Yes, there is a modest USS Utah memorial near the wreck, but not straddling it like the Arizona.
http://www.ussutah.org/
Search found 1528 matches
- Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:29 pm
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: Hood vs. Scharnhorst
- Replies: 29
- Views: 15378
- Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:17 am
- Forum: Naval Technology
- Topic: Bismarck class turret protection
- Replies: 74
- Views: 57134
- Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:08 pm
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: Nuclear warhead shell!
- Replies: 12
- Views: 4868
Official designation was 16-in Mk23. It would appear that 50 were made and entered service in 1956, and in the Iowa, New Jersey and Wisconsin, Turret II magazines were remodeled by addition of a secure area housing ten such nuclear shells (although doubt remains as to whether or not any of the battl...
- Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:58 pm
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: Nuclear warhead shell!
- Replies: 12
- Views: 4868
- Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:02 pm
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: Nuclear warhead shell!
- Replies: 12
- Views: 4868
The Atomic Energy Museum at Kirland AFB near Albuquerque NM has a 16-inch nuclear shell on display.
http://www.6v6gt.com/Atomic/Image007.jpg
http://www.6v6gt.com/Atomic/Image007.jpg
- Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:57 pm
- Forum: Naval Technology
- Topic: Bismarck class turret protection
- Replies: 74
- Views: 57134
- Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:23 pm
- Forum: Naval Technology
- Topic: Bismarck class turret protection
- Replies: 74
- Views: 57134
- Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:46 pm
- Forum: Naval Technology
- Topic: Bismarck class turret protection
- Replies: 74
- Views: 57134
Hi Dave, I am not so sure the slope at the rear was anything more than there being little high up in the turret rear until you reached the rangefinder, and the need for more weight in back to keep the turret in balance. The combination of a longer shallower slope and heavier armour might make it app...
- Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:33 pm
- Forum: Naval Technology
- Topic: Bismarck class turret protection
- Replies: 74
- Views: 57134
The hit which initially disabled Turret B and the presumed hit which caused an internal explosion were two different events separated by a considerable time element. The first may well have been a shell which struck and holed the barbett at its top edge which jammed the turret and effectively put it...
- Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:56 pm
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: Knights Cross
- Replies: 20
- Views: 6183
- Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:33 pm
- Forum: Naval Technology
- Topic: Bismarck/ Tirpitz Aircraft Carrier conversion?
- Replies: 10
- Views: 10512
- Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:14 pm
- Forum: Naval Technology
- Topic: Lifeboats etc.
- Replies: 13
- Views: 6051
Actually it is true under some circumstances. In major fleet actions it was often done, primarily to prevent the wooden boats from being a source of splinters (which inflicted most wounds in the age of sail). Most ships in line of battle sailed under battle sails, rather than with full sails set to ...
- Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:52 pm
- Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
- Topic: WW1 Invincible/ Inflexible vs. WW2 Scharnhorst/Gneisenau
- Replies: 43
- Views: 15683
I believe the objective of Spee's planned attack on Port Stanely, and possibly Langsdorff's was to destroy the telegraphic centre for the transoceanic cable, thereby disrupting communication. It was a rather more important target in Spee's day than in Langsdorff's, considering that radio communicati...
- Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:59 am
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: South Dakota´s barbette impact
- Replies: 9
- Views: 3087
- Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:08 pm
- Forum: Naval History (1922-1945)
- Topic: South Dakota´s barbette impact
- Replies: 9
- Views: 3087