Battleship Roostertails & the Essence of Command - An interview with Captain Seaquist, USS Iowa 

I remember hearing somewhere (possibly it was this channel years ago) about how a US destroyer or cruiser sailed up to and boarded a Japanese merchant ship that had been temporarily converted into a hospital ship, can you elaborate on such incidents if they did happen?

Question for him. Did you ever make a full power run? If so what speed did you achieve? In their 1980’s configuration what was the maximum possible speed of an Iowa in your opinion. Additionally it’s been claimed that the Iowas were designed with the ability to safely overload the plant to 254,000 SHP. Did you know that to be true and if so can you speak about how that worked and when it could have been employed and to what cost if any?

In the alternative history book series Destroyermen by Taylor Anderson, a Wickes class destroyer (Walker - DD-163) is faced by British Indiamen style wooden ships quite often throughout the series, as such, how effective would a 4"/50 projectile from a Wickes class destroyer really be against this kind of target? I would assume a 4" AP shell would just over-penetrate without causing much damage as the wood wouldn't initiate the fuse, so how effective would a HE shell be against this kind of target?

How was ships armor attached to the frame/hull? I think I remember a lot the iron armored ships had it bolted on. How were seams in the armor addressed? I think I have heard that some armor was welded together. How did that work? Seemed you would ruin the temper on the welded seams.

I remember the maximum range for a 16”/50 gun being capped at 25-30 miles without doing things those guns weren’t designed for like massively overpressuring the guns to toss a much reduced weight shell. What would it take to get a hundred miles of range out of a 16” gun, do it safely, retain the advantages a gun has over rockets/missiles, and have an effective shell?

While that’s true, one of the funniest videos I’ve heard (and I can’t remember which ship it was) was the robot voice doing sarcasm 😂, absolutely hilarious

He is probably aware of the equations that came from observations on the British canal system, where barges stop but the water keeps going. But that's probably part of his naval training.

It's terribly UNfortunate that most-such-men as he are all *retired* from the Navy... and what's replacing him are people of *Not-such-caliber/[ethos].

@@hancehanson4000 No need to demean those who are serving in the military now. I have no doubt there are plenty of excellent servicemembers in our military today, there to do the job for the same reasons that people throughout history have chosen to serve. And if there are some servicemembers today who aren't so great, well let's remember that not everyone who served in Captain Seaquist's day was of his same caliber either.

World class sir

@AJMBLAZER - I'll bet I'm not the only reader of your comment who would be very interested in seeing you elaborate on that difference in as much detail as you would care to provide. 😎

⁠@@Vito_Tuxedothe US Marine Corps, while we don’t always like to admit it, has a long naval tradition. I was taught that you made sure your people knew their jobs and could be trusted. Then you let them do it and you only corrected or changed plans as needed. Your job was to be getting everything setup so that all they had to do was do their jobs well. Finish one task and start the next. Receive praise and know they are doing good. My boss is a micromanager. Look for screw ups and enforce every rule to the letter. Constantly scrutinize and write up everything. Make things happen by ensuring that is the only way it can happen.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the traditional connection between the marines and the navy?

Oops. And I just noticed you already answered and that’s exactly what you said lol. My bad

@@matthewnewton8812no problem man.

You must be a senior naval officer. A great post, Sir!

History is great.

And then having it sunk by a few missiles. See Moskva.

​@@bebo4807 Moskva was a missile cruiser. She was not designed to potentially endure hours of punishment it a front-line fleet duel. Don't get me wrong, anti ship missiles could still badly fuck up an Iowa, but it is wrong to compare a WW2 battleship with a soviet missile cruiser from the 70s

@@bebo4807 _Moskva_ wasn't armored. And he almost certainly wouldn't have been sunk with a capable crew and fully operating missile defense. Not the best comparison, although the comment otherwise stands. The two reasons to build a battleship are the big guns, except that it takes far less ship to throw a far more flexible and longer ranged (if more expensive) missile, and the big armor, except that you can't carry enough to stop modern (or even obsolete) missiles. Also, if all you need are the big guns, you can make World War-style monitors like HMS _Terror,_ which was just barely enough ship to ferry a battleship turret around the world's oceans.

Think of what she could do with an updated weapons and targeting suites. Add an upgraded defensive suite and she would still be a terror. Take out turret 3, and there would be so much more room for activities. Yes the guns, but oh so much more capability.

@@nothim7321. Yes. Several suites would be nice. A bridal suite. And a few corporate suites. With turret 3 removed a swimming pool and lounge could be added along with yoga studios and spas with hot stone body massage. The battleship would give those pesky cruise ships a run for their money!

*sees the madness of WW2* Well, I guess we're in the deep end now, we better learn how to swim!

If any other navy could afford to run it.

What would the porpouse of a modern battleship be? Not ASW, a distributed platform is more resilient and can cover a larger area, maybe AA escort? It can put radars at good elevation and carry a mighty missile armament. I feel like principle surface combatants in the era of the missile ought to be relativley small and disposible.

I love this question. How would he put together a modern version (has to have some huge guns!)

Armor protection would continue the use of clever spaced armor and make use layered armor types in important areas. Possible use of steel foams to improve armor in lighter sections. Blow off pannels would be incorporated for the more exposed and soon to be used ammunition. Much more protection would be around the extra magazine storage. Maybe they would hide the extra ammuntion around the nuclear reactors. In excess of 30 knots (lol). 3-4 submarine style nuclear reactors repurposed. 2 turrets at front. 6 15 inch rifles. All Extra long. 3 rifled + 3 smooth bore for use with SABOT. After wear a few larger shells 15.5-16 inch sabot available. Guided munitions can be used. Partially Cooled barrels. 2 main radars. 4 back up. Equipment on telescoping masts incased in armor when not used . Multiple lasers. Pad and hanger for drones and light aircraft. Hanger is not f35 capable. Catapult going upward if required. Lots of jamming drones. Extra repair equipment and work shop facilities. Crane to take large objects onboard to repair. Whatever combination of missiles they want. (Main anti ship armament here) Space to cover ship in Cargo containers "for extra stealth".

I'm so jealous. I have been luckily enough to tour the USS Alabama (BB-60), USS Drum (SS-228), & USS Yorktown (CV-10)

Battleships were easily sunk by propeller driven aircraft using dumb bombs and dumb torpedos. 80 years ago. There is a reason battleships stopped being built 80 YEARS AGO.

Yes, an Aegis Iowa class. New Jersey BB-62 would be redesignated as BBG-62 and become an absolute beast! One can dream, right?

In addition to the development and procurement costs for the 16" ammunition, you'd have to rebuild the entire electrical system (including and especially generation) to accommodate a modern combat system like AEGIS. Definitely not practical, and they'd be the only oil-fired, steamships in the entire Navy pretty much so there's more logistical issues for you

Opps, 1942