Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yesterday the battleship USS Iowa left San Francisco Bay under tow for its final destination - Los Angeles (San Pedro) Harbor, where it will become a museum. It is scheduled to open to the public in July, but as the voyage was delayed by weather, the opening could be delayed too.
The Los Angeles Times article, which had a nice picture of the Iowa crossing under the Golden Gate Bridge, called the Iowa "the biggest U.S. battleship ever built". I am wondering if this is not a slight mis-statement? Wasn't it in a class of battleships which were the largest the U.S. ever built? I know someone here can answer that question for me.
While 5 were planned only 3 Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri are of this class.
BTW a litle tidbit here.
On 17 March 2006, the Secretary of the Navy exercised his authority to strike Iowa and Wisconsin from the NVR, which has cleared the way for both ships to be donated for use as museum ships, but the United States Congress remains "deeply concerned" over the loss of the naval surface gunfire support that the battleships provided, and has noted that "navy efforts to improve upon, much less replace, this capability have been highly problematic." As a partial consequence, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act 2006, requiring that the battleships be kept and maintained in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again.[SIZE=3][/SIZE] Congress has ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that, if need be, Iowa can be returned to active duty:
Iowa must not be altered in any way that would impair her military utility;
The battleship must be preserved in her present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles must be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa, if reactivated;
The Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa should she be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.
These four conditions closely mirror the original three conditions that the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 laid out for the maintenance of Iowa while she was in the "mothball fleet".
From what i was told by un named parties ALL three battlewagons are kept this way ready to show and tell and fight if need be.
Thanks to all who have posted so far for the great information. I had no idea about the requirement to keep these ships in a state of semi-readiness. Therefore, it is conceivable, even if not very likely, that the voyage of the Iowa by tow (underway as I write this) may not be her final one.
Thanks to all who have posted so far for the great information. I had no idea about the requirement to keep these ships in a state of semi-readiness. Therefore, it is conceivable, even if not very likely, that the voyage of the Iowa by tow (underway as I write this) may not be her final one.
I sincerely hope you are right. These magnificent ships are such a great part of our history and culture! I was fortunate to stand on the decks of the Missouri once and look up at her massive 16 inch guns. It was a moving experience, and I hope one day she takes to the sea again.
that seems more like a load of pork. I can't imagine any national emergency that would necessitate their re-activation. Between the subs, carriers, missiles, and long range aircraft I think we have enough firepower to project without them. They were obsolete when built.
that seems more like a load of pork. I can't imagine any national emergency that would necessitate their re-activation. Between the subs, carriers, missiles, and long range aircraft I think we have enough firepower to project without them. They wereobsolete when built.
I understand and basically agree with your main point, but I would modify the sentence which I placed in bold above as follows: They were rapidly becoming obsolete when built. World War II proved that battleships were no match for aircraft carriers. But World War II also provided plenty of need for the off-shore heavy artillery which battleships provided, and indeed they were much utilized in that role. The bomb loads carried by the existing heavy aircraft (B-17's and B-24's) were pretty small by today's standards. Of course the deployment of the B-29 upped the ante considerably, but the accuracy of bombing at that time left a lot to be desired. Properly spotted shelling by ships can be zeroed in.
At some point, even in World War II, bigger ceased to be better in terms of battleships. I believe that point is proved by the two Japanese super battleships Musashi and Yamato, the largest ever built by any nation (to my knowledge). Both were sunk by U.S. carrier planes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OOPS You're right. thanks for bringing it up.
