Montana Battleship vs Iowa Battleship vs Destroyer Squadron | Sea Power

[@Mrdjs1133]

Naval historian here: So, the USN battleships had a forward and after primary firecontrol director and separate fire controls for each. So, theoretically, yes, each cluster of turrets (in Montana's case, two turrets forward, and two turrets after) can fire at separate targets with pretty much full accuracy. Now, each turret also has a local rangefinder and fire control. However, under local control, the individual turrets won't have the full use of either of the two primary fire control computers. So, they'd be fairly inaccurate if you were trying to use a single turret on a single target. Not to mention, as you said, accuracy is largely about chance, luck, and statistics. If you have more shells servicing a single target, you're more likely to hit that target.

[@lightspeedvictory]

There’s also the fact that the local rangefinders could on,y see out to about 12 or so miles and that turret one had to rely on turret two for them

[@atigerclaw]

You also need to account for tracking the salvos and detecting the splashes, either by radar or by optics. So the more guns you put on one target, the faster your corrections come in.

[@mitchelldann8426]

@Drachinifel has a lot of good videos on these kinds of subjects

[@benjaminarnold2881]

@@mitchelldann8426 he literally just posted a vid on this today!

[@GutkowskiMarek]

Day time Destroyer attacks on a combat ready battleship is how you get a Victoria Cross. Posthumously sadly.

[@FineApe]

Pageing HMS Glowworm. Pageing USS Johnston.

[@SilverSherry]

I AM A POLE 🇬🇧🇵🇱🇬🇧🇵🇱🇬🇧🇵🇱🇬🇧🇵🇱

[@Clemdauphin]

@@FineApe glowworm, the one that rammed the Amiral Hipper?

[@daniellee5192]

Some simple zig-zags would avoid the big guns.

[@TRS-Tech]

100000% exactly what I was shouting at the screen 🤣

[@jamesyoungquist6923]

Ditto

[@freakngroovn]

GR may have noticed but I didn't hear him comment, but after a DD was killed and slowed the BB's shells continued to fall ahead of the dead DD so they do take into account course and speed when they send the shells. They have to, right? Zig zagging would put the DDs someplace other than where the BB predicted them to be when the shells were sent.

[@TRS-Tech]

@@freakngroovn yup... just like shooting conventional shells or bullets at aircraft, you have to Lead the target 👍

[@HAL_9001]

Seprentine, Babou!!

[@davidmoore1253]

One advantage of open bridges on warships was that it made it easier to observe and dodge attacking aircraft. The captain could see for himself what was coming and order manoeuvres immediately. It also saved a bit of weight, which was always important for destroyers. In fact the main reason enclosed bridges became standard even for small post-WW2 warships was for protection against nuclear fallout. If you want youtubers to talk to about ships, I recommend Drachinifel for WW2 and Sub Brief for Modern and Cold War ships.

[@Spendingryan]

I know the ww2 fletcher class destroyer of United States Navy didn't have an open bridge. It had an enclosed bridge. Is the open bridge design a Royal Navy thing?

[@lightspeedvictory]

Yes, all four Iowa class battleships still exist and are unique in that they are the only class of ship preserved in their entirety as museums (not counting single ship classes). In the order that they were built in and where they’re currently located today (again, as museums): Iowa-Port of San Pedro, Los Angeles, California New Jersey-Camden , New Jersey Missouri-Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Wisconsin-Norfolk, Virginia (and where I work as a tour guide) As for the Montana, the speed is incorrect as they would’ve had a top speed of 28 knots, not 30 (and hence, why the class was considered a “slow battleship”). The increase in tonnage was because of her increased length and beam to add an additional 16 inch turret, not just because of the thicker armor. But even then, the Yamato would’ve still “out displaced” her with a tonnage of 72,000 tons vs. the Montana’s 68,000. Additionally, the Montana’s would’ve sported twin 5”54 caliber guns for the secondary battery vs. the Iowa’s twin 5”38’s. The 5”54’s had longer reach, both in terms of how high they could shoot down aircraft as well as how far away they could hit surface targets. This in addition to heavier shells and a faster fire rate. You are correct in assuming that after antenna is one of the two gun directors for the 16 inch guns. You are semi-correct when it comes to engagement ranges, yes, you want to be within what’s the called the immune zone where incoming projectiles would have the least amount of impact on your ship (and in some cases, do absolutely nothing, hence the name) but guns have both a maximum range and, more importantly, a max effective range. Yes your gun can theoretically hit targets out to its max range, but will it be able to hit things consistently with accuracy at that range? Will it be able to deal consistent damage? That’s why it’s standard practice, especially with vehicle mounted guns (ground vehicles, ships, aircraft, etc.) to wait until the target is well within effective range before opening up. For the Iowa class, this was usually somewhere round 20 miles, despite being able to accurately hit targets out to 26. This also ensures that even if the target starts to retreat, they still have a bit of a ways to go while under fire. As for why the Montana came out on top, it’s purely due to the armor. Rule of thumb for building warships back in the day was to armor your ship against your own weapons. So in theory, for the Iowa and Montana, that meant they could withstand hits from 16 inch guns. But with a caveat. Global standard weight for 16 inch shells was around 2000 lbs. But during the 1930’s, due to the Washington and London Naval Treaties, the size of guns mounted on warships was limited, in the case of battleships to 16 inches. However, the U.S. Navy got around this by increasing the weight of their shells, creating a series of so-called “super heavy” shells that dramatically increased the performance of their guns’ armor piercing capability. For 16 inches guns, the super heavy shells weighed in at 2700 lbs., causing them to have the armor piercing characteristics of 18 inch shells (the Colorado class was an exception to this which I won’t get into due to the length of this post already). But the Iowa class was already under construction when the super heavies began development and therefore were on,y armored against the old shells. The Montana class began development after the super heavies entered service, so they were armored against them. Hence why the Iowa got decimated and the Montana didn’t. Am not surprised at how quickly the Montana took out those destroyers. As I’ve said in previous videos, the Mark 7 naval rifle utilized by the Iowa and the. On Tana was the most accurate battleship gun ever deployed operationally, with the USS Wisconsin engaging four boghammers during the First Persian Gulf War, firing 12 high explosive shells, sinking 3 of them and forcing the fourth to retreat. And that was just with the forward two turrets. During the Korean War, she managed to bullseye a cave, sending two high explosive shells through the cave opening to explode on an inside wall. As for engaging multiple targets, theoretically yes, you could engage multiple targets with multiple guns, but that was typically done against land targets. Against a ship underway at sea, at most I would suspect it would be two turrets per target. The Iowa, and by extension the Montana, was the only battleship able to engage targets on both sides of her with the main battery at the same time

[@blademaster2390]

Ya know…a lot of people say that one of the reasons battleships are no longer used is because of how inaccurate a big gun is long ranges when compared to an aircraft with a bomb. If those examples you listed of Iowas being incredibly accurate shots are legit, then that entire argument is moot. I mean…shooting HE shells into a cave opening requires an insane level of accuracy, and a missile or even a guided bomb would have difficulty entering a cave opening.

[@lightspeedvictory]

@ as I said, the Mark 7 was the most accurate, so it’s on the extreme end of the spectrum so to speak. Don’t take this for the average. And modern smart munitions are as accurate, if not more so than the Mark 7. There’s video of F-117 Nighthawks landing bullseyes on ventilation shafts with laser guided bombs during Desert Storm

[@Doodelz02]

Thanks for that!

[@fergusmason5426]

@@lightspeedvictory "modern smart munitions are as accurate, if not more so than the Mark 7" There's no comparison at all. At 30,000 yards - 15 miles - the Mk 7 had a 2.7% chance of hitting a broadside battleship-sized target. At 80 miles a Harpoon has around a 90% chance of hitting.

[@Roytulin]

I love the Sea Power videos! A few things to add: The Montana likely inherited the Iowa's guns, which were modelled in their states well after WWII, possibly with fire control upgrades. The destroyers are not changing course to evade the battleship's fire, which is understandable since the game's AI is programmed for the missile age, and ships cannot really dodge missiles. But it does skew the results in the battleship's favour here, as well as in previous similar scenarios. The reason WWII-era Royal Navy destroyers had open bridges was because the captains preferred the visibility and situational awareness it offered.

[@Aminuts2009]

USS Johnston (DD-557) Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) Task Force Taffy - 3 charge at the Battle of Samar Straight.

[@scottdelorenzi3513]

This battle should MOST DEFINITELY be sim'd...do it!!!!

[@markredacted8547]

2000 ton DD see's IJN fleet of 4 BB's, 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers and 11 destroyers and goes "F*** it, lets fight". by doing so they saved the escort carriers mostly (2 went down out of 6). Insanely brave what all those DD's and DE's of Taffy 3 did as well as the airman and crew on the escort carriers.

[@skippyDvd88]

You should see the video about Willis 'Ching' Lee he was an olympic sniper that turned battleship commander during ww2 and is probably 1 of the reasons the guns where so incredibly accurate!! The video is done by 'The Fat Electricien'!!!! 😎

[@TheAtomicSpoon]

"I'm coming through. This is Ching Lee."

[@Token_Civilian]

DD's would be zig zagging to throw off the aim during their charge. You can see this (in game) when a ship is hit and slows and the next salvo lands in front of the ship. Same thing with a (let's say) 30 degree change in course - the BB aims where the ship will be if it holds course and speed. See Battle off Samar and the Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors for a real world example of DD's getting in close without taking hits. Also see the USS Edsall - the IJN fired well over 1,000 shells at her with few to no hits.

[@Spendingryan]

I think I watched a video about the USS Edsall, the channel "The Operations Room" had a cool animated battle map about the incident, it was pretty much a suicide run right? It was incredible.

[@robertlight2370]

The destroyers would zig zag, and would also fire their 4.5" guns.

[@NFS_Challenger54]

The Montana-class would've been slightly different in design compared to the Iowa-class. A shorter but wider bow, after learning from the Iowa's longer and skinnier bow caused vibrations at higher speeds while also not having sufficient armor protection in the main armor belt around turret 1. In order to incorporate the fourth turret, the stern of the Montana-class was slightly longer than the Iowa. I believe that was to balance out the ship overall in terms of weight distribution. Another key difference between both the Iowas and the Montanas is their main armor arrangement and torpedo defense system. The Iowas have an internal armor belt which also acts as the ships torpedo defense. This was done on the preceding class of the Iowa-class, the South Dakota-class, in order to save weight while also traversing the Panama Canal. The Montana's armor arrangement was a more conventional design. An external armor belt, but heavily reinforced, along with torpedo blisters below the waterline, much like the old Standard-type battleships the US Navy had. The Montana-class would've been the only modern class of American battleship unable to traverse the Panama Canal. However, there were talks on widening sections of the canal for the ships to move freely through. The design the US Navy went with was a battleship on a displacement of 70000 tons at full load, 921 feet long overall, 121 feet wide, twelve 16-inch/50cal Mark 7 guns arranged in a 3x4 configuration along with twenty 5-inch/54cal Mark 16 dual-purpose secondaries (a more powerful secondary mount compared to the famous 5-inch/38cal Mark 12 gun) arranged in a 2x10 configuration, and all on a speed of 28 knots. Now in terms of the Iowas still being around. Yes. All 4 (Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin) are still around. However, the class was actually supposed to have 6 ships. 2 vessels, originally to be the first of the Montana-class, were move over to the Iowa-class, and became USS Illinois and USS Kentucky respectively. I think the reason why the ships were moved from the Montana-class to the Iowa-class is because the Navy was still trying to finalize the overall design of the ships. Unfortunately, while both Illinois and Kentucky were partly finished, they were ultimately scraped. But not before USS Wisconsin accidentally collided with the Fletcher-class destroyer, USS Eaton, back in May of 1956. They cut off Kentucky's bow from the rest of her hulk and replaced the damaged bow of Wisconsin for that. So, part of the USS Kentucky will forever live on as part of the USS Wisconsin's bow. They even gave the Wisconsin the nickname "Big Wisky". To me, battleships stir the imagination. A doctrine that's long been obsolete in the presence of the aircraft carrier. They're also a hobby of mine. Reading up on their rich history, buying models, etc. The Iowa-class are my favorite and most studied class of battleship. And they are arguably the most powerful battleships ever put to sea. Though, it would've been something to see the Montana-class in physical form. But we can only dream.

[@rorynesta7766]

thank you for sharing your knowledge.

[@warbuzzard7167]

Why aren’t the destroyers zig-zagging again? Who would run head on into a rainfall of massive shells without trying to dodge them?

[@epileptix8954]

That is not that easy to do in the game from what I understand. I think he would have to manually draw in a path for them. To have the pathing dramatic enough to do anything, it would be a lot of micromanagement or pre-scenario path drawing.

[@FleetDefenderRA5]

@@epileptix8954 Thank you for saying so! I was wondering about the ability of the game to do that.

[@davidn381]

Yeah plenty of not realistic things she almost always hits first shot in this.... Dam fun to watch though

[@redbirdsrising]

Not just zig zag but smoke screens too.

[@drrocketman7794]

Correct. Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin are still afloat. They're all museums. I'm a subscriber to USS Iowa, and Ryan Szymanski on Battleship New Jersey. That one I've seen in person, although at a distance. She's magnificent.

[@HAL_9001]

The little mini-turret on the Montana is a fire director for the 16" guns. There's another one forward of the 2 spinning radars up high on the superstructure as well. They used sterioscopic ranging as well as radar; hence why they have big "ears" sticking out. If you look at the destroyers there's a similar fire director just behind and above the bridge. It's another mini-turret with a little radar dish on top. Cheers!

[@drrocketman7794]

If USS Iowa fired its main guns into Los Angeles metropolitan area, the shells could reach San Bernardino and would land approximately 86 seconds later. They would leave a 300 foot crater each.

[@Budthewise]

I honestly enjoyed watching the ship-on-ship combat. It was a nice change of pace and you did it quite well.

[@fabiomarangon2748]

The Montana class was actually supposed to have different secondary guns than the Iowa. Still 5" caliber, but with a much longer barrel (54 calibers compared to Iowa's 38 calibers). So not only is Iowa three main guns down, but when the range closes, Montana's secondary guns would open up earlier, while Iowa's own secondaries would still be unable to return fire.

[@mattybob12310]

Cap, as a long time Naval buff, I'm so giddy that you're crossing in to my world and learning about all these famous Naval engagements! Great to see the Mighty Mo in Sea Power, I've spent many an hour with her in World of Warships back in the day! One of my favourites! Also, yes, that is the Rangefinder, it's like a 20ft pair of binoculars so you get a huge depth of field. If you haven't seen it yet Cap, I'd highly recommend watching the Tom Hanks movie Greyhound, about a US Destroyer running the gauntlet of a U-Boat infested North Atlantic protecting a convoy on it's way to Britain.

[@Jagdtyger2A]

You do know that even when charging, a destroyer does NOT follow a straight line attack. They employ a zig zag pattern to throw off the enemy's firing solutions

[@jess2690]

The Montana is so glouriously insane and I'm here for it

[@jovianr9498]

Great video Cap, looking forward to the next one :)

[@APV878]

awesome seeing the 5 in and 16 in opening up at the same time. Horrifying but yet awesome.

[@Strykenine]

I would think that each fire control tower would be able to track a different target. I could be wrong about that, but there are at least a forward and aft fire director you can see on Montana, so it tracks that she should at least be able to target two ships at once with her main armaments'. Great video Cap.

[@filipearthur5379]

The main firecontroll for the 16 inch will only select a single target. If it fails, there are backups inside each turret, that yes can work independently but have nowhere near the same accuracy.

[@mitchelldann8426]

It also bugs me that they don't have the original model of the Iowa with the two extra 5" turrets per side where the Tomahawk launchers were installed, but it wouldn't make much sense for Sea Power 😅

[@Spendingryan]

Yeah, hopefully we can get better modding support because I think the base Iowa model in the game is the modernised variant so it's got better sensors.

[@wyattweaver3730]

Thanks for making naval content! It’s nice to see both naval and air on this channel!

[@brettwerner9544]

Love battleships. Great fun on this video. My dad served as a quartermaster on the USS Tennessee and got to see quite a bit of action in the Pacific. I have some pretty cool memorabilia including a phone directory for the ship, silhouette charts and things like that. Great stuff. I can remember him telling me how incredible it was to see shells flying and tracers from these huge behemoths. Imagine how terrifying it would be. The Battle of Leyte Gulf was the last of these big battles and I'm glad he made it through. He used to say it was like launching a Volkswagen bug at the enemy.

[@jikemenkins7098]

I'll watch Montana class fight anything and everything, please!

[@robbergerson4915]

Hell yes Cap. I have just a little bit more appreciation for my state and the planned badass that was supposed to bare the name. Thanks for that!

[@Name-ps9fx]

The advancing destroyers would probably be zig-zagging during the approach. Unpredictable = harder to hit

[@thegooddoctor2009]

The issue with the destroyer attacks is that you're heading straight in. It would be better to zigzag towards the target. At longer ranges a constant speed and bearing are easy to calculate.

[@kenbb99]

Reading the comments I see I am not the only one who thinks the destroyers should zig-zag to close the range.

[@jamesp8164]

Given the flight time of the shells seems like if the destroyers zig zagged more they might’ve done better. That would work less well as the range decreased but it seems like it might’ve helped.

[@Krhys1]

Your ship vids are awesome, Cap, awesome. Love your DCS aircraft stuff but throwing ships into the mix is amazing too.

[@tuxedoederminenaswall3751]

@Grim Reapers you should pester the mighty jingles. He likes big boats and was in the royal navy

[@rorynesta7766]

and hes english too lol

[@Ed_Patrick]

In that last fight you had all the destroyers on weapon hold. That means they won’t shoot or actively evade or change trajectory to maximise their weapons.

[@LillyRocket]

As for open bridge, the Iowas were originally planned with an open bridge, I believe both Iowa and New Jersey were commissioned that way but got enclosed bridges during the first refit. Missouri and Wisconsin were commissioned with enclosed bridges right away.

[@donchaput8278]

Great video! I had always wished they developed a BB with 4 stacks of dual turreted 16" auto-loaders. Missiles and planes came in too soon.

[@bri-manhunter2654]

I can’t wait to watch this after work!!! The Montana would have been a world ender. It had better radar, better firing control, and more guns than a Yamato class💪🏻

[@lucascousins6934]

The Iowa's were likely more useful postwar, 27 kt speed for the Montana's just didn't cut it

[@bri-manhunter2654]

@. The Iowas took on a new role as battle wagons for the carriers, fleet defense. The Montano would have e just been a battle wagon with her own escort. Moreover, the reason why they halted production of the Montano class is due to not needing them because of the flattops. Also, yes, the Iowa’s may have been more useful post war; they did have e a great reserve of buoyancy, which is why they were modified in the 80’s to hold the Tomahawk missiles.

[@Doodelz02]

Never even heard about the proposed Montana class! Learned more about history, tactics and armour! A good day! Off my bucket list is "Captain of a Convertible Destroyer". Dodge or not. Thanksbutnothanks! 😊

[@AxlePlaysGames]

These destroyer hit-and-run tactics actually sound very similar to the very first tactics used by the Royal Navy (at least, the properly equipped Royal Navy) using John Hawkins' race-built ships in the 1570s (I think) against the Spanish Armada, the Royal Navy fleet being commanded by Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Hawkins. Interesting that 350-400 years on, we Brits still used similar tactics

[@Doodelz02]

Not to mention unmanned Ukrainian kamikaze speedboats a bit more recently 😮!

[@TheUnHeardNews]

Having the destroyer zigzag should make a difference. Having them full speed towards death is an easy kill.

[@chrisbebensee334]

It would make them hard to hit, but it would also make the intercept almost impossible as the closure rate would be too low. Also, imagine how the destroyers would get shredded by the 5 inch guns when they came into range.

[@robertyingling8193]

😱 my god i finally get to see you use Montana. ... id love to see a modernized Montana with vls, c ram , c wiz.

[@glennpruess6936]

Basically already is, no ww2 aa guns modeled, half of the secondary battery is not present, but yeah completely agreed man

[@robertyingling8193]

@glennpruess6936 i mean, in real life, it would be nice, too. If we were to ever bring back a battle ship, I'd day build a modern Montana class. If we could make it as fast as the aircraft carriers, all 4 gun turrets and modern tec. 😘🤌

[@glennpruess6936]

@robertyingling8193 fair enough, and yeah completely agree

[@67Stang]

As a US Navy Vet, I don't think those DDs would steam straight in. They would zig zang to throw off aim and chase splashes.

[@Spendingryan]

Showing proper destroyer tactics against a battleship would be a cool video I think, setting zig zag waypoints or even taking manual control and hitting hard port or starboard with the keyboard would work.

[@mitchelloates9406]

The Montana's designed speed was 28 knots, not 30 - "slow" compared to the Iowa's and the fast carriers. Another reason the Montana's were canceled - they were too wide to fit thru the existing locks on the Panama Canal - when they were authorized, money was also allocated to widen the locks - but after the US entered the war, they didn't want to do anything that would interfere with keeping the canal operational - so the canal project was canceled along with the Montana's.

[@NemoGraynameA8]

The idea that Montana had a top speed of 30 knots comes from our friends at World of Warships. Mostly because she was terrible and needed a buff.

[@fabiomarangon2748]

There was a preliminary design for a 30-knot Montana that used the same engines as the Iowa class. The final design used different, less powerful engines (I believe they would put out 172.000 horsepowers as opposed to Iowa's 212.000). This allowed for a better internal subdivision of the engine rooms, which made the ship more durable in case of battle damage, but of course this came at thecost of top speed, which dropped to 28 knots. Still, it was enough to stay in formation with the other modern US battleships (those of the North Carolina and South Dakota classes), so it was deemed acceptable. There were also plans for a 33-knot Montana, that could operate together with the Iowas, but this would have required lenghtening the ship to fit even more powerful engines (hence why this particular design was nicknamed the "LongTana") but it was deemed way too expensive. Bummer.

[@TheFoulMouthNews]

@@fabiomarangon2748 Yep, You are 100% correct. The Montanas were basically an Iowa with a full external armor belt as opposed to the Iowas with their internal belt. Between the less powerful engines and extra weight of the external belt are why they were slower. But, to be fair, the Iowas were capable of going even faster than their official top speed. Two of them on paper and two in reality due to mechanical flaws one of the contractors had accidentally caused with one or more of the prop shafts used in two of them. At least that is according to the curator of Battleship New Jersey after finding 80s reactivation documentation on her. That was on crappy low grade fuel oil too. With switching to burning diesel in their boilers as part of the 80s refit, it increased their speed even more. That was with some miles on the odometer too. Captain Larry Seaquist commanded USS Iowa on her shakedown cruise and on deployment. He was one of the captains to get an Iowa above their actual top speed prior to fuel switch. In an interview with Drachinifel, if memory serves, he wouldn't go into exact details to the speed he got her to reach. I believe it is probably because there are still classified details regarding the Iowas the US Government doesn't want out there with the possibility they could be reactivated even if remote and their actual top speed is surely one of them. Because, even though they are museums these days, Congress made sure the idiots that pushed for the pipe dream of rail guns on the Zimwalt-Class destroyers couldn't fully get rid of them. In all of their museum contracts is a clause for repossession and reactivation. After having said all that, with taking it all into account, I would say the Montanas would be capable of the Iowas "official" top speed if they were pushing their engines to reach their unofficial combat top speed.

[@fabiomarangon2748]

@@TheFoulMouthNews Well, the Montanas have a slight disadvantage in hull form compared to the Iowas: they are longer yes, but also a lot wider, which translates into a lower length to beam ratio. Also, the Iowas have an incredibly fine bow, which makes them even more hydrodinamic. The Montanas have a slightly fuller bow, a bit of a halfway house between the South Dakotas / North Carolinas and the Iowas themselves, so I don't think they wouldn't be able to exceed their official top speed as much as the Iowas did. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they could get over 30 or even 31 knots. Although in an emergency, and with a captain that doesn't give a fudge about preserving the engines... yeah, maybe they can push 33.

[@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818]

@@fabiomarangon2748 one of the things to note however is that a fuller bow is more buoyant, and thus gives better seakeeping. One of the downsides of Iowa's fine bow is that it was not buoyant, and it had to be supported by the citadel. This means that in heavy sea's the Iowa's bow is going to dig into the sea much more and cause a greater speed loss compared to a ship with a fuller bow. So the Montana's fuller bow would allow her to maintain better speed in heavy sea's than Iowa.

[@aland7236]

2:03 They do! They are currently berthed in the following locations. Los Angeles, California, USA BB61 USS Iowa Camden, New Jersey, USA BB62 USS New Jersey Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, USA BB63 USS Missouri Norfolk, Virginia, USA BB64 USS Wisconsin BB65 USS Illinois and USS Kentucky were laid down and floated out of dry dock respectively then broken up when found to be unnecessary after the end of World War 2. All four existing Iowa Battleships are museums and they have KZbin Channels that I recommend you all check out. Battleship New Jersey is one of the more active channels.

[@krismurphy7711]

IF you want the ULTIMATE Destroyer on Capital Ship fight investigate "Taffy 3 and The Battle of Samar." It was US Navy's finest moment in history...and an amazing display of what an absolute balls out suicide attack by destroyers and destroyer escorts could do to a MAJOR Surface Action Task Force. And this one even had the Yamato PRESENT!!!

[@tristanbentz224]

Those are the gun directors for CIC. If you look at the little wings in the turrets each one is able to fire independently but the central gun director was more efficient

[@Gry101]

The US actually has the following battleships as museums. I know the Iowas are still able to be put into service after a long refit if needed. USS Alabama, USS North Carolina, USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, USS Wisconsin USS Massachusetts USS Texas, the oldest battleship still afloat

[@paladamashkin8981]

Another big thing to remember is you want to fire 6 gun batteries? The recent being we'll not just accurate spread with a three gun battery or less. Most likely, in a case like this, they would split up the front and rear turrets on two different targets.

[@NanoBurger]

A well-known tactic was to steer into the last splash made by naval artillery. I guess the theory was that lightning never struck twice or more likely that automatic leading wouldn't put a round in the same place.

[@MrLobo351]

The montana class is my favorite battleship class ever even though it wasnt built sadly theres not enough videos that talk about it so thank you🙏

[@kcomco7433]

It certainly seems that the 16" guns' accuracy is a bit OP (first salvo at each target is a hit). Perhaps take control of the destroyers and meander toward the BB to throw off their ranging.

[@kcomco7433]

Although a quick Google AI search shows 16" guns with a CEP of 100-200 meters. Definitely need to zig.

[@TimInertiatic]

Yep. Very much too accurate

[@Spendingryan]

Is it because this is the refit? The base model here that the mods use is a refit (you can see the Phalanx CIWS and missiles on the deck turned off) with better radars, although i don't know if the 1980 refit improved the main guns?

[@hoshipresence]

Early ships tended to have an open bridge to give officers and command staff a better visual over the whole of the ship and its surroundings

[@michealpeterson9745]

For your question at 16:49, yes the battleships can target multiple ships at once. If i remember correctly the British BB Warspite sank 4 enemy ships in an engagment using each of its turrets to simultaneously target a different ship. It usualy came down to urgency though, a battleship at range was more dangerous then a destroyer at range and as such would be targetted first. As for battleship accuracy, with a good captain yes a battleship could be extrteamly accurate, if interested look into the USS Massachusetts service record (BB 59) particularly in the assult of Casablanca and the battle of Guadalcanal.

[@nealfryling619]

Referencing Battle of Leyte Gulf, action of Battle of Samar, if I remember correctly… When the destroyers / DEs charged at cruisers and battleships… Their ability to quickly change course could surprisingly effectively mitigate modern fire control accuracy..!!! If they dip, duck, dodge and dive about, it’s entirely possible to get into range, launch torpedoes and pester these vastly superior ships with rapid and accurate 5 in HE rounds to deal effective damage to un-armored critical components etc!

[@ecliptix5436]

On the little drop down menu for the damaged ship, there was an option to cease fire - last option on the list. That may be similar in effect to marking it as non-hostile.

[@nealfryling619]

To simulate the destroyers dodging, you could give the battleships something like a 5x accuracy spread!

[@garydterhune8392]

Iowa class had 3 fire control directors for the main guns. So possibly the Montana would have had 4. One director for each turret would allow engagement of 3 (Iowa) or 4 (Montana) targets simultaneously.

[@TheFoulMouthNews]

The Montana-Class and Iowa-Class differ greatly in armor schemes. The Montanas, they were to have an external armor belt protecting the whole ship whereas the Iowas have an internal armor belt, an armored citadel, armored deck, and some armor in other key places beyond givens like the turrets and barbettes. That is why there is a massive increase in the base tonnage between both classes of battleship. The Montanas were also classified as a fast battleship like the Iowas are. They are only marginally slower but that is because of all the extra weight they are carrying around in comparison. Something to consider if this was a real world scenario are the gun crews and rate of fire. For example, when Iowa was reactivated in the 1980's, its captain was tasked with working out the kinks they were encountering with the gun crews on New Jersey. This led to him making Iowa's gun crews the best at rate of fire and accuracy out of all the class. Each of the Iowas had a specialty they excelled at and that was Iowa's. For New Jersey, it was damage control which had been its specialty since its early days. Its captains took great pride in that too.

[@fabiomarangon2748]

Open decks on destroyers were for visibility purposes. The simple fact was, there was no way you could realistically armour the bridge of a destroyer against even against its own guns without making it ridiculously top-heavy and unstable. So if the crew was not going to be protected against enemy fire, you might as well leave the bridge open. It allowed for better visibility and actually, if a shell explodes onto an open deck it might do less damage than a shell exploding in an enclosed space.

[@Kaelland]

One thing Montana could do, except that the AI doesn't seem to know this, is use its radar to detect that the target isn't moving anymore, or is closing at a much slower rate than the others, and redirect the fire to the targets that are approaching faster.

[@leecranmer6574]

I love your video's. This battle was awesome.

[@chrisbebensee334]

I figured use a full salvo at each target, then switch to another one. With the hit rate, you'd almost certainly destroy one with each salvo and not have any wasted salvos. Further dividing the turret might work, but I don't know how many targets could have been simultaneously computed with that fire control computer. If any salvos missed, you could follow up later with another salvo as necessary.

[@cdw7458]

Destroyers with torpedoes were the reason battleships and heavy cruisers had secondary armaments.

[@fabiomarangon2748]

Splitting turrets between targets would be doable (and was done, for example HMS Warspite used that tactic to shoot up a German destroyer flotilla in the Third Battle of Narvik), but that tended to happen at very close range. At extreme distances you want to use concentration fire. Shooting a battleship gun and trying to hit a target twenty miles away is extremely difficult as there's tons of variables involved, including but not limited to: course and speed of the target, your course and speed, atmospheric pressure (which can be different where you are and where the target is), ambient temperature, temperature of the gun, temperature of the shell relative to that of the gun, wind direction and speed (which, again, can be different where you are and where the target is), and my personal favourite, the Coriolis effect, which is the fact that while the shells are flying in the air after you shoot them, the effing PLANET EARTH is moving underneath them, consequently displacing the target slightly. So yeah, if you want to hit that destroyer at long distance, you better shoot everyting you have against it. Although, WW2 era battleships had much more sophisticated fire control systems, so in theory you could split fire between two or more different targets, but it's still not adviseable.

[@TheEnergizingbunny]

17:39 When you click on the ship you're firing on to open the menu, there is a "Cease Fire" option at the very bottom.

[@ejd53]

The open bridge on the destroyers was to increase visibility for anti aircraft work.

[@wastelander89]

. Thank you cap for all the time and effort that gets put into the videos much appreciated as always. Mods are awesome they pick up where the games leave off for extra fun. Love the videos cap. Montana would of been awesome to see in real life if they made them.i highly recommend ultimate admiral dreadnoughts u can male any battle ship or ship that u want with what ever weapons you want and battle the ships or ship in a line and they can control themselves or u can control them. Dreadnoughts is a great game for you to make videos with about ww2 ships U can set the year for tech as well so eaxh ship has only certain tech and radar and mark version of guns. U can make iowas with any size guns for what if scenarios or u can make yamatoes or Bismarck. Basically u can do anything in that game for videos. The ultimate admiral game covers 1890 to 1959 in beleave no missles only guns and torps

[@Wolfe351]

Montana was hitting each destroyer with 1st volley, then 2nd volley was landing way in front because they expect the destroyer to be still underway and closing the distance!

[@ryanpayne7707]

2:19: Actually, it used to be 12. The rearmost turret (z turret, IIRC,) was removed to make room for a flight deck. TBF, a few inches of steel wouldn't keep a DD bridge safe, anyway. But, enclosing it would protect the crew from the elements, and why they didn't do that is beyond me.

[@jimreynolds2837]

There was supposed to be a 5th Iowa class battleship “Illinois” but was not completed. The hull was later scrapped.

[@Tamburello_1994]

Get your ship on, Cap. Don't let them fly-fly bois fade you!

[@kentgoldings]

Math note: 12 is 33% more than 9. The Main guns on the Sch had a shorter range.

[@Cobra-King3]

Normally a Destroyer rush wasn't gonna happen at 20+ nm, that was a death sentence for the Destroyers, instead, they would happen ranges like 10 Miles or less, where they'd be in range of their own guns, I would like a scenario where such took place soon

[@markowsley4954]

Four IJN destroyers armed with the long lance torpedoes would take out an Iowa or Montana BB. The long lances sank or gutted many USN warships before the navy finally began to learn not to ignore IJN destroyers.

[@level98bearhuntingarmor]

0:47 I dont want to be that guy but Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were Fast Battleships with Battleship armor and were called BBs, also it seems the guns dont depress back to reload because as much as I wish this was the case, the 16"/50 couldn't reload at 45 degrees elevation

[@Hawkathon]

“5-inch is always a problem.” - Gigiddy😄

[@SkyChady]

"Steer towards the water splashes" I heard that on a TV show once.

[@marky657]

Without reading every post on this video. I will say that two separate destroyer forces making a coordinated attack from two different angles. Making a hammer and anvil torpedo attack. The BB would be forced to engage attacking from two different vectors. Also, the BB would be forced to maneuver in such a manner thereby throwing off her targeting solution. If any of the attackers managed to get within secondary armament "5/38 range, then making this a "charge of the light brigade" type scenario.

[@Nails077]

Perhaps instead of dividing up the turrets between targets it might be more efficient to fire one salvo per target and then move on to the next? With the kindof accuracy on display it might pay off to assume each salvo will achieve a kill.

[@VintageWanderer]

As others have said zig zag would be better attacking the battle ship.

[@Jack_Over9000]

Drach just dropped a video about the use of the Mark 38 Director and rangefinding on an Iowa class battleship! Worth a look.

[@TimInertiatic]

The destroyers wouldn't just sail in a straight line. They would dodge and weave

[@falcon3268]

Personally I would think after reading, watching and looking into ship to ship combat for WW 2 I think it would be more difficult to have the turrets target different targets. Its different compared to what we see in combat nowadays where a destroyers weaponry can select different targets with a variety of weapons. As you could see with the simulations here, the battleships guns had the range and fire power so it was mainly easy to pick off a enemy ship if concentrated on, while the destroyers and cruisers had to get in close to use their torpedoes as those were the only things that was capable of sinking a massive ship like a battleship.

[@jimmymcgoochie5363]

Do it again, but play as the destroyers and take evasive action. A target going at a steady speed and heading is easy to aim at, but a small target dodging and weaving like mad can flummox entire fleets- as was the case in WW2 a few times with sometimes a single destroyer surviving for an unbelievably long time against massive odds.

[@warrenholmes3311]

Remember the song: 'Turning Japanese"? Put: 'I'm hunting Submarines!' there instead -- now one has a Destroyer 'ship's song -- Post WWII.

[@wlan246]

16:45 I just commented on the same observation. Given the transit time, and its accuracy, you'd think the battleship would fire only one volley at each destroyer, rather than multiple volleys at the same one. When the first volley hits the destroyer, it slows down, and the next two or three volleys (fired at the same destroyer) all miss, allowing the other destroyers to continue advancing undamaged. Had each of those subsequent volleys targeted different destroyers, it could have disabled multiple destroyers in the same amount of time.

[@chrismasella8889]

IRL those destroyers would never run straight in. Especially when 16 inch shells are landing everywhere. They'd zigzag.

[@Jabberwoky]

Wait until you see the flash of the broadside then jink, heading in a straight line makes fire solutions to easy.

[@lavern007]

Why don’t the tin cans evade hits by zigzagging?

[@Str3loK1911]

Just noticed the gun directors on the Z class look like faces (12:42), cant unsee this now.

[@mfreed40k]

Destroyers versus battleships is how you get the USS Johnston and Taffy 3.

[@alanblumenstock7863]

so WW 2 destroyers vs 1980's updated BB seems fair

[@carlousmagus5387]

Montana, all day every day!

[@grgdfgdfgdfgdfgfdgdf8606]

The accuracy is shocking, wirklich unglaublich!

[@jg3167]

If the battleships had actual crews, they'd fire 1 salvo, see where it lands, make corrections, fire, see where that lands. They don't do like the game does of firing at the maximum rate of fire the guns can handle, between needing to see where your shells land to not waste the limited ammo you have and also because the humans moving the shells and powder bags aren't machines, they will tire and slow down and make very costly mistakes. The crews train to fire at maximum rate, but don't operate like that in combat. Also, if you want a better Destroyer vs Battleship fight, try "recreating" the Battles of Narvik, where the fjords provided good hiding places for Destroyers to pop out at close range.

[@TastierBackInThe80s]

"5 inchers are the problem." That's what she said.

[@michaelrowland4021]

Good video, Cap try 12 ships coming from four direction. Crossing the T front and rear, from both sides

[@williamstaples1207]

Iowa would have used her speed to her advantage and not tooled along at 10 kts, and Montana would not have been as fast as Iowa or those destroyers. Also, open bridges, even the Iowas were initially built with that. It was Iowa and New Jersey that initially had open bridges. Wisconsin and Missouri were built with enclosed bridges. Later, during refit, Iowa and NJ both had their bridges enclosed. The bridges weren't enclosed particularly well, they were mainly there for weather protection.

[@kilo6490]

Yesssssssss!! MONTANA 💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼 FYI.. Montana wasn’t a “successor” to Iowa. Both classes were designed concurrently each with a different approach. One being a more lightly armed/armored yet faster ship (Iowa), and the other being a more heavily armed/armored yet slower ship (Montana). The Iowa’s were started first with the Montana’s scheduled to follow immediately after but by the time the Montana keels were to be laid, naval warfare had shifted to aircraft carriers instead so the Montanas were cancelled.

[@cassiusc738]

I’m no naval expert by any stretch - but while the radar doesn’t show how damaged a ship beyond visual range is, the current speed is known. I would consider ships of the opposite fleet still charging at higher speed the bigger threat, than ones still showing up on radar… but doing 0 knots. Shurley it would make sense to program the AI accordingly?