From Wed Dec 31 18:03:04 1997
>X-Sender: john.szalay@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>From: John Szalay
>Subject: RE: USS PITTSBURG (CA-72) & her lost bow.
>Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 00:34:33 +0000
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>At 03:47 PM 12/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >The bow broke off during a typhoon owing to poor plate welds at the
> >Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co. at the Fore River Shipyard, Quincy, Mass., in
> >April 1943. This was the third case for a U.S. Navy warship, the USS
> >Baltimore (CA-68) also suffered buckling of the bow plates but did not
> >lose the bow.
> >
>
>FWIW: recently a picture of the Pittsburgh minus her bow was posted to
>the REC.BINARIES.PICTURES.MILITARY usenet newsgroup, I captured it
>at that time for reference, since the current topic is the bow. I have
>posted again to the same group.
>
> rec.binaries.pictures.military
>
>.
>
>
>
>
>

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue Dec 30 18:48:48 1997
>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:16:51 -0500
>From: Brooks A Rowlett
>Organization: None whatsoever
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>To: Mahan Naval History Mailing List ,
> MARHST ,
> World War II Discussion List
>CC: elmer@wpi.edu
>Subject: USS PITTSBURG (CA-72) & her lost bow.
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>As is fairly well known, BALTIMORE class heavy cruiser USS PITTSBURGH
>lost her bow in a storm in 1945. Larry Sowinski’s photo book ACTION IN
>THE PACIFIC has a photo of her, moored next to a light cruiser at Guam
>with the bow missing; Paul Silverstone’s US WARSHIPS OF WORLD WAR II has
>an aerial photo of PITTSBURGH steaming along without the bow.
>
>The bow was salved and brought into Guam. However, PITTSBURG sailed
>to Puget Sound Navy yard with a false bow and was under repair there at
>the end of the war, and was decommissioned upon completion of repairs.
>So it appears that the original bow was not re-attached.
>
>Is that correct? Was a new bow built? If not, what vessel towed the
>original bow back to the United States; or if the original bow was not
>used, what was its ultimate fate? Scrap? Sunk as target?
>
>Works already consulted: DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN NAVAL FIGHTING SHIPS
>N-P volume with entry on PITTSBURGH.
>
>Thanks,
> -Brooks

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed Dec 31 08:59:55 1997
>From: “Francis.Timothy”
>To: Mahan Naval History Mailing List , MARHST
> , World War II Discussion List
> , “‘mahan@microworks.net‘”
>
>Subject: RE: USS PITTSBURG (CA-72) & her lost bow.
>Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:47:33 -0500
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>The bow broke off during a typhoon owing to poor plate welds at the
>Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co. at the Fore River Shipyard, Quincy, Mass., in
>April 1943. This was the third case for a U.S. Navy warship, the USS
>Baltimore (CA-68) also suffered buckling of the bow plates but did not
>lose the bow.
>
>This is probably directly related to the extremely high turnover rates
>in labor, and the constant need for worker training, at the west coast
>shipyards during the war. This was partially caused by the “pirating”
>of skilled labor by the new aviation plants in California and
>Washington.
>
>Yet another “evil” influence of the Army Air Corps/Air Force (i.e., the
>superfluous service). [hey, just a joke…]
>
>Incidently, because of this weld failure, BuShips began X-raying
>critical welds on large surface ships (a practice previously limited to
>submarine construction).
>
>The bow was found by a tug (I can’t find the name) and towed to Guam.
>While in tow, it was termed a “suburb of Pittsburgh” and jokingly
>christened “McKeesport” by the crew. Supposedly, the cruiser’s crew
>started a rumor that the bow was filled with hundred’s of cases of beer
>and the bow was “anxiously awaited bu thousands of personnel stationed
>at the island.” While the documents are not clear, it seems the bow was
>”salvaged” at Guam, i.e. investigated and then cut up for scrap, with
>specimen pieces sent to BuShips for study.
>
>An entirely new bow, with about 5 tons of strengthening, was fabricated
>and attached at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
>
>Timothy L. Francis
>Historian
>Naval Historical Center
>email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
>voice: (202) 433-6802
>
> > ———-
> > From: Brooks A Rowlett[SMTP:brooksar@indy.net]
> > Subject: USS PITTSBURG (CA-72) & her lost bow.
> >
> >As is fairly well known, BALTIMORE class heavy cruiser USS PITTSBURGH
> >lost her bow in a storm in 1945.
> >The bow was salved and brought into Guam. However, PITTSBURG sailed
> >to Puget Sound Navy yard with a false bow and was under repair there at
> >the end of the war, and was decommissioned upon completion of repairs.
> >So it appears that the original bow was not re-attached.
> >Is that correct? Was a new bow built? If not, what vessel towed the
> >original bow back to the United States; or if the original bow was not
> >used, what was its ultimate fate? Scrap? Sunk as target?
> > -Brooks

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Dec 29 22:44:30 1997
>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:41:15 -0500
>From: Brooks A Rowlett
>Organization: None whatsoever
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>To: MARHST
>CC: Mahan Naval History Mailing List ,
> SubWar list <sub>,
> Steve Hendricks ,
> “C. Patrick Hreachmack” ,
> Andrew Toppan
>Subject: Minisub to stay in Texas
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>The following appeared on the WWII mailing list:
>
>Subject:
> Midget Submarine
> Date:
> Tue, 30 Dec 1997 02:13:34 -0600
> From:
> Arnold L Gladson
>
>
>[ from the Austin-American Statesman]
>
> Midget sub a big
> coup for Nimitz museum
> Fredericksburg museum glories in its victory after 7-year battle
>for
>the Pearl Harbor artifact.
> Off the coast of Oahu, Japanese pilots rained bombs on the water
>below. Black smoke bellowed from battleships ripped in half. U.S.
>sailors ran for cover, shielding their ears from the thunderous sounds
>of
>war.
> The Japanese had surprised the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor.
> Beneath the surface of the ocean, a midget submarine silently
>sliced through the cold, dark water. Two men moved along the sub’s dim,
>narrow passageways shouting in Japanese, preparing torpedoes for launch.
> But the attack didn’t happen. The Haramaki lost its way and
>became beached off the coast of Oahu. One of its two operators, Ensign
>Kazuo Sakamaki, would live on in shame as the first Japanese prisoner of
>World War II.
> Fifty-six years later, the 80-foot long steel submarine, now
>undergoing restoration, sits in the dank belly of a defunct H-E-B
>grocery
>store off Main Street in Fredericksburg, Texas. And in Fredericksburg
>it
>will stay.
> A seven-year struggle over where the sub would be displayed
>ended
>Tuesday, when the U.S. Navy agreed to keep the historic vessel in
>Fredericksburg, at the Admiral Nimitz Museum of the Pacific War. Hawaii
>officials wanted it returned to the attack site at Pearl Harbor, home of
>the USS Arizona Memorial and a separate display of World War II-era
>ships
>and weapons.
> ”That decision may have averted another sneak attack on Pearl
>Harbor,” said retired U.S. Representative Jake Pickle of Austin. ”We
>would have moved heaven and earth before we’d moved that thing.”
> At the memorial, the midget sub would be just one more artifact.
>At the Nimitz, it will be the centerpiece—a tool for educating new
>generations about the attack. ”The Nimitz appreciates it more than any
>other museum,” said U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith of San Antonio.
> Smith sent a letter to President Clinton, signed by all Texas
>members of Congress, asking to keep the sub in Fredricksburg. ”It’s
>taken longer to get official permission to keep the sub here than the
>war
>lasted,” Smith said.
> This is more than just a dusty remembrance of a World War II
>battle. It breathes life into the ghosts of Pearl Harbor, reminding
>visitors that war is tragic, not romantic. ”Nothing tells the story of
>the war more powerfully,” said Bruce Smith, director of the Nimitz
>Museum.
> Fredericksburg is the birthplace of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz,
>who commanded the Pacific Fleet in World War II. The sub will rest in
>the museum’s new George Bush Gallery of the Pacific War, which will open
>in about a year
>
>Arnold Lloyd Gladson
>USMC-Class of 1942</sub>

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Dec 29 21:29:41 1997
>X-Errors-To:
>Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 23:26:21 -0500 (EST)
>X-Sender: rickt@pop3.cris.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>From: rickt@cris.com (Eric Bergerud)
>Subject: Re: The *ultimate* BENSON/GLEAVES class U.S. destroyer??
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>
> >The New Georgia had interesting support: SARATOGA and VICTORIOUS,
> > as well as MASSACHUSETTS, INDIANA, and NORTH CAROLINA. Japanese
> > airpower was pretty well exhausted, though, of course … and Adm.
> > Yamamoto had been gunned down in April, further paralyzing the IJN.
> >
> >Lou
> > Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu, ElCoat@Hotmail.com
>
>Interesting post….Roskill on Leander? Learn something every day . I do
>want to take exception with Lou on IJN’s air strength at the time of New
>Georgia. Halsey was rightly worried that Combined Fleet might engage with
>their carriers. What we did NOT know was the degree to which Japanese naval
>aviation had been hurt by the Guadalcanal / New Guinea campaign. The
>Japanese numbers certainly looked ugly from our point of view. Prior to New
>Georgia it dawned on Tokyo what the twin catastrophe at
>Guadalcanal/Buna-Gona meant to Rabaul and their entire position in the
>SOPAC. Consequently, the IJA sent substantial reinforcements to the area,
>(mostly NGuinea) and the IJAAF set up shop at Wewak. Rabaul and its
>surrounding complex was, on paper, greatly strengthened in every category,
>including air strength. Naturally our recon was picking this up. Now
>Combined Fleet had decided to avoid general engagement and ready for the
>”Decisive Battle” in the Central Pacific. (This became the “Turkey Shoot” in
>mid-44). Several new Japanese carriers were getting ready for fray along
>with new air groups. So the POSSIBILITY of a carrier battle was there as
>Halsey knew. As it was, several Japanese carrier fighter groups were
>dispatched to Rabaul to fight from land in the summer of 43. They were
>smashed – making our later job at the Mariannas much easier. As it was, the
>IJNAF contested New Georgia fiercely. It was air fighting in 1943, not 42,
>that cut the heart out of the Japanese air arm.
>
>Halsey’s staff, when they began planning for New Georgia shortly after
>Guadalcanal, were still understandably suffering from the stinging naval
>battles around Guadalcanal. (Even our victories were costly.) New Georgia
>was actually a very conservative move that made sense only if one assumed
>that the Japanese had a lot of fight left in them. What we did do was
>underestimate the ability of the Japanese Army to make life hell on earth
>for us. The resulting battle for Munda etc did serious damage to the 43d,
>37th and 25th Divisions. Disease was the big culprit – predictable after the
>Guadalcanal experience – but the Japanese did not cooperate by launching any
>idiot banzai charges. So close to Kolumbungara, the Japanese garrison was
>hard to starve out. So we ended up losing more men on New Georgia than
>Guadalcanal (and a FAR worse “kill ratio” despite all of our firepower). And
>the whole thing might have been unnecessary. The southeastern portion of New
>Georgia was controlled by friendly natives and that little corner connects
>to rest of the island via a narrow bridge of land. This corner, called Segi
>Point, proved a good place for a fighter strip and was ours for the taking –
>not a Japanese soldier within miles. With Segi in our pocket, Halsey could
>have jumped to Vella Lavella and forced the Japanese to evacuate the central
>Solomons – exactly what he decided to do in August. I am NOT being critical
>of Halsey. He responded reasonably given the knowledge he had. Unfortunately
>he did not properly understand the “sea change” that was taking place in the
>balance of forces between Japan and the US. Halsey was thinking of late 1942
>when, in retrospect, he should have been thinking of mid-44. Because of this
>thousands of GIs were treated to a violent campaign in some of the ugliest
>terrain on the planet.
>Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed Dec 17 12:32:14 1997
>X-Errors-To:
>Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:31:34 -0500 (EST)
>X-Sender: rickt@pop3.cris.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>From: rickt@cris.com (Eric Bergerud)
>Subject: Re: Letow Schnapps
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
> > I don’t remember all the details, but here is what I do recall.
> >
> > Malaria was a problem, and the German forces had exhausted their
> > supply of quinine. They did have available unprocessed cinchona,
> > which Von Letow had brewed into a drink which his troops referred to
> > as Letow Schnapps.
> >
>That experience among others during WWI encouraged German chemists to
>develop synthetic quinine – atabrine. Like dumbkopfs (or good capitalists)
>they licensed it to US drug companies in the 1930’s. Later when the Pacific
>War started it was produced in the US by the megaton. (Quinine comes from
>Indonesia, and the Japanese were not sharing.) I think it is safe to say
>that several campaigns in the South & SW Pacific could not have been fought
>without atabrine. Should note that atabrine, like quinine, suppresses the
>disease – it does not cure it. Thousands of Pacific vets suffered bouts of
>malaria for several years after the war. Their blood, in theory, would still
>not be accepted by a blood bank.
>Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Dec 29 17:10:58 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom1.ecnet.net: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 18:07:24 -0600 (CST)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom1
>To: Consim-L@net.uni-c.dk, Mahan@microwrks.com, MarHst-L@qucdn.queensu.ca,
> MilHst-L@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu
>Subject: The *ultimate* BENSON/GLEAVES class U.S. destroyer??
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>One of the photos in John C. Reilly’s book about American destroyers
> shows Guadalcanal veteran GWIN sporting four 5″ guns, *ten* torpedo
> tubes, AND 40mm AA guns! However, No. 3 gun mount is entirely open,
> in apparent weight compensation.
>
>After Santa Cruz, the 40mm gun’s reputation was established, and I
> wonder if that led USN commanders to assume so-equipped ships could
> defend themselves self-sufficiently.
>
>GWIN was sunk by Long Lance torpedo in the Battle of Kolombangara
> (night of 12/13Jul43), wherein HMNZS LEANDER and both HONOLULU and
> ST. LOUIS were torpedoed as well … albeit without the fatal
> results suffered by HELENA at Kula Gulf exactly 1 week previously.
>
>Interestingly, LEANDER was captained by S.W. Roskill, a prominent
> name in naval history. Hmm … I also see a Lt. Cdr. Rayner listed
> as captain of the corvette PETUNIA in a big/disastrous N. Atlantic
> convoy battle. I wonder if this is the ENEMY BELOW Rayner. ??
>
>Anyway … back to GWIN … I *assume* the 40mms were added after Nov42,
> when GWIN was in the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal with WASHINGTON and
> SOUTH DAKOTA. I’ll use the 4-gun/5-tube BENSON/GLEAVES variant model
> and stick the second quintuple tube mount abaft the second stack …
> but *where* did the searchlight go, then? ??
>
>The New Georgia had interesting support: SARATOGA and VICTORIOUS,
> as well as MASSACHUSETTS, INDIANA, and NORTH CAROLINA. Japanese
> airpower was pretty well exhausted, though, of course … and Adm.
> Yamamoto had been gunned down in April, further paralyzing the IJN.
>
>Lou
> Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu, ElCoat@Hotmail.com
> www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/ (for your free 1ST ALAMEIN lunch-hour
> boardgame and USS MONITOR and U.S. destroyer escort cardstock
> model ship plans … to print off and assemble (and play))

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Dec 29 07:25:36 1997
>From: “Francis.Timothy”
>To: mahan@microwrks.com, “‘mahan@microworks.net‘”
>Subject: RE: The Reluctant Seaman
>Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:23:01 -0500
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>For anyone who wants an intelligent and nuanced view of Mahan and his
>writings I heartedly suggest Jon Tetsuro Sumida’s *Inventing Grand
>Strategy and Teaching Command: The Classic Works of Alfred Thayer Mahan
>Reconsidered* (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1997).
>You can get it for $20 at 202-287-3000, ext.218.
>
>To give you an idea of the book, the preface title is *Musical
>Performance, Zen Enlightenment, and Naval Command.*
>
>Just a teaser. Read *The Influence of Seapower upon History, 1660-1783*
>with the idea that it is NOT about the rise of the Royal Navy. It will
>open your eyes to an entirely new interpretation of the book and Mahan.
>And, the best thing you can do is to ignore Chapter one.
>
>Timothy L. Francis
>Historian
>Naval Historical Center
>email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
>voice: (202) 433-6802
>
> > ———-
> > From: Tom Robison[SMTP:tcrobi@mindspring.com]
> > Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> > Sent: Saturday, December 27, 1997 2:15 AM
> > To: mahan@microwrks.com
> > Subject: The Reluctant Seaman
> >
> > “Although a brilliant naval historian and noted theorist on the
> > importance
> > of sea power to national defense, Alfred Thayer Mahan hated the sea
> > and
> > dreaded his duties as a ship’s captain.”
> >
> > That’s the lead-in to an article on the HistoryNet Page about our
> > namesake
> > A.T. Mahan. Read the full text at:
> >
> > http://www.thehistorynet.com/AmericanHistory/articles/1997/0297_text.h
> > tm
> >
> >
> > Tom Robison
> > Ossian, Indiana
> > tcrobi@mindspring.com
> >
> >
> >
> >

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Sat Dec 27 00:16:58 1997
>X-Sender: tcrobi@pop.mindspring.com
>Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 02:15:12 -0500
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Tom Robison
>Subject: The Reluctant Seaman
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>”Although a brilliant naval historian and noted theorist on the importance
>of sea power to national defense, Alfred Thayer Mahan hated the sea and
>dreaded his duties as a ship’s captain.”
>
>That’s the lead-in to an article on the HistoryNet Page about our namesake
>A.T. Mahan. Read the full text at:
>
>http://www.thehistorynet.com/AmericanHistory/articles/1997/0297_text.htm
>
>
>Tom Robison
>Ossian, Indiana
>tcrobi@mindspring.com

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed Dec 24 10:53:34 1997
>X-Sender: robbins@medusa.nn.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:49:14 -0600
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Mark Robbins
>Subject: Happy Holidays
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>Merry Christmas to every one 🙂
>
>Mark Robbins
>Visit the HobbyHQ website @ http://www.208.140.66.203
>Visit the Unofficial VA-95 Green Lizard website @ http://www.
>208.140.66.203/lizard/va95main.htm

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous