When I saw the picture on page 66 of the Fall 2008 issue of the West Side yards in Classic Trains I immediately doubted the correctness of the caption calling the warship of the “Arizona” class. Then I read the editor’s note in the Winter issue that the mislabeling had caused a big ruckus and decided to add my two cents. I’d have to say that I agree the dissenters that instead it’s very likely the battleship New York or the Texas:
The distinguishing characteristics have to taken in combination:
A bow with little flare. Most U.S. cruisers had flared (clipper) bows.
The twin turrets fore and aft
Twin tripod masts
A single smokestack with a fire control tower immediately aft. It’s definitely not a U.S. heavy cruiser; all pre-war heavy cruisers had twin stacks
The distance, where there’s a turret that isn’t visible, between the midships fire control tower and the aft mast
The only other battleship that could be confused with the New York class battleships (from a distance) was the Arkansas of the Wyoming class (the class immediate preceding the New York), but it had a recognizably different fire control tower aft of the funnel and it wasn’t modernized until 1942 (before then it had “birdcage” masts) and the photo is dated 1934. (The Wyoming was never modernized into a similar configuration. Both had 6 turrets of twin 12” guns,
When I saw the picture on page 66 of the Fall 2008 issue of the West Side yards in Classic Trains I immediately doubted the correctness of the caption calling the warship of the “Arizona” class. Then I read the editor’s note in the Winter issue that the mislabeling had caused a big ruckus and decided to add my two cents. I’d have to say that I agree the dissenters that instead it’s very likely the battleship New York or the Texas:
The distinguishing characteristics have to taken in combination:
A bow with little flare. Most U.S. cruisers had flared (clipper) bows.
The twin turrets fore and aft
Twin tripod masts
A single smokestack with a fire control tower immediately aft. It’s definitely not a U.S. heavy cruiser; all pre-war heavy cruisers had twin stacks
The distance, where there’s a turret that isn’t visible, between the midships fire control tower and the aft mast
The only other battleship that could be confused with the New York class battleships (from a distance) was the Arkansas of the Wyoming class (the class immediate preceding the New York), but it had a recognizably different fire control tower aft of the funnel and it wasn’t modernized until 1942 (before then it had “birdcage” masts) and the photo is dated 1934. (The Wyoming was never modernized into a similar configuration. Both had 6 turrets of twin 12” guns, whereas the New York class had 5 turrets of 14” guns.)
Great looking photographs and analysis about the battleship. I’m an old salt from the Coast Guard and the only battleship I ever saw up close was the U.S.S. Alabama when I went on board as a tourist. Thanks again for sharing.
If you look in the latest issue of the magizine there id a explaination of the photo. And it explains the error very clearly just putting in my two cents worth CNW FOREVER GO ARMY BEAT NAVY Larry
I’m pretty sure that no U.S. battleship had “6 turrets of twin 12” guns”. The highest number of turrets on a U.S. battleship was five, and the battleships with 12 main guns had them in four tripple turrets.
As I mentioned, the only other battleship that might be confused with the New York class would have been the Arkansas:
In the drawing and picture the amidships fire control tower clearly differs from the one shown in Classic Trains, meaning that the ship is of the New York class. In addition, as I also mentioned, the Arkansas wasn’t rebuilt into the configuration where it could be confused with the New Yorks until 1942, long after the Classic Trains photo was taken. That the Wyoming class battleships had 6 x 2 x 12"/50 turrets has been well-known because it was the only class so-armed.
One other very minor point. USS. Arizona was not the class ship of the series. That honor goes to USS. Pennsylvania. She was hull number BB38, Arizona was BB39.
That’s what the editor’s correction admits on page 14 of the Winter issue. Not only did they get the ship’s name wrong they also got the class wrong. My putting Arizona in quotation marks was my way of making light of the editor’s embarrassment. You might take another read of it.
