Date
1 - 20 of 39
Flatcar Load: Conning Tower Tube
|
A photo from Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kheelcenter/5279257017/sizes/o/ Caption: Midvale Company produced conning tower tube for Brooklyn Navy Yard, order #85809, weight 188,060 lbs being transported by railroad, October 6, 1943. Bob Chaparro Hemet, CA
|
|
|
|
PRR F22 #435332. Reweigh P57, 8/43. So here we have another use for the PRR gun flat singlets!
Regards Bruce Smith Auburn, AL A photo from Flickr:
Caption: Midvale Company produced conning tower tube for Brooklyn Navy Yard, order #85809, weight 188,060 lbs being transported by railroad, October 6, 1943. Bob Chaparro Hemet, CA
|
|
|
|
A better link https://www.flickr.com/photos/kheelcenter/5279257017/ PRR F22 #435332. Reweigh P57, 8/43. So here we have another use for the PRR gun flat singlets! Regards Bruce Smith
A photo from Flickr: --
Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
This cargo is really puzzling. Conning towers in surface ships were phased out at about this time because the presence of a hugely heavy steel cylinder in the superstructure of a surface ship was beginning to be seen as a disadvantage. So I looked to see
what might have been under construction at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, because the Iowas, the last American battleships, were done by this date. Even the 5th and 6th Iowa class BBs had been canceled. I can find no record of any heavy ship being constructed at
this date at Brooklyn that this would be destined for. It also seems a bit narrow for a surface ship conning tower and is clearly not a submarine conning tower. The date seems reasonable given the reweigh on the car... so I really have no idea what this cargo
is...
Regards, Bruce Smith Auburn, AL
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2018 2:58 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Flatcar Load: Conning Tower Tube A better link https://www.flickr.com/photos/kheelcenter/5279257017/ PRR F22 #435332. Reweigh P57, 8/43. So here we have another use for the PRR gun flat singlets! Regards Bruce Smith
Midvale Company produced conning tower tube for Brooklyn Navy Yard, order #85809, weight 188,060 lbs being transported by railroad, October 6, 1943. -- Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Bruce isn't it possible that it could be for REPAIRS to a damaged ship?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
This cargo is really puzzling. Conning towers in surface ships were phased out at about this time because the presence of a hugely heavy steel cylinder in the superstructure of a surface ship was beginning to be seen as a disadvantage. So I looked to see what might have been under construction at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, because the Iowas, the last American battleships, were done by this date. Even the 5th and 6th Iowa class BBs had been canceled. I can find no record of any heavy ship being constructed at this date at Brooklyn that this would be destined for. It also seems a bit narrow for a surface ship conning tower and is clearly not a submarine conning tower. The date seems reasonable given the reweigh on the car... so I really have no idea what this cargo is... --
*Tim O'Connor* *Sterling, Massachusetts*
|
|
|
|
gd3006
Note the "BB-63" stencilled just above the weight- this would have been for the USS Missouri. IIRC, the Missouri
was launched at Brooklyn in early 1944, and commissioned about mid-year, so the 10/1943 date of this photo seems about right. Graham Dean
|
|
|
|
I concur that this is a “puzzlement”.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I don’t know what the repair schedule for armored ships was in this time frame. The old “Pearl Harbor” battleships were rebuilt and returned to service (less the Oklahoma), but the tube pictured is just way too small to be the conning tower of any WWII battleship. It may be an unarmored base for a range-finder or gun-director of some cruiser or battleship, but these are not “conning towers”. It’s also too small and too heavy to be any likely part of the pressure-hull of a submarine (and once again not a “conning tower”). I can’t think of any other use for a large heavy tubular component like this in ship construction. Most such in ship’s superstructures are just sheet metal fabrications (stacks, fire-control towers, etc.). So …? Dan Mitchell ==========
|
|
|
|
Ah! I didn’t notice this. Thanks for the observation!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
If it’s for BB-63 it would likely be the base for some large (probably rotating) component like a rangefinder, or gun-director (optical or radar). In any event, it’s only about half the diameter of a “conning tower”, and just not heavy enough (these things were 18” thick), and in an Iowa-class BB they were not round, but oval shaped. Very interesting! Dan Mitchell ==========
|
|
|
|
The first sub I served on was the USS Amberjack (SS 522) commissioned in 1945. Still in service in 1962. It was the only sub I served on with a conning tower and it looked nothing like that. Conning towers were not used on any subs after the WWII designs. The Fast attack diesel boats in the 50's had no conning towers but they had control rooms and of course the nukes were without conning towers. Not sure what this might be sued for. Fenton Wells
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 6:19 PM Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:
--
|
|
|
|
gd3006
This tube serves as a pedestal to support the manned portion of the conning tower, which is, indeed, oval, and
substantially larger than the tube- but still a very tight space. Despite the armor thickness, I wouldn't want to be inside when a heavy projectile hit, even if it didn't penetrate... Graham Dean
|
|
|
|
Dan
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
BUT ... the other stencil is CT-8. If that doesn't mean Conning Tower... Could be a tube that is INSIDE the tower, and as you say it could be to support something heavy that rotates.
Ah! I didn't notice this. Thanks for the observation! --
Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
CJ Riley <cjriley42@...>
|
|
|
|
Marty McGuirk
They’re technically referred to as “sails” on modern day nuclear subs.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
|
|
|
|
“Uninitiated” for sure.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The correct term today is “sail”. It serves to house the upper end of the sub’s periscopes and retractable antennae, and as an observation point while the sub is surfaced. On many recent subs it also mounts the sub’s forward diving planes, but the most recent subs again mount these back on the hull. Sails are getting smaller, and may disappear altogether on future subs. The modern sub is conned from inside the main hull at the base of the sail, though a watch crew may be on duty atop the sail when surfaced. In WWi and WWII subs there was usually a small pressure-protected chamber mounted above the main pressure-hull that was the control-room. This was the location from which the sub was conned, so could be said to be the “conning tower". A sheet-metal shed containing it was part of the sub’s visible superstructure when surfaced, a sort-of deck-house. As on a modern sub, it helped house the retracted periscope. It also usually carried radio antennae, various small anti-aircraft guns, and provided a location for the lookouts and deck crew when the sub was surfaced. It also had one or more watertight hatches that could be used to pass ammunition to the crew of any deck-guns if so fitted (forward or aft of the conning tower, on the main hull’s deck). In WWI and early WWII subs often surfaced to attack unarmed ships with deck-guns. It was a lot cheaper than using torpedos. During WWII it became far more dangerous for a sub to surface … mainly due to radar and aircraft patrols. By the end of WWII deck-guns were largely out of favor as torpedo attacks became more effective. The guns also caused a lot of turbulence (drag and noise) when the subs were running submerged. Gradually the subs were streamlined to improve underwater speed and make them quieter (harder to detect). The subs were now far more effective when submerged, and the guns were more trouble then they were worth. When nuclear-powered subs were developed, submarines rarely surface at all so deck-guns became worthless. Dan Mitchell ==========
|
|
|
|
Bill Welch
Dan, I have always wondered how they kept the deck guns in condition to shoot given Salt Water=Rust/Corrosion
Now awaiting to be jailed for asking non-freight car question. Bill Welch
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Hom
BIll Welch asked: "I have always wondered how they kept the deck guns in condition to shoot given Salt Water=Rust/Corrosion" Simple. Gunners' Mates doing lots of maintenance, both preventive and corrective, plus practicing with them regularly. Now back to freight cars. CDR Ben Hom US Navy Surface Warfare Officer, 1989-2017
|
|
|
|
Ralph W. Brown
Hi Ben, et al.,
Additionally, some deck guns, particularly the 5”/25, were made of a
rust-resistant steel and pressure tight fittings, but we digress . .
Pax,
Ralph
Brown
Portland, Maine PRRT&HS No. 3966 NMRA No. L2532 rbrown51[at]maine[dot]rr[dot]com
From: Benjamin
Hom
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 6:06 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Flatcar Load: Conning Tower
Tube BIll Welch asked:
"I have always wondered how they kept the deck guns in condition to shoot given Salt Water=Rust/Corrosion" Simple. Gunners' Mates doing
lots of maintenance, both preventive and corrective, plus practicing with them
regularly. Now back to freight cars.
CDR Ben Hom
US Navy Surface Warfare Officer,
1989-2017
|
|
|
|
CJ Riley <cjriley42@...>
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Hom
Ralph Brown wrote:
"Additionally, some deck guns, particularly the 5”/25, were made of a rust-resistant steel and pressure tight fittings, but we digress . ." Rust resistant steel...rusts. Still need to maintenance to the weapon...if you believe otherwise, I've got some Atlas "Rebuilt USRA boxcars" to sell you. Ben Hom
|
|
|
|
Ralph W. Brown
Hi Fenton, Bruce, et al.,
Regarding the load, there are three drawings, including a longitudinal
section, of the Missouri on the Missouri Memorial website. The
longitudinal section drawing may be found here: https://ussmissouri.org/learn-the-history/the-ship/as-built-blueprints.
If one examines this drawing, a tube labeled “Conning Tower Tube” runs
vertically five decks from one deck below the main deck up to the O4 deck to the
“Ship Conning Station” and the “Fire Control Station” above it. I suspect
that this F22 load is the bottom section of that tube.
Regarding submarine conning towers, they were typically and necessarily
larger both in length and diameter. I was assigned to the USS Skipjack
(SSN-585) (“The first, the fastest, and the finest nuclear powered teardrop
hull,” a great boat with a great crew) in the early 1960s, when she was part of
Squadron 10 (SUBRON10), which at the time also included USS Nautilus (SSN-571),
USS Sailfish (SS-572), USS Seawolf (SSN-575), USS Skate (SSN-578) and, I think,
USS Halfbeak (SS-352) as she was often moored with us at the State Pier in New
London. In any event, Seawolf, unique among nuclear subs primary because
of her liquid sodium cooled reactor, did as I recall also have a conning
tower. She was definitely an odd duck.
Pax,
Ralph
Brown
Portland, Maine PRRT&HS No. 3966 NMRA No. L2532 rbrown51[at]maine[dot]rr[dot]com
From: O
Fenton Wells
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2018 8:15 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Flatcar Load: Conning Tower
Tube The first sub I served on was the USS Amberjack (SS 522)
commissioned in 1945. Still in service in 1962. It was the
only sub I served on with a conning tower and it looked nothing like that.
Conning towers were not used on any subs after the WWII designs. The Fast
attack diesel boats in the 50's had no conning towers but they had control rooms
and of course the nukes were without conning towers.
Not sure what this might be sued for.
Fenton Wells
|
|
|