Archive for the ‘1998’ Category

Archives?

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

no.

At 08:04 PM 2/9/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Does this list possess an archive? I’m interested in a message I have
accidently
>deleted.
>
>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
>—————————————————————–
>
>
>
|———————————————————–|
| 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 |
|———————————————————–|

Archives?

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Does this list possess an archive? I’m interested in a message I have
accidently
deleted.

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
—————————————————————–

Slight problems tracking those Japanese fleets.

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Once more, hi!
I deep into the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, and am almost finished
describing it, but out of academical interest, I wanted to ask for your input
regarding two problems I have come across.

According to most sources, and as we have established last December, Japanese
heavy carriers SHOKAKU and ZUIKAKU and the light carrier RYUJO sailed August
16th 1942 for Truk. At the same date, the 2nd Fleet under Vice-Admiral Kondo
sailed from off the Home Islands for Truk, having a slight head start.

1. A day later, Yamamoto sailed his main body. Here is problem number
one: what
did this main body consist of? Obviously, it would appear that YAMATO was with
this force, and probably the escort carrier TAIYO. NAGATO apparently was in
dock. The question is regarding the whereabouts of MUTSU. Was she with that
force?

2. The next few problems are mainly because of contradicting sources.
Apparently, Kondo’s force arrived at Truk ahead of Nagumo. Frank, in his book
Guadalcanal states that Nagumo DID arrive at Truk and sailed again on
the 23rd.
Hara, in Japanese Destroyer Captain, states that Nagumo bypassed Truk and met
Kondo at sea on the 21st, before taking fuel on the 22nd. Since Hara was with
Nagumo’s force, his report would seem accurate. Who can confirm either story?

3. Frank also carries YAMATO at Truk on the 24th, while giving MUTSU two
destroyers as escort and placing her in a “Main Body” at sea, but no
track chart
gives her position. Ugaki, in Fading Victory, states that YAMATO and
the rest of
the Main Body arrived at Truk on the 28th. Again, since he was there, I see
little reason to doubt this but want to check. Was MUTSU at sea in a seperate
force in support of the Eastern Solomons operation?

4. A US Navy question: did ENTERPRISE and SARATOGA operate together? It would
appear they were, at least, not far from each other because the track charts
give only one course for the US flattops.

5. Sorry if this sounds confused, but I *AM*!

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
—————————————————————–

INDOMITABLE Air Group, December 1941

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Tim L wrote:

>Naturally, it would have been quite stupid to get INDOMITABLE (you’re
>getting
>your carriers wrong :)) even within range of the Long Lance…40nm…

Not necessarily STUPID, but ignorant. Consider that the one carrier
(FORMIDABLE?) actually was at the rear and slightly behind the British
battle line during the night action at Cape Matapan – suppose the British
chose to keep INDOMITABLE close, but presumably safely behind the
so-called battle line that Force Z might form in a night surface action;
the CV might be at a hazard without the British realizing it due to
ignorance of the range and power of the Type 93 torpedo. It isn’t stupid
to take a risk when nothing has prepared you with the knowledge that the
risk even exists. It might be stupid to go without precautions on the
chance that Japanese torpedoes might be more capable that the British, but
the extent to which they were greater would have been a complete surprise
in December 1941 or January 1942.

-Brooks

A new USN trivia puzzle:

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Steve Alvin (having the advantage of still being up when I posted the
trivia) 🙂 was the FIRST correct answer to my trivia question:

> This is a fill-in-the-blank trivia.
>
> “In the summer of 1946, temporary US Cruiser Division 23 consisted of
> the PENSACOLA, SALT LAKE CITY,and ____________.”

His answer:

>I’ll take Bikini Atoll for $1000, Alex–could the answer be “What is
>the
>_Prinz Eugen_? 🙂
>
>Steve Alvin
>Dept. of Social Sciences
>Illinois Valley Community College

BTW, many references list PRINZ EUGEN as sinking at Kwajalein in
December 1947. Apprently this came about becaue the Navy didn’t
release the news of her having sunk unitl December 1947. (I found the
item in the news column of the January 1948 PROCEEDINGS). But the DANFS
entry on EUGEN, and the plaque on the propellor salvaged from the wreck
and set up as a memorial in Germany correctly indicate that she sank in
December 194*6*.

Brooks

USS Maine resources

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Fellow naval history enthusiasts,

“In conjunction with the centennial observance of the loss of USS
Maine on 15 February 1898, the Naval Historical Center has compiled and
placed a concise history of the incident, related documents and 13
photographs related to the Maine on its website at
http://www.history.navy.mil. The history, which can be viewed at
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq71-1.htm, is accompanied by separate
listings of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corp victims and survivors of the
disaster, both drawn from 1898 documents. The photographs, which can be
viewed and downloaded in two resolutions, are the first step in placing
much of the center’s rich photographic archives online.
“Public outcry over the sinking of USS Maine while she lay at anchor
in Havana, Cuba, proved to be the final stimulus for the
Spanish-American War two months later.
“For commands with Internet access, these historical resources can
provide ideal resource material for plans of the day, command bulletin
boards and other internal information products.”

David Riley

**************************
Participate in the most “honor”able of hobbies
Join the Orders and Medals Society of America (OMSA)
http://www.omsa.org

Stealth Aircraft (Navy)

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

> Does anyone know if the Navy has any Stealth Aircraft in it’s inventory?

According to USAF propaganda: no. In reality: yes. F-18 aircraft (and DDG 51
destroyers) have significant stealth qualities. The only difference
between USAF
and USN aircraft is that the USAF is willing to pay more (of our
[USA] taxes) to
get more stealthy features, either in technology or to cover more of the
individual aircraft. Unique features, if there are any, of USAF “stealth”
aircraft are unique solely because the USN rejected them. Unique stealth
technology might be related to the B-2’s severe airframe maintenance problems.

USN/USMC aircraft probably are built for primarily forward-aspect stealth. No
doubt USAF “stealth” aircraft have better “all-aspect” stealth features but the
cost is very high: according to the FY99 defense bill, for less than the USAF’s
cost for 2 F-22s the USN-USMC will buy 6 F-18Es and (not “or”) 6
AV-8Bs (the USN
budget requests 30 F-18Es and 12 AV-8Bs).

The USN told the Senate Armed Services Committee years ago that Aegis ships can
detect USAF stealth aircraft and challenged the USAF to a test. The USAF denied
that the test would be representative of combat and refused to participate.
Later, during Op Desert Storm an RN Type 42 destroyer reportedly detected and
tracked aircraft that turned out to be USAF F-117 “stealth fighters.” The USAF
claimed that they were not operating in stealth mode. It is possible that this
meant only that USN aircraft were not dropping decoys to distract or overload
tracking radars at the time.

BTW: _Its_ inventory. Possessive pronouns don’t have apostrophes.

Updates on the Navy Pages!

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Ladies, Gentlemen,
I am pleased to announce further updates on my site. There have been a few
biographies added, but mainly, today’s feature is full compatibility with
Netscape 3.0, thanks to advanced methods of table-making…I have begun to add
more photos to the site, mainly by displaying three shots showing damage to
Franklin, Enterprise, and Wasp CVs.

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
—————————————————————–

USS Monterrey?)

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Carlos R. Rivera wrote:

> I stand suitably corrected….er., I had not looked closely at the names
> of the Aegis class. Now, I have to recall what ships were named for USArmy
> battles during my active USN days (1980-85).

I was on USS Glover (FF-1098) from 1983-87. She was named after General John
Glover, who commanded the regiment of Marlblehead fishermen who got Washington
across the Delaware. He also gave Washington a schooner during the siege of
Boston to start Washington’s navy. Most of the AEGIS names were given to CVs
in the past so they have some lineage.

> >
> [snip]
> But, is the Monterey named after the town in Mexico or California?

Judging by the rest, I’d say it was named for the battle in Mexico, not the
city in CA.
Mark

Leonardo DiCaprio aka Ted Hall?

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

John,
While I accepted Mike Potter’s and Eric Bergerud’s criticism of my
posts about the Clinton scandal and my concern that our national
security agencies be wary of a White House power grab … even if I felt
Eric’s “right wing” stereotype over-reactive and unfair … I think my
concern about the movie “Bombshell”‘s historical content … and the
possible distortion of it for ideological motives … *is* appropriate
to Mahan for the following reasons:

1. The atom bombs ended the (Asian-)Pacific War in which the Navy and
Marines played no small role. Discussion of them and their history
… and concern about its distortion … is/should be discussable, here.

2. The Marines (and Navy) also served (and suffered) in Korea, which
Hall’s treason helped bring about … the Soviets having just acquired
the deterrent of the bomb to discourage our use of ours against the
North Koreans … and/or their allies.

3. Even in military history, there are political/strategic dimensions
which must be weighed. The USS LIBERTY massacre is just one example.
And my concern about the intellectual Left’s attempt to re-write
military history does *not* make me “right wing,” although as far
left as the median now is ….

4. If you can’t tolerate my historical opinions and concerns then, by
all means John, feel FREE to Delete my posts on sight. But then you
have no right to act shocked or surprised when some of these issues/
concerns hit the media … or screen … and (you in) your face.

5. As to WWII-L, my victimization by its ruling clique was obvious to
and protested by a number of other members … as you well know, John.
My brief (and moderating) riposte to Jack McKillop’s *lengthy* pro-IRA
diatribe — we had been talking about the IRA’s wartime assistance to
the Nazis, bomb-targetting Belfast shipyards, etc. — in no way
justified my purge … and I think I had succeeded in cooling down our
Lebanese friend from some of *his* diatribes … so that he could
become more positive/productive.
So your implication that my purge was because of any extremism
is untruthful, John. It was because some of the WWII-L clique still
smart from the incisiveness of some of my ripostes — i.e., they can’t
take criticism/disagreement and shouldn’t have the “open forum”
responsibilities that they do … but they are not academics and
professionally accountable for their autocratic antics.
(H-High-S, the moderated academic history channel for secondary school
history teaching, has already put up the post, apparently recognizing
the impact-on-youth seriousness of my concern.)
In any case, give my regards to the WWII-L cabal for me, and feel
free to re-post my “Bombshell” post on WWII-L, if you *can* re-evaluate
… tolerate … its relevance.

6. Thanks for your service in Viet Nam, in any case, John. I sometimes
feel like it’s all happening again … only over here, this time:
Saigon, USA.

Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
Viet Nam *era* draftee/vet (West Texas and Germany)

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, John Snyder wrote:
> Lou:
> Despite your reference to DiCaprio’s role in Titanic, your post as usual has
> everything to do with your view of politics and virtually nothing to do with
> what the Mahan list purports to be about. I’ve watched your forced departure
> from the WW2 list twice now for similar reasons, and don’t miss you there. I
> would not mourn your departure from this list as well, given your
penchant to
> force everyone else to view your own political agenda. For myself,
however, I
> will simply delete any e-mail from “Louis R” without opening. I’m tired of
> it.
> John Snyder
> ‘Nam Vet
> USN, 1966-70

Purpose
The Mahan Naval Discussion List hosted here at NavalStrategy.org is to foster discussion and debate on the relevance of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan's ideas on the importance of sea power influenced navies around the world.
Links