Anatomy of the Ship, Why no Modern American BBs?

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

So being the detail geek I am, I love these books. They have the deck plans for the ship in question. For example the book on the Essex Class Carrier Intrepid, has the deck plans for every deck down to the weird decks below the engine rooms. Everything is numbered so you can see what each compartment was used for. It also has detailed drawings of all the gun mounts and various deck fittings, all the portholes and hatches etc. They are a modelers dream in that regard.  

 

The books do vary in detail, the book on the British Carrier Victorious, they detailed out how officer’s staterooms would be laid out, and how the wardroom was set up, but the book on the Intrepid does not, you simply get a large room on the deck plans labeled Wardroom or officers staterooms, etc. 

 

They all include a decent design history and a basic history for the exact ship they are covering. 

 

Books in this series have been done on ships as old as the HMS Victory and USS Constitution, but the newest one seems to be the intrepid, or the one on a Fletcher class Destroyer.

 

It seems odd to me no one has done one for any US Battleship, it’s not as if there is no demand, the ships are popular book topics. With no battleships even in reserve, and the big four setup up as museum ships, along with the North Carolina and Alabama, it seems weird one hasn’t been done on at least the more modern ships.    

 

I have no idea how you would go about publishing one of these books, but I assume it was done with blueprints or deck plans the Navy made based on in the Intrepid case, how she was designed and built at launch not how she is now as a museum ship. Though the one on the Victorious covered the ship from commissioning, through her two major rebuilds. It doesn’t coverer the huge scandal that took place while one of those rebuilds was being done, but it covers all the changes in detail with all new deck plans.

 

So why do I have Anatomy of the Ship Yamoto but not a Anatomy of a Ship Iowa, or North Carolina, or even Tennessee for Christ sake? 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Aircraft-Carrier-Intrepid-Anatomy-Ship/dp/0870219014/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1432878800&sr=8-5&keywords=anatomy+of+a+ship

 

[Belesarius]

My personal guess? The American love of classification.  Considering how recently the Iowa went out of service, and how close in design a lot of the US BBs were, some of the info may still be classified at least Confidential.

[Virdea]

The Iowa class is still extensively classified despite being passed on and now out of service.  Closest you can get to full disclosure is getting a research kit from the North Carolina.  Technically the armor could still be made (some of it is used in medical research) and the cannon could still be drawn.  10 years after being ordered the US could have a ship in the water crazy as it sounds.

 

That said the Navy hates the BBs as much as the Air Force hates the A10s.  Last time they had them they did not want them and saw the BBTFs as Reagan not carrying through with his promise to them of replacing the last four Tikes with Ikes.  

[xthetenth]

Interesting that the information doesn't seem to be attainable for the SoDaks even.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Couldn't someone request to have the blueprints opened as part of the freedom of information act? 

[Belesarius]

Couldn't someone request to have the blueprints opened as part of the freedom of information act? 

Possibly. Not sure how your FOI laws work down there.

[Donward]

Technically, aren't the Iowa's (at least the Wisconsin) still on the inactive reserve with the potential to be called into service again?

 

I guess the Wisconsin got stricken from the register in 2006.

 

Edit: Also, they were briefly considering using the hull of the Kentucky as a guided missile battleship?

 

I don't know how feasible that would be but it SOUNDS awesome!!!

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Technically, aren't the Iowa's (at least the Wisconsin) still on the inactive reserve with the potential to be called into service again?

 

I guess the Wisconsin got stricken from the register in 2006.

 

Edit: Also, they were briefly considering using the hull of the Kentucky as a guided missile battleship?

 

I don't know how feasible that would be but it SOUNDS awesome!!!

 

 

All the Iowas have been stricken, but the Navy still technically owns the pink slip so to speak, for all the Naval Vessels being used as museums.  If the Museum starts having serious financial problems and shuts down the Navy will take possession of the ship.

 

This is why it’s so hard for groups to get the Navy to release a ship to become a museum, they feel with the four Iowas, the three other BBs, three carriers and several cruisers, the market is flooded so to speak.  If a group does not have a clear business plan that plans decades ahead for things like hull repairs and dry dock time, they Navy won’t even consider it. They are also required to keep some parts of the ship mothballed, so it can be used again if needed, limiting what can be opened to the public.

 

There’s a really interesting Article on Nav Weapons about it.  

[Donward]

Wow. Thanks Jeeps. Is the article linkable?

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Here it is!

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/museum1.htm

[D.E. Watters]

You might enjoy these titles:

http://www.amazon.com/Iowa-Class-Battleships-Weapons-Equipment/dp/0870212982/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=0JSS1XPSJJND69V6HGD9

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Battleships-Illustrated-Design-History/dp/0870217151/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0B3T4711X509NSA944Q9

http://www.amazon.com/Battleships-United-States-1935-1992/dp/1557501742/ref=pd_sim_14_44?ie=UTF8&refRID=1F5GC8JKBZXA16VS5MP3

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

You might enjoy these titles:

http://www.amazon.com/Iowa-Class-Battleships-Weapons-Equipment/dp/0870212982/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=0JSS1XPSJJND69V6HGD9

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Battleships-Illustrated-Design-History/dp/0870217151/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0B3T4711X509NSA944Q9

http://www.amazon.com/Battleships-United-States-1935-1992/dp/1557501742/ref=pd_sim_14_44?ie=UTF8&refRID=1F5GC8JKBZXA16VS5MP3

 

I have the first two, the third I'll have to add to the list. Thanks for the tip!

[Virdea]

To answer about FOIA.  I was the FOIA instructor for the USDOJ during 2000-2001 when the model was switched from the Clinton era "must reveal" to the Bush era "must conceal."  In the Clinton era a FOIA request was automatically granted unless it was scuttled by a 5 U.S.C. § 552((x) reason.  That meant a FOIA paperwork person had to release documents UNLESS they could describe why the documents must be retained.  In the Bush era the documents went to a must conceal model where the person who released the documents must do the leg work to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the documents do not fit a 5 U.S.C. § 552((x) reason to deny.  This had two effects - increasing paperwork and lawsuits, and massively decreasing what was sent out.  

 

When I requested Vietnam era AARs and medical documents a number of years back I was initially given them (as a member of DOJ it was easy to file) and then refused just a few months apart based on 5 U.S.C. § 552((1) even though the documents were not classified.  The clerk after getting the Bush era memo put a halt to my document hunts for fear of ending up in jail, and the memo was sometimes accompanied by a "people at the top of government are watching you."  At the time the halls of government were being flooded by young people with new jobs in what was one of the greatest expansions of non-military people in peace time ever recorded, and these young people were very proud of their political appointments, held sometimes extraordinary power, and had next to no training for the tasks they were being set to.  

 

Before anyone starts an anti-Bush tirade, must conceal is not all that harsh, it is just that the documents that the government are willing to fight out in court increases.  I was eventually able to get the documents I wanted, it just took a filing in Federal court to get them.

 

Obama went to a mixed conceal and reveal - domestic is not more open than even Clinton, anything WOT and international political is fought tooth and nail even if it is a memo describing the PM of Sweden's desire for a copy of Angry Birds.  

 

As part of my research class I require every student to apply for and obtain a series of documents from the US Government and they have found great stuff.  One time we got the deck plans for the old CV Ticonderoga.  

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

To answer about FOIA.  I was the FOIA instructor for the USDOJ during 2000-2001 when the model was switched from the Clinton era "must reveal" to the Bush era "must conceal."  In the Clinton era a FOIA request was automatically granted unless it was scuttled by a 5 U.S.C. § 552( (x) reason.  That meant a FOIA paperwork person had to release documents UNLESS they could describe why the documents must be retained.  In the Bush era the documents went to a must conceal model where the person who released the documents must do the leg work to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the documents do not fit a 5 U.S.C. § 552( (x) reason to deny.  This had two effects - increasing paperwork and lawsuits, and massively decreasing what was sent out.  

 

When I requested Vietnam era AARs and medical documents a number of years back I was initially given them (as a member of DOJ it was easy to file) and then refused just a few months apart based on 5 U.S.C. § 552( (1) even though the documents were not classified.  The clerk after getting the Bush era memo put a halt to my document hunts for fear of ending up in jail, and the memo was sometimes accompanied by a "people at the top of government are watching you."  At the time the halls of government were being flooded by young people with new jobs in what was one of the greatest expansions of non-military people in peace time ever recorded, and these young people were very proud of their political appointments, held sometimes extraordinary power, and had next to no training for the tasks they were being set to.  

 

Before anyone starts an anti-Bush tirade, must conceal is not all that harsh, it is just that the documents that the government are willing to fight out in court increases.  I was eventually able to get the documents I wanted, it just took a filing in Federal court to get them.

 

Obama went to a mixed conceal and reveal - domestic is not more open than even Clinton, anything WOT and international political is fought tooth and nail even if it is a memo describing the PM of Sweden's desire for a copy of Angry Birds.  

 

As part of my research class I require every student to apply for and obtain a series of documents from the US Government and they have found great stuff.  One time we got the deck plans for the old CV Ticonderoga.  

 

So they would probably fight tooth and nail to keep the information on the Iowa class classified? I can't be the only one interested right?

[Virdea]

So they would probably fight tooth and nail to keep the information on the Iowa class classified? I can't be the only one interested right?

Yes - since much of it retains top secret clearance they do not have to fight hard.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

UPDATE!!

 

After someone posted a lint to this site.  http://maritime.org/doc/plans/index.htmI found the place index in that link, and in it our plans for three of the Iowa class BBs, like down to what each room was for on every deck etc. Basically an anatomy of a ship book, without the fluff about the ship I already know. 

 

I'm super, mega, hella, stoked!!

 

Download any of the PDFs at that link if you want to geek out on what each and every room and space on a variety of WWII American ships were for. 

[Tied]

My philosophy towards naval battles is that they are usually won by the swarm of smaller cheaper missiles than the handful of carrier killers you can muster

A battleship kinda goes against all of that. And its never a good idea to try to best the one area of naval combat Russia is a heavy hitter in-ship to ship combat