7:51 mild irritation, at least

Maybe not, with scramjets added to artillery, you can get enormous range.. And getting a massive gun platform that technically could shoot nukes all over a country wouldn't be bad to have I think. :)

@@MrZnarffy cool concept, but I think scramjets need to be at like mach 3 or so to kick in, shells for these guns max at like mach 2. Of course you, like I, believe there may be a future for large bore artillery with modern or future munitions. Who knows what they could do if we tried.

@@samuelnakai1804 No, it's about mach 2.5, well within the range of these guns, they almost hit mach3 with a 1 ton projectile. So basically you can have thousands of nuclear shells with the range of hundreds of km/miles on one of these.. Make them nuclear propulsed too, so they can roam freely, and stack a bunch of phalanx on them. You can then pretty much glass a country with one ship...

@@MrZnarffy the worst thing to have…. Some day an idiot uses them and then you’re buggered mate.

That’s not the size. They weigh that. But not that big.

the weight. is not the same as the size..

Or lands anywhere NEAR you!

Yes, one tends to stop being a gangster once he is reduced to atoms.

Saw no car loaded

I believe the camera 'goes dark' because of the smoke coming from the barrels.

@@Kevin_Kennelly It's from the camera's over exposure from the barrel flash. It's like facing your camera toward the sun and then to the ground real quick, it takes a couple seconds for the camera to compensate for the extreme light change and we are talking about cameras from the 1990's here

That’s just auto exposure blacking the screen out after the flash, still wouldn’t want to be within a mile of where those shells hit though

@@dancingtiger577 In the grand scheme of things, his point still holds. Those cannons put out enough fire to trigger the glare protection on the camera, something normally the sun only does.

@@finscreenname Indeed. Very primitive cameras back then. Nowadays any smartphone even from the cheapest selection would be a much better video camera. Desert Storm was such a long time ago. On the other hand, when I was recording stuff, back then, with the huge VHS video cameras of the day, they felt like the most awesome pieces of technology.

Cool I was on the USS Long Beach during that same time. I remember the battleship opening up one night when I was on the fantail of our ship. We were at least as far away, but it lit up the otherwise black night sky!

Thank you for this

@@Adui13 Ahoy shipmate! I was aboard USS Long Beach CGN-9 in 3rd Division, 81 to 85! 😎👍

Michael Coomer, Trust me, you would have loved being in the gun room during a live fire. GMG2 U.S.S. Missouri 16" 50 turret 3 center gun.

​@@samuelschick8813Ryan Szimanski might want to talk to you

It is no fun being on the receiving end of America's Big Stick.

@@1pcfred I actually do feel bad for them. The Republican guard weren't religious crazies like ISIS or Al-Queda. They were profession soldiers forced into an impossible war by their idiot dictator.

@@Elthenar They were PsOS. I was present in the briefings to hear what the republican guard was doing to the people of Kuwait. Then I saw it first hand. The way they killed people and commandeered the vehicles to escape us - US Marines. Disgusting. That why I called in air strikes on them. The fathers of Al Qaida and ISIS. No remorse. I was right there watching Old 63, Mighty Mo do her thing.

Semper Fidelis Brother. I was right down the current from Mighty MO, Old 63 watching her alongside USS Wisconsin prepping for us to go in. They create massive waves of water and wind!

@@1pcfred ...as China is about to discover!

Apparently it blew the top off a mountain at one point.

a shell is also Substantially cheaper than a missile.

Quite. But somewhere under pressure we can only guess about, the decision was taken the rockets and missiles were better....

imagine this battleship can take up serious punishment ... it can withstand a couple of shots ... but when its guns are ready to fire ... I dunno if any armor of any ship in modern era can take this 16” shells ... it’s AP shell can punch through bunkers easily ... damn so much brutal power. do the math muzzle velocity, muzzle energy and shell weight to punch any target be it bunkers, ships or anything you can imagine with gun range it will obliterate it!

@@JackSparrow-wn1on The Problem is AP is designed to be used against heavily armoured ships, no modern warship has the level of armour required to arm the shells, so you likely just punch a hole clean through the ship and out the other side

Sort of... They're still peashooters compared to nuclear weapons.

@@devilsoffspring5519 , lol they shot nuclear weapons

@@goodlookinghonkey8382 They had nuclear shells for some time, not sure what the explosive power was compared to a strategic nuke though

Either way, Dirty Harry needs a hug...

@@devilsoffspring5519 Modern tactical nuclear physics packages are small enough to fit within the volume of an Iowa shell. Now, you just need to make sure they can withstand the enormous g-forces. Also, you wouldn't want to fire strategic warheads from a BB.

most powerful battlehip goes to yamoto true Iowa was faster and longer but the yamoto had 18" guns while the Iowa has 16"

@@markalvarado4450 wrong, those 18" guns were far less capable and didn't pack the punch of the Iowa class 16" shells. And Iowa class battleships were far superior in weapons management. Bigger doesn't mean better

Matt B in terms of talking of just raw power the Yamato is more powerful not weapon management or anything

@@markalvarado4450 the Yamato was bigger in terms of size only, that's it. It was an inferior ship compared to the Iowa class battleships.

@@markalvarado4450 the yamatos guns didnt have the range to match, the shell velocity was ass, the shell dispersion was ass, the Japanese gun fire control was ass, even the radar they had was crap. The iowas were superior in every respect.

Battleships were made obsolete right around the same time that the battleship, as we know it, came to be.

Causing lots of damage to shipboard systems, from glass to electric to personnel. Note they’re not firing salvoes, but single shots. On Yamato with 18 inch guns, you couldn’t be on an open deck when they fired.

ike a new car smell lol

Battleships are still useful. Just not against other vessels as over the years they started building more destroyers. Battleships were still devastating for island bombardment

Better than precision guided bomb I guess.

Seems like it's taking a long time to me.

SOU6900 your slow. Be on the receiving end and try saying that

@SMOKEY thank you

SOU6900 this ain’t a video game

Makes me think of what a modern built battleship could be like. I get missiles are far superior in ship to ship, but they do cost a heck a lot if all your want is to bomb the hell out of a land based target.

Well, considering the ship would have been fresh out of the shipyard it would have been easier for them.

@@Elthenar mhm

@Joseph Melcher The Iowa's never really took fire. They only fired at other ships a small handful of times and never against anything that could threaten them. Most of the Iowa class service history is shore bombardment and defending carriers from aircraft or destroyers. In short, this is pretty much exactly what the Iowa's always did.

@Joseph Melcher I suggest you review that list of battles. Then ask yourself how many of those an Iowa class was present for. My statement was 102% accurate with a 2% margin of error. There were actually 2 of the Iowa's fighting in the Persian Gulf, we still had all 4 in service just a few years prior. They were reactivated and reaarmed in the early 80s as a counter to the Soviet Kirov class.

@Joseph Melcher Both of those ships got sunk, so I imagine these guys would be ok with the comparison.

Whatever the target....it no longer exists.

Saudi?

@@ericfermin8347 Iraqi, Saudi Arabia were our allies in Desert Storm.

@@budmeister What? Do you even understand what you wrote? Do you understand what a target line is? Do you know where the BB was during this engagement?

@@ericfermin8347 what’s a target line?

What's impressive is they were doing it 120 years ago with the pre dreadnoughts

@@AJdet-2 For both put into search bar, 1889 naval gun breech ;)

What’s amazing is that the analog gear targeting computer and gyroscope could tell you how to aim perfectly precise. Even in 3 dimensions with moving targets. It would self fire as soon as the barrel was in the right spot as the ship was moving around in the waves. The computer was designed in the 20’s. They never broke down. They were used into the 90’s. Whole system will last many centuries.

Italian, French and German battleships were damaged and destroyed by torpedo-carrying biplanes. This is not a new idea.

i dont agree there are still place where Service is needed

Heard tell tale that in wars where these ships served after ww2, fighting morale spiked when these ships entered the area. So not just about missiles and saving money, theres the human element too :)

I think we should keep a couple in service just because. We throw money away on far less worthy crap.

Was the other guy getting irritated or just kidding around?

@@HATER506. Just trying to stay relaxed and calm probably. He was a Gunners Mate, but we were not his regular crew. We were Center Gun Turret 3 guys filling in for them, while they took a break to eat.

@@michaelallensworth6245 Cool. Must've been a helluva experience. I've toured the New Jersey and Massachsetts. Facinating stuff. All the best to you.

@@HATER506 Thank you. I met alot of great people and was glad to have served and gained life changing traits.

did you ever get the chance to be top side when the guns were fired? If so can you describe the concussion and or noise from the guns

Wait for real this battleship still in service during operation desert Storm ?

@@realmatiasguerra only 2 of them did USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin the iowa did not fight because of her turret explosion and the uss new jersey was decommissioned right before the war

@@amychan811 Yes there were two in the Gulf if I remember right and they fired at targets around Kuwait City. I was a Marine tanker on the ground then.

@@ProjecthuntanFish damn what a one hell of a lifetime experience you got

@@amychan811 Yes and I have 30+ years of PTSD, nightmares and flash backs to go with it

They could shoot a Toyota 24 miles. 2,600 feet per second. Time of flight 1 minute 30 seconds. Then remember that the Toyota is packed with high explosives. Would love to see video of those things hitting their target.

The turrets weight something like 2,200 tons, almost 4.5 million pounds each, 7in armor on the roof, 12inches on the back and I think 3 inches elsewhere, they are truly massive chuncks of steel and mass, absolute marvels of engineering.

Unless you count nuke-armed submarines.

The Iowa class battleships were armed with nuclear shells at one point.

@@etienneracine-hebert9870 scary

Don`t they carry Cruise Missiles as well? you know for that long range punch.

@@Candid1ify Yes they did after the 1980s modernization. The nuclear tipped shells were discontinued in the 1960s because of the safety hazard they posed but also how obselite they were.

K A shits dead as disco

Loli4lyf they are not dead and are serving as museum ships.

@@ijnyamato4351 Dead things are also put in museums

Build more. Rail gun Iowas. Your dick just got hard reading that. Admit it. Teach those goddamn Chinese whose boss

SLR107FR31 in a world of supercarriers you want to build a puny Iowa class? If you’re building a railgun battleship, go all the way and do it with a Montana class battleship.

Unfortunately there is a lack of water in the desert or the afghan mountains ....

@@andreasmerkel5717 ...and some weapons are useless a mile underwater.

Technically, they'll reach just shy of 24miles AP mark 8's have been thrown a little over 42,300~ yards (rated for 38,720m) The various other specialty and HC shells have almost identical ballistics, and just about reach 41,600~ yards (38,059m)

Ive been inside Iowa's #2 16" Mount. Seriously, does not look like 60 year old tech. And they were still using the original 'fire control radar' for NGFS (naval gunfire support) and targeting systems from WW2 in 90-91... Because, honestly. There was nothing better. Any of those BB's could and did, land, shell square on target on the 2nd salvo. And usually were close enough on the first salvo to badly damage structure target and kill or injure many in the target area. 2nd shot was generally 'fatal' for intended land target.

"WHAAAT?"

@@trezapoioiuy mawp

Ref Peter Scrafton.....Crazy how bureaucracies work...but often they do work sort of, because a few visionary souls put themselves on the firing line.

It's nitrogen that they blow into the barrels.

For when you want to eliminate all deer within 100 yards

A little small for squirrels isn't it. 🙄

You’ll need help shouldering the rifle.

Ammo is a bitch to purchase

@@bf1255 And people think .50 cal is expensive They don't even MAKE 16 inch shells anymore... (I think, I haven't checked that)

and utterly useless without spotters, which in this instance was a drone...

If its sea targets they could use the radar alone to target and correct their shots, they had the same capability during ww2

1stPCFerret sad

From what I heard the military have been given the green light on a new breed of modern battle ship due to the immense amount of backlash on our destroyers being harassed and almost destroyed by local ships “accidentally” ramming them.

A new breed, the Space Force, may be built in the future.

@@t5unami195 That makes no sense, destroyers already have more than enough firepower to protect themselves from ramming. You don't need anything close to the role of a battleship to prevent rams. Just need less restrictions on the RoE.

@@proximacentauri3627 Honestly that's what I've been wondering about myself. Destroyer can easily blow those bastards out of the water themselves. But that's what the article said. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pLt0o8R0x8y0oJc.html TBH it's probably false after looking back into it.

Not true... Live fire was done at least annually....

@@andreworiez8920 Every time you went out. 5 inch and 16 inch.

@@scottmoon50 live fire? Wow....

@@andreworiez8920 Shells and powder are cheap for live fire practice. What's expensive is the ship maintenance costs and crew salaries, and fuel costs. A WAG, but I'd say it would be a rounding error in the annual cost of running the ship to have, eh, 4 live fire drills per year.

It would still be deafening irl (Over 130Db at 1 nautical mile and there is a reason nobody is ever on decks during firing operations, if you were to be on deck it could and would kill you), but yt compresses the hell out of the audio

Apparently the bore evacuator when the breech is first opened is louder than the actual firing. There’s another video where the crewman doesn’t put his hearing protection on until he’s opening the breech.

You can hear one of the loaders say "Slow operation," as he shakes his head and looks up towards the guy controlling the hydraulics.

Naval ships are loud. There is all sorts of machinery running around the clock, even tied off to the pier. What you were hearing was ventilation, hydraulics, and lord only knows what else. After being in the navy myself I literally cannot sleep if it is quiet. I have to have some level of mechanical noise to sleep, even to this day.

@@CAoffRoading Not to mention right below them is the electrical deck where the motors to train the turret and elevate the barrels is located. Those are the largest electrical motors on the ship.

@@CAoffRoading Same here. I served on CVA-64 three westpacs. Always have the fan running. zzzzzzzzzzz

@@richardpehtown2412 same here. Currently a long haul truck driver so at least have that 15 liter diesel to put me to sleep lol.

Guns sound much quieter in recordings than real life, so hard to say which is louder in person

Lmfao

Indeed they were. We had a RPV ( remote drone) sending back data, camera information. The Captain had the RPV crew sending back the live camera footage and it was on the ship’s television station. You could watch the action. I remember once when only the forward two turrets were firing and we were on a break, the RPV was sending footage of some Army Iraqis that had stopped in the desert to take a piss. About the time the guy unzipped, one of the turrets fired. A few seconds later that guy never finished his piss. The whole truck and small convoy was gone.

If u think that is awesome? they can do it while moving on water, which is not the most solid of foundations, lol

@@armastat Yes, I know. That's one of the amazing things about it. You can see the barrels moving up and down to go with the roll.

graycloud057 'Merica!

@@armastat also, consider that they were originally designed to fight other ships of a similar size and strength. Shooting a moving target from a moving platform is even harder.

You didn't see the USS Iowa or any other Battleship. In 1972 they were in mothballs slumbering away. The only one that was operating even close to that time was the USS New Jersey.

Yes sir, it is. The ship’s top speed was 30+ knots. Was one of the fastest ships afloat. We could have pulled water skiers!

@@graycloud057 33 knots she is literally faster than any destroyer in the US Navy right now

PHOENIXHDGAMING// HQ- Really? You’d think that technology would have refined fighting ships to go even faster by now. Thanks.

@@graycloud057 yep she is 3 knots faster

You and me both! I'll be telling MY age, when I point out that if I had served in Desert Storm in 91, it would've been my final year of enlistment as a US Marine(which I almost did after high school). I passed the ASVAB scoring highest in the class I was with, a score that allowed me to choose the top job available to a non-college graduate in 1986, an air traffic controller. But knowing myself as an 18 year old in 86, I'm pretty sure I did everyone a favor by NOT becoming an air traffic controller at that particular time! At 18, I had already worked at a machine shop for 2 years, but I was more interested in partying on Friday and Saturday nights than anything else!

Was in the litter box, we heard a Battleship was about to send greetings.

Me too! I was on my way home from work when the news on the radio station I was listening to announced the war had started. The wife and I watched CNN coverage all night after I got home... Seems like only yesterday...

@@paulfly3121 You can bet that the next 28 years will go by even faster now that you are even older! Did you happen to catch CNN's Desert storm fake news, where they were claiming to be in theater just over the Saudi border, when a chemical attack siren went off, and the reporter had to rush to install his gas mask! Turns out they actually weren't even in the middle east! They were in studio in the US, lying about their situation, and trying to make themselves look heroic.... There's still video of it on KZfaq! Nope, things have not changed much at CNN, except that they are now more partisan and more dishonest. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n9l9p9uTtcraqps.html

What are you on about? Did the simple utterance of CNN trigger you? Damn, get a life.

nice

texascclp1445 - Hey buddy, battleship is king, but those 5"38cal are awesome in their own right and I'm proud of you for being there. I was Army myself, but collect WWII Naval ordnance and I have a 5" projectile and matching 5" Mark 5 38 cal brass(yes, BRASS} with a Navy anchor dated 3 1945. The projectile weights 53 pounds and is a precision piece of machining. All the WWII Naval Ordnance is highly collectable and EXPENSIVE. A 6"47 brass goes for over $800.

The Missouri was there too

I was able to watch both Wisconsin and Missouri firing. I was in USS Nassau (LHA 4) just over the horizon from them. At night even single guns would light up the sky.

USS Missouri USS Wisconsin USS Iowa Desert Storm

This is the USS Wisconsin I believe it was 63

@@derekrock3563 Iowa was not in Desert Storm. Only Missouri and Wisconsin. Iowa was already decommissioned due to her damage from the turret explosion and New Jersey was actually being decommissioned while Missouri and Wisconsin was in the Persian Gulf firing on Iraqi targets.

I think it it is delivering explosives with overwhelming fire superiority, hopefully leading to liberty, or even better lives.

Too expensive to crew was one of the reasons.

@@staleysnook8793 Yeah... Millions a day just to keep it crewed, not to mention constant overhauls.... Missiles are expensive, but they don't need 2000 personnel always on duty...

Current 'boosted' shells are at max 155mm. Current Naval guns don't have boosted shells. Rocket propellant compounds the risk of explosion/fire. That is why the electromagnetic rail guns are being researched. No propellant nor explosive warheads make Naval ships safer when not in action. Cruise missiles give a range edge over boosted shells anyway, by far. Even with max range rail gun shots, cruise missiles will have at least a 300 mile advantage. The next big leap is hypersonic cruise missiles. The hypersonic test vehicles we've had for some time has given us much info into that realm of flight, hell, the X-15 from the 60s gave us tons of data on the lower end of hypersonic.

Those boosted shells aren't that cheap either.

Horses were cheaper then cars.

You only seem to see the Royal Navy and Australian navy in the anti flash gear. Even in the 2ww the american crew's didnt wear it. Lifes cheap in the US Navy I guess. Theyll learn when the Chinese unleash a hail of missiles on their ships in the coming war.. I'd say the anti flash gear saved lives on the RN ships that the Argentines hit with Exocets and set on fire.

@@andersonsroad5161 If you aren't being directly exposed to fire, you don't need it. Structural firefighters don't wear flash hoods if they aren't doing interior work because it's unnecessary. If you are exposed to direct fire, a flash hood isn't going to do much without turnout gear to protect the rest of your body.

I heard no Barrell was ever replaced due to wear, some spares were used to make bunker busters bombs, and that we couldn’t make more if wanted to cause no industrial capability left to make one

I'd also liek to see impact holes from various shells and rockets and especially a salvo of Katyusha's.

@@rosewhite--- I've heard a 16" shell puts a crater on the ground about the size of a football field.

Check the old WW2 footage lol

Surprising right, I've always wondered that

Well you gotta remember that they're behind like 12 inches (30cm) of armoured turret.

Keep in mind however that a video will never do it justice

Go visit one of the Iowas. Trust me, you'll feel invincible inside one of those turrets.

@@randomlyentertaining8287 except that incident happened on turret 2

KZfaq informs me that is the small puff of white smoke you see after each shot at the beginning of this video.

A shot of compressed air is used after the shell is fired to clear the barrel of anything, as the other comment is referring to.

The powder chute is malfunctioning.

It's not like they were pumping out armor piercing in a naval engagement. The targets they were shooting at weren't going anywhere. At least until the shell goes off. Then one chunk goes here. Another goes the other way. The Wisconsin off Korea took out a T-34with a direct hit with a 16" inch shell. One hell of an Anti-tank gun.

mpetersen6 True, plus it’s not like she didn’t have six more of those guns to use.

You want your junior enlisted people like that. Champing at the bit. Furiously frustrated to get engaged into the battle. That's exactly the temperament you want

@@deepdive529 Pushing the limits of the procedure caused the Iowa explosion, although most of it was by people who should have known better.

Who wrote the book?

@@redbay8527 Robert K Massie was the author. I never was really interested in WW1 until I read this book. The largest navel fleet in the world was the British Fleet. But the German Imperial Fleet was second biggest during WW1. Germany didn't have much of a navy in WW2 except for a couple of battleships and the U boats. but in WW1 the German fleet was substantial. It was huge and could give the Brits a run for its money but the Kaiser never wanted to use it. He wanted it to remain a "Fleet in Being". A young Churchill was First Lord Of The Admiralty. The two major surface battles between the British and the Germans was the Battle of Jutland and the Battle Of Dogger Bank. Dreadnoughts and heavy Battle Cruisers duking it out while destroyers were running in for torpedo attacks. Its a really good read. 800 pages.

@@redbay8527 Nice Cobra by the way. I subscribed

Thanks for the info. Amazon has that book, but by the description it sounds like a political book. I'm going to order it right now.@@museumjunkie9317 I collect WWII ordnance and occasionally run across WWI Naval ordnance. What really impresses me about Navy equipment is the superior quality designed and built into it. It's far better than any other services, I've heard, because the Navy equipment is out to sea and cannot readily utilize standard repair facilities. It HAS to keep functioning properly in order to survive. The projectiles are works of art that are rendered after many machining operations, heat treatments, painting(there are many colors representing the type charge, and labelling. I have a pretty good collection of .50 cal, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 3"50 cal, 5"38 cal and 6"47 cal. The greatest challenges are accurately painting the projectile, and polishing the brass. The 6" MKIV 47 cal empty brass alone weights 36 lbs, and is about 43 inches long so it is very difficult for an old man like me to apply the brass to polishing equipment and it is a slow process. Most collectors like to keep the ammo in the condition it which it was found, believing that it is more authentic in that condition, and they are probably correct. I like mine to look brand new, freshly delivered from the manufacturer. I collect a lot of things and I like ALL of it to look new, not dirty or scratched. And any purchase I make is closely inspected.to insure that it is not live. A friend of mine lived in a house where his father had brought home a mortar shell from WWII. One fateful day my friend's two young sons were playing with the shell and it exploded, tragically killing both children. Jack never recovered from the incident and was deeply affected by it all of his life. Well, thanks for the book info, I appreciate it.

Its more VLS equipped Destroyers and Frigates that replaced it :P

@@TheBloodypete yeah but missles are boring. Big guns and thicc ships are better

Petition to bring torps back to destroyers.

But missles and subs are still a threat

You think we don’t know that? Besides, a good battleship can take a missile or two while just a good lil’ knock on a destroyer sends it to the sea floor.

They are saying "fuse set" so I'd presume its arming the fuse prior to being loaded

@@alexbrodie6149 thanks. I did not hear that conversation.

2000 bomb going off each shell weighs 2700 lbs

@@ralphhitchensjr.9633 The shell isn't exploding...how much do those powder bags weigh? Therein lies the answer

Alot of armor between operators and the outside.

meaninglesscog - each bag, ( if I remember correctly ) weighs 110lbs.a piece. For 660 pounds. The bags contain powder that isn’t powder but long chapstick size pellets making the round, pretty much a magnum.

graycloud057 you mean cordite.

unless its japanese with even bigger guns ;)