• December 10, 2018, 21:35:28 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Da Nang  (Read 146263 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline brucerobbins

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #73 on: February 01, 2011, 10:32:51 AM »
Does anyone remember when the Captain and Exo spotted a barrel with bright orange stripes floating in Tonkin Gulf in the summer of 1965 and decided to practice some small arm target practice? After the barrel was punctured several time an odorous fluid came out of the barrel and they decided it was Napalm an decided to leave the area at flank speed. I believe the contents were actually agent orange (which was unknown to us at the time) and the odor that filled the lower decks of the ship exposed many of us to the chemical, Several aircraft carriers (e.g. The Coral Sea) ferried these mostly leaky barrels from the states. I am trying to find witnesses that remember this incident as I have high BP and have had kidney cancer (the first in my family) and highly suspect this was a direct cause, but the VA will probably deny it anyway because we did not have "boots on the ground" in Nam. Please contact me if you remember this incident at brucerobbins1@aol.com

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #72 on: January 27, 2011, 18:15:07 PM »
Why does the VA always put conditions on exposure to herbsides for instance ships who serve in close coastal waters AND also have smaller ships who had personnel go on shore? What about bigger ships who constantly escorted smaller ships that carried dixon's and other chemicals out of Danang Harbor, they certainly water current!!! To me if any ship was in the harbor the ship would be constantly stirring and shifting water and the then the big ships would make drinking, showering, cooking water out of contaminated water and also pass it on to smaller ships. It's like when people don't cover their nose and sneeze and cough spreading germs. ONE VICIOUS CYCLE THAT KEEPS ON GIVING. SORRY SOUNDING Political

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #71 on: January 27, 2011, 17:03:19 PM »
In the Blue Water Navy why isn't there any mention past 1968, when in 1972 - 1973 of any ships in brown water? They didn't just close it down did they(Danang)? How do I find out about ships in the Philippines and AO presumption exposure?

Offline Mark D

  • Administrator
  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 100
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #70 on: January 27, 2011, 16:12:26 PM »
Territorial waters are defined as 12 nautical miles from the low water mark ashore, but that wasn't defined by the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea until 1982. Prior to that, the territorial waters boundary varied world wide. From the 18th century to the mid 20th century, the US, England, and France defined it as 3 nautical miles (the typical length of a cannon shot). Many nations changed this after WW II, but the 12 mile limit wasn't considered law until 1982.

Brown Water and Blue Water determinations are much more vague - Brown water can extend as much as 100 miles from shore, but there is no clear definition.

Wasting fuel has never really been a huge concern until recent years. speeding up and slowing down is usually a function of needing to be somewhere at a specific time or necessary maneuvering to maintain a specific distance.

Water currents are constantly varying. a ship may be "making turns" for 10 knots (how many revolutions the propellers need to do in waters with no current), but if you're heading into a 5 knot current, your actual speed will only be 5 knots.
FC1(SW), WF / CF Division, 1986 - 1990
USS King (DLG-10/DDG-41) Association Historian

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #69 on: January 27, 2011, 15:48:27 PM »
Found some new information on BLUE WATER NAVY . Some more ships have been added to the Presumption of Exposure (but of course the names AREN'T MENTION) just what qualifies them.
It's under Update section on 1/24/2011.

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #68 on: January 27, 2011, 14:46:11 PM »
Now that I think of it maybe rules of engagement isn't actually what I want to know. It's how far out to sea do you need to be  until it's considered international waters?

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #67 on: January 27, 2011, 14:24:11 PM »
Mark D and Fred W : what are the rules of engagement for during war being in international water vs. Vietnam water? I have been told some are 3 miles and 12 miles? How far does brown water go from inland area to sea water? Why does a ship speed up and then slow down?Isn't that a waste of fuel? I'm still trying to mentally take all the information and have it make sense.

Offline Mark D

  • Administrator
  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 100
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #66 on: January 25, 2011, 18:23:40 PM »
Deciphering that info can be a bit of a mess. This page might give you a better idea:

http://www.boatingbasicsonline.com/content/general/3_1.php

As for the distance, that was measured in yards. 2000 yards is almost exactly 1 nautical mile.

Here's a definition of swinging ship:

The process of determining the deviation of the ship's magnetic compass by placing a vessel or an aircraft on various headings and comparing magnetic compass readings with the corresponding but previously determined magnetic directions; this procedure usually follows compass adjustment or compass compensation, and is done to obtain information for making a deviation table; usually called swinging when referred to an aircraft compass. Also known as compass calibration.

As for the fleet operational employment schedule, that would likely be held by the Navy Department, possibly the Naval Historical Center. It wouldn't say where they were, but it would say what they were doing - a mission definition of sorts.

If you can give me the Long and Lat numbers, I can determine where that is. I should also be able to explain how to find it on Google Maps (it's actually pretty easy).
FC1(SW), WF / CF Division, 1986 - 1990
USS King (DLG-10/DDG-41) Association Historian

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #65 on: January 25, 2011, 16:39:00 PM »
Mark D do you need any of the paperwork on long. and att.? In the paperwork I received it states 00-04 Steaming in company with task unit 77.0.5 composed of USS king and USS Inflict (mso456), operating at sea, off the coast of North Vietnam in accordance with comseventh fleet operational employment schedule. Where would I write to get copies of Comseventh Fleet employment schedule? Would it state exactly where the ships were? Was does it mean abaft of the stbd beam and forward of the starboard quarter? Does it mean keeping a distance 3000 -5000 from  USS Inflict abaft the starboard beam and forward the starboard quarter ? What does swinging ship mean? Turning the ship. Are ships controlled by varying speeds and courses?

Offline Mark D

  • Administrator
  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 100
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #64 on: January 25, 2011, 16:13:32 PM »
Cross connecting the plant meant that #1 Fire Room (boilers) could supply steam to #1 and #2 Engine rooms instead of #1 Fire Room to #1 Engine Room only. Cross connection gave options to keep both engines running in the event of a fault (or required maintenance) in one of the Boiler Rooms that might prevent those boilers from working.

Each Boiler Room had 2 boilers (1A and 1B boilers and 2A and 2B boilers). These provided steam to the steam turbine engines in #1 Engine Room (starboard propeller shaft) and #2 Engine Room (port propeller shaft). It was not required to have all 4 boilers running at the same time. In fact (due to cross connecting) a single boiler could run both engines, although at a reduced speed. The steam from these boilers also ran the Ship Service Turbine Generators (SSTG) to provide electrical power to the ship.

I can see where the King would have provided fuel to the USS Inflict so that the USS Inflict would not have to venture far from her operating area for fuel. The USS Inflict was a small vessel (only 172' long compared to the King's 512') so she would not have required much fuel.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/11/02456.htm

The King would not have supplied ammunition to the USS Nitro, but received ammunition from the Nitro. The USS Nitro's soul purpose was to supply ammunition to combat vessels.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/05/0523.htm

Feel free to shoot any more questions out!

FC1(SW), WF / CF Division, 1986 - 1990
USS King (DLG-10/DDG-41) Association Historian

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #63 on: January 25, 2011, 15:50:58 PM »
FRED W and Mark D: Got some information from NARA on deck logs of USS King (dlg10) and USS Inflict (MSO 456). There was quite A bit of longitude and attitude, but of course I don't anything about that. I did find it interesting that the King did supply fuel for the USS Inflict and ammo for the USS Nitro. Can anyone please explain what "the plant is cross connected" means when the boilers were being talked about? I'm sure I'll have more questions when I re read the information but the reply also stated if I needed more information I can contact JSSRC at Telegraph Road, Kingman Building Room 2C08, Alexandria, Va. 22315. They also conduct research to claims reguarding AO,PTSD and other Veteran Service ( including medical conditions).

Offline fredw

  • Mid Watch
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #62 on: January 18, 2011, 22:54:05 PM »
They told me that it takes about ten business days. Then you have to add the weekend and federal holidays plus travel time. For me I am guessing about three weeks.
How come the liver is recognized in presumption diseases, but not the kidney's. I've been told it's because of filtering body fluids, but in my mind the kidneys would come first. I've written to IMO and they aren't even studying the kidney's and I would like to why?
Does anyone know how long it takes ARC to actually send mail ?  I received an email that they were sending the information I asked for.
Fred Wright

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #61 on: January 18, 2011, 19:18:22 PM »
How come the liver is recognized in presumption diseases, but not the kidney's. I've been told it's because of filtering body fluids, but in my mind the kidneys would come first. I've written to IMO and they aren't even studying the kidney's and I would like to why?
Does anyone know how long it takes ARC to actually send mail ?  I received an email that they were sending the information I asked for.

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #60 on: January 15, 2011, 16:51:39 PM »
In rereading Blue Water Navy Editorials and Opinions by Kelly Franklin it seems to me the problem is territorial sea, continental shelf, offshore, 17 parallel,who belongs to who( Land) and why wasn't it CALLED A WAR? Seems to me that we need to go back and redo some MAJOR CHANGES, to protect our military.

Offline grampron

  • OOD
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Da Nang
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2011, 14:16:07 PM »
Just found another site for information(tho it didn't help me) The National Association of Destroyer Veterans. ( Tin can Sailors)