There were only four Iowa class. Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The USS Nevada was NOT an Iowa class. The Nevada could only make 21 knots and was a US Standard, not a fast battleship like the Iowas.
Illinois and Kentucky were planned Iowa class but not completed, Navada, BB-36 was laid down 1912. interestingly, Kentucky's bow is attached to Wisconsin due to a little sea crash.
You beat me to it. Nevada (BB 36) was one of the earliest "Standard" type battleships, launched 11 July 1914. Her designed top speed was around 21 knots but she only achieved 20.5 knots.
@@robertf3479 And he forgot the fifth ship in the KGV class. You'd think these Drach wannabes could at least stand to get the basics right, but you'd be wrong.
@@stevebloom5606 Drach doesn't know everything he could though. He should read a bit more about naval gunnery pertaining to battleships vs battleship engagements particularly in the WWI era I reckon. Like a nobody punter like me, just from reading an old book that cost $5 and written by a RN naval gunnery expert, knows more than Drach. 1 book. Sometimes you can't get through to experts and he is an expert - I'll give him that but it is annoying since you get fobbed off, dismissed, ignored and sometimes told you're wrong.
The Hood was classed as a battlecruiser. I've always heard that the difference between a battlecruiser and a battleship was that a battlecruiser had battleship armaments but a cruiser's armor, which reduced weight to make the ship faster and more maneuverable. I could be wrong, though.
You're right. Or, in case of the german battlecruisers reducing the calibre to gain speed. And the Iowas are designed after the same idea as the Hood - only 12 inch armour both, but over 30 knots. 14 inch were battleship standard at this time.
yes, correct-the "Mighty Hood" was always meant to have improved deck armour fitted in the inter war years, but she toured around the world in the inter-war years and the work was never carried out-with consequences for the fatal encounter with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.
@@Dackah Though even thicker deck armour may not have prevented what happened, as I think the conclusion was that it was the RN's obsession with rate-of-fire versus magazine safety procedures which were the root of the problem.
@@dogsbodyish8403 The armour skimping dates back to jacky Fishers obsession with speed and the large light cruisers which were built, the ships that followed in the Glorious, Furious etc and of course HMS Hood. To give range the ships were built with lower armour scantlings as the lower overall weight meant that the cruising range was extended without having to compromise on draught and fuel capacity. Sadly the poor armour thickness especially on the deck meant that the ships were vulnerable to plunging fire as shown by HMS Hood
The British battle-cruisers did indeed have great speed achieved by reduced deck Armour but they also had more powerful longer range guns. The idea was to have them firing out of range of battleships. They were also to dominate enemy cruisers. -The German Scharnhorst class were not battle cruisers. There was no such concept in the Germany Navy. The Scharnhorst had exceptional side armour (more than bismarck) but its deck armour was more evenly distributed over a greater area than the latter Washington and London Naval Treaty ships tended to "all or nothing' armour" where they idea was to have extremely thick armour over the most critical areas but thin over less critical ones. The Scharnhorst Class like Bismark Class had a a thick armour belt to just above the water line with a 'tortoise shell' on top of that. Above that was another Armour deck designed to deflect shallow shells but also to decap, defuse and tumble so that they would have reduce penetration. -The German Battleships were not designed to fight at a distance. They did deliberately have long range guns to fight at a distance if needed but were optimized to win a fight at below about 16000 yards. Their purpose was raiding of convoys and hit and run. The Germans were the first to have a fire control radar (Seetakt in 1938) and their H-39 battleships started thickening deck armour. -Americans who compare the Iowa Class with Bismark Class should consider that the proper comparison is Carolina Class with Bismark Class. The H-39 were laid down at the same time as Iowa but after 2000 and 4000 tons of keel was down were scrapped to build u-boat. -The H class had diesel engines and although they could do 30.5 knots (good speed but slower than Iowa) their diesels gave them an incredible range of about 18000 nautical miles at 24 knots so they would be hard to catch just on that basis.
You also forgot the 5th KGV ship HMS Howe. Nevada? Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Missouri were the ships of the Iowa class with the futher two Kentucky and Illinois which were never completed. Nevada and her sister Oklahoma were laid down in 1914.
The New Jersey was operational during the Vietnam war. She stood offshore and shelled enemy assets with her massive 16" main batteries and her secondary 5" guns. Its such a pity that the Navy no longer sees a role for these magnificent Iowa class ships. Heavily armored, fast, and formidable gun platforms.
@@billalumni7760 They did lead battle groups...that was the whole point of the 80's reactivations. The Navy would have preferred Nimitz CVs, but with ten year lead times, the time frame was bad. Lehman pointed out that the Iowas had at least 20 years of life left on their hulls, armor meant to resist 16" shells (and wasn't afraid of a 600 lb warhead on an antiship missile), and the first could be out of the gate and running in under a year. Finally, they added a long range shore bombardment option to the fleet (the 16" could have been RAP'ed, fired shells with rocket-assistance, giving them a range of 90+ miles... never ever built but I was a Gunners mate and we were taught about them. 5" RAPS were used in Vietnam). Center the BBs in the middle of an amphibious group and you have a surface action group that can beat anything in the world, especially a Kirov battle group, pounding the crap out of any coastal area on the planet. Unfortunately, the Iowas were in surprising bad shape, never properly repaired, and NO spare parts available, and sucked massive resources (they actually had to recall some reservists to train the crew). I think Wisconsin took almost 8 years to be reactivated at almost a billion dollars...only to be stricken a few years later.
@@scottwatts3879 Had not even thought about putting them into the middle of an amphibious group. With the amphibious assault carrier it would have all the air support needed. Too bad it never happened.
There were five King George V. King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Howe, and Anson. There were only four Iowas. The USS Nevada was the lead ship of her own class, commissioned in 1916, with a top speed of 21 knots. Also the Italian Littorio battle ships had a recorded speed of 31.4 knots. Errors that big might lead on to question the rest of the video.
Read awhile ago when the New Jersey was traveling from the west coast to her final resting p!ace in Camden NJ and high in the water due to no 5 & 16" shells, powder bags & very small crew she broke the speed record. She was the last battleship to travel thru the Panama Canal before it was turned over to Panama believe in 2000. Brilliant young man Ryan S has made well over 500 u tube vidios on the NJ. battleship. Guys a walking enclopidia on the Iowa class battleships.
I loved the video he did last summer (I think) on how a sailor's uniform was designed to help keep him afloat if he had the misfortune to end up in the water.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Finally, the Italians never crossed my mind. Might have to be a follow-up video.
In fact, the Richelieu was a little faster than the Hood, and much more armoured. The most recent battleships were of course superior to the olders ...
Two things: The King George V-class battleships were a class of 5 battleships, not 4. HMS King George V, HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Duke of York, HMS Anson and HMS Howe. Also, for the Iowa-class, there was no USS Nevada in that class. While there were 6 ships in total in the class (2 were scraped in the late 50's before being completed), none of them were named Nevada. The only USS Nevada that come to mind is the lead ship of the Nevada-class that was commissioned back in 1914, USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma. The first line of American Standard-type battleships that would become the centerpiece of the US Navy for the next 25 plus years.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Might have to be a follow-up video.
HMS Hood was was definitely the fastest british battleship. And i know people are going to say that it wasn't a battleship, it was a battlecruiser, but it had armor equal to the Queen Elizabeth class, but instead of having 13 inch slab sided plate Hood had 12 inch inclined armor plate increasing the equivalent thickness, they had the same 3 inch deck Hood's barrettes were 2 inches thicker and Hoods turret face plates were 2 inches thicker. Therefore many naval historians have argued that Hood was the first actual fast battleship. Originally the Brits considered any ship over 26 knots to be a battlecruiser. When building the KGV class they were called battlecruisers to begin with until logic prevailed, and HMS Vanguard was called a fully armored battlecruiser when it was obviously a fast battleship.
It must be remembered that the Iowas were extremely wet ships as was the Hood aft at high speed. Nimitz pointed this out on numerous occasions. The most stable gun platform was the vanguard with her flared bow. It must be remembered however that in any battleship vs battleship engagement if you lose your radar and radar directed firing it's virtually game over.
There were six Iowa Class in design. I am brushing some 50 years of study to say that "Kentucky", but memory is an issue for me. One thing for sure, the Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, or Missouri had to have its bow replaced after a collision. Nevada, Kentucky or whatever, were scrapped, but not before the bow was used as a replacement on the damaged hull.
The Nevada was not an Iowa class ship, it was pre-war. There was intended to be a 5th Iowa class ship that was started but not completed. When the Wisconsin damaged her bow it was repaired with the bow from the 5th ship, making the Wisconsin about 6” longer than the other Iowa Class ships.
Yamato and Musashi ended up being oilers for other IJN ships during most of WWII. Other than trying to oppose US amphibious landings (too) late in WWII, they ended up having no strategic value. So much for speed. Monday morning quarterbacks (historians) can plausibly argue that Japan should have built more aircraft carriers and trained more naval air crews with the resources wasted on these dinosaurs. Yes, there were serious shore bombardments and naval rifle battles during the Guadalcanal Campaign but that phase of the war was strategically decided by boots on the ground, air power, and supply logistics. More destroyers and submarines would also have been another option for the IJN. US fast battleships could keep up with the US Essex class carriers and provide lethal anti-aircraft coverage. Here speed was critical. WWI's USS Texas, even at a pokey 21 knots, provided effective shore bombardment with its 14" shells on D-Day and elsewhere. Speed was not so critical but overwhelming naval vessel numbers and guns, air superiority, surprise, and courageous infantry engagements on beach sand were decisive.
They were on wrong place on the wrong time. I think that everybody who loves Battleships would love to see a real engagement between the Yamato and Musashi and the Us Battleships. Would be something of epic proportions.
@@jpmtlhead39 Jutland was the Pickett's Charge WWI event for lines of battleships and battle cruisers. The sinking of a single ship on either side could mean the death of 1000 sailors. At the end, Germany retreated back to its bases with their capital ships and waged naval warfare thereafter primarily with U-boats. Battleship-to-battleship engagements were rare and tactical in WWII; carrier-on-carrier engagements were usually strategic in their outcomes. Yes, the Rodney and the King George V battered the Bismarck at the end but it was the Ark Royal's clunky Swordfish biplanes that disabled and doomed her. Battleships are a chapter in the imaginary military manual titled "Don't Refight the Last War." Everything is part of an "over the horizon, fire and forget" weapon system now. Nimitz never wanted a naval rifle shootout as a goal in the Pacific war. He was all about grabbing island real estate, building airstrips, and bypassing Japanese garrisons using massed air power.
@@bagoquarks Forgot to mention the last throw of the dice for the Scharnhorst vs HMS Duke of York and as for the Musashi and the Yamato ironically the Japanese obsession with naval aviation had rendered those two useless the moment after Pearl Harbour and left the IJN with two white elephants that they could not afford to crew or use effectively. The issue for the Japanese was simple, they never streamlined their aviation training programme to promote the training of aircrew in large numbers and also lost the cream of their crews in not rotating the experienced ones into a training command thus attrition denied them their best assets in mid 1942 at Midway. Had they managed to utilise their crews more efficiently then they would not have needed to resort to the Divine Wind tactics later in 1944-1945, one can also argue that the failure to had a seperate air force always left the army's aviation assets as a stand alone force that rarely co operated with their naval counter parts until the later stages of the war forced that.
First of all the Nevada is not an Iowa class battleship. Regarding the USS, New Jersey’s record breaking run my father was on the ship when it achieved that speed. He was a Mustang LDO Lieutenant, and was the admin/personnel officer during the Vietnam deployment.
No, let's not mention the Hood? It was laid down in 1916. Why it was the nation's darling as an old poorly armoured heavy cruiser which was being up armoured the day it sank I have no idea. All I do know is that a good friend was transferred from it days before it sank.
HMS Hood was a battle cruiser: one of the parameters that distinguish a battleship than a battle cruiser is that the armour must be able to resist a hit from guns the same caliber as those mounted on the ship, and Hood's armour sadly couldn’t
Thanks for watching the video. Definitely appreciate the explanation of what makes a battleship and what constitutes a battlecruiser. Should've included that in the video.
In which event, Bismarck and Tirpitz were battlecruisers because they were less well armoured than the Scharnhorst class. Hood was built as a fast battleship and was armoured on the same scale as the Queen Elizabeths.
HMS Hood's armor was not only equal to her 15"/42 guns, it was equivalent to the armor on the Queen Elizabeth class battleships through the use of inclination to increase its capability. She was a battleship in every way, but the Royal Navy categorized her as a battlecruiser because their definition was simple - any capital ship capable of speeds above 25 knots. However, by your definition... The Iowa class ships' armor was proofed against the North Carolina and South Dakota class' 16"/45 guns, but not against the 16"/50 guns developed for the Iowas. By your definition, they're battlecruisers.
Hood was a battle cruiser but only propaganda made her into a Battleship. Hood’s Armor on the side was strong to withstand hits, however it was her decks that had the thinnest Armor and it was shells from Bismarck that plunged from above that penetrated her decks and hit her ammunition stores resulting in the explosion that destroyed her. The Captain of the Hood knew this weakness and steered his ship towards Bismarck to eliminate such plunging fire but he was too late.
Sure, let's forget 2 British battleships and add a dreadnought to the Iowa class that was so slow, that it didn't even operate alongside the carriers like all US Navy battleships build before the hiatus during the Washington Naval Treaty. Kentucky or Illinois would be somewhat understandable, considering they were never finished versions of the class with improvements like all welding instead of riveting, reducing weight but Nevada? Why not add USS Constitution into the mix
Nevada?!?!?!? Ahem... Nevada and her sister Oklahoma were 'Standard' Battleships built prior to and during WWI that topped out at around 23 knots. Nevada was NOT an Iowa class battleship. I think I just heard both Drachinifel and Ryan Syzmanski screaming... in pained harmony
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Finally, the Italians never crossed my mind, either. Might have to be a follow-up video.
The earlier U.S. battleships North Carolina and South Dakota were no slouches either. I don't remember that much off the top of my head but I know were FAST.
Wisconsin set some kind of speed record trying to get to the Persian Gulf. Probably not pure speed but miles covered or something. Just another piece of info 😁
@@HistoryX It was in a documentary I watched on TH-cam. I’ll let you know what the name of it is if I find it. I LOVE battleships and really want to see the Jersey or Wisconsin something very soon because they’re closest to me on the east coast.
Very interesting but there is no need or the definite article the before Royal navy ships. They are Simpy HMS (name). The letters stand for His Majesties ship, a 'the' is not used.
The USS Nevada is not a part of the Iowa class of battleships. She was the lead ship of the Nevada class and the only other ship in her class was the USS Oklahoma.
No. The Littorio class in trials could manage 30.4 to 30.5 knots. They only had 128,000 shp. The similar sized Richelieu class had 155,000 shp and were faster.
Nice Report there on the Comparisons . But there's an Awful lot of Conjecture on the Ship's Actual Dimension's of Which Class they belonged to, and Battle Cruisers are a Smaller Class of Ship's ⚓⚓ with Heavy Enough Guns & Tonnage Overall to be Described or Listed as Battleship's. But Really they were in a Classification of Thier Own. Thus when Opposing Forces we're putting Convoy Escort's together. The task was So difficult or almost impossible too Do? Because of the Limited No's of Escorting Vessel's that could Handle Thier Capabilities Admirable. Great Video 📷📸 & Interesting Storyline. Thank You.
HMS Hood though classed as a battlecruiser due to its Tonnage and Armour belt i think anything that has 8 X 15" guns in WW2 can be classed as a Battleship at the end of a day
I think Hood was originally meant to be a true battlecruiser but the lessons from Jutland, besides the poor ammunition stowage, handling and placement, were taken to heart and battleship caliber armor was worked into the design that was eventually launched as HMS Hood.. The deck armor of 1919-1920 era was a bit thin of course, but I am not sure if another 2 or 3 inches of deck armor would have saved her from the hit that destroyed her.
Nevada is not Iowa..class older ship. I served on the New Jersey 1980s.. Also if the war continued, there could've been two more Iowa class Battleships
If HMS Hood was a Battleship then it wasn't a very well designed one, gone in less than 10 minutes. I cant think of many other examples of that kind of failure without referencing Jutland with HMS Invincible, HMS Queen Mary and HMS Indefatigable all meeting similar fates. I think the battle cruiser concept was a good idea until it was tested in battle.
The French destroyer Le Terrible Max speed 45.03 knots and 42.9 knots for 8 hours I knew a ex sailor they was on the HMS Braham in the Med going at full pace only 23 knots and the Le Terrible left it behind like it was standing still He said the Plume of water being thrown back was a sight to behold
With battleship firepower, battleship armour but 7-8 knots faster than her battleship cohort. What exactly was "cruiser" about Hood apart from the nomenclature that the British admiralty assigned to her BEFORE her "on the slipway" uparmouring?
History X, for a supposed history channel to foul up the well-known fact that there were only four Iowa-class battleships built (there was no Iowa-class battleship named "Navada" planned or constructed) really stinks of faulty research & proof-reading. Yes, two other Iowa-class battleships were planned - the planned USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66) - but these were never completed. As an aside, the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) was involved in a collision at sea with the destroyer, USS Eaton, on May 6, 1956, which damaged her bow. The 120-ton bow of the under-construction USS Kentucky was used to repair her, hence the Wisconsin having the nickname, "USS WisKy".
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made on this one. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Finally, the Italian battleships never crossed my mind, either. Might have to be a follow-up video.
@@HistoryX, given the quantity of errors, it may be wiser to pull this video down and replace it with a corrected/more complete version. As a former manager once told me’ “It takes ten ‘atta-boys’ to correct one ‘aw-crap’”. I wouldn’t want this video to be the first impression to someone unfamiliar with your other good works. Carry on! 🫡
They tested at 30.4-30.5 knots during trials. Littorio class only had 128,000 shp compared to the 212,000 shp of an Iowa Class, although the Littorios were a good 10,000 tons lighter than an Iowa Class.
HMS Howe, you forgot HMS Howe....... King George V Class-- HMS King George V Laid Down January 1937 HMS Prince Of Wales " " January 1937 HMS Duke Of York (ex Anson) " " May 1937 HMS Howe (ex Beatty) " " June 1937 HMS Anson (ex Jellicoe) " " July 1937 From "British, Soviet, French and Dutch Battleships" By William H.Garzke Jr, Roberto O. Dunlin Jr, Thomas H. Webb. 1980
Tsk, tsk. USS Nevada in Iowa Class? No HMS Vanguard? Kongo Class was faster than Yamato Class for the Japanese…although they too were considered battlecruisers by their original design, despite their battleship classification by the Japanese after reconstruction. No mention of the Littorio Class.
No mention of one of prettiest BB's, Roma, 1 of the 3 Littorio class, 45,000 tons with 9 x15 in, top speed 30kn; or the 4 S Dakota class, 45,000 tons with 9 x 16in, top speed 27.5kn, or 2 N Carolina class, 45,000 tons with 9 x 16in, top speed 27.5kn. Or 2 Nagato class, 39,000 tons with 8 x 16.1 in, top speed 26.kn........ all but Nagato superior ships to the QE or even newer KG class. Hood, like smaller British Battle Cruisers Renown and Repulse definitely not BBs, and Scharnhorst and her sister certainly not BBs either!!! While the Hood had the BB guns it didn't have the BB armor and Scharnhorst had the BB armor but not the BB guns. Why even mention these ships while omitting aforementioned???? Should have included the 5 Revenge class built after the 5 QE class BBs - but cheaper/smaller/slower (21kn) 3 more being cancelled / replaced with 2 more expensive/bigger/faster (32kn) BC's Renown and Repulse recognizing more need for speed.
Thanks for watching the video. Yes, you definitely got me there. Big mistake not mentioning the Howe in the list of King George V class. Thanks for the comment.
I think we are getting bogged down over a few knots. We are forgetting that we are talking about a small town travelling at these speeds. Mind blowing!!
It's to keep up to the Carrier, cruisers, and destroyers........the Battleship's speed would have been the limiting factor for the Battle group, the faster the battleship, the faster the entire group can travel.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course the Italians never crossed my mind. Might have to be a follow-up video.
HMS Hood was a battlecruiser. NO question about it. Not a matter for debate. Plus the USS Nevada was not an Iowa class BB. She was at Pearl Harbor where she distinguished herself. Pretty sloppy work on your part
Complete BS. Hood carried battleship firepower in battleship armour, and was 7-8 knots faster than all her 1920 battleship cohort. Hood had the same degree of armour that was carried by the RN Queen Elizabeth battleships that fought toe to toe with the enemy through WW1 & WW2. Bismarck belt armour = 12.6 inches Hood belt armour = 12 inches (Though angled so as to give 13 inches of protection). Bismarck deck armour = 4 inches Hood deck armour = 3 inches
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 You clearly know nothing about the period of which you write. You need to find a biography of Jackie Fisher and that would explain it for you.
@@joebutterman3084 A blustering bullshitter with nothing to support his incorrect assertion but a generalised smoke screen. Do some reading yourself lad. Go compare Hood to the Queen Mary / Indefatigables / Lions and even the Renown class .... THEN realise what shite you're talking.
any battleship completed after Dec 7, 1941 was obsolete when floated. Huge waste of time and money. The British at Taranto ad Japanese at Pearl Harbor proved that armament that didn't have wings was not competitive.
Two things: The British KG5 class also had a fifth ship named HMS Howe. I didn't hear that one mentioned. Also, the USS Nevada was not a ship of the Iowa class. Nevertheless, an interesting video.
There's a story of a British fast mine layer with a top speed somewhere in the 40's (knots). She was part of an international task force after the war, and already quite old. So the Yank admiral sends her a signal to where she was tooling around at the bag of the task force in words and intentions to the effect "Make your best speed and we''ll seeya in the harbour because you're old and we're not waiting" and the Brit answers "Okey dokey", drops a gear and accelerates through the fleet and gets to harbour hours before the rest. Hooray for old ships!
@@marsmars9130 No ... there were LP and HP turbines but they wore out with time, 5 years. There were various boilers, Thornycroft and Johnson and Parsons, I mean yeah, they were made to be broken like toy soldiers, they didn't need to last. War wouldn't last as long, boat is sunk, crews lost.
The fastes british battleship was not the HMS Anson, but the HMS Vanguard. In July 1946, she reached a speed of 31.57 knots. However, she missed the WW2. Laid down 2 October 1941, she was commissioned at 12 May 1946.
@@brianjob3018 If any of them, I'd rather have seen one of the Queen Elizabeth's saved, they all served with absolute distinction. Or for that matter, Rodney or Nelson.
There is the chase of the Japanese destroyer Nowaki out of Truk. A fleet of American gunships, including the Iowa and New Jersey, chased the Nowaki at speeds more than 30 knots while firing their forward cannons. The Nowaki was forced to zig zag to avoid the 16 inch shells splashing the water all around her. The Nowaki could do 35 knots in a straight line and slowly open the distance from the chasing American battleships, but if she tried that, she would have been nailed. After an hour of this chase, Admiral Spruance ordered the chase broken off. I think this was Class A psychological warfare! Let one Japanese ship escape who would have to report to his fleet command that the Americans have full sized battleships that can keep up with destroyers.
Actually, that incident made things BETTER for the Japanese, because the original plan was to launch an airstrike to sink all the remaining Japanese ships. But the airstrike was called off just so the Iowas could say they got to sink an already-sinking training ship and two damaged destroyers (which nowhere near justifies the expenditure of building a new battleship, let alone two), which directly led to Nowaki escaping when she’d have been sunk (and the Americans did NOT intentionally let her go as “psychological warfare”, she just plain got away). In short, the Iowas *directly reduced enemy losses by being present at Truk.* Spruance fucked up there.
@@bkjeong4302 No doubt the airstrike could have sunk the Nowaki. But anti-aircraft guns on the Nowaki and the damaged ships could have shot down several American birds so there is that consideration. I don't believe there were any American casualties on the battleships during the Nowaki chase and the other Japanese ships trying to escape Truk were sunk. Did the survival of the Nowaki, with splinter damage and a crew of PTSD cases, reporting what they went through to Admiral Toyoda, the guy who took over for Yamamoto, actually help the Japanese cause? The Nowaki now graces the sea bottom near Leyte Gulf. Classic psychological war technique is to beat the crap out of the enemy forces but to let one go, even if that requires releasing a POW. As for the 4 Iowas, we got our money's worth out of them by blasting the Japanese held islands to support the island hopping campaign and to add to the misery of those Japanese stuck on the bypassed islands. The New Jersey spent the last few months of the war being overhauled in Bremerton because she just plain wore out her cannons. If we're replacing and relining the big cannons on a battleship we are getting our money's worth. It's primary purpose is to be a giant self propelled artillery battery.
@@RogerWKnight The survival of a destroyer for another few months did help the Japanese cause, since Japan was running out of destroyers at this point and every single surviving one helped. No, the US didn’t get its money’s worth out of the Iowas, and had people known that the Iowas would end up being the world’s most gigantic and expensive CLAAs and shore bombardment platforms, they wouldn’t have been built. A battleship’s purpose is to fight enemy capital ships to gain sea control, NOT to serve as a shore bombardment platform. The US already had plenty of aircraft carriers that could do that job better than any battleships could, plenty of pre-existing old Standards to do shore bombardment with and plenty of cruisers and destroyers to use as AA escorts: the Iowas were completely pointless and wasteful regardless of what they ended up doing. And stop subscribing to the ridiculous idea that Spruance intentionally let Nowaki go as a form of psychological warfare.
@@steffenjonda8283 The point the Iowas made things better for the Japanese by being there and that we shouldn’t play up their involvement at Truk as an achievement?
One has to wonder how fast the Illinois and Kentucky would have been had they been completed. They were the 5th and 6th Iowa Class that would have been all wielded construction and a few hundred tons lighter. First 4 Iowa's were both Wielded and Riveted.
Our helo detachment cruised with USS Sacramento during a RIMPAC exercise. She had two shafts powered by half of the power plant taken from the incomplete USS Kentucky. Despite her 54,000 ton full load displacement, only slightly less than an Iowa Class, Sacramento had a published top speed of 30 knots but in actual service she was known to outrun many steam powered destroyers. Half the power of an Iowa, nearly the same displacement and nearly the same speed as an Iowa class. The Sacrementos were fantastic ships that gave the US Navy decades of trouble free service. The Sacramento was the only steam powered ship I have deployed on that never suffered a major casualty and went dead in the water. Every other steam powered ship I deployed on went dead in the water with boiler problems at least once, and sometimes more often (USS Kiska, what a pile !)
"Black Dragon" FTW. A plausible explanation for why New Jersey was the fastest Iowa-class is the circumstances of her 35.2 knot speed run. The only Iowa-class to be deployed during the VietNam era, Big J had just come out of the reserve fleet and pre-deployment refit, so mechanical systems were at their peak. She had lost most of her WW2-era light and medium anti-aircraft emplacements, along with the substantial manpower and ammunition needed to serve these weapons, but had not gained the missiles, Seawiz, and radar that would be deployed to all of the Iowas in the '80s. And, by construction, she was already the lightest Iowa-class because of Iowa herself having the extra deck of conning tower to add weight, and both Wisconsin and Missouri having the heavier forward and aft armor bulkheads. So she might have been at the lightest displacement of any Iowa of their careers.
The 35.2 knot run is a poorly substantiated claim, it's believed the true top speed is rather lower around 33kn, still the fastest around iirc. look up 'speed thrills' on navweaps, it's a multi part series with testimony from even one of the people who did the actual NJ triels (Not just a random crewmember, albeit he wasn't a full primary source as it wasn't exactly his primary duty to check the speeds and such) In ST 2 it's pointed out that all sources of the 35 knot run are dubious at best: "Since I did my original essay on "Fastest Battleships" awhile ago, I've heard at least twenty claims that the Iowa class battleships could achieve even higher speeds than what I have in the essay. In about ten of those cases, I've gone to the trouble of tracking down the supposed source of the claim. In every case that I've investigated, there either proved to be no such source, the book in question made no such claim, the person was conveniently not available, or (my personal favorite) someone mistook a mile-per-hour value for a nautical-mile-per-hour value (the Iowa's designed top speed of 32.5 knots is 37 MPH)." By the end of ST2 the conclusion is at full overload steam, NJ could indeed theoretically reach 35kn according to all speed curves, with amateur calculations In ST5 it is pointed out that NJ *Never made such steam* nor recorded such speeds (It's easier to read out steam pressure), so it's unlikely she ever made such speed. At most they were told hearsay by a former XO: "I have been exposed to this controversy for a long time. Early on in my career as a naval architect, I met a former XO of USS New Jersey from the Vietnam period. He swore that she had made 35 knots on her way back to the US after the famous deployment. When I questioned this number and cited some of the sources, he deferred to my engineering knowledge but offered a theory: That the cold water temperatures in the Northern Pacific basin could have improved condenser vacuum, resulting in more than rated power being developed by the engines. It is a fact that naval condensers are slightly undersized compared to merchant ship practice for similar steam conditions in order to make engine rooms more compact, and therefore, vacuum may be slightly less at full power because enough heat can't be transferred away from the exhaust steam. Of course, this is a limit on power, but if you look at the steam tables, the difference is not large enough to boost power by 19%, which is about what it would need to be in order to advance from 32 knots to 35 knots. So, ever since that time (1980), I have doubted the myth of the 35-knot battleships, and later on I had occasion to see the proof for myself."
She may have been at that time, but in 1968, she became the heaviest when she was fully loaded and weighed over 60,000 tons, which is yamato size displacement
@@clankplusmand this is countered by a number of sailors and officers on the ships at the time of these speed runs. But then I guess that is not good enough for you
Glad to see Richilieu, she's often overlooked. Like Vittorio Veneto was apparently... ☹ Nevada is Oklahoma's sister, not Iowas. Aaannd, we all know HMS Hood is a battlecruiser, right? ( right ) 🙂
The Holy Grail standard for top speed during the war was always 35 knots. But bear in mind, that is flank speed, and the boilers are burning through fuel oil at an alarming rate giving tremendously reduced range. Speed fit a very unique application: to get the carrier task force into attack position quickly without being spotted.
HMS Hood was arguably, the first 'fast' battleship.....She, Renown & Repulse were only battlecruisers by the Royal Navy's own designation of what a battleship & battlecruiser were. The RN Classified any ship with battleship calibre armament, that could travel over 24kts a Battlecruiser, anything slower was classified as a Battleship. As warships got faster and technology improved, that pretty much went out the window. Hood's armour was comparable to the later Iowa class of U.S. Battleship....
The French Gloire was actually the first "Fast Battleship" because her speed was faster then other Battleships of the day. As for the first true fast Battleships the British Queen Elizabeth class from WWI were true Battleships that exceeded the speed of other contemporary ships and are considered the first Fast Battleships.
Scharnhorst class had 11 in guns, built to be refitted with twin 15 in mounts. With 15 in guns, maybe a battleship but guns were significantly heavier, would have lost at least 2 knots of speed. As built, an American Alaska class with super heavy 12 in guns or a DesMonies class with auto fire 8 in guns would have easily taken them out. And they were just heavy cruisers moving at 36 knots. (One of the Alaskas on working up clocked 36.2 knots). Keeping them off the list was justified. Jean Bart and Vanguard were completed after WWII. Title does say WWII battleships so they need not be included. Italy's battleships were flawed but they did look pretty, but a mention of them should have been included. Otherwise, nice video.
Thank you for watching. I didn't know the Scharnhorst was designed to be refitted with 15 in guns. And you're probably correct, with that additional weight brings a loss of a couple of knots speed. Thanks for mentioning the Italian battleships. Was the French BB Jean Bart completed after WWII?
I believe so. One of the rounds from the BB Massachusetts penetrated one of her turrets. It wasn't until WWII was over that she could finish fitting out in France. Been known to be wrong.
Nit picking here but please, please, please stop saying "the HMS.....". HMS stands for His ,or Her, Majesty's Ship so by inserting "the" beforehand you are saying "the His Majesty's Ship" which is mangling English. Saying "let's review HMS ...." or " HMS .... was commissioned.." etc etc avoids the clumsy language.
They were NOT built to escort carrier task groups. That was just a byproduct of their speed. They were built to be fast enough to run down and battle the Japanese Kongo class ships.
It is incorrect to refer to ships of the Royal Navy as "the" HMS xx. You essentially are saying "the His/Her Majesty's Ship", which is grammatically incorrect. It is just HMS xx.
You could waterski quite nicely behind the Iowa class, way behind with the propeller wake, but at 2 miles to stop you’d have a long wait for them to come back around to get you if you ever went down!
Can anyone of knowlege acknowlage the stresses encountered from the New Jersey going from All Ahead Flank to All Back Emergency? Wow, what a testamony of our engineering during slide rule technology and that ship must have been shaking like crazy. Just like abusing the guns of the Iowa till they blew up killing several to well exceed design limits. Thanks for the great video from B.C., Michigan.
@@jefffrayer8238 You should see a "Crash Stop" on a Ticonderoga class cruiser. They are quite a bit faster than an Iowa Class. The engine order telegraph I saw on Antietam went to 45 knots and the OOD told us the main limit to their top speed was how much power the shafts would tolerate before snapping. We were helicopter pilots aboard for a visit. Later on I experienced some flank speed turns while our helo was chained to her deck, rotors turning awaiting permission to launch while she executed a series of hard turns. I was seeing 20 degrees angle of bank on our attitude indicator as the ship rolled during the turns! At those speeds a Tico is throwing up a rooster tail higher than the fantail, clearly visible out the rear ramp of our helicopter. It's something to experience. The "black shoe Navy" seldom impressed me but the Antietam was a special ship with a great crew and they were sure proud of her. Ticos, like Sprucans and Burkes, use gas turbines geared to the shafts. They run the shafts at a constant RPM and use variable pitch props to regulate speed. A crash stop is accomplished by reversing the pitch on the blades. No need to stop and reverse the shafts. I saw Antietam go from full speed to a dead stop in two hull lengths. White water was boiling up all around her. Some years before when I was on a cadet cruise in the Coast Guard Academy I saw a Hamilton class cutter do the same thing, crash stop in two hull lengths so it isn't a fluke.
@@jefffrayer8238 I would think there'd be a crazy amount of cavitation which wouldn't allow much stress all told, I would think the major stress would come from a dead stop to full power, that's stress there.
@@philsalvatore3902 The “Brown Water Navy” (Swift Boats) in Vietnam were jet boats and could go from Top speed to full stop in a single hull length by reversing the jets.
There were only four Iowa class. Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The USS Nevada was NOT an Iowa class. The Nevada could only make 21 knots and was a US Standard, not a fast battleship like the Iowas.
He added a fifth ship to the Iowa class, and also forgot the fifth ship of the King George V class, HMS Howe.
Illinois and Kentucky were planned Iowa class but not completed, Navada, BB-36 was laid down 1912. interestingly, Kentucky's bow is attached to Wisconsin due to a little sea crash.
@@thomasmoore8142, hence the USS Wisconsin has the nickname "USS WisKy".
@@jamesfahey4508🎉😢😢il nuovo 🎉😂🎉😮
Qqq1😢🎉5
G'day Ken. Nevada was built in 1914 as one of 2 "Nevada class" battleships, thus is not one of the 4 completed Iowa class.
You beat me to it. Nevada (BB 36) was one of the earliest "Standard" type battleships, launched 11 July 1914. Her designed top speed was around 21 knots but she only achieved 20.5 knots.
@@robertf3479 And he forgot the fifth ship in the KGV class. You'd think these Drach wannabes could at least stand to get the basics right, but you'd be wrong.
@@stevebloom5606 Drach doesn't know everything he could though. He should read a bit more about naval gunnery pertaining to battleships vs battleship engagements particularly in the WWI era I reckon.
Like a nobody punter like me, just from reading an old book that cost $5 and written by a RN naval gunnery expert, knows more than Drach. 1 book. Sometimes you can't get through to experts and he is an expert - I'll give him that but it is annoying since you get fobbed off, dismissed, ignored and sometimes told you're wrong.
@@robertf3479 They put inaccuracies in so people comment and it helps the algorithm therefore income.
@@ThePaulv12 yes, I had the same thought once I saw the flurry of messages pointing out the errors.
The Hood was classed as a battlecruiser. I've always heard that the difference between a battlecruiser and a battleship was that a battlecruiser had battleship armaments but a cruiser's armor, which reduced weight to make the ship faster and more maneuverable. I could be wrong, though.
You're right. Or, in case of the german battlecruisers reducing the calibre to gain speed. And the Iowas are designed after the same idea as the Hood - only 12 inch armour both, but over 30 knots. 14 inch were battleship standard at this time.
yes, correct-the "Mighty Hood" was always meant to have improved deck armour fitted in the inter war years, but she toured around the world in the inter-war years and the work was never carried out-with consequences for the fatal encounter with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.
@@Dackah Though even thicker deck armour may not have prevented what happened, as I think the conclusion was that it was the RN's obsession with rate-of-fire versus magazine safety procedures which were the root of the problem.
@@dogsbodyish8403 The armour skimping dates back to jacky Fishers obsession with speed and the large light cruisers which were built, the ships that followed in the Glorious, Furious etc and of course HMS Hood.
To give range the ships were built with lower armour scantlings as the lower overall weight meant that the cruising range was extended without having to compromise on draught and fuel capacity.
Sadly the poor armour thickness especially on the deck meant that the ships were vulnerable to plunging fire as shown by HMS Hood
The British battle-cruisers did indeed have great speed achieved by reduced deck Armour but they also had more powerful longer range guns. The idea was to have them firing out of range of battleships. They were also to dominate enemy cruisers.
-The German Scharnhorst class were not battle cruisers. There was no such concept in the Germany Navy. The Scharnhorst had exceptional side armour (more than bismarck) but its deck armour was more evenly distributed over a greater area than the latter Washington and London Naval Treaty ships tended to "all or nothing' armour" where they idea was to have extremely thick armour over the most critical areas but thin over less critical ones. The Scharnhorst Class like Bismark Class had a a thick armour belt to just above the water line with a 'tortoise shell' on top of that. Above that was another Armour deck designed to deflect shallow shells but also to decap, defuse and tumble so that they would have reduce penetration.
-The German Battleships were not designed to fight at a distance. They did deliberately have long range guns to fight at a distance if needed but were optimized to win a fight at below about 16000 yards. Their purpose was raiding of convoys and hit and run. The Germans were the first to have a fire control radar (Seetakt in 1938) and their H-39 battleships started thickening deck armour.
-Americans who compare the Iowa Class with Bismark Class should consider that the proper comparison is Carolina Class with Bismark Class. The H-39 were laid down at the same time as Iowa but after 2000 and 4000 tons of keel was down were scrapped to build u-boat.
-The H class had diesel engines and although they could do 30.5 knots (good speed but slower than Iowa) their diesels gave them an incredible range of about 18000 nautical miles at 24 knots so they would be hard to catch just on that basis.
During speed trials in 1985/6 Missouri cranked out 35 knots off the coast of California. I had on hell of a great ride aboard the Mighty MO.
Thanks for your service. Sounds like a fun cruise that day.
You also forgot the 5th KGV ship HMS Howe. Nevada? Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Missouri were the ships of the Iowa class with the futher two Kentucky and Illinois which were never completed. Nevada and her sister Oklahoma were laid down in 1914.
The New Jersey was operational during the Vietnam war. She stood offshore and shelled
enemy assets with her massive 16" main batteries and her secondary 5" guns.
Its such a pity that the Navy no longer sees a role for these magnificent Iowa class ships.
Heavily armored, fast, and formidable gun platforms.
Should have kept 2 and led battle groups that did not need carrier support.
They are obsolete more missiles are far better than there guns and they cost to much for what they bring to the table. They would be a liability.
The new jerseys TH-cam channel is great! Lots of cool stuff on it.
@@billalumni7760 They did lead battle groups...that was the whole point of the 80's reactivations. The Navy would have preferred Nimitz CVs, but with ten year lead times, the time frame was bad. Lehman pointed out that the Iowas had at least 20 years of life left on their hulls, armor meant to resist 16" shells (and wasn't afraid of a 600 lb warhead on an antiship missile), and the first could be out of the gate and running in under a year. Finally, they added a long range shore bombardment option to the fleet (the 16" could have been RAP'ed, fired shells with rocket-assistance, giving them a range of 90+ miles... never ever built but I was a Gunners mate and we were taught about them. 5" RAPS were used in Vietnam).
Center the BBs in the middle of an amphibious group and you have a surface action group that can beat anything in the world, especially a Kirov battle group, pounding the crap out of any coastal area on the planet.
Unfortunately, the Iowas were in surprising bad shape, never properly repaired, and NO spare parts available, and sucked massive resources (they actually had to recall some reservists to train the crew). I think Wisconsin took almost 8 years to be reactivated at almost a billion dollars...only to be stricken a few years later.
@@scottwatts3879 Had not even thought about putting them into the middle of an amphibious group. With the amphibious assault carrier it would have all the air support needed. Too bad it never happened.
There were five King George V. King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Howe, and Anson. There were only four Iowas. The USS Nevada was the lead ship of her own class, commissioned in 1916, with a top speed of 21 knots. Also the Italian Littorio battle ships had a recorded speed of 31.4 knots.
Errors that big might lead on to question the rest of the video.
Wikipedia had a edit war to hide Yamato sinking itself.
Read awhile ago when the New Jersey was traveling from the west coast to her final resting p!ace in Camden NJ and high in the water due to no 5 & 16" shells, powder bags & very small crew she broke the speed record. She was the last battleship to travel thru the Panama Canal before it was turned over to Panama believe in 2000. Brilliant young man Ryan S has made well over 500 u tube vidios on the NJ. battleship. Guys a walking enclopidia on the Iowa class battleships.
I loved the video he did last summer (I think) on how a sailor's uniform was designed to help keep him afloat if he had the misfortune to end up in the water.
No HMS Howe, Nevada wasn’t an Iowa class and no mention of the Italian Vittorio Veneto.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Finally, the Italians never crossed my mind. Might have to be a follow-up video.
There was never an Iowa--class named USS Nevada. BB-65 was USS Illinois and BB-66 was USS Kentucky, but they were canceled during the war.
In fact, the Richelieu was a little faster than the Hood, and much more armoured. The most recent battleships were of course superior to the olders ...
Yeah, no. The Nevada wasnt iowa class but Missouri was
Two things: The King George V-class battleships were a class of 5 battleships, not 4. HMS King George V, HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Duke of York, HMS Anson and HMS Howe. Also, for the Iowa-class, there was no USS Nevada in that class. While there were 6 ships in total in the class (2 were scraped in the late 50's before being completed), none of them were named Nevada. The only USS Nevada that come to mind is the lead ship of the Nevada-class that was commissioned back in 1914, USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma. The first line of American Standard-type battleships that would become the centerpiece of the US Navy for the next 25 plus years.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Might have to be a follow-up video.
HMS Hood was was definitely the fastest british battleship. And i know people are going to say that it wasn't a battleship, it was a battlecruiser, but it had armor equal to the Queen Elizabeth class, but instead of having 13 inch slab sided plate Hood had 12 inch inclined armor plate increasing the equivalent thickness, they had the same 3 inch deck Hood's barrettes were 2 inches thicker and Hoods turret face plates were 2 inches thicker. Therefore many naval historians have argued that Hood was the first actual fast battleship. Originally the Brits considered any ship over 26 knots to be a battlecruiser. When building the KGV class they were called battlecruisers to begin with until logic prevailed, and HMS Vanguard was called a fully armored battlecruiser when it was obviously a fast battleship.
The 30kt Italian Littorio class battleships deserve mention.
Hood belongs on the list
Thanks for watching the video, Peter!
Were did Nevada come to be an Iowa class, nice video but get it straight before you upload anything.
I never even heard of the term Battle Cruiser before, but knots as speed never made any sense to me either......
“Marvel of French Engineering “. Like Citroen? Never thought I’d see those words in the same sentence 😜.
There were 5 KGV class ships, not 4. You forgot HMS Howe. And I missed the Nevada in the Iowa class, lol
It must be remembered that the Iowas were extremely wet ships as was the Hood aft at high speed. Nimitz pointed this out on numerous occasions. The most stable gun platform was the vanguard with her flared bow. It must be remembered however that in any battleship vs battleship engagement if you lose your radar and radar directed firing it's virtually game over.
There were six Iowa Class in design. I am brushing some 50 years of study to say that "Kentucky", but memory is an issue for me. One thing for sure, the Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, or Missouri had to have its bow replaced after a collision. Nevada, Kentucky or whatever, were scrapped, but not before the bow was used as a replacement on the damaged hull.
The Nevada was not an Iowa class ship, it was pre-war. There was intended to be a 5th Iowa class ship that was started but not completed. When the Wisconsin damaged her bow it was repaired with the bow from the 5th ship, making the Wisconsin about 6” longer than the other Iowa Class ships.
The No 1 Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto should definitely on this list
Yamato and Musashi ended up being oilers for other IJN ships during most of WWII. Other than trying to oppose US amphibious landings (too) late in WWII, they ended up having no strategic value. So much for speed.
Monday morning quarterbacks (historians) can plausibly argue that Japan should have built more aircraft carriers and trained more naval air crews with the resources wasted on these dinosaurs. Yes, there were serious shore bombardments and naval rifle battles during the Guadalcanal Campaign but that phase of the war was strategically decided by boots on the ground, air power, and supply logistics. More destroyers and submarines would also have been another option for the IJN.
US fast battleships could keep up with the US Essex class carriers and provide lethal anti-aircraft coverage. Here speed was critical.
WWI's USS Texas, even at a pokey 21 knots, provided effective shore bombardment with its 14" shells on D-Day and elsewhere. Speed was not so critical but overwhelming naval vessel numbers and guns, air superiority, surprise, and courageous infantry engagements on beach sand were decisive.
They were on wrong place on the wrong time.
I think that everybody who loves Battleships would love to see a real engagement between the Yamato and Musashi and the Us Battleships.
Would be something of epic proportions.
@@jpmtlhead39 Jutland was the Pickett's Charge WWI event for lines of battleships and battle cruisers. The sinking of a single ship on either side could mean the death of 1000 sailors. At the end, Germany retreated back to its bases with their capital ships and waged naval warfare thereafter primarily with U-boats.
Battleship-to-battleship engagements were rare and tactical in WWII; carrier-on-carrier engagements were usually strategic in their outcomes. Yes, the Rodney and the King George V battered the Bismarck at the end but it was the Ark Royal's clunky Swordfish biplanes that disabled and doomed her.
Battleships are a chapter in the imaginary military manual titled "Don't Refight the Last War." Everything is part of an "over the horizon, fire and forget" weapon system now.
Nimitz never wanted a naval rifle shootout as a goal in the Pacific war. He was all about grabbing island real estate, building airstrips, and bypassing Japanese garrisons using massed air power.
@@bagoquarks Forgot to mention the last throw of the dice for the Scharnhorst vs HMS Duke of York and as for the Musashi and the Yamato ironically the Japanese obsession with naval aviation had rendered those two useless the moment after Pearl Harbour and left the IJN with two white elephants that they could not afford to crew or use effectively.
The issue for the Japanese was simple, they never streamlined their aviation training programme to promote the training of aircrew in large numbers and also lost the cream of their crews in not rotating the experienced ones into a training command thus attrition denied them their best assets in mid 1942 at Midway. Had they managed to utilise their crews more efficiently then they would not have needed to resort to the Divine Wind tactics later in 1944-1945, one can also argue that the failure to had a seperate air force always left the army's aviation assets as a stand alone force that rarely co operated with their naval counter parts until the later stages of the war forced that.
There were 5 King George V class battleships, you forgot the HMS Howe.
First of all the Nevada is not an Iowa class battleship. Regarding the USS, New Jersey’s record breaking run my father was on the ship when it achieved that speed. He was a Mustang LDO Lieutenant, and was the admin/personnel officer during the Vietnam deployment.
No, let's not mention the Hood? It was laid down in 1916. Why it was the nation's darling as an old poorly armoured heavy cruiser which was being up armoured the day it sank I have no idea. All I do know is that a good friend was transferred from it days before it sank.
HMS Hood was a battle cruiser: one of the parameters that distinguish a battleship than a battle cruiser is that the armour must be able to resist a hit from guns the same caliber as those mounted on the ship, and Hood's armour sadly couldn’t
Thanks for watching the video. Definitely appreciate the explanation of what makes a battleship and what constitutes a battlecruiser. Should've included that in the video.
@@HistoryX
Happy to have been usefull then ^^;
In which event, Bismarck and Tirpitz were battlecruisers because they were less well armoured than the Scharnhorst class.
Hood was built as a fast battleship and was armoured on the same scale as the Queen Elizabeths.
HMS Hood's armor was not only equal to her 15"/42 guns, it was equivalent to the armor on the Queen Elizabeth class battleships through the use of inclination to increase its capability. She was a battleship in every way, but the Royal Navy categorized her as a battlecruiser because their definition was simple - any capital ship capable of speeds above 25 knots. However, by your definition...
The Iowa class ships' armor was proofed against the North Carolina and South Dakota class' 16"/45 guns, but not against the 16"/50 guns developed for the Iowas. By your definition, they're battlecruisers.
Hood was a battle cruiser but only propaganda made her into a Battleship.
Hood’s Armor on the side was strong to withstand hits, however it was her decks that had the thinnest Armor and it was shells from Bismarck that plunged from above that penetrated her decks and hit her ammunition stores resulting in the explosion that destroyed her.
The Captain of the Hood knew this weakness and steered his ship towards Bismarck to eliminate such plunging fire but he was too late.
Sure, let's forget 2 British battleships and add a dreadnought to the Iowa class that was so slow, that it didn't even operate alongside the carriers like all US Navy battleships build before the hiatus during the Washington Naval Treaty. Kentucky or Illinois would be somewhat understandable, considering they were never finished versions of the class with improvements like all welding instead of riveting, reducing weight but Nevada? Why not add USS Constitution into the mix
Nevada?!?!?!?
Ahem... Nevada and her sister Oklahoma were 'Standard' Battleships built prior to and during WWI that topped out at around 23 knots. Nevada was NOT an Iowa class battleship.
I think I just heard both Drachinifel and Ryan Syzmanski screaming... in pained harmony
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Finally, the Italians never crossed my mind, either. Might have to be a follow-up video.
The earlier U.S. battleships North Carolina and South Dakota were no slouches either. I don't remember that much off the top of my head but I know were FAST.
Wisconsin set some kind of speed record trying to get to the Persian Gulf. Probably not pure speed but miles covered or something.
Just another piece of info 😁
Thanks for the comment. I'll have to look that one up about the Wisconsin trying to get to the Persian Gulf. I enjoy stories like that.
@@HistoryX It was in a documentary I watched on TH-cam. I’ll let you know what the name of it is if I find it. I LOVE battleships and really want to see the Jersey or Wisconsin something very soon because they’re closest to me on the east coast.
@@HistoryX WISCONSIN made the 8,500 mile transit to the Persian Gulf at 25 knots, arriving on station, ready for combat, just 16 days after departure.
Kongō class fast Battleships: are we a joke to you? 30.5 knots
You do not use "the" in front of HMS, it is either "HMS Hood" or "the Hood".
USS Nevada? Really?
left out hms howe of the kg v class. uss nevada was a ww1 era dreadnought that could only do about 21 knots.
Very interesting but there is no need or the definite article the before Royal navy ships. They are Simpy HMS (name). The letters stand for His Majesties ship, a 'the' is not used.
Non sarebbe male riportare anche i dati delle corazzate italiane classe Vittorio Veneto.
There were 5 KGV class ships. You missed HMS Howe.
Nevada is the lead ship of her class and the first of the standard type battleships of the United States Navy
I thought the British King Goerge the V class included the HMS Howe???
Thanks for watching the video. Yes, big mistake not mentioning the Howe in the list of King George V class. Thanks for the comment.
The USS Nevada is not a part of the Iowa class of battleships. She was the lead ship of the Nevada class and the only other ship in her class was the USS Oklahoma.
What about the Italian Navy Eg Roma and the VV both reportedly managed over 35knotts
No. The Littorio class in trials could manage 30.4 to 30.5 knots. They only had 128,000 shp. The similar sized Richelieu class had 155,000 shp and were faster.
Nice Report there on the Comparisons . But there's an Awful lot of Conjecture on the Ship's Actual Dimension's of Which Class they belonged to, and Battle Cruisers are a Smaller Class of Ship's ⚓⚓ with Heavy Enough Guns & Tonnage Overall to be Described or Listed as Battleship's. But Really they were in a Classification of Thier Own. Thus when Opposing Forces we're putting Convoy Escort's together. The task was So difficult or almost impossible too Do? Because of the Limited No's of Escorting Vessel's that could Handle Thier Capabilities Admirable.
Great Video 📷📸 & Interesting Storyline. Thank You.
HMS Hood though classed as a battlecruiser due to its Tonnage and Armour belt i think anything that has 8 X 15" guns in WW2 can be classed as a Battleship at the end of a day
I think Hood was originally meant to be a true battlecruiser but the lessons from Jutland, besides the poor ammunition stowage, handling and placement, were taken to heart and battleship caliber armor was worked into the design that was eventually launched as HMS Hood.. The deck armor of 1919-1920 era was a bit thin of course, but I am not sure if another 2 or 3 inches of deck armor would have saved her from the hit that destroyed her.
You forgot Howe.. KG5 class.
Nevada is not Iowa..class older ship.
I served on the New Jersey 1980s..
Also if the war continued, there could've been two more Iowa class Battleships
If HMS Hood was a Battleship then it wasn't a very well designed one, gone in less than 10 minutes. I cant think of many other examples of that kind of failure without referencing Jutland with HMS Invincible, HMS Queen Mary and HMS Indefatigable all meeting similar fates. I think the battle cruiser concept was a good idea until it was tested in battle.
The French destroyer Le Terrible Max speed 45.03 knots and 42.9 knots for 8 hours I knew a ex sailor they was on the HMS Braham in the Med going at full pace only 23 knots and the Le Terrible left it behind like it was standing still He said the Plume of water being thrown back was a sight to behold
uss nevada is an iowa class bb???? what was her hull # ????? I would really like to know.🤔
My Grandfather served on the Hood in 1929 she was and is a Battlecruiser
With battleship firepower, battleship armour but 7-8 knots faster than her battleship cohort. What exactly was "cruiser" about Hood apart from the nomenclature that the British admiralty assigned to her BEFORE her "on the slipway" uparmouring?
History X, for a supposed history channel to foul up the well-known fact that there were only four Iowa-class battleships built (there was no Iowa-class battleship named "Navada" planned or constructed) really stinks of faulty research & proof-reading. Yes, two other Iowa-class battleships were planned - the planned USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66) - but these were never completed.
As an aside, the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) was involved in a collision at sea with the destroyer, USS Eaton, on May 6, 1956, which damaged her bow. The 120-ton bow of the under-construction USS Kentucky was used to repair her, hence the Wisconsin having the nickname, "USS WisKy".
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made on this one. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Finally, the Italian battleships never crossed my mind, either. Might have to be a follow-up video.
@@HistoryX, given the quantity of errors, it may be wiser to pull this video down and replace it with a corrected/more complete version.
As a former manager once told me’ “It takes ten ‘atta-boys’ to correct one ‘aw-crap’”.
I wouldn’t want this video to be the first impression to someone unfamiliar with your other good works.
Carry on! 🫡
USS Iowa (BB-61)
USS New Jersey (BB-62)
USS Missouri (BB-63)
USS Wisconsin (BB-64)
USS Illinois (BB-65)
USS Kentucky (BB-66) ---------------nix Nevada
Dunno, those numbers seem sketchy. I've heard different from many many sources.
USS Nevada was a WW1 Battleship of the Nevada class. There are only 4 Iowa class, USS Nevada is not one of them.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, and the owning Navy says it's a walleye, then, it's a walleye.
USS Nevada was not an Iowa class battleship.
Thanks for watching and the comment. Yes, several mistakes made, including Nevada was not an Iowa-class. Might have to be a follow-up video.
What about HMS Vanguard how fast was she?
What about Italy’s Vittorio Veneto? I know that it was designed to be a fast battleship, though I am not sure if it surpassed the Iowas.
They tested at 30.4-30.5 knots during trials. Littorio class only had 128,000 shp compared to the 212,000 shp of an Iowa Class, although the Littorios were a good 10,000 tons lighter than an Iowa Class.
Forgot the HMS Howe?
The USS Nevada was definitely not a Iowa class battleship..🤨
I would like to see the north.carolina more . that battel ship was the first one to shoot nap soil
And the HMD Howe?
HMS Howe, you forgot HMS Howe.......
King George V Class--
HMS King George V Laid Down January 1937
HMS Prince Of Wales " " January 1937
HMS Duke Of York (ex Anson) " " May 1937
HMS Howe (ex Beatty) " " June 1937
HMS Anson (ex Jellicoe) " " July 1937
From "British, Soviet, French and Dutch Battleships"
By William H.Garzke Jr, Roberto O. Dunlin Jr, Thomas H. Webb. 1980
Tsk, tsk. USS Nevada in Iowa Class? No HMS Vanguard? Kongo Class was faster than Yamato Class for the Japanese…although they too were considered battlecruisers by their original design, despite their battleship classification by the Japanese after reconstruction. No mention of the Littorio Class.
No mention of one of prettiest BB's, Roma, 1 of the 3 Littorio class, 45,000 tons with 9 x15 in, top speed 30kn; or the 4 S Dakota class, 45,000 tons with 9 x 16in, top speed 27.5kn, or 2 N Carolina class, 45,000 tons with 9 x 16in, top speed 27.5kn. Or 2 Nagato class, 39,000 tons with 8 x 16.1 in, top speed 26.kn........ all but Nagato superior ships to the QE or even newer KG class. Hood, like smaller British Battle Cruisers Renown and Repulse definitely not BBs, and Scharnhorst and her sister certainly not BBs either!!! While the Hood had the BB guns it didn't have the BB armor and Scharnhorst had the BB armor but not the BB guns. Why even mention these ships while omitting aforementioned???? Should have included the 5 Revenge class built after the 5 QE class BBs - but cheaper/smaller/slower (21kn) 3 more being cancelled / replaced with 2 more expensive/bigger/faster (32kn) BC's Renown and Repulse recognizing more need for speed.
USS Nevada was not an Iowa Class battleship.
Yamato and Musashi do not belong on that list, the US built North Carolina class (2 ships ) and South Dakota class (4 ships) were all faster at 28 kts
Poor Hms Howe no love
Thanks for watching the video. Yes, you definitely got me there. Big mistake not mentioning the Howe in the list of King George V class. Thanks for the comment.
@@HistoryX To quote Agent XXX '"We all make mistakes Mr. Bond" 😉
Battle Battle cruisers should not even be considered on this list
Uhhhh....The USS Nevada WAS NOT an Iowa Class battleship.
Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin. NOT NEVADA good grief
No mention of Italian or Russian battleships.
I think we are getting bogged down over a few knots. We are forgetting that we are talking about a small town travelling at these speeds. Mind blowing!!
It's to keep up to the Carrier, cruisers, and destroyers........the Battleship's speed would have been the limiting factor for the Battle group, the faster the battleship, the faster the entire group can travel.
HOOD WAS A FAST BATTLESHIP!
Let it begin 😂.
HMS Rapid was very rapid...40kt + ....But she wasn't a Battleship .........
The Mine Layer was the Maxman. But if the USA was not going to come out top, would they ever have made this video???
What about the Italians?
Thanks for the comment. Yes, several mistakes made. Totally forgot HMS Howe, and of course the Italians never crossed my mind. Might have to be a follow-up video.
USS Nevada? Nope, not an Iowa class. .
HMS Hood was a battlecruiser. NO question about it. Not a matter for debate. Plus the USS Nevada was not an Iowa class BB. She was at Pearl Harbor where she distinguished herself. Pretty sloppy work on your part
Complete BS. Hood carried battleship firepower in battleship armour, and was 7-8 knots faster than all her 1920 battleship cohort.
Hood had the same degree of armour that was carried by the RN Queen Elizabeth battleships that fought toe to toe with the enemy through WW1 & WW2.
Bismarck belt armour = 12.6 inches
Hood belt armour = 12 inches (Though angled so as to give 13 inches of protection).
Bismarck deck armour = 4 inches
Hood deck armour = 3 inches
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 You clearly know nothing about the period of which you write. You need to find a biography of Jackie Fisher and that would explain it for you.
@@joebutterman3084 A blustering bullshitter with nothing to support his incorrect assertion but a generalised smoke screen. Do some reading yourself lad. Go compare Hood to the Queen Mary / Indefatigables / Lions and even the Renown class .... THEN realise what shite you're talking.
any battleship completed after Dec 7, 1941 was obsolete when floated. Huge waste of time and money. The British at Taranto ad Japanese at Pearl Harbor proved that armament that didn't have wings was not competitive.
What about HMS Howe?
Nevada?
I don't think so.
Well done, but I don't think Nevada belongs on the list of Iowas.
Yea that is a goof. Nevada is not an Iowa class BB.
He mixed USS Nevada with USS Wisconsin
And left out HMS Howe with the KGVs.
Nevada is a class on its own. There were only two Nevada-class BBs: Nevada and Oklahoma.
@@christiandietz6341
Yeah, both the Nevada and the Iowa class were named after states with famous seafaring traditions. Lol
@@HighlanderNorth1 With both states having legendary deep water ports
Two things: The British KG5 class also had a fifth ship named HMS Howe. I didn't hear that one mentioned. Also, the USS Nevada was not a ship of the Iowa class. Nevertheless, an interesting video.
There's a story of a British fast mine layer with a top speed somewhere in the 40's (knots). She was part of an international task force after the war, and already quite old. So the Yank admiral sends her a signal to where she was tooling around at the bag of the task force in words and intentions to the effect "Make your best speed and we''ll seeya in the harbour because you're old and we're not waiting" and the Brit answers "Okey dokey", drops a gear and accelerates through the fleet and gets to harbour hours before the rest. Hooray for old ships!
HMS Manxman( Abdiel Class) was one of the RN fast minelayers..
@@longhunter1951 That's the one!
Just forget about the British, oh and the French, we already forgot about them right?
Was she one of the Steam turbine jobs? they had problematic engines due to there high steam pressure, but where very fast Also lots of cavitation
@@marsmars9130 No ... there were LP and HP turbines but they wore out with time, 5 years. There were various boilers, Thornycroft and Johnson and Parsons, I mean yeah, they were made to be broken like toy soldiers, they didn't need to last. War wouldn't last as long, boat is sunk, crews lost.
The fastes british battleship was not the HMS Anson, but the HMS Vanguard. In July 1946, she reached a speed of 31.57 knots. However, she missed the WW2. Laid down 2 October 1941, she was commissioned at 12 May 1946.
HMS Vanguard could hit 31 knots in rough weather unlike the Iowa class which could go top speed in calm weather!
@@BHuang92 What about HMS Howe? She was capable of 28.3 kts, but not even listed in the class.
HMS Vanguard was its own class. The KGV class is what he is talking about.
A pity that the British didn’t keep the Vanguard as a WW2-era museum piece they could enjoy as we do the Iowa’s.
@@brianjob3018 If any of them, I'd rather have seen one of the Queen Elizabeth's saved, they all served with absolute distinction. Or for that matter, Rodney or Nelson.
There is the chase of the Japanese destroyer Nowaki out of Truk. A fleet of American gunships, including the Iowa and New Jersey, chased the Nowaki at speeds more than 30 knots while firing their forward cannons. The Nowaki was forced to zig zag to avoid the 16 inch shells splashing the water all around her. The Nowaki could do 35 knots in a straight line and slowly open the distance from the chasing American battleships, but if she tried that, she would have been nailed. After an hour of this chase, Admiral Spruance ordered the chase broken off. I think this was Class A psychological warfare! Let one Japanese ship escape who would have to report to his fleet command that the Americans have full sized battleships that can keep up with destroyers.
Actually, that incident made things BETTER for the Japanese, because the original plan was to launch an airstrike to sink all the remaining Japanese ships. But the airstrike was called off just so the Iowas could say they got to sink an already-sinking training ship and two damaged destroyers (which nowhere near justifies the expenditure of building a new battleship, let alone two), which directly led to Nowaki escaping when she’d have been sunk (and the Americans did NOT intentionally let her go as “psychological warfare”, she just plain got away).
In short, the Iowas *directly reduced enemy losses by being present at Truk.* Spruance fucked up there.
@@bkjeong4302 No doubt the airstrike could have sunk the Nowaki. But anti-aircraft guns on the Nowaki and the damaged ships could have shot down several American birds so there is that consideration. I don't believe there were any American casualties on the battleships during the Nowaki chase and the other Japanese ships trying to escape Truk were sunk. Did the survival of the Nowaki, with splinter damage and a crew of PTSD cases, reporting what they went through to Admiral Toyoda, the guy who took over for Yamamoto, actually help the Japanese cause? The Nowaki now graces the sea bottom near Leyte Gulf. Classic psychological war technique is to beat the crap out of the enemy forces but to let one go, even if that requires releasing a POW.
As for the 4 Iowas, we got our money's worth out of them by blasting the Japanese held islands to support the island hopping campaign and to add to the misery of those Japanese stuck on the bypassed islands. The New Jersey spent the last few months of the war being overhauled in Bremerton because she just plain wore out her cannons. If we're replacing and relining the big cannons on a battleship we are getting our money's worth. It's primary purpose is to be a giant self propelled artillery battery.
@@RogerWKnight
The survival of a destroyer for another few months did help the Japanese cause, since Japan was running out of destroyers at this point and every single surviving one helped.
No, the US didn’t get its money’s worth out of the Iowas, and had people known that the Iowas would end up being the world’s most gigantic and expensive CLAAs and shore bombardment platforms, they wouldn’t have been built. A battleship’s purpose is to fight enemy capital ships to gain sea control, NOT to serve as a shore bombardment platform. The US already had plenty of aircraft carriers that could do that job better than any battleships could, plenty of pre-existing old Standards to do shore bombardment with and plenty of cruisers and destroyers to use as AA escorts: the Iowas were completely pointless and wasteful regardless of what they ended up doing.
And stop subscribing to the ridiculous idea that Spruance intentionally let Nowaki go as a form of psychological warfare.
Again, a high speed cruiser with max. 35kn is still way slower as a battleship following it, if it is manovering... so what´s your point?
@@steffenjonda8283
The point the Iowas made things better for the Japanese by being there and that we shouldn’t play up their involvement at Truk as an achievement?
One has to wonder how fast the Illinois and Kentucky would have been had they been completed. They were the 5th and 6th Iowa Class that would have been all wielded construction and a few hundred tons lighter. First 4 Iowa's were both Wielded and Riveted.
Our helo detachment cruised with USS Sacramento during a RIMPAC exercise. She had two shafts powered by half of the power plant taken from the incomplete USS Kentucky. Despite her 54,000 ton full load displacement, only slightly less than an Iowa Class, Sacramento had a published top speed of 30 knots but in actual service she was known to outrun many steam powered destroyers. Half the power of an Iowa, nearly the same displacement and nearly the same speed as an Iowa class. The Sacrementos were fantastic ships that gave the US Navy decades of trouble free service. The Sacramento was the only steam powered ship I have deployed on that never suffered a major casualty and went dead in the water. Every other steam powered ship I deployed on went dead in the water with boiler problems at least once, and sometimes more often (USS Kiska, what a pile !)
@@philsalvatore3902 I have read about the Sacramento Class. They were impressive.
If you look up photo's of USS Kentucky, you can plainly see she wasn't all welded though 🤓
Plenty of rivets on the hull.
"Black Dragon" FTW. A plausible explanation for why New Jersey was the fastest Iowa-class is the circumstances of her 35.2 knot speed run. The only Iowa-class to be deployed during the VietNam era, Big J had just come out of the reserve fleet and pre-deployment refit, so mechanical systems were at their peak. She had lost most of her WW2-era light and medium anti-aircraft emplacements, along with the substantial manpower and ammunition needed to serve these weapons, but had not gained the missiles, Seawiz, and radar that would be deployed to all of the Iowas in the '80s. And, by construction, she was already the lightest Iowa-class because of Iowa herself having the extra deck of conning tower to add weight, and both Wisconsin and Missouri having the heavier forward and aft armor bulkheads. So she might have been at the lightest displacement of any Iowa of their careers.
My father served on New Jersey in Korea. He claimed it was easily fast enough to ski behind.
She was simply making the run downhill.
The 35.2 knot run is a poorly substantiated claim, it's believed the true top speed is rather lower around 33kn, still the fastest around iirc.
look up 'speed thrills' on navweaps, it's a multi part series with testimony from even one of the people who did the actual NJ triels (Not just a random crewmember, albeit he wasn't a full primary source as it wasn't exactly his primary duty to check the speeds and such)
In ST 2 it's pointed out that all sources of the 35 knot run are dubious at best:
"Since I did my original essay on "Fastest Battleships" awhile ago, I've heard at least twenty claims that the Iowa class battleships could achieve even higher speeds than what I have in the essay. In about ten of those cases, I've gone to the trouble of tracking down the supposed source of the claim. In every case that I've investigated, there either proved to be no such source, the book in question made no such claim, the person was conveniently not available, or (my personal favorite) someone mistook a mile-per-hour value for a nautical-mile-per-hour value (the Iowa's designed top speed of 32.5 knots is 37 MPH)."
By the end of ST2 the conclusion is at full overload steam, NJ could indeed theoretically reach 35kn according to all speed curves, with amateur calculations
In ST5 it is pointed out that NJ *Never made such steam* nor recorded such speeds (It's easier to read out steam pressure), so it's unlikely she ever made such speed. At most they were told hearsay by a former XO:
"I have been exposed to this controversy for a long time. Early on in my career as a naval architect, I met a former XO of USS New Jersey from the Vietnam period. He swore that she had made 35 knots on her way back to the US after the famous deployment. When I questioned this number and cited some of the sources, he deferred to my engineering knowledge but offered a theory: That the cold water temperatures in the Northern Pacific basin could have improved condenser vacuum, resulting in more than rated power being developed by the engines. It is a fact that naval condensers are slightly undersized compared to merchant ship practice for similar steam conditions in order to make engine rooms more compact, and therefore, vacuum may be slightly less at full power because enough heat can't be transferred away from the exhaust steam. Of course, this is a limit on power, but if you look at the steam tables, the difference is not large enough to boost power by 19%, which is about what it would need to be in order to advance from 32 knots to 35 knots. So, ever since that time (1980), I have doubted the myth of the 35-knot battleships, and later on I had occasion to see the proof for myself."
She may have been at that time, but in 1968, she became the heaviest when she was fully loaded and weighed over 60,000 tons, which is yamato size displacement
@@clankplusmand this is countered by a number of sailors and officers on the ships at the time of these speed runs. But then I guess that is not good enough for you
Glad to see Richilieu, she's often overlooked. Like Vittorio Veneto was apparently... ☹
Nevada is Oklahoma's sister, not Iowas.
Aaannd, we all know HMS Hood is a battlecruiser, right?
( right ) 🙂
Yes indeed - surprised to hear no mention of anything Italian.
The Holy Grail standard for top speed during the war was always 35 knots. But bear in mind, that is flank speed, and the boilers are burning through fuel oil at an alarming rate giving tremendously reduced range. Speed fit a very unique application: to get the carrier task force into attack position quickly without being spotted.
HMS Hood was arguably, the first 'fast' battleship.....She, Renown & Repulse were only battlecruisers by the Royal Navy's own designation of what a battleship & battlecruiser were. The RN Classified any ship with battleship calibre armament, that could travel over 24kts a Battlecruiser, anything slower was classified as a Battleship. As warships got faster and technology improved, that pretty much went out the window.
Hood's armour was comparable to the later Iowa class of U.S. Battleship....
The French Gloire was actually the first "Fast Battleship" because her speed was faster then other Battleships of the day. As for the first true fast Battleships the British Queen Elizabeth class from WWI were true Battleships that exceeded the speed of other contemporary ships and are considered the first Fast Battleships.
Scharnhorst class had 11 in guns, built to be refitted with twin 15 in mounts. With 15 in guns, maybe a battleship but guns were significantly heavier, would have lost at least 2 knots of speed. As built, an American Alaska class with super heavy 12 in guns or a DesMonies class with auto fire 8 in guns would have easily taken them out. And they were just heavy cruisers moving at 36 knots. (One of the Alaskas on working up clocked 36.2 knots). Keeping them off the list was justified. Jean Bart and Vanguard were completed after WWII. Title does say WWII battleships so they need not be included. Italy's battleships were flawed but they did look pretty, but a mention of them should have been included. Otherwise, nice video.
Thank you for watching. I didn't know the Scharnhorst was designed to be refitted with 15 in guns. And you're probably correct, with that additional weight brings a loss of a couple of knots speed. Thanks for mentioning the Italian battleships. Was the French BB Jean Bart completed after WWII?
I believe so. One of the rounds from the BB Massachusetts penetrated one of her turrets. It wasn't until WWII was over that she could finish fitting out in France. Been known to be wrong.
Nit picking here but please, please, please stop saying "the HMS.....". HMS stands for His ,or Her, Majesty's Ship so by inserting "the" beforehand you are saying "the His Majesty's Ship" which is mangling English. Saying "let's review HMS ...." or " HMS .... was commissioned.." etc etc avoids the clumsy language.
The Iowas were built to escort fast carrier task groups so high speed was essential for that mission.
Thanks for the comment. I had never heard that before. Learned something new. Thanks!
They were NOT built to escort carrier task groups. That was just a byproduct of their speed. They were built to be fast enough to run down and battle the Japanese Kongo class ships.
It is incorrect to refer to ships of the Royal Navy as "the" HMS xx.
You essentially are saying "the His/Her Majesty's Ship", which is grammatically incorrect.
It is just HMS xx.
You could waterski quite nicely behind the Iowa class, way behind with the propeller wake, but at 2 miles to stop you’d have a long wait for them to come back around to get you if you ever went down!
Can anyone of knowlege acknowlage the stresses encountered from the New Jersey going from All Ahead Flank to All Back Emergency? Wow, what a testamony of our engineering during slide rule technology and that ship must have been shaking like crazy. Just like abusing the guns of the Iowa till they blew up killing several to well exceed design limits. Thanks for the great video from B.C., Michigan.
@@jefffrayer8238 You should see a "Crash Stop" on a Ticonderoga class cruiser. They are quite a bit faster than an Iowa Class. The engine order telegraph I saw on Antietam went to 45 knots and the OOD told us the main limit to their top speed was how much power the shafts would tolerate before snapping. We were helicopter pilots aboard for a visit. Later on I experienced some flank speed turns while our helo was chained to her deck, rotors turning awaiting permission to launch while she executed a series of hard turns. I was seeing 20 degrees angle of bank on our attitude indicator as the ship rolled during the turns! At those speeds a Tico is throwing up a rooster tail higher than the fantail, clearly visible out the rear ramp of our helicopter. It's something to experience. The "black shoe Navy" seldom impressed me but the Antietam was a special ship with a great crew and they were sure proud of her.
Ticos, like Sprucans and Burkes, use gas turbines geared to the shafts. They run the shafts at a constant RPM and use variable pitch props to regulate speed. A crash stop is accomplished by reversing the pitch on the blades. No need to stop and reverse the shafts. I saw Antietam go from full speed to a dead stop in two hull lengths. White water was boiling up all around her. Some years before when I was on a cadet cruise in the Coast Guard Academy I saw a Hamilton class cutter do the same thing, crash stop in two hull lengths so it isn't a fluke.
@@jefffrayer8238 I would think there'd be a crazy amount of cavitation which wouldn't allow much stress all told, I would think the major stress would come from a dead stop to full power, that's stress there.
Yeah, a LONG WAY behind the wake! 😂😂😂 😂😂
@@philsalvatore3902 The “Brown Water Navy” (Swift Boats) in Vietnam were jet boats and could go from
Top speed to full stop in a single hull length by reversing the jets.
Hood was up armored and was clearly a battleship. Surprised you don’t know that