Just how big were the Iowa class battleships?

[Diamondback]

Yes, each progressive class past the old WWI battleships (like were at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941) got longer: the South Dakota class was longer, then the North Carolina class was a bit more, and then finally the Iowa class was our longest. In fact, the Iowa class was ~ 140' longer than the North Carolina vessels , which in turn was ~ 50' longer than the South Dakota ones. They sure stretched them out.

Actually, NC/Washington were first, then the South Dakotas were shorter, then the Iowas went longer still. The unbuilt Montanas (think Iowa stretched to add a fourth main turret) would have been too big for the Panama Canal. Still similar looking enough that Alabama stunt-doubled for Missouri in Under Siege.

[Pacific5th]

Actually, NC/Washington were first, then the South Dakotas were shorter, then the Iowas went longer still. The unbuilt Montanas (think Iowa stretched to add a fourth main turret) would have been too big for the Panama Canal. Still similar looking enough that Alabama stunt-doubled for Missouri in Under Siege.

A lot of the equipment on the S Dakota class was the same or close enough that the Navy used parts off of some of the survivors when they reactivated the Iowas in the 80’s.

Anyways as big as they are I was suprised how small the Missouri seemed when the LHD I got stuck on docked across from it in Pearl. It was a great ship to tour though. If they still had sea service Marines I would have considered staying in.

[chuckman]

The Iowa class were longer than North Carolina class goodly, just a small tad faster, but the main difference were the NC-class Mk6 guns and the Iowa-class Mk7 guns. The Mk7 were the guns planned for the Montana class. The USS North Carolina had the most battle stars of any WW2 battleship, but that only means they were at more locations for battle, not representative of any tech or class.

My family I go to the USS NC about every couple or 3 years when we are in Wilmington.

[ddbtoth]

Interesting series on the New Jersey

https://youtu.be/nYCSYoWuwKM?si=wxxtmxuBWXE8YcJe

The museum director needs some Rogaine, and can be dry sometimes, but you go all over the ship, literally.

[Diamondback]

The Iowa class were longer than North Carolina class goodly, just a small tad faster, but the main difference were the NC-class Mk6 guns and the Iowa-class Mk7 guns. The Mk7 were the guns planned for the Montana class. The USS North Carolina had the most battle stars of any WW2 battleship, but that only means they were at more locations for battle, not representative of any tech or class.

My family I go to the USS NC about every couple or 3 years when we are in Wilmington.

Of interest is at one night battle in the Solomons, South Dakota had an electrical failure and while she took the bulk of Japanese fire older Washington hidden by four flaming destroyer wrecks threw the knockouts that killed IJN Kirishima.

I wanna say the older ships were 16"/45 - naval gun length is measured in calibers, for example the Mk6 is 45x16 or 720" (60') barrel length. The 16"/50 Mk7 is five calibers, or 6'8", longer AND if memory serves has a stronger chamber for a beefier powder charge.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I read some articles about the armor on the battleships and how it was a compromise on where to place it, but also on what kind of ranges, and therefore angles the armor would be most effective. And then all the engineeering into the torpedo defenses. Didn’t we talk about this once before?

[Hank6046]

I was parked across from the USS Missouri in Pearl Harbor when I was deployed to 13th MEU (USS Boxer) it was a surreal experience for sure
[IMG]110301-N-WP746-494 by U.S. Pacific Fleet, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Diamondback]

I read some articles about the armor on the battleships and how it was a compromise on where to place it, but also on what kind of ranges, and therefore angles the armor would be most effective. And then all the engineeering into the torpedo defenses. Didn’t we talk about this once before?

Yes, we did. Damned if I remember when/where though... and the funny thing is Iowa was as close to "no compromise best possible everything" as you can get--essentially the split in the big-gun lines of battleship (heavy armor but slow and unmaneuverable) vs battlecruiser (fast and maneuverable but a lightly protected "glass cannon," like HMS Hood) reconverged into a single awesomely powerful and awesomely expensive platform that no other country could have afforded to develop and deploy.

[ABNAK]

Of interest is at one night battle in the Solomons, South Dakota had an electrical failure and while she took the bulk of Japanese fire older Washington hidden by four flaming destroyer wrecks threw the knockouts that killed IJN Kirishima.

I wanna say the older ships were 16"/45 - naval gun length is measured in calibers, for example the Mk6 is 45x16 or 720" (60') barrel length. The 16"/50 Mk7 is five calibers, or 6'8", longer AND if memory serves has a stronger chamber for a beefier powder charge.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

Battle damage to the Kirishima: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgr...geAnalysis.php

A number hit at or below the waterline, no doubt causing flooding problems in addition to the topside hits.

[ABNAK]

I read some articles about the armor on the battleships and how it was a compromise on where to place it, but also on what kind of ranges, and therefore angles the armor would be most effective. And then all the engineeering into the torpedo defenses. Didn’t we talk about this once before?

We may have rehashed the battleship stats a few years back but the genesis of this thread was the pic in my OP with the latest USN battleship design sitting next to an ancestral corpse (not to be crude). The pinnacle of US battleship design vs the pre-WWI product. LOL I think a lot of what we mull over with regards to military history is a re-do!