USS Nevada

3,014 Views | 16 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by agracer
CaptTex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've always known she was the only battleship to get underway during the attack, but how did they manage that? Were her boilers hot or was it just coincidence that morning they had enough pressure to make way? Absolutely valiant to try to move that steel island and fight back, 1500 paid for it unfortunately.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm probably wrong, but I think they cut every corner known to man and even cut some more and got enough steam up to to get underway.

Nope I was wrong. Looks like had two lit with the intention of shutting one down at 0800 per Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nevada_(BB-36)
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
She wasn't on shore power so had a boiler running to provide power to the ship. As was mentioned they were going to switch boilers at 0800 and thus had the second boiler heating up at the time of the attack. Of the ships that made it underway that morning all were in the same situation.
All the ships who made it underway that morning did so because of young leaders taking initiative and acting on their own in face of extreme conditions.
In a couple cases it was relatively new Ensigns who were standing watch, because that's who draws duty on Sunday morning in port, and stepped up and made critical decisions instead of waiting for orders from superiors.
CaptTex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for the information guys, I need to do some research into the Nevadas boilers after her refit I think in the thirties? Boiled tech came a long ways, and this was bolstered by oil firing, which alot of modern navies at the time fought uo until the very early 1900s. Such amazing machines, just a shame she's 15kft down near Hawaii.
Ag_of_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Nevada was refit in 27, finished in 30 with the improved boilers etc.
Smeghead4761
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Propulsion improvements included replacement of the original 12 boilers with 6 more efficient boilers, and replacement of the original direct drive steam turbine with geared turbines.

Useless factoid: The Nevada class battleships (Nevada and Oklahoma) were the first USN battleships built with all oil fired boilers. The preceding New York class were coal fired. The Delaware had both coal and oil fired boilers
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Smeghead4761 said:

Useless factoid: The Nevada class battleships (Nevada and Oklahoma) were the first USN battleships built with all oil fired boilers. The preceding New York class were coal fired. The Delaware had both coal and oil fired boilers
New York Class includes the USS Texas.
CaptTex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texas also had traditional reciprocating engines, triple expansion I believe. Water tube boilers were much more efficient than flue tub boilers, still probably took considerable time to raise pressure.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is taking me back to my Intro to Naval Science 101 days....

I've seen an actual triple expansion engine at the Maine Maritime Museum at Bath. Very cool.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CaptTex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tough old lady, should have been saved but I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky we have an example of every modern battleship built. North Carolina, Sodak and Iowa, so many countries came out of that conflict beleaguered and financially destroyed, they scrapped it all.
Ag_of_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It was also a split class, with Oklahoma being built with triple expansion engines vs Nevada's turbines. Part of the justification for not righting Oklahoma until all other salvage efforts had taken priority was the inferior machinery aboard. They also only carried the 14/45 main battery, which while they ended up being useful, where inferior to the other battleships. Also the primary reason Arizona was ignored, she just wasn't worth it after the black powder magazine hit ripped her apart.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Battleships weren't using black powder
Ag_of_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes SOME still did, as the ignition charge for the main powder. Arizona used an older gun and charge, an had a sizeable blackpowder magazine still aboard the morning of Dec 7th, where a hit in the area of A/B turret is a good candidate for what actually destroyed her. The old theory about a bomb down her main funnel is completely debunked, and there is quite a bit of physical proof one of her main magazines did not detonate.

Drachinfel's video on the subject is an excellent summation, and give his sources as well. The evidence does point to the blackpowder magazine she had aboard as the source of the explosion.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I stand corrected, knew the 14/45's were designed to use smokeless, did not know about using black powder as a primer. Good stuff.
Ag_of_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In fairness I didn't until not long before his video came out, it was my understanding that all the 14" and larger American BBs had been converted before the war. Unfortunately for the Arizona, that was not the case :-(.

Speaks to the advancements in cordite and smokeless powder after Jutland that not only did her main magazines like not actually explode, they found hunk of unburnt propellant hundreds of yards from the ship.

I shoot some traditional blackpowder rifles on occasion... having a pound of it in the house makes me nervous.... 1000 or so pounds in a sealed metal box with high ex and an O2 supply suddenly introduced makes my skin crawl.
agracer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stumbled across this earlier this week regarding the Arizona.



Also salvage of Pearl Harbor in 3 parts





Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.