Fortunately, the engine rooms are very similar on all the fast battleships, so you can get an idea of what they're like by visiting the Showboat (and presumably Bama and Big Mamie). It's not the same, of course, but since all three have machinery plants designed about the same time by the same people, they'll be pretty similar--definitely close enough to get a general feel, until such time as the Big Stick's engineering spaces are cleaned up.

We often wind up telling people to go down to San Diego to see the Midway for exactly that reason.

I'm assuming that the plans are to leave turret two closed? I know it was repaired after the accident, but I just think it might be more tasteful to leave it closed off as a memorial than to open it up to the public. All three are the same, internally (except that two has an extra level of shell room); I think the public would be satisfied with being able to tour two of them, particularly if it's specifically stated that the third is off-limits as a memorial.

Pretty much. I got to talk to the restoration director about a week ago about it; he said the most likely plan is to show the upper turret and gun house with turret one, and the lower turret and magazine with turret three.

The problem is that making those available to the public involves cutting an access route through the armor. He said most battleship museums do this through turret two because then you only have to cut one hole to access both the upper and lower turret. Since we have to do two, that doubles the time and money it will take to get the turrets open.
 
The problem is that making those available to the public involves cutting an access route through the armor. He said most battleship museums do this through turret two because then you only have to cut one hole to access both the upper and lower turret. Since we have to do two, that doubles the time and money it will take to get the turrets open.

I was on the North Carolina recently, I don't think they had to cut through the armor to create an access route, but just used some creative use of existing hatches and corridors to do that, then again I was only a visitor, and wasn't actively looking. However, I think the real major problem with cutting through that armor, is that it is probably a real bitch to cut through with torches and just forget about using saws, that STS Steel will just eat the circular saw heads alive.
 
I was on the North Carolina recently, I don't think they had to cut through the armor to create an access route, but just used some creative use of existing hatches and corridors to do that, then again I was only a visitor, and wasn't actively looking. However, I think the real major problem with cutting through that armor, is that it is probably a real bitch to cut through with torches and just forget about using saws, that STS Steel will just eat the circular saw heads alive.
The barbettes on an Iowa (and I'm pretty sure a NorCal)aren't STS, they're made of Class A, face hardened Krupp-cemented armor like the upper belt.
 
Man I've reread some of the story, and I love the way that you handle the shipgirl summonings theJMPer.
 
Well, I got an account here primarily for this fic *grins* absolutely loving it!

And I was under the impression that on the Iowa's, at least Missouri and Wisconsin, the only Class A armor was on the turret faces, the rest of the heavy armor was Class B... dunno if that's the same for Iowa and Jersey. Have to go dig up my Friedman to make sure, it's been a few years since I read it.
 
The problem is that making those available to the public involves cutting an access route through the armor. He said most battleship museums do this through turret two because then you only have to cut one hole to access both the upper and lower turret. Since we have to do two, that doubles the time and money it will take to get the turrets open.
Having been aboard the Showboat a few years back, I can state that they didn't have access to the gunhouse through the barbette. Turret #3 had the only open gunhouse when I was there (apparently, #2 has since been opened up, but this was 2010), and access to it was through the normal entrance hatch on the bottom of the turret overhang into the turret officer's booth; the gun rooms were closed off, but with plexiglass covering holes cut in the hatches to them to allow you to see in.

They had, however, opened up barbette #2 with... either one or two hatches cut through the armor. (I think two, actually--one for entrance, one for exit.) You entered through the upper level of the powder handling room, IIRC, then took existing hatches and ladders down to the lower level and through an existing hatch to see some of the magazine, before returning up through existing hatches and ladders to exit through the lower shell room. Since the only access to the turret stalk while in operation was via manholes in the floor of the handling room, the hatches and ladders to get to the other levels should already be present.

(I must say, the hatch through the barbette is most impressive in its thickness... and in it being such a perfectly clean cut that I initially thought it was an original hatch used for crew access originally, before I learned more about that!)

And I was under the impression that on the Iowa's, at least Missouri and Wisconsin, the only Class A armor was on the turret faces, the rest of the heavy armor was Class B... dunno if that's the same for Iowa and Jersey. Have to go dig up my Friedman to make sure, it's been a few years since I read it.
I think the barbettes and conning tower were also Class A, because of the fact that, unlike much of the belt, what was behind that armor was packed as densely with Important Vulnerable Things as a tank, and because the shape meant that they couldn't effectively incline it or rely on angling the ship to get an oblique impact. (Yes, I know, cruisers had conical barbettes to incline the armor. That was an expedient BuShips never really liked, as evidenced by the Des Moineseseseses going back to cylindrical barbettes, once the treaty limits were lifted.)
 
Speaking of armor, and rails a little while ago, some of the armor on wartime ships was made using recycled steel, from old autos to trains. Meaning, Jersey really can hit like a runaway train. It's in her bones, one could say.
 
What is the difference between Class A and Class B Armor?

Class A armor is face hardened, Class B is not, is the primary difference. The main reason the USN stepped back from Class A was that the new APC shells developed in the 20's and 30's weren't broken up by the face hardening, so there was precious little difference in performance between the two types. Class A got a slight advantage when inclined (hence why it was still used in the inclined belts and on the turrets), enough so that it was still used despite the greater expense and difficulty in working with face hardened armor.
 
STS is a steel that's harder and stronger than mild steel, but not up to armor steel standards. It does work as splinter armor, though, and as armor backing. It was replaced in US construction in the 60s by the HY series of High Yield (high tensile strength) steels, specifically HY80.
 
If I'm reading teh interwebs right: STS was similar to Class B, except about 90% as effective. The interesting part is that it was workable as structural steel...

So Jersey's 'Murica brag about STS everywhere means she has excellent All Or Nothing Armor... and good armor everywhere else too. You know, just for the hell of it.
 
The only problem was that STS steel was ludicrously expensive, so most nations used it only where it was needed. America is not most nations.
 
STS for the ships' critical areas. STS for the kinda-critical areas. STS for the really non-critical areas. STS for the flag. STS for the utensils...
 
So, in essence, a way to ensure that the ship's structure could keep out, oh, light shellfire and basically all kinds of fragments, requiring hits from heavy armor piercing shells even in the "nothing" parts not covered by the main belt?
 
So, in essence, a way to ensure that the ship's structure could keep out, oh, light shellfire and basically all kinds of fragments, requiring hits from heavy armor piercing shells even in the "nothing" parts not covered by the main belt?

Precisely, along with providing exceptional protection from strafing runs and such for AA crews. So resistant to anything less than 5" guns even on the 'unarmored' areas, and even 5" will have trouble penetrating. Fragmentation would just be futile. Part of this is because of the attention paid to the work the Royal Navy did on the use of HE rounds on the upper works of capital ships. The RN solution was to not use all-or-nothing, the USN solution was to use STS for everything.
 
Back
Top