sea. The Yamato was bigger, yes, but slower, less fortified and her guns were untested. By contrasted, the Missouri proved herself in WWII, Korean and even as late as Desert Storm. The Iowa-class were incontrovertably the fasted, most fortified and most accurage battleships. The epitomy of battleship design. But still, respect to the Yamato.
@KaneoheTony Actually the yamato was had 26inches of armour in on her turrets, 19.7 inches on the conning and 16 inch side armour. So she had more armor than the iowa class but it wasn't the greatest of quality. Secondly to be fair on the yamato she didn't have a chance to prove her self in combat. She was sent on a sucide mission with no air cover or back up, and lets not forget she took 17 torpedoes and 25 armour piecing bombs to put her under, not many bb could take that much punishment.
@pramboy09 The Yamato had very poor fire control,where as the Iowa's had the best radar fire control systems that technology could muster for the day. It would have been an interesting battle between the two and I believe the Yamato would need all that extra thick armor from all the hits she would sustain from the Iowa's.
@lander4545 The Yamato would have needed a lucky shot to win that battle. The Bismarck got a lucky shot on the Hood in WWII where the Hood was just still within the range of a deck hit from the Bismarck on the 2nd or 3rd shot. The Bismarck probably would have won anyway but you never know.
@vegitibles The IOWAs were significantly superior to the YAMATOs by almost every objective metric. The YAMATOs were relatively primative, the IOWAs far ahead of their time...
if anyone here has pearl harbor if you look closely the USS MISSOURI is actually in the move but in small segments so you cant really tell. One is at the part where the nurses enter and one is during the attack when the p40s come down battleship row take a look its cool
What YAMASAKIZUKI says is true. Though uncredited, the Battleship Missouri, now a memorial in Pearl Harbor, served as a location in several scenes in the 2001 movie "Pearl Harbor."
As you likely know, battleships rarely battled each other directly — certainly not in 19th century naval history. But yes, the Yamato's bulk and guns were bigger. However, the USS Missouri was faster and its 16-inch guns more accurate (demonstrated not just in WWII but also in Korea and Iraq). In battle, the latter two characteristics have proven more valuable than size .
I took a tour of the Missouri in Virginia Beach before the gulf war. My brother was a navy man at the time and told me it was a very rare treat for a civilian to be on her deck during active duty. I have never forgotten the that day and never will. It truely was a rare and very powerful experience. I only hope I might get another chance to step back in history and walk on her decks some day again. If I am ever in Hawaii, it is the first thing on my list.
A great and beautiful Lady. I prey i will be able to go one day and salute each and every person who were involved in ending World War 2 the War to End all wars!!
You all did a WONDERFUL job on this video! My grandfather, Ernest Thompson, served on MO from 1944-45 - he will be so thrilled to see this video. And, it was great to see John, Murray and Herb... so handsome all of you. Until next time we visit the ship... thank you!
Comment removed
Tull29 1 month ago
If you have served, you truely understand.
Howardraz 1 month ago
The four Iowa Class battleships were only armored against 14" shells. Yamato and Musashi packed nine 18.1" main guns and Nagato had 8 16" main canon. Alright, not all naval canon are equal but I'm not too sure what a head to head would have amounted to. The four cancelled Montana class were to have put that argument to rest but it is still interesting to talk about the what if.
Tull29 2 months ago
@Tull29 The fire control of the Iowas was far more accurate than the Yamato/Musashi, and the armor penetrating ability of the 16"50cal shells were very close to that of the 18" japanese counterparts. Also, Iowas were faster and more maneuverable than Yamatos/Mus. All this aside, I certainly wouldn't want to be onboard either ship during such a conflict. One word... ouch.
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@AmericanThunder -agreed with accuracy and penetrating of the American 16" main armament however the books that I have indicate that the Iowas were only protected against 14" shells, a fault that was to be corrected in the Montana class (12 16" main guns and protected against the 18.1" Japaneses shell).
Not trying to argue the point but I am curious as to the truth of the Iowa"s armor protection.
Tull29 1 month ago
@Tull29 P.S. Iowas were armored against 16"/45 guns with quite a long immunity range, because that was originally what they were designed to carry. The decision was made to fit the longer-barreled 16"/50 guns during construction.
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@AmericanThunder - no offense meant, but are we talking overall armament or are we talking turrets, barbettes, main belt, main deck and superstructure?
Tull29 2 weeks ago
@AmericanThunder -sorry that should have read armor and not armament.
Tull29 2 weeks ago
Oh, what the heck, I'll post the 30mm depleted uranium Armor Penetration ability just for fun: It will penetrate 69mm at 500 meters and 38mm at 1000 meters. So, heh. If you had the nuts to fly a plane at the broadside of a Battleship (which is armed with CIWS), and you flew in close enough for the crew to see the look of sheer terror on your face, and you managed to fire a few rounds before being vaporized, and they hit perfectly squarely on the armor, they would get 2.5" into the armor belt.
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@AmericanThunder Actually, CIWS would be knocked out by the 30mm gunfire. Air defense of a battleship is done by DDG"s and CG's. Anti Air warefqare is not eh BB's strong point.
BernieEOD 2 months ago
@BernieEOD Well, maybe if the opportunity ever comes along to fly a plane at the broadside of a fully operational Iowa-class BB, you should give it a try and see what happens?
AmericanThunder 2 months ago
@AmericanThunder I believe we should use them in a sink ex just to see what would happen. As it is, they are in Mothballs never to see service again...As it should be.
BernieEOD 2 months ago
@BernieEOD They're actually no longer in mothballs, they've all been donated as museums, with contracts to keep them in good shape in case they're needed again. I think we should keep all 4 of them in good shape, regardless of what they're used for, whether in service or as museums, and treat them with respect, for the rich history and amazing service they've provided us since their launch during WWII. They're beautiful old girls.
AmericanThunder 2 months ago
@AmericanThunder Iowa is still in Mothballs. ALL of them have been stricken from the Naval Register meaning they will NEVER see service again. In Fact, there is a new USS Missouri (SSN-780) Farther closing the door on these obsolete, expensive showboats whose only purpose was to fill the Japs with fear and hate while moored inside the Golden Gate.
BernieEOD 2 months ago
@BernieEOD I believe you're misinformed about the role of a Battleship as it pertains to modern warfare. I also believe you have some kind of deep-seated resentment of these capital ships, for whatever reason, which comes across very blatantly in your wording. Perhaps you should read about "Solving the Naval Fire Support Gap", and why the Marines want at least 2 of the Battleships reactivated.
AmericanThunder 2 months ago
@AmericanThunder The Marines have not performed an amphibious assault since Inchon. The current MEF doctrine calls for operating well inland and out of range of these obsolete and overly expensive ships. They have been stricken from the register, there is no money to operate these money pits, they are done.
BernieEOD 2 months ago
I'd be interested to see what kind of range these rifles can attain with the use of 8" or 11" Sabots.
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
BernieEOD... You are utterly, grossly uninformed. The most cursory review of the IOWAs logs shows virtually all your statements about their operational history to be false. It is quite true they were not employed as aggressively as they should have been in WWII. But their value and achievements are unimpeachable. Your comparisons with plaforms like the F-18 are ludicrous on their face. You have no interest in accuracy, neither historical or technical. Keep spewing...
iowa61 6 months ago
I was so proud to serve on this great ship. She was home, she still is.
graycloud057 7 months ago in playlist Battleship/Warship Vids
True, but the Missouri also received some of those same ship-to-ship and ship-to-surface defenses when she was upgraded in the 1980s – actually used in Desert Storm. Add to that the battleship's armer, which is much thicker than a modern naval ships. Nothing to sneeze at.
Pauahi950 9 months ago
@Pauahi950 Very true, the armor from the Battleships were extremely impressive. It's even said that the 2000 incident with the USS Cole bombing, that if it were the Missouri for example all that would have happened was smeered smoke on the hull instead of a hole.
Manbeast222 6 months ago in playlist Manbeast222's Favorited Videos
@Pauahi950 Actually, the Silkworm missile with its 2,000 lb warhead was a threat taken seriously. When a 20MM CIWS round penetrated the 17 inch thick armor, the myth of the Battleships invincibility was shattered. They are just another target.
BernieEOD 6 months ago
@BernieEOD Did you say a single 20mm round penetrated 17 inches of sts armor? Did you know Santa Claus is real?
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@BernieEOD Dude, your statements are utter fantasy. A 20mm round NEVER penetrated the armor of MISSOURI. I know the incident you think you're referring to and your flat wrong.
iowa61 6 months ago
@iowa61 20MM Depleted Uranium round. The SU 29 would rip this obsolete rust bucket to shreds with its 30MM Depleted Uranium rounds.
BernieEOD 6 months ago
@BernieEOD I know your comment is 3 months old. In the 80's the U.S. had to re-flag tankers sailing the straits of hormuz to protect them from the threat of Iranian silkworm missiles(don't remember all the specifics). But the Missouri was sent in the escort and a news crew asked the captain about the silkworm threat to his ship. His response was "If one could penetrate our defenses and strike this ship all I would need is a broom too sweep up the dust."
r1cw 2 months ago
@r1cw Correction, that comment was for an Exocet Missile with its 350 Lb Warhead. Not the Silkworm with its 2000 LB Warhead. The Battleships did not escort any Tankers DDG's and CG's did that job.
BernieEOD 2 months ago
Long range ship-to-ship and ship-to-surface missles made this thing obsolete. Because of that, this thing would be just a very large easy to hit target.
supramanz 9 months ago
@supramanz True,but anti ship missiles would be hard pressed to penetrate her hull,IMO remeber these ship were meant to fight anything of equal armorment 16"/50 cal guns at 3 to 20 miles out.
deb1926 6 months ago
@deb1926
Not really. As a rule of thumb a shaped charge can penetrate around 6-7 times its diameter.
The AGM-114 Hellfire of a Apache fame is capable of penetrating roughly 40" worth of steel armour.
Now imagine what a Kh-22 with its 36,2" diameter one ton warhead.
chrthiel 4 months ago
@supramanz You have no clue whatsoever. To the contrary, the IOWAs remain the hardest to sink ships on the planet. Ships float. They can sink. But the IOWAs are the least "easy" of targets. Armor, redundancy, compartmentalization. In terms of damage resistance, nothing's close to an IOWA.
iowa61 6 months ago
@iowa61 Absolutely right. Battleships are designed specifically to absorb damage and go on fighting, while other ships are designed to avoid being damaged, and to hide behind battleships. :)
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
We wouldn't dare. The dent is still there.
Pauahi950 9 months ago
I wonder if they took the dent out in drydock in 2009.
tryithere 9 months ago
Now Lesson Two in strategy--
Our subs and planes are title C.
Just send them out on any mission
And win your battles by attrition.
Where'er you send the subs or planes
They're bound to chalk up lots of gains--
And losses, too, but what the hell.
Who cares about their personnel?
For planes are chauffeured by young studs;
Lieutenant Commanders run the subs.
BernieEOD 10 months ago
Battleships are title B.
That's Lesson One in strategy.
They are the backbone of the Fleet.
Their fighting power can't be beat.
They dominate the raging Main
While swinging 'round the anchor chain,
And bravely guard your home and mine
While anchored out there all in line.
They fill the Japs with fear and hate
From well inside the Golden Gate.
BernieEOD 10 months ago
@BernieEOD I guess history proved that little ditty dead wrong...!
iowa61 6 months ago
@iowa61 Quite right. The Iowa class spent most of their time sitting in port looking good. The war was won by carriers and submarines. So much so that that battleship construction was halted on 1942 in order to focus on Carriers, submarines, and Amphibious transports. These ships did nothing to win the war and were only show boats in thier careers.
BernieEOD 6 months ago
Just think when all the worlds modern weapontry has finally neutralized itself (radio frequency,laser and GPS jammers,heat seeking missliles) the 16'' guns of the Iowa Class Battleships will still fire and hit there targets because nothing can stop them! ;)
lander4545 1 year ago 2
BOOM! "There goes a Volkswagen!!" :)
Kiahsobyk 1 year ago
Battlewagon ! I remember my grandfather using that term instead of battleship.
oldpreach 1 year ago
fuck yamato
88ABRAMS88 1 year ago
Missouri...still the queen of ships even over the mighty Enterprise. What shes seen and survived...what a battle it would have been had Mighty Mo slugged it out with Bismark....
Ammitt 1 year ago
Wasn't the ship featured in the film "Under Siege"?
JackJeckel81 1 year ago
What ? At 24 seconds, the video shows a modern shot, one from about 15 years ago when there was an accident firing the 16 inch guns. It killed like 50 guys. Why would you put this in a tribute video ?
oldpreach 1 year ago
@oldpreach that was the USS iowa that blow up.
USSWISCONSIN64 1 year ago
@USSWISCONSIN64 Yeah...it has been so long, I fogot which of the 4 had that accident. My point was tho, that it is a tribute video and that footage seems out of place in a tribute video.
oldpreach 1 year ago
@oldpreach yea. it is sad that it happen. but well. it just does for some reason.
USSWISCONSIN64 1 year ago
I think the Enterprise CV 6 should have been preserved in the same manner as the Missouri. It is a shame she wasn't. The most decorated ship in US Naval history. The Enterprise and Missouri are great symbols of that era. When the present Enterprise CVN 65 is decommissioned she should be preserved near the Missouri. It would be a big mistake in my mind not to honor CVN 65 and her namesake CV 6 in such a manner.
mondo78 1 year ago
my grandpa was on that ship. (:
OfficialPodawack 1 year ago
My father, still alive, still has some of the photos he took at the Signing of Japan's Surrender and an areal surveillance picture of the Missouri 1945. He was a member of the crew of HMS Emperor, Ruler class Escort Carrier . When I next visit him I will copy the photos and list them on the Internet. HMS Emperor was attacked and hit by one of the infamous Kamikaze Aircraft but was also ironically evolved with the Attack on he Japanese destroyer Kamikaze.
SirJeffJones1 1 year ago
It wasn't aircraft carriers that made battleships obsolete, it was the fact that Chuck Norris learned to swim.
0manoscar 1 year ago 2
@0manoscar Oh thats priceless....hes also responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs ya know
Ammitt 1 year ago
Served on the Mo. Can tell you a refitted battlewagon can take on 52 moving targets at one time, for several hours. This includes any aircraft. Also the Iowa class battleships have 19 inches of steel to penetrate. And yes, can also take down targets (including carriers) from MORE than 1500 miles away. The reason for the final decommissioning was political. (New president that downsized the military.) Also a battleships original purpose was shore bombardment, and the center of the battle group.
Howardraz 2 years ago 13
@Howardraz That is all true, but not well known.
iowa61 6 months ago
@Howardraz No area air defense. Only point defense in the form of CIWS. TWO MK-48's will send it to the bottom. Too expensive to operate.
BernieEOD 6 months ago
As for the Carriers vs. Battleships argument; I don't think that's very relevant, as the Battleship's primary role in modern warfare is to provide a hard target to defend soft targets (aka Carriers) from attack. However, since the Battleships do carry 20 kilo nuclear 16" shells and long range cruise missiles, I'd say it's within the power of the battleship to sink any ship within a range of 1500 miles, including Carriers.
AmericanThunder 2 years ago 12
@AmericanThunder They are too expensive to operate and the ordiance they carry can be delivered by other ships at far less cost.
BernieEOD 6 months ago
@BernieEOD Ah, this old argument. Ok, so tell me, what vessel in our modern Navy delivers ordinance that can penetrate 32 feet of reinforced concrete, can deliver NINE of this ordinance every 30 seconds for a sustained period of time, can withstand a proximity nuclear blast, and last but certainly not least, what other vessel can be brought in safely close to shore for the simple purpose of looking incredibly intimidating to enemy forces? Do you know the Marine Corps wants BBs back, very much?
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@AmericanThunder One F-18 Hornet. The cost of operating this obsolete rust bucket is not worth it. The proposed Arsenal ship would have filled the gap. As to the fact that there has been no Amphibious assault since Inchon and that the Corps is now moving ever more inland, these relics are even less useful. Face it, they spent most of their time as show boats where the image was more important than actual performance. The same was true of Germany's Tirpitz and the Yamato.
BernieEOD 6 months ago
@BernieEOD Do you actually believe that a single F18 Hornet has the same firepower as an Iowa Class Battleship? Your statement just ended this conversation. Have a good day.
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@AmericanThunder LOL The Iowas were obsolete by 1943 Iowa cost $125.000.000 in 1943 a Essex Class carrier that contributed a lot more to the victory in the pacific cost $69.000.000. The Iowas should have been cancelled in 1941 and replaced by more Essex class carriers, Fletcher class destroyers and Liberty cargo ships they all contribute alot more in WW2 then overrated obsolete Admiral barge the Iowa class. By way how many ships did the Iowas sink in WW2?
jers59 1 month ago
@jers59 "LOL"? When you've matured, let me know.
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@AmericanThunder OK I matured and Iowas were still waste of money and material, 4 white elephants when comissioned in 1943-44
jers59 1 month ago
@jers59 Ok good. I don't think the money spent to build BBs mattered much in the face of America's economic might. But regardless, there were incidents were Battleships saved carriers. The BBs were originally designed to fight other ships, but by the time the Iowas were launched, the carriers had indeed taken over as the dominant force, yes. However, none of this is pertinent to my previous points. Battleships have their place, both for shore bombardment, and for fleet protection.
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@jers59 Also, as a minor additional point, let's not forget the psychological effects of a massive ship bristling with huge guns, steaming to within visual sight of an enemy force on land. Carriers dare not get in that close, but Battleships have done just that. Psych warfare is an often overlooked aspect of any conflict.
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@AmericanThunder Lets see last amphibious operation Inchon 1950 so the arguement of steaming to visual range of enemy on land is out the window. Recomissioning the Iowas in 1980 was vast waste of money Should have modernized 2 carriers Oriskany and Bon Homme Richard and 2 Des moines class cruisers Des moines and Salem with Newport News used as source for spare parts the fast firing 8 inch guns much more efficient then slow firing 16/50
jers59 1 month ago
@jers59 If you want small guns, why bother with 8s? 5" fires even faster. Iowas already had 20 of them onboard, before their refit. In a full scale attack, the carrier's best defense wouldn't be thin-skinned cruisers, it would be a hard target that can absorb damage.
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@AmericanThunder Last carrier sunk escort carrier USS Bismarck Sea 1945, Off Iwo Jima 1945 it was 5 inch destroyers that provided the most effective gunnery for the marines they closed in close and gave good covering fire. Des Moines class cruisers could fire 63/8 inch rounds per minute that would devastate battleship, 1 modern torpedo will easily break battleship in two exploding under keel causing large air bubble also modern ccruise missiles with shaped war heads will easily pierce BB armor
jers59 1 month ago
@jers59 I definitely agree, a torpedo under the keel will sink any ship afloat. That's why we have destroyer escorts for BBs and CVs. As for a cruise missile or 6" guns being a big threat to a battleship.. keep in mind that the old battleship Pennsylvania(built in 1913) survived both Bikini Nuclear Tests and had to be scuttled afterward. Anyway, fun discussion, thanks for that, neither of us will change our minds, so have a great day.
AmericanThunder 1 month ago
@AmericanThunder So did the old heavy cruisers Salt Lake City and Pensacola were then towed across the pacific and sunk in naval exercise
jers59 1 month ago
the missouri was an iowa class just called missouri. the difference is the missouri with stood the test of time.
ac35030 2 years ago
I sincerely hope she is kept in a fully seaworthy condition at all times.
She should only need fueling and provisioning to sail again.
Gizmologist09 2 years ago 2
Pretty sure that no usable powder is left at this point to operate the 16" guns which would be the only reason to reactivate the ship. Plus it is estimated that it would cost $750 million dollars just to get it running again let alone the billions it would cost to retrofit.
Plus the factories don't exist anymore that made the things this ship needs to run like the shells, powder, replacement parts etc.
unkillsam 2 years ago
@unkillsam: I think, it's only a matter of willing. Isn't possible nowaday not to be able to remake any part of the ship by simply reading the plans!... I think it's possible. A battleship is a machine: and any part of a machine can be rebuilt if required. Shells, too, and powder.
cesare196 2 years ago
My HS Senior year algebra teacher was Rear Admiral Robert C Brodie. He captained the USS MIssouri between 1953 and 1954.
His stories about her during that time were a memory I will treasure forever.
She and all the other great ships and dedicated crews are owed a debt we will NEVER be able to repay aside from saying Thank you.
You will NEVER be forgotten.
Gizmologist09 2 years ago
The Mighty Mo doesn't have to be proven in ship to ship combat. Her guns did all the talking... Many men in service and retired, respect her for her significance, she is where the war ended! if you go aboard that ship and look around. You see all the history and all the pride those naval men had to be part of that historical day. If you haven't lived it... You shouldn't degrade =] my philosophy down-grade me if you want it's my opinion.
ladysearider1 2 years ago
"""They save the Missouri,,,Yet scraped the Enterprise CV-6!?!?!?...........The 2 don't even compare as far as historical significance is concerned!!!"""
BAPTIE6 2 years ago
@BAPTIE6 sink them both!!!!
TheZuikaku 2 years ago
this is a good and famous ship for 1 reason- its the only one left
It was never proven in combat and never will be. Some of the real warships should have been saved (prince of wales for example)
in my eyes the HMS Warspite is one of the best battleships ever built, not because of fire power or speed, but because to servived through so many battles and took so much damage but still carried on fighting afterwards.
Whereas the mighty mo never had 1 proper battle,b ship vs b ship
TheNazgarth 2 years ago
incorrect
The USS Wisconsin is still on Reserve Duty. She is docked in Norfolk VA. I was there.
But yes I agree, there were so many great ships that were cut up and made into things we use every day .
stargate3d 2 years ago
@stargate3d All Iowa Class BB's have been struck from the NVR. Wisconsin is Officially Donated as of 12/14//09. Only USS Iowa is still in Custody of MARAD at Suisun Bay, in Maintainance Catogory "X", meaning she gets no preservation or maintainance. They better figure out what the deal is going to be with Iowa's donation status. Since she is in catagory "X", that ship will be in rough shape when donated. The Other three Iowa Class BB's were in catagory "B" prior to donation.
devildoc225 1 year ago
wrong, still a few battleships are left.
haienbleurgh 2 years ago
TheNazgarth, all of the Iowa-class battleships are still afloat.
True, the Missouri was more useful for shore bombardment than ship to ship warfare but she served in WW2, Korea and the Gulf War. When you have 16" guns that fire 1000+ kg shells for 37km, they don't only need to be used for hitting other ships.
brainburrito 2 years ago 3
The IOWA's were longer, faster, and uparmored versions of the previous North Carolina and South Dacota class battleships that destroyed the Japanese battleship task force in the Phillipines. What makes you think that the IOWA's would not be great ship to ship fighters. They outclassed anything the Japs had except the Yamato and the Yamato was 3 knots slower thent the IOWA's so it would never be able to close in a firefight.
unkillsam 2 years ago
The YAMATO class was wider, thick armored and had more fire power.
Plus the YAMATO had greater range (gun)than the iowas.
I did not say the iowas wouldn't be an effective fighting force, but against the YAMATO'S they would be out classed, one "lucky" hit can destroy a battleship and 18 inch has greater chance of making armor fail.
But i may be wrong---we will never know for sure, it was the dawn of a new age---planes.
TheNazgarth 2 years ago 6
What if Japanese buildt a Super Yamato?
killersaad 2 years ago
Battleships can be easily beaten by Carriers, so no matter how big your battleship is, a simple torpedo bomber can destroy it.
Look, the Bismark was one of the best Battleships in WW2, and it was defeated by Swordfishes, outdated airplanes armed with nothing but torpedos.
torenico 2 years ago
@torenico yeh the super yamato would be unsinkable
killersaad 2 years ago
Torenico, Bismarck wasn't originally designed to defend against planes. For a battleship to be effective against air targets in today's world, you simply build it with armored SAM farms below decks. Flying over one of these ships would be comparable to flying over an area of land covered by hundreds of SAM sites. I wouldn't want to be that pilot.
AmericanThunder 2 years ago
@torenico actually they have investigated that, national geographic has a documentry out there where they found the torpedos and shells never actually penetrated the second layer of the hull, they found that "the torpedos did not cause signifigcant damage and flooding to sink her" meaning the germans are probably right when they said they scuttled her.
rwp16db 6 months ago
what if the montana class battleship had come into service and with nuclear shells? *runs finger under the word nuclear* :)
zequelll 2 years ago
Yamato had thin bulkheads throughout, because Japan lacked funding to armor the internals, the way the US did. IJN AP shells were of an inferior design to the US AP. It was found that the US 16" AP shells would penetrate armor similarly to the IJN 18.1" AP shells. Not only was the Iowa class substantially faster than Yamato, the US used Radar Assisted Fire Control, which meant the Iowa had a *FAR* greater chance to hit a target at long range than the Yamato.
AmericanThunder 2 years ago
@AmericanThunder First of all Iova radar would go offline from chock of her own guns., To fragile parts. Second these test with Ap shells were done after the war, from point blank, and with shells whitch were at development stage in ww2 it is pure usa weapons manufactors propaganda. While Yamato AP rounds in real combat situation actually pierced destroyer to other sode and didnd even detonated
skaniukas 1 year ago
そこで彼らが本当にそこにハァッに行くか？ 18.1"銃を、私たちの尻に舷側の味を開くよ...
TheZuikaku 2 years ago
the "USS" usually stands for:
United States Ship
and sometimes
United States Naval Ship ( USN )
roadkill598 2 years ago
What does "USS" mean?
kickazzdrummer666 2 years ago
@kickazzdrummer666 "USS" United States Ship, is a Commissioned ship of the US Navy, and crewed by US Navy personnel. "USNS" United States Naval Ship, is a non Commissioned vessel owned by the US Navy, but crewed by Civilians. The USNS ships are under Military Sealift Command, as opposed to US Navy Combatant Commands.
devildoc225 1 year ago
My father, Victor Donald Snow Sr., served as a naval ensign aboard the USS Missouri in 1946. He told me the story of his service that included returning the body of the Turkish Ambassador to the United States to his homeland, where the U.S. soldiers were greeted by thousands of Turks.
TheSnowmachine 2 years ago 2
one word YAMATO
vegitibles 2 years ago
See below
Pauahi950 2 years ago 4
@Pauahi950 word, Mo would have stomed Yamato...would have been a worthy opponent to Japans masterpeice. It would have been a battle to sing about
Ammitt 1 year ago
one word SURRENDER
neesayer 2 years ago 3
And you can board her as long as your fitted with scuba gear!
lander4545 2 years ago
Another word.
INFERIOR!
(and 3 more)
Do your research.
SeaCoastSapper 2 years ago
@vegitibles -- one word "SUNK"
trevtron1976 1 year ago
@vegitibles
You say Yamato...I say Tomato.
cksilverado1 1 year ago
Yeah, as Pauahi says, "see below" because below is where you'd have to go to see the Yamato ... at the bottom of the sea. The Yamato was bigger, yes, but slower, less fortified and her guns were untested. By contrasted, the Missouri proved herself in WWII, Korean and even as late as Desert Storm. The Iowa-class were incontrovertably the fasted, most fortified and most accurage battleships. The epitomy of battleship design. But still, respect to the Yamato.
KaneoheTony 1 year ago
@KaneoheTony Actually the yamato was had 26inches of armour in on her turrets, 19.7 inches on the conning and 16 inch side armour. So she had more armor than the iowa class but it wasn't the greatest of quality. Secondly to be fair on the yamato she didn't have a chance to prove her self in combat. She was sent on a sucide mission with no air cover or back up, and lets not forget she took 17 torpedoes and 25 armour piecing bombs to put her under, not many bb could take that much punishment.
pramboy09 1 year ago
@pramboy09 The Yamato had very poor fire control,where as the Iowa's had the best radar fire control systems that technology could muster for the day. It would have been an interesting battle between the two and I believe the Yamato would need all that extra thick armor from all the hits she would sustain from the Iowa's.
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 The Yamato would have needed a lucky shot to win that battle. The Bismarck got a lucky shot on the Hood in WWII where the Hood was just still within the range of a deck hit from the Bismarck on the 2nd or 3rd shot. The Bismarck probably would have won anyway but you never know.
tryithere 9 months ago
@lander4545 correct but we will never know just how good she was as aircraft sunk her.
pramboy09 9 months ago
@pramboy09 But the Iowa class guns were quite a bit more accurate. Of course a lucky shot can always happen.
tryithere 9 months ago
@vegitibles 2 words OCEAN FLOOR
Juras187 1 year ago
@vegitibles The IOWAs were significantly superior to the YAMATOs by almost every objective metric. The YAMATOs were relatively primative, the IOWAs far ahead of their time...
iowa61 8 months ago
@vegitibles Another word - SUNK
clbill 8 months ago
@clbill Like the Arizona.
FGalaxie 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheRGK123 6 months ago
@vegitibles 1 word Yamato = SUNK
DaManzMoney 5 months ago
whats that flag in the foreground at 5:13 ? its not the Grand Union Flag is it?
Schmidt1942 2 years ago
Schmidt1942, that's the Hawaii State Flag. Its design acknowledges Hawaii's historic friendship with Britain.
Pauahi950 2 years ago
if anyone here has pearl harbor if you look closely the USS MISSOURI is actually in the move but in small segments so you cant really tell. One is at the part where the nurses enter and one is during the attack when the p40s come down battleship row take a look its cool
YAMASAKIZUKI 2 years ago
What YAMASAKIZUKI says is true. Though uncredited, the Battleship Missouri, now a memorial in Pearl Harbor, served as a location in several scenes in the 2001 movie "Pearl Harbor."
Pauahi950 2 years ago
As you likely know, battleships rarely battled each other directly — certainly not in 19th century naval history. But yes, the Yamato's bulk and guns were bigger. However, the USS Missouri was faster and its 16-inch guns more accurate (demonstrated not just in WWII but also in Korea and Iraq). In battle, the latter two characteristics have proven more valuable than size .
Pauahi950 2 years ago
the Yamato sank the missouri never did.
TheShooterlol 2 years ago 3
Who knew, the Missouri was the site of the historic surrender of the Monopoly Guy.
youtert 3 years ago 3
Mamoru Shigemitsu was rockin his tophot and cane =D
brainburrito 2 years ago
Awesome Ship. I've seen her Sister, the Wisconsin in Norfolk. Iowa's are amazing sites in person.
Scioneer 3 years ago 2
I took a tour of the Missouri in Virginia Beach before the gulf war. My brother was a navy man at the time and told me it was a very rare treat for a civilian to be on her deck during active duty. I have never forgotten the that day and never will. It truely was a rare and very powerful experience. I only hope I might get another chance to step back in history and walk on her decks some day again. If I am ever in Hawaii, it is the first thing on my list.
billpa16101 3 years ago
she is fine ship and my favorite ship, let´s hope she must not again in action she may make her little rest ^^
lordsjaak 3 years ago 3
Nice video. I was on the missouri during the gulf war and worked in ordnance division. If i lived in hawaii i'd volunteer to work on here.
SCHRUBBE1966 3 years ago
murray said it best...my father often spoke like him...my dad was WW2 veteran
ffej980 3 years ago
A great and beautiful Lady. I prey i will be able to go one day and salute each and every person who were involved in ending World War 2 the War to End all wars!!
shaman48 3 years ago 2
i'we been on the ship. I was on Pearl harbor, Hawaii this summer :) Im from norway BTW
blaxtro84 3 years ago
Awesome ship.
theblackhand2 3 years ago
You all did a WONDERFUL job on this video! My grandfather, Ernest Thompson, served on MO from 1944-45 - he will be so thrilled to see this video. And, it was great to see John, Murray and Herb... so handsome all of you. Until next time we visit the ship... thank you!
kpaternoster 4 years ago