Would an Iowa Class Battleship Have Survived Pearl Harbor?

We're taking a look at what happened to the 8 battleships in Pearl Harbor during the attack and examining whether New Jersey or the other Iowa Class battleships would have survive the attack.
To support this channel go to:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/videofund

[@austinhughes6852]

A 1980’s Iowa battleship.With Stinger missiles and CWIS guns.Taking down Japanese Zeros.Would definitely be a sight to see!

[@thevictoryoverhimself7298]

It only has 20 seconds of firing and takes 15 minutes to reload. WW2 ships have by far better anti aircraft armament (Modern naval combat is just spamming missiles at each other)

[@steeltrap3800]

For anyone interested, some info about the 16.14" shells re-purposed as bombs: These bombs were designed to penetrate the deck armor of the new USA Battleships of the 1930s-40s. From performance testing in January 1941, the bomb was considered to be able to penetrate 150 mm deck armor (5.9") from a dropping height of 8,200 feet (2,500 m) and an average striking speed of 738 fps (225 mps). At the time of the test, Japanese Industry lacked the technology to produce a deck armor plate with a performance close to that of USA plates, so 150 mm plates were imported from Germany and these were used to create an 82 ft (25 m) target plate. Data from "Brief History of the Naval Air Squadron. Both bomb types had two base fuzes to ensure detonation. However, these fuzes do not appear to have been reliable. During the Pearl Harbor attack, although one of these bombs is thought to have destroyed USS Arizona (BB-39), at least three did not explode. USS Tennessee (BB-43) was struck by two bombs, the first exploding on the center gun of Turret II and the second striking the top of Turret III but did not explode. Two dud bombs struck USS West Virginia (BB-48), the first of which hit the top of Turret III and broke up while the second went through the foretop and penetrated down to the second deck at frame 70. It was recovered nearly intact during salvage operations in May 1942. Source: www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_161-45_3ns.php

[@tenofprime]

I can only imagine how nerve wracking a job it was to take those unexploded bombs out.

[@skibob6]

Thank you.

[@michaelpiatkowskijr1045]

The rear of Arizona was hit by a bomb. It passed out the side of the ship before exploding.

[@chopper7352]

A well thought out presentation as always. Enjoyed it greatly. Drachinifel recently did a excellent 3 part series on his KZbin channel about the aftermath of the attack on Pearl & the recovery of all the Battleships. Is definitely worth a watch.

[@nehrigen]

@@SoDevious sure buddy. Suuuuurrrreeee.

[@rehepeks]

@@SoDevious about pearl harbor? why not. Iowas were not there.

[@johngregory4801]

@@SoDevious Drach is far more than "a KZbinr". He knows more about warships of every nation than most of us know about anything. Watch his "Rum Ration" on what sunk the HMS Hood sometime... Or, hey, you could watch his three part series on the aftermath and salvage of ships at Pearl before proving you're an idiot by judging his content before watching it.

[@chopper7352]

@@johngregory4801 I couldn't have said it better.

[@johngregory4801]

@@chopper7352 Here's the final missive from Chris, OneOfMany... " Chris, OneOfMany John Gregory I'm done here, no coherent argument in the reply, blind adoration to someone right or wrong still doesn't change the facts. Emotional children who think people who are paid by AdSense actually care about their user base beyond creating revenue traffic through controversial topics can't be reasoned with. If he was truly interested in naval history he'd be at a museum, not asking for donations on Patreon and answering questions from the highest bidder." Scripture tells us that people who can't be bothered to find out if something is true do so because they can't think of ANYTHING as being true or from pure intentions because THEY aren't truthful, because THEY are incapable of pure motives themselves. That's who this creature is. If that weren't true, he would have researched Drachinifel's videos, to find out whether or not he was faithful to tell the truth of what he's studied... Or if he speaks from opinions. Pay "Chris" no mind. BTW, the advantage of not being employed by a museum is not being chained to the agenda and doctrine of the historians there... That way you can treat every subject in your field of studies according to the FACTS, and not according to how someone wants history taught... I wouldn't have known how good the Littorio's were if Drach hadn't researched them and spoken exclusively from the technical details AND the execution... The Brits were damn lucky that the Italians didn't make consistent lots of 16" shells. Or why US cruiser armor was the best in the world during WW II, but the same steel, made thicker for battleship armor, was behind the Brits and the Germans in protection because of steel makeup and hardening process differences. I don't worship him, but I sure admire how deeply he searches out a subject.

[@jimtalbott9535]

I must say, I think you've beaten Drachinifel to a good "what if" scenario!

[@tcofield1967]

I'd love to see him talk with Drach.

[@Will-tm5bj]

I second both previous comments.

[@Will-tm5bj]

@Will Kelly define better. They each have their own thing.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We both have our strengths, his audio is a lot better, we film in weird places. The great thing is that there's plenty of internet out there for both of us!

[@Will-tm5bj]

@Will Kelly i gotcha. Each channel does their own thing. I love the content on both

[@steveferris663]

I feel your pain when talking about Arizona. Thank you for doing what is obviously difficult for you. Keep spreading the knowledge.

[@Shinzon23]

I have to contest the length of time a 80's Iowa would be able to keep firing her Phallanx guns and buzz sawing planes out of the air for a few reasons,primarily that CIWS systems are designed to fight modern targets, not WWII planes, and that the firing modes on every CIWS system out there by default have programmable firing modes. It would have actually lasted far longer than a minute of Phallanx fire ;the CIWS usually have a few spare belts of ammunition located near each gun, and they have machines to reload the drums very quickly,including hooking up new belts, or even handloading new shells into the mechanism if needed. Also, the operator can toggle the amount of rounds fired at each target, to the point that you can fire "Semiautomatic" single shots iff needed, so clicking the gun onto 3 round burst mode would enable the CIWS to buzzsaw pretty much anything in the air before the ammo ran out, or keep the rate of fire low enough that even if manually loading 20mm into the belt was being done,you could keep up a steady stream of a plane exploding every few seconds or so. Remember, WWII planes are both far far slower than the supersonic or hypersonic missiles, shells, and high performance supermanuvering combat aircraft that the system was designed to track and aren't very durable to 20mm direct hits. A trio of 20mm shell hits to the fuselage of a WWII aircraft is going to turn it into a flaming wreck, especially given Japanese aircraft of WWII were far lighter built than most other nations. In short, if a 80's refit iowa was yanked back in time to December 7 1941, the imperial japanese navy would have heard a lot of screaming over the radio, followed by silence, then followed by every ship in the Pearl Harbor attack fleet detonating all within a few minutes of each other as Tomahawks and harpoon antiship missiles home in on their transmissions and hit home.

[@LTPottenger]

Yeah each target should only last half a second with computer controlled fire.

[@BlindMansRevenge2002]

Your assessment of the sea whiz system seemed a little bit more thought out than Mr. curators. I always thought the sea was system was specifically designed for taking things out of the sky. With the programmability you mentioned even short millisecond verse would probably put more than a dozen rounds into each one of those dive bombers and torpedo bombers and strafing fighters. Do I think that all 350 planes would’ve been taken out by C was no but I think enough would’ve been taken out that Japanese pilots would’ve soon realized something strange and extraordinary was going on which would’ve ended the attack pretty quickly.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Ours do not have the programmatic function however. Welcome to the early 80s!

[@Shinzon23]

@@LTPottenger probably closer to .25 of a second

[@Shinzon23]

@@BattleshipNewJersey I was under the impression that as a basic function of their computer systems, all CIWS manufactured by the USN have the ability to select "how many times do i shoot at this target before shifting fire to another target?" As far as I was aware, all CIWS have the ability from their controls in the CIC to fiddle with the settings of the guns; it does apparently take 6-8 months to train someone to run the gun and keep it maintained, and the soviet roughly equivalent CIWS systems state in their manuals that they can vary the amount of shells fired per target, and as we all know, Soviet electronics and programming was a lot of the time copied from the West, or outright stolen, so it'd be odd that the Soviets had a programming trick to their robotic guns that the USA didn't... Can you do a video on the CIWS system as well as the Harpoons? Would clear up a lot of confusion.

[@steved1387]

I was in Main Battery Fire Control on the Wisconsin from 1988 - '90. I recall one exercise where the 5-inch crew fired on a target towed by an A4 Skyhawk, so yes, the 1980s Iowas did indeed train their 5-inch crews, at least a little bit, for AA gunnery.

[@Xerethane]

If you can, you should do a collaboration with Drachinifel, it would be great for increasing viewership on your channel and I know he wants to come visit many US ships when COVID is over.

[@patrickmahan351]

Yes! Agreed.

[@TzunSu]

Great idea! Give him (and us lol) a private tour and pair it with a discussion! Even better would be a roundtable on the ship itself!

[@karlsenula9495]

@Tek Man remember few if any of the Battleship at Pearl Harbor had steam up to get underway and it was a surprise attack pre-war so the AA wasn't manned and I believe most of the ammo was locked up in ammunition lockers. Would really only have taken into account if the Japanese had come back for another strike.

[@timgagliano621]

OMG, the two of you would be like a dream team!

[@Xerethane]

@@timgagliano621 Drach has plans to visit the New Jersey during his trip to the US, planned for sometime in the next few months. I haven't heard anything regarding collab, but I wouldn't be surprised either.

[@Cpt_Boony_Hat]

Makes me Proud that Wee Vee was able to take an amount of damage that would sink an Iowa and come back

[@kylejackson2715]

Imagine how much more damage she could take after her retrofit 😀

[@thomaszinser8714]

In fairness, WeeVee was sunk as well, it was just also a repairable amount of damage that she took.

[@kylejackson2715]

@@thomaszinser8714 Well yes and also bc of the fact she was in the harbor and was grounded instead of being entirely submerged sunk.

[@phantomaviator1318]

West Virginia is the most legendary ship in my opinion. Took damage that would've sunk even the best ships today, sunk, raised again, and sent back out to raise hell on Imperial Japanese forces, and ended off the war by leading the victory party into Tokyo Bay and being the only Pearl Harbor survivor present at the Japanese Surrender. Shame she got scrapped after Korea, though. Should've been turned into a museum ship.

[@Mgl1206]

@@phantomaviator1318 you can say the same about the Enterprise

[@vicmclaglen1631]

There's a placard in the depths of the Iowa called "Ten Commandments of Damage Control"; is there anything similar on NJ?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Yes. Thats a navy universal. In case you want to see it again, check this out photos.app.goo.gl/pEaP6VLbWMCxJ5P58

[@chrismc410]

1. I am the Lord thy Aircraft Carrier. Thou shalt have no vessel or repair priority over me unless to prevent thy own sinking. 2. Remember thy watertight compartments. Keep them dry 3. Honor thy Chiefs, thy Captain's, thy XOs all officers over the rank of O-4. 4. Remember USS Forrestal. Thou shalt not burn. 5. Thou shalt not steal. However, Strategically Transporting Equipment to Alternate Locations Is permitted. 6. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors rack, his stripes, or his ass(this is the Navy, we're not talking donkeys and furthermore, there is a image we wanted to shed since forever. Last thing we need on that is wanting ass) 7. Thou shalt not use thy title in vain (the seaman/seamen jokes is part of the image shedding mission. Refraining from said jokes will slowly but surely contribute to the aforementioned missions). 8. Thou shalt not lie. However plausible deniablity so long as it can be proven plausible is permitted. 9. Remember thy EAOS, ETS and DD-214, keep them holy. 10. Remember thy heart belongs to thy loved ones. Thy soul belongs to whatever gods/deities thy prays. Thy ass belongs to thy Chief or thy Senior NCOs or thy Captain depending on the circumstances.

[@paulpski9855]

Severed aboard two ships in my career, one as an enlisted guy and one as an officer. I was a "dirt sailor" after 9/11 until I retired working with NECC units. Anyway, I've never seen the ten commandments of damage control, I've been to various damage control training and was a damage control officer onboard a destroyer. Maybe the large decks had it posted but not the two small boys that I served on (FF-1071 & DD-975).

[@mikestanley9176]

@@paulpski9855 I was on a frigate in the Atlantic in 79-81 and we had these 10 commandments of DC. Except the chiefs were the gods of the ship. Even the officers would defer to the chiefs.

[@GABABQ2756]

@@BattleshipNewJersey looks and sounds familiar.

[@daffodildude1143]

"I'd say that counts as a swarm." Great delivery! Two Admirals , standing over a map, perhaps the Mediterranean? You, with the best America has to offer in 44. Drach with the best of the Royal navy . A dice game or better yet? Done like a documentary with plastic boats, animation and a narrator...But with a beer, in a pub. Can't get enough of these videos. Thank you so much!

[@Rightin02]

Great video again! I loved the end where you talk about the impact to different generations of the ships. Much appreciate the time and effort you put into this.

[@suspiciousminds1750]

A 1980's capital ship at Pearl Harbor? That would make an interesting movie. Too bad Kirk Douglas is not available. Excellent video.

[@danielharnden516]

1980’s close in AA would have been quite a surprise for the Japanese. The other thing was the Japanese would have already been in Tomahawk range.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Assuming we have satellites to see them on in this scenario.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We have many questions: Is it a wwii Japanese carrier attacking pearl harbor in the 1980s a la 7th carrier or is it a 1980s Iowa transported back to pearl harbor a la Final countdown?

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

@@BattleshipNewJersey One other point worth addressing is: Would a 1980s USS _New Jersey_ have picked up inbound aircraft on her own search radars in time to get to general quarters before the strike arrived? Given the gulf in capabilities, would the set aboard _New Jersey_ be more capable than a pre-WWII set available to the Pearl Harbour shore installations of the time.

[@danielharnden516]

@@AdamSmith-kq6ys I think even the 1040’s New Jersey’s radar would have made a difference. Question is, would it have been manned in harbor?

[@tokencivilian8507]

As Chopper 73 mentioned him, I have to say I think it would be great to reprise this episode, and more, with Drachinifel, and perhaps Jingles as well. Great episode. NJ (or 8 of them) at Pearl...the alternate version of "The Final Countdown". Now, if that was an 80's NJ, they'd run down the IJN fleet (8 burning and 4 turning at 33 knots) and blow them apart with a swarm of Tomahawks, Harpoon's and then close to gun range for the coup de grace.

[@bigwrenchgarage1360]

Great comparison. As a former shipyard worker, the damage to the yard facilities is the most critical. Cranes, drydocks, graving docks, oil storage yards would have been detrimental and caused great delays in repairs or operating the ships. Try repairing ships without a drydock, graving dock, or cranes.

[@F-Man]

I did very much think about that when I had the chance to poke around aboard New Jersey - interested to see this!

[@MrBurgerphone1014]

Hey didn't know you had an interest in battleships, I took a tour around the New Jersey a while back as well.

[@F-Man]

@@MrBurgerphone1014 Cars, planes, ships - if it moves, odds are I’m geeking out about it. 😝

[@stephaniewilson3955]

Am I the only one amused by the thought that modern AA would be less effective than WW2 AA, given the unique scenario of the Pearl Harbour attack? This was an interesting exercise in alternative history. Thank you! (I second that people should watch Drach's series on the aftermath of Pearl Harbour. That was the US Military at their best and too few people know about it.)

[@garyruark9506]

The USS Nevada was able to get underway because of its rearmost position on battleship row and it happened to have one boiler going for electrical power generation. It was lucky. It took the Nevada a lot of time getting out of its berth because it had to back out and then make a difficult turn to enter the channel. With one boiler it was not making much speed, maybe 6 knots. What would be interesting to know is what would have happened had the Captain been on board. He may have made different decisions than the third officer about making smoke or when or the direction the Nevada took. If it had gone around the otherside of Ford Island it may have been more successful. Maybe not considering what happened to Utah. Once in the channel an Iowa class battleship would be in the same situation. It wouldn't make full speed with one boiler. It would have taken the arial bombs better and probably remained underway. The berthed Iowa class ships would have a better survival rate but 4 or 6 hits below the waterline is going to sink any ship even an Iowa with its better steel and designs. The many more anti-aircraft guns on Iowa would have certainly taken out more enemy planes. Did the Navy have any orders regarding what to do about counter flooding if attacted while berthed? If it did, those procedures were not always followed such as in the case of Oklahoma.

[@davejones67]

Appreciate all these videos. Interesting stuff in these interesting times!

[@drewhall9371]

thank you for this. enjoy all of your presentations of the Iowa Class BB's

[@thunderK5]

The 1980's Iowa-class wins a Final Countdown bonus.

[@legionx4046]

tomahawk cruise missile says hello to the kido butai lmao

[@seanwhelan6960]

If aliens couldn’t sink an Iowa, the Japanese couldnt!🤣

[@USSIowa-zg1yq]

@F P He means Iowa class

[@Stoicismisourgreatestteacher]

@carlos rivas Iowa came with radar.

[@clydemarshall8095]

I was surprised by how decent that movie was.

[@muzzmac160]

what about space Yamato

[@nickkozak4763]

@@muzzmac160 nah the iowa would still beat it

[@carltornblom3648]

Great points, great argument. Thank you again for your time!

[@Brian-nw2bn]

For the algorithm!!! Love you Ryan, keep up the great work everyone. Have a merry Christmas and a truly blessed new year. You guys over at the channel and BS New Jersey are a treasure. God speed !

[@seasirocco3063]

This was a great video! I’d love to see a video about whether New Jersey could survive Operation Ten-Go. It’s something I’ve occasionally thought about, and I’d love to see you tackling it.

[@rinzler9171]

She wouldn't. However if you have all of the 3rd Gen Us Battlewagons in a squadron, the North Carolinas, Iowa's, etc., in close formation they could put together enough cumulative anti-air that they might repulse a few strikes. This happened at the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

[@andrewp8284]

I’ve seen your vids suggested to me but after hearing Drachinifel compliment and recommend your content I decided to watch and I found this very interesting!

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Welcome aboard!

[@user-jq8wr8ru2s]

Great video. Learned a lot and really appreciate it. What an interesting what if scenario.

[@mikes9939]

Great video, please do more like it. This was a good analysis of what might have happened and likely somewhat accurate.

[@haroldhenderson2824]

Readiness condition was a major factor in the amount of damage each ship took. If all the doors were shut and locked, some of the flooding would have not happened. The local radar station saw the attack coming, but nobody took action.

[@ilenastarbreeze4978]

Cuzz intellegence fucked up so bad.

[@josephc6588]

I totally agree with you.

[@JimDandy49]

Maybe do a realistic Cinema Sins type episode on the movie Battleship. That would be hilarious.

[@nuffelbagget9173]

Great idea

[@therasco400]

Up vote they need to see this.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We won't watch Battleship, I can't listen to Ryan complain for 2 hours. - Libby the editor

[@JimDandy49]

@@BattleshipNewJersey Something positive about that movie though... even though I recognize a great deal of the storyline that involves the USS Missouri is Hollywood BS simply for dramatic effect, it reinvigorated my interest in the Iowa class ships, and led me to subscribe to your channel on KZbin. Keep up the good work. :)

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

It also helped pay for drydocking USS Missouri!

[@GrundleStiltSkin]

really enjoying these videos! thanks ya'll

[@nicholasmiller964]

Just came across the channel. Fascinating stuff! Thank you for providing these well produced and very informative videos my man!

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Welcome aboard!

[@danielcoburn8635]

Very good assessment, though when you get to Vietnam and 1980s we're getting into the Final Countdown movie scenerio.

[@jimtalbott9535]

"The Phalanx firing would have lasted about one minute." Yes, but WHAT a minute that would be. ;) Bzzt...bzzt....bzzt bzzt....

[@Shinzon23]

It would have actually lasted far longer; the CIWS usually have a few spare belts of ammunition located near each gun, and they have machines to reload the drums very quickly. Also, the operator can toggle the amount of rounds fired at each target, so clicking the gun onto 3 round burst mode would enable the CIWS to buzzsaw pretty much anything in the air before the ammo ran out. Remember, WWII planes are both far far slower than the supersonic or hypersonic missiles, shells, and high performance supermanuvering combat aircraft that the system was designed to track and kill. A trio of 20mm shell hits to the fuselage of a WWII aircraft is going to turn it into a flaming wreck, especially given Japanese aircraft of WWII were far lighter built than most other nations. In short, if a 80's refit iowa was yanked back in time to December 7 1941, the imperial japanese navy would have heard a lot of screaming over the radio, followed by silence, then followed by every ship in the Pearl Harbor attack fleet detonating all within a few minutes of each other as Tomahawks home in on their transmissions and hit home.

[@8vantor8]

yea, the fact that there planes are just disappearing may shock the pilots and have them run in fear.

[@PavewayJDAM]

The Final Countdown remake with a Nimitz and modernized Iowa complete with mid/late 80s escort force would be an awesome movie.

[@Shinzon23]

@@8vantor8 not just that, but a CIWS firing, even in burst mode, looks like a solid column of fire like a laser beam, one that makes anything it connects with either explode midair, or be turned into a flaming comet. About 5 minutes in and anywhere from 50 to 90 destroyed planes later, they would have peeled off, and the Iowa's would have used their ECM suites to track where the Imperial Navies carriers were, and either fired with the main guns, or started firing Tomahawks at them, if they had the Shipkiller variants, or Harpoons, once they were in range. Either way, the carriers that attacked pearl would be on the bottom of the ocean by the end of the day.

[@8vantor8]

@@Shinzon23 the CVs where over 100 miles away, there is no way Iowa can effectively engage them (with out satellites) so the Carriers will live.

[@eshskis1]

Great video ! Loved the topic, thank you !

[@earl556]

Great video! A lot of awesome information!

[@markcardwellwrestling6433]

How about a comparison video with the Kirov class? After all.....one of the reasons that the 4 Iowa's were brought back.

[@brucetucker4847]

The Kirov-class wouldn't get within 500 miles of a US surface ship before being sunk by a submarine or blown out of the water by long-range airstrikes. Unless maybe if the Iowa-class ventured into the Barents Sea, but I can't imagine any circumstances that would cause a NATO commander to do anything that foolish.

[@OslikusPrime]

@@brucetucker4847 It would be even more fun if Kirow would get in range of main battery. 16" shells enriched Kirov would make an interesting artificial reef ...

[@andrewmacomber8345]

Kirov’s are designed to deliver 1 massive missile salvo at long range . They would never get into gun range of an Iowa...An Iowa might better survive the missile salvo than a more modern warship. Iowa’s own anti ship missiles would have a harder time penetrating a Kirov’s air defenses..... but the Russian cruiser itself is more fragile

[@markcardwellwrestling6433]

@@andrewmacomber8345 again....one of the reasons that the Iowas were brought back!

[@3rwparks3]

They are beautiful ships. I use to walk past the Iowa at NOB back in the early eighties. The low light of my naval career was passing up orders to the Iowa in 1984. That decision still haunts me.

[@ronjones9447]

Could not have said it better. USN retired. 79-99

[@timothyallen980]

Really interesting. I've enjoyed watching several of your videos.

[@kevinc.3579]

Another great video 👍. Thanks, much appreciated

[@andrewdeboer7435]

13:10 - “Talk about overkill...”

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

Thanks for that, that was interesting. If we're doing "what if" scenarios, I'd guess "What if USS _Washington_ and USS _South Dakota_ at 2nd Guadalcanal were replaced by two _Iowa_ class battleships?"

[@Shinzon23]

The imperial Japanese navy and ground forces die from Tomahawks, pinpoint 16 inch shells directed by drones and artillery spotters with modern communication systems, and Harpoon antiship missiles. Additionally, enemy aircraft are spotted from like 1000miles out, and intercepted by friendly aircraft, or otherwise buzzsawed out of the air by CIWS

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

a lot of empty fleet oilers is what would happen

[@ronnelson7828]

Didn't USS Washington do a good enough job on IJN Kirishima?

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

@@ronnelson7828 Sure, but _SoDak_ got it pretty bad. There's also the matter of the casualties in the _rest_ of the USN force that night. Perhaps better sensors would have picked up the other IJN ships in time to effect an intercept properly, or given the two _Iowas_ the scope to weigh in against the big targets with their 16" and spread a little 5" freedom amongst the smaller IJN combatants.

[@bluemarlin8138]

Well, the main issue at 2nd Guadalcanal (besides all the destroyers being sunk) was a minor electrical problem on SoDak which her chief engineer turned into a major problem by tying down the circuit breakers and shorting out the ship’s main electrical system for a few minutes. This unfortunately happened just as she was returning fire at the Japanese ships who had spotlighted her and were shooting at her with every gun they had. It didn’t help that her captain, who was brave but unqualified, brought her between a burning destroyer and the Japanese instead of following Washington, so she was silhouetted against the fiery background. I believe the electrical problems were addressed in the other SoDak and her sisters after the battle, and I don’t recall hearing anything else about it other than a few minor issues in Massachusetts at Casablanca, which were easily overcome. The Iowas were all still under construction and as far as I know this issue never arose on them. As far as resisting the Japanese fire, SoDak held up very well, and she sustained only superficial structural damage and a slowed turret traversing mechanism on turret 3 (but that’s about the best you can hope for with a direct 14” AP hit on a barbette). So how would 2 Iowas have done? Well first, they wouldn’t have had any electrical problems, so they both would have been able to return fire at the Japanese. The guns wouldn’t have really done any more damage since both the Mark VI and Mark VII could shoot through a Kongo’s glorified cruiser armor like it was cardboard. And as far as taking damage, the Iowas have essentially the same armor scheme as the SoDaks with a couple of minor improvements, so no change there. Of course an Iowa is a bigger target, so it might have taken more hits, but it would take a whole lot of 14” shells to endanger either ship. One advantage that’s a little bit unfair since we’re talking a 1-2 year time gap is improved radar. Radar was still having teething problems in 1942, and it had trouble distinguishing ships from background clutter in enclosed environments like Iron Bottom Sound. Also, some captains didn’t really understand it or trust it yet. Since the Iowas came into service in late 1943 and 1944, they would have had much more advanced fire control radar than US BBs had in 1942 (though the NCs and SoDaks would get it too in ‘43-‘44), and they would have known how to use it much more effectively. So the Iowas (or even Washington and SoDak in ‘43-44) would have more easily spotted the Japanese and engaged them at longer range. This would have been a huge advantage, although as I said, it’s really more time-related and not a feature unique to the Iowas.

[@kyleatkinson978]

Very well done. Any more like this would be great.

[@johnslaughter5475]

Very good presentation. Your research is always to be commended. If I remember correctly, those 16" modified naval shells that were used as bombs had come from the Nagato. Also, in regard to the ready ammunition lockers, many were locked and they had to be broken open.

[@genericnamehere7602]

With the WW2 AA load outs, they each had roughly two Fletcher class DDs worth of AAGs apiece, each able to throw up a wall of AA fire. Those Bofors were no joke.

[@tricitiesair]

Exactly. The US Navy had one design specification after Pearl Harbor. How many guns do you want on this ship? Yes....

[@genericnamehere7602]

@@tricitiesair Not to mention many were quad mounted and hydraulically driven, allowing for even greater ability to track fast moving targets.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The Iowa class were a brilliant end of the Dreadnoughts

[@CLynn91189]

Ready to see more in this series.

[@morningpride78]

Awesome accessment, and very informative. Keep up the great work.

[@ross.venner]

Great video, thank ypu. What about the surviving the damage that sank HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse?

[@datrakker]

Puts on another bag of popcorn.

[@jayshaw63]

Regarding the USS Nevada, blocking the channel wasn't the issue. Vice Admiral William S. Pye, battleship task force commander, signaled for the USS Nevada to be run aground so that she wouldn't be sunk by Japanese submarines waiting outside the entrance to Pearl Harbor. BTW - Commanding officer Capt. Francis W. Scanland didn't arrive onboard until after the USS Nevada had already been run aground. He was in Honolulu visiting his wife when the attack began. He arrived back onboard around 9:15AM.

[@rydplrs71]

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis

[@BlindMansRevenge2002]

Very fine work as usual Mr. curator.

[@AndreRighetto2]

Hello Battleship New Jersey and Ryan, I believe that the battleship Gneisenau survived the explosion of his magazine in the 26-27 February 1942 attack and was scheduled to be rebuilt again, now with 15-inch weaponry, and it just wasn't rebuilt because Hitler was angry at Kriegsmarine's performance in the Battle of the Barents Sea. Bravo Zulu to yours videos

[@LTPottenger]

Yeah they built their battleships like crazy. Too bad battleships were not really useful use of resources.

[@seasirocco3063]

The predreadnought battleship Mikasa was also rebuilt after her aft main magazine blew up shortly after the end of the Russo-Japanese war. Like Gneisenau, she was rebuilt with improved weaponry, thought with less drastic changes. I believe the Italian dreadnought Leonardo DaVinci was also capable of being rebuilt after her magazine explosion, but was not due to cost.

[@adam_mawz_maas]

Gneisenau had a partial magazine explosion, as the crew was able to partially flood the magazine during the attack that penetrated her forward magazine. She survived largely because of the partial flooding prevented much of the magazine ammo from exploding and the fact she was in dry dock and thus effectively immune to sinking from the massive damage taken.

[@alganhar1]

Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were designed from the START to be able to mount a 15 inch main battery. The reason why both ships had the 11 inch instead was because at the time the German ship building industry did not have the facilities to build the 15 inch rifles. The guns are one of the longest lead items on a Capital ship. As a result the decision was made to build the two ships with 11 inch main battery so they would at least be available, and fit the 15 inch turrets when they became available.

[@jeffburnham6611]

I think the US Navy would have a difficult time getting one Iowa-class BB into the area where "Battleship Row" was located, let alone trying to stack 8 there.

[@GasCityGuy]

Probably couldn't pack 8 Iowa class in there but some could fit. Missouri is there now set up as a museum ship roughly where USS Oklahoma was during the attack.

[@remington351]

Great video Ryan. From 3:30 to 4:10 you discuss a bomb punching through several decks on the New Jersey, causing flooding, but say it would not endanger New Jersey. A deeper discussion of the design and construction differences as to why and how a 500lb bomb explosion below the bow deck is not a problem for New Jersey would be an interesting topic.

[@stijnvandamme76]

Well he already explained it.. the bow is narrow.. and easy to contain such flooding. Not much buoyancy in the bow. It wony take the ship down when flooded

[@benjaminrush4443]

Great Presentation. Thanks.

[@lazergamer]

Possible scenario: Could an Iowa survive the attacks that took out the Yamato and Musashi?

[@hitoshisawa8479]

Hell na look at Musashi she surived 1 of those attacks

[@ArtyomBlin7595]

Nop no way. Yamato was attacked by 300 planes. Even an Iowa with modern 80s loadout would run out of ammo for the ciws. Its jsut a swarm. Maybe Petr with its 200 s300 and 8 ciws with heat seakers missiles could put a barrage to stop them. I mean 150-200 s300 and then 8 double barrel 30mm ciws and another 100 igla heat seeker missiles will do the job ... But Iowa just doesnt have the AA firepower.

[@raidenthememer4360]

There's no way iowa could survive that

[@ronjones9447]

Shot down a few more planes, but no it would not have survived

[@jamesricker3997]

No but it would have put up a bigger fight

[@captaintom8020]

I think subjecting the Iowa to the damage the Yamato took would be really interesting. In the end, it's quite clear that the Iowa would most definitely sink, but it'd be an interesting video topic.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Thats on the list for the future!

[@Jeremiah90526]

Point of order, the Yamato had absolute bubkiss for medium AA guns. The Iowa class battleships had the deck just littered with Bofors quad mounts (20 total quad mounts). The old joke is the XO calls down to the Bofors boys and says, "Boys, there is an enemy plane over there. I want you to destroy _over there_ ." It was much harder for enemy planes to get in close to an Iowa than a Yamato. However, it should be noted that no matter what, throw enough aircraft at even the best AA system, and some will get through.

[@mpetersen6]

Well the Iowas clearly had superior AA. But one thing to remember. Naval operations are not World of warships or War Tunder or any other video game. If there was an encounter between the Yamato and the Iowas there would most likely be at a minimum two Iowa class BBs, plus a cruiser and destroyer screen. Along with one or two Essex class attack carriers along for the ride and their supporting vessels. The Iowas had better speed so they could control the engagement. They had better fire control. Did the fire control exceed the accuracy of the 16"50 at long range? Hits at extreme range are chancy at best. But the 16" Super Heavy Armored piercing would be devastating. Yes the 18" guns on the Yamato were powerful weapons. But if the Iowas can dance around controlling the engagement at ranges beyond the Yamato (or Mushasi) maximum range. Eventually the Yamatos fire control, radars and secondaries will be wrecked. Plus if there are a couple of clevelands along for the ride with each Iowa the amount of HE shells they can rain down will be devastating. The biggest single threat in such an engagement would be Japanese destroyers trying to launch Long Lance torpedoes. Consider Hood versus Bismarck. Hood's armour was not as bad as is made out. She might not have survived the encounter with Bismarck in the end but what caused her to blow up is one shell impacting short but in the bow waves trough around two thirds down the length of the hull. The shell did not travel far enough under water for the hydrodynamic drag to cause the shell to tumble so it was traveling butt first. This would have destroyed the fuse. The shell impacted Hood's hull below the armor belt punching through the hull exploding either in the machinery spaces with the explosion bursting the bulkhead to the 4"magazine. Of it penetrated into the 4" magazine. This accounts for the jet of flame that erupted from the Hood in front of the main mast. This explosion penetrated into the X turret 15" magazine blowing the ship apart. X Turret was seen by some observers onboard Prince of Wales to come off of the barrette. POWs suffered a similiar hit from one of Bismarcks shells. Fortunately this shell landed far enough from the ship to cause the shell to tumble. If the fuse initiated the tumble* damaged it sufficiently to prevent its detonating. This shell penetrated POWs hull and was found deep in the ship when she underwent repairs. On the naval history channel owned by Drachinifel he did a very good analysis of Hood's loss. *it seems counter intuitive but high speed projectiles perform better with the blunt end forward.

[@nonamesplease6288]

Just remember that the US Navy had the option to send the battle wagons out to intercept the Yamatos when they spotted them. As tempting as it was for the old battleship mafia to have another Jutland, the Navy wisely chose to send the planes instead. No reason to risk allowing the Japanese to batter a few US battleships. Besides, the only reason the Yamatos were out was because the Japanese had no aircraft or pilots to fly them. The carriers were decoys for the surface fleet. The age of the battleship had truly passed.

[@EFFEZE]

@@mpetersen6 I take it you have recently watched Drachs video on the cause of losing HMS Hood. It was just a run of 1 in a million things that let that shell get to were it did. If anything was just slightly different then Hood would have been able to take the hit and carry on. Probably would have been heavily damaged but she'd not blow up. I've always thought why wasn't PoW flagship and therefore in front.. Atleast the RN got hold of Bismarck and returned the favour from those lost on Hood

[@ryanschweikhardt]

Love these types of videos!

[@daflea66]

Love this type of discussion. well done. Although I do think the stream of tracers from the point defense would deter some pilots lol

[@yamatojoe7327]

It depends on how often it was hit. A few of the older battleships survived Pearl Harbor so obviously it would be possible for Big J to survive. That being said, if like the USS Arizona, (BB-39) she took a type 90 bomb hit to one of her magazines, she would sadly sink. I don’t even think that Yamato could have survived that and as you can probably guess from my profile picture I’m a bit biased towards the Yamato class.

[@lawrencet83]

Thank God that Yamato didn't have the wave motion gun back then!

[@yamatojoe7327]

Ah, a fellow man of culture I see. It’s a good thing indeed else we’d all be dead! Now, how many years do we have to wait for the Black Dragon to get her own space refit?

[@legionx4046]

@@lawrencet83 star blazers such a classic show

[@lord_igorious1426]

I would like to see Roma(Iowa) vs. Fritz X

[@whitallred4052]

Very well reasoned. I can't see any holes in your logic and I really enjoyed it!.

[@taproom113]

Outstanding video! Well done. Carry on ... ^v^

[@therecklesswarlock6439]

hey! the audio is getting better.

[@BlindMansRevenge2002]

Sometime during the summer the museum was able to collect enough money from donations to afford a higher quality microphone set up. I think early on they were using an iPhone or some other type of smart phone to do the recording. Like comment and subscribe so we can keep this awesome piece of US Naval history around for decades to come.

[@bmused55]

My tuppence on that question: It would all depend on where they were moored, if they were hit, by what and how many times. Not every BB at Pearl was sunk. It's possible an Iowa could have survived. It's also possible they could have sunk too. If the Iowas were was moored outboard, as Oklahoma and West Virginia where, that positioning alone would ensure they get hit with several torpedoes. West Virginia took 7 torps! The size of the Iowas would make them a prime target anyway, ensuring they would get the lions share of Japanese ordnance hurled at them. Then you have that unlucky hit by the amour piercing bomb that destroyed Arizona. I doubt an Iowa class would have fared any better with the same sort of direct hit to a magazine. That is a lot of explosives going off in a confined space. It's all ifs and buts and we won't really ever know for sure. But I would say the answer is both yes and no.

[@user-jj9hd8qo9j]

Maryland or Tennessee just had light damage never sunk

[@user-jj9hd8qo9j]

And the Pennsylvania did sink either

[@michaelkennedy272]

@@user-jj9hd8qo9j How could it? It was in dry dock.

[@MrChickennugget360]

@@michaelkennedy272 Cassin and Downs were in Dry dock as well and both sunk.

[@bmused55]

@@user-jj9hd8qo9j Because Oklahoma and West Virginia shielded them from Torps. Like I said, it depends on where the Iowas would be moored. Do please read comments properly.

[@jeffbetts6724]

Nice job. Really enjoyed this video.

[@seankratzer1814]

Absolutely loved this video! Do the sinking of musashi next

[@jd-vz8cn]

It may be a foregone conclusion, but could you talk about the damage that Tirpitz took in Norway? I have a feeling that USS New Jersey would survive up to the tall boy bombs. That being said I don't think ANY ship would survive a tall boy hit.

[@thomassmith9844]

CIWS would’ve taken out ALOT of zeros....that would be cool to see

[@glennschlorf1285]

That is also the fear my grandfather had while on the St Luois. That had the st louis gone down it would have also blocked the harbor... they got the St Louis out the harbor but she was still riddled with holes and had one engine room destroyed but made it out. My Grandfather always said that the arizona went down based on a lucky shot on that magazine...

[@markriley7723]

Love the channel - good work everyone involved. How about a chat about surviving a hit by a Fritz X bomb as used against Warspite & Roma? or perhaps the Tallboy bombs used against Tirpitz?

[@alganhar1]

Lets be honest here, it does not matter WHICH ship gets hit by a Tallboy, if that thing goes off in the ships bowels, or even worse, just under her keel, she is going down. Thats a 12,000 lb armour penetrating bomb for crying out loud. ABout the only thing you can hope for is the things goes right through the ship before the fuse can arm and it blows well under her keel.... as happened to Tirpitz on one occasion if I recall....

[@plantfeeder6677]

"They ain't gonna sink this battleship, no way!"-Battleship(movie)

[@JimDandy49]

I love battleship porn.

[@xela6349]

@@JimDandy49 A good old Musashi style?

[@sparky694]

I think most definitely. Iowa's are well armoured and if she was to have her AA suite that she had during WW2 then there would have been a lot more Japanese aircraft brought down

[@timothyreed8417]

Who would be operating the guns? It was Sunday. A lot of sailors were ashore.

[@bmused55]

Guns are useless sans crew. You are assuming a fully crewed ship on alert status. Remember, this was a Sunday morning and the Japanese quite successfully caught the Pacific Fleet asleep and thoroughly unprepared.

[@futch2121]

If it was in the same condition, with the ship opened up for harbour routine, torpedo protection opened up for inspection & the AA ammunition locked away, then why would they have fared better? 5 or 6 torpedo hits would have finished them off in the same way as West Virginia, California & Oklahoma. The explosion of the Arizona is a bit spurious as the forward magazines were set off by a ton of black powder for catapult charges, that was in a less protected position adjacent the main magazines I believe. North Carolina was severely damaged by torpedo hit & she was closed up at sea. There seems to be an opinion on here that the Iowa`s were super ships & they weren`t. Their design was compromised for speed & the ability to pass through the Panama canal. Anti torpedo protection forward was poor & they had a fairly thin belt. Very good ships but not super ships. The North Carolinas were only armoured against 14" shell fire & vibrated terribly at any sort of speed, affecting gunlaying, the South Dakotas were armoured against 16" shell fire but were cramped as too much was attempted on a too small displacement, The Iowa`s were compromised as already mentioned. Had the Montana`s been completed they would have been a balanced design with excellent armament & protection.

[@futch2121]

@@landonspeares But only if the guns were manned & ammunition available.

[@futch2121]

@@bmused55 I have read many books on Pearl Harbour, who knew what & what information was withheld etc & have some sympathy for Kimmel but you have to ask yourself, when he received a war warning only a week before, why was the fleet in port carrying out harbour routine with ships fully opened up, anti torpedo compartments open for inspection, crews, including battleship captains, on overnight leave & ammunition locked up? All of this was down to him, his fleet was completely unprepared. It seems to be a truth that commanders with qualities fitting them for high command in peace are swiftly replaced when war starts & fighting men with different skill sets are required.

[@bri-manhunter2654]

Loved the video sir!!!!!! Please do a Iowa class( New Jersey) vs Yamato in different weather, battle engagement areas, certain key battles, and more please.

[@hitoshisawa8479]

Is Yamato can hit Johnston.and white planes moving with hast over 30000 Yards in bad weather with early war surface radar i doubt there would be much diffrence in later war not to mention near misses would do huge damage on this ship

[@nycat7906]

What is the biggest gun (not missile) on a modern ship?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

155mm on the Zumwalts. For the US anyway

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@BattleshipNewJersey How about one that works? 😒

[@jth877]

@@WALTERBROADDUS - ... ain't got no bullets. What a joke that thing is.

[@ArmoredNeko]

"There will be no room for destroyers" okay that was unexpected...

[@Newman0072]

Yeah but he didn't mention how an Iowa would fare against the munitions that destroyed those destroyers.

[@ilenastarbreeze4978]

@@Newman0072 probably about the same. They arnt that different and i think iowas are wooden deck and that would have burned

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

The teak needs an accelerant to burn, I've stuck a blow torch to it and it didn't catch fire.

[@TheFreaker86]

Good stuff and great analysis! Keep it coming! :-) May I suggest as next video: Would and Iowa class-battleship survived the fate Bismarck had to face and would have made it back to occupied France?

[@Petah30]

Well done video!

[@mcallahan9060]

I think the 1980's Iowa Class would have in fact been putting up flak that may have deterred other attacking aircraft. That flak was in the form of Japanese Zeros and their ordinance exploding having been hit and obliterated by 20mm Phalanx fire. I think I would pull up if my wingman was blown to chunks by what would look life a ray gun to a 1941 Japanese pilot lol

[@brucetucker4847]

I'm not sure the Japanese would have any idea exactly what was killing their planes: the CIWS would be firing very short bursts and they don't use tracers.

[@brianalford5754]

Could an Iowa class survive the bikini atoll nuclear bomb test at different distances?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We can add that to the list to discuss!

[@ghost307]

I read that the ships that were sunk by the bikini tests did so due to a total lack of Damage Control activities. The only ship that sank as a direct result of a bomb blast that was underwater.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Check this out kzbin.info/www/bejne/o2aoZ32dpJuJgbM

[@brucetucker4847]

The real problem in that scenario was that even if the ship survived it would have been impossible to decontaminate it enough to make it habitable for the crew. The original plan was to bring surviving ships back to the US for study but the decontamination problem nixed that idea, anyone manning the ship for the trip home would have gotten a lethal, or at least unacceptably hazardous, dose of radiation just on that trip.

[@brianalford5754]

@@brucetucker4847 just looking at the physical destruction standpoint I wanted to know if an Iowa could still float if the event of maybe the bow got ripped off from either the pressure of the blast or the massive wall of water crashing down on it. Or if the heat could set off the magazines.

[@mokdumoknonsharrall1868]

Neat comparison!

[@coreypage2851]

Fantastic Video!

[@busterbeagle2167]

Great episode

[@richardchurchill5181]

Note to production team: The Type 91 aerial torpedo had a 713 pound warhead, not a 1000 pound one. The midget-subs with Type 97 "Long Lance" derived torpedoes could deliver that types 772 pound warhead, but the vast majority of torpedoes used in the attack were the Type 91.

[@wazza33racer]

Drachinifel has an excellent coverage of the salvage work done to raise the battleships sunk at Pearl. Truly astonishing feat of effort,engineering and courage. Especially the Navy divers that had many unpleasant and dangerous tasks to do. To put into perspective..........it took the British years to sink Tirpitz........and even then it took direct hits from the super heavy 'Tall Boy' bombs to damage her in a major way..........its possible the Japanese did get somewhat lucky with their modified artillery shell/bombs.

[@Melvorgazh]

Excellent videos on your channel

[@DanielBrown-sn9op]

Great points.

[@tenofprime]

Cool video, it is interesting to look at these what ifs of history. A possible follow up video idea: comparing the recovery time of the fleet that was there to this hypothetical one, less damage means faster repairs but by how much? Also do you think WW2 naval tactics in the Pacific would have changed by having more fully functional battleships early on?

[@theoldbigmoose]

Great presentation! Hooked on your channel.

[@garylewis3641]

I agree with your assessments!

[@deaks25]

Very interesting thoughts and conclusions, especially on how the later refit versions of the Iowa's would have faired. The idea that the 1980's New Jersey would have mowed down aircraft but not been able to keep up a constant rate of fire would be a very interesting lead into comparing the WWII, Vietnam and 1980's versions. To me it's very telling of WHAT the ship was expecting to engage with it's AA guns; the Phalanx system is of course primarily concerned with shooting down missiles; objects that take a lot less damage to bring down, so only need very short bursts of fire and will encounter much fewer numbers, tens rather than the hundreds that categorise WWII mass strikes. Fascinating discussion, will definitely be viewing more of your content. PS: Drachinifel sent me :)

[@adam_mawz_maas]

It's arguable that a missile would take less hits than an IJN aircraft, which were notoriously fragile. Against the tougher aircraft of say the Luftwaffe, that's a different story. The main challenge is without AEGIS, a CIWS isn't going to necessarily detect the kill quickly enough and shift targets, the failure mode on missiles is usually a touch more abrupt than on a Kate or Val. The wild card is 'could a CIWS even engage a dive bomber', that requires very high angle engagement, unlike a torpedo bomber which has an attack profile similar to a typical ASM.

[@bengrogan9710]

@@adam_mawz_maas The Phalanx in general fires a 75 round burst and immediately changes target, kill or not - if those 75 didn't kill it a missile is already at the point where it will strike the ship regardless and you're better removing a separate target

[@captainbejo3513]

Great video!

[@SootHead]

Well done presentation! The obvious: NJ vs Yamato, NJ vs Bismark.

[@DebdeK]

what were the casualties per ship? the Arizona accounted for many but the Oklahoma must have significant loss thanks for your expertise, it is very satisfying to hear someone knowledgeable. i had heard the USS Missouri had 12 to 17 inches on hull thickness around the props. i was on board her as a schoolboy when she was in dry dock in Bremerton in "60s. the impression i took away has lasted me a lifetime!

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

I recommend checking out our Peark Harbor series we did last month, we get into a lot more details.

[@Notthecobracommander]

Thanks for the great video. Would like to see a Iowa and South Dakota vs Bismark and Yamato 2 vs 2.

[@joshuasill1141]

Tough choice between a South Dakota and a North Carolina class.

[@roscothefirst4712]

Excellent video

[@haljames624]

Thank you.

[@fishua5564]

Wow, you went all Final Countdown on them. Nice!

[@jonathanbair523]

Very nicely done in the vid. One thing you kinda mentions, but failed to mention is the IJN subs. There was 1 or 2 "mother subs" in the area to recover the mini subs they had launched. The mini subs where mostly ineffective with the attack going on, most got sunk before the battle started. Like the USS Ward sinking one by putting a 4 inch shell in the mini subs coning tower. Now the mother subs, they would be a risk to the fleet if they made it out of the harbor. Like you said, the fleet getting sunk in harbor with shallow water made the more likely to be saved to a point and the crews that was in the water got a higher save rate then would have been in deep water.

[@brucetucker4847]

If the NJ opened up her throttle and ran anywhere near 30 knots a WW2 sub would have posed very little risk to her. One or two torpedo hits were not going to sink her like they could sink a cruiser or a carrier stuffed full of avgas, and if she was at full speed the sub would be extremely lucky to get anywhere near a firing position before the battleship zoomed past.