Talk:USS Knox (FF-1052)

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

November 2006[edit]

Scuttlebutt around the fleet in the mid 1970s was that the USS Knox had a problem with her hull seams splitting and leaking due to having been used in a test for the ability of a surface ship to adequately survive the close-by shock of a nuclear depth charge. Supposedly, the blast "loosened her seams" leading to small leaks when the ship ran into rough seas such as those occuring during a storm. Perhaps someone who served aboard the Knox can verify this.Obbop 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky Knox Denied[edit]

I served aboard Knox. I've been in nearly all spaces accessible. I've been above and below her. I've seen her hull stripped of all paint. I saw no evidence of the rumor. Knox has survived typhoons that were strong enough to tear fire plugs from the deck. No leaks. She did suffer from a thin hull from spending more time at sea than any of the other 1052's.Ajabber64 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I served aboard her as well along with my Brother (FTG3 Jerry D. Evans...R.I.P. 15 Aug.1962-24 Nov. 2006) at the same time. I became a crew member back in April of 82' shortly after I boarded her we set sail for Pusan, Korea then on to Hong Kong as we left Hong Kong to return to our Home Port in Yokosuka we came upon a Typhoon, so the Captain sees this as an opportunity to see how well we can maneuver at Battle Stations in G.Q.in Hazardous Weather conditions and we proceeded towards that Typhoon while in G.Q. we entered and exited that Typhoon on 3 different occasions the Sea was so rough and choppy the Sonar Dome was coming completely out of the water then slamming back down and at one time the side roll meter on the bridge was pegging to as far as it would register on each side and the Knox She did NOT LEAK a drop of seawater anywhere through her Hull.

Stated:~02 Dec. 2011~ GMASN R.A. Evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.108.131 (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Weapons[edit]

We have two mentions about Nuclear weapons -on this relatively short page- and each directly mentions a specific service menber providing the mention. It it public knowledge that ASROC was a nuclear capable weapon. Specific mention of such was not authorized in the Cold War - all were told to provide the generic unclassified statement of "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of Nuclear Weapons aboard the USS X" - This information is not relevant to the article, and should be removed. Wfoj3 (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

76MM[edit]

On this page and the USS MONTGOMERY page there is a reference to a 76mm/3" that was removed in the 1970s. I can find no other reference to this gun and it is not visible in any pictures I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C5:C100:F78:B8EA:21E0:C44C:1AA9 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why a destroyer?[edit]

These ships (the Knox-class as a whole) spent more than half their service lives designated as Frigates, not destroyer escorts. Why are they labeled destroyers? That seems confusing to me as when I opened the article I expected to see them labeled as frigates. Should this be changed? Ian.vanharper (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will even add, it's designation on the page is listed as FF-1052. I feel it should be changed, but I will wait 14 days for a response before I take to editing to heading. Ian.vanharper (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia. The ship was designed as a destroyer escort, there was no such thing as a frigate at that time. The lead represents that fairly well. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]