We are now working on volume 2 of our QM set covering the period
1936-46.

We run run into a problem with the exact spelling of the name of the
cruiser sunk in WW2. Even places like NMM and IWM have differrent
spellings

Was it CuracOA
or
Was it CuracOA

The latter seems to be the concensus of opinion, the former being a mis-
reading for the Venezuela port.

Perhaps a war ship enthisiast may have and answer.

Ron
—
ron streater
jasmine@junk1234.demon.co.uk
http://www.junk1234.demon.co.uk

1 Highfield Close,
Blean, Canterbury, Kent,
CT2 9DX
UK

Tel/Fax: 01227 – 780259

“That which was and is the strength of this nation –
the shipping”
Oliver Cromwell

Lou wrote:

>some academic raised
> question about a 1945 right-wing military coup d’etat supposedly being
> concocted/considered by MacArthur and Patton. (Can you *imagine* THOSE
> two as junta partners?! 🙂 (I pointed out that both M & P had pressing
> matters at the time which would have made any such conspiracy impossible
> … let alone being on opposite sides of the globe.)
>
>Has anyone here heard about these historical episodes … and charges?

I recall hearing something once about a MacArthur/Patton conspiracy, which
I reject out of hand. Those two could not possibly exist in the same room,
as there is not nearly enough oxygen therein for both.

I suggest that Mac and George would have shot each other in a duel before
they could stage a successful coup d’etat. Besides, Georgie had only four
stars, and Doug had five… Doug had time-in-grade and time-in-service. No
way could they have been equals in any kind of a conspiracy, and Georgie
would never play second fiddle to Mac.

Tom

Tom Robison
Ossian, Indiana
**Please Note NEW E-mail Address*
tcrobi@adamswells.com

At 14:54 28/01/98 EST, Sanartjam wrote:
>I agree – enough politics, let’s talk about ships and naval history.

More to the point enough USA politics, unless you really want a minority of
the list to start sending totally off list and non USA personal political
views – I hesitate to call them messages – to the list, whose detail and
characters will be as foreign to you as as Aaron Burr is to me.

Frank Dunn, London, UK.
http://www.brazen.demon.co.uk/

In re: my mention of the BUNKER HILL – the DANFS entry says her damage
was 11 May, not 11 April.

Thanks also to John Forester for pointing out that at least one of the
CVE’s, OMMANEY BAY also had notable losses to personnel in ready rooms –
I am fairly certain that the main example cited is BUNKER HILL, though,
with over 300 personnel killed.

Presumably the USN moved the ready rooms back up to the gallery deck
(the deck under the flight deck and above the hanger) in FORESTAL et
seq. because (1) the flight deck was now essentially armored and
(2) it was not convenient to design escalators in….

-Brooks

Conversely, to Timothy Francis’s list of the ships built from the
National Industrial Recovery Act, and the point about shipbuilding
capacity – >Warship< Construction, for cruiser size and up, remained concentrated on the East Coast during WWII with the important exception of the Kaiser Coffins - the CASABLANCA class escort carriers, and the 'ultimate' COMMENCEMENT BAY class escort carriers, built at Todd-Pacific. I am drawing attention here to the difference between warship construction as a special skill and shipbuilding in general. WWII US East Construction, including Two-Ocean Navy ships, included: ALL the ESSEX class, and all the MIDWAY class ALL the BB-55 and later Battleships ALL cruisers (and therefore light carriers) EXCEPT for some ATLANTA and/or repeat/modified ATLANTA class. However, the 50 CASABLANCA class were all constructed at a new yard specifically built for them. Destroyer and mercantile-standard construction was fairly significant on the West Coast however. One reason for this is likely that what heavy warship construction there had been on the US West Coast was concentrated in the Navy Yards, which were far better employed in battle damage repair and overhaul, in time of Pacific War. I noted this when i started trying to get an output capacity of US WW2 shipyards. I was trying to figure out why the production system of SPI's WAR IN THE PACIFIC typically generated US ships at a greater rate than historical.. Turns out it models raw material/expenditure capacity fairly well, but doesn't model the actual slipway capacity, so the system doesn't put a numerical limit on types/sizes that can be under construction at any given time. And for some reason, information on ships doesn't easily give you an idea of the capacity of the shipyard that built them.... 🙂 -Brooks

Dave!

Thanks for adding the link to the Spanish American War Centennial
Website!

Patrick McSherry

Mike, in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin Cooling’s “Gray Steel and
Blue Water Navy: The Formative Years of America’s Military-Industrial
Complex, 1881-1917” brings up a wonderful subject for discussion. I
wish more people in the know would talk about these subjects.

For example, in an odd bit of synchronicity, I was just looking at the
list of ships authorized by FDR’s executive order after the initial New
Deal legislation (the National Industrial Recovery Act of 16 June 1933).
Unsurprisingly, the two CVs were assigned to Newport News, but the 30
cruisers, gunboats, destroyers, and submarines were cleverly spread
throughout eleven states, presumably to take advantage of both
Senatorial and House votes in Congress. It is interesting how much of
our shipbuilding capacity was on the east coast until the war induced
growth later.

Maine
Bath Iron Works: Drayton (DD-366), Lamson (DD-367)

New Hampshire
Portsmouth Navy Yard: Porpoise (SS-172), Pike (SS-173)

Massachusetts
Bethlehem SB Corp (Quincy, Mass.): Vincennes (CL-44)
Boston Navy Yard: Case (DD-370), Conyngham (DD-371)

Connecticut
Electric Boat: Shark (SS-174), Tarpon (SS-175)

New York
New York SB Corp: Savannah (CL-42), Nashville (CL-43), Porter (DD-356),
Selfridge (DD-357), McDougal (DD-358), Winslow (DD-359)
United Dry Dock: Mahan (DD-364), Cummings (DD-365)
New York Navy Yard: Erie (PG-50)

New Jersey
Federal SB & DD: Flusser (DD-368), Reid (DD-369)

Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Navy Yard: Philadelphia (CL-41), Cassin (DD-372), Shaw
(DD-373)

Virginia
Newport News SB & DD: Yorktown (CV-5), Enterprise (CV-6)
Norfolk Navy Yard: Tucker (DD-374), Downes (DD-375)

South Carolina
Charleston Navy Yard: Charleston (PG-51)

Washington
Puget Sound Navy Yard: Cushing (DD-376), Perkins (DD-377)

California
Mare Island Navy Yard: Smith (DD-378), Preston (DD-379)

—-
Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinions, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

> ———-
> From: Mike Potter[SMTP:mike.potter@artecon.com]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 4:38 PM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Mahan list
>
>Weapons production requires political support for funding and that
>support certainly can involve politicians’ personal or parochial
>interests (eg, influence on USN surface combatant production from the
>shipbuilders’ locations in the home states of the SecDef and the Senate
>majority leader). There are limitless possible discussions of political
>and military interactions that we all find useful and illuminating and
>to which all can contribute with interesting opinions, facts,
questions,
>predictions, etc.

Mahan-L has had only a single post from a .gov or .mil correspondent
since the White House-related messages began appearing and none at all
today, despite several interesting chains in progress. It would be a
great loss if these members unsubscribed.

I didn’t mean a blanket objection to political discussions – I’m sure
nobody wants such an exclusion. We all know that at the strategic level
the payoff from military operations often is its effect on politics: on
the opponent (disruption, demoralization, etc), on you/your allies
(domestic encouragement), or on neutrals (diplomatic acquiescence).
Weapons production requires political support for funding and that
support certainly can involve politicians’ personal or parochial
interests (eg, influence on USN surface combatant production from the
shipbuilders’ locations in the home states of the SecDef and the Senate
majority leader). There are limitless possible discussions of political
and military interactions that we all find useful and illuminating and
to which all can contribute with interesting opinions, facts, questions,
predictions, etc.

> In general, what I oppose is a blanket statement against political
> discussions for many are certainly relevant to MAHAN, the man, the idea,
> the subject.

>I agree – enough politics, let’s talk about ships and naval history.
>
Might I offer an opposing view, particularly in regard to the name of this
list and its subjects. I agree that current politics might be
inappropriate to the list, but let’s recall the politics of navalism,
imperialism, shipbuilding, armaments, etc., etc. I believe that “politics”
have already intruded historically in anything related to Mahan, to wit,
Mahan’s 1890 volume led directly (sic) to WWI.

In general, what I oppose is a blanket statement against political
discussions for many are certainly relevant to MAHAN, the man, the idea,
the subject.

Cheers

CRR

I like Mahan. It’s informative and mellow. I’ve also enjoyed the lack of a
moderator. However, at present, some of our contributors are illustrating
why so many good lists require one. If Mahan becomes the home of the kind of
obnoxious right-wing hate barrage that pollutes AM radio, you can count
yours truly out, off and gone.

>This evening, I heard about Hillary’s charge that MonicaGate
> is a “Right Wing Conspiracy.”
>
>While Bob Kerrey and the rest of us are all laughing Hillary off
> we might pause long enough to consider that Bill and Hillary are amoral,
> ideological, and ruthless political opportunists who would be entirely
> capable of seizing “emergency national security powers” to suppress
> opposition and keep power. Moreover, the people they have gathered
> around them are weak-minded — e.g., Gore — or also ruthlessly
> opportunistic enough to play along.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930