"but, the plethora of fire control radars in and around Haiphong overwhelmed the four missiles that we had at the ready"
hmmm. as many have noted, Red Sea actions now point towards the same thing. Too many targets, not enough magazine. (and that's now. future looks bleak )
Reading about Rowan covering for Newport News reminded me of a conversation I had as a 3rd Class Mid in USS Somers (DDG-34). I was doing my rotation thru Ops Department and in a GQ drill one of the officers explained to me that our job in the event of incoming aircraft or missiles was to stand between the threat and the carrier. Sobering. And something that came to mind as Navigator in John Young (DD-973). We do what we do.
I just found a picture of the first USS Rowan (TB-8). Tin can, indeed! Built in Seattle by Moran Brothers, intended for the Spanish-American War. She was commission too late (1 April 1899), decommissioned 1 May 1899. Recommissioned 23 April 1908, finally decommissioned 28 October 1912.
.... gobsmackingly common case of institutional amnesia.
Is history still taught at the USNA? Where is the NHHC? Don't they have a museum in the Navy Yard to preserve the past and prevent amnesia? Why didn't CHINFO arrange for a naval historian to provide Miss O'Donnell with the necessary background to the conflict? Why didn't the admiral's PAO prevent him from making a ridiculous comment about the Red Sea being the biggest naval combat operation since WWII? I do realize that your foxhole is always the most important one in the world. However, these kinds of slips detract from the overall message.
The sad thing about the NHHC is that they want to be a university history department, where everyone on the staff can research and write about whatever interests them. If there is top-down direction of what they have to write, it sure doesn't result in anything that promotes the current and future interests of the Navy. The Navy in the Potato Famine? Enlisted Women in WWI? I'm sorry, nobody GAF about that, and you can't take that to Congress and say "this is why we need a Navy!"
What they should be doing, and what they have failed to do at least since the 1990s, is to use history to explain the value of the Navy to the public and to advocate for a larger Navy. The public does not really understand what the Navy does and does not understand that we are a "seapower nation". NHHC is partly to blame for this. The Director of the NHHC should have an "advocacy plan" that aligns with where the Navy is trying to go, and should be directing his staff to produce works that use historical examples to support this plan.
If Jerry Hendrix is reading this, perhaps he can explain why using the NHHC to do this is impossible...
I'd like to put in a request for a full-bore Friday on either the D-Day Cans, Satterlee etal, or the Taffy 3 DE's, assuming that neither has been covered. Oh and DD-139, USS Ward, with her comprehensive message, something like:
"Have spotted, engaged, shelled and depth charged unknown submarine operating in the exclusion zone..."
Nice article. I'd never heard of Shrike on Board, so I went looking. Couldn't find much, but I did find mention in an NWC pub, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA238425.pdf. Redeye, Stinger's daddy, was also interesting. I wouldn't have guessed it would have been deployed on a DD in a Vietnamese harbor at night. Great stuff.
The Long Beach had MARDET with Stingers way up on the open bridge when we cruised into the gulf to engage bad guys in Cessna's should they venture out to attempt harm. MANPADs were still "a thing" at that time.
A great piece of writing. The professionalism and valor of the crews is keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Navy. The humble opinion of an old hermit.
Man that is a great story. I recall the sounds if my frigate during operations and the description of the blowers changing tone as the ship increased speed reminds me of the smell and the sensation. I recall having to keep our helo doors cracked open when firing the 5 inch to prevent the back blast from cracking the windscreen. Good times.
Excelent writing, thank the authors. Seems like a forgotten era, to be honest, but so close in time!
Ken Burns expertise lacks a naval and air domain. He's a bit land locked.
Our Twin Cities (MN-USA) Public Broadcasting Service (PBS-TV) augmented their Ken Burns Viet Nam Era Special with yarns from military veterans in the Upper Midwest. So, I recycled a 2003 USNI Proceedings submission for the “Nobody Asked Me, But ...” column: https://www.mnvietnam.org/story/master-chief-hassle-eliminator-mche-lesdership-lessons/index.html
Sporty night!
Shrikes and Redeyes on a DD? Didn't know we did that, but damn good idea
Excellent! I was watertight and airtight as I read this!
"but, the plethora of fire control radars in and around Haiphong overwhelmed the four missiles that we had at the ready"
hmmm. as many have noted, Red Sea actions now point towards the same thing. Too many targets, not enough magazine. (and that's now. future looks bleak )
We have a desperate need to perfect at sea missle replenishment.
Reading about Rowan covering for Newport News reminded me of a conversation I had as a 3rd Class Mid in USS Somers (DDG-34). I was doing my rotation thru Ops Department and in a GQ drill one of the officers explained to me that our job in the event of incoming aircraft or missiles was to stand between the threat and the carrier. Sobering. And something that came to mind as Navigator in John Young (DD-973). We do what we do.
I just found a picture of the first USS Rowan (TB-8). Tin can, indeed! Built in Seattle by Moran Brothers, intended for the Spanish-American War. She was commission too late (1 April 1899), decommissioned 1 May 1899. Recommissioned 23 April 1908, finally decommissioned 28 October 1912.
Tin can porn at its finest!
Have to do a series on what live fire the Spru-can Navy did sometime!
At the cost of sounding a bit pedantic--but precise: the boat "heeled" instead of "healed". Thank you for the great writeup, CDR!
.... gobsmackingly common case of institutional amnesia.
Is history still taught at the USNA? Where is the NHHC? Don't they have a museum in the Navy Yard to preserve the past and prevent amnesia? Why didn't CHINFO arrange for a naval historian to provide Miss O'Donnell with the necessary background to the conflict? Why didn't the admiral's PAO prevent him from making a ridiculous comment about the Red Sea being the biggest naval combat operation since WWII? I do realize that your foxhole is always the most important one in the world. However, these kinds of slips detract from the overall message.
NHHC headed downhill around the time the second "H" got added...
There was an investigation of the then NHC over some improprieties, but I don't know the full story.
A family friend was a Deputy Director of NHC back in the 70's... After an extended TAD period in Hanoi...
http://veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.php?recordID=954
I remember he managed to keep his sense of humor through that ordeal.
He was the Executive Director of the Naval Historical Foundation after he retired.
The sad thing about the NHHC is that they want to be a university history department, where everyone on the staff can research and write about whatever interests them. If there is top-down direction of what they have to write, it sure doesn't result in anything that promotes the current and future interests of the Navy. The Navy in the Potato Famine? Enlisted Women in WWI? I'm sorry, nobody GAF about that, and you can't take that to Congress and say "this is why we need a Navy!"
What they should be doing, and what they have failed to do at least since the 1990s, is to use history to explain the value of the Navy to the public and to advocate for a larger Navy. The public does not really understand what the Navy does and does not understand that we are a "seapower nation". NHHC is partly to blame for this. The Director of the NHHC should have an "advocacy plan" that aligns with where the Navy is trying to go, and should be directing his staff to produce works that use historical examples to support this plan.
If Jerry Hendrix is reading this, perhaps he can explain why using the NHHC to do this is impossible...
Something is dreadfully wrong with the NHHC.
The description of battle action is superb, and certainly makes the point that the US Navy has been in action since WWII.
I'd like to put in a request for a full-bore Friday on either the D-Day Cans, Satterlee etal, or the Taffy 3 DE's, assuming that neither has been covered. Oh and DD-139, USS Ward, with her comprehensive message, something like:
"Have spotted, engaged, shelled and depth charged unknown submarine operating in the exclusion zone..."
Not much vagueness in that one
Nice article. I'd never heard of Shrike on Board, so I went looking. Couldn't find much, but I did find mention in an NWC pub, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA238425.pdf. Redeye, Stinger's daddy, was also interesting. I wouldn't have guessed it would have been deployed on a DD in a Vietnamese harbor at night. Great stuff.
The Long Beach had MARDET with Stingers way up on the open bridge when we cruised into the gulf to engage bad guys in Cessna's should they venture out to attempt harm. MANPADs were still "a thing" at that time.
Another nice write-up. Too bad we don't have another Hornfischer covering 1950-1991.
A great piece of writing. The professionalism and valor of the crews is keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Navy. The humble opinion of an old hermit.
Not only were Shrikes fired from the DD's, but the mammoth Talos was modified as an antiradiaton missile...
https://garlanddavis.net/2016/07/14/thefirst-talos-rgm-8hanti-radiation-missile-combat-firing/
Man that is a great story. I recall the sounds if my frigate during operations and the description of the blowers changing tone as the ship increased speed reminds me of the smell and the sensation. I recall having to keep our helo doors cracked open when firing the 5 inch to prevent the back blast from cracking the windscreen. Good times.
I wish I served in Rowan.