What Plans Were There To Improve the Iowa Class Battleships?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2024
- In this special episode we've partnered with Naval Institute Press to talk about the proposed changes to the Iowa Class with USS Illinois and USS Kentucky.
For the auction for the signed book:
www.ebay.com/us...
For other books from Naval Institute Press:
www.usni.org/p...
For our video on the King/Nimitz Plan: • King/Nimitz Iowa Conve...
To support Battleship New Jersey, go to: www.battleship...
My older brother was a member of the last crew of the USS Iowa. He was aboard when the gun turret exploded. Thankfully he was not killed. RIP to those who lost their lives.
me too 3rd div. what's his name?
Steve Grubbs was also aboard at that time
Ryan: An Iowa-class BB with Quad 8inch Turrets which are basically giant shotguns
Wargaming: WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWN!
😂😂😂
that's just a smolensk with extra steps
Judging by the thumbnail the plan was to weld two of them together at the bow to make some sort of boomerang type contraption
Yes
I think that's a representation of the rather odd "Wedgamaran" hull design created by eccentric, yet brilliant polymyath, Hector J. Peobody
The Chinese would flee in terror at the New-Iowa!
Keep this series going a little while longer Ryan we appreciate it and thank you very much for sharing what you know with us God bless you and your family and your whole crew
Post WW2 US Navy had budget constraints and the Iowa class ships had very large crew requirements - some 2,700 during the war and in Korea, pared down to around 1,800 by the 1980s. Even at 1980s level that is 5 Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers or 6 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. So, strictly from a manpower point of view you could have one battlewagon escort your carrier, or a cruiser and 5 destroyers - each with missile and helo assets. That means for the crewing of the 4 Iowa class ships combined you can get 4 CGs and 20 DDGs - game, set, match.
One of the reasons we designed "Surface Action Groups" around the BBs in the 80s - they were the HVU being escorted, and they would deploy alongside ARGs, as one of the Navy missions was (And still is) gunfire support for Marine amphibious assault.
About a third of the late WWII crew complement on US battleships was there to man the anti-aircraft guns. The 40mm and 20mm mounts were removed from NJ in 1968 and from the other Iowas in the 1980s, which is why the crew numbers dropped drastically. However, they were still very manpower-intensive ships since the 16” guns, 5” guns, and steam turbines still required a lot of men to operate them.
Ryan is perfect for the job. I appreciate the vast amount of information he possesses and shares.
I think a BB sized missile carrier would be fascinating… The sheer number of vertical launch cells would be incredible…. Very reminiscent of the Russian heavy cruisers they have now that are just massive missile boats.
Biggest problem would be self defense. I’d want nuclear power with backup gas turbines, and a couple of nuclear powered cruiser escorts.
Not really a good plan. VLS doesn't fit. And other ships and subs do the role.
@@WALTERBROADDUS As designed now, yes. Not a good fit. I’m talking if it was designed from the outset for it… Like the ship version of the cruise missile carrying 747 the air force once toyed with….
In today's jargon it would be more of an arsenal ship today. The funny thing about today's thinking, a battleship must be able to resist or be proof against all offensive weapons. Even before dreadnought no ships had absolute protection. The argument against battleships is flawed. A battleship is just as resistant to damage as the Ford-class and the Nimitz-class.
@@danielsummey4144 nuclear or CODOG. CODOG would be cheaper to build. I would also consider electric drive. This would allow one engine to power two or more shafts. Twin rudders is a must. Turn off the diesels run off the turbines and she could be sneaky quiet. Yes I have given this some thought over the years.
My father was a pipe engineer and worked on the refitting of Iowa back in the early 80's at Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula Mississippi
According to the book “US Battleship Conversion Projects 1942-1965” by Wayne Scarpaci (an excellent book IMO), the 8 inch gun conversions were actually for a different purpose than acting as giant shotguns: they were designed to fire a guided AA shell
I as a Former sailor enjoy learning about the New Jersey and her sisters ships. Also I find it amusing that somewhere onboard during your video someone is playing the music of my people IE a needle gun chipping paint. Lol Ryan keep up the great videos.
Simply amazing to me the plans for battleships were lost or unavailable. It would have been interesting to see the deltas between the first four Iowa battleships and the Illinois and Kentucky. Ryan, thank you very much for the videos.
Back in the day they made so much off the cuff and by hand that it was too difficult to document it all. And that's what they probably did there. For another example see curious droid's video about the Saturn F1 engine it's kind of the same thing.
The plans were destroyed with Hillarys emails.
@@thoughtfulhistorytoday7214 Oliver North shredded them.
The Iowas were not but since my post was eliminated you will now never know who had them.
The problem with discussing Battleship design past WWII is that none of the Communist navies had anything worth shooting 16" guns at. This is what truly killed the Battleships in my opinion, the total imbalance of power created in the aftermath of WWII. At a certain point, Battleships only offered an armored command center for a fleet, in which case an enhanced command suite would be the most important aspect of any future Iowa design.
You're wrong, the nature of war at sea changed, and according to doctrine developed and adopted during WW2, the primary power at sea was air power, i.e. the aircraft carrier. There was no need for massively armored and armed giant ships such as battleships, because a cheap and small submarine/destroyer or an aircraft, or later - missiles, were becoming more and more precise and powerful due to advancements in technology, and could seriously threaten such huge capital ships.
This danger, taken in consideration with the fact that it took a massive amount of time, money and manpower to build these battleships, sealed their fate as a class of ships.
@@s.majstorovic5598 In WW2 the aircraft carrier was weak and USN anti-air was a force to be reckoned with, incapable of delivering much firepower in comparison to Battleships. It took 8 aircraft carriers to sink the Yamato in nearly the same amount of time it took 2 Battleships to sink the Bismarck, and the CVs took more causalities at Ten-Go then Force H, which sustained no loss of life. Once Japan declared war on the US, they failed to sink a single US Battleship.
At the Battle of Midway, the most elite formation with the most elite crew had their flagship CV destroyed by a single hit and their Fleet Admiral couldn't command until Nagumo found another ship. CVs were floating bombs, capable of long range destruction but unable to take the hits, a cheap and small submarine/destroyer or an aircraft could destroy them and a laundry list of carriers were lost in WWII. The massive amount of time, money and manpower to build these capital ships, these fleet carriers did not seal their fate as a class of ships because CVs were especially good at countering the Jeune Ecole style fleet the Soviets had. Submarines and light surface ships would have a devil of a time trying to avoid being harassed and hunted by aircraft. Forcing the Soviets to sail in large formations for mutual AA cover would defeat the concept of the Jeune Ecole and that suited the USN just fine.
Against Soviet submarines and light surface ships, a Battleship would have nothing to shoot at expect perhaps port facilities and coastal targets. If for whatever reason, the Royal Navy and United States Navy went to war in 1945, Battleships on both sides would be used. Battleships were the hardest ships to sink so they'd make excellent command ships and they could deliver a tremendous amount of ordinance in a short span of time.
Don't forget my favorite coffee table book, 'Battleships' by Paul Stillwell and 'The Iowa Class Battleships" by Malcolm Muir. Nothing there about design changes to BBs 65&66, but great stuff about all U.S. Battleships in the first and Iowa class design in the latter. And the Stillwell-authored book covers the missile testbed made of the old Mississippi that allowed her to stay in service long after all others pre-dating the Iowas were retired. In fact, and although re-classified as a missile test platform, Mississippi was the only U.S. battleship in service for a short time in 1955 and 1956, the year she was finally retired.
I used to read Friedman’s book every few years, just to understand how we got to where we ended up. He did a great job - that book is wonderful. The UK needs similar treatment.
Great to hear work being done on the ship in the background. The sound of a active and living museum ship.
I miss the old WWII Iowas. Not because that there service was more important but, I'm a gun guy. I loved the look of them bristling with all those AA gun barrels!
Check out the Texas, North Carolina, or Massachusetts then.
Texas has the weird charm of being a WW1 dreadnaught gone full flackbarge.
NorCal is probably the best BB museum I've been to, even if the area lacks much else to see. Also has a 1.1 inch Chicago Piano.
Mass is a SoDak class with full late-war flackbarge AA. It's a nice ship, and the location is even better. Battleship Cove, USS Salem, Charleston Navy Yard, and USS Nautilus are all an easy drive from each other, plus Springfield Armory, New England Air Museum, and Boston in general.
@@MandolinMagi I've been on North Carolina. She's beautiful! I may to Massachusetts this weekend if I can trick the wife into it. I saw Iowa and Wisconsin at Philly in the early 80s but they weren't open for "tourists". I'm also planning to go see Salem.
@@johndougan6129 I've been to Wisconsin in the early 2000s at Newport news, but it was still in reserve and all you could do was walk around the main deck. Been meaning to go back now that its a proper museum.
Saw the Iowa this summer, the midway too. They are both in good shape in so cal. Texas is in for a refit, if she doesnt break when they tow her to fix her torpedo buldges. heres hoping she makes it.
@@worndown8280 Seen Midway years ago, great ship.
Really hope they can fix Texas up, she's a wonderful bit of history
I was a Plank Owner on the USS Detroit AOE-4 Fast Combat Support Ship. The Detroit was the fourth and last of the Sacramento Class AOE's. The Sacramento Class AOE's used the Kentucky and Illinois Propulsion Plants. I have been interested in the Kentucky and the Illinois BB because of my service on the Detroit.
Yes please Ryan, more on the potential post Iowa classes and improvements.
Hey Ryan, I have found some plans for Illinois and Kentucky in the NARA. The problem being they're not uploaded online. I can provide links to their index pages or whatever they're called, if you are interested.
It is always difficult to plan for future war-making technologies. Thank you for your insights.
to The curator of the USS New Jersey outstanding job we need more like yourself thank you so much!
I've not read anything to suggest the Navy showed an interest in it, but it's worth noting that the Army used multiple Iowa class barrels to create a 16" 100 calibre experimental super gun in the 1960s. The primary purpose was for space launch. Project HARP, working with the Canadians.
That could potentially have been a step on the way to a next generation 16" battleship main gun.
Ryan, another Kentucky proposal can be found in “BATTLESHIPS, United States Battleships, 1935-1992, Garzke & Dulin, Naval Institute Press, 1976, 1995”. It states that the 16/50 guns would be replaced with the rapid fire 8/55 in either triple or quadruple turrets. The guns would be capable of firing a rocket assisted 4” sabot w VT fuze. The proposed design advanced when the Bureau of Ordnance examined the 152mm guns on the French battleship Richelieu during her repair and refit in the New York Navy Yard in 1943. It also mentions a post war completion with 8in smooth-bore guns firing guided missile projectiles. Do you have this particular book and do you know of any additional references to the above including primary sources?
It was so great getting to meet you on the USS Salem on Saturday i cant wait to go to USS New Jersey soon and meet you agian.
Picking up on the rivetted and welded discussion, after Wisconsin had her new welded bow grafted on was there any perceived difference in her sea keeping? Thinking of the weight difference or was some ballast put in the welded bow to compensate?
Agreed on the real stacks. Please give us more on these newer boats!
A couple of additions:
1. The Iowas and SoDaks had “straps” (actually 1” or 1.5” STS plates) welded along the length of the citadel where the lower belt met the triple bottom in order to strengthen the connection between the two and hopefully avoid the lower belt from being pushed back into the bulkhead. It wasn’t ideal but it was considered good enough. It was certainly better than the Yamato class’s TDS, which had a weak joint where the upper and lower belts met. That could (and did in Yamato’s case) result in the joint shearing away and water pouring in near the waterline, which was much worse than having some engine rooms on the lower decks flood. The Iowas and SoDaks also actually had a deeper TDS than the Yamatos despite being much narrower.
2. As for welding vs. riveting saving 10% on weight, I believe that figure is derived from what you would save on a conventional ship from welding the structure and hull. On an battleship, a lot of the weight is devoted to armor and weapons, which mostly aren’t riveted in the first place, and if they were, the weight of the rivets would make up a much lower percentage. So we’d probably be looking at more like 2,000-3,000 tons of weight savings, although that’s still a huge amount.
That sounds like a needle gun on the deck. Man, this is bringing back memories!
Maybe the topic for a later video, but I remember reading in Proceedings about removing the rear turret and replacing it with VLS to carry a bunch of Tomahawks and Harpoons. A true "fleet destroyer".
I think it’s fascinating to see the growth in design as it advances through shipbuilding… and especially in warships. I could watch these informational videos all day long. Thanks, Ryan. 👍🏼
I just love this guy
One of the things talked about currently is overloading the defenses of a carriers support group to the point of running out of missles. With even a aft turret removed and VLS system in place you would have as many as at least 4 regular ships. With sea sparrow and phalanx doubled up you should be able to keep shooting way past the rest of the support ships.
The Interdiction Assault Ship concept for the Iowas was basically that. The rear turret was to have been replaced by a 320-cell VLS, as well as a flight deck for up to twelve Harriers.
Imagine a converted carrier with multiple 64 cell mk41 VLS fitted into flight deck into the hanger, from stem to stern.
One concern with building VLS into the hull is that you would have to remove the main armor deck and would have unarmored machinery spaces sitting right under a bunch of explosives. Removing the aft barbette might also cause structural issues. However, you could trunk all the engine exhaust into the first funnel, remove the aft funnel and superstructure, and construct a short lightweight superstructure above the main armor deck housing a bunch of VLS cells running from the first funnel to the rear of where turret 3 would be. That way a hit to the VLS cells wouldn’t doom the ship and you wouldn’t have to compromise the hull structure, but you’d still get as many VLS cells as a couple of cruisers.
One wonders if there were problems putting Kentucky's bow on Wisconsin due to construction differences
The changes to the torpedo defense Ryan described would not have extended that far forward. The structures matched up very well.
Would you folks consider making a video on the differences between the Iowa class ships that were built? I have heard that Iowa and New Jersey were different in some ways from Missouri and Wisconsin despite looking the same on the outside.
Hey Ryan! Thanks for all your hard work. I find it very interesting that there aren’t blueprints for Illinois or Kentucky.
I used to work for a Naval Shipyard in the 1990’s and performed some planning for the retirement of the Wisconsin. I remember finding many Iowa class drawings in the tech library of the shipyard. Since they have been retired does the navy make these plans available to the museum ships?
Which shipyard? The only known alleged to be complete set of plans is scheduled to be destroyed.
@@colosseumbuilders4768 Norfolk Naval. At the time I was there they were in the process of digitizing the hard copies of the plans contained in the tech library. It was really cool to see some of these very old drawings on vellum. Some of them which showed the whole layout of the ship were probably 12 feet long.
@@johnjensen2217 You wouldn't know how to contact them, would you?
Had the navy kept Illinois’s hull the ship would have been a great candidate for a fore and aft VLS box system, much more powerful than Kirov’s design.
It would have had to sit in mothballs for a few decades while someone got around to inventing VLS. We used swing arm launchers for about 20 years prior to the launch of the VLS equipped Ticonderogas in 1976. The first VLS-equipped surface ships didn't launch until the late 60's.
Even more interesting is that about a decade after decommissioning the Iowas, the navy came up with VLS tubes that were able to be mounted around the periphery of the ship. So they could have gone all around the edge of the deck and covered the ship with VLS without removing any guns. If the navy had that technology in the 80's I bet the refit would have been substantially different. No box launchers, but perhaps dozens of 8-cell VLS magazines all down the length of the ship.
Would removing the armored conning tower as depicted in the "King-Nimitz" design have helped much with the Iowas' topweight problems?
You'd figure that and any removed 16 inch turrents
The Iowas didn’t really have topweight problems per se since they were large enough to absorb the WWII upgrades, but they might have been able to mount more AA guns without causing topweight problems if the armored conning tower were deleted.
Well done. I am ordering the book now
I have this book and it is awesome! (I am a USNI member.. and they shipped this edition a month early. ) Be prepared though.. Friedman conveys an incredible amount of information in a very dense package!
Could you do a video about the proposed Montana-class battleships?
Did the battleships use #6 AKA bunkcer C? I thought they used #5, called Navy Special Fuel Oil (NSFO). #5 does not have to be heated to be pumped but does have to be heated to burn. #5 avoids the need to have heaters in the tank.
When recommissioned they were converted from Black Oil to Navy Distillate. Since BO was heavier was there any difference in sea keeping? Never was on a ship with BO thanks to the head snipe above. Interesting video. I know budgets are limited but maybe a few more pictures of illustrations. As for the rivet problem - Steel hull to AL top sides before the advent of the process of fusing the two metals together big problem. Keep it up. I am in Wilmington NC home of the BB North Carolina - interesting but not significant differences. MMCS(SW)I(SS).
Well, that was a quick fifty bucks. I wasn't even 5 minutes in and Ryan sold me a book!
When going in harm's way never assume that armor will stop something bad. I assume and think you mentioned about how and where to direct the exploding ammunition etc. away.
Another great video from the battleship.
always enjoy your vids Ryan! -thanks for these!
I think if they did build.USS Kentucky and USS Illinois the thought of them having.Either bigger main guns.Or just lots of VLS cells sounds really cool!
I clicked on the link to check out the auction for the books, but the only thing that comes up is a n amazing looking, massive triangular slab of the New Jersey teak..
Great video as always!
Same here !!
I have 6 of Friedman's books. BB. CV. CA. DD. SS1. SS2. Excellent books. Pricey as heck, but worth it if you want to know the inside poop on how each class came to be.
It would be interesting to see what effect the Army's new ramjet artillery shells would have on Naval construction. Arty that only goes 11 miles now can be projected as far as 1000 miles. Can you imagine the Iowa's fitted with that ordinance. 16 inch ramjet projectiles with fin controlled GPS systems. Ouch. Dang near the same range as a tomahawk with a bigger bang.
And the new ram jet projectiles. Watch out China!
For a discussion of missile launching battleships, see Admiral Boorda's proposal for an Arsenal Ship. Capable of firing land attack cruise missiles and re-arming cruisers and destroyers on station instead of sending them back to the States.
USS CHICAGO and USS ALBANY had those incredibly tall superstructures due to aluminum construction. The British found out during the Falklands War with Argentina that aluminum superstructures are a bad idea. This is why USS ARLEIGH BURKE class ships have steel superstructures and have replaced FFG7, DD963, and CG51 class ships.
Definitely interested in those later designs
Talos missiles were the first to be deleted. Of the terrible Ts, Tartar systems was designed to be a direct drop-in for a 5 inch gun mount with a rotating magazine directly under the launcher. Tartar eventually became the SM1
Didn't realize that there were two newer Iowa upgrades being built during WW II. Nor did I know about the fuel bladders on the outside used as a torpedo buffer. Surprised that they were still riveting everything during the original construction of the Iowa class battleships. Wow, welding saves 5,000 Tons! I imagine that by the end of WW II there was more of a focus on Aircraft Carriers being protected by more smaller cruisers & destroyers in the Task Forces. Imagine removing the 16 Inch Guns with Eight Inch Cruiser Guns. I agree that it would have been a waste to build new Iowa Class Battleships without the big 16 Inch Guns - maybe two Tri-gun Turrets - One Fore and One Aft. Increase Missile Defense and Delivery - Yes. Make them Faster - Yes. Bottom Line is the older Iowa's would have ended up Scrap or Museum Ships and the new Iowa's would still be serving if built - One in the Pacific and One in the Atlantic. Great Topic. Thanks for this Video.
Definitely interested in seeing more on late Iowa designs!!!!!
"The Navy were okay with 4 fast battleships to match the Kongo Class"
_looks at the Kongo Class_
what a match indeed
US fast BB: Looks at Kongo…
Kongo: blows up.
@@loh1945 None of the US Fast BBs could catch up to a Kongo was the problem until the Iowas were completed.
The Kongo Class was originally a battlecruiser. Japan upgraded them to fast battleships during their reconstruction.
@@josephmichuda6447 Nah, they were still battlecruisers. They upgraded the turret armor somewhat (only to about 10”) and made some deck armor improvements, but they still only had an 8” main armor belt, which puts them firmly in the battlecruiser category. That won’t even stop 8” heavy cruiser rounds under 10,000 yards, as Hiei discovered.
@@bluemarlin8138 while she sank to the bottom.
love this series too Ryan please continue it... A 40mm gatling type cannon would be awesome hooked up to the radar like Phalanx and perhaps even a 100mm gatling type anti aircraft weapon.. even single gun auto 300mm guns would have been awesome too
That no blueprints from the 2 Battleships under construction is sad.
That needle gun, singing its too familiar song! LOL!
Great video, thank you.
The blueprints for BB-34 to BB-66 were sent to the US Navy Historical Warehouse in Memphis and appear to have been destroyed about 15 years ago.
@@colosseumbuilders4768 Wow, what a loss.
Thank you for the reply.
"...and one by my bed"
What a stud!
I REALLY enjoyed this talk. Many thanks!
The Mighty Mo!...nuff said.
Great Channel! Fantastic information!
I like the upgrade that would let her jump out of the water to avoid torpedoes.
I'd love to see more of the Iowa designs
4 completed battleship hulls were converted to AOE class ships. I served on USS Sacramento (AOE-1) for the first 4 years of my Navy career.
I believe it was the main engines for the first two Sacramento class ships came out of the incomplete Kentucky hull
Did I miss the link to the "King Nimitz" design?
You mentioned the Montana class, do you know if the navy got very far with their designs? I saw a sketch of one once but no information. The main difference was they had 4 16 inch turrets but other than that I haven't read anything. Just curious whether they were basically going to be a longer version of the Iowa class or were there to be significant other differences as well. Enjoy you channel keep up the good work.
People often have no real clue as to how flammable different fuels are. This can be fun at times when you freak them the hell out by tossing a lit cigarette into a diesel can (or if you are worried about ruining things, just ash the cig into one a couple of times).
Excited to bid on a signed book and all I see on eBay is piece of the teak deck being bid on! Cmon Ryan! We love you!
I know there is no reason to have any active battleships but they are very awesome to see!
I know in the planned refit for the Hood was to replace her crushing tube with the space being converted to Wing fuel tanks
For me, first is the King & Nimitz design because of it's alterations, it can also be modernized like in the Cold War, second is the Guided Missile Battleship design, either of those might be worth it.
Love your Vids, and yes lets see some of the proposed designs in a future videos....
I'd love to hear more about the improved/"what-if" BB's.
I would like to see more as you said Ryan
Ryan, I agree with you on how hideous "macks" were. They sucked "golden pacifiers" harder than the basket masts of the earlier battleships.
Macks... absolutely disgusting
If you would replace the aft gun turret and barbette. That gives maybe 5000 tons plus the welding 5000 tons. 10 000 tons of missiles would be a lot of missiles.
On the lack of flammability of bunker C (fuel oil #6):
Pretty much any fuel oil cannot burn at room temperature. If you want to test that out yourself, try setting kerosene (fuel oil #1) on fire without a wick.
Coleman lanterns that run on kerosene need something (usually alcohol) to heat the gas generator so that the kerosene can boil, which it does before it burns. Gasoline-fueled models can burn liquid gasoline to accomplish the same thing, though.
wasnt intending on buying 200 bucks in books when i started this video but here we are and ive ordered the destroyer, cruiser and battlehip editions of those books.
Were any of the structural changes noticeable with the bow replacement on the Wisconsin?
There was also a battlecarrier proposal for the Iowa class
Great video thank you
Yes please to the video about possible derivatives.
Where's the link to that King-Nimitz Iowa video? It's not in the video description and I couldn't find it quickly in the uploads.
Also, is there any video yet about the post-WW2 Class Improvement Program? In the late 40s/early 50s, the US Navy drew up plans to upgrade all of the ships they had in reserves with 3"/50 anti-aircraft batteries in place of the 40mm/60s - and I mean all of them, even the battleships. Most of the Baltimores were so upgraded, as was one each of the Oregon City (CA-124 Rochester) Cleveland (CL-82 Manchester) and Juneau (CL-119 Juneau), but I know the Iowas had CIP plans drawn up and I'm fairly sure I also remember seeing ones for the North Carolina class.
A VLS New Jersey with an Aegis system would be awesome👍
I'd like to see the additional designs
Would love to see more on what might have been built. Also compare the Iowas vs Montanas
Great on-brand sponsor!
I personally think that they erred in going with a strait carrier focus. I could only imagine what kind of capabilities a modern capital class gun boat to go along with the carrier force. Maybe my understanding is flawed. But, my memory says the main reason they got away from them because the design reached its service life. I'm talking possibly modern guns, as well as the ability to fire MLRS, cannon, AND cruise missiles, alongside modern carriers.
Yes please I would like to know more about the post war missile conversions and other conversions
there is another very interesting book, which in this case concerns all the conversion proposals elaborated and never carried out for Iowa and beyond
The book is called "US battleship Convertion Project" written by Wayne Scarpaci
Thank you Ryan and your crew for another excellent and informative video.
Question what was the back ground noise?
I believe you are right in all of this
I'd be interested in seeing those potential variants of the Iowa class.
Very good video essay. I think that during the Reagan Administration at least an attempt would be made to lobby Congress to reactivate every available Iowa class battleship to include the notional Illinois and Kentucky. When your stated objective is no more specific than a "600-ship Navy" then I believe that six of them would have been been Iowa class battleships.
Was someone needle gunning during the video?
With regards to the 8" AA battleships. They used Smooth Bore guns so that the guided, sub-caliber, SAM-N-8 Zeus's guidance and flight control systems wouldn't need to compensate for spin. Such a system would've had the performance required to deal with the early, maneuvering, jets and things with performances similar to early maneuvering jets (like subsonic anti-ship missiles), with an SSPK of 0.025 at 15,000 yds and 0.3 at 5,000 yds. There was also a "Zeus II" proposed with a sustainer motor and improved guidance. I don't thin the USN would've kept her in service very long in such a state as guns had become somewhat unfashionable but I expect she would've been found to be very capable.
There's always tradeoffs that were designed into these ships due to the combat conditions in which they were expected to encounter. It would be very important to find out what the blueprints showed. I wonder what Navy dept. would be willing to release them?
Those 'MACS' you showed looked like a great target for an adversary. lol
4:45 Also, people having this reaction base it on film-watching experiences. Liquid Petrol, Diesel, and Fuel-Oil are definitely not explosive and not even really flammable. It's the vapors that burn and heat the liquid to make it vaporize faster. Only in a situation with very high pressures of both flammable vapor and air/oxygen is a true explosion even possible.
Would like a vid focusing on Kentucky