Iowa 3"/50 configuration

JFC Fuller

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
22 April 2012
Messages
2,276
Reaction score
2,191
It was planned to fit the Iowa class with the 3"/50 but this was abandoned post-war. I once saw online a line drawing that showed the planned layout, it wasn't a straight swap for the quad 40mm mounts due to weight concerns but I have seen one book that states that 15 mounts were planned.

Does anybody have any details about the planned fit?

I have noted that the bow mountings didn't last long post-war on any USN ship, looking at the cruisers for instance they seem to have been the first mountings to go. I assume maintaining them when they were exposed to heavy spray proved difficult.
 
Last edited:
Friedman's Book on US Battleships speaks to this, as does Garzke's and Dulin's book. Another book by Scarpacci gives his impression of the results.

I'll look up the first two and post up what they say. I'll also post up information on Scarpacci's book so you can track it down (it's quite interesting and worth picking up: It discusses a lot of the proposed conversions of the Iowa and Alaska classes and provides many drawings showng what they could have looked like.)

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!
B)
 
Further to my last post, here is the information I promised.

First, from "Battleships: United States Navy Battleships, 1935-1992" by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr. there is a short paragraph stating that a plan was completed in 1955 for the Iowas to receive ten (10) twin 3in-50 cal mounts to replace all Bofors mounts on the ship. These would be controlled by six (6) additional Mark 56 directors, which could also be used with the 5in-38 cal mounts.

Secondly, from "U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" by Norman Friedman more details are available, some of which differ from the reference above. The project was a Class Improvement Plan (CIP) from 1955 that had proceeded far enough to recieve an SCB designation (SCB-74E) but was never funded. It called for all Bofors mounts (twenty (20) of the them at that time) to be replaced by sixteen (16) twin 3in-50 cal mounts, with none on turret tops and the uppermost quad Bofors positions abeam the second funnel to be left empty. They would be controlled by six (6) Mark 56 and three (3) Mark 63 directors. The Mark 56 directors would also have the ballistics for the 5in-38 call mounts so that they could control them as well.

The third reference is "US Battleships Conversion Projects 1942-1965: An Illustrated Technical Reference" By Wayne Scarpaci. It shows the author's impression of the SCB-74E conversion but it shows only twelve (12) of the sixteen (16) mounts in position. This may seem inconsistent with the Freidman reference but there are two additional pieces of information to be considered; from Friedman we know that some of the mounts were not to be shipped during peacetime (all wiring and foundations were in place for them to be shipped) and the drawing in Scarpaci indicates the year 1958. The year is of note as the CIP's most likely evolved over the period that they were maintained and, as such, some of the mounts may have been deleted as time went on until the CIP's themselves were deemed obsolete.

As you know the guns were never fitted. Two of the ships (Iowa and New Jersey) received all six (6) Mark 56 and two (2) of the three (3) Mark 63 directors. The other ships did not receive any of these directors.

Hope this helps.

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!
B)
 
I should add that Friedman's book also gives the positions of the Mark 56 and Mark 63 directors. Did you want that information?

I also went back and corrected the annoying spelling and other errors in my previous posts, although I expect that interfered little with the meaning of them.

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!
B)
 
Quoting from Friedman page 392:

"The new 3-inch battery of the Iowas was to have been controlled by six Mark 56 (two on short towers abeam the funnels, two abeam the after fire control tower, two forward of and abeam the forward pair of Mark 37 directors) and by three Mark 63 (one each for the two right aft, and one for the two mounts replacing the two bofors right forward). Since Mark 56 cuold also control the 5-inch battery, in effect there would be one director per 5-inch gunhouse."

The position of the Mark 56 directors is shown in the drawing of New Jersey as recommissioned for Vietnam on Page 391 of Friedman's book. Regretably, I am unable to post one up as my scanner is dead! Pictures of the New Jersey as reactivated for Vietnam should show all six Mark 56 directors but for that deployment only the two directors abeam the funnels were fully activated, the other four having their dishes removed and being covered, though still present. The Mark 63's were removed during the work leading up to this deployment.

Hope this helps.

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!
B)
 
Found the drawing on the net. It shows all six Mark 56 directors and the guntubs for all 3-in/50 cal gun mount positions except the two right forward. By this time the positions right forward on the bow had been removed. It also shows the positions of the two Mark 63 directors right aft (directors themselves not then fitted).
Care of Blueprints.com:

edit, re-uploaded image after the link failed. source of image as above. Regards

uss-bb-62-new-jersey-1969-battleship-2.png
 
Last edited:
And a good shot from Wikipedia showing all three port side Mark 56, the two inactive ones covered in black canvas:

 
Indeed. Damage from water coming over the bow during heavier weather was the issue. The maintenance burden was acceptable during wartime because of the tactical utility of the bow mounted weapons but with the smaller peacetime crews and budgets it progressively became unacceptable.

The RCN addressed this issue on frigates and destroyers carrying this weapon (especially when doing so forward) through the use of fibreglass gunhouses. It wasn't a fix that covered absolutely every weather occasion but it was close. The USN also did this on some of its auxiliaries but, to my knowledge, none of its surface combatants carrying the 3-inch/50 mounts.


Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!
B)
 
M. A. Rozon said:
The RCN addressed this issue on frigates and destroyers carrying this weapon (especially when doing so forward) through the use of fibreglass gunhouses. It wasn't a fix that covered absolutely every weather occasion but it was close. The USN also did this on some of its auxiliaries but, to my knowledge, none of its surface combatants carrying the 3-inch/50 mounts.
Click to expand...

Actually, the comment I made regarding surface combatants isn't true. I had forgotten about a couple of Post-WW2 classes of ASW escorts (Frigates) developed by the USN prior to the Knox class. The Dealy class, Bronstein and the Claude Jones class, I believe, are the vessels in question. The Ashville Class gunboats were another one. These vessels carried the 3-inch 50 as their main gun and these mounts were enclosed by the fibreglass weather shield I mentioned.

Regretably, the lower historical profile of these ships allowed them to slip my mind. I hate it when that happens. My apologies for the error.

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!
B)
 
M. A. Rozon said:
Quoting from Friedman page 392:

"The new 3-inch battery of the Iowas was to have been controlled by six Mark 56 (two on short towers abeam the funnels, two abeam the after fire control tower, two forward of and abeam the forward pair of Mark 37 directors) and by three Mark 63 (one each for the two right aft, and one for the two mounts replacing the two bofors right forward). Since Mark 56 cuold also control the 5-inch battery, in effect there would be one director per 5-inch gunhouse."

The position of the Mark 56 directors is shown in the drawing of New Jersey as recommissioned for Vietnam on Page 391 of Friedman's book. Regretably, I am unable to post one up as my scanner is dead! Pictures of the New Jersey as reactivated for Vietnam should show all six Mark 56 directors but for that deployment only the two directors abeam the funnels were fully activated, the other four having their dishes removed and being covered, though still present. The Mark 63's were removed during the work leading up to this deployment.

Hope this helps.

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!
B)
Click to expand...
Do you know the proposed Radar set Improvement?
I have info of these:
SPS-12 Air/Surface Search and SPS-8 Air Search Radars

I wonder if they would receive the SPS-3 Hemispherical 3D Radar?
 
Dilandu said:
Rather doubt that, considering that it was build in exactly one prototype and then the whole program was cancelled.
Click to expand...
It depends on when the CIP was actually appeared and when exactly the SPS-3 program terminated.
 
Tzoli said:
It depends on when the CIP was actually appeared and when exactly the SPS-3 program terminated.
Click to expand...
My knowledge of SPS-3 admittedly limited, but when a promising program got cancelled after just a single prototype build (and prototype removed in less than two years) - it usually indicates some major problems with the design.

If I recall correctly - I may be mistaken, and should check the sources - AN/SPS-3 was unable to met design requirements, and its range against fighter/cruise missile type threat was about half of intended. This radar was designed to track relatively small, fast moving targets with a high data refresh rate (the initial project was against Japanese kamikaze rocket planes, like Ohka, then turned against cruise missiles), and it was found to be too short-ranged to be of any practical use.
 
Tzoli said:
Do you know the proposed Radar set Improvement?
I have info of these:
SPS-12 Air/Surface Search and SPS-8 Air Search Radars

I wonder if they would receive the SPS-3 Hemispherical 3D Radar?
Click to expand...
Even though this is based on Friedman's book "Naval Radars", the following is still only speculation on my part. Given the time period of the CIP's, my guess would be the following:

SPS-6 and/or SPS-12
SPS-4 or SG-6 for surface search and Zenith search.
SPS-8 for heightfinding to aid in fighter control.

As soon as SPS-10 is available, it would replace SPS-4 and SG-6. As jet fighter speeds tended to render zenith search of little use, zenith search on these two radars was disabled and the radars eventually replaced by SPS-10.

The ship would surely receive then current EW systems if the CIP's went ahead.

Hope this helps.
 
Tzoli said:
One of the SLQ-1-16 systems for EW / ECM?
Click to expand...
SLQ-1 and SLR-2 likely. The refitted gun cruisers seems to get it. Albeit considering that the battleship refit project was made in 1955 and the refit itself would likely be in late 1950s, it stands fo reason than a more modern ECM package might be provided.
 
Based on Navypedia, they were part of the Mitchers Sensor set which were commissioned in 1953-54.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom