DOCSLIB.ORG

2 DESCRIPTION of PROPOSED ACTION and ALTERNATIVES ______2-1 2.1 Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2 DESCRIPTION of PROPOSED ACTION and ALTERNATIVES ______2-1 2.1 Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ______________________________ 2-1 2.1 Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area ................................2-1 2.1.1 Northeast Range Complexes .................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1.2 Sea and Undersea Space ........................................................................ 2-5 2.1.2 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range ...................... 2-5 2.1.2.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.2.2 Sea and Undersea Space ........................................................................ 2-5 2.1.3 Virginia Capes Range Complex ............................................................................... 2-6 2.1.3.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-6 2.1.3.2 Sea and Undersea Space ........................................................................ 2-6 2.1.4 Navy Cherry Point Range Complex ........................................................................ 2-6 2.1.4.1 Airspace ................................................................................................. 2-6 2.1.4.2 Sea and Undersea Space ........................................................................ 2-6 2.1.5 Jacksonville Range Complex................................................................................. 2-13 2.1.5.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-13 2.1.5.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-13 2.1.6 Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range ........................................................ 2-13 2.1.6.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-13 2.1.6.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-13 2.1.7 Key West Range Complex .................................................................................... 2-14 2.1.7.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-14 2.1.7.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-14 2.1.8 Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range .................. 2-14 2.1.8.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-14 2.1.8.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-14 2.1.9 Gulf of Mexico Range Complex ............................................................................ 2-14 2.1.9.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-14 2.1.9.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-15 2.1.10 Inshore locations .................................................................................................. 2-15 i Table of Contents Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018 2.1.10.1 Pierside Locations ................................................................................ 2-15 2.1.10.2 Bays, Harbors, and Inshore Waterways ............................................... 2-15 2.1.10.3 Civilian Ports ........................................................................................ 2-16 2.2 Primary Mission Areas ............................................................................................. 2-16 2.2.1 Air Warfare ........................................................................................................... 2-16 2.2.2 Amphibious Warfare ............................................................................................ 2-19 2.2.3 Anti-Submarine Warfare ...................................................................................... 2-19 2.2.4 Electronic Warfare ............................................................................................... 2-19 2.2.5 Expeditionary Warfare ......................................................................................... 2-20 2.2.6 Mine Warfare ....................................................................................................... 2-20 2.2.7 Surface Warfare ................................................................................................... 2-21 2.3 Proposed Activities .................................................................................................. 2-21 2.3.1 Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................ 2-21 2.3.2 Proposed Testing Activities .................................................................................. 2-27 2.3.2.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities ................................... 2-27 2.3.2.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities.................................. 2-30 2.3.2.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities ......................................... 2-33 2.3.3 Standard Operating Procedures .......................................................................... 2-33 2.3.3.1 Sea Space and Airspace Deconfliction ................................................. 2-34 2.3.3.2 Vessel Safety ........................................................................................ 2-34 2.3.3.3 Aircraft Safety ...................................................................................... 2-35 2.3.3.4 High-Energy Laser Safety ..................................................................... 2-35 2.3.3.5 Weapons Firing Safety ......................................................................... 2-36 2.3.3.6 Target Deployment and Retrieval Safety ............................................. 2-36 2.3.3.7 Swimmer Defense Activity Safety ........................................................ 2-37 2.3.3.8 Pierside Testing Safety ......................................................................... 2-37 2.3.3.9 Underwater Detonation Safety ........................................................... 2-37 2.3.3.10 Sonic Booms ......................................................................................... 2-38 2.3.3.11 Unmanned Aerial System, Surface Vehicle, and Underwater Vehicle Safety ................................................................................................... 2-38 2.3.3.12 Towed In-Water Device Safety ............................................................ 2-38 2.3.3.13 Ship Shock Trial Safety ......................................................................... 2-38 2.3.3.14 Pile Driving Safety ................................................................................ 2-41 2.3.3.15 Sinking Exercise Safety ......................................................................... 2-41 2.3.3.16 Coastal Zone ........................................................................................ 2-41 2.3.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 2-44 2.4 Action Alternative Development .............................................................................. 2-47 2.4.1 Training ................................................................................................................ 2-48 ii Table of Contents Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS September 2018 2.4.2 Testing .................................................................................................................. 2-49 2.4.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration .......................................... 2-49 2.4.3.1 Alternative Training and Testing Locations ......................................... 2-49 2.4.3.2 Simulated Training and Testing Only ................................................... 2-50 2.4.3.3 Training and Testing Without the Use of Active Sonar ....................... 2-52 2.4.3.4 Alternatives Including Geographic Mitigation Measures Within the Study Area ........................................................................................... 2-52 2.5 Alternatives Carried Forward ................................................................................... 2-52 2.5.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 2-53 2.5.2 Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................... 2-54 2.5.2.1 Training ................................................................................................ 2-54 2.5.2.2 Testing .................................................................................................. 2-55 2.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 2-55 2.5.3 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Priori Planning of ASW Operations: Providing a Robust Mission Advice
    PUBLIC RELEASE A Priori Planning of ASW Operations: Providing a Robust Mission Advice E.R. van Veldhoven, H.J. Fitski The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO THE NETHERLANDS [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT New underwater sensors, such as the Low-Frequency Active-Passive Sonar (LFAPS) and the Helicopter Long-Range Sonar (HELRAS), have larger detection ranges than existing sonar systems. Effective and efficient deployment of these sensors in Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) operations requires decision support. TNO has performed research on both ‘a priori’ and ‘in situ’ planning of such operations, where ‘a priori’ is about planning at the tactical level, both long (months) and shortly (weeks, days) before a mission, and ‘in situ’ is about sensor performance and sensor settings during a mission. A priori planning is used for planning specific missions. This means that the area of operations and the expected threat are roughly known. Still, several uncertainties remain, such as the actual environmental conditions (which hugely affect the detection ranges) and enemy behaviour. These uncertainties may influence the operational effectiveness, e.g. the timely detection of enemy submarines. Hence, they must be taken into account when providing decision support for planning the ASW operation. The resulting algorithms of the a priori research have been incorporated in a demonstrator called APPAD (A Priori Planning Aid Demonstrator). Much attention was paid to the robustness of the advice on the best way to deploy the participating platforms. A robust tactic should perform reasonably well even if the uncertain parameters (such as the detection ranges) change during the actual mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Submarines and Underwater Warfare William Murray
    Naval War College Review Volume 67 Article 17 Number 3 Summer 2014 Silent Killers: Submarines and Underwater Warfare William Murray Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Murray, William (2014) "Silent Killers: Submarines and Underwater Warfare," Naval War College Review: Vol. 67 : No. 3 , Article 17. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol67/iss3/17 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 156 n AVAL WAR COMurray:LLEGE REV SilentIEW Killers: Submarines and Underwater Warfare These attitudes were encouraged by include the use of a devil’s advocate, the both the misuse of analogies and the institution of formal decision-making personality and style of Bush� The final processes, and expansion of the circle of discussion, on U�s� energy policy, seeks advisers consulted prior to a decision� to determine why the United States, At the end of the day, National Security despite the oil embargo of the early through a Cockeyed Lens is worth a read� 1970s and a continually acknowledged By not overselling his argument, Yetiv need for a long-term, consistently makes a stronger case for consider- applied energy policy, has been un- ing the presence and possible impact able to put such a policy
    [Show full text]
  • Download Print Version (PDF)
    Key West: Home of ARSOF Underwater Operations by Kenneth Finlayson OSS Seal Dive Badge Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF) became the standard employs a variety of methods to insert troops in their apparatus for underwa- area of operations. Infiltration by air, land, and sea are ter swimmers in the MU.2 SCUBA: Self-Contained Under- all viable options evaluated by ARSOF units during mis- Lambertsen transferred water Breathing Apparatus is sion planning.1 The proponency for waterborne opera- to the OSS in 1943 from the term commonly applied to tions training, either surface or sub-surface, has been the Army Medical Corps. underwater diving equipment assigned to Special Forces since 1952. This article will After training newly other than those of the “hard- trace the origins of Army underwater operations from recruited MU swimmers hat” variety. Where necessary, World War II to the establishment of the Special Forces on his apparatus on Cata- the different types of systems Underwater Warfare Operations (SFUWO) school at Key lina Island, California, will be explained. West, Florida. Special Forces underwater operations have and in Nassau, Grand undergone a number of Bahamas, Lambertsen course changes and facil- was sent to Ceylon (Sri ities upgrades since the Lanka) on 7 January 1945. school was established at He joined the MU at the Key West in 1965. base at Galle, Ceylon, The origins of ARSOF where the MU had been maritime operations can headquartered since be traced to the Office of arriving in the theater in Strategic Services (OSS) June 1944.3 during World War II. The Maritime Unit The OSS had a Maritime was in the China-Bur- Operations Branch and ma-India Theater (CBI) Maritime Unit (MU) because Brigadier Gen- that became operational eral William O.
    [Show full text]
  • Defeating the U-Boat Inventing Antisubmarine Warfare NEWPORT PAPERS
    NAVAL WAR COLLEGE NEWPORT PAPERS 36 NAVAL WAR COLLEGE WAR NAVAL Defeating the U-boat Inventing Antisubmarine Warfare NEWPORT PAPERS NEWPORT S NA N E V ES AV T AT A A A L L T T W W S S A A D D R R E E C C T T I I O O L N L N L L U U E E E E G G H H E E T T I I VIRIBU VOIRRIABU OR A S CT S CT MARI VI MARI VI 36 Jan S. Breemer Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen U.S. GOVERNMENT Cover OFFICIAL EDITION NOTICE This perspective aerial view of Newport, Rhode Island, drawn and published by Galt & Hoy of New York, circa 1878, is found in the American Memory Online Map Collections: 1500–2003, of the Library of Congress Geography and Map Division, Washington, D.C. The map may be viewed at http://hdl.loc.gov/ loc.gmd/g3774n.pm008790. Use of ISBN Prefix This is the Official U.S. Government edition of this publication and is herein identified to certify its authenticity. ISBN 978-1-884733-77-2 is for this U.S. Government Printing Office Official Edition only. The Superintendent of Documents of the U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office requests that any reprinted edi- tion clearly be labeled as a copy of the authentic work with a new ISBN. Legal Status and Use of Seals and Logos The logo of the U.S. Naval War College (NWC), Newport, Rhode Island, authenticates Defeating the U- boat: Inventing Antisubmarine Warfare, by Jan S.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonar: Empire, Media, and the Politics of Underwater Sound
    Sonar: Empire, Media, and the Politics of Underwater Sound John Shiga Ryerson University ABSTRACT This article traces the development of acoustic navigation media, or “sonar,” in the first half of the twentieth century, focusing on the relationships forged between underwater sound, electric media, and new techniques of listening. The central argument is that sonar shaped, and was shaped by, the expansion of warfare and capital underwater, and that this expansion came to be conceptualized by nautical organizations as dependent upon the con - trol of underwater sound. Through analysis of key episodes in the conquest of subsea space, the author explores scientific, military, and commercial efforts to sense underwater objects and demonstrates how these efforts helped reconceptualize oceanic water as a component of undersea acoustic media and led to the material reorganization of the ocean’s acoustic field. KEYWORDS Sonar; Military communication; Materiality; Subjectivity RÉSUMÉ Cet article retrace le développement de médias acoustiques de navigation ou « sonars » dans la première moitié du vingtième siècle en mettant l’accent sur les rapports créés entre les sons sous-marins, les médias électriques et les nouvelles techniques d’écoute. L’argument central de l’article est qu’il y a eu une influence réciproque entre le sonar et l’expansion sous-marine de la guerre et du capital, et que les organisations nautiques ont commencé à concevoir cette expansion comme nécessitant le contrôle des sons sous-marins. Au moyen d’une analyse d’épisodes clés dans la conquête de l’espace sous-marin, l’auteur explore les efforts scientifiques, militaires et commerciaux pour repérer les objets sous l’eau et démontre comment ces efforts ont aidé à réaliser une nouvelle conception de l’eau océanique comme composante des médias acoustiques sous-marins, menant à une réorganisation matérielle du champ acoustique de l’océan.
    [Show full text]
  • Possible Late Pleistocene Uplift, Chesapeake Bay Entrance
    W&M ScholarWorks VIMS Articles Virginia Institute of Marine Science 2-1965 Possible late Pleistocene uplift, Chesapeake Bay entrance W. Harrison RJ Malloy GA Rusnak J Terasmae Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles Part of the Geology Commons VOLUME 73 NUMBER 2 THE JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY March 1965 POSSIBLE LATE PLEISTOCENE UPLIFT CHESAPEAKE BAY ENTRANCE1 W. HARRISON,2 R. J. MALLOY,3 GENE A. RUSNAK,4 AND J. TERASMAE5 ABSTRACT Paleontological and lithological studies of engineering borings and boring logs indicate that a buried, subaerial erosion surface of Pliocene (?)-Pleistocene age cuts across clastic sediments of pre-Yorktownian Miocene age in the subsurface and subbottom of the lower Chesapeake Bay area. When the bore-hole data are coupled with the results of subbottom echo profiling and piledriving records, it is possible to construct accurate cross sections of the buried Miocene-Pleistocene contact. The cross sections show "lows" in the erosion surface that may be correlated with the buried channels of the Pleistocene Elizabeth, James, York, and Susquehanna river valleys. Probable channel depths below mean low water at control points are: 100 feet (Elizabeth River, beneath Tunnel no. 1), 155 feet (James River, at Hampton Roads Tunnel), 120 feet (York River, at Yorktown), 158 feet (Susquehanna River, off Cape Charles City), and 160 feet (Susquehanna River, at Fisherman Island, Cape Charles). The channel depths of what is believed to be the buried Susquehanna River valley are less than expected when placed on a curve showing the expectable gradients of that stream during the time of the most-recent, maximum lowering of sea level (ca.
    [Show full text]
  • VIRGINIA the Birthplace of a Nation
    VIRGINIA The Birthplace of a Nation Created for free use in the public domain American Philatelic Society ©2010 • www.stamps.org Financial support for the development of these album pages provided by Mystic Stamp Company America’s Leading Stamp Dealer and proud of its support of the American Philatelic Society www.MysticStamp.com, 800-433-7811 Virginia Discovered The history of Virginia begins long before the Englishmen set foot in the New World. The land had been inhabited by Native Americans for several thousand years. The Algonquian, Iroquoian, Siouan all resided along the Central Atlantic coast. After the discovery of the New World, England, the Dutch Republic, France, Portugal, and Spain all attempted to establish New World colonies. A Spanish exploration party had come to the lower Chesapeake Bay region of Virginia about 1560 and met the Native Americans living on the Virginia Peninsula. The first English settlers arrived at Jamestown in 1607. Jamestown Exposition Issue Jamestown Exposition Issue Founding of Jamestown, 1607 Captain John Smith 1907 • Scott 329 1580–1631 1907 • Scott 328 Jamestown was founded in 1607 by a group of 104 English “gentlemen” who were sent by King James I to John Smith is remembered as the leader of the first English search for gold and a water route to the Orient. Disease, settlement in Virginia. Having endured the four month famine, and attacks from the Algonquians, took a toll on journey (from December 1606 to April 1607) to the New the initial population. However, with the determination World, the colonists only survived because of Smith’s “He of John Smith and the trading with Powhatan (chief of who does not work, will not eat” policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of the Marine Invertebrates of Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1965 Check list of the marine invertebrates of Virginia Marvin L. Wass Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Marine Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Wass, M. L. (1965) Check list of the marine invertebrates of Virginia. Special scientific eporr t (Virginia Institute of Marine Science); no. 24, 3rd revision. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5Q30X This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIRGINlA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE GLOUCESTER POINT, VIRGINIA CHECK LIST OF THE MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF VIRGINIA SPECIAL SCIEN'l�FIC REPORT NO. 24 (Third Revision) August 1965 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE GLOUCESTER POINT, VIRGINIA CHECK LIST OF THE MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF VIRGINIA Compiled by Iviarvin L. Wass SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT NO. 24 (Third Revision) w. J. Hargis, Jr. August 1965 Director CONTENTS Page Porifera. • • • • • • . • • . • . • • • • • • • • 3 Coelenterata. • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • . • 4 Ctenophora. • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • 7 Platyhelminthes • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . 8 Rhynchocoela. • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 11 Entoprocta. • • • • • • • • •
    [Show full text]
  • 3.11 Socioeconomics
    Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.11 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................... 3.11-1 3.11.1 Introduction and Methods ................................................................................ 3.11-1 3.11.2 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3.11-2 3.11.2.1 Sources of Energy Production and Distribution ............................... 3.11-2 3.11.2.2 Mineral Extraction ............................................................................ 3.11-7 3.11.2.3 Commercial Transportation and Shipping ...................................... 3.11-10 3.11.2.4 Commercial and Recreational Fishing ............................................ 3.11-22 3.11.2.5 Aquaculture .................................................................................... 3.11-32 3.11.2.6 Tourism ........................................................................................... 3.11-33 3.11.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3.11-35 3.11.3.1 Impacts on Accessibility .................................................................. 3.11-36 3.11.3.2 Impacts from Airborne Acoustics ................................................... 3.11-46 3.11.3.3 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors
    [Show full text]
  • The Eastern Shore of Virginia, 1603-1964
    For Reference Do Hot Take From the Library The laaB Eastern Shore l^UmUlllliUI IHitllUU^tSR Virginia 1603 - 1964 »« m • For Reference Not to be taken from this room V^€' T), v/ VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY CENTRAL LIBIJAR'Y 4100 VIRGiHlA BEACH BLVD. VIIJGINIA BtACH, VA= 23452 NOTE The following explanations are offered relative to inlonnation contained in this printing of The Eastern Shore of Virginia 1603-1964. Page Line 1 3 Reference is made to modern reckoning of longitude. 28 20 The wife of William Gotten was a sis- ter-in-law of William Stone. 43 3 The date should be July 28, 1643. 43 10 The date should be March 1643 N. S. 110 25 The General Assembly of 1732 provided for local sponsorship for licensing at- torneys rather than providing for the direct licensing of attorneys. 197 16 It was George R. Mapp who became the third superintendent and not John R. Mapp. 272 40 William T. Fitchett was Circuit Court Judge from March 1882 to March 1884 between two terms of Benjamin T. Gun- ter. 274 38 The reference to the Clerk of Court should be Robert H. Oldham rather than Robert H. Oldham, Jr. 274 49 In the list of Superintendent of Schools for Northampton County, the name should be D. W. Peterson rather than W. D. Peters, 280 1 John Andrews Upshur was graduated from the United States Naval Academy in the class of 1921. 280 44 Henry Alexander Wise was the son of Edward S. Wise rather than Edgar S. Wise as stated.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Mammal Assessment
    APPENDIX - R MARINE MAMMAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion Project Hampton Roads Connector Partners 240 Corporate Blvd. 4 th floor Norfolk, VA 23502 Hampton-Norfolk, Virginia August 30, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS R. Marine Mammal Impact Assessment ........................................................................................... 1 R.1 Location and Description of Project Area ................................................................................. 1 R.2 Marine Mammals in the Project Area ....................................................................................... 5 R.3 Species Status and Distribution ............................................................................................... 9 Species not Expected to be Incidentally Taken. .............................................................. 10 R.3.1.1 Fin Whale ................................................................................................................ 10 R.3.1.2 Common Minke Whale ............................................................................................ 11 R.3.1.1 North Atlantic Right Whale ....................................................................................... 11 Species with the Potential to be Incidentally Taken ........................................................ 13 R.3.2.1 Humpback Whale .................................................................................................... 13 R.3.2.2 Common Bottlenose Dolphin ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Tidewater Confronts the Storm : Antisubmarine Warfare Off the Capes
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Master's Theses Student Research 1994 The idewT ater confronts the storm : antisubmarine warfare off the ac pes of Virginia during the first six months of 1942 Brett Leo olH land Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Holland, Brett Leo, "The ideT water confronts the storm : antisubmarine warfare off the capes of Virginia during the first six months of 1942" (1994). Master's Theses. 1178. http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses/1178 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT Thesis Title: The Tidewater Confronts the Storm: Antisubmarine Warf are off the Capes of Virginia during the First Six Months of 1942 Author: Brett Leo Holland Degree: Master of Arts in History School: University of Richmond Year Degree Awarded: May, 1994 Thesis Director: Dr. David Evans At the outbreak of the Second World War, Germany launched a devastating submarine campaign against the merchant marine traffic along the eastern seaboard of America. The antisubmarine defenses mounted by the United States were insufficient in the first months of 1942. This thesis examines how the United States Navy, in cooperation with the Army and the Coast Guard, began antisubmarine operations to protect the Chesapeake Bay and the surrounding area from the menace of Germany's U-boats during the first year of America's participation in World War II.
    [Show full text]