@FULANODETAL After the Falklands war where the HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet, one of the captains of an Iowa class BB, I can't remember which one, was asked what he would do if his ship were hit by an Exocet. He replied "I would repaint."
Later US battleships (North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa and the unbuilt Montana classes) were designed to be proof against their own main battery. I don't think a Silkworm or an Exocet carries anywhere near the punch of a 2300 lb AP 16" round.
Have a photo saved on my computer showing the dent. It's really minor and doesn't affect the operation or handling of the ship, so they didn't bother to waste the resources to repair it.
If you didn't know what it was from, you might think it was damage from a bad docking exercise.
Oh, and apparently I was mistaken. Another site said the AP round weighed 2700 lbs, not 2300, and the Missouri could fire them 23 miles away.
@p8ntballer8491 It is one of my favorites, but it has alot of room for improvement. Great twist though! Too bad today's directors want to shake the camera to death and prevent the audience from connecting with the actors or I would wish for a remake in todays SFX.
I still wonder what would BB-64 could do, I bet ALOT of damage sailing the Baltic or the North Pacific. Thanks for replying :')
@p8ntballer8491 i hate that movie. only because it got my hopes up. i wanted to see them fight not come back in time. lol other than the ending it was a great movie.
@capie44 I have been to Pelilieu and can tell you what I saw. A Japanese weapons bunker with 2 foot thick concrete walls. 16" shell went through one wall leaving about a 8' hole. Went through the second wall leaving about a 2' hole on the inside and about 1' hole on the outside. So it didn't quite make it through the second wall, but obviously killed everyone inside. The bunker has been restored and is now a museum open to the public.
@DoNotCiv Thanks for sharing that with me! I wish I could go tour there! I toured Corregidor Is. in the Philippines. I will put Pelilieu on my wish list. :-)
@iowa61 ~ I know what I'm about. I was on the U.S.S. Independence (CV-62) from 8-78 to 3-82 My ship could sink every battle ship in the world with one fixed wing aircraft. Battle wagons have been obsolete since the Langley. The only reason they were kept was because surface admirals got a boner when they fired the 16" guns. "Do ya feel lucky? Well do ya, Punk?"
It can't do ASW or AA, destroyers can carry far more missiles for long range bombardment.
About the only thing they're good for is short range shore bombardment and even that is questionable since they'll have to wait a couple of weeks while the minesweepers clears the waters so it can get close enough to do anything.
So tell me, how is a BB more flexible than anything?
@chrthiel Do some research.First one of the compelling features of the IOWA class is its ability to absorb and accomodate new systems. Just as modern destroyers and cruisers were retrofitted with VLS systems, so could the IOWAs. Which would give them far more missile capacity than a destroyer. They have the capability to refuel and repair companion ships which destroyers do not. They were in fact being test fitted for extended range 16 inch rounds upon deactivation.
@chrthiel The IOWAs have far greater range than destroyers. And have far greater ability to absorb hits in real combat and retain fighting capability. They have command and control capacities beyond destroyers. While as currently configured, their anti air capability is limited, it could also be upgraded relatively easily. The list goes on and on. The IOWAs offer a helluva lot of bang for the buck... and can do many things destroyers simply can't under any circumstances.
I was a crew member from '87-'90 and damn proud to be a Battleship sailor on the last and largest battleship in the world! Long Live the Battleship Wisconsin BB-64,(Whiskey Punch)
and prepare for a visit to the The Scottish Fisheries Museum, see the video links and the pull down menu links and you'll be sure appreciate your visit much more!
@razzen1 actually that's not true, battleship's aren't in service because they cost SO MUCH to maintain compared to CG/DDG's that are in service now. current generation vessels just can't simulate the sheer firepower 16in shells make. Their is a reason why they are called "swimming pool makers".
@ruthlesspno1 Right! The days of huge battleships are over, as are the days of two ships side by side firing at each other. The phalanx ciws would make short work of a 16 inch shell or anything else for that much....for that matter a US navy ship wouldn't let such an attack vessel within firing range.
@mjkft22 I wouldn't want to be on the ship that's depending on a chain gun to shoot down some 2700 lb chunks of metal traveling at 1000+ mph.. The range issue is big, however, you're correct there. 23 miles isn't great enough range to pose much threat to an enemy that can see it coming from much farther.
All that aside, it will be interesting to see if the military eventually decides to test any large caliber magnetic rail-guns at sea, mounting on an existing platform such as an Iowa class.
@razzen1 There can be no denying, however, that nine 2600 lb. shells dropping-on-destination is a more impressive visual display (and more demoralizing to your enemy) than a cruise missile.
@razzen1 If I was under attack, I would rather be on a battleship, if I was doing the attacking, I would probably want to be on a cruiser but the Iowa class did have Tomahawks and other upgraded systems when they were refurbished.
Just going to put my 2 cents into the arguement. First off, I would say the USA does have the most powerful military in the world. And that excludes our nuclear power. However I would also add, just because you have the most powerful army in the world does not mean you will win most of the time. (Vietnam/Iraq) How you manage a army also greatly matters.
But lets face it, I came here for big guns, Battleships and other cool shit, and I left satisfied.
unless another country fired nukes first at the U.S or her allies. The U.S education and medical systems are corrupt and not fair to the U.S citizens. the medical system is flawed as you have to pay for any medical treatment whether it be life threatening or not. that is just wrong making someone pay for having their life saved. the education system doesn't always teach the truth and is based on facts that have been twisted with a form of propaganda.
@NatedogJr i was speaking more in the line of history regarding wars and such, for example WW2 the U.S declares that the Iowa class battleship was the best in the world (in WW2) WRONGO the real winners were the bismarck class and Littorio class BB. the littorio was the best italian bb built and outranged the Iowa and Yamato by a few yards and had very high velocity guns that provided nearly twice the penetration power of the Iowa. Iowa had 406mm gns littorio class had 381mm gns. look it up...
@darthreven9999 Well its history from AMERICA'S POINT OF VIEW, which is UNITED STATES HISTORY. Well my text book "McDougall Littel: Reconstruction to the 21st Century (California Edition) does not say that the Iowa was the best. In my opinion, the Iowa class were SUPERB battleships. Did you know that if the U.S still used battleships, the next class would be the Montana class battleship?
Too bad we don't use them now. I'd so put battleships into the Navy. But we are getting new CVN's by 2015!
@NatedogJr the battleship montana class was designed to be a super heavy battleship to counter the Japanese yamato. 2 were laid down during WW2 but were cancelled in favour of the Essex class aircraft carrier. look it up the littorio battleship was the best battleship in europe say for the bismarck and easily overpowered any brittish battleship design during WW2 it also outpowered all U.S battleships but the Iowa (because Iowa just had more guns on it) it overpowered all japanese ships except..
@NatedogJr yamato which had 17 or 18 inch guns and more of them. the littorio guns fired at very high velocity providing nearly twice the penetration power of the iowa even if it had less guns. it could still outrange the iowa and hit it in range before it becomes in range for the Iowa to shoot back. the only problem the Regia Marina suffered from was lack of airsupport in the form of carriers (they had none although one was made from a reconstructed liner it was cancelled before completion.
@darthreven9999 The 15" rifles on the Littorio that you mentioned did NOT have twice the penetrating power of the US 16"/50 rifles, that's completely incorrect. They did have a slightly greater muzzle velocity at 2900 fps, but not enough to overcome the drastic difference in shell weight. Those 15s did have a slightly greater range than the 16s, but their accuracy was much worse, so the extra range was useless, and the gun barrels wore out much faster.
@AmericanThunder the littorio guns had more penetrating power than the 16" guns when in optimal range. the one downside of the higher velocity guns was yes they wore out faster, but just before Italy surrendered they developed a special lubricant coating that is not flammable to coat the inside of the guns with ever 24 hours. i disagree, the guns themselves are not to blame it was that just before Italy surrendered it lost alot of its experienced naval men from the british bombing of taranto.
@311nonono It's an example of a design not working out quite the same as it did on paper. Putting these designs to work, and having everything actually function correctly (including the ammo supplies) is often a huge challenge, especially when you're "pushing the envelope", as the Littorio guns were doing.
@311nonono I'm just considering the massive imbalance of economic might between the two Nations, and the fact that the United States had/has access to some of the world's greatest minds. (They immigrated here because they wanted freedom and the opportunity to make more money) Also, I believe that 2 of the Iowa class ships are still in reserve status, which means they may at some point be called back to active service. How then, can the results of their armor testing be available to the public?
That is why people are shocked (including myself) when they hear that Italian armor was at the top of the list.
The Brits were also very shocked during their tests. The Brits where very active testing armor after the war they even took sample from the Tirpitz for testing.
US WWII armor specs are not a mystery. The Iowas do not need to be scrapped to have test data. There where plenty of samples from the mills and decommissioned ships using the same quality armor.
@311nonono I was referring to the entire Armor Scheme of the ship, not just the material it's made from. If you don't understand what I mean by that, here's a rough analogy; Most automobiles are made from similar grades of steel, does that mean that you can accurately compare the capabilities of each by testing the material they're made from? When you buy a house, do you take a sample of the wood from the outside, and make your determination of the building strictly by that?
Littorio's belt was 13.8", considering the Terni armor it was made from, it was the same as a US steel belt of 16.1" (without the 3 additional splinter plates behind the belt).
That’s tougher than Yamato’s belt !
And tougher than Iowa’s thinner 12.1” belt by leaps and bounds.
That’s why Iowa would need to be closer than 15,000 yards in order to penetrate Littorio’s belt.
But Littorio could penetrate Iowa’s belt all the way out to 23,000 yards.
@311nonono You realize that at those ranges, the deck would be where the shells would be landing and doing the most damage? That's assuming you could reliably hit a target moving at full speed at that range without radar-assisted fire control, such as the systems found on the US BBs?
@311nonono I'm still curious as to how you know the armor layout of a ship that could still be called back into active service? Since such data remains classified, there is only speculation.
@AmericanThunder You do realize that you can find out most "classified" things from sources who spill them, as in techincal books, different stuff like that. These ships are 50-60 years old, easy to have found out by now. How do most people know the armor on an M1A2 Main Battle Tank is a composite between depleted uranium and other metals? That design is only 20 years old, but the info has been around for 15 years. It gets leaked by crewmembers or contractors, quickly, that's it and all.
Nathan Okun stated that his “revised” calculations suggest that the US 1.5” STS plate was too thin for decapping most battleship shells of WWII era.
The decapping plate on littorios was 2.8” and will definitely decap shells and cause more deflection even if space is shorter.
Littorio belt is inclined at 15 degrees not 8. The 8 figure is erroneous (a known error going around) and may actually be the incline of the decapping plate.
I think your comparison only took into account the thickness and the armor quality, not the positioning.
Iowa's armor "tilted top over bottom at 19 degrees, giving it a much greater effective thickness to downward-falling shells at any range, even point-blank, and it had an additional 1.5" of STS outer hull in front of it, which would cause some slowing of the shell before it hit the belt"
*quote from Okun's Armor Schemes on WWII Battleships
I sometimes wonder why these battleships are taken out os service. I know the Wisconsin was the last to be striken off of the Navy's list in 2006 and is now ported in Virginia, but if we went to war, a battleship sure as hell looks intimidating. I wonder if the Wisconsin can still be seaworthy? I do know with the rise of airpower from aircraft carriers, battleships become obsolete, why? You cant stop a 1,600 pound bullet, but with the technology out there you can shoot down an aircraft or missle
hey! bud! the US's countermeasures are no better than anyone else's. the America's better because it's America has no place. because theyre nato, they have the same tech. I.E Canada buying German tanks, comnbat harnesses, and training in germany. those "missile sites" are actually on ships... sooo.... no, you wouldn't take them out before they fired, and there's still the styx... :)
@lander4545 congratulations. you officially completly fit the bill as a dumbass brainwashed american patriot. even with a debt of some number of trillions of dollars, you still like to brag that your unbeatable. look at corruption in your healthcare officials in government, and then tell me ypu still believe that theres an ace in the hole. your country isn't what it used to be. and it still doesn't change the fact that anti ship missiles, one, or six, would sink those ships.
@TheRamthor13 Read your comments,you obviously have run out of material! AND as hard as it may be for you to accept, the United States IS the most powerful economic AND military power in the world! The world doesn't flock to Canada they come to the United States were if we aren't "what we use to be" it IS still better than a NEVER WAS!! ;) LOL!!
@lander4545 well, seeing as our air force was bigger than yours at the outbreak of WWII, we were, and while the world still flocks to you, it is because there is no replacement. why do you think that Canada has a better reputation overseas than you? the world leans on you because in the past you have been able to make a difference, however, in the past your debt hasn't been biting you in the ass. give it 20 years. btw Canada was in BOTH wars before you were,
@TheRamthor13 The United States doesn't care about it's reputation over seas and is typical of one being jealous of it's rich neighbor! Canada was a Dominion in the British Commonwealth and was FORCED to enter both wars by your British big brother! In both wars Canada's armed forces were small,poorly equipped and unprepared for war! ;)
@lander4545 well thats why if you talk to any general overseas, the quote is "if you want something done, get the Canadians." and has been ever scince Vimy. but, also having a leftist government doesn't help either. but, nobody here is jealous, because we arn't brainwashed with how superior your country is scince age 2, so... we know that your economy isn't supporting long term military devellopment, and certainly not reactivating these ships.
@lander4545 ad just one more piece of info for you. We WERE AND STILL ARE THE SECOND BEST TRAINED ARMED FORCES. Second to RWANDA'S SPECIAL FORCES, not you.
@TheRamthor13 The United States military is the most powerful force the world has ever seen!..................period! Get used to it!! With advanced technologies " special forces" are becoming obsolete! What Generals "over seas" are you talking about?? Making up more shit are you??
@TheRamthor13 If the Seals are there it is on a joint mission of allies. Believe me, the Canadians have nothing for the Navy Seals! lol. And in conclusion, if you research all sources you'll find that the Iowa Class Battleships were the best ever that were put to sea! ............................PERIOD!
@lander4545 that is just sad. so you really think the u.s. would dominate? Its says you are 42 in your profile, but you still act like a 12 year old that is playing with his action figures.
@666crackhure666 O.K braniac! Played to many video war games have we? America is not only the strongest military power,it is the sole deterrent from hostile takeovers of free nations! Prove me wrong! Your profile claims your 20 and your lack of idelogy proves it!
@lander4545 Look at china and russia. im not saying us is weak, BUT in a full scale war you cant really determin who will win. One of the many things is the fighter jet story. America doesnt have the best airforce because the government doesnt want to invest in 5th gen while china and russia are.
@666crackhure666 Production of the F-22 Raptor has been extended to 2011 and believe me when I tell you it won't end there! We are know testing unmanned jet fighters! China and Russia if you notice always come up with military aircraft that look American. But the electronics and software don't even come close to the American versions. It's always said in the United States that we hope our foes have Communist military hardware because it doesn't work well! ;)
@lander4545 think of it this way if the U.S went into a full out war with china they would be alone because almost every other major power has so much trade with china that going to war with them would kill their economy. also the chinese army outnumbers the american army 10 to 1. the chinese are buying all their subs from russia.... basically they are a giant swarm of killer bees and the U.S. army is 1 angry eagle with a gun. with obama's new no nuke attitude the U.S. would not use any nukes...
Imagine that 16 inch turret on a set of tracks? aka a tank lol That would have to be one hell of a tank that's for sure. Highly impracticle but yet so imaginable. I love the Old warships especially the ones who could make a statement with their Artillary.
@Nuclearrc 16 inch turret on a tank would be impractical cause of the simple fact you would have to make it really large to have the stability to be able to handle one of these things. You could do a tow behind model possibly like a Howitzer but even then the size the thing would need to be for stability and to have a gun like that would hinder it as far as mobility goes and the time that would be needed to set one up good idea but not practical
@cumminsturbofan101 That's why I said it would be impractical. I'm well aware of the size of those things I may have never saw a 16 inch turret in person but from reading books and what not it doesn't take long to understand the true scale and nature of these things. :)
@Nuclearrc I'll put it to ya this way, if you saw one of these things in person you would shit yourself it looks like damn phone poles mounted to turrets lol
@cumminsturbofan101 LOL Nice ya I'd like to go check one out sometime. I may be Canadian but I have a great respect for the old warships. To me they are a testament to what man kind could do before all of this greed that is taking place in the world these days. These things represented jobs and good old fashioned hard work for people unlike today where everyother person you talk to is out of a job or can't find a job. Trade is good but somethings still need to built right here in North America!
I can see the next arms race with China makes it a lot more likely these big ladies will return. They do inevitably need a battle group for protection in the modern age, but then again this is no different from a carrier which cannot take anywhere near the punishment an Iowa would take. Until the Chinese navy becomes more of a blue water navy tho, these will stay in the docks.
I can see how this could be useful against the vast navies deployed against us in the world's oceans.
Not to mention our utter lack of air capability that would be able to deliver kilotons of explosives to anywhere on earth in minutes rather than the weeks that it takes a battleship.
@ELEMENTSFAN666 Good point; and I believe if it's less than 35,000 Yards that number goes up to 29.5 feet. Missiles are impressive but lack the quality of frontal density that the old AP shell has- this is also why an exocet missile is nearly incapable of a catastrophic hit on an Iowa, it cannot penetrate the belt, and if it manages to dive and hit the deck armor it still is highly unlikely to penetrate. If it hits a turret top the chances go down for damage even more. Not bad for old gals.
Why are there about 10 vids of this EXACT same shot, even to the sailor speaking in the backbackgrond. Yet half the v ids say its the Wisconsin, the other half the USS New Jersey, who's ....WRONG??
I heard the marines want these old giants called back into service and I agree. Especially with the fall of the USSR conventional naval warfare really doesn't exist. I mean the whole point of the modern-battleship is coastal bombardment/amphibious assault and symbolic presence that only a battleship can emit. I think they should modernize and recommission them all except for the USS Missouri because of its historical significance to WW2 and pearl Harbor.
@thecursedyou You have done your research! You are correct about the Marines request for Naval gunfire support! A 16" shell is by far cheaper to fire than a Tomahawk Cruise or a Harpoon missile for costal bombardment! Unlike the @TheRamthor13 you have found that factual research is right at your fingertips! ;)
Things to consider when discussing the relative merits of these vs. more modern ships: I agree with the idea that there is a clear psychological effect on a country if many can see some of these out on the horizon. I recall stories about their shelling Vietnam in this regard. And, these ships were designed to take a beating - and survive. Modern aluminum superstructures catch fire from missle hits and dealing with that kind of fire ain't no picnic.
@VarigMd11 modification meaning an extra 3000 tonnes of armour, to defend against cruise missiles alone, but with modern day tech, that is one massive target.
The Battleship Wisconsin sits in Norfolk, Virginia still under commission by the U.S. Navy. So for all of you naysayers who think a battleship will never be used again............................. ;)
@asg631 Yes! And that is why you cannot tour inside the ship where all the electronics are. The Iowa class Battleships 16" guns are excellent for coastal bombardment and have a host of newer weapons from the phalanx to Tomahawk cruise missles. We can only hope that one day they will fire up those engines! :)
@lander4545 well, under comission or not, it will never be used again because of cruise missiles, and modern day bombers, fighters, and coastal gun positions. they are the most epic war machine ever built though, and i wish that they would use them again.
@lander4545 they? no, it. the USS missouri was the last one, and all it did was fire shells onto the Iraqi coast. and the Iraqis did not have cruise missiles, they didn't even have depleted uranium tank shells.
@TheRamthor13 YES! They! All four Iowa Class battleships were reactivated in the 1980's under President Ronald W. Reagan's vision of a 600 ship Navy! I can't believe in the age of the internet that one wouldn't research something so simple before commenting!?
@lander4545 which ones saw service... i can't believe that someone as savvy as you wouldn't even bother to look at ALL the facts before letting a CANADIAN teach him about his military history... we were talking about why theyll never be reactivated, and its due to the fact that they realised that they were useless after the gulf...
@TheRamthor13 Now your going to start that my country is better than your country B.S.? Grow up! Just so you know, lame brain, the U.S.S. Iowa is still under commission by the U.S. Navy and is in it's reserve fleet for possible REACTIVATION in the future! ;) Although the city of Los Angeles is in talks with the Navy for the Iowa to be used as a museum piece the ship is still owned by the U.S. Navy! As far as the notion,"they'll never be activated", That's what they said the LAST time!! Duh!
@lander4545 at what point did i say my country was better than yours? if anyone needs to grow up, i would think its you... and i will literally find you, and give you 100 000 dollars if one of those four ships ever see combat again. its nice to dream, bud, but lets keep it real.
@TheRamthor13 This is about giving you real time history lessons,past and present! Whether a Battleship is ever put back into service is for pure speculation. When you spell "Canadian" in capital letters you are making a subliminal message about national pride and Canadian folklore! You know it and don't try to weasel out of it!! I only ask that the next time you decide to stick your nose into a comment that you research the facts first,otherwise shut the hell up! :)
@lander4545 im being completely honest with you at no point PAST OR PRESENT do i say that canada is better than anybody else's country, in fact i believe that it appears to be more a a refugiee camp than a country, however the history lesson is yours, because im still right about the one seeing combat. and, what canadian folklore are you talking about? the bluenose?
@TheRamthor13 Your question was,"which ones saw service"? Answer,"all of the Iowa Class Battleships saw service in the 1980's"! Get it? Got it? If you think you were correct about,"one seeing combat" (as you try to change the context of the statement with word play) then you are a delusional narcissist who only uses that gray matter in between your ears for farting! ;)
@lander4545 service, meaning combat, in my book, and now that youve run out of arguments, your going to start insulting me. so awnser this. how effective would they be if they were reactivated, against modern weapons, such as javelins, and anti ship missiles that can be fired from hundreds of miles away, and with their status as national monuments, how long do you think that they would last against a real enemy?
@TheRamthor13 The Iowa Class Battleships are already equiped with Tomahawk Cruise missiles with a tactical range of 1,550 miles, Phalanx "close in" weapons systems gatling guns for defense against enemy anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft and MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.ANY "platform"can be adapted to support modern weapons!That was the exact ideology when these four ships were refitted in the 80's! Think "outside the box"! All this PLUS ur battle group!
@lander4545 i know that, but what about them stopped them from being decomissioned? the reason is, with all that protection, its still more vulnerable than a destroyer, because of it's speed and size. and name one instance where a tomahawk is a defensive weapon. were not talking about firepower here.
@TheRamthor13 The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's and the absence of a perceived threat to the United States came drastic cuts in the defense budget, and the high cost of maintaining and operating battleships as part of the United States Navy's active fleet became uneconomical. The Harpoon is the defensive weapon and the Tomahawk is used for surface attack.
@TheRamthor13 When these battleships were refurbished in the 80's they were the most powerful ships afloat! Many politician's wanted to get rid of them because they were so effective with there capabilities that ship building in there states were slowed. "Follow the money trail"!
@lander4545 no, they may have had the most firepower, but they were certainly not the most powerful. their slow speed and size made them that way. a destroyer with missiles would be better than it. and scince you want to bring politics in, why don't you google the avro arrow, and see what a disaster that was thanks to your President Eisenhower.
@TheRamthor13 There top speed is 33 knots. In the age of sub-sonic missiles that is all you need. It's the same old adage as trying to outrun a cop car. You may outrun the police car but you cannot out run a Motorola! You may outrun a Battleship but you cannot out run..............................................you get the message!;)
@lander4545 get it through your head!! i don't give a shit about it's weapons. were talking about how easy they are to destroy. its not due to lack of firepower, its due to vulnerability that they won't be reactivated. supersonic missiles could take it out, phalanx or not.
@TheRamthor13 Your wrong asshole!They are the only ships ever built with an 18"thick belt line!If the Iowa Class Battleships were so vulnerable than why in the fuck are they still afloat you fuckin moron!"You don't give a shit about it's weapons"?Do you realize what an asinine comment that was?They are no easier to destroy than a modern aircraft carrier!There isn't a ship afloat right now that can't be sunk!It's best to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove ALL doubt!
@TheRamthor13 Your just another uneducated moronic troll with your head up your ass wasting everbodies time! Do some some research or you'll just continue to make an idiot of yourself! As far as the Battleships not ever being commissioned again............................That's what they said the last time!;)
@lander4545 again, with the insults. you have yet to deny the fact that it would be sunk. they decomissioned them again, because they realised that. and as for reasearch, do some yourself, because as of late, it's been insults and firepower coming out of you.
@TheRamthor13 You haven't provided any documented facts that they were decommissioned because they were an easy target and would be sunk! There is absolutely no proof of it from the U.S. Navy! I gave you the documented facts as to why they were decommissioned but some where in that fart brain of yours the information isn't processing! Put the booze and joint down and try researching the facts;it's right at your fingertips! ;)
@lander4545 i have a better idea. you use your dumb brain, and try doing some brain teasers. it might make some common sense find its way in that big empty space. if it has a massive amount of firepower, and decent speed, and it's a stable gun platform.... then... oh, wait. its almost 300 meteres long, and 30 wide. seeing as modern day artillery shells can hit that without fail... nevermind cruise missiles. oh, and u wanted a fact? this particular ship, and the missouri are both MUSEUMS!
@TheRamthor13 Nice try! But still no documented facts to back up your claims?? Your poor peceptional fortidude has no merit whatsoever! Using your analogy the U.S. Navy might as well mothball there whole fleet! The most modern U.S. aircraft carrier is only capable of 30+ knots you jackass,the Iowa Class Battleships are capable of 33+ knots so you can throw your speed analogy through that empty space above your shoulders! Everyone of your dumb ideas I have countered with documented facts! DUH!
@TheRamthor13 If you had a brain worth mentioning you would know that Superior Navys fight in battle groups! That's why there are different ships capable of an array of missions and capabilities! I can tell you were never in the military!
They will speak again!!!!
INFMAR1 2 weeks ago in playlist WAR
cannons are ready for ıran
1954seawolf 2 weeks ago
why the guns nod after shooting
erainchen 3 weeks ago
I live in wisconsin O_O
mohiahmed1 1 month ago
dear santa?
MrSnowmanPro 1 month ago
hate to be on the opposite side of those bad boys
cool12328 2 months ago in playlist cool12328's favorites
I think I just came. *checks trousers* Yep, I came.
Barbaroossa 2 months ago
Dont fuck with the U.S. Navy
TheSerenityhuck 3 months ago
if the one"silkworm" missile launched againts missouri(or iowa)had impacted on the battelship¿how many damages could suffer the ship?
FULANODETAL 3 months ago
@FULANODETAL After the Falklands war where the HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet, one of the captains of an Iowa class BB, I can't remember which one, was asked what he would do if his ship were hit by an Exocet. He replied "I would repaint."
Later US battleships (North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa and the unbuilt Montana classes) were designed to be proof against their own main battery. I don't think a Silkworm or an Exocet carries anywhere near the punch of a 2300 lb AP 16" round.
whsmith33440 2 months ago
@whsmith33440 "repaint" Love it.
proton3227 1 month ago
USS Missouri was hit by a kamikaze. Photo of damage can be still seen today. They didn't even bother to repair it.
whsmith33440 2 months ago
@whsmith33440 Oh so they upgraded it, added new weapons and modernized it, but didn't bother to repair it? Sure....
DEathgod650 2 months ago
Have a photo saved on my computer showing the dent. It's really minor and doesn't affect the operation or handling of the ship, so they didn't bother to waste the resources to repair it.
If you didn't know what it was from, you might think it was damage from a bad docking exercise.
Oh, and apparently I was mistaken. Another site said the AP round weighed 2700 lbs, not 2300, and the Missouri could fire them 23 miles away.
whsmith33440 2 months ago
@whsmith33440 Oh, that makes more sense than your original post.
DEathgod650 1 month ago
I decided to burn alot of calories today, so I set a fat kid on fire.
boysupotifyisgay 3 months ago
хуйня.
MrBraconier 3 months ago
I live in milwauke wisconsin :O
mohiahmed1 4 months ago
For heaven's sake, lets see the results when those shells hit their target area.
JetMechMA 4 months ago
Who is the twinkle toed lousy scum sucking piece of crap that disliked this vid.
gew1975 4 months ago
I can't help but wonder what the '87-'90 BB-64 would do in 1944-45.
capie44 5 months ago 3
@capie44 There's a great movie called "The Final Countdown" where the USS Nimitz goes back in time to 1941 just before pearl harbor.
p8ntballer8491 5 months ago
@p8ntballer8491 It is one of my favorites, but it has alot of room for improvement. Great twist though! Too bad today's directors want to shake the camera to death and prevent the audience from connecting with the actors or I would wish for a remake in todays SFX.
I still wonder what would BB-64 could do, I bet ALOT of damage sailing the Baltic or the North Pacific. Thanks for replying :')
capie44 5 months ago
@p8ntballer8491 its on netflix...
W4UAV 5 months ago
@p8ntballer8491 i hate that movie. only because it got my hopes up. i wanted to see them fight not come back in time. lol other than the ending it was a great movie.
ReptarOnCrack 5 months ago
@p8ntballer8491 yhes but was a carrier not a battleship...
FULANODETAL 3 months ago
@capie44 I have been to Pelilieu and can tell you what I saw. A Japanese weapons bunker with 2 foot thick concrete walls. 16" shell went through one wall leaving about a 8' hole. Went through the second wall leaving about a 2' hole on the inside and about 1' hole on the outside. So it didn't quite make it through the second wall, but obviously killed everyone inside. The bunker has been restored and is now a museum open to the public.
DoNotCiv 2 months ago
@DoNotCiv Thanks for sharing that with me! I wish I could go tour there! I toured Corregidor Is. in the Philippines. I will put Pelilieu on my wish list. :-)
capie44 1 month ago
@capie44 look it up this style BB was there as where the other 3 Iowa class ships
stah23 1 month ago
THATS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT! The navy ships today only got 1 little gun on the front...
bootysweat44 5 months ago
As outdated as the telegraph
POBulkhead 5 months ago
@POBulkhead You're right. We need more disposable ships with less striking power, survivability and versatility. Good job.
iowa61 4 months ago
@iowa61 ~ I know what I'm about. I was on the U.S.S. Independence (CV-62) from 8-78 to 3-82 My ship could sink every battle ship in the world with one fixed wing aircraft. Battle wagons have been obsolete since the Langley. The only reason they were kept was because surface admirals got a boner when they fired the 16" guns. "Do ya feel lucky? Well do ya, Punk?"
POBulkhead 4 months ago
@iowa61
Name one ship that has less utility than a BB.
It can't do ASW or AA, destroyers can carry far more missiles for long range bombardment.
About the only thing they're good for is short range shore bombardment and even that is questionable since they'll have to wait a couple of weeks while the minesweepers clears the waters so it can get close enough to do anything.
So tell me, how is a BB more flexible than anything?
chrthiel 3 months ago
@chrthiel Do some research.First one of the compelling features of the IOWA class is its ability to absorb and accomodate new systems. Just as modern destroyers and cruisers were retrofitted with VLS systems, so could the IOWAs. Which would give them far more missile capacity than a destroyer. They have the capability to refuel and repair companion ships which destroyers do not. They were in fact being test fitted for extended range 16 inch rounds upon deactivation.
iowa61 3 months ago
@chrthiel The IOWAs have far greater range than destroyers. And have far greater ability to absorb hits in real combat and retain fighting capability. They have command and control capacities beyond destroyers. While as currently configured, their anti air capability is limited, it could also be upgraded relatively easily. The list goes on and on. The IOWAs offer a helluva lot of bang for the buck... and can do many things destroyers simply can't under any circumstances.
iowa61 3 months ago
nada mal gringos!!!
wresident1 5 months ago
This happens when chuck norris wikes his eye
TheCommanderOfMusac 5 months ago
Ahhh the sound of 180 decibels.
chernobleman 5 months ago
Epic!!
TheBlackSpider82 5 months ago
Boom you sunk my battleship put yo hands down my pants and i beat you'll feel nuts yes
panzerman22 6 months ago
Would have been nice to see the Yamato's & Musashi's broadsides. Best battleships in their time. RIP IJN.
Canadianvoice 7 months ago
Outdated, but by hell, you would NOT want to be on the receiving end of that
A plane can only carry so much ordinance, but on the ass end of a big gun, you're in trouble. Be glad a naval gun HAS limited range over planes.
LiamRiordan 7 months ago
Put some nuclear warheads in there and you can take out an entire city.. not just destroy some infrastructure, level the whole thing
favre4beast 8 months ago
IMHO this battleship are one of the greatest achievements of man's genius. This is wonderful
Yanagi88 8 months ago
I was a crew member from '87-'90 and damn proud to be a Battleship sailor on the last and largest battleship in the world! Long Live the Battleship Wisconsin BB-64,(Whiskey Punch)
brucemessig 8 months ago 17
@brucemessig
The Missouri was actually the last decomissioned in 1992 (Wisconsin 1991), The Yamato was the biggest battleship in the world
1ownjoo2 7 months ago
This is how Chuck Norris makes an 18 hole golf course.
tryithere 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=8OQJ4UrAVJw
and prepare for a visit to the The Scottish Fisheries Museum, see the video links and the pull down menu links and you'll be sure appreciate your visit much more!
keplermission 8 months ago
the mighty sconnie
SuperDigger666 8 months ago
LOL I FEEL SORRY 4 THE TARGET THAT GETS HIT BY THESE MASSIVE GUNS.
''OWNED''
JOHNBASS117111 8 months ago
I hope they give out ear plugs
Peopleareblind 9 months ago
Fuck diplomacy! THIS IS OUR DIPLOMACY!
PresidentDRCI 9 months ago
Take that Saddam
HRHooChicken 9 months ago
GET THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN!!!!!!!!
TATERxSALAD44 9 months ago 41
@TATERxSALAD44 problem is !!! what lawn after these guns are done . . . =P
FunteX 4 months ago
battleships went out because a smaller ship has more firepower now. what is better 10 battleships or 20 missle cruisers?
razzen1 10 months ago
@razzen1 actually that's not true, battleship's aren't in service because they cost SO MUCH to maintain compared to CG/DDG's that are in service now. current generation vessels just can't simulate the sheer firepower 16in shells make. Their is a reason why they are called "swimming pool makers".
ruthlesspno1 10 months ago
@ruthlesspno1 Right! The days of huge battleships are over, as are the days of two ships side by side firing at each other. The phalanx ciws would make short work of a 16 inch shell or anything else for that much....for that matter a US navy ship wouldn't let such an attack vessel within firing range.
mjkft22 10 months ago
@mjkft22 I wouldn't want to be on the ship that's depending on a chain gun to shoot down some 2700 lb chunks of metal traveling at 1000+ mph.. The range issue is big, however, you're correct there. 23 miles isn't great enough range to pose much threat to an enemy that can see it coming from much farther.
All that aside, it will be interesting to see if the military eventually decides to test any large caliber magnetic rail-guns at sea, mounting on an existing platform such as an Iowa class.
AmericanThunder 9 months ago
@razzen1 There can be no denying, however, that nine 2600 lb. shells dropping-on-destination is a more impressive visual display (and more demoralizing to your enemy) than a cruise missile.
AintLifeGarand 9 months ago
@razzen1 10 battleships! no contest!!!!
PresidentDRCI 9 months ago
@razzen1 If I was under attack, I would rather be on a battleship, if I was doing the attacking, I would probably want to be on a cruiser but the Iowa class did have Tomahawks and other upgraded systems when they were refurbished.
tryithere 8 months ago
BEAST!!!
Sidewinder9877 10 months ago
Just going to put my 2 cents into the arguement. First off, I would say the USA does have the most powerful military in the world. And that excludes our nuclear power. However I would also add, just because you have the most powerful army in the world does not mean you will win most of the time. (Vietnam/Iraq) How you manage a army also greatly matters.
But lets face it, I came here for big guns, Battleships and other cool shit, and I left satisfied.
turkey12356 10 months ago
unless another country fired nukes first at the U.S or her allies. The U.S education and medical systems are corrupt and not fair to the U.S citizens. the medical system is flawed as you have to pay for any medical treatment whether it be life threatening or not. that is just wrong making someone pay for having their life saved. the education system doesn't always teach the truth and is based on facts that have been twisted with a form of propaganda.
darthreven9999 10 months ago
@darthreven9999 I agree with th medical as in paying for life-threatening, but how is U.S education (except English/Language Arts) are propaganda.
NatedogJr 10 months ago
@NatedogJr i was speaking more in the line of history regarding wars and such, for example WW2 the U.S declares that the Iowa class battleship was the best in the world (in WW2) WRONGO the real winners were the bismarck class and Littorio class BB. the littorio was the best italian bb built and outranged the Iowa and Yamato by a few yards and had very high velocity guns that provided nearly twice the penetration power of the Iowa. Iowa had 406mm gns littorio class had 381mm gns. look it up...
darthreven9999 10 months ago
@darthreven9999 Well its history from AMERICA'S POINT OF VIEW, which is UNITED STATES HISTORY. Well my text book "McDougall Littel: Reconstruction to the 21st Century (California Edition) does not say that the Iowa was the best. In my opinion, the Iowa class were SUPERB battleships. Did you know that if the U.S still used battleships, the next class would be the Montana class battleship?
Too bad we don't use them now. I'd so put battleships into the Navy. But we are getting new CVN's by 2015!
NatedogJr 10 months ago
@NatedogJr the battleship montana class was designed to be a super heavy battleship to counter the Japanese yamato. 2 were laid down during WW2 but were cancelled in favour of the Essex class aircraft carrier. look it up the littorio battleship was the best battleship in europe say for the bismarck and easily overpowered any brittish battleship design during WW2 it also outpowered all U.S battleships but the Iowa (because Iowa just had more guns on it) it overpowered all japanese ships except..
darthreven9999 10 months ago
@NatedogJr yamato which had 17 or 18 inch guns and more of them. the littorio guns fired at very high velocity providing nearly twice the penetration power of the iowa even if it had less guns. it could still outrange the iowa and hit it in range before it becomes in range for the Iowa to shoot back. the only problem the Regia Marina suffered from was lack of airsupport in the form of carriers (they had none although one was made from a reconstructed liner it was cancelled before completion.
darthreven9999 10 months ago 2
@darthreven9999 18.1 Inch guns actually :D
galloway62042009 10 months ago
@galloway62042009 that is also wrong they are 16 inch guns and they wont get any bigger the ship has sadly been decommissioned
Jmauer62 10 months ago
@Jmauer62 actually im sorry i thought you were talking about the USS Wisconsin you were right about the Yamato sorry
Jmauer62 10 months ago
@Jmauer62 ? Im Talking about the Yamato :D
galloway62042009 10 months ago
@darthreven9999 The 15" rifles on the Littorio that you mentioned did NOT have twice the penetrating power of the US 16"/50 rifles, that's completely incorrect. They did have a slightly greater muzzle velocity at 2900 fps, but not enough to overcome the drastic difference in shell weight. Those 15s did have a slightly greater range than the 16s, but their accuracy was much worse, so the extra range was useless, and the gun barrels wore out much faster.
AmericanThunder 9 months ago
@AmericanThunder the littorio guns had more penetrating power than the 16" guns when in optimal range. the one downside of the higher velocity guns was yes they wore out faster, but just before Italy surrendered they developed a special lubricant coating that is not flammable to coat the inside of the guns with ever 24 hours. i disagree, the guns themselves are not to blame it was that just before Italy surrendered it lost alot of its experienced naval men from the british bombing of taranto.
darthreven9999 9 months ago
@AmericanThunder Correct, the Littorio's did NOT have twice the penetrating power of the US 16"/50 guns!
But they did have 8,000 yards more range, at 36 degree elevation versus the 16"/50 45 degree elevation.
And armor penetration was only 10+ percent better than the 16"/50 guns.
The accuracy issues were strictly related to bad ammo supplies. For the wear issue, the guns were designed with on boards 24hour replacement liners.
These guns also out ranged and out penetrated Yamato at +5k yards.
311nonono 7 months ago
@311nonono It's an example of a design not working out quite the same as it did on paper. Putting these designs to work, and having everything actually function correctly (including the ammo supplies) is often a huge challenge, especially when you're "pushing the envelope", as the Littorio guns were doing.
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@AmericanThunder
That is a long stretch to presume the entire ship is reflected by the discrepancies of the ammo supply contractor.
If that were the case then how is the fact that the Terni armor on these ships was the best armor of WWII, second to none!
A bit tougher than British armor, 15% tougher the US, and at least 20% tougher than IJN armor (see Nathan Okum).
This is as per British and other tests done after WWII.
And what stretch or presumptions can we infer with Iowa’s problems ?
311nonono 6 months ago
@311nonono I'm just considering the massive imbalance of economic might between the two Nations, and the fact that the United States had/has access to some of the world's greatest minds. (They immigrated here because they wanted freedom and the opportunity to make more money) Also, I believe that 2 of the Iowa class ships are still in reserve status, which means they may at some point be called back to active service. How then, can the results of their armor testing be available to the public?
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@AmericanThunder
That is why people are shocked (including myself) when they hear that Italian armor was at the top of the list.
The Brits were also very shocked during their tests. The Brits where very active testing armor after the war they even took sample from the Tirpitz for testing.
US WWII armor specs are not a mystery. The Iowas do not need to be scrapped to have test data. There where plenty of samples from the mills and decommissioned ships using the same quality armor.
311nonono 6 months ago
@311nonono I was referring to the entire Armor Scheme of the ship, not just the material it's made from. If you don't understand what I mean by that, here's a rough analogy; Most automobiles are made from similar grades of steel, does that mean that you can accurately compare the capabilities of each by testing the material they're made from? When you buy a house, do you take a sample of the wood from the outside, and make your determination of the building strictly by that?
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@AmericanThunder
Maybe this will clear it up !
Littorio's belt was 13.8", considering the Terni armor it was made from, it was the same as a US steel belt of 16.1" (without the 3 additional splinter plates behind the belt).
That’s tougher than Yamato’s belt !
And tougher than Iowa’s thinner 12.1” belt by leaps and bounds.
That’s why Iowa would need to be closer than 15,000 yards in order to penetrate Littorio’s belt.
But Littorio could penetrate Iowa’s belt all the way out to 23,000 yards.
311nonono 6 months ago
@311nonono You realize that at those ranges, the deck would be where the shells would be landing and doing the most damage? That's assuming you could reliably hit a target moving at full speed at that range without radar-assisted fire control, such as the systems found on the US BBs?
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@311nonono I'm still curious as to how you know the armor layout of a ship that could still be called back into active service? Since such data remains classified, there is only speculation.
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@AmericanThunder
I know for the same reason anyone who has written a book on BB knows, these ships are 50 years old and It's public knowledge.
Those ranges are are within optical telemetry's range. And optics when viability is OK are actually better than radar.
311nonono 6 months ago
@311nonono So you're saying you can see beyond the visible horizon( 15-16 miles? ) with optics?
AmericanThunder 6 months ago
@AmericanThunder You do realize that you can find out most "classified" things from sources who spill them, as in techincal books, different stuff like that. These ships are 50-60 years old, easy to have found out by now. How do most people know the armor on an M1A2 Main Battle Tank is a composite between depleted uranium and other metals? That design is only 20 years old, but the info has been around for 15 years. It gets leaked by crewmembers or contractors, quickly, that's it and all.
rangerstubbs76 5 months ago
Comment removed
prowler878 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prowler878
Nathan Okun has revisited this conclusion.
Nathan Okun stated that his “revised” calculations suggest that the US 1.5” STS plate was too thin for decapping most battleship shells of WWII era.
The decapping plate on littorios was 2.8” and will definitely decap shells and cause more deflection even if space is shorter.
Littorio belt is inclined at 15 degrees not 8. The 8 figure is erroneous (a known error going around) and may actually be the incline of the decapping plate.
311nonono 6 months ago 2
@311nonono
I think your comparison only took into account the thickness and the armor quality, not the positioning.
Iowa's armor "tilted top over bottom at 19 degrees, giving it a much greater effective thickness to downward-falling shells at any range, even point-blank, and it had an additional 1.5" of STS outer hull in front of it, which would cause some slowing of the shell before it hit the belt"
*quote from Okun's Armor Schemes on WWII Battleships
prowler878 6 months ago
Comment removed
prowler878 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prowler878
Nathan Okum's data you was refuted by Nathan Okum himself in his revisions.
US 1.5 STS is insufficient.
Littorio's belt slope was 15 degrees not 8.
British armor is at least 16% tougher than US armor.
Littorio also had three additional splinter plates after it's main belt.
When all taken into account;
Littorio will penetrates Iowa’s belt, to vitals, out to 23,000 yards.
However Iowa penetrates Litiorio’s belt, to vitals, only out to 15,000 yards.
A huge difference!
311nonono 6 months ago 2
I sometimes wonder why these battleships are taken out os service. I know the Wisconsin was the last to be striken off of the Navy's list in 2006 and is now ported in Virginia, but if we went to war, a battleship sure as hell looks intimidating. I wonder if the Wisconsin can still be seaworthy? I do know with the rise of airpower from aircraft carriers, battleships become obsolete, why? You cant stop a 1,600 pound bullet, but with the technology out there you can shoot down an aircraft or missle
eddieg1979 11 months ago
@eddieg1979 battleships went out of use because of lack of ammunition and the hardship of maintence (lack of spare parts, etc.)
tathtath 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great us navy ship!
iTaLiAnBoYFrOmRoMe 1 year ago 3
I want one
dratoxify 1 year ago
hey! bud! the US's countermeasures are no better than anyone else's. the America's better because it's America has no place. because theyre nato, they have the same tech. I.E Canada buying German tanks, comnbat harnesses, and training in germany. those "missile sites" are actually on ships... sooo.... no, you wouldn't take them out before they fired, and there's still the styx... :)
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 The United States NEVER gives away it's full hand with high tech electronic software! There is always an ace in the hole! ;)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 congratulations. you officially completly fit the bill as a dumbass brainwashed american patriot. even with a debt of some number of trillions of dollars, you still like to brag that your unbeatable. look at corruption in your healthcare officials in government, and then tell me ypu still believe that theres an ace in the hole. your country isn't what it used to be. and it still doesn't change the fact that anti ship missiles, one, or six, would sink those ships.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 Read your comments,you obviously have run out of material! AND as hard as it may be for you to accept, the United States IS the most powerful economic AND military power in the world! The world doesn't flock to Canada they come to the United States were if we aren't "what we use to be" it IS still better than a NEVER WAS!! ;) LOL!!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 well, seeing as our air force was bigger than yours at the outbreak of WWII, we were, and while the world still flocks to you, it is because there is no replacement. why do you think that Canada has a better reputation overseas than you? the world leans on you because in the past you have been able to make a difference, however, in the past your debt hasn't been biting you in the ass. give it 20 years. btw Canada was in BOTH wars before you were,
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 The United States doesn't care about it's reputation over seas and is typical of one being jealous of it's rich neighbor! Canada was a Dominion in the British Commonwealth and was FORCED to enter both wars by your British big brother! In both wars Canada's armed forces were small,poorly equipped and unprepared for war! ;)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 well thats why if you talk to any general overseas, the quote is "if you want something done, get the Canadians." and has been ever scince Vimy. but, also having a leftist government doesn't help either. but, nobody here is jealous, because we arn't brainwashed with how superior your country is scince age 2, so... we know that your economy isn't supporting long term military devellopment, and certainly not reactivating these ships.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@lander4545 oh, and no, we wern't forced in the second. get it right.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
Comment removed
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 ad just one more piece of info for you. We WERE AND STILL ARE THE SECOND BEST TRAINED ARMED FORCES. Second to RWANDA'S SPECIAL FORCES, not you.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 The United States military is the most powerful force the world has ever seen!..................period! Get used to it!! With advanced technologies " special forces" are becoming obsolete! What Generals "over seas" are you talking about?? Making up more shit are you??
lander4545 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 Rwanda's special forces were trained by the American's you idiot!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 well your SEALS winter training takes place in northern BC, by Canadian regular officers.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 If the Seals are there it is on a joint mission of allies. Believe me, the Canadians have nothing for the Navy Seals! lol. And in conclusion, if you research all sources you'll find that the Iowa Class Battleships were the best ever that were put to sea! ............................PERIOD!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 well then, you tell me. why are they not active.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRamthor13 I told you why. Many times! Go back and read!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 sorry to bring to you, but america isnt the strongest military power anymore.
666crackhure666 1 year ago
@666crackhure666 I couldn't stop laughing! lol You troll!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 that is just sad. so you really think the u.s. would dominate? Its says you are 42 in your profile, but you still act like a 12 year old that is playing with his action figures.
666crackhure666 1 year ago
@666crackhure666 O.K braniac! Played to many video war games have we? America is not only the strongest military power,it is the sole deterrent from hostile takeovers of free nations! Prove me wrong! Your profile claims your 20 and your lack of idelogy proves it!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 Look at china and russia. im not saying us is weak, BUT in a full scale war you cant really determin who will win. One of the many things is the fighter jet story. America doesnt have the best airforce because the government doesnt want to invest in 5th gen while china and russia are.
666crackhure666 1 year ago
@666crackhure666 Production of the F-22 Raptor has been extended to 2011 and believe me when I tell you it won't end there! We are know testing unmanned jet fighters! China and Russia if you notice always come up with military aircraft that look American. But the electronics and software don't even come close to the American versions. It's always said in the United States that we hope our foes have Communist military hardware because it doesn't work well! ;)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 think of it this way if the U.S went into a full out war with china they would be alone because almost every other major power has so much trade with china that going to war with them would kill their economy. also the chinese army outnumbers the american army 10 to 1. the chinese are buying all their subs from russia.... basically they are a giant swarm of killer bees and the U.S. army is 1 angry eagle with a gun. with obama's new no nuke attitude the U.S. would not use any nukes...
darthreven9999 10 months ago
Imagine that 16 inch turret on a set of tracks? aka a tank lol That would have to be one hell of a tank that's for sure. Highly impracticle but yet so imaginable. I love the Old warships especially the ones who could make a statement with their Artillary.
Nuclearrc 1 year ago
@Nuclearrc 16 inch turret on a tank would be impractical cause of the simple fact you would have to make it really large to have the stability to be able to handle one of these things. You could do a tow behind model possibly like a Howitzer but even then the size the thing would need to be for stability and to have a gun like that would hinder it as far as mobility goes and the time that would be needed to set one up good idea but not practical
cumminsturbofan101 1 year ago
@cumminsturbofan101 That's why I said it would be impractical. I'm well aware of the size of those things I may have never saw a 16 inch turret in person but from reading books and what not it doesn't take long to understand the true scale and nature of these things. :)
Nuclearrc 1 year ago
@Nuclearrc I have seen one, they are fucking nuts
cumminsturbofan101 1 year ago
@Nuclearrc I'll put it to ya this way, if you saw one of these things in person you would shit yourself it looks like damn phone poles mounted to turrets lol
cumminsturbofan101 1 year ago
@cumminsturbofan101 LOL Nice ya I'd like to go check one out sometime. I may be Canadian but I have a great respect for the old warships. To me they are a testament to what man kind could do before all of this greed that is taking place in the world these days. These things represented jobs and good old fashioned hard work for people unlike today where everyother person you talk to is out of a job or can't find a job. Trade is good but somethings still need to built right here in North America!
Nuclearrc 1 year ago
It's one of the many reasons why we don't have to speak German or Japanese.
oldwatchman 1 year ago
I can see the next arms race with China makes it a lot more likely these big ladies will return. They do inevitably need a battle group for protection in the modern age, but then again this is no different from a carrier which cannot take anywhere near the punishment an Iowa would take. Until the Chinese navy becomes more of a blue water navy tho, these will stay in the docks.
robmanofbris 1 year ago
I can see how this could be useful against the vast navies deployed against us in the world's oceans.
Not to mention our utter lack of air capability that would be able to deliver kilotons of explosives to anywhere on earth in minutes rather than the weeks that it takes a battleship.
frother 1 year ago
Lol and I'm pretty sure he means the sagger has an armour penatration of about 400mm not meters.
ELEMENTSFAN666 1 year ago
An Iowa 16in ap shell can go through 21 ft of concrete wall
ELEMENTSFAN666 1 year ago
@ELEMENTSFAN666 Good point; and I believe if it's less than 35,000 Yards that number goes up to 29.5 feet. Missiles are impressive but lack the quality of frontal density that the old AP shell has- this is also why an exocet missile is nearly incapable of a catastrophic hit on an Iowa, it cannot penetrate the belt, and if it manages to dive and hit the deck armor it still is highly unlikely to penetrate. If it hits a turret top the chances go down for damage even more. Not bad for old gals.
Ironsiderodger 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ironsiderodger 1 year ago
Why are there about 10 vids of this EXACT same shot, even to the sailor speaking in the backbackgrond. Yet half the v ids say its the Wisconsin, the other half the USS New Jersey, who's ....WRONG??
hitide286 1 year ago
Comment removed
lander4545 1 year ago
I heard the marines want these old giants called back into service and I agree. Especially with the fall of the USSR conventional naval warfare really doesn't exist. I mean the whole point of the modern-battleship is coastal bombardment/amphibious assault and symbolic presence that only a battleship can emit. I think they should modernize and recommission them all except for the USS Missouri because of its historical significance to WW2 and pearl Harbor.
thecursedyou 1 year ago
@thecursedyou You have done your research! You are correct about the Marines request for Naval gunfire support! A 16" shell is by far cheaper to fire than a Tomahawk Cruise or a Harpoon missile for costal bombardment! Unlike the @TheRamthor13 you have found that factual research is right at your fingertips! ;)
lander4545 1 year ago
Things to consider when discussing the relative merits of these vs. more modern ships: I agree with the idea that there is a clear psychological effect on a country if many can see some of these out on the horizon. I recall stories about their shelling Vietnam in this regard. And, these ships were designed to take a beating - and survive. Modern aluminum superstructures catch fire from missle hits and dealing with that kind of fire ain't no picnic.
I think old+new can make a good team.
aardvark0123 1 year ago
The will be back in service just need that nice word Modification
VarigMd11 1 year ago
@VarigMd11 modification meaning an extra 3000 tonnes of armour, to defend against cruise missiles alone, but with modern day tech, that is one massive target.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
now THAT'S what I call firepower :D
cumminsturbofan101 1 year ago
The Battleship Wisconsin sits in Norfolk, Virginia still under commission by the U.S. Navy. So for all of you naysayers who think a battleship will never be used again............................. ;)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 Really??? I never knew that.
asg631 1 year ago
@asg631 Yes! And that is why you cannot tour inside the ship where all the electronics are. The Iowa class Battleships 16" guns are excellent for coastal bombardment and have a host of newer weapons from the phalanx to Tomahawk cruise missles. We can only hope that one day they will fire up those engines! :)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 well, under comission or not, it will never be used again because of cruise missiles, and modern day bombers, fighters, and coastal gun positions. they are the most epic war machine ever built though, and i wish that they would use them again.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 That's what they said the last time they were recommissioned! ;)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 they? no, it. the USS missouri was the last one, and all it did was fire shells onto the Iraqi coast. and the Iraqis did not have cruise missiles, they didn't even have depleted uranium tank shells.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 YES! They! All four Iowa Class battleships were reactivated in the 1980's under President Ronald W. Reagan's vision of a 600 ship Navy! I can't believe in the age of the internet that one wouldn't research something so simple before commenting!?
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 which ones saw service... i can't believe that someone as savvy as you wouldn't even bother to look at ALL the facts before letting a CANADIAN teach him about his military history... we were talking about why theyll never be reactivated, and its due to the fact that they realised that they were useless after the gulf...
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 Now your going to start that my country is better than your country B.S.? Grow up! Just so you know, lame brain, the U.S.S. Iowa is still under commission by the U.S. Navy and is in it's reserve fleet for possible REACTIVATION in the future! ;) Although the city of Los Angeles is in talks with the Navy for the Iowa to be used as a museum piece the ship is still owned by the U.S. Navy! As far as the notion,"they'll never be activated", That's what they said the LAST time!! Duh!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 at what point did i say my country was better than yours? if anyone needs to grow up, i would think its you... and i will literally find you, and give you 100 000 dollars if one of those four ships ever see combat again. its nice to dream, bud, but lets keep it real.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 This is about giving you real time history lessons,past and present! Whether a Battleship is ever put back into service is for pure speculation. When you spell "Canadian" in capital letters you are making a subliminal message about national pride and Canadian folklore! You know it and don't try to weasel out of it!! I only ask that the next time you decide to stick your nose into a comment that you research the facts first,otherwise shut the hell up! :)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 im being completely honest with you at no point PAST OR PRESENT do i say that canada is better than anybody else's country, in fact i believe that it appears to be more a a refugiee camp than a country, however the history lesson is yours, because im still right about the one seeing combat. and, what canadian folklore are you talking about? the bluenose?
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 Your question was,"which ones saw service"? Answer,"all of the Iowa Class Battleships saw service in the 1980's"! Get it? Got it? If you think you were correct about,"one seeing combat" (as you try to change the context of the statement with word play) then you are a delusional narcissist who only uses that gray matter in between your ears for farting! ;)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 service, meaning combat, in my book, and now that youve run out of arguments, your going to start insulting me. so awnser this. how effective would they be if they were reactivated, against modern weapons, such as javelins, and anti ship missiles that can be fired from hundreds of miles away, and with their status as national monuments, how long do you think that they would last against a real enemy?
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 The Iowa Class Battleships are already equiped with Tomahawk Cruise missiles with a tactical range of 1,550 miles, Phalanx "close in" weapons systems gatling guns for defense against enemy anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft and MK 141 quad cell launchers for 16 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.ANY "platform"can be adapted to support modern weapons!That was the exact ideology when these four ships were refitted in the 80's! Think "outside the box"! All this PLUS ur battle group!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 i know that, but what about them stopped them from being decomissioned? the reason is, with all that protection, its still more vulnerable than a destroyer, because of it's speed and size. and name one instance where a tomahawk is a defensive weapon. were not talking about firepower here.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's and the absence of a perceived threat to the United States came drastic cuts in the defense budget, and the high cost of maintaining and operating battleships as part of the United States Navy's active fleet became uneconomical. The Harpoon is the defensive weapon and the Tomahawk is used for surface attack.
lander4545 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 When these battleships were refurbished in the 80's they were the most powerful ships afloat! Many politician's wanted to get rid of them because they were so effective with there capabilities that ship building in there states were slowed. "Follow the money trail"!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 no, they may have had the most firepower, but they were certainly not the most powerful. their slow speed and size made them that way. a destroyer with missiles would be better than it. and scince you want to bring politics in, why don't you google the avro arrow, and see what a disaster that was thanks to your President Eisenhower.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 There top speed is 33 knots. In the age of sub-sonic missiles that is all you need. It's the same old adage as trying to outrun a cop car. You may outrun the police car but you cannot out run a Motorola! You may outrun a Battleship but you cannot out run..............................................you get the message!;)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 get it through your head!! i don't give a shit about it's weapons. were talking about how easy they are to destroy. its not due to lack of firepower, its due to vulnerability that they won't be reactivated. supersonic missiles could take it out, phalanx or not.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 Your wrong asshole!They are the only ships ever built with an 18"thick belt line!If the Iowa Class Battleships were so vulnerable than why in the fuck are they still afloat you fuckin moron!"You don't give a shit about it's weapons"?Do you realize what an asinine comment that was?They are no easier to destroy than a modern aircraft carrier!There isn't a ship afloat right now that can't be sunk!It's best to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove ALL doubt!
lander4545 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 Your just another uneducated moronic troll with your head up your ass wasting everbodies time! Do some some research or you'll just continue to make an idiot of yourself! As far as the Battleships not ever being commissioned again............................That's what they said the last time!;)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 again, with the insults. you have yet to deny the fact that it would be sunk. they decomissioned them again, because they realised that. and as for reasearch, do some yourself, because as of late, it's been insults and firepower coming out of you.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 You haven't provided any documented facts that they were decommissioned because they were an easy target and would be sunk! There is absolutely no proof of it from the U.S. Navy! I gave you the documented facts as to why they were decommissioned but some where in that fart brain of yours the information isn't processing! Put the booze and joint down and try researching the facts;it's right at your fingertips! ;)
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 i have a better idea. you use your dumb brain, and try doing some brain teasers. it might make some common sense find its way in that big empty space. if it has a massive amount of firepower, and decent speed, and it's a stable gun platform.... then... oh, wait. its almost 300 meteres long, and 30 wide. seeing as modern day artillery shells can hit that without fail... nevermind cruise missiles. oh, and u wanted a fact? this particular ship, and the missouri are both MUSEUMS!
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 Nice try! But still no documented facts to back up your claims?? Your poor peceptional fortidude has no merit whatsoever! Using your analogy the U.S. Navy might as well mothball there whole fleet! The most modern U.S. aircraft carrier is only capable of 30+ knots you jackass,the Iowa Class Battleships are capable of 33+ knots so you can throw your speed analogy through that empty space above your shoulders! Everyone of your dumb ideas I have countered with documented facts! DUH!
lander4545 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 If you had a brain worth mentioning you would know that Superior Navys fight in battle groups! That's why there are different ships capable of an array of missions and capabilities! I can tell you were never in the military!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 bud, whether it's surrounded by escorts or not, it's still slow. the ships are still museums. cruise missiles will still sink it.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13 You are now an official trouble making Youtube Troll!