Why Is New Jersey Longer Than the Other Iowa Class Battleships? 

Hi, I’m a naval architect. The length discrepancy wouldn’t be a result of overmeasure (the plates being longer) or thermal expansion. The length given is generally going to be the length shown on the plans because the length on the deck will change depending on temperature and the loading condition will make the deck longer or shorter depending on whether the ship is hogging or sagging. My hypothesis is that the shipyard workforce (welders, engineering dept, etc) did decide to make the ship “longer” by moving something small like the bow pulpit slightly forward or slightly elongating the stern or both and put it in as a design change notice (which is a way of documenting things that the shipyard altered during construction, like areas where plate deformation required an insert plate) and the navy picked it up and ran with it.

It is so cool to see the radar spinning in the background, it really does make the ship seem alive and was a great idea overall

It’s longer because it has a silly extra 4 inches of leather belt hanging-off of it.

Well, now we need a video on New Jersey’s expansion joints, clearly 😅

I helped restore the ship when she first arrived 99/2000. Met a few of the old shipyard workers from the 40s. They said they gave her a little extra .

The New Jersey might have been the longest of the 4 when constructed, but Wisconsin has been the longest, by about 2 feet, ever since her bow was replaced after colliding with destroyer Eaton in '56.

I genuinely love the differencess between particular ships in a given class. Each of them is unique in some way.

Love that you guys have the radar antenna spinning, damn that looks so cool!

In the early 90's it was decided by the Marine Corps Finance Center to remodel a portion of the former Pratt & Whitney engine plant in Kansas City MO from computer room to office space. The draftsman was having difficulty getting plans approved by GSA facilities, the owners of the building, so some enlisted Marines went in and measured the space -- in places it was 2 and a half feet off. No wonder the challenge. It was overcome by using a stripped-down computer program which while taking a half hour to redraw was still able to provide new drawings the next day instead of next week. (Sen. Harry Truman was at the groundbreaking in 1941.)

As a paint professional I really appreciate the point you made on the coatings having to deal with thermal expansion. It's well-known that exterior house paint has quite a bit more elasticity than interior house paint because it has to deal with the temperature difference winter and summer and even the difference between direct Summer Sun and shade.

Clearly, it’s because of that big Jersey attitude. 😎

I’m a cashier and resettle I had the pleasure of meeting a Korean War vet of the New Jersey, I didn’t talk to him long as not to hold him up but he said he worked in the parts workshop.

I think you're missing an amazingly easy method of how they measured it. Plumb-bobs. Its a weight on a string that gravity will automatically make straight up and down for you. These seem to all be drydock measurements. Throw a Plumb Bob over the bows furthest point. Pull it back up till its barely above the floor of the dock. Take a straight edge and make an X below it. Repeat it with the stern. You now have two exact points on a level plane to compare the absolute bow and stern to. You can also use this to measure the underside tail to stern and front to bow measurements by putting it at the join of the plates that designate the sections. Any slope is easy to measure and account for since it's a known level surface you can always measure separately if you need to by survey gear when it's empty. There's even an extremely common naval equivalent, Sounding the Depths. You through a weighted rope with known measurements in fathoms into the water. When you feel it hit bottom, pull it back up. Count the measurements below the water and measure the remaining wetness above the last known measurement, and you have a "sound" depth. This method would be fast and intuitive to the sailors and dockworkers of the time. It would also produce exacting repeatable results based on gravity not the ships themselves. It still only tells you the absolutes at the time of measuring, so the REASONS aren't particularly explained by it, but it means you can pretty reliably accept the measurements are accurate. Since the measurements in my scenario could be considered accurate and include the bow, stern, and total, you can find the Amidships by subtracting each from each other. This tells you where the differences would be, to find your answer. I'd need to see another Iowas charts at as close a time as possible to be sure, but if the tail and front are "long" your angle theory is likely true. If the amidships (with the bulk of the armor) is long then its likely the plate theory. If they're ALL long, since the plates are a known number between front and tail to bow and stern, you can see if the front and tail match machining error, or if they "added the extra four". If none of those are conclusive, you can normalize for heat easier by looking for any known weather patterns at the time

I like the "portrait" dockside view to show the length of the ship. The differences in lengths have the flavor of multiple causes and I would pick from the most likely, not least likely. Assembly slop, temperature variations, and metal folding differences.

Actually, I thought the Wisconsin was longer by 1 frame due to repairs and the replacement bow from the USS Kentucky?

Steel expands at .00065" per inch per 100deg F. So measuring between a 100deg day in the South Pacific and a 0deg night on arctic convoy duty the ship could in fact be almost 7" difference in length, and 7/8" in width.

Assuming it's not simply due to measurement discrepancy, but a real difference, it probably is due to temperature differences during construction. Based on the dates the four completed Iowa's were laid down, it looks like the New Jersey's keel was built during the winter, so assuming she was built to spec, the material would have shrunk compared to her sisters built at warmer times of the year, and then expanded during warmer weather. Hence, when side by side, the ship most built during cold weather would end up the longest.

Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin: "I was in the pool! I was in the pool!!"

Option #5: USN personnel measured her at 16:40 on a Friday and rushed it getting bad measurements

Human error is the simplest and most logical answer for discrepancies in measurements. Something wasn't cut right, measurement error, assembly discrepancies, etc.... scale minute errors to the size of a battleship multiple times and you honestly began to appreciate seeing how well people were able to build things on that scale.

I've been in a few large buildings where they used the blueprints to design a custom piece of equipment and to had to tell a suit, yeah I know it fits just perfectly on the blueprint, but in reality, your building is 21 inches shorter than the blueprint.

All of your explanations are relevant. Any combination of them could easily explain the overall length being off. What were the tolerances of the components it took to build something spanning over 887'? 4" seems pretty tight to me considering. ½" gap here or there and some slick weld doctoring could easily make it a few inches longer. It's a linear manufacturing defect caused by the process and weather variations.

Viewing from Australia where we obviously have metric, the stats you provided and the way they were written, gave me a migraine.😂

I also shrink about two inches in the cold.

yup, it's that Jersey attitude for one thing. and of course Jersey is longer!!! I don't know if we can say why though.... this is a family program!! 😆😆😆😆

The 4" difference is a 0.0376% variation from the 887' 3" design length. That's like stating Ryan is no longer 6 ftb(72") tall, he is now 72.027" tall using your trusty Stanley or Milwaukee steel tape. The difference is insignificant and can be explained by thermal expansion/contraction), assembly variation, measurement error, accuracy of measurement equipment, or human error when measuring any one of the other Iowa's.

USS West Virginia BB 48 after rebuild was too wide for the Panama Canal so she was wider than Battleship New Jersey at 115 feet wide - which makes her the widest battleship!

Everyone knows, that in cold water, you always get shrinkage.

I’m in my 30s and I just want to say I really appreciate all the hard work and awesome content that you guys bring to us the viewers ... I plan on taking a trip with my family to see your museum this summer , wish the best for you guys take care.

All manufactured parts are made to a nominal size with plus & minus tolerances. It just happened that the New Jersey's tolerances worked out a little more on the plus side. What is amazing is that there is only a 4" difference. As a percentage it is minuscule.

Going off the temperature idea - perhaps a large amount of the hull was completed during winter time, when the metal was denser? During moderate temperatures, that could then expand the ship beyond design specifications.

She is compensating for not fighting with Yamato

Alternative fact: Wisconsin had her bow replaced with the bow of Kentucky after her accident, and was reportedly 6” to 2ft longer afterwards .. wouldn’t that make her the longest battleship now (though not as built)??? Asking for a friend. Jk, have no friends. 🤔

For me, it is all about the Temperature. All steel types have a coefficient of expansion. Temp rise or fall equals a length change. Pure physics, Ryan.

At most, I say that the length discrepancy is simply a typo. When talking to ppl associated with ship design and the like, long story short they always tell me you have to precise in your measurements otherwise things will be completely off and not work. It’s the argument we use here on the USS Wisconsin to counter the claim that the Kentucky added length to the Wisconsin when the bow was grafted onto her post Eaton collision. With all due respect to the former crew members who claim that the New Jersey is the longest, you ask me it’s just in competition with those who claim that myth about the Kentucky and Wisconsin is true. Until someone comes up with a way to successfully and accurately measure the sisters and shows me physical evidence to the contrary, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it

I’ve watched hundreds of New Jersey videos, but never been in the area to see the ship. The ship is quite impressive from the pier… great perspective showing the side of the ship to your back.

I love your videos and learn a great deal from them. THANKS!

I really need to see this ship. I've seen Texas and North Carolina and they are huge. Amazing that it takes a crew of people to locate steel plates bolted to a shaft that you can follow. What a cool job.

A 0.03% difference is probably an acceptable error in some hand measurement with tapes or something, also measure the beam and see the difference there also. You could laser measure by putting poles with laser and target measurement equipment over the edge, mark where the poles are on the deck precisely and measure to the end point, add it up. You could also measure temperature fluctuation between the poles over time if there is a fixture for the poles, the pole measurment should cover 80% of the length. The front and back are not at the same altitude so there is some hypotenuse distance added, is that worked in, a lot of differences in length when you do not measure at the waterline, deck length, level length with a line extended down from the bow, etc. Considering the bow upward sweep there is probably feet of difference between deck length and level length, the Wikipedia diagram for overall length seems to show level length.

I'm sure there'd be a local surveyor who can come up with a plan to measure the ship several times during an average day. I've got a couple of ideas myself, but I have no idea how practical they are. As Ryan said, the biggest challenge is the movement in the water. Personally I don't think they worried about unnecessary precision during WW2. If it worked it was good enough.

I personally believe in the stacked tolerance theory. Very quick math shows that if we limit plate length to twenty feet, and have a tolerance of +/- 0.01 inch, that adds up to +/- 5.16 inches at the waterline alone as the acceptable variance in the design due to construction. If the plates are longer, the total tolerance shrinks, and smaller plates lead to larger tolerance. For any complicated assembly, tolerances are multiplied rapidly by the number of parts involved. I believe that the initial numbers are the design numbers and subsequent values are from measurements at drydocking points. Also, minor repairs and patches, replacing individual hull plates or sections of them, can also contribute to the discrepancies. I honestly expect each of the Iowa class ships to have their own minor differences and deviations from the design plans, due to construction tolerances and ship alterations. Without documentation of every repair and modification, it will be very hard to pin down where all the differences are that add up to the length discrepancy.

Hi Ryan. I would dismiss the first option, it would be quite a conspiracy to achieve it, The second is more plausable. In engineering there is a principal of minimum metal removal in machining (milling) because: 1. less machining time, 2. less tool wear (sharpen them less often, save cost), 3. It is possibe to remove a bit more if you fall short, not easy to put it back on if you overshoot. Given that it is war time, i would expect everything possible to save time and effort would be employed. Incidentally, normal engineering tolerance is +/- 10 thou, ie 0.01 inch. in 887 ft that could amount to a lot if each plate were too long. How long is each plate? But each dimension on the blue prints has its own tolerance, unless marked as "ref". When the ship is layed out each frame position has a tolerance. The frames attached to the keel. The plates are attached to the frames, so providing the keel is layed out correctly the scope for length growth due to tolerance is greatly reduced, perhaps to a few thou, not a number of inches. That suggests the third option of the over hangs being different. They don't use jigs which will control the tolerance, frames and plate positioning cannot be so tightly controled. Obviouly the pulpit is a significant possibility. The fourth option of temperature could do it depending on the method of measuring the ship. Lasers were not available in world war 2 as indeed was not CAD so measurement would have to be according to surveyors methods of the time. Dropping a plumb bob from the extremities, mark the ground and measure? Using theodilites, tape measures angles etc there is plenty of room for a few inches in 887 ft. When were the ships measured, july and december? Do we know? As a final thought, are the dimensions given on the dry dock plans, those measured in dry dock, or those provided to the dry dock for ship positioning? As to measuring her now, in the water, if your equipment were soley attached to the ship then movement in the water need not matter though flexure of the ship might. Perhaps the 4 inch discrepancy is a measurement issue. Will you measure her when you dry dock?

There is a shipyard tradition that a ship can be built longer than shown in the plans, but it cannot be built shorter. Due to weld shrinkage, a small amount of extra length is built into each hull unit to ensure the ship won't be short. I was told that Los Angeles Class submarines built by Electric Boat are longer than Los Angeles Class submarines by Newport News Shipbuilding because Newport News Shipbuilding assembled the submarines in fewer, larger hull units. Regarding the size of the hull plates from the steel mill, that might explain small differences in plate thickness, but not in the length of the plates because each plate would be trimmed to the specific shape required for its location.

The Temperature change would be based on the temperature at the time of construction compared to the temperature when it was measured. Next as large as the vessel is it would take a long time for the temperature of the steel to drop 30 degrees.

There is also the phenomenon of 'As Designed" vs. "As Built". The problems of meeting designed dimensions and designed tolerances in the field are well known. In fact, tolerances are intended to reflect measurememt difficulties and material variations. I wowrked in the metals rolling industry and we made copious use of tolerances to manufacture sheets and plates. During WWII, the equipment was less precise therefore the supply of over and under dimension must have been endemic.Hence the adaage "Close enough for government work".

U could use laser off the front with marker off the back u need to extend bars from the sides

Measurement can be made using GPS. Dual channel GPS receivers on each end plus a Differential GPS transmitter on land. It can measure down to a faction of a centimeter. To increase accuracy, integrate the positions over time.

Eating alot of JERSEY MIKES

Being a "Cisgender Male" , I fully sympathize with the battleships "shrinking 2 inches" when chilled.

Having done construction, tolerance stacking seems the most plausible. Ships and houses are built by people.

I actually didn't know that NJ was 'officially' bigger than her sisters, so I learned something new just from the title, never mind the rest of the video.

I’m an advocate of the dimensional tolerances stacking theory. With 1940s technology. it was not uncommon for other classes of ships to have some variation in dimensions. Also welding high alloy steel like armor plate would have a lot of distortion back then as well, as it was a relatively new process. So fudging that back in could create discrepancies. And during a war, militaries sometimes need to make judgement calls over which issues are critical and which weren’t. I doubt the Navy was really concerned about the exact length, or beam, as long as she was still seaworthy and still fit in a Panama canal lock. And she was delivered on time.

You should just measure it at two different temperatures. You don’t need a full laser scan of the whole ship, just a simple laser measurement of the length like is done in construction all the time.

The New Jersey is a very dynamic lady, she is a beautiful ship give or take 4 inches.

Seinfeld Episode - Shrinkage...Thanks, Ryan...

i would believe tolerance stacking, along with some minor errors made along the way vs yardbirds doing it intentionally.

I would say it could be in the welding, when doing strong structural Thick Material welding you do Penetrating weld and build up the joint with weld if there was a little illegality gap on each joint would add up quickly. It's much easier to fill a little gap than grind out a bind

Try to weld more than 9 plates together in a grid and you’ll know how much temperature can affect overall dimensions. Not just simply growing and shrinking a certain amount per X degrees, but warping and “oil canning” which will wildly effect outside dimensions. Loading of the ship would do the same; look at hull pictures of any of these ships in dry dock and you’ll see it.

Probably in build with the bow and stern, things like that happen. British submarine HMS TRIUMPH was partialy built upside down, one ring was thicker at the top and should have been thicker at the bottom. HMS Renown's (Polaris Boat)Torpedo compartment was 1" shorter than the rest of the class and one was allegedly banana shaped in the water due to the sun on one side during build.

Buildup of tolerance is a real thing. I worked at Douglas Aircraft, and the stretch DC-8 had a big problem with the seat tracks not fitting; a 64th here, a 64th there, soon the fastener holes were 1/2 inch off. On DC-9s and later, they picked a reference spot and measured from that.

"Thermal expansion" is an interesting one. paper napkin math says NJ should change her length by about 3" per 20 degrees F.... If she was designed using "standard day" temperature (59 degrees F), and all her major parts were sized with the appropriate temperature offset against that at the time of measure, then on a hot summer day in the Pacific, she would indeed be 4" longer than designed.

Watch.... PBS.... "Half the Sky": "FET"... ( In Part II). And, "Meet John Doe" (Gary Cooper, Barbara Stanwick...)... A system that mixes those possibilities, as our secondary manual backup system.

Temperature variations and tolerance stack ups over that long a distance would very easily add up to a few inches. You can't measure, cut, or machine anything to an exact dimension. There will always be some tolerance allowed for the pieces.

The German Navy tried to make up for the earlier whale slaughter. On 14 January 1941. the Auxiliary Cruiser Penguin captured most of the Norwegian whaling fleet in Antarctica, totaling three factory ships and 11 whalers

Finally a good sponsor! Let's gooooo!

As an Engineer I believed its a human error. Its the most make sense theory I can think of. I agree with the expansion of the steel theory but it will have the expand the entire way down the waterline to the bottom of the hull, if not it will cause tensile stretch on the point were the heat transfer stop and can cause leakage or rip the side steel plate apart. Which would not expand down to the bottom plate since the water on the water line will cool the heat down and the heat also wont reach the deepest 3 layer bottom plate hull anyway according to thermodynamics. And I don’t believe that the worker intentionally make the ship longer, if they do it will show how suck the navy QC let the thing pass. There is something call “tolerance error” where you have to build each specific part exactly in that range they gave. It could cause the ship look tilted or unbalanced if you decide to add some length on the steel. Thats why I believe that its an error happen when they measure the ship (can happen from both human and measuring tools since nobody is perfect and accurate right) or many steel reach the longest value on tolerance error and add up to the extra inches on the ship length. (What I’m saying is for example many +0.05 can add up to many inches if they’re combine together.) So yeah, Its human error, definitely not intentional.

Good stuff

I add a fifth posptulate ; Measurement error via variations in method and accuracy if actual measurements were made each time. Also every measurement has a +/- range of error.

Just watched the episode of Ghost Hunters on the New Jersey....had to laugh when they said they contacted a historian....it was Ryan the ships curator but they made it appear he wasn't affiliated with the ship. But Ryan cleans up nice in a shirt and tie!

New Jersey resident born and raised in camden here. Can confirm it was most definitely intentional because if it wears the name then it won’t be shamed

All you have to do is look at the currently valid manufacturing tolerances. According to ISO 13920, a tolerance of +/- 8mm is permitted in metal construction in the highest tolerance class for a length of 20,000mm. This corresponds to a tolerance of +/- 1%. The imperialists among you are welcome to convert these numbers now. A tolerance of 1% over a length of 887ft would mean a difference of more than 10inches. So I very much doubt that the other three ships were exactly 887ft 3in long.

Another thing to consider is exactly HOW was the length measurement made? Did they have a single tape measure that was as long as the ship or did they have to reposition it multiple times as they worked their way along it? That repositioning could account for *some* variance... Were they using a surveyor's wheel for the measurement? It could be subject to thermal expansion also... Also, a slight variation in the path the surveyor walked could add a bit to the total length... Surveyors supposedly strive for 1:10,000 accuracy, which works out to be an inch when you are talking about the length of the New Jersey... From what I understand, they even take into account the thermal expansion of their metal tapes... Combine this with the fact that the ship might actually move slightly between the time you are taking the measurement of the bow and stern and having a repeatability of a couple of inches even without the ship expanding would be impressive... If you can't repeat a measurement and get EXACTLY the same value, you're just estimating (with a certain degree of accuracy)...

I would think you would be able to measure it accurately with a laser. Taking one measurement from the bow, and one from the stern, both aimed at the same line of sight point amidships either port or starboard and measuring the angles. Even if you couldn't see the same point from the bow or the stern right now, you could always attach a pole of some kind off of the side of the ship so that it could be the target from both ends. You then have 2 known sides of a triangle and you can solve the the 3rd side which would give you the exact length. As long as all 3 points are firmly affixed to the ship, there shouldn't be any deviation due to motion. This assumes that the length is measured overall and not at the waterline and that the top of the bow is the farthest point forward - it's hard to tell from the plans...

1/100th of an inch tolerance would be only account for a 3" difference if the the hull was over 300 plates in length.

As a regatta sailor, I've heard there are people who intentionally instruct builders to build their sailboats slightly over the edge of class regulations, especially with wooden sailboats. If they are up for inspection at a big event or something, they heat certain parts with a hair dryer and cool other parts with water just to pass it. On a similar note, there are people who have connections within one-design builders and are able to get their polyester sailboats reinforced with kevlar to get a stiffer boat which cuts through waves better. Every single one-design sailboat should be the exact same, but people find workarounds I guess...

I'm a 40 year machinist. I think there may be many reasons but most plausible is simply that all the variables of the many parts added up rather than averaging out. We are talking some 4 inches on a ship 10,650 inches long. Tolerance variables in her parts, temperature of sea and air, metrics variables and so on. No way did the builders make her 4 inches longer, how to even do that?

"Do you know of Dr. Freud, Mr. Ismay? His ideas about the male preoccupation with size might be of particular interest to you." -Rose DeWitt Bukater, Titanic

USS Wisconsin is the longest due to a collision that messed up it bow which was removed in drydock. The unfinished USS KENTUCKY had its bow removed and replaced the damaged bow of the USS Wisconsin making it 11inches longer than the other 3 iowa's.

Women building the ship longer is cracking me up. How many takes did it take for Ryan to be able to say that out loud without laughing?

My theory is weld gaps between plates.. say the welding procedure calls for a 3/16" weld gap, plus or minus 1/16", and a couple welds are set at 1/4", this could be a possible explanation.

Hmm, I thought the Wisconsin was longer, due to the ramming and the bow of the Kentucky being grafted onto her. Or are we just talking as built?

I gonna say two of those options. One the shapes of the bow stern are different, and two measurements taken at different temperatures.

I would think that its slightly more likely that its a little bit of all of those to on degree or another. I work as an engineer in a furniture plant and while we are definitely not making a 'precision product' the stacked tolerance gremlin will bite you in the rear-end with any given opportunity. So if the person milling the steel plate is off a bit, then they hold the root pass of the weld a bit wide than intended and the stern angle is off by fractions of a degree before long it all adds up to a longer ship then spec'd and no single answer or culprit

I'll be coming to visit the New Jersey in June.

I worked as a welder fabricator for 30 years and the tolerances given by engineering for individual parts don't always stack up in the end if to many are on high side 4 inches in a ship that long 4 inches is not unreasonable

We're talking about a difference of a few inches. Tolerance stacking of components would easily account for the slight variation.

@BattleshipNewJersey Interesting. If you go tour the USS Wisconsin, at Hampton, VA, in the presentation they talk about an accident where the ships bow had to be replaced and that after the replacement and putting back on the decorative trim afterwards ended up creating the USS Wisconsin as the longest battleship. I guess this is going to be a fish tale for all the ships.

Go to curiositystream.com/BATTLESHIP to get Curiosity Streaming today!

Well, clearly next time it's in dry dock you need to formally state the length as 147.83 curators.

By the way never scale directly off of drawings only accept numeric dimensions, many years ago I was helping digitise the drawings of the Liner QE2 prior to her last major refit, the drawings when scanned showed what amounted to a 2.5 feet difference from centerline to port compared to centerline to starboard, the drawings had apparently been kept somewhere where they had at some point got partially damp and had distorted non uniformly over the length and width of the very large drawing sheets, we had to take the scanned drawings, digitise and then modify the design after a full survey was carried out once in drydock. the original drawings had actually got a curve in down the center line as well making it slightly banana shaped

7 and "5 1/4"" in two columns of a spreadsheet to record a single measurement! I am so happy to be living in metric land. I love your fact about the imprecision in the plans and the on-site solutions to them. Pragmatism rules and I guess the exact position of a door does not make much of a difference in such a project.

The Super Structures aren't Identical, a change to the weigh and distribution. will be different and cause different degrees of hogging. The RMS Queen Mary has big issues with this, due the changes that were made to turn the side into a museum.

There could have been a temperature difference from other shipyards during construction that caused the whole ship to be welded together slightely larger. 4" of expansion is well within the change in size of that length of steel. Were talking Thermal Expansion of 7.0 (10-6 in/(in oF))!!! 😅 Seriously, that's a lot over almost 900 feet. You wouldn't notice the difference until you lined them all up in the same climate and measured them. Even the steel tape used to measure them changes in length with temperature. I.e., the temperature difference between shipyards could have been the cause. In addition, slight differences in the alloy between ships could have a slightly different expansion rate. It also depends on where and when you measured all of them. Even the length of the docks will change with temperature, maybe the same as the measuring devices or maybe not. 😂 Did they measure them all when they were stationed together? Even then, it doesn't account for temperature difference during assembly. Once it's welded together, you ain't gonna change it. This variance is well within design tolerance, I'm quite sure.

Regarding the 1943 variations, it's a case of "close enough". An inch and a half matters nothing in regards to drydocking arrangements.

I thought is was Wisconson due to the repair adding a few inches.

As George Castanza would say "The water is cold, and shrinkage is involved." Seinfeld episode.

you do know that those battleships were crafted, this means each one is unique, we did not have robots to exactly manufacture parts and pieces to exact specs. None of those ships match the blueprints, which is why we cannot rebuild them from the blueprints without reworking the blueprints. A CAD driven factory is not going to fudge things when the blueprints don't work, but humans do.

Why when he said "shrinkage" did I hear George Castanza in my head "I WAS IN THE POOL!!!"

Length could be measured when in dry dock by hanging a plum bob off the bow and plum bob off the stern and measure the distance between them. This may not work if in a floating dry dock due to the same pitch/roll when the ship is tied up at the pier .

See ladies, size does matter and that is why NJ has won so many awards.