Favorite Battleship Part 2: Uberships!

rlc27 · Post by **rlc27** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 9:34 pm

Ahem. Polls aside, I'm wondering if people would be interested in stating *why* they voted for a particular ship...what is it about a particular class of battleships that is attractive?

Back to the regularly scheduled programming.

thantis · Post by **thantis** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 10:12 pm

The Yamatos were beautiful ships to look at (not necessarily designed well internally), but had that kind of streamlined aggressiveness that all battleships should have.

The Iowas fit into the same category. They look like what battleships should be, big, mean, but still really, really nice to look at. Its a shame that they've lost their place in national arsenals, but once aircraft and missiles matured, it was only a matter of time till they hit the scrapyards.

It would have been nice to see a real slug-fest between the US & Japanese battlewagons at Leyte (and would have too if Halsey hadn't taken his BBs north against the decoys). Of course, besides Yamato, the other two BBs were fairly old & obsolete, so the Iowas would have cleaned their clocks.

XPav · Post by **XPav** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:23 am

I like the CombinedFleet.com battleship comparison. Check it out, its got some great info.

Knavey · Post by **Knavey** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:27 am

Rawink,

If your friend was on the RKT during the Gulf War, then the Nimitz class carrier he was referring to was the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). We were the only nuclear (Nimitz) CV in the gulf during Desert Storm. We had relieved the Ike, and were relieved by the Lincoln (I think) when it was all over.

There were 5 other CVs in the gulf with us...but all were conventional.

The beginning of that speed story was the departure from Norfolk, VA on the way to the Persian Gulf. We formed up 2 battlegroups, one with the TR, the other with the America. They put us at Ahead Flank 150 which translates to about 30 knots...when they finally let us off that bell, if you had looked around, the only ship that was within 2 days of us was a nuclear powered cruiser (Mississippi, I believe). If you had looked ahead, we were sitting at the entrance to the Suez Canal. We actually had to wait a couple of days before we could make the transit because they wanted the air cover from the America overhead while we were in the ditch.

It is not necessarily speed that counts...its the ability to maintain that speed over an extended time. The America's battlegroup and most of ours also, could not keep up that pace without refueling. Unreps take a lot of time. As was mentioned before, when you open up the throttles on something that is made of metal and floats, it gets worse mileage than an poorly tuned up SUV.

The other caveat on staying power was the fact that we were on station in the Gulf for 7-8 days at a time before we had to unrep to get more av gas and bombs. The conventionals only had 4-5 days on station before they had to unrep. Nuclear power is definately an advantage in sustained operations.

Ok, enough for now, I wish I knew where that picture was that had all the carriers in Desert Storm in formation was. It was arguably the most powerful assembly of firepower on the planet...conventional or otherwise. 6 CV battlegroups...What in the hell was Saddam thinking, and you just have to wonder what he is thinking now.

I think these were the groups over there:

TR - mine
Ranger
Saratoga
Independence
Midway
America

The Missouri and the Wisconsin were the two BBs that were also in the gulf at the time. I have some pictures of the TR on one side of an unrep supply ship and the Missouri on the other side...the whole formation underway with helicopters buzzing between the ships ferrying supplies.

Really need to find those pics for these forums.

Ike had left during DShield, and missed DStorm.

Von_Frag · Post by **Von_Frag** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:57 am

Originally posted by XPav

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battles ... htm#iow-cl

"Operational: It has often been reported that Missourisuffered severe, permanent damage from her 1950's grounding, and that she was restricted to 15 knots when reactivated in the 1980's. These reports are untrue; the damage caused by the grounding was minor, confined mainly to some torn bottom plating, and was repaired immediately after the grounding. All four ships reached 30+ knots during their 1980's reactivations."

This is why I don't believe sea stories. [/B]

I don't think this was intended as a sea story, the orificer in question was speaking on what he thought was valid info. Remember, this was over 10 years ago and the brain cells that held those memories may be defective now. On top of that, you don't strike me as someone who would know a sea story if it bit you on the a$$, and I have tons of sea stories I could sell you.
Everything you turn your nose at with that know it all high and mighty attitude, may not be "sea stories". mister.

Von Frag

rlc27 · Post by **rlc27** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:07 am

Now now troopers, let's not get personal and keep it civil.

Knavey · Post by **Knavey** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:33 am

Originally posted by XPav
Without any public figures, of course everyone on a 30+ kt ship is going to declare their ship the fastest ship in the fleet.

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-028.htm

edit: Waitaminute, shp for the nukes isn't public. Ok, fine, 40kts.

xPac,

Just took the link above, its a pretty good argument but you have to be careful about sources...the info that he uses talks about the Truman so he is very up to date, but his data on the Big E is incorrect. She underwent a changeout of her reactors and if I remember correctly no longer has the 8 small reactors in her. I did not serve on her, but I one of the guys I went to nuc school with did during her retrofit.

I am not sure of her configuration, but I do remember him telling me that the 8 reactors were going away.

Tidbit: The reason behind the 8 reactors was that when the Enterprise was designed, the only available reactors were submarine ones, and so they used these to power her. They later came up with bigger ones for the nuc cruisers, and then even bigger ones for the CVNs.

Also, keep in mind that the argument on the site you mentioned was all over shaft horse power...but that was NOT the limiting factor on the shaft of a Nimitz class carrier...shaft torque limits were, and that is from someone who stood MANY throttleman watchs before he qualified Reactor Operator.

XPav · Post by **XPav** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:30 am

Among other sources:

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-037.htm

I may not know a sea story if it bit me on the ***, but I know where to find people that can.

And that's where I get my info.

rlc27 · Post by **rlc27** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:05 am

The David Miller series also says that the big E traded her 8 small reactors for smaller ones, but because of nuclear power tech at the time she was constructed. That's the most up to date of MY sources.

rlc27 · Post by **rlc27** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:09 am

OK--so I repeat my question--why did people select their favorite battleship? Armament, armor, aesthetic appeal, combat effectiveness?

Feinder · Post by **Feinder** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:55 am

Ok, I'll bite.

I picked Alaska, because I like "sleek". If you'd have put Hood up there, I'd have been the dumb-a$$ to have picked her. I rather like "shoot-n-scoot". I understand that any one of those bad boys listed would knock the snot out of Alaska (or Hood), but they were beautiful ships.

I sent you that turn bro. Sorry it's late, I fell asleep. I'll be up for a while tho, if you're goofing off, we can maybe get a couple of turns in tonight.

-F-

rawink · Post by **rawink** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:01 am

yes, there have been some beautiful BB's.

My personal Fav is the Iowa class, for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread.

Others that catch my eye.. Yamato, Bismark, Graf Spee

rlc27 · Post by **rlc27** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:19 am

If I hadn't of chosen Yamato, which after having built (mostly) a 1:300 scale model of her, I think was the ultimate in battleship aesthetics--I would probably have chosen the Richlieu, just because I think she was a darned beautiful ship. I don't know if it's the pictures or what, but she always looks like she was painted white.

Never cared much for the ww2 era Brit battleships, though. They look too low for me. Maybe the Brits learned to keep their heads down during Jutland.

LargeSlowTarget · Post by **LargeSlowTarget** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:23 pm

Like Feinder, I picked Alaska because of the aesthetic appeal. Compared to a fat battleship, Alaska und Guam look slender, elegant and even a bit fragile, IMO.
Another reason for me is their 'tragic' fate - constructed because of wrong assumptions about similar Jap ships, already obsolete before completion due to maturing of the CV, having no real role to serve in (albeit doing well as flak-platforms, but better not use them in a surface action against BBs), thus being scrapped after just a few years of 'life'. This somehow evokes sympathy.

In a 'name any ship'-poll I'd pick Atlanta and Juneau, for similar reasons (here the tragic was the way they were lost).

SoulBlazer · Post by **SoulBlazer** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:37 pm

Interesting thread, wish I had joined it eariler.

I thought that the Enterprise was still the fastest carrier in the fleet? Or maybe she's just still the largest.

And just how many carriers do we have in active use, anyway? I'd like to find a website that listed them by name and their class.

One big question -- is the end drawing for carriers also? I read last year that the newest round of war game sims done aganist China in the Pentagon showed the carriers could'nt get close to the Chinese coast due to their missle defences, rendering the carriers just about useless.

lupi · Post by **lupi** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:42 pm

I think Enterprise is too much of an engineering prototpe to be the fastest.

For current OOB of sorts.

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/S_TYPE.HTM

Knavey · Post by **Knavey** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:23 pm

When I was in, she was considered the fastest carrier afloat. She did a round the world cruise/deployment prior to her massive overhaul, and the TR was the ship that received all of her packages that go boom prior to her entering the yards. Going to try to post a picture of that underway.

Keep in mind, that the argument about speed is pretty much moot until you take the "restrictions" off of the ships. Its sort of like having governors on your car engines...you don't really know how fast you can go, only brag about what you may (or may not be) capable of.

Knavey · Post by **Knavey** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:24 pm

And finally another of the Enterprise during weapons offload.

Knavey · Post by **Knavey** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:31 pm

If I knew how to put multiple pics in a post, I would do it but I don't...

Here is a postcard pic of the Persian Gulf Desert Storm fleet. Just to show you how memory fades, I thought there were 6 carriers in this pic, but only 4 are here. I think that the other 2 may have been in the Med at the time this was taken, and had never come into the PG.

rlc27 · Post by **rlc27** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 5:29 am

I don't think being an engineering protype necessarily means that a ship will be slower--look at the Saratoga! Granted she was meant to be a battlecruiser, but she was faster than any other a/c around for quite a while--faster than her escorts!

Favorite Battleship Part 2: Uberships!

Re: Re: Re: Battleship top speed