King/Nimitz Iowa Conversion

[@untermench3502]

I spent an evening talking with Chester W Nimitz when I was a teenager. After he retired, he took a job with Perkin-Elmer. My father was a long-time employee there and I was a member of their rifle team. Admiral Nimitz was the sponsor of the team, and one evening, he came down to the Norwalk Armory, where we used to practice, to pay us a visit. We spent several hours talking about life, like he was a favorite Uncle. He never tried to impress me with his exploits or tell war stories. It was a one on one. I was very impressed by his demeanor and I think it was what influenced me to join the Navy. He was the kind of person you would follow anywhere, without hesitation.

[@livingadreamlife1428]

Can you elaborate on what he said and did that made you feel that way?

[@untermench3502]

@@livingadreamlife1428 Admiral Nimitz had spent most of the evening listening to what I had do say and answering my questions. As for what he had to say, I don't remember much, but the fact that he was willing to let me speak, says a lot about him. What we had talked about really wasn't that important.

[@SenkanYamato39]

Oh man I would love to have met Nimitz. Without him and his respect and admiration for Admiral Togo Heihachirou, Mikasa would have fallen into disrepair between the end of WWII and the modern day and as I am a enthusiast for the IJN, I do have a healthy admiration for Nimitz for his efforts.

[@danielmalloy6093]

@@untermench3502 Cool. I spent 4 years on USS Nimitz and greatly admired the history of the man. He was the right man in place at the right time serving under Admiral King, who effectively made the right decisions to help us win the war. It's important to note there was another man of german descent in history, that played a very important part in preparing the Continental Soldiers for the spring campaign in valley forge under Gen. Washington. His name was Gen. Von Stueben.

[@untermench3502]

@@SenkanYamato39 I think Nimitz was a realist, not a reactionary. His level-headed approach to future events helped bring us to where we are now.

[@robertfritz9916]

This winter I read a half-dozen histories totaling near 3,000 pages of the Pacific war written by four different authors. Admittedly, these books focused on strategy and operations; also included were biographies of Nimitz, Spruance, and a collective work including the five star admirals in the war. None of these included (to my 73 year old memory) any description of such a brainstorming session. However, King, Nimitz, Spruance, and Halsey did have private dinners with few staff in san Francisco, Nimitz quarters in Hawaii, and at Nimitz's advanced residence at Guam. I would also note that Nimitz especially proffered little that was not well researched or examined by his supporting staff officers. There should be some historical record had that been suggested. In war, many ideas, outlandish or occasionally brilliant, are considered. If as you said the war went on for a few more years, the ide may have been implemented. Electronics were advancing at such a pace that likely they could have accommodate the reduction in mast support. (I was an aerospace engineer, so that's they way I view technical considerations.) Obviously I wa engaged by the video, so it was good.

[@graywayfarer]

The l

[@mengxiangxuan6552]

might be a bit late, but what books did you read?

[@Capri42PRG]

Wow, those Thunderbolt turrets look incredible!

[@josephstevens9888]

That was the granddaddy to the CWIS!

[@geoguy001]

How about a comparison with the Des Moines class crusiers (like Quincy)...they had an automatic main battery. i read that the British were looking into this for the main battery of some of the later Lion class battleship designs

[@jerrydiver1]

Wow, what a provocative episode! Who can see this without a jump-start to the imagination? But I think you're right about what would have happened with the "base" Iowas if the war had been extended by the choice of invasion vice atom bomb. They would have gotten so much more use that their useful lives may have been evaluated as over by the end of the war, or maybe after the Korean war. But I also imagine how they would have fared had they been modified as missile BBs in the 1950s or '60s as a result of the experiments with USS Mississippi (former BB41) in the 1950s. And from there, it's not too hard for me to imagine one or more Iowas as hybrids, with modern weaponry, sensors and comm gear, but retaining at least some of the big guns for the inevitable shore bombardment mission.

[@rodneymccoy8108]

Ryan, check out the model ship building company Alnavco. They have this very model for sale along with the AA version which replaced the 16 inch guns with quad mounted 8 inch auto loading guns from the Des Moines. Both models are beautiful.

[@ThePTBRULES]

The smartest Part of this design is simply the combination of the funnel. Leaving the rear funnel in place would also you to build a bridge-like structure from the funnel to conning tower for more electronics. Although that might negativity affect box launchers.

[@seasirocco3063]

Can’t help but note they look a little like the Yamato class in this configuration. Also, not sure if this is true, but I heard a story about there being a looking into for the Iowa’s being refitted with a HMS Vanguard style bow.

[@ThePTBRULES]

I believe there was a study on this because the Vanguard bow has a few advantage, but a couple draw backs, mainly that the ships would be made slower.

[@demoskunk]

Yes, one of Yamato's design advantages was her shorter superstructure (lengthwise) which also allowed her to have a shorter citadel.

[@NguyenThanh-gs5zv]

@@demoskunk No the length of citadel generally factored by length of machinery and magazine placements, the finalized A-140J7 have AB-X layout despite initially they want 10x18" in AB-XY layout (for balanced firepower) but increases hull length would mean more cost.

[@howardcihak9369]

As for King and Nimitz sketching their redesign on a napkin, did paper napkins even exist at that time? Personally, I would expect that 4 star admirals would always dine at a table set atop white cotton tablecloths with matching cloth napkins.

[@jcwoodman5285]

Well I sense a King-Nimitz Iowa premium BB in World of Warships future🤗

[@jonathanjones3623]

I don't see why they have it already done it I think at this stage War gaming has kind of plateaued they've tried to siphon all the money out of everybody they can and well the population on both the PC on the consoles is dropping there's too many pay walls there's too many barriers the research Bureau takes too long to facilitate I mean quite frankly I have a buddy you know his wife have in the time of his trying to research a single ship he's had two children so go figure

[@mikewalker4330]

Ryan, nice to know you're a gun guy of sorts. I too have a 1911 and consider it one of if not the best hand guns ever built.

[@budguy8829]

I think they should have added the midship 5" mounts with out taking two from the sides for a total of 24 5" guns and made them 54 cal instead of the 38 cal. Also would have replaced the 40mm mounts with the twin 3in mounds and added bulges to the sides. I read where the Kentucky and Illinois might have gotten the bulges and it would have cost 1 1/2 knots. Though it would have been nice to see a fast Montana with the same 24 5"54cal layout and 3in guns along with the bulge. Maybe even installing the 18" 47 cal guns that the navy was testing with the 3850ib super heavy shell instead of the 16in 50cal guns. '

[@francisbusa1074]

I would have liked to seen the Iowa's with 5"/54 autos if possible, and twin 3"/50's.

[@roguecarrick816]

No conning tower, removes a good chunk of weight. Post war Illinois & Kentucky get an extra tier added to the top of their bridge to host a type of cic room for electronics & equipment moved from elsewhere in the ship to make room. Fore and aft turrets give them the same remaining 5 inch broad side with fewer turrets allowing for potentially more of the fives to be replaced with box launchers opening the previously used barbette space for electronics. The big issue remaining antenna space. But I suspect that issue would be solved pretty quickly even if it required some kind of goofy rig branched off the funnel.

[@brucemccall6539]

A twin 5-inch gun-mount installed behind the number '2' 16-inch turret would provide a slight improvement in anti-air capacity; however this would mean that the bridge would have to be built higher, resulting raising the center of gravity.

[@ebergan]

I love the King-Nmitz redesign but would add one further feature. As has been discussed by Ryan in this series and in numerous books on the Iowas, the class's speed bow was so narrow abreast A turret that the torpedo protection system could not be built out to its full width, creating what could have been a relatively weak point in the ship's underwater integrity. Also, the bow, very long though it was, was not quite long enough to avoid a slight knuckle abreast B turret, resulting from a momentarily greater rate of beam narrowing at that point. This created excessive spray formation in heavier seas. Another 30 feet of length, added at the point of the knuckle, would have both solved that problem and resulted in somewhat greater beam abreast A turret, thus allowing the torpedo protection system to be built out to full width. Thus altered, the design's length would have been 890 feet on the waterline (the same as the Montana design) and 917 feet overall. The additional 30 feet would have added about 200 tons of displacement, certainly an acceptable tradeoff, and could have added perhaps a fifth of a knot to the speed curve.

[@Farlomous]

i love talking different ship configurations. I got the idea recently to take an Ohio style cruise missile bank put it in the bow, of a slightly wider in the bow, Iowa design, compress the superstructure and move it aft a little, then put in 2 - 18" gun batteries with 4 gun turrets. and you got not only a good ship for shore bombardment, but a additional 140ish cruise missiles they can launch further inland. Then you take the Midway class carrier design and thin it up a little and put a maximum 50 plane compliment on it and you got a fast attack power projection fleet that can handle hot spots like Iran and Afghanistan while waiting on one of the big boys to get there. This would reduce deployments and allow better maintenance of the fleet. plus, you don't need a damn Ford class carrier that cost $300 trillion and still doesn't work right.

[@ThePTBRULES]

I don't think you realize how large the Barrettes for a quad 18" gun turret, you might get away with 3 guns per turret, but it would not save weight, just some volume.

[@josephstevens9888]

Great video Ryan! It appears that technology simply out-paced the battleship. That is the result of progress. Just think, the naval planners of the early 20th Century - when planning the warships that would fight in WW1 - couldn't have have imagined Iowa-class Battleships or Essex-class Aircraft carriers.

[@bassmith448bassist5]

Here's an idea. Delete turret 3. Replace it with a hanger space below for 4 or 5 Harriers. Then raise the aircraft to the main deck on an elevator up through the centerline to a split flying off ramp on either side of the superstructure. I know I'm not the first to think of this.

[@josephpadula2283]

Not harriers vstol F-35B’s.

[@joechang8696]

I really don’t believe king and Nimitz would have been thinking about ship design. This type of thinking would have been done at lower levels, and then sent up, ending with king and Nimitz. I would think one topic would be the replacement of the oerlikon 20mm and bofors 40mm with 75mm, which at the time, was the smallest that could take a proximity fuse. This would slew faster than the 5in, allowing kamikazes to be destroyed further than the bofors.

[@Laura-wc5xt]

another great video, thank you Sir....

[@demoskunk]

I wanna see a King/Nimitz in WOWS!

[@chrissweeney2563]

Learning from Bismarck’s and Tirpitz demise,the age of air power at sea ruled supreme.Nimitz&King had their fingers on the pulse.

[@turdferguson3803]

The Battle of Taranto preceded both.

[@daniel3188]

I'm curious.... why not exhaust under the water and forgo the funnel alltogether? Seems like it would have some other benefits in terms of spotting too? We know this tech is around in the 50s (those old boat motors used it).

[@TheFlatlander440]

That must have been one huge napkin. Haha.

[@michaelmann9934]

This design look alot like the initial design for South Dakota class with the cruiser style secondary positions.

[@FuzzyMarineVet]

I would be interested in a more modern battleship design based on the hull of an Iowa class with nuclear propulsion and directed energy weapons and rail guns backing up the missiles.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Heres our thoughts on nuclear battleships: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJy5d2Vrh96thZI

[@FuzzyMarineVet]

@@BattleshipNewJersey Thank you!

[@arsarma1808]

Hmm a good day today. New Jersey being announced in Azure Lane, New Jersey Museum makes a video. :)

[@rex1890]

A good day indeed

[@Ridliman]

I wonder about Ryan's opinion about the design.

[@ferma015015]

Museum needs to acquire a Figure of her hahaha

[@MartinCHorowitz]

Saw the title just before I went to sleep, thought it was going to be about a coup attempt by Nimitz for a few seconds :)

[@donwayne1357]

Nimitz was gonna take over the state of Iowa?

[@Paraphen]

King Chester I of Iowa

[@Paraphen]

doesn't exactly ring with grandeur tbh

[@WhiskyCardinalWes]

With the King/Nimitz conversion to find space for their new weapons control, do what the Navy did in the 1980's. The admirals quarters and associated areas are deleted and given over to the new weapon systems control.

[@switzerland7518]

Thank god we got the Iowa I love today

[@switzerland7518]

Welp

[@dragoneye0979]

I know this is a bit of a stretch but I really need Ryan to see and comment on Azur Lane's model of New Jersey

[@gergoszabo7168]

yeah i hope the musem gonna start boycotting AL

[@imboredoffmyass69]

No

[@CorsairCombat13]

@@gergoszabo7168 no

[@SenkanYamato39]

This is coming from someone who also enjoys Azur Lane but this channel is primarily about the history. So yes I do agree that your request will definitely be a stretch. In my opinion, before they jump straight to commenting on New Jersey's design in Azur Lane... Honestly they can make a video about the impact of games that feature naval history and what the museum thinks of their impact, good or bad. Cause hoenstly I do feel that sometimes game related fandom ruins the image others have of that particular franchise which leads to responses that outright rejects new and genuine history enthusiasts that became interested through such mediums.

[@ghostarmy1106]

@@gergoszabo7168 uhm... manjuu celebrated their english servers 1st anversary onboard one of the Iowas. Like for Real, with stickers of shipgirls on the ship, cosplayers etc.

[@austinhughes6852]

That actually sounds pretty cool.Hey Ryan, can you do a video based.Just on just the different concepts.Based on the Iowa’s? I once heard there was a carrier version.Where you would remove the rear 16in turrets.And then add a “ski jump ramp”.To allow the use of Harrier jets.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Check this out kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYCpap-HrN-BnLc

[@notme123123]

It’s 1930-something, you’re the USN Ship Ordering Guy. Just before you commit the order for 6 Iowas, you find out about the secret IJN Yamato and Musashi. You also suspect Carriers can play a bigger role. Do you: A. Order the Iowas. They’re perfect! B. Change the order to an equal tonnage or Montanas C. Rush an 18 inch Montana D. Order an equivalent tonnage of Essex carriers and go to war with the BBs we already have

[@BlindMansRevenge2002]

Dust off the plans for the 18 inch gunned tillman battlship

[@ThePTBRULES]

The Navy would definitely not done A, D is also unlikely. Those answers make sense in hindsight. If they knew about the size of Yamato's batteries, C, otherwise B.

[@stevewindisch7400]

Keep the first 4 Iowa's the same (there isn't time to change them much), and add 2" to the main armor belt and 1" to the deck for the next two to be built. It might make them 2-3 knots slower, but would be a decent trade off. I think they would stay with 16" since the super-heavy shells had such good stats. I don't think pre-knowledge of Yamato's would change Montana's fate, they just were not going to happen in the age of growing air power. As for more Essex, they already had tons of them on the way! And probably every big-enough ship yard was already in use anyway.

[@ConfusedAdmiral]

A

[@TheSteelArmadillo]

Ryan, it’s been eating me. How were the Iowas able to support the electrical needs of all the new electronics, especially in their final commission? Were they originally constructed with a large power surplus, or were they upgraded/augmented later?

[@WardenWolf]

Remember that they were originally designed for World War II analog electronics, which were substantially less power-efficient than the digital equipment they had later on. The actual power consumption of the radar arrays and such may have actually decreased, which would have left plenty of overhead for other things. Also, the removal of two 5-inch gun turrets would have also freed up a substantial power reserve; the armored box launchers which essentially replaced them were far less bulky and would have consumed far less power to train and target.

[@ghost307]

@@WardenWolf Agreed. Many times when someone asks me about getting additional electrical power for new equipment I tell them that the cheapest way to get more power is to reduce usage elsewhere...like replacing the old incandescent lamps with something more efficient and installing newer more efficient electric motors.

[@jetdriver]

Bear in mind too that the amount of new generation electronics wasn’t that great. Their CIC’s were relatively minimal and their was compensation in the removal of some 5” mounts plus the fact that all the WW2 generation 40mm mounts were gone too all of which were power driven.

[@TheSteelArmadillo]

I can see how the subtraction of the 5” and 40mm would free up significant capacity and there is no doubt that some equipment became much more efficient over 40 years. But what’s really on my mind is the heat. Not only were meat computers replaced with digital ones, but the number of systems requiring computers rose significantly. Chilled water (I assume) AHUs were added to protect this new equipment as well as provide comfort cooling to (as I understand) large portions of the ship. First you consume a watt of electricity in a computer, then you will consume no less than 1 watt to remove that heat from the ship, assuming beautiful efficiency. I don’t have all the information needed to perform a heat load calc, but my gut tells me that’s a lot of heat to remove.

[@ghost307]

@@TheSteelArmadillo You only need to deal with the delta in heat generation. You're adding the heat rejection from the equipment but you're losing the heat generated by the humans who are not longer in the room.

[@stevecarswell6329]

Could you do a video on the kamikaze strike on BB-63 Missouri? Or maybe just a more broad video on how the Iowa Class dealt with kamikaze attacks vs other battleships or carriers. Thanks for the great content!

[@BlindMansRevenge2002]

Two words, terminal velocity! A Japanese Val dive bomber with a well trained dive bomber pilot who is skilled enough to land the 550 pound bombs that those things typically brought into the fight is going to do a lot more damage to a battlship by getting that bomb released precisely where it needs to go in order to strike the ship. Upon release with the speed that that plane built up during the dive along with gravity and other types of physics that I don’t really understand that 550 pound bomb is going to reach the terminal velocity it needs in order to punch through the armor decks of battleships. Now, when compared to a kamikaze pilot who is most likely a fresh recruit with less than 50 hours of flight experience and it was brainwashed into thinking that slamming his plane along with himself into a shit was going to be a good idea is not going to be able to reach the same terminal velocity that it takes in order to penetrate deck armor. This is why battleships were more able to shrug off kamikaze hits when compared to their lightly armored destroyer baby brothers.

[@mikeowen9268]

Do you think that they would have changed the armor scheme? By the end of the war I think that a battleship v. battleship fights were understood to be a thing of the past. The main threat to the capital ships were aircraft and submarines. Would that have allowed them to considerably lessen the armor designed to protect from damage from other ships? This would have made the a lot lighter, faster and fuel efficient. And allowed more weight of offensive and defensive weapons, correct?

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

Thats what I was thinking!! Reduce the belt armor, and use the saved weight to bolster the torpedo/mine/deck protection and add more AA... Going to the extreme, you could give it cruiser armor and have a 36 knot BB...🤣

[@MrDDiRusso]

Why are all the best designs written on napkins?

[@jwenting]

because design committees don't use napkins, engineers do.

[@olivermacke838]

"more gunz was important" That sums up my knowledge about the US.

[@IvorMektin1701]

😆

[@donwayne1357]

I have a Master's degree in military history. I did a little project and researched European history from AD 500 to AD 1945. I could not find a five year stretch of that time in Europe where there wasn't at least one, and many times there were three or more, major wars going on. Europe is one large battlefield and cemetery. Not ones to preach. The only thing that keeps Europe peaceful now is that there are a lot of American 'gunz' there.

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@donwayne1357 Not really. Many factors play in; the relative weakness of European nationstates compared to the US and even Russia militarily, guilt over the horror of WW2 and the Holocaust, membership of the EU making war a really bad idea, membership of NATO, general political ideology here being pacifist. You are right though; that our history is the bloodiest of any region of the world. You could argue that what allowed us to conquer the world was the effect of all this war; all weak European states were gone, those that were left were efficient and brutal. Even science was driven forwards by the intense competetion between European states for dominance and survival.

[@AuchInAgil]

@@donwayne1357 can you please explain how exactly "american guns" keep the peace over here?

[@donwayne1357]

@@AuchInAgil American guns arrived on the continent in 1945 and have been there ever since. Where they are they're hasn't been a war. If we had left in '46 like we did in in '19 European would have undoubtedly gone back to killing each other.

[@macrossMX]

Why does the converted Iowa look like a supersized Alaska, which in itself looks like a supersized Baltimore, which in itself looks like a supersized Cleveland?

[@1701Larry]

OK ------- The forward Gun director could have been moved forward over the bridge with a tall tripod mask installed in its place forward of the armored tower doubling the electronics and radar mounting area you are talking about. Fact is, the armored tower could have been deleted giving even more space and weight for mounting electronics even higher and increasing their range.

[@Bob_Betker]

Ryan, all ships designs are a series of compromises. A ship designer is trying to select the best mix of features that provides the optimum performance for the missions and roles the ship is intended to face. Personally, I think the original design is the better one in the long run. As you said, the Navy was already having difficulty finding spaces for the various electronics that were being developed. You need the various electronics to detect and observe oncoming targets and the King/Nimitz design was going to limit the amount of radar and other electronics that could be carried. Restricting that ability in the long run with the King/Nimitz design for better arcs of fire just doesn't seem like a good trade-off for me. As you mentioned, while kamikazes were a threat, the actual strikes didn't inflict severe damage on battleships; the ships could handle the impact and continue operations. So optimizing your design to provide better anti-aircraft fire against a threat that is not likely to incapacitate the battleship just doesn't seem to make much sense.

[@chexquest87]

What are the other videos in this series? Great video!!

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Check out our comparisons playlist

[@seanmac1793]

I would also flare the bow to take less water the ability to fire at zero degrees directly in front isn't needed

[@jamesyoung1320]

I think we might be looking at it backwards; the South Dakota class ended up looking like they did because of the treaty restrictions. If there was no treaty in force, they may have looked much closer to the Iowas. In any case, the mods proposed by King and Nimitz would have never been carried out because that money would' ve been needed to fight the ground war in Japan.

[@thomaskiger6960]

My Grandfather was on the Missouri when the comicozzie hit. He had pieces of the canopy with blood on them. It was donated to the museum after his death. He also had pictures of the men prying the gun from the place out of the 5 inch cannon it got stuck in when it hit.

[@richardjstuart3978]

Would it have been possible to replace some of the side 5" turrets with terrier missile launchers or later vertical launch systems? I've never seen proposal for mounting anti aircraft missiles off the center line. Wondering if that would be possible.

[@Tuning3434]

might be a bit tight though, those 5 inch turrets are mostly deck mounted., not really a barbette below it. I know of atleast one cruiser that replaced double 6" turrets to a single terrier (well actually, 2 arms) launcher (the Dutch C802), and I suspect quite a lot of the single ended missile cruiser conversions done by the US have a similar configuration. VLS would help a lot, you can convert a 'gym' into a VLS system if needed.

[@mattheww2797]

Does the plan fix the boat handling midships? That seems to have been an issue throughout the Iowa’s careers

[@petersouthernboy6327]

I would have thought they would have festooned the ship with 3" / 70 Mark 26 guns.

[@Bob_Betker]

It wasn't available until after the war. The 3"/50 Mk 22 was being developed to replace 40mm Bofors but this too wasn't ready before the end of the war.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

@@Bob_Betker - these modifications were 1946 timeframe regardless

[@ProperLogicalDebate]

That far up, would the only reasonable armor might be the deck and up to the waist to stop shrapnel from below. IMHO it would be an unlucky shot to hit that small target.

[@jonathanjones3623]

Excellent video Ryan and as always I have to say I'm inclined to agree with you 100% keeping everything else the same with the extension of World War II main the only variance it would appear that I agree with you on the subject I don't think they would have taken the four completed Iowa class fast battleships out of service unless they were severely damaged or laid up for repairs from combat there wouldn't be an adequate reason to lay them up in the yard for such extended periods just to revise the superstructure so Illinois and Kentucky would have been ideal candidates for this sort of modification. Though there were no plans set down to do it while Admiral King and Admiral Nimitz may have wanted to do that unless they could have summoned The Willpower to implement this change in an official document I don't think we should give it too much credibility there would have been good reasons with World War II technology being the way it was to focus them on AA specialization. But as Ryan No Doubt pointed out technology flies right past it immediately conclusion of the second world war so had they actually condense the superstructures like they plan to it would have limited the Iowa was flexibility with later Electronics could you imagine them being brought back into service during the '80s and they would have had to extend the superstructures again to accommodate it sometimes things are best left the way they are

[@rdbjrseattle]

How high above the waterline in feet is the 11 deck from ships plans. How far out is the horizon from this space?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

About 100ft above the waterline

[@Chainsaw-ASMR]

Ryan has something in his hair. It looks alive but he doesn't seems to notice 😆😆😆

[@CSSVirginia]

The odd thing is that design ends up with a almost Yamato style medium caliber turret superfireing over the 2nd main battery turret.

[@notme123123]

Except the Yamato’s 6 inch battery was useless in AA.

[@CSSVirginia]

@@notme123123 Very true.

[@pedro1066]

Thanks for the vid. very interesting. I don't really buy the arguments about the masts though. I don't really see why they couldn't be cantilevered. even sticking right out over the turrets if need be. I dont really see that as a major problem for development. Personally, I think that if big gun warships had continued, I think they would have explored double decker turrets far more than they did. Mounting a 5" turret directly on a 16" turret. But I'm a bit thick and I'm probably talking rubbish :-)

[@randallgschwind3799]

The Only Way to ever build a battleship is to have conduit spaces for these upgrades with the automation always perceived with a time line!!@ Shore Bombardment, Ship vs Ship Missile Offense/Defense, 12 close in Anti Aircraft /Anti Ship/Anti Torpedo gun systems///Submarine Torpedo platform plus Sonar and radar sytems in a Montana design except elevated turrets housing Missile Containers!!! Plus, Diesel Engines supply Energy to Electric Generators for Horsepower/ Electrical/ Radar Jamming/ LASER munitions!!! Rail Gun Future!!!!

[@jessicawells5145]

Do you think if the Korean war would have turned hotter with Russia getting directly involved, would it been possible that the South Dakota classes would have been reactivated??

[@robertf3479]

I guess that might be possible, but I think it more likely that the carriers and air wings in reserve would have been reactivated along with cruisers, destroyers and submarines. While WWII piston aircraft would have big problems against shore based jets, away from the coast they would quickly overwhelm any sea going forces the Soviets could bring in. All the 'fun and games' might have been over by the time the SoDaks and NCs rejoined the fleet.

[@Farlomous]

oh yea, if the ground forces could keep the Soviets bottle up in Europe long enough with out getting over run, then by the end of year One the Navy (at that time) probably has the Soviet Navy wiped out if not earlier and from then on it's just one big blockade and bleeding them dry over a 10 year time frame. kind of like they should have done with China before the Reds took complete control.

[@livingadreamlife1428]

Battleships were mostly obsolete by the time WW2 began, much less than when the war concluded. Air power at the beginning of the war ensured their demise. Due to advancement of missle tech, Carriers, Missle Cruisers, Jets and Submarines ruled post WW2.

[@fred6319]

@@Farlomous blockade from what ??

[@cmreel]

Russia was directly involved. It was just not openly admitted that Russian pilots flew some of the mig-15s

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

I think fixes some issues while creating new ones. Reducing growth potential

[@redenginner]

I do honestly like this design. Feels a little more elegant then the as built versions. I feel these would have been more likely stayed in service throughout the cold war since the design has more space for missile launchers.

[@rdbjrseattle]

There’s a facsimile of napkin Space Needle was designed on at the Museum of History and Industry here in Seattle. Might be real thing for all I know.

[@tombriggman2875]

Wa the 3" 50 cal DP gun in dual mounts w/ Mk 56 GFCS ever considered? I believe that was the late war design for AA as it was superior in rate of fire and destructiveness compared to the Bofors 40.

[@Bob_Betker]

The 3"/50 twin mounted was intended to replace the quad 40 mounts. Unfortunately, it only began testing in September 1945. If the war had lasted longer, it might have seen combat service.

[@corporalpunishment1133]

I believe that the 3" 50cal was the smallest gun that could use a proximity fuse at the time. I could be wrong though.

[@testaklese]

Do you think we could construct barrels for guns like the Iowa's 16"s that don't need regular replacing with modern metallurgy?

[@BlindMansRevenge2002]

The short answer is no! Even with modern metallurgy the best that a modern 16 inch 50 caliber gun could hope for is more shots per service lifecycle when compared to the newly off the foundry floor 16 inch 50 caliber long rifles that were produced during World War II. One thing that needs to be taken into account is that every time a shell leaves the barrel it is engaging the rifling and friction is wearing that out combined with the three 110 pound powder bags it takes to move that shell out of said barrel. There is the pressure from the bag ignition the soot that begins to foul the barrel after so many shots along with the heat. All this combine leads to the where in tear that eventually requires a barrel to be removed from the turret and refurbished so they can be reinstalled back into the turret

[@IvorMektin1701]

Interesting. Like a 4150 steel barrel, chrome lined, cryogenically treated?

[@ghost307]

@@IvorMektin1701 Possibly, but some of the chrome lining would be worn away with each firing so it would still have a limited life before needing to be replaced or serviced.

[@IvorMektin1701]

@@ghost307 Right. I wasn't implying a permanent barrel.

[@ghost307]

@@IvorMektin1701 Sorry. My misunderstanding.

[@jwenting]

had operation Downfall been executed, the US would have ended up fighting the USSR over the scraps of Japan and Europe, and probably the Middle East as well. So they'd likely have needed more battleships in the capacity of mobile batteries for shore bombardment more than anything.

[@brucemccall6539]

The USN had more then enough old battleships for for amphibious-bombardment missions. Also, most of our old battleships had been modernized during the war so as to give them much better anti-air capacity. As for the Soviet surface fleet, most of our battleships could have easily out gunned them. Even the Arkansas and Texas could have at least fought them on equal terms.

[@georgeking6356]

Makes a sleeker more good looking Iowa.

[@rdbjrseattle]

How high above the waterline was the deck of the highest space sheltered from the elements, the highest dry space even if not armored. The highest space with bunks?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

The 011 level, 11 decks up from the main deck, is an interior enclosed space. Highest bed is probably the captain's on the 08.

[@thomasmoore8142]

I'm not impressed with the King/Nimitz conversion and I think it went the wrong direction even back then. I think they were using far too small caliber guns for antiaircraft defense which is what the conversion is supposed to help and the men were getting far less hits than needed. But what they should have done is beef up the destroyers with 3 &5" guns with radar control to take out airborne bogies. if we were to have battleships in this day, a great start would be to use the Montana hull and take turret 3 and make that a 4 piece rail gun, take out all the 5" 40 cal's. and put a super firing 5" 73 Cal gun above turret 2, and 2 each side of the superstructure at deck level, and small rail guns up higher to fire down and out, the missiles could be the mix still. I'm a big caliber guy and none of those 5" 40 cal guns should be on any ship unless it is a museum.

[@rdbjrseattle]

Do fire control manuals cover Earth’s Curvature has far as visual observations go?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Earths curvature as well as the movement of the earth while the projectile is airborne is all part of the calculation

[@EdAtoZ]

BNJ, problem that I see is by mid 1945 we know jets can do 550 MPH flat and level and their are guided anti-ship bombs (like the USA's BAT radar guided glide bombs. that was used twice against the IJN just before the war ends). Missiles have not, proven selves yet. So I would be thinking of guns with more reach. Like maybe the 5 inch 45 cal or maybe a 5 inch cartridge with 10 to 15% more powder charge.

[@pauldietrich6790]

Interesting here to note is that with the advent of the proximity fuzes kills to attacking aircraft were dramatically higher...

[@Bob_Betker]

They were heading that way with the 5"/54 that were going to be mounted on the Montanas and were mounted on the Midway class carriers. The problem was that the round was just too heavy to manhandle easily and it tired out the gun crews. Luckily for the USN, the 5"/38 and its associated round were the perfect mix of weight and lethality.

[@georgedoolittle7574]

Nimitz was a bubble head so not sure what ideas he would have. Admiral King was game over once the Atomic Bomb and Atomic Bombers became realized. The US Navy played purely a supporting role for the entirety of the Cold War...which did matter in a big way after the crushing US military defeat in Vietnam. But in the end the tip of the spear still remained the US Army and United States Air Force in order to defend against any Warsaw Pact invasion of Europe. Everything else was just some nutty Washington DC thing.

[@benjaminrush4443]

Drop One 16 Inch Gun Turret to Two - One Fore and One Aft. Single Stack like the South Dakota Class. Increase Speed and Anti-aircraft Fire. Reconfigure Five Inch Guns. Scrap New and keep what works. Thanks.

[@1701Larry]

OK ---------- My question is. why didn't they simply turn the half-built battleship hulls into armored flight deck Carriers? Giving America a couple of Carreirs that could not be knocked out with the first Komacozy hit. If the war had continued, at the rate that they were losing carriers to Komacozies, within a year they would have been trying to invade Japan without any carriers as they all would have been back in the states with half of them waiting for dockyards to even start repairs.

[@airplanes42]

King and Nimitz could probably scarcely conceive of high speed jets and missiles, against which guns were of limited utility. They were showing their age on this one. This is what should have neen done in the late 30s.

[@xbubblehead]

Is King wearing his grays in the beginning?

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

Ok...who's got that napkin???

[@loonowolf2160]

2 years later WOWS release a test ship a super version of the Iowa, or super version of montana, 16 x 16 guns quadrouble turrents guns

[@redrb26dett]

Disagree would they have continued the ship build since the war would have moved to land one quick observation would the king design have helped there longevity ie the center line 5inch swapped for missile mounts and deleting less essential elements to install the electronics to support that

[@ProperLogicalDebate]

How does the pyramid style compare to the Japanese pagoda style?

[@ThePTBRULES]

They are very much different in purpose, the Pagoda mast is designed for optical range finders. It also would have much more mass. I love the look, but the Pyramid style is more functional, efficient. Post War, neither would be great.

[@ProperLogicalDebate]

@@ThePTBRULES Thanks for the comparison.

[@demoskunk]

@@ThePTBRULES Seems like the Japanese agreed with you. The Yamato class superstructure is essentially a pyramid style, by the looks and function of it.

[@ThePlebicide]

Wouldn't a 5" mount bow and stern have been under armoured without a redistribution of the main belt?

[@Bob_Betker]

They weren't going to be mounted on the bow and stern. They would have been mounted in superfiring positions over Turrets Two and Three. Ryan's phrasing was a little off there.

[@ThePTBRULES]

Look at USS Salem/De Moine Class, or Yamato, the Gun is placed above the second and third to the inside of those primary mounts, giving those gun 200+degrees arcs.

[@ThePlebicide]

@@Bob_Betker ah right, that makes sense.

[@countofcrisco3738]

Trying to watch on a tablet all I see is a notification saying the video premiered a few hours ago. I can't pause the video. Exit out if the notification, or fast forward. All I can do is exit out. what the ever loving hell KZbin?

[@countofcrisco3738]

Works fine on my phone. Good video as always, but seriously what is wrong with KZbin and why do they think I care that I missed the premier?

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

The King/Nimitz design would not have been built wasn't needed. By that time 90% of the IJN was sitting on the bottom or so damaged it would never get back into service. Not mention carriers were the new queens of the sea with power projection and precision striking forces. King and Nimitz were battleship admirals dragged into carrier age. Even with operation downfall we still had air and sea supremacy without the flt. II New Jersey's or more Alaska's.

[@Angrymuscles]

A very simple solution to fix the issues the Iowa had. A 33 knot Montana.

[@pizzafrenzyman]

If it were my decision, I would drop a forward turret and reduce the guns to 14". With the sinking of the Yamato, ship vs ship warfare was no longer much of a threat. Since the fast BBs were no longer the primary instrument of pre-invasion bombardments, the need for 9x16" guns were nearing obsolescence. The saved tonnage by going to 6x14" would add even more speed and make room for an even more advanced AA suite. Kamikazes, by the thousands a day, would have been the most serious threat to any invasion fleet. An ample AA + CAP defense force would have been needed to shield the logistics fleet supporting the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and marines onshore.

[@ThePTBRULES]

This is simply too much of a change, first it requires hindsight, second, no one wants or like the sound of a downgrade, along with less range. Lastly, the kamikaze threat ended with world war two.

[@pizzafrenzyman]

@@ThePTBRULES I agree with all your points, but we can use hindsight since that is what was asked for in the video.

[@burroaks7]

interesting

[@HeritageRoad99]

Hello y'all

[@genericscottishchannel1603]

5:50 cameraman gonna die

[@miroslavtordaji1675]

sketch on the back of a napkin?........say no more-that is all the documents WG needs to make it happen....send it to them and within 3 weeks it will be added to WoWs as a premium tier 9 ship

[@jmrico1979]

Ryan wearing a shirt? what's going on here????

[@UnicornGamingRX03]

USS New Jersey confirmed in Azur Lane

[@aph4210]

I hear the wallets of countless weebs emptying as the poor out money for a UR.

[@UnicornGamingRX03]

@@aph4210 definitely, I hope the AL New Jersey serves as a mascot for the USS New Jersey museum.

[@t1e6x12]

No, don't tarnish the reputation of the New Jersey with that garbage.

[@UnicornGamingRX03]

@@t1e6x12 AL did a live meeting place on an actual Iowa class BB before.

[@UnicornGamingRX03]

@@t1e6x12 unlike Kantai collection which is Japanese based with a heavy IJN roster. Azur Lane is playable on mobile everywhere unlike KC which is JP IP based so foreign players are unable to play except a proxy. KC is more of a rng slideshow while AL is bullet hell style of gameplay.

[@ScipioAfricanusI]

If.King.had.a.hand.in.designing.this,the.the.ship.would.have.been.optimized.not.to.fight.airplane.threats,but.British.threats.

[@merlinwizard1000]

4th

[@tims2501]

You spent over 5 minutes rambling and repeating yourself. Get to it. Smokestacks? We refer to those as funnels. Stuff? I wish they would have hired a retired sailor as curator?