Lattice mast
{{Short description|Type of observation mast on warships}}
File:Uss south carolina bb.jpg
Lattice masts, or cage masts, or basket masts, are a type of observation mast common on United States Navy major warships in the early 20th century. They are a type of hyperboloid structure, whose weight-saving design was invented by the Russian engineer Vladimir Shukhov. They were used most prominently on American dreadnought battleships and armored cruisers of the World War I era.
In the age of sail, masts were required to support the sails, and lookouts were posted on them; with the advent of engine-powered warships, masts were retained and used for observation and to spot fall of shot. The purpose of the lattice structure was to make the posts less vulnerable to shells from enemy ships, and to better absorb the shock caused by firing heavy guns, isolating the delicate fire control equipment (rangefinders, etc.) mounted on the mast tops. However, the masts were found to be easily damaged by the inclement weather experienced at sea by naval ships during typhoons and hurricanes: {{USS|Michigan|BB-27|6}}{{'}}s mast was bent right down to the deck by such a storm in 1918. As the caliber and range of ships' guns increased, heavier rangefinders were required, and the powerful guns and engines created shock and vibrations; lattice masts were eventually phased out in favor of the more rigid tripod masts favoured by the Royal Navy.
Use in the United States Navy
The {{Sclass|South Carolina|battleship}}s of 1910 were the first class of American battleships to feature lattice masts,Hore, p. 56 which were to become a standard fixture on all American battleships, and many cruiser classes.Hore, pp. 56–60 Older vessels, including the first modern American battleship, {{USS|Indiana|BB-1|2}}, were modernized with lattice masts during the period.Friedman, p. 27
During 1912, gunnery tests were carried out by the US Navy Department on a lattice or basket mast specially installed on the San Marcos (formerly {{USS|Texas|1892|6}}), to see how capable the design was of withstanding sustained gunfire.{{cite journal |journal= Popular Mechanics Magazine |place=Chicago |volume=18 |issue=6 |page=869 |date=December 1912 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9B7ZAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA869 |title='Basket' Mast in Successful Test}}Wright, p. 164 The mast was prefabricated in the Norfolk navy yard and shipped out for installation.{{cite news|title=Mast That Is Target for Big Guns |newspaper=The Washington Times |date=August 23, 1912 |page=7c |url=https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/dlc_continental_ver02/data/sn84026749/00294557714/1912082301/0471.pdf |accessdate=August 12, 2020}}
:"As a result of the firing tests carried out some months ago against a lattice mast that had been erected on the San Marcos, now lying on the mud in Chesapeake Bay, the navy department has decided to make the lattice or basket mast the standard type for future warships. The mast, under test, showed remarkable endurance, several successful hits being necessary to bring it down."{{cite news |title=Science and Industry |newspaper=Goodwin's Weekly |place=Salt Lake City, Utah |date=January 11, 1913 |page=6a |type=hosted at Newspapers.com|url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/64375162/ |url-access=subscription |accessdate=August 12, 2020}}
The New York Times, on the other hand, carried an unfavourable notice.{{cite news |title=Basket Masts Unstable; Tests by Navy on the San Matos[sic] Disclose Weaknesses |newspaper=New York Times |date=September 5, 1912 |page=6f |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1912/09/05/archives/basket-masts-unstable-tests-by-navy-on-the-san-matos-disclose.html |url-access=subscription |access-date=12 August 2020}} By 1917 only the lowest ribs at the base of the mast remained.{{cite news|title=Remnants of the old 'Texas' |newspaper=The Sun |place=New York |date=January 7, 1917 |at=Section 4, p. 1 |url=http://navsource.org/archives/01/pdf/013511b.pdf |accessdate=August 12, 2020}}
File:USS Michigan BB 27 collapsed cage foremast.jpg
In January 1918, the lattice foremast of the battleship {{USS|Michigan|BB-27|6}} collapsed in a severe storm; the heavy seas put excessive stress on the mast and the weight of the fire control equipment caused the mast to fail at the narrowest point. The incident spurred an investigation by the Bureau of Construction and Repair, which found that the failure was likely because the mast had been lengthened, with a new section spliced in where the mast broke.Wright, p. 160 In addition, fragments from a recent explosion in one of the ship's {{convert|12|in|0|adj=on}} guns had damaged the mast, and the damage had not been adequately repaired. Nevertheless, the investigation also found that the mast aboard the battleship {{USS|Connecticut|BB-18|2}} also showed signs of buckling. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Navy repeatedly found evidence of structural problems in the masts, in large part due to the corrosive effects of funnel gases.Friedman, p. 177
At the same time as the Michigan incident, US Navy officers were also gaining experience with British tripod masts for the first time while serving with the Grand Fleet during World War I. Unlike lattice masts, the heavier tripods did not suffer from vibration when steaming at high speed, and they were not as susceptible to shock from gunfire, which caused the lattice masts to whip from the concussion.Friedman, p. 195
All American battleships up to the {{Sclass|Colorado|battleship|0}} battleships (1921–1923) were equipped with lattice masts, although in the 1920s to 1930s, the older battleships had their lattice masts replaced with more modern tripod masts, concomitant with the addition of larger, much heavier fire-control director tops.Hore, p. 60 The newer {{Sclass|Tennessee|battleship|5}} and Colorado classes retained their original lattice masts, of heavier construction than those on earlier ships, at the start of World War II.
Use in fortifications
A lattice fire-control mast was installed on Fort Drum, a fort built by the United States to guard the entrance of Manila Bay. The mast directed the fire of the fort's 14-inch main batteries.McGovern, pp. 14–15
Notes
{{reflist|colwidth=20em}}
References
- {{cite book| last = Friedman| first = Norman| year = 1985| title = U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History| publisher = Naval Institute Press| location = Annapolis, Maryland| oclc = 12214729 | isbn = 978-0-87021-715-9}}
- {{cite book |last=Hore|first=Peter|title=Battleships of World War I|year=2006|location=London|publisher=Southwater Books|isbn=978-1-84476-377-1}}
- {{cite book |last1=Morison |first1=S. L. |last2=Morison |first2=S. E. |last3=Polmar |first3=N. |year=2003 |title=The American Battleship |publisher=Zenith | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SYurkGIlgLMC |isbn=0-7603-0989-2}}
- {{cite book |editor-last=Hythe |editor-first=Thomas A. |title=The Naval Annual |others=(Brassey's Naval Annual)|year=1912 |location=Portsmouth |publisher=J. Griffin & Co. |url=https://archive.org/details/brasseysnavala1912brasuoft/page/n349/mode/2up}}
- {{cite book |last=Melnikov|first=R. M.|title=(in Russian) Lineyny korabl "Andrey Pervozvanny" (1906–1925) (Линейный корабль "Андрей Первозванный" (1906–1925))|year=2003|location=Saint Petersburg|publisher= Korabli i srazheniya. (no ISBN)}}
- {{cite book |last=McGovern |first=Terrance C. |title=American Defenses of Corregidor and Manila Bay 1898–1945 |year=2003 |publisher=Osprey |isbn=1-84176-427-2}}
- {{cite book | last = Staff | first = Gary | year = 2006 | title = German Battlecruisers: 1914–1918 | publisher = Osprey Books | location = Oxford | isbn = 978-1-84603-009-3}}
- {{cite journal|last1=Wright|first1=Christopher C. |year=2006 |title=Re: Questions on the Effectiveness of U.S. Navy Gun Fire Control System Rangekeepers |journal=Warship International |volume=XLIII |issue=2 |pages=159–164 |jstor=44893396 |issn=0043-0374}}