USS Wisconsin ....

[blidgepump]

Mr. L......

Yes, this was discussed some years back, with Mr. Landgraff. The location of the vents on this turret design (underside of the rear) was also a problem for water crashing over the deck, hence these ventilation duct additions on turret 1 to raise the height of the openings (which appear to be sealed off now).

Older photo of Wisconsin, showing these vents not sealed up:

[ATTACH]46947[/ATTACH]

The half-height configuration of these vents on Missouri:

[ATTACH]46949[/ATTACH]

This definitely helps the understanding of Turret #1.
Also the explanation why the modifications differ between Iowa - BB's.
Thank you for informative follow up.
Mr. "L" would be pleased that you recalled this information!

[jrb1537]

As I understood it, removal of the rangefinders from turret 1 was a modification due to problems in rough seas with water making its way in. Since the turret 2 rangefinders were high enough to avoid the problem, they decided that the turret 1 rangefinders were redundant enough to be removed. The location of the vents on this turret design (underside of the rear) was also a problem for water crashing over the deck, hence these ventilation duct additions on turret 1 to raise the height of the openings (which appear to be sealed off now).

Turret 1 on the Iowas used a coincidence type rangefinder (the other two used a traditional stereoscopic type) that was designed to range in on point sources like searchlights. It was removed in the 50s to free up weight (not sure how heavy it was, but the rangefinder in the other turrets weight around 10,000 pounds) for other equipment that was being added at the time and because improvements to the fire control radar made it redundant. The relatively low height of the rangefinder also made it less effective since it had a much closer visual horizon.

[Pacfanweb]

"The balance between protecting the heritage and running a business is daunting.
I wonder if there ever will be another large Naval Ship Museum?"

Your question is relevant but the future is difficult for any museum.
In the case of a floating ship, in most cases exposed to the elements, the environment is a hazard.
As long as their is interest support will be forthcoming.
When interest falters..... well look no father than the Olympia or the Texas.

With Olympia and Texas, I think it was more of a case of mismanagement, wasn't it?

[blidgepump]

Trsut but verify ....

With Olympia and Texas, I think it was more of a case of mismanagement, wasn't it?

Interest in supporting a ship is the balance of management.
If mismanagement occurs it is due to the lack of interest.
Thus the axiom ... "trust, but verify".

So a broadside statement to all the "board members & committee chairmen who oversee museum ships"..... if you're not interested in the details .... get off the ship!

[SlaterDoc]

Interest in supporting a ship is the balance of management.
If mismanagement occurs it is due to the lack of interest.
Thus the axiom ... "trust, but verify".

So a broadside statement to all the "board members & committee chairmen who oversee museum ships"..... if you're not interested in the details .... get off the ship!

Bull's eye!
Also, if we look the bull a little closer in the eye, there is another force that does the driving. That is "dedication"! It's much the same as a non-profit that I gave 30 years to. When the leaders of the cause consider it a "vocation" instead of a job, there is a better chance of survival. Just as when these ships went to war, the first and most important task of their Captains(and crew) was their survival to continue the fight! That led to many amazing and ingenious accomplishments in keeping their ships afloat and fighting!
When things like greed, corruption and mismanagement do the driving (or piloting) the ship can be "sunk at the pier" as in the case of Olypmia. One needs to remember the original purpose for the existance of these museums is to teach and remember, so as to never repeat. The lack of interest (and as a result, funding) can be directly attributed to the lack of history(true history) in educating the generations since the sacrifice of these ships and those that served on them. Luckily, we still have people (like blidge) who keep that "remembering" alive when others don't! It helps to balance the disinterest.
We tend to loose sight of the many smaller successes while focusing on the big boys(I mean lady's) like BB's and CV's. Ship's like the USS Lucid and USS LCS-102 are good examples. Yes, money is essential. But, dedication is more essential! It's the main reason behind the success of our little ship, Slater! Dedication acts like a magnet to the money!
I remember a particular movie scene from "Away All Boats" as the wounded Captain yells at an approaching kamikazee, "get away from my ship!"!

[blidgepump]

Get away from my boat....

A classic Jeff Chandler "as a tough Navy captain" movie.... is a prime example of someone taking ownership for a cause!

[thebard]

With Olympia and Texas, I think it was more of a case of mismanagement, wasn't it?

I remember reading a thread here a year or so ago, where I think a similar situation existed with USS Lexington. Those familiar with operations were happy to see their head executive leave the organization. I think that's a common theme among any organization who compensates their executives based on a perceived ability, rather than demonstrated performance.

[Albany Rifles]

A classic Jeff Chandler "as a tough Navy captain" movie.... is a prime example of someone taking ownership for a cause!

Loved the movie...own the movie & the book! I bought that book in 7th Grade at the ST Ann's church yard sale in Wash, DC in 1971! I love the story of the Belinda!

So a broadside statement to all the "board members & committee chairmen who oversee museum ships"..... if you're not interested in the details .... get off the ship!

And this applies so much in other management groups....be it a Scout Troop or preservation of a battlefield (my passions).

[blidgepump]

Modeler's detail....

A deck storage locker between Turret 1 & 2 was a surprise to me. I've built several Iowa Class BB models in the 60's and never picked up this detail. Perhaps it was added in the 1950's?

[Dan_Bickell]

A deck storage locker between Turret 1 & 2 was a surprise to me. I've built several Iowa Class BB models in the 60's and never picked up this detail. Perhaps it was added in the 1950's?

That structure appears to have been there since the 40's, but it can be difficult to see between the turrets from many angles. Here are a few photos where you can see it:





I've only had the opportunity to see inside on one occasion, on the Iowa.

[blidgepump]

Plate # 3097-45 ....

I like that B&W photo showing the view of turret # 1 & 2.
This will make a great before and after composite when the tour comes forward along the starboard side.

[blidgepump]

Second look....

I just noticed the range finders sticking out of the turrets.
They are large.

[Albany Rifles]

That has to be the most 1944 photo ever!!!

[Albany Rifles]

46964[/ATTACH]

That has to be the most 1944 photo ever!!!

[Pacfanweb]

I remember reading a thread here a year or so ago, where I think a similar situation existed with USS Lexington. Those familiar with operations were happy to see their head executive leave the organization. I think that's a common theme among any organization who compensates their executives based on a perceived ability, rather than demonstrated performance.

Yep, my point about Olympia was that they had an embezzlement issue. I guess that can fall under the giant umbrella of "lack of interest" but I was looking for a bit more detailed reason.