Question on origin of BB crews

[a425couple]

US Battleships (BB) were named for states.
BB's had big crews, so the Navy had to assign many
members to each.
The US Navy sometimes accepted individual member's
requests for assignment.
Assigning crews is sometimes kind of random,
(from gunnery school class #42-3 names A through D fill
8 empty billets on BB42, names E through G fill 10 billets
on BB43, etc. --)
(or, from gunnery school class #42-3 arranged by final class
score, #1 goes to BB42, #2 goes to BB43 --- on, until repeat.)
But sometimes there seems another 'plan'.

Does anyone have any ideas, on what sort of correlation
there might have been in the composition/orign
of these crews?
(i.e. Is there any evidence that USS New York (BB-34)
had more crew members from the state of New York that
would be just routinely proportional?)

(I did look, the list of those killed on the USS Arizona,
had few from Arizona, but that state was then, a very low
population state.)

[David Wilma]

I cannot imagine that the Navy would be able to grant
preferences such as this once the war was underway. It
would be just too complicated and time consuming. Pre-
war they might have had the luxury. Besides, I wonder if
BB staffing got as high a priority as carriers, aviation, and
anti-submarine needs.

[a425couple]

Post by David Wilma
I cannot imagine that the Navy would be able to grant
preferences such as this once the war was underway. It
would be just too complicated and time consuming. Pre-
war they might have had the luxury. Besides, I wonder if
BB staffing got as high a priority as carriers, aviation, and
anti-submarine needs.

USS North Carolina (BB-55) launched 6/40 commissioned 4/41
USS Washington (BB-56) launch 6/40 comm 5/41
USS South Dakota (BB-57) launch 6/41 comm 2/42
USS Indiana (BB-58) launch 11/41 comm 4/42
USS Massachusetts (BB-59) launch 9/41 comm 5/42
USS Alabama (BB-60) launch 2/42 comm 8/42
USS Iowa (BB-61) launch 8/42 comm 2/43
USS New Jersey (BB-62) launch 12/42 comm 6/43
USS Missouri (BB-63) launch 1/44 comm 6/44
USS Wisconsin (BB-64) launch 12/43 comm 4/44

All took 1,700 or more that had to come from somewhere.
Some were experienced & transfered from other BBs
(probably esp after 12/41).
Some were experienced from other assignments.
And the above formed the experienced working cadre to
finish up by OJT, of the great many who were sent straight
from all the various US Navy technical schools.

I do not think many came from the named 'home' state,
but it could have been more than the 'just randomness'
factor would have provided for.

If you had 15 on your gun crew on the Maryland,
and you got orders to draft 3, to send to the brand new
New Jersey, what criteria do you use?

[Bill Shatzer]

If you had 15 on your gun crew on the Maryland, and you got orders to
draft 3, to send to the brand new New Jersey, what criteria do you use?

Given a compleatly free choice, obviously you send your three worst
"problem" sailors - your slackers, your discipline problems, your head
cases, your Gomer Pyles.

A chance to make your problems someone else's problems.

Which is rather why the sending ship was seldom given a free choice in
such matters - generally orders came down from on high from BuPers and
the individuals selected for re-assignment designated by name and serial
number.

[J]

On Nov 1, 8:20 pm, "a425couple" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

Post by a425couple
USS South Dakota (BB-57) launch 6/41 comm 2/42

[snip]
[snip]

Post by a425couple
I do not think many came from the named 'home' state,

[snip]

The crew of the South Dakota was probably larger than the population
of the State of South Dakota at the time.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Cheers . . . J

[a425couple]

Post by J

USS South Dakota (BB-57) launch 6/41 comm 2/42 ---
All took 1,700 or more that had to come from somewhere
I do not think many came from the named 'home' state,

The crew of the South Dakota was probably larger than the population
of the State of South Dakota at the time.
Sorry, couldn't resist... Cheers . . . J

Grin back atch'a!
Hey, Hey, Hey! Be nice!!
Actually, I've more than average awareness of both Dakota's
very interesting population trends
(I've plenty of ties to ND, and "fair" number of relatives still there.)
Interesting, that, how can a state repopulate so well, yet lose population?
(Rhetorical question, I understand it!)

For WWII content, US 1940 population = 132M.
ND and SD were each about 642,000.
The movements caused by WWII were so major,
that even with the "Baby Boom" starting, and
US 1950 population increasing 14.5% to 150M,
North Dakota shrank to 616,000, and did not increase much by
the year 2000 (While US population had more than doubled.)

Plenty of Scandinavian and German immigrants went to
Minnesota and Dakotas. WWII caused plenty of their
offspring to go to the West Coast.
Ya Shure, yebatcha!

[Michael Emrys]

If you had 15 on your gun crew on the Maryland, and you got orders to
draft 3, to send to the brand new New Jersey, what criteria do you use?

I'd get rid of any troublemakers first. That seems to be a time-honored
tradition in all the services.

:D

Michael

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Seems that for enlisted personell, Bureau pf Personnell (BuPers) did the
assigning without input (at least during the war). With officers,
asignments were often made in an attempt to enhance careers. VADM Chales
Lockwood, COMSUBPAC, had several fine, aggeressive commanders pulled out
of their boats to go to Washington as aides to Admiral King (CNO). This
PO'ed Lockwood, as good skippers were in short supply.

--
"Again and again we have owed peace to the fact we were prepared for
war."--

Theodore Roosevelt

[w***@aol.com]

On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, "a425couple"

Post by a425couple
If you had 15 on your gun crew
on the Maryland, and you got
orders to draft 3, to send to
the brand new New Jersey, what
criteria do you use?

Such a scenario seems most
unlikely. More likely was the
the three needed by New Jersey
would have been staffed directly
by BUNAV (later re-named BUPERS)
from those with the needed
qualifications due for rotation
from shore to sea duty and/or
those selected directly from
training.
Why make two sets of
transfers when one wouuld suffice?
(I.e. from USS Maryland to USS
New Jersey and from somewhere
else to replace the three taken
from USS Maryland.)

WJH

[w***@aol.com]

On Nov 1, 4:59 pm, David Wilma

Post by David Wilma
I cannot imagine that the Navy
would be able to grant
preferences such as this once
the war was underway. It
would be just too complicated
and time consuming....

Right. As for enlisted personnel, vacancies were filled on a routine
basis by the numbers with those
qualified and available to fill
them. And in wartime, of course,
the operating needs of the
service came first.
Both officers and enlisted
were subject to more or less auto-rotation dates, say from
ship to shore or vice versa, but
even that depended on operational requirements.
Of course one could submit a
request through the chain of
command for a transfer, or for
some other reason but the odds
were against such requests being
granted unless for an emergency.
What was common, however,
was for senior officers who, for instance, had been given a new
command, to request a certain
other officer he knew by name to
be assigned to him as his, say,
Executive Officer or perhaps in
some other position under his
command. Such requests were not
always granted but depending on
the rank of the senior making the request, usually were. For
instance a Navy Captain who
made such a request would usually
get the person he wanted, and an
Admiral would get his own choice
for sure.

Post by David Wilma
Pre- war they might have had the
luxury.

True, but not too openly. Pre-war
the mutual back-scratching was more
prevalent and with the right
connections it was somewhat easier
to get minor personal preferences
taken care of if they weren't too outrageous.

Post by David Wilma
Besides, I wonder if BB staffing
got > as high a priority as
carriers, > aviation, and
nti-submarine needs.

I would say after Pearl Harbor, the staffing and promotional
opportunities certainly gravitated
quite rapidly toward those who were
then in Naval Aviation. This resulted
in no little resentment among some
who had spent their careers to date
in BBs.

WJH

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by w***@aol.com
after Pearl Harbor, the staffing and promotional
opportunities certainly gravitated quite rapidly
toward those who were then in Naval Aviation. This
resulted in no little resentment among some who had
spent their careers to date in BBs.

RAdm Dan Gallery told of a Pentagon
planning session he attended in late
1944, when new command arrangements
for the Pacific Fleet were made.

Relatively junior flying admirals
"drew all the plum assignments",
which raised some eyebrows among
veteran "black shoe" (battleship)
Admirals.

One old salt remarked "It's a funny
kind of Navy where they put the plebes
in charge of the upperclassmen."

Gallery (a flyer, though not yet an
admiral), edged over carefully to the
door. Then he said, "As soon as the
war is over and it's safe to do so,
we'll go back to the old system..."
as he ducked out the door.

[Jim H.]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:23:51 PM UTC-4, a425couple wrote:
.......

Post by a425couple
(i.e. Is there any evidence that USS New York (BB-34)
had more crew members from the state of New York that
would be just routinely proportional?)
...............

You may be able to get some further illumination by emailing the USS
North Carolina's keepers. Check for contact info at
www.battleshipnc.com. They seem to have a pretty good
organization, as befits their excellently displayed museum
ship. (I gave part of my 4th grade lunch money for several days
to the campaign to bring her to Wilmington.)

Jim H.

[a425couple]

Post by Jim H.

Post by a425couple
(i.e. Is there any evidence that USS New York (BB-34)
had more crew members from the state of New York that
would be just routinely proportional?)

You may be able to get some further illumination by emailing the USS
North Carolina's keepers. Check for contact info at
www.battleshipnc.com. They seem to have a pretty good
organization, as befits their excellently displayed museum ship.---

Very excellent idea! Thank you. I'll plan to.
North Carolina 1940 population 3,571,623 (so ? is, + or equall to 3%)
Texas --- 6,414,824 (so ? is, + or equall to 5%)
Massachusetts --- 4,316,721 (so ? is, + or equall to 4%)
California --- 6,907,387 (so ? is, + or equall to 5%)

(By the way, 1940 population of US = 132M, so NY was 10%,
SD and ND each were .6%, Nevada was .1%!!)

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by a425couple
(By the way, 1940 population of US = 132M, so NY was 10%,

True for both NY state and NYC.

In 2010, the New York SMSA held 19.1M people, which
was 6.2% of the U.S. total.

In 1940, that same area held 13.3M people,
which was 10.1% of the U.S. total.

New York state had 13.5M, 10.3%.