Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iowa Class Slow ??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iowa Class Slow ??

    "BB-65 and BB-66 were slower than the rest of the Iowa Class and are commonly referred to as Iowa Class Slow."

    Source "Michael W. Pocock and MaritimeQuest.com"

    This has got to have an interesting story .......

    So Iowa, NJ, MO & Wisky were fast BB's.

    Why did we need slow BB's?

  • #2
    Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
    "BB-65 and BB-66 were slower than the rest of the Iowa Class and are commonly referred to as Iowa Class Slow."

    Source "Michael W. Pocock and MaritimeQuest.com"

    This has got to have an interesting story .......

    So Iowa, NJ, MO & Wisky were fast BB's.

    Why did we need slow BB's?
    That guy is out of his tree.

    The Illinois and Kentucky (which were never finished so a speed rating could not be made) may have even been faster as hull riveting was drastically minimized in favor of improved methods of welding.

    I wonder if he was a co-author of a paper written claiming that the Port Chicago disaster of ammunition ships blowing up was actually a test of the "Little Boy" Uranium bomb.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

    Comment


    • #3
      Just to add a tad more crud on the "Sea Stories" of Port Chicago being used as an Atomic Bomb target, almost any large storage of high explosives send up a mushroom cloud.

      This was reported by several witnesses. Therefore, quite some time AFTER the war some rumor mongers with nothing better to do than enflame the public of how dastardly our military was decided to invent the Atomic Bomb test story.

      There is absolutely no doubt that witnesses saw a bright flash of light (well, it WAS night time) and a mushroom cloud with streamers flying out of it.

      The following link is not Port Chicago but somewhere in the Pacific where an Ammunition ship is hit by a Kamekazi.

      Ww2 Ammunition Ship Explodes. - Video
      Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
        "BB-65 and BB-66 were slower than the rest of the Iowa Class and are commonly referred to as Iowa Class Slow."

        Source "Michael W. Pocock and MaritimeQuest.com"

        This has got to have an interesting story .......

        So Iowa, NJ, MO & Wisky were fast BB's.

        Why did we need slow BB's?
        technically he's right.. since neither of them moved under their own power.. (I think the Illinois BB 65) was scrapped on the ways at 22% complete.. at least the Kentucky floated on her own at 73.1% complete..

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
          That guy is out of his tree.

          The Illinois and Kentucky (which were never finished so a speed rating could not be made) may have even been faster as hull riveting was drastically minimized in favor of improved methods of welding.

          I wonder if he was a co-author of a paper written claiming that the Port Chicago disaster of ammunition ships blowing up was actually a test of the "Little Boy" Uranium bomb.
          No ?.
          Last edited by shadow01; 30 May 10,, 11:27.

          Comment


          • #6
            I dont know where the author gets his information from but the drivetrain of BB66 Kentucky went on to be fitted into two fast replentishment ships Sacramento (AOE-1) and Camden (AOE-2). Each recieved 4 boilers and two steam geared turbines from Kentucky. At maximum load out of 49,956 tons just four of those boilers drove a 793' ship weighing almost 50,000 tons up to 26 knots on two propeller shafts and 100,000 shp.

            Fast Combat Support Ship (AOE) Photo Index

            When considering this is only half the drive train and half the props of an Iowa it boggles the mind to how the author could have called this "slow".

            To give a comparison the USS Rainier (T-AOE-7) another fast combat support ship built in 1990, boasted four GE LM2500 gas turbines with two fixed pitch props putting out 100,000 shp but yet ony drove the ship to 25 knots.

            Sacramento and Camden were built almost 30 years before Rainier entered service and yet Rainier had the benefit of (4) modern GE LM2500 gas turbines as compared to (4) 625 lb Babcock Wilcox style "m" boilers on Sacramento and Camden. Almost 30 years newer and yet 1 knot slower on advertised speed.;)

            It is not written (perhaps maybe somewhere) of what happened to BB65 Illinois drive train, Im pretty sure they didnt scap the drivetrain it probably found a home in other USN ships albeit split apart such as in Kentucky's case. Many have speculated that this drivetrain found a home in the SS United States built in 1950 albeit a modified design.

            Some have even speculated the SS United States recieved the drive train for the planned CVA-58 USS United States class of aircraft carriers that was laid down and cancelled just prior to the SS United States being laid down in 1950

            Is it true? IMO, unknown but the timeframe of her building coincides with the scrapping of Illinois and USS United States but a few years prior or it could have come from a planned Montana class battleship design. One would have to see the Babcock Wilcox ID plates on the saturated side of the boilers (burner numbering plate) (boiler air purge table plackard etc) such as in the Iowas. They denote what class of ship the boilers were designed for (In this case "Iowa type") and by contract number, when installed, test pressure, valve body and valve seat pressures. Also direction (air purge table) on how to air purge the boilers prior to the "light off" sequence of operation.
            Last edited by Dreadnought; 29 May 10,, 20:23.
            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
              That guy is out of his tree.

              The Illinois and Kentucky (which were never finished so a speed rating could not be made) may have even been faster as hull riveting was drastically minimized in favor of improved methods of welding.

              I wonder if he was a co-author of a paper written claiming that the Port Chicago disaster of ammunition ships blowing up was actually a test of the "Little Boy" Uranium bomb.
              :))
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #8
                So, has anyone emailed the guy to tell him he's wrong yet? If so, does he respond?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pacfanweb View Post
                  So, has anyone emailed the guy to tell him he's wrong yet? If so, does he respond?
                  IMO, Thats a pretty tough one. Many of the books written on the subject tend to contain some discrepency. Some major, some minor. Too late to reprint but then again you have books such as Rustys and a possibility to corerect them for others that have been written earlier and from what I understand from the writings here Rusty is going to continue writing.:))
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think the idiot did not know that that BB65 and BB66 were Iowa's! He must have been thinking of the Montana Class.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                      I think the idiot did not know that that BB65 and BB66 were Iowa's! He must have been thinking of the Montana Class.
                      He apparently didn't know they were never finished, either....since he says

                      were slower than the rest of the Iowa Class
                      They never sailed. By what he wrote, you'd think they had...otherwise, how would one know if they were "slower"?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here's the link....

                        MaritimeQuest - Iowa Class Battleships Class Overview



                        After reading and rereading Rusty's "Yellow Book", Mr. Michael W. Pocock's remarks seem to be spoken with an equally strong tenor in his voice when discussing "the Iowa Slow Class".

                        But it sure flies in the face of another recent thread about "rooster tails", 200 turns per minute on the shafts, and speedy U.S. Naval ships being challenged to keep pace with BB-63 when given her lead type recitals from a guy who offers his picture taken on board and probably got paid for the adventure, too. :P

                        If you experienced guy's figure this out please pass it along to us land lubbers.
                        Last edited by blidgepump; 30 May 10,, 03:40.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
                          MaritimeQuest - Iowa Class Battleships Class Overview



                          After reading and rereading Rusty's "Yellow Book", Mr. Michael W. Pocock's remarks seem to be spoken with an equally strong tenor in his voice when discussing "the Iowa Slow Class".

                          But it sure flies in the face of another recent thread about "rooster tails", 200 turns per minute on the shafts, and speedy U.S. Naval ships being challenged to keep pace with BB-63 when given her lead type recitals from a guy who offers his picture taken on board and probably got paid for the adventure, too. :P

                          If you experienced guy's figure this out please pass it along to us land lubbers.

                          Well,dont know what to say then besides he has a nice web page dedicated to BB's but his information on the last two Iowas is wrong. Both Kentucky and Illinois bore the same powerplants (both GE and Westinghouse) as their sister ships bore. Both having the same amount of length,width, draft and general displacement as well as SHP. There were no such thing as a slow Iowa class battleship. Either someone is writing incorrectly or hasn't studied the ships in question. In any case their build sheets and pics are attached via Navsource.org. The closest you could come to a slow Iowa class was when Chantry offered to modify the last two SD class ships into Iowas and I dont know many books that have that in it. Very few do. The decision was made to start anew and finish those hulls as SD class ships none the less.

                          Builders info on the remaining two Iowas.
                          Kentucky
                          Battleship Photo Index BB-66 KENTUCKY
                          Illinois
                          Battleship Photo Index BB-65 ILLINOIS
                          Last edited by Dreadnought; 30 May 10,, 05:50.
                          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Urban Myths

                            Dread I agree that some of these cut and paste errors about any topic can lead the innocent down a path of woe.

                            Mr. Michael W. Pocock's web site is a dandy with some very nice illustrations and pictures someone has spent a lot of time compiling. While he takes on a International venue with all types of ocean going ships, an exposure like "the Iowa Slow Class" takes a little of the excitement out of ones small mind searching for that a new "nugget of knowledge waiting to be freshly uncovered".

                            Darn Wickapedia , too Glad there is an elite discussion board for BB's.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              While looking at the photo section of his website they have a painting of BB68 that was to have been the Ohio. Could he have meant the Ohio "show"? Who knows, just more speculation? Besides, 27 knots would not be that slow.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X