AS was discussed a short bit ago, USS NEW ORLEANS was one of the cruisrs
hit by torpedoes at the Battle of Tassafaronga, 30 November 1942.
sister MINNEAPOLIS lost her bow forward of #1 Turret; NEW ORLEANS took a
torpedo which detonated the magazine of her #1 8 inch turret and the
aviation gasoline stowage. The result blew off the bow forward of # 2
turret, and the sinking bow floated along the portside aft damaging the
outboard propellor.

We were trying to figure out how a spare turret was procured.

Thanks to OUR NAVY Magazine, Vol XXXVIII, no 21, First April, 1944, I
now have the answer. (OUR NAVY was twice monthly, hence the date).

John B. Penfold, “They Wouldn’t Stay Sunk”, pp 12-14)

…”Meanwhile, manufacturers and (Puget Sound) Navy Yard workers had
prepared the operating table and were ready to go to work. Ninety
percent of the new bow had been prefabricated, since most of the
structural steel and steel plate had been in stock or readily procured
from mills. The new bow was fabricated in dry dock and the ship was
floated into position to be joined.

“Procurement of the new auxiliary machinery to be installed in the new
bow had begun prior to the cruiser’s arrival; this involved the
assemblies for the pumps, fans, motors, ventilatng systems, auxiliary
turbines, anchors and anchor chains. Most difficult to obtain was a new
anchor windlass. The Navy Dept. had a contract with the Lidgerwood Mfg.
Co., New Jersey, for a new anchor windlass which was intended for battle
damage repair,. Work had not yet started and the windlass was not
scheduled for completion for two years; in response to the emergency
the company completed and shhipped the windlass in jig time. In
addition to the auxiliary machinery lost, the ship had lost
considerable spare parts; in order to supply her with a normal stock the
BuShips was obliged to assemble the equipment from its new construction
program wherever equipment could be spared.

Of the three major repair jobs listed, installation of the new turret
was most difficult. At that timn the BuORd and BuShips had under
construction at Mare Island a spare turret for cruisers of the NEW
ORLEANS class; it was intended for battle damage repair. However, that
turret could nnot, despite all speed up, be completed in time, and
waiting for this turret would have delayed the ship’s return to combat.
A sister of NEW ORLEANS was due back in the United States for overhaul;
further, it was scheduled for a longer holdover than the damaged
dcruiser. The Navy proceeded to shift the turret from the second
crusier and installed it on the battle scarred veteran of the Solomons,
The second cruiser was given another turret finished at a later date,
thus enabling the sleek southern lady to keep her date on the high
seas Somewher in Direct Contact With the Enemy.”

Although not specified in this article, looking at the history of the
vessels in Terzibaschitsch’s CRUISERS OF TEH US NAVY 1922-1946, it
appears that only MINNEAPOIS fits. Despite taking less damage than
NEW ORLEANS she was out of action longer, presumably because she needed
a larger general overhaul as well as the battle damage repair. Also,
I had suggested that one of the vessels damaged at Tassafaronga had
been repaired wholly at Pearl Harbor. This turns out to have been the
PENSACOLA which spent January to November 1943 under epair at PHNY.

Brooks

Bill Riddle wrote:

> Did any one have a look at that Scripps Institute web site I mentioned
> before Christmas?

No, Bill, I didn’t, and I don’t recall the original note, but I think some
of my e-mail disappeared into the ether, thanks to my former server.

Judging from the subject line, I take it this was about the five or seven
destroyers that went on the rocks in the 20s-30s?

Can you post the URL again?

Thanks,
Tom

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

At 05:58 PM 1/6/98 -0500, Eric Bergerund wrote:
>>I prefer to believe in the following exchange:
>
>Lady Astor: “Winston, if you were my husband I would put poison in your tea.”
>
>Churchill: “Lady Astor, if I were your husband, I would drink it.”

Both exchanges occurred, and both with Lady Astor (who was reared less than
100 miles from where I type this, incidentally, in Danville, Virginia).

The ECONOMIST just printed a grand Churchill tale from the days after his
defeat in 1945 and the gloom and despair that ensued. Churchill was
relieving himself in the House of Commons lavatory when the door opened and
the new Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, walked in. Churchill swung away
from him, still finishing the task at hand.

“Feeling a bit standoffish today, Winston?” queried Atlee.
“Feeling scared,” responded Churchill. “Everytime you see something big,
you want to nationalize it.”

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!

I’ve just finished reading Edward Von der Porten’s _The German Navy
in World War II_. He talks about two pre-dreadnought battleships
(survivors of six allowed Germany by the Treaty of Versailles) which
were used as training vessels and operationally, although he doe not
mention them by name. I am fairly certain one was the Schleswig
-Holstein and I think the other was the Schlesien. I have four multi-
part questions to present to the list:

1. What happened to the remaining four ships allotted to the
Weimar Republic by the Versailles Treaty?

2. Were any of these ships updated or upgraded during the
inter-war years and, if so, what changes were made?

3. I know one of these ships was used operationally during the
Polish campaign and also, I believe, during the occupation
of Denmark. Were they used operationally after this? If so,
where?

4. After Hitler ordered the heavy ships scrapped, what
happened to the pre-dreadnoughts? Did they survive like
Tirpitz and Scharnhorst or were they actually broken up?

Thanks in advance, Ed.

Edward Wittenberg
ewitten507@aol.com

Louis R. Coatney wrote:
>
> Not wanting to be a source of misinformation about the objective truth
> of the tragedy, I thought I should post this … and thank Steve and
> Chris for their input.
>
> I *am* disappointed that noone has asked about Churchill’s riposte to
> Lady Astor. 🙂
>

Dids’t someone not post an answer?

Was this the occasion, legendary, anecdotal or real, of Churchill’s
riposte (No! Counterattack is more descriptive!) upon being accused of
being drunk: “…And you’re ugly, Madam. Fortunately, by morning, I’ll
be sober.” or words to that effect?
—
“A little learning is a dangerous thing,
But more is inevitably catastrophic!”
****************************************************************
TMOliver/8225 Shadow Wood/Woodway/TX/76712/254-772-2859/776-3332
****************************************************************
“The road to Hell is paved with pleasurable chugholes.”

Louis R. Coatney wrote:
>
> Not wanting to be a source of misinformation about the objective truth
> of the tragedy, I thought I should post this … and thank Steve and
> Chris for their input.
>
> I *am* disappointed that noone has asked about Churchill’s riposte to
> Lady Astor. 🙂
>

Dids’t someone not post an answer?

Was this the occasion, legendary, anecdotal or real, of Churchill’s
riposte (No! Counterattack is more descriptive!) upon being accused of
being drunk: “…And you’re ugly, Madam. Fortunately, by morning, I’ll
be sober.” or words to that effect?
—
“A little learning is a dangerous thing,
But more is inevitably catastrophic!”
****************************************************************
TMOliver/8225 Shadow Wood/Woodway/TX/76712/254-772-2859/776-3332
****************************************************************
“The road to Hell is paved with pleasurable chugholes.”