Talk:Cimarron-class oiler (1939)

T2?
I'm not about to change anything, but I was on the Waccamaw when various ships with T2 hulls broke in half and sunk in the Atlantic in the late 50s. Knowledgeable shipmates cheerfully volunteered that the Waccamaw was a T2 hull! And no, I don't believe they were trying to pull anyone's leg! Chain, maybe, but not leg! :) Student7 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably should be a different section- but Wow, 35 in class, only 2 lost during the War!. Go read the Neosho's page- Japan carrier aviation went after her REAL heavy mid-identified here as a aircraft carrier- badly damaged her, and sank the sole escorting destroyer, when "rescued" 4 days later, personnel were evacuated and ship scuttled/sunk her instead of salvage. In contrast to the T2- these predominantly served in the warm watered Pacific, the T-2 hauled fuel across the Atlantic to England and Russia, cold water. What does that do to metal strength brittlemess and hull life? Wfoj2 (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Aviation Commanding Officers
I don't have a citation for the statement about naval aviators commanding oilers, but I know it was common practice while I was on active duty during the Vietnam war years. The generally accepted reason was to give the aviator some experience with handling a deep-draft ship before he was entrusted with one of the Navy's few carriers. It was generally accepted that only an experienced naval pilot could realize the fullest combat potential of an aircraft carrier; but pilots with that kind of flight experience generally had comparatively little experience with running a ship. So a pilot successfully completing a command tour of an aircraft squadron was offered a command tour of an oiler; and, if his oiler didn't run aground or collide with another ship while under his command, he was considered eligible for command of an aircraft carrier. The non-flying naval officers sometimes claimed it was necessary to assign a non-flying surface warfare commanding officer (CO) to the oiler after each prospective carrier CO to get the oiler "squared away" again with respect to normal shipboard routines. Thewellman (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I lack citation again b- I agree with statement from 1980s' to 1990's. I have never heard of the last sentence (non-flying naval officers sometimes claimed it was necessary to assign a non-flying surface warfare commanding officer (CO) to the oiler after each prospective carrier CO to get the oiler "squared away" again with respect to normal shipboard routines) in more modern times. Actually some ships are starting to do what the aviators do, When Commanding Officer transfers, Executive office becomes the CO, and get a new XO. Deep Draft- believe ships like AOE, AOR, unsure about AFS, Ae also qualified as deep draft ships. However since about 2000 the US Navy has no deep draft vessels with active duty crews that could serve this purpose now. -AOEs, AOs, T-AKEs are all civilian Manned by the Military Sealift Command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.39.188 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you have placed this "XO" becoming "CO" someplace in a higher level article about the Navy. Hadn't heard of this before. Student7 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Power plant of Cimarron class
This article is a mess. Fortunately, the links are to one of the best sources of information I have found.

The 30,400 shp quoted in the Wiki article for the class not only disagrees with almost every source I have read, it disagrees with the linked source. In specific:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/GSBO/GSBO-09.html

Note, the rated power is 13,500 shp for 18 knots, not 30,400 shp. According to the link it was 19+ knots at 16,000 shp. It was in fact 19.53 knots at trial, and even full emergency power was just 16,900 shp.

Dale LaRoy Splitstone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.67.187 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite right; I don't know how that got in there (it was hard enough for the Maritinme Commission to sell merchant lines on paying for 13k hp, double what they actually needed! Maybe a confusion with the 1980s Cimarrons?


 * Note that what the Navy wanted was a reliable 16.5 knots at full load with foul bottom and un-descaled boilers, i.e. actual service conditions, so they specified a power plant 25% in excess of that required to achieve 16.5 under trials conditions. The design came out better than intended, almost all ships exceeding 19 on trial.

Solicitr (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)