Former staff at the Battleship Iowa Museum here. One major obstacle to bringing back the battleships that often gets forgotten is ammunition and the gunpowder bags. The last 16-inch ammunition was made in the 1950s, and gunpowder especially does not like being kept for a long time. The machines and processes for making new gunpowder bags were lost during the 1960s, meaning during the 80s the battleships were using gunpowder that was over 20 years old. And though the over-ram scenario is one probable cause for Iowa's turret accident, an equally likely cause is an old powder bag breaking open and igniting, and this seems to be the consensus for the cause amongst veterans of the Iowa-class that I've talked to.
did the NAVY try to blame it on one of sailors, claiming he was a homo and that he wanted to kill himself? Hartwig i think? edit: found on wikipedia "Later media reports indicated that the U.S. Navy believed that Hartwig had intentionally caused the explosion after his relationship with Truitt had gone sour." Good old ZOG, when your big Jew project fails, find a white man to blame it on and destroy
Not to mention the fuck up in Lebanon, when the New Jersey managed to miss its target by some 10,000 yards because of mishandling of the powder lots...
@MatteV2 Though the old powder certainly didn't help, Jersey’s awful accuracy off Lebanon was mostly because her gun barrels were all worn through from Vietnam and in desperate need of relining/replacing. She was on what was supposed to be a three-month cruise for her new crew to get used to their old ship when she was ordered to Beirut. New Jersey wound up stuck there for 18 months with a divorce rate of 50% amongst her crew; morale sank so low that the Navy, fearing a mutiny, rushed Iowa into service as fast as they could to relieve her. As a result, several of Iowa's own deficiencies went unrepaired, which would plague the battleship through her entire 1980s commissioning. There was an incident where some warehouse officer who thought himself much smarter than he actually was decided to open the bags and mix the powder lots inside them, which messed up the entire warehouse's supply of powder bags, but those deficiencies were quickly discovered and the faulty bags were never loaded onto a ship.
@@nick31092 Alright, yeah, work out barrels are quite the hindrance to any form of accuracy. I'd be willing to bet most of the machinery needed to reline those guns also werent to be found anywhere in the 80s.
As someone from Iowa, I've always found it ironic that the largest and arguably most powerful naval ship ever created by the US has its class named after a landlocked state without access to even one of the great lakes.
All US battleships were named after states. The Iowa was just the first. You don't hear about her sister ships named after coastal states (California, Texas) anymore because they were scrapped sooner.
Replacing the aft turrets with a flight deck would have made an interesting helicopter carrier for coastal operations in a Vietnam. Battleships were some of the last navy ships built to withstand a torpedo hit and stay fighting. The North Vietnamese had lots of torpedo boats which kept the USN from operating close inshore. Ultimately purpose built vessels are usually cheaper/more efficient.
@@cgmason7568 edit: sorry, i thought you were talking about a north vietnamese navy. /e also, any big unit would have been destroyed from the air faster than they could build it...
All carriers and most cruisers are designed to keep going after torpedo hits. One common mistake is to equate armor with torpedo protection. Armor is almost entirely above the waterline. Torpedo protection comes from having enough width to allow for multiple compartments between the side (where the torpedo hits) and the important stuff inside (magazines, engine rooms).
When you stop and think that the guns of an Iowa are capable of punching through over twenty-seven feet of reinforced concrete at 10,000 yards their power is really brought home. The guns also had atomic ordenace designed for them, the Mk23 shell which had a yeild of 15-20 kilotons. It was retired in 1962 And there was talk of a rocket assisted shell that would have marketdly increased the range. Fianlly, 'Battleship' would be the last movie I'd pick to show the true capabilites of one.
Gerald Bull tested several 16" gun barrels that were spares left over from the Iowa-class, while developing his 155mm artillery, among other projects. For reference, South Africa has developed a 155mm gun with nearly triple the normal range based on Bull's research, Iraq had a 210mm gun that had the longest range of any howitzer in service at the time of the first Gulf War, also based on Bull's research, and the Babylon Gun project was intended to launch satellites into low earth orbit as a precursor to a cheaper alternative to ICBM's. So yeah, the Iowa class's guns could have been improved over time to compete with Tomahawk cruise missiles, except the shells would be cheaper than missiles and weatherproof, so...
"twenty-seven feet of reinforced concrete at 10,000 yards " If you can hit it, sure. If you can hit an enemy ship at 18km you can punch through 50cm of armour. IF you can hit it. That word "if" keeps coming back into the equation. The bombardments of the japanese islands were an excellent example of how these statistics mean precisely nothing; the japanese dug tunnels and while the US was putting a metric f8ckton of shells into the topsoil, the japanese soldiers were quite safe underground. The tunnels were not made of concrete or steel and the shells were not designed to do anything with sand and dirt. Similarly in desert storm the marvellous Abrahams tanks with all their tech and firepower were crippled by desert sand getting into the engine. This is a recurring theme in the US army; they are briliant against an enemy they are designed to fight. When they have to improvise things go south very quickly. (20+ years in Afghanistan fighting IED's and kalashnikovs, bring on the list of excuses, but the worlds most powerfull army was regularly driven back by peasants) Anyway, the power of these ships is truely frightening, there is no doubt about that. Just watch the YT channel of Batlteship NewJersey. These ships where masterpieces of engineering from America's hayday, every detail is well thought out, redundancies for redundancies, ridiculous firepower, absolutely amazing. Completely useless today, but in their prime there were the king and queens of the seas.
@@vinny142 You are totally and completely wrong. The Iowa class's mk1 targeting computer was so precise, that the guns at max range were accurate to withing 100ft of the target. Now that accuracy doesn't seem that good, but when you're talking about 1500lbs plus of high explosive, that is more than close enough. As for the Japanese, what you are talking about happened on Iwo Jima, and in that case the Japanese were literally under an entire mountain of volcanic ash, which is very soft, but also very tough. Tougher in fact than reinforced concrete. So your argument, hardly holds any water.
@@vinny142 "Driven back by peasant armed with Kalashnikov"?🤣🤣🤣 OMG You're UTTERLY full of shit! Those camel-humpers didn't drive us ANYWHERE. We killed 'em by hundreds to one! Our army NEVER broke and ran. Not in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. A group of craven politicians in Washington folded like a prom dress, and sold out victories won by better men than themselves. I know, I was in Iraq twice. So just stop making yourself look any more ignorant than you just did.😂😂😂
My grandfather served on the USS Iowa when the training accident occurred. He has told us stories about how the entire ship was rocked when the explosion happened
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor there are 4 Iowa-class battleships. The New Jersey is in Trenton, NJ; the Missouri is at Pearl Harbor; the Wisconsin is in Norfolk, VA; and the Iowa is in Los Angeles. When did you tour the battleship?
@joshuareed390 i was asleep in my bunk about 100 feet away. Didn't wake me up, but you get used to some things. The ship rocked every time we fired the main guns. I don't remember your dad, specifically but I can say the dental department on the Iowa was top notch. I had 2 fillings done and never had a problem. Can't say that about every dentist.
Hate to disagree but USS Norton Sound had by far more upgrades during her service. She started as a seaplane tender that saw combat in WW2 and went on to mount nearly every missile system the US navy has ever used. From V2 analogues to firing live nuclear missiles during Operation Argus, Terrier, Seasparrow, the list goes on. Eventually she was fitted with the prototype for the AEGIS combat system and the USNs first bank of VLS.
Retired U.S. here. I was stationed at Long Beach Naval Station when the battleships were still in service during the early 1990s. I was in my early 20s. I'm 55 now. When I saw Battleship, ALL the Battleship sailors were old as hell. Its like people forgot that the last generation to serve on battleships were Gen-Xers.
The projectiles and powder bags were all just leftovers from ww2. As the years went on the powder went all funky and velocity became inconsistent messing with accuracy. So one of the moderation proposals was to dump the powder pellets out mix them around and re pack them.
I don't understand why they couldn't just get bigger versions of the bags that modern artillery pieces use. I get "not wasting" all the old stuff, but gunpowder is pretty cheap all things considered.
Unfortunately, the officer that tried that only ruined an entire warehouse's worth of powder. Instead of some of the bags being bad, mixing them ensured that all of the bags were bad.
@William Shevchuk The propellant used today is different than what was used in World War Two, and what the guns of that era are designed to use. The bags themselves also aren't just filled with loose powder: the powder is shaped into solid cylindrical pellets about the length of your palm, with holes through the pellets for flame to travel through so the whole bag's worth of propellant ignites at once rather than a slow burn from one end of the bag to the other. It's a complex arrangement and the machines to make them were disposed in the 1960s.
Pretty sure the giant aircraft carriers do the posturing job lol. Oh and that the US has a bigger and more expensive navy than most countries. It's called the us coast guard 😂
A modern take on the battleship would most likely see its main role be the same as it was actually used as back in WW2, a defensive role. Though we have a lot of love for the footage of them pounding the beach heads and suppressing ground targets, once the carrier was invented the practical use of battleships being used as a naval engagement platform became obsolete. A Dauntless Dive bomber could carry a 1,000lb bomb over 500 miles, while the Iowa could shoot a 2,700lb warhead, it could only do so at 24 miles.The ship however was heavily armored, bristling with guns, and could travel at 33 knots (around 37mph/61kmh). It was the perfect air defense platform and saw its main role as a defense point for carrier battlegroups. A new take on the battleship would be again, be heavily armored, bristling with defense points such as the AN/SEQ-3 Laser (what a time to be alive huh?), a high speed nuclear propulsion system to keep up with nuclear powered carriers which travel up to 30+ knots, and instead of the 3 massive triple turrets it would have 2 single turrets for extreme situations (probably 155mm) while the main offensive armament would be a large missile battery. To reiterate, its main role would be to protect the carriers from saturation attacks and be able to take a hit and keep on going.
I know next to nothing about battleships but always enjoy your videos. There is a long history of “Prairie Sailors” recruited from Saskatchewan and Manitoba to serve in the Royal Canadian Navy.
I think it was either F.F. Worthington or Guy Simonds who said that Prairie boys made the best tankers because of their keen long distance observational skills, and ability to improvise mechanical solutions. I imagine prairie sailors might share a similar phenomenon.
It would have been like the Japanese Ise class battleship, late war, however look like the Soviet aircraft carrier. In this scene, when they drop the anchor, (not Will Ferrel) the bow would have sheered off due to the stress of the forced stop. Take care, and all the best.
A modern large-caliber gun system on a missile cruiser would actually be really valuable with a modern FCS. Being able to provide effective gun support to a beach landing has always been a necessity in warfare. Sadly I don't think there are any companies left on earth that can manufacture large naval guns.
It ain't rocket science... seamless high strength autofrettage tubes are still needed for industrial applications, it's not like we totally stopped a whole neccesary sector of manufacturing. Adding the rifling is the only challenge i see, and it's not a big callenge making the neccesary machine (if it even was decommisioned/ destroyed) The industrial capacity might not exist in the US anymore, though... do you make your own haber-bosch ammonia plants? Setting up the manufacturing and logistics for a whole new (old) caliber again is the bigger hassle. It would propaply take a few years, even if you went all in.
Also, compromising a missile cruiser might not make sense. Just get 50 barges full of unguided rockets, invest in cheap guidance systems for rockets, build a few new heavy cruisers like uss salem or reactivate the existing ones. (propaply not worth it, go with barges+ cheap electronics and (basically) model airplane servos.
I think the ineffectiveness of naval bombardment in battles like Iwo Jima were the final nail in the coffin for large bore main armament - against a prepared enemy, even an entire day of shelling from 16" guns will do little more than carpet bombing from high altitude. These days I think the tactic is purely in favour of aircraft and precision strikes. Using laser guided munitions to knock out specific targets and or the use of stealth bombers to blanket an area while the enemy is unaware. The Falklands war proved that against even a reasonably prepared and equipped force, naval bombardment wasn't a useful part of warfare really. Ships were just as much at risk from air and land based AShMs like the Exocet as aircraft were from AA missiles. However a multi-role jet is much cheaper, can be much more accurate, and stands a good chance of fighting enemy aircraft - as opposed to a frigate or destroyer which is close to being irreplaceable compared to a strike fighter, and yet simultaneously more vulnerable to enemy strike fighters. Manufacturing a 16" gun would be easy. Many of the companies who built them for battleships in the 40's are still around today. The technology for forging big bits of steel like that has only improved. As others have said, industry has provided plenty of reason to continue manufacturing big steel tubes. All that has been lost, if it even has been, is the expertise. In terms of British guns for example, the companies that built the BL 16" guns were either rolled into Vickers (now a part of Rolls Royce) or were made by the Royal Ordnance Arsenal - so In both cases I'd be very surprised if they didn't retain all the drawings and specs and such somewhere.
Everything that can be done on a 155mm or 5" shell is easier to do in a 16" shell. Not as many engineering compromises needed. IR guidance, GPS/ INS, HVP form factor, Volcano type shells....
My dad was TDY on the New Jersey to Guantanamo in 1956 and I got to have lunch on board as a guest in the 1980s during a security exercise at Long Beach when she and the Missouri were still active along side each other in Port. AS a navy brat and ex army officer I was totally disheartened by the Iowa incident. Flag officers covering for each others incompetence. WW2 propellant stored in floating barges exposed to heat becoming unstable then trying to blame an innocent seaman for the incident. I hope those officers are all retired because that type looses wars.
The fact they tried to use some kind of "homosexual love triangle" thing, as part of the theory is galling. Ruined men's careers after the fact. Reason I don't mention the wasting of lives is because it's a moot point. It's the Navy, they'll waste any able seaman of it means some kind of embarrassment for the DoD and Sec. Of the Navy.
A buddy of mine was assigned to the Mo when he joined the Navy after high school and he invited me over for a friends and family day on her. It was quite the experience but, sadly, this was not too long after the tragedy aboard the Iowa so they weren't allowed to fire her 16 incehrs. But they did fire one of the 5 incehrs and that was pretty impressive. They also fired the CIWS and the MARDET did a quick demo too, all in all a great time even if I didn't get to see the 16 inches fire.
I served as an AG on the final crew of the New Jersey out of Long Beach (88-91), it was amazing duty! I consider myself extremely fortunate and humbled to have been a battleship sailor. My only regret is not accepting the opportunity to cross deck to the Missouri before she headed over to be on station for Desert Storm.
My favorite scene in all of Godzilla is when in Godzilla king of the monsters he rocks up after being revived to fight king gidorah and theres that short shot of all the navy behind him ready to back him up
Fun fact, as everybody here may or may not know, all 4 of the Iowas are preserved as museum ships. The Iowa is moored in the Port of LA (Which isn't actually in LA), the New Jersey is in New Jersey (they have a RU-vid channel which talks about her and Iowas in general), the Missouri is in Pearl Harbor, and I don't know where the Wisconsin is.
I see a lot of people want a battleship like ship in the modern USN. I'd much much rather have the proposed Anti-ballistic Missile Cruiser version of the San Antonio class amphibious ship. That proposed idea is awesome; 288 VLS cells! Imagine quad packing some of those with ESSMs, then you'd have SM-2s and you'd have a massive umbrella. Then of course you would have room for a ton of tomahawks, harpoons/more modern Anti ship missiles and whatever else is coming down the pipeline. And of course it is fitted with the most modern and massive AESA radars and Aegis combat systems. That is modern day battle ship.
the problem with this, 'not having enough missiles' is not a problem the USN are ever likely to have. A standard surface action group of two or three Burke destroyers has always 'had enough missiles' for whatever task they have been given, while a carrier battlegroup usually has three Burkes and a cruiser. There is more of a problem detecting the missiles early enough to intercept than there is of 'not having enough missiles'. Your 288 vls idea is basically the 'Arsenal Ship' idea from the 1990s, which was rejected as the Navy already had enough missiles and enough launch cells with thier existing destroyer fleet.
@@Debbiebabe69 that may have been the case when the USN had a lot more destroyers and cruisers in the 90s; but with all the ticos being retired in the very near future and the USN planning on downsizing the entire surface over the next couple decades, there will be many fewer vls available at any one time. Especially since ships that need to be overhauled are now waiting a few years before they get dry dock space. And given how China has accelerated ship building there is a very realistic scenario where the USN is at a significant disadvantage in the far east. And once Burkes can't rearm their VLS at sea, so any task force could get mission killed simply because they've expanded their stores. Maybe the idea of an arsenal ship didn't seem needed in the 90s in the aftermath of the cold war, but strategic environment has changed a whole lot since then.
@@Jon.A.Scholt Pretty sure the lowering of shipcount will simply mean less groups at sea rather than less actual ship in each battlegroup. As for the Ticos, since they are only used to escort cvs nowadays, all it will mean is a reduction from 400 tubes in a battlegroup to 366 tubes - if the battlegroup then gets one of the new FFG62 frigates, that will push the tube count back to around 400, as well as extra dedicated AShM launchers...
I was on the USS New Jersey back in April of this year. I had known virtually nothing about it prior to visiting it aside it was from the WW2 era. Was shocked as hell to see the C-whiz and missile bays on it
The iowa class are just beautiful! Im in aw every time i see pictures or movies with em.. battlehsip 2012 gets a big hell yeah too! Fantasy land but hell yeah!
The Phalanx in the thumbnail is so awesome! The thing aims and fires itself! You just tell it to go to work! It's basically R2D2's roided-out older brother, with a huge gun penis!
When they told us about retro for aircraft, they said it would most likely be for Harriers. I was on BB63 from 87-90, age 17 to 20. We didn't believe it would happen, she was already back in drydock following Gulf 87/88, after just having been brough back into service. Fun times though!
Thanks very much for posting. Seeing the Phalanx weapon system reminded me of my time in the Middle East. Our base had two such systems. After seeing them in action, we would sleep a little better at night knowing they were on duty. Thanks again JJ and be safe.
My dad was on the New Jersey BB-62 in the late 80s to early 90s. The CIWS was a huge thing. VLS tubes are huge. Awesome ships from a dangerous country. 🇺🇸🇺🇸
I personally think the only way these ships could be put back into service is with a MAJOR modernization. Remove the 16-inch guns and replace it with a VLS, perhaps outfit it with the Aegis Combat System, and add a hangar to accommodate at least one SH-60. Unfortunately, such a thing would be VASTLY more expensive than the Navy would want, rather just build a whole new class of ship.
United States: Sends up the Missouri into space. Japan: "We need to raise the Yamato and prepare it for launch!" Germany: "This is our chance to prove that our military isn't weak anymore! Raise the Bismark!" UK: "Prepare HMS Victory for space trials."
Retired from socal law enforcement and been on the USS Iowa three times. Rather amazing all the high tech weapons on board compared to the USS Texas or Massachusetts.
You are correct in the fact that the Navy attempted a massive cover-up of the turret two gun incident. I read the reports of what really happened and it was not because of over of the gunpowder. That movie does not show the fact that there was prior to the accident in Trent number one gun number one. They had powder bags that had been smoldering. Gun was loaded. They barely sealed the breach in time and that gun fired on its own because the gunpowder bags detonated. Thankfully, nobody was hurt with that incident. Shortly after that happened they were doing gunnery exercises and the tattoo incident happened. There was no love affair. There was no ridiculous BS like that. That was a cover-up on the Navy part pure and simple. There had been numerous warnings that there were problems with the powder bags, and when they were preparing to fire a broadside, the communications had asked if everybody was ready. It responded that they had a problem and they needed an extra minute. The last communication before the explosion was oh my God, the bags are smoldering. They couldn’t seal the breach in time and that’s when the explosion happened. It was discovered later that metal filament was in with the burlap bags to store the gunpowder. You do not ever use metal to store an explosive gunpowder when the slightest spark can cause a massive explosion. I am still pissed about that whole affair because that entire accident was 100% preventable
You mentioned the TLAM and the nuclear TLAM, but there's a third type: I'm fairly sure that the 80's Iowas also carried TASMs. This was the Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile, which was basically Tomahawks with a Harpoon radar seeker.
Just have like 30 CIWS on each side and problem solved, it can't get hurt by aircraft or missiles anymore, plus automate the turret reloading completely to cut down on crew, pretty good.
honestly i think we should develop some anti missile destroyers. if we go to war with china theyre going to spam our aircraft carriers with hundreds, maybe even thousands of missiles. we need a LOT of CIWS and lasers to mitigate those incoming missiles, and a series of underwater cable nets around our carriers to destroy incoming torpedoes/drones.
Gun wagons like the battleship are outmoded. Even carriers are approaching obsolescence. Like you said in your piece, the Navy could have built 4 smaller, modern, survivable ships for the cost of upgrading the USS Missouri. For the record, I'm a former submariner. All my submarine shipmates know that surface ships are just "targets." Modern naval warfare is moving towards countering missiles, drones, mines, and costal defense forces backed by land based air-power. More ships. Smaller ships. Smarter ships.
while this is very true. power projection is a major part of navel strat. Its nice to have 4 smaller ships because they can do 4 different things. They all need maintenance, crew rotation, transit time, refit. So you effectively have maybe 2 ships operational at any time. But for power projection a large ship like an aircraft carrier or a battleship at the center of a force is instrumental. They essentially act as logistics nodes giving fuel, food, medical aid, machine shop space( The Iowa's had a full service machine shop) and even some recreation for other ships. so now your 4 smaller ships can be out longer doing more. instead of having to go back to port after X amount of time.
The diagram on the thumb nail would work with F 35 fighters, but needs the front two turrets removed and 180+ cells added. Might as well add some lasers too.
The problem with carrier/battleship hybrids is that you won't be able to use f-18 type aircraft, the only thing you'd be able to use are jump jets, like the f-35b or the Harrier. Another thing is that main guns that size really aren't necessary anymore as you can produce ammo to punch through armor at lower calibers. You could, however, replace one of the turrets with a VLS launcher, add SAMs and CIWS weapons. And on top of that, the ship at its size woukd be rather slow, even with a reactor upgrade to something close to what some of the carriers or submarines are using, most of that is due to the weight of the armor on the ship. In actuality to upgrade all the sensors, new weapons and equipment and the crew to use it all it would be more cost than to just produce another Japanese helicopter laden destroyer.
@Debbiebabe69 yeah, good luck getting them off the deck while combat loaded, that Dec wouldn't be long enough to land and take off without VTOL capability.
Missouri is at berth at Pearl Harbor. It has not moved since arriving there in 1992. in the movie, Battleship, any scenes where it is, moving, are computer generated. Even sitting still, it is a spectacular sight to behold.
I've actually thought about this. My stupid ideas simply rip out the turrets and replace them with a ton of anti-air or anti-ship VLS launchers and then put some phalanx and short-range anti-air missiles where the 5 inch guns go
The Barbettes not to mention the turrets themselves are some of the thickest armor on the ship, just gutting those areas apart from interfering with other spaces would drastically throw the ships center of mass off
If I recall correctly, there have been modernization studies that proposed replacing all the battleships' gun turrets with Mark 41 VLS launchers as you described. The problem is that removing all the big-gun turrets would drastically change the battleships' center-of-balance and affect their seaworthiness.
@Christopher Wang The 80s refit additions for the Tomahawks/Harpoons etc. Alone affected the center of mass enough to be an issue, granted they're much higher up but nonetheless
We have them so keep them in shape.. I just whish the USS Wisconsin were stored in the great lakes like Michigan. The fresh water does less damage the hulls and lack of seawater mist also keeps there equipment in better shape.
Interesting fact. My uncle served on the USS New Jersey in the years leading up to its decommissioning as one of the higher ranks on the ship up on the bridge. I can't remember exactly what station or position he held I would have to ask him but He ended up serving for a good chunk of his career on the ship
I fell in love with the Missouri when it came to Australia in the 80s to celebrate the Australian Navy 75th anniversary . My father was a marine engineer and I'll always remember what he said...Its a ship of pure beauty. I couldn't agree more.
Keep 1 set of main 16inch guns for ground bombardment. Take the other 2 out and add at least 4 of the modern main gun you ses on ships these days. Pepper the ship with countermeasures. Add a landing pad of some kind for general operating. Add a missle launch system and boom a coastal defence ship.
I'm afraid to say that the age of the battleship is over, in this day and age battle is a numbers game of who can intelligently throw the most amount of sophisticated stuff at each other.
@@copunit12 Agreed! Especially since these cannons throw a shell the size of a small car. A near miss will do the job just fine, you don't need sophisticated guidance...🤣🫡
@@copunit12 Sadly, while artillery on the ground is cheaper...Sea is a different story as yes battleship can use their main cannon as a naval bombard...so can the other ships, and sometimes more effectively as well. The main problem of a naval bombard is that you have to be reasonably close to the coast which makes them more vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, which has already been proven when Russia learned that the hard way with the Moskva. But the main reason why navel bombard is kind of rare nowadays is just simply because it's too risky, unless you are going against a nation that doesn't have these types of defenses then it's better to just sit far away and fire missiles where you have more time to react against an enemy counterattack.
People were unnecessarily harsh on the Battleship movie, I personally think its super entertaining and a cut above in earnestness over other popcorn sunday afternoon movies. Its basically American anime.
Large ships are just floating ducks for enemy subs so they need Hunter/Killer Subs and Helicopters with randomly pinging sonar buoys to scare them off!
I'd love for them to bring back battleships, those monsters struck terror into those on the receiving end. but ultimately i can see why they wouldn't. just to refit the armor alone would be a monsterous task and cost way too much.
A close family friend was the captain of the USS Shiloh ticonderoga-class. Got to see the phalanx up close and personal in action when they took the shiloh out with friends and family for a BBQ at sea out of San Diego. Impressive firepower
Iowa class battleships also had nuclear shells it could fire from the guns called W19”Katie” shells 15-20kilotons, similar yield to what was dropped on Japan ww2.
My ship was a FFG out of Long Beach CA. In the mid 80s the Missouri was being recomissioned. Regan was president and America was proud and strong.The BBs projected strength and the U.S was back. Its ashame whats happening in our country today. Today's military is Woke, weak and worn out. We could use another Regan today and bring back our pride.
Reagan inherited a weak worn out military. And I was in it. It's better today than it ever was after the post Vietnam military that didn't hardly have enough money for training.
In the game "World of warships", There's a modified Iowa class named "Delaware", It's the fictional Iowa class that became Battleship-Carrier hybrid...
I had my CIC team at Dam Neck, VA for Naval Gunfire Support Training in 1981. One day the LT doing the training told us that president Reagan was bringing the battleships back and we had to find the trainers. It took is 15 minutes to find them and 45 minutes to roll them across campus and get them up the elevator. So we got to do part of our NGS training on the Mk 8 fire control system for the Iowa-class battleships.
@@PrograError True but it's a great memory. When I took my kids on a tour of USS North Carolina (BB-55) I mentioned that I was active duty Navy to the guide. He invited me to comment on any part of the tour. So I did, especially the bridge and CIC.
The four Iowas were (re)commissioned and decommissioned multiple times. IOWA 3, NJ 4, Missouri 2, Wisconsin 3. Only NJ was commissioned for Vietnam., IOWA, NJ, Wisconsin for Korea. All four for Desert Storm.
Maybe just use it as a gunship, with lots of antiair tech. And instead of using standard shells, develop smart ram jet ordinances for the big guns. Thst would be bad ass. Big guns, heavy hit, loads of armor, and lots of air defense. Bad ass
Best method in my opinion replacing the main guns with missiles of some type. The hollow chambers can be filled with a carousel of cruise missiles for rapid deployment and hopefully the armor in the ring could prevent the ship from blowing up if it takes a direct hit to that carousel.
I'm a big fan of the Iowa battleships. I'm from New Jersey and have visited The New Jersey twice. I have a Battleship New Jersey hat I wear all the time
I'd say the only thing you left out is the part about each shell, that can fire 24 miles, is high explosive and weighs 2,000 pounds lol. Just imagine being on the radio requesting fire support and having a toyota prius moving 3500 feet per second land and vaporize the target with 8 more shells just in case to remove any doubt... 9 exploding prius(es) lol
