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

From Fri May 23 11:58:34 1997
>From: mroberts@tfb.com (Michael Robertson)
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: USNI Naval History
>Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 11:46:56 -0800
>Organization: The Filebank BBS InterGate
>Reply-To: mroberts@tfb.com
>X-Mailer: Yarn 0.92 with YES 0.22 and QEdit 2.15
>Lines: 172
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>I am forwarding this article, please respond to usniwest@aol.com, not
>to my address. Mary Beth SK will be out of town next week, so any
>requests may take a while.
>
>—————————————————————–
>Please forgive such a long post, one of your list members (Michael Robertson)
>recommended that I post this to your group. He saw it on a Patrick O’Brian
>group and has taken advantage of it.
>
>I’ve combined three posts that I made to the original list I posted to, so
>bear with me, the first portion explains USNI and who I am, the second
>portion is the Mar/Apr. 97 table of contents and the 3rd portion is the
>May/June 97 table of contents.
>
> If you’d like the free sample copy (one per customer) please send me your
>mailing address via USNIWest@aol.com. Sorry, about the confusion, but I’m
>glad that Jim has sparked some interest!! 🙂 If anyone has questions about
>the U.S. Naval Institute and our other publications please e-mail me and I’ll
>do my best to answer your questions.
>
>Thank you for your time!
>
>Mary Beth Straight Kiss
>
>***********************************************************
>Mary Beth Straight Kiss
>U.S. Naval Institute Representative
>3485 Old Cobble Ct.
>San Diego, CA 92111-4045
>USNIWest@aol.com or (619) 874-8286
>***********************************************************
>
>Part I
>
> Just thought I’d inform the group that there is a magazine out there that
>is available for Naval and Maritime history buffs. Published by the U.S.
>Naval Institute, a non-profit private organization, it is the __Naval
>History__ magazine. It is bi-monthly and was created in 1988. The Naval
>Institute’s other magazine, __Proceedings__, was receiving so many good
>history articles that they decided to put them all together in one
>publication. It has been a big success. It can be subscribed to or bought
>at many major book stores. The U.S. Naval Institute is a non-profit
>professional organization for persons who have an interest in Naval and
>Maritime topics and concerns. It is the oldest private professional
>organization for the military and was established in 1873.
>
> I’d thought I try and list the titles of articles for each issue like so
>many other contributers have done on the list. That way if you are
>interested in a particular issue you can inquire about it or subscribe to
>the
>magazine itself. I’ll send that under separate heading.
>
> Subscriptions to the magazine are $20/yr for non-USNI members or $18/yr
>for members. International orders add $6 to the cost. (All US funds). Three
>year subscription rates are available too. If anyone is interested in
>seeing a sample copy please e-mail me with your address. One free copy per
>customer.
>
> I also am the indexer for the magazine, although the task is a bit behind
>because they just assigned me the backlog. I’ll let people know when the
>indices are available. The magazine and the index would be a great asset for
>any researcher’s library! I personally love the magazine and can’t wait to
>read it!
>
> I was the manager of the photo archives and reference library at USNI for
>over 9 years. I am now on the West Coast and am representing them here ( a
>trial run). I am responsible for garnering new members, new subscribers,
>selling USNI pubs, certificates, and photographs. As well informing people
>about our Oral History and reference services. Since it is such a new
>position, the East Coast office is tracking how beneficial it is. Please use
>the code MK7 whenever you order or request anything and they will know that
>you heard it from me! Thank you in advance.
>
>
>Part II
>
>Articles in the Mar./Apr. 97 issue of NAVAL HISTORY magazine by U.S. Naval
>Institute.
>
>__Burn Philadelphia__ by Major PHilip Wasielewski, USMC;
> IN what has been called one of the boldest strokes in U.S. Naval
>History, Captain Edward Preble determined to burn the 36-gun frigate rather
>than allow her to remain in the hands of the Tripoli’s Pahsa.
>
>__Constellation Goes Dry__ by Frank D. Roylance
> A Private Foundation in Baltimore has launched the first leg of a
>restoration effort intended to save and preserve one of the oldest U.S. naval
>vessels afloat. She’ll be high and dry for at least two years.
>
>__A Brave Band of Britons__ by Charles A. Steele
> Sailors and marines of the Royal Navy Division were deeply mired in the
>trenches of Ancre in 1916 as the soldiers of the British Fifth Army.
>
>__The Commodore Goes to Court__ by Suzanne B. Geissler
> Commodore Thomas Truxton was shocked that Aaron Burr had been arrested
>for treason and that he himself had been implicated in a conspiracy. But
>honor and integrity helped clear both names.
>
>__A Sad Day in the Cold War__ by Cdr. Robert C.M. Ottensmeyer, USN(Ret.)
> A routine intelligence-gathering mission–for the Cold War era, at
>least__ in 1952 turned sour near Cyprus. The hero of the day was the
>commander, who reentered the sinking aircraft to ensure all his crew had
>escaped.
>
>__Early Vietnam: Unwinnable?__ By Kenneth J. Hagan
> An expert corps of scholars, historians, and operators debated the hows
>and whys of the Vietnam War last spring at the Robert R. McCormick
>Foundation’s stately Cantigny First Division Museum in Illinois.
>
>__”No Men Like Him”__ By Jordan Vause
> A chronicler of German U-boat exploits in World War II illuminates one of
>the most intriguing of the U-boat commanders and author of the command
>manual, “Problems of Leadership,” Wolfgang Luth.
>
>In addition, the issue has our regular features: book reviews, reunion
>listings, historic fleet reports, museum reports, Navy Yarns, and letters to
>the editor.
>
>Part III
>
>Articles in the May/June 97 issue of NAVAL HISTORY magazine by U.S. Naval
>Institute.
>
>__The Ship that Launched a Nation__ by David C. Holly
> She had served sutifully from the Chesapeake Bay to Normandy, but the
>ultimate test for the President Warfield came 50 years ago when she became
>the Exodus 1947, transporting Holocaust Jews to the Promised Land.
>
>__Coming to Terms With the Old Foe__ by Rear Admiral Geroge R. Worthington,
>USN(Ret.)
> Having revisted Vietnam 30 years after he served as a Navy frogman there,
>the author has decided that normalization is the right policy.
>
>__The Truth About Kamikazes__ By D.M. Giangreco
> They were dreaded by every ship within striking distance of the Imperial
>Japanese Navy, but their success was largely psychological. According to an
>editor for “Military Review”, however, they were poised for a U.S. invasion.
>
>__Nelson’s Ten Years to Glory__ by RAdm. Joseph F. Callo, USN Reserve (Ret.)
> The last decade of his life made the legendary Admiral Lord Horatio
>Nelson “the focus of British identity and aspirations .”
>
>__Remembering Emma–and Others__ by Stephen Howarth
> The 1805 Club restores, preserves, and maintains Nelson-related
>monuments–including one to his mistress in Calais.
>
>__Torpedoed in the Celtic Sea__ by Adm. Worth Bagley, USN(ret.)
> In April 1917, the officers and crew of the destroyer Jacob Jones had the
>U-boat commander who had sunk the ship to thank for saving their lives.
>
>__Liberty Lost Pursing a Legend__ by Capt. Ira Dye, USN(Ret.)
> In summer 1937, NROTC students in the battleship USS Colorado helped with
>one of the most extensive search-and-rescue operations in naval history.
>
>__The Original Alphabet Soup__ by Michael J. Crowder
> You need a manual to decipher the evolutions and changes in the squadron
>designations of U.S. naval aviation. Here is a good place to start.
>
>In addition, the issue has our regular features: book reviews, reunion
>listings, historic fleet reports, museum reports, Navy Yarns, and letters to
>the editor.
>
> People interested in subscribing to __Naval History__ or finding out more
>about it can contact me at USNIWest@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
>–
>Michael Robertson | | mroberts@tfb.com
>Oceanside, CA 92056 | |

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Fri May 23 13:39:17 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom2.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 15:38:06 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom2.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: seaways-shipmodeling-list@lists.best.com, mahan@microwrks.com,
> marhst-l@qucdn.queensu.ca, consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk
>Subject: Re: MAHAN kit? Needed models. Tom Clancy.
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>On Fri, 23 May 1997, JOHN WELIVER wrote:
> > Lou,
> > You wouldn’t happen to know if there is a kit in production that covers the
> > MAHAN class of DD’s.
>
>I’m certain there is not, unless there is an (expensive) resin kit, John.
> Ships are the least popular plastic models, and an obscure destroyer
> class isn’t going to make it into design and production, what with the
> prohibitive mastermold-making costs … even with CAD.
>
>For DECADES, I’ve petitioned (literally) the U.S. model manufacturers
> to put out cheap, simple 1:1200 Japanese and American WWII task force
> SETS. These would be ideal for kids to play with on the floor, for
> wargamers, and for WWII naval and marine history buffs — young and
> old. They would also undercut the Japanese monopoly of the (1:700)
> waterline WWII model warship market.
>
>TO NO AVAIL. American plastic model kit manufacturers are short-term-
> oriented business managers/majors with little or no sense of potential
> markets. (That is why the Japanese Pearl-Harbored them, in the first
> place, in this market sector.)
>
>TOM CLANCY is going to be at GenCon, the big wargaming convention in
> Milwaukee, this summer. (He is starting to invest in computer
> wargaming and graphics production.) I’ve already tried e-mailing
> him about my idea, but have gotten no response. (Could SOMEone
> forward this to him?)
>
>He and Larry Bond — the designer of the HARPOON and COMMAND AT SEA
> naval miniatures rules … my “Naval Action” rules are simpler,
> faster, better … 🙂 — are friends and collaborators. You would
> think that Larry would want cheap naval miniature sets available
> (via Toys R Us, etc.), so that kids would want to “regulate” their
> floorplay. (Back on Brittany Lane, the kid with the loudest voice
> and/or neatest models usually had his way. 🙂 )
>
>And World War II task forces are more desirable than “modern” TFs,
> simply because the WWII ships were in *battles* and are of
> historical importance. (In 100 years, which ENTERPRISE will be
> remembered most? … barring World War III, of course.)
>
>I trust you can sense what we are up against.
>
>Actually, 1:900 is the best floor scale, and I can build my cardstock
> models in any scale I want anyway.
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Fri May 23 19:19:19 1997
>From: John Snyder
>Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 19:15:30 -0700
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: NAUTILUS 5th war patrol, part 4 – forwarded
>Organization: MacNexus, the Sacramento Macintosh User Group
>X-Mailer: TeleFinder BBS v5.5
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Here’s the long-awaited (by some of us) excerpt that went missing earlier.
>
> May 12, 1943
>
> Received message during night ordering us to Dutch Harbor and also to
> look for enemy shipping approaching ATTU from southwest which was
> heartily complied with.
>
> 0612 W Submerged as visibility increased somewhat.
>
> 1917 W Seas became so rough that periscope depth could not be
>maintained,
> increased depth to 90 feet.
>
> 2156 W Came to periscope depth, found sky completely overcast, low
> visibility, heavy seas.
>
> 2202 W surfaced.
>
> May 13, 1943
>
> 0841 W Early morning low visibility lifted and submerges. Could not
> maintain periscope due to high seas, rant at 100 feet.
>
> 2059 W Visibility reduced by fog, surfaces.
>
> May 14 to May 16, 1943
>
> Surface running. 1921 W May 14, 11943, crossed 180th meridian. 0544
>W
> submerged on sight plane contact and at 0624 W surfaces. 0315 W May
>16,
> 1943, received message altering routing and canceling speed
>restriction,
> immediately went ahead full speed. 15.5 knots in order to arrive
>DUTCH
> HARBOR before dark the 16th. At 1900 W May 16, 1943, arrived DUTCH
> HARBOR. The entire trip from the north coast of ATTU was made by dead
> reckoning except for one hazy sun fix obtained May 14, 1943.
>
> May 17 1943
>
> 1600 W Departed DUTCH HARBOR for PEARL HARBOR.
>
> May 18, 1943
>
> 1530 W Received message from Comsubpac to change course had head for
>MARE
> ISLAND immediately. Upon hearing this the morale of the crew
>increased
> one hundred percent.
>
> May 19, 1943
>
> Received message ordering us to go through a point through which we
>had
> already passed. So informed comsubpac giving my position, course and
> speed. In afternoon received message giving us a definite routing.
> Slowed to seven knots. This will cause us one day’s delay in arrival
>in
> port and commencement of overhaul. Made trim and training dive.
>
> May 20 to May 21, 1943
>
> Burned out bearing on turbo blower. On May 21, 1943 shifted to HPG
>and
> sent message requesting escort rendezvous at Point NAN at 0600 Zebra
> twenty fifth. This is four hours ahead of schedule but will assure
>our
> arrival MARE ISLAND prior darkness.
>
> May 22, 1943
>
> 0545 V Heavy fog set in, started SJ radar.
>
> 0645 V SJ radar contact bearing dead ahead, range 8,900 yards.
>Started
> TDC and got him on course 304 T. Speed 9. We were only 100 yards off
> track so changed course to open.
>
> 0654 V Sighted merchantman in fog range 800 yards; exchanged
>recognition
> signals.
>
> 0656 V In latitude 44-21N, longitude 139-45W passed him 350 yards
>abeam.
>
> May 23 to May 25, 1943
>
> On May 23 received message from Cominseafrom to Cominshore patrol, San
> Francisco, requesting destroyer rendezvous at 0600 Z May 25, 1943. At
> 0600 May 25, 1943, made rendezvous with escort and proceeded to MARE
> ISLAND. 1200 T May 25, 1943, arrived MARE ISLAND.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon May 26 20:08:12 1997
>Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 22:07:33 -0500
>From: Brooks A Rowlett
>Reply-To: brooksar@indy.net
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>To: swrctmo@iAmerica.net
>CC: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Re: Light shipboard AA guns necessary? … and AA philsophies.
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>TMO/TX wrote:
> in a long thread triggered by :
>
> > > >Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>
> > In regards to the British v. US experience…..
> > The US was led to maximizing the number of barrels of all calibers by a
> > simple (but so long ago as to have been forgotten) factor…the
> > potential number of attacking a/c arriving at the same time. Indelibly
> > marked by the Pearl Harbor experience, the tattoo even more deeply
> > colored in engagements against Japaneses carrier and landbased a/c in
> > substantial numbers thru ’42, we wanted “an impenetrable carpet of flak”
> > to steal a German concept. Dealing with fewer attackers (but more often
> > multi-engine or single engine a/c with some armor, both more damage
> > resistant than the lightly constructed Nipponese a/c), the British
> > perspective may have been quite different. The principal difference may
> > have been even more simply explained…a shortage of German a/c
> > carriers.
> > —
> > Kestrel Syndicate – Oliver Associates – Southwest Regional Council
> > “Quid consilium cepit…”
>
>I think he’s put his finger on it. Secondly, I also think the RN was
>more sensitive to topweight. We should also point out that the average
>USN DD probably ran somewhat heavier than its RN counterpart expecially
>175 FLETCHER class (plus 100 or so BENSON/LIVERMORE/BRISTOL which are
>more directly comparable to the equivalent Britsh War Emergency type).
>And with more fleet oilers and more practice at UNREP the USN was
>willing to accept topweight that might not be compensated for in
>theroetical fuel – that is, because the US was able and willing to UNREP
>more often, they might have calculated stability always on the basis of
>assuming a certain % of fuel available which the RN might no9t have been
>willing to. In practice though, I don’t think that’s right, because i
>seem to recall something about the US trying to calculate stability with
>a LOWER fuel load than anyone else. At any rate, I strongly suspect
>that the numbers of individual attackers in the PAC being higher than
>was expected in Europe is the real key to this, with the stability
>factor that the USN chose to carry more – either being capable of at
>similar stability, or being willing to accept lower stability –
>contributing to the fact. Certainly late war AA fire control was still
>in the USN favor, with lots of small directors, including gyro sights on
>mount for the 20mm and individual directors for EVERY 40mm quad….the
>RN made a stabilized controlled 40mm single, the STAAG mounting.
>Another point possibly relevant is that the RN 2lbr octuple and quad
>were a shorter calibre than the 40mm Bofors which led to reduced range
>and accuracy and possibly more intent to use them in barrage mode.
>Certainly Martin Middlebrooks BATTLESHIP describes that the octuple 2
>pdrs on PRINCE OF WALES were unable to satisfactorily engage the IJNAF
>’Betty’ and ‘Nell” bombers before they dropped their torpedoes; they
>finally turned to using them in revenge mode against planes that had
>already dropped and were flying overhead, which is how they actually
>succeeded in shooting some down.
>
>Some Refs; Campbell’s NAVAL WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II, Friedman and Peter
>Hodges’ DESTOYER WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR 2.
>
>Some other points; The popular OTO Melara 76mm Compact mentioned is a
>
>62 calibre-long weapon. I can’t swear that the US did pay license fees
>to Bofors for manufacture of the 40mm during WWII – the History of the
>Bureau of Ordnance probably has that information – but they did get
>permission to manufacture and bought drawings from them so I presume
>the US did. (Original production was apparently reverse-engineered from
>samples on the Dutch cruiser JACOB VAN HEEMSKECK). The Japanese 40mm
>and also the Italian, were based on the Vickers 2 pdr, not the Bofors
>40. The late war German 40 was the Bofors, but I think I recall that
>the Germans may NOT have paid Bofors any license fees…unless that is
>postwar propaganda -“We Good Allies paid our license fees but the nasty
>Germans didn’t”.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 27 20:31:31 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:30:49 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk, mahan@microwrks.com
>cc: “Louis R. Coatney” , greggh@uiuc.edu
>Subject: 6-7 June ’97, IlliniCon’97, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois … CHEAP! 🙂
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>Weekend Badge $5.00 !! … at the Hedrick House, $20.00 a night!
>
>I’m going to try to be there … at *those* prices!
>
>I’m thinking about a 1:700 “Naval Action” naval miniatures game,
> a 1ST ALAMEIN tournament, and maybe a tournament-demo of my new
> Russian Front game? … assuming space and schedule permit.
>
>Sponsor is the Urbana Gaming House and the Hedrick House.
>
>Champaign-Urbana is the junction of I-57 (Chicago to St. Louis or
> Memphis) and I-74 (Iowa City or Quad Cities to Indianapolis).
>
>Check with Gregg Homerding … greggh@uiuc.edu … for details.
> 217-328-8000
>
>Hey, Gregg! Is there going to be an auction? … and when?
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>
> Would someone please put this up on rec.games.board.etc?

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed May 28 16:21:19 1997
>Comments: Authenticated sender is >From: “Patrick McSherry” >To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 06:22:27 +0000
>Subject: (Fwd) Re: CSS Hunley
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Hello Folks.
>
>This appeared on the Titanic List. I was not aware of an effort to
>raise the Hunley. Does anyone know anything else about it?
>
>
>——- Forwarded Message Follows ——-
>Date: Wed, 28 May 1997
>From: JETINC1528@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Hunley
>
>
>yes there are plans to raise her, and I cant wait. I am a big fan of the
>hunley among other ships. That web site is great and there are also many
>more. just browse under c.s.s. hunley. i hope i can be there when they raise
>it. i’m thinking about catchin a bus down there and then watching them bring
>it into the harbor. There were two great documentaries on the ship. One
>about the ship itself was on the dscvry chnl and the other on raising her was
>on tlc.
>hope this helped.
>
>Tim

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous