exocett missiles are obsolete know but the new range are not they would vaporise a battle ship within seconds on contact and sells can only go 25 miles missiles come from further afield and battle ships are always visible stealth and secrecy are way to go battle ships have their place but not in modern wars
The BBs were alloted 5 minutes to fire...the Jersey fired a battle ship broad side and a rounds out of their 5" battery. The Misssouri on the other hand utilized all of the time frame to show just what a BB can do. Each broadside totaled 9 tons of ammunition going out from just the 16" guns. With a rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute per barrel...BBs could actually fire approximately 90 tons of ammo in a 5 minute period...not too shabby...By the way...I was stationed on her for this.
this was during an exercise off the coast of Korea. The New Jersy in front and the Missouri following were alloted 5 minutes to fire on an area to demonstrate the firepower of the Battleships. The ship that was sunk was a target vessel that the aircraft were to sink...if they did not sink the vessel, the battleships were to complete the job.
@Elect4Sure They don't need to match it, they just need to kill it. In the case of our modern navy, that's not hard at all, and battleships really should return.
@Elect4Sure well you know dude your frigate has missiles ok no comment but do you think those missiles can penetrate a battleships armor?? and plus those otto melara or otto breda are just a battleships lets say aa guns?
either of this recomission and upgrade (of course) or build a new generation it will be costly but worth the fire power and defense of this new generation of BB will be worthy of its cost, it will come back after a long congressional debate, but something will happen that will persuade and enable the the USA to build a new generation of BB( seems to be a fantasy but try to live longer so you will witness the new genration of BB)
@HaloCE14 Don't worry baby battleship will come back entirely of new highly sophisticated design but the principle is still the same, the 16 inch will again show action but it will have more punching power longer range, it can can engaged in conventional distance as far as the horizon and more than that, anti aircraft will coupe up wiht the new system against air attack, and from underwater and ground attack, it will be use for special attack that will paralyse the enemy and get away quickly
Vote up if the Navy should recommission at least one of these battleships along with the reproduction of 16 inch shells, gunpowder, and modernization on one of these battleships. The use of these battleships in the Gulf War showed the capability of a battleship on a modern battlefield. The enemies were deeply intimidated by these ships and surrendered immediately. Plus no modern weapon system can pierce the battleship's armor
@Kulwicki ---you are right! During DS in '91, the press asked the Capt. of the Wisconsin what he would do if he got hit by a Silk Worm Missile. He said he would send a guy out with a broom and sweep the wreckage over the side, then repaint the area of the ship it hit! haha it was great!
@Kulwicki shame they take so much to maintain and run as opposed to more modern surface combatants with anti-ship missiles such as the burke destroyers and tico cruisers
@Kulwicki 'no modern weapon system can pierce the battleship's armor'..I've got a few dozen anti-ship who'd beg to differ..not to mention subs, as was the fate of the Belgrano.
@Kulwicki I agree, according to one of my books the navy had developed a new charge that doulbled the range of the 16s but they decommissioned before it became available, it would supposed to be implemented in 94,I got into a youtube duel with a guy today who insisted the yamatos were the greatest battleships ever built,he could not comprehend we had superior fire control and the 16 inch 50 cal. had almost as much penetration power as the jap 18.1s.
@Kulwicki I agree, according to one of my books the navy had developed a new charge that doulbled the range of the 16s but they decommissioned before it became available, it would supposed to be implemented in 94,I got into a youtube duel with a guy today who insisted the yamatos were the greatest battleships ever built,he could not comprehend we had superior fire control and the 16 inch 50 cal. had almost as much penetration power as the jap 18.1s.
@Kulwicki I agree, according to one of my books the navy had developed a new charge that doulbled the range of the 16s but they decommissioned before it became available, it would supposed to be implemented in 94,I got into a youtube duel with a guy today who insisted the yamatos were the greatest battleships ever built,he could not comprehend we had superior fire control and the 16 inch 50 cal. had almost as much penetration power as the jap 18.1s.
@Kulwicki If anything the United States should recommission the four Iowa Class Battleships to do ports of call around the world. These ships are the ultimate expression of power.
@Kulwicki It will never happen, as long as we have Barack (WimpyDonkey) Obama and his fellow, despised donkeys running this country. He hates our military, so folks, next time you vote, VOTE FOR A REAL AMERICAN, not a muzzie/commie like him.
@soco13466 Obama is the wimp who killed Osama, AND the wimp who told the seal team if they have to, fight there way out of any situation. He's also the wimp who's put more drones in the air.
He hates America? What a terrible man, you even said so! Get real, man you know and we all know he loves this country and wants to further expand our infrastructure like that of FDR.
Saying he hates America is damn right stupid. He wouldn't have become president of a nation he hated.
@Kulwicki sorry but these old lady's should stay the way they are and commander Brindel uss stark thought the same as you as a jet fighter put two aerospatiale am39 exocets into his ship which had all modern technology on board. He was forced to resign sorry
did USS Stark have a 12.1 inch armoured belt and a 7.5 inch deck? That level of protection is designed to be immune to 16 inch armour piercing rounds. An exocet would cause cosmetic damage at the most.
@Kulwicki Just in case they are ever needed, the Wisconsin and Missouri will be part of the "Mothball Fleet" so they can be reactivated in a very short period of time. Iowa and NJ will stay as they are: A Tribute to US Navy Power.
to be realistic only one of these 16" turrets are needed to provide the fire support needed from a Battleship. They could get away with completely remodelling Wisconsin or Missouri as a double ended guided missile ship, retain a fore turret and place the fragile systems at the rear. The guns and mechanics of the removed turrets can be kept as parts or replacements. the 5" dual turrets are quite useless though.
@Kulwicki A single missile.. this is all it takes to disable one of these ships be4 they can even fire off a shot from those 16" guns... these ships have SHITTY attack range and even more SHITTY radar profile.
Yes I agree they are so damn cool but honestly, nowdays the only place I would dare to send em is against bedouins!!
That`s why they where equipped with the CWIS anti-missle system..
1400 Nautical mile harpoon missiles, in my opinion, is not that "shitty"...seriously though, the biggest reason these Iowas will be missed is for their shore bombardment capabilities. They were used in direct support of Marine landings.
Alone the Iowas would be toast, however when used as part of a battle group, with carriers and subs makes a very formidable force.
@HaloCE14 To me, I think a new design entirely is at least worth a try. The mark 48 torpedo, antiship missiles, and RADAR have changed so much lately that a new design is warranted.
They will return, once the real war comes, those high costs, high technology weapons can only works in very limited battlefields, others will decided by this type real war weapons. I love battleships, they are the best weapons human made.
These ships should be back into commission. They are amazing. We should build a new one, and have more anti-air capabilities(reason why it was taken off was because even the best of battleships are easy air targets). And better capabilities and technology of our century and beyond. An improved battleship would be liked by all.
Refit the battle ships with nuclear reactors and the new rail gun XFSS..between those two systems u cut out about 500 men..yeah it would be costly but the DDX and the Burke class DD are proving to be to costly already and thus they have been reduced or cancelled..this fails to provide a naval surface to surface fire support system provided to marine forces in the past by the 2 battleships Iowa and Wisconsin (previously 3 BB62 USS New Jersey)..congress requires a naval protection system that is
Point being I think given newer missile tech and new guided artillery shells the dream of seeing heavy gunships on the oceans may not be too far fetched. And of course people can piss and moan all day about taxes but when you see a MASSIVE fireball erupt from a ship you helped pay for you are absolutely certain at least that tax money was well spent!
I love these boats. Yes the carrier projects fire over a very long distance but one must still put a pilot in harms way to project that firepower. The battleship allows one to project it as well although over much shorter distances. The Navy was on to something with the addition of cruise missiles on battleships. And with next generation missiles that promise to be more precise and longer ranged than ever before the Navy may well phase pilots and carriers out in 50 years.
Russian rockets,anti-ship missiles and air defense - the best in the world! Americans as will see them in the nightmares the such dreams - they wake up in a cold sweat - running faster to shit, and then to relieve stress are eating more hamburgers and grow fat! The more fatty Pindos in the US Navy - the closer to the bottom of their fleet and the faster they will sink;)))
These ships have the most conventional floating firepower in the world. Imgine putting these ships to sea as a pirate deterrent. I think they would reconsider attacking any ship they come across.
destroyers dont cause alot of damage??? its not missles they firing but a shot weighing about the same as a minivan from a long ways off you dont see it coming till its to late ..destoys what eva it hits hence the name destroyer!! that they will! shoot a shot down like that with what? a missle ? they dont know its coming!
i totally agree with contrajoe... we still need battleships.. i just had conversation with my platoon sgt and he doesnt think we still need them .. there is still a use.. technology can use the same systems from back then and make improvements. i have seen drawings of the same battleships with stealth technology .. so awesome ... barrels were triangular.. still retained the circular barrel for the shell .. i know it would work .. yu could even put a nuclear reactor. on this platform...
You have to think. The person talking about the battleships and saying that a full 9 gun broadside will move the ship sideways. That is not true. Having served on the Missouri I have to say that is not true. You have to think. A ship that is 887 ft feet long 110 feet wide with a displacement of 58000 tons, there is no way that a full broadside will make the ship move sideways. Just by looking at the amount of firepower that it gives, you may automatic think that will do just that.
@sixx3times If I remember right the laws of physics are such that a battleship goes sideways less than one millimeter, and with that small a distance, it might as well be that they don't move sideways.
The Iowas were fabulously stable gun platforms but some of the older dreadnoughts would have had a noticable rolling effect. The Austro-Hungarian Tegethoff classes would be the most likely candidate I should imagine - large calibre guns, lots of armour and a heavy superstructure on a small, light hull. But I can't find any footage of them firing.
Also I do remember reading that there were at least 2 cases where ships did not fire a full broadside for fear of capsizing - for the Battlecruiser HMS Furious which was basically a large light cruiser hull with 2 18 inch guns, and for the Dreadnought HMS Agincourt which had 14 12.5 inch guns.
yeah it was a crazy idea. Furious was designed as a sort of Large Light Cruiser, her sisters Courageous and Glorious had 4 15" guns, I don't know what berk decided to give Furious 2 18" ones. Needless to say none of the 3 ships lasted in that form very long, as well as having pointless armament, they were very weakly armoured. All 3 were eventually converted to Aircraft Carriers by the second world war.
@HelmutVillam Wasn't HMS Glorious the carrier sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? I can spell those names but I can only pronounce the first correctly.
Also, how did a carrier get sunk by battleships? Everyone I've talked to said it's not possible, but I think that is just more of today's ignorant anti-battleship sentiment.
yes that's the same Glorious. It was sunk because it was under the command of a very inept submarine captain, and was only protected by a few destroyer escorts. when word came in of the presence of the battleships, it was not fully acted upon because of the mistrust of intelligence in the North sea area. Basically it was an almighty cockup and taught the royal navy a lesson in forming suitable carrier task forces.
how can you not love a gun platform like this? But in today's world, it's unnecessary. Subs and carriers (and their support groups) is about all ya need. Battleship construction ceased when carriers and "air power" arrived on the scene.
@danagal79 All that a carrier battle group can offer are missiles and aircraft, along with 5" projectiles, all of which can be stopped by missiles like the VLS Seawolf. See my earlier post.
Love the big battlewagons!! Unfortunately they are very very expensive to maintain and the barrels of the 16 inchers have a limited lifespan and I don't think that there are any replacements unless they use the ones from the mothballed sister ships. We no longer have the capability to manufacture new barrels.
A/C carriers require vastly larger crews, and those crews are paid a lot more. Jet fuel and bombs are more expensive than propellant and shells by far. Planes require pilots to be endangered. It is said that we would need about 1-2 billion to bring back Iowa or Wisconsin. The navy shelled out $4 billion apiece for the Nimitz's. They plan to shell out more than 12 billion for the Gerald R. Fords, of which there shall be three.
@Contrajoe An Aircraft Carrier can deliver its firepower, accurately, at a range of 600 miles, well beyond what a 16 inch gun would ever reach, even base bleed and advanced RAPs. Thats why Aircraft Carriers, ultimately, are better. Battleships, amazing though they are, are only of use in a 50 mile wide bubble, rather than the 1200 mile + bubble an aircraft carrier can inhabit. That's why the carriers win. Bigger bang for your buck. Sorry dude...
@EddieHfromBottom Actually no, as I said, airplanes easily go down if the enemy has any AA (look at vietnam). Also, I am not saying battleships are better, I am saying they should be in the navy, they don't really compare to carriers well (by that I mean it is like comparing a jade Buddha to a bowl of caustic soda). Plus, battleships are much cheaper. Finally, what are you sorry about? Were you expecting an offended response? You will not get one from me.
@Contrajoe Battleships are useless in modern naval combat. By the time the forces close within gun range, one side or the other will already have won the battle using missiles. Their only possible use is as floating artillery platforms against technologically backward enemies; aircraft can do the same job with far fewer civilian casualties.
Plus, carriers are much bigger, more vulnerable (bigger target, no armor), and need many, many more escorts. The missile hubris of the navy, if it stays around, will probably be our downfall. If anything is really dangerous, it would be diesel subs. In exercises, they repeatedly "sank" U.S. carriers, often undetected.
Not sure how battleships would have done in those exercises, but as a minutely smaller target, (883' x 108' for the battleship vs 1090+' x 130+' for carriers) and with greater armor, (remember, the Iowas are from WWII, when ships had to withstand torpedoes and 16" gunfire) "BBs" would likely have done slightly better, but any surface ship is very vulnerable without good ASW.
@Contrajoe Naval warfare today is all about spotitting the enemy fleet and overwhelming its defenses with missiles before the enemy spots you and does the same. The range of battleship guns is far too short, and stealthier ships are much easier to hide.
Even in WWII, there were only four battles in which battleships fired their guns at enemy ships--the breakout of the Bismarck, the First and Second Naval Battles of Guadalcanal, and Leyte Gulf (in which the American carriers went missing).
@acr08807 Actually, the range of their guns has been good enough for continued (and successful) operations since WWII up to Gulf War 1. There have been proposals to make a SCRAMjet rounds that go 100+ miles and still carry a good warhead. What you seem to forget is that battleships are not only sea-sea combatants, but also sea-land and sea-air, the former being the application in which they outdo all others. It is a critical application.
@Contrajoe Land-sea is the only thing battleships are any good at, but they aren't worth the expense. A battleship is ridiculously expensive ($300 - $500 million to upgrade systems, plus each needs 1,500 crew to operate), We didn't lack firepower in the second Gulf War without them, so the whole proposition is ludicrous, but if you want to say what naval program we should cut to pay for this, I'm all ears.
@acr08807 A Burke class destroyer is $900 million- $1.1 billion. We don't really need to cut a naval program. The navy is getting huge amounts of money as it is.
@Contrajoe If you want to add battleships, somebody has to pay for it. Washington isn't exactly awash in budget surplusses right now. At least an Aegis ship does something useful.
@acr08807 Battleships could be useful to, if we built one to modern standards. I'd say cut one of the Gerald R fords if we have to lose something. Supercarriers aren't the beauty they seem to be. They are large and unarmored. They also cost far more than a battleship.
@acr08807 dude its not about hiding its about showing yourself off then unleashing DEVASTATING POWER ok so imagine yourselft in a patch of island being rained down my these battleships
@Contrajoe: "reportedly" the interior is in good shape, as in not falling apart, being pretty much as it was left. I'm sure you know that even though money was procured for repairing turret #2, it was never repaired and was sealed (welded) shut with new parts ready to be installed sealed inside, which makes no sense. All 16 inch replacement guns (spares) for the BB's have been donated and there is no "ready to use" gun powder anymore. Again, "reportedly".
@rtech580 What even sucks balls more is that the foundries used to build their armament have closed up - ie: Bethlehem Steel, Springfield Armory (US Gov't, not present-day Springfield Armory, Inc).
Interesting that the Navy regs for donated ships say you can't fire up the galley to cook but, say nothing about the guns at all. Must be safer to use the guns then it is to cook.
The problem with the iowa's is that there is no infestructure to support them.
They were amazing ships but i think maybe we should try something more like the russians have donea battlecrusier....except one that works.
Needs to have alot of defenses and ALOT of room for missiles. Why not try a sea based ATACMS they can fly almost 200 miles just like the railgun....which has a long way to go....and are dang accurate.
@valcan321 The obvious trouble is that missiles can be shot down and the 5" guns of cruisers and destroyers today do not cause a whole lot of damage. Also, Russia's battle cruisers were not really; they were just giant DDG's
Adding to this, the VLS seawolf can intercept the 5" shells of today's cruisers and destroyers.
It can nudge a 16" round to throw it off course, but I am told the seawolf is incapable of actually stopping a 16" round. Thus, 16" size range shells are the only means of delivering large explosive power without the chance of getting stopped.
@Contrajoe You are misinformed. Maybe, just maybe, Seawolf could intercept a single projectile. But that is entirely insufficient. Even an old Sherman-class destroyer can send 220 rounds per minute down-range. Just one 5" mount from the same type of ship can reliably fire 40 rounds per minute.
Seawolf fire control is incapable of defending against a cannonade; let alone a barrage of Sunburn SS-N-22s.
@shortist2003 Ships today carry many seawolves, and I won't deny that the 5" is good weapon and good to have. For some reason, the anti-battleship, pro DDG group that I have run into (Most notably a danish guy called chrthiel) assume that the battleship cannot touch the modern destroyer, so I have had to use logic to make them realize the truth: DDG's (and any ship for that matter) are not and will never be a do all-end all.
@Contrajoe You eggheads - a lot of American ships in the battle saw real? your giant bucket - just a movie shoot can ... In the first, as the real battle - you pile into their pants and the fate of the Titanic will be jealous ... fucking cowboys from the village ...
@Contrajoe I am very peaceful person, but I had the lie of American television, and you are a child absorbs the CIA crap - themselves cease to think and write on the Internet, various American nonsense ... not seeing that you are not alone in the world you live ...
And if something you write - that no facts and accurate information - everything from finger sucked!
@silvermitriy I don't buy into American nonsense either, and I don't want to argue with someone who is so delusional that they'd be taken to an asylum in some places (not just the U.S., although, trust me, I know that country is screwed up, but it is actually doing well underneath the surface.
@Contrajoe To believe you that you see a lot of American propaganda? I believe! But the fact is a fact - not the Americans analogues Topol - M ";" Kashtan Close-in weapon system (CIWS) ", PANTSIR C1; S-300 / S-400; 9K58" SMERCH "BM-30, Artillery complex BEREG, MSTA-S; missiles - "Harpoon-RGM-84" and "Mosquito" - is first thing he remembered - but no analogues in America and not enough brains to do in the coming 20 years! If you felt like something from the note - then read the specifications...
@silvermitriy Your grammar is such that I had trouble reading that. I think both you Russian nationalists and American nationalists are delusional idiots. Any one who is a nationalist is a moron. Tell me I am stereotyping, but that has been told to me by my life experience in my many decades.
@shortist2003 I won't deny that 127's can do a lot of damage, I am denying that they alone are enough. To me, in the 1980's, we had the best navy: A good mix of DDG's, CVN's, and BB's.
I would like to find a complete list of what was wrong with Iowa. I know she failed sea trials initially, she couldn't make full speed, perhaps the power plant issue you mentioned. That was a big deal as the man in charge wanted to remove Iowa from service right then and he was over ruled.
I read that Iowa did poorly in war games with our Euro allies and was easily defeated in those games in 1985 (I think). I'll have to look on the Internet for detailed Iowa information.
Yes, the Port of LA doesn't want her in San Pedro as they say it would not help waterfront development. The Navy is firm about IOWA going to Mare Island, no matter how long it takes.
She will remain tied up in Siusan Bay "on hold" until further notice.
The Navy avoided "full broadsides" in the 80's due to stress on the ships. Photo ops of the Iowa's firing broadsides were done with six guns firing instead of all nine. The number 2 gun in each turret usually didn't fire in these "photo ops" of the battleships in the 80's.
@rtech580 Usually that was the case. There are photos that show all nine guns. In those, usually one barrel in each turret is slightly more recoiled than the others, indicating it was fired a little less than a second before the others. When the navy had the Iowas, they didn't have a clue what they had, as exemplified by their severe underestimation of battleships as a concept.
They loved to show them off in the 80's and early 90's but, couldn't retire them fast enough. I know some of it was cost as they are very expensive to maintain. The crew numbers were very high as well. The Iowa incident didn't help their cause at all, even though it was of no fault of the ship itself. The Iowa got short changed from the sea trials on, rushed into service before she was ready.
@rtech580 Indeed, if I remember correctly, there were about 75 things including the centergun rammer on turret #2 that needed lots of work and/or replacing. The funds instead went modifying the power plant. The cost of the decision? 47 sailors, billions of dollars, and all too rapid decommissioning of warships that could serve us well even now.
I dont believe full broadsides could move the 58000 tons ship sideways.. if thats true then the turrets will rip off the ships, remember that turrets are not attached to the ship, they just sit on rollers.. or maybe the guns being blown backward by recoil and punch straight through the back of the turrets if the force is sufficient to move it sideways lol
Dont need a nuclear tipped Torp. Most of todays conventional torpedoes like the USN's Mark-48 ADCAP is enough to break the keels on the largest warships...including the Iowa's and Nimitz carriers. They dont hit the hull, they explode under it using a "water hammer" effect.
Bikini Atoll...two of 4 battleships sank. All of which survived the ABLE (air burst) blast. The BAKER (underwater) sank the Arkansas and Nagato. The Pennsylvania and Nevada survived both, towed off and scuttled.
The ship does not move sideways in the water when it fires all of its gun. That is a myth.
ut000bs 3 days ago
The Last Iowa USS Iowa (BB-61) is Retiring to the Port of Los Angeles, to serve as a Museum Ship @ the Pacific Battleship Center.
Subman758 1 week ago
The Exocet missle would bounce off the New Jersey. That's a cold hard fact. But the problem with these ships is getting parts.
anniers7 2 weeks ago
That is one thing I have to say about our Navy... We have some helltatious guns! Awesome!!!
Puff29646 2 months ago
exocett missiles are obsolete know but the new range are not they would vaporise a battle ship within seconds on contact and sells can only go 25 miles missiles come from further afield and battle ships are always visible stealth and secrecy are way to go battle ships have their place but not in modern wars
motorguzzi100 4 months ago
this ship must be donated to PHilippines becu\ause they need to guard their cost against chinese.
patrixcasila15 5 months ago
The BBs were alloted 5 minutes to fire...the Jersey fired a battle ship broad side and a rounds out of their 5" battery. The Misssouri on the other hand utilized all of the time frame to show just what a BB can do. Each broadside totaled 9 tons of ammunition going out from just the 16" guns. With a rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute per barrel...BBs could actually fire approximately 90 tons of ammo in a 5 minute period...not too shabby...By the way...I was stationed on her for this.
cajunbone 6 months ago
this was during an exercise off the coast of Korea. The New Jersy in front and the Missouri following were alloted 5 minutes to fire on an area to demonstrate the firepower of the Battleships. The ship that was sunk was a target vessel that the aircraft were to sink...if they did not sink the vessel, the battleships were to complete the job.
cajunbone 6 months ago
bwahahaha imagina taking one of these on a joy ride
stickmanpwner64 6 months ago
battleships, the coolest war weapons ever
patsdynasty101 8 months ago
The age of the Battleship is done. No other country on the Earth has anything to even match our "poot butt fast Frigates! "
Elect4Sure 8 months ago
@Elect4Sure They don't need to match it, they just need to kill it. In the case of our modern navy, that's not hard at all, and battleships really should return.
Contrajoe 8 months ago
@Elect4Sure well you know dude your frigate has missiles ok no comment but do you think those missiles can penetrate a battleships armor?? and plus those otto melara or otto breda are just a battleships lets say aa guns?
capstabkong 6 months ago
watch?v=2piJQYJdYCQ I feel confident that this and Sink-ex 89 show the Missouri at the same time in the ship's life.
Contrajoe 9 months ago
no whales tropical fish or assorted other sea life were harmed in the making of this video
smurfsex 9 months ago
Funny, you can hear my high speed slr camera in the video
MrPatriotOne 11 months ago
This is the Iowa and Wisconsin Show of Force 1989. I was standing next to the guy who took this video.
BM3 Gibbons USS Blue Ridge LCC-19
MrPatriotOne 11 months ago
@MrPatriotOne Actually, I think this is NJ and Mighty Mo
Contrajoe 10 months ago
@MrPatriotOne OR atleast, that's what I've heard from other people and a webpage
Contrajoe 10 months ago
Im assuming these are dreadnought class?
OUguy87 11 months ago
Are you on fire?
No, that's just our guns smoking.
OneEyedJack1970 11 months ago
ITS WW3 ! Seeeee ! I told you the Americans couldnt get along . Now theyre shooting at each other !
scottweise18 11 months ago
I have a firing solution on the Iranian gunboat, sir.
Excellent.........you may fire when ready, and destroy it.
warp9p65 1 year ago
what are they firing at?
TheBassanova 1 year ago
@TheBassanova The ocean . Its just a military exercise I'm guessing .
scottweise18 11 months ago
@TheBassanova They are firing at hulk ship aka target drone
MrPatriotOne 11 months ago
all i can say is wow...
northwestbomber 1 year ago
either of this recomission and upgrade (of course) or build a new generation it will be costly but worth the fire power and defense of this new generation of BB will be worthy of its cost, it will come back after a long congressional debate, but something will happen that will persuade and enable the the USA to build a new generation of BB( seems to be a fantasy but try to live longer so you will witness the new genration of BB)
ceboym 1 year ago
@ceboym I doubt that. We're more likely to be involved in a nuclear war before a new generation of these beautiful ships sees the light of day.
eagleye116 1 year ago
@HaloCE14 Don't worry baby battleship will come back entirely of new highly sophisticated design but the principle is still the same, the 16 inch will again show action but it will have more punching power longer range, it can can engaged in conventional distance as far as the horizon and more than that, anti aircraft will coupe up wiht the new system against air attack, and from underwater and ground attack, it will be use for special attack that will paralyse the enemy and get away quickly
ceboym 1 year ago
Vote up if the Navy should recommission at least one of these battleships along with the reproduction of 16 inch shells, gunpowder, and modernization on one of these battleships. The use of these battleships in the Gulf War showed the capability of a battleship on a modern battlefield. The enemies were deeply intimidated by these ships and surrendered immediately. Plus no modern weapon system can pierce the battleship's armor
Kulwicki 1 year ago 45
@Kulwicki ---you are right! During DS in '91, the press asked the Capt. of the Wisconsin what he would do if he got hit by a Silk Worm Missile. He said he would send a guy out with a broom and sweep the wreckage over the side, then repaint the area of the ship it hit! haha it was great!
Vindicator58 1 year ago
@Kulwicki the navy still owns battleship wisconsin
eb8fan 1 year ago
@Kulwicki the navy still owns battleship wisconsin, besides, there were designs for a more powerful class of battleship that was never built
eb8fan 1 year ago
@Kulwicki shame they take so much to maintain and run as opposed to more modern surface combatants with anti-ship missiles such as the burke destroyers and tico cruisers
aschaefer04 1 year ago
@Kulwicki 'no modern weapon system can pierce the battleship's armor'..I've got a few dozen anti-ship who'd beg to differ..not to mention subs, as was the fate of the Belgrano.
comanchio1976 11 months ago
@Kulwicki I agree, according to one of my books the navy had developed a new charge that doulbled the range of the 16s but they decommissioned before it became available, it would supposed to be implemented in 94,I got into a youtube duel with a guy today who insisted the yamatos were the greatest battleships ever built,he could not comprehend we had superior fire control and the 16 inch 50 cal. had almost as much penetration power as the jap 18.1s.
dhamrick100 9 months ago
@Kulwicki I agree, according to one of my books the navy had developed a new charge that doulbled the range of the 16s but they decommissioned before it became available, it would supposed to be implemented in 94,I got into a youtube duel with a guy today who insisted the yamatos were the greatest battleships ever built,he could not comprehend we had superior fire control and the 16 inch 50 cal. had almost as much penetration power as the jap 18.1s.
dhamrick100 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kulwicki I agree, according to one of my books the navy had developed a new charge that doulbled the range of the 16s but they decommissioned before it became available, it would supposed to be implemented in 94,I got into a youtube duel with a guy today who insisted the yamatos were the greatest battleships ever built,he could not comprehend we had superior fire control and the 16 inch 50 cal. had almost as much penetration power as the jap 18.1s.
dhamrick100 9 months ago
@Kulwicki If anything the United States should recommission the four Iowa Class Battleships to do ports of call around the world. These ships are the ultimate expression of power.
lander4545 6 months ago
@Kulwicki It will never happen, as long as we have Barack (WimpyDonkey) Obama and his fellow, despised donkeys running this country. He hates our military, so folks, next time you vote, VOTE FOR A REAL AMERICAN, not a muzzie/commie like him.
soco13466 5 months ago
@soco13466 Obama is the wimp who killed Osama, AND the wimp who told the seal team if they have to, fight there way out of any situation. He's also the wimp who's put more drones in the air.
Boy, what a wimp.
chocoboy02 4 months ago
@chocoboy02 Obama killed Osama? What a brave man, why he even took credit. Get real, man you know and we all know he hates the military AND America.
soco13466 4 months ago
@soco13466
He hates America? What a terrible man, you even said so! Get real, man you know and we all know he loves this country and wants to further expand our infrastructure like that of FDR.
Saying he hates America is damn right stupid. He wouldn't have become president of a nation he hated.
It was Obama's orders to kill Osama.
chocoboy02 4 months ago
@Kulwicki sorry but these old lady's should stay the way they are and commander Brindel uss stark thought the same as you as a jet fighter put two aerospatiale am39 exocets into his ship which had all modern technology on board. He was forced to resign sorry
motorguzzi100 4 months ago
@motorguzzi100
did USS Stark have a 12.1 inch armoured belt and a 7.5 inch deck? That level of protection is designed to be immune to 16 inch armour piercing rounds. An exocet would cause cosmetic damage at the most.
HelmutVillam 4 months ago
@Kulwicki Just in case they are ever needed, the Wisconsin and Missouri will be part of the "Mothball Fleet" so they can be reactivated in a very short period of time. Iowa and NJ will stay as they are: A Tribute to US Navy Power.
mvandeneede 4 months ago
@mvandeneede
to be realistic only one of these 16" turrets are needed to provide the fire support needed from a Battleship. They could get away with completely remodelling Wisconsin or Missouri as a double ended guided missile ship, retain a fore turret and place the fragile systems at the rear. The guns and mechanics of the removed turrets can be kept as parts or replacements. the 5" dual turrets are quite useless though.
HelmutVillam 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mvandeneede
When did you hear about this then?
vikingsmb 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Kulwicki A single missile.. this is all it takes to disable one of these ships be4 they can even fire off a shot from those 16" guns... these ships have SHITTY attack range and even more SHITTY radar profile.
Yes I agree they are so damn cool but honestly, nowdays the only place I would dare to send em is against bedouins!!
Nox665 2 months ago
@Nox665
what will a modern anti-ship missile do against face hardened 12 inch armour?
very little, that's what!
HelmutVillam 2 months ago
@Nox665 "these ships have SHITTY attack range"
That`s why they where equipped with the CWIS anti-missle system..
1400 Nautical mile harpoon missiles, in my opinion, is not that "shitty"...seriously though, the biggest reason these Iowas will be missed is for their shore bombardment capabilities. They were used in direct support of Marine landings.
Alone the Iowas would be toast, however when used as part of a battle group, with carriers and subs makes a very formidable force.
snoman003 1 week ago
@Kulwicki a harpoon can
sycofiend71 2 weeks ago
@HaloCE14 if battleships were on the seas these days... that would be a bad time because we would be going to war
Optipleex 1 year ago
@Optipleex That makes no sense whatsoever.
archer49d 1 year ago
I wonder what it would sound like on a rubber dingey between the ships and whatever there shooting at?
TimHortonP 1 year ago
@TimHortonP awesome...
Guitfiddlejase 1 year ago
What were they shooting at?
damaged01 1 year ago
@damaged01 LOL
PEANUTLOVEDADY 1 year ago
@damaged01 I hope some pirates at gulf of adelain...
lintu25 1 year ago
@damaged01 Later in the video, you see the target ship.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
日本の戦艦の方が凄い
okayamatomokuma 1 year ago
cant wait for new rail gun generation of battleships to come.
HawkXe 1 year ago
@HaloCE14 To me, I think a new design entirely is at least worth a try. The mark 48 torpedo, antiship missiles, and RADAR have changed so much lately that a new design is warranted.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
10 points for the U.S.
JuggaloKaez216 1 year ago
@HaloCE14
they will within the next 5-10 years
btw I'm from the UK :)
vikingsmb 1 year ago
One guy commented here, "Imagine if it were Yamato and Musashi"
What if it were Montana and, say, Ohio?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
wow that was awesome.
Why2bless 1 year ago
i love BB dammmnn so much... wish they were still on the seas again
zaa255 1 year ago
They will return, once the real war comes, those high costs, high technology weapons can only works in very limited battlefields, others will decided by this type real war weapons. I love battleships, they are the best weapons human made.
netwill08ms 1 year ago
These ships should be back into commission. They are amazing. We should build a new one, and have more anti-air capabilities(reason why it was taken off was because even the best of battleships are easy air targets). And better capabilities and technology of our century and beyond. An improved battleship would be liked by all.
Ctasker5 1 year ago 3
Refit the battle ships with nuclear reactors and the new rail gun XFSS..between those two systems u cut out about 500 men..yeah it would be costly but the DDX and the Burke class DD are proving to be to costly already and thus they have been reduced or cancelled..this fails to provide a naval surface to surface fire support system provided to marine forces in the past by the 2 battleships Iowa and Wisconsin (previously 3 BB62 USS New Jersey)..congress requires a naval protection system that is
Topher2088 1 year ago
Yes for the nuclear reactors The us navy experimented on the mighty mo a 16 INCH SABOt heavy shell I think the range was 112 miles
steamingpoopfart 1 year ago
Point being I think given newer missile tech and new guided artillery shells the dream of seeing heavy gunships on the oceans may not be too far fetched. And of course people can piss and moan all day about taxes but when you see a MASSIVE fireball erupt from a ship you helped pay for you are absolutely certain at least that tax money was well spent!
BrimstoneMerc 1 year ago
I love these boats. Yes the carrier projects fire over a very long distance but one must still put a pilot in harms way to project that firepower. The battleship allows one to project it as well although over much shorter distances. The Navy was on to something with the addition of cruise missiles on battleships. And with next generation missiles that promise to be more precise and longer ranged than ever before the Navy may well phase pilots and carriers out in 50 years.
BrimstoneMerc 1 year ago 2
wow awsome!
saprazz 1 year ago
Imagine the Musashi and Yamoto doing the same thing...
DoctorDreh1988 1 year ago 7
Russian rockets,anti-ship missiles and air defense - the best in the world! Americans as will see them in the nightmares the such dreams - they wake up in a cold sweat - running faster to shit, and then to relieve stress are eating more hamburgers and grow fat! The more fatty Pindos in the US Navy - the closer to the bottom of their fleet and the faster they will sink;)))
silvermitriy 1 year ago
These ships have the most conventional floating firepower in the world. Imgine putting these ships to sea as a pirate deterrent. I think they would reconsider attacking any ship they come across.
UAL012 1 year ago
@UAL012 You know it!
Contrajoe 1 year ago
destroyers dont cause alot of damage??? its not missles they firing but a shot weighing about the same as a minivan from a long ways off you dont see it coming till its to late ..destoys what eva it hits hence the name destroyer!! that they will! shoot a shot down like that with what? a missle ? they dont know its coming!
davofid 1 year ago
@davofid Actually, the 3 -5" shells don't way that much, plus the Seawolf is fully capable of stopping them
Contrajoe 1 year ago
*wiegh
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Its sad that one fighter bomber can take these beasts out in one strafing run.
GoodEvenings 1 year ago
@GoodEvenings If they were built to current standards, that wouldn't be true
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Thats alot of smoke.
NorthSideCartel 1 year ago
What year was this?
adfgfds 1 year ago
@adfgfds This is PAC EX 89.
The ships are New Jersey (BB-62, Front) and Missouri (BB-63, back). Enterprise (CVN-65) and Nimitz (CVN-68) were the carriers, I think.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
i totally agree with contrajoe... we still need battleships.. i just had conversation with my platoon sgt and he doesnt think we still need them .. there is still a use.. technology can use the same systems from back then and make improvements. i have seen drawings of the same battleships with stealth technology .. so awesome ... barrels were triangular.. still retained the circular barrel for the shell .. i know it would work .. yu could even put a nuclear reactor. on this platform...
cutter043 1 year ago
You have to think. The person talking about the battleships and saying that a full 9 gun broadside will move the ship sideways. That is not true. Having served on the Missouri I have to say that is not true. You have to think. A ship that is 887 ft feet long 110 feet wide with a displacement of 58000 tons, there is no way that a full broadside will make the ship move sideways. Just by looking at the amount of firepower that it gives, you may automatic think that will do just that.
sixx3times 1 year ago
@sixx3times If I remember right the laws of physics are such that a battleship goes sideways less than one millimeter, and with that small a distance, it might as well be that they don't move sideways.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
The Iowas were fabulously stable gun platforms but some of the older dreadnoughts would have had a noticable rolling effect. The Austro-Hungarian Tegethoff classes would be the most likely candidate I should imagine - large calibre guns, lots of armour and a heavy superstructure on a small, light hull. But I can't find any footage of them firing.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
Also I do remember reading that there were at least 2 cases where ships did not fire a full broadside for fear of capsizing - for the Battlecruiser HMS Furious which was basically a large light cruiser hull with 2 18 inch guns, and for the Dreadnought HMS Agincourt which had 14 12.5 inch guns.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam A battlecruiser with only two big guns?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Tell me more?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
yeah it was a crazy idea. Furious was designed as a sort of Large Light Cruiser, her sisters Courageous and Glorious had 4 15" guns, I don't know what berk decided to give Furious 2 18" ones. Needless to say none of the 3 ships lasted in that form very long, as well as having pointless armament, they were very weakly armoured. All 3 were eventually converted to Aircraft Carriers by the second world war.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam Wasn't HMS Glorious the carrier sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? I can spell those names but I can only pronounce the first correctly.
Also, how did a carrier get sunk by battleships? Everyone I've talked to said it's not possible, but I think that is just more of today's ignorant anti-battleship sentiment.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe
yes that's the same Glorious. It was sunk because it was under the command of a very inept submarine captain, and was only protected by a few destroyer escorts. when word came in of the presence of the battleships, it was not fully acted upon because of the mistrust of intelligence in the North sea area. Basically it was an almighty cockup and taught the royal navy a lesson in forming suitable carrier task forces.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam Couldn't they have just sent out scouts from the Glorious?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
If carriers really were better than battleships, i guess it was a "glorious" moment for big-gun ships?
Get it?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
how can you not love a gun platform like this? But in today's world, it's unnecessary. Subs and carriers (and their support groups) is about all ya need. Battleship construction ceased when carriers and "air power" arrived on the scene.
danagal79 1 year ago
@danagal79 All that a carrier battle group can offer are missiles and aircraft, along with 5" projectiles, all of which can be stopped by missiles like the VLS Seawolf. See my earlier post.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
The navy needs to look into battleships very seriously.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Love the big battlewagons!! Unfortunately they are very very expensive to maintain and the barrels of the 16 inchers have a limited lifespan and I don't think that there are any replacements unless they use the ones from the mothballed sister ships. We no longer have the capability to manufacture new barrels.
alexsm5682 1 year ago
@alexsm5682 That doesn't mean we couldn't easily regain that capability.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@alexsm5682 You think battleships are costly?
A/C carriers require vastly larger crews, and those crews are paid a lot more. Jet fuel and bombs are more expensive than propellant and shells by far. Planes require pilots to be endangered. It is said that we would need about 1-2 billion to bring back Iowa or Wisconsin. The navy shelled out $4 billion apiece for the Nimitz's. They plan to shell out more than 12 billion for the Gerald R. Fords, of which there shall be three.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe An Aircraft Carrier can deliver its firepower, accurately, at a range of 600 miles, well beyond what a 16 inch gun would ever reach, even base bleed and advanced RAPs. Thats why Aircraft Carriers, ultimately, are better. Battleships, amazing though they are, are only of use in a 50 mile wide bubble, rather than the 1200 mile + bubble an aircraft carrier can inhabit. That's why the carriers win. Bigger bang for your buck. Sorry dude...
EddieHfromBottom 1 year ago
@EddieHfromBottom Actually no, as I said, airplanes easily go down if the enemy has any AA (look at vietnam). Also, I am not saying battleships are better, I am saying they should be in the navy, they don't really compare to carriers well (by that I mean it is like comparing a jade Buddha to a bowl of caustic soda). Plus, battleships are much cheaper. Finally, what are you sorry about? Were you expecting an offended response? You will not get one from me.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Battleships are useless in modern naval combat. By the time the forces close within gun range, one side or the other will already have won the battle using missiles. Their only possible use is as floating artillery platforms against technologically backward enemies; aircraft can do the same job with far fewer civilian casualties.
acr08807 1 year ago
@acr08807 Nonsense! Airplanes are far costlier, and missiles are shot down easily.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Plus, carriers are much bigger, more vulnerable (bigger target, no armor), and need many, many more escorts. The missile hubris of the navy, if it stays around, will probably be our downfall. If anything is really dangerous, it would be diesel subs. In exercises, they repeatedly "sank" U.S. carriers, often undetected.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Not sure how battleships would have done in those exercises, but as a minutely smaller target, (883' x 108' for the battleship vs 1090+' x 130+' for carriers) and with greater armor, (remember, the Iowas are from WWII, when ships had to withstand torpedoes and 16" gunfire) "BBs" would likely have done slightly better, but any surface ship is very vulnerable without good ASW.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Naval warfare today is all about spotitting the enemy fleet and overwhelming its defenses with missiles before the enemy spots you and does the same. The range of battleship guns is far too short, and stealthier ships are much easier to hide.
Even in WWII, there were only four battles in which battleships fired their guns at enemy ships--the breakout of the Bismarck, the First and Second Naval Battles of Guadalcanal, and Leyte Gulf (in which the American carriers went missing).
acr08807 1 year ago
@acr08807 Actually, the range of their guns has been good enough for continued (and successful) operations since WWII up to Gulf War 1. There have been proposals to make a SCRAMjet rounds that go 100+ miles and still carry a good warhead. What you seem to forget is that battleships are not only sea-sea combatants, but also sea-land and sea-air, the former being the application in which they outdo all others. It is a critical application.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Land-sea is the only thing battleships are any good at, but they aren't worth the expense. A battleship is ridiculously expensive ($300 - $500 million to upgrade systems, plus each needs 1,500 crew to operate), We didn't lack firepower in the second Gulf War without them, so the whole proposition is ludicrous, but if you want to say what naval program we should cut to pay for this, I'm all ears.
acr08807 1 year ago
@acr08807 A Burke class destroyer is $900 million- $1.1 billion. We don't really need to cut a naval program. The navy is getting huge amounts of money as it is.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe If you want to add battleships, somebody has to pay for it. Washington isn't exactly awash in budget surplusses right now. At least an Aegis ship does something useful.
acr08807 1 year ago
@acr08807 Battleships could be useful to, if we built one to modern standards. I'd say cut one of the Gerald R fords if we have to lose something. Supercarriers aren't the beauty they seem to be. They are large and unarmored. They also cost far more than a battleship.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Why not just fit some reactive armor and 30 inch guns to a nuclear powered supertanker? That would show the commies that we mean business.
acr08807 1 year ago
@acr08807 That would basically result in a battleship. Thus, my wish would be granted. It makes sense as an idea.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe Just don't give me the credit for the idea.
acr08807 1 year ago
@acr08807 Why not? you are the one who suggested it.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@acr08807 dude its not about hiding its about showing yourself off then unleashing DEVASTATING POWER ok so imagine yourselft in a patch of island being rained down my these battleships
capstabkong 6 months ago
@capstabkong Since you don't understand naval tactics 101, I don't have much to worry about.
acr08807 6 months ago
wow ur far away theres around a 15 second delay between shots and sound and wht are they firing at?
sweetsongman1 1 year ago
I think they were firing at an UNREP, which is visible later in the video.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
If you look at BB-61 in Google maps, there is a tug pulling up beside it!
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe: Maybe the crew needed to use the port a potty that's been stationed on the Iowa.
The Navy certainly removed just about everything from her exterior from looking at the photos.
Whoever winds up getting her will have to have very large pockets full of money for restoration.
Interior is reportedly in very good shape.
rtech580 1 year ago
@rtech580 Iowa has been sitting largely untouched for how long and the interior is in good shape?! What about the interior of turret #2?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe: "reportedly" the interior is in good shape, as in not falling apart, being pretty much as it was left. I'm sure you know that even though money was procured for repairing turret #2, it was never repaired and was sealed (welded) shut with new parts ready to be installed sealed inside, which makes no sense. All 16 inch replacement guns (spares) for the BB's have been donated and there is no "ready to use" gun powder anymore. Again, "reportedly".
rtech580 1 year ago
@rtech580 What even sucks balls more is that the foundries used to build their armament have closed up - ie: Bethlehem Steel, Springfield Armory (US Gov't, not present-day Springfield Armory, Inc).
purpleravenstar 1 year ago
"Whoever winds up getting her will have to have very large pockets full of money for restoration."
Bill gates lives in Washington, he could go down to California and help.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Interesting that the Navy regs for donated ships say you can't fire up the galley to cook but, say nothing about the guns at all. Must be safer to use the guns then it is to cook.
rtech580 1 year ago
I visited the victory ship in Tampa a long time ago (that city is god-awful) and they told me the kitchen is still operated when they go on a cruise.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Why was this "thumbs downed"? Tampa is a god-awful place. It is just stripclubs, crime, and terrible traffic. I went there. It was hardly worth it.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
not for the enviormentalists :D
pwnzerBG 1 year ago
@pwnzerBG What exactly do you mean?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
look at the fog they made
pwnzerBG 1 year ago
@pwnzerBG Excellent point - I can see why environmentalists would hate these, but (to me) carriers are worse because of all those airplanes' exhaust.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
indeed, but looks awesome though :P
pwnzerBG 1 year ago 2
@pwnzerBG Very true. I think nothing looks cooler than battleships doing their job - Firing!
Contrajoe 1 year ago
The problem with the iowa's is that there is no infestructure to support them.
They were amazing ships but i think maybe we should try something more like the russians have donea battlecrusier....except one that works.
Needs to have alot of defenses and ALOT of room for missiles. Why not try a sea based ATACMS they can fly almost 200 miles just like the railgun....which has a long way to go....and are dang accurate.
valcan321 1 year ago
@valcan321 The obvious trouble is that missiles can be shot down and the 5" guns of cruisers and destroyers today do not cause a whole lot of damage. Also, Russia's battle cruisers were not really; they were just giant DDG's
Contrajoe 1 year ago 14
At least the kirov's were...
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Adding to this, the VLS seawolf can intercept the 5" shells of today's cruisers and destroyers.
It can nudge a 16" round to throw it off course, but I am told the seawolf is incapable of actually stopping a 16" round. Thus, 16" size range shells are the only means of delivering large explosive power without the chance of getting stopped.
Contrajoe 1 year ago 2
@Contrajoe You are misinformed. Maybe, just maybe, Seawolf could intercept a single projectile. But that is entirely insufficient. Even an old Sherman-class destroyer can send 220 rounds per minute down-range. Just one 5" mount from the same type of ship can reliably fire 40 rounds per minute.
Seawolf fire control is incapable of defending against a cannonade; let alone a barrage of Sunburn SS-N-22s.
shortist2003 1 year ago
@shortist2003 Ships today carry many seawolves, and I won't deny that the 5" is good weapon and good to have. For some reason, the anti-battleship, pro DDG group that I have run into (Most notably a danish guy called chrthiel) assume that the battleship cannot touch the modern destroyer, so I have had to use logic to make them realize the truth: DDG's (and any ship for that matter) are not and will never be a do all-end all.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe You eggheads - a lot of American ships in the battle saw real? your giant bucket - just a movie shoot can ... In the first, as the real battle - you pile into their pants and the fate of the Titanic will be jealous ... fucking cowboys from the village ...
silvermitriy 1 year ago
@silvermitriy LOL RUSSIAN NATIONALIST
You guys are the most delusional people of all time.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe I am very peaceful person, but I had the lie of American television, and you are a child absorbs the CIA crap - themselves cease to think and write on the Internet, various American nonsense ... not seeing that you are not alone in the world you live ...
And if something you write - that no facts and accurate information - everything from finger sucked!
silvermitriy 1 year ago
@silvermitriy I don't buy into American nonsense either, and I don't want to argue with someone who is so delusional that they'd be taken to an asylum in some places (not just the U.S., although, trust me, I know that country is screwed up, but it is actually doing well underneath the surface.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe To believe you that you see a lot of American propaganda? I believe! But the fact is a fact - not the Americans analogues Topol - M ";" Kashtan Close-in weapon system (CIWS) ", PANTSIR C1; S-300 / S-400; 9K58" SMERCH "BM-30, Artillery complex BEREG, MSTA-S; missiles - "Harpoon-RGM-84" and "Mosquito" - is first thing he remembered - but no analogues in America and not enough brains to do in the coming 20 years! If you felt like something from the note - then read the specifications...
silvermitriy 1 year ago
@silvermitriy Your grammar is such that I had trouble reading that. I think both you Russian nationalists and American nationalists are delusional idiots. Any one who is a nationalist is a moron. Tell me I am stereotyping, but that has been told to me by my life experience in my many decades.
Contrajoe 1 year ago 2
@Contrajoe More than just a few would argue your damage assessment of 127mm guns; particularly in rapid-fire from multiple mounts.
shortist2003 1 year ago
@shortist2003 I figured
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@shortist2003 I won't deny that 127's can do a lot of damage, I am denying that they alone are enough. To me, in the 1980's, we had the best navy: A good mix of DDG's, CVN's, and BB's.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
I would like to find a complete list of what was wrong with Iowa. I know she failed sea trials initially, she couldn't make full speed, perhaps the power plant issue you mentioned. That was a big deal as the man in charge wanted to remove Iowa from service right then and he was over ruled.
I read that Iowa did poorly in war games with our Euro allies and was easily defeated in those games in 1985 (I think). I'll have to look on the Internet for detailed Iowa information.
rtech580 1 year ago
@rtech580 I think there are several websites dedicated to Iowa. Perhaps they have some stuff to say?
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Yes, the Port of LA doesn't want her in San Pedro as they say it would not help waterfront development. The Navy is firm about IOWA going to Mare Island, no matter how long it takes.
She will remain tied up in Siusan Bay "on hold" until further notice.
rtech580 1 year ago
@rtech580 I can see why they would be firm, mare island is very near Suisan bay, where BB-61 is.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
@Contrajoe There are environmental issues with dredging the channel to get IOWA to Mare Island.
Plus, donations have not been pouring in with the state of the economy. I don't see her moving soon.
rtech580 1 year ago
The Navy avoided "full broadsides" in the 80's due to stress on the ships. Photo ops of the Iowa's firing broadsides were done with six guns firing instead of all nine. The number 2 gun in each turret usually didn't fire in these "photo ops" of the battleships in the 80's.
rtech580 1 year ago
@rtech580 Usually that was the case. There are photos that show all nine guns. In those, usually one barrel in each turret is slightly more recoiled than the others, indicating it was fired a little less than a second before the others. When the navy had the Iowas, they didn't have a clue what they had, as exemplified by their severe underestimation of battleships as a concept.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
Strange behavior by the Navy regarding the Iowas.
They loved to show them off in the 80's and early 90's but, couldn't retire them fast enough. I know some of it was cost as they are very expensive to maintain. The crew numbers were very high as well. The Iowa incident didn't help their cause at all, even though it was of no fault of the ship itself. The Iowa got short changed from the sea trials on, rushed into service before she was ready.
rtech580 1 year ago
@rtech580 Indeed, if I remember correctly, there were about 75 things including the centergun rammer on turret #2 that needed lots of work and/or replacing. The funds instead went modifying the power plant. The cost of the decision? 47 sailors, billions of dollars, and all too rapid decommissioning of warships that could serve us well even now.
Contrajoe 1 year ago
I read the report recently, all I can say is OMG!
rtech580 1 year ago
wtf????
even a full salvo of 9 16" guns cannot move the ship sideways. what is this guy talking about?
NordJager 1 year ago
Actually it does according to the laws of Newtonian Physics.
The Distance the ship displaces on the opposite side during a full broadside is negligibly small.
tamenga88 1 year ago
@NordJager
I dont believe full broadsides could move the 58000 tons ship sideways.. if thats true then the turrets will rip off the ships, remember that turrets are not attached to the ship, they just sit on rollers.. or maybe the guns being blown backward by recoil and punch straight through the back of the turrets if the force is sufficient to move it sideways lol
Gdaus72 1 year ago
Cute to hear the bark of the 5" guns compared to the roar of the 16s.
khanrhy 2 years ago 3
dont we (US Navy) have torpedos that hit to detonate as well as the ones that go off under the target?
76hodges 2 years ago
USS Arkansas was turned 90 degrees upright before settling down on the bikini bottom with the Baker test.
A nuclear torpedo just makes about everything sinkable.
tamenga88 2 years ago
@tamenga88
Dont need a nuclear tipped Torp. Most of todays conventional torpedoes like the USN's Mark-48 ADCAP is enough to break the keels on the largest warships...including the Iowa's and Nimitz carriers. They dont hit the hull, they explode under it using a "water hammer" effect.
Bikini Atoll...two of 4 battleships sank. All of which survived the ABLE (air burst) blast. The BAKER (underwater) sank the Arkansas and Nagato. The Pennsylvania and Nevada survived both, towed off and scuttled.
Cirux321 2 years ago
@Cirux321 New York was also towed, and Prinz Eugen. A couple battleships survived, but the carriers were sunk.
Contrajoe 2 years ago