Archive for January, 2009

Titanic’s steel and … ??

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Matt Clark wrote:
> Adding to the theory you’re referring to: It isn’t that “it wasn’t an
> iceberg,” it was that the brush with the berg didn’t slice the hull like a
> can opener, which has been the conventional wisdom. Instead, it caused
> plates at three different levels to pop their rivets and let the sea in. A
> major contributing factor was that the “curing” of the steel used in the
> plates made them brittle at low sea temperatures. Several publications,
> including the NY Times, published on this within the last three or four
> months.

Hmm … How would cold have affected *armor* plate, I wonder. ??

Would HOOD and SCHARNHORST have had their armor brittled/weakened by the
cold, too?

Fascinating implications, Matt. Thanks.

Lou

More books

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

A third installment of books for you, I hope you are not tired yet of
telling me
your thoughts.

Cogar, William B., Dictionary of Admirals of the U.S. Navy

Kemp, Anthony, Allied Commanders of World War II (what exactly does this book
deal with?)

Kilduff, Peter, U.S. Carriers at War (I think there has been a review
by Brooks
Rowlett on this one…right?)

Parkin, Robert S., Blood on the Sea, American Destroyers Lost in World War II

Reynolds, Clark C., Admiral John H. Towers, the Struggle for Naval
Air Supremacy

Rose, Lisle A., The Ship That Held the Line: The USS Hornet and the First Year
of the Pacific War

Stern, Robert C., The Lexington Class Carriers

Utley, J: An American Battleship at Peace and War: The USS Tennessee

Also, can someone provide info on the book on USS Washington (title, ISBN,
review?)?

Thanks a lot,
Tim

Tim Lanzendoerfer | “I have just taken on a great
Amateur Naval Historian | responsibility. I will do my
Email: BWV_Wiesbaden@t-online.de | utmost to meet it” – Nimitz
—————————————————————–
The United States Navy in the Pacific War 1941 – 1945
http://www.microworks.net/pacific
The ships, the men, the battles
—————————————————————–

Updates at the US Navy site (in the Pacific 1941-1945…)

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Despite my untimely absence, work on the site has continued, and will in the
next minutes be uploaded to the site (now accesible through www.microworks.com
as well). This includes: additional biographies, more planes, and if
you do not
mind incompleteness of proof-reading, and missing back-links, the
Battle of Savo
Island.
Also, the site has undergone a COMPLETE rebuild, to which I would like to know
your opinion.

Enjoy your visit (while I go and figure out what EXACTLY I changed
over the last
month…),
Tim

Tim Lanzendoerfer | “I have just taken on a great
Amateur Naval Historian | responsibility. I will do my
Email: BWV_Wiesbaden@t-online.de | utmost to meet it” – Nimitz
—————————————————————–
The United States Navy in the Pacific War 1941 – 1945
http://www.microworks.net/pacific
The ships, the men, the battles
—————————————————————–

Just a little info from the Host

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

I recently (Dec 31st) managed to acquire the domain name MICROWORKS.COM to
go along with the current names MICROWORKS.NET and the older MICROWRKS.COM.

So now when you are sending a message to the list you can use either of the
above names and your message should go through.

FYI, just to let you all know that in addtion to the list being up for a
year we have 112 Subscribers.

Dave Riddle

|———————————————————–|
| David W. Riddle | http://www.microworks.net |
| (O) 602-813-4569 | http://www.openlines.com |
| (F) 602-813-4659 | http://www.surfpools.com |
| | |
| 1958 TR-3A TS34575L | An interesting company legal |
| vintage racer | history website! |
| | http://www.splashpools.com |
|———————————————————–|

Back!

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Ladies, Gentlemen,
if anybody tried to get ahold of me during the last five to six
weeks, I’m sorry
for my inability to be reached. I have moved house two weeks ago, and my
telephone account has not moved along in the same speed. I have only recovered
my Email and Internet connections today. Sorry for the inconvenience thus
created. I will respond to all Emails as soon as I can, but I would
like to say
also that if you wrote to me, you should better resend those mails – I am
unsure if I will manage to recover any of them.

Thanks for your patience,
Tim

Tim Lanzendoerfer | “I have just taken on a great
Amateur Naval Historian | responsibility. I will do my
Email: BWV_Wiesbaden@t-online.de | utmost to meet it” – Nimitz
—————————————————————–
The United States Navy in the Pacific War 1941 – 1945
http://www.microworks.net/pacific
The ships, the men, the battles
—————————————————————–

Radially-expanded guns

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

According to the 1952 ordnance manual, the full name is “radially
expanded monobloc gun.” They had thinner barrels than your normal
built-up gun. Apparently, they made the tube from a single cylinder,
placed it under tremendous hydraulic pressure, “higher than that
developed during firing,” causing it to “expand radially.” After
removing the pressure, the outer molecular layers try to shrink to
normal size. The inner molecular layers, “subjected to greater force
and stretched proportionately more than the outer layers, cannot fully
return to their original size.” This tightened-up the molecular bonds
in the steel, making it a lot tougher than a built-up gun.

Making a gun becomes faster and cheaper plus it saves weight.
Supposedly, they could save 28,000 pounds on an 8″/55 gun & mount by
doing this. The big disadvantage, of course, was that there was no bore
lining. So, since you couldn’t replace the rifling, the whole barrel
had to be thrown out after it wore out the first time–much like
changing a machine-gun barrel. Gun mounts were redesigned to facilitate
easy changing, for example, “The barrel is connected to the housing by
means of a bayonet-type joint and locked by a key and key-bolt seated in
a keyway in the barrel. This design facilitates regunning the mount
without dismantling the breech mechanism or other parts.”

The gun factory history was unclear on how many of these were made but
the ordnance manual states that, owing to the inability to make really
large single forgings, only 5″/38 and 6″/47 guns had monobloc barrels.
The 8″/55 was actually a combination gun, i.e. having a partially
radially expanded outer barrel, to save weight, but an interior liner
that could be replaced.

3″, 40mm, and 20mm guns were made from single steel forgings without
radial expansion or built-up hoops. The pressures per square inch were
higher than on big guns but they just made them relatively thicker, the
weight ratio difference didn’t add up to much on small guns.

Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

> ———-
> From: Bill Riddle[SMTP:riddleb@fhu.disa.mil]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 8:49 AM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Re[2]: USS NEW ORLEANSreplacement turret – solved
>
> Can some one educate this dumb soldier?
>
> What are “lightweight radially-expanded guns.”

USS NEW ORLEANSreplacement turret – solved

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

I don’t know about Louisville, but the Washington Navy Yard Gun Factory,
according to the WW2 administrative history, produced guns and “turret
components.” As they tended to build the first working model of new gun
designs (such as the 16″/50, 12″/50, 8″/55 and 6″/47), presumably that
included “gun mounts.” The history specifically stated the factory
built the 5″/25 submarine guns and gun mounts.

The general tone of the history was that the Gun Factory’s job was to
set standards for the armaments industry, supply emergency orders to
repair battle-damage, develop new gun designs and turret models, and
fill small, short-term emergency orders ranging from steel and iron
castings to breech mechanisms. They also worked on producing
lightweight radially-expanded guns.

Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

> ———-
> From: Brooks A Rowlett[SMTP:brooksar@indy.net]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:30 PM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Cc: MARHST-L@POST.QUEENSU.CA
> Subject: Re: USS NEW ORLEANSreplacement turret – solved
>
[snip]
> Did the US Washington Navy Yard Naval gun Factory (and later the Naval
> Ordnance Station Lousville) produce mounts as well, or just guns?
>
> -Brooks
>

Nominations for best WWII/MARHST film (fwd)

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

OK. James Cagney. I was at a single-digit age when I saw it.

Tom Robison wrote:
>
> Mike Potter wrote:
> >_The Gallant Hours_, released about 1959. Not really an action movie but
> >certainly good on the encouragement Halsey brought to Guadalcanal.
> >Frederic March played Halsey and looked like a twin brother.
>
> What? Frederic March??? You mean Jimmy Cagney, right?
>
> Tom Robison
> Ossian, Indiana
> **Please Note NEW E-mail Address*
> tcrobi@adamswells.com

“Titanic”

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

><accuracy included the proper helm orders, as it no doubt confused more than
>a few folks.>>
>
>I haven’t seen the film yet, either, but I have been told that you can see
>people’s breath in the cold “North Atlantic” air. The movie was filmed in
>southern California. Now THAT’s attention to detail.
>
>Mark
>
I don’t think any major picture is shot in one place these days, but the
Titanic set was in Mexico – frequently photographed (despite Cameron’s
attempts to keep things quiet) by boaters. As I recall they “sank” the set
half a dozen times. Probably a good thing for the extras that the water
wasn’t 35 degrees . And the folks in the water do indeed look cold.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

USS NEW ORLEANSreplacement turret – solved

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

AS was discussed a short bit ago, USS NEW ORLEANS was one of the cruisrs
hit by torpedoes at the Battle of Tassafaronga, 30 November 1942.
sister MINNEAPOLIS lost her bow forward of #1 Turret; NEW ORLEANS took a
torpedo which detonated the magazine of her #1 8 inch turret and the
aviation gasoline stowage. The result blew off the bow forward of # 2
turret, and the sinking bow floated along the portside aft damaging the
outboard propellor.

We were trying to figure out how a spare turret was procured.

Thanks to OUR NAVY Magazine, Vol XXXVIII, no 21, First April, 1944, I
now have the answer. (OUR NAVY was twice monthly, hence the date).

John B. Penfold, “They Wouldn’t Stay Sunk”, pp 12-14)

…”Meanwhile, manufacturers and (Puget Sound) Navy Yard workers had
prepared the operating table and were ready to go to work. Ninety
percent of the new bow had been prefabricated, since most of the
structural steel and steel plate had been in stock or readily procured
from mills. The new bow was fabricated in dry dock and the ship was
floated into position to be joined.

“Procurement of the new auxiliary machinery to be installed in the new
bow had begun prior to the cruiser’s arrival; this involved the
assemblies for the pumps, fans, motors, ventilatng systems, auxiliary
turbines, anchors and anchor chains. Most difficult to obtain was a new
anchor windlass. The Navy Dept. had a contract with the Lidgerwood Mfg.
Co., New Jersey, for a new anchor windlass which was intended for battle
damage repair,. Work had not yet started and the windlass was not
scheduled for completion for two years; in response to the emergency
the company completed and shhipped the windlass in jig time. In
addition to the auxiliary machinery lost, the ship had lost
considerable spare parts; in order to supply her with a normal stock the
BuShips was obliged to assemble the equipment from its new construction
program wherever equipment could be spared.

Of the three major repair jobs listed, installation of the new turret
was most difficult. At that timn the BuORd and BuShips had under
construction at Mare Island a spare turret for cruisers of the NEW
ORLEANS class; it was intended for battle damage repair. However, that
turret could nnot, despite all speed up, be completed in time, and
waiting for this turret would have delayed the ship’s return to combat.
A sister of NEW ORLEANS was due back in the United States for overhaul;
further, it was scheduled for a longer holdover than the damaged
dcruiser. The Navy proceeded to shift the turret from the second
crusier and installed it on the battle scarred veteran of the Solomons,
The second cruiser was given another turret finished at a later date,
thus enabling the sleek southern lady to keep her date on the high
seas Somewher in Direct Contact With the Enemy.”

Although not specified in this article, looking at the history of the
vessels in Terzibaschitsch’s CRUISERS OF TEH US NAVY 1922-1946, it
appears that only MINNEAPOIS fits. Despite taking less damage than
NEW ORLEANS she was out of action longer, presumably because she needed
a larger general overhaul as well as the battle damage repair. Also,
I had suggested that one of the vessels damaged at Tassafaronga had
been repaired wholly at Pearl Harbor. This turns out to have been the
PENSACOLA which spent January to November 1943 under epair at PHNY.

Brooks

Purpose
The Mahan Naval Discussion List hosted here at NavalStrategy.org is to foster discussion and debate on the relevance of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan's ideas on the importance of sea power influenced navies around the world.
Links