From Tue Aug 12 07:53:56 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom6.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 09:53:07 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom6.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: Conflict simulation Games
>cc: mahan@microwrks.com, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>Subject: 1:*12,000* ship scale in SKY, SEA, AND JUNGLE
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>Instead of solid black ellipses, I decided to do deck outlines —
> no guns or superstructure — for the ships … although I did
> put the superstructures on the carriers.
>
>Using dimensions, I did the markers at 1:1200 in ModelCAD *without*
> curves … for the sake of simplicity/storage. It is amazing how
> close to curves straight lines can be, and when reduced 10X to
> marker scale, they look curved, anyway. If I ever do curves, …
> for 2-D deckplans for my NAVAL ACTION miniatures rules, for
> example, having the straight-line points … showing the proper
> point-line proportions … already … may enable me to just
> “plug in” the curves.
>
>Having a dot matrix printer, I had to print them off at 2X counter
> size and then optically reduce them on the photocopier. This way,
> even the flanged bow of the MUTSUKI class DDs are distinguishable.
>
>My ship-vs.-ship combat results table could even be used for a *very*
> simple down-on-the-floor “miniatures” system. (This recalls Doug
> Murphy’s ideas about a very simple system to use with his kids,
> although Doug had no CRT, as I remember.) … so having the ship/deck
> outlines in proper relative scale may be useful.
>
>Oh! And as to the “cardstock model” to be included … 🙂 … the
> Rabaul Volcano is … imposing. Any resemblance to Jabba the Hut
> is purely unintentional, of course.
>
>I am suggesting putting cotton inside it. A 1/4″ plume would seem
> normal. With two straight 6s, the plume should go to 1/2″, etc.,
> and Karakatoa-scale eruption should see the cone … i.e.,
> Rabaul … inverted. 🙂
>
>Robert E. Johnson, the Western Illinois Univ. geology museum curator
> — who is a skilled aviation artist and master model builder and
> photographer — *likes* the “Rabaul Volcano” rule, incidentally.
> Hey! At only a 1 out of 142 chance of volcanic obliteration, *I*’ll
> play the Japanese. 🙂
>
>I am doing the Americans in pale blue and the Japanese in pale green.
> I had considered doing the Japanese in “rising sun yellow,” but by
> Aug42 they were olive-drabbing their aircraft, and coloring in the
> meatballs is a nice effect.
>
>Lou
> Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Aug 11 13:23:10 1997
>Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:01:15 +0100
>To: liners@majordomo.pobox.com
>From: Ron Streater
>Subject: Talbot-Booth – the saga continues
>X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Most of you now know that I am a total devotee to the works of Talbot-
>Booth and have in the past eulogised (probably too often) about his
>works, although, to be honest, they have answered many a query on these
>lists. With the exception of his 1934 book I think I have all his
>merchant ship works and most of the others.
>
>Those who have visited my web page will have seen the scans of some of
>his work that now hold their own weekly changing page. This is taken
>from the colour illustration of his 1932 and 1936 works.
>
>In addition I have many paintings, sketches and watercolours never seen
>before.
>
>Now there is a third lot. Today I obtained a box of I estimate over 2000
>of his original black and white drawings, mostly 1930’s with a
>smattering of 40’s and 50’s. I obviosly won’t have the full picture for
>some time till the sorting is done, but in the few hours I have had this
>lot illustrations of fine liners have come tumbling out of the box:
>
>Simon Bolivar; Cap Arcona; Conte Biancamono; Conte Grande; Columbia;
>Leopoldville; Patria; Volendam; City of New York; Leconte de Lisle;
>Athos; Cuba plus all the well known ones. This is without looking at the
>ferries, the freighter, the tankers etc.
>
>Yes I will preserve them – and treasure them – and be honoured to hold a
>part of our maritime history, but what to do with them so we all can
>share them?
>
>I was considering a 4 part work on based on the colour drawings as a
>retrospective of the great era. Usual modern format A4 72pp perfect
>(soft cover) bind. That is within my own limited facilities. I am still
>aiming at a reprint of his 32 British Passenger Lines with the complete
>historical update on every vessel, but it is sitting on the shelf
>awaiting other books to make enough to print it – all the usual
>publishing sources ran way – its big and expensive.
>
>Now I have this lot.
>
>Had to tell someone about it. Chose all my friends on these lists.
>
>What would you do? Any bright suggestions? Any ideas?
>
>Would appreciate any input – direct to my e-mail address as this has
>been posted to more than one list.
>
>Ron
>
>–
>Ron Streater, Jasmine Lodge,
>jasmine@junk1234.demon.co.uk 1 Highfield Close,
>http://www.junk1234.demon.co.uk Blean,
>Telephone: 01227-780259 Canterbury, Kent,
>Fax: 01227-780259 CT2 9DX,
>Mobile: 0402-227270 U.K.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu Aug 14 14:27:02 1997
>Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 20:32:26 +0100
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Michael Phillips
>Subject: Re: 16 Dec 1914 bombardment
>X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.02 <8tm4rygiaxewjidjkvykqxgowe>
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>The official history of the Great War by the Committee of Imperial
>Defence – Naval Operations Vol 2 by Sir Julian Corbett, 1921, devotes 28
>pages, two foldout charts and one large chart in a folder showing the
>tracks of all ships (plus an insert showing destroyer action), to the
>raid on the Yorshire coast.
>
>Mike
>–
> Michael Phillips email mike@cronab.demon.co.uk
> Saltash, Cornwall http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk
> England Maritime History & Naval Heritage at /marit.htm
> Plymouth Naval Base Museum at /pnbm.htm
> World Ship Society at /wss.htm
> Algerine Association at /alg.htm

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu Aug 14 18:45:13 1997
>Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 21:44:45 EST
>From: EDWARD WITTENBERG
>To: MARHST-L@POST.QUEENSU.CA, MAHAN@MICROWRKS.COM
>CC: wew@papa.uncp.edu
>Subject: Atlantis?
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>The following is an excerpt from a post by Jim Vaughan on the World
>War II list (WWII-L@LISTSERV,ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
>
> > The following is from “Hirohito – Behind the Myth” by Edward Behr
>pp280-290.
>
> “The last German submarine to make the dangerous, lengthy
> run between Germany and Japan was the U-234, an XBU
> U-boat displacing 2177 tons, whose captain Johann Heinrich
> Fehler, though only 35 was one of the most experienced
> German navy captains still alive, the former commander of
> the decoy ship ‘Atlantis’, which had lured countless allied
> ships to their doom”. >
>As far as I know, the only ATLANTIS in German service (the ship was
>the former Hansa GOLDENFELS) was a commerce raider under the
>command of Bernhard Rogge, which was sunk by H.M.S. DEVONSHIRE in
>the South Atlantic on November 22, 1941. According to Edwin P. Hoyt’s
>_RAIDER 16_, there was a lieutenant Fehler (no first name given)
>assigned as the ship’s demolitions expert. Hoyt indicates the Fehler
>survived the sinking, so it is possible that this is the same man. Can
>someone tell me whether or not there was another “Atlantis” in German
>service, and if so, was Fehler her captain? Also, what exactly is a
>’decoy’ ship?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Edward Wittenberg
>wew@papa.uncp.edu

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu Aug 14 20:43:29 1997
>X-Sender: tcrobi@pop.mindspring.com
>Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:42:56 -0500
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Tom Robison
>Subject: Navy News
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>NNS3406. USS Kitty Hawk to replace USS Independence
> WASHINGTON (NWSA) — USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) will
>replace USS Independence (CV 62) as part of a planned
>rotation of the forward-deployed naval forces to Japan.
>Kitty Hawk will depart its current home port, San Diego, on
>July 15, 1998.
> Carrier Air Wing 5 and the staff of Carrier Group 5
>will transfer from Independence to Kitty Hawk during the
>ship’s turnover of responsibilities at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,
>during Exercise RIMPAC 98.
> Independence will return to the West Coast, where it is
>scheduled to be decommissioned.
> Kitty Hawk is expected to arrive in Yokosuka August
>1998. The carries F-14, F/A-18, EA-6B, S-3A/B, E-2C, ES-3A
>aircraft and SH-60 helicopters, which give it a multi-
>dimensional response to air, surface and sub-surface
>threats.
> The forward deployment of the carrier to the 7th Fleet
>in Yokosuka in August demonstrates America’s continued
>commitment to the security of the Pacific region and defense
>of Japan.
> -USN-
>NNS3407. USS Nimitz changing home port
> BREMERTON, Wash. (NWSA) — USS Nimitz (CVN 68) will
>visit the Mediterranean next year en route to its new home
>port in Norfolk, according to ADM Archie Clemins, Commander-
>in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet. The admiral addressed the crew
>during a recent visit on board in Bremerton, Wash.
> An option for this transfer of Nimitz from Pacific to
>Atlantic Fleet had been to round the Horn of Africa. The
>admiral didn’t specify which ports might now be visited.
> “I know that this will be a disappointment to some by
>not going around Africa, but it is the right thing to do,”
>the admiral told the crew. “We’re going to do everything
>possible to make that transit both a worthwhile event and
>also to make it good for each of you crew members who have
>put so much into this effort and the turmoil that goes with
>transferring home port.”
> The deployment is schedule to begin Sept. 1. A large
>portion of the crew is now scattered across America, moving
>their families to the ship’s future home port in Virginia or
>spending a few precious days elsewhere visiting loved ones
>prior to departing on the pending six-month deployment.
> For the last 10 years, Nimitz has operated from Puget
>Sound Naval Shipyard, some 15 miles west of Seattle. By the
>time Nimitz arrives in Newport News Naval Shipyard for an
>approximate three-year refueling overhaul, the nuclear-
>powered ship will have steamed almost 23 years on a single
>”tank of gas.”
> The round-the-world deployment will begin with Asian
>port visits, to be followed by an assignment in the Arabian
>Gulf before transiting the Mediterranean en route to
>Norfolk.
> “I want to congratulate all of you for your effort and
>for your hard work in getting ready for this forthcoming
>deployment and the change of home port,” Clemins told the
>crew. He commended the men and women for successfully
>demonstrating non-stop flight operations over a four-day
>period last month that enabled pilots to fly more than
>double the normal 100 sorties a day.
> “That [Surge exercise] really set a milestone and put
>some data on the table for what we can really do when called
>upon to perform,” the admiral said.
> -USN-
>
>
>Tom Robison
>Ossian, Indiana
>tcrobi@mindspring.com

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Fri Aug 15 04:54:02 1997
>Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:53:04 EST
>From: EDWARD WITTENBERG
>To: MAHAN@MICROWRKS.COM, MARHST-L@POST.QUEENSU.CA,
> WWI-L@RAVEN.CC.UKANS.EDU, WWII-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU,
> SUB-LIST@WEBCOM.COM
>CC: priceg@papa.uncp.edu, wew@papa.uncp.edu
>Subject: OFF-TOPIC: Virus Alert!!!
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>The following was sent to me this morning by a friend in the graduate
>program at the UNC-Pembroke who is also a computer science instructor
>at Sandhills Community College in Pinehurst, North Carolina. Please
>read!!!
>
>Edward Wittenberg
>wew@papa.uncp.edu
>
> >>Subject: VIRUS ALERT!!!
> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >>X-MX-Warning: VMS Mail To: line does not include all To: addresses
>
> >>WARNING!!!!!! If you receive an e-mail titled “JOIN THE CREW”, DO NOT
> >>open it! It will erase EVERYTHING on your hard drive! Send this letter
> >>out to as many people as you can…this is a new virus and not many
> >>people know about it!
>
> >>This information was received this morning from IBM, please share it
> >>with anyone that might access the internet:
>
> >>If anyone receives mail entitled: PENPAL GREETINGS! please delete it
> >>without reading it!! This is a warning for all internet users – there is
> >>a dangerous virus propagating across the internet through an e-mail
> >>message entitled, “PENPAL GREETINGS!”.
>
> >>DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANY MESSAGE ENTITLED “PENPAL GREETINGS!”!!
>
> >>This message appears to be a friendly letter asking you if you are
> >>interested in a penpal, but by the time you read this letter, it is too
> >>late. The trojan horse virus will have already infected the boot sector
> >>of your hard drive, destroying all of the data present. It is a self
> >>replicating virus, and once the message is read, it will
> >>AUTOMATICALLY forward itself to anyone whose e-mail address is
> >>present in YOUR mailbox!
>
> >>This virus will DESTROY your hard drive, and holds the potential to
> >>DESTROY the hard drive of anyone whose mail is in your IN box, and
> >>whose mail is in their IN box and so on. If this virus keeps getting
> >>passed, it has the potential to do a great deal of DAMAGE to computer
> >>networks worldwide!!!!
>
> >>Please, delete the message entitled “PENPAL GREETINGS!” as soon as
> >>you see it! And pass this message along to all of your friends,
> >>relatives, and the other readers of the newsgroups and mailing lists
> >>which you are on so that they are not hurt by this dangerous
> >>virus!!!!
>
> >>Please pass this along to everyone you know so this can be stopped.
>
> >>PASS THIS ON TO YOUR FRIENDS!!!
>
> >>WARNING!!!
>
> >>There is a new virus going around in the last couple of days!!!
>
> >>DO NOT open or even look at any mail that you get that says:
> >>”Returned or Unable to Deliver”. This virus will attach itself to your
> >>computer components and render them useless. Immediately delete any
> >>mail items that say this. AOL has said this is a very dangerous virus,
> >>and there is NO remedy for it at this time. Please be careful and
> >>forward to all your on-line friends A.S.A.P.>
>Forward this A.S.A.P. to every single person you know!!!!!!!!

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Fri Aug 15 07:03:41 1997
>Comments: Authenticated sender is
>From: “James H. E. Maugham”
>Organization: RST Environmental Services, Inc.
>To: sub-list@webcom.com, WWI-L@RAVEN.CC.UKANS.EDU
>Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:03:06 -0500
>Subject: Re: OFF-TOPIC: Virus Alert!!!
>Reply-to: CaptJHEM@waterw.com
>CC: MAHAN@MICROWRKS.COM, MARHST-L@POST.QUEENSU.CA
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>On 15 Aug 97 at 4:53, EDWARD WITTENBERG wrote:
>
> > Forward this A.S.A.P. to every single person you know!!!!!!!! >
>PLEASE DON’T!!!!!!
>
>This is a FRAUD!!!!! There ain’t no such animal as an E-Mail virus!
>
>James

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue Aug 19 11:59:16 1997
>To: salvin@ocslink.com
>Subject: RE: Re: MUTSU’s true fate?
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 97 18:59:44 GMT
>From: salvin@ocslink.com
>cc: mahan@microwrks.com
>X-Mailer: Quarterdeck Message Center [1.1]
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
> >
> > This does of course not help to explain why Yamamoto sat the > campaign out in
> > Truk on a brand new 70.000 ton, 27 knots battleship instead of sending it
> > south, as he did with Mutsu.
> > Thus you only explain why the old wagons were not used, and not > why the new
> > ships were simply left where they were. BTW, were was Nagato during
> > Guadalcanal?
> >
> > Tim
> >
>
>I think the simple reason was that to Yamamoto, the drive in the Solomons was
>not, in his mind, the main thrust of the American >counter-offensive. He still
>expected that to come through the Central Pacific to the Phillipines. The
>_Yamato_ and the other heavy battleships were to be reserved for the >”decisive
>battle” and not risked in the relatively restricted waters of the Solomons.
>—-
>
>Steve Alvin
>Department of Social Sciences
>Illinois Valley Community College
>
>salvin@ocslink.com
>
>—-
>
>Steve Alvin
>Department of Social Sciences
>Illinois Valley Community College
>
>salvin@ocslink.com

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Aug 18 15:18:15 1997
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:17:16 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net, trooker@CAPACCESS.ORG
>Subject: DD 963 class upgrade intention (long)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>This analyzes an interesting note (snipped herein) that Tracy Johnson
>forwarded from the CONSIM-L list while I was on vacation . . .
>
>-snip #1-
>The Spruance was designed to take advantage of several programs then
>under development. All of these were part of the original plan. the
>Spruance was designed to have 2 8″/72 mounts replacing the 5″/54s.
>Although some people claim that only one was intended. I had a friend
>who was a gunnery officer on a DD963 and he told me the figures
>comparing the magazine loadout of 5″ shells on his ship. Considering the
>difference in size of the 8″ and 5″ rounds I believed him when he said
>they were supposed to have 2 8″ guns.
>-end snip-
>
>Comment: DD 963 spec was actually for just one 5″ mount to be replaced
>by an 8″ or 175mm mount. In Litton’s winning design, only the forward Mk
>45 5″ mount (Mt 51) location had enough hull depth beneath it for a Mk
>71 8″ mount. I doubt that the Navy would or could re-design the Mk 71
>mount to fit in the aft 5″ (Mt 52) location, because:
>- The 8″ mount would need more depth for the loading tray to swing down,
>and also would need a higher loader tube for the longer 8″ round. If the
>Mk 71 mount were raised to the 01 level, it would block the Sea Sparrow
>launcher.
>- Retaining a 5″ mount aft would still be valuable because it would hold
>more rounds (600 vs 250 in the forward-8″ plan), and because of the
>greater variety of 5″ ammunition types than of 8″.
> BTW: When VLS was installed on DD 963 ships, retaining the margins
>for Mk 71 or another mount was not required. The ships had to be
>ballasted to compensate for the VLS weight, making a heavier-weight gun
>mount forward unattractive since then.
>
>-snip #2-
>The ship was also designed for the VLS. It just wasn’t available when
>the original ships were built. That is also why the Shah got the Mk26
>(?) luanchers for SAMs, it was the only thing ready at the time. The
>DD963 VLS was intended to carry more than THAWK though. The were vague
>intentions for a vertically launched ASROC, possibly a VL Harpoon, and
>some SAM. I think the intention for the latter was to have a
>multi-channel FCS that could be used to gunfire or to guide 1 or 2
>missiles. Presumably this would have been some variation of the Standard
>missile. They only became Strike DDs when all the programs but THAWK
>lapsed.
>-end snip-
>
>Comment: The ships were designed (1968-69) for Mk 26 twin-arm launchers.
>Mk 41 VLS launchers were developed in the late 1970s and went into
>production in the early 1980s. Even had VLS been available for the
>Shah’s cruisers, Standard SM-1 missiles were not VLS-compatible.
>- Mk 41 VLS was designed to be compatible with Mk 26 so it was an easy
>retrofit in the Mk 26-compatible DD 963 design. In fact, the US Navy
>plans to replace the Mk 26 launchers on the first 5 Aegis (Baseline 1)
>cruisers with VLS.
>- The original VLS design was too shallow for Tomahawk. SecNav Lehman
>cancelled VL-Harpoon and pushed a deeper VLS to push the Navy toward
>Tomahawk. An early Tomahawk variant was an anti-ship missile (TASM), now
>withdrawn for reasons of obsolesence and policy.
>- VL-ASRocs exist and are issued to deploying VLS ships. They carry Mk
>46 torpedoes only, not Mk 50 or nuclear depth charges.
>- A VL SAM system for the DD 963 is technically feasible but
>development has never been considered cost-effective. Several DD 963s
>are getting rolling-airframe missile (RAM) launchers to upgrade their
>air defense capability. The launcher is installed on the starboard
>quarter.
>
>-snip #3-
>The beamy hull of the Burke class has little to do with future growth .
>. . The Soviets had consistently built ships that were much beamier,
>because there were some drag resistance benefits at high speeds.
>-end snip-
>
>Comment: It’s correct that the “broad waterplane” hull design of the DDG
>51 class is not primarily related to growth margins, but speed isn’t the
>advantage. The broader hull is theoretically fuel-inefficient at high
>speeds but with gas turbines you can’t achieve the theoretical ideal
>anyway so there’s no real loss. What’s important about the broad
>waterplane design is that it greatly improves seakeeping, which the Navy
>noticed in broad-waterplane Soviet warships. The Navy wanted an even
>wider hull (by 2 feet) than the DDG 51 actually has.
> BTW: Gibbs & Cox’s competing DD 963 design was beamier than Litton’s
>winning design with an identical power plant. A former Litton designer
>has stated that Litton’s narrow-hull design resulted from a towing-tank
>test interpretation error. OTOH Litton’s ships are faster than the Navy
>required.
>
>I have sources for all the above if anyone is interested. I liked seeing
>the post from trooker@CAPACCESS.ORG and am pleased at the interest in
>the DD 963 class.
>
>–
>Michael C. Potter, Mgr, TelCo/Govt Programs mike.potter@artecon.com
>Artecon, Inc. | | mail PO Box 9000
>6305 El Camino Real -|- _|_ Carlsbad CA
>Carlsbad CA 92009 >_|_( |/_>ph 760-431-4465 >_III_ V|/ _III_ |/|_o fx 760-931-5527
> =-| L/_| _|____L_/_|==
> ___ ________|____-===L|_LL| -==| .___ |
> ___. __I____|_[_]_______|_____[__||____[_]_|__|_=====_|\__–+====–/
>\_____/|_|__| == 963 /
>|

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed Aug 20 13:15:06 1997
>X-Errors-To:
>Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:14:23 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: rickt@pop3.cris.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: rickt@cris.com (Eric Bergerud)
>Subject: Re: Yamamoto & Guadalcanal
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Mark does an admirable job putting Japanese (and Yamamoto’s) strategy into
>perspective. And if Yamamoto wasn’t so highly rated by people that should
>know better I might be more merciful. But I respectfully must disagree and
>submit that the Japanese did a better job of squandering a tactical and
>strategic advantage than any major combatant in WWII (with the possible
>exception of the USSR in 1941.)
>
>Mark wrote:
> >That might be a little harsh. 1). Navies tend to think alkie in many
> >ways. The Rainbow plan called for just such an offensive and it’s not
> >unusual that Yamamoto might have been thinking along similar lines. 2).
> >The Japanese loved feints and possibly felt the US would do what they
> >would do. 3). Restricted waters favor the weaker Navy. 4). Probably
> >most important. The SW Pacific was, for the most part, an Army show.
> >The Japanese services were not known for their cooperation.
> >
>Replies:
>1. Yes armed services think alike. But look what happened in the USN after
>Pearl. The carrier became king, they made major changes in their building
>program shoving subs and CVs to the top of the list. When we lost a battle
>we LOOKED for lessons. The Japanese, as shown at Midway, didn’t examine
>defeat because it was unthinkable to deal with it: not smart.
>
>2. Feints were wasteful and stupid and were one of the things that got
>Yamamoto in trouble at Midway. I wonder if a US admiral defeated as badly as
>Yamamoto was at Midway would have kept his position. The fact that
>Yamamoto’s successors continued to divide their forces and get their teeth
>kicked in only highlights how deeply the disease had gone and how difficult
>it was for the Japanese to react to a changing condition. Maybe chess is
>better preparation for war than go.
>
>3. An all out effort at Guadalcanal would have brought the USN to battle: Im
>convinced we would not have abandoned the Marines. IF were were forced to
>evacuate (or try to evacuate) the garrison it would have been a real
>embarassment: losing the garrison would have been a calamity. A slugfest or
>series of slugfests would not necessarily have had to take place in
>Ironbottom Sound. And if they did, a combination of big guns and the Long
>Lance would have a good one. If Yamamoto had lost his confidence after
>Midway that was an excellent reason to make him an instructor at Japan’s
>naval academy.
>
>4. Mark is in error concerning the SOPAC being an Army show. The opposite
>was the case. The Navy was responsible for the SOPAC and the Army claimed
>New Guinea as its sandbox. (The Kokoda epic was taking place at the same
>time as Guadalcanal.) By the end of Guadalcanal the two serivces were ready
>for an open declaration of war against each other. I do admit it was not
>Yamamoto’s fault that the Army refused to see the great danger looming at
>Guadalcanal until the battle was lost. As my football coach used to say,
>losing 63-0 takes a team effort.
>
>5. Mark also points out that Australia & NZ could have served as US bases
>for a sustained showdown in the SOPAC. In reality neither did. We were
>smart/lucky enough in the first weeks of war to see the value of the New
>Hebrides and occupied Efate, Espiritu Santo & New Caledonia very early.
>Espiritu was a fine anchorage but not really a great base. Australia’s
>ports, much less NZ, were a long way off. Rabaul and Truk made a much better
>combination. Any geographic position would have had some disadvantages for a
>major battle. But given the time element involved I still argue that the
>SOPAC was the best possible place for Japan to fight in late 1942, and that
>late 1942 was a much better time to fight than mid-44.
>
>Obviously such things are unproveable. But I do believe that Japan’s
>significant tactical strengths and astounding individual bravery were not
>supported by decent leadership at the top.
>Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous