Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "USS Iowa (BB-4) - Guide 273" video.

May have had a negative result. The enemy would be so confused by what it was. They'd want to get closer 😅
14
@streetracer2321 the difference between countries armour of a given period is generally down to very fine metallurgy. The difference between "Harvey" steel and "Krupp" steel. Was much much more significant. The two aren't really comparable. Think of it as the difference between say Italian and American armour as being the difference between playstyles and the difference between Harvey and Krupp being another level of a tech tree being unlocked. Drachs video on it is very interesting from a engineering pov
11
From a purely selfish point of view. I really wish the us museum fleet were cut down massively and the money put into looking after the remainder much better. It's so sad to see the world's largest economy not looking after a treasure like Texas. I'm lucky to live in England. Warrior, victory, Belfast etal are so well looked after. I know quantity has a quality all of its own. And America spans a continent (without even considering its wider empire). So she needs to spread her museums about for all to enjoy. But it's still sad to see. I can't wait for my next trip to the USA. I won't be going until Texas reopens though. Side note. Other than georgious aserov and mikasa (I butchered those!) Are there any 'capitol' ships still about from this era?
3
Agree with this. I'm eager to re-visit the us but I'm waiting until Texas is reopened. But the opportunity to visit a pre dreadnought without having to go half way around the world to Japan would really be something!!! Especially an early American battleship design. I can't seem to get excited about the last Iowa class (as a museum). Compared to so many other ships. They don't have the same backstory or legand. I'd rather have seen the ww2 enterprise preserved. But hey ho
3
@bkjeong4302 as an added thought. If you take actual time spent fighting. Rather than time in existence. They actually had a very limited service history.
3
@bkjeong4302 I can't agree that it's a ww2 battleship problem. Unless you mean ones built during the war. I could agree that for the war in the Pacific once the Americans got into the fight they were a strategic failure. I base this on the Americans getting stuck in in mid 42. With decisive battles in 43. By 44 when the battle fleet was resurfacing (no pun intended). They were as you say strategically obsolete. However that can't be applied as a sweeping statement because the RN, MN, and KM were in the fight from day one (to three) in 1939, and the RM were in the fight not far behind but also had to be factored into deployments even before the Italians began hostilities. The battle fleets in 39-41 were the prime strategic assets. I would say even in 42 and at times later in the med. Which I am convinced was the most important theatre of the European war. The battle of the Atlantic gets all the attention at sea, the battle of Britain in the air and Barbarossa on land. But had the RNs battle fleet been wiped out and the RM given free reign in the med. Then Africa, the middle East oil and all of Europe west of the Urals was there for the axis to take. We've gone a little off topic lol. Point being. I totally agree the Iowa's were a waste of resources. Naturally that's why the last 2 were cancelled. Here is a thought. HMS Ark Royal was scrapped. I don't even think there was any sort of fuss made to preserve her. She carried a proud name. Had just had a refit so wasn't about to fall apart and she had much more effect on the history of the UK than any Iowa's. So were the Iowa's kept just because they could be? Or was it because they could make money as tourist attractions 🤔
3
@bkjeong4302 doesn't that apply for just about all late war battleships? Infact I can't really think of battleships doing much that had a great effect on the war once the RM surrendered. I know it's basically impossible to nail down a date during ww2, when big gun ships moved into obselecance, but I'd argue it was before the Iowa's were commissioned.
2
@robertf3479 I agree that in war you have to consider the side of caution. Especially when friendly lives can be spared by using material might*. However your falling into a way of thinking that seems common in the modern world of computer games and internet information. The reality of the time we are studying was not one of ship Vs ship or keeping your forces ready in nearly controlled packs to be moved like chess pieces. To counter the yamato and musashi, the USA didn't need an Iowa. They already had huge numbers of capital ships. Plus by the time the Iowa's were worked up, the war in Europe was basically over as far as battle units was concerned. Ok the RN had run its ships ragged to keep up with the demands of 4-5 years of war. But even still, the RN had Nelson, Rodney, Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Malaya, valliant, revenge, royal sovereign, ramillies, resolution, KG the fifth, Anson, Howe and Duke of York. I know some would be in refit and the Russians did a number on royal sovereign.... But... Ontop of that you could include the littorios and the Richelieus. Plus of course, North Dakota, Washington, south Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, Alabama, and a dozen (more?) Standard types. If all that couldn't stop 2 battleships, which had no air support worthy of the name and not enough fuel for a return trip from a sortie. Then the bloody things must have Shields taken straight from startrek and cannons that fire sharks with feikken Lazar beams on their heads. The allies had over kill in the bag. They had shore bombardment tuned to the point that it probably scared Odin. They had air supremacy. And ask BKJ points out. If all the Iowa's were good for was shooting down kamakasi. The resources used on the Iowa's could have done so much more effectively and much less cost. *Yet oddly, contemporary American staff officers critisied the British general staff for being too cautious and not risking men to win. Not a accusation made against the admiralty as far as I know (except by Adm. King). But it is an interesting juxtaposition.
2
@robertf3479 first of all. Thank you sir for your service. I'd like not point out that's a very different situation. There weren't 30+ other battleships available to the coalition to do the same job. I know the size of the forces was very different in the falkans. But I've spoken to veterans and they have pointed out a 5inch destroyer gun packs a huge punch. They went ashore without big gun support. Would it have been nice? Sure. But the cost of keeping a battleship poised ready to use, in the anticipation of a war which is fought within range of its guns. Is literally something nobody can afford. You could even argue the USA couldn't afford to keep the Iowa's going. Afteall they weren't replaced. I definitely hear what your saying. But the situation in the Pacific in 1945 and the gulf in 91 are literally worlds apart. As a random side note. The Iowa's did accomplish one thing of serious note (from a wider historical point of view). They showed the USSR that the 600 ship navy was something the USA were taking seriously. Given the job of a battleship was mostly as a deterrent, IE a strategic asset. They did accomplish that. The spending the USSR tried, to match the us literally broke the bank. I know the eastern block was crumbling anyway and would have done so if the Iowa's didn't exist. But they did play a very small part in a major change in the geo-political history of the 20th century.
2
@davidwright7193 indeed. Cameras had been in used since the late 1830s. They may have been novel, but they were an established technology by the time of that war.
2
@FandersonUfo no, just looking for clarification which civil war you mean. But given you've mentioned states, I can deduce you mean the American civil war. As the Spanish civil war was royalist/republican etal
2
This Iowa Vs yamato would be short and bloody. I doubt this Iowa would even get a chance to fire her guns. Ironically a Japanese destroyer would probably be able to sink her. Infact I'd go further and say that in a night action or in bad fog. The Iowa would never know the destroyer was there. The Japanese destroyer would simply get into fireing position. Launch a spread of torpedoes. Turn around in a lazy way to get ready to launch reloads. Then wonder how the Iowa sank so fast. Then they'd trundle off home for tea and biscuits.
2
I don't know. I'd have happily bought a miniature model of say HMS Ark Royal that was made of her melted down steel. I don't mind most ships being broken up. How it has to be. But knowing some (such as warspite) had to be lost to history is a real shame.
2
@Easy-Eight I don't see how that's comparable. Your all in one country. Comparing Southampton to Naples is comparing Dallas to Bueno Aires. Two different countries. Do citizens of America living in North Dakota pay for the same air force as citizens of America who live in Texas? Also. (This has probably changed due to the UK leaving the EU. But it applies to the EU and EEA etc). Countries in the EU do pay to assist the arts, cutlure, sciences and of course history and museums in other EU countries. Funds are allocated to points of special historical or scientific interest. While the UK voters decided to leave the EU (by a tiny margin. But we are a democracy and chose freely). I know of nobody before then who complained about money being spent on museums. But we shan't get into that. It's a political mess. I like my politics to end around 1950 lol. Ironically. I live in England. I'm English and I pay taxes in England. Some of that money funds the upkeep of Edinburgh castle. Which is in another country. It also payed for the millennium stadium in Cardiff (again in another country) and towards the Titanic museum at Harland and Wolff in Belfast, which is not only in another country. But a country that shares no land boarder with my country. I have no issue with any of that. I can travel without hinderance to any of thoes countries. They are open boarders just like you have in the USA. I can go and see what my tax money paid for and enjoy the museums and attractions. Can uss Texas only be visited by people who live in Texas?
1
@WALTERBROADDUS hmm yes, I suppose that is where you can argue what is a capital ship. But I suppose at the time the G.Aserov was to Greece. So Olympia was to the USN at the time. I guess I was more thinking 1900s/1910s era. Ships who served at Tsushima through the great war.
1
@andrewreynolds4949 if you use that justification your entire arms industry and economy would grind to a halt. You have to prioritize or you'd spend so long churning out merchant hulls just incase you need them. That you'd never get round to making any tanks to put in them to be transported. Looking back with hindsight is easy. I'll grant you that. And I do see your reasoning. It's actually a way of looking at history that is often missed these days. I almost always agree you can't pick problems with decisions that were made, as hindsight makes doing so impossible. But I think I have to agree with BKJ. This was an allocation of resources that couldn't be justified at the time. Hence the remaining hulls being cancelled. Hell. The royal navy had ruled the waves for 2-300 years thanks to big gun ships. And vanguard was only finished as it was already well on its way to completion. And why did she stay on the stocks so long? Because the admiralty accepted that literally everything else was more important. Things got dicy in the med. If the Italians knew they'd taken out the QEs in Alexandria. We could be having a very different discussion. But the RN, as thinly as her battleships were stretched. Knew they had enough and that added effort was best poured into other hulls. Cruisers, aircraft carriers and destroyers. Plus escorts. Most of which were built 5 miles from where I sit. But that's getting off topic lol
1
@albertoswald4904 I'd say she was more worthy than the Iowa's. That's for sure. I wonder what US battleships could have done early in the war. IE before 42. Washington was a great design. Had she been in the Mediterranean in 1940/41, I bet she could have done better than a single engagement with a ww1 battle cruiser. She definitely doesn't get the credit she deserves
1
If it's not on the list you can ask for it in discord. However the last time drach shared the list. It was about 4 years long. And he reviews in the order the ships are asked for. Otherwise you can vote one up the list once a month as a patron :)
1
@FandersonUfo civil war?
1
@keithmoore5306 I must admit. I anthropomorphise my cars. My road car (r34 skyline. 4 door) is a she. By drift car is definitely a he. A bruiser lol. My old c32 laurel is a old man car. I call it 'gran'. Sadly they can't all be kept. This makes me remember an interesting quote a tour guide once said in a military history museum (mainly firearms). "Remember, nothing in here was meant to last as long as it has. And everything in here was designed to kill people as efficiently as possible".
1