Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iowa Class Slow ??

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    Was that a wartime emergency rating? Could they sustain that overload for extended periods or was that for a burst of emergency speed? Good old American engineering :), the best in the world.
    Dont know about her wartime rating but for having sat forelorn for almost 15 years I suppose they really had to take her out and stretch her legs to see what the powerplant and auxilliarys would take. She returned to Philadelphia Naval Shipyard with a broom ran up her halyard signalling a "clean sweep" of her machinery trials. And to think she was still burning Bunker "C" heavy fuel at the time.;)

    A narrative of that day:

    At 0610, Tuesday, 26 March, the world's only active battleship edged slowly away from Pier Six, with the assistance of six tugs, and slipped into the main stream of the Delaware River. What would have been a routine evolution for any other ship was an historical event for NEW JERSEY. The cameras, microphones and pencils of 55 media representatives recorded the events of the day. Throughout that day and the next every system on the ship came under the careful scrutiny of 295 shipyard employees, the Shipyard Commander, Captain Floyd W. Gooch, and the officers and men of NEW JERSEY. At 0600 on the 27th, off the Virginia Capes, NEW JERSEY's engineers began building steam for a full power run, a brutal test of machinery that would extend the battleship to her fullest capacities. At 1039 the pit log read 30 knots. And there had been no casualties. Speed was reduced for a time while the crew ate lunch, and in the afternoon another high speed run was commenced - this one to be full power. The tension in the men's faces was evident, but the only words spoken were those of the officer of the deck and the lee helmsman. All engines were ahead flank. "Indicate 190 rpms", ordered the COD.

    "190 turns, aye... 190 indicated and answered for", replied the lee helm. More turns were added. 195.. .200.. .202. At 1547 the OOD ordered maximum turns, 207.

    "Pit log reads 35.2 knots", said the lee helm. There were no casualties. NEW JERSEY kept up this tremendous speed for six hours, and when the Captain was satisfied with the performance of his engineering plant, he decided it was time for the final test: to place maximum strain on the plant by going from all ahead flank to all back emergency. Young crew members braced for a tremendous shock. But the Captain appeared confident as he watched the engine order telegraph.

    When the order was given there was surprisingly little shock. One could feel the ship slowing, but gear did not tumble about and there were no shuddering vibrations. If anything was noticeable, it was the silence.

    A smoke float had been dropped over the side at the instant of reversal to measure the ship's forward progress. It took two miles for the ship to go dead in the water and start to make sternway.

    After the tests, a thorough inspection was made of the engineering plant. It checked out perfectly.

    As the ship approached Pier Four, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, at 1400 on Thursday, 28 March, Captain Snyder ordered a broom run up the halyard for all to see - the Navy's traditional symbol for a clean sweep.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

    Comment


    • #32
      WOW, 35.2 knots @ 207 turns! For 6 HOURS! That goes way beyond outrunning a torpedo, more like chasing down a destroyer.
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
        I sent him a polite request to explain this, just tonight - so he hasn't had a chance to respond yet:)
        Mr Pocock did reply, he beleives his information is correct, and cited increases in displacement and AA armament as the cause. I suppose these ships are open to speculation - since they weren't completed, and I have to applaud him for the beautiful site he makes available to everyone. I suppose we all have the right to say something contriversial from time to time, especially when so much is offered in exchange.
        sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
        If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
          Mr Pocock did reply, he beleives his information is correct, and cited increases in displacement and AA armament as the cause. I suppose these ships are open to speculation - since they weren't completed, and I have to applaud him for the beautiful site he makes available to everyone. I suppose we all have the right to say something contriversial from time to time, especially when so much is offered in exchange.
          *Unless he is speaking about the Montana's, I dont see how this would increase displacement all that much. The Iowas went through many changes, everything from different AA machine guns to a thicker/heavier forward armored bulkhead etc to removing Turret #1's manual rangfinder during the Korean era. The 1980 reactivation/ change in aft superstructures, missles and removal of two 5" mounts didnt change their top speed much at all. And this is far beyond what the remaining Iowas would have seen if they entered service in WWII. If they (last 2 Iowas) couldnt keep up with the CV's then their stated purpose for building would have come to question and they probably would not have been laid down at all since their initial building was suspended due to the CV program importance. The Montana's would have been a different story all together. But as far as I know there was never a "slow" Iowa class battleship planned or built.

          I would like to hear Rusty's take on this as only a few of us here have actually seen the building plans for the Iowas. And there is no mention anywhere to my knowledge where (Chantry, the designer in charge of the building program) ever planned a "slow" Iowa class.

          *I would also like to know where this gentlemen read this from since the Iowas were primarily planned and built in both Philadelphia and New Yorks yards. The remaining two were laid down in Philadelphia and Norfolk yards.
          Last edited by Dreadnought; 03 Jun 10,, 18:32.
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
            *Unless he is speaking about the Montana's, I dont see how this would increase displacement all that much. The Iowas went through many changes, everything from different AA machine guns to a thicker/heavier forward armored bulkhead etc to removing Turret #1's manual rangfinder during the Korean era. The 1980 reactivation/ change in aft superstructures, missles and removal of two 5" mounts didnt change their top speed much at all. And this is far beyond what the remaining Iowas would have seen if they entered service in WWII. If they (last 2 Iowas) couldnt keep up with the CV's then their stated purpose for building would have come to question and they probably would not have been laid down at all since their initial building was suspended due to the CV program importance. The Montana's would have been a different story all together. But as far as I know there was never a "slow" Iowa class battleship planned or built.

            I would like to hear Rusty's take on this as only a few of us here have actually seen the building plans for the Iowas. And there is no mention anywhere to my knowledge where (Chantry, the designer in charge of the building program) ever planned a "slow" Iowa class.

            *I would also like to know where this gentlemen read this from since the Iowas were primarily planned and built in both Philadelphia and New Yorks yards. The remaining two were laid down in Philadelphia and Norfolk yards.
            I still think he is very wrong.

            The increase in Bhd 50 armor started with the Missouri and Wisconsin. Having been on speed trials of both New Jersey (with the slightly thinner bhd 50) and Missouri they both hit 30+ knots without even getting out of breath (as our escorts did).

            Kentucky and Illinois would have had the same thicknesses of armor as Mo and Wisky (I've seen the original armor drawings that also listed who was to make the armor -- but I don't have the time to pull up a copy if I have one). Also their welded hulls (with the exception of a rivetd crack arrestor seam and shell to Main deck joint) would have given them a distinct advantage as having less interference to hull smoothness.

            The major weight changes in the 1980's were:
            Removals: Four 5"/38 gun mounts at 85 tonness each for a total of 340 tons.
            Ammo racks of two 5"/38 ammo magazines.
            Removals of old masts about 40 tonnes.
            --------------------------------------------------------------

            Additions: In place of the ammo magazines, six 125 ton dubplex air conditioning plants were installed. Their total weight was slightly more than the loaded weight of the magazines.
            Addition of Helicopter decks and ramps of about 200 tonnes each ship.
            Total addition of ordinary strength steel on New Jersey (already had a helicopter deck) was 400 tonnes.
            Total addition of HY-80 armor was 400 tonnes.
            New tripod masts & antenna foundations at about 100 tonnes.
            ---------------------------------------------------------

            Let's see now, (excepting New Jersey that already had a helo deck) that's calcs out to 1,100 tonnes minus 340 (gun mounts) 40 tonnes (masts) leaves a net INCREASE of 720 tonnes.

            Didn't slow them down one bit. Therefore the 65 and 66 would have been just as fast if not faster.

            But what do I know? I didn't get my information from reading "profesional" books. I only modernized the ships -- and rode them -- and felt the muzzle blast of 16" guns -- and -- to heck with it. I have to get my butt in gear and run down to the American Legion post to pick up the mail. One of my duties having been elected as its new Commander. I'm not going to have enough time to participate in very many debates on this forum (though I couldn't resist horning in on this one).
            Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
              I still think he is very wrong.

              The increase in Bhd 50 armor started with the Missouri and Wisconsin. Having been on speed trials of both New Jersey (with the slightly thinner bhd 50) and Missouri they both hit 30+ knots without even getting out of breath (as our escorts did).

              Kentucky and Illinois would have had the same thicknesses of armor as Mo and Wisky (I've seen the original armor drawings that also listed who was to make the armor -- but I don't have the time to pull up a copy if I have one). Also their welded hulls (with the exception of a rivetd crack arrestor seam and shell to Main deck joint) would have given them a distinct advantage as having less interference to hull smoothness.

              The major weight changes in the 1980's were:
              Removals: Four 5"/38 gun mounts at 85 tonness each for a total of 340 tons.
              Ammo racks of two 5"/38 ammo magazines.
              Removals of old masts about 40 tonnes.
              --------------------------------------------------------------

              Additions: In place of the ammo magazines, six 125 ton dubplex air conditioning plants were installed. Their total weight was slightly more than the loaded weight of the magazines.
              Addition of Helicopter decks and ramps of about 200 tonnes each ship.
              Total addition of ordinary strength steel on New Jersey (already had a helicopter deck) was 400 tonnes.
              Total addition of HY-80 armor was 400 tonnes.
              New tripod masts & antenna foundations at about 100 tonnes.
              ---------------------------------------------------------

              Let's see now, (excepting New Jersey that already had a helo deck) that's calcs out to 1,100 tonnes minus 340 (gun mounts) 40 tonnes (masts) leaves a net INCREASE of 720 tonnes.

              Didn't slow them down one bit. Therefore the 65 and 66 would have been just as fast if not faster.

              But what do I know? I didn't get my information from reading "profesional" books. I only modernized the ships -- and rode them -- and felt the muzzle blast of 16" guns -- and -- to heck with it. I have to get my butt in gear and run down to the American Legion post to pick up the mail. One of my duties having been elected as its new Commander. I'm not going to have enough time to participate in very many debates on this forum (though I couldn't resist horning in on this one).
              *Excellent Mr.L.Congrads on your new post. I'm pretty sure it will keep you running. And I fully agree on your post above. The mathematics of a slow Iowa just do not add up when one examines them closely.
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                I still think he is very wrong.

                The increase in Bhd 50 armor started with the Missouri and Wisconsin. Having been on speed trials of both New Jersey (with the slightly thinner bhd 50) and Missouri they both hit 30+ knots without even getting out of breath (as our escorts did).

                Kentucky and Illinois would have had the same thicknesses of armor as Mo and Wisky (I've seen the original armor drawings that also listed who was to make the armor -- but I don't have the time to pull up a copy if I have one). Also their welded hulls (with the exception of a rivetd crack arrestor seam and shell to Main deck joint) would have given them a distinct advantage as having less interference to hull smoothness.

                The major weight changes in the 1980's were:
                Removals: Four 5"/38 gun mounts at 85 tonness each for a total of 340 tons.
                Ammo racks of two 5"/38 ammo magazines.
                Removals of old masts about 40 tonnes.
                --------------------------------------------------------------

                Additions: In place of the ammo magazines, six 125 ton dubplex air conditioning plants were installed. Their total weight was slightly more than the loaded weight of the magazines.
                Addition of Helicopter decks and ramps of about 200 tonnes each ship.
                Total addition of ordinary strength steel on New Jersey (already had a helicopter deck) was 400 tonnes.
                Total addition of HY-80 armor was 400 tonnes.
                New tripod masts & antenna foundations at about 100 tonnes.
                ---------------------------------------------------------

                Let's see now, (excepting New Jersey that already had a helo deck) that's calcs out to 1,100 tonnes minus 340 (gun mounts) 40 tonnes (masts) leaves a net INCREASE of 720 tonnes.

                Didn't slow them down one bit. Therefore the 65 and 66 would have been just as fast if not faster.

                But what do I know? I didn't get my information from reading "profesional" books. I only modernized the ships -- and rode them -- and felt the muzzle blast of 16" guns -- and -- to heck with it. I have to get my butt in gear and run down to the American Legion post to pick up the mail. One of my duties having been elected as its new Commander. I'm not going to have enough time to participate in very many debates on this forum (though I couldn't resist horning in on this one).

                Rusty, I know you are correct;), they would have been at least as fast as the first four. I hope Mr Pocock considers the information you and Dread have made available to him here, I did give him the link. If he doesn't I will still enjoy his site, but I know that primary source information like what you have offered is far more accurate. Thank you for your insights and first hand knowledge, it is by far the best source I have.
                sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Just using a bit of common sense:
                  Is it even possible to overload an Iowa enough that it loses a significant amount of speed? Or at least enough to call it a "slow" Iowa?
                  I mean...how much extra weight would an Iowa or any other BB need to significantly reduce its speed?
                  If you could snap your fingers and make the Wisconsin weigh 75k tons, would she even be fit to sail at that weight?


                  Seems interesting that with all the BB buffs and former sailors/designers here and other places, with all the info everyone here has and all the books and info on BB's we've all read, this guy is the only one who's ever heard the term "Iowa Class slow".

                  Does have a very nice site, though.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Pacfanweb View Post
                    Just using a bit of common sense:
                    Is it even possible to overload an Iowa enough that it loses a significant amount of speed? Or at least enough to call it a "slow" Iowa?
                    I mean...how much extra weight would an Iowa or any other BB need to significantly reduce its speed?
                    If you could snap your fingers and make the Wisconsin weigh 75k tons, would she even be fit to sail at that weight?


                    Seems interesting that with all the BB buffs and former sailors/designers here and other places, with all the info everyone here has and all the books and info on BB's we've all read, this guy is the only one who's ever heard the term "Iowa Class slow".

                    Does have a very nice site, though.

                    Well, I suppose you could overload one, they do have a emergency overload weight rating not to exceed. It pretty much insures the ship will handle properly or within parameters of its tests and stay a float. The boilers are protected by safety valves as many are. These prevent critical damage to the boilers by relieving the pressure to atmosphere. The turbines should have them as well as a rupture disc and diaphragm assembly. It is easy to blow tubes though under load and if not properly cared for.

                    In service they approach or last time in service they were pretty close to 58,650 tons at full load (all the esentials to enter service). I dont know what the EM rating would be (Rusty probably does though) but I would assume somewhere between 60,000 to 67,000 tons. During WWII in some books it is rumored that some left the pier for theatre at almost 60,000 tons displaced.

                    *Agreed, he does have a nice sight.:)
                    Last edited by Dreadnought; 04 Jun 10,, 14:17.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                      Well, I suppose you could overload one, they do have a emergency overload weight rating not to exceed. It pretty much insures the ship will handle properly or within parameters of its tests and stay a float. The boilers are protected by safety valves as many are. These prevent critical damage to the boilers by relieving the pressure to atmosphere. The turbines should have them as well as a diaphragm. It is easy to blow tubes though under load and if not properly cared for.

                      In service they approach or last time in service they were pretty close to 58,650 tons at full load (all the esentials to enter service). I dont know what the EM rating would be (Rusty probably does though) but I would assume somewhere between 60,000 to 67,000 tons. During WWII in some books it is rumored that some left the pier for theatre at almost 60,000 tons displaced.

                      *Agreed, he does have a nice sight.:)
                      I haven't viewed his site (can somebody link it to me?) but I'll let you guys do the math:

                      It takes 105 tonnes to change the ship's trim by 1-inch. As it is, they only have about 18 feet of freeboard amidships. I don't think you want to decrease that any more than it is.

                      It's good brain exercise to play around with the numbers, but I'm perfectly satisfied with them the way they are. Well, would accept a change from Vulcans to Phasers.
                      Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The starting gate....

                        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.
                        Rusty,
                        ]MaritimeQuest - Iowa Class Battleships Class Overview
                        Last edited by blidgepump; 04 Jun 10,, 11:25.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
                          About the only thing "slow" about Illinois and Kentucky was the speed of their construction.

                          For example: even on the site you gave me, please note the author's own words about Kentucky:

                          Construction notes:
                          (a): The first keel was scrapped and a new keel laid on Dec. 6, 1944.


                          Dreadnaught Helper can give you a more detailed account of why Kentucky's first keel was scrapped: The drydock area was needed to build more landing craft for the D-Day invasion earlier that year. Kentucky's construction was plagued by suspensions; the first came on 6 June 1942 when Kentucky was suspended and her bottom structure launched to make room for LST construction.[7] Kentucky's construction resumed on 6 December 1944 with a new keel laying,

                          I also ran across another website relating to the Montana class (which the Illinois and Kentucky were to be the lead ships): The increase in Montana’s firepower and armor came at the expense of her speed and her Panamax capabilities, but the latter issue was to be resolved through the construction of a third, much wider set of locks at the Panama Canal

                          Also, in many other web sites the estimated speed for the "all welded hull" ships was to be 33 knots.

                          So they would have been 2 to 3 knots faster than their previous four sisters. It was only the "winding down" of the War that made construction of the ships "slow".
                          Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Regrets from Michael W. Pocock....

                            Michael W. Pocock wrote back this morning to an invitation to join the discussion and present his information but extended his kind regrets noting the lack of time. His MaritimeQuest.com site remains available for viewing.

                            Blidgepump

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by blidgepump View Post
                              Michael W. Pocock wrote back this morning to an invitation to join the discussion and present his information but extended his kind regrets noting the lack of time. His MaritimeQuest.com site remains available for viewing.

                              Blidgepump
                              Shame, I would have looked forward to him being here for discussion and any that may follow on other subjects as well. I do enjoy viewing his site though. Maybe sometime in the future perhaps he will take up an invitation and join us.:)
                              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                                Shame, I would have looked forward to him being here for discussion and any that may follow on other subjects as well. I do enjoy viewing his site though. Maybe sometime in the future perhaps he will take up an invitation and join us.:)
                                I agree whole heartedly. It is a very nice looking site though his inference to the Illinois' and Kentucky's slower speed would only be applicable if they were built as the four turret super Battleships (later designated Montana class).
                                Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X