Fate of the USS Iowa discussion

[Dreadnought]

Otherwise, if you have no such suspicion and know about Estes' bio, I recommend you read the specific post I indicated, and listen to what those who HAVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT have to say.

*I can do just that by picking up a phone or just go to my parents home and speak with my father and one of his close friends.

I understand this is convenient for most reactivation supporters to make such GROSS OVERSTATEMENTS without bothering to document any of these allegations and then ask their detractors to prove them wrong whenever challenged

*I asked you to prove your point. You have not done this yet. Even since our last go around with Iowas deck armor you lack the proof of your comments.


Otherwise, if you have no such suspicion and know about Estes' bio, I recommend you read the specific post I indicated, and listen to what those who HAVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT have to say

*All I have to due is pick up a phone my friend. A good friend was on her when they shelled Lebannon in the 80's.

Unfortunately, YOU are the one who first came up with a GROSS OVERSTATEMENT on how much crew reduction could be achieved by means of automation and modernization, so the burden of the proof is on YOU.

*In the last post I suggested that crew numbers have diminished quite far since her conception into the USN and each following conflict. And Im almost certain when I get these numbers back from homeport during her 80's deployment that it will show these numbers to be further diminished as i posted.

Now you can either act as an adult and start to offer the beginning of an explanation on the kind of upgrades you would implement to reduce the crew of an Iowa to below 1,350 OR continue chant slogans on automation and modernization.

*Im more of an adult then you will ever know. Know that.

*Is that like taking one of Okuns articles and bending it to read the way you like about Iowa's deck armor when shes not even mentioned except in reference?If thats your idea of being an adult then please do leave me out.

No offence intended, but looking at BBs, walking on them or touring them as musuems is next to zero familiarity wrt to the manning problems, both QUALITATIVE and QUANTITATIVE, the Iowas were confronted with when they were last reactivated.

*Im waiting to hear of your vast experience which I still have not heard yet I have listed my own experience. Plus I have even enrolled as a volunteer on New Jersey for the summer (2006) for even more hands on experience and historical information. So lets see yours if you have any? Answer any of the below posted questions or do you just read the web and books.

How many times have you toured on one? Walked its platforms and looked at its layout down to the third platform?

How many times have you even seen one outside of pictures?

Have you or your family or friends sailed on them?

Know anybody that contributed to their building?

*Oh and yes I can speak to men that been there done that including two WWII USN retirees that were aboard Iowa. Although the ships were different in that period. Can you?

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Even since our last go around with Iowas deck armor you lack the proof of your comments.

You've obviously not swallowed this one yet. So I'll repeat what I already said in the other thread you are referring to :

1. Both the Japanese Yamatos and the French Richelieus had better deck armor protection than the Iowas.

2. Iowa's deck armor protection is essentially similar to South Dakota's deck armor protection.

3. Nathan makes it clear in his paper that the Iowas are very similar to the South Dakotas regarding their armor arrangement.

4. This is OTOH pretty OBVIOUS when one looks at the respective IZs of the SDs and the Iowas :

* The South Dakota was estimated to have an immunity zone against a 16"/45 firing a 2,240 lb AP bullet comprised between 17,700 yards and 30,900 yards. Which means that the 2,240 lbs AP bullet would penetrate her deck beyond 30,900 yards.

* The Iowa was estimated to have an immunity zone against a 16"/45 firing a 2,240 lb AP bullet comprised between 17,600 yards and 31,200 yards. Which means that the 2,240 lbs AP bullet would penetrate her deck beyond 31,200 yards.

5. The fact that the Iowas are essentially similar to the South Dakotas regarding their armor arrangement in general and their deck armor protection in particular is such references books as Friedman or Garzke & Dulin to name a few.


Now, if you have anything to offer beyond the confused naysaying you've proposed so far on this specific topic, I invite you to either offer empirical evidences and/or a theory that would support your position.

Lastly, I am not sure why you've decided to bring up this discussion in this thread rather than make your objections in the original thread, but ONCE AGAIN moving goal posts doesn't change anything about the fact that you have not yet been able to offer the beginning of an explanation on the kind of upgrades you would implement to reduce the crew of an Iowa to below 1,350, let alone 900.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

In the last post I suggested that crew numbers have diminished quite far since her conception into the USN and each following conflict.

Firstly, I would submit that the complement of the Iowa actually increased between her design (1,921) and 1945 (2,788).

Secondly, I would submit that the complement of the New Jersey did NOT diminish *quite far* between her Vietnam tour (1,626) and her recommissioning (1,518 in 1988 according to Sumrall).

Thirdly, I am very wary when such "forward looking statements" are made, for the simple reason that extrapolation of historical data into the future without a good theory to support it is an uncertain.

I would therefore invite you to :

a. find out what the manning levels of the Iowas at various periods were (there is such a summary table in Sumrall for instance).

b. find out what drivers lead to a decrease (or an increase) in these manning levels (looking at the changes in weaponry and sensors being a good starting point).

c. find out whether the causes that lead to a decrease in manning levels are reproducible (IOW, if you could apply in the future the same recipes that were used in the past).

d. should these causes happen NOT to be reproducible, find out whether there are other areas for imrovement that would yield manpower savings.

Once you are finished with a + b + c + d above, you should EITHER be able to offer the beginning of an explanation on the kind of upgrades you would implement to reduce the crew of an Iowa to below 1,350 OR retract your claim that dramatic crew reduction can be obtained through *automation and modernization*.

No need to remind you that YOU are the one who FIRST came up with a GROSS OVERSTATEMENT on how much crew reduction could be achieved in your post #19 :

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

But further reduction would be required say from 900 down to say 600 just a theory but they would need modernization to even do this.

Therefore the burden of the proof is on YOU.

[Dreadnought]

Nothing but more ******** stone walling. And to think you ask me if I can be adult about it when surely you cant be. Im finished with this subject

So in other words your experience with them outside of declaring your articles gospel above all other experience equates to exactly dik! As I posted before thats exactly what I figured.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Im waiting to hear of your vast experience which I still have not heard yet I have listed my own experience. Plus I have even enrolled as a volunteer on New Jersey for the summer (2006) for even more hands on experience and historical information. So lets see yours if you have any? Answer any of the below posted questions or do you just read the web and books.

If you feel like banking upon your experience, this is YOUR decision.

As far as I am concerned, I have to repeat that looking at BBs, walking on them or touring them as museums is next to zero familiarity wrt to the manning problems, both QUALITATIVE and QUANTITATIVE, the Iowas were confronted with when they were last reactivated.


Having said that, you have openly questioned the integrity of Kenneth W. Estes, LtCol USMC (Ret), and offered to carry out further investigations on his participation on Tanknet in general and his testimony wrt to the manning of the Iowas in particular.

I am convinced that you have the greatest integrity YOURSELF, and therefore invite you to either disclose on this board the results of your investigations, or retract your allegations.

That is the very least Ken deserves, not only as a member of the Corps, but also as a GENTLEMAN.

[Dreadnought]

So in other words your experience with them outside of declaring your articles gospel above all other experience equates to exactly dik! As I posted before thats exactly what I figured.

If that calls any military person into question it must be you. Are you?

Having said that, you have openly questioned the integrity of Kenneth W. Estes, LtCol USMC (Ret), and offered to carry out further investigations on his participation on Tanknet in general and his testimony wrt to the manning of the Iowas in particular

*I did? I fail to recognize that in any post I have made on this thread or any other.
I specifically called into question yours.

*On top of that are you done pushing the argument off to someone else yet or will there be others as well? What does shipwreck know about them? Is what I believe I asked not anybody else. But yet you fail to answer that particular question. I dont think I have to wonder why.

I am convinced that you have the greatest integrity YOURSELF, and therefore invite you to either disclose on this board the results of your investigations, or retract your allegations.

That is the very least Ken deserves, not only as a member of the Corps, but also as a GENTLEMAN.

*Obviously you missed your calling and should have been a politician as you are far illusive from the questions asked above. And to grandstand as to state that I disrespected any retired or serving military man here or any place else is seriously pathetic to say the least. And to apoligize for which I have not done them is even more humorous I must say.

This is that comment .S. I wouldnt use Tank Net as proof because alot of fact stated on that page arent exactly true to fact either.

*Have you read all of the posts on that page? I would invite anybody here to read them and then decide. I read the entire page not just your post #1079.

*Your a joke shipwreck did you have somebody else fight your battles in the schoolyard as well?

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

And to grandstand as to state that I disrespected any retired or serving military man here or any place else is seriously pathetic to say the least. And to apoligize for which I have not done them is even more humorous I must say.

This is that comment .S. I wouldnt use Tank Net as proof because alot of fact stated on that page arent exactly true to fact either

.

I think you've somehow missed the sequence, so I'll spell it again for you.

1. Your post #21 : You asked for a link about the 50% manning of the 5" mounts on the Iowas during the 1980s-early 1990s.

2. My post #28 : among other things, I specifically mentioned Estes name and post# and provided a link for it.

3. Your post #31 : you made the following comments :

Tell me what qualifications do you bring besides whats written in your books and posted on Tank Net a net forum that anybody can post on?

I wouldnt use Tank Net as proof because alot of fact stated on that page arent exactly true to fact either.

4. My post #32 : I invited you to check Estes' bibliography on Amazon (which is really a small sample of what Estes has written) and to contact the moderators on Tanknet if you had any doubt on the identity of the person posting under his name. I also recommended you read his aforementioned post in full to listen to what those who HAVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT have to say.

5. Your post #37 : you continue to disregard the value of Estes's testimony by offering to call your parents instead.


From there, I would very much appreciate if you could clarify the following points :

a. are you denying that Kenneth W. Estes, LtCol USMC (Ret) is a credible source wrt the point specifically being discussed (50% crews for the 5-inch, to be manned only on one engaged side) ?

b. are you suspecting that the person posting under his name over on Tanknet is an usurpator ?

Only a politician would fail to answer by either YES or NO to any of these fairly straightforward questions.

[Defcon 6]

Shipwreck your wasting our time. Your asking all the same questions that have been raised and answered since the whole debate over reactivation came about. If you want to know costs for refit-reactivation I say 2.5 B a ship. 5 billion for both.

Why don;t you go over to Warships 1, since these questions have been asked and answered by TedYa and Zen as a matter of fact, and they are with USFSA organization. And aside from what the gunny tried to make you believe they know their material, living breathing experts as a matter of fact.

[Dreadnought]

I think you've somehow missed the sequence, so I'll spell it again for you.

1. Your post #21 : You asked for a link about the 50% manning of the 5" mounts on the Iowas during the 1980s-early 1990s.

2. My post #28 : among other things, I specifically mentioned Estes name and post# and provided a link for it.

Again for the final time I am debating you and your knowledge not anybody else but you. Can you comprehend that statement as well as you can all the others?

4. My post #32 : I invited you to check Estes' bibliography on Amazon (which is really a small sample of what Estes has written) and to contact the moderators on Tanknet if you had any doubt on the identity of the person posting under his name. I also recommended you read his aforementioned post in full to listen to what those who HAVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT have to say

And I stated I read that particular post. I also said that all posts on that particular page are not repeat NOT exactly true. This person you speak of well his may very well be. Last time I checked I was debating you and not anybody else.

. Your post #37 : you continue to disregard the value of Estes's testimony by offering to call your parents instead.

I have never read anything this man has written only one post from him on another forum. He could be the worlds smartest man for all I know but to use his work as to serve for your "vast" experience I think that just about says enough about your experience.

So If I wanted to debate this regarding that post it would surely be with that person and certainly not someone like you. Because obviously you have "dik" experience wise except for what you read and plagerize.

I have living persons here that have been there done that far before any of us here were even born with exception to very few unless of coarse you or them are 80. And a much younger friend who was on New Jersey that I can pick the phone up and talk to at whatever time. Not somebody that I dont know that I have to email questions to Im very lucky I can just go over there and talk to him and ask.

I have not questioned the value of anything this man has posted only what you yourself posted here in WAB you made that assumption yourself.

b. are you suspecting that the person posting under his name over on Tanknet is an usurpator.

And I repeat I question your expert experience and vast knowledge not anybodys elses but yours. To which you offer distractions instead of answering from your immense experience. Such as to go read this article you post a link to not answer from your own experience.

Its my guess Shipwreck you havent seen one in the flesh or stepped foot on one just surf the web picking and choosing articles to fight your battles for you. If that qualifies as your experience then you have not only lost the debate but after the part of ACCUSING me of insulting any military person be it past or present I would say you lost face as well.

Only a politician would fail to answer by either YES or NO to any of these fairly straightforward questions.

Hmm seems as though your experience has been questioned numerous times with no answers but yet I post mine above while you offer nothing but distractions and zero answers as to your vast experience. Now whos the politician and who continues to work on their experience

So until your personal experience is answered and I'll quote "I'll spell it out for you"

"YOUR ATTACKS AND NEANDERINGS AND YOUR (THAT IS YOUR AS IN YOU)VAST EXPERIENCE ARENT WORTH DIK"

Oh yeah P.S. See you at the poles on election day.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Again for the final time I am debating you and your knowledge not anybody else but you.(...)
This person you speak of well his may very well be. Last time I checked I was debating you and not anybody else.

So what you are saying is that you refuse to take into account LtCol. Estes' post because you are not debating with him ?

Under this logic, you would also repudiate Norman Friedman, - for instance when he writes in his US Battleships that the Iowa's "protection against shellfire duplicated that of the South Dakota" -, because you are not debating with him ?

Do you realize how immature (not to say childish) such an attitude may be ?

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Hmm seems as though your experience has been questioned numerous times with no answers but yet I post mine above while you offer nothing but distractions and zero answers as to your vast experience. Now whos the politician and who continues to work on their experience.

I still don't see anything in your experience that would have any relevance wrt to the manning problems, both QUALITATIVE and QUANTITATIVE, the Iowas were confronted with when they were last reactivated.

Before your next attempt to derail this discussion into a confrontation of egos, let me clarify something for you : I don't care WHO you ARE, never did and probably never will.

What matters to me is WHAT you SAY, i.e. whether your reasoning is logically articulated and/or supported by reasonably reliable evidences, no matter what your opinion is.

So far, NONE of the opinions you have expressed held water. Whenever challenged on these opinions, you EITHER refused to offer evidences (e.g. crew reductions on the Iowas), OR maintained an opinion refuted by empirical evidences (e.g. 16"/50 vs 16"/45 deck penetration), OR repudiated facts solidly established by reputable sources (e.g. Iowa vs South Dakota armor protection).

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Shipwreck your wasting our time. Your asking all the same questions that have been raised and answered since the whole debate over reactivation came about. If you want to know costs for refit-reactivation I say 2.5 B a ship. 5 billion for both.

Why don;t you go over to Warships 1, since these questions have been asked and answered by TedYa and Zen as a matter of fact, and they are with USFSA organization. And aside from what the gunny tried to make you believe they know their material, living breathing experts as a matter of fact.

So why not take that 5 billion and fill all the VLS tubes with TacToms? At half a mil each thats about 10 thous missiles all for NSFS. No need for 3,000 sailors or restart obsolete civilian industries, or retool projectile production for 16".

BTY thanks for directing me to the other site. Thats where I saw this argument

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

So what you are saying is that you refuse to take into account LtCol. Estes' post because you are not debating with him ?

Under this logic, you would also repudiate Norman Friedman, - for instance when he writes in his US Battleships that the Iowa's "protection against shellfire duplicated that of the South Dakota" -, because you are not debating with him ?

Do you realize how immature (not to say childish) such an attitude may be ?




I still don't see anything in your experience that would have any relevance wrt to the manning problems, both QUALITATIVE and QUANTITATIVE, the Iowas were confronted with when they were last reactivated.

Before your next attempt to derail this discussion into a confrontation of egos, let me clarify something for you : I don't care WHO you ARE, never did and probably never will.

What matters to me is WHAT you SAY, i.e. whether your reasoning is logically articulated and/or supported by reasonably reliable evidences, no matter what your opinion is.

So far, NONE of the opinions you have expressed held water. Whenever challenged on these opinions, you EITHER refused to offer evidences (e.g. crew reductions on the Iowas), OR maintained an opinion refuted by empirical evidences (e.g. 16"/50 vs 16"/45 deck penetration), OR repudiated facts solidly established by reputable sources (e.g. Iowa vs South Dakota armor protection).

Do you realize how immature (not to say childish) such an attitude may be?

Actually Shipwreck I find you unworthy of debate so I wont waste anymore of my time. and if you would like why not put it to the WAB just how childish and immature I really am...Now run and go play you bore me.

[RustyBattleship]

I think you guys are reading the wrong yellow sheets. I've been working with the group since May of his year and have seen no "alternate life style" actions or heard of any such promotions in the meetings I have had with them.

The leaders of the group are a husband and wife and are very enthusiastic about saving the Battleship and turning into a TRAINING ship for sea scouts. Not homosexuals. The husband and wife are strictly STRAIGHT. At a dinner they were hosting, one of the city reps was making ungentlemanly suggestions to the lady and fingering her back. Needless to say, her husband took extreme objection to this and that person has been forbidden to join any further inspections of the ship.

Oh, and the city of San Francisco does NOT want the ship. It would take up too much room in any of the three moorings originally proposed. Also the City of Stockton refuses to support the private group wanting to bid on Iowa. So that just leaves ---------[CLASSIFIED]

[Anon]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Asim, you aint a *** are ya?

Hmm, lest there be confusion, i was asking if he was a homosexual.

Y'know, a pole smoker. A butt pumper. A buddy banger. A lipstick wearing hickory stick licker.

[RustyBattleship]

I guess it's true that people would rather read dirt than something clean. That idiotic idea of turning the ship into a memorial for homosexuals was started several years ago when San Francisco was first vieing for it. That person had absolutely no connection with the people I and another association are working with. And if he/she/it was, they are no longer a member.

We are working with a very enthusiastic group that wants to put up the Iowa as a Memorial/Museum/Classroom ship with better attractions than the other three have at this time.

People have been cautioned that 95% of the people I have talked to disregard the Navy's final (in)decision and think it was a "person of an alternate life style" that caused the Turret II incident. So any recognition of such people would be extremely low profile if any at all.

Regardless of personal preferences, the former crew members still mourn the loss of the entire Turret crew. On my last inspection I found that 47 bolts have been taken out of the center panel of the top of Turret II and capped with welded disks.

Yes, 47. If that number doesn't have any significance to you, then your head is in the sand.

[zraver]

What does it matter, even if the whole ship is turned into an alternative lifestyle floating hotel. She will serve as tasked to serve for as long as she has too until she either returns to serve of finds a more fitting home. Being sunk to turned into scrap is a waste of a proudship.