USS New Jersey pics and more….

Nice pictures Mark 🙂 Anna

Great pictures there, those shells are big!!!!

How about a new twin turret much lighter and with depleted uranium armor! For my proposed 21st Century Monitor. :rolleyes:

Those are 16″ 50 guns, 300″ long. (16X50).

I saw her in drydock many years ago. There is an awful lot of ship below her waterline.

Like AWSOME, Man!

Ali –

That’s a German 280mm railroad gun, a different beast altogether.

[Thinks: hmm…an LCS with a 280mm gun…] :diablo:

There’s no replacement for displacement.

Aberdeen

Hi!

In 1996 trip, I’ve spent all day at Aberdeen Proving Ground, this huge gun from the cancelled Montana class battleship, I guess.

That’s very interesting for me.

I’m joining to show a scanned pic of one of the cancelled 16″ gun, it’s so huge!! 🙂

Tell me more! 😀

I’m joining to show a scanned pic of one of the cancelled 16″ gun, it’s so huge!! 🙂

I suspect the Americans wouldn’t have built a 7000-ton ship when a 35,000-ton ship would have been just as good.
It was not permissible under the interwar naval treaties to build a monitor until the late 1930’s, and then it would have been allowed only at the expense of battleship tonnage. When the treaties finally lapsed for good, the US threw everything into building battleships, carriers, cruisers, and destroyers of large size. Monitors would have been a distraction from the fleet build-up. But the thought of a serious monitor program may never have occurred to anyone. Unlike the British, the Americans hadn’t made extensive use of monitors as bombardment platforms in WWI. Meanwhile, the British were perfectly happy to build a 7000-ton ship rather than a 35,000-ton ship whenever possible.

Roberts and Abercrombie were, in my opinion, among the best RN warships of WWII, even though they don’t get much press. They were the last of three monitor classes with the standard 15in twin mount. The first, Marshal Soult and Marshal Ney, was something of a bust as the steering and power plant were awful. Next came Erebus and Terror, much improved; Terror became one of the few warships in history to survive three torpedo hits.

Interesting Design! 😎 I wonder why the US didn’t produce Monitors during WWII? She surely had the Big Naval Guns available and they would have been ideal in the Island hopping Campaigns of the Southwest Pacific! Sounds like I may have to do alittle research on Monitors. 😀 What do you think of a modern Stealthy Monitor with twin 16in guns? Do you have any thoughts on size and weight? Further, would you mount secondary guns or possibly surface to surface missiles? (MRLS?) :rolleyes:

Roberts and Abercrombie were, in my opinion, among the best RN warships of WWII, even though they don’t get much press. They were the last of three monitor classes with the standard 15in twin mount. The first, Marshal Soult and Marshal Ney, was something of a bust as the steering and power plant were awful. Next came Erebus and Terror, much improved; Terror became one of the few warships in history to survive three torpedo hits.

Way back in WWI, Lord Clive carried an 18in gun and two 12in guns on a displacement under 7000 tons. Later the 18in piece was replaced by a trio of 15-inchers.
I find monitors a very interesting type.

Its been along time. I believe several British Monitors built between WWI and WWII had one 15 inch Turret. (i.e. two guns) Which, if memory serve me right? It was the standard 15 inch turret of the Royal Navy. (i.e. Queen Elizabeth, Hood, etc.) So, I don’t see why a two or three gun Monitor with 16in guns wouldn’t work? :rolleyes:

Interesting idea Scoot: but the power from firing just one of these guns, let alone all three in one turret, would be enough to blow the ship over backwards.

I’ve always thought the idea was very plausible. Really, the ship wouldn’t need to be to long. Yet, it would need a shallow draught and a fairly wide beam. Also, considering you were not using the old Iowa Class Battleship Turrets. Therefore you could use 1, 2, or even 3 guns per mount? Your choice……..Further, you could have one or two Turrets per Monitor! Its my understand that many 16in guns still exist or at least replacement liners? Currently, the USN has four Iowa Class Ships. Which, is 36-16in guns. So, hypothetically you could have between 9 and 18 Monitors. (i.e. 2 or 4 guns) That said, more than likely 6-8 ships would do. Evenly split between Atlantic and Pacific Fleets. Personally, I would make the ships very smart (i.e. automated) and with Diesel Engines. (maybe Colt-Pelstick?) One final note…..the current Iowa Class could continue as Great Naval Museums. With dummy guns of course. 😎

Way back in WWI, Lord Clive carried an 18in gun and two 12in guns on a displacement under 7000 tons. Later the 18in piece was replaced by a trio of 15-inchers.
I find monitors a very interesting type.

Interesting idea Scoot: but the power from firing just one of these guns, let alone all three in one turret, would be enough to blow the ship over backwards.

Really, the Iowa class are way to big and man power intentsive to operate today. Which, is why we retired them in the early 90’s. Here a thought……why not remove the 16in Guns and build new Turrets. Further, place them on a small monitor class ship. Which, could operate in the littorals. Remember, the British Monitors with one or two 15in turrets! Hell, you could make it stealthy and a smart design with a very small crew…….. :rolleyes:

Tiornu posted this link a while back, it features design drawings of the Montana class plus a whole lot more http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/albums/s511.htm

The Montanas would have been the most powerful battleships ever built. They were designed after the USN abandoned its requirement for panamacanalability. With all that added beam, the armor scheme could include its 20deg inclined belt without mounting it internally. The armor was much thickened from Iowa standards, but speed dropped to 28 knots.

I was reading online last night where there were to be TWO MORE Iowa class battleships, the Kentucky and the Illinois, but one was scrapped when it was 72% complete (the bow of it, the Kentucky, exists on the front end of the Wisconsin, replacing the Wisconsin’s damamged bow after colliding with the destroyer Eaton)…I never knew that the Iowas were planned as a 6 ship class and only 4 were completed! Goes to show you learn something new every day….the Montana class that was to follow the Iowas were cancelled all together (Basically and Iowa class ship with the extra gun turret aft, bringing the main armament up to 12 16″ guns from the Iowa class’ 9 16″ guns..) and this class was to include 5 ships, but the carrier replaced the Battleship as the dominant striking weapon during and after WWII and the US only built 10 battleships during WWII…

M

I believe the weights on the shells were 2700 lbs for an armor piercing and 1900 lbs for a HE 16″ shell fired from the ‘Jersey’s guns….I would’nt want to be around EITHER of them when they landed….but I’d LOVE to see them shot a few times!! Read on the USS Missouri site the other day where the Missouri and the NJ put on a firing demo for the crews of the carriers Nimitz and Enterprise back in the 80’s….would’ve loved to have been on the deck of one of those carriers to witness it all…and wonder what they were shooting at?
Touring the NJ was a great experience….hopefully soon they’ll find a home for Iowa on the west coast and I can repeat the experience…

Mark