Archive for the ‘1997’ Category

Japanese BBs/BCs, Aug-Dec42 … and the Rabaul volcano. :-)

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Mon Jul 28 16:01:51 1997
>X-Errors-To:
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:01:11 -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: Japanese BBs/BCs, Aug-Dec42 … and the Rabaul volcano. 🙂
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
> >
> >Doing research for my Guadalcanal game, I have discovered that all 12
> > Japanese battleships and battlecruisers were available to be used,
> > if Yamamato had decided to use them.
> >
>
> >One of the criticisms of Yamamoto’s handling of Guadalcanal and the
> > rest of the Solomons was that he didn’t take them seriously until
> > it was too late to do anything in the face of growing Allied
> > inventories, technology, and battle savvy.
> >
> >On the other hand, as my son Robert pointed out to me, some of those
> > capital ships had to be “on call” elsewhere on the perimeter of The
> > Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.” So, I am allowing the
> > IJN player to pick any 4 of the 8 IJN battleships for stationing at
> > Truk or even Rabaul. (Rabaul has certain other limitations,
> > hamstringing Imperial Fleet operations from there, of course. Do
> > you think the Japanese player should have to make a “volcano roll”
> > (of the diCe) every turn? ?? *I* do! 🙂 )
> >
> >While MUSASHI and YAMATO are certainly superior weapons, their victory
> > — prestige, actually — point value is astronomical, so the IJN player
> > has good incentive to keep them out of the point-blank, indiscriminate,
> > night-time battles of decision … to borrow Eric Hammel’s point … in
> > which *any* ship can conceivably go down.
> >
> >Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
> > www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/ … to print off a FREE “1st Alamein”
> > boardgame or BUTLER class USN Destroyer Escort cardstock model (plan)
> >
> >Umm … How active *was* the Rabaul volcano? ?? 🙂
> >
>1. Yamamoto at Guadalcanal: why Yamamoto has the reputation of being a
>competent admiral is utterly beyond me. Pearl Harbor was extraordinary
>folly. Midway was one of the stupidiest schemes in naval history. (If the
>”greatest admiral since Nelson” [William Manchester] couldn’t see that a
>massive move into the SOPAC in mid-42 would have forced CinPac into a
>”decisive battle” in waters far more favorable than those off Hawaii,
>someone should have given him glasses.) Yamamoto perhaps would have made a
>good Navy Minister (Captain Hara says that he was a poor tactician but an
>excellent “leader of leaders”) but he was a complete bust as head of
>Combined Fleet. Typical of the Japanese military regime really: the higher
>you got up the command chain, the worse was the leadership. Should he have
>used BBs at Guadalcanal? Obviously: he should have used Combined Fleet at
>Guadalcanal. Waiting for another “decisive battle” in 1944 was insanity
>knowing what all top JPN officers knew about US production plans. Yamamoto’s
>great problem is that he could never fathom the link between politics and
>war. Pearl Harbor shattered American Isolationism, and with it, Japan’s only
>chance for a meaningful victory in the Pacific. In fall of 1942 he couldn’t
>understand that making Guadalcanal into another Bataan would have been a
>devestating defeat for the US. Think about it: Yamamoto violated EVERY basic
>military principle during that campaign. He moved slowly, based assumptions
>on rotten intelligence and failed to concentrate force. He chose a difficult
>battlefield. If Japanese strategy in the Solomons was basically defensive
>they would have been MUCH better off to forget about the Canal and have
>fortified New Georgia. Those islands could have supported by air far easier
>than Guadalcanal. If he wanted to fight on the Canal, he should have fought
>with everything he could get his hands on. Fortunately for us a lot of
>Japanese admirals at the top were rotten, or we might have rued the day we
>killed Yamamoto.
>
>2. I take issue with Lou’s son. In mid-42 where was a threat to the Japanese
>going to come from? Did they think that the RN was going to make a major
>sortie into the East Indies with the situation that existed in the Atlantic
>or Med? (Such a sortie would have been pointless without a goodly troop
>convoy: Churchill opening up the Burma front in 42?? Hardly.) One thing that
>the August invasion told them about the US Fleet was that it had expended
>it’s only amphibious force (Tokyo had a very good idea of the US order of
>battle early in the war). The Central Pacific front was hinged by powerful
>bases long in Japanese possession. Furthermore there is no reason that a
>close blockade out of Guadalcanal could not have been partially based from
>Truk. That leaves the North Pacific where there was a Japanese garrison
>likewise. Add the Marines on Guadalcanal with the appearance of the US Army
>in New Guinea and any decent officer could have told you that the US had
>shot its 1942 bolt in the SW/SOPAC. Perhaps they could have kept a couple of
>BBs and a small flattop in reserve just in case, but it would not have taken
>much.
>
>3. Confined Waters. There is no reason whatsoever that the Japanese would
>have had to have put their BBs in Ironbottom sound at night. The US had only
>three battleships of note (NCarolina, SDakota, Washington: suppose Tokyo
>could have feared that Mass was in the area). Cruisers and destroyers would
>have filled that bill very nicely. Let the US BBs come into the sound and
>play tag with torpedoes and allow the Japanese heavies to come in during the
>day. It is vital to remember that US dive bombers and torpedo bombers could
>only be launched against the Japanese from Henderson or our CVs. As the
>October bombardments showed, you could have wiped Henderson off the face of
>the earth with a sustained bombardment. The risk would have come from US
>CVs. Well, Japan had parity in CVs at the time. If Combined Fleet’s could
>not defeat the USN’s CVs in September 1942, or at least consummate a suicide
>pact, then Japan was going to lose the war – Period. Land based threat to
>ships operating near the Canal would have been confined to B17s flying out
>of Espirtu Santos: not effective weapons against warships in open water. No
>doubt Japan would have taken some losses. However, neutralizing Henderson
>would have allowed the Japanese to bring troops in with proper transports
>bring proper supplies and proper artillery. Strangling the Marines and
>POSSIBLY mutilating the US Pacific Fleet would have been worth the risk.
>There was not alternative as subsequent events showed only too clearly.
>
>4. Rabaul as a base. The Strategic Bombing Survey did a long special study
>on the campaign against Rabaul. There was a perpetual smell of sulfer in the
>area which detracted from its otherwise idyllic setting (if you don’t mind a
>bit of malaria. Idyllic settings were very rare in that neck of the woods:
>Vella Lavella I’m told was beautiful. Most of the islands were malignant
>dumps where nature ran nuts.) Perhaps I err, but I cannot think offhand of
>any warship being sunk by a volcano. The IJA had, by mid-43 a garrison of
>70,000 men in the area: some of those guys might have been up a creek. The
>real problem with Rabaul in the fall of 42 were US B17 raids launched from
>Townsville in Australia. The Japanese already knew that B17s were not very
>good at hitting moving targets, but they were a bit concerned about ships in
>harbor. (The vaunted Zero had feet of clay. With poor performance at high
>altitude, and a fragile airframe, it was poorly suited to down heavy
>bombers.) At this stage of the war, however, US aviators were not top drawer
>and the Japanese found that ships in Simpson were normally quite safe.
>However, Combined Fleet did not really understand that (an understandable
>mistake for once) and were shy about using Rabaul as a base for oilers and
>capital ships. The real problem would have been where to put your fleet
>oilers. Presumably they could have hung out somewhere north of Guadalcanal
>or New Ireland. One advantages in having the BBs in the Guadlacanal area is
>that they could have served as expensive tankers, fueling DDs or CVs if
>necessary. (It is one of the Pacific War’s many ironies that about the time
>the IJN decided it needed to use Rabaul for a large contingent of CAs & CLs,
>the USAAF was closing in and US CVs were reappearing. Japanese fleet units
>which had been almost untouched for nearly two years were bludgeoned in a
>couple of weeks.)
>
>5. Oil & the Army. There were two strategic wildcards during the Guadalcanal
>campaign. One was the oil situation. IJN planners were very concerned about
>their oil supplies. They had more crude than they needed, but refined stocks
>were not ideal. (This situation was one of the factors that brought on the
>Pacific War.) Capital ships at speed eat fuel faster than a 68 Mercury.
>Operating large numbers of them for sustained periods would have really been
>a headache. However, I do not KNOW of a single instance early in the war
>where oil shortages directly limited operational planning. I’ve put this
>question to a number of groups (including this one) and no one has been able
>to point to an example where this happened. And then there was the Army. If
>there was anyone dumber than a Japanese admiral it was a Japanese general.
>And the Army ran Japan. Generals bitched and moaned about lack of shipping,
>lack of men, lack of supplies etc etc in 1942. Yet when the roof caved in in
>the SOPAC they were able to find 300,000 men to send into the Bismarcks and
>NGuinea. (where they ended up in the world’s largest POW camp: the bypassed
>Japanese bases of the S/SW Pacific) Had Japan had a properly functioning JCS
>system, some smart general (if there were any) would have been screaming for
>decisive action in the SOPAC. In the event, the two services despised each
>other. The Army treated the Kakoda adventure as their sandbox and left the
>Solomons to the IJN. The Army started to get concerned about Guadalcanal
>when the Sendai Division was thumped in later October. Sorry guys, a little
>late. Maybe you could work in an “Army IQ” roll of the dice.
>Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

MUTSU’s true fate?

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Mon Jul 28 20:05:42 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:05:04 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu, mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: MUTSU’s true fate?
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>———- Forwarded message ———-
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:12:47 -0400
>From: Terry S
>To: Multiple recipients of list CONSIM-L
>
>While someone may feel that the Mutsu blew up at sea with a load of special
>ammunition, let me assure you that that was not the case. I spent a pleasant
>(and completely unexpected, by the way) afternoon diving on the wreck in mid
>1970; the ship sank at its buoy off the Inland Sea down near Hiroshima
>(Iwakuni? It’s been a long time).
>
>I had a number of photos of salvaged portions of the wreck published a few
>years back in Warship International. I’ve still got a small piece of the
>main gun propellant; I chip off a few flakes and light them up (big column of
>flame, even after fifty odd years of underwater and deskdrawer storage) to
>impress the locals now and then.
>
>Terry S

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

Japanese BBs at Guadalcanal

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Thu Jul 31 19:25:30 1997
>X-Errors-To:
>Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:24:36 -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: Japanese BBs at Guadalcanal
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
> >
> >Umm … Eric? Are you on Mahan? 🙂
> >
>Yup: that be me ok.
> >
> >Hmmm … I know there were night battles on two of those nights, but
> > what was the third?
>
>On the 14th Japanese cruisers came in and bombarded Henderson: like other
>Japanese naval bombardments (with the exception of the devestating blow in
>mid-October) it did little damage. The cruiser force, under the redoubtable
>Adm Mikawa, was caught on the way back by a force from Henderson which
>damaged a couple of ships. Slowed, a “shuttle bomb” strike force from
>Enterprise found the cruisers sunk CA Kinugasa, damaged CA Chokai, CA Maya,
>CL Isuzu and DD Michishio: a very bad day for the IJN. Ironically the most
>significant naval bombardment of the campaign was not done by IJN BBs or our
>heavy ships but by a two DD element (DD Aaron Ward & Lardner) under Captain
>Tobin which bombarded a Japanese ammunition dump near Cape Esperance and
>destroyed a goodly portion of the artillery, mortar and mg ammunition that
>was to support the Sendai Division. Although Frank says little about this
>incident, Morrison quotes a Japanese officer describing it as “the most
>fatal reason for further failures.” Captain Hara describes the incident has
>being a catastrophe for Japan. I know for a fact that the Sendai made its
>October attacks on a logistic shoestring. I’m convinced.
>
> >”much of the prewar American fleet” is a bit overstated … unless Eric
> > is referring to the fleet at Guadalcanal, not the entire American
> > ship inventory, which I’m assuming he meant to say.
>
>Yes, perhaps a bit of poetic license. I did mean the ships available for use
>at Guadalcanal. But, if you look at look at the list of ships sunk from Dec
>7-Jan 1, 1943, I think you can see why USN leaders were in anguish by
>November of 1942. The Fletchers (just arriving in November) and the
>Cleveland’s (January 43 and succeeding months) must have looked like the
>”Cavalry” coming to the rescue. After Tassafaronga with Sara and NCarolina
>still under repair, the US Pacific fleet had pretty well shot its bolt. No
>wonder Halsey didn’t want a general engagement in 1943.
>
> >Incidentally, I read in the U.S. Air Force’s(!) official history that
> > even though it was mortally wounded, IJN “fast battleship”/battle-
> > cruiser HIEI was still bombarding Henderson Field on the morning after
> > the first big battle. Thus, its sinking became an urgent matter.
> >
>Hiei was not bombarding Henderson: I don’t think it ever did. They switched
>to AP rounds when it became obvious that a surface engagment was nearly
>certain on Friday the 13th. Hiei was still firing, although slowly. Aaron
>Ward, one the floating wrecks off the coast of Savo was stradled by Hiei at
>first light. Fortunately for the AWard, Marine aviators attacked Hiei at the
>same time and shut it up.
> >
> >
>Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

Japanese BBs/BCs, Aug-Dec42 … changing the thread

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Mon Jul 28 22:06:50 1997
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:09:57 -0700
>From: TMO/TX
>Reply-To: swrctmo@iAmerica.net
>Organization: Kestrel/SWRC/OAssoc
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I)
>To: Eric Bergerud
>CC: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Re: Japanese BBs/BCs, Aug-Dec42 … changing the thread
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Eric Bergerud wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Doing research for my Guadalcanal game, I have discovered that all 12
> > > Japanese battleships and battlecruisers were available to be used,
> > > if Yamamato had decided to use them.
> > >
>
> > >Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>
> > 1. Yamamoto at Guadalcanal: why Yamamoto has the reputation of being a
> > competent admiral is utterly beyond me. Pearl Harbor was extraordinary
> > folly. Midway was one of the stupidiest schemes in naval history. (If the
> > “greatest admiral since Nelson” [William Manchester] couldn’t see that a
> > massive move into the SOPAC in mid-42 would have forced CinPac into a
> > “decisive battle” in waters far more favorable than those off Hawaii,
> > someone should have given him glasses.)
>
>(Snipped, a lengthy but rewarding Bergurud discourse….)
>
>’Tis a pleasure to see someone prick at the time honored Yamamoto
>balloon and reputation. With the Krauts we could always use the excuse
>that the generals and feldmarschals were all certifiable geniuses while
>old Adolf was a looney. With the Nips, it was always those slant-eyed
>inscrutable oriental mensa types running the war.
>
>Let me propose a whole new approach, a emphatic “Horseshit!” to the
>legendary talents of legendary generals and admirals.
>
>Rule One of War:
>
>Every damn one of the enemy’s military leaders are absolute whizbanfg
>super smart, dern near infallible wise sachems.
>
>Why?
>’Cuz if we beat’em, then our admirals and generals is right smart, too!
>(and, perish the thought, if we lose, we’ve got a good excuse. We wuz
>out-smarted, tricked, fooled, whatever.)
>
>The bottom line….
>
>A careful examination of history reveals that an overwhelming majority
>of senior officers would have served their countries better by checking
>into the closest high security mental institution, leaving the conduct
>of war in the hands of more simple souls capable of comprehending their
>own short comings.
>
>On the use of the bayonet…
>
>(A) Bayonet charges should never be ordered without determining that the
>other side is almost out of bullets, cannon balls, powder, grape shot,
>large stones and, most important, morale.
>
>(B) It is well known and widely recorded thruout history that less than
>20% of those who ordered bayonet charges actually participated in them
>(and then often by mistake).
>
>And a naval collateral…
>Every boarding party should include a group of trustworthy sailors
>charged with lashing the ships together. Nothing is more embarassing
>and morale-destructive than the sight of one’s own ship falling off to
>leeward.
>
>Military cemeteries and the sea bottom are crowded with poor yoiks put
>there by the misadventures of stiffs suffering from advanced cases of
>megalomania and/or melancholia.
>
>Most military systems’ traditional organizational and promotional
>policies insure that that the highest ranks are filled by a group which
>can be characterized as only moderately skilled, to that point lucky,
>with the ethical qualities of three card monte dealers, and far from
>military genius (except in their own estimation).
>
>Most wars are best noted for continuing ineptitude and depraved
>indifference broken only sporadically by occasional moments of flawed
>genius, absolute bad luck, and the rarest flashes of competence.
>
>The old maxim that it is better to do something than to do nothing
>should be carefully reconsidered prior to any military operation. Often
>it is better to wait for the other side to do something damn foolish.
>Unfortunately, most military leaders are incapable of recognizing damn
>foolishness.
>
>The twin secrets to promotion are…
>Be at the right place at the right time, often!
>The Art of ass-kissing is more important than the art of war.
>
>Secrets to great military success include….
>The dead are always heroes.
>Like prostitutes, members of the media are easily bought, but are
>potentially fickle mistresses.
>Always keep a few dufflebutts around upon whom to place blame.
>The opposing commander combines the skill of Ceasar with the
>determination of Alexander.
>The opposing army, each seven feet tall and outnumbering us at least two
>to one, are the best trained, slickest talking bastards this side of the
>Vikings, and their weapons are technological marvels.
>
>The consumate military leader is capable of presenting his best profile
>to photographers, patting himself on the back and retreating
>simultaneously.
>
>The staffs of such leaders should always include one individual capable
>of providing an accurate count of the Indians. Generals and Admirals
>are a dime a f**kin’ dozen. Good indian counters are scarce. Ask
>Custer.
>
> >From one who having made O5, exceeded even the parameters of the Peter
>principle…
>–
>Kestrel Syndicate – Oliver Associates – Southwest Regional Council
> “Quid consilium cepit…”

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

USS Liberty

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Wed Jun 11 06:48:29 1997
>From: Tracy Johnson
>To: “‘Mahan-L'”
>Subject: RE: USS Liberty
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 22:27:21 -0700
>Encoding: 29 TEXT
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>I’m curious, did CNSG take along the little memorial to the officers and
>crew of the USS Liberty when they moved from Nebraska Ave. to Ft Fumble a
>couple years ago? Or did they stow it or put it in a museum?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>—-
>Join The USS Liberty Email Discussion Conference
>Email LISTSERV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>With SUBSCRIBE USS_LIBERTY As The Text
>http://www.ussliberty.org/jim/ussliberty/

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

MURPHY’S LAW OF COMBAT

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Fri Jun 13 03:42:07 1997
>Date: Fri, 13 Jun 97 05:41:49 CDT
>X-Sender: ncms1@navtap-emh.navtap.navy.mil
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: “Mark Hayes (Navy Historical Center)”
>Subject: Re: MURPHY’S LAW OF COMBAT
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Just a few more for our general enjoyment:
>
> >>63. No-combat ready group has passed inspection.>
>No inspection-ready unit ever passed combat.
>
>Recoiless rifles aren’t.
>
>All-weather close air support doesn’t work in bad weather.
>
>The bursting radius of a hand grenade is always one foot greater than your
>jumping range.
>
>Precision bombing is normally accurate within plus or minus one mile.
>
>Man portable designations never say how many men.
>
>
>
>Mark Hayes

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

30 years after Israeli assault on U.S. ship, families remember

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Thu Jun 12 10:19:13 1997
>Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:19:10 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: 30 years after Israeli assault on U.S. ship, families remember
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>30 years after Israeli assault on U.S. ship, families remember
>
>Copyright (c) 1997 Nando.net
>Copyright (c) 1997 The Associated Press
>
>WASHINGTON (June 7, 1997 11:37 p.m. EDT) — Former crew members of the
>USS Liberty and their families are remembering with sorrow and lingering
>bitterness Israel’s assault on the American intelligence ship during the
>Six-Day Middle East War 30 years ago.
>
>Thirty-four Americans perished and 171 were wounded in the June 8, 1967,
>tragedy. The Israeli government expressed regret and eventually
>compensated the United States for the attack in international waters.
>
>It said the attack was unintentional and blamed it on faulty
>identification and inadequate markings.
>
>Survivors at a reunion vowed to press efforts for release of still-
>secret documents and a full airing of the controversy that they believe
>is the only such U.S. Navy incident in recent times not accorded a
>congressional hearing.
>
>Critics have written that the attack by Israeli planes and torpedo boats
>was deliberate, driven by suspicion that the U.S. intelligence-
>gathering ship either was relaying information to Egypt or would learn
>that Israeli forces planned to move into the Syrian-held Golan Heights
>the following day to annex strategic territory.
>
>Several people interviewed Saturday accused both governments of a
>cover-up. Some sounded angrier at U.S. officials for what they called
>extreme reluctance to embarrass Israel, America’s ally in the Middle
>East.
>
>Retired Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, a former Chief of Naval Operations and
>chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, voiced displeasure at a
>wreath-laying Friday that the Liberty’s skipper, then Commander William
>L. McGonagle, was decorated in 1968 with the Congressional Medal of
>Honor at the Washington Navy Yard instead of at the White House where
>the highest U.S. award for valor is ordinarily presented by the
>president.
>
>”I’d just like to hear the truth so our kids can finally rest in peace,”
>said “Rusty” Sturman, a Liberty radioman at the time of the attack who
>now works for the New York City Transit Authority.
>
>”We were there to find out if Russian nationals were flying Egyptian
>planes” in the conflict, Sturman recalled. “Shortly before the (Israeli)
>torpedo hit us, we intercepted Russian (language) conversation in those
>Egyptian planes.”
>
>There’s “a lot anger at our own government for downplaying the attack
>and sweeping it under the rug of government security,” in contrast to
>congressional hearings on the handful of other recent attacks against
>the U.S. Navy, said Joseph C. Lentini, a former Liberty communications
>technician.
>
>Lentini recalled that the skipper of the USS Davis, a destroyer which
>aided the crippled Liberty, cautioned survivors at the time against
>discussing the attack by telling them: “This never happened.” It might
>be understandable for Israelis to play down the incident, Lentini said,
>but “as an American I fault our president and secretary of state for not
>standing behind their men.”
>
>Nearly 100 reunion participants on Saturday visited the National
>Security Agency’s Cryptologic Museum which has a memorial wall honoring
>the Liberty and its crew. The exhibit at nearby Fort Meade, Md., says
>Israel by 1980 had paid the United States $12,889,907 compensation.
>
>–By GENE KRAMER, Associated Press

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

DoD support in Washington

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Fri Jun 13 21:31:00 1997
>From: Tracy Johnson
>To: “‘Mahan-L'”
>Subject: DoD support in Washington
>Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 20:00:55 -0700
>Encoding: 18 TEXT
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>An ad appeared in the Naval Reservist News for June 1997:
>
>”DoD support in Washington
>
>The Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Declassification Team is looking
>for officer and warrant officer Reservists who live in the Military
>District of Washington, D.C., to serve a 179-day tour of duty. ADSW
>funding from DoD may be available. A background in military intelligence,
>operations or logistics is preferred but not required. Applicants must
>have a current Secret clearance, with upgrade to Top Secret before starting
>the tour. Contact Army CW4 Swanson at the Office of the Secretary of
>Defense, Washington HQ Services, Military Personnel Division, (703)
>697-5271.”
>
>—-
>(Do I sense “USS Liberty” here? It IS time for the 30-year review after
>all, or does everyone think it will be mostly Viet Nam stuff?)

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

Japanese right-wingers land on disputed island

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Mon Jun 16 10:04:07 1997
>Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:59:26 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Japanese right-wingers land on disputed island
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Japanese right-wingers land on disputed island
>______________________________________________
>Copyright (c) 1997 Nando.net
>Copyright (c) 1997 Reuter Information Service
>
>TOKYO (June 15, 1997 00:44 a.m. EDT) – Japanese right-wing activists
>staged a brief landing on an island in the East China Sea at the centre
>of a regional territorial dispute, a coast guard official said on
>Sunday.
>
>Three people landed on Wednesday on one of the rocky uninhabited islands
>administered by Japan but claimed by China and Taiwan, an official said.
>
>The activists belong to a right-wing group that erected a makeshift
>lighthouse on the island last July, sparking furious reactions from
>China and Taiwan and anti-Japan street protests in Hong Kong.
>
>The official said the activists inspected the lighthouse and took video
>footage, returning to their boat after a two-hour stay.
>
>The landing, on one of the islands known in Japan as the Senkakus, was
>made despite a nearby patrol boat’s call to desist.
>
>It threatened to fan the flames of the decades-old dispute that the
>Japanese government is keen to play down to avoid straining ties with
>China.
>
>Embarrassed Japanese leaders said a May 6 landing by a conservative
>national legislator who planted Japan’s wartime emblem — the Rising Sun
>flag — on one of the islands was an “illegal act” that was bad for
>Tokyo’s foreign relations.
>
>Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto is hoping the islands dispute
>will not endanger a proposed exchange of visits with his Chinese
>counterpart Li Peng later this year to mark the 25th anniversary of
>bilateral ties.
>
>Japan administers the collection of rocky outcrops located midway
>between Taiwan and Okinawa and says they have been Japanese territory
>since 1895, while Beijing says it has owned the islets, which it calls
>the Diaoyu Islands, since ancient times.
>
>Taiwan also lay claims to the Senkaku islands, which it refers to as the
>Tiaoyutai.
>
>Activists from Taiwan and Hong Kong sailed to the islands last month to
>challenge Japan’s claim but were kept away by Japanese patrol ships.
>
>–

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

HobbyHQ web page update (

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

From Tue Jun 17 17:03:19 1997
>Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:54:31 -0500 (CDT)
>X-Sender: markr@soltec.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
>To: advanced-sl@list.pitt.edu
>From: mark
>Subject: HobbyHQ web page update (
>Cc: lorioli@COMPUSERVE.COM, cnorman@MINDSCAPE.COM, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu,
> mkroll@thegamers.net, axis-l@csd.uwm.edu, cdmailer@primenet.com,
> CZ-L@LISTSERV.UCOP.EDU, HULL@lists.sni.net, > harpoon@lists.stanford.edu,
> mahan@microwrks.com, milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu,
> tacops@lists.stanford.edu
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Many changes have occured here at HobbyHQ (http://www.bestware.net/hobbyhq),
>and I’d like to take a moment to fill everyone in and update you with our
>progress. We got a new look and and a new editor (Grant Linneberg) has
>joined me here at HobbyHQ
>
>The Arturo Filippo Lorioli Page:
>http://bestware.net/hobbyhq/toe/italy/arturo/arturo.htm
>Mr Lorioli has contributed many fine articles to the WW2 and Command
>Decision lists (visit Barry’s page at: http://www.primenet.com/~bgeipel)
>about the Italian effort and experience in WW2. Extremely informative and
>insightful, I highly recommend these pages to everyone.. You can read these
>great articles now at the url listed above for his page.
>
>Order of Battle’s and T.O.E.s for board and pc gamers… 35 countries is
>represented from WW2 to the present. Several converted for the ASL crowd…
>Data gleaned from a variety of sources like books, and mail-lists , this
>section grow almost every other day so check back frequently for updates
>
>Scenario Chat Room: http://bestware.net/hobbyhq/chat.htm
>This is a new feature to assist you with scenario development. Set up a time
>with your friends and then meet with them for live interactive chat….
>
>The Biography Section;
>This just started and is in work, but already we have two bios on WW2
>soldiers that provide some interesting reading.
>
>Steel Panthers:
>We have PLENTY of scenario’s available to pick and choose from. If you need
>a patch or OOB file or editor, be sure to get it from here…… You’ll find
>a lot for both Steel Panthers and SP Modern Battles here.
>
>Harpoon:
>Whatever you looking for, we’ll proably have in in our Harpoon pages.. Take
>a look. (Trusty Shellbacks of King Neptunus Rex Ruler of the Raging Main
>are especially most welcome, and the same for you pollywogs (non-seagoin
>slug’s )
>
>Advanced Squad Leader:
>Many changes in effect here. Grant Linneberg has assumed the duties as
>HobbyHQ ASL “Squad Leader” Grant can be emailed at sushi@cadvision.com.
>Please send him or I your suggestion to build a site that all ASL’ers can
>appreciate…
>
>
>Thanks guys and gals
>
>Mark Robbins
>http://www.bestware.net/hobbyhq

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

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