From Tue Sep 30 00:43:45 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom7.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 02:43:08 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom7.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: Conflict simulation Games ,
> mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Reviewer needed for NAVAL ACTION.
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>
>Now that my baby has finally birthed … 🙂 … I need someone to
> do a timely and thorough, objective review of … it.
>
>I’m looking for someone with a lot of naval miniatures experience
> … and not already personally/prejudicially/*commercially* involved
> with another game system.
>
>There are 5 scenarios provided, in addition to the Master List of
> World War II ships: Denmark Straits, the “Rescue of the BISMARCK,”
> the Battle of Pantelleria (June 1942), the Kommandorski Islands
> (March 1943), and the Battle of the Lofotens (fictional): ALASKA
> vs. SCHARNHORST. With this game system and the master list,
> alternate scenarios are easy to concoct.
>
>GOD, this has been a LOT of work. :-I … and only … 16 years? in
> the making. 🙂
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
> www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue Sep 30 12:13:15 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom3.ecnet.net: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:10:40 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom3
>To: Marine History Information Exchange Group ,
> mahan@microwrks.com, consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk,
> wwii-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu, milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu
>cc: clcoatney@aol.com
>Subject: Speed vs.(??) Length
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>
>Doing the research for my NAVAL ACTION naval miniatures rules … which
> I have *just* finished! … after 15 years! … 🙂 … 🙂 … I read
> that an old battleship was actually lengthened *to increase speed*.
>
>(CONWAY’S ALL THE WORLD’S FIGHTING SHIPS, 1922-1946, p. 284, regarding
> the old CONTE DI CAVOUR class Italian battleships: “… and new
> sections were added to the bow and stern [!], increasing the overall
> length to 611ft 6in (186.38m), … assisting in the speed improvement
> by increasing the length-to-beam ratio.”)
>
>Proportions were not just questions of beam and tonnage, it seems.
>
>Has anyone seen the movie “Wind?” … about the design/sailing of
> competitive yachts? GREAT flic.
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
> www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/ (free game and model ship)

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Sun Aug 24 08:09:31 1997
>X-Sender: dave@microworks.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
>Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:14:46 -0700
>To: BWV_WIESBADEN@t-online.de (Tim Lanzendoerfer),
> harpoon@lists.stanford.edu,mahan@microwrks.com,
> wwii-l@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu
>From: Dave Riddle
>Subject: Re: Location change
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>Actually it is at http://www.microworks.net/pacific/pacific.htm
>
>Tim, if you change the file pacific.htm to index.htm then the address could
>be shortened up to just “http://www.microworks.net/pacific” of course any
>of your files that reference pacific.htm would also need to be changed to
>index.htm
>
>At 11:46 AM 8/24/97 +0100, Tim Lanzendoerfer wrote:
> >Thanks to Dave Riddle of Microworks, I was just able to move my enlargened
>and
> >improved The United States Navy in the Pacific War, 1941 – 1945 > pages to the
> >address of
> >
> >http://www.microworks.net/pacific/pacific.net
> >
> >You are invited to view these pages and encouraged to tell me what you
>think of
> >them.
> >
> >Tim Lanzendoerfer
> >
> >
>Dave R.
>
>
>David W. Riddle 1958 TR-3A TR34575L
>Tel:602-813-4569
>Fax:602-813-4659
>
>http://www.microworks.net & http://www.openlines.com
>
>The story about the destruction of one of my companies
>due to forgery and fraud by a partner and his confederates.
> http://www.splashpools.com

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed Aug 13 13:56:40 1997
>Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:58:37 -0700
>X-Sender: warpup@viser.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>To: WWI-L@ukans.edu
>From: Warren Bruhn
>Subject: 16 Dec 1914 bombardment
>Cc: mahan@microwrks.com
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>I am interested in the 16 Dec 1914 bombardment of Hartlepool and Scarborough
>by the German battlecruisers. I understand that the German High Seas fleet
>was providing long range escort for the battlecruisers during this
>operation, and that the British had dispatched battlecruisers and a single
>battle squadron to intercept the raid, but missed. Does anyone have more
>detailed information on the forces at sea in the North Sea on that date,
>commanders, etc.???
>
>I would be very greatful for any information that you might have on the topic.
>
>Warren Bruhn

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed Aug 13 16:15:10 1997
>From: “John Forester”
>To:
>Cc:
>Subject: Re: 16 Dec 1914 bombardment
>Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:10:04 -0700
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Donald Macintyre’s *Jutland* describes the actions of the day. Hipper was
>out with his battlecruisers, bombarding the British coast. Ingenohl with
>the High Seas Fleet was far to seawards, in position to fight any British
>force that might attempt to intercept and chase Hipper. The British had
>Beatty with four battle cruisers and light cruiser screen, moving
>southwards from Cromarty, to meet Adm. Warrender (base not stated, but
>presumably Scapa Flow, but if so, how had they got there so soon?) who had
>6 battleships of the KGV class, and Tyrwhitt’s Harwich force of light
>cruisers and destroyers. At daybreak, Beatty’s and Ingenohl’s destroyers
>and light cruisers made contact. Ingenohl, fearful of his emperor’s
>explicit instructions not to fight the whole British fleet and not knowing
>that only a part of that fleet opposed him, turned around, leaving Hipper
>to his fate. Hipper had few outlets through the coastal minefields, and
>Jellico ordered these to be closed by the forces at sea. Beatty’s screen
>met Hipper’s screen at an outlet, but Hipper, warned by radio, turned north
>in the mist and evaded Beatty.
>
>John Forester
>408-734-9426 726 Madrone Ave
>forester@johnforester.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086-3041

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu Aug 14 00:57:13 1997
>From: “Ian L. Buxton”
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:55:43 GMT0BST
>Subject: (Fwd) Re: 16 Dec 1914 bombardment
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>——- Forwarded Message Follows ——-
>From: Self >To: Warren Bruhn
>Subject: Re: 16 Dec 1914 bombardment
>Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:54:09 GMT0BST
>
>I think James Goldrick’s book ‘The Kings Ships were at Sea’ has a
>detailed account. Published about 1990. James is currently
>commanding officer of HMAS Sydney.
>Ian Buxton
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:58:37 -0700
> > To: WWI-L@ukans.edu
> > From: Warren Bruhn
> > Subject: 16 Dec 1914 bombardment
> > Cc: mahan@microwrks.com
>
> >
> > I am interested in the 16 Dec 1914 bombardment of Hartlepool and > Scarborough
> > by the German battlecruisers. I understand that the German High Seas fleet
> > was providing long range escort for the battlecruisers during this
> > operation, and that the British had dispatched battlecruisers and a single
> > battle squadron to intercept the raid, but missed. Does anyone have more
> > detailed information on the forces at sea in the North Sea on that date,
> > commanders, etc.???
> >
> > I would be very greatful for any information that you might have > on the topic.
> >
> > Warren Bruhn
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Sat Aug 02 00:47:48 1997
>Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Tracy Johnson
>To: MAHAN-L
>Subject: Re: starship troopers (fwd)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>There was a discussion of Starship Troopers on the Conflict Simulation
>(CONSIM-L) list. During the course of thread, parts of Heinlein’s
>personal history came up. Speculative though it may be:
>
>Tracy Johnson
>tjohnson@adnetsol.com
>”Semper Pollus”
> ADC-2239-5531
>
>———- Forwarded message ———-
>Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 17:54:08 -0500
>From: Leonard R. Cleavelin
>To: Multiple recipients of list CONSIM-L
>Newgroups: bit.listserv.consim-l
>Subject: Re: starship troopers
>
>At 11:03 PM 7/30/97 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
> >Leonard R. Cleavelin wrote:
>
> >> Heinlein was a graduate of the Naval
> >> Academy, and probably would have retired a rear admiral (at least) had he
> >> not contracted tuberculosis (?) before WWII and gotten a medical > retirement.
> >
> >Interesting. What do you base that on? Not that I disagree with you,
> >but I’m just interested in what he may have had to say about Pre-WWII
> >naval tactics and strategy that would warrent such a statement.
>
>I’m basing it on wild assed speculation, based on what I thought was
>Heinlein’s seniority based on what I remember as his Academy graduation
>date. At the time I wrote this, I was under the impression that he’d have
>graduated in the late teens or early ’20s. That would have made him a fairly
>senior officer by ’41 (Commander at least and probably a Captain) which
>would have made him a shoo in for a couple stars during The Big One, given
>how the Navy expanded for WWII.
>
>I’ve since reviewed my sources, and I see he was born in 1907, and graduated
>from the Academy in 1929. Based on what little I know about probable
>promotion times in the between wars Navy (and to be honest it’s damned
>little), had he not gotten a medical retirement (in 1934) he’d probably have
>been a Lieutenant Commander by ’41. I think he’d still have picked up a
>star or two in WWII, but I don’t recall if the Navy was using temporary
>wartime ranks during that conflict. If so, there’s a good chance he’d have
>lost the stars once peace broke out (assuming, of course, he survived the
>war). As an Academy graduate with wartime experience, I still think that he
>would have a fair to good chance of having gotten a promotion to flag rank
>after the war (and to retire as such) unless he did something that was very
>”career-unenhancing” to screw up those chances.
>
>Best regards,
>
>–
>Leonard R. Cleavelin
>E-mail: leonard@inlink.com or lcleavelin@solutechinc.com(work related mail)
>WWW: http://www.inlink.com/~leonard/
>Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
>********Help stop Internet spam! Join CAUCE: ********

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Aug 04 12:32:49 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom3.ecnet.net: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:32:08 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom3
>To: mahan@microwrks.com, consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk
>Subject: Talbot-Booth 1930’s originals (fwd, FYI)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>———- Forwarded message ———-
>Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 06:11:28 +0100
>From: Ron Streater
>To: MARHST-L@post.queensu.ca
>
>I have just had the first batch of original colour drawings of E C
>Talbot-Booth scanned. These were used in his 1932 and 1936 Merchant
>Ships books.
>
>The first 5 are:
>Achimota
>Aorangi
>Athenia
>Bayano
>Belgenland – as Columbia
>
>They have been posted to my web page http://www.junk1234.demon.co.uk
>
>Enjoy
>Ron
>
>–
>Ron Streater, Jasmine Lodge,
>jasmine@junk1234.demon.co.uk 1 Highfield Close,
>http://www.junk1234.demon.co.uk Blean,
>Telephone: 01227-780259 Canterbury, Kent,
>Fax: 01227-780259 CT2 9DX,
>Mobile: 0402-227270 U.K.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:07:17 -0700
>X-Sender: warpup@viser.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Warren Bruhn
>Subject: “monitor”
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Resent-From:
>Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 97 14:05:32 EST
>Resent-To: dave@openlines.com
>X-Status:
>
>Mention on the consim list of the US Marine’s disappointment over the lack
>of guns on US Navy ships reminds me on one of my favorite ship ideas,
>inspired by Ian Buxton’s book, “Big Gun Monitors”.
>
>Try out this ship type in a modern naval game or game of modern small unit
>tactics that involves an amphibious invasion. If the game involves economics
>of producing the ships and delivering firepower to the beach, so much the
>better, because I think this ship would be economical to build and operate.
>
>”Amphibious Support Ship” [ASS]
>
>Displacement: 10,000 tons to 14,000 tons (naval architect out there???)
>Engines: diesel (economical and with long service life)
>Speed: 24-25 knots (more than enough to keep up amphibious task forces)
>Armament: 2 x 14″ (or 12″) in separately trainable barbettes
>Special features: laser guided shells
>Defenses: some anti-air and anti-missle point defenses, maybe a small gun
>Armor: none needed, but ship should be gas tight to defend against bio-chem
>Construction: very sturdy… to withstand the shock of these very heavy guns
>Electronics: also must be able to survive shock of own guns
>Special features: fairly broad beam for stability and to survive a torpedo
>Other feature: designed to survive grounding on beach (likely accident)
>Other feature: reasonably shallow draft to operate at beaches & estuaries
>Intended lifespan: 50 years of useful life with timely overhauls
>Number: 4 (2 on each coast… always expect one to be in overhaul)
>Spares: 3-4 spare barrels per gun to replace worn barrels (32-40 total)
>Other spares: two spare sets of diesel engines, some spare electronics
>Crew: 250-300 + Marine artillery staff (depends on level of ship automation)
>
>Advantages:
>(1) Much cheaper way to provide amphibious firepower than aircraft >or missiles.
>(2) More practical than reactivation of old 16″ battleships.
>(3) Military manpower requirements increased by only 1000-1500 people.
>(4) Economical addition to Marine amphibious firepower.
>(5) Constant readiness enhanced by having one fully ready unit on each coast.
>(6) 50+ years serviceability could be achieved with sturdy construction.
>(7) Experience with gun casting could help US metalurygy and steel mills.
>(8) Use of simple technology such as guns could provide political benefit.
>(9) Psychological impact good for Marines, bad for potential enemies >of Marines.
>
>Disadvantages:
>(1) Too economical for most military planners and politicians to comprehend.
>(2) Requires spending to help the Marines… which politician would do that???
>(3) US business wouldn’t build the ship sturdy enough to do its job long term.
>(4) Building big guns again would be really expensive.
>(5) Building big guns again would take considerable time.
>(6) These ships would appear to be clearly “imperialist” weapons.
>(7) Requires suffering through a right wing political period to get >these ships.
>(8) Politician will want these ships to fire at drug-lords’ airstrips.
>(9) Diesel exhaust is not nice for global warming or port city air quality.
>
>Speculative Use:
>(1) If all surface and air naval support failed, this big “ASS” could try to
>land a laser guided 14″ shell on speeding enemy missle boat.
>
>Personal Note:
>I am anti-imperialist and I applaud reduced military size & expenditure.
>However, navies are hard to build in a hurry, and a strong and potent
>amphibious capability is integral to strong naval power. This “ASS” is worth
>the consideration of Congress.
>
>If any of you try including this fantasy ship in a modern naval or land
>game, particularly one involving economical force, please let me know how
>the simulation turns out.
>
>Warren Bruhn

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 07:51:35 -0700
>From: Tracy Johnson
>Reply-To: tjohnson@adnetsol.com
>Organization: adnetsol.com
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net, mike.potter@artecon.com
>CC: tjohnson@adnetsol.com
>Subject: [Fwd: Re: Naval Warfare (was Japanese names)]
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Resent-From:
>Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 97 08:16:18 EST
>Resent-To: dave@openlines.com
>X-Status:
>
>An interesting conversation from the CONSIM-L list.
>–
>Tracy Johnson
>tjohnson@adnetsol.com
>”Semper Pollus”
> ADC-2239-5531
>Received: from listserv.uni-c.dk (listserv.uni-c.dk [130.228.3.7]) >by adnetsol.adnetsol.com (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA11061 for >; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 03:26:11 -0700
>Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-c.dk [130.228.3.7]) by >listserv.uni-c.dk (8.7.1/8.6) with SMTP id MAA11378; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 >12:25:15 +0200
>Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-C.DK by LISTSERV.UNI-C.DK (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
> 1.8b) with spool id 5919 for CONSIM-L@LISTSERV.UNI-C.DK; Thu, 7 Aug
> 1997 12:25:14 +0200
>Received: from cap1.CapAccess.org (trooker@cap1.CapAccess.org [207.91.115.50])
> by listserv.uni-c.dk (8.7.1/8.6) with SMTP id MAA36964 for
> ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:25:12 +0200
>Received: (from trooker@localhost) by cap1.CapAccess.org (8.6.12/8.6.10) id
> GAA10271; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:30:46 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Message-ID: >Newsgroups: bit.listserv.consim-l
>Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 06:30:46 -0400
>Reply-To: Conflict simulation Games
>Sender: Conflict simulation Games
>From: Terry Rooker >Subject: Re: Naval Warfare (was Japanese names)
>To: Multiple recipients of list CONSIM-L
>In-Reply-To: <33e9266a>
>
>On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, perrym wrote:
>
> > Most of that extra space we were talking about was in the hull. The
> > Navy was toying around with the MK 71 Lightweight 8″ gun. If you ever
> > saw it on the USS HULL (a FORREST SHERMAN DD) and then look at how much
> > room there is around the 5″ on a SPRUANCE, it doesn’t take much
> > imagination. If you’re going to have an 8″, you still need a magazine
> > with decent capacity. Anyway, at least one refit used that extra
> > space. As the vertical launch systems replaced the ASROC launchers, the
> > SPRU-cans became strike DDs with Tomahawk. Not part of the original
> > plan but it works.
> > >
>Sigh… The Spruance was designed to take advantage of several programs
>then under development. All of these where part of the original plan.
>the Spruance was designed to have 2 8″/72 mounts replacing the 5″/54s.
>Although some people claim that only one was intended. I had a friend
>who was a gunnery officer on a DD963 and he told me the figures comparing
>the magazine loadout of 5″ shells on his ship. Considering the
>difference in size of the 8″ and 5″ rounds I believed him when he said
>they were supposed to have 2 8″ guns. The ship was also designed for the
>VLS. It just wasn’t available when the original ships were built. That
>is also why the Shah got the Mk26 (?) luanchers for SAMs, it was the only
>thing ready at the time. The DD963 VLS was intended to carry more than
>THAWK though. The were vague intentions for a vertically launched ASROC,
>possibly a VL Harpoon, and some SAM. I think the intention for the
>latter was to have a multi-channel FCS that could be used to gunfire or
>to guide 1 or 2 missiles. Presumably this would have been some variation
>of the Standard missile. They only became Strike DDs when all the
>programs but THAWK lapsed.
>
>
> > You’re right about bigger hulls. That’s why the
> > ARLEIGH BURKE is so beamy.
>
>The beamy hull of the Burke class has little to do with future growth.
>The beamy hull was a deliberate design decision. There was an article in
>Proceddings as the program was just getting under way. Previous USN hull
>forms were optimized for efficient cruising, so they were long and
>narrow. The Soviets had consistently built ships that were much beamier,
>because there were some drag resistance benefits at high speeds.
>Ironically, if you look at some of the last Soviets designs they were
>moving towards the ‘cruising’ hull form, while the US with the Burke was
>moving towards the high speed hull form.
>
>Terry

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous