Vanguard Versus Iowa etc...
NTCSA
All this is interesting, but I havent heard anything on the last
Battleship ever built... The HMS Vanguard
Rex Dundon
DS2 USN
Black ICE
~thumbing throught my copy of Conway's History of the Ship: The Eclipse
of the Big Gun~ According to Robert F. Sumrall (the featured author
concerning BBs and BCs, Sumrall is/was the curator of the US Naval
Academy Museum), VANGUARD had the following statistics:
Displacement: 44,500 tons (std), 51,420 tons (full load)
Dimensions: 814'4" x 108' x 34'10"
Armament: 8 x 15" (4 twin turrets); 16 x 5.25" (8 twin turrets)
Armor (max inches): 14" belt, 13" turrets, 6" deck
Speed: 30 knots
Launched: 1944 (completed 1946)
NOTE: Without taking armor quality (a slippery slope upon which I fear
to tread) into account, VANGUARD's armor compares with IOWA as follows:
Belt--2" thicker; Turrets--6.7" thinner; Deck--equal.
I hope this helps....
--
Reply address is false. Reply to wom...@premier.net
Random
sounds like a push over. Iowa could beat up three vanguards before
breakfast any day of the week. Heck, I bet Alaska could whip one of
these things in 30 minutes with one director tied behind her back. :)
TJG
In article <341197f0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ran...@ix.netcom.com says...
Well, the Alaska would have to get w/in 17000yds to hope to penetrate any part
of the Vanguard's armor, while being itself vulnerable at whatever range the
ships engage. Vanguard's immunity zone to Alaska's 12"/50 guns is from about
17000 yds to + infinity. The Alaska's immunity zone to the Vanguard's 15" guns
basically overlap for deck and belt at 30000yds, which means there is no
immunity zone at all. Data from the Dulin & Garzke series, so YMMV.
And that's just a quick cut on the festivities. No accounting for weight of
shell vs. damage, almost identical fire control systems, and Vanguard probably
having superior sea handling to boot. One book (forget which of the standard
references) noted that the King George V class showed you could protect a ship
from 16" shell, but not arm it with them. I doubt if the Vanguard retreated
from that protection.
--
****************************************************
Official Only When Embossed with Comptroller's Pseal
****************************************************
Peter H. Granzeau
On Sat, 06 Sep 1997 17:52:38 GMT, Ran...@ix.netcom.com (Random)
wrote:
>>~thumbing throught my copy of Conway's History of the Ship: The Eclipse
>>of the Big Gun~ According to Robert F. Sumrall (the featured author
>>concerning BBs and BCs, Sumrall is/was the curator of the US Naval
>>Academy Museum), VANGUARD had the following statistics:
>>
>> Displacement: 44,500 tons (std), 51,420 tons (full load)
>> Dimensions: 814'4" x 108' x 34'10"
>> Armament: 8 x 15" (4 twin turrets); 16 x 5.25" (8 twin turrets)
>> Armor (max inches): 14" belt, 13" turrets, 6" deck
>> Speed: 30 knots
>> Launched: 1944 (completed 1946)
>>
>>NOTE: Without taking armor quality (a slippery slope upon which I fear
>>to tread) into account, VANGUARD's armor compares with IOWA as follows:
>>Belt--2" thicker; Turrets--6.7" thinner; Deck--equal.
>>
>>I hope this helps....
>
>sounds like a push over. Iowa could beat up three vanguards before
>breakfast any day of the week. Heck, I bet Alaska could whip one of
>these things in 30 minutes with one director tied behind her back. :)
But there would never have been three Vanguards. There were only
enough spare turrets to build one.
And I sincerely doubt the Alaska would have stood a chance against the
Vanguard, as obsolete as her main battery actually was.
In the Vanguard's case, her hull, armor, DP guns, and machinery were
what would have gone into the Lion class (had they been built), but
her main battery turrets were leftovers from the Courageous and
Glorious, which had been converted in the 1920s to aircraft carriers.
NTCSA
> Vanguard probably
>having superior sea handling to boot.
I was researching the Vanguard after I posted this thread. The
Vanguard and one of the Iowas were in an exercise in the North Atlantic in
the winter. The Iowa was taking 26 degree rolls and the Vanguard was taking
14 degree.
Rex Dundon
DS2 USN
Jay Martino
nt...@aol.com (NTCSA) wrote:
>
>All this is interesting, but I havent heard anything on the last
>Battleship ever built... The HMS Vanguard
Beautiful ship, well armoured, good sea-boat (bubblehead glossary:
yes, when hyphenated like that it's valid), undergunned. A Vanguard vs
Iowa engagement would be interesting, but the performance of the 16"
gun is so far superior to that of the 15" that, all else being equal
(crew quality, fire control systems ect) Iowa would have the
advantage.
Jay
"Life. Hate it or loath it, you can't ignore it".
Remove the * from the "reply to:' field when replying
by e-mail.
Random
On Sat, 06 Sep 1997 23:20:11 GMT, pgr...@exis.net (Peter H. Granzeau)
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Sep 1997 17:52:38 GMT, Ran...@ix.netcom.com (Random)
>wrote:
>
>>>~thumbing throught my copy of Conway's History of the Ship: The Eclipse
>>>of the Big Gun~ According to Robert F. Sumrall (the featured author
>>>concerning BBs and BCs, Sumrall is/was the curator of the US Naval
>>>Academy Museum), VANGUARD had the following statistics:
>>>
>>> Displacement: 44,500 tons (std), 51,420 tons (full load)
>>> Dimensions: 814'4" x 108' x 34'10"
>>> Armament: 8 x 15" (4 twin turrets); 16 x 5.25" (8 twin turrets)
>>> Armor (max inches): 14" belt, 13" turrets, 6" deck
>>> Speed: 30 knots
>>> Launched: 1944 (completed 1946)
>>>
>>>NOTE: Without taking armor quality (a slippery slope upon which I fear
>>>to tread) into account, VANGUARD's armor compares with IOWA as follows:
>>>Belt--2" thicker; Turrets--6.7" thinner; Deck--equal.
>>>
>>>I hope this helps....
>>
>>sounds like a push over. Iowa could beat up three vanguards before
>>breakfast any day of the week. Heck, I bet Alaska could whip one of
>>these things in 30 minutes with one director tied behind her back. :)
>
>But there would never have been three Vanguards. There were only
>enough spare turrets to build one.
trust the RN to build dreadnoughts out of spare parts. Must have been
some sort of labor action that impacted building schedules.
>
>And I sincerely doubt the Alaska would have stood a chance against the v
>Vanguard, as obsolete as her main battery actually was.
I couldn't agree more. Imagine building a BB with piddling little 15"
guns when the U.S. and IJN were putting 16 and 18.1" guns on their
BB. Vanguard should have had real guns installed.
>In the Vanguard's case, her hull, armor, DP guns, and machinery were
>what would have gone into the Lion class (had they been built), but
>her main battery turrets were leftovers from the Courageous and
>Glorious, which had been converted in the 1920s to aircraft carriers.
Gee, I could have sworn that LION class was built. What about the
Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary, and Tiger? Of course Glorius was
sent to the bottom by one of those despicable U Boats. Hardly a
ringing endorsement for building more BC.
random
Random
On 6 Sep 1997 23:27:50 GMT, tom...@eyex.netcom.com (TJG) wrote:
>In article <341197f0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ran...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>On Sat, 06 Sep 1997 00:03:37 -0500, Black ICE <Ai...@got.none> wrote:
>>
>>>NTCSA wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All this is interesting, but I havent heard anything on the last
>>>> Battleship ever built... The HMS Vanguard
>>>>
>>>> Rex Dundon
>>>> DS2 USN
>>>
>>>~thumbing throught my copy of Conway's History of the Ship: The Eclipse
>>>of the Big Gun~ According to Robert F. Sumrall (the featured author
>>>concerning BBs and BCs, Sumrall is/was the curator of the US Naval
>>>Academy Museum), VANGUARD had the following statistics:
>>>
>>> Displacement: 44,500 tons (std), 51,420 tons (full load)
>>> Dimensions: 814'4" x 108' x 34'10"
>>> Armament: 8 x 15" (4 twin turrets); 16 x 5.25" (8 twin
>turrets)
>>> Armor (max inches): 14" belt, 13" turrets, 6" deck
>>> Speed: 30 knots
>>> Launched: 1944 (completed 1946)
>>>
>>>NOTE: Without taking armor quality (a slippery slope upon which I fear
>>>to tread) into account, VANGUARD's armor compares with IOWA as follows:
>>>Belt--2" thicker; Turrets--6.7" thinner; Deck--equal.
>>>
>>>I hope this helps....
>>
>>sounds like a push over. Iowa could beat up three vanguards before
>>breakfast any day of the week. Heck, I bet Alaska could whip one of
>>these things in 30 minutes with one director tied behind her back. :)
>>>--
>>>Reply address is false. Reply to wom...@premier.net
>>>
>>
>Well, the Alaska would have to get w/in 17000yds to hope to penetrate any part
>of the Vanguard's armor, while being itself vulnerable at whatever range the
>ships engage. Vanguard's immunity zone to Alaska's 12"/50 guns is from about
>17000 yds to + infinity. The Alaska's immunity zone to the Vanguard's 15" guns
>basically overlap for deck and belt at 30000yds, which means there is no
>immunity zone at all. Data from the Dulin & Garzke series, so YMMV.
>
>And that's just a quick cut on the festivities. No accounting for weight of
>shell vs. damage, almost identical fire control systems, and Vanguard probably
>having superior sea handling to boot. One book (forget which of the standard
>references) noted that the King George V class showed you could protect a ship
>from 16" shell, but not arm it with them. I doubt if the Vanguard retreated
>from that protection.
>--
>****************************************************
>Official Only When Embossed with Comptroller's Pseal
>****************************************************
I of course, am laughing all the way to the Falklands. Take your
immunity zones to the myth locker since they are nothing but the
systems analysis approach to war. There is no substitute for
victory unless you subscribe to that moron Mcnamara's approach in
which case you cannot win. Lesser ships have beat better ships many
times in the pastl
random,
it's a troll, couldn't resist
>
A R BREEN
In article <3412547...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Random <Ran...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>trust the RN to build dreadnoughts out of spare parts. Must have been
>some sort of labor action that impacted building schedules.
I think it was called WW2.....
>>
>>And I sincerely doubt the Alaska would have stood a chance against the v
>>Vanguard, as obsolete as her main battery actually was.
>
>I couldn't agree more. Imagine building a BB with piddling little 15"
>guns when the U.S. and IJN were putting 16 and 18.1" guns on their
>BB. Vanguard should have had real guns installed.
Which were available from where at the time, without reducing production
of more vital equipement?
>
>>In the Vanguard's case, her hull, armor, DP guns, and machinery were
>>what would have gone into the Lion class (had they been built), but
>>her main battery turrets were leftovers from the Courageous and
>>Glorious, which had been converted in the 1920s to aircraft carriers.
>
>Gee, I could have sworn that LION class was built. What about the
>Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary, and Tiger? Of course Glorius was
>sent to the bottom by one of those despicable U Boats. Hardly a
>ringing endorsement for building more BC.
Sigh. Those were the splendid cats of WW1, broken up in the early 1920s
(1931 for Tiger). The Lions referred to in the original posting were the
four 16"-gun BBs intended to complete in 1941. Work on all 4 was suspended
in 1940 to concentrate production on light cruisers (improved Fiji class),
destroyers (O class and subsequent utility classes) and escorts (Black
Swan class sloops). Other escorts (Corvettes and Frigates) were built by
merchantile yards. Work on the Lions was re-started in 1943 or so, stopped
again in 1944. Consideration was given to re-starting work in the early
1950s, but not even a Tory government was that stupid. All broken up
1950s. Ref: Andrew Toppan's web page.
And Glorious was never a BC. Large light cruiser, converted to 'carrier
1925. Mis-employed as part of an A/S task force in the North Sea and
torpedoed and sunk while aircraft were landing on (ref: Charles Lamb,
'War in a Stringbag' - he was the last pilot to land on Glorious before
she was hit). At least the RN learned fast about A/S operations after that.
Fortunate really, as the USN certainly needed expert tuition in 1941 (as
well as the loan of a number of ships to copy their own escorts from..).
Vanguard was a 'utility' BB - Lion class basics on a hull the same size asd
the KG5s, arrmed with available guns. She was built at a time when it looked
as if an extra BB might be needed in a hurry. As she wasn't needed quickly
(due to the German fleet giving up on deep sea raiding) construction wasn't
pushed ahead very fast - there were other, more important priorities. As it
was she worked out well enough - quite probably the best protected BB ever
built (largely due to the high quality of her armour plate) and cerrtainly
the best seaboat of them all. And remarkably cheap (less than 1/20 the cost
of an Iowa, and only 9x more than the first BB of them all, the Royal
Sovereign: not bad for a ship almost 4x the tonnage and twice the speed).
Absolutely no use for her once she was built though. Thankfully the 1945
government axed the Lions and saved that money.
| Andy Breen | Adran Ffiseg/Physics Department, UW/PC Aberystwyth |
| a...@aber.ac.uk | http://www.aber.ac.uk/~azb Tel: (44) 01970 621907 |
"Courage! And shuffle the cards." Lola Montez
A R BREEN
In article <19970907034...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
NTCSA <nt...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Vanguard probably
>>having superior sea handling to boot.
>
> I was researching the Vanguard after I posted this thread. The
>Vanguard and one of the Iowas were in an exercise in the North Atlantic in
>the winter. The Iowa was taking 26 degree rolls and the Vanguard was taking
>14 degree.
Exercise MARINER in 1952. Vanguard's sea speed in heavy weather was over
10 knots more than the Iowa-class ship at times and she was steady enough
to have fought her main armament in those conditions, which the US ship
certainly couldn't have done. If Vanguard had had to fight another ship
then a lot would have come down to weather conditions - the worse weather,
the more the odds favoured Vanguard.
Andrew Toppan
Random (Ran...@ix.netcom.com) was seen to write:
> trust the RN to build dreadnoughts out of spare parts. Must have been
> some sort of labor action that impacted building schedules.
The ship was conceived and designed for the sole purpose of putting
four old 15" turrets to good use.
> Gee, I could have sworn that LION class was built. What about the
> Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary, and Tiger?
Wrong Lion class. That was WWI; only Lion and Princess Royal were
sisterships. Queen Mary and Tiger were both one-ship classes.
The Lion class in question here was a WWII-era proposal.
> Of course Glorius was
> sent to the bottom by one of those despicable U Boats. Hardly a
> ringing endorsement for building more BC.
Glorious was a carrier at the time, so her loss has no relevance to
BC issues.
---
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- "I speak only for myself"
U.S. Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online @ http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
Railroad Rosters & Photo Features --- http://www.membrane.com/~elmer/rail/
Jay Martino
pgr...@exis.net (Peter H. Granzeau) wrote:
<snip>
You fell for it Peter. I hear the buzz of Randum's reel...
Luke Robertson
> Random (Ran...@ix.netcom.com) was seen to write:
> > trust the RN to build dreadnoughts out of spare parts. Must have been
> > some sort of labor action that impacted building schedules.
>
> The ship was conceived and designed for the sole purpose of putting
> four old 15" turrets to good use.
>
Chicken and egg story. It wasn't so much that the ship was built
for the guns. The Brits couldn't get their 16" Triples fast enough to
build a Lion so used the old 15"s and built the Vanguard. Both the guns
and the Lion were responsible.
Oh. How does the AA suite of the Vanguard compare to the Iowa's?
Peter H. Granzeau
On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 07:25:58 GMT, Ran...@ix.netcom.com (Random)
wrote:
>>In the Vanguard's case, her hull, armor, DP guns, and machinery were
>>what would have gone into the Lion class (had they been built), but
>>her main battery turrets were leftovers from the Courageous and
>>Glorious, which had been converted in the 1920s to aircraft carriers.
>
>Gee, I could have sworn that LION class was built. What about the
>Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary, and Tiger? Of course Glorius was
>sent to the bottom by one of those despicable U Boats. Hardly a
>ringing endorsement for building more BC.
The RN had a habit of reusing names for ships, and even names for
classes. For example: There were TWO classes of RN battleships named
for King George V: The 1909-1913 class of superdreadnoughts included
King George V, Ajax, Audacious, and Centurion. The 1937-1940
class of fast battleships included another King George V, plus Prince
of Wales, Duke of York, Anson, and Howe.
So. The Lion class of battlecruiser from 1909-1915 had all been
disposed of by 1930 (including Tiger, a greatly modified Lion), and
when the RN started to design a follow on to the King George V class
of 1937, it was to be named for the Lion. It was to have a
Nelson-scale 16" main battery (although carried more normally, with A
and B turrets forward, Y turret aft) and a 40,000 ton displacement,
capable of 30 knots. As the war started before construction could
commence, the Lion class was never pursued, but one hull was
built--the Vanguard--modified to accept the four spare turrets left
over from the two Large Light Cruisers which had been converted to
aircraft carriers in the 1920s. She ended with a displacement of
44,300 tons (she had to be a little longer to accommodate an extra
turret aft), 130,000 SHP turbines gave 30 knots, and she had belt
armor up to 14", bulkheads up to 15", decks up to 6", and barbettes of
up to 16" (all to Lion standards), and the 13" armor on the turrets
which had been built during WW I.
Vanguard was reported to be an excellent sea boat, capable of
operations in seas that left the US battleships rolling and pitching
nearly uncontrollably (and proved so in NATO exercises in the 1950s).
Random
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 02:17:03 GMT, pgr...@exis.net (Peter H. Granzeau)
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 07:25:58 GMT, Ran...@ix.netcom.com (Random)
>wrote:
>
>>>In the Vanguard's case, her hull, armor, DP guns, and machinery were
>>>what would have gone into the Lion class (had they been built), but
>>>her main battery turrets were leftovers from the Courageous and
>>>Glorious, which had been converted in the 1920s to aircraft carriers.
>>
>>Gee, I could have sworn that LION class was built. What about the
>>Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary, and Tiger? Of course Glorius was
>>sent to the bottom by one of those despicable U Boats. Hardly a
>>ringing endorsement for building more BC.
>
>The RN had a habit of reusing names for ships, and even names for
>classes. For example: There were TWO classes of RN battleships named
>for King George V: The 1909-1913 class of superdreadnoughts included
>King George V, Ajax, Audacious, and Centurion. The 1937-1940
>class of fast battleships included another King George V, plus Prince
>of Wales, Duke of York, Anson, and Howe.
snip of much that smacked of knowledge
So, you're saying in addition to building BB's out of spare parts the
Brits suffer from poverty of imagination.
TFIC, thanks for the info.
random
TFIC (tongue firmly in cheek)
Fubar2X
How about a new topic, "VANGUARD as Battlecruiser?"
( 1 ) VANGUARD was bigger and faster than other British fast battleships,
LION's included, but had weaker firepower. She made 31.6 knots on trials,
vs the KGV's 28.0 max.
( 2 ) VANGUARD traded armor for speed. Her belt thickness was an inch
less than the much smaller KING GEORGE V's, and her belt over the machinery
( 12.7" ) was two inches thinner than that of the 1942 LION's. Her turret
and barbette armor was thinner than that of the ALASKA's.
( 3 ) Garzke & Dulin quote a letter from Winston Churchill about the
VANGUARD. He says " I was much interested in the Director of Naval
Construction's remark about the possibility of making a new battleship with
the four 15-inch gun turrets. Such a vessel would be of the
battleship-cruiser type . . ." They note that the existing British
battlecruisers were needed in home waters to counter SCHARNHORST and
GNEISENAU, and British intelligence believed that Japan was building two
new 12-inch gunned 32,000 ton battlecruisers.
Fubar2X
Peter H. Granzeau
On 9 Sep 1997 20:06:54 GMT, fub...@aol.com (Fubar2X) wrote:
>How about a new topic, "VANGUARD as Battlecruiser?"
>
>( 1 ) VANGUARD was bigger and faster than other British fast battleships,
>LION's included, but had weaker firepower. She made 31.6 knots on trials,
>vs the KGV's 28.0 max.
Hard to quantify the guns. She had 8 15" to the KGV's 10 14".
>( 2 ) VANGUARD traded armor for speed. Her belt thickness was an inch
>less than the much smaller KING GEORGE V's, and her belt over the machinery
>( 12.7" ) was two inches thinner than that of the 1942 LION's. Her turret
>and barbette armor was thinner than that of the ALASKA's.
Jane's says her belt was up to 14"--the KGV's was up to 15". By
comparison, the Iowa's belt was up to 12.1", of inferior plate.
Furthermore, Vanguard's barbettes were up to 16" (compare Alaska's up
to 13"). Her turrets were up to 13", exactly the same as Alaska's
(and designed 20 years before the Alaska).
It's also hard to classify Vanguard as a BC, with that much armor.
Especially as the term BC had been obsolete since 1922.
Matt Clonfero
Random <Ran...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>snip of much that smacked of knowledge
>
>So, you're saying in addition to building BB's out of spare parts the
>Brits suffer from poverty of imagination.
>TFIC (tongue firmly in cheek)
And, of course, it takes a vast imagination to name your capital ships
after States ;>
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
================================================================================
Matt Clonfero: Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human
My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Jay Martino
pgr...@exis.net (Peter H. Granzeau) wrote:
> As the war started before construction could
>commence, the Lion class was never pursued, but one hull was
>built--the Vanguard--modified to accept the four spare turrets left
>over from the two Large Light Cruisers which had been converted to
>aircraft carriers in the 1920s.
Lion and Temeraire were laid down in the summer of '39, but work was
slowed, and eventually halted. The bits that had been built were
broken up during the war.
Vanguard was actually a new design, though based on the Lions.
Originally to be a battlecruiser for Far East deployment, the design
evolved into one closer to the KGVs with the benefit of war
experience.
Her armour was fairly impressive, though it seems that while many will
believe Garzke & Dulin about the effective thickness of Iowa's armour,
they seem to forget, or ignore, the estimate by the same authors that
British face-hardened plate was effectively about 20% better than
American construction at the time (including the class A armour used
in Iowa). In terms of protection Vanguard was _very_ good, and
incorporated many wartime lessons not included in battleships designed
before, and built during, the war.
Pity they couldn't fit her with 16" guns.
Peter H. Granzeau
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 05:32:55 GMT, Ran...@ix.netcom.com (Random)
wrote:
>So, you're saying in addition to building BB's out of spare parts the
>Brits suffer from poverty of imagination.
>
>TFIC, thanks for the info.
One could call it "tradition" if one wished to, also.
Hardinge
I'm new to this newsgroup so please excuse me if I unwittingly
infringe on some protocol.
As a small boy, son of a naval officer, living in Portsmouth I saw
H.M.S. Vanguard every day. I was lucky enough to go over her several
times on private visits with my father who at one stage in his career
had won the R.N.'s Goodenough gunnery prize.
I was always mildly resentful that she had the old twin 15"/42 turrets
as opposed to the Iowa's triple 16"/50s - and that she had eight barrels
instead of nine.
But on reflection Vanguard had several things going for her.
She had less main guns. But she had one more turret. That's one
more turret to knock out in a gun duel.
As pointed out on this thread, 'Operation Mariner' showed that
she could likely work her guns in worse conditions than an Iowa.
A far lesser sea-boat, H.M.S. Renown, in atrocious weather scored
some fairly impressive hits against Gneisenau with the same model
15" guns.
The fact that the 15"/42 were old didn't necessarily make them
obsolete. H.M.S. Warspite had the same weapons and inferior
fire control and she still holds the record for having hit another
moving warship at 26,400 yards.
Does anyone remember Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Brown Cunningham's
dexcription of Matapan in 'A Sailor's Odyssey' when he talks of the
incredibly high rate of fire that Barham achieved with her same guns?
He talked of a steady stream of salvos almost like a machinegun.
Cunningham wasn't an impartial witness and no doubt there was some
exaggeration. But the Royal Navy knew their 15" guns well and they
worked them well.
The twin 15" virtually never jammed or broke down - it was the most
efficient heavy naval gun for about a quarter of a century. I've
read stuff about the 15" guns of the Richelieu and Littorio classes
and some of it says they were better. Maybe. The Royal Navy's
15'/42 was tried, battle-tested, true, incredibly accurate and capable
of inflicting really serious damage. Viz. Hood's hit that ripped open
the turret top of the Dunkerque.
Could Vanguard have killed an Iowa? Certainly not in the manner that
Bismarck killed the Hood. Could it have mission-killed an Iowa.
Without a shadow of a doubt. After an encounter with Vanguard it is
my firm belief that an Iowa would need to make drastic revisions to
its social calendar. And such an engagement wouldn't necessarily
end with the Vanguard being sunk.
Vanguard was never any pushover for an Iowa. Given a fully worked up
crew, some dirty Atlantic or North Sea weather and a bit of luck thrown
in and - well, who knows?
Jay Martino
Ran...@ix.netcom.com (Random) wrote:
>So, you're saying in addition to building BB's out of spare parts the
>Brits suffer from poverty of imagination.
It's actually not a Brit thing, but a Navy thing. All navies do it
(like having multiple copies of Enterprise for example).
>TFIC, thanks for the info.
Same.
Jeffrey Smidt
Matt Clonfero wrote:
>
> Random <Ran...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >snip of much that smacked of knowledge
> >
> >Brits suffer from poverty of imagination.
>
>
> And, of course, it takes a vast imagination to name your capital ships
> after States ;>
>
Sort of like naming cruisers after counties?
> Aetherem Vincere
> Matt.
> --
Jay Martino
fub...@aol.com (Fubar2X) wrote:
>How about a new topic, "VANGUARD as Battlecruiser?"
How 'bout "there were no new battlecruisers built after 1917"?
Supporting evidence:
1) no nation building ships that may fit into the concept referred to
them as such.
2) no ship designed and built after Repulse and Renown was designed to
fulfill all of the classic battlecruiser missions:
a) heavy fleet scout: able to penetrate the enemy's screen to scout
the main battlefleet.
b) commerce raider
c) commerce defence
d) auxiliary to the battleline
Most of the ships, other than obvious line-of-battle ships, built
after WWI were designed to fill one or more of those functions, but
none designed to fill all of them.
Discuss...
Fubar2X
pgr...@exis.net (Peter H. Granzeau) writes:
>Jane's says her belt was up to 14"--the KGV's was up to 15". By
>comparison, the Iowa's belt was up to 12.1", of inferior plate.
>Furthermore, Vanguard's barbettes were up to 16" (compare Alaska's up
>to 13"). Her turrets were up to 13", exactly the same as Alaska's
>(and designed 20 years before the Alaska).
Garzke & Dulin say that VANGUARD's external vertical belt over the
machinery was 12.75" thick and over the magazines 13.73". Her barbettes
and turret fronts were also 12.75" thick, vs the ALASKA's 13". In effect,
allowing for the 20% superiority of British armor plate, the VANGUARD's
machinery belt, turret fronts, and barbettes had about the equivalent of
15.3" of US quality armor, which is inferior to the NORTH CAROLINA class
ships, which were regarded as inadequately armored when they were built.
There's a very long and detailed comparison of battleship protection
schemes on Jon Parshall's "Imperial Japanese Navy Page" , by Nathan Okun.
Okun argues that the effective belt armor protection of the SOUTH DAKOTA's
was superior to that of the YAMATO's, while the KING GEORGE V's had among
the weakest schemes of any World War II battleship, even allowing for their
superior armor plate. The BISMARCK's 15" guns could penetrate the KING
GEORGE V's magazine belt at 21,500 yards ( 15.6" effective protection ) and
her machinery belt at 23,800 yards ( 14.4" effective ), while the SOUTH
DAKOTA's could resist penetration down to 16,400 yards ( 18.3" effective ).
He acknowledges the superiority of the British plate ( about 20% ) and
notes that the SOUTH DAKOTA could resist the BISMARCK's shells down to
about 10,500 yards had she been built with the British plate.
The IOWA's had slightly better belt protection than the SOUTH DAKOTA's (
thicker hull plates ), and VANGUARD had somewhat worse belt armor than the
KING GEORGE V's.
I don't really believe Okun's analysis ( I can't believe the external hull
plates were that effective in stripping off AP caps ), but they're
interesting to keep in mind when you start comparing battleship protection
numbers.
Fubar2X
Ken Young
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.97090...@droid.fit.qut.edu.au>,
n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au (Luke Robertson) wrote:
> Oh. How does the AA suite of the Vanguard compare to the Iowa's?
About equivalent the 5.25 fired a heavier shell to a better ceiling.
Vanguard had 73 40 mm barrels compared to 80 on the Iowa but Vanguard's
mountings were better placed for fields of fire.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
With Capitalism; man exploits man
With Socialism; the reverse occurs
Ken Young
In article <3414df0c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ran...@ix.netcom.com
(Random) wrote:
> So, you're saying in addition to building BB's out of spare parts
The major problem in building battleships was always main turret
building. When the Lion's were suspended it was estimated that if work on
the turrets continued they still could be completed in a reasonable time.
Given priority Vanguard could have been completed in two years. The only
reason a sister ship was not built was that the turrets would have had to
come from a scrapped battleship and by the time it was possible to do this
the battleship was obsolete. I will have to check this but I think when
Vanguard was proposed in 1939 it was intended to build a second one with
turrets from the RS which were due for scrapping to provide tonnage for
the KGV but the outbreak of war prevented this. For a full discussion of
the Vanguard see British Battleships of World War Two.
Peter H. Granzeau
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:01:46 -0500, Jeffrey Smidt <jsm...@iastate.edu>
wrote:
>Sort of like naming cruisers after counties?
Frankly, the caustic comments in this thread go a long way toward
showing what small minds are behind them.
Chris Wright
In article <3417d5a6...@news.exis.net>, "Peter H. Granzeau"
<pgr...@exis.net> writes
>On 9 Sep 1997 20:06:54 GMT, fub...@aol.com (Fubar2X) wrote:
>
>>How about a new topic, "VANGUARD as Battlecruiser?"
>>
>>LION's included, but had weaker firepower. She made 31.6 knots on trials,
>>vs the KGV's 28.0 max.
>
>Hard to quantify the guns. She had 8 15" to the KGV's 10 14".
>
to the QEs, the Rs, Repulse/Renown and Hood. The same cannot be said
for the 14" mounting, especially the quadruple. In action the KGVs
frequently had less than the 10 guns available.
--
Chris Wright
ch...@cgwright.demon.co.uk
Hardinge
I'm new to this newsgroup. I tried to post this before but I'm
not sure whether it made it. Please excuse me if I
infringe on some protocol.
Tim Hardinge
Chris Manteuffel
Matt Clonfero <Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And, of course, it takes a vast imagination to name your capital ships
>after States ;>
Hey, it makes for a nice size of the fleet. During the 1912-22 naval
"race"(sort of, between the US, Japan, the UK, and Germany for a while)
the USN asked for a final fleet of 48 battleships. Why? To give each state
a BB of course. Nothing so obvious as war plans, or analysis, silly.
Chris Manteuffel
Jay Martino
Jeffrey Smidt <jsm...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>Sort of like naming cruisers after counties?
No, more like naming destroyers after one's mother in law (with
apolgies to Tom Clancy).
A R BREEN
In article <341726f2...@news.exis.net>,
Peter H. Granzeau <pgr...@exis.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:01:46 -0500, Jeffrey Smidt <jsm...@iastate.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>Sort of like naming cruisers after counties?
>
>showing what small minds are behind them.
Odd. I never realised that Bacchante, Amphitrite, Leander, Phaeton, Fiji,
Calliope, Ceres, Dunedin, Emerald, Black Prince, Minotaur, Swiftsure or
Tiger were counties. I must need a new map ;)
The 1945 summary-Janes has a fascinating list of RN names in use at the
end of WW2, including the number of ships which had previously carried
those names and the date of first known use. IIRC the oldest in the list
was _Charity_ (Algerine class minesweeper), carrying a name first used in
1242... _Lots_ of Armada names..
--
| Andy Breen | Adran Ffiseg/Physics Department, UW/PC Aberystwyth |
| a...@aber.ac.uk | http://www.aber.ac.uk/~azb Tel: (44) 01970 621907 |
"Things to see, people to do" (The Marquis de Carabas)
A R BREEN
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.97090...@droid.fit.qut.edu.au>,
Luke Robertson <n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> Oh. How does the AA suite of the Vanguard compare to the Iowa's?
>
Not too shabbily, I'd say. The 5.25"s were slower-firing than the US 5"
but threw a bigger shell further, though it is at least arguable (and
was much argued at the time) that 20x4.5" (a la rebuilt QEs and Renown)
might have had the edge over 16x5.25" (KG5s and Vanguard). The light
flak suit was comparable to the US ships - 60-70 Bofors and a good many
Oerlikons (40+, IIRC...). Fire control for the AA batteries was as good
as any in the world. It can't be emphasised enough that the _only_ way
in which Vanguard could be ruled out of the 'best in the world' was
the lower penetrating power of her main battery, and the extreme
reliability and long barrel life of the 15"/42 went a long way to
making up for that in real-world conditions.
--
| Andy Breen | Adran Ffiseg/Physics Department, UW/PC Aberystwyth |
| a...@aber.ac.uk | http://www.aber.ac.uk/~azb Tel: (44) 01970 621907 |
Yama
Jay Martino wrote:
> fub...@aol.com (Fubar2X) wrote:
>
> >How about a new topic, "VANGUARD as Battlecruiser?"
>
> How 'bout "there were no new battlecruisers built after 1917"?
>
How about "Is Kirov a battlecruiser"?Is Kirov protected against
100/130mm shells? (I guess not)
> Most of the ships, other than obvious line-of-battle ships, built
> after WWI were designed to fill one or more of those functions, but
> none designed to fill all of them.
I agree. I don't think that we should call either Scharnhorst or
Dunkerque BC's. Both were small battleships, class that wasn't too
popular because of treaty limits. Just for clarity, let's put Alaska to
same group. Sure we could call them 'large cruisers' but then we could
call Yamato as 'overarmed and overprotected very large cruiser'.
Jeffrey Smidt
A R BREEN wrote:
>
> In article <341726f2...@news.exis.net>,
> Peter H. Granzeau <pgr...@exis.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:01:46 -0500, Jeffrey Smidt <jsm...@iastate.edu>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Sort of like naming cruisers after counties?
> >
> >Frankly, the caustic comments in this thread go a long way toward
> >showing what small minds are behind them.
>
> Odd. I never realised that Bacchante, Amphitrite, Leander, Phaeton, Fiji,
> Calliope, Ceres, Dunedin, Emerald, Black Prince, Minotaur, Swiftsure or
> Tiger were counties. I must need a new map ;)
>
HMS Cornwall, Devonshire, York, London, Fife ect ect . Which I like.
But then I like Missouri, Nevada, Arizona ect too.
Jeffrey Smidt
Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:01:46 -0500, Jeffrey Smidt <jsm...@iastate.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Sort of like naming cruisers after counties?
>
> Frankly, the caustic comments in this thread go a long way toward
> showing what small minds are behind them.
Just to be clear, I LIKE the RN naming scheme, well most of it.
HMS Ark Royal, Illustrious, Indomitable, Warspite simply marvelous
HMS Pansy ? not so good.
Peter H. Granzeau
On Mon, 08 Sep 1997 06:32:05 GMT, mjmartino@igs*.net (Jay Martino)
wrote:
>You fell for it Peter. I hear the buzz of Randum's reel...
Only in your fevered imagination.
Timothy J. Lee
Chris Manteuffel <foxb...@aol.com> writes:
|the USN asked for a final fleet of 48 battleships. Why? To give each state
|a BB of course.
How were states in the United States chosen for battleship names?
I.e. when the next battleship is planned, which state gets its name
on the new ship?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Matt Clonfero
"Peter H. Granzeau" <pgr...@exis.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:01:46 -0500, Jeffrey Smidt <jsm...@iastate.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>Sort of like naming cruisers after counties?
>
>Frankly, the caustic comments in this thread go a long way toward
>showing what small minds are behind them.
They were (at least at the start) written as good natured jibes.
Chris Manteuffel
nob...@not.for.email (Timothy J. Lee) wrote:
>
>Chris Manteuffel <foxb...@aol.com> writes:
>|the USN asked for a final fleet of 48 battleships. Why? To give each state
>|a BB of course.
>
>How were states in the United States chosen for battleship names?
>I.e. when the next battleship is planned, which state gets its name
>on the new ship?
_This People's Navy_, my source for this, didn't say. But North and South
Dakota got Battleships, as did Delaware, before North Carolina(the former
are smaller, and so would have a smaller voting bloc in the HOR than NC)
Chris Manteuffel
jchase
Of course in an earlier age, ships were captured and NOT renamed- then
the names became legendary and were reused- which is why the Royal Navy
wound up in WWI with a number of BB's with French names, all named after
old wooden ships of the line.
Gavin Bailey
Ran...@ix.netcom.com (Random) wrote:
>>But there would never have been three Vanguards. There were only
>>enough spare turrets to build one.
>trust the RN to build dreadnoughts out of spare parts. Must have been
>some sort of labor action that impacted building schedules.
Yes. World War Two. It had a slightly disruptive effort on the
economies and naval building programs of most European nations.
>>And I sincerely doubt the Alaska would have stood a chance against the v
>>Vanguard, as obsolete as her main battery actually was.
>I couldn't agree more. Imagine building a BB with piddling little 15"
>guns when the U.S. and IJN were putting 16 and 18.1" guns on their
>BB. Vanguard should have had real guns installed.
Those 15" guns did good service in both wars, and given the massive
diversion of industrial effort it would have taken to produce new 16"
guns and mountings, the right decision was made.
>>In the Vanguard's case, her hull, armor, DP guns, and machinery were
>>what would have gone into the Lion class (had they been built), but
>>her main battery turrets were leftovers from the Courageous and
>>Glorious, which had been converted in the 1920s to aircraft carriers.
>
>Gee, I could have sworn that LION class was built.
He was referring to the 16" armed projected late 1930's class.
> What about the
>Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary, and Tiger? Of course Glorius was
>sent to the bottom by one of those despicable U Boats.
No, Glorious was sunk by two battleships.
Gavin Bailey
--
Fochinell
"Ancient Scots warcry" painted on the side of a Spitfire Mk XIV in 1944.
Presumably without Air Ministry approval.
All unsoliticed commercial email bounced to postmaster and abuse@yoursite
Email address altered to hinder spamming - please delete x & * to reply
Peter H. Granzeau
On 12 Sep 1997 22:23:21 GMT, Chris Manteuffel <foxb...@aol.com>
wrote:
>>How were states in the United States chosen for battleship names?
>>I.e. when the next battleship is planned, which state gets its name
>>on the new ship?
>
>_This People's Navy_, my source for this, didn't say. But North and South
>Dakota got Battleships, as did Delaware, before North Carolina(the former
>are smaller, and so would have a smaller voting bloc in the HOR than NC)
It seems that the Navy's intention was to use all of the state names,
as they came up, for battleships, and to use previously unused state
names as long as such existed, but I don't know who established names
(except that Kearsarge, BB-5, received her name at the behest of
Congress, which mandated it). Probably some committee in the Navy
Department.
But a few other considerations must have applied, too. For instance,
Maine was used for BB-10, probably in honor of the ship lost in 1898.
Texas was used for BB-35, as well. The original Mississippi and Idaho
(BB-23 and 24) were sold to Greece in 1914, and their names were
reinstated with BB-41 and 42.
When battleship construction was halted in 1922, Washington (BB-47)
was not completed, and the South Dakota class (SD, Indiana, Montana,
North Carolina, Iowa, and Massachusetts) were all stopped, as well.
Those names (with one exception) got used for new BBs in the 1930s.
For some reason, the fourth South Dakota was named Alabama, not
Montana. Some of the early predreadnaught names got reused with the
Iowa class, and the first New Jersey was built. And the last unused
name, Montana, was given to the next class, along with some
predreadnaught names (including a third Maine).
So at present, two states have never had completed capital ships named
for them: Hawaii and Montana.
Andrew Toppan
Peter H. Granzeau (pgr...@exis.net) was seen to write:
> So at present, two states have never had completed capital ships
> named for them: Hawaii and Montana.
There's been no battleship named Montana, but there was an armored
cruiser -- and those ACRs were big enough that many would consider
them to be capital ships.
---
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- "I speak only for myself"
U.S. Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online @ http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
Railroad Rosters & Photo Features --- http://www.membrane.com/~elmer/rail/
Black ICE
Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
>
> <<snip>>
>
> So at present, two states have never had completed capital ships named
> for them: Hawaii and Montana.
Of course, that is based on the premise that a ship named for a
territory (ALASKA) counts as credit when that territory became a
state....
--
Reply address is false. Reply to wom...@premier.net
Known to some as Taki Kogoma
pres...@motel1600.com is alleged to have submitted
message <341B4A...@got.none> to sci.military.naval:
>Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
>> So at present, two states have never had completed capital ships named
>> for them: Hawaii and Montana.
>
>Of course, that is based on the premise that a ship named for a
>territory (ALASKA) counts as credit when that territory became a
>state....
And that CBs qualify as Capital Ships...
Gym "Sorry. I'm not in the correct frame of mind to rehash the 'Bulked-up
_Baltimore_ CA vs. Battlecruiser' debate right now." Quirk
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
-- Gene "spaf" Spafford (1992)
Peter H. Granzeau
On 13 Sep 1997 22:49:13 GMT, el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>Peter H. Granzeau (pgr...@exis.net) was seen to write:
>
>> So at present, two states have never had completed capital ships
>> named for them: Hawaii and Montana.
>
>There's been no battleship named Montana, but there was an armored
>cruiser -- and those ACRs were big enough that many would consider
>them to be capital ships.
I suppose so. ACR 13 was renamed MISSOULA in 1920, obviously in
anticipation of BB-51. By that time all of the state-named ACRs had
been renamed to cities in their respective states (although to be
honest, I never heard of Huron, South Dakota).
SHOtimes
>
>Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
>>
>> <<snip>>
>>
>> for them: Hawaii and Montana.
>
>
I think that one of the Ohio SSBN's is named Montana. I would call a Naval
Vessel that carries enough firepower to basically destroy the world a
Capital Ship...
Rex Dundon
DS2 USN
Andrew Toppan
SHOtimes (shot...@aol.com) was seen to write:
> I think that one of the Ohio SSBN's is named Montana. I would call a Naval
> Vessel that carries enough firepower to basically destroy the world a
There is no SSBN named Montana.
Random
On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:51:12 GMT, gbx@xscms*.rgu.ac.uk (Gavin Bailey)
wrote:
I am forced to admit that I was having you on mate. I have gone
through all the normal routines for indicating rhetorical remarks but
some people do find them irresistable. You are however, quite right,
and it was the Courageous that was destroyed by the despicable ones. I
have finally received my copy of _Hitler's U-Boat War_ after Vince
beat the hell out of me during the Greer thread and Know, finally,
whereoff I speak.
regards,
random
Steve Bartman
el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
Andrew, I thought there was a MONTANA as well. A thought occured--what
was the OHIO that was renamed "Scoop" Jackson named while under
construction/pre-name change? Could that be the missing MONTANA? Would
have been about 1982-83. As I've related before I was on S. Jackson,
and we used to get A. Jackson's mail. With 'Scoop' there were three
SSBNs all named Jackson and it got out of hand at the FPO.
Steve
SSC253
>Subject: Re: USN BB state names Re: Vanguard Versus Iowa etc...
Steve,
SSBN 730 was USS Rhode Island before being re-named
for Henry Jackson. I'm not sure as to the date but would say your time
frame of early 1980's sounds about right. I still have and wear proudly
my USS Rhode Island SSBN 730 cap obtained
at Electric Boat Quonset Point.
---
SSC...@aol.com
Gox/Veece/Golmae.
Andrew Toppan
Steve Bartman (sbar...@ix.netcom.com) was seen to write:
> Andrew, I thought there was a MONTANA as well. A thought occured--what
> was the OHIO that was renamed "Scoop" Jackson named while under
> construction/pre-name change? Could that be the missing MONTANA? Would
She was originally named RHODE ISLAND.
Steve Bartman
el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>Steve Bartman (sbar...@ix.netcom.com) was seen to write:
>> Andrew, I thought there was a MONTANA as well. A thought occured--what
>> was the OHIO that was renamed "Scoop" Jackson named while under
>> construction/pre-name change? Could that be the missing MONTANA? Would
>
>She was originally named RHODE ISLAND.
>
Okay. I must be remembering a novel.
Thanks.
Steve Bartman
ssc...@aol.com (SSC253) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: USN BB state names Re: Vanguard Versus Iowa etc...
>
>>el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>>
>>>SHOtimes (shot...@aol.com) was seen to write:
>>>> I think that one of the Ohio SSBN's is named Montana. I would call a Naval
>>>> Vessel that carries enough firepower to basically destroy the world a
>>>
>>>There is no SSBN named Montana.
>>>
>>>
>>>---
>>>Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- "I speak only for myself"
>>>U.S. Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online @
>>http://www.uss-salem.org/
>>>Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
>>>Railroad Rosters & Photo Features --- http://www.membrane.com/~elmer/rail/
>>
>>Andrew, I thought there was a MONTANA as well. A thought occured--what
>>was the OHIO that was renamed "Scoop" Jackson named while under
>>construction/pre-name change? Could that be the missing MONTANA? Would
>>have been about 1982-83. As I've related before I was on S. Jackson,
>>and we used to get A. Jackson's mail. With 'Scoop' there were three
>>SSBNs all named Jackson and it got out of hand at the FPO.
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> Steve,
>
> SSBN 730 was USS Rhode Island before being re-named
>for Henry Jackson. I'm not sure as to the date but would say your time
>frame of early 1980's sounds about right. I still have and wear proudly
>my USS Rhode Island SSBN 730 cap obtained
>at Electric Boat Quonset Point.
>---
>SSC...@aol.com
>Gox/Veece/Golmae.
You ought to keep it out of the rain--might be a museum piece someday.
LCDR1635
RE the fictional SSBN MONTANA
>Okay. I must be remembering a novel.
There was a novel (name long forgotten) where an OHIO was named Montana.
In it fumes from a bad batch of paint cause delusional bahavior by the crew
which then interprites a missile launch exercise as the real thing.
In the Made for TV movie, the boat's name was changed to ALASKA.
John H. Eckhardt
It's not my spelling or grammar
that's so bad. It's my typing.
T Cloutier
> >> I think that one of the Ohio SSBN's is named Montana. I would call a
Naval
> >> Vessel that carries enough firepower to basically destroy the world a
> >
> >There is no SSBN named Montana.
> >
> >
> was the OHIO that was renamed "Scoop" Jackson named while under
> construction/pre-name change?
You are correct that there is no USS Montana; that was a fiction of The
Abyss.
The HM Jackson, SSBN 730, was initially going to be the Rhode Island. The
SSBN 740 (?) is now the Rhode Island. I don't think the great state of
Montana has enough congressional votes to swing to justify naming a warship
after it. Okay, maybe a torpedo retriever. ;}
DAK
Hardinge wrote:
> crew, some dirty Atlantic or North Sea weather and a bit of luck thrown
> in and - well, who knows?
>
But then aren't those the factors than sometimes turn out to be the most
important?
Yours Aye, Dave
DAK
Hardinge wrote:
> crew, some dirty Atlantic or North Sea weather and a bit of luck thrown
> in and - well, who knows?
>
But then aren't those the factors that sometimes turn out to be the most
important?
Yours Aye, Dave
Carl Crosby
Gavin Bailey wrote:
>
> Fochinell
>
> "Ancient Scots warcry" painted on the side of a Spitfire Mk XIV in 1944.
> Presumably without Air Ministry approval.
> All unsoliticed commercial email bounced to postmaster and abuse@yoursite
> Email address altered to hinder spamming - please delete x & * to reply
that it is really a not so ancient english warcry rendered phonetically
with a strong Scots accent?
Lance Kopplin
Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 1997 22:49:13 GMT, el...@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>
> >Peter H. Granzeau (pgr...@exis.net) was seen to write:
> >
> >> named for them: Hawaii and Montana.
> >
> >cruiser -- and those ACRs were big enough that many would consider
> >them to be capital ships.
>
> I suppose so. ACR 13 was renamed MISSOULA in 1920, obviously in
> anticipation of BB-51. By that time all of the state-named ACRs had
> been renamed to cities in their respective states (although to be
> honest, I never heard of Huron, South Dakota).
Well, jeez, just drove through Huron last Monday. Town is in bad shape,
they shut down the pork processing plant, lost 850 jobs. Which is
probably about 10% of the population. Come to think of it, I was born
in Huron. So was Cheryl Ladd. One of us got famous. Most people would
probably think of it as pretty small, but it's pretty big for the part
of the country it's in.....
Lance
Andrew Toppan
Sopmire (sop...@aol.com) was seen to write:
> I know they were't BB's...but wasn't the 2nd Alaska class large cruiser
> named Hawaii???
Hawaii was the third ALASKA; she was scrapped incomplete.
Peter H. Granzeau
On 20 Sep 1997 18:16:05 GMT, sop...@aol.com (Sopmire) wrote:
>I know they were't BB's...but wasn't the 2nd Alaska class large cruiser
>named Hawaii???
Hawaii was CB-3, and was never completed. Launched 3 November 1945,
construction was suspended 17 February 1947, when it was 82.4%
complete. It was scrapped in 1960.
Sopmire
I know they were't BB's...but wasn't the 2nd Alaska class large cruiser
named Hawaii???
>> So at present, two states have never had completed capital ships
Black ICE
> > named Hawaii???
>
>
the US, not states, at the time that the ALASKAs were built.
> ---
> Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- "I speak only for myself"
> U.S. Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online @ http://www.uss-salem.org/
> Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
> Railroad Rosters & Photo Features --- http://www.membrane.com/~elmer/rail/
--
MPReed
sop...@aol.com (Sopmire) writes: > I know they were't BB's...but wasn't the 2nd Alaska class large cruiser
> named Hawaii???
>
No Guam. The third ship in the class was the Hawaii, but it was never
completed. The other three ships that were authorised but never built
were Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Samoa.
Michael P Reed
Glenn Geers
Hi,
Here's some stuff from warbird.newcastle.edu.au/warships about the Vanguard.
Seems like a pretty awesome ship to me...
Does anyone have stats on the IOWA class that are as detailed as these?
Enjoy,
Glenn
Particulars of the Vanguard 1946
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard is certainly the most powerful British battleship ever built, with
a fine balance of protection, firepower, speed and sea worthiness. Vanguard
represented the triumph of battleship design and the end of its importance.
With the outbreak of war the Lion class ships were postponed. Churchill as
First Lord expressed an interest in a proposal to build a ship that would
use the four turrets left over from the when Glorious and Courageous were
converted to aircraft carriers.
The ship was ordered on 14 March 1941 with the expected completion date set
for the end of 1944. Other war construction and priorities would delay her
completion until 1946.
As the war progressed the design of Vanguard changed to reflect the lessons
learnt from war experience. The loss of the Prince of Wales lead to revision
of her design,as did the hunt for Bismarck. Vanguard was given a greater
range, her watertight subdivisions were improved.
She was the only British battleship with remote control for both the main
and secondary armament.
The magazines were placed bellow the shell rooms to improve protection.
The secondaries were 5.25-inch as in the King George V class, but with
redesigned gun house and remote control.
One of the features of Vanguard was her exceptional sea qualities. The King
George V class were renowned as a wet boats. The lack of any real shear
forward meant that in heavy weather they took a lot of water over the deck.
The lack of shear was a design feature to allow the forward turrets to fire
forward at low angle.
Vanguard had a substancial forward shear and her overall design made her the
best sea boat of any navy. On exercise in the Altantic in the company of the
USS Iowa during a storm, Vanguard was rolling 13 degrees, Iowa was rolling
26 degrees.
Vanguard is also unique in that she is the only British Battleship never to
have fired her guns in anger.
Vanguard
Deep Displacment
51,420 tons
Dimensions
Length oa 814 feet 4.5 inches
pp 759 feet 11 5/8 inches
Beam: 108 feet
28 feet 11 inches (forward), 32 feet 8 inches Splinter
Draught: belt forward and aft: 22 inch and 2 inch. (aft) in
standard condition; 34 feet (forward), 36 feet (aft) in
deep condition
Armament:
8 x 15inch breech loading Mk1 : twin mounting Mk1(n)
Sixteen 5.25inch Mk I: eight twin mountings Mk 1~.
Seventythree 40mm Bofors: ten sextuple mountings Mk VI,
one twin STAAG mounting Mk II and eleven single mountings
Mk VII .
Fourteen 0.303inch Bren guns.
Four 0.303 Vickers machineguns.
Two 0.303 Lewis machineguns.
One 3inch mortar. One 2inch mortar.
Four projectors, infantry, antitank (PIAT).
Four 3pounder saluting guns.
Ammunition
stowage
15inch: 100 rounds per gun (95 APC + 5 HE); 9 practice
rounds per gun.
5.25inch: 391 rounds per gun (111 SAP + 280 HE); 25 star
shell per gun; 25 lowangle practice rounds per gun; 50
highangle practice rounds per gun.
40mm: 1,269 rounds per gun (including 34 practice rounds
per gun).
Armour
Cemented (C): Belt abreast magazines: 14 inch, 4.5 inch
at lower edge.
Belt abreast machinery: 13 inch, 42 inch at lower edge.
Belt forward and aft of citadel: 13 inch, 12 inch and 11
inch all tapering to 42 inch at lower edge.
Bulkheads at end of citadel: 12 inch.
Barbettes: 13 inch sides, tapering to 12 inch and 11 inch
towards center line
Turrets: 13 inch front, 9inch foresides, 7inch rear side,
11 inch back
Non-cemented: (NC)
Main deck over magazines: 6 inch
Main deck over machinery: 5 inch
Lower deck forward 5 inch 4 inch, 3.5 inch, 2.5 inch
Lower deck aft 4.5 inch and 2.5 inch Splinter belt
forward and aft: 2.5 inch and 2 inch. (aft)
Bulkhead at after end of steeringgear compartment4
inch.
Bulkheads at end of citadel, below lowerdeck: 1.5 inch.
Turrets: 6 inch roof.
5.25inch casemates: 2.5 inch sides, 1.5 inch roof.
5.25inch turrets: 22 inch sides, 1.5 inch roof.
5.25inch hoists: 2 inch, 6 inch at maindeck.
Splinter protection to cordite handing room: I inch.
Splinter protection to magazines: 1.5 inch.
Splinter protection to ringbulkhead: 2 inch.
Conningtower: 3 inch front, 2.5 inch sides and real.
Plotting office and communication tube: 2 inch.
Directorcontrol tower supports and after conning tower:
2 inch.
Cabletrunks: 2 inch at maindeck.
Protective
Plating
Splinter bulkheads forward and aft: I inch DW.
Funneluptakes: 1 inch DW.
Cabletrunks: 12 inch, 1 inch, 2 inch DI.
Splinter protection to superstructure: 2 inch and 8 inch
DI.
Torpedo bulkheads: 12 inch and 14 inch DI.
Conningtower roof: 1 inch nonmagnetic bulletproof
plating. Plotting office: 1 inch DI.
Machinery
Parsons geared turbines, four shafts. 130,000 SHP = 30
knots at 250 rpm.
Maximum continuous seagoing speed 29.75 knots.
Eight Admiralty threedrum smalltube boilers with
superheaters. Maximum working pressure 400 pounds per
square inch.
Fuel and
Endurance
Fuel Oilfuel capacity 4,423 tons. dieselfuel capacity
427 tons. Consumpton approximately 0.63 pounds!SHPlhour
between 60.()00 and 136,000 SHP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Glenn Geers ,-_|\ gge...@rp.csiro.au
CSIRO Division of Telecommunications /CSIRO\ +61 2 9372 4116
and Industrial Physics \_,-._/
PO Box 76, Epping, NSW 2121 v
AUSTRALIA
Andy Spark
In article <EGvr5...@tip.CSIRO.AU>, gge...@dalex.tip.CSIRO.AU (Glenn
Geers) wrote:
>
> Vanguard is also unique in that she is the only British Battleship never to
> have fired her guns in anger.
However, with apologies for making an obvious point, her guns were fired in
anger, when fitted to Glorious and Courageous, which were, I believe known
as HMS Curious and HMS Spurious when first built.....
As to which ship would win, I think the answer has to be as somone else
pointed out, (assuming both ships had comparably competent crews) whichever
was the luckier....
--
Andy Spark
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/a.spark/
A R BREEN
In article <a.spark-ya0231800...@news.bah.com>,
Andy Spark <a.s...@nospam.dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>In article <EGvr5...@tip.CSIRO.AU>, gge...@dalex.tip.CSIRO.AU (Glenn
>Geers) wrote:
>>
>> have fired her guns in anger.
Add: All the (1890) Royal Sovereign class bar one (Revenge served as a
bombardment ship in the channel until 1917 or so), Centurion, Barfleur
and Renown (2nd class BBs of the 1890). All of these were broken up before
the outbreak of WW1. Most of the Majestics and Canopii saw active service, as
did the Duncans and Londons/Queens, but did the KE7s ever fire their guns in
anger? LN and Agamemnon were active in the Med... Dreadnought sank a sub
by ramming, but - again - did she ever fire her guns in anger?
The list would be a lot longer, but for the RN only introducing the term
'battleship' with the RS type. Otherwise one could add Nile, Trafalgar (2nd
class BBs after 1893), Sans Pariel (ditto), all the Admiral class(es) (ditto)
Devastation, Thunderer and Dreadnought (3rd class BBs from 1893).
Vanguard certainly wasn't the only BB to not get into a fight.
>
>However, with apologies for making an obvious point, her guns were fired in
>anger, when fitted to Glorious and Courageous, which were, I believe known
>as HMS Curious and HMS Spurious when first built.....
>
Curious and Outrageous.
Spurious was the nickname for HMS Furious when she first came out.
--
| Andy Breen | Adran Ffiseg/Physics Department, UW/PC Aberystwyth |
"And what cared he for his morning tea or his metreological portfoli - O?
Or his three square meals as he swam with seals and paddled with the Weddell
Waddle Penguins - O" (Les Barker)
Luke Robertson
> Armour
> Cemented (C): Belt abreast magazines: 14 inch, 4.5 inch
> at lower edge.
> Belt abreast machinery: 13 inch, 42 inch at lower edge.
> Belt forward and aft of citadel: 13 inch, 12 inch and 11
> inch all tapering to 42 inch at lower edge.
> Bulkheads at end of citadel: 12 inch.
Does any one know if this was angled? It would seem strange if it
wasn't because the Brits had experience with angled armour with the Hood.
If it is angled what would be it's theoretical protection?
Andy Spark
> Curious and Outrageous.
> Spurious was the nickname for HMS Furious when she first came out.
I stand corrected, I did have a niggling suspicion that I might have been
wrong.....
Jerry Hsiao
: cruiser -- and those ACRs were big enough that many would consider
: them to be capital ships.
The Alaska class "battlecruisers" were named fittingly. Neither cities
like cruisers, but neither states like battleships (keep in mind that in
the 40's, Alaska and Hawaii were territories like Guam and Puerto Rico).
--
Jerry Hsiao | There are three kinds of people:
jhsiao @ magg . net | Those that can count and those that can't.
Gary J. Mac Donald
A R BREEN (a...@aber.ac.uk) writes:
>>> Vanguard is also unique in that she is the only British Battleship never to
>>> have fired her guns in anger.
SHE didn't fire them, but they were .....
> Add: All the (1890) Royal Sovereign class bar one (Revenge served as a
> bombardment ship in the channel until 1917 or so), Centurion, Barfleur
> and Renown (2nd class BBs of the 1890). All of these were broken up before
> the outbreak of WW1. Most of the Majestics and Canopii saw active service, as
> did the Duncans and Londons/Queens, but did the KE7s ever fire their guns in
> anger? LN and Agamemnon were active in the Med...
They both bombarded at the Dardanelles.
> Dreadnought sank a sub
> by ramming, but - again - did she ever fire her guns in anger?
Not that I know of.
>>However, with apologies for making an obvious point, her guns were fired in
>>anger, when fitted to Glorious and Courageous, which were, I believe known
>>as HMS Curious and HMS Spurious when first built.....
>>
>
> Curious and Outrageous.
> Spurious was the nickname for HMS Furious when she first came out.
> --
> | Andy Breen | Adran Ffiseg/Physics Department, UW/PC Aberystwyth |
GaryJ
--
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ar075
To build a community we must be able to communicate freely.
A R BREEN
In article <609f85$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Check your attributions: I didn't say this.
>>>> Vanguard is also unique in that she is the only British Battleship never to
>>>> have fired her guns in anger.
>
>SHE didn't fire them, but they were .....
At a german cruiser force in the north sea, 1917. The german BCS was out, but
kept out of the way.
>
>> anger? LN and Agamemnon were active in the Med...
>
>They both bombarded at the Dardanelles.
Yup. Agamemnon as flagship. A nice touch.
>
I'm pretty sure that the wobbly eight (KE7 class) never fired their guns
in anger, unless they were used to engage shore batteries in Belgium.
Anyone know for sure?
--
"The frequency with which I scrub my hands per day is directly proportional
to the number of students on campus. After all you never know where
they've been and they're simply crawling with germs" (Matthew Sams, on ASR)
Andy Breen, Solar Physics Group, Aberystwyth, a...@aber.ac.uk
RENABORNEY
In article <341e6289...@news.exis.net>, pgr...@exis.net (Peter H.
Granzeau) writes:
>I suppose so. ACR 13 was renamed MISSOULA in 1920, obviously in
>anticipation of BB-51. By that time all of the state-named ACRs had
>been renamed to cities in their respective states (although to be
>honest, I never heard of Huron, South Dakota).
>
>
As a side line to this discussion. I once did some analysis of USN
cruiser names of WWII. Apparently there was an effort to give each
state/territory a ship named after their capital. Out of the 56
capitals (including Juneau, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; San Juan,
Puerto Rico; Manila, Philipines; Garrapan, Guam & ?, Samoa),
31 had cruisers named after them in WWII. In addition 1 DD
(Madison), 2 DE's (Lansing & Austin), 1 DM (Montgomery),
1 PF (Annapolis), 1 PG (Charleston), 1 WPC (Jackson) and 3
IX (Olympia, Hartford & Dover) used names that could have been
used for cruisers.
R E Naborney
"The tongue is the enemy of the neck" - Arab Proverb
Chris Parke
>>>>> Vanguard is also unique in that she is the only British Battleship never to
>>>>> have fired her guns in anger.
I'm fairly sure that the Indefatigable Class BC HMAS Australia didn't fire
her guns in anger. She started off being the flagship of the Australian
Navy, but was transferred to RN control during WW I, so I guess this
counts.
Anyone got any info to the contrary????
Chris Parke
KiwiRanger
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice Dog" while stooping for a rock
- Tallyrand
Timothy J. Lee
MPReed <m^p^re...@tdi.net (remove ^ before e-mailing)> writes:
|No Guam. The third ship in the class was the Hawaii, but it was never
|completed. The other three ships that were authorised but never built
|were Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Samoa.
If the USS Philippines were actually built, would the ship have been
finished before or after the Philippines became an independency country?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Larry W. Jewell
Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> If the USS Philippines were actually built, would the ship have been
> finished before or after the Philippines became an independency country?
Barely possible. HAWAII was laid down 20 DEC 43, and launched 3 NOV 45.
PHILIPPINES would have been next. The first two took ~10 months to
commission, so the best PHILIPPINES could have hoped for was Fall of
'46. The Philippines was due to become independent in '46, but I don't
know what date. If CB-4 had commissioned at the same rate as the others
she might have hoisted her pennant the same year, making her the only
(?)
US warship named for a foreign country. England, Holland, Jordan, each
was named after a person. Anybody think of any such?
Larry j
--
Larry W. Jewell, P...@GTE.NET; Pearl Harbor Working Group Webmaster.
"Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange, sudden and
wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases
of life." Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41
gilb...@ix.netcom.com
Larry W. Jewell wrote:
>
> Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
> > If the USS Philippines were actually built, would the ship have been
> > finished before or after the Philippines became an independency country?
>
> Barely possible. HAWAII was laid down 20 DEC 43, and launched 3 NOV 45.
> PHILIPPINES would have been next. The first two took ~10 months to
> commission, so the best PHILIPPINES could have hoped for was Fall of
> '46. The Philippines was due to become independent in '46, but I don't
> know what date. If CB-4 had commissioned at the same rate as the others
> she might have hoisted her pennant the same year, making her the only
> (?)
> US warship named for a foreign country. England, Holland, Jordan, each
> was named after a person. Anybody think of any such?
Arguably, any ship named Texas or California.
John Gilbert
Jay Martino
Luke Robertson <n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>> Armour
> Does any one know if this was angled? It would seem strange if it
>wasn't because the Brits had experience with angled armour with the Hood.
> If it is angled what would be it's theoretical protection?
>
It wasn't. Nelson and Rodney were the last battleships to have angled
belts in RN service. I'm not sure why they stopped using it, but I
suspect it's a combination of construction cost and the difficulty of
repairing damage to such a system.
Jay
"Life. Hate it or loath it, you can't ignore it".
Remove the * from the "reply to:' field when replying
by e-mail.
Random
On 24 Sep 1997 09:15:13 +0100, a...@aber.ac.uk (A R BREEN) wrote:
>In article <609f85$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>Gary J. Mac Donald <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>A R BREEN (a...@aber.ac.uk) writes:
>
>Check your attributions: I didn't say this.
>
>>>>> Vanguard is also unique in that she is the only British Battleship never to
>>>>> have fired her guns in anger.
I do think we should refer to firing guns in war or in combat vice
firing them in anger. About the third time the firing pin on one of
your dual 3''/50 breaks on the second round in a 20 round pac, you
really are firing yoiur guns in anger. The CO is angry, the XO is
angry, the weapons officer is just pissed and the gunnery officer is
hopping mad. This angry firing of the guns does not carry the same
connotation as 'firing the guns in anger' under discussion in this
thread. <g>
random
D.C.KOH
Chris Parke wrote:
>
> I'm fairly sure that the Indefatigable Class BC HMAS Australia didn't fire
> her guns in anger. She started off being the flagship of the Australian
> Navy, but was transferred to RN control during WW I, so I guess this
> counts.
>
> Anyone got any info to the contrary????
Nope. Australia never fired her guns in a fight, and I believe the only
'RN' BC never to have done so. Even the three freaks, or at least a
couple of them, managed to see some action.
Dan
Ken Young
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.94.970923...@droid.fit.qut.edu.au>,
n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au (Luke Robertson) wrote:
> Does any one know if this was angled? It would seem strange if it
> wasn't because the Brits had experience with angled armour with the Hood
> .
> If it is angled what would be it's theoretical protection?
No. The armour was vertical. This was adopted because it gave better
protection against diving shells and made underwater protection easier.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
With Capitalism; man exploits man
With Socialism; the reverse occurs
Timothy J. Lee
p...@gte.net writes:
| The first two took ~10 months to
|commission, so the best PHILIPPINES could have hoped for was Fall of
|'46. The Philippines was due to become independent in '46, but I don't
|know what date.
The Philippines became an independent country on the 4th of July in 1946.
|If CB-4 had commissioned at the same rate as the others
|she might have hoisted her pennant the same year, making her the only (?)
|US warship named for a foreign country.
| Anybody think of any such?
Can't think of any actual countries, but it appears as though there were
"foreign" names on some United States Navy warships:
Macedonian (captured British ship -- but where did they get the name from?)
Canberra (Australian city?)
Chris Parke
>
>> If the USS Philippines were actually built, would the ship have been
>> finished before or after the Philippines became an independency country?
>
>Barely possible. HAWAII was laid down 20 DEC 43, and launched 3 NOV 45.
>PHILIPPINES would have been next. The first two took ~10 months to
>commission, so the best PHILIPPINES could have hoped for was Fall of
>'46. The Philippines was due to become independent in '46, but I don't
>know what date. If CB-4 had commissioned at the same rate as the others
>she might have hoisted her pennant the same year, making her the only
>(?)
>US warship named for a foreign country. England, Holland, Jordan, each
>was named after a person. Anybody think of any such?
>
Not a country, but USS Canberra (CA70 Baltimore Class) was named after
the RAN cruiser of the same name (and also the Aussie Capital).
There were also Cruiser's named Amsterdam and Portsmouth (CL101,102), but
I'm guessing that they're named after US towns called the same as the
originals.
Chris Parke
KiwiRanger
yah-de yah de yah, signature stuff
Rob Paul
Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
> p...@gte.net writes:
> | The first two took ~10 months to
> |commission, so the best PHILIPPINES could have hoped for was Fall of
> |'46. The Philippines was due to become independent in '46, but I don't
> |know what date.
>
>
> |she might have hoisted her pennant the same year, making her the only (?)
> |US warship named for a foreign country.
>
> "foreign" names on some United States Navy warships:
>
> Macedonian (captured British ship -- but where did they get the name from?)
> Canberra (Australian city?)
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> Timothy J. Lee
If fictional countries count, what about USS Shangri La?
Rob Paul
obibond
> >wasn't because the Brits had experience with angled armour with the Hood.
> > If it is angled what would be it's theoretical protection?
> >
>
> belts in RN service. I'm not sure why they stopped using it, but I
> suspect it's a combination of construction cost and the difficulty of
> repairing damage to such a system.
>
> Jay
>
> "Life. Hate it or loath it, you can't ignore it".
> Remove the * from the "reply to:' field when replying
> by e-mail.
shell to be reflected by a belt downward and explode inside of the
internal bulge. Bad thing, that would be :)
Andrey Shvetsov
D4346
>Barely possible. HAWAII was laid down 20 DEC 43, and launched 3 NOV 45.
>PHILIPPINES would have been next. The first two took ~10 months to
>commission, so the best PHILIPPINES could have hoped for was Fall of
>'46. The Philippines was due to become independent in '46, but I don't
>know what date. If CB-4 had commissioned at the same rate as the others
>she might have hoisted her pennant the same year, making her the only
I'm sure that when these ships were first authorized, they were intended
to complete long before the Phillipines became
independent....this class suffered many delays due to losses of
priority. By the same token....ALASKA was still on the list when
Alaska became a state......did the Navy reclassify her from a CB
to a BB??? <G>
Larry W. Jewell
D4346 wrote:
> >Barely possible. HAWAII was laid down 20 DEC 43, and launched 3 NOV 45.
> >PHILIPPINES would have been next. The first two took ~10 months to
> >commission, so the best PHILIPPINES could have hoped for was Fall of
> >'46. The Philippines was due to become independent in '46, but I don't
> >know what date. If CB-4 had commissioned at the same rate as the others
> >she might have hoisted her pennant the same year, making her the only
>
I'm sure that when these ships were first authorized, they were
intended
> to complete long before the Phillipines became independent
Not actually, the ships were funded in Fiscal year 1941, and the pattern
of one per year was kept until they were canceled. So, unless
somebody's
got something I don't know about (very possible) I'll stick with the
time-
line above.
Larry J
D4346
>
> I'm sure that when these ships were first authorized, they were
>intended
>> to complete long before the Phillipines became independent
>
>Not actually, the ships were funded in Fiscal year 1941, and the pattern
>of one per year was kept until they were canceled. So, unless
>somebody's
>got something I don't know about (very possible) I'll stick with the
>time-
>line above.
>
down in 1942, New York Ship could only have two of them under construction at a
time I'm told. The other ships were cancelled in 1942 and only HAWAII was
re-instated. She was laid down when
the ALASKA's ways became available, had PHILLIPINES not remained cancelled, she
would have followed GUAM. I think it
is also true that HAWAII suffered a lot of delays in construction
due to the shifting of priorities and material allocations. Had the
program remained at full strength (or, possibly, ever reached full strength) I
think we would have ended the war with at least one
more CB and PHILLIPINES close behind. We also have to
remember that the war wasn't "scheduled" to end when it did and,
of course, the Phillipine independence was on hold until it did.
DN