June 04, 2015
Midway Day 2015
It seems fitting somehow that the Blue Angels have been buzzing around Pond Central all day on this, the 73rd anniversary of the US Navy's most important victory. We all know the story by now... at least, if you've read The Pond for any length of time you do. In fact, I've written so extensively on the topic that I can't find anything new to write about regarding Midway. So I open it to you, my readers: do you have any questions regarding the Battle of Midway? Let me know in comments, and I'll get you an answer.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
03:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.
March 02, 2015
IJN Musashi Found
The wreck of the Japanese battleship
Musashi, probably the largest battleship ever to go sea, was located today by Billionaire Paul Allen.
That's the first view
tweeted out earlier today, of the great ship's bow Imperial Chrysanthemum (which appears to have either fallen off or been covered by sea gunk) as seen from a ROV piloted from Allen's yacht
Octopus. Amazingly, the
Octopus, at over 400 feet, is about half the length of the
Musashi.
At last report, they are still trying to prove conclusively that the ship is the
Musashi, but it's very hard to confuse her with anything other than her sister ship
Yamato which has been precisely located for years. We have no real idea about the orientation of the above picture... she could be upside-down on the sea floor for all we know.
We'll find out soon enough... exciting times ahead!!!
Posted by: Wonderduck at
09:35 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 02, 2015 10:15 PM (+rSRq)
2
You would know better than I: was the Royal Chrysanthemum on the Musashi the same size as the one on Yamato? Because we know where one is already...
Posted by: Ben at March 02, 2015 10:45 PM (DRaH+)
3
I can't imagine it wouldn't be, but there's no way they'd remove the one from the
Yamato. War grave and all that.
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 02, 2015 11:51 PM (jGQR+)
4
It's supposedly one meter, but I got that off of a Discovery program and there was no context.
Posted by: Ben at March 02, 2015 11:57 PM (DRaH+)
5
I can't imagine how you
could remove one of these and transport it safely to the surface. It's welded in place.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 03, 2015 12:00 AM (+rSRq)
6
I've heard Musashi described as having much better
detail work than her sister and more welding because Mitsubishi's yard
at Nagasaki had more experience with that. Certainly she took more hits
before sinking and over half her crew survived.
Wonderduck, is it true that one reason the TAFFY's
were hung out to dry was that the fleet carriers had exhausted their
magazines in the attacks on Kurita's force? Or were they just not in
range?
Posted by: Brickmuppet at March 03, 2015 09:05 AM (jGQR+)
7
Muppet,
Musashi took more hits
because of the way the USN's aircraft attacked. If you look, she took
some 19 torpedoes, but they were balanced between port and starboard
sides. This allowed her to flood on an even keel, as opposed to what
happened to
Yamato. She took half as many torps, but almost all of them were to the port side, then capsized.
TAFFY 3 was left out to dry because Halsey's ego wouldn't allow him to
do his job correctly. He took all the fleet carriers AND all the modern
battleships to hunt down the toothless and impotent Japanese carriers.
As it was, planes from the big carriers did get involved towards the
end of the Battle off Samar, which probably finalized Kurita's decision
to withdraw.
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 03, 2015 09:05 AM (jGQR+)
8
Brickmuppet, I think you're confusing Halsey's Third Fleet with Kinkaid's Seventh Fleet.
Seventh Fleet (old battleships plus cruisers and destroyers) used up most of their fuel and much of their ammunition at the Battle of Surigao Strait, and thus weren't able to steam back to Leyte Gulf to help out there. They didn't use everything, though the destroyers had fired all their torpedoes, but they were all low on fuel. Kincaid heard the calls for help and his fleet was refueling as fast as they could, but he didn't finish in time to help out.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 03, 2015 12:43 PM (+rSRq)
9
To be fair to Halsey, some of that is applying hindsight. We know today that the carriers were bait to draw Halsey out of position. But the Japanese navy wasn't the only one whose doctrine favored decisive battle, even if the US didn't normally do dumb things because of it. Especially viewed in light of the Marinaras, where the US fleet operated too conservatively in support of their landing force and thus "let the Japanese carriers get away", Halsey was correct in putting a big priority on sinking those carriers.
Of course he wasn't correct in stripping the landing fleet of the surface assets, especially because they weren't and couldn't have been particularly useful in the kind of battle he was heading to fight. Some of that was doctrine too, though; even if the age of Mahan was over, and the big naval battle wasn't two battle lines slamming into each other, it's hard to see an admiral saying "I have a bunch of heavy ships, but I'm going to head to battle with just my screen and my carriers".
The real goof was the response to the radio message... but even if he'd reacted to it instantly, could Task Force 34 have reached the battle area by then? The damage may have already been done. (But he would have looked like less of a jerk!)
Posted by: Avatar at March 03, 2015 01:41 PM (a38fD)
10
It's kind of harsh to say that big naval battles weren't two battle lines slamming into each other, when Kincaid had just finally managed to "cross the T" at Surigao.
What's a good book on the Turkey Shoot? I find that I don't know much about the naval campaign aside from the high points, mainly the name and the outcome. Avatar, are you saying that Halsey was fighting the last battle at Leyte?
Posted by: Mitch H. at March 03, 2015 02:58 PM (jwKxK)
11
Let's just say that the idea that the Japanese had a bunch of aircraft carriers and the best thing they could use them for was -bait- isn't something that would have necessarily occurred to an admiral of a carrier task force. Using capital ships on suicide runs like that is not in anyone's book...
Posted by: Avatar at March 03, 2015 05:21 PM (zJsIy)
12
Mitch, assuming you're looking for books on the Battle of Leyte Gulf and not the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot," which was a few months earlier, there are three you should read.
For a general overview of the entire four day event which spread over 100000 square miles of land and ocean, go with Cutler's
Battle of Leyte Gulf. It does the best at a difficult task, trying to cover such a horrendously large struggle in one book. It accomplishes the task, but it also kinda proves that this might be a battle that's too large for one book. Which is why you need to go deeper. Fortunately, the two BIG conflicts inside the Battle of Leyte Gulf have drawn plenty of attention.
Anthony Tully's
Battle of Surigao Strait uses more pages to describe the last battleship fight than Cutler's book uses to cover the entire Leyte Gulf. If the name sounds familiar, Tully is half of the team that wrote
Shattered Sword.
Then, for the Battle Off Samar, aka "Taffy3 vs The IJN", there really isn't any better place to go than
Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors by James Hornfischer. While imbalanced towards the Americans, it still does a great job of explaining just what happened on both sides. The book is so good that I recommend it wholeheartedly, despite my
personal dislike of Hornfischer's writing style. There's something about it that sets my teeth on edge, and it's not just this book but the other by him that I've read as well.
That, however, doesn't matter.
Tin Can Sailors is good enough that I'll deal with the writer's "voice". I've not seen any other gripes about it, so I'm just going to have to assume it's just me.
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 03, 2015 06:27 PM (jGQR+)
13
The "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" is more properly known as the "Battle of the Philippine Sea".
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 03, 2015 07:55 PM (+rSRq)
14
Supposedly the wreck is much more intact than Yamato. That could answer a lot of questions about the design. From everything I've read, despite many sources siting the same numbers, no one is really sure exactly how big the ships were. I know historically, when the U.S. finally got eyes on the ships, they were much bigger than expected. Unfortunately, the size grew mythically in the post-war years: I've read old blurbs that claimed the two ships were well over 1000 feet long and displaced over 100,000 tons.
Posted by: Ben at March 04, 2015 10:18 AM (S4UJw)
15
Paul Allen's
website has some photos (including hi-res options) and video.
The caption for the still picture of the bow mentions the place where the chrysanthemum "would have been" and describes it as being made of teak. There seems to be something nontrivial that remains attached, but it's been 70 years underwater, so knowing "the answer in the back of the book" is a big help.
Posted by: Ad absurdum per aspera at March 04, 2015 10:27 AM (470Py)
16
Aces, Uncle Ad! I've been watching his twitter feed, but for whatever reason I never thought he'd have a website. Beakwing.
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 04, 2015 11:35 AM (jGQR+)
17
So at least one of the main turrets have fallen out. That'd suggest that all three are gone, as the only way they'd come out would be if the ship inverted while it sunk... if one went, the other two would be just as likely to go.
Can't wait to see how it settled on the bottom...
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 04, 2015 11:42 AM (jGQR+)
18
Wonderduck, I was actually asking about books on the Battle of the Phillipine Sea, or Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. The Leyte campaign is everyone's favorite big full-spectrum naval battle, a passion play full of spectacle and moral lessons, the Wilderness to Midway's Gettysburg, The Turkey Shoot seems to get glossed over - "and then all the remaining competent Japanese pilots died, the end. Who's up for some increasingly suicidal grandstanding in place of strategy?"
I guess I have some interest in the idea of a one-sided slaughter considered at the time to be a disappointing failure by the victors.
Posted by: Mitch H. at March 04, 2015 01:47 PM (jwKxK)
19
You'll forgive me for being confused, being how this is basically a thread about Leyte, and most of your comment was about parts of Leyte.
Clash of the Carriers by Barrett Tillman is probably the most useful book on the Turkey Shoot that I've read.
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 04, 2015 01:57 PM (jGQR+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 10, 2015
Rollercoaster
Just another day in the glorious Pacific Ocean for the USS
Lunga Point.
You may also title this "The crew of the USS
Lunga Point throws up in unison."
"Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" also works, if you're into that sort of thing.
UPDATE. No, the
Lunga Point hasn't broken in half. Click "more" to see what's going on in the picture!
more...
Posted by: Wonderduck at
11:40 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I completely don't understand what's going on in that picture. The ship has broken in half and the bow section is capsizing, while the island and stern remain upright? Why aren't the planes sliding off into the water?
Geoffrey Broke's Alarm Starboard (fantastic book) has a v. scary account of a being on a destroyer that nearly capsized in the north Atlantic.
Posted by: AlanL at February 11, 2015 12:12 AM (MgVWN)
2
Yours is the same reaction the picture got when I posted it elsewhere... and, in fact, mine when I first saw it.
Would it help if I said there are actually
two carriers in this picture?
Posted by: Wonderduck at February 11, 2015 01:42 AM (jGQR+)
3
... And the island of the front one is under the water or has fallen off?
Posted by: AlanL at February 11, 2015 02:23 AM (UGO4c)
4
I couldn't get my mind wrapped around the perspective until this morning. The brain just isn't prepared for a situation in which a flight deck appears to form a square.
Posted by: Ben at February 12, 2015 09:19 AM (S4UJw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 01, 2015
Kongo Sisters
As much as we'd like it to be true, I'm afraid that the ships of the
Kongo-class of battlecruisers/fast battleships didn't actually look like this:
I know, it's hard to accept.
But we must accept reality... in truth, they looked like this:
There are worse things.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
08:21 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
December 30, 2014
Torpedo Planes
In the runup to the beginning of World War II, the aircraft carrier began to force itself into the position of "Queen of Battle", wresting the title from the massive guns of the battleship. As strategies and tactics on how to use the planes the flattops provided began to coalesce, it was generally assumed that the dive bomber, while accurate, would provide support to the true shipkiller: the torpedo bomber. This thinking makes much sense to a Navy. After all, when it comes down to it, a bomb punches holes in the decks of a ship, letting in air. A torpedo, though... a torpedo makes big holes in the side of a ship, letting in
water. Water, while pretty much required for a ship to be a ship, is also not something you want
inside your ship. It causes ships to sink. Bombs may wreck the upper decks, may set fires, may explode deep inside the hull, but only rarely will they actually be a direct threat to the hull integrity of a warship bigger than a destroyer.
A torpedo attack was conducted based on the requirements of the dropped weapon itself. Depending on the nation, a plane may have to fly as low as 50-100 feet and as slowly as 115mph or less to successfully launch the torpedo and have it swim correctly to the target. Launching outside of those parameters could result in broaching or porpoising, or even the torpedo breaking up upon impact with the water. Early on, this wasn't considered a problem; most torpedo planes could barely reach 200mph unladen and with a tailwind. With a 2000lb weapon being lugged around, such lofty velocities were mere dreams. At the start of the war though, nobody truly understood the sort of murderous anti-aircraft fire a prepared warship could throw up, let alone multiple ships in a layered defense. Then carriers started to embark modern, effective fighter planes, and torpedo attacks began to become suicide runs. Only when part of a "combined arms" attack, with dive bombers, torpedo planes, and fighters all arriving on a defended target at the same time, could the crew of a torpedo attacker have a prayer of seeing their bunks that evening.
There were three major torpedo planes flying off of aircraft carriers in the early years of World War II, one each from Japan, the United States, and Britain. That's not to say there weren't others in use; the Brits had an effective bomber in the Beaufort. Germany used the He-111, Italy a number of different multi-engine planes, and American PBY Catalinas were known to carry a pair of torps. However, for the sake of this post, I'll only be looking at the three carrier planes in use: the Fairey Swordfish, the Douglas TBD Devastator, and the Nakajima B5N.
more...
Posted by: Wonderduck at
11:57 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1776 words, total size 12 kb.
1
Reading about, and thinking about, the American torpedoes early in the war always makes me furious. I really think some people should have been hung for that.
Thousands of brave American men risked their lives in the Pacific, armed only with a torpedo which usually malfunctioned, because the bastards in Connecticut refused to believe there could be any problem with their design. The Mark 19 had three bugs each of which was sufficient to make the torpedo useless, and it took until late 1943 before all three were discovered, acknowledged, and fixed.
The sacrifice of all those TBD's at Midway is a terrible tragedy, but even if they had managed to get their torpedoes off (most didn't survive long enough) the odds of them doing any damage to the Japanese was very small. A torpedo malfunction was far more likely.
Sending men into combat is a great responsibility. Sending men into combat armed with blanks is, or should be, a capital crime.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 31, 2014 12:28 AM (+rSRq)
2
I can see how it could have happened, though. "Hey, we tested the fancy detonator system and it works, but just in case, we also included a good old-fashioned firing pin as backup." Multiple nested problems are hell to troubleshoot, especially if they're not replicable in the testing environment. The torpedoes -worked- when they tested them back home. You don't usually think in terms of "this piece of technology works in one geographical area but not another", even if that's obviously what was happening (and yeah, proper testing would have tested just the mechanical firing pin mechanism as well, and for that matter if they'd done enough of it they'd have spotted the running-deep issue too.)
But it's a great example of false economy when dealing with military equipment. Live-fire exercises are a must. They help you find defects in your equipment, they help you find holes in your doctrine, and they help you train so that your soldiers know what they're doing when it's time for combat - hopefully to the point that they don't have to think about what they're doing, they can just do the proper things by reflex.
One hopes that every student at the military academies not only hears about this, but has a textbook thumped on their noggin with a stern warning, "Do not ever do this to your men!"
Duck, thanks for the post. They're always full of stuff I find interesting but hadn't run across before.
Posted by: Avatar at December 31, 2014 06:50 AM (ZeBdf)
3
The US Navy's Bureau of Ordnance was, if not entirely responsible for its' failings (The idiotic requirements placed on the use of an old destroyer for torpedo testing by CNO Pratt, for example.), an excellent example of complacency run amuck, despite having barely avoided being abolished and amalgamated in the run-up to the war (Which actually did happen to the Bureau of Engineering.). It is a testimony to how faulty both services' Ordnance branch was that the US Navy probably had the better of the two - and once BuOrd actually started fixing the problems with the Mark 13 torpedo, it turned out to be a very capable weapon.
It must be noted that the TDB's success at Coral Sea and its' failure following that, was due to something that not even most of the pilots and air crews realized at the time - that it had been successfully covered by Wildcat fighters during their approach runs, whereas the SBDs' did not have fighter cover and were ceaselessly pestered by Japanese air cover. Sadly at Midway, only YORKTOWN's air group to seem to understand that - ENTERPRISE's air group drew exactly the wrong conclusion about the success of the TBD and SBD, and whatever Marc Mitscher's abilities as a pilot had been, he had an entirely negative impact with HORNET's air ops. Under the circumstances, even if the TBF had replaced every single TBD at Midway, there would have been little change to the outcome (Though the fact that the Avenger was capable of higher speeds would have improved the efficiency of fighter escorts in the future.).
The Swordfish did have one major advantage over its' counterparts - even more so than the Japanese, the Fleet Air Arm had trained for night torpedo attacks with their aircraft...But the British had Swordfish equipped with radar to help conduct the attacks. Somerville was still fortunate that he and the Eastern Fleet never encountered the Kido Butai during the latter's Indian Ocean rampage, but if he had managed to exploit his one major chance for success - a radar guided, night torpedo attack by his Swordfish squadrons, the Japanese would have been in a world of hurt.
Posted by: cxt217 at December 31, 2014 11:56 AM (zlDqA)
4
We found the Captains logs for my father's sub (SS-312 Burrfish) and almost all the gripes were about the torpedoes. I think they were Newport made rather than Ct.
Somewhere in my diving literature I have a pic of the USS Bass with a magnetic torpedo cruising harmlessly underneath the hull.
Posted by: topmaker at January 01, 2015 01:38 PM (2yZsg)
5
I'm a little late to this, but thanks again for your post. I did not know about the Battle of Taranto until I read this post, and I also didn't know how versatile the Swordfish was. It seems I underestimated it--or more accurately, I underestimated the skill (and the courage) of the men who flew it into battle.
Posted by: Peter the Not-so-Great at January 03, 2015 12:08 PM (gt7kt)
6
I've read several times that the Swordfish holds the record for shipping tonnage sunk by any aircraft type, largely because they were used a lot for strikes against merchant shipping in the North Sea and in - notably - the Med, based from Malta and interdicting supplies to North Africa.
Posted by: AlanL at January 06, 2015 03:56 PM (HDPq1)
7
I suspect that's more luck than anything. In the Pacific most merchant tonnage (on both sides) was sunk by submarines because the area was too large for aircraft to operate that way on a routine basis.
And the Battle of the Atlantic was the same way: too large for German planes to operate, and impossible for them to do so anyway, so it was all U-boats.
German planes (e.g. Stuka) couldn't really run up a score because the Med was the only place they really could have hunted, and British merchant shipping was going around Africa to Egypt, out of range of any German plane. By the time there was significant Allied merchant shipping in the Med, there was also far too much Allied air cover for German bombers to survive long enough to make any attacks.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 06, 2015 04:16 PM (+rSRq)
8
The only other place I can think of in the war where airplanes had a continuing opportunity to attack merchant shipping would be in the Solomons, with the Japanese running supply convoys down the Slot.
But the Japanese were certainly aware of the danger, and mostly ran those convoys at night when planes couldn't fly.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 06, 2015 04:21 PM (+rSRq)
9
AlanL, I don't believe that stat. Can you provide documentation?
Posted by: Wonderduck at January 06, 2015 04:38 PM (jGQR+)
10
Sadly not. It gets stated a lot, and I did google about a bit but didn't find any numbers to back it up. And the Beaufort/Torbeau were the main North Sea strike aircraft.
Posted by: AlanL at January 07, 2015 02:11 AM (7h/xI)
11
Nope, sorry. Googled further, but all I came up with was some -usually - knowledgeable folks on usenet saying they had the information from the Fleet Air Arm museum ca. 2002. It's not on the FAA museum website now.
Posted by: AlanL at January 07, 2015 04:48 AM (U6uIi)
12
I think you missed a aspect of the Swordfish. It could start even on small carriers in rough seas. This is why it served as a anti-sub for so long. Non of the more modern planes could do that.
Posted by: Nick Zbinden at June 26, 2015 06:09 AM (VIZ/s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 10, 2014
Mayfly
In 1911, the Royal Navy eagerly awaited the official delivery of His Majesty's Airship No.1, infuriatingly nicknamed "The Mayfly". She was to be the RN's first airship, the largest and fastest in the world.
In pre-delivery tests, the usual panoply of problems were discovered, none of which were unable to be solved. Except for one tiny difficulty that refused to go away, no matter how hard the crew at Vickers worked at it: she couldn't fly. Make no mistake, she could float (barely), but nothing more than a tiny amount, and that only in perfect conditions. She weighed in at 19.5 tons and had the lifting ability of 19.7 tons. Something had to be done.
There were two options. The first was obvious: add more lift. However, "obvious" doesn't mean "easy." For an airship, it means cutting the beast in half and adding a new section containing more gasbags. This is also a relatively expensive way of accomplishing the task. The second option is easier: lighten ship. Get extra weight out of the hull and you'll be able to fly without changing the amount of gas involved. Of course, this is what the folks at Vickers decided to do. They went in and replaced structural members with thinner, lighter pieces... including the main keel. The day came for a new flight test.
A gust of wind caught the Mayfly as she came out of the hangar, tilting her hard to starboard. While the groundcrew struggled to roll her back over, she snapped in half. As her crew abandoned ship, the two ends rose in a V-shape, ironically proving that cutting the internal weight down fixed her flight problems. Soon enough, however, the Mayfly settled into the waters at Barrow-in-Furness.
Fortunately, none of the crew was injured, and British airship development went into something of a dark period. It took five years for HMA.09 to take to the air, under the guiding hand of designer HB Pratt, who had predicted the failure of the Mayfly. Pratt's main assistant was a young man named Barnes Wallis, who wound up with a successful career designing unconventional bombs. He was the designer of the "Dambuster"
bouncing bomb, as well as the "
Tallboy" and "
Grand Slam" weapons.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
11:27 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 373 words, total size 3 kb.
1
All for the want of lighter & stronger structural materials!
Posted by: GreyDuck at December 11, 2014 08:27 AM (AQ0bN)
2
Paging USS LOS ANGELES (ZR-3)...
Posted by: cxt217 at December 11, 2014 02:20 PM (ztr46)
3
American airships were a lot more successful overall because America controlled the world's supply of helium. (And still does.)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 11, 2014 04:24 PM (+rSRq)
4
So it could lift 200kg worth of crew and passengers?
What were they expecting to achieve with that?
Posted by: Riktol at December 11, 2014 05:46 PM (zDlKl)
5
Riktol, nothing. They had expected a lot more lifting ability.
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 11, 2014 08:16 PM (jGQR+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 07, 2014
73 Years Later
The USS
Arizona looking glorious
in pre-war white, some years from her ultimate fate in Hawaii.
It was 73 years ago today when the United States was plunged into the maelstrom of World War II by the attack on Pearl Harbor.
It was 73 years ago today that
Arizona became more than just a ship to the American people, but a symbol to rally around.
Which doesn't mean it wasn't more than that to those who served upon her. To them, the
Arizona was home, their shipmates brothers.
Today, there is a memorial to the
Arizona in Pearl Harbor, but most moving is that the ship is still leaking... some melodramatically say bleeding, or weeping... oil into the waters entombing the ship.
Today is likely the last official meeting of the
USS Arizona Survivors Association. There are only nine names remaining on the Association's list, none of them younger than 93. Four survivors are in attendance today at Pearl Harbor's ceremonies.
Soon, the phrase "Remember Pearl Harbor" will be all we can do; those who were THERE will be gone. Time marches on.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
12:00 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 2 kb.
1
There's something about that first image that makes it seem like it's smaller than it really was. I don't know what, though.
The two observation decks on top of those poles is a strange configuration; I've never seen anything like it before. Are they the bridge and a backup bridge?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 07, 2014 07:51 PM (+rSRq)
2
Actually, no! The structures at the top of the masts are locations for fire control, gun directors, wireless and the like. Radar would be fitted up there as well in the
Pennsylvania.
The actual bridge is located just behind and above 'B' turret, roughly halfway up the foremast. It's basically invisible in the fourth picture, as the mast has fallen onto it.
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 07, 2014 08:21 PM (jGQR+)
3
I remember visiting Battleship Cove in Fall River, MA. The first thing I visited was USS Lionfish, a submarine, and it was cramped and tiny. It's amazing that it had a crew of 50.
Then I checked out USS Joseph P. Kennedy, a Korean War era destroyer (it was commissioned in 1946), and it was vastly larger and more spacious.
Finally I went on board USS Massachusetts, a WWII battleship. And that was amazing
It's astounding that something so large can even move let alone cook along at 30+ knots. I had no idea that battleships were so immense.
I've never had the chance to see any modern US warships up close (the closest I got was seeing an LHD in San Diego from a highway as I drove by) but I know that CVN's make the Massachusetts look tiny by comparison.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 07, 2014 10:28 PM (+rSRq)
4
Half again as long, three times as heavy, over twice as wide overall... yeah, that's quite the size difference. And yet, if a functional
Massachusetts could get within 20 miles of a
Nimitz, things would get very ugly very quickly.
Of course, the likelihood of that happening is somewhere between zero and none. If it
did happen, someone, probably multiple someones, were having a very bad day indeed.
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 07, 2014 10:53 PM (jGQR+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 17, 2014
The Buffaloes of Finland
It is an article of faith that the worst fighter plane of WWII was the Brewster F2A Buffalo. It's pretty difficult to contest this assertion: in the single true fight it was in, the Battle of Midway, it was essentially massacred by the Imperial Japanese Navy's A6M2 Zero, much the same way a high school team would be by the Chicago Bears. "
It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in a F2A-3 Brewster Buffalo should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground" reads one Marine after-action report. After Midway, the barrel-shaped plane was relegated to trainer status, then to mechanic training. Its passing was unmourned, its memory one of ridicule and scorn. The British and Dutch, who also received versions of the Buffalo, felt similarly.
It fell to the Finnish Air Force to give the Buffalo its taste of glory.
more...
Posted by: Wonderduck at
07:54 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 813 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Buffalo was definitely not a bad plane - the main problem appeared to be Brewster's inability to produce enough of them to where improvements, incremental and otherwise, could be incorporated into the design and turn an average fighter into a winner. It is not often realized that Grumman did a major redesign of the F4F Wildcat before it surpassed the Buffalo enough to be accepted by the US Navy.
Given the Buffalo's reputation, it is a tribute to the courage of the Allied pilots who flew them against the Japanese, despite being inferior in everything else.
Posted by: cxt217 at October 18, 2014 01:45 PM (DclKx)
2
It's not well known that part of why the Finns did so well in the Winter War was that the Swedes were totally reading Red Army codes, and providing decrypts to the Finns in a timely manner, meaning the Finns knew what the Soviets were doing at all times.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at October 18, 2014 02:50 PM (+rSRq)
3
CXT, the Buffalo F2A-2 and -3, the versions the Navy asked for, were indeed bad planes, hideously underpowered for the weight tacked on. It actually weighed
more than a F4F-3 Wildcat. If they had stayed with the F2A-1, sans armor and all that, it would have been a different story.
But they didn't, and thus a lousy fighter was whelped.
Posted by: Wonderduck at October 18, 2014 03:03 PM (BCjxQ)
4
If they had stayed with the F2A-1, sans armor and all that, it would have been a different story.
Maybe, but I doubt any pilot would have wanted to fly a F2A-1 against the Japanese, considering it lacked the features of the later versions of the Buffalo and what the F4F had....
...But given how much more sluggish pilots found the F4F-4 handled, compared to previous marks of the Wildcat...Oh well.
Posted by: cxt217 at October 18, 2014 03:34 PM (DclKx)
Posted by: Wonderduck at October 18, 2014 04:57 PM (BCjxQ)
6
Back in my Clueless days, I did that once. I wrote an article about Operation Fortitude, and later I realized that I'd written almost exactly the same article about a year previously. I felt suitably embarrassed.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at October 18, 2014 10:37 PM (+rSRq)
7
The P-39 also produced better results at the Eastern Front than in Pacific.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at October 18, 2014 11:00 PM (RqRa5)
8
Fortunately, the two posts aren't exactly repeats... one covers the bad side of the Buffalo, the other the good side... but it is, I think, the first plane I've ever given this much coverage to.
I mean, outside of those that have to show up repeatedly, like the SBD, just because of its relationship to the Battle of Midway.
No, I just posted the first one to give CXT more to chew on... and to take a nap.
Posted by: Wonderduck at October 18, 2014 11:02 PM (BCjxQ)
9
My father was in the Marine defense battalion at Midway. He remembered a Buffalo getting on a Zero's tail. The Zero just did a loop and shot it down.
Posted by: Eadwacer at October 19, 2014 09:53 AM (voYcf)
10
But...but...these aren't buffaloes. These are planes! I was looking for those big animals the Laplanders ride around on in the desert and till their rice paddys with.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at October 19, 2014 01:58 PM (DnAJl)
11
In all seriousness, thanks.
I had no idea that the Finns didn't get their Brewsters until
after the Winter War. That makes their kill ratio even more impressive.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at October 19, 2014 02:01 PM (DnAJl)
12
In the IL-2 Sturmovik flight sim, I played a Continuation War campaign as a Finnish pilot. After flying the Gloster Gladiator and being regularly outrun by Soviet bombers, the B239 was a revelation!
Posted by: flatdarkmars at October 19, 2014 04:17 PM (NGGzB)
13
Were Brewster's infamous troubles from in play at the Queens factory and/or during the Buffalo/B239 era?
Their Warminster, PA plant would get a reputation for a 360-degree mixture of corrupt management, labor unrest, and
inability to engineer good stuff, resulting in the Buccaneer debacle and
their apparently sub-par quality of the few license-built Corsairs they
managed to produce...
Posted by: Ad absurdum per aspera at October 21, 2014 06:07 PM (ydsh1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 17, 2014
The Decoy Game
It was 1945, and the good news was that the end of the Pacific War was near and everybody in the US knew it. The bad news, however, was that it seemed like the Japanese
didn't know it, and still thought they could come out of the situation with something like a victory. Places like Okinawa and Iwo Jima made it clear to US military planners that the inevitable invasion of Japan was going to be a horrible bloodbath, and that was just on the Allied side. The catastrophe it would bring down upon the Japanese military could not be described, and the civilian costs could not be imagined. It was expected that whatever fleet moved to invade the Home Islands was going to find itself swamped by thousands of kamikaze, and if one out of ten made it through the Big Blue Blanket, the Invasion force could die before it ever set foot on land.
So the planners decided: let's have a decoy fleet! It can mimic the radio broadcasts of an actual invasion force,
and the appearance, without all those pesky potential casualties. Once everybody stopped laughing, someone said, "no, really." With nothing better to do, it was decided to see if it could actually work.
Sub Chaser PC-449 was a one-off ship, being built as part of a design competition to replace the WWI-era PC-1 sub chaser class. She tipped the scales at about 85 tons, and could move her 110' length along at a whopping 17kts. Built in 1940, she went to sea with 27 souls. Her hull classification changed to SC-449 in 1943 and she carried a 3" gun to complement her depth charge launcher. She was a particularly small ship to go in harm's way aboard. She was also, if truth be told, surplus to requirements; it's not like there weren't literally hundreds of other ships in the US Navy that could do her job. So in 1945, she was selected to go into the shipyards as part of Operation Swiss Navy. Her part of the job? To become a Bogue-class CVE.
The shipyard (okay, probably just a few guys with hammers) stripped off everything above decks (guns, bridge, stacks, etc) and put a plywood "flight deck" overtop of everything. The overall size of the ship can been seen when you realize that there's a man crouching next to the "island" and he's the same height. So, yeah, it's nigh on 500 feet shorter than an actual CVE, who's it going to fool?
Operation Swiss Navy was eventually going to include battleships, cruisers, carriers, all of them based on sub chasers or other small craft. Of course, there's no way it'd look right next to a real CVE... much too small, obviously... but amongst others of her own kind? Imagine you're a frightened kamikaze pilot, prepared to die, on your last flight. You're trying to grow another set of eyes as you look for Hellcats and you suddenly see, far below you... PC-449. You'd think it was a full-sized carrier, wouldn't you?
The Invasion of Japan never happened, so Operation Swiss Navy never came to flower. After the war, PC-449 was sold to a the civilian sector, where she ended her life as a research vessel for Texas A&M. She was finally scrapped in the '70s... one of the last CVEs to go to the breakers... and certainly the smallest.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
08:20 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Huh.
I didn't know it was anything beyond a test.
Cool!
I'd like you to do an analysis of the application of Rule 34 to religious imagery and the potential for the associated blowback to influence the November elections.
....or
Something about Finnish Buffaloes.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at September 17, 2014 08:35 PM (DnAJl)
2
I'd like to point out that at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the Japanese found a force of CVEs, destroyers and destroyer escorts and thought they'd found fleet carriers and battleships. It's extremely easy to make a mistake on ship sizes in the heat of combat.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 17, 2014 08:48 PM (+rSRq)
3
By the way, I love "Operation Swiss Navy"!
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 17, 2014 08:48 PM (+rSRq)
4
At least the US Navy did not repeat what Churchill ordered during Big Mistake Number One, turning a number of full size merchant ships into decoy ships of the Grand Fleet.
During the landings in Southern France, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. commanded a group of small craft that had been assigned the job of pretending to be part of the Allied landing force and diverting German attention and forces away from the actual landing beaches.
And in the Battle of Samar, part of the reason why the CVEs of Taffy 3 survived was because the Japanese had gunnery and fire control errors because they never corrected their belief of that the carriers of Task Force 38 what they were shooting at.
Posted by: cxt217 at September 17, 2014 09:22 PM (bTkAA)
5
Fooled me. Sure, the picture looks a little off, but 500 feet...
Posted by: Ben at September 18, 2014 12:11 AM (DRaH+)
6
I was wondering how the crew would feel about being a target. But I guess there are several things going for them: it's a small target so not easy to hit. And they'd be very maneuverable, so they'd be able to dodge. Having a kamikaze hit the water 50 feet away would be scary as hell, but it wouldn't be harmful.
But it would still be nerve wracking. Picket destroyers in the Okinawa campaign got far more than their share of kamikaze attacks, to the point where one of them put up a big sign that said, "Battleships this way (arrow)".
At Philippine Sea, Spruance put his battleships in front of his carriers, under the dual assumption that Japanese planes wouldn't be able to resist battleships as targets, and the battleships were better able to defend themselves and to survive being hit. But that must have been nerve wracking, too.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 18, 2014 11:58 AM (+rSRq)
7
I am not sure about kamikaze hitting 50 feet off being so benign. They did carry quite a bit of explosives. I never been to war myself, but a friend from Estonia once mentioned that his unit in Afghanistan once requested fire support against a Taliban cell that was forcing them on the ground with machine gun fire. Usually a mortar were sent, but unexpectedly an F-15E came and dropped a 1,000 pound bomb. He said the explosion was the biggest in his life and his own unit almost browned their pants. The distance was about 200 meters or at least 10 times the distance of supposed kamikaze miss.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at September 18, 2014 12:19 PM (RqRa5)
8
That's on solid ground, though. A kamikaze hitting the water might not even set off his bomb, and even if he did water won't reflect the blast the way solid ground would.
Maybe 50 feet is too close, but 100 feet would just be a scary experience, not one that spoils your day.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 18, 2014 12:23 PM (+rSRq)
9
It was supposedly "Carriers this way."
The deployment of Task Force 58 at Philippine Sea was very unusual for the Americans. However, since one of the carrier task groups were sitting on the front with the Battle Line, and the Japanese had no lack of aircraft attacking the carriers, one wonders about the usefulness of the tactic (Standard practice for the Japanese, but only used by the USN for this battle - the fast battleships were usually better off staying with the carriers.).
Note that Japanese instructions to kamikaze pilots were to avoid destroyers and concentrate on carriers, capital ships, and transports. Unfortunately for the Japanese, so many of the pilots were extremely green that the temptation to dive on the nearest ship they came across was irresistible - which would have made the decoy carrier idea work out very well. It made also made life on the radar picket stations hell on earth, but save a lot of hurt for the carriers and transports.
I am pretty sure that if a bomb hit the water at about 180 knots because the kamikaze carrying it is taking a swan dive, it will go off (At that speed, water becomes hard enough to detonate naval shells with working impact fuses - I see no reason why working bomb fuses set to detonate upon impact would not act the same.).
Posted by: cxt217 at September 18, 2014 03:43 PM (bTkAA)
10
CXT217, think about where the bomb is carried. The entire nose of the plane
has to penetrate the water, and produce a splash, before the bomb feels any
pressure.
There were kamikaze near-misses, and I think in most cases their bombs didn't
go off. (I've seen film, and they just splashed. Check
out this film at 0:30.)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 18, 2014 04:47 PM (+rSRq)
11
Yes, I know there were multiple kamikazes that crashed into the sea without their bombs going off - it is commonly mentioned in US Navy reports from that time. There is also a very simple explanation for that - standard procedure for most kamikazes was for the pilot to arm the bomb just before they made their attack dive (There was a switch in the cockpit for that.). Given the low level of training and lack of experience among most kamikaze pilots, failure to arm the bomb would go hand in hand with the tendency to ignore procedure and go for the nearest destroyer.
And yes, there were cases where the kamikaze was sent into the water and the bomb did explode. Often the result was no damage to the targeted ship, but not always.
Posted by: cxt217 at September 18, 2014 06:28 PM (bTkAA)
12
Could be worse. Just look at histories of the Falklands War - lots of cases where bombs -hit- and failed to go off.
It's quite likely the decoys would have been moderately successful. One of Japan's biggest wartime issues was their poor pilot training program - they simply didn't have the infrastructure in place to replace losses with trained pilots, which is one reason the US's success against the Japanese in the air went way up (of course the other reason is that the US got some good fighters in the air and lots of 'em.) It's very likely that most kamikazes would have been piloted by relatively untrained pilots.
On top of that, Japanese pilots routinely screwed up ID of American vessels, even when they'd been trained properly, and had a habit of reporting big ships when encountering small ones. After the battle of Formosa, the Japanese aviators reported no less than 11 sunk American carriers (actual damage, four cruisers and one carrier, none sunk.) So it's not beyond belief that a Japanese scout could say "hey, I see four flat tops, they must be carriers!" and a major attack would be mounted.
Posted by: Avatar at September 19, 2014 12:43 PM (ZeBdf)
13
I heard a guy (back at Bigweek NNTP forum, IIRC), who parachuted into water for some reason -- a wind, most likely. He was getting ready to release his harness in order not to get entangled and was watching a buoy nearby. Just as he was ready to unbuckle and brace for impact he realized that the blessed buoy was actually a 55 gallon drum and that he's still good 200 feet in the air. That would be a good dive to take.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at September 19, 2014 01:15 PM (RqRa5)
14
That story is around. When I was in college I dated a woman who was a sky diver, and I heard it then. Only the version I heard was that he thought it was a floating beer can, and it was actually a 55 gallon drum.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 19, 2014 03:36 PM (+rSRq)
15
I've heard Steven's beer-can-vs-oil-drum version, including some broken bones due to the impact. (A quick googling didn't find the story, though... I don't know if that's a point in favor of it's veracity, or against it.)
Posted by: Mikeski at September 19, 2014 04:19 PM (9eNG/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 16, 2014
Name This Mystery Ship XXX: Adults Only!
There are milestone moments in the life of... well, anything! A child walking for the first time, a car reaching 100,000 miles, a baseball player getting his first hit in the majors, one's first rubber duck, one's second rubber duck, one's third rubber duck... you get the idea. I can't help but feel that with this, the 30th "Mystery Ship" entry, The Pond has reached some sort of milestone in and of itself. But enough of this woolgathering! Here, for your enjoyment, is the Mystery Ship:
As always, no image searches or googlereversi or anything like that. It's
supposed to be difficult, y'see. However, I am of the opinion that the prize is worth the candle: one free post on any topic you care to name (no pr0n, religion or politics, please)! One guess per person. Post no bills. Burma Shave.
As always, FDM and CTX are unable to play for 24 hours or my say-so, whichever comes first. Everybody else, have at it!
Posted by: Wonderduck at
08:21 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Pushing the limits of my knowledge way off the end of the diving board:
HMS Activity. The only UK escort carrier I can think of.
Posted by: Ben at September 16, 2014 10:47 PM (DRaH+)
2
Steven, forgive me, but if I wanted hints given out, I'd be doing it myself.
Posted by: Wonderduck at September 17, 2014 12:48 PM (BCjxQ)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 17, 2014 01:22 PM (+rSRq)
4
I'm usually pretty good at aircraft recognition, but I can't make out the planes on deck. Steven, could you share why they believe the vessel is British, without giving out more ship hints?
Posted by: Siergen at September 17, 2014 05:21 PM (r3+4f)
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at September 17, 2014 05:39 PM (DnAJl)
6
Siergen, I didn't say anything like that. Anyway, I've already been spanked once in this thread, so I'm not going to say anything else.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 17, 2014 07:25 PM (+rSRq)
7
I'm going to give it to Brickmuppet.
Posted by: Wonderduck at September 17, 2014 07:27 PM (BCjxQ)
8
D'oh! Sorry Steven - I read Wonderduck's message about "hints" and mentally-linked you to the previous post. I guess I need new glasses after all...
Posted by: Siergen at September 18, 2014 04:34 PM (r3+4f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 08, 2014
"Girls" of the Kancolle Video
I probably should have done this last night, but I was too busy taking cold showers to do so. There are three Ship Girls shown
in the video for Kantai Collection (or "Kancolle"), and I pretty much had
no idea who they were. I mean, I know about the game, but I've never played and know nothing about how or when you acquire the shipgirls. Which isn't to say that I couldn't figure out some stuff on my own, or with a bit of research!
Obviously the first we see is an aircraft carrier, and I'll admit that on her, I cheated: I already knew the answer. She's the
Akagi, the first full-sized carrier the IJN put to sea.
Ms Akagi is also one of the more popular shipgirls in the game, I gather, and has a figma coming out in September. But what of the second girl, the battleship? Well, I made a startling leap of faith considering we're talking about a game where the ships are young women, but I said to myself that they'd try and be historical about this. First, they'd have a ship that was fast enough to actually keep up with the carrier. Second, I assumed they'd have the correct amount of turrets.
That led, inexorably, to the only class of battleship the IJN had that fulfilled both criteria: the
Kongo-class "fast battleships." Originally built as battlecruisers, refitted with more and better armor to upgrade their status before WWII, I guessed we were looking at the first-in-class (like Ms Akagi). As it turns out, I was right: Ms Kongo it was. Which brings us to the third shipgirl. I had absolutely nothing to go on whatsoever except for one quick shot.
The fishhook maneuver for the girl on the right told me she was a destroyer. She's clearly getting out of the way of the two big'uns, maybe after firing her torpedoes the way the IJN calls for. Either way, great, she's a destroyer. The IJN had thirty-quadzillion destroyer classes. I had no idea which one she was... except that I did. See, I knew that the "star" of the show was going to be Fubuki... which, curiously enough, was the name of the first-in-class of the first what we'd call "modern destroyer" design.
So there we have it.
Akagi,
Kongo and
Fubuki. I've since read somewhere that these are some of the first shipgirls you can collect in Kancolle, so that makes sense too. I guess I'm surprised they didn't have one of the splendid Japanese cruiser designs in the video, but I'm not complaining by any means! January can't get here soon enough.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
01:05 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.
1
So, if someone wrote slash about them, that would be 'shipping?
Posted by: Mauser at August 08, 2014 03:34 AM (TJ7ih)
Posted by: GreyDuck at August 08, 2014 07:18 AM (CUkqs)
3
Something struck me immediately about Fubuki: where are all the torpedo launchers? After looking at various pictures, apparently there's only one and it's housed in a low turret-like dome right in front of aft mast. Something was up with the IJN doctrine.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at August 08, 2014 09:15 AM (RqRa5)
4
There are three: one between the stacks, and two between the aft stack and "X"-turret. See pg 144 of
Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869-1945, by Jentschura et al.
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 08, 2014 07:23 PM (bAT/z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 03, 2014
Now THIS Is A Helluva Picture
That is one of the
Mutsu's main turrets after salvaging post-war. The ship was in harbor in 1943 when it apparently killed itself, suffering a massive internal explosion that cut it in half. Only some 350 men out of a complement of nearly 1500 survived. The two aft turrets were salvaged in 1970-71.
What an amazing picture.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
09:03 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Indeed it is!
I hadn't properly appreciated just how much armor was on a battleship turret until I saw the Mo. You just... I mean, you don't encounter that kind of thickness of steel in civilian applications. Even really large girders aren't that much solid steel, usually. (And there were a couple of other positions which had almost as much armor, notably the helm...)
Posted by: Avatar at July 04, 2014 04:54 AM (ZeBdf)
2
When I first saw this post, I thought it was another "name that ship" contest...
Posted by: Siergen at July 04, 2014 02:55 PM (8/vFI)
3
Dunno if it's true, but I recall reading once that the 17" armor of the Iowa could laugh off a modern Exocet missile.
Posted by: Mauser at July 04, 2014 02:55 PM (TJ7ih)
4
It might, but that's only on the barbettes. The turret faces have 19". I suspect that an Exocet (or any other modern ASM) would have a shot at getting through the armor belt. A pop-up attack profile would be even nastier, with a 7" armored deck.
Having said that, it's a 55000ton battleship... its very size is probably the best armor against a weapon with a 360lb warhead.
Posted by: Wonderduck at July 04, 2014 03:10 PM (mOdOJ)
5
It all depends on where it hits, and what kinds of damage it causes. One of the earliest attacks on Yamato was by dive bombers, and one theory is that one of those bombs (500 lb.) started fires which eventually reached one of the magazines and set off an explosion which blew the ship in half.
That said, I don't think the Exocet is a pop-up-dive-down missile. I think it just sails in horizontally and strikes the target.
Another example: I assume you've all seen the gun camera footage from when a couple of P-47's belonging to the Tuskegee Airmen strafed a German (reflagged from Italian) destroyer in the northern Adriatic and eventually blew it up? I am pretty sure what happened is that one of the .50 rounds hit the warhead on a torpedo and set it off, and then all the other torpedoes on the rack. The resulting explosion was easily enough to blow the ship apart.
I don't think Missouri carried anything like that on its deck, and of course it was a lot bigger than that destroyer, but there was a lot of ordnance on that ship, and leveraging that kind of thing has a long and glorious history. (See e.g. HMS Hood.)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at July 04, 2014 04:32 PM (+rSRq)
6
The late David Brown noted that a kamikaze strike was a useful indicator of the effect of modern ASMs. Any place protected by the armor belt will generally be fine. Any place that is not protected by the armor belt will be in trouble. Since modern ASMs are not specifically designed to attack heavily armored targets, the comparison seems apt.
If a guided missile was designed specifically to attack heavily armored targets, like the Fritz X, then bad times would await the target, regardless of how heavily armored she was (Re: Warspite, Roma, et al.)
(And there were a couple of other positions which had almost as much armor, notably the helm...)
Unless you were on a new or rebuilt British battleship.
Posted by: cxt217 at July 04, 2014 06:19 PM (PE4d7)
7
Was that turret thrown there by the explosion or removed in one piece during the salvage operation? The reason I ask is that the armor, barbette and main rifles are so heavy that they are typically cut up during scrapping and removed peacemeal.
Of course they might do it different in Japan.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at July 04, 2014 07:24 PM (DnAJl)
8
I was able to find
photos of the turret being salvaged.
Posted by: David at July 04, 2014 09:18 PM (da+4f)
9
David, nice work! Thank you!
Posted by: Wonderduck at July 04, 2014 09:26 PM (mOdOJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 06, 2014
D-Day 70
"Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!
"You are about to embark on The Great Crusade... ...the eyes of the world are upon you.
"Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped and battle hardened.
"The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!
"I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!
"Good luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."
-Dwight D Eisenhower.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
08:44 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Darn it Duck, that last post caused some dust to form in my computer room... (sniffle)
"Where do we find such men?"
Posted by: JT at June 07, 2014 05:37 AM (mJYRD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 05, 2014
The First Of Many
The year is 1979 or 1980. The place is Duckford. Wonderduck has been friends with Vaucaunson's Duck for roughly a year, and there'd been a lot of
Fight In The Skies played in that time, with more still to come. The game is fun, challenging and exciting, but Wonderduck wants to know more about the planes of World War I... because doesn't everybody? The library at QS Trotter Elementary School has practically nothing on the topic, of course. Which means that purchasing is the only recourse, and herein lies a problem. Problem #1: Wonderduck is 10 years old, and has no income of any sort. Problem #2: Momzerduck and I are... not to put too fine a point on it... poor. Duckford is in the midst of a deep Recession, either a hangover from the nationwide '75 one or the beginnings of the crushing early '80s failure (note: Duckford was a factory town... emphasis on was. They went away in this time). Money was very tight indeed... often it came down to "heat, light, food: choose two."
Which just goes to show how great a mom Momzerduck was... she made it work, somehow. Yes, times were tight, but she never complained where I could hear her and things always came out okay in the end. Looking back at it, it must have been hell for her, and here comes lil' Wonderduck, wondering if he could get something frivolous like a book on World War I airplanes.
I don't
know that that's how it went down. It was 35 or so years ago, after all, but if it wasn't exactly like that, it must have been pretty close. But sometime not long afterwards, a trip to Royal Hobby occurred that ended up with me leaving with a book on airplanes from the beginnings of flight through 1918. And did I read the
hell out of that book. It wasn't a children's book, oh no. It had a good basic history of flight at the origins, the names and figures involved, and then it got into facts and figures of planes famous and failed... the entry on the
Phillips Multiplane set my brain a-racin', trying to figure out how anybody would think that'd work. Of course, things like aerodynamics weren't as well known then as they are now, but I was just a kid. So I kept reading, over and over, until I practically had that book memorized.
And then I grew up. The games of
FITS stopped. High school happened, and it sucked. Then college, getting kicked out of grad school, and the real world came a-callin'. Somewhere along the way, the book disappeared, probably into the trash one way or another. Other interests came and went, or came and stayed, and I simply... forgot.
The end. No happy ending here, folks. It doesn't work that way in real life, I'm afraid. It's gone.
more...
Posted by: Wonderduck at
10:49 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 699 words, total size 5 kb.
1
That reminded me of a similar sort of book that I remember fondly from my childhood. I looked it up...
Complete Book of World War II Combat Aircraft and it turns out its by the same authors as your book! Amazon has it listed as published in 2000, but that must be a later printing, because I definitely had it well before then. I remember the huge, beautifully detailed 3-view illustrations of each aircraft... which were later re-used in the manual for the 1992 flight simulator
Aces of the Pacific. Ah, for the days when computer games came with thick, color printed manuals... that takes me back.
Posted by: flatdarkmars at June 06, 2014 06:40 AM (0h1CL)
2
The future is, every now and then, truly wonderful.
I actually still have the Astronomy Made Simple book my folks bought me when I was still a kid in NYC (so, late 70s, I was about 5). I should probably look through that to see if there's anything useful before I try to pick up KSP again...
Posted by: GreyDuck at June 06, 2014 07:24 AM (CUkqs)
3
I've been trying to find my first book on combat aircraft. I suspect it was a takeoff on
Jane's, but when I had the book as a youngster I didn't know what
Jane's was. It was one of those tiny pocket books, hardcover, that was more a
miniature history of combat aircraft through the sixties than a
spotter's guide. I cannot remember what the name of the book was; only
that it was bright orange with a couple of airplanes on the cover.
Son of a gun, I just found it.
Posted by: Ben at June 06, 2014 12:44 PM (S4UJw)
4
Ben, buy it! Buy it now! You'll be surprised how good it feels.
GD, just keep the noisy part pointed down, and the pointy part up and you'll be fine. If you get the two reversed, well, you will not be going to space today.
FDM, a wonderful game! I sucked at it, but a wonderful game!
Posted by: Wonderduck at June 06, 2014 06:51 PM (T367D)
5
Am I the only one here who put his time in on Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe? (and before that, Battle of Britain...)
Still unpacking books after my latest move. I think I've still got that Max Hastings history of the Falklands War around here somewhere.
Posted by: Avatar at June 06, 2014 08:48 PM (zJsIy)
6
A buddy of mine has a couple of books about Japanese experimental aircraft from WWII. (
Link) I thought he had one on German planes, but I guess it isn't ready yet.
Posted by: Mauser at June 07, 2014 03:34 AM (TJ7ih)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 04, 2014
Midway Day 2014
Just don't have enough time to do this justice, but here's an interesting photo of filmmaker John Ford, taken with some Marines at Midway.
Of course, Ford made the classic documentary
The Battle of Midway, as well as the less well-known
Torpedo Squadron 8.
Both are watchable here.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
09:38 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
1
but here's an interesting photo of filmmaker John Ford, taken with some Marines at Midway.
When he was not busy amusing the garrison with tales of the debutantes he had known over the years.
Posted by: cxt217 at June 04, 2014 10:53 PM (Gn0JW)
2
It's early in the war. They are still wearing the WWI style helmet and carrying 1903 Springfields instead of M1 Garands. And two of 'em are smoking pipes. I haven't seen a guy smoke a pipe in a long time. Wonder where John Ford went to get white shoes in 1942.
Posted by: David Starr at July 03, 2014 08:27 AM (5pQ7B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 03, 2014
Name This Mystery Ship XXIX: Yes, Really.
While I'm working on the
Ben-To! writeup, here's a little brainteaser for ya. Heh. I got no hints for ya...
There ya go. Yep, I'm a bastitch... granted.
CXT, FDM, y'know the rules: you don't get to play for a while. Everybody else, have at it. Remember, no imagesearch... you're a poopiehead if you use an image searching app or anything like that.
UPDATE: Okay, CTX, FDM... you're let off the leash.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
04:42 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 03, 2014 07:16 PM (+rSRq)
2
It isn't, but I completely understand the logic behind the guess.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 03, 2014 10:44 PM (/caKu)
Posted by: Brickmuppet at May 04, 2014 01:59 AM (DnAJl)
4
Also an appropriate guess. Also not the USS
New Orleans.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 04, 2014 05:39 AM (/caKu)
5
Looks like it should be named HMS Dunsinane. Or maybe USS Druid Hills.
Ent Cruise Lines. The slowest way to travel!
Posted by: suburbanbanshee@gmail.com at May 04, 2014 09:07 AM (mpHLh)
6
The Knights who say "Ni!" apparently survived into the 20th century, and have extracted quite a toll in shrubbery over the centuries....
Posted by: Mauser at May 04, 2014 11:33 AM (TJ7ih)
7
I guess they didn't disguise Canopus with greenery. They disguised it with smudge pots and the like.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 04, 2014 02:57 PM (+rSRq)
8
They also disguised it with sinking.
Sort of.
I would guess the pic above is some kind of light cruiser used for coastal defense, and that's as far as I can go.
Not very far, I know.
Posted by: Ben at May 04, 2014 06:06 PM (Oftf2)
9
HNLMS Abraham Crijnssen. In the early months of the Pacific war, she escaped from Soerabaja to Australia by posing as the above pictured island and moving only at night.
Posted by: flatdarkmars at May 04, 2014 09:39 PM (0h1CL)
10
HRMS Abraham Crijnssen; in the Dutch East Indies, 1942. Last ship to escape the Japanese from Java.
Posted by: Go Daigo at May 04, 2014 09:47 PM (HQwbC)
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 04, 2014 11:06 PM (/caKu)
Posted by: Suburbanbanshee at May 05, 2014 02:28 PM (nh8FR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 22, 2014
Mystery Ship XXVII
I dunno, we'll see about this one. Name this Mystery Ship!
It may be really easy, it may be confusing! As always, FDM and CTX are in the Masters category, so they can't play yet... but everybody else, take your best shot! Remember, imagesearch is an abomination unto the eyes of men and ducks.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
07:34 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Argentine? Holanda?
Just guess's because of the land showing
Posted by: jon spencer at April 23, 2014 08:12 AM (jfISJ)
2
I think that's the Solomons. (I cheated.)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at April 23, 2014 04:06 PM (+rSRq)
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at April 23, 2014 06:30 PM (DnAJl)
4
Finally! I was getting worried.
Posted by: Wonderduck at April 23, 2014 07:31 PM (6nC06)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at April 23, 2014 08:17 PM (+rSRq)
6
Well, the fact that the White Ensign is actually visible in the photo is a bit of a giveaway, when combined with the other details.
Posted by: cxt217 at April 23, 2014 08:42 PM (8T/QO)
7
CXT, you've got sharp eyes. I was working with a MUCH larger version of the pic, and I never noticed.
And as a general FYI, Steven's USS
Robin would have worked as an answer, too.
Posted by: Wonderduck at April 24, 2014 12:38 AM (6nC06)
8
At least on the screens available to me, the flag blends into the clouds perfectly. Now that cxt mentions it, I can see a resemblance, but even so it looks like a windsock or antenna.
Posted by: Pete at April 24, 2014 11:57 PM (RqRa5)
9
On the large pic I've got over here, it's pretty obviously the White Ensign... but you have to actually NOTICE it, and it's hard to do that against the background.
Posted by: Wonderduck at April 25, 2014 06:33 AM (wxtqH)
10
The cross on the White Ensign is what gave it away. The dark shape in the corner, combined with the cross, being flown from a warship, really narrowed everything down.
Posted by: cxt217 at April 25, 2014 12:30 PM (8T/QO)
11
I have an 8-bit ADC in this laptop's panel, so it all merges in. In theory TrueColor visual is also 8-bit and it should be enough, but in practice, well, not so much. Also, sometimes I can see a whole lot of grays by looking at the image at odd angles, like opening laptop almost flat. I just forgot about doing that trick here.
Posted by: Pete at April 25, 2014 04:01 PM (RqRa5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 22, 2013
Yamato vs Iowa: The Best Laid Plans
Last night, I sat down to create a post detailing the outcome of a fight between an
Yamato-class battleship of the Imperial Japanese Navy and an
Iowa-class battleship from the US Navy. Hardly new ground, this, but it would have been a first for The Pond. Except there was a teeny tiny little problem.
After doing research, racking my brain, and a lot of staring at the ceiling, I simply could not come up with a way that the
Yamato had a legitimate chance to win, short of stupidly restrictive rules. Limiting the area of combat to 20 miles or whatever, for example. Without doing that, there just doesn't seem to be a way that the
Iowa could lose, save for luck.
The Japanese ship's main (only?) advantage is her 18.1" guns' longer range. The Type 94 had a range of 26 miles, while the American 16"/50 Mk 7 could throw a shell (essentially) 24 miles. Penetration ability for the two was found to be roughly the same. But at all ranges, the US gun was more accurate.
So unless the
Yamato could put an unlikely round on target in that two mile stretch where the
Iowa couldn't respond, almost everything pointed toward the technically smaller ship's advantage. She was faster by at least six knots, her armor layout was better, the fire control was much better, even the secondary battery would better. Other than sheer size and an amazing amount of built-in buoyancy (a
Yamato-class ship was designed to have every compartment outside of her armored box area ["A" turret to "X" turret"] flooded and still float), the Japanese ship had one other thing going her way: the only impenetrable armor ever put to sea.
The armor on the front of the three main gun turrets on the
Yamato was 26" thick, sloped at 45°. In US Navy testing after the war, this armor could be penetrated only when an
Iowa's gun was placed at 0° inclination to the armor plate, and at a range of zero yards... in other words, a completely unrealistic situation in battle. In any likely combat situation, there was no way to punch through the armor on the front of a
Yamato's main turret.
So, one advantage, I suppose, but not one to hang a battle on. The only way the chances of victory for the Japanese begins to become realistic is if they can close the range, so to counteract the huge fire control advantage the American ship has. If that happened, then you're looking at a coinflip, maybe even a Japanese advantage as their superior weight of broadside plummets down. But with their six knot speed advantage, the Americans can decide the range and keep it there.
So, good idea for a post, but it kinda doesn't work. It happens. A better battle might be
Yamato vs
South Dakota, since a SoDak is, for all intents and purposes, a slower
Iowa. Maybe in the future.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
10:17 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 4 kb.
1
One of Dunnigan's books (I think it was "Dirty Little Secrets of WWII") has exactly this analysis, considering a hypothetical battle between four Iowas and four Yamatos. He comes to the same conclusion: the Yamatos get creamed.
Even at range the Iowas have the advantage, because they can fire twice as fast, and because they had radar targeting. The Yamato's armor belt turns out to be less impressive than it should be, because it was made with inferior steel and mounted badly. The Iowa's armor belt wasn't as thick but it was better made.
The biggest differences were speed (Iowa was 4 knots faster according to Dunnigan), gunnery (Iowa could fire twice as fast) and targeting (the Iowa had radar) and though there's always luck in battle, the Iowas had a significant edge.
It almost happened! Iowa and Yamato were both involved in the Leyte Gulf operation, and except for Halsey chasing a decoy, they might have met!
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 22, 2013 12:37 PM (+rSRq)
2
Did the Yamato ever fire its main guns in combat?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 22, 2013 12:40 PM (+rSRq)
3
For that matter, did Musashi ever fire its main guns in combat?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at December 22, 2013 01:09 PM (+rSRq)
4
Yes, but not the way you mean. During Leyte Gulf, she fired
sanshikidan (incendiary shotgun rounds for AAA use, in effect) rounds
from her main armament; this resulted in an explosion of the middle gun of "A" turret.
She never did fire her guns in anger at a surface target.
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 22, 2013 01:15 PM (Izt1u)
5
Sorry, I didn't see the
Yamato part of the question.
The
Yamato certainly did fire her main guns in combat! She was part of Kurita's Center Force during the Battle Off Samar, the group that stumbled into Taffy-3.
Yamato put 18" holes into the
Gambier Bay and put at least one and possibly more 18" rounds into the
Hoel.
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 22, 2013 01:23 PM (Izt1u)
6
The ironic thing was the armor mounted on the IOWA-class was not all that good according to the standards of the day. Class 'A' and 'B' armor plate used by the US Navy were inferior to some of their foreign counterparts (Though contrary to what some people believe, not the Japanese.), which the US Navy apparently did not realize until just before WW2, by which time it was too late. The need for production during the war precluded the introduction of much better armor. It still does not justify the rubbishing of the IOWAs by certain folks at Avalanche Press and the late David Brown, to mention a few.
Not that the Japanese were any better. The standard armor used for the Yamato-class was a slightly improved version of the Vickers armor the Japanese obtained during WWI. The Japanese made it easier to make the armor from domestic resources (Something which some nations - most notably Germany, fail to do so.), but the level of protection was only marginally improved. They DID develop significantly better armor, but none of it saw production or service.
Posted by: cxt217 at December 22, 2013 04:39 PM (l1UEN)
7
I seem to recall hearing that either way, the armor of an Iowa-class battleship would shrug off a modern anti-ship missile like a spitball.
Posted by: Mauser at December 22, 2013 06:37 PM (TJ7ih)
8
An
Iowa would probably shrug off an anti-ship missile if it hit the side armor. Problem is, ASMs also had a "pop-up" attack pattern, in that it'd come in low, then zoom climb just before hitting the target. It would then dive into the target from above... and the
Iowa's deck armor is substantially thinner than its side.
Would they sink her? No, probably not, but trashing her topsides is just as effective. "Mission kill" as opposed to "kill kill." Repairing an
Iowa these days would a nightmare, come to think of it...
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 22, 2013 07:23 PM (Izt1u)
9
It's a lost technology, like building a Saturn V.
Posted by: Mauser at December 22, 2013 08:30 PM (TJ7ih)
10
A kamikaze actually models the effect and impact of a modern ASM quite well. The armor belt would shrug off the impact of the attack, but the mission critical parts of the ship that could not be protected by armor could not do the same.
Posted by: cxt217 at December 22, 2013 10:54 PM (l1UEN)
11
With regard to the South Dakota, I long ago read a study that concluded that "Battleship X" would have a very good chance of taking either of the 'Peace Goddesses' if she could maintain the range. It turns out that the shorter 16 inch guns she shipped had much better deck penetration than the 50 caliber rifles on the Iowa, despite firing the same shells. The question would be whether her captain would stay at a range where her plunging fire would be effective or (not knowing anything about Yamato's deck armor) try to close the range...in which case the odds would grow long indeed.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at December 23, 2013 11:04 AM (DnAJl)
12
I have to see that study myself and while the standard AP round for the SoDaks were 2200 lb sluggers, the IOWAs' standard AP round was the heavyweight 2700 lb. Both classes could and did fire the differently sized AP rounds from what they were designed for, but they used different standard AP rounds.
C.T.
Posted by: cxt217 at December 23, 2013 02:59 PM (N3TvP)
13
One of Dunnigan's books (I think it was "Dirty Little Secrets of WWII") has exactly this analysis...
As it turns out, it's "Victory at Sea" by Dunnigan and Nofi. I started re-reading it last night and stumbled across the article.
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 23, 2013 08:57 PM (Izt1u)
14
War is boring had an analysis
here.
Posted by: muon at December 25, 2013 04:28 AM (jFJid)
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 25, 2013 06:57 AM (Izt1u)
16
This is why the Yamato really needed that wave motion gun. (And that redemptive rebuild and motive for fighting, and the much better fighters, and the wave motion warp drive, and....)
Posted by: Suburbanbanshee at December 26, 2013 10:22 PM (cvXSV)
17
I'd say it would depend on who got in the first vital hit or series of hits. If Iowa could blind Yamato by taking out her main fire control director early on (like what happened to Bismarck in her final battle) or score a lucky rudder hit, then she would be meat on the table for the Iowa and her superior speed, maneuverbility, and fire control. But the Yamato could very easily score crippling hits on Iowa's engines or boilers via short rounds that penetrate under the waterline and thus negate her speed/maneuver advantage. Nothing's sure in a combat situation. I sometimes wonder how the Battle of the Denmark Strait would've turned out had Bismarck not scored that freak hit on Hood that blew her magazines.
Posted by: diamond dave at January 06, 2014 02:30 PM (MK+sE)
18
Dave, when Dunnigan did his analysis, he stipulated that he was considering an action between 4 Yamatos and 4 Iowas, precisely to reduce the luck factor. One ship might get crippled by a lucky hit, but it isn't going to happen four times. The battle would be decided by the fighting characteristics of the ships, which is what he was looking at in his analysis.
And he concluded that the Iowa's would win.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at January 06, 2014 06:37 PM (+rSRq)
19
But the Yamato could very easily score crippling hits on Iowa's engines or boilers via short rounds that penetrate under the waterline and thus negate her speed/maneuver advantage.
Given that there is only one confirmed case in the Pacific War where a Type 91 diving round actually worked as the Japanese intended it to, this would truly be a Golden BB shot (All the more so given the tight patterns the Japanese used for their shots.). We have not even gotten to how fast the IOWA could run on three screws or down one boiler room - unlike many British designs, knocking out one boiler or engine room was highly unlikely to take out another engine room or boiler.
Such hits would decide the battle essentially at once, but you can not really count on them occurring when you need them.
Ob: Brickmuppet's point - I looked up the stats and you are correct that the 16"/45 mounted by the SoDaks had better deck penetration than the 16"/50 mounted by the IOWAs while firing the same 2700 lb AP round. But the performance was generally small, and the 16"/50 were rated at longer ranges than the 16"/45.
Posted by: cxt217 at January 07, 2014 08:59 PM (sEA0S)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 07, 2013
Mystery Ship XXVI: Not Much Of A Mystery
No prize for this one, not today (it's not much of a mystery, after all)... but here's the Mystery Ship for y'all!
Brickmuppet, this one's for you. Why am I showing this Coastie as a mystery ship? What's so important?
Remember folks, no cheating!
Posted by: Wonderduck at
07:41 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
1
WD, I think you should do a mystery-ship feature on
/r/warshipporn.
Oh, and given the date I suspect this is that cutter which participated in That Fateful Battle©.
Posted by: dziban303 at December 07, 2013 07:52 PM (wwAQ5)
2
dz, I've used most of my past mystery ships over there already, but if you want me to make it a weekly special, I can!
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 07, 2013 07:54 PM (Izt1u)
3
USCGC Taney was one of the 327 foot high endurance cutters which were built in the 1930s. They were also known as the "Treasury" or "Secretary class" because they were named for Secretaries of the Treasury (the Coast Guard was part of the Treasury Dept until the late 1960s). These cutters were strengthened and otherwise modivied versions of the USN's Erie class gunboats, which were themselves built to cruiser standards of hull strength. The design was modified to take a Grumman "Duck" seaplane and was ice strengthened. The ships were also fitted for ASW as the Coast Guard was expected to assist with convoy escort in the event of a war.
For the US, the war did not begin until the first Sunday in December 1941. On that day the USCGC Taney, was present across from 'Battleship Row'. Like many other US vessels that day, Taney fought back aganst the surprise attack, and being fitted with salvage and rescue equipment assisted other ships that had been stricken and personnel in the water. Taney is unique in one respect though, after a long war in three oceans and four subsequent decades of service saving lives and fighting in twomore wars, the Coast Guard Cutter Taney is today the only vessel still afloat that was present during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.
She can bee seen today as a museum ship at Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at December 07, 2013 08:12 PM (DnAJl)
4
...and that's why she's posted here today. While the USS
Hoga (YT-146), which was also at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th, is still around, she's 1) a non-combatant and b) actually "drydocked" while undergoing a total refurbishment for museum duty.
The
Taney is the final combatant from Pearl still afloat.
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 07, 2013 08:21 PM (Izt1u)
5
I was always a bit more partial to USCGC Ingham of all the Treasury cutters, in no small part due to her participation in HX229/SC122, but all the Treasury-class had long, full, and active careers.
Posted by: cxt217 at December 07, 2013 10:31 PM (jaUpB)
6
That is an impressive story, and I'm very grateful for being enlightened. Most cool.
Posted by: Mauser at December 08, 2013 03:21 AM (TJ7ih)
7
CXT, you're missing the point. I have no particular preference or love for the
Taney, except that it was December 7th and she was involved with the Pearl Harbor attack.
Posted by: Wonderduck at December 08, 2013 09:38 AM (Izt1u)
8
My apologies. I did understand why you posted a photo of the
Taney - the date of the post was a dead give-away - my comment about the
Ingham was a personal observation.
Posted by: cxt217 at December 08, 2013 11:06 AM (rbGpK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 30, 2013
149kb generated in CPU 0.0605, elapsed 0.421 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.3848 seconds, 350 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.