From Tue May 20 15:14:01 1997
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 15:05:49 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: “Louis R. Coatney”
>Cc: mahan@microwrks.com, milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu,
> consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk,
> “William D. Anderson”
>Subject: Re: MacArthur’s “fascist movement” ??
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>In my message I alluded to FDR’s concern about MacArthur, that he was
>”the most dangerous man in America.” As for sources, Eric Larrabee
>quoted FDR in =Commander in Chief=. I recall also William Manchester
>mentioned it in =American Caesar= (a poor book IMHO – ought to be
>re-titled =Gossip about MacArthur=). Such sources establish that the
>rumor existed – but not that truth was necessarily behind the rumor. My
>point was that FDR apparently proceeded on that assumption. I don’t know
>what, if anything, stimulated FDR to think that.
>
>Suppose: Some right-wing group discusses MacArthur as a potential leader
>and that filters back to FDR. FDR suspects MacArthur is involved and
>henceforth treats him that way. The rest is history. But MacArthur might
>have had no contact with, indeed no knowledge of, any such group. If so,
>his case would be similar to those of J. Robert Oppenheimer or Niccolò
>Machiavelli. It seems both came under suspicion for reasons not actually
>involving them.
>
>
>Louis R. Coatney wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > I’ve been hearing these allegations … that MacArthur (and
> > Patton! ?!) had been conspiring some sort of “fascist movement”/
> > takeover … on other channels by leftish members.
> >
> > Is there *any* truth to this at *all*? Any sources??
> >
> > … or is this just another vicious anti-military rumor
> > long overdue for squelching?
> >
> > Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 20 15:32:57 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom7.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 17:30:58 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom7.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: Mike Potter
>cc: mahan@microwrks.com, milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu,
> consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk,
> “William D. Anderson” ,
> “Louis R. Coatney” , kerneks@ccmail.wiu.edu
>Subject: Re: MacArthur’s “fascist movement.” Fairy tale?
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>Mike,
>
> Thanks for your quick response. We’ll see if anyone has
>anything to add on the other channels. I heard this on (one of
>the) H-Net channels, but the member was mentioning it as though it
>were a reality, not a suspicion or rumor … and he mentioned
>Patton. Either the question I raised about that wasn’t posted or
>didn’t get a clear reply.
>
> As to Oppenheimer, I suppose you are aware of Sudoplatov’s
>allegation that O. knowingly included scientists with Sov. contacts
>on the Manhattan team and was aware of the “intelligence outflow.”
>Sudoplatov’s book has since been challenged intensively. You would
>think such activities would show up in the Venona intercepts, unless
>this was set up as a special project bypassing the Embassy. In any
>case, further corroboration is apparently necessary before Oppenheimer
>*is* implicated.
>
>Lou
> Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>
>On Tue, 20 May 1997, Mike Potter wrote:
> > In my message I alluded to FDR’s concern about MacArthur, that he was
> > “the most dangerous man in America.” As for sources, Eric Larrabee
> > quoted FDR in =Commander in Chief=. I recall also William Manchester
> > mentioned it in =American Caesar= (a poor book IMHO – ought to be
> > re-titled =Gossip about MacArthur=). Such sources establish that the
> > rumor existed – but not that truth was necessarily behind the rumor. My
> > point was that FDR apparently proceeded on that assumption. I don’t know
> > what, if anything, stimulated FDR to think that.
>
> > Suppose: Some right-wing group discusses MacArthur as a potential leader
> > and that filters back to FDR. FDR suspects MacArthur is involved and
> > henceforth treats him that way. The rest is history. But MacArthur might
> > have had no contact with, indeed no knowledge of, any such group. If so,
> > his case would be similar to those of J. Robert Oppenheimer or Niccolò
> > Machiavelli. It seems both came under suspicion for reasons not actually
> > involving them.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 20 21:15:48 1997
>X-Sender: tcrobi@pop.mindspring.com
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 23:16:59 -0500
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Tom Robison
>Subject: Re: MacArthur’s “fascist movement” ??
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Lou wrote:
> >
> > I’ve been hearing these allegations … that MacArthur (and
> >Patton! ?!) had been conspiring some sort of “fascist movement”/
> >takeover … on other channels by leftish members.
> >
> > Is there *any* truth to this at *all*? Any sources??
> >
> > … or is this just another vicious anti-military rumor
> >long overdue for squelching?
>
> One fella I have studied pretty thoroughly is “Georgie” Patton, and I’ve
>never run across anything that would suggest that Patton had any fascist
>connections, or even tendencies. He had his own personal political agendas,
>for sure, but Georgie lived for the fight, on the field, and would have
>been a poor player in the political arena. I think he knew that.
>
>And I can’t imagine George Patton and “Dugout” Doug agreeing on anything.
>
>
>Tom Robison
>Ossian, Indiana
>tcrobi@mindspring.com

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed May 21 21:52:12 1997
>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:52:25 -0600
>From: Brooks A Rowlett
>Reply-To: brooksar@indy.net
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>To: World War II Discussion List
>CC: “mahan@microwrks.com” ,
> Marine History Information Exchange Group
>Subject: Re: Soound Locators & Sound Powered Phones
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>(MarHist & Mahan: This was originally on the WWII list; I am
>crossposting)
>
>In response to the sound locators question, I am reaonably
>convinced that many of them relied entirely on the speaking
>tube principle and did not have nay form of electrical
>amplification, at least in the ‘tween-the-wars variants.
>
>On the sound-powered phone subject – on USN ships, the
>’ring’ of a sound powered phone is generated, iirc, by a
>couple of turns of a handle (not entirely the same purpose
>as the turn of the handle to charge battery/capacitor for
>land based hand-powered phone links). The ‘ring’ is actually a very
>distinctive growling rumble, and the sound-
>powered phone is apparently nicknamed ‘the growler’.
>
>My question is, does anyone have that sound sigitized
>somewhere on the WWW, or would someone be willing to record
>the sound, convert it to a file, and mail it to me? I want
>it for an alert sound…..
>
>Thanks,
>Brooks A Rowlett
>brooksar@indy.net

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu May 22 00:24:27 1997
>X-Errors-To:
>Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 03:22:03 -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: QUERY: HMS Hood
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>I have taken the liberty of cross listing the below from H-War. I suspect
>some of you salts can help Mr. Foster out.
>
> >Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:46:52 -0400
> >From: “George H. Foster”
> >
> >Last night I was wandering in the vast wasteland of television and came
> >upon what turned out to be a very serious documentary on the German
> >Battleship Bismark. I got in late – at the time when the Bismark and the
> >Prince Eugene were about to begin Operation Rhine.
> >
> >This treatment was more detailed than the movie “Sink the Bismark” and the
> >Discovery Channel special on finding it on the bottom of the Atlantic.
> >
> >The Hood was destroyed in a rather spectacular way. Was the Hood an
> >oversized Battle Cruiser or an under-protected Battleship?
> >
> >I am aware that the Hood was built after Jutland – where Beatty had several
> >of his ships blown up in much the same way.
> >
> >Was this ship a special case under the Washington Naval Treaty in the early
> >1920’s? Was there a relationship in size/structure/armor with the
> >Lexington and Saratoga (before they became carriers)?
> >
> >George H. Foster
> >fostergh@ix.netcom.com
> >
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >
>Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed May 21 21:58:59 1997
>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:58:59 -0600
>From: Brooks A Rowlett
>Reply-To: brooksar@indy.net
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>To: World War II Discussion List ,
> “mahan@microwrks.com” ,
> Marine History Information Exchange Group
>Subject: Re: Soound Locators & Sound Powered Phones
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Brooks A Rowlett (slippery-fingers, me) wrote:
> >
>
> > My question is, does anyone have that sound sigitized
> > somewhere on the WWW,
>
>
>That should, of course, be >D
> > Thanks,
> > Brooks A Rowlett
> > brooksar@indy.net

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu May 22 01:29:22 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom1.ecnet.net: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 03:28:11 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom1
>To: seaways-shipmodeling-list@lists.best.com, mahan@microwrks.com,
> marhst-l@qucdn.queensu.ca, milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu,
> consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk
>Subject: Camouflage intent and effectiveness.
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>I’ve read reports of Japanese *and American* aircraft overflying
> U.S. task forces without seeing them … as long as there was
> no noticeable wake.
>
>Ellis (or Scott?) makes the point (in the old Almark ROYAL NAVY
> WARSHIP CAMOUFLAGE, 1939-45) that if you were defending against
> aircraft, you wanted an overall sea color. If you were
> defending against submarines, you wanted a stratified scheme
> blending the ship against the sea horizon and sky. If you had
> to concede the probability of being sighted, then you might
> want to try to confuse the enemy’s aim with disruptive or even
> dazzle camouflage.
>
>And, as I’ve said in other posts, light pastel blue-gray was effective
> even at night (when you would think *dark* (shadows) colors would be
> most effective).
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Fri May 30 10:14:22 1997
>X-Sender: jim@mail.halcyon.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
>Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:06:42 -0700
>To: swrctmo@iamerica.net, mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Jim Ennes
>Subject: Re: USS Amberjack & USS Liberty Why? WHY??
>Cc: “Louis R. Coatney”
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>At 10:59 AM 5/30/97 -0700, TMO/TX wrote:
> >
> >I suspect that most of what Liberty collected was tactical junk,
> >examples of our concentration on volume with the hope of panning a few
> >grains of gold from a tub full of sand. Sure, there may have been some
> >pearls, but it takes better evaluators than most of the Navy types I
> >knew to quickly recognize pearls (and even then the pearls may be the
> >sort to use for predictions of future methods and activities).
>
>The fact is, we had only been on station for about five hours when we
>were attacked. This was not sufficient time to develop the sort of
>database that is needed. Consequently, we had collected almost
>nothing at all. For instance, we sent about five CRITICS that morning,
>but they were all reports intercepted from CAIRO COMMERICAL
>RADIO! No doubt the CIA had the same stuff sooner from FBIS.
>
>Jim

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu May 22 08:42:42 1997
>X-Sender: msmall@roanoke.infi.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
>Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 11:42:14 -0400
>To: fostergh@ix.netcom.com
>From: Marc James Small
>Subject: THE MIGHTY ‘OOD — OFF-LINE
>Cc: mahan@microwrks.com
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Your query concerning Hood was reposted to the Mahan List.
>
>Hood was one of a class of four battlecruisers which were redesigned in
>light of the British experience at Jutland. Following the end of the War,
>the other three were cancelled. She was launched 22nd August 1918 and
>completed 3rd March 1920, so she didn’t come, directly, under the
>Washington Treaty provisions save as part of the overall RN limit of 12
>battleships (five R’s, five QE’s, Nelson and Rodney) and three
>battlecruisers (Repulse, Renown, and Hood).
>
>She was a superb ship, a magnificent example of what the British are
>capable of when they think before they build. She could make more than 30
>knots (31.07 on trials), and her bulk, at speed, was an inspirational
>delight to a generation of Imperial subjects, to whom she came to represent
>the Empire and British might.
>
>She was due for a rebuild in the late 1930’s — the British had updated
>Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, and Renown, and had similar overhauls
>scheduled for their remaining ships. But so vital was Hood that the
>British never were able to spare her during those days of crises, and so
>the modernization never took place. Had it done so, she would have had
>substantially increased deck armor and a much improved power plant, as well
>as a ‘tower’ bridge, along with an updated secondary armament.
>
>Hood was of a design dating from a time when battle ranges were anticipated
>to be relatively close, 10,000 yards or so. After the First War — where
>Jutland did little to change this, as it was a close-range action due to
>the weather — it became apparent that battle ranges were opening out to
>20,000 yards or more (Warspite hit an Italian BB at 25,000 yards at one
>point during the Second War). The result of this increase in range was to
>change the anticipated point at which the shells would hit the ship: close
>range actions mean flat trajectories, with the shells striking side armour,
>while longer ranges mean plunging fire which hits the deck. Thus, Hood had
>deck armour more than adequate for a Jutland engagement but inadequate for
>action at longer ranges. Bismarck engaged Hood at, I recall, 14,000 yards,
>and her shells thus hit the relatively light deck armour, with a total
>thickness of 8″ or so in several layers. (There are alternate theories but
>plunging fire from Bismarck striking through the armoured decks and hitting
>a magazine seems the likeliest cause of Hood’s demise. This was ONE lucky
>hit!)
>
>The causes of Hood’s explosion are not closely akin to that which led to
>the loss of the three RN BC’s at Jutland. They were lost through unstable
>ammunition, poorly shielded ammunition hoists, and weak side armour.
>
>I have a good friend who was a King’s Messenger for VADM Sir Lancelot
>Holland, the TF commander. When Hood refuelled at Scapa on her last
>voyage, Holland ordered my friend ashore for a spot of leave, telling him,
>”I don’t believe I’ll be needing a confidential messenger on this run!” It
>saved Tim’s life!
>
>Marc
>
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu May 22 09:47:44 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 11:45:48 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: Conflict simulation Games ,
> mahan@microwrks.com, marhst-l@qucdn.queensu.ca,
> seaways-shipmodeling-list@lists.best.com, > milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu
>Subject: Re: Camouflage intent and effectiveness.
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>On Thu, 22 May 1997, Les Howie wrote:
> > I few years ago I had a chat with a gentleman who served in the > RCAF coastal
> > service during the war, and asked him about camouflage > patterns. He claimed
> > that, no matter how ships had been painted, by the time they had > been at sea
> > for any length time they were all rust brown from the air.
> > For what its worth. He may have been pulling my leg but I don’t think so.
>
>As foul and rusted a condition as most of the Commonwealth ships were, in
> the first 3-4 years of the war, I don’t think he was pulling your leg,
> Les, particularly since convoy ships would have lowest painting
> priority.
>
>On the other hand, the fast minelayers that went into Malta were painted
> and repainted … to resemble Vichy ships, etc.
>
>There is this one photo of KING GEORGE V looking … there is no other
> word for it … *decrepit* … in 1942! 🙂
>
>One big Lend-Lease service the U.S. provided, before and during our
> entry in the war, was refitting British warships in American shipyards
> … well beyond the range of the bombers that sank SUSSEX in her
> drydock, for example.
>
>And we not only repaired, cleaned, and mechanically upgraded the British
> ships … we *repainted* them … according to British specs with
> paint colors in acutely short supply back in the isles. (Thus, we
> tried for ourselves schemes like “Mountbatten Pink,” discussed a
> few weeks ago.)
>
>However, in higher priority theaters, there does seem to have been
> paint available and used. Look at the photos of the Malta Striking
> Forces victoriously parading back into harbor, their light gray
> upperworks positively beaming.
>
>Lou
> Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous