DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction Introduction Welcome to Far Flung Seas, the supplement for Mongoose Publishing’s Age of Dreadnoughts WW1 naval miniatures rules. The main bulk of the supplement comprises additional fleet lists, rounding out the major protagonists of the Great War. In the Mediterranean, new lists cover the Italian, Austrian and French fleets. Further afield, the US Navy list in Age of Dreadnoughts is greatly expanded to cover the rest of the US Fleet, in addition to those vessels that fought with the Royal Navy in the North Sea. From the vast reaches of the Pacific, the Japanese Navy joins the fray, taking part in the pursuit of von Spee’s squadron, raiding German territories around Tsingtao and Rabaul, and (for those of a hypothetical persuasion) challenging the US Navy for dominion in the Pacific in the aftermath of the Great War. Finally, a few old friends have their fleet lists expanded slightly, with a few ships that did not make it into Age of Dreadnoughts. As well as new fleet lists you will find an additional campaign map to cover the Adriatic, as well as a new operational campaign system and an example campaign spanning the Mediterranean at the outbreak of the Great War. Age of Dreadnoughts expands into small ship actions with a new chapter of rules covering coastal forces such as the Royal Navy’s Coastal Motor Boats, the Italian VAS and MAS boats, and other small craft. Finally (and just to show that no-one is perfect) is a small errata that corrects any mistakes identified so far in the originalAge of Dreadnoughts rulebook. As with previous Victory At Sea projects this has been a collaborative effort, with David Manley taking the helm and working on the new rules and the Austrian, US and Italian fleets, with Rich Bax and Raymond Becker Jr. looking after the French Navy and George Cowie the Japanese. All have helped in proofreading and playtesting. Finally, thanks must go to the regular (and irregular) contributors to the Victory At Sea forum at www.mongoosepublishing.com for their input, suggestions and general ‘get off your backside and finish the supplement’ comments! Introduction Sample file 2 The Austro-Hungarian Navy The Austro-Hungarian Navy suffered from restrictions both in its area of operation and its funding. The fleet was effectively hemmed in the Adriatic Sea by Italy and Greece, and funding to provide an adequate fleet was always limited. Indeed, it was only in 1914, just prior to the outbreak of war, that significant funding was released to expand the fleet. But by then it was too late. Despite these limits, and the restrictions posed by engineering and design limitations, the navy posed a credible counter to the larger Italian fleet on its doorstep and successfully challenged the Italians and their allies in the Adriatic, as well as presenting a clear and present danger to operations in the wider Mediterranean. The Austro Hungarian Navy Fleet List The following forms the entire fleet list for the Austro Hungarian Navy. Priority Level: Patrol Priority Level: War Destroyer and flotilla leader classes <none> Austro-Hungarian Navy Priority Level: Skirmish Priority Level: Battle Kaiser Franz Joseph I class Light Cruiser Erzherzog Karl class Pre-Dreadnought Zenta class light cruiser Radetsky class Pre-Dreadnought Admiral Spaun class Light Cruiser Habsburg class Pre-Dreadnought Saida class light cruiser Kaiserin and Konigin Maria Theresa class Armoured Cruiser Ersatz Zenta class light cruiser Kaiser Karl IV class Armoured Cruiser Sankt Georg class Armoured Cruiser Priority Level: Raid Monarch class Pre-Dreadnought Habsburg class Pre-Dreadnought Priority Level: BattleSample file Tegethoff class Battleship Improved Teggethoff class Battleship 3 Monarch class Pre-Dreadnought Battleship Raid Ships of this class: Monarch, Wien, Budapest The Monarch class were Austria’s first ‘modern’ battleships, although officially described as Coastal Defence Ships. Their small size meant that, although cheap to build, they were cramped, inefficient ships that were unpopular with their crews. All three served during WW1; Wien was torpedoed and sunk by MAS 15 in December 1917 Speed: 5” Turning: 3 Special Traits: Poor subdivision Target: 5+ Armour: 4+ In Service: 1898 Damage: 12/4 Crew: 17/5 Weapon Range AD DD Arcs Special A Turret (2 x 9.4”) 20” 2 1 F,P,S Port Secondary Armament (3 x 6”) 16” 3 1 L Casemate, Weak Starboard Secondary Armament (3 x 6”) 16” 3 1 R Casemate, Weak X Turret (2 x 9.4”) 20” 2 1 A, P,S Tertiary Armament 10” 3 1 — Very Weak Port Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) P Slow-Loading Starboard Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) S Slow-Loading Length: 325 ft. Displacement: 5,547 tons Speed: 18 kts. Crew: 425 Habsburg class Pre-Dreadnought Battleship Raid Ships of this class: Habsburg, Arpad, Babenberg A vast improvement on the Monarchs but still the smallest ocean going battleships when they were completed in 1902. They formed the IV Division during the Great War. All three ships survived;Sample they were ceded file to Great Britain and were scrapped in Italy in 1921. Austro-Hungarian Navy Speed: 5” Turning: 3 Special Traits: Poor subdivision Target: 5+ Armour: 4+ In Service: 1902 Damage: 18/6 Crew: 26/8 Weapon Range AD DD Arcs Special A Turret (2 x 9.4”) 24” 2 1 F,P,S Port Secondary Armament (6 x 6”) 16” 6 1 L Casemate, Weak Starboard Secondary Armament (6 x 6”) 16” 6 1 R Casemate, Weak X Turret (1 x 9.4”) 24” 1 1 A, P,S Tertiary Armament 10” 3 1 — Very Weak Port Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) P Slow-Loading Starboard Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) S Slow-Loading Length: 375 ft. Displacement: 8,823 tons Speed: 18 kts. Crew: 638 4 Erzherzog Karl class Pre-Dreadnought Battleship Raid Ships of this class: Erzherzog Karl, Erzherzog Friedrich, Erzherzog Ferdinand Max Building on the Habsburg class, the Karls continued the trend for small, compact battleships (driven by financial constraints). As such they remained inferior to their contemporaries but nevertheless gave good service during the war, making up the III Division. They were taken over by the fledgling Yugoslavian Navy at the end of the war but were later ceded to France and Great Britain and scrapped. Speed: 5” Turning: 3 Special Traits: Poor subdivision Target: 5+ Armour: 4+ In Service: 1902 Damage: 18/6 Crew: 26/8 Weapon Range AD DD Arcs Special A Turret (2 x 9.4”) 24” 2 1 F,P,S Port Secondary Armament (6 x 7.5”) 20” 6 1 L Casemate, Weak Starboard Secondary Armament (6 x 7.5”) 20” 6 1 R Casemate, Weak X Turret (2 x 9.4”) 24” 2 1 A, P,S Tertiary Armament 10” 5 1 — Very Weak Port Torpedoes (17.7”) ** 10” 1 (–1) P Slow-Loading Starboard Torpedoes (17.7”) ** 10” 1 (–1) S Slow-Loading ** Torpedoes fitted in 1917. Austro-Hungarian Navy Length: 375 ft Displacement: 8,823 tons Speed: 18 kts. Crew: 638 Radetzky class Pre-Dreadnought Battleship Raid Ships of this class: Radetzky, Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, Zrinyi Austria’s last pre-dreadnought type battleships, designed by Siegfried Popper. They carried a heavy armament for their size but were often criticised for being cramped and overloaded. All three took part in early actions in the Great War but were in reserve from 1916 onwards. Despite being classed as ‘pre-dreadnoughts’ they featured anSample effective underwater file protection system which gave them enhanced protection against mine and torpedo attacks when compared with similar pre-dreadnought types. Speed: 6” Turning: 3 Special Traits: Target: 5+ Armour: 4+ In Service: 1910 Damage: 32/10 Crew: 36/12 Weapon Range AD DD Arcs Special A Turret (2 x 12”) 30” 2 1 F,P,S AP P Turret (2 x 9.2”) 30” 2 1 FP,P AP Q Turret (2 x 9.2”) 24” 2 1 FS,S AP RTurret (2 x 9.2) 24” 2 1 AP,P AP S Turret (2 x 9.2”) 24” 2 1 AS,S AP X Turret (2 x 12”) 24” 2 1 A, P,S AP Tertiary Armament 10” 5 1 — Very Weak Port Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) P Slow-Loading Starboard Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) S Slow-Loading Aft Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) A Slow-Loading Length: 455 ft. Displacement: 15,845 tons Speed: 21 kts. Crew: 890 5 Tegetthoff class Battleship Battle Ships of this class: Tegetthof, Viribus Unitis, Prinz Eugen, Szent Istvan Austria’s first dreadnoughts and unusual in that their design and construction was started without official government approval. As with the Radetsky class, the ships were compact and heavily armed (a function of their limited endurance requirements, since they would always be operating close to home). They formed the core of the 1st Battle Squadron and participated in raids on the Italian coast. Viribus Unitis was sunk in harbour by Italian frogmen, whilst Szent Istvan was torpedoed and sunk by an Italian MAS boat. Speed: 6” Turning: 3 Special Traits: Target: 5+ Armour: 4+ In Service: 1912 Damage: 44/14 Crew: 44/14 Weapon Range AD DD Arcs Special A Turret (3 x 12”) 30” 3 1 F,P,S AP B Turret (3 x 12”) 30” 3 1 F,P,S AP X Turret (3 x 12”) 30” 3 1 A,P,S AP Y Turret (3 x 12”) 30” 3 1 A, P,S AP Port Secondary Armament (6 x 6”) 16” 6 1 L Casemate, Weak Starboard Secondary Armament (6 x 6”) 16” 6 1 R Casemate, Weak Tertiary Armament 10” 4 1 — Very Weak Port Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) P Slow-Loading Starboard Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) S Slow-Loading Forward Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) F Slow-Loading Aft Torpedoes (17.7”) 10” 1 (–1) A Slow-Loading Length: 499 ft.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coastal Warfare in World War II
    Coastal Warfare in World War II Christopher P. Carlson Cold Wars 2003 Admiralty Trilogy Seminar Introduction Coastal Warfare in WWII ♦ What is Coastal Warfare? ♦ Lioral/Coastal Environment ♦ Background ♦ Mighty Midgets - “Small Craft” ♦ Roles and Missions ♦ Tactics Overview ♦ National Development ♦ Post-WWII ♦ Coastal Warfare and CaS ♦ Some Good Books What is Coastal Warfare? Coastal Warfare in WWII ♦ “Lioral” or Coastal waters ♦ Shallow water, often sheltered waters • Sometimes too shallow for larger naval vessels ♦ Not seagoing ships • Can’t operate in Sea State 4-5, even then it’s unpleasant ♦ More than just PTs and other high-speed craft • Motor launches for minesweeping, ASW, rescue (e.g. British MLs) • Small minesweepers (e.g. German R-boats) • Barges for transporting cargo (e.g. Japanese Daihatsus) • Landing craft ♦ Common factor is small size • Limited endurance • Light armament • Low damage capacity !! Littoral/Coastal Environment Coastal Warfare in WWII ♦ Difficult environment due to the close proximity of land ♦ Detection Issue - Heavy clu1er ♦ Classification Issue - Many false contacts ♦ Reduced operation space - Restricted maneuverability ♦ All combine to reduce a ship’s reaction time Coastal waters Background Coastal Warfare in WWII ♦ WWI - These are distinct from the “Torpedo Boat” • Seagoing vessel intended for fleet action ♦ Who built coastal combatants? • Britain: Built a dozen Coastal Motor Boats (CMBs) ■ 40 ft long, single rearward launched torpedo & a few MGs ■ Several dozen motor launches, 76ft long, 3 pdr, general-purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Why China Has Not Caught Up
    Why China Has Not Caught Up Yet Why China Has Not Andrea Gilli and Caught Up Yet Mauro Gilli Military-Technological Superiority and the Limits of Imitation, Reverse Engineering, and Cyber Espionage Can adversaries of the United States easily imitate its most advanced weapon systems and thus erode its military-technological superiority? Do reverse engineering, industrial espi- onage, and, in particular, cyber espionage facilitate and accelerate this process? China’s decades-long economic boom, military modernization program, mas- sive reliance on cyber espionage, and assertive foreign policy have made these questions increasingly salient. Yet, almost everything known about this topic draws from the past. As we explain in this article, the conclusions that the ex- isting literature has reached by studying prior eras have no applicability to the current day. Scholarship in international relations theory generally assumes that ris- ing states beneªt from the “advantage of backwardness,” as described by Andrea Gilli is a senior researcher at the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Defense College in Rome, Italy. Mauro Gilli is a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies at the Swiss Federal Insti- tute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. The authors are listed in alphabetical order to reºect their equal contributions to this article. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not represent the views of NATO, the NATO Defense College, or any other institution with which the authors are or have been
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Assessment of Amphibious Operations from 1941 to the Present
    CRM D0006297.A2/ Final July 2002 Charting the Pathway to OMFTS: A Historical Assessment of Amphibious Operations From 1941 to the Present Carter A. Malkasian 4825 Mark Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1850 Approved for distribution: July 2002 c.. Expedit'onaryyystems & Support Team Integrated Systems and Operations Division This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Specific authority: N0014-00-D-0700. For copies of this document call: CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123. Copyright 0 2002 The CNA Corporation Contents Summary . 1 Introduction . 5 Methodology . 6 The U.S. Marine Corps’ new concept for forcible entry . 9 What is the purpose of amphibious warfare? . 15 Amphibious warfare and the strategic level of war . 15 Amphibious warfare and the operational level of war . 17 Historical changes in amphibious warfare . 19 Amphibious warfare in World War II . 19 The strategic environment . 19 Operational doctrine development and refinement . 21 World War II assault and area denial tactics. 26 Amphibious warfare during the Cold War . 28 Changes to the strategic context . 29 New operational approaches to amphibious warfare . 33 Cold war assault and area denial tactics . 35 Amphibious warfare, 1983–2002 . 42 Changes in the strategic, operational, and tactical context of warfare. 42 Post-cold war amphibious tactics . 44 Conclusion . 46 Key factors in the success of OMFTS. 49 Operational pause . 49 The causes of operational pause . 49 i Overcoming enemy resistance and the supply buildup.
    [Show full text]
  • Surya Class Frigate
    SURYA CLASS FRIGATE A trailblazing design, the Surya class takes its place with the Constitution, Saladin and Fed- It wasn’t until 2248 that the Surya—along with the Coventry, Loknar, Saladin and Larson eration as one of the most important ship classes of the Class I era. classes—was able to free up the larger heavy cruisers and assume primary responsibility for defensive/offensive operations. It was from this point forward that these ships began to Originally, the Anton class was set to be produced to uprated specifications—the design build an impressive and fearsome reputation. itself being altered to correct a number of flaws. However, the changes compounded what was already a complicated and complex design. After review, the decision was sub- sequently reversed and existing ships were gradually withdrawn from service. In 2249, the Pralaya (FF 1855), Avenger (FF 1860) and Illustrious (FF 1863) were present with the 8th Fleet at the Battle of Thranstor. The introduction of Phaser weaponry that year and Instead, the ASDB revisited an earlier proposal, the Hunt class Light Cruiser. Little more than its presence on the majority of the Starfleet vessels present at the battle helped ensure a a Ptolemy class transport/tug with more comprehensive armament, Hunt was an intriguing swift and overwhelming Federation victory. The Pralaya was lost with all hands not long af- modification of an already proven design, though it was eventually dropped in favor of the ter, being drawn into an ambush outside the Beta Aurigae star system. Kearsarge class. Throughout the war though, a favored tactic of fleet commanders was to disguise these The potential of a fully armed Ptolemy was not lost on designers though and from this point, vessels as Ptolemy class transport/tugs and use them (usually in groups of 2 or more) as they continued to study various proposals based around it.
    [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]
  • PT-305 Fact Sheet
    PT-305 Fact Sheet Higgins “78” Specifications: • Length 78 feet • Beam 20 feet 1 inch • Draft 5 feet 3 inches • Weight 43-56 tons, depending on weapons • Engines 3 Packard V-12s • Speed 40 knots • Crew 2 officers, 11 men • Higgins designed boat (Mr. Sprauge) • More maneuverable than ELCO • Engines located mid-ship Weapons and Other Equipment: • .50-caliber twin machine guns, effective as an anti-aircraft and anti-personnel weapon • Oerlikon 20mm guns for use against both air- and surface craft • 4 Mark 13 torpedoes, mounted in roll-off launching racks, each weighing over a ton including a 600- pound warhead • Mark 6 anti-submarine depth charge • small 60mm mortar able to launch illuminating rounds, lay smoke screens, and bombard shore targets • stern-mounted canister of compressed gas for smoke screens • radar, especially useful at night (In the Med, radar-equipped American PT boats would often be paired up with British MTBs (motor torpedo boats), which had no radar, to hunt for German flak lighters at night. PT-305 restoration stats: • Volunteers: 202 all-time; 67 currently • Volunteer man-hours: 105,000 • Volunteer labor value: about $2 million • Monetary donations: about $400,000 • Donations from more than 100 companies • In-kind donations: nearly $3 million worth of supplies, materials, and parts including: • Approximately 300 gallons of paint • 120 gallons of Dolphinte bedding compound • 480 yard of #10 Cotton Duck • 10,000 board foot of mahogany • 3,000 board foot of cypress • 75 sheets marine plywood • 39,000 copper rivets • 3 miles of caulked seam (double that for masking tape) • 36,000 silicon bronze screws • 12,459 feet of cabling and wiring PT Boat Losses During the war: 69 of the 531 PT boats lost in service (source: PT Boats, Inc.) • Accident, friendly fire, sea conditions: 22 • Destroyed to prevent capture: 21 • Aircraft: 5 • Ship: 5 • Shore Battery: 5 • Mine: 4 • Rammed: 2 • Kamikaze: 2 • Other: 3 Postwar: • Burned off a beach at Samar, Philippines: 118 • Many were given to allies, including China, South Korea, and the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Captain John Denison, D.S.O., R.N. Oct
    No. Service: Rank: Names & Service Information: Supporting Information: 27. 1st 6th Captain John Denison, D.S.O., R.N. Oct. Oct. B. 25 May 1853, Rusholine, Toronto, 7th child; 5th Son of George Taylor Denison (B. 1904 1906. Ontario, Canada. – D. 9 Mar 1939, 17 Jul 1816, Toronto, Ontario, Canada -D. 30 Mason Toronto, York, Ontario, Canada. B. May 1873, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) [Lawyer, 1 Oct 1904 North York, York County, Ontario, Colonel, General, later minister of Church) and Canada. (aged 85 years). Mary Anne Dewson (B. 24 May 1817, Enniscorthy, Ireland -D. 1900, Toronto, 1861 Census for Saint Patrick's Ontario, Canada). Married 11 Dec 1838 at St Ward, Canada West, Toronto, shows James Church. Toronto, Canada John Denison living with Denison family aged 9. Canada Issue: West>Toronto. In all they had 11 children; 8 males (sons) and 3 It is surmised that John Denison females (daughters). actually joined the Royal Navy in 18 Jul 1878 – John Denison married Florence Canada. Ledgard, B. 12 May 1857, Chapel town, 14 May 1867-18 Dec 1868 John Yorkshire, -D. 1936, Hampshire, England. Denison, aged 14 years, attached to daughter of William Ledgard (1813-1876) H.M.S. “Britannia” as a Naval Cadet. [merchant] and Catherina Brooke (1816-1886) “Britannia” was a wooden screw st at Roundhay, St John, Yorkshire, England. Three decker 1 rate ship, converted to screw whilst still on her stocks. Issue: (5 children, 3 males and 2 females). Constructed and launched from 1. John Everard Denison (B. 20 Apr 1879, Portsmouth Dockyard on 25 Jan Toronto, Ontario, Canada - D.
    [Show full text]
  • Countersea Operations
    COUNTERSEA OPERATIONS Air Force Doctrine Document 2-1.4 15 September 2005 This document complements related discussion found in Joint Publication 3-30, Command and Control for Joint Air Operations. BY ORDER OF THE AIR FORCE DOCTRINE DOCUMENT 2-1.4 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 15 SEPTEMBER 2005 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS This document is substantially revised. This revision’s overarching changes are new chapter headings and sections, terminology progression to “air and space” from “aerospace,” expanded discussion on planning and employment factors, operational considerations when conducting countersea operations, and effects-based methodology and the emphasis on operations vice capabilities or platforms. Specific changes with this revision are the additions of the naval warfighter’s perspective to enhance understanding the environment, doctrine, and operations of the maritime forces on page 3; comparison between Air Force and Navy/Marine Corp terminology, on page 7, included to ensure Air Force forces are aware of the difference in terms or semantics; a terminology matrix added to simplify that awareness on page 9; amphibious operations organization, command and control, and planning are also included throughout the document. Supersedes: AFDD 2-1.4, 4 June 1999 OPR: HQ AFDC/DS (Lt Col Richard Hughey) Certified by: AFDC/DR (Lt Col Eric Schnitzer) Pages: 66 Distribution: F Approved by: Bentley B. Rayburn, Major General, USAF Commander, Headquarters Air Force Doctrine Center FOREWORD Countersea Operations are about the use of Air Force capabilities in the maritime environment to accomplish the joint force commander’s objectives. This doctrine supports DOD Directive 5100.1 requirements for surface sea surveillance, anti-air warfare, anti-surface ship warfare, and anti-submarine warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Ostfriesland Rolled Over and Sank to the Bottom
    Billy Mitchell and the Battleships Twenty-two minutes after the first bomb fell, Ostfriesland rolled over and sank to the bottom. By John T. Correll attleships—large, heav- They were known generically as it the fastest battleship in the world. ily armored warships with “dreadnoughts,” after HMS Dread- Dreadnought was far ahead of anything large-caliber guns—emerged nought, which entered service with the else afloat and it set off an arms race in their modern form in the British Navy in 1906. Dreadnought had among the world’s navies. B1890s and became symbols of national 10 12-inch guns in its main battery and However, HMS Dreadnought was power in the opening decades of the 27 lesser guns. It was the first major soon surpassed in capability by newer 20th century. warship powered by turbines, making battleships such as USS Arizona, com- 62 AIR FORCE Magazine / June 2008 tical era” and that military airpower should be independent of ground and sea forces. He was inspired by the example of the Royal Air Force, es- tablished in 1918 as a separate service, combining the air arms of the army and navy. The irrepressible Mitchell constantly cast aspersions at his superiors, whose enthusiasm for airpower (and for Mitch- ell) was strictly limited. En route home, Mitchell told his fellow passengers on the Cunard liner Aquitania that “the General Staff knows as much about the air as a hog does about skating.” His comment was reported in the newspa- pers, of course. Speaking Out He had hoped to be Army director of military aeronautics, but that position was eliminated in a postwar reorganiza- tion and Maj.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 Amphibious Ships and Craft
    Appendix 1 Amphibious Ships and Craft Ships ADCS Air Defence Control Ship AKA Attack Cargo Ship APA Attack Transport ATD Amphibious Transport Dock CVHA Assault Helicopter Carrier (later LPH) LPD Amphibious Transport Dock LPH Assault Helicopter Carrier LSC Landing Ship, Carrier LSD Landing Ship, Dock LSE(LC) Landing Ship, Emergency Repair (Landing Craft) LSE(LS) Landing Ship, Emergency Repair (Landing Ship) LSF Landing Ship, Fighter Direction LSG Landing Ship, Gantry LSH Landing Ship, Headquarters LSH(C) Landing Ship, Headquarters (Command) LSI Landing Ship, Infantry LSL Landing Ship, Logistic LSM Landing Ship, Medium LSM(R) Landing Ship, Medium (Rocket) LSP Landing Ship, Personnel LSS Landing Ship, Stern Chute LSS(R) Landing Ship, Support (Rocket) LST Landing Ship, Tank LST(A) Landing Ship, Tank (Assault) LST(C) Landing Ship, Tank (Carrier) LST(D) Landing Ship, Tank (Dock) LST(Q) administrative support ship LSU Landing Ship, Utility LSV Landing Ship, Vehicle MS (LC) Maintenance Ship (Landing Craft) MS (LS) Maintenance Ship (Landing Ship) M/T Ship Motor Transport Ship W/T Ship Wireless Tender 212 Appendix 1 213 Barges, craft and amphibians DD Duplex Drive (amphibious tank) DUKW amphibious truck LBE Landing Barge, Emergency repair LBK Landing Barge, Kitchen LBO Landing Barge, Oiler LBV Landing Barge, Vehicle LBW Landing Barge, Water LCA Landing Craft, Assault LCA(HR) Landing Craft, Assault (Hedgerow) LCA(OC) Landing Craft, Assault (Obstacle Clearance) LCC Landing Craft, Control LCE Landing Craft, Emergency Repair LCF Landing Craft, Flak
    [Show full text]
  • The Concrete Battleship Was Flooded, the Guns Drained of Recoil Oil and Fired One Last Time, the Colors
    The Iowan History letter Vol. 5 Number 2 Second Quarter, 2016 The Concrete Initially Fort Drum was planned as a mine control and mine casemate station. However, due to inadequate de- fenses in the area, a plan was devised to level the island, and then build a concrete structure on top of it armed with Battleship two twin 12-inch guns. This was submitted to the War Department, which decided to change the 12-inch guns to 14-inch guns mounted on twin armored turrets. The forward turret, with a traverse of 230°, was mounted on the forward portion of the top deck, which was 9 ft below the top deck; the rear turret, with a full 360° traverse, was mounted on the top deck. The guns of both turrets were capable of 15° elevation, giving them a range of 19,200 yards. Secondary armament was to be provided by two pairs of 6-inch guns mounted in armored casemates on either side of the main structure. There were two 3-inch mobile AA guns on “spider” mounts for anti-aircraft de- fense. Fort Drum in the 1930s Overhead protection of the fort was provided by an 20- Fort Drum (El Fraile Island), also known as “the con- foot thick steel-reinforced concrete deck. Its exterior walls crete battleship,” is a heavily fortified island situated at ranged between approximately 25 to 36 ft thick, making it the mouth of Manila Bay in the Philippines, due south of virtually impregnable to enemy naval attack. Corregidor Island. The reinforced concrete fortress shaped like a battleship, was built by the United States in 1909 as Construction one of the harbor defenses at the wider South Channel entrance to the bay during the American colonial period.
    [Show full text]
  • The Good Frigate Reeves
    U S S R EEVES (DLG - 2 4 / C G - 2 4 ) A SSOCIATION May 2009 Volume 2, Issue 3 The Ironman—A Double Ender’s Newsletter Membership Scorebox The Good Frigate Reeves Current 57 Many of us, especially in the early was the USS Chesapeake from the War of years of Reeves life, have heard her de- 1812, shown here before capture by HMS Past Due 30 scribed as a frigate. Indeed, that was a Leopold. The most famous frigate from characterization of her relative size and this era was the USS Constitution. Snail Mail Ad- 227 significance to the fleet. She was a really dresses I had the privilege in 1974 of escort- either big destroyer or a small cruiser. Of ing my father and mother onboard Reeves Email Address 258 course, it all depended upon where you when she was starboard side to Bravo Only stood on the pier when you looked up at Piers. My father‘s first observation from her. the pier, looking bow on, was ―she‘s a Now in the olden days, frigates con- pocket cruiser.‖ Of course, he was a jured up the image of medium-sized sail- WWII veteran and cruisers were a skochie Dues Notice! ing ships. They were somewhere between bit smaller than our ―modern‖ destroy- Please be sure to check ers—although Reeves was a whole lot your mailing label. bigger than my first Fletcher. If it doesn’t say Current It turns out that a modern ―pocket‖ (plus year) above your cruiser is really a light cruiser, of the name at the top of the Brooklyn Class.
    [Show full text]