For anyone interested, some info about the 16.14" shells re-purposed as bombs: These bombs were designed to penetrate the deck armor of the new USA Battleships of the 1930s-40s. From performance testing in January 1941, the bomb was considered to be able to penetrate 150 mm deck armor (5.9") from a dropping height of 8,200 feet (2,500 m) and an average striking speed of 738 fps (225 mps). At the time of the test, Japanese Industry lacked the technology to produce a deck armor plate with a performance close to that of USA plates, so 150 mm plates were imported from Germany and these were used to create an 82 ft (25 m) target plate. Data from "Brief History of the Naval Air Squadron. Both bomb types had two base fuzes to ensure detonation. However, these fuzes do not appear to have been reliable. During the Pearl Harbor attack, although one of these bombs is thought to have destroyed USS Arizona (BB-39), at least three did not explode. USS Tennessee (BB-43) was struck by two bombs, the first exploding on the center gun of Turret II and the second striking the top of Turret III but did not explode. Two dud bombs struck USS West Virginia (BB-48), the first of which hit the top of Turret III and broke up while the second went through the foretop and penetrated down to the second deck at frame 70. It was recovered nearly intact during salvage operations in May 1942. Source: www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_161-45_3ns.php
It only has 20 seconds of firing and takes 15 minutes to reload. WW2 ships have by far better anti aircraft armament (Modern naval combat is just spamming missiles at each other)
A well thought out presentation as always. Enjoyed it greatly. Drachinifel recently did a excellent 3 part series on his RU-vid channel about the aftermath of the attack on Pearl & the recovery of all the Battleships. Is definitely worth a watch.
@@SoDevious Drach is far more than "a RU-vidr". He knows more about warships of every nation than most of us know about anything. Watch his "Rum Ration" on what sunk the HMS Hood sometime... Or, hey, you could watch his three part series on the aftermath and salvage of ships at Pearl before proving you're an idiot by judging his content before watching it.
@@chopper7352 Here's the final missive from Chris, OneOfMany... " Chris, OneOfMany John Gregory I'm done here, no coherent argument in the reply, blind adoration to someone right or wrong still doesn't change the facts. Emotional children who think people who are paid by AdSense actually care about their user base beyond creating revenue traffic through controversial topics can't be reasoned with. If he was truly interested in naval history he'd be at a museum, not asking for donations on Patreon and answering questions from the highest bidder." Scripture tells us that people who can't be bothered to find out if something is true do so because they can't think of ANYTHING as being true or from pure intentions because THEY aren't truthful, because THEY are incapable of pure motives themselves. That's who this creature is. If that weren't true, he would have researched Drachinifel's videos, to find out whether or not he was faithful to tell the truth of what he's studied... Or if he speaks from opinions. Pay "Chris" no mind. BTW, the advantage of not being employed by a museum is not being chained to the agenda and doctrine of the historians there... That way you can treat every subject in your field of studies according to the FACTS, and not according to how someone wants history taught... I wouldn't have known how good the Littorio's were if Drach hadn't researched them and spoken exclusively from the technical details AND the execution... The Brits were damn lucky that the Italians didn't make consistent lots of 16" shells. Or why US cruiser armor was the best in the world during WW II, but the same steel, made thicker for battleship armor, was behind the Brits and the Germans in protection because of steel makeup and hardening process differences. I don't worship him, but I sure admire how deeply he searches out a subject.
We both have our strengths, his audio is a lot better, we film in weird places. The great thing is that there's plenty of internet out there for both of us!
I have to contest the length of time a 80's Iowa would be able to keep firing her Phallanx guns and buzz sawing planes out of the air for a few reasons,primarily that CIWS systems are designed to fight modern targets, not WWII planes, and that the firing modes on every CIWS system out there by default have programmable firing modes. It would have actually lasted far longer than a minute of Phallanx fire ;the CIWS usually have a few spare belts of ammunition located near each gun, and they have machines to reload the drums very quickly,including hooking up new belts, or even handloading new shells into the mechanism if needed. Also, the operator can toggle the amount of rounds fired at each target, to the point that you can fire "Semiautomatic" single shots iff needed, so clicking the gun onto 3 round burst mode would enable the CIWS to buzzsaw pretty much anything in the air before the ammo ran out, or keep the rate of fire low enough that even if manually loading 20mm into the belt was being done,you could keep up a steady stream of a plane exploding every few seconds or so. Remember, WWII planes are both far far slower than the supersonic or hypersonic missiles, shells, and high performance supermanuvering combat aircraft that the system was designed to track and aren't very durable to 20mm direct hits. A trio of 20mm shell hits to the fuselage of a WWII aircraft is going to turn it into a flaming wreck, especially given Japanese aircraft of WWII were far lighter built than most other nations. In short, if a 80's refit iowa was yanked back in time to December 7 1941, the imperial japanese navy would have heard a lot of screaming over the radio, followed by silence, then followed by every ship in the Pearl Harbor attack fleet detonating all within a few minutes of each other as Tomahawks and harpoon antiship missiles home in on their transmissions and hit home.
Your assessment of the sea whiz system seemed a little bit more thought out than Mr. curators. I always thought the sea was system was specifically designed for taking things out of the sky. With the programmability you mentioned even short millisecond verse would probably put more than a dozen rounds into each one of those dive bombers and torpedo bombers and strafing fighters. Do I think that all 350 planes would’ve been taken out by C was no but I think enough would’ve been taken out that Japanese pilots would’ve soon realized something strange and extraordinary was going on which would’ve ended the attack pretty quickly.
@@BattleshipNewJersey I was under the impression that as a basic function of their computer systems, all CIWS manufactured by the USN have the ability to select "how many times do i shoot at this target before shifting fire to another target?" As far as I was aware, all CIWS have the ability from their controls in the CIC to fiddle with the settings of the guns; it does apparently take 6-8 months to train someone to run the gun and keep it maintained, and the soviet roughly equivalent CIWS systems state in their manuals that they can vary the amount of shells fired per target, and as we all know, Soviet electronics and programming was a lot of the time copied from the West, or outright stolen, so it'd be odd that the Soviets had a programming trick to their robotic guns that the USA didn't... Can you do a video on the CIWS system as well as the Harpoons? Would clear up a lot of confusion.
"I'd say that counts as a swarm." Great delivery! Two Admirals , standing over a map, perhaps the Mediterranean? You, with the best America has to offer in 44. Drach with the best of the Royal navy . A dice game or better yet? Done like a documentary with plastic boats, animation and a narrator...But with a beer, in a pub. Can't get enough of these videos. Thank you so much!
West Virginia is the most legendary ship in my opinion. Took damage that would've sunk even the best ships today, sunk, raised again, and sent back out to raise hell on Imperial Japanese forces, and ended off the war by leading the victory party into Tokyo Bay and being the only Pearl Harbor survivor present at the Japanese Surrender. Shame she got scrapped after Korea, though. Should've been turned into a museum ship.
I was in Main Battery Fire Control on the Wisconsin from 1988 - '90. I recall one exercise where the 5-inch crew fired on a target towed by an A4 Skyhawk, so yes, the 1980s Iowas did indeed train their 5-inch crews, at least a little bit, for AA gunnery.
1. I am the Lord thy Aircraft Carrier. Thou shalt have no vessel or repair priority over me unless to prevent thy own sinking. 2. Remember thy watertight compartments. Keep them dry 3. Honor thy Chiefs, thy Captain's, thy XOs all officers over the rank of O-4. 4. Remember USS Forrestal. Thou shalt not burn. 5. Thou shalt not steal. However, Strategically Transporting Equipment to Alternate Locations Is permitted. 6. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors rack, his stripes, or his ass(this is the Navy, we're not talking donkeys and furthermore, there is a image we wanted to shed since forever. Last thing we need on that is wanting ass) 7. Thou shalt not use thy title in vain (the seaman/seamen jokes is part of the image shedding mission. Refraining from said jokes will slowly but surely contribute to the aforementioned missions). 8. Thou shalt not lie. However plausible deniablity so long as it can be proven plausible is permitted. 9. Remember thy EAOS, ETS and DD-214, keep them holy. 10. Remember thy heart belongs to thy loved ones. Thy soul belongs to whatever gods/deities thy prays. Thy ass belongs to thy Chief or thy Senior NCOs or thy Captain depending on the circumstances.
Severed aboard two ships in my career, one as an enlisted guy and one as an officer. I was a "dirt sailor" after 9/11 until I retired working with NECC units. Anyway, I've never seen the ten commandments of damage control, I've been to various damage control training and was a damage control officer onboard a destroyer. Maybe the large decks had it posted but not the two small boys that I served on (FF-1071 & DD-975).
@@paulpski9855 I was on a frigate in the Atlantic in 79-81 and we had these 10 commandments of DC. Except the chiefs were the gods of the ship. Even the officers would defer to the chiefs.
If you can, you should do a collaboration with Drachinifel, it would be great for increasing viewership on your channel and I know he wants to come visit many US ships when COVID is over.
@Tek Man remember few if any of the Battleship at Pearl Harbor had steam up to get underway and it was a surprise attack pre-war so the AA wasn't manned and I believe most of the ammo was locked up in ammunition lockers. Would really only have taken into account if the Japanese had come back for another strike.
@@timgagliano621 Drach has plans to visit the New Jersey during his trip to the US, planned for sometime in the next few months. I haven't heard anything regarding collab, but I wouldn't be surprised either.
We have many questions: Is it a wwii Japanese carrier attacking pearl harbor in the 1980s a la 7th carrier or is it a 1980s Iowa transported back to pearl harbor a la Final countdown?
@@BattleshipNewJersey One other point worth addressing is: Would a 1980s USS _New Jersey_ have picked up inbound aircraft on her own search radars in time to get to general quarters before the strike arrived? Given the gulf in capabilities, would the set aboard _New Jersey_ be more capable than a pre-WWII set available to the Pearl Harbour shore installations of the time.
Great comparison. As a former shipyard worker, the damage to the yard facilities is the most critical. Cranes, drydocks, graving docks, oil storage yards would have been detrimental and caused great delays in repairs or operating the ships. Try repairing ships without a drydock, graving dock, or cranes.
The USS Nevada was able to get underway because of its rearmost position on battleship row and it happened to have one boiler going for electrical power generation. It was lucky. It took the Nevada a lot of time getting out of its berth because it had to back out and then make a difficult turn to enter the channel. With one boiler it was not making much speed, maybe 6 knots. What would be interesting to know is what would have happened had the Captain been on board. He may have made different decisions than the third officer about making smoke or when or the direction the Nevada took. If it had gone around the otherside of Ford Island it may have been more successful. Maybe not considering what happened to Utah. Once in the channel an Iowa class battleship would be in the same situation. It wouldn't make full speed with one boiler. It would have taken the arial bombs better and probably remained underway. The berthed Iowa class ships would have a better survival rate but 4 or 6 hits below the waterline is going to sink any ship even an Iowa with its better steel and designs. The many more anti-aircraft guns on Iowa would have certainly taken out more enemy planes. Did the Navy have any orders regarding what to do about counter flooding if attacted while berthed? If it did, those procedures were not always followed such as in the case of Oklahoma.
As Chopper 73 mentioned him, I have to say I think it would be great to reprise this episode, and more, with Drachinifel, and perhaps Jingles as well. Great episode. NJ (or 8 of them) at Pearl...the alternate version of "The Final Countdown". Now, if that was an 80's NJ, they'd run down the IJN fleet (8 burning and 4 turning at 33 knots) and blow them apart with a swarm of Tomahawks, Harpoon's and then close to gun range for the coup de grace.
@@BattleshipNewJersey Something positive about that movie though... even though I recognize a great deal of the storyline that involves the USS Missouri is Hollywood BS simply for dramatic effect, it reinvigorated my interest in the Iowa class ships, and led me to subscribe to your channel on RU-vid. Keep up the good work. :)
Readiness condition was a major factor in the amount of damage each ship took. If all the doors were shut and locked, some of the flooding would have not happened. The local radar station saw the attack coming, but nobody took action.
Am I the only one amused by the thought that modern AA would be less effective than WW2 AA, given the unique scenario of the Pearl Harbour attack? This was an interesting exercise in alternative history. Thank you! (I second that people should watch Drach's series on the aftermath of Pearl Harbour. That was the US Military at their best and too few people know about it.)
They are beautiful ships. I use to walk past the Iowa at NOB back in the early eighties. The low light of my naval career was passing up orders to the Iowa in 1984. That decision still haunts me.
That is also the fear my grandfather had while on the St Luois. That had the st louis gone down it would have also blocked the harbor... they got the St Louis out the harbor but she was still riddled with holes and had one engine room destroyed but made it out. My Grandfather always said that the arizona went down based on a lucky shot on that magazine...
It would have actually lasted far longer; the CIWS usually have a few spare belts of ammunition located near each gun, and they have machines to reload the drums very quickly. Also, the operator can toggle the amount of rounds fired at each target, so clicking the gun onto 3 round burst mode would enable the CIWS to buzzsaw pretty much anything in the air before the ammo ran out. Remember, WWII planes are both far far slower than the supersonic or hypersonic missiles, shells, and high performance supermanuvering combat aircraft that the system was designed to track and kill. A trio of 20mm shell hits to the fuselage of a WWII aircraft is going to turn it into a flaming wreck, especially given Japanese aircraft of WWII were far lighter built than most other nations. In short, if a 80's refit iowa was yanked back in time to December 7 1941, the imperial japanese navy would have heard a lot of screaming over the radio, followed by silence, then followed by every ship in the Pearl Harbor attack fleet detonating all within a few minutes of each other as Tomahawks home in on their transmissions and hit home.
@@8vantor8 not just that, but a CIWS firing, even in burst mode, looks like a solid column of fire like a laser beam, one that makes anything it connects with either explode midair, or be turned into a flaming comet. About 5 minutes in and anywhere from 50 to 90 destroyed planes later, they would have peeled off, and the Iowa's would have used their ECM suites to track where the Imperial Navies carriers were, and either fired with the main guns, or started firing Tomahawks at them, if they had the Shipkiller variants, or Harpoons, once they were in range. Either way, the carriers that attacked pearl would be on the bottom of the ocean by the end of the day.
With the WW2 AA load outs, they each had roughly two Fletcher class DDs worth of AAGs apiece, each able to throw up a wall of AA fire. Those Bofors were no joke.
For the algorithm!!! Love you Ryan, keep up the great work everyone. Have a merry Christmas and a truly blessed new year. You guys over at the channel and BS New Jersey are a treasure. God speed !
I’ve seen your vids suggested to me but after hearing Drachinifel compliment and recommend your content I decided to watch and I found this very interesting!
Great video again! I loved the end where you talk about the impact to different generations of the ships. Much appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
Note to production team: The Type 91 aerial torpedo had a 713 pound warhead, not a 1000 pound one. The midget-subs with Type 97 "Long Lance" derived torpedoes could deliver that types 772 pound warhead, but the vast majority of torpedoes used in the attack were the Type 91.
The Kirov-class wouldn't get within 500 miles of a US surface ship before being sunk by a submarine or blown out of the water by long-range airstrikes. Unless maybe if the Iowa-class ventured into the Barents Sea, but I can't imagine any circumstances that would cause a NATO commander to do anything that foolish.
@@brucetucker4847 It would be even more fun if Kirow would get in range of main battery. 16" shells enriched Kirov would make an interesting artificial reef ...
Kirov’s are designed to deliver 1 massive missile salvo at long range . They would never get into gun range of an Iowa...An Iowa might better survive the missile salvo than a more modern warship. Iowa’s own anti ship missiles would have a harder time penetrating a Kirov’s air defenses..... but the Russian cruiser itself is more fragile
Thanks for that, that was interesting. If we're doing "what if" scenarios, I'd guess "What if USS _Washington_ and USS _South Dakota_ at 2nd Guadalcanal were replaced by two _Iowa_ class battleships?"
The imperial Japanese navy and ground forces die from Tomahawks, pinpoint 16 inch shells directed by drones and artillery spotters with modern communication systems, and Harpoon antiship missiles. Additionally, enemy aircraft are spotted from like 1000miles out, and intercepted by friendly aircraft, or otherwise buzzsawed out of the air by CIWS
@@ronnelson7828 Sure, but _SoDak_ got it pretty bad. There's also the matter of the casualties in the _rest_ of the USN force that night. Perhaps better sensors would have picked up the other IJN ships in time to effect an intercept properly, or given the two _Iowas_ the scope to weigh in against the big targets with their 16" and spread a little 5" freedom amongst the smaller IJN combatants.
Well, the main issue at 2nd Guadalcanal (besides all the destroyers being sunk) was a minor electrical problem on SoDak which her chief engineer turned into a major problem by tying down the circuit breakers and shorting out the ship’s main electrical system for a few minutes. This unfortunately happened just as she was returning fire at the Japanese ships who had spotlighted her and were shooting at her with every gun they had. It didn’t help that her captain, who was brave but unqualified, brought her between a burning destroyer and the Japanese instead of following Washington, so she was silhouetted against the fiery background. I believe the electrical problems were addressed in the other SoDak and her sisters after the battle, and I don’t recall hearing anything else about it other than a few minor issues in Massachusetts at Casablanca, which were easily overcome. The Iowas were all still under construction and as far as I know this issue never arose on them. As far as resisting the Japanese fire, SoDak held up very well, and she sustained only superficial structural damage and a slowed turret traversing mechanism on turret 3 (but that’s about the best you can hope for with a direct 14” AP hit on a barbette). So how would 2 Iowas have done? Well first, they wouldn’t have had any electrical problems, so they both would have been able to return fire at the Japanese. The guns wouldn’t have really done any more damage since both the Mark VI and Mark VII could shoot through a Kongo’s glorified cruiser armor like it was cardboard. And as far as taking damage, the Iowas have essentially the same armor scheme as the SoDaks with a couple of minor improvements, so no change there. Of course an Iowa is a bigger target, so it might have taken more hits, but it would take a whole lot of 14” shells to endanger either ship. One advantage that’s a little bit unfair since we’re talking a 1-2 year time gap is improved radar. Radar was still having teething problems in 1942, and it had trouble distinguishing ships from background clutter in enclosed environments like Iron Bottom Sound. Also, some captains didn’t really understand it or trust it yet. Since the Iowas came into service in late 1943 and 1944, they would have had much more advanced fire control radar than US BBs had in 1942 (though the NCs and SoDaks would get it too in ‘43-‘44), and they would have known how to use it much more effectively. So the Iowas (or even Washington and SoDak in ‘43-44) would have more easily spotted the Japanese and engaged them at longer range. This would have been a huge advantage, although as I said, it’s really more time-related and not a feature unique to the Iowas.
I served with a Chief Petty Officer at NAS Whidbey Island, Wa. in the 1960's, he was at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. He told me a bomb went throw the roof of a hanger and ended stuck in the concrete deck in a machine shop (DID NOT EXPLODE!) One lucky guy.
This was a great video! I’d love to see a video about whether New Jersey could survive Operation Ten-Go. It’s something I’ve occasionally thought about, and I’d love to see you tackling it.
She wouldn't. However if you have all of the 3rd Gen Us Battlewagons in a squadron, the North Carolinas, Iowa's, etc., in close formation they could put together enough cumulative anti-air that they might repulse a few strikes. This happened at the Marianas Turkey Shoot.
I think the US Navy would have a difficult time getting one Iowa-class BB into the area where "Battleship Row" was located, let alone trying to stack 8 there.
Probably couldn't pack 8 Iowa class in there but some could fit. Missouri is there now set up as a museum ship roughly where USS Oklahoma was during the attack.
Great video Ryan. From 3:30 to 4:10 you discuss a bomb punching through several decks on the New Jersey, causing flooding, but say it would not endanger New Jersey. A deeper discussion of the design and construction differences as to why and how a 500lb bomb explosion below the bow deck is not a problem for New Jersey would be an interesting topic.
Well he already explained it.. the bow is narrow.. and easy to contain such flooding. Not much buoyancy in the bow. It wony take the ship down when flooded
One way to see the force of Arizona's magazine explosion is in the camera footage shot from the USS Solace. USS Arizona's forward mast jumps up 10-25 FEET. And not just her mast, her forecastle and decks also jumped. Witnesses also reported that the ship's hull lifted about 10 feet out of the water. And that's from roughly 500 tons of powder for the 6 forward 14-inch guns. USS New Jersey has 6 16-inch guns forward, which means a MUCH higher powder storage capacity. If that went off, the Jersey's hull would likely have been torn apart like Arizona's.
Regarding the USS Nevada, blocking the channel wasn't the issue. Vice Admiral William S. Pye, battleship task force commander, signaled for the USS Nevada to be run aground so that she wouldn't be sunk by Japanese submarines waiting outside the entrance to Pearl Harbor. BTW - Commanding officer Capt. Francis W. Scanland didn't arrive onboard until after the USS Nevada had already been run aground. He was in Honolulu visiting his wife when the attack began. He arrived back onboard around 9:15AM.
I think subjecting the Iowa to the damage the Yamato took would be really interesting. In the end, it's quite clear that the Iowa would most definitely sink, but it'd be an interesting video topic.
Point of order, the Yamato had absolute bubkiss for medium AA guns. The Iowa class battleships had the deck just littered with Bofors quad mounts (20 total quad mounts). The old joke is the XO calls down to the Bofors boys and says, "Boys, there is an enemy plane over there. I want you to destroy _over there_ ." It was much harder for enemy planes to get in close to an Iowa than a Yamato. However, it should be noted that no matter what, throw enough aircraft at even the best AA system, and some will get through.
Well the Iowas clearly had superior AA. But one thing to remember. Naval operations are not World of warships or War Tunder or any other video game. If there was an encounter between the Yamato and the Iowas there would most likely be at a minimum two Iowa class BBs, plus a cruiser and destroyer screen. Along with one or two Essex class attack carriers along for the ride and their supporting vessels. The Iowas had better speed so they could control the engagement. They had better fire control. Did the fire control exceed the accuracy of the 16"50 at long range? Hits at extreme range are chancy at best. But the 16" Super Heavy Armored piercing would be devastating. Yes the 18" guns on the Yamato were powerful weapons. But if the Iowas can dance around controlling the engagement at ranges beyond the Yamato (or Mushasi) maximum range. Eventually the Yamatos fire control, radars and secondaries will be wrecked. Plus if there are a couple of clevelands along for the ride with each Iowa the amount of HE shells they can rain down will be devastating. The biggest single threat in such an engagement would be Japanese destroyers trying to launch Long Lance torpedoes. Consider Hood versus Bismarck. Hood's armour was not as bad as is made out. She might not have survived the encounter with Bismarck in the end but what caused her to blow up is one shell impacting short but in the bow waves trough around two thirds down the length of the hull. The shell did not travel far enough under water for the hydrodynamic drag to cause the shell to tumble so it was traveling butt first. This would have destroyed the fuse. The shell impacted Hood's hull below the armor belt punching through the hull exploding either in the machinery spaces with the explosion bursting the bulkhead to the 4"magazine. Of it penetrated into the 4" magazine. This accounts for the jet of flame that erupted from the Hood in front of the main mast. This explosion penetrated into the X turret 15" magazine blowing the ship apart. X Turret was seen by some observers onboard Prince of Wales to come off of the barrette. POWs suffered a similiar hit from one of Bismarcks shells. Fortunately this shell landed far enough from the ship to cause the shell to tumble. If the fuse initiated the tumble* damaged it sufficiently to prevent its detonating. This shell penetrated POWs hull and was found deep in the ship when she underwent repairs. On the naval history channel owned by Drachinifel he did a very good analysis of Hood's loss. *it seems counter intuitive but high speed projectiles perform better with the blunt end forward.
Just remember that the US Navy had the option to send the battle wagons out to intercept the Yamatos when they spotted them. As tempting as it was for the old battleship mafia to have another Jutland, the Navy wisely chose to send the planes instead. No reason to risk allowing the Japanese to batter a few US battleships. Besides, the only reason the Yamatos were out was because the Japanese had no aircraft or pilots to fly them. The carriers were decoys for the surface fleet. The age of the battleship had truly passed.
@@mpetersen6 I take it you have recently watched Drachs video on the cause of losing HMS Hood. It was just a run of 1 in a million things that let that shell get to were it did. If anything was just slightly different then Hood would have been able to take the hit and carry on. Probably would have been heavily damaged but she'd not blow up. I've always thought why wasn't PoW flagship and therefore in front.. Atleast the RN got hold of Bismarck and returned the favour from those lost on Hood
Nop no way. Yamato was attacked by 300 planes. Even an Iowa with modern 80s loadout would run out of ammo for the ciws. Its jsut a swarm. Maybe Petr with its 200 s300 and 8 ciws with heat seakers missiles could put a barrage to stop them. I mean 150-200 s300 and then 8 double barrel 30mm ciws and another 100 igla heat seeker missiles will do the job ... But Iowa just doesnt have the AA firepower.
Minor points. 1. The Aichi Type 99 Val dive bombers carried the Type 99 No. 25, 250kg bomb. This was a semi-armor piercing bomb used for both ship and land based targets. USS Pennsylvania was hit by one of these that only partially detonated. This was a common problem with that model of bomb at that time. 2. The Type 80 800kg bomb that struck the after turret of USS Tennessee did not detonate. It’s kinetic force damaged the rammers. A number of the Type 80 bombs failed to explode or had only a partial detonation. 3. USS Nevada suffered several hits from dive bombers in the bow, causing it to flood and collapse. The Captain was concerned that this damage, along with progressive flooding from the torpedo his was causing her to sink. This is why he chose to beach her. I would expect an Iowa’s larger size, better torpedo protection and increased buoyancy would keep her afloat. Source: The Attack on Pearl Harbor, Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions, by Alan Zimm. This is an excellent analysis of the attack from a technical standpoint using operations research techniques to analyze the attack. Well worth a read.
Hello Battleship New Jersey and Ryan, I believe that the battleship Gneisenau survived the explosion of his magazine in the 26-27 February 1942 attack and was scheduled to be rebuilt again, now with 15-inch weaponry, and it just wasn't rebuilt because Hitler was angry at Kriegsmarine's performance in the Battle of the Barents Sea. Bravo Zulu to yours videos
The predreadnought battleship Mikasa was also rebuilt after her aft main magazine blew up shortly after the end of the Russo-Japanese war. Like Gneisenau, she was rebuilt with improved weaponry, thought with less drastic changes. I believe the Italian dreadnought Leonardo DaVinci was also capable of being rebuilt after her magazine explosion, but was not due to cost.
Gneisenau had a partial magazine explosion, as the crew was able to partially flood the magazine during the attack that penetrated her forward magazine. She survived largely because of the partial flooding prevented much of the magazine ammo from exploding and the fact she was in dry dock and thus effectively immune to sinking from the massive damage taken.
Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were designed from the START to be able to mount a 15 inch main battery. The reason why both ships had the 11 inch instead was because at the time the German ship building industry did not have the facilities to build the 15 inch rifles. The guns are one of the longest lead items on a Capital ship. As a result the decision was made to build the two ships with 11 inch main battery so they would at least be available, and fit the 15 inch turrets when they became available.
Re: the Phalanx: The only have a minute's worth of ammo and are vulnerable to swarms, but that's against transonic/supersonic cruise missiles that they might miss with a few rounds. Against a slow-moving WWII torpedo bomber, or a dive bomber coming directly at it (and still relatively slow), and the fragility of same, I'd expect them to have a much better kills:rounds fired ratio than they would against 300 Termit/Styx (Soviet/NATO names) antiship missiles.
Very good presentation. Your research is always to be commended. If I remember correctly, those 16" modified naval shells that were used as bombs had come from the Nagato. Also, in regard to the ready ammunition lockers, many were locked and they had to be broken open.
It depends on how often it was hit. A few of the older battleships survived Pearl Harbor so obviously it would be possible for Big J to survive. That being said, if like the USS Arizona, (BB-39) she took a type 90 bomb hit to one of her magazines, she would sadly sink. I don’t even think that Yamato could have survived that and as you can probably guess from my profile picture I’m a bit biased towards the Yamato class.
Ah, a fellow man of culture I see. It’s a good thing indeed else we’d all be dead! Now, how many years do we have to wait for the Black Dragon to get her own space refit?
Ryan's methodology of examining the damage each battleship sustained as a starting point is an entirely reasonable one. The obvious concern, however, is that a mammoth 887 foot long ship sitting in harbor (especially if moored next to any Standard battlewagons for more immediate contrast - go look at the November 1944 photo of Wisconsin moored next to Oklahoma's hulk to see what I'm talking about) is going to draw a disproportionate amount of attention from IJN pilots in the attack. Beyond that, it will depend on just where it's positioned, and how quickly its crew can get into action.
So I honestly have ZERO interest in military history and only ever got to this channel through "the algorithm". However, having now been a subscriber for more than a year now, I love these sorts of videos you do Ryan. The most refreshing is the honesty with which you approach the analysis rather than making NJ to be some kind of super ship. To get someone from the southern hemisphere so interested in this content is quite the achievement. Well done and thanks.
The Japanese showed the vulnerability of large, flat targets like carriers and battleships, to bombs, not torpedos. The Iowa class had 6" deck armour but only around the turrets and above the magazines. The Japanese were told to bomb them behind the citadel and many bombs went straight into the engine rooms below. Because the Iowa class were quite top heavy with a citadel above deck level (as opposed to below deck in a British and German ship), deck armour was limited. The Japanese were adept at getting hits into the bow and stern with torpedos where there was less belt armour and getting bombs into the decks in front of the turrets where there was only thin plating. Belt armour was redundant in the Pacific when the Japanese long lance torpedos were set to explode under the ship with proximity fuses, breaking its back. It basically made large battleships obsolete and reduced them to floating artillery batteries supporting amphiboius landings. But as the battle for Okinawa showed, when you do not have air superiority, and the US did not, anything floating was vulnerble. Its worth noting that more us sailors died off Okinawa than Marines and Army in the land battle. This was because the US carriers had wooden and not armoured decks and could not be stationed close in giving close air support. At that stage of the war, the Japanese still have over 4000 land based fighters and kamikazes and caused carnage to the fleet. This was one of the deciding factors that led to the authorised us of the atomic bomb. The Joint Chiefs were told that it was beyond US resources to successfully invade the home islands given the Okinawa experience.
My tuppence on that question: It would all depend on where they were moored, if they were hit, by what and how many times. Not every BB at Pearl was sunk. It's possible an Iowa could have survived. It's also possible they could have sunk too. If the Iowas were was moored outboard, as Oklahoma and West Virginia where, that positioning alone would ensure they get hit with several torpedoes. West Virginia took 7 torps! The size of the Iowas would make them a prime target anyway, ensuring they would get the lions share of Japanese ordnance hurled at them. Then you have that unlucky hit by the amour piercing bomb that destroyed Arizona. I doubt an Iowa class would have fared any better with the same sort of direct hit to a magazine. That is a lot of explosives going off in a confined space. It's all ifs and buts and we won't really ever know for sure. But I would say the answer is both yes and no.
@@user-jj9hd8qo9j Because Oklahoma and West Virginia shielded them from Torps. Like I said, it depends on where the Iowas would be moored. Do please read comments properly.
Sometime during the summer the museum was able to collect enough money from donations to afford a higher quality microphone set up. I think early on they were using an iPhone or some other type of smart phone to do the recording. Like comment and subscribe so we can keep this awesome piece of US Naval history around for decades to come.
The downside to getting under way is as you said, getting sunk in deep water, the problem is that the Japanese would most definitely order a third strike just to prevent any US ship that escaped the harbor from getting away, they wouldn't miss a golden opportunity to deny us a vital asset like that, as it would make their "Kantai Kessen" or decisive battle doctrine, a more feasible plan.
what were the casualties per ship? the Arizona accounted for many but the Oklahoma must have significant loss thanks for your expertise, it is very satisfying to hear someone knowledgeable. i had heard the USS Missouri had 12 to 17 inches on hull thickness around the props. i was on board her as a schoolboy when she was in dry dock in Bremerton in "60s. the impression i took away has lasted me a lifetime!
I think most definitely. Iowa's are well armoured and if she was to have her AA suite that she had during WW2 then there would have been a lot more Japanese aircraft brought down
Guns are useless sans crew. You are assuming a fully crewed ship on alert status. Remember, this was a Sunday morning and the Japanese quite successfully caught the Pacific Fleet asleep and thoroughly unprepared.
If it was in the same condition, with the ship opened up for harbour routine, torpedo protection opened up for inspection & the AA ammunition locked away, then why would they have fared better? 5 or 6 torpedo hits would have finished them off in the same way as West Virginia, California & Oklahoma. The explosion of the Arizona is a bit spurious as the forward magazines were set off by a ton of black powder for catapult charges, that was in a less protected position adjacent the main magazines I believe. North Carolina was severely damaged by torpedo hit & she was closed up at sea. There seems to be an opinion on here that the Iowa`s were super ships & they weren`t. Their design was compromised for speed & the ability to pass through the Panama canal. Anti torpedo protection forward was poor & they had a fairly thin belt. Very good ships but not super ships. The North Carolinas were only armoured against 14" shell fire & vibrated terribly at any sort of speed, affecting gunlaying, the South Dakotas were armoured against 16" shell fire but were cramped as too much was attempted on a too small displacement, The Iowa`s were compromised as already mentioned. Had the Montana`s been completed they would have been a balanced design with excellent armament & protection.
@@bmused55 I have read many books on Pearl Harbour, who knew what & what information was withheld etc & have some sympathy for Kimmel but you have to ask yourself, when he received a war warning only a week before, why was the fleet in port carrying out harbour routine with ships fully opened up, anti torpedo compartments open for inspection, crews, including battleship captains, on overnight leave & ammunition locked up? All of this was down to him, his fleet was completely unprepared. It seems to be a truth that commanders with qualities fitting them for high command in peace are swiftly replaced when war starts & fighting men with different skill sets are required.
I feel a ship as big as an Iowa Class would of made it a larger focus of resources over what hit other ships. Meaning, her class might be doomed, but the other ships there might not of suffered as much damage as a result. But her speed... would probably mean the Iowa's would of been out with the CVs.
It may be a foregone conclusion, but could you talk about the damage that Tirpitz took in Norway? I have a feeling that USS New Jersey would survive up to the tall boy bombs. That being said I don't think ANY ship would survive a tall boy hit.
A highly speculative video bordering a complete uselessness, but immensely amusing and intriguing at the same time. This is the way to go as a refreshment, however maybe not as the main course. A lovely guilty pleasure.
The problem for the Battleships at Pearl Harbor was they were all opened up for inspection planed the following day. If they were closed up like they would be in a wartime setup, most likely not a single battleship except for Arizona would have been lost as not a single Japanese torpedo breach the holding wall of any of the Battleships' TDS. Even though the Iowa Class battleships have better TDS if they are also opened up it might not do them any good as water would just run into the open hatches just like what happen to the Battleships at Pearl Harbor.
I think the 1980's Iowa Class would have in fact been putting up flak that may have deterred other attacking aircraft. That flak was in the form of Japanese Zeros and their ordinance exploding having been hit and obliterated by 20mm Phalanx fire. I think I would pull up if my wingman was blown to chunks by what would look life a ray gun to a 1941 Japanese pilot lol
I'm not sure the Japanese would have any idea exactly what was killing their planes: the CIWS would be firing very short bursts and they don't use tracers.
Drachinifel has an excellent coverage of the salvage work done to raise the battleships sunk at Pearl. Truly astonishing feat of effort,engineering and courage. Especially the Navy divers that had many unpleasant and dangerous tasks to do. To put into perspective..........it took the British years to sink Tirpitz........and even then it took direct hits from the super heavy 'Tall Boy' bombs to damage her in a major way..........its possible the Japanese did get somewhat lucky with their modified artillery shell/bombs.
I read that the ships that were sunk by the bikini tests did so due to a total lack of Damage Control activities. The only ship that sank as a direct result of a bomb blast that was underwater.
The real problem in that scenario was that even if the ship survived it would have been impossible to decontaminate it enough to make it habitable for the crew. The original plan was to bring surviving ships back to the US for study but the decontamination problem nixed that idea, anyone manning the ship for the trip home would have gotten a lethal, or at least unacceptably hazardous, dose of radiation just on that trip.
@@brucetucker4847 just looking at the physical destruction standpoint I wanted to know if an Iowa could still float if the event of maybe the bow got ripped off from either the pressure of the blast or the massive wall of water crashing down on it. Or if the heat could set off the magazines.
Ryan, please do a section on fuses and the safety measures installed. I've seen 1 photo of a broadside being fired and 1 of the rounds detonating close aboard... maybe a 100 m or so from the ship
We do have plenty of combat data that would indicate that the VT fuze, if it had been employed at Pearl Harbor, would have absolutely shredded the attack. It, along with the intergrated RADAR directors and the ballistic computer, absolutely shredded kamikaze attacks later in the war. I recall an anecdote with USS Missouri killing two kamikazes with three shells from the 5" DP at close range. We know that,during operational testing, they ran out of targets before they ran out of fuzes/shells, the VT was that effective. This, of course, assumes that they 5"/38's would be ready to rock that morning.
Love the channel - good work everyone involved. How about a chat about surviving a hit by a Fritz X bomb as used against Warspite & Roma? or perhaps the Tallboy bombs used against Tirpitz?
Lets be honest here, it does not matter WHICH ship gets hit by a Tallboy, if that thing goes off in the ships bowels, or even worse, just under her keel, she is going down. Thats a 12,000 lb armour penetrating bomb for crying out loud. ABout the only thing you can hope for is the things goes right through the ship before the fuse can arm and it blows well under her keel.... as happened to Tirpitz on one occasion if I recall....
The major differences in AA armaments and radar/fire directors should also be taken into account as the Iowa class vessels were equipped with the best the Navy could give them while the retrofits on the old dreadnoughts barely did much to improve their anti aircraft capabilities, as they were equipped with manually directed aa guns that as far as I am aware didn’t have air burst shell or if they did, would only be timed fuzed rather than proximity fuzed, and a few machine guns or various types, possibly a few Chicago pianos as well, all of which were woefully under equipped to take on the modern aircraft of the time, designed to be effective against slow monoplanes and biplanes, not the sleek, fast, and nimble monoplanes of the early war IJN. Meanwhile Iowa class battleships were equipped with radar assisted fire directors for AA fire control, numerous 40 mm Bofors and 20 mm Oerlikon cannons, which were considered some of the best medium and light caliber AA guns of the time, as well as an array of Dual Purpose 5 inch guns that could act as large caliber AA batteries with proximity variable timed fuze shells, not to mention that the Iowas had significantly better air search radar than the Dreadnaughts in Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack, if they were even equipped with air search radar in the first place.
The info on the exact damage to the individual ships at Pearl was fascinating. Is there a book that describes the attack, including information like this? Seems that most books I see are about the so-called controversy, either supporting or refuting it. I kind of wish there was a modern book on Pearl along the lines of 'Shattered Sword' for Midway. Is there?
The most critical element in the disaster at Pearl Harbor was the lack of preparedness. Any time the crew is unprepared to take advantage of the capabilities their ship has, disaster ensues.
As to the Vulcan Phalanx system, yes, the ready capacity is limited to 989 rounds for older units and 1550 in newer ones and upgraded units. This is roughly a 20 second supply. But, the system does not fire continuously. It fires bursts. Assuming all battleships were Iowas, and all CIWS loaded with ready in block 1A and 1B units, one second bursts would have still done tremendous damage to the first waves of Japanese aircraft, even given the number of units that would have been masked by ships moored next to them. Also, remember the Japanese tactics were not all that "swarmy". For safety reasons, aircraft had to be streamed into targets since two aircraft attacking the same ship without other aircraft in the area must still stay clear of each other. But, at Pearl you had hundreds of aircraft attacking dozens of targets. This is why the attack lasted about 75 minutes. We will never know what those Japanese pilots would have thought, nor how they would have reacted, had the Vulcan Phalanx systems come online and started disintegrating aircraft in rapid succession, but I doubt that the attack would have been as effective, nor would Nagumo been any more willing to continue the attack after losing significant numbers of his aircraft.
Richard: I was going to post something similar as well. Here is some more information, this comes from Zimm's, "Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions". There were about 350 planes total making the attack, but not all at one time. About 180 were in the 1st wave and another 170 in the 2nd wave. (I'm rounding a little here.). 1st wave started attacking about 0751 and finished about 0830-0835; 2nd wave started about 0854 and ended about 0930. There was a definite gap of time between 1st and 2nd waves. About half of each wave was dedicated to attacking ships and the other half for attacking airfields/facilities and fighter cover; so in the 1st wave, about 90 planes were attacking the ships. Only the 1st wave had aircraft that were designated to attack battleships. Most of the 2nd wave aircraft were designated to go after carriers and cruisers, and then targets of opportunity, which mostly ended up being the Nevada. There were 40 torpedo bombers total with 24 allocated against the battleships and another 16 allocated for the carriers (which weren't there). The torpedo bombers attacked in single file, with about 20-30 seconds intervals between planes. The Phalanx would have plenty of time to take out the torpedo bombers. As it was the last group of torpedo bombers took very heavy casualties (5 of Kaga's 12 Kates were shot down). The level bombers came in 10 groups of 5 planes but were flying a high steady course (about 3000 meters/120-140 knots). I'm not sure the Phalanx would reach up to 3000 meters but if it could, they would have been fairly easy targets. I think the Phalanx would have done a very good job of taking out most planes attacking Battleship Row, especially if there were more than 1 New Jersey moored there.
@@Bob_Betker Maximum horizontal and effective horizontal ranges are not that great for the Phalanx CWIS. They are 6,000 and 1625 yards, respectively. Vertical (OK, 80 degrees elevation is no "vertical") maximum and effective ranges are significantly less than for horizontal in every artillery system I've ever studied. I don't know what these are for the 20mm, but 3000 meters vertical would mean the momentum of any round would be spent or nearly so. But, that is where the 5" DP guns would have been effective, given the '80s fire control systems with VT fuses. Sure, the crews in the '80s were not trained to WW2 standards for anti-air action, but there had been some modernization in the fire control system, and the VT fuses obviate the need for fuse setting. Even a few of those 5" guns firing VT fused HE with '80s fire control would likely have shredded the level bombers. So, I think one of the first decisions in every Iowa-class CIC would have been to allocate the CWIS to torpedo bombers, 5" to the level and dive bombers, with spare cycles for the either used where needed.
This was fascinating. I knew a little bit about the Pearl Harbor attack, but not the specifics of the damage, or that there were so many AP bombs involved. My thought would be, if they could transport a ship back in time 4 or 5 years, I'd almost rather send a person, and have them talk about torpedo nets and listing to the radar operators. So idea for a fun "what if"? What if the 1980's New Jersey had been loaned to the British as part of their Falkland Island task force?
Point of order, the immunity zone of US battleships assumed surface to surface shell attacks against similar size guns. In the case of the SoDak and Iowa classes, that was a 2250lb 16" shell (the 16" Mark 5 APC shell) which both were originally designed to fire. This is the same round the West Virginia and Colorado shot. The heavier 2700lb Mark 8 SH-APC through a wrench in the works though. The assumption about surface to surface fire is important because impact angles of shells fired at range follow ballistic trajectories and impact the deck armor at an angle closer to parallel. This increases the effective thickness of the deck armor. The 410mm APC shell converted to a bomb which sunk the Arizona impacted at a near normal (perpendicular) angle while falling from a pretty high altitude which changes the calculation some. Would that round reach a similar impact velocity as if fired? Possibly. Would hitting closer to perpendicular changed how much armor it could punch through? Most definitely. The only question is whether the weather deck was thick enough to both arm and slow down the round to detonate before making it through the main armor deck.
people underestimate how tough the standards were just because they're old and were old even in WWII. but they came from an era were the US prioritized armor and firepower over speed. if the various naval treaties in the 20s-30s hadn't happened if the Iowas were built as is they would have been classified as battlecruisers.
In theory, because of the...generous AAA fit out of the Iowas, it is possible much of the torpedo and bomb damage suffered by the battlewagons on the day would not have been experienced if they were all Iowas simply because they would have fended off the air attacks, element of surprise notwithstanding.
That would be something. However, due to the size it could only travel to certain ports, and the cost of fuel alone would probably make the price of one ticket unobtainable for your targeted audience. And that is just the fuel and not any maintenance these bad boys require to be sea worthy.
Agreed on most points. One quibble, though, regarding the _NJ_ for _NV_ substitution. All of the torpedo attacks were carried out by the first wave, so there weren't any more torpedo bombers coming by the time the decision was made to run _NV_ aground. Thus there would have been no danger of the faster _NJ_ clearing the harbor only to be swarmed by torpedo bombers in the open Pacific. (Not that anyone could have known that at the time.)
I think with 8 Iowas 2 sink and 1 of those are recovered and the remaining is refloated for parts salvaging to fasttrack repair on the others damaged. Within 6 months 6 of 8 are in fighting shape and number 7 takes about a year. So much better than the standards handled.
The politics behind why the West Virginia was rebuilt in spite of the extensive damage would be an interesting study. The resource commitment in contrast to other priorities would have made it questionable. The decision not to modernize the USS Ranger CV-4, was a decision made solely on the merits of resource commitment, and the Ranger wasn't even damaged. I guess these are things we will never know.
I read somewhere that the settings for stingers and Phalanx are based on modern jets which have a much higher radar signiture the zero's and betty's so they may not have been as effective as one would assume.
