How to Improve Battleship Artillery After WWII

Comments · 164

• FR

  @frederalbacon · 3 weeks ago

  Ryan looks like he's de-aged 8 years in the 8 years he's been doing this channel. Thanks for the great video as always dude!

  85

• WA

  @Warpwonderers · 3 weeks ago

  Iron nest mentioned glory to castile!

  38

• FO

  @foundersrule3496 · 3 weeks ago

  A web search showed Admiral Spruance recommended highly detailed improvements battleships prior to 1941. Thank-you Battleship New Jersey for sparking my interest to know more about Admiral Spruance.

  34

• PH

  @PhantomXT · 3 weeks ago

  I wasn't expecting that Iron Nest mention. Neat!

  5

• TH

  @TheJstewart2010 · 3 weeks ago

  What parts do we want you to cover?  Yes.

  12

• SC

  @scotthillman9134 · 3 weeks ago

  The Problem with high rate of fire with effectively the largest &nbsp;non nuclear weapon in use is that in a shore bombardment circumstance anything that you need destroyed can wait a couple of seconds for you to reload. Obviously you can miss, but its going to take you a moment to figure that out-and if you haven&apos;t well its almost certainly gone. <br><br>Doing a faster shell reloading would have helped, and maybe would have kept it going in vietnam, but i can also why that waited.

  13

• PI

  @PINKBOY1006 · 3 weeks ago

  That little blooper bit right at the end had me in stitches “PART 1?!?” And without missing a beat “of three”<br>Absolutely killed me 😂

  3

• RA

  @Ralph0451 · 3 weeks ago

  One option I can think of would be to develop a canister similar to an all-up round for a Mark 41VLS, either for both the shell and powder or separate ones for each. A stiff steel frame like that would probably be pretty easy for machinery in the 50s to grab onto and move around. Once they&apos;re in the loading tray you unlock the top and bottom, slide them out of the way, and ram the shell and powder straight into the guns. The canister could then be either ejected or if there&apos;s space for the mechanism returned to the magazine, where it could later be removed, replaced, and then reloaded at a supply base. <br><br>I&apos;ve had a fun image of a battleship version of USS <i>Long Beach</i> in my head for a while now. It&apos;s basically an atomic powered <i>Montana</i> class with only turrets 1 and 4 left and the big billboard radar antenna superstructure. Turret 2 would be replaced by one Talos missile launcher, with one pair of radars in front of the superstructure and the other on top, while turret 3 is replaced by two back-to-back Talos launchers. The 5&quot;/38 turrets would be replaced by four 5&quot;/54 autoloading turrets and six twin-arm launchers for Tartar missiles. <br><br>I also like to think that it would get a sort of &quot;long-range super-asroc launcher&quot; that would fire a heavyweight torpedo that could target both ships and submarines, so in a surface action it could attack with gunfire, missiles, and torpedoes all at once and it could support its escorts against submarines from standoff distance. But that&apos;s just me being silly.

  6

• DU

  @dutchman7216 · 3 weeks ago

  Thank you Ryan. That was interesting.

  6

• RO

  @robertsloane1268 · 3 weeks ago (edited)

  Thank you sir<br>RYAN is the hardest working teacher of us, &nbsp; plus the hardest working curator.<br>🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉<br>The bringing aboard, striking below, &nbsp;then horizontal to lift them back up....had no idea how inefficient the re arming was

  3

• JO

  @JonBowden-x2q · 3 days ago

  The simple fact that the shell hoists still work makes me irrationally happy

• HA

  @HappyFelixx · 2 weeks ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSdjc1HgDXw&amp;t=605">10:05</a> Glory to Castile 🫡

  3