Slim Fast. 40 years ahead of the fitness craze. Able to fit through the Panama Canal is Iowa-class only weakness. With greater Beam would increase area for more powerful machinery, deeper lateral/torpedo defense and more deck space for weaponry topside. Slim Fast.
Not really a weakness if it meant access to both oceans. That’s what navies are for. Having large ships that can’t get where they have to go, like Tirpitz, is a bigger weakness.
Had a relative who was responsible for planning in the Navy Department back in the 80s, he said the Iowas were intended to have their own task forces like a surface action group centered around one or two Iowas also add to it two or one cruisers, at least 4 destroyers, 2-4 Frigates and if possible attack submarine screen. The purpose of the SAG was to lure out any Soviet surface assets like the Kirovs, Slavas or the DDGs into a pitched ship to ship or task force to task force action, also if the Navy wanted to, baiting Soviet attack submarines to attack the formation, while ASW aircraft and helicopters can detect and overwhelm the Soviet submarines trying to attack the formation. the Navy has more than 500 ships back in the 80s and they can spare destroyers, cruisers and frigates to screen the Iowas to complete the Battleship Task force composition, the fact that the Navy can provide screening ships for the Iowas and also provide screens for aircraft carrier task forces was mind boggling, it was surely an overwhelming firepower if there's a naval war against the Soviets. Also the battleships SAG can be seen especially during Beirut crisis and the Gulf War, in the Gulf War the formation was mixed screening ships from other countries. As mentioned in the video, the Iowa SAG can also support amphibious operation or conduct surface bombardment of their own like New Jersey during Vietnam, there were plans to bombard Murmansk harbor, where the Task Force had to dash from GIUK gap through Soviet submarine gauntlet and aircraft with carrier aircraft support and bombard their naval base at Murmansk with Tomahawk missiles.
Having all that open deck space aft for aviation was a big plus. It probably was another factor in the decision to keep them on the books so long. Much better than the Brit solution... which frankly is true about nearly everything regarding the class.
To be fair, the fact that nobody has made proper battleships since WWII means that the Iowa's are the defacto state of the art in battleship design. The individual systems may not be, but the whole package is.
As a minor quibble, the USN had several capital ships built before the Washington Naval Treaty that could generate much more electrical power than the _Iowa_-class could. Of course, that's because they *needed* to generate lots of electrical power, just to get underway: they had turbo-electric propulsion, which used electric motors, rather than geared turbines, to move the ships. That's clearly not a fair comparison to the _Iowa_-class, which could generate 10,000 kW of electrical power available for ship systems, while steaming at 30+ knots.
There is probably a video on this already but what is the conning tower and why or why not was it armored? A video on that would be great, also awesome content
I've always thought that the bow AA gunners on the Iowas must've felt like the loneliest men in the world when the ships were in battle. The pic on this video seems to prove my point. They seem so far removed from the rest of the ship because of how long, yet graceful the bow is.
One thing I'll mention that's actually backwards is armored conning towers. They added so much weight and an incident on South Dakota proved they weren't that protective. Not to mention it was more important to protect deck armor and ammo from plunging shells. The other two I'll mention are more so just a shame. Only two members of the class had Westinghouse geared turbines. Also, them using direct drive turbine was an important decision. However, the later standard US battleships members with their turbo electric systems could afford more subdivisions.
Would turbo electric drive had made the Iwoas meaningfully more capable of accepting and mounting upgraded electrical equipment in the 1980s? could the Iwoas at their current dimensions have a turbo electric drive and still be capable of the same speed (if this were done in 1940 when they were built)? if a turbo electric drive were fitted to an Iowa in the 1940s would that have allowed the steam engines to be scrapped in place and modern gas turbines dropped in to replace them in the 1980s (assuming they somehow had the money to do this)? I know you have said the large steam turbines and boiler cant really be replaced because of the armor that the ship has, but a gas turbine is smaller.
The Navy experiment with turbo-electric had ended around WW I; it was seen as not as fast as geared steam plants. The steam was used all over the ship, not just for propulsion, so eliminating the steam plant for gas turbines would have had a ripple effect throughout the ship. Also, the Navy went to low-smoke cables for new construction, after STARK was hit in 1987, and installing the required new cabling inside a BB would have been yet another expense and schedule-pusher during reactivation.
Is there any mention in the design records on why the Iowa’s were designed with so much electrical generating capacity (10k)? That much power must have seemed so outlandish when built.
Radar was already bering deployed, and electrically operated turrets just being introduced. Also air conditioning was being installed in the new ships for the Pacific theatre (but not on BBs, IIIRC). You can never have too much electric generating capacity, or fresh-water distillers on a ship.
Could a modified hull form with modern (composite?) armour of equivalent resistive force, modern automation and electronics etc., perhaps with nuclear propulsion and ballistic, medium and short range missile armament, be a viable or useful platform today?
in a word the iowas were fast enough to keep up with carriors, they had very thick armor compared to anything on the seas in the 80's and could carry lots of cruisemissles, and they are just bad ass a psychological wepon as well, like the bombardment in lebenon I belive it was they had nothing that could hurt such a vessel, but lets face it they are huge and fast and nothing screams usa like a hulking battleship with its big guns like a bodybuilder comming into a fight, I mean 18 inches of armor in places, theres nothing close to that hull and plate thickness even on icebreaker ships, the deck of the carriers are what maybe 6 inches, we may have better tinsile strenght steel today but its nowhere near as heavy or as thick as a battleship.
Let’s put Ford carrier class dual reactors on them… remove the rear guns and replace them with vertical launch cells for hypersonic missiles remove all of the superstructure and replace it with Zumwalt like stealth stuff…. All the best radar and all the best sooner…. And bring them back again.!
I love tĥè liñes of the Iowas. You have shown the C.Os cabin and some enlisted berthing but I would love to see the Chiefs beryhing/mess. Any suggestions?
No it isn't. Where do you expect to get sailors who have experience with knowledge of 1940's propulsion systems? How about the gun systems? Those sailors are in their 50's and older. Then the new crew has to train. You're looking at two to three years at minimum to fix what needs to be fixed. Don't tie sailors hands behind their backs and expect them to perform at peak efficiency. The Iowa's served their country - let them rest.
@tomjes5602 The navy did a study an found out that its cheaper an they carry more rounds an can't be hacked when targeting ships with the 16" rounds an so on an theirs still guys around that know how to operate the steam engines that could train guys an so on.
@@thevikingwolfpack836 The Iowa's were last in service in 1991. Have you paid attention to Ryan's videos? The Iowas are not coming back. Their radar signature is that of a battleship. BIG. The radar signature of an Arleigh Burke destroyer is much smaller. An Arleigh Burke has more firepower than a WWII heavy cruiser. I'm a Navy veteran that served on a Charles F. Adams class Guided Missile Destroyer as a Missile Fire Control Technician second class (FTM2). I was in charge of 2 pieces of equipment or 40% of the missile system due to the winding down of the Vietnam War. It is too expensive to run a Iowa class battleship in todays navy. It is also a drain of manpower. Over 1800 sailors on a Iowa to ~325 on an Arliegh Burke DDG. Roughly 6 DDGS to equal the crew of a battleship. That's about the same number of ships in a carrier task group. You've got nearly 600 missile tubes, 6 naval guns, 36 torpedo tubes, an integrated antiaircraft and anti-missile dome, and 6 sonar domes looking for undersea threats over a large swatch of the ocean. And what do you get with a battleship? 9 - 16"/50 guns, 12 - 5"/38 guns, and a few Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles. Then that battleship has to be protected under the dome of those same Arleigh Burke destroyers. Is your money being well spent just so you can say, "Look, I've got a battleship".
It doesn't change the fact most of the features like ability to take damage, speed, size, were not being used after 1950, because surface actions and large shell and torpedo attacks were not a rational threat where they would bring the ship. For a fraction of the cost of maintaining these ships they could have put a single or double 14/16/18 inch gun on some platform. Have it go at 12 knots or no engine at all, only electric steering and slow movement with diesel generators and batteries. Everything a battleship has done since 1950 could have been done with a slow gun barge. If they think shore bombardment and fire support for a landing is still a possibility, they should design such a platform, it could cost a cruise ship plus the guns. You worry about the magazine you could put the powder in a powder sub that docks and unloads a few days' supply then goes under the water and hides.
Is it me or does the inside of New Jersey still look fairly modern? I know we aren't seeing every square foot of her, but she still looks fit to fight. Glorious in her sleep!
She's pretty well kept, but I wouldn't quite call her fit to fight personally. In today's combat environment, even with her modernization in the 80s, she's something akin to bringing a very large knife to a gun fight, and her engines are fairly worn out too. But she's a beautiful piece of our nation's history at sea and we are so lucky to still have her. Props to the Battleship New Jersey team for keeping her around for all to see
@@umad42 actually the engines aren't worn at all. The ships only sailed a total of 18 years. The Battleship Texas sailed for 36 years, and the USS Kitty Hawk sailed for 48 years. In a sense, these engines don't have much mileage on them. Plus they are steam based, it's all turbine based. There isn't much different in terms of nuclear and steam engines, it's just how you power the turbines being turned.
I think the Iowas’ long-standing relevance and staying power were down to the robustness of their architecture in terms of their power plant and reserve of buoyancy, which enabled them to be adapted over the decades as technologies and missions changed. That a ship designed in the 1930s would come to operate electromagnetic countermeasures and missiles that could be guided via data collected in *space* is almost unbelievable.
I mean... it could come from 10 meters or 10 light years and it wouldn't change much for the ship, as long as the transmission was strong enough. Otherwise, you're right on point, but I'd say that this still was only possible because there was no arms race, and because, in a way, obsolescence "freed" it from an arms race.
@@bradclifton5248not so much on the shells. The big shells only go where the magazine with hoist is. Reserve does help with food or smaller munitions or new like the missiles they got.
It’s called Service Life. I was part of the reactivation team. We conducted the initial material condition assessment including Deep insurance spares and parts stored aboard and ashore. When we cracked her open we found all sorts of magazines and newspapers from the 50’s and 60’s. The ship was so well prepared and preserved it was like all we needed to do was dust off stuff. Not entirely true but it was pretty amazing. Did most of the inspections at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Mothball Fleet Reserve Basin. The doors on the Battle Bridge were like walking into a Vault at Fort Knox. The ship was pristine after sitting dormant for all those years. This was 1984 thru 85 with the New Jersey and the Wisconsin. Was also onboard during the Gunnex, Collimation, Camming and Contoring Recertification evolutions. Great Job keeping this history alive. So many things about those Ships that just cannot be built today. Incredible Beasts. I recall an Atlantic Crossing and we were in very heavy seas. The expansion joints in main deck passageway always kind of scared me a little. Because I knew approximately how big of a gap was being created as we rose and fell with the swell. If you somehow slipped and your leg or arm should fall into the gap while it was closing it would separate your body part and then crush it into molecular goo. Most everybody navigating the Main deck passageway hesitated and made a timed move across the sliding steel covers. I have many more stories about living aboard at sea, during GQ Gun Exercises and standing out on the Observation Deck just behind Main Gun Mount #2 for an entire day. It was maybe 5 hours but it felt like a lifetime and once we went out the Watertight Door and they called General Quarters we couldn’t open the Watertight Door to get back inside Officers Country without permission from the Bridge. I think it was 03 Level. Long time now.
I think you got the years wrong. New Jersey was re activated in 1982 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. I was part of the PNSY tiger team that worked on her at that time, Wisconsin and Iowa were mothballed at Philadelphia.
Here is a little tidbit from long ago. During the reactivation work we had to use the heads that already existed onboard. This of rows of dividers over a watering troft like half pipe with just a flip down toilet seat laying across the troft . The troft had constant running water (sea water). The water ran from the one end to the other. The farther up stream you could get was considered preferable. Otherwise you had to watch the turds and paper float past just underneath you. A stupid prank was to sit and wait for fresh meat to come to use the head. Once they were seated and doing their business you would take a big ole wadded up pile of dry toilet paper and light it on fire and drop it in the stream below. The fire would pass underneath the new guy and give him a hot seat scare. This is butt one of many pranks we would get up to. Seasoned Sailors always knew to wait for the top seat upstream. Urinals were another troft with no dividers and no seats. No privacy at all. All this old style gear was yanked out and replaced with more modern accommodations. No more Fire balls.
For 1943, The Iowa Battleships had advanced targeting computers, and the best electrical control systems available at the time, with high tech switching that allowed guns to be controlled from multiple places aboard ship... both for flexibility of control, as well as redundancy in case of battle damage. The targeting computers were electromechanical analog design (not electronic or digital) but were still some of the most advanced Range-Keeper design, and still fully capable 40yrs later when BB62 was back in service. They also had multiple ways to generate their electrical power, with duplicate steam turbine generators, and two diesel generators. While most US cities did get electrical power from 1900 to 1940, this is still at a time when over 25% of rural america did not have electricity in their homes. BB62 even had aux power cables that would allow ship crew to re-wire power while underway, to run cables and route electricity if battle damage cut power lines to sections of the ship. New Jersey had more advanced Radar for targeting than was common for other battleships up to that time.
@maximilliancunningham6091 mechanical computers are actually coming back... if you have one job, one calculation... mechanical can actually be faster/ way more energy efficient than transistor based . . It does the job Can't do the job better lol
@@kainhall I was in the Air Force and worked on the weapons control system of the F4-E. It had a electro-mechanical computer and it was rock solid. In the late 70s early 80s they started converting to a more digital computer system. It was not without issues but I assume they got those ironed out eventually. But the electro-mechanicals ones lasted from the first in the early 60s to the mid 80s at least. I got out in 82 so after that I have no idea.
I can't go to sleep without hearing "hi, I'm ryan szimanski, curator for battleship new jersey museum and memorial. Today..." You're the man, Ryan.. I'm gonna come up to the ship from Colorado to see Engine Room 2 for a hug. What I think is forward looking on the ship: adaptability. Crazy that the lady was able to accommodate so many systems over so much time between the 40s and 80s.
Yes absolutely, their fast battleship design was so forward thinking, the fact that they remained in service for over half a century after is a testament to the reliance of their design. They are an incredibly well rounded design with a near perfect combination of Speed, armor and firepower in that they are able to not only defend themselves and take on any contemporary surface combatant but also keep pace with the rest of the fleet and deploy rapidly anywhere in world. Giving them both Punch, Strength and Endurance all in one. They are as such in my opinion the Best Surface combatants ever built and with the right modernizations their design would still hold even to this day. ...You know im even starting to think bringing back one of the Iowas would have been REALLY helpful with the current crisis in the Red Sea. Im sure the houthis would get the message with the roar of a 16" barrelling down them just like we did in Iraq. Certainly with most houthi targets right along the coast the current situation in the Red Sea would be the PERFECT use case for the Iowas incredible direct gunfire capabilities. Certainly far cheaper than the airstrikes currently taking place.
If not the Iowas, then perhaps the 8 inch gun Cruisers, depending upon material condition of their systems and spin up time of the ammunition manufacture. But that is still the same issues involving the Wisconsin in Norfolk, for example, given her location to a major USN Naval yard facility. Just an opinion of an Australian.
@@shanemay3797 16 inch guns were overkill at the time, meant for attacking other battleships. An aircraft carrier could sink one easier. 8 inch cruiser guns might be a lot more practical for shore bombardment and other anti-personnel actions. Even good against tanks. Anything too big for an 8 inch gun could be destroyed by an air strike. Maybe we should make some new cruisers with 8 inch guns. Wouldn't be the dumbest thing. Give them enough armor to laugh at enemy tanks.
NJ is the culmimation of years of knowledge of shipbuilding, power, and many other technologies. by the time the navy laid her down, they had figured out many things: how to do it right . they even gave room for thinking into the future. oorah!
I knew an Iowa sailor from the 80s and 90s. he claimed they were ordered to get to some event somewhere, and went full speed and left her escort frigates and destroyers behind. this was still cold war, and it upset the Russians. cause they always wanted to know where she was. it was the Russian ambassador who spotted her again.
@@duanem.1567it is worth noting in heavier sea states they might have outpaced their escorts. Even modern vessels aren’t immune to the laws of physics and hydrodynamics.
@@duanem.1567 In a sprint in calm seas, yes. In rough weather and over a long distance, the escorts are going to have a real problem keeping up. They'll have to slow down in rough weather. Plus they will run low on fuel at high speed long before that becomes a problem for an Iowa.
I think the AKs would of also been brought back had they been kept in moth balls... Fsst, Super low miles, armored well for the 80s l, and basically brand new guns...
Good points in their favour by Ryan . I addition I think the robustness of their construction meant the hull was still seaworthy long after any modern warship would have succumbed to the elements . They aren't built to survive as these were in WW2 relying on detection and weapons systems . I remember Iowa visiting Portsmouth and she was very impressive , these ships pedigree , history and reputation were also important .
1983 - NEW JERSEY provides NGFS support off for our Marines in Beruit, Lebanon. There was NOTHING that Syria could do to the NJ. Also had BB escort through the Strait of Hormuz (Iran) in 1988 while I was on an FFG. Nothing for Iran to do but watch...
Iowa class BB's were great ships. Great main armament, armor protection, loads of very modern flak, firecontrol systems, great speed and what was really especially good about them was that they rolled out in numbers! Did I mention them being very stable firing platforms akin to the KMS Bismarck class of Battleships? Yeah, that too! 😁They were certainly ships for Americans to be proud of. Then and now!
The Iowas were, and still are, BIG! With BIG guns! Let’s face it, we Americans love BIG things! This has been both a boon and a bain. An impressive show of force, but soooo damned expensive.
There are weight or mass critical ships that have a lot of empty space, and there are volume critical ships that are well armored but have little volume within. There's a point where those two graph lines meet. Not my idea. It came from an article in a late 1960's issue of Proceedings that I read back then.
They were designed in the same way as Victorian infrastructure in England, by forward thinking engineers who over engineered to cope with demand rather than accountants who look at cost not practically.
That's the thing I would say is still relevant, and it relates to a few of the things Ryan brought up as well, such as speed and deck space (especially when you look at how much space they had for missiles and helicopters while only losing one turret). The Iowas have all that plus they can still fit through the Panama canal. I think that's very forward looking, because the design anticipates our Cold War era need to project force flexibly across the world, as opposed to operating in two very different and largely separate theatres during WWII
My grandpa served on an Iowa class. He said there was nothing like it. You could actually feel the ship cutting through the water like the sharpest knife. And if you were brave enough to stand near the edge you would get hit with fresh sprinkles of water from the massive dump you dropped in the toilet. He was a great man.
Nope not missing anything, electrical power, surface speed and reserve buoyancy are the big three items even today. The B-52 bombers are being re-engined with 8 small engines for electrical power reasons vs 4 monster engines that would not produce as much electrical power.
I was able to watch Captain Seaquist's interview with Drachinifel and found it facinating. While I agree that his statement concerning the full load of the Iowa to be in error, he may have information that we civilians do not have but I believe the full loading of the Iowa's was about 58,000 tons.
Having 2 main battery plots and computers which allowed for much better indirect fire in the days before modern position fixing fave them a big edge over previous classes that weren’t as well equipped. 1 computer and director could track a prominent land feature to accurately locate the ship while the other then did the ballistic calculations to actually lay the guns on a target that couldn’t be seen by any ship sensors. Pretty cool stuff in the analog days. That certainly made them more desirable for reactivation over previous classes.
North Carolina class suffered from worse vibration than the Iowas ever did and their upper armoring was never designed to survive against 16 inch guns; it was meant to survive against the guns they were originally designed for; 14 inch guns.
I would dispute that the Essex Class were to small to operate modern jet aircraft. The last deployment for an Essex was the 1976 USS Oriskany deployment. Her airwing had over 70 aircraft include 24 F8 Crusaders and 36 A7 Corsairs. The Oriskany carried as many jet aircraft in 1976 as a British Implacable Class did piston engine 30 years earlier on a displacement less than the contemporary HMS Ark Royal.
The British got 12 BAC-MDD F-4K Phantom II FG.1s, 14 Blackburn Buccaneer S.2s as strike power with 5 Fairey Gannet (4 AEW & 1 COD) along with 7 Westland Sea King ASW and 2 Westland Wessex SAR aboard Ark Royal in the 1970s
Fat lot of good that is if it gets caught whereas the British Blackburn Buccaneer can go in low and fast making it much harder to hit A 24hr CAP would not be done unless when at war as the fuel expenditure would be seen as expensive
The Essex's were also flexible. All were modernized extensively in the late 40's and '50's with the final configuration including an enclosed bow, an angled flight deck, steam catapults, upgraded arresting gear and an outboard elevator. They ushered in the jet age with the fleet and flew them well into the '70's.
@@Knight6831The A-7 was just as fast (or rather slow, both were subsonic) as the Buccaneer, and adding low to the mix makes you a wonderful target for light AA, as F-105 pilots found out. As for 24 hour CAP capability, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Capt Seaquist's comment about the Iowas being a humanitarian platform was a point. Now we do this with carriers that can take many more tons of stores (and continue to deploy and receive it enroute) and helicopters to do SAR and medivacs. A lot of the world focus on the US Navy as a battle force but it's a rare incident that there is a major natural disaster and we are not one of the first in line to offer aid. It's a moral conscience of America, a commitment to our friends, and a political good will in those places we aren't well respected.
A tradition at least a hundred years old if President Coolidge's response to the Great Kanto Earthquake is anything to go by. (...Yeah, that one wasn't paid back in kind)
Honestly, with about just over 80 coup and coup attempts in the last 120 years, many in democracies, some directed by ExxonMobil/BP Oil in countries that tried to make money from its own oil, I wish the US stepped down from its whole "we've always been the good guy" act. Really hinders present relations.
By the way, this is all widely known worldwide and confirmed by declassified CIA documents. It's very much mainstream international history, so it pains me that people ask for sources because this wasn't part of their high school curriculum. (I'll provide them, of course, though.)
So the Navy should not have helped out during the recent Japanese earthquake, nor the Haitian humanitarian crisis a few years ago, nor the Navy helping to repatriate WWII POW's? Or providing help to the Greeks in the 1950's earthquake or escorting the grain ships to India during the 1960's Perhaps we should have used our Navy as the Soviets used their Army after WWII or even today in Ukraine? Have you read Eddie Harris' book "A Stranger in his own Land?" While not perfect, I think Germany and Japan's aggression in WWII was far worse than the US as the "Bad guy". @@DrVictorVasconcelos
That’s like the old story of the guy who has his great, great, grandfather’s hatchet. Its had the handle replaced six times and the head twice. Yes, the basic design hasn’t changed much but they’ve reskinned them, replaced wing boxes, wing struts, wiring, and just about everything but the name plate. This is not a knock in anyway. Boeing actually was ran by engineers not accountants and lawyers back then so they built a hell of an airplane. When the finance guys take over, the real company has died.
As a steam plant engineering type (aka “black gang”), I always love to have the propulsion turbines and turbogenerators complemented. Maybe if the propulsion plant hadn’t had so many problems in the 1980’s she would have been kept in service longer. :-( Another issue that may have contributed to an early end to her 1980’s reactivation was (so I understand) that nobody was very happy with the accuracy of NewJersey’s bombardment of Syrian targets in Lebanon early in the ship’s 1980’s reactivation. Were there any serious efforts at producing a “smart” 16” projectile that could address this?
Toss enough money to defense contractors and you’ll have a gps guided shell in no time! Prove me wrong! 😂😂😂 As for propulsion, the big issue is insulation. Asbestos is the best, but it’s a killer, so you have to treat it right.
We have smart projectiles for our 155 MM howitzers, Ukraine is using them vs Russia right now and they seem to be accurate, with very long range. The thing is, 406 MM is made to defeat the armor on a WWII battleship. It's overkill vs most ground targets but not the best vs stuff like hardened bunkers. It would be more cost effective to use smaller caliber guided ammo for precise attacks on most targets and larger guided missiles / bombs for hardened targets.
@@miguelsuarez738 Thank you for your insights. If my memory is correct, one of the major justifications for reactivating the IOWA’s was to use the 16 in guns against bunkers and similar hardened targets- but they turned out to be not accurate enough to be very effective.
@@miguelsuarez738 a 16" diameter projectile has a few advantages if you can get electronics to survive the initial launch... specifically, you could make smart cluster munitions which could be deployed using those shells.
Most of the obsolete systems were removed and replaced with more modern equivalents as time went by( time after time). The Iowa's were a very modular design before that concept became a buzz word in ship design. The only real improvement in my opinion, you could make to an Iowa would be to replace the oil fired steam boilers with nuclear reactors. A battleship that did not have to refuel would be incredible. The only negative I can think of is the sheer size of the ship, it would be damn hard to try and hide an Iowa from modern radar and the acoustic signature would be hard to miss on a modern attack submarine. I don't think even modern countermeasures would help much. The design is incredible when you consider what our allies and the axis powers were producing at the time.
While 600 psi boilers don’t sound like much today they were the most advanced boilers among any major navies in WWII and contributed in large degree to the power density of the Iowas’ powerplants. Even the vaunted Germans were unable to match these advancements in high power density combined with reliability.
I completely disagree agree with you on this one. The Iowa's were absolutely magnificent ships no doubt but they were not ahead of their time. Every aspect of the of the Iowa's can be found on other period ships. You actually did a video on the similarities between the Iowa class and Essex class powerplants. The Iowa's larger size, higher speed, ect was the result of natural battleship evolution and the unraveling of the naval treaties. When I think of something that was ahead of it's time I think of Concord. Multiple systems had to be invented before it could be built. That's not the case with the Iowa's.
I disagree with the notion of the Iowas being considered "super battleships". Yes, they are the second biggest behind Yamato and Musashi, but their characteristics don't mirror what their Japanese counterparts display or even the Montana-class. "Unrestricted battleship" is more like it. They sit at the top of that threshold, follow by HMS Vanguard, Bismarck and Tirpitz, Richelieu and Jean Bart (to an extent). I think the Iowas are in a perfect spot where their reserve of buoyancy, speed characteristics, offensive and defensive capabilities make them pinnacle when it comes to their overall design. Not even Yamato could take that title away from the Iowa-class. There will be no other vessel like the Iowa-class with those kinds of characteristics.
@@HighlyImprobableName They weren't, though. The Iowas were designed under the stipulations of the treaties, just exercising the escalator clauses. The Montanas would have been post-treaty battleships.
@@zoopercoolguy The original design was, but changes were made after 1938 and by their actual commissioning in 42-43 they were more than 3,000 tonnes over the escalator clause limits.
Very well said. In a surface gunnery action, they were in no way equipped to engage the Yamato class. By any other consideration however- and particularly viewed as overall fleet units-, they were far and away the most valuable capital ships ever constructed.
They are just SEXY too. Seriously, from a top view, you can tell they are just built for speed. The curves are just right. Its Not Coke bottle, but sure looks great!
The Iowa class also had considerable reserve buoyancy. So not only does she have the physical space to add new systems, but she could also handle the weight. Some of the remaining Essex class aircraft carriers were later upgraded to handle larger aircraft, such as having enlarged and angled flight decks. The design performed so well that the last one active served all the way until 1990 when USS Lexington was retired. I would also highly recommend the extended guided tour that takes you through the gunnery and engineering spaces, such as the one he is standing in there. No other Iowa class ship is as open to the public as New Jersey.
The crew to man an Iowa is roughly 1800...... That's five Arleigh Burke destroyers which total more destructive power than an Iowa class battleship. They also cover more ocean area than an Iowa BB.
I was in the Navy (Seabees) but never on a ship. But I think the sheer size had an amazing shock factor to it. Imagine one of these sitting off the coast aiming its guns at you! Back in 1975, I was stationed in San Diego building boat docks at the harbor. The Enterprise was just pulling in and cruised right past us. It was "awe-inspiring" just seeing this behemoth drive by you! I'll bet though, a Battleship would be even more so because of the big heavy guns! I think a good tag-line would be Dirty Harry's "Go ahead, make my day!" painted on the side of a battleship! lol I'm proud as hell being a part of the Navy fraternity!
Like you mentioned elsewhere, a design flaw ironically led to the Iowa class getting further improved 16-inch guns that North Carolina and South Dakota didn't have.
You missed how solid the hull is. They were designed to take as big a beating as they could give out. If they were built today with more modern technology and maintained there's no reason reason they can't operate for even longer
No NBC; No air conditioning; The enormous manpower to operate the plant and the guns, guns that delivered firepower only a few miles and with limited weight of fire compared to an aircraft carrier. Nothing it seems was automatic. This glorious ship was obsolete before it was built. I should add that this was not necessarily clear at the time.
Even today (check a map of the Ukraine battle space), there's a whole lot of the other guys' toys, personnel and supplies in range of shore bombardment. You're not going to tangle with missile-defended zones, but roads and bridges and pipelines and refineries (or simply fuel depots) can't all be covered by high-tech. The Russians are going to choke on their logistics regularly. Count on it. Redundancy and flexibility do not appear to translate into Russian well.
They weren't aircraft carriers. I'd say that's the biggest part of any backwards qualities they had. When they were built, they really were top of the line as big gun ships go.
One thing the Iowa class could have done to upgrade electrical power and to get rid of a bunch of old heavy equipment could have been to get rid of the 1940's electrical power generation systems and gone with gas turbines. One 1970's LM 2500 (same as used in the Spruance and Kidd class destroyers) would have produced around 20,000 kW of electrical power when paired with a generator. 4 of them would have produced around 80,000 kW's of power.
All of your points are valid and well taken, but even if not particularly forward looking, the ability to send 24 tons per minute of f**k you to the enemy is what makes an Iowa class battleship so beloved.
I think another critical point is just the fact that the US designed the Iowas with an expectation that they would sustain heavy combat damage during battle but were intended to repairable even if potentially sunk in shallow water. The Germans also did this, but obviously the German surface Navy never approached the capability of the US. The Japanese, by contrast, weren't as concerned about repairability and salvagability. They were expecting to have a single decisive campaign in which the entire fleet of the losing side was going to end up on the bottom of the Pacific. Years later, this engineered consideration for servicability proved monumental in allowing cost-effective upgrades to be introduced even in the heart of the citadel
I would consider their main batteries to be one why that they were ahead of their time simply because they could hit from father away while maintaining accuracy. Example Yamato’s main batteries could hit from about 20 miles though not that accurately while an Iowa class could hit from about 24 miles while maintaining much higher accuracy while doing almost the same amount of penetration while being able to be reloaded faster and probably more cheaper then a 18.1 inch battery from Yamato could.
1. Range accuracy of the USN Mark 8 Radar Range Keeper- 35 to 40 yards at 20,000- 25,000 yards. 2. Range accuracy of the foretop rangefinder aboard Yamato- 60- 90 yards at 20- 25,000 yards. 3. Range accuracy of the Japanese Type 22 Mod 4 radar in a range assist role- 109 yards. All of the above are more than offset by shell dispersion. 4. Shell dispersion of the Iowa class- 1.9% of range for a nine- gun salvo. 5. Shell dispersion of the Yamato class- 1.3% of range for a nine- gun salvo. Historical performance: 6. None of the Iowa class battleships obtained a main battery hit on any warship of destroyer size or larger in WW2. 7. Off Samar, Yamato obtained 3 first- salvo hits on USS Johnston from just over 20,000 yards. She obtained 1 first- salvo hit on USS Gambier Bay (from a six- gun salvo which was aimed solely by the ship's radar because of a lack of a visual to the target until about a minute after firing) from just under 22,000 yards. She landed 2 shells a few feet alongside USS White Plains from just over 34,000 yards. Neither of them likely struck the ship. One exploded, and the damage was severe enough to force White Plains from front- line service for the remainder of the war. From a surface action standpoint, the Iowa class had two advantages over the Yamato class. 8. A five- knot advantage in speed. 9. Remote Power Control- the ability for the fire control radar to remotely control the ship's main battery and maintain it on target in all conditions. The U.S. Navy never developed tactics to utilize this advantage during the war. Truth matters...
Ahead of their time? Yes. Still relevant? Also yes. Battleships can survive a close nuclear blast (Operation Crossroads). Analog fire control computers? EMP shouldn't affect them. Is a battleship a natural Faraday cage for other internal equipment?
One thing is for sure, the Iowa’s are very beautiful Ships
The bridge windows are pretty forward looking.
@elis8052 Take that sailor's name! :)
So is the bow.
Another great video! Very informative.
One backward design was the flight capacity.
Helicopters was in there infancy during WWII but on the horizon.
Yamato class would've had this advantage, since their hangar was below deck under an even wider aft section, and carried 7 float planes!
There were Helicopters being used in WWII, but as you said, they were in their infancy.
Slim Fast. 40 years ahead of the fitness craze. Able to fit through the Panama Canal is Iowa-class only weakness. With greater Beam would increase area for more powerful machinery, deeper lateral/torpedo defense and more deck space for weaponry topside. Slim Fast.
It was definitely a limitation and a concession to the critical need to be able to project naval power quickly in both oceans.
Not really a weakness if it meant access to both oceans. That’s what navies are for. Having large ships that can’t get where they have to go, like Tirpitz, is a bigger weakness.
Had a relative who was responsible for planning in the Navy Department back in the 80s, he said the Iowas were intended to have their own task forces like a surface action group centered around one or two Iowas also add to it two or one cruisers, at least 4 destroyers, 2-4 Frigates and if possible attack submarine screen. The purpose of the SAG was to lure out any Soviet surface assets like the Kirovs, Slavas or the DDGs into a pitched ship to ship or task force to task force action, also if the Navy wanted to, baiting Soviet attack submarines to attack the formation, while ASW aircraft and helicopters can detect and overwhelm the Soviet submarines trying to attack the formation. the Navy has more than 500 ships back in the 80s and they can spare destroyers, cruisers and frigates to screen the Iowas to complete the Battleship Task force composition, the fact that the Navy can provide screening ships for the Iowas and also provide screens for aircraft carrier task forces was mind boggling, it was surely an overwhelming firepower if there's a naval war against the Soviets. Also the battleships SAG can be seen especially during Beirut crisis and the Gulf War, in the Gulf War the formation was mixed screening ships from other countries. As mentioned in the video, the Iowa SAG can also support amphibious operation or conduct surface bombardment of their own like New Jersey during Vietnam, there were plans to bombard Murmansk harbor, where the Task Force had to dash from GIUK gap through Soviet submarine gauntlet and aircraft with carrier aircraft support and bombard their naval base at Murmansk with Tomahawk missiles.
Thanks
Didn’t realize how good 33 knots was until drach’s recent dry dock analysis of what it would take to hit 40.
Sad that prop planes and ships are still facing the same physic limits today as back then.
Having all that open deck space aft for aviation was a big plus. It probably was another factor in the decision to keep them on the books so long. Much better than the Brit solution... which frankly is true about nearly everything regarding the class.
The Iowas were the greatest surface warship ever built in my opinion. Beautiful lines and pure raw firepower to let the enemy know who is the boss.
To be fair, the fact that nobody has made proper battleships since WWII means that the Iowa's are the defacto state of the art in battleship design. The individual systems may not be, but the whole package is.
this was really interesting, thank you for putting a lot of different stuff together and showing me a new perspective!
The New Jersey sank an island. As far as I’m concerned, that makes her the greatest battleship of all time.
As a minor quibble, the USN had several capital ships built before the Washington Naval Treaty that could generate much more electrical power than the _Iowa_-class could. Of course, that's because they *needed* to generate lots of electrical power, just to get underway: they had turbo-electric propulsion, which used electric motors, rather than geared turbines, to move the ships. That's clearly not a fair comparison to the _Iowa_-class, which could generate 10,000 kW of electrical power available for ship systems, while steaming at 30+ knots.
There is probably a video on this already but what is the conning tower and why or why not was it armored? A video on that would be great, also awesome content
I've always thought that the bow AA gunners on the Iowas must've felt like the loneliest men in the world when the ships were in battle. The pic on this video seems to prove my point. They seem so far removed from the rest of the ship because of how long, yet graceful the bow is.
Well, they are the largest battleships still afloat so that has to count for something.
One thing I'll mention that's actually backwards is armored conning towers. They added so much weight and an incident on South Dakota proved they weren't that protective. Not to mention it was more important to protect deck armor and ammo from plunging shells.
The other two I'll mention are more so just a shame. Only two members of the class had Westinghouse geared turbines.
Also, them using direct drive turbine was an important decision. However, the later standard US battleships members with their turbo electric systems could afford more subdivisions.
So Ryan is saying that size DOES matter.
From my understanding they wouldn't need an aiming system update because there really isn't anything better today.
Would turbo electric drive had made the Iwoas meaningfully more capable of accepting and mounting upgraded electrical equipment in the 1980s? could the Iwoas at their current dimensions have a turbo electric drive and still be capable of the same speed (if this were done in 1940 when they were built)? if a turbo electric drive were fitted to an Iowa in the 1940s would that have allowed the steam engines to be scrapped in place and modern gas turbines dropped in to replace them in the 1980s (assuming they somehow had the money to do this)? I know you have said the large steam turbines and boiler cant really be replaced because of the armor that the ship has, but a gas turbine is smaller.
The Navy experiment with turbo-electric had ended around WW I; it was seen as not as fast as geared steam plants. The steam was used all over the ship, not just for propulsion, so eliminating the steam plant for gas turbines would have had a ripple effect throughout the ship. Also, the Navy went to low-smoke cables for new construction, after STARK was hit in 1987, and installing the required new cabling inside a BB would have been yet another expense and schedule-pusher during reactivation.
Is there any mention in the design records on why the Iowa’s were designed with so much electrical generating capacity (10k)? That much power must have seemed so outlandish when built.
Radar was already bering deployed, and electrically operated turrets just being introduced. Also air conditioning was being installed in the new ships for the Pacific theatre (but not on BBs, IIIRC). You can never have too much electric generating capacity, or fresh-water distillers on a ship.
When you need to sound alarm when guns go off your bad ass
Ahead of their time? Well their time was a time of war, so I’d say they were in precisely the right place at the right time.
Could a modified hull form with modern (composite?) armour of equivalent resistive force, modern automation and electronics etc., perhaps with nuclear propulsion and ballistic, medium and short range missile armament, be a viable or useful platform today?
in a word the iowas were fast enough to keep up with carriors, they had very thick armor compared to anything on the seas in the 80's and could carry lots of cruisemissles, and they are just bad ass a psychological wepon as well, like the bombardment in lebenon I belive it was they had nothing that could hurt such a vessel,
but lets face it they are huge and fast and nothing screams usa like a hulking battleship with its big guns like a bodybuilder comming into a fight, I mean 18 inches of armor in places, theres nothing close to that hull and plate thickness even on icebreaker ships, the deck of the carriers are what maybe 6 inches, we may have better tinsile strenght steel today but its nowhere near as heavy or as thick as a battleship.
Let’s put Ford carrier class dual reactors on them… remove the rear guns and replace them with vertical launch cells for hypersonic missiles remove all of the superstructure and replace it with Zumwalt like stealth stuff…. All the best radar and all the best sooner…. And bring them back again.!
Could diesel gensets be added to older ships to supplement power in order to utilize newer systems??
Fire control systems forward thinking
I love tĥè liñes of the Iowas. You have shown the C.Os cabin and some enlisted berthing but I would love to see the Chiefs beryhing/mess. Any suggestions?
✌
It's actually cheaper for the navy to use a battleship today then it is the new technology
No it isn't. Where do you expect to get sailors who have experience with knowledge of 1940's propulsion systems?
How about the gun systems? Those sailors are in their 50's and older. Then the new crew has to train. You're looking at two to three years at minimum to fix what needs to be fixed.
Don't tie sailors hands behind their backs and expect them to perform at peak efficiency.
The Iowa's served their country - let them rest.
@tomjes5602 The navy did a study an found out that its cheaper an they carry more rounds an can't be hacked when targeting ships with the 16" rounds an so on an theirs still guys around that know how to operate the steam engines that could train guys an so on.
@tomjes5602 look up on UA-cam why the navy wants battleships again. But their not bring them back into service that anyone is aware of.
@@thevikingwolfpack836 The Iowa's were last in service in 1991.
Have you paid attention to Ryan's videos? The Iowas are not coming back.
Their radar signature is that of a battleship. BIG. The radar signature of an Arleigh Burke destroyer is much smaller. An Arleigh Burke has more firepower than a WWII heavy cruiser.
I'm a Navy veteran that served on a Charles F. Adams class Guided Missile Destroyer as a Missile Fire Control Technician second class (FTM2). I was in charge of 2 pieces of equipment or 40% of the missile system due to the winding down of the Vietnam War.
It is too expensive to run a Iowa class battleship in todays navy. It is also a drain of manpower. Over 1800 sailors on a Iowa to ~325 on an Arliegh Burke DDG. Roughly 6 DDGS to equal the crew of a battleship. That's about the same number of ships in a carrier task group.
You've got nearly 600 missile tubes, 6 naval guns, 36 torpedo tubes, an integrated antiaircraft and anti-missile dome, and 6 sonar domes looking for undersea threats over a large swatch of the ocean. And what do you get with a battleship? 9 - 16"/50 guns, 12 - 5"/38 guns, and a few Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles.
Then that battleship has to be protected under the dome of those same Arleigh Burke destroyers.
Is your money being well spent just so you can say, "Look, I've got a battleship".
Love you Ryan and have been with you a long time.
But I’m a bit of a peacenik at heart
So why not make the iowas first battleships for peace??
The United States' definition of peace is a bit different from the rest of the world, lol. What did you have in mind?
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
It doesn't change the fact most of the features like ability to take damage, speed, size, were not being used after 1950, because surface actions and large shell and torpedo attacks were not a rational threat where they would bring the ship. For a fraction of the cost of maintaining these ships they could have put a single or double 14/16/18 inch gun on some platform. Have it go at 12 knots or no engine at all, only electric steering and slow movement with diesel generators and batteries. Everything a battleship has done since 1950 could have been done with a slow gun barge. If they think shore bombardment and fire support for a landing is still a possibility, they should design such a platform, it could cost a cruise ship plus the guns. You worry about the magazine you could put the powder in a powder sub that docks and unloads a few days' supply then goes under the water and hides.
Is it me or does the inside of New Jersey still look fairly modern? I know we aren't seeing every square foot of her, but she still looks fit to fight. Glorious in her sleep!
She's pretty well kept, but I wouldn't quite call her fit to fight personally. In today's combat environment, even with her modernization in the 80s, she's something akin to bringing a very large knife to a gun fight, and her engines are fairly worn out too. But she's a beautiful piece of our nation's history at sea and we are so lucky to still have her. Props to the Battleship New Jersey team for keeping her around for all to see
@@umad42 actually the engines aren't worn at all. The ships only sailed a total of 18 years. The Battleship Texas sailed for 36 years, and the USS Kitty Hawk sailed for 48 years. In a sense, these engines don't have much mileage on them. Plus they are steam based, it's all turbine based. There isn't much different in terms of nuclear and steam engines, it's just how you power the turbines being turned.
I think the Iowas’ long-standing relevance and staying power were down to the robustness of their architecture in terms of their power plant and reserve of buoyancy, which enabled them to be adapted over the decades as technologies and missions changed. That a ship designed in the 1930s would come to operate electromagnetic countermeasures and missiles that could be guided via data collected in *space* is almost unbelievable.
I mean... it could come from 10 meters or 10 light years and it wouldn't change much for the ship, as long as the transmission was strong enough.
Otherwise, you're right on point, but I'd say that this still was only possible because there was no arms race, and because, in a way, obsolescence "freed" it from an arms race.
Reserve buoyancy also means storage of more artillery shells so that they could arrive and stay on mission longer.
@@bradclifton5248not so much on the shells. The big shells only go where the magazine with hoist is. Reserve does help with food or smaller munitions or new like the missiles they got.
Imagine in the montanas were built😊
was this comment written by AI
It’s called Service Life. I was part of the reactivation team. We conducted the initial material condition assessment including Deep insurance spares and parts stored aboard and ashore. When we cracked her open we found all sorts of magazines and newspapers from the 50’s and 60’s. The ship was so well prepared and preserved it was like all we needed to do was dust off stuff. Not entirely true but it was pretty amazing. Did most of the inspections at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Mothball Fleet Reserve Basin. The doors on the Battle Bridge were like walking into a Vault at Fort Knox. The ship was pristine after sitting dormant for all those years. This was 1984 thru 85 with the New Jersey and the Wisconsin. Was also onboard during the Gunnex, Collimation, Camming and Contoring Recertification evolutions. Great Job keeping this history alive. So many things about those Ships that just cannot be built today. Incredible Beasts. I recall an Atlantic Crossing and we were in very heavy seas. The expansion joints in main deck passageway always kind of scared me a little. Because I knew approximately how big of a gap was being created as we rose and fell with the swell. If you somehow slipped and your leg or arm should fall into the gap while it was closing it would separate your body part and then crush it into molecular goo. Most everybody navigating the Main deck passageway hesitated and made a timed move across the sliding steel covers. I have many more stories about living aboard at sea, during GQ Gun Exercises and standing out on the Observation Deck just behind Main Gun Mount #2 for an entire day. It was maybe 5 hours but it felt like a lifetime and once we went out the Watertight Door and they called General Quarters we couldn’t open the Watertight Door to get back inside Officers Country without permission from the Bridge. I think it was 03 Level. Long time now.
I think you got the years wrong. New Jersey was re activated in 1982 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. I was part of the PNSY tiger team that worked on her at that time, Wisconsin and Iowa were mothballed at Philadelphia.
Oh wow I never new she had expansion joints! Could you go into detail about them?
All kinds of neat details we just wouldnt know without experience
Here is a little tidbit from long ago. During the reactivation work we had to use the heads that already existed onboard. This of rows of dividers over a watering troft like half pipe with just a flip down toilet seat laying across the troft . The troft had constant running water (sea water). The water ran from the one end to the other. The farther up stream you could get was considered preferable. Otherwise you had to watch the turds and paper float past just underneath you. A stupid prank was to sit and wait for fresh meat to come to use the head. Once they were seated and doing their business you would take a big ole wadded up pile of dry toilet paper and light it on fire and drop it in the stream below. The fire would pass underneath the new guy and give him a hot seat scare. This is butt one of many pranks we would get up to. Seasoned Sailors always knew to wait for the top seat upstream. Urinals were another troft with no dividers and no seats. No privacy at all. All this old style gear was yanked out and replaced with more modern accommodations. No more Fire balls.
Anything at all, I would love more stories, I'm sure I'm not the only one, thanks adm.@@Adam.NavyVet
For 1943, The Iowa Battleships had advanced targeting computers, and the best electrical control systems available at the time, with high tech switching that allowed guns to be controlled from multiple places aboard ship... both for flexibility of control, as well as redundancy in case of battle damage. The targeting computers were electromechanical analog design (not electronic or digital) but were still some of the most advanced Range-Keeper design, and still fully capable 40yrs later when BB62 was back in service.
They also had multiple ways to generate their electrical power, with duplicate steam turbine generators, and two diesel generators. While most US cities did get electrical power from 1900 to 1940, this is still at a time when over 25% of rural america did not have electricity in their homes.
BB62 even had aux power cables that would allow ship crew to re-wire power while underway, to run cables and route electricity if battle damage cut power lines to sections of the ship.
New Jersey had more advanced Radar for targeting than was common for other battleships up to that time.
I heard that digital and computerised processing in the 80s, into the 90s could not improve on that.
@maximilliancunningham6091 mechanical computers are actually coming back... if you have one job, one calculation... mechanical can actually be faster/ way more energy efficient than transistor based
.
.
It does the job
Can't do the job better lol
I believe they were also able to upgrade parts of the ship defense as well as communications and navigation systems as well!
@@kainhall I was in the Air Force and worked on the weapons control system of the F4-E. It had a electro-mechanical computer and it was rock solid. In the late 70s early 80s they started converting to a more digital computer system. It was not without issues but I assume they got those ironed out eventually. But the electro-mechanicals ones lasted from the first in the early 60s to the mid 80s at least. I got out in 82 so after that I have no idea.
@@kainhall nothing true with that
I can't go to sleep without hearing "hi, I'm ryan szimanski, curator for battleship new jersey museum and memorial. Today..."
You're the man, Ryan.. I'm gonna come up to the ship from Colorado to see Engine Room 2 for a hug.
What I think is forward looking on the ship: adaptability. Crazy that the lady was able to accommodate so many systems over so much time between the 40s and 80s.
Yes absolutely, their fast battleship design was so forward thinking, the fact that they remained in service for over half a century after is a testament to the reliance of their design. They are an incredibly well rounded design with a near perfect combination of Speed, armor and firepower in that they are able to not only defend themselves and take on any contemporary surface combatant but also keep pace with the rest of the fleet and deploy rapidly anywhere in world. Giving them both Punch, Strength and Endurance all in one.
They are as such in my opinion the Best Surface combatants ever built and with the right modernizations their design would still hold even to this day.
...You know im even starting to think bringing back one of the Iowas would have been REALLY helpful with the current crisis in the Red Sea.
Im sure the houthis would get the message with the roar of a 16" barrelling down them just like we did in Iraq. Certainly with most houthi targets right along the coast the current situation in the Red Sea would be the PERFECT use case for the Iowas incredible direct gunfire capabilities. Certainly far cheaper than the airstrikes currently taking place.
If not the Iowas, then perhaps the 8 inch gun Cruisers, depending upon material condition of their systems and spin up time of the ammunition manufacture.
But that is still the same issues involving the Wisconsin in Norfolk, for example, given her location to a major USN Naval yard facility.
Just an opinion of an Australian.
@@shanemay3797 16 inch guns were overkill at the time, meant for attacking other battleships. An aircraft carrier could sink one easier.
8 inch cruiser guns might be a lot more practical for shore bombardment and other anti-personnel actions. Even good against tanks. Anything too big for an 8 inch gun could be destroyed by an air strike.
Maybe we should make some new cruisers with 8 inch guns. Wouldn't be the dumbest thing. Give them enough armor to laugh at enemy tanks.
I think you meant ‘half a century’ not “half a decade” lol
@@willardpatterson706 yes lol, i'll fix that.
NJ is the culmimation of years of knowledge of shipbuilding, power, and many other technologies. by the time the navy laid her down, they had figured out many things: how to do it right . they even gave room for thinking into the future. oorah!
10,000 kilowats would be 10 megawats
I think the Iowa class ships make the newer ships look backwards that time era had the best looking navy ships ever made
Yes! Their forms are so pleasing.
The open bridge as built was super backwards looking but quickly fixed
Another advantage of larger size meant the Battleship could carry extra supplies for the other ships in the fleet.
I knew an Iowa sailor from the 80s and 90s. he claimed they were ordered to get to some event somewhere, and went full speed and left her escort frigates and destroyers behind. this was still cold war, and it upset the Russians. cause they always wanted to know where she was. it was the Russian ambassador who spotted her again.
Frigates and destroyers had no problem keeping up with a battleship in the 1980s. The ship may have been detached from them for some purpose.
@@duanem.1567it is worth noting in heavier sea states they might have outpaced their escorts. Even modern vessels aren’t immune to the laws of physics and hydrodynamics.
@@duanem.1567 In a sprint in calm seas, yes. In rough weather and over a long distance, the escorts are going to have a real problem keeping up. They'll have to slow down in rough weather. Plus they will run low on fuel at high speed long before that becomes a problem for an Iowa.
Hope you keep the New Jersey maintained for future generations to visit
The fire control computer worked so well that they could be run today.
"Super Battleships"...I like that! It is very accurate. Great video.😎👍
I like it too, but the definition of "Super Battleships" is a bit broad.
I think the AKs would of also been brought back had they been kept in moth balls... Fsst, Super low miles, armored well for the 80s l, and basically brand new guns...
Good points in their favour by Ryan . I addition I think the robustness of their construction meant the hull was still seaworthy long after any modern warship would have succumbed to the elements . They aren't built to survive as these were in WW2 relying on detection and weapons systems . I remember Iowa visiting Portsmouth and she was very impressive , these ships pedigree , history and reputation were also important .
1983 - NEW JERSEY provides NGFS support off for our Marines in Beruit, Lebanon. There was NOTHING that Syria could do to the NJ. Also had BB escort through the Strait of Hormuz (Iran) in 1988 while I was on an FFG. Nothing for Iran to do but watch...
Its amazing that 40 years of sailors and industry maintained those engines, particularly the electricity generators.
Iowa class BB's were great ships. Great main armament, armor protection, loads of very modern flak, firecontrol systems, great speed and what was really especially good about them was that they rolled out in numbers! Did I mention them being very stable firing platforms akin to the KMS Bismarck class of Battleships? Yeah, that too! 😁They were certainly ships for Americans to be proud of. Then and now!
The Iowas were, and still are, BIG! With BIG guns! Let’s face it, we Americans love BIG things!
This has been both a boon and a bain. An impressive show of force, but soooo damned expensive.
There are weight or mass critical ships that have a lot of empty space, and there are volume critical ships that are well armored but have little volume within. There's a point where those two graph lines meet. Not my idea. It came from an article in a late 1960's issue of Proceedings that I read back then.
They were designed in the same way as Victorian infrastructure in England, by forward thinking engineers who over engineered to cope with demand rather than accountants who look at cost not practically.
Interesting, I only knew about the speed. Very cool to hear the electrical power explained.
The captain in Drach's video said the hull shape was one of the Iowa's best features.
That's the thing I would say is still relevant, and it relates to a few of the things Ryan brought up as well, such as speed and deck space (especially when you look at how much space they had for missiles and helicopters while only losing one turret). The Iowas have all that plus they can still fit through the Panama canal. I think that's very forward looking, because the design anticipates our Cold War era need to project force flexibly across the world, as opposed to operating in two very different and largely separate theatres during WWII
My grandpa served on an Iowa class. He said there was nothing like it. You could actually feel the ship cutting through the water like the sharpest knife. And if you were brave enough to stand near the edge you would get hit with fresh sprinkles of water from the massive dump you dropped in the toilet. He was a great man.
I'm loving that I don't see your excess belt dangling down your leg!
Nope not missing anything, electrical power, surface speed and reserve buoyancy are the big three items even today. The B-52 bombers are being re-engined with 8 small engines for electrical power reasons vs 4 monster engines that would not produce as much electrical power.
I was able to watch Captain Seaquist's interview with Drachinifel and found it facinating. While I agree that his statement concerning the full load of the Iowa to be in error, he may have information that we civilians do not have but I believe the full loading of the Iowa's was about 58,000 tons.
Officially is was just a little under 58,000 long tons. In real life, it was often just a little over 60,000 long tons.
Having 2 main battery plots and computers which allowed for much better indirect fire in the days before modern position fixing fave them a big edge over previous classes that weren’t as well equipped. 1 computer and director could track a prominent land feature to accurately locate the ship while the other then did the ballistic calculations to actually lay the guns on a target that couldn’t be seen by any ship sensors. Pretty cool stuff in the analog days. That certainly made them more desirable for reactivation over previous classes.
North Carolina class suffered from worse vibration than the Iowas ever did and their upper armoring was never designed to survive against 16 inch guns; it was meant to survive against the guns they were originally designed for; 14 inch guns.
I would dispute that the Essex Class were to small to operate modern jet aircraft. The last deployment for an Essex was the 1976 USS Oriskany deployment. Her airwing had over 70 aircraft include 24 F8 Crusaders and 36 A7 Corsairs. The Oriskany carried as many jet aircraft in 1976 as a British Implacable Class did piston engine 30 years earlier on a displacement less than the contemporary HMS Ark Royal.
The British got 12 BAC-MDD F-4K Phantom II FG.1s, 14 Blackburn Buccaneer S.2s as strike power with 5 Fairey Gannet (4 AEW & 1 COD) along with 7 Westland Sea King ASW and 2 Westland Wessex SAR aboard Ark Royal in the 1970s
@@Knight6831 The A7 could carry more ordinance than the Buccaneer. 24 F8s gives you the capability for a 24/7 CAP. 12 F4s does not.
Fat lot of good that is if it gets caught whereas the British Blackburn Buccaneer can go in low and fast making it much harder to hit
A 24hr CAP would not be done unless when at war as the fuel expenditure would be seen as expensive
The Essex's were also flexible. All were modernized extensively in the late 40's and '50's with the final configuration including an enclosed bow, an angled flight deck, steam catapults, upgraded arresting gear and an outboard elevator. They ushered in the jet age with the fleet and flew them well into the '70's.
@@Knight6831The A-7 was just as fast (or rather slow, both were subsonic) as the Buccaneer, and adding low to the mix makes you a wonderful target for light AA, as F-105 pilots found out. As for 24 hour CAP capability, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
There is something about Battleships that just seem so cool ! Thank you for this video.
Capt Seaquist's comment about the Iowas being a humanitarian platform was a point. Now we do this with carriers that can take many more tons of stores (and continue to deploy and receive it enroute) and helicopters to do SAR and medivacs. A lot of the world focus on the US Navy as a battle force but it's a rare incident that there is a major natural disaster and we are not one of the first in line to offer aid. It's a moral conscience of America, a commitment to our friends, and a political good will in those places we aren't well respected.
A tradition at least a hundred years old if President Coolidge's response to the Great Kanto Earthquake is anything to go by. (...Yeah, that one wasn't paid back in kind)
Honestly, with about just over 80 coup and coup attempts in the last 120 years, many in democracies, some directed by ExxonMobil/BP Oil in countries that tried to make money from its own oil, I wish the US stepped down from its whole "we've always been the good guy" act. Really hinders present relations.
By the way, this is all widely known worldwide and confirmed by declassified CIA documents. It's very much mainstream international history, so it pains me that people ask for sources because this wasn't part of their high school curriculum. (I'll provide them, of course, though.)
So the Navy should not have helped out during the recent Japanese earthquake, nor the Haitian humanitarian crisis a few years ago, nor the Navy helping to repatriate WWII POW's? Or providing help to the Greeks in the 1950's earthquake or escorting the grain ships to India during the 1960's Perhaps we should have used our Navy as the Soviets used their Army after WWII or even today in Ukraine? Have you read Eddie Harris' book "A Stranger in his own Land?" While not perfect, I think Germany and Japan's aggression in WWII was far worse than the US as the "Bad guy". @@DrVictorVasconcelos
Look at the B-52 fleet... I believe they are planned to see service through to the 2040's. They're 40's technology.
That’s like the old story of the guy who has his great, great, grandfather’s hatchet. Its had the handle replaced six times and the head twice. Yes, the basic design hasn’t changed much but they’ve reskinned them, replaced wing boxes, wing struts, wiring, and just about everything but the name plate. This is not a knock in anyway. Boeing actually was ran by engineers not accountants and lawyers back then so they built a hell of an airplane. When the finance guys take over, the real company has died.
As a steam plant engineering type (aka “black gang”), I always love to have the propulsion turbines and turbogenerators complemented. Maybe if the propulsion plant hadn’t had so many problems in the 1980’s she would have been kept in service longer. :-(
Another issue that may have contributed to an early end to her 1980’s reactivation was (so I understand) that nobody was very happy with the accuracy of NewJersey’s bombardment of Syrian targets in Lebanon early in the ship’s 1980’s reactivation. Were there any serious efforts at producing a “smart” 16” projectile that could address this?
Toss enough money to defense contractors and you’ll have a gps guided shell in no time! Prove me wrong! 😂😂😂
As for propulsion, the big issue is insulation. Asbestos is the best, but it’s a killer, so you have to treat it right.
We have smart projectiles for our 155 MM howitzers, Ukraine is using them vs Russia right now and they seem to be accurate, with very long range. The thing is, 406 MM is made to defeat the armor on a WWII battleship. It's overkill vs most ground targets but not the best vs stuff like hardened bunkers. It would be more cost effective to use smaller caliber guided ammo for precise attacks on most targets and larger guided missiles / bombs for hardened targets.
@@miguelsuarez738 Thank you for your insights. If my memory is correct, one of the major justifications for reactivating the IOWA’s was to use the 16 in guns against bunkers and similar hardened targets- but they turned out to be not accurate enough to be very effective.
@@miguelsuarez738 a 16" diameter projectile has a few advantages if you can get electronics to survive the initial launch... specifically, you could make smart cluster munitions which could be deployed using those shells.
Most of the obsolete systems were removed and replaced with more modern equivalents as time went by( time after time). The Iowa's were a very modular design before that concept became a buzz word in ship design. The only real improvement in my opinion, you could make to an Iowa would be to replace the oil fired steam boilers with nuclear reactors. A battleship that did not have to refuel would be incredible. The only negative I can think of is the sheer size of the ship, it would be damn hard to try and hide an Iowa from modern radar and the acoustic signature would be hard to miss on a modern attack submarine. I don't think even modern countermeasures would help much. The design is incredible when you consider what our allies and the axis powers were producing at the time.
I don't know... I just might add her maneuvering capability. The Iowas were quite spry for their size.
The 16"/50s were muy bueno! What changes to turret and gun design would be required to use the 16"/56 Caliber Barrels? What about re-barreling?
While 600 psi boilers don’t sound like much today they were the most advanced boilers among any major navies in WWII and contributed in large degree to the power density of the Iowas’ powerplants. Even the vaunted Germans were unable to match these advancements in high power density combined with reliability.
I completely disagree agree with you on this one. The Iowa's were absolutely magnificent ships no doubt but they were not ahead of their time. Every aspect of the of the Iowa's can be found on other period ships. You actually did a video on the similarities between the Iowa class and Essex class powerplants. The Iowa's larger size, higher speed, ect was the result of natural battleship evolution and the unraveling of the naval treaties. When I think of something that was ahead of it's time I think of Concord. Multiple systems had to be invented before it could be built. That's not the case with the Iowa's.
I disagree with the notion of the Iowas being considered "super battleships". Yes, they are the second biggest behind Yamato and Musashi, but their characteristics don't mirror what their Japanese counterparts display or even the Montana-class. "Unrestricted battleship" is more like it. They sit at the top of that threshold, follow by HMS Vanguard, Bismarck and Tirpitz, Richelieu and Jean Bart (to an extent). I think the Iowas are in a perfect spot where their reserve of buoyancy, speed characteristics, offensive and defensive capabilities make them pinnacle when it comes to their overall design. Not even Yamato could take that title away from the Iowa-class. There will be no other vessel like the Iowa-class with those kinds of characteristics.
I'd stick to calling them post-treaty battleships.
@@HighlyImprobableName They weren't, though. The Iowas were designed under the stipulations of the treaties, just exercising the escalator clauses. The Montanas would have been post-treaty battleships.
@@zoopercoolguy The original design was, but changes were made after 1938 and by their actual commissioning in 42-43 they were more than 3,000 tonnes over the escalator clause limits.
Very well said. In a surface gunnery action, they were in no way equipped to engage the Yamato class. By any other consideration however- and particularly viewed as overall fleet units-, they were far and away the most valuable capital ships ever constructed.
They are just SEXY too. Seriously, from a top view, you can tell they are just built for speed. The curves are just right. Its Not Coke bottle, but sure looks great!
The Iowa class also had considerable reserve buoyancy. So not only does she have the physical space to add new systems, but she could also handle the weight. Some of the remaining Essex class aircraft carriers were later upgraded to handle larger aircraft, such as having enlarged and angled flight decks. The design performed so well that the last one active served all the way until 1990 when USS Lexington was retired.
I would also highly recommend the extended guided tour that takes you through the gunnery and engineering spaces, such as the one he is standing in there. No other Iowa class ship is as open to the public as New Jersey.
Promised to be an even more advanced ship, the Kentucky was broken up. Much of her machinery was put into service.
Redundancy systems plus
The Iowas may have been dinosaurs in the 80s, but who wants to fight a T-Rex?
they would have been more forward looking with a single large funnel instead of the two smaller ones...
To put it into prospective. An Arleigh Burke destroyer has less installed electrical power than the Iowa's. At 3- 3000kw generator's.
So they basically future proofed it by design
What was the cost of the 2 failed LCS programs and failed Zumwalt, and fixing the untested gadgets on Ford, vs reactivating an Iowa?
Ryan has already done a video on how much it would cost to reactivate an Iowa. The cost would be prohibitive.
The crew to man an Iowa is roughly 1800......
That's five Arleigh Burke destroyers which total more destructive power than an Iowa class battleship. They also cover more ocean area than an Iowa BB.
I was in the Navy (Seabees) but never on a ship.
But I think the sheer size had an amazing shock factor to it.
Imagine one of these sitting off the coast aiming its guns at you!
Back in 1975, I was stationed in San Diego building boat docks at the harbor.
The Enterprise was just pulling in and cruised right past us.
It was "awe-inspiring" just seeing this behemoth drive by you!
I'll bet though, a Battleship would be even more so because of the big heavy guns!
I think a good tag-line would be Dirty Harry's "Go ahead, make my day!" painted on the side of a battleship! lol
I'm proud as hell being a part of the Navy fraternity!
Like you mentioned elsewhere, a design flaw ironically led to the Iowa class getting further improved 16-inch guns that North Carolina and South Dakota didn't have.
They are still a modern looking ship
How thick is the bottom of the hull? Is it special treatment steel?
Bottom of the hull is made out of 1" mild steel plate. Once you start going up the sides of the hull, then you have the HTS and STS.
You missed how solid the hull is. They were designed to take as big a beating as they could give out. If they were built today with more modern technology and maintained there's no reason reason they can't operate for even longer
No NBC; No air conditioning; The enormous manpower to operate the plant and the guns, guns that delivered firepower only a few miles and with limited weight of fire compared to an aircraft carrier. Nothing it seems was automatic. This glorious ship was obsolete before it was built. I should add that this was not necessarily clear at the time.
Even today (check a map of the Ukraine battle space), there's a whole lot of the other guys' toys, personnel and supplies in range of shore bombardment. You're not going to tangle with missile-defended zones, but roads and bridges and pipelines and refineries (or simply fuel depots) can't all be covered by high-tech. The Russians are going to choke on their logistics regularly. Count on it. Redundancy and flexibility do not appear to translate into Russian well.
They weren't aircraft carriers. I'd say that's the biggest part of any backwards qualities they had. When they were built, they really were top of the line as big gun ships go.
I can't wait for like around 2047 where railguns and lasers are coming online and the whole "battleship vs carrier" debate can begin anew again.
One thing the Iowa class could have done to upgrade electrical power and to get rid of a bunch of old heavy equipment could have been to get rid of the 1940's electrical power generation systems and gone with gas turbines. One 1970's LM 2500 (same as used in the Spruance and Kidd class destroyers) would have produced around 20,000 kW of electrical power when paired with a generator. 4 of them would have produced around 80,000 kW's of power.
I used to think of the Iowas as the epitome of battlecruiser and battleship development both. True if you think about it.
All of your points are valid and well taken, but even if not particularly forward looking, the ability to send 24 tons per minute of f**k you to the enemy is what makes an Iowa class battleship so beloved.
I think another critical point is just the fact that the US designed the Iowas with an expectation that they would sustain heavy combat damage during battle but were intended to repairable even if potentially sunk in shallow water. The Germans also did this, but obviously the German surface Navy never approached the capability of the US. The Japanese, by contrast, weren't as concerned about repairability and salvagability. They were expecting to have a single decisive campaign in which the entire fleet of the losing side was going to end up on the bottom of the Pacific. Years later, this engineered consideration for servicability proved monumental in allowing cost-effective upgrades to be introduced even in the heart of the citadel
I would consider their main batteries to be one why that they were ahead of their time simply because they could hit from father away while maintaining accuracy. Example Yamato’s main batteries could hit from about 20 miles though not that accurately while an Iowa class could hit from about 24 miles while maintaining much higher accuracy while doing almost the same amount of penetration while being able to be reloaded faster and probably more cheaper then a 18.1 inch battery from Yamato could.
1. Range accuracy of the USN Mark 8 Radar Range Keeper- 35 to 40 yards at 20,000- 25,000 yards.
2. Range accuracy of the foretop rangefinder aboard Yamato- 60- 90 yards at 20- 25,000 yards. 3. Range accuracy of the Japanese Type 22 Mod 4 radar in a range assist role- 109 yards.
All of the above are more than offset by shell dispersion.
4. Shell dispersion of the Iowa class- 1.9% of range for a nine- gun salvo.
5. Shell dispersion of the Yamato class- 1.3% of range for a nine- gun salvo.
Historical performance:
6. None of the Iowa class battleships obtained a main battery hit on any warship of destroyer size or larger in WW2.
7. Off Samar, Yamato obtained 3 first- salvo hits on USS Johnston from just over 20,000 yards. She obtained 1 first- salvo hit on USS Gambier Bay (from a six- gun salvo which was aimed solely by the ship's radar because of a lack of a visual to the target until about a minute after firing) from just under 22,000 yards. She landed 2 shells a few feet alongside USS White Plains from just over 34,000 yards. Neither of them likely struck the ship. One exploded, and the damage was severe enough to force White Plains from front- line service for the remainder of the war.
From a surface action standpoint, the Iowa class had two advantages over the Yamato class.
8. A five- knot advantage in speed.
9. Remote Power Control- the ability for the fire control radar to remotely control the ship's main battery and maintain it on target in all conditions. The U.S. Navy never developed tactics to utilize this advantage during the war.
Truth matters...
She's much more advanced in many respects than Vanguard was (especially with respect to propulsion) thanks to those high pressure turbines.
Ahead of their time? Yes. Still relevant? Also yes. Battleships can survive a close nuclear blast (Operation Crossroads). Analog fire control computers? EMP shouldn't affect them. Is a battleship a natural Faraday cage for other internal equipment?