I once met a man who was telling me that he was on an island in the Makong Delta. The island was about to be overrun, and they called for support. They got a reply from a call sign they didn't recognize. They gave them the coordinates and were told to get down. The first round was on target, which they reported. The source then fired for effect. The other end of the island was leveled. So his unit reported the effect and asked who they were talking to. The Reply was: "This is the U.S.S. New Jersey 25 miles off the coast."

Vietnam was probably an ideal case for using naval shore bombardment. It's a long skinny country next to an ocean.

Listing the mistakes of the Vietnam War would require a Master’s thesis.

The US army and USMC both used the M110 8”/203mm self-propelled howitzer in Vietnam. They actually had a shorter range than the 155mm guns. The 175mm M107 SP howitzer was also used and it outranged both the 155mm and 8” guns.

I think you probably hit the nail on the head there, Ryan. The old Battleship Admirals had their comeuppance at Pearl Harbor, and in terms of fleet actions, the carriers have dominated ever since. The flexibility and reach of carrier-based aircraft is also something to consider. But the sheer intimidation factor of a heavy cruiser (esp. the Des Moines class with their autoloading guns) or a full-fledged battleship cannot be discounted. They have true armor; they were built to slug it out with other big gun ships, and some standard anti-ship missile is not going to penetrate the armored "citadel", though it might wreck things topside and start fires. The battleship is designed to continue in the fight even after taking hits that would sink ordinary (modern) naval vessels. Plus, as you mentioned, in terms of economy, gun systems are far cheaper to operate than aircraft, and cost less per ton of ordinance on target that aircraft-launched bombs and missiles. But despite bean counters like McNamara in power in those days, the gun ship crowd had no chance whatsoever against the Carrier Air Wing Mafia. The entire Navy and the DoD was spun up to promote the concept of Naval Aviation as being able to do things better that some old-timey gun tub, and Congress and the American public bought into that. Of course, 20 years later in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the Iraqis were terrified of the Iowa's over there, and their shore bombardment capabilities -- and the Marines storming the beaches. So, yeah, we played along with that, all the while with Schwartzkopf's big "left hook" plan to be the knockout blow, catch them from the direction they're not anticipating. And it worked, of course. (Just hope our advisors to the Ukrainians have convinced them of the wisdom of hitting the Russians where they're not expecting it . . .) Probably would have been best to have three of each class (at least); one on the gun line, one in maintenance, and one working up for deployment. Maintain a moderate op tempo, you know, not wear everyone down with back-to-back deployments.

Yes Ryan - All four should have been brought back for Vietnam and we would have saved many a pilot and aircraft. However there is no lobby group for battleships as there is for Carriers and submarines, and the armament industries did not stand to make much on battleship reactivations. Even during the Reagan years the battleships did not receive the support from the Navy brass that they should have for primarily the same reasons. Even former Navy pilot John McCain realized the importance of the battleships in a letter to me in the 1990's when the Clinton Administration was trying to dispose of the decommissioned battleships.

My Dad served in Vietnam in the Army. He told me on more than one occasion those Navy boys loved to shoot and were good at doing it. We were glad they were there.

I got work all evening tomorrow so i just wanna give a early "happy birthday" 🎉 to Battleship New Jersey and her crew of volunteers. 80 years a good stretch of time. But i think we all agree another 80 more would be much deserved for "The Garden Lady"

Your absolutely right. The battleships and guns over 8" would have been an unanswered offensive weapons system. The North would have had to retreat their shore based assets and would have opened up more entry points for aircraft or Marine landings. This is probably another example of how we got in our own way and couldn't close the war out sooner.

Bringing out a BB from retirement and then quickly and quietly putting back into mothballs is just one example of how shortsighted and f--ked up the McNamara SECDEF era was.

I would love to jump on the Shore Bombardment wagon BUT … with a 24-ish mile range, I have to give Naval Aviation the thumbs up. Yes there were places where bombing the hell out of areas within reach would have been possible and fantastic. Yes, the ‘brown shoes’ ops caused a great deal of human trauma with flights terminated prior to carrier landing. Biggest Navy mistake - transporting Agent Orange to VN. It is still taking a toll.

Love watching footage of New Jersey and other Iowas in action and sailing under their own power. So majestic ✨️

The whole Vietnam experience is a masters class in miss-management

“You’re not shooting down a 16 inch shell … or at least you’re not losing sailors…” Thanks for giving me the classic image from Dr Strangelove, but riding a 16 inch shell rather than a nuke.

Thank you, Ryan. I happened to be an Army guy at the Naval station at Nha Trang in the fall of 1969. I think New Jersey was already off station, but there were three (3) very large shells fired from the edge of horizon west over our heads. They were so far east we did not hear the firing, and were landing so far west we did not hear the explosions well inland of us. Sounded like a VW bug flying overhead. A memorable moment. Thanks, Navy!

I was in Vietnam. The reason for bringing out a battleship was a demand by the marines - as I was told. I did know a marine that was on Guadalcanal when the Japanese BBs shot up Henderson Field. He said it was terrifying and made him hurt internally. We could have used the ships the Korean War had active. 8" and 16" did a better job than the smaller guns. One issue was the bigger shells would go deeper into the ground before exploding. And at the DMZ, New Jersey could shoot across Vietnam into Laos. The NJ really damaged the commie underground bunkers and ammo storage. That's probably why decommissioning the NJ was a condition of the peace talks. The big mistake was not taking the war to North Vietnam. If we would have invaded, kicked the commie butts into the jungle and then let South Vietnam take over, the US would have spent less time, money, fewer casualties, and fewer FU people like me.

A big gun ship for naval bombardment would have been very useful during the Falklands War. HMS Vanguard would have the Argentinians holed up in Port Stanley something to think about.

Because the Des Moines class ships rendered the fast battleship obsolete. For both shore bombardment and gun ship engagement. They had similar range and volume of fire which meant in a gun battle a Des Moines would have been a match for an Iowa in term of rendering the opposition combat killed even if it could not sink it. And you get 3 for the price of one Iowa. However I do prefer the Iowa as my kinky friend Margret had some fun with me behind the number 2 turret on a Tuesday back in 2016. She had a thing for hallmarks.

your shore bombardment argument is immaculate. that is why we saw so many battleships constructed after 1945. as for that "bringing more back" to active duty, have you considered what the ussr could have supplied north Viet nam in response? the ussr supplied migs and sams because they were the immediate threat. guessing the ussr did not see the battleship as a potent threat.

The fact we lost over half the production of F-105’s in Vietnam, I bet a lot of guys in the Hanoi Hilton wished all 4 Iowas could have been hitting their targets rather than them.

🙋🏽‍♂️LBJ did not have a endless Visa card or Manpower pool. 💳 Hyman Rickover and his Nuclear Navy took budget priority. And with people already griping about the draft, getting a ship with their high crew requirements we're getting difficult to fulfill. Most targets for fire support missions were well inside 5 inch range. The Destroyers and cruisers could fill the bill.

I understand during WW2 when a ship came home for maintenance and repair there was a good chance a lot of the crew might be redeployed elsewhere as opposed to staying with the ship for months. But did the stay with the ships in the Vietnam era? Since there wasn’t another similar ship to go to

I was proud to serve aboard the USS Newport News (CA-148) The last all gun Heavy Cruiser. My time aboard 1968-69-70 Call sign THUNDER.

My guess is the same geniuses that thought the F-4 phantom didn’t need a gun. There was a general belief that the Vietnam war was still just a sideshow and that the Soviets would drive their T-64s through the Fulda Gap. Therefore I believe the Navy was still thinking convoy protection, sealanes abd WW3 things which limited how much material they were willing to commit to Vietnam

The US Army did have the 8 inch (203 mm) M110 self-propelled howitzer in Vietnam but 16" Fire Support really trumps that.

I learned, somewhere, that the NV really feared the New Jersey's guns. It was part of the negotiations, as mentioned by Ocean Mariner. If this is actually the case, then all four of the Iowa's roaming the coast may have pushed for an earlier conclusion. With that in mind, not having the16 inchers pounding away, was a large mistake. BuT !!! hindsight is always so much better than decisions in the moment. As for what goes forward, shore bombardment may only be economically produced with missile technology. Probably the main driver there is a smaller launch platform required, hence a much smaller cost. I have long thought that a submarine centered shore bombardment force would be a way to go. We had all that technology worked out for many years and all that was necessary was to change the warhead to a non nuclear weapon.

Naval guns could reach only so far inland. As you say, the North was very well defended, which limited how close ships could get to the shore, which reduced even more what could be reached from the sea. And the North Vietnamese did indeed shoot back at our ships. These days, it is even more dangerous for a ship to get within gun range of the coast, since there are now land-based, mobile, anti-ship cruise missiles, such as those that got _ Moskva._ I'm not sure there's a future for shore bombardment, except in special circumstances.

All four battleships should have been sent.

I thought I had read back in the day the reason for the USS New Jersey to be mothballed so quickly after re-activation during Vietnam was a lack of gun barrel liners for the 16's. Only after she was being decommissioned were a stockpile of barrel liners found. Hopefully someone can fill in the rest of that story.

you need to read up on the uss newport news 3 tours in vietnam she had a hell of a lot of firepower

Just imagine the poor guy once in captivity. How were you captured soilder? I fell overboard, sir.

Basically shore bombardment in WW2 while impressive did not, for the most part, deliver on its promise. It rearranged the landscape but generally did not effectively reduce the defenders capabilities to mount strong resistance to a landing. Not to be overly cynical, but I suspect a lot of the big ship deployments in Vietnam where done to get the officers combat ranking on their records for aid in future promotions.

Because the one man army "John Rambo" was there.

Man. All the mythology runs rampant. From the 8” cruisers being “more effective” to the “battleship guns didn’t have enough range” to the “the Marines demanded it.” None of that stuff is true. The NEW JERSEY was deployed to Vietnam precisely because she could reach many, not all, the targets that planes were at great risk to take out. And she could do so with great destructiveness. As you might imagine, the BIG J was VERY effective. Unfortunately, as she was reactivated, all targets north of the DMZ were prohibited, which severely cut into the reason for bringing the NEW JERSEY out in the first place. Of course, she could provide support to ground units, including the Marines, and did so with both her 5” and 16” guns. But that wasn’t the primary reason she was in Vietnam. The New Jersey’s mere presence forced the North Vietnamese to move troops and materiel to avoid her reach. The reason she was withdrawn is precisely because many of the targets she was reactivated to hit were taken off the table, and her presence was threatening the Paris Peace Talks. Moreover, as Ryan suggests, there is always political opposition to the battleships-both from within the Navy and outside it. Sadly, that opposition is based on emotion, not an analysis of capability over cost. The North Vietnamese hated NEW JERSEY and for good reason. FYI, the record distance for an accurate 16” Mark 7 shoot is 27 miles by the USS IOWA.

The army had 175 mm and 8 inch self propelled artillery

I think the biggest mistake we've ever made was to get rid of our shore bombardment capabilities. Even if it only using a 8 or 12 in gun. The 16 in are way better.

Did those rooms have air conditioning by the time of 1944? I wonder if theses computer machines may generate a lot of heat.

the vietnam war is what happens when you let politicians and bean counters run war operations. im sure the politically restricted targets also played a part in which ships were activated and what wasnt.

Has anyone thought about how difficult it is to get a battleship into the jungle lol Seriously a great talk Ryan keep up the good work.

A documentary series called Brute Force or Weapons at War claimed 35 years ago in their episode about battleships that North Vietnam complained in Paris that the New Jersey was a destabilizing influence, with Washington DC deciding to return her to the mothball fleet as a result. Not sure if that's accurate, especially with the drawdown of the older vessels in the fleet at the same time that suggests it sadly was probably a foolish economic decision. But if it is correct that she was doing her job too well, it does help explain the bizarre decisions made in Washington to kill hundreds of additional airmen by quickly re-retiring the New Jersey after her successful deployment and the navy's failure to reactivate her sisters for service off North Vietnam. They had a habit of murdering American servicemen to make gestures like this to Hanoi in the futile hope that it would be reciprocated in kind.

I would suggest the the Vietnam War was a testing ground of new equipment; so that the known effects of shore bombardment wasn't a priority.

If the Navy had decided to reactivate an additional Iowa-class battleship during the Vietnam War, which unit would they have gone with?

I agree with you on the shore bombardment. Hindsight is 20/20.

I was feel it was a shame not to save the USS Newport News as a museum ship.

Great vintage footage.

Speaking about shore bombardment. Are there still any talks of the about bringing the Iowa's back into commission IF a large-scale war ever does happen in the future? I know we've got the new Gearld R. Ford-class carriers coming into the fleet with brand-new laser weapon tech if the ship ever gets attacked, and we do have a sufficient number of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers making up the backbone of the navy. But I think the Iowa's still have it where it counts, despite lack of people signing up to join the navy, and the large amount of money it would cost to update all 4 Iowa's.

You guys need a proper studio setup with sound dampening for discussion videos it should help to eliminate the echo and also lav mics reduce the distant part of the sound

All the missiles used on navy ships during the Vietnam War had anti-surface capability and an anti-radiation variant. The Talos ARM was used to take out several coastal early warning sites. The air launched Standard ARM was just a variant of the ship launched SM-1.

08:30 activating one of each class also gives you the advantage of selecting whichever is in bed condition, meaning it can be bought back into service faster.

The military-industrial complex makes more money buying expensive planes and ordinance then paying to activate old ships and keep them running.

The navy should have dredged the Mekong river and sent the New Jersey and other Iowas deep into enemy territory and blasted everything.

For one Laos should have been invaded to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail. I agree with naval gun support. Reports I hear you would want 8" or greater. No need to wait for air support and it's cheaper than missiles. I see mentions about army 8" & 175mm guns but what is interesting is the army still had the Atomic Annie's back then. It would have been interesting if the army would have used an 11" Annie in Nam, but conventional of coarse. Probably would have been over run. Yep it was a messed up mismanaged war.

If they brought back battleships today how far do you think they would be able to shoot with modernized big guns and targeting systems? Seeing as how a 155mm can hit targets almost 70 miles away with certain ammo how far could we get a modern 16" shell? As an American I wish we'd create new classes of ships or modernized battleships of some sort. But we can't even take care of what we have bc we don't have the shipyards like we used to. That's a entire rant on its own.

Isn't that mostly because a lot of the battleships had gone by then and they were really expensive to operate

Um. Last I checked those 16” guns don’t have the range to get past the coastal mountains.

Very interesting. Thank you. Any videos on morale aboard the ship during Vietnam? Was there a branch of SOS on New Jersey? Was the crew reservists? Were there any morale issues/drug use on the ship that was significant during Viet Nam?

Do you think the war could have gone a different way if we relied more on 4x Iowa class battleships and well as a good complement of other shore bombardment capable ships

I often get drawn into these discussions and end up spouting an opinion based on fresh air and maybe something I've googled. Have read a lot about WW II but very little about Vietnam and think it probably best if I spared people what I think about Battleship deployment there.

First, the war wasn't fought to win. Where are we bombarding, the North? Reaching 20 miles inward on the coast doesn't get one much. And I don't feel it helps prevent air losses. Any Coastal air defenses could have been dealt with. In the South, BB's could have been supportive of Coastal regions, but, most of the big battles were inland and out of range.

Audio quality could be better, thank you for the video anyway.

A ship is an asset that needs to be protected as well. The ships that were there did a helluva lot of work, but if the US had committed more big gun ships at the expense of aircraft... Well, the soviet union might just have decided to supply some of their anti-ship missiles. Even the early soviet anti-ship missiles had 1000 pound warheads.

Alaska class Battlecruiser best looking Warship of all Time.

Pretty rare that all ships in the Iowa class are still around

I do not know many things. Some logical idee'. If i send 4-10 BB's to Vietnam ther are higher cost als crueser's (fuel, food, personal), more vulnearble for some attacks like torpedos, airattacks, i can think the support line for ammo and barrel can run out of material faster. Other side if i give up air supperiority the land army got more trouble, the tactics of the US army is build around mobilty, and fire support air, artelery, air evac the troops, wounded. The same airsuperoirity is a help to cover the BB's from enemy plans to.

We needed "big bangs" near Cambodia, way beyond the range of naval bombardment. By the time that NVA march all the way to within naval gun range, one has already lost the country. They came down through Cambodia.

Why is there what appears to be a port hole behind Ryan to his Left? Must have had something to do with battle & compartment separation/water tightness?

Had the Vietnam conflict (not a war as war is declared by an act of Congress) not been a political conflict I do believe the outcome would have been different. Had the conflict been left solely to the military leaders and planners, I do believe the NVA and VC would have been irraticated. That being said, the Navy severely underutilized the ships available for shore bombardment and an all out naval blockade of Vietnam . I do believe unrestricted warfare should have been conducted and allowed. You cannot tie a soldiers hands and expect them to win in a fight. You cannot blind a soldier and expect them to see and eliminate their enemy. Anyone who was precieved to be a combatant would be treated as such. Hell, I would have authorized the use of tactical nuclear weapons and biological weapons in order to eliminate the communists in Vietnam, win by any means necessary and if other countries had a problem with that they would be branded as an enemy of the US and dealt with accordingly. Fighting sa war is not pretty, just or politically correct. You do whatever is necessary to win your objectives, the hell with being nice. The enemy doesn't want to give up? Fine, make sure the cost is so great they will have no choice but to surrender. Bomb them into oblivion, those who want to live will get the hint to get out of the way. You cannot be reasonable with unreasonable people. You inflict as much hurt on them as possible to let them know you aren't playing games. When a country loses 500,000 troops in a matter of a few weeks, they'll get the picture or they'll all die. Either way, you pound them into the ground without mercy until they surrender without conditions. Doing anything less is a show of weakness. Vietnam was lost because of scared politicians, not because the lack of will from the US military forces there. Take the politics out of military decisions and strategy and you can achieve your ultimate objective. Period.

I think we should bring back a limited number of big gun ships today...for shear intimidation to places like Sire

Yes ,,and I was one of the unlucky sailors handling the brass of these badass babies,,,,

Still need those massive ships today but the navy is fascinated by ships such as the littoral ships, Zumwalt class destroyers threat cost billions and are now useless.

Mistakes in the Viet Nam War:: getting caught up in a French problem, and not getting out for 10 years. It seems we have learned nothing from that period of time.

Hindsight is always 20/20. In hindsight it would have been better to have more big-gun ships in service for the Vietnam war. Especially early. But, it would've taken time to re-activate them for that purpose. Had they known what would've happened I hope they would've foresaw the need for the shore bombardment and reactivated at least another Iowa, as well as a few more heavy cruisers earlier. Odd, the navy has been doing everything in their power to come up with a ship that doesn't have guns to do what gun armed cruisers and BBs do so well ever since. For a time some of the destroyers didn't even have guns. "Missiles are the end-all/be-all of Navy munitions.".. Then they smarten'd up and put the 5/155s on DDs.

Sound like from early videos. 😮

At least for awhile...we weren't allowed to bomb Haiphong harbor...there may have been other coastal targets. More BB's may not have been needed...

I'd recommend the HBO movie "A Bright Shining Lie" starring Bill Paxton. Basically the US never got it right in Vietnam because the US failed to embrace what the Vietnamese people were. That is a country of rice farmers. Bill Paxton's character points out to win the war, it's all about the rice to the people. I really can't see no matter how much naval fire power the US threw at North Vietnam,it would have won the war in the long run.

the Mistakes made in vietnam (talking about shore bombardment and reactivation of ships) is all due to what i call "orginizational inertia" the US military as a whole. has a tendancy to go way overboard with stuff even if its not that good. like Naval airpower proving itself in WW2. and right after WW2. its the bees knees. its the cool new thing. even if its not perfected. or good. since they were swinging that way they just swung even harder. like today with the marine corps. they realized to be an expiditionary force meant you don't need Tanks, Scout Snipers, Tube(cannon) Artillery, Mine clearing and breeching assets, or Amphibious Capability and as many combat aircraft. all you need is some infantry and helicopters. if you ask them knee jerk reaction i'd like to think so.

It makes sense

One advantage of a battleship is that they can just brush off 155mm counter-battery fire.

Ryan, The Army had plenty of M110 Howitzers in Vietnam. It's a self propelled 8" howitzer. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_howitzer

You would think the navy would have reactivated at least two of the Iowas for the war. So they could rotate them in and out of the gun line.

Ryan, the u s army had self propelled eight inch guns well into the nineteen nineties

I cannot think of a better illustration of the failure of US tactics in South Vietnam than the deployment of WW2 battleships and cruisers.

That would not be fun having a battleship shooting at your position on shore. Must be so scary.

Didn't the marines have an 8 inch spg, or do I have the wrong timeline?

You newer know what will happen. Mostly fighting inland in west and north west of >south< vietnam some in demilitariezed zone + dealing with all the guerilla action in south. So a waste to have a Iowa in veitnam. The airforce take care of most problems. Still fighting is everywhere all around what they call 360 battle. Then suddenly the enemy go on the offensive capture coastal cities and now it be good to have a Iowa. Hopless to predict.

Allowing the North Vietnamese to con United States Navy in the US state department to pull USS New Jersey away as a way to come to the peace table.

I love this table. Appetite for destruction. Rock on!!

can't intercept a 16in shell in flight, that would be something to see if it was ever done!!

If you control the seas you control every lifeline

The R.A.N. sent D.D.G.s to Vietnam. Only two 5 inch guns for N.G.S. Yet only on one trip, a Daring class ship was on the "gun line" Daring's had six 4.5 inch guns a much better ships for N.G.S. Maybe Darings to old? Stephen

Could the supply of 16 inch shells supported more than one Iowa class? Flip side, would using the New Jersey be seen as a way of disposing of some remaining munitions? Honestly, nothing about Vietnam made sense.

To this day we can see that air power isnt enough to win a war or even supplant artillery. Its just one of the gears of war. Look at the war Russia wages against Ukraine: Despite having a respectable air force in terms of size, Russia was never able to seize air superiority because Ukraine's GBAD doesnt allow them. And so the war has become an artillery slugfest. Its always good to have artillery. BTW, loving these types of videos supported by historic footage! But whats with the audio over the last few videos? Is your mic dying? 😬

Ryan, I didn't catch all of this video regarding the gunships in Vietnam. Did you mention anything about the SoDak class, (Massachusetts and Alabama). Could they have been reactivated?

The main guns could not reach more than 22 miles inland.

Why take the Iowas outta comission?

They had at least three battleships viable if they had the sense to use them.

'Musaeum'?

If there is another world war, I could see the return of monitors for coastal bombardment.

I’d argue we should have continued to have the big gals roaming the seas, Coast Guard Battleships? Yea baby. Yes, they’re expensive, but Congress has proven their ability to continually spend money on basically anything, so why not.

"Tell us some of the mistakes of the Vietnam War" The vietnam wa..."please limit it to naval stuff" Ah...ok