Battleship Myths Debunked! Chapter 5

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. #myth 24 is very true. There are many recorded events of groundtroops asking for fire support from the big ships. Even targets only a few hundred yards from friendly positions were hit with pin point accuracy.
2. I enjoy your videos. They're a little fantastical at times, but they're still fun to match and make a lot of great points. Your real argument though should be why we just spent $13.5B dollars on 3x Zuumwalt class destroyers to fill the role of naval surface fire support when they do the exact same job as a BB.
3. You are out of touch about Naval ranks; there are no second or first LTs in the Navy. Captain is a much higher rank than a captain in the other services.
4. I have watched all of your previous videos in this series and there have been quite a few great arguments for Battleships, but your first argument in this video is only partially correct and 4th is just complete bullshit.
   
   Yes, Battleships has far superior firepower and bombardment capabilities than a Carrier's air wing, however this is only true within the Battleships ~40km range, beyond that the Battleship is all but useless except for it's missile battery which can be launched by smaller and cheaper vessels. While the Aircraft Carriers have a near indefinite bombardment range with it's aircraft. And Yes this range can be pushed out even further with modern technology but extreme ranges above 100km are near impossible like you had explained in an earlier video in regards to the Zumwalts proposed capabilities. still keeping the edge in favor of Carriers
   
   As for accuracy, Battleship weaponry was generally only "accurate" within half of it's maximum gun range in a direct-fire setting and at maximum range the dispersion of the shells is measured in hundreds of Meters. This is slightly negated by the shear size of the blast damage from the HE shells this leads to very severe collateral damage potential. Even in WWII, Dive bombers and even level bombers were far more accurate because of how close they were able to launch the ordnance, and modern guided munitions increase that accuracy several-fold to the point where they can pick the room in the building that they want to blow up. With Battleship guns would have to destroy the whole village.
5. big problem with your videos are. that you dont consider stuff that matters when it does in order to show the machine you like better and machine you dont like worse. while i agree carriers are more expensive in every way. but they are much more versatile. fighting on sea and shore bombardment are basicaly only things battle ships can do. but carrier can carry troops, gather info, fight on sea and fight on land with greater range than battle ship. so basicaly carrier is just a moveing military base while battle ship is just a big mean beast. also very often the tonnage of support bombardment dont matter you should think what each round can do. you can bomb shore with battle ship but can you killing moveing targets no. just think you get cordinates to aim and shoot 20km from you while shell speed is 800m/s that is 25 sec flight (allmust half min and that was half the range of cannon) enemy just moved away.thats why your approce of useing mainly guns on long range fire wont work against land targets. thats why you need missels and planes.
6. Wish they would have gas turbined them and made them missile ships.
7. The Iowa can also go 10,000 at 20 knots without refueling.
8. HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO MAKE A 16 INCH PROJECTILE TODAY?
9. Where's chapter/episodes 4 and 6.
10. Airpower:FAIL
    Straight-up good-'ol America Big guns:EPIC WIN.FATALITY
11. Magazine explosions will be replaced by capacitor explosions that are even more problematic. 200 mile gun range can be achieved using scramjet projectiles fired from powder guns. Besides, every time you fire the gun, you give urself an EMP that may well jam/fry the electronics on board.
12. That project was cancelled two years ago.
13. "Can't do no damage"... double-negative, so airpower DOES do damage. And USS New Jersey's shells fell 100km short of HCM trail which was well into Laos and Cambodia, not in South Vietnam. And more HE isn't counter-productive, which is what actually DOES the job.
14. does not matter than airpower cant do no damage accurate or not. And the Big J did sever the HCM trail
15. 6x more HE is counterproductive
16. none of that matters when there's 2000 peeps per flight deck. 77x3= less than 240.
17. Distance or nodistance Battleships are superior. Lower HE means the 1900lb shell is superior. Too much HE is counterprodictive.
18. USS New Jersey did not "completely sever" the Ho Chi Minh trail. A few examples (over decades of service) of lucky shots doesn't prove accuracy. If you fire a smoothbore musket enough, one will be a bullseye if close enough. You didn't actually compare accuracy of battleship guns to air-strikes... you just compared battleships to OTHER battleships.
19. Storing extra 16" shells defeats your EARLIER POINT of immunity of Battleships to AShM's as you say they can penetrate but cannot reach deep internal magazine. Also, moving the 1900lbs shells is slow, reducing fire-rate and opening bulkheads. Mk84 bomb may cost 6x more than 16" shell, but it also contains 6x as much HE as 16" shell. Jets don't use much fuel on a 40km range mission. 40km = max range of Iowa's guns. You're missing the powder charge costs and the 77+ personnel needed per turret.
20. You can't just take sorties/day and divide by 24. Since we are talking about such a short distance (40km, max range of Iowa's guns) a carrier can just launch ALL their strike aircraft with MAXIMUM bomb-load which is about FORTY aircraft, each with avg 18'000lbs bombs per plane. Air-dropped bombs have higher ratio of HE to total-weight, HE delivery is 360'000lbs of HE just for first wave. Iowa's 1900lbs shell contains only 153lbs of HE, so 1 hour of bombardment = 165'240lbs of HE. 55% lower.