The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post a reply
Post icon:
None
Username:
Subject:
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60000 characters. 

Font size:
Font colour
Options:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Disable BBCode
Do not automatically parse URLs
Question
type everything in between the quote marks: "N0$pam" Note the Zero:
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
   

Topic review - Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Phil,

It has been so long ago, I maybe mixing up stories or what I read wasn't completely true as to who ordered guns added to the "All-missile" cruisers/frigates/destroyers. But I do remember reading that it was a major embarrassment when a staged demo of shooting down a drone target with a AA missile failed. There is a book written by an engineer (and US Army enlisted tech) who worked on the early missiles in the 1940-50's. (I can think of the title or who wrote it) It was eye-opening. The Loon missile was a real mess and could be considered as useless operationally.

Your are right that the electronics and hardware for the Fire Control Systems had issues of being available when needed. And this wasn't a new thing. In my destroyer research, I was always amazed that the FIRST SC and FD (Mk 4) radars on a destroyer were installed prototypes installed in SEPTEMBER 1941. Serial installations started in about DECEMBER 1941!!! When I went through the BuShips files for early BENSON-GLEAVES destroyers in early 1942, I found that the SC and FD radars broke down often. There were multiple issues with how effective they were. Breaking down was one, lack of enough spares to provide to each destroyer, new systems that had undertrained crewmen, etc. Each ship with a new SC or FD had to provide MONTHLY reports on how well the radars were performing (detection ranges for specific target types ... BB, DD, aircraft, etc). Detection ranges slowly reduced in time as vacuum tubes deteriorated. Reliability improved by late 1942. It isn't mentioned, but criticisms that Ship CO's under utilized radars onboard their ships or didn't trust them, didn't factor that it was in part due to the issue that the systems didn't perform well. If a ship had both SC and FD, a ship would only use one at a time to save them when really needed. Multiple ships (particularly destroyers) in a task force would take turns using their SC radars.

A lot of maintenance and training was required to make the AA-missile systems effective. However, until solid-state electronics and development of systems like AEGIS and vertical launch getting rid of the launch rail-arm systems, did AA guided-missiles for defense and offense come into their own.
Post Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2024 5:34 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Friedman also says the ship had foundations for Polaris missiles but they were never installed. It was an interesting ship, ahead of its time in ways and obsolete in other ways before it was launched.

You used to be able to get the blueprints from the National Archives, but after 9-11 everything with the word "nuclear" was classified (even though the ship was long out of service and being scrapped).

Phil
Post Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2024 2:43 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Interestingly a number of the known (From Friedman's US Cruiser book) Long Beach preliminaries featured one or two 5"/54 Mark 18 single guns. But some are quite ambitious: 2x2 Talos 4x2 Tartar, 2x2 Talos 2x2 Tartar, 1x2 Talos, 1x2 Terrier 2x2 Tartar +5" gun,
And the Regulus I equipped variants
Post Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2024 1:50 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Rick,

As I recall, Kennedy (a former PT boat skipper) asked how the USS Long Beach CGN-9 was supposed to defend itself from small boats? The brass just looked at each other as if they hadn't thought of that! Actually, Pacific Fleet had complained about the lack of guns. I have heard that Kennedy personally ordered the installation of the guns, but I don't have a reference.

The original "3 T's" Talos, Terrier and Tartar were all pretty unreliable. The Talos missiles were very reliable - better that 80% success rate, and because of the size of the missile and warhead, plus the attack from above, a large percentage (more than 50%) of the Firebee target drone kills were from direct skin-to-skin contact. Anything that was hit by a 3500 pound Mach 2.7+ missile was toast! An unarmed (no warhead) Talos missile blew a DE in half in surface to surface firing tests!

However, the SPG-49 target tracking radars were operational only 50% of the time. This limited a ship to engaging only one target at a time with each Talos battery (with two SPG-49s). It was very easily attacked with multiple missiles or aircraft. Even with both tracking radars working each system could track only six targets at a time (using the SPS-43 and SPS-30 long range air search radars).

Phil
Post Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:12 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
TZoli,

There's a difference of opinions about how "useful" the twin 3-in RFG were compared to the 5-in/38 guns. First off, depending on the fire control systems (GFCS) installed for them, the 5-in guns would have a longer range. Where as the 3-in RFG guns would have a higher rate of fire, but much shorter range. The 3-in RFG were designed as replacements for the 40-mm guns of WWII. But, by mid-1950s, the USN realized the 3-in RFG guns (and their GFCS) had themselves become obsolete against modern jet aircraft with longer range stand-off weapons. This understanding is what had further upgrades of destroyers and other ships with 3-in RFG guns in place of the 40-mm, cancelled, and the near crash program to introduce in the fleet Anti-Aircraft Missile ships into the fleet.

But, the first generation of AA Missiles had issues of reliability, etc. A story I remember reading many years ago about President Kennedy in the early 1960s (before many of the more elaborate conversions were compete) upon watching a demonstration of one (or more?) of the new missile ships firing at target drones and saw the missile(s) fail, ordered that further missile ships to have at least a couple of guns (assuming 5-in) as self defense and last ditch weapons. Whether the story was true or not, there was recognized a need to have something as a backup on the missile ships. Plus, even an old WWII era destroyer could do considerable damage to a missile ship caught at relative close "5-in gun" range.
Post Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2024 5:55 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Somewhat humorously a gal Navy vet was on New Jersey (Instagram) explaining why there were wooden decks, there was the heat/cold explanation, the then statement that the "wood was cheaper than a steel deck?"

During the WWII period the absorption of steel splinters rather than having them bounce around was perhaps a benefit. A wooden deck underfoot is also much more comfortable over long periods at sea. Hence the grates at bridge positions. Capital ships had for most of their careers the duty of showing the flag. This may have also been a consideration.
Post Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2024 1:13 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Norman Friedman has a lengthy discussion of the proposed missile conversions in "U. S. Cruisers" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1984, 496 pages).

Phil
Post Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:20 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Some of you might be interested of these official sketch drawings showing preliminary studies for missile conversions for the Baltimore (CA-68) Oregon City (CA-122) Des Moines (CA-134/139), Cleveland (CL-55) and Worcester (CL-144) classes.

https://i.imgur.com/2GOxgam.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/M8n0zvq.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/s5ImXRX.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hP82WAd.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/QPQm1cP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nXLaSwz.jpg

And these drawings show me what I've suspected that the Albanies were designed with twin 3"/50 RF guns in mind and not the old and by that time useless 5"/38 Mark 12 guns.
Post Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2024 9:39 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
I can only add that to my knowledge it was used to reduce skid (indeed water and especially ice on metal was very slippery) it could also soak up various liquids like water, oil or blood. Also it is easier to replace some wooden planks then an entire metal section. Though they are quite hazardous to the crew in case of battle damage due to the numerous wooden spikes and parts flying after an aircraft starfing run or shell/bomb/rocket hit. That is why Admiral Arbuthnot Fisher wanted to introduce the linoleum (also called corcetine) deck on RN warships before WW1 and only succeeded on the Renown class.
Post Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:58 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
To me this is a funny topic. Everyone I have talked to about it has had a different answer - and of course they were all correct!

I suspect wooden decking was kept as long as it was because of tradition. Just as tradition required me to have a sword on a cruiser with 6" and 5" guns, a nuclear armed missile system and a Marine detachment. I guess if everything else failed I was to use my sword to repel boarders!

But I don't know this for sure.

However David is correct about one thing - missiles and wood decks don't mix. Our Talos missile booster was a blowtorch with a 60-70 foot flame. It burned the paint off the decks, launcher and missile house. We had to repaint after every shot. The wood deck ended about 100 feet forward of the missile launcher, and the blueprints say this was done to avoid damage to the wood decks from missile launches.

Phil
Post Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2024 12:23 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
DrPR wrote:
Hank,

Can you explain "the removal of the 8" gun turrets eliminated the need for the wooden decks"?

I was told in Officer Candidate School (by an old Chief Warrant Officer who left a trail of salt where he walked) that wooden decks were used for "splinter protection." Not for internal splinters spalled off from armor but to catch shrapnel from topside hits. However, other "authorities" have discredited this idea.

Some people say wooden decks were used for insulation, and I can attest - from having served on a wooden deck cruiser in hot and cold climates - that it does work for this. Of course wooden decks were retained because of tradition - "real" ships had wooden decks.

But I don't understand the connection between wooden decks and turrets. The original Cleveland class cruisers didn't have the wooden decks forward of the #1 turret below the gun barrels. But after the CLG conversions the wooden decks were extended farther forward. They might have provided some sound insulation from the gun blasts, but not much. It wasn't enough to prevent the paint from flaking off the overhead above my bunk during fire missions in Vietnam (the wood covered main deck was my overhead, directly below the 5"/38 guns on the starboard side). We pumped bullets into the jungle every 30 minutes all night long, for up to eight weeks at a time, and wooden decks or not there was no way to get much sleep!
Phil


Phil,

As far as I recall, it had nothing to do with insulation, sound protection, or tradition. And, as for splinter protection - if that were true, then wouldn't destroyers also have had wooden decks? The reason I was given when I served in NEW JERSEY was that the teak deck provided a shock protection when the 16" turrets were fired. To a lesser degree, some splinter protection from incoming shells, but since the main deck was an armored deck (below the teak), that would have been the 1st line of shell protection. I wish I could recall EXACTLY how this was explained to me but that was in 1968 and all I can recall is that all large caliber bag guns required wood decking in their design. Remove the turrets and you basically removed the expensive need to keep the wood decks. Sorry I can't be more technical in my explanation. I would assume that CLEVELAND class CL's having 6"-47 cal. guns would also fit into this category. As our teak decks went up to 04 Level, this would also provide some shock protection around the 5"/38 mounts located on the 01 & 02 Levels.

As for a fire hazard, the greasy powder residue that covered the teak decking after securing from firing was more a nuisance than a fire hazard. You could pick up a shard of it and light it like a match, but that was about it - really nasty stuff and usually required a holystoning to clean the decks. I recall that usually the boatswains were out with saltwater hoses to wash down the deck and then later a scheduled holystoning by the division responsible.

And yes! - I also remember a 2-3 day long fire support mission where the 5"/38 mounts were kept busy day & night in support of USMC/USA ashore - our berthing area on stbd side main deck had one of the powder cannister drops in the overhead, so I ended up staying in the Enlisted Personnel Office (port side, my normal work area) with the other PNs, during this period as we were not at GQ for this type of event. The berthing area was full of spent 5" brass and once they had secured from firing, everyone E-4 and below was assigned to police brass under the guidance of the GMGs. It's too bad that Capt. Snyder is no longer with us as he was an expert in the history, function, technical aspects of the bag guns and probably could have completely answered your question without any hesitation.

Perhaps another BB vet with shipboard experience can provide a more informative and technical explanation.

Hank
Post Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 11:29 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Hank,

Can you explain "the removal of the 8" gun turrets eliminated the need for the wooden decks"?

I was told in Officer Candidate School (by an old Chief Warrant Officer who left a trail of salt where he walked) that wooden decks were used for "splinter protection." Not for internal splinters spalled off from armor but to catch shrapnel from topside hits. However, other "authorities" have discredited this idea.

Some people say wooden decks were used for insulation, and I can attest - from having served on a wooden deck cruiser in hot and cold climates - that it does work for this. Of course wooden decks were retained because of tradition - "real" ships had wooden decks.

But I don't understand the connection between wooden decks and turrets. The original Cleveland class cruisers didn't have the wooden decks forward of the #1 turret below the gun barrels. But after the CLG conversions the wooden decks were extended farther forward. They might have provided some sound insulation from the gun blasts, but not much. It wasn't enough to prevent the paint from flaking off the overhead above my bunk during fire missions in Vietnam (the wood covered main deck was my overhead, directly below the 5"/38 guns on the starboard side). We pumped bullets into the jungle every 30 minutes all night long, for up to eight weeks at a time, and wooden decks or not there was no way to get much sleep!

Phil
Post Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:56 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Thanks that helps.
Post Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:59 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
TZoli wrote:
Regarding the USS Albany (and all of that type of Missile conversions) do she and her sisters retained the wooden deck of the Oregon Cities or it became full metal plated when the missile conversion finished?


These cruisers were rebuilt WITHOUT teak decking as the removal of the 8" gun turrets eliminated the need for the wooden decks. When LONG BEACH (CGN-9) was constructed, a small section of the main deck on either side where the forward brow was located was planked with teak decking to symbolize the traditional "quarterdeck" for officers/dignitaries arriving/departing the ship. I've not found any photo evidence that this was in place on any of the other converted missile cruisers.

Hope this helps,

Hank
Post Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:02 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Regarding the USS Albany (and all of that type of Missile conversions) do she and her sisters retained the wooden deck of the Oregon Cities or it became full metal plated when the missile conversion finished?
Post Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 7:36 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
USS Rochester. Date and Location unknown. Photo BS120784, RG19-LCM, US National Archives.
Attachment:
USSRochester.jpg
USSRochester.jpg [ 243.07 KiB | Viewed 2359 times ]
Post Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:33 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Chris Wright, editor of WARSHIP INTERNATIONAL (INRO Qtr Journal), did some research recently and found no mention of OREGON CITY being defective. She just was in the wrong place when a cruiser needed to be decommissioned (in the post-WWII 1940s there wasn't funding for a large navy and cruisers were decommissioned to make room for the DES MOINES class units) and didn't get the straw to be recommissioned during the Korean War mobilization. She was studied/planned to be one of the first Guided Missile Cruisers, but lost out because of which yards were selected to do the Mod work.
Post Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:53 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Hi all,

Any ideas on why Oregon City was considered "defective" and retired from service so quickly? I've found a number of references to her being somehow wrong, including a one sentence throwaway comment in Friedman, but no details. Perhaps the story is apocryphal? Anyway, if there are any more specific ideas or facts on this, I'd be curious to hear them.

Many thanks,

Bob
Post Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:57 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
I have Friedman's book, and as with the others in the series a great resource. I recommend searching used book stores, it is how I found all the Friedman and Garzke-Dulin books over the years except for the Brit battleships book which I ordered.

In the Post War navy one of the critical items in the line of specifications was the "Crew 2000", geez that was quite a bit heftier than HMS Hood's compliment! Of course the main offender was medium and light AA manning. I believe that the single trunking of the uptakes was an unpopular and space hogging effort to clear sky arcs again for the light AA, which was not considered as essential post war.

A guess, though I do recall Friedman making some comments about this.

Cheers: T
Post Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 3:20 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all USS Oregon City class (CA) fans  Reply with quote
Considering a mid-to-late 1990s time frame, how do you believe the Oregon City (CA-122) and Rochester and (CA-124) be modernized to meet the following characteristics?

-Embark and perform volume strikes with Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles
-Perform offensive Harpoon ASCM operations
-Perform offensive and supportive 8" NGFS/Naval Strike
-Perform offensive and supportive 5" NGFS/Naval Strike
-Modern radar
-Modern GFCS w/radar
-Counter battery radar
-Modern AAW/ASW self defensive measures
-Electronic Interoperability between its battle group
-Embark an HH-60 wing ability
-Embark RPVs/UAVs
-Refuel escorts

Are there any suggestions?
Attachment:
Rochester CA-124.jpg
Rochester CA-124.jpg [ 117.39 KiB | Viewed 3342 times ]


Attachment:
1861%20-%20USS%20Albany_resize.jpg
1861%20-%20USS%20Albany_resize.jpg [ 61.4 KiB | Viewed 3342 times ]
Post Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:57 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group