jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) (10/05/90)
From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher)
Here's some stuff I was able to dig up on the final disposition of American
battleships. Sorry, I don't have any info on battleships earlier than
BB 26. Perhaps someone else can fill in some of the earlier gaps.
Number Name Commission Date Final Disposition
------ --------------- -------------- --------------------------
BB 26 South Carolina January 1910 Sold to breakers in 1924
BB 27 Michigan April 1910 Sold to breakers in 1924
BB 28 Delaware April 1910 Sold to breakers in 1924
BB 29 North Dakota April 1910 Sold to breakers in 1931
BB 30 Florida September 1911 Broken up for scrap in 1931
BB 31 Utah August 1911 Sunk at Pearl Harbor Dec 1941.
Repair attempt abandoned.
Wreakage still at the site.
BB 32 Wyoming September 1912 Broken up for scrap in 1948
BB 33 Arkansas September 1912 Destroyed during nuclear tests
at Bikini Atoll in 1946.
BB 34 New York April 1914 Scuttled near Pearl Harbor in
1948, after surviving two
Bikini Atoll nuclear tests
BB 35 Texas March 1914 On permanent display as a
museum in Texas.
BB 36 Nevada March 1916 Sunk in 1946 by aerial torpedo
while acting as target during
naval gunnery training.
BB 37 Oklahoma May 1916 Scuttled in 1947 while being
towed to breakers for
scrapping. Tow rope parted
and vessel could not be
salvaged.
BB 38 Pennsylvania June 1916 Sunk in 1948 at Kwajelein while
serving as target during
gunnery exercises.
BB 39 Arizona October 1916 Sunk at Pearl Harbor Dec 1941.
Wreckage still at site.
National Memorial since 1962.
BB 40 New Mexico May 1918 Broken up for scrap in 1948.
BB 41 Mississippi December 1917 Broken up for scrap in 1956.
BB 42 Idaho March 1919 Broken up for scrap in 1948.
BB 43 Tennessee June 1920 Broken up for scrap in 1959.
BB 44 California October 1921 Broken up for scrap in 1959.
BB 45 Colorado August 1923 Broken up for scrap in 1959.
BB 46 Maryland July 1921 Broken up for scrap in 1959.
BB 47 Washington never Completion disallowed under
commissioned Washington Naval Agreement
of 1922. 75% complete ship
used as target for naval
gunnery training. Sunk in
1924 by naval gunfire.
BB 48 West Virginia December 1923 Broken up for scrap in 1961.
BB 49 South Dakota never Construction abandoned before
commissioned launch under terms of
Washington Naval Agreement.
Partially-completed ship was
sold for scrap.
BB 50 Indiana never Construction abandoned before
commissioned launch under terms of
Washington Naval Agreement.
Partially-completed ship was
sold for scrap.
BB 51 Montana never Construction abandoned before
commissioned launch under terms of
Washington Naval Agreement.
Partially-completed ship was
sold for scrap.
BB 52 North Carolina never Construction abandoned before
commissioned launch under terms of
Washington Naval Agreement.
Partially-completed ship was
sold for scrap.
BB 53 Iowa never Construction abandoned before
commissioned launch under terms of
Washington Naval Agreement.
Partially-completed ship was
sold for scrap.
BB 54 Massachusetts never Construction abandoned before
commissioned launch under terms of
Washington Naval Agreement.
Partially-completed ship was
sold for scrap.
BB 55 North Carolina April 1941 On permanent display as
national memorial at
Wilmington, N.C.
BB 56 Washington May 1941 Broken up for scrap in 1961.
BB 57 South Dakota March 1942 Broken up for scrap in 1962.
BB 58 Indiana April 1942 Broken up for scrap in 1964.
BB 59 Massachusetts May 1942 On permanent display as
national monument at Fall
River, Mass.
BB 60 Alabama August 1942 On permanent display as
national monument at Mobile,
Ala.
BB 61 Iowa February 1943 Still on active duty.
BB 62 New Jersey May 1943 Still on active duty.
BB 63 Missouri June 1944 Still on active duty.
BB 64 Wisconsin April 1944 Still on active duty.
BB 65 Illinois never Construction abandoned in 1945
commissioned when only 22% complete.
Dismantled on the slipway.
BB 66 Kentucky never Construction finally abandoned
commissioned in 1958 when 65% complete.
Scrapped and scavenged for
spare parts (bow section
was used to repair the
Wisconsin).
Source:
Battleships and Battle Cruisers-- 1905-1970, Siegfried Breyer,
Doubleday 1973
Joe Baugher *************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories * "We're wanted men. I have the *
200 Park Plaza * death sentence in twelve *
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7050 * systems" *
(708) 713 4548 *************************************
ihlpm!jfb
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
Who, me? Speak for AT&T? Surely you jest! user1 ("USER1") (10/18/90)
From: texbell!letni!digi!digi.lonestar.org!user1 ("USER1")
In article <1990Oct5.034136.546@cbnews.att.com> jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) writes:
> BB 34 New York April 1914 Scuttled near Pearl Harbor in
> 1948, after surviving two
> Bikini Atoll nuclear tests
I have heard about the demise of several battleships in this manner.
What did we do, put atomic devices on old ships and set them off?
If so why? I know it was testing, but how about some detail.
Thanks in advance,
Rick
[mod.note: In 1946, the US conducted a series of nuclear tests at Bikini
Atoll. Over 100 warships were included as targets, including 5
battleships, two carriers, 4 cruisers, 16 destroyers, and 8 submarines.
Test Able (16 July 1946) consisted of an atomic bomb, dropped from a B-29,
set to explode above the water's surface. The ships survived this pretty
well; battleships as close as 500m from the blast stayed afloat with
superstructure and hull damage only. Test Baker (25 July) had the bomb
set to explode under water, which was much more destructive (but I have
no details). There was supposed to be a Test Charlie, but if it was
conducted, I again have no information. - Bill ]
--
_________
________________/ SMU |
\_________|
SMU Crew, Rowing's Finest!!!henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/19/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >[our moderator writes, re the Bikini nuclear tests] >... There was supposed to be a Test Charlie, but if it was >conducted, I again have no information. - Bill ] I believe the Charlie test was cancelled, although I do not immediately remember why. -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
gabriele@riverdale.toronto.edu (Mark Gabriele ) (10/19/90)
From: gabriele@riverdale.toronto.edu (Mark Gabriele ) >[mod.note: ... There was supposed to be a Test Charlie, but if it was >conducted, I again have no information. - Bill ] Test Able was above ground; test Baker was a shallow-water burst, and test Charlie was to be a deep-water burst. Test Charlie was never conducted. It is interesting to note that they physicists present theorized that the pressure wave from the deep-water blast would actually create a large block of ice as one of its effects. =Mark (gabriele@hub.toronto.edu)
gunter@antlia.cc.uwa.OZ.AU (Gunter Ahrendt) (10/24/90)
From: gunter@antlia.cc.uwa.OZ.AU (Gunter Ahrendt) ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) writes: >From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) >[discussion of U.S. battleships mentions the Bikini Atoll tests] >Quite often, I see that bomb on some documentary on TV, where various >ships are swallowed up by this huge nuclear blast. Does anyone know >what the effects were on these ships? Were they vaporized? Capsized? >Fragmented? >Ron Morgan >osmigo@emx.utexas.edu Most of the ships looked like they had been burnt out after the blast. Charred wrecks were all that remained. Canons were badly deformed, some ships listed badly. There was an excellent documentary on TV, with full color footage of the entire Operation Crossroads, and made for facinating viewing. After the blast all ships were boarded and checked out, poor sailors actually went aboard in normal atire. The sight of all these ghostships lying as far as the eye can see was very eerie. They had live animals aboard some of the ships to see how (if) they'd survive. They showed one of the goats that did. It was badly blistered and well....you can imagine. One of the senators that witnessed the blast from a very safe distance, complained afterwards about how the Army had kept them to far away and he was disappointed by not seeing enough or being close enough. Most of the sailors that were closer and got covered in the spray from Baker (underwater) test are dead now from radiation poisoning. They interviewed a crew member who died shortly afterwards in the mid 80's. He had a hand that looked like a baseball glove (in size too), and both his legs were swollen to twice their size. Of course no one knew at the time what would happen :(
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (10/24/90)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) In article <1990Oct19.032216.11798@cbnews.att.com> gabriele@riverdale.toronto.edu (Mark Gabriele ) writes: > > >Test Able was above ground; test Baker was a shallow-water burst, and >test Charlie was to be a deep-water burst. Test Charlie was never >conducted. It is interesting to note that they physicists present theorized >that the pressure wave from the deep-water blast would actually create a >large block of ice as one of its effects. > No flame, but I find this hard to believe since water is one of the few substances which is actually densest as a liquid (at 4 degrees C., with one atmosphere pressure). Perhaps the scientists in question forgot about the hydrogen bonding properties of water.... -shane |\/\/\/\/| | | "I'm outta here, man!" | | | (o o) / c _) / | ,____/ | / /______\
osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) (10/24/90)
From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) [discussion of U.S. battleships mentions the Bikini Atoll tests] Quite often, I see that bomb on some documentary on TV, where various ships are swallowed up by this huge nuclear blast. Does anyone know what the effects were on these ships? Were they vaporized? Capsized? Fragmented? Ron Morgan osmigo@emx.utexas.edu
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (10/24/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) In article <1990Oct18.020858.5946@cbnews.att.com> someone writes: >From: texbell!letni!digi!digi.lonestar.org!user1 ("USER1") > >What did we do, put atomic devices on old ships and set them off? >If so why? I know it was testing, but how about some detail. The primary reason for these atomic tests was to see the effects of nuclear weapons on naval ships. By seeing the results, the Navy could design future ships to better withstand the effects of nuclear explosions. The following information is from "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," by the United States Department of Defense and United States Deparment of Energy, 1977. Damage to ships from an air or surface burst is due primarily to the air blast, since little pressure is transmitted through the water. At closer ranges, air blast can cause hull rutpure resulting in flooding and sinking. Such rupture appears likely to begin near the waterline on the side facing the burst. Since the main hull generally is stronger than the superstructure, structures and equipment exposed above the waterline may be damaged at ranges well beyond that at which hull rupture might occur. Masts, spars, radar antennas, stacks, electric equipment, and other light objects are especially sensitive to air blast. Air blast may also roll and possibly capsize the ship. Blast pressure penetrating through openings of ventilation systems and stack-uptake systems can cause damage to interior equipment and compartments, and also to boilers. This book did not give much information about the ABLE test, but it did give some about the Bikini BAKER test. The aircraft carrier SARATOGA was anchored in Bikini lagoon almost broadside on to the explosion with its stern 400 years from surface zero. The "island" structure was not affected by the air blast, but later the central part of the structure was observed to be folded down on the deck of the carrier. Shortly after rising on the first wave crest, when the stern was over 43 feet above its previous position, the SARATOGA fell into the succeeding trough. It appears probable that the vessel was then struck by the second wave crest which caused the damage to the island structure. Maximum Heights (Crest to Trough) and Arrival Times of Water Waves at Bikini BAKKER Test: Distance (yards) 300 660 1,330 2,000 2,700 3,300 4,000 Wave height (feet) 94 47 24 16 13 11 9 Time (seconds) 11 23 48 74 101 127 154 Some 70 ships of various types were anchored around the point of burst in the shallow, underwater BAKER test. The BAKER test involved a 20-kiloton explosion.
frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (Frank Dunn) (10/24/90)
From: frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (Frank Dunn) The October issue of USN Inst. Procs has a good article about a Parks Service (?) dive on the CV Saratoga that was in one of the Bikini tests. Includes a box out on the tests plus some underwater shots plus quite a useful colour illo over two pages. Frank -- fdunn@cix fdunn@bix 100012,23 CIS Frank Dunn@MacTel "It must be jelly 'cos jam don't shake like that"
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (10/25/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) >From article <1990Oct22.035601.17395@cbnews.att.com>, by ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn): > > Quite often, I see that bomb on some documentary on TV, where various > ships are swallowed up by this huge nuclear blast. Does anyone know > what the effects were on these ships? Were they vaporized? Capsized? > Fragmented? I expect you are describing the BAKER test, which was an underwater detonation. This produces a large wave, maybe 120 ft. high, called the "base surge". The photos show the ships being engulfed by this mass of water/water vapor/mist. Needless to say, there was some damage from the base surge due to the weight of the water, and considerable damage from the shock wave transmitted through the water. Large diesel generators were torn from their foundations and bounced around inside engine spaces, for example. In addition to the structural damage, there was intense radiation due to the fallout in the base surge water (sand and bottom debris which was sucked up in the fireball). The conclusion was that an underwater burst could be highly effective against a concentrated naval force. Ship designs later included washdown systems and the "citadel" concept (more or less abandoned in the '60s). Pat Kauffold AT&T Bel Labs
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/25/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >>... It is interesting to note that they physicists present theorized >>that the pressure wave from the deep-water blast would actually create a >>large block of ice as one of its effects. > >No flame, but I find this hard to believe since water is one of the >few substances which is actually densest as a liquid (at 4 degrees >C., with one atmosphere pressure)... The compression wave from a nuclear explosion is followed by a rarefaction wave of below-ambient pressure. That might do the trick. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry