Archive for January, 2009

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

Leonardo DiCaprio aka Ted Hall?

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

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

Leonardo DiCaprio aka Ted Hall?

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

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

USS Monterrey?

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

>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

Bath Iron Works

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

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

Bath Iron Works

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

>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

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