Naval History Forums

NATO Battleships

Hello all this post is a series of questions concerning the deployment and operations of the 'NATO Battleships" defined as:

USN's Iowa New Jersey Missouri Wisconsin

France's Richelieu Jean Bart

Italy's Ciao Duilio Andrea Doria

UK's Vanguard

Does anyone have knowledge of these ships participating in cross nationality NATO exercises, besides Operation Strikeback in the North Atlantic with Iowa and Vanguard in 1956?

Examples of what I am seeking: One of the Italian or French BB's operating with each other or in conjunction with any of the Iowa's in the Mediterranean? Or in the case of the French ships with Vanguard or one of the Iowa's in the Atlantic?

Postwar information and overall photos of the Italian ships are very difficult to find…If you have any knowledge of the Italian of the French ships operations postwar, beyond the minimal published information in the common reference sources, and/or unpublished photos of them postwar, particularly the Duilio class with the "measure 18' paint scheme (dark gray hull, with haze gray upperworks) with radars installed please contact me at sdae103@yahoo.com.

These questions are a part of my ongoing research efforts for my next book on Italian BB's and the book to follow on French BB's.
Any information would be greatly appreciated, and 'credited and acknowledged in print'.

Best Regards

Wayne Scarpaci

I too would especially love to see any post war images/moving footage of Jean Bart post world war 2 (possibly at the Suez?)

My new French BB book has a painting of the Richelieu moored at Port Said Egypt in Oct 1946 wearing an admrialty scheme A on page 65...Holiday wishes to all....Wayne

One point that seems to have escaped notice is that France has never formally been part of the NATO alliance. This arises from the fact that De Gualle didn't want French forces under American or British command, presumably due to the problems in Allied relationships in WW2.
The French view is of co-operation and participation on their own terms - as in their nuclear deterrent, which I believe, unlike Britain, was genuinely independent of the US.

This arises from the fact that De Gualle didn't want French forces under American or British command, presumably due to the problems in Allied relationships in WW2.

De Gaulle didnt mind the British and Americans liberting his county.

Montgomery was always falling out with American generals and at one point, Eisenhower complained to Churchill about him but we Brits still became part of NATO

I thought I remembered France being part of NATO at one time and then parting ways. The wiki article at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
seems to confirm that memory.

RF wrote:One point that seems to have escaped notice is that France has never formally been part of the NATO alliance. This arises from the fact that De Gualle didn't want French forces under American or British command, presumably due to the problems in Allied relationships in WW2.
The French view is of co-operation and participation on their own terms - as in their nuclear deterrent, which I believe, unlike Britain, was genuinely independent of the US.

yes, they were. I remember when they withdrew. It was a really big deal at the time ... we were doing drills in the schools where we would all hide in the furnace room to prepare to get nuked.

Gary wrote:This arises from the fact that De Gualle didn't want French forces under American or British command, presumably due to the problems in Allied relationships in WW2.

De Gaulle didnt mind the British and Americans liberting his county.

:

Only because the Free French Army wasn't big enough to do the job on its own. Remember the arguments about the liberation of Paris - De Gualle wanted the Free French to take the city, not the Americans......

In actual fact the Free French Army and the FFI did actually liberate about two thirds of the area of France (particulary the south west of the country, where the German garrisons were cut off from the rest of their forces) while the Americans and British headed from Normandy directly towards Belguim, while the landings in the south of France largely comprised French forces supported by Americans and British, so to an extent De Gualle had his way.

Yes there were disagreements between American and British top brass; but the arguments with De Gualle were over more fundamental issues, but as De Gualle was far less important in pure military terms these disagreements with the French leader didn't matter so much - at the time.

So no post WW2 photos of any of the old French BB's are available? I cant recall being able to find any good ones...

Legend wrote:So no post WW2 photos of any of the old French BB's are available? I cant recall being able to find any good ones...

I know I've seen post war photo's of the Richelieu. Some of these are almost assuredly post war:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&s ... f&oq=&aqi=

After 1946 the allies couldn't wait to get rid of their battleships fast enough. The US only kept the Iowa class in service on and off probably for prestige purposes. By 1960 all the battleships were gone except for the Iowa's which were saved primarily for nostalgia purposes. The same with the French they completed the Jean Bart well after the war as the last new battleship. Even the French had to borrow a couple of Independence class carriers for their war in Vietnam. The advantage of a carrier is that it can strike deep inland. The New Jersey was re-commissioned in the 60's for shore bombardment something the old Texas could have done probably as well. In the Gulf war after the Iowa's were upgraded for modern warfare they only launched missiles which could have been done with mobile launchers strapped to a flat decked barge. And they had to risk damage in mined waters. Not only are battleships expensive to maintain that every one since the Monitor was obsolescent when completed.

Gentlemen,
I thought that Wisconsin actually did some bombarding in the first Gulf war, as well as launching missiles - or am I wrong?

Yes, the 16in guns were fired in GW1. Also.....didnt Turkey have an old German battlecruiser that was assigned a NATO hull number? B70?

BTW, does anyone know if any BBs were equiped with nuclear shells?

19kilo wrote:BTW, does anyone know if any BBs were equiped with nuclear shells?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

3) A total of fifty Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear projectiles were produced during the 1950s with development starting in 1952 and the first service projectile being delivered in October 1956. It is possible that the W23 nuclear warhead used for this projectile may have been installed inside of an otherwise unaltered HC Mark 13 shell body, although one of the sources listed below says that the projectile was slightly smaller than the Mark 13. USS Iowa, USS New Jersey and USS Wisconsin had an alteration made to Turret II magazine to incorporate a secure storage area for these projectiles. USS Missouri was not so altered as she had been placed in reserve in 1955. This secure storage area could contain ten nuclear shells plus nine Mark 24 practice shells. These nuclear projectiles were all withdrawn from service by October 1962 with none ever having been fired from a gun. One projectile was expended as part of Operation Plowshare (the peaceful use of nuclear explosive devices) and the rest were deactivated. USS Wisconsin did fire one of the practice shells during a test in 1957. It is not clear whether or not any of the battleships ever actually carried a nuclear device onboard, as the US Navy routinely refuses to confirm or deny which ships carry nuclear weapons. ...