Would New Jersey have Survived what Sank Yamato and Musashi?

Next in our series on "Would NJ have survived..." we are taking a closer look at the sinking of Battleships Yamato and Musashi.
For our original video on Yamato:
• Leyte Gulf - Samar
To support this channel and the museum, go to:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/v...

[@jerryfreemann3490]

only Chuck Norris on a dinghy could survive what Yamato and Musashi went through , he would stare the bombs away

[@arohk1579]

He would have then rode at flank speed to engage the whole fleet.....and win lol.

[@iansneddon2956]

@@arohk1579 The fleet would melt under the fury of his gaze before he could close the distance to engage it. ;-0

[@FrankF-vp4pt]

LMAO!

[@Binkophile]

Ron White said it best: "I don't know how many it was gonna take to kick my ass, but I know how many they were gonna use."

[@iansneddon2956]

IJN question: how much ordnance will the Americans throw at us? USN answer: Yes!

[@scottb7539]

One of his best lines.

[@sharlin648]

Short answer, no. There's probably not a ship afloat that could take the hammering that sunk these two. Even accounting for the far more potent USN AA defences, if an Iowa was hit by that many torpedoes she's gonna go over. The Iowa's had a thin TDS for a ship their size and this was because it was a sacrifice needed for the long, lean hull for their speed. I doubt a modern CVN would remain afloat if they somehow took that many hits. I think the only way you 'might' survive is if you did a 1-1 swap with equavalent USN ships. So 8 Fletcher/Gearing class DD's, one CL of some kind (Atlanta probably) and the Iowa. That's a LOT more 5-inch proximity fused shells and 40mm guns as well as the slathering of 20mm on the Iowa, so attacking aircraft would suffer much heavier losses. But if the ship was still hit by the same number of bombs and torpedoes, no she's just not going to survive that.

[@becauseimbatman5702]

Agreed

[@B52Stratofortress1]

Well said. I think even with the comparable US escort flotilla odds are she's still going down but the enemy loses a hell of a lot more planes.

[@Atlasworkinprogress]

The only ship with strong enough defenses to survive this was HMS New Zealand, and that's only because she had divine protection and her captain wore a Maori skirt into battle.

[@bluemarlin8138]

My only disagreement is on the TDS. As Ryan mentioned in the video, the Iowas and SoDaks (and NCs) had a deeper and much better-designed TDS than the Yamatos. The US BBs also had the torpedo bulkhead/lower belt keyed to the lower belt/torpedo bulkhead instead of riveted. The most effective TDS, I’d say, was actually the one on the Bismarck class. That’s not because it was particularly sophisticated, but because it was very deep. (Although they made room for this partially by only having 3 closely-spaced prop shafts...whoops.) On a narrower ship like Scharnhorst, this TDS design wasn’t very effective at all. The Littorios had a good design in theory, but in practice it wasn’t deep enough, and the bulkheads were too thin and very weakly connected to the bottom, which caused the crush tubes to be unable to absorb the energy of the blast. They would have had to have been VERY robust to overcome the inherent weakness of a concave bulkhead design, which focused the blast inwards. These ships were knocked out of action several times by torpedo impacts that wouldn’t have affected most other BBs of the same vintage nearly as much. Had the Montanas been built, they would have had by far the best TDS of any battleship, while also providing great protection against diving shells, but unfortunately we didn’t get them! Of course, none of those ships were going to survive if they had actually been hit with all the bombs and torps that the Yamatos were. But as you said, the Iowas would have had a somewhat better chance to avoid being hit by as many in the first place due to vastly superior AA.

[@seasirocco3063]

@@bluemarlin8138 The Iowas also had a weak joint where the TD met the bottom of the ship, although I believe this was fixed.

[@nl5494]

USN: "We have radar guiding and layers of redundancy in our AA fire control" IJN: "We have stick"

[@MrKKUT1984]

🤣

[@josephstabile9154]

Let's here it for medieval fire control on a state-of-the-art (or so we surmise) capital ship! BTW, is Yamato30 aware of this AA fire control state of affairs?

[@gendaminoru3195]

ironically now Japan makes the most ubiquitous RADAR on the sea and uses the most advanced RADAR on the sea for the JMSDF to shoot down ballistic missiles [SPY-2E enhanced] better than Lockheed on US Navy Aegis.

[@phaserush1024]

@@gendaminoru3195 Doesn't the JSDF use AEGIS? Kongo, Atago, and Maya class all use AEGIS if I remember correctly.

[@bkjeong4302]

Actually the Japanese did have fire control computers-just no radar input for them. The idea they didn't have any mechanical fire control is a meme, the result of confusing "no targeting radar" for "no fire control".

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Yamato was being confronted by 8 Aircraft Carriers and 6 Battleships. No single capital ship was ever built to handle such a disparity of force.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

There was one. The Mary Rose when it was updated in 1545. There were so many cannons added together with other armaments that it was thought it could take on any 12 ships and win. Only problem is it was so unstable after all the extra cannons that it turned turtle and sank first time it sailed. The take on a dozen enemy ships and win may have been jingoism but it was certainly more modern in terms of how the cannons were mounted which gave better aim, more protection to the gunners and faster reload times, they were heavier so longer ranged and did more damage, and there were more of them.,

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@gordonlawrence1448 If Mary Rose was so powerful, she wouldn't have been overloaded with boarding parties. Ship back than constantly ran out of ammunition before finishing off a single ship.

[@farmrrick]

@@gordonlawrence1448 didn't the same thing happen to the vasa ?

[@tomriley5790]

I'd be more inclined to go with HMS Warrior (1860), at the time she was built (not for very long) she was virtually invulnterable against every conteporary projectile, faster yet was still designed to have both ends shot off. I'd take my chances in her against 13 same era "battleships". In reality she never had to fire a shot in anger...

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@tomriley5790 Even the Battleship Bismarck proved the rudder can be shot away even a century later. And I'd doubt HMS Warrior would even carry enough shot to fight 13 contemporary Battleships. And given the French were the leaders in naval explosive shell technology, very like HMS Warrior's wooden deck and masts would quickly catch fire and be turned into a ranging inferno. I could see HMS Warrior defeating 2 or 3 contemporary Battleships of the time, but not 13.

[@andrewtaylor940]

Yamato’s final mission, operation ten-go, really illustrated just how bad the Japanese AA defenses were. She had more AA barrels than any other ship ever built. She had those “magic” 18” AA shells. (Which on top of being utterly worthless against aircraft, can probably be credited for sinking almost as many Japanese Battleships as were sunk by US Battleships. The 16” version of those idiotic shells remain the top suspects in the “anchored in harbor” loss of the IJN Mutsu. Nagato’s sister ship.). Yamato was attacked by 400+ American Navy planes. The air was so full of attacking planes that they had to establish holding patterns to wait in line to attack. The US Navy lost 10 planes that day. Of those 10 planes, 7 were lost to Yamato’s cataclysmic magazine detonation that held the record for largest man made non nuclear explosion up until July 1969 when the second test of the Soviet N1 moon rocket detonated on the pad wiping out much of the Baikanur Cosmodrome. The Yamato’s explosion created a 10 mile high mushroom cloud so any planes nearby when it went up were destroyed. So yeah for all of Yamato’s hundreds of AA barrels, over the course of nonstop concentrated aerial attack by hundreds of planes, they managed to shoot down 3. This is not an impressive record of success.

[@xiaoka]

Bigger than the Halifax explosion?

[@andrewtaylor940]

@@xiaoka I believe so. the detonation was heard back in Japan.

[@rtqii]

@@xiaoka Yamato had just been fully supplied with a full quiver of ammunition, all magazines were brimming full with war loads. Poof! I believe the explosion vaporized and detonated the bunker fuel.

[@jamesberlo4298]

All excellent points & facts , but there have been several Explosions that dwarfed the Yamato's demise, even a couple of Ammunition Ship failures & a Kamikaze strike on one was a third as powerful as Hiroshima and a quarter as powerful as Nagasaki , and they exaggerate the Mushroom could (the actual extent of the explosion) as photos show, but the mere fact it took down Aircraft is stunning.

[@michaelnaven213]

The Japanese primary AA weapon had a poor rate of fire and destruction effect as our 20mm AA weapon had. We learned from that and went to the 40mm bofors with the 4 gun mounts. This and the proximity fuse with the 5 inch guns doomed many Japanese pilots. Instead of just 3 planes shot down, I would expect ten times or more planes shot down. But with the long Lance torpedoes could an Iowa class battleship survive? The best torpedo of any nation, I doubt it.

[@ghost307]

Yamato's armor was defeated and New Jersey had comparable armor (or less) so our girl would have joined Yamato on the bottom of the ocean. Fortunately that never happened so we get to visit her safe and sound in Camden.

[@Elthenar]

I think that the Iowas had better AA but no single WW2 ship could have survived what we sent against Yamato. The only difference would be how many planes an Iowa would take with them.

[@jameschenard7691]

@@Elthenar nailed it!

[@michaelsullo3698]

USN-Ret. This is true since Yamato's weakness was in her anti torpedo blisters.

[@Deusmecumest]

Gee... did you come to that conclusion after he said it? Or did you just stop watching?

[@Elthenar]

@@Deusmecumest Myself, I did comment before I watched. It's the obvious answer though, you don't need to be the caretaker of a battleship to know that one.

[@demoskunk]

Yamato and Musashi's length to width ratio gave them a tight turning radius, making them quite maneuverable, and they were both able to dodge numerous bombs that their lookouts actively spotted. The problem is, near bomb misses create underwater shockwaves that can sheer hull rivets and cause water seepage, and there were a LOT of near misses from the hundreds of planes attacking these 2 ships.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

Believe it or not it's the collapse of the cavity caused by the explosion that does most damage. I have seen the slow mo for torpedo tests exploding under the keel. The keel bends far less from the explosion than it does from the cavitation.

[@jwenting]

@@gordonlawrence1448 which is why pretty much all torpedoes now have an under the keel attack profile rather than aiming to hit the side of the target ship.

[@tomriley5790]

Repulse was also highly manouverable - she dodged 19 torpedoes before being hit - it didn't save her.

[@clientcomun1958]

@@tomriley5790 indeed. nothing is invincible. but repulse got sent on a dumb mission with no air cover or escort. it was her and another battleship only(prince of wales). If she was in the middle of a task force with lots of AA cover she would be a pain in the ass to strike for sure. The reason i am calling it dumb was its premise. They took a big gamble that didn't pay off. They knew they wouldn't stand a chance versus the japanese fleet but chose to send two fast and quality ships instead of a bigger task force made of old and new ones because they thought it would act a deterent. Like the Tirpitz up in Norway. it didn't leave but it could get out and create issues for them, so the british thought it may make the japanese second guess their attack. They also didn't take into account how much of an impact planes would really be since it was still close to the start of the war.

[@tomriley5790]

@@clientcomun1958 Sorry but not really true - there wasn't the option of sending a big task force, unlike the United States the RN had been at war for 3 years. Now was there an option to do nothing - sure, that's what the USN decided to do. Would it in retrospect have been a better choice - clearly. However at the time no capital ship had been sunk at sea by aircraft, KGVs AAA had worked pretty well when attacked by stuka's etc. previously. Plus the British Army was in the middle of its largest retreat in history - largely because the report by Percival on the resources needed to defend Singapore had been rubbished and ignored and he'd then been asked to defend it anyway. So you have the choice to sit and do nothing or send your battleships up to attack the supply lines of an enemy that was supplied by Sea, if you'd have liked to be the Admiral that told the General you were going to sit and do nothing to support him because you thought it was too dangerous... well. I don't think there was any atempt at it being a deterant - the equivalent of Tirpitz would have been to sit in port. Did they underestimate the effect of aircraft - yes but actually not by that much, Repulse dodged 19 of the 21 torpedoes launched at her (only succumbing when attacked simultaneously from multiple directions). KGV would probably not have sunk (at least from the damage inflicted on her in that attack) if they hadn't atempted to restart the damaged shaft. It's possible if they had only tried to make way under her other shafts she may have survived (Similar to Vittorio Veneto after Cape Matapan) or she may have been sunk - we'll never know. My point is that the black and white - battleships bad aircraft good, is not really supported by what happened.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

Fun Fact: an F4U Corsair from Essex put a 1,000 pound GP bomb into the bow of Yamato.

[@Inquisitor6321]

That hit may have been the one that killed most of Yamato's damage/fire control crew. When that happened, it meant that every hit Yamato took was irreversible damage. I think that surely hastened her demise.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

@@Inquisitor6321 at that point in the War, US Navy and Marine fighter pilots had become extremely proficient at air-to-ground. And the Corsair could carry a shit ton of ordnance. You can imagine a Corsair pilot who had been dropping napalm into cave mouths on Okinawa for weeks on end; hundreds of sorties - being pulled off that duty and being armed with a drop tank of fuel and a thousand pounder slung side-by-side under the belly between the gull wings of a mighty Corsair and being pointed in the direction of Yamato... I’d imagine that the bow of a 75,000 ton battleship was tempting.

[@tomriley5790]

Interestingly Victorious was hit by a 1000kg bomb on her elevator which exploded into the flight deck, she survived...

[@iansneddon2956]

@@tomriley5790 Depends where you are hit and how much armor you have. HMS Rodney was hit by a 1,100 lb bomb which broke up on impact, going off but failing to penetrate armor.

[@tomriley5790]

@@iansneddon2956 big difference between a 1,100lb bomb (500kg) and 1000kg bomb (which also went off) and the bomb design. The guys dropping the bombs on victorious were the luftwaffe's premier antiship unit- intended to fly off Graf Zeplin if she'd ever been built they dropped anti personel HE bombs first and then the massive AP bombs, which fortunately weren't AP enough. However the fire was so bad victorious was glowing red hot when she got to Valetta. She's often held up as an example of why armoured flight decks were a bad idea as it took a long time to repair ther in the US but that ignores several things - 1 she was the first carrier to be damaged - so lots of time was spent learning what had worked and what hadn't (steel blast shutters on the flight deck), 2, She was an RN carrier in a USN yard - they didn't do things the same way and had to learn/make things to fix her. 3, If she hadn't had an armoured box (as the lift was half way down when hit so the blast went into the box) she'd have been sunk. I do wonder if the experience with Victorious was why the Malta class were planned with an armoured hanger deck.. anyway.

[@donkeyboy585]

A big reason all 4 Iowa’s are still here is they never lived in a world where she didn’t enjoy air superiority

[@SoloRenegade]

Lesser US warships survived in a world where the US did not enjoy air supremacy in WW2. Laffey took 6 kamikazes and 4 bombs for example (even with air superiority). US had better radar, AA guns, fire control, proximity fuses, tactics, radio communications, training, damage control... Even without air cover, Iowa class would have fared better in many ways in many circumstances. Look how easily many IJN ships went down, including Shinano. Yet US ships like Franklin, Yorktown, Laffey and others survived severe beatings. Air superiority was not the key factor.

[@bri-manhunter2654]

The Iowa’s had far superior air defense!

[@joelmccoy9969]

Supremacy mostly

[@robertx8020]

@@SoloRenegade look how easy USS WASP was sunk (only 3 torpedo's), Shinano had a poorly trained crew or she would not have sunk that easy ..remember she was Yamato class so she should have taken more hits ..btw Japan had superior Torpedo's and (in the first part of the war) better airplanes :) It's just how you want to look and evalute things also to remember..Most Japanese Battleships were WW1 models ...a lot of US BB's were pre WW or just start WW2 BB'S . And I wouldn't say that US early war tactics were better. But that is just me and now I will wait for ppl calling me anti-Amerikan which happens a lot when you even make one remark against Amerika being the best in everything :p

[@SoloRenegade]

@@robertx8020 Yes, Japan had the best torpedoes of WW2, never claimed they didn't. Not all US ships when down so hard, never claimed that. I merely claimed many US ships have demonstrated the ability to take and even survive horrendous beatings even without air cover. And I was pointing out that even a Yamato can go down easy if misused and mishandled. Yes early tactics weren't perfect on the US side. But overall, long term, they were better. But even still, some US ships took beatings and survived in those early periods without good tactics and experience, and without aircover. Further supporting my argument. America isn't the best at everything, i give entire lectures to this effect all the time. Please don't project your feelings and assumptions onto me and others baselessly. Blanket accusing everyone is no way to engage in a civil discussion.

[@AndrewGivens]

Musashi at the Sibuyan Sea is a first-class example of taking one for the team, yet still refusing to go quietly.

[@pscwplb]

Here's a better question: Would the Johnston Atoll have survived what sank Yamato and Musashi? Maybe.

[@testaklese]

The chad johnston. Hell yeah

[@gendaminoru3195]

@@testaklese you mean Hank who thought Guam would capsize?

[@testaklese]

@@gendaminoru3195 TBH when I made that comment, my dumb brain skipped right over "atoll" and just assumed he meant DD-557.

[@seansimms8503]

Here's another, would Admiral Yi Sunsin survive what sank Yamamoto and Musashi? He took 13 ships to battle against 333 Japanese ships....sunk 34 while losing zero...

[@gendaminoru3195]

@@seansimms8503 50 cent?

[@rickmroz9212]

The 5" proximity fused AA rounds offered NJ a much greater margin of protection. This would be an excellent video by itself.

[@johngregory4801]

Drach did that video, rating all of the major nations' light, medium and heavy AA guns based on a variety of factors. IIRC, it's called "Enforcing The No Fly Zone"

[@nicbrownable]

If they announced that they were going to replace my mattress with wooden boards, I would have sunk the boat myself.

[@fizzyb00t]

It couldn't have been very comfortable to sleep on.

[@robotbjorn4952]

@@fizzyb00t Yeah but still more comfortable than burning to death.

[@SoloRenegade]

I slept on a sheet of plywood in Iraq for a year. I have slept on the floor for the past 7yrs. It's actually very comfortable and good for the spine. The Japanese also still sleep on the floor with their futon beds. Humans are well adapted/evolved to sleeping on hard surfaces. The bed is a relatively modern invention.

[@christosvoskresye]

@@SoloRenegade These were young men in pretty good shape. Old, out-of-shape men like me would really suffer on a hard wooden bed.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@christosvoskresye I don't think so. Not all sailors are/were young men. Japanese people don't stop sleeping on the floor as they age. Also, ability to get off the floor is a good indicator of health at old age, according to some medical professionals and studies. What little studies there are on How we sleep actually suggest many people have "back problems" from sleeping on soft beds that cause the spine to be bent in the wrong way. No mattress I have seen can support the spine the way the commercials claim. A hard surface, flat on your back, results in the perfect spinal curvature. Sleeping on the floor improved my overall posture, and strengthened my back, and made me stand taller. I started sleeping on the floor after conducting my own experiments after trying every type of mattress and bed type and suffering from back pain. Now I will sleep on the floor likely for the rest of my life.

[@bluemarlin8138]

The Japanese 25mm gun also had a painfully slow rate of fire. It was good in theory, but it had very small magazines that were hard to change, and the mounts were slow to train.

[@artbrann]

ya, the 25mm was arguably worse than the 1.1" Chicago Piano and that was a dinosaur we were tossing into the trash almost as fast as we could

[@einar8019]

And they lacked inteermediete like a 40 or 37mm

[@roberthuehn6562]

+ this 25mm guns needed someone to hold the magazines in place

[@notsureyou]

Which was worse... those or the 37mm fitted to Bismarck?

[@vietta6424]

​@@notsureyouDefinitely the single fire 37s.

[@rightwing66]

That was a stirring tribute to the men of the Japanese Imperial Navy.

[@ChandlerWrites]

Interestingly, the captain of the IJN cruiser that was sunk with the Yamato was Tameichi Hara, who wrote the excellent WWII book "Japanese Destroyer Captain." Excellent book.

[@davidlipman8093]

I read it. Great book.

[@pelto7706]

The IJN Yahagi.

[@georgeeffendi5881]

I read it back in 1979 when I was a kid. Excellent book. Tameichi Hara commanded destroyers IJN Amatsukaze, IJN Shigure and finally cruiser IJN Yahagi.

[@dannyc7839]

An alternate history where Musashi and Yamato face down all those US battleships would have been amazing

[@SkeeterPondRC]

Not a chance. We threw almost 300 aircraft at Yamato and over 100 at Musashi. If we are combining those into an attack on two Iowas, 200 at each, even with the better AA the USN had over the IJN, there were over 30 confirmed torpedo and over 20 confirmed bomb hits (in total). We swarmed those ships like angry wasps. If Midway had been reversed and the US carriers were destroyed instead, we would have been just as much sitting ducks as the Japanese were.

[@manga12]

we also had bigger resources and better industrial inferstructure but it would have been very much up hill even more then it was

[@Atlasworkinprogress]

Nah, if Midway was lost, Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown would have been quickly replaced by Ranger, Essex, Wasp, and Lexington, 3 of which were complete, with one being nearly finished. Now Ranger and Wasp are not long term solutions, Wasp is a light carried and Ranger is a... weird one... But after Lexington, every other month basically, another Essex rolled off the line. The US would have had to go on the defensive for a few months, but once a few more Essex Class have launched, it's back to the races.

[@SkeeterPondRC]

@@Atlasworkinprogress I think you missed my point. It wasnt about the US losing the carriers as it was about the IJN NOT losing theirs and being able to maintain naval air strike capabilities and their highly skilled pilots for longer into the war. When the IJN lost their main carriers, so to did they lose the long reach of air craft and the ability to attack at a greater range and en masse.

[@danielmocsny5066]

@@SkeeterPondRC - That's all true, but we're probably talking about a few months' delay in defeating Japan at most. The USA was outbuilding Japan in all categories of warships, aircraft, etc., and gaining technological superiority almost across the board. Had the USN lost at Midway the Japanese might have gained a stronger foothold on Guadalcanal and maybe advanced a few islands farther before US forces could recover enough to start pushing them back. But Japan had no hope of capturing Hawaii let alone disrupting US industry at home. From mid-1943 the USN would have been the same unstoppable juggernaut with more carriers and more and better aircraft and pilots than even a much luckier Japan would have had. Also consider how drawn-out the US victory on and around Guadalcanal was. It took the US five months and multiple surface naval battles to finally expel the Japanese from the island. Even after the victory at Midway, the USN was still barely a match for the IJN in late 1942. By a year later, the USN had grown so much stronger that the battle for Guadalcanal would probably only have taken a few weeks on land, and only a few days to gain unchallenged naval superiority in the surrounding waters. For a Japanese victory at Midway to have made a real difference, perhaps it would have required something like a Japanese decision to attack the Soviet Union. If Japan felt secure enough against the USN after decisively defeating it at Midway, maybe Japan would have acceded to Hitler's pleas to attack the USSR from the east. By tying down a few dozen Red Army divisions in the far east at such a critical time, Japan might have enabled the German offensives in 1942 to get farther. If Germany could have knocked the USSR out of the war, that would have freed around 200 German divisions to move west and make France vastly harder to invade. But the USA would still have been the first country to get the atomic bomb. A-bombs might have been needed in numbers to defeat the Axis, extending the war into 1946 when US atomic bomb production reached scale.

[@Blox117]

i like how you say "we" as if anyone here has anything in common with people then. or implying you did anything

[@nathanokun8801]

The term "The Devil is in the details" is an absolute summation of the problems with the YAMATO Class. The US had some problems with their anti-torpedo systems due to adding in, kind of as an afterthought, the anti-diving projectile tapered lower belt armor that was too rigid and somewhat compromised the resistance of the system to torpedo hits, though the US, by rearranging the liquid and void (air) spaces, found that they could fix part of the problems caused in the new battleships. Since the Japanese side anti-torpedo system was all voids, there was no way to fix anything without tearing the entire sides of the ships off and rebuilding them, which was not an option, obviously! On top of that, whoever was designing the side system against torpedoes and whoever was designing the side system against diving shells (the Japanese's own Type 91 AP shell as especially designed to do that if the shell hit just short of the target to hit the lower hull with the best-possible direction of motion and highest possible velocity) did not understand each other or how these two different things could interfere with one-another. They obviously did not do full-size ship mockups of the systems and shoot shells and torpedoes at them to see what would actually happen. As such, the thicker, wedge-shaped, tapering lower belt was not locked to the bottom edge of the main very thick waterline belt. After some bad experiences, in WWI Britain learned about this problem the hard way and it is amazing that the Japanese did not find out about that since the British supplied the Japanese with their original battleships, KONGO being made in Britain just prior to WWI, and all of their original ammo was British designed. Due to this lack of locking the two together, usually in US and British post-WWI warships by cutting matching slots into the mating surfaces and jamming in very strong nickel-steel "keying" strips that had to be torn apart to allow the two plates to move apart (these worked very well in US ships in battles and tests), when torpedo hits happened in YAMATO Class ships, in many cases the lower belt would tear away from the main belt and tilt backward into the ship, causing major leaks to happen that were way worse than if the plate had not moved. This was on top of the problem with both these ships and the US battleships of major leaks happening at the bottom of the lower belt due to some tearing there too. The Japanese did some work to try to reinforce this later, but without a major ripping out and rebuild, the fixes were rather minor.

[@rollotomasislawyer3405]

TLDR... We made better stuff then the Japanese.

[@VRichardsn]

Mr Okun, it is a pleasure to read you here. This keying strips you mention, is something akin to the interlocking armor plates in some contemporary tanks, like, say, the German Panther?

[@jackwardley3626]

i think they found the top torpedo protection to be problem cause of weight it added like a extra 5-6000 tons

[@Atlasworkinprogress]

This might be redundant, but could we get "Would New Jersey and "X" Standard or NY Class have survived what sank Prince of Wales and Repulse?"

[@christosvoskresye]

The only caveat I have is that the 1980's New Jersey might have put down so many attacking planes that MAYBE they would have called off the attack to give the matter more thought. Countering this is the record of the staggering losses in the early stages of the Battle of Midway, which did nothing to deter the fight.

[@seansimms8503]

No ship ever built could of survived the pounding those two monsters endured...

[@cyonemitsu]

Should be noted that Japanese naval architects did indeed bring up several design issues, up to and including the deficiencies in torpedo protection to high command, and proposed potential solutions by which to correct or mitigate many issues, however it was deemed that the additional time required to implement these fixes could not be afforded, and so they left a lot of those issues as "good enough" and sent the Yamato class off to fight despite knowing they had design issues.

[@bullreeves1109]

Would have shot down more aircraft but would sink regardless. Wether or not it would be faster or slower depends on how effective the Damage control is, though it still wouldn’t be enough to save the ship from what Yamato faced.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

Well the damage would have been occurring more slowly at the start as more aircraft would have been shot down, therefore I think it is a given an Iowa would last longer. How much longer given all the variables combined with "luck" factor and "buggeration" factor make it impossible to tell how much.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@gordonlawrence1448 Given the level of punishment I'd assume an Iowa would still only last a couple more hours at most.

[@jwenting]

And of course where exactly the hits happen. A lucky torpedo on a prop shaft can cause uncontrollable flooding all on its own, and will almost certainly hamper steering and speed, making evasion harder. Similar with a lucky hit on the radar mast, taking out the fire control of the most efficient of the US AA guns. A lucky hit going through the deck and into the magazines can also be fatal. All these happened to some ships during WW2.

[@Durahan82]

In a Slug-fest vs the NJ ,Yamato by far. But then again crew experience could be a Factor , knowing how much the British did struggle against the Bismark sending most of their fleet against it .

[@scottygdaman]

Wait .. is there a question... would what sank Yamoto sink Iowa really? 15 or more aerial torpedoes a dozen 500 to 1000 lb armor penetrating bombs designed for damaging warships . Combined? Huh ya it would sink Iowa. Musashi got what 19 torpedoes? . 19.. that would sink the state of Iowa.

[@MyFunnyVids888]

yeah idk why people are changing the parameters of the question. its simply a "would an Iowa class survive the same thing that sunk the yamato class" the answer is no I don't care how good your aa is if 400 planes show up on your door step and constantly bombard you. you will die. its a silly thing to make up several hypotheticals that branch from this simple question to make up some fantasy that your favorite ship is able to achieve what is impossible for pretty much every ship ww2 era and before

[@jamesbrowne6351]

Another consideration not mentioned regarding USN anti-aircraft defenses is the use of the proximity fuse in AA shells. The use of these devices significantly increased kill rates of aircraft after 1943. According to Historynet, on Jan. 5, 1843 two five inch salvos from the cruiser USS Helena was all that was needed to bring down a Val dive bomber with the inaugural use of these fuses.

[@VersusARCH]

11:57 The warship that arguably took the most torpedos (39) is the Italian armored cruiser San Giorgio in Tobruk harbor in 1940 (suffering a series of attacks by the British Fleet Air Arm Swordfish bombers), but her torpedo nets protected her. She was scuttled by her crew when the city fell.

[@twotone1a]

On a slight tangent, Lieutenant Commander Takeshi Naito, the Japanese assistant naval attaché to Berlin flew to Italy and did a detailed after action study of the successful Fleet Air Arm attack on Taranto (on the night of 11-12 Nov 1940), which he sent home. Prior to that attack the conventional wisdom was that air dropped torpedoes would not work in the shallow waters of a port. That study played a part in the Japanese planning for the attack on Pearl Harbour.

[@jaybee9269]

Always nice to hear from you, Ryan! Y’all put out such good content!

[@dedrakuhn6103]

The first 9 minutes you can easily listen at 1.5x normal speed and then increase to 2x normal speed. It's a great video to listen all the way thru

[@mr.iforgot3062]

Ryan is a good friend of mine. We've known each other for years. He's great. He's not a criminal nor is he a scammer. Those are elements I like in a person. I also like integrity. And Ryan has that in spades. Sometimes I borrow his integrity. Sometimes.

[@lennyhendricks4628]

Ryan, I just wanted to say I really appreciate your videos. You make a reasonable pitch for your website and donations but don't go way overboard (no pun intended) the way so many other folks with websites do. Love your videos. I don't subscribe because I don't subscribe to anything or anybody as a matter of policy, but if I did, yours would be among the first. KZbin makes sure your videos always show up for me since I watch them frequently.

[@MoparNewport]

In ww2 trim -- In the Musashi scenario, NJ would have had an even on chance to hold her own -- her AA is simply vastly superior to IJN AA, especially in fire control. Alone, shed Probably battle-incapable, but afloat and salvageable. Had she either IJN or USN Escort, then id bet on BB62 staying in relatively good fighting trim. In the Yamato scenario, she'd be on the bottom - but many aircraft would be with her. Now, if it were the Iowa Family Reunion, all four grand ladies in WW2 trim... be one hell of a fire fight. But, just my take on the hypothetical. Good scenario review!

[@arohk1579]

It's nice seeing a video where they use fact's and not the US is best and can win no matter what. I really like this channel for just how accurate and informative it is, keep up the great work.

[@jglapointe]

Best yet. Great analysis, succinct presentation and believable wrap-up. Keep up the good work.

[@tomkunkle318]

I while ago I downloaded and read all of the USN Combat Action and Air Action Reports from the battle of the East China Sea, marked up the damage assessment photos, and made a spreadsheet of all weapon drops. There were 10 individual squadron attacks on Yamato over a period of 93 minutes involving 16 air groups. In addition to strafing attacks, a total of 58 torpedos, 106 bombs and 112 rockets were directed at Yamato. The number of hits is speculative; the best guess appears to be in the 6 January 1946 USN Technical Mission to Japan report of the sinking (S-06-02). Due to clouds some of the dive bomber groups made glide bombing attacks; this would not have been wise against an undamaged Iowa operating with screen destroyers. Turkey shoot. After the first nine squadron attacks Yamato was still making 24 knots on two engine rooms and listing 5 degrees to port with "only" about 6000 tons of water aboard. Operating within a screen of three undamaged destroyers, she was still an effective combat unit. About 20 minutes later the six TBM torpedo bombers of VT-9 off CV-10 Yorktown used radar to sneak in through the clouds to score the fatal hits. Could a stricken New Jersey operating with three undamaged U.S. screen destroyers still have had sufficient remaining radar fire control and guns to identify and engage six unaccompanied TBMs? I like to think that the answer is "yes". Turkey shoot. 11 of the 16 attacking air groups reported being fired on by the MB guns of Yamato; despite perhaps 249 Type 3 18-inch special bombardment projectiles being expended there was no resulting damage to any USN aircraft. Some squadrons did however move their rally points out to 10 miles. And judging from the combat photos and air group records, it seems that at least some of the Mk.13 aerial torpedos failed to detonate high-order. Certain problems just never go away.

[@michaelkennedy272]

I'd very much like to see you guys do a video on the USS Pennsylvania BB 38. The only thing we ever hear is that she was drydocked during the Pearl Harbor attack. I found she earned one less battle star than New Jersey for WW2. 8-9. So let's here what she did please. 🙂

[@markusz4447]

you could go to Drachinifel for that I guess

[@michaelkennedy272]

@@markusz4447 I like how Ryan presents the info .

[@howitzer8946]

Great job Ryan!!! Thank you.

[@andybailey6763]

Had a great time touring the New Jersey back in 2018. Great video. I recommend the book “A Glorious Way to Die: The Kamikaze Mission of the Battleship Yamato” by Russell Spur. Keep up the great work.

[@youtubeSuckssNow]

It is absolutely crazy how massive the ships were and how shallow they sailed

[@lewiswereb8994]

"Sailed"?????

[@hashteraksgage3281]

@@lewiswereb8994 you know ships don't need literal sails to sail

[@lewiswereb8994]

@@hashteraksgage3281 Then they are not "sailing", they are "steaming". I was in the USN, were you?

[@roberteltze4850]

You failed to mention that the NJ could just drop anchor and do a quick U-turn to avoid torpedoes.

[@donkeyboy585]

Art of war ;)

[@lordkratosthegodofwar6304]

NJ mimicing her sister, Mighty MO. Now that is a fun thought. Great reference.

[@robotbjorn4952]

Yep just pull the handbrake and whip it 'round.

[@libraeotequever3pointoh95]

Can only pull that trick once per anchor chain. Then it is back to sailing and using the engines and rudders.

[@mandalortemaan7510]

Ehhh, it would slow her down to much Jokes aside, a YT channel made a video about the science of it

[@samdesmet7637]

Fascinating. Thank you.

[@fsj197811]

Well done, thanks for the video. :-)

[@deaks25]

I think Ryan is spot on; New Jersey would exact a higher toll in terms of munitions expended as the Iowa's are famous for being more manoeuvrable than they look and USN damage control was absolutely World Class and also in terms of the number of aircraft she would shoot down while defending herself, but the "Essex Swarm" as Drach puts it, makes it inevitable that any battle ship would be sunk sooner or later. As a follow on (although a major What-If so may be hard to quantify): how do you think the four Iowa's together would do if they were making the suicide run to Okinawa and the carriers of Task Force 58 were massed against them?

[@Aim54Delta]

That's a nightmare scenario. As much as people argue that battleships are obsolete, that very scenario exposes that as a naive interpretation of world war 2. If Japan somehow had 4 Iowa class battleships to sail for TenGo... well, they wouldn't have needed TenGo in the first place - but they could have probably repelled the air assault and forced a dreadnaught slugout. The U.S. following Midway (well, the Big E was still fighting half the Japanese navy on her own) enjoyed a crushing air presence in the theater. Sortying 300 individual aircraft against a naval force was like throwing half the Luftwaffe against a fleet. Only U.S. admirals could dream of sortying 300 aircraft for anything. Well... and Army Air Corps generals in charge of the strategic bombing campaigns in Europe. Which highlights the misconception. Put a stupid number of battleships up against a stupid number of aircraft, and the superiority of aircraft/carriers begins to degrade. The Japanese had an outdated navy ironically enough. Once attrition took down their fighter cover, the inability of the Japanese to keep up with the pace of innovation began to show. I would expect U.S. fire control to be effective at taking out dive bombers, primarily the integrated fire direction to 5" batteries that can put accurate flak screens up and, if nothing else, disrupt the attack runs necessary to knock out gun emplacements. Having 4 such ships present (or even 2) with overlapping fields of fire would be very difficult to saturate and position attacks. This would have made the fatal torpedo runs nearly impossible to stage. They would have been sitting ducks for the fire control. With just 2 Iowas in a TenGo scenario, there is the possibility they make it through the assault. I may be overestimating them a bit, but it's the little things that add up. Would fighters with rockets have been able to disrupt the AAA on the Iowas well enough to bring the dive bombers in? Probably not nearly as effectively, which diminishes the dive bomb attacks, that are hitting less frequently and taking heavier losses and the torpedo bombers are eating 5" flak long before they loose their salvos, so the spreads are thinner and less coordinated. The question is just how deadly the American AAA would be against American aircraft. Are we knocking out 1/10 aircraft that get within range or 4/10? I think we would have been particularly deadly to the aircraft that matter - the dive bombers and torpedo bombers. The fighters are annoying and could damage exposed things, but only a concern if they are able to knock out fire control radars.

[@Jesse-qy6ur]

Can we get a video on "Would New Jersey have Survived what Sank USS Saratoga (CV-3)?"

[@darthfenrir4892]

So..... a nuke

[@Jesse-qy6ur]

@@darthfenrir4892: Yes, that was the joke. I originally had said Eugelab.

[@ousou78]

The nukes? I don't know. The lack of funds to be kept alive? I think we got that answer.

[@tommatt2ski]

Fun Fact : the German battleships / battcruisers Scharnorst and her sister sank a fleet carrier ( HMS Glorious ) and two destroyers

[@jacksons1010]

@@darthfenrir4892 An underwater nuke, detonated some 400 meters away. Lifted _Saratoga_ out of the water, likely breaking her back. I'm going to guess no... _New Jersey_ wouldn't have survived that either.

[@EdwardClinton]

Excellent discussion with plenty of detail and support.

[@CrazyPetez]

This is the best video about WWII battleships I have seen. And the comments contain more information👍.

[@4evaavfc]

This was a good video.

[@ronniefarnsworth6465]

No ship, before or after could ever survive that many Bomb & Torpedo hits !!!

[@Poppi_the_Murder_Rabbit]

I'm surprised that Bismarck lasted longer than Yamato and Musashi when fighting, then again Yamato and Musashi got bomb hits on deck and torp hits on each side while Bismarck only got torped and shot with high caliber shells

[@ronniefarnsworth6465]

@@Poppi_the_Murder_Rabbit Yes, I believe Yamato's magazine exploded also !!

[@WadcaWymiaru]

@@Poppi_the_Murder_Rabbit I bet Yamato could easly endure the Bismarck punishment...

[@Poppi_the_Murder_Rabbit]

@@WadcaWymiaru we don't know for sure

[@WadcaWymiaru]

@@Poppi_the_Murder_Rabbit Yamato armor was far superior to German. Plus japanese had additional rudder so guns in the position and sinking *Royal Navy* time!

[@JK-it4eu]

This is a very good video. I’m glad I watched it!

[@louiscervantez1639]

I enjoyed this video as much as any professional tv documentary- thanks

[@EMH_is_not_a_peeping_tom]

Next, we need something like "Would New Jersey have survived what the Space Battleship Yamato (Argo in Star Blazers) suffered ?" lol Joke aside, I live in Europe and I sincerely hope I'll be able to visit the USS New Jersey one day. NJ is the only Iowa-class in continental US I have not visited yet (Missouri being way out of reach from where I live). Keep up the good work restoring this great ship and thanks for the videos.

[@thenaturalmidsouth9536]

Would the Iowa have survived a time-traveling Martin Sheen and Kirk Douglas on the Nimitz in The Final Countdown?

[@nathanokun8801]

As to what could be done about minimizing the problems with the too-rigid lower anti-diving-projectile belt right in the middle of the torpedo-protection system against torpedo hits without reducing the resistance against diving shells (though this latter danger turns out to have been, like the reported death of Mark Twain, "greatly exaggerated"), the keying of the top of the lower belt to the main waterline belt by maybe not one, but two thick keying strips would be justified. Since this might not be enough to keep the lower belt from bulging back and causing all sorts of leaks around the top and upper half of the region where it is thickest,, perhaps 45-degree braces bolted to the back of the lower belt with the other end bolted to the bottom of the extremely thick armored deck, spaced every couple of meters to keep the upper part of the lower belt from moving as much as possible to prevent it from causing leaks lower down where the water level would allow worse flooding, would be an improvement. Cost some weight, of course. The bottom end of the lower belt anchored to the ship's multi-layered bottom is more difficult. It might be necessary to thin down the lower, thin portion of this shell-protection bulkhead even more, to maybe half as thick and then add a second similarly-thinned-down lower belt spaced a short distance behind that, anchoring both to the bottom edge of the upper portion of the lower belt and to the ship bottom to spread the load over a larger area and allow the lower portion of the lower belt to deform more under a torpedo hit blast, while still having about the same shell stopping power in those two thin spaced layers added together. Adding more very thin watertight spaced layers behind these near the bottom might also help confine any leakage there. Again, somewhat more weight. Either this kind of thing or reduce the anti-diving-shell protection significantly to maximize the anti-torpedo protection in the lower half of the lower belt, which might be completely justified, given the probabilities of such hits.

[@skullofserpent5727]

My right ear enjoyed this

[@artcampbell5315]

Wow, great presentation, looks like drach is rubbin off on ya. Good content, few pauses, good vocals

[@davidncw4613]

Ryan, I absolutely recognize that you are massively more learned than I on this subject, but.... nether the Musashi nor the Yamato had anything even similar to the mainstay of an Iowa class AAA. The 20 radar guided and proximity fused 5" and the 80 radar guided 40mm. The guns that did 90% of the heavy lifting for NJ did not exist on the Yami or the Mushi. They had 25mm and some guy with a stick. Imho the NJ as well as the rest of the fast BBs could have a fighting chance to defended themselves against the small groups as they attacked in the Musashi's situation. Yamato's situation, very different.

[@danielmocsny5066]

Yes, the Iowa class AAA was impressive before it took any damage. Undoubtedly more attacking aircraft would have been shot down compared to the Yamato and Musashi. But much of the AAA was itself vulnerable - all those open mounts for 20mm and 40mm guns, and the fragile radar antennas. Even the 5" gun turrets weren't immune to bomb hits. The first attacking aircraft would have taken high losses, but the few that got through would have bombed and strafed the gun crews and equipment. As the Iowa's AAA progressively degraded, an increasing percentage of attacking aircraft would have gotten through, creating a snowball effect. This is, of course, exactly what happened to the Yamato and Musashi - first the AAA got disabled by bombing and strafing, and then the torpedo bombers could move in for the kill. Given the Iowas' superior AAA, disabling the AAA would have required more attacking aircraft to be shot down. But with enough attacking aircraft the final result would have been the same. None of the Iowas took significant battle damage during WWII, so whenever they had to use their AAA against a few Japanese aircraft that got through the defensive fighter aircraft screen it was at or near full operational capacity. US carriers were always the main target for Japanese aircraft so the Iowas rarely got much attention. It's also telling that the USN never detached its fast battleships to try to catch Japanese carriers in a surface fight. The Iowas never went under hostile airspace without friendly air cover. Only the Japanese were foolish enough - or desperate enough - to send battleships unaccompanied by carrier aircraft against hostile carriers. Maybe the Iowas could get 50 miles farther than the Yamato did before sinking - they still would never have seen the carriers they were gunning for and weren't fast enough to catch anyway.

[@davidncw4613]

An other often overlooked advantage of the US ships is their vastly superior air search radar. Effective radar was present even on picket DDs. A massive advantage over the IJN.

[@stormyc88]

Hey Ryan, love these videos! I have a question about the Iowas as a whole, Ive read that they were to do what was called a barn door stop (or something like that), where they could go from full speed ahead to full speed astern, while positioning their rudders perpendicular, and come to a stop in close to a shiplength. I find this really implausible, but would like to know if youve heard anything about it

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

They definitely didn't stop that fast, but a barn door stop is a real thing. They didn't do it often though the sailors all like to tell sea stories of it maybe happening right before they got on board, but I believe it has been attempted at least once by an Iowa. But its not an immediate stop.

[@TheCommunistColin]

I've really appreciated seeing these videos from you guys at the New Jersey museum. I visited back around labor day when you had that hot dog cookout and thought the ship was incredible. Have you considered starting a Patreon and hiring someone to do these educational videos full time? With the popularity of other historical/educational KZbin channels (Mark Felton, Drachinifel, and many others come to mind) I'm sure you guys would be able to make some extra funds off of it.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We accept donations at battleshipnewjersey.org/videofund and this basically is our editors full time job

[@stevegardnermax]

Good stuff, your videos are my favorite

[@greeb666]

I think the only two factors you did not mention is that first off sts steel was used throughout american ships in general so they were internally stronger, especially the bulkheads, and american damage control was vastly better than japanese. This would not have saved New Jersey, but it might have prolonged the agony a bit.

[@evanleo7633]

fun fact, Yamato and Musashi were the only two battleships sunken by CV under battlestation, it’s extremely difficult for a single CV to sink a single BB during WW2

[@B52Stratofortress1]

What about HMS Price of Wales and HMS Repulse. They were sunk by Japanese aircraft weren't they?

[@evanleo7633]

@@B52Stratofortress1 well, no, they were sunk by land based aircraft, not aircraft carrier

[@jameschenard7691]

Might I also add that the Repulse was a WWI BATTLE CRUISER, yet It took less to sink Hood. If only the planned upgrades had been in place sooner it may have made a difference. Emphasis on “may”.

[@DrMikkel_yz54]

@@jameschenard7691 neither sunk by carriers whats your point

[@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t]

@@jameschenard7691 TBF, the biggest thing that could have made a difference would have been HMS Indomitable not running aground in Jamaica.

[@EarlCollinsworth-yq2yg]

Hey Ryan! Superb job on this video! A guy'd like to think they would, but no, they wouldn't, and for the same reasons stated by the other commentators on this page. Let's face it! The era of the battleship as the asset you built your fleet around, was very brief and, at that point, definitely over!

[@leeedsonetwo]

Very interesting thank you.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

No ship, WW2 or modern could have survived the pounding Musashi, Yamato, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Kirishima and Yamashiro took. As powerfull the battleships were, they were surprisingly easy to knock out of action, even if they were difficult to outright sink with guns (but not with torpedoes).

[@mebsrea]

Yamato/Musashi might have survived the Bismarck’s final engagement; fighting two individually inferior battleships was pretty much their design brief. Given the Yamatos’ turret armor, the early hits that destroyed Bismarck’s ability to fight back probably wouldn’t have had the same effect, and a few 18” hits on Rodney and/or KGV could have rapidly turned the engagement around.

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

@@mebsrea bro no. the yamato is not going to survive facing the entire british navy by itself. it would have been surrounded and its turrets would have been taken out quickly when its sides were penned or its guns are destroyed. shots could also jam its turret rings.

[@jonny-b4954]

23:00 Never discount the concept that both things can be true at the same time. It's something we overlook often times when presented with 2 choices. Americans could have very well strafed some Japanese sailors in the water. Also could have stopped once destroyers arrived and began rescue operations. Great video as always

[@B52Stratofortress1]

That wouldn't surprise me at all. History is written by the victors.

[@josephstabile9154]

In battle, I don't think stopping a viable warship to pick up survivors enables you to play a "get out of jail free" card...why RN, et al did not loiter for survivors when a threat to safety was perceived. War IS hell...

[@davidvanniekerk356]

Thx/ Dankie 4 this highly educational video.

[@1pierosangiorgio]

good argumentation. good channel. thank you sir.

[@miamijules2149]

Long Answer: Yes, of course. Short Answer: Yes, of course.

[@josephstabile9154]

Thanks, Ryan, for another most interesting video. I think, if the question is whether the New Jersey (WWII config.) could have completed the missions assigned to Musashi & Yamato, given its significant advantages (I don't think you mentioned proximity fuse), I think the answer is a definite maybe--definitely significantly better odds than the Japanese. I think the other interesting question is whether New Jersey could have survived the same numbers of torpedo & bomb strikes w/strafing in the same locations M & Y sustained, and here I think the answer is no (although the details of such sinking could well be different). I can't really entertain the idea of a 1990's NJ facing WWII technology opponents scenarios. To me that's rather silly. NJ 's last configuration was for a specific kind of use. And, if one side gets modern technology, why shouldn't other side have such upgrades as fast attack subs w/ hi-tech (nuclear?) torpedoes & missiles, and jets w/ stand-off, ship-killing weapons?

[@bobdelano6746]

Thank you ! And God bless !!

[@Telecasterland]

This was absolutely excellent. Remember deck Teak is available for purchase in supporting the New Jersey.

[@neilhughes9310]

A very balanced analysis! Thank you. According to the 2017 Conway Anatomy of The Ship book on Yamato and Musashi, research has indicated that Yamato received 35 torpedo hits and 19 bomb hits. There is a good analysis given of this. In any bombing attacks, near misses were often as damaging as direct hits, especially where any explosion happened beneath the ships hull. Near misses could also be very effective at 'neutralising' the crews of the exposed AA weapons.

[@jamesweber1827]

I know that this is an informational video. Ryan has his clean clothes and his nametag on.

[@laurentco]

Loved this! Ravel was such a great composer!

[@joelesko1419]

You provide a very well documented program on WW2 naval history.

[@mebsrea]

I wonder why some sort of trimaran outrigger configuration was never tested for torpedo defense? Narrow, full-depth outriggers 50 or so feet from the main hull would presumably absorb incoming torpedoes fairly effectively.

[@thishominid871]

Imagine being in a Catalina and seeing those giant 18s flying in your direction.

[@oceanhome2023]

Yes at least there is an attempt to use them for anti aircraft. The Americans could have tried the same thing . Also we had the NEW VPF in the 5 inch rounds so you could put that into the 16 inch round . The 16 HE rounds can be used against torpedo bombers by shooting the water in front of the the oncoming torpedo plane causing a deadly geyser in front of it

[@bkjeong4302]

@@oceanhome2023 Battleship main guns are worse than useless for AA-you can't turn them fast enough, and they suppress the actual AA guns. Even the infamous 25mm (that even the Japanese thought were bad) were a lot better. Where the Type 3 actually shined was in being used to tear up shore installations, but 18.1" guns are pointless overkill for this.

[@arohk1579]

@@oceanhome2023 VPF what's that, not the greatest on naval gun's.

[@iansneddon2956]

I imagine what it was like on USS Johnston when those giant 18s flew in their direction and one went right through and out the other side. That so many lost their lives on Johnston is understandable considering... I am amazed that 141 men actually survived. We wouldn't blame a cruiser captain from hesitating to put his ship in the path of 18" guns. But Johnston was a Fletcher class destroyer. Rest in peace Commander Evans. Not many managed to fit an entire war's worth of fighting into a single day with such skill and determination. Respect.

[@reynaldiwidjaja277]

@@bkjeong4302 while theyre might not be useful at close range at medium range combined with Yamato air search radar I see why the Japanese tought it would be a great idea.

[@robertvose7310]

cool video..thanks

[@vincentlavallee2779]

This is a pretty good 'what if' scenario, and does not seem to be particularly biased. I agree that no battleship could have survived the second battle, the one against the Yamato. But in both cases, this was the final nail in the coffin of the battleship supremacy without sufficient air cover. The first nail was the sinking of the Prince of Wales in 1941, which shows how the Brits had no idea about the Pacific war from the very beginning. Good job Ryan! Also, Ryan, I still need to find a way to get you (give you) my ballistics file that has most of the big gun battleships of WW II covered and with lots of detail.

[@waldek2303]

Absurd. Brytyjczycy mieli dużą wiedzę na temat wojny powietrznej, ponieważ od 2 lat toczyli taką wojnę na Morzu Śródziemnym. Problemem w Kuantan był niekompetentny dowódca bez doświadczenia bojowego.

[@B.A.S.Drydock]

A little off topic, but building a model of the New Jersey! Would love to know the official paint colors for her in the 90's!

[@ghost307]

NJ may be just who you need. They have tons of paperwork from the Navy. Knowing how detail oriented the USN is the actual paint color numbers are probably in there somewhere. The trick lies in being able to find them in the piles of paper.

[@B.A.S.Drydock]

@@ghost307 NJ?

[@ghost307]

@@B.A.S.Drydock Sorry. I meant the Battleship New Jersey Museum. Their website is in the video description and their email and contact info are on their website. Best of luck to you.

[@thishominid871]

Hope you find what you need. I work in aerospace manufacturing. A few years ago, I built a model F6F. Looked up the colors and some of them were the same color numbers that that we use today!

[@mbignell1]

Still working on the Missouri?

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

No battleship ever designed, let alone built, could've survived what Yamato and Musashi went through. No matter how good a ship's AA armament is, it simply can't shoot down every single plane that comes at it.

[@bigal6352]

Given her legendary ability to take a beating and shrug her shoulders in the face of certain doom, I wouldn't bet against Warspite taking it on the chin. In my mind, the worst that would happen to the Grand Old Lady in that scenario is that she'd just get really, really annoyed before rolling her sleeves up and rampaging around the world oceans, headbutting everything and anything afloat.

[@stevenmattson3164]

There’s a doc on KZbin explaining the weakness with the Yamato hull which was built with some older rivet based technology. If she’d had a welded hull she might have stayed afloat longer.

[@rickmcdonald1557]

24:10 shows a Navy Swift Boat in the water on the starboard side of The New Jersey in Vietnam in 1968 or 9 as I was on The Coast Guard Cutter "Wachusett" then with "Operation Market Time" and The New Jersey was with us in Pearl Harbor on our way to Vietnam and she came back with us in 1969 and she was so damn impressive and beautiful and we felt like a rowboat up against her at Pearl as we were 255 ft. Long and she was 889ft. Love this video and the memories ran wild of those times and I believe this was her last operation before hanging it up forever. P.S. The swift boat in the scene at 24:10 was 50ft. ☮☮☮☮☮☮

[@tiggalong227]

One thing rarely considered is time if the Yamato and her escorts had made her run at night with minimal lighting the aircraft would have had a harder time picking targets like AA defences. As the surface ships where waiting for her she would have been sunk by them as they where better suited to night engagements.

[@thenaturalmidsouth9536]

Any idea why they didn't make the run at Okinawa at night?

[@tiggalong227]

@@thenaturalmidsouth9536 I don’t know for sure but can think of three possible answers. 1. Desperation the defenders needed reinforced to the point where the risk becomes worth taking. 2. Navigational hazards if there are too many uncharted islands and you are close manoeuvring with your escorts the risk of collisions or grounding may considered to high. 3. They didn’t believe that the allies had the forces in place to attack and sink the Yamato before it reached its objective. The answer is probably a combination of all three and some reasons I haven’t thought of

[@thenaturalmidsouth9536]

@tiggalong227 thanks for the answers!

[@danielsummey4144]

What about if New Jersey would have survived a hypothetical conventional WW3 in the 1980s, ala Red Storm Rising, and what her real role may have been?

[@Poindexter03]

I’ve always wondered, and I will be going through your video library more extensively, have you ever made your opinion known on what was the absolute best gun ever put on a battleship? So many to choose from and so many different criteria.

[@YamatoForever]

I find it hard to believe that the American's fired over 100 torpedoes at the Yamato group and only a dozen or so hit Yamato. Some estimates I've seen say as many as 20 to 30 torpedoes hit the ship.

[@robertstephens1203]

Next do "Would NJ have survived a Cylon attack?".

[@TBone-bz9mp]

Actually, I have been wondering what a battleship caliber gun would do to a downed or grounded Base Star. I mean they have nukes sure, but they don’t have flak batteries or much in the way of AA, except the Raiders, take them out and all the Cylons maybe able to do is curse in binary.

[@TBone-bz9mp]

@Cat Wrangler New Jersey assimilated them, resistance was futile.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

So uh keep an eye on this channel. We've got something special coming soon that I think you'll like.

[@TBone-bz9mp]

@@BattleshipNewJersey Never thought I’d go to KZbin for naval history, but here we are.

[@Shinzon23]

@@TBone-bz9mp you forget that base stars were designed around their missile tubes and hanger bays: if they had a single hanger door open or a missile tube functional, they'd be able to fire over the horizon shots for literally days,and missiles designed for the ranges of space combat along with strike craft also designed for those ranges would have no issues whatsoever catching the New Jersey and any escorts and blowing them to pieces Hell even if they didn't have a missile tube open they could probably just carry the missiles outside and stick them on a portable launcher and fire them that way, we see the Centurions do this in the 2003 BSG using a Heavy Raiders missile system to set up a stationary Antiaircraft missile battery, and I'd imagine that Centurion teams would be more than able to set up something similar using a Basestars gigantic magazines of shipkiller missiles.

[@senecanero3874]

Can you please release your videos 1 or 2 hours earlier, I'm in europe and the premieres are always at 1 am

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

It will still be up tomorrow! We've got a global audience now so its always going to be 1am somewhere.

[@albertjurcisin8944]

@@BattleshipNewJersey You might at least make less catchy titles. Now the Europeans are left with the dilemma: should I go to bed frustrated or extremely tired? One hour in either direction would solve the problem for us. Or start naming the episodes by numbers. Eg "Item 236". One would fall asleep right away :-)

[@ghost307]

@@albertjurcisin8944 @Battleship New Jersey - I like your catchy titles. Reminds me of the guy with the 'Cruising the Cut' channel on KZbin about living on a canal narrowboat.

[@davidb6576]

@@ghost307 It would be an interesting battle between the two. BB New Jersey vs. narrowboat. Who would win?

[@gregsanchez9901]

Thank you for the footage. I had not seen much of it, and much of it was very insightful. About Bull Halsey. It seems very unfair in my opinion, how he is presented as the admiral that was duped by the IJN strategy in the battle of Leyte Gulf. It is an undeserved legacy. Halsey was instrumental in the development of naval aircraft warfare, he fought hard from the very beginning of the war when the US was at a severe disadvantage, and did so very bravely. Halsey was a solid leader as well, who was very respected by his men, and admired in the USA for his many successful exploits. Bernardino

[@erictaylor5462]

I think one important factor to consider is the quality of American and Japanese damage control. There were multiple ships the Japanese considered sunk due to the damage they suffered, but the ship would be saved and still afloat at the next attack. In some cases the Japanese reported the same ship as sunk 3 or 4 times. The Yorktown, which had been reported sunk in an earlier batter was reported as sunk 3 more times at Midway.

[@pillscottvt6628]

Japan went from the biggest to making the (best) small things.

[@pillscottvt6628]

@Chandler White Alexia?

[@termitreter6545]

@Chandler White Pretty sure Japan still got a ton of semiconductor-production facilities, so its not completely wrong.

[@bobwhitebread1887]

It's a shame that both Yamato class battleships were sunk because they would have made great museum ships . They could have parked the New Jersey and the Yamato side by side as museum ships.

[@alexrebmann1253]

I would have liked if the WW 2 Enterprise was a museum, not a Japanese ship.

[@localkiwi9988]

I doubt that would of happened if they survived. The USA would more than likely used them as nuclear test ships. They weren't interested in museum ships in those days

[@TheEvertw]

Well explained. WW2 and aircraft carriers made battleships obsolete, except in the shore bombardment role.

[@Kholdstare0503]

No enemy armament was more impressive than the Musashi, she took one HELL of a beating before going down.

[@jwenting]

From what I've read about the battle, both Yamato and Musashi were targeted by the US aircraft, but after Musashi started taking serious hits with Yamato still largely undamaged fire was concentrated on her.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

What if she used either nuclear-tipped Tomahawks or the W23 nuclear shell? Would she have stood a chance against Halsey’s battle fleet with an atomic broadside?

[@8vantor8]

You tell me Would literally 9 15+Kiloton nuclear bombs improve someone’s odds of winning

[@legionx4046]

@@8vantor8 it would probably sink the ship that fireed them

[@8vantor8]

@@legionx4046 nope, if fired at the range it was intended then the ship would be fine.

[@legionx4046]

@@8vantor8 imagine a tsar bomba shell 🤣

[@8vantor8]

@@legionx4046 wouldn't fit in the gun

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Good video.

[@Deusmecumest]

I was watching your videos on Parrot riffles, and came to the realization that the AAA CIWS gun Was the revolutionary gun that allowed the battleships to continue in the missile age. 50 years later when they should have been obsolete.

[@termitreter6545]

It doent make for a fun story, but Battleships are still useless in the missile age. The US got lucky that the BBs never got tested in a "real" war, and the reactivation during the gulf war was just a publicity stunt. One, that btw killed 47 sailors when the Iowas turret blew.