Nice shots.
Thanks.
I think they also add to my observation of it being easier to date a ship more by what you see on the inside spaces then from the exterior silhouette.
Are they related to BB-8? Since star wars is in the future, I would have expected a higher BB number.
Welllll...
as a matter of fact...
(and yes the sly reference is both obvious and quite funny but, you really shouldn't present me with such opportunities to go on out farther into the weeds; as such, this time it's your fault).
BB-60 is directly related to BB-8 in one particular way. They're both named in honor of the same state: Alabama...
"Battleship #8" though (and obviously) was much older, having been commissioned into the USN in 1900. She was an Illinois class "pre-dreadnought" designed along similar lines as the Royal Navy's Majestic class of ships...
As were other battle-wagons of the period, the main armament was only 4 guns; 2 forward and 2 aft (in this instance, they were 13'/35 cal weapons), accompanied by a secondary batter of smaller guns (6'/45s for these ships).
Thoroughly outclassed and obsolete by the beginning of the "Great War", ships of this type spent about two thirds or better of their service lives in secondary roles. BB-8 would end her days as a target and would finally being sunk in a series of exercises that first heralded the inevitable changing of the guard from guns to bombs...
But there are many sailors that will tell you that this somewhat ignominious ending is more fitting for an old fighter then to be dismantled by a scrapyard's torches...
Wish some would tell the ball an....err..DW that.
Nope, cant help ya' there; you're off the map now.
'Fraid you'er on your own.
I had a feeling it might be a sub! Not gonna go back and check, but maybe you said "boat"...
May have, I'd also have to check.
That said, subs - especially before the age of the "Boomers" and nuclear attack ships - were often referred to as "boats" even by their crews (it's both a matter of habit and an honorary call back to the days when subs were considerably smaller craft). The fine line between boat and ship though is a mite subtle and while certainly it's all about the overall size of the vessel, it's still open to a fair amount of interpretation. The most consist distinction I've ever heard is that a "boat" is small enough to be carried aboard a "ship". By that definition, most subs would be ships, but again, depending on the times and context, there is room for argument there.
Nice...
Don't think the crew would appreciate that one quit as much, but still...
Huh! Sure doesn't look that "luxurious"... I'm going to have to go back to my photos of the sub in Chicago.
It's all relative, so to speak.
The U-505 at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry is a German Type IXc. While being one of the larger German designs of the period it was most certainly smaller and more cramped (251' long and 1232 tons vs the Drum's 311' and 2060 tons submerged displacement). But then again, that design and especially the preceding even smaller Type VIIc boats (there I go again) were also considered to be some of the most pure designs of their day. All business, nothing wasted, precisely what was needed to accomplish the task at hand with the given technology of the time, and not much more. The crew was there mainly to service the ship, not the other way around.
= = = =
OK, last little bit of images from Battleship Park, Mobile.
(and then I promise to move on to a different subject)
(unless y'all throw me another softball that just has to be swatted back, so keep that in mind.)
The foundation down in Mobile maintains a very nice collection and as y'all have already noted, there's more there then you might expect. Aside from the main vessels, there's a couple of smaller patrol boats, a mock-up of the Civil War era submarine Hunley (which reminds me that I really need to go see that original artifact down in Charleston) and several additional monuments and memorials.
There is also a small display hall on site dedicated to vehicles and aircraft.
I'll be honest and tell you that I didn't spend quite as much time in here as I might have. Partly because it was getting late; partly because there are other venues that I've encountered (and intend to travel to), that have more extensive collections, and partly because I'd pushed my Missus (and my luck) plenty far enough that day as it was. As such, these exhibits got a little bit of short shrift on this trip, but I'll tell you that the building is still very much worth checking out if your there.
One of the more impressive aircraft on site was too large even for this space, though...
The B-52 strategic bomber that I saw from up in the ships battle-mast is quite the beast and despite being relegated as an outdoor exhibit, it's still well maintained.
There were other larger air frames that are just too big to be housed indoors as well, such as this "Mitchel" B-25G
and a C-47 (the military variant of the commercial DC-3) that is done up in D-Day markings (but, could use a bit of refurbishment)
There's also the collection of armor that I've shown y'all before, but here's a little better resolution of part of that group...
and lastly, I rather like the placement of this particular gun...
A single 5'/38 mount standing guard to protect "LA" (Lower Alabama) from any marauders or tourists that might consider attacking from the East...
