🤔 Maybe this explains why we have no Colorado class ships right now. Its just that no one has stumbled upon any of them yet! I'm gonna go take a walk down some of the sidewalks of Denver Colorado to see if I can find one!
@@jamescarter8693 Drach has referred to this line when deferring to Ryan on some historical fine points ... something like "you don't debate a fact about a battleship with someone who has a battleship"
@@MrTexasDan I have fault my base instinct to insult you like a true Mid-American AKA a person born and bred in the USA but I guess I just did so Big D from Big T you deserve your own country it's fun they will chat and stuff we shouldn't lecture each other we should enjoy their channels and feel privileged that we have their channels to listen to this is more like one of my Warhammer post wonder how voice recognition and transfers going to do with all the s*** that I just spoke
I really wish they could have saved WV as a museum ship, any of the rebuilt standards would have been great but West Virginia was a bad ass looking boat
The fact that none of the battleships from Surigao Strait were saved is a historical crime, IMO. Of those ships, all but Mississippi were also at Pearl Harbor.
I really like the look of the modernized Standards, they look like they're going fast and doing big things even if they couldn't get a speeding ticket in a school zone.
Just to add to that, it was also used on the Tennessee class BBs, the USS New Mexico, and the first three US carriers. As Ryan said, it was dropped partially due to weight considerations, but I have also heard that there were some concerns about the combination of electricity and salt water in a huge metal ship in the event of a torpedo hit.
@@bluemarlin8138 Each standard-type was a test bed but still to keep limitations in check, i suspect due to new 5 layer torpedo bulkheads on CO and Tennessee which need to get rid turbo electric drive to save weight and space for the systems. Lexington have turbo-electric drive but mainly she need a beefy machinery to achieve high speed, still they managed to improve propulsion well enough in order to retain 4 layer bulkhead TDS.
Ryan: I have been watching your videos for over a year now, and I'm grateful. I must say you have improved your presentation, confidence and just all around. I'm very happy for you and for this channel. Keep it up!
The Wee Vee did something no Iowa class ever did, she fired on and sank a Japanese battleship. Her first salvo hit was the longest nighttime hit on a battleship in history. She was truly the Pearl Harbor Avenger!
@@g24thinf True, at the ranges where they were exchanging main gun shots the Washington's 16"/45cal were just as devastating as the 16"/50cal weapons Iowa mounts. Also at those ranges there is a good chance Kirishima's 14" could have penetrated not only Washington's armor but Iowa's as well.
@@robertf3479 Yes, the Washington's 16/45's could fire the mk8 super heavy shell same as Iowa. The Wee Vee's older 16/45 could not. The Iowa's had the internal sloped armor belt which I don't think the Washington did. With Ching Lee in command, he probably could have sank her with a Fletcher! Lol
@@g24thinf Thanks man. I didn't credit either Washington or Iowa with firing the 2700 lb 'Super Heavy' round though in actual combat "Overkill is under-rated," I'd have used everything up to and including the galley sink if it could fit in the breech of my guns. At 'Point Blank Range' even the Japanese 14" AP shells stood a good chance of punching through ridiculously thick armor because they would be coming in more or less flat and wouldn't have lost more than a very small amount of velocity. All of the heavy ships (cruiser and above) were well inside of the inner limits of their "Immunity Zones." Both the South Dakota and Iowa classes had sloped internal armor belts you pointed out, the North Carolina class did not.
I'd love to see a collaboration between everyone at Battleship New Jersey and Drachinifel. Seeing you guys on a tour and talking about the ship would be great.
The Colorados were probably the best of the first-gen 16" gun battleships, in the sense that they were actually practical weapons of war. When you look at some of the others like the Nelsons, which blew out all the lightbulbs and plumbing in the front half of the ship when they fired, the Colorados were undeniably more practical warships. They could stay on station and continue bombardment, instead of having to retire early because half the ship was suddenly without light or lavatories. The lightbulbs could be replaced in the field, but the other damage required significant time in port to repair.
Everyone serms to get on the hate Nelsons bandwagon . Certainly they had problems in the beginning of their careers but these were mostly fixed by WW11. And just how effective they could be was shown by Rodney against Bismark, with most of Bismarks armament disabled /destroyed and the bridge wiped out with most of the command staff. So fairs/fair they were good ships that served their country well and they certainly ďo not deserve the misguided reputation they have. They were a good battle worthy design able to sustain battle damage and after repairs continue to serve their country
@@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335 Not really. Other than maybe the wooden deck chewed up a bit, most did not suffer damage from firing. You didn't hear about this with any other ship. The Nelsons, on the other hand, would shatter their own bridge windows if the guns were fired abaft of the beam, and they never managed to fully fix this. As a result, they were limited to firing forwards and directly broadside except in an extreme emergency. And they'd render the entire fore half of the ship effectively unlivable after the battle, requiring those berthed there to seek other arrangements. They just weren't practical except as local defensive ships. They couldn't really be sent far afield because they needed ports able to refit them if they ever needed to actually use their guns.
@@WardenWolf I can think of one US battleship that completely disabled herself by own firing. That didn't happen to Nelsons. Ships damaged itself all the time, not only battleships, but smaller ones too, particulary if they were of predominantly riveted construction. And yes i agree that Nelsons were more problematic then most in this respect.
I really enjoyed this video, Ryan. I've been into this sort of stuff for decades, being an old Navy vet, Gunners Mate Second. I've studied the design history of combat ships, and also served on them. I once thought I'd like to be a designer. We visited USS New Jersey in May, 2017. I don't know if you were curator, or even with the ship back then, but I would have very much enjoyed meeting you and discussing some things with you. Keep up the great work. And thank you for all you do in keeping this grand old lady in good shape. My dad used to recall operating with the New Jersey from when he served on the light cruiser USS Birmingham CL 62 during the War. These ships are priceless to those of us who remember them even before they were mothballed after the War. You're doing a great service to America's history, Ryan. Thank you!
It's interesting to see some Standard Battleships had more modernization than others during WWII. The Tennessee class and West Virginia looked very modern late war.
This is because Tennessee, California and West Virginia were badly damaged at Pearl Harbor along with Nevada. Colorado was on the West Coast on that day if I remember correctly, and so did not receive the massive rebuilding the ships salvaged from the mud of Pearl Harbor were.
This video was premiered on my fathers birthday, (5-19-1921) !00 years before who served on the West Virginia BB-48 and was sunk on Dec.7, but survived, but badly injured and burned. 1 and a half years recovery. Thank You!!
In my opinion, it's criminal that West Virginia, California, and Tennessee weren't used for shore bombardment post-war. All 3 were so heavily modernized that they were as effective as a South Dakota or Iowa in that role, yet were smaller and required less crew. In essence, all 3 could have been forward deployed at Yokosuka postwar to help in trouble spots in Asia.
It’s unfortunate that one wasn’t preserved as a museum ship, but it would have been hard to justify using them for shore bombardment when there were 10 fast battleships that were easier to maintain, had better fire control, could get to problem areas faster, had greater range, had better AA defense, and could also be used as carrier escorts (especially the Iowas). Of the Colorados, only WV had been heavily modernized, and it would have been prohibitively expensive (with post-war budgets) to modernize the others a la WV, and still operate the Iowas with carrier groups, and maintain the other fast BBs in mothballs.
@@bluemarlin8138 I think the anti aircraft point becomes moot as early as Korea. With jet fighter's their ww2 aa batteries were essentially useless. Regarding shore bombardment, its as I stated. The ships were far cheaper to maintain than any of the fast battleships. I'm not purely referring to West Virginia, but Tennessee and California as well. 12 14" guns can be incredibly effective in a shore bombardment role. If the US retained them post war it would have been best to keep them forward deployed and use the Iowas stateside with their superior speed.
@@doctordoom1337 I get what you're saying as far as them being able to fill a niche role more cheaply....at least in theory. But as far as I can tell, all of the standards except for West Virginia and California---which had partial engine rebuilds after being sunk at Pearl Harbor---were on their last legs and would have needed new engines. But no one was making big turbo-electric engines anymore, with all the military contractors having gone to turbines. Installing turbines in the other standards would have involved radically altering their internal structure.....bulkheads, prop shafts, etc. That would have been prohibitively expensive for a purely niche role. As for the fast battleships' anti-aircraft being moot as early as Korea, I'm not sure I agree. While they might not be very effective against early 1950s fighter planes, they would still be effective against early 1950s strike aircraft, which were basically the same as they were in WWII. It's certainly better than nothing. Because of this, and because there were still plenty of gun cruisers out there, keeping up with the carriers was still relevant. They could also get to a problem area several days faster if necessary. And logistics were another reason. US military contractors were still able to make the steam turbines and other parts that the fast BBs used. Not so for the standards, unless they were completely rebuilt as described above. So basically, it would have been WV and California. But it's hard to keep one ship from a class in operation, and generally navies just don't do it.
at the end of the Day the Navy had 10 Modern Fast Battleships. That is 10 more then they needed for anything other than Shore Bombardment. After WW2 it was an aviators navy until the development of modern guided missiles and Cruise Missiles. In addition to the 4 Iowas you had 4 Sodaks and 2 NC's If you loose one modern BB you still got the other 9. North Carolina, Washington, South Dakota, Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Missouri Thats a lot of Battleships- as it happens only a few were ever activated for service so its logical the Navy would not keep the 1920's era WV or CA in service.
Eh. It isn't really a contest. The Bismarcks were ten knots faster. 16-inch gun battleships could smash the Bismarcks (which is exactly what HMS Rodney did), but the Colorados were just far too slow to feasibly engage either Bismarck or Tirpitz, which would inevitably just run away before the shooting properly started.
well each could beat each other all depends who started hitting first and where it hits regardless of whether its a 14inch 15 inch or 16 inch same with any battleship the hood was more capable destroying the bismark but the bismark got the luckiest first hit possible and that was that same could have happened to bismark.
Our 20 year renter Harry Thomas served on the USS Colorado, before WWII to Tokyo Bay. His primary Battle Station was number 2 turret far left gun. He of course was at Tinian or Saipan, I forget, where the Colorado suffered between 21-23 shore artillery hits and back to Bremerton they went. Great stories and sometimes with wet eyes. RIP Harry.
I've always wondered what the structures on top of the masts were since I built my first Revell model kit of Arizona with my dad 20 years ago. I'd always assumed it was just a spotting top. I guess I was close, but wrong. Thanks Battleship New Jersey!
Like yourself, I came from a state with a Colorado-class battleship, specifically, your next-door neighbor, West Virginia. I was glad to hear you say such nice things about her, especially after her refit. She, like almost every large ship, was used for Operation Magic Carpet, returning military personnel back to the United States after the war. As I was growing up, I wanted to see her, but she had been scrapped by the time I had read about her. As you said, she should have been involved in the Korean War, but it wasn't to be. That said, when you spoke in the introduction about visiting Iowa Class Battleships so you could compare them to others, there actually aren't many others available, besides USS Texas & USS Massachusetts for example. As you know, USS Colorado, USS Maryland, USS West Virginia, in fact ALL Colorado class battleships, are long gone. None are around for folks to visit.
Additionally, there aren’t even any standard type battleships left at all. It’s a real shame because they are basically a unique type of battleship (the others being pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, super-dreadnought, and fast battleship).
I would love to see a video in the Nevada's. Specifically, the difference between the previous designs of American BB's and the differences between the sisters, as well as the salvage and return of the Nevada, with the salvage and final loss of Oklahoma.
Small point: The 16" guns on the COLORADO Class were the same length as the 16"/45 guns on the NORTH CAROLINAs and SOUTH DAKOTAs, but their ammunition hoists, and turret loading and projectile storage systems could not handle the new 4.5-caliber-length 2700-lb 16" Mark 8 AP shells, so a shorter, lighter, 4-caliber, 2240-lb 16" Mark 5 AP shell (a scaled-up version of the new 1500-lb 14" Mark 16 AP shell) was used by the COLORADO Class in WWII. Other than the length and weight, the new shells were very similar in ability to penetrate armor (though the heavier shells had a small advantage at close range due to their weight -- bigger in the IOWA's higher-velocity 16"/50 guns, of course -- and a big advantage at long range due to having less slowing by air resistance, also due to their weight, which is why they were developed), being designed to penetrate armor of about their diameter in thickness at 35-40 degrees (actual test spec in WWII), WAY above any foreign shells. Thus, when US WWII AP shells hit their targets, the results were usually worse for that target than with most other foreign shells, on the average, as more intact penetrations -- as opposed to broken pieces -- would occur against any given heavy armor system on the enemy ship. For example, post-WWII tests by the US Navy of British 1590-lb 14" Mark 1A APC (the British added "C" for "AP Capped", like the US Army did, but the US Navy did not) shells compared to the 14" Mark 16 MOD 8 AP shells (the the version of that shell that was used by the US Navy in most WWII large-caliber-shell-versus-armor acceptance tests) at the British and US WWII armor acceptance test angle of 30 degrees against both new US Navy 17.3" Class "A" (face-hardened) armor -- barbette plates -- and new US Navy 18" Class "B" (homogeneous, ductile) armor -- turret face plates (all of the new US battleships used non-face-hardened armor for turret faces, unlike any other 20th Century battleships) -- the US shells penetrated intact at slightly above the test spec velocity, as expected, but the British shells -- one per plate -- either broke into pieces on the Class "A" plate or bent into a banana shape on the Class "B" plate, neither making more than a pit in the plate face (the results were so poor that the US test personnel decided that penetrating those plates with those British shells was impossible). Against thinner, 13.5" Class "A" belt armor (new plates made for older ship repairs, as on COLORADO Class ships damaged at Pearl Harbor, for example), the British shells at 30 degrees worked fine. Thus, WWII British AP shells had a "lid" on their penetration capability, while US AP shells did not.
@@Jpdt19 British post-WWI APC shells had 2.5% Shellite fillers (except for the 16" Mark IB used with the NELSON and RODNEY that used TNT/beeswax like the 6" CPBC and 8" SAPC); Germany latest "L/4.4" APC shells had 2% block TNT with each block covered with a thick paper/felt "skin" and a big wooden block in the tip of the cavity as a shock-absorber; Japan WWII AP/APC had about 1.5% trinitroanisol ("Type 91 Explosive") in the BB-sized APC and about 2.5% of that explosive in the uncapped cruiser sizes (155mm and 203mm), with much of the cavity being filled with 33-40% inert wood, plaster, and aluminum cushions completely surrounding this filler, since it otherwise was almost as sensitive as WWI British Lyddite). Whey they did this crazy thing is very strange, since WWI experience by the British with Lyddite -- Japanese name "Shimose" -- showed that such explosives were way too sensitive for use in AP shells. The US wanted penetration first and just enough explosive in the shell to break it into a number of medium-size (body) and large (nose) chunks inside the target for maximum "carry-through" around the impact site on the enemy hull. Tiny fragments from large-filler weapons did much more damage close to the shell hit, but very little further away.
My concern would be for the game's accuracy. I've seen some inaccurate information listed in games (mostly related to tanks), but I haven't looked into WoWs (primarily due to no source materials). 🤔
@@tyree9055 I can’t say for certain if every ship is accurate, but for many it is by far the best digital model in the world. The Yamato naval museum in Japan actually used wows model for reference when building a 60 foot scale model of Yamato as the centerpiece of the exhibit
World of Warships is fun to play. Their maps are a limitation, I feel, because the main guns could fire much further in real life than the ship's guns in the game. WOWs has artificially reduced the capabilities in many instances. Alternatively, other instances are just "arcade game silly", but fun to play. WOWs is fun to play, but often deviates from historical accuracy for "balance" purposes.
Id love a video on Iowa class ships and how they would have faired at Leyte Gulf if they hadn't been lured away. Huge missed opportunity for the Iowa class to shine.
@Chandler White He not only could see that none of the fast BBs had detached, New Jersey was his Flagship at the time. I don't see Halsey either LEAVING the fast carrier force by detaching New Jersey as part of the battleship force or transferring his Flag to another ship (a carrier possibly) for this battle. What Halsey could have done would be to leave New Jersey (his Flagship) and one other fast battleship with TF-38 (fast carriers) and still have been able to detach Admiral Lee's TF-34 with the four remaining fast battlewagons (including Washington (Lee's Flagship,) North Carolina, one or perhaps both South Dakotas or one of those plus Iowa.) Most historians including 'Halsey-philes' like me recognize that Halsey messed up big time. He made the unwarranted assumption that Admiral Kurita's Center Force had withdrawn after losing Musashi and ignored reports that this force had reorganized and was coming on again.
It's fascinating comparing these designs. I enjoyed listening to your perspective on their construction and deployment. I agree with all of your points.
Thanks for appreciatively pointing out the features and benefits; beautiful ship. As I understand it, the standard class was the way the Navy coped with being funded for only 1 or 2 ships per class. Thus, it thought, a useful battle fleet would be gradually accrued, designs incrementally improving but keeping within the concept.
My dad's brother served on the USS Maryland. The story goes that he went down and enlisted on Monday December 8, 1941. He served all through WWII on the Maryland and was awarded two bronze stars. He was a pointer on one of the 5" guns. He was also on board during operation magic carpet when they were bringing the troops home.
You need to do a video on the Fast Battleships, the North Carolina class. Particularly on the USS NORTH CAROLINA, she was the MOST DECORATED BATTLESHIP OF WW2. The Show-boat entered the fight right after the Pearl Harbor attack and was also the most trusted for bombardment accuracy by the Marines. On more than one occasion, Marines wanted shelling but asked if the NC was going to provide it before asking for this fire. In one of her first engagements the Show boat opened up all guns but her main batteries to destroy Japanese planes attacking the battle group. She fired 26,000 rounds per minute and maintained this for about 7 minutes. Admiral Spruence observed just fire and smoke above her. He had his Flag ship radio, asking if the North Carolina had been hit... The radio man of the NC replied 'No Sir, we're fine'! Yall Take Care and be safe, John
@@BattleshipNewJersey That was a nice video! I wasn't looking at a comparison as much as giving the old girl the honor and respect that her crew earned for her. Yall Take Care and be safe, John
My father was stationed aboard the battleship California before the war and I have always wanted to know more about her. She was a Tennesee class and I think that would be and interesting class to learn more about. I have always wished that the California had been saved as a museum ship so that I could visit where my father spent some of his time in the Navy. I also think this class of battleships is about the best looking of all. It would be nice to see more about this somewhat neglected class of battleship.
I also love the Colorado class and I'm from Washington, so I'm a little disappointed that she was never completed. But sort of paradoxically I am still proud that she provided such useful information for the development of future battleships. And Washington was represented with the North Carolina class, so I can't really be all that mad.
The Revenge class are sometimes referred to as the Royal Sovereign class or the R class in official UK Navy documents. Revenge was Laid down first but built in a private shipyard. Royal Oak was the 3rd one laid down but was built in a government shipyard and was launched first. winston churchill used all three names at different times.
Maye that is why the British don't use the names of their ships in the class name- instead using "R class" "Admiral class" or "Town, Tribal, City class" or like today "Type 42 class" Since they can't figure out which ship is the "lead ship" US just says fuck it it was ordered first so its lead ship even if it comes out last
Colorado was ok with deadeye. Now that that’s gone it’s back to being a favorite target for farming damage and not a whole lot more. Absolutely punishing ship to be overextended in. Neat design in real life but the game does not do it justice.
I don't know. Because i used to sell my older ships after advancing through the tech tree, its quite some time as i sailed with Colorado at Tier 7. But i have West Virginia at Tier 6 in my inventory and i have to say that she is one of my favorite Tier 6 BBs.
Speaking of the battle line, recently I sat thru a US Navy film made in 1942 for training recruits in ship identification. The film narrator, sporting a shiny new eagle on each lapel, emphasized the idea that "The Battleship" was the most powerful naval weapon ever devised.
As far as Standard type BB's go, Both Pennsylvania (Arizona's sister ship) and Nevada made quite the name for themselves with their gunnery during the war. Both were extremely accurate. Nevada, for example was very popular with the ground troops on D-Day, she was able to reduce targets very close to our lines- without dropping those massive 14" shells on their heads. And Nevada was a HUGE pain in the ass to sink- 2 nuclear bombs, battleship fire, bombs, and finally submarine launched torpedoes. Nevada didn't WANT to die! "BUGGER OFF- I'm fine!! Put me back in, coach!!"
My last comment was a joke of coarse....but seriously tho...i love your channel....and I love battleships....youve taught me so much!!! Thank you!!! I appreciate the time you put into making these
My grandpa served on the Wee Vee after she was refloated, first as an AA gunner, then as a radio operator. He narrowly escaped being killed by the Kamikaze that hit her during the invasion of Okinawa. His (illegally kept) war journal that was thankfully preserved has been fascinating for my family to read. Although it was heavily redacted, I've been able to largely fill in the gaps thanks to knowing a fair amount of the history of the war in the Pacific theater.
The Navy went away from the heavily divided propulsion spaces after the Colorado class. When it is a void space, counter flooding means counter flooding the void spaces on the other side of a ship. That just makes the ship sit lower, but doesn't take out propulsion spaces. On the other hand, if there are lengthwise divisions, flooding the boiler rooms on one side means counterflooding is done by flooding the boiler rooms on the other side of the ship. It just turns out to not be practical. This was demonstrated in Peal Harbor - the Oklahoma capsized, and the West Virginia had to have all of the boiler rooms flooded to make it sink flat. This isn't a concern on any of the 1940's battleships, as they have full width boiler rooms. They either stay afloat or sink flat.
Ryan, I think there is a bit of a misconception you have about the way the turbo electric propulsion worked on most larger ships of the era. Each shaft had dedicated turbines, it wasn't the ship's primary power that ran the propulsion motors. Both the generator and the motors were synchronous machines. This meant there was a direct relationship between the frequency of the AC motor and the speed of the motor. Only at dead slow speed the motor field (the electric permanent magnet) could be turned off and the motor "slipped" and run slower. At slow speed and above, the motor field was turned on and the motor synchronized. The generator and motor acted as a fixed gear, and the ship adjusted speed by changing the turbine RPM. The big disadvantages of turbo-electric is lower efficiency, more cost and more weight. The advantages are multiple. The motors all can be placed close to where the shaft exits the hull and the turbines spread along the ship. Wires are smaller, less likely to be damaged and less cumbersome compared to shafts. Note on the Iowa's how long that engine room #1 propeller shaft is. Electric drive has a faster reverse, and full power in reverse. In a geared turbine, there is an astern turbine in the LP casing, and it is usually 1/2 the power of the forward turbine. Reverse time is also often limited to prevent overheating of the ahead turbine. In a turbo electric, the turbine rolls one way and the motor reverses electrically. That makes them very popular in ferry's that run both directions. Today modern technology with electronic frequency conversion, they do use one generator for house power and propulsion. Nearly all cruise ships, oil rigs and many other types use this style of propulsion.
I had a relative who served on the Maryland during the war. I have a postcard from him which had been sent to my father from when he was apparently briefly sent for some training on some type of new equipment at great lakes in Jan of 45.
Also did pretty good in world of warship with the Colorado when I played. She slapped with those 16” guns and tanks well along with being sorta ignored as she’s not the most threatening ship in the tier spread”
Great Channel. Concerning turbos eclectic drive. As well as battle ships it was also used in much larger installations as well. Namely the Lexington , Saratoga. The French 30 plus knot trans Atlantic liner Normandie as well. Years ago I read a pre war legal journal article. The article was about a series of lawsuits the US navy had with contractors inability to manufacture stream turbines as well as reduction gears. The first classes of US Dreadnoughts had reciprocating engines because of this. The reduction gear suits were filed a few years after the turbines. I remember reading an archived brief that Navy installed turbo electric drive in the Lexington and Saratoga because the contractors inability to provide double reduction gears to specification. The brief referred to the ships as battle cruisers so it was early. Interesting stuff.........if your geeky. My wife laughs but she loves museums as much as I do.
I've been following (and subscribed) to the channel by Drachinifel, and I have seen your video come up as recommended. This is the first one I've watched, and I've subscribed to your channel. This was a very informative video. Some comments, not in order of presentation of the video. Regarding a balanced layout remember that the Montana class were to have four triple turrets like the standards had. As for the rebuilding of the West Virginia, it made sense to rebuild the West Virginia and California as the did because of the amount of damage they received, the amount of superstructure removed to refloat them, and that they hadn't been modernized before the Pearl Harbour attack. What didn't make sense to me for a while was why the Tennessee was also rebuilt like this two. It hadn't been sunk at the attack, only some bomb hits and some warped stern plates from the oil fires from the Arizona. However, considering that it hadn't been modernized yet those in charge probably figured that it would make sense to do the same upgrade as the West Virginia and California. What I do wonder is that had the war continued into 1946 would the Maryland and Colorado been given the same treatment as well? Also interesting is that the Maryland and Colorado were the last US battleships with cage masts.
I can see that the modernised WeVe looks more menacing as a great machine of war should. But look at her in the original configuration, in tropical white, with those lattice masts, fairly low freeboard, sleek, main guns that are actually graceful.... the look of a racing yacht, with guns!
Near the end of this video you see a shell handling process scene with many shells that have a short cylindrical nose cap on them. These were the shorter, 4-caliber-length 1900-poind 16" High Capacity (HC) rounds, used on all US Navy WWII 16"-armoed battleships, including the COLORADO Class, for mostly shore bombardment, though they could work against smaller, less-armored enemy ships that a 16" AP shell might punch through just making a small hole without exploding. The version of the HC shells you see here with that nose cap are the later proximity-fuzed ("VT") version of the HC shell. These shells had a tiny vacuum-tube-powered short-range "radar" in them to detect when they got close to their target when used in new late-WWII US AA gun shells (but were going to have a near miss -- they did not sense things directly in front of the shell, allowing direct hits) or, usually for these big HC shells, against ground targets for air bursts. The thin metal shielded nose cap on this form of HC shell was a safety feature (US Navy was nearly psychotic about ordnance safety, for very good reason!) to make sure that no stray radio signal could even try to set off one of these VT fuzes, on top of all of the regular internal safety interlocks in all Navy fuzes prior to firing. This cap was removed just before the shell was rammed into the gun. These VT-fuzed shells had to have special nose openings drilled into them for these enlarged fuzes (vacuum tubes are much bigger, even these tiny one, than later solid-state chips), so usually they never had their nose fuzes changed, as the prior, conventional HC shells could from none ("Steel Nose Plug" so that the base fuze also installed in these shells would be used, instead), to impact ("Point Detonating"), to time ("Mechanical Time"). The US Navy in WWII tried to get the two basic types of general-purpose shells for use against surface targets, AP against armor and HC against everything else, as versatile as possible -- no surprises!
My Grandfather served on the USS Colorado BB-45 from 1942-1946 as a Lookout, Division L. His picture is in the cruise book. He told me many stories, from which, with the purchase of a book called 'Teakwood Decks: Or a Marine's love affair with a battleship' by Chris Barker that they were true!!! Chris was on the ship the same time that my granddad was.
HMS Warspite is the one British ship from either World War which should have been preserved. A veteran of a number of WWI actions including Jutland where she took and dealt out a lot of punishment she saw a LOT of action during WWII in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian Ocean against all three major members of the Axis. I highly recommend anyone interested look up her history and the reason she had the unofficial nickname of 'The Old Bullet Magnet,' (an old Royal Navy sailor told me about that one.)
@@nicholasconder4703 Actually they did scrap her ... uh ... mostly. They couldn't get her off that rock or shoal, so they salvaged as much of her as they could in place, but they couldn't get all of her. There are still sections of her bottom including (I read somewhere) at least one boiler and other gear and steel. Sport divers with more b@lls than brains have dived on the site even though it is hazardous.
I happen to love the South Dakota class but I grew up with the USS Massachusetts right next to my house. I could see Battleship Cove from my bedroom window.
I have a bit of a soft spot for the Colorado, being from that state. Many people in Colorado don't even know there was a BB Colorado. It would, however, have been a bit difficult for us to keep her as a museum ship.
Well, I think you just did an excellent job. I consider myself a bit of an expert on the American Standard Battleships and your analysis hardly differs from mine or that of Norman Friedman and other authors. The only thing I really saw that you missed not WeVi was that she carried out a great deal more deck armour after her rebuild. Actually more than the Iowas. It is not ridiculous to say that, for the old fashioned idea of battle line tactics, the Colorados were better ships than the third generation US ships. I would much appreciate you doing a bit of history on the sinking of Nevada at Bikini. She was one of the totally rebuild standards and it appears she took tremendous damage even without an active damage control group. She even took hits from the 16/50's of the New Jerseys but I have never seen mentioned how many times she was hit. Once more, thank you Mr Curator, you're doing a great job.
The main criticism of the standard type battleships were their speed and a certain British naval historiographer would point out that ships with a higher speed can dictate the battle they can engage and disengage when they choose. I do think the standards had some good aspect but at the same time they were the victim of Congress being tight asses with the purse where we could not build a single large class of four or more battleships for a single squadron. Thankfully the British were our friends and except for the Yamatos the Japanese never had a class of battleship that could survive a hit from even our 14-in guns which negated the speed advantages that they had over our standard battleships and by the time world war II rolled around we had our early fast battleships in service.
I feel like saying that the Japanese dreadnoughts couldn’t withstand 14 inch shells is a bit dismissive, as far as I know they were fairly well protected for the time they were built.
The Colorado Class, was smaller at least in length, than my first ship, the USS Newport News (CA-148) The last all gun Heavy Cruiser. My time aboard 1968-69-70 Call sign THUNDER flag hoist; November - India - Quebec - Quebec Can you tell I'm proud.
One thing I'm VERY surprised about is that the WV kept the 16"/45c guns on her. I wouldve thought they would outfit her with the 16"/50c guns to give better shell ballistics. There are probably a million things i'm not considering that would've needed to be done or would have made that impractical. But it just seems like an oversite. As far as keeping her in service, WV wouldve been a brillian ship in Korea and even as late as the Gulf War with her radar, scouting, and a more stable gun platform due to her width than an Iowa battleship, without losing a lot of firepower, only down 1 barrel when compared to the Iowas
Enjoyed your comments on USS WEST VIRGINIA, especially at Surigao Strait. When you exam her logs and shot table she made no corrections after the first salvo.
That is because the MK 8 FCS is always on target. The Mk 37 FCR has a constant 15 yard error in range and 2 mils in bearing. That is about 50 yards at 30 kyds.
Where are you located? As you probably already know, there are Iowa class ships berthed in Camden New Jersey, Norfolk Virginia, Long Beach California and Pearl Harbor Hawai'i. Battleship North Carolina is berthed in Wilmington North Carolina if you are interested. Even though she is a couple of years older I think she is a more handsome ship than the South Dakotas and is in very good condition with restoration and hull preservation work on going.
One of my dad's best friends was injured while serving on the Mississippi as a MARINE gunner, that might be an interesting program, I know others has made videos, however you may have something interesting to say about the ship.
The Washington Naval Treaty is also the reason why Japan sided with Germany and Italy over its traditional allies, the United States and United Kingdom, during World War II: The US decoded Japanese diplomatic wires and found that Japan's government would accept a ratio of no worse than 3:5:5 with the US and UK in the Washington Naval Treaty, and worked with the UK to force that from the minimum acceptable ratio to the treaty-mandated ratio. Japan's people were infuriated by this, and as a result, a decade later they decided to ally with Germany instead.
Well you could look at my states name sake battleship, the german pre dreadnought battleship Schleswig Holstein. Mostly bc I love seeing people trying to pronounce it. In all seriousness tho, I'd love to see a comparrison to the QE-class
I have a quick question for you. I’ve been watching your videos for a while now and I appreciate deeply what you do. My question is, I’m from Milwaukee Wisconsin. I would like to know why the battleship Wisconsin isn’t in Wisconsin.? I really do believe that she should be in Wisconsin and not where she’s at! Your thoughts please?
Best guess here, and not BB related. USS Ford was laid down in 2009 after a decade of development and blueprinting. ex-USS America was expended in 2005. Mayhap part of the costliness of the first-of-class Ford was due to redesgining based on the results of the sinking of America? I am fairly certain that when one sinks something as big as ex-America or ersatz Washington, the engineers and naval architets do not come back in a week with the defintive reprort. Timing could have been better but one does not usually have an extra supercarrier (or BB) to sink before design work begins. My bet is that this will also be money and time well spent for the Ford and her sisters in a new class.
HMS Hood was actually a battle cruiser rather than battleship! So she did not have the armor protection that a true battleship has. Which the Bismarck quickly exposed!
Hood was one of a kind, so it has been and still is difficult to classify her. Bismarcks hit was a very lucky one - that battle could have went the other way easily. The Washington treaty left her in a world where upcoming battleships were smaller than Hood. So classifyjng her as battleship makes sense. Her speed would indeed make her a battle cruiser. Or the first fast battleship. Confused? Me too! The armor was decent for her time but fell behind as the war efforts of nazi germany and japan ramped up.
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
“…because I happen to have an Iowa class battleship…” That says it all.
Every little boy's dream.
That's a flex not many can make.
@@792slayer so true!
😆
As far as one-liners go, "SPEAKING of money..." is nearly as good, lol.
The words "I happen to have an Iowa-class battleship" makes it sound like he found it on the sidewalk ;-D
LOL
eBay
He does that from time to time and I love it. "I just so happen to have one of these" *pulls 887' long battleship out of pocket.
Hell of a pickup line...
🤔 Maybe this explains why we have no Colorado class ships right now. Its just that no one has stumbled upon any of them yet! I'm gonna go take a walk down some of the sidewalks of Denver Colorado to see if I can find one!
“…because I happen to have an Iowa class battleship…” I lol'd at this
That cracked me up
So do you think drachinifel was jealous when he said that
It’s quite a common line on this channel😂
@@jamescarter8693 Drach has referred to this line when deferring to Ryan on some historical fine points ... something like "you don't debate a fact about a battleship with someone who has a battleship"
@@MrTexasDan I have fault my base instinct to insult you like a true Mid-American AKA a person born and bred in the USA but I guess I just did so Big D from Big T you deserve your own country it's fun they will chat and stuff we shouldn't lecture each other we should enjoy their channels and feel privileged that we have their channels to listen to this is more like one of my Warhammer post wonder how voice recognition and transfers going to do with all the s*** that I just spoke
Man, I just want to thank you and the rest of the museum staff for making these videos and keeping this history alive.
I really wish they could have saved WV as a museum ship, any of the rebuilt standards would have been great but West Virginia was a bad ass looking boat
Maryland was supposedly DAMN close to being won by the port of Baltimore... she would have been moored somewhere near where the Taney is.
The fact that none of the battleships from Surigao Strait were saved is a historical crime, IMO. Of those ships, all but Mississippi were also at Pearl Harbor.
I think it would have been too hard to get the ship up the Ohio River to Wheeling.
@@ObamaTookMyCat sadness
@@michaelsommers2356 yes too many bridges in the way. She would have looked great sitting in front of the capital in Charleston on the Kanawha river.
I really like the look of the modernized Standards, they look like they're going fast and doing big things even if they couldn't get a speeding ticket in a school zone.
I didn’t know turbo electric power for warships was a thing. I appreciate the educational value this channel offers me.
Just to add to that, it was also used on the Tennessee class BBs, the USS New Mexico, and the first three US carriers. As Ryan said, it was dropped partially due to weight considerations, but I have also heard that there were some concerns about the combination of electricity and salt water in a huge metal ship in the event of a torpedo hit.
That is how all of the Nuke boats operate.
@@bluemarlin8138 Each standard-type was a test bed but still to keep limitations in check, i suspect due to new 5 layer torpedo bulkheads on CO and Tennessee which need to get rid turbo electric drive to save weight and space for the systems.
Lexington have turbo-electric drive but mainly she need a beefy machinery to achieve high speed, still they managed to improve propulsion well enough in order to retain 4 layer bulkhead TDS.
Ryan: I have been watching your videos for over a year now, and I'm grateful. I must say you have improved your presentation, confidence and just all around. I'm very happy for you and for this channel. Keep it up!
The Wee Vee did something no Iowa class ever did, she fired on and sank a Japanese battleship. Her first salvo hit was the longest nighttime hit on a battleship in history. She was truly the Pearl Harbor Avenger!
Washington and Kirishima say hello.
@@libraeotequever3pointoh95 Washington wasn't a Iowa class battleship. I don't think Kirishima could tell the difference.
@@g24thinf True, at the ranges where they were exchanging main gun shots the Washington's 16"/45cal were just as devastating as the 16"/50cal weapons Iowa mounts. Also at those ranges there is a good chance Kirishima's 14" could have penetrated not only Washington's armor but Iowa's as well.
@@robertf3479 Yes, the Washington's 16/45's could fire the mk8 super heavy shell same as Iowa. The Wee Vee's older 16/45 could not. The Iowa's had the internal sloped armor belt which I don't think the Washington did. With Ching Lee in command, he probably could have sank her with a Fletcher! Lol
@@g24thinf Thanks man. I didn't credit either Washington or Iowa with firing the 2700 lb 'Super Heavy' round though in actual combat "Overkill is under-rated," I'd have used everything up to and including the galley sink if it could fit in the breech of my guns.
At 'Point Blank Range' even the Japanese 14" AP shells stood a good chance of punching through ridiculously thick armor because they would be coming in more or less flat and wouldn't have lost more than a very small amount of velocity. All of the heavy ships (cruiser and above) were well inside of the inner limits of their "Immunity Zones."
Both the South Dakota and Iowa classes had sloped internal armor belts you pointed out, the North Carolina class did not.
I'd love to see a collaboration between everyone at Battleship New Jersey and Drachinifel. Seeing you guys on a tour and talking about the ship would be great.
The Colorados were probably the best of the first-gen 16" gun battleships, in the sense that they were actually practical weapons of war. When you look at some of the others like the Nelsons, which blew out all the lightbulbs and plumbing in the front half of the ship when they fired, the Colorados were undeniably more practical warships. They could stay on station and continue bombardment, instead of having to retire early because half the ship was suddenly without light or lavatories. The lightbulbs could be replaced in the field, but the other damage required significant time in port to repair.
Everyone serms to get on the hate Nelsons bandwagon . Certainly they had problems in the beginning of their careers but these were mostly fixed by WW11. And just how effective they could be was shown by Rodney against Bismark, with most of Bismarks armament disabled /destroyed and the bridge wiped out with most of the command staff. So fairs/fair they were good ships that served their country well and they certainly ďo not deserve the misguided reputation they have. They were a good battle worthy design able to sustain battle damage and after repairs continue to serve their country
All battleships would get serious damage from they own firing. Admittingly Nelson class more so then most others.
@@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335 Not really. Other than maybe the wooden deck chewed up a bit, most did not suffer damage from firing. You didn't hear about this with any other ship. The Nelsons, on the other hand, would shatter their own bridge windows if the guns were fired abaft of the beam, and they never managed to fully fix this. As a result, they were limited to firing forwards and directly broadside except in an extreme emergency. And they'd render the entire fore half of the ship effectively unlivable after the battle, requiring those berthed there to seek other arrangements. They just weren't practical except as local defensive ships. They couldn't really be sent far afield because they needed ports able to refit them if they ever needed to actually use their guns.
@@WardenWolf I can think of one US battleship that completely disabled herself by own firing. That didn't happen to Nelsons. Ships damaged itself all the time, not only battleships, but smaller ones too, particulary if they were of predominantly riveted construction. And yes i agree that Nelsons were more problematic then most in this respect.
@@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335 please share story of us battleship you referred too? Thankyou
I really enjoyed this video, Ryan. I've been into this sort of stuff for decades, being an old Navy vet, Gunners Mate Second.
I've studied the design history of combat ships, and also served on them. I once thought I'd like to be a designer.
We visited USS New Jersey in May, 2017. I don't know if you were curator, or even with the ship back then, but I would have very much enjoyed meeting you and discussing some things with you.
Keep up the great work. And thank you for all you do in keeping this grand old lady in good shape.
My dad used to recall operating with the New Jersey from when he served on the light cruiser USS Birmingham CL 62 during the War.
These ships are priceless to those of us who remember them even before they were mothballed after the War.
You're doing a great service to America's history, Ryan. Thank you!
It's interesting to see some Standard Battleships had more modernization than others during WWII. The Tennessee class and West Virginia looked very modern late war.
This is because Tennessee, California and West Virginia were badly damaged at Pearl Harbor along with Nevada. Colorado was on the West Coast on that day if I remember correctly, and so did not receive the massive rebuilding the ships salvaged from the mud of Pearl Harbor were.
The Colorado class has always been one of my all time favorite class of Ship.
So i’m Looking forward to this one.
This video was premiered on my fathers birthday, (5-19-1921) !00 years before who served on the West Virginia BB-48 and was sunk on Dec.7, but survived, but badly injured and burned. 1 and a half years recovery. Thank You!!
In my opinion, it's criminal that West Virginia, California, and Tennessee weren't used for shore bombardment post-war. All 3 were so heavily modernized that they were as effective as a South Dakota or Iowa in that role, yet were smaller and required less crew. In essence, all 3 could have been forward deployed at Yokosuka postwar to help in trouble spots in Asia.
It’s unfortunate that one wasn’t preserved as a museum ship, but it would have been hard to justify using them for shore bombardment when there were 10 fast battleships that were easier to maintain, had better fire control, could get to problem areas faster, had greater range, had better AA defense, and could also be used as carrier escorts (especially the Iowas). Of the Colorados, only WV had been heavily modernized, and it would have been prohibitively expensive (with post-war budgets) to modernize the others a la WV, and still operate the Iowas with carrier groups, and maintain the other fast BBs in mothballs.
@@bluemarlin8138 I think the anti aircraft point becomes moot as early as Korea. With jet fighter's their ww2 aa batteries were essentially useless. Regarding shore bombardment, its as I stated. The ships were far cheaper to maintain than any of the fast battleships. I'm not purely referring to West Virginia, but Tennessee and California as well. 12 14" guns can be incredibly effective in a shore bombardment role. If the US retained them post war it would have been best to keep them forward deployed and use the Iowas stateside with their superior speed.
@@doctordoom1337 I get what you're saying as far as them being able to fill a niche role more cheaply....at least in theory. But as far as I can tell, all of the standards except for West Virginia and California---which had partial engine rebuilds after being sunk at Pearl Harbor---were on their last legs and would have needed new engines. But no one was making big turbo-electric engines anymore, with all the military contractors having gone to turbines. Installing turbines in the other standards would have involved radically altering their internal structure.....bulkheads, prop shafts, etc. That would have been prohibitively expensive for a purely niche role.
As for the fast battleships' anti-aircraft being moot as early as Korea, I'm not sure I agree. While they might not be very effective against early 1950s fighter planes, they would still be effective against early 1950s strike aircraft, which were basically the same as they were in WWII. It's certainly better than nothing. Because of this, and because there were still plenty of gun cruisers out there, keeping up with the carriers was still relevant. They could also get to a problem area several days faster if necessary. And logistics were another reason. US military contractors were still able to make the steam turbines and other parts that the fast BBs used. Not so for the standards, unless they were completely rebuilt as described above.
So basically, it would have been WV and California. But it's hard to keep one ship from a class in operation, and generally navies just don't do it.
I think you’d have to look at operating costs to see why they were tossed.
at the end of the Day the Navy had 10 Modern Fast Battleships. That is 10 more then they needed for anything other than Shore Bombardment. After WW2 it was an aviators navy until the development of modern guided missiles and Cruise Missiles. In addition to the 4 Iowas you had 4 Sodaks and 2 NC's
If you loose one modern BB you still got the other 9.
North Carolina, Washington, South Dakota, Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Missouri
Thats a lot of Battleships- as it happens only a few were ever activated for service so its logical the Navy would not keep the 1920's era WV or CA in service.
Be interesting to compare the Colorado's with the Bismark. Granted the Bizmarks were also newer, but firepower wise, it would be interesting to see
Eh. It isn't really a contest. The Bismarcks were ten knots faster. 16-inch gun battleships could smash the Bismarcks (which is exactly what HMS Rodney did), but the Colorados were just far too slow to feasibly engage either Bismarck or Tirpitz, which would inevitably just run away before the shooting properly started.
The Colorados would have the advantage in firepower (and maybe armor scheme?) but the Bismarcks would be the ones deciding when and where to engage
Bismarck didn’t run from the Hood and PW
well each could beat each other all depends who started hitting first and where it hits regardless of whether its a 14inch 15 inch or 16 inch same with any battleship the hood was more capable destroying the bismark but the bismark got the luckiest first hit possible and that was that same could have happened to bismark.
It always make me happy to see another Marylander, especially one who loves naval history
I'm from Colorado, so like you I have a soft spot for the ship of my home state
Our 20 year renter Harry Thomas served on the USS Colorado, before WWII to Tokyo Bay. His primary Battle Station was number 2 turret far left gun. He of course was at Tinian or Saipan, I forget, where the Colorado suffered between 21-23 shore artillery hits and back to Bremerton they went. Great stories and sometimes with wet eyes. RIP Harry.
I've always wondered what the structures on top of the masts were since I built my first Revell model kit of Arizona with my dad 20 years ago. I'd always assumed it was just a spotting top. I guess I was close, but wrong. Thanks Battleship New Jersey!
Like yourself, I came from a state with a Colorado-class battleship, specifically, your next-door neighbor, West Virginia. I was glad to hear you say such nice things about her, especially after her refit. She, like almost every large ship, was used for Operation Magic Carpet, returning military personnel back to the United States after the war. As I was growing up, I wanted to see her, but she had been scrapped by the time I had read about her. As you said, she should have been involved in the Korean War, but it wasn't to be.
That said, when you spoke in the introduction about visiting Iowa Class Battleships so you could compare them to others, there actually aren't many others available, besides USS Texas & USS Massachusetts for example. As you know, USS Colorado, USS Maryland, USS West Virginia, in fact ALL Colorado class battleships, are long gone. None are around for folks to visit.
Additionally, there aren’t even any standard type battleships left at all. It’s a real shame because they are basically a unique type of battleship (the others being pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, super-dreadnought, and fast battleship).
I would love to see a video in the Nevada's. Specifically, the difference between the previous designs of American BB's and the differences between the sisters, as well as the salvage and return of the Nevada, with the salvage and final loss of Oklahoma.
Small point: The 16" guns on the COLORADO Class were the same length as the 16"/45 guns on the NORTH CAROLINAs and SOUTH DAKOTAs, but their ammunition hoists, and turret loading and projectile storage systems could not handle the new 4.5-caliber-length 2700-lb 16" Mark 8 AP shells, so a shorter, lighter, 4-caliber, 2240-lb 16" Mark 5 AP shell (a scaled-up version of the new 1500-lb 14" Mark 16 AP shell) was used by the COLORADO Class in WWII. Other than the length and weight, the new shells were very similar in ability to penetrate armor (though the heavier shells had a small advantage at close range due to their weight -- bigger in the IOWA's higher-velocity 16"/50 guns, of course -- and a big advantage at long range due to having less slowing by air resistance, also due to their weight, which is why they were developed), being designed to penetrate armor of about their diameter in thickness at 35-40 degrees (actual test spec in WWII), WAY above any foreign shells. Thus, when US WWII AP shells hit their targets, the results were usually worse for that target than with most other foreign shells, on the average, as more intact penetrations -- as opposed to broken pieces -- would occur against any given heavy armor system on the enemy ship. For example, post-WWII tests by the US Navy of British 1590-lb 14" Mark 1A APC (the British added "C" for "AP Capped", like the US Army did, but the US Navy did not) shells compared to the 14" Mark 16 MOD 8 AP shells (the the version of that shell that was used by the US Navy in most WWII large-caliber-shell-versus-armor acceptance tests) at the British and US WWII armor acceptance test angle of 30 degrees against both new US Navy 17.3" Class "A" (face-hardened) armor -- barbette plates -- and new US Navy 18" Class "B" (homogeneous, ductile) armor -- turret face plates (all of the new US battleships used non-face-hardened armor for turret faces, unlike any other 20th Century battleships) -- the US shells penetrated intact at slightly above the test spec velocity, as expected, but the British shells -- one per plate -- either broke into pieces on the Class "A" plate or bent into a banana shape on the Class "B" plate, neither making more than a pit in the plate face (the results were so poor that the US test personnel decided that penetrating those plates with those British shells was impossible). Against thinner, 13.5" Class "A" belt armor (new plates made for older ship repairs, as on COLORADO Class ships damaged at Pearl Harbor, for example), the British shells at 30 degrees worked fine. Thus, WWII British AP shells had a "lid" on their penetration capability, while US AP shells did not.
No doubt. But they were obvious a good bit lighter/smaller due to their character. From memory RN AP shells also had a bigger bursting charge?
@@Jpdt19 British post-WWI APC shells had 2.5% Shellite fillers (except for the 16" Mark IB used with the NELSON and RODNEY that used TNT/beeswax like the 6" CPBC and 8" SAPC); Germany latest "L/4.4" APC shells had 2% block TNT with each block covered with a thick paper/felt "skin" and a big wooden block in the tip of the cavity as a shock-absorber; Japan WWII AP/APC had about 1.5% trinitroanisol ("Type 91 Explosive") in the BB-sized APC and about 2.5% of that explosive in the uncapped cruiser sizes (155mm and 203mm), with much of the cavity being filled with 33-40% inert wood, plaster, and aluminum cushions completely surrounding this filler, since it otherwise was almost as sensitive as WWI British Lyddite). Whey they did this crazy thing is very strange, since WWI experience by the British with Lyddite -- Japanese name "Shimose" -- showed that such explosives were way too sensitive for use in AP shells. The US wanted penetration first and just enough explosive in the shell to break it into a number of medium-size (body) and large (nose) chunks inside the target for maximum "carry-through" around the impact site on the enemy hull. Tiny fragments from large-filler weapons did much more damage close to the shell hit, but very little further away.
I'm playing world of warships while watching and looking at every ship you bring up lol. adds to the experience
My concern would be for the game's accuracy. I've seen some inaccurate information listed in games (mostly related to tanks), but I haven't looked into WoWs (primarily due to no source materials).
🤔
@@tyree9055 I can’t say for certain if every ship is accurate, but for many it is by far the best digital model in the world. The Yamato naval museum in Japan actually used wows model for reference when building a 60 foot scale model of Yamato as the centerpiece of the exhibit
World of Warships is fun to play. Their maps are a limitation, I feel, because the main guns could fire much further in real life than the ship's guns in the game. WOWs has artificially reduced the capabilities in many instances. Alternatively, other instances are just "arcade game silly", but fun to play. WOWs is fun to play, but often deviates from historical accuracy for "balance" purposes.
@@libraeotequever3pointoh95 no doubt about that, playing a ultra realistic naval battle wouldn't be very fun. I just enjoy the ships being accurate
Id love a video on Iowa class ships and how they would have faired at Leyte Gulf if they hadn't been lured away. Huge missed opportunity for the Iowa class to shine.
I think they would have stayed with the carriers, and not been involved in the surface actions.
Drachinifel happened to release a speculatory video on that exact subject just a couple weeks ago. See: ua-cam.com/video/35yLWdYEbZQ/v-deo.html
@@thedude3803 We look forward to Drachinifel being able to travel to the US to visit Battleship New Jersey in person :-)
@Chandler White He not only could see that none of the fast BBs had detached, New Jersey was his Flagship at the time. I don't see Halsey either LEAVING the fast carrier force by detaching New Jersey as part of the battleship force or transferring his Flag to another ship (a carrier possibly) for this battle.
What Halsey could have done would be to leave New Jersey (his Flagship) and one other fast battleship with TF-38 (fast carriers) and still have been able to detach Admiral Lee's TF-34 with the four remaining fast battlewagons (including Washington (Lee's Flagship,) North Carolina, one or perhaps both South Dakotas or one of those plus Iowa.)
Most historians including 'Halsey-philes' like me recognize that Halsey messed up big time. He made the unwarranted assumption that Admiral Kurita's Center Force had withdrawn after losing Musashi and ignored reports that this force had reorganized and was coming on again.
Drach. Has a video of this what if scenario.
It's fascinating comparing these designs. I enjoyed listening to your perspective on their construction and deployment. I agree with all of your points.
Thanks for appreciatively pointing out the features and benefits; beautiful ship. As I understand it, the standard class was the way the Navy coped with being funded for only 1 or 2 ships per class. Thus, it thought, a useful battle fleet would be gradually accrued, designs incrementally improving but keeping within the concept.
My dad's brother served on the USS Maryland. The story goes that he went down and enlisted on Monday December 8, 1941. He served all through WWII on the Maryland and was awarded two bronze stars. He was a pointer on one of the 5" guns. He was also on board during operation magic carpet when they were bringing the troops home.
My father served on the “Mary” during WWII he was a radio man working with the sea planes. Thanks for such a detailed on the Colorado class ships
Your knowledge of the history of these battleships and other warships is truly impressive!!
You need to do a video on the Fast Battleships, the North Carolina class.
Particularly on the USS NORTH CAROLINA, she was the MOST DECORATED BATTLESHIP OF WW2.
The Show-boat entered the fight right after the Pearl Harbor attack and was also the most trusted for bombardment accuracy by the Marines. On more than one occasion, Marines wanted shelling but asked if the NC was going to provide it before asking for this fire.
In one of her first engagements the Show boat opened up all guns but her main batteries to destroy Japanese planes attacking the battle group. She fired 26,000 rounds per minute and maintained this for about 7 minutes. Admiral Spruence observed just fire and smoke above her. He had his Flag ship radio, asking if the North Carolina had been hit... The radio man of the NC replied 'No Sir, we're fine'!
Yall Take Care and be safe, John
Check this out ua-cam.com/video/i_hcXuGIKuU/v-deo.html
@@BattleshipNewJersey Well that's convenient for me. Not so much for the next 30 minutes. Keep up the great videos!
@@BattleshipNewJersey
That was a nice video! I wasn't looking at a comparison as much as giving the old girl the honor and respect that her crew earned for her.
Yall Take Care and be safe, John
My father was stationed aboard the battleship California before the war and I have always wanted to know more about her. She was a Tennesee class and I think that would be and interesting class to learn more about. I have always wished that the California had been saved as a museum ship so that I could visit where my father spent some of his time in the Navy. I also think this class of battleships is about the best looking of all. It would be nice to see more about this somewhat neglected class of battleship.
Thank you, very much enjoyed this video on the Colorado class battleship.
I also love the Colorado class and I'm from Washington, so I'm a little disappointed that she was never completed. But sort of paradoxically I am still proud that she provided such useful information for the development of future battleships. And Washington was represented with the North Carolina class, so I can't really be all that mad.
I live in Colorado.
..and my Great Uncle Joe was on BB 46 during the war (a couple of others too)
So seeing this is pretty great.
Thanks
The Revenge class are sometimes referred to as the Royal Sovereign class or the R class in official UK Navy documents. Revenge was Laid down first but built in a private shipyard. Royal Oak was the 3rd one laid down but was built in a government shipyard and was launched first. winston churchill used all three names at different times.
royal sovereign was the 4th laid down, second launched and first commissioned
Maye that is why the British don't use the names of their ships in the class name- instead using "R class" "Admiral class" or "Town, Tribal, City class" or like today "Type 42 class" Since they can't figure out which ship is the "lead ship" US just says fuck it it was ordered first so its lead ship even if it comes out last
1:03 Ryan: Colorado class battleships are one of my favorites
Me, an ex-WOWS player: i hate Colorado class battleships with all my heart!
Me, a current WOWS player: agreed!
I actually got along ok with her. Iowa was one I just couldn't get used to for some reason.
Colorado was ok with deadeye. Now that that’s gone it’s back to being a favorite target for farming damage and not a whole lot more. Absolutely punishing ship to be overextended in.
Neat design in real life but the game does not do it justice.
I don't know. Because i used to sell my older ships after advancing through the tech tree, its quite some time as i sailed with Colorado at Tier 7. But i have West Virginia at Tier 6 in my inventory and i have to say that she is one of my favorite Tier 6 BBs.
@@balli7836 my absolute favorite T7 is Lyon. Guns aren't that punchy but there's so many of them.
Speaking of the battle line, recently I sat thru a US Navy film made in 1942 for training recruits in ship identification. The film narrator, sporting a shiny new eagle on each lapel, emphasized the idea that "The Battleship" was the most powerful naval weapon ever devised.
I love the old film footage of the ships
I really wish at least one of the standards that survived the war had been preserved as a museum. They were such beautiful ships.
Got to be the best chat up line ever. "Do you want to see my battleship?"
😳🤣🤣🤣💀
As far as Standard type BB's go, Both Pennsylvania (Arizona's sister ship) and Nevada made quite the name for themselves with their gunnery during the war. Both were extremely accurate. Nevada, for example was very popular with the ground troops on D-Day, she was able to reduce targets very close to our lines- without dropping those massive 14" shells on their heads.
And Nevada was a HUGE pain in the ass to sink- 2 nuclear bombs, battleship fire, bombs, and finally submarine launched torpedoes. Nevada didn't WANT to die! "BUGGER OFF- I'm fine!! Put me back in, coach!!"
My last comment was a joke of coarse....but seriously tho...i love your channel....and I love battleships....youve taught me so much!!! Thank you!!! I appreciate the time you put into making these
My grandpa served on the Wee Vee after she was refloated, first as an AA gunner, then as a radio operator. He narrowly escaped being killed by the Kamikaze that hit her during the invasion of Okinawa. His (illegally kept) war journal that was thankfully preserved has been fascinating for my family to read. Although it was heavily redacted, I've been able to largely fill in the gaps thanks to knowing a fair amount of the history of the war in the Pacific theater.
Looking forward to this one!
Thanks. Very interesting. My father was away on leave from the Colorado when Pearl was bombed. He was called back to Bremerton.
The Navy went away from the heavily divided propulsion spaces after the Colorado class. When it is a void space, counter flooding means counter flooding the void spaces on the other side of a ship. That just makes the ship sit lower, but doesn't take out propulsion spaces. On the other hand, if there are lengthwise divisions, flooding the boiler rooms on one side means counterflooding is done by flooding the boiler rooms on the other side of the ship. It just turns out to not be practical.
This was demonstrated in Peal Harbor - the Oklahoma capsized, and the West Virginia had to have all of the boiler rooms flooded to make it sink flat. This isn't a concern on any of the 1940's battleships, as they have full width boiler rooms. They either stay afloat or sink flat.
Learn so much from this video. And best of all Ryan is from Maryland like me.
This guy needs his own TV show traveling around and talking about different museum ships. I'd buy that.
There it was again: „Babcox and Wilcox“ 😂😂 - it is Babcock & Wilcox 😉😉
Ryan, I think there is a bit of a misconception you have about the way the turbo electric propulsion worked on most larger ships of the era. Each shaft had dedicated turbines, it wasn't the ship's primary power that ran the propulsion motors. Both the generator and the motors were synchronous machines. This meant there was a direct relationship between the frequency of the AC motor and the speed of the motor. Only at dead slow speed the motor field (the electric permanent magnet) could be turned off and the motor "slipped" and run slower. At slow speed and above, the motor field was turned on and the motor synchronized. The generator and motor acted as a fixed gear, and the ship adjusted speed by changing the turbine RPM.
The big disadvantages of turbo-electric is lower efficiency, more cost and more weight.
The advantages are multiple. The motors all can be placed close to where the shaft exits the hull and the turbines spread along the ship. Wires are smaller, less likely to be damaged and less cumbersome compared to shafts. Note on the Iowa's how long that engine room #1 propeller shaft is. Electric drive has a faster reverse, and full power in reverse. In a geared turbine, there is an astern turbine in the LP casing, and it is usually 1/2 the power of the forward turbine. Reverse time is also often limited to prevent overheating of the ahead turbine. In a turbo electric, the turbine rolls one way and the motor reverses electrically. That makes them very popular in ferry's that run both directions.
Today modern technology with electronic frequency conversion, they do use one generator for house power and propulsion. Nearly all cruise ships, oil rigs and many other types use this style of propulsion.
I had a relative who served on the Maryland during the war. I have a postcard from him which had been sent to my father from when he was apparently briefly sent for some training on some type of new equipment at great lakes in Jan of 45.
Also did pretty good in world of warship with the Colorado when I played. She slapped with those 16” guns and tanks well along with being sorta ignored as she’s not the most threatening ship in the tier spread”
Great Channel. Concerning turbos eclectic drive. As well as battle ships it was also used in much larger installations as well. Namely the Lexington , Saratoga. The French 30 plus knot trans Atlantic liner Normandie as well. Years ago I read a pre war legal journal article. The article was about a series of lawsuits the US navy had with contractors inability to manufacture stream turbines as well as reduction gears. The first classes of US Dreadnoughts had reciprocating engines because of this. The reduction gear suits were filed a few years after the turbines. I remember reading an archived brief that Navy installed turbo electric drive in the Lexington and Saratoga because the contractors inability to provide double reduction gears to specification. The brief referred to the ships as battle cruisers so it was early. Interesting stuff.........if your geeky. My wife laughs but she loves museums as much as I do.
As a Modeler I did always like the way that WeVee, and the Tennessee's looked after the refits.
I've been following (and subscribed) to the channel by Drachinifel, and I have seen your video come up as recommended. This is the first one I've watched, and I've subscribed to your channel.
This was a very informative video. Some comments, not in order of presentation of the video. Regarding a balanced layout remember that the Montana class were to have four triple turrets like the standards had.
As for the rebuilding of the West Virginia, it made sense to rebuild the West Virginia and California as the did because of the amount of damage they received, the amount of superstructure removed to refloat them, and that they hadn't been modernized before the Pearl Harbour attack. What didn't make sense to me for a while was why the Tennessee was also rebuilt like this two. It hadn't been sunk at the attack, only some bomb hits and some warped stern plates from the oil fires from the Arizona. However, considering that it hadn't been modernized yet those in charge probably figured that it would make sense to do the same upgrade as the West Virginia and California. What I do wonder is that had the war continued into 1946 would the Maryland and Colorado been given the same treatment as well?
Also interesting is that the Maryland and Colorado were the last US battleships with cage masts.
I can see that the modernised WeVe looks more menacing as a great machine of war should. But look at her in the original configuration, in tropical white, with those lattice masts, fairly low freeboard, sleek, main guns that are actually graceful.... the look of a racing yacht, with guns!
Near the end of this video you see a shell handling process scene with many shells that have a short cylindrical nose cap on them. These were the shorter, 4-caliber-length 1900-poind 16" High Capacity (HC) rounds, used on all US Navy WWII 16"-armoed battleships, including the COLORADO Class, for mostly shore bombardment, though they could work against smaller, less-armored enemy ships that a 16" AP shell might punch through just making a small hole without exploding. The version of the HC shells you see here with that nose cap are the later proximity-fuzed ("VT") version of the HC shell. These shells had a tiny vacuum-tube-powered short-range "radar" in them to detect when they got close to their target when used in new late-WWII US AA gun shells (but were going to have a near miss -- they did not sense things directly in front of the shell, allowing direct hits) or, usually for these big HC shells, against ground targets for air bursts. The thin metal shielded nose cap on this form of HC shell was a safety feature (US Navy was nearly psychotic about ordnance safety, for very good reason!) to make sure that no stray radio signal could even try to set off one of these VT fuzes, on top of all of the regular internal safety interlocks in all Navy fuzes prior to firing. This cap was removed just before the shell was rammed into the gun. These VT-fuzed shells had to have special nose openings drilled into them for these enlarged fuzes (vacuum tubes are much bigger, even these tiny one, than later solid-state chips), so usually they never had their nose fuzes changed, as the prior, conventional HC shells could from none ("Steel Nose Plug" so that the base fuze also installed in these shells would be used, instead), to impact ("Point Detonating"), to time ("Mechanical Time"). The US Navy in WWII tried to get the two basic types of general-purpose shells for use against surface targets, AP against armor and HC against everything else, as versatile as possible -- no surprises!
My Grandfather served on the USS Colorado BB-45 from 1942-1946 as a Lookout, Division L. His picture is in the cruise book. He told me many stories, from which, with the purchase of a book called 'Teakwood Decks: Or a Marine's love affair with a battleship' by Chris Barker that they were true!!! Chris was on the ship the same time that my granddad was.
Did you do a review on the New Mexico Class? You rarely hear about them.
Please do the QEs - and be sure to talk about Warspite's career, or you might end up in Drachinifel's dog house! ;-)
Quantitative Easing?
HMS Warspite was a badass ship.
HMS Warspite is the one British ship from either World War which should have been preserved.
A veteran of a number of WWI actions including Jutland where she took and dealt out a lot of punishment she saw a LOT of action during WWII in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian Ocean against all three major members of the Axis.
I highly recommend anyone interested look up her history and the reason she had the unofficial nickname of 'The Old Bullet Magnet,' (an old Royal Navy sailor told me about that one.)
@@robertf3479 Agreed. I think it was a crime they scrapped Warspite (excuse me, they TRIED to scrap her).
@@nicholasconder4703 Actually they did scrap her ... uh ... mostly. They couldn't get her off that rock or shoal, so they salvaged as much of her as they could in place, but they couldn't get all of her. There are still sections of her bottom including (I read somewhere) at least one boiler and other gear and steel. Sport divers with more b@lls than brains have dived on the site even though it is hazardous.
I happen to love the South Dakota class but I grew up with the USS Massachusetts right next to my house. I could see Battleship Cove from my bedroom window.
No adds ✌️👏
Excellent. Thank you.
I have a bit of a soft spot for the Colorado, being from that state. Many people in Colorado don't even know there was a BB Colorado. It would, however, have been a bit difficult for us to keep her as a museum ship.
Well, I think you just did an excellent job. I consider myself a bit of an expert on the American Standard Battleships and your analysis hardly differs from mine or that of Norman Friedman and other authors. The only thing I really saw that you missed not WeVi was that she carried out a great deal more deck armour after her rebuild. Actually more than the Iowas. It is not ridiculous to say that, for the old fashioned idea of battle line tactics, the Colorados were better ships than the third generation US ships.
I would much appreciate you doing a bit of history on the sinking of Nevada at Bikini. She was one of the totally rebuild standards and it appears she took tremendous damage even without an active damage control group. She even took hits from the 16/50's of the New Jerseys but I have never seen mentioned how many times she was hit.
Once more, thank you Mr Curator, you're doing a great job.
This is our episode on Bikini Atoll: ua-cam.com/video/m5E6Jgo6VKQ/v-deo.html
My father served on the USS New York from 1939 / 1942 as gunners mate 3rd class, then got transferred to LST’s for all Atlantic theatre invasions
I'm currently playing Colorado on World of Warships, so this video was interesting.
"I happen to have an Iowa-class battleship" *Assert dominance in a conversation!*
The main criticism of the standard type battleships were their speed and a certain British naval historiographer would point out that ships with a higher speed can dictate the battle they can engage and disengage when they choose.
I do think the standards had some good aspect but at the same time they were the victim of Congress being tight asses with the purse where we could not build a single large class of four or more battleships for a single squadron.
Thankfully the British were our friends and except for the Yamatos the Japanese never had a class of battleship that could survive a hit from even our 14-in guns which negated the speed advantages that they had over our standard battleships and by the time world war II rolled around we had our early fast battleships in service.
I feel like saying that the Japanese dreadnoughts couldn’t withstand 14 inch shells is a bit dismissive, as far as I know they were fairly well protected for the time they were built.
I like the standards, Colorado's in particular. They were good looking and effective ships.
The Colorado Class, was smaller at least in length, than my first ship, the USS Newport News (CA-148) The last all gun Heavy Cruiser. My time aboard 1968-69-70 Call sign THUNDER flag hoist; November - India - Quebec - Quebec Can you tell I'm proud.
Yes, I would too!
@@thomasgrzelak4477 🖐🏼 👍🏻
Heavy cruisers Salem, Newport News and Des Moines all rapid fire 8”. No other US ship had that capability.
I wish we still had the heavy 8” Rapid fire guns in service.
"I happen to have an Iowa class battleship to show off"
Until someone gets their hands on a star destroyer, nobody is outflexing that flex.
That Generator in turn supplies electricity to turn the electric motors that turn the ship's screws. Makes for smoother power.
Greetings from Ostfriesland!
One thing I'm VERY surprised about is that the WV kept the 16"/45c guns on her. I wouldve thought they would outfit her with the 16"/50c guns to give better shell ballistics. There are probably a million things i'm not considering that would've needed to be done or would have made that impractical. But it just seems like an oversite.
As far as keeping her in service, WV wouldve been a brillian ship in Korea and even as late as the Gulf War with her radar, scouting, and a more stable gun platform due to her width than an Iowa battleship, without losing a lot of firepower, only down 1 barrel when compared to the Iowas
Fantastic video, guys. Thanks!
Nothin will replace the Iowa class in my heart because that's my home state! They're also pretty freaking sweet :)
Enjoyed your comments on USS WEST VIRGINIA, especially at Surigao Strait. When you exam her logs and shot table she made no corrections after the first salvo.
That is because the MK 8 FCS is always on target. The Mk 37 FCR has a constant 15 yard error in range and 2 mils in bearing. That is about 50 yards at 30 kyds.
Great analysis. Thanks.
Unfortunately I’ve only been on the North Carolina at her mooring in Wilmington.
HMS Warspite, QE class, is my favourite battleship and I'd love you to look at her.
I actually haven't seen an Iowa class, but I have been all over a South Dakota class.
Where are you located? As you probably already know, there are Iowa class ships berthed in Camden New Jersey, Norfolk Virginia, Long Beach California and Pearl Harbor Hawai'i. Battleship North Carolina is berthed in Wilmington North Carolina if you are interested. Even though she is a couple of years older I think she is a more handsome ship than the South Dakotas and is in very good condition with restoration and hull preservation work on going.
@@robertf3479 I'm in the Florida panhandle. USS Alabama is the ship I've seen.
I’m partial to the North Carolina. She’s very similar to the Iowa class, just a touch smaller, but to me she looks a little more elegant.
Sad none of these were preserved. At least the WV would have been a good candidate having been a PH survivor and rebuilt like new.
Pennsylvania was also in town during the attack on Pearl. She didn't suffer much damage either.
One of my dad's best friends was injured while serving on the Mississippi as a MARINE gunner, that might be an interesting program, I know others has made videos, however you may have something interesting to say about the ship.
"I happen to have ab Iowa class Battleship" *happy Ryan noises*
I am partial to the Corsair, just because my dad worked on them during WW2.
If somebody hadn't scrapped the Washington, BB56, the North Carolina class would have been the most visited...
The Washington Naval Treaty is also the reason why Japan sided with Germany and Italy over its traditional allies, the United States and United Kingdom, during World War II: The US decoded Japanese diplomatic wires and found that Japan's government would accept a ratio of no worse than 3:5:5 with the US and UK in the Washington Naval Treaty, and worked with the UK to force that from the minimum acceptable ratio to the treaty-mandated ratio. Japan's people were infuriated by this, and as a result, a decade later they decided to ally with Germany instead.
Well you could look at my states name sake battleship, the german pre dreadnought battleship Schleswig Holstein. Mostly bc I love seeing people trying to pronounce it. In all seriousness tho, I'd love to see a comparrison to the QE-class
I have a quick question for you. I’ve been watching your videos for a while now and I appreciate deeply what you do. My question is, I’m from Milwaukee Wisconsin. I would like to know why the battleship Wisconsin isn’t in Wisconsin.? I really do believe that she should be in Wisconsin and not where she’s at! Your thoughts please?
First off, love all the videos! Question, what is the differences between the Iowas, South Dakotas, and Tennessee class Battleships?
Not arguing, but indicative of the scale of WWII. "WeVi didn't do much, just the Phillipines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa" True and Wow!
Best guess here, and not BB related. USS Ford was laid down in 2009 after a decade of development and blueprinting. ex-USS America was expended in 2005. Mayhap part of the costliness of the first-of-class Ford was due to redesgining based on the results of the sinking of America? I am fairly certain that when one sinks something as big as ex-America or ersatz Washington, the engineers and naval architets do not come back in a week with the defintive reprort. Timing could have been better but one does not usually have an extra supercarrier (or BB) to sink before design work begins. My bet is that this will also be money and time well spent for the Ford and her sisters in a new class.
When your from Maryland too: Laughs in battleship superiority
HMS Hood was actually a battle cruiser rather than battleship! So she did not have the armor protection that a true battleship has. Which the Bismarck quickly exposed!
Hood was one of a kind, so it has been and still is difficult to classify her. Bismarcks hit was a very lucky one - that battle could have went the other way easily. The Washington treaty left her in a world where upcoming battleships were smaller than Hood. So classifyjng her as battleship makes sense. Her speed would indeed make her a battle cruiser. Or the first fast battleship. Confused? Me too! The armor was decent for her time but fell behind as the war efforts of nazi germany and japan ramped up.