The New Jersey in Vietnam

[BBwarrior]

IMO, From what I have read not only was Capt. J. Edward Snyders crew good to excellent at shore bombardment (certain cases noted especially) but further reading tells me they were just warming up and barring the U.S. Presidents "boundaries" that were put in place in Vietnam, she could have really done some damage had she been released for her second tour and more targets in the North given the green light. We will never know. But we can thank the idiot politicians that put her away after the first tour of duty.

*If we had added her sisters to the gunline on the second tour chances are they would have sued for Peace and perhaps the conflict would have come to a close much sooner and maybe perhaps spared more lives. Our own misgivings. Snyder proclaimed that having her in his command was the high point of his career and everything else was down hill after that although in reality outside having the ship in his command his carrer went much further. A very intelligent man and a well respected and "hands on" kind of man by those that knew him and served under his command. Literally a legend in the battleship community no doubt and the very last time a USN battleship would leave the Philadelphia Naval Yard/Delaware River under her own power and without tugs for guidance. What a traffic stopper she was!;)

Well said, Dread. Thanks for the info about Captain Snyder. I remember seeing an interview with Synder on a TV documentary. The captain was remembering a question that was asked by some reporter after New Jersey's deployment to N. Vietnam about whether or nor the battleship was 'effective'. Synder (to paraphrase) said 'I don't know - go ask some Marines about how effective our fire support is'. The reporter did so, then spoke to Synder again and told him that a Marine said " If it hadn't been for the Big J, they wouldda Zapped our ASS!"

Sounds like she saved some lives - one could only wish that she was granted more tours in Vietnam, or that her sisters would have been recalled. Damned Carrier Mafia!

[RustyBattleship]

*
I made the post against the starting post that claimed the picture was taken during her 68/69 Vietnam Tour in Subic Bay.

Ah yes. You are forgiven. You may get off your knees now.

Seriously, I just thought it was a typo as you seem to be all over this board asking, answering and explaning many subjects of varied interest.

[TopHatter]

Malcom Muir in his book The Iowa Class Battleships quotes Senator John Warner on April 7 1981 during a Senate debate over the proposal to reactivate the New Jersey:

The ship was very effective. As a matter of fact, it was so effective that we were ordered to take it out of active service because its belligerency and its antagonism was [sic] impeding the progress of the peace talks at that time

I went down and personally saw the Secretary of Defense [Melvin R. Laird] and was ordered from the White House that the ship should be deactivated because it was impeding the peace negotiations

Interestingly, though hardly surprisingly, when the announcement to the crew was made to the crew on August 21, 1969 that the ship was going to be deactivated (along with 100 other naval vessels) the reason given by SecDef Laird was budget tightening by Congress.

Stillwell's source cites "dozens" of ships, for the same reason, but says nothing at all about the New Jersey impeding the peace talks.

So, I'm going to call this essentially true, as it doesn't look like anybody contradicted Warner (and the reactivation of all 4 battleships did indeed go forward)

[BBwarrior]

Thanks TopHatter. I have Muir's book on the Iowa class - seems like a good time for me to re-read it.

[Dreadnought]

Ah yes. You are forgiven. You may get off your knees now.

Seriously, I just thought it was a typo as you seem to be all over this board asking, answering and explaning many subjects of varied interest.

Ah thank you Sir.:))

Sometimes my wording seems to fall out of place or come from an angle most are not used too. Thank goodness though there are people like yourself and a few others around that can readily recognize this fault.

[Dreadnought]

Thanks TopHatter. I have Muir's book on the Iowa class - seems like a good time for me to re-read it.

*Its a very good read and well worth it.

Another excellent author is Paul Stillwell. He has released quite a few books with excellent resources on the subject of Battleships including him himself and his experiences. I have had the pleasure of listening to him speak a few times as well. A very well known author and his books are definately worth the price only problem is I dont think he can print them fast enough.:))

[namvet46]

Dunno where you heard that, but it's just plain wrong.

The New Jersey was restricted against firing on anything north of the 19th parallel, later the 17th parallel.

And the best of my knowledge she never fired on any kind of city. Her role was direct gunfire support and interdiction.

I signed for and distributed the op order that stated she was going there. if they changed their mind i never saw it

[namvet46]

both case's for politcs and economy are right. if that officer was correct then it cost 30 mil a month to support her. they were built for a war time economy.

she was the most effective weapon there. i heard at the Paris peace talks they said no negotiations unless she was sent home. we complied

if your fighting to win you tell em sign now or we send the other 3 over

but since we were trying to pull out she was sent packin.

[Rumrunner]

if your fighting to win you tell em sign now or we send the other 3 over

Boy thats a way you derail peace talks if I've ever heard one...I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall if that was ever said....just to see the faces on the NVA generals on the other side of the table.

[TopHatter]

both case's for politcs and economy are right. if that officer was correct then it cost 30 mil a month to support her. they were built for a war time economy.

You're already gone permanently for being both an assclown and probably a faker to boot.

But this statement is just plain idiotic.

They (the Iowa-class battleships) were built for the same reason that all other battleships - and warships in general - are built: To protect and serve the United States of America, in peace, in war and all points in between.

"built for a war time economy"

The truth of the matter is that they were built for an age when manpower was cheap and so were weapons systems. By 1968, neither was true anymore and Vietnam War was massive drain on an economy that refused to 'be at war'.

[RustyBattleship]

Oh oh. I'm in trouble already between NamVet and TopHatter. I address that same 4 BB's theory in my book. Because we talked about it in our offices and out in the shops that 2, 3 or even all 4 would have made a drastic difference.

It's just that us Americans, particularly those of us in the Department of Defense, don't like to lose.

Now, just to confuse the issue a bit more, there was an article I read (or a forum posting) that said if we continued the bombings just a few more days, North Viet Nam was about ready to quit.

So, here's a challenge to you mythbusters out there. Is that true or not?

[TopHatter]

Oh oh. I'm in trouble already between NamVet and TopHatter. I address that same 4 BB's theory in my book. Because we talked about it in our offices and out in the shops that 2, 3 or even all 4 would have made a drastic difference

You never had any trouble with me Dick, and "Nam Vet" has been permanently shown the door. ;)

As for the 4 BB's theory...I think that, given zero target restrictions, the battleships, combined with the enormous airpower available in the form of USAF, USMC and USN aviation, there's no question that North Vietnam probably would have thrown in the towel rather quickly. Linebacker II proved that.

Particularly after the VietCong splattered themselves up against the brick wall that we know as the Tet Offensive.

That war was America's to bring to a successful conclusion and it failed, only because it failed to allow itself to win.

There are the usual arguments that the Soviet Union and China constituted potential 900 lb gorillas and maybe that's true, we'll never know.

But the idea of a thin ribbon of a country like Vietnam being opened up totally to 1 or even 4 Iowas is mind-boggling to say the least.

[Officer of Engineers]

So, here's a challenge to you mythbusters out there. Is that true or not?

You mean about Hanoi quitting the war? Now, why would you believe that they would honour their signature when they went to war with their blood brothers less than 5 years after their war finished?

They'll sign but that does not mean they honour it ... just like how they honoured the Paris Peace Accords.

[BBwarrior]

You never had any trouble with me Dick, and "Nam Vet" has been permanently shown the door. ;)

As for the 4 BB's theory...I think that, given zero target restrictions, the battleships, combined with the enormous airpower available in the form of USAF, USMC and USN aviation, there's no question that North Vietnam probably would have thrown in the towel rather quickly. Linebacker II proved that.

Particularly after the VietCong splattered themselves up against the brick wall that we know as the Tet Offensive.

That war was America's to bring to a successful conclusion and it failed, only because it failed to allow itself to win.

There are the usual arguments that the Soviet Union and China constituted potential 900 lb gorillas and maybe that's true, we'll never know.

But the idea of a thin ribbon of a country like Vietnam being opened up totally to 1 or even 4 Iowas is mind-boggling to say the least.

Absolutely Agree with TopHatter. We fought with too many political restrictions.

Yep, Tet was a massive defeat for the North and Viet Cong. Too bad the liberal media and academics (university history professors) usually turn Tet upside down and portray it as a defeat for US policy in Vietnam.

I wish all 4 Iowas were recommed say late in 1965, after we decided to commit combat assets in country like the 101 Air Cav. Thinking about all the targets those big guns could have serviced during say, 1965 through 1968, truly is mind boggling

[RustyBattleship]

You mean about Hanoi quitting the war? Now, why would you believe that they would honour their signature when they went to war with their blood brothers less than 5 years after their war finished?

They'll sign but that does not mean they honour it ... just like how they honoured the Paris Peace Accords.

That's a good point. But if 4 Iowas, rotating 1 every 3 months off shore were there, honoring a peace accord might be a better option than putting pieces of Haiphong back together again.

But, that's just far too logical. And Congress' concept of logic is not understandable even to them.