Will The Guns Move While The Ship Is Underway? 

That would be so cool to see

Has anyone seen the cut cables? I wonder if they simply disconnected the wires from a "breaker panel" or something of the like. If the Navy was serious about ever reactivating the Iowa's. which the contracts give them the option to take them back, so I would assume that's a potential plan, cutting the cables would be a massive PIA to repair. Missourri also became a museum while still technically in the mothball fleet due to Congress requiring one Iowa remain available for service, so I highly doubt they did irrepairable damage to that vessel before it became a museum, and going onto a museum to permanently alter the fabric of the vessel would also be highly frowned upon. I suspect this "cut cables" is another myth similar to the "the turrets are welded in place" myth that Ryan's already disproved.

I would have to assume that they were disconnected from their source, rather then physically cut. Ryan did a video going through the catacombs of the ship a long time ago, and ends up literally under I believe turret 2 where you can see the massive power wires going up into the center of it. He explained along the way that at least some of the armored cable that runs through the space is what feeds the turrets as it was the easiest way to run cable that thick. It has been a while since I saw the video, but from where he entered from forward diesel (I believe) to where they ended, under the turret I didn't notice any obvious breaks in those cables. Similarly I didn't notice any obvious breaks when Iowa's curator made the same video. Edit: went back and watched the video again, at 3:15 where he is about to enter the catacombs from forward diesel there's what looks like a pretty beefy disconnected cable to the left of the hatch. Wondering if that was the power feed to turret 2?

Who knows if the Navy was doing a good job or half assing her de-war step down.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It was pretty hilarious as it was, but 10x?

Yeah but are they up to the job of keeping the main battery turret locked in place, same with the surviving 5" secondary battery guns

​@@Knight6831 misplaced neuroticism. BB-62 is the epitome of over-engineering.

They weigh a couple thousand tons each, just not doable

@@garywayne6083 With enough gear reduction anything's possible. I seem to recall Battleship Texas has shown their handwheels that rotate the turrets in the past. Not saying it would be something that would be capable of achieving anything near the speed of the motors, but prehaps with a couple hours cranking, they could recenter the turrets to facilitate towing of a disables ship to a port. The Battleship Texas video I referenced: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sTizEKz0u5s.htmlsi=5-p3r9G-JzD4cMqQ

You won't see much through that Delaware River water.

It was turret 3 and they did it a couple of months ago using, I believe, shore power.

@@glennacyes, last year. And i think they said it took a year to plan and prepare it for moving. The NJ is not currently capable of doing that. maybe someday

Recently they have uploaded a video rotating a 16in turret...

What, the 2012 Battleship movie showing reactivating a museum battleship in just a few hours, with a skeleton crew, with live 16in ammunition and powder just laying around, wasn't accurate!?

I'm sure they have pins they used as needed in the past

Good question

manually.

@@leftyo9589 Incorrect, they used electrical power from the shore.

Each of the Iowas were in various states of mothballing when they became museums. And each one seems to have had slightly different agreements with the Navy when they were turned over. So just because one ship is allowed to do something doesn’t mean every ship can.

Aswell as they could just, reconnect them.

2.5 inches of armor according to Wikipedia

Getting 440 isn't the issue...it's getting the 440 along with the amps needed to move them in active ship use. They could just decrease volt/amps to move them....just not as fast as in "active" duty. So in theory if it took 440V at 200 Amps for a 100HP motor to move the guns at 10 feet per min... 220V at 100amps for 50HP motor might be 2 ft per min.... What the navy basically did was "remove" the electrical wires from the electric pole (Ships power supply) to the house (Gun).... So an extension cord or generator right to the gun. However I seen too many times (industrial factory) where they just cut 2 feet of the wire harness off, and left the remaining.

Believe he said no

As he said, not currently, their funding is going to other projects like redecking and drydocking.

@@tomhenry897 I understand there's no plan to spend the money or attempt such a thing before dry docking. I leave it to questions to be determined if the USS New Jersey is capable of rotating turrents on shore power with locks removed? Besides show. Is there a functional purpose to rotate the turrents? The Iowa museum had the answer yes to both questions Understandable if the New Jersey museum answers are no to one or both questions.

​@@davidpick1076ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AtVZ0u_Xmog.htmlsi=lJcywGdOAjNTFS2K There is ample shore power. A 300hp motor (with a soft start) on a 1200 amp service is nothing. So long as the trip unit is set properly on the shore side switch gear. There shouldn't be anything to worry about. Heck, their chiller probably takes more juice than a turret.

Yes, those prices are a bit salty.

The Iowa museum explained what they did. It's unclear if the New Jersey has the same ability to use shore power as the Iowa had fitted in the early 80s.

Cost too much Then have to fix the turrets

Why? There's no need to

@@admiralmallard7500 to flex and look cool when having events and such moving them would be nice and people can see it actually moving

Exactly why is Iowa showing them up

The navy could have needed the $$ and wanted to sell the wire...LOL They did it, so they can't be used again easily...just like handing someone a firearm without the firing pin

you say WWI- Could you have meant WWII? IN WW2 the equipment to compensate for rolling back and forth was present - and good! - In fact - for NJ and her sisters; I expect that equipment as used in the 1980s was "original". Humm. WW1. - uncertain. In the age of sail- USS Constitution -manually/ eyeball - gunners command.

@@wfoj21 no I know they probably had compensators in WWII and I want to know what they did before they existed butch with modern guns so after dreadnaught but not just a cannon like in the age of sail

The guns operate using a stable vertical. Meaning the guns will not fire until the ship returns to an even keel. The only way of overcoming this is to fire using the manual firing key which will fire as soon as you pull the trigger.

@@timmangosphotography I thought that might have been the case but never heard anything about it before

​@@alastairwilliams9550There's a video on the channel about how to fire the guns, it has the info in there

The point is that the Navy doesn't want it back. Hence ripping out anything that would make the vessel useable

It was iowa.

the USS Massachusetts or "Big Mamie" BB59 was the 3rd of the South Dakota class of battleships (South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, Alabama BB-57 through BB-60). it was donated to the state in 1964 and became a museum in 1965. it is in Fall River Massachusetts at Battleship Cove along with a submarine, a destroyer and another ship.

@@truthsayers8725 thats it! thank you thank you!! the tour guide said the nicname was from a local "celebrity". im not shur if it was true but given what the namesake had done, it seemd to sute the nature of the ship just right. i honiatly dont remember much other then a biiig storm hiting and we used the bow as a slip and slide. i was to young to apprecate the details and id love to reviset some time. again, thank you so very much for the help. 😁

You've verified that the Iowa was released from the Navy in exactly the same configuration and condition as New Jersey then?

@@MrTexasDan Didn't he just say that?? And yet, Iowa was somehow able to move her turrets... The Curator on Iowa described it as "We had extra shore power connections installed on her, so we were able to get enough power into the ship to activate these motors, albit very gently.

@@CelticKnight2004Why no, no he didn't. And all the Iowa's were certainly not released in the same condition. Not even close.

Of course not. It's just.. a bit strange that Iowa got special power connections that allow it enough power to actually run it's turrets motors... Although at this point we've only seen one actually run, but apparently, the others could potentially run? As I understand it though the turret locking pins would need to be removed.. but that looks like something that would be easily done with a cutting torch. Because in reality it's "welded in place" by a 2" weld.. Which makes sense.. These *were* intended to be easily reactivated after all!! Why would the navy actively try and destroy ships they had intended to one day use, again. Despite the fact that's likely to never actually happen.. it *could* ... Although it's more than likely cheaper to build a new light carrier instead hahaha.

I caught that as well. Is this true?

Anyone can go in turret #3, its open to visitors. He is referring to the underspaces where those pieces would be located

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EMJdICsYxlE.html

I think the channel has mentioned before it'd be ~$2B and a few years of work to get it going again.

The curator is not the owner. Even if there weren't legal restrictions on what can be done with the ship, Ryan couldn't sign it over for any amount of money.

I think Ryan once pegged it at $1.5 billion USD, and a year of work before she could get underway under her own steam. That figure also doesn't account for people to operate the ship, or to train those to operate it.

Yes that’s true

There are locks that keep them from falling out on this ship, but some ship did not have that.

they are

No

It was VERY rarely done

This isn't Iowa.

Missed opportunity to call 'all ahead full' as it pulls away from the dock...

They're already empty. But we will fill some tanks for ballast and then empty them again.

Our electrics were more dismantled than hers.

We were decommissioned in the same way as Iowa. Open the electrical boxed on NJ and they're just empty

_Iowa’s_ power cables weren’t cut. I think Ryan mentioned there is no power to _New Jersey’s_ 16” gun turrets at least twice in this video.

Yes, it's interesting. That means NJ was decommissioned differently than Iowa since NJ's turret power lines were cut by the Navy and Iowa's were not.

@@joeythedime1838 _New Jersey_ and _Missouri_ were disposed of by the USN to be museum ships, while _Wisconsin_ and _Iowa_ were retained for some time in reserve. _Iowa_ was the last to be removed from the USN inventory and it does seem that the ship was not "demilitarized" to the extent that _New Jersey_ was.

I have heard the Mighty Mo is on its way to San Fran I figured you would know more then any one I know if this is true?

It absolutely is not.

@@BattleshipNewJersey thank you I kinda figured it was just facebook spam thank you for answering so quick

As a museum the USS New Jersey Museum and Memorial are exempt from oversight by the ATF for the many "Destructive Devices" that are a part of the ship. Same with any landlocked museum. Our local WWII Museum has an unregistered Japanese Type 99 machine gun which was brought back as a war trophy, illegally, by a soldier and a couple of buddies by stuffing the different parts into their duffle bags when they returned home. ATF got wind of that one and had a "discussion" with the elderly veteran about how him having it was illegal and something had to be done with it. It was decided after the County Sheriff got involved that it would be stored at the Sheriff's office and the old vet could visit it when he wanted and when he passed ATF would take possession and destroy it. In between that time and when he passed, a lawyer got involved and it was donated by the vet to the museum in his will. That took the ATF out of the loop as it went from 1 exempt entity, the Sheriff, to another, the Museum. This was the ATF of 20 years ago, today they'd probably kick in the old man's door, shoot his dog and take the machine gun without a second thought. The way I heard it, when the ATF told him they were taking it he said, "I killed 5 men to get that gun, you don't want to know how many I will kill to keep it".

​​@@lonnywilcox445THIS is just another reason the ATF is a worthless, evil, Anti-American organization and needs to be abolished.

Common sense is a fallacy. What is common for me is not common for a famer in Africa. Your comment is perfect evidence of that. Ignorance isn't the enemy is the information has no value to you.

The welded part is in a hard to reach spot in the turret

Our electrical system was more altered than theirs

Or are museums exempt from all the provisions of the national firearms act and the Hughes amendment? Meaning they don't have to deal with things like transferable versus dealer sample, tax stamps registration waiting 8 months for the ATF to do their part etc

Ryan probably knows the correct answers to this. I think the main limitation the USS New Jersey and Memorial if any of her guns fired again. There are no more replacement barrels anymore. And the barrels can only be fired so many times before replacement.

the 5" and 40mm don't fine real shells, they just blast some powder to simulate the sound