John Kettler Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 This turned up while looking for T-72 cutaway drawings, and those of you with significant others will be in big trouble if you don't pace yourselves. The rest of us are just screwed! Military History Resources (call that British grade understatement; more like an omnibus) http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thomas.Pilsch/history.html Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Great find, Mr. Kettler. Browsing through it triggered a question that bugged me years ago and for which I have never had an answer. Maybe you can help. Why, having spend so much money on them in the 1980's, did the USA get rid of the last IOWA class ships in the 1990s? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Hi John, a great place to put those links you're digging up is in our Community Weblinks section by the way! Martin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Great find, Mr. Kettler. Browsing through it triggered a question that bugged me years ago and for which I have never had an answer. Maybe you can help. Why, having spend so much money on them in the 1980's, did the USA get rid of the last IOWA class ships in the 1990s? John can give you his own take on the question, but every source I've seen on it indicated that the BB's retirement was simply a matter of cost...Every BB was manned by over 1,500 sailors, which meant lots of money that could be spent to man other more modern vessels. The Navy was downsizing in the post-Desert Storm years; 9/11 was in the future and nothing like the Cold War was seen on the horizon, so the BB's were retired simply to save money. They had their uses, but the Powers that Be simply saw them as expensive anachronisms that could be replaced with with smaller, more efficient vessels. My personal feeling is that, had the 80's not enjoyed such an orgy of military spending under Reagan, the BB's would never had been resuscitated to begin with. Back then, the attitude towards military spending at the end of the Cold War was "Anything Goes." In the end, it drove the Soviet Union into the poorhouse trying to keep up and the US forces ended up the most modern and technically advanced in the world. The BB's came back on that tidal wave of spending, and were re-retired as the money dried up again years later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Very cool find John. Thanks for sharing! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 John can give you his own take on the question, but every source I've seen on it indicated that the BB's retirement was simply a matter of cost...Every BB was manned by over 1,500 sailors, which meant lots of money that could be spent to man other more modern vessels. The Navy was downsizing in the post-Desert Storm years; 9/11 was in the future and nothing like the Cold War was seen on the horizon, so the BB's were retired simply to save money. They had their uses, but the Powers that Be simply saw them as expensive anachronisms that could be replaced with with smaller, more efficient vessels. And they would have been useless in Afghanistan and most of the Iraq invasion, unlike missile boats and aircraft carriers that can reach targets deep inland. Given how vulnerable such juggernauts are to modern anti-shipping missiles and torpedos, battleships are more of a liability than an asset. Sort of like those 1000 ton superheavy tanks that Germans planned in the 1940's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 John can give you his own take on the question, but every source I've seen on it indicated that the BB's retirement was simply a matter of cost...Every BB was manned by over 1,500 sailors, which meant lots of money that could be spent to man other more modern vessels. The Navy was downsizing in the post-Desert Storm years; 9/11 was in the future and nothing like the Cold War was seen on the horizon, so the BB's were retired simply to save money. They had their uses, but the Powers that Be simply saw them as expensive anachronisms that could be replaced with with smaller, more efficient vessels. My personal feeling is that, had the 80's not enjoyed such an orgy of military spending under Reagan, the BB's would never had been resuscitated to begin with. Back then, the attitude towards military spending at the end of the Cold War was "Anything Goes." In the end, it drove the Soviet Union into the poorhouse trying to keep up and the US forces ended up the most modern and technically advanced in the world. The BB's came back on that tidal wave of spending, and were re-retired as the money dried up again years later. I think all that is essentially true. John Lehman, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, brought the Iowas out of retirement and spent a fortune on modernizing them for, I think, a couple of reasons. One was that for a certain segment of the population (and I suspect Lehman was a part of it) the BBs had a romantic symbolism that appealed to the Reaganites. Secondly, it was touted that their heavy armor would be able to survive attacks from Soviet anti-shipping missiles. Recent events in both the Falkland Islands and the Persian Gulf had shown the vulnerability of modern naval ships with largely aluminum construction. But they had several strikes against them. One was the cost of operation, as gunnergoz has indicated. But also was that modern missile defense depended not so much on passive systems such as armor, but on electronics. The problem that presented with the BBs was lack of accommodation space inside the ship for all the necessary equipment. I think there was also a problem with some of the electronics getting knocked around any time the ship fired the big guns. Finally, as impressive as the big guns may have looked, there really wasn't much that they could do that couldn't be done better by smaller but more modern guns or by missiles and smart bombs. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 And they would have been useless in Afghanistan and most of the Iraq invasion, unlike missile boats and aircraft carriers that can reach targets deep inland. Three of the four Iowas were refitted to carry cruise missiles, and at least one of them fired some during ODS. A personal note: the Missouri was the only one of the four not so modified. By chance, I happened to spot it on what must have been one of its last cruises under its own power. On August 6, 1991, it left Bremerton and steamed through the Admiralty Inlet headed north towards British Columbia and Alaska escorted by a destroyer and a frigate. I don't know what its destination was that day, maybe a friendly port call, with likely some training on the way. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Three of the four Iowas were refitted to carry cruise missiles, and at least one of them fired some during ODS. A personal note: the Missouri was the only one of the four not so modified. By chance, I happened to spot it on what must have been one of its last cruises under its own power. On August 6, 1991, it left Bremerton and steamed through the Admiralty Inlet headed north towards British Columbia and Alaska escorted by a destroyer and a frigate. I don't know what its destination was that day, maybe a friendly port call, with likely some training on the way. Michael Missouri did have Tomahawks. Those famous night shots of the missiles taking off from the deck at the kick off for Desert Storm were on Missouri. But even so, re-purposing those mega ships as missile platforms was a ludicrous big dick luxury. Kind of like me buying an Abrams to drive to work. According to Wiki, the Iowas carried about 32 Tomahawks. Compare that to an Arleigh Burke that has space for up to 90 and 1/6 of the crew required. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Missouri did have Tomahawks. Those famous night shots of the missiles taking off from the deck at the kick off for Desert Storm were on Missouri. Are you sure? I was pretty positive it was one of the other three. In any event, the Missouri was the only one not to get its third 16" turret removed. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Thanks, gents, I am obliged for your very full answers to my question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Are you sure? I was pretty positive it was one of the other three. In any event, the Missouri was the only one not to get its third 16" turret removed. Michael Over the next several months, the ship was upgraded with the most advanced weaponry available... mounts for 32 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles, As far as I can see, all four surviving Iowas had the Tomahawk racks, though New Jersey doesn't seem to have ever used them in anger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Are you sure? I was pretty positive it was one of the other three. In any event, the Missouri was the only one not to get its third 16" turret removed. Michael The last time I saw photos of the 4, all of them still had the three 16" turrets, although several of the 5" turrets had been removed from each of them. One can only wonder where those turrets ended up, though...A turret and magazine assembly set up as a museum piece would sure be worth seeing, yesseree bob. I've been in the turret of at least two BB's (the Alabama and one of the Iowa's, I forget which) and it is a very worthwhile experience. The only magazine spaces I've been able to visit were on the UK cruiser Belfast, in London on the Thames river on display. A very messy, oily excursion it was, too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 But even so, re-purposing those mega ships as missile platforms was a ludicrous big dick luxury. Kind of like me buying an Abrams to drive to work. Now there's a fad Arnold Schwartzenegger is yet to start... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 Blackcat, Trained manpower and cost. The BBs required all sorts of hard to find specialists the Navy needed to keep more critical hardware operational, this at a time when the Navy wasn't meeting recruiting targets and was laying up vessels for want of crew. Iowa class BB Manning list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ehbowen/Iowa_class_battleship_manning Operating cost was $58 million/yr/BB in 1991 dollars, without factoring in special spares. The Wiki answers all the issues raised here in this thread on the Iowa class, to include which ships were armed with what, which fired what and where. All were rearmed with Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles, retaining all three turrets because only part of the 5-inch battery was removed. Believe the main gun turret removal story came from a proposal to create a hybrid vessel from the Iowas with the forward turrets left on, but the after turret removed and a deck installed to carry Harriers. Never happened. The Iowa suffered a turret explosion, and the turret was never repaired, but I see no evidence any 16" turret was ever removed from any of the Iowas as a ship modification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/bb61iowa.html#images Almost forgot! Was extremely fortunate to be able to clamber all over the U.S.S. New Jersey at Long Beach, California when she recommissioned. Great set of memories! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Almost forgot! Was extremely fortunate to be able to clamber all over the U.S.S. New Jersey at Long Beach, California when she recommissioned. Great set of memories! Regards, John Kettler An almost forgotten "great set of memories" apparently! Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 KR, Blame it on target fixation! Got so wrapped up answering the questions asked that I clean forgot my own experience, only to have the memory bell ding after I'd finished the post. A few things stand out: the sheer presence and feeling of power the ship evoked, the massive armor protection in the fighting tower and its associated hatch, the coffinlike appearance and vibe of the Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers, the electromechanical main battery fire control computer (talking gears and cams), being walked through one of the 5" mounts by Dad, himself a Navy man during the Korean War, seeing a 16" turret up close, and the special treat of watching them put R2-D2 (the Phalanx CIWS) through its paces; without firing. Got some great Polaroids, but they're not here, and I have no scanner if they were. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Got some great Polaroids, but they're not here, and I have no scanner if they were. And they would probably be starting to fade anyway, wouldn't you think? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 Michael Emrys, When I last saw them several years ago before shipping the family photo archive off to my brother for eventual digitization, they were fine. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 Moon, Didn't know we had any! How do I post there? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 When I last saw them several years ago before shipping the family photo archive off to my brother for eventual digitization, they were fine. That's good. I heard that Polaroid had improved their chemistry in the last few decades and that no doubt helps. I messed around with one of the early models about 50 years ago, and its pictures would start to fade almost as soon as you took them out of the camera. After half a dozen years, there would only be a faint image. And that was even storing them away from light. If they were out in bright environment, they'd be gone in about six months. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popfreak Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 Apparently as the only member her to have ever served on an Iowa class Battleship, let me clear up a few things. 1) All 4 Iowa's still have all 3 16'' turrets. There was some talk back in the late 80's with the Missouri and the Wisconsin of trying to remove the 3rd turret to make vertical launch tubes for missles, and also more talk of an under deck hanger of some sorts, but it couldnt be done as the turrets just weighed too much and she ship needed the weight to remain stable. 2)All 4 Iowa's carried 8 ABL capable of carrying 32 Tomahawk Missles and then another set of launchers(not armored for 16 harpoon anti ship missles, As far as the tomahawks go, and I doubt anyone will ever find any true reference to this but some of the tomahawks were nuclear tipped . 3)Each Iowa started with 10 dual 5"38 gun mounts 5 on each side of the ship, in the 80's reto the removed 2 mounts from each side, leave 12 5'38 barrells, 6 in 3 mounts on each side of the ship. On a side note the Marine manned mount, which I was a crew of was the only 5" mount to get a fire mission in Beruit(i guess it was symbolic, Marines supporting Marines) Anyway, we took out a Sryrian gun battery, spotters confirmed 22 killed. Inside the mount some sailor art was drawn depicting a silloutte of a man with a raghead with a circle around it a a line going through it diagonally with"scatch 22" written above. 4) There are lots of reasons I think they were retired. There used to be a website around called Warships1.com ran buy a guy named Guy Derdall or something like that, and there was a poster there that was pretty high up in the chain of commaned at Long Beach Naval shipyard that refitted 2 of them. wish i remembered his name, anyway, his though was that the 16" barrell liners and extra barrels were all goneand no way to reproduce them. 5)With the range of the 16" barrels at about 25 miles there was in development in the late 80's a round capable of ranging out to 100 miles, If the BB's had stayed in service im sure it's reasonable to assume that todays technlogy we would certainly 100 mile and more ranges from the 16's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Here's another super site for military history buffs! http://www.historyaddict.com/military.html Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.