Minor Nit pick: the following battleships were older and on active service on Dec. 7:
Arkansas, New York, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania.
The following were older, but converted to training roles:
Utah, Wyoming
The following were older, but converted to non-combatant/auxiliaries:
Oregon (ammunition barge, '44), Kearsarge, Illinois
The following were newer: New Mexico, Mississippi, Idaho, Tennessee, California, Colorado, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, Washington
On the old battleships, they had what was called an “armored grating”, IIRC, that attempted to stop shells and shrapnell from entering this way.
I am not at home (and dont have access to my reference books), so I cannot supply any data on this feature…
As far as I know, shell or bomb hits rarely entered this way, so the system was not severly tested, but in the few cases it was, I think it held up…
Anybody else confirm?
When I toured the battleship USS Massachusetts in Fall River, Mass. as a kid, I remember that the bridge was actually a double structure. On the outside was a conventional-looking ship’s bridge area with with a wide, windowed pathway across the superstructure (though without a helm and other controls). Within this was a concrete pillbox with small, slit viewports that held the helm and all other essential control functions. I recall the concrete being about a foot thick (and I had no way of knowing if it had been reinforced).
It would be fairly easy for hostile fire to wipe of the outer bridge, but taking out the inner pillbox would be another matter.
Well squish my ignorance, I never knew that. Improvised weapons always seem a little bit more interesting (like the re-engineered Exocet missile that the Argentines launched from a truck instead of an aircraft in the Falklands).
Interesting, thanks. The B&W films I’ve seen of Royal Navy ships never showed this. But then I’m not sure about the size of the ships seen on screen, no doubt a destroyer or perhaps even a cruiser wouldn’t have the benefit of this sort of protection.
I believe you are thinking of the “conning tower”. The US had mixed feelings about the weight devoted to the conning tower, and had it removed in some of it’s battleships.
On the Iowa class, Wiki says that the conning tower is located “in the middle of the bridge”, which, if correct, would make it hard to see in photos… I will try to confirm elsewhere.
Found a pic on this site: http://www.ussiowa.org/general/html/specifications.htm
Since this thread is still moving along, what would happen if a Hiroshima sized nuke were detonated over an Iowa class BS? Would it just turn the thing into a canoe? Would the hull be gutted and filled with melted steel but still be floating?
Oh, and can a mothballed ship be brought back to service? What would it take?
See Operation Crossroads.
Anything can be made to be usefull again in some way, as long as it floats.
As to how long it takes, that depends on the condition of the hull and the machinery onboard, as well as how much old stuff needs to be removed and replaced with newer stuff.
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense]
Since this thread is still moving along, what would happen if a Hiroshima sized nuke were detonated over an Iowa class BS? Would it just turn the thing into a canoe? Would the hull be gutted and filled with melted steel but still be floating?
[quote]
It depends on what you mean by above (and the yield from ‘Little Boy’ was about 13kT, substantially less than most warheads carried by naval cruise missiles; the nuclear armed opton on the SS-N-9 ‘Siren’ was estimated at 200kT). At prox distance the thermal pulse and blast wave would probably batter the ship to pieces. At altitude it would just set fire to anything inflammable, fry anything electronic, and irradiate the entire ship. An enhanced radiation (neutron) device would probably cause fast-fission reactions on anything made of depleted uranium or other fissile material. Any unshielded nuclear devices would probably undergo fission themselves, although not efficiently, disabling them. In short, it would be a very bad day.
Sure. The USS Missouri, for instance, was decommissioned in 1955, and recommissioned and refitted with modern weapon systems in addition to her impressive artillery in 1985 as part of Reagan’s thrust to build up the Navy. Refitting older ships is difficult, though–they aren’t designed with hullspace to fit newer weapon systems, which have to be retrofit or placed on-deck. It’s generally not worth recommissioning an old ship, particularly given the fact that the hull itself is only a small fraction of total construction cost and that reduction in operating costs of a newer, more efficient ship will overshadow any cost savings from salvaging a hull and powerplant. Most nations just sell off older ships to second-hand navies; the U.S. tends to scrap them as targets or sink them for artificial reefs, alhtough there is a recycling program to salvage raw materials as well.
Stranger
I have a vague memory about the, hmmm, harvesting of steel from pre 1945 ships because the steel produced afterwards is contaminated by the fallout of all the nuclear explosions and atmospheric tests. Anyone has a better recollection of that?
I have seen that statement as applied to salvaged vessels of the period, for example on this web site: Scapa Flow High Seas Fleet Scuttling , down near the bottom in the box discussing the Bayern.
I asked about that on the boards before, its a big enough market for people to go down and bring up steel from old wrecks, useful for MRI machines amongst other things.
Why did the Missouri and, I think, all WWII battleships have such long front ends (bows?)
I’m going to hazard a guess and say that it’s to obtain a better (lower) prismatic coefficient, C[sub]p[/sub], and a higher maximum Froude number. You generally get this by making the frontal aspect less and the wetted length of the hull longer (for the same displacement), so as to part the water.
Stranger
A longer ship requires less power to push through the waves than a shorter, but equally broad ship. This also means that a longer ship will have a higher top speed than an shorter one, assuming the same power plant.
So, in effect, the Iowa’s were long(er) so they could achieve the 32+ knot speeds the designers where asked to provide.
Iowa class: 212,000 horsepower on an 887 ft hull, 45000 tons displacement.
The planned follow on class, the Montana class, was 60000 tons, 920 ft hull, 172,000 horsepower plant, 28 knot speed.
The previous class, the South Dakota class, was 35000 tons, 680 ft hull, 130,000 horsepower, 27 knot speed.
The previous class to that, the North Carolina class, was also 35000 tons, 729 ft hull, 115,000 horespower, 27 knot speed. (Same speed, longer hull, less power than the South Dakota’s.)
All classes had a 108 ft beam (width), to fit through the Panama Canal.
That’s what I kind of figured. But since speed is money for just about any large ship I couldn’t figure out why no other type opted for the long bow. My guess is that it’s expensive as hell to do, doesn’t offer much in additional cargo space, and therefore can only be justified by the military?
God, it certainly makes for a beautiful ship though.
The downside to a long narrow bow: It doesn’t offer much in bouyancy, and either requires a lengthening of the armor belt (if it is desired to armor this section) requiring weight; or; offers a large amount of unarmored hull that, if flooded, would require reserve bouyancy in the armored citadel section to be available, “just in case”, again requiring weight and volume.
The Wisconsin is a bit longer than the other Iowa class ships - it collided with another ship in fog and had part of another battleship’s bow glommed on.
Brian
:eek: From the uncompleted Kentucky, 1956. Cool! I didnt know that!
The Missouri grounded on a shoal in 1950, and had to be repaired in the drydock that the Kentucky’s hull was in: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/bb63-m4.htm
