Allegheny-ATA-179 - History

Allegheny-ATA-179 - History

Allegheny

III

(ATA-179: dp. 800 (f.), 1. 143'0"; b. 33'0"; dr. 14' (max.);
cpl. 48; a. 1 3", 2 20mm.; cl. ATA-121)

The unnamed single-screw ocean-going tug ATA-179 (originally projected as the rescue tug, ATR-106) was Iaid down on 22 May 1944 at Orange, Tex., by the Levingston Shipbuilding Co.
Launched on 30 June 1944; and commissioned on 22 September 1944, Lt. (jg.) Thomas C. McLaren, USNR, in command.

After fitting out, ATA-179 conducted shakedown training out of Galveston, Tex. before undergoing post-shakedown availabil- at that port untie 24 October. Two days later, the tug departed Galveston for Tampa, Fla., with a covered lighter, YF-614, in tow, and reached her destination on the 28th. Taking the barracks ship APL-l 19 in tow, the tug sailed for the Panama Canal Zone on 4 November 1944, reaching her destination with her two tows on the 13th. Transiting the Panama Canal three days later she sailed for Bora Bora in the Society Islands, on 30 November 1944, and reached her destination on 22 December. On the day after Christmas, ATA-179 got underway for Finschhafen, New Guinea, towing YF-614. She then towed the lighter to Hollandia New Guinea, arriving on 12 January 1945, before proceeding on to Leyte with APL-l9 and YF-614 in tow, arriving there on 5 February 1945.

Assigned to Service Sauadron Three Service Force, Seventh Fleet, ATA-179 cleared Leyte on 18 February 1945 for the Carolines and reached Ulithi the following day. There, she took two floating workshops, YRD(H) - and YRD(M)-6, in tow and departed Ulithi on 24 February for the Philippines. Proceeding via Kossol Roads, in the Palaus, ATA-179 arrived at Leyte on 12 March 1945 and delivered her tows. Departing San Pedro Bav on 24 March, the tug reached Cebu on the 26th and picked up LCT-1296, towing her to Leyte

Proceeding thence to Hollandia, New Guinea, having left the tank craft at Leyte, ATA-179 picked up the tow of a dredge and four pontoon barges on 18 April and delivered them to Leyte on 1 May 1945. Returning to Hollandia, the tug then picked up four ammunition barges and towed them to Leyte as well reaching the Philippines on 7 June. ATA-179 proceeded thence to Espiritu Santo in the New Hebrides, reaching that port on 26 June 1945. On iJuly, the tug cleared the New Hebrides with Section B of the advanced base sectional dock, ABSD-1, and the open lighter, YC-324, and headed for the Philippines. Proceeding via Hollandia, the tug and her two charges reached their destination on 2 August 1945.

Departing Leyte on 7 August, ATA-179 sailed for the Padaido Islands, and there took David B. Henderson in tow on 12 August. She proceeded thence to Biak, New Guinea, and arrived on the following day. During the week that followed, ATA-179 towed a 400-ton pontoon drydock to Morotai and the covered lighter

YF-621, to Leyte. Proceeding thence to Morotai, the tug towed a 400-ton floatmg drydock and the motor minesweeper YMS-47 to Samar, and a 100-ton pontoon drydock from there to Subic Bay. For the balance of October 1945, the tug operated in the Phillippine Islands between Samar and Leyte. She towed seven pontoon barges from Samar to Subic Bay (24 to 28 October) and spent the remainder of 1945 and the first few months of the following year, 1946, based at Leyte.

ATA-179 departed Leyte on 30 March 1946. She reached Manus, in the Admiralties, on 6 April and departed there eight days later with a section of ABSD-4 in tow. Touching briefly at Eniwetok and Johnston Island en route, the tug reached Pearl Harbor on 24 May and proceeded thence to the west coast of the United States soon thereafter, towing AFD-2 to San Pedro. She then took LCS -66 6 to San Diego and arrived there on 12 September. Moving to San Pedro the same day, ATA-179 took APL-43 in tow and sailed for the Canal Zone on 12 October. She reached her destination on the 18th, and departed 11 days later bound for Jacksonville with APL-43 and APL 34 in her wake to deliver her tows to the Florida group of the reserve fleet. With new orders to deliver the barracks ships elsewhere, however, for preservation work, ATA-179 proceeded to Charleston, S.C., which she reached on 8 November 1946.

Over the next several months, ATA-179 participated in the demobilization process of many fleet units assigned temporarily to the Commandant, 8th Naval District, and performed tug and tow operations on the Gulf and Florida coasts ranging from Key West and Mayport to New Orleans, Mobile, and Galveston until

she herself was inactivated and placed out of commission, in reserve, at Orange, Tex., on 10 October 1947. On 16 July 1948, she was named Allegheny (ATA-179).

She was recommissioned on 25 July 1949. Alleaheny then sailed for the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, arriving on 8 August. She remained there until 26 September, when she sailed for New York. Departing New York on 1 October, Alleaheny sailed for the Mediterranean, in company with Stallion( (ATA-193) and the survey ship Maury (AGS-16), reaching Gibraltar on 13 October. Pushing on across the Mediterranean, the survey group put in at Naples, Italy, on the 19th, and at Argostolion, Greece, on the 21st. Sailing for Port Said, Egypt, that same day, the ships reached the northern terminus of the Suez Canal on 24 October and transited that waterway on the 25th, reaching Aden on the 30th.

Allepheny commenced her hydrographic work in that region soon thereafter. Over the next several weeks, she supported Maury as that ship operated in the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Oman, and the Persian Gulf conducting surveys of the uncharted waters of the Arabian coast. She touched at ports in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait Bahrain, and Pakistan. The survey ships transited the Suez Canal on 4 May. Allegheny rounded out the deployment with visits to Algiers and Gibraltar before she sailed for the United States, reaching Norfolk on 27 May. She moved to New York soon thereafter, and underwent postdeployment availability at the New York Naval Shipyard from 3 June to 8 September.

Allegheny conducted survey operations at Newport, R.I., following her overhaul at New York from 9 to 29 September. She then returned to the naval shipyard following that work, to prepare for another deployment to the Persian Gulf, and sailed for the Mediterranean on 6 October. Reaching Gibraltar on 19 October, Allegheny visited Golfe Juan from 22 to 25 October and touched briefly at Port Said from 30 to 31 October before transiting the Suez Canal and proceeding down the Red Sea. Reaching Bahrain on 11 November, she remained there until the 13th when she got underway for Ras Tanura, making port there later the same day. She spent the remainder of the year 1950 and the first three and one-half months of 1951 operating from that Saudi oil port, ultimately sailing for Suez on 18 April 1951. She wound up the deployment with calls at Port Said, Naples, Algiers, and Gibraltar before she got underway to return to the United States on 18 May.

Arriving at the New York Naval Shipyard on the last day of May 1951, Allegheny remained there through the summer and into September, leaving New York on 17 September for Hampton Roads. Reaching Norfolk the next day, she did not get underway again until 10 October when she sailed for her third deployment to the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern waters. She visited Athens from 30 October to 2 November, and onerated briefly in the Mediterranean before transiting the Suez Canal on 5 November. A port call at Aden on 10 November preceded her arrival at Bahrain on the 17th. As in the previous deployment, she conducted survey work in the Bahrain-Ras Tanura area into the following sprmg, winding up her work at the latter port on 12 April. Transiting the Suez Canal on 24 and 25 April 1952, Allegheny visited Naples and Monaco en route home, ultimately reaching Norfolk on 29 May 1952.

Shifting soon thereafter to the New York Naval Shipyard where she arrived on 14 June, Allegheny underwent a major conversion for her new role as research vessel. During the summer of 1952, all armament and towing accessories were removed and her towing winch rotated 90° and mod)fied to perform the functions of a heavy trawling winch. Various hydrographic and bathythermograph winches and booms were installed, as was sonar, dead reckoning, and various electronic equipment. Shipboard spaces were converted to a machine shop, motor generator, and photographic laboratory. A new deckhouse was constructed aft to house underwater sound and electronic equipment.

Assigned to the Commandant, 3d Naval District, for duty and based at the Naval Supply Center, Bayonne, N.J., Allegheny spent the next 17 years engaged in hydrographic and research functions through the Office of Naval Research, with various research teams from the Hudson Laboratories Bell Telephone Co., Woods Hole Institute, and Columbia University embarked as the mission required. Generally, her operations consisted of spending months from January through April in the BermudaCaribbean area, and the rest of the year in the Long IslandHudson Canyon region, off New York, and occasionally involved in operations off Cape Hatteras. Ports of call included St. Thomas, Virgin Islands; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Willemstadt, Curagao Miami and Port Everglades, Fla., and Bermuda. In the spring of 1963 she was assigned to Task Group 89.7 from 24 April to 15 May, an operational commitment occasioned by the disappear- of the nuclear submarine Thresher (SSN-593).

Highlighting the latter part of her long tour of research support work was a towing operation—something she had not been configured for in many, many years. Underway from Bayonne on 31 January 1967, Allegheny sailed for Bermuda, arriving on 3 February. No longer possessing a towing engine or fittings, the research vessel had to jury-rig a towing arrangement to the "Monster Buoy" (General Dynamics Buoy "Bravo"). Setting out for the west coast of the United States on 11 February, Allegheny and the "Monster Buoy" headed for the Pactfic. Touching briefly at Guantanamo Bay for provisions from 17 to 19 February, Allegheny and her charge transited the Panama Canal on 23 February, and set out for Acapuleo on the 25th. En route, the tug and her tow ran into 40-knot winds and 15-foot seas in the Gulf of Tehuantepee, but reached their destination on 4 March. Underway on the 7th, Allegheny delivered her tow one week later, on the 14th, having successfully completed a 32-day, 4,642-mile journey. Retracing her course, the tug returned to Bermuda on 16 April, via Acapulco, the Panama Canal, and Kingston, Jamaica.

Allegheny conducted oceanographic research missions off Bermuda with USNS Mission Capistrano (T-A0-112) from 22 April to 5 May before sailing for Bayonne. Further oceanographic work—off Port Everglades, Fla.—began in June, followed by a visit on 4 July to Washington D.C. That September, the ship was reassigned from commandant, 3d Naval District, to Service Squadron 8 on 1 July 1969, and conducted coring operations on the Continental Shelf, off the New York-New Jersey coast from 5 to 11 September. From 18 to 28 September, Allegheny conducted operations with Bang (SS-365) in the Gulf of Maine and Boston area and, from 9 to 20 November with Cutlass (SS-478), in the Virginia capes area, each time under the auspices of Commander, Operational Development Force.

Ultimately declared excess to the needs of the Navy, Allegheny was decommissioned and struec from the Naval Vessel Register on 14 December 1968. Towed to Philadelphia and the Inactive Ship Facility there, the ship was turned over to Northwestern Michigan College, Traverse City, Mich., for use as a training ship to prepare young men for merchant service on the Great Lakes. Berthed at the Great Lakes Maritime Academy, the ship served as a training vessel and floating laboratory for a little under a decade. On 27 Januarv 1978 "burdened by frozen spray flung on her superstructure by strong north winds," the ship rolled over at her Maritime Academy dock.


USS Undaunted (ATA-199)

The second USS Undaunted was laid down as rescue tug ATR-126 on 27 November 1943 at Port Arthur, Texas, by the Gulfport Boiler and Welding Works reclassified auxiliary ocean tug ATA-199 on 15 May 1944 launched on 22 August 1944 and commissioned on 20 October 1944, Lt. Guy S. Flanagan, Jr., USNR, in command.

Following shakedown out of Galveston, ATA-199 paused briefly at New Orleans on 18 November, then put to sea the same day to rendezvous with a convoy bound for the Panama Canal with sections of an advance base dock ABSD-5 in tow. ATA-199 acted as retriever tug for the convoy and, on the 22d, took over a tow from a tug which had broken down. Arriving at the Canal Zone on the 29th, she spent over two weeks as a member of Service Squadron 2, pulling various units through the locks. On the 21st, she departed the Canal Zone again acting as the retriever tug for a Philippine-bound convoy, steamed via the Marshall Islands and Caroline Islands, and arrived at Leyte on 24 February 1945.

She operated in Leyte Gulf until 23 March when she departed Pedro Bay towing fleet ocean tug Serrano (ATF-112). She arrived at Ulithi four days later and joined Service Squadron 10. In the months that followed she operated in the Philippines, Marianas, Carolines, Solomons, and Admiralties towing vessels that varied from lighters to wrecking derricks. In June and July, she towed pontoon barges from the Russell Islands to Okinawa then on the morning of 29 July, she departed Buckner Bay and headed for the west coast, with the battered destroyer, USS   Hugh W. Hadley   (DD-774) , in tow. During her homeward voyage—as she proceeded via Saipan, Eniwetok, and Pearl Harbor—Japan capitulated. The tug weathered a typhoon before reaching San Francisco on 26 September, at the end of a tow of nearly 7,000 miles.

Exactly one month later, she got underway again and returned to Pearl Harbor early in November. ATA-199 operated out of Oahu until 11 April 1946, when she departed Pearl Harbor, with a section of ABSD-7 in tow, and proceeded—via west coast ports and the Panama Canal—to Norfolk where she delivered her tow on 21 July. She remained there until 24 August when she set her course via Panama City, Florida, and, on 7 September, arrived at New Orleans. Operating from that base, she conducted tows between various gulf ports until 24 June 1947 when she arrived at Beaumont, Texas, for inactivation overhaul.

On 25 August 1947, she proceeded to Orange, Tex., where she was decommissioned the same day and assigned to the Texas Group, Atlantic Reserve Fleet. The tug was named Undaunted on 16 July 1948 and transferred to the custody of the Maritime Administration—although still owned by the Navy—in September 1961. By January 1963, her name was struck from the Navy list. She was later transferred to the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. She was then loaned as a training vessel to the US Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY and renamed the T/V Kings Pointer. In 1993 the Kings Pointer was sold to basic Towing of Escanaba, MI and was renamed the Krystal K. In 1998 the vessel was sold again to Pere Marquette Shipping of Ludington, MI for use as a push tug for their 400   ft (120   m) bulk barge Pere Marquette 41. The Krystal K was rebuilt as an articulated pusher tug and received a Hydraconn connection system and an elevated pilot house. Upon completion the tug was given her original name of Undaunted. The M/T Undaunted is still in service to this day on the Great Lakes.


Contents

Guavina sailed 6 April 1944, on her first offensive cruise. On 22 April she sank by gunfire two trawlers loaded with lumber and cargo and 3 days later torpedoed a large "maru". Her first big kill came 26 April when she sent torpedoes into two of the merchant ships in a seven-ship convoy. One of them, Noshiro Maru, sank almost immediately after three tremendous explosions. The second maru also exploded, although persistent depth charging prevented Guavina from staying around to observe the sinking.

After standing lifeguard duty off Wake Island during air strikes 21 May – 26 May, the submarine returned to Majuro Atoll 28 May. Her aggressive first patrol forecast even greater service for the nation.

On her second war patrol (20 June – 31 July) Guavina sailed from Majuro to Brisbane, Australia, sinking 1 ship and rescuing 12 downed aviators. At 13:24 on 3 July she picked up an obviously important ship with four escorts, and trailed her to get in attack position. Finally at 03:48 the next morning Guavina launched four torpedoes, three of which hit and set off a tremendous explosion. The sub spent the next 3 hours running silent and deep to avoid a total of 18 depth charges and 8 aerial bombs, surfacing at 06:43 to observe the wreckage of Tama Maru (3,052 tons). A total of 321 troops, two gunners and eleven crewmen were killed. While on lifeguard duty off Yap 2 July to 21 July, Guavina picked up a total of 12 downed B 24 airmen, and then headed for Brisbane via Seeadler Harbor, Admiralty Islands.

Guavina's third war patrol (16 August – 29 September) took her along the Philippine coast off Mindanao. On 31 August she opened fire on two small coastwise steamers, chasing them almost onto the beach before finally destroying them. Then, after a period of lifeguard duty, on 15 September Guavina sighted a large ship, later revealed to be a transport at anchor. Closing for the kill she loosed a salvo of three torpedoes. Only one hit, so she fired three more, scoring twice. Although the target was enveloped in fire and smoke, it still did not sink so Guavina administered the final fatal blow with a spread of two torpedoes which totally disintegrated the target.

Departing Brisbane 27 October, Guavina headed to the South China Sea for her fourth war patrol. A night surface attack 15 November netted her a large maru one torpedo hit caused a violent explosion, as the maru apparently was carrying aviation gasoline a second fish sent through the fiery waters finished her. Tanker Down Maru fell victim to Guavina 22 November, and a second tanker anchored nearby met the same fate the following day. During the final month she searched for additional victims. Then finding unfavorable attack conditions, she sailed for port, making Perth, Australia 27 December.

Working first with Pampanito and then with Becuna and Blenny, Guavina spent her fifth war patrol (23 January – 5 March 1945) again in the South China Sea. The value of the coordinated attack group was quickly proved as on 6 February Guavina was directed in for the kill by Pampanito and sank the 6,892-ton tanker Taigyo Maru. To avoid the subsequent depth charging, Guavina pulled the unusual maneuver of lying on the bottom near the stern of her recent victim.

She returned Pampanito's favor the following day by providing a diversion in the form of four flares from her "Buck Rogers" gun as her sister sub maneuvered for a successful shot. Guavina sank another tanker, the 8,673-ton Eiyo Maru, 20 February, and suffered one of the severest depth chargings of the war. With no room to run, she lay on the bottom at 130 feet (40 m) while Japanese escorts and planes dropped a total of 98 depth charges and bombs during the next 7 hours. Battered but undaunted, she sailed to Subic Bay in the Philippines, arriving 5 March for a badly needed refit.

On her sixth war patrol (21 March – 8 May) Guavina worked in coordination with Rock, Cobia, and Blenny in the South China Sea. A lack of targets resulted in her returning empty-handed, but she did rescue five B-25 crew members 28 March before returning to Pearl Harbor 8 May. With six successful war patrols behind her she proceeded to the West Coast for overhaul. She departed San Francisco for Pearl Harbor 6 August, but with the end of the war returned to the States. Guavina then put in at Mare Island and was placed in commission, in reserve, and Decommissioned 8 June 1946.

From March 1949, Guavina underwent extensive overhaul and modification under project SCB 39 for conversion to a submarine oiler at Mare Island, and was even equipped with a snorkel. Guavina recommissioned in the active fleet as SSO-362 1 February 1950 at Mare Island. After operations along the West Coast, she sailed to Norfolk via Balboa and San Juan 24 July to 25 August. Further operations out of Norfolk were followed by overhaul at Philadelphia and on 29 January 1951, Guavina reported to Key West, her new homeport.

Operating out of Key West, Guavina cruised to the Caribbean Sea and up the East Coast to Nova Scotia to test the concepts of fueling seaplanes and other submarines, although most of her work was in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. After overhaul at Philadelphia 18 April to 26 July 1952, Guavina was redesignated AGSS-362. Two more years of operations along the East Coast and in the Gulf were followed by a second extensive overhaul at Philadelphia. To aid refueling, Guavina gained a large, raised platform over the after torpedo room, which was soon dubbed the "flight deck".

And a flight deck it soon became as in January 1956 Guavina began testing the concept of mobile support of seaplanes from a submarine oiler. After an initial 2-week trial period, Guavina and a variety of seaplanes carried out refueling development for most of 1956. Sailing from Charleston 18 September, the submarine headed for the Mediterranean Sea. After her 2-month deployment there with the 6th Fleet and Patrol Squadron 56, Guavina returned to Key West 1 December, then put into Charleston for overhaul.

Emerging from overhaul 12 July 1957 with the new designation AOSS-362, Guavina resumed her established pattern of testing various applications of submarine oiler and seaplane refueling concepts, operating principally in the Caribbean. Ranging along the coast from New London to Bermuda, she also engaged in antisubmarine exercises and other peacetime training missions.

On February 16, 1958 Guavina was operating in the Bahamas and dropped anchor off the island of San Salvador. Overnight, high winds and heavy seas pushed her aground. Guavina spent several days stuck hard aground in the shallow sandy surf of San Salvador. She was eventually freed by the combined efforts of rescue and salvage vessels USS Petrel (ASR-14) and USS Escape (ARS-6) and the ocean tugs USS Shakori (ATF-162) and USS Allegheny (ATA-179) .

Guavina sailed into the Charleston Navy Yard 4 January 1959, and decommissioned there 27 March, going into reserve. She served as a training ship for reservists in the 5th Naval District at Baltimore, MD until struck from the Navy List 30 June 1967 and sunk as a target by Cubera (SS-347) , off Cape Henry, VA with a MK 16-1 warshot.

Guavina received five battle stars for World War II service.

  1. ^ abcdefg Friedman, Norman (1995). U.S. Submarines Through 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. pp. 285–304. ISBN1-55750-263-3 .
  2. ^ USCS Catalog Pg G-15, 1997
  3. ^ abcdefg
  4. Bauer, K. Jack Roberts, Stephen S. (1991). Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990: Major Combatants. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. 271–273. ISBN0-313-26202-0 .
  5. ^ abcde
  6. Bauer, K. Jack Roberts, Stephen S. (1991). Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775–1990: Major Combatants. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. 275–280. ISBN978-0-313-26202-9 .
  7. ^U.S. Submarines Through 1945 p. 261
  8. ^U.S. Submarines Through 1945 pp. 305–311
  9. ^ abcd Lenton, H. T. American Submarines (Doubleday, 1973), p.79.
  10. ^ abcdU.S. Submarines Through 1945 pp. 305-311
  11. ^ Friedman 1995, p. 209

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.


A path dependence analysis of hospital dominance in China (1949-2018): lessons for primary care strengthening

Although China's community health system helped inspire the 1978 Alma Ata Declaration on Health for All, it currently faces the challenge of strengthening primary care in response to hospital sector dominance. As the world reaffirms its commitment towards primary health services, China's recent history provides a salient case study of the issues at stake in optimizing the balance of care. In this study, we have used path dependence analysis to explain China's coevolution of hospital and primary care facilities between 1949 and 2018. We have identified two cycles of path-dependent development (1949-78 and 1978-2018) involving four sets of institutions related to medical professionalization, financing, organization and governance of health facilities. Both cycles started with a critical juncture amid a radically changing societal context, when institutions favouring hospitals were initiated or renewed, leading to a process of self-reinforcement empowering the hospitals. Later in each cycle, events occurred that modified this hospital dominance. However, pro-primary care policies during these conjunctures encountered resilience from the existing institutional environment. The result was continued consolidation of hospital dominance over the long term. These recurrent constraints suggest that primary care strengthening is unlikely to be successful without a comprehensive set of policy reforms driven by a primary care coalition with strong professional, bureaucratic and community stakes, co-ordinated and sustained over a prolonged period. Our findings imply that it is important to understand the history of health systems in China, where the challenges of health systems strengthening go beyond limited resources and include different developmental paths as compared with Western countries.

Keywords: Hospitals health systems research history institutional theory primary care.


Byron&aposs older brother, Harold, enlisted in the Army during World War I. His other older brother, Ervin, also served in the Navy. After a tour of duty overseas, Ervin developed tuberculosis and was not expected to live. After losing a lung to the disease, his brother went on to become a lawyer and later, a judge in Marianna, Florida.

An Admirable Class Minesweeper, Seaman Moore was with the first crew on board when the ship was put into commission after sea trials.


Military Dependents

Growing up as military dependents, our family members were used to getting a crisp salute from the Military Police at the gate when we entered any Naval base. Showing our identification cards allowed us access to the Commissary where we bought our household groceries. The Base Exchange (BX) provided many of our back-to-school clothes and we often went to the Saturday matinee on the Navy base where movies were only ten cents.

As children, we took Judo Classes on the base and participated in tournaments against other students. The Navy was our world and most of our friends were also military dependents.


By Naval Institute Archives

This article was published in the May 1964 issue of Proceedings as “Searching for the Thresher” by Frank A. Andrews, Captain, U.S. Navy.

The Thresher search was very much an ad hoc operation. On 10 April 1963, the day of the Thresher‘s loss, there was no real search organization, no search technique, nor specific operating procedures for locating an object lying on the ocean bottom at 8,400 feet. In the first frantic hours after the Thresher‘s loss, a full scale search effort consisting of 13 ships was laid on with the aim of scouring the ocean for possible life or floating signs from the Thresher. Within 20 search hours, all hope for survivors had passed, and the entire Thresher project began to change character from that of a standard Navy search and rescue opera­tion to that of an oceanographic expedition. This special expedition soon consisted of three ad hoc elements, which, as later events were to show, combined in a most successful and harmonious manner in support of searching out the Thresher‘s hull.

Diagram of the search for the lost USS Thresher.

The first was the sea-going element. This group, called Task Group 89.7, was ever changing in number and types of ships. At its maximum at-sea size, it consisted of 13 men-­of-war (including two submarines) and many search aircraft rushed to the disaster scene on the day of the Thresher‘s loss. At its minimum, TG 89.7 consisted of one lone oceanographic vessel—the Conrad on one occasion, the Atlan­tis II on another—left toiling away on station while the task group commander and staff (usually one officer and one chief radioman) were ashore conferring with others in prepa­ration for the commencement of a new phase of the search. In all, 28 naval warships and five oceanographic research, or service, vessels participated in Task Group 89.7 from 10 April 1963 until 6 September 1963, when a substantial portion of the Thresher wreckage was located by the bathyscaph Trieste.

The second of the expedition’s three ele­ments was an 11-man shore-based brain trust called the CNO Technical Advisory Group. Its mission was to provide technical guidance to the at-sea search effort. In actual fact, this Advisory Group did much more than propose ideas. Its members also procured ships and hardware, and, in the case of certain indi­vidual members, came to sea with the ships to assist in searching. The Chairman of the Advisory Group was Dr. Arthur Maxwell, Senior Oceanographer in the Office of Naval Research. Captain Charles Bishop, U.S. Navy, the senior sub­marine officer in the Office of the Deputy CNO for Research and Development (OP-07), served as Co-Chairman and CNO liaison officer. The membership of the committee consisted of senior representatives from the Naval Oceanographic Office, the Lamont Geological Observatory, the Bureau of Ships, the Hudson Laboratories, the Naval Re­search Laboratory, the Oceanographic De­partment of the University of Rhode Island, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the Naval Reactors Branch of the AEC, and the Oceanographic Group at the University of Miami.

The third special element was the Thresher Analysis Group which set up operations in the Walsh House at the Woods Hole Oceano­graphic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachu­setts.This Group soon became known as TAG WHOI, pronounced Tag Hooey. Its leader was Mr. Arthur Molloy of the Navy’s Oceanographic Office in Suitland, Maryland. TAG WHOI had a varying complement but, over-all, 15 civilians or naval officers spent three or more weeks with this element. These men represented the Submarine Development Group at New London, NAVOCEANO, NEL, NRL and WHOI they were all obtained from their many parent organizations simply by asking.

The mission of TAG WHOI was to receive and analyze all data obtained at sea and to prepare appropriate search charts showing the location of pertinent clues previously found by the search group. In addition, this group acted as a source of briefing for senior naval officers or chief scientists of various oceanographic search vessels prior to sea trips. They also carried on a major effort in expediting hardware demands from the Task Group at sea. Their location at Woods Hole permitted direct liaison with WHOI scientific personnel as well as quick radio communica­tion via single side band with the Search Task Group 220 miles to the east of Cape Cod.

The initial plan for locating the Thresher was formulated on Friday 13 April, on board the Atlantis II, in an all-day conference which I, as Search Group Commander, held with Mr. Sidney Knott, Senior WHOI scientist of the Atlantis. This conference also included a lengthy radio telephone conversation with Dr. Brackett Hersey, Chief Physical Ocean­ographer of Woods Hole Oceanographic In­stitution, who confirmed that the basic plan conceived that day was in essential agreement with most of the thoughts then prevalent in the oceanographic scientific community. In the previous 36 hours, apparently, many minds had been thinking about how exactly to locate the Thresher. That night, in a dis­patch to Vice Admiral E. W. Grenfell, Com­mander Submarine Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet, the following over-all plan was suggested:

Phase I. Search. A fine grain, bathymetric survey would be conducted. The term “bathymetric survey” is used by oceanogra­phers to denote a sonic depth finding study of a given area. “Fine grain” meant that a Fathometer of 300 yards sweep width would have to cover the length of the search area in strips 300 yards wide. The type of Fathom­eter to be used had a precision recorder read out and in theory would show a bottomed submarine as an hyperbolic trace perhaps 200 yards long, and standing at mod point 15 to 30 feet in relief above the ocean floor.

Phase II. Initial Classification. All Fathom­eter echoes classified as “possibles” would be investigated with a deep-towed Geiger counter, or side-looking echo-sounder, or magnetometer.

Phase III. Final Classification. All contacts passing Phase I and Phase II would be photo­graphed by either a deep TV camera, or a still
camera. Hopefully, the Thresher‘s hull or parts thereof, would be in the resulting pictures.

Later, a Phase IV was added to the plan. The title of this phase was “Close Examination and Study of the Thresher Hull”. When positive photographic evidence was found, the bathy­scaph, Trieste, would dive to permit her crew to study the wreckage.

The over-all plan was imaginative and certainly appeared to possess a degree of logic, except for the following:

  • No one was quite sure whether or not the Thresher would return an echo from the search Fathometer. In fact, some suspected that the Thresher was buried deeply in the sand, while others suggested that the hull was in many pieces spread over a large area.
  • No one was quite sure that the navigation in the disaster area could be carried out accurately enough to insure 100 per cent Fathometer coverage of the ocean bottom with a minimum of duplication. After all, the sweep width of the Fathometer was about 300 yards, whereas the search area had been defined as an area 10 miles by 10 miles (4,000,­000 square yards) with the center at the Thresher‘s most probable location. The datum or most probable position had been chosen as the position of the USS Skylark (ASR-20) at 0917 on 10 April when the Thresher was last heard from on underwater telephone
  • No one possessed any real operational ex­perience at towing a magnetometer, Geiger counter, TV camera or a side-looking, echo sounder 15 to 200 feet off the bottom at depths of 8,400 feet. In fact, the design of the various sensors was, in April, merely a topic for discussion, or at most in the preliminary “purchase-of-parts” stage in the various oceanographic laboratories throughout the country. The notable exception to this was the deep camera. There was ample experience in still photography at 8,400 feet and deeper, and all of the oceanographic groups were ex­tremely handy with this technique. Until 10 April, however, most of the bottom photogra­phy work had been concerned only with pic­tures taken wherever the camera happened to chance as it was towed astern on a random wiggling tow cable. The act of selecting an exact geographic position and then placing a camera within 50 yards of this position in a depth of water one and one-half miles deep, with a surface current of one to three knots running, had never before been accomplished successfully.

But all scientists are optimists, and ocean­ographers are super optimists. In any case, the problems listed above certainly provided no discouragement to the various oceano­graphic teams who had to solve them.

The plan was therefore approved by COMSUBLANT and the CNO Technical Ad­visory Group. A program to procure ships, men, and equipment was commenced.

The actual search conducted over the next three months can be divided into five parts.

Part I, conducted from 13 April until 1 May, was originally named a “fine grain” survey. In actual fact, because of fast and varying random surface currents, and poor navigation, this survey using the precision Fathometer was really a very “coarse” grain survey. In the search area, the Labrador Cur­rent, flowing generally southwest, parallels the Gulf Stream, moving generally northeast. The result is a very chaotic surface current situation with flow over 24 hours from any direction around the compass, varying in magnitude between zero and four knots. The major navigation tool which was used in this survey was Loran A which under the best of conditions is probably accurate only to within about 2,000 yards.To overcome these problems, the “cluster” technique familiar to the mine warfare people was tried. All echoes were plotted as reported by the survey ships. A second, third, or even fourth survey ship pass would be ordered over previously reported echo posi­tions, and each time the navigational position of all echoes would be again plotted. If a cluster of echo positions began to develop on the chart within 500 yards of each other, it was assumed that these could have resulted from one and the same object on the bottom. The cluster was therefore worthy of being called a “possible” Thresher hull posit. In this manner, 12 posits were defined named ALFA, BRAVO, CHARLIE, DELTA and so forth.

The major conclusion of Part I of the search, was that some possible “hull posits” had been developed, but the entire survey would have to be redone because of navigational in­accuracy. A “fine grain” survey using Decca and Loran C navigation was soon organized.

Part II, the “fine grain” survey was ac­complished in 13 days. For this work, four ships were made available the USNS Mission Capistrano (AG-162), a former T-2 oil tanker hull now used by ONR in Project ARTEMIS, the USS Prevail (AGS-20), an ex-fleet mine sweeper, the USS Allegheny (ATA-179), a fleet tug hull used by the Hudson Laboratories as an oceanographic vessel, and the USS Rockville (EPCER-851), a PC used by the Naval Research Laboratory as a research vehicle. Each of these ships was assigned one­-quarter of the 10-mile by 10-mile search area for survey with its precision Fathometer. A NAVOCEANO team-was assembled on board the Mission Capistrano, and boating arrange­ments were made to bring the recording traces of the other three ships to the Mission Capistrano each day.

On the Mission, in a large below-decks laboratory space, the data was screened and all possible echoes or hull posits were plotted and named for subsequent follow-up by the oceanographic vessels used as classifier ships­—the RS Atlantis II, the USNS Conrad (AGOR-3) and the USNS Gilliss (AGOR-4). During this “fine grain” survey, it was clear that the Decca Green Line (from a station in Halifax) was extremely stable and would permit locating a ship within ±100 yards of its actual north-south geographic line of position. There seemed good reason to believe that the four survey ships had indeed placed a Fathometer of 300 yards sweep width over every square yard of the search area.

Unfortunately, the result of the fine grain survey was the definition of 90 “possible” Thresher hull positions instead of the 12 originally defined in Part I of the search. Ap­parently, bottom topography was also re­turning echoes which looked similar to those expected from the Thresher.

During Part II, the classifier ships had not been engaged in the Fathometer sweep. Instead, they had been busily engaged in try­ing to photograph or investigate with a deep magnetometer some of the hull posits defined in Part I. They had no success. Faced with the chaotic surface currents, and with no precise knowledge of the exact location of a sensor on the end of a 9,000-foot wire, the classifier ships were simply unable to pass a camera or magnetometer over or near any of the positions from which echoes had been received. Naturally, the goal of investigating the 90
“possible” Thresher hull positions using the camera or magnetometer seemed unattain­able unless the classifiers could become more
proficient.

A solution had been proposed which would permit the classifiers to become more pro­ficient, and indeed, would check out the en­tire concept of the precision Fathometer as a search tool. We would bottom a World War II submarine hulk north of the search area and give the scientific ships some “Type Training,” as the man-of-war Navy calls it. This proposal was quickly approved by the CNO Advisory Group and by COMSUBLANT. The ex-USS Toro was nominated, procured, sailed to Boston, and readied for sea. Thus, Part II, the fine grain survey ended with the return to port of all units except the Atlantis II, with plans for some of TG 89.7 to return the following week to place the Toro on the bottom.

Part III should properly be called the find­ing of clue No.1. The Atlantis II did not return to port immediately with the other ships, but instead stayed at sea to do more photography work around posit DELTA which the At­lantis II had discovered in the coarse grain sur­vey. DELTA had all the required echo char­acteristics which the Thresher hull theoreti­cally should have produced proper dimension and proper energy return relative to the energy returned from the surrounding bottom. Hence, the Atlantis II, with great pride of authorship, was determined to place a camera on DELTA and photograph the Thresher. Although the Atlantis II never actually photo­graphed DELTA, she did, on 14 May, obtain photographs of very suspicious looking debris about 700 yards north of DELTA. This debris consisted of paper, wire, and bits of twisted metal, and it is properly called the first clue in the bottom search for the Thresher. DELTA subsequently has turned out to be topography—a little luck doesn’t hurt anyone. In fact, this illustrates the well-known scientific pro­cedure of discovery while carrying out the plan and not as a direct result of the plan. The news of the debris photography caused cancellation of the Toro drop and led directly to the next part of the search.

Part IV should be called “The Classifier Ships Concentrate at DELTA.” A 2-mile by 2­mile area was defined with center at DELTA. The Conrad, the Atlantis II and the Gilliss re­turned immediately to the scene, prepared to survey with camera and magnetometer. About a week to 10 days was spent in this phase with very little more to show than had originally been photographed by the Atlantis II. The Conrad, however, in a fit of experiment and while her camera rig was under repair, did dredge, using a deep scallop rig. The re­sult after a dozen or so attempts, was a packet of 12 0-rings with certain name plate data written on each of the 0-ring envelopes. I twas subsequently determined that these o-rings could have come from the Thresher or certain Navy aircraft. The Atlantis II, spurred on by the Conrad‘s success, also rigged a dredge to be attached to her camera. This home-made de­vice, literally made of baling wire and coat hangers, brought up small rocks, sea life, and finally a section of battery plate six inches in length. The battery plate was later iden­tified as being definitely from a Thresher-class submarine.

All classifier ships except the Conrad re­turned to port about 26 May. On 29 May, the Conrad reported the photographing of definite parts of the Thresher hull. The news was re­leased to the press, and subsequently had to be denied. In actual fact, the Conrad had only photographed a part of her own camera. All faces were red. The Conrad returned to the battle, prepared to do or die, and in the next 10 days, kept camera and magnetometer go­ing in and out of the water around the clock.

Part IV, “Classifiers on Station,” ended about 15 June with the discovery by the Conrad of clue No.2: an oxygen bottle, a sonar hydrophone, and a piece of 10-foot sheet metal which appears to be sonar baffling used on the exterior of a submarine hull. These were the first large pieces of the Thresher‘s hull to be located. In addition, the Conrad located a large magnetometer contact on three sepa­rate occasions.

Part V, the Trieste‘s operations, followed naturally through the positive encouragement of clue No.2. The Trieste, with the USS Fort Snelling (LSD-30) and the USS Preserver (ARS-8), had been standing by in Boston since mid­-May. An operation order to conduct at sea dives with the Trieste had been written and promulgated. Hence, with evidence on which to base the Trieste dives, TG 89.7 sailed on 21 June to exploit the previous search work. Be­tween 21 June and 8 September, TG 89.7 was at sea for two periods of approximately three weeks each. During this period the Trieste made a total of 10 dives, five on each sea trip. The over-all result of these dives was the final discovery on 6 September of a sub­stantial portion of the Thresher‘s wreckage, lo­cated as far as navigational error is known, within yards of the magnetometer contact re­ported by the Conrad. This area contained, amongst many other large pieces of sheet metal, the same piece of 10-foot by 10-foot section photographed previously by the Conrad. The area was described by Lieu­tenant Commander Donald Keach, the Officer in Charge of Trieste, as “a huge auto­mobile junk yard with big pieces of heavy metal all over the place.”

TRIESTE surfaced. Blowing water out of entrance changer to permit observers and pilot to climb out.

The use of the Trieste in the role of deep search and study vehicle is a story in itself. This remarkable and simply constructed vehicle will certainly revolutionize the ex­ploration of the deep-ocean bottom in the years to come. The ability of men to go to the bottom to see for themselves, or to combine visual observation with photography, or sonar detection or magnetometer search, or radi­ation measurement is the most flexible and competent of all oceanographic techniques.

There were, of course, many minor opera­tional problems associated with towing the Trieste to sea and making 10 dives in 8,400 feet of water. The Trieste cannot be rigged for diving in heavy weather her surfacing opera­tion is dangerous in fog or after dark, her crew up to this time had never made more than one dive per week. In general, the Trieste had never really been used in a search role, but rather had merely investigated any particular area in which she happened to land. The Trieste crew, however, had worked together for some months in the San Diego area, and had good answers for most of the problems which arose.

The wisdom of using a large ship, the Fort Snelling, as a seagoing base of operations, and the salvage ship Preserver as an immediate mother and tow ship became increasingly apparent throughout the operation. The whole operation would have been hopeless without the housekeeping, communications, and re­pair facilities provided by these two ships.

The major problems associated with the actual Trieste dives were two in number. The first, navigation, was finally solved in a reason­ably acceptable manner, although great im­provement is still possible. The second, the slow deterioration of the Trieste‘s topside wiring and hull parts simply by being at sea for a long period of time, was one which we learned to live with, until finally it appeared that the Trieste had to secure and go home. Hopefully, a redesigned Trieste will make this second situation less of a problem.

To place the Trieste in the proper position for diving. The Preserver with the Trieste in tow, was navigated by radar ranges and bear­ings on a “taut wire” buoy planted 1,000 yards north of the magnetometer contact pre­viously reported by the Conrad. After diving, the Trieste was maneuvered on dead reckon­ing for the most part. However, 1,441 colored and numbered markers placed methodically on the bottom in a prearranged grid through­out the area served to tell the Trieste where she had been. Each marker consisted of a window sash weight, as anchor, and a colored plastic sheet attached to the anchor by two to three feet of nylon cord. The markers had been dropped several weeks before by the Allegheny on the basis of Decca navigation and seemed reasonably close (perhaps ±300 yards) to their intended ground position. The markers were called “fortune cookies.”

The Gilliss, also on the scene with the Trieste, had a 3-D tracking system designed by the Applied Physics Laboratory at the Uni­versity of Washington. This system trans­mitted a sonar signal to a transponder located on the Trieste, which in turn re-transmitted a signal to all of three hydrophones located on the Gilliss‘ hull. By measuring the time differ­ence of arrival, the Gilliss could compute a very accurate range and bearing of the Trieste from the Gilliss. Simultaneously, the Gilliss could locate a transponder fixed to the ocean bottom, and thus give an accurate range and bearing of the Trieste from a fixed geographic position. Unfortunately, this system was just beginning to work when the Trieste‘s slow hull deterioration took over, and we all had to go home. The Washington APL System appears to offer the greatest promise for future bathy­scaph work.

In the diagram on page 72 you can see the buoy location, the Atlantis II debris area, the location of the Conrad‘s debris and magne­tometer contact, and the location of the large wreckage area sighted by the Trieste. The brass pipe which is seen in the photograph on page 73 had been marked while the Thresher was under construction with certain drawing and job order numbers, as well as the words � boat.” The pipe apparently came from a hot water flushing line.

Two other very valuable contributions to the Thresher operation must be mentioned be­fore closing. One was the weekly or semi­weekly conference held at sea between the Task Group Commander and the various chief scientists on scene. Many a boat trip or high-line transfer was made to carry them out. These get-togethers served as very valuable idea sessions and certainly made the job easier for the Task Group Commander. The second contribution was the information ob­tained from the high-powered receiver and transmitter at the Hudson Laboratories, manned almost continuously night and day by Mr. Gerry Fisher of that laboratory. This un­official communication center operating on 3385 KCS SSB could reach anybody in the search operation at any time, thanks to the faithfulness and efficiency of ROBIN as the Hudson Laboratory voice call was known. There were many moments when all official Navy circuits were down, but the scientific circuit, for which 3385KCS was designated, could put the at-sea group in touch with the CNO Tech Advisory Group in Washington, or the Analysis Group at Woods Hole, or even some member of the Advisory Group who was traveling around the country at the time.

It is my understanding that the Trieste II, a new Trieste superstructure with the old Trieste sphere, will go to sea in April of next year to finish the Thresher search operation. Hopefully, the new WHOI research submarine Alvin will also be available.

The Thresher Search Operation shows that, with patience, the deep search and study problem can be solved. There are major prob­lems yet to be solved, however, if the Navy is to become proficient at this type of an operation, whether it be search for a bottomed submarine, satellite, missile, or any other object. Most important, we must develop im­proved search techniques with the capability to locate the search sensors precisely in a geographic frame of reference. микрозаймы


Contents

Guavina sailed 6 April 1944, on her first offensive cruise. On 22 April she sank by gunfire two trawlers loaded with lumber and cargo and 3 days later torpedoed a large "maru". Her first big kill came 26 April when she sent torpedoes into two of the merchant ships in a seven-ship convoy. One of them, Noshiro Maru, sank almost immediately after three tremendous explosions. The second maru also exploded, although persistent depth charging prevented Guavina from staying around to observe the sinking.

After standing lifeguard duty off Wake Island during air strikes 21 May – 26 May, the submarine returned to Majuro Atoll 28 May. Her aggressive first patrol forecast even greater service for the nation.

On her second war patrol (20 June – 31 July) Guavina sailed from Majuro to Brisbane, Australia, sinking 1 ship and rescuing 12 downed aviators. At 13:24 on 3 July she picked up an obviously important ship with four escorts, and trailed her to get in attack position. Finally at 03:48 the next morning Guavina launched four torpedoes, three of which hit and set off a tremendous explosion. The sub spent the next 3 hours running silent and deep to avoid a total of 18 depth charges and 8 aerial bombs, surfacing at 06:43 to observe the wreckage of Tama Maru (3,052 tons). A total of 321 troops, two gunners and eleven crewmen were killed. While on lifeguard duty off Yap 2 July to 21 July, Guavina picked up a total of 12 downed B 24 airmen, and then headed for Brisbane via Seeadler Harbor, Admiralty Islands.

Guavina's third war patrol (16 August – 29 September) took her along the Philippine coast off Mindanao. On 31 August she opened fire on two small coastwise steamers, chasing them almost onto the beach before finally destroying them. Then, after a period of lifeguard duty, on 15 September Guavina sighted a large ship, later revealed to be a transport at anchor. Closing for the kill she loosed a salvo of three torpedoes. Only one hit, so she fired three more, scoring twice. Although the target was enveloped in fire and smoke, it still did not sink so Guavina administered the final fatal blow with a spread of two torpedoes which totally disintegrated the target.

Departing Brisbane 27 October, Guavina headed to the South China Sea for her fourth war patrol. A night surface attack 15 November netted her a large maru one torpedo hit caused a violent explosion, as the maru apparently was carrying aviation gasoline a second fish sent through the fiery waters finished her. Tanker Down Maru fell victim to Guavina 22 November, and a second tanker anchored nearby met the same fate the following day. During the final month she searched for additional victims. Then finding unfavorable attack conditions, she sailed for port, making Perth, Australia 27 December.

Working first with Pampanito and then with Becuna and Blenny, Guavina spent her fifth war patrol (23 January – 5 March 1945) again in the South China Sea. The value of the coordinated attack group was quickly proved as on 6 February Guavina was directed in for the kill by Pampanito and sank the 6,892-ton tanker Taigyo Maru. To avoid the subsequent depth charging, Guavina pulled the unusual maneuver of lying on the bottom near the stern of her recent victim.

She returned Pampanito's favor the following day by providing a diversion in the form of four flares from her "Buck Rogers" gun as her sister sub maneuvered for a successful shot. Guavina sank another tanker, the 8,673-ton Eiyo Maru, 20 February, and suffered one of the severest depth chargings of the war. With no room to run, she lay on the bottom at 130 feet (40 m) while Japanese escorts and planes dropped a total of 98 depth charges and bombs during the next 7 hours. Battered but undaunted, she sailed to Subic Bay in the Philippines, arriving 5 March for a badly needed refit.

On her sixth war patrol (21 March – 8 May) Guavina worked in coordination with Rock, Cobia, and Blenny in the South China Sea. A lack of targets resulted in her returning empty-handed, but she did rescue five B-25 crew members 28 March before returning to Pearl Harbor 8 May. With six successful war patrols behind her she proceeded to the West Coast for overhaul. She departed San Francisco for Pearl Harbor 6 August, but with the end of the war returned to the States. Guavina then put in at Mare Island and was placed in commission, in reserve, and Decommissioned 8 June 1946.

From March 1949, Guavina underwent extensive overhaul and modification under project SCB 39 for conversion to a submarine oiler at Mare Island, and was even equipped with a snorkel. Guavina recommissioned in the active fleet as SSO-362 1 February 1950 at Mare Island. After operations along the West Coast, she sailed to Norfolk via Balboa and San Juan 24 July to 25 August. Further operations out of Norfolk were followed by overhaul at Philadelphia and on 29 January 1951, Guavina reported to Key West, her new homeport.

Operating out of Key West, Guavina cruised to the Caribbean Sea and up the East Coast to Nova Scotia to test the concepts of fueling seaplanes and other submarines, although most of her work was in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. After overhaul at Philadelphia 18 April to 26 July 1952, Guavina was redesignated AGSS-362. Two more years of operations along the East Coast and in the Gulf were followed by a second extensive overhaul at Philadelphia. To aid refueling, Guavina gained a large, raised platform over the after torpedo room, which was soon dubbed the "flight deck".

And a flight deck it soon became as in January 1956 Guavina began testing the concept of mobile support of seaplanes from a submarine oiler. After an initial 2-week trial period, Guavina and a variety of seaplanes carried out refueling development for most of 1956. Sailing from Charleston 18 September, the submarine headed for the Mediterranean Sea. After her 2-month deployment there with the 6th Fleet and Patrol Squadron 56, Guavina returned to Key West 1 December, then put into Charleston for overhaul.

Emerging from overhaul 12 July 1957 with the new designation AOSS-362, Guavina resumed her established pattern of testing various applications of submarine oiler and seaplane refueling concepts, operating principally in the Caribbean. Ranging along the coast from New London to Bermuda, she also engaged in antisubmarine exercises and other peacetime training missions.

On February 16, 1958 Guavina was operating in the Bahamas and dropped anchor off the island of San Salvador. Overnight, high winds and heavy seas pushed her aground. Guavina spent several days stuck hard aground in the shallow sandy surf of San Salvador. She was eventually freed by the combined efforts of rescue and salvage vessels USS Petrel (ASR-14) and USS Escape (ARS-6) and the ocean tugs USS Shakori (ATF-162) and USS Allegheny (ATA-179) .

Guavina sailed into the Charleston Navy Yard 4 January 1959, and decommissioned there 27 March, going into reserve. She served as a training ship for reservists in the 5th Naval District at Baltimore, MD until struck from the Navy List 30 June 1967 and sunk as a target by Cubera (SS-347) , off Cape Henry, VA with a MK 16-1 warshot.

Guavina received five battle stars for World War II service.

  1. ^ abcdefg Friedman, Norman (1995). U.S. Submarines Through 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. pp. 285–304. ISBN1-55750-263-3 .
  2. ^ USCS Catalog Pg G-15, 1997
  3. ^ abcdefg
  4. Bauer, K. Jack Roberts, Stephen S. (1991). Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990: Major Combatants. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. 271–273. ISBN0-313-26202-0 .
  5. ^ abcde
  6. Bauer, K. Jack Roberts, Stephen S. (1991). Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775–1990: Major Combatants. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. 275–280. ISBN978-0-313-26202-9 .
  7. ^U.S. Submarines Through 1945 p. 261
  8. ^U.S. Submarines Through 1945 pp. 305–311
  9. ^ abcd Lenton, H. T. American Submarines (Doubleday, 1973), p.79.
  10. ^ abcdU.S. Submarines Through 1945 pp. 305-311
  11. ^ Friedman 1995, p. 209

This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.


Acoustic research operations

Allegheny transited from Norfolk to the New York Naval Shipyard arriving on 14 June 1952 for conversion into a research vessel. During the summer of 1952 all armament and towing accessories were removed with the towing winch rotated 90° and modified for over the side operations. Various hydrographic and bathythermograph winches and booms were installed as was sonar and various electronic equipment. Shipboard spaces were converted to a machine shop, motor generator, and photographic laboratory. A new deckhouse was constructed aft to house underwater sound and electronic equipment. Allegheny was assigned to the Commandant, 3rd Naval District, for duty and based at the Naval Supply Center, Bayonne, NJ, The ship spent the next 17 years engaged in hydrographic and research functions through the Office of Naval Research (ONR).

The ship supported acoustic research efforts of the Hudson Laboratories of Columbia University, Bell Telephone Company and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. In general the ship spent January through April in the Bermuda-Caribbean area with the rest of the year in the Long Island-Hudson Canyon region, off New York, and occasionally operations off Cape Hatteras. Ports of call included St. Thomas, Virgin Islands San Juan, Puerto Rico Willemstad, Cura๺o Miami and Port Everglades, Florida. and Bermuda. [1] In particular the ship supported Project Michael which was the Columbia University effort under Maurice Ewing to understand long range sound transmission in the SOFAR channel for the research and development of the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS). Project Michael was the research oriented part of the effort with a more development oriented Project Jezebel under Bureau of Ships and Bell Laboratories. Merger of results were implemented as the then classified name Sound Surveillance System under the unclassified name Project Caesar. [3] [4] [5] [note 1]

An example of the ship&aposs work is Hudson Laboratory&aposs acoustic work in 1953. It was focused on low frequency sound propagation with Allegheny performing both bathymetric and acoustic work supporting those investigations. For example, the ship surveyed in Puerto Rico supporting an important installation with an echosounder giving ten times the resolution of regular equipment. That survey revealed submarine canyons that were independent of terrestrial topography and ran seaward to open into a 4,150 fathoms (24,900ਏt 7,590 m) plain. [note 2] The ship also worked in determining the noise pattern of submarines and an investigation of shallow water acoustics for mine sweeping in the approaches to New York harbor. The ship engaged in other shallow water work off Puerto Rico as a sound source ship. [3]

The loss of USS Thresher  (SSN-593) resulted in a large search effort to locate the wreckage. Task Group 89.7 was formed for the search and was composed of various vessels at different times over the long search period. Allegheny was assigned to the task group from 24 April to 15 May 1963 as part of the "fine grain survey" group. [1] [6] Mission Capistrano, assigned to ONR for Project Artemis, was the center for processing data that was delivered by small boats at sea from Allegheny, Prevail and Naval Research Laboratory&aposs (NRL) Rockville which was equipped with a unique trainable sonar and an electronics laboratory and workshop. [6] [7] [8] The fine grain search area was a 10 nmi (12 mi 19 km) square area in which each of the ships was assigned a quadrant for survey with its precision Fathometer. The survey, using the Decca Navigator System met the requirement to cover the entire area with its soundings but expanded the original twelve possible hull parts to ninety. That number of possibles made classification by ships equipped for that task difficult and required further steps to make those ships&apos search more proficient. [6]

Highlighting the latter part of her long tour of research support work was a towing operation—something she had not been configured for in many, many years. Underway from Bayonne on 31 January 1967, Allegheny sailed for Bermuda, arriving on 3 February. No longer possessing a towing engine or fittings, the research vessel had to jury-rig a towing arrangement to the "Monster Buoy" (General Dynamics Buoy "Bravo")- Setting out for the west coast of the United States on 11 February, Allegheny and the "Monster Buoy" headed for the Pacific. Touching briefly at Guantanamo Bay for provisions from 17 to 19 February, Allegheny and her charge transited the Panama Canal on 23 February, and set out for Acapulco on the 25th. En route, the tug and her tow ran into 40-knot winds and 15-foot seas in the Gulf of Tehuantepec, but reached their destination on 4 March. Underway on the 7th, Allegheny delivered her tow one week later, on the 14th, having successfully completed a 32-day, 4,642-mile journey. Retracing her course, the tug returned to Bermuda on 16 April 1967, via Acapulco, the Panama Canal, and Kingston, Jamaica. [1]

Allegheny conducted oceanographic research missions off Bermuda with Mission Capistrano from 22 April to 5 May 1967 before sailing for Bayonne. [note 3] Further oceanographic work off Port Everglades, Florida began in June followed by a visit on 4 July 1967 to Washington, D.C. In September 1967 the ship was reassigned from Commandant, 3d Naval District, to Commander Service Squadron 8 (COMSERVRON 8) on 1 July 1969, and conducted coring operations on the Continental Shelf, off the New York-New Jersey coast from 5 to 11 September. [note 4] From 18 to 28 September, Allegheny conducted operations with USS Bang  (SS-385) in the Gulf of Maine and Boston area and, from 9 to 20 November with USS Cutlass  (SS-478) , in the Virginia capes area, each time under the auspices of Commander, Operational Development Force. [1]

In 1968 Columbia University decided to phase out Navy related research with the result the Navy withdrew support to Hudson Laboratories and redirected assets to in-house laboratories. [9] A factor in both the university and Navy decision was unrest on campus and a classified and tightly held research effort at the laboratory. The nature of the project, related to SOSUS developments, could not be shared with university management. In the end thirty-five of the researchers went to NRL to continue classified acoustics research. [10] Allegheny and three other naval ships supporting Hudson Laboratories acoustical work, Mission Capistrano, Josiah Willard Gibbs  (T-AGOR-1) and the coastal work boat Manning (ex Army T-514) were withdrawn and reassigned. [9] In May 1968 Allegheny, along with Mission Capistrano, was among the ships available at the Naval Research Laboratory under COMSERVRON 8 with ONR scheduling. Foremost among the NRL listing was Mizar  (T-AGOR-11) , a new conversion into a much more capable research platform with a center well for safer, all weather operations. [11]

Allegheny was declared excess to the needs of the Navy, decommissioned and struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 14 December 1968. [1]


Cardiovascular Effects

Cardiovascular effects of subclinical hyperthyroidism include an increased average heart rate, risk of atrial arrhythmias and heart failure, left ventricular mass and diastolic dysfunction, and reduced heart rate variability.15 , 16 Among patients older than 65 years, those with subclinical hyperthyroidism had a higher rate of cardiovascular events compared with euthyroid patients.3

ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

In a cohort of 2,007 adults older than 60 years, those with TSH levels less than 0.1 mIU per L had a relative risk of 3.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 5.5) for atrial fibrillation compared with persons with normal TSH levels over 10 years.17 A meta-analysis of five prospective cohort studies evaluating a total of 8,711 participants showed an increased risk of atrial fibrillation in those with TSH levels less than 0.1 mIU per L (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.54 95% CI, 1.08 to 5.99) and 0.1 to 0.44 mIU per L (HR = 1.63 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.41),4 indicating that the risk of atrial fibrillation inversely correlates with TSH levels.

HEART FAILURE

A pooled analysis of six prospective cohort studies that included 25,390 participants with a mean follow-up of 10 years found that those with TSH levels less than 0.1 mIU per L had a higher risk of heart failure than euthyroid participants (HR = 1.94 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.72).5 A prospective cohort study of patients 70 to 82 years of age with a history of vascular disease showed a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization in those with TSH levels less than 0.45 mIU per L over 3.2 years of follow-up compared with euthyroid patients (HR = 2.93 95% CI, 1.37 to 6.24).6

CARDIOVASCULAR AND OVERALL MORTALITY

A large Danish retrospective population-based study found that subclinical hyperthy-roidism is associated with increased all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, with heart failure as the leading cause of increased cardiovascular mortality.3 In a meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies, endogenous subclinical hyperthyroidism was associated with adjusted increases in total mortality (HR = 1.24 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.46) and coronary heart disease mortality (HR = 1.29 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.62).4 The highest risk was observed in patients with TSH levels less than 0.1 mIU per L, in men, and in adults older than 65 years. Exogenous subclinical hyperthyroidism due to excessive levothyroxine replacement was also associated with increased cardiovascular and overall mortality in patients with fully suppressed TSH levels (less than 0.03 mIU per L) compared with those with normal TSH levels (adjusted HR = 1.37 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.60).5

Some studies suggest that treatment of subclinical hyperthyroidism with antithyroid medication18 or radioactive iodine19 may improve symptoms, heart rate, and cardiovascular parameters. However, no long-term prospective controlled studies have assessed whether treatment reduces the risk of arrhythmias, cardiovascular morbidity, or mortality.


References

This information relates to an herbal, vitamin, mineral or other dietary supplement. This product has not been reviewed by the FDA to determine whether it is safe or effective and is not subject to the quality standards and safety information collection standards that are applicable to most prescription drugs. This information should not be used to decide whether or not to take this product. This information does not endorse this product as safe, effective, or approved for treating any patient or health condition. This is only a brief summary of general information about this product. It does NOT include all information about the possible uses, directions, warnings, precautions, interactions, adverse effects, or risks that may apply to this product. This information is not specific medical advice and does not replace information you receive from your health care provider. You should talk with your health care provider for complete information about the risks and benefits of using this product.

This product may adversely interact with certain health and medical conditions, other prescription and over-the-counter drugs, foods, or other dietary supplements. This product may be unsafe when used before surgery or other medical procedures. It is important to fully inform your doctor about the herbal, vitamins, mineral or any other supplements you are taking before any kind of surgery or medical procedure. With the exception of certain products that are generally recognized as safe in normal quantities, including use of folic acid and prenatal vitamins during pregnancy, this product has not been sufficiently studied to determine whether it is safe to use during pregnancy or nursing or by persons younger than 2 years of age.


Watch the video: Allegheny Portage Railroad and Canal 1800s Part 1 of 2