|
 are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.
|
Posted on 12/18/2002 5:39:20 AM PST by SAMWolf
|
are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.
|
| Our Mission: The FReeper Foxhole is dedicated to Veterans of our Nation's military forces and to others who are affected in their relationships with Veterans. We hope to provide an ongoing source of information about issues and problems that are specific to Veterans and resources that are available to Veterans and their families. In the FReeper Foxhole, Veterans or their family members should feel free to address their specific circumstances or whatever issues concern them in an atmosphere of peace, understanding, brotherhood and support.
|
|
|
|
USS HULL, USS MONAGHAN and USS SPENCE  As father and son go, we've known each other only in our hearts. You were all of 19 when the Lord called you into another service. Dad, thank you for giving me life and a proud lifetime memory. I love you. On 17 December, 1944, my father's ship, DD-354 .U.S.S. Monaghan was steering toward Leyte Bay on a rendezvous course with the Pacific Task Forces 38 and 58. The Third Fleet was engaged in naval air strikes against Japanese forces in the Philippines. While the planes had been attacking central Luzon in support of the Mindoro invasion, the carriers and their destroyer protectors were in desperate need of fuel. Dad's ship was assigned to escort duty for the fuel ships of the fleet, an attractive enemy target. She ran at flank speed during the operations and was riding high in the seas from lack of fuel. Then she ran into Typhoon Cobra, described below as "more powerful than any western Pacific encounter with the Japanese." "In December 1944 as Admiral William Halsey's Third Fleet was operating in support of General MacArthur's invasion of the Philippines, the Third Fleet encountered a tropical cyclone more powerful than any western Pacific encounter with the Japanese. The result was three destroyers (the USS HULL, USS MONAGHAN and USS SPENCE) sunk with 800 men lost, 26 other vessels seriously damaged, and 146 aircraft destroyed (16). The Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral Nimitz said, "It was the greatest loss that we have taken in the Pacific without compensatory return since the First Battle of Savo." Halsey himself described it best. "No one who has not been through a typhoon can conceive its fury," he wrote in his autobiography. "The 70 foot seas smash you. The rain blinds you. The battleship NEW JERSEY once was hit by a 5-inch shell and I did not even feel the impact. The MISSOURI had kamikaze crash on her main deck and repaired the only damage with a paint brush. But the typhoon tossed our enormous ship the MISSOURI as if she were only a canoe."  One eyewitness account speaks to the conditions my dad found himself and his shipmates facing. "These destroyers were escorting the carriers, and they came out. We're trying to fuel them, and the seas are choppy; I mean, when I say choppy, they're twenty, twenty-five feet waves... They were going to move to another location and commence fueling in the morning again. Well, instead of taking us out of the typhoon they took us back into it. I'm talking about waves that were fifty and sixty feet high. Sometimes you'd see a destroyer, he'd be sitting up on top of a wave and the next time he would be down so low that you couldn't even see the mast. That's how deep the troughs were. There's no way those destroyers could fuel from the tankers." Former President Gerald R. Ford in May 1943 served as a pre-commissioning detachment for a new light aircraft carrier, USS Monterey (CVL-26). This was one of the ships in may dad's group. The following is an official record of an account by Lt. Ford who served as the assistant navigator, Athletic Officer, and antiaircraft battery officer on board Monterey. "Monterey was damaged by a fire which was started by several of the ship's aircraft tearing loose from their cables and colliding during the storm. During the storm, Ford narrowly missed being a casualty himself. After Ford left his battle station on the bridge of the ship in the early morning of 18 December, the ship rolled twenty-five degrees which caused Ford to lose his footing and slide toward the edge of the deck. The two inch steel ridge around the edge of the carrier slowed him enough so he could roll and twisted into the catwalk below the deck. As he later stated, 'I was lucky; I could have easily gone overboard.' " The fueling day was the first of Typhoon Cobra that claimed 790 lives in the 3d Fleet, and sank Spence (DD-512), Hull (DD-350), and Monaghan. The six survivors, rescued by USS Brown after drifting on a raft 3 days, reported that Monaghan took roll after roll to starboard, finally going over. Of the 6 hands that survived the sinking, 3 perished after rescue. From accounts passed on by one of his shipmates, my dad and other Monaghan crew members remained in the water because some of the men were injured and bleeding. Their being in the life raft was their only hope and the area was known to be shark invested. Quietly, on the night of the second day, without notice in the darkness and the rough seas, Dad joined the watery grave of the Spence, Hull and Monaghan. Of the tragedy, Admiral Nimitz said, "represented a more crippling blow to the 3d Fleet than it might be expected to suffer in anything less than a major action." Veteran of so many actions against a human enemy, Monaghan fell victim to the sailor's oldest enemy, the perils of the sea. Monaghan received 12 battle stars for World War II service.  Survivors from the Spence and the Hull ***NOTE: This dedication and story is not about my Dad*** Thanks to Freeper Comwatch for this story
|
Hey... Didn't mean to hog the thread today.... but here's some more on the evolution of the mighty TinCans.DD-348 Farragut class
Design History
The Farragut class of destroyers was the first class of modern destroyers commissioned in the U.S. Navy, complete with centerline guns, five-inch artillery, and a large displacement. The necessity for such vessels became increasingly clear in the course of the 1920s.
The U.S. flushdecker construction program had turned out the last ships in 1920, two years after the end of World War I. By that time, other nations had either overtaken the U.S. in the capability of their ships, or had begun construction of ships that would soon be more capable than the U.S. ships. The British Navy's V&W class of 1918 had undoubtedly and directly outclassed the flushdeckers in seaworthiness, armament (carrying four 4" guns in centerline mounts), speed and maneuverability. Despite the knowledge of these facts, it remained impossible to change the situation in America's favor: with some 200 flushdeckers available, Congress' willingness to fund additional destroyers was low.
Nonetheless, the Bureau of Construction and Repair, starting as early as 1917, began drawing up designs for large "leaders", ships much more powerful than the flushdeckers. For Fiscal Year 1919, five large destroyers, called flotilla leaders, although no definite design was prepared. The notion was declined by Congress, feeling the Navy to be already well-endowed with warships. Soon thereafter, the interest in the construction of new destroyers vanished completely as the Washington Treaty seemed to usher in an age of non-construction of warships.
Interest revived in 1927, when tactical data, technological advances, and a feeling of hope for Congressional funding combined to lead to a first draft for the new destroyers. After considerable initial debate, in early 1928 the initial characteristics were laid down. At 1,600 tons, the new ship would be considerably larger than the flushdeckers; with four 5" L/51 guns, a 3"/50 anti-air gun and twelve torpedo tubes, it would be considerably stronger; and, it was hoped, by adopting different hull designs, the primary flaws of the flushdecker, its immense radius at high speeds and bad seakeeping, could be avoided. Vitally important for the new design was the adoption of high-pressure plants, promising long range with little fuel.
Opinions were then solicited from the prospective customers in the fleet, whose replies were generally in favor of changing the 5" guns from L/51 to L/25, offering a dual-purpose role for the main armament in both anti-surface work (for which, of course, the L/25 was not optimal) and anti-air work, whilst addressing problems with fire-control and centerline space. Since the long-range fire of a L/51 would not be directable from the destroyers, their replacement with the L/25 gun was quite natural.
Other issues were then adressed to C&R. Their preference for a six-tube torpedo mount arrangement, with superimposed triplets, seemed impossible to manage on a rolling, heaving destroyer. Simple triple mounts, or new quadruple mounts, were considered much preferable.
The matter did not settle on anything resembling a decision, but the issue turned out not to require one - Congress would not fund new ships in 1928, or 1929 for that matter. In early 1930, the General Board began drawing up requirements once more, this time quickly bound into tight confines by the provisions of the 1930 London Treaty. In November, C&R announced its designs for three types of destroyers, from1,375 to 1,850 tons, carrying the 5" L/25 guns for the above mentioned reasons (and because its ammunition was more easily handled), each having a rather high forecastle and thus, greater dryness forward. Additionally, the Bureau of Ordnance had developed a intermediate gun - 5" L/38 - which Construction and Repair now definitely favored over any of the older guns. By January 1931, an initial production design, which at 1,750 tons was to have six 5" gus, nine torpedo tubes, and 35 knots of speed at light ship condition. This was not very feasible, and in March, alternative batteries were presented. Selected among the alternatives was one providing for five 5" L/38 guns (the forward two shielded against the weather, the others open), two quadruple torpedo mounts, and four .50-caliber machine guns, with a broad stern as a provision for depth charge racks and tracks. A Mk33 director atop the bridge would direct fire from the guns, a measurable improvement over the flushdeckers, whose guns operated in local control. 650°F (343°C), 400psi steam-plants, for superheated steam and high power on light weight, powered the new ships' engines for 38,6 knots trials speed. The new ships would only displace 1,500 tons light.
Eight ships were ordered, the final designs of the Farraguts being drawn up by Bethlehem Steel of Quincy, Massachusetts, and constructed by Bethlehem and Bath Iron Works. Their characteristics showed the new ships to be superior to the flushdeckers in speed, stability, armament, maneuverability, habitability, seakeeping, and range, showing clearly that the new approach to destroyer construction was entirely useful.
Modification History
By the middle of 1935, all ships had been refitted with depth-charge tracks and storage, indicating the necessity of providing the fleet with anti-submarine warfare methods. Problems with the new ships arose in 1940, when the King Board required stronger anti-air armament for all ships. The Farraguts lacked the weight margin to allow for such installations easily, as did all later destroyers. As wartime necessity indicated that more, and heavier AA was not only desirable but a matter of life-and-death, the no. 3 5" gun was removed, making available weight and space for the installation of radar systems (all ships received, in due course, SC and SG radar, and fire-control radar for their directors), anti-air weapons (all ships received 40mm twins and 20mm singles, and lost their .50-caliber guns), and additional depth charges. Unlike later ships, the Farraguts did not lose their torpedo tubes in favor of still heavier anti-air armament in the last months of the war.
Service History
Eight Farragut destroyers were constructed. All served in the Pacific Fleet at the beginning of the war. Monaghan sank a midget submarine at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Supporting all kinds of operations during the war, the Farragut class ships suffered some casualties. Worden ran aground in the Aleutians, becoming a total loss. Hull and Monaghan were lost in December 1944 in a typhoon off the Philippines. The remaining ships, having served for four continous years, were scrapped in 1947.
Ships in class:
DD-348 Farragut
DD-349 Dewey
DD-350 Hull
DD-351 Macdonough
DD-352 Worden
DD-353 Dale
DD-354 Monaghan
DD-355 Aylwin
|
Stats |
Displacements: |
|
Armor |
Belt: No belt armor |
|
Armament and Equipment |
(As designed): (Dale, October 1944): |
DD-445 Fletcher class
Design History
Although Treaty limitations had not applied during the construction of the Sims and Benson classes, the necessity of producing a large number of destroyer had effectively precluded the design of a ship that was not directly based on its predecessors. It was in the fall of 1939 that the General Board set to work on the design of a new class of destroyers. Once more, it querried the fleet as to the desirable characteristics of a fleet destroyer; asked whether the fleet considered that the destroyers now under production were already too large, or not enough torpedo vessels, or whether the utility of the destroyer made it a ship of so many functions that torpedo attack was but one of them.
To that last premise, Captain Russell S. Crenshaw, Chief of the War Plans Division, heartily concurred. He believed that the ten torpedoes in quintuble centerline tubes as employed in the latest designs was quite sufficient. Size should not be reduced; the destroyers' functions as fleet screening vessels should be stressed more. More depth-charges, and preferably a heavier anti-air battery (possibly adding a quadruple 28mm mount) were desired. Not much later, the General Board summed up its hearings in a characteristic that called for no less than 4 5" L/38 guns, ten torpedo tubes and 36 knots at 1,600 tons. To this general layout the CNO, Harold Stark, agreed. It was, however, pointed out that given the fiscal situation of the day, it might be advisable to procure the best destroyer possible without regard for cost (which Congress was quite ready to disregard as well), and to resort to smaller, cheaper ships when the time came in which Congress would not be as supportive. The tentative design first issued by the General Board became the basis of several Bureau of Construction and Repair draft designs. However, since the initial designs did not exceed 1,600 tons, the differences of the new class would primarily be of emphasis - mainly because the increased depth charge and the proposed providing of torpedo reloads would necessitate the reduction of weights in other places. An option that was considered was the placement of the main artillery in twin mounts, at least partially, saving critical top weight.
These proposals did obviously not satisfy the General Board. Although several members proposed further studies of this and that proposed design, the General Board as a whole requested two weeks after the initial proposals had been made that a larger ship be studied, and four new proposals be drawn up. Once made, they drew heavily upon a number of proposals, from within C&R (where a flush-deck hull originated), to the General Board and the Bureau of Engineering. The final ship, which was to have five 5" guns, ten to twelve torpedo tubes, depth charges and K-guns to throw them with, plus most importantly, protection from heavy machine-gun fire in the form of 0.5" STS armor over vital spaces.
This became some of the primary concern, since the added weight of the STS and the "parasitic" weight of a heavier and possibly wider hull to sustain the large weight of the armor increased tonnage immensely. When C&R finished the new proposals, they all came out over 2,000 tons. At the same time, the General Board accepted the need both for size and protection. In the final characteristics which the General Board gave out for the 1941 destroyer program, the new ships made good use of their large size: five 5" guns, ten torpedo tubes in quintuble mounts, a 28mm L/73 AA quad mount, four .50cal machine guns, 38 knots, four K-guns and two depth-charge racks, 0.5" STS protection for engines, boilers (both decks and sides), pilothouse and 0,75" STS over the 5" gun director.
Few changes were made to the design from the initial design to the contract design stage. Proposals to replace the forward two 5" guns with a single twin came to nothing for reasons of space and visibility. However, the initial anti-air outfit was replaced in the design by a 40mm twin in place of the 28mm quad, and six 20mms in the place of the .50-cal machine guns. Later ships, those whose construction was not yet too far advanced when the change was ordered in mid-December 1941, received two twin 40mms and four 20mm guns.
Further design changes were ordered in later ships. While the earliest vessels possessed a round bridge, such as in the SIMS, the experience of the British with aircraft, and the changed role of the destroyer, led to demands for a bridge with an all around view. Later ships had a square open bridge.
The final design had everything in common with the final draft design besides these changes. A Mk37 director controlled 5" fire, a 40mm director Mk49 served the light AA, protection equal to that specified in the final draft was the first armor ever applied to a U.S. destroyer design.
175 ships of the Fletcher class were procured during the war, with funds from Fiscal Years 1941, 1942 and 1943. Most American yards were involved in the production of the class, and several yards were upgraded and improved to allow construction of these ships.
In an effort to provide the fleet with more planes, six Fletchers were ordered modified with a catapult in place of no.3 5" gun. This effort, soon rendered obsolete by a combination of uselessness and difficulty with the handling, was reduced to three ships in early 1943, the decision having been made to retain the removed no.3 gun in storage from quick "reassembly". Three ships were completed with a catapult and plane, and operated for a short while with them, until they, too, lost their equipment in October 1943.
Modification History
By the time of their commissioning, all Fletchers had radar SG and SC (some SA), later SC-2, as well as fire-control radar Mk4. Various expansions of the light AA took place in the course of the war, the ultimate battery, not reached in all Fletchers, consisting of 14 40mm and 7 20mm guns. For such a battery, a reduction of the torpedo tubes by one quintuble set was necessary.
Service History
Unlike their contemporaries on the production lines, the repeat Bensons of the Livermore class, Fletcher class destroyers were commonly assigned to the Pacific. Their initial combat took place off Guadalcanal, where Fletcher herself saw combat in the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal among other things. Later on, Fletchers were the primary part of the Cactus Striking Force of destroyers, and participated in every engagement and campaign thereafter conducted by the Allies. Fletchers comprised part of the screen of Taffy 3 at Leyte Gulf, certainly the classic destroyer action of World War II. Slowly supplemented and replaced in carrier screens by Allen Sumner and Gearing class destroyers, Fletchers nonetheless served as fast carrier escorts until the end of the war and beyond, when a large number were converted to DDEs, DDRs and similar ships. Many Fletchers were transfered to foreign navies (were a few still serve), including six to the Federal Republic of Germany and some to Japan. Several U.S. ships were not decommissioned until the late 1960s, when their roles were taken over by newly built ships. The were, however, kept in reserve for several years to come.
Ships in class:
| DD-445 Fletcher DD-446 Radford DD-447 Jenkins DD-448 La Vallette DD-449 Nicholas DD-450 O'Bannon DD-451 Chevalier DD-465 Saufley DD-466 Waller DD-467 Strong DD-468 Taylor DD-469 De Haven DD-470 Bache DD-471 Beale DD-472 Guest DD-473 Bennett DD-474 Fullam DD-475 Hudson DD-476 Hutchins DD-477 Pringle DD-478 Stanly DD-479 Stevens DD-480 Halford DD-481 Leutze DD-498 Philip DD-499 Renshaw DD-500 Ringgold DD-501 Schroeder DD-502 Sigsbee DD-507 Conway DD-508 Cony DD-509 Converse DD-510 Eaton DD-511 Foote DD-512 Spence |
DD-513 Terry DD-514 Thatcher DD-515 Anthony DD-516 Wadsworth DD-517 Walker DD-518 Brownson DD-519 Daly DD-520 Isherwood DD-521 Kimberly DD-522 Luce DD-526 Abner Read DD-527 Ammen DD-528 Mullany DD-529 Bush DD-530 Trathen DD-531 Hazelwood DD-532 Heermann DD-533 Hoel DD-534 McCord DD-535 Millier DD-536 Owen DD-537 The Sullivans DD-538 Stephen Potter DD-539 Tingey DD-540 Twining DD-541 Yarnall DD-544 Boyd DD-545 Bradford DD-546 Brown DD-547 Cowell DD-550 Capps DD-551 David W. Taylor DD-552 Evans DD-553 John D. Henley DD-554 Franks |
DD-555 Haggard DD-556 Hailey DD-557 Johnston DD-558 Laws DD-559 Longshaw DD-560 Morrison DD-561 Prichett DD-562 Robinson DD-563 Ross DD-564 Rowe DD-565 Smalley DD-566 Stoddard DD-567 Watts DD-568 Wren DD-569 Aulick DD-570 Charles Ausburne DD-571 Claxton DD-572 Dyson DD-573 Harrison DD-574 John Rodgers DD-575 McKee DD-576 Murray DD-577 Sproston DD-578 Wickes DD-579 William D. Porter DD-580 Young DD-581 Charrette DD-582 Conner DD-583 Hall DD-584 Halligan DD-585 Haraden DD-586 Newcomb DD-587 Bell DD-588 Burns DD-589 Izard |
DD-590 Paul Hamilton DD-591 Twiggs DD-592 Howorth DD-593 Killen DD-594 Hart DD-595 Metcalfe DD-596 Shields DD-597 Willey DD-629 Abott DD-630 Braine DD-631 Erben DD-642 Hale DD-643 Sigourney DD-644 Stembel DD-649 Albert W. Grant DD-650 Caperton DD-651 Cogswell DD-652 Ingersoll DD-653 Knapp DD-654 Bearss DD-655 John Hood DD-656 Von Valkenburgh DD-657 Charles J. Badger DD-658 Colahan DD-659 Colahan DD-660 Bullard DD-661 Kidd DD-662 Bennion DD-663 Heywood L. Edwards DD-664 Richard P. Leary DD-665 Bryant DD-666 Black DD-667 Chauncey DD-668 Clarence K. Bronson DD-669 Cotten |
DD-670 Dortch DD-671 Gatling DD-672 Healy DD-673 Halcox DD-674 Hunt DD-675 Lewis Hancock DD-676 Marshall DD-677 McDermut DD-678 McGowan DD-679 McNair DD-680 Melvin DD-681 Hopewell DD-682 Porterfield DD-683 Stockham DD-684 Wedderburn DD-685 Picking DD-686 Halsey Powell DD-687 Uhlmann DD-688 Remey DD-689 Wadleigh DD-690 Norman Scott DD-691 Mertz DD-792 Callaghan DD-793 Cassin Young DD-794 Irwin DD-795 Preston DD-796 Benham DD-797 Cushing DD-798 Monssen DD-799 Jarvis DD-800 Porter DD-801 Calhoun DD-802 Gregory DD-803 Little DD-804 Rooks |
|
Stats |
Displacements: |
|
Armor |
Belt: No belt armor |
|
Armament and Equipment |
(As designed): (Strong, August 1942): (Bennet, July 1943): (Stanley, October 1944): (Isherwood, August 1945, after AAW1945): |
12/17/02 - RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, Texas (AFPN) -- To help deployed Air Force people stay in touch with their families, family support center workers here recently mailed off more than 40,000 AT&T Corp. phone calling cards as part of an annual Veterans of Foreign Wars Foundation program.
The 60-minute calling cards have also been sent to military members stationed overseas in Europe and the Pacific, Air Force Personnel Center officials here said. The phone cards were activated Dec. 10.
The VFW, now in its fourth year of sending the cards, teams up annually with the Air Force Aid Society to distribute the cards worldwide in what's known as "Operation Uplink."
"The folks from the VFW understand the needs of our deployed airmen. They've been there, and are now giving again," said Peggy Rayfield of the Air Force's Family Matters Operations here. "Thanks to help from Wal-Mart, Hallmark and Federal Express, the VFW will send out more than 160,000 cards this year."
The phone cards will be available for airmen through installation family support centers. Personnel units will distribute them at deployed locations.
Besides the phone cards, base family support centers provide e-mail, video phone connections, morale calls and outreach programs for spouses. Pre-deployment briefings and other information help families understand and plan for family stresses before, during and after deployments.
"The FSCs provide computers and assistance for family members for sending and receiving e-mail to help them keep in touch with their deployed spouse, father or mother," said Rayfield. "They also offer a variety of other programs and services to include video and digital cameras, stationery kits and brochures on all aspects of the separation process."
The Air Force Aid Society programs "Give Parents a Break" and "Car Care Because We Care," spouse support groups and reunion briefings help with the most difficult parts of the deployment process.
"Often the most neglected part of the deployment process is coming home," said Rayfield. "We have developed a number of tools to assist our families through the deployment.
"Besides helping them stay in touch during the separation, we want the deployed member to know that his/her family members will be taken care of during their deployment," she said.
"Knowing this helps them better serve their country." (Courtesy of AFPC News Service)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
