It would be rad as hell though

Japan tried it in WW2, it sucked.

​@@sodadrinker89 Japan didn't make the carrier part big enough.

@@sodadrinker89 Hello Ise and Hyuga!

You are better off with one of each, the roles of battleships and carriers are almost exactly opposite.

Mississippi River... duh.

Yeah dude because it makes enemy navies want to run inland

same with me and the Missouri lol

All US battleships were named after states. The Iowa was just the first. You don't hear about her sister ships named after coastal states (California, Texas) anymore because they were scrapped sooner.

​@@Ryan_Christopher The Iowas sisters (Wisconsin and New Jersey) were never scrapped.

did the NAVY try to blame it on one of sailors, claiming he was a homo and that he wanted to kill himself? Hartwig i think? edit: found on wikipedia "Later media reports indicated that the U.S. Navy believed that Hartwig had intentionally caused the explosion after his relationship with Truitt had gone sour." Good old ZOG, when your big Jew project fails, find a white man to blame it on and destroy

Not to mention the fuck up in Lebanon, when the New Jersey managed to miss its target by some 10,000 yards because of mishandling of the powder lots...

I agree, I’m no expert but I watch a doco on that incident explaining why it might not have been the turret officers fault in the explosion

@MatteV2 Though the old powder certainly didn't help, Jersey’s awful accuracy off Lebanon was mostly because her gun barrels were all worn through from Vietnam and in desperate need of relining/replacing. She was on what was supposed to be a three-month cruise for her new crew to get used to their old ship when she was ordered to Beirut. New Jersey wound up stuck there for 18 months with a divorce rate of 50% amongst her crew; morale sank so low that the Navy, fearing a mutiny, rushed Iowa into service as fast as they could to relieve her. As a result, several of Iowa's own deficiencies went unrepaired, which would plague the battleship through her entire 1980s commissioning. There was an incident where some warehouse officer who thought himself much smarter than he actually was decided to open the bags and mix the powder lots inside them, which messed up the entire warehouse's supply of powder bags, but those deficiencies were quickly discovered and the faulty bags were never loaded onto a ship.

@@nick31092 Alright, yeah, work out barrels are quite the hindrance to any form of accuracy. I'd be willing to bet most of the machinery needed to reline those guns also werent to be found anywhere in the 80s.

I never really think of the North Vietnamese as having much of a blue-water fleet; the river boats always get the lion's share of the attention.

The Navy couldn't operate larger ships close to shore because of their drafts

​​@@cgmason7568 edit: sorry, i thought you were talking about a north vietnamese navy. /e also, any big unit would have been destroyed from the air faster than they could build it...

It would be IJN Hyuga and Ise Vibes

All carriers and most cruisers are designed to keep going after torpedo hits. One common mistake is to equate armor with torpedo protection. Armor is almost entirely above the waterline. Torpedo protection comes from having enough width to allow for multiple compartments between the side (where the torpedo hits) and the important stuff inside (magazines, engine rooms).

Gerald Bull tested several 16" gun barrels that were spares left over from the Iowa-class, while developing his 155mm artillery, among other projects. For reference, South Africa has developed a 155mm gun with nearly triple the normal range based on Bull's research, Iraq had a 210mm gun that had the longest range of any howitzer in service at the time of the first Gulf War, also based on Bull's research, and the Babylon Gun project was intended to launch satellites into low earth orbit as a precursor to a cheaper alternative to ICBM's. So yeah, the Iowa class's guns could have been improved over time to compete with Tomahawk cruise missiles, except the shells would be cheaper than missiles and weatherproof, so...

"twenty-seven feet of reinforced concrete at 10,000 yards " If you can hit it, sure. If you can hit an enemy ship at 18km you can punch through 50cm of armour. IF you can hit it. That word "if" keeps coming back into the equation. The bombardments of the japanese islands were an excellent example of how these statistics mean precisely nothing; the japanese dug tunnels and while the US was putting a metric f8ckton of shells into the topsoil, the japanese soldiers were quite safe underground. The tunnels were not made of concrete or steel and the shells were not designed to do anything with sand and dirt. Similarly in desert storm the marvellous Abrahams tanks with all their tech and firepower were crippled by desert sand getting into the engine. This is a recurring theme in the US army; they are briliant against an enemy they are designed to fight. When they have to improvise things go south very quickly. (20+ years in Afghanistan fighting IED's and kalashnikovs, bring on the list of excuses, but the worlds most powerfull army was regularly driven back by peasants) Anyway, the power of these ships is truely frightening, there is no doubt about that. Just watch the YT channel of Batlteship NewJersey. These ships where masterpieces of engineering from America's hayday, every detail is well thought out, redundancies for redundancies, ridiculous firepower, absolutely amazing. Completely useless today, but in their prime there were the king and queens of the seas.

11" sabotted shells with HVP form factor. There's room for guidance like Volcano IR guidance.

@@vinny142 You are totally and completely wrong. The Iowa class's mk1 targeting computer was so precise, that the guns at max range were accurate to withing 100ft of the target. Now that accuracy doesn't seem that good, but when you're talking about 1500lbs plus of high explosive, that is more than close enough. As for the Japanese, what you are talking about happened on Iwo Jima, and in that case the Japanese were literally under an entire mountain of volcanic ash, which is very soft, but also very tough. Tougher in fact than reinforced concrete. So your argument, hardly holds any water.

​@@vinny142 "Driven back by peasant armed with Kalashnikov"?🤣🤣🤣 OMG You're UTTERLY full of shit! Those camel-humpers didn't drive us ANYWHERE. We killed 'em by hundreds to one! Our army NEVER broke and ran. Not in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. A group of craven politicians in Washington folded like a prom dress, and sold out victories won by better men than themselves. I know, I was in Iraq twice. So just stop making yourself look any more ignorant than you just did.😂😂😂

Honestly, it didn't even wake me up. It was the GQ alarm that followed. My berthing was forward of turret 1

@@thomasheyart7033 my dad was the chief dental officer, Commander Reed. They felt it in the aft enlisted mess.

I don't remember which Iowa Class it was, but I've been on the one they keep at the Annapolis Navy Museum.

@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor there are 4 Iowa-class battleships. The New Jersey is in Trenton, NJ; the Missouri is at Pearl Harbor; the Wisconsin is in Norfolk, VA; and the Iowa is in Los Angeles. When did you tour the battleship?

@joshuareed390 i was asleep in my bunk about 100 feet away. Didn't wake me up, but you get used to some things. The ship rocked every time we fired the main guns. I don't remember your dad, specifically but I can say the dental department on the Iowa was top notch. I had 2 fillings done and never had a problem. Can't say that about every dentist.

That is not an Iowa class battleship.

​@@61woodydid you read the comment

Someone who actually knows something shows how utterly clueless the Battleship fetishizing crowd actually is

It was a test ship aside from WW2 service, which was sort of the point.

@@foxale08 then service as a test bed ship is not “upgrades”

Thanks man. I'll have to try a few more .

I don't understand why they couldn't just get bigger versions of the bags that modern artillery pieces use. I get "not wasting" all the old stuff, but gunpowder is pretty cheap all things considered.

Unfortunately, the officer that tried that only ruined an entire warehouse's worth of powder. Instead of some of the bags being bad, mixing them ensured that all of the bags were bad.

@William Shevchuk The propellant used today is different than what was used in World War Two, and what the guns of that era are designed to use. The bags themselves also aren't just filled with loose powder: the powder is shaped into solid cylindrical pellets about the length of your palm, with holes through the pellets for flame to travel through so the whole bag's worth of propellant ignites at once rather than a slow burn from one end of the bag to the other. It's a complex arrangement and the machines to make them were disposed in the 1960s.

@@nick31092 if the machines could be made with 1910's tech, they could be made today......

@Debbiebabe69 They could, yes. But it would cost a whole lot of time, money, and resources for very little worthwhile benefit.

And classic, ballistic firepower

Pretty sure the giant aircraft carriers do the posturing job lol. Oh and that the US has a bigger and more expensive navy than most countries. It's called the us coast guard 😂

@@youngthaiarfssoldier8732 And in the rare case any enemy ship gets within 20 miles, there won't be any enemy ship.

A modern take on the battleship would most likely see its main role be the same as it was actually used as back in WW2, a defensive role. Though we have a lot of love for the footage of them pounding the beach heads and suppressing ground targets, once the carrier was invented the practical use of battleships being used as a naval engagement platform became obsolete. A Dauntless Dive bomber could carry a 1,000lb bomb over 500 miles, while the Iowa could shoot a 2,700lb warhead, it could only do so at 24 miles.The ship however was heavily armored, bristling with guns, and could travel at 33 knots (around 37mph/61kmh). It was the perfect air defense platform and saw its main role as a defense point for carrier battlegroups. A new take on the battleship would be again, be heavily armored, bristling with defense points such as the AN/SEQ-3 Laser (what a time to be alive huh?), a high speed nuclear propulsion system to keep up with nuclear powered carriers which travel up to 30+ knots, and instead of the 3 massive triple turrets it would have 2 single turrets for extreme situations (probably 155mm) while the main offensive armament would be a large missile battery. To reiterate, its main role would be to protect the carriers from saturation attacks and be able to take a hit and keep on going.

I'm for it. I want a big stupid bastard with 24" guns just because *fuck you, that's why!*

Nobody asked. Go do something with your life.

Look, it’s a movie, it’s an entertainment, no one cares about physics

no the anchor chain would have snapped in half, thats been covered by the Battleship New Jersey youtube channel lol

It ain't rocket science... seamless high strength autofrettage tubes are still needed for industrial applications, it's not like we totally stopped a whole neccesary sector of manufacturing. Adding the rifling is the only challenge i see, and it's not a big callenge making the neccesary machine (if it even was decommisioned/ destroyed) The industrial capacity might not exist in the US anymore, though... do you make your own haber-bosch ammonia plants? Setting up the manufacturing and logistics for a whole new (old) caliber again is the bigger hassle. It would propaply take a few years, even if you went all in.

Also, compromising a missile cruiser might not make sense. Just get 50 barges full of unguided rockets, invest in cheap guidance systems for rockets, build a few new heavy cruisers like uss salem or reactivate the existing ones. (propaply not worth it, go with barges+ cheap electronics and (basically) model airplane servos.

I think the ineffectiveness of naval bombardment in battles like Iwo Jima were the final nail in the coffin for large bore main armament - against a prepared enemy, even an entire day of shelling from 16" guns will do little more than carpet bombing from high altitude. These days I think the tactic is purely in favour of aircraft and precision strikes. Using laser guided munitions to knock out specific targets and or the use of stealth bombers to blanket an area while the enemy is unaware. The Falklands war proved that against even a reasonably prepared and equipped force, naval bombardment wasn't a useful part of warfare really. Ships were just as much at risk from air and land based AShMs like the Exocet as aircraft were from AA missiles. However a multi-role jet is much cheaper, can be much more accurate, and stands a good chance of fighting enemy aircraft - as opposed to a frigate or destroyer which is close to being irreplaceable compared to a strike fighter, and yet simultaneously more vulnerable to enemy strike fighters. Manufacturing a 16" gun would be easy. Many of the companies who built them for battleships in the 40's are still around today. The technology for forging big bits of steel like that has only improved. As others have said, industry has provided plenty of reason to continue manufacturing big steel tubes. All that has been lost, if it even has been, is the expertise. In terms of British guns for example, the companies that built the BL 16" guns were either rolled into Vickers (now a part of Rolls Royce) or were made by the Royal Ordnance Arsenal - so In both cases I'd be very surprised if they didn't retain all the drawings and specs and such somewhere.

Everything that can be done on a 155mm or 5" shell is easier to do in a 16" shell. Not as many engineering compromises needed. IR guidance, GPS/ INS, HVP form factor, Volcano type shells....

OTO Melara?

I think it was either F.F. Worthington or Guy Simonds who said that Prairie boys made the best tankers because of their keen long distance observational skills, and ability to improvise mechanical solutions. I imagine prairie sailors might share a similar phenomenon.

The fact they tried to use some kind of "homosexual love triangle" thing, as part of the theory is galling. Ruined men's careers after the fact. Reason I don't mention the wasting of lives is because it's a moot point. It's the Navy, they'll waste any able seaman of it means some kind of embarrassment for the DoD and Sec. Of the Navy.

A buddy of mine was assigned to the Mo when he joined the Navy after high school and he invited me over for a friends and family day on her. It was quite the experience but, sadly, this was not too long after the tragedy aboard the Iowa so they weren't allowed to fire her 16 incehrs. But they did fire one of the 5 incehrs and that was pretty impressive. They also fired the CIWS and the MARDET did a quick demo too, all in all a great time even if I didn't get to see the 16 inches fire.

Very cool! I could see that being both a fun and challenging place to work.

My favorite scene in all of Godzilla is when in Godzilla king of the monsters he rocks up after being revived to fight king gidorah and theres that short shot of all the navy behind him ready to back him up

Wisky is in Norfolk, Virginia

@@nick31092 - WisKy - she has Kentucky’s bow.

Wisconsin is in Virginia, Norfolk, museum thanks for the tip on the others ,I thought only 2 remained 2023

the problem with this, 'not having enough missiles' is not a problem the USN are ever likely to have. A standard surface action group of two or three Burke destroyers has always 'had enough missiles' for whatever task they have been given, while a carrier battlegroup usually has three Burkes and a cruiser. There is more of a problem detecting the missiles early enough to intercept than there is of 'not having enough missiles'. Your 288 vls idea is basically the 'Arsenal Ship' idea from the 1990s, which was rejected as the Navy already had enough missiles and enough launch cells with thier existing destroyer fleet.

@@Debbiebabe69 that may have been the case when the USN had a lot more destroyers and cruisers in the 90s; but with all the ticos being retired in the very near future and the USN planning on downsizing the entire surface over the next couple decades, there will be many fewer vls available at any one time. Especially since ships that need to be overhauled are now waiting a few years before they get dry dock space. And given how China has accelerated ship building there is a very realistic scenario where the USN is at a significant disadvantage in the far east. And once Burkes can't rearm their VLS at sea, so any task force could get mission killed simply because they've expanded their stores. Maybe the idea of an arsenal ship didn't seem needed in the 90s in the aftermath of the cold war, but strategic environment has changed a whole lot since then.

@@Jon.A.Scholt Pretty sure the lowering of shipcount will simply mean less groups at sea rather than less actual ship in each battlegroup. As for the Ticos, since they are only used to escort cvs nowadays, all it will mean is a reduction from 400 tubes in a battlegroup to 366 tubes - if the battlegroup then gets one of the new FFG62 frigates, that will push the tube count back to around 400, as well as extra dedicated AShM launchers...

Ya that movie was pure Nerdcore😎

And huge balls to feed that gun too

I personally think the only way these ships could be put back into service is with a MAJOR modernization. Remove the 16-inch guns and replace it with a VLS, perhaps outfit it with the Aegis Combat System, and add a hangar to accommodate at least one SH-60. Unfortunately, such a thing would be VASTLY more expensive than the Navy would want, rather just build a whole new class of ship.

Wait, i regret attacking san fransisco now, I dont wanna face the united states navy

Be specific on the aliens or you'd have to sacrifice your BB just to take one down. Reminder, it's a big floating target.

United States: Sends up the Missouri into space. Japan: "We need to raise the Yamato and prepare it for launch!" Germany: "This is our chance to prove that our military isn't weak anymore! Raise the Bismark!" UK: "Prepare HMS Victory for space trials."

@@Hybris51129. Hahahahaha 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣😂 I’d pay to see that movie Have the Greeks retrofit the Argo with Capt Jason with his Cosmo Argonauts 😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣

Thanks Will ❤️

Only on the outside.

We did

honestly i think we should develop some anti missile destroyers. if we go to war with china theyre going to spam our aircraft carriers with hundreds, maybe even thousands of missiles. we need a LOT of CIWS and lasers to mitigate those incoming missiles, and a series of underwater cable nets around our carriers to destroy incoming torpedoes/drones.

if only britain had preserved the HMS vanguard

@@diptimanidas1865 and the HMS Warspite!

Thanks E. Will try to have something new out for ya in a day or two.

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq excellent...big Battle of the Atlantic events in Liverpool this weekend...thanks for thinking of us this side of the pond...a paramedic exhibition opened at Crosby too...

while this is very true. power projection is a major part of navel strat. Its nice to have 4 smaller ships because they can do 4 different things. They all need maintenance, crew rotation, transit time, refit. So you effectively have maybe 2 ships operational at any time. But for power projection a large ship like an aircraft carrier or a battleship at the center of a force is instrumental. They essentially act as logistics nodes giving fuel, food, medical aid, machine shop space( The Iowa's had a full service machine shop) and even some recreation for other ships. so now your 4 smaller ships can be out longer doing more. instead of having to go back to port after X amount of time.

sounds like the China navy🤣😂☹️

What about the powerplant? Replace the geared steam turbines with electric motors (IEP)? The power generated should be suffice, right?

Which system?? Thanks man!

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq SLQ-25 NIXIE

They don't have the electrical generation for railguns, in theory they could fire 100 miles with the existing guns and new projectiles.

Or maybe they could finally build 1-2 Montana class battleships

Keep 1 set of main 16inch guns for ground bombardment. Take the other 2 out and add at least 4 of the modern main gun you ses on ships these days. Pepper the ship with countermeasures. Add a landing pad of some kind for general operating. Add a missle launch system and boom a coastal defence ship.

A close family friend was the captain of the USS Shiloh ticonderoga-class. Got to see the phalanx up close and personal in action when they took the shiloh out with friends and family for a BBQ at sea out of San Diego. Impressive firepower

Very cool. I'd like to see/hear that one day.

Better yet, a topless Erika Eleniak came out of that cake. I want one of those cakes for my next b'day.

Might be more effective to just build a ship like that from the ground up

Would be cool to have a mix of Aegis and trident/tomahawk/hypersonic missiles

The Barbettes not to mention the turrets themselves are some of the thickest armor on the ship, just gutting those areas apart from interfering with other spaces would drastically throw the ships center of mass off

If I recall correctly, there have been modernization studies that proposed replacing all the battleships' gun turrets with Mark 41 VLS launchers as you described. The problem is that removing all the big-gun turrets would drastically change the battleships' center-of-balance and affect their seaworthiness.

@Christopher Wang The 80s refit additions for the Tomahawks/Harpoons etc. Alone affected the center of mass enough to be an issue, granted they're much higher up but nonetheless

Well I sorta agree but. Having artillery barrage of cheaper ammo then missile strikes is also nice.

@@copunit12 Agreed! Especially since these cannons throw a shell the size of a small car. A near miss will do the job just fine, you don't need sophisticated guidance...🤣🫡

@@copunit12 Sadly, while artillery on the ground is cheaper...Sea is a different story as yes battleship can use their main cannon as a naval bombard...so can the other ships, and sometimes more effectively as well. The main problem of a naval bombard is that you have to be reasonably close to the coast which makes them more vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, which has already been proven when Russia learned that the hard way with the Moskva. But the main reason why navel bombard is kind of rare nowadays is just simply because it's too risky, unless you are going against a nation that doesn't have these types of defenses then it's better to just sit far away and fire missiles where you have more time to react against an enemy counterattack.

I am not an expert. But, wouldn't the advancements in rail-guns eventually make big gunpowder guns obsolete, simply on a cost-efficiency basis?

@Tony Baloney Maybe not for cost, but survivability, range, and power yes.

note; no panties

that and the manpower needed... battleship is relic of the past when manpower is cheaper...

I got you Iowa old chap

@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq from the pps 43 to here. Absolutely good sir. 🔥👍💪

Reagan inherited a weak worn out military. And I was in it. It's better today than it ever was after the post Vietnam military that didn't hardly have enough money for training.

we have such coming ,if not stolden

The scenes with the battleship were totally cool, but then somehow believing a space craft that has the technology to make it across space can then only hop once it gets here is silly.

@@Kr0N05 oh yeah, it’s definitely not the kind of movie you can look too deeply into, it’s the kind of movie where you smoke a bowl and just enjoy it

If you *were* to make a carrier/battleship hybrid, it would make more sense to make it a DRONE carrier rather than manned aircraft or rotaries.

​@Debbiebabe69 yeah, good luck getting them off the deck while combat loaded, that Dec wouldn't be long enough to land and take off without VTOL capability.

Same here lol I understand very well by most standards it'd be "impossible" as you say, most of the ex Iowa class equipment likely would've been either scrapped, lost, repurposed or even put into storage by now. Missouri iirc was the least modified in tems of the modernization compared to sisterships Iowa and New Jersey, however even then it would definitely be a costly endeavour to revert her to as built/post WWII condition. A majority of money earned goes towards the upkeep of these ships and even then it seems like they're _just_ scraping by at times, USS Texas is a good yet unfortunate example of this, although work is actively being done to keep her afloat because people do care about the preservation of these iron giants. Maybe it's just me, but on a more realistic note, if not a full revert back to her original state I'd at least love to see that two tone blue and grey cammo the Mighty Mo wore in service throughout WWII That would be pretty cool to me.

i imagine that's gonna be bit harder these days...

@@PrograError True but it's a great memory. When I took my kids on a tour of USS North Carolina (BB-55) I mentioned that I was active duty Navy to the guide. He invited me to comment on any part of the tour. So I did, especially the bridge and CIC.