IIRC, the Turner Broadcasting people made the movie _Gettysburg_ on a
shoestring budget. The reenacters were basically volunteers who
received a few freebies as token recognition of their efforts. From what
I’ve heard, a lot of those guys spent two or three weeks of their vacation
time hanging around the location, waiting for the movie people to set up
or run several takes. Note that Pickett’s charge (I prefer
Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble’s charge, but that’s another topic) in the film
comes very close to lasting as long as the actual charge on 3 July 1863.

BTW, many historians have observed that Robert E. Lee was not himself
at Gettysburg. Perhaps he was using Martin Sheen as a stand-in.

Dane Hartgrove

> > I know there were some political buttons pushed, but I do think that
> > Bavarian television’s production of Stalingrad was a damn good movie.
> > Violent, dismal, overall bummer. Sounds like the Eastern Front to me.
>
> Haven’t had a chance to see it yet, but I’ve heard it called the best
> movie on WWII land warfare, period.

Having seen it in the cinema, and then on TV, I must say that this
was the only
film I ever saw that me feel shocked (though Glory was quite impressive too, I
think it came to late on TV to make me feel so.). If you haven’t seen
it yet, I
very much encourage you to do. From what I hear, several German schools have
demanded of the teachers that they take their classes into the movie.

Tim

Tim Lanzendoerfer | “I have just taken on a great
Amateur Naval Historian | responsibility. I will do my
Email: BWV_Wiesbaden@t-online.de | utmost to meet it” – Nimitz
—————————————————————–
The United States Navy in the Pacific War 1941 – 1945
http://www.microworks.net/pacific
Last Updated: 7th February 1998
—————————————————————–

In a posting way back on 26 January, dealing with the British Pacific Fleet,
the following exchange occurred:

>Brooks A Rowlett wrote:
>>
>> Also: Canadian Auxiliary Cruiser PRINCE ROBERT and possibly more.
>> If I read correctly the British submarines all stayed under the Eastern
>> fleet command.
>>
>> Gray’s OPERATION PACIFIC is unfortunately not thorough in attributing
>> ships to one command or the other.

To which Richard Osborne replied:

>The former Canadian AMC PRINCE ROBERT was not part of the British Pacific
>Fleet until mid 1945 having been converted to an auxiliary AA cruiser during
>January 1943 – July 1943 at Burrard Dry Dock in Esquimalt. Subsequently,
>from October 1943 to September she was based at Plymouth (UK) and
>escorted UK – Gibraltar convoys when she proved extremely effective against
>German Hs 293 glider bombs. PRINCE ROBERT returned to Esquimalt in
>September 1944 and did not recommission until 31st May 1945 and was
allocated to
>the BPF.

——–

I’ve been avoiding sending in this posting, because I sort of thought it
fell into the “Well, obviously….” file, so I didn’t want to waste other
listers’ time; however, I’ve now decided that “just in case” it is helpful
to somebody, I’d like to point out that John Winton’s excellent book “The
Forgotten Fleet: The Story of the British Pacific Fleet 1944-45”, (London:
1969), has the following appendices:

A) “BPF on 15 August 1945” 7.5 pages, [including the BPF’s senior command
structure — ie, from C-in-C down to sqdn/flotilla OICs); as well as a
complete(?) listing of all vessels from aircraft carriers/battleships down
to tugs, water-carriers, net tenders, and the like; moreover, the CO of each
unit on VJ Day is also given; the BPF’s 5 shore establishments are
also listed.]

B) “The East Indies Fleet, 15 August 1945”, 7.5 pages; (the same detailed
info as above is also given in this appendix).

c) “Aircraft of the BPF”, 1 page.

D) “Japanese Shipping Sunk By British and Netherlands Submarines in the Far
East: Sept 1944 – Aug 1945”. (gives dates, names, tonnage, area, and how sunk)

As I said, just in case this might be useful to know.

Cheers,
Glen

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Glen “I-was-a-teenage-fogey” Hodgins

A Medal Collector and Commonwealth/Empire Naval Historian
temporarily imprisoned at:

Her Canadian Majesty’s C/O Po Box 500 (CLMBO)
High Commission for Sri Lanka Station A
6 Gregory’s Road OTTAWA, Ontario, K1N 8T7
(PO Box 1006) Dominion of CANADA
Cinnamon Gardens
Colombo 7, Sri Lanka [still Canada’s OFFICIAL title!]

Fax, (from overseas): 94-1-687-815

Here come the immigrants. 🙂

The Mahan list (mahan@microworks.net) discusses past, present, and
future naval operations.

J. Patrick Hughes wrote:
> A number of people are interested in discussing current operations and
> future policies. While these to not fall under the scope of a history
> list, many of the people here would appreciate knowing where they
> could go
> to engage in such discussions. About four years ago I went through
> the
> process of looking up lists that deal with current polotical and
> military
> decisions. There were a great number. But tat information is very
> quickly stale as such lists start up and fold much quicker than a
> history
> list. Are there any that are on this list that wish to share the
> location
> of other lists that deal with current operations and policy?
>
> J. Patrick Hughes
> Listowner MILHST-L
> jphughes@raven.cc.ukans.edu

—

Steve Alvin
Dept. of Social Sciences
Illinois Valley Community College

salvin@ocslink.com

“I have snatched my share of joys from the grudging hand of fate
as I have jogged along, but never has life held for me anything
quite so entrancing as baseball.”–Clarence Darrow

The original subwar mailing list has been manually (!) shifted to as
formal (different) listserv program due to egregious spamming, which we
were fortunately spared for themost part. The new sub(scription) data
is:

THE SUBWAR NETWORK MAILING LIST

To post to the list, mailto:SUBWARNET@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

To unsubscribe, mailto:LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM with
“SIGNOFF SUBWARNET” (without quotes) in the body of the
message, and with a blank subject line.

All enquiries and any problems, mailto:taylor@bizbiz.com

A heads-up for those interested in the ASW portion of WW2… I received
the latest from the Navy Records Society in this morning’s post:
“The Defeat of the Enemy Attack on Shipping, 1939-1945”, edited
by Eric J. Grove, of the University of Hull (ISBN 1-85928-403-5).
Instead of being a compendium of related papers, this volume is
in fact a “revised edition of the Naval Staff History, Volumes 1A
(Text and Appendices) and 1B (Plans and Tables)”. As per Grove’s
introduction (which is as far as I got…): “…the most powerful
justification of the convoy system of warfare ever written”. There
are updated tables, etc, based on the latest research (as of October,
1996), and for the first time, at least in my collection, there are
_coloured_ graphs and figures in the appendicies.
All-in-all, I suspect that this little volume will be of great
interest to those with a serious interest in this area, and makes
the Naval Staff History, which is *very* difficult to find, available
to all.

Bill Schleihauf
Pierrefonds, Quebec
CANADA
william@cae.ca

> Subsequently Sir W. Laird Clowes, the eminent British naval
> historian, wrote Luce: “I know that many of your countrymen believe
> her [the ship at the West India Docks] to be the craft captured in
> 1815 . . . but there is no truth to this idea, and I am glad that we
> do not retain any prize made in that war, which I think is best
> forgotten.”

The better question. If our British friends indeed “…think is best
forgotten” why would they continue to use the name President on ships at
the same location since the capture.

Any ideas?

>
> The new President was sold in 1903. Since then three other ships
> have successively served as drill-ship at the West India Docks, each
> taking the name President.
>

|———————————————————–|
| David W. Riddle | http://www.microworks.net |
| (O) 602-813-4569 | http://www.openlines.com |
| (F) 602-813-4659 | http://www.surfpools.com |
| | |
| 1958 TR-3A TS34575L | An interesting company legal |
| vintage racer | history website! |
| | http://www.splashpools.com |
|———————————————————–|

The following is taken from “Sea Power: A Naval History” (E.B. Potter, ed.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1960). On page 222, the following
appears:

On the seas, the heavy [U.S.] frigate President, under the command of
Captain Stephen Decatur, was captured in mid-January 1815 while trying
to elude the British blockading squadron off New York harbor(10).

(10) U.S. frigate President, taken into the Royal Navy under her
American name, was broken up in 1818. A new President, built on the
exact lines of the old, was launched at Portsmouth, England in 1829.
Later in the century, many Americans and Englishmen, seeing H.M.
frigate President tied up at the West India docks, London, where she
served as a drill-ship for the Royal Navy Reserve, supposed that she
was Decatur’s President. In the late 1890s Admiral Stephen B. Luce
wrote Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt suggesting
that steps be taken to secure the return of the frigate to the United
States. To this proposition Roosevelt replied: “I confess I don’t like
the idea. There is nothing glorious in the history of the President.
She is a fair trophy for the British and she ought to be kept by them.
If I were an Englishman I would not want to have the Macedonian,
Guerriere, or Java in my Navy; and as I am an American I don’t want the
President.”

Subsequently Sir W. Laird Clowes, the eminent British naval
historian, wrote Luce: “I know that many of your countrymen believe
her [the ship at the West India Docks] to be the craft captured in
1815 . . . but there is no truth to this idea, and I am glad that we
do not retain any prize made in that war, which I think is best
forgotten.”

The new President was sold in 1903. Since then three other ships
have successively served as drill-ship at the West India Docks, each
taking the name President.

Quotations from Rear Admiral Albert Cleaves USN, Life and Letters of
Rear Admiral Stephen. B. Luce, U.S. Navy (New York and London, 1925),
285.

The question I pose is: If the West India Docks still exist, is there a
drill ship stationed there for the Royal Navy which retains the name
President? Just curious. Thanks in advance, Ed.

Edward Wittenberg
ewitten507@aol.com

I responded to the msg below posted on SubWar. Maybe some of you would be
interested.

>To: The Submarine Warfare Network Mailing List

>From: rickt@cris.com (Eric Bergerud)
>Subject: Re: Searching for a book
>
>>I search for an English written book, published in the
>>sixties, which covers the incident of U-852 and the ‘Peleus’
>>(Kaptlt. Eck).
>>The title was: ‘An Operational Necessity’
>>
>>Know everyone the author or the publishing house?
>>Year of printing?
>>
>>
>>I wish Ray good luck for running the list.
>>
>>Juergen from Germany
>>
>_Operational Necessity_ was written by Gwyn Griffin a brilliant British
novelist who died relatively young in the late 60’s. (Fortunately, his
career was short but extremely prolific.) It is not about the U852
specifically but was inspired by the incident. Griffin writes in the mold of
Joseph Conrad or VS Naipaul: not at all happy stuff. Yet his characters are
complex, his dialogue amazing and plots sophisticated. I consider him one of
the greatest postwar writers in the English language. The portion of
_Operational Necessity_ that is set upon the U-Boat shows a remarkable feel
for detail and the psychology of combat. Griffin also wrote another great
novel of the sea _Master of this Vessel_ which includes a description of a
ship fighting for life during a great storm that helped me decide to do all
of my fishing from the shore.
>
>_Operational Necessity_ would be easily available from any interlibrary
loan. There is an unabridged audio version of all of Griffin’s work from
Books on Tape ( www.booksontape.com ). They rent for about $10 but take
about 15 hours to listen to – well worth it. (I have a long commute and
listen to a lot of these things.) The narrator for Griffin’s books is
Wolfram Kandinsky who used to be the best in the business.
>
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Re: Monterey (CG-61), the first two ships were named for the city in
California while third (CVL-26) was named for the battle of Monterey in
Mexico on 24 May 1846. That third name was personally chosen by FDR at
a time when many aircraft carriers were named for famous American
battles (Yorktown, Saratoga, etc.). That a CVL got a battle name is not
as farfetched as might seem (i.e. Bataan and, more importantly, San
Jacinto). BTW, the DANFS entry is in error on this issue.

In the post-war period, when the “battles” name source for aircraft
carriers merged into President’s etc., and the “cities” name source for
cruisers eventually moved to LA-class attack submarines, the “battles”
name source moved over to Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

Hence the utility of naming CG-61 for a battle, not a city. It also
helps that almost all the recent ships cited by Mike are technically
named for both the battle and for the previous ships with the same name.
This is done to keep the lineage traditions alive.

Just as interesting are USS Trenton (LPD 14), which is also named for a
city; USS Alamo (LSD 33), named for a historic site; and USS Concord
(AFS 5), named for “cities and communities.”

Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinions, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

> ———-
> From: Michael C Potter[SMTP:potter4@worldnet.att.net]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 10:51 PM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Re: USS Monterrey?
>
>Land actions without significant USN/USMC involvement, or
>sites of such, were the original sources for the names of the following
ships
>in/entering service during 1980-85. But in most of the actions the US
>combatants were militiamen, not organized US Army units:
>
>USS Lexington (CVT/AVT 16)
>USS Ticonderoga (CG 47)
>USS Yorktown (CG 48) – French Navy involved more than USN
>USS Vincennes (CG 49)
>USS Valley Forge (CG 50)
>USS Trenton (LPD 14)
>USS Alamo (LSD 33)
>USS Concord (AFS 5)