Page 228 of 249 FirstFirst ... 219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237 ... LastLast
Results 3,406 to 3,420 of 3729

Thread: Destroyers - Fletcher Class

  1. #3406
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by blidgepump View Post
    Camp Pendleton is on solid ground... the rolling and sloshing and sea surging about while pausing to sit and reflect aboard a DD .... oh the appreciation for the private privy back home on the farm!
    I didn't think about the sloshing bit - definitely makes it worse! I should have remembered, having seen black water slosh around the deck of a head on the old Tarawa.

  2. #3407
    Senior Contributor Builder 2010's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 11
    Location
    Louisville, KY, USA
    Posts
    1,818
    I'm such a wimp! I wouldn't have pooped for 6 months under those conditions...

  3. #3408
    Regular Cruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Feb 16
    Location
    Prattville, Alabama. In the Southeastern United St
    Posts
    66
    I never saw a WWII era head (thank goodness). The only ship I was on was commissioned in 1978. The toilets were very similar to commercial grade toilets, they didn't have a tank, they had a chrome valve in the piping that you flushed with. What really sticks in my mind about them is that in some overseas ports, especially the really old ones, the water in the harbor was quite dirty, or polluted. So much so, that the water in the toilet bowl was brown. Sometimes enough to be unsettling. There's nothing like the emotions that come over you when you get some "splashback" while doing your business in those instances, lol!

  4. #3409
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 14
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by bbvet View Post
    BP Wrote:

    And keep in mind that the flushing is with SALT water, not fresh water. The Bidet has nothing on a line of crappers in a head all occupied at the same time - it's quite the FRESH experience, to be sure!
    Yes the salt water flush as it was called it went directly into the sea. The fire and flushing system served 3 purposes, 1. to keep the firemain active thereby minimizing marine growth in the fire and flushing piping and 2. immediately flush the affluent keeping the troughs clean as practicable, 3 minimizing the unpleasant odor!

  5. #3410
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 14
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    137
    Forgot to mention that walking down the pier in the 60's with a bunch of WW2 Tin Cans breasted together could be an interesting experience joggling the senses especially if you looked at the water! As these WW2 tin cans did not have holding tanks, therefore it all went into the harbor! EPA was not around when the ships were built. they were built quickly to minimalistic and rudimentary standards. Todays ships have very sophisticated and very expensive sewage treatment plants and holding tanks. All harbors and country international limits now days have strict requirements on the discharge into the harbor! Some of the more sophisticated sewage plants are said to make the discharge clean enough to drink! Though I nave never tested it out!

  6. #3411
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 14
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    137
    Another thought garbage. In the Fletcher's day when the ships were under way garbage was thrown over the fantail in International waters. In the war Zone it was kept aboard till they went back to International waters or was weighted down in bags then thrown over the fantail. Nothing was thrown over the side for fear of fowling the propellers, it was thrown over the fantail/stern through a "garbage shoot" a large diameter/or size if square, piece of sheet metal, which resembled a section of vent ducting. The prop wash would help grind it the garbage up some. Back in the Fletchers day there was little plastic most glass or tin or paper and food. Today there are garbage grinders and sorters etc. as garbage too is strictly regulated in harbors and at sea.
    Along side a pier though garbage from a Fletcher was collected and disposed of shore side, or put into Demster Dumpsters! The forgoing is from experience talking to old timers and reading but my experience dictates there is very little "literary Privilege". The ships were way too austere and war time demands dictated the requirements and war time solutions.

    In my ship during the 60's on "Rope Yarn" Sunday ...Wednsday 12-1600 we would tighten (trice) up our racks and air out our mattresses topside and some of us washed our clothes, which consisted of tying said items on to the end of some 1/4 inch line and hung them over the fantail and watch them bounce around in the propeller wash for 15 min or so, real them back in and hang them over the rail to dry! The items cleaned in that manner did dry a bit stiff though and had the aroma of salt air! Although we did have a Ships Laundry Crew who did wash our clothes, some of us elected to do our own for various and sundry reasons. None of which were reasonable! However tricing up our racks and airing our mattresses was not an option! yes I was young back then! a bit chilly in the North Atlantic during winter I would imagine!

  7. #3412
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 14
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    137
    An item I need to be clear on, that having been in the Navy for 20 years retired as a BTCS and worked for the Military Sealift for another 27 as a Port Engineer/Marine Surveyor. I have watched and been a part of the rapid advancement in marine technology, not only in design and construction but in environmental standards, which has jumped leaps and bounds in the last several decades! I am to report no more garbage nor untreated effluent is dumped into the sea. Garbage is compacted and carried to the next port to be disposed of and sewage plants take care of the effluent. Yes cruse ships have large compactors and storage areas some refrigerated to eliminate odor. As I said above some sophisticated shipboard sewage treatment plants the effluent discharge is drinkable.... again never tried it! Every ship that sails the sea has some form of the above installed or the ship will nt be issued a sailing certificate, in the US, a COI and Load Line Certificate. Other Maritime countries have similar certificates for ships.
    The Fletchers, and WW2 Museum Ships are a great piece of history, deserving of out respect and discussion, for that time in history these ships were the pinnacle of American enginuity and craftsmanship. We are extremely lucky to have as many of these vessels scattered around the Country so we can pause and reflect what our fathers and grandfathers did in their era. the old saying goes "if you do not know where you have been you do not know where you are going". Just a reflective thought thank you for allowing me to participate!

  8. #3413
    Contributor bbvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 14
    Location
    near Wallburg, NC
    Posts
    330
    BM9 Wrote:
    Another thought garbage. In the Fletcher's day when the ships were under way garbage was thrown over the fantail in International waters. In the war Zone it was kept aboard till they went back to International waters or was weighted down in bags then thrown over the fantail. Nothing was thrown over the side for fear of fowling the propellers, it was thrown over the fantail/stern through a "garbage shoot" a large diameter/or size if square, piece of sheet metal, which resembled a section of vent ducting.
    Yes, that was the way to go concerning garbage & trash back in the '60s while underway. Here is a shot of STODDARD in port with our "Classified Info Disposal Unit" in place:
    Name:  DD-566 In Port_1.jpg
Views: 137
Size:  97.2 KB
    I can't recall where or when that photo was made, but sometime between 1966-68. Here is another shot of the fantail of the ship during our '66-67 Westpac cruise awaiting highlining to off load spent canisters. The chute is visible at the bottom:
    Name:  DD-566 1967 Fantail.jpg
Views: 130
Size:  441.5 KB
    As you can see, we also had a 55 gal drum located next door for burning "other debris", etc.

  9. #3414
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 14
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    137
    Yes I totally neglected the other stuff! Which had to be burned! Wow thank you for your addition! Most people such as myself over look the difficulty of complying with the stringent Communications requirements, which are still in force today! Today’s ships have incinerators that made there appearance in force during the 70’s and 80’s. I believe during the Fletcher time that tenders and repair ships were able to take care of The Other “stuff”. If no AD, or AR were in I believe it was disposed of shoreside in coms facilities. WW2 tin cans were hard pressed for space and did not lend themselves to conversions or additions very easily.

  10. #3415
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 14
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    137
    easily. The FRAM conversions, although successful for the most part, were difficult to exicute and to maintain. Dissimilar metals in the exterior bulkheads were a big problem. The use of aluminum, to save weight, caused crosion issues especially when the flange gasket deteriorated. Notably in the hanger bay back aft!

  11. #3416
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Boilermaker9 View Post
    I am to report no more garbage nor untreated effluent is dumped into the sea. Garbage is compacted and carried to the next port to be disposed of and sewage plants take care of the effluent.
    I remember my time as a passenger on the Tarawa back in '96. They were experimenting with holding all of the ship's trash while at sea with the intention of disposing it at our next port call. Lasted about a week and the stench in the area was overwhelming. The CO had the Sailors dump everything into the sea. Everything was bagged and weighted, but more than one bag burst when it hit the ocean.

  12. #3417
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    79
    When we dumped our trash on the Constellation, it left a trail all the way to the horizon.

  13. #3418
    Senior Contributor Builder 2010's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 11
    Location
    Louisville, KY, USA
    Posts
    1,818
    Why can't ships actually process it? They create drinking water. Subs create fresh oxygen, why can't they incinerate to make steam or digest it to make it less poisonous to the seas? Seems like there's a technical solution here. Obviously, they're going to have to figure it out if we're going to travel to the planets. Although they just put it in the airlock and space it.

  14. #3419
    Contributor bbvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 14
    Location
    near Wallburg, NC
    Posts
    330
    thebard wrote:
    When we dumped our trash on the Constellation, it left a trail all the way to the horizon.
    Now that sounds like the Shitty Kitty - USS KITTY HAWK (CVA-63) - We never needed to use any elec. devices to find her - her usual trail of garbage was guidance enough. Hence, her nickname!!!

    As far as I know, Astronauts on the ISS process their waste (liquid) into drinking water, so that technology is already in use. I would guess that since the late '50s/early '60s when environmental issues began to surface, it became a problem for the Navy and various (as noted) methods of capture & release came into existence. For the WWII era ships it was a non-issue as BM9 has stated - space and time simply weren't there on those cramped ships.

  15. #3420
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 May 14
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Builder 2010 View Post
    Why can't ships actually process it? They create drinking water. Subs create fresh oxygen, why can't they incinerate to make steam or digest it to make it less poisonous to the seas? Seems like there's a technical solution here. Obviously, they're going to have to figure it out if we're going to travel to the planets. Although they just put it in the airlock and space it.
    They have been working on that technology. There is so far no efficient means to burn garbage at sea and realize any return. There are incinerators for burnable stuff but all the non conbustables need to be sorted out. That takes man hours. Regulatory bodies have come down hard on exhaust gas emissions as well even at sea! Some day they will achieve success however it will be a long painful process.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 13 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 13 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Modernized Iowa Class versus Essex WWII Carrier Class
    By talshiar in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 30 Apr 18,, 11:24
  2. WWII Destroyers
    By Master Chief in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 23 Feb 13,, 00:29
  3. Iowa Class vs Kirov Class
    By eocoolj in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 224
    Last Post: 12 Jun 08,, 00:02
  4. What Should the Next Gen Destroyers....
    By Tibbetts in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 13 Jan 06,, 18:23
  5. Kidd Class vs Sovremmeney Class
    By BUFF in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 03 Jan 05,, 04:42

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •