Get $5 off your next order through my link sponsr.is/magicspoon_battleship_0125 or use code BATTLESHIP at checkout, or look for Magic Spoon on Amazon and in your nearest grocery store!
Great video! Some info to add: Off of Lebanon we on loaded underway 20 or 30 (I forget the exact number) Mk 144 anti-personnel shells. We never used them in Lebanon. These were used in Vietnam, and were considered very dangerous by the crew as it was possible for the bottom shear plate to come loose from the shell. There was a story that this had happened during loading in Vietnam, but I have never been able to verify the story. We did use 12 AP rounds in Lebanon against a concrete reinforced tunnel. Everything else we used was HC.
I would like to see a deeper dive on replenishing shells (16 and 5 inch) while underway. You could compare and contrast period the periods the ship was activated.
I've asked this before as well. Based on these numbers it seems like there's been times during extended shore bombardment in the island hopping campaign where they would have quickly exhausted their loadout
Good idea. And I believe I read in comments (unless I totally misunderstood) that the curious "grenade launchers" found in typical small arms inventory was perhaps used for tossing lines to replenishment ships. … ?
I'd love to see a follow up video about WHERE the battleship would carry over 1000 shells. Things like how they are secured, safety measures, protection against penetration of the magazines would be fun details.
Speaking of cereals, Fruity Pebbles was the favorite cereal of the New Jersey crew (by a huge margin) on both sea trials in '82. All us yardbirds ate from the hot food line
@5:27 I think Ryan got "drill projectiles" and "blind loaded and plugged" (aka target practice) projectiles mixed up. "Drill" projectiles are intended to mimic service projectiles in size, shape and weight and exist to give crews training on the "drill" of handling the projectiles while parbuckling, loading the shell hoists, and ramming the shells into the breech of the gun. Drill projectiles would differ from an actual shooting projectile (either service or target practice) in that they would not have an obturator/rotating band. If they did, the band would embed into the rifling lands and grooves and would be extremely difficult to remove from the gun. Drill projectiles are NOT intended to be sent downrange. Blind loaded and plugged projectiles are projectiles that are actually shot out of the gun for target practice. They are designed to mimic the ballistics of the service projectile as closely as possible. They do not contain a bursting charge but may contain a dye pack or other spotting aid.
The blind loaded plugged target practice shells were cement filled, not sand filled. The fuze adapter unscrews from the projectile and you have a 3.5'' diameter threaded hole to look down into. I had visions of using my shell as an air tank for my big compressor. After removing the fuze adapter, it was very clear that the gray mass inside the shell was concrete. I asked a friend about this, a fellow who set up the Iowa museum with barrel segments and shells. He said they spent about 2 weeks removing the base plate from a shell and then chipping out the cement with air hammers. He said he would never do it again. My shell has a stencil saying that it weighs 1902 pounds. Without a forklift, it is brutally heavy to move anywhere. I have a dummy Mk-18 brass fuze for it and will restore it one day as a HC shell with the names of the Turret 2 crew stenciled on.
Drill projectiles have a hardened tip and the outer casing has fluting like a drill bit. On impact the shell behaves like a bit and drills a neat hole through the armor before exploding.
As a Shop 300 Design draftsman, LBNSY, the original plans from 1938-9, had a total of 10 gross, or 120 shells. When we redesigned her in the 80’s, the Ap & high explosive shells were basically 50-50, & still a 10 gross capacity, but due to the Tomahawks & predictive shell shortages, there would’ve been less…So a maximum of 48 Ap & 48 HE would’ve made sense. (We had a severe shell shortage in the ‘80’s.)…Also, if I ever can break security clearance, we could discuss the nuclear shells each Iowa class BB was designed to carry, just in case.😁
IIRC during the ‘91 Gulf War Missouri and/or Wisconsin fired a number of 2700 lb AP shells against Iraqi prefabricated concrete command bunkers located in Kuwait.
couple years bback you actually made videos about some questions i had (how shells were loaded into the magazines and how the shells were fired) love that this channel is still goin strong
I don't think they'd use AP against a Kirov class, but I could be mistaken. I was under the impression they really weren't carrying much armor. AP rounds against unarmored ships tended to sail clean through and detonate out the other side.
I got a tour by Mike M of the shell area just yesterday! I'm sorry I missed seeing Ryan in the area, that would have been major cool. The ship was AMAZING. It was a VERY cold day, but once off the exposed deck, it was warm and toasty inside. Don't let the cold throw you off of going to the ship. If your hands are sensitive, do bring gloves for exposed stair rails (safety first), but I had an amazing time seen her topside after seeing the ship in dry dock. The new teak is so clean, it feels like you could eat off of it (but don't), and the wide amount of exhibits they have is just first rate. I've seen every BB in the US minus Wisconsin and while they all have their own charms and standout features, the Big J was the overall best ship experience of all of them. Ryan and the crew have really made it feel like it's 1980s again and the USS New Jersey is a must see ship for even the most casual of ship fan. I got to lay in a bunk , how they got out of there I'll never know, (I'm not a small man, but I'm not fat either). Again, shout out to Mike M at the museum, and do yourself a favor and go see the ship!
Modern Warships, even a Kirov are unarmored and an AP round would result in a through and through. A HICAP would be the right choice for all targets. During the Washington v Kirishima engagement the range was so close that some AP rounds went right through Kirshima because the Mk 8 had over 20" of penetration at 10kyd and Kirshima only had a 9"belt. If a round did not enounter some substantial structure it went right through the ship
@@tyree9055 They were thinking that the US wouldn't be sending battleships in to contest those waters, they were expecting destroyers as well as light and heavy cruisers. The first fast battleships sent to the theater were an unexpected and unpleasant surprise, especially the heavy anti-aircraft batteries each carried. The Japanese knew we had some in service but, if memory serves, their intel guys thought both North Carolina and Washington were still working up in the Atlantic or West Coast, same for South Dakota.
@robertf3479 Yeah, the whole notion of sending a Kongo-class battleship into a night action with an American battleship, any battleship, was stupid. I figured they didn't plan on it. The only way that I'd engage U.S. battleships in WW2 as the IJN would have been a combination of Yamato-class and Nagato-class (iirc) battleships. But I don't think Iron Bottom Sound was large enough to risk them in, which is why they chose the Kongo-class. They hoped that their higher speed (30 knots) would save them from any torpedoes.
Of course that could be mitigated with modern technology to set off the bursting charge in time before the projectile leaves on the other side. Whereas in the olden times, apparently, the charge often enough was not triggered at all.
I think you may of covered this once but to refresh: during the Battle of Komandorski Islands, USS SALT LAKE CITY CA-25 was forced into a retreating battle, in which her after turrets expended almost all thier ammunition; forcing the sailors to pack both shells & powder across the decks to keep the aft turrets firing. If BB62 Found herself in a similar situation - forced to fight a running retiring action - would the hoist thru Broadway be able to reload turret 3 (& vice versa) or no? Hope you see this one. Good info as always!
That's a really interesting question. I imagine that it comes down to how much gear they had to move shells and powder along Broadway's rail, and if they needed to use the rail to return the gear to pick up more shells or powder. In other words, what's the throughput of moving ordinance along Broadway?
The overhead rail along broadway can move projectiles. In fact onboard ship there is a fiberglass shell suspended from a chainfall trolley mounted to the overhead rail as a demonstration of the idea. Projectiles would have to be sent down to 5th deck, manhandled around the annular space along the rails system to the correct ammunition trunk, then raised up to 3rd deck, transferred to the 3rd deck overhead rail, then transferred to the Broadway overhead rail, then down-over-and up again to one Turret 3's shell decks. The throughput rate would be pretty low..
In my day, around 1980, we periodically reported the weapons we had on board. I don't remember which command we reported to. I would imagine that these messages are now in the Archives.
Carrying exclusively or almost exclusively HICAP rounds in the post-WWII environment is also supported by the technological/naval architecture context the ships were operating in at that time. Naval vessels in the Cold War (even big ones like the Kirovs) had only token armor as a rule, so it's vanishingly unlikely _New Jersey_ would've encountered the kind of opponent that demands an AP shell. They'd only really be useful if she somehow finds herself facing down _another_ antique battleship, of which the USSR had none afloat after 1957 and China never had any.
As a former Weapons Officer in Iowa, I woulds think I should remember better what we carried for 16" projectiles in 83-86, but to the best of my recollection it was no more than 90 AP. Total 16" arounf 1200. Total 5" around 14.000.
Are you certain the high capacity shells would have been intended mostly for shore bombardment in 1942-44 when the ship was being built? As opposed to, say, engaging ships that didn't carry battleship-scale armor? Then the reason to carry somewhat fewer high capacity rounds is that most such targets would hopefully be dealt with by the secondaries, or even (in an ideal world) the battleship's screening force.
I don’t have hard numbers but when I served aboard in the 90’s I would say it was 75-85% HC type rounds in the magazines. But that’s memory and a long time ago.
I think you would have consider what shells would be appropriate for each use in the 80s. For instance it would seem to make sense that you would use AP rounds against hardened bunkers on land while HP shells may be more appropriate for lightly armored modern warships where armored piercing shells might just pass through the ship.
What about the 20mm antiaircraft ammo on five round stripper clips that were fed into 20mm Bofors guns. They musta shot a million of those. Nice vid. Many thanks.
Load-out really depends on the planned target, mission objective and projected threat. In WWII the threat was certainly Japanese Battleships, which (as shown) may be encountered even performing shore bombardment. But, if your primary mission is NGSF it makes sense to load primarily HC, with some AP just in-case. Performing NGSF off Vietnam in the '60s or Lebanon in the '80s is highly unlikely to run you into a heavily armored enemy Battleship, so having mainly HC makes sense, though there may be a hardened target, like a bunker, that you need some penetration for, so the AP isn't just for Battleships. The same issue holds true for VLS. It can hold Standard SAMs, ASROC ASW missiles, Tomahawk LAMs, or 4-packs of ESSM short range SAMs. If you have 64 tubes, how do you load them out? It depends on where your going, who your engaging and what your mission is, going to the Red Sea to protect freighters, you wouldn't carry 60 ASROC, but may still carry a few, just in-case something unforeseen occurs and you need to engage a sub (perhaps Pakistan or Iran sends a sub around to support them) on the other hand, if you were sent to the Norwegian sea to guard against a threat of Russian subs possibly coming down to raid the North Atlantic, then you would carry alot more ASROCs and fewer SAMs or Tomahawks. Same issue, and that's up to the mission planer (the Captain and supply officers) to determine on a case-by-case basis.
So, assuming she didn't carry significantly more powder than was needed to expend her magazines completely - she was normally cruising around with almost 1500 long tons (about 3,200,000 pounds, give or take) of shells and powder for the mains when she was in a war-time configuration. And, assuming she had all guns manned and operational and she was in a situation where all three turrets had target accessibility - you could theoretically offload every pound of it via a series of tremendous explosions in a shade less than 2 hours 🤔
I raised 184k and Anna Kathleen Sanford is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Anna K. Sanford is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note!:: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
I know that woman(Anna Kathleen Sanford) If you grew up in new York, you’d know her too. There’s no ßingle doubt she’s the one that helped you make it to where you are now!
Ryan I love the videos I watch them everyday keep it up, also if I may request if you can make a video on the nuclear sub uss Simon bolivar from the Benjamin Franklin class, my father was on it and I would love to learn more about it and you have the expertise I don’t. Thank you and have a great day👍
Would they ever fire high capacity rounds against other ships to take out the superstructure or to avoid the problems the Japanese had at Samar where the AP rounds went through ships without arming?
In the Korea war, Vietnam war , and Iraq war were any AP rounds used at all by the IOWAs For bunker busting for example? Or was it all high capacity rounds for shore bombardment?
Have a question. What is the approximate cost per shot? Given that cost of ship, training, fuel,etc...what did it cost per shot for: 1. 16 inch training shell and powder 2. 16 inch high explosive shell and powder 3. 16 inch armor piercing and powder 4. 16 inch hypothetical nuclear shell and powder 5. 40 mm 6. Sea Wiz. Per shot times average burst 7. Tomahawk cruise missile 8. Anti sub torpedoes? 9. 5 inch guns? Just curious on bang for the buck....vs Zumwalt million dollar a shot rumors.
likely a huge range. just look at the Ukraine war, a 155mm shell can cost anywhere from 2k$ to 80k$, a spread of more than an order of magnitude and the shells are all being ordered at about the same time. The ship was in service over a huge span of time and so ammunition costs would have varied significantly. But just the bulk price of steel at the weight of one of these shells would be 4k$ and the shells need to be shaped quite precisly, you need to handle explosives and more, so I would be shocked if the shells cost less than 100k$ per shot, and 1 million would not be too surprising. But with such things the cost per shell becomes very wonky, because they weigh a literal ton, so the cost of transportign them, storing them etc is going to be significant, this is not somethign that a pair of sailors are just going to carry somewhere, this needs machines, trained operators and more, and if you count those cost... a shell that is loaded on the ship, unloaded to make room for other ammo as the misison changes, and reloaded on the ship again is going to be significant. It's going to cost money to move such heavy items, esspecialy since they are explosion hazards and so their storage needs some (expensive) considerations. For the 40mm that is in quite common use today so ammo prices are easily available, about 200$ per round, but with high variance depending on the type of round. since the boffors shoots 2 rounds per second per barrel the cost of firing new Jersey's quad 40mm would be around 2000$ a second, so a 5 second burst would likely cost around 10k$. Modern smart AA 40mm ammo is signidicantly more expensive though. Also more effectictive.
A potential starting point might be the records from when BB-63 ran aground in the 1950s and had to unload a fair amount of materials, fuel, and water to refloat her. Given the shells' weight, they were likely the first items offloaded.
How effective, do you think, would a high capacity round be against an enemy battleship had a US battleship expended all of its armor piercing rounds and found itself in an “at sea engagement”? Or an armor piercing fired at a land target? It is interesting to wonder how the different rounds would perform in extreme circumstances.
Post WW2, not sure why they would even carry AP Rounds. How many armored ships were there? Is that armor as heavy as a battleship? I would think an AP Round would just go right thru a new lighter armored ship unless it was a lucky shot and hit a boiler.
If you look at that log book they show later in the video, there are WP and illumination rounds listed... In the 5 inch counts. But, as he says, only HC for the 16 inch.
If the "green high-capacity shells" look grey to you, turn your blue light filter off. They're as green in person as they are in video. Any discrepancy is on your end.
The answer to the question posed in the title: "Enough that nobody we shot at stuck around long enough to take notes." Edit: being on the wrong end of nine 16" rifles is ... extremely unpleasant, to put it lightly. "[redacted] train hasn't brakes," to put it more concisely in 2003-internet-speak.
I would think the Armor piercing shell would be useless on today's modern ships with no armor protection. I think they would just go through like the Japanese shells did to Taffy 3 destroyers & escorts.
It would need to be gutted because the boilers and turbines are at the end of the life phase. Everything would have to be rebuilt and replaced. We probably can't even make the armor for it anymore. But I'm not sure about that.
Since each 16" shell has to be well-secured, can't you just count the number of locations and give that number??? Obviously, during the ship's long career, there would be different types carried. But with all of the minucia you've given, you've never given a Total Number.
@@Choddawithout computers? I mean I guess you could do the range calculations by hand, but why? You’d have to take the range and bearing given by a rangefinder and director, pass that along to the turret, account for the slight difference in distance and rotation because the turret isn’t where the director was, account for the time delay, aaaand… then wait for the ship to be level.
Each gun plot has a wonderously complicated Fire Control Mechanical Computer that uses gears and dials and has input automatically from the ships gyros and speed log (pitsword). When I say 'computer," I mean the ones invented before electronic computers. Subs have another type of TDC computer used to calculate the torpedo settings to hit a moving ship. The Gunfire Control Computer takes several people to operate it and it automatically incorporates factors such as wind speed, own ships movement, target movement, temperature and relative humidity, gyroscopic precession, rotation of the earth, and several other factors to calculate a firing solution. It truly is a wonder and you could write books about how cool this old school computer really is. You should research it I think you will be amazed.
Get $5 off your next order through my link sponsr.is/magicspoon_battleship_0125 or use code BATTLESHIP at checkout, or look for Magic Spoon on Amazon and in your nearest grocery store!
Great video! Some info to add: Off of Lebanon we on loaded underway 20 or 30 (I forget the exact number) Mk 144 anti-personnel shells. We never used them in Lebanon. These were used in Vietnam, and were considered very dangerous by the crew as it was possible for the bottom shear plate to come loose from the shell. There was a story that this had happened during loading in Vietnam, but I have never been able to verify the story. We did use 12 AP rounds in Lebanon against a concrete reinforced tunnel. Everything else we used was HC.
I would like to see a deeper dive on replenishing shells (16 and 5 inch) while underway. You could compare and contrast period the periods the ship was activated.
Great idea ~ me too! Get on it, Ryan ;)
I've asked this before as well. Based on these numbers it seems like there's been times during extended shore bombardment in the island hopping campaign where they would have quickly exhausted their loadout
Good idea. And I believe I read in comments (unless I totally misunderstood) that the curious "grenade launchers" found in typical small arms inventory was perhaps used for tossing lines to replenishment ships. … ?
I'd love to see a follow up video about WHERE the battleship would carry over 1000 shells. Things like how they are secured, safety measures, protection against penetration of the magazines would be fun details.
Speaking of cereals, Fruity Pebbles was the favorite cereal of the New Jersey crew (by a huge margin) on both sea trials in '82. All us yardbirds ate from the hot food line
thats awsome info
I love me those pebbles of fruit! Delicious.
@5:27 I think Ryan got "drill projectiles" and "blind loaded and plugged" (aka target practice) projectiles mixed up.
"Drill" projectiles are intended to mimic service projectiles in size, shape and weight and exist to give crews training on the "drill" of handling the projectiles while parbuckling, loading the shell hoists, and ramming the shells into the breech of the gun. Drill projectiles would differ from an actual shooting projectile (either service or target practice) in that they would not have an obturator/rotating band. If they did, the band would embed into the rifling lands and grooves and would be extremely difficult to remove from the gun. Drill projectiles are NOT intended to be sent downrange.
Blind loaded and plugged projectiles are projectiles that are actually shot out of the gun for target practice. They are designed to mimic the ballistics of the service projectile as closely as possible. They do not contain a bursting charge but may contain a dye pack or other spotting aid.
The blind loaded plugged target practice shells were cement filled, not sand filled. The fuze adapter unscrews from the projectile and you have a 3.5'' diameter threaded hole to look down into. I had visions of using my shell as an air tank for my big compressor. After removing the fuze adapter, it was very clear that the gray mass inside the shell was concrete. I asked a friend about this, a fellow who set up the Iowa museum with barrel segments and shells. He said they spent about 2 weeks removing the base plate from a shell and then chipping out the cement with air hammers. He said he would never do it again. My shell has a stencil saying that it weighs 1902 pounds. Without a forklift, it is brutally heavy to move anywhere. I have a dummy Mk-18 brass fuze for it and will restore it one day as a HC shell with the names of the Turret 2 crew stenciled on.
Drill projectiles have a hardened tip and the outer casing has fluting like a drill bit. On impact the shell behaves like a bit and drills a neat hole through the armor before exploding.
My battle station was third one Shell deck and we had a complete load out when I was there in 1982
I think Ryan is Mikey from Life cereal all grown up. He'll eat anything.
As a Shop 300 Design draftsman, LBNSY, the original plans from 1938-9, had a total of 10 gross, or 120 shells. When we redesigned her in the 80’s, the Ap & high explosive shells were basically 50-50, & still a 10 gross capacity, but due to the Tomahawks & predictive shell shortages, there would’ve been less…So a maximum of 48 Ap & 48 HE would’ve made sense. (We had a severe shell shortage in the ‘80’s.)…Also, if I ever can break security clearance, we could discuss the nuclear shells each Iowa class BB was designed to carry, just in case.😁
I believe a gross is a dozen dozens, or 144.
Would that be per barrel ?
@billbrockman779 you're correct. Ten gross would be 1,440.
Now you’ve done it….let’s hear the nuclear shell story. Give us a real no-shitter. 😏😉
You can always break security clearance...it just means being involuntarily moved to some very substandard government housing 😅😂😂
IIRC during the ‘91 Gulf War Missouri and/or Wisconsin fired a number of 2700 lb AP shells against Iraqi prefabricated concrete command bunkers located in Kuwait.
couple years bback you actually made videos about some questions i had
(how shells were loaded into the magazines and how the shells were fired)
love that this channel is still goin strong
th-cam.com/video/elHXxCN0Fu4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xZWqqPm0zbjPXYrj
@ o god that scratches an itch i didnt know was there.. never saw this TY!
I don't think they'd use AP against a Kirov class, but I could be mistaken. I was under the impression they really weren't carrying much armor. AP rounds against unarmored ships tended to sail clean through and detonate out the other side.
I got a tour by Mike M of the shell area just yesterday! I'm sorry I missed seeing Ryan in the area, that would have been major cool. The ship was AMAZING. It was a VERY cold day, but once off the exposed deck, it was warm and toasty inside. Don't let the cold throw you off of going to the ship. If your hands are sensitive, do bring gloves for exposed stair rails (safety first), but I had an amazing time seen her topside after seeing the ship in dry dock. The new teak is so clean, it feels like you could eat off of it (but don't), and the wide amount of exhibits they have is just first rate. I've seen every BB in the US minus Wisconsin and while they all have their own charms and standout features, the Big J was the overall best ship experience of all of them. Ryan and the crew have really made it feel like it's 1980s again and the USS New Jersey is a must see ship for even the most casual of ship fan. I got to lay in a bunk , how they got out of there I'll never know, (I'm not a small man, but I'm not fat either). Again, shout out to Mike M at the museum, and do yourself a favor and go see the ship!
Modern Warships, even a Kirov are unarmored and an AP round would result in a through and through. A HICAP would be the right choice for all targets. During the Washington v Kirishima engagement the range was so close that some AP rounds went right through Kirshima because the Mk 8 had over 20" of penetration at 10kyd and Kirshima only had a 9"belt. If a round did not enounter some substantial structure it went right through the ship
That was such a lopsided engagement, what were those IJN officers thinking?
🤣👍
Didn’t know we had BBS there
@@tyree9055 They were thinking that the US wouldn't be sending battleships in to contest those waters, they were expecting destroyers as well as light and heavy cruisers. The first fast battleships sent to the theater were an unexpected and unpleasant surprise, especially the heavy anti-aircraft batteries each carried.
The Japanese knew we had some in service but, if memory serves, their intel guys thought both North Carolina and Washington were still working up in the Atlantic or West Coast, same for South Dakota.
@robertf3479 Yeah, the whole notion of sending a Kongo-class battleship into a night action with an American battleship, any battleship, was stupid. I figured they didn't plan on it. The only way that I'd engage U.S. battleships in WW2 as the IJN would have been a combination of Yamato-class and Nagato-class (iirc) battleships. But I don't think Iron Bottom Sound was large enough to risk them in, which is why they chose the Kongo-class. They hoped that their higher speed (30 knots) would save them from any torpedoes.
Of course that could be mitigated with modern technology to set off the bursting charge in time before the projectile leaves on the other side. Whereas in the olden times, apparently, the charge often enough was not triggered at all.
I think you may of covered this once but to refresh: during the Battle of Komandorski Islands, USS SALT LAKE CITY CA-25 was forced into a retreating battle, in which her after turrets expended almost all thier ammunition; forcing the sailors to pack both shells & powder across the decks to keep the aft turrets firing. If BB62 Found herself in a similar situation - forced to fight a running retiring action - would the hoist thru Broadway be able to reload turret 3 (& vice versa) or no? Hope you see this one. Good info as always!
That's a really interesting question. I imagine that it comes down to how much gear they had to move shells and powder along Broadway's rail, and if they needed to use the rail to return the gear to pick up more shells or powder.
In other words, what's the throughput of moving ordinance along Broadway?
If you in a situation where u expended all the ammo for a turret, you in a serious world of hurt😂
As it is theres only a few occasions across history where ships have shot out almost their whole magazine.
The overhead rail along broadway can move projectiles. In fact onboard ship there is a fiberglass shell suspended from a chainfall trolley mounted to the overhead rail as a demonstration of the idea. Projectiles would have to be sent down to 5th deck, manhandled around the annular space along the rails system to the correct ammunition trunk, then raised up to 3rd deck, transferred to the 3rd deck overhead rail, then transferred to the Broadway overhead rail, then down-over-and up again to one Turret 3's shell decks. The throughput rate would be pretty low..
In my day, around 1980, we periodically reported the weapons we had on board. I don't remember which command we reported to. I would imagine that these messages are now in the Archives.
Great info, thanks!
Carrying exclusively or almost exclusively HICAP rounds in the post-WWII environment is also supported by the technological/naval architecture context the ships were operating in at that time. Naval vessels in the Cold War (even big ones like the Kirovs) had only token armor as a rule, so it's vanishingly unlikely _New Jersey_ would've encountered the kind of opponent that demands an AP shell. They'd only really be useful if she somehow finds herself facing down _another_ antique battleship, of which the USSR had none afloat after 1957 and China never had any.
As a former Weapons Officer in Iowa, I woulds think I should remember better what we carried for 16" projectiles in 83-86, but to the best of my recollection it was no more than 90 AP. Total 16" arounf 1200. Total 5" around 14.000.
Are you certain the high capacity shells would have been intended mostly for shore bombardment in 1942-44 when the ship was being built? As opposed to, say, engaging ships that didn't carry battleship-scale armor? Then the reason to carry somewhat fewer high capacity rounds is that most such targets would hopefully be dealt with by the secondaries, or even (in an ideal world) the battleship's screening force.
I don’t have hard numbers but when I served aboard in the 90’s I would say it was 75-85% HC type rounds in the magazines. But that’s memory and a long time ago.
Where were the 16" shell produced at ? Charleston in Indiana make powder in WWll. Is there any video of the shells being produced
You mean Crane.
Thanks!
I think you would have consider what shells would be appropriate for each use in the 80s. For instance it would seem to make sense that you would use AP rounds against hardened bunkers on land while HP shells may be more appropriate for lightly armored modern warships where armored piercing shells might just pass through the ship.
Love this channel. Stay army.
By the time of the vietnam war AP would be near pointless there's pretty much no battleships left to fire it at outside of the French Richelieu class.
AP shells would be very useful against concrete bunkers... I imagine that's partly why the older battleships still carried as many as they did.
10:26 intentional or not, fantastic comedic delivery XD
Is there a secret group chat between all of the battleship curators? Because that'd be epic
How about the loadout of smaller caliber gus?
5" and AA.
I had heard that it was something like 100 rounds per barrel regarding main battery shells.
What about the 20mm antiaircraft ammo on five round stripper clips that were fed into 20mm Bofors guns. They musta shot a million of those. Nice vid. Many thanks.
Load-out really depends on the planned target, mission objective and projected threat. In WWII the threat was certainly Japanese Battleships, which (as shown) may be encountered even performing shore bombardment. But, if your primary mission is NGSF it makes sense to load primarily HC, with some AP just in-case. Performing NGSF off Vietnam in the '60s or Lebanon in the '80s is highly unlikely to run you into a heavily armored enemy Battleship, so having mainly HC makes sense, though there may be a hardened target, like a bunker, that you need some penetration for, so the AP isn't just for Battleships. The same issue holds true for VLS. It can hold Standard SAMs, ASROC ASW missiles, Tomahawk LAMs, or 4-packs of ESSM short range SAMs. If you have 64 tubes, how do you load them out? It depends on where your going, who your engaging and what your mission is, going to the Red Sea to protect freighters, you wouldn't carry 60 ASROC, but may still carry a few, just in-case something unforeseen occurs and you need to engage a sub (perhaps Pakistan or Iran sends a sub around to support them) on the other hand, if you were sent to the Norwegian sea to guard against a threat of Russian subs possibly coming down to raid the North Atlantic, then you would carry alot more ASROCs and fewer SAMs or Tomahawks. Same issue, and that's up to the mission planer (the Captain and supply officers) to determine on a case-by-case basis.
So, assuming she didn't carry significantly more powder than was needed to expend her magazines completely - she was normally cruising around with almost 1500 long tons (about 3,200,000 pounds, give or take) of shells and powder for the mains when she was in a war-time configuration. And, assuming she had all guns manned and operational and she was in a situation where all three turrets had target accessibility - you could theoretically offload every pound of it via a series of tremendous explosions in a shade less than 2 hours 🤔
Retiring this year, $82K biweekly, this video reminds me of my life in 2023, you have really inspired me in so many ways!!❤️
I’m feeling truly inspired.
Can you provide additional insights about the bi-weekly subject you mentioned?
I raised 184k and Anna Kathleen Sanford is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Anna K. Sanford is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note!:: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
Whoa 😲 I know her too!
Miss Anna Kathleen Sanford is an incredible person who has brought immense inspiration and positivity into my life.
I meagerly kicked off with $2k, and the results have been Jaw-dropping TBH!!!
I know that woman(Anna Kathleen Sanford)
If you grew up in new York, you’d know her too. There’s no ßingle doubt she’s the one that helped you make it to where you are now!
Ryan, I'm always impressed at how well you do the commercial spots. You're one of the very few presentors that I believe.
Ryan I love the videos I watch them everyday keep it up, also if I may request if you can make a video on the nuclear sub uss Simon bolivar from the Benjamin Franklin class, my father was on it and I would love to learn more about it and you have the expertise I don’t. Thank you and have a great day👍
Did the navy ever experiment with air burst Type 16 inch rounds with proximity fuses?
Would they ever fire high capacity rounds against other ships to take out the superstructure or to avoid the problems the Japanese had at Samar where the AP rounds went through ships without arming?
In the Korea war, Vietnam war , and Iraq war were any AP rounds used at all by the IOWAs For bunker busting for example? Or was it all high capacity rounds for shore bombardment?
I would like to learn more about the logistics and process of how the shells where made
Could you ever show what a flack round looks like and did they ever have one for the 16”?
I did not understand the "blue ones" description at 1:45. What was the "x?%# and plugged" type" What is a "plugged" projectile?
Nice Ryan, can't wait now to ask the TEXAS how many rds it carried in war!
What did the fuel system look like? Pump rooms consoles filters etc
Would a 16” AP shell penetrate through the bow directly ahead not broadside and hit the citadel belt armor in front of barbet 1
So, any idea how many shells ( if any) are still in storage?
Have a question. What is the approximate cost per shot? Given that cost of ship, training, fuel,etc...what did it cost per shot for:
1. 16 inch training shell and powder
2. 16 inch high explosive shell and powder
3. 16 inch armor piercing and powder
4. 16 inch hypothetical nuclear shell and powder
5. 40 mm
6. Sea Wiz. Per shot times average burst
7. Tomahawk cruise missile
8. Anti sub torpedoes?
9. 5 inch guns?
Just curious on bang for the buck....vs Zumwalt million dollar a shot rumors.
likely a huge range. just look at the Ukraine war, a 155mm shell can cost anywhere from 2k$ to 80k$, a spread of more than an order of magnitude and the shells are all being ordered at about the same time. The ship was in service over a huge span of time and so ammunition costs would have varied significantly. But just the bulk price of steel at the weight of one of these shells would be 4k$ and the shells need to be shaped quite precisly, you need to handle explosives and more, so I would be shocked if the shells cost less than 100k$ per shot, and 1 million would not be too surprising. But with such things the cost per shell becomes very wonky, because they weigh a literal ton, so the cost of transportign them, storing them etc is going to be significant, this is not somethign that a pair of sailors are just going to carry somewhere, this needs machines, trained operators and more, and if you count those cost... a shell that is loaded on the ship, unloaded to make room for other ammo as the misison changes, and reloaded on the ship again is going to be significant. It's going to cost money to move such heavy items, esspecialy since they are explosion hazards and so their storage needs some (expensive) considerations.
For the 40mm that is in quite common use today so ammo prices are easily available, about 200$ per round, but with high variance depending on the type of round. since the boffors shoots 2 rounds per second per barrel the cost of firing new Jersey's quad 40mm would be around 2000$ a second, so a 5 second burst would likely cost around 10k$. Modern smart AA 40mm ammo is signidicantly more expensive though. Also more effectictive.
At 50% discharge of ammunition how high would the ship rise? As in the difference in fully loaded and empty?
A potential starting point might be the records from when BB-63 ran aground in the 1950s and had to unload a fair amount of materials, fuel, and water to refloat her. Given the shells' weight, they were likely the first items offloaded.
I believe you where reading that Vietnam shell inventory wrong, it included 16" shells e.g. D862, D875, D879, D882
Just FYI = Siargao (as in Siargao Island, in the Philippines) is pronounced: She - Are - Gow. (rhymes with "cow")
I get wanting that much AP for peer engagements, but since most ships aren't battleships, I would have expected closer to 50/50 for WWII.
Is magic Spoon the High Capacity explosive propellant for the Battleship NJ LOL
Interesting, in WWII, American tank crews were firing armour-piercing only about 10% of the time.
That's a reflection on the nature of tank armour vs. battleship armour
Most enemy armor was taken out by planes or artillery.
Would (or could) the armor piercing rounds be used against naturally hardened targets like the caves on Iwo Jima or Okinawa?
Well, what did Missouri and Wisconsin have during the Gulf War in their magazines?
Yay-yo!
How many rounds have each of the barrels fired?
How effective, do you think, would a high capacity round be against an enemy battleship had a US battleship expended all of its armor piercing rounds and found itself in an “at sea engagement”? Or an armor piercing fired at a land target? It is interesting to wonder how the different rounds would perform in extreme circumstances.
See Guadalcanal when the Japanese BB fired HE at the American BBs
How many landscaping devices you mean.
Ryan - is there any source of 16" rounds remaining?
How many powder charges carried?
How much fuel can/did the ship carry on deployment
Roughly 8800 tons based upon the 1949 ships data book. Source, "US Battleships of WWII", Dulin and Garzke, 1976.
Do any land based cannons use the same shells as USS NJ?
No.
I think some 16" 45 cal barrels were used for shore batteries. I know the Army did us a different shell.
The army had some older 16 inch in some shore batteries
Post WW2, not sure why they would even carry AP Rounds. How many armored ships were there? Is that armor as heavy as a battleship? I would think an AP Round would just go right thru a new lighter armored ship unless it was a lucky shot and hit a boiler.
Used on harden targets
Anyone know if the dummy rounds were AP style or HC style shells (I'd assume HC but curious)
I see they following the south korean pattern of ads, have the ad in the video itself so u cant click skip ad 😂
How many smoke rounds or WP rounds did NJ carry and they just be part of the HC numbers?
If you look at that log book they show later in the video, there are WP and illumination rounds listed... In the 5 inch counts. But, as he says, only HC for the 16 inch.
keep doing sponsors if it helps its not that bad
agree, if it helps preserve history and knowledge of our military...I am for it
how many katie rounds?
The Purple ones were nuclear… I’ll bet
Your jacket is getting kinda tight Ryan! Lol
If the "green high-capacity shells" look grey to you, turn your blue light filter off. They're as green in person as they are in video. Any discrepancy is on your end.
⚓️
Do you know highest number of shells the ship ever shot
in day?
High cap or HhE?
High capacity. He's covered that jargon in an earlier video
The answer to the question posed in the title: "Enough that nobody we shot at stuck around long enough to take notes."
Edit: being on the wrong end of nine 16" rifles is ... extremely unpleasant, to put it lightly. "[redacted] train hasn't brakes," to put it more concisely in 2003-internet-speak.
I would think the Armor piercing shell would be useless on today's modern ships with no armor protection. I think they would just go through like the Japanese shells did to Taffy 3 destroyers & escorts.
that jacket is starting to look like the skin on a kielbasa
Is there talk about re-activation? I haven’t heard it…
You’re joking, right? If not, No, there is no talk of reactivation. Too expensive in resources and manpower.
@ saw a question that made me wonder. I didn’t think so
It would need to be gutted because the boilers and turbines are at the end of the life phase. Everything would have to be rebuilt and replaced. We probably can't even make the armor for it anymore. But I'm not sure about that.
@ 17 inch armor plate? Nope we cant
No
Since each 16" shell has to be well-secured, can't you just count the number of locations and give that number??? Obviously, during the ship's long career, there would be different types carried. But with all of the minucia you've given, you've never given a Total Number.
Where’d the live chat go!
Test
Did she ever deploy with nuclear shells?
No comment.
SSH
It’s a secret
Officially while capable they never deployed with any nuclear ordinance, shells or tomahawks....atleast thats what the government claims.
2nd, 14 January 2025
Where can I get a fiberglass replica of a 16” shell for my man cave?
how do you hit a target?? do you have people measuring distance to target then calculate the angle ??
There were computers that did that for them.
@glennac no shit. so tell me your answer without computers?
@@Choddawithout computers? I mean I guess you could do the range calculations by hand, but why? You’d have to take the range and bearing given by a rangefinder and director, pass that along to the turret, account for the slight difference in distance and rotation because the turret isn’t where the director was, account for the time delay, aaaand… then wait for the ship to be level.
He has a video
Had optics, analog ( gears like a wacth ) computers and radar
Each gun plot has a wonderously complicated Fire Control Mechanical Computer that uses gears and dials and has input automatically from the ships gyros and speed log (pitsword). When I say 'computer," I mean the ones invented before electronic computers. Subs have another type of TDC computer used to calculate the torpedo settings to hit a moving ship. The Gunfire Control Computer takes several people to operate it and it automatically incorporates factors such as wind speed, own ships movement, target movement, temperature and relative humidity, gyroscopic precession, rotation of the earth, and several other factors to calculate a firing solution. It truly is a wonder and you could write books about how cool this old school computer really is. You should research it I think you will be amazed.