Why The US Navy Wants BATTLESHIPS Again (Compilation)

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 24 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 658

  • @martthesling
    @martthesling 10 місяців тому +119

    3 hour infographics video on Battleships? Answer: Yes.

    • @Halicet
      @Halicet 9 місяців тому +14

      Except the majority of the video isn't about battleships, but general naval assets lol

    • @martthesling
      @martthesling 9 місяців тому +9

      @@Halicet yeah...🥲

    • @dherman0001
      @dherman0001 9 місяців тому +4

      This is an AI generated script.

    • @vincentperiolat4610
      @vincentperiolat4610 9 місяців тому +1

      @@dherman0001 that's exactly what I thought too!

    • @medic5133
      @medic5133 8 місяців тому +1

      how are large ship navys fairing in the black sea post age of drone combat?

  • @GTGibbs
    @GTGibbs 9 місяців тому +36

    Former Sosus Operator in the mid Seventies. Fairly accurate telling, so much more went on, the Illustration’s however are too simplified to rate for accuracy. It was a boring repetitive watch string, until we tracked a target, then things actually got exciting. We even were able to plot the courses of enemy targets. Pre- computer era; but it was starting up. Salute to all the Vets and active-duty folks. Ocean Systems Technician Petty Officer GTGibbs.
    ( The cover story for our rate was;Oceanographic Research Technician, they lied to us to get us to sign us up. And only told us the truth. On the first day of “A” School.

    • @Byepolarchaos
      @Byepolarchaos 6 місяців тому +2

      How are US technical diver in the 70s I actually repaired those units off the coast of Great Britain, Scotland, and Wales

  • @Bluemage014
    @Bluemage014 10 місяців тому +54

    Uh, correction. USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin were the two battleships in Desert Storm, which were classified as Iowa-class battleships because Iowa was the first one created. Iowa was never in Desert Storm.

    • @juliodyarzagaray
      @juliodyarzagaray 9 місяців тому +3

      The New Jersey shelled Druze Militiamen in Lebanon in 1984.

    • @cubeofcrabs
      @cubeofcrabs 9 місяців тому +2

      🤓

    • @xiaoka
      @xiaoka 9 місяців тому +1

      @@juliodyarzagaray desert storm was 1991.

    • @juliodyarzagaray
      @juliodyarzagaray 9 місяців тому +3

      @@xiaoka I know. This wasn't Desert Storm. This was Lebnon 1984 in retaliation for Hezbollah's suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine and French army barracks. The New Jersey was brought back before the Missouri and the Wisconsin and actually used in combat in the Middle East first.

    • @barneyrice8502
      @barneyrice8502 9 місяців тому

      NO IT Was Not

  • @robedwards9486
    @robedwards9486 9 місяців тому +7

    I made the mistake of getting lost on Ft. Bragg in 1992 on National Guard duty while driving a deuce and a half by myself which was already against orders but I was late to Guard duty and had to make the drive by myself. I pulled up to the wire at the guard shack to ask for directions and was on on my face before I knew what happened with many a muzzle pointed at me. My commander had to come get me. I had no idea I just pulled into Deltas kingdom. The fence with razor wire and worn in humvee tracks inside it, in the middle of a fenced in area is there for a reason. Back then anyone could drive on base no questions asked in most areas.

  • @scotthaught1
    @scotthaught1 10 місяців тому +36

    i like how the graphics in the beginning of video have the battleship moving in reverse

    • @Vatsyayana87
      @Vatsyayana87 9 місяців тому

      Its the camera catching up and passing the said ship.. You can tell because the waves start passing at a much faster rate..

    • @calebcase80
      @calebcase80 5 місяців тому

      ​.......

  • @galexymitzelplik9560
    @galexymitzelplik9560 10 місяців тому +117

    Im a 38 yr old man, so why do i get giddy as a schoolboy when thinking about battleships, Aircraft Carriers, Jets and guns?!

    • @SkyRaider-31
      @SkyRaider-31 10 місяців тому +13

      Simple. It make big boom

    • @crazestyle83
      @crazestyle83 10 місяців тому +8

      'Cause 'Merica

    • @Sloneyyy
      @Sloneyyy 10 місяців тому +7

      Honestly because it’s hella awesome homie

    • @robertmiley4496
      @robertmiley4496 10 місяців тому +2

      Trick question.

    • @marccamiolo2892
      @marccamiolo2892 10 місяців тому +12

      No matter how old we get…boys will be boys. Farts are always funny and things that go boom are always cool!!

  • @MrJonesKaraoke
    @MrJonesKaraoke 10 місяців тому +22

    I think the reason they're going to go ahead and introduce these analog systems again. Are they are going to use emp.

    • @dianapennepacker6854
      @dianapennepacker6854 9 місяців тому +1

      EMPs? Military equipment is hardened forever now. Maybe not all. Yet much of it is for the exact reasons you fear.
      Remember we went haywire with Nukes and nuclear strategy back during the Cold War. We legit thought any war would be a nuclear one.

    • @MrJonesKaraoke
      @MrJonesKaraoke 9 місяців тому +1

      Electromagnetic pulse, Fry's electronic systems efficiently. If they start using that all that push button warfare and guidance system stuff goes to the toilet.

    • @Quxrk
      @Quxrk 9 місяців тому +3

      You cannot hack an analog system is the main reason

    • @barneyrice8502
      @barneyrice8502 9 місяців тому

      Or are Smart Enough To Know It Can be Used Against Them

    • @Justcurious987
      @Justcurious987 9 місяців тому

      Today’s technology like the electromagnetic gun and laser on an auto or remote battle ship!! The US will never concede the sea to China numerous ship. We will fight inside shade of their defense zone.

  • @Checklist_STT
    @Checklist_STT 10 місяців тому +33

    Try stopping 16 inch volleys with CIWS. Excalibur-type guidance could also be adapted for 16 inch projectiles, and probably laser guidance too.

    • @pottyputter05
      @pottyputter05 10 місяців тому +1

      Excalibur uses GPS

    • @Checklist_STT
      @Checklist_STT 10 місяців тому +1

      @@pottyputter05 Yes. It does.

    • @alanbrown397
      @alanbrown397 9 місяців тому +4

      There's a sayin in military aviation: If you get close enough to the enemy to engage in a dogfight, something has gone SERIOUSLY wrong. The ship launching the 16 inch volley is not going to get within firing range of most targets - and it doesn't have enough top armour to protect against inbound missiles which can actively target soft spots

    • @berrigo2
      @berrigo2 9 місяців тому +4

      Try getting in range with 16in guns when your enemy has antiship cruise missiles

    • @pauldewees7571
      @pauldewees7571 8 місяців тому +1

      More importantly 16 inch shells can be replenished at sea! Missiles, especially v.l.s. launch Missiles have to be replenished pier side.

  • @imbetterthanyouis
    @imbetterthanyouis 10 місяців тому +161

    for the most inaccurate info on the military , infographics never fails

    • @aradyngaming6263
      @aradyngaming6263 9 місяців тому +21

      Even in the different sections on this video, they contradict their facts. Example, one section stating aircraft carriers have a classified speed over 30 knots "and believed to be 50 knots", then 2 minutes later saying top speed of 36 knots. As prior USN, I think I picked out at least 20 pieces of bad info by the 30 minute mark.

    • @imbetterthanyouis
      @imbetterthanyouis 9 місяців тому +1

      @@aradyngaming6263 yeah i know aye

    • @Frankthetank-zr5mc
      @Frankthetank-zr5mc 9 місяців тому +14

      yep. It is good to turn on in the background to initiate deep, deep sleep. Those looking for an education need to seek knowledge elsewhere.

    • @djraythefurry0420
      @djraythefurry0420 9 місяців тому

      Lol honestly if you want some educational content watch licensed professors or mark Felton 😂
      Forgotten weapons
      The chieftain
      David Fletcher
      Bc tank Jesus is yes
      And there's quite a few more just check for the "licenses of practice" and you will be fine 😂
      P.s
      If you reading knows what a license of practice is I don't have to explain this to you
      So
      beyond that hope you have a good day good luck to you and may you find peace in your domain thnx for reading my long comment X3
      But for people who do not know what a license of practice is ,
      it is when a person going into a field of study such as psychology for example,
      And gain enough knowledge in college to earn a license to practice or use their knowledge in the field legally
      but you can only do so if you have a license that allows you to do it , if the person you're watching doesn't have a license for any field that they're talking about it's probably best to not listen to them 100% 😂

    • @richardhe5973
      @richardhe5973 9 місяців тому +2

      Also countries are developing hypersonic missiles just for aircraft carriers. DengFeng etc

  • @SaltyRad
    @SaltyRad 9 місяців тому +8

    It’s also worth noting that our understanding of trajectories has only increased over time as well meaning there are ways to provide better accuracy with a bullet then there was decades ago.

  • @maxcaysey2844
    @maxcaysey2844 9 місяців тому +5

    One thing to note is, that an Ticonderoga class missile cruiser is a quarter of the size of an Iowa class. If you took like a container ship... filled it with MK41 VLC, you could probably hold more than 1000 missiles..

    • @Stellar001100
      @Stellar001100 9 місяців тому +1

      At the very least have 100+ Harpoons in disguised containers.

    • @maxcaysey2844
      @maxcaysey2844 9 місяців тому

      @@Stellar001100That is actually kind of the design philosophy of the danish frigates. That things come in "container" modules so you can basically tailor the ships for the mission at hand. In reality its a lot more complicated, as you would need to have multiple different container modules and it takes a long time to reconfigure a ship etc. but it is a thing non the less.

  • @bobbyflynn6352
    @bobbyflynn6352 10 місяців тому +55

    When are you going to continue the "I survived X days of the invasion" series? We NEED to know how it ends!

    • @r0d1tub2
      @r0d1tub2 9 місяців тому +3

      Yes, please

  • @kevinstreeter6943
    @kevinstreeter6943 9 місяців тому +8

    There are countermeasures against missiles. There is none for line of site weapons like guns. When I was in, they developed guided 8 inch shells.

    • @Stellar001100
      @Stellar001100 9 місяців тому +1

      Of course there's a counter for guns. Not be in range of them, throw up a smoke screen, let the sub support sink said gunship, air support. If you have to close in for guns, mistakes have already been made.

    • @teddeebayre3433
      @teddeebayre3433 8 місяців тому

      No true. Artillery shells can be intercepted.

  • @Independentthinker-d5q
    @Independentthinker-d5q 9 місяців тому +8

    USS Wisconsin was the last Battleship to see combat, the USS Iowa was decommissioned by Desert Storm

  • @19delta32
    @19delta32 9 місяців тому +2

    31:38 Also colt ar-15 is NOT an automatic rifle. The Navy uses M-16's and M-4's. ( AR stands for ARmalite.)

    • @barneyrice8502
      @barneyrice8502 9 місяців тому +2

      Exactly Right BUT YOU CAN NOT TELL THAT TO A DEM !!

    • @samgray49
      @samgray49 8 місяців тому +1

      If you really want to be technical, the M16 and M4 are AR-15's. The XM16 was based off of the AR15 which was designed specifically for the Army to create a new weapon to replace the M1 Carbine. It didn't make it, so Armalite released it to civilian while Colt reworked it for military usage, which was later accepted.

  • @gforce03XX
    @gforce03XX 10 місяців тому +15

    Bring back the Montana Class and the 18" Guns. With Gluide and Excalibur technology.

    • @mattgriewahn8554
      @mattgriewahn8554 10 місяців тому +4

      Never exactly built the Montana, but yeah, a modern version of one would be nice to have one or two of those.

    • @brandonlevy8680
      @brandonlevy8680 10 місяців тому +2

      Iowa class, not, Montana and it was 16" (406) guns.

    • @gforce03XX
      @gforce03XX 10 місяців тому +3

      @@brandonlevy8680 I am aware of the Iowa class, Montana Class development was mothballed in lieu of the aircraft carrier. The US once fielded the 18"/48 caliber Mark 1 naval guns. So no correction needed thanks

    • @brandonlevy8680
      @brandonlevy8680 9 місяців тому +3

      @@gforce03XX you said "bring back". Which means it was once around and it wasn't. It never made it past the drawing board. So yeah. Correction needed.

    • @ebenfredclarissa
      @ebenfredclarissa 8 місяців тому

      @@gforce03XX , never built . So never mothballed.. the design was shelved .

  • @oculusangelicus8978
    @oculusangelicus8978 9 місяців тому +5

    The most effective Armor made by the US and UK is Chobham Armor, now, Imagine a battleship made with Chobham armor. Even if a Anti-ship missile made to the battleship it would likely do insignificant damage. and I think if 16 inch artillery shells meant for Battleships are still in stockpile, something I highly doubt, then it would be to America's advantage to update and redesign the massive guns to modern standards with more powerful explosives and also incorporate Excalibur technology into the shells to make them significantly more accurate and able to track moving targets. Plus there are already experiments being conducted to incorporate Ramjet engines into artillery shells (the XM1155 program) which would incorporate long range capabilities into artillery shells and combined with Excalibur smart technology into those shells a new Battleship could send special shells far from being within enemy reach and still do serious damage to and sink enemy aircraft carriers, battleships, submarines and supply vessels without ever endangering itself. If I could have any influence in this kind of project I think I could generate a Battleship that would be virtually unsinkable, and be an enemy navy's worst nightmare. Plus still be able to go broadsides with any of the world's battleships and come out on top with barely a scratch, send the crew out with some fresh paint to repair the only thing damaged in battle, the hull's paint scheme, and markings.

  • @emilgil1490
    @emilgil1490 3 місяці тому

    "Weapon must be simple and controllable"
    Sun Tzu few thousand years ago.
    Same thing French understood after production of monstrous multi-turret tanks with electric transmission ( and 2 electricans + 2 electrican helpers onboard ) in 1939 that they are not proud of, because all those tanks FAILED MISERABLY.
    And it was not about "Schar B" medium tank loosing totally to Germany's EARLY Panzerwagens.

  • @randallpetroelje3913
    @randallpetroelje3913 9 місяців тому +4

    I don’t pit brother against another brother, unless they’re in a bar they’re all equally insanely trained and equally capable of handling their missions❤😂

  • @thunderchaser2042
    @thunderchaser2042 9 місяців тому +4

    Iowa was not the final battleship to see combat. Missouri and Wisconsin were the two deployed to Desert Storm. Iowa had already had her number two turret center gun blow out.

  • @ItzRayCheesy
    @ItzRayCheesy 10 місяців тому +28

    the voice actor is very iconic

    • @MrJonesKaraoke
      @MrJonesKaraoke 9 місяців тому

      I think the voice actors in the AI.

  • @scottmatthews3793
    @scottmatthews3793 9 місяців тому +4

    Whatever happened to that Swedish submarine that "sunk" the us carrier in war games, I think they went undetected too

  • @CitiesTurnedToDust
    @CitiesTurnedToDust 3 місяці тому +4

    I've seen about 1,000 articles about battleships coming back and have never heard a good argument for how that would actually be feasible and cost effective

    • @shadowbonbon3
      @shadowbonbon3 2 місяці тому

      Because you can counter missiles, and it is way more cost effective to shoot unguided shells than it is to shoot down unguided shells

  • @jimsomers8915
    @jimsomers8915 3 місяці тому

    Battleships do something that carriers and submarines can never do. You can park one in somebody's harbor and it can be an obvious and constant visual deterrent

  • @katbailey33
    @katbailey33 2 місяці тому

    Impressive!! Great research and accuracy! I love my Zumwalt class, and it’s been a big deal with the LMVLS project, it’s getting hypersonics currently. Proud to say I’ve been part of that project, love our destroyers

  • @StephenKarch
    @StephenKarch 4 місяці тому

    I believe "The BestOf The Best" was first used to describe the S.A.S. The Original and best Special Forces in the World. Nobody exists that can match their Experience or Professionalism.

  • @lfinsterl
    @lfinsterl 10 місяців тому +6

    one of the most important parts from the wilderness training for SAS is memory. You will be asked to tell the trainers how many trees in an area or what colour a bridge was something like that. If you fail to answer these you are immediately expelled.

    • @mepps7706
      @mepps7706 10 місяців тому

      reminded me of Robert De Niro
      in Ronin 🙂

    • @smyers820gm
      @smyers820gm 10 місяців тому

      That’s not true

  • @JoeTrojan88
    @JoeTrojan88 4 місяці тому

    Iowa was already decommissioned before Desert Storm. Wisconsin and Missouri fought in Desert Storm. Wisconsin ran the Tomahawk task force, Missouri was primary Naval Gunfire Support platform.

  • @robertmosher7418
    @robertmosher7418 10 місяців тому +11

    The mysterious unspoken threat the Zumwalt destroyers were not fully capable of destroying? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that would be submarines.

    • @Ilias_Goddess
      @Ilias_Goddess 9 місяців тому

      the cost of operating these ships

  • @dne9394
    @dne9394 10 місяців тому +8

    Seems like a great job for unmanned submersible gun ships.
    Imaging a “boat” surfacing 6-8 miles off shore, touting large, auto loading guns, dumping 60-100 rounds onto targets.
    Then slips below the surface. Retreats and is reloaded.

  • @captainsledge7554
    @captainsledge7554 2 місяці тому

    Before watching this waste of time... just know this. . . When the navy dept mentioned bringing back battleships recently.. it was not using the same powder guns. It was for the new classified rail gun that is very successful and makes china's rail gun look like a slingshot.
    My guess is they'll have 1 or maybe 2 turrets of powder guns, and 1 rail gun. Or vice versa.

  • @JoePal-c3n
    @JoePal-c3n 3 місяці тому +1

    Make lasers cannons and missal launchers on these fine battle ships as well as helicopter landing pads

  • @philipliethen519
    @philipliethen519 9 місяців тому +2

    Contrary to infographics, the BB’s were not brought back for shore bombardment needs, rather b/c Reagan committed to a 600 ship navy & so many of our cruisers were retiring & building capacity could not fulfill needs, so it was decided to bring the Iowas out & modernize as “real big” missile cruisers, with 16” guns indeed, but also armor sides & deck that could still take absorb significant damage.

  • @ancientixl
    @ancientixl 5 місяців тому

    Carriers can go in excess of 60 knots. Years ago when steaming with the USS Enterprise (we were doing plane guard) she up and kicked it up to 60 knots. I know as I was on watch (surface search radar, SPS-10). She pulled away from us like we were standing still and we were doing 30 knots at the time.

  • @fightingfalcon1986
    @fightingfalcon1986 4 місяці тому

    The Type 23 Duke Class are not cruisers, are anti-submarine and mutirole frigates. Their draft its their main difference because a cruiser is usually a bigger and heavier warship

  • @comradeeverclear4063
    @comradeeverclear4063 10 місяців тому +13

    Accuracy by Volume

  • @markredgrave6282
    @markredgrave6282 10 місяців тому +13

    I read once that when the New Jersey was off the coast of Lebanon, some of our Marines were taking artillery or large caliber mortar rounds from an adjacent ridge from their position so they called for naval gunfire support from the New Jersey on the ridge from where they were receiving insurgent fire. So the New Jersey unleashes some volleys from their 16" rifles on the offending position. So New Jersey radios hey Marines did that suppress the fire from the ridge? The Marines answered, yea roger New Jersey, except there's not a ridge there anymore lol!

  • @LightS_bRight
    @LightS_bRight 9 місяців тому +2

    World of Warships dropped the ball on not sponsoring this video.

  • @Faceless_Mailjam
    @Faceless_Mailjam 2 місяці тому

    Excellent presentation

  • @eze417
    @eze417 9 місяців тому +1

    It looks like you have your Zumwalt-class destroyer sailing backwards.

  • @markrowland1366
    @markrowland1366 6 місяців тому +1

    Try special services. My sister married one. In counseling soldiers I was informed the stories I related were the perview of the SAS. I trained them in martial arts.

  • @Mr-Probability-Storm
    @Mr-Probability-Storm 3 місяці тому

    I think a ship that could deployed a small army of single maned escape pods would be cool ..
    alot of new escape pods on ships a small drop esacape pod ship of afew on a rear .. or oil rig .. .. usualy can hold like 15 or 20 people each or so ..
    But imagine a ship with single manned drop pods 100 pods on each side in rows of 3 to 5 for 600 to 1000 pods .. all designed to resurface with engines and armour piercing round light machine guns and some with anti air missiles . .. multi purpose attack espace pods would be a carrier of small ships designed to continue its fight against enemy air support or ships even after the main ship went down ..

  • @383Iron
    @383Iron 3 місяці тому

    The Pacific Ocean is huge we are not sending anything smaller than a destroyer across it for war period unless it has a mother ship.

  • @bender5308
    @bender5308 8 місяців тому +1

    The USS Missouri (BB-63) was the last Iowa class battleship that saw action in the Gulf

    • @knottyash9908
      @knottyash9908 8 місяців тому

      The uss Wisconsin was the last one to fire a shot in anger.

    • @bender5308
      @bender5308 8 місяців тому

      The USS MISSOURI fired the first shots of the Gulf War

    • @knottyash9908
      @knottyash9908 8 місяців тому

      She did. She also fired 783 16 inch rounds and 28 tomahawk missiles compared to Wisconsin’ 319 16 inch shells and 24 tomahawk missiles. Both ships played a pivotal role in convincing the Iraqis that the us was going to launch a amphibious invasion thus forcing the to divert vast military resources for a invasion that never came.

  • @cubeofcrabs
    @cubeofcrabs 10 місяців тому +493

    For every like this comment gets, i’ll do 0 pushups.

    • @DarkKatzy013
      @DarkKatzy013 10 місяців тому +26

      Do less those are rookie numbers in this racket 😂😂

    • @FTGN7
      @FTGN7 10 місяців тому +9

      Aight bet

    • @PragmaSolidity
      @PragmaSolidity 10 місяців тому +14

      Video or no proof

    • @matthouston6533
      @matthouston6533 10 місяців тому +5

      Done

    • @twistedyogert
      @twistedyogert 10 місяців тому +6

      You had me in the first half, I'm not going to lie.

  • @KevinKerrigan-b8u
    @KevinKerrigan-b8u 9 місяців тому +1

    P what about this has anything to do with the military wanting new battleships

  • @Justone372
    @Justone372 6 місяців тому

    Awesome video.

  • @NormanCzerski
    @NormanCzerski 6 місяців тому

    As with modern field guns, rocket assisted smart shells can extend the range for a hundred miles and computer guidance makes them precision. The cost advantage is many time that of a conventional missile. Their velocity also makes these shells difficult to intercept and stealth tech makes them hard to detect. There is also no tell tale exhaust.

  • @karltaylor5643
    @karltaylor5643 9 днів тому +1

    Iowa class battleships have about 1200 16inch shells. How about making them shells missiles? 1200 missiles would be more potent with far more than 25mile range.

  • @rawgage7
    @rawgage7 9 місяців тому

    I love these videos and want to see them all!

  • @franktate9873
    @franktate9873 10 місяців тому +2

    A shell is very hard to hit with plane or missle. So the battle ship can be needed and the shells cost less.

  • @kidbusiness112
    @kidbusiness112 10 місяців тому +3

    liked this so much i subbed :D

  • @DavidCooper-bn6te
    @DavidCooper-bn6te 7 місяців тому

    Your information and content are good. The narrator maintains a consistent and intelligible pace thats easy to follow, but the "graphics" are childish and cheesy.

  • @StephenKarch
    @StephenKarch 3 місяці тому

    Isn't it The FA-18 that's on your Carriers?.

  • @picklerix6162
    @picklerix6162 4 місяці тому

    Admirals need toys plus there was a coupon, “Buy one aircraft carrier, get a free battleship.”

  • @tonycrabtree3416
    @tonycrabtree3416 9 місяців тому +3

    I mean, Space Battleship Yamato foretold this!

  • @ericnorteman5341
    @ericnorteman5341 7 місяців тому

    Can the salvos from the battleship be retrofit with jdam?

  • @maynardhahn2873
    @maynardhahn2873 10 місяців тому +1

    You didn’t mention the F 35 with the aircraft carrier, I’m pretty sure you left a lot more than that out then that highly capable for offensive defense that’s my thoughts

    • @nickh4309
      @nickh4309 10 місяців тому

      Yeah Ford is so complex that she likely skipped 5 or 10 generations in carrier tech. Usually they include a new system or 2 to work out with a new ship. With ford they developed and improved 23 systems. Thats why it took so long and went way over budget.

  • @bradbrandon2506
    @bradbrandon2506 10 місяців тому +3

    If the kitty hawk can take all that and float, without the support of a crew, I'd be amazed to see what the Ford could take!

  • @AdamSeeker-k5u
    @AdamSeeker-k5u 9 місяців тому +1

    Chinese aircraft carrier doesn’t have close to speed of a US aircraft carrier.
    Stop it. A US carrier can easily turn well over 35 knots. That’s just the fastest they tell you it will go.

  • @sppj3140
    @sppj3140 10 місяців тому +2

    When are the challenge videos coming back we all miss those and the I survived nuclear war series

  • @MattyJ55046
    @MattyJ55046 8 місяців тому

    The zumwalt was suppose to give us something like a modern day battleship. However, the technology just isn’t quite there yet. I’m sure we are still trying to perfect the zumwalt main weapon system.

  • @StephenKarch
    @StephenKarch 3 місяці тому

    Its The Brecon Beacons, the training area in Wales.

  • @matthewhuszarik4173
    @matthewhuszarik4173 7 місяців тому

    You are wrong about the explosive charges in missiles versus bursting charges in battleships shells. Most battleship shells had a bursting charge of less than 100lb. Most surface to surface missiles have warheads of at least 500lb. The damage battleship shells did was due to their weight and momentum not the bursting charge.

  • @LEGO.0.
    @LEGO.0. 10 місяців тому +5

    Modern battle ship would go crazy

    • @Ostor_95l87f
      @Ostor_95l87f 4 місяці тому

      Sure. Fully automated gunner, reload, way cheaper ammo. The disadvantages they had (crew) could basically be eliminated. Technology to intercept will get better. Higher fire rate at lower cost, good luck intercepting all of that..yup, makes some sense already.

  • @waitingforanalibi2224
    @waitingforanalibi2224 9 місяців тому +1

    Before anyone brings up the sub section of the video and mentions the recent RN Sub missile launch fiasco. Can I remind you the vessel and crew (British) performed flawlessly.....The Polaris missile on the other hand............

  • @19delta32
    @19delta32 9 місяців тому

    It's not Colorado, it's Coronado. You know, at the beach, near the ocean. Where the Navy Seals operate.

  • @donvee2000
    @donvee2000 7 місяців тому

    1.5 miles in 11 minutes for the seals is nuts. I hear most guys can do it in 10.5. crazy

  • @davidwebb2487
    @davidwebb2487 10 місяців тому +2

    why not combine the 2 ideas big guns on a aircraft carrier? planes and big guns.

    • @ivanruzic2592
      @ivanruzic2592 10 місяців тому +2

      A US company was building a hybrid battleship for the Soviets pre-WW2, but eventually decided to end the project before she was finished. Had they persisted for just a bit longer, USS Kearsarge, the first purpose-built battle-carrier in the world, would have been born. And even without her, the Japanese Fuso- and Ise-class battleship were eventually retrofitted into battle-carriers. Too late to matter much, but they still existed. Maybe not what you think of, but such ideas were considered before.

  • @honeyspringshomestead1411
    @honeyspringshomestead1411 5 місяців тому

    Okay, assume i know nothing. Now that has been established I will share ideas/thoughts.
    Instead of using 16" rounds on the big battleships, what about building pocked battleships like Germany did prior and durimg WW2. Perhaps something like the Graf Spee. I believe it had 11" guns and was under 12,000 to 14,000 tons. Iowa class is 45,000 tons with 16" guns.
    Another idea, albeit probably a bad one, put guns that can be used for artillery on carriers. Again, probably not a good idea.
    Another thought would be to take the drone idea to a new level and range, and strap a bomb on that. Possibly even use Reaper drones if those are a thing.
    My last thought, and possibly the worse one... use a big ordinace and a drone of some sort that can return after launching its ordinace.
    A far out there idea, launch something into space that can return to earth, but hit a target. Could get good velocity that way.

  • @orion_13
    @orion_13 2 місяці тому

    Is it just my bad eyes or are the ships moving backward at the start of this video?

  • @SummonedJudge
    @SummonedJudge 9 місяців тому +1

    And the first salvo fired from the second turret on the Iowa blew itself to smithereens killing everyone in it.

  • @scottsyverson4260
    @scottsyverson4260 Місяць тому

    Why not build the Monitor class of naval ships rather than battlewagons? The role of the Monitor class was to provide inland target support for contested landings, it had little armor and was much shallower in draft so that it could get its battleship caliber guns much closer to shore.

  • @youngstunna1594
    @youngstunna1594 10 місяців тому +1

    Devgru actually offers services for military and civilians…,let say you think you have what it takes to be a seal…, they have civilian courses, and many operators already apart of Jsoc also can and do receive training from Devgru programs…, they are the ROTC of the jsoc world. Other branches special missions groups also have similar but lesser known programs.

  • @bernardedwards8461
    @bernardedwards8461 8 місяців тому

    Experience is the word, not veterancy! It was the rise of the carrier that put paid to the battleship. Logical when you think about it, the battleship can only strike targets 20 miles away, but a carrier coud be 200 miles away and deal devastating blows to the battleship while being way out of reach of return fire. The main reason aircraft carriers are so fast is to create airflow over the deck, the more airflow you have, the easier it is for aircraft to take off and the more weight they can carry. Their speed also makes them harder to hit. The ship that cant be sunk or the tank which cant be knocked out will never be built. Main battle tanks are also obsolescent, and the US marines have got rid of most of theirs in favour of lighter, easily portable armour for a rapid and flexible response.

  • @maxeadon2021
    @maxeadon2021 2 місяці тому

    Special Air Service not special aircraft service. They do not change the oil buddy.

  • @MrConstipatedCow
    @MrConstipatedCow 4 місяці тому

    19:42 SCIF acronym has F for Space

  • @wlerrigo
    @wlerrigo 6 місяців тому

    A middle truck fires a missle which sets off a dumb bullet load led by the missle

  • @Manuel-un4vm
    @Manuel-un4vm 7 місяців тому

    I saw the USS Texas in dry dock and it may be old but it's still a massive weapon of death and destruction. Its artillery shells weigh 15x as much as the 155mm shells used in Ukraine and it has a dozen of them as well as other huge guns. During the falkans war the British worried more about the old argentenian battleships from WW2 than the smaller more modern ships. Yeah battleships can still be used in war. We still use artillery so why not?

  • @josephsmith6777
    @josephsmith6777 9 місяців тому

    Seals usually involved water but post gwot they have a counter terrorist group besides regular seals closer to delta the true difference is one needs the navy ones a fully contained unit that has its own intel logistics etc etc

  • @roba4295
    @roba4295 6 місяців тому

    ??? I wonder how the marines would have felt about receiving the Iowa into their inventory, and how they would have chosen to deploy such a beast???

  • @honey8784
    @honey8784 4 місяці тому

    The music is annoying. It’s a common practice but seldom done appropriately.

  • @GRIGGINS1
    @GRIGGINS1 4 місяці тому

    The Iowa did not serve in Desert Storm. Wisky and Mighty Mo did.

  • @rickrick196
    @rickrick196 9 місяців тому

    The US weapons, especially offensive and defensive missiles technology, is developing so fast for the U.S. I’m guessing the battleship is probably the best platform for them.

  • @lukejask5814
    @lukejask5814 10 місяців тому +1

    Please do more research before saying things like
    Colt automatic rifle 15
    The AR doesnt mean automatic rifle. Its short for ArmaLite Rifle.
    There is nothing automatic about and AR15 regardless of brand.

  • @teddeebayre3433
    @teddeebayre3433 8 місяців тому

    The Navy is now perfecting missile re-supply at sea. This is a game changer.

  • @reezydrips_drips6823
    @reezydrips_drips6823 2 місяці тому

    Bring them backkkkkkk🔥🔥🔥🔥not for wars for the looks

  • @richardfalter6244
    @richardfalter6244 8 місяців тому

    As we speak most of the people call any ship with a big gun on it a battleship. Half the people out there don't know the difference. A battleship made today coul. d be a really dangerous ship. With new kinds of shells they could be as accurate as a missile and harder to soot down. It would be nice just to see what some of the designs look like. It would be interesting to see.

  • @StephenKarch
    @StephenKarch 4 місяці тому

    Why no mention of the British Queen Elisabeth Class Carriers?.

  • @herbenevolence4198
    @herbenevolence4198 9 місяців тому +1

    Battleships would be the only reason for me to cross-rate to a surface sailor

  • @StephenKarch
    @StephenKarch 4 місяці тому

    Only helps having A Missile Force if you actually fuel them with fuel not water as the Chinese have supposedly been doin recently.

  • @crazestyle83
    @crazestyle83 3 місяці тому

    It'll be a destroyer/ battleship hybrid.

  • @MitchNewman-l6r
    @MitchNewman-l6r 3 місяці тому +1

    1 US destroyer itself will wreck a battleship.

    • @biker9835
      @biker9835 3 місяці тому

      Just one round from one of those guns is a thousand pounds. The destroyers nowadays aren't built like the old battleships. The battleships had way more armor

    • @MitchNewman-l6r
      @MitchNewman-l6r 3 місяці тому

      @@biker9835 it will never be able to hit the Destroyer is way faster with Tomahawk cruise missiles plus all the other special weapons it has it’s not called a DESTROYER FOR NO REASON.

  • @All4mula
    @All4mula Місяць тому +1

    Artillery is never obsolete

  • @brandonlevy8680
    @brandonlevy8680 10 місяців тому +2

    BBs will never make a comeback. At least not as we understand them. I can see BCs making a comeback, but the 16" shells (even with modern enhancements) are not cost efficient. I could see a gun focused CH or BC mounting 203's all the way up to 305's but not 406's. Any gun focused vessel will either have to be heavily escorted with a near peer (or equal opponent) or it will be used to shell insurgents who really lack the means to pose a serious threat to a naval vessel. The bigger you make a gun focused ship, the deeper the water needs to be (further from shore). I agree we (the U.S.) do need something that can fling out shells at a high volume at relatively long range but, we could do that with a CL or CA by mounting several 155's (which we already have the ammo in production ((dumb and smart shells) and still mount a credible AA defense. Most likely it will be some sort of hybrid ship that has guns AND VLS which means either one of two things. The ship is going to have to be incredibly large OR they will have to use smaller caliber guns/minimal VLS cells. The exact same reason that BBs became obsolete in WWII is even more applicable today. Instead of cheap aircraft that can be used to swarm ships, we can accomplish the same thing with missiles at a longer range, better accuracy and no risk to personal. I can see something that combines the fire power (VLS capability) of the new Constellation class FFGs with 2 turrets with 1-3 barrels each of 155's on a larger hull ( CA or CH but for current CH designations, it would have to be a minimum of 203's unless that is changed). Considering the armor a BB uses (more steel JUST for armor than most current cruisers weigh with a combat load out). I mean...considering a 1,000 LB JDAM has a range of 15 miles, just throw a stealth coating on it and dropped by a Stealth platform at 40k feet and you just lost your slow (ish), heavily armored, cumbersome and extremely expensive BB for less than $100k. That is not even counting modern anti-ship missiles. The days of 16" shells and 1' of armor belt are long gone.

    • @Eastsidegeorgiaboy
      @Eastsidegeorgiaboy 10 місяців тому

      Missles cost way more than drones.

    • @brandonlevy8680
      @brandonlevy8680 9 місяців тому +1

      @@Eastsidegeorgiaboy still cheaper than an airplane which was what I was pointing out when, I said that the reasons for the BB becoming obsolete even in the 40's is even more applicable today and missiles go a lot further than MOST drones and they carry a far heavier payload. Which would be needed if they brought back the traditional BB like so many of these comments are saying.

  • @philipthecow
    @philipthecow 10 місяців тому +1

    45:30 has some pretty entertaining graphics.

  • @wlerrigo
    @wlerrigo 6 місяців тому

    Why not use one smart middle to guide dumb shells to the target?

  • @RedRider1600
    @RedRider1600 9 місяців тому

    The Ford can go a lot faster than 35 mph.
    When the Navy says their ship's speed is more than 30 knots (~35mph), it doesn't mean they can only go 35 mph. It means the Ford can go at least 36 mph, or maybe even faster than 40 mph. Actual top speed is classified.

  • @-00N000N
    @-00N000N 7 місяців тому

    It is like explosive minigun sat close range vs snipers at close range

  • @ssaraccoii
    @ssaraccoii 9 місяців тому

    I don’t think we have the industrial capability to manufacture the armor plates of the size and thickness required to meet or exceed what the Iowa class had. It would take building new factories near the shipyards.