For those saying that the newest sea-skimming anti-ship missiles(Russian Sunburn missile?) would easily sink an Iowa, I will mention one point. A typical battleship armor scheme is designed to defeat the ship's own guns. A 16" gun shell travels at roughly 2000 mph, and carries 750 lbs of explosive behind a hardened penetrator. The new sunburn anti-ship missile, carries 750lbs of explosive, travels at 1400 mph. The ship was built to withstand such a thing. Am I missing something here?
@AmericanThunder Not to mention that -- however easy or hard -- it IS possible to intercept a cruise missile. I've yet to here of a successful interception of an incoming 16 inch shell :)
Super carriers don't have rolled homogeneous steel armor. While it wouldn't be fool proof, a battleship is much more able to take damage than a carrier (due to the thickness of internal bulkheads).
We have plenty of ability to down supersonic anti-ship missiles:
The other problem is that the US Navy is the Ivy League respectable, "old money" branch of the US armed forces and has been for years. Thus, it tends to be fiercely cliquish and resistant to change, and different "Mafias" represent their individual branch (battleships, subs, carriers, destroyers, or planes). Once the battleship Mafia lost out to the carrier and aircraft Mafias in the 1950s under Forrestal, the carriers were intentionally left to rust and the machinery blueprints destroyed.
@EntropicMisanthropic er, I should say the Iowas were intentionally left to rust in order to break the power of the battleship admirals while still also humoring the Marines, who were the ones who really needed the Iowas the most for amphib assaults. The powder was left to degenerate in the hot sun on tarped barges until it eventually caused a 16 inch gun to blow up, and then the Navy said "Oops, seems they're just too unsafe and too much trouble to keep around!". Worked out perfectly for them.
The one irreplaceable benefit of the Iowa class is the ability to basically throw 9 x 2000 lb HE bombs at a time constantly for weeks on end, presuming what you're shooting at is within 20 miles or so of the shore. No aircraft or even an entire carrier could match that level of raw HE on target in the shortest period of time.
That said, the AA armament is useless today and wouldn't save it from missiles, nor would all that thick armor. The idea of using it as a Tomahawk launcher is silly.
but i really really like the battleships the commanders excuse is that they are heavy armored and slow moving and can be targeted easily bu aircrafts i think the solution is to lower its armor and add air defence systems to it and you keep powerful naval artillery less expensive than the cruise missile
@themens200 They did anti-ship missile testing against the thickness of Iowa belt and the missiles basically bounced off. These battleships are not slow either, they can reach 30 knots.
@310eraser Ridiculous. The Russians and Chinese have supersonic, sea-skimming antiship missiles with extremely large armor penetrating warheads. Many of them are adjustable between a sea-skimming approach or a top-down dive, both at supersonic speed. They built them specifically to destroy US supercarriers, we have no ability to shoot down supersonic cruise missiles, and I assure you they would trash an Iowa class very quickly in open combat.
@EntropicMisanthropic So you're saying that even though there are no battleships left in service anywhere on Earth, the russians and chinese are still designing and building missiles to defeat battleship armor? I would think modern missile designers would design missiles to sink modern warships. A missile designed to sink soft targets (carriers) is a different design than a missile designed to sink hard targets(battleships)
@EntropicMisanthropic The same principal holds true for gun shells; HE shells are designed to destroy soft targets, and AP shells are designed to destroy hard targets. Same thing with anti-personnel weapons; Hollow point bullets work great against guys wearing t-shirts, and full metal jacketed bullets work best against guys wearing armor vests.
@kylknisp you sir are brilliant. all you would need is several tons of super structure and one hell of a stabilizing system so it wouldn't capsize. thats what i should do when i retire.
The Bill of Rights does not contain a list of rights that are given to the American people by the government. Instead it provides a list of the rights that are inherently ours, and they can’t be taken away by the government. M Connelly 2011
No more progressives. We love liberty. Stand with Dr Paul and the Constitution of the USA
Lets put a man with the integrity of a great statesman in office...one who cannot be purchased or bullied...Ron Paul 2012!
@PfhUkJiu101 Well, no, I don't have to. You proposed a stupid question seemingly without basis. I don't have to explain why what you said wouldn't happen before you explain why it would.
@PfhUkJiu101 Person A: Is X possible? (no reason for belief that X may be true given).
Person B: No (implied).
Person A: Explain why X isn't possible.
Person B: I don't need to explain why an unfounded hypothesis isn't possible
Person A: Why did you answer my question then?
I don't know, why did I answer an obviously stupid question? How could I have possible anticipated this discussion going anywhere meaningful? Maybe I was under the delusion that you had the ability to think rationally.
modern day torpedoes would explode under the keel of the ship and break the ship in half look at stuartrockets video of Australian ship being lifted out of sea it broke in half just one modern torpedoe and exocet missiles were25 years ago modern missiles if they make contact .......will vaporise the ship before you can call out your name
The modern day torpedo you speak of is the same torpedoes of twenty five years ago. Nothing new except the Russians wake following torpedo. Breaking the keel of an Iowa class BB has been debated for decades. Inconclusive, would take a number of torpedoes. The the BB like a carrier has an ASW & AA escorts.. Remember, all of the BB's from W W ll used as targets at Bikini Atoll survived two nuclear explosions. Most experts say the Iowa class is unsinkable using today's weapons.
You can't compare the WWII era contact fuzed Type 91 air dropped torpedo with something like Mk. 48 ADCAP. The type 91 carries a 205kg explosive charge and is contact fuzed, the Mk. 48 a 292.5 kg PBXN-103 charge, which is equivalent to 544kg TNT charge and has an acoustic fuze, meaning it explodes under the keel which results in far greater damage.
And most of the battleships quite likely were beyond economical repair, however there was a war on at the time and they didn't have have the yard facilities available to build new ones since they were busy building something else, but they did have access to facilities that could repair them so that's what they did.
Remember, something that is beyond economical repair isn't necessarily unrepairable, rather it would cost more to repair it than build a new one.
@chrthiel all the Iowa class BB's when decomissioned had passed INSURV, the Navy's largest inspection saying if the ship is or is not ready for warfare.. all the Iowa's were ready and willing to fight.. just is the Navy didn't want them anymore.
@Ettoredipugnar cwa modern day gun would blow shell out of the sky before it came anywhere near ship today technical now how is far in front of shells kind regards
Too all those raging about subs. Just look at what happened to the Kursk. One torpedo missfire and the whole crew is dead. The same thing happens to a sub whether it be a depthcharge or artillery. ICBMs are almost useless against an enemy waiting for the chance to fire their arsenal in your direction. MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. Sure I approve of using nukes against a non nuclear retaliation capable enemy, but I believe in saving a few tax dollars and using what causes devistating CD.
@ihaterabbits127 Naval Artillery such as this can go approximately 20 miles or a bit more. A rocket assisted shell can soar 50-100 miles and that's based on WWII technology. If the battleships got retrofitted with equivalent sized rail guns you're looking at a 300mi or more max range. The kinetic energy from a rail gun projectile of such size would cause more damage on its lonesome than a missile. Cruise missiles are slow and downable. Remeber V1 buzz bombs? P47's were used to shoot those down.
@scoped98k hi there should have used p47 to down exocet missiles against uss STARK. yes they are downable but if you miss you have big shit on way to you
@motorguzzi100 Good thing an aircraft such as that carries hundreds of bullets so victory is assured. Ships don't carry as much armor as they used to so hits from missiles get greatly exagerated for that reason. It's kind of like comparing Aluminum's penetration resistance vs a plate of cast iron. Ever wonder why the dreadnought is always attacked first? If it is allowed to get in range it will sweep the battlefield. Mobility is useless if all your ship has is a pea-shooter.
@scoped98k That's also why the fast battleships had so much anti-aircraft defenses that it was ridiculous. The USS North Carolina had fired so much in 1 battle that lasted 8 minutes that half way through the battle Nimitz queried the ship with "Are you afire?"
@apharot We need to build a new Yamato class battleship give it high quality armor, maybe add a few missile lanchers, and swap conventional main guns for rail guns and call it Dreadnaught (definition as follows....Noun, the thing that goes bump in the night and eats navies for breakfast like sharks eat baby seals). Battleships can also aid tactics as well. For example..when the enemy is focusing fire on it the smaller ships can swing around back and back door them as I call it.
@ihaterabbits127 I think a $100,000 artillery barrage would decimate the enemy where the $100,000 missile would kill 1 target; $100,000 in artillery can take out an entire base. I seem to remeber artillery being more accurate. A stationary target on a clear day is going to get hit very hard and disposed of in a short period of time at a lower cost to hit ratio than a missile. The accuracy is only as good as the operators skill in most situations. Are you saying the US has poor ideology? It does!
@ihaterabbits127 I don't like the idea of a tax hike because somebody thought it was more cost effective to buy 1000 Missiles at over $100,000 a piece as compared to a dirt cheap artillery shell in a larger quantity that has a higher psycological impact. Poor logic. You can shoot a missile down but an artillery shell is going to cause damage to something some where unapposed. There is a reason why people cower in fear from artillery and confidently use an emp on electronics.
@ihaterabbits127 The USCG is now swapping out the 76mm navel artillery on their cruisers for computerized 57mm :X Its a shame to see navel artillery go in favor of guided missile boats.
@GunsOfThePhoenix I can just imagine the day when it comes. EMP! somebody shouts and the lights go out rendering all the modern technologies useless. That will be the day they regret putting all their money into so called modernization. With out working missiles and guidence how will these new ships fight? With out armor how can they survive a single salvo from what was once called out dated and worthless? Old school armor still rules the roost. Just look at the battleship. A carrier killer.
De pere Wisconsin city council is trying to ban state police cleared law abiding handgun carrying people from taking guns in public places of the city. When are they going to see that this won’t criminals from bringing guns to these places ? please see the racist roots of gun control on my channel for explaining why banning guns from government buildings and parks doesn’t make sense
@CSATexan oh i completely understand what you mean. but sometimes just intimidation can be pretty successful. Not even having to send troops in. just park a nuclear loaded warship just outside their waters and have every missile pointed their way. thats enuff to make me not want to fight.
@CSATexan why hit them if you dont have to? avoid war completely by just scaring the hell out of them? sure, if you have to fight, blow em the hell away, but with some of these countries that try to challenge us... scaring them could do it.
A weapon is useless if a nation doesn't have the political will to actually use it. The idea of nuking a country cause a few thousand rebels are holding up an advance is somewhat extreme.
@CSATexan did i say nuke them anywhere in those comments? read what i freakin said. INTIMIDATION. there's no need to USE a weapon if you can simply scare them out of fighting just because you HAVE the ABILITY to use a weapon.
@ihaterabbits127 They just cost too much to keep them active compared to how often they would actually need to use them. It's too bad because I love them. But then I'm from Wisconsin, it was one of the best things we had going for us. ;-)
@thegreatchimp Quote - Finally found the answer. "The inner guns fire half a second after the outer guns because it was found that firing them all together upset the ballistics of the shells"
Do a youtube search for "Top Ten Fighting Ships Nr. 1" Look at 4:07 of the video and you will see all 3 guns recoil at the same time...
Though the battleship is all but obsolete in modern naval warfare, there is nothing quite so disturbingly beautiful as the awesome power of a full broadside from an Iowa Class battleship in all of its glory. Garunttee you put one of these off the coast of Somalia and piracy will no longer be an issue haha
I have two of the 16 inch shells from the Massachusetts as driveway markers at the end of the driveway at one of my homes.They are big and very heavy.
@RTP1996 If a sub takes a it from a large shell or torpedo the sub is going down. Once the interior hull pressure is too low the water will crush it like a beer can in a multi-axis can crusher. If there is one thing you should know about US weapons it is the incessant jambing. I would rather sacrifice some accuracy and have a gun you could bet your life on rather than hearing the balls in throat, CHINK! Then the silent, FUCK! and then the enemy turns and drops you in an awkward manor.
@RTP1996 One hit and a sub and the whole crew dies so that doesn't make sense on why we pin all our hopes on easily destructable machines. China can go die, please and thank you, but Russia is the best. The AK47 is still alive and well after 60 years and the same can't be said for the M16 that is being replaced after multiple design changes in its past. Quality beats quantity until the quantity overruns the quality in crazy 5:1+ scenarios just like massive Russian tank production can cause.
@Heinz2477 Weil U-Boot und Flugzeug so leicht grösser schiffen zerstören kann sind dieser schiffen stillgelegt. Wenn Sie nur Englisch sprechen konnte, konnte Sie das verstanden.
I don't see why these retired. I know carriers are the new "Battleships" but still imagine with today's technology how accurate this ships guns would be. They were accurate with 40s technology.
As an inspired human being I believe the German planned H44 class of BB needs to be reserrected and built. The 20inch main guns proposed would be devistating and instead of 5.9inch secondaries why not bump them up to M777 155mm (6.1inch) field artillery cannons firing multiple bomblet dispersal shells would send Somali pirates straight to Allah. Nothing says collarteral damage like a battleship. Would any carrier fleet want to oppose such a ship...Uhm..no, they'd die a horrible screaming death.
If that's truly a battle ship the guns must have had a light load. The concussion from them is far to sever to stand that close and not be dead afterword.
When we go to a emp war then old fashioned man powered battleships will become dominant again i never like modern day warships their armor is thinner than paper and they look ugly compared to a Battleship.
@PudgeMountin5000 An EMP would be the first thing to go off and that would leave all the tin can carriers and modern warships useless. They should build battleships with modern armor composite metals and shell propulsion yet leave all the electronics as vacuum tube technology. A SAM is only as good as its guidance system so is an antiship missile. If the Battleships had an EMP dispersal unit they would be near untouchable. 1 Large shell through the elevators and a carrier is useless.
Battleships nowadays are as primitive as stone hammers. There is no reason in giving so much effort and funds to sustain a notable number of them. Everyone knows that a couple of modern cruise missiles can turn this big pile of steel into garbage to lay on sea bottom.
@EminidisMike Just like everyone knows an emp will knock a missile out of the sky like fly to a bug zapper. Missiles can be shot out of the sky as can be bomb carrying planes but a good battleship can take a beating and still want to fight. Artillery shelling is much more effective in that a missile that costs a million dollars can only be fired once but that million dollars can buy you crates upon crates of artillery shells that cause massive damage with out the price tag.
The US is weak right now. How stupid can we get pinning all our hopes on frail submarines and easy target carriers, We need to build battleships like the Bismarck and Yamato. Not only can they take a hit but they bite back as well. A carrier is useless if it can't launch its planes but a battleship can fight back so long as it's still afloat and one gun is still operational. Rocket assisted shells would help range as well. A battleship says FEAR ME but a carrier says KILL ME I'm an easy target.
@NosferatuAaacaado Actually it would need more than one hit, the TDS is simply too layered and the sub-division too thorough for even one modern torpedo to threaten an Iowa- unless it's a rudder or prop hit- which any ship would suffer. To argue the stupidity of retaining them is pointless because everyone has their "experts"- I heartily, but politely disagree with yours.
@Ironsiderodger torpedos nowadays can have a nuclear payload.
but what exactly these collosal ship were used for after WWII? Coastal shelling in Vietnam and the Gulf? U.S. has much more effective, faster and cheaper means of doing it.
Problem with Iowas was lack of adequate targets. Don't get me wrong, I am nostalgic for battleships and 460mm guns, but they have no use in today's conflicts except mentioned above.
@scoped98k Well you didn't mention ships called Missile Cruisers that can cripple Battleships with a single well placed Missile, and theyre cheaper, smaller and faster, hence it is easier for them to be stealthy.
Germany still is fighting for world Control.It failed twice openly waging war but never gave up the idea.Today it is using snitchers to infiltrate foreign countries and manipulate their population and their government.Preferably against each other.And they infiltrate the economy of other states.They are using brainwashing and steering techniques abroad to get rid of people not being pro german.As somebody said:We dont have nukes,we have to do this.Thumbs up if you want the BND to stop torturing
@GIANTWARTITAN The Iowa Class is a ship design. It's heavier and more powerful than the battleships it was sailing with during World War II, and even saw service in the Korean War. The leading ship USS Iowa is currently mothballed.
@battlefieldguy2000 You forgot to mention there was only four built. The Iowa, Wisconsin, New Jersey and the big 'mo' tthe Missouri. Some wags say the Yamato was better because it had 18" guns. Baloney, our 16" guns shot alot flatter and hit harder, an Iowa class boat would have sunk the Yamato. After all wasn't it our puney dive bombers and torpedo planes that sunk the Yamato?
@battlefieldguy2000 I know it won't happen during O'BUMBLER'S reign but it would be very smart to modernize and recommision all four. Iran would shit itself if we put one in the Persian gulf.
@klesmer The chances of that happening are very very slim for at least three of them. The Missouri, New Jersey and Wisconsin are now floating museums. Not to say it would be impossible to put them "back in service", if it was really required i`m sure it could be done. The only one that may even have a chance is the Iowa. She is sitting as part of the mothball fleet off the coast of California at Suisun Bay. (Google earth visible) The city of Vallejo, California is trying to get her as a museum.
@klesmer Yamato's 18 inchers would have pulverized Iowa class armor but accuracy or speed wasn't as good as an Iowa's. The Bismarck and Tirpitz were very accurate with their 15s but they had fewer guns. Yamato could survive a 2v1 battle as long as weather and range wasn't a problem. You have to realize the shear number of planes and size of bombs it took to accomplish that task as well. The Bismarck was quite the terrorist, so I wouldn't under estimite those either.
@scoped98k I am not an expert on the subject by any means but everything I have read on the Yamato/Iowa class have all stated the Yamato's guns didn't have the range our 16's did. So it would seem we just stay out of range and pound the fuck out of the Jap. And it didn't take that many 500lb bombs to take Yamato out of action. It seems that all capital ships were vulnerable to air attack. It seem Germany and Japan put all their hopes on one battleship.
@klesmer Once those 18s got in range the Iowa would be in a world of hurt. All four Iowas versus The Yamato, Musashi, Bismarck, and Tirpitz would have made an excellent fight. No planes or support ships and just those ships favor the Axis. The Iowa is out ranged by the Yamato class by over 2miles. The Bismarck is only outranged by the Iowa ~1mile. The accuracy of the 15s more then make up for it. We are talking original equipment so there are no gay missiles for the Iowas to nube tube with.
@scoped98k Key sentence '18's in range'. You sink the fucker before he gets close enough to hurt you. As far as your fantasy fight the real world does not work that way, you fight with what you have. Look what a handful of destroyers and de's did to the Japs in Leyte gulf.
@klesmer The problem is the Yamato outranges the flatter trajectory Iowa and it fires a one hit knock out punch super heavy weight shell. The Bismarck is a narrower beam ship so hitting it is much harder than Yamato. The Bismarck quickly destroyed the Hood and damaged the Prince of Whales with negligable help from its cruiser escort. The Iowas have formidable foes. It took the whole British Royal Navy to stop the Bismarck, defiant to the end, what makes you think an Iowa will win so easily?
@scoped98k Stronger deck armor. The Hood was sunk by plunging fire from the Bismarck, had the Hood finished her upgrades her aft deck armor would have been as strong as her fore deck armor which would have absorbed most of the damage at the very least stopping that shell from reaching the magazine. The shell that hit the Hood penertrating her deck and detonating her rear magazine was one hell of a lucky shot.
@dablades The Bismarck knocked out out some of the firing capabilties of the Hood anyways so if they would have stayed longer chances are the Prince of Wales would have been downed too and heavier damage to the Bismarck probably would have equalled out to the German Wolf packs pitching in and escorting the ship to saftey putting the Brits in a worse position. Odds are those subs could have taken out a few extra British warships if they had joined the fight.
@scoped98k True the Bismarck had a narrower beam but that becomes a moot point when she turns to "cross the T" and no it didn't take "the whole British navy" to sink the Bismarck yes there were alot of ships involves about 11ish off the top of my head
@dablades The whole home fleet was trying to get revenge for the Hood so it's pretty effective to say the whole navy when the WHOLE British Royal Navy wanted to sink the Bismarck. When it comes to a T it's not has wide meaning they have less leway on firing timing. It goes both ways as the decreased width makes for a smaller surface area which means although you have ruled out half the main battery you just created a smaller silhouette to take lob shots at.
@scoped98k It took one Fairy Swordfish and one torpedo to stop the Bismarck, it took three hits from 500lb bombs to stop the Yamato. You can play games in your fairytail world all day long mate but the facts are the Krauts and the Japs got their asses handed to them in the end. Our biggest mistake was protecting Europe from the Russians after the war. We should have let Stalin take them all.
@klesmer That was a lucky hit that could happen to any ship. You never accounted for the torpedos that hit the Yamato causing it to list and disable one bank of turrets making an attack easier. Iowas have no chance vs the Yamatos unless it came down to an accuracy fight in a horrible storm. The Bismarck class would have a fair chance at downing an Iowa in those conditions. The Iowas never took on any battleships anyways unlike the Bismarck that took out one and drydocked another.
@scoped98k Bullshit! Read the real history books, not the ones written by socialist. The Yamato was hit by the bombs first then finished by torpedo's. The Bismarck's fate was sealed when Hitler invaded Poland, as was the rest of Germany. The same can be said for the Japanese, Yamamoto was the only one who realized what a major fuckup the attack on Pearl Harbor. I see I am not the only person taking you to task here, get your head out of your ass.
@klesmer The only mistake the Japanese made was not getting the carriers while they were docked. Hitler only lost because he went crazy trying to take Stalingrad instead of just sticking to the original plan. If the Japanese would have had their submarines come in behind where the Americans were at Midway, WWII might have had a different ending. The Bismarck was only caught because it sent a radio transmission which the Brits triangulated and sure enough ended up sniffing right up it's ass.
@klesmer More like the Krauts would have nuked you and the Jews would be 100% gone, which might be a good thing, can't tell from where I'm sitting. The cocky overconfidence of Americans is what deeply bothers me. It's more or less blind stupidity than confidence. Yes, the Yamato has the more fierce guns and yes the Iowas never got into any real life or death fights. A 3,300lb 18in shell is going to cause monster damage in comparison to the heaviest possible 2,700lb 16in shell (others are 1,900).
@scoped98k Don't you worry your pointy,anti-semite head about us being overconfident, we have a right to be . The rest of you incompetent fuckers can't even take care of Libya let alone help the poor bastards in Syria. I hope we stay out of it, it's time Europe got of it's lazy,self seving.self righteous ass and did it's share for a change.
@klesmer Sorry to bum you out but you just described Americans and so called liberal progressives. The only thing Americans should be confident about is their ability to rack up debt. Russian fighter technology is better then America's. The Su47 will kill the F15, F35, and F22. Country that will elect people like Bush and Clinton deserves to be where it is now. Not to mention every president after JFK including good ole Ronnie Reagan have been big, fat pile of shit, jokes.
@scoped98k You are so fucking stupid you wouldn't know a liberal progressive if one sucked your pint sized willie. The next ime you cocksuckers get in trouble don't ask for our help. Now go crawl back under ma,ma's skirts.
@klesmer Too late, America is a sold out Chinese whore. The rest of the world is trying to get by with out becoming somebody's bitch, which has happened to a lot of countries since WWII. America's mom (Britain) should be ashamed of what its most promising offspring has become.
@scoped98k Well at least the US can say no one can top their porno hero, Johnny Holmes! What Chinese whore is able to take a torpedo hit from his 14 inch member!
Unsure if that is just "one of those things" or necessity. I seem to remember reading another article on these guns being ever so slightly staggered so the muzzle blast does not effect the adjoining gun trajectory. If I find it I will post the link for you.
only takes a few minutes of a degree of elevation change to cause maybe a few hundred metres difference in shell landing. It is more likely that to avoid shells colliding that the guns were fired individually. I don't recall Iowas having these problems anyway, but they were prominent issues in the older 14" triple turrets of the Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and New Mexico classes since the guns could not elevate independently.
@jdmifsud14 Ships are from the 40's and pretty expensive, not mention keeping it maintained. Sure they had upgraded and such but still doesn't get any easier. Only reason they lasted as long as they have is because of Congress demanding adequate fire support for Amphibious assaults which the 5 inch guns don't provide enough of in their eyes. Next Gen guns are suppose to be better but its still 1 or 2 guns firing a smaller round than the Battleships.
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!
10 miles they could hit with their eyes closed. The projectile from a 16" gun weights 3200 lbs and will sail through the air for 22 miles. Due to the curvature of the earth, it's only 18 miles to the horizon. This is why the New Jersey drove the Vietnamese crazy. The NJ also had 16" guns. They sat over the horizon and shelled the shit out of them. They couldn't figure out where it was coming from . . . . . .
@auschuck65 I wanted to say atleast 20 but I couldn't remember the range of those guns so I played it safe and said 10. Either way it's still beyond visual range
This ship is the USS Wisconsin it is technically 11 inches longer then the Iowa class battleship after the front of her hull was damaged by a friendly destroyer that accidentally rammed into her. Thus she is the worlds largest battleship today at 300 yards long and 180 feet wide she was decommissioned after the gulf war and she fought in ww2 and Korea. There are no more battleships in the US fleet and she is now at rest and will [probably be scraped. Thats such a said way for a ship to go
@imjustwonderful You'll find 'gun' and 'cannon', are pretty loose words open to interpretation throughtout history. Technically 'rifle' refers to any gun, large or small which has spiraled grooves on the inside of the barrel. but 'rifle' is a loose term too. For example, some early cannon fired solid metal balls in rifled barrells, but these were never called rifles. Likewise people sometimes refer to long barreled smoothbore hunting shotguns as rifles too. Confusing, I know.
@PedroMM193 No actually most missiles would fare rather poorly against an Iowa, causing at best localized damage. Consider that the USS Stark, a much lighter vessel- by far- was hit by and survived two exocet missiles. The thick STS hull plating alone may initiate the fuze before it gets to the armor belt (the same plating would decap a shell up to 18.6 inches), then the 12.1 inches inclined at 19 degrees is equivalent to about 17.3 inches of vertical steel- that's a problem for most missiles.
@PedroMM193 You're wrong. Missiles can destroy most warships, but the Iowa class, with (in some places) over 12" of armored steel, would not succumb to a missile attack. Plus, with Harpoon missiles and extraordinarily advanced radar sighting, the Iowa class is able to destroy surface vessels at very long ranges.
@snoman003 - Actually, I believe the thickness was 12.1". American armor was the best in the world, made from SDS STEEL which was harder than any other ships in the world. Lighter in weight, yet comparable to the Yamato's 18" armor. That's why in a battle, the Iowa's superior speed, manuverability, and accurate gun laying ability gave it an edge over all other ships.
@TheSeaDoc Sorry. Iowa, or any battleship for that matter, is going to die horribly to air attack - for example, from Operation Ten-Go, the final battle of the Japanese ship Yamato:
Allied air attack on Yamato task force: 12 aircrew dead, 10 aircraft destroyed.
Winning
TheKaliner 2 days ago
I'M ON A BOAT!
LegoRobot17 1 week ago
Damn birds can't shit on my ship again.
Fun4uitstrue 1 week ago 2
For those saying that the newest sea-skimming anti-ship missiles(Russian Sunburn missile?) would easily sink an Iowa, I will mention one point. A typical battleship armor scheme is designed to defeat the ship's own guns. A 16" gun shell travels at roughly 2000 mph, and carries 750 lbs of explosive behind a hardened penetrator. The new sunburn anti-ship missile, carries 750lbs of explosive, travels at 1400 mph. The ship was built to withstand such a thing. Am I missing something here?
AmericanThunder 1 week ago in playlist military stuff
@AmericanThunder yes, the damage of armor penetration
jackets298 1 week ago
@AmericanThunder Not to mention that -- however easy or hard -- it IS possible to intercept a cruise missile. I've yet to here of a successful interception of an incoming 16 inch shell :)
hotFusionReaction 14 hours ago
KABOOOOOMMM!!!!!
Whaty80 1 week ago
@EntropicMisanthropic
Super carriers don't have rolled homogeneous steel armor. While it wouldn't be fool proof, a battleship is much more able to take damage than a carrier (due to the thickness of internal bulkheads).
We have plenty of ability to down supersonic anti-ship missiles:
RIM-174 Standard ERAM
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
RIM-162 ESSM
Phalanx CIWS
RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile
310eraser 2 weeks ago
The other problem is that the US Navy is the Ivy League respectable, "old money" branch of the US armed forces and has been for years. Thus, it tends to be fiercely cliquish and resistant to change, and different "Mafias" represent their individual branch (battleships, subs, carriers, destroyers, or planes). Once the battleship Mafia lost out to the carrier and aircraft Mafias in the 1950s under Forrestal, the carriers were intentionally left to rust and the machinery blueprints destroyed.
EntropicMisanthropic 2 weeks ago
@EntropicMisanthropic er, I should say the Iowas were intentionally left to rust in order to break the power of the battleship admirals while still also humoring the Marines, who were the ones who really needed the Iowas the most for amphib assaults. The powder was left to degenerate in the hot sun on tarped barges until it eventually caused a 16 inch gun to blow up, and then the Navy said "Oops, seems they're just too unsafe and too much trouble to keep around!". Worked out perfectly for them.
EntropicMisanthropic 2 weeks ago
The one irreplaceable benefit of the Iowa class is the ability to basically throw 9 x 2000 lb HE bombs at a time constantly for weeks on end, presuming what you're shooting at is within 20 miles or so of the shore. No aircraft or even an entire carrier could match that level of raw HE on target in the shortest period of time.
That said, the AA armament is useless today and wouldn't save it from missiles, nor would all that thick armor. The idea of using it as a Tomahawk launcher is silly.
EntropicMisanthropic 2 weeks ago
best artillery
hellion741 3 weeks ago
the alreigh burke is better and less armored
but i really really like the battleships the commanders excuse is that they are heavy armored and slow moving and can be targeted easily bu aircrafts i think the solution is to lower its armor and add air defence systems to it and you keep powerful naval artillery less expensive than the cruise missile
themens200 3 weeks ago
@themens200 They did anti-ship missile testing against the thickness of Iowa belt and the missiles basically bounced off. These battleships are not slow either, they can reach 30 knots.
310eraser 2 weeks ago
@310eraser Ridiculous. The Russians and Chinese have supersonic, sea-skimming antiship missiles with extremely large armor penetrating warheads. Many of them are adjustable between a sea-skimming approach or a top-down dive, both at supersonic speed. They built them specifically to destroy US supercarriers, we have no ability to shoot down supersonic cruise missiles, and I assure you they would trash an Iowa class very quickly in open combat.
EntropicMisanthropic 2 weeks ago
@EntropicMisanthropic So you're saying that even though there are no battleships left in service anywhere on Earth, the russians and chinese are still designing and building missiles to defeat battleship armor? I would think modern missile designers would design missiles to sink modern warships. A missile designed to sink soft targets (carriers) is a different design than a missile designed to sink hard targets(battleships)
AmericanThunder 1 week ago in playlist military stuff
@EntropicMisanthropic The same principal holds true for gun shells; HE shells are designed to destroy soft targets, and AP shells are designed to destroy hard targets. Same thing with anti-personnel weapons; Hollow point bullets work great against guys wearing t-shirts, and full metal jacketed bullets work best against guys wearing armor vests.
AmericanThunder 1 week ago in playlist military stuff
They were used lots in lebanon Bekka Valley. I hear lots of goats were kilt..
vanwahlgren 3 weeks ago
cruise missile my ass....
PPiTTislakatamia 3 weeks ago
The solution when diplomacy fails...
bsrules 1 month ago
could you imagine just sitting around not expecting anything and they just shot thos fuckers off right next you you haha
renster143 1 month ago
i need one of these mounted on a 53 foot simi trailer for weekends you just wanna have fun
kylknisp 1 month ago
@kylknisp you sir are brilliant. all you would need is several tons of super structure and one hell of a stabilizing system so it wouldn't capsize. thats what i should do when i retire.
shipshape08 1 month ago in playlist Naval gunfire
@shipshape08 dude dont ruen a country boys dreams im never surous so sorry i blew up
kylknisp 1 month ago
just imagine the guns from the yamato or HMS Furious another 2.1 and 2inches respectively ouchh
clsteele 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bill of Rights does not contain a list of rights that are given to the American people by the government. Instead it provides a list of the rights that are inherently ours, and they can’t be taken away by the government. M Connelly 2011
No more progressives. We love liberty. Stand with Dr Paul and the Constitution of the USA
Lets put a man with the integrity of a great statesman in office...one who cannot be purchased or bullied...Ron Paul 2012!
possumpistol 1 month ago
man i wish the us navy still used these bad boys
id love to join the navy and work on one
evoldevildogs 1 month ago
@evoldevildogs the iowa battleship is coming to pedro in la california and will need work on it
tomanyasses 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@tomanyasses as a museum ship though
USSWISCONSIN64 1 month ago
the 36 people who dislike this vid, probably got their ass blown away by a 16-incher!
analyticaltristan 1 month ago
I would love to have a portable version in MW3.
KiwiLovin7 2 months ago
@KiwiLovin7 Play Metal Gear Online.
Play as Mei Ling.
Order a bombardment.
Shit bricks.
LegendaryGamer0 2 months ago
thats so cool
jhoney6754 2 months ago
36 people were on the receiving end of those salvos.
apharot 2 months ago
thats why you NEVER fuck with the us..... youll get blown to bits.
SunriseHealthFoods 2 months ago
Isn't there a rish by getting sucked overboard when the guns are fired?
PfhUkJiu101 2 months ago
@PfhUkJiu101 Did you ever attend a physics class...ever?
ihaterobbie123 2 months ago
@ihaterobbie123
Actually yes. But please, since you seem to be an expert, share with me your knowledge about fluid dynamics.
PfhUkJiu101 2 months ago
@PfhUkJiu101 Well, no, I don't have to. You proposed a stupid question seemingly without basis. I don't have to explain why what you said wouldn't happen before you explain why it would.
ihaterobbie123 2 months ago
@ihaterobbie123
Then why the fuck do you even bother to answer? Srsly, is there somebody sitting next to your PC and holding a gun to your head forcing you to post?
PfhUkJiu101 2 months ago
@PfhUkJiu101 Person A: Is X possible? (no reason for belief that X may be true given).
Person B: No (implied).
Person A: Explain why X isn't possible.
Person B: I don't need to explain why an unfounded hypothesis isn't possible
Person A: Why did you answer my question then?
I don't know, why did I answer an obviously stupid question? How could I have possible anticipated this discussion going anywhere meaningful? Maybe I was under the delusion that you had the ability to think rationally.
ihaterobbie123 2 months ago
how did that camera crew not go deaf?
Stairmaster9068 3 months ago
@Stairmaster9068 how do you know they didn't?
BorntoskateJr 3 months ago
@Stairmaster9068 ear protection and screaming at the top of their lungs
marchingpackofCeHS 3 months ago
modern day torpedoes would explode under the keel of the ship and break the ship in half look at stuartrockets video of Australian ship being lifted out of sea it broke in half just one modern torpedoe and exocet missiles were25 years ago modern missiles if they make contact .......will vaporise the ship before you can call out your name
motorguzzi100 4 months ago
@motorguzzi100
The modern day torpedo you speak of is the same torpedoes of twenty five years ago. Nothing new except the Russians wake following torpedo. Breaking the keel of an Iowa class BB has been debated for decades. Inconclusive, would take a number of torpedoes. The the BB like a carrier has an ASW & AA escorts.. Remember, all of the BB's from W W ll used as targets at Bikini Atoll survived two nuclear explosions. Most experts say the Iowa class is unsinkable using today's weapons.
laspulgasgunners 4 months ago
@laspulgasgunners
A modern torpedo may not sink a BB, but it will damage it well beyond economic repair
chrthiel 4 months ago
@chrthiel Yeah, look at the damage done to them at Pearl Harbor. They would not be damaged beyond economic repair.
apharot 4 months ago
@apharot
You can't compare the WWII era contact fuzed Type 91 air dropped torpedo with something like Mk. 48 ADCAP. The type 91 carries a 205kg explosive charge and is contact fuzed, the Mk. 48 a 292.5 kg PBXN-103 charge, which is equivalent to 544kg TNT charge and has an acoustic fuze, meaning it explodes under the keel which results in far greater damage.
chrthiel 4 months ago
@apharot
And most of the battleships quite likely were beyond economical repair, however there was a war on at the time and they didn't have have the yard facilities available to build new ones since they were busy building something else, but they did have access to facilities that could repair them so that's what they did.
Remember, something that is beyond economical repair isn't necessarily unrepairable, rather it would cost more to repair it than build a new one.
chrthiel 4 months ago
@chrthiel all the Iowa class BB's when decomissioned had passed INSURV, the Navy's largest inspection saying if the ship is or is not ready for warfare.. all the Iowa's were ready and willing to fight.. just is the Navy didn't want them anymore.
dundonrl 4 months ago
@laspulgasgunners There is no such thing as an unsinkable ship.
Inspadave 3 weeks ago
iowa class because real men use 16 inch guns....
01usaface 4 months ago
Im in love
prplprince 4 months ago
USS IOWA got donated to Pacific Battleship Center San Pedro Calif 9-06-2011
battle623 4 months ago
Theres no defence for a 16" round coming at you over the horizon. : )
Ettoredipugnar 5 months ago
@Ettoredipugnar cwa modern day gun would blow shell out of the sky before it came anywhere near ship today technical now how is far in front of shells kind regards
motorguzzi100 4 months ago
'
i wish one big 16 inch gun put on the american battle main tank,,,
little bigger than M1A1 / M1A2 tank,,,
almost like a maus tank
bestamerica 5 months ago
@bestamerica I think you need to get some facts straight, a Maus has a 128mm gun, 16" is 406.4mm, and the M1 Abrams has a 105mm or a 120mm.
FloppyCat1990 5 months ago
Navy's clerarng it's throat
dasteufelhund 5 months ago
Too all those raging about subs. Just look at what happened to the Kursk. One torpedo missfire and the whole crew is dead. The same thing happens to a sub whether it be a depthcharge or artillery. ICBMs are almost useless against an enemy waiting for the chance to fire their arsenal in your direction. MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. Sure I approve of using nukes against a non nuclear retaliation capable enemy, but I believe in saving a few tax dollars and using what causes devistating CD.
scoped98k 5 months ago
@ihaterabbits127 Naval Artillery such as this can go approximately 20 miles or a bit more. A rocket assisted shell can soar 50-100 miles and that's based on WWII technology. If the battleships got retrofitted with equivalent sized rail guns you're looking at a 300mi or more max range. The kinetic energy from a rail gun projectile of such size would cause more damage on its lonesome than a missile. Cruise missiles are slow and downable. Remeber V1 buzz bombs? P47's were used to shoot those down.
scoped98k 5 months ago
@scoped98k hi there should have used p47 to down exocet missiles against uss STARK. yes they are downable but if you miss you have big shit on way to you
motorguzzi100 4 months ago
@motorguzzi100 Good thing an aircraft such as that carries hundreds of bullets so victory is assured. Ships don't carry as much armor as they used to so hits from missiles get greatly exagerated for that reason. It's kind of like comparing Aluminum's penetration resistance vs a plate of cast iron. Ever wonder why the dreadnought is always attacked first? If it is allowed to get in range it will sweep the battlefield. Mobility is useless if all your ship has is a pea-shooter.
scoped98k 4 months ago
@scoped98k That's also why the fast battleships had so much anti-aircraft defenses that it was ridiculous. The USS North Carolina had fired so much in 1 battle that lasted 8 minutes that half way through the battle Nimitz queried the ship with "Are you afire?"
apharot 4 months ago
@apharot We need to build a new Yamato class battleship give it high quality armor, maybe add a few missile lanchers, and swap conventional main guns for rail guns and call it Dreadnaught (definition as follows....Noun, the thing that goes bump in the night and eats navies for breakfast like sharks eat baby seals). Battleships can also aid tactics as well. For example..when the enemy is focusing fire on it the smaller ships can swing around back and back door them as I call it.
scoped98k 3 months ago
@ihaterabbits127 I think a $100,000 artillery barrage would decimate the enemy where the $100,000 missile would kill 1 target; $100,000 in artillery can take out an entire base. I seem to remeber artillery being more accurate. A stationary target on a clear day is going to get hit very hard and disposed of in a short period of time at a lower cost to hit ratio than a missile. The accuracy is only as good as the operators skill in most situations. Are you saying the US has poor ideology? It does!
scoped98k 5 months ago
@ihaterabbits127 I don't like the idea of a tax hike because somebody thought it was more cost effective to buy 1000 Missiles at over $100,000 a piece as compared to a dirt cheap artillery shell in a larger quantity that has a higher psycological impact. Poor logic. You can shoot a missile down but an artillery shell is going to cause damage to something some where unapposed. There is a reason why people cower in fear from artillery and confidently use an emp on electronics.
scoped98k 5 months ago
@ihaterabbits127 The USCG is now swapping out the 76mm navel artillery on their cruisers for computerized 57mm :X Its a shame to see navel artillery go in favor of guided missile boats.
GunsOfThePhoenix 5 months ago
@GunsOfThePhoenix I can just imagine the day when it comes. EMP! somebody shouts and the lights go out rendering all the modern technologies useless. That will be the day they regret putting all their money into so called modernization. With out working missiles and guidence how will these new ships fight? With out armor how can they survive a single salvo from what was once called out dated and worthless? Old school armor still rules the roost. Just look at the battleship. A carrier killer.
scoped98k 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
De pere Wisconsin city council is trying to ban state police cleared law abiding handgun carrying people from taking guns in public places of the city. When are they going to see that this won’t criminals from bringing guns to these places ? please see the racist roots of gun control on my channel for explaining why banning guns from government buildings and parks doesn’t make sense
gunitup234 6 months ago
i mean, when we have cruisers now loaded out with nuclear warheads, its kind of pointless to keep them around.
Nick22pr 6 months ago
@Nick22pr
Hardly worthless. Not all fights warrant the use of nuclear warheads.
Just imagine being fired upon from a hill and having the ability to call in a strike from one of these bad boys.
CSATexan 6 months ago
@CSATexan oh i completely understand what you mean. but sometimes just intimidation can be pretty successful. Not even having to send troops in. just park a nuclear loaded warship just outside their waters and have every missile pointed their way. thats enuff to make me not want to fight.
Nick22pr 6 months ago
@Nick22pr
The US might not go as far as to launch a nuke at someone but hitting them with a broad side is another matter
CSATexan 6 months ago
@CSATexan why hit them if you dont have to? avoid war completely by just scaring the hell out of them? sure, if you have to fight, blow em the hell away, but with some of these countries that try to challenge us... scaring them could do it.
Nick22pr 6 months ago
@Nick22pr
A weapon is useless if a nation doesn't have the political will to actually use it. The idea of nuking a country cause a few thousand rebels are holding up an advance is somewhat extreme.
CSATexan 6 months ago
@CSATexan did i say nuke them anywhere in those comments? read what i freakin said. INTIMIDATION. there's no need to USE a weapon if you can simply scare them out of fighting just because you HAVE the ABILITY to use a weapon.
Nick22pr 6 months ago
@Nick22pr
There is no intimidation when the nation knows that the US hasn't the political will to use a nuclear weapon.
CSATexan 5 months ago
@ihaterabbits127 They just cost too much to keep them active compared to how often they would actually need to use them. It's too bad because I love them. But then I'm from Wisconsin, it was one of the best things we had going for us. ;-)
Jackle61 6 months ago
@thegreatchimp Quote - Finally found the answer. "The inner guns fire half a second after the outer guns because it was found that firing them all together upset the ballistics of the shells"
Do a youtube search for "Top Ten Fighting Ships Nr. 1" Look at 4:07 of the video and you will see all 3 guns recoil at the same time...
snoman003 6 months ago
Though the battleship is all but obsolete in modern naval warfare, there is nothing quite so disturbingly beautiful as the awesome power of a full broadside from an Iowa Class battleship in all of its glory. Garunttee you put one of these off the coast of Somalia and piracy will no longer be an issue haha
brandonbeban1 6 months ago
I have two of the 16 inch shells from the Massachusetts as driveway markers at the end of the driveway at one of my homes.They are big and very heavy.
almostcapecod 6 months ago 2
great ship
komonojapan 6 months ago
@RTP1996 If a sub takes a it from a large shell or torpedo the sub is going down. Once the interior hull pressure is too low the water will crush it like a beer can in a multi-axis can crusher. If there is one thing you should know about US weapons it is the incessant jambing. I would rather sacrifice some accuracy and have a gun you could bet your life on rather than hearing the balls in throat, CHINK! Then the silent, FUCK! and then the enemy turns and drops you in an awkward manor.
scoped98k 6 months ago
Iowa class is right!! GO IOWA!!
79beastman 6 months ago
@RTP1996 One hit and a sub and the whole crew dies so that doesn't make sense on why we pin all our hopes on easily destructable machines. China can go die, please and thank you, but Russia is the best. The AK47 is still alive and well after 60 years and the same can't be said for the M16 that is being replaced after multiple design changes in its past. Quality beats quantity until the quantity overruns the quality in crazy 5:1+ scenarios just like massive Russian tank production can cause.
scoped98k 6 months ago
@Heinz2477 Weil U-Boot und Flugzeug so leicht grösser schiffen zerstören kann sind dieser schiffen stillgelegt. Wenn Sie nur Englisch sprechen konnte, konnte Sie das verstanden.
mynameissooriginal2 6 months ago
I don't see why these retired. I know carriers are the new "Battleships" but still imagine with today's technology how accurate this ships guns would be. They were accurate with 40s technology.
BRIANROX1 6 months ago
sucks for the guy who didnt get the memo that they were going off
flipmasta14 6 months ago
As an inspired human being I believe the German planned H44 class of BB needs to be reserrected and built. The 20inch main guns proposed would be devistating and instead of 5.9inch secondaries why not bump them up to M777 155mm (6.1inch) field artillery cannons firing multiple bomblet dispersal shells would send Somali pirates straight to Allah. Nothing says collarteral damage like a battleship. Would any carrier fleet want to oppose such a ship...Uhm..no, they'd die a horrible screaming death.
scoped98k 6 months ago
There's something about the old battlewagons that has the aura of invincibility.
OperationEndGame 6 months ago
If that's truly a battle ship the guns must have had a light load. The concussion from them is far to sever to stand that close and not be dead afterword.
gordonitis 7 months ago
When we go to a emp war then old fashioned man powered battleships will become dominant again i never like modern day warships their armor is thinner than paper and they look ugly compared to a Battleship.
PudgeMountin5000 7 months ago
@PudgeMountin5000 An EMP would be the first thing to go off and that would leave all the tin can carriers and modern warships useless. They should build battleships with modern armor composite metals and shell propulsion yet leave all the electronics as vacuum tube technology. A SAM is only as good as its guidance system so is an antiship missile. If the Battleships had an EMP dispersal unit they would be near untouchable. 1 Large shell through the elevators and a carrier is useless.
scoped98k 6 months ago
Battleships nowadays are as primitive as stone hammers. There is no reason in giving so much effort and funds to sustain a notable number of them. Everyone knows that a couple of modern cruise missiles can turn this big pile of steel into garbage to lay on sea bottom.
EminidisMike 7 months ago
@EminidisMike Just like everyone knows an emp will knock a missile out of the sky like fly to a bug zapper. Missiles can be shot out of the sky as can be bomb carrying planes but a good battleship can take a beating and still want to fight. Artillery shelling is much more effective in that a missile that costs a million dollars can only be fired once but that million dollars can buy you crates upon crates of artillery shells that cause massive damage with out the price tag.
scoped98k 7 months ago
Say hello to my little friend.
ronphlf 7 months ago
RIP SOMALIS.
ExczSanityz 7 months ago
The US is weak right now. How stupid can we get pinning all our hopes on frail submarines and easy target carriers, We need to build battleships like the Bismarck and Yamato. Not only can they take a hit but they bite back as well. A carrier is useless if it can't launch its planes but a battleship can fight back so long as it's still afloat and one gun is still operational. Rocket assisted shells would help range as well. A battleship says FEAR ME but a carrier says KILL ME I'm an easy target.
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k One torpedo and there goes your battleship. Everyone scrapped them for a reason.
US were the only ones stupid enough to waste money on maintaining missouri till 90s.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado Actually it would need more than one hit, the TDS is simply too layered and the sub-division too thorough for even one modern torpedo to threaten an Iowa- unless it's a rudder or prop hit- which any ship would suffer. To argue the stupidity of retaining them is pointless because everyone has their "experts"- I heartily, but politely disagree with yours.
Ironsiderodger 6 months ago
@Ironsiderodger torpedos nowadays can have a nuclear payload.
but what exactly these collosal ship were used for after WWII? Coastal shelling in Vietnam and the Gulf? U.S. has much more effective, faster and cheaper means of doing it.
Problem with Iowas was lack of adequate targets. Don't get me wrong, I am nostalgic for battleships and 460mm guns, but they have no use in today's conflicts except mentioned above.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@scoped98k Well you didn't mention ships called Missile Cruisers that can cripple Battleships with a single well placed Missile, and theyre cheaper, smaller and faster, hence it is easier for them to be stealthy.
SoulsStealerMalti 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Germany still is fighting for world Control.It failed twice openly waging war but never gave up the idea.Today it is using snitchers to infiltrate foreign countries and manipulate their population and their government.Preferably against each other.And they infiltrate the economy of other states.They are using brainwashing and steering techniques abroad to get rid of people not being pro german.As somebody said:We dont have nukes,we have to do this.Thumbs up if you want the BND to stop torturing
wwwtotalitaerde 7 months ago
just what i need a my back yard...primo ~!
CRAZYFOXX1 7 months ago
Montana class battleship. Battleships that were never built. US Navy rather used aircraft carriers over battleships
Montana class would have replaced the Iowas. It has 12x 16 inch guns, 20x 5 inch guns.
NatedogJr 7 months ago
im not much into the navy what makes a battleship an iowa class?
GIANTWARTITAN 8 months ago
@GIANTWARTITAN The Iowa Class is a ship design. It's heavier and more powerful than the battleships it was sailing with during World War II, and even saw service in the Korean War. The leading ship USS Iowa is currently mothballed.
battlefieldguy2000 8 months ago
@battlefieldguy2000 You forgot to mention there was only four built. The Iowa, Wisconsin, New Jersey and the big 'mo' tthe Missouri. Some wags say the Yamato was better because it had 18" guns. Baloney, our 16" guns shot alot flatter and hit harder, an Iowa class boat would have sunk the Yamato. After all wasn't it our puney dive bombers and torpedo planes that sunk the Yamato?
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer I didn't know the NJ was Iowa, cool. And you're right.
battlefieldguy2000 7 months ago
@battlefieldguy2000 I know it won't happen during O'BUMBLER'S reign but it would be very smart to modernize and recommision all four. Iran would shit itself if we put one in the Persian gulf.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer Amen.
battlefieldguy2000 7 months ago
@klesmer The chances of that happening are very very slim for at least three of them. The Missouri, New Jersey and Wisconsin are now floating museums. Not to say it would be impossible to put them "back in service", if it was really required i`m sure it could be done. The only one that may even have a chance is the Iowa. She is sitting as part of the mothball fleet off the coast of California at Suisun Bay. (Google earth visible) The city of Vallejo, California is trying to get her as a museum.
snoman003 7 months ago
Comment removed
scoped98k 7 months ago
@klesmer Yamato's 18 inchers would have pulverized Iowa class armor but accuracy or speed wasn't as good as an Iowa's. The Bismarck and Tirpitz were very accurate with their 15s but they had fewer guns. Yamato could survive a 2v1 battle as long as weather and range wasn't a problem. You have to realize the shear number of planes and size of bombs it took to accomplish that task as well. The Bismarck was quite the terrorist, so I wouldn't under estimite those either.
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k I am not an expert on the subject by any means but everything I have read on the Yamato/Iowa class have all stated the Yamato's guns didn't have the range our 16's did. So it would seem we just stay out of range and pound the fuck out of the Jap. And it didn't take that many 500lb bombs to take Yamato out of action. It seems that all capital ships were vulnerable to air attack. It seem Germany and Japan put all their hopes on one battleship.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer Once those 18s got in range the Iowa would be in a world of hurt. All four Iowas versus The Yamato, Musashi, Bismarck, and Tirpitz would have made an excellent fight. No planes or support ships and just those ships favor the Axis. The Iowa is out ranged by the Yamato class by over 2miles. The Bismarck is only outranged by the Iowa ~1mile. The accuracy of the 15s more then make up for it. We are talking original equipment so there are no gay missiles for the Iowas to nube tube with.
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k Key sentence '18's in range'. You sink the fucker before he gets close enough to hurt you. As far as your fantasy fight the real world does not work that way, you fight with what you have. Look what a handful of destroyers and de's did to the Japs in Leyte gulf.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer The problem is the Yamato outranges the flatter trajectory Iowa and it fires a one hit knock out punch super heavy weight shell. The Bismarck is a narrower beam ship so hitting it is much harder than Yamato. The Bismarck quickly destroyed the Hood and damaged the Prince of Whales with negligable help from its cruiser escort. The Iowas have formidable foes. It took the whole British Royal Navy to stop the Bismarck, defiant to the end, what makes you think an Iowa will win so easily?
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k Stronger deck armor. The Hood was sunk by plunging fire from the Bismarck, had the Hood finished her upgrades her aft deck armor would have been as strong as her fore deck armor which would have absorbed most of the damage at the very least stopping that shell from reaching the magazine. The shell that hit the Hood penertrating her deck and detonating her rear magazine was one hell of a lucky shot.
dablades 7 months ago
@dablades The Bismarck knocked out out some of the firing capabilties of the Hood anyways so if they would have stayed longer chances are the Prince of Wales would have been downed too and heavier damage to the Bismarck probably would have equalled out to the German Wolf packs pitching in and escorting the ship to saftey putting the Brits in a worse position. Odds are those subs could have taken out a few extra British warships if they had joined the fight.
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k True the Bismarck had a narrower beam but that becomes a moot point when she turns to "cross the T" and no it didn't take "the whole British navy" to sink the Bismarck yes there were alot of ships involves about 11ish off the top of my head
dablades 7 months ago
@dablades The whole home fleet was trying to get revenge for the Hood so it's pretty effective to say the whole navy when the WHOLE British Royal Navy wanted to sink the Bismarck. When it comes to a T it's not has wide meaning they have less leway on firing timing. It goes both ways as the decreased width makes for a smaller surface area which means although you have ruled out half the main battery you just created a smaller silhouette to take lob shots at.
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k It took one Fairy Swordfish and one torpedo to stop the Bismarck, it took three hits from 500lb bombs to stop the Yamato. You can play games in your fairytail world all day long mate but the facts are the Krauts and the Japs got their asses handed to them in the end. Our biggest mistake was protecting Europe from the Russians after the war. We should have let Stalin take them all.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer That was a lucky hit that could happen to any ship. You never accounted for the torpedos that hit the Yamato causing it to list and disable one bank of turrets making an attack easier. Iowas have no chance vs the Yamatos unless it came down to an accuracy fight in a horrible storm. The Bismarck class would have a fair chance at downing an Iowa in those conditions. The Iowas never took on any battleships anyways unlike the Bismarck that took out one and drydocked another.
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k Bullshit! Read the real history books, not the ones written by socialist. The Yamato was hit by the bombs first then finished by torpedo's. The Bismarck's fate was sealed when Hitler invaded Poland, as was the rest of Germany. The same can be said for the Japanese, Yamamoto was the only one who realized what a major fuckup the attack on Pearl Harbor. I see I am not the only person taking you to task here, get your head out of your ass.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer The only mistake the Japanese made was not getting the carriers while they were docked. Hitler only lost because he went crazy trying to take Stalingrad instead of just sticking to the original plan. If the Japanese would have had their submarines come in behind where the Americans were at Midway, WWII might have had a different ending. The Bismarck was only caught because it sent a radio transmission which the Brits triangulated and sure enough ended up sniffing right up it's ass.
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k You are right, history would have been different, we would have nuked the Krauts as well.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer More like the Krauts would have nuked you and the Jews would be 100% gone, which might be a good thing, can't tell from where I'm sitting. The cocky overconfidence of Americans is what deeply bothers me. It's more or less blind stupidity than confidence. Yes, the Yamato has the more fierce guns and yes the Iowas never got into any real life or death fights. A 3,300lb 18in shell is going to cause monster damage in comparison to the heaviest possible 2,700lb 16in shell (others are 1,900).
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k Don't you worry your pointy,anti-semite head about us being overconfident, we have a right to be . The rest of you incompetent fuckers can't even take care of Libya let alone help the poor bastards in Syria. I hope we stay out of it, it's time Europe got of it's lazy,self seving.self righteous ass and did it's share for a change.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer Sorry to bum you out but you just described Americans and so called liberal progressives. The only thing Americans should be confident about is their ability to rack up debt. Russian fighter technology is better then America's. The Su47 will kill the F15, F35, and F22. Country that will elect people like Bush and Clinton deserves to be where it is now. Not to mention every president after JFK including good ole Ronnie Reagan have been big, fat pile of shit, jokes.
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k You are so fucking stupid you wouldn't know a liberal progressive if one sucked your pint sized willie. The next ime you cocksuckers get in trouble don't ask for our help. Now go crawl back under ma,ma's skirts.
klesmer 7 months ago
@klesmer Too late, America is a sold out Chinese whore. The rest of the world is trying to get by with out becoming somebody's bitch, which has happened to a lot of countries since WWII. America's mom (Britain) should be ashamed of what its most promising offspring has become.
scoped98k 7 months ago
@scoped98k Well at least the US can say no one can top their porno hero, Johnny Holmes! What Chinese whore is able to take a torpedo hit from his 14 inch member!
Barbarian216 1 month ago
Unsure if that is just "one of those things" or necessity. I seem to remember reading another article on these guns being ever so slightly staggered so the muzzle blast does not effect the adjoining gun trajectory. If I find it I will post the link for you.
snoman003 8 months ago
@snoman003
only takes a few minutes of a degree of elevation change to cause maybe a few hundred metres difference in shell landing. It is more likely that to avoid shells colliding that the guns were fired individually. I don't recall Iowas having these problems anyway, but they were prominent issues in the older 14" triple turrets of the Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and New Mexico classes since the guns could not elevate independently.
HelmutVillam 7 months ago
Stupendo!!!!!!!!!
la potenza di fuoco della navi classe iowa era impressionante.
Una nave di questo tipo l'ho vista in azione durante la guerra del golfo nel 1991 durante la fase di bombardamenti degli obiettivi iracheni.
Peccato che non ci siano più, altrimenti si potevano usare contro quel maiale di Gheddafi.
falcoluminoso
falcoluminoso 8 months ago
Stupendo!!!!!!!!!
la potenza di fuoco della classe iowa era impressionante.
Una nave di questo tipo l'ho vista in azione durante la guerra del golfo nel 1991 durante la fase di bombardamenti degli obiettivi iracheni.
Peccato che non ci siano più, altrimenti si potevano usare contro quel maiale di Gheddafi.
falcoluminoso
falcoluminoso 8 months ago
firepower is impressive! interesting to look like a volley of Yamato?
lebedevdim 8 months ago
Im from Iowa, Now I can be proud of more than just one thing. Iowa class...and corn :-(
Stokesman24 8 months ago
16-inch guns = the bad guys are fucked. So fucking fucked.
hardcharging 8 months ago
Why did the US Navy decommission all of their Battleships?!
jdmifsud14 8 months ago
@jdmifsud14 Expensive, easier to destroy, and no one else is keeping them which make USN look like a jerk if it do.
Normacly 8 months ago
@jdmifsud14 Ships are from the 40's and pretty expensive, not mention keeping it maintained. Sure they had upgraded and such but still doesn't get any easier. Only reason they lasted as long as they have is because of Congress demanding adequate fire support for Amphibious assaults which the 5 inch guns don't provide enough of in their eyes. Next Gen guns are suppose to be better but its still 1 or 2 guns firing a smaller round than the Battleships.
jtoatoktoe 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
Someones shit just got fucked up.
naraic18 8 months ago in playlist Ships
I came.
biglou250 9 months ago
what would ever happen if the shell hits you in the head
terminator839 9 months ago
piss smoke, don't breathe this!
athlonz2007 9 months ago
where can i get me one of thoes?
austin97NF 9 months ago
I'd hate to be on the receiving end of those guns
BRIANROX1 9 months ago 13
@BRIANROX1 Yup, Yup!! a real bad day who receives it.
Caseymero1491 6 months ago
@Caseymero1491 These would easily ruin your day from 10 miles away. No the rhyme wasn't intentional
BRIANROX1 6 months ago
10 miles they could hit with their eyes closed. The projectile from a 16" gun weights 3200 lbs and will sail through the air for 22 miles. Due to the curvature of the earth, it's only 18 miles to the horizon. This is why the New Jersey drove the Vietnamese crazy. The NJ also had 16" guns. They sat over the horizon and shelled the shit out of them. They couldn't figure out where it was coming from . . . . . .
auschuck65 6 months ago 2
@auschuck65 I wanted to say atleast 20 but I couldn't remember the range of those guns so I played it safe and said 10. Either way it's still beyond visual range
BRIANROX1 6 months ago
Ok that's definitely the sound I had to of heard a few months ago. Cool!
maestro4202 9 months ago
I wish we still had one of these ships on active service. Imagine the fun when she shows up of a Somalian Pirate Port.
sillydaddy101 9 months ago
My uncle was station in the UK and his ass nearly got blown off by a 16 inch gun
32parchy 10 months ago
chuck norris called, he wants his water gun back
10toppers 10 months ago 2
This ship is the USS Wisconsin it is technically 11 inches longer then the Iowa class battleship after the front of her hull was damaged by a friendly destroyer that accidentally rammed into her. Thus she is the worlds largest battleship today at 300 yards long and 180 feet wide she was decommissioned after the gulf war and she fought in ww2 and Korea. There are no more battleships in the US fleet and she is now at rest and will [probably be scraped. Thats such a said way for a ship to go
Jmauer62 10 months ago
@Jmauer62 Well, she lived an honorable life. Not being sunk is good enough in my opinion :)
moosemccray 9 months ago
is it true that once cannons are put on a ship, theyre called guns?
imjustwonderful 10 months ago
@imjustwonderful
technically they're called Naval Rifles
HelmutVillam 10 months ago
@imjustwonderful You'll find 'gun' and 'cannon', are pretty loose words open to interpretation throughtout history. Technically 'rifle' refers to any gun, large or small which has spiraled grooves on the inside of the barrel. but 'rifle' is a loose term too. For example, some early cannon fired solid metal balls in rifled barrells, but these were never called rifles. Likewise people sometimes refer to long barreled smoothbore hunting shotguns as rifles too. Confusing, I know.
thegreatchimp 8 months ago
LMFAO just got done looking up a Beglian Navy firing off one measly ass cannon,
glad to see im back home and were firing off 9 at once almost capsizing the ship
lmfao beautiful USA
ABOM420 10 months ago
One of the strongest of it time and now a only one light cruiser can completely destroy this ship with 1 missile.
PedroMM193 10 months ago
@PedroMM193 No actually most missiles would fare rather poorly against an Iowa, causing at best localized damage. Consider that the USS Stark, a much lighter vessel- by far- was hit by and survived two exocet missiles. The thick STS hull plating alone may initiate the fuze before it gets to the armor belt (the same plating would decap a shell up to 18.6 inches), then the 12.1 inches inclined at 19 degrees is equivalent to about 17.3 inches of vertical steel- that's a problem for most missiles.
Ironsiderodger 10 months ago
@PedroMM193 You're wrong. Missiles can destroy most warships, but the Iowa class, with (in some places) over 12" of armored steel, would not succumb to a missile attack. Plus, with Harpoon missiles and extraordinarily advanced radar sighting, the Iowa class is able to destroy surface vessels at very long ranges.
TheSeaDoc 9 months ago
@TheSeaDoc I may be mistaken but I do believe the Iowas had a max armor of 18" not 12"
snoman003 8 months ago
@snoman003 - Actually, I believe the thickness was 12.1". American armor was the best in the world, made from SDS STEEL which was harder than any other ships in the world. Lighter in weight, yet comparable to the Yamato's 18" armor. That's why in a battle, the Iowa's superior speed, manuverability, and accurate gun laying ability gave it an edge over all other ships.
TheSeaDoc 8 months ago
@TheSeaDoc Sorry. Iowa, or any battleship for that matter, is going to die horribly to air attack - for example, from Operation Ten-Go, the final battle of the Japanese ship Yamato:
Allied air attack on Yamato task force: 12 aircrew dead, 10 aircraft destroyed.
Yamato task force: 3,700–4,250 dead, 1 battleship sunk, 1 light cruiser sunk, 4 destroyers sunk.
That was in 1945. Also see the sinkings of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse in 1941. Armour wasn't protection enough even back then.
SerenissimaRepublica 6 months ago