The Ship Model Forum

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but I just noticed the original 1942 news report and footage of the fire and capsizing of [i]Normandie.[/i]

It starts with Peal Harbour attack then the [i]Normandie[/i] report follows:

[b][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmDVxRyIruY&mode=related&search=[/url][/b]

[quote="Werner"][i]Narwhal[/i] spent most of her life chained to the dock, like the turboelectric [i]Glenard B. Lipscomb[/i].

Werner, Absolutely right about the Lipscombe fish. She lived dockside the entire three plus years I was on Lapon.
Can't vouch for Narwhal as she operated (or not) from elsewhere.

[i]Narwhal[/i] spent most of her life chained to the dock, like the turboelectric [i]Glenard B. Lipscomb[/i].

Look at the numbers I gave you for a [i]Knox[/i]. I think battleworthiness is at least part of the difference in weight and size between commercial and military systems.

S5W sub turbines were about 6ft diameter including the case and 6ft long. The condensers directly below about 6ft deep.
Most non-geared turbines used many stages making for great length to obtain efficient expansion and use of the available steam.
The Narwhal used a direct drive that was about 20ft length with the idea that the lack of gearing would make her quieter.
I suspect the turbine arangement described included extra space to allow teaching and maintenance not requiring the compactness of an at sea plant. Additionally, surface ship plants are considerably different from submarine units.

Last year I dedicated an afternoon to looking over every aspect of the engine room of HMS Belfast in London. I was surprised at how small the actual turbine itself was. It was open for view of the blades and rotors. Even including the casing, they were quite small. Not sure about bedrooms, but for just the turbines, maybe so.

Bob B.

Chuck's description of geared turbines is what I have seen myself.

Three stories high seems tall to me even with condensors. Pretty much rules out installation in a nuclear sub.

Ungeared turbine plants had to be large to allow more leverage on the turbine blades to make up for torque lost by lack of reduction gearing.

I don't know how big Chuck's kids are, but turbine gear boxes I have seen would fit in my kitchen. Add the turbine itself and it would still fit in my living room with room to walk around it on all sides.

Compare that to the massive vertical triple-expansion plants, which would fill my entire house, including the basement!

[quote="Captain Morgan"][quote="chuck"]You'd be quite surprised how small normal marine steam turbine have gotten by WWII. A 20,000 shp turbine with reverse stage and cruising stage will easily fit a kid's bedroom or a large walk-in closet.

A matching single reduction gear box will also fit into walk-in closet.[/quote]

Not true in any way. The turbines from the USS Amsterdam (Late Cleveland class with no cruising turbines) were used at the S7G or MARF submainre nuclear prototype in Balston Spa New York. They were 25,000 shp at 600 psig steam. They were 3 stories tall including the condensors. The footprint was about 25 ft by 25 ft, if you added the reduction dear it was closer to 25 ft by 50 ft long. Not a kids bedroom by any means. The 2500 kw SSTG's in the engine room where from the California Class CGN's they would have fit into a 3 story tall kid's bedroom each.[/quote]

BTW, they could not be 3 stories tall because they would not fit under the armor deck in that case. In any case, the condensors are not part of the turbine. The rotor stack is probaBLY 15 feet long and 5-8 feet in diameter at the most.

My kids have big rooms.

:big_grin: :big_grin:

[quote="chuck"]You'd be quite surprised how small normal marine steam turbine have gotten by WWII. A 20,000 shp turbine with reverse stage and cruising stage will easily fit a kid's bedroom or a large walk-in closet.

A matching single reduction gear box will also fit into walk-in closet.[/quote]

Not true in any way. The turbines from the USS Amsterdam (Late Cleveland class with no cruising turbines) were used at the S7G or MARF submainre nuclear prototype in Balston Spa New York. They were 25,000 shp at 600 psig steam. They were 3 stories tall including the condensors. The footprint was about 25 ft by 25 ft, if you added the reduction dear it was closer to 25 ft by 50 ft long. Not a kids bedroom by any means. The 2500 kw SSTG's in the engine room where from the California Class CGN's they would have fit into a 3 story tall kid's bedroom each.

Some of that is referred to in requiem for Yamato.

[quote="Anonymous"][quote="Werner"]

I'm sure if you were a commander in chief with a bad case of intestinal worms, she was quite a relief as a flag ship.

(Read it).[/quote]


Yes, she belies the Japanese warship's reputation for spartan accommodations. She had air condition in most of her living and working spaces a full 8 years before any US warships had AC outside of magazine. Her crew slept in bunks and had communal bath tubs at a time when sailors on most of Japanese warships slept in hammocks and bathed out of buckets out in the open over deck scuppers. Even junior officers enjoyed state rooms. There is even an elevator running up the middle of the tower bridge to relieve senior flag officers of the need to actually climb up the ladders.

Also, she had real stainless steel toilets for the crew. Most Japanese warships had a hole in the deck for the crew's relief.

Incidentally, the ladder on the back of Mushashi's tower bridge was responsible for the majority of the casualties the ship had sustained prior to her final sortie. There was an extremely long, steep, uninterrupted run of ladders up the back of the tower bridge that was the normal mode of access to the combat bridge and air defense station. More than one person plunged their way to their demise down this ladder.[/quote]


Very interesting information :wave_1: Do you have a reference source for the information? I'de like to read more on the subject if possible.
Thanks.
:eyebrows:
Bob B.

[quote="Werner"]Not quite right -- as usual.

"The Norfolk Plan" - About 1924 put men into alcoves with lockers and bunks we see today, and Americans took showerbaths daily -- the Admiralty complained about the immense waste of heated fresh water among the US battleships at Jutland.

I suspect they were "really mad" when they saw the 50 foot long ice cream bars on those battleships.[/quote]

Which part is not quite right? That your don't have the final say?

:lol_pound: :lol_pound: :big_grin:

Not quite right -- as usual.

"The Norfolk Plan" - About 1924 put men into alcoves with lockers and bunks we see today, and Americans took showerbaths daily -- the Admiralty complained about the immense waste of heated fresh water among the US battleships at Jutland.

I suspect they were "really mad" when they saw the 50 foot long ice cream bars on those battleships.

[quote="Werner"]

I'm sure if you were a commander in chief with a bad case of intestinal worms, she was quite a relief as a flag ship.

(Read it).[/quote]


Yes, she belies the Japanese warship's reputation for spartan accommodations. She had air condition in most of her living and working spaces a full 8 years before any US warships had AC outside of magazine. Her crew slept in bunks and had communal bath tubs at a time when sailors on most of Japanese warships slept in hammocks and bathed out of buckets out in the open over deck scuppers. Even junior officers enjoyed state rooms. There is even an elevator running up the middle of the tower bridge to relieve senior flag officers of the need to actually climb up the ladders.

Also, she had real stainless steel toilets for the crew. Most Japanese warships had a hole in the deck for the crew's relief.

Incidentally, the ladder on the back of Mushashi's tower bridge was responsible for the majority of the casualties the ship had sustained prior to her final sortie. There was an extremely long, steep, uninterrupted run of ladders up the back of the tower bridge that was the normal mode of access to the combat bridge and air defense station. More than one person plunged their way to their demise down this ladder.

[quote="Werner"]Still couldn't hit stink, though.


(Read it).[/quote]

Only a target at 38,000 yards.

Still couldn't hit stink, though.

I'm sure if you were a commander in chief with a bad case of intestinal worms, she was quite a relief as a flag ship.

(Read it).

[quote="Werner"]

Hiraga also perfected the splayed bow form of [i]Yamato[/i] and [i]Shokaku[/i]. It deflected spray from the relatively low bow and reduced underwater resistance.
[/quote]

The splayed bow form of Yamato and Shokaku was actually designed to enable the hawse holes to be places sufficiently far from the centerline to allow the anchors to clear the big bulbous forefoot. The gigantic protruding bulb on Yamato's forefoot was that ship's true claim to hydrodynamic innovation. It was about 25 years ahead of its time.

The freeboard of the Yamato class is actually very impressive, being on average almost a full deck higher than any other battleships. This was a design requirement to enable the ship to remain stable while heavily listed to one side, and to facilitate the specified 100% reserve buoyancy (Not actually achieved, but the designer managed about 80%, which was still higher than most others). If her freeboard had been comparable to normal battleships, then her great beam would have put her deck underwater at a much less degree of list than the average battleship.

Incidentally, because of this, Yamato can remain stable at much higher degree of list than the Bismark, which had only a slightly smaller beam, but a much lower freeboard.

I think a time-transported US destroyer from Philadelphia landed squarely inside her and the only way to preserve secrecy was to destroy the ships.

The Mob had taken a truce with the FBI and locals on large ranges of activities when the war broke out. Just because they're crooks doesn't make them disloyal. I imagine they knew what crime would be like under Hitler....

Ask any trucker who worked on the 9/11 removal job. There aren't any construction/wrecking companies in New York which are not affiliated with the Mob to greater or lesser degrees.

The then-current leader of the Mob called the City and said there would be no trouble finding trucks and a very minimal charge for the use.

[quote="ar"]It's true about the mob and the Normandie.
A deal was struck soon after.[/quote]

I found this exchange from 2005 on a forum.

[size=75]Posted on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 10:17 am:
________________________________________
I was watching an episode of the History Channel's "Dead Mens' Secrets" series the other night, where the possibility was examined of the Normandie having been the victim of sabotage. Not by Nazis or their American sympathisers, but by the New York Mafia.

Supposedly, in his memoirs published in the 1970's, Lucky Luciano gave the Mob the "credit" for Normandie's destruction. Supposedly this was intended to convey to the American authorities how much power the Mafia had over the New York docks. Although Luciano himself was in prison at the time of the fire, he was still very much in control of his "family" and his orders were obeyed without hesitation.

Part of the evidence suggesting that, if the Normandie were indeed sabotaged it was by the Mob and not Nazi agents, is the fact that no such incident ever occurred again throughout WW2. In other words, the authorities got the message that the Mob controlled the docks and worked with them, rather than against them, to ensure the smooth operation of wartime harbour activity in New York. Had the fire been the work of Nazis, it would more than likely have happened again.

The episode goes on to suggest that this "bond" formed between the US Government and the underworld was so strong that American forces invading Sicily received enormous help from the local Mafia.

They encountered little resistance from Italian troops, unlike the English invading forces further east. The Mafia's reward for this assistance was effectively control of postwar Sicily - and it all began with a show of strength in the form of the Normandie burning.

Does any of this make sense, or was it the fanciful ranting of a Mobster trying to take the credit for something which was in reality none of his doing?

Could the destruction of one ship, albeit one which could have contributed so much to the Allied war effort (carrying 10 000 troops across the Atlantic in four days) have been enough to persuade elements of the US Government to get into bed with the Mob?

Or is it all just nonsense, a series of coincidences that may have had some unforeseen, but completely unplanned, consequences? I'd be interested to know what the experts here think!

Posted on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 12:52 pm:
________________________________________
I thinks it's a collection of half truths. The U.S. Government was well aware of the fact that the mob controlled the waterfront and that was why they were willing to quietly come to an "understanding" with the dons, particularly Luciano, long before the Normandie incident.

The cause of the fire itself on the Normandie is really no mystery at all. A cutter was doing hot work with bales of kapok life preservers nearby and the sparks landed on the things which, not surprisingly, caught fire. Had it been caught early on, and handled by people who actually knew what they were doing, it probably wouldn't have been that big a deal, but it wasn't.

The Normandie in the end wasn't killed by the mob, she was killed by incompetents.
________________________________________

Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 8:20 am:
________________________________________
Let's face it, the Normandie is fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. I tend to agree, that it was all just a horrible accident, but the destruction of what would have been the fastest troopship available to the US military is just too good for some conspiracy buffs to pass by! Especially as it happened so soon after the USA entered the war.

Oh well, at least the programme I mentioned gave us some nice, if limited, moving footage of the Normandie. Unfortunately, we also caught a few glimpses of the New York fire department enthusiastically bombarding her with so much water that she couldn't remain upright.[/size]

IMHO, while it is true that the US autorities dealt with the mob to help teh war effort, the destruction of Normandie was a bit too much for the mob to engineer, and there are much more plausible explanations. The fire never endengered the liner, but the water poured by the firemen was, because it threateend the stability of the ship.

Well, putting the weight and strength only where you need it implies a savings elsewhere (although I bet the poor sap with his hammock down on the lower level aft would have to disagree based on how often he was splashed while sleeping).