If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
"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) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
----------
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
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 *** |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
"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) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
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) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
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/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
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/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
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/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2005 Harris Hill Juniors Video FINAL VERSION | [email protected] | Soaring | 2 | November 27th 05 06:22 PM |
FAA Mandatory Pilot Retirement Rule Challenged | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | March 20th 05 08:56 PM |
Who do you drop a nuclear bunker buster on? | Henry J Cobb | Military Aviation | 46 | June 6th 04 09:43 PM |
Records Show Hill, Air Force Officials Knew of Attacks | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 24th 03 11:58 PM |
Man cannot live on Retirement Pay ALONE | Chief | Military Aviation | 0 | July 1st 03 01:51 AM |