Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

[Nolgroth]

Just what the title says.

 

http://www.ussmissouri.com/documents/blueprints.pdf

[clsage]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

Just what the title says.

 

http://www.ussmissouri.com/documents/blueprints.pdf

 

Thanks !

 

As the Wisconsin is (as I recall) the same class of ship, these might turn out handy for use in the Team Norfolk universe.....

 

Thanks again...

 

-Carl-

[Beast]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

so are the New Jersey and Iowa

all 4 are the from the Iowa class BB

 

Thanks !

 

As the Wisconsin is (as I recall) the same class of ship, these might turn out handy for use in the Team Norfolk universe.....

 

Thanks again...

 

-Carl-

[Vulcan]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

Thanks !

 

As the Wisconsin is (as I recall) the same class of ship, these might turn out handy for use in the Team Norfolk universe.....

 

Thanks again...

 

-Carl-

 

IIRC the Wisconsin is an earlier class, simialr in layout but a bit smaller.

 

On the other hand, it's ulikely your players will be able to tell the difference...

[Rapier]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

We were stuck at work late one night waiting for a rollout to complete.

 

We had to definitely make sure the plotter was working after the upgrade...so we printed out deck plans (not quite blue prints, not as much detail, but close) for a number of ships. We even dropped a hex-map watermark so they were ready to go.

 

IT WAS AWESOME!

 

How could you NOT want to battle on an old battleship?

[Yansuf]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

IIRC the Wisconsin is an earlier class, simialr in layout but a bit smaller.

 

On the other hand, it's ulikely your players will be able to tell the difference...

 

USS Wisconsin is BB-64, Iowa is BB-61. They are the same class.

Although when they were reactivated in the 80's (and the New Jersey was also reactivated temporarily in the late 60's) some minor changes probably did creep in.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

My brother served on the Mighty Mo during the first Desert Storm and was present until the ship was decommissioned. He gave me a tour of the ship during the little celebration party thing. Let me tell you that the breach bore on those 16" guns is huge. He even brought up a dummy round to show how big the actual ones are. I was impressed right there.

 

Standing on the deck itself was pretty awesome. There was certainly a feeling of sturdiness about the whole thing. The Captain was awesome, giving us a history lesson. A good day.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

... Which brings to mind a great (and supposedly) true story I heard from the Vietnam War.

 

A patrolling Australian Army unit located a largeish enemy strongpoint, very well dug-in on a hill. They were far too strong for a direct assault, so the CO decided to request some kind assistance from HQ.

 

Usually, this radio call would have eventually been hooked up with an artillery unit or even aircraft. But, it all depended on what was available at the time. In this case, something very unusual happened as the CO unexpectedly found himself proceeding through a maze of successive callsigns and levels, some of which he had never even heard of. Much speculation among his people as to where this would all end up.

 

Eventually, the CO found himself providing coordinates to somebody with a US Navy callsign. No big deal - they were just a couple of miles from the coast after all, and both US and Aussie warships did shore bombardment sometimes. Obviously, it was a slow day for the Navy, and a ship happened to be in the right area, so ......

 

The Navy specified a much larger than usual clearance zone around the coordinates, which wasn't a big deal for the troops who were outside that zone anyhow. Obviously those Yank sailors were being extra cautious, which suited them fine. The troops dug in and awaited developments.

 

Yeah, you guessed it. A series of shrill whistles from incoming shells that culminated in MASSIVE explosions on the hill. It didn't last long and, when the smoke / dust cleared and debris stopped arriving, the troops got a look at the target.

 

The entire hill had disappeared. Let me clarify that - THE ENTIRE FRACKIN' HILL (ALONG WITH EVERYTHING / EVERYBODY ON IT) WAS TOTALLY GONE! There were just some BIG overlapping craters there now. Impressive, to put it mildly.

 

The USN politely asked if another broadside was needed. The offer was declined.

 

Yep, turns out that the USN vessel they had been hooked up to was one of the 'Iowas' having a slow day several miles offshore.

[Yansuf]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

... Which brings to mind a great (and supposedly) true story I heard from the Vietnam War.

 

A patrolling Australian Army unit located a largeish enemy strongpoint, very well dug-in on a hill. They were far too strong for a direct assault, so the CO decided to request some kind assistance from HQ.

 

Usually, this radio call would have eventually been hooked up with an artillery unit or even aircraft. But, it all depended on what was available at the time. In this case, something very unusual happened as the CO unexpectedly found himself proceeding through a maze of successive callsigns and levels, some of which he had never even heard of. Much speculation among his people as to where this would all end up.

 

Eventually, the CO found himself providing coordinates to somebody with a US Navy callsign. No big deal - they were just a couple of miles from the coast after all, and both US and Aussie warships did shore bombardment sometimes. Obviously, it was a slow day for the Navy, and a ship happened to be in the right area, so ......

 

The Navy specified a much larger than usual clearance zone around the coordinates, which wasn't a big deal for the troops who were outside that zone anyhow. Obviously those Yank sailors were being extra cautious, which suited them fine. The troops dug in and awaited developments.

 

Yeah, you guessed it. A series of shrill whistles from incoming shells that culminated in MASSIVE explosions on the hill. It didn't last long and, when the smoke / dust cleared and debris stopped arriving, the troops got a look at the target.

 

The entire hill had disappeared. Let me clarify that - THE ENTIRE FRACKIN' HILL (ALONG WITH EVERYTHING / EVERYBODY ON IT) WAS TOTALLY GONE! There were just some BIG overlapping craters there now. Impressive, to put it mildly.

 

The USN politely asked if another broadside was needed. The offer was declined.

 

Yep, turns out that the USN vessel they had been hooked up to was one of the 'Iowas' having a slow day several miles offshore.

 

It was the New Jersey.

Navy rumor was that the reason the ship was deactivated again was they made the Air Force look bad.

[Beast]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

yep the last 4 battleships the USA built

the mods they got in the 80's removed all 3", 40mm and 20mm guns

I know at least 2 5" turrets on each side go removed

what got added where Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles

4 phalanx CIWS

she kept her mechanical gunnery computer, it is EMP proof

got a whole suite of electronics

 

taking off the small guns opened up lots of room for what was needed to crew them

 

 

USS Wisconsin is BB-64, Iowa is BB-61. They are the same class.

Although when they were reactivated in the 80's (and the New Jersey was also reactivated temporarily in the late 60's) some minor changes probably did creep in.

[Beast]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

with as much firepower as she and her sisters can throw

it is way cheaper to have BB's handle the coasts

4 ships 30 miles apart, 2 miles off shore can cover a lot of area say up to 20 miles inland

but the ships will need air cover and ASW

 

in a modern setting having 1 cruiser 1 destroyer and 2 frigates should be enough for close escort

a CV 200 miles out could give a good cap for all 4 groups

 

the big thing the BB's are good at is being seen

when a big ship comes up and starts shelling you and everybody can see you getting shelled means you are not doing well

and might not want to be associated with you

 

It was the New Jersey.

Navy rumor was that the reason the ship was deactivated again was they made the Air Force look bad.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

yep the last 4 battleships the USA built

 

To get mildly picky, as I understand it, they were the last four battleships that the USA actually COMPLETED.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Montana_(BB-67)#USS_Montana_.28BB-67.29

 

The entry is confusing, since it states that none of the 'Montana' class were actually built. But I am certain that I read elsewhere that the Montana reached an incomplete state - basic hull that could float, and not much else - before being scrapped.

[Peregrine]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

To get mildly picky, as I understand it, they were the last four battleships that the USA actually COMPLETED.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Montana_(BB-67)#USS_Montana_.28BB-67.29

 

The entry is confusing, since it states that none of the 'Montana' class were actually built. But I am certain that I read elsewhere that the Montana reached an incomplete state - basic hull that could float, and not much else - before being scrapped.

 

Yeah. Those bad boys would have been monsters...

[Yansuf]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

To get mildly picky, as I understand it, they were the last four battleships that the USA actually COMPLETED.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Montana_(BB-67)#USS_Montana_.28BB-67.29

 

The entry is confusing, since it states that none of the 'Montana' class were actually built. But I am certain that I read elsewhere that the Montana reached an incomplete state - basic hull that could float, and not much else - before being scrapped.

 

The four Iowa class (BB61 to BB64) were the last battleships built/launched by the USN.

The last two of the Iowa class (BB65 & BB66) were started, but construction was suspended, and the incomplete ships were later scrapped.

The USS Montana, BB67 was never started. However, the USS Montana BB51 was started (in 1919 I believe); but due to the Washington Naval treaty she was scrapped. That is probably the one that you are thinking of.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

The USS Montana' date=' BB67 was never started. However, the USS Montana BB51 was started (in 1919 I believe); but due to the Washington Naval treaty she was scrapped. That is probably the one that you are thinking of.[/quote']

 

No, it isn't.

 

I accept that the conflicting information may be wrong (wherever it might have been), but I did not make THAT error.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

No, it isn't.

 

I accept that the conflicting information may be wrong (wherever it might have been), but I did not make THAT error.

Hmmm. What if the place you read the information at got the two confused? I do that sort of thing all the time. Read something and then combine it to a related subject and come up with a mythical third option that I, in turn, pass on to other people.

[Vulcan]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

USS Wisconsin is BB-64, Iowa is BB-61. They are the same class.

Although when they were reactivated in the 80's (and the New Jersey was also reactivated temporarily in the late 60's) some minor changes probably did creep in.

 

My mistake.

[Vulcan]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

she kept her mechanical gunnery computer' date=' it is EMP proof[/quote']

 

Not to mention shock proof...

 

I've heard a tale that during the refits, a nice, shiny new digital computer fire control system was installed. Then they went out to test it, and it's a good thing they did.

 

They fired one broadside from the main battery... and the entire fire control system crashed hard.

 

Needless to say, they went back to the shipyard and put the mechanical computer back in.

 

(Take that for what you will.)

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

Hmmm. What if the place you read the information at got the two confused? I do that sort of thing all the time. Read something and then combine it to a related subject and come up with a mythical third option that I' date=' in turn, pass on to other people.[/quote']

 

Line profile drawing of the Montana in her "cut-down" state - and it definitely was NOT a vessel from 1919.

 

Very clearly recall what I saw, but can't find it now. I accept that this information may be incorrect (making Wiki the reliable source, who'd have thought it?)- either as printed or via mis-recall. Since I cannot find the relevant source, it seems pointless to speculate further. Moving on?

[DusterBoy]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

Let's talk about a superior remake of "Under Siege". Ie: without Seagal. (Hell, he got outacted by Erika Eleniak! )

[clsage]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

Standing on the deck itself was pretty awesome. There was certainly a feeling of sturdiness about the whole thing. The Captain was awesome, giving us a history lesson. A good day.

 

I had the same feeling aboard the Wisconsin. And the fact that the "docent's" there were (when I visited back in 2003-04) former crew members themselves...so much history, all at once.

 

-Carl-

[clsage]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

Let's talk about a superior remake of "Under Siege". Ie: without Seagal. (Hell' date=' he got outacted by Erika Eleniak! )[/quote']

 

Agreed....my only reasons for re-watching that film would be either Tommy Lee Jones OR Ms Eleniak.....but I digress.

 

-Carl-

[clsage]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

We were stuck at work late one night waiting for a rollout to complete.

 

We had to definitely make sure the plotter was working after the upgrade...so we printed out deck plans (not quite blue prints, not as much detail, but close) for a number of ships. We even dropped a hex-map watermark so they were ready to go.

 

IT WAS AWESOME!

 

How could you NOT want to battle on an old battleship?

 

Nice !!!

 

Access to plotters and such can be so handy for gaming.....errr, research. Yes. That's it. Research.

 

-Carl-

[Nolgroth]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

Line profile drawing of the Montana in her "cut-down" state - and it definitely was NOT a vessel from 1919.

It was a thought. No big deal. I'm all for moving on to bigger and more fun things.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Ever need blueprints for the USS Missouri?

 

Let's talk about a superior remake of "Under Siege". Ie: without Seagal. (Hell' date=' he got outacted by Erika Eleniak! )[/quote']

 

Actually, this is the only movie of his that I like - he actually seemed to suit the part (or vice versa) for once, and it was basically 'Die Hard On A Battleship' anyhow (one of the first to ride Die Hard's coattails, I think).

 

Not to say that somebody else couldn't have done it better, but I would put this on the long list of movies that really don't need a remake.