Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Lert

Overhead shot of USS Iowa and USS Midway, 1987

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,439
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
16,314 posts
9,608 battles
8 minutes ago, fish_with_no_name said:

I heard that the hull and power plant of both ships are identical.

The Iowa's had an excellent hull form and the SHP is identical for both so it is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,180
Alpha Tester
5,354 posts
2,569 battles
21 minutes ago, fish_with_no_name said:

I heard that the hull and power plant of both ships are identical.

I thought I read or heard somewhere that the Midway's hull was based on what the Montana's hull would have been like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,619
[HINON]
Supertester
19,636 posts
13,211 battles
48 minutes ago, fish_with_no_name said:

I heard that the hull and power plant of both ships are identical.

Iowa has 270m length overall and the Midway class has 275m length at the water line, so the hulls can't be identical, Midway is longer at the waterline than Iowa overall.

26 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

I thought I read or heard somewhere that the Midway's hull was based on what the Montana's hull would have been like.

The Montanas are listed as 280m overall and 270m between perpendiculars on Wikipedia, so this is more likely.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[90THC]
[90THC]
Members
61 posts
5,406 battles

I may be wrong about this, but I think a lot of the stockpiled materials that were planned to go into building the Montana class were instead used to make Midway and her sisters. I believe this also includes using their propulsion systems and other machinery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,324
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,918 posts
15,675 battles

@Lert, I think you've found one of the few ships that could make an Iowa look skinny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
266 posts
7 hours ago, fish_with_no_name said:

I heard that the hull and power plant of both ships are identical.

You heard wrong.

I think they have the same powerplant layout as a Montana, but that's about the only similarity to a Battleship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
278
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
9,931 battles
20 minutes ago, JuiceEFruit said:

You heard wrong.

I think they have the same powerplant layout as a Montana, but that's about the only similarity to a Battleship.

Pretty much the same power plant, the reduction gearing and props may have been slightly different with the different cruising speeds and maximum speeds intended.

Any similarity in the hull and construction is only due to being from the same era, and both being US Navy designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,171 posts

You can easily tell how the Midway used to be a straight decker before they converted her for jet use. Her angles are all sorts of gnarly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,184
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,363 battles
On 11/29/2018 at 8:31 PM, TornadoADV said:

You can easily tell how the Midway used to be a straight decker before they converted her for jet use. Her angles are all sorts of gnarly.

When you consider how large a modern jet fighter is like a Hornet compared to WWII-era propeller aircraft, it's crazy thinking how many planes Midway would have fit.  After working on F/A-18 Hornets, when I saw WWII-era Warbirds during airshows, I was surprised how big they were compared to the likes of Mustangs, Hellcats, etc.  Even 2 and 4 engine bombers like the B25, B17 look a lot smaller than I imagined them to be as a kid.  Tomcats were gigantic compared to WWII-era aircraft.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
736 posts
5,130 battles
8 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

When you consider how large a modern jet fighter is like a Hornet compared to WWII-era propeller aircraft, it's crazy thinking how many planes Midway would have fit.  After working on F/A-18 Hornets, when I saw WWII-era Warbirds during airshows, I was surprised how big they were compared to the likes of Mustangs, Hellcats, etc.  Even 2 and 4 engine bombers like the B25, B17 look a lot smaller than I imagined them to be as a kid.  Tomcats were gigantic compared to WWII-era aircraft.

 Correct me if I’m wrong but I think I remember seeing somewhere that the Midway never had  F-14s  assigned to her because they where too big. The F-18 is a little smaller so when the fleet started using them Midway got those as the picture clearly shows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,184
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,363 battles
4 hours ago, Forgottensoldier117 said:

 Correct me if I’m wrong but I think I remember seeing somewhere that the Midway never had  F-14s  assigned to her because they where too big. The F-18 is a little smaller so when the fleet started using them Midway got those as the picture clearly shows. 

Not sure if Tomcats were ever on Midway-class.  I've of course seen them aboard the other more modern Carriers.  Tomcats are gigantic jets.  I remember walking upright, underneath one, between the engines and was impressed by the size of those beasts.

 

While WWII fighters and bombers, even 4 engine bombers are smaller than what I imagined them to be, the Tomcat was BIGGER than I thought they'd be :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[-TDF-]
Beta Testers
377 posts
3,416 battles
8 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Not sure if Tomcats were ever on Midway-class.  I've of course seen them aboard the other more modern Carriers.  Tomcats are gigantic jets.  I remember walking upright, underneath one, between the engines and was impressed by the size of those beasts.

 

While WWII fighters and bombers, even 4 engine bombers are smaller than what I imagined them to be, the Tomcat was BIGGER than I thought they'd be :Smile_teethhappy:

And the Tomcat is small compared to a Mig-31 or Su-27.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
736 posts
5,130 battles

Here’s some pics I took from one of my visits to the Midway it’s interesting to see how her air wing changed in number through the years. I’m sure some of it has to do with the physical size of the aircraft. 

Edit: I have just noticed that the second picture only adds up to 55 aircraft the other 11 are probably represented on the other side of that display but I do not have a pic of that because I suck sorry. 

F9743B22-2261-44BD-B9B0-67ED932537A6.jpeg

FA7F6EBF-82CA-41B9-900B-4811922C4EBB.jpeg

Edited by Forgottensoldier117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[ATFW]
Beta Testers
40 posts
2,716 battles

F14s were too Big and heavy for Midway.  Hell they were the heaviest thing we launched on Kitty Hawk when I was on her.  An F14 Cat drag sucked for the engineering plant...  The Midway and Iowa engineering plants were similar in that they were M type Boilers and Steam Turbines (originally all manual) , but as someone else mentioned, so were most high powered ships of the era.  Midway had multiple modifications over the years to convert to modern jets, some not so great.  They added sponsons that caused her to Wallow around quite a bit instead of providing stability as was intended.  I just missed out on getting to serve on the Wisconsin, but I did get to steam with the New Jersey a bunch on exercises when I was on The Waddell (1200 Psi D type boilers, as God intended DDG's to have :) )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
894 posts
9,235 battles
On 12/20/2018 at 7:44 PM, Forgottensoldier117 said:

A great picture. I’ve had the pleasure of visiting both ships as museums. Go visit them every chance I get. 

Yeah Man!  I've been on Midway (thanks Wargaming!), need to hit Iowa in the next few weeks before I leave CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
736 posts
5,130 battles
3 hours ago, WhiteRecon said:

Yeah Man!  I've been on Midway (thanks Wargaming!), need to hit Iowa in the next few weeks before I leave CA.

You won’t be disappointed she looks great and to me there is something special about seeing a battleship up close. 

Edit: why would someone thumbs down this? Lol 

Edited by Forgottensoldier117
  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
266 posts
On 12/26/2018 at 4:46 PM, Forgottensoldier117 said:

You won’t be disappointed she looks great and to me there is something special about seeing a battleship up close. 

Edit: why would someone thumbs down this? Lol 

Spent the night on the Wisconsin last night, Boy Scout trip.  Got a guided, after-hours tour.  It was awesome.   

It's true....lots of us Battleship nerds get caught up in specs, guns, armor, etc....and then you go see the real thing and realize that there is a LOT, and I mean a LOT of other factors to consider other than "will Gun A penetrate the armor of Ship B?".   It's not that simple.  There is TONS (literally and figuratively) of stuff that can alter a shell's path on these ships.  It's very hard to imagine a shell that lands and goes straight to the armor belt and puts its penetration capabilities up against the belt's resistance with no other alterations of its path. 

And just the sheer size of them.   I've been on the North Carolina dozens of times throughout my life.  Been on the Yorktown, the Laffey, sub Clamagore, and been on the WisKy in 2001 also.

But time lets you forget the scale of these monstrosities.    It's something everyone should experience.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×