USS Tennessee

[PRC]

Came across this picture, thought it was cool and worth sharing. 

USS Tennessee



Wiki Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tennessee_%28BB-43%29

Image shows widening after damage sustained at Pearl Harbour.  From wiki: As part of the new policy of the Two-Ocean-Navy, American battleships had been designed within a beam constraint of 108 feet (33 m) in order to pass through the locks of the Panama Canal. After being similarly rebuilt, the Tennessee, the California, and the West Virginia were broadened to 114 feet (35 m) wide, limiting their use in wartime to the Pacific Theater of Operations.

[The Brain]

Too fat, too old.

[grumbler]

I remember reading a n article, I think from the Procedings, that argued that the post-Pearl-harbor rebuildings were way over-done, with only modest actual combat effectiveness increases at the cost of diverting materials from more useful projects, and delaying the badly-needed NGFS capabilities of the battleships for nine unnecessary months. 

It is a great picture, though.  She may be fat, but she can sing.

[Neil]

I wonder if the bulges weren't necessary though?  Not just from an anti-torpedo standpoint, but just because they were adding so much topweight to the ship.  Otherwise, you end up like the British R-class battleships, which by the end of the war were pretty scary.  And the old US battleships were getting a lot more additions than the R-class did, what with those twin 5/38 turrets.

It's hard to fault them for ensuring that the ships were sent out with a decent AA suite, given Pearl Harbour and all that.

That's a really great picture.  I love seeing warships from that angle.

[grumbler]

I wonder if the bulges weren't necessary though?  Not just from an anti-torpedo standpoint, but just because they were adding so much topweight to the ship.  Otherwise, you end up like the British R-class battleships, which by the end of the war were pretty scary.  And the old US battleships were getting a lot more additions than the R-class did, what with those twin 5/38 turrets.

It's hard to fault them for ensuring that the ships were sent out with a decent AA suite, given Pearl Harbour and all that.

That's a really great picture.  I love seeing warships from that angle.

Yes, the bulges were necessary for stability, given that the ships had so much added topside weight.  The point of the article was that most of that added weight didn't add that much to the ships' effective fighting power, given the missions that they were to be tasked with.  The 5"/25 guns they already had would have, combined with the 40mm batteries they were capable of adding, would have given them sufficient AA power for self-defense, and removing the 5"/50 surface battery could have accommodated the extra light AA and electronics without bulging.  Adding the 5"/38s and keeping the armored conn was overkill.  At least, that's how I remember the argument. 

The counter-argument, I suppose, is that the planners couldn't know what missions the ships would be assigned (they did, after all, end up fighting a surface engagement) and so overkill was worth the cost in time and materials.

[CountDeMoney]

Did the extra widening increase stability with targeting and volley rate of fire?

[grumbler]

Did the extra widening increase stability with targeting and volley rate of fire?

Actually, no.  The bulging caused a more "stiff" and less predictable roll, and therefor one harder for the FC computers to compensate for.

[Neil]

I wonder if the bulges weren't necessary though?  Not just from an anti-torpedo standpoint, but just because they were adding so much topweight to the ship.  Otherwise, you end up like the British R-class battleships, which by the end of the war were pretty scary.  And the old US battleships were getting a lot more additions than the R-class did, what with those twin 5/38 turrets.

It's hard to fault them for ensuring that the ships were sent out with a decent AA suite, given Pearl Harbour and all that.

That's a really great picture.  I love seeing warships from that angle.

Yes, the bulges were necessary for stability, given that the ships had so much added topside weight.  The point of the article was that most of that added weight didn't add that much to the ships' effective fighting power, given the missions that they were to be tasked with.  The 5"/25 guns they already had would have, combined with the 40mm batteries they were capable of adding, would have given them sufficient AA power for self-defense, and removing the 5"/50 surface battery could have accommodated the extra light AA and electronics without bulging.  Adding the 5"/38s and keeping the armored conn was overkill.  At least, that's how I remember the argument. 

The counter-argument, I suppose, is that the planners couldn't know what missions the ships would be assigned (they did, after all, end up fighting a surface engagement) and so overkill was worth the cost in time and materials.

Yeah, I would have a hard time discounting the battleship and a surface battle, given the way things had gone the first 2 1/2 years of World War 2.  Given the size and power of the Japanese battleline, it would be unwise to discount it.  It's easy to look back now and realize that the main examples of bombers attacking warships prior to Force Z were the Luftwaffe, who were laughably underarmed and unprepared, but at the time the USN can't be blamed for playing it safe.  It would have sucked for the ship to be sunk again, and they might have judged that there wouldn't be much need for the Tennessee in the Atlantic.  After all, the RN and USN had a dozen or so obsolete battleships between them for gunfire support in the Atlantic.

[grumbler]

Yeah, I would have a hard time discounting the battleship and a surface battle, given the way things had gone the first 2 1/2 years of World War 2.  Given the size and power of the Japanese battleline, it would be unwise to discount it.  It's easy to look back now and realize that the main examples of bombers attacking warships prior to Force Z were the Luftwaffe, who were laughably underarmed and unprepared, but at the time the USN can't be blamed for playing it safe.  It would have sucked for the ship to be sunk again, and they might have judged that there wouldn't be much need for the Tennessee in the Atlantic.  After all, the RN and USN had a dozen or so obsolete battleships between them for gunfire support in the Atlantic.

I don't think that anyone knowledgeable would argue that the bulging was bad because the ships couldn't serve in the Atlantic - they could, after all, just sail around South America.  Wikipedia articles aren't really worth quoting, as their authors frequently make this kind of mistake.

[Neil]

I didn't read the wiki article. 

I also wanted to make sure that I insulted airpower, in the form of the Luftwaffe.  Because Ide is wrong.

[grumbler]

I didn't read the wiki article. 

I also wanted to make sure that I insulted airpower, in the form of the Luftwaffe.  Because Ide is wrong.

Don't insult the Luftwaffe; they were the first to prove that strategic bombing was a really stupid way to waste resources, and, thus, that Ide is wrong.  Tactical air power, under the control of the war fighter, is a very useful thing, indeed.  The Luftwaffe's flaws were caused by its not being under army control, and therefor it lacked direction and was overly bureaucratic.  Had Hitler made the Luftwaffea part of Das Heer, I believe it would have been a successful organization.

[Neil]

I didn't read the wiki article. 

I also wanted to make sure that I insulted airpower, in the form of the Luftwaffe.  Because Ide is wrong.

Don't insult the Luftwaffe; they were the first to prove that strategic bombing was a really stupid way to waste resources, and, thus, that Ide is wrong.  Tactical air power, under the control of the war fighter, is a very useful thing, indeed.  The Luftwaffe's flaws were caused by its not being under army control, and therefor it lacked direction and was overly bureaucratic.  Had Hitler made the Luftwaffea part of Das Heer, I believe it would have been a successful organization.

They were also sorta bad at attacking ships.  The Stuka was pretty crap compared to the carrier dive bombers being used in the Pacific, and the He-111 was an awful torpedo bomber.  Can you imagine if the Germans had ever tried a cross-Channel invasion?  Slaughter.

[PDH]

[David Attenborough] Now we see the bait has been laid, in an amazing way, to lure in the prey.  Countless years of evolution have gone into this trap, and the creator has made it perfectly. [/David Attenborough]

[grumbler]

They were also sorta bad at attacking ships.  The Stuka was pretty crap compared to the carrier dive bombers being used in the Pacific, and the He-111 was an awful torpedo bomber.  Can you imagine if the Germans had ever tried a cross-Channel invasion?  Slaughter.

The Luftwaffe was a ground-support type air force, and wouldn't be good at attacking ships (the USAAF and the RAF were bad at that, as well).  The Stuka was crap compared to the Dauntless, but was a better dive bomber than the Val (longer-ranged, bigger load, and better-protected).  The Germans never had an effective aerial torpedo, so all their torpedo bombers were crap, not just the He-111.

[Neil]

The early Stukas, of the sort used in the Battle of Britain (before they put the improved engine in them) where inferior to the Val in speed and range.  I will give you the bombload, armour and the torpedo.  Looking at wiki, it actually give better figures for the Val in range and speed even over the Junker Jumo Stuka, but I wonder if they might be comparing an unloaded Val to a loaded Stuka.