Why Are the Iowa Class Battleships All Different Weights?
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- In this episode we're talking about the differences between the four (or 6) battleships.
To send Ryan a message on Facebook: / ryanszimanski
To support the museum and this channel, go to:
battleshipnewjersey.org/videofund
The views and opinions expressed in this video are those of the content creator only and may not reflect the views and opinions of the Battleship New Jersey Museum & Memorial, the Home Port Alliance for the USS New Jersey, Inc., its staff, crew, or others. The research presented herein represents the most up-to-date scholarship available to us at the time of filming, but our understanding of the past is constantly evolving. This video is made for entertainment purposes only. - Zábava
How about an in-depth talk about all the different ways a ship's weight is 'measured?' There's displacement, dead weight tonnage, gross weight, and probably that many more to explain. Thanks!
Good question set Dan. Ryan, if you read this I wanted to add an old question I’ve had and that’s why are BB’s “inclined” periodically while in the yard?. Thanks!
How do they actually measure? Can they calculate it by how low the ship is on the water? That seems like the most accurate way.
Or do they just sum up the listed weights of all the components.
@@paulthiessen6444 by the draft marks. Nobody's tracking the weights of everything that comes onboard and leaves the ship on a centralized basis.
While NJ was in dry dock, didn't they weigh her by having Ryan step on a scale, record that value, and then have Ryan pick-up the battleship, and get back on the scale, then do the math? 🤪
@@ZigZagMarquis That's how I weigh my cat. 😀
The fact they all made it to retirement indicates the design was good enough for many configurations.
It was certainly versatile enough to allow a good level of flexibility even in the planning stages.
As far as the ballusting of Iowa is concerned the # 1 Gun turret has received several thousand tons of 16" practice projectiles ( blue in color ) which her staff was able to obtain from the Navy. This allows her to be more in trim than her sister ships. This also explains why Iowa had to get Turret # 3 up and running so as to be able to train ( turn ) to provide access to her loading hatch's to strike down all those 16" shells. A whole lot of work. Hat's off to Iowa and her crew!
Several thousand tons?
@@billbrockman779 several thousand shells?????
It would be 10s or 100s of tons not thousands.
@kalejames2672 each round was about One Ton,... 2:01
@@paulsilva3346 they wouldn’t only use shells as ballast.
6:50 Said if they went to all RIVETED construction instead of WELDED but we know what you meant
When the ships were designed, and the threat was still other battleships, yes, that extra armor is worth it. In hindsight, knowing that by the time the IOWA's get into action, there will no longer be any capital ship to ship engagements, and the threat is bombs and torpedos, the 11" should be enough and that weight could be better used for torpedo protection, deck armor, or AA guns. It just shows you have fast naval warfare changed from the 1930's through the 1940's.
Yeah, but there was no way they could've predicted that aspect. We're talking from the perspective of time, but for them it was a pretty quick flip in how things were handled.
It may actually be be possible to disprove the all welded construction for Illinois, and Kentucky. Wisconsin has Kentucky's bow, so we can see how it was made, and if there's rivets that would show that at least Kentucky did have rivets.
Still amazed that all that steel can float
and, that a concrete ship can float too.
Fun fact: The nimitz class also all vary in weight due to different construction methods, technology ect. This means officially the largest warship of all time by displacement is the USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76, Coming in at just a hair under 105,000 tons. Name ship Nimitz is the lightest at 101,000 tons.
Its unknown at this time if the Ford class is heavier, its officially at a very vague "About 100,000 tons" but a big priority in its design was more automation and simplifying of systems, so i'd go so far to say its possible and even likely that it doesnt top "Reagan". But its possible this may change in newer ships or as new systems are added. (due to the rise of drone warfare, i expect capital ships to jam as many CIWS as humanly possible into every available space)
The Ford class is supposedly upgradable so I would not be surprised if the class is designed for something like 5,000 - 10,000 in future systems so it might be lighter now but heavier later.
WW2 type of dakka?
Due to the significantly smaller superstructure and removal of steam equipment I would hazard a guess the Ford class is significantly lighter.
Regarding CIWS - I hope the Navy is truly taking notice of the war in Ukraine. For quite some time I’ve thought the current CIWS platform would be woefully inadequate due to a number of issues: significantly 1) limited number deployed on the carriers 2) limited capacity. Why oh why we have not deployed a modified CIWS platform with ammo handling *below* deck is beyond me. It’s a significant weakness to need crew in the open to reload after just a few seconds of firing, and extended magazine below decks would greatly improve its drone capability and there’s NO reason a new class like Ford could not have been designed to incorporate a feed mechanism, or at least a larger magazine, into the CIWS emplacements.
It’s almost like the Navy has accepted the fact the carriers and amphibs will take some punches in a future conflict instead of engineering better close in protections.
@@cruisinguy6024 The thing is. modern Navy ships don't rely on the Phalanx for it's close in defense.Tthe CIWS is only a last ditch defense ond longer range defense is provided by the RAM system.
@@Riceball01 that’s precisely the issue. We’re seeing small drones can sneak in at low speed and by multiple drones attacking the same position on a ship have a tremendous impact.
Not only that but it’s not practical to shoot of RAMs at a million a pop for a fleet of drones that cost the enemy just a fraction of a cost.
Ukrainian drones have had a devastating impact on Russian ships and I fear we will have to learn some painful lessons if we end up in a peer / near peer conflict.
for the 1/4-1/2knt difference, id take the armor all day every day.
Ryan you truly make some of the best content on CZcams. I have yet to visit you guys. Just with your enthusiasm I think your tours would be amazing. I'll see you for a private tour one day.
Every ship class will vary in weights. It could be based upon construction shipyard, which modifications were added or subtracted. I was CHENG on an FFG which the Navy indicated was the "heaviest" ship of the whole Perry class. That was determined during an inclining.
What is an inclining?
Ryan is a nerd the way i am nerd. nerd approved
When even your model is on keel blocks, in drydock...
Classiest way to display it.
z
It's a 1:1
There's nothing more bad-ass than an Iowa class battleship fully loaded down for deployment. The lower these ships sit in the water, the more sleek and menacing they look. Though I understand it would be impractical to have them loaded down while serving as museums, it's still a pity to have them sticking out of the water so much.
Thanks Ryan❣️ I was one of the commenters asking about differences of the Iowas. I’m sure there’s plenty more so hope to hear more in future videos.
Very interesting. I visited the Iowa last Friday and enjoyed it. It looked in pretty good shape to me.
Congrats on a brilliantly successful dry docking! Regarding was the additional transverse citadel armor bulkhead worth it or not... no. As it worked out, no 16 or 18 inch shells hit her bows from ahead, or from astern. If they had, the extra armor may have saved a magazine detonation, but with the oblique angles that are most likely for such a hit, the extra inches would be unneeded. The risk was low enough to take.
Details like this are great!
In the history of warfare since armour was invented, I can guarantee you that no one has ever uttered the phrase “I wish we had less armour.”
Until you take a shoulder hit on that front bulkhead of the citadel, you probably want the extra speed. But, like Ryan said, the navy tends to "spend" those weight savings on something else. With 20/20 hindsight, I'd want more protection against kamikazes....
I actually paused the video and racked my brain as to how rivets could weigh more than welds, and bam Ryan has the info and its due to needing overlap, vs seam welding now thats smart
I have a question about the unarmored bow section of the ship. You mentioned the previous videos that the lighter construction of the bow forward of the fore armored bulkhead has a tendency to lift & create a bending moment with the armored citadel. Are there any plans to add some neutralizing ballast to the unarmored bow of the ship to offset this bending moment? To be clear, this is not in reference to the level of the ship sitting in the water.
FIRE ! 🔥
Ships are huge constructions hand-built in different shipyards over a period of years. It would be more surprising if their displacements didn't vary. But I think the differences in the conning towers raises a more interesting question: Why did both Spruance and Halsey fly their flags in New Jersey if Iowa was specifically built as a fleet flagship? The Bureau of Construction appears more enamored of armored conning towers than Admirals at sea. Admirals Scott and Callaghan were both killed at Guadalcanal outside of their flagships' conning towers.
I think the extra armor was worthwhile for Missouri and Wisconsin. Means they can withstand more potential hits, especially since they have been used forward of their intended operating time and well within the time frame of anti-ship missiles. I'd feel safer in an operational U.S.S. Missouri than in any other type of ship (with the possible exception of a CVN), especially if a missile actually impacts the ship. I love those ol' battlewagons and hope that I'll see them in action one more time in my life.
As much as I can understand your enthusiasm for more active duty time for the Iowas, I'm afraid it's just not going to happen. I've gone into this several times, but the gist is that they really soak up manpower, which needs training (and which FINDING qualified trainers) is increasingly rare. Setting up training pipelines would be difficult for these old systems. Being able to produce 16" shells might also be a problem.
6:50 change to all welded
Great power ! 💣💥
To answer your ending question, I guess we will never know. They never got to really test it out as Admiral Halsey took the battleships north during the Battle of Leyte Gulf.
Less armour and more speed is what Jackie Fisher envisioned for the British Battlecruisers. We all know how well that went when they faced up against Battleships. So I think the extra armour on some of the other Iowas definitely gave them a slight combat effectiveness advantage.
I Hood you loud and clear
Drachinifel has a video on Hood. His theory, which lines up with the known events, indicates that the shell that sunk Hood most likely penetrated the hull below the belt.
For the Jutland battlecruisers, their loss can be attributed to poor safety procedures regarding storage and movement of shells and powder out of the magazines.
You could argue that the Iowa’s had the right amount of armour as all 4 survived WW2.
If you were building a battleship today, I would think the designers would put more emphasis on torpedo defence and less on upper hull armour and deleting an armoured conning tower.
I'd rather have a faster lighter ship. I think New Jersey happened to be the perfect blend. What's interesting is that NJ goes into Pearl in July '44 to have some alterations done to her flag space accommodate Halsey's fleet flag staff ( larger than Spruance's). I have no clue if what alterations were made added or removed weight.
While brass is lighter than steel (per unit volume), that much brass can add quite a bit of weight. I believe it made the ship heavier. 😜
When building the later ships were more modern/lighter types of steel used?
I work with different metals. With the different types of steel in existence you don’t get noticeable variation in weight.
@@user-ux9my7io4p Many thanks!
Could you go through the dry dock “weights” again?
Starting weight
Tons removed (catholic protection, etc)
Tons added anodes / paint/ etc
Final weight
(You ran through it quickly, it would be educational to see it in writing)🤠
I was wondering. Could you do a video of the fire control level of the conning tower?
Illinois and Kentucky 2.5 knts faster than NJ ! “Water skiing anyone “?
Hard to say if the extra armor was worth it as the Iowas' armor was rarely tested in the field like Texas was. Carriers abandoned the heavy armor as the era of trading shots and taking a beating was over after WWII. If you took a big hit at all a lot had to fail first. It is better to be able to take a pounding and not need it than to need it and not have it for sure. If one was built today it would have limited armor and at least the forward turret would be replaced with missile boxes (and cure that weak spot on turret one) Also would use a reactor drive like the carriers. My vision would redesign the aft with a well deck and small hanger for about 4 VSTOL/Helicopter craft to make her able to do on a small (special ops) scale functions of the Landing Assault Carriers. (Would also trade out the big guns for rail/coil gun tech at a fraction of the size and weight for the same punch electrically without the large load of powder or at least try an upsized rocket gun) Rocket guns was used by US special forces in Nam and worked well but were cheaply made and nonstandard rounds made them limited use. Brandon in testing one at one point fired his whole barrel at a target. A failure that still hit the target. Would need to automate the loading with the Rocket gun to deal with the greater weight of a one incased load instead of shell with four or five bags of powder.
Missiles?! I don't remember a video about those. Where were they launched from? Great video!
Tomahawks.
i do wonder how much could you damage an iowa-class until the navy would say, "no she is beyond repair" or how many times can you "repair" and iowa-class until she is at a questionable point?
How were ships this size“weighed”? I assume a calculation based on where the waterline sits and archimedes’ principle?
I cannot grasp how anyone could well 10" armor plate. You might want to do a video on how that's done.
For the 3-4 inch thick M4 hulls, I know they just layered the weld beads on top of each other. I'd say that would be the way it happened here unless someone knows for sure.
I wondered what was done on competing Battleships: Bismarck and Yamto; were they welded?
I always assumed it was because of new developments coming along as each ship was built
Have you guys thought about providing Japanese subtitles for some of your videos (specifically videos about WW2 era)?
There are several videos by the USS BATTLESHIP IOWA MUSEUM, that have been reuploaded to the Kantai Collection NicoNicoDouga channel, with hard-coded Japanese subtitles.
Since the Iowa (class) is in KanColle and specifically New Jersey is in Azur Lane, I think it could be educational for the players of those games if there were Japanese subtitles. Who knows, it could be an extra avenue for donations
I do not know if this has been done, it would be interesting to see the size difference between the battleships. There is a picture during WWII of Oklahoma (after being raised) next to one of Iowa’s. I couldn’t believe the size difference between them. How different is Iowa’s to the South Dakota’s?
I don't understand what a admiral should be doing looking forward Thru a viewing slit, he is the man for the bigger picture behind a plotting board i think
Would the bow replacement on the Wisconsin with the Kentucky bow had any weight change? As you said the last two ships that weren't completed were going to be lighter ?
Iowa and New Jersey should be close to each other because their fore and aft transverse armor is the same "escalator clause" thickness. Of these two (Iowa and New Jersey), New Jersey should be lighter because of Iowa's extra story of thicc on the conning tower due to her being built as a fleet flagship
Wisconsin and Missouri should be close to each other because their fore and aft transverse armor is significantly thicker than Iowa and New Jersey because Treaty limitations got thrown out the window. Now comparing these two (63 and 64) against the first two (61 and 62), it might be a toss-up---the extra transverse armor weight of 63 and 64 "should" be partially if not almost fully offset by the weight savings realized by increased use of welding over riveting.
Overall if I had to guess, I would say of the four, New Jersey "should" be the lightest.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what Ryan said?
So how do they even weigh these things? Is it some calculation based off displacement or just a calculated estimate?
The extra armor was definitely worth it.
Because they just kept getting better
Next question: how do you measure the weight of a battleship?
4 Iowa class Battleships built, in the 1940s.
4 Iowa class Battleships still here. Even though,
the armor belt was never really tested, did the
armored belt help?
How much faster could the Iowas run, without
so much belt?
steve
⚓️
The 15 second answer. Because all ships in a class are not 100% identical. Because of how large the ships are, and complex, there are small differences at the minimum.
Even today, the 10 Nimitz Class carriers are different weights and lengths. Even the smallest warships in the navy have this. There are 3 Cyclone Class PC Warships in Philadelphia Inactive. The USS Tornado is 3ft longer and displaces 30 more tons, but no one can tell you where it is 😂
I’d say more armor, and welded instead of riveted
That model is badass!!!
What do I think? I think Iowa's putting us all in danger by being over treaty weight! Thank goodness NJ, Wiscy, and Mo are all doing what they can to abide by Washington Naval Treaty standards by remaining consistent with internationally agreed upon weights!
I know may have addressed this before, but was there any thought given to converting the last two Iowa class hulls into carriers?
No guided missile ships were discussed though
Is the steel in new jersey contaminated with the thing that makes it useless for radio active detectors?
I owan explanation...
When Ryan said ‘shipbuilding’ I cringed. We, the USA, had a fantastic shipbuilding industry. All of the associated business also thrived - steel mills, electric motors. Trades thrived … shipfitters, welders, pipe fitters, engineers. América thrived.
Now look at us … our shipyards can’t build at any capacity, they build failed tech. This applied to both government and private sector. Shipbuilding and maritime operations make a country.
More like look at the Royal Navy. Not only they pioneered quite some technologies that are later used by the USN but also had the capability to build such ships they did. So was British aerospace engineering. Now both shadows of their former glory...outsourcing and partnering with other nations, unable to make things themselves at this point. The US still has the ability to make something on their own so atleast better in that perspective.
I don't think a quarter knot is worth it over less armor, based on how these ships were intended to slug it out with the enemy.
Was the extra armor worth it? One will likely never know. They'd have to take a serious hit to find out, and since they're all living the retired life and likely to never come back, (let's hope so, or WWIII may have just started) who's to say.
Also the AA armament.
How do the missiles make it heavier that when in WWII?
Why does USS Iowa ballast more level than USS New Jersey? I know from previous videos that USS New Jersey sits bow up, but why did the USS Iowa museum ballast her differently.
Huh. How much more different would the Missouri and Wisconsin have to be a new class?
Different job, Different weight.
No two ships of any class are the same weight /40 year master shipbuilder
True, but presumably sister ships should end up with similar weights. There's a considerable difference.
So 18,700 tons of armor on the Iowa class only pertains to Missouri and Wisconsin?
More armor is better. The battle cruiser theory proved that speed was not as good as armor as they thought.
Only 300 extra tons? Aren't we getting a little nitpicky? 😜
I, some guy on CZcams, say that more speed is far more useful than more armor. Speed is a critical factor in the large oceans and more of it will allow the ship to bring its weapon and communication systems where they need to be even quicker, and also get out of where it shouldn't be. The speed is an asset virtually all the time, but the armor is only an asset in the event of a large shell hit to those areas. And if you're taking large shell hits, you need to stop taking them asap, not keep face-tanking them waiting for them to stop. Various navies across the world understood the critical advantage of speed, as they began focusing on fast battleships as their core battle line fighting ships ships and delegated secondary roles to the slower ones. It's also telling that a huge reason the Iowas were reactivated at all is because they could keep pace with the newer fleet carriers.
More speed isn’t beneficial if the rest of the convoy and, more importantly, the ASW screening ships can’t keep up with you.
The battleships had no ASW capabilities and relied on other ships to use their sonar to detect, and then prosecute, enemy submarines.
It’s a problem that exists to this day with the carriers. Sure, they’re bloody fast, but what good is that if the convoy can’t keep up?
@@cruisinguy6024anti aircraft and anti submarine offense and defensive today depend a large amount on using aircraft as detection and prosecution assets. And those assets are far far faster in any regime than any cricket or destroyer or cruiser.
@@americanrambler4972 aircraft are indeed important but I don't see the Navy in any hurry to get rid of the ASW screening ships in the carrier strike groups. Air drop sonobouys work in conjunction with ship mounted systems. This is also why CSGs in a wartime environment will almost certainly have subs screening for the strike group / convoy / fleet / etc.
@@cruisinguy6024 I agree. For the most part, the current configuration of CSGs is not visibly changing very much, considering how the relatively recent major upgrade programs initially in the last 20 years have failed to mature and reach proper deployment status. Programs like the Littoral freedom and independence classes and especially their intended combat suites which have left them un armed, and the cancellation of the Zumwalt class destroyers and the Navy advenger carrier aircraft development programs. Plus we had the cancelation of the ABL (Airborne Laser program) along with the scrapping of the associated new purchased 747 aircraft it was installed on.
However, with the events happening in the Russian/Ukrainian war and other events around the world using new technologies which have come to the foreground, I suspect we are in the beginning phases of military configuration changes more radical than almost anything seen in the last 80 or so years.
How do you weigh a battleship anyway?
can the armor deal with lasers?
Only space lasers.
how come they werent made as 12 gun ship instead of the 9 when the fantail had enough to have a helo pad doesnt seem too hard to make it a superfiring pair
I would assume because they were design for the treaty weights - those turrets with their full barbets and associated ammo are very heavy
Always pick the lesser of two weevils
How do you weigh a battleship.
Well you have to understand the gravity of the situation first.
@@hamaljay😂
just get out the baggage scale😂
You put it on a scale. What also floats in water? Bread. - Apples.
- Very small rocks. - Cider! Great gravy.
- Cherries. Mud. - Churches.
- Lead. - A duck!
- Exactly.
You find out where she wives, first. If she still wives with Mom and Dad, no wuck. If she wives awone, sit down and take her on your wap, and get her to waugh. Good wuck.
Adm. Jackie fisher RN I think Said in regards to Capital Ships is "Speed is Armour "So I think more armour is power., because if you choose speed you get a HMS Hood,
given the armor location its hard to say. I would say the less armor and more speed and maneuver was a bigger deal. DECK armor would have been bigger had they really gotten into it during the war as air dropped bombs were so pernicious.
diet and exercise
different diets.
u.s.s texas is looking for a new home why not put her with new jersey
She's planning to go to Galveston. Texas just spent a ton of money to redo her, not leaving, plus the NJ association couldn't afford the upkeep of another capitol ship among other things
Ryan, 6 minutes, about 50 seconds.
"All riveted construction." All welded
construction, maybe?
I may point out stuff, but I'd like to see
this channel improve!
steve
If a sailor is at the con, does that make him a Con Man?
I'll see myself out, thanks...
How does armor contribute to combat power? Armor is defensive in nature.
Yes, it’s defensive, and I would say it enables a ship to stay in the fight longer before sustaining sufficient damage (if at all) to take her out of the fight. That added time in action would increase the ships "combat power".
Last longer in a fight
All four were different weights because they carried different amounts of piss and shit in their septic tanks.
Have you ever seen the all brass model of the missouri at the truman library in independence?
Simple. It was their diet…
Depends on the lard ass matelots
You aren't supposed to talk about a Lady's weight....
Why does Ryan keep pronouncing Missouri as Missuora? It irks me every time
I had a shipmate in the navy from Missouri and that’s how how he pronounced. Same reason we don’t say New Orleans the way it’s spelled I guess.
I didn't notice mue-zay-um until my wife pointed it out, now I hear it plainly every time. I'm sure there's stuff I say that folks in other regions find weird, vive la difference.
3rd, 27 June 2024