Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

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

  • Originally posted by bbvet View Post
    Craig,

    Well, other than asking why the scrap company can't simply DONATE that muzzle to the museum (and write it off) your efforts to obtain it are really outstanding. Thanks for sharing this story w/all of us (and photos, too).

    Hank
    Thanks Hank, I agree it would be ideal to have this piece be donated, but to be honest the scrap dealer is in the business to buy and sell metal and I feel his prices where fair and his contribution to this country in Vietnam speaks for itself.
    I also feel it is an honor to be able to bring an original piece of the Iowa back to where it belongs.
    If John did not save this piece It would have been sent to Asia melted down and returned as toasters, refrigerators and iPhones, now that would be sad, especially when you think that most of the steel from the 3,600,000 pounds of Iowa class battleship main guns did.
    Craig Johnson

    Comment


    • Craig,

      Understood - ironic that they can't sell (and keep) the metal here in the U.S. - one would think that the domestic steel mkts. would be open for business, but I guess that's the way of things today (globally speaking).

      I see that the IOWA was open to the public on 09 July and that the turnout was really good - that's great! Rusty mentioned the SPS-49 radar in an earlier post - I'm surprised that it wasn't part of the "package" when IOWA was put out for donation. I recall when we all gathered in Camden in 2001 for the 1st crew reunion on board the ship that her SPS-49 was sitting in a crate waiting to be relocated on the foremast. Ditto the smaller radar (can't recall its designation off hand). They are now both back where they belong. Perhaps the IOWA class community will be able to locate it (or an identical surplus unit) and get it to you guys.

      Hank

      Comment


      • Atleast there's plenty of those in use today so they should be able to get one fairly easy (as easy as it can be).
        RIP Charles "Bob" Spence. 1936-2014.

        Comment


        • Not a battleship, but... Admiral Hipper's torpedo defense loading?

          I know it's not a battleship, but there's something I was wondering about the german Admiral Hipper class cruiser's torpedo defense system. I know it was 12 feet deep, only a foot narrower then the KGV, actually, and had two compartments, with a 20mm torpedo bulkhead backing it. What I'm wondering is whether the inboard compartment was a void, which would make a not half bad TDS, or if both were filled with fuel oil, which would make a pretty darned terrible torpedo defense system.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BraselC5048 View Post
            I know it's not a battleship, but there's something I was wondering about the german Admiral Hipper class cruiser's torpedo defense system. I know it was 12 feet deep, only a foot narrower then the KGV, actually, and had two compartments, with a 20mm torpedo bulkhead backing it. What I'm wondering is whether the inboard compartment was a void, which would make a not half bad TDS, or if both were filled with fuel oil, which would make a pretty darned terrible torpedo defense system.


            Why?

            Most people are unaware that the bunker fuel of that day, or as US Navy "Black Gang" referred to it, "black oil" is very difficult to ignite. You had to run it through heaters and then in many cases, a filter-coalescer and all kinds of other pain in the rear stuff just to get it through a boiler burner barrel in the case of the Hippers, or in the case of Graf Spee, a diesel injector, never mind getting it to burn with any alacrity. As such, it's mostly just a viscous liquid trapped in a tank that isn't going anywhere in particular, unless the snipes want it to. If it was filled with JP-5 or DFM, as all are today, you might be singing a very different tune. Still, even those two in a tank like that, especially if the inboard bulkhead is a relatively stout 20mm, makes for a very good shock absorber.

            Correct me if I'm wrong Rusty, but I'm pretty sure when I inspected New Jersey and Missouri, they still had the steam heating coils for the fuel oil heaters in the service tanks, but they were blanked off as they were no longer needed. The Kitty Hawk-class had them too, and they were of course much newer ships, but when first commissioned were burning black oil, then Naval Distillate, and finally DFM (with JP-5 cross-connect capability if necessary). The old time Boiler Technicians I grew up under used to tell stories about "the flaming man" inside the boiler fire boxes, from black oil that didn't quite burn properly, and would build up a mound of carbon and goo that looked, through the burner view ports, a lot like a guy standing there on fire.

            Anyway, in Hipper's lifetime, that sort of double bottom/floodable voids/fuel or water storage tank arrangement was pretty typical in designs other than the German ones. Our aircraft carriers are full of them.
            Last edited by desertswo; 19 Sep 14,, 20:10.

            Comment


            • i'm well aware how TDS's work, and I personally think ships like the West Virginia, with a 5 layer void-liquid-liquid-liquid-void system, had the best ever installed. A conventional TDS, so to speak. If it the Admiral Hipper's was loaded liquid-void, (liquid meaning fuel oil - not a fire hazard at all in these systems), with it's depth of about 12 feet, I'd rank it as pretty darned good for a cruiser. If it was liquid-liquid-torpedo bulkhead, then my personal opinion is that would be a pretty sucky torpedo defense system, much worse the liquid-void. Going by an old Naval Technical Board article, anyway, and the "Axis and Neutral/Allied/US Battleships of WW2 books (pretty comprehensive). Anybody know the loading on them?

              Incidentally, if the German pocket battleships were liquid-void, they'd be just as good, if not better, but apparently (although I'd love to be wrong), it was liquid-liquid.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BraselC5048 View Post
                i'm well aware how TDS's work, and I personally think ships like the West Virginia, with a 5 layer void-liquid-liquid-liquid-void system, had the best ever installed. A conventional TDS, so to speak. If it the Admiral Hipper's was loaded liquid-void, (liquid meaning fuel oil - not a fire hazard at all in these systems), with it's depth of about 12 feet, I'd rank it as pretty darned good for a cruiser. If it was liquid-liquid-torpedo bulkhead, then my personal opinion is that would be a pretty sucky torpedo defense system, much worse the liquid-void. Going by an old Naval Technical Board article, anyway, and the "Axis and Neutral/Allied/US Battleships of WW2 books (pretty comprehensive). Anybody know the loading on them?

                Incidentally, if the German pocket battleships were liquid-void, they'd be just as good, if not better, but apparently (although I'd love to be wrong), it was liquid-liquid.
                OK, forget that I used to own all the school house damage control training in the US Navy, and explain to me why this is such a bad arrangement, for if so, then there are a whole lot of US warships in the current inventory that are doomed according to your lights. Just sayin'.

                Comment


                • Sorry about my tone. I was just going from what I've read, which said that a void compartment innermost was the most effective option. Seems like you're the expert, though. Any opinion on the Italian Pugliese system? A large cylinder in a single compartment, filled with smaller cylinders, and a concave bulkhead behind it? The Naval Technical Board article said it didn't really work much at all.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BraselC5048 View Post
                    Sorry about my tone. I was just going from what I've read, which said that a void compartment innermost was the most effective option. Seems like you're the expert, though. Any opinion on the Italian Pugliese system? A large cylinder in a single compartment, filled with smaller cylinders, and a concave bulkhead behind it? The Naval Technical Board article said it didn't really work much at all.
                    No worries, but that was sort of my point. I did this naval engineering and damage control stuff for most of my adult life, and I shy away from calling myself an "expert" at anything other than killing people and breaking things. If there is an expert here on design issues, it really is Rusty. My whole point was to dispel the notion, which from reading your sort of cryptic question, I thought was your point; that the fuel oil of the day was the problem, not the arrangement of voids vs. tanks vs. bulkheads. Having said that, I can tell you that the Kitty Hawk-class for instance had fuel, floodable void, void arrangements at various places along the hull that supposedly made them resistant to cataclysmic torpedo damage, but as few of us have ever been torpedoed, who really knows? FYI, all of the current "real" warships (I don't include the LCSs as they are POSs) have hulls in which fuel tanks surround all of the critical spaces. However, those tanks are compensated. In other words, as fuel goes out, sea water comes in so that stability is never affected. That's why if you've ever watch a Spru-can being used as a target, they take so much damage before giving up the ghost. Like so . . .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                      No worries, but that was sort of my point. I did this naval engineering and damage control stuff for most of my adult life, and I shy away from calling myself an "expert" at anything other than killing people and breaking things. If there is an expert here on design issues, it really is Rusty. My whole point was to dispel the notion, which from reading your sort of cryptic question, I thought was your point; that the fuel oil of the day was the problem, not the arrangement of voids vs. tanks vs. bulkheads. Having said that, I can tell you that the Kitty Hawk-class for instance had fuel, floodable void, void arrangements at various places along the hull that supposedly made them resistant to cataclysmic torpedo damage, but as few of us have ever been torpedoed, who really knows? FYI, all of the current "real" warships (I don't include the LCSs as they are POSs) have hulls in which fuel tanks surround all of the critical spaces. However, those tanks are compensated. In other words, as fuel goes out, sea water comes in so that stability is never affected. That's why if you've ever watch a Spru-can being used as a target, they take so much damage before giving up the ghost. Like so . . .
                      That's OK, seems there was a misunderstanding. They did the same thing back during WW2, since seawater and fuel oil in the liquid layers worked pretty much the same. I've only found one source on them (German cruisers, that is), and it states that the pocket battleships (really cruisers, but I don't stand a chance of spelling their class name) had it's two compartments loaded liquid-liquid, and is unclear on the Hipper' class. I guess liquid-liqud doubles your fuel capacity, but makes for a pretty poor system. I suppose I might have better luck on the Axis History Forum. The Japanese Takao class had liquid-void, although with a 90 degree curve in the upper holding bulkhead, which at 40mm is pretty much the standard thickness, but is only 8ft deep. I'm also wondering if the US Baltimore class had any sort of torpedo defense system at all, other then continuing up the double bottom. US Cruisers, an Illustrated Design History, is silent on the subject, and as usual contains little information. Anybody know?

                      Comment


                      • desertstwo said: Correct me if I'm wrong Rusty, but I'm pretty sure when I inspected New Jersey and Missouri, they still had the steam heating coils for the fuel oil heaters in the service tanks, but they were blanked off as they were no longer needed. The Kitty Hawk-class had them too, and they were of course much newer ships, but when first commissioned were burning black oil, then Naval Distillate, and finally DFM (with JP-5 cross-connect capability if necessary). The old time Boiler Technicians I grew up under used to tell stories about "the flaming man" inside the boiler fire boxes, from black oil that didn't quite burn properly, and would build up a mound of carbon and goo that looked, through the burner view ports, a lot like a guy standing there on fire.

                        You are right on the money. When we literally mucked and steamed out all of the black goop from the fuel tanks, there were these snake-like runs of 2" (maybe 2 1/2") heater pipes running through them. If we had the time and proper funding, the pipes would have been neatly cut out of the bulkheads and the circular holes left over would have been inserted and welded with the appropriate steel plate (HY-80 if an STS bhd or Carbon Manganese in an HTS bulkhead).

                        But it was faster and cheaper just to cut them off a few inches from the bulkhead and cap weld them. A few had to be taken all the way out anyway as they were in the way of new intake and discharge seachests for the 8 Air Conditioning plants we put in. We were only supposed to put in 7 plants on the New Jersey and an 8th one at a later availability. But the white collar engineers at NAVSEA don't know what it takes in cutting out decks and bulkheads to get even a partially disassembled plant in.

                        So we put the 8th one in anyway. All we needed to do later was put in the last pieces of piping to the valves and saved the taxpayers a ton of money.

                        And got the ship out a month ahead of schedule.

                        And (technically) under budget.

                        If you want "techncially" explained, buy my book. Would take up too much room here. Then say a prayer of thanks to Captain Pickering.
                        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bbvet View Post
                          Craig,

                          Understood - ironic that they can't sell (and keep) the metal here in the U.S. - one would think that the domestic steel mkts. would be open for business, but I guess that's the way of things today (globally speaking).

                          I see that the IOWA was open to the public on 09 July and that the turnout was really good - that's great! Rusty mentioned the SPS-49 radar in an earlier post - I'm surprised that it wasn't part of the "package" when IOWA was put out for donation. I recall when we all gathered in Camden in 2001 for the 1st crew reunion on board the ship that her SPS-49 was sitting in a crate waiting to be relocated on the foremast. Ditto the smaller radar (can't recall its designation off hand). They are now both back where they belong. Perhaps the IOWA class community will be able to locate it (or an identical surplus unit) and get it to you guys.

                          Hank
                          The SPS-49 and SPS-10 antennas were left behind in Rhode Island when the Navy cut the upper part of the mast up in 9 pieces so it would fit under the Railroad bridge in Benecia, California.

                          I was of course tasked to figure out how to put that mast back together once we got her to Richmond. Fortunately I was a Shipfitter for 10 years (including a 4 year apprenticeship) building masts. Then the design section I transferred to in 1964 had the main task of designing masts. Well, 12 years in that section gave me plenty of practice.

                          After racking my brain, beating a hole in the wall and scratching a new bald spot in my head everytime I inspected the ship and reviewed the photos I took I finally came up with an assembly procedure. I had no idea what size crane we would get that would lift the mast "sections" that high so I designed it to be installed in 3 sub-assemblies built up on the dock. Fortunately I had copies of the mast plans and what wasn't eligible in the weight tables I personally calculated.

                          I figured it would take at least a day to install each sub-assembly, rearrange the staging for the next while welding the first taking up another day. So my WAG estimate was 5 days.

                          Well, luck was smiling down on us as the crane operater said he could pick the whole thing up in one piece. And he did it and she was in place before lunch.

                          WHEW!!!!
                          Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                          Comment


                          • Re:RustyBattleship - Any information on the torpedo defense loading of those German cruisers? Or whether the Baltimore's had one one? Or any opinions on the Pugliese system? Still wondering.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BraselC5048 View Post
                              Re:RustyBattleship - Any information on the torpedo defense loading of those German cruisers? Or whether the Baltimore's had one one? Or any opinions on the Pugliese system? Still wondering.
                              Basically, I have no idea. I wasn't that all interested in looking up such details on foreign Navy ships. I had enough to worry about on our own ships. By the time I started working for the Navy in 1954, we weren't building any heavily armored ships anymore and torpedoes were becoming highly advanced in navigating themselves under the keel of a ship that it was almost a waste of time to try to design any hull structure that would minimize the damage enough to be successful or economically feasible.

                              This was especially true when some explosive engineers found that by mixing equal amounts of TNT and RBX (both roughly equal in explosive power) in wax with a dash of aluminum powder you had an explosive 1.45 times more powerful than either one of them alone. It's still not shock resistant enough to be used in artillery shells, but ideal in torpedo warheads, missile warheads, mines and aerial bombs.
                              Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bbvet View Post
                                Craig,

                                Understood - ironic that they can't sell (and keep) the metal here in the U.S. - one would think that the domestic steel mkts. would be open for business, but I guess that's the way of things today (globally speaking).

                                I see that the IOWA was open to the public on 09 July and that the turnout was really good - that's great! Rusty mentioned the SPS-49 radar in an earlier post - I'm surprised that it wasn't part of the "package" when IOWA was put out for donation. I recall when we all gathered in Camden in 2001 for the 1st crew reunion on board the ship that her SPS-49 was sitting in a crate waiting to be relocated on the foremast. Ditto the smaller radar (can't recall its designation off hand). They are now both back where they belong. Perhaps the IOWA class community will be able to locate it (or an identical surplus unit) and get it to you guys.

                                Hank
                                I got thrown off track in my earlier answer to this post by a phone call.

                                The SPS-49 antenna you see on the Iowa now is actually a non-operational copy (and slightly undersized). But one of our "volunteers" found an SPS-10 antenna somewhere, trucked it down to berth 87, cleaned it up and got it to working again. It is now up on the mast and at least rotating. I don't know if they have replaced the wave guides or not. If not we eventually will.

                                There is an SPS-49 antenna on the hangar deck of an Aircraft Carrier up in Bremerton we can have. BUT. We have to supply the crane, supply barge and truck just to get it off the ship. And then transport it all the way down to San Pedro and hope it still works.

                                Now, if you're a buddy of Bill Gates (who lives not too far from Bremerton), remind him that the Pacific Battleship Center is a 501c3 and would be a great tax write-off if he wants to donate it to us.
                                Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X