Category: History

We Will Not Forget 5

We Will Not Forget 5

These are some of my notes regarding the tragic Forrestal (CVA-59) fire 50 years ago this Saturday, on 29 July 1967.

http://woosterglass.com/page/2/?m=member Profile view of buy gabapentin reddit Forrestal with profiles of all the types of aircraft and representative squadrons on 29 July 1967.

In all my research about the fire, I had not seen a correlation between the PLAT film and the aircraft as they were spotted at the time.

Based on drawings in the Navy’s official Manual of the Judge Advocate General Basic Final Investigative Report Concerning the Fire on Board the USS FORRESTAL (CVA-59), which is the Navy’s definitive statement on the topic, I redrew the flight deck to scale and spotted the aircraft per the official drawings.

I then roughly plotted the plat camera angle based on the photograph and identified the aircraft in both the plan and the PLAT. There are some minor discrepancies, especially at the far left. This is because the flight deck was extremely dynamic. Not just because of the fire, but because of preparations for the Alpha Strike and normal movement of aircraft.

But for the A-4s across the fan tail from 410 to 303, and up the port quarter from 414 through 316, it is as accurate as I can make it.

 

Deck with aircraft as spotted at the time of the fire according to the official report. The PLAT film image is correlated with the diagram. 405 is the aircraft struck by Zuni, piloted by LtCdr. Fred White. 

Below is a drawing of the plane spots as presented in Naval Aviation News in October 1967, just three months after the fire.

We Will Not Forget 4

We Will Not Forget 4

These are some of my notes regarding the tragic Forrestal (CVA-59) fire 50 years ago this Saturday, on 29 July 1967.

Firefighting on board any ship, let alone a carrier with its fuel- and explosives-rich environment is always a matter of time. It simply has to be knocked down as quickly as possible.

In my second posting on the Forrestal fire I wrote of the old bombs and their thin shells and deteriorated explosives. The final report of the Navy’s investigation into the fire—Manual of the Judge Advocate General Basic Final Investigative Report Concerning the Fire on Board the USS FORRESTAL (CVA-59)—addressed these points and the affect they had on casualties.

The Zuni rocket struck the 400-gallon external fuel tank of an A-4E Skyhawk, rupturing the tank and spreading JP-5 fuel under two aircraft. The fuel was quickly ignited by “numerous fragments of burning rocket propellant.” (Finding #57 on page 34 [#57, p. 34]) In addition to splitting the tank, the Skyhawk’s two vintage bombs fell to the deck. One split open and began burning. Another fragment punctured the centerline 400-gallon tank on another A-4E further forward spreading additional burning fuel beneath the same two aircraft. [#61, p. 34]

The fuel fire alone would have been handled quickly and expeditiously. The report says the first firefighters were on the scene in literally seconds. The carrier, already launching the first aircraft for that mission, was turned into the wind and there was a steady 32-knot wind from fore-to-aft.

Shortly after the fire began, sailors begin to move toward the leading edge of the fire. The wind across the deck is obvious by the nearly flat smoke trail, and at this point the fire is concentrated on a relatively small and somewhat remote portion of the flight deck.

Finding #63, p. 34 of the report states: “That the burning fuel was then rapidly spread aft and fanned by 32 knots of wind over the deck from 350º relative and by the exhausts of at least three jets spotted immediately forward.”

The A-4 struck by the Zuni rocket, was only two aircraft from the stern on the port quarter. Raw and flaming fuel did not have far to travel to be washed overboard. Despite the quantity of fuel, the situation was not desperate. It was well within the capabilities of the men and equipment at the scene. Indeed, within 80 seconds of its initiation, “the first hose began to play salt water on the forward boundary of the fire.” [#4, no page] However, almost half a minute earlier, fifty-four seconds after the initiation of the fire, Chief Gerald W. Farrier, the head of the fire-fighting crew, arrived at the scene and immediately began battling the blaze around the cracked bomb with a hand-held fire extinguisher.

Plane handler Gary L. Shaver told me that, “There was a 1,000-pound bomb laying on the deck surrounded by burning fuel. I emptied the extinguisher to no avail. Several feet away from me was my flight deck Chief Farrier who also had an extinguisher and was applying it right on the bomb.

Suddenly there was an explosion. Chief Farrier disappeared.

I felt like I was going to come apart as the bomb’s concussion and shrapnel hit me. I was blown into the air, out of my shoes and helmet and struck by shrapnel in the left shoulder, stomach, arms, and head.”

The wild card on the deck was the ordnance, especially the old bombs. The initial impact set two of the thin-skinned 1,000-lb. M65A-1 bombs on the deck—surrounded by the fuel and raging fire. The first one detonated with its designed high-order explosion just 94 seconds after the fire began. [#74, p. 36] Just 9 seconds later a second bomb exploded. [#78, p. 36] All told, there were seven major explosions. [#80, p. 36] The total span lasted 5 minutes and 26 seconds. [Enclosure 35, attached]

This is enclosure 35, which gives the timing of each of the explosions.

When the first detonated, “approximately 35 personnel” were in proximity, “including two hose crews . . .” [#74, p. 36] This explosion “decimated the hose teams causing nine casualties to the ship’s crash and salvage crew, also eighteen casualties to other on-the-scene fire fighters.” [#75, p. 36] The second explosion “hurled bodies and debris as far as the bow” nearly 1,000 feet away. [#79, p. 36] “That effective fire fighting efforts on the flight deck were interupted” after this explosion “for approximately five minutes until the major explosions subsided.” [#81, p. 36]

With the second explosion, aircraft on the starboard (right) side of the deck became involved behind the island, shown here on the left. This greatly expanded the fire.

The charged lines were riddled by shrapnel. Fire fighting foam, so critical to dousing fuel fires, was lost, leaving only salt water. A fuel fire floats on water. All the water could do was cool the fire and wash it overboard. But there was a tragic problem. The major explosions punctured the inch-thick steel flight deck. Instead of flowing overboard into the sea, much of the burning fuel washed down inside the ship into what were primarily berthing areas. The majority of the ship’s crew who died, died in these spaces.

As a result of the fires and explostions, 134 sailors and airmen died and 161 were seriously wounded. Many more went unreported because their wounds were less severe. Of those who died, only 28 had been on the flight deck. Fifty died where they slept.

Further, the first two explosions had decimated the dedicated fire fighting crews, with the best knowledge and training to fight the fire. Well intentioned but inexperienced men stepped up to take their places.

In the wake of Forrestal every sailor undergoes mandatory firefighting training at the Farrier Firefighting School in Norfolk, Virginia. The lessons learned on Forrestal were not lost. Film of the fire figures prominently in every sailor’s training.

We Will Not Forget 3

We Will Not Forget 3

These are some of my notes regarding the tragic Forrestal (CVA-59) fire 50 years ago this Saturday, on 29 July 1967.

A stray electrical charge caused the inadvertant launch of a 5-inch Zuni rocket from this Phantom II.

The seminal document is the Navy’s own Manual of the Judge Advocate General Basic Final Investigative Report Concerning the Fire on Board the USS FORRESTAL (CVA-59). This 6,000+ page report is the Navy’s official conclusion for what happened that fateful day.

The proximate cause of the fire was a briefest of brief spike in electrical energy that triggered the launching of a 5-inch FFAR (folding-fin aircraft rocket), known as a Zuni, from an F-4B Phantom II.

 

The LAU-10 pod carried four Zuni rockets, often beneath a frangible nose cone that would break apart with the launching of the first rocket.

The investigation board focused on the Zuni rocket and its LAU-10 launching pod. Those aboard that day generally agreed that the rocket started the fire, but that it was confinable, fightable, that they had a chance until that first bomb went off.

The final report found that there were shortcomings in the Zuni launching pod. Attachment cords between the pod and its TER (triple ejector rack) mounting on the aircraft called “pigtails” carried the electrical firing charge from the pilot’s finger on the button to the rocket’s igniter. Pins on the pigtail could be bent causing a short circuit.

 

The LAU-10 was mounted on one of three positions on the Triple Ejector Rack or TER. The TER was electrically connected to the F-4B. The pigtail (circled) electrically connected the LAU-10 and TER.

Further, there were two separate safety procedures to prevent an inadvertent firing of the Zuni. One was that the pigtails were not to be plugged in until immediately before the aircraft’s launching. With the high-tempo of flight deck operations, the delayed connection of pigtails slowed down launches such that they caused conflicts with the launching of one mission and the recovery of a previous mission.

The veterans of the experienced Pacific-based carriers passed this information to the newly arrived Forrestal squadrons. (Forrestal was the first Atlantic carrier to take up station off Yankee Station, thus it had little basis for “lessons learned” in the high tempo ops off Vietnam.) Their ship’s safety committee chose to bypass this safety procedure because there was another significant device, which was highly effective.

Four LAU-10s are mounted on this Marine Corps F-4B.

That device, essentially a safety pin, mechanically and electrically prevented a rocket’s launch. Standard procedure was for that pin to be pulled only immediately before launch.

However, in some instances, again in the interest of getting the aircraft off the deck as soon as possible, crews began pulling pins before the aircraft got to the catapult.

The Navy report determined that the rocket fired when the pilot of the F-4B carrying the Zuni switched power sources.

The Phantoms required an external power source to start their engines. Once one of the engines in the twin-engined fighter was at a certain power level after being started by a “huffer,” the pilot would switch from the external source to the internal source powered by the running engine. When the pilot switched power sources there was a brief spike of electrical energy.

Of itself, that spike would not have launched a Zuni. However, with the pigtail connected, the electricity had a route to the rocket. With the safety pin pulled, the Zuni was electrically and mechanically free to be fired.

Although the report cited the errors of safety checks on the rocket, it found no one aboard the ship directly responsible for the fire and subsequent explosions.

 

 

 

We Will Not Forget 2

We Will Not Forget 2

These are some of my notes regarding the tragic Forrestal (CVA-59) fire 50 years ago this Saturday, on 29 July 1967.

The fire and aftermath of one of the “high order” explosions was captured by now-retired Rear Admiral Peter B. Booth.

While not the instigators of the fire, the vehicles of so much death and destruction were the Korean War–vintage AN/M65A1 1000-lb. bombs. These were deadly on two accounts.

They had thin-shelled casings, basically thin tubes of steel with rounded nose and truncated conical aft body. As mounted on the A-4 Skyhawks of VA-46 and VA-126, they mounted a “conical fin assembly” for better streamlining, in lieu of the readily recognizable open box fins of World War II.

A crewman provided this image of the M65s on the day of the fire. I apologize for not being able to credit him.

They were quite unlike the “modern” bombs of the time, the very streamlined MK 80 series of the MK 81 250-, MK 82 500-, MK 83 1000-, and MK84 2000-lb bombs, which were thick-walled and covered with a coarse ablative surface. Somewhere in my notes I have comparative “cook off” times between the two types of bombs; i.e. how quickly they would explode if engulfed in a fire. I don’t want to quote numbers without looking at the notes, but I do recall the comparative figures. The MK 80s could survive in a fire more than three times as long as the M65s. This means that firefighters would have at least three times longer to knock down the fire. Further, the majority of MK 80s, which cooked off did so with a “low order” explosion. The M65s all went in “high order.” Basically this was the difference between a big pop and really big explosion.

MK 83 1000-lb general purpose bombs.

The other aspect is the explosives they contained. The AN/M65s, constructed in 1953, were loaded with “Comp B” explosive. Unlike modern explosives, “Comp B” became unstable with age and hot, humid storage conditions. At the least these weapons were 14 years old and had been stored in the open in the hot, humid climate of Okinawa.

A plane handler, William Boote, told me: “I remember to this day the feeling I had as I touched one of the 1000-pound bombs and commented to (co-handlers) that I didn’t ‘like the looks of these bombs, and that something bad was going to happen.’”

There were 80 bombs aboard 15 attack aircraft totalling 24 1/2-tons of high explosives for the 11:00 a.m. mission. Eight tons consisted of 16 old 1,000-pound bombs. The seven which exploded did so in a catastrophic “high order” fashion, as they were designed to do against an enemy. The nine others were listed as missing or jettisoned.

This is my dozen-year old crude attempt to depict the bombs as mounted on the aircraft. I have been unable to find any with decent detail that shows the conical fin assembly. The first drawing is based on Navy technical drawings I obtained. The second is from a very small undetailed photograph. The third shows it in its Korean War form. I would gladly appreciate any information that can help me correct this drawing.

We Will Not Forget

We Will Not Forget

 

USS Forrestal (CVA-59) as she appeared at about the time of the fire in July 1967.

I cannot let this week pass without remembering the brave and heroic men of Forrestal (CVA-59).

Fifty years ago, on 29 July 1967, a stray electrical signal set in motion a conflagration that killed 134 men, significantly wounded at least another 161, and imprinted mental scars on thousands of others. It was the worst single naval casualty event of the Vietnam war.

Here is a link to the Navy’s Chief of Information web page about the fire. It was originally written for Naval Aviation News in October 1967 shortly after the fire, thus it is lacking in much of the personal detail which has emerged over the past half-century. But it is a good backgrounder and reminder of basic details.  http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=73

But for the latest, check out this link http://www.uss-forrestal.com/news/119/50th-USS-FORRESTAL-FIRE-MEMORIAL-CEREMONY-and-2017-REUNION at the Forrestal Association’s website for this weekend’s events.

The Naval History and Heritage Command, which has the responsibility for collecting, preserving, and sharing the many historic artifacts of Navy history has preserved an important piece of Forrestal. https://www.history.navy.mil/news-and-events/news/2015/july-2015/national-naval-aviation-museum-ensures-uss-forrestal-trial-by-fi.html

More to come…

Help

Help

This is a plea for information.

I am working on a book with Bob Sumrall and this photograph is one we intend to use. There is, however, no caption information.

Can someone positively identify the ship, location, date, situation?

I appreciate surmises, but I can do that myself.

I see Hornet (CV-8).  (Because of the lighting and shrouding steam my gut reaction was a short-hull Essex (CV-9) in splinter camouflage, but a number of points dissuade me. First was the lack of 5-inch gunhouses. Next, the two-level open foretop. Essex had no foretop, just platforms. Yorktown (CV-5) and Enterprise (CV-6) both had larger enclosed foretops. Then there is the boat crane aft and lack of port-side elevator. The camouflage is a trick of the low early morning lighting and shadows.)

A chilly early morning. Possibly Brooklyn Navy Yard. But I have no proof on any of these including the ship’s identity.

The only “factual” item I have is a number: K6556. I have checked as many variations of the NH and 80-G series numbers as I can think to search—including adding possible missing numbers (probably more than a couple hundred in total)—with no luck.

If you can help, please point me to your information source.

Why Three Views are Necessary

Why Three Views are Necessary

We live in a three-dimensional (physicists may say four, fantasists say more) world. To visually represent that, one needs to meld length, width, and depth. Absent any one and the result is a bizarre view of the world.

Hence, we can start with something as seemingly complex as this flat, 2-dimensional—up and down, left and right—drawing . . .

And get something that looks a bit more real-worldly with not only left-right, up-down, but also front-back.

What if one dimension is missing?

Archaeologists, historians, and other scholars have for years been wondering what the Confederate submersible H. L. Hunley really looked like. The historic vessel was discovered a number of years ago, has been raised, and is currently under minute excavation and discovery in Charleston, South Carolina. Many questions have been answered, especially what she looked like. (https://hunley.org/) Here is a link to the most recent detailed (extremely!) analysis of the vessel by the Underwater Archaeology Branch of the Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology/sites-and-projects/ship-wrecksites/hl-hunley/recovery-report.html)

But before this, to envision the boat, historians had to rely on a written record, no known photographs exist. There were a few sketches and one watercolor wash painting by R. G. Skerrett, which gave a fair idea of her form, but they—as is all art—were reliant on the artist’s eye and especially, hand. What is real? (Naval History and Heritage Command)

One of the early references was this two-view tracing of a predecessor boat, the “Rebel Submarine Ram” Pioneer. It was from a contemporary 1864 Civil War report from U.S. Navy Fleet Engineer William H. Shock to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. (National Archives and Records Administration)

The upper drawing shows a side view of the ram, with some interior details. The bottom drawing shows a top view looking down of the vessel.

There is nothing, however, to show us the third dimension, a front view. The illustrations below will demonstrate the impact of that missing third dimension.

All the views you will see were made with this set of lines that I pulled from the original drawing. The only thing that is different between the pairs of renders is that in one, I let the original drawings determine the final shapes, and in the other one I assumed the third dimension to be curved.

These are the top views of the two versions, the lower has many more lines because those are necessary to draw the curves in the 3D rendering of these lines. Note however that the external lines of each part are identical. This reflects the lines’ origins from the lines pulled from the original.

This shows  the resultant 3D render.

Similarly, here are the side views, again with the lower drawing and render showing the addition of curved lines.

And this drawing shows the resultant third dimension, the front views, based on the base (left) and curved lines.

Here are the resultant images in full 3D.

Note that, both 3D renderings match the original 2D drawing. Which is correct?

While that is certainly obvious, this is just an illustration of issues that can occur in the absence of information.

This rendering further illustrates the need for three views. Notice the two highlighted areas.

Many times with all three views provided, even that information is not enough. Sometimes it is a confusion on the part of the original craftsman with regard to how a particular line should be depicted in each of the three views. More often, however, lines are hidden. These require either additional drawings, or better yet, a perspective drawing of their intersections. No examples come immediately to mind, but I am certain at least one will crop up on an upcoming drawing. I will address that when it happens.

This final rendering shows the curved 3D version over the original lines. The other version would similarly line up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CSS Tennessee Brooke Rifles

CSS Tennessee Brooke Rifles

 

The Confederate ironclad Tennessee was effectively armed with a concentrated and powerful armament of two 7-inch Brooke double-banded rifles fore and aft on pivot mounts and four 6.4-inch Brooke double-banded rifles, two per broadside.

The 7-inch rifles, weighing 15,300 pounds each, were manufactured in Selma, Alabama. This, the bow gun, tube no. S-10, is property of the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) and located at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC. Its companion tube, no. S-5 at the stern pivot, is also the property of NHHC, is on loan and on display outside the Selma City Hall. In the background, the three visible guns are from Tennessee’s four-gun broadside battery.

This gun is one of the four 9,000 pound 6.4-inch broadside rifles, three of which are also at NHHC in Washington. It was forged at the Tredegar Ironworks in Richmond, Virginia.

This illustration shows the guns mounts. The pivot guns were mounted on large sliding carriages and the broadside guns on two-wheel Marsilly carriages.

CSS Tennessee

CSS Tennessee

Making Sausage: You Really Don’t Want to Know

This is an incomplete project. Although portions of it were published in the December 2009 issue of Naval History magazine, they were carefully cropped to eliminate errors that exist because of lack of documentation and skill on my part. My goal is to do the definitive model with accurate interior detail.

I am posting this to ping the greater world for more information so that I can properly detail the interior and fix the exterior, and perhaps rework the whole drawing. These renders are eight years old, so my skills have improved, but until I get more information this will sit on a back burner.

For the hull and casemate, I was only able to find these two drawings.

I do not have my sources readily at hand, but the profile and plan are obviously from a book. They are small and while apparently detailed, it is all lost in the small reproduction on poor absorbent paper. I believe the sections are from a different source. They are larger and cleaner, a big help.

The only way to approach a subject is to envision it in the simplest parts possible to keep your drawing time to a minimum. One fortunate aspect of ships (along with aircraft) is that you generally only have to do 50 percent of the project because of symmetry along the centerline. You simply copy, paste, reflect, and merge your work. With Tennessee, I created three basic pieces; the hull, hull armor, and casemate. Everything else is detail.

Using Illustrator, I created the lines for each. This is not a difficult process, but is somewhat challenging in trying to visualize your 2-dimensional work in 3-dimensions. Once those are complete, I import them into my 3-D software, Strata 3D, and proceed to extrude, lathe, hull, and whatever else needs to be done to get something that resembles Tennessee.

The hull sections, as noted, were clean and easy to reconstruct.

Once drawn, they were laid out in position along the length of the hull for “erecting” in the 3D program.

The failings of the hull—primarily because of my inexperience—is the plating. The interior, however, is another matter. Despite their size, the interior plan was really quite good for its level of detail. It allowed for proper positioning of the guns and their interaction. The funnel drops down through the gun deck to the engine room below. The capstan has an interesting position, but again, its linkages, unless below deck, are non-existent.

But details of the interior are sorely lacking. The gun handling fixtures are pretty much standard, so those details were easily added. But the real issue is the wheel stand and its workings. The drawings show that it was elevated above the gun deck and hung from the overhead, but how? How was the wheel linked to the rudder? What navigational equipment was associated with it? How did they use a compass surrounded by all that iron? Many questions, no answers. So the wheel is just suspended over the deck.

I added a drawing to illustrate the composite laminated construction of the casemate armor. It’s interesting to see how the laminations go together and how thick the armor was in relation to its backing.

I  don’t normally share rejects. The faults in this are obvious, but it is here because it shows relationships and details, especially in the overhead grating, not visible in the others.The overhead view shows the layout of the fore (right) and aft 7-inch Brooke double-banded rifles on swivel mounts. These align with the three fore- and aft-most gunports. The four 6.4-inch Brooke double-banded rifles occupy the four broadside ports.

These are some other interior views as well as the overall fore and aft views.

 

 

Again, if you can help by pointing me toward drawings that will get this closer to what it should be, please let me know.

Not as Advertised

Not as Advertised

When is the Battle of Midway NOT the Battle of Midway?

Research is everything. Your output, no matter what the format—words, painting, oratory, conversation, whatever—is wholly dependent upon those nuggets of information it stands on.

Assume you know nothing about the battle, which was remembered just last week on the 75th anniversary. You go to a “primary” web site, such as the Navy’s own Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/) This is official Navy. It is their history site. On it you will find many original documents and images from throughout the Navy’s nearly 250 year history. It is a great resource. [ed. note: I am employed by NHHC and thus am not an impartial source.]

A search for the site for “Battle of Midway” results in some 963 hits. The fourth entry is this painting by Rodolfo Claudus. Its title, by the artist, is officially “Battle of Midway, 3 June 1942.” And that is where the rub is. Nothing about the battle as depicted by the artist is correct. It is not inaccurate, it is flat wrong.

First, take the title. Most historians—and in particular, the U.S. Navy—deem the battle as spanning from 4 to 7 June 1942. On 3 June, a PBY patrol plane spotted the occupation force, not the main force including the carriers as reported. Nine Army Air Force B-17s launched from Midway to attack the fleet. After three hours of flight they found the transports some 660 miles from their base. Battling through heavy antiaircraft fire, they dropped their bombs and claimed four hits. In fact, they inflicted no damage. This attack, solely by the Army, on the transport force was the only combat on 3 June.

This segues into the content of the painting. There are four elements and one action.

The actions shows a carrier in combat. Nothing like this occurred on 3 June.

The primary element is an aircraft carrier. The artist has done a credible likeness of an Essex (CV-9)-class carrier, in particular the long-hull variant. Now the “howevers” begin . . .

The first and name-ship of the Essex class was not commissioned until December 1942, so obviously, none of the class fought at Midway. The artist does mark the ship with the number 10 on the funnel, indicating CV-10, USS Yorktown. That would be appropriate . . . if . . . that was the right Yorktown. The Yorktown at Midway was CV-5, which was badly damaged on 4 June and sunk on 6 June. Another relatively minor point, but a factual error nevertheless,  CV-10 was a short-hull Essex, not long-hull.

The next most prominent element is the Japanese aircraft. There is little to quibble here except, of course, that none were shot down on 3 June.

The third element, to the left, is a destroyer. The artist has depicted either an Allen M. Sumner (DD-692)- or Gearing (DD-710)-class ship. In either case, the very first of these ships was not laid down until July 1943. They didn’t exist at the time of the battle.

The final element is a battleship to the right shrouded in mist or haze. Unlike the other two ships, this is a bit less specific, however, its length, shape of the bow, and closely spaced, tall thin stacks favor the North Carolina (BB-55) class over the Iowa (BB-61). It is definitely not meant to be a single-stack South Dakota (BB-57) or any of the pre-war battleships. Once again, in any case, this element is moot. No U.S. battleships were anywhere near Midway and none participated in the battle.

So, what you have here is a painting that in every element has no relation (except perhaps ships at sea, in combat, with aircraft) to its title.

Sadly, it must be filed under its official title, hence, misleading the unknowing.

Everything hinges on the caption, and the one provided is of no help. It gives the painting as c.1950, yet in the artist’s hand it is labelled 1956.

Bottom line—question everything. Even these comments.

 

 

 

Verified by ExactMetrics