Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Blinder on October 01, 2013, 08:38:53 PM
-
Lady Lex was my grandfather's first duty assignment when he reported aboard as a young flying Ensign in January of 1938 in an SB2U. In my honest opinion there has never been two more beautiful and graceful ships than The Lady Lex and Sister Sara. I would have loved to be on Lex's shake down cruise when she still had that new carrier smell!
(http://historylink101.com/n/bw/aircraft_carriers/slides/IMG_4542_s2a.jpg)
Debate amongst yourselves. :D
-
Several years ago I read the obit for an older guy I knew but didn't take the time to get to know. Turns out, he was a young seaman onboard the Lady Lex when she was sunk at Coral Sea. What a bonehead that I never took the time to ask. Imagine the front row I would have had...if I only I would have asked!!!
Yes, sex appeal is high on that Lady!
Boo
-
I'm partial to the the Bunker Hill (CV-17) myself,
(http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff266/Radcam/CV-17_zps81dfef79.jpg) (http://s238.photobucket.com/user/Radcam/media/CV-17_zps81dfef79.jpg.html)
but that's just a personal thing.
-
Battlecruisers are generally pretty warships and both Saratoga and Lexington were laid down as battlecruisers, only to be changed to carriers due to the Washington Naval Treaty.
-
Battlecruisers are generally pretty warships and both Saratoga and Lexington were laid down as battlecruisers, only to be changed to carriers due to the Washington Naval Treaty.
I know. That's one of many reasons they were so unique, beautiful, efficient and fast. You can see how her designers blended her battlecruiser lines so well into her hanger deck and upper structure. Her fully enclosed bow was something that wouldn't be seen again in American flattops until the Essex class underwent their post war SCB-125 modernizations. Their turbo electric drives were very successful and even powered the City of Tacoma for about 30 days over the winter of 29-30.
-
(http://wwiiguide.webs.com/photos/Everything-else-on-WWII/CV02_Lexington_CV03_Saratoga_4731591WhvXqmwIwo_fs.jpg)
(http://paintedsoldier.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/9/5/16953202/7289016_orig.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6692085987_b520969003_o.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)_underway_in_1930.jpeg)
-
The first WWII history paperback I ever read was about the Lexington. I don't remember what it was titled. I was ten or twelve or so.
-
It must have been exciting. To have been there at the dawn of an era.
-
I, too, love the graceful look of the first Lexington Carrier and the Saratoga. I also have a soft spot for the second 'Lady Lex' since my father served on her during her final West Pac (transitioning to the Constellation on her first). And, like Sik, have a bit of an attachment to the Bunker Hill (VF-17 was CV-17's original fighter squadron, though they were replaced and offloaded to the islands due to logistical constraints).
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g600000/g651292.jpg)
(http://goatlocker.org/target/images/cv-2.jpg)
(http://www.tomcattersassociation.org/ships/images/lex1941sea.jpg)
(http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/31.jpg)
(http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww140/_Flattop/LexingtonCV-2.jpg)
-
I wish we had a Lexington Class carrier option in the game. Especially in her original configuration because with no battleships available, those magnificent 8 inch batteries would work wonders on enemy bases. But then again, the bad guys would get her to and give us a sound thumping from time to time. :O
-
I wish we had a Lexington Class carrier option in the game. Especially in her original configuration because with no battleships available, those magnificent 8 inch batteries would work wonders on enemy bases. But then again, the bad guys would get her to and give us a sound thumping from time to time. :O
Maybe someday (as stated, I share this love affair). I think events would be better served by modeling a Shokaku class Japanese carrier at this time (Shokaku, Zuikaku):
Design
The Shōkaku-class carriers were part of the same program that also included the Yamato-class battleships. No longer restricted by the provisions of the Washington Naval Treaty, which expired in December 1936, the Imperial Japanese Navy was free to incorporate all those features they deemed most desirable in an aircraft carrier, namely high speed, a long radius of action, heavy protection and a large aircraft capacity.
With an efficient modern design, a displacement of about 32,000 long tons (33,000 t), and a top speed of 34 kn (63 km/h; 39 mph), the Shōkaku class could carry 70-80 aircraft. Their enhanced protection compared favorably to that of contemporary Allied aircraft carriers and enabled Shōkaku to survive serious battle damage during Coral Sea and Santa Cruz.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dkaku-class_aircraft_carrier
(http://imageshack.us/a/img7/2653/t62n.png)
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111224012854/thekristoffersuniverseinwar/images/b/ba/JDS_Sh%C5%8Dkaku_class_aircraft_carrier2.gif)
(http://www.combinedfleet.com/shokak01.jpg)
(http://www.combinedfleet.com/zuikak01.jpg)
Armament
Shōkaku's primary air defense consisted of sixteen 127 mm (5.0 in) dual-purpose AA guns in twin mountings. These were sited below flight deck level on projecting sponsons with four such paired batteries on either side of the ship's hull, two forward and two aft. Four fire control directors were installed, two on the port side and two to starboard. A fifth fire control director was located atop the carrier's island and could control any or all of the heavy-caliber guns as needed.[3]
Initially, light AA defense was provided by twelve triple-mount 25 mm (0.98 in) AA guns. Further mounts were added in 1943.[3]
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Zuikaku_November_1941.jpg/1024px-Zuikaku_November_1941.jpg)
Zuikaku cruising toward Hitokappu Bay, Iturup, in November 1941. The carrier Kaga is seen in the background.
-
Oh, and modeling both the Yamato class and Iowa class BBs with dedicated BB fleets would make for some interesting slug-fest potential.
-
Oh, and modeling both the Yamato class and Iowa class BBs with dedicated BB fleets would make for some interesting slug-fest potential.
Throw in the Bismarck and King George V classes for some Atlantic brawls in that case and I shall be content.
Just don't give us the Hood. :eek:
-
Throw in the Bismarck and King George V classes for some Atlantic brawls in that case and I shall be content.
Just don't give us the Hood. :eek:
I pity the Bismark or KG5 class BB that finds itself engaged with an Iowa or Yamato class BB.
-
I pity the Bismark or KG5 class BB that finds itself engaged with an Iowa or Yamato class BB.
My how we digress from the topic. :lol
Wanna try the match-up then get yourself a copy of Fighting Steel. I've done that battle and others many times over.
http://www.navalwarfare.org/ (http://www.navalwarfare.org/)
-
I pity the Bismark or KG5 class BB that finds itself engaged with an Iowa or Yamato class BB.
Hence why I said Atlantic, would at least give them a chance!
-
Hence why I said Atlantic, would at least give them a chance!
But the MA doesn't work that way. If each side got four BB groups, one of each type, you'd be as likely to get a KG5 vs Yamato as you would an Iowa vs Iowa fight.
-
I've always been a fan of the Yorktown class carriers and the Hornet in particular.
Here's a link to an absolutely beautiful model of the Hornet carrying Doolittle's raiders that I thought you all might enjoy: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/cv/cv-08/350-kk/kk-index.html (http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/cv/cv-08/350-kk/kk-index.html)
Sorry for taking this slightly off topic.
-
I pity the Bismark or KG5 class BB that finds itself engaged with an Iowa or Yamato class BB.
Lol are u kidding? Great compartmentalization and a amazing fire control. Don't underestimate...ask the hood and miss Elizabeth
-
But the MA doesn't work that way. If each side got four BB groups, one of each type, you'd be as likely to get a KG5 vs Yamato as you would an Iowa vs Iowa fight.
MA maps need not contain one of each type fleet. Still best to design fleet stuff for Pacific, though. We're way more likely to set up multiple events for Pac ships, from that perspective.
-
Lol are u kidding? Great compartmentalization and a amazing fire control. Don't underestimate...ask the hood and miss Elizabeth
A lucky hit against a battlecruiser does not offer much hope against a 60,000+ ton or 70,000+ ton BB, both of which also have extremely good protection and effective fire control along with much better firepower. How'd Bismark do against KGV and Rodney? I don't recall much damage to either of them.
Either Yamato or Iowa would be massively favored in a fight against Bismark or KG5.
-
A lucky hit against a battlecruiser does not offer much hope against a 60,000+ ton or 70,000+ ton BB, both of which also have extremely good protection and effective fire control along with much better firepower. How'd Bismark do against KGV and Rodney? I don't recall much damage to either of them.
Either Yamato or Iowa would be massively favored in a fight against Bismark or KG5.
ESPECIALLY if Iowa's radar fire control is modeled...
-
Are we talking 1941 Bismarck vs. 1944 Iowa, or 1941 Bismarck vs. a hypothetical 1941 Iowa without her fancy radar fire control, or a hypothetical 1944 Bismarck vs. a 1944 Iowa with hypothetical equality in fire control?
Must compare apples to apples... If not then Iowa clearly wins because she's got Tomahawk cruise missiles.
-
Are we talking 1941 Bismarck vs. 1944 Iowa, or 1941 Bismarck vs. a hypothetical 1941 Iowa without her fancy radar fire control, or a hypothetical 1944 Bismarck vs. a 1944 Iowa with hypothetical equality in fire control?
Must compare apples to apples... If not then Iowa clearly wins because she's got Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Um, well huh. The Bismark would have as much difficulty sinking the dock where Iowa class battle ships are eventually going to be built as it would defending itself from Tomahawk cruise missiles from it's watery grave. I'm not sure where your apple was intended to float, sir.
Aces High II matches up a lot of toys that never met over the years.
Never-the-less, I'd say model the Iowa and Yamato (two more toys that never met in real life) and leave the Bismark for later. :)
-
Then perhaps we could get Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz. A slightly better comparison.
-
Then perhaps we could get Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz. A slightly better comparison.
It wouldn't matter. Eight 15" guns and a lighter, less protected ship against either nine 16" or nine 18.1" guns on much larger, better protected ships. A Bismarck class ship would just be out of its league against either.
-
It would all boil down to fire control.
That technology circa 1940 versus even four years later, the technology on the Iowas was very different. If the Bismark had 1944 technology she would do well. The difference between a 15" and 16" is very slight. Certainly the 15" of the Bismarck showed what happens when that round penetrates into the ammo bunker. And, for those theorists who go with the 8" of the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen actually took out the Hood, makes the case even more so. Rounds on target is what it's about.
Six to ten hits from the Bismark would leave an Iowa in rough, rough shape!
Boo
-
It would all boil down to fire control.
That technology circa 1940 versus even four years later, the technology on the Iowas was very different. If the Bismark had 1944 technology she would do well. The difference between a 15" and 16" is very slight. Certainly the 15" of the Bismarck showed what happens when that round penetrates into the ammo bunker. And, for those theorists who go with the 8" of the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen actually took out the Hood, makes the case even more so. Rounds on target is what it's about.
Six to ten hits from the Bismark would leave an Iowa in rough, rough shape!
Boo
I think you're significantly undervaluing the effect of armor. Iowa's protection is much better than the Bismark class's, as is Yamato's. Penetrating the magazine on a BC is one thing, but on a heavy BB it is something else, look at Jutland. Iowa and Yamato also lack the unprotected torpedoes that Hood had and which may have caused her loss.
-
You overstate the Iowa's armor. Both ships can cause each other a great deal of damage to the area above the main armor deck. The Bismarck's upper belt area wouldn't keep out battleship size shells. The lower belt area is better protected in Bismarck and at close range where Bismarck can penetrate Iowa's belt, Bismarck has an advantage. Bismarck's lower citadel probably can't be penetrated at any range by Iowa because of the way it was designed with the "turtleback" scheme. It is effectively impossible to penetrate into Bismarck's engineering spaces and main gun magazines with direct gunfire because of the arrangement of the armor and the fact that a shell would have to penetrate the side armor + turtleback + holding bulkhead. Nathan Okun calculated that if you put one of Yamato's 18" guns against Bismarck's hull, you might just barely be able to penetrate it. On Iowa and most other schemes, once you penetrate the main belt there is no significant amount of armor behind it.
Iowa vs Bismarck 1-on-1 would most likely result in both ships limping back to port after sustaining severe damage and high casualties.
-
Iowa vs Bismarck 1-on-1 would most likely result in both ships limping back to port after sustaining severe damage and high casualties.
If that's what you gotta tell yourself ..... ;)
-
Seen this site?
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
63tb
-
The British pounded the Biskmarck for two hours and were unable to sink her with gunfire. Unlike almost all other battleships the Bismarck-class' engineering section and magazines also have extensive protection from plunging fire. Firing AP shells both Bismarck and Iowa have almost the same range due to the Bismarck's guns' greater muzzle velocity (22.1 miles vs. 23.64 miles). However the Iowa has no real protection from plunging fire, and Bismarck can also penetrate Iowa's main belt at close range.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/Bismarck_protection.jpg)
-
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
-
Yeah, I saw it the first time. It says the Bismarck and Iowa are very close in firepower 9 vs 10. In armor I have no idea of how they've arrived at that conclusion. If they've only looked at external armor then I would agree with it, but unlike Iowa, the Bismarck had several "layers" of protection. Once you got through the Iowa's armor or deck plating there is nothing stopping the shell from getting into the engineering spaces and magazines, just like what happened to the Hood.
-
Penetrating the armor to destroy engineering is one thing. Removing all lightly armored items from the top-deck is another. I have not been on a battleship though I have spent a fair amount of time on a Baltimore/Oregon City Class Heavy Cruiser. Minus the heavy armor the rest of that ship is designed to stop bullets, not shells. Enough 5" shells will turn these ships into smolder wrecks. If the bridge took one hit it would be gone. The fire direction units have no ability to withstand that type of damage.
As I said, 6-10 hits from either ship would leave the target a mess. Maybe nothing penetrated the magazines, the rest of the ship is done for.
It is all about who hits the first and the most.
Boo
-
Yeah, I saw it the first time. It says the Bismarck and Iowa are very close in firepower 9 vs 10. In armor I have no idea of how they've arrived at that conclusion. If they've only looked at external armor then I would agree with it, but unlike Iowa, the Bismarck had several "layers" of protection. Once you got through the Iowa's armor or deck plating there is nothing stopping the shell from getting into the engineering spaces and magazines, just like what happened to the Hood.
There was a details link covering that (you may have missed). This is what it lead to:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm
-
Penetrating the armor to destroy engineering is one thing. Removing all lightly armored items from the top-deck is another. I have not been on a battleship though I have spent a fair amount of time on a Baltimore/Oregon City Class Heavy Cruiser. Minus the heavy armor the rest of that ship is designed to stop bullets, not shells. Enough 5" shells will turn these ships into smolder wrecks. If the bridge took one hit it would be gone. The fire direction units have no ability to withstand that type of damage.
As I said, 6-10 hits from either ship would leave the target a mess. Maybe nothing penetrated the magazines, the rest of the ship is done for.
It is all about who hits the first and the most.
Boo
Yes, both the Iowa and The Bismarck could, given time, destroy each other's superstructures and turrets.
-
There was a details link covering that (you may have missed). This is what it lead to:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm
Yeah, I read that and the even more detailed link after that.
"I quantified their total vulnerability zone range (using the Navy Ballistic Limit as the benchmark for penetration). For instance, Bismarck could put a shell through her own belt from any range under 29,000 yards (the weakest score), whereas she would have to close to within 16,400 yards to punch through Iowa's"
He only considered the main belt thickness as I suspected, not the layered internal armor scheme of the Bismarck.
"Next, I arbitrarily said, OK, Iowa has the best rating, so she gets a '10', and Bismarck has the worst (by a ton), so she gets, ummmm, a '5'. Why a '5'? Well, why not?"
Why should I listen to this man?
-
Yeah, I read that and the even more detailed link after that.
"I quantified their total vulnerability zone range (using the Navy Ballistic Limit as the benchmark for penetration). For instance, Bismarck could put a shell through her own belt from any range under 29,000 yards (the weakest score), whereas she would have to close to within 16,400 yards to punch through Iowa's"
He only considered the main belt thickness as I suspected, not the layered internal armor scheme of the Bismarck.
"Next, I arbitrarily said, OK, Iowa has the best rating, so she gets a '10', and Bismarck has the worst (by a ton), so she gets, ummmm, a '5'. Why a '5'? Well, why not?"
Why should I listen to this man?
You don't have to listen to anyone. You can just keep insisting that the Bismark was equal to if not better than the Iowa and Yamato.
-
Or I could listen to someone who knows what he's talking about, like Nathan Okun, who ironically was listed as one of the sources by that "baddest" guy. Incidentally he also contributes to the same site.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm
"Using the 1.67 caliber nose shape with the body weight and diameter of the 38 cm Psgr. L/4,4 projectile without its AP cap, I plotted the striking velocity needed for complete penetration of a 4.33" Wh plate (assumed to be similar to U.S. Navy WWII STS plates against which my test data was compiled) versus obliquity from 45o to 68o. On the same graph I then used my face-hardened armor penetration computer program to plot the remaining velocity and the impact obliquity on the 4.33" plate - which equals the 68o backward plate slope minus the projectile's downward exit angle after penetrating the side armor - for the 38 cm projectile after it hits the 12.6" belt (plus backing) at a Target Angle of 90o (only angle of fall affects obliquity). The two curves gradually converged but never met, indicating that the sloped deck was impenetrable to the German 38 cm projectile at all ranges, as designed.
Similar computations with British 14-16" projectiles concerning hitting the sloped 4.33" deck after going through the 12.6" belt gave identical results. Even the 18.1" (46 cm) guns on the IJN YAMATO would have had to be placed directly against the side armor of the BISMARCK to have even a chance of penetrating that sloped deck. The German designers had done a very good job in this one protection area!
Note that the 4.33" plate extends only slightly above the ship's waterline at normal draft, so a close-range, almost horizontal shot has to hit very near to or below the waterline to hit the sloped part of the deck, even if penetration were possible. If the ship is partially flooded and has a higher waterline, then only underwater hits an the belt could hit this sloped deck, with all other hits ricocheting off of the flat center deck area or passing above the deck and hitting the far side of the ship if the fuze did not detonate the projectile first. On top of this, it is difficult to get a projectile to penetrate the surface of the water at such shallow impact angles, even with Japanese-style diving shells, so underwater hits at these ranges would be very rare. Needless to say on top of all that, if you can get close enough to get any side/deck penetrations with a big-enough gun, the target that you are firing at is already "kaput" and such penetrations are of no consequence anyway!
My computations also indicate that, as expected, the 3.15-3.74" horizontal portions of the lower armored deck could not be penetrated under any conditions after penetrating the 12.6" side belt by any projectile used on any actual warship.
FINAL CONCLUSION: The BISMARCK's internal vitals could not be directly reached through the side belt armor under any normal circumstances due to the sloped "turtle-back" armored deck design, making its design the best of all given in this article for this purpose."
-
"The BISMARCK gets "the low end of the stick" in these outer belt armor comparisons against any foreign battleship of its era! However, we are not done with analyzing the side protection, because there is more waterline armor to many of these ships than their outer belt."
This is what that other guy, and most people in general, gets wrong.
He continues:
"The YAMATO had no internal armor behind the main belt except for a 1.97" (50 mm) Copper Non-Cemented (CNC) (a low-nickel-alloy steel meeting the NVNC specifications only in thin plates) circular bulkhead enclosing the lower portions of the main turret barbettes on the inside."
"The internal protection of the SOUTH DAKOTA and KING GEORGE V was not much greater than the YAMATO..."
"The RICHELIEU had an internal 1.97" (50 mm) homogeneous Krupp steel armor plate behind the main belt that was inclined inboard (bottom closer to the outer hull than the top) at 40.5o from the vertical. This plate met the bottom edge of the main belt and had a 1.57" (40 mm) flat "protective deck" portion at its upper edge extending across the middle of the ship at just above the waterline, very much like the main armor deck of the BISMARCK, but thinner."
"The BISMARCK had a system like the RICHELIEU protecting its lower hull (engine rooms, boilers, and magazines), but here it was 4.33" (110 mm) of Wh armor sloped at 68o from the vertical from just above the waterline to the bottom edge of the main belt - the vitals were thus protected by the equivalent of the frontal armor of a post-WWII heavy tank behind the 12.6" KC n/A belt! This thickness of plating at that slope would cause any pieces of belt armor or any badly broken projectile to glance off into the upper hull region."
-
Yes, both the Iowa and The Bismarck could, given time, destroy each other's superstructures and turrets.
Which ends the fight. This is how the Royal Navy ended the Bismarck, destroying its ability to fight without sinking it. Torpedos did that. Several fights in the Pacific ended after the enemy destroyed key command elements on the ship. One of the fights in "the Slot" of Guadalcanal involved US Destroyers hitting a battleship with so many 5" shells the battleship was effectively destroyed, though the heavy armor had not been penetrated a bit.
Boo
-
Indeed, which is why I think Iowa vs Bismarck 1-on-1 would most likely result in both ships limping back to port after sustaining severe damage and high casualties.
The general idea most people have about Bismarck and Hood is that Bismarck opened fire and scored a lucky hit on Hood and that's it... People often overlook that during the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Bismarck wasn't facing off against only the Hood, but also against the Prince of Wales, a King George V class battleship, the most modern British battleships used during WWII (she was in fact younger than Bismarck). The British ships opened fire first, and scored the first hit: a 14" shell from Prince of Wales hit Bismarck's bow. Prince of Wales would hit Bismarck two more times before the battle was over.
Also Bismarck did not hit Hood just once, and it was not the first hit that blew her up. Hood was first hit on the boat deck, starting a fire and setting off some ammunition, but this was not fatal and did not spread. A probable second hit on Hood damaged her bridge and radar systems. The third, and fatal hit to Hood's aft magazine didn't happen until eight minutes after the British had opened fire.
Bismarck then turned her guns on the Prince of Wales. She was hit four times by Bismarck and three times by Prinz Eugen, seriously damaging her superstructure and fire command systems, and holing her hull below her armor belt. Captain Leach wisely laid down smoke and withdrew when he realized he could no longer realistically hope to further damage Bismarck. Also Prinz Eugen was closing to torpedo range and Leach feared he would lose his ship for nothing.
In the space of 10 minutes Bismarck (firing 93 shells from her main armament), aided by Prinz Eugen, had sunk the Hood and rendered the King George V class battleship Prince of Wales combat ineffective. Bismarck herself had only suffered minor damage, but her loss of fuel and two knots reduced speed would later contribute to her demise. Admiral Lütjens let Prince of Wales escape despite staunch, and repeated protests from Captain Lindemann. This may have been a mistake by Lütjens, but he had strict orders not to engage the RN if he could avoid it.
As for Bismarck's final battle... Firing while turning was not something the mechanical computers and fire control system of that time could handle very well. Being unmaneuverable Bismarck had little or no chance to hit with her main armament as she was wandering aimlessly through the battle, though she managed to straddle the enemy ships a couple of times. The British pounded her for two hours with battleships and cruisers, firing 2,800 shells scoring more than 400 hits, and torpedoed her twice before she finally succumbed to the sea. Some even claim the Germans had to scuttle her.
-
Prince of Wales entered that fight combat ineffective. She still had about 100 ship builders on her and had not completed her trials. During the fight eight of her ten 14" guns went out of action due to electrical faults that had nothing to do with damage caused by the Germans. While I agree that Bismark was superior to the KG5 class, that was hardly a fair example of what to expect from a sustained engagement between a combat effective Bismark and a combat effective KG5.
-
She did have the largest ship in the RN fighting alongside her... And they were shelling Bismarck and Prinz Eugen for five minutes before the Germans returned fire. Bismarck was equally untested in battle and her crew was very inexperienced. It was, after all, her maiden voyage.
-
The British entered the battle with 18 battleship guns versus the Germans 8. When Prince of Wales withdrew she still had 9 of her 10 guns operational. Due to damage and other intermittent gunnery problems she suffered a 26% reduction in fire output from her main armament. After her last salvo from her aft battery a jam in the ammunition system put her aft four guns out of action for some time, but that was after she had disengaged and laid down smoke.
-
The link below shows some interesting information about how the different ships compared.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
I remember visiting Washington DC as a kid and seeing this
http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/USNavyMuseum/OtherExhibits/pages/32Yamato26InchArmorPlate.htm
-
My God, Fox... That's like the third or fourth time that site has been posted in this thread already.
-
My God, Fox... That's like the third or fourth time that site has been posted in this thread already.
I think it's wonderful how appreciative you've been each time. It indicates a great deal of patience on your part. :salute :cheers:
-
I got to go on the shake down cruise on this one.
(http://journal.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/USS-Dwight-D.-Eisenhower-CVN-69.png)
Was aboard from 77-80.
-
Sorry about that, what I get for not reading the whole thing.
-
I got to go on the shake down cruise on this one.
(http://journal.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/USS-Dwight-D.-Eisenhower-CVN-69.png)
Was aboard from 77-80.
The Ike!! I bet an awesome experience. Where did you go?
Boo
-
The Ike!! I bet an awesome experience. Where did you go?
Boo
I reported aboard before she was commissioned (makes me a plank owner). First few cruises was just up and down the coast. Spent a week at St Thomas in the Virgin Islands. Once she was commissioned we went to Cuba for trials. Got to spend a few days in Guantanamo. Did a Mediterranean cruise with stops in Israel, Italy, and Greece. 2nd Med cruise was canceled and we wen to IRAN when the hostages were there sailing down around Africa (making me a "Shellback" by crossing the equator). My tour was running down so they flew me to Guam, Hawaii the California. Made the trip all the way around the world. :D
Lots of good times and I learned a lot. Wouldn't talk anyone out of a stint in the Navy, Well worth the time.
-
I guess Lex and Sara are long since gone from this thread. :confused:
-
This is page 4... what else is new? :lol
-
Bringin'em back in so start talking about those magnificent huge funnels!
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7023/6692079541_1aa71a7879_b.jpg)
-
I guess Lex and Sara are long since gone from this thread. :confused:
This was the last time I saw the Saratoga, and the Forestal
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Saratoga.jpg)
That sat side by side at Newport, RI for awhile, but both are gone now.
-
This was the last time I saw the Saratoga, and the Forestal
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Saratoga.jpg)
That sat side by side at Newport, RI for awhile, but both are gone now.
Wrong Saratoga. The subject of this thread is currently at the bottom of Bikini Atoll.
(http://www.bikiniatoll.com/nuclearfleetmap.jpg)
-
First book I ever read as a child was Rendezvous at Midway, I must of checked it out of the library a few times
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vfMVlKW9L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
I am a USS Yorktown fan :)
-
First book I ever read as a child was Rendezvous at Midway, I must of checked it out of the library a few times
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vfMVlKW9L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
I am a USS Yorktown fan :)
She is sitting upright on the bottom and mostly intact last I recall. If a carrier had to be bested in battle, that was the most dignified final resting position one could come to.
I'm more partial to this movie:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/HellDivers1931.jpg)
Beautiful Sister Sara was the star of the picture!
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Here_Comes_the_Navy_poster.jpg)
"The film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. Of historical interest is that a portion of the filming took place aboard the battleship Arizona, which was sunk by the Japanese on December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor. Further, portions of the film also include shots of the dirigible Macon, a year before the accident that destroyed the dirigible with the loss of two crew."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Comes_the_Navy
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/James_Cagney_and_Gloria_Stuart_in_Here_Comes_the_Navy_trailer.jpg)
(http://gonebutnotforgotten.homestead.com/files/Here_Comes_the_Navy6.jpg)
(http://www.barewalls.com/i/c/499792_Here-Comes-The-Navy.jpg)
(http://gonebutnotforgotten.homestead.com/files/Here_Comes_the_Navy1.jpg)
(http://gonebutnotforgotten.homestead.com/files/Arizona4.jpg)
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/135414/Here-Comes-The-Navy-Original-Trailer-.html
-
That movie was released 79-years ago! Likely made 80-81-years ago. My how time flies.
Boo
-
The bottom poster shows the Arizona (or Pennsylvania, its hard to tell) leading the Nevada sisters. Nice. If I recall, this movie also featured life aboard the big tripod masted dreadnoughts.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Follow_the_Fleet_cinema_poster.jpg)
But I think they did a tad more dancing in the movie then they did in real life aboard those battleships. But then again ...they are Navy. :D
-
This movie featured life aboard a PT boat:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_T3kcfzwSN6A/ShH7nwbnxUI/AAAAAAAAC5Y/G1o3vCJB8ck/s1600/mchales-navy.jpg)
-
Wrong Saratoga. The subject of this thread is currently at the bottom of Bikini Atoll.
(http://www.bikiniatoll.com/nuclearfleetmap.jpg)
Ironically considering the contents of this thread, she rests not far from the Prinz Eugen. Prinz Eugen survived the war and was taken as a prize by the USN and used as a dummy ship at Bikini Atoll, just like Saratoga. However she survived the nuclear explosions and was towed to nearby Kwajalein Atoll, where she some time later capsized and sank.
-
Saratoga survived the explosion, too. They had to scuttle her afterwards.
-
Funny how two warships starting out so far apart can share the same fate.
-
Anybody know off hand how Nagato handled the explosion? She's another one I wish we'd preserved.
-
Anybody know off hand how Nagato handled the explosion? She's another one I wish we'd preserved.
~~~~~~
The ship was selected to participate as a target ship in Operation Crossroads, a series of nuclear weapon tests held at Bikini Atoll in mid-1946. In mid-March, Nagato departed Yokosuka for Eniwetok under the command of Captain W. J. Whipple with an American crew of about 180 men supplementing her Japanese crew.[49] The ship was only capable of a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) from her two operating propeller shafts. Her hull had not been repaired from the underwater damage sustained during the attack on 18 July and she leaked enough that her pumps could not keep up. Her consort, the light cruiser Sakawa broke down on 28 March and Nagato attempted to take her in tow, but one of her boilers malfunctioned and the ship ran out of fuel in bad weather. The ship had a list of seven degrees to port by the time tugboats from Eniwetok arrived on 30 March. Towed at a speed of 1 knot (1.9 km/h; 1.2 mph), the ship reached Eniwetok on 4 April where she received temporary repairs. On her trip to Bikini in May, Nagato reached 13 knots (24 km/h; 15 mph).[7]
Operation Crossroads began with the first blast (Test Able), an air burst on 1 July 1946; she was 1,500 meters (1,640 yd) from ground zero and was only lightly damaged. A skeleton crew boarded Nagato to assess the damage and prepare her for the next test on 25 July. As a test, they operated one of her boilers for 36 hours without any problems. For Test Baker, an underwater explosion, the ship was positioned 870 meters (950 yd) from ground zero. Nagato rode out the tsunami of water from the explosion with little apparent damage; she had a slight starboard list of two degrees after the tsunami dissipated. A more thorough assessment could not be made because she was dangerously radioactive. Her list gradually increased over the next five days and she capsized during the night of 29/30 July.[47]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Nagato
~~~~~~
-
They would have been just as beautiful had they been completed as battlecruisers.
(http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/cb/cc-1/700-ihp-mq/IMG_0074.JPG)
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/cb/cc-1/700-ihp-mq/Building_the_lexington.htm (http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/cb/cc-1/700-ihp-mq/Building_the_lexington.htm)
(http://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/lexington-battle-cruiser-drawing.jpg)
-
Sleek and fast!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Lexington_class_battlecruiser2.jpg)
-
Here is a link to great wreck diving photos of Saratoga and Prinz Eugen.
http://jankocian.smugmug.com/Underwater/Wrecks/2873172_PJPjkX/154070339_nTcKRRd#!i=154070339&k=nTcKRRd (http://jankocian.smugmug.com/Underwater/Wrecks/2873172_PJPjkX/154070339_nTcKRRd#!i=154070339&k=nTcKRRd)
-
This thread makes me want to go visit the Lex. It's about 8 minutes from my house. Maybe for thanksgiving.
-
This thread makes me want to go visit the Lex. It's about 8 minutes from my house. Maybe for thanksgiving.
You're not in Lubbock, then. :D
(http://imageshack.us/a/img24/663/v76x.jpg)