"USS Saratoga's Manueverability" Topic

The February 2015 issue of Proceedings magazine includes Kamikazes and a Barking Dog, highlights of an oral history interview with veteran sailor Roger L. Bond.

I thought his comments as a helmsman were interesting:

"You had the kick the rudder hard to get the ship moving and also to stop it movin," he recalled. "And you had to anticipate it because you could swing past the right course very easily. It was particularly tricky in slow speeds, and that's when you were entering or leaving port, and particularly Pearl Harbor, which is pretty tight. The Saratoga almost always tied up to mooring quays on Ford Island… So we would go down the west side of Ford Island. Then as you came around, you'd need a tug, because with that sail and that slow a speed, you just couldn't make the turn in the channel."

As I recall reading in Worth, Saratoga and Lexington were the worst handling vessels in the USN in WW2. The Alaska class CB' s were pretty bad as well.

They were battlecruisers that had a deck dumped on top of them. I had read that the Sara was terrible, but the Lexington combed around 9 Japanese torpedoes at Coral Sea before 2 got her.

Doesn't mean the Lexington wasn't hard to turn, might have been that Cpt. Sherman and crew just knew what they were doing.

I always love stuff like this – they were 900 feet long, maneuverabilty was not ever really going to be on the table.

-Kle.

The Essex class ships, nearly 900 feet long were extremely maneuverable – almost cruiser-like.

Saratoga did not mix well with Essex's. Because of her slow response to the helm, great tactical (turning radius) and slow acceleration, she could not "dance in the box" formed by nimble escorts around the nimbler carriers. This was one of several reasons why she was considered a tactical liability in an Essex/Independence formation.

Take a look at the tactical diameter of the Fletcher Class DDs. Quite surprising, actually.

B

Take a look at the tactical diameter of the Fletcher Class DDs. Quite surprising, actually.

Indeed. Anything with a high length to beam ratio and a single rudder is going to turn a wide turn. That was the problem with Saratoga and the Alaskas – High ratio and one rudder.

The Essex class ships, nearly 900 feet long were extremely maneuverable – almost cruiser-like.

Exactly.

Very maneuverable in the sense of not maneuverable at all in any broad sense of the word.
-Kle.

At 30kts it does not get much better than Essex's 750 yds for any type of ship. At the same speed, Sara needed 1500 or more yards, Baltimore 780, Iowa 814 Vanguard 1025, etc.

I thought his comments as a helmsman were interesting:

"You had the kick the rudder hard to get the ship moving and also to stop it movin," he recalled. "And you had to anticipate it because you could swing past the right course very easily. It was particularly tricky in slow speeds, and that's when you were entering or leaving port, and particularly Pearl Harbor, which is pretty tight. The Saratoga almost always tied up to mooring quays on Ford Island… So we would go down the west side of Ford Island. Then as you came around, you'd need a tug, because with that sail and that slow a speed, you just couldn't make the turn in the channel."

That's true for most any ship. It was most definitely true for the Georgia and Kentucky (SSBNs, not battleships).

Gotta start the turn, then reverse the rudder about 30 degrees or more before ordered course to stop the turn. Once you get tens of thousands of tons moving, it takes a lot of force to make it STOP moving!