@soldierprincess8422 : Haa! , When the firing began, I turned 40° hard to port, told the engine room to give me full military power, laid smoke, snuck alongside the enemy vessel & opened up with a full 9 gun broadside at only 10,000 yards...Their Captain was blown clean out of the battle bridge and their tin can went down with all hands.
In the case of WW2 non homing torpedoes the Iowa best defence is it speed. The faster the target is going the more narrow the intercept cone. A sharp turn or change in speed can also completely ruin a target calculation
@@philiphumphrey1548 Yeah, though not for lack of trying, they were way too fast for any Uboat to get into position. The only way would be for a cordon/gauntlet of Uboats waiting at the approaches with the express purpose. Honestly if I were a marshall I'd want them sunk, those things transported a good portion of the troops it took to open and sustain the Western front.
It is a two parts problem: susceptibility (how many torpedoes launched and how many hits) and vulnerability (how many hits will end up in a kill). - If the Iowa class is up against modern Mk 48 torpedoes, it is highly susceptible to hits given advanced fire control, but also depends on if if BB towing NIXIE or not. and 2 hits on the keel, especially amidships, would very likely to result in a kill due to heavier and more powerful warhead. I would say one salvo of four launched will likely result in a kill. - If the Iowa class was up against WW2 era Mk 14, it was not as susceptible due to short range of Mk 14, but also due to gyroscope guidance of the Mk 14 torpedo. Moreover the trails of torpedoes could be spotted and evasive maneuvers could be made, and an Iowa could outrun a WW2 submarine and even a modern diesel electric submarine. On the vulnerability side, the kill mode of Mk 14 was to punch holes that result in flooding, that would require significantly more hits to result in a kill. My guess is 6 or more hits amidship made with magnetic detonator switched off were required to result in a kill. - If the Iowa was up against torpedo bombers, chances are, it was very likely not susceptible due to the anti-aircraft battery onboard as long as AA battery was not saturated (and it is hard to do so as demonstrated by the kamikazes). USN WW2 shipboard anti-aircraft battery was considered the most efficient in WW2, whereas Japanese counterpart had substantial problems with fire control. Musashi took 19+ aerial torpedoes before it sank. Despite underwater protection of Iowa class was somewhat inadequate as shown in tests done by Philly Naval Shipyard in 1943/1944, better damage control and better quality assurance during construction could result in ability to withstanding more hits. So speaking to the question of should the Navy change the torpedo defense design. My answer is straight no. the reason is that it would be costly and result in late delivery for the war. Moreover, the operation of BBs in carrier battle group meant that the BBs were protected by destroyers from WW2 era submarines launching torpedoes from short distance at periscope depth, and effective AA battery substantially reduced the susceptibility to aerial torpedo hits to an acceptable level.
On these type of vids, it would be a good bit by Ryan if he simply said "well, it really depends," walked away, and the rest of the 15 mins was just a shot of a bulkhead location.
One torpedo sank Ark Royal but it had been allowed to deteriorate and it had absolutely no diesel generators. Its boiler uptakes were also badly placed and collapsed from flooding.
More importantly, poor damage control! It could have been saved if properly conducted damage control was instituted! There are videos out there, including one on this channel, about what went wrong!
@@mahbriggs I'm not exactly an advanced scholar on this topic, but the impression I've had is that yes the damage control was poor, but even if it was excellent serious design flaws would probably have doomed her anyway. Wish I could remember what I'd read that gave me this impression!
@nottakennick Neither am I, and I can't find the video and online articles that went into detail of the salvage efforts. But I remember the Court of Inquiry made the determination (I am doing this from memory, so I hope I get it right) that the hasty evacuation of the ship left vital man hole covers and water tight doors open, and prevented an organized damage control effort. ( not all the damage control specialists needed were available). Proper counter flooding could have brought the ship back to an even keel and kept the ship afloat long enough for tugs to bring it to Gibraltar. I wish I had time to find the video(s) I was looking for. I believe there were a couple of online articles that also bolstered that conclusion. Yes, the design flaws were largely responsible, but the hasty abandonment and subsequent disorganized damage control played a large part. I remember reading that an analysis of the loss and its reasons was made part of the teaching of damage control efforts. I would have liked to have done a better reply, but I am preparing to go on a camping trip for a week, and hopefully, by daylight, I will be on my way!
Also depends on the size of the warhead and where it struck…That book talks about hitting them in the sides…The newer torpedos explode like the old MK-14 influencer exploder which explodes underneath the keels! The sinking isn’t always the goal…sometimes it is just getting them to not be able to do their job and tie up drydocks, repair facilities & materials…
@@justinweidenbach3699 the question did not understand the dynamics… The goal isn’t to sink…It is damage it beyond it’s ability to do it’s job…The other goal is to tie up resources in repairing it..Snipers often wound…It ties up 4-6 people, instead of loosing one you have removed the 4-6 from the battle line…I know…I was a torpedoman on a sub…
@@stevea9604 I get exactly what you're on about here. Like USS Bunker Hill and USS Franklin, though not torpedoed it's the same concept, keeping them afloat cost more sailors & aircrew than evacuating, they were out of action for the rest of the war, and given they could be easily replaced they wouldn't even be strategic losses.
I love watching these videos while I'm folding laundry or doing almost any chore. There's something about Ryan's barely restrained goofiness that makes me feel comfortable.
Having served a tour of duty on USS Missouri BB 63 and seen the armored belts first hand; it's hard to imagine any offensive weapon doing any significant damage. They are marvels.
a good example of modern torpedo like a mark 48, the you tube video sinking the uss racine lst 1191 a vietnam era ship.i was on the racine and my jaw dropped. it just blew up the air bubble the ship dropped back broken back ship sinks
If the ship is closed up for action, damage control teams will be ready. If there is an "ambush" and the ships watertight doors are mostly open and most of damage control are busy doing other things, then a strike with X number of torpedos could have a vastly different outcome depending on the crews readiness.
Don't know about Iowa class, but Archerfish proved it took six torpedoes to sink a Yamato class battleship. The Shanano was a carrier built on a Yamato class battleship hull. IJN needed to move it beyond range of B29 air strikes. Archerfish caught this ship as it was moved away from Tokyo harbor. It got to see open ocean for some 36 hours before Archerfish tagged it with six torpedoes. I would love to have been a fly in Tokyo to watch Hideki Tojo fece so hard the back of his pants split open when informed of this.
Truly magnificent maurading monster's! 👍🏻I wish the U.S. would've continued to upgrade them after the 80s refit. Imagine the boondoggle zummwault $25,000,000,000+ being spent on upgrading all 4 of the Iowa's AGAIN instead. 😎 And even in today's dollars an Iowa is LESS than a frigate adjusted for inflation and less than 1/8th the cost of a Ford class cv. 😀
To be honest, as war built ships, I would not change a thing. Could they have been better? Yes, but it would have taken longer to design and build, or to fix any known flaws once late in the build.
What's the most damage a battleship has taken and still returned to port for repairs? Or, still remained active and succeeded when she really should have gone back to port? Could be a good topic for one of your "Pictures are worth a thousand words" videos! Thank you for the excellent content!!
@@notsureyou One of the many casualties of Jutland. Definitely the most wrecked. There's some nice photos of Warspite post Jutland too. Including the shot that would give steering troubles during the battle and the rest of her career.
@@Tuck-Shop What someone wrote in a forum: "The shell hit often claimed as taking out the rudder actually hit after she started doing donuts. When the rudder locked over, Warspite’s starboard side was facing the enemy, but the shell hit on the port side. In reality the culprit was a faulty steering engine, which overheated from the strain of such high-speed maneuvers. Valiant experienced an almost identical failure on 4 May 1916, with her steering frozen for three minutes outside of combat. Warspite’s own crew made the damage worse, twisting the control shafts between the upper and lower conning towers and damaging the differential. An ersatz water supply cooled down the steering engine and the ship began steering fine, but had to be controlled from the steering compartment itself due to the damage in the conning tower."
Putting US designed internal structures and Iowa class propulsion in a Vanguard shaped hull would be a good start. More room and a more efficient hull means she could be wider for a better TDS imho
In terms of WW2 she is extremely well protected although as with Bismarck a single hit could disable her . I don't know how a Brooklyn class cruiser compared but in terms of her last commission in the 80/90s she would probably be a bit more vulnerable , although as lead ship in a group capable of detecting pretty much anything it's unlikely anyone would have got close enough to try .
HMS Prince of Wales might have survived the hit on its propeller if that had been all. The problem was she remained under attack, they had to keep running the damaged propeller shaft, the list neutralized her anti-aircraft defenses and she took more and more hits.
We did. North Carolina took a torpedo that missed Wasp on the most wulnerable spot, in front of the turret A. The protection absorbed the punishent, albeit narrowly. Thus, Iowas with much better underwater protection than NC, would not have been even close to be exposed to a total destruction.
I would keep the defense the same. Any significant additional armor would have lowered the speed and made them less effective (in my opinion). Great discussion as always, Ryan!
Well, as little as one torpedo, or depending on where they hit, the timing between the hits (allowing damage control to take over) all are factors. Quite possibly much more than five torpedoes especially on alternate sides of the ship.
An interesting pointed was noted right at the end of the video - building the ships a bit beamier, then you could make a deeper defense system. Yes, that would slow the top speed down a bit, but I note that the North Carolinas and South Dakotas have a top speed of about 28 knots, 4 knots slower than the Iowas. Since the use of these ships that required their top speed was as carrier escorts, I was wondering if they ever NEEDED that top speed operationally; in other words was that extra 4 knots ever needed in practice during the war?
I think the defence was adequate considering what the ships were designed for. I would say the greatest weakness is that they were so long making them much easier to hit by torpedoes.
The length to beam ratio of the Iowas made them turn slower than the Yamatos which would have also made them a bit easier to hit, but I think their main weakness was their narrowing fore section at turret #1. Their great speed, from their length to beam ratio though, would've made them harder to hit as well.
@demoskunk I agree I know that they made them longer specifically to make them faster and yes that did give them advantages over the South Dakota class however it also gave them lots of weaknesses like you mentioned. I think the South Dakotas we're a better use of taxpayer money. Maybe 2 iowas should have been built but they did not need 4. I visited Missouri and she is a grand ship
Ryan. If the New Jersey was reactivated for a freedom of navigation, run through the Straights of Malacca and Taiwan. What upgrades would you put on it? And what old systems could be reactivated? What flavor ice cream would be made on board?
From memory the Germans with the Scharnhorst class discovered after designing and building them, that the sloped torpedo bulkhead wasn't as strong as a straight one. Which is why the Bismarck class reverted to the vertical design. Every design has to make compromises and trade-off's and looking at real world wartime experience, it's hard to know what would have been a better option. When NC was hit by a torpedo: "Plate IV and Photo 15 show that vertical scarphed and longitudinal joints in the armored outboard bulkhead of A-416E were opened. Flash or flame from the torpedo explosion could have entered this compartment through these openings. The ventilation ducts in this compartment and the ventilation gate valve in the outer powder circle were damaged as indicated above. Hence, flame might have entered the lower handling room A-509B from the torpedo explosion.* Had 16 in. powder bags been exposed in A-509B, such a flame might have produced a powder fire. However, it is believed from the discussion below that had 16 in. powder bags in tanks been present in A-509B, the possibility of a powder fire from such an instantaneous flash would have been remote. Since NORTH CAROLINA was not at General Quarters, it can be assumed that powder bags were not exposed in the lower handling room. Powder bags, however, are handled bare in battle; consequently, possible paths of entry of flame into handling rooms and magazines cannot be accepted. It has been shown above that such a path did exist via damaged ventilation ducts on NORTH CAROLINA. It is essential, especially for ships using bag powder, to prevent passage of flame into magazines and handling rooms from above, and also necessary to prevent the passage of flame between handling rooms and magazines. V-D-3. With regard to the "large flashes of flame in A-512-T, A-310-L and A-317-T" reported by reference (a), a path for flame from the torpedo explosion existed through the large hole in the third deck in A-320A, through the damaged door and tears in the bulkhead into A-316T (Photos 45 and 46), through quick acting W.T. door 3-42-4, reported by the ship as open at the time of the torpedo hit, into A-310-1L. Since quick acting W.T. door 3-43-3 from A-310-1L into passage A-317T was also open at the time of the torpedo hit, a flash or flame could have passed into A-317T. There was, very likely, a path of flame into A-512T through W.T. door 5-48-4 from A-510E (Plate III)."
depends on the torpedo type and warhead size long lances had basically a double warhead compared to most countries torpedo designs and then we get to the keel breakers!!!
For those foot-ton numbers for trim and list - I'd imagine it's obvious the longitudinal centerline of the ship is the reference for the lateral / list foot-ton calculation. If similar to typical aircraft reference coordinates, starboard would be positive distance and port would be negative distance (if the right hand rule is followed and longitudinal positive is measured going aft in keeping with frame numbering) when computing net lateral foot-ton listing moments. Where is the reference plane for the trim / longitudinal foot-ton calculation? A related question would be what reserve of vertical foot-tons of stability margin is there in NJ specifically and the Iowa's in general, and what's the vertical reference coordinate point? Aircraft have defined reference points where all CG calculations are computed from - although the units are typically inch-pounds or inch-pounds divided by 10,000.
For me, the best defence is not by thickness but by trying to absorb the explosion and divide the compartments. Specially the magazine, weapons, engine and control are the most important parts of the ship: those need some form of protection from penetration. The rest benefit more from being divided in watertight compartments and many layers of thin metal to absorb explosions and catch shrapnel.
This is part of what I would love to see "what next" in the evolution of heavy armored ships. For what it's worth, I think the evolution of both torpedo and gun power would have doomed the battleship even without the advances of carrier aviation. It's so easy to double the size of a torpedo warhead, not so easy to double the defences. More armor = less maneuvering = easier target at great expense. Heavy tanks died a similar date.
I’d argue that the Montana class would have had a more effective torpedo defense system. Broader than the Iowas, and the longitudinal bulkhead through the engineering spaces, while potentially making possible greater listing moments, gave greater propulsive survivability as an entire engineering space should not flood from a single hit.
Initially, I thought that with modern day torpedoes going under an Iowa and exploding there wouldn't do much damage, given the triple bottom. I guess modern torps do take battleships into account. Curious question: What difference would there be to the Iowas if they had a conventional external torpedo protection system as compared to the internal counterpart?
Also to note afaik, The protection level in terms of warhead size is based on TNT, So a 600 pound torpedo warhead that is a mixture of TNT and something else is going to hit harder than a straight TNT warhead.
Its explained by the strategic and economic side of things. US battleships were never in places where they were likely to be lost, or if they were, they were never in a situation where they were likely to be lost. Doesn't matter if you're in gun range of an enemy if that enemy has six other targets and they're also getting drowned in torpedoes from destroyer flotillas.
Interesting. Considering challinging a big company (with deep pockets) to develop a 3D digital accurate model of the ship on which you can do all kinds of damage calculations..
Got to visit the Mighty Mo in Hawaii, holy hell she's massive. Pictures really don't do her justice. Live in Charleston SC so have visited and spent the night aboard the Yorktown but she feels tiny compared to Missouri.
You made an interesting comment about successive torpedo hits in the same spot. This is similar to what the Ukrainians have been doing with their sea drones. They'll swarm a target and aim successive hits in the previous hole.
West Virginia also suffered that fate, she ate 7 torpedoes on one side and was able to settle on an even keel, showing how good DC was even on Colorados. The other BBs that took torpedoes didn't have much of a chance, their watertight integrity hadn't been maintained by the Navy at that point.
The sinking of the 2 Japanese super battleships I assume by torpedo since I doubt bombs could do it indicate the torpedo defense against the larger torpedo charges was not effective.
The Yamato class had some design flaws in their torpedo defenses too, also related to the inflexibility of the armor belt. IIRC, their armor belts had a distinct riveted seam right around the waterline where it transitioned from the heavy main belt to the thinner lower belt. Because the belt couldnt buckle, it would tend to shear the rivets and split the seam open. They added bracing behind the seam to reinforce it, but at the same time, transferring the force into the main frames and bulkheads. In turn, that would contribute to progressive flooding. The general consensus is that both Yamato and Musashi had reached the limitations of their buoyancy reserve after ~6 or so torpedo hits. Yamato relying on counter-flooding to maintain an even keel, while Musashi was being equally flooded from both sides. Either way, the ships had taken on enough water by that point that they were doomed, and all the subsequent hits were basically just making them sink faster. And yes, it was predominatly torpedoes responsible for the actual sinking, but dive bombers were highly effective in knocking out their already inferior fire control systems. Combine that with the fact that the admiralty kept them out of the fight as long as possible, so when they did finally set sail, they didn't really have much left in the way of escorts.
@@philiphumphrey1548 I don't think the word probably would be needed. Even if it explodes on contact, the effect of 2400 kg / 5200 pounds of torpex going off.... is going to definitely ruin your day. I wonder how a few Fritz X's would have performed. Wouldn't be able to directly penetrate the M.A.D, but given that they could be guided they could under optimal conditions cause some severe damage. A few "down the funnel" for example would cause an issue, and they had a 320KG / 710 pound amatol explosive warhead.
@@notsureyou it would almost certainly take multiples down the funnels. There were doglegs in the funnel with grids of armor plate below that to help prevent bombs from rattling their way down the trunks into the boilers. It may not have proven effective against multiple hits, but even one down the funnel is a lucky shot.
One thing I’ve wondered about the Iowa hull form wrt the shape near Turret 1: is that because of the because of the Panama Canal restriction? So if the only restriction the designers had were the naval treaties, would the Iowas have a slightly different hull form that allowed for better torpedo defense, particularly around Turret 1?
If the navy was designing a 21st century battleship from a clean sheet of paper to fire 16inch shells for example what new features do you think it would have and what features will be kept from the Iowa's ?
That question can't really be answered, In that when designing a ship you factor in the expected threat, And with no other country designing a battleship, it would be an illogical choice to have a vessel of that size, And for it to have 16 inch guns. Probably the Kirov class is an example of what to build if you are making a ship of that size.
Hi everyone, can someone answer why there are no weapons/torpedos which attack a ship directly coming straight from the depths? in know torpedos ride few feet under surface and then detonate near or under the hull. Against those we have multi layered (side) defenses. But imagine a weapon dropping a few hundred meters first and only if directly under the ship then ascending to the hull? Would that circumvent traditional countermeasures?
The answer is it depends...1 likely wont but im sure theres an obscure scenario where it could...2 in the same spot could break her back.. but i think the answer is likely 3-4
There are many example of "lucky hits" and unrealised design flaws which show that it isn't outside the realm of possibility. For example HMS Ark Royal was hit by a single torpedo... and sank
I have an unrelated question, I know that in WW2 the Japanese battle ships used color in the main guns ( the shell splashes would be red or some other color) to help with range finding. How did this work and did the USA use such a thing?
I know academically that the Iowa class ships are absolutely enormous, but my sense of scale isn't really big enough to envision exactly what the numbers actually mean. You could drop my house on the bow or stern of the ship and her trim wouldn't be noticeably affected. My car weighs less than the amount of explosives you would need to endanger the ship with "ideal" torpedo hits. Those are the biggest/heaviest things that I regularly interact with to have a sense of scale to compare to and they would both only cause minor inconveniences if you somehow picked them up and dropped them into or onto the ship. That's nuts 😂
My son served on a sub from 2008 until 2014. One torpedo could sink any ship smaller than a carrier. One torpedo could disable a carrier and two could sink it. It depends.
as with all things in life their is a balance, yes you could make her seven tougher, but at what cost more weight? with more weight comes higher operating costs, more material costs. so instead of 4 ships maybe we get only 3. Any Wider and they weren't getting through the Panama canal. I'm no ship designer but to me the Navy Picked a route that was a balanced approach.
Radar sees water as a solid surface. Think of all the hoops a submarine has to jump through to get a radio transmission, and water is better at blocking the usula radar wavelengths. But you could use either the sensor for wake homing (scans the surface, thus detects also "no surface"). Or make use of the much better magnetometers and computers we have these days. They only had a kind of compass, detecting a 2D change. But todays 3D magentometers don't get tricked by such misalignments as the MK14s suffered from. You'd just have a microcontroller take the conditions a few tends of seconds after launch as a baseline. Something bending the magnetic field? You have a fair idea of mass, distance and whether you just (as an a 1/100 of a second ago) passed under its centerline.
You would use sonar in your torpedo for this, not radar, but conceptually modern torpedoes already do this. They can accurately track their targets, choose where to strike that target (based on programming), and even account for attempts at evasion to some degree.
Brand new 14,000 ton cruiser Belfast had its back broken by a sea bed magnetic mine very early in WW2. It was near harbour and was recovered but it was almost a write-off.
I would not have added to the protection, speed mattered more and her main defence as you put it, is all that reserve bouancy. Even improve all it takes is just some bad luck with where and when you het hit and with what sort of weapon. Ships have taken dozens of hits and kept going for a fair while and others took 1 and went down.
You know far more about it than I, Ryan, but I interpreted that passage from the book somewhat differently. In saying "spread evenly", I believe the author was laying out the WORST scenario as it would involve flooding the greatest number and hence volume of void spaces, and there was something about the total needed to put the ship at a significant stability risk. In other words, NOT spacing them evenly would have been BETTER from the perspective of immediate flooding of void spaces and commensurate stability challenges. Of course there's the question of whether concentrated hits might lead to more flooding IF they had overwhelmed the TDS in the area, something the passage you read didn't address. As to improvements? I think 30% greater displacement over SoDak for ~5 knots of speed was inherently an inefficient use of weight, so, yes, I think she could have had multiple improvements for even a drop to 30-31 knots of speed. One of those could have been to the TDS. As an aside, I find it interesting SoDak has essentially the same range @ 15 knots, too. That might have gone into improved armour protection, too, of course.
If you with your knowledge today were able to travel back to WW2 and lead the design team for New Jersey, what changes would you have made throughout the ship?
If you make the torpedo defense wider at the bow, speed will be reduced. Since speed was their primary characteristic, followed by firepower with protection last in priority, you cannot improve protection. She needs the speed to catch the KONGOs and cannot be any wider and pass through the Panama Canal. It would be hard to say this isn't the perfect combination of characteristics given their long history and flexibility to receive upgrades and to remain effective.
That is not a good analogue because Shinano was not seaworthy by US standards. Not only the construction was of poor quality, but it was also incomplete and many fittings were not properly tested.
@@petershen6924 The deficiencies of the Shinano were compensated by its sheer size and the fact that Archerfish was firing Mk 14 torpedoes. An incompetent captain & poor damage control didn't help either.
The odds of a submerged adversary being able to fire more than once at an Iowa class battleship are slim. The odds of a surface craft being able to fire even one torpedo at an Iowa class battleship and still existing by the time the torpedo reaches the battleship approach zero. Capital ships do not travel alone. They travel as part of a fleet, several of the ships in that fleet will have effective countermeasures. There is a reason why the armor of Iowa class battleships is not tested. Anyone who wanted to try was long dead before they got close enough.
4 pegs to sink a battleship, 5 pegs for a carrier
"You sunk my Battleship!"
You sank my battleship!!
@soldierprincess8422 : Haa! , When the firing began, I turned 40° hard to port, told the engine room to give me full military power, laid smoke, snuck alongside the enemy vessel & opened up with a full 9 gun broadside at only 10,000 yards...Their Captain was blown clean out of the battle bridge and their tin can went down with all hands.
See, this is a right proper answer.
Sir, I applaud the way you think!
In a game yes, but in reality, it takes for more hits to sink a battleship than a carrier. Sorry to spoil your fun lol
Do you really want Paul on the Cod to know? He’s been working his torpedo tubes lately.
I think this video is just misinformation in order to confuse Paul. Ryan would never reveal the real weakpoints.
@@marcneef795 - At this point, outside of video games, I do not see the Iowa class sailing into harm's way.
@@scootergeorge7089 Or so the Germans would have us believe.
@@marcneef795 - Okay, whatever that means.
@@scootergeorge7089 it is basically a joke 😎
"Ask Mr. Owl he's the wisest of us all" 🦉"good question, lets find out.. Ahhh 1...ahh 2...ahhh 3"
But seriously let's not find out.😅
I think a battleship's chewy center is actually crunchy.
I literally thought the same thing.
We are old. Exactly the commercial I thought of when Ryan asked "How many torpedoes does it take to sink an Iowa Class BB?"
This video should be called "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a battleship"
@@bryangrote8781 Ryan is too young to throw in, “the world may never know.” But I too added it. 😂
In the case of WW2 non homing torpedoes the Iowa best defence is it speed. The faster the target is going the more narrow the intercept cone. A sharp turn or change in speed can also completely ruin a target calculation
Probably why the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth (as troopships) survived the whole war without a single hit.
@@philiphumphrey1548 Yeah, though not for lack of trying, they were way too fast for any Uboat to get into position.
The only way would be for a cordon/gauntlet of Uboats waiting at the approaches with the express purpose.
Honestly if I were a marshall I'd want them sunk, those things transported a good portion of the troops it took to open and sustain the Western front.
Depending on the variant of Long Lance Type 93 Torpedo used, they range from around 1500 pounds to over 2000 pounds!
And when made
Late war not as powerful
The long lance 93 is about 6,000 lbs
You’re a staple, Ryan! You provide interesting content and have a great delivery style. Keep up the good work!
It is a two parts problem: susceptibility (how many torpedoes launched and how many hits) and vulnerability (how many hits will end up in a kill).
- If the Iowa class is up against modern Mk 48 torpedoes, it is highly susceptible to hits given advanced fire control, but also depends on if if BB towing NIXIE or not. and 2 hits on the keel, especially amidships, would very likely to result in a kill due to heavier and more powerful warhead. I would say one salvo of four launched will likely result in a kill.
- If the Iowa class was up against WW2 era Mk 14, it was not as susceptible due to short range of Mk 14, but also due to gyroscope guidance of the Mk 14 torpedo. Moreover the trails of torpedoes could be spotted and evasive maneuvers could be made, and an Iowa could outrun a WW2 submarine and even a modern diesel electric submarine. On the vulnerability side, the kill mode of Mk 14 was to punch holes that result in flooding, that would require significantly more hits to result in a kill. My guess is 6 or more hits amidship made with magnetic detonator switched off were required to result in a kill.
- If the Iowa was up against torpedo bombers, chances are, it was very likely not susceptible due to the anti-aircraft battery onboard as long as AA battery was not saturated (and it is hard to do so as demonstrated by the kamikazes). USN WW2 shipboard anti-aircraft battery was considered the most efficient in WW2, whereas Japanese counterpart had substantial problems with fire control. Musashi took 19+ aerial torpedoes before it sank. Despite underwater protection of Iowa class was somewhat inadequate as shown in tests done by Philly Naval Shipyard in 1943/1944, better damage control and better quality assurance during construction could result in ability to withstanding more hits.
So speaking to the question of should the Navy change the torpedo defense design. My answer is straight no. the reason is that it would be costly and result in late delivery for the war. Moreover, the operation of BBs in carrier battle group meant that the BBs were protected by destroyers from WW2 era submarines launching torpedoes from short distance at periscope depth, and effective AA battery substantially reduced the susceptibility to aerial torpedo hits to an acceptable level.
Changing design during construction is a disaster from project management perspective, it should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary.
Great analysis 👍🏻
"Doing significant damage"
As HMS Hood was probably blown up by a short projectile, with all hands lost but three, that is quite the understatement.
Those three only survived because a boiler exploded and thrust them to the surface.
On these type of vids, it would be a good bit by Ryan if he simply said "well, it really depends," walked away, and the rest of the 15 mins was just a shot of a bulkhead location.
Yes it depends … because if you were using American ones from 1942 then no matter how many torpedoes hit it, good chance it wouldn’t sink.
hahaha yep big CLUNKS against the hull might not even do more than scratch the paint
One torpedo sank Ark Royal but it had been allowed to deteriorate and it had absolutely no diesel generators. Its boiler uptakes were also badly placed and collapsed from flooding.
More importantly, poor damage control! It could have been saved if properly conducted damage control was instituted! There are videos out there, including one on this channel, about what went wrong!
@@mahbriggs I'm not exactly an advanced scholar on this topic, but the impression I've had is that yes the damage control was poor, but even if it was excellent serious design flaws would probably have doomed her anyway. Wish I could remember what I'd read that gave me this impression!
@nottakennick
Neither am I, and I can't find the video and online articles that went into detail of the salvage efforts.
But I remember the Court of Inquiry made the determination (I am doing this from memory, so I hope I get it right) that the hasty evacuation of the ship left vital man hole covers and water tight doors open, and prevented an organized damage control effort. ( not all the damage control specialists needed were available). Proper counter flooding could have brought the ship back to an even keel and kept the ship afloat long enough for tugs to bring it to Gibraltar.
I wish I had time to find the video(s) I was looking for. I believe there were a couple of online articles that also bolstered that conclusion.
Yes, the design flaws were largely responsible, but the hasty abandonment and subsequent disorganized damage control played a large part.
I remember reading that an analysis of the loss and its reasons was made part of the teaching of damage control efforts.
I would have liked to have done a better reply, but I am preparing to go on a camping trip for a week, and hopefully, by daylight, I will be on my way!
@@mahbriggs well aren’t we both bloody useless!
Also depends on the size of the warhead and where it struck…That book talks about hitting them in the sides…The newer torpedos explode like the old MK-14 influencer exploder which explodes underneath the keels! The sinking isn’t always the goal…sometimes it is just getting them to not be able to do their job and tie up drydocks, repair facilities & materials…
That wasn't the question. A disabled ship is not sunk.
@@justinweidenbach3699 the question did not understand the dynamics… The goal isn’t to sink…It is damage it beyond it’s ability to do it’s job…The other goal is to tie up resources in repairing it..Snipers often wound…It ties up 4-6 people, instead of loosing one you have removed the 4-6 from the battle line…I know…I was a torpedoman on a sub…
@@stevea9604 I get exactly what you're on about here. Like USS Bunker Hill and USS Franklin, though not torpedoed it's the same concept, keeping them afloat cost more sailors & aircrew than evacuating, they were out of action for the rest of the war, and given they could be easily replaced they wouldn't even be strategic losses.
Ryan channels his inner Drach 9:25
And a classic Ryan "BUT..." @9:40
Thanks!
I have bought so many dog gone books because of you Ryan. I have a stack of them yet to be read!
Looking at the Sumrall book right now....
I love watching these videos while I'm folding laundry or doing almost any chore. There's something about Ryan's barely restrained goofiness that makes me feel comfortable.
Having served a tour of duty on USS Missouri BB 63 and seen the armored belts first hand; it's hard to imagine any offensive weapon doing any significant damage. They are marvels.
a good example of modern torpedo like a mark 48, the you tube video sinking the uss racine lst 1191 a vietnam era ship.i was on the racine and my jaw dropped. it just blew up the air bubble the ship dropped back broken back ship sinks
There is a video clip on UA-cam of HMAS Waller sinking a destroyer during exercises with a modern torpedo.
Also another video on sinking a FFG7, the frigate survived one hit of Mk 48 because the hit was made forward of the ship.
Interesting video Ryan, thanks!
If the ship is closed up for action, damage control teams will be ready. If there is an "ambush" and the ships watertight doors are mostly open and most of damage control are busy doing other things, then a strike with X number of torpedos could have a vastly different outcome depending on the crews readiness.
Don't know about Iowa class, but Archerfish proved it took six torpedoes to sink a Yamato class battleship. The Shanano was a carrier built on a Yamato class battleship hull. IJN needed to move it beyond range of B29 air strikes. Archerfish caught this ship as it was moved away from Tokyo harbor. It got to see open ocean for some 36 hours before Archerfish tagged it with six torpedoes. I would love to have been a fly in Tokyo to watch Hideki Tojo fece so hard the back of his pants split open when informed of this.
The might of the Iowa class is bone chilling 😮
Truly magnificent maurading monster's! 👍🏻I wish the U.S. would've continued to upgrade them after the 80s refit.
Imagine the boondoggle zummwault $25,000,000,000+ being spent on upgrading all 4 of the Iowa's AGAIN instead. 😎
And even in today's dollars an Iowa is LESS than a frigate adjusted for inflation and less than 1/8th the cost of a Ford class cv. 😀
The question is written in the present tense. It takes exactly one modern keel-breaker torpedo to sink an Iowa class. The answer is "one".
That depends. They are big, solidly built ships that can take rough seas. And tge forces of and under keel torp would probably be somewhat similar
I Love your program!
To be honest, as war built ships, I would not change a thing. Could they have been better? Yes, but it would have taken longer to design and build, or to fix any known flaws once late in the build.
It is not just the new torpedoes, already the WW2 German torpedoes with the magnetic detonator were designed to run under the ship and break its back
What's the most damage a battleship has taken and still returned to port for repairs? Or, still remained active and succeeded when she really should have gone back to port? Could be a good topic for one of your "Pictures are worth a thousand words" videos!
Thank you for the excellent content!!
They repaired battleships after the attack on Pearl Harbour. There's also photos post Jutland.
They can take a lot of damage and still serve later on.
There's a famous photo of the German WW1 Battlecruiser Seydlitz
According to the "all knowing" Wiki
21 heavy calibre hits and 1 torpedo
@@notsureyou One of the many casualties of Jutland.
Definitely the most wrecked.
There's some nice photos of Warspite post Jutland too. Including the shot that would give steering troubles during the battle and the rest of her career.
@@Tuck-Shop What someone wrote in a forum:
"The shell hit often claimed as taking out the rudder actually hit after she started doing donuts. When the rudder locked over, Warspite’s starboard side was facing the enemy, but the shell hit on the port side.
In reality the culprit was a faulty steering engine, which overheated from the strain of such high-speed maneuvers. Valiant experienced an almost identical failure on 4 May 1916, with her steering frozen for three minutes outside of combat. Warspite’s own crew made the damage worse, twisting the control shafts between the upper and lower conning towers and damaging the differential. An ersatz water supply cooled down the steering engine and the ship began steering fine, but had to be controlled from the steering compartment itself due to the damage in the conning tower."
@@notsureyou Interesting, thank you.
That would also account for the permanent problems experienced.
Interesting.
Very good discussion, enjoyed this explanation thank God we did not find out
Many. We have seen, what comparable battleships like Bismarck/Tirpitz, Yamato/Musashi and many others took a beating until sinking.
Is South Dakota the only USN BB to be hit with a BB main gun?
Off the top of my head yes but I'd dig deeper on that.
Putting US designed internal structures and Iowa class propulsion in a Vanguard shaped hull would be a good start. More room and a more efficient hull means she could be wider for a better TDS imho
In terms of WW2 she is extremely well protected although as with Bismarck a single hit could disable her . I don't know how a Brooklyn class cruiser compared but in terms of her last commission in the 80/90s she would probably be a bit more vulnerable , although as lead ship in a group capable of detecting pretty much anything it's unlikely anyone would have got close enough to try .
HMS Prince of Wales might have survived the hit on its propeller if that had been all. The problem was she remained under attack, they had to keep running the damaged propeller shaft, the list neutralized her anti-aircraft defenses and she took more and more hits.
There was a batch of air cover on call by radio which did not happen for security reasons. HA.
Yeah... Running a broken shaft is a kinda last last resort
Thankfully, we never found out.
We did find out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. . .
@@bobroberts2371 just 3!
We did. North Carolina took a torpedo that missed Wasp on the most wulnerable spot, in front of the turret A. The protection absorbed the punishent, albeit narrowly. Thus, Iowas with much better underwater protection than NC, would not have been even close to be exposed to a total destruction.
I would keep the defense the same. Any significant additional armor would have lowered the speed and made them less effective (in my opinion).
Great discussion as always, Ryan!
Well, as little as one torpedo, or depending on where they hit, the timing between the hits (allowing damage control to take over) all are factors. Quite possibly much more than five torpedoes especially on alternate sides of the ship.
An interesting pointed was noted right at the end of the video - building the ships a bit beamier, then you could make a deeper defense system. Yes, that would slow the top speed down a bit, but I note that the North Carolinas and South Dakotas have a top speed of about 28 knots, 4 knots slower than the Iowas. Since the use of these ships that required their top speed was as carrier escorts, I was wondering if they ever NEEDED that top speed operationally; in other words was that extra 4 knots ever needed in practice during the war?
I think the defence was adequate considering what the ships were designed for. I would say the greatest weakness is that they were so long making them much easier to hit by torpedoes.
The length to beam ratio of the Iowas made them turn slower than the Yamatos which would have also made them a bit easier to hit, but I think their main weakness was their narrowing fore section at turret #1. Their great speed, from their length to beam ratio though, would've made them harder to hit as well.
@demoskunk I agree I know that they made them longer specifically to make them faster and yes that did give them advantages over the South Dakota class however it also gave them lots of weaknesses like you mentioned. I think the South Dakotas we're a better use of taxpayer money. Maybe 2 iowas should have been built but they did not need 4. I visited Missouri and she is a grand ship
Ryan. If the New Jersey was reactivated for a freedom of navigation, run through the Straights of Malacca and Taiwan. What upgrades would you put on it? And what old systems could be reactivated? What flavor ice cream would be made on board?
Interesting , Thank You
From memory the Germans with the Scharnhorst class discovered after designing and building them, that the sloped torpedo bulkhead wasn't as strong as a straight one.
Which is why the Bismarck class reverted to the vertical design.
Every design has to make compromises and trade-off's and looking at real world wartime experience, it's hard to know what would have been a better option.
When NC was hit by a torpedo:
"Plate IV and Photo 15 show that vertical scarphed and longitudinal joints in the armored outboard bulkhead of A-416E were opened. Flash or flame from the torpedo explosion could have entered this compartment through these openings. The ventilation ducts in this compartment and the ventilation gate valve in the outer powder circle were damaged as indicated above. Hence, flame might have entered the lower handling room A-509B from the torpedo explosion.* Had 16 in. powder bags been exposed in A-509B, such a flame might have produced a powder fire. However, it is believed from the discussion below that had 16 in. powder bags in tanks been present in A-509B, the possibility of a powder fire from such an instantaneous flash would have been remote. Since NORTH CAROLINA was not at General Quarters, it can be assumed that powder bags were not exposed in the lower handling room. Powder bags, however, are handled bare in battle; consequently, possible paths of entry of flame into handling rooms and magazines cannot be accepted. It has been shown above that such a path did exist via damaged ventilation ducts on NORTH CAROLINA. It is essential, especially for ships using bag powder, to prevent passage of flame into magazines and handling rooms from above, and also necessary to prevent the passage of flame between handling rooms and magazines.
V-D-3. With regard to the "large flashes of flame in A-512-T, A-310-L and A-317-T" reported by reference (a), a path for flame from the torpedo explosion existed through the large hole in the third deck in A-320A, through the damaged door and tears in the bulkhead into A-316T (Photos 45 and 46), through quick acting W.T. door 3-42-4, reported by the ship as open at the time of the torpedo hit, into A-310-1L. Since quick acting W.T. door 3-43-3 from A-310-1L into passage A-317T was also open at the time of the torpedo hit, a flash or flame could have passed into A-317T. There was, very likely, a path of flame into A-512T through W.T. door 5-48-4 from A-510E (Plate III)."
depends on the torpedo type and warhead size long lances had basically a double warhead compared to most countries torpedo designs and then we get to the keel breakers!!!
What about an anti-ship missile?
For those foot-ton numbers for trim and list - I'd imagine it's obvious the longitudinal centerline of the ship is the reference for the lateral / list foot-ton calculation. If similar to typical aircraft reference coordinates, starboard would be positive distance and port would be negative distance (if the right hand rule is followed and longitudinal positive is measured going aft in keeping with frame numbering) when computing net lateral foot-ton listing moments. Where is the reference plane for the trim / longitudinal foot-ton calculation?
A related question would be what reserve of vertical foot-tons of stability margin is there in NJ specifically and the Iowa's in general, and what's the vertical reference coordinate point?
Aircraft have defined reference points where all CG calculations are computed from - although the units are typically inch-pounds or inch-pounds divided by 10,000.
Long Lance? US torps, ca 1942 that don't work? 'wimpy' air-borne torps? A modern mk42 ad cap? Kinda depends . . .
What if is is hit by one made by Acme Defense Limited ? What about one made by Veridian Dynamics?
For me, the best defence is not by thickness but by trying to absorb the explosion and divide the compartments.
Specially the magazine, weapons, engine and control are the most important parts of the ship: those need some form of protection from penetration.
The rest benefit more from being divided in watertight compartments and many layers of thin metal to absorb explosions and catch shrapnel.
This is part of what I would love to see "what next" in the evolution of heavy armored ships. For what it's worth, I think the evolution of both torpedo and gun power would have doomed the battleship even without the advances of carrier aviation. It's so easy to double the size of a torpedo warhead, not so easy to double the defences. More armor = less maneuvering = easier target at great expense. Heavy tanks died a similar date.
I’d argue that the Montana class would have had a more effective torpedo defense system. Broader than the Iowas, and the longitudinal bulkhead through the engineering spaces, while potentially making possible greater listing moments, gave greater propulsive survivability as an entire engineering space should not flood from a single hit.
Just the one!
Initially, I thought that with modern day torpedoes going under an Iowa and exploding there wouldn't do much damage, given the triple bottom. I guess modern torps do take battleships into account. Curious question: What difference would there be to the Iowas if they had a conventional external torpedo protection system as compared to the internal counterpart?
Modern submarine torpedoes take supercarriers into account.
Also to note afaik,
The protection level in terms of warhead size is based on TNT,
So a 600 pound torpedo warhead that is a mixture of TNT and something else is going to hit harder than a straight TNT warhead.
What happened to Indianappolis? How many hits did she take?
Wiki says 2 torps.
I didn't get a chance to look at the chart close enough, but what about an unlikely hit direct on the front of the bow?
If Wikipedia is correct, the US Navy has never lost a battleship that was underway - just those at Pearl Harbor. That's remarkable.
Nevada was underway (and at Pearl Harbor).
Yes, but Nevada (and a few others) were returned to service.
Its explained by the strategic and economic side of things. US battleships were never in places where they were likely to be lost, or if they were, they were never in a situation where they were likely to be lost.
Doesn't matter if you're in gun range of an enemy if that enemy has six other targets and they're also getting drowned in torpedoes from destroyer flotillas.
Never fight a fair fight
Not really very remarkable given the class was the significant naval asset for maybe 25 years. 1905-1930. USA was not at Jutland.
What is the difference between the North Carolina class (which did get hit by a torpedo), and the Iowa class?
Interesting. Considering challinging a big company (with deep pockets) to develop a 3D digital accurate model of the ship on which you can do all kinds of damage calculations..
Got to visit the Mighty Mo in Hawaii, holy hell she's massive. Pictures really don't do her justice. Live in Charleston SC so have visited and spent the night aboard the Yorktown but she feels tiny compared to Missouri.
Hit the like button. It helps USS NEW JERSEY
Wouldn't the lack longitudinal subdivisions in the citadel increase the problems due to flooding, not reduce it, due to the free surface effect?
You made an interesting comment about successive torpedo hits in the same spot. This is similar to what the Ukrainians have been doing with their sea drones. They'll swarm a target and aim successive hits in the previous hole.
West Virginia also suffered that fate, she ate 7 torpedoes on one side and was able to settle on an even keel, showing how good DC was even on Colorados. The other BBs that took torpedoes didn't have much of a chance, their watertight integrity hadn't been maintained by the Navy at that point.
Very interesting
Which Iowa is shown at 2:35? I've never seen a pic of one underway without the ABLs installed yet?
The sinking of the 2 Japanese super battleships I assume by torpedo since I doubt bombs could do it indicate the torpedo defense against the larger torpedo charges was not effective.
The Yamato class had some design flaws in their torpedo defenses too, also related to the inflexibility of the armor belt. IIRC, their armor belts had a distinct riveted seam right around the waterline where it transitioned from the heavy main belt to the thinner lower belt. Because the belt couldnt buckle, it would tend to shear the rivets and split the seam open. They added bracing behind the seam to reinforce it, but at the same time, transferring the force into the main frames and bulkheads. In turn, that would contribute to progressive flooding.
The general consensus is that both Yamato and Musashi had reached the limitations of their buoyancy reserve after ~6 or so torpedo hits. Yamato relying on counter-flooding to maintain an even keel, while Musashi was being equally flooded from both sides. Either way, the ships had taken on enough water by that point that they were doomed, and all the subsequent hits were basically just making them sink faster.
And yes, it was predominatly torpedoes responsible for the actual sinking, but dive bombers were highly effective in knocking out their already inferior fire control systems. Combine that with the fact that the admiralty kept them out of the fight as long as possible, so when they did finally set sail, they didn't really have much left in the way of escorts.
The 12,000lb Tallboy bomb (that sank the Tirpitz) could probably do it.
@@philiphumphrey1548 I don't think the word probably would be needed.
Even if it explodes on contact, the effect of 2400 kg / 5200 pounds of torpex going off.... is going to definitely ruin your day.
I wonder how a few Fritz X's would have performed.
Wouldn't be able to directly penetrate the M.A.D, but given that they could be guided they could under optimal conditions cause some severe damage.
A few "down the funnel" for example would cause an issue, and they had a 320KG / 710 pound amatol explosive warhead.
@@notsureyou it would almost certainly take multiples down the funnels. There were doglegs in the funnel with grids of armor plate below that to help prevent bombs from rattling their way down the trunks into the boilers. It may not have proven effective against multiple hits, but even one down the funnel is a lucky shot.
If I worked in that room where he is speaking, I’d have to eliminate that sheet metal vibration sound in the background. It’d drive me nuts !
One thing I’ve wondered about the Iowa hull form wrt the shape near Turret 1: is that because of the because of the Panama Canal restriction? So if the only restriction the designers had were the naval treaties, would the Iowas have a slightly different hull form that allowed for better torpedo defense, particularly around Turret 1?
The best torpedo defence is not being in water😂
Watching a video on the Wisconsin yesterday it said she took a 11 inch hit from N Korea minor damage to her anti aircraft guns and 3 injured
If the navy was designing a 21st century battleship from a clean sheet of paper to fire 16inch shells for example what new features do you think it would have and what features will be kept from the Iowa's ?
That question can't really be answered,
In that when designing a ship you factor in the expected threat,
And with no other country designing a battleship, it would be an illogical choice to have a vessel of that size,
And for it to have 16 inch guns.
Probably the Kirov class is an example of what to build if you are making a ship of that size.
When you have an Iowa-class battleship, 6-inch calibre shells are "minor" . . .
🤣🤣🤣
It does tend to make them loose their temper though..... 😂
Has a layered defense so unless a lucky shot would take a lot spaced out
Depends on how the dice land if a destroyer is present in the battle and if he presses the attack after the surprise strike.
2:45 what is the guy with the flags signalling?
Hi everyone, can someone answer why there are no weapons/torpedos which attack a ship directly coming straight from the depths? in know torpedos ride few feet under surface and then detonate near or under the hull. Against those we have multi layered (side) defenses. But imagine a weapon dropping a few hundred meters first and only if directly under the ship then ascending to the hull? Would that circumvent traditional countermeasures?
The answer is it depends...1 likely wont but im sure theres an obscure scenario where it could...2 in the same spot could break her back.. but i think the answer is likely 3-4
said " .2 in the same spot could break her back. "
I can see very well
There's a boat on the reef with a broken back
And I can see it very well
There are many example of "lucky hits" and unrealised design flaws which show that it isn't outside the realm of possibility.
For example HMS Ark Royal was hit by a single torpedo... and sank
How many hits with no power or damage control vs how many hits with pumps going and them working on damage
I have an unrelated question, I know that in WW2 the Japanese battle ships used color in the main guns ( the shell splashes would be red or some other color) to help with range finding. How did this work and did the USA use such a thing?
Its a dye pack in the shell, the Americans did this too, NJ was blue
@@BattleshipNewJersey Thanks!
Time 158 to 202 " I lost on Jeopardy. . .Baby . . OOOOoooOOOO. "
I know academically that the Iowa class ships are absolutely enormous, but my sense of scale isn't really big enough to envision exactly what the numbers actually mean. You could drop my house on the bow or stern of the ship and her trim wouldn't be noticeably affected. My car weighs less than the amount of explosives you would need to endanger the ship with "ideal" torpedo hits. Those are the biggest/heaviest things that I regularly interact with to have a sense of scale to compare to and they would both only cause minor inconveniences if you somehow picked them up and dropped them into or onto the ship. That's nuts 😂
My son served on a sub from 2008 until 2014. One torpedo could sink any ship smaller than a carrier. One torpedo could disable a carrier and two could sink it. It depends.
Missouri was also hit by kamikaze plane, but the warhead failed to detonate.
Three ask the Tootsie Roll Owl …I think that’s as high as he can count.
Does the USS New Jersey have a megaphone like the USS Cod or other ships?
The Italian had a strange torpedo defense sytem , can you make a video on that one ?
as with all things in life their is a balance, yes you could make her seven tougher, but at what cost more weight? with more weight comes higher operating costs, more material costs. so instead of 4 ships maybe we get only 3. Any Wider and they weren't getting through the Panama canal. I'm no ship designer but to me the Navy Picked a route that was a balanced approach.
Exploding under the ship may be good, but using magnetism had problems. How about an upward pointing radar to see the depth and detect the ship above?
Radar sees water as a solid surface. Think of all the hoops a submarine has to jump through to get a radio transmission, and water is better at blocking the usula radar wavelengths.
But you could use either the sensor for wake homing (scans the surface, thus detects also "no surface"). Or make use of the much better magnetometers and computers we have these days. They only had a kind of compass, detecting a 2D change. But todays 3D magentometers don't get tricked by such misalignments as the MK14s suffered from. You'd just have a microcontroller take the conditions a few tends of seconds after launch as a baseline. Something bending the magnetic field? You have a fair idea of mass, distance and whether you just (as an a 1/100 of a second ago) passed under its centerline.
You would use sonar in your torpedo for this, not radar, but conceptually modern torpedoes already do this. They can accurately track their targets, choose where to strike that target (based on programming), and even account for attempts at evasion to some degree.
Brand new 14,000 ton cruiser Belfast had its back broken by a sea bed magnetic mine very early in WW2. It was near harbour and was recovered but it was almost a write-off.
It depends on the kinds of torpedo that will be use.
I would not have added to the protection, speed mattered more and her main defence as you put it, is all that reserve bouancy. Even improve all it takes is just some bad luck with where and when you het hit and with what sort of weapon. Ships have taken dozens of hits and kept going for a fair while and others took 1 and went down.
How is counter flooding done?
You know far more about it than I, Ryan, but I interpreted that passage from the book somewhat differently.
In saying "spread evenly", I believe the author was laying out the WORST scenario as it would involve flooding the greatest number and hence volume of void spaces, and there was something about the total needed to put the ship at a significant stability risk.
In other words, NOT spacing them evenly would have been BETTER from the perspective of immediate flooding of void spaces and commensurate stability challenges.
Of course there's the question of whether concentrated hits might lead to more flooding IF they had overwhelmed the TDS in the area, something the passage you read didn't address.
As to improvements?
I think 30% greater displacement over SoDak for ~5 knots of speed was inherently an inefficient use of weight, so, yes, I think she could have had multiple improvements for even a drop to 30-31 knots of speed. One of those could have been to the TDS. As an aside, I find it interesting SoDak has essentially the same range @ 15 knots, too.
That might have gone into improved armour protection, too, of course.
Quick calculate how many curators does it take to list your battle ship 10 degrees!
I guess how many torpedoes it would depend on how many you have. Might need them all.
How about more destroyers and Frigets?
for perspective, 10 tons of water is roughly waist deep for a 6ft wide 20ft long section of hallway.
If you with your knowledge today were able to travel back to WW2 and lead the design team for New Jersey, what changes would you have made throughout the ship?
If you make the torpedo defense wider at the bow, speed will be reduced. Since speed was their primary characteristic, followed by firepower with protection last in priority, you cannot improve protection. She needs the speed to catch the KONGOs and cannot be any wider and pass through the Panama Canal. It would be hard to say this isn't the perfect combination of characteristics given their long history and flexibility to receive upgrades and to remain effective.
Four torpedoes on one side?
Just like USS Archerfish vs. Shinano
That is not a good analogue because Shinano was not seaworthy by US standards. Not only the construction was of poor quality, but it was also incomplete and many fittings were not properly tested.
@@petershen6924 The deficiencies of the Shinano were compensated by its sheer size and the fact that Archerfish was firing Mk 14 torpedoes.
An incompetent captain & poor damage control didn't help either.
The odds of a submerged adversary being able to fire more than once at an Iowa class battleship are slim. The odds of a surface craft being able to fire even one torpedo at an Iowa class battleship and still existing by the time the torpedo reaches the battleship approach zero.
Capital ships do not travel alone. They travel as part of a fleet, several of the ships in that fleet will have effective countermeasures.
There is a reason why the armor of Iowa class battleships is not tested. Anyone who wanted to try was long dead before they got close enough.
Exnay on the vulnerabilities.............The aliens may be watching!👽
Cool!