# Ship identification question



## Mr. Packrat (18 Feb 2010)

Hi, 

Can someone assist me with identifying some ships? A friend showed me some pictures and challenged me to identify them with their hull number "the number of the hull number of the class ship. ie Halifax class = HMCS Halifax FFH 330."

He also gave me the following hint to start with.  "All ships are post war, and from Western Navies. Some classes are 
very small but were included because they had unique designs or places in Naval history."

If you have any info for these please post it here or contact me through my profile.
Any assistance that can be provided would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,
Kurt

Picture A
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/d88d454d-d074-44f8-8109-e72aa77a27da.jpg" alt="" class="bbc_img" />


Picture B
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/c2c07b44-27aa-4da4-a92f-211f5f3e7bd2.jpg" alt="" class="bbc_img" />


Picture C
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/6a2f98f1-8f75-4a2c-9d50-cefd8007448e.jpg" alt="" class="bbc_img" />


Picture D
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/36d17e09-8509-4ebb-9385-b9aa7d2b46a7.jpg" alt="" class="bbc_img" />


Picture E
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/ae329085-b188-4d38-832a-4a964f4cafbf.jpg" alt="" Width=512 class="bbc_img" />


Picture F
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/5946e5b3-3f0a-4a13-b523-8d7382d1f394.jpg" alt="" Width=512 class="bbc_img" />


Picture G
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/2b2eafd2-1c22-4dd9-a7a1-efef9bd78101.jpg" alt="" Width=512 class="bbc_img" />


Picture H
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/ef715cac-74f3-4f6d-b0d1-ef270707b8ff.jpg" alt="" Width=512 class="bbc_img" />


Picture I
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/f4dcb91a-d373-4a01-812f-632ff96f497d.jpg" alt="" Width=512 class="bbc_img" />


Picture J
<img src="http://img.geocaching.com/cache/0ca825f8-d76e-417b-b135-cd781bf13772.jpg" alt="" Width=512 class="bbc_img" />


----------



## Occam (18 Feb 2010)

B.  HMCS Bras d'Or (FHE 400)
E.  HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22)
J.  ITS Giuseppe Garibaldi (C-551)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Feb 2010)

Occam is correct for the three he identified.

A is Spanish Navy Ship Principe de Asturia, R-11
C is French Navy Ship Charles de Gaule, R-91
D is USS Ticonderoga CG-47, as is F , which is an aerial view of the same class
G is USS Belknap, DLG/CG-26
H is HMS Albion, L-14, and 
I is USS Virginia, CGN-38


----------



## Lineman (18 Feb 2010)

F - USS Ticonderoga CG47
(oops missed the reference in the previous post)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Feb 2010)

Actually, I will change my mind on F: It is a Spruance class destroyer (USS Spruance, DD-963)

The lack of details in the overhead pic makes exact determination difficult. 

The Tico's were built on the same hull, same power plant and nearly similar superstructure and weapons suite as the Spruances, which can make distinguishing difficult. The main difference from the side is in the Tico's higher and slightly angled bridge structure, which can be hard to see from above. Also, because the Tico's had the SPY 1 radar on that bridge structure, they did not have an Air Search Radar antenna on the rear mast. Again, hard to see on a low res overhead .

What clenched my change of mind is found aft, between the 5 inch gun and the helo deck. The H like structure there is a "pepperbox" Nato eight cells Sea Sparrow launcher. Only the Spruances had those fitted. The Tico's either had twin rail missile launchers fore and aft OR twin vertical launch 61 cells systems (like the one forward of the bridge seen on the overhead). The Spruance's had the twin rail or VLS forward only, and the Sea Sparrows aft.

So this is a Spruance, regardless of the low quality of the pic.


----------



## Gorgo (1 Sep 2010)

B - HMCS _Bras d'Or_ FHE-400
E - most likely HMCS _Bonaventure_ CVL-22, but possibly a sistership owned by another country


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Sep 2010)

A- Bo-at
B- Bo-at
C Bo-at
D- Bo-at
E- Bo-at
F- Bo-at
G- Bo-at
H- Bo-at
I- Bo-at
J- Bo-at


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Sep 2010)

Sorry Max but that would be an exam you would have failed because the definition is

_The distinction between a ship and a boat varies depending on regional definitions, but as a general rule, a boat can fit onto a ship, but a ship cannot fit onto a boat. A ship, in other words, is a very large ocean-going vessel, while a boat tends to be much smaller. Additionally, a ship usually is defined as having a displacement larger than 500 tons_


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Sep 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sorry Max but that would be an exam you would have failed because the definition is
> 
> _The distinction between a ship and a boat varies depending on regional definitions, but as a general rule, a boat can fit onto a ship, but a ship cannot fit onto a boat. A ship, in other words, is a very large ocean-going vessel, while a boat tends to be much smaller. Additionally, a ship usually is defined as having a displacement larger than 500 tons_



In my line of work it's actually accepted :

_boat 
a submarine; also what aviators call all ships. _



I would actually give myself 100% if it was a recce exam!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Sep 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In my line of work it's actually accepted :
> 
> _boat
> a submarine; also what aviators call all ships. _
> ...



Of course :


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Sep 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In my line of work it's actually accepted :
> 
> _boat
> a submarine; also what *aviators call all ships*. _
> ...



There are only tactical aviators or maritime aviators in Canada, the rest are just pilots!

Aviators know the difference between ships and boats.  :nod:


----------



## aesop081 (2 Sep 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I would actually give myself 100% if it was a recce exam!



I give you a "fail" and cross my fingers you are never tasked with maritime strike.


----------



## Sub_Guy (2 Sep 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> There are only tactical aviators or maritime aviators in Canada, the rest are just pilots!



You left out the most important aviator........    CDN Aviator!

That was weak.. >


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In my line of work it's actually accepted :
> 
> _boat
> a submarine; also what aviators call all ships. _
> ...



That is scary as shyte.  I remember being in Sufield and having lifesize wooden tanks all painted white, and all real tanks having to have flourescent Orange Marker Panels on their turrets to identify them for the CF 18 pilots.  Needless to say neither targets, nor Friendlies suffered any damage from a aircraft.   We did assist, against orders, with the tanks after the aircraft had left the battlespace in destroying the "Enemy Tanks".


SupersonicMax

If you don't know your AFV Recognition, Land, Naval or Air, you are a danger to all on the battlespace, and will then be engaged as an enemy........even if you are Friendly.........as we value our lives more than yours.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Sep 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In my line of work it's actually accepted :



Thus explaining why your line of work is the subjet of jokes and ridicule from the rest of the Air Force.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Sep 2010)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> You left out the most important aviator........    CDN Aviator!
> 
> That was weak.. >



That wasn't so weak...but you're right, CDN Aviator is in a class all by himself...generally the class where you have to sit quietly after you've cleaned the chalk brushes finished your lines...


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Sep 2010)

GW, CDN Aviator, you need to lighten up.  It was a joke.  FWIW I got 100% on my last recce exam.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2010)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> A- Bo-at
> B- Bo-at
> C Bo-at
> D- Bo-at
> ...




For whatever (not much) it's worth, Max, I laughed; but I was a little surprised you didn't say:

"A- Bo-at Slow moving target
B- Slow moving target
.
.
.
J- Slow moving target"


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Sep 2010)

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> B - HMCS _Bras d'Or_ FHE-400
> E - most likely HMCS _Bonaventure_ CVL-22, but possibly a sistership owned by another country



Actually Fred, E is definitely Bonaventure: in the whole history of the class (Colosus class light carrier) we Canadians were the only ones crazy enough to fly something as big as Trackers ASW birds from them. As the picture show, most of them are nicely lined up on deck.

I have been told that in an exercise with the Americans off Bermuda, the USN Trackers were supposed to land and be refuelled on Bonnie but refused and threatened to ditch their planes if the controllers did not authorize them to land in Bermuda instead. Is this a true story: I don't know. It was told by my first training chief, who had been an air bosn onboard Bonnie - but I was a mere Naval Cadet then and he may just have been twisting all of our tails.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Sep 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For whatever (not much) it's worth, Max, I laughed; but I was a little surprised you didn't say:
> 
> "A- Bo-at Slow moving target
> B- Slow moving target
> ...



Actually: Bras D'or would be an exception. While slower than an airplane, her speed and manoeuvrability while planning would make pretty hard to hit from the air with standard bombs, agile enough to foil torpedoes (she could outrun a 46 or even a 48, maybe not a tigerfish), and she would be the only ship in that list with a fair chance of escaping serious missile damage by turning into them and offering a very small radar cross section - her shape probably made her radar stealthy before the concept was even thought of for ships.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2010)

For money invested vs value back, the cancellation of the Bras D'or was probably worse, relatively, than the Arrow.  At least they didn't torch it though...what a great piece of history to still have it! 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Pusser (3 Sep 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually Fred, E is definitely Bonaventure: in the whole history of the class (Colosus class light carrier) we Canadians were the only ones crazy enough to fly something as big as Trackers ASW birds from them. As the picture show, most of them are nicely lined up on deck.
> 
> I have been told that in an exercise with the Americans off Bermuda, the USN Trackers were supposed to land and be refuelled on Bonnie but refused and threatened to ditch their planes if the controllers did not authorize them to land in Bermuda instead. Is this a true story: I don't know. It was told by my first training chief, who had been an air bosn onboard Bonnie - but I was a mere Naval Cadet then and he may just have been twisting all of our tails.



I've heard a similar story only it was with respect to USN Banshees.  The RCN also had Banshees and flew them off BONAVENTURE for a few years before replacing them with Trackers.  The Banshee was the oly jet fighter ever in service with the RCN.

On another note, it is worth pointing out that the RCN was a pioneer in the use of angled flight decks and BONAVENTURE was the test platform.  MAGNIFICENT before her was actually the same class as BONAVENTURE, but always had a straight flight deck.


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Sep 2010)

I always thought the Bonnie was a Majestic class.

Didn't Brazil fly trackers off their carrier, which was a Colossus class?


----------



## aesop081 (3 Sep 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> we Canadians were the only ones crazy enough to fly something as big as Trackers ASW birds from them.



Canadian Trackers were also smaller than other Trackers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Sep 2010)

DH, you are right. But the "Majestics" were just the last six Colossus modified to upgrade to more modern arrester gear, weapons handling bays, shops, catapults and UNREP gear due to the long delays in commissioning and to handle jet planes. As the ship itself goes, they were the same. Bonnie started construction without an angled deck but was declared surplus before completion. When canada bought her in 1952, it was on the understanding that she would be completed as an angled deck carrier. Otherwise she would have looked exactly like a Colossus.

Also, the Brazilian Navy had some Trackers, which they flew from the old Minas Gerais (a real Colossus class but modified with angled deck), however I believe it was only the AWACS, AEW model, not the ASW.

And they never operated in the Good ol' North-Atlantic: Has anybody seen the picture of a Tracker being catapulted of Bonnie through a wave before? Look for it its out there (I am sure Marcom's Museum in Halifax has it.)


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2010)

For those familiar with the Bonnie, what substantive rework was done for the angled deck.  On the pictures I've seen, she and the Magnificent look identical, save for what just looks like an angled outline painted on the deck.  I suppose the arrestor gear was similarly angled as well, but was there any additional deck structure on the port side of the Bonnie to extend the flight deck?  

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Sep 2010)

My understanding from what I read is that the first angled decks on British carriers only required a slight srtetching of the port sponsoon in order to square it off some at the front end - but that was it. The most important changes were re-aligning the arrester gear to the angled deck and introducing new types of landing mirrors - because you now had to land on an airstrip that was in effect moving sideways. Also. antennae forward of the angled deck on the port side were moved to starboard.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Sep 2010)

Thanks OGBD.  Now that I look at it again, the port sponson is notably larger.  I guess what struck me in the past was that there was still a big chunk out of what would otherwise be a nice "squared-off" (perpendicular to the actual angle of the deck) at the end of the angled deck.

Regards
G2G


----------

