Combat and Crisis Experiences of Admiral James L. Holloway

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Combat and Crisis Experiences of Admiral James L. Holloway Combat and Crisis Experiences of Admiral James L. Holloway III Sam Cox, Director of Naval History, 2 December 2019 USS RINGGOLD (DD-500) After an accelerated graduation from the Naval Academy, Ensign Holloway’s first operational assignment was as Assistant Gunnery Officer in the commissioning crew of the new Fletcher-class destroyer USS RINGGOLD (DD-500,) reporting in December 1942. In the first months of 1943, RINGGOLD conducted sea trials and work-ups along the Atlantic coast and escort operations in the Caribbean until she transited the Panama Canal in July 1943 en route Pacific Fleet Operations. On 31 August/1 September 1943, RINGGOLD participated in the screen for the fast Carrier Task Force strikes by ESSEX (CV-9,) YORKTOWN (CV-10) and INDEPENDENCE (CVL-22) on Marcus Island, deep inside the Japanese outer defense perimeter, which was also the first combat action by the new F6F Hellcat fighter. Although LTJG Holloway detached shortly after the Marcus operation, RINGOLD maintained a reputation for excellence in gunnery accuracy, including (unfortunately) an accidental night attack (approved by RADM Hill) on the surfaced submarine USS NAUTILUS (SS-168,) on 19 Nov 1943, hitting the submarine at the base of the conning tower with a five-inch round on the first salvo, which fortunately failed to detonate, and the NAUTILUS was able to continue her mission. The next day RINGGOLD was then one of the first two destroyers to enter the lagoon at Tarawa where she was hit twice by Japanese shore battery rounds that didn’t detonate but holed the ship; as RINGGOLD fought the flooding she continued to bombard Japanese positions, providing the best fire-support to the Marines ashore on Tarawa on that bloody day. I include this because of the impact that the commissioning crew has on the future “personality” and combat capability of the ship, and RINGGOLD was one of the best. USS BENNION (DD-662) and the Battle of Surigao Strait In December 1943, LTJG Holloway reported as part of the commissioning crew for the new Fletcher- class destroyer, USS BENNION (DD-662,) this time as Gunnery Officer. From his battle station in the Mk-37 Director atop the bridge, Holloway controlled the ship’s five Five-inch gun mounts, her two quintuple banks of torpedo tubes and directed the 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft guns, as well as the ships fighter-direction team. After sea trials and workups in the Atlantic, BENNION deployed to the Pacific and participated in the invasion of Saipan and Tinian in June-July 1944 and the southern Palau Islands, including Peleliu in September 1944. At Peleliu, BENNION provided extensive close-in gunfire support to Marines ashore, emptying her magazine three times in one week. (On 1 July 1944, LTJG Holloway was promoted to Lieutenant.) In late October, BENNION provided fire support to U.S. Army troops who had gone ashore on Leyte on 20 October 1944. A Japanese shore battery returned fire and a near-miss on BENNION sprayed the ship with shrapnel, which narrowly missed LT Holloway, but severely wounded his Assistant Gunnery Officer, who lost an arm, and one of Holloway’s Petty Officers in the director. On 24 October, as BENNION was maneuvering with other SEVENTH Fleet units in preparation for the expected Japanese attempt to force their way into Leyte Gulf via Surigao Strait, the BENNION came under Japanese air attack. Holloway’s Five-inch guns shot down one Val dive-bomber and the 40mm’s knocked down a Japanese Zeke fighter- bomber close aboard. From his position in the Mk-37 director, LT Holloway could stick his head out the upper hatch and have an almost 360-degree view of the developing battle, and via the high-powered optics of the director, he had the best view of the enemy of anyone on the ship. As the Japanese force of two battleships (FUSO and YAMASHIRO,) one heavy cruiser (MOGAMI) and four destroyers commenced their penetration of Surigao Strait from the south, Holloway could track their progress as they came under multiple unsuccessful attacks by U.S. PT-boats after midnight on 24-25 October 1944. He could then see the devastating 1 torpedo attacks by two U.S. destroyer squadrons, which sank the FUSO and two Japanese destroyers and severely damaged a third destroyer. However, the situation rapidly became confused due to smoke, shore interference with radar, flash blindness and other factors. According to the plan, the nine destroyers of Destroyer Squadron 56, under the command of Captain Roland Smoot, would conduct the third torpedo attack, doing so in three sections of three; one section of destroyers proceeded down the east side of Surigao Strait, one section would attack head-on in the center or the strait, and the third section, which included BENNION, would attack down the west side of the strait. The idea was to catch the Japanese column in a simultaneous multi-directional attack so that no matter which way it turned it would expose itself to torpedoes. The multi-directional part of the plan worked, but the simultaneous part did not. BENNION was the last destroyer in the third section and would make the last attack and be exposed the longest to Japanese counter-fire, which Holloway could clearly see through his optics as the Japanese responded to the first two destroyer squadron attacks. In the confusion, RADM Jesse Oldendorf, thinking the Japanese had turned away, gave the order for Smoot’s Division to attack. Only after it was too late did Oldendorf learn that the remaining Japanese ships, battleship YAMASHIRO, heavy cruiser MOGAMI, and destroyer SHIGUR,E were still advancing at high speed and would be in effective range of the U.S. battleships and cruisers (which had crossed the Japanese “T” at the north end of the strait) before Smoot’s destroyers would be in range to launch effective torpedo attacks. With no time to wait, Oldendorf gave the order for the battleships and cruisers to open fire while Smoot’s destroyers were between the U.S. battle line and the Japanese column, a very dangerous place for the destroyers to be (and destroyer ALBERT W. GRANT (DD-649) paid the price, caught in the cross-fire and severely damaged by Japanese and mostly American shells.) As BENNION was commencing her attack run, Holloway could see hundreds of U.S. battleship shells and thousands of U.S. cruiser shells passing overhead, many impacting the Japanese ships, which nevertheless kept coming and shooting. BENNION and the other U.S. destroyers were under orders not to fire their guns until torpedoes were away (a lesson from previous battles) so as not to give away the torpedo attack or draw fire to themselves. However, under the circumstance this was pretty much moot. With the gunfire and starshells from both sides, the Japanese could see BENNION and the other destroyers and were blazing away with main and secondary armament and BENNION sailed through the splashes of numerous near-misses. At a range of about 6,000 yards, after the first two destroyers in the third section launched their torpedoes, Holloway fired five of BENNION’s ten torpedoes (the destroyers were under orders from Oldendorf to only fire half their load.) Holloway’s target was the “second battleship.” (However, by this time FUSO had already dropped out and sunk, and MOGAMI had closed up behind YAMASHIRO…to be fair MOGAMI was misidentified as a battleship in just about every sighting report in the war.) After the third section fired their torpedoes, YAMASHIRO turned, causing the torpedoes to miss (but catching one from Smoot’s flagship NEWCOMB (DD-586) from the other direction.) In the smoke, Holloway lost sight of the Japanese ships until YAMASHIRO appeared at a range of only 3,000 yards. Holloway recommended to the commanding officer, Commander Joshua Cooper, that they fire the last five torpedoes despite the orders, as a capital ship that close was too good a target to pass up. Cooper concurred and ordered the launch. One of those torpedoes is believed to have hit YAMASHIRO and may have been the nail in the coffin, as YAMASHIRO had already been hit by about four torpedoes and dozens of heavy and medium caliber shells, and she shortly after rolled over and sank with almost her entire crew. At dawn, BENNION and several other destroyers were ordered to pursue Japanese forces down the Surigao Strait to finish off any cripples. MOGAMI and SHIGURE had escaped and the only Japanese ship still afloat was the destroyer ASAGUMO, whose bow had been blown off by one of the first salvos of U.S. torpedoes. ASAGUMO had still valiantly tried to continue into the battle but the damage proved too severe and she was attempting to limp away, although with her torpedoes she was still potentially dangerous. 2 BENNION was ordered to finish off ASAGUMO. Holloway opened fire at 10,000 yards, hitting on the third salvo. At 6,000 yards, Holloway shifted to rapid continuous fire, and as BENNION closed to 2,000 yards, ASAGUMO sank with 191 of her crew (39 were rescued, an unusually high number.) Shortly after, a Japanese Zeke fighter-bomber dove out of the clouds with almost no warning. Holloway shifted fire to the Zeke, with a direct hit on the nose of the aircraft. LT Holloway detached from BENNION a couple weeks after the battle as he had orders to Flight School. The skipper of BENNION, CDR Joshua Cooper, was awarded a Navy Cross for his actions in the Battle of Surigao Strait. Holloway would be awarded a Bronze Star with Combat V for Surigao Strait and a Navy Commendation Medal with Combat V for previous actions during his tour on BENNION.
Recommended publications
  • United States Navy and World War I: 1914–1922
    Cover: During World War I, convoys carried almost two million men to Europe. In this 1920 oil painting “A Fast Convoy” by Burnell Poole, the destroyer USS Allen (DD-66) is shown escorting USS Leviathan (SP-1326). Throughout the course of the war, Leviathan transported more than 98,000 troops. Naval History and Heritage Command 1 United States Navy and World War I: 1914–1922 Frank A. Blazich Jr., PhD Naval History and Heritage Command Introduction This document is intended to provide readers with a chronological progression of the activities of the United States Navy and its involvement with World War I as an outside observer, active participant, and victor engaged in the war’s lingering effects in the postwar period. The document is not a comprehensive timeline of every action, policy decision, or ship movement. What is provided is a glimpse into how the 20th century’s first global conflict influenced the Navy and its evolution throughout the conflict and the immediate aftermath. The source base is predominately composed of the published records of the Navy and the primary materials gathered under the supervision of Captain Dudley Knox in the Historical Section in the Office of Naval Records and Library. A thorough chronology remains to be written on the Navy’s actions in regard to World War I. The nationality of all vessels, unless otherwise listed, is the United States. All errors and omissions are solely those of the author. Table of Contents 1914..................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • US Fleet Organization, 1939
    US Fleet Organization 1939 Battle Force US Fleet: USS California (BB-44)(Force Flagship) Battleships, Battle Force (San Pedro) USS West Virginia (BB-48)(flagship) Battleship Division 1: USS Arizona (BB-39)(flag) USS Nevada (BB-36) USS Pennsylvania (BB-38)(Fl. Flag) Air Unit - Observation Sqn 1-9 VOS Battleship Division 2: USS Tennessee (BB-43)(flag) USS Oklahoma (BB-37) USS California (BB-44)(Force flagship) Air Unit - Observation Sqn 2-9 VOS Battleship Division 3: USS Idaho (BB-42)(flag) USS Mississippi (BB-41) USS New Mexico (BB-40) Air Unit - Observation Sqn 3-9 VOS Battleship Division 4: USS West Virginia (BB-48)(flag) USS Colorado (BB-45) USS Maryland (BB-46) Air Unit - Observation Sqn 4-9 VOS Cruisers, Battle Force: (San Diego) USS Honolulu (CL-48)(flagship) Cruiser Division 2: USS Trenton (CL-11)(flag) USS Memphis (CL-13) Air Unit - Cruiser Squadron 2-4 VSO Cruiser Division 3: USS Detroit (CL-8)(flag) USS Cincinnati (CL-6) USS Milwaukee (CL-5) Air Unit - Cruiser Squadron 3-6 VSO Cruise Division 8: USS Philadelphia (CL-41)(flag) USS Brooklyn (CL-40) USS Savannah (CL-42) USS Nashville (CL-43) Air Unit - Cruiser Squadron 8-16 VSO Cruiser Division 9: USS Honolulu (CL-48)(flag) USS Phoneix (CL-46) USS Boise (CL-47) USS St. Louis (CL-49)(when commissioned Air Unit - Cruiser Squadron 8-16 VSO 1 Destroyers, Battle Force (San Diego) USS Concord (CL-10) Ship Air Unit 2 VSO Destroyer Flotilla 1: USS Raleigh (CL-7)(flag) Ship Air Unit 2 VSO USS Dobbin (AD-3)(destroyer tender) (served 1st & 3rd Squadrons) USS Whitney (AD-4)(destroyer tender)
    [Show full text]
  • F9f Panther Units of the Korean War
    0413&:$0.#"5"*3$3"'5t F9F PANTHER UNITS OF THE KOREAN WAR Warren Thompson © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com SERIES EDITOR: TONY HOLMES OSPREY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 103 F9F PANTHER UNITS OF THE KOREAN WAR WARREN THOMPSON © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE US NAVY PANTHERS STRIKE EARLY 6 CHAPTER TWO THE WAR DRAGS ON 18 CHAPTER THREE MORE MISSIONS AND MORE MiGS 50 CHAPTER FOUR INTERDICTION, RESCAP, CAS AND MORE MiGS 60 CHAPTER FIVE MARINE PANTHERS ENTER THE WAR 72 APPENDICES 87 COLOUR PLATES COMMENTARY 89 INDEX 95 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com US NAVY PANTHERS CHAPTER ONE STRIKE EARLY he United States’ brief period of post-World War 2 peace T and economic recovery was abruptly shattered on the morning of 25 June 1950 when troops from the communist state of North Korea crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded their neighbour to the south. American military power in the Far East had by then been reduced to a token force that was ill equipped to oppose the Soviet-backed North Korean military. The United States Air Force (USAF), which had been in the process of moving to an all-jet force in the region, responded immediately with what it had in Japan and Okinawa. The biggest problem for the USAF, however, was that its F-80 Shooting Star fighter-bombers lacked the range to hit North Korean targets, and their loiter time over enemy columns already in South Korea was severely restricted. This pointed to the need for the US Navy to bolster American air power in the region by deploying its aircraft carriers to the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Not for Publication Until Released by the House Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL LUKE M. McCOLLUM, U.S. NAVY CHIEF OF NAVY RESERVE BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2021 NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE March 3, 2020 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4 NAVY RESERVE FORCE ................................................................................................................................... 5 Commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command (CNRFC) ........................................................................... 5 Commander, Naval Air Forces Reserve (CNAFR) ...................................................................................... 5 Commander, Naval Information Force Reserve (CNIFR) .......................................................................... 6 Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) ........................................................................................ 7 PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Civilian Skills .............................................................................................................................................. 7
    [Show full text]
  • US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes
    US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes BRAD ELWARD ILLUSTRATED BY PAUL WRIGHT © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com NEW VANGUARD 211 US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes BRAD ELWARD ILLUSTRATED BY PAUL WRIGHT © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 ORIGINS OF THE CARRIER AND THE SUPERCARRIER 5 t World War II Carriers t Post-World War II Carrier Developments t United States (CVA-58) THE FORRESTAL CLASS 11 FORRESTAL AS BUILT 14 t Carrier Structures t The Flight Deck and Hangar Bay t Launch and Recovery Operations t Stores t Defensive Systems t Electronic Systems and Radar t Propulsion THE FORRESTAL CARRIERS 20 t USS Forrestal (CVA-59) t USS Saratoga (CVA-60) t USS Ranger (CVA-61) t USS Independence (CVA-62) THE KITTY HAWK CLASS 26 t Major Differences from the Forrestal Class t Defensive Armament t Dimensions and Displacement t Propulsion t Electronics and Radars t USS America, CVA-66 – Improved Kitty Hawk t USS John F. Kennedy, CVA-67 – A Singular Class THE KITTY HAWK AND JOHN F. KENNEDY CARRIERS 34 t USS Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) t USS Constellation (CVA-64) t USS America (CVA-66) t USS John F. Kennedy (CVA-67) THE ENTERPRISE CLASS 40 t Propulsion t Stores t Flight Deck and Island t Defensive Armament t USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) BIBLIOGRAPHY 47 INDEX 48 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS FORRESTAL, KITTY HAWK AND ENTERPRISE CLASSES INTRODUCTION The Forrestal-class aircraft carriers were the world’s first true supercarriers and served in the United States Navy for the majority of America’s Cold War with the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Adobe PDF File
    BOOK REVIEWS Frank Broeze (ed.). Maritime History at the more importantly for the future of maritime Crossroads: A Critical Review of Recent Histori• history (and its funding), this literature has made ography. "Research in Maritime History," No. 9; little impact on main stream historiography. Not St. John's, NF: International Maritime Economic only in The Netherlands or in Denmark but History Association, 1995. xxi + 294 pp. US $15 virtually everywhere (with the possible exception (free to members of the IMEHA), paper; ISBN 0- of Great Britain), maritime history is on the 9695885-8-5. periphery of historical scholarship. Of all the national historiographies surveyed This collection of thirteen essays sets out to pro• in this volume, perhaps Canada's has had the most vide a review of the recent literature in maritime spectacular growth in the last twenty years. Most history. The inspiration for the compendium grew of this work has been as a result of the research out of the "New Directions in Maritime History" done by the Atlantic Canada Shipping Project at conference held at Fremantle, Western Australia Memorial University in St. John's. Canadian in 1993. Included in the collection are historio• maritime history scarcely existed before the graphies for eleven countries (or portions there• advent of the project. But while the nineteenth- of): Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Ger• century shipping of Atlantic Canada has been many, Greece, India, The Netherlands, the Otto• analyzed, much remains to be done. Work has man Empire, Spain, and the United States. One only begun on twentieth century topics (naval essay deals with South America, another concerns history excepted).
    [Show full text]
  • Japanese Heavy Cruiser Takao, 1937-1946 Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    JAPANESE HEAVY CRUISER TAKAO, 1937-1946 PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Janusz Skulski | 92 pages | 19 Apr 2014 | Kagero Oficyna Wydawnicza | 9788362878901 | English | Lublin, Poland Japanese Heavy Cruiser Takao, 1937-1946 PDF Book Heavy Cruiser Aoba. The Japanese had probably the best cruisers of the early Pacific War era. Japanese 8 in Takao class heavy cruiser Chokai in Related sponsored items Feedback on our suggestions - Related sponsored items. Articles Most Read Fokker D. However, Kirishima was quickly disabled by Washington and sank a few hours later. Ibuki — similar to Mogami. The action took place at night of October Another round of modernization began after the battle of the Philippine Sea in June Items On Sale. Japanese Battleships — Once again, the nightfighting skills of the Japanese wreaked havoc with the American ships when they confronted one another in Iron Bottom Sound off the northeast coast of Guadalcanal. Admiral Graf Spee. As the flagship of Vice Admiral Mikawa Gunichi, she played a central role in the Japanese victory at Savo Island, although she also received the most damage of any Japanese ship present — American cruisers achieved several hits, killing 34 crewmen. Takao was so badly damaged that it was considered impossible to send her back to Japan any time soon for full repairs. Japanese Heavy Cruiser Takao — Name required. The Japanese Aircraft Carrier Taiho. Enabling JavaScript in your browser will allow you to experience all the features of our site. Propulsion was by 12 Kampon boilers driving four sets of single-impulse geared turbine engines, with four shafts turning three-bladed propellers. Heavy Cruiser Aoba.
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Battle
    NAVAL WAR COLLEGE NEWPORT PAPERS 16 The Third Battle Innovation in the U.S. Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines N ES AV T A A L T W S A D R E C T I O N L L U E E G H E T R I VI IBU OR A S CT MARI VI Owen R. Cote, Jr. Associate Director, MIT Security Studies Program The Third Battle Innovation in the U.S. Navy’s Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines Owen R. Cote, Jr. Associate Director, MIT Security Studies Program NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, Rhode Island Naval War College The Newport Papers are extended research projects that the Newport, Rhode Island Editor, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the Center for Naval Warfare Studies President of the Naval War College consider of particular Newport Paper Number Sixteen interest to policy makers, scholars, and analysts. Candidates 2003 for publication are considered by an editorial board under the auspices of the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies. President, Naval War College Rear Admiral Rodney P. Rempt, U.S. Navy Published papers are those approved by the Editor of the Press, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the President Provost, Naval War College Professor James F. Giblin of the Naval War College. Dean of Naval Warfare Studies The views expressed in The Newport Papers are those of the Professor Alberto R. Coll authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy. Naval War College Press Editor: Professor Catherine McArdle Kelleher Correspondence concerning The Newport Papers may be Managing Editor: Pelham G.
    [Show full text]
  • Airpower in Three Wars
    AIRPOWER IN THREE WARS GENERAL WILLIAM W. MOMYER USAF, RET. Reprint Edition EDITORS: MANAGING EDITOR - LT COL A. J. C. LAVALLE, MS TEXTUAL EDITOR - MAJOR JAMES C. GASTON, PHD ILLUSTRATED BY: LT COL A. J. C. LAVALLE Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama April 2003 Air University Library Cataloging Data Momyer, William W. Airpower in three wars / William W. Momyer ; managing editor, A. J. C. Lavalle ; textual editor, James C. Gaston ; illustrated by A. J. C. Lavalle–– Reprinted. p. ; cm. With a new preface. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-58566-116-3 1. Airpower. 2. World War, 1939–1945––Aerial operations. 3. Korean War. 1950–1953––Aerial operations. 4. Vietnamese Conflict, 1961–1975––Aerial oper- ations. 5. Momyer, William W. 6. Aeronautics, Military––United States. I. Title. II. Lavalle, A. J. C. (Arthur J. C.), 1940– III. Gaston, James C. 358.4/009/04––dc21 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release. Air University Press 131 West Shumacher Avenue Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6615 http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil ii TO . all those brave airmen who fought their battles in the skies for command of the air in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PREFACE 2003 When I received the request to update my 1978 foreword to this book, I thought it might be useful to give my perspective of some aspects on the employment of airpower in the Persian Gulf War, the Air War over Serbia (Operation Allied Force), and the war in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom).
    [Show full text]
  • US Ships in Commission, Under Construction, and in Mothballs 1 September 1939
    US Ships in Commission, Under Construction, and in Mothballs 1 September 1939 Ships in commission (Total 339 ships) Battleships USS Arizona (BB-39) USS Arkansas (BB-33) USS California (BB-44) USS Colorado (BB-45) USS Idaho (BB-42) USS Maryland (BB-46) USS Mississippi (BB-41) USS Nevada (BB-36) USS New Mexico (BB-40, ex-California) USS New York (BB-34) USS Oklahoma (BB-37) USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) USS Tennessee (BB-43) USS Texas (BB-35) USS West Virginia (BB-48) Aircraft Carriers USS Enterprise (CV-6) USS Lexington (CV-2, ex CC-1, ex Constitution) USS Ranger (CV-4) USS Saratoga (CV-3, ex CC-3) USS Yorktown (CV-5) Heavy Cruisers USS Astoria (CA-34, ex CL-34) USS Augusta (CA-31, ex CL-31) USS Chester (CA-27, ex CL-27) USS Chicago (CA-29, ex CL-29) USS Houston (CA-30, ex CL-30) USS Indianapolis) (CA-35, ex CL-35) USS Lousiville (CA-28, ex CL-28) USS Minneapolis (CA-36, ex CL-36) USS New Orleans (CA-32, ex CL-32) USS Northampton (CA-26, ex CL-26) USS Pensacola (CA-24, ex CL-24) USS Portland (CA-33, ex CL-33) USS Quincy (CA-39, ex CL-39) USS Salt Lake City (CA-25, ex CL-25) USS San Francisco (CA-38, ex CL-38) USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37, ex CL-37) USS Vincennes (CA-44, CL-44) USS Wichita (CA-45) Light Cruisers USS Boise (CL-47) USS Brooklyn (CL-40) USS Cincinnati (CL-6, ex CS-6) USS Concord (CL-10, ex CS-10) USS Detroit (CL-8, ex CS-8) USS Honolulu (CL-48) USS Marblehead (CL-12, ex CS-12) 1 USS Memphis (CL-13, ex CS-13) USS Milwaukee (CL-5, ex CS-5) USS Nashville (CL-43) USS Omaha (CL-4, ex CS-4) USS Philadelphia (CL-41) USS Phoenix (CL-46) USS Raleigh (CL-7, ex CS-7) USS Richmond (CL-9, ex CS-9) USS St.
    [Show full text]
  • Index to the Oral History of Rear Admiral Ernest M. Eller, U.S. Navy (Retired)
    Index to the Oral History of Rear Admiral Ernest M. Eller, U.S. Navy (Retired) Abelson, Dr. Philip H. Work in the late 1940s in developing nuclear power for the U.S. Navy, 841, 1099- 1100 Air Force, U.S. Was an opponent of the Navy in defense unification in 1949, 853-864 Albany, USS (CA-123) Midshipman training cruise to Europe in the summer of 1951, 983-995 Deployment to the Sixth Fleet in 1951 and return home, 995-1008 Recovery of pilots from the aircraft carrier Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVB-42) in 1951, 995 In 1952 participated in cold-weather operational tests near Greenland, 1008-1014 Ship handling, 1005, 1012, 1015-1016 Training of officers and crew in 1951-52, 1014-1016 Relationship with the city of Albany, New York, 1016-1017 Albion, Dr. Robert G. Harvard professor who served from 1943 to 1950 as Assistant Director of Naval History, 1055, 1089-1090 Algeria Algiers visited by the heavy cruiser Albany (CA-123) in 1951, 1005-1006 Allard, Dr. Dean C. In the 1960s and 1970s headed the operational archives section of the Naval History Division/Naval Historical Center, 903, 1060-1061, 1070, 1101, 1111 American Ordnance Association An outgrowth of the Army Ordnance Association, it embraced the Navy shortly after World War II, 843 Anderson, Eugenie Served 1949-53 as U.S. Ambassador to Denmark, 989 Antarctica In the late 1950s Rear Admiral Richard Byrd’s family donated his Antarctica material to the Naval History Division, 1084 Antiair Warfare The training ship Utah (AG-16) participated in a war game against the Army Air Corps in 1937, 864-865 1 Antiaircraft practice by heavy cruiser Albany (CA-123) in the summer of 1951, 983, 988, 991-992 ARAMCO (Arabian American Oil Company) Role in Saudi Arabia in the early 1950s, 888, 900, 905, 931, 933-938, 944-947, 959, 962 Army Air Corps, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Captain John Denison, D.S.O., R.N. Oct
    No. Service: Rank: Names & Service Information: Supporting Information: 27. 1st 6th Captain John Denison, D.S.O., R.N. Oct. Oct. B. 25 May 1853, Rusholine, Toronto, 7th child; 5th Son of George Taylor Denison (B. 1904 1906. Ontario, Canada. – D. 9 Mar 1939, 17 Jul 1816, Toronto, Ontario, Canada -D. 30 Mason Toronto, York, Ontario, Canada. B. May 1873, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) [Lawyer, 1 Oct 1904 North York, York County, Ontario, Colonel, General, later minister of Church) and Canada. (aged 85 years). Mary Anne Dewson (B. 24 May 1817, Enniscorthy, Ireland -D. 1900, Toronto, 1861 Census for Saint Patrick's Ontario, Canada). Married 11 Dec 1838 at St Ward, Canada West, Toronto, shows James Church. Toronto, Canada John Denison living with Denison family aged 9. Canada Issue: West>Toronto. In all they had 11 children; 8 males (sons) and 3 It is surmised that John Denison females (daughters). actually joined the Royal Navy in 18 Jul 1878 – John Denison married Florence Canada. Ledgard, B. 12 May 1857, Chapel town, 14 May 1867-18 Dec 1868 John Yorkshire, -D. 1936, Hampshire, England. Denison, aged 14 years, attached to daughter of William Ledgard (1813-1876) H.M.S. “Britannia” as a Naval Cadet. [merchant] and Catherina Brooke (1816-1886) “Britannia” was a wooden screw st at Roundhay, St John, Yorkshire, England. Three decker 1 rate ship, converted to screw whilst still on her stocks. Issue: (5 children, 3 males and 2 females). Constructed and launched from 1. John Everard Denison (B. 20 Apr 1879, Portsmouth Dockyard on 25 Jan Toronto, Ontario, Canada - D.
    [Show full text]