I wish the Montana had been finished

@@pcoyle2007 Would have been nice to see at least the lead vessel as a floating museum in SF Bay or somewhere on the West Coast.

Men like your father won WW2

@@rossdawgsbrokenspirit9038 When he was sharing his stories of that time, I was a snot nosed kid with little interest in hearing what he said. But now I am 62, I kick myself for being that way. I was in the presence of living history, hearing 1st hand experiences from WWII. Now I have to strain my brain to remember what I heard. Young people; when your elders are talking, listen to what is being said. It is part of your history.

@@pcoyle2007 They might have been bigger, but they would be much slower (28 knots vs 33 for the Iowas) and therefore unable to keep up with the carriers. The Iowas lasted so long because they could fulfill the role of carrier escort if needed.

She'll fly to Iscandar and destroy the Gamilons!👍👍👍

And the galaxy class starship as well, which was destroyed

After the forward magazine explosion it will need a few decades of yard time and a whole bunch of steel. And money, buckets and buckets of money…

🙂

If She dont in just one year, Planet Earth WILL DISSAPPEAR!!!

船体は主砲発射時に安定させるために、小さすぎず大き過ぎずのギリギリを攻めたものでした。逆に戦艦アイオワはパナマ運河を通過するために、船体を細く造りました。それを考えると、主砲発射時の安定性からして大和型の方が砲撃力で勝っていたのかもしれません。

The yamato class was designed to be the battleship to win all war they just didn't realize usa would huse a ton of plane

​@@user-rt7ji6ti4ryamato may have the largest gun but not a long range gun the and yamato is not good in stormy seas due to it's weight and IOWA class battleships was built face to face yamato and his sister ship musashi

​@albertamira5488 iowas were meant to be carrier escort ships hence their incredible top speeds and powerfull anti air suite. Also the wider hull form of the yamato class as opposed to the narrower and longer Iowa class made them slightly better in terms of stability in rough seas as It helped with rolling. And yamato just like iowa can fire her guns out over the horizon with help using a spotting aircraft so saying they weren't long range Is blatantly wrong.

@@albertamira5488 The Iowa class should have been built to compete with the Kongo class. You mean the Montana-class that ended up in the plan?

Nailed it

Could it fit the Battlestar Galactica inside it?

Why fit a Spaceship inside of it, when you can make a Spaceship out of it?

And you can dwarf her with a container ship of today as well.

From what I know, the spacebattleship Yamato is actually smaller than the actual Yamato.

After the Ariel attack on the naval base at Tarento by biplane torpedo bombers the Italian navy became very protective of its remaining battleships and didn't seem to keen to risk combat with the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean

@@michaelnaisbitt7926 not that they had much choice anyway considering how low they were on gas for all the war.

@@michaelnaisbitt7926 and they find out that a new kind of sea war was getting on the sea power was now achieved with the carriers that they refused to built.

They had a no way to exit the Mediterranean.

​@@rudespo8701 Italy had little use for an aircraft carrier in ww2, they didn't build one because it wasn't in line with their perceived objectives

I Also believe the navy wanted the ships to be able to fit through the locks of the Panama canal. if needed.

Yes it was the limiting factor for all US warships and remains so today.

I heard the same. I think that’s why carriers are pretty much Atlantic/ Pacific only nowadays. I’m not 100%, but I think I remember seeing that.

@@glamdring0007Incorrect. All U.S. Naval Ships can’t fit through the Panama Canal . Please 🛑 spreading falsehood tales.

And the draught of the Yamato Class ships were made to be able to navigate the Inland Sea.

I was there 😢 the best and baddest ship. Best time except on that sad day 😢. 3rd Division Deck Department Jeffery Quesenberry (Country Boy) Moki Winslow (Hawaiian) Bm2 Grazt

Iowa class battleships where like showboat every port visit every body wanted to see them ❤😊. AMAZING SHIPS

Yes,The Iowa's were longer and not as Beamy. It's not the first time someone is Shorting the Iowa's.

Their new destroyers are going to be really wide too. Too wide for Panamax.

Japan doesn't need to build skinny battleships simply because they don't need to go through the Panama Canal. Japan's naval doctrine dictates it to operate only in the Pacific and maybe the Indian Ocean while the US must maintain a two ocean (Pacific and Atlantic) navy

needed to be for stability for those 18.1 guns.

@@dayanwarna5270 Yep. They were EXTREMELY stable gun platforms, which led to very good accuracy, even with less advanced radar

What was the second bomb?

@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 There were many more required to sink Yamato, but that first hit did some serious damage. You needed a huge pair of steel balls to strap yourself into one of those dive bombers and aim the nose of your plane at the deck of a monster battleship that was trying to end you.

Le Richelieu had 47 k ton displacement maximum ! not 44.698, see Wikipedia.

Jean Bart when actually complete was more like 52000 - 53000 tons full load and 11 m draft, need to look at the french updated plans for JB, she was way heavier with bulges and AA ammo.

I also thought it was the Washington naval treaty I could be wrong tho. Correct me if I am

​@@Coolboi898If it entered service by 1940, then the treaty didn't have any effect.

@@Coolboi898 I don’t think the UK had officially withdrawn from the treaties. The US and UK were debating invoking some “escalator clause“ to have bigger guns. The UK and the US still tried keeping their new battleships at treaty limits, when they were building the KGV’s, and the North Carolinas and the South Dakotas. Part of the decision to keep 14 inch guns on the KGVs might’ve been a tonnage treaty issue.

The original design called for a 2 gun turret aft superimposed over Y turret. Yes, it became unstable. The 14 inch guns were a result of the Washington Treat.naval treaty. So they decided on 12 guns of 14 inch to have a large broadside due to the restrictions. The figuring was 12 shells fired in stead of 8, 9 or 10.

That is not correct. The Yamato class was laid down in 1937 and entered service in 1941. The American Iowa class was laid down in 1940 and entered service in 1943. But why did America build the Iowa class? The US was supposed to be able to use the Iowa-class battleships as aircraft carriers. By the way, Japan was the first country to use aircraft attacks.

@@user-oo5qj6bj6b You should not ignore the fact that there was a huge gap between the United States and Japan in terms of industrial output. Japan`s gross domestic product (GDP) was less than 10% of the United States, so the United States could afford to obtain both aircraft carriers and battleships while Japan had to choose aircraft carriers or battleships. Due to smaller industrial output, Imperial Japan had to choose battleships at the expense of aircraft carriers. From the beginning of Pacific War, Japan`s declaration of war against the United States was unrealistic and even suicidal. By the way, was Great Britain the first country to use torpedo planes (swordfish) to attack Italian battleship at the Gulf of Taranto if I remember correctly?

@@MrEjidorie Yes, but the number of pilots is also limited, so even if Japan used Yamato-class battleships as aircraft carriers at that time, I think it would have suffered the same fate due to the lack of pilots. It wasn't an aircraft carrier, it wasn't a battleship, it didn't have enough transport. I know it was stupid for Japan to declare war on America, but do you know "Hull Note" or "Ten Point" (November 26, 1941)? I think it was bad that the United States refused to negotiate with Japan at that time. I'm sorry, I was at a loss for words because I thought it was a story about two countries, Japan and America. At that time, Japan wanted to convey that one of its main forces was aircraft. (In fact, at the beginning of the war, the United States was less interested in air power than Japan.)

Big J is the most decorated battleship in American history - BB 62🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Same with there was supposed to be 3 Yamato Class battleships But the Shimano was converted to an aircraft carrier after the loss of its 4 main carriers at the battle of Midway.

To be more specific there were to be 4 Iowa's and then 5 Montana class Battleships but the Montana's were to be a larger ship with reduced speed over the Iowa's and they really wanted to put larger main guns on the Montana's but that would take more time in R&D so the Navy opted for 2 more Iowa's instead since they were already tooled for them however, they were never completed.

@@JoeXTheXJuggalo1 The Japanese actually planned for 5 Yamato's and the 4th had been laid down but there is no record of what her name would be. Yes, Shinano was well along but after the Midway catastrophe the IJN was short of carriers so they completed Shinano as a carrier. The US Navy found what was to be the turret face armor for Shinano and brought it back to the US for testing. A piece of it is on display at the Navy Yard Museum in Washington DC with a huge shell hole from a 16" 50 cal Mark VII gun which the Iowa's carry. The armor is 2ft thick.

@@LegalVideoMan Yes warship 111 and 797 is what they was called. Warship 111 started construction after the Yamato was launch. Due to the war, losing ships, and low resources it's hull about 25%-30% completed before it was halted and disassembled. The material was used to convert the WWI era Ise-Class battleships Ise and Hyuga into battleship carriers.

The US could afford to maintain them after having bled the rest of the Allied nations of their gold reserves. Everyone else had to scrap theirs.

That’s because it was hiding behind air craft carriers it’s entire career 👍🏼

It's even larger than an aircraft carrier lol

Thank you

@@_tininu_ :))

​@kxsho_002 not modern day ones. But yes Yamato was so large and very pretty! I must tell you Yamato and Musashi had another sister ship- shinano. Which was turned into a carrier actually. She was later sunk by American submarines

They were hamstrung by the london treaty which capped guns at 14 inches and 35k displacement. The Nelson and Rodney were also capped by the washington treaty at 35k displacement, but before the limitation on armament. Americans got to change their North Carolina class in time, but it was too late for KGV class. What beasts they would have been with 12 14 inch guns or 9 16 inch guns, as is, they were mighty ships with 10 14 inch guns :)

They miss out on the hood

@@seansands424 you'll trigger the "HOOD WAS A BATTLECRUISER" nerds ;)

The North Carolina class were laid down to treaty specs as well. And were originally planned to have quad 14" turrets. But when we found out the Japanese weren't abiding by treaty limitations anymore they upgraded them to 16" triples.

@@Trains-With-Shane Correct, and the British couldn't afford to wait for next gen 16" guns to be ready for the KGV's, so they just stuck with the 14" guns.

Shinano, she was actually sunk by the submarine USS Archerfish on 29 November 1944.

That and no one believed them when they stated what they sunk until much later. @@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

Actually 4, Yamato, the sister ship Musashi, the conveted to AC class Shinano, and one wasn't produced.

KZfaq comment sections man.... Can always count on someone to spout off some complete bullshit and try to present it as fact

@@ElRollioauEver since I moved over to Quora for a mainstay website to talk naval history, I've met like 4 people who claimed Iowa could hit enemy ships at 20+ miles.

They was remarkable ships of the time. It's sad to see them go the way they did. It would of been amazing to see the Yamato or Musashi as a anchored museum in Japan.

@@JoeXTheXJuggalo1 さん 是非、広島県呉市の大和ミュージアムに来て下さい。 精密な1/10大和の模型を初めとする色んな展示品がありますよ。 それに、大和を造船したドックで「かが」を空母に改装中ですね。

@@oniwakamarukumano8328 that is good to know. If I ever visit Japan I will definitely go see it.

​@@oniwakamarukumano8328 そしてかがは今年の五月くらいに海に帰ってくる模様

@@user-rt7ji6ti4r さん そうですか！ 楽しみです！

11th

We recognise a ship "big" by their weight. While the iowa class was only 7 metres longer, yamato was much wider, and way way heavier.

@@Absolut531kmh I’m speaking about eye witness accounts of people that saw the ships for the first time. I’m not talking about technical specifications

@@7gmeister though yamato do seem longer as they have larger weapons and its thicker

it looks like Iowa ist to wide in the pictures. (So its size (witness) seems wrong - compare to ohter ships shown). Bismarck (36 m) and Yamato (37m) shoud be - visible - much wider - than the "slim and narrow" Iowa (33 m). But ist seems on the pictures.... that all three ships has quite the same witness. I have seen other pictures (Iowa vs. Bismarck) - on wich Bismarck look (overall) much wider ("bigger", "stronger") - than the fast and long but quite narrow Iowa.

@@Flenders1983 My thoughts exactly but I don’t know for sure what it actually looks like in rl. I can only go by the pictures and models I built as a kid

It would have been sunk in Operation Crossroads along with Nagato. Destruction of IJN capital ships was part of the peace agreement.

Used the wrong wording of "surrender" more appropriately would have been "sacrificed"

They're fun to watch, but often got it wrong.

Good call. Correct.

she said 9, 460mm guns or 18inch

@@xavierkerr2688 Yeah that was his American ears catching inches, but she definitely said 460mm

18.1 inch to be exact

@@Odin029. In America we measure with freedom fractions🤣, we are the only country to still have our battleships.

My father served as a signalman on HMS Vanguard on its first commission, including the Royal Tour to South Africa in 1947, a great voyage with some enjoyable shore leave in Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth. He felt the superstructure was rather too big and high for the looks of the ship and he thought the King George V class were better looking in some ways.

Some of the Japanese battleships were built by the British

@@harryjohnson9215 yep, based on the WW1 battlecruiser concept. They were completely rebuilt in the interwar period with new machinery and armour though. Still less armoured compared to the US battleships built from new in the same period

Is that because they had to fit through the Panama Canal?

@@neilbuckley1613 yes, the Japanese logic behind the Yamato was that the US couldn’t sortie bigger ships

@@michaelbracho3956 They didn't seem to care with the Montana class

The same could be said about the h44 or just h class in general the h44 was predicted to be about 2-3 times bigger than bismarck and weight upwards of 100k tons

The difference though is that the USA could build the Montana class but decided to build carriers. I don’t think Germany had the resources to build the H44 during WW2

@@Titankiller-fz4tn Difference is that the Montanas were actually realistic designs for the US to build, whilst the H44s were pure fantasy

How about the super yamato. It was an actual design

@@fyieafgeyuv4402 the A-150-class is still a Yamato-class just with 6 51cm guns instead of 9 46cm guns and has slightly improved secondaries and AA than the Yamato-class, in terms of dimensions A-150s and Yamatos are the same only the A-150s would have been slightly heavier due to the 20.1" gun turrets being more heavily armoured and heavier than the 18.1" gun turrets.

But it was certainly a battlecruiser which is a different class.

@@Moggy471 Wrong. A battlecruiser was not a different class from a battleship. The Washington treaty which defined ship classes didn´t distinguish between battleships and battlecruisers. Both were regarded as capital ships as opposed to cruisers that was limited to 10.000 tons. In the 20´ties as far as the Royal Navy was concerned a battlecruiser was simply a fast battleship meant for raiding and for modern fast task forces rather than being a battleship "of the line" in the old sense, such as HMS Nelson. The thing is that Bismarck and most other modern battleships were fast raiders as well, but in contrary to Royal Navy in the 30´ties, neither Germany, France, Italy nor the US were using the term battlecruiser for their fast naval task forces of battleship raiders during WWII. Even though the old tactics of the battleship line were completely outdated by WWII these nations all sticked to the obsolete term "battleship".

@@jesperlykkeberg7438 Yeah. No.

Yamato, Iowas, Vanguard, Bismarck, then Hood. That would make her 5th. Also, at full load, the Richelieus, Litorios, North Carolinas would all eventually nearly equal Hood's weight during their wartime careers do to additional AA weight, all coming to about 45,000t to Hood's 47,000t.

@@jesperlykkeberg7438 So there's a lot to explain with regards to Hood: Firstly, following the battle of Jutland, the British started adding armour to the then under construction Admiral Class of 4 Battlecruisers. They were intended to be the next step of size increase over Renown and Repulse, and started off as traditional battlecruiser designs. Secondly, the idea of a "fast" battleship started off as mear escalation of the Dreadnought idea. That was the goal to design a leap in technology over her adversaries by being better armed with all large uniform fighting battery, and faster then her contemporaries by using turbines instead of the standard tripple expansion engine. As other nations eventually build their own dreadnought, the Orions were designed to make a similar jump again over the Dreadnoughts. The Queen E's were the 3rd big jump in the line, and they inspired the idea of the, "fast" battleship. A ship that could truly both hunt raiders and fight in the battleline. However they never managed their intended 25kt speed. So following the disappointment over the QEs not being fast enough, and the newfound worries over the very concept of a battlecruiser after Jutland, the admiralty started packing on a ton of weight in armour to the then building Admrials. However as post war treaties began to loom in the minds of the Admirals, and with clear issues to the Admirals being predicted due to all the weight on the hulls, they decided to cancel the 3 sisters to finish Hood to her modified design. So Hood is really the first successful fast battleship design, as she was specifically modified to fight properly in the battleline, and not just hunt raiders. If Iowa is a fast battleship, so too is Hood as they are nearly identical in belt, speed, and intended purpose.

Such a feared ship due to its secrecy, where the US was so scared of it that they planned to use 10 Battleships and +400 aircraft to combat it. Luckily for the US, the aircraft where the only ones to sink yamato and musashi

The second image for the Yamato class shows the battleship Yamato during sea trials in October 1941. There are quite a few pictures from these sea trials which I will attach below. There are plenty of pictures of the battleship Yamato, more than the sister ship Musashi. However, only two photographs are known of the third ship of this class, the Shinano. Here are the pictures of the Yamato from 1941: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship#/media/File:Yamato_sea_trials_2.jpg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#/media/File:Japanese_battleship_Yamato_running_trials_off_Bungo_Strait,_20_October_1941.jpg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#/media/File:Yamato_during_Trial_Service.jpg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato#/media/File:Japanese_battleship_Yamato_fitting_out_at_the_Kure_Naval_Base,_Japan,_20_September_1941_(NH_63433).jpg

@@tzarcaz_4385: Sure, especially since the US Navy was fully aware that on October 24, 1944 they had almost incidentally sunk the Musashi by carrier-based air attacks in the Sibuyan Sea. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi#/media/File:Japanese_battleship_Musashi_and_a_destroyer_under_attack_in_the_Sibuyan_Sea,_24_October_1944_(NH_63432).jpg The US Navy was also well aware, that Yamato, along with Nagato, Kongo and Haruna was fleeing a handful of escort carriers and escort destroyers off Samar on October 25, 1944... You don't seem to realize that in April 1945, Task Force 58 with 8 aircraft carriers and six battleships with escort ships and almost 400 aircraft was on site as backing for the invasion of Okinawa and the battleship Yamato left the Japanese Inland Sea as a surprise to the Americans.

@@ULTRA_2112 I think it was April 1945 instead of 1944.

@@Briguy1027 That's right, my fault. I made a typo and will correct it now... Thanks.

Yeah... No. The Iowa's radar at WW2 was crap, and anyone saying otherwise is talking about the upgrades installed later on when missiles became a thing. The Yamato's visual targeting systems were state of the art masterpieces, capable of seeing far beyond what the actual eye could see. Sure the Iowa would shoot near the target consistently thanks to her radar, but the Yamato would make a couple ranging shots then go to town on whatever poor soul it would be firing against. The usual argument for the Iowa is that: "My grandfather/uncle/friend/aunt/cousin/dog served in the Iowa and they said she would win" having experienced the Iowa as she was after the cold war. An almost entirely different ship compared to the 1945 version of herself

@@gerardfarresfranch7242 the USS Washinton and Adm Lee proved that radar could be used to fire accurately in 1943

@@sche0707 And it was common knowledge that after a couple ranging shots, the visual systems the Japanese used were just as accurate, at the same distances, and the Yamato had an effective range of 46 km with its main guns, doubling the range of other battleships at the time, the important word in that is effective, meaning that while it wasn't as accurate as radar it wasn't missing its targets by kilometers, and all it would take would be a lucky shot while other ships were getting into range to begin disaster

@@gerardfarresfranch7242 Unfortunately, ships move, so those two ranging shots only ranged where the ship was two minutes ago.

@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 My man, maths have been around for a very long time, no average neanderthal would be put in charge of the targeting

Well they're French after all .... And imagine the Chow! I mean Cuisine!

I've been on the New Jersey, also Iowa class.

@@movienerd202 Did it have missiles on it or were those only on the ones that were part of desert storm?

@@afriendofafriend5766 I don't recall seeing anything that fired missiles no.

@@movienerd202 the Wisconsin and the other ship that went to the middle east had Tomahawk box launchers on them. It was pretty cool to see them up close

@@afriendofafriend5766 yes NJ has (I think) Tomahawk launchers. Pretty sure it’s 16 of them, in the middle and back of the superstructure.

Considering all the lives that have been lost in WW2 already, it would be very interesting to see a 1 on 1 duel between the 2

Metals polluting the ocean??? I think you forgot that Yamato and Musashi were about 150,000 tons of metals and oil at the bottom of the ocean after each was hit by about 18 torpedoes and 20 bombs by US Naval aircraft from 4 aircraft carriers. Over 390 dive bombers and torpedo bombers, with fighter cover, sank the Yamato, and over 250 sunk the Musashi.

Would be frickin awesome

For freedom... XDXDXDXDXD It had to be done to beat the japanese and nothing more. stop preteinding everything the US does is for freedom. You all are some off the most oppressed people on the planet.

Technically speaking The Yamato is the largest U-Boat ever.🤣

@@waynesimpson2074 lol 😂

@@Benji1969 Thank you kind Sir🤩Most people don't get it and just argue the point🤪

The Kentucky's bow section lives on as part of the Wisconsin

...at another battleship. See the actions at Leyte Gulf and the final sortie to Okinawa. San Shiki (also referred to as "Beehive") AA shells were used against US aircraft, although there are reports the gunnery officers did not like them since the driving bands were considered to cause extra wear to the barrel rifling.

Ok

Interesting that all the Iowa's, North Carolina's and the Texas (NY Class) are still seaworthy

@@kenp7814 not quite with the North Carolina's. Washington was scrapped in the early 60s.

@@jacobdill4499 I should have just said North Carolina, sorry if it bothered you

I think it's great the U.S. has so many Battleship's preserved as museum ship's.

I would say it's quite natural when considering the era, before mass media (as we know it today) and consumerist culture. Things were built to last because it wasn't as easy to replace.

@@tonygarratt5832 Now now. Boats built today can last as long as boats built in the past. Probably one of the biggest reasons why a boat taken off the water though is it's lower efficiency to a boat of newer design.

Iowa and Wisconsin are on the US Navy's list for being reactivated with new computer systems, new AA AEGIS combat systems, tripling Tomahawk cruise missile capacity, and possible rail gun or guns with the 16-inch main batteries to be capable of firing up to 100 miles with new missile-type shells. They are being considered for use in protecting Taiwan in the Taiwan Strait against any invasion force.

Pfft, look at USS Texas launched in 1912, commissioned in 1914 is still afloat, she's getting her hull fixed. The last dreadnought, fought in both World Wars......

All extremely debatable, the Bismarck class is extremely overrated. As its closest contemporaries in terms of design date were either french (never saw much action vs the German fleet) Italian (to scared to lose the ship to really use them) and the British KGV class of which dominated in all the soft factors such as Radar assisted gunnery (look into the sinking of the Schanhorst to get a feel for that). (i dont know enough about the N.Carolina class to comment) but all these ships are pretty much the same in terms of overall effectiveness. As for torpedo armament you do know that was extremely common for ww1 era battleships? It was just removed from any later ones as it never saw any use and they might as well use the treaty displacement for armour. When it comes to Naval battles its not exactly a matter of who has the better ship, more just which crew is better at gunnery and if you get lucky. (or if your against the british they get cocky, example all ships lost at Jutland). Does the weather and time of day suit your ship, British ships had really good all weather capabilities as they had an empire to police. While the Germans designs didn't account for the little details of tropical weather as why would they? Night fighting suits the radar capable ships extremely well just look at what happens to the Italians...poor Zara that ship didn't deserve a 3 battleship point blank ambush. how about location? too north and german magnetic torpedos stop working while if in the south they tend to be more reliable than other navys. When it comes to a game hard factors are king, IRL soft factors are the real deal. When it comes to anything after 1935 and pre Iowa and Yamato are all basically the same, depending on other factors they can all win. As for these 2 theres a reason nobody tried to match them as the Carrier became No1 before they even saw action the only half assed attempt was the Vanguard fitted with old weapons as by then the Brits knew the class was dying but they already done all the work so they might as well complete the ship cheaply.

Imagine making 8 15in guns on a 1940s huge warship

@@Youraveragegamer_97 Making? Even better the 15in guns are ripped straight from old ships. Look up the QE class made in WW1 (Warspite & 4 others) the turrets look oddly exactly the same...

Bismarck is king of Davy Jones's Locker.

Fairey Swordfish owned Bismarck

She is immensely beautiful

I am from Greece and I find the Yamato gorgeous. I also really like the myoko class cruisers

@@Walaki Thank you. I believe that the battleship Yamato is one of the pinnacles of refined battleship design in human history. Prior to the Yamato, Japanese battleships underwent numerous modifications, resulting in a lack of cohesion in their shapes. However, I consider the Yamato to be the culmination of Japan's shipbuilding history.

I think HMS Vanguard was the most beautiful.

It's a beautiful battleship

KGV is underrated. They have the second thickes armor, 2nd only to Yamato. British steel quality was highly advanced for the period, raising the effective thickness by 15%, meaning her belt would have been better protected than Yamato if not for Yamato's belt being sloped at 19 degrees. US and German navy fanboys constantly rag on her for her guns, as they were "small and didn't function". While their gun size of 14-inches was small, due to British made super charges, could penetrate a lot more armor than their gunsize, Prince of Wales, perfectly penetrated Bismarck's 12.6-inch belt, while KGV and Duke of York penetrate 13.8-inch armor on Bismarck and Scharnhorst respectively. POW's guns only malfunctioned because she was fresh out of the commissioning ceremony. KGV and DOY's guns functioned perfectly. They were the second bet treaty era battleships, barely beat out by USS South Dakota, and they were the 4th best battleships ever made in my opinion.

@@metaknight115 if they had been made with the 15 inch 45s they would have probably even beat the South Dakota’s

@@MCLegend13 Still wouldn't have. KGV's guns were perfectly capable of penetrating South Dakota's armor. South Dakota just had some cartoonishly overpowered deck penetration, as 45 cal 16-inch guns firing super heavy shells could penetrate any and all deck armor, aside from maybe Yamato's.

@@metaknight115 I disagree the 14 inch quads were very capable don’t get me wrong but It’s still would have been better to go for the 15 or 16 inch as those are the calibres everyone else is going for at the time (apart from the Dunkirk’s and Scharnhorst’s) so it’s honestly shocking how they could have so easily just made a 15 or 16 inch turret but instead went for the 14 inch gun. But it gets worse why only 10 guns not 12 that would have made the capability much better and would potentially have a large enough barbet to replace all 3 quad 14s with triple 15s or even triple 16s the 2 quads and super firing twin just wouldn’t work Still none the less a capable gun and a capable ship.

@@MCLegend13 Fair enough

Sounds Asian. Always says “crass“ instead of “class“. It’s got to be easier to use a human voice…

@ジークハイル portuguese pls

@ジークハイル ok

@ジークハイル ホルマリン漬け部部員 ほんまそれ‼︎大艦巨砲主義の上層部があかんのよ

Her two sisters being Glorious and Courageous both of which sadly had short wartime careers as carriers however their guns were stored and eventually mounted on the new build Vanguard

@@stephenchappell7512 actually, HMS Vanguard was equipped with the turrets and mountings, from HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous, but the actual 15" guns themselves were taken from the RN's central 15" gun stockpile, and had previously been installed on HMS Queen Elizabeth (2 guns)HMS Ramillies(2 guns)HMS Resolution, HMS Royal Sovereign, HMS Erebus and HMS Warspite

@@MichaelHill-we7vt But weren't all those ships mentioned still knocking about (awaiting disposal) at the time of Vanguard's commissioning in May 1946?

@@stephenchappell7512 The RN maintained a "pool" of 15-inch guns which were available for installation on battleships when their guns were removed for re-lining and modernisation....the guns which were mounted on HMS Vanguard came from this "pool" but had been previously mounted on the ships I listed.....the two 15" guns on display in front of the Imperial War Museum in London also came from that same "pool"

Iowa class spec speed was 33 knots however they had been clocked at 36 knots flat out in calm seas .

@@fredmoucatel2058 which is true, but that was only when the USS New Jersey was reactivated for service in Vietnam in the 1960's, +20 years after being first launched. All previous 20mm and 40mm antiaircraft batteries were stripped and nothing put in their place, making her much lighter and correspondingly faster.

@ジークハイル if you think that was a tangible plan, you are greatly mistaken. Yamato went down with basically no tactical achievements; bigger battleships woudnt have made a difference, even if Japan had the capacity to build them. In any case it wasnt like US didnt have the capacity to build bigger battleships. The only reason the US didnt create bigger battleships like montana was because they didnt need BBs; instead, they have been building over 20 CVs.

@@blulight5881 Also I believe the navy wanted the ships to be able to fit through the locks of the Panama canal. if needed.

@@bluevalkyrie2517this is genuinely the main reason for any limit on US ship size at the time

Revise again the list . Le Richelieu had 47 k ton displacement maximum ! not 44.698, see Wikipedia.

Your lack of knowledge is as hopeless as your opinion

@@Solveig.Tissot And your knowledge is as hopeless as the French navy

The whole Battlecruiser / Battleship discussion is an ongoing one with the Admiral class. Its true she was laid down as a battlecruiser but the design was completely re worked during construction following on from lessons learned from Jutland and by the time she was ins service she was as well armed and armoured as any battleship afloat. It was only her remarkable speed (over thirty knots) that had the Royal Navy classify her as a battlecruiser.

@@Deevo037 and just about adequate armour Had she, had a chance to have her 1941(maybe 1940) refit (the British navy planed the refits ahead of time) She would of been considered a fast battleship But the war broke out before that And she was needed in action

No she was definitely a battlecruiser. Her ease of destruction in comparison to Bismarck (which was scuttled) proved that. Same with Kirishima. The Japanese reclassified her as a battleship but her armour scheme was still unbalanced.

@@calvinnickel9995 The story that Hood was poorly armoured is a bit of a furphy as she was at least as well armoured as a Queen Elizabeth battleship if not better. As for her destruction this video has a comprehensive analysis of it but in short it was an exceptionally unlikely lucky shell hit. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ebKAmKZosbjVeY0.html As for Bismark despite her undeniable robustness she was rendered combat incapable relatively early on and was unlikely to have been salvageable in any way. Kiroshima was an entirely different situation as the IJN were well known for even their heaviest units being comparatively lightly armoured to aid their speed.

@@calvinnickel9995 In the Royal Navy battlecruiser simply means "fast battleship". HMS was the largest warship in the world, and the strongest British battleship between 1922-1939. With its speed of 30 knots (56 km/h) Bismarck could be regarded as a battlecruiser as far as Royal Navy is concerned..

なんで昔の人は城も戦艦も解体しちゃうのかねぇ…………

Yep. Iowa is larger that Bismarck, and Yamato is only bigger because she is much wider

Iowa is the same shape as the others, but with a big nose. I guess it was supposed to reduce drag and increase speed?

It is interesting to see the results of each country's usage philosophy and restrictions. Efforts were made to make the Yamato compact for a ship carrying a 46cm gun. In order to meet the U.S. battleships that could not exceed the Panamax.

@@scotth6814 not to good in rough seas

In profile, yes. But they were built narrower in beam than ideal for their length, in order to fit through the Panama Canal. This results in a very boxy central hull. This was only obvious when I built a model of one of them and thought, 'how ugly - like a canal barge writ large'.

Read up on the Battle of Midway.

In anything other than perfect daylight conditions the Iowa would probably beat the Yamato class due to superior fire control systems. Especially at night

@ Anvil Airsoft TV No because the American guns couldn’t do anything. The US Navy tested the Yamato’s armour post war (probably spare parts or rejects or from the Shinano that was converted to a carrier). With a brand-new 16”/50 cal naval gun perfectly perpendicular at point blank range… the armour only cracked. Iowa’s shells would very accurately bounce off Yamato. All Iowa could do is run. In fact… battleships are so protected that not once during either World Wars was one ever sunk by gunfire alone. WWI it was all lightly armoured battle cruisers. Hood was a battlecruiser. So was Kirishima. Bismarck was scuttled. All other battleships that sank during the war did so against air attacks-mostly torpedoes or in the case of Tirpitz very large aerial bombs.

@@calvinnickel9995 Yamato's side armor might have stopped a 16" shell, but most shells come in "plunging" to the top of the ship and superstructure. Yamato had little armor there, that's why it was sunk so easily by planes.

HMS Warspite would have won, it always did.

Yep, that how our Navy lost Singapour & the far east, with no Aircraft Carrier's out there, believing they could hold Hong Kong & Singapour & other colenies with out carrier's. excuse my spelling bad head day lol

Yes but they still excelled at shore bombardment.

Re: "Carriers with AA cruiser escort quickly became the optimal naval force." Light cruisers like the U.S.S. Atlanta (CL-51), designed from the start as anti-aircraft platforms, were a potent tool in the naval arsenal of nations like the U.S., but they were not without vulnerabilities, as the fierce actions in the Solomon Islands in 1942-1943 demonstrated. They were less-expensive and time-consuming to produce, to be sure, but also much less well-protected from gunfire, torpedoes and bombs than battleships or heavy cruisers. There was still a big role to be played by the largest capital ships such as the battle-wagons and the largest heavy cruisers, once they had been outfitted with the latest radar-controlled AAA defenses and other counter-measures. They better withstood attacks by kamikazes and unmanned "Oka" guided bombs, too ~ both of which became increasingly a danger as the war went on in the Pacific. It is no accident that the least armored ships suffered the most from these suicide attacks, i.e., "jeep"or escort carriers, destroyers, DEs, light cruisers, etc. They were usually first hit since they comprised the outer pickets of the screening vessels, and thus sustained the most damage by virtue of being attacked first, but also because they were so lightly protected. Earlier in the war, the men in the smaller vessels of the surface navy wondered bitterly why the brass weren't sending the remaining battleships into combat in the South Pacific, like the destroyers and cruisers. It was because the old WW1-era dread-naughts consumed so much fuel that the high-command faced (for a time in 1942-early 1943 anyway) faced a dilemma of using either the carriers or the battle-wagons. There was not enough fuel reserve in the Pacific for both. Once the logistical situation improved and the newer fast battleships come into play in the latter part of 1943 and into 1944, that changed, but for a time fuel considerations were a big deal. Which of course bolsters your point, too - since cruisers use less fuel than battleships.

Carriers were also escorted by battleships too, well at least most of the times

To kick your butt ?

dang man even a dog wouldnt laugh

Because they had long hull profile and powerful machinery. That’s why.

You're wrong, there were 6 planned but the two cancelled

Correct. USS Illinois and USS Kentucky were partially laid down, but never built.

6 were indeed planned but only 4 completed, Kentucky and Illinois had their hulls completed and floated but never fitted out, at that point they are non-commisioned ships. After WWII there were plans to convert their completed hulls into some other type of configuration but were never adopted and the hulls eventually scrapped but the bow of the Kentucky was cut off to replace the bow of the Wisconsin after a ship to ship collision.

Maybe.

The Bismark looks nice, but she's a bit too ovalis for my taste. I think that King George V, Yamato, Warspite, Hiei, Iowa, South Dakota, Washington, and Scharnhorst look better than Bismarck

But in a real combat, do you think Iowa could break down the Bismarck. I am not sure.

@@jamesmarrel8087 I think Iowa's got superior guns, armor, and fire control. With a speed advantage to help dictate range against Bismarck.

@@jamesmarrel8087 The Bismarck would get smacked.

Bismark was nothing special. It got one lucky hit on a Ww1 era Battlecruiser and became a legend due to this but was sank before her paint had chance to dry just days later. Overrated ship.

Not actually a Battleship but Hood was longer than vangaurd and Bismark.

It was more than three salvos, my friend. Washington fired a total of 75 16" shells at Kirishima in roughly three minutes. 20 of them hit her, 7 were below the waterline. This from Kirishima's Damage Control Officer. She never had a chance of surviving that barrage. She foundered and sank as the crew were being rescued by two destroyers. Kirishima almost rolled on to one of them as she went down. I love the North Carolina class too. They actually could have built them better, had they gone with plan XVI (the basic ship we know today) but with 30 knot top speed, and a 13.5" armor belt! (I forget which of the sub-plans of XVI it was.) The point being, they settled for less than it could have been. As great as they were, they could have been even better! Much like the Northampton class heavy cruiser. After building several, they realized the ships were 1000 tons under limit. So the Portland class was developed, and had better armor and longer range. Looking at the gun arrangement on the Pensacola class, one wonders why they didn't place the two twin turrets forward (less weight on the bow), and place the two triple turrets aft; where the ship is wider and more stable. These ships came in way under weight too! The Pensacola and Northampton class were dubbed "tinclads" because of their thin armor.

The penetration is on-par with Yamato, not superior. This only came from it high speed if 850m/s. However, you are cherry picking, Yamato had a bursting charge of 74.6 lbs while Littorios bursting charge was only 22.4 lbs meaning a Yamato shell would do tonnes more damage than a Littorio. You may use the excuse "but yamatos shell was bigger" ok and? The British 15 inch Gun using the updated WW2 shell had a bursting charge of 48.5lbs, meaning that guns would also do more damage. The Italian guns were impressive, but weren't some crazy "italain science" that nationalists and Werhaboos believe in, they simply went for penetration instead of destructive power. The Brits didn't even want them anyway, they examined the ships then scrapped them.

@@GaryJones69420 dude, while Yamato shells needs literally minutes to arrive on target, Littorio shells arrives immediately. It doesn't matter how agile it is the Yamato, she doesn't have time to dodge. Moreover is bigger and more easy to hit than the Vittorio Veneto, that is also more faster.

@@danielefabbro822 wow, you know absolutely nothing about Naval warfare do you. 1. THe Littorio can't just 'dodge' Yamato shells if they don't know where they're going to land, it's impossible for a Battleship to dodge a shell by the time they actually see them arriving. 2. Yamato is 25 metres longer, that's barely going to make a difference in long range engagements. 3. "Littorio shells arive immediately" Yamato has a faster striking velocity, which means Littorio's shells actually slow down as they travel meaning that Littorio's shells are only abit faster, this isn't WoWs were shells arrive immediately. 4. Littorio had a worse rangefinder than Yamato, so on top of her shells being horribly inaccurate due to thier design they can't actually aim the guns well.

@@GaryJones69420 I don't know where do you find these bullshits but you definitely have to learn something dude. It's even embarrassing talk with you.

@@danielefabbro822 you're quite now aren't you bud

Same size as Mushashi.

@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 I mean they are sister ships so