During the Gulf war of the early 1990s, I believe the USS Missouri, an Iowa Class battleship, was recommissioned or restored to active status and used.

1. What was the cost for restoration?

2. How long did the job take?

3. From its World War II configuration, what changes were made during restoration?

4. How many sailors were its 1990s complement?

5. What, if anything, did the Missouri do that could not be done less expensively or more efficiently by US armed forces of the time?

6. If the Missouri was, in fact, able to do its assigned tasks better than any other entity for that war, what are reasons for decommissioning it again? What has occurred since that war that renders that Iowa Class battleship a liability now?

7. If it remains superior to other entities for the job for which it was restored for the Gulf war, why are not other battleships restored comparably?

My knowledge of the ships is quite old and may not be totally accurate or up-to-date.

These ships were brought back as a low cost answer to the Soviet Kirov class battle cruiser. My recollection is that they were less expensive than the contemporary guided missile destroyer.

To restore the ships took several years, the work being assigned to several contractors who were building ships with the Navy at the time.

Crews consisted of several thousand officers and men but were hundreds less than required for World War II operation. Armored hulls of the BB were unique at the time. They therefore offered protection against cruise missiles.

While the gun suite of the ships were second to none they had no missile launchers. Therefore most of the 40 mm mounts and many of the 5 inch twin antiaircraft batteries were removed and replaced by box launchers for cruise missiles.

While the ships are indeed decommissioned, several of them are retained in near battle ready condition. Budget cutters in recent administrations see them as an opportunity to reduce military expenditures.

There is a lot of information about her and her reactivation and upgrades here
USS Missouri

I remember reading an article by an old battle ship sailor. It was his opinion that nothing in the world is more impressive then pulling a battle ship into a harbor and dropping anchor. It gets every ones attention.

Jim

To put things in perspective, if an Iowa class battleship was anchored 3.5 miles off the shore of Chicago, it could throw its 2700 lbs shells into Ohare airport.

An Iowa class Battleship can put more destruction (non nuclear ) with its 16 inch guns in less time, with less risk to personal and at less expense than any other method, as long as the targets are within its range.

No doubt WWII (The War We Wanted to Win, and We Won) proved that the Aircraft Carrier IS the Ultimate Warship, I think there is still a place for a BIG GUN... After all 16 inch shells are a lot cheaper than a rocket of equal power.

I got to scamper around on the Missouri when she was berthed in Bremerton in the 1960s. A very impressive vessel. I can remember peering over the bow and looking down and seeing perch feeding around her anchor chain.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
An Iowa class Battleship can put more destruction (non nuclear ) with its 16 inch guns in less time, with less risk to personal and at less expense than any other method, as long as the targets are within its range.

No doubt WWII (The War We Wanted to Win, and We Won) proved that the Aircraft Carrier IS the Ultimate Warship, I think there is still a place for a BIG GUN... After all 16 inch shells are a lot cheaper than a rocket of equal power.

done a lot of research on the iowa class battleships.... one of the facts that REALLY impressed me was the 16 inch rifles "yes they are rifled" can put all 9 2000 lb+ shells into a target the size of a football field from 20 miles away.............

quote:

Originally posted by Naphtali:
During the Gulf war of the early 1990s, I believe the USS Missouri, an Iowa Class battleship, was recommissioned or restored to active status and used.

1. What was the cost for restoration?

2. How long did the job take?

3. From its World War II configuration, what changes were made during restoration?

4. How many sailors were its 1990s complement?

5. What, if anything, did the Missouri do that could not be done less expensively or more efficiently by US armed forces of the time?

6. If the Missouri was, in fact, able to do its assigned tasks better than any other entity for that war, what are reasons for decommissioning it again? What has occurred since that war that renders that Iowa Class battleship a liability now?

7. If it remains superior to other entities for the job for which it was restored for the Gulf war, why are not other battleships restored comparably?

The USS Missouri was not alone... Her three sister ships the USS Iowa, USS Wisconsin and USS New Jersey were modernized and returned to service at about the same time.

I suppose they could have returned several other WW2 battleships (there are three that come to mind, the two surviving South Dakota class ships, USS Alabama and USS Massachusetts and the Single surviving North Carolina class ship (The USS North Carolina, the USs Washington having been broken up for scrap after the war)to service as well, though those would have been more expensive as all of them have been museum ships for decades...

Their prime liability?

The machinery necessary to manufacture new 16" projectiles no longer exists, it too was scrapped after WW2...

So there is only a limited amount of "Bullets" available for the big rifles.. the other liability is their enormous thirst for "Bunker C" heavy fuel oil

AD

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
An Iowa class Battleship can put more destruction (non nuclear ) with its 16 inch guns in less time, with less risk to personal and at less expense than any other method, as long as the targets are within its range.

No doubt WWII (The War We Wanted to Win, and We Won) proved that the Aircraft Carrier IS the Ultimate Warship, I think there is still a place for a BIG GUN... After all 16 inch shells are a lot cheaper than a rocket of equal power.

The Iowa and her three sisters were structurally much more robust that any of their predecessors.

as an examampleof how tougholder battleships were... the USS Pennsylvania (sister of the Arizona) was the least damaged at Pearl harbor (she was in drydock at the time of the attack) and so was one of the least modernized
for WWII, served through the war doing pre-invasion bombardment
And after the war was used as a target ship for both the Able & baker shots of operation crossroads.
The underwater shot of the baker test literally flipped her end over end and she survived to be available for structural and raidiological study still had to be intentionally scuttled after the test

quote:

Originally posted by tasco 74:

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
An Iowa class Battleship can put more destruction (non nuclear ) with its 16 inch guns in less time, with less risk to personal and at less expense than any other method, as long as the targets are within its range.

No doubt WWII (The War We Wanted to Win, and We Won) proved that the Aircraft Carrier IS the Ultimate Warship, I think there is still a place for a BIG GUN... After all 16 inch shells are a lot cheaper than a rocket of equal power.

done a lot of research on the iowa class battleships.... one of the facts that REALLY impressed me was the 16 inch rifles "yes they are rifled" can put all 9 2000 lb+ shells into a target the size of a football field from 20 miles away.............

Those big rifles have always intrigued me, not just the performance, but it must have been a monster job making them.

http://www.battlecruisers.org/HeavyGun.htm

Grizz

As far as Naval rifles go, nothing else ever put to sea with greater penetrating power than the 16" Mark VII naval rifles that were mounted on the four Iowas..

The planned six Montana class battleships would have carried twelve of those 16" guns.

AD

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
An Iowa class Battleship can put more destruction (non nuclear ) with its 16 inch guns in less time, with less risk to personal and at less expense than any other method, as long as the targets are within its range.

No doubt WWII (The War We Wanted to Win, and We Won) proved that the Aircraft Carrier IS the Ultimate Warship, I think there is still a place for a BIG GUN... After all 16 inch shells are a lot cheaper than a rocket of equal power.

Wasn't the Iowa the one that had the explosion in one of her 16 " turrets during the Viet Nam war?

Grizz

quote:

Wasn't the Iowa the one that had the explosion in one of her 16 " turrets during the Viet Nam war?

Roger.

PARKED IN LA NOW

Somewhere in my "Great Warehouse o'Junk" I've got three water chiller temperature gauges for the USS New Jersey. NSN on them come back specifically to that ship. Got some others that look almost identical that go/went on carriers and lesser boats. 20' armored lead and measure water temp to -20.

Something I posted a few months ago, "At 24 miles, 42,345 yards; 1 MOA is 11.75 yards, 35 feet. If you are at the beach and look out at the horizon that's 12 miles."

There has been some discussion on the net of re-fitting them with EM rail guns giving them a range of 200 miles plus. Removing the aft turret and installing two angled flight decks for F35's or drones.

quote:

Originally posted by DOPPELGANGSTER:

quote:

Wasn't the Iowa the one that had the explosion in one of her 16 " turrets during the Viet Nam war?

Roger.

PARKED IN LA NOW

While the USS Iowa did suffer a turret explosion it happened on 19
April, 1989. that was Long after The war in Vietnam had ended.

The USS Iowa spent those years in the "Mothball fleet" as Only the USS New Jersey was refitted for service between the Korean War and the 1980's when the other three Iowas were modernized and refitted for service

Yes, caught the date in question after I posted. Reading too quickly, multitasking too often. Did the NJ also suffer an explosion, but during the Viet Nam era?

"An Iowa class Battleship can put more destruction (non nuclear ) with its 16 inch guns in less time, with less risk to personal and at less expense than any other method, as long as the targets are within its range."

And as long as it doesn't get attacked by more modern missiles and aircraft with both missiles and bombs. Heavy gunships in this day and age are almost always going to require an aircraft carrier to go with them. Its kind of a mutual thing.

When I was on board INDEPENDENCE for almost 2 1/2 years many years ago we traveled around in a carrier group. Sort of a you take care of me and I will take care of you deal. You need airplanes out there and you need a helicopters dropping sonar. Otherwise you are a sitting duck.

A couple of Fast Attack subs underneath don't hurt either.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
"An Iowa class Battleship can put more destruction (non nuclear ) with its 16 inch guns in less time, with less risk to personal and at less expense than any other method, as long as the targets are within its range."

And as long as it doesn't get attacked by more modern missiles and aircraft with both missiles and bombs. Heavy gunships in this day and age are almost always going to require an aircraft carrier to go with them. Its kind of a mutual thing.

When I was on board INDEPENDENCE for almost 2 1/2 years many years ago we traveled around in a carrier group. Sort of a you take care of me and I will take care of you deal. You need airplanes out there and you need a helicopters dropping sonar. Otherwise you are a sitting duck.

The issue it seems to me is not about the offensive capability of this platform, awesome as it may be, but whether it can defend itself in today's environment and whether similar damage can be inflicted upon the enemy by other, more efficient means.

Planners must therefore work to create scenarios where the protection of such a platform can be justified in relation to the amount of force it can put on the enemy...and at what cost.

As romantic as the Iowa class may be, it's probably far easier to put metal on target in other ways.

I don't know, and don't claim to.

Best to you all.......

quote:

Originally posted by TWL:
The issue it seems to me is not about the offensive capability of this platform, awesome as it may be, but whether it can defend itself in today's environment and whether similar damage can be inflicted upon the enemy by other, more efficient means.

Planners must therefore work to create scenarios where the protection of such a platform can be justified in relation to the amount of force it can put on the enemy...and at what cost.

As romantic as the Iowa class may be, it's probably far easier to put metal on target in other ways.

I don't know, and don't claim to.

Best to you all.......

Battleships became obsolete when Billy Mitchell sank the Ostfriesland, took a while for that to sink in.

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by TWL:
The issue it seems to me is not about the offensive capability of this platform, awesome as it may be, but whether it can defend itself in today's environment and whether similar damage can be inflicted upon the enemy by other, more efficient means.

Planners must therefore work to create scenarios where the protection of such a platform can be justified in relation to the amount of force it can put on the enemy...and at what cost.

As romantic as the Iowa class may be, it's probably far easier to put metal on target in other ways.

I don't know, and don't claim to.

Best to you all.......

As for "Defense"... Nautical designers forgot all about armor when they started arming ships with missiles. but for all practical purposes an
Iowa class battleship is all but Immune to the vast majority of anti-ship missiles.
In point of fact all but the very largest are of no concern...

When the four Iowa's were returned to service there was some considerable concern as this was in the immediate aftermath of the Falklands war... it was commented that something like 78 (no typo that is Seventy Eight!) Exocet anti-ship missiles would have to strike within the same 1 meter square of an Iowa-Class ship simply to penetrate the first layer of the ship's protection and that the crew would be asking "WHAT is that AWFUL Noise?"...

The British ships that were damaged or destroyed in the Falklands war were UN-armored destroyers which were built with MAGNESIUM superstructures to save topside weight(Alloyed Magnesium is 40% weight savings over Aluminum)

Nobody has ever built missiles designed to be effective against heavily armored targets

AD

Mr. DeGroot:

If your information about Iowa-class armor is accurate, the only vulnerability for these vessels might be torpedoes and/armor-piercing aerial bombs - both of which are in rather short supply for all terrorist groups, Iran, North Korea, and essentially all second-class potential enemies. In other words, projection of American power toward all places, organizations, states that are a threat, or might become a threat in the near future, is without an issue for these vessels? . . . Which brings me back to my original post.

during WW2 The Japanese had developed and effectively used Armor piercing anti-ship aerial bombs. they adopted modified 14" armor piercing projectiles, dropped from their high level bombers. one of the projectiles is what "killed" the USS Arizona
(The bomb initiated a propellant magazine explosion)


The Germans had competent design engineers, but assuming they had an equivalent anti-armor capability they never actually demonstrated it...

As for Billy Mitchell's demonstration, that as an entirely different weapon, he used large bombs dropped in the water next to the ships and compromised their buoyancy... the Japanese mode of attack was both more direct and more elegant (from an engineering point of view)

Look at how the British attacked the Tirpitz... it took repeated attacks with Lancaster four engine bombers carrying those Enormous "Tall Boy" bombs... the Japanese killed battleships
with much lighter weapons that were dropped by single engine aircraft... Barnes Wallis' "Tall Boy" was a rather "inelegant" approach as an anti-ship weapon...

quote:

Originally posted by Naphtali:
Mr. DeGroot:

If your information about Iowa-class armor is accurate, the only vulnerability for these vessels might be torpedoes and/armor-piercing aerial bombs - both of which are in rather short supply for all terrorist groups, Iran, North Korea, and essentially all second-class potential enemies. In other words, projection of American power toward all places, organizations, states that are a threat, or might become a threat in the near future, is without an issue for these vessels? . . . Which brings me back to my original post.

Not exactly. BB are, in modern conflict, slow, noisy, maint intensive (mechanical everything), highly inefficient (oil fired steam turbine), GBT. The heavy (old tech material) armor is only at the belt line. An attack by ballistic missile, cruise missile, or torpedo is bad news just like on any other boat.

one of the worst worries for anyone who has served on board a navy vessel, especially in a battle at sea, is fire. No place to run, no place to hide.

For what it is worth I was in Norfolk in 1989 when the Iowa had that major turret explosion. I was attached to the USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 and we were getting ready to commission her on Pier 12. They berthed the Iowa right across from us. I will never forget the line of ambulances standing by to take the dead and wounded nor will I ever forget the blackened hull at the turret. Things like that make a lifelong impression on you.

Just got back from spending the holidays with kids & grandkids in SoCal. Took the time to visit the Iowa on the 27th. She is docked along the main channel at LA Harbor. It was well worth the time.

Here are some interesting nuggets learned from the tour and from the docents:

As one might expect, her CO held the rank of captain, but the XO might very well be a full captain also.

Original teak deck was replaced during one of her three commissions with cheaper, easier-to-obtain white fir, which is now in a complete state of rot and disrepair. A replacement project is underway, but in general, the wood deck is in terrible condition.

A max load in the 16 inch guns results in a chamber pressure of only 40,000 psi.

After each shot, a 60,000 psi charge of compressed air is used to clear the barrel.

The powder is pre-loaded into individual silk bags weighing 110lbs. The bags are conveyed to the loading platform behind the breech from storage bays 4 decks below the turret. The projectile of choice is first loaded into the chamber, then however many bags of powder necessary to range the target are loaded directly after, stacked one on top the other.

The silk burns clean and leaves no residue in the chamber or the barrel.

The charge in the 16 inch guns is initiated by a 50 cal cartridge. In the 5 inch guns a 38 cal cartridge is used.

The most vulnerable points on the ship, such as the hull below the water line, the con, other steering compartments and the gun turrets, have armor ranging in width between 17 and 9 inches.

The men who man the con and steer the ship in combat are locked into a cylindrical shaped compartment made of 17" armor and secured by two hatches that weigh 4000lbs---each. They communicate with the outside crew by electrical headsets and/or voice-to-voice through 2" slits in the armor.

The Iowa took two direct hits from Japanese shore-based artillery during the war. One can be seen on the forward, port side 5 inch turret. It looks like a simple splash of metal and is shaped somewhat like a human hand.

According the the docents, there is an extensive array of surface to surface and air to surface missiles and torpedoes deployed by any number of nations today capable of causing fatal damage to the Iowa.

While I was aboard, the docents were piping aboard via the loud speaker any active, retired or former military---from any nation--- who chose to identify themselves. So while we were on tour, we frequently heard something like, "Attention all hands. The Iowa welcomes aboard US Marine Sgt Tom Lorenzen, 1968/1971. Welcome aboard Sgt". Pretty cool.

I was disappointed that the engine rooms and the drive shafts were not available to visit. Presently, those compartments are not suitable for the public to enter. Nevertheless, it was a great experience and I highly recommend it.

Semper Fi.

TWL

quote:

Originally posted by DOPPELGANGSTER:

quote:

Originally posted by Naphtali:
Mr. DeGroot:

If your information about Iowa-class armor is accurate, the only vulnerability for these vessels might be torpedoes and/armor-piercing aerial bombs - both of which are in rather short supply for all terrorist groups, Iran, North Korea, and essentially all second-class potential enemies. In other words, projection of American power toward all places,
organizations, states that are a threat, or might become a threat in the near future, is without an issue for these vessels? . . . Which brings me back to my original post.

Not exactly. BB are, in modern conflict, slow, noisy, maint intensive (mechanical everything), highly inefficient (oil fired steam turbine), GBT. The heavy (old tech material) armor is only at the belt line. An attack by ballistic missile, cruise missile, or torpedo is bad news just like on any other boat.

You sir need to visit one of those floating museum ships and actually educate yourself on their serious multi-layered defences...

Remember what a battleship really is...
It is a seagoing artillery platform that is intended to batter other similar seagoing artillery platforms while either avoiding being battered herself through speed and/or maneuver until only herself or friendly warships remain afloat.

Other than torpedoes and purpose designed bombs, or nukes (and nukes are less effective than you'd imagine) there is very little that can harm one.

But they are hideously expensive to build obscenely expensive to maintain and operate

Iowa and her sisters will go 20,000 miles on a full load of fuel, but if I recall correctly a full load of fuel is 14,000 tons of oil

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:

quote:

Originally posted by DOPPELGANGSTER:

quote:

Originally posted by Naphtali:
Mr. DeGroot:

If your information about Iowa-class armor is accurate, the only vulnerability for these vessels might be torpedoes and/armor-piercing aerial bombs - both of which are in rather short supply for all terrorist groups, Iran, North Korea, and essentially all second-class potential enemies. In other words, projection of American power toward all places,
organizations, states that are a threat, or might become a threat in the near future, is without an issue for these vessels? . . . Which brings me back to my original post.

Not exactly. BB are, in modern conflict, slow, noisy, maint intensive (mechanical everything), highly inefficient (oil fired steam turbine), GBT. The heavy (old tech material) armor is only at the belt line. An attack by ballistic missile, cruise missile, or torpedo is bad news just like on any other boat.

You sir need to visit one of those floating museum ships and actually educate yourself on their serious multi-layered defences...

Remember what a battleship really is...
It is a seagoing artillery platform that is intended to batter other similar seagoing artillery platforms while either avoiding being battered herself through speed and/or maneuver until only herself or friendly warships remain afloat.

Other than torpedoes and purpose designed bombs, or nukes (and nukes are less effective than you'd imagine) there is very little that can harm one.

But they are hideously expensive to build obscenely expensive to maintain and operate

Iowa and her sisters will go 20,000 miles on a full load of fuel, but if I recall correctly a full load of fuel is 14,000 tons of oil

Riiiiiight ....

While battleships may be expensive to manufacture, the four that are built require refurbishing [only??]. Regarding everything being mechanical, I anticipate that what was done to the Missouri in the 1980s and 90s included substantial automation/computerization. Regarding limited availability of ammunition, I find it difficult to imagine that being an issue were the ships recommissioned.

I am under the impression that, excepting nuclear submarines and coastal craft, ships travel in mutually protective groups - for example, an aircraft carrier traveling alone would be at least as vulnerable as a battleship despite its protective screen of aircraft. . . .

Which brings me back to can such ships do jobs required for dealing with second-class opponents and semi-organized terrorist groups - Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, et al. more cost efficiently than what would do the job with current inventory?

No. The BB's were too expensive to operate with their limited armament. Lobbing a shell 30 miles is imprssive but it means your target has to be that close to shore also. ISIS is in much more danger from an A10 than a BB. A good endevor may be to see if an A10 could operate off of a CVN.

Sam:

I was under the impression that the Missouri in the Gulf War was [also??] equipped with many Tomahawk cruise missiles. How many, I don't know. I believe these were in addition to being able to launch 2.5-ton artillery shells the "x" number of miles that its naval guns could.

Others on this thread have posited that STOL/VTOL fighter aircraft, helicopters, drones, and goodness knows what else might also be available to such a large vessel. If this sort of flexibility is, in reality, available for recommissioned Iowa class ships, perhaps the limiting factor might be Navy senior management's reluctance to consider what they perceive as obsolete, reluctance similar, perhaps to USAF senior management's reluctane to continue use of the perceived obsolescent A-10?

Were the barrier of perception as obsolete overcome, the issue may devolve to total cost of overhaul-recommission to take advantage of the vessels' size compared with the cost of building new vessel[s] whose composite achieves more than like results?

Just keep in mind that I'm asking rather than telling.

These boats are 75 years old man. If they hadn't such historical significance they would been scrapped looooong ago. The are, by any reasonable standard past obsolete in every way. What is it about them that makes you think they would be viable in a modern combat scenario?

I don't think that any of the U.S. Navy's old battleships would be worth recommissioning.

The four (4) Iowa Class; Iowa (BB-61), New Jersey (BB-62), Missouri (BB-63), and Wisconsin (BB-64) were originally commissioned in 1943 and 1944.
The four (4) South Dakota Class; South Dakota (BB-57), Indiana (BB-58), Massachsetts (BB-59), and Alabama (BB-60) were commissioned in 1942.
The two (2) North Carolina Class; North Carolina (BB-55) and Washington (BB-56) were commissioned in 1941.

None of the Iowa Class BBs ever engaged a Japanese BB in naval combat. The last naval battle between BBs was at Surigao Straits, part of the Battle at Leyte Gulf, on 10/25/45, when six pre-WW2 BBs; West Virginia (BB-48), Maryland (BB-46), Pennsylvania (BB-38), Mississippi (BB-41), California (BB-44), and Tennessee (BB-43), engaged and contributed to the sinking of the IJN BBs Yamashiro and Fuso. Except for the Mississippi (BB-41), the other five BBs were damaged at Pearl Harbor on 12/07/41, rebuilt, and sent back to the fleet. The fact that the USN didn't employ BBs in the south Pacific earlier in WW2 was due to insufficient fuel storage and transportation capacity in the south Pacific, rather than the lack of ships. If the the American tanker fleet hadn't been engaged in supplying the UK, the older/slower BBs would have been available for combat around Guadalcanal in 1942. They weren't available, and the IJN battleships and cruisers/destroyers equipped with the Long Lance torpedos caused great lose of ships and sailors amount the USN's cruiser and destroyer squadrons. The USN only lost two BBs in WW2, the Arizona and Oklahoma, both sunk at Pearl Harbor on 12/07/41. The USN's first capital ship loss was the Arizona on 12/07/41 and the last was the Hornet on 10/27/42. In contrast, the IJN lost all of its BBs except the Nagato and it was sunk at Bikini Atoll during the atomic bomb tests in 1946.

I retired from the Navy a little over 3 years ago.

The moderniazation of Naval Aviation and the Arleigh Burke class destroyers put the death nail into the coffin of any dreams of a modern battle ship.

Rocket propelled artillery makes any of the battle ships guns obsolete. The use of missiles and the Arleigh Burke's ability to control the war really means the battle ship is as you said a 75 year old man going into a battle with a 24 year old 5th dan black belt.

That would only work if the old man had a loaded, cocked and locked 1911 and 25 feet of distance.

There's an interesting story about the Missouri running aground.

quote:

The issue it seems to me is not about the offensive capability of this platform, awesome as it may be, but whether it can defend itself in today's environment and whether similar damage can be inflicted upon the enemy by other, more efficient means.

Planners must therefore work to create scenarios where the protection of such a platform can be justified in relation to the amount of force it can put on the enemy...and at what cost.

As romantic as the Iowa class may be, it's probably far easier to put metal on target in other ways.

This. Who cares if you can shoot a volkswagon 21 miles when a cheap antiship missile can hit you 100nm off of the coast. And they DO make missiles designed to breach heavy armor (ie, the broach warhead).

We don't even have the industrial capacity to make the spares anymore, and haven't made the powder since WW2, so existing stocks may be a little iffy. Want to chance it? Then there is the basic design. Asbestos everywhere, ceilings designed for the 1930's 85th percentile male's height, 1930's "ergonomics" (1 toilet per 200 enlisted sailors, hammock-type berthing with scores to the bay, etc that today's volunteers probably won't be enamored with). 1930's electrical and water systems. 1930's engine design.

When a few were recommisioned during Vietnam, surviving WW2 sailors were summoned to pass on what they remembered. When we did it again in the late 80's those Vietnam sailors were called back to teach those guys. The resulting loss of real tips and practices probably at least contributed to the Iowa accident.

Bottom line, they would be a one trick wonder that is also a sitting duck waiting to get pummeled by missiles, or at worst, a one trick wonder that requires a host of other supporting ships to defend it resulting in ALL of them being drawn into range of every shore based weapon in the world. Even the Japanese realized that you NEVER risked capital ships in range of land based defenses, and that is saying something.