Black Wind spin off?

[Paul R]

Read this in the newspaper the other day. Seems unlikely, but it was in the paper so it must be true! :D

'At Pearl Harbor in 1941... more deaths were caused by anaesthetists than by the Japenese.'

[fpw]

Read this in the newspaper the other day. Seems unlikely, but it was in the paper so it must be true! :D

'At Pearl Harbor in 1941... more deaths were caused by anaesthetists than by the Japenese.'

That's very hard to believe. And how could they know?

[Ken Valentine]

That's very hard to believe. And how could they know?

Considering what day this is . . . .

Ken V.

[Biggles]

That's very hard to believe. And how could they know?

Considering how low the Kates were coming in on their runs, I'll bet more deaths were caused by "friendly fire" than anaesthetists, but again, how could it be proven one way or the other?

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

[Biggles, I'll bet you all the money in my pocket, and all I'll ever earn, that you won't find a reputable historian to aver the defensive fire from the ships at Pearl Harbor caused the ARIZONA to explode, or the OKLAHOMA to turn turtle, or the CALIFORNIA to sink into the mud. Wager there, partner?

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

That's very hard to believe. And how could they know?
Of course. Most of the deaths that day came from the explosion of the ARIZONA. (WHAT!!?--YOU BELIEVE HISTORIANS??!)

[Paul R]

That's very hard to believe. And how could they know?

Hey guys, don't shoot the messenger! And anyway, newspapers over here in Sunny England don't lie do they? Do they?!

[Ken Valentine]

[Biggles, I'll bet you all the money in my pocket, and all I'll ever earn, that you won't find a reputable historian to aver the defensive fire from the ships at Pearl Harbor caused the ARIZONA to explode, or the OKLAHOMA to turn turtle, or the CALIFORNIA to sink into the mud. Wager there, partner?

Better re-read his post there Mike. But first get some sleep.

Ken V.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Trying hard, Ken--what did I miss? (Will be back in the morning....)

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Trying hard, Ken--what did I miss? (Will be back in the morning....)
Ah, jeez, you mean April Fool's Day?

[Biggles]

[Biggles, I'll bet you all the money in my pocket, and all I'll ever earn, that you won't find a reputable historian to aver the defensive fire from the ships at Pearl Harbor caused the ARIZONA to explode, or the OKLAHOMA to turn turtle, or the CALIFORNIA to sink into the mud. Wager there, partner?

That's not what I said Bluesman. I said friendly fire probably killed more people than anaesthetists that day. Since I don't disagree with what you wrote, I won't take your bet. As far as friendly fire is concerned, any bullet or shell that didn't find an aerial target would have fallen back to "earth" and been a potential threat to our people. That's why you should always stay indoors and away from windows at Midnight on December 31.

[Ken Valentine]

Considering how low the Kates were coming in on their runs, I'll bet more deaths were caused by "friendly fire" than anaesthetists, but again, how could it be proven one way or the other?

To say the same thing in different words, you don't shoot down planes with 16 inch guns. You use machine guns and anti-aircraft weapons. With the Japanese planes flying as low as they were -- and in amongst the ships in the harbor -- bullets that missed the planes would surely hit other ships . . . and some of the men on them, i.e., "friendly fire."

Ken V.

[Biggles]

To say the same thing in different words, you don't shoot down planes with 16 inch guns. You use machine guns and anti-aircraft weapons. With the Japanese planes flying as low as they were -- and in amongst the ships in the harbor -- bullets that missed the planes would surely hit other ships . . . and some of the men on them, i.e., "friendly fire."

Ken V.

I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't say it better myself. ;)

[Ken Valentine]

I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't say it better myself. ;)

Most of the time you have to spell it out for me.

This time I spelled it out for somebody else . . . REFRESHING!

Ken V.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Gotcha, Biggs. I've recently read that David Palmer, keyboard player on many a Tull album, has had a sex change. Ian said the obligatory things, i.e., "Well, it's strange to think of a big, pipe-smoking, happy-to-brawl man's man like Dave taking this step, but I support him in his decision." And I thought, "Damn...Palmer got a big pair to brave the nip of the cullion guillotine like that. Wait a minute...something's wrong with that thought..."

[Biggles]

Gotcha, Biggs. I've recently read that David Palmer, keyboard player on many a Tull album, has had a sex change. Ian said the obligatory things, i.e., "Well, it's strange to think of a big, pipe-smoking, happy-to-brawl man's man like Dave taking this step, but I support him in his decision." And I thought, "Damn...Palmer got a big pair to brave the nip of the cullion guillotine like that. Wait a minute...something's wrong with that thought..."

I'm devastated. The only way I would be more so is if Ian or Martin had had it done. You're not yankin' my chain are you? Wait a minute; that was a poor choice of words under the circumstance.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

[No joke, Biggles! I'm sure you can find all the details online. God...it's pretty well agreed these days that gay folks--more power to 'em, God bless 'em--are born gay. But a sex change...how unhappy you must be to negate your primary identity... But good luck to Dave (now "Denna" IIRC)...

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

[Of course you don't use 16" guns to shoot down aircraft. Yet I seem to recall reading that the Japanese had developed huge flechette shellls for the Yamato and Musashi, to use their 18.1 inch cannon as anti-aircraft weapons in desperate extremity. Captain Tamichi Hara's JAPANESE DESTROYER CAPTAIN, maybe? (Captain Hara, commanding a light cruiser, accompanied YAMATO on her last sortie.) There have been a couple of books on the mighty, but fatally-flawed, YAMATO-class behemoths published in English.

[Biggles]

[Of course you don't use 16" guns to shoot down aircraft. Yet I seem to recall reading that the Japanese had developed huge flechette shellls for the Yamato and Musashi, to use their 18.1 inch cannon as anti-aircraft weapons in desperate extremity. Captain Tamichi Hara's JAPANESE DESTROYER CAPTAIN, maybe? (Captain Hara, commanding a light cruiser, accompanied YAMATO on her last sortie.) There have been a couple of books on the mighty, but fatally-flawed, YAMATO-class behemoths published in English.

Considering how much ordnance it took to sink Yamato and Musashi, I don't agree that they were fatally flawed. Aircraft can always sink battleships that lack effective air cover and support ships. Also, as we proved with our Iowa class, the big gun battleships can be adapted to modern conditions. Of course, Yamato and Musashi didn't survive to find out. If they had survived the war, we could sure have used them off the coast of Korea five years later!

[Ken Valentine]

Considering how much ordnance it took to sink Yamato and Musashi, I don't agree that they were fatally flawed. Aircraft can always sink battleships that lack effective air cover and support ships. Also, as we proved with our Iowa class, the big gun battleships can be adapted to modern conditions. Of course, Yamato and Musashi didn't survive to find out. If they had survived the war, we could sure have used them off the coast of Korea five years later!


Here's a quote for you Biggles.

Newton D. Baker, U. S. Secretary for War, 1921, on Billy Mitchell's proposal to demonstrate the coming importance of air power by sinking a battleship:

"The idea is so damned nonsensical and impossible that I'm willing to stand on the bridge of a battleship while that nitwit tries to hit it from the air."

Should that go under the catagory of "Famous last words?" Or, "People who should know better?"

Ken V.

[Biggles]

Here's a quote for you Biggles.

Newton D. Baker, U. S. Secretary for War, 1921, on Billy Mitchell's proposal to demonstrate the coming importance of air power by sinking a battleship:

"The idea is so damned nonsensical and impossible that I'm willing to stand on the bridge of a battleship while that nitwit tries to hit it from the air."

Should that go under the catagory of "Famous last words?" Or, "People who should know better?"

Ken V.

How about both? I have never underestimated (or overestimated) air power.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Considering how much ordnance it took to sink Yamato and Musashi, I don't agree that they were fatally flawed. Aircraft can always sink battleships that lack effective air cover and support ships. Also, as we proved with our Iowa class, the big gun battleships can be adapted to modern conditions. Of course, Yamato and Musashi didn't survive to find out. If they had survived the war, we could sure have used them off the coast of Korea five years later!
No doubt the YAMATOs were mighty tough. What I meant, though, is when YAMATO was torpedoed by an American sub, the Japanese found her main armor belt was poorly welded. Their solution was to weld another 1500 tons of steel (the tonnage of a WWI destroyer!) onto her and pretend that nothing bad had ever happened. If a hit by just 1 of our (then) lousy torpedoes could do that kind of damage to the biggest gunship ever built, I think you'll agree something went wrong between blueprints and launching.

[Ken Valentine]

No doubt the YAMATOs were mighty tough. What I meant, though, is when YAMATO was torpedoed by an American sub, the Japanese found her main armor belt was poorly welded. Their solution was to weld another 1500 tons of steel (the tonnage of a WWI destroyer!) onto her and pretend that nothing bad had ever happened. If a hit by just 1 of our (then) lousy torpedoes could do that kind of damage to the biggest gunship ever built, I think you'll agree something went wrong between blueprints and launching.

You want to talk about poorly welded? At least with the Yamato it took a torpedo to damage her armor. A lot of American ships had their armor FALL off in heavy seas.

During World War II, a lot of American ships had their armor plate welded on by lighting off a compound of powdered iron and magnesium filings laid into the weld joint -- a slight improvement over sticking them on with chewing gum.

One of the problems with Liberty Ships was that they were welded together instead of riveted as was previously done. That kind of welding was in its infant stages, so everybody had a lot to learn on the subject. Many Liberty Ships literally broke apart at sea.

One other thing. Our torpedos were "lousy" because the detonators were not built strongly enough, and subsequently crushed rather than detonated when they hit their target. AND . . . they didn't have anywhere near the range or accuracy of the Japanese "Long Tom" torpedo.
:D This was one instance where Americans copied the Japanese. :D

Ken V.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

I didn't know that about American armor, Ken. Are we talking warships now?

[Ken Valentine]

I didn't know that about American armor, Ken. Are we talking warships now?

Both warships and Liberty ships. (Transport vessels.)

Once the U.S. finally got into the war, the government needed a lot of ships . . . in a hurry! Prior to the war, ocean-going vessels were riveted together -- passenger vessels, merchant vessels, and military vessels.

So, what they did was to weld them together. Welding being a much faster joining process than riveting. The problem was that they used the same joint design, and welding stressed the joints in a different way than riveting did. Riveting made a flexible joint whereas welding was rigid. In a heavy sea, a riveted ship would flex and a welded ship would break up.

This included armor plate. So, ship designers (nautical architects) had to go through the process of analyzing the stresses, and redesigning the joints. They also redesigned the shape of the armor plating to allow the hull to flex without the armor breaking off. In addition, they had to develop new welding processes. Submerged Arc Welding was one of the processes which resulted from this problem. It's a heavy deposit electric welding process where a wire-fed weld is laid (submerged) under a granular flux which is poured into the joint.

Everybody had problems. It was only the U.S. that had the manpower and resources to solve them fairly quickly.

Ken V.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Both warships and Liberty ships. (Transport vessels.)

Once the U.S. finally got into the war, the government needed a lot of ships . . . in a hurry! Prior to the war, ocean-going vessels were riveted together -- passenger vessels, merchant vessels, and military vessels.

So, what they did was to weld them together. Welding being a much faster joining process than riveting. The problem was that they used the same joint design, and welding stressed the joints in a different way than riveting did. Riveting made a flexible joint whereas welding was rigid. In a heavy sea, a riveted ship would flex and a welded ship would break up.

This included armor plate. So, ship designers (nautical architects) had to go through the process of analyzing the stresses, and redesigning the joints. They also redesigned the shape of the armor plating to allow the hull to flex without the armor breaking off. In addition, they had to develop new welding processes. Submerged Arc Welding was one of the processes which resulted from this problem. It's a heavy deposit electric welding process where a wire-fed weld is laid (submerged) under a granular flux which is poured into the joint.

Everybody had problems. It was only the U.S. that had the manpower and resources to solve them fairly quickly.

Ken V.


Good information, Ken. Thank you. I believe I once saw an aerial photo of an American cruiser who's entire bow had broken off in a storm. CA USS Pittsburgh seems to ring a bell, though I might be wrong about that. It was quite a photo!