On this memorial day, I thought it might be appropriate to share this image and story. The USS Iowa made its final voyage from Richmond, CA to San Pedro CA on Saturday, May 26th, sliding under the Golden Gate Bridge for the last time.
A bow view of the battleship USS IOWA (BB-61) firing its Mark 7 16-inch/50-caliber guns off the starboard side during a fire power demonstration. Date 15 August 1984 Image: WikipediaIronically, the Golden Gate Bridge had its 75th anniversary a day later.
USS Iowa (BB-61) fires a full broadside of her nine 16″/50 and six 5″/38 guns during a target exercise near Vieques Island, Puerto Rico (21°N 65°W). Note concussion effects on the water surface, and 16-inch gun barrels in varying degrees of recoil., July 1, 1984 Image: WikipediaFull story and more great photos here: USS Iowa final voyage from Richmond, CA
As always, my thanks and respect to our men and women in the military, who have served our country in times of war and peace.
Bill Tuttle says:
May 28, 2012 at 9:05 am
DonS says:
May 28, 2012 at 8:24 am
Caption on the first photo says something like “16 inch 50 caliber guns”. Is that right swabbies?
I’m not a swabbie, but any former or current Redleg can answer that. The bore diameter is 16 inches and the tube is fifty calibers in length, from muzzle to breech. Caliber refers to the bore diameter, which in this case, is 16 inches, so the tube is 800 inches long.
=============================================================
Much clearer tahn what I’d said. Thanks.
eyesonu
May 28, 2012 9:31 am
To the commenters of WUWT, you have my admiration. The close inspection of every picture, graph, comment, written word, etc. is to be commended. You guys don’t seem to miss much. I am referencing specifically the picture (first) in this post that appears to show the Iowa moving sideways from recoil. The eyes on WUWT are ‘sharp’ to say the least. Correct answer offered by Bill Tuttle. The participants and/or followers here tend to have the opportunity see things in a proper light.
The above point is made not just to this instance but to nearly every issue discussed on WUWT. You guys have got ‘eyes on it’.
With sincere admiration,
eyesonu
eyesonu
May 28, 2012 9:37 am
I hit the “go” button too quick in my post above. Consider this an addendum.
Maybe we have all learned to look closely from a learning process exibited by Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre.
EW-3
May 28, 2012 9:43 am
“William Truesdell says:
May 28, 2012 at 3:34 am
I served on her for a few days of my Midshipman cruise to South America…”
Used to love when middies would join us on the DE-1038….
Last time out a fellow EW and I brought canned sardines from the ships store into CIC as we were getting underway. We made just about every middie barf his cookies by the time we secured sea and anchor 😉
Jakehig says:
May 28, 2012 at 9:12 am
RACookPE1978 says:
May 28, 2012 at 6:45 am
This post is stridently critical of the RN’s gunnery systems etc. but posts no references. This is the first I have read of such deficiencies. What are the sources for these comments?
=====================================================================
Can’t give a reference, but part of it was optics. Remember, no radar. One side (I forget which.) determined range by “focusing” the image from stereo viewers. The other would line up a top the top image from one scope with the bottom image from the other scope. I don’t remember all the whys and wherefores, but one was more accurate and reliable than the other. The Germans had the better of the two. (Again, I welcome correction. I hope I’m not mixing up the the British/German systems of WW1 with the US/Japanese of WW2.)
Sorry if I’ve contributed to the purpose of this post straying a bit. As I said when I started to swerve:
“First, there are many who read this blog who have lost loved ones in the service of preserving freedom, not just for us in the US but also for their own coutries. This is small consolation but I am grateful for what they did.”
Jakehig
May 28, 2012 10:24 am
GD, you are right about the optics, I am sure, but the original post was decrying the calculations and computational methods, not the range-finding.
Best leave it there as we are off-topic and the poster has not backed-up his assertions.
Rhys Kent
May 28, 2012 10:29 am
I served in the Canadian Artillery in the early 70’s. That was not a good time to be in uniform in public, even in Canada, and less so in the USA, due to the Vietnam War. The “civvies” had no respect, and I recall their cat calls, spitting, yelling and so on to this day. Out of uniform my haircut identified me as well. So I’m glad the political climate today allows for respect of all military members but I recall a time when it did not. And that was shameful.
It’s easy to laud the military and it’s veterans now – let’s laud them when it is not, and that will show our true colours.
And by the way, the Battle of Jutland was variously described as a victory for the Germans, or a draw, or any such thing that denigrated the Royal Navy. The fact is that the German fleet never sailed again after Jutland, and in that light, most importantly, the RN won.
RACookPE1978
Editor
May 28, 2012 10:41 am
Much controversy between the Admiralty’s “favored son” of Dreyer and the “commercial” calculators of Pollen. Pollen invented the system and the theory, and had the better computer. Dreyer copied Pollen’s machines, and got the ultimate contract. At Jutland, Dryer’s ships missed their targets. Regrettably, the British battlecrusiers that had the Navy’s confidence and money (and Dryer’s computers) were rapidly sunk by the long-range plunging fire from the slower-ships-but-with-better controlled- (German) guns. The one battlecruiser that had Pollen’s rangefinders and fire control tables in it was also sunk – after making hits, but sunk anyway due to its poor deck armor. And, a few years later, the Hood was also sunk with one shell.
The following from Wikepedia about Dreyer is more “favorable” than I accept, but you need to read it from his side as well.
Dreyer Fire Control Table
The introduction of centralized fire control for warships gave a significant improvement to the accuracy of gunnery. The increasing range of naval guns led by several years the necessary advances to control their fire. Over a ten-year period techniques such as centralised spotting of fall of shot, mechanical computation of rate of change of range (rate), mechanical clocks to calculate range over time for any given “rate” and long baselength optical rangefinders were introduced. In order to make sense of such data, manual plotting of rangefinder ranges, from single or multiple rangefinders as well as other data began to find favour. The Royal Navy sponsored research into these techniques, and two groups emerged, a commercial group led by Arthur Pollen, and a Naval group led by Dreyer. Both camps aimed to produce a combined mechanical computer and automatic plot of ranges and rates for use in centralised fire control. Both systems were ordered for new and existing ships of the Royal Navy, although the Dreyer Table, as the Dreyer system was called eventually found most favour with the Navy in its definitive Mark IV* form.
The addition of director control facilitated a full, practicable fire control system for World War I ships, and most RN capital ships were so fitted by mid 1916. The director was high up over the ship where operators had a superior view over any gunlayer in the turrets. It was also able to co-ordinate the fire of the turrets so that their combined fire worked together. This improved aiming and larger optical rangefinders improved the estimate of the enemy’s position at the time of firing. But with the longer practical ranges came the increased time of flight. The Fire Control System now had to account for more variations and more complicated corrections than was originally planned. The Dreyer Table had some mechanical flaws, particularly when additional loads were introduced in the form of unauthorised accoutrements concocted by individual gunnery personnel, but on the whole performed in a satisfactory manner. The system was eventually replaced by the improved “Admiralty Fire Control Table” for ships built after 1927, although Dreyer Tables went to war a second time in World War II, notably in Britain’s unmodernised battleships and battlecruisers.
The choice between the Dreyer and Pollen systems was controversial at the time. The Royal Navy had repeatedly tested Pollen’s designs and had given him what it considered very preferential terms for them. Pollen in 1925 won an award for £30,000 from the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors for elements of his Argo Clock that had been used without his permission. At the same time Dreyer applied for a similar grant but due to the fact that in 1915 he had been awarded £5,000 for his services to fire control his request was denied.[3]
While Dreyer’s table certainly owes some of its features to Arthur Pollen, it was still his creation and for all the claims of the navy protecting its own, Pollen’s inventions received a fair trial at the Admiralty—a fact which he himself admitted. </blockquote.
While there is plenty of iron in both the battleship and the Golden Gate Bridge, there is no irony between the anniversaries.
DesertYote
May 28, 2012 11:12 am
George V
May 28, 2012 at 4:22 am
Nice display of Newton’s third law in that first picture. I am also amazed at the complex design of such a ship in the day when the computing device was a slide rule and the design system was a drafting pen, compass, straightedge, and giant sheets of paper.
###
And modeling was done with miniatures in tubs of water.
George E. Smith;
May 28, 2012 11:17 am
Found more info, than anyone would want to know about the Musashi and its guns. Type 94, officially designated as 40/45 (cm) which is 15.9 inch 45 caliber. In actuality , were 46/45 or 18.1 inches. Both Musashi, and Yamato, were surreptitiously built way bigger than they were publicised to be, and the actual 18 inch caliber wasn’t revealed till after the war. I believe guns from at least Yamato have been recovered.
They were designed to also fire an incendiary shrapnel round (type 3) which was 2998 lbs and designed the shatter forwards into a cone of sub shells, which also splintered when their separate fuzes went off. Designed to take out a whole flock of close in aircraft coming in low at the ship.
It is almost certain that that was the round Musashi fired at Jack Cochranes flight of Avengers. As far as I know, that might have been the only such round ever fired in combat; there is only records of a single shot. In fact it might have been the only shot Musashi fired from those guns in anger.
Good thing for Jack and his buddies, because, if it had been a regular high explosive round, it would have gotten the whole flight anyway. But because of the forward burst design for taking out approaching planes, the main destruction went off to the right of the planes, anfd they only got the backwash.
I said the ship could have hit the planes even if they were at 15,000 feet. Muzzle velocity for that round was 2641 ft per sec, and the maximum gun altitude was 41 degrees. A little Isaac Newton, and I calculate, maximum possible shell altitude was, 46, 907 ft (less air resistance losses.)
This also puts the maximum target lateral range at 15.4 miles. I would have guessed maybe 30 miles but not with such a big shell. As it was, maximum chamber pressure was 20 tons per square inch with a full charge.
Sounds to me, that Jack’s account of his adventure was as accurate as a Swiss watch. He might have been the near victim, of the only round Musashi ever fired in combat from its big guns. The records DO report two Japanese cruisers sunk by torpedos at Leyte Gulf. The actual sea that Musashi went down in was named something else, other than Leyte, but it was that main action. The ship had an armor weakness at the bow, and that’s how the American planes got to her.
The total number of guns of all calibers she carried, was astronomical; most of them 25 mm AAs.
Gail Combs
May 28, 2012 11:30 am
Darrin says:
May 28, 2012 at 8:12 am
Alan Watt, from where she will be sitting they’ll be able to call her back to active duty if needed. The reason behind retiring her is she is just to damn expensive to operate….. Second reason is a retrofit to a more modern propulsion system and armament would also be cost prohibitive. To truly make her worthwhile to run with her size and weight she would need to go nuclear, gas would work but she would likely only be able to outrun supply ships.
_______________________________ Would Thorium Powered Ships be better for the Navy?: The Navy is studying using alternative “green” fuels for powering Navy ships…
Looks like green-think is infesting all parts of the US government.
Michael Reed
May 28, 2012 11:53 am
Hey, mods. I think I’ve detected a slight typo in the title to this article. I think it should read “this weekend,” not “the weekend.” Just doing my bit for accuracy.
DonS
May 28, 2012 12:01 pm
@Gunga Din and Bill Tuttle. Thanks for your replies on the bore/caliber question I asked. Usually I just look those things up for myself but it was busy here today. Doing things to remember our heroes. Here’s a site that I found later: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
To everyone here who served, thank you. Particularly WWII vets who clearly saved the world from an unspeakable future. I’m a Vietnam vet who is still pissed at the politicians who failed to pursue victory. By the way, Bill, I know a little about Redlegs and Ft Sill.
eyesonu
May 28, 2012 12:15 pm
George E. Smith; says:
May 28, 2012 at 11:17 am
=======================
Thank you. That was most interesting.
pk
May 28, 2012 12:43 pm
Alan the Brit :
if you look carefully on the vertical view there are some rectangles installed at an angle.
those are the modern weapons that can reach out and touch someone at 600nm.
(worked on two of those beasts)
C
pk
May 28, 2012 12:52 pm
boballab:
the reason the first aircraft carrier Enterprise was scrapped was to make the name avialable for the second ship of that name.
the current enterprise will probably be scrapped out directly upon decommissioning for the same reason. however there has been no indication yet of what the follow on Enterprise will be.
they used to have a large signboard on the bulkhead in the hanger deck that started out ENTERPRISE, CVN……. EIGHTH SHIP of THE NAME… and it goes on to show all of the campaign ribbons etc of all eight of the ships.
That particular name is a really big deal to USN.
C
pk
May 28, 2012 1:08 pm
Alan Watt says:
May 28, 2012 at 7:08 am
yes we can build them again. its just that we would use different indistrial techniques.
like welding continous cast plate strips together with %100 welded joints (both techniques were not in industry in the late thirties when these ships were built).
the business of installing gas turbines was considered in the late seventies when the advance work for the reactivation was being done but there wasn’t enough experience in the fleet and it was set aside.
the main costs of the ships were not the ship itself but the personnell wages……..
C
GeoLurking
May 28, 2012 1:13 pm
Alan the Brit says:
May 28, 2012 at 1:53 am
“…Yeah, she may be old, she may be outgunned by a small frigate these days with the right missile technology…”
It would have to be some really cutting edge technology with shaped charges and burrowing copper plasma taken into consideration. Ships of this era were built to withstand a certain number of leakers that got through the AAA defenses.
Short of a nuke, you would have to hit it successfully several times in order to make it combat neutral.
Could it be taken out? Yes, but would really have to work at it.
RACookPE1978 says:
“…a few years later, the Hood was also sunk with one shell.”
Sunk by the Bismarck with one salvo, at a range of thirteen nautical miles!
1,416 of the 1,419 crew members of the Hood died when she went down. News of that feat shook the Allies, and Great Britain made an all-out effort to chase down and sink the Bismarck. They succeeded because a torpedo biplane pilot managed to hit the Bismarck’s rudder.
A good account of the battle of the Denmark Strait is given in Herman Wouk’s excellent historical novel The Winds of War [much superior to the schmaltzy made for TV series]. Highly recommended due to Wouk’s attention to historical details of pre-Pearl Harbor WWII.
The battleship evokes a visceral response that its sea power successor, the aircraft carrier cannot duplicate. Perhaps it is because the king of the seas was humbled by the little gnats that were air power and is now an icon of a bygone age. We have the romance of mighty ships with great guns since the battle of Trafalgar. Nelson going straight at them, the mighty 70 plus guns of the ships of the line thundering away at close range. The Tsarist Russian fleet in the early 20th century steaming half way around the world to be trounced by the Japanese Navy. General Billy Mitchell was court-martialed in 1925 for insubordination, the insubordination at least in part being his espousal of the vulnerability of the battleship to air power. The hand writing was on the wall with the sinking of the battleship Prince of Wales and the cruiser Repulse by Japanese air attack shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack. Without strong air support, the battleship was a sitting duck. But the romance lives on. Witness the latest hit movie “Battleship”, not “Carrier”! And one of the great real life sea stories is the hunt for the Bismark. The mighty Bismark would have escaped but for a torpedo launched from a Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo bomber jamming the rudder locking the great ship into a turn.
Diego Cruz
May 28, 2012 2:33 pm
I was 12 years old on April 1956 when I went to the Malecon in Havana, Cuba. The Iowa was moored a mile or so from the coast, I guess the port was not deep enough to hold it, or maybe they “remembered the Maine.” I stood there for a long time, amazed at the sight.
Jack Simmons
May 28, 2012 2:43 pm
suissebob says:
May 28, 2012 at 1:54 am
Reminds me of the Cracked story on the USS William D Porter, which among other crimes launched a torpedo at the Iowa, while the President was on board:-)
The story if referred to in one of the books I read on Roosevelt.
And yes, FDR wanted to watch the torpedo attack from the deck.
Admiral King was ordered not to punish the crew by FDR.
Really wild and weird story and true.
Bill Tuttle says:
May 28, 2012 at 9:05 am
DonS says:
May 28, 2012 at 8:24 am
Caption on the first photo says something like “16 inch 50 caliber guns”. Is that right swabbies?
I’m not a swabbie, but any former or current Redleg can answer that. The bore diameter is 16 inches and the tube is fifty calibers in length, from muzzle to breech. Caliber refers to the bore diameter, which in this case, is 16 inches, so the tube is 800 inches long.
=============================================================
Much clearer tahn what I’d said. Thanks.
To the commenters of WUWT, you have my admiration. The close inspection of every picture, graph, comment, written word, etc. is to be commended. You guys don’t seem to miss much. I am referencing specifically the picture (first) in this post that appears to show the Iowa moving sideways from recoil. The eyes on WUWT are ‘sharp’ to say the least. Correct answer offered by Bill Tuttle. The participants and/or followers here tend to have the opportunity see things in a proper light.
The above point is made not just to this instance but to nearly every issue discussed on WUWT. You guys have got ‘eyes on it’.
With sincere admiration,
eyesonu
I hit the “go” button too quick in my post above. Consider this an addendum.
Maybe we have all learned to look closely from a learning process exibited by Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre.
“William Truesdell says:
May 28, 2012 at 3:34 am
I served on her for a few days of my Midshipman cruise to South America…”
Used to love when middies would join us on the DE-1038….
Last time out a fellow EW and I brought canned sardines from the ships store into CIC as we were getting underway. We made just about every middie barf his cookies by the time we secured sea and anchor 😉
Jakehig says:
May 28, 2012 at 9:12 am
RACookPE1978 says:
May 28, 2012 at 6:45 am
This post is stridently critical of the RN’s gunnery systems etc. but posts no references. This is the first I have read of such deficiencies. What are the sources for these comments?
=====================================================================
Can’t give a reference, but part of it was optics. Remember, no radar. One side (I forget which.) determined range by “focusing” the image from stereo viewers. The other would line up a top the top image from one scope with the bottom image from the other scope. I don’t remember all the whys and wherefores, but one was more accurate and reliable than the other. The Germans had the better of the two. (Again, I welcome correction. I hope I’m not mixing up the the British/German systems of WW1 with the US/Japanese of WW2.)
Sorry if I’ve contributed to the purpose of this post straying a bit. As I said when I started to swerve:
“First, there are many who read this blog who have lost loved ones in the service of preserving freedom, not just for us in the US but also for their own coutries. This is small consolation but I am grateful for what they did.”
GD, you are right about the optics, I am sure, but the original post was decrying the calculations and computational methods, not the range-finding.
Best leave it there as we are off-topic and the poster has not backed-up his assertions.
I served in the Canadian Artillery in the early 70’s. That was not a good time to be in uniform in public, even in Canada, and less so in the USA, due to the Vietnam War. The “civvies” had no respect, and I recall their cat calls, spitting, yelling and so on to this day. Out of uniform my haircut identified me as well. So I’m glad the political climate today allows for respect of all military members but I recall a time when it did not. And that was shameful.
It’s easy to laud the military and it’s veterans now – let’s laud them when it is not, and that will show our true colours.
And by the way, the Battle of Jutland was variously described as a victory for the Germans, or a draw, or any such thing that denigrated the Royal Navy. The fact is that the German fleet never sailed again after Jutland, and in that light, most importantly, the RN won.
Much controversy between the Admiralty’s “favored son” of Dreyer and the “commercial” calculators of Pollen. Pollen invented the system and the theory, and had the better computer. Dreyer copied Pollen’s machines, and got the ultimate contract. At Jutland, Dryer’s ships missed their targets. Regrettably, the British battlecrusiers that had the Navy’s confidence and money (and Dryer’s computers) were rapidly sunk by the long-range plunging fire from the slower-ships-but-with-better controlled- (German) guns. The one battlecruiser that had Pollen’s rangefinders and fire control tables in it was also sunk – after making hits, but sunk anyway due to its poor deck armor. And, a few years later, the Hood was also sunk with one shell.
The following from Wikepedia about Dreyer is more “favorable” than I accept, but you need to read it from his side as well.
Please see also:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_military_history/v069/69.4sumida.html
http://books.google.es/books?id=7O01Xm4rWtEC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=royal+navy+optic+gunnery+fisher+pollen&source=bl&ots=NOJ5EMNgg6&sig=annQxTI7I5pO46vgNcDfUUosLHc&hl=es&sa=X&ei=tLXDT4o4yNGEB67O6PYJ&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=royal%20navy%20optic%20gunnery%20fisher%20pollen&f=false
While there is plenty of iron in both the battleship and the Golden Gate Bridge, there is no irony between the anniversaries.
George V
May 28, 2012 at 4:22 am
Nice display of Newton’s third law in that first picture. I am also amazed at the complex design of such a ship in the day when the computing device was a slide rule and the design system was a drafting pen, compass, straightedge, and giant sheets of paper.
###
And modeling was done with miniatures in tubs of water.
Found more info, than anyone would want to know about the Musashi and its guns. Type 94, officially designated as 40/45 (cm) which is 15.9 inch 45 caliber. In actuality , were 46/45 or 18.1 inches. Both Musashi, and Yamato, were surreptitiously built way bigger than they were publicised to be, and the actual 18 inch caliber wasn’t revealed till after the war. I believe guns from at least Yamato have been recovered.
They were designed to also fire an incendiary shrapnel round (type 3) which was 2998 lbs and designed the shatter forwards into a cone of sub shells, which also splintered when their separate fuzes went off. Designed to take out a whole flock of close in aircraft coming in low at the ship.
It is almost certain that that was the round Musashi fired at Jack Cochranes flight of Avengers. As far as I know, that might have been the only such round ever fired in combat; there is only records of a single shot. In fact it might have been the only shot Musashi fired from those guns in anger.
Good thing for Jack and his buddies, because, if it had been a regular high explosive round, it would have gotten the whole flight anyway. But because of the forward burst design for taking out approaching planes, the main destruction went off to the right of the planes, anfd they only got the backwash.
I said the ship could have hit the planes even if they were at 15,000 feet. Muzzle velocity for that round was 2641 ft per sec, and the maximum gun altitude was 41 degrees. A little Isaac Newton, and I calculate, maximum possible shell altitude was, 46, 907 ft (less air resistance losses.)
This also puts the maximum target lateral range at 15.4 miles. I would have guessed maybe 30 miles but not with such a big shell. As it was, maximum chamber pressure was 20 tons per square inch with a full charge.
Sounds to me, that Jack’s account of his adventure was as accurate as a Swiss watch. He might have been the near victim, of the only round Musashi ever fired in combat from its big guns. The records DO report two Japanese cruisers sunk by torpedos at Leyte Gulf. The actual sea that Musashi went down in was named something else, other than Leyte, but it was that main action. The ship had an armor weakness at the bow, and that’s how the American planes got to her.
The total number of guns of all calibers she carried, was astronomical; most of them 25 mm AAs.
Darrin says:
May 28, 2012 at 8:12 am
Alan Watt, from where she will be sitting they’ll be able to call her back to active duty if needed. The reason behind retiring her is she is just to damn expensive to operate….. Second reason is a retrofit to a more modern propulsion system and armament would also be cost prohibitive. To truly make her worthwhile to run with her size and weight she would need to go nuclear, gas would work but she would likely only be able to outrun supply ships.
_______________________________
Would Thorium Powered Ships be better for the Navy?: The Navy is studying using alternative “green” fuels for powering Navy ships…
Looks like green-think is infesting all parts of the US government.
Hey, mods. I think I’ve detected a slight typo in the title to this article. I think it should read “this weekend,” not “the weekend.” Just doing my bit for accuracy.
@Gunga Din and Bill Tuttle. Thanks for your replies on the bore/caliber question I asked. Usually I just look those things up for myself but it was busy here today. Doing things to remember our heroes. Here’s a site that I found later: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
To everyone here who served, thank you. Particularly WWII vets who clearly saved the world from an unspeakable future. I’m a Vietnam vet who is still pissed at the politicians who failed to pursue victory. By the way, Bill, I know a little about Redlegs and Ft Sill.
George E. Smith; says:
May 28, 2012 at 11:17 am
=======================
Thank you. That was most interesting.
Alan the Brit :
if you look carefully on the vertical view there are some rectangles installed at an angle.
those are the modern weapons that can reach out and touch someone at 600nm.
(worked on two of those beasts)
C
boballab:
the reason the first aircraft carrier Enterprise was scrapped was to make the name avialable for the second ship of that name.
the current enterprise will probably be scrapped out directly upon decommissioning for the same reason. however there has been no indication yet of what the follow on Enterprise will be.
they used to have a large signboard on the bulkhead in the hanger deck that started out ENTERPRISE, CVN……. EIGHTH SHIP of THE NAME… and it goes on to show all of the campaign ribbons etc of all eight of the ships.
That particular name is a really big deal to USN.
C
Alan Watt says:
May 28, 2012 at 7:08 am
yes we can build them again. its just that we would use different indistrial techniques.
like welding continous cast plate strips together with %100 welded joints (both techniques were not in industry in the late thirties when these ships were built).
the business of installing gas turbines was considered in the late seventies when the advance work for the reactivation was being done but there wasn’t enough experience in the fleet and it was set aside.
the main costs of the ships were not the ship itself but the personnell wages……..
C
Alan the Brit says:
May 28, 2012 at 1:53 am
“…Yeah, she may be old, she may be outgunned by a small frigate these days with the right missile technology…”
It would have to be some really cutting edge technology with shaped charges and burrowing copper plasma taken into consideration. Ships of this era were built to withstand a certain number of leakers that got through the AAA defenses.
Short of a nuke, you would have to hit it successfully several times in order to make it combat neutral.
Could it be taken out? Yes, but would really have to work at it.
RACookPE1978 says:
“…a few years later, the Hood was also sunk with one shell.”
Sunk by the Bismarck with one salvo, at a range of thirteen nautical miles!
1,416 of the 1,419 crew members of the Hood died when she went down. News of that feat shook the Allies, and Great Britain made an all-out effort to chase down and sink the Bismarck. They succeeded because a torpedo biplane pilot managed to hit the Bismarck’s rudder.
A good account of the battle of the Denmark Strait is given in Herman Wouk’s excellent historical novel The Winds of War [much superior to the schmaltzy made for TV series]. Highly recommended due to Wouk’s attention to historical details of pre-Pearl Harbor WWII.
The battleship evokes a visceral response that its sea power successor, the aircraft carrier cannot duplicate. Perhaps it is because the king of the seas was humbled by the little gnats that were air power and is now an icon of a bygone age. We have the romance of mighty ships with great guns since the battle of Trafalgar. Nelson going straight at them, the mighty 70 plus guns of the ships of the line thundering away at close range. The Tsarist Russian fleet in the early 20th century steaming half way around the world to be trounced by the Japanese Navy. General Billy Mitchell was court-martialed in 1925 for insubordination, the insubordination at least in part being his espousal of the vulnerability of the battleship to air power. The hand writing was on the wall with the sinking of the battleship Prince of Wales and the cruiser Repulse by Japanese air attack shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack. Without strong air support, the battleship was a sitting duck. But the romance lives on. Witness the latest hit movie “Battleship”, not “Carrier”! And one of the great real life sea stories is the hunt for the Bismark. The mighty Bismark would have escaped but for a torpedo launched from a Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo bomber jamming the rudder locking the great ship into a turn.
I was 12 years old on April 1956 when I went to the Malecon in Havana, Cuba. The Iowa was moored a mile or so from the coast, I guess the port was not deep enough to hold it, or maybe they “remembered the Maine.” I stood there for a long time, amazed at the sight.
suissebob says:
May 28, 2012 at 1:54 am
The story if referred to in one of the books I read on Roosevelt.
And yes, FDR wanted to watch the torpedo attack from the deck.
Admiral King was ordered not to punish the crew by FDR.
Really wild and weird story and true.