Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

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

  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    To Rusty's comments regarding stability of small arms ammunition...

    In 1982 in Grafenwhoer Training Area in Germany my rifle platoon was going through a platoon live fire. When the ammo was dropped off some of the .50 Cal 4:1 machine gun ammo was in wooden boxes instead of cans. 110 rounds instead of 100. And the boxes were secured with wingnuts and the ammo was wrapped in cheese cloth. The boxes had old marking which said USAAF and were from 1943. Also marked FOR INFLIGHT USE ONLY. We fired it anyway and it worked fine.

    In 1983 the same location and I was the 4.2 inch mortar platoon leader...and we were firing HE rounds marked US Army Chemical Corps 1944. They worked just fine as well.
    Oh yes, we had so much ammo (and C-rations) left over from WW II we used alot of it up in Nam. Now, if you took that 110 round belt out and stretched it straight to measure it, I think it would come out to 108 feet --- or rather "The Whole Nine Yards".

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by bigjimslade View Post
    This is what I have so far. No antennae. No thing at the front.
    [ATTACH]42285[/ATTACH]
    [ATTACH]42286[/ATTACH]
    Very nice looking. A couple of suggestions though: The after polemast was also supported by a pair of tripod legs (same diameter as the yardarm supports) starting at about 4 to 5 feet up on the main pole, spread out to almost a 90 degree angle and sloped down at a 45 degree angle.

    Secondly, the SPS-49 antenna "foundation" was a truncated cone, not a straight cylinder. It was about 2 to 3 feet wider at the bottom than the top.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    This is what I have so far. No antennae. No thing at the front.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-10-12 at 12.19.00 PM.png
Views:	2
Size:	537.1 KB
ID:	1469486
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-10-12 at 12.19.33 PM.png
Views:	1
Size:	648.0 KB
ID:	1469487

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    To Rusty's comments regarding stability of small arms ammunition...

    In 1982 in Grafenwhoer Training Area in Germany my rifle platoon was going through a platoon live fire. When the ammo was dropped off some of the .50 Cal 4:1 machine gun ammo was in wooden boxes instead of cans. 110 rounds instead of 100. And the boxes were secured with wingnuts and the ammo was wrapped in cheese cloth. The boxes had old marking which said USAAF and were from 1943. Also marked FOR INFLIGHT USE ONLY. We fired it anyway and it worked fine.

    In 1983 the same location and I was the 4.2 inch mortar platoon leader...and we were firing HE rounds marked US Army Chemical Corps 1944. They worked just fine as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by bigjimslade View Post
    Thanks, do you have any idea how thick the supports are between the deck and the vertical supports?
    Well, for the WW II mast that had to be lowered down one deck, it always was strong enough. For the aft two legs, we added on special supports one deck high. That was to allow us room for the SRBOC launchers. I have inspected a ship (in Subic Bay) with a much, much smaller design of steel piping and braces. It was a quad mast and the forward port leg and much of its bracing was riddled with shrapnel holes after a 122mm rocket punched through the amplidyne house under the mast.

    But on the BB's LBNSY builds everything BATTLESHIP TOUGH.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    Thanks, do you have any idea how thick the supports are between the deck and the vertical supports?

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by bigjimslade View Post
    Thanks for all the information. The various sources I have also indicate that the NJ's radar platform is higher than her sisters. 162' 8" vs. 160' 7".

    Any idea how thick the platform on the NJ is? I presume these heights are the top of the deck.
    Well, we had a slight problem with the LENGTH of the platform interfering with the RADAR in front of it. Rather than cutting off the forward portion of the platform (that already had its fiberglass hand rails installed, We merely lifted the mast up (it wasn't welded to the deck yet) and added 1" thick doubler plates at the bottoms of the legs. Actually we only had to lift one leg at a time & brace it with shoring while each doubler was properly welded. That way we could use a pierside portal crane rather than having the German Crane hold it up in the air for such a long time.

    On the other ships, we merely designed the forward end of the platform a couple of inches shorter. And as I recall, the platform plating is only 10.2# O.S. (1/4" thick Ordinary Strength Steel). Except for the armored SPS-49 antenna foundation, cable and wave guide trunks were made of 30.6# HY-80.

    Oh yes, I remember inspecting that platform as Dean Archambeau, Lee Upshaw and I climbed up to it before it was welded down.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    Thanks for all the information. The various sources I have also indicate that the NJ's radar platform is higher than her sisters. 162' 8" vs. 160' 7".

    Any idea how thick the platform on the NJ is? I presume these heights are the top of the deck.
    Last edited by bigjimslade; 11 Oct 16,, 04:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by bigjimslade View Post
    Yes, there are a lot of differences between the NJ and the other here. Some of the things I have noticed:

    1. Behind the tower, the main support for the main mast on the IA/MO/WI extends down the secondary con level (maybe into it) with three extensions from the tower wrapping around the mast.

    On the NJ, there is one wrap-around and a heavier support for the mast. So he mast support stops at the level that used to hold the whistle.

    2. The radar platform on the MO is see through (screen, lots of holes?).

    3. The phalanx platform on the WI is squared off, instead of rounded at the side.

    4. On the MO, the curved edge of the bulwark at the admiral's bridge level continues all the way forward and a triangular piece fills the gap between the enclose area and the bulwark. On the other, the curve eases up and the bulwark merges flush.

    5. The radar platform on the WI as an extension at the rear.
    Okay, answers/explanations of the above comments (all correct but people will ask WHY?):

    1: New Jersey's main leg of her mast was modified in Philadelphia in 1968. They did not have to remove the bottom portion as there really was never a section there. Instead there was a trough recessed into the back of the bulkhead so the mast leg could be lowered to clear the Brooklyn Bridge. THAT was WW II design. In the 1980's, we kept only the main leg of the 1968 design, added height and the aft legs to make a stable TRIPOD mast.

    2: Yes, since the entire mast of the Missouri was to be 100% brand new, a lessons learned from New Jersey is that the platform needed both drain holes (punched with the edge underneath) and traction holes for EC's to walk on when it's wet (holes punched through the other way with the edge above the plating).

    3: That was the way we wanted to do it on 62 & 63 but were stuck with a skimpy budget. Plus the Wisconsin got quite a few more improvements that were going to add to the other ships. As it is, we still had to add some "armor" around the CIWS foundation whereas I would rather have "squared" the platform and could have easily added some "low profile" armor plating to the coaming with my clandistine "return to sender" curve on top.

    4: That's the way she came from the factory according to a 1948 copy of the booklet I have. Which is fine as we would have done the same on the 61 & 62 while adding out-of-the-weather vestibules as the Wisconsin has. I know, because I had to go to Philadelphia to measure them up and later make an installation drawing of them.

    5: Yes that was another thing I had to inspect on Wisconsin as it was intended for an RPV guidance antenna (that was never installed). The Iowa had the same extension but when we (Pacific Battleship Center) were awarded the Iowa, it was my job to figure out how to put it all back together (it was cut up into 9 pieces chained down to the flight deck). I decided to simplify things (and cut down a tad on cost) by ordering that platform NOT to be reinstalled because it was never used anyway. Yeah, hanging over the edge of that platform in Philly to pick up its measurements were not all that fun though I'm not afraid of heights. Fortunately the ship was in dry dock and we only had one day of heavy rain.

    Oh, one more thing to add regarding your photo of Iowa. You will notice that RPV guidance antenna sticking way forward and under the 09 level. The antenna is not there (though I've provided clean drawings of the platform and foundation to both Iowa and Missouri). Instead you see a pole with two cross bars on top. Those are the towing lights that were installed only for her tow from Richmond to San Pedro.
    Last edited by RustyBattleship; 10 Oct 16,, 23:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    Yes, there are a lot of differences between the NJ and the other here. Some of the things I have noticed:

    1. Behind the tower, the main support for the main mast on the IA/MO/WI extends down the secondary con level (maybe into it) with three extensions from the tower wrapping around the mast.

    On the NJ, there is one wrap-around and a heavier support for the mast. So he mast support stops at the level that used to hold the whistle.

    2. The radar platform on the MO is see through (screen, lots of holes?).

    3. The phalanx platform on the WI is squared off, instead of rounded at the side.

    4. On the MO, the curved edge of the bulwark at the admiral's bridge level continues all the way forward and a triangular piece fills the gap between the enclose area and the bulwark. On the other, the curve eases up and the bulwark merges flush.

    5. The radar platform on the WI as an extension at the rear.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Just looking Rusty at the Iowa in that area. Very different.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Welcome aboard fellow grunt. It doesn't matter if you wore dungarees or Class D fatigues. We welcome anyone of interest.

    Helo Deck: New Jersey's the LOWEST at only 8 to 9 inches above the Main Deck. It was installed in 1968 by Philadelphia for her Viet Nam deployment. Besides having a more level surface for helo's to land on, it also added reinforcement should the helo land too hard, which is possible under various circumstances such as the aft end of the ship pitching up just as the chopper pilot was cutting his throttle.

    In the 1980's, the other three ships received a 12 inch high deck. I wanted to go 18 to 24 inches to allow skinny welders to crawl under and provide 100% efficient welds. Unfortunately that would make the forward ramps far, far too long to tow the helos to their stowage positions with the Yellow Gear tractor. The bottom of that tractor is only 3 to 4 inches clearance so the joint at the forward edge of the landing deck and aft joint of the ramp had to be at a very shallow angle.

    Some of my counterparts thought I was crazy when I suggested using Allis Chalmers civilian sports use ATV which was full tracked, AND amphibious just for the family to have fun in the desert or the Wisconsin bluffs.

    "Elevator": That is the Ammo Hoist for for the 20 mm CIWS magazine. Those ammo cases are over 75 lbs each exceeding the weight limitations of human lifting and carrying anything to prevent back injuries.

    Don't be embarrassed by your questions. They are all good questions. The only BAD question is the one that is NEVER asked.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Do I see landlubber talk here...?
    Army.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by bigjimslade View Post
    Two more questions:

    1. Is the New Jersey's Helipad higher than on the Iowa (WI, MO)? NJ's is 9" with 6" coaming. When I see pictures of the Iowa, its platform looks much higher.

    2. What is the purpose of the elevator that is located behind the aftmost 5" turret found only on the RIGHT side, O1 to O3 level emerging below the aft Phalanx platform, between the harpoons and forward tomahawks. (Have pics but no link I can to post).
    Do I see landlubber talk here...?

    Leave a comment:


  • DonBelt
    replied
    WSC-1 or WSC-3. Most likely whiskey 3, most USN ships in the 80's had one. Don't know what's current.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X