Destroyers - Fletcher Class

[USSWisconsin]

What about the use of tear gas by the USMC in the Central PAcific?

How do you characterize that?

Ineffective, napalm worked much better, and it too has been called a chemical weapon (asphixating). Tear gas is not intended to be a lethal agent, and is more useful for riot control or gas training.

[kato]

What about the use of tear gas by the USMC in the Central PAcific?
How do you characterize that?

Legal use of chemical weapons? Tear gas and other irritants were not covered by the 1925 Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons (which the US had signed, but didn't ratify until 1974 btw, as usual playing the uncivilized odd one out). Same goes for tear gas usage in Vietnam and Cambodia. Tear gas was classified as a chemical weapon in 1992.

[blidgepump]

Napalm ???

Ineffective, napalm worked much better, and it too has been called a chemical weapon (asphixating). Tear gas is not intended to be a lethal agent, and is more useful for riot control or gas training.

Isn't napalm outlawed by NATO and UN forces ???

[USSWisconsin]

Isn't napalm outlawed by NATO and UN forces ???

not until 1983 and the US did not ratify CCCW Protocol III Incendiary Weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convent...tional_Weapons

Note that landmines are also illegal.

[Dreadnought]

[QUOTE=kato;771818]I wouldn't call what happened in the concentration camps "warfare" in any way, nor was Zyklon-B weaponized for warfare. Both would be requirements in my mind to call Zyklon-B a chemical weapon.
It was extermination of the worst kind, pure slaughter. Should know, half of my grandmother's relatives died in Auschwitz and Majdanek. Btw, i'd also classify the Japanese use in Wuhan similarly.

A "weapon" in the military context is a means of warfare. Chemical warfare has different purposes than extermination. The primary purpose, at least since the invention of defense mechanisms against it during WW1, is for the most part not to kill, but to tie down. Both in area denial (Polish use in WW2 falls in that category) and as a tactical weapon to tie down opposing forces before an immediate attack.

*IMO, One would think that Germany could not have been considered "on the defensive" when they gased the Allies with Chemical weapons during trench warfare in the Second Battle of Ypres in 1915. They (Germany) had already attempted to use forms of chemical weapons against the Russian Eastern Front at Bolimov earlier in the war (where it was so cold the gas had frozen), and in conflict with the Hague Convention which outlawed gas warfare, its impact during Second Ypres was startlingly effective.

*This was no use of any defensive weapons, Germany was still on the Offensive during these campaigns and knowingly released 5,700 containers of Chlorinated gas along the front Allied lines:

5,700 canisters containing 168 tons of chlorine gas were released at sunrise on 22 April against French Algerian and territorial division troops following a brief preliminary bombardment by 17-inch howitzers. A veil of greenish-yellow mist could be clearly seen rolling across from the German front lines to the French positions.

The effectiveness of the gas attack was so complete that it surprised the German infantry who followed up the release of the chlorine gas. The stunned Allied troops fled in panic towards Ypres, the heavy gas settling and clogging the trenches where it gathered. (Click here to read the official German statement issued in the aftermath of the attack.)

Covering four miles of trench lines, the gas affected some 10,000 troops, half of whom died within ten minutes of the gas reaching the front line. Death was caused by asphyxiation. Those who lived were temporarily blinded and stumbled in confusion, coughing heavily. 2,000 of these troops were captured as prisoners of war.

*Now you can claim that France used them first before Germany, but lets also remember that France did indeed use them as defensive as German forces had already began marching through Belgium literally urging France, Britain and Russia to war. Germany's diplomats IMO screwed themselves by not responding to Ferdinands assassination until some four weeks later when they gave Belgrade an ultimatum and yet were already prepared for war.

Four weeks even the was kinnda slow even then dont you think?

In the 1960s a German historian, Fritz Fischer, argued that Germany had to bear the main responsibility for the outbreak of the war. Fischer's three main theses were: 1) that the German government under the Kaiser's direction deemed a European war inevitable since 1911/12, prepared for war, and decided to seize the next opportunity to start it. Fischer points out the expansive aims of the industry and Junkers; 2) that the German government and general staff precipitated an escalation of the Austro-Serb crisis in order to launch what they considered a preventive strike against Russia and France. If war did not come about, Germany at least hoped to weaken the Entente and win a moral victory that would increase the prestige and stability of Germany and the Habsburg Empire. Bethmann embraced a calculated risk of escalation; 3) that a long-term continuity existed in German aims for expansion, leading right up to the Second World War: an eastern empire, predominance over Belgium and France.

Argument 2) is widely accepted, although it would be wrong to exculpate Austria-Hungary and Russia. Argument 1) lacks proof with regard to war preparations and 3) needs a lot of specification because it makes too much of superficial similarities between German war aims in the two world wars (the racial agenda, for instance, played no significant role in 1914-1918). In any case, the German government, as all others, did not expect a war of attrition. Domestic calculations, occasionally mentioned by Fischer, played a limited role: Bethmann tried to draw Russia into the war as the aggressor in order to overcome the SPD's antiwar feeling, but no immediate domestic crisis existed from which he would have had to escape. More severe domestic crises existed in Russia, Austria, and even in Britain.

To sum up, the German government's responsibility for the outbreak of the war was certainly larger than that of the French and British governments, but particularly in the light of aggressive Austro-Hungarian and Russian moves it would be wrong to blame Germany alone. The causes for the war are highly complex. Earlier crises could have led to a major escalation, and in that sense it has been asked: why did the First World War come only in 1914 and not already in 1905, 1908, or 1911? To me, it seems decisive that fatalism had been growing among European peoples and decision-makers; many believed war to be inevitable and had become tired of the recurring diplomatic crises, which usually worked to the disadvantage of Germany, Austria-Hungary, or Russia. When a new crisis approached in 1914, the governments in Berlin, Vienna, Budapest, and St. Petersburg were less willing than before to finding a frustrating compromise.

The German government, ridden by long-term domestic concerns (more than by an acute crisis) and hoping to overcome the encirclement by the Entente, opted for the risk of war in July 1914, which was wanted by the German generals. Austria-Hungary, however, played its own part in driving the crisis to escalation. The Austro-Hungarian government chose to risk a punitive strike against Serbia to stabilize the crumbling empire; it knew well that this would probably mean European war. Russia failed to restrain its ally, Serbia, and its mobilization almost represented an act of war since early mobilization at the time gave powers a nearly decisive advantage. One ought never to forget, however, that no responsible statesman or general in July 1914 anticipated (and willed) the war that actually came.

C: The First World War, 1914-1918
C.2. Military Operations

[blidgepump]

World War I Museum

[QUOTE=Dreadnought;772105][[B]QUOTE=kato;771818]........To me, it seems decisive that fatalism had been growing among European peoples and decision-makers; many believed war to be inevitable and had become tired of the recurring diplomatic crises, which usually worked to the disadvantage of Germany, Austria-Hungary, or Russia. ......... One ought never to forget, however, that no responsible statesman or general in July 1914 anticipated (and willed) the war that actually came.


For those interested, if you are ever travelling through Kansas City, stop at the Liberty Memorial ( across from Union Station ) and spend 4 hours touring the only WW I Museum in the Nation. Incredible displays and illustrations of the complex situations leading up to WWI.

National World War I Museum - Online Community

I believe the current exhibit includes recitals by sailors serving in WW I.

[kato]

@Dreadnought:

I'm not calling chemical weapons defensive weapons. However, even on the offensive, they are not used primarily to kill, but to tie down the enemy by injuring and killing some (a lot) of them and destroying both combat capability and morale in the rest.
The Second Battle of Ypres was before the development and deployment of even halfway effective countermeasures such as gas masks. The effectiveness of gas usage in the Second Battle of Ypres were never reproduced during WW1, except possibly in some engagements on the Eastern Front (where the Russians did not use any countermeasures).

[Dreadnought]

As for Bosnia, at least in the zones the NBC battalion i later served in was responsible for there was no use of chemical weapons. The guys we had down there were pretty focused on teaching us awareness of minefields later on though.

Well, others seem to think differently judging by some of the effects that were experienced and from documents produced:

Just figured you should see these for reference.

CHEMICAL WARFARE IN BOSNIA?

CHEMICAL WARFARE IN BOSNIA?

Chemical Weapons/ Mostar

Srebrenica Genocide Blog: CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE USED AGAINST SREBRENICA & ZEPA CIVILIANS, ACCORDING TO EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES

[blidgepump]

Rudder of the USS Kidd

As we continue the tour of the USS Kidd, I wanted to pause to reflect on the rudder of a Fletcher class destroyer. A strong trait for any ship is placing the vessel in position and pointing it in the direction desired while crossing the water with the minimum amount of energy.

This information was forwarded ...... "Although the rudder could be moved up to 35 degrees each way, normally 30 degrees was considered maximum. There was a considerable time lag between turning the wheel and having the rudder respond, and a further, much larger, time lag before the ship responded. We could spin the wheel very quickly knowing that the rudder would eventually catch up." Source Professor Nate Cook, QM 1/c

That explains those old black & white films of the helmsman spinning the wheel and nothing immediately happening. ;)

[blidgepump]

Three ways to steer a Fletcher

• The primary steering was on the bridge
• The secondary steering was on a platform half way up the after stack, where there was another wheel and magnetic compass to be used if the bridge was destroyed.
• Finally, there was a manual steering station in the “steering engine room” (SER), where, if all else failed, the ship could be “steered” using only manual input.

[Ken_NJ]

Are the Kidd's rudder and propellers intact? Or are they trimmed off like the USS Laffey at Patriots Point? Hard to tell with her sitting in the mud there.

[blidgepump]

Not Neutered

Are the Kidd's rudder and propellers intact? Or are they trimmed off like the USS Laffey at Patriots Point? Hard to tell with her sitting in the mud there.

:whome: From the naked eye I determined the propellars are attached to the shafts and the rudder is untouched, except for the protective blanket of Mississippi gooo awaiting the snow pack to melt next Spring when the Kidd will rise again.

There is no public access to the engine room, but I'd imagine something is un hooked to insure the props do not windmill in the current ?

[Ken_NJ]

Don't think you know what I mean. Check out the photos of the Laffey when they fixed her up last year.

November 2009 Dry Dock Photos Set 2 Courtesy of Joseph W

[Dreadnought]

:whome: From the naked eye I determined the propellars are attached to the shafts and the rudder is untouched, except for the protective blanket of Mississippi gooo awaiting the snow pack to melt next Spring when the Kidd will rise again.

There is no public access to the engine room, but I'd imagine something is un hooked to insure the props do not windmill in the current ?

It is normal for the USN to detatch the prop shaft/s internally at the flange and weld an "X" structure to the overhead structure for your larger ships. Or if needed or interchangeable such as the Iowa BB's and the Essex class CV's remove them all together (props) Your prop shaft/s would be braced in the upper part of the "X" structure. This makes sure that under tow her props cannot spin and gain momentum and possibly over run the towing rig and tugboats that would pull her.

For smaller ships they "lock up" the shafts and rudders into a fixed position:

What is the inactivation process?

Inactivation for long-term retention typically includes the following work:

1. Retention onboard of all hull, mechanical & electrical repair parts, electronic spares, maintenance assistance modules, and ready service spares; bench stocks; equipage not subject to deterioration; and test equipment.
2. Retention onboard of all installed equipment unless maintained in a restoration/turn-around pool to support potential ship reactivation.
Installation of dehumidification equipment to preserve interior spaces and cathodic protection equipment to maintain the exterior underwater hull.
3. Removal and storage of external topside equipment (e.g., antennas and directors) in the hanger bay under dehumidification.
4. Internally blank sea connections.
5. All machinery, boilers, turbines, piping systems, electrical systems, electronic equipment, weapons systems, and hull structure and fittings will be placed in a state of preservation.
6. Install smoke stack closures.
7. Pump and drain all petroleum systems.
8. Clean and gas-free Aviation Gas tanks and systems.
9. Clean and preserve JP 5 and diesel oil tanks.
10. Install propeller shaft and rudder locking devices.
11. Remove water and sludge from tanks and bilges.
12. Repair watertight doors and hatches.
13. Temporary services and firemain.

*To make it easier, many of the BB's CV's, CA's and CL's were what is considerered a "locked system" which means if the ship is towed and one piece of equipment starts to rotate such as the props then the whole propshaft drivetrain starts rotating if not disconnected. This would mean the entire system including the Main engines, turbines etc. There would be no lube oil system running or cooling water for the drivetrain and would immediately remove the protective coatings in the equpiment, gears, bearing and so fourth. So, by disconnecting the drive shafts and securing them, they prevent this from happening and possible damage to some very expensive, irreplaceable pieces of equipment of the drive train. That is why they are disconnected, to prevent damage to the equipment, and to stop the drivetrain from turning and achieveing unwanted momentum from the towed ship as it would no doubt overun the smaller towing vessels.

During the time the ships were in service, if a piece of equipment was damaged, they would lock the shaft out to prevent it turning and the damage mentioned above and head for a repair facility or floating drydock pending the nature of the repair. That is if they couldn't repair the damage themselves at sea.

[blidgepump]

Ironworkers & Millwrights

Don't think you know what I mean. Check out the photos of the Laffey when they fixed her up last year.

November 2009 Dry Dock Photos Set 2 Courtesy of Joseph W

Ken that is some impressive restoration on the Laffey.

I better understand your point about trimming the propellars on the Laffey.
The props on the Kidd remain whole, no "trimming".
As to the condition of the hull on the Kidd, the keel blocks appear to be well designed
to keep steel in minimum contract with the Mississippi Mud when the river is at low stage.

When the river is running the erosion of the sediment polishes the hull of the Kidd thus reduces growth on the coating systems. For a "tin can" the hull on the Kidd appears sound.

I need to place the Laffey on my "ships to visit list". Those Allen M. Sumner-class destroyers look potent with the dual 5-inch mounts and "extra rudder".


Note the attached jpeg: The Kamikaze hit the Kidd Starboard Amidship appears to have been repaired with rivited plates.

Are there any ironworkers here on the board that can confirm? Or is this the path taken to access the engine rooms during overhaul ?