From Fri Jun 27 12:11:52 1997
>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:11:27 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>Subject: PRC sending 10 warships to Hong Kong
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>China’s Troop Deployment Opposed
>________________________________
>By John Leicester
>Friday, June 27, 1997; 12:06 p.m. EDT
>
>HONG KONG (AP) — China’s decision today to send armored cars into Hong
>Kong in a 4,000-troop deployment will send a bad message to the world,
>the outgoing leader of the British colony warned.
>
>Gov. Chris Patten said it is proper for China to send troops to Hong
>Kong “as a symbol of Chinese sovereignty.”
>
>But he said the British had been telling China for weeks “that it would
>be a very bad signal to Hong Kong and to the rest of the world to deploy
>armored cars, armored personnel carriers, at that time in Hong Kong, in
>urban areas.”
>
>Patten said Britain would press for a reversal of the decision.
>
>China said today it will begin moving in 4,000 military personnel by
>land, sea and air, six hours after recovering sovereignty over Hong Kong
>at the stroke of midnight Monday.
>
>It long has been known that China will deploy up to 10,000 soldiers as a
>symbol of its newly recovered sovereignty in Hong Kong, which is to be a
>semiautonomous territory responsible for its own internal affairs.
>
>The number would roughly match British troop levels in recent years, but
>until now, no announcement had been made about major troop movements on
>the day of the handover.
>
>Almost 200 unarmed troops of the People’s Liberation Army are already in
>Hong Kong, preparing for the main force, and 509 lightly-armed soldiers
>are to drive in three hours before the handover ceremony.
>
>The new Chinese contingent will include 10 ships sailing to a base in
>Hong Kong harbor; six helicopters heading to the semi-rural New
>Territories; and 21 armored cars and 400 smaller vehicles crossing the
>border and heading to four bases, the future government’s office said.
>
>Patten said the armored force was not needed because Hong Kong was
>famous for its stability. “It is most unfortunate that this decision
>has been made,” Patten said.
>
>He said also noted that the deployment would coincide with the main U.S.
>television newscasts and be seen by millions of people.
>
>Bob Howlett, a spokesman for future Hong Kong leader Tung Chee-hwa, said
>the armored cars would go straight to their barracks. Two of these are
>on Hong Kong island, reachable only through crowded urban areas.
>
>Howlett declined to comment immediately on Patten’s remarks.
>
>In Washington, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry did not directly
>criticize the Chinese decision to send 4,000 troops to Hong Kong.
>
>He said the handover should be consistent with “the principles the
>Chinese have acknowledged they will adhere to: Freedom of movement,
>respect for individual human rights and those liberties that have been
>the source of Hong Kong’s economic transformation.”
>
>Many people in Hong Kong distrust the Chinese army, seeing it as the
>enforcer of communism.
>
>But Raymond Wong, a building company worker, said it was natural that
>the Chinese send the force “to show that they are the chief and they
>are here.”
>
>Emily Cheung, who recently moved back to Hong Kong from Canada, said
>“there’s nothing wrong with it. They’re not going to kill people.”
>
>But Sammy Cheung, a 33-year-old hotel worker, said he was “sure that a
>lot of people will worry about it.” He added: “It’s like the beginning
>of war.”
>
>© Copyright 1997 The Associated Press

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu Jun 26 18:53:03 1997
>X-Sender: msmall@roanoke.infi.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
>Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:48:00 -0400
>To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>From: Marc James Small
>Subject: Bormann
>Cc: mahan@microworks.net
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Without getting sidetracked on a non-naval issue, I will point out that the
>death of Martin Bormann was not proven by the ‘discovery’ of the skeleton
>in Berlin. There have been a large number of questions raised concerning
>the methods used in the identification, in the results of the analysis, and
>in the motives of those attempting to claim Bormann was dead.
>
>Simply put, the most telling argument is that, by the late 1960’s, it was
>in everyone’s interests to simply declare Bormann as dead. The finding of
>the skeleton, the alleged identification — all of these fit too neatly
>into a package of convenience.
>
>Bormann is almost certainly dead by now, as he would now be 97. But a
>death in Berlin is a non probat at best.
>
>Marc
>
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Jun 30 12:16:17 1997
>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:14:58 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>Subject: Shellback initiation
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>I haven’t heard about this particular complaint but, well, yes,
>shellback initiations are demeaning. That’s their purpose. Assuming the
>complaint refers to the military, they’re also insubordinate. Is that
>news? Participation is voluntary so disgusted or faint-hearted pollywogs
>who don’t want to join the shellbacks’ tribe, are exempt. I know of a
>former vice admiral who skipped initiation as a captain.
>
>What was the basis for the complaint? Whether the rites are really
>immoral or just look that way, I suppose depends on how tolerant one is
>about events like guys dressing up as girls for a pollywog beauty
>contest. It provides a day of laughter when you’re semi-voluntarily
>separated from normal sources of fun, in particular your family.
>
>Mike Potter, shellback since ’77
>
>Tom Robison wrote:
> >
> > Bill Riddle wrote:
> >
> > > The most remarkable was their activities when crossing the
> > > Equator. In spite of 1 above, they surfaced and held Shellback
> > > initiations! This brought back the memories of when I myself was
> > > initiated into the Domain of Neptunus Rex (over 30 years ago).
> >
> > I caught only part of a news report on CNN the other night, but I got the
> > impression from what I heard that someone is complaining about the
> > shellback initiations, that they are demeaning, immoral, etc. Has anyone
> > heard any additional about this?
> >

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Jun 30 17:23:15 1997
>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:22:29 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>Subject: Gunboat found from Revolutionary War
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Benedict Arnold’s sunken gunboat found in Vermont lake
>______________________________________________________
>
>Copyright (c) 1997 Nando.net
>Copyright (c) 1997 The Associated Press
>
>FERRISBURG, Vt. (June 30, 1997 7:44 p.m. EDT) — A Revolutionary War
>gunboat, part of a small fleet commanded in a strategic battle by
>Benedict Arnold before he turned traitor, has been found nearly intact
>on the bottom of Lake Champlain, officials said Monday.
>
>No decision has been made yet on whether to leave the ship in place or
>to raise it, said Art Cohn, head of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum.
>The ship’s exact location in the 115-mile-long lake and its depth were
>not released.
>
>The 54-foot vessel, whose name is not yet known, is “in an excellent
>state of preservation, sitting upright on the bottom, its mast still
>standing over 50 feet high and its large bow cannon still in place,”
>Cohn said.
>
>It was found in early June during a sonar survey of the lake bottom, he
>said.
>
>Only four vessels survived out of the 15-ship squadron led by Arnold in
>the Battle of Valcour Island in 1776.
>
>Cohn told reporters today he went down on the first dive to the ship.
>His attention was focused on the complicated dive procedures, he said,
>but “at the same time there was a voice screaming in my head ‘Oh my God,
>this is the gunboat! Benedict Arnold probably walked on this deck!”‘
>
>The newly discovered ship was identified as one of Arnold’s flotilla
>because it matches another of his gunboats, the Philadelphia, which was
>found in 1935 and is at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of
>American History.
>
>However, while the Philadelphia was damaged and sunk during the battle,
>this vessel apparently escaped and is believed to have been deliberately
>scuttled during the Americans’ retreat.
>
>Peter Barranco, the historian on the discovery team, said he was sure
>what they had found as soon as he saw it on the sonar. “Everything was
>crystal clear even on the sonar image. There was never any doubt in my
>mind that it was there. History had told us so,” he said.
>
>”This could prove to be the most significant maritime discovery is
>American history in the last half century,” said Philip Lundeberg,
>curator emeritus of naval history at the Smithsonian’s American History
>Museum. “The apparently excellent condition of the gunboat is highly
>unusual for an artifact this old and is one of the reasons the discovery
>is so significant.”
>
>The lake’s cold water, up to 409 feet deep, is credited with preserving
>a number of wrecks that have been found there in recent years.
>
>Lake Champlain, which divides New York and Vermont, was of strategic
>importance in the Revolutionary War because it extends up into Canada.
>
>American forces took control of the lake in 1775 and used it to invade
>British Canada.. That campaign failed, leaving a 10,000-man British
>force poised to move through the colonies.
>
>American forces, led by Arnold, met the British fleet Oct. 11, 1776, at
>the Battle of Valcour Island.
>
>The Americans lost the battle and Arnold later switched sides, giving
>the British information about American plans.
>
>By DAVID GRAM, The Associated Press

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Jun 30 17:37:19 1997
>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:37:03 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>Subject: Russian military warns of mutiny
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Russian military warns of mutiny over troop cuts
>________________________________________________
>
>Copyright (c) 1997 Nando.net
>Copyright (c) 1997 Times of London
>
>MOSCOW (June 30, 1997 7:03 p.m. EDT) — The Russian military
>establishment has given President Boris Yeltsin a warning that he faces
>the first mutiny in the armed forces for nearly two centuries if he goes
>ahead with unpopular reforms to slash the number of men in uniform.
>
>Threatened with the loss of 600,000 troops under plans currently being
>drawn up by Gen. Igor Sergeyev, the newly-appointed Defense Minister,
>several retired generals have urged serving officers to “take the matter
>into their own hands.”
>
>The issue came to the surface last week when Gen. Lev Rokhlin, a popular
>former combat officer who now heads the parliamentary defense committee,
>issued a damning seven-page open letter to Yeltsin blaming him for the
>destruction of the armed forces.
>
>Gen. Rokhlin, who commanded Russian troops during the bloody capture of
>Grozny, the Chechen capital, before running for parliament in a
>pro-Yeltsin faction, said he had been forced to act to prevent the
>collapse of the armed forces.
>
>”You fooled the nation and the military, failing to fulfill your
>pre-election promises,” said Rokhlin, whose outburst may cost him his
>position in the Our Home is Russia faction. “You have destined the armed
>forces to destruction.”
>
>In the letter, Rokhlin predicted that if the military was weakened any
>further, Russia would lose control of the Far East and Siberia in the
>next century. He said Russia’s future as a nuclear power was also under
>threat, and blamed Yeltsin personally for the disastrous military
>campaign in Chechnya.
>
>By far his most inflammatory remarks were addressed to serving officers.
>He advised them to mobilize and issue the Kremlin with demands. “Unite,
>elect your leaders and demand that your legitimate rights be exercised,”
>he said. “Do not hope that someone else will do this for you. Our unity
>in resisting the disintegration of the army is the guarantee of our
>success.”
>
>Not surprisingly, the comments sent a chill through the Kremlin.
>Although there has not been a military insurrection since the Decembrist
>uprising of 1825, the present lamentable state of the armed forces could
>provide a fertile ground for mutiny.
>
>Gen. Sergeyev, whose plans to reduce the armed forces from 1.8 million
>to 1.2 million must be completed by July 25, on Sunday denounced the
>letter as incitement “to revolt.”
>
>”We now have to choose between a large but insufficiently capable army,
>or a smaller but combat-ready army,” he said, defending his plans, which
>propose radical measures such as merging the army and navy . “I think
>the choice is clear.”
>
>However, the military establishment has yet to be persuaded. Most
>commentators believe that Gen. Rokhlin was prompted to take action at
>the behest of powerful senior officers in the military, who may be among
>the first to be sacked under the reform plan.
>
>Top figures in politics and the military have been eager to line up
>alongside Gen. Rokhlin. He has won the backing of Gen. Aleksandr Lebed,
>the former paratrooper and presidential candidate, Vladimir Zhirinovsky,
>the ultra-nationalist leader, and leading communists, like Viktor
>Ilyukhin, the chairman of the parliamentary security committee.
>
>”Rokhlin is right, the army is going to pieces,” Gen. Lebed said. “This
>is clear even to those who are far from the army. It is clear that the
>Commander-in-Chief (Yeltsin) is not competent.”
>
>Although in the past there has been talk of rebellion in the armed
>forces, there is so far no evidence of any serious conspiracy, despite
>unpaid wages, low morale, and a sharp rise in the number of suicides
>among both soldiers and officers.
>
>Nevertheless, the Kremlin cannot afford to be complacent after the
>rabble-rousing remarks by General Rokhlin.
>
>Viktor Chernomyrdin, the Prime Minister, vowed to press ahead with
>military reform. He told military academy graduates at a Kremlin
>ceremony that he had been instructed by Yeltsin to pay all debts to the
>forces over the next two months. He did not say where the money was
>coming from.
>
>By RICHARD BEESTON, The Times of London
>
>-= END OF MESSAGE =-

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Jun 02 00:47:01 1997
>From: “Ian L. Buxton”
>To: MARHST-L@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA, mahan@microwrks.com
>Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:44:11 GMT0BST
>Subject: Refits of RN ships in USA
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>A few names of major British warships refitted in U S yards in WW2
>have been mentioned, so I dug out some notes from RN sources.
>
>The first such to arrive was the battleship MALAYA which was at
>Brooklyn Navy Yard from 6 Apr 1941 to 9 Jul 41 following her
>torpedoing off W Africa 20 Mar 41. This was of course eight months
>before the US entered WW2. Other notable vessels included: (dates are
>approximate; sometimes they may be arrival/departure at first/last US
>port, others may be actual start/finish of repair; references are not
>clear).
>
>WARSPITE general refit at Bremerton 11 Aug 1941 to 7 Jan 42 (I think
>the only major RN vessel to go there, the Atlantic yards being more
>convenient).
>
>Battleship RODNEY general refit Boston Navy Yard 13 Jun 41 to 27 Aug.
>
>Carrier FURIOUS refit Philadelphia NY 7 Oct 41 to 14 Mar 42.
>
>Cruiser MANCHESTER repaired at Philadelphia 23 Sep 41 to 15 Feb 42
>after torpedoing in Med 23 Jul 41.
>
>Cruiser PHOEBE repaired Brooklyn NY 20 Nov 41 to 15 Apr 42 after
>torpedoing in Med 27 Aug 41. She was back at Brooklyn 15 Jan 43 to 14
>Jun 43 after being torpedoed again 23 Oct 42 off W Africa. There is a
>picture of her long trunk 5.25-inch Q twin turret being lifted out
>(or in). Probably the former, as she came down to four turrets about
>that time with the fifth replaced by a US quad 40mm Bofors.
>
>Cruiser LIVERPOOL was one of the few done at Mare Island NY 16 Jun 41
>to 3 Nov 41 after torpedoing in Med 14 Oct 40 and temporary repairs at
>Alexandria.
>
>Carrier INDOMITABLE was at Norfolk NY 12 Nov 41 to 12 Dec following
>her grounding in the West Indies which prevented her accompanying
>PRINCE OF WALES and REPULSE. She was back at Norfolk 1 Sep 43 to 20
>Apr 44 following torpedoing near Malta 16 Jul 43.
>
>VICTORIOUS was at Norfolk 1 Jan 43 to 30 Jan prior to her US service
>and again at the end of it 1 Sep to 15 Sep 43, before returning to UK
>for full overhaul at Liverpool lasting until 4 Mar 44.
>
>Battleship ROYAL SOVEREIGN was refitted at Philadelphia NY 21 Oct 42
>to 22 Sep 43. Lent to USSR from May 1944.
>
>Cruiser UGANDA was repaired at Charleston NY 27 Nov 43 to 14 Oct 44
>following damage from Fx 1400 glider bomb off Salerno 13 Sep 43.
>
>Battleship NELSON steamed more or less straight from Operation Neptune
>(D-Day) to Philadelphia NY 7 Jul 44 to 14 Jan 45.
>
>Bassett in his 1946 paper to the Institution of Naval Architects said
>that 180 RN ships and auxiliaries were refitted in USA. Vice Admiral
>C P Talbot (Director of Dockyards) reckoned that the US refits were
>the equivalent of two more home dockyards to the RN.
>
>Can anyone advise what was the payment mechanism (if any) for such
>work?
>
>Ian Buxton
>
>
>

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Jun 02 10:02:50 1997
>Comments: Authenticated sender is <129570199372>
>From: “Kim”
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:54:18 +0000
>Subject:
>Reply-to: kimolsen@post3.tele.dk
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.52)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Signoff kimolsen@post3.tele.dk

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Jun 02 11:36:29 1997
>Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 11:34:54 -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: Nigerian naval bombardment of Freetown
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Nigerian naval bombardment of Freetown kills at least 10, Red Cross says
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Copyright (c) 1997 Nando.net
>Copyright (c) 1997 Agence France-Presse
>
>FREETOWN (June 2, 1997 12:49 p.m. EDT) – The Nigerian naval bombardment
>of Freetown on Monday morning killed at least 10 people, a Red Cross
>worker told AFP, while witnesses said the dead included a two-year-old
>child.
>
>Some 20 people were injured in the bombardment, witnesses said.
>
>”It was a pathetic sight as many lay crying for first aid. We did our
>best and counted over 10 corpses both from the barracks and other sites
>in the vicinity,” said a Red Cross worker at the scene of the shelling.
>
>The 10 died when shells fired by a Nigerian vessel anchored in an
>estuary off the coast of Freetown early Monday morning landed at various
>sites, including a military barracks housing women and children,
>witnesses said.
>
>”A shell fell on the roof of one of the buildings, instantly killing a
>two-year-old child and injuring two others,” one witness said.
>
>”The barracks was in a commotion. It seemed that it was targeted as four
>to five other shells fell into the barracks. There were children
>screaming and mothers rushing barefooted with children on their backs,”
>another witness told AFP.
>
>Ambulances took the injured to the main hospital in the capital, where
>an AFP correspondent saw five bodies, victims of the shelling.
>
>”We are battling to save the lives of some of those who were brought in.
>Some had excessive bleeding from shrapnel wounds mainly to the head and
>body, ” said a doctor at the hospital.
>
>News of the fatalities spread through the city as hundreds of
>Freetowners took to the streets, to demonstrate against what is seen as
>a Nigerian attempt to force the junta, which seized power here May 25 to
>hand control of the country back to ousted civilian elected President
>Ahmad Tejan Kabbah.
>
>Kabbah fled to Guinea during the coup.
>
>The demonstrators shouted “Down with Nigeria” and “We shall fight to the
>death to resist Nigeria’s occupation forces.”
>
>Hundreds of Nigerian peacekeeping troops flooded into Sierra Leone after
>the coup.
>
>Dozens of former rebel combatants, now all allied with the regular army,
>stood and fired volleys of shots in the air as the demonstrators chanted
>themselves into a frenzy.
>
>Sierra Leoneans in the streets spoke in anger when asked what they
>thought of the Nigerian attack.
>
>”Their action has now ended the friendly relationship, that has existed
>between the two countries.” said a businessman.
>
>An attempt to orchestrate a similar demonstration in the southern city
>of Bo failed when most residents elected to stay indoors, witnesses
>there said.
>
>Meanwhile, central Freetown was calm mid-afternoon Monday and Nigerian
>troops were seen patrolling the streets.
>
>Despite the presence of scores of Sierra Leonean troops also in downtown
>streets, no clashes were reported.
>
> -= END OF MESSAGE =-

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue Jun 03 16:12:48 1997
>Comments: Authenticated sender is
>From: “James H. E. Maugham”
>Organization: RST Environmental Services, Inc.
>To: brooksar@indy.net, mahan@microwrks.com
>Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:04:15 -0500
>Subject: Re: [Fwd: Russian sub sinks.]
>Reply-to: CaptJHEM@waterw.com
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>On 2 Jun 97 at 22:45, Brooks A Rowlett wrote:
>
> > News from an Eastern Europe news service….. another Russian sub sank at
> > mooring…..
>
>Thanks for the clipping service Brooks, although there is very small >comfort in
>the knowledge that the vessel will be raised when you know that the >seabed off
>Kamchatka is littered with not only spent fuel, but entire reactors.
>
>Warm regards,
>
>James
>In the Heart of the Pine Barrens 39 54 03 N, 74 49 26 W

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu Jun 05 02:58:53 1997
>Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 04:52:36 -0500
>From: Brooks A Rowlett
>Reply-To: brooksar@indy.net
>Organization: Apparently Not.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>To: “harpoon@lists.Stanford.EDU” ,
> “mahan@microwrks.com”
>Subject: Book Review CALL FOR FIRE
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>The following Book review appeared on the MILHST mailing list (Military
>History) and is forwarded for your interest.
>
>-Brooks
>
>——————————
>
>Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:24:47 +0000
>From: “LT Robert A. Adamcik”
>Subject: Book Review: _Call for Fire_ (Long)
>
>Greetings,
>
> As promised, here is my review of _Call for Fire_.
>
>
>
> _Call for Fire: Sea Combat in the Falklands and Gulf War_
> By Captain Chris Craig, RN (ret.)
> Forward by General Sir Peter de la Billiere
> ISBN 0-7195-5453-5
>
> _Call for Fire_ is an outstanding, first hand account of
>British naval combat during the latter half of the century. Unlike
>Admiral Woodward’s _One Hundred Days_, _Call for Fire_ stays away
>from the biographical, and, instead, starts right into the action.
>
> In part one, CAPT Craig starts his account in the early morning
>of 02 April, 1982, the day of the Argentine invasion and, ironically
>enough, the day before he was to relinquish his command of his ship,
>HMS ALACRITY. From there, the author goes right into the details of
>fitting out his ship, the transit south with the HMS HERMES and
>INVINCIBLE, and the battle groups’ arrival in the Falkland IS area.
>
> For obvious reasons, CAPT Craig primarily focuses on the
>actions taken by his ship. Other key events, the sinking of the
>BELGRANO and SHEFFIELD for example, are mentioned only in passing.
>Using ALACRITY’s logs as source, CAPT Craig gives detailed accounts
>of his ship’s actions, such as the naval bombardment of Argentine
>positions around Port Stanley, and, most importantly, ALACRITY’s
>engagement of the Argentine naval transport ISLA DE LOS ESTADOS,
>the only ship-to-ship gun engagement of the entire war. He also pays
>special attention to the sinking of ALACRITY’s sister ships HMS ARDENT
>and ANTELOPE.
>
> The rest of part one follows the same way, until ALACRITY is
>sent home (and after CAPT Craig utters the quote I use as my sig
>line) in early June, 1982. Overall, part one is an excellent telling
>of what a ship’s Commanding Officer thinks as he sends his ship into
>harms way.
>
> Part two takes on a different tone as CAPT Craig, in December
>1990, is ordered in as Commodore in charge of all Royal Navy ships
>participating in Operation Desert Shield. His focus is now a much
>broader account of RN operations, specifically counter-mine
>operations, which was the primary mission of most of the RN assets in
>the Arabian Gulf before, during, and after the war. Other, non-mine
>warfare incidents chronicled are the sinking of several Iraqi patrol
>boats by RN Lynx helicopters, and the downing of an Iraqi Silkworm
>missile, shot at the USS MISSOURI, by the HMS GLOUCESTER.
>
> I greatly enjoyed this book. CAPT Craig writing style is very
>easy to read, and it is not dry at all. I highly recommend it for any
>serious scholars of either the Falklands or Gulf wars.
>
>
>
>
> Bob Adamcik
> LT USN
> prospective operations officer
> USS Merrimack (AO-179)
>
>”I am proposing to stay and fight until the bloody barrel drops off.”
>
> -CDR Christopher Craig, RN
> CO, HMS ALACRITY
> 07 June 1982
> off the Falklands IS.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous