🤔 Maybe this explains why we have no Colorado class ships right now. Its just that no one has stumbled upon any of them yet! I'm gonna go take a walk down some of the sidewalks of Denver Colorado to see if I can find one!
@@jamescarter8693 Drach has referred to this line when deferring to Ryan on some historical fine points ... something like "you don't debate a fact about a battleship with someone who has a battleship"
@@MrTexasDan I have fault my base instinct to insult you like a true Mid-American AKA a person born and bred in the USA but I guess I just did so Big D from Big T you deserve your own country it's fun they will chat and stuff we shouldn't lecture each other we should enjoy their channels and feel privileged that we have their channels to listen to this is more like one of my Warhammer post wonder how voice recognition and transfers going to do with all the s*** that I just spoke
I really wish they could have saved WV as a museum ship, any of the rebuilt standards would have been great but West Virginia was a bad ass looking boat
The fact that none of the battleships from Surigao Strait were saved is a historical crime, IMO. Of those ships, all but Mississippi were also at Pearl Harbor.
Either Nevada or Pennsylvania (both for being the sister ships of the lost battleships Oklahoma and Arizona, respectively, the former being the only battleship to get underway during Pearl Harbor, and the latter for being the flagship of the Battle Fleet) would've been nice. Having both saved would've been better.
I built models of USS AZ and USS PA back 50 yrs ago. I sure would've loved going on board the PA...trouble is, it would've been the modernized one had it been kept after WWII.
In hindsight I always thought the the West Virginia should have been used as a museum ship due to the fact that she was there at Pearl Harbor in 1941 and was serving in 1945 not only to mention she was the most heavily damaged ship to be returned to service. She should be where the Missouri is now and one last thing the surrender should have been signed on her deck for the reasons stated above.
@@georgedistel1203 The reason you give to have the Surrender take place on West Virginia is good, but my choice for the surrender site would be Enterprise (CV 6.) At one point or another the Pacific War degenerated into the Japanese Empire vs USS Enterprise.
Ryan: I have been watching your videos for over a year now, and I'm grateful. I must say you have improved your presentation, confidence and just all around. I'm very happy for you and for this channel. Keep it up!
I really like the look of the modernized Standards, they look like they're going fast and doing big things even if they couldn't get a speeding ticket in a school zone.
Just to add to that, it was also used on the Tennessee class BBs, the USS New Mexico, and the first three US carriers. As Ryan said, it was dropped partially due to weight considerations, but I have also heard that there were some concerns about the combination of electricity and salt water in a huge metal ship in the event of a torpedo hit.
@@bluemarlin8138 Each standard-type was a test bed but still to keep limitations in check, i suspect due to new 5 layer torpedo bulkheads on CO and Tennessee which need to get rid turbo electric drive to save weight and space for the systems. Lexington have turbo-electric drive but mainly she need a beefy machinery to achieve high speed, still they managed to improve propulsion well enough in order to retain 4 layer bulkhead TDS.
Eh. It isn't really a contest. The Bismarcks were ten knots faster. 16-inch gun battleships could smash the Bismarcks (which is exactly what HMS Rodney did), but the Colorados were just far too slow to feasibly engage either Bismarck or Tirpitz, which would inevitably just run away before the shooting properly started.
well each could beat each other all depends who started hitting first and where it hits regardless of whether its a 14inch 15 inch or 16 inch same with any battleship the hood was more capable destroying the bismark but the bismark got the luckiest first hit possible and that was that same could have happened to bismark.
The Colorados were probably the best of the first-gen 16" gun battleships, in the sense that they were actually practical weapons of war. When you look at some of the others like the Nelsons, which blew out all the lightbulbs and plumbing in the front half of the ship when they fired, the Colorados were undeniably more practical warships. They could stay on station and continue bombardment, instead of having to retire early because half the ship was suddenly without light or lavatories. The lightbulbs could be replaced in the field, but the other damage required significant time in port to repair.
Everyone serms to get on the hate Nelsons bandwagon . Certainly they had problems in the beginning of their careers but these were mostly fixed by WW11. And just how effective they could be was shown by Rodney against Bismark, with most of Bismarks armament disabled /destroyed and the bridge wiped out with most of the command staff. So fairs/fair they were good ships that served their country well and they certainly ďo not deserve the misguided reputation they have. They were a good battle worthy design able to sustain battle damage and after repairs continue to serve their country
@@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335 Not really. Other than maybe the wooden deck chewed up a bit, most did not suffer damage from firing. You didn't hear about this with any other ship. The Nelsons, on the other hand, would shatter their own bridge windows if the guns were fired abaft of the beam, and they never managed to fully fix this. As a result, they were limited to firing forwards and directly broadside except in an extreme emergency. And they'd render the entire fore half of the ship effectively unlivable after the battle, requiring those berthed there to seek other arrangements. They just weren't practical except as local defensive ships. They couldn't really be sent far afield because they needed ports able to refit them if they ever needed to actually use their guns.
@@WardenWolf I can think of one US battleship that completely disabled herself by own firing. That didn't happen to Nelsons. Ships damaged itself all the time, not only battleships, but smaller ones too, particulary if they were of predominantly riveted construction. And yes i agree that Nelsons were more problematic then most in this respect.
3:47 is an awesome shot of post-rebuild Nevada I don't remember seeing before but there have been so many. The study of all aspects of the Pacific War has been my hobby for 50 years. Back in the pre-Internet days I would be visiting libraries every place I went looking for new books. Hungry for pictures. Perhaps you can imagine how the Net has transformed that hobby. _Now I have all of these pictures!_ lol This was awesome, Ryan. You know we need to do the Bismarck. That before anything like Yamato. FWIW, I believe the Iowa's FC and shells made them superior to Yamato. I spent Desert Shield and Desert Storm on the USS Saratoga. We steamed home from Desert Storm with the Wisconsin in our battle group. I am pleased and humbled to have witnessed a battleship riding stately and sedately in a medium sea while the frigate just beyond her was doing sort of a hula dance. Thanks, Ryan.
Here's an outside the box "comparison" - Mikasa. Obviously New Jersey has every possible edge seeing as New Jersey is basically the most advanced battleship ever built and Mikasa is a pre-dreadnought, but Mikasa is the only battleship that you can still visit that hasn't been featured yet, at least at a class-wide level, if not individually.
The Wee Vee did something no Iowa class ever did, she fired on and sank a Japanese battleship. Her first salvo hit was the longest nighttime hit on a battleship in history. She was truly the Pearl Harbor Avenger!
@@g24thinf True, at the ranges where they were exchanging main gun shots the Washington's 16"/45cal were just as devastating as the 16"/50cal weapons Iowa mounts. Also at those ranges there is a good chance Kirishima's 14" could have penetrated not only Washington's armor but Iowa's as well.
@@robertf3479 Yes, the Washington's 16/45's could fire the mk8 super heavy shell same as Iowa. The Wee Vee's older 16/45 could not. The Iowa's had the internal sloped armor belt which I don't think the Washington did. With Ching Lee in command, he probably could have sank her with a Fletcher! Lol
@@g24thinf Thanks man. I didn't credit either Washington or Iowa with firing the 2700 lb 'Super Heavy' round though in actual combat "Overkill is under-rated," I'd have used everything up to and including the galley sink if it could fit in the breech of my guns. At 'Point Blank Range' even the Japanese 14" AP shells stood a good chance of punching through ridiculously thick armor because they would be coming in more or less flat and wouldn't have lost more than a very small amount of velocity. All of the heavy ships (cruiser and above) were well inside of the inner limits of their "Immunity Zones." Both the South Dakota and Iowa classes had sloped internal armor belts you pointed out, the North Carolina class did not.
It's interesting to see some Standard Battleships had more modernization than others during WWII. The Tennessee class and West Virginia looked very modern late war.
This is because Tennessee, California and West Virginia were badly damaged at Pearl Harbor along with Nevada. Colorado was on the West Coast on that day if I remember correctly, and so did not receive the massive rebuilding the ships salvaged from the mud of Pearl Harbor were.
In my opinion, it's criminal that West Virginia, California, and Tennessee weren't used for shore bombardment post-war. All 3 were so heavily modernized that they were as effective as a South Dakota or Iowa in that role, yet were smaller and required less crew. In essence, all 3 could have been forward deployed at Yokosuka postwar to help in trouble spots in Asia.
It’s unfortunate that one wasn’t preserved as a museum ship, but it would have been hard to justify using them for shore bombardment when there were 10 fast battleships that were easier to maintain, had better fire control, could get to problem areas faster, had greater range, had better AA defense, and could also be used as carrier escorts (especially the Iowas). Of the Colorados, only WV had been heavily modernized, and it would have been prohibitively expensive (with post-war budgets) to modernize the others a la WV, and still operate the Iowas with carrier groups, and maintain the other fast BBs in mothballs.
@@bluemarlin8138 I think the anti aircraft point becomes moot as early as Korea. With jet fighter's their ww2 aa batteries were essentially useless. Regarding shore bombardment, its as I stated. The ships were far cheaper to maintain than any of the fast battleships. I'm not purely referring to West Virginia, but Tennessee and California as well. 12 14" guns can be incredibly effective in a shore bombardment role. If the US retained them post war it would have been best to keep them forward deployed and use the Iowas stateside with their superior speed.
@@doctordoom1337 I get what you're saying as far as them being able to fill a niche role more cheaply....at least in theory. But as far as I can tell, all of the standards except for West Virginia and California---which had partial engine rebuilds after being sunk at Pearl Harbor---were on their last legs and would have needed new engines. But no one was making big turbo-electric engines anymore, with all the military contractors having gone to turbines. Installing turbines in the other standards would have involved radically altering their internal structure.....bulkheads, prop shafts, etc. That would have been prohibitively expensive for a purely niche role. As for the fast battleships' anti-aircraft being moot as early as Korea, I'm not sure I agree. While they might not be very effective against early 1950s fighter planes, they would still be effective against early 1950s strike aircraft, which were basically the same as they were in WWII. It's certainly better than nothing. Because of this, and because there were still plenty of gun cruisers out there, keeping up with the carriers was still relevant. They could also get to a problem area several days faster if necessary. And logistics were another reason. US military contractors were still able to make the steam turbines and other parts that the fast BBs used. Not so for the standards, unless they were completely rebuilt as described above. So basically, it would have been WV and California. But it's hard to keep one ship from a class in operation, and generally navies just don't do it.
at the end of the Day the Navy had 10 Modern Fast Battleships. That is 10 more then they needed for anything other than Shore Bombardment. After WW2 it was an aviators navy until the development of modern guided missiles and Cruise Missiles. In addition to the 4 Iowas you had 4 Sodaks and 2 NC's If you loose one modern BB you still got the other 9. North Carolina, Washington, South Dakota, Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Missouri Thats a lot of Battleships- as it happens only a few were ever activated for service so its logical the Navy would not keep the 1920's era WV or CA in service.
I'd love to see a collaboration between everyone at Battleship New Jersey and Drachinifel. Seeing you guys on a tour and talking about the ship would be great.
Colorado was ok with deadeye. Now that that’s gone it’s back to being a favorite target for farming damage and not a whole lot more. Absolutely punishing ship to be overextended in. Neat design in real life but the game does not do it justice.
I don't know. Because i used to sell my older ships after advancing through the tech tree, its quite some time as i sailed with Colorado at Tier 7. But i have West Virginia at Tier 6 in my inventory and i have to say that she is one of my favorite Tier 6 BBs.
I really enjoyed this video, Ryan. I've been into this sort of stuff for decades, being an old Navy vet, Gunners Mate Second. I've studied the design history of combat ships, and also served on them. I once thought I'd like to be a designer. We visited USS New Jersey in May, 2017. I don't know if you were curator, or even with the ship back then, but I would have very much enjoyed meeting you and discussing some things with you. Keep up the great work. And thank you for all you do in keeping this grand old lady in good shape. My dad used to recall operating with the New Jersey from when he served on the light cruiser USS Birmingham CL 62 during the War. These ships are priceless to those of us who remember them even before they were mothballed after the War. You're doing a great service to America's history, Ryan. Thank you!
I would love to see a video in the Nevada's. Specifically, the difference between the previous designs of American BB's and the differences between the sisters, as well as the salvage and return of the Nevada, with the salvage and final loss of Oklahoma.
Id love a video on Iowa class ships and how they would have faired at Leyte Gulf if they hadn't been lured away. Huge missed opportunity for the Iowa class to shine.
Drachinifel happened to release a speculatory video on that exact subject just a couple weeks ago. See: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-35yLWdYEbZQ.html
@Chandler White He not only could see that none of the fast BBs had detached, New Jersey was his Flagship at the time. I don't see Halsey either LEAVING the fast carrier force by detaching New Jersey as part of the battleship force or transferring his Flag to another ship (a carrier possibly) for this battle. What Halsey could have done would be to leave New Jersey (his Flagship) and one other fast battleship with TF-38 (fast carriers) and still have been able to detach Admiral Lee's TF-34 with the four remaining fast battlewagons (including Washington (Lee's Flagship,) North Carolina, one or perhaps both South Dakotas or one of those plus Iowa.) Most historians including 'Halsey-philes' like me recognize that Halsey messed up big time. He made the unwarranted assumption that Admiral Kurita's Center Force had withdrawn after losing Musashi and ignored reports that this force had reorganized and was coming on again.
Good overview! The sharp clipper bow always caught my eye. Thanks for going into the torpedo defense; I kept wondering how they were able to carry 8 twin 5" turrets.
Small point: The 16" guns on the COLORADO Class were the same length as the 16"/45 guns on the NORTH CAROLINAs and SOUTH DAKOTAs, but their ammunition hoists, and turret loading and projectile storage systems could not handle the new 4.5-caliber-length 2700-lb 16" Mark 8 AP shells, so a shorter, lighter, 4-caliber, 2240-lb 16" Mark 5 AP shell (a scaled-up version of the new 1500-lb 14" Mark 16 AP shell) was used by the COLORADO Class in WWII. Other than the length and weight, the new shells were very similar in ability to penetrate armor (though the heavier shells had a small advantage at close range due to their weight -- bigger in the IOWA's higher-velocity 16"/50 guns, of course -- and a big advantage at long range due to having less slowing by air resistance, also due to their weight, which is why they were developed), being designed to penetrate armor of about their diameter in thickness at 35-40 degrees (actual test spec in WWII), WAY above any foreign shells. Thus, when US WWII AP shells hit their targets, the results were usually worse for that target than with most other foreign shells, on the average, as more intact penetrations -- as opposed to broken pieces -- would occur against any given heavy armor system on the enemy ship. For example, post-WWII tests by the US Navy of British 1590-lb 14" Mark 1A APC (the British added "C" for "AP Capped", like the US Army did, but the US Navy did not) shells compared to the 14" Mark 16 MOD 8 AP shells (the the version of that shell that was used by the US Navy in most WWII large-caliber-shell-versus-armor acceptance tests) at the British and US WWII armor acceptance test angle of 30 degrees against both new US Navy 17.3" Class "A" (face-hardened) armor -- barbette plates -- and new US Navy 18" Class "B" (homogeneous, ductile) armor -- turret face plates (all of the new US battleships used non-face-hardened armor for turret faces, unlike any other 20th Century battleships) -- the US shells penetrated intact at slightly above the test spec velocity, as expected, but the British shells -- one per plate -- either broke into pieces on the Class "A" plate or bent into a banana shape on the Class "B" plate, neither making more than a pit in the plate face (the results were so poor that the US test personnel decided that penetrating those plates with those British shells was impossible). Against thinner, 13.5" Class "A" belt armor (new plates made for older ship repairs, as on COLORADO Class ships damaged at Pearl Harbor, for example), the British shells at 30 degrees worked fine. Thus, WWII British AP shells had a "lid" on their penetration capability, while US AP shells did not.
@@Jpdt19 British post-WWI APC shells had 2.5% Shellite fillers (except for the 16" Mark IB used with the NELSON and RODNEY that used TNT/beeswax like the 6" CPBC and 8" SAPC); Germany latest "L/4.4" APC shells had 2% block TNT with each block covered with a thick paper/felt "skin" and a big wooden block in the tip of the cavity as a shock-absorber; Japan WWII AP/APC had about 1.5% trinitroanisol ("Type 91 Explosive") in the BB-sized APC and about 2.5% of that explosive in the uncapped cruiser sizes (155mm and 203mm), with much of the cavity being filled with 33-40% inert wood, plaster, and aluminum cushions completely surrounding this filler, since it otherwise was almost as sensitive as WWI British Lyddite). Whey they did this crazy thing is very strange, since WWI experience by the British with Lyddite -- Japanese name "Shimose" -- showed that such explosives were way too sensitive for use in AP shells. The US wanted penetration first and just enough explosive in the shell to break it into a number of medium-size (body) and large (nose) chunks inside the target for maximum "carry-through" around the impact site on the enemy hull. Tiny fragments from large-filler weapons did much more damage close to the shell hit, but very little further away.
Our 20 year renter Harry Thomas served on the USS Colorado, before WWII to Tokyo Bay. His primary Battle Station was number 2 turret far left gun. He of course was at Tinian or Saipan, I forget, where the Colorado suffered between 21-23 shore artillery hits and back to Bremerton they went. Great stories and sometimes with wet eyes. RIP Harry.
I've always wondered what the structures on top of the masts were since I built my first Revell model kit of Arizona with my dad 20 years ago. I'd always assumed it was just a spotting top. I guess I was close, but wrong. Thanks Battleship New Jersey!
As fun as that would be to think about it probably wouldn't happen. If Bismarck hadn't had to withdraw to France after meeting Hood and Prince of Wales, Admiral Lutjens may well have refused battle with Colorado (or any other American BB) and the rest of the convoy escort. His orders were to try to avoid action with escorts which could possibly damage Bismarck significantly. Any battleship serving in the North Atlantic (U.S. or British) armed with 14" or larger main guns could do that. Lutjens HAD to engage Hood and POW, he lacked the speed to avoid them and still break out into the Atlantic. Running into any 16" ship after that is something he would try very hard to avoid. Even a 21 knot Colorado would probably be able to stay between Bismarck and the convoy it was protecting by 'cutting the corner' on any course Jutjens used.
The Colorado sinks in that scenario. Bismarck can outrun (30kts vs 21), outgun (2.1 shells/min vs 1.5), and outrange the Colorado (Bismarck's 15in guns outrange the Colorado's 16/45s by over 10k yards). The NorCal and SoDak battleships would give Bismarck a run for the money (they are almost as fast as Bismarck and their 16/45s have ranges closer to Bismarck's). Iowas meeting Bismarck would sink her.
@@WannabeWRX A combat meeting between Colorado and Bismarck would be governed by the weather as much as by anything else. Remember, Bismarck lost the use of her primary radar during the engagement with Hood and POW. If that was not repaired then that would place Bismarck within range of Colorado's 16"/45s when the combatants sight each other. This of course assumes Prinz Eugene is separated from Bismarck. Even if PE remains with B, Lutjens would want to positively identify his targets before opening fire, normal visibility on the North Atlantic at that time of year places both battleships within each other's range at sighting. Even if she wasn't at GQ, Colorado and any other warships in the escort would be at Condition II (Wartime Steaming) with many of her critical stations and weapons manned. Warning of Bismarck's breakout would have been broadcast by both the British Admiralty and the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, so perhaps any indication that an unidentified large contact or two was in the area would send them to GQ. Add to that the U.S. hadn't joined the war (officially) as yet, Lutjens would earn no favor with Berlin by firing first into a U.S. warship and provide the pro-war factions in Washington with an excuse to declare war due to an "Unprovoked and dastardly attack" on an easily identified "unprepared" USN vessel on the high seas. After we joined the war on December 7th, ships of the North Carolina, SoDak and Iowa classes joined the British Home Fleet in escorting the Murmansk convoys in hopes that Tirpitz would come out to play. Alone, each of three would probably have at a minimum been an even match or even an overmatch (Iowa) for Tirpitz. USS Washington even at this point was Flagship for RADM Willis Lee. He had the cooperation of his Flag Captain in training the crew of what might normally be a 'brute force' battleship into a floating 'sharpshooter,' perhaps giving Tirpitz better than a 'run for her money.'
HMS Warspite is the one British ship from either World War which should have been preserved. A veteran of a number of WWI actions including Jutland where she took and dealt out a lot of punishment she saw a LOT of action during WWII in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian Ocean against all three major members of the Axis. I highly recommend anyone interested look up her history and the reason she had the unofficial nickname of 'The Old Bullet Magnet,' (an old Royal Navy sailor told me about that one.)
@@nicholasconder4703 Actually they did scrap her ... uh ... mostly. They couldn't get her off that rock or shoal, so they salvaged as much of her as they could in place, but they couldn't get all of her. There are still sections of her bottom including (I read somewhere) at least one boiler and other gear and steel. Sport divers with more b@lls than brains have dived on the site even though it is hazardous.
I've found some of your comparisons pretty interesting and insightful. I know these are paper ships, but how do you think the Iowa class battleships hold it's own against the Alsace class? Which planned to succeed the Richelieus and were to counter the H-class (I'd also be interested in that). I am especially interested in a comparison with the No.3 45,000 ton version of the Alsace with the three quad 15" turrets. I really think both classes are equal in most regards and I'm curious in how it would be from your point of view. Wishful thinking aside, well done on the execution on another in-depth comparison once again. And the channel has grown a lot lately as well over the past half year. congrats!
The Revenge class are sometimes referred to as the Royal Sovereign class or the R class in official UK Navy documents. Revenge was Laid down first but built in a private shipyard. Royal Oak was the 3rd one laid down but was built in a government shipyard and was launched first. winston churchill used all three names at different times.
Maye that is why the British don't use the names of their ships in the class name- instead using "R class" "Admiral class" or "Town, Tribal, City class" or like today "Type 42 class" Since they can't figure out which ship is the "lead ship" US just says fuck it it was ordered first so its lead ship even if it comes out last
The Washington Naval Treaty is also the reason why Japan sided with Germany and Italy over its traditional allies, the United States and United Kingdom, during World War II: The US decoded Japanese diplomatic wires and found that Japan's government would accept a ratio of no worse than 3:5:5 with the US and UK in the Washington Naval Treaty, and worked with the UK to force that from the minimum acceptable ratio to the treaty-mandated ratio. Japan's people were infuriated by this, and as a result, a decade later they decided to ally with Germany instead.
Colorado class Washington might have been seen as less of a waste than it was if Arizona hadn't been taken out as she was a little faster than other standards after being refit with Colorado class Washington's boiler machinery in the 30s. A 23ish knot ship is still slow but A) better than the others and B) means slowest Japanese BB Fuso doesn't have the option to nope out of a fight.
My concern would be for the game's accuracy. I've seen some inaccurate information listed in games (mostly related to tanks), but I haven't looked into WoWs (primarily due to no source materials). 🤔
@@tyree9055 I can’t say for certain if every ship is accurate, but for many it is by far the best digital model in the world. The Yamato naval museum in Japan actually used wows model for reference when building a 60 foot scale model of Yamato as the centerpiece of the exhibit
World of Warships is fun to play. Their maps are a limitation, I feel, because the main guns could fire much further in real life than the ship's guns in the game. WOWs has artificially reduced the capabilities in many instances. Alternatively, other instances are just "arcade game silly", but fun to play. WOWs is fun to play, but often deviates from historical accuracy for "balance" purposes.
@Chandler White, I think there are several, overlapping reasons. First, remember they scrapped more significant ships...like USS Enterprise...because they were seen as old or obsolete and the idea of saving a museum ship was extravagant compared to the value of steel. Second, the Colorados were inter-war ships and didn't have a gaudy combat record. Texas was, at least, a pre-World War I ship and had served as the flagship for Admiral Ernest King. Which brings up the third factor: they (the West Virginia, the Colorado, and the Maryland) lacked a powerful political advocate. Only the State of Maryland has a port (Colorado and West Virginia don't have a maritime connection) but none of these ships had a savior...an influential Senator, committee, or popular movement to save them from the scrapper.
As far as Standard type BB's go, Both Pennsylvania (Arizona's sister ship) and Nevada made quite the name for themselves with their gunnery during the war. Both were extremely accurate. Nevada, for example was very popular with the ground troops on D-Day, she was able to reduce targets very close to our lines- without dropping those massive 14" shells on their heads. And Nevada was a HUGE pain in the ass to sink- 2 nuclear bombs, battleship fire, bombs, and finally submarine launched torpedoes. Nevada didn't WANT to die! "BUGGER OFF- I'm fine!! Put me back in, coach!!"
Thanks for appreciatively pointing out the features and benefits; beautiful ship. As I understand it, the standard class was the way the Navy coped with being funded for only 1 or 2 ships per class. Thus, it thought, a useful battle fleet would be gradually accrued, designs incrementally improving but keeping within the concept.
It's fascinating comparing these designs. I enjoyed listening to your perspective on their construction and deployment. I agree with all of your points.
You need to do a video on the Fast Battleships, the North Carolina class. Particularly on the USS NORTH CAROLINA, she was the MOST DECORATED BATTLESHIP OF WW2. The Show-boat entered the fight right after the Pearl Harbor attack and was also the most trusted for bombardment accuracy by the Marines. On more than one occasion, Marines wanted shelling but asked if the NC was going to provide it before asking for this fire. In one of her first engagements the Show boat opened up all guns but her main batteries to destroy Japanese planes attacking the battle group. She fired 26,000 rounds per minute and maintained this for about 7 minutes. Admiral Spruence observed just fire and smoke above her. He had his Flag ship radio, asking if the North Carolina had been hit... The radio man of the NC replied 'No Sir, we're fine'! Yall Take Care and be safe, John
@@BattleshipNewJersey That was a nice video! I wasn't looking at a comparison as much as giving the old girl the honor and respect that her crew earned for her. Yall Take Care and be safe, John
I grew up in West Virginia so I appreciate your comments on our ship. As a kid (73 now) I wished a miracle would float the WV up river on the Ohio to the Kanawha so it could be moored in Charleston. Unfortunately physics and finances make that impossible. But the ship's bell is in the state museum.
30 seconds in: "MY battleship"...dont care what the paperwork has on it..MINE. 🤨 Dear UK, It's Colorado class not Maryland, our battleships.. are rules!
Looking at contemporary battleships and those which came before, going back to HMS Dreadnought, I'm immediately struck by how sleek and elegant the Colorado hull was compared to her peers and predecessors. I never did like the way the casemate secondaries messed with the hull's lines on the earlier standards, and not just from the standpoint of being subjected to waves when cruising. I'm also liking the angled faces on the turrets. The Colorados are one of my most liked battleship designs, and these were a 1915 design. Let that sink in. 1915. And this was the ship that the US Navy considered too valuable to lose and kept back in safe waters 27 years later, in 1942, knowing that Colorado's armor was insufficient to face 15" and 16" guns. It would be very interesting to see the report on the live fire exercises conducted on the hull of sister ship Maryland, to get a handle on how the armor scheme on the standards performed.
As built, The Colorados were very impressive ships for their era and despite the sclerotic power plants, also still pretty well armoured in addition to being able to boast a hitherto unprecedentedly heavy main armament. O/a, I'd say they're significantly more formidable than their very close contemporaries, the Nagatos. Though rather less so than their half-decade-later British Washington Treaty follow-ons, the Nelsons, with their 9 x 16"/45cal main armaments, 14" max internal, inclined belts, decks up to c6" and despite their own sclerotic propulsion plant output, surprisingly hydrodynamic hull design. A factor that in WW2 and despite her being in urgent need of engine repair and maintenance for which she was already en route to the USA when the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sortied, still saw HMS Rodney manage to "sprint" at 25kts (which was indeed 'sprinting', at least for a 'Nelrod'). Something recorded during the chase that began after the Denmark Strait action, when the Home Fleet sought to stop the mission-killed German BB before she could come within range of shore-based Luftwaffe protection.
Like yourself, I came from a state with a Colorado-class battleship, specifically, your next-door neighbor, West Virginia. I was glad to hear you say such nice things about her, especially after her refit. She, like almost every large ship, was used for Operation Magic Carpet, returning military personnel back to the United States after the war. As I was growing up, I wanted to see her, but she had been scrapped by the time I had read about her. As you said, she should have been involved in the Korean War, but it wasn't to be. That said, when you spoke in the introduction about visiting Iowa Class Battleships so you could compare them to others, there actually aren't many others available, besides USS Texas & USS Massachusetts for example. As you know, USS Colorado, USS Maryland, USS West Virginia, in fact ALL Colorado class battleships, are long gone. None are around for folks to visit.
Additionally, there aren’t even any standard type battleships left at all. It’s a real shame because they are basically a unique type of battleship (the others being pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, super-dreadnought, and fast battleship).
HMS Hood was actually a battle cruiser rather than battleship! So she did not have the armor protection that a true battleship has. Which the Bismarck quickly exposed!
Hood was one of a kind, so it has been and still is difficult to classify her. Bismarcks hit was a very lucky one - that battle could have went the other way easily. The Washington treaty left her in a world where upcoming battleships were smaller than Hood. So classifyjng her as battleship makes sense. Her speed would indeed make her a battle cruiser. Or the first fast battleship. Confused? Me too! The armor was decent for her time but fell behind as the war efforts of nazi germany and japan ramped up.
The main criticism of the standard type battleships were their speed and a certain British naval historiographer would point out that ships with a higher speed can dictate the battle they can engage and disengage when they choose. I do think the standards had some good aspect but at the same time they were the victim of Congress being tight asses with the purse where we could not build a single large class of four or more battleships for a single squadron. Thankfully the British were our friends and except for the Yamatos the Japanese never had a class of battleship that could survive a hit from even our 14-in guns which negated the speed advantages that they had over our standard battleships and by the time world war II rolled around we had our early fast battleships in service.
I feel like saying that the Japanese dreadnoughts couldn’t withstand 14 inch shells is a bit dismissive, as far as I know they were fairly well protected for the time they were built.
Ryan, I think there is a bit of a misconception you have about the way the turbo electric propulsion worked on most larger ships of the era. Each shaft had dedicated turbines, it wasn't the ship's primary power that ran the propulsion motors. Both the generator and the motors were synchronous machines. This meant there was a direct relationship between the frequency of the AC motor and the speed of the motor. Only at dead slow speed the motor field (the electric permanent magnet) could be turned off and the motor "slipped" and run slower. At slow speed and above, the motor field was turned on and the motor synchronized. The generator and motor acted as a fixed gear, and the ship adjusted speed by changing the turbine RPM. The big disadvantages of turbo-electric is lower efficiency, more cost and more weight. The advantages are multiple. The motors all can be placed close to where the shaft exits the hull and the turbines spread along the ship. Wires are smaller, less likely to be damaged and less cumbersome compared to shafts. Note on the Iowa's how long that engine room #1 propeller shaft is. Electric drive has a faster reverse, and full power in reverse. In a geared turbine, there is an astern turbine in the LP casing, and it is usually 1/2 the power of the forward turbine. Reverse time is also often limited to prevent overheating of the ahead turbine. In a turbo electric, the turbine rolls one way and the motor reverses electrically. That makes them very popular in ferry's that run both directions. Today modern technology with electronic frequency conversion, they do use one generator for house power and propulsion. Nearly all cruise ships, oil rigs and many other types use this style of propulsion.
The Navy went away from the heavily divided propulsion spaces after the Colorado class. When it is a void space, counter flooding means counter flooding the void spaces on the other side of a ship. That just makes the ship sit lower, but doesn't take out propulsion spaces. On the other hand, if there are lengthwise divisions, flooding the boiler rooms on one side means counterflooding is done by flooding the boiler rooms on the other side of the ship. It just turns out to not be practical. This was demonstrated in Peal Harbor - the Oklahoma capsized, and the West Virginia had to have all of the boiler rooms flooded to make it sink flat. This isn't a concern on any of the 1940's battleships, as they have full width boiler rooms. They either stay afloat or sink flat.
My grandpa served on the Wee Vee after she was refloated, first as an AA gunner, then as a radio operator. He narrowly escaped being killed by the Kamikaze that hit her during the invasion of Okinawa. His (illegally kept) war journal that was thankfully preserved has been fascinating for my family to read. Although it was heavily redacted, I've been able to largely fill in the gaps thanks to knowing a fair amount of the history of the war in the Pacific theater.
i would say that Colorados were a superb class and USNavy should have wasted more resources into these 3 ships during 1942, maybe at the expense of some escort CVs which resulted in an overkill number at the end of the war anyway. Having the 3 colorados brought into full power and maybe refitting Tennesse into 16' gun battleships would have provided USNavy with 5 16' gun line of battleships to lead a standar charge "expendable" in the task of anihilating the IJN surface fleet while retaining the fast battleships for CV escort. This would had been a much bloodier tactic in naval term but could have rushed the retake on Philippines by an entire year maybe. Nevertheless i do think Nagatos were better ships, i think IJN ships were slightly better armored, had 25% more speed so they could dictate the encounter range and guns were arguably equal and far better than anything before them
Hi Ryan, of course there's no comparison but I'd love to see some of the types of videos you do for your neighbor across the river, USS Olympia. I don't know if there is anything like that out there, but I'd like to see them if they exist.
This video was premiered on my fathers birthday, (5-19-1921) !00 years before who served on the West Virginia BB-48 and was sunk on Dec.7, but survived, but badly injured and burned. 1 and a half years recovery. Thank You!!
Well you could look at my states name sake battleship, the german pre dreadnought battleship Schleswig Holstein. Mostly bc I love seeing people trying to pronounce it. In all seriousness tho, I'd love to see a comparrison to the QE-class
I have a bit of a soft spot for the Colorado, being from that state. Many people in Colorado don't even know there was a BB Colorado. It would, however, have been a bit difficult for us to keep her as a museum ship.
I also love the Colorado class and I'm from Washington, so I'm a little disappointed that she was never completed. But sort of paradoxically I am still proud that she provided such useful information for the development of future battleships. And Washington was represented with the North Carolina class, so I can't really be all that mad.
How about comparing the North Carolina/Washington class ships. Washington is one of my favorite ships. I think it was a shame the state of Washington couldn’t persevere their ship. They have the mothball fleet in Bremerton. I visited the USS Missouri there in 1995
As someone who walks by the Mast of the USS West Virginia, and who has grown up in West Virginia for most of my life, BB-48 holds a special place in my heart and I adore her. I appreciate this video so much, and love your thorough break down and in depth look. It is with a great bias I say the USS West Virginia reconstruct is probably the best looking battleship to me, I love the lines of her modern look and it just really clicks to me. But the original look of the Colorados I enjoy a ton too, kind of a ‘retro futurism’ in that they were the most modern ship and had that modern Art Deco feel for a long time and in the late 20’s and 30’s really still held that look of a powerful super weapon. I also find it fitting so many Pearl Harbor battleships were at Surigao straight. 5 of the 6 survivors managed to engage in the last battleship to Battleship battle of in history. Thanks for the great review of The colorados, of WeeVee in particular, and the fairness and wonderful details you delivered!
Ordered a flag and other goodies from you guys and can't wait to receive them! Have you guys covered why the United States named ships after other ships that were sunk during ww2?
I had a relative who served on the Maryland during the war. I have a postcard from him which had been sent to my father from when he was apparently briefly sent for some training on some type of new equipment at great lakes in Jan of 45.
My father was stationed aboard the battleship California before the war and I have always wanted to know more about her. She was a Tennesee class and I think that would be and interesting class to learn more about. I have always wished that the California had been saved as a museum ship so that I could visit where my father spent some of his time in the Navy. I also think this class of battleships is about the best looking of all. It would be nice to see more about this somewhat neglected class of battleship.
What do you think of taking the electric drive concept and putting it on the NJ? Instead of boilers, switch to CODOG to turn the generators? 30 knots, top speed.
Colorado BB-45 30-Aug-23 Maryland BB-46 21-Jul-21 Washington BB-47 Canceled due to 1922 Washington Naval Treaty West Virginia BB-48 1-Dec-23 16-inch/45-caliber Mark 1 21 knots 32,600 tons unloaded . . . . Major armament improvement over earlier WW I and interwar BB, but very slow by WW II BB standards
