Was This Gun Even On The Battleship?

[@prjndigo]

In naval mount the Bushmaster can reliably harass from 14,000 to 18,000 feet of range with HE and can be direct targeted to about 15,000. The speed of the HE shells past 18,000 isn't high enough to reliably pop-off but the weapon can actually lob slug to 25,000 with radar. Sabot darts don't have enough return to be laid by radar. A correction: it was originally developed for the MICV-65 which included a variety of variants of the M113 and included the XM800W and development continued afterwards then it was redesigned for M2 Bradley and someone said "eff it, put it in all of them" and we stuck it on boats, LAV, hummers.... basically it was "we know what gun we need, lets design a vehicle.

[@johnknapp952]

On my next to last Gulf cruise in '91, our FF had one Bushmaster mount. Also when we entered the Gulf we received a Stinger missile detachment (2 guys and 4 missiles). The Stinger guys would rotate from ship to ship as the ships entered and left the Gulf.

[@Bellthorian]

LOL I was in one of those Stinger detachments in 1988. I spent time on the Trenton, LaSalle, Coronado, Conquest, Inflict and Vandegrift. On the Vandy we had a much bigger detachment, six guys with 2 guys on watch around the clock. Our berthing compartment was right under the flight deck.

[@Dilemma6796]

I toured Mighty 'Mo when she came through Subic in '90. Saw the 4 Bushmaster Mounts. The crew said they really liked them. They also had 4 M2 .50s and 4 Mk19s mounted in staggered patterns...2x2 on each side. It was a very robust near/small threat defense. The crew was very happy to have this setup.

[@filanfyretracker]

big ship like a BB should probably have six remote operated bushmasters. One pair at the bow, next at midship, and the last at the stern. This not only gives full length coverage for the ship, but also crossing fields of fire for each side's guns. And that much firepower frees up the CIWS to watch for things like missiles.

[@andrewfidel2220]

Yup, and with the new fused shells they're going to make a great anti-drone weapon as well. I'm willing to bet that in the next major conflict US Navy ships are going to grow Bushmasters like the WW2 ships grew Bofors.

[@filanfyretracker]

@@andrewfidel2220 yeah if Ukraine-Russia war teaches any lesson, Its that unmanned platforms of all shapes both in the air and on the water are a major threat to expensive naval assets. The job of ships protecting the carriers will get rather busy in a fight. As I do forsee a world where perhaps there is loitering naval munitions built not unlike those narco "subs". Very low to partially under the water. Probably impossible to radar lock so would need to use the Bushmaster.

[@genoobtlp4424]

But if the guns are the bottleneck, two should do the trick well enough and for the worst case, a BB was made to eat quite a bit, so get the small guys their full CIWS after giving the BB a minimum

[@bigredc222]

I agree.

[@cassidy109]

The Navy should’ve kept a few of the 40mm Bofors mounts on board to handle small fast attack boats! 😀

[@tyree9055]

They became "obsolete," I believe, because no one was still producing ammunition for them. Whether this occurred before or after their removal, I do not know.

[@etfrankify]

@@tyree9055the air force still used them until recently on the ac-130’s

[@Revener666]

@@tyree9055 sweden still use them. as guns on CV90, anyway ammunition was available. The Bofors on ship where in AA mounts though, so they would probably need new mounts for close range defense.

[@stevehall5000]

bofors probably could not depress enough for this mission

[@olpaint71]

@@Revener666 I believe the Swedes use the L70 version, not the L60 as used on the battleships and the AC-130s. Bigger casing, higher rate of fire.

[@x1heavy]

This gun system is so interesting. Theres a model of the NJ back in my childhood home which did not include this particular gun. It did include most of the modern upgrades given to it in the form of missiles etc. I had no idea until todays video about this gun system. On X is a 5 inch saluting I think also from NJ. I could be wrong. OR I could be mistaken if this particular gun system is the one that did the saluting. Ty for taking the time to create this particular video. Learned a few new things today.

[@ghinckley68]

Those bushmaster i bet our mardet choices. We all love the bushmasters.

[@Bum-e2k]

As a GM on CG-62 in the late ‘90’s we had a pair of M K 38’s. Then as an AO in 2003 - 2006 on LHD-3 we had 4 of them along with our 3 50 cal mounts. Spent many a days underway and sea and anchor details as a mount captain for them. I just did not like when the MK 38’s would get jammed. Always ended up having to take them apart to clear it.

[@GeistView]

Seeing that rusty receiver and breach in the background is making this 14RJ3 (ret) eye twitch. I'm surprised no one has stolen the muzzle brake.

[@Shinzon23]

"Buzzle break" lol

[@GeistView]

@Shinzon23 lol

[@hoppercar]

Those guns were manufactured at Hudson machine tool in crawfordsville Indiana...I worked there for many years, ...built a lot of those

[@leftyo9589]

cant say as to what they do now days, but in the 80's, and 90's ships had bushmasters installed prior to deployment, and they were removed after deployment. they were not kept installed except for deployment.

[@invader440]

We had one put on our fantail of the USS Marvin Shields FF-1066 before we went to the gulf in 90. Us ST's were the ones that manned it in the gulf.

[@onkelfabs6408]

Having Casey Ryback on board also means that she had Commander Krill on board though.....

[@DefiantSix]

@@onkelfabs6408: We'll keep that in mind if and when the NorKs come sniffing around for a source of T-LAM/Ns.

[@joeythedime1838]

And Playboy Playmate Jordan Tate

[@EjNappe]

Believe it or not, but most ships in the Navy man the Mark 38 from the bridge, not cic, also they can still be fired manually at the gun itself.

[@Hendricus56]

A backup position that should always if possible exist

[@squiblift2019]

Great follow-up video.

[@darylmorning]

I still believe the Thunderbolt mounts from the PT Boats would be ideal counters to the enemy boat and drone attack. An improved, remote controlled version would be even better.

[@KnightRanger38]

I wonder how many Bushmaster Chain Guns with nautical mounts were available when they were placed on the Iowa class ships. It could be that there were plans to install more, but the ships were decommissioned before that happened.

[@keithbarron3654]

In 1987 navy only had 5 of them rated for Maritime service and the were at Little Creek, on specter boats. If 110ft WPB's went to Persian Gulf, they would have gone to CG.

[@cammobus]

I do not think USS NJ would have the same problems with a suicide boat exploding along side as the USS Cole

[@logansorenssen]

Maybe. The armor belt is internal, so it would still breach the shell plating and ship a fair bit of water, similar to a torpedo hit, but the armor would stop it from having a chance to actually sink the battleship.

[@davidg3944]

I think it depends on the explosive payload. A well-designed shaped charge used as a "prow torpedo" might be able to breach the hull and then the armor plate. Whether it would be enough to risk sinking I can't say, but I'm not sure there's a limit to the size of a shaped charge - if not, then I bet it could.

[@spvillano]

@@davidg3944 well, there is a limit, what the attacking craft can carry and deliver. Still, this vs the Cole attack, well, the Cole was a bit of a surprise event, the New Jersey would likely be on guard against that and this, more than enough to destroy the threat in this world and the next. Even with training rounds.

[@dukeofgibbon4043]

​@davidg3944 Sandia laboratories built and successfully tested a 28in shaped charge with 600# of explosive. They were trying to blow a hole into a bunker. A hole at the water line won't do a lot but the jet of molten copper that gets thru the armor could pop a boiler, donate a magazine, or have no effect. I'm sure the ship plans weren't on the internet while the Iowas were in service.

[@KennyCnotG]

It wouldn't be a sinking but it would almost certainly be a mission-kill that would make her turn around & crawl away for repairs, BB62 would be the best prepared for that as the best damage control battleship crew but she still would sustain serious damage

[@dannyl7602]

big fan of the new jersa

[@RobGM2]

Fired one of those bad boys a couple times on my ship. We had two of them and they are a pain to clean.

[@JoeyRay-fz1qe]

I was on the USS Iowa they did not have this type of gun. Now for the Stingers the Iowa never served in the Middle East and the Stingers were Manpad's so having a few IR Short Range Shoulder Launch SAM's was not a problem! If talking about the future the Battle ships will never sail again due to cost and missiles does better then the 16" guns!

[@CyberMurph1090-d5u]

4:41 - lol, squid has his 'cat eyes' on backwards.

[@LillyRocket]

2 is enough, given that there are 4 Phalanx, which are mounted fairly high up and can also be used to chop up surface targets in a certain band of range with an elevation of -10° to -25° depending on Block. And much more decisively so than a Bushmaster or the now often mentioned Bofors 40mm with 75 rounds a second. 😊

[@barrydysert2974]

More guns? Ask Admiral Lee !:-)

[@Dave_Mayberry]

It all came down to money. Missouri had a much larger budget, due to her condition. We @ LBNSY were able to do all the work, under budget and on time, as well as supply the armaments as designed. New Jersey was given a much smaller budget, and those chain guns were on perpetual backorder. We still came in under budget, and early, due to the unavailability of the chain guns, and other weapon systems and munitions.

[@iDuckman]

Four. Four would be symmetrical.

[@henrycarlson7514]

6 Redundancy

[@bigpoppa1234]

@@henrycarlson7514 need one each on the bow & stern. bette rmake it 10 to be sure.

[@henrycarlson7514]

@@bigpoppa1234 A agree , overkill is better

[@genoobtlp4424]

On one hand, yes: big ship needs lots of defence, but a battleship made to survive ww2 torpedoes and 16in shelling could probably get away with less defence and eat a hit in the worst case. So put a minimum on and then prioritise the ships that need to not get hit

[@johnpjones1775]

That appears to be a mk 0 version. The only difference between mk0&1 is the vents over the battery compartment.

[@charlesmaurer6214]

I sometimes watch beekeeping vids and a guy was painting his stuff with flags to help avoid drift between hives by helping his bees find home. Such a method could be used to train swarms to find the flags to nest. Imagine a bomber dropping a semi load of trained bees on an enemy military base to distract and cause chaos or demoralize when they can't work their flag poles. Might be a war crime though as a form of biowarfare using insects as an advanced force.

[@spvillano]

Not prohibited under any Convention I'm aware of, although I seem to recall wildlife as a weapon didn't do very well when the US tried to use bat bombs.

[@charlesmaurer6214]

@@spvillano The Bat bombs was actually quite good but they did have a mishap in testing that they did as designed but created issues as they worked too good.. Also they didn't burn military sites so much as the civilian sectors of Japan with bamboo and rice paper structures burning in wildfires that actually did more damage than the nukes but took longer.

[@timsimms65707]

Putting a mere 2 of those guns on an Iowa seems light to me, a dozen or so say six per side would have been better and they certainly had room for even more. I just finished my Cobi New Jersey and boy does she have a load of guns, a fun build and a great display model.

[@JeffEbe-te2xs]

Not enough o go around then

[@timsimms65707]

@@JeffEbe-te2xs Yeah that makes sense, huge navy and the budget is only so big.

[@dogloversrule8476]

5:40 are we going to get a video tour of the cutter?

[@JoshuaTootell]

Came out like a week ago

[@dogloversrule8476]

@ that wasn’t much of tour, I had hoped we’d get more stuff about the cutter

[@plastictsubasa1390]

The most fun weapon system I have ever personally fired, albeit only at killer tomatoes.

[@davidg3944]

I saw the movie! Those tomatoes are deadly!! And nightshade!!!111

[@Demicron]

Imagine being a pirate and engaged by 16" guns 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

[@paulmurgatroyd6372]

I'm not sure how much close engagement work you want to be doing in a battleship.

[@genoobtlp4424]

Ideally none, but they had 50 cals for a reason

[@SgtPotatoChip6356]

Personally, i think two are enough. The newer blocks if CIWS, Block 1 I believe, have surface engagement capabilities. They should be able to supplement the Mk 38s in that respect.

[@BruceMusto]

We would have one mounted on the starboard side before we deployed to the Persian Gulf. Frigate.

[@Iwillfigureoutanamelater]

So you just hope you don't get attacked from your port side?

[@BruceMusto]

@@Iwillfigureoutanamelater Look, I was an E-6 Sonar Tech, I didn't decide where the gun was going to be placed on the ship. Plus, we had .50 cals mounted on the port and starboard side, obviously other small arms, and a 76 mm gun amidships. Plus, you know, the ship can turn.

[@Iwillfigureoutanamelater]

@@BruceMusto I know you didn't have a say in it, I just found the choice of position interesting.

[@leftyo9589]

@@Iwillfigureoutanamelater same way on a tico cruiser in the 90's 1 bushmaster.

[@frostedbutts4340]

@@Iwillfigureoutanamelater Yeah the enemy agreed not to attack from that side, it would be unsporting.

[@wfoj2]

You have armor. The unarmored small fry (cruisers destroyers, frigates) should get priority to receive the Bushmaster Chain Gun.

[@invadegreece9281]

That’s…. naive. Just because you have armor doesn’t mean you can’t be seriously damaged by a little boat with a bomb.

[@deltasource56]

you would think they would have kept a few 20mm around since im sure we had a lot of left over 20m rounds from ww2 would have been easier to refit those on deck than the 25mm, however the 25 mm is still bad ass and it should have gotten 4 of them

[@randyfant2588]

2 guns cant cover the entire perimeter. These ships have redily available space aft in the 40mm sponsons. Yes there is stuff there now, but nothing that can't be moved to make room for 2 more aft mounts, either these or CIWS mounts.

[@dragonweyr44]

Is this the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon? Do you have a video about all of the anti aircraft guns used on the ship since its inception, especially if they're all still on it now?

[@Bellthorian]

Interesting, I do not think we had any of these on the Iowa, but it has been 35 years so I might not remember them.

[@charlesmaurer6214]

The Navy should have modified the metal shield rather than removed it and subbed rails. The photos show the sandbags and sheet added back showing it was still needed. Trimmed down with a rail for the last foot that could be lifted out would have solved the problems.

[@jess2690]

I would think 2 forward and 2 aft, similar to the installation of the Phalanx would be adequate

[@abntemplar82]

as stated the reason for these guns was the 16 and 5 inch guns were not effective in close. that said is the enemy only going to attack the single arc of fire of the two guns located at generally the same spot on each side? obviously the answer there is no the enemy will figure out where your blind spots are and aim for them. so yea more needed all along both sides of the ship. at least three more each side. maybe more depending on effectiveness of interlocking fields of fire if four each side works fine, keep it. if not add more. you can never have enough guns, especially on a battleship.

[@jeffturnbull9661]

Two forward, port and starboard, and two aft

[@SavingMaverick55]

Every American flagged cargo ship that traverses sketchy waters needs one of those on the deck.

[@LillyRocket]

And subsequently be prohibited from entering most ports in the world. Note: Most ports in the world do not allow commercial ships to dock with weapons such as these on board. Many ports do not even allow ships to dock with automatic rifles on board, hence why security detachments have to get on board and leave again outside the port facilities.

[@SavingMaverick55]

@@LillyRocket And that is sad. It's only a relatively recent development too. Merchant ships clean through to the beginning of the 20th century were always armed to the teeth. It just makes good sense, especially given what we've been seeing in the red sea recently. Bureaucracy ruins everything.

[@JoshuaTootell]

Ever nation has a right to set their own rules. If you don't like it, then oh well ​@@SavingMaverick55

[@Bellthorian]

As far as if they needed them or not, I don't really think they did. I experienced a few swarm attacks by Iranian boghammers in the Persian Gulf and they did not carry anything that could threaten a battleship. Putting those guns on the escorts, the FFG's would have been a better bet in my opinion. With the three five inch turrets on each side, they had more than enough firepower to deal with small boats.

[@paultreiber5597]

Why wouldn't they have just used the CIWS? Was it in use at a later date?

[@MonkeyJedi99]

Are two of those enough for a battleship? I would defer to Dick Van Patten and say Eight is Enough.

[@lonnywilcox445]

They needed 1 or 2 on the fantail and another pair on the brow. You can only shoot what you can see and the aft and bow are going to be blind spots.

[@Plaprad]

Anything on the bow would have to be designed for submarines though. Pretty wet up there.

[@Alcochaser]

Are you SURE that is 1986? at 4:29, That Marine is wearing pieces of the Chocolate Chip camo.. this absolutely would not have been seen until the Gulf War.

[@adamrudling1339]

choc chip was in service from 1981 according to wiki

[@Alcochaser]

@@adamrudling1339 Yes. But it was exceeeedingly rare before the Gulf War.. and something unlikely a MARDET Marine would have. Before the gulf war, it was issued only for certain exercises. The fact an on board Mardet marine is in Chocolate Chip, screams Gulf War.

[@Hendricus56]

​@@Alcochaser according to Wikipedia it was the standard arid combat uniform in 1985. Meaning it would definitely be available in 1986

[@Alcochaser]

@@Hendricus56 Available? Yes. Widely used. No. Not until the Gulf War

[@Hendricus56]

@@Alcochaser Doesn't mean troops didn't got it. That's like saying it's impossible that a picture is from 2024, because the newest BMW 5 series is in it, which was released in late 2023. Sure, there would be few around at that point but just because there aren't a ton of users yet, doesn't mean it's impossible they had it

[@stevemc6010]

did they use sabot or HE-I, or both?

[@logansorenssen]

HE-I and SAPHEI, generally.

[@GeistView]

M242 master gunner here (Army ret). Fired AP-T ( 2 Types) and HEI-T. Also the training rounds (blue tip).

[@alexanderjones2126]

Honestly .... 2 bushmasters seems low for close in defense of a Battleship ... but at the same time, a battleship is never supposed to be alone. She should always have plenty of screening ships nearby, so if a small attacker ever did get close enough for New Jersey to actually NEED her Bushmasters, then somebody screwed up big time somewhere. So the logic kinda works both ways.

[@genoobtlp4424]

Don’t forget the fact that a battleship is probably the most capable of eating a hit or three. It was at least built to eat basically a car dealership‘s worth of HE/AP at mach 3 and return fire. Something tells me you can’t put thaat much on a little speed boat

[@invadegreece9281]

@@genoobtlp4424just because it CAN doesn’t mean you WANT it to, or so I’d say. Especially for something running off of so many parts decades out of production and with limited stocks.

[@genoobtlp4424]

@@invadegreece9281 true, but how it sounded, there was a general lack of bushmasters, so get the Battleship just enough to get by while the ships that can’t survive a hit get bushmasters, at which point you should think about installing more

[@JeffEbe-te2xs]

Weren’t enough to go around

[@cptjeff1]

For historical integrity, you *could* send your gun to Missouri. For a small fee, of course.

[@wurly1]

Two is fine if you have Casey Ryback. If not, then probably need 6.

[@jimcombs6760]

Is the Sailor in the thumbnail wearing his steel pot backwards, or are the cat eyes just on wrong?

[@crazyguy32100]

Modern CIWS have surface attack capabilities, starting with the Block 1B PSuM upgrade. Whats better against fast moving suicide boats than a 200rpm 25mm Bushmaster? A 4500rpm 20mm Phalanx.

[@rowanmaguire7890]

Bushmaster is significantly cheaper making it accessible to vessels that perform all types of roles - not just the premier surface combatants, incredibly light weight allowing for addition to pretty much all commissioned vessels without required extensive modifications, is low maintenance allowing for a high level of readiness with little downtime, can be operated both manually and autonomously creating greater survivability and fail-safes and is incredibly accurate with electronic optics that make targeting incredibly easy. The space they occupy on most ships is also able to accommodate future close gun systems, the DSI Seahawk (MK-38 in USN service) carries a 30mm gun, M2 Browning and can also mount potential future missile canisters for things like the LMM which would expand the C-UAV systems available to ships and extend the range that fast surface threats can be engaged at, far beyond that of any light gun system, this new mount is being rolled out across the USN and USCGs new ships and is incredibly capable at close range defense against both surface and drone threats (the Royal Navy used its cousin system the DS30M to shoot down drones in the Red Sea as well). Phalanx is expensive, it weighs a significant amount and the vessels it is fitted to have to be designed with this in mind from the begining or have to go through expensive modifications, they require a lot of maintenance which comes with downtime and reduced availability across the fleet meaning only high risk ships are fitted with them - leaving gaps in coverage across the fleet, it is not as accurate and only carries around 60 seconds worth of ammunition; reloading it takes quite a long time as well making it inefficient for countering sustained saturation attacks. If you are in a high threat situation you are going to want to save your CIWS weapons for genuine missile threats, yes it can be potent in anti surface roles but if you exhaust it doing that you leave a different layer of your defensive umbrella vulnerable. There is more to everything than raw numbers pulled off of Wiki.

[@x1heavy]

There is a Russian Warship that had used a chain gun system in combat against pirate boats in the Red Sea Somali area. And there's a number of CRAM engagements that I am acquainted with as well defending say the embassy in Iraq Green Zone etc.

[@johnpjones1775]

Why would you waste ammo for a phalanx to engage small boats, and risk not having enough ammo to engage the missiles it was designed to engage? It takes 30+ minutes to reload a phalanx. Makes so much more sense to just install a cheap option purpose built for engaging small boats.

[@mountedpatrolman]

Miss-our-e

[@krookeddreamz09]

As I live in Maryland I need to take a day trip here soon and give the old girl a visit and I hear Donkeys place has some good sandwiches.

[@bronco5334]

Mk38s are kind of a strange choice in my opinion. The deck space and weight would almost certainly be better used to mount additional CIWS, which can execute the small-boat defense job every bit as well, and can *also* provide meaningful close-in defense against missiles, bombs, and aircraft, which the Mk38 absolutely cannot. I get that the CIWS is a heavier mount, but 1 CIWS is almost certainly a better option than 2 or even three Mk38.

[@andrewfidel2220]

Mk38 has roughly twice the effective and maximum range compared to the Phalanx, if you're trying to deal with a heavy suicide boat that might make a difference

[@bronco5334]

@@andrewfidel2220 Not in a hand-aimed optically sighted manually-operated mount, they don't. The Bushmaster has literally 1/30 the rate of fire, and in that configuration are *much* less accurate. Talking ballistic "effective range" against small boats is a bit academic, neither of them will get hits at that range, because the boat does not move in a predictable path (due to wave action if nothing else). This means that a high volume of fire beaten zone is far superior to slightly greater accuracy, even assuming the Mk38 *did* have greater effective range (which it does not, practically). And if you have spotted and identified a threat that far away (over 2 kilometers), why are you using either Mk38 *OR* CIWS, when the 5" or 76mm guns with an airburst fuze would be infinitely more effective at that range? Inside 1km (where there is actually a plausible chance to identify a small boat as a threat), the Phalanx is far more lethal with it's vastly superior rate of fire. The only possibly detriment for Phalanx is that it's typically loaded with solid-shot AP penetrators instead of HE, but there is no reason not to use 5:1 DU/HE mix in the magazines, which would still put out far more effective firepower per second than the Mk38 (and, again, actually still be effective against aircraft and missiles).

[@thetankcommander3838]

With all due respect, can we PLEASE stop calling Missouri “Missoura”? That is just disrespectful to her.

[@colewellnitz1470]

It's a dialect. Many areas of the US say missoura. Just like people say Louisville differently.

[@bigsarge2085]

⚓️

[@TheWeaponChroniclesX]

The explanation is very clear! However, if the Mark 38 is so effective, why weren't the Iowa-class battleships equipped with it more evenly? #TheWeaponChroniclesX

[@bigpoppa1234]

cost, necessity.

[@aaronbrisson8487]

Why do they decommission battleship New Jersey? Could they not have modified her it to keep her in service?

[@davidg3944]

It's expensive as all get-out to man a battleship, and the engines are not trivial to keep in good running order. Basically too costly without a convincing strategic or tactical value.

[@Postmortumaz]

Show us the poop deck gun.

[@NapBona1776]

Show us the poop.

[@tyree9055]

What kind of projectile did it launch? 🤣👍💩

[@davidg3944]

@@tyree9055 Brown potatoes...

[@skovner]

Most of those small boat terrorist attacks would not have been able to penetrate the battleship armor. Like what the Brits said about their armored deck carriers - brush them off and keep going. But it would make a nice scene in Team America: World Police II

[@tyree9055]

What is the point of a "Saluting Gun?" 🤔

[@Plaprad]

Saluting. Old tradition of firing guns to say hello to other ships and shore facilities. Not really used anymore from what I understand. The saluting guns are designed so they can't fire projectiles, only blanks. So when they are pulling into port or meeting another ship they can make a boom to say hi. It's a lot more detailed and nuanced than that, but that's kinda the "Final notes off the board on Friday afternoon after the bell rings" explanation.

[@tyree9055]

@@Plaprad The Iowa-class battleships all have 5" guns. Why don't they use them to "salute" one another with? 🤔

[@target844]

@@tyree9055 It is a lot simpler to have a manually loaded 40mm gun to fire a salute than to use a 5" gun. Remeber a salute is not just fired when you enter port it can be when the ship is in port too, there was for example a 21-gun salute to honor former president Carter at a sumarine base in Conneticut where he served. The 5" guns might undergo service or you might just do not what to use them if they are clean. The saluting guns are very simple and cheap. To have them exposed also makes it possible so see them being fired by the crew, not just a boom from a metal box. How it looks is also something you care about in a ceremony. There is a reason honor guards in the US then use old wood-stocked bolt action riffles, the look is important

[@Plaprad]

@@tyree9055 Aside from the reasons already given in another post who went into better detail than me, I can think of two reasons. 1) Cost. A 40mm blank is cheaper than a 5". Plus the time and manpower to clean the gun after. Don't want to wear parts on a weapon that your life may depend on when you can use one you'll never fight with. 2) Blanks. The saluting gun is typically designed so it cannot fire a projectile, while a 5" is made to do just that. If you're firing while coming in to port there's a chance someone might accidentally load a round and send it downrange. Not a problem if you have a gun for that purpose.

[@douglasboyle6544]

Where do you get sandbags in the middle of the ocean?

[@richardjstuart3978]

Two chain guns enough? No. Part of the value of these ships is the psychological warfare value of these ships against say the Houthi. You have nothing like this, you have nothing that can hurt these ships and if you go up against them, you are going to die. The USS North Carolina was doing it right when other nearby ships watched it open fire and then had to radio the ship to ask if she was on fire. So if someone launches a speedboat attack against the New Jersey, I want it not only to fail, but for anyone watching to think OMG what the hell is on t hat thing? So maybe 4 chain guns per side?

[@johnanon6938]

Add sponsons below main deck level like predreadnoughts and mount 20mm chain guns every 25 feet as a close proximity protection system. :)

[@DefiantSix]

Iowa class BBs do not need (more) 25mm Bushmasters when they have 12.1 inches of belt armor at the waterline.

[@logansorenssen]

I'd agree if they had a few 76mm guns, but without? A big suicide boat can hit like a torpedo.

[@DefiantSix]

The difference is that the torpedo is essentially a shaped charge being concentrated against the armor with the surrounding water acting as tamping for the warhead. Load up a cigarette boat with 2000 of explosives, and most of that explosive force is going to vent UPWARDS instead of into the target. You can slam bomb boats into the Iowa's hull all day long and so long as the crew aren't out in the open when the bomb goes off, all it is is a spectacular fireworks show.

[@leftyo9589]

@@DefiantSix will still cause a good bit of damage.

[@DefiantSix]

@leftyo9589 : How much damage did that North Korean 155mm AP shell do to USS Wisconsin again? ~100lb of high grade explosive vs. a much more lightly armored part of the ship. Frankly I don't believe 2,000 of improvised explosive undirected would do even that well. Superficial damage at best.)

[@frostedbutts4340]

@@DefiantSix A 155mm HE shell is more like 10+ pounds of explosive, not 100. Why you think surviving that means that a charge 200 times greater won't do any damage is beyond me.

[@CarltonTweedle]

A lot of lead in the air in front of a jet cheaper then a million dollar missile.

[@TWX1138]

Yes, but placing that lead might well be problematic. Arguably a 16" shell fired from a gigantic cannon of a gun is cheaper than a cruise missile, but if it takes several shots to make one hit and it takes eighty men to crew a turret, or 240 men for all three turrets, who have to be paid and ready to assume their posts whether or not the guns need to be fired, it makes sense that another system would replace the 16" guns It may well be the same consideration for other systems. It may be cheaper per-round, but between the number of rounds and the crewing requirements, is cheaper to maintain the system whose per-shot cost is much higher.

[@jimzimmerman2073]

Ryback LOL

[@robg9236]

Modernisation was pretty "aus-tour"?

[@crakkbone]

It shoots mofos.

[@MrRmeadows]

You don't need more of those guns. Unless, you are expecting a swarm of small boats.

[@dirtdevil70]

The Persian gulf is full of small fast attack/gofasts

[@WanJae42]

"It's defenses are designed around a direct large-scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense."

[@Justthatguy420]

In next few years when real war begins s this ship will be reeporoesed

[@jreese46]

I think these are a waste of a mount, as are all single mounts of smaller guns like that. Its a battleship. Another barrel or two, or three or four for that size, won't be too heavy for the ship. That it took them until Korea to figure out that dual 20mms were a thing is wild.

[@jeffreyyoung4104]

I have always believed a battleship should look like a porcupine with gun barrels of all sizes bristling off the decks. The idea of having remote gun operation is something I had not thought of, as I was thinking of the new systems that can run independent of human interference. But I can see where that would be beneficial for the gun crews, for the guns that don't need people dumping ammo into the loading chutes. Sadly, we have seen a reduction of guns and an increase of missiles... Fine for some targets, but suicide boats need a good gun and gun crew!

[@davidschick6951]

7:52 sandbags are ineffective against modern rounds. When the rounds go through the sandbags, they carry the sand and whatever junk is in it into the body of whomever they hit. So now the wounded person is dealing with not only a gunshot wound but various infectious materials.

[@blshouse]

Nonsense

[@amandaklapp1171]

Not only is it nonsense to make such a broad claim, the sand bags are largely for shrapnell protection

[@EliteAmmunition]

No where near enough. This is where Russian boats are so much better. They have substantial small caliber weapons systems. Even more so these days with drones. You could send 4 or 5 Zodiac drones at a ship. 50 grand drone boat swarm. Right now our best option is a 1.5 million dollar missile

[@genoobtlp4424]

On one hand, yes: big ship needs lots of defence, but a battleship made to survive ww2 torpedoes and 16in shelling could probably get away with less defence and eat a hit in the worst case. So put a minimum on and then prioritise the ships that need to not get hit