Better there than at San Francisco.

Should have been Des Moines. What a sight!

City supervisors had voted against the resolution out of opposition to the U.S. military's then-policy of "don't ask, don't tell,"

Classic! What was an unimportant stance then, & has since been resolved by history, cost this beautiful city so many tourist $. Serves them right.

Wonderful old lady retiring, showing future generations how we were, once upon a time, such a strong and globally admired country.

Good Luck & congratulations to The Pacific Battleship Center

Roosevelt did not travel on the Iowa to sign the Atlantic charter with Churchill; it was the Heavy cruiser Augusta; the Iowa (first of the Iowa class super battleships)was not even built yet; it's sister ships the Missouri and New jersey, were the last battle-wagons ever constructed, the design was so far a head of anything when they were launched that the world marveled; a stable gun platform, with a manual computer firring system, which could throw a 16 inch projectile the size of a Volkswagen beetle 25 miles and hit within 100 feet of the target, the last use of the class was in the first gulf war, when they rained down tomahawk missiles on Iraqi, and their guns flattened many installations.

the msnbc writers should do a little more homework.

Mario, yes it would have been, but Iowa has no navigable rivers to make this happen, let alone ways to bypass our large recreational lakes. At least we contributed to its refitting as a museum.

Mr. Saxon, one might say that you too should do some research. According to the numerous web pages about the USS Iowa, it was the ship that carried FDR across the Atlantic. Either way, it is a fitting end to an important ship.

Sources : Wikipedia (USS IOWA BB-61), and ussiowa.org (on the "Detail History" page).

Mr. American -

We'll dig a ditch. We've done it before big enough for a battleship!

The USS Iowa was used by Roosevelt in 1943 to meet in Tehran, with Churchill, Stalin, and others at what is known as the "Tehran Conference." The Augusta was used for the "Atlantic Charter," which is not referenced in the article in any fashion, or manner.

I'm glad that they rejected it in San Frankenstein - It will now be where it will be appreciated, and closer for me to visit.

GREAT! I can't wait to see her, first the shuttle and now this! Glad to see when they don't go to scrap. The young need to remember the past and what was done for their future, perhaps then (if reminded enough) they will understand and this self loathing America has bread will go away....

joe johnson; right I read to fast, thanks for clarifying.

Saxon - you are not completely wrong though- I can eaily see where you got confused - The AUgusta was used as a Presidential Flagship a couple of times and the most improtant IMHO time was transporting Truman for the Potsdam conference.

REgarding the use of this ship as a musuem - she deservies it - the ship and her crew served this country well and deserve the recognition. NOw what I hope is that the USS Enterprise gets similar treatment and becomes a floating Museum at old NAS Alameda where she was home proted for years. It was a crime that the Big E from WWII was not properly preserved now that was a ship that deserved Musem status.

For everyone who thinks this ship should be in berthed in Iowa look at a map. Iowa is land locked and probably does not have a river capable of holding this ship. These battleships are big, very very big. Well at least it is going to be preserved. This is a part of our history. If i ever get out ther I'll visit.

I've read through many of the comments on this story. I appreciate the fact that folks have strong feelings about this - - both in wanting to complete or correct the story for historical accuracy, or to describe their personal feelings about the ship, good or bad. I don't begrudge anyone their own comments on this.

What I know is this. I grew up in Mobile, Alabama. As a child in the early 60's, I raked leaves to earn 25 cents, which I contributed to the fund-raising effort to bring home ALABAMA, BB-60. When she was towed up Mobile Bay, I was there. Since then, I've visited her many, many, many times. I've taken friends to see her. I've taken my wife and children to see her. Every time I step aboard her main deck, I feel indebted to her builders, her officers, her crew members, and their families. When I see the National Colors and the signal flags designating her call sign -- November Echo Mike Whiskey -- hoisted on her mast, I feel proud. When I climb around below decks, and see the living quarters, the galley with its recipe for beef stew posted on the wall (requiring 1000 pounds of beef - for one meal!), I feel grateful to all of those who served her. Every now and then, I even get a little teary, though I try to hide that part.

I hope that the folks in Los Angeles will support her and love her and enjoy her as much as I have enjoyed the "Mighty A." I'm glad that you've offered her a permanent home. BRAVO ZULU to "The Big Stick." And BRAVO ZULU to those who have worked to preserve her.

The funds included $3 million from the state of Iowa, where residents have taken a keen interest in the ship, Kent said.

Sounds like a waste of Iowa state funds. I mean what does the state of Iowa get out of it?

I hope that the folks in Los Angeles will support her and love her and enjoy her as much as I have enjoyed the "Mighty A."

I hope so too, but unfortunately the same can't be said about the QUEEN MARY just a few miles away in neighboring Long Beach. The City has practically trashed that ship over the last 45 years, but I hope the IOWA will get better treatment.

This is fantastic. I absolutely love the old World War II battle wagons. Two years ago while attending my sons graduation from C-school in Damn Neck, VA., I was able to visit the USS Wisconsin (a sister ship to Iowa) docked in Norfolk, VA. Didn't get to explore as much of the ship as I had hoped but it was still a thrill to walk the decks of this great ship. I have also been on the Alabama. Both are a must see if you're in the areas where they're docked.

I had the chance to tour the Missouri at Bremerton, WA before they towed her to Pearl Harbor. These were the state of the art one day, obsolete the next, but amazing vessels and bad news to anyone who was looking for a fight.

Don't forget the U.S.S. North Carolina, (the Show Boat), docked at Wilmington, N.C., one of the first of America's modern battleships.

It certainly would be difficult to get the USS Iowa to a landlocked state. Her stats are: draft: 37 feet 2 inches; length: 877 feet 3 inches: beam (width at her widest point): 108 feet 2 inches; displacement: 45,000 tons. From the waterline, the tallest mast was at 175 feet.

I had the good luck to see her in the channel coming back from exercises while in San Diego. There was no mistaking her impressive silhouette. Absolutely breathtaking.

The funds included $3 million from the state of Iowa, where residents have taken a keen interest in the ship, Kent said.

Sounds like a waste of Iowa state funds. I mean what does the state of Iowa get out of it?

What did military junta in control of Burma who gave the US government enough teak to redeck the US battleship North Carolina, millions of dollars worth of teak which is one of the most expensive woods in the world, get out of it?

Preserving a key historical ship, a ship thousands served on and some died on, that played a major role in the course of human events, other than that, not much....wow.

I have no ties to the Navy, and I'm a 1st generation immigrant with dual citizenship. Yet I've walked 5 of the 9 remaining Battleships: Massachusettes, North Carolina, New Jersey, Missouri and Arizona *, each one years apart from the others.
They really are not only symbols of a bygone era, but also a fine example of what America can accomplish when she sets her mind to something... you can't help but be impressed by the crews that worked these ships and the people that built them.

(* - Hey, it's still on the list of active ships!)

I hope to someday visit the Iowa, and the others that are left too (Texas, Wisconsin and Alabama).

Mark,

Well it would be hard to imagine that you walked the planks of the Arizona, but I get what you meant.

Arizona though remain's an active ship because of the history, not of anything else. What did you mean by 'years apart from the others' though, because the New Jersey, Missouri and the Iowa are all from the same class, so they were generally built at about the same time. The other two are older than the Iowa class ships but still within the WWII era.

The one major thing about the US shipbuilding industry in WWII is that it really was the only major shipbuilding industry of any combatant to not be subject to any bombing. Canada and Australia could build ships, but nothing like a battleship or an aircraft carrier. As the war went on, all the other combatants had to deal with bombardment. This actually led to changes in the manufacture of ships today that we still can see. For example, the practice of building ships in pieces and assembling them at the shipyard is a practice started by the Germans to decrease the amount of time that a ship would be under construction at the docks, making it less likely that it would be subject to bombing raids.

Jonathan:
Well, of course. It's kind of hard to walk a sunken ship, but the memorial is as close as most of us will every get to it.
Oh, just that I walked the Massachusettes in 1989, the North Carolina in 1996, the Missouri & Arizona in 2008 and the New Jersey in 2011.

Absolutely true. Though had the V-3s come out (or if the Luftwaffe could have set up shop in the Azores), that would have ended at least on the East Coast.

materials shortages would have made it impossible for the V3's to have been anything but a gnat's breakfast, even if they could be built (they would have required guidance systems far more sophisticated than what was available back then as well). Even the V2's were nothing more than a nuisance, and did more to instil fear rather than substantive damage. Without a nuclear warhead, a missile is pretty much more bark than bite (unless you have a very specific target that you are going after and then you require a guidance system that can guide you there).

The V2 rocket was more a portend for the future, rather than a weapon for the time.

Darthdon...Ive been to the North Carolina twice. Cool to see it but the Iowa class are just monsters. The Jersey is just awesome to be aboard.

Jonathan - ... like I said, if.
Fortunately the possible chains of events that could have made that possible didn't materialize. Had Operation Crossbow bombing been a failure it would have meant a LOT more V-2s.
Or had the Germans finally gotten the proximity fuse -- something that would have been likely had either the Allied Italian campaign or D-Day not been a success or had the Soviets lost at Kharkov as they would have had more time and resources. Just because the V-2 wasn't very effective in our history doesn't mean it couldn't have been.

mark,

The V2 (or any subsequent developments of that time) could never have been anything more than weapons of terror, rather than destruction. The reason is cost. The weapons payload of the V2 was essentially less than a portion of the payload of an He-111 bomber, and the cost of the rocket was higher. For a country that was essentially locked (by the time the V2's were launched, the war was essentially already lost, as Germany was largely contained, and had limits on the availability of raw materials, something that the US never had limits on during the war). The range of the rocket was also limited because of the lack of guidance systems that could turn the rocket into stable weapons platforms, which needed the postwar developments turn the rocket into a true weapon.

The V2 was an amazing development, and it WAS a game changer, just not for that war, but for the subsequent war that followed, the cold war, because it made the horror of nuclear weapons possible, and creating the military stalemate that lasted essentially for the next 30 years.

Jonathan, if the V-2 could have been air-bursted, it would have considerably increased its damage. Likewise, the beam guidance system was coming along and was increasing accuracy. If the Germans didn't assume that the Brits were telling the truth about V-2 strikes overshooting London by miles (which they weren't, but the subsequent re-ranging meant that they undershot instead) that would have made a difference as well.

Yes exactly! How many He-111s were left by August 1944? How many crews? Damned few. The whole point of the V-2 was that it could deliver a payload and not be shot down. It rendered Allied air superiority moot.

I agree, under the circumstances it (fortunately!) had no real chance to do anything to turn the course of the war. My overall point, however, is that it wouldn't have taken all that much for Germany not to have been so contained: any of those four things I mentioned above could have made the difference.

ok, you are getting into things that have no relevance in WWII weapons technology. If the limit of a rocket is a thousand pound bomb, whether that be nuclear or conventional, that is still the limit. A thousand pound conventional bomb that is detonated as an air burst is about as effective as a hailstorm. That germany never got close to a nuclear warhead (primarily because of its aversion to anything jewish, and einstein's theories were prime in the development of the atomic bomb) is about all you need to know about that.

The He-111 was outdated in 1941 by the way, let alone 1944. That Germany was never able to develop a bomber that could really take up the role as a primary offensive strategic bomber alone should tell you that Germany's cause was lost long before it became apparent. But not only were there no He-111's that could do repeated damage, there wasn't much of anything left in the Luftwaffe. That each V2 took just as much industrial effort as each He-111 yet could only be used once, and could only carry a fraction of the payload of the He-111 (which wasn't even a heavy bomber, which is something the Germans were never able to do, partly through policy, but partly though the nature of german industry) should make it apparent that the use of the V2's was much more about desperation as it was about military tactics. At the time, it was a weapon of terror, not a weapon of war.

It is pointless to talk about what could have been, the V2 came too late to make a difference, and the technology of the time just wouldn't have allowed the Germans to progress much beyond the V2. It didn't matter about whether or not the british were telling the truth about targeting, because without knowing what those targets really were, there is no way to make that determination. The germans weren't trying to hit a target, they were just 'lobbing' the rockets in the general direction, and hoping that it would land in the right area. It was essentially a ballistic projectile exercise with the ascent being powered instead of just being shot out of a cannon. This is something that would not have worked when trying to target the east coast of the US.

Jonathan,
You're the only one talking about nuclear. I'm talking about the effective yields of explosives, and with *any* explosive, a timed airburst causes more damage over a larger area than one that explodes into the earth, as basic physics tells us that the soil takes up a lot of the energy of the impact. Sure, the overall energy is a bit lower, but then you're not looking for pin-point accuracy.
That's the whole reason for timed fuses... both nuclear and conventional. Airbursting (artillery shell, later aircraft bombing) goes back as far as the US War of Independence (thank you, Henry Shrapnel!) and was highly popular in the Napoleonic Wars straight through to the modern day. When you're bombing large targets that aren't hardened such factories, airfields and the like, you want to deal damage over a wider area equally to maximize the destruction. If you want to take out say an armored blockhouse? Then sure, you don't need to airburst. And that's all you need to know about that. :-D

Yes, which is a reason why I was wondering why you brought it up as a cost-savings measure. Exactly so, the V-2 was a weapon of terror, but again my point is that had things gone slightly differently the V-2 would have enjoyed a larger and longer production run with a reasonably good guidance system for the time.

Er, you're the one that took up the discussion. You made a point about American shipbuilding. I made a remark about V-3s or the Luftwaffe bombing the US from the Azores would have disallowed the US from building ships with impunity.
The V-2 didn't necessarily come too late, had any of those four things I mentioned turned out in their favor. If you believe that it came too late... you must consider that if there were more time, it may not have been too late. Had the war in Europe dragged on into 1946 or 1947, it is entirely possibly that the US would have fallen under German bombing. (This of course assumes that Allied bombing had been checked by the Germans and that at least one of the three fronts held for them -- BIG ifs!).
If it is pointless to talk about what could have been, what's the sense about talking what may never be? Yet we do that all the time on the Science pages.

Airbursting of a 500 pound bomb doesn't work at night in an urban area, because everyone is indoors in brick structures. Same thing with a 2000 pound bomb. You need the impact, then the internal detonation to create the destruction. The night part is just because everyone is indoors at the time.

You may want to look at what Airbursting is really used for these days (it really isn' shrapnel).

There are many forms of cost, and in the case of the german war effort, that is in the cost of materials and its impact on the construction of other tools of war.

As for the V3, again, without an appropriate guidance system, it wouldn't have been feasible. Yes today, we look at it, and we think, oh that isn't so hard, but back then, it was a VERY different story. It just wasn't.

As for timing, NONE of the 4 things were able to turn into their favor, so there is no real point. And again, you don't seem to get, strategically, the V2 couldn't do anything of note to england, why would you think that a V3 could have done anything to the US. Again, it was a weapon of terror, not a weapon of war. Considering that the success rate of the V2 was far from perfect, and they were having production problems as it was, even if they could have gotten one A3 made, and it hit the US (with a massive stroke of luck), what would be the point of spending all those resources to launch one single warhead.

They would have had better luck sending a Condor to do the bombing mission, higher chance of success and could carry many bombs to boot.

Good catch on the Montana flub, Anlushac.

Yes nice catch, and thanks for the addition of the names. I built a model of the Iowa class as a child and remembered the class had 4 ships but forget the New Jersy and never knew about the other 2 planned ones.

Anlushac, I was all set to post the same. However, the Montanas were not to replace the Iowas, but rather to form the core of a conventional battle-line. As a result, the Montanas were to have the same 27 knot top speed as the North Carolinas and South Dakotas.

The nature of the war in the pacific, as fought by the US, rendered the conventional battle-line obsolete. As such the Montanas and the last two Iowas were not built. In fact though, the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal demonstrated that battleships were not irrelevant.

thank you for the catch. True to internet reporting, msnbc, or for that matter, Reuters (who contributed the story) has done a great job of flubbing on the most simple of reporting. I am completely partial to the Iowa Class battleships as the last battleship to enter service, the mighty USS Wisconsin (BB-64), is the namesake for my home state. It is the biggest of the battleships, and therefore according to me, the best.

Its hard to understand why the US Navy thinks a Destroyer has the same firepower as an Iowa Class Battleship. The US Congress passed a law saying 2 Iowa class Battleships had to be in reserve until an equal replacement could be built.

The US Navy declared USS Zumwalt DDG 1000 to be superior to an Iowa Class. I think that claim is bulk if you ask me. They just wanted to be rid of a great Battleship.

I also noticed that as of 06.53 (Central Time) MSNBC has NOT corrected the glaring error of calling an Iowa Class Battleship a Montana Class.

And thats my opinion.

I too noticed the error about the Montana class...

One of the more obscure tidbits about the Montana class is that at one point, they were intended to be "Yamato Killers" designed to take on and defeat the Yamato class Japanese battleships. As such, the design at one point included 4 turrets containing 4 18"/54 main battery guns. This was dropped when it was discovered that there was no way the ship could reach even 20 knots with that much weight. The guns, the structure for the turrets and barbettes, and the projectiles would have added something like 4200 more tons of weight to the ship. That particular design study was 1,021 feet long, with a 138 foot beam.

The Montana class finally ended up with 3 x 3 18"/47 main battery in the final design, and the beginnings of a keel was actually laid for the Montana, but it was not complete, and no other work was ever done. Only one of the original 18" guns still exists, and it is at the Dahlgren Weapons Center in Virginia. There is a photograph of the gun barrel on the Naval Weapons (navweps dot com) website, and parked next to it is a VW Beetle. The car is dwarfed by the gun barrel... :)

As far as I know, there are only two of the experimental 18" shells remaining.

Also of interesting historical note, Montana is the only state not represented on the Naval rolls with a ship name.

It's a shame these ships aren't still in active service. Ask any Marine who has ever been on an assault, and they will tell you that there is no cover fire better than that of a battleship laying 20 miles offshore, lobbing 2700 lb shells at enemy coastal installations.

I saw somewhere on the board that someone thought Montana had not been used by the US Navy. I looked it up on Wikipedia and found this Armored Cruiser from the early 1900's; USS Montana (ACR-13). The Wikipedia Article has a photo of the Cruiser entering Havana Harbor in 1910AD.

That jumped out at me too.

Magnum Serpintine, while I understand and agree with what you are saying, but after 6-7 decades the Navy will have a more powerful ship than the Iowa class, but not until the rail guns are installed.

Missiles are great, but an Iowa class can heave NINE shells TWO rounds per minute over 20 miles. You simply cant carry and fire that many missiles at that rate to equal a Battleship on a modern Cruiser

The rail gun will fire TEN rounds per minute with a range up to 100 miles compared to Iowa's 25 or so.

Shows how awesome these battleships really are when it takes 7 decades and every bit of technical and scientific know-how we have as Americans to even match their power much less out do them.

And for the record, all 4 Iowa class ships are preserves and many of the other key battleships from previous classes like the Alabama and the NOrth Carolina(the most decorated and still as she was in '46) Also the Texas from the WWI Great White Fleet. These ships are getting the respect and care they deserve which is awesome

Post-WW II they did provide artillery support for combat ashore. But the battle line was gone forever.

@The Evil Tessmacher

The experimental 18" gun tested at Dahlgren was actually for a different Montana (BB-51) circa 1920. She would have been a follow-on to the South Dakota class ships, but had a history almost identical to the later Montana that would have been a follow-on to the Iowa class. Both were planned as four-turret twelve gun ships, and both got at least as far as a keel being laid down. But neither was completed.

I should have mentioned that the 18" gun was abandoned before BB-51. Had she been completed, she would have been a South Dakota class BB with twelve 16" guns.

Mario, the battle line was gone because we and the British sunk every Japanese and German battleship afloat and the few left we scuttled after the war.

In fact, every single ship from the Pearl Harbor attack was hunted down and sunk, they are ALL on the bottom of the Pacific.

Our battleships are the last ones standing, victorious. Nothing sad about that.

The Montana Class BB keels were used to build the U.S.S. Franklin D. ROOSEVELT and the U.S.S. Midway Aircraft Carriers when it was determined the Aircraft Carrier NOT the Battleship would be the core of a battle group in the future.

The Evil Tessmacher-#4.6 - You can also add those of us from Chosin Reservoir were also under those guns protection/cover. When those shells landed there was an instant housebasement dug for the hundreds of Chink/Koreans to be piled in that it wiped out - Like you also said could put one in your hip pocket from24-25 miles away. All we knew/saw was the gunflashes over the horizon - 5 seconds later all Hell come raining down - Bless those 16's; USMC air transports that evacuated our wounded initially; USMATS, Too~!~! Think it was the Wisconsin or New Jersy, possibly both, as they were there together there for awhile.

Without any of them - We wouldn't be having this converstion~!~!

CWR,M/Sgt. 1st Batt.12th Reg.,1st MarDiv

DaSarge - Yes, those 16" shells flew over us at the DMZ in Vietnam in '68 also fried by the U.S.S. New Jersey. First the Lightning and then the Thunder and then the sound of the shells flying over our heads to inland targets and across the DMZ to silence the NVA big guns who had us zero'ed in on their sights. Welcome Home and Thank You for your Service. Mike RICE Dong Ha/Cua Viet 68-69.

DaSarge, A Vet,

I know how you feel. I too got to see those 16" guns fire in anger. USS New Jersey, Beruit, Nov. '83 & Feb '84.

One salvo of that kind of firepower is worth a year of diplomacy!

There is no such thing as a problem that can not be solved through the proper application of high explosives.

Solomon Kane - I salute you Sir, Thank You for Your Service and Welcome Home. It is a fact that seeing those big guns fire is something you never forget. Peace. I've got a picture of the Aircraft Carrier Ronald Reagen coming straight at you at full speed. the caption under the picture merely says "94,000 tons of diplomacy".

TY.

That picture of the Reagan ( built in a large part by Northrop Grumman, who now signs my paychecks ), is a popular one at NGC.

ScoMata,

Although the Zummy's Advanced Gun/Rail Gun system is impressive..., most impressive..., it is not a Battleship yet. A ship with one or two gun system firing 6.1" shells, even at 10 rounds a minute each, in no way comes close to the firepower of the 16" guns of the Iowa class Battleships. 9 - 2000+ lb shells, at 2 rds. each @ min., each one of which could penetrate 30 ft. of reinforced concrete before exploding, comes to over 36,000 lbs. of destruction delivered on target every minute. That's within 25 miles of the ship. And had they kept developing the Sabot and RAP rounds, both the 8" and 11" ones, the effective range, went out to the same 100 mile range.

All this new technology on gun systems looks good on paper, and sounds good in front of a senate committee, but the real effectivness of any NGFS is measured by the troops on the beach. I'm afraid that the Zumwalt class, whatever the gun system, will never be equal, or even close to, as good as a Iowa class Battleship parked offshore.

jukebox.... he had polio... It allowed a small amount of movement such as standing but not walking

Jukeboxfun - Guess they don't teach history in our schools any more only much less! That is why our workers have no jobs they party instead of study. Your moniker is very apt!

A VW Bug is not 16 inches in diameter, so this ship cannot fire something the "size" of it. I believe the correct term is "mass"

The Main Guns 3)16"/50 Cal. MK7 3-Gun capable of firing

the following rounds

1900lb Mark 13 AC Projectile

2700lb Mark 8 AP Projectile

The pricey missiles can also do the bombarding from 900 miles away as opposed to 24 miles away and hit their target with an extreme degree of accuracy. This negates the need to fire dozens of rounds and provides a substantial safety barrier for the 1000 to 1 price.

ohwow....missiles can be brougt down, the 16" rounds cant be...so there are advantages to both....

Carriers made battleships obsolete.

The decision to not scrap them has nothing to do with the armor. It is about making money off them. The concept of the battleship became obsolete with Pearl Harbor and sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse. Most people think a battleship has thick armor everywhere. A ship could not float if that was the case. The waterline along machinery spaces and magazines was armored as was conning tower, turrets, barbettes and deck. Deck armor being much less thick. It was impossible to armor the fire control directors so to eliminate the effectiveness of a battleship all you had to do was knock out the directors. Then it cant see to shoot except in local control which is not effective over the horizon. Also the only defense against torpedoes hitting below the armored belt was compartmentation. Today's torpedoes that are designed to explode beneath the keel and break a ships back would not be stopped by the defense measures designed into the Iowas. They would be death traps for thousands of people. The value of the 16" gun has been overcome with other weapons. The Navy does not armor ships today for a reason. Armor was designed to defend against other battleships shooting at the waterline conning tower or turrets. That is not how navies fight today.

Let's remember that when the USS Iowa was recommissioned during the Reagan administration it was retrofitted with Tomahawk cruise missiles. So it had both the imposing guns and long-range missiles.

I had the privilege of serving on the Iowa during its shakedown cruise in the Caribbean in the summer of 1988. Awesome ship!

Carriers made battleships obsolete

THis is a silly notion that comes from who know where. A battleship is a type of cruiser, we still have cruisers, armed to the teeth. Instead of a few big gun battleships we have DOZENS of Aegis cruisers 550 feet long armed to the teeth.

You are making a distinction without a difference. A carrier can not operate without cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and subs protecting it and providing naval offensive punch.

The entire ready reserve concept is obsolete.

1. we are fighting wars on terror and other undeclared gunboat diplomacy acts. street by street fighting no battleships needed.

2. If a major war broke out it would be nuke not conventional and we would not have the time to bring a rowboat out of ready reserve much less a battleship.

Don't get me wrong watching a battleship at sea is the very definition of the word AWESOME but they are better served as museums to teach at least some youngsters a tiny bit about what real war is like.

Fed Up Boomer

1) The Navy has always needed shore bombardment and is replacing these ships with rail gun armed cruisers, so yes, battleships needed, jsut a different kind. We used shore bombardment from battleships all the way up to 1991 in real wars and against terrorists.

2) That has been debunked for a long time. China, Russia, and the US are all going back to tanks and ships, and reducing nuclear arsenals, remember mutual assured destruction? Thats real.

Nuclear weapons made it unsafe to wage world war. Result, half a century without a war between the major powers. By attempting to disarm nuclear arsenals, our government is trying to make it possible to fight world wars again. I think that's a bad idea.

Result, half a century without a war between the major powers.

Not accurate, we fought wars with the Soviets and the Chinese. Korea was, after the pushback, a war between China and the US, Vietnam was actually Russia and the US using pawns for diversion. Many wars in Africa and South America were simply proxy wars too.

It was in all actuality the superpowers admitting that the nukes really don't do much good when you cant risk using them. They wanted people to believe that the superpowers were not behind these wars, and it mostly worked, hence your post.

I didn't know that SF had a band. Are they any good? I think they banned the Marine Corps though.

Well as this site points out the Kamikazes were the first cruise missiles.

When all four battleships were decommissioned a decade ago, the Navy said it could fill the shore fire support void with new "arsenal ships". However, none were built because counter battery radar can easily determine the precise origin of missiles and naval gunfire offshore. A single missile hit, torpedo, or a volley of rocket fire could instantly destroy an arsenal ship loaded with missiles and no protective armor. A heavily armored battleship cannot be seriously damaged by modern anti-ship missiles, so its the only ship which can safely approach a shoreline and engage hidden coastal defense forces....

3. There is tremendous debate about a battleships survivability. Although I implied they are invulnerable, they can be sunk. A larger Japanese battleship of an older design, the USS Yamato, was sunk after direct hits from 10 500lbs bombs and 12 torpedoes. Several former Soviet Admirals said they were terrified of the battleships since they couldn't stop them with massed cruise missile attacks. Unfortunately, the Navy has never conducted anti-ship missile tests against the battleships. Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman has stated that the French Exocet anti-ship missile, which sunk British ships during the 1983 Falklands war, can penetrate 2.75 inches of steel. An Iowa battleship has steel armor from 6-17 inches thick, compared to just a quarter inch on modern Aegis cruisers and destroyers...

http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

There is no reason why we could not develop guidance systems for 16" rounds when we have them for 155 mm rounds. Missiles are great but, IMO you can never have enough heavy artillery.

Well said FLY..my brother in law had many a friend in that turret on that fatefull day,

did my first Tomcat cruise in 01' on the Big E with VF-41, best carrier ever to cruise on, yes she is old but she can out run them all...there is no way she is going to made into razor blades, there will be fights on gets her as their museum..

The Enterprise joined the USS Shanghai-La and the Roosevelt in Naples during her maiden voyage. OMG what a MONSTER ship! Consider this - she was fast enough to allow a Piper Cub to take off without taxiing! Just had to start the engine real quick once airborne or wind up in her prop wash and you most certainly did not want to land in that as it would ruin your whole day.

Bet most of you have never heard of the "Shang" and her history.

Boomer, I knew she was an Essex Class Carrier along with having her designator changed 3 times (CV/CVA/CVS) 38...I will have to do a little research on her and get up to speed.

just a testament to the Big E's speed....just got out of the gulf and heading back home, CAPT Winnefeld decided that us Wogs needed to get our Shellbacks.. so the plan was to go around the horn and avoid the ditch well a day out of hitting the line the towers were hit in NY, he flipped a u turn and we were back on station within a few days..moving so fast the whole aft end of the ship was shaking so bad had to throw extra chains on the birds..

I was stationed in San Fransisco with the army during the early to mid 80s. I had the opportunity to see both the Iowaand the Enterprise in the bay. They are two beautiful big ships. The Iowa seemed to take up most of the space from the Coast Gaurd station to Alcatraz. I know it was only an illusion but it seemed massive.

As for the Enterprise, it just seemed to squeeze under the Golden Gate Bridge when she came into the bay. I was still stationed there when she was unfortunately grounded after the channels had silted up after the heavy rains of the previous rainy season.

The "Sh***y shang. lol

BMCM Obviously you served aboard her!!!!! what years were you "sentenced" to serve on her? Under Captain Houk or Captain Ryan?

The thing about the Carrier's is they look big in the water, but in drydock, mama mia...Then you can appreciate them...When one came to Hunters Point for repairs etc, I had to take 3 days just to find my way to where any repair work was to be done and 3 days to get back out,,lol Magnificiant ships.

Rock Doc...... I was on "The Prise" when she found the mud there in Alameda! We could see our loved ones on the pier, but couldn't get to them after that long cruise. We were all wondering if Captain "Barney Kelly" was going to catch hell for it. They made him a Commodor (back then). I'm sure they were grooming him for the Pentagon.

I believe the rumored record for the Enterprise was 60 knots.... I was on her on night when during carrier quals when we had to make it back to Alameda (at low tide because she needed to get under the Golden Gate bridge) The PLAT monitor indicated that our true speed was 48 knots!

Fed up; never served aboard her but heard of the many legends. LOL

The USS Enterprise is due to be decommissioned I believe after this deployment. She was the worlds first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and has been on duty since 1961. She was one of the carriers I served on, but she is still the best. Fifty plus years of "Haze Gray, and underway", and I believe still the fastest carrier ever built.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in case you did not know, the Enterprise will not be able to be made into a museum. By the time they remove the reactors and remove all contaminants there wont be enough of the ship left to preserve and she will be scrapped. I for one am sick at the thought of it, but it is what it is. The legend will remain.

There are plans to remove the conning tower and preserve that.

There is still controversy as to the cause of the explosion. The loading method used on the Iowa is substantially the same as all US WWI and WWII battleships. Even in quite heated actions, no other US battleship ever had such a turret explosion. However, you are correct that the captain, Moosally, demonstrated considerable ineptness. The cause of the explosion on the Iowa will never be known with 100% certainty, but a charge overram is most likely. The 'little enlisted man', Hartwig, is also still a possible cause. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion)

If I remember correctly, I was informed by a close friend that the powder bags were stored on barges at a certain ammo base for a long period of time causeing moisture damage to some that wasn't caught or was overlooked.

@Dale3242: Actually, saddly, there have been other turret explosions (USN and other navies) of a similar nature. USS MISSISSIPPI (BB-43) [29 Nov 1943 explosion, 43 dead], USS NEWPORT NEWS (CA-148, a heavy cruiser with 8" guns) [1 Oct 1972 explosion, 20 dead], and HMS DEVONSHIRE (a cruiser) [1929 turret explosion, 15 dead, 1 missing and never found] are but a few examples.

I KNOW THE TRUTH, My husband was never pulled into court to tesify. He was on the Iowa, in that turret. 41 of his friends were killed and we live that every day. The little enlisted man the gov. is making up lies about, WAS NOT GAY! He went to strip bars with my husband when they pulled into ports. The barrell had a large crack in it, they usually just loaded it half full. All those men and my husband prayed everytime they went into that turret thinking this would be their last time. My husband missed the ship one time, got put back on with no problem. He was so scared of this barrell soon after when they went back into port again he never went back. So he was considered A-Wall. He later turned hisself in to spend 3 months in the BRIGG. Soon after he was released the turret blow up. This is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me GOD!. You believe what you want, but the officers on that ship knew about this crack and did nothing. To the families of the 42 men that was in this turret, your family member died for no cause, but big fat lies. So to me, as a wife of one surviver I can't stand to hear the name, IOWA. To me it says nothing but DEATH. and should be blowed out of the water and destroyed. If you want to know if this is true, go ask all those men that recommissioned this ship, they know there was a crack in that barrell. Why did they not put a new or even used uncracked barrell in? Because of money these men are dead. The day we step in front of the Lord you will all find out who's lying and telling the truth. I CAN"T WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@stradops that's partially correct I read about it sometime later that they found the powder to be the part of the cause, which caused a misfire in the barrel which created a fireball. They were still sock pilling and using old gun power from WWII... I believe. I believe they were still stored in Yorktown, VA at the time, not anymore obviously. The thing is when this tragedy occurred they did not need to fire those guns at that time. The captain wanted to demonstrate the fire power to the admiral that was visiting the ship at the time, could be wrong though. The Navy investigators wanted to cover it up and blame it on the only person that survived. Most of this was finally disclosed years later, but we will never no the whole truth unfortunately.

Anyway I have seen the ship many times while my dad severed on it before the incident, during, and after its last years. Awesome Ship!

I do not want to attack or start anything but this thread has many issues. First of all, for someone who claims to have been there in the turret, they would know that 47 men lost their lives. To get that wrong is to disgrace all of them. I arrived as a Gunners Mate on the Med cruise after the explosion. 2 months after, we were still cleaning up. The day I went inside the center gun room, I saw the explanation. It took investigators longer and they were obviously not Gunners. So, for all of those who still have questions, here goes. Cracked barrel, I do not know, but if so, that did not cause this. The breech was still open, so there was no chamber pressure except back blast when the powder blew. The Rammer operator was not qualified for the position and the powder, 660 pounds of black powder, was over-rammed causing a spark and ultimately lead to the explosion. The powder pellets inside those bags were 1" diameter x 2" long with perforations throughout to increase burn rate. When those pellets were cracked or shattered by the rammer spade blowing through them, the cracking caused a spark which smoldered, hartwig noticed the over-ram and saw the smoke from the smoldering. The cradle used to align the rounds and powder to the breach was still in place and could not be lifted as the rammer spade was jammed inside the gun and could not be backed out. The breach block drops below the gun when being loaded, so the breach could not be closed with the tray and rammer in the way. Hartwig notified gun control that there was a problem, he tried to reach in and dislodge the rammer spade to try and minimize what was coming and that is when the smoldering ignited everything else. Tests were run at Dahlgren on the powder bags and the results were this: Drop a bag from 100 feet to simulate the crushing effect, nothing, just pellets everywhere. Drop a bag from that height with a steel plate (rammer spade??) attached for crushing for and you get an explosion. As with a large portion of the population, people like to stir the pot, start conspiracies, etc. Ask the people who have lived it and made a career of taking care of these and the other guns our military uses. I am finishing 24 years next month. I served on the Iowa and Wisconsin. 24 years of my life have been guns and how they function and fail. If there is a way to break them, I have found it. It is the job. The answers are always out there, if people are smart enough to ask. Last month was the 23 year anniversary of the explosion. RIP my brothers. There are still those of us out there who will set the record straight when needed.

sailor79, I wrote: "...no other US battleship ever had such a turret explosion." The US Mississippi incidents were open breech fires. They had the same practical effect, but were not the same as a possible overram. The US navy used a three ram technique. First the shell was rammed to engage the rifling; then the fore charge; and finally the rear charge. The charges were in bags and if the rear charge was mistakenly rammed like the first charge, the result could be an explosion.

German battleships used a safer double ramming method. In German ships the rear charge was in a cartridge. Both the fore charge and rear charges were rammed together. German ships also had a higher rate of fire as a result. The Bismark could theoretically fire every 22 seconds compared to the Iowa's 27 seconds.

LOL!...dude...it won't fit. That ship has almost a 40 foot draft and 110 foot beam...the only thing the Iowa would be good for is dredging the Rio Grande. LOL!

And one other thing there Einstien....Mexico is not in Latin America.

OilmanMD think you need to check your facts. Mexico is in latin America..

Gee and all this time I thought the dividing line was Panama everything North was Central America with Mexico the Southernmost North American nation and Everything South of Panama was - are you ready -- SOUTH America.

I never even HEARD of a Latin America is that perhaps south of Italy (Latin-get it?)

Also the Rio Grande starts in southern Colorado and doesn't reach the U.S.-Mexico border until El Paso. The BB's guns had tremendous range for their tme. But firing from near El Paso to Tijuana, some 630 miles as the buzzard flies is a bit much.

Of course Mexico is in Latin America. It is also part of the "third world".

One really fed up boomer

Gee and all this time I thought the dividing line was Panama everything North was Central America with Mexico the Southernmost North American nation and Everything South of Panama was - are you ready -- SOUTH America.

A lot of people consider Mexico in North America. If you look on a map and you think only of a North and South America with Panama dividing the two it might make sense. However, Central America has been around for years and years. Sometime Mexico is put in Central America. Sometime only the lower part of Mexico is there. However, I use the United Nations for a lot of research and I consider them the authority on the subject. Where is Mexico? It is not in North America but in Central America. All of Mexico, that is.

Think of Asia and Europe. They are both on the same land mass. What is the dividing line? Cultures not countries.

a week ago. MSN said a 1942 P-40 JET plane was found in Egypt. Glad to see they hire high school grads. Those folks need jobs too !

Perhaps he meant to say it was a "night fighter" and painted JET black :-}

nope. that ain't it. go read the article.

MasterChief - I know...I was laughing hysterically at some of these so-called facts! Makes you wonder how accurate other articles are.

DSP CAPT/USNR

The explosion in Turret Two, happened @ 9:15 EST on April 19, 1989.

@MasterChief-2750676. No it was 1989 not 1987. The date is correct. My dad served on the IOWA at the time it happened. I remember pretty well back than.

Yes, April 19, 1989. 23 years ago. For someone in the military to not remember that day specifically, wow.

Good God we are already broke as a nation and you want to build something like you describe with today's Military Industrial complex? Do you have ANY idea how many billions of dollars that would take? You could build the Star Ship Enterprise for less money. Rather expensive nostalgia trip we are on don't you think?

A whole hell of a lot of good could be done with that money feeding our kids and providing the homeless made so by wall street criminals like JPMorgan Chase and friends.

Google Rail Gun and you will see that big guns on navy ships are now not the weopon of choice.

Unbridled flag-waving has a tendency to blind the "waver" to certain facts concerning some of their patriotic issues. These are usually the same ilk that can be found lamenting the size of the federal debt while also lamenting the supposed weakness of a military that expends almost a trillion dollars a year in taxpayers money. I don`t look for much in the way of logic from people who think you can cure the national debt by first cutting the revenue that fund its operation. How intelligent must one be before they understand the national debt as it now stands is a cumulative creation began in earnest when the wealthy repeatedly got taxcuts starting in 1981 that have reduced their tax obligations on income from 70% originally in 1980 to 35% today, and that figure is rife with additional loopholes reducing it to around an actual 20% or even less. Sad to see so many americans reduce themselves to automatons capable of only harping the failed policies of greed and vindictiveness and overt racism spouted by like-minded leadership.

Well at least we would have something to show for what we spent, unlike the trillions pissed away by the political-social welfare complex.