Old destroyer man here. Listen children and you shall hear of an UNREP off Southern California in the 80s. Missouri was alongside the fueling ship (it takes a long time to refuel an Iowa) while we destroyers came and went on the other side. A destroyer does not go easily to station. No, we move out smartly and with speed. Missouri must ave been waiting for her turn because, when she broke away, Missouri jumped out, spun around in what looked like her own length, and went racing off to station as nimble as could be. The Adams class destroyers were no slouches but watching that battleship move out with twin rudders and four screws in a twist was mind blowing. Whatever the numbers say, do not underestimate an Iowa. Those things are @&#&)#(*=>&” nimble when they need to be.
@Turboy65
2 жыл бұрын
Iowa class: Hands down the overall best engineered combat ships, worldwide, and maybe of all time, and undefeated. And seriously impressive engineering feats even by today's standards.
@Hybridchld
2 жыл бұрын
And by battleship standards the didn't have top notch maneuverability. Longer thinner ships go faster but turn slower than shorter and wider ones, that's just how hydrodynamics work. As you said the could turn well because of the twin rudders and four shafts but there where older BBs that were shorter and wider but with the same or similar rudder and screw arrangement. No where near as fast but could turn on a dime.
@SMOBY44
2 жыл бұрын
I was on an Adams class in the 80's and I remember hard turning during man overboard drills where we never came back to an even keel but were hitting 35 degrees in those turns. The Adams were truly great ships.
@johngault7329
2 жыл бұрын
@@SMOBY44 I looked it up. It is a beautifuly designed ship..
@kumaflamewar6524
2 жыл бұрын
@@Turboy65 undefeated when they didn't fight anything is kind of a weird stat. Rodney was undefeated, Warspite was undefeated, Washington was undefeated.... but like they fought other battleships. (obligatory Iowas are battlecruisers insert here)
@skylarsoper241
2 жыл бұрын
Those 4 Iowa beautiful battleships were awesome, as a kid I was able to see them with my grand dad in an exercise off the west coast , all I really remember is the 16 inch boom sticks going off . So cool 😎
@robertdeen8741
2 жыл бұрын
You're a lucky person. I'd love to see, hear and even smell of a broadside of one of those beautiful battle wagons!
@robertdeen8741
2 жыл бұрын
@@brianchapman3701 from my perspective, you've been truely blessed so far as "having permission to come aboard" that most beautiful ship. I once had to leave behind a 16" HE she'll off an Iowa class ship. It would of been free of charge, I just had to move it. Alas, moving it was a major issue I couldn't manage a solution for in the given time frame. On the plus side, the she'll was left in a used bookstore that went bankrupt. I got all sorts of cool swag in the way of books. The store was in fact of the military nature. I still regret not getting the she'll but at the same time, I no longer collect them. Funny how it started with a 105 brass case for a howitzer a bro gifted me. Another friend saw that one and gifted me an 18 pounder shell, meaning the brass, from WW1. Did get a 6" solid shot shell, this time meaning the projectile, from my above mentioned store. That I trade for several brass casings from a surplus store called Capital Iron, in Victoria BC. I believe the 6" round came from the disappearing coastal guns at Fort Rodhill, just across Esquimalt harbour. I assume you know where that is if you're interested in things naval. I could go one but will close with, never take the long term solution for a short term problem. If I could put anything on a bucket list, touring an Iowa class ship would be 2nd place only to the Tank Museum at Bovington UK.
@brianchapman3701
2 жыл бұрын
@@robertdeen8741 Robert, a 16-inch shell in a bookstore?! Helluva story. I was aboard Iowa in 1980 at Philadelphia, visited her during renovation at Pascagoula in 1983 (hosted by the captain and exec, another privileged experience, though did not go aboard because of construction). And went aboard after recommissioning ceremonies in 1984. Hope to see her again in San Pedro before I check out. And would love to visit New Jersey on my American Revolution tour, maybe next year. Best wishes to you.
@robertdeen8741
2 жыл бұрын
@@brianchapman3701 is was a military book store in Victoria BC. Right next to Victoria is where I grew up, Esquimalt. Esquimalt is the home base for Canada's Pacific naval forces. At one time, a very long time ago, it had the largest dridock on the pacific side of North America, perhaps the whole pacific ocean. Once saw a very cool archives photo off HMS Hood berthed in Victoria in the 1920s. Believe she was on her first shakedown cruise and showing the flag around the empire. Hell, bought my bio on Percy Scott at a garage sale in Esquimalt. Point I'm trying to make is, the shell being found there isn't that far fetched. Esquimalt is Canada's Pearl Harbor just on a smaller, very smaller scale. Then again, after WW2, I believe we had the world's 3rd largest Navy. Anyway. It's always nice chatting with my southern bros. If it wasn't for the USofA, we'd most likely be speaking Russian up here and I don't mean that as a joke. If Ivan thought for 2 seconds he could've got away with it, he'd of tried. They'd claim Alaska was theirs all along. Sort of like the Crimea.
@jondough76
2 жыл бұрын
Ryan is an excellent spokesperson for such a wonderful ship. His fascination with the history of the ship is contagious. He's a bit quirky while remaining completely charming. Keep up the fantastic work of preserving and sharing this piece of history with the world!
@JoshuaC923
2 жыл бұрын
I agree, he is great
@troymellon3486
2 жыл бұрын
As a former conning officer of Missouri, I will say that you need a little prop wash over the rudders to kick her over. If you are going much under 10 kts, even if you throw the rudder over full, she is stubborn in getting into her turn. Over 15 kts, way different story. She starts handling like a sports car with just a little bit of rudder.
@alexh3974
2 жыл бұрын
Probably her Mass, once you have enough speed its fine, need enough to overcome the sheer weight. Its got alot of mass per size to overcome.
@brucel4677
2 жыл бұрын
Kind of like a Sea-Doo...
@popeye2sea
2 жыл бұрын
Technically speaking Tactical Diameter and Turning radius are two different things. When you put the helm over to enter into a turn, in order to understand where your ship will end up you have to know the Advance and Transfer for the ship at whatever speed. Advance is basically how much farther the ship will move forward before she starts to turn and Transfer is the sideways component of the turn. The actual track that the ship makes through the water will not be a circle and the turning radius actually changes as the ship slows down in the turn. The Tactical Diameter is the maneuvering diameter set for the formation so that all ships can execute the turn at the same rate and maintain formation. So, no, if operating together in formation the BB and DD will have the same Tactical Diameter. It is promulgated as part of the fleet maneuvering orders.
@vernowen2083
2 жыл бұрын
Many times, during the battle for Okinawa, destroyers had to dodge battleships and carriers as well as the enemy.
@partytor11
2 жыл бұрын
Must be an insane amount of math being done for large maneuvers back in the analogue days
@michaelimbesi2314
2 жыл бұрын
That’s a very tight tactical diameter. I’m used to seeing it in terms of containerships and tankers, and those tend to have somewhat larger tactical diameters.
@alexh3974
2 жыл бұрын
It is for a ship of her size, she surprised a few escorts before how manoverable she is.
@vbscript2
2 жыл бұрын
SR-71 has entered the chat. :) I think its "tactical diameter" is probably best measured in units of U.S. states. Or European countries. - lol
@gsm1586
2 жыл бұрын
There was a story in the book "The Iowa Class Battleships" by Malcom Muir, where a Captain of an Iowa class battleship was manuvering and warned a destroyer that they were going to turn inside of her. Great book with lots of information on the Iowa class ships.
@richardgirard9480
2 жыл бұрын
I've seen a picture of the USS Missouri turning inside of its four escorting destroyers in Chesapeake Bay in the late Forties in a commemorative photo book after Big Mo grounded herself, was refloated and repaired. It was the University of Colorado's Norlin Library in the late 1990's. The caption said it was accomplished by putting the rudders hard to Port, placing the port propellers in reverse while keeping the starboard propellers in forward.
@anthonyalfeo1899
2 жыл бұрын
Buddy of mine served on an ammo ship & watched Missouri do an emergency break away after finishing being serviced. He said it was incredible seeing that huge ship pivot on its stern like it did.
@alonespirit9923
2 жыл бұрын
Several decades back my Dad was in USN and often on FRAM'ed Sumner and Gearing class destroyers. At that time I knew this stuff; haven't used it since, therefore it appears the numbers have been lost from memory. But, yay for me, I did still know about fineness ratios! 😁
@michaelsommers2356
2 жыл бұрын
Yards, feet, what's a factor of three among friends?
@Sturmischer
2 жыл бұрын
The Sumner class destroyers are my favorite class of ship, with DD-724 Laffey being my favorite ship.
@charlesstuart846
2 жыл бұрын
Ryan you left out how much reducing the engines revolutions on one of the outboard propellers affects the steering and turning radius of a battleship. You also mentioned the standard class but the Tennessee, and Colorado class could make turns without even using it's rudder because of it's turbo electric engines could be switch on/off increase/reverse at a flip of a switch vs steam gear ships.
@KirkHermary
2 жыл бұрын
In the last minute he mentioned how the twin propellers helped with a tight turning radius/tactical diameter.
@KirkHermary
2 жыл бұрын
9:27
@nomore9203
2 жыл бұрын
In 1988 I got the Anatomy of the ship: The Battleship YAMATO by Janusz Skulski, from the USNI. Turning Radius of the YAMATO was 589 Meters = 1932.4147 Feet. The book is 34 years old, and I have it worn-out.
@tyree9055
2 жыл бұрын
How the heck did they get that monster to turn so fast? Don't get me wrong, I learned to respect the IJN (after being forced to "play as the bad guys"), but I have a hard time believing that a Yamato-class battleship is that good at maneuverability (I mean it's 62k - 73k tons with a top speed of 27kn)! I need more proof!! 😅👍
@michaelmoorrees3585
2 жыл бұрын
Note "Radius". Diameter is twice that, so 1,178m (3862ft). Don't go crazy with the decimal point. In college science classes (the real ones, they engineers take, not the water down ones for business students) they teach about how many decimal places are realistic for precision. If you can only measure to 1cm precision, any numerals smaller than that, are rounded off to the closest cm. So, those tactical diameters, should probably be rounded off to the closest 10ft.
@aristo999999999
2 жыл бұрын
Tactical diameter is 640m@26knot, with advance diameter 589 in the revised edition 2017, page 19. It has lower length vs breadth ratio compared to Iowa
@nomore9203
2 жыл бұрын
I am going by what the book said. I did not say it was law. 😉. There are sometimes in the book that time has shown to be wrong,
@Skiiiiiifreeeeeee
2 жыл бұрын
@@tyree9055 Am I reading it wrong - I thought that 1900 feet was pretty horrendous considering Iowa was half of that.
@spikedpsycho2383
2 жыл бұрын
Iowa Class had a tactical Diameter of 814 yards at 30 knots. Given those numbers are correct, I calculate a 180 deg turn would take 87 seconds or about 2 deg per second.
@cleverusername9369
2 жыл бұрын
Show your work?
@Marin3r101
2 жыл бұрын
No math. No A.
@davomoto42
2 жыл бұрын
Ryan stated it was 814 feet, not yards
@russellcollins52
2 жыл бұрын
Wikipedia says yards, which I think makes more sense but I have to trust Ryan's numbers as I know his source is better than Wikipedia.
@davomoto42
2 жыл бұрын
@@russellcollins52 Feet does seem "small", but I've never driven a boat bigger than a 24' pontoon, so I don't have much reference.🤣
@Pupda
2 жыл бұрын
The “tactical diameter” is never less than the ships own length; if so it would almost pivot in place. While the gist of his information is correct (such as length to beam ratio, or fineness, and the effect that has on turn radius), Ryan is repeatedly confusing feet with yards; the Iowa class’s turning radius runs about 815 YARDS, or about 2450 FEET, compared to a length of approximately 890 feet. While that’s not the stupidest mistake in the world, it would be inherently obvious for anyone with any sort of experience in almost any sort of vehicle - after all, nothing turns in it’s own length at any kind of speed. If we’re trying to visualize this, the actual 2400 feet diameter turn is about a half mile, and that makes a lot more sense than turning in less than her own length. In the real world tactical diameter doesn’t really matter as, except for photo ops, navies don’t maneuver in close formations as they did back in WWII; in modern operations the ships may be out of sight of each other. But back in the day, when ships would maneuver in close formation they would turn using standard rudder (vice full rudder) which would give all ships a standard diameter turn instead of a tactical diameter turn, which is what leads to those aerial pictures from WWII of ships all turning together. “Standard rudder” varies from ship class to class in order to produce that same standard diameter turn. Each ship carries a set of tables/charts that give the turn diameters for various speed and rudder angles; in addition, as navigators would know, those tables will also have the distances known as advance and transfer, which are how far a ship will move down the track and offset to the side for a given amount of turn; this doesn’t matter out on the ocean but is vital when coming into a harbor channel; for something as large as a ship (as opposed to your ski boat) we have to lead the turn and kick the rudder over early so that we’re still in the channel when we come out of the turn. Remember the width of a channel is often less than the length of a ship….but that’s a different subject…
@MatthewMakesAU
2 жыл бұрын
And this is why everyone should use metric
@MatthewMakesAU
2 жыл бұрын
@Phil M that makes absolutely no sense. Other countries build houses in metric without it costing more
@grkvlt
2 жыл бұрын
@@MatthewMakesAU no, think about it - one square meter of lumber costs nearly ten times as much as a proper, american square foot of *exactly the same* lumber!
@phillipbouchard4197
2 жыл бұрын
Yes I have heard this story of the Iowa's turning radius before, but your presentation tonight was very informative and well researched. Thank you.
@walterkreitmeier5079
2 жыл бұрын
Another fantastic Video about Iowa Typ Battleships in an unusual detailed and very fine understandable lecture. Many thanks for that.
@akaz678
2 жыл бұрын
This has been a fascinating lecture. Thank you Ryan.
@CocoaBeachLiving
2 жыл бұрын
I never thought of this before, but it makes sense why they survived as well as they did. Plus, how can anyone look at an Iowa Class Battleship and think about just how cool it looks, still looks, even after being removed from active service. Beautiful ship.
@Isolder74
2 жыл бұрын
After seeing films of Enterprise in action it makes you wonder how tight that baby could turn. AKA how crazy was that helmsman?
@nonna_sof5889
2 жыл бұрын
Yes. All of it.
@IamGroot786
2 жыл бұрын
Another great video Ryan. I was fortunate enough to be able to go visit USS Alabama BB-60. What a beautiful battleship she is. In such great shape and what an extensive tour of it that is. You're allowed to go down in so many deck below. As someone who worked the flight deck of a carrier, I can tell you that the angle of such deck when doing fast speed turns it was quite something.
@Loretta2004
2 жыл бұрын
Are you sure it is FEET not YARDS? I can not imagine, a ship this size turning in a diameter about the ship's length? Iowa passes New Jersey at the stern at full speed and turns so it passes by the bow on the return way??? I can not imagine that this is possible.
@calvinfairhead7379
2 жыл бұрын
It was a misreading, the bible says it’s 814 yards
@jayshaw63
2 жыл бұрын
I was thinking the very same thing. I was privileged to con the USS Claude V Ricketts DDG-5 on my 1st Class Midshipman cruise back in 1972. She could make a sharp turn, put no where near that sharp.
@MisterLongShot_Official
2 жыл бұрын
I'm sure it has to be yards. Still great numbers. Modern Arleigh Burke class destroyers are 1200yards at 30kt
@tyree9055
2 жыл бұрын
Ya've got me thinking now Ryan, I would love to see the Japanese - American comparison for turning radius / tactical diameter. I was surprised to see the Iowa's have a better turning capability than an American destroyer! 😅 Also, I WOULD LOVE to hear the story of "Franklin" shooting torps at the Iowa! Gotta love SNAFU's... 🤣👍
@jamesjarrait2231
2 жыл бұрын
Check out Drachinifel’s channel. Awesome stuff, and pretty sure he has an episode dedicated to that incident.
@philgiglio7922
2 жыл бұрын
I think the History Guy has an episode also
@supercheese7033
2 жыл бұрын
@@jamesjarrait2231 @tyree It's the episode about the Franklin itself, hilarious career.
@selkiemaine
2 жыл бұрын
IIRC, Tameichi Hara, in his book "Japanese Destroyer Captain" does mention at least one class of destroyer that was slow on the helm. He also has an anecdote of one particularly poor handling vessel that, upon being drydocked, turned out to have a large hole in its rudder from a dud American torpedo!
@Odin029
2 жыл бұрын
Does a battleship really have a better turning radius than a destroyer? Ryan: Ships with high length to beam ratios and high speeds... Don Lincoln: Physics is everything.
@ghettostreamlabs5724
2 жыл бұрын
Surely you mean meters or yards and not feet? If I had to guess, this comes from World of Warships players as it is a stat offered by the game for each ship.
@robertlomax543
2 жыл бұрын
Had a destroyer pull up to us for maintenance. It refused the offer of a tug drove its bow to our midships and stopped. It then put one engine in reverse and the other forward which cause the aft end of the destroyer to rotate around its bow and up to our midships.
@grathian
2 жыл бұрын
There are many tricks a good conning officer will use in piloting situations. Dutton's Navigation was the classic handbook. It takes a long time to get the hang of the idiosyncrasies of a class. As a junior LT I was a plank owner on USS Boone, a brand new OH Perry class, very early in the run, so not a lot of people knew how she would handle.. Single screw, huge rudder, twin bow thrusters. I was on the bridge as helm safety during sea and anchor detail as our CO and XO learned the hard way, including an especially embarrassing in port collision trying to moor alongside USS Long Beach. It takes a long time to learn how a given ship class will respond to wing, current, rudder and stern walk (the unavoidable sideways thrust on single screw vessels, or on twin screw vessels when one screw is reversed). Years later, as a reserve LCDR I got to show off what I learned with fancy maneuvering aboard USS Clark, and in the bridge simulators at SWOSSCOLCOM. The instructors after one situation they had decided was impossible that I pulled off with blinking spent quite a bit of time debriefing me just how I did that.
@robertlomax543
2 жыл бұрын
@@grathian I was so envious of the destroyers. Our ship went out to meet hurricane Gloria. As we tried our best to keep our bow or stern into the wind so as to reduce sea sickness. Eventually we came up to the edge of our authorized operating area and had to turn around. Due to the high winds against our tender and it's large sail area it took 45 minutes to do a u-turn. At least we never lost a rudder but we did drop an anchor on a tug. Grathian, so what was the turning radius of the Boone without a rudder?
@jimmahon3417
2 жыл бұрын
I know a lot of people have mentioned this already but to reiterate - Ryan accidentally quotes feet rather than the correct yards when talking his tactical diameters here - and the US twin-rudder fast BBs really did have not just excellent tactical diameters but very rapid RESPONSE to helm inputs at normal cruising speeds (not always the case with large ships). I don't know if it was about the skeg/prop/rudder flow or the direct wash of screws on rudder surface, or what, but the Iowas started to swing around quickly when the helm went over. There are online accounts of a helmsman aboard Saratoga (CV-3) describing the lag between helm input and the bow starting to swing - in a situation like dodging torpedoes, there is more to it than just tactical diameter. If your ship responds to the helm slowly, that means she remains on the course that will result in a torpedo hit longer, increasing the probability of a hit from a torpedo spread, which is designed to cover a certain range of ship evasive manuevering. Lex and Sara were both awful at rapid turns and stopped torpedoes as a result. The Yorktown class carriers had a single rudder, but it was EFFECTIVE for reasons I lack the naval engineering expertise to understand. All I know was that they responded briskly to helm inputs, as evidenced by those accounts from the battles of 1942, and the famous film looking over the stern of Enterprise during that dive bombing attack during Eastern Solomons. CV-6 was changing direction with amazing speed, which must've made her a difficult target for a Val pilot OR a section of Kates trying to box her in with a torpedo attack... Also guys, remember that the Iowa vs DD thing was originally an Iowa vs FLETCHER thing - the Fletchers were wonderful DDs, but they were the longest DDs the USN had ever built, and they turned out to be under-ruddered. The Sumners and Gearings had twin rudders as a reaction to the lousy tactical diameter displayed by the Fletchers as designed. Later, there was actually a retrofit, extended rudder developed for the Fletchers, but I don't think it was available during the war.
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
2 жыл бұрын
I have seen comparisons between Iowa"s and Alaska's, not specific diameters, Alaska's being less maneuverable. Alaska's had single rudders, a short sighted design implementation.
@washingtonradio
2 жыл бұрын
The Alaskas were oversized heavy cruisers (single rudder) not scaled down battleshiops.
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
2 жыл бұрын
@@washingtonradio Yeah I know that. Her dimension were similar to an Essex but had a single rudder. That was the point.
@grathian
2 жыл бұрын
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer The point is that cruisers are designed for the most efficient cruising range, not for tight maneuvering in a battle line. Totally different design philosophy. Alaska's really were NOT supposed to be in the battle line.
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
2 жыл бұрын
@@grathian cruisers never have to avoid torpedoes? Shortsighted theory.
@anselmdanker9519
2 жыл бұрын
It is great input , on the tactical diameter of the Iowa class.Thank you. So when the battle cruisers of the high seas fleet carried the ' battle about turn', were they exercising their tactical diameter?
@OhYeaMista
2 жыл бұрын
I was blown away when you said a destroyer was over 1000 feet. Why??? Curious about the SoDaks, very short ships. Was their tactical diameter small?
@yes_head
2 жыл бұрын
Probably the same reason as the older aircraft carriers: one rudder.
@OhYeaMista
2 жыл бұрын
@@yes_head pretty sure they had 2.
@grathian
2 жыл бұрын
USN Destroyers from the "Flivvers" to the Fletchers had one small rudder. Everybody's cruisers did too. Fantastic for greater endurance, longer range, Piss poor for tight quarters maneuvering. USN DDs were designed to fight in the Pacific far from their bases. Sumners had the exact same hull as Fletchers, but twin rudders, and went from 950 yards to 700. In the fifties, Fletchers rebuilt as DDEs with huge single rudders went to 630 yards, all at 30 kts. Ryan misread yards as feet, but got the numbers right. We love him anyway. SDs tactical diameter was 733 yds @ 26.5kts, 700 yds @ 20kts.
@nmccw3245
2 жыл бұрын
814 yards is coming up consistently. I’m suspecting Ryan picked up the wrong units. 🇺🇸 👍🏻
@EDKguy
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, the radias is almost the same size as the length of the ship?
@peterkoch3777
Жыл бұрын
You americans should really switch to metric... it is much rarer to get cm and m confused.
@rictusmetallicus
2 жыл бұрын
A topic often discussed at naval wargames. Most rules simplify it so that it looks awkward.
@vikkimcdonough6153
2 жыл бұрын
3:44 - Are the classes where they _don't_ list the tactical diameter the classes for which the tactical diameter is still classified, or the classes for which the information discovered so far isn't sufficient to produce a reconstruction suitable for calculating the tactical diameter?
@maxpeterson8616
2 жыл бұрын
This sent me to Google to look up the "Dirty Billy Porter" reference. What a fascinating story.
@jaybee9269
2 жыл бұрын
One of the IOWAs-I can’t remember which-was actually spun around Alcatraz Island.
@pope5459
2 жыл бұрын
Not sure if you have covered this but I saw an old newspaper clip online saying the new jersey sunk an island in 1969 in Vietnam
@Khemtime
2 жыл бұрын
I just got back from a TDY at Fort Dix. Really wanted to make time to visit but wasn't able to. Only got a glimpse as we drove across the bridge. 🙁
@nalamobil
2 жыл бұрын
This just absolutely boggles my mind. Imagine an IOWA going about 30kt ant rurning in about it's own length. Would there be any footage or pictures of this available?
@paulchilders9969
2 жыл бұрын
No because he confused feet and meters. It's more like half a mile.
@Neutercane
2 жыл бұрын
The Friedman book mentioned that when the British DNC evaluated the North Carolinas to see what they liked and didn't like, of course they much preferred their own ships, but mention was made by them of the superior turning performance and greater fuel capacity of the North Carolinas. I did note something else as well regarding the book. The Tactical Diameter for the various classes are quoted in yards and not feet.
@josephbaker677
2 жыл бұрын
My 1999 Freightliner classic had a turning diameter of a IOWA class battle wagon.
@ghost307
2 жыл бұрын
Is that a grounding cable attached to the rudder post?
@jamespowell7302
2 жыл бұрын
Likely. Will be for active cathodics
@glrider100
2 жыл бұрын
Ryan, you mentioned the USS Franklin. I haven't seen or found much information on her damage. A paragraph here, a 10 second blurb there.. but nothing dedicated to her story. Any chance for a more detailed story?
@cole.sum3127
2 жыл бұрын
I have a question does the USS Iowa Museum have a KZitem Channel or is it just you guys out of the 4 also could you do a video on the Japanese A 150 project compared to the New Jersey
@sphinxrising1129
2 жыл бұрын
I've seen films of Japanese carriers dodging bombs & torpedoes with hard over maneuvers in the battle of Midway, which was very impressive for ships of that size under fire.
@stephenmitros2691
2 жыл бұрын
They lost 4 carriers and a Cruiser at Midway. I 'd say their "hard over maneuvers" stunk and were "VERY" unimpressive for ships of that size. Maybe, if the Japanese had better design ships they could maneuver better. No idea what you are talking about?
@MrStick-oc7yo
2 жыл бұрын
The Japanese carriers lost at Midway (with the possible exception of IJN Hiryu) were all caught "flat footed" - they were not maneuvering when struck by dive bombers. Thankfully, they were distracted by the heroic earlier attacks of the torpedo bombers. Later in the war, Japanese carriers were maneuvering when attacked, but they were basically overwhelmed by weight of numbers of the attacking aircraft, combined with skillful tactics.
@AmericanThunder
Жыл бұрын
Are the props spun at different speeds during an emergency turn, or do they rely only on the rudders?
@traveleraz8269
2 жыл бұрын
Sir, On a different subject. The 16/45 cal used the same shell as the 16/50 cal. However, did they use the same amount and type of powder?
@JDale56
2 жыл бұрын
The gaming channel "The Grim Reapers" just did a scenario with the Iowas in the DCS combat simulator where they tested the turning radius and thought it was too fast - that is probably where the questions are coming from.
@azchris1979
2 жыл бұрын
I thought the same thing. Cap made a big deal about it.
@schwenke069
2 жыл бұрын
Will look it up ... because am confused by the terms. Difference in the use of radius and diameter. Thanks for posting.
@wacojones8062
2 жыл бұрын
I think there is a vertical shot of Missouri out turning a Fletcher in the book on the Missouri. My copy is buried among hundreds of other books right now.
@grathian
2 жыл бұрын
ATPs (Allied Tactical Publications) and current OPORDERs (Operational Orders) set standard formation Tactical Diameters for use when operating in company. Conning officers must increase or decrease their rudder from standard to adjust their ships maneuvers. Typically set at 1000 yards. This way when in combat, everyone turns the same. This is not to be confused with a ship classes tactical diameter which Ryan is talking about. When designed, and as confirmed during a ship's sea trials, the ships Tactical Diameter is the radius of the circle the ship settles into in a continuous turn. This is particular to the ship class and varies with speed. It usually, BUT NOT ALWAYS, reduces with slower speed. Some classes stay the same, a few even increase. It is published in the individual ship's characteristics for other vessels, as well as the ships information book for the crew. Advance and transfer are the measures of the delayed effect of putting the rudder over on distance travelled forward and to the side before the ship settles into the final tactical diameter circle. As well as the fineness ratio (length to beam) and overall length, stern design, and especially number and size of the rudder and placement inside or outside the propellor race have major effects on tactical diameter. Sumners had the exact same hull as Fletchers, but twin rudders, and went from 950 yards to 700. In the fifties, Fletchers rebuilt as DDEs with huge single rudders went to 630 yards, all at 30 kts. USN DEs, almost as fine as and not a lot shorter than DDs, were meant to play with U-Boats, had large twin rudders had tactical diameters of 300 yards. The PFs (Tacoma class) built to British design with single rudders, but very close to the same size, had a single rudder of the same surface area for 480 yards. The design philosophy was that Battleships must maneuver in tight formations, so they got large twin rudders and small tactical diameters. Almost all cruisers of every nation, and USN destroyers from the flivvers until the Fletchers have single rudders to reduce drag, increasing the ships range. The USN planned since 1900 to operate in the Pacific far from its bases, long legs were far more important than tight turns. . And yes, Ryan did misread yards as feet. Not his first or last glitch. But we love him anyway.
@77gravity
2 жыл бұрын
Radius/Diameter is not the only significant number, the TIME to make a 180 turn is also important. A wider radius, at higher speed, may still give a faster turn.
@randypowell3180
2 жыл бұрын
I know about US aircraft carriers and destroyers that were absolutely shredded by the enemy in WWII. That managed to stay afloat and make it back to port. The destroyer USS Laffey comes to mind. I was wondering if there are any examples of this happening with a battleship or submarine. Most curious about US examples. But would be happy to hear about any and all examples you may find, axis or ally.
@richardmcallister438
2 жыл бұрын
I think the USS South Dakota, which essentially bore the full brunt of a small group of cruisers and destroyers at Guadalcanal (and lost power during that action), before recovering and steaming home the next day might be the most damaged an American battleship ever got in battle For other warships, HMS Warspite got hit with every kind of naval weapon made during her career, and limped back to Malta a couple of times after serious damage.
@randypowell3180
2 жыл бұрын
@@richardmcallister438 Cool.
@montecorbit8280
2 жыл бұрын
Would have liked to have had you cite the Burke class....
@ronammologist16
Жыл бұрын
Very educational
@American_Jeeper
Жыл бұрын
The tactical diameter for Bismarck and Tirpitz was 850m (929yds) at 28.5kts. Yamato and Musashi had a radius of 640m (699yds) at 27kts.
@TheShootist
Жыл бұрын
Hi Ryan, Have you done a bit about the time Wisconsin closed the barn doors?
@sadtown
2 жыл бұрын
That's pretty good. I took a gander in my copy of Friedman's design and construction of British warships and HMS Vanguard which I think is a fair contemporary had a tactical diameter of 1025 yards
@criggie
2 жыл бұрын
With four screws, could the ship turn even sharper if the two "inside" props were reversed? Or would that sacrifice too much way and leave the vessel travelling too slow ? Are bow-thrusters a thing on navy vessels ? I don't book-face.
@Bird_Dog00
2 жыл бұрын
You can use asymethrical thrust to assist steering up to a point. The problem is, those screws are relatively close to each other, so the difference isn't that great. Putting half your screws in reverse might imo do more harm than good, as it might very well stop your ship. As to bow thrusters, I haven't heard anything about them already being used in WW2 era ships, but I simply might have missed that.
@kilianortmann9979
2 жыл бұрын
Bow thrusters are not a thing on navy vessels, because, they only work when almost stationary, thus don't help turning. At any significant forward speed the water flowing past the hull prevents almost all water from entering the thruster tunnel. A good video about maneuvering options (although for commercial shipping): kzitem.info/news/bejne/sqCmmZ2Ln5-LZHY
@warrior7ra
2 жыл бұрын
Yes both littoral class' and the Zumwalts have bow thrusters so do a host of patrol boats however the are a maintenance nightmare in the larger vessels and part of the reason for their dismal operational history's and add to the reason they are all headed for the scrap yard after less than 10 yrs of class operations.
@dave8599
2 жыл бұрын
I dont FacePlant either, Zuckerberg is satan.
@NotTheCIA1961
2 жыл бұрын
How come steering area is called aft(er) steering? It seems a bit strange since as far as I know, there's no forward steering.
@michaelsommers2356
2 жыл бұрын
There's probably a way to steer the ship from that compartment, in case the ship can't be steered from the bridge.
@charletonzimmerman4205
2 жыл бұрын
@@michaelsommers2356 Exactly !
@billbutler335
2 жыл бұрын
Forward steering is actually the bridge, where the ship is primarily steered from. After steering is the emergency backup if control is lost from the bridge helm station.
@NotTheCIA1961
2 жыл бұрын
@@billbutler335 Oh ok, so after steering just happens to be best placed in the same room as your rudders.
@mikehyde2336
2 жыл бұрын
Smashing nigel
@KitsuneVoss
2 жыл бұрын
Don't forget that the Iowas were quite a bit longer than the King George V class but according to Friedman still had a better turning radius. It was not really the twin screws but the design of the skegs in the stern. It was slightly less fuel efficient than the British battleship stern but better for turning.
@vikkimcdonough6153
2 жыл бұрын
2:31 - On the other hand, the higher your speed, the greater your rudder authority (you need to have water moving over the rudder for it to turn the ship, and you do that by moving the ship through the water).
@jenniferbrylinski4662
2 жыл бұрын
Hence one of the fatal errors of the Titanic.
@crgkevin6542
2 жыл бұрын
I forget the exact numbers, though 1000 yards feels about right, but the British battlecruiser Hood had a very large tactical diameter. On account of both her very long and narrow hull form, and having only a single rudder. She is reputed to also have been susceptible to losing a lot of speed in a turn as well.
@billyshoffner527
2 жыл бұрын
Keel-Hauling, a punishment inflicted for various offences in the Dutch Navy. It is performed by plunging the delinquent repeatedly under the ship's bottom on one side, and hoisting him up on the other, after having passed under the keel.
@jvckrs
2 жыл бұрын
Keel hauling was used in the British Royal Navy as well.
@michaelh8116
2 жыл бұрын
Take a drink everytime he says tactical diameter. 😁🍻
@QurikyBark32919
2 жыл бұрын
Could you do a video about the two different hull types of the standard battleships? (Nevada- Arizona, New Mexico- West Virginia)
@31dknight
2 жыл бұрын
Great video from the battleship.
@somethingelse516
2 жыл бұрын
The thumbnail for the video really makes the Iowas lengthen look more like cruisers
@mangoretheogre4178
2 жыл бұрын
could the power to the screws on one side be raised or lowered compared to the other side to aid in turning?
@arniestuboud
2 жыл бұрын
I find the difference between RADIUS and DIAMETER (R x 2) to be a VERY important distinction..... and very confusing here!! It is difficult to imagine a ship turning at any decent speed in a circle with a DIAMETER only as wide as the ship's length but not at all difficult to imagine that turning distance as the RADIUS of that same circle. You can not compare RADIUS and DIAMETER the same way. My SWAG is that the "Tactical Diameter" is indeed the turning RADIUS. If that is correct, than the term is VERY confusing and not even well explained in several Google searches.
@KirkHermary
2 жыл бұрын
You said it yourself, diameter is the diameter of a circle, radius is ½ of that. Very basic grade school math. Tactical diameter is the cross section of the circle the ship makes at speed. Nothing even remotely confusing. You're just overthinking.
@arniestuboud
2 жыл бұрын
@@KirkHermary STILL find it difficult that any large ship like an IOWA could do a 180 degree turn at 25 to 30 knots within a DIAMETER about the length of the ship. RADIUS - OK. Diameter is a very very tight turn. But you are correct. I may just be too smart for my own good......
@arniestuboud
2 жыл бұрын
@@KirkHermary I just read Tyler Servies comment about UNREP and the Missouri doing a very fast tight turn when she was finished. MORE POINTS for your side! Still find it difficult to visualize though.
@ricksadler797
2 жыл бұрын
Awesome video thank you. I gotta see about that book you speak off ?? God bless
@AdamosDad
2 жыл бұрын
You can also end up with a large diameter if you go slow enough to lose way (steering)
@sceer8513
2 жыл бұрын
Just another question how long does it take to complete its tactical diameter compared to other ships or destroyers
@Scott11078
2 жыл бұрын
My first ship was the USS Kitty Hawk, and while she was surprisingly agile my second ship USS O'Kane DDG-77 was incredible. I'd love to know the tactical diameter of an Arliegh Burke class, it looked like we could drift her around..
@Fiskanatorz
2 жыл бұрын
Does this tactical diameter also consider/use an Iowa throwing her 2 side screws into reverse? There are several accounts of an Iowa seemingly twisting around very rapidly.
@charlespfaff6585
2 жыл бұрын
O.k.ya got me on this one. Dang!
@keithrosenberg5486
2 жыл бұрын
I had heard of it. There is even a photo somewhere showing it.
@FlyingWithSpurts
2 жыл бұрын
So the REALLY impressive part is the Tactical Diameter to Length ratio. 760 feet on a vessel 887ft long will SEEM much tighter than 700 feet on a vessel 608 feet long. What was the time it took to deflect the rudders? Is the Tactical Diameter achieved using reverse thrust on the inboard motors?
@lord_igorious1426
2 жыл бұрын
I was surprised by that fact!
@craenor
2 жыл бұрын
Two things people are always surprised about by regarding the big ships. The agility of battleships and the speed of nuclear aircraft carriers. The Enterprise was especially speedy, back in the day.
@jimsherman8665
2 жыл бұрын
Video size is incorrect.
@shorey66
2 жыл бұрын
I thought that. Wondered if maybe it was that weird KZitem thing where it only uploads the hi Res version later. But it does seem off
@andrewhammel5714
2 жыл бұрын
I play around with designing war games. There is famous photo of a Japanese carrier dodging American dive bombers at Midway which shows the ship's bow almost touching the tail end of its own wake that it created in steaming in a circle. Just measuring from the picture you can see that the circle of the wake is five times the ship's length. So in the rules of my game all ships have a tactical diameter of five times their length. I am now amazed to learn that even the least nimble big ships can turn in about a one to one ratio of their length (though destroyers apparently need almost three times their length). Will have to change the rules of my game.
@kiwisteve6598
2 жыл бұрын
Your game it fine, see the other posts he was mis speaking feet when he should have been saying yards
@andrewhammel5714
2 жыл бұрын
@@kiwisteve6598 Thnx!
@EDKguy
2 жыл бұрын
Nice turning radias, but how does the milage compare to my 1988 Toyota Corolla?
@Ravenscaller
2 жыл бұрын
The general figure for modern cruise ships is rumored to be about 1 ft per gallon of fuel. Steam generated power is much less efficient as is old riveted and welded hull design. At that rate the mileage would be something like one Toyota per mile. Of course these are just guesstimates not to be taken as seriously. I'm sure there are fuel consumption numbers somewhere on the Internet if you dig deeply enough.
@coolman1724
2 жыл бұрын
I’ve heard of the FDR accident on Iowa that made FDR love the Iowa battle ships
@tryithere
2 жыл бұрын
Do they reverse a prop or two to get really tight radius.
@mattlechner8442
2 жыл бұрын
with those big guns, the battleships probably had pretty deep draft, probably well along their entire length(s) and deep draft can help with both steering and tracking in a straight line. And who knows, maybe they have big rudders too.
@noahengstrom
2 жыл бұрын
I was going to ask if the turning of a battleship can be greatly accelerated by dropping one anchor while at flank speed...but then I thought...you know what Ryan should do a reaction video for the movie Battleship. I mean, it's an Iowa class and it's about making it operational...If you haven't done this yet you should. And if you have, I would love to see it.
@noahengstrom
2 жыл бұрын
@Phil M I think you missed the idea of the post. The situation is from a movie and the suggestion is that Ryan do a reaction video to it. He would likely say just what you said...but there is a lot more in that movie that he could speak to.
@jeffstone7912
2 жыл бұрын
What about varying the screwspeed while turning???
@jackkelly9022
2 жыл бұрын
Is is possible to reverse one or more propellers to shorten the turn?
@barkermjb
2 жыл бұрын
Good stuff
@boyo2012
2 жыл бұрын
I think KZitem is messing with the quality of this video...I only have 480p as an option. :( Thankfully Ryan is a great narrator and the visuals are not as important!
@DSToNe19and83
2 жыл бұрын
What’s the red tape arrow, a water line indicator?
@RhodokTribesman
2 жыл бұрын
Does turn rate Vs. turn radius matter at all for ships as it does for airplanes?
@merlemorrison482
2 жыл бұрын
Never heard that one before. Wonder how this compares to a Nimitz class carrier?
@christianjunghanel6724
2 жыл бұрын
Wikipedia says the Bismarck class were also good in turning , but got reduced to 65% of their speed when doing so at full speed! Aparently they were also good at sea keeping ! They did have a more oval hull shape than Iwoas! The Yamato which had a similar hull shape like the Iwoas is also said to have been good at turning! She was also relativly fast if you take into acount that she is 15000 to 20000 tons more heavy while haveing at least 50000hp less and beeing 6 meters more wider !
@bowdoin5063
2 жыл бұрын
The Bismark and the Yamato were also very good at sinking
@christianjunghanel6724
2 жыл бұрын
@@bowdoin5063 And your point is?
@bowdoin5063
2 жыл бұрын
@@christianjunghanel6724 What didn't you understand?
@christianjunghanel6724
2 жыл бұрын
@@bowdoin5063 Those ship did sink , but i don t think they were particulary good at it ! Not more than any other ship that has been hit over and over again with torpedos and shells! There were some difference in torpedo defense yes! But the topic was about the handling charakterristic of different battleships ! So fail to see how this is related to the topic! 🤔
@bowdoin5063
2 жыл бұрын
@@christianjunghanel6724 I digress
@burroaks7
2 жыл бұрын
very interesting
@Saxxonknight
2 жыл бұрын
So basically this BB can turn side it's own length. That is impressive. That said the Nimitz carrier turning in a third of a mile isn't all that bad, that's about 2/3s over its length which may be more than the BB but you think it would take miles to accomplish.
@brianfoster7064
2 жыл бұрын
I served on the USS RANGER CV-61 1985 to 1988. Got to see the Mighty MO in action. All nine guns firing a slovo. Quite a sight. That said, the Iowa class was the last BB ever due to Aircraft Carriers becoming the primary ship for battle. BBs became obsolete. Destroyers and other small boys became the primary defense for the carrier. BBs are too expensive in every way in the CV Navy. A carrier can launch sorty after sorty to strike all beyond the range of an BB ever designed with the exception of the Wave Motion Gun of the fictional Battleship Yamamoto.
@jvckrs
2 жыл бұрын
The Kirov class Russian ships(Peter the Great and Admiral Nakhimov) is classified as a battle cruiser. They are nuclear powered, 827 feet long and displace 28,000 tons. They were commissioned in 1988 and 1998. There were two other ships of the same class since decommissioned and a command ship based on the same hull as well. They are currently based with the Northern fleet and the Pacific Fleet apparently.
@Aetrion
2 жыл бұрын
A thought: The turning radius may be smaller when you're going slower, but with less water flowing over the rudder wouldn't the actual turning speed also be much lower? Doesn't turning quickly matter more than turning tightly sometimes?
@michaelwilkening8542
2 жыл бұрын
The problem is the weight of the ship want to keep going in the direction it was traveling. Just like on a icy road when you attempt to turn the car it tends to keep going the way it originally going. Water gives even less traction than ice does.
@wesleybyrd2682
2 жыл бұрын
Little bit of a nit-pick. You're giving the Tactical Diameter in FEET, when they are listed in YARDS. You're numbers are correct, just a mistake in the units. It's something I wouldn't have realized if I hadn't be looking at my own copy of Friedman's U.S. Battleships, wondering what a Tactical Radius was, when KZitem pointed me to this video.
@declana1359
2 жыл бұрын
I looked up those Norman Friedman books, and they look really cool, but at $100 each I really can't afford them. I'll have to keep an eye out for used copies
Пікірлер: 337