Maybe not, with scramjets added to artillery, you can get enormous range.. And getting a massive gun platform that technically could shoot nukes all over a country wouldn't be bad to have I think. :)
@@MrZnarffy cool concept, but I think scramjets need to be at like mach 3 or so to kick in, shells for these guns max at like mach 2. Of course you, like I, believe there may be a future for large bore artillery with modern or future munitions. Who knows what they could do if we tried.
@@samuelnakai1804 No, it's about mach 2.5, well within the range of these guns, they almost hit mach3 with a 1 ton projectile. So basically you can have thousands of nuclear shells with the range of hundreds of km/miles on one of these.. Make them nuclear propulsed too, so they can roam freely, and stack a bunch of phalanx on them. You can then pretty much glass a country with one ship...
I was on the USS Stein (FF-1065), and was part of a Surface Action Group with the USS New Jersey in 1989. When we left port, they were still prohibited from firing their 16" guns because of the Iowa accident. We were transiting to Korea and spent 40+ days in the north Pacific, and during that time the guns were cleared for action. We were able to watch a live fire and it's one of the most impressive things I ever saw while I was in the Navy. We were about 3-4 miles astern and just to port, and it was truly amazing. The boat simply disappeared behind the fireball from the shot. Truly a sight to behold.
Cool I was on the USS Long Beach during that same time. I remember the battleship opening up one night when I was on the fantail of our ship. We were at least as far away, but it lit up the otherwise black night sky!
You know a weapon system means business when you have to sound an alarm to brace for the discharge and when the weapon fires the camera goes dark for a moment
@@Kevin_Kennelly It's from the camera's over exposure from the barrel flash. It's like facing your camera toward the sun and then to the ground real quick, it takes a couple seconds for the camera to compensate for the extreme light change and we are talking about cameras from the 1990's here
@@dancingtiger577 In the grand scheme of things, his point still holds. Those cannons put out enough fire to trigger the glare protection on the camera, something normally the sun only does.
@@finscreenname Indeed. Very primitive cameras back then. Nowadays any smartphone even from the cheapest selection would be a much better video camera. Desert Storm was such a long time ago. On the other hand, when I was recording stuff, back then, with the huge VHS video cameras of the day, they felt like the most awesome pieces of technology.
Imagine being 18 years old, in charge of a multimillion dollar weapons system and operating it at levels unheard of. Chops to all the battleship crews!
I was a young Marine watching the rounds inbound. It was like God rain down hell on this positions. The ground shook 5 miles away and the sound was unreal!!!!! You actually felt sorry for the poor bastards the rounds were landing on!
@@1pcfred I actually do feel bad for them. The Republican guard weren't religious crazies like ISIS or Al-Queda. They were profession soldiers forced into an impossible war by their idiot dictator.
@@Elthenar They were PsOS. I was present in the briefings to hear what the republican guard was doing to the people of Kuwait. Then I saw it first hand. The way they killed people and commandeered the vehicles to escape us - US Marines. Disgusting. That why I called in air strikes on them. The fathers of Al Qaida and ISIS. No remorse. I was right there watching Old 63, Mighty Mo do her thing.
Semper Fidelis Brother. I was right down the current from Mighty MO, Old 63 watching her alongside USS Wisconsin prepping for us to go in. They create massive waves of water and wind!
The fact that an entire Iraqi battalion surrendered just because it saw this ship’s silhouette on the horizon off the coast of Kuwait, tells me all I need to know.
@@realmatiasguerra only 2 of them did USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin the iowa did not fight because of her turret explosion and the uss new jersey was decommissioned right before the war
@@amychan811 Yes there were two in the Gulf if I remember right and they fired at targets around Kuwait City. I was a Marine tanker on the ground then.
projectiles can’t be shot down and be made as prisoner of war ... this battleship can put 90 tons of ordinance in just 5 minutes ... damn that is powerful punch !!!
imagine this battleship can take up serious punishment ... it can withstand a couple of shots ... but when its guns are ready to fire ... I dunno if any armor of any ship in modern era can take this 16” shells ... it’s AP shell can punch through bunkers easily ... damn so much brutal power. do the math muzzle velocity, muzzle energy and shell weight to punch any target be it bunkers, ships or anything you can imagine with gun range it will obliterate it!
@@JackSparrow-wn1on The Problem is AP is designed to be used against heavily armoured ships, no modern warship has the level of armour required to arm the shells, so you likely just punch a hole clean through the ship and out the other side
This footage sends chills down my spine. The Iowa class battleships were the finest, most powerful and longest serving battleships in history. I really hope to see more footage like this. Absolutely amazing.
@@markalvarado4450 wrong, those 18" guns were far less capable and didn't pack the punch of the Iowa class 16" shells. And Iowa class battleships were far superior in weapons management. Bigger doesn't mean better
@@markalvarado4450 the yamatos guns didnt have the range to match, the shell velocity was ass, the shell dispersion was ass, the Japanese gun fire control was ass, even the radar they had was crap. The iowas were superior in every respect.
Causing lots of damage to shipboard systems, from glass to electric to personnel. Note they’re not firing salvoes, but single shots. On Yamato with 18 inch guns, you couldn’t be on an open deck when they fired.
Battleships are still useful. Just not against other vessels as over the years they started building more destroyers. Battleships were still devastating for island bombardment
It’s amazing how fast they were reloading these guns and getting them ready to fire.. and on technology and engineering that was 60+ years old at that time..
Makes me think of what a modern built battleship could be like. I get missiles are far superior in ship to ship, but they do cost a heck a lot if all your want is to bomb the hell out of a land based target.
For those wondering what the hissing sound is at around 6:41, after the gun fires the barrel is still filled with propellant gasses that could combust if they opened the breach and exposed it to oxygen. The breach has high pressure compressed air outlets that trigger after the gun fires, pushing the gasses out of the barrel. If you watch footage of the guns firing you will see those gasses being expelled after firing as a cloud of white smoke.
What’s amazing is that the analog gear targeting computer and gyroscope could tell you how to aim perfectly precise. Even in 3 dimensions with moving targets. It would self fire as soon as the barrel was in the right spot as the ship was moving around in the waves. The computer was designed in the 20’s. They never broke down. They were used into the 90’s. Whole system will last many centuries.
While I agree that battleships are no longer practical thanks to aircraft carriers, no one can deny that seeing a battleship let off a full broadside is one of the most awe inspiring sights ever beheld by man.
Heard tell tale that in wars where these ships served after ww2, fighting morale spiked when these ships entered the area. So not just about missiles and saving money, theres the human element too :)
@@budmeister What? Do you even understand what you wrote? Do you understand what a target line is? Do you know where the BB was during this engagement?
@Joseph Melcher The Iowa's never really took fire. They only fired at other ships a small handful of times and never against anything that could threaten them. Most of the Iowa class service history is shore bombardment and defending carriers from aircraft or destroyers. In short, this is pretty much exactly what the Iowa's always did.
@Joseph Melcher I suggest you review that list of battles. Then ask yourself how many of those an Iowa class was present for. My statement was 102% accurate with a 2% margin of error. There were actually 2 of the Iowa's fighting in the Persian Gulf, we still had all 4 in service just a few years prior. They were reactivated and reaarmed in the early 80s as a counter to the Soviet Kirov class.
It's amazing to see how little the gun moves and the turret is rock-steady while it's sending a projectile that weighs as much as a Toyota to a target miles away. They really built those things well.
They could shoot a Toyota 24 miles. 2,600 feet per second. Time of flight 1 minute 30 seconds. Then remember that the Toyota is packed with high explosives. Would love to see video of those things hitting their target.
The turrets weight something like 2,200 tons, almost 4.5 million pounds each, 7in armor on the roof, 12inches on the back and I think 3 inches elsewhere, they are truly massive chuncks of steel and mass, absolute marvels of engineering.
Technically, they'll reach just shy of 24miles AP mark 8's have been thrown a little over 42,300~ yards (rated for 38,720m) The various other specialty and HC shells have almost identical ballistics, and just about reach 41,600~ yards (38,059m)
Ive been inside Iowa's #2 16" Mount. Seriously, does not look like 60 year old tech. And they were still using the original 'fire control radar' for NGFS (naval gunfire support) and targeting systems from WW2 in 90-91... Because, honestly. There was nothing better. Any of those BB's could and did, land, shell square on target on the 2nd salvo. And usually were close enough on the first salvo to badly damage structure target and kill or injure many in the target area. 2nd shot was generally 'fatal' for intended land target.
SLR107FR31 in a world of supercarriers you want to build a puny Iowa class? If you’re building a railgun battleship, go all the way and do it with a Montana class battleship.
@@HATER506. Just trying to stay relaxed and calm probably. He was a Gunners Mate, but we were not his regular crew. We were Center Gun Turret 3 guys filling in for them, while they took a break to eat.
@@Candid1ify Yes they did after the 1980s modernization. The nuclear tipped shells were discontinued in the 1960s because of the safety hazard they posed but also how obselite they were.
I showed this video to a neighbor, a very old WW2 2nd class Gunners mate , served USS Massachusetts , his comment on the loading, quote" God they're fucking slow" I have never heard this man curse in the 20 yrs I've known him lol
Well done, graycloud057. Thank you for your kind remarks about the RN, too. What some may not know is that the battleship was directed by a specialist British Naval Gunfire Liaison Officer, who sneaked out to the Gulf, without orders, was told to go home and went to the USN to see if he could help them. USN apparently did not have NGLOs so they took him up on his offer. On his return he received a reprimand from the Admiralty and a letter of commendation from Dick Cheney. No surprises there, then!
For some reason I always expected the sound level and concussion at the breach would be a lot louder and more violent. I guess it speaks to the fact the barrel is 240,000lbs (120 tons) and is so efficient at directing that energy down range. Awesome footage though I always wanted to see this process in action during actual combat operations.
It would still be deafening irl (Over 130Db at 1 nautical mile and there is a reason nobody is ever on decks during firing operations, if you were to be on deck it could and would kill you), but yt compresses the hell out of the audio
Apparently the bore evacuator when the breech is first opened is louder than the actual firing. There’s another video where the crewman doesn’t put his hearing protection on until he’s opening the breech.
As knights of old in their shining armor and mounted on their immense battle steeds, their time has come and gone and we shall not see their like again.
From what I heard the military have been given the green light on a new breed of modern battle ship due to the immense amount of backlash on our destroyers being harassed and almost destroyed by local ships “accidentally” ramming them.
@@t5unami195 That makes no sense, destroyers already have more than enough firepower to protect themselves from ramming. You don't need anything close to the role of a battleship to prevent rams. Just need less restrictions on the RoE.
@@proximacentauri3627 Honestly that's what I've been wondering about myself. Destroyer can easily blow those bastards out of the water themselves. But that's what the article said. th-cam.com/video/nUDpaCbfPpc/w-d-xo.html TBH it's probably false after looking back into it.
@@andreworiez8920 Shells and powder are cheap for live fire practice. What's expensive is the ship maintenance costs and crew salaries, and fuel costs. A WAG, but I'd say it would be a rounding error in the annual cost of running the ship to have, eh, 4 live fire drills per year.
6:58 are those high capacity shells with poitn detonation fuses? The armor piercing rounds use a base fuse with a delay to allow the shell a chance to penetrate armor
I had the privilege of touring the Missouri earlier this year. Having seen the size of those guns one can only imagine what it was like on the receiving end of those projectiles. And there were nine of the monsters!!!
Naval ships are loud. There is all sorts of machinery running around the clock, even tied off to the pier. What you were hearing was ventilation, hydraulics, and lord only knows what else. After being in the navy myself I literally cannot sleep if it is quiet. I have to have some level of mechanical noise to sleep, even to this day.
@@CAoffRoading Not to mention right below them is the electrical deck where the motors to train the turret and elevate the barrels is located. Those are the largest electrical motors on the ship.
Indeed they were. We had a RPV ( remote drone) sending back data, camera information. The Captain had the RPV crew sending back the live camera footage and it was on the ship’s television station. You could watch the action. I remember once when only the forward two turrets were firing and we were on a break, the RPV was sending footage of some Army Iraqis that had stopped in the desert to take a piss. About the time the guy unzipped, one of the turrets fired. A few seconds later that guy never finished his piss. The whole truck and small convoy was gone.
@@armastat also, consider that they were originally designed to fight other ships of a similar size and strength. Shooting a moving target from a moving platform is even harder.
You and me both! I'll be telling MY age, when I point out that if I had served in Desert Storm in 91, it would've been my final year of enlistment as a US Marine(which I almost did after high school). I passed the ASVAB scoring highest in the class I was with, a score that allowed me to choose the top job available to a non-college graduate in 1986, an air traffic controller. But knowing myself as an 18 year old in 86, I'm pretty sure I did everyone a favor by NOT becoming an air traffic controller at that particular time! At 18, I had already worked at a machine shop for 2 years, but I was more interested in partying on Friday and Saturday nights than anything else!
Me too! I was on my way home from work when the news on the radio station I was listening to announced the war had started. The wife and I watched CNN coverage all night after I got home... Seems like only yesterday...
@@paulfly3121 You can bet that the next 28 years will go by even faster now that you are even older! Did you happen to catch CNN's Desert storm fake news, where they were claiming to be in theater just over the Saudi border, when a chemical attack siren went off, and the reporter had to rush to install his gas mask! Turns out they actually weren't even in the middle east! They were in studio in the US, lying about their situation, and trying to make themselves look heroic.... There's still video of it on TH-cam! Nope, things have not changed much at CNN, except that they are now more partisan and more dishonest. th-cam.com/video/isMtxbPdvzg/w-d-xo.html
In 1972 I was aboard an amphibious ship in the coastal waters of 'Nam. I still don't know what the deal was, but before an evacuation the USS Iowa was shelling far inland from the shore. I had pictures of almost the entire operation, I even caught the yellow smoke plume and flash. It was cool.
You didn't see the USS Iowa or any other Battleship. In 1972 they were in mothballs slumbering away. The only one that was operating even close to that time was the USS New Jersey.
Incredible to think that those Iowa battleships were designed using pen and paper and a slide rule or two. No computers and they were terrorizing to the enemies back then. Probably would still give our current enemies nightmares today if it were feasible to operate them still.
Those of the smiles of guys who’ve trained their entire career for that one specific task, knowing they’ll probably never get to do it in anger… getting to do it in anger.
I believe this was after the Explosion in the turret on Missouri's Sister ship USS Iowa. So that could be why they are taking longer to load the guns. Also this is Shore Bombardment so they are likely Spot firing where they watch for the rounds to hit before firing again.... Could be wrong on all of this though.
The guy operating at the breech of the gun is so frustrated by the slowness of the process. He knows they could so much more quickly without all the interference from the higherups.
It's not like they were pumping out armor piercing in a naval engagement. The targets they were shooting at weren't going anywhere. At least until the shell goes off. Then one chunk goes here. Another goes the other way. The Wisconsin off Korea took out a T-34with a direct hit with a 16" inch shell. One hell of an Anti-tank gun.
You want your junior enlisted people like that. Champing at the bit. Furiously frustrated to get engaged into the battle. That's exactly the temperament you want
Imagine that...a white Gunner sitting next to a black Gunner fighting on behalf of the red white n blue. Yeah our past isn't without blemmish but our service men and women show us we are better than what we are
I rememeber when they recommissioned the New Jersey and Iowa. I was stationed in San Diego and volunteered to servie on either one. They were taking back Seaman (E3s) who were in their 50's to man some of the rates on the ship.
Now with self propelled shells that can now travel almost 80 miles it’s time to bring back these ships. Shells are cheaper than cruise missiles and cheaper than sending a drone or sending a pilot.
@@staleysnook8793 Yeah... Millions a day just to keep it crewed, not to mention constant overhauls.... Missiles are expensive, but they don't need 2000 personnel always on duty...
Current 'boosted' shells are at max 155mm. Current Naval guns don't have boosted shells. Rocket propellant compounds the risk of explosion/fire. That is why the electromagnetic rail guns are being researched. No propellant nor explosive warheads make Naval ships safer when not in action. Cruise missiles give a range edge over boosted shells anyway, by far. Even with max range rail gun shots, cruise missiles will have at least a 300 mile advantage. The next big leap is hypersonic cruise missiles. The hypersonic test vehicles we've had for some time has given us much info into that realm of flight, hell, the X-15 from the 60s gave us tons of data on the lower end of hypersonic.
It's a brass cartridge, like a blank for a rifle. A new one is put in the breech block each time before the gun is fired. You don't see it in this video because the primer guy is on the deck underneath.
I was able to watch both Wisconsin and Missouri firing. I was in USS Nassau (LHA 4) just over the horizon from them. At night even single guns would light up the sky.
@@derekrock3563 Iowa was not in Desert Storm. Only Missouri and Wisconsin. Iowa was already decommissioned due to her damage from the turret explosion and New Jersey was actually being decommissioned while Missouri and Wisconsin was in the Persian Gulf firing on Iraqi targets.
Have been lucky enough to be on board all the remaining BBs left in the world. Even the Mikasa in Japan. They are all quite amazing. Nice that so many have been preserved. Too many went for scrap.
It's madness that both the Royal Navy and US Navy gave up their battleships. Even when not used in anger, their presence is enough to send a message for their enemy to think twice about starting shit.
You only seem to see the Royal Navy and Australian navy in the anti flash gear. Even in the 2ww the american crew's didnt wear it. Lifes cheap in the US Navy I guess. Theyll learn when the Chinese unleash a hail of missiles on their ships in the coming war.. I'd say the anti flash gear saved lives on the RN ships that the Argentines hit with Exocets and set on fire.
@@andersonsroad5161 If you aren't being directly exposed to fire, you don't need it. Structural firefighters don't wear flash hoods if they aren't doing interior work because it's unnecessary. If you are exposed to direct fire, a flash hood isn't going to do much without turnout gear to protect the rest of your body.
There's a book called "Castles Of Steel" about the dreadnoughts and battle cruisers of WW1. It is an excellent read. Gives all the in's and out's about Battleships. I know this is a WW2 battleship here but the WW1 Dreadnoughts were just as deadly. And while they are in Battleship against Battleship fights they have the colliers in the bottom of the ship shoveling in coal as fast as possible to keep the steam up. If you get a chance it is a good book.
@@redbay8527 Robert K Massie was the author. I never was really interested in WW1 until I read this book. The largest navel fleet in the world was the British Fleet. But the German Imperial Fleet was second biggest during WW1. Germany didn't have much of a navy in WW2 except for a couple of battleships and the U boats. but in WW1 the German fleet was substantial. It was huge and could give the Brits a run for its money but the Kaiser never wanted to use it. He wanted it to remain a "Fleet in Being". A young Churchill was First Lord Of The Admiralty. The two major surface battles between the British and the Germans was the Battle of Jutland and the Battle Of Dogger Bank. Dreadnoughts and heavy Battle Cruisers duking it out while destroyers were running in for torpedo attacks. Its a really good read. 800 pages.
Thanks for the info. Amazon has that book, but by the description it sounds like a political book. I'm going to order it right now.@@museumjunkie9317 I collect WWII ordnance and occasionally run across WWI Naval ordnance. What really impresses me about Navy equipment is the superior quality designed and built into it. It's far better than any other services, I've heard, because the Navy equipment is out to sea and cannot readily utilize standard repair facilities. It HAS to keep functioning properly in order to survive. The projectiles are works of art that are rendered after many machining operations, heat treatments, painting(there are many colors representing the type charge, and labelling. I have a pretty good collection of .50 cal, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 3"50 cal, 5"38 cal and 6"47 cal. The greatest challenges are accurately painting the projectile, and polishing the brass. The 6" MKIV 47 cal empty brass alone weights 36 lbs, and is about 43 inches long so it is very difficult for an old man like me to apply the brass to polishing equipment and it is a slow process. Most collectors like to keep the ammo in the condition it which it was found, believing that it is more authentic in that condition, and they are probably correct. I like mine to look brand new, freshly delivered from the manufacturer. I collect a lot of things and I like ALL of it to look new, not dirty or scratched. And any purchase I make is closely inspected.to insure that it is not live. A friend of mine lived in a house where his father had brought home a mortar shell from WWII. One fateful day my friend's two young sons were playing with the shell and it exploded, tragically killing both children. Jack never recovered from the incident and was deeply affected by it all of his life. Well, thanks for the book info, I appreciate it.
You think we don’t know that? Besides, a good battleship can take a missile or two while just a good lil’ knock on a destroyer sends it to the sea floor.
texascclp1445 - Hey buddy, battleship is king, but those 5"38cal are awesome in their own right and I'm proud of you for being there. I was Army myself, but collect WWII Naval ordnance and I have a 5" projectile and matching 5" Mark 5 38 cal brass(yes, BRASS} with a Navy anchor dated 3 1945. The projectile weights 53 pounds and is a precision piece of machining. All the WWII Naval Ordnance is highly collectable and EXPENSIVE. A 6"47 brass goes for over $800.
Getting to serve on one of the battleships in modern times must have been a real honor and coveted position, I imagine the battleship guys get to brag to the destroyer crews about getting to actually fire salvos and pound targets rather than occasionally launching a tomahawk, which the battleship could also do.
During DESERT STORM, We had the USS Wisconsin on call for fire support, Its one hell of a feeling when you go into battle, Knowing you got a battleship on call for fire support.
I heard no Barrell was ever replaced due to wear, some spares were used to make bunker busters bombs, and that we couldn’t make more if wanted to cause no industrial capability left to make one
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
This is probably the last film of a 16-inch gun EVER being fired ... in anger.
7:51 mild irritation, at least
Maybe not, with scramjets added to artillery, you can get enormous range.. And getting a massive gun platform that technically could shoot nukes all over a country wouldn't be bad to have I think. :)
@@MrZnarffy cool concept, but I think scramjets need to be at like mach 3 or so to kick in, shells for these guns max at like mach 2. Of course you, like I, believe there may be a future for large bore artillery with modern or future munitions. Who knows what they could do if we tried.
@@samuelnakai1804 No, it's about mach 2.5, well within the range of these guns, they almost hit mach3 with a 1 ton projectile. So basically you can have thousands of nuclear shells with the range of hundreds of km/miles on one of these.. Make them nuclear propulsed too, so they can roam freely, and stack a bunch of phalanx on them. You can then pretty much glass a country with one ship...
@@MrZnarffy the worst thing to have…. Some day an idiot uses them and then you’re buggered mate.
I was on the USS Stein (FF-1065), and was part of a Surface Action Group with the USS New Jersey in 1989. When we left port, they were still prohibited from firing their 16" guns because of the Iowa accident. We were transiting to Korea and spent 40+ days in the north Pacific, and during that time the guns were cleared for action. We were able to watch a live fire and it's one of the most impressive things I ever saw while I was in the Navy. We were about 3-4 miles astern and just to port, and it was truly amazing. The boat simply disappeared behind the fireball from the shot. Truly a sight to behold.
Cool I was on the USS Long Beach during that same time. I remember the battleship opening up one night when I was on the fantail of our ship. We were at least as far away, but it lit up the otherwise black night sky!
Thank you for this
@@Adui13 Ahoy shipmate! I was aboard USS Long Beach CGN-9 in 3rd Division, 81 to 85! 😎👍
Michael Coomer, Trust me, you would have loved being in the gun room during a live fire.
GMG2
U.S.S. Missouri
16" 50 turret 3 center gun.
@@samuelschick8813Ryan Szimanski might want to talk to you
You know a weapon system means business when you have to sound an alarm to brace for the discharge and when the weapon fires the camera goes dark for a moment
I believe the camera 'goes dark' because of the smoke coming from the barrels.
@@Kevin_Kennelly It's from the camera's over exposure from the barrel flash. It's like facing your camera toward the sun and then to the ground real quick, it takes a couple seconds for the camera to compensate for the extreme light change and we are talking about cameras from the 1990's here
That’s just auto exposure blacking the screen out after the flash, still wouldn’t want to be within a mile of where those shells hit though
@@dancingtiger577 In the grand scheme of things, his point still holds. Those cannons put out enough fire to trigger the glare protection on the camera, something normally the sun only does.
@@finscreenname Indeed. Very primitive cameras back then. Nowadays any smartphone even from the cheapest selection would be a much better video camera. Desert Storm was such a long time ago. On the other hand, when I was recording stuff, back then, with the huge VHS video cameras of the day, they felt like the most awesome pieces of technology.
Imagine being 18 years old, in charge of a multimillion dollar weapons system and operating it at levels unheard of. Chops to all the battleship crews!
"Your loss of hearing is not service related"
I was a young Marine watching the rounds inbound. It was like God rain down hell on this positions. The ground shook 5 miles away and the sound was unreal!!!!! You actually felt sorry for the poor bastards the rounds were landing on!
It is no fun being on the receiving end of America's Big Stick.
@@1pcfred I actually do feel bad for them. The Republican guard weren't religious crazies like ISIS or Al-Queda. They were profession soldiers forced into an impossible war by their idiot dictator.
@@Elthenar They were PsOS. I was present in the briefings to hear what the republican guard was doing to the people of Kuwait. Then I saw it first hand. The way they killed people and commandeered the vehicles to escape us - US Marines. Disgusting. That why I called in air strikes on them. The fathers of Al Qaida and ISIS. No remorse. I was right there watching Old 63, Mighty Mo do her thing.
Semper Fidelis Brother. I was right down the current from Mighty MO, Old 63 watching her alongside USS Wisconsin prepping for us to go in. They create massive waves of water and wind!
@@1pcfred ...as China is about to discover!
The fact that an entire Iraqi battalion surrendered just because it saw this ship’s silhouette on the horizon off the coast of Kuwait, tells me all I need to know.
Wait for real this battleship still in service during operation desert Storm ?
@@realmatiasguerra only 2 of them did USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin the iowa did not fight because of her turret explosion and the uss new jersey was decommissioned right before the war
@@amychan811 Yes there were two in the Gulf if I remember right and they fired at targets around Kuwait City. I was a Marine tanker on the ground then.
@@ProjecthuntanFish damn what a one hell of a lifetime experience you got
@@amychan811 Yes and I have 30+ years of PTSD, nightmares and flash backs to go with it
projectiles can’t be shot down and be made as prisoner of war ... this battleship can put 90 tons of ordinance in just 5 minutes ... damn that is powerful punch !!!
Apparently it blew the top off a mountain at one point.
a shell is also Substantially cheaper than a missile.
Quite.
But somewhere under pressure we can only guess about, the decision was taken the rockets and missiles were better....
imagine this battleship can take up serious punishment ... it can withstand a couple of shots ... but when its guns are ready to fire ... I dunno if any armor of any ship in modern era can take this 16” shells ... it’s AP shell can punch through bunkers easily ... damn so much brutal power. do the math muzzle velocity, muzzle energy and shell weight to punch any target be it bunkers, ships or anything you can imagine with gun range it will obliterate it!
@@JackSparrow-wn1on The Problem is AP is designed to be used against heavily armoured ships, no modern warship has the level of armour required to arm the shells, so you likely just punch a hole clean through the ship and out the other side
Everyone's gangster until a Volkswagen beetle size shell lands on you.
That’s not the size. They weigh that. But not that big.
the weight. is not the same as the size..
Or lands anywhere NEAR you!
Yes, one tends to stop being a gangster once he is reduced to atoms.
Saw no car loaded
This footage sends chills down my spine. The Iowa class battleships were the finest, most powerful and longest serving battleships in history. I really hope to see more footage like this. Absolutely amazing.
most powerful battlehip goes to yamoto true Iowa was faster and longer but the yamoto had 18" guns while the Iowa has 16"
@@markalvarado4450 wrong, those 18" guns were far less capable and didn't pack the punch of the Iowa class 16" shells. And Iowa class battleships were far superior in weapons management. Bigger doesn't mean better
Matt B in terms of talking of just raw power the Yamato is more powerful not weapon management or anything
@@markalvarado4450 the Yamato was bigger in terms of size only, that's it. It was an inferior ship compared to the Iowa class battleships.
@@markalvarado4450 the yamatos guns didnt have the range to match, the shell velocity was ass, the shell dispersion was ass, the Japanese gun fire control was ass, even the radar they had was crap. The iowas were superior in every respect.
Imagine Battleships in their prime. Fresh out the factory. Firing salvos nonstop, literally raining hell.
Battleships were made obsolete right around the same time that the battleship, as we know it, came to be.
Causing lots of damage to shipboard systems, from glass to electric to personnel. Note they’re not firing salvoes, but single shots. On Yamato with 18 inch guns, you couldn’t be on an open deck when they fired.
ike a new car smell lol
Battleships are still useful. Just not against other vessels as over the years they started building more destroyers. Battleships were still devastating for island bombardment
Better than precision guided bomb I guess.
It’s amazing how fast they were reloading these guns and getting them ready to fire.. and on technology and engineering that was 60+ years old at that time..
Seems like it's taking a long time to me.
SOU6900 your slow. Be on the receiving end and try saying that
@SMOKEY thank you
SOU6900 this ain’t a video game
Makes me think of what a modern built battleship could be like. I get missiles are far superior in ship to ship, but they do cost a heck a lot if all your want is to bomb the hell out of a land based target.
For those wondering what the hissing sound is at around 6:41, after the gun fires the barrel is still filled with propellant gasses that could combust if they opened the breach and exposed it to oxygen. The breach has high pressure compressed air outlets that trigger after the gun fires, pushing the gasses out of the barrel. If you watch footage of the guns firing you will see those gasses being expelled after firing as a cloud of white smoke.
It's nitrogen that they blow into the barrels.
The machining that had to be done on that massive breech is impressive!
What's impressive is they were doing it 120 years ago with the pre dreadnoughts
@@Seadog..C5 For both put into search bar, 1889 naval gun breech ;)
What’s amazing is that the analog gear targeting computer and gyroscope could tell you how to aim perfectly precise. Even in 3 dimensions with moving targets. It would self fire as soon as the barrel was in the right spot as the ship was moving around in the waves. The computer was designed in the 20’s. They never broke down. They were used into the 90’s. Whole system will last many centuries.
While I agree that battleships are no longer practical thanks to aircraft carriers, no one can deny that seeing a battleship let off a full broadside is one of the most awe inspiring sights ever beheld by man.
Italian, French and German battleships were damaged and destroyed by torpedo-carrying biplanes. This is not a new idea.
i dont agree there are still place where Service is needed
Heard tell tale that in wars where these ships served after ww2, fighting morale spiked when these ships entered the area.
So not just about missiles and saving money, theres the human element too :)
I think we should keep a couple in service just because. We throw money away on far less worthy crap.
“Target line is about 210, f*ck are they shootin’ at?” 😂
Whatever the target....it no longer exists.
Saudi?
@@ericfermin8347 Iraqi, Saudi Arabia were our allies in Desert Storm.
@@budmeister What? Do you even understand what you wrote? Do you understand what a target line is? Do you know where the BB was during this engagement?
@@ericfermin8347 what’s a target line?
Man I can't imagine how much of a breeze this would be for a WW2 crew.
Well, considering the ship would have been fresh out of the shipyard it would have been easier for them.
@@Elthenar mhm
@Joseph Melcher The Iowa's never really took fire. They only fired at other ships a small handful of times and never against anything that could threaten them. Most of the Iowa class service history is shore bombardment and defending carriers from aircraft or destroyers.
In short, this is pretty much exactly what the Iowa's always did.
@Joseph Melcher I suggest you review that list of battles. Then ask yourself how many of those an Iowa class was present for. My statement was 102% accurate with a 2% margin of error.
There were actually 2 of the Iowa's fighting in the Persian Gulf, we still had all 4 in service just a few years prior. They were reactivated and reaarmed in the early 80s as a counter to the Soviet Kirov class.
@Joseph Melcher Both of those ships got sunk, so I imagine these guys would be ok with the comparison.
It's amazing to see how little the gun moves and the turret is rock-steady while it's sending a projectile that weighs as much as a Toyota to a target miles away. They really built those things well.
They could shoot a Toyota 24 miles. 2,600 feet per second. Time of flight 1 minute 30 seconds. Then remember that the Toyota is packed with high explosives. Would love to see video of those things hitting their target.
The turrets weight something like 2,200 tons, almost 4.5 million pounds each, 7in armor on the roof, 12inches on the back and I think 3 inches elsewhere, they are truly massive chuncks of steel and mass, absolute marvels of engineering.
Still amazing after many decades - still working like a clock. Can deliver an explosive freight train 20 miles away...
Unfortunately there is a lack of water in the desert or the afghan mountains ....
@@andreasmerkel5717 ...and some weapons are useless a mile underwater.
Technically, they'll reach just shy of 24miles
AP mark 8's have been thrown a little over 42,300~ yards (rated for 38,720m)
The various other specialty and HC shells have almost identical ballistics, and just about reach 41,600~ yards (38,059m)
Ive been inside Iowa's #2 16" Mount. Seriously, does not look like 60 year old tech. And they were still using the original 'fire control radar' for NGFS (naval gunfire support) and targeting systems from WW2 in 90-91... Because, honestly. There was nothing better. Any of those BB's could and did, land, shell square on target on the 2nd salvo. And usually were close enough on the first salvo to badly damage structure target and kill or injure many in the target area. 2nd shot was generally 'fatal' for intended land target.
Carriers and modern destroyers will never even come close to the awe the Iowas inspire.
Long live our battleships.
K A shits dead as disco
Loli4lyf they are not dead and are serving as museum ships.
@@ijnyamato4351 Dead things are also put in museums
Build more. Rail gun Iowas. Your dick just got hard reading that. Admit it. Teach those goddamn Chinese whose boss
SLR107FR31 in a world of supercarriers you want to build a puny Iowa class? If you’re building a railgun battleship, go all the way and do it with a Montana class battleship.
That would be me as the Rammerman @BM3 Allensworth with John Earl Shelton ⚓🇺🇸
Was the other guy getting irritated or just kidding around?
@@HATER506. Just trying to stay relaxed and calm probably. He was a Gunners Mate, but we were not his regular crew. We were Center Gun Turret 3 guys filling in for them, while they took a break to eat.
@@michaelallensworth6245 Cool. Must've been a helluva experience. I've toured the New Jersey and Massachsetts. Facinating stuff. All the best to you.
@@HATER506 Thank you. I met alot of great people and was glad to have served and gained life changing traits.
did you ever get the chance to be top side when the guns were fired? If so can you describe the concussion and or noise from the guns
The most powerful non aircraft ships ever to serve the US Navy.They were simply incredible
Unless you count nuke-armed submarines.
The Iowa class battleships were armed with nuclear shells at one point.
@@etienneracine-hebert9870 scary
Don`t they carry Cruise Missiles as well? you know for that long range punch.
@@Candid1ify Yes they did after the 1980s modernization. The nuclear tipped shells were discontinued in the 1960s because of the safety hazard they posed but also how obselite they were.
"My dad and granddad lost their hearing in this exact same station!"
"WHAAAT?"
@@trezapoioiuy mawp
for WWII standards the technology is still amazing
I showed this video to a neighbor, a very old WW2 2nd class Gunners mate , served USS Massachusetts , his comment on the loading, quote" God they're fucking slow" I have never heard this man curse in the 20 yrs I've known him lol
You can hear one of the loaders say "Slow operation," as he shakes his head and looks up towards the guy controlling the hydraulics.
Well done, graycloud057. Thank you for your kind remarks about the RN, too.
What some may not know is that the battleship was directed by a specialist British Naval Gunfire Liaison Officer, who sneaked out to the Gulf, without orders, was told to go home and went to the USN to see if he could help them. USN apparently did not have NGLOs so they took him up on his offer. On his return he received a reprimand from the Admiralty and a letter of commendation from Dick Cheney. No surprises there, then!
Ref Peter Scrafton.....Crazy how bureaucracies work...but often they do work sort of, because a few visionary souls put themselves on the firing line.
That little caress after he arms the fuse..."Go get'em, baby!"
I was thinking about switching to this caliber come rifle season
For when you want to eliminate all deer within 100 yards
A little small for squirrels isn't it. 🙄
You’ll need help shouldering the rifle.
Ammo is a bitch to purchase
@@bf1255 And people think .50 cal is expensive
They don't even MAKE 16 inch shells anymore... (I think, I haven't checked that)
Nothing and I mean nothing sounds or feels like a full broadside from the “Big Sticks”
For some reason I always expected the sound level and concussion at the breach would be a lot louder and more violent. I guess it speaks to the fact the barrel is 240,000lbs (120 tons) and is so efficient at directing that energy down range. Awesome footage though I always wanted to see this process in action during actual combat operations.
It would still be deafening irl (Over 130Db at 1 nautical mile and there is a reason nobody is ever on decks during firing operations, if you were to be on deck it could and would kill you), but yt compresses the hell out of the audio
Apparently the bore evacuator when the breech is first opened is louder than the actual firing. There’s another video where the crewman doesn’t put his hearing protection on until he’s opening the breech.
As knights of old in their shining armor and mounted on their immense battle steeds, their time has come and gone and we shall not see their like again.
1stPCFerret sad
From what I heard the military have been given the green light on a new breed of modern battle ship due to the immense amount of backlash on our destroyers being harassed and almost destroyed by local ships “accidentally” ramming them.
A new breed, the Space Force, may be built in the future.
@@t5unami195 That makes no sense, destroyers already have more than enough firepower to protect themselves from ramming. You don't need anything close to the role of a battleship to prevent rams. Just need less restrictions on the RoE.
@@proximacentauri3627 Honestly that's what I've been wondering about myself. Destroyer can easily blow those bastards out of the water themselves. But that's what the article said. th-cam.com/video/nUDpaCbfPpc/w-d-xo.html
TBH it's probably false after looking back into it.
It is a nice feeling to know you own every one and every thing for twenty miles in any direction .
Really great to see this. The last time I saw what went on in a battleship turret was in the movie "Sink the Bismarck".
I want to see the loading crew during the "temper, temper" incident on the USS Wisconsin lol
Love is in the air.... as an artilleryman for over 30 years.. I cant but feel a sort of total envy to those guys... what a system to fire
You realize that for nearly every Sailor on the ship, it was the first time they had seen and heard a big naval gun fire?
Not true... Live fire was done at least annually....
@@andreworiez8920 Every time you went out. 5 inch and 16 inch.
@@scottmoon50 live fire? Wow....
@@andreworiez8920 Shells and powder are cheap for live fire practice. What's expensive is the ship maintenance costs and crew salaries, and fuel costs.
A WAG, but I'd say it would be a rounding error in the annual cost of running the ship to have, eh, 4 live fire drills per year.
just amazing those were still in service after all those years
Truly appreciate everything you did for ALL of us Americans
6:58 are those high capacity shells with poitn detonation fuses?
The armor piercing rounds use a base fuse with a delay to allow the shell a chance to penetrate armor
My God the Iowas are beautiful machines -- and still relatively young in terms or service life.
All analog...can't be jammed or counter measured. God bless "obsolete" technology
and utterly useless without spotters, which in this instance was a drone...
If its sea targets they could use the radar alone to target and correct their shots, they had the same capability during ww2
I had the privilege of touring the Missouri earlier this year. Having seen the size of those guns one can only imagine what it was like on the receiving end of those projectiles. And there were nine of the monsters!!!
Excuse me while I throw this Volkswagen 20 miles.
Lmfao
I was amazed how the sound of the equipment dwarfed the sound of the gun.
Naval ships are loud. There is all sorts of machinery running around the clock, even tied off to the pier. What you were hearing was ventilation, hydraulics, and lord only knows what else. After being in the navy myself I literally cannot sleep if it is quiet. I have to have some level of mechanical noise to sleep, even to this day.
@@CAoffRoading Not to mention right below them is the electrical deck where the motors to train the turret and elevate the barrels is located. Those are the largest electrical motors on the ship.
@@CAoffRoading Same here. I served on CVA-64 three westpacs. Always have the fan running. zzzzzzzzzzz
@@richardpehtown2412 same here. Currently a long haul truck driver so at least have that 15 liter diesel to put me to sleep lol.
Guns sound much quieter in recordings than real life, so hard to say which is louder in person
An Aircraft Carrier is nothing without aircraft but a Battleship is a self contained hurt machine!
It's amazing how accurate these things were. You wouldn't think it from looking at them.
Indeed they were. We had a RPV ( remote drone) sending back data, camera information. The Captain had the RPV crew sending back the live camera footage and it was on the ship’s television station. You could watch the action. I remember once when only the forward two turrets were firing and we were on a break, the RPV was sending footage of some Army Iraqis that had stopped in the desert to take a piss. About the time the guy unzipped, one of the turrets fired. A few seconds later that guy never finished his piss. The whole truck and small convoy was gone.
If u think that is awesome? they can do it while moving on water, which is not the most solid of foundations, lol
@@armastat Yes, I know. That's one of the amazing things about it. You can see the barrels moving up and down to go with the roll.
graycloud057 'Merica!
@@armastat also, consider that they were originally designed to fight other ships of a similar size and strength. Shooting a moving target from a moving platform is even harder.
I love coming back to this video to hear the shells ripping their way through the air.
My pops ship. RIP dad!
The Mighty Mo in action. Love it.
I will be telling my age,when I tell your I remember seeing this on cnn,during desert storm.
You and me both! I'll be telling MY age, when I point out that if I had served in Desert Storm in 91, it would've been my final year of enlistment as a US Marine(which I almost did after high school). I passed the ASVAB scoring highest in the class I was with, a score that allowed me to choose the top job available to a non-college graduate in 1986, an air traffic controller.
But knowing myself as an 18 year old in 86, I'm pretty sure I did everyone a favor by NOT becoming an air traffic controller at that particular time! At 18, I had already worked at a machine shop for 2 years, but I was more interested in partying on Friday and Saturday nights than anything else!
Was in the litter box, we heard a Battleship was about to send greetings.
Me too! I was on my way home from work when the news on the radio station I was listening to announced the war had started. The wife and I watched CNN coverage all night after I got home... Seems like only yesterday...
@@paulfly3121 You can bet that the next 28 years will go by even faster now that you are even older! Did you happen to catch CNN's Desert storm fake news, where they were claiming to be in theater just over the Saudi border, when a chemical attack siren went off, and the reporter had to rush to install his gas mask! Turns out they actually weren't even in the middle east! They were in studio in the US, lying about their situation, and trying to make themselves look heroic.... There's still video of it on TH-cam! Nope, things have not changed much at CNN, except that they are now more partisan and more dishonest. th-cam.com/video/isMtxbPdvzg/w-d-xo.html
What are you on about? Did the simple utterance of CNN trigger you? Damn, get a life.
In 1972 I was aboard an amphibious ship in the coastal waters of 'Nam. I still don't know what the deal was, but before an evacuation the USS Iowa was shelling far inland from the shore. I had pictures of almost the entire operation, I even caught the yellow smoke plume and flash. It was cool.
You didn't see the USS Iowa or any other Battleship. In 1972 they were in mothballs slumbering away. The only one that was operating even close to that time was the USS New Jersey.
We need this ship back in service.
0:24 the beauty of the Missouri (BB-63)
That gunnersmate loading the gun looks extremely pissed off about the lack of speed in the operation
You can see him say WTF at one point
Just one of those powder bags could last me a lifetime of shooting my 50 caliber black powder.
Imagine being on the business-end of this battleship.
Incredible to think that those Iowa battleships were designed using pen and paper and a slide rule or two. No computers and they were terrorizing to the enemies back then. Probably would still give our current enemies nightmares today if it were feasible to operate them still.
The 16” guns can fire a projectile that weighs as much as a car for 20 miles
1:38 you know shits serious when you got Tony Stark as your chief
It's amazing how fast that massive equipment can move. The sheer power is incredible.
Yes sir, it is. The ship’s top speed was 30+ knots. Was one of the fastest ships afloat. We could have pulled water skiers!
@@graycloud057 33 knots she is literally faster than any destroyer in the US Navy right now
PHOENIXHDGAMING// HQ- Really? You’d think that technology would have refined fighting ships to go even faster by now. Thanks.
@@graycloud057 yep she is 3 knots faster
Those of the smiles of guys who’ve trained their entire career for that one specific task, knowing they’ll probably never get to do it in anger… getting to do it in anger.
I witnessed the USS Wisconsin fire her 16's during ODS. Made me very thankful I wasn't on the receiving end...
Rumor says he’s still, looking straight ahead.
This video really shows the difference between a 3 gun turret and a triple turret.
Every destroyer gun crew ever: They must be the C & M boys testing!
I believe this was after the Explosion in the turret on Missouri's Sister ship USS Iowa. So that could be why they are taking longer to load the guns.
Also this is Shore Bombardment so they are likely Spot firing where they watch for the rounds to hit before firing again.... Could be wrong on all of this though.
nice
"I BRING NOT THE RAYS OF THE SUN BUT THE THUNDERBOLTS FROM JUPITER!"
Fascinating. I was watching some archive gun turret footage from WW2 the other day and it was exactly the same process.
The guy operating at the breech of the gun is so frustrated by the slowness of the process. He knows they could so much more quickly without all the interference from the higherups.
The powder chute is malfunctioning.
It's not like they were pumping out armor piercing in a naval engagement. The targets they were shooting at weren't going anywhere. At least until the shell goes off. Then one chunk goes here. Another goes the other way. The Wisconsin off Korea took out a T-34with a direct hit with a 16" inch shell. One hell of an Anti-tank gun.
mpetersen6 True, plus it’s not like she didn’t have six more of those guns to use.
You want your junior enlisted people like that. Champing at the bit. Furiously frustrated to get engaged into the battle. That's exactly the temperament you want
@@deepdive529 Pushing the limits of the procedure caused the Iowa explosion, although most of it was by people who should have known better.
Imagine that...a white Gunner sitting next to a black Gunner fighting on behalf of the red white n blue. Yeah our past isn't without blemmish but our service men and women show us we are better than what we are
For your all info the ship is bb63 aka USS Missouri
I rememeber when they recommissioned the New Jersey and Iowa. I was stationed in San Diego and volunteered to servie on either one. They were taking back Seaman (E3s) who were in their 50's to man some of the rates on the ship.
My brother was stationed on USS Missouri during the first Gulf War
Now with self propelled shells that can now travel almost 80 miles it’s time to bring back these ships. Shells are cheaper than cruise missiles and cheaper than sending a drone or sending a pilot.
Too expensive to crew was one of the reasons.
@@staleysnook8793 Yeah... Millions a day just to keep it crewed, not to mention constant overhauls.... Missiles are expensive, but they don't need 2000 personnel always on duty...
Current 'boosted' shells are at max 155mm. Current Naval guns don't have boosted shells. Rocket propellant compounds the risk of explosion/fire. That is why the electromagnetic rail guns are being researched. No propellant nor explosive warheads make Naval ships safer when not in action.
Cruise missiles give a range edge over boosted shells anyway, by far. Even with max range rail gun shots, cruise missiles will have at least a 300 mile advantage. The next big leap is hypersonic cruise missiles. The hypersonic test vehicles we've had for some time has given us much info into that realm of flight, hell, the X-15 from the 60s gave us tons of data on the lower end of hypersonic.
Those boosted shells aren't that cheap either.
Horses were cheaper then cars.
what do they use for a primer??
is it fixed in the "bolt"?
It's a brass cartridge, like a blank for a rifle. A new one is put in the breech block each time before the gun is fired. You don't see it in this video because the primer guy is on the deck underneath.
I can only imagine how quick they would be going with say the Bismarck firing right back at them
There is nothing like an American battleship!!!
Incredible fire power!!!
unless its japanese with even bigger guns ;)
Just to think there grandfather could have been serving on the same ship they did.
Thought only the USS Wisconsin joined the desert storm... it’s quite fascinating to see the real footage.
The Missouri was there too
I was able to watch both Wisconsin and Missouri firing. I was in USS Nassau (LHA 4) just over the horizon from them. At night even single guns would light up the sky.
USS Missouri USS Wisconsin USS Iowa Desert Storm
This is the USS Wisconsin I believe it was 63
@@derekrock3563 Iowa was not in Desert Storm. Only Missouri and Wisconsin. Iowa was already decommissioned due to her damage from the turret explosion and New Jersey was actually being decommissioned while Missouri and Wisconsin was in the Persian Gulf firing on Iraqi targets.
Have been lucky enough to be on board all the remaining BBs left in the world. Even the Mikasa in Japan. They are all quite amazing. Nice that so many have been preserved. Too many went for scrap.
It's madness that both the Royal Navy and US Navy gave up their battleships. Even when not used in anger, their presence is enough to send a message for their enemy to think twice about starting shit.
Nahhh... The super-rich and corporations don't pay enough of their fair share of taxes for the Navy to afford any Battleships.
Imagin a modern one of these with guided shells and rail guns. Bring back the battle ship class
Imagine a billion dollar upgrade to make it fully automatic with an insane ROF and guided munitions.
It's not that loud inside, that surprises me the most.
Surprising right, I've always wondered that
Well you gotta remember that they're behind like 12 inches (30cm) of armoured turret.
Keep in mind however that a video will never do it justice
Go visit one of the Iowas. Trust me, you'll feel invincible inside one of those turrets.
@@randomlyentertaining8287 except that incident happened on turret 2
Curious as to why you guys never adopted flash hoods and gloves. But aside that, what a fascinating glimpse into the past.
You only seem to see the Royal Navy and Australian navy in the anti flash gear. Even in the 2ww the american crew's didnt wear it. Lifes cheap in the US Navy I guess. Theyll learn when the Chinese unleash a hail of missiles on their ships in the coming war.. I'd say the anti flash gear saved lives on the RN ships that the Argentines hit with Exocets and set on fire.
@@andersonsroad5161 If you aren't being directly exposed to fire, you don't need it. Structural firefighters don't wear flash hoods if they aren't doing interior work because it's unnecessary. If you are exposed to direct fire, a flash hood isn't going to do much without turnout gear to protect the rest of your body.
Those men were doing what their grandfathers might have done and in the same place!
But would it make a good deer gun or squirrel rifle?
There's a book called "Castles Of Steel" about the dreadnoughts and battle cruisers of WW1. It is an excellent read. Gives all the in's and out's about Battleships. I know this is a WW2 battleship here but the WW1 Dreadnoughts were just as deadly. And while they are in Battleship against Battleship fights they have the colliers in the bottom of the ship shoveling in coal as fast as possible to keep the steam up. If you get a chance it is a good book.
Who wrote the book?
@@redbay8527 Robert K Massie was the author. I never was really interested in WW1 until I read this book. The largest navel fleet in the world was the British Fleet. But the German Imperial Fleet was second biggest during WW1. Germany didn't have much of a navy in WW2 except for a couple of battleships and the U boats. but in WW1 the German fleet was substantial. It was huge and could give the Brits a run for its money but the Kaiser never wanted to use it. He wanted it to remain a "Fleet in Being". A young Churchill was First Lord Of The Admiralty. The two major surface battles between the British and the Germans was the Battle of Jutland and the Battle Of Dogger Bank. Dreadnoughts and heavy Battle Cruisers duking it out while destroyers were running in for torpedo attacks. Its a really good read. 800 pages.
@@redbay8527 Nice Cobra by the way. I subscribed
Thanks for the info. Amazon has that book, but by the description it sounds like a political book. I'm going to order it right now.@@museumjunkie9317 I collect WWII ordnance and occasionally run across WWI Naval ordnance. What really impresses me about Navy equipment is the superior quality designed and built into it. It's far better than any other services, I've heard, because the Navy equipment is out to sea and cannot readily utilize standard repair facilities. It HAS to keep functioning properly in order to survive. The projectiles are works of art that are rendered after many machining operations, heat treatments, painting(there are many colors representing the type charge, and labelling. I have a pretty good collection of .50 cal, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 3"50 cal, 5"38 cal and 6"47 cal. The greatest challenges are accurately painting the projectile, and polishing the brass. The 6" MKIV 47 cal empty brass alone weights 36 lbs, and is about 43 inches long so it is very difficult for an old man like me to apply the brass to polishing equipment and it is a slow process. Most collectors like to keep the ammo in the condition it which it was found, believing that it is more authentic in that condition, and they are probably correct. I like mine to look brand new, freshly delivered from the manufacturer. I collect a lot of things and I like ALL of it to look new, not dirty or scratched. And any purchase I make is closely inspected.to insure that it is not live. A friend of mine lived in a house where his father had brought home a mortar shell from WWII. One fateful day my friend's two young sons were playing with the shell and it exploded, tragically killing both children. Jack never recovered from the incident and was deeply affected by it all of his life. Well, thanks for the book info, I appreciate it.
Petition to get rid of subs and carriers and bring back the almighty battleship😂
Its more VLS equipped Destroyers and Frigates that replaced it :P
@@TheBloodypete yeah but missles are boring. Big guns and thicc ships are better
Petition to bring torps back to destroyers.
But missles and subs are still a threat
You think we don’t know that? Besides, a good battleship can take a missile or two while just a good lil’ knock on a destroyer sends it to the sea floor.
🇺🇸 delivering liberty with overwhelming fire superiority.
I think it it is delivering explosives with overwhelming fire superiority, hopefully leading to liberty, or even better lives.
Does anybody have any links to land impacts of the 16 inch shells? I have looked all over and can not find any except a few water splashes
I'd also liek to see impact holes from various shells and rockets and especially a salvo of Katyusha's.
@@rosewhite--- I've heard a 16" shell puts a crater on the ground about the size of a football field.
Check the old WW2 footage lol
Freaking Awesome! Love the Battle Wagon's. Never saw one fire it guns. Was on a Destroyer DD878. Biggest i ever saw was 5"/38" from our twin turrets.
texascclp1445 - Hey buddy, battleship is king, but those 5"38cal are awesome in their own right and I'm proud of you for being there. I was Army myself, but collect WWII Naval ordnance and I have a 5" projectile and matching 5" Mark 5 38 cal brass(yes, BRASS} with a Navy anchor dated 3 1945. The projectile weights 53 pounds and is a precision piece of machining. All the WWII Naval Ordnance is highly collectable and EXPENSIVE. A 6"47 brass goes for over $800.
Getting to serve on one of the battleships in modern times must have been a real honor and coveted position, I imagine the battleship guys get to brag to the destroyer crews about getting to actually fire salvos and pound targets rather than occasionally launching a tomahawk, which the battleship could also do.
I'm surprised at how well the gunpowder residual smoke is vacuumed away from the crew. Pretty impressive system.
TH-cam informs me that is the small puff of white smoke you see after each shot at the beginning of this video.
A shot of compressed air is used after the shell is fired to clear the barrel of anything, as the other comment is referring to.
During DESERT STORM, We had the USS Wisconsin on call for fire support, Its one hell of a feeling when you go into battle, Knowing you got a battleship on call for fire support.
Fun Fact - The Iowa class 16/50 guns had a barrel life of 290 AP rounds.
I heard no Barrell was ever replaced due to wear, some spares were used to make bunker busters bombs, and that we couldn’t make more if wanted to cause no industrial capability left to make one
Its like lighting up the Death Star! Hell yes!!
My uncle was on a battleship I was on the land I remember this day 🇺🇸
Which ship was it? and were they actually firing at a target?