Put those tiny pieces of shit up against the 16". it doesn't matter how rapid your fire is, Those 16" will fuck you up before the Heart Beat can start beating.
I served as a crewmember on the Wisconsin from 1987-90(Engineering,B-Div.). I was damn proud to be a Battleship sailor and I hope to walk on her deck once more before I die!
IF THE NAVIES ACROSS THE WORLD WLD THINK OTHERWISE , DEN Modify THESE BEAUTIES WITH ADVANCE AIR AND ANTI MISSLE DEFENCE SYSTEMS and ADD ON ADVANCED TARGETING REQUISTION. PLUS THEIR HEAVIER ARMOUR WHICH IS THE BACKBONE OF THESE BATTLESHIPS, THEY CAN STILL DO PLENTY OF DAMAGE MILES AWAY. NO MATTER HOW FAR THE DISTANCE IS , NOTHING IS TOO HARD 4 the BATTLESHIPS ANYTIME ANYWHERE !!!
Is REALLY SAD TO SEE BATTLESHIPS OUT OF ACTION IN 2DAY"S NAVIES ACROSS THE WORLD. I REALLY PRAY THESE BABES(BATTLESHIPS) WLD B BROUGHT BACK 2 LIve. BESIDES THESE SHIPS R LEGEND OF COMBAT HISTORY AND STRATIGIC NAVAL BOMBARDMENT.
My 3M office was in a compartment right behind turret 2.Every time they fired it,my door would be wrecked and everything in the there would be in the floor, lol.Thanks for the memories!!
@Cirux321 WRONG,the us is one of the only countries that DO NOT have battleships.they have been replace with a variety of submarines and missile cruisers but i am sure some people think you know what you are talking about.haha
WRONG. The US is the only country that has any existing true battleships (by ship classification) still intact and floating. The US has four 4 Iowa's, 2 South Dakota's and the New York class BB, USS Texas. Japan has the pre-dreadnought battleship Mikasa if you want to count that one. But its smaller then a WW2 Cruiser. All of Germany's, Italy's, France's, Russia's and Britian's was either sank or scrapped. No other country built any. No country has any in active service.
@Cirux321 I said we do not have any,the ones you are talking about are in hawaii and part of a museum.And France has probably the closest thing to a battleship that is used today.RIGHT this guy.
@MrJPinVA The US has a total of eight Battleships still afloat, but decommissioned. 7 are museums and one is waiting for the same. No other country in the world even posses one except Japan's pre-dreadnought that is also a museum.
Why, because they're slower, more cumbersome, less accurate and more dangerous to their crews than modern weapons systems, or because their destructive potential is severe overkill when considering modern mission requirements?
no im not gay! but i do love BIG GUNS! :) too bad those times are not going to repeat :( so you say a man who loves big bangs and awesome firepower is gay? i always thought the opposite :D
I served Whisky from 1987-90(2nd division). Our general quarters station was turret 2 in the powder flats. Saw her in Norfolk not too long ago. She's being taken care of quite nicely!
just noting that surface ship torpedoes were a lot bigger and more powerful than aircraft or sometimes submarine torpedoes. So maybe the musashi could take 19 aircraft torpedoes but not 19 destroyer torpedoes
One torpedo can cripple a battleship if it hits near the engine room. TP-boats don't have only one torpedo, they can have 6 and they can launch 2 at time. So one fatal hit can destroy a bigger and heavily armored Battleship.
One Torpedo boat would easily be chewed up by secondary guns and machine guns onboard a battleship. Thats why the strategy to using Torpedo boats against battleships was called in to using DOZENS of them so secondary and AA guns would be overwhelmed and incapable of shooting all of them down.
They can launch torpedoes from long distance like submarines do. Its mutch more expensive to build huge armored ships when one smaller and less costly ship can sink them with one single torpedo hit, well maybe not ONE mut they can incapacitate them and then launch another salvo so vital areas damages and then the ships starting to take in water and finally sink. Its only coz effective aricraft and destroyers why the torpedo boats dissapeared. It was very effective.
... You do realize the longer the distance the less likelly the torpedo will actually get a hit right? Unless we're talking about night hit and run tactics its just not going to work in some bright daylight engagement. As well some battleships (mainly the WWII era ones) take a couple to even dozens of torpedo's to sink. I do not deny that Torpedo boats (with the plural) can sink a battleship but just one TP would be chewed up nearly instantiously by any battleship with a good array of AA guns.
The Iowa class battleships were bettered armored then the British PoW and Repulse battleships, though compared to the Yamato and Montana battleships their armor is weak their armor is still superior compared to the KGV class ships. I'm pretty sure an Iowa can take at the least a few torpedo's... but that is hopeful since their torpedo blisters are smaller then those on the South Dakota class.
Torpedo was invented for a single thing: to destroy ships. If the torpedo don't hit the battleship and explodes 1m away from the ship, the huge explosion will crush the hull and its more effective against ships superstructure. When they use this tactic to make the torpedo explode when close to ship (torpedo affected my ships magnetic poles) not even heavy armored ships have chance.
"When they use this tactic to make the torpedo explode when close to ship (torpedo affected my ships magnetic poles) not even heavy armored ships have chance."
You are overstating the water hammer effect. In reality, most of a torpedo's explosive force is vented vertically. This is why modern torpedoes explode underneath a ship. There is video available of a missile cruiser being broken in half by such a torpedo. The gases actually rise through the ship and rip up through the decks.
Many of the navys world around have scrapped their battleships becouse its waste of manpower. In WW2 USA created many aircraft carriers wich would easily defeat an battleship.
"The Iowa class battleships were bettered armored then the British PoW and Repulse battleships"
Armor does not protect battleships from torpedoes. They have torpedo defense systems composed of void and liquid loaded spaces bound by elastic steel bulkheads, designed to diminish the force of torpedo blasts and prevent failure of the inner holding bulkhead. Armor is bad for these systems because it shatters. Also, the Iowa and South Dakota classes did not have torpedo blisters.
Do you really know that battleship with heavy armor are slow targets. If you've read about "Sinking HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse" you should know what one single torpedo causes serious damage. In this case one torpedo dropped from airplane hit "POW" so badly so it couldn't turn and the ships pumps wich was used to pump out seawater was useless cause too mutch water flooded inside it also damaged the ships structure so it couldn't use guns wich is very important for warships. Single torped
"Do you really know that battleship with heavy armor are slow targets."
Rubbish! I was aboard the Wisconsin when it made 32 knots in the Gulf of Mexico and left a rooster tail 30 feet high. It was so maneuverable that it did high speed S-turns radical enough to ship water over the fantail. In WW2, Iowas were known to out-turn Fletcher class destroyers. And all WW2 era battleships made at least 27 knots, as fast or faster than many modern warships. Research, my good fellow! Research!
Its not fast enough. Torpedo boats are mutch faster than battleships, and 2-3 torpedoes are enough to sink battleship. Then they only need to report to airbases so they do the "final blow".
Rubish! It took 20 torpedo's to sink the Musashi and 17 torpedo's to sink the Yamato. Though... They are the Yamato class and there is a reason why their called super battleships. As well does a torpedo boat have enough torpedo's to take down a Yamato? I should also let you know that even though the Iowa's were very maneuverable ships the Yamato's were even MORE manuerable, their TD was 2/3rds that of an Iowa.
HAHA THATS bullshit! BULLSHIT I TELL YOU. Yamato's were not more manuerable than Iowas! Why do you think so? Yamato's "turningpoint" when she turned was about 400. Iowas had mutch more about 600-800. Why japs didn't use Yamato before was that she was too expensive to travel with long distances.
"Rubish! It took 20 torpedo's to sink the Musashi and 17 torpedo's to sink the Yamato."
:D 20 is not "dozens," though it's close. Musashi was still steaming at 12 knots and in no danger of sinking after the first 9 torpedo hits, but the holding bulkhead hadn't performed very well. Garzke and Dulin credit Yamato with taking 11 - 13 torpedo hits, with more concentrated on one side after experience with Musashi. And you are right about Yamato's maneuverability. Truly amazing.
Well its simple physics, Yamato was a very wide ship with a shallow draft. Just like the Iowa's the shape of both classes of ships gave them performance advantages on whatever category. (iowa's long and slender meaning easier to push through the water) (Yamato's wide and short draft means less water to resist the hull meaning easier to turn) Both were the best of their type tbh.
"Its not fast enough. Torpedo boats are mutch faster than battleships, and 2-3 torpedoes are enough to sink battleship."
Sure, PT and S-boats could make 43+ knots, but things just never worked out the way you suggest. And not all battleships can be sunk by 2 - 3 torpedoes. Your romantic view of all-conquering torpedo boats does not match reality. Aircraft carriers and submarines are the most effective sinkers of ships by far. Battleships and torpedo boats were not.
Well, I did 8 years in the USN as a fire controlman. NATO Seasparrow on the Enterprise and Mk 38 GFCS Main Battery Fire Control on the Wisconsin. I was gone by the time this video was made. I know what it's like to try and range on shell splashes with the big rangefinder--very difficult! I also spent years researching naval architecture and combat. I have the full Garzke/Dulin trilogy right next to me. What do I need to know better?
The torpedo boat theory never worked except with the Svent Istvan and maybe one other moored ship. It's useless to argue that the torpedo boat was a perfect counter to battleships when, for decades, it simply failed. It had its chance. It didn't work.
This is true only if the explosive force defeats the torpedo protection system. This is unlikely to happen to an Iowa-class battleship, even though their torpedo defense was compromised by having armor go all the way to the bilge as protection against diving shells.
2. You have no idea of new Materials, right? I am Talking not of Kevlar shit, which would be too expensive . I am Talking of Metal. New kinds of Metal, ligther and tougher than those used in the 40s. Ther are such materials, not very expensive, since science did its part in the last 60 years.
And you don't need to protect radars more than on a carrier. Anti-Air Weapons like Patriot systems can be placed on the BS. I don't understand your problem.
3. Unlike a carrier, a BB has to operate very close to the coastline, well within the range of shorebased missiles. That means that it'll face far more threats, so yes, it need more protection.
Also, why would you use a landbased ABM missile of questionable capacity on a warship?
3. You don't need to operate TAHT close to the coastline, since modern Artillery Systems have a very long range. Each missile, that should make this distance, will be blocked by the missile defence systems. They are already in use on german (and american?) vessels to protect them egainst Exocets.
The great capacities are the main reason for the battleship. There is enough space for a of different weapon systems, which makes it a real alrounder. And since you need no room for fuel...understand?
1. No Overkill, nuclear Power is just cheaper. Because Diesel Engines use a huge amount of fuel, which is very expensive. Nuclear Power does not need to refuel. And you don't need any room for fuel, which is really an advantage. And, 25kts is a whole lot on a huge Battlship, you need just lots of Power, almost as much as on a carrier. We don't talk about cruisers...
1. Actually, nuclear power is far far more expensive than conventional power. Sure, they don't need to be refuelled, but they require far more manpower, is more expensive to maintain, require huge landbased service facilities and they're far more expensive to build.
2. What metals? Berrylium steel? Sorry to burst your bubble, but all the alternatives are more expensive than steel. And no, they're not lighter either.
1.Watched the fuel prices those days? With the need to send more ships which are needed to refuel, you are even more expensive in manpower. And landbase service: sorry, but that was never about to discuss when the carriers where nuclear powered.
2. As I said: you have no idea of modern materials. Steel is not always the same. The old BBs where made of steel made in the 40s. Now we have much better Steel, new ways of production. It is lighter, and cheaper to poduce.
It's a shame these kings of the sea are obsolete. Not much point in building a giant armored ship with today's weapon systems. Still seems like they should have battleships in commission for the sake of shore bombardments. Our military really needs to start doing things on the cheap instead of a 20 million dollar missile per enemy hut.
engined with nuclear power, and armored with modern german optic systems and precise artillery guns (panzerhaubitze 2000 hits more exactly than most missiles), the armour replaced by modern materials (less weigth, more stability) and equipped with modern helicopters, such a ship would be an indestructable swimming fortress, turning pirates and that hole stuff to ashes and dust!^^
Firstly, since all these that thing are good for is supporting anfib operations, giving them nuclear propulsion is just overkill. They won't need more than 25kts of speed at the most.
Secondly, what are these magical modern materials you speak of? Given the ludicrous dimensions the armour has, there's no real advantage in using stuff like Kevlar for anything other than additional spall liner.
Besides, no amount of armour is going to protect your radars and aerials, and without those a ship is useless.
Thirdly, where are you going to put those new helicopters? You still don't have any hangars and maintenance facilities for them.
Fourthly, you could deploy an entire task force of lighter vessel for the same amount of money it would cost to deploy a single BB with escorts. And unlike the BB, those lighter units can be in more than one place at a time.
Japan was going to build a Super Yamoto class with 20 inch guns.And cjmahoney you are right second guessing Government is one of the purest forms of patriotism.
USS Washingtonn actually missed a battle with the Battleship Tirpitz. That would have been a mean fight. Also the IJN taskforce against the Royal Navy's Force Z with the King George V.
American that, Japanese that....mate, war is war. But its time to move on, and start appreciate the world we live on. I'm from downunda so I like either one of 'em. As far as I know, the Japanese Navy were simply out-numbered right from the start - the Yanks got all the steel and oil they need. No matter what, reckon both the Lowa and Yamato class are about even. They have either good or bad quality. But one thing for sure, both were damn beautiful. Long live the battlewagons!!!
Ah yes, you Japanese and your numberoneism syndrome. You gotta have the longest tunnel, you gotta have the longest bridge, you gotta have the tallest tower and so on and so forth.
But you know what kotaro-kun your Yamato is laying at the bottom of the ocean, sunk and useless. Meanwhile the USS Wisconsin carried out a noble career with valor and bravery.
The Yamato is rusting hulk at the bottom of the ocean.
But I wanted to let you fight against an American battleship corps at the time of Okinawa attack of the last of the Yamato if I asked it the superiority and inferiority.
Ah, I figured you'd answer that way. I've seen your same comments in the recent past. War is war friend and you have to take into account all factors. I know you are living in make believe land but you can't change the past. That's like saying if only the Tokyo Giants had beaten the Hanshin Tigers. You can say "if only" all you want it doesn't change the matter of the fact that The USS Wisconsin served her time with valor, honor, integrity, and bravery. The Yamato should hvae had more air cover
One Iowa vs the Yamato may not be good enough, but two would sink the Yamato. There are more Iowa Class battleships than Yamato Class. I like the Yamato because It had a good design, plus that fancy gold seal on the front of the ship. Ah I wish that one of the two Yamato class battleships would still exist today, I really want to see it's power and size. (I wonder if any subs found the Yamato wreckage yet.)
...I'd have to say an Iowa and a Yamato would be an even match. The Yamato's guns might have been a bigger caliber, but the Iowa's could inflict the same amount of punch.
The location of both Yamato and Musashi are known, its just that they're off limits to most people as they are war graves.
The USS Wisconsin most likely would have come out on top due to the fact that the accuracy of the U.S. Navy was superior to that of the Japanese Imperial Navy.
The Yamatos were real monsters... and in an even fight, they might have done okay against even numbers of Iowas, as they had more armor. But they wouldn't have fought even numbers, of course. And that armor cost them, as they were significantly slower.
One of the US admirals, I forget which one, was actually a bit disappointed when the Yamato was destroyed by a massive air attack. he had wanted to have the US battleships duke it out with the giant old-school style.
Ah, I wish We got to see Battleship to Battleship. Seeing the Yamato vs. The Iowa class would have been cool. The closet we could get is in Battlestations Midway.
That would be Admiral Halsey. In Leyte Gulf, had he not took the bait and took his 3rd fleet to chase the IJN decoy that sent its last carriers on a suicide mission, he would have had just that. It WOULD have been: USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Alabama, USS Massachusetts, USS South Dakota and USS Washington vs Yamato, Nagato, Haruna and Kongo. The Musashi was sank the day before. It would have been the largest surface gunfire battle since Jutland.
A bit of a shame in some ways that it didn't take place. One might point out that hundreds would have died, but hundreds died anyway. And it would have been epic.
i think the us navy would have come out ahead anyways because of the radar targeting computer on the iowas and also the 16in heavy shells were as good if not better armor penetrating rounds as the 18.1in japanese guns.
Yes the Yamato wreck was discovered and documented with high details. There are several videos about it here on youtube. No one as of yet has dived/searched the wreck of the Musashi though. However last I heard plans were in place to find it to see if her hull is still intact. Yamato broke apart during her sinking.
"How much did the ship list to port had to be a pretty good lean with a full fire like that?"
Maybe one degree lol. Despite the popular myth these ships dont roll much and definitely dont move sideways even with a full broadside. The structure of the ships design itself as well as turret/gun design spreads the shock throughout the entire ship. Along with the ships armor protection, the sheer structural design itself disperses energy equally better then anything else afloat, even today.
Yeah...Shame for them BB67(Montana),Kentucky,Idaho and others wouldbe helpfull in Korea1950's in Vietnam, honestly by last NATO tactical training if one of that kind battleships gets to opperative area, NATO fleet are DOOMED most of modern ships got armor less than 150mm. USS Missoury got thinnest one 165mm. =)))
My AFJROTC told us alittle about the USS Wisconsin. He said that diffrent countrys would fear the Wisconsin because of its size and it shot bullits the size of volswagons (exageration)
they weighed as much as volkwagens. thats the truth. i saw the wisconsin at a museum in Norfolk, and above your head they have a shell and a volskwagen balanced on a scale. pretty cool stuff.
I remember reading some field report from the Korean War about an infantry unit requesting heavy artillery support to beat back Chinese armor. Turns out one of the Iowa class battleships got the call to fire...one 16" shell scored a direct hit on a T-34! In the words of one soldier "With what's left of that baby, you couldn't even make carpet tacks!"
I got to tour that ship in harbor at Norfolk. The distance those cameramen are is exactly the closest you can be to the guns without suffering permanent damage from the pressure created around the guns.
Why would anyone mess with the US.? ever.
oldlps45s 2 weeks ago
@oldlps45s Strange question.
ChechClear 2 weeks ago
I have a boner.
proton3227 1 month ago
Would have hate to be on the beach when those things hit during ww2 in the pacific.
LiveFreeOrDie1985 2 months ago
15 miles away, someone is about to have a bad day.
oiaughwea 3 months ago
BIGGER IS BETTER! FUCK THAT TINY GUNS BULLSHIT.
Put those tiny pieces of shit up against the 16". it doesn't matter how rapid your fire is, Those 16" will fuck you up before the Heart Beat can start beating.
packstack15 4 months ago
damn, imagine the impact of those things could make!!!
cavanfamily12345 6 months ago
I served as a crewmember on the Wisconsin from 1987-90(Engineering,B-Div.). I was damn proud to be a Battleship sailor and I hope to walk on her deck once more before I die!
brucemessig 8 months ago 3
I was a crewmember on Wisconsin from 1987-90(Engineering,B-Div,). I miss her and hope to walk on her deck once more before I leave this world.
brucemessig 8 months ago 2
creo que en total son 406 mm(16 pulgadas) :D saludos
agusmaniaa 10 months ago
looks poor
candiancat 1 year ago
Missiles maybe cool, but they'll never be big-ass 16 inches of awesome cool.
spartanK42 1 year ago
is it possible to fire those guns all at the same time?
Scythehalotrial 1 year ago
@Scythehalotrial They have a slight delay between barrels to prevent the shells from"kissing" in flight.
16guns 5 months ago
Hard to believe that there are still some dumb leaders of Nations that still deserve a present from those guns.
49bobbyk 1 year ago
Missiles are more effective, but they will never have the badass cool that the big guns had.
Tikayyan 1 year ago
USS North Carolina and USS Washington were North Carolina class ships.
The South Dakota, Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts were South Dakota class.
rtech580 1 year ago
wait there is one U.S.N. Battleship no one ever mintioned it is the USS north carolina of the carolina class battleship
joshua27818 1 year ago
@joshua27818 USS North Carolina was an Iowa class Battleship.
navdoc73 1 year ago
@navdoc73 the iowa class had 4 ships, IA, MO,WI, NJ
badgerattoadhall 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joshua27818 USS North Carolina was an Iowa class Battleship.
navdoc73 1 year ago
If I was the U.S.N I'd still use this for my conflicts. Would kick the shit outta some somalians.
fabiendu73 1 year ago
Chuck Norris tjust come out to toilet farting 3 times......
leksss4 1 year ago
Comment removed
leksss4 1 year ago
There may be more efficient ways of doing it these days--but few more impressive.
That's one of the reasons we were the big dog of the 20th Century.
Aggedor1959 1 year ago
best BB's ever built period.
fordfan25 1 year ago
piss off the wisconsin and this is wat happens!
DO NO FUCK WITH THEM!!!
CA1CWilliams 1 year ago
My Granfather served on the Wisconsin in the 50s! I would love to go to Norfolk and walk her decks.
akfreightopp 1 year ago
thats almost as power full than the dora 800 mm super gun
cammander263 1 year ago
We should put these ships back in action in case we ever pin down some Muslim terrorists on a beach somewhere.
AlabamaSoldier 1 year ago
IF THE NAVIES ACROSS THE WORLD WLD THINK OTHERWISE , DEN Modify THESE BEAUTIES WITH ADVANCE AIR AND ANTI MISSLE DEFENCE SYSTEMS and ADD ON ADVANCED TARGETING REQUISTION. PLUS THEIR HEAVIER ARMOUR WHICH IS THE BACKBONE OF THESE BATTLESHIPS, THEY CAN STILL DO PLENTY OF DAMAGE MILES AWAY. NO MATTER HOW FAR THE DISTANCE IS , NOTHING IS TOO HARD 4 the BATTLESHIPS ANYTIME ANYWHERE !!!
Badboy21thekiller 1 year ago
Is REALLY SAD TO SEE BATTLESHIPS OUT OF ACTION IN 2DAY"S NAVIES ACROSS THE WORLD. I REALLY PRAY THESE BABES(BATTLESHIPS) WLD B BROUGHT BACK 2 LIve. BESIDES THESE SHIPS R LEGEND OF COMBAT HISTORY AND STRATIGIC NAVAL BOMBARDMENT.
Badboy21thekiller 1 year ago
I wish I could see her. My dad served aboard The Wisconsin in the 50"s. He's proud of that and he should be.
bobrich1QEDJ5 1 year ago
Go to norfolk va. I walked on it it was preatty imorassive
870Remington12 1 year ago
@bobrich1QEDJ5 it is definately sitting pierside in norfolk right beside nauticus marine museum.It looks great and they give tours
MrJPinVA 1 year ago
Absolutly Fantastic!!! Can´t get enough from it!
Hanomag1996 2 years ago 3
My 3M office was in a compartment right behind turret 2.Every time they fired it,my door would be wrecked and everything in the there would be in the floor, lol.Thanks for the memories!!
ssprsneil 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
wow imagine this battleshiPS FIRING THEIR GUNS 4 ur birthdaY ssprsneil
Badboy21thekiller 1 year ago
great ships
P94H 2 years ago
Their time will come back :]
T2Gibbon 2 years ago
i reallY PRAY ALL BATTLESHIPS OF EVERY COUNTRY WILL B BACK IN ACTION T2GIBBOn
Badboy21thekiller 1 year ago
@Badboy21thekiller
Fortunately the US is the ONLY country that still has any battleships. All of the rest were either sank or scrapped.
Cirux321 1 year ago
@Cirux321 WRONG,the us is one of the only countries that DO NOT have battleships.they have been replace with a variety of submarines and missile cruisers but i am sure some people think you know what you are talking about.haha
MrJPinVA 1 year ago
@MrJPinVA
WRONG. The US is the only country that has any existing true battleships (by ship classification) still intact and floating. The US has four 4 Iowa's, 2 South Dakota's and the New York class BB, USS Texas. Japan has the pre-dreadnought battleship Mikasa if you want to count that one. But its smaller then a WW2 Cruiser. All of Germany's, Italy's, France's, Russia's and Britian's was either sank or scrapped. No other country built any. No country has any in active service.
Cirux321 1 year ago
@Cirux321 I said we do not have any,the ones you are talking about are in hawaii and part of a museum.And France has probably the closest thing to a battleship that is used today.RIGHT this guy.
MrJPinVA 1 year ago
@MrJPinVA The US has a total of eight Battleships still afloat, but decommissioned. 7 are museums and one is waiting for the same. No other country in the world even posses one except Japan's pre-dreadnought that is also a museum.
msbeard 1 year ago
@Cirux321
technically. britain has. as we have HMS Victory in service as a commissioned ship even though she is in dry dock. she has a full RN crew aboard her.
vikingsmb 1 month ago
Everytime I watch this video it makes me smile. :D
SprecheDeutsch 2 years ago 3
Pow.
We do a disservice to awesome by retiring these.
aluisious 2 years ago 4
Why, because they're slower, more cumbersome, less accurate and more dangerous to their crews than modern weapons systems, or because their destructive potential is severe overkill when considering modern mission requirements?
wraith444 2 years ago
@wraith444 Yeah but they're still awesome :p
aluisious 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmm... You speak the truth...
wraith444 2 years ago
I've seen her berthed at Nauticus for years, but it's nice to see an action shot!
LeroyBinks 2 years ago
umerica fuck yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
lilmac3434 2 years ago
i agree wit the dude below me, the navy uses smaller and less guns on ships
unknownmarine43 2 years ago
i wish the time of big guns on sea would come again...
inar64 2 years ago 3
never will gone forever. dont cry are you a gay boy.
michaelwright999 2 years ago
no im not gay! but i do love BIG GUNS! :) too bad those times are not going to repeat :( so you say a man who loves big bangs and awesome firepower is gay? i always thought the opposite :D
inar64 2 years ago
Just kidding, the more drunk I get the worse I get.
michaelwright999 2 years ago
no problem, same with me :D
inar64 2 years ago
Im knocking back cold beers 12,miles from Africa and you,? check out pizza wind up, very funny.
michaelwright999 2 years ago
drinking vodka near the border of russia and EU (not at the monent though). :D hahaha just watched it xD
inar64 2 years ago
Its Glasgow to a T, Im posh I was born in Edinburgh and you ?
michaelwright999 2 years ago
same here...little pussy guns are for pansies big guns will kill those pansy ass fags!
amznrnfrst 2 years ago
oh god why is that
friggingbomb88 2 years ago
this is what happens if you piss off a iowa class battleship
hummerskickass 2 years ago 21
@hummerskickass too bad that class is decomissioned now those were some impressive ships
leadeddown 1 year ago
@hummerskickass amen to that
darkhound891 1 year ago
Wouldnt want to be on the reciving end of that fat shell.
ddg53 2 years ago
what mm is that?
crocodiledavid 2 years ago
16 in x 25.4 mm/in = 406.4 mm
QwazyWabbit 2 years ago
I served Whisky from 1987-90(2nd division). Our general quarters station was turret 2 in the powder flats. Saw her in Norfolk not too long ago. She's being taken care of quite nicely!
danielrause 2 years ago 10
wow imagine this battleshiPS FIRING THEIR GUNS 4 ur birthdaY danielrause and EmperorLongo
Badboy21thekiller 1 year ago
Iowa class destroyers are mad!
Dafilopride94 2 years ago 3
you mean bttleships, right? :D
inar64 2 years ago
those guns are ridiculously strong....omfg
ilovejackjohnson222 2 years ago 3
just noting that surface ship torpedoes were a lot bigger and more powerful than aircraft or sometimes submarine torpedoes. So maybe the musashi could take 19 aircraft torpedoes but not 19 destroyer torpedoes
harkovadm 2 years ago
US torpedoes of all 3 types carried roughly the same sized warheads..
gilraine1225 2 years ago
TP-boats could easily sink a battleship. Without destroyers the battleships are vurnerable to smaller, quicker tp-boats.
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
One or a couple torpedo boats? No... A mass of them yes they are a threat to a battleship.
BlackBirdZGTR 2 years ago
One torpedo can cripple a battleship if it hits near the engine room. TP-boats don't have only one torpedo, they can have 6 and they can launch 2 at time. So one fatal hit can destroy a bigger and heavily armored Battleship.
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
One Torpedo boat would easily be chewed up by secondary guns and machine guns onboard a battleship. Thats why the strategy to using Torpedo boats against battleships was called in to using DOZENS of them so secondary and AA guns would be overwhelmed and incapable of shooting all of them down.
BlackBirdZGTR 2 years ago
They can launch torpedoes from long distance like submarines do. Its mutch more expensive to build huge armored ships when one smaller and less costly ship can sink them with one single torpedo hit, well maybe not ONE mut they can incapacitate them and then launch another salvo so vital areas damages and then the ships starting to take in water and finally sink. Its only coz effective aricraft and destroyers why the torpedo boats dissapeared. It was very effective.
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
... You do realize the longer the distance the less likelly the torpedo will actually get a hit right? Unless we're talking about night hit and run tactics its just not going to work in some bright daylight engagement. As well some battleships (mainly the WWII era ones) take a couple to even dozens of torpedo's to sink. I do not deny that Torpedo boats (with the plural) can sink a battleship but just one TP would be chewed up nearly instantiously by any battleship with a good array of AA guns.
BlackBirdZGTR 2 years ago
*Unless we're talking about night hit and run tactics its just not going to work in bright daylight engagement
BlackBirdZGTR 2 years ago
Single torpedo hit caused so mutch damage, why wouldn't it do such damage against Iowa-class battleships?
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
The Iowa class battleships were bettered armored then the British PoW and Repulse battleships, though compared to the Yamato and Montana battleships their armor is weak their armor is still superior compared to the KGV class ships. I'm pretty sure an Iowa can take at the least a few torpedo's... but that is hopeful since their torpedo blisters are smaller then those on the South Dakota class.
BlackBirdZGTR 2 years ago
Torpedo was invented for a single thing: to destroy ships. If the torpedo don't hit the battleship and explodes 1m away from the ship, the huge explosion will crush the hull and its more effective against ships superstructure. When they use this tactic to make the torpedo explode when close to ship (torpedo affected my ships magnetic poles) not even heavy armored ships have chance.
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
"When they use this tactic to make the torpedo explode when close to ship (torpedo affected my ships magnetic poles) not even heavy armored ships have chance."
You are overstating the water hammer effect. In reality, most of a torpedo's explosive force is vented vertically. This is why modern torpedoes explode underneath a ship. There is video available of a missile cruiser being broken in half by such a torpedo. The gases actually rise through the ship and rip up through the decks.
EmperorLongo 2 years ago
Many of the navys world around have scrapped their battleships becouse its waste of manpower. In WW2 USA created many aircraft carriers wich would easily defeat an battleship.
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
"The Iowa class battleships were bettered armored then the British PoW and Repulse battleships"
Armor does not protect battleships from torpedoes. They have torpedo defense systems composed of void and liquid loaded spaces bound by elastic steel bulkheads, designed to diminish the force of torpedo blasts and prevent failure of the inner holding bulkhead. Armor is bad for these systems because it shatters. Also, the Iowa and South Dakota classes did not have torpedo blisters.
EmperorLongo 2 years ago
Do you really know that battleship with heavy armor are slow targets. If you've read about "Sinking HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse" you should know what one single torpedo causes serious damage. In this case one torpedo dropped from airplane hit "POW" so badly so it couldn't turn and the ships pumps wich was used to pump out seawater was useless cause too mutch water flooded inside it also damaged the ships structure so it couldn't use guns wich is very important for warships. Single torped
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
"Do you really know that battleship with heavy armor are slow targets."
Rubbish! I was aboard the Wisconsin when it made 32 knots in the Gulf of Mexico and left a rooster tail 30 feet high. It was so maneuverable that it did high speed S-turns radical enough to ship water over the fantail. In WW2, Iowas were known to out-turn Fletcher class destroyers. And all WW2 era battleships made at least 27 knots, as fast or faster than many modern warships. Research, my good fellow! Research!
EmperorLongo 2 years ago
Its not fast enough. Torpedo boats are mutch faster than battleships, and 2-3 torpedoes are enough to sink battleship. Then they only need to report to airbases so they do the "final blow".
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
Rubish! It took 20 torpedo's to sink the Musashi and 17 torpedo's to sink the Yamato. Though... They are the Yamato class and there is a reason why their called super battleships. As well does a torpedo boat have enough torpedo's to take down a Yamato? I should also let you know that even though the Iowa's were very maneuverable ships the Yamato's were even MORE manuerable, their TD was 2/3rds that of an Iowa.
BlackBirdZGTR 2 years ago
HAHA THATS bullshit! BULLSHIT I TELL YOU. Yamato's were not more manuerable than Iowas! Why do you think so? Yamato's "turningpoint" when she turned was about 400. Iowas had mutch more about 600-800. Why japs didn't use Yamato before was that she was too expensive to travel with long distances.
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
XD And this is when our conversation ends. First off here is the tactical diameter of a few ships as it is stated in "Battleships of WWII"
Musashi and Yamato 640 meters.
HMS Vanguard's 1025 yards,
USS Wisconsin's 814 yards.
From this point on i refuse to continue a conversation with someone as childish as you.
BlackBirdZGTR 2 years ago
Haha, maan... you're made by bullshit. :)
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
"Rubish! It took 20 torpedo's to sink the Musashi and 17 torpedo's to sink the Yamato."
:D 20 is not "dozens," though it's close. Musashi was still steaming at 12 knots and in no danger of sinking after the first 9 torpedo hits, but the holding bulkhead hadn't performed very well. Garzke and Dulin credit Yamato with taking 11 - 13 torpedo hits, with more concentrated on one side after experience with Musashi. And you are right about Yamato's maneuverability. Truly amazing.
EmperorLongo 2 years ago
Well its simple physics, Yamato was a very wide ship with a shallow draft. Just like the Iowa's the shape of both classes of ships gave them performance advantages on whatever category. (iowa's long and slender meaning easier to push through the water) (Yamato's wide and short draft means less water to resist the hull meaning easier to turn) Both were the best of their type tbh.
BlackBirdZGTR 2 years ago
"Its not fast enough. Torpedo boats are mutch faster than battleships, and 2-3 torpedoes are enough to sink battleship."
Sure, PT and S-boats could make 43+ knots, but things just never worked out the way you suggest. And not all battleships can be sunk by 2 - 3 torpedoes. Your romantic view of all-conquering torpedo boats does not match reality. Aircraft carriers and submarines are the most effective sinkers of ships by far. Battleships and torpedo boats were not.
EmperorLongo 2 years ago
Come back when you know things better, ok?
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
"Come back when you know things better, ok?"
Well, I did 8 years in the USN as a fire controlman. NATO Seasparrow on the Enterprise and Mk 38 GFCS Main Battery Fire Control on the Wisconsin. I was gone by the time this video was made. I know what it's like to try and range on shell splashes with the big rangefinder--very difficult! I also spent years researching naval architecture and combat. I have the full Garzke/Dulin trilogy right next to me. What do I need to know better?
EmperorLongo 2 years ago
Hm, how big iceberg do u need to sink uss wisconsin :D
pROTPANDA 2 years ago
lol
rubut 2 years ago
Indeed, it wasn't until the advent of guided anti shipping missiles that MTB's became truly capable of sinking large ships.
chrthiel 2 years ago
Il take your word, you seem pretty informed.
JACKSONGUITARDUDE 2 years ago
No battleship ever built could take "dozens" of torpedoes before sinking. Musashi took 19 by current estimates. That is the record.
EmperorLongo 2 years ago
The torpedo boat theory never worked except with the Svent Istvan and maybe one other moored ship. It's useless to argue that the torpedo boat was a perfect counter to battleships when, for decades, it simply failed. It had its chance. It didn't work.
EmperorLongo 2 years ago
This is true only if the explosive force defeats the torpedo protection system. This is unlikely to happen to an Iowa-class battleship, even though their torpedo defense was compromised by having armor go all the way to the bilge as protection against diving shells.
EmperorLongo 2 years ago
2. You have no idea of new Materials, right? I am Talking not of Kevlar shit, which would be too expensive . I am Talking of Metal. New kinds of Metal, ligther and tougher than those used in the 40s. Ther are such materials, not very expensive, since science did its part in the last 60 years.
And you don't need to protect radars more than on a carrier. Anti-Air Weapons like Patriot systems can be placed on the BS. I don't understand your problem.
SilencerX21 2 years ago
3. Unlike a carrier, a BB has to operate very close to the coastline, well within the range of shorebased missiles. That means that it'll face far more threats, so yes, it need more protection.
Also, why would you use a landbased ABM missile of questionable capacity on a warship?
chrthiel 2 years ago
3. You don't need to operate TAHT close to the coastline, since modern Artillery Systems have a very long range. Each missile, that should make this distance, will be blocked by the missile defence systems. They are already in use on german (and american?) vessels to protect them egainst Exocets.
The great capacities are the main reason for the battleship. There is enough space for a of different weapon systems, which makes it a real alrounder. And since you need no room for fuel...understand?
SilencerX21 2 years ago
A modern day BB could have a range of over 100 miles for its main guns unlike WWII battleships.
BlackBirdZGTR 2 years ago
You're American, right?^^
1. No Overkill, nuclear Power is just cheaper. Because Diesel Engines use a huge amount of fuel, which is very expensive. Nuclear Power does not need to refuel. And you don't need any room for fuel, which is really an advantage. And, 25kts is a whole lot on a huge Battlship, you need just lots of Power, almost as much as on a carrier. We don't talk about cruisers...
SilencerX21 2 years ago
No, I'm Danish
1. Actually, nuclear power is far far more expensive than conventional power. Sure, they don't need to be refuelled, but they require far more manpower, is more expensive to maintain, require huge landbased service facilities and they're far more expensive to build.
2. What metals? Berrylium steel? Sorry to burst your bubble, but all the alternatives are more expensive than steel. And no, they're not lighter either.
chrthiel 2 years ago
1.Watched the fuel prices those days? With the need to send more ships which are needed to refuel, you are even more expensive in manpower. And landbase service: sorry, but that was never about to discuss when the carriers where nuclear powered.
2. As I said: you have no idea of modern materials. Steel is not always the same. The old BBs where made of steel made in the 40s. Now we have much better Steel, new ways of production. It is lighter, and cheaper to poduce.
SilencerX21 2 years ago
I dont think you can hit a RIP-ster with a 16" shell
SuperFckFan92 2 years ago
Loved it love to see the shells hit a target
jasonroly 2 years ago
IS LOWA CLASS~Final class battleship of us fleet..
GranKaiserX 3 years ago
It's a shame these kings of the sea are obsolete. Not much point in building a giant armored ship with today's weapon systems. Still seems like they should have battleships in commission for the sake of shore bombardments. Our military really needs to start doing things on the cheap instead of a 20 million dollar missile per enemy hut.
Fux4Bux 3 years ago 6
On the other hand, a battleship isn't exactly cheap to field.
chrthiel 2 years ago
engined with nuclear power, and armored with modern german optic systems and precise artillery guns (panzerhaubitze 2000 hits more exactly than most missiles), the armour replaced by modern materials (less weigth, more stability) and equipped with modern helicopters, such a ship would be an indestructable swimming fortress, turning pirates and that hole stuff to ashes and dust!^^
SilencerX21 2 years ago
Firstly, since all these that thing are good for is supporting anfib operations, giving them nuclear propulsion is just overkill. They won't need more than 25kts of speed at the most.
chrthiel 2 years ago
Secondly, what are these magical modern materials you speak of? Given the ludicrous dimensions the armour has, there's no real advantage in using stuff like Kevlar for anything other than additional spall liner.
Besides, no amount of armour is going to protect your radars and aerials, and without those a ship is useless.
chrthiel 2 years ago
Thirdly, where are you going to put those new helicopters? You still don't have any hangars and maintenance facilities for them.
Fourthly, you could deploy an entire task force of lighter vessel for the same amount of money it would cost to deploy a single BB with escorts. And unlike the BB, those lighter units can be in more than one place at a time.
chrthiel 2 years ago
I'd like to see what a 16" shell would do to those Somali pirates in their little speedboats...
lemke11 3 years ago 5
Probably it would be like shooting flies with a 50 caliber.
angelmtza 2 years ago 2
Yeah, they would be vaporized.
Nuker1337 2 years ago
BOOM!!
rustyATV 3 years ago
that is awesome does the us navy still have battleships?
phonix032 3 years ago
The Iowa Class were the last. All four are now decommissioned and either serving as museums or waiting to become museums.
lpuig73 3 years ago
missles and aircraft carriers are replacing them sadly. these things have amazing accuracy.
helghasttrooper5073 3 years ago 3
This was my Grandpa's ship right after WWII.
Nilhilustfrederi 3 years ago
WOW!!! My dad was on BB64 during WWII and use to tell me stories of what I just saw here. and DAMN!!! Gave me goose bumps!!!!!
Thank You!
Glenn Scott
Born Jan 7, 1928
Past July 31, 2005
AknPassion 3 years ago 5
SHIT! THIS IS AWSOME!
CaptainFudges 3 years ago 2
Dont blindly follow a leader you think is wrong.We have that right and men and women died for that.
irishoforiel 3 years ago
Japan was going to build a Super Yamoto class with 20 inch guns.And cjmahoney you are right second guessing Government is one of the purest forms of patriotism.
irishoforiel 3 years ago
USS Washingtonn actually missed a battle with the Battleship Tirpitz. That would have been a mean fight. Also the IJN taskforce against the Royal Navy's Force Z with the King George V.
hudge28 3 years ago
look at all that smoke!
JJrox11 3 years ago
American that, Japanese that....mate, war is war. But its time to move on, and start appreciate the world we live on. I'm from downunda so I like either one of 'em. As far as I know, the Japanese Navy were simply out-numbered right from the start - the Yanks got all the steel and oil they need. No matter what, reckon both the Lowa and Yamato class are about even. They have either good or bad quality. But one thing for sure, both were damn beautiful. Long live the battlewagons!!!
dj17q 3 years ago
yamamoto got her jap ass kicked,,,,by the american navy.salute beeeaaiittchh
twinklebunns06 3 years ago
amen
FoxyFlu 3 years ago
The name of the ship was the "Yamato." "Yamamoto" was a Japanese admiral, you ignorant fuck.
Sartori 3 years ago
The Yamato more than this.
kotaro1959 3 years ago
Perhaps, since it was the biggest/heaviest ship ever made.
ChechClear 3 years ago
Ah yes, you Japanese and your numberoneism syndrome. You gotta have the longest tunnel, you gotta have the longest bridge, you gotta have the tallest tower and so on and so forth.
But you know what kotaro-kun your Yamato is laying at the bottom of the ocean, sunk and useless. Meanwhile the USS Wisconsin carried out a noble career with valor and bravery.
The Yamato is rusting hulk at the bottom of the ocean.
Sure the Yamato was bigger, not more. Think less.
We got more bang for our buck.
ERWI65 3 years ago
Hi ERW65.Thank you for your comment.
But I wanted to let you fight against an American battleship corps at the time of Okinawa attack of the last of the Yamato if I asked it the superiority and inferiority.
kotaro1959 3 years ago
Ah, I figured you'd answer that way. I've seen your same comments in the recent past. War is war friend and you have to take into account all factors. I know you are living in make believe land but you can't change the past. That's like saying if only the Tokyo Giants had beaten the Hanshin Tigers. You can say "if only" all you want it doesn't change the matter of the fact that The USS Wisconsin served her time with valor, honor, integrity, and bravery. The Yamato should hvae had more air cover
ERWI65 3 years ago
One Iowa vs the Yamato may not be good enough, but two would sink the Yamato. There are more Iowa Class battleships than Yamato Class. I like the Yamato because It had a good design, plus that fancy gold seal on the front of the ship. Ah I wish that one of the two Yamato class battleships would still exist today, I really want to see it's power and size. (I wonder if any subs found the Yamato wreckage yet.)
ferrariguy1000 3 years ago
...I'd have to say an Iowa and a Yamato would be an even match. The Yamato's guns might have been a bigger caliber, but the Iowa's could inflict the same amount of punch.
The location of both Yamato and Musashi are known, its just that they're off limits to most people as they are war graves.
RussianFox 3 years ago
The USS Wisconsin most likely would have come out on top due to the fact that the accuracy of the U.S. Navy was superior to that of the Japanese Imperial Navy.
ERWI65 3 years ago
The Yamatos were real monsters... and in an even fight, they might have done okay against even numbers of Iowas, as they had more armor. But they wouldn't have fought even numbers, of course. And that armor cost them, as they were significantly slower.
One of the US admirals, I forget which one, was actually a bit disappointed when the Yamato was destroyed by a massive air attack. he had wanted to have the US battleships duke it out with the giant old-school style.
Sartori 3 years ago 2
Ah, I wish We got to see Battleship to Battleship. Seeing the Yamato vs. The Iowa class would have been cool. The closet we could get is in Battlestations Midway.
ferrariguy1000 3 years ago
That would be Admiral Halsey. In Leyte Gulf, had he not took the bait and took his 3rd fleet to chase the IJN decoy that sent its last carriers on a suicide mission, he would have had just that. It WOULD have been: USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Alabama, USS Massachusetts, USS South Dakota and USS Washington vs Yamato, Nagato, Haruna and Kongo. The Musashi was sank the day before. It would have been the largest surface gunfire battle since Jutland.
Cirux321 3 years ago
A bit of a shame in some ways that it didn't take place. One might point out that hundreds would have died, but hundreds died anyway. And it would have been epic.
Sartori 3 years ago
i think the us navy would have come out ahead anyways because of the radar targeting computer on the iowas and also the 16in heavy shells were as good if not better armor penetrating rounds as the 18.1in japanese guns.
disturbedone5009 3 years ago
Yes the Yamato wreck was discovered and documented with high details. There are several videos about it here on youtube. No one as of yet has dived/searched the wreck of the Musashi though. However last I heard plans were in place to find it to see if her hull is still intact. Yamato broke apart during her sinking.
Cirux321 3 years ago
"How much did the ship list to port had to be a pretty good lean with a full fire like that?"
Maybe one degree lol. Despite the popular myth these ships dont roll much and definitely dont move sideways even with a full broadside. The structure of the ships design itself as well as turret/gun design spreads the shock throughout the entire ship. Along with the ships armor protection, the sheer structural design itself disperses energy equally better then anything else afloat, even today.
Cirux321 3 years ago
ANGLICO just wont be the same
carbine6 3 years ago
Yeah...Shame for them BB67(Montana),Kentucky,Idaho and others wouldbe helpfull in Korea1950's in Vietnam, honestly by last NATO tactical training if one of that kind battleships gets to opperative area, NATO fleet are DOOMED most of modern ships got armor less than 150mm. USS Missoury got thinnest one 165mm. =)))
BEHEMOTS RULE !!!
CommandantCutter 3 years ago
My AFJROTC told us alittle about the USS Wisconsin. He said that diffrent countrys would fear the Wisconsin because of its size and it shot bullits the size of volswagons (exageration)
runescapecat454 3 years ago
The NVA refused to negotiate if a USN battleship was offshore. That's how afraid of it they were (with good reason).
IPAColosseum 3 years ago
they weighed as much as volkwagens. thats the truth. i saw the wisconsin at a museum in Norfolk, and above your head they have a shell and a volskwagen balanced on a scale. pretty cool stuff.
treetopflyer06 3 years ago
yea I live near Norfolk so when theres a boat show there the Wisconsin is always the biggest
runescapecat454 3 years ago 2
I am sure gonna miss this battlewagon! Battleships rule.
Bundy133T 3 years ago 7
Shoulda taken out some Hippies with that thing or Democrats!
TripleZ89 3 years ago
Lol great idea! Put Obama, Hillary, and Gore in each turret!
repub21 3 years ago
definetly WHOOP!!!
peacebewithyou1776 3 years ago
Those are some masive shells! Lets take that bastard out deer huntin!
dodgedurango12345678 4 years ago
Caution, there will be no edible part of the deer left... actually... no deer to eat [peiod!] lol
Ehhh... why not? Leave the shotguns at home!
TripleZ89 3 years ago
why did they retire these battleships they are great
dodgedurango12345678 4 years ago
we had one fire in nam and that sucker almost totally levelled a 500 foot hill! just one shell!
cateyes1950 4 years ago
I would have hated to have been the bad guy on the wrong end of those guns.
theblackhand2 4 years ago
The USS Wisconsin is docked in the Virginia Nuatica museum which I went to. It would be awsome if it was in service
runescapecat454 4 years ago
I remember reading some field report from the Korean War about an infantry unit requesting heavy artillery support to beat back Chinese armor. Turns out one of the Iowa class battleships got the call to fire...one 16" shell scored a direct hit on a T-34! In the words of one soldier "With what's left of that baby, you couldn't even make carpet tacks!"
newbe83 4 years ago
I got to tour that ship in harbor at Norfolk. The distance those cameramen are is exactly the closest you can be to the guns without suffering permanent damage from the pressure created around the guns.
HKgunner 4 years ago
That's pretty cool.
ChechClear 4 years ago