Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:14 AM PST by Imal
Despite the traditional ribbing that takes place between skimmers and bubbleheads, I will confess that more than once I wished I had the good sense to limit my adventures to ships that don't deliberately sink.
At least you guys have a fighting chance if you take a hit. For submarines, it's usually one hit/one kill.
And if your ship sinks, you can always jump off and grab a raft. For submariners, out in the deep blue ocean where it's all too easy to sink below crush depth, the only thing a Stenke hood is good for is protecting your face as you bend over and kiss your sweet arse goodbye.
On the bright, side, the food was great and when we were at depth we didn't have to worry about bobbing around like a cork in the storms. I loved the quiet, smooth ride and the way the boat banked when we turned, like a big underwater airplane.
And getting to wear those loose-fitting poopie suits and our own private tennyrunners was fairly cool, too (multicolored Converse high-tops were quite the fashion in those days). And the A/C was always cranked, which was nice, although the air stank of amine -- one of the most persistent and God-awful smells on Earth, how I miss it so.
Man was I glad I was an FT that day! More than once the subs that played games with us blasted us before we ever knew they were there. We did have ASROC's though, those baby's will ruin a subs day.
I am very glad for the experiance, 19 countries on 5 continants. I'm way to into family stuff to ever do that again.
My son will be 10 in March, maybe ...
When will you fr*&$%ng squids ever understand that the only, repeat, ONLY reason God gave you breath is to haul The United States Marines into battle? Semper Fi to you, Gramps.
Bedford Forrest
Served from 79-88: VS-28 deployed aboard USS Independence CV-62, and NAMTDG 1039 NAS Cecil Field. Indy is decommissioned, VS-28 disestablished, and Cecil Field closed. Makes me feel old sometimes.
Those were good times with great people, some of the best folks I've ever known. Having nearly my entire enlistment fall during the Reagan years was just icing on the cake. A dang good time to be a Bluejacket.
I know what you mean, although I often didn't appreciate that fact at the time. At least, not as much as I do now.
Some guys had me convinced they were genuine bastards, but since then I've come to realize that was just a way to cope with tough duty. Now I tend to remember those "bastards" (and the off-the-wall stunts they tended to pull) with the most fondness. Ah, the salve of senility...
Having nearly my entire enlistment fall during the Reagan years was just icing on the cake. A dang good time to be a Bluejacket.
Testify, brother! I didn't know how good I had it until I started hanging around the goat locker. The old senior chiefs had some pretty grim stories to tell about the "good old days" during 'Nam.
Once we kicked out the dopers and started getting our collective act together, life was pretty damn good.
And having a president with some 'nads and his head screwed on straight did wonders for morale. I don't know for sure, but I get the feeling that there has been a revival of that spirit since oh, about January 20, 2001.
And they also agreed that submarines have a natural advantage. After all, skimmers will always make noise due to wave slap, wake and inherent surface cavitation, so there's no hiding (ergo, the moniker "target"). Thus you may occasionally know where a submarine is, but the submarine will almost always know where you are, and that is a tremendous natural advantage, indeed.
The truth is, and we both know it, if a U.S Navy submarine gets orders to take out any ship in the sea, it can and it will. Plain and simple. And nobody builds better submarines than we do, although Russia has done some great things (and some terrible things, too).
As for this:
My son will be 10 in March, maybe ...
I sincerely pray it's not as ominous as it sounds!
It was because of politics and economics in general, and Bill Clinton and his cabinet in particular. Even before the infamous "Bottom-Up Review" of 1993, Clinton and his new Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, announced and began to implement major cuts in defense spending. While some cuts were warranted, most of the cuts effected under the Clinton/Aspin regime were driven far more by porkbarrel politics, bribery and cronyism than force strength assessments. And our military suffered accordingly.
Remember the "peace dividend"? That was a euphemism for castrating our intelligence and military capabilities, leaving us blind and weak (compared to the Reagan years). Certainly, our laxity toward national security during the 1990's has cost us dearly (not to mention the flat-out treasonous acts of Clinton and his henchmen), and we have a lot of catching up to do.
From Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers, GAO/NSIAD-98-1 -- August 1998. Note that the "Bottom-Up Review" started after March 27, when Clinton an Aspin announced massive defense spending cuts:
In fiscal year 1993, the Navy decided to decommission the newest class of nuclear-powered surface combatants instead of refueling them. These ships are being inactivated after an average of 17 years of service and with nearly half of their planned service life remaining. The decision was based on two factors--the need to reduce force structure in order to recapitalize the force and the ships' need for expensive nuclear refueling overhauls. Faced with declining budgets and large fiscal requirements, the Navy determined that the midlife modernization and upgrading through a refueling complex overhaul were not cost-effective.
They were mothballed because they were considered too expensive to maintain and operate. God help us if they get this tight with submarines!
Consider:
A. From the Congressional Hearings of 1946, Part 36, page 126, there is that “famous” COMSUM14 of 30Nov41 - "The only tactical circuit [sic: radio circuit] heard today was one with AKAGI and several marus." [As this appears in the 'official' documentation it must be Holy Writ.]
B. From the Bantam paperback edition of Farago's "The Broken Seal" from 1968, in its Postscript (pages 379-402), particularly on page 379, is a letter from one H. W. Dickow, beginning:
" 'The Japanese ships,' his letter continued, 'did not observe total wireless silence. It was not necessary that they do so, because it is a simple matter for a ship to use its wireless apparatus without the fear of detection, as we have done in our own Navy on many occasions. ...' "
And just who is Mr. Dickow? Seems a radio expert of some note; in fact his references include Col. Robert Schukraft (of MAGIC fame), and Commodore Jennings Dow.
[N.B., While this Bantam paperback can be easily gotten, the copy at the FDR Library (Hyde Park, NY) has several pages from the Postscript missing – noted also by Wilford in his award-winning “Pearl Harbor Redefined.”]
And just what did Mr. Dickow mean by - " … as we have done in our own Navy on many occasions. ..." Very curious indeed?
Perhaps, in fact, it is the well-known intra-fleet communications procedures and equipment used by the navies of the world at the time for the receipt of messages on one frequency (say HF – used for long-range) along with their simultaneous (or “repeat-back) re-broadcast on another frequency (say LF - used for short-range). [Was not that one of HIEI’s assigned roles as Flagship BatDiv3 as shown in SRN 117089?]
[For those interested, please also see the famous tome, "History of Communications - Electronics in the United States Navy," Linswood S. Howeth (Captain, USN retired), Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, 1963.]
[Is there anything special about 375 kHz in the LF band related to Mr. Dickow's letter/interview?]
C. From Mr. Lanzendoerfer's H-DIPLO (H-Net Discussion Logs) posting of October 15, 2000, next to the last paragraph:
" ... when the Japanese well knew that they could be tracked by their transmissions, and when ...
it is a documented fact that during the voyage, when it was required to make a single, short, short-range radio message to the straggling tanker force ..." [Does this sound like AKAGI?]
Notwithstanding the myriad upon myriad upon myriad of Japanese Naval officers (e.g., diary, affidavit,… etc.) who said radio silence was absolute; although no such order to that effect (viz., ABSOLUTE RADIO SILENCE) has ever been found, and while other orders for short-wave (HF) and long-wave (LF) communications are made explicit in numerous places – e.g. SRN 117089, SRN 117687, SRN 115387, SRN 115435, …);
So,
1. How does one square absolute "radio silence" with items A through C above? Are the Congressional Hearings in error?
2. How was it determined to be AKAGI in item (A) above?
From Layton, page 317, beginning the last paragraph, " 'How do you know it's AKAGI?' I asked. Joe (sic: Rochefort) explained, 'It's the same ham-fisted radio operator who ...' "
Was another method used to identify AKAGI - viz., were not all the "known" radio operators left in home waters as part of a Japanese radio deception plan?
And what does "radio fingerprinting" mean as highlighted by Holmes ["Double-Edged Secrets: US Naval Intelligence Operations in the Pacific During WWII," Wilfred J. Holmes, US Naval Institute Press, 1979.]?
3. Given AKAGI was transmitting via radio [Holy Writ from item (A) above – that ‘official’ document] ... were RDF-bearings taken?
Once again, from Layton, same page in fact (page 317), at the top – but, please note two (2) errors:
(1) there is no such bearing as 363 degrees, and
(2) the so-called RDF "bilateral" ambiguity did not exist in 1941. (See Howeth again, especially Appendix M, for the US Navy capabilites in this area, the early work done at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in the 1920's). [Marconi Radio was granted the original patent on it circa 1905-1907 – used are a "null" antenna AND a "sense" antenna ... Also a search on HF/DF might gleen some more information …]
[N.B., Also note in Layton those comments on Prange’s methods and his connection to DugOut Doug.]
4. Given (A) above is a communications summary delivered on 30Nov41 ... where are the source documents (obviously in-hand earlier than 30Nov41)used to develop said summary? Curious – FOIA requests are denied here today – sixty plus years after the fact.
5. Why have none of the Mid-Pacific RDF reports (especially those in the LF range from station VICTOR) for the period leading up to Pearl Harbor been released?
There are many more of these discrepancies - to maintain a stance of (a/the)" ... record straight." can be a puzzle.
Or is it?
jamaksin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.