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

Teen heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio has signed to play Ted Hall (the
youngest WWII atomic scientist … and Sov spy) in the upcoming film
“Bombshell.” I have already read the claim that Hall was just wanting
to make sure things were equalized, so Russia wouldn’t be “defenseless”
against our new power … as though we would have used it offensively?
(Of course, the prospect of having the Bomb gave the *Soviets* the
chance to act offensively … and/or oppressively … in Eastern
Europe, Korea, etc.)

DiCaprio had the male lead in “Titanic” and now seems to be a favorite
son of Hollywood. He may be(come) the figurehead of his generation.
Is he political … yet?

It will be revealing to see who the historical consultants will be.
This is a chance for mass-attitude change. Leftist historians
failed spectacularly with the Smithsonian “Enola Gay” exhibit.
The general public was listening to the veterans … not to Gar
Alperovitz, John Dower, Peter Jennings, etc. … but the veterans
are dying, younger and naiver generations are moving up, and this
would be one massively effective indirect/”artistic” method of
indoctrination … and falsification.

And if Hollywood can give an Oscar to something as distorting as
“Hearts and Minds,” …

Lou
Coatney (whose written testimony on the Smithsonian’s “Enola Gay”
exhibit is in U.S. Senate Hearing 104-40).
Macomb, IL

>Post about HMS Curacoa stimulates this: Officially the Aegis cruiser USS
>Monterey (CG 61) commemorates the US Army’s 1846 siege of Monterrey, Mexico.
>Three previous USS Monterey’s were named for California’s
territorial capital,
>siezed for the US by the US Navy (twice). Both cities’ names apparently
>commemorate the same person, a Spanish nobleman.
>
Hmmm–I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that any modern day USN vessel named
after a land battle would be related to USMC activities, not the US Army.
In addition, how would the Mexican town “Monterrey” be tbe basis for a USN
vessel named “Monterey.” Does anyone have confirmation that CG61 is
actually named after a USArmy battle? Wouldn’t it be great if the CO/XO of
the vessel answered this one as the new ships supposedly have email
capabilities.

CRR

Well, it turns out the Japanese had 53 commercial shipyards, although
only 12 commercial yards built the 1,226 500+ ton ships they produced,
and 5 Navy Yards, which produced most of the 201 warships (BB, CV, CA,
DD, SS) built during the war. No way to check on “ways” at my end of
things, but 17 yards vs 88 yards is a tall order anyway you look at it.

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

>Sounds like we need a wartime USN construction summary by yard, a
>manner of presentation we don’t usually see…

Well, I took a quick look at an Office of Production Management Report
on Shipbuilding and the Defense Program (29 March 1941). They list the
geographical distribution of shipyards and building ways as follows
(note, the dividing line for north and south Atlantic is the
Maryland-Delaware state border):

Region Number of Yards Number of Ways
North Atlantic 16 61
South Atlantic 8 24
Great Lakes 2 4
Gulf 8 9
Pacific 17 21

Interesting that so many of the yards and ways are on the east coast
here, while so many of the war built ones took place out west. I’m sure
land availability and labor supply had a lot to do with that.

Fassett lists January 1944 Yards and Ways (when facility construction
was finished) as:

Region Yards Ways (200 feet plus)
East Coast 34 261
Great Lakes 12 60
Gulf 14 100
Pacific 28 175

BTW, that includes Navy Yards. Hmm, doesn’t include dry docks, marine
railways, graving docks, or floating dry docks…

Since most of the large naval units were produced at Navy Yards, I
imagine most of the big stuff was being built on the East coast. Be
interesting to see the actual breakdown though…

I wonder how many shipbuilding ways the Japanese had? Unlike us, they
were a bit short on sea coast to expand…

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: Brooks Rowlett[SMTP:brooksar@indy.net]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 11:34 AM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Re: Bath Iron Works

Greetings to all on this cold Ohio day.

Part of my job at the Ohio Historical Society involves historic
preservation. The following was passed on to me by the assistant
preservation officer. I wondered if it might be of interest to the list
members, or if the collective might provide any amplification to the
original posters.

Cheers,

Carlos R. Rivera
>
>———- Forwarded message ———-
>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:29:21 -0600
>From: “A. Michael Pappalardo”
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: US Navy burial practices in the 19th and 20th centuries
>
>The Northern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command of the US
>Navy is currently involved in a research project on the former Naval
>Hospital cemetery at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. In our search for more
>information relating to the site and to US Navy burial practices in the
>19th and 20th centuries we have consulted records, photos, and maps at
>the following:
>
>National Archives (New York Washington and College Park (numerous record
>groups);
>the Naval Historical Center, Washington;
>the Smithsonian Institution;
>the Navy Bureau of Medicine (BU Med);
>New-York Historical Society;
>Brooklyn Historical Society;
>Museum of the City of New York;
>Casualty assistance Center (Great Lakes);
>New York City Bureau of Vital statistics;
>New york State Museum and the Historic Preservation Office;
>New York City Landmarks Commission; and,
>the (former) Naval Station , New York.
>
>We are trying to find plot plans and 19th and early 20th century Navy
>regulations relating to burials on land. In particular we are trying
>to determine whether or not Navy cemeteries of this era were segregated
>by race or religion.
>
>We would greatly appreciate any suggestions for further resources or
>references from list members.
>
>Please reply to either:
>
>Steven Bedford Ph.D.
>TAMS Consultants Inc.
>655 3rd Avenue
>New York, NY 10017
>212-867-1777 ext. 352 Please leave message
>SBedford@tamsconsultants.com
>
>or
>
>Tina A. Deininger P.E.
>Northern Division
>Naval Facilities Engineering Command
>10 Industrial Highway
>Mail Stop #82
>Lester, PA 19113-2090
>610-595-0761
>e-mail: tadeininger@efdnorth.navfac.navy.mil
>
>Please crosspost

Tim Francis pointed out that the article on Bath Iron Works turned out to
be not quite accurate – a good point, since I didn’t crosscheck before
posting it. The author of the LAFFEY article and the sidebar on Bath
production was a Bath employee during WWII, BTW.

AS for Japanese production – well, off the top of my head, Post 7 Dec 41
production would be something like 20 YUGUMO class only the first of which
was in comm. before 7 Dec 41; the SHIMAKAZE experimental high speed DD
(but with 15 torpedo tubes!); something like 12-14 AKIZUKI class AA
destroyers. The rest would have to be MATSU / TACHIBANA class light
destroyers, something more akin to US DE’s (but a bit more powerful).
IIRC only the last few AKIZUKIs and the MATSUs would have been laid down
AFTER 7 December. The last couple of KAGEROs might also have been
commissioned after 7 Dec 41, overlapping the YUGUMOs – check Jentschura,
Jung & Mickel, or the Nihon Kaigun website to confirm. (Note that some of
the last of the AKIZUKI class and many of the ordered TACHIBANA class were
never completed.)

Sounds like we need a wartime USN construction summary by yard, a manner
of presentation we don’t usally see. I thought the National Recovery Act
summary by Yard that Mr. Francis posted was quite useful.

-Brooks

I’m afraid it’s not technically true either. Bath Iron Works only
received contracts for 64 destroyers during the war (6 of which had been
transferred from Federal SS Co.) but had 12 cancelled, thus only
completing 52 destroyers (from contract to delivery).

But, if you include destroyers whose contracts were awarded to Bath
pre-war but were finished after 7 December 1941, the total number rises
to 76. If you include destroyers completed after September 1939, then
the number rises to 84.

Source: Contracts Awarded Private Shipyards for Construction of Naval
Vessels since 1 January 1934, Navy Department, Bureau of Ships, 15
January 1946

It would be interesting to find out what the specific dates are for
those 63 Japanese destroyers, maybe Bath didn’t beat them after all…

Hmm, perhaps this is a good example of why clarity of expression and
careful definition is very important in historical writing.

An example. Production tonnage of iron/steel during WW2 is often
misleading because the sources fail to declare whether it is in short
tons (2000 pounds, used in the U.S. for steel production), long tons
(2,240 pounds, common in Britain for steel and used in North America for
iron ore), or metric tons (2,204.6 pounds, used by the United Nations
for agricultural, manufacturing, and mining statistics).

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: John Snyder[SMTP:John_Snyder@bbs.macnexus.org]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 10:53 PM
> To: MARHST-L@POST.QUEENSU.CA; mahan@microwrks.com
> Subject: Kamikaze attack on USS LAFFEY DD724 in WWII: Bath Iron
> Works
>
>Brooks Rowlett wrote:
>SNIP
>”….from Pearl Harbor to the war’s end, 82 destroyers were built
>and delivered – about 25 percent of all destroyers built for the Navy
>during the war. During the same period, Japanes shipyards built only
>63 destroyers. The Bath Iron Works alone outproduced the Japanese
>empire.”
>SNIP
>
>That’s one of the more amazing WW2 statistics I’ve seen.
>
>John Snyder

bill riddle wrote:
>
> Besides, one would need a “Context Checker” rather than a Spell
> Checker to catch this one.

As the following poem illustrates, there
is no substitute for proofreading:

I have a spelling checker,
it came with my PC.
It plainly marks four my revue,
Mistakes I cannot sea.
I’ve run this poem through it,
I’m shore your pleas too no,
It’s letter perfect in it’s weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.

(I resurrect this thing periodically.)

—
Tracy Johnson
Computer Associates International Inc.
Manufacturing Knowledge (MK) Group
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(For interactive games…)
Minister of Propaganda, Justin Thyme Productions
Last Two Wargames Played:
Gettysburg (Command #17 version)
Axis & Allies
Paint Ball
tjohnson@adnetsol.com
“Trust No One”
“Semper Pollus”
ADC-2239-5531

Brooks Rowlett wrote:
SNIP
“….from Pearl Harbor to the war’s end, 82 destroyers were built
and delivered – about 25 percent of all destroyers built for the Navy
during the war. During the same period, Japanes shipyards built only
63 destroyers. The Bath Iron Works alone outproduced the Japanese
empire.”
SNIP

That’s one of the more amazing WW2 statistics I’ve seen.

John Snyder
John_Snyder@bbs.macnexus.org