Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bigjimslade
    replied
    Looking for Measured Drawings of Details

    To finish my computer model, I am looking for measured drawings of the following Iowa class details:

    Nixie Bolsters
    Armored Box Launchers
    Life Raft Holders
    Phalanx Guns
    SATCOM Antenna
    SQL-32 Antenna
    Bow Roller Chock
    16" Range Finder Hoods
    MK 37 Director
    MK 38 Director
    AN/SPS-6 Antenna
    AN/SPS-10 Antenna
    New Jersey/Iowa Bow Bulwark
    Funnel Caps

    I'm willing to share the data I have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Project HARP

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

    As far as being practical, or accurate the answer is No.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Smooth bore Naval guns?

    Random idea that I wanted to run by everyone. The M1 Abrams MBT uses a smoothbore cannon with specialized shells that stabilize it's flight thus not needing rifling and still able to penetrate armour. Now I did not look into this very well just using my limited knowledge on these but say someone wanted to build their own BB, is this a viable and cost effective (compared to IF we had the option to build a traditional gun TODAY) option on idea alone? Only thing I wasn't sure was range. Idea would be to have a smoothbore 16" gun that could use sabot rounds to extend the range. This is just a fun thought that I'm curious about.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Originally posted by bbvet View Post
    That statement is not quite true - NEW JERSEY has had Turret 2 barbette altered by physically removing portions of the circular projectile handling areas below the turret in order to provide a space for visitors to see the loading procedures for the turret. This has permanently altered the integrity of these spaces rendering (for all intents and purposes) the turret useless. In addition, IOWA has never had her Turret 2 rebuilt after the 1989 turret explosion.

    The other limiting factor in any recomm of IOWAs is the simple fact that very few experienced crewmen are available today to man these ships. We were lucky in 1967-68 to be able to find without any trouble IOWA class veterans from the mid-50s who were either still in the Navy or were willing to re-enlist. That was a bit harder in the '80s for recomm of all 4 IOWAs and I dare say now would be quite difficult.

    While the museum alterations are probably reversible (plumbing/elec/HVAC etc) the turret conditions (mentioned above) are not. Theoretically speaking, I could only slightly see IOWA or WISCONSIN being even remotely considered for reactivation, in spite of IOWAs Turret 2 condition. NEW JERSEY would require major machinery overhaul in addition to her Turret 2 conditions. I doubt MISSOURI would be considered as her political position in Pearl Harbor outweighs any usefulness at this point.

    Just an opinion, nothing more. I seriously doubt any IOWAs will ever taste blue water again.

    H. M. Strub
    exPN3, USN, USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62)
    X Division 09/68-12/69
    IIRC Rusty said that the barbette could he repaired but maybe I read that wrong. Hmm I'll look tomorrow. Also the Iowas turret apparently wasn't that bad and they have all the parts to repair it. Not advocating another recommission just saying ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • bbvet
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Too bad deep below decks it isn't so dry and cozy. Plus she has been somewhat modified for the ease of visitors. Meanwhile there have been no modifications made to the Hornet for the ease of visitors or any other reason other than two hanger deck rest rooms. Below decks some volunteers are still trying to find the location on the keel where USS Kearsarge was engraved before the name was changed. Other than lack of good air it is dry way down below.
    Unfortunately, the general public (me!) isn't privy to some of the more elusive areas that you, as a volunteer, are able to see. I wasn't aware of below decks problems on YORKTOWN, but it doesn't surprise me. Common with museum ships, I guess (lack of scheduled maintenance, etc.). Not all the ships are maintained to the same degree and this simply (IMHO) represents the politics getting involved where decisions should be based on needs and requirements.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by bbvet View Post

    TBM3FAN . Now, in contrast, go visit USS YORKTOWN at Patriots Point, SC - THAT'S a wonderful, well maintained museum ship. I have not had the privilege to visit HORNET yet, but if I ever get to the left coast, I will make that a priority visit!

    Hank
    Too bad deep below decks it isn't so dry and cozy. Plus she has been somewhat modified for the ease of visitors. Meanwhile there have been no modifications made to the Hornet for the ease of visitors or any other reason other than two hanger deck rest rooms. Below decks some volunteers are still trying to find the location on the keel where USS Kearsarge was engraved before the name was changed. Other than lack of good air it is dry way down below.

    Leave a comment:


  • bbvet
    replied
    I know, it's frustrating. On a similar note, take NORTH CAROLINA - she had her 20mm removed (for the most part) and both a/c catapults prior to her last cruise in 1946 before being decommissioned. In 1960/1 she becomes a museum ship and eventually has a Kingfisher displayed on her fantail but no catapults. Go figure? I know with the other problems she is going through just to maintain her intact that the NC Battleship Commission wouldn't even contemplate having a couple cats constructed and installed. I wonder, however, IF there were some deep pocketed donor willing to have them built for the ship gratis whether the commission would allow this to happen. I know ALABAMA has one cat, a discarded unit found somewhere and put on the ship (whether it's the correct Mk./Mod I have no idea) back a few years ago. So, that would tell me that it's the $$ issue, not necessarily the Navy dictating what can or can't be displayed (or how to display). Once again, those BBs only served in one commission, not 3 or 4 where the ship evolved in appearance and configuration.

    Hank

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    So the Navy could care less if these ships are cut up into razor blades, but they can't abide the prospect of one of the ship's historic pieces of equipment being displayed on her deck? It just makes no practical sense.

    They release the ships to the museum, they drop all preservation requirements, then the Museum wants to essentially add a display piece to the deck and the Navy goes "No!" The '91 configuring didn't include massive holes cut in the barbette armor, either.

    Leave a comment:


  • bbvet
    replied
    It was explained to me in 2001 (when our crew had our first reunion on board the NEW JERSEY as a museum) when I asked about certain details that were not being preserved (as I recalled them in 1968-69) that the ship was going to be presented as she was configured in her last commission. At that time, the IOWAs were still (I think this statement is correct) considered as assets for the Navy and as such, could not be altered materially to fit a former configuration. From a cost standpoint this obviously makes sense. Since that time, the Navy has released all four ships from further operational status and I guess the museum groups are "free" to make material changes as they see fit.

    One museum ship that does NOT follow this rule is USS KIDD - that ship has been re-built to her WWII "glory days" configuration and is a perfect example of what CAN be achieved by dedicated volunteers and money! Of course, KIDD was not on the U.S. Naval Register when she was obtained as a museum ship; the IOWAs were and I think that made a big factor in how the ships could be displayed.

    While I completely agree with AP88's sentiments, I also see the need to keep the appearance of the ship intact.

    TBM3FAN - I couldn't agree more with your statement about INTREPID - it IS a piece of junk!!! I was there Memorial Day, 2015 and got aboard just before the stuffed shirt politicos came out and put on their show. I was quite shocked in the overall appearance of the ship and the small amount of actual area open to the public. Now, in contrast, go visit USS YORKTOWN at Patriots Point, SC - THAT'S a wonderful, well maintained museum ship. I have not had the privilege to visit HORNET yet, but if I ever get to the left coast, I will make that a priority visit!

    Lastly, the IOWAs (as most ESSEX class carriers also share) served in multiple conflicts and configurations. This makes it difficult from a veteran's viewpoint to appreciate the ship as it is currently displayed. I know, I have those thoughts when I've been aboard NEW JERSEY. Doesn't seem like "home". I guess we'll just have to live with that and be glad that the ship is still operating and a part of our naval heritage.

    Hank

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
    I really don't understand this. The article says the restrictions come from the Navy. What the heck does the Navy care what is on the deck of a battleship they never intend to return to service? And we're not talking about the USS Constitution here...the way the deck looked in 1991 isn't exactly "historic."
    The Navy will always "own" the ship. Several times in the past some have tried to make changes to the Hornet but after phone calls to the Washington Naval Shipyard put an end to them. Part maybe that the Hornet is a National Historical Landmark. I'm guessing the Navy can pretty much say how it's ships are to be treated depending on the ship. Ships like the Iowas Class maybe off limits while the Intrepid, which was a piece of junk, can have anything done to her.

    Don't forget they treat their planes the same way. We just finished a beautiful restoration of a FM-2 Wildcat that looked like crap off the bottom of Lake Michigan. Despite that it is on loan from Pensacola, and while it is extremely unlikely, they can take it back at any time. Our F-14 is on loan from Pensacola and a former F-14 pilot wanted to hang a AIM-54 Phoenix dummy on the wing. He was told not to but just display it. He hung it and the Navy somehow saw it and then thanked him for the dummy missile as it now belonged to them and their plane.

    In short the Navy is funny about their old stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • surfgun
    replied
    I look at this way, there are 40mm guns and tubs on other museum ships. The Iowa's are special as they re-found their relevance as modern warships and the 40mm's do not fit that mold.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    I really don't understand this. The article says the restrictions come from the Navy. What the heck does the Navy care what is on the deck of a battleship they never intend to return to service? And we're not talking about the USS Constitution here...the way the deck looked in 1991 isn't exactly "historic."

    Leave a comment:


  • bbvet
    replied
    ArmorPiercing88 wrote:
    I thought the New Jersey was free from any further preservation requirements, and the museum could do what they like? If they could ruin the structural integrity of one of the gun turrets to make a tour route, why can't they do something as simple as mounting something up on the deck?
    Home Port Alliance, the group that is responsible for the ship, is required to display the ship in her last commissioning configuration - that does NOT include the 40mm gun mount as it was removed PRIOR to her 1968 commissioning and was not part of the ship since that time. I agree with you that the simplest thing to do would be to relocate the mount where it originally was located, but that doesn't "fit" the requirements or museum's goals on how to display the ship. What might be an alternative (if money and time were of no consequence) would be to construct a new 40mm gun tub in the location on the pier where the mount will be located, and furnish it to represent a typical quad 40mm gun mount from the 40s/50s with all the necessary ammo racks, helmet racks, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    I was reading the below post re: the return of a 40mm mount to the New Jersey, and I found this sentence confusing.

    "The Quad 40 cannot be remounted on a ship because the Navy has a strict requirement the New Jersey be displayed in its deck configuration at the time of its last decommissioning in 1991."

    I thought the New Jersey was free from any further preservation requirements, and the museum could do what they like? If they could ruin the structural integrity of one of the gun turrets to make a tour route, why can't they do something as simple as mounting something up on the deck?

    http://www.courierpostonline.com/sto...ago/460629001/

    Leave a comment:


  • SW4U
    replied
    Why America's Battleships Will Never Make a Comeback

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X