CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?

[DDAY]

I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers of the
US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from service in 1947
and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She was used as an immobile
electronics research ship during that time.

Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?



D

[Dave in San Diego]

"DDAY" > wrote in
nk.net:

> I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers of
> the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from service
> in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She was used as
> an immobile electronics research ship during that time.
>
> Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?

See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv17-
bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.

Google is your friend!

Dave in San Diego

[Keith W]

"Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
. 30...
> "DDAY" > wrote in
> nk.net:
>
>> I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers of
>> the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from service
>> in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She was used as
>> an immobile electronics research ship during that time.
>>
>> Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?
>
> See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv17-
> bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.
>
> Google is your friend!
>
> Dave in San Diego
>

Well OK but it really doesnt answer the question as to why she was
withdrawn and not modernized like most of the other Essex class carriers.

An article on the global security website claims that along with the
Franklin
she was excluded from other modernization programs to be available for the
"ultimate"
conversion to operate with the supercarrier United States.

Following the cancellation of the United States, they were eventually broken
up unmodified.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-9.htm

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Dave in San Diego]

"Keith W" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
> . 30...
>> "DDAY" > wrote in
>> nk.net:
>>
>>> I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers
>>> of the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from
>>> service in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She
>>> was used as an immobile electronics research ship during that time.
>>>
>>> Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?
>>
>> See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv17-
>> bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.
>>
>> Google is your friend!
>>
>> Dave in San Diego
>>
>
> Well OK but it really doesnt answer the question as to why she was
> withdrawn and not modernized like most of the other Essex class
> carriers.
>
> An article on the global security website claims that along with the
> Franklin
> she was excluded from other modernization programs to be available for
> the "ultimate"
> conversion to operate with the supercarrier United States.
>
> Following the cancellation of the United States, they were eventually
> broken up unmodified.
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-9.htm

Well, I read the article, and came to this conclusion - money, and needs of
the Navy, which, in many cases, are the driving forces for change or the
the lack thereof.

[Jim Carriere]

Dave in San Diego wrote:
> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
>> . 30...
>>> "DDAY" > wrote in
>>> nk.net:
>>>
>>>> I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers
>>>> of the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from
>>>> service in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She
>>>> was used as an immobile electronics research ship during that time.
>>>>
>>>> Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?
>>> See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv17-
>>> bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.
>>>
>>> Google is your friend!
>>>
>>> Dave in San Diego
>>>
>> Well OK but it really doesnt answer the question as to why she was
>> withdrawn and not modernized like most of the other Essex class
>> carriers.
>>
>> An article on the global security website claims that along with the
>> Franklin
>> she was excluded from other modernization programs to be available for
>> the "ultimate"
>> conversion to operate with the supercarrier United States.
>>
>> Following the cancellation of the United States, they were eventually
>> broken up unmodified.
>>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-9.htm
>
> Well, I read the article, and came to this conclusion - money, and needs of
> the Navy, which, in many cases, are the driving forces for change or the
> the lack thereof.

I arrived at that hypothesis without reading the article ;)

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:16:41 GMT, Dave in San Diego
> wrote:


>Well, I read the article, and came to this conclusion - money, and needs of
>the Navy, which, in many cases, are the driving forces for change or the
>the lack thereof.

Intersting article, but incomplete. INTREPID (CV/CVS-11) is not
mentioned at all (except as a museum). I know she had a variety of
the -27C conversion ('cause I flew off her with VS-27 from '70-'72).

IIRC, budgets drive fleet size. (In theory needs should drive
budgets, but that's not always how it works.) If a fleet downsizing
is required, cadidates are identified and surveys are done to
determine which vessels are in the best material condition. List is
made in order of condition. Cutting begins at the bottom.

Again, pure rationality might not drive a program but it's more likely
than not.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Guy Alcala]

Jim wrote:

> I have seen some of the decisions made on carrier retirements and can only
> wonder who REALLY determines which carrier goes and which stay.
>
> Case in point... The America (CVA-66) was decommissioned in 1996 - before
> Independence (CVA-62) decommissioned 1998, Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) (still in
> service), Constellation (CVA-64) decommissioned in 2003, and Enterprise
> (CVA-65) still in service.
>
> The official reason was that the overall condition was worth that the others
> mentioned but I was on both the Kitty and America in 71-72 and she wasn't in
> better shape than at that time.

Which is neither here nor there as to their respective condition in the mid-90s
-- the other carriers had been through fairly recent SLEPs or at least major
overhauls at the time the decision was made, and America hadn't.

> Seemed to many that the decision was very
> political.

Seems like common sense to me.

> While other carrieres were considered for donation as museams - America was
> sunk to determine how much damage it would take to sink a modern carrier.
> Didn't even get a chance to be an artifical reef.
>
> At least the Bunker Hill will live on doing something useful.

ISTM that knowledge gained by sinking America is likely to live on through at
least another generation of warships, and any crewman of a ship that survives
damage because of lessons learned will owe a debt to her. I'd say that was at
least as useful as becoming razor blades.

Guy

[Andrew Venor]

Jim wrote:
> I have seen some of the decisions made on carrier retirements and can only
> wonder who REALLY determines which carrier goes and which stay.
>
> Case in point... The America (CVA-66) was decommissioned in 1996 - before
> Independence (CVA-62) decommissioned 1998, Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) (still in
> service), Constellation (CVA-64) decommissioned in 2003, and Enterprise
> (CVA-65) still in service.
>
> The official reason was that the overall condition was worth that the others
> mentioned but I was on both the Kitty and America in 71-72 and she wasn't in
> better shape than at that time. Seemed to many that the decision was very
> political.

However your time on those ships was over twenty years before the
decision on which ship to decommission was made. By the mid 1990's the
Kitty Hawk, Constellation and the Independence had already been through
their SLEP rebuilds. The America on the other hand was the oldest CV
that still needed to be SLEPed. The Forestal was also decommissioned
about the same period while in the middle of her SLEP.

In fact the poor material condition of the America was a bit of a
scandal back in the early 1990's. I remember a long article in US News
about how bad he condition was back then.

ALV

>
> While other carrieres were considered for donation as museams - America was
> sunk to determine how much damage it would take to sink a modern carrier.
> Didn't even get a chance to be an artifical reef.
>
> At least the Bunker Hill will live on doing something useful.
>
>

[Mike Kanze]

An additional factor - especially in FRANKLIN's case - may have been the extensive battle damage received by both ships at the very end of WWII.

While both ships went into the yards just as the war was ending, it is very likely that they were only patched together enough to be worth keeping in reserve as secondary mobilization assets, with little intention of ever really having to send them out again. With so many other ESSEX class ships in much better material condition at the end of WWII - and with war $$ drying up faster than a puddle in the desert - this hypothesis makes as much sense to me as any other.

Just a guess, though.

--
Mike Kanze

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."

-- General William Tecumseh Sherman

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message . ..
Dave in San Diego wrote:
> "Keith W" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
>> . 30...
>>> "DDAY" > wrote in
>>> nk.net:
>>>
>>>> I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers
>>>> of the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from
>>>> service in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She
>>>> was used as an immobile electronics research ship during that time.
>>>>
>>>> Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?
>>> See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv17-
>>> bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.
>>>
>>> Google is your friend!
>>>
>>> Dave in San Diego
>>>
>> Well OK but it really doesnt answer the question as to why she was
>> withdrawn and not modernized like most of the other Essex class
>> carriers.
>>
>> An article on the global security website claims that along with the
>> Franklin
>> she was excluded from other modernization programs to be available for
>> the "ultimate"
>> conversion to operate with the supercarrier United States.
>>
>> Following the cancellation of the United States, they were eventually
>> broken up unmodified.
>>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-9.htm
>
> Well, I read the article, and came to this conclusion - money, and needs of
> the Navy, which, in many cases, are the driving forces for change or the
> the lack thereof.

I arrived at that hypothesis without reading the article ;)

[DDAY]

My suspicion is that Bunker Hill was in poor condition and that's why she
was not modernized and was retired early.

Franklin was clearly in bad condition and bringing her back to flight status
was not considered practical. But Bunker Hill suffered from a bad fire, and
the info I have seen implies that she really did not regain flight
capability after the damage.

The Navy probably could have repaired her, but they had a lot of Essex class
carriers and they didn't need more. In fact, if anything, they probably
needed a few ships laid up to provide spare parts.

But I don't have anything that confirms that.




D

[Yofuri]

DDAY wrote:
> My suspicion is that Bunker Hill was in poor condition and that's why she
> was not modernized and was retired early.
>
> Franklin was clearly in bad condition and bringing her back to flight status
> was not considered practical. But Bunker Hill suffered from a bad fire, and
> the info I have seen implies that she really did not regain flight
> capability after the damage.
>
> The Navy probably could have repaired her, but they had a lot of Essex class
> carriers and they didn't need more. In fact, if anything, they probably
> needed a few ships laid up to provide spare parts.
>
> But I don't have anything that confirms that.
>
>
>
>
> D
>
>
IIRC, it provided reduction gears for repair of Bon Homme Richard,
Kearsarge and Ticonderoga.

Rick

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[Keith W]

"DDAY" > wrote in message
k.net...
> My suspicion is that Bunker Hill was in poor condition and that's why she
> was not modernized and was retired early.
>
> Franklin was clearly in bad condition and bringing her back to flight
> status
> was not considered practical. But Bunker Hill suffered from a bad fire,
> and
> the info I have seen implies that she really did not regain flight
> capability after the damage.
>
> The Navy probably could have repaired her, but they had a lot of Essex
> class
> carriers and they didn't need more. In fact, if anything, they probably
> needed a few ships laid up to provide spare parts.
>
> But I don't have anything that confirms that.
>

There are articles that suggest the precise opposite

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv17-bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html

States that Bunker Hill was put back into service between Sept 1945 and
January 1946
as a unit of TG 16.2 returning veterans from the PTO

Other records indicate she was repaired at Puget sound between June and Sept
1945

http://warlords.hobbyvista.com/history.htm

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mike Weeks]

DDAY wrote:
> My suspicion is that Bunker Hill was in poor condition and that's why she
> was not modernized and was retired early.

I do believe it's simply that she was never modernized, that's all.
She was repaired and remained in the active fleet for a short period
following the war (decommissioned and mothballed on 9 JAN 1947).

MW

[Mike Kanze]

>Bunker Hill was put back into service between Sept 1945 and January 1946 as a unit of TG 16.2 returning veterans from the PTO

Point taken. However OPERATION MAGIC CARPET duty was a far cry from the demands of even normal peacetime operations. You don't need much material refurbishment to bring redundant forces home.

As others besides me have pointed out, there were many other ESSEX assets in much better material condition. So there was little economic or national security incentive for the Gummint to modernize BUNKER HILL or do more than make FRANKLIN temporarily seaworthy at war's end.

--
Mike Kanze

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."

-- General William Tecumseh Sherman

"Keith W" > wrote in message ...

"DDAY" > wrote in message
k.net...
> My suspicion is that Bunker Hill was in poor condition and that's why she
> was not modernized and was retired early.
>
> Franklin was clearly in bad condition and bringing her back to flight
> status
> was not considered practical. But Bunker Hill suffered from a bad fire,
> and
> the info I have seen implies that she really did not regain flight
> capability after the damage.
>
> The Navy probably could have repaired her, but they had a lot of Essex
> class
> carriers and they didn't need more. In fact, if anything, they probably
> needed a few ships laid up to provide spare parts.
>
> But I don't have anything that confirms that.
>

There are articles that suggest the precise opposite

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv17-bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html

States that Bunker Hill was put back into service between Sept 1945 and
January 1946
as a unit of TG 16.2 returning veterans from the PTO

Other records indicate she was repaired at Puget sound between June and Sept
1945

http://warlords.hobbyvista.com/history.htm

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mike Weeks]

Mike Kanze wrote:
> >Bunker Hill was put back into service between Sept 1945 and January 1946 as a unit of TG 16.2 returning veterans from the PTO
>
> Point taken. However OPERATION MAGIC CARPET duty was a far cry from the demands of even normal peacetime operations. You don't need much material refurbishment to bring redundant forces home.

However repairs didn't stop when the war ended. According to the a/c
allocation list of 7 SEP 1945, CVG-13 was assigned to Bunker Hill, and
they were working up preparing for deployment. Had the war continued I
don't think there's any doubt she would have been part of TF38 / 58 for
the final push on Japan.

MW

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, "Keith W"
> wrote:


>> Franklin was clearly in bad condition and bringing her back to flight
>> status
>> was not considered practical. But Bunker Hill suffered from a bad fire,


> There are articles that suggest the precise opposite
>
>
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv17-bunkerhill
/cv17-bun
> kerhill.html
>
> States that Bunker Hill was put back into service between Sept 1945 and
> January 1946
> as a unit of TG 16.2 returning veterans from the PTO
>
> Other records indicate she was repaired at Puget sound between June and Sept
> 1945
>
> http://warlords.hobbyvista.com/history.htm

But she never again flew aircraft. She only served as a transport. This
makes me wonder if the repairs were incomplete.




D

[Mike Kanze]

Mike Weeks,

Workups ashore by the Air Group are a bit different than readying the ship itself for deployment. The former can happen (and in this case, apparently did) without the latter necessarily happening. In addition, an Air Group could be easily shifted to another deck, if absolutely needed.

Sidebar Sea Story:

Any veteran of predeployment refurbishment dets can personally attest to the variations between ship readiness and squadron/air wing readiness. A big part of ship readiness can vaguely be defined as the "habitability" of the spaces assigned to the Air Wing. Depending upon (a) the ship's general material condition, (b) the conditions of the prior cruise (war, peace, greater than 10 months, etc.), (c) "town/gown" relations between ship's company and "passengers, and similar factors, you could find things pretty nice or a complete wreck.

VA-95 was lucky. Our "habitability" challenge aboard CORAL SEA, preparing for its 1973 cruise, consisted mainly of scraping off all of the "Semper Fi" tags and painting over all the red/gold areas left by our predecessor A-6 squadron, VMA(AW)-224. <g>

--
Mike Kanze

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."

-- General William Tecumseh Sherman

"Mike Weeks" > wrote in message ups.com...

Mike Kanze wrote:
> >Bunker Hill was put back into service between Sept 1945 and January 1946 as a unit of TG 16.2 returning veterans from the PTO
>
> Point taken. However OPERATION MAGIC CARPET duty was a far cry from the demands of even normal peacetime operations. You don't need much material refurbishment to bring redundant forces home.

However repairs didn't stop when the war ended. According to the a/c
allocation list of 7 SEP 1945, CVG-13 was assigned to Bunker Hill, and
they were working up preparing for deployment. Had the war continued I
don't think there's any doubt she would have been part of TF38 / 58 for
the final push on Japan.

MW

[Mike Weeks]

Mike Kanze wrote:
> Mike Weeks,
>
> Workups ashore by the Air Group are a bit different than readying the ship itself for deployment.

Yes it can be, But in this case BH had already been repaired; ie, by 7
SEP 1945, the date of the allocation list.

> The former can happen (and in this case, apparently did) without the latter necessarily happening. In addition, an Air Group could be easily shifted to another deck, if absolutely needed.

One can go back in time to sci.military.naval, to the 1996-98 period to
see the various discussions which centered around Franklin and Bunker
Hill and "never repaired". <g>

As an aside, and FWIW as well as IIRC, I have somewhere buried in my
files of CVG histories/stories an item that states BH did conduct
flight ops following the war -- never deployed mind you, but she was
operational capabable. Again, FWIW ...

MW

[famous apollo]

If CV-17 was not a slant deck carrier it would be considered obsolete.

[Keith W]

"famous apollo" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If CV-17 was not a slant deck carrier it would be considered obsolete.
>

None of the Essex class carriers had an angled flight deck as built.
They were all added when reconstructed.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Scott Peterson]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote:

>While both ships went into the yards just as the war was ending, it is very likely that they were only patched together enough to be worth keeping in reserve as secondary mobilization assets, with little intention of ever really having to send them out again. With so many other ESSEX class ships in much better material condition at the end of WWII - and with war $$ drying up faster than a puddle in the desert - this hypothesis makes as much sense to me as any other.

My understanding is that both ships were completely repaired...at
least that's what the Bunker Hill veterans that I've talked to have
said. . As the "low milage" ships at the end of the war they were
held back for a super upgrade when needed. However, by the mid 1950's
it was clear that the Essexes were too small to operate the jets that
were coming into service. Also, the cost of upgrading the Essexes
already in service went far over budget. As a result the Navy had no
interest in spending any money on the Franklin and Bunker Hill. They
didn't want Essexes, they wanted Forrestals and even bigger ships.

I've seen navy pictures of the Franklin with the flight deck
completely removed for repairs.

Check out the picture here with this caption
Grainy but interesting shot of USS Franklin (CV-13) in drydock, New
York, 1945. The entire flight deck and supporting upper hull was
removed and rebuilt because of the extensive damage caused by two
Japanese bombs that penetrated the flight deck, exploding on the
hangar deck, igniting fuel and ordinance from the aircraft below
decks. The circular rings to the left are the two forward 5" DP gun
mount supports with the island superstructure behind them. The lower
ring would be the flight deck level. U.S. Navy, National Archives
photo.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021324.jpg


Scott Peterson

--
Q. Which is the greater problem in
the world today, ignorance or apathy?

A. I don't know and I don't care.

(190/708)

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, Scott Peterson
> wrote:

> My understanding is that both ships were completely repaired...at
> least that's what the Bunker Hill veterans that I've talked to have
> said. . As the "low milage" ships at the end of the war they were
> held back for a super upgrade when needed. However, by the mid 1950's
> it was clear that the Essexes were too small to operate the jets that
> were coming into service. Also, the cost of upgrading the Essexes
> already in service went far over budget. As a result the Navy had no
> interest in spending any money on the Franklin and Bunker Hill. They
> didn't want Essexes, they wanted Forrestals and even bigger ships.

Thanks for that perspective. My suspicion was that they might have been
only partially repaired and perhaps needed more work on interior spaces or
aircraft support equipment to make them fully operational again. But it's
entirely believable that by the time they emerged from drydock, there was
really no need for them and so they got mothballed.




D

[Yofuri]

Scott Peterson wrote:
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>
>
>>While both ships went into the yards just as the war was ending, it is very likely that they were only patched together enough to be worth keeping in reserve as secondary mobilization assets, with little intention of ever really having to send them out again. With so many other ESSEX class ships in much better material condition at the end of WWII - and with war $$ drying up faster than a puddle in the desert - this hypothesis makes as much sense to me as any other.
>
>
> My understanding is that both ships were completely repaired...at
> least that's what the Bunker Hill veterans that I've talked to have
> said. . As the "low milage" ships at the end of the war they were
> held back for a super upgrade when needed. However, by the mid 1950's
> it was clear that the Essexes were too small to operate the jets that
> were coming into service. Also, the cost of upgrading the Essexes
> already in service went far over budget. As a result the Navy had no
> interest in spending any money on the Franklin and Bunker Hill. They
> didn't want Essexes, they wanted Forrestals and even bigger ships.
>
> I've seen navy pictures of the Franklin with the flight deck
> completely removed for repairs.
>
> Check out the picture here with this caption
> Grainy but interesting shot of USS Franklin (CV-13) in drydock, New
> York, 1945. The entire flight deck and supporting upper hull was
> removed and rebuilt because of the extensive damage caused by two
> Japanese bombs that penetrated the flight deck, exploding on the
> hangar deck, igniting fuel and ordinance from the aircraft below
> decks. The circular rings to the left are the two forward 5" DP gun
> mount supports with the island superstructure behind them. The lower
> ring would be the flight deck level. U.S. Navy, National Archives
> photo.
> http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021324.jpg
>
>
> Scott Peterson
>
> --
> Q. Which is the greater problem in
> the world today, ignorance or apathy?
>
> A. I don't know and I don't care.
>
> (190/708)

About 50 years ago, "old hands" told me that Franklin would never sail
again because her keel was so badly warped that she wouldn't hold shaft
bearings or stern tubes. According to them, it was due to graving
damage, not battle damage.

Rick

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[Scott Peterson]

"DDAY" > wrote:

> But it's
>entirely believable that by the time they emerged from drydock, there was
>really no need for them and so they got mothballed.

Franklin never went back into service. But everything I've seen says
she was fully repaired. The 1947 Navy had too many carriers as it
was. She was in good enough condition that part of her flight deck
was used to rebuild the Valley Forge following a fire.

Bunker Hill did go back into service and wasn't finally mothballed
until 1947. But her post war service was strictly to return troops
home.


Scott Peterson

--
If you have ever seen the movie Night of the
Living Dead, you have a rough idea how
modern corporations and organizations
operate, with projects and proposals that
everybody thought were killed constantly
rising from their graves to stagger back into
meetings and eat the brains of the living.
(Dave Barry)

(636/708)

[Scott Peterson]

Yofuri > wrote:

>
>About 50 years ago, "old hands" told me that Franklin would never sail
>again because her keel was so badly warped that she wouldn't hold shaft
>bearings or stern tubes. According to them, it was due to graving
>damage, not battle damage.

I heard the same story about the Bunker Hill. She was supposedly
dropped off the blocks while in dry dock. I've never found any
verification for that story for either ship.

Scott Peterson

--
If you have ever seen the movie Night of the
Living Dead, you have a rough idea how
modern corporations and organizations
operate, with projects and proposals that
everybody thought were killed constantly
rising from their graves to stagger back into
meetings and eat the brains of the living.
(Dave Barry)

(636/708)

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:35:59 -0700, Scott Peterson
> wrote:

>I heard the same story about the Bunker Hill. She was supposedly

Heard the same story about virtually every ship ever damaged or
retired "early" for any reason.

Never found any evidence of it being true, except in the few cases
were it's a plainly documented fact in all the reference works.

Any story from a friend from a guy who knew a guy who worked in the
shipyard way back then.....can be assumed to be false absent
documentation.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Andrew C. Toppan]

>I heard the same story about the Bunker Hill. She was supposedly
>dropped off the blocks while in dry dock. I've never found any

And I should add...."dropping a ship off the blocks" in a graving dock
is a very hard thing to do, unless there is complete incompetence by
the docking officer or some really, really bizarre circumstance such
as an earthquake. Drydock people are very, very careful to be very,
very conservative in their docking and support arrangements to avoid
just this sort of thing. The frequency of this rumor would have one
believe all docking officers are buffoons.

Remember: a graving dock is a fixed, immobile, stone/concrete/steel
structure. What in the world would motivate a ship to suddenly jump
off its blocks and fall to the floor? Unless it's a very narrow ship
requiring side bracing, it's not going anywhere.....

A floating drydock is a different thing entirely. Since it moves, and
sinks, and floats the entire time the ship is in it, there are many
more opportunities for a foul-up. Improper ballasting, improper
positioning, a failure of a pump or valve...all can cause big
problems. Then of course one could have structural failure of the dock
itself....

Floating drydock accidents do happen. They rarely result in any major,
lasting damage (for example, I never heard a rumor about SPRUANCE
being somehow incapacitated, despite her docking accident before
delivery).




--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Andrew Venor]

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
>>I heard the same story about the Bunker Hill. She was supposedly
>>dropped off the blocks while in dry dock. I've never found any
>
>
> And I should add...."dropping a ship off the blocks" in a graving dock
> is a very hard thing to do, unless there is complete incompetence by
> the docking officer or some really, really bizarre circumstance such
> as an earthquake. Drydock people are very, very careful to be very,
> very conservative in their docking and support arrangements to avoid
> just this sort of thing. The frequency of this rumor would have one
> believe all docking officers are buffoons.
>
> Remember: a graving dock is a fixed, immobile, stone/concrete/steel
> structure. What in the world would motivate a ship to suddenly jump
> off its blocks and fall to the floor? Unless it's a very narrow ship
> requiring side bracing, it's not going anywhere.....
>
> A floating drydock is a different thing entirely. Since it moves, and
> sinks, and floats the entire time the ship is in it, there are many
> more opportunities for a foul-up. Improper ballasting, improper
> positioning, a failure of a pump or valve...all can cause big
> problems. Then of course one could have structural failure of the dock
> itself....
>
> Floating drydock accidents do happen. They rarely result in any major,
> lasting damage (for example, I never heard a rumor about SPRUANCE
> being somehow incapacitated, despite her docking accident before
> delivery).
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

The only ship I ever heard of that dropped of her blocks in a dry dock
was the aircraft carrier Amagi. However it took the Great Kanto
Earthquake of Sept. 1, 1923 to make that happen.

ALV

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 19:57:15 -0700, Andrew Venor >
wrote:

>The only ship I ever heard of that dropped of her blocks in a dry dock
>was the aircraft carrier Amagi. However it took the Great Kanto

And it should be noted she was a half-complete conversion from a
battleship at the time.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sat, 27 May 2006 13:56:15 GMT, "famous apollo"
> wrote:

>If CV-17 was not a slant deck carrier it would be considered obsolete.

Every ESSEX class carrier was obsolete once the concept of angled
decks was devised. All of them, like every other carrier up to
FORRESTAL (commissioned 1955) was built with a straight deck.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/