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)

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 |
|———————————————————–|

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
—————————————————————–

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
—————————————————————–

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

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