BB Massachusetts

[RogerJNeilson]

I spent the first three weeks of May on a road trip round New England. Thanks to those on the forum who helped me with advice about where to go and what to see. Second day in Boston I was on the USS Constitution, and two weeks later on the BB Massachusetts at Fall River. Others have posted great pictures of the Fall River ships.

My observations, in no way meant to diminish the BB are worth, I think, sharing. Whilst its a big ship, its not as big as I expected it to be. Indeed the Sub and DD moored beside her are sizeable companions. I had always assumed for artisitc effect the icons in WITP exaggerated the smaller ships to make them easier to depict - not so I reckon.

There are obvious differences in technology and build and gunnery between the two, but the living conditions on the two were not that different. I really do take my hat off to the guys who lived and fought on these ships - for months on end sometimes. The design principle looked to me to be, stick as many guns on as you can and then let the guys live in the space left......

The sub 'Lionfish' is moored very close to the battelship so its not a perspective thing, lengthwise she is pretty well the length of the battleship from the fore to the aft guns.....

Now I may be telling you things you all know, if so apologies, but my expectation was of a very different size between the two.

As for the holiday, WOW. 1200 miles of sheer enjoyment, though with a sense of places opening for tourists as we left! (Not necessarily a bad thing).

Roger

[geofflambert]

It's not the size that counts, it's the weight. Also you can't see the submerged displacement unless you went swimming.

[RogerJNeilson]

Yes I know. It was more a reflection on my assumption that BBs were much bigger ships compared to others. And that they had a level of space and comfort which destroyers and their like did not have. I was shocked by the crew quarters being effectively nothing more than a big space......

Roger

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Yes I know. It was more a reflection on my assumption that BBs were much bigger ships compared to others. And that they had a level of space and comfort which destroyers and their like did not have. I was shocked by the crew quarters being effectively nothing more than a big space......

Roger

That "big open space" is "affectionately" known in the USN, as "open bay spaces". And as everyone on the "Big Mamie" had their own bunks, and didn't usually need a hammock, that was a HUGE improvement. Also, they didn't mess where they Berthed. Some thing the RN would continue till the mid-50's. The USN mostly ended the practice in 1936.

[crsutton]

She was around 40,000 tons. An average tanker today might be 90,000 tons-without all that armor too.

[HexHead]

Went on a field trip in HS, from Newburyport. Fall River is the other end (south) of the state.

She served in both theaters, Operation Torch, and now is berthed in Battleship Cove.

[geofflambert]

In my current PBEM the Tennessee is being refitted for six months yet, and it's already been refitting for two. This is in part to make her more "livable" for the crew on long periods at sea (and in port).

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Yes I know. It was more a reflection on my assumption that BBs were much bigger ships compared to others. And that they had a level of space and comfort which destroyers and their like did not have. I was shocked by the crew quarters being effectively nothing more than a big space......

Roger

There is size and displacement

Many years ago I was shocked by a picture of a Baltimore class CA next to a South Dakota class BB:

BB 680 feet long
CA 673 feet long

Now the BB is about three times the displacement of the CA and they both gotta float so the BB has more beam and draught, but the side-by-side length comparison just surprised me.

[geofflambert]

A Baltimore class CA is in my opinion the best CAs ever built. It's a real racehorse too, and you'll see greater lengths in ships built for speed. Compare to Iowa. No fat hogs they.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Yes I know. It was more a reflection on my assumption that BBs were much bigger ships compared to others. And that they had a level of space and comfort which destroyers and their like did not have. I was shocked by the crew quarters being effectively nothing more than a big space......

Roger

There is size and displacement

Many years ago I was shocked by a picture of a Baltimore class CA next to a South Dakota class BB:

BB 680 feet long
CA 673 feet long

Now the BB is about three times the displacement of the CA and they both gotta float so the BB has more beam and draught, but the side-by-side length comparison just surprised me.

South Dakotas were also rather short-looking. I forget why that was, but I think it was intentional.

[wdolson]

The Iowas were close to 900ft long.

Bill

[tocaff]

Having seen one of the Iowas berthed in New York harbor many years ago I was surprised at how she looked bows on. That girl was built for speed. She also struck me as having a low water line, though the bow was high. What do I know?

[geofflambert]

The high flared bow keeps the bow wash off the deck. I've seen video of one of the Iowas making a hard turn at full speed. It was awesome. Maybe someone will post a link to such a film.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

My observations, in no way meant to diminish the BB are worth, I think, sharing. Whilst its a big ship, its not as big as I expected it to be. Indeed the Sub and DD moored beside her are sizeable companions. I had always assumed for artisitc effect the icons in WITP exaggerated the smaller ships to make them easier to depict - not so I reckon.

There are obvious differences in technology and build and gunnery between the two, but the living conditions on the two were not that different. I really do take my hat off to the guys who lived and fought on these ships - for months on end sometimes. The design principle looked to me to be, stick as many guns on as you can and then let the guys live in the space left......

Roger

After having just visited as well, I would agree. Much smaller than I'd thought. Still spacious on the inside but no wasted space at all, and the deck between the main turrets is packed as tightly as possible.

[geofflambert]

We should all remember that being a smaller target is a good thing. [;)]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

We should all remember that being a smaller target is a good thing. [;)]

What I wondered while standing on it was what a hit directly amidship would do? All of those 5" and 40mm mounts, cranes, boats and radar/fire directors. Seems like a good shot from a main gun battery of a BB or a few big bomb hits could take out most of the secondary and AA guns on one side of the ship. maybe that's true of a lot of BBs, but it seemed a relevant question seeing how little room there was around the turrets of those 5" mounts especially.

[geofflambert]

They were absolutely vulnerable to large shells and bombs but I think it was unusual for anything short of a kamikaze to take out more than one or two of them.

[wdolson]

The South Dakota took huge casualties on the tower during the fight at Guadalcanal. I read something from the destroyer crews who helped clean up the dead after the battle. The carnage was something that haunted most of them the rest of their lives.

Bill

[Bobdina1]

The gunfire damage report on the South Dakota plus pictures are located here if anyone wants to see.http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... geRpt.html

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
I spent the first three weeks of May on a road trip round New England. Thanks to those on the forum who helped me with advice about where to go and what to see.

Hi Roger,
Remember you asking about fun places to go and fun things to do for your visit to this side of the pond. Really nice to see the forum was helpful and you are having a ball.

Ciao. JWE