We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
USS Graham (DD-192), Guantanamo Bay, 1920
Here we see the Clemson class destroyer USS Graham (DD-192) at Guantanamo Bay, c. 1920. The bow of USS Dahlgren (DD-187) can be seen in the background.
U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History, Norman Friedmann .The standard history of the development of American destroyers, from the earliest torpedo boat destroyers to the post-war fleet, and covering the massive classes of destroyers built for both World Wars. Gives the reader a good understanding of the debates that surrounded each class of destroyer and led to their individual features.
USS Texas (CGN 39)
USS TEXAS was the second ship in the VIRGINIA-class of nuclear powered guided missile cruisers and the third ship in the Navy named after the state of Texas. Last homeported in Bremerton, Wash., she was laid up there after decommissioning and later went through the nuclear recycling program at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
|General Characteristics:||Awarded: December 21, 1971|
|Keel laid: August 18, 1973|
|Launched: August 9, 1975|
|Commissioned: September 10, 1977|
|Decommissioned: July 16, 1993|
|Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.|
|Propulsion system: two D2G General Electric nuclear reactors|
|Length: 585 feet (178 meters)|
|Beam: 63 feet (19.2 meters)|
|Draft: 31,5 feet (9.6 meters)|
|Displacement: approx. 11,300 tons full load|
|Speed: 30+ knots|
|Aircraft: none and no helicopter landing capability|
|Armament: two Mk-26 missile launcher for Standard missiles (MR) and ASROC, two Mk-141 Harpoon missile launchers, two armored box launchers for Tomahawk ASM/LAM, Mk-46 torpedoes from two triple mounts, two 5-inch/54 caliber Mk-45 lightweight guns, two 20mm Phalanx CIWS, four machine guns|
|Crew: 39 Officers, 539 Enlisted|
This section contains the names of sailors who served aboard USS TEXAS. It is no official listing but contains the names of sailors who submitted their information.
Accidents aboard USS TEXAS:
|July 19, 1983||Brisbane, Australia||USS TEXAS is holed above the waterline after hitting a quay while leaving the port of Brisbane, Australia.|
USS TEXAS' Commanding Officers:
The TEXAS was laid down as a guided missile frigate on 18 August 1973, at Newport News, Va., by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. reclassified as a guided missile cruiser and redesignated CGN 39 on 30 June 1975 launched on 9 August 1975, sponsored by Mrs. Dolph Briscoe, wife of the Governor of Texas and commissioned on 10 September 1977, Capt. Peter B. Fiedler in command.
Following a nine-week test of the ship's combat systems, TEXAS loaded out weapons at the Yorktown Naval Weapons station in October and underwent refresher training out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in November. TEXAS spent the first three months of 1978 conducting at-sea evaluation of her propulsion and weapons systems off the Virginia capes and in the Caribbean. On 28 March, she transited to her building yard at Newport News to commence a Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) which was completed on 31 July. The remainder of 1978 was spent in individual ship exercises off the east coast and Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, interspersed with periods in TEXAS' home port of Norfolk.
USS TEXAS' maiden deployment was with the USS NIMITZ Battle Group in the Mediterranean Sea and North Arabian Sea during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. She also served as Flagship for Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group ONE. TEXAS' second deployment was once again with the NIMITZ Battle Group operating in the Mediterranean Sea. During this period, TEXAS saw combat for the first time, as she responded to Libyan aggression in the Gulf of Sidra.
TEXAS' third deployment was with the USS CARL VINSON Battle Group, and included an around the world cruise which allowed her to visit every inhabited continent except South America and sail all the oceans except the Arctic. The world cruise also included a change of homeport to San Diego, Calilornia, from Norfolk, Virginia. TEXAS spent the first part of the following year operating in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea before returning to San Diego. She then began to make preparations for a homeport change to Bremerton, Washington, for a Complex Overhaul. She entered drydock at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in September, and remained there until April 1986. The overhaul lasted until April 1987, and included the installation of the Tomahawk missile system.
Following a homeport change to Alameda, California, TEXAS deployed with the USS CARL VINSON Battle Group for Westpac 1988 as the Anti Air Warfare Commander. This fourth major deployment included port visits to Japan, Subic Bay, Oman, and Kenya. In 1989, the TEXAS conducted local operations and a short overhaul at Hunter's Point Shipyard in San Francisco. By the end of the year, she was back at sea on counter-narcotics operations off the Coast of South America.
In February 1991, TEXAS commenced her sixth deployment, enroute to the Arabian Sea. She served valiantly during Desert Storm as the Anti air Warfare Commander for the NIMITZ Battle Group, and she returned to San Francisco in August. In April 1992, TEXAS returned to sea and conducted a second counter-narcotics mission that included visits to Ecuador and Panama. In July, TEXAS changed homeport to Bremerton, Washington in preparation for a Refueling Complex Overhaul. She entered the drydock in September and commenced work. The overhaul was canceled on April 1, 1993, and work began to decommission the TEXAS.
Decommissioned nuclear powered ships of the US Navy are brought to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton, Wash., where they are awaiting their final disposal. The TEXAS was no exception. When she arrived at PSNS the first action that took place was the removal of the ship's superstructures and since PSNS does not own a dock large enough for two VIRGINIA-class cruisers, a 100 foot long part of the stern of TEXAS was also removed.
The photos below show the TEXAS moored alongside the ex-USS VIRGINIA (CGN 38) and surrounded by numerous nuclear powered submarines. The hull on the portside of the TEXAS is from the ex-USS LONG BEACH (CGN 9) which was the first nuclear powered surface ship in the US Navy. Dismantling of TEXAS' hulk was completed in October 2001.
The photos below were taken by Randall Graham during TEXAS' WestPac Cruise in 1988.
USS Graham (DD-192), Guantanamo Bay, 1920 - History
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS, NAVY DEPARTMENT WORLD WAR 1917-1918
Naval-History.Net is going beyond the ships, men and battles of World War 1 to explore the technology and organisation of the era. As part of this, and our work on the centenary of US entry into the War, Dr Graham Watson , retired from the History Department of Cardiff University, Wales, has prepared this summary of the original and fairly voluminous account of the activities of the US Bureau of Yards and Docks, 1917-1918. It goes some way to conveying the huge war production efforts of the United States in the short period between spring 1917 and the end of 1918.
Only a few of the circa 300 photographs and drawings are included, and unfortunately they are not of the best quality, but they do give an idea of the range of responsibilities of just one of the seven* Bureau of the Navy Department. The full report can be found by searching the internet with - archive bureau of docks and yards 1917-1918 pdf
*Nine including the Judge Advocate General and the USMC
Again, my thanks to Graham.
Gordon Smith, Naval-History.Net
- Bureau of Yards & Docks, 1917-1918 (here)
- Royal Navy Log Books of the World War 1-era, includes references to USN ships escorting North Atlantic convoys, river gunboat operations in China etc
Official Account of its Activities
Published Washington DC 1921
The book contains approximately 300 photographs, diagrams and plans: some of the latter of the pull-out type.
1. From the passage of the Naval Appropriations Act of April 4, 1911, the Bureau was responsible for the design and construction of all public works and public utilities for the United States Navy, regardless of the areas of responsibility of the other bureaux.
2. Before 1917, this work was confined to the United States, but was extended overseas thereafter.
3. During the war years the Bureau experienced a 'phenomenal' growth in material and personnel.
4. The history of the Bureau from 1898 showed that it had recognised the inadequate nature of the number and type of shore establishments required for a major war. In particular, the dry-docks were too small to accommodate the new ships. The Bureau had begun a programme to build four large graving docks and one floating dock. This program was not completed until the opening of the dock at Pearl Harbor in 1919. Other projects diverted funds - especially during the war years.
5. The value of the docks and other shore facilities was given as:
An additional $70m funding was provided for investment in private shipyards and machinery manufacturers.
CHAPTER I : THE BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS
Executive personnel of the Bureau. The Chief, Rear-Admiral Parks at centre
This chapter outlines the changes in the organisation of the bureau, and then provides information on the personnel employed in the bureau.
Before July 1st, 1916, the entire staff of the bureau consisted of:
To meet the expected demands of war, the bureau was organised into six divisions, each of which dealt with a specific area of responsibility. They were:
On March 23rd, 1917, the divisions were reduced to three:
Under whom there would be seven project managers. Their areas of responsibility were:
New Naval Bases and Development of Existing Bases.
Radio, Marine Corps, Fuel Oil, Medical Requirements, Routine Design, Dry Docks, Power Plants, Washington Yard, and Sub-surface surveys.
Shipbuilding Projects and Improvements, and Gun Shop, Washington.
Armor Plant and Projectiles Plant, Charleston WV.
Facilities for Aviation and Submarines, Patrol Bases.
Ordnance Facilities and Store Houses.
Naval Academy, Research and Development Laboratory, Design Division.
A final re-organisation took place In October 1917. Ten project managers were appointed. They covered the following areas:
Recruiting was made easier by permission to recruit personnel from the United States Naval Reserve. This produced 197 male and 121 female members of staff. Some 24 distinguished, well-qualified engineers could be - and were - recruited from civilian life and staff were forbidden from enlisting in the combat units of the armed forces.
The growth of the bureau's personnel is illustrated thus:
|Staff||July 1st 1916||February 3rd 1917||November 11th 1918|
|Clerical||10 male/4 female||14 male/4 female||132 male/167 female|
|Technical*||43 male||95 male||334 male/3 female|
|Miscellaneous||6 male||7 male||31 male/27 female |
The distribution of technical staff between the various areas of work on January 1st, 1919 was:
A small number of civilian engineers were employed by the Navy Department before 1867. In that year, an establishment of 10 uniformed civil engineers was approved by Congress.
This total was increased to 18 in 1898, and then to 40 in 1903.
With war imminent, an act of August 23rd 1916, permitted to recruitment of civilians and reservists into the Corps. By November 11th, 1918, the total strength was:
Civil engineer officers were employed either at the Bureau in Washington, or at the various navy yards around the country.
The inadequate accommodation provided by Bancroft Hall [designed for 500 midshipmen but having to provide places for 1,200 was remedied. The construction of two new accommodation blocks was authorised on March 4th 1917 with contracts signed on July 13th.
The new blocks were completed in May and September 1918. They provided an extra 1,200 places, doubling the capacity to 2,400 at a cost of $3,925,000. A new classroom block for seamanship and navigation was completed at the same time for $1,000,000 as was a new power plant and distribution system.
CHAPTER IV: NAVAL TRAINING CAMPS
Pelham Bay NY
Emergency barracks for recruits, Philadelphia, Pa
Interior, Wissahickon Barracks, Cape May, NJ
In the spring of 1917, the US Navy possessed 4 naval training stations with a total capacity of 6,000 trainees. This was recognised as insufficient for war-time expansion, and a major part of the Bureau's work to rectify this deficiency.
The four training stations were:
They had been established because of the greater need for technical training: a function which could not be performed by the existing training hulks.
The Bureau's wartime target was to provide an extra 40 training establishments with a winter capacity of 191,000 and a summer capacity of 205,000 [some camps were tented]. The original estimated cost was $1.5m but the actual expenditure was $75m. Up to 50,000 men were employed in the construction work.
Design work began immediately after the declaration of war, and contracts began to be signed in May 1917. Three existing sites were developed at great speed:
Largely built of wood, most of the new camps were built with standard-designed buildings, and organised into pre-determined groups - administration isolation [for new recruits] main regimental services hospital education and recreation.
The bulk of the chapter lists the major projects by Naval District, beginning with the 1st in New England, and ending with the 13th in Washington State.
1st Naval District, Boston
Great Lake Training Station [33 miles north of Chicago] - expanded by 10.18 to 1.200 acres with 775 buildings in 22 sub-groups. Accommodated 50,000 at a cost of $17,127.00.
Training Camp Detroit - opened 6.18 with crews of 'Eagle Boats', 200 officers and 1,000 enlisted men.
Training Camp San Diego - mainly tented accommodation for 4.000 from 4.17.
Training Camp San Pedro - originally for 1,000 who were transferred to the submarine base, became tented accommodation for 2.400.
The last nine pages of this chapter is made up of an account by Lt.Cmdr Bolles regarding the construction of the training camp at Coddington Point, Newport, RI.
CHAPTER V. MARINE CORPS PROJECTS
The provision of new facilities for the USMC began with three projects in Philadelphia:
CHAPTER VI. EMERGENCY HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION
click here for an introduction to the influenza epidemic, the men who died, and hospitals which treated them
Ward buildings, Hampton Roads Hospital, Va
Ward interior, Hampton Roads, V a
Emergency buildings, Naval Hospital, Norfolk, Va
Prewar plans for a two 5,000 bed hospitals - one on the east coast, and the other on the west coast, were abandoned on the outbreak of war. A range of smaller emergency hospitals would be built instead.
By extending existing hospitals, and constructing temporary ones, 27 hospitals were operational by the end of the conflict. This program involved the construction of 500 new buildings [mostly of standard wood construction] to provide places for 17,000 patients. The cost was $21m with an additional $550,000 spent on medical supply depots. Dispensary facilities were created at all shore stations.
The construction of 3 other hospitals was cancelled:
With the despatch of 200 portable buildings and local construction, the following hospitals were provided overseas.
United States Naval Hospitals:
This chapter provides many plans and photographs of the above hospitals.CHAPTER VII: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF YARDS AND STATIONS
Philadelphia Navy Yard, general view from radio tower
Structural shop and shipbuilding slips, Philadelphia Navy Yard
Merchandise pier, Hampton Roads, Va
On May 2, 1916, the Navy Secretary set up the Board for the Development of Navy Yard Plans. This was in response to the very large 1916 new construction plans. The board developed a Type Plan to be applied to each navy yard. Plans were approved for:
The main proposals for each navy yard were:
Planning for a proposed naval base at San Francisco,
General improvements to moorings-especially on the west coast for the Pacific Fleet.
CHAPTER VIII SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR FACILITIES
New York Naval Yard
Structural ship, Navy Yard
Interior, structural shop, Navy Yard
Double shipbuilding slips
Philadelphia Navy Yard
Power plant and coal handling plant
Power plant generating room
Shipbuilding slips 2 and 3
Fitting out crane
The detailed account of how the shipbuilding and repair facilities were modernised are detailed in this chapter.
As a result of the 1916 ship building program, the previous capacity for the construction of battleships which was limited to two navy yards and a few private firms needed to be increased.
The Naval Appropriations Act of August 29, 1916 authorised the expenditure of $6m for the improvement of the yards designated as suitable for the construction of large warships. They were Norfolk, Philadelphia, Boston and Puget Sound. Further funds were authorised as the work developed - $12m on March 4th, 1917 $1,75m on March 28th 1918 $10m in July 1918. The total expenditure by 1920 was $43,549.000.
Portsmouth Navy Yard: four additional submarine slips.
Boston Navy Yard continued construction of auxiliaries.
New York Navy Yard one additional slip for battleship construction.
Philadelphia Navy Yard: slips for construction of two battleships.
Norfolk Navy Yard: slip for construction of one battleship.
Charleston Navy Yard: three additional destroyer slips.
Puget Sound Navy Yard: one battleship construction dock.
Mare Island Navy Yard: expansion of existing slip to construct one battleship
Most of these projects were not finished until after 11.18.
A diagram on pages 160-161 illustrates the resulting increase in building capacity.
|Navy Yard||Capacity 1914||Capacity 1920||New facilities|
|Portsmouth ||2 submarines [250ft]||6 submarines||2 double slips [340ft]|
|Boston ||- ||1 auxiliary ||1 slip [450 ft]|
|New York ||1 battleship [700ft] ||2 battleships ||1 new slip [700 ft] |
1 rebuilt slip [700 ft]
|Philadelphia ||- ||2 battlecruisers |
|2 slips [900 ft] |
1 slip [500 ft]
2 slips [200 ft]
|Norfolk ||- ||1 battleship |
|1 slip [700 ft] |
1 slip [430 ft]
|Charleston ||1 destroyer [300 ft] ||4 destroyers ||3 slips [300 & 385 ft]|
|Puget Sound ||- ||1 battleship or 2 auxiliaries |
|1 building dock [915ft] |
1 slip [280ft]
1 double slip [200ft]
|Mare Island ||1 auxiliary [550ft] ||1 battleship |
|1 extended slip [700 ft] |
1 slip & 1 double slip
CHAPTER IX: SHIPYARD AND INDUSTRIAL PLANT EXTENSIONS
Squantum destroyer slips, Quincy, Mass
interior view of wet slip
|Navy extension, Camden shipyard, NJ|
In addition to modernisation of the navy yards, the Bureau provided funding for the extension and modernisation of the shipbuilding facilities of commercial enterprises, most of whom had built warships for the US Navy prior to 1917. This effort was encouraged by the need to produce large numbers of destroyers, submarines and small craft.
A total of 45 projects were authorised at a cost of $71m. These projects came in one of three different financial and legal categories:
On page 217, there is a table which lists all 45 projects in terms of timing of funds, total funds, and main area of expenditure. Of these:
The largest contracts were:
Another well-known contract was to the Ford Motor Company in Detroit, for $5.5m, to build a plant to deliver 100 'Eagle Boats' - patrol boats - of which 60 had been completed by 11.18.
Other major contracts which are described in detail are:
Non-shipyard contracts discussed in detail are:
As with the previous chapter, there are extensive illustrations, and plans to accompany the narrative.CHAPTER X: DRY DOCKS
No.4 Norfolk, Va. USS Wisconsin first to dock
No 1 Dry Dock, Pearl Harbor
These were the most expensive single item in the range of facilities needed to support the fleet. In 1916, the United States Navy had an inventory of 21 dry docks. Only three were of a size suitable for battleships - one of 800 ft, and two of 740 ft. The rest were small and old with the smallest only 324 ft. long.
The construction of the Balboa Dock for the Panama Canal increased confidence in tackling the engineering problems associated with the construction of large docks.
Through a combination of new construction, purchase, and rental, the Navy Department acquired five large dry docks by 1921. Two smaller docks were acquired in the same time period.
This chapter contains much detailed information on the technical issues of dry dock construction.
Boiler plant, Hampton Roads, Va
Power plant, Naval Torpedo Station, Newport RI
Boiler installation, Navy Yard, Mare Is, Calif
750kw turbo-generator, Naval Academy
The three areas of Bureau activity were the design and erection of new power plants, extensions to existing plants, and installation of the distribution systems.
Contracts for 140 power plant projects were signed between April 6th, 1917 and November 11th 1918. The shortage of technical staff at the Bureau meant that most projects were partnerships between government and private firm.
The two largest projects were the construction of new power plants for Norfolk Navy Yard and Philadelphia Navy Yard. The two coal-fired plants were identical in design but the Philadelphia plant was completed ahead of that at Norfolk. The work involved the construction and installation of boilers, turbines, and generators, as well as the supporting distribution systems.
Other Navy yards received modifications and extensions to their existing plant. The most extensive worked was required at Charleston Navy Yard. Other yards were substantive work took place were:
An urgent installation program was required to provide power plants for the new naval training camps. The most important were-Newport RI, Pelham Park NY, Hampstead Roads Va.
Other major extensions took place at Torpedo Station Newport RI, Submarine Base New London Ct, Naval Aircraft Factory Philadelphia, Naval Academy Annapolis, New Orleans, and at the Indianhead Proving Ground in Maryland.
As with earlier chapters, a considerable amount of technical detail can be found in this chapter.CHAPTER XII: PUBLIC WORKS AT ORDNANCE STATIONS
Typical torpedo racks and crane
Torpedo assembly plant, Alexandria, Va
Blending tower, Naval Proving Ground and Smokeless Powder Factory, Indianhead, Md
Work was done at the request of the Bureau of Ordnance and involved not only the provision of manufacturing facilities but housing and other domestic needs as many stations were in remote areas.
The following major ammunition depots required and were provided with new facilities:
Iona Island, NY
Fort Mifflin, PA
St. Juliens Creek, VA
Puget Sound, WA
Mare Island, CA
The principal torpedo station at Newport RI received extra facilities, especially on the Goat Island site.
The Pacific torpedo station at Keyport, WA, received some extra facilities and improvements.
In 1918, approval was given for the construction of a torpedo assembly plant on the Potomac river at Alexandria VA. It was completed later in 1918 at a cost of $1.3m.
Standard torpedo storehouses were installed at the major naval yards and stations.
In January 1917 a contract was awarded for a mine-filling plant at St Juliens Creek, VA. It became operational in March 1918, and shipped 73,000 mines for the North Sea Mine Barrage without mishap.
Approval was given in 1918 for the construction of a large Mine Depot on an 11,000 acre site at Yorktown VA. Construction was underway by the end of hostilities. The depot was completed at a cost of $2.7m
$7m was spent on updating and extending existing facilities in a geographically limited site.
The factory was able to continue its supply of guns to meet the fleet' s requirements throughout the conflict.
CHAPTER XIII: ARMOR AND PROJECTILE PLANT, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA
see Development of Warship Armour
Projectile plant, West Virginia
In August 1916, the decision was taken to build a plant for the manufacture of armor for the battleships being authorised. Existing private plants did not possess the capacity to produce armor in the quantities anticipated. The project was slowed down at the outbreak of war but resumed in mid 1918.
The first task was to find a location for the plant. After surveying 200 sites, that at Charleston WV was selected. As the existing plants at Pittsburgh, Midvale, and South Bethlehem were of different designs, none could be used as a model for the new plant. Design work had to begin from scratch.
After the outbreak of war, the government realised that the capacity to manufacture guns was insufficient to meet demands, and so, a new gun-making plant would be built alongside the armor plant. The basic gun would be manufactured at Charleston but finished off at the Washington Navy Yard.
There is much technical detail in this chapter about the design of furnaces, machine shops, and on the storage of materials. Also discussion of the financial arrangements for the construction of the plant.
Active construction of the armor plant began in July 1917 but the work was impeded by the geography of the site, by the lack of local labor, and by the lack of housing for imported labor.
The problem of building a power plant was solved after the armistice. The US Army had no further need for the power plant at Nitro and it was transferred to the US Navy. Extra transmission lines connected the power plant with the armor/projectile plants.
The gun manufacturing plant/projectile plant was constructed between August 1917 and May 1918, and was manufacturing 4 inch and 6 inch guns by the armistice.
The armor plant was ready at the time of the book's publication in 1921, to begin manufacture of armor for the new battleships.CHAPTER XIV: STORAGE FACILITIES
General storehouse, Navy Yard, Boston, Mass
Hulette coal unloader, Constable Hook, NJ
Mead-Morrison unloader, also Constable Hook
Before April 917 the Navy Department had recognised that the demand for storage facilities had outrun supply. The Bureau responded by preparing type plans for each type of storage facility.
These covered a variety of different types for structures.
A total of $30m was spent on 30 permanent and over 100 temporary facilities. A table on pp 327-328 lists the locations of 26 of the former [the other 4?]. They were at:
This chapter does not cover storage for ordnance, ammunition, fuel [except emergency stores], oil fuel, and medical supplies. It does provide many plans and photographs of the whole range of buildings.
It also provides information on more specialist storage facilities:
Prior to the war, the General Board had expressed concern about an adequate strategic reserve of fuel oil. As a result a program to expand or development new facilities was begun. This program continued during the war years but was not given a high priority. Storage areas which contained large concrete storage tanks were built at:
The largest and newest project was at:
Some use was made of steel tanks as well as the main requirement for concrete.
The most immediate concern of the Bureau was to respond to a request from Admiral Sims in London to provide oil storage facilities in France. This was accomplished by the transfer of materials and equipment from the United States.
3 large 7,000 ton steel tanks were dismantled at Norfolk, taken in sections to Philadelphia, and from there, shipped to Brest. They were re-erected and formed the main fuel storage facility for US warships based in France.
9 new 3,000 ton steel tanks were built in sections and shipped to add capacity to French storage units at Furt, La Pallice and L'Orient.
In addition to the tanks, pumps and piping were shipped to France.
This chapter contains a lengthy personal memoir of the construction period at Brest by Lt. C. P. Conrad, Corps of Civil Engineers.
CHAPTER XVI: RADIO STATIONS
One of the eight 820ft radio masts erected near Bordeaux, France
(panel points indicated on right - no enlargement)
The design, testing and operation of radio stations was the responsibility of the Bureau of Engineering. The Bureau of Yards and Docks provided the supporting infrastructure - self-supporting towers, masts, operating buildings, power houses, quarters, barracks, water and sewerage, lighting and fencing.
Three new high-powered radio stations were commissioned in the spring of 1917:
Two more were constructed in the USA during the war:
A major project was the construction of a radio station at Croix D'Hins, near Bordeaux in France to handle all transatlantic communications (image above) .
A lengthy memoir with diagrams and photographs is found at the end of this chapter, written by Commander F C Cooke, CEC.
Smaller projects included:
In addition, the bureau supplied twenty 200 foot and four 300 foot masts to the Cuban government.
CHAPTER XVII: SUBMARINE BASES
Submarine base, New London, Conn - plan below
Before June 1915, very little consideration was given to the special berthing and support needs of submarines. In that month, a plan was drawn up for the creation of a number of self-supporting submarine bases. Working on the basis that the main tactical organisation of submarines would be a squadron of ten boats, the blueprint was for the construction of two piers about 250 ft apart with room for this number of submarines, and the squadron's tender. There would be a full range of supporting facilities for the maintenance and repair of the boats. In addition, proper accommodation would be provided for 80 officers and 600 enlisted men.
In practice, this standard plan was modified because of the particular characteristics of each site.
The first project was at Pearl Harbor . The plan was approved on May 18th, 1916. The site chosen, in March 1917, was at Quarry Point. More piers would be built but further apart from each other. The bureau's history does not indicate the extent to which this base was completed by the end of 1918.
The current submarine base at New London was to enlarged. The work was authorised in March 1917 and a budget of $1.25m was allocated. Eight finger piers [each 275ft x 20ft] were constructed. New barracks were built to accommodate 500 each. The former marine barracks was enlarged to provide for a further 750 personnel.
An entirely new submarine base was constructed at Coco Solo , in the Panama Canal Zone. Construction was authorised on May 25th 1917 with a budget of $741,025. With four piers, repair and maintenance facilities were provided for up to 20 submarines. An air station was constructed alongside the submarine base [see next chapter].
At Philadelphia Navy Yard, Pier D in the Back Basin was modified for submarine use.
A plan for new bases on the west coast was finalised in January 1917 with sites selected at Ediz Hook, WA, Tongue Point, OR and San Pedro, CA. The only site where work began was at Tongue Point, and that was not until 1920.
In late 1917, an L-shaped pier was constructed at Mare Island for submarine support.
A submarine base was included in the plans for the new fleet base at Hampton Roads. Situated in the far north-eastern corner of the site, the base would consist of an enclosed basin [1,100 x 1,200 ft], a pier [1,200 x 120 ft], and ten finger piers [330 x 18 ft]. This base could support a maximum of 31 boats.
Consideration was given to the construction of a base at Key West, but no work was done by the time of the armistice.CHAPTER XVIII: SHORE FACILITIES FOR AVIATION
Naval Air Station, Hampton Roads, Va
US Naval Air Stations in Europe
Dirigible hangar, Cape May, NJ
Before 1917 little thought was paid to the use of land bases for naval aircraft. The first land base was established at Pensacola, Fl. in 1914. This followed the use of temporary camps at Annapolis and Guantanamo Bay in 1913. By 1917, Pensacola had three seaplane hangers, and dirigible shed.]
The first task of the bureau was to construct a series of patrol stations as bases for coastal patrol aircraft. As a result of investment in eight airship hangers, the following patrol stations were established during the course of 1917:
Nine flying training stations were created during the war years. They were:
Ten 'Rest Stations' were established. These would provide basic refuelling facilities for patrol aircaft. They were at:
Four permanent naval air stations were constructed:
Marine Flying Field, Quantico, Va
Marine Flying Field, Parris Island, SC
Naval Air Station, Yorktown, Va
Naval Air Station, Galveston, Tx
A fifth station was begun at Brunswick, Me. but construction was abandoned after the armistice.
Major developments took place at the Naval Aircraft Factory, Philadelphia.
Almost all the above were closed 1919-1920, and aviation facilities were reduced to two permanent stations:
A major part of the Bureau's work was the construction of air bases in Europe for use by the United States Navy. Up to March 1918, 6 were established in Ireland, 1 in England, and 18 in France. By the end of the war, a further 1 in England, 6 in France, 2 in Italy, and 1 in Tunisia were either completed or planned.
A table on pages 419-420 gives full details, and a map is provided on page 421.
The locations of air stations in Europe, and the function of each is listed below (* second wave):
Lake Bolsena seaplane
Porto Corsini seaplane
All of the above were relinquished/abandoned after the armistice.CHAPTER XIX: UNITED STATES HELIUM PRODUCTION PLANT, FORTH WORTH, TEX.
Helium plant, Fort Worth
Interior, compressor building
The United States government responded to a request from Britain to develop a source of helium required for balloons. This could be accomplished by the construction of a plant which would extract helium from natural gas. A survey by the Bureau of Mines, led to the choice of a site in Texas known as the Petrolia [Texas] field.
Three experimental plants were established from which the process developed by Linde Air Productions was chosen. The Bureau of Engineering designed the plant, and the Bureau of Yards and Docks constructed the plant on the northern outskirts of Fort Worth. Various types of specialised buildings and structures were built for tasks such as compression, separation, as well as boilers
Much detail is given on the process of extraction at this point in the chapter.
The new plant required the construction of a pipeline to carry the gas from the wells to the plant. The pipeline was over 100 miles long. Details are provided on pressure and capacity at this point in the account.
The plant was connected to the electricity grid operated by Forth Worth Power and Lighting Co.
The construction cost was $3.5m and it was capable of producing 40,000 cubic feet of helium per day.
This chapter outlines activities which had no relation to the war effort. As a result of treaty obligations to Santo Domingo and Haiti, and to the new responsibility for the former Danish Virgin Islands, CEC officers were sent out to supervise a wide range of infrastructure projects in these three locations.
In Santo Domingo, 2 CEC officers supervised a wide range of work including two main highways, railroads, bridges, water and sewerage facilities, the telephone network, schools, and harbor improvements.
In Haiti. 8 CEC officers were employed on a similar wide range of tasks which included roads, public buildings, water supply, harbors and railroads.
When the United States took over the administration of the Virgin Islands in February 1917, one CEC officer was tasked with a range of minor infrastructure projects. Given the scale of the task, progress was slow.
The main function of this division was to assess bids for work, and award contracts for that work. Between April 6th 1917 and November 11th 1918, the division directly awarded 841 project contracts, and approved 439 others which had originated locally in navy yards and elsewhere.
A total of 1,016 contracts were awarded with a total expenditure of $120m. The award of a large number of other contracts were abandoned at the end of hostilities.
This chapter offers a detailed account of how the financial aspects of contracts were assessed and negotiated. The process was flexible and changed during the months of the war. The division indicated the priority to be given to each contract. It developed an Information and Plans Section to oversee the progress of contracts and employed a large number of locally enrolled inspectors to report on the progress of work.
CHAPTER XXII: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS DIVISION OF THE BUREAU
25 ton locomotive crane for twin minesweeper construction, Philadelphia, Pa
Typical yard locomotive and dump-cars
Yard truck and semi-trailer for boat haulage
This division was created on March 26th, 1917. It had a wide range of functions: some of which are described in detail. They were:
CHAPTER XXIII: EMERGENCY OFFICE BUILDING, POTOMAC PARK, WASHINGTON
Navy Building, Washington DC (no enlargement)
The inadequate size of the State, War and Navy Building was recognised before the war, but no action was taken until America's entry into the conflict. By July 1, 1917, the Navy Department occupied nine different buildings in various parts of the city. As the same problem affected the War Department, this department proposed the construction of a new building to house it, and some parts of the Navy Department. The Navy Department did not care for this arrangement, and proposed a separate building to house it on the one location. Ultimately, two separate buildings were built on the plot in Potomac Park - one to be named the Navy Building, and the other, the Munitions Building.
The building was authorised on March 25th , 1918 - a month after the Bureau signed the contract.
The cost would be $5,775,000. Contractors employed 3,400 men in the construction of reinforced concrete building which was completed on October 1st, 1918. The Navy Building had 940,000 square feet of office space, and the Munitions Building had 840,000 square feet.
Much of this chapter is devoted to details of the design, and of the construction process.
The outbreak of war, and the movement of workers to the many projects, created a severe shortage of housing in Washington DC and across the nation. On July 8th, 1918, President Wilson allocated $100m to provide a solution to the problem. The United States Housing Corporation was established. The Bureau worked closely with it to provide housing in and around naval bases and navy yards. Many of the housing projects were small scale.
This chapter illustrates the nature and extent of the work by lengthy accounts of the work undertaken at a number of locations:
Bridgeport, CT. Houses for 889 families at a cost of $6m.
Hampton Roads, VA - 20,000 workers were employed on the site of the new operating base by January 1918. The housing requirement was set at 26,000 men at a cost of $10m. Three sites were chosen - Greenwood [which was abandoned 11.18] Truxton [for 'colored' workers] and Cradock [for white workers]. This chapter devotes a considerable amount of time to the work at Cradock where 198 detached and 26 semi-detached properties were built. It does not say anything about Truxton.
Philadelphia PA - with 15,000 workers the bureau provided 650 houses
Quincy, MA - with 16,000 works, a total of 424 family houses, and 21 dormitories were built.
Vallejo, CA - 110 acres were developed for 95 houses, and 30 'flats' together with 10 dormitories.
Bremerton - a memoir by one of the project managers is provided.
Most of these properties were sold to private purchasers immediately after the war.
GOFF DD 247
This section lists the names and designations that the ship had during its lifetime. The list is in chronological order.
- Clemson Class Destroyer
Keel Laid June 16 1919 - Launched June 2 1920
This section lists active links to the pages displaying covers associated with the ship. There should be a separate set of pages for each incarnation of the ship (ie, for each entry in the "Ship Name and Designation History" section). Covers should be presented in chronological order (or as best as can be determined).
Since a ship may have many covers, they may be split among many pages so it doesn't take forever for the pages to load. Each page link should be accompanied by a date range for covers on that page.
This section lists examples of the postmarks used by the ship. There should be a separate set of postmarks for each incarnation of the ship (ie, for each entry in the "Ship Name and Designation History" section). Within each set, the postmarks should be listed in order of their classification type. If more than one postmark has the same classification, then they should be further sorted by date of earliest known usage.
A postmark should not be included unless accompanied by a close-up image and/or an image of a cover showing that postmark. Date ranges MUST be based ONLY ON COVERS IN THE MUSEUM and are expected to change as more covers are added.
>>> If you have a better example for any of the postmarks, please feel free to replace the existing example.
Unable to find a citation for either of the Bronze Stars he was awarded.
Lieutenant Commander Adolph Hede (NSN: 0-59600), United States Navy, a former crewman of the U.S.S. CANOPUS (AS-9), was captured by the Japanese after the fall of Corregidor, Philippine Islands, on 6 May 1942, and was held as a Prisoner of War until his death while in captivity.
General Orders: NARA Database: Records of World War II Prisoners of War, created, 1942 - 1947
Rank: Lieutenant Commander
Black Hawk (AD-9): Photographs
Click on the small photograph to prompt a larger view of the same image.
At Inverness, Scotland, in September 1918 as mine force repair ship and flagship of Commander, U.S. Mine Force.
Photo No. NH 56398
Source: U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command
Anchored in Scottish waters, with a trawler and minesweepers alongside, circa 1919.
Photo No. NH 56673
Source: U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command
Anchored in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, circa 1920-1921.
Photo No. NH 61909
Source: U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command
Shown circa the 1920s, possibly soon after she joined the Asiatic Fleet in 1922.
Photo No. None
Photographed circa 1923 in the Far East.
Photo No. NH 99695
Source: U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command
At anchor in Philippine waters on 19 December 1935.
Note the numerous additions and modifications to her superstructure since the 1920s.
Photo No. NH 78021
Source: U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command
Tending destroyers at Chefoo, China, in 1939.
Visible alongside are Barker (DD-213) and Whipple (DD-217), the inboard ships of a six-ship nest that also included Pillsbury (DD-227), Alden (DD-211), John D. Edwards (DD-216), and Peary (DD-226). This colorized photo is backstamped "Dah Loh Photo Service, Chefoo."
Photo No. None
In San Francisco Bay on 28 February 1943 after a major overhaul.
Photo No. 19-N-42257
Source: U.S. National Archives, RG-19-LCM
In San Francisco Bay on 28 February 1943 after a major overhaul.
Photo No. 19-N-42258
Source: U.S. National Archives, RG-19-LCM
In Alaskan waters circa 1944.
After spending most of the interwar period in the Far East, this ship spent most of World War II in Alaska.
USS Graham (DD-192), Guantanamo Bay, 1920 - History
Sailing from New York on 4 January 1921, ARIZONA joined the Fleet as it sailed for Guantanamo Bay and the Panama Canal Zone. Arriving at Colon, on the Atlantic side of the isthmian waterway, on 19 January 1921, ARIZONA transited the Panama Canal for the first time on that day, arriving at Panama Bay on the 20th. Underway for Callao, Peru, on the 22nd, the Fleet arrived there nine days later, on 31 January 1921, for a six-day visit. While she was there, ARIZONA was visited by the President of Peru.
Underway for Balboa on 5 February 1921, ARIZONA arrived at the destination on the 14th transiting the canal again the day after Washington's Birthday, the battleship reached Guantanamo Bay on 6 March 1921. She operated there until 24 April 1921, when she sailed for New York, steaming via Hampton Roads. ARIZONA reached New York on 29 April 1921, and remained under overhaul there until 15 June 1921. She steamed thence for Hampton Roads on the latter date, and on the 21st steamed off Cape Charles with Army and Navy observers to witness the experimental bombings of the ex-German submarine U-117.
Proceeding thence back to New York, the battleship there broke the flag of Vice Admiral John D. McDonald (who, as captain, had been ARIZONA's first commanding officer) on 1 July 1921 and sailed for Panama and Peru on 9 July 1921. She arrived at the port of Callao on 22 July 1921 as flagship for the Battle Force, Atlantic Fleet, to observe the celebrations accompanying the centennial year of Peruvian Independence. On 27 July 1921, Vice Admiral McDonald went ashore and represented the United States at the unveiling of a monument commemorating the accomplishments of San Martin, who had liberated Peru from the Spanish yoke a century before.
Sailing for Panama Bay on 9 August 1921, ARIZONA became flagship for Battleship Division 7 when Vice Admiral McDonald transferred his flag to WYOMING (BB-33) and Rear Admiral Josiah S. McKean broke his flag on board as commander of the division on 10 August 1921 at Balboa. The following day, the battleship sailed for San Diego, arriving there on 21 August 1921.
Navy Directories & Officer Registers
The "Register of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps" was published annually from 1815 through at least the 1970s it provided rank, command or station, and occasionally billet until the beginning of World War II when command/station was no longer included. Scanned copies were reviewed and data entered from the mid-1840s through 1922, when more-frequent Navy Directories were available.
The Navy Directory was a publication that provided information on the command, billet, and rank of every active and retired naval officer. Single editions have been found online from January 1915 and March 1918, and then from three to six editions per year from 1923 through 1940 the final edition is from April 1941.
The entries in both series of documents are sometimes cryptic and confusing. They are often inconsistent, even within an edition, with the name of commands this is especially true for aviation squadrons in the 1920s and early 1930s.
Alumni listed at the same command may or may not have had significant interactions they could have shared a stateroom or workspace, stood many hours of watch together… or, especially at the larger commands, they might not have known each other at all. The information provides the opportunity to draw connections that are otherwise invisible, though, and gives a fuller view of the professional experiences of these alumni in Memorial Hall.
USS Sailfish after a refit at Mare Island Navy Yard 13 April 1943.
Commissioned as USS Squalus on 1 March 1939.
Sunk by a mechanical failure 23 May 1939 while on trials.
Refloated 13 September 1939.
Decommissioned 15 November 1939 at the Portsmouth Navy Yard.
Recommissioned as USS Sailfish on 15 May 1940.
Decommissioned 27 October 1945.
Stricken 30 April 1948.
Sold 18 June 1948 and broken up for scrap.
Commands listed for USS Sailfish (192)
Please note that we're still working on this section.
|1||Oliver Francis Naquin, USN||1 Mar 1939||24 May 1939|
|2||Lt.Cdr. Morton Claire Mumma, Jr., USN||15 May 1940||18 Dec 1941|
|3||Lt.Cdr. Richard George Voge, USN||18 Dec 1941||9 Sep 1942|
|4||Lt. John Richard Moore, USN||9 Sep 1942||17 Jul 1943|
|5||T/Cdr. William Robert Lefavour, USN||17 Jul 1943||21 Oct 1943|
|6||T/Lt.Cdr. Robert Elwin Mccraner Ward, USN||21 Oct 1943||Dec 1944|
|7||Lt.Cdr. Lincoln Marcy, USN||Dec 1944||30 Aug 1945|
|8||Berley Irving Freedman, USNR||30 Aug 1945||27 Oct 1945|
You can help improve our commands section
Click here to Submit events/comments/updates for this vessel.
Please use this if you spot mistakes or want to improve this ships page.
Notable events involving Sailfish include:
23 May 1939
During her shakedown cruise USS Sculpin (SS 191) was diverted to help search for the missing sister boat USS Squalus (SS 192). Squalus had sunk due to mechanical failure on 23 May 1939. Sculpin found the sunken submarine and aided the submarine rescue ship Falcon as she rescued all 33 surviving men from the non-flooded areas of the Squalus. 26 men drowned in flooded aft section the sinking.
9 Feb 1940
The former USS Squalus (SS 192) was renamed USS Sailfish (SS 192) after successful recovery and repairs after its sinking.
8 Dec 1941
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. Morton Claire Mumma, Jr) left Manila for her first war patrol. She was ordered to patrol off the west coast of Luzon.
17 Dec 1941
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. M.C. Mumma, Jr) ended her first war patrol at Manila.
21 Dec 1941
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. Richard George Voge) left Manila for her second war patrol. She was ordered to patrol south off Formosa.
14 Feb 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) ended her 2nd war patrol at Tjilatjap, Java, Netherlands, East Indies.
19 Feb 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) left Tjilatjap her 3th war patrol. she was ordered to patrol in the Java Sea.
2 Mar 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) torpedoed and sank the Japanese aircraft transport Kamogawa Maru (6440 GRT, offsite link) north of Lombok Strait in position 08°06'S, 115°57'E.
19 Mar 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) ended her 3th war patrol at Fremantle, Australia.
22 Mar 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) left Fremantle for her 4th war patrol. She was ordered to patrol in the Java end Celebes Sea.
21 May 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) ended her 4th war patrol at Fremantle.
13 Jun 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) departed from Fremantle for her 5th war patrol. She was ordered to patrol off the coast of Indochina in the South China Sea.
9 Jul 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) torpedoed and damaged the Japanese transport ship Aobasan Maru (8811 GRT) off the coast of Indochina in position 11°31'N, 109°21'E.
1 Aug 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) ended her 5th war patrol at Fremantle.
13 Sep 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) left Brisbane, Australia for her 6th war patrol. She was ordered to patrol in the Solomon Islands area.
1 Nov 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.G. Voge) ended her 6th war patrol at Brisbane.
24 Nov 1942
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. John Richard Moore) departed from Brisbane for her 7th war patrol. She was ordered to patrol south of New Britain.
15 Jan 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. John Richard Moore) ended her 7th war patrol at Pearl Harbor. She was ordered to the Mare Island Navy Yard for an overhaul.
17 May 1943
With her overhaul completed USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. John Richard Moore) departed from Pearl Harbor for her 8th war patrol. She was ordered to patrol in Japanese home waters off the east coast of Honshu.
15 Jun 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. John Richard Moore) torpedoed and sank the Japanese merchant Shinju Maru (3617 GRT) south of Todozaki, Honshu, Japan in position 39°00'N, 142°00'E.
25 Jun 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. John Richard Moore) torpedoed and sank the Japanese collier Iburi Maru (3291 GRT) off the northeast coast of Honshu, Japan in position 39°00'N, 142°00'E.
3 Jul 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. John Richard Moore) ended her 8th war patrol at Midway.
25 Jul 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. William R. Lefavour) departed from Midway for her 9th war patrol. She was ordered to patrol in the Formosa Strait and off Okinawa.
16 Sep 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. William R. Lefavour) ended her 9th war patrol at Pearl Harbor.
17 Nov 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. Robert Elwin Mccraner Ward) leaves Pearl Harbor for her 10th war patrol. She was ordered to patrol in Japanese home waters south of Honshu.
4 Dec 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. Robert Elwin Mccraner Ward) torpedoed and sank the Japanese escort carrier Chuyo (offsite link) southeast of Honshu, Japan in position 32°27'N, 143°49'E.
13 Dec 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) torpedoed and sank the Japanese transport ship Totai Maru (3195 GRT) south of Kyushu, Japan in position 30°15'N, 132°30'E.
21 Dec 1943
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) torpedoed and sank the Japanese troop transport Uyo Maru (6376 GRT) off Miyazaki, Japan in position 32°38'N, 132°04'E.
5 Jan 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) ended her 10th war patrol at Pearl Harbor. She was ordered to the Mare Island Navy Yard for an overhaul.
4 Jul 1944
USS Billfish (Cdr. V.C. Turner, USN) conducted exercises off Pearl Harbour together with USS Le Hardy (Lt.Cdr. E.L. Holtz, USNR), USS Charles R. Greer (Lt.Cdr. W.T. Denton, USNR), USS Lyman (Lt.Cdr. J.W. Wilson, USNR), USS Greenling (Cdr. J.D. Gerwick, USN) and USS Sailfish (Cdr. R.E.M. Ward, USN).
9 Jul 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) departed from Pearl Harbor for her 11th war patrol. She was ordered to patrol in the Luzon-Formosa area.
7 Aug 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) torpedoed and sank the Japanese Kinshu Maru (238 GRT) in Luzon Strait in position 20°09'N, 121°19'E.
24 Aug 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) torpedoed and sank the Japanese troop transport Toan Maru (2110 GRT) in Luzon Strait in position 21°23'N, 121°37'E.
8 Sep 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) ended her 11th war patrol at Midway.
26 Sep 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) departed from Midway for her 12th and final war patrol. Once again she was ordered to patrol in the Luzon-Formosa area.
12 Oct 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) sank a Japanese sampan and damaged a Japanese tug with gunfire south off Formosa in position 22°16'N, 120°26'E. She also picked up 11 U.S.N. fliers.
24 Oct 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) pulled into Saipan to land her passengers and to make some minor repairs. She then continues her patrol.
4 Nov 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) torpedoed and damaged the Japanese destroyer Harukaze (offsite link) and Japanese landing ship T-111 (890 tons) in Luzon Strait in position 20°08'N, 121°43'E. Although Sailfish is damaged by aerial bombs during the attack she remains on patrol.
11 Dec 1944
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. R.E.M. Ward) ended her 12th and final war patrol at Pearl Harbor. She was now to be used on training duties on the U.S. east coast.
12 Jan 1945
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. L. Marcy, USN) arrived in the Panama Canal Zone.
13 Jan 1945
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. L. Marcy, USN) departed the Panama Canal Zone for New London, Connecticut.
22 Jan 1945
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. L. Marcy, USN) arrived at New London, Connecticut.
4 Jun 1945
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. L. Marcy, USN) departed New London, Connecticut for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
9 Jun 1945
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. L. Marcy, USN) arrived at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from New London, Connecticut.
9 Aug 1945
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. L. Marcy, USN) departed Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for the Philadelphia Navy Yard.
14 Aug 1945
USS Sailfish (Lt.Cdr. L. Marcy, USN) arrived at the Philadelphia Navy Yard from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.