@KPen3750
Oh my god I’ve been playing World of Warships for a long time now, and I always wondered why the secondary battery on Georgia was funky. I knew it wasn’t an Iowa but that gap and that explanation makes SO MUCH SENSE
@isaacmatthews1966
Ryan szimanski long form content
@ParabellumHistory
Whats the book being referenced at 19:26? About the wacky modifications for the South Dakota class?
@michaelmcnally2331
It really depends upon what you mean by Battlecruiser. In terms of the British and Jackie Fishers concept then was for a large ship with high speed and larger then cruiser armament. Such a ship would be used for reconnaissance which traditionally had been the cruiser role. Compared to such cruisers then Jackie fishers concept would have outgunned and outranged traditional cruisers, and if met battleships then would be fast enough to disengage. Unfortunately the concept showed to be flawed and whilst they had BB style armament, to get the performance then sacrificed armour (to reduce weight) and when used in the battle line then showed could not stand up to battleships guns. (Which Jackie fisher never expected them to be facing). Yes ignoring correct practice of ammo storage didn’t help but still had to penetrate the armour to set the ammo off. Germany however had a different concept for its idea of battle cruisers which had more armour then the British and instead sacrificed firepower to improve performance but would allow them to stand in the battle line against battleships but be more manoeuvrable. So could scout first then take place in battle line once the enemy found as Germany had less battleships then Royal Navy. So British Battlecruisers are originally large battleship size ships,with battleship level guns and lesser armour to improve speed, German Battlecruisers are armoured to fight against battleships in the battle line and sacrifice firepower to improve speed. Both called Battlecruisers but different approaches. During construction learning lessons from Jutland then the armour on Hood the only Admiral battlecruiser to be completed was increased making it comparable to the QE battleships as opposed to the original tiger class levels of protection as per original design. So Hood started out as typical UK Battlecruiser but was upgraded protection during construction to battleships level. At the time of the Washington treaty then a capital ship more then 24kts was defined as battle cruiser by the Royal Navy, no matter the firepower and protection, which is why the G3 defined as Battlecruiser even though realistically they were more Fast Battleships, and larger and more powerful and better armoured then existing Royal Navy Battleships. however N3 filled battleship role with more firepower and armour but slower then 24kts. Fast Battleships differed from Battlecruiser concept of Jackie Fisher in that would stand in the battle line but be able to manoeuvre better for tactical advantage compared to the traditional Battleships. Speed coming from improved armour layout focussing on critical area’s and power. So they have the firepower of BB and armour protection of BB whilst being faster then previous BB. They were not intended to do the recce role either and then drop to battleline so do not match the german concept either. As such Iowa is Battleship as in Fast Battleship rather then Battlecruiser. Speed requirement from being intended to intercept Kongo etc but still fight in the battleline so couldn’t sacrifice firepower or protection as battlecruisers tended to do for the speed. Beam of Iowa dictated by requirements to transit Panama Canal so being longer then appear “narrow” in terms of length to beam ratio.
@Avalanche041
The Iowa Class are fairly similar to the Queen Elizabeth Class in terms of their relationship with the American battle line. The British prior to WWI had standardized on 21 knots as the top speed for their battlefleet. The Queen Elizabeth's were designed to be 3-5 knots faster in order to increase the fleets flexibility. They were meant to form the fast wing of the British battle line. This allowed them to act alongside the battlecruisers in a supporting role, counter enemy battlecruisers, and carry out missions to sweep around enemy battle formations to achieve a tactical victory. Jump forward 30 years to the US Navy. In the 1930s, the US Navy has now standardized on 28 knots as the speed of their new battlefleet. So all new battleship construction has a minimum speed requirement of 28 knots. The Iowa's are designed to form the fast wing of this new battle line. They are still an integral part of the battlefleet but their mission is to give more tactical flexibility to the battleships. Its also important to remember that you cannot compare an Iowa to a Montana. Iowa was the last class of treaty era battleships built. They were designed and built after the escalator clause had been invoked which is why they increase their size to 45k tons. The Montana's if built would have been America's first post treaty battleship design.
@geoguy001
I would point out the NC, SD, and Iowa were not fully protected against their own main armament once superheavy shells were introduced...but Montana was.
@scottspilis1940
The original WW I definition for a battlecruiser was a ship with a capital ships (battleship) main armament, higher speed and lighter armor than contemporary battleships. The battlecruiser armor scheme was such that it was not proof against its own armament, thus giving rise to the design concept of trading off speed for protection. The Iowa's were designed with an armor scheme that was proof against their main armament, at least until the 2700 lb 16 inch shell was introduced. Iowa's armor scheme had an immune zone from 17,600 yards to 31,200 yards with the 2240 lb shell; that zone shrunk significantly to 20,400 yards to 26,700 yards for the 2700 lb shell. A ships classification is determined by its design characteristics, not by the introduction of successor ships. Iowa's would have remained classified as battleships regardless whether the Montana's were built or not.
@rickkephartactual7706
With all the various specifications for different "Battle Cruiser" I don't know that anybody was ever really sure what they were or how they were to be used.
@PaulfromChicago
Ryan has been very consistent in his approach. If Hood is a battle cruiser, Iowa is a battle cruiser. If Hood is a battleship, Iowa is a battleship. Ryan has always called Hood a battleship, therefore Iowa is a battleship.
@glennac
It’s humorous how strict some can be about definitions based on the Age of Sail and the Battle of Jutland when you look at the reality of Battleship / Battlecruiser warfare during WWII. Battles after Jutland no longer involved “battle lines”. They were fistfights and melees at sea. “Battle line” definitions of war vessels went out the window after 1916 w/ perhaps the Battle of Surigao Strait being an exception (not a true battle line against battle line scenario) but the Battle off Samar being an example of the norm. Since battles and tactics changed over the decades since the initial Dreadnought era so did the definitions of the ships involved in those battles. Sure, design and planning are a major factor. But just as valid is the WAY nations used those vessels once they were actually on the high seas. As with many tools, the way you use it dictates as much as anything how it’s defined.
@taccovert4
Iowa is like Vanguard. It fits the criteria for "Fast Battleship" and "Fully Armored Battlecruiser"....just really a semantic difference. Though, doctrinally, the Iowas got used a lot for what would fall under traditional cruiser roles of escorting the fleet's capital units (carriers) shore bombardment, etc. So in some ways, there is a doctrinal reason to call the Iowa class 'Battlecruisers'.
@geoguy001
I think I saw somewhere that the British initially referred to KGV and Vanguard as BCs because of their speed.
@mikepotter5718
The battleship dies when the line of battle concept is moved into the background. The true line forward is shown by ships like Hood. Basically any ship developed after it are all Battle cruisers. :)
@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass
Battlecruisers don’t have 6-7 inches of deck armor! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
@ut000bs
Okay, this has been my argument for years and here goes. Battlecruisers were made to be part of a scouting force. They had high speed, contemporary battleship guns, and light, generally cruiser-proof, armor. They could outrun anything they couldn't outgun. The Alaska class had high speed, generally cruiser-proof armor, but lacked contemporary caliber guns. Battleships with 12" guns were soooo 1905. Two out of three checks in the boxes. The Iowa class has high speed, contemporary battleship guns, and battleship armor fully capable of scouting with cruisers and destroyers and kicking the butt of anything they come across that needs a butt-kicking. Technically, that is two out of three but the third isn't a negative, it's a freaking bonus. Full battleship armor. Long story, short. If the Alaska was a battlecruiser, the New Jersey is a better one.
@ThumperE23
I think what they were looking to do with the Iowas was what the Royal Navy did with the Queen Elizabeths in WW1. As Ryan said the fast wing of the battleline. Also to put a kill on the battlecruiser argument, the Iowas, were based on the South Dakotas, and the standard US Navy gun lay out was the 2A1 with three gun turrets. The Montanas were a return to a more traditional American 2A2 with three gun turrets. Didn't they reorder BB65 and BB66 as Iowas? Also, I believe there is a US Law that the Class A Ships of the Line are to be named after states.
@johnfleet235
The only reason you might consider the Iowas battlecruisers is because of their speed. If the US Navy, left the speed at 28 knots, then these are battleships. I think the Iowas are battleships. They are just too big and heavily armored to be a battlecruiser.
@NFS_Challenger54
First comment. At this point in time (10:25 am in New York, Thursday, March 23, 2023) there aren't any other comments that have been typed down. When the Washington Naval Treaty was signed, the building of all future TRADITIONAL battlecruisers ceased right then and there. Renown, Repulse, and Hood were the only remaining battlecruisers serving in the Royal Navy, and pretty much every other navy stopped using battlecruisers. With the slight exception of Scharnhorst and Dunkerque. I know that's a can of worms in and of itself. However, I still believe the Alaska's are a modified version of the battlecruiser concept/doctrine, like how the battleship started to focus more on speed while not compromising armor protection, replacing the traditional doctrine of the battlecruiser altogether. Had the Montana-class been built and commissioned, that wouldn't demote the Iowa's to battlecruisers, despite the characteristics mentioned earlier. They were rated as battleships, and the fastest of any class of battleship in the world. Also, I agree with Ryan when he says that the Montana's are the next-generation battleship rather than being straight up contemporaries of the Iowa's. Because that's how the Navy saw it while working on the plans. Though, that does bring up a few interesting questions. Because the Montana-class battleships are bigger than the Iowa-class (despite being slightly slower), what would befall the Iowa's after World War 2? Would it be one of the Montana's as the site of surrender for Japan instead of Missouri? Would one of them return to fight in the Vietnam War instead of New Jersey? Would all the Montana's return in the 80's instead of the Iowa's? Also, would any of the Iowa's and/or Montana's be preserved as museum ships?
@scotthix2926
The definition of a battleship is - give pounding, take a pounding. With this definition I would classify Iowas as battlecruisers. However, you are going call your biggest ship especially if it is new a battleship. Role of Iowas - assume Montana get built and Yamato and its sister Musahie (misspelled) are more deployable. They spent more time in harbor due to fuel shortage and manpower concerns. Team Montana with a couple of escort carriers for air cover and a crusier and a destroyer screen. Their role would be to shadow and engage Yamato and go where ever it goes. This would parity each other. Now with the Iowas free, they would actually do the bulk of the fighting by making them the flagship of the fleet.The
@KyriosMirage