Comments by "Sar Jim" (@sarjim4381) on "The Drydock - Episode 039" video.

It is the New Orleans class with "S" not being silent. An engineering study was done as a graduate paper by three Anapolis students. The conclusion was that the seam welding between #1 and #2 turrets was slightly less reinforced than it should have been. Combine that with some lucky torpedo hits and we get those blown off bows. As you said, the combination of excellent subdivisioning and damage control saved those same ships to fight another day.
21
Of the eight preserved US battleships, all but one (Texas) is a "modern" era ship. The Iowas were always considered ready reserve ships up until the mid-2000's. They were in excellent material condition when they were finally retired. The Navy knew that any plan to scrap the ships was unthinkable so they actively worked with the states and ultimate museum anchorages to preserve the ships, even to the point that the agreements with the museums was the ships had to be maintained in "as-delivered" condition and were subject to repossession by the Navy at a time of national need. Even though only one of the four was the namesake of a coastal state, the value of preservation as tourist attractions was already well in place by the 1990's Of the four South Dakotas, the two preserved ships (Alabama and Massachusetts) are named for coastal states that fought for their preservation. The two that were scrapped (South Dakota and Indiana) are inland states with nowhere to display the ships. Both states preserved many pieces of the ships before scrapping, and they are now displayed in suitable monuments in their respective states. The name ship of the North Carolina class is displayed at Wilmington NC. Starting from 1960, when the donation fo $331,000 collected by schoolchildren to purchase the ship, to being a self-supporting museum today, North Carolina has done a remarkable job of preserving her "Showboat". North Carolina was a donor ship for parts needed to renovate the Iowas when they were being refurbished in the 1980's. Unfortunately, many of her mechanical systems were removed at the time, along with the barbette of turret #1, but the parts live on in the Iowas. North Carolina is still a cosmetically beautiful ship and well worth the visit. This brings me to the shame of the state of Washington. While other states were already preserving or taking steps to preserve their ships, Washington simply didn't seem to care. At the same time that NC school kids were collecting pennies to buy their ship, the Washington legislature seemed to think the same $330,000 was an outrageous price and refused to fund the purchase. Vets attempted to get the same kind of schoolkids campaign going but, once again, no one seemed to care. The ship was decommissioned in June, 1960 and towed away for scrapping in May, 1961, probably a modern record between the two events. The ship's bell and a few other mementos are on display in the Bremerton Naval Museum, and that's only because of the efforts of the late Helen Devine, museum curator, digging through crates and boxes in a dusty warehouse in Olympia to find them and bring them to the museum. Other than this one corner of the museum, there's no real memorial to the ship, and certainly no memorial commensurate with the ship's historical value. Another move is underway to construct a proper memorial, but most of the ship's crew have passed on, and only some lonely naval historians and buffs have taken up the cudgel. The last Ship's Reunion was in 2005, and even the ship's website (http://www.usswashington.com/) is now mostly a mass of broken links. As you may be able to tell, I'm more than a little ill with the state of Washington and the shameful way they have treated "their" ship and the veterans who sailed on her. I've visited all the other battleships, and just thinking about the fate of Washington sets my teeth on edge.
8
Admiral Tiberius It was actually a little of both. The plans should have have called for more reinforcement to begin with, and the yards didn't do an adequate job even within the specs.
5
@chrisbruce5711 Olympia was a protected cruiser, not a battleship. Next time, learn something about a ship before you comment.
3
@kemarisite True, but Drach being English, no need to further confuse him with regional dialects.
2
@bigbigmurphy It would be as long as you could find someone willing to pay the operating costs. My guess is just sailing it up and won the coast would be in the $45-$55 million range per year, and that doesn't take into account any costs to make the vessel seaworthy again.
2
The %'/38 was superior to the 5"/25 for antiaircraft work. The 5"/51 was superior for surface fire but had no utility for antiaircraft work. As shown at actions like the one off Samar, the combination of the 5"/38 gun and superior ranging radar and fire control showed it was a gun able to inflict damage all out of proportion to the size of the gun itself.
1
@bkjeong4302 No doubt, it was the combination of air and surface power that made the Battle off Samar a tactical victory. It wasn't just the damage caused by aircraft either. The number of planes and the ferocity of their attacks helped convinced Kurita has was being attacked by a much larger force that included fleet carriers. Probably the best single battle of the war to show how air and surface power could work together for victory.
1
@bkjeong4302 The last fleet problem before the Pearl Harbor attack was one that assumed all the battleships of the Pacific fleet had been sunk or were too far away to be of any use and only two carriers were available. The centralized command and control facilities at Pearl and Manila were also assumed to be out of action. Any actions would have to be fought with a small number of cruisers, a larger force of destroyers and subs, and PT boats. The entire purpose of the problem wa sot make each commander do his own plan of attack attack while being able to also communicate with other fleet units, including aircraft. By the time of Samar, many USN aircraft had IFF units, and aircraft flying CAP over the fleet during kamikaze attacks got good at avoiding antiaircraft fire, while the fleet got good at prohibited zones that aircraft were supposed to avoid as free fire zones from the ships, and communicating those zones to the aircraft. The continuing perfection of CIC's did a lot to allow the fleet to control fighters and bring them into the attack when needed. Not saying that a lot of lucky circumstances, some due to the training from that last fleet problem, didn't combined to make Samar an unusual battle, but I also think you're not giving the Navy enough credit for being able to combine aircraft and surface action, sometimes on an ad hoc basis, when it was needed. We would have lost many more ships to kamikaze and conventional attacks to Japanese aircraft of all types if that hadn't happened.
1
@bkjeong4302 Oh, okay, we have been talking past each other then. My comments were addressing using aircraft for fleet defense, including attacking enemy surface ships when that was part of the mix. The Navy really hadn't considered how will air power and surface ships could work together when attacking enemy surface ships. Most of the experience was air power attacking the enemy while surface units were never part of the mix. From that point of view, Samar was a unique operation, and one that succeeded because commanders on the scene were able to improvise tactics and win.
1
@bigbigmurphy The Navy really isn't taking the role of shore bombardment to support landings seriously. The assumption is future landings will all be done by helicopters and hovercraft so shore bombardment doesn't matter now. I hope we never really have to test that theory.
1
@bigbigmurphy Yes, there's a reason why the PRC and ROC have been facing each other down for the last 70 or so years and nothing has happened. At this point, I'm not sure the PRC really wants to invade Taiwan anyway. They are getting all the trade and technology advantages of Taiwan with none of the associated costs.
1
@chrisbruce5711 I thought my first sentence about preserved battleships was pretty clear. It's why I didn't mention the USS Constitution either. At any rate, I accept your apology.
1
@bf9142ftw Not a dumb question at all. The barbette is a fixed armored ring inside the rotating gun mount. It's what protects the interior of the turret and shell hoists above deck level from incoming shells. Since the barbette is completely enclosed inside the turret ring, a missing barbette wouldn't be noticed with a ship that's permanently anchored with the gun house sitting on top of the rotating structure. Since the weight of the barbette is what holds the gun housing in place, you wouldn't want to put to sea with a missing barbette.
1
@bf9142ftw Pretty much. One of the Iowas (I'm not sure which one) had a damaged barbette that needed replacing. It would have taken about a year to build a new one, so taking one from the North Carolina was the fastest way to get the ship back in service. Lift off the gun house, extract the barbette, and set the gun house back down on the rotating ring mount. I never would have known it happened if there wasn't a sign next to the turret with the story.
1
@bf9142ftw It was just a free standing sign and not very big so it may have gotten moved around. My understanding is the interior of the turret is just an empty shell, but there was no viewing of it available when i was there about six years ago.
1