Did Battleships Ever Carry Nuclear Weapons?

[@paulolson734]

Went on a harbor cruise in San Diego when the Iowas were still in commission. Don't remember which one it was but as we cruised by at a few hundred yards distance the narrator said "The Navy will never confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on a vessel or installation but please note the several Marines stationed at various places on the deck. Note they're all armed with rifles. There's a reason they're out there in a friendly port."

[@appleintosh]

I thought all munitions were offloaded before entering port? This is what naval weapons station Seal Beach is for

[@bluemoon1368]

I was on Wisconsin recently and there are signs like that on her deck… doesn’t help that the launchers have the nuclear arms symbol in the tubes XD

[@GraemePayne1967Marine]

Historically, having a Marine security detail stationed on (especially) capital ships has been fairly common throughout the history of the US Marine Corps. Also the Royal Navy before then. There are things other than nuclear weapons that need to be secured. Marines may also be used as boarding or landing parties.

[@KennethStone]

@@GraemePayne1967Marine Probably not many landing parties launched from a battleship...

[@streetracer2321]

I wouldn’t want some terrorists taking over an active Iowa whether it’s nuclear armed or not… might not be a bad idea to have Marines either way

[@6mm250]

Remember , "the Navy can neither confirm nor deny". Just because there were Marines onboard with M16s does not mean that nuclear weapons were onboard , it could mean the Navy wanted someone to think that nuclear weapons were onboard. The Navy can manipulate the rumor mill however it wants.

[@KennethStone]

Good point. Magic is all about the art of misdirection.

[@paulloveless9180]

Very relevant point!

[@maxkronader5225]

Quite right. All shipboard nukes are guarded by Marines, but not all Marines guard nukes. Let the enemy try to figure out which is which. No sense making it easy for them.

[@tacomas9602]

I think it’s more of a “yeah we probably have a couple snuck on some vessels, don’t f around and find out” lol

[@richardjosephus6802]

@@maxkronader5225 I was on the USS Tattnall DDG-19 in 1976 ( waiting for nuke school to open) Pretty sure that after Gitmo we took on nuke asroc's as we suddenly had a small marine det onboard.

[@7thsealord888]

There was a time in the 1950s where the superpowers were actively looking into putting nuclear armament and/or propulsion into pretty much EVERYTHING. So when it comes to capabilities, very little would surprise me on this one.

[@BIG-DIPPER-56]

I absolutely concur 😎👍

[@erikawhelan4673]

The US Navy did basically upgrade the W19 nuclear artillery shell to 16" for use by the Mark 7.

[@georgem7965]

The W23 nuclear warhead which was used by the 11" Atomic Annie gun had a maximum yield of about 14 kilotons, about the same as those dropped on Japan. The later warheads for 155mm and 203mm (8") artillery had higher yields. The 8" may have had a yield of up to 40kt. Although I trained as a Nuclear and Chemical Targeting Officer at Ft. Sill in the 1980s I don't recall specific numbers but the yields could be adjusted by how much fissle material was inserted when the rounds were assembled. The blast and radiation radius of even a 40 kt detonation would be much less than the about 20 mile range of a 16" gun, probably around no more than 5 miles. The 50% casualty radius of a 1kt detonation is only about 300 meters. That means that 50% of people, usually figured as half in the open and half protected somehow, will become immediate casualties. That does not count radiation caused cancer, etc. later in life. So, firing a single round or a full nuclear broadside at near maximum range would NOT be a suicide mission for an Iowa class BB, particularly if the crew was behind any steel, not even the armored citadel. Also, there is a significant and fairly complicated process to determine the optimum target effect for nuclear weapons including collateral damage. If one 14 kt warhead will eliminate your target it is wasteful to use 2 or 9. All you are doing is making the rubble bounce. Also, you don't want to damage other things like bridges or roads that your forces may need. There may also be targeting constraints to avoid damage to civilian populations or cultural assets. One way to tell if the Iowas were nuclear armed is if any of the fire control officers were trained and certified in the use on nuclear weapons.

[@chrisperrien7055]

They would not say anything, so you never know. It was funny how I found about one nuclear launch officer., though it was in the army .While I was in a Tank Battalion in Germany about 1986. We were doing "reverse cycle training" "day for night/night for day" out in a training area for 1-2 weeks. I was a PFC driving a jeep for range/training area control One of our tank platoon officers 1st Lt. (West Pointer)was range control officer that day/night. He had been awake 3-4 days straight and we were in a jeep driving through the woods late at night.. Anyway he starts rambling /mumbling about that our unit had a Nuclear Man-Pack Demolition/SADM-(W54) and all the protocols of assembly , emplacement, and detonating this device, during/for WW3! I told him several times "Sir , I don't think I need to know about this !" And " This is way-way above my Clearance"" etc. He was just talking to stay awake, I understand that, but he blundered into something, that was definitely "CCI" , the step above "top secret" in security clearance It was interesting to hear we had a nuke , and that we may well have used it in to stop a Soviet attack and block a valley but I definitely , "Did not need to know" LOL Also, it was interesting to experience what "sleep depravation" actually can do, and why it is used as an effective interrogation tactic.

[@221b-l3t]

Yeah fully agree. At 20 miles, everyone below the waterline if possible they could have fired a 1 Mt weapon. Although I am not aware of any thermonuclear artillery shells beyond boosted stuff. The Russians had a large variety of artillery shells but also as far as I know nothing beyond a few dozen kt. Most of them were gun type weapons, old school implosion bombs are bit too chubby for even 16 inch guns. But modern ones would fit for sure, the Mk.4 reentey vehicle is 16.3 inches wide and the largest bomb they crammed into that was 3 Mt. Although today I believe it is generally deployed with a W76 inside so around 100 kt. Still a two stage device.

[@baconatordoom]

Yeah I found it odd that he said 20 mile blast radius for that yield.

[@chrisperrien7055]

@@baconatordoom A 20 mile blast "RADIUS"? You are talking a 10-20 megatons, to get that kind of effect. 1 Megaton is about 5-7 miles

[@daniel_poore]

I was going to say something about this too... the ship would have been fine as long as it was firing further out. It would probably receive some fallout and such but for how small of yield, she would fight again. I think sometimes we forget ( or never actually understood ) how potent nuclear arms are. Yes very potent, but its also not quite as much area laid down by a single weapon. Even the largest nuclear weapons arent as bad as you think as far as blast radius. Yeah alot of stuff even outside that radius will die if it doesnt get shelter and aid from the fallout but unless your dropping a tsar bomba or something, if your 20 miles away and sailing to leave the area... youll mostly be fine.

[@garygreen7552]

Having the capability to carry and fire a weapon and actually having one on board are very different things. I believe that a Marine security detachment was not unusual on a battleship or even a cruiser. Having Marines on board routinely would make it more difficult for an enemy to determine whether the ship had nukes. In any event, the deployment of these weapons is highly classified, and I doubt there is any way to find out the answer. I do remember drills about decontaminating a ship fouled with nuclear residue that involved thoroughly washing the ship with water. But we all know that a lot of that was window dressing because it would have been difficult to decontaminate a vessel. A side note: I had a mentor who, during World War II, was working on developing Radar. At the time the WORD was highly classified, the technology even more so. He was on the team developing the Army's version of Radar. At some point he detected a signal that could only have been sent by another Radar unit. A short time later he was visited by a Navy officer (He was a sergeant.) asking about what was going on. They had detected signals from the system he was working on. The Navy and the Army were both developing radar and did not know about the other service's project!

[@30AndHatingIt]

Lol that’s pretty damn funny!

[@TzunSu]

Why would a vessel be particularly hard to decontaminate? It's routinely done for armored vehicles. Size is a problem, but then you also have infinite water.

[@SeanBZA]

@@TzunSu All the nooks and crannies make it hard, and yes you need a crap ton of washing plus checks to see if it is all done. Not helped by the fact you are now washing off the particles into the water you are using, and also the need to pull in large volumes of air for ventilation and engines, where the boiler air does not actually have any filtering.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

On the contrary it would be unusual since Marine detachments were pretty much gone by this time.

[@GG-yr5ix]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Marines on a Capital Ship isn't unusual. Carriers and Battleships were classified as Capital Ships.

[@joehayward2631]

I was on the MARINE USS MISSOURI at the end of service in 80s, we had glow in the dark missiles. 4 launchers were full.

[@ThorsonWiles]

Before it goes further than 8:29, I was in an 8" SP Artillery company (battery) in the reserves in the early '90's. We had a "Special Weapons" vehicle, though never had any Special Weapons, and knew of, but never trained with, powder charges required for the Special Weapons. (And let's not forget Atomic Annie) If they had these "Special Weapons" for 8" tactical projectiles, I have no doubt that 16" projectiles were developed for Special Weapons delivery.

[@garyallsebrook3493]

I was stationed on an AD in San Diego, in late 68-70. We had nuclear replacement warheads for ASROC weapons to swap out conventional ones for destroyers. I maintained the security system. No marine guards. The alarm monitoring panels were in the main electrical switchboard. Watchstanders were issued loaded .45’s and if you weren’t on the access list you could be shot. I had to sign an NDA for 10 years to get discharged.

[@kevincrosby1760]

I was going to suggest that Ryan pull out his electrical prints and look for "Circuit FZ". He might even find some of his red safes very near the monitoring panels, assuming that the panels had pretty cabinets with glass fronts and two keyholes. Nothing like tying up 4 guys with PRP certs for most of a day simply to test that shit gets real noisy when certain hatches are opened. On the flip side, if you get REAL bored on a long cruise, that bronze tool set can become a perfectly buffed and shined work of art.

[@BornRandy62]

USS South Carolina CGN 37 had a weapon system named ASROC which has a Nuclear option . We only carried Marines during one time frame and they stood door guard duty on the SESS space. You could tell by the way security was handled at the weapons station if Nukes were being handled. The weapons station marines brought out all of their shiny toys when special weapons were being handled. The coast guard also had a close in presence during those times.Shipboard security didnt change. You had to certify the ship and systems in order to be qualified to handle nukes. Security was a huge portion of that certification. So a roving security guard or guards is established to inspect the various doors and launchers and the alarm systems. Even with special access , I never knew first hand if Nukes were present. I was part of the Special Weapons security force on both cruisers. When the magazine doors are opened except during war time conditions, a security force is dispatched . A buffer zone to keep people from wandering into the sensitive areas and an exclusion zone for the area immediately outside the magazine door. The people inside the door were armed with sidearms and teamed up in pairs. If two people are required to do the tasking then 4 people were sent in with equal knowledge of performing the tasking. All armed. as far as a weapons change out in the gulf. We got our missiles changed out twice on the Princeton CG59. They loaded us with the standard SM2s and Tomahawks after the yards. We had those for about 15 days before they sent us back to the weapons station for a change out. We deployed and stopped again inside the gulf for yet another change out . There is always a new version of things that go bang.

[@SeanBZA]

I did some training near a certain building that officially, did not exist, and did not show up on maps till google started Google Earth. The bus driver there had a top secret security classification, yet was actually a municipal bus driver, as there was a route that ran past the entire facility, and the people there used it a lot. Meant we had to get off at a gate, wait till he was done with the route, then get back on board to carry on. On the list of things not allowed on site were gas mantles, as they would trigger the radiation detectors. Smoke detectors needed a special permit to change them as well, and bananas were forbidden, if you had more than 2.

[@martinbose7163]

Back in the late 60's I was on a new DEG that had an ASROC system on board. Because it might have a nuclear depth charge on board (AFAIK we never did) there was always an armed guard at the magazine door any time we were in port. It was the only watch that had the magazine in the 45 side arm at all times. One time I had the watch and a base Lieutenant showed up and said he was going into the magazine. I had not been notified, and asked him to go back to the quarterdeck and check in with them first. He says he is authorized, blah, blah, and I pull the pistol and rack the slide, and warn him not to move. He laughs, and says that he knows that no watch actually keeps a clip installed. I rolled the pistol back so he could see the clip, and told him to freeze. He did, I called the quarterdeck and told them someone was trying to enter the magazine without authorization, and please get him out of there before I shoot him. He was escorted off the ship, and I waited to see what was going to happen to me for pulling a loaded gun on an officer. Nothing did happen to me, however I heard that the Lieutenant, who was the base weapons officer, got a captain's mast and reprimand for the incident.

[@BornRandy62]

@@martinbose7163 on a cruiser. I was standing buffer zone. The XO ( Who generates the lists we worked from) heard noises that something noteworthy was happening inside the magazine. He blew past the first buffer zone people and when he got to me I racked a shell into the shotgun and put hime face down on the non skid. The CO came down and released him from a distance because his name wasn't on the list either. I expected mast from that. Never heard another word about it. The XO CO names were always included after that BTW. The reported incident inside the magazine turned out to be non consequential. Weps was already standing at the door.

[@mattwiser8406]

Katies had the same physics package as the 280-mm "Atomic Annie" artillery piece, but in the 16" shell. The yield was 15 KT, which was Hiroshima. Having Katies on board does make sense before the decommissioning... As for targets, amphibious operations up until Vietnam were intended to have nuclear fire support. Dropping two or three Katies on or inland of a beach where Marines would come ashore a couple days later makes sense-given the doctrine of the day, that is. As for TLAM-N? The weapons were either theater strike weapons, or meant to be held in reserve after an initial strategic use (counterforce, say) to see if the Soviets wanted another round...

[@WardenWolf]

The old atomic bombs didn't have long-lasting radioactive effects. They were devastating short-term, but within a day or so the area would have been safe to pass through, if not stay in.

[@aland7236]

If the available information on the W23 is accurate a yield of 15 - 20 kt was expected. If an air burst occured at an altitude of 500 meters, calculations show you'd be extremely inconvenienced at 10 km. A shot 20 miles (32km) away would give a once in a lifetime show and a sunburn.

[@chuckw1113]

It is possible that NJ or her sisters carried W23s. A total of fifty were produced in 1956 and were taken out of service in 1962.

[@matthewbeasley7765]

Yep. Nuclear weapons aren't as powerful as people think. They're big, but not that big. 20 miles away from a fission device is more than enough, so long as the ship stays out of the fallout.

[@SealofPerfection]

@@matthewbeasley7765 Yep, assuming there is any. The bombs used on Japan were airbursts and that's why the sites aren't contaminated today. It was all consumed in the blast or blown away in the air. I assume the W23 could do an airburst as well. The blast radius was only about a square mile. From 10-20 miles away, you'd have no problem at all. Might not want to be looking right at it, though.

[@timothyhouse1622]

@@matthewbeasley7765 well, I guess nukes aren't that big of a deal. The Japanese were just overreacting. /eyeroll

[@matthewbeasley7765]

@@timothyhouse1622 Thinking it will kill the crew of a battleship at 20 miles is inaccurate. That would be one of the examples I'm talking about.

[@scale_model_apprentice]

I have a family friend who was part of the Marine detachment in the 80s on Missouri who claimed to have guarded nuclear tomahawks.

[@michaelsommers2356]

If your friend actually knew, he should not have told you, since the presence of nuclear weapons was classified. Very few people on board actually knew. The gunner's mates who handled missiles, some people in the supply department, and a few others (such as the captain) would know, but not necessarily the marines. The marines could be told to guard certain missiles as if they were nukes even if they weren't, just so that any observer could not conclude that that there were or were not nukes just by seeing what the marines did.

[@Mrcaffinebean]

@@michaelsommers2356 these things tend to have an unofficial way of making it back to the boots on the ground. The casual mention from a superior, the label on a box left by accident, etc

[@neonknight69]

@@michaelsommers2356 If one of the Jarheads spoke up about guarding nukes Tomahawks, he broke the rules. The correct answer, to this day, is I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on the USS Missouri or any other United States Ship. This may not be verbatim. It was has been a long time since I left the Missouri.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@Mrcaffinebean It's theoretically possible, of course, but it didn't happen in my experience. It's also possible that the rumors were not true. At any rate, regardless of how you learned it, it was still classified, and the navy's policy was still to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons.

[@YoloSwagNinja]

Oh man, someone leaked 40 year old information on a weapon that everyone knew existed. The horror. The horror. 😱😱

[@peterpoertner7042]

On smaller ships like I was on (DDG), of course the standard answer was ALWAYS "...Can neither confirm nor deny...", but even without Marines onboard, I can say that yes we did. In Charleston, loading or unloading munitions was a pretty smooth operation all day, that is until that "Special train" came down the tracks onto the pier, led and trailed by a company of Marines. All of a sudden, anyone who was previously allowed to be out on deck was confined to their workspace for an hour or so until the train left. When sailing into a foreign port for a visit, that did not allow nuclear weapons, the Navy merely said "Nope, don't have any of those on that ship!", which was of course true. That is until you assembled all of the parts that ARE on board that ship, then we did. Splitting hairs, but we aren't letting such things get in the way. And lets not pretend that the host country didn't know or understand that idea either, it was all just a mere formality with government. The concept of firing nuclear tipped projectiles was tried during the '50's and typically found not to be viable in practice. Meaning that after the round was fired, even with a low yield blast, the possibility of exposing the ship to the products of the blast were too great, tipping the 'Risk v. Reward' scale towards the former. Better delivery systems were being built during that era which made the program you speak of almost obsolete before it even made it to the fleet.

[@kevincrosby1760]

I can say that moving ordnance was generally accomplished with Seaman and/or petty officers on the forklifts and elevators, and the Weps officer taking inventory. Then there were the very few times when all of a sudden chiefs were driving forklifts, the CO, XO, and 1st Lt were standing with the Weps officer, and the GMs suddenly decided that some of the small arms need some fresh air and sunlight.

[@mcduck5]

And since you asked at the end.... I think they where able to and weather they did or not makes no difference to me at all. Given the number of American weapons and reactors that have been dropped or crushed without exploding or causing a disaster I would happily live near them.

[@cosmoflanker]

Ryan, I think you greatly overstated the effects radius of a 15-20 kiloton device. At 20 miles away, other than the flash (which obviously you would have all crew below decks) and any subsequent fallout (which you could take into account from local weather), there would be no effect at all, especially on a battleship. The maximum effects of blast damage at Hiroshima, on very light structures, occurred at about 5-6 miles from ground zero. That said, I've always wondered why, since the warhead was sized for the Army's 11-inch shell, they didn't develop a 16-inch sabot round to launch an 11-inch shell to a range of probably 35-40 miles.

[@candle86]

Yea given the time frame id say they are tactical to fire into a soviet naval formation at best

[@billpaine6241]

I suspect it’s a fire control issue: the analog Mk 8 was not designed for saboted rounds and could not accurately calculate a fire control solution.

[@candle86]

@@billpaine6241 yea but how accurate do you really need to be with a nuke

[@SeanBZA]

@@billpaine6241 Do not need a discarding sabot, simply have a case that stays with, as after all the extra 2 inches of steel with do nothing, other than enhance the blast slightly.

[@manhunter433]

I toured USS Iowa, there was a poster displaying the various shells fired out of the guns, the " Kate" shells and nuclear tomahawk cruise missiles, the Navy would neither confirm or deny that they were on the ships.

[@paulloveless9180]

Ryan I would imagine that if the vessel could deploy nuclear ordinance that there would be provisions for decoding EAMs. Perhaps you should ask a radio man or a weapons officer if they had the means to authenticate EAM messages on the ship. If the answer is yes, then it's almost a certainty that New Jersey could employ nuclear ordinance.

[@appleintosh]

Are EAMs used for tactical weapons? I thought that was only strategic weapons. The battleships would have only carried tactical nukes.

[@Ganiscol]

@@appleintosh I think you are correct as pertains to the gun nukes. Battlefield tactical weapons are just generally authorized after the appropriate units have been equipped with those. Since in wartime there will likely be plenty of brass on a battleship, the fear for unauthorized use should be lower than some land based nuclear artillery sprinkled all over a given frontline. When it comes to the Tomahawks, things may be different depending on the maximum yield of the warhead because the range is much higher as well. Cant have some Admirals decide on that by themselves.

[@SeanBZA]

@@Ganiscol Likely the captain and XO had each half of the code books, so both are needed to launch, plus each would have memorised part of a key code used to arm the missiles, likely entered into the warhead using a service test bench with extended capability, and this enabling the warhead before firing. You would need likely a command, sent via the normal ships encrypted signals comms from the Navy HQ, giving the key part of the code to add to the captain and XO portions, entered into the missile (likely by both of them needing to be down there, with the code book with the right code line from the signal, along with the code for the day, and then each with their own set of parts) via the test set, to enable the extra functions. Means you need to have both of them alive, plus the correct codes from HQ, plus the full code book with the day codes, as the missiles also have a built in clock. Get all parts together, then launch, and the target has a bad day incoming. 2 code books as well, one is the incoming code to a pseudo random set of numbers, and then another stream of numbers for the date, then fixed numbers for CO and XO. Both one time code pads, with the missile having the other copy of the pad burned in, and likely only a few attempts allowed before it will activate the self destruct charge. 3 strikes and you, along with the magazine remains, are now needing to be sealed in concrete, and moved to a deep spot for the next million years. i doubt any of the depot level techs would go with, who actually know how to service the warheads, just grunts who know to press a button, and wait for the green light.

[@paulloveless9180]

@@appleintosh this is a very good point! I'm not too sure. I wonder if there is an easy way to find out?

[@paulloveless9180]

@@SeanBZA are you on your lunch break at Sandia National Labs lol?

[@larrykunz1147]

Memories - was a lifeguard in Long Beach when I'd do a workout paddle around the ship offshore, when it was unloading weapons in Seal Beach Weapons Station, a marine would follow me from the railing as I paddle around the ship. I was on a paddleboard.

[@frankhiatt5295]

We know that the 16 inch guns could fire nuclear rounds. The only real question is whether or not they were carried. The way we know that it was possible is thanks to the United States Army. I am not sure exactly when the project was carried out, but the Army took a naval 16" gun and actually designed a "portable " gun for the express purpose of delivering nuclear weapons. The gun is on display, I believe, at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

[@chrisbreidenbaugh3697]

The ordinance museum at Aberdeen is a site all military history buffs should see. I lived right off base and was always amazed when seeing the guns, cannons, artillery, and TANKS on display.

[@Duckfarmer27]

The Ordnance Museum was closed and relocated to Fort Lee, outside Petersburg, VA back around 2010 or so. I believe the vehicle/armament collection that was outside went as well - which included all kinds of rolling stock to include German 280mm railway guns, US Army 280mm (or as Ryan said, 11 inch) 'Atomic Cannon', etc. But the last time I was actually there was in the mid 80s. When I was stationed there in 1972 it was quite a collection to see. Another really interesting museum is the one in Albuquerque adjacent to Kirtland AFB, which has VERY interesting exhibits on the subject.

[@chrisbreidenbaugh3697]

@@Duckfarmer27 I moved out of Aberdeen and up to PA around that time. i was not aware that it had been closed.

[@SealofPerfection]

If they did carry them, it wasn't for long. The shells were produced in 56 and the ships weren't in commission past early 58, so the window is small.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

The shells were developed, but not fielded.

[@DaveDaDeerslayer]

Don't know about the battleships, but my Leahy class cruiser sure did in the 80's. I was guarding them 4 hours once a day underway.

[@ryancampbell4119]

I think the navy did it especially with tomahawk missile because the Iowas were the first ships and the only ships at the time to have the capabilities to house tomahawk missiles. I’ve heard the Missouri and Wisconsin had theirs removed before taking part in desert storm.

[@largesleepermadness6648]

Ummm the Virginia class cruisers had tomahawks in the same abl that the iowas had at the same time frame. So your comment is not exactly correct.

[@Kodos13]

Robert Sumrall's "Iowa-class Battleships" from NAVINST Press says that the Mk23s were carried aboard both Iowa and Wisconsin (according to former crew speaking off-record) during the 50s, but New Jersey only carried a drill projectile. They were also trained in handling them around the reinforced, protected magazine area. Missouri was not equipped for the shells. As to the Mk80s on the TLAM-Ns, we can only speculate. If you were going to send a "special" inland, I think you would want a lower-profile platform than a battleship. During a tour I took of Wisconsin, there was a pair of separated keylocks in CEC that it was STRONGLY suggested were for special weapons use.

[@TheReykjavik]

If I remember correctly, you put out a video on a 16" nuclear shell that was never officially on the ship. Add that to the tomahawk, and it is pretty likely that they put nukes on the ship. They'd never admit it, but they probably did put nukes on board.

[@nbenicewicz]

I just looked up the blast yields of the of the "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" Bombs. They both had blast yields of 15-21 kilotons. I also looked up the blast yields of of the 16 inch nuclear shells. They also apparently had yields of 15-20 kilotons. So, it seems each 16 inch W23 shell had about the same blast yield as the bombs dropped on Japan.

[@Simon-ho6ly]

sounds right, little boy and fat man were comparatively small compared to later developments and miniscule compared to the crazy stuff like tzar bomba

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Fat man and little boy were both very inefficient in how they use their nuclear cores. Most of the nuclear material actually landed as Fallout. The 16-in Warhead that you're talking about was a much more refined delivery system using a significantly higher percentage of the material. I have a slide rule in my possession that will tell me based on the yield of any nuclear weapon deadly above ground and say in a trench. It ain't pretty but it is surprising

[@timothyhouse1622]

Upshot Knothole, which was the test of the 280 mm Atomic Annie, was in 1953 and had the same yield as the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. So, in 13 years the tech advanced enough that what once took a specially modified B29 to carry a bomb could be scaled down to fit into an 11 inch artillery shell.

[@mikestanley9176]

Depends on the detonation altitude. the blast radius would average about 6 miles at a detonation altitude of 1000 feet.

[@SeanBZA]

@@mikestanley9176 Yes, they got small fast, to the point you could carry them in a 200lb casing, and drop them with reasonable accuracy. Of course, you had to be pretty high, one pass, haul ass, to hope to get away from there, even with the bomb being on a small drogue parachute, so it would take a minute or three to fall to the ground. Plus take along some sunnies a lot better than Ray Ban, at least for those 2 minutes when you think it is about to light up the sky.

[@michaellehman1549]

I think you made a pretty good case for the operational deployment of both the 16" shell and the Tomahawk missile nuclear variants aboard the BBs. I can offer a bit of clarification on the matter of the Air Force's efforts to monopolize nuclear weapons in the early Cold War. It wasn't really so much a budget issue or shortfall that was the problem. The issue was actually fissile material production capacity. The USAF sought to prioritize production to support the massive weapons it anticipated acquiring with the development of high yield thermonuclear weapons. This effort by the Air Force saw it come into direct conflict with the Navy, where it won funding for its B-36 fleet and the Navy took a hit on its planned supercarrier project. This part was clearly about money, but this was only one aspect of things. Along with the conflict that saw the USAF arguing to put its needs for strategic weapons before the Army and Navy requirements for tactical nukes was another conflict, hidden from the public and most of the nuclear bureaucracy, in fact. The AEC was still led on the science side into the early 50s by J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had shepherded the Manhattan Project to a satisfactory conclusion. Oppie advised the Air Force as it set-up the Atomic Energy Detection System (AEDS), which came into operation in time to detect the first Soviet test in 1949. Oppie came into conflict with the Air Force at virtually the same time as he also chaired the AEC's Scientific Advisory Committee. It published the initial report from Project GABRIEL, which asked the fundamental question, if you needed to plan on a first strike, of how much yield could be dropped on the USSR before it posed a danger to Americans? The main threat posed would be from fallout. Essentially, the answer proved to be 60 megatons. With fission weapons with yields ranging from those dropped on Japan upwards to the low 100 kt range and a 200+ list of targets, the Air Force would not exceed the 60 Mt limit. But what the Air Force wanted now that the Soviets had fission weapons were thermonuclear weapons. The first one we tested was 10 Mt, the second 15 Mt. Doing the math, scientific opinion seemed to suggest that the Air Force might be limited to just 4 to 6 of the hydrogen bomb it wanted most. That doesn't get you very far down a 200 target list. The scientific concern was also that development of a thermonuclear weapon, once tested, posed the problem that its design features would be given away by its fallout, just as we'd already proven could be done to Soviet tests. Unhappy with this advice, which the Air Force lobbied Truman to ignore, the service's falling out with Oppie accelerated, eventually resulting in the hearing that withdrew his Q clearance one day before it otherwise would've expired. Despite this seeming victory, the results of testing from 54 to 58 largely confirmed the findings of GABRIEL, resulting in a much more limited panoply of thermonuclear weapons with lower yields due to the fallout problem, this obviating a significant part of what had been the Air Force's anticipated need for fissile material. During this same period, the AEC's scientists, attempting to resolve the problem posed by the Air Force's monopolistic attitude toward fissile material, pushed forward an accelerated plan to expand fissile material production. Long after Oppie was forced out in disgrace and most of the rest of the committee he led was marginalized or replaced when Ike appointed Lewis Strauss to head the AEC, their efforts resulted in more than enough fissile material to meet all the three major service's needs for tactical weapons, solving the problem with an end run around the Air Force and coincidentally leading to the early retirement of the B-36, no longer needed to lift the largest of the weapons. The internal conflict did largely delay the development and introduction of many of these lower yield weapons until after mid-decade in the 50s, which is why developments like the 16" nuclear shell came along later in the decade, rather than as part of the initial response to Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons. Sorry this is a bit long, but it's the short version. I elaborate on this situation in more detail in my dissertation, available as a free download at hdl.handle.net/2142/90554 . While it focuses on the the Air Force's nuclear intelligence program (AFOAT-1/AFTAC) it also engages with the effects of this intel on strategic planning and thus strays into things like fissile material production and the conflict that the Air Force's perceived need for strategic weapons created vs the Army and Navy's requirements for tactical weapons.

[@candle86]

Those shells yeild points to tactical, so I would assume they where more for either firing into a Soviet ship formation, or possibly a Soviet naval station. I don't see them being used vs cities

[@TzunSu]

Yeah, the transit time in and of itself would make them practically useless for anything but ship-to-ship combat i would assume.

[@Valorius]

I was just watching Kindergarten Cop last night and almost jumped through the roof when I saw an Iowa class battleship in one of the scenes passing by in the background

[@justsayingforafriend7010]

Even back in the early eighties when I was on a cruiser we had nukes. No Marines were on board we guarded our own. On the larger decks they always have a mar det. Just to stand around and tie up the chow line.

[@christianvalentin5344]

I’m convinced that both Missouri and Wisconsin were armed with TLAM-Ns for the 1991 Gulf War. Neither ship launched 32 Tomahawks at Iraqi targets, it was 27 or 28 missiles fired. I suspect that three or four nuclear tipped missiles were loaded in the event that Saddam ordered chemical weapons attacks on US forces, and the Pentagon wanted a quick response option available.

[@ShanesGettingHandy]

I don't know how I didn't think about this upon learning how many were fired. Obviously there were a few "special" ones onboard.

[@williamc5725]

I remember back in the late 80's I was stationed at NAS Oceana there was a news article about the Wisconsin (I think) having a group civilians taking a tour when a priest took out a container of blood and a hammer when they went past a armored box launcher and went at it. There was no report of damage and he was quickly subdued.

[@stevewhite3424]

The men that absolutely know will absolutely never tell.

[@bradyeverett9225]

It's awesome how far this channel has come in the quality of content produced. The cuts, audio and visual quality, and especially Ryan's presenting style are, and I emphasize this most sincerely, *professional*, and when compared to the content y'all were putting out 2.5 years ago, especially so. Outstanding, interesting, entertaining stuff you guys make. Please if you have the time, remake some of the older videos, especially about the turrets/gunhouses with the same quality you do your modern stuff. BZ thanks for doing what you do BB NJ staff!

[@thomassmith4022]

In the 1960’s I was attached to a Guided missile destroyer, a DDG. And on this ship we had an ASROC missile launcher, which was a rocket launched Anti Submarine torpedo system. In addition we had a Tarter Missile launcher. While the Tarter system did not require a full time armed guard, the ASROC system did. So, It was common knowledge that at least SOME of the ASROC missiles could be Nuclear equipped. So, when we stood guard at the ASROC station, we stood with a fully loaded firearm, and no where else on the ship. So, what do you think was going on there? (by the way, DDG's did not have a Marine detachment, but we, as Petty Officer Sailors were fully trained in that kind of close combat).

[@mikestanley9176]

I was on a frigate in the early 80s. Same thing there. We did not have Marines on board so some of the crew were trained as security personnel.

[@SHarrington9614]

So I was on a tour of USS Salem 10 years ago, and they were talking about just starting to find evidence of the Des Moines class heavy cruisers being armed with a prototype Atomic tipped artillery Shell program, was any similar system ever developed for the Iowa Class Battleships

[@mikestanley9176]

I was on a frigate in the early 80s. We were always told if asked that we were nuclear capable. If so the only nukes we would carry( if at all) was nuclear ASROCs.

[@williambinkley8879]

I was on the USS Mississippi during Desert Shield/Storm. In the crazy run up to deploying, I got to watch the USS Wisconsin offloading tomahawk missiles under heavy guard. We did the same thing.

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

I witnessed likely the same kind of event- but it was after that, as Wisky was prepping for decomm... Interesting that "those" weapons might have been put back aboard after Desert Storm...(???)

[@tommanion5504]

Watching the tube during DESERT STORM. The Captain of one of the Iowa's was giving a news conference while steaming in the Gulf. Question came up, asking the skipper if he had any nukes. The answer was the standard "Neither confirm nor deny". Next question: "If you do have nuclear weapons, how long would it take to change over to them?" Without missing a beat, skipper responds "about two minutes!" Says a lot!

[@johndavis4249]

I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of Nuclear weapons on any U.S. Naval ship or installation.

[@johndavis4249]

MARDET, USS New Jersey, 1984-1986.

[@WhatAboutTheBee]

That is the correct answer. Thank you for providing it

[@frankbarnwell____]

As an OS. ... Guess

[@TINCANsquid]

@@frankbarnwell____ same here

[@TINCANsquid]

guess I should read the comment before I comment. heh heh heh

[@michaelsommers2356]

Lots of ships are, or were, capable of carrying nukes. The Standard ER missile could be, and was, used to attack surface targets, and it had a nuclear version. There were also nuclear variants of ASROC.

[@gundam2jimmy]

Missile is not an artillery shell.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

The sea Sparrow is also capable of surface to surface attack but not nuclear capable.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@gundam2jimmy he was using an example to explain his position. After all when you get hit with the nuclear warhead you're not going to stand there and say was that a missile or an artillery shell?

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@gundam2jimmy So what? A nuke is a nuke.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Where did I say that all surface-to-air missiles can carry nukes? I said that the Standard ER could (a bit of googling reveals that it was a Terrier, not the Standard, that was a nuke).

[@jth877]

If Katie had a 20 mile blast diameter and you can shoot them 20 miles that gives you a nice buffer of 10 miles. I also think that when they came up with this Korea was still quite fresh. It could flare up and then the Iowas would be in a target rich environment.

[@Jacob-W-5570]

radius not diameter :)

[@adrianklaver113]

"20 mile blast radius" = 40 mile diameter. Or to put it another way a shot throw of 20 miles equals the blast radius coming back at you. Now that does not mean the explosive effect/radiation is equal across that distance.

[@jth877]

@@adrianklaver113 So looking at the data from Little Boy (16-ish KT), it seems I was wrong. The fire wall blast radius was only 2 miles in diameter. Destruction from the blast pressure was recorded up to a 6 mile diameter. Instant gamma radiation death cannot be recorded because the heat killed everyone in that smaller lethal radiation zone. Glass was broken up to 12 miles away. Little Boy was an air detonation. So, a 15KT to 20KT blast certainly won't reach the ship in any harmful way.

[@parrot849]

I’m sure the BB’s were outfitted to deploy with atomic ordnance. You’ve pointed out all the evidence. I was assigned to a P-3 Orion VP squadron in the early seventies. They would occasionally have very high security training (ground) operations involved in the movement and loading of nuclear depth charges into the aircraft. Only select members of the squadron were involved. All other personnel had to stay away, for that day, from their normal work locations. Very high pucker-factor training procedures.

[@SmegHedd117]

Also, for a vessel to be "Allowed" to carry nukes, she had to have a magazine to hold the weapons in.

[@Consequator]

We've all seen that documentary where the ships chef prevents terrorists from stealing nukes with a submarine...

[@bobstitzenberger1834]

Super interesting. I'd like to see a show exploring the question "could a single torpedo sink the NJ?"

[@paulloveless9180]

Can you imagine the checks that must go into shooting a nuclear training round? "Ok Jim, are you SURE we have a training round loaded?" "I think, let me go make sure I don't have live nuclear ordinance loaded into the gun. brb" Lol!

[@BALOYBEACHBUM]

I was stationed on a Cruiser and this I can tell you "I can neither confirm, nor deny!"

[@doughudgens9275]

The US Army 8” howitzer was also nuclear capable and I helped guard a warhead storage site in West Germany in the 80’s. In fact, the “Green Party” activists tried to create an incident by getting close to the site. We ended up detaining them and the Polizei took them away.

[@adamc6371]

Having talked to some older gents who were on the 8” all say it packed quite the punch, I can only imagine the nuclear projectile. Fire mission for that might only need a four digit grid coords as those things are grid square erasers

[@GaryED44]

This dovetails with my visit to the New Jersey in Long Beach back in the 90's. While onboard I noticed all the Marine Guards at the rear of the Battleship in the hatchways were holding their M16's ready to fire with their hands on the triggers

[@jaybee9269]

That’s not how you guard anything. Don’t put your finger on the trigger unless you’re pulling it.

[@pville_piper5125]

Fantasy, the Jersey never went through Nuke quals. In fact, I can't remember ever seeing the Mar-det patrolling with rifles. Been a long time though.

[@SeanBZA]

Red safe would likely have been in both Captain and XO cabin, each of them having half of the code books, and one of the keys to authorise launch. Probably removed with the missiles when they were decommed, or the missiles were removed, so as to keep the authority keys with the missiles.

[@cperuffo]

In the 80s my parents took me to see USS Iowa when she visited NYC. A protester pleaded with my Mother “How can you take your children on to your a ship that has nuclear weapons?!” My mother replied in her Brooklyn accent, “What do you want us to shoot back with lady? Spitballs?” and she pushed her way past.

[@tomnewham1269]

A couple of points I want to make. Firstly if New Jersey did carry nuclear warheads in the 80's, the US government would be wise not to reveal that especially if she went into foreign ports. Sydney Harbour is a no go zone for nuclear powered ships and if the Australian government found out that indeed New Jersey or any other US ship entered Sydney Harbour with nuclear warheads, there would a diplomatic crisis. The second point I would make is in regards to marines stationed on New Jersey. They may have been stationed on her and her sister ships for protecting such new technology, that is the Tomahawk missile system as it was such new technology it was vital not to get in the hands of the Russian's.

[@questerjay66]

I served on the USS Iowa in the 80's, worked in CIC. Sometimes I still write backwards to mess with my family. I can neither confirm or deny we had nuclear weapons onboard.

[@ShanesGettingHandy]

I was just touring the Missouri a few days ago and saw that glass, with re-created backwards writing on it... How long did it take to learn?

[@johnslaughter5475]

Excellent video, Ryan. I know we carried nukes, but we were never allowed to admit it, especially in Japan.

[@tonyharty3666]

Gunners mate 3rd, USS Shasta AE-33 plank-owner 72-75. I know we carried them, all the time. They were the safest weapons we carried. The most dangerous thing we carried were 16” powder bags, bringing them back to the States from PI, 40’s vintage and highly unstable. We didn’t even put them in the cargo holds. Wooden stations built around them on the O1 level with a yellow line painted around the entire structure. Cross the line, you get shot. Simple blunt Order. Marines bringing Nukes to the Ship were a pain in the ass. Our Gunnery Officer wouldn’t allow them to interfere with us, Special Weapons Detail. I respected him for that. Vietnam Vet USN….sometimes it’s best to remain calm, cool, and collected!

[@comradedog4075]

The only way to know is it get an Geiger counter. First measure your background radiation and then measure for radiation where the tomahawks would be stored around the ship. If nothing out of place gets detected it’s safe to say it was likely conventional weapons but if you do receive a spike in radiation not already found in the background it’s likely there was fissile material once there

[@SeanBZA]

With the length of time that has elapsed nothing above background would remain, and the missile carry cases are even more heavily shielded than the missile itself, simply because the actual warhead only has shielding for the electronics, and the trigger is kept separate, in an even more heavily shielded case. Trigger is swapped out every 6 months as it decays, but the missile itself is good for 2 years with no issues, except for needing batteries charged, to keep the electronics running a continuous self test loop.

[@jamesbelbin6343]

Visited NJ this past friday! Got the engine room tour and turret tour by your staff.

[@RJN82]

Having grown up in the 50's and 60's, I easily remember our constant fear of nuclear war or a nuclear accident. Every additional nuclear delivery method was another opportunity for an accidental detonation. As bad as things can sometimes seem today, the knowledge that my children and grandchildren have not known that fear is truly a blessing.

[@Chasred-ml4hm]

Excellent subject, made going down memory lane like being there again, thx

[@elijahwerner6130]

I remember seeing protesters on the news; they had dropped off the side of the Astoria-Megler bridge on ropes and appeared to be grabbing at the antennas as the ship passed below. I was pretty young and wasn't sure what I thought one way or the other about the potential for nuclear weapons, but I figured the ship had enough of a horsepower advantage to manage the situation.

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

Our good ol protesters....😣😣

[@robertwalker7922]

I was on a Spruance destroyer during my service in the Navy and cruised with the Missouri. We pulled into Syndey and had anti-nuclear protestors meet us. One guy was stupid enough to paddle in front of the Missouri in a kayak. Fortunately for him, the police pulled him out of the way before the Missouri ran him over. Since the battleships had the armored box launchers, they probably were nuclear capable.

[@dragonweyr44]

The Missouri carried nuclear tipped tomahawks In Under Siege

[@Masada1911]

Which is a historical documentary

[@dragonweyr44]

@@Masada1911 It totally is

[@bilirkisi7819]

"Stevan Seagal" was the ship's cook.

[@ytlas3]

The interior scenes on the ship were filmed on the USS Alabama

[@charletonzimmerman4205]

Well if 'Hollywood" say's so, just like "Time Travel", USS Nimitz- "The Final Countdown" !

[@Kyfordman1989]

My ship got out a dry dock of course we go in and dry dock you have to offload all ammo. We went to ammo pier. And we’ve been online small rounds 5 inch 38 Asrock throughout the day. Then comes to jeeps with Marines on board 50 caliber machine guns and two more containers with asrocks but these containers are a different color and have marines guarding them so no they were not nuclear warheads LOL.

[@SovietDictator]

My gut says the warheads/shells were made, the modifications to the ships were made, but much like the never-used Davy Crockett, the military came to their senses (rare, I know) and never actually put them to sea for use. At most, I think it's possible that they were loaded aboard and unloaded once or twice to ensure it was all possible, but even then, it was probably still dummies. Development during the early nuclear age was more reckless than actual deployment, and that's saying something given the number of incidents and accidents involving nukes in the Cold War. I personally think everything, right down to having Marines guarding the areas and having a red box and launch keys, was prep to load them at a moment's notice without having to suddenly have new routines and equipment but that the Navy knew it wasn't a fantastic idea. Yes, I know this seems pretty optimistic to think the military had that level of prudence.

[@SovietDictator]

After more thought, I suspect everything except the nuclear component was likely onboard in the case of the shells.

[@FP194]

It’s safe to say that at least one launcher had the W80 warheads which were 150 kilotons

[@dgax65]

Even if the W23 produced a 20kt yield the ship would still be able to safely hit targets at 10nm. Blast overpressure of 1psi would only extend out about 6km. The primary danger would be sailing into the fallout plume. The 1946 Able test at Bikini was a 23kt device detonated at 500ft above an array of ships at anchor. Less than half the ships within 1000yds were sunk, although most had severe damage. The ex-IJN battleship Nagato was within 1000yds and only suffered moderate damage. The underwater Baker test sunk half of the ships within 1000yds. The underwater test badly contaminated many more ships than the airburst test.

[@mcduck5]

With the reactivation of the Iowas being party to test the box launchers, Do you think the navy have a similar idea with the littoral combat ships that they have changed their minds on scrapping?

[@coreystacy3923]

I have nothing but questions about that.

[@mcduck5]

@@coreystacy3923 a little more info from my incoherent rambling. I have heard a number of people who know things mention that a significant part of the Iowa class reactivation was because they where low miles and big enough to easily take the box launchers. A little while ago the navy said that they are decommissioning the littoral combat ships sighting power train and superstructure cracking issues. A few months later they changed their minds about it. I can't help but wonder if they are going to use them as a first deployment of a new technology (maby a protection against hypersonic missiles etc?) That part of the setup will be a 'fast and dirty' fix for the issues.

[@otm646]

In a modern conflict I can't see the US relying on naval vessel/lcs for delivering that payload when they've got so many other ways to deliver it via aircraft. I mean, it's possible the US could lose the ability to effectively fly sorties. But if we're at that point we're in a real bad spot.

[@mcduck5]

@@otm646 Deoends on what the new technology is... I have no idea what it could be...

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

What exactly is your idea again? If you're asking about putting tomahawks on them? That would be a no.

[@jims146]

Ryan, I think your assessment of the battleship crew to survive a low yield device would be much higher. With the ships speed to remove it's self from the area, air burst device does not kick up as much radioactive debris as a ground detonation. Also water blocks radiation. Please watch this video of the W 25 Genie it explains some things kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZa1lKCgjJ51i7s

[@ValentineHolbert]

I mean I get public paranoia, or concern with anything nuclear, (for the US, especially after Three Mile Island). But protesting by getting close to a huge battleship like the Iowas is stupid and dangerous. Cheers to the security forces and the sailors for their excellent seamanship that prevented any incidents.

[@221b-l3t]

Three Mile Island was big heap of nothing. Media frenzy, that's it. It's unfortunate that such a low level incident turned everyone against nuclear power.

[@kevincrosby1760]

There were incidents, its just that they really didn't get the news coverage that the protestors might have wanted. I personally watched a group of protestors try to attach a banner of some sort to the side of my ship while transiting San Diego Harbor. Part of their plans apparently assumed that we would slow down and/or otherwise maneuver to avoid their little rubber boats. Bad assumption, but it WAS a nice day for a swim.

[@gunhog11]

Seeing these various decommissioned USN destroyers and such used as targets in SINKEX exercises, and sinking to the deep after being all shot up, complete with armored box launchers still sitting on the deck, drives me batty! A ship museum could have used those!

[@charlesmaroon8819]

AS34 Canopus had a MarDet guarding the FBM missile storage silos amidships.

[@TheFoxEssence]

I’m so glad you brought up that movie.

[@OfficialUSKRprogram]

I don't know what made you think the blast radius was 20nmi, I know my sources aren't necessarily better, but according to the nukemap website, the total blast radius for a 20kt nuclear warhead like the W23 is around 3.2nmi. The actual fireball is just below 1000ft wide, and the "radiation radius" is said to be at around 0.6nmi. To have a nuclear blast of 20nmi, you would need a 10 megaton warhead, such as the ones on the W53, and as far as I know, this was only available for ICBMs and very large bombs. The actual effective range for a SURFACE detonation of a 20kt nuclear warhead is around 1,800ft wide. In a late 1950s naval engagement between two battleships, nuclear shells would negate the inaccuracies of slinging shells at 15nmi. I highly doubt any nuclear warheads below megatons would ever be used on cities, because they're simply too weak. W23 warheads of New Jersey were barely strong enough to destroy a port.

[@Cthippo1]

Going to disagree on the "Single salvo of 9 nuclear rounds" theory. I'm not sure what dispersion on the 16 inch guns was, but probably not enough to make three (or nine) nuclear rounds landing close together do anything. Also, nukes are sort of fragile things and the first one going off has a high likelihood of damaging the other two in flight and causing them to fail. The Air Force put a LOT of thinking about this into their nuclear war planning so that the first weapon to hit a given target didn't damage the second and third weapons programmed for that target. In this era, battleships were still hard things to kill as precision anti-ship missiles were still on the drawing board and nuclear weapons had a CEP measured in miles. From that stand point I suspect they would have been programmed as a second strike weapon, but that is just a guess.

[@matthewbeasley7765]

Yes, nuclear bombs need to go off away from any other bomb to avoid a dud. If the neutrons from another bomb arrives at the wrong time, the fission starts as the core is still compacting instead of at maximum density. Perfectly wrong timing can reduce the yield to about 10%. That's what dial-a-yield does, it changes the bomb from perfect timing to less than perfect timing of the neutron generator.

[@TzunSu]

Why would nuclear rounds by so massively less precise then conventional ones?

[@Cthippo1]

@@TzunSu That is sort of the point. Dropping 3 nuclear rounds close to each other in short succession doesn't make a lot of sense. With AP rounds against a ship there is enough dispersion for them to not make one hole. HE against land targets you get enough dispersion that they cover a wider area. With nukes they would be so close together they would just vaporize the same thing over and over.

[@ragnarredbeard4652]

I would have to note that each barrel within the turret can be elevated independently, which means each round could travel a different trajectory. It would not be particularly hard in the targeting sense to manage. Also, you could be loading the turret with a round in each barrel and traverse the turret to a different azimuth before firing the next round, thus avoiding firing multiple rounds in proximity.

[@TheRichard991]

Love this channel! lets give Ryan thanks for all he does

[@MoparNewport]

My absolutely amateur appraisal -- Having ten rounds of nukes would be redundancy, but itd also be for having to deal with multiple surface fleets. If you have the warning, load a nuke round in the aft turret, turn the ship (and escorting fleet presumably) so your stern is to the enemy fleet, fire and run like hell. At max range you'd avoid the worst of the blast, and if the weather is cooperative, be upwind of it as well. If the enemy fleet is to a beam (side), then a hard over, over the shoulder shot would be the call. The design and yield versus the max range and the maneuverability of the platform firing it indicates these would be less for land bombardment and more for counter fleet use; though coasts which an Iowa could get close enough to could certainly be on the menu. Of course, nowadays, SSGNs do that role with far less risk to the crews firing the thing.

[@saltydawg1793]

While recommissioning Iowa in 1986, we found a hand-pumped on a shell deck, probably in T2 which appeared to allow a projectile to be tilted. We were told it was part of the nuclear 16" projectile program and to remove it. It was removed and disposed of as junk. We then went to the USS Alabama where our people were allowed to remove lashings to restore the capacity to restore 30 additional projectiles on that deck. I was the Weapons Department Head 1986-1989.

[@rodonis88]

You should do a movie review/breakdown of Under Siege, Hollywood vs. Reality !

[@donaldmelancon1767]

I have a question about the 5in guns. Could they over heat if they fired alot. And if so.what was the procedure for that. Also. Where the 5in guns lined like the 16ins guns or when they wore out did they just replace the whole barrel. Not really sure where to ask this question because I don't have Facebook.

[@StrayCatOrwell]

The 16” guns had removable liners that were replaced after a certain number of rounds were fired through them.

[@jaybee9269]

I don’t think they could. It’s hard to find footage of them in action as AA guns but they really pumped out shells!

[@michaelsommers2356]

I don't know about the 5"/38s, but with the 5"/54s the whole barrel would be removed. What happened to the barrel after that, I don't know.

[@KennyCnotG]

The 5in guns definitely could overheat if fired for too long continuously, that was witnessed on many ships equipped with them. All the stories I've heard are when they overheated, the crew would start hosing down the barrels with water to keep up a reduced rate of fire until you depleted your ammo stocks.

[@dragonweyr44]

During the battles of Iwo Jima and especially Okinawa, the 5 inch guns each had to fire hundreds and hundreds of shells each to defend against kamikaze attacks, an estimated 3500-4200 kamikaze at Okinawa alone as far as I could find out but these numbers could be wildly on 5 inch guns were mounted on battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and most other ships and fought kamikaze from the Battle of Leyte Gulf to Okinawa so there's no telling how many 5 inch, 40 and 20 mm as we'll as .50 caliber rounds were fired at them

[@randymagnum143]

4:30 I recognize that guy! Goes by the name of Sweepy McMuzzlington. He's been on every sketchy gun range ever.

[@aurorajones8481]

21:00 Sadly your probably right. I say that because i got wind of a older 70's launch map of intended N targets. What i found alarming was that there were sites and cities that would call for over 10, some 15 nukes in one target. Thats never been depicted in sci fi. Its always just one. Could you imagine? 15 hydro bombs going off one after another like fire crackers?! Thats just... I've never seen that and my mind finds it hard to create. SO... your comment of firing all 9 is most likely spot on. Unless the ship has access to multiple targets in one sitting. FIRE FIRE

[@fastone942]

I can remember grabbing my roommates jacket by mistake that was before the days that Marines had their name tag sewn on he was on board the USS Iowa and in the pocket was a Dosimeter with his name on it and Marines do not work in the x-ray department nor the Iowa I have a nuke engineer space my guess was yes there was some mushroom making machines on board

[@B1900pilot]

Absolutely…They loaded them at NAS North Island where the nuclear weapon storage facility. However, DoD policy is to “neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard”. We had nukes on the CV, which is why they had a MARDET onboard. Same reasons that NAS North Island had a Marine Barracks aboard the station.

[@ensnipe2000]

They also installed armored box launchers onboard several Spruance Class Destroyers and Virginia Class CGN's

[@jackbenimble4067]

The B61 and B61-12 for Tomahawk cruise missiles, I don't if they were on board but the capability sure is there.

[@richardmassoth8237]

The Navy used the W-23 warhead (artillery shell), nicknamed "Katie", on Iowa-class battleships. There were only 50 of these warheads made in the late 1950s (production started in 10/56) with the warheads retired in October 1962. All of the W-23 warheads for use in the 16-inch naval guns were based on common components developed for an 11-inch artillery shell, the W-19, that was developed for the Army's 280 mm "Atomic Annie" cannon. The warhead design is a "gun-type" enriched U-235 device, similar in design to the "Little Boy" A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima (the Mk-1 bomb, with a 15-18 kiloton yield). The W-19 was developed from the earlier W-9 warhead, the first "atomic artillery" shell, designed for the "Atomic Annie". The W-9 was rated for 15 kilotons of yield, while the later W-19 and W-23 were rated between 15 and 20 kilotons of yield. These atomic artillery shells used mechanical time delay fuses and were intended for airburst use. The W-9 was retired in 5/57 and was recycled into atomic demolition explosives that were retired in 1963. The W-19 was retired in 1963, the last of the atomic artillery shells to be discontinued.

[@stanleyarmstrong2898]

Bob Kay, another song was Emerson Lake and Palmer's Karn Evil 9 Part 2, where a phrase goes " Guardians of a New Clear Dawn. " The vocalist is British. That accent makes clear what the real word is.

[@stephenwhited1833]

I would imagine like the Army a person who assembles nuclear warheads would be a specialized field. I would think that they would have a special MOS or additional skill identifier. You could check the roster for sailors with that MOS and maybe contact one of them or at least know they were assigned to the ship meaning they were there for a reason.

[@markxfarmer6830]

Excellent post, thank you. W23 yields range to nearly 20kt (depending on data source). Having been to Hiroshima (15kt) and Nagasaki (22kt) many times along with many most total and heavy destruction was limited to within about 1-4 miles, depending on geography and that was against masonry buildings and wood houses, not against a hardened Iowa-class battleship. So, an Iowa could have fired an entire broadside of Katies (provided they were targeted more than about 10 miles away) and survived to carry on the fight.

[@TacoSallust]

I'm so glad Ryan pronounces it correctly!

[@rgraze911]

When we went to the Portland rose festival they had protesters hanging from a bridge.

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

Good ol Portlanders... Thats why i stay north of the river!!!🤣

[@31dknight]

Another great video from the battleship. Thanks

[@duanem.1567]

In the 1980s, the battleships had a 2-man Marine roving patrol set topside in the vicinity of the Armored Box Launchers, 24/7/365 at sea and in port, regardless whether nuclear Tomahawks were actually present. That was the primary reason for the company of Marines to be assigned to the ship. They had to check in with the Officer of the Deck at least once every 30 minutes. If they failed to check in, a Security Alert was announced, and an armed security team scrambled to the ABL area. Setting the roving patrol full-time ensured there was no outward clue whether nuclear weapons were onboard; most of the crew did not know, and probably only a handful of senior officers on the ship knew whether nuke missiles were loaded.

[@johnbaker8512]

As an old military guy, I find your thought on a nuclear broadside as improbable just from the physics point of view. Realistically, each Katie round would have to be separated by 20 mi ish in order to operate. Otherwise, the first round that goes off, the blast effect would wipe out the other eight. Lots of lost combat power down the tube. More probable answer is that the round is going to adversely effect the tubes and each one can only fire a single round (hot load for additional distance or the way the round interacted with the barrel).

[@keithrosenberg5486]

The WWII nuclear weapons were sent to the pacific in two assemblies. One was the casing and associated items to make the bomb but were missing the core. The other part was the core. It is entirely possible that one ore more casings could have been carried by New Jersey.

[@SovietDictator]

I find it entirely plausible that the casings, detonators, etc. only were carried and the nuclear components would have been supplied if things escalated to where they were necessary. I think the ships were fully prepared to receive the warheads if necessary and probably never did, or possibly had them quietly placed aboard as a test on one or more ships but also removed before putting to sea.

[@kevincrosby1760]

If memory serves, the casings were transported on the USS Indianapolis, and the pits went by air.

[@matchesburn]

3:07 The ones with "Canned Sunshine" inside of them!

[@TAllyn-qr3io]

If you were doing weps load and there were about 100 marines guarding the rail cars delivering the weapons…you were getting nukes. Was on the nuclear weapons handling team and in the PRP aboard my ship for ASROC’s and the pier was quite crowded when we were taking on missiles, torpedoes, shells, etc. busy, busy, busy 😀

[@OhYeaMista]

Been waiting for the Katie shells in World of Warships. They’d be fun for April fools day.

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

Yesssss!!! I play Blitz, and am thinking that were gonna need bigger maps for that!!!🤣

[@johnknapp952]

There were Nuclear armed ASROC missiles and I believe at least one FF or FFG that I was temporally on with a LAMPS Det had a nuclear armed ASROC as the space that housed reloads had an armed guard. I saw this on only one of the dozen ships I've been on. There may have been nuclear armed Talos SAMs that the USS Long Beach and Chicago and others carried. The Long Beach would go pier side at NAS North Island once in a while, which is one place a ship could take on special weapons.

[@mikestanley9176]

If you don't mind m3e asking which FFG were you on?

[@robertn2]

Always thought that they were carry on submarines. I serve during the cold war from 1977 to 1981. Nuclear Missiles were Top Secret and the area to launch attack was across the Artic Ocean. A couple of times we went on alert, once when protesters came close to Hellberg; they usually carried gasoline bombs and were protesting the presence of nuclear war missiles; we all left our military insulations in Germany and went into the forest. Second time is when Russian tanks got to close to the border. If Nuclear Missiles were a myth, then the protesters seem to be convinced and our tour of duty in Germany was a vacation. Nope they were real.

[@AdamosDad]

We got the same kinds of press while I was on USS Springfield (CLG-7)/(CG-7) The missile house was always guarded by Marines.