USS South Carolina in World War II

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I pass by her all the time - anchored in Suisun bay. Does anyone know what they're going to do with her? It's sort of sad.

You're living in the Bay Area?

Somehow I got the impression you lived on the East Coast.

I'll be driving by the old girl today on the way to my sister's place.

There is still an ongoing effort to get her a home as a display. Bremerton and San Diego seem to be the most mentioned homes. Its a true pity she can't be moved to either Alameda, where she could share a permanent place of honor with the Hornet (CV-12) or to San Franciso's shoreline (be cool to see here near Pac Bell Park). Money prevent the former and the only remaing Soviet government (aka the SF Board of Supervisors) makes the latter an impossibility.
 
Last edited:

Blair152

Banned
The Texas was old but not obsolete by 1939.
With the exception of USS Houston, the majority of the ships of the Asiatic
Fleet WERE obsolete. You had Langley, our first aircraft carrier, which had been converted into a sub tender, the backbone of the Asiatic Fleet was
its destroyers, and they were World War I-era fourpipers, its submarines were obsolete, and when it came to funding, Congress NEVER funded the fleet train. The fleet train was always the first thing cut from the military budget. Congress also never allowed the Navy to build up to the treaty limits. One of the ships of the Asiatic Fleet, the cruiser USS Rochester, the
former USS New York, was scuttled to prevent it from falling into Japanese hands. There was one American destroyer, the name escapes me at the moment, that served with the Imperial Japanese Navy until 1944. The third USS Marblehead, (CL-12), which avoided Japanese bombs and torpedoes, wasn't part of the Asiatic Fleet, but was on loan from the Pacific
Fleet. The USS Marblehead was an Omaha class light cruiser, which meant
that she was built in the 1920s. She was an earlier version of the Omaha
class. There were later versions. They were much better. This is from the
Edwin P. Hoyt book The Lonely Ships.
 

Blair152

Banned
You're living in the Bay Area?

Somehow I got the impression you lived on the East Coast.

I'll be driving by the old girl today on the way to my sister's place.

There is still an ongoing effort to get her a home as a display. Bremerton and San Diego seem to be the most mentioned homes. Its a true pity she can't be moved to either Alameda, where she could share a permanent place of honor with the Hornet (CV-12) or to San Franciso's shoreline (be cool to see here near Pac Bell Park). Money prevent the former and the only remaing Soviet government (aka the SF Board of Supervisors) makes the latter an impossibility.
I'm in New Hampshire but I have family in the Bay Area. That's what I heard. A group in San Diego wants to bring the New Jersey there because
of San Francisco's opposition to the military. San Francisco, did, as I said before, ban JROTC.
 

Markus

Banned
As much as I hate to admit it, he IS right about the Clemsons. They were in fact obsolete the day they were launched. Here is one reason why. Note the difference to a W/V class DD? The latter has superfiring guns a much better layout for allround fire. The Clemsons also had a large turning radius and their triple-A was poor. On the plus side they could fire twice as many torpedoes as a W/V.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As much as I hate to admit it, he IS right about the Clemsons. They were in fact obsolete the day they were launched. Here is one reason why. Note the difference to a W/V class DD? The latter has superfiring guns a much better layout for allround fire. The Clemsons also had a large turning radius and their triple-A was poor. On the plus side they could fire twice as many torpedoes as a W/V.


Having twice the torpedo load out was quite the advantage in a surface action.

The point that I am efforting here (with what appears to be limited success) is that the U.S. forces in the region were not exclusively a bunch of broken down scows. Even the Clemsons had considerable combat utility in a surface action, particularly in the circumstances that were to be found in the Java Sea.

The IJN had very good destroyers, including some of their newest ships, but the Sendai class CL were far from breathtaking designs, being about an equal match for Marblehead or her sisters. The IJN Myoko class CA were contemporaries of both Houston & Exeter, all being mid-late 1920 designs.

Overall, if the American fleet was obsolete, something I strongly disagree with, than the IJN forces were not much better, especially in heavy units.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
With the exception of USS Houston, the majority of the ships of the Asiatic
Fleet WERE obsolete. You had Langley, our first aircraft carrier, which had been converted into a sub tender, the backbone of the Asiatic Fleet was
its destroyers, and they were World War I-era fourpipers, its submarines were obsolete, and when it came to funding, Congress NEVER funded the fleet train. The fleet train was always the first thing cut from the military budget. Congress also never allowed the Navy to build up to the treaty limits. One of the ships of the Asiatic Fleet, the cruiser USS Rochester, the
former USS New York, was scuttled to prevent it from falling into Japanese hands. There was one American destroyer, the name escapes me at the moment, that served with the Imperial Japanese Navy until 1944. The third USS Marblehead, (CL-12), which avoided Japanese bombs and torpedoes, wasn't part of the Asiatic Fleet, but was on loan from the Pacific
Fleet. The USS Marblehead was an Omaha class light cruiser, which meant
that she was built in the 1920s. She was an earlier version of the Omaha
class. There were later versions. They were much better. This is from the
Edwin P. Hoyt book The Lonely Ships.

Langley was a Seaplane tender at the time of her loss.

Rochester had been decommissioned in 1933, she was in Manila Bay because she wasn't worth the effort to bring her home for storage. She wasn't even an active part of the U.S. Navy when she was scuttled.


I'm in New Hampshire but I have family in the Bay Area. That's what I heard. A group in San Diego wants to bring the New Jersey there because
of San Francisco's opposition to the military. San Francisco, did, as I said before, ban JROTC.

I was talking to AHP.
 

Markus

Banned
Having twice the torpedo load out was quite the advantage in a surface action.

The point that I am efforting here (with what appears to be limited success) is that the U.S. forces in the region were not exclusively a bunch of broken down scows. Even the Clemsons had considerable combat utility in a surface action, particularly in the circumstances that were to be found in the Java Sea.

The IJN had very good destroyers, including some of their newest ships, but the Sendai class CL were far from breathtaking designs, being about an equal match for Marblehead or her sisters. The IJN Myoko class CA were contemporaries of both Houston & Exeter, all being mid-late 1920 designs.

Overall, if the American fleet was obsolete, something I strongly disagree with, than the IJN forces were not much better, especially in heavy units.

I agree. The Brits had choosen fewer torpedoes because IIRC their DD used thier guns more often than their torpedoes in WW1 but in a Java Sea style battle the torpedo heavy Clemsons were fighting the kind of battle they had been designed for.

The Sendais are IMO inferior to any allied CL. Javas, Leanders and Omahas are larger, even the small Tromp was carring just one less gun.

But I disagree about Exeter. She was as old(or new) as the Myokos but carried just six instead of ten 8" guns.

Did he say the entire Asiatic Fleet was obsolete? Ok, tactically the Clemsons were rather obsolescent than obsolete but lack of numbers played a far bigger role than the shiptypes. And the malufunction of a certain weapon system. I read Clay Blair´s "Silent Victory" again. Talk about lost opportunities for the subs in PI waters.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
True, but then the Myoko was over 3,000 tons heavier than the Exeter..

That she was. She was built to the well known Washington Treaty Crusier limitations. In the case of IJN vessels that means she violated the limits by about 30%.

Amazing what you can do with an extra 30% tonnage. Hell, you might even be tempted to design a 70,000 ton battleship with 18.1"/460mm guns (the guns would only be a 15% violation, so that is less than normal).

Nah, no one would do something like that.

:D
 
That she was. She was built to the well known Washington Treaty Crusier limitations. In the case of IJN vessels that means she violated the limits by about 30%.

Amazing what you can do with an extra 30% tonnage. Hell, you might even be tempted to design a 70,000 ton battleship with 18.1"/460mm guns (the guns would only be a 15% violation, so that is less than normal).

Nah, no one would do something like that.

:D

Ahh... Yamato... when ASB takes to the high seas, and people here say the king tiger was a waste of resources
 

pnyckqx

Banned
I pass by her all the time - anchored in Suisun bay. Does anyone know what they're going to do with her? It's sort of sad.
Sorry i didn't see this earlier, forgive the late reply:

USS Iowa (BB-61) and the USS Missouri (BB-63) remain in Fleet Reserve. They will be capable of returning to duty with some expedited work. Congress was not quite ready to surrender the battleship to the fate of wooden hulled ships at this time.

i pity whatever falls under those guns. So do the one or two Iraqis who survived the Missouri and Wisconsin shelling the ports in Kuwait during Desert Storm.
 
Basically the US Asian Fleet was entirely composed of obsolete vessels, as all DD's were of the Fourstack Flushdecked classes, none younger than some twenty years at least, while the two cruisers USS Houston and USS Marblehead were both seriously in need of a good refit, especially for their AA outfit, since none was up to date already. (Only the US Pacific Fleet guest USS Boise, was considered modern, but she too had almost no AA to speak of, since the planned 1.1 inch quads still had not been installed and she had to do like the rest of the USN ships in the Phillipines with nothing bigger than the few installed useless 0.5 inch MG's, as backup for the 5 inch heavy AA.)

This main problem was found through the whole USN of the period of early 1942, since the USN had not developped yet an effective medium caliber AA gun, capable of stopping an aircraft. The common 0.5 inch MG was still in use, but proved to have no real use as an AA gun, being too small and shortranged. It badly needed replacement by the much more efficient 20mm Oerlikon, following British Practice.
The medium 28mm, of 1.1 inch Quad was under developpement, but proved to be too cumbersome and defective to be of any use at all. It was surpassed by the much better 40mm Bofors in various variants after late 1942. (The British also lead in this case, since most ships in 1940 and later already started to make limmited use the 40mm bofors as suplement to their more common, but shorter ranged 40mm 2pdr multiplebarrelsystems.)
 
Do you have any concept of how quickly warships changed between 1906 and 1914? Or the difference between a 16,000 ton 1st Generation (in fact pre 1st Generation) Dreadnought and a 27,000 ton early Super-dreadnought? The USN did, that was why, DURING World War One, they retired South Carolina to training duty (BTW: the one time they actually tried to use her as a troop convoy escort she suffered an engineering casualty and had to limp back to New York for repairs)

USS Houston was anything but obsolete. She and her Northampton Class sisters were unlucky, but far from obsolete. The Porpoise, Salmon, & Sargo class boats assigned to Hart's command were anything but obsolete. The PBY assigned to Asiatic Fleet were anything but obsolete. The sub and seaplane tenders were far from obsolete.

What were OLD, but far from obsolete, were the 12 four stack destroyers (as the ghosts of any number of U-boat crews would be willing to attest)and the Marblehead.

It has long been convenient for some to proclaim the ABDA fleet was doomed because the ships were old and out of date. This is NOT supported by the facts (including the most important proof that the surviving ships were used in WAR ZONES until the end of WW II). They were caught in a severely lopsided force correlation match-up, poorly, if quite bravely managed, deprived of adequate air cover, and flat outfought by the IJN.

Thanks for the spelling tip.:rolleyes:

I know you either have no clue of what you are talking about or know better than any of us here; I just haven't been quite able to figure out which.

Great reply, CalBear. Agreed - ABDA was doomed by being outnumbered (massively) and outclassed (CA's, CLs, and DDs vs. CA's, BBs, and - most importantly - CVs).

Mike Turcotte
 
Now, Im not saying he should have done it... But I would understand.

:p

I am.

OOT - I'm an US'ian moderate, who generally votes Democratic, but I am stumped the these idiots who hate the military. Do they have no concept of history? Do they not understand the difference between 'Gays in the military' and little things like the Holocaust? Do they so lack perspective that their own narrow view is all they can see or even acknowledge to exist?
 

pnyckqx

Banned
Now, Im not saying he should have done it... But I would understand.

:p
Cal, i suspect that most of the residents of San Fransisco would understand, let alone the entire state of California. It has to be cheaper than a recall drive.:D

i wouldn't be surprised to discover that the Captain of the Iowa is using city hall to range his main batteries.
 
Top