Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • desertswo
    replied
    I don't know about you, but at OCS we used to sit on them and go for a ride! :D

    Leave a comment:


  • bbvet
    replied
    DSWO wrote:
    Anyway, a lot of those guys who man those 5”/38s would be there anyway because someone has to buff the tile outside the CO’s stateroom. I bet bbvet knows exactly what I’m talking about.
    Oh, jeez!! How could I forget??? The BUFFER was the MOST important piece of equipment on the ship. One simply did NOT attempt to visit any berthing area or passageway during or after Morning Quarters when the BUFFER was in operation!!! It surprises me that the Navy did not have a designated rate for this important job - say a BFSN, or BF3!

    But, DSWO is correct in that the Watch, Quarter, & Station Bill was the guide to where everyone was assigned during any shipboard evolution - and it could be anywhere on the ship, regardless of your "job" (MOS to grunts). As an example, on my first ship, a FLETCHER class DD - USS STODDARD (DD-566) for my General Quarters billet, I was assigned to Mt. 33 as a 2nd loader and before the end of our 66-67 cruise, moved to 1st loader. I was also on the Away Boarding Party manning a BAR. This was due to starting out in 1st Division (deck gang), not the fact that I moved on to the ship's office and became a PN3 prior to transfer in '68. On NEW JERSEY the General Quarters billets were pretty much already assigned when I came aboard and I ended up getting a spot as a phone talker in a first aid station adjacent to Turret 3, below decks. I tried to get a Weapons Dept. GQ billet but the XO wouldn't hear of it, even after going to him personally with my prior DD combat experience. I think Ed Snyder (our CO) would have been ok with it, but I wasn't about to go higher than the XO; we got along well and I didn't want to push it. In later years, Capt. Snyder & I had a very good relationship - a wonderful person all the way around.

    Getting back to the topic (sort of) - after our 66-67 Westpac Cruise in STODDARD, when awards were handed out, our ship's barber got a Navy Commendation Medal for his role as a 5"/38 Mount Captain during one of our high-speed NGFS runs along the North Vietnamese coast. So, GMG's were not always the ones manning the mounts (or turrets).

    I also share DSWO's position that steam plant vessels are a thing of the past - too manpower intensive, dangerous, and costly - esp. with today's generation of questionable manpower (and I use the term "man"power very loosely) - NOT the Navy I would join, most assuredly.

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    ^^^

    What he said!!! :)

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
    Why didn't the navy replace the 5 inchers with the modern type turrets they were using on other ships at the time, like the Ticos? Would have dramatically reduced manpower needs, right?

    BTW visited the New Jersey today. Very cool being aboard, but bummed that more things below deck weren't available, like on the North Carolian.
    Perhaps I can explain the differences between Gun Turrets and Gun Mounts. Take a close look at the diagrams desertswo put on this thread. Absolutely perfect descriptions of the difference.

    The foundation of a Gun Turret is built as part of the ships hull structure because of the weight of the turrent and the amount of recoil shock tranfering on down and then dispersed through the ships hull.

    A Gun Mount, on the other hand, only goes as far down through its Upper Handling Room and is welded to the deck. It is not part of the ship's structure but a weapons system attached to the weather deck.

    Army and Marine Battle tanks, however, describe their gun housing as a "Turret" which is not quite correct. A tank turret is merely "mounted" on the hull of a tank via its roller path or traversing ring. A little confusing to some people as much of a tank's components use Naval nomenclature for their description. The main body of the tank that holds the crew, contains the engine and allows a turret to be attached to it is called the "HULL". Any stowage (or manned as in WW I) "compartments" mounted or welded to the sides of the hull are called "SPONSONS". The front of the tank hull is called the "BOW". Therefore in some of the tanks designed before the Korean War that had a crewman manning a machine gun to the right of the tank driver was called a "BOW GUNNER"

    This all comes from the British Navy who shipped the first tanks to inter WW-I were built by the British NAVY. Their track design was a result of such promising off-road travel when Winston Churchill witnessed a demonstration of the American built HOLT TRACTOR. Every military service was involved in developing the first full tracked tanks. The British Navy built them for the British Army and the first tank driver to test them was a pilot from the Royal Air Force.

    Umm, no. We did refrain from identifying the sides of a tank hull as Port or Starboard. After all, most of them were not built to float like a boat.
    Last edited by RustyBattleship; 04 Sep 15,, 18:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisV71
    replied
    Originally posted by desertswo View Post
    Let's hold off on the answer until Zumwalt is "under way, making way" for the first time. I believe in my heart that variations of her all electric propulsion and electrical power distribution plant fed by some combination of LM2500, MT30 and/or diesel generation, driving either jet pumps a la the LCS or AZIPODs like HMS Queen Elizabeth is the wave of the future, but until I see "Agent Orange" on the move I'll withhold comment.
    I'm reading Ghost Fleet by P. W. Singer and August Cole right now. It takes place several years from now and interestingly enough, in the beginning of that book, Zumwalt is laid up in Suisun Bay and described as a failure with her two sisters having been scrapped incomplete. I'll be curious how the real one performs.

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    +2 Top!

    Hey desert this isn't a BB question but it fits, in your opinion what is a better alternative to steam plants now? Obviously GTs are great but I seem to recall a certain convo we had before and you weren't very impressed today's "engineers"on GTs :D. Just curious, if only they could make a big naval version of a new LT1!


    Let's hold off on the answer until Zumwalt is "under way, making way" for the first time. I believe in my heart that variations of her all electric propulsion and electrical power distribution plant fed by some combination of LM2500, MT30 and/or diesel generation, driving either jet pumps a la the LCS or AZIPODs like HMS Queen Elizabeth is the wave of the future, but until I see "Agent Orange" on the move I'll withhold comment.

    I will say this though; give me USS Gerald R. Ford's reactors, steam generators, SSTGs, and electrical distribution system, coupled with either LCS jet pumps or QE's, AZIPODs and you'll catch me with a raging engineering hard on! :)

    I was very upset when GRF's designers didn't take that leap of faith and give her electric drive like QE. No balls, no blue chips. :(

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
    Why didn't the navy replace the 5 inchers with the modern type turrets they were using on other ships at the time, like the Ticos? Would have dramatically reduced manpower needs, right?

    BTW visited the New Jersey today. Very cool being aboard, but bummed that more things below deck weren't available, like on the North Carolian.
    Turret = Click image for larger version

Name:	Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg.png
Views:	2
Size:	445.5 KB
ID:	1467571

    Mount = Click image for larger version

Name:	navy-twin-5inch-gun-mount-cutaway.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	73.7 KB
ID:	1467572

    Not trying to be a jerk Armor, but I'm curious as to whether or not you ever served in the Navy? I only ask because your questions are sort of un-informed, or at least based in a sort of pool of misunderstanding. That's OK; as far as I'm concerned WE are ALL here to learn, as none of us, even old geezers like me who has more time on the toilet in foreign ports than some contributors have on this rock.

    Knowing your basic knowledge level would be helpful to me in particular in helping you to understand how things work (or are supposed to work) vis-a-vis manning vs. billet requirements, as just one example. In my view, your questions lead me to think that you believe that everyone who works a major caliber gun aboard a US Navy warship is a member of the Gunner's Mate rating. This is not the case. Certain key members of 5"/38 cal crew may be members of that rating, but as 85 gt kid has indicated, the majority are not. Aside from engineers and Corpsmen, they could literally be from any division/department on the ship. Offered in support is my father, the eventual CWO-4 Boatswain, who as a BM2 was gun captain of an 8" gun crew in a three gun turret aboard USS Augusta (CA 31) on China station in 1939.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	300px-USS_Augusta_(CA-31).jpg
Views:	2
Size:	22.3 KB
ID:	1467573

    There was nothing unusual in that General Quarters/Gunnery Stations assignment. In fact it was pretty typical of the era and type of ship, and iterations of the same situation will be found on Watch, Quarter and Station Bills throughout the fleet in the present day.

    Let me turn your question around on you a bit. Why, when the ultra-modern (for the time) Brooke-(of which I was chief engineer and later XO circa 1986 - 1988) and Garcia-class FFGs and FFs started coming off the ways in the early- to mid-60s, were they equipped with single 5"/38s (one in Brooke and two in Garcia), rather than the tried and true Mark 42 5"/54 gun that had been in the fleet since the early-50s (en mass in the Forrest Sherman-class; the last of the REAL all-gun DDs a la Fletcher)? Answer? That thing that makes the world go 'round. Why buy a new gun when there are serviceable weapons gathering dust in Crane, Indiana or aboard ships mothballed along the waterfront in South San Diego Bay and elsewhere "back in the day?"

    You know, there isn't much difference in rate of fire between the old 5"/38 and the Mark 42, and even the Mark 45s. Just a few more sweaty men in the gun house . . . men who would be aboard anyway because they are not needed, nor do they get assigned immediately on that Watch, Quarter and Station Bills to Damage Control, C4ISR, or weapons watch stations. Rather, they are assigned to a Work Center for their, shall we say, "9 to 5" job: a job that in most cases consists largely of performing some form of maintenance and/or preservation; assigned by his work center supervisor per the ship's Planned Maintenance System (PMS).

    Those primary billet assignments that determine the "spaces" that form the Ships' Manning Document (SMD), are determined by some rather interesting people who are educated much the same way actuaries are in the civilian world. All of the services have them and man, when they were assigned to some place like the "Manpower" side of the J-1 Manpower and Personnel code it was like they created some critical mass of statistical weirdos. The “Personnel” side of the J-1 Manpower and “Personnel” code are warriors (one of whom I knew well was the most decorated armor company commander to come out of Desert Storm), one of whose jobs it is to look at the “spaces” that Manpower has come up with and then determine how they will affect the readiness of “faces” in the total All Volunteer Force.

    Anyway, a lot of those guys who man those 5”/38s would be there anyway because someone has to buff the tile outside the CO’s stateroom. I bet bbvet knows exactly what I’m talking about. ;)
    Last edited by desertswo; 04 Sep 15,, 14:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
    Why didn't the navy replace the 5 inchers with the modern type turrets they were using on other ships at the time, like the Ticos? Would have dramatically reduced manpower needs, right?

    BTW visited the New Jersey today. Very cool being aboard, but bummed that more things below deck weren't available, like on the North Carolian.
    Read through this thread most of your questions will be answered. Too much work cutting through the armored deck and no crew would be the same (they use the crews from other departments to run the guns).

    NC has had almost 40 years more to open her self up (not a dirty joke) while the NJ has had less then half. She's way more open then the WisKy though.
    Last edited by 85 gt kid; 04 Sep 15,, 04:04. Reason: Typos

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    Why didn't the navy replace the 5 inchers with the modern type turrets they were using on other ships at the time, like the Ticos? Would have dramatically reduced manpower needs, right?

    BTW visited the New Jersey today. Very cool being aboard, but bummed that more things below deck weren't available, like on the North Carolian.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    AND the 5"/38's could be used as AAA (try THAT with a 16" gun!).
    They did lol look up the Japanese beehive shells (they did suck though). Something else though is not everything needs a 16"shell but a 5"shell can't solve everything either. Not downplaying the 5"ers at all just saying. I think the Iowa's had the perfect amount in the 80s for 5"guns.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by desertswo View Post
    Got another question. Why were any of the 5 inch guns kept in the 1980's? Why not lose them all and make room for more missiles?

    Most useful weapon on the ship. Tremendous and rapid throw weight for NGFS. Great against small surface craft using proximity fusing. Instant ground beef. Lastly, a well trained crew in a twin 5"/38 cal is still one of the great AAW weapons of all time. You should see the Marines shoot. A wall of steel man.
    I recall reading in Malcolm Muir's book (The Iowa Class Battleships: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri & Wisconsin, ISBN # 0-8069-8338-8) that the 5"/38's were a LOT more practical and useful than the 16"/50's; IIRC, there was something like ten times more 5"/38 shells fired than 16"/50 rounds during the Korean War, AND the 5"/38's could be used as AAA (try THAT with a 16" gun!).

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    I can understand why the Navy and Air Force dislike the C-130 as a platform (largely irrelevant from the Navy's POV and taking up valuable resources that could be better spent on fighters from the Air force's POV) but I was under the impression from numerous, forums/journal articles etc that the Army really valued them for that critical commodity (from their perspective) lift capacity - both during overseas deployments during times of war (lot of them the last 20 years or so) and for various civil emergencies/natural disaster relief operations as well etc.

    The problem was (this was 1999 mind you) that the Air Force would tell you, and the Marine Corps concurred, that they had all the C-130 air frames they needed (quite enough to make the Army warm and fuzzy); both in active and reserve squadrons not to mention in layup at Davis-Monthan. As I worked frequently with the SOF community, I was close to air crew officers, including command pilots at the Colonel level, in the AC-130, MC-130, KC-130, as well as the slick Hercs and they all concurred that they had all they needed. When confusion reigns, I defer to the SMEs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Originally posted by desertswo View Post
    As probably the one guy here with a tour in DC on the Joint Staff, I saw things with price tags cross my desk every day that had price tags in the billions and not all of them (in fact I would say most of them) were even wanted by the military, but were jammed down our throats by the Congress . . . example, a whole shitload of C-130s, one air frame none of our air forces are in need of, because some asshole in Marietta, Georgia wants his jobs program. Well, there's a lot of nodding and winking that goes on, and this is but one example.
    I can understand why the Navy and Air Force dislike the C-130 as a platform (largely irrelevant from the Navy's POV and taking up valuable resources that could be better spent on fighters from the Air force's POV) but I was under the impression from numerous, forums/journal articles etc that the Army really valued them for that critical commodity (from their perspective) lift capacity - both during overseas deployments during times of war (lot of them the last 20 years or so) and for various civil emergencies/natural disaster relief operations as well etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • bbvet
    replied
    Got another question. Why were any of the 5 inch guns kept in the 1980's? Why not lose them all and make room for more missiles?

    Most useful weapon on the ship. Tremendous and rapid throw weight for NGFS. Great against small surface craft using proximity fusing. Instant ground beef. Lastly, a well trained crew in a twin 5"/38 cal is still one of the great AAW weapons of all time. You should see the Marines shoot. A wall of steel man.
    Couldn't agree more with what desertswo said. Missiles are expensive and not all that reliable. Latest tech and so forth doesn't always trump Tried and True weaponry. A-10 Warthog is a perfect example.

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    Got another question. Why were any of the 5 inch guns kept in the 1980's? Why not lose them all and make room for more missiles?

    Most useful weapon on the ship. Tremendous and rapid throw weight for NGFS. Great against small surface craft using proximity fusing. Instant ground beef. Lastly, a well trained crew in a twin 5"/38 cal is still one of the great AAW weapons of all time. You should see the Marines shoot. A wall of steel man.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X