SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Most historically significant naval vessel...?

16100 views
149 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Friday, October 24, 2008 3:52 PM

stikpusher - sorry to delay in responding about your comments about the torpedoes. They didn't drop the entire torpedo, just the warhead. The height it dropped from allowed for gravitational acceleration to simulate the impact speed. Although most aircraft do not fly over Hunter's Point, but helicopters could for police or other functions. In the old John Wayne movie "Operation Pacific" they show how the warheads were tested and this film is supposedly pretty accurate in this depiction.

Proto-Submarines like the Hunley really didn't become practical except for scouting until a different means of attack was developed. The spar torpedo and similar devices had limited application as they could destroy the vessel deploying it. After the British Whitehead Torpedo and the addition of gyroscopic control did a weapon that would make the submarine more than an interesting toy.

Mike T.

 

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:14 PM
Well the Hunley certainly showed one path in the future of Naval Warfare, not to mention it was successful in its' mission.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:34 AM
I nominate the CSS "Hunley" or the "Turtle"...
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, October 20, 2008 5:45 AM
No, he left the US Navy a year before the commissioning of USS Nautilus. He didn't even finish nuclear power school but did serve on diesel boats (USS Pomfret). He was training to be the engineer on the Seawolf when he resigned his commission in 1953.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:01 PM
 mattdavis wrote:
I am not sure whether it was the Nautilus that was the first nuclear powered submarine,but, whichever one it was I think at least deserves some consideration in light of the changes it created in the tactical situation at the time and since.
Didn't Jimmy Carter CO the first US Nuclear sub???
  • Member since
    October 2008
Posted by mattdavis on Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:58 PM
I am not sure whether it was the Nautilus that was the first nuclear powered submarine,but, whichever one it was I think at least deserves some consideration in light of the changes it created in the tactical situation at the time and since.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:52 PM

 Mansteins revenge wrote:
Surfboard?

Oh, I get it!!!  Woohoo... took me a minute, but I finally figured it out.  Good one Manny! Bow [bow]Laugh [(-D]

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:15 PM
Yeah Ray, they have been mentioed earlier in the thread, they're good choices, especially the Monitor.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Lyons Colorado, USA
Posted by Ray Marotta on Saturday, October 18, 2008 3:50 PM

How about the Monitor and the CSS Virginia (Merrimack)?

Ray

 ]

 

 

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Exeter, MO
Posted by kustommodeler1 on Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:37 PM
oops....did I kill this thread with my reply?Confused [%-)]

Darrin

Setting new standards for painfully slow buildsDead

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Exeter, MO
Posted by kustommodeler1 on Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:35 PM

American naval: I vote CV-6 Enterprise #1, BB-38 Pennsylvania #2, and CA-35 Indianapolis #3.

 

Japanese naval: I.J.N. Akagi.

 

German naval: D.K.M. Bismarck.

 

British naval: H.M.S. Hood #1, H.M.S. Ark Royal #2

 

But thats just me.Cool [8D]

Darrin

Setting new standards for painfully slow buildsDead

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:05 PM
Surfboard?
  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 6:38 PM
edit the title to reflect the question as american not world.
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:39 PM
Perhaps the title is throwing them off? Just the omission of the single word "American" misleads the latecomers to this thread.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:15 PM

Original Question:

Which naval vessel in American history, in your opinion, is the most significant from a historical perspective? Which one, but most importantly, why?

...Mayflower? Constitution? Monitor? Maine? Langley? Arizona? Enterprise? Missouri? Nautilus? ....so many to choose from...  

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:43 PM
 jwintjes wrote:

The first trireme built - according to Thucydides - by Ameinocles for the Samians.

Because it was the first purpose-built warship.

Ever.

Jorit 

 

UNwarranted reliance on textural evidence.    Big Smile [:D]

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:08 PM
Hey, Manny, maybe you should fix the title of this thread to read "American" or change your opening question. The folks are misreading your intent.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by jwintjes on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:49 AM

The first trireme built - according to Thucydides - by Ameinocles for the Samians.

Because it was the first purpose-built warship.

Ever.

Jorit 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, October 13, 2008 6:08 PM

 Sky Cop wrote:
How about the (1855) USS Niagara. It helped lay the first transatlantic telegraph line. The first step in instant worldwide communication.

 

Good one.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    October 2008
Posted by Sky Cop on Monday, October 13, 2008 6:04 PM
How about the (1855) USS Niagara. It helped lay the first transatlantic telegraph line. The first step in instant worldwide communication.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 13, 2008 4:31 PM
 Chuck Fan wrote:

Come on,  We are talking about the MOST significant naval vessel in HISTORY.    That's all recorded human history, guys, something that spanned 30 times more years than USA, and encompassing the rise and fall of all civilization great and small, including many that were, or still are, far larger, longer lasting, and more profoundly and fundamentally influential even to the people of the present day than USA, and we are talking about some landing craft and some ship that might have taken part in pearl harbour in just the last 68 years?

 


 

Okay, throw one out there...I sorta nominated the LCI tongue-in-cheek to get this thread going again anyway...although I suppose it is a valid nomination at least...
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, October 13, 2008 4:30 PM

Well, my first nomination, J.P. Jones' Ranger, on page one of this topic fell by the wayside. How do we know what the correct one is? Do we keep naming them off until someone says "YOU GOT IT"? Are we getting warm?

I think the subject is going along OK, we are getting a lot of different opinions and new outlooks on the subject.

And, if you go back to page one, we will find that the original question was "American history", not the history of mankind.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Monday, October 13, 2008 4:17 PM

Come on,  We are talking about the MOST significant naval vessel in HISTORY.    That's all recorded human history, guys, something that spanned 30 times more years than USA, and encompassing the rise and fall of all civilization great and small, including many that were, or still are, far larger, longer lasting, and more profoundly and fundamentally influential even to the people of the present day than USA, and we are talking about some landing craft and some ship that might have taken part in pearl harbour in just the last 68 years?

 


 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, October 13, 2008 3:55 PM

I nominate the LCVP. 

President Eisenhower was talking to Stephen Ambrose (of Band of Brothers fame) about Ambrose's home town of New Orleans and asked Ambrose if he knew Andrew Higgins. Ambrose replied that did not and asked Ike why he asked. Eisenhower replied that Andrew Higgins pretty much made D-Day possible and that he might be considered responsible for winning WWII because of his LCVP design and for getting over 20,000 of them built.

Here is a quote from ye olde Wikipedia:

No less an authority than the Supreme Allied Commander declared the Higgins boat to be crucial to the Allied victory on the European Western Front and the previous fighting in North Africa and Italy:

"Andrew Higgins ... is the man who won the war for us. ... If Higgins had not designed and built those LCVPs, we never could have landed over an open beach. The whole strategy of the war would have been different." - General Dwight Eisenhower

Image:LCVP-plan.gif

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 13, 2008 2:50 PM
I nominate the LCI (landing craft, infantry)...
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, October 10, 2008 7:42 PM
How high did they have to raise the torpedos off the ground to get a simulated impact speed? I would think between gravity and the weight of the torpedo it would not have been overly high. Not enough to present a hazard to aircraft. Very interesting...

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Friday, October 10, 2008 5:51 PM

On a side note about the faulty torpedoes, The gantry that was used to test the torpedoes in San Francisco still stands at Hunter's Point. I see it daily just north of Candlestick Point. The extension they used to get greatly height to simulate the impact is painted red and white so not to be a danger to aviation.

Mike T.

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, October 9, 2008 7:42 PM

Getting back to nautical themes, I would nominate the Gato CLASS as very historically significant in US naval history. More than any other class/type of vessel, they were responsible for more Japanese shipping tonnage sunk than all others, including the carriers. Once the problems with faulty torpedoes had been solved, they had a massive effect upon the Pacific War.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 8, 2008 11:06 PM
 telsono wrote:

searat12 - you should books from both sides of the situation. MacDonald has more than adequate credentials to speak of the subject as an historian for the US Army's history branch and the book has been praised by other historians like Carl d'Este about completeness on the subject. The work is fair to both sides and covers the battle by dividing it into the three axis of attack the Germans intended. Just going by the actions you mention gives on a partial partisan vies of that momentous battle. Read about the defense of St. Vith (studied by the US Armor school), the actions of the 82nd Airborne on the northern shoulder, the 2nd Armoured Division, the lack of German penetration at the southern shoulder, etc.

Also, MacDonald was there! He led an infantry company at the defense of the twin villages of Krinkelt-Rocherath which was told in his first book "Company Commader". The German armor took a great deal of damage in that fight before the GI's retreated.

Not reading MacDonald's book is like viewing the Guadalcanal Campaign only from the aviation aspect. Frank's book gives a good overview of that entire campaign.

But we should get back to nautical subject that this thread is about.

Mike T.

The 6th SS Panzer Army was really pitiful in its performance in the Bulge...the middle group, 5th Panzer Army actually made terrific advances and almost made the Meuse...the Army covering the Southern flank did well considering it was composed of primarily 2nd rate infantry units...regardless, at this strage of the war the German Army simply did not have enough reinforcements, fuel or logistical support to consolidate or hold the gains it made...The 6th Army was so lackluster that most of the panzer units there were disengaged and sent to help beseige Bastogne...

Hitler always maintained that his elite SS divisions never performed as well n the Western front as they did on the Eastern front...I tend to agree, even taking the into account the overwhelming air-superiority on the Western front...the only exception, IMO, would be the 12th SS Panzer Division's performance in holding Caen against the commonwealth forces...the absence of much in the way of mention of the 1st and 2nd SS PD's presence in historical accounts of the Normandy campaign is very conspicious...

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Wednesday, October 8, 2008 6:45 PM
Yes, the Americans had many heroic defense stories to tell, but the fact is, if the weather hadn't broken, allowing the US and allied fighter bombers to essentially destroy virtuyally all of the German tanks in very short order, the Ardennes would have been a much more protacted affair.  I am quite familiar with the battle history of 2nd Armored Division, as I was the Senior Intelligence Analyst for that Division for four years, including service in the Gulf War.  The books I mentioned about the Ardennes were written by Germans that participated in all aspects of the ground war.  Will Fey, the author of 'Armor Battles of the Waffen SS' was a commander of a Tiger, a platoon leader in a Tiger Battalion (SS-Panzerabteilung 102/502), and was also a very close friend of Jochen Peiper, and is a collectio of memoirs from the German side.  Same goes for my other reference, 'Tiger, the History of a Legendary Weapon', which is also a collection of memoirs from te German side.  If you get a chance, check 'em out!!  And now, back to our usually scheduled naval features......
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Wednesday, October 8, 2008 5:42 PM

searat12 - you should books from both sides of the situation. MacDonald has more than adequate credentials to speak of the subject as an historian for the US Army's history branch and the book has been praised by other historians like Carl d'Este about completeness on the subject. The work is fair to both sides and covers the battle by dividing it into the three axis of attack the Germans intended. Just going by the actions you mention gives on a partial partisan vies of that momentous battle. Read about the defense of St. Vith (studied by the US Armor school), the actions of the 82nd Airborne on the northern shoulder, the 2nd Armoured Division, the lack of German penetration at the southern shoulder, etc.

Also, MacDonald was there! He led an infantry company at the defense of the twin villages of Krinkelt-Rocherath which was told in his first book "Company Commader". The German armor took a great deal of damage in that fight before the GI's retreated.

Not reading MacDonald's book is like viewing the Guadalcanal Campaign only from the aviation aspect. Frank's book gives a good overview of that entire campaign.

But we should get back to nautical subject that this thread is about.

Mike T.

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 10:18 PM
 telsono wrote:

searat12 - you should read "A Time for Trumpets" by Charles MacDonald. The weather helped the Germans alot, but they didn't kick ***. Not one German unit made its first day's objectives and they became sorely behind schedule. Helped alot by actions of units not expected to do anything especially those "d**n engineers!" Forget the movie "The Battle of the Bulge" its a joke, and a bad one at that.

I would agree with you about the Chinese winter offensive. Waves and waves of cannon fodder that could erode the best defense.

Mike T.

Well, I'm not sure what you have read about the Ardennes offensive, and I wasn't thinking about that awful movie.  I was looking at 'Armor Battles of the Waffen SS' by Will Fey, and 'Tiger, The History of a Legendary Weapon 1942-45' by Egon Kleine and Vollmar Kuhn.  The Germans really gave the US  a spanking they hadn't been looking for, and at the worst possible time.  Yes, the US held out at Bastogne, and Patton rode to the rescue, etc, etc, but if the weather had stayed bad for another week, it would have set back the allied advance considerably, and Patton might have had a lot more resistance than he had bargained for as well (but they would have won eventually in any case!).

As for the Chinese in Korea, I say again, I am not well-versed in the conflict or the literature, so cannot I make any definitive statements, bow to my academic superiors, and only pose questions (hopefully intelligent!) to inform myself.  One thing is ALWAYS true, if you have no concern for casualties, and are willing to throw troops into the maelstrom without regard to losses, you will make territorial gains (bought by piles of bodies).......

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 8:28 PM
Well, I guess there isn't any question as to had sea superiority!

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 8:08 PM

searat12 - you should read "A Time for Trumpets" by Charles MacDonald. The weather helped the Germans alot, but they didn't kick ***. Not one German unit made its first day's objectives and they became sorely behind schedule. Helped alot by actions of units not expected to do anything especially those "d**n engineers!" Forget the movie "The Battle of the Bulge" its a joke, and a bad one at that.

I would agree with you about the Chinese winter offensive. Waves and waves of cannon fodder that could erode the best defense.

Mike T.

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Monday, October 6, 2008 5:57 PM
I'm sure the UN air assets flew just as much as they could, but in those days, it didn't take a lot to ground air assets, especially ground support assets, and especially ground support assets in Winter.  Some rain, some snow, a bit of fog, and the planes couldn't fly, and the same thing happened at the Ardennes..... And it wouldn't take a lot, just a few days of bad weather, to get the momentum flowing the 'right' way for a major defeat.  Flying at night was mostly prohibited for ground support aircraft too, and for the same reasons, and so a series of major Chinese pushes at night could gain a lot of ground, get into rear areas, and generally cause chaos..... Very hard to stop a big push like that once it has been started favorably, as there never seems to be enough time to establish a new line of defense if the attack continues to be driven forward forcefully enough.......
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Monday, October 6, 2008 3:46 PM
Much of the weather during this time was clear cold skies. Air support was on many occasions what saved defeated units from total annihilation. Of course there were coudy/stormy periods as well. But the Chinese drive in winter 1950/51 was a true juggernaut, day and night, good weather and bad. And the UN air assets flew in all sorts of weather, due to the critical situation.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Monday, October 6, 2008 12:29 PM
Interesting.  I would also be interested in finding out what the weather conditions were like during this Chinese offensive, as US planes at the time did not have anything like 'all-weather' flying capability.  If the weather was bad, you would have a situation similar to that of the Battle of the Bulge, in which the Germans kicked butt big-time.....until the weather cleared!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Monday, October 6, 2008 12:01 PM

And, lest you reply that the UN had not established air superiority at the time of the Chinese intervention, another snippet:

Even after the Air Force introduced the advanced F-86, its pilots often struggled against the jets piloted by elite Soviet pilots.[citation needed] The UN gradually gained air superiority over most of Korea that lasted until the end of the war - a decisive factor in helping the UN first advance into the north, and then resist the Chinese invasion of South Korea.

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Monday, October 6, 2008 11:58 AM
 Mansteins revenge wrote:
 bbrowniii wrote:
 Mansteins revenge wrote:
 stikpusher wrote:

I would consider the Chinese winter offensive of 1950/51 a major victory obtained without air superiority. After summer 1950, the UN had air supremecy over the battlefield. Yet the Chinese were able to push UN forces back without even attempting to contest that. And due to numbers involved alone, it was a major battle. Nuclear weapons were even considered for usage.

The Yom Kippur Sainai opening round at best was an aerial no mans land. The Isaeli Air Force sustained crippling loss rates and only replacement from US stocks allowed them to have forces needed for their eventual successful counter attack on land and in the air. While the IAF had an air to air advantage, it did not translate over on to the CAS/interdiction until the ground forces had blasted a hole in the Egypian SAM/AAA defense belt.

Finally I will give another example of one side with no air power defeating a side with air superiority. DienBienPhu- The Viet Minh had no air power what so ever. The French did have a sizable air asset availble, and used it to the utmost. Yet they were defeated in conventional battle. Air Power was unable to make a decisive difference.

In the first and last cases, one opponent without air superiority was willing to endure horrendous casualties from the sky and ground and still achieve their battlefield objective. While the middle case was not as large a fight or victory as the other two, it certainly was significant in several ways. 1)it was the first time the Israeli army was defeated in open battle by the Egyptians, 2) it was the first time the Israeli Air Force did not have total air supremacy over it's opponents and dominance over all battlefields, 3)it showed just how much a full scale modern war can consume in aircraft, machines, men, etc in a very short time period between the competing Western and Soviet war doctrines.

Your original statement was one side winning without at least local air superiority. In all three cases that applied.

I agree that your third example applies: DienBienPhu. Don't agree w/ the other two examples, as neither side, IMO, had air-superiority, and that was really how my question should have been worded: "Winning a battle against an opponent w/ air superiority...Good catch on the Bearcat, as well...

Manny,

How do you not consider the Chinese Winter Offensive of 1950/51 to be a victory for the Chinese, despite UN air supremacy? 

Based on my research, neither side had significant air-assets during the surprise offensive that started the war...the UN was woefully prepared and it wasn't until later that the UN (US) could claim to have established air-dominance.

Oh, OK, I see.  Maybe we are comparing apples to oranges, inadvertantly.  The offensive Stikpusher and I are referring to is the 'second' major Communist offensive of the war, six months into the actual fighting.  After the US had stopped the NK and slipped in behind them at Inchon and after the US had crossed the 38th Parallel to push up to the the Yalu River.  The Chinese invaded with a massive force (300,000+ troops) which entered North Korea in mid-October and made contact (other than some 'minor' clashes) on 1 November 1950.  This ensuing Chinese Offensive drove UN forces out of the North and damn near back down to the Pusan Perimeter.  In fact, the defeat that the US was handed at the hands of the Chinese resulted in the longest retreat of any US army in history (the US 8th Army, which came pretty darn close to being completely wiped out).  All this in the face of overwhelming UN air superiority.  Here is an interesting snippet from Wikipedia on how the Chinese were able to accomplish this:

The Chinese seemed to come out of nowhere as they swarmed around the flanks and over the defensive positions of the surprised United Nations (UN) troops.[50] The Chinese march and bivouac discipline also minimized any possible detection. In a well-documented instance, a Chinese army of three divisions marched on foot from An-tung in Manchuria, on the north side of the Yalu River, 286 miles (460 km) to its assembly area in North Korea, in the combat zone, in a period ranging from 16 to 19 days. One division of this army, marching at night over circuitous mountain roads, averaged 18 miles (29 km) per day for 18 days. The day's march began after dark at 19:00 and ended at 03:00 the next morning. Defense measures against aircraft were to be completed before 05:30. Every man, animal, and piece of equipment were to be concealed and camouflaged...  When Chinese units were compelled for any reason to march by day, they were under standing orders for every man to stop in his tracks and remain motionless if aircraft appeared overhead. Officers were empowered to shoot any man who violated this order.[24]

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 6, 2008 11:39 AM
 bbrowniii wrote:
 Mansteins revenge wrote:
 stikpusher wrote:

I would consider the Chinese winter offensive of 1950/51 a major victory obtained without air superiority. After summer 1950, the UN had air supremecy over the battlefield. Yet the Chinese were able to push UN forces back without even attempting to contest that. And due to numbers involved alone, it was a major battle. Nuclear weapons were even considered for usage.

The Yom Kippur Sainai opening round at best was an aerial no mans land. The Isaeli Air Force sustained crippling loss rates and only replacement from US stocks allowed them to have forces needed for their eventual successful counter attack on land and in the air. While the IAF had an air to air advantage, it did not translate over on to the CAS/interdiction until the ground forces had blasted a hole in the Egypian SAM/AAA defense belt.

Finally I will give another example of one side with no air power defeating a side with air superiority. DienBienPhu- The Viet Minh had no air power what so ever. The French did have a sizable air asset availble, and used it to the utmost. Yet they were defeated in conventional battle. Air Power was unable to make a decisive difference.

In the first and last cases, one opponent without air superiority was willing to endure horrendous casualties from the sky and ground and still achieve their battlefield objective. While the middle case was not as large a fight or victory as the other two, it certainly was significant in several ways. 1)it was the first time the Israeli army was defeated in open battle by the Egyptians, 2) it was the first time the Israeli Air Force did not have total air supremacy over it's opponents and dominance over all battlefields, 3)it showed just how much a full scale modern war can consume in aircraft, machines, men, etc in a very short time period between the competing Western and Soviet war doctrines.

Your original statement was one side winning without at least local air superiority. In all three cases that applied.

I agree that your third example applies: DienBienPhu. Don't agree w/ the other two examples, as neither side, IMO, had air-superiority, and that was really how my question should have been worded: "Winning a battle against an opponent w/ air superiority...Good catch on the Bearcat, as well...

Manny,

How do you not consider the Chinese Winter Offensive of 1950/51 to be a victory for the Chinese, despite UN air supremacy? 

Based on my research, neither side had significant air-assets during the surprise offensive that started the war...the UN was woefully prepared and it wasn't until later that the UN (US) could claim to have established air-dominance.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Monday, October 6, 2008 10:52 AM
 Mansteins revenge wrote:
 stikpusher wrote:

I would consider the Chinese winter offensive of 1950/51 a major victory obtained without air superiority. After summer 1950, the UN had air supremecy over the battlefield. Yet the Chinese were able to push UN forces back without even attempting to contest that. And due to numbers involved alone, it was a major battle. Nuclear weapons were even considered for usage.

The Yom Kippur Sainai opening round at best was an aerial no mans land. The Isaeli Air Force sustained crippling loss rates and only replacement from US stocks allowed them to have forces needed for their eventual successful counter attack on land and in the air. While the IAF had an air to air advantage, it did not translate over on to the CAS/interdiction until the ground forces had blasted a hole in the Egypian SAM/AAA defense belt.

Finally I will give another example of one side with no air power defeating a side with air superiority. DienBienPhu- The Viet Minh had no air power what so ever. The French did have a sizable air asset availble, and used it to the utmost. Yet they were defeated in conventional battle. Air Power was unable to make a decisive difference.

In the first and last cases, one opponent without air superiority was willing to endure horrendous casualties from the sky and ground and still achieve their battlefield objective. While the middle case was not as large a fight or victory as the other two, it certainly was significant in several ways. 1)it was the first time the Israeli army was defeated in open battle by the Egyptians, 2) it was the first time the Israeli Air Force did not have total air supremacy over it's opponents and dominance over all battlefields, 3)it showed just how much a full scale modern war can consume in aircraft, machines, men, etc in a very short time period between the competing Western and Soviet war doctrines.

Your original statement was one side winning without at least local air superiority. In all three cases that applied.

I agree that your third example applies: DienBienPhu. Don't agree w/ the other two examples, as neither side, IMO, had air-superiority, and that was really how my question should have been worded: "Winning a battle against an opponent w/ air superiority...Good catch on the Bearcat, as well...

Manny,

How do you not consider the Chinese Winter Offensive of 1950/51 to be a victory for the Chinese, despite UN air supremacy? 

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, October 4, 2008 8:19 AM
 stikpusher wrote:

I would consider the Chinese winter offensive of 1950/51 a major victory obtained without air superiority. After summer 1950, the UN had air supremecy over the battlefield. Yet the Chinese were able to push UN forces back without even attempting to contest that. And due to numbers involved alone, it was a major battle. Nuclear weapons were even considered for usage.

The Yom Kippur Sainai opening round at best was an aerial no mans land. The Isaeli Air Force sustained crippling loss rates and only replacement from US stocks allowed them to have forces needed for their eventual successful counter attack on land and in the air. While the IAF had an air to air advantage, it did not translate over on to the CAS/interdiction until the ground forces had blasted a hole in the Egypian SAM/AAA defense belt.

Finally I will give another example of one side with no air power defeating a side with air superiority. DienBienPhu- The Viet Minh had no air power what so ever. The French did have a sizable air asset availble, and used it to the utmost. Yet they were defeated in conventional battle. Air Power was unable to make a decisive difference.

In the first and last cases, one opponent without air superiority was willing to endure horrendous casualties from the sky and ground and still achieve their battlefield objective. While the middle case was not as large a fight or victory as the other two, it certainly was significant in several ways. 1)it was the first time the Israeli army was defeated in open battle by the Egyptians, 2) it was the first time the Israeli Air Force did not have total air supremacy over it's opponents and dominance over all battlefields, 3)it showed just how much a full scale modern war can consume in aircraft, machines, men, etc in a very short time period between the competing Western and Soviet war doctrines.

Your original statement was one side winning without at least local air superiority. In all three cases that applied.

I agree that your third example applies: DienBienPhu. Don't agree w/ the other two examples, as neither side, IMO, had air-superiority, and that was really how my question should have been worded: "Winning a battle against an opponent w/ air superiority...Good catch on the Bearcat, as well...
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Saturday, October 4, 2008 12:49 AM

I would consider the Chinese winter offensive of 1950/51 a major victory obtained without air superiority. After summer 1950, the UN had air supremecy over the battlefield. Yet the Chinese were able to push UN forces back without even attempting to contest that. And due to numbers involved alone, it was a major battle. Nuclear weapons were even considered for usage.

The Yom Kippur Sainai opening round at best was an aerial no mans land. The Isaeli Air Force sustained crippling loss rates and only replacement from US stocks allowed them to have forces needed for their eventual successful counter attack on land and in the air. While the IAF had an air to air advantage, it did not translate over on to the CAS/interdiction until the ground forces had blasted a hole in the Egypian SAM/AAA defense belt.

Finally I will give another example of one side with no air power defeating a side with air superiority. DienBienPhu- The Viet Minh had no air power what so ever. The French did have a sizable air asset availble, and used it to the utmost. Yet they were defeated in conventional battle. Air Power was unable to make a decisive difference.

In the first and last cases, one opponent without air superiority was willing to endure horrendous casualties from the sky and ground and still achieve their battlefield objective. While the middle case was not as large a fight or victory as the other two, it certainly was significant in several ways. 1)it was the first time the Israeli army was defeated in open battle by the Egyptians, 2) it was the first time the Israeli Air Force did not have total air supremacy over it's opponents and dominance over all battlefields, 3)it showed just how much a full scale modern war can consume in aircraft, machines, men, etc in a very short time period between the competing Western and Soviet war doctrines.

Your original statement was one side winning without at least local air superiority. In all three cases that applied.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 3, 2008 11:50 PM
 stikpusher wrote:

As far as any battles being won without at least local airsuperiority;

The Korean War comes to mind. The Chinese never established a daytime battlefield air presence, let alone air superiority, but were able to fight and win some ground battles. The daytime Air War there involving Chinese aircraft was more strategic in nature. The night air war did see an offensive tactical Chinese presence over the battlefield, but in primarily a nusciance roll.

Also the initial phases of the Yom Kippur war. Arab air defences negated the Israeli Air Force and allowed them, especially in the Sinai, to achieve local tactical victories without local air superiority.

Hmmmm...IMO, in your two examples, neither side had real air superiority...my thesis is that there hasn't been a major battle or campaign won against a side THAT HAD air superiority...during the initial phase of the Korean War, allied assets were minimal; once the US went to war and had time to reinforce, the UN had air superiority...In your Yom Kipper example, the Arabs may have initially negated Israeli a/c, but that goes to my point, they were only successful when they erased Israeli air superiority for a short time...
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, October 3, 2008 11:44 PM

The Air Force used primarily F-80s, F-84s, F-51s, and B-26s for CAS, and interdiction. The Navy/Marines used F4U/AUs, ADs, F9Fs, F2Hs, and F7Fs.

Edit-no Bearcats in Korea. They would not see combat ever in US hands. They were however used by the French in Indochina.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 3, 2008 11:41 PM
 searat12 wrote:
Just curious... What sort of planes was the US using for ground attack, close-support bombing, etc?
F9 Panther; F80 Shooting Star; Bearcat...
  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Friday, October 3, 2008 9:58 PM
corsairs was 1 of them
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Friday, October 3, 2008 9:50 PM
Just curious... What sort of planes was the US using for ground attack, close-support bombing, etc?
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, October 3, 2008 7:58 PM

Basic timetable is North Korea invades June 1950 and pushes ROK/US forces to Pusan perimeter by July/August. Far East Air Force flying from Japan and USN/USMC/RN FAA from carriers off Korea shoot the North's Air Force out of the war. Sept 1950 MacArthur lands 1st Marines and Army troops at Inchon to rear of North Korean Army. UN forces then counterattack from Pusan and push communist forces out of South Korea. Oct 1950, UN forces cross 38th parallel into North Korea and begin driving to Chinese border with complete air supremacy. Chinese ground forces first enountered in sharp fighting, then "disappear". Nov 1950, Mig15s first encountered, flown by Soviet pilots, outclassing any fighter the UN has in theater. Their prime roll is intercepting B-29 raids on North Korean airfields, power plants, etc. Escorting fighters, F-80s and F-84s unable to protect the bombers. The call goes out for F-86s. Migs make no attempt to intervene in the ground battle. Thanksgiving 1950, Chinese launch massive ground intervention and push UN forces out of North Korea and well into South Korea by early 1951. In Dec.1950 Sabres arrive in theater and begin daily clashes with Migs in "MiG alley" along the N.Korea/Chinese border. In early 1951 UN forces rally, counterattack and push Chinese back to along 38th parallel where both sides stabilize and begin the stalemate/trench portion of the war that has more in common with WWI except for weapons used. These were the large scale hill fights-Pork Chop, Old Baldy, the Punchbowl, Heartbreak Ridge... some were won and some were lost. Communist air forces after the initial weeks of the war never contested UN battlefield air superiority-only the strategic. The Migs did sweep the B-29s from daylight skies over Korea, but none of the other UN aircraft.

 

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Friday, October 3, 2008 6:57 PM
Interesting.... I am not well-versed in the Korean war, but it seems to me that until the F-86 Sabre jets were deployed, the Russian-piloted Mig-15's almost swept the daylight skies of allied aircraft, but shortly after the Sabres were deployed, McArthur decided to drive North, as well as outflank by sea......
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, October 3, 2008 5:23 PM
No, the Chinese or Soviets ever prevented UN forces from having battlefield air superiority. Yet they were able to push UN forces back south of the 38th parallel by ground power alone.  Certainly a battlefield victory there without air superiority or even presence. The closest they did to that was by ground power forcing thewithdrawl of Korean based aircraft to Japan in that time period. Later after the stalemate portion of the war was in effect, they would win occasional hill battles in spite of UN air superiority. Chinese and Soviet Migs had their strongest effect upon US strategic bombing, forcing it to a night only campaign.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Friday, October 3, 2008 5:18 PM
 Chuck Fan wrote:

 searat12 wrote:
And certainly the native North Americans didn't treat the Norsemen as gods, just peppered them with arrows until they went away!  Another interesting theory involves the ancient Irish under St Brendan teh Bold, who supposedly ended up in America.  The only evidence for this on this side of the pond seems to be the Mandan indians, many of whom had red hair and blue eyes, plus a few linguistic similarities......


It is known that the gene which causes red hair amoungst some Europeans is extremely ancient, was present amongst the neaderthals, and certainly predated the rise of Homo sapiens.    So red hair amongst Indians does not necessarily imply recent gene exchange with the Irish.   

 It would be curious to see if the blue eyes of American Indians were caused by the same gene as that which caused blue eyes in Northern Europeans.  If they are not, then the blue eyes of Indians would have nothing to do with European contact.   There have also been other superficial similarities between different peoples of the world that later proved to be derived from different genes, and so do not constitute evidence of migration bring the same gene from one to another.    For example, the relatively fair skin of East Asians can be shown to be caused by a different set of genes than those which gave Europeans fair skin, so the fact that east Asians often have fair skin does not imply fair skinned Europeans migrated to Asia and intermarried with darker skinned natives.    Instead it is likely that homo sapiens arrived at both northern Europe and east Asia quite dark skinned, having freshly come out of Africa.  Only later did Europeans and Asians independently evolved lighter skin in independent response to local environments.

 

 

Notice I didn't say it was definitive evidence, but only that it was some evidence (and evidence not found among any other Indian tribes, to my knowledge).  Certainly there are always anomalies in any population, but it is never a good idea to overly generalize, or dismiss anything out of hand (it might jump up and bite you in the butt one day!). 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Friday, October 3, 2008 5:11 PM
This seems a bit of a contradiction... If the Chinese were able to prevent the US from achieving air superiority over the battlefield, then it was really not necessary to achieve air superiority themselves.... Of course towards the end, the US did achieve a fair measure of air superiority, and unsurprisingly, the Army started to kick Chinese butt......
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, October 3, 2008 4:54 PM
The Mig-15's were almost always flown either over water in the area of the Yalu River, in a traditional air defence roll defending North Korean targets/deep airspace against UN interdiction or strategic airstrikes. One one occasion a group of unmarked Migs took off from Vladivostok and approached a carrier Task Group at low level and were intercepted by F9Fs. The Panther jets held their own in the low level fight, downing some Migs and turning the rest back. This was possibly one of the few offensive tactical type missions flown, but at sea, rather than over land. I have read that the Soviets were quite concerned with losing a MiG-15 over UN forces on the battlefield and having its' secrets revealed.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Friday, October 3, 2008 4:21 PM
 stikpusher wrote:

As far as any battles being won without at least local airsuperiority;

The Korean War comes to mind. The Chinese never established a daytime battlefield air presence, let alone air superiority,

 

Even during the phase when Mig-15 first appeared?

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, October 3, 2008 3:37 PM

As far as any battles being won without at least local airsuperiority;

The Korean War comes to mind. The Chinese never established a daytime battlefield air presence, let alone air superiority, but were able to fight and win some ground battles. The daytime Air War there involving Chinese aircraft was more strategic in nature. The night air war did see an offensive tactical Chinese presence over the battlefield, but in primarily a nusciance roll.

Also the initial phases of the Yom Kippur war. Arab air defences negated the Israeli Air Force and allowed them, especially in the Sinai, to achieve local tactical victories without local air superiority.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Friday, October 3, 2008 3:25 PM

 searat12 wrote:
And certainly the native North Americans didn't treat the Norsemen as gods, just peppered them with arrows until they went away!  Another interesting theory involves the ancient Irish under St Brendan teh Bold, who supposedly ended up in America.  The only evidence for this on this side of the pond seems to be the Mandan indians, many of whom had red hair and blue eyes, plus a few linguistic similarities......


It is known that the gene which causes red hair amoungst some Europeans is extremely ancient, was present amongst the neaderthals, and certainly predated the rise of Homo sapiens.    So red hair amongst Indians does not necessarily imply recent gene exchange with the Irish.   

 It would be curious to see if the blue eyes of American Indians were caused by the same gene as that which caused blue eyes in Northern Europeans.  If they are not, then the blue eyes of Indians would have nothing to do with European contact.   There have also been other superficial similarities between different peoples of the world that later proved to be derived from different genes, and so do not constitute evidence of migration bring the same gene from one to another.    For example, the relatively fair skin of East Asians can be shown to be caused by a different set of genes than those which gave Europeans fair skin, so the fact that east Asians often have fair skin does not imply fair skinned Europeans migrated to Asia and intermarried with darker skinned natives.    Instead it is likely that homo sapiens arrived at both northern Europe and east Asia quite dark skinned, having freshly come out of Africa.  Only later did Europeans and Asians independently evolved lighter skin in independent response to local environments.

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Friday, October 3, 2008 3:10 PM
ref necessity for air superiority to win battles, that is essentially correct......
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Friday, October 3, 2008 3:09 PM
And certainly the native North Americans didn't treat the Norsemen as gods, just peppered them with arrows until they went away!  Another interesting theory involves the ancient Irish under St Brendan teh Bold, who supposedly ended up in America.  The only evidence for this on this side of the pond seems to be the Mandan indians, many of whom had red hair and blue eyes, plus a few linguistic similarities......
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Friday, October 3, 2008 12:45 PM

Chuck Fan - I just threw that in to show how a little fact could be used to spun a good yarn. Its much truer to believe that the Iroquois may have had contact with the Norse and possibly absorbed some of the lost settlements. In the Iroquois language there are 200 words that are the same in meaning and pronunciation as old Norse.

Mike T.

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Friday, October 3, 2008 12:40 PM

It's a waste of time to look at such off the wall theories.    Norse ships were open, not decked.   Every known Norse voyage was conducted hugging the coast with no more than 2-3 days out of land, a far cry from navigating an absolute minimum of 2000 miles to reach Hawaii.  The weather of North Atlantic on the worst day is a flat calm next to the most serene sea you will ever see in Cape Horn.    To say the Norse navigate in open boats around the cape horn and reach Hawaii 2000 miles from the nearest land in any significant numbers is fantasy even more out there than Chinese arrived in North America prior to 12,000 years ago.     I think we in the west has expanded far too much energy, and make far too grand leaps of imagination, to twist some distant factoids into a self-satisfying fantasy of how our ancesters must have been to be gods to other parts of the world.   I have no doubt some day someone would claim the Viking long ships somehow got to the moon first as well.

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Friday, October 3, 2008 12:27 PM

There's an off the wall theory that a group of Norse Voyagers prior than 1000 CE(AD) made it around Cape Horn and up to the island of Hawaii. Each of the Hawaiian islands held their own pantheon of dieties. Three of the dieties for the island of Hawaii have common factors that are also different from the other dieties in the pantheon which is their fair skin and hair colors. Pele is a blond, while her brother, the war god, is a red head like their younger sister. Fair skin and blond and red hair coloring although common in the Norse is not so with the Polynesians.

I thought the theory as interesting especially that it could have been two migrating groups that arrived in the Hawaiian islands about the same time. There is some overlap in the times the Norse and Polynesians did their voyaging. Imagaine the impact of a Norse warrior with metal weapons and armor against warriors using bone, skin and wood! He would surely be a god of war!

FYI

Mike T.    

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 3, 2008 11:22 AM
 searat12 wrote:

First off, Squeekie, get to me off-line to talk about anthropology.  As for the Pearl Harbor/Taranto topic, I think Yamamoto was well aware of the exercises against Pearl Harbor, as well as the actual results at Taranto, and both of these items helped form his strategy for the initial Japanese attacks at Pearl Harbor, and the Phillipines as well.  As regards Japanese appreciation for air-superiority is concerned, ALL of their strategy was dependent on fully establishing both local and area air-superiority in order to achieve their objectives, and this strategy was faithfully adhered to until they stretched just a bit too far by trying to establish yet another air-base at Guadalcanal (which could not be continuously covered by air assets), at which point, the whole house of cards began to collapse......... 

It is difficult to think of ANY battles where one side won WITHOUT, at least, local air-superiority... 
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Friday, October 3, 2008 11:07 AM

Ranger, not Langley, was the first US purpose built carrier. The latter was a converted collier.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Friday, October 3, 2008 10:06 AM

 subfixer wrote:
A submarine is not just useful to sink ships with torpedoes. There hasn't been a ship sunk by torpedoes (that I know of, anyway) since the Falkland War. The major contribution of submarines is in covert operations and intelligence gathering. More than most of us will ever know. Why do you think that they keep building them? And improving on them? And don't even get me started on boomers.

All true!  And while torpedoes haven't been used for a while, this is mostly because there has not been a naval battle since the Falklands.  Yet the submarine continues to prove its worth through the use of submarine-launched cruise missiles against land targets.  But of course, much the same can be said about aircraft carriers, in that they represent just about the apex of 'power projection' of a non-nuclear type.  As for an individual ship, perhaps it might be worth mentioning USS Langley, and IJN Hosho in this regard, as both ships represent the first 'purpose-designed' aircraft carriers (were not conversions), and perhaps the Japanese I-400 submarines, as they were the first submarines built for strategic, not tactical purposes (designed to attack Panama and the US West Coast with bomber aircraft)........

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Friday, October 3, 2008 9:41 AM
A submarine is not just useful to sink ships with torpedoes. There hasn't been a ship sunk by torpedoes (that I know of, anyway) since the Falkland War. The major contribution of submarines is in covert operations and intelligence gathering. More than most of us will ever know. Why do you think that they keep building them? And improving on them? Don't even get me started on boomers.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Ozarks of Arkansas
Posted by diggeraone on Friday, October 3, 2008 9:29 AM
The stratgies employed at the begining for the war was only possible to the changes in ships like the monitor and penn.which prove what could be done.The aircraft carrier was historically significant in that you could now bring air power with you and changed the face of navial stratgies forever.I readed where the C.S.S. Hunley was menitioned this two was a change but not of significances untill the torpedo came about.This made subs a deadly weapon then and gave then range to hit there targets from a distance.Digger
Put all your trust in the Lord,do not put confidence in man.PSALM 118:8 We are in the buisness to do the impossible..G.S.Patton
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:41 PM

First off, Squeekie, get to me off-line to talk about anthropology.  As for the Pearl Harbor/Taranto topic, I think Yamamoto was well aware of the exercises against Pearl Harbor, as well as the actual results at Taranto, and both of these items helped form his strategy for the initial Japanese attacks at Pearl Harbor, and the Phillipines as well.  As regards Japanese appreciation for air-superiority is concerned, ALL of their strategy was dependent on fully establishing both local and area air-superiority in order to achieve their objectives, and this strategy was faithfully adhered to until they stretched just a bit too far by trying to establish yet another air-base at Guadalcanal (which could not be continuously covered by air assets), at which point, the whole house of cards began to collapse......... 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:29 PM

again, all true points... but their initial planning was geared towards eliminating American air power to both defend and strike back at the outset. The first wave's dive bombers along with a portion of the 1st wave level bombers were tasked with hitting the known fighter bases as well as the Naval/MarineCorps Air stations. This was the essence of winning temporary air superiority over the chosen battlefield. Which they did. Only during the second wave were dive bombers tasked with anti shipping strikes, along with another strike at the airfields. And yes the failure to launch a strike/3rd wave aginst the oil tank farms, dry docks, and other support facilities would enable the US to recover from the overall atack far quicker than had those also been hit.

     However, in all fairness to the Japanese, a more serious defense would have been encountered, and the possibility of at least Enterprise being able to locate and strike back would have increased. At the very least, in all probablity their losses to fighters would more than likely have doubled. Between four US fighter pilots: Taylor, Welch, Brown, and Rasmussen, 1/3 (10 kills total among them) of all Japanese aircraft losses (29 lost) are credited. More were available and airborne in the wake of the second wave.

But yes, again, other Japanese Admirals (but not all) would break off a successfull action when an even greater victory or a victory was within reach.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:28 PM
At the risk of hair-splitting, the Japanese, it could be argued, did not attempt air superiority either...the US and Japan was not at war. Sueprise was their air superiority...and that lasted but a couple of hours...Also, considering there were 6 Japanese carriers launching a/c, the Japanese would have been wise to have launched a 3rd and 4th strike and really struck a far more serious blow if they had hit dry-docks, fuel depots, etc...the Japanese began, what would become a pattern in the war, of cautiousness at the decisive moment...
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:09 PM

True, but wargames are where the initial seeds are planted. The Taranto attack was very limited in scale and although it achieved great results, it was far different in scope from Pearl Harbor. Only one carrier was used, and the actual sorties flown were small. There was not attempt to win air superiority or repeated strikes. The attack could not have succeeded so well in daylight. The 1932 wargames were revolutionary in that carriers were still viewed as supporting the gun battle line. Instead, there the concept of carrier planes delivering the main blow against ships and shore installations, including airfields, and replacing the battle line were tried out very successfully. The defending team was caught completely unprepared, as they would be again in 1941.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 2, 2008 8:50 PM
 stikpusher wrote:

The Taranto torpedo attacks were supposedly Yamamoto's inspiration for the same sort of attack at Pearl Harbor. But as posted above, the concept of an aerial attack upon Pearl Harbor had first been tried out (very successfully and seen by the Japanese Naval Attache at the Hawaiian consulate) by the Lexington and Saratoga's air groups during the 1932 war games there on a Sunday morning.

Yeah, but I give more weight to Taronto...I mean a wargame is just that: a game, a simulation...no one really knew how succesful it would be for real...the Brits proved that theory could work in wartime...
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, October 2, 2008 8:46 PM

The Taranto torpedo attacks were supposedly Yamamoto's inspiration for the same sort of attack at Pearl Harbor. But as posted above, the concept of an aerial attack upon Pearl Harbor had first been tried out (very successfully and seen by the Japanese Naval Attache at the Hawaiian consulate) by the Lexington and Saratoga's air groups during the 1932 war games there on a Sunday morning.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Thursday, October 2, 2008 6:01 PM
OK, you anthropological dudes, don't you think this should be carried over to the "Odds and Ends" section? These primitives probably didn't even know how to float on a log much less build a naval vessel. Sheesh!

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Thursday, October 2, 2008 4:00 PM
 squeakie wrote:

The "so called" latest Chinese culture finds in the USA  were in the national news a few years back, and I think even National Geographic and others did a page or so about it. The reason I keep refering to the N.G. is that that's about the only journal I've read that would have anything to do with that. Possibly the Smithsonian as well, but nothing recent.

OK, one quick thing.  Neither National Geographic nor Smithsonian are really 'journals' in the sense of 'professional, peer-reviewed anthropological/archaeological' journals.  They are written for a popular (as oposed to a professional) audience and, as such, often have stories based on conjecture, rumors, and cricumstantial evidence, but which appeal to peoples' imaginations.

 

 squeakie wrote:

    So what is the revisionist history concerning the Cliff Dwellers? Simply that it's now fashionable to lable them as Hopi's or Navahos when they are not. But what were they is still a mistory (I might add that there's something about their art work that leeds credence to this, but it's above me).

gary

What you are saying about the Cliff Dwellers is pretty widely accepted among anthropologists who study New World Pre-history.  NONE of the modern (or historic for that matter) Native American groups can really trace a genetic or cultural heritage back very far into prehistory, so linking them to any group is really difficult.  Primarily this is because the contact period was so destructive for Native Americans, and their cultures and societies that, what remained to be 'discovered' by Europeans was just a shadow of what had been before.  So many groups were decimated, disrupted, displaced, and later ammalgamated with other fragmentary groups that cultural legacies were devastated. 

So it isn't really revisionist history, at least to anthropologists.  Now, your average 'Joe' on the street may not understand that, and the Hopi and the Navajo may disagree (for a lot of reasons, it is in their interest for people to think they are the descendants of the Cliff Dwellers - which in all fairness, they may prove to be...), but that is the nature of things in so many cases that I would hesitate to consider it 'revisionist'.

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Thursday, October 2, 2008 1:44 PM
 squeakie wrote:

The "so called" latest Chinese culture finds in the USA  were in the national news a few years back, and I think even National Geographic and others did a page or so about it. The reason I keep refering to the N.G. is that that's about the only journal I've read that would have anything to do with that. Possibly the Smithsonian as well, but nothing recent.

 

There is simply no getting around the fact that Chinese civilization, according to both archeology and China's own records, is no more than 4000 years old.   If settlers had sailed across the Pacific from Asia before that time, they weren't Chinese.    The oldest Indian settlement in North American is at the very minimum 3 times older than 4000 years.  Unless the Chinese had invented a time machine, they could not have gotten here before the American Indians.    If someone can be shown to have sailed across the Pacific more than 12,000 years ago, that would probably cause many archeologists to hang themselves.  

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Thursday, October 2, 2008 1:29 PM
i remember reading that the american naval war games during the 1930's involved attacking pearl harbor & panama canal using the lexington & saratoga.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 2, 2008 12:04 PM
 searat12 wrote:
Yup, Pennsylvania is a good candidate, as is HMS Furious for the same reasons.   I have a book called 'US Armored Cruisers' which has a large section on the Pennsylvania.  I really like the old US armored cruisers, like the Pennsylvanias and Tennesee's (and really like the old USS Brooklyn!).  Perhaps a new subject line to compare relative armored cruisers?  What if Scharnhorst met up with USS Tennessee?
One thing about Pearl Harbor a lot of folks don't realize is that the concept of attacking a fleet in harbor was not a new one...the Brits did it a year earlier in the war at the Italian Naval Base at Taronto...they disabled and sunk virtually every capital ship the Italians had w/ Swordfish torpedo bombers...
  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Thursday, October 2, 2008 12:01 PM
 bbrowniii wrote:

 squeakie wrote:

an interesting post to say the least, and I've got to think on most of it. BUT:

The State of California has found evidence of perminate Chinese settlements that predate any Indian culture in the state. To be exact they have been able to unearth new ones in the last ten years. Now I can't say anything about the State of Washington or even Oregon and for that matter Canada. But the California stuff is not new, and have been published many times over. There's even one idea that "Native Americans" are actually Polynesian. I'll leave that for experts as they look more like Manchurians to me.

   And with matters involving the so called "Native American" there seems to be a constant revisionists history that is full of holes (the latest is with the Cliff Dwellers.) At least in the National Geographic they do publish photos instead of theorys.

gary

Gary,

Two quick things: first, where has this evidence of 'Chinese' settlement of California been published?  I ask because I am genuinely interested and would like to follow up.  Although I will say, the old idea that Native Americans were/are of Polynesian descent has been largely refuted by genetic evidence...

Second, what revisionist history about the Cliff Dwellers?  I had not been aware that there was a brewing controversy concerning them. 

The "so called" latest Chinese culture finds in the USA  were in the national news a few years back, and I think even National Geographic and others did a page or so about it. The reason I keep refering to the N.G. is that that's about the only journal I've read that would have anything to do with that. Possibly the Smithsonian as well, but nothing recent.

I just made the quip about the Polynesians to point out that there are many ideas; right or wrong.

The Cliff Dwellings are another thing with me. Contrary to what the Navahos and Hopi would like us to believe they were not Navahos, Hopi's, or Apaches. They were their own race and culture. Politically correct or not this has been proven out hundreds of times. But in these times and wanting to appease certain sects they are now considered Hopi even though the Navaho say they're wrong as they're Navaho. Many people thing they are a spin off of the Aztecs that once settled in the area (long before the Indians that we know of today were there). What happened to them one cannot be 100% sure, and why it happened is another thing. They do now know that there was an extremely hard drought that lasted close to thirty years proceeding the ice age of the 16th century (climatologists have confirmed this). But the real mistory is why did they just leave everything behind (food and all) in every site they've uncovered, and at about the same time. I have a close friend who does work for the Fed on the side and has access to the sites that 99% of the people are bared from, and she has told me often that they find the same thing in everyone she's been to. They are finding new sites all the time, and now they are thinking the area they lived in was many times larger than first thought of. They do know they pretty much lived in everything from middle Colorado and south no northern Mexico. But appear to stop at the Sierra Nevadas in the west and maybe west Texas (this is a complete mistory as to just how far east they settled). They operated on a "commune system," and had a very well structured society. Everything was much different than the current Indian societies we know of today. I've two or three really good books on them, and I'll have to hunt them up.

    So what is the revisionist history concerning the Cliff Dwellers? Simply that it's now fashionable to lable them as Hopi's or Navahos when they are not. But what were they is still a mistory (I might add that there's something about their art work that leeds credence to this, but it's above me).

gary

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:58 AM
Yup, Pennsylvania is a good candidate, as is HMS Furious for the same reasons.   I have a book called 'US Armored Cruisers' which has a large section on the Pennsylvania.  I really like the old US armored cruisers, like the Pennsylvanias and Tennesee's (and really like the old USS Brooklyn!).  Perhaps a new subject line to compare relative armored cruisers?  What if Scharnhorst met up with USS Tennessee?
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Thursday, October 2, 2008 5:25 AM
Hey Digger! Thanks for bringing us back to the subject at hand.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Ozarks of Arkansas
Posted by diggeraone on Thursday, October 2, 2008 12:11 AM
I was reading through this,there are a lot of good pionts.Ships that changed the coruse of history and navial warfare thought I would have to say,The Monitor for the turret which could bring all guns to bare on its target.The other was the Pennsylvania where they built a wooden deck on her back end to prove that ships could be made to land airplanes.This one ideal alone change the face of navial warfare and made the Jappanise take notice.....Pearl Harbor.As Billy Micthell told his court marshall panel after he proved that airpower made an end of Battleships.Digger
Put all your trust in the Lord,do not put confidence in man.PSALM 118:8 We are in the buisness to do the impossible..G.S.Patton
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 10:47 PM

I certainly have never seen any indication of any evidence, in National Geographic, or anywhere else that suggested Chinese settlement anywhere in the US prior to their importation to help build the railroads in the 19th century.  Yes, as squeekie wrote, there have been several theories floating around that the Chinese could  have reached the new world sometime in the 15th century (certainly their ships were up to it), but if they did, they didn't stay, and based on the mission of the explorers, they would have no reason to return either.  The Emperor's mission was to find out if there was any superior knowledge or technology in the world, and when it was discovered that essentially, there wasn't, the Emperor figured that the only thing that would result from expanded contact with foreigners would be a loss of technology to them, rather than a gain to China, and so all further explorations were cancelled, forbidden, and the ships destroyed in the interests of 'National Security.'

There have also been some theories (and with a lot better evidence) that America may also have been visited, and for a time even settled (or rather, some settlements were established), by the Carthaginians too!  As for linguistics and genetics, this is still very much a developing science, and it is hard to assign definitive dates using it as yet (though it gets better all the time!).  While the ancient human remains found are few and far between, these dates are definitive, as are their racial and DNA footprints.  Does this mean people could not possibly have arrived in America earlier?  Of course not; it just means definitive remains have not yet been found.  Prior to the Mexican findings, the next two oldest human remains are found in Oregon (13,000 years old), and Santa Catalina Island in California (11,500 years old), which is a lot older than any Chinese, or Chinese junks, I do assure you!

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 9:13 PM

 squeakie wrote:

an interesting post to say the least, and I've got to think on most of it. BUT:

The State of California has found evidence of perminate Chinese settlements that predate any Indian culture in the state. To be exact they have been able to unearth new ones in the last ten years. Now I can't say anything about the State of Washington or even Oregon and for that matter Canada. But the California stuff is not new, and have been published many times over. There's even one idea that "Native Americans" are actually Polynesian. I'll leave that for experts as they look more like Manchurians to me.

   And with matters involving the so called "Native American" there seems to be a constant revisionists history that is full of holes (the latest is with the Cliff Dwellers.) At least in the National Geographic they do publish photos instead of theorys.

gary

Gary,

Two quick things: first, where has this evidence of 'Chinese' settlement of California been published?  I ask because I am genuinely interested and would like to follow up.  Although I will say, the old idea that Native Americans were/are of Polynesian descent has been largely refuted by genetic evidence...

Second, what revisionist history about the Cliff Dwellers?  I had not been aware that there was a brewing controversy concerning them. 

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 8:33 PM
 Chuck Fan wrote:

I was actually referring to the earliest known settlement actually on the west coast, presumably where the Chinese would settle if they did come here first.    

The theory of how America was peopled is clearly in flux.    The Clovis first theory that has been  the accepted model for about 40 years is clearly crumbling.    There are different lines of evidence, some as dramatic as they are tentative.     For example, there are genetic results suggestive of the possibility that ancesters Native Americans had been separated from gene pool in Asia as early as 35,000 years ago.     The question is where did the ancester of the native Americans spend the next 20,000 years that kept them so well isolated?   Were they still in Asia or did they already come to North America?   One theory is the separation was caused by migration to North American and that they spent the next 20,000 years in North America.    Just where is not known.   Another suggested they became isolated but were still in Northern Asia.  Again just where is not known.     There is also linguistic and genetic evidence to suggest that although Native Americans mostly descended from the same group that separated from the rest of Asian gene pool 35,000 years ago, they subsequently developed into 3 distinct genetic groups, and populated North and South America in 3 pulses.   The early separation theory then postulate that the original group, after separating from Asian gene pool 35,000 years ago remained confined for about 20,000 years.   Then sometime around 15,000 years ago something happened and one group broke out the confined area where they've lived for 20,000 years and quickly populated all of the American continent down to Terra Del Freugo.   About 8000 years ago another group, originating from the same confined area, broke out again, moved down the American south west and populated much of American south west, displacing some of the already established population as they went, establishing an genetically and linguistically related but distinct group still recognizable.   Finally maybe 2-3000 years ago yet a third group again broke out of the original area and populated much of Northern Canada, Greenland and possibly even back to Siberia, resulting in a third related yet distinct group amongst the American Indian population.

The only things known for certain are:   What are now American Indians originally descended from a very small group of no more than a few hundred individuals.   The genetic variation amongst American indians is far smaller than the genetic variation that exists among the population of the old world, which is why they were so much more susceptible to old world diseases after Colombus first visited then the old world people were to new world diseases.   They probably descended from people related to Northern Asians but had been genetically separated from people of Northern Asia now a very long time ago, much earlier then the end of last ice age.     The American Indian populations of North and South America didn't all arrive near their current locations in one single great migration thrust.   There were at least 3 as told by linguistic evidence.    Based on linguistic variations, these three groups were each separated from the others by a long time as well.

 

As for Chinese migration to North America, I think there is no evidence.    The most charitable thing that can be said for this theory is no evidence decisively precludes it, which is different from saying evidence point suggestively to it.   Not every stone with a hole in the middle is a Chinese anchor.   A mill stone can also have a hole in the middle, as can a soap stone from which the American Indians had manufactuered a soap stone bowl.   Not every passage in an ancient Chinese book of proses that could be made to fit the scenario of American west is actually inspired by direct experience with the scenary of American west.   Some could really be fanciful.   

That is not to say no Chinese junk blown off course could have shipwrecked on the American coast, or that no Chinese ship wrecked survivor could have lived for a few years in America, or even have made use of local material to build another ship to bring them back to China.   It could have happened, but there is no real evidence.  Everything looks blue when one wears blue glasses.   But take it off and most things are not blue.

 

    

an interesting post to say the least, and I've got to think on most of it. BUT:

The State of California has found evidence of perminate Chinese settlements that predate any Indian culture in the state. To be exact they have been able to unearth new ones in the last ten years. Now I can't say anything about the State of Washington or even Oregon and for that matter Canada. But the California stuff is not new, and have been published many times over. There's even one idea that "Native Americans" are actually Polynesian. I'll leave that for experts as they look more like Manchurians to me.

   And with matters involving the so called "Native American" there seems to be a constant revisionists history that is full of holes (the latest is with the Cliff Dwellers.) At least in the National Geographic they do publish photos instead of theorys.

gary

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 7:15 PM

Even though this is taking this thread even more off-topic, as a biological anthropologist/osteologist, I can't resist the urge to chime in...

As Chuck has already said, the one real thing we can say with certainty about the peopling of the New World is that we don't understand it nearly as well as we thought we did, even 10 or 15 years ago.  Clovis First is, IMHO, dead...  Still exactly how and when the first people came to be in the New World, and if where they settled, is a complex question.  Is Tom Dillahey correct down at Monte Verde, and people were in South American 25,000 years ago?  How about Jim Adavasio and Meadowcroft Rockshelter in PA?  Could people have been in the Northeast 20+ thousand years ago, before an ice-free corridor would have allowed migration from what is, today, Alaska?  Really all intriguing questions...

One thing that we can say is, when considering the earliest skeletal material (of which there really isn't that much, so conclusions are tentative) they are quite distinct from what we consider to be the 'Native Americans' of the post-Contact period (one reason why the 'Kenniwick Man' skeleton is so remarkable and controversial).  Undoubtedly, the earliest migrants were from Asia (as intriguing as it may be, and as provokative as it might also be, I'm not sold on the 'Solutrean' link between Europe and the Eastern US).

As far as the Chinese being here 'first' or setting up the first 'settlement', from what I have read (and I will admit it is limited) I am also not convinced.  I know that book came out a few years back, I think it was something like 1442, The Year the Chinese Discovered America, but most of what I have seen suggests there are some pretty serious flaws in the arguments presented and conclusions are reached on less than impirical evidence.  And, as someone esle mentioned, if the Chinese did happen to get here, even well before Columbus, their impact was minimal.  The Basques on the other hand.....  well, y'all probably aren't interested in stories about salted cod, so I'll spare you the details.... Big Smile [:D]

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 4:08 PM

I was actually referring to the earliest known settlement actually on the west coast, presumably where the Chinese would settle if they did come here first.    

The theory of how America was peopled is clearly in flux.    The Clovis first theory that has been  the accepted model for about 40 years is clearly crumbling.    There are different lines of evidence, some as dramatic as they are tentative.     For example, there are genetic results suggestive of the possibility that ancesters Native Americans had been separated from gene pool in Asia as early as 35,000 years ago.     The question is where did the ancester of the native Americans spend the next 20,000 years that kept them so well isolated?   Were they still in Asia or did they already come to North America?   One theory is the separation was caused by migration to North American and that they spent the next 20,000 years in North America.    Just where is not known.   Another suggested they became isolated but were still in Northern Asia.  Again just where is not known.     There is also linguistic and genetic evidence to suggest that although Native Americans mostly descended from the same group that separated from the rest of Asian gene pool 35,000 years ago, they subsequently developed into 3 distinct genetic groups, and populated North and South America in 3 pulses.   The early separation theory then postulate that the original group, after separating from Asian gene pool 35,000 years ago remained confined for about 20,000 years.   Then sometime around 15,000 years ago something happened and one group broke out the confined area where they've lived for 20,000 years and quickly populated all of the American continent down to Terra Del Freugo.   About 8000 years ago another group, originating from the same confined area, broke out again, moved down the American south west and populated much of American south west, displacing some of the already established population as they went, establishing an genetically and linguistically related but distinct group still recognizable.   Finally maybe 2-3000 years ago yet a third group again broke out of the original area and populated much of Northern Canada, Greenland and possibly even back to Siberia, resulting in a third related yet distinct group amongst the American Indian population.

The only things known for certain are:   What are now American Indians originally descended from a very small group of no more than a few hundred individuals.   The genetic variation amongst American indians is far smaller than the genetic variation that exists among the population of the old world, which is why they were so much more susceptible to old world diseases after Colombus first visited then the old world people were to new world diseases.   They probably descended from people related to Northern Asians but had been genetically separated from people of Northern Asia now a very long time ago, much earlier then the end of last ice age.     The American Indian populations of North and South America didn't all arrive near their current locations in one single great migration thrust.   There were at least 3 as told by linguistic evidence.    Based on linguistic variations, these three groups were each separated from the others by a long time as well.

 

As for Chinese migration to North America, I think there is no evidence.    The most charitable thing that can be said for this theory is no evidence decisively precludes it, which is different from saying evidence point suggestively to it.   Not every stone with a hole in the middle is a Chinese anchor.   A mill stone can also have a hole in the middle, as can a soap stone from which the American Indians had manufactuered a soap stone bowl.   Not every passage in an ancient Chinese book of proses that could be made to fit the scenario of American west is actually inspired by direct experience with the scenary of American west.   Some could really be fanciful.   

That is not to say no Chinese junk blown off course could have shipwrecked on the American coast, or that no Chinese ship wrecked survivor could have lived for a few years in America, or even have made use of local material to build another ship to bring them back to China.   It could have happened, but there is no real evidence.  Everything looks blue when one wears blue glasses.   But take it off and most things are not blue.

 

    

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 3:30 PM

Oldest human remains in North America in Mexico:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm

Oldest human traces in North America:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/03/ST2008040302198.html

And there are a variety of sites that have tools indicating ages possibly as old as 20,000 years ago.......

 

As for the Chinese, there seems to be indications that Chinese Buddhist missionaries may have come to the West coast of America as early as 500 AD (but there is no firm evidence, and little evidence that they had much impact), though most credit the possibility as being considerably later (1421)...

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 2:09 PM
 squeakie wrote:

 searat12 wrote:
Well, the Viking longship was not an American boat, but a European one, so should not count.  Also, I think you will find the Native Americans here in America by at least 14,000 years ago (some say 20,000), and that significantly predates any Chinese arrivals (I have heard some claims of stray Chinese ships on the West coast perhaps as early as 500 AD, but nothing before that, and of course, the really significant Chinese explorers weren't until the 15th century AD, and I haven't heard any actual evidence of them coming East, only to India, Africa, etc.....

National Geographic has said many times that the first (and oldest) setlements in North America are Chinese, and predate the American Indian by hundreds of years. There were Chinese settelments all over the west coast. I know that in these days it's not politically correct, but this has been proven out many times over.

   

Rest assured that is not so.   The first firm evidence of American Indians settlement in west coast of North America dates to around 11,000 years ago, which predate the first hint of any Chinese civilization in Asia by 7000 years.  

With the barely possible exception of a few walled encampments of uncertain affinity in the near and middle east, there were nothing that could by any stretch be called "civilization" anywhere on earth when American Indians are first known to have settled here.   All the great civilizations of the old world, including those of the Chinese, arose far, far, far more recently than the peopleing of the new world.    With the exception of south pacific, for all practical purposes the entire world was already fully populated when the first urban civilizations arose.   

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 1:14 PM
 squeakie wrote:

 searat12 wrote:
Well, the Viking longship was not an American boat, but a European one, so should not count.  Also, I think you will find the Native Americans here in America by at least 14,000 years ago (some say 20,000), and that significantly predates any Chinese arrivals (I have heard some claims of stray Chinese ships on the West coast perhaps as early as 500 AD, but nothing before that, and of course, the really significant Chinese explorers weren't until the 15th century AD, and I haven't heard any actual evidence of them coming East, only to India, Africa, etc.....

National Geographic has said many times that the first (and oldest) setlements in North America are Chinese, and predate the American Indian by hundreds of years. There were Chinese settelments all over the west coast. I know that in these days it's not politically correct, but this has been proven out many times over.

    In the part of the country I live in there are some of the oldest settlements (Native American) anywhere, and rarely does one go back 5K years. But there are a small handfull that are about 10k years old.

gary

Well, as someone with a degree in Anthropology (which I have), I can tell you that Native Americans/Indians/Paleoindians, etc, have been living happily in North and South America since at least the end of the last Ice Age 15-20,000 BP.  They are also the reason why there are no mammoths, giant ground sloths, and all the other Pleistocene megafauna that rambled around North and South America.  Yes, there is a bit of evidence that some stray Chinese ships made it to North America (evidence for which as last I can recall, consisting of a few large circular stone anchors that have been discovered), some of which might go back as old as a thousand years (it is difficult to date a piece of stone), but I haven't heard anything about any permanent settlements, or regular communication with China.  Note, I am not saying the Paleoindians made anything like settlements, as they were hunter-gatherers and constantly on the move.  But I have personally assisted in the excavation of sites in Wyoming that go back 10,000 years or more (mammoth kill and prehistoric buffalo jump sites), and certainly Native Americans had built significant cities with more than a million inhabitants at Teotihuacan and elsewhere in Mexico and Central America more than 2,000 years ago........

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 12:23 PM

 searat12 wrote:
Well, the Viking longship was not an American boat, but a European one, so should not count.  Also, I think you will find the Native Americans here in America by at least 14,000 years ago (some say 20,000), and that significantly predates any Chinese arrivals (I have heard some claims of stray Chinese ships on the West coast perhaps as early as 500 AD, but nothing before that, and of course, the really significant Chinese explorers weren't until the 15th century AD, and I haven't heard any actual evidence of them coming East, only to India, Africa, etc.....

National Geographic has said many times that the first (and oldest) setlements in North America are Chinese, and predate the American Indian by hundreds of years. There were Chinese settelments all over the west coast. I know that in these days it's not politically correct, but this has been proven out many times over.

    In the part of the country I live in there are some of the oldest settlements (Native American) anywhere, and rarely does one go back 5K years. But there are a small handfull that are about 10k years old.

gary

  • Member since
    February 2006
Posted by Grymm on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:12 PM

I would think a vessel like the Hunley would be significant.  From that day forward, seaman had to look below the water, as well as above.

 Grymm

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:52 PM
'not Naval?'  Well, maybe not in the conventional sense, but certainly canoes were used a lot for reconaissance and river work by Naval and other military forces (like in the St Lawrence, the Great Lakes, etc.)........ Also, there was a large sea-going canoe that was used a lot down in the Caribbean in the 16th and 17th centuries.  In effect these 'Canoas' were more like galleys, and could be both sailed and rowed, and were used by the Spanish and pirates as well.... My understanding is that they were developed from the native war canoes used by the Caribs and other island natives......
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: EG48
Posted by Tracy White on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:37 PM

 searat12 wrote:
In any case, a bit more 'American' than a Viking longship,

And completely non-naval. I'm not saying insiginificant, just not within the bounds of this topic. 

Tracy White Researcher@Large

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:16 PM
True, but only the very southernmost Canada, as big birch trees don't grow that far North, and other barks were used up that way...... In any case, a bit more 'American' than a Viking longship, wouldn't you say?  They were used by everybody, from Indians, to Voyageurs (both Canadian and American) all the way to the Rockies, and South to New Orleans, as well by various military expeditions and patrols everywhere West of the Allegheny mountains, and each group altered the design to fit their needs (as did the Indians as well)........
  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:07 PM
searat, the birch bark canoe is north american indian design not american as they are used here in canada too.
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:38 AM
Well, the Viking longship was not an American boat, but a European one, so should not count.  Also, I think you will find the Native Americans here in America by at least 14,000 years ago (some say 20,000), and that significantly predates any Chinese arrivals (I have heard some claims of stray Chinese ships on the West coast perhaps as early as 500 AD, but nothing before that, and of course, the really significant Chinese explorers weren't until the 15th century AD, and I haven't heard any actual evidence of them coming East, only to India, Africa, etc.....
  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:00 AM

 searat12 wrote:
You might also say the birchbark canoe, as it certainly was distinctively American, and was used for everything from exploration to transportation to warfare...... How would the West have been won without the canoe??

taking in your thoughts, and looking back. I'd like to add the Viking "long boat" as one (but not the first) of the first boats to hit the shores of the North American Continent. Actually the Chinese were here before the Native Americans even thought about crossing the land bridge in the Artic. But wait a minute I can now see my first wife at the helm of the Viking Cruiser with her metal helmet (with the horns sticking out the sides of course). Always had an idea she was lieing about her age!

gary

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:26 AM
You might also say the birchbark canoe, as it certainly was distinctively American, and was used for everything from exploration to transportation to warfare...... How would the West have been won without the canoe??
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: California
Posted by rabbiteatsnake on Monday, September 29, 2008 11:39 PM
Okay brace yourselves its the love boat!...  HAH" got ya.
The devil is in the details...and somtimes he's in my sock drawer. On the bench. Airfix 1/24 bf109E scratch conv to 109 G14AS MPC1/24 ju87B conv to 87G Rev 1/48 B17G toF Trump 1/32 f4u-1D and staying a1D Scratch 1/16 TigerII.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:08 AM
 searat12 wrote:
Not sure how much the boat was significant, as were the actions of its commander after it was sunk (you might say the same thing about the 'Hanoi Hilton' being significant because of its relationship to one of its survivors).......
...good points...
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Monday, September 15, 2008 2:35 PM
Not sure how much the boat was significant, as were the actions of its commander after it was sunk (you might say the same thing about the 'Hanoi Hilton' being significant because of its relationship to one of its survivors).......
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Monday, September 15, 2008 2:23 PM
I'm just kinda spit-ballin' here, but what about PT-109?  Granted, her service may not have been exemplary (though she and her crew did their part when called upon), but, obviously, she played a big part in defining the 'heroic' career of a future president (let's not get into a tangential political argument about JFK here, OK, fellas...? Evil [}:)])

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Monday, September 15, 2008 1:47 PM
I think if we are going to look at American vessels, certainly BOTH 'Monitor' and 'Merrimac/Virginia' must rate near the top of the list, as marking the end of the significance of the wooden warship as a major component of any fleet in the world.  As far as favorites are concerned, certainly the USS Essex frigate during the 1812 war, for leading the British such a merry chase around half the world, and the same can be said for the CSS Alabama in the Civil War.  Of more modern ships, I think the fleet carriers 'Lexington' and 'Saratoga' top my list for showing very early on just what a full-sized fleet carrier should be like (not just some experimental rubbish like HMS Furious or IJN Akagi), and of course, the battleship USS Missouri, for her role in WW2 and even more, for her role in the First Gulf War, as I could see the effect of thos big guns (we had to get them to stop firing, as their rounds were literally changing the geography so much, our maps would have been useless!).....
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Palm Bay, FL
Posted by Rick Martin on Sunday, September 14, 2008 11:02 PM

Suh, as much as it pains my Southern heart to say it. I would have to admit the "infernal Yankee machine known as the Monitor would have to be one of the most historically important vessels at least in modern industrial history. It laid the foundation for the design of all modern steel warships as far as innovation much as the Renault FT-17 tank did for modern tank design. All modern warships (and armored main battle tanks) can trace their roots back to these two designs.    Rick Martin

 

"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons" General Douglas Macarthur
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 14, 2008 7:03 PM
 warshipguy wrote:

Let's face it, guys.  American naval history is replete with historically significant ships.  That is part of the joy of having been professionally associated with the U.S.N. for such a large part of my life (33 years).  It also accounts for the joy of studying its history and modelling its ships!

Bill Morrison

True enough...but what are some of your favorites?????
  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:58 PM

Let's face it, guys.  American naval history is replete with historically significant ships.  That is part of the joy of having been professionally associated with the U.S.N. for such a large part of my life (33 years).  It also accounts for the joy of studying its history and modelling its ships!

Bill Morrison

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Kincheloe Michigan
Posted by Mikeym_us on Sunday, September 14, 2008 4:25 PM
 CG Bob wrote:
 subfixer wrote:

Ahhh! But the common word for both of these vessels is "boat" (PBR/Swift Boat) is it not? And be careful, those boats were armed.

Going back to the original posting: "Which naval vessel in American history" .  A boat qualifies as a naval vessel - as in gunboat diplomacy.  For the common population (and even some who serve in the maritime industries/services) the terms boat and ship are the same thing.  You can't use size of the vessel as a guide, the PAUL R. TREGURTHA is a 1013 foot ore boat and is larger than most ships in the USN.

I see the Tregurtha where I work once a week locking in to go up the upper St. Mary's river to get her cargo. I work at the Soo Locks and I get to see her up close.

On the workbench: Dragon 1/350 scale Ticonderoga class USS BunkerHill 1/720 scale Italeri USS Harry S. Truman 1/72 scale Encore Yak-6

The 71st Tactical Fighter Squadron the only Squadron to get an Air to Air kill and an Air to Ground kill in the same week with only a F-15   http://photobucket.com/albums/v332/Mikeym_us/

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Lacombe, LA.
Posted by Big Jake on Sunday, September 14, 2008 11:24 AM

Two ships come to mind that no one has put on the table. One American and One English (Yeah I know but this one is important, 'cuz we copied it her idea, TAKE THAT! :)

The S.S. Savannah,  First atomic/nuclear drive freighter.  We never went anywhere it the idea because bad people could get their hands on the stockpile?

The Cutty Sark because she was the first composits ship and gave the correct idea that metal could be covered by wood without fouling cargo? 

Jake

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Sunday, September 14, 2008 9:28 AM
Very true, Bob, I apologize.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    October 2005
Posted by CG Bob on Saturday, September 13, 2008 10:03 AM
 subfixer wrote:

Ahhh! But the common word for both of these vessels is "boat" (PBR/Swift Boat) is it not? And be careful, those boats were armed.

Going back to the original posting: "Which naval vessel in American history" .  A boat qualifies as a naval vessel - as in gunboat diplomacy.  For the common population (and even some who serve in the maritime industries/services) the terms boat and ship are the same thing.  You can't use size of the vessel as a guide, the PAUL R. TREGURTHA is a 1013 foot ore boat and is larger than most ships in the USN.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Harrisburg, PA
Posted by Lufbery on Saturday, September 13, 2008 7:05 AM
 jrb53 wrote:

BTW, after the Reprisal dropped off Ben (this also being the first vessel of the Continental Navy in European waters), Captain Lambert Wickes refitted and cruised Bay of Biscay capturing several prizes, and in April of '77 led group of 3 ships (Reprisal, Lexington, Dolphin) around Ireland and through the Irsh Sea.  There he captured 18 prizes (3 within sight of port) and returned to France. This all occured while the RANGER was still in New Hampshire being outfitted!

Sadly, few know of this ship.  The media, then as now, has ultimate control over the construction of heroes.

 Jack

 

Jack and others who are interested, check out the book, Patriot Pirates: The Privateer War for Freedom and Fortune in the American Revolution by Robert Patton. There's a lot of good information in there about privateers, the Continental Navy, Ben Franklin, Silas Deane, Nathaniel Greene, and a whole lot more.

Also, a good account of John Paul Jones and Ranger is on this web site: Ranger Barely Captures HMS Drake. Smile [:)]

Regards, 

-Drew

Build what you like; like what you build.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:32 AM
 jrb53 wrote:

USS Reprisal - 16 guns (later 18), great account at DANFS Index of naval ships

This is the ship that carried Ben Franklin to France in '76.  Ben Franklin was the guy who finally convinced the French to save the Colonists.  People have a tencency to forget that Washington's army fought with French muskets (Charleville Mod. 69), fired French gunpowder (or Dutch gunpowder bought with French gold at St. Eustatia) with French infantry beside them at Yorktown while the French fleet drove off the Brit rescue ships.  The French addition also turned the conflict into a "World War " with the Brits having to cover the Carribean plus sending fleet and troops to India.  Face facts fellows, Montreal would be the capital if Franklin hadn't sweet-talked the French.

BTW, after the Reprisal dropped off Ben (this also being the first vessel of the Continental Navy in European waters), Captain Lambert Wickes refitted and cruised Bay of Biscay capturing several prizes, and in April of '77 led group of 3 ships (Reprisal, Lexington, Dolphin) around Ireland and through the Irsh Sea.  There he captured 18 prizes (3 within sight of port) and returned to France. This all occured while the RANGER was still in New Hampshire being outfitted!

Sadly, few know of this ship.  The media, then as now, has ultimate control over the construction of heroes.

 

Jack

 

Wow...great nomination and convincing argument...I guess it goes w/o saying that there are no models of this ship...?
  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by jrb53 on Friday, September 12, 2008 10:33 PM

USS Reprisal - 16 guns (later 18), great account at DANFS Index of naval ships

This is the ship that carried Ben Franklin to France in '76.  Ben Franklin was the guy who finally convinced the French to save the Colonists.  People have a tencency to forget that Washington's army fought with French muskets (Charleville Mod. 69), fired French gunpowder (or Dutch gunpowder bought with French gold at St. Eustatia) with French infantry beside them at Yorktown while the French fleet drove off the Brit rescue ships.  The French addition also turned the conflict into a "World War " with the Brits having to cover the Carribean plus sending fleet and troops to India.  Face facts fellows, Montreal would be the capital if Franklin hadn't sweet-talked the French.

BTW, after the Reprisal dropped off Ben (this also being the first vessel of the Continental Navy in European waters), Captain Lambert Wickes refitted and cruised Bay of Biscay capturing several prizes, and in April of '77 led group of 3 ships (Reprisal, Lexington, Dolphin) around Ireland and through the Irsh Sea.  There he captured 18 prizes (3 within sight of port) and returned to France. This all occured while the RANGER was still in New Hampshire being outfitted!

Sadly, few know of this ship.  The media, then as now, has ultimate control over the construction of heroes.

 

Jack

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Friday, September 12, 2008 5:16 AM
 CG Bob wrote:
 subfixer wrote:
Oh boy, here we go! The dadburn Coasties are weaseling their way into it now. The subject doesn't include vessels that, if sunk, the crew can wade to shore and await rescue!

(Now to hunker down and prepare for the inevitable onslaught of return fire)

The US Navy never operates more than 7 miles from land.  The Mariana Trench is just under 7 miles deep.Big Smile [:D]

 As for wading ashore when the ship sinks, we can eliminate the Swift Boats and PBR's along with the MONITOR and VIRGINIA.  Pirate [oX)]

Ahhh! But the common word for both of these vessels is "boat" (PBR/Swift Boat) is it not? And be careful, those boats were armed.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    June 2008
Posted by lewbud on Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:16 PM
How about SSN571 Nautilus?  First operational nuclear attack sub and first to navigate under the polar ice cap.

Buddy- Those who say there are no stupid questions have never worked in customer service.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:41 PM
 JMart wrote:

[quote user="Manstein's revenge"]Hmmmmm...careful where this is going...the political police might be watching...Anyway, history was changed; good or for the bad depends on your perspective...I. myself, don't wake up every day loathing myself because of something that happened hundreds of years ago..

I do loath (almost) every day the fact that I did not buy $2,000 worth of Microsoft shares in College, when a geek-friend told me about this "great new unknown company". Would be worth 2-4 million dollars now (if left untouched and allowed to split/roll-over).

Imagine the size of the stash I could have. Heck, I could be my own Model Maniac Propeller [8-]

Oh, wow...is that a true story? In that case, I WOULD loathe myself---lol...
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: NJ
Posted by JMart on Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:19 PM

[quote user="Manstein's revenge"]Hmmmmm...careful where this is going...the political police might be watching...Anyway, history was changed; good or for the bad depends on your perspective...I. myself, don't wake up every day loathing myself because of something that happened hundreds of years ago..

I do loath (almost) every day the fact that I did not buy $2,000 worth of Microsoft shares in College, when a geek-friend told me about this "great new unknown company". Would be worth 2-4 million dollars now (if left untouched and allowed to split/roll-over).

Imagine the size of the stash I could have. Heck, I could be my own Model Maniac Propeller [8-]

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Harrisburg, PA
Posted by Lufbery on Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:01 PM
 bbrowniii wrote:
 Lufbery wrote:

Which naval vessel in American history, in your opinion, is the most significant from a historical perspective? Which one, but most importantly, why?

So I'm arguing that those three ships helped make American history possible. Smile [:)]

Strictly speaking, those three ships made European American history possible.  Some Native Americans might consider them signficant for far greater reasons...

Smile [:)] True enough, and well said.

Regards,

 

-Drew

Build what you like; like what you build.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:51 PM
 bbrowniii wrote:
 Lufbery wrote:

Which naval vessel in American history, in your opinion, is the most significant from a historical perspective? Which one, but most importantly, why?

So I'm arguing that those three ships helped make American history possible. Smile [:)]

Strictly speaking, those three ships made European American history possible.  Some Native Americans might consider them signficant for far greater reasons...

Hmmmmm...careful where this is going...the political police might be watching...Anyway, history was changed; good or for the bad depends on your perspective...I. myself, don't wake up every day loathing myself because of something that happened hundreds of years ago...
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:46 PM
 Lufbery wrote:

Which naval vessel in American history, in your opinion, is the most significant from a historical perspective? Which one, but most importantly, why?

So I'm arguing that those three ships helped make American history possible. Smile [:)]

Strictly speaking, those three ships made European American history possible.  Some Native Americans might consider them signficant for far greater reasons...

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: San Francisco, CA
Posted by telsono on Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:09 PM

There are two ways to look at this, by historic event or engineering technology.

Fulton's Clermont for providing a standard for steam propulsion.

Erickson's USS Monitor which began the change in how armament was mounted.

The Baltimore Clippers made a change in ship design that evolved from fast privateers in the War of 1812 into the great clipper ships later in the 19th century that plied their wares over the seven seas.

Holland's USS Nautilus a practical submarine

Mike T.

Beware the hobby that eats.  - Ben Franklin

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out. - Ben Franklin

The U.S. Constitution  doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Ben Franklin

  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Michigan
Posted by ps1scw on Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:55 PM
Whatever ship is keeping your feet dry at the moment...
Zad
  • Member since
    December 2007
Posted by Zad on Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:12 PM

Speaking as someone across this side of the Atlantic, can I offer the SS Patrick Henry? The first Liberty Ship, without which we would probably be speaking German over here.

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2005
Posted by CG Bob on Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:08 PM
 subfixer wrote:
Oh boy, here we go! The dadburn Coasties are weaseling their way into it now. The subject doesn't include vessels that, if sunk, the crew can wade to shore and await rescue!

(Now to hunker down and prepare for the inevitable onslaught of return fire)

The US Navy never operates more than 7 miles from land.  The Mariana Trench is just under 7 miles deep.Big Smile [:D]

 As for wading ashore when the ship sinks, we can eliminate the Swift Boats and PBR's along with the MONITOR and VIRGINIA.  Pirate [oX)]

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: NJ
Posted by JMart on Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:59 AM

 Mikeym_us wrote:
How about the original USS Enterprise which took part in the invasion of Tripoli and which had the original US Marines aboard.

you know, if we just concentrate on the NAME and not just "one ship", Enterprise wins hands down.... 

USS Enterprise (1799) 12-gun schooner / 14-gun brig - Tripoli invasion as stated above

USS Enterprise CV-6 - most decorated vessel of WW2 accounting for 911 enemy planes, 71 ships sunk, and damaged or destroyed 192 more.

USS Enterprise CVN-65 - first nuclear CV 

total of 8 US ships have been named Enterprise (2 Continental Navy) but TEN ships have been named Enterprise by... the UFP (United Federation of Planets) in the Startrek world  Laugh [(-D]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise

 

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Kincheloe Michigan
Posted by Mikeym_us on Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:38 AM
How about the original USS Enterprise which took part in the invasion of Tripoli and which had the original US Marines aboard.

On the workbench: Dragon 1/350 scale Ticonderoga class USS BunkerHill 1/720 scale Italeri USS Harry S. Truman 1/72 scale Encore Yak-6

The 71st Tactical Fighter Squadron the only Squadron to get an Air to Air kill and an Air to Ground kill in the same week with only a F-15   http://photobucket.com/albums/v332/Mikeym_us/

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:11 AM
 CG Bob wrote:

Here are some ships that haven't been considered.

USRC (Revenue Cutter) SCAMMEL, her first Captain was Hopley Yeaton - the first Commissioned Officer of the United States.  All of the Revolutionary naval officers were technically in the Continental Navy.

USRC HARRIET LANE credited with firing the first naval shot of the Civil War.

USRC NAUGATUCK, also known as E. A. STEVENS, was a gun battery that could partially submerge for protection.  She took part in the battle between USS MONITOR and CSS VIRGINIA.

USRC RUSH, seal poachers would often "Come early and avoid the Rush."

USRC HUDSON a 95' steam tug noted for towing the disabled USS WINSLOW out of harms way in Cuba during the Spanish American War.

CGCs EASTWIND and SOUTHWIND captured the Nazi weather and supply vessel EXTERNSTEINE off the coast of Greenland after a brief fire-fight on October 14, 1944.  There were no casualties.   EXTERNSTEINE  was the only enemy surface vessel captured at sea by U.S. naval forces during the war. 

USCGCs STORIS, SPAR, & BRAMBLE worked their way up around Alaska and Canada in 1957.  SPAR & BRAMBLE continued to the east coast; STORIS returned to west to Alaska.  SPAR later became the first US Vessel to circumnavigate North America.

USCGC POLAR SEA became the first US surface vessel to reach the North Pole on August 22, 1994.

Oh boy, here we go! The dadburn Coasties are weaseling their way into it now. The subject doesn't include vessels that, if sunk, the crew can wade to shore and await rescue!

(Now to hunker down and prepare for the inevitable onslaught of return fire)

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Mansfield, TX
Posted by EdGrune on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:02 PM
I think the USS Oberon was pretty significant.  If it hadn't survived WWII, I might not be here.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Harrisburg, PA
Posted by Lufbery on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:52 PM

Which naval vessel in American history, in your opinion, is the most significant from a historical perspective? Which one, but most importantly, why?

Now, I'm taking "naval vessel" to mean "ship," and not "military ship."  So:

Susan Constant, Discovery, and Godspeed -- the three vessels who brought the first settlers to Jamestown, Virginia, which was to become the first permanent English settlement in the New World. 

So I'm arguing that those three ships helped make American history possible. Smile [:)]

For the record, the three ships mentioned above landed on May 14, 1607. The Mayflower landed in Plymoth, Mass. in  1620.

If it has to be a U.S. military ship, then there are just too many to choose from. I like Enterprise (CV-6), but I also like the suggestion of ballistic missile submarines. I don't think it is too early to assess their significance. Without them, I suspect the Cold War would have been a lot hotter.

Regards, 

-Drew

Build what you like; like what you build.

  • Member since
    October 2005
Posted by CG Bob on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:39 PM

Here are some ships that haven't been considered.

USRC (Revenue Cutter) SCAMMEL, her first Captain was Hopley Yeaton - the first Commissioned Officer of the United States.  All of the Revolutionary naval officers were technically in the Continental Navy.

USRC HARRIET LANE credited with firing the first naval shot of the Civil War.

USRC NAUGATUCK, also known as E. A. STEVENS, was a gun battery that could partially submerge for protection.  She took part in the battle between USS MONITOR and CSS VIRGINIA.

USRC RUSH, seal poachers would often "Come early and avoid the Rush."

USRC HUDSON a 95' steam tug noted for towing the disabled USS WINSLOW out of harms way in Cuba during the Spanish American War.

CGCs EASTWIND and SOUTHWIND captured the Nazi weather and supply vessel EXTERNSTEINE off the coast of Greenland after a brief fire-fight on October 14, 1944.  There were no casualties.   EXTERNSTEINE  was the only enemy surface vessel captured at sea by U.S. naval forces during the war. 

USCGCs STORIS, SPAR, & BRAMBLE worked their way up around Alaska and Canada in 1957.  SPAR & BRAMBLE continued to the east coast; STORIS returned to west to Alaska.  SPAR later became the first US Vessel to circumnavigate North America.

USCGC POLAR SEA became the first US surface vessel to reach the North Pole on August 22, 1994.

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: NJ
Posted by JMart on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:12 PM
 subfixer wrote:

My vote goes to J.P. Jones' Ranger. She was the first US Navy ship to be recognized and saluted as such by a foreign navy (French) thereby establishing the US as a legitimate nation. The Constitution is a very close second with Enterprise (CV-6) next.

(my emphasis); exactly what I was going to type.... cant get much more 'historically significant' than official recognition as an indepedent nation.

Big E in 2nd for me, for the reasons mentioned in other posts.

and if we venture outside the USA, HMS Victory has my vote.

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:01 PM
It would appear that this is splitting in to two tangents: technical and battlefield. I would argue that while the Hunley and Monitor were both technical marvels of their time, and showed the way of the future, their actual actual battle contributions were minor. Niether fight affected the course or outcome of the war they fought. Ranger and Enterprise both made major battle contributions to their wars, that had they not occurred, potentially had far different outcomes. While Consititution is also a ship of great historical importance, did her actions in combat alter the course of a war she fought?

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:28 PM
 Uhu wrote:

The most important ship in American history? Funny no mention of the Santa Maria yet.

 

 

I believe the original question concerned the most important "naval" vessel. The Santa Maria (and her sisters) was an exploration vessel. My vote goes to J.P. Jones' Ranger. She was the first US Navy ship to be recognized and saluted as such by a foreign navy (French) thereby establishing the US as a legitimate nation. The Constitution is a very close second with Enterprise (CV-6) next.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Uhu
  • Member since
    May 2006
Posted by Uhu on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:31 AM

The most important ship in American history? Funny no mention of the Santa Maria yet.

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: EG48
Posted by Tracy White on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:25 AM

A couple of points Gary. The question was for the most historically significant AMERICAN ship; Dreadnaught was Royal Navy, not United States Navy.

Sure, the Trident boomers are powerful, but he's asking why they are historically significant. I believe it is too early to tell how significant they truly were, are, or will be.

Tracy White Researcher@Large

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:13 AM

I'd divide it into three or five or more eras, and then decide from there.

* pre-revolutionary war; I think they call it a "74 gun ship of the line", and this ship was significant all the way into and thru out the Napolionic Wars.

* Revolution till about 1850; The Ranger would be high on the list, but the Constitution would have been top of the heap

* 1850 till 1880; The ironclads (pick one)

* The era of coal fired battleships has started. The Royal Navy takes over here with the "Dreadnaught". This ship will change all thinking from now on, and render anything built prior to the Dreadnaught as completely obsolite (by the way this is my overall pick!)

* the aircraft carrier. Pick One!

* but alas the fourth most powerfull thing in the world has all but been forgotten! The Trident submarine of course. Any one of them is capable of taking all of Russia or China out by itself (and don't think they don't know this!)

gary

 

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: istanbul/Turkey
Posted by kapudan_emir_effendi on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:16 AM
I would say USS Constitution. Apart from the importance she has today as a nautical archaeology relic; her (and her sisters') exploits against Tripolitans and the formidable Royal Navy cemented both the public and elite opinion of the young nation that USA must have a navy of blue water capability to defend her interests. In other words, Constitution laid the foundations of the american naval superiority today. We should always remember that history never develops in a straight line but it's rather formed as the result of choices made by particular people (or groups of people) in particular times. As a result of Continental Navy's less than impressive record during the revolution, USA had decided to start as a sovereign nation without a navy. After navy's redemption in the war of 1812, the irreversible course to american maritime supremacy had begun.
Don't surrender the ship !
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 9:22 PM
 thunder1 wrote:

 I would say the U S Navy's MONITOR would be at the top. Consider that overnight almost every wooden navy in the world was obsolete, in terms of tactics and naval stratagy. Certainly there were a few iron ships in other nation's naval inventory but none had a revolving turret (if my memory serves me correctly). And I believe no turreted metal warships were engaged in battle prior to the MONITOR/VIRGINA shoot out. We take the turreted gun warship as gospel today, but try to imagine what Jack Tar must have thought the day after the battle in his sail propelled wooden man of war.  Consider the first ship that employs laser guns that can pierce any known metal, propelled at 60 knots by some exotic engineering plant with total stealth capabilities, perhaps even undetected by the human eye. Sounds crazy today but if some nation were to put one on the high seas next week, every nation would have today's equivalent  of a "wooden navy".   IMHO!

 

Great nomination and supporting argument...from what I have read every navy on the planet was instantly obsolete after that battle...truly the entire notion of what a warship was, or should be, was forever changed----and we still use iron/steel to this day to make them.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: North East Texas
Posted by roadkill_275 on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 5:58 PM
My nomination would be for the CSS Hunley. First Submersible to sink an enemy ship. What better way to be a proof-of-concept than to be the first. The Turtle may have been the first ship to travel underwater, but the first real use of a submersible as a weapon of war would be the Hunley. It took John Holland to perfect the design 40 years later to create a weapon that struck fear in sailors every where.
Kevin M. Bodkins "Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup" American By Birth, Southern By the Grace of God! www.milavia.com Christian Modelers For McCain
  • Member since
    May 2006
Posted by thunder1 on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 5:52 PM

 I would say the U S Navy's MONITOR would be at the top. Consider that overnight almost every wooden navy in the world was obsolete, in terms of tactics and naval stratagy. Certainly there were a few iron ships in other nation's naval inventory but none had a revolving turret (if my memory serves me correctly). And I believe no turreted metal warships were engaged in battle prior to the MONITOR/VIRGINA shoot out. We take the turreted gun warship as gospel today, but try to imagine what Jack Tar must have thought the day after the battle in his sail propelled wooden man of war.  Consider the first ship that employs laser guns that can pierce any known metal, propelled at 60 knots by some exotic engineering plant with total stealth capabilities, perhaps even undetected by the human eye. Sounds crazy today but if some nation were to put one on the high seas next week, every nation would have today's equivalent  of a "wooden navy".   IMHO!

 

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 5:30 PM

Both USS Enterprise and Ranger are excellent nominations!  How about Bonhomme Richard under John Paul Jones?  Like Ranger, she took the war directly to the British; but, her achievement in taking HMS Serapis added a certain pinache to the American war effort at sea.

The problem here is that there are so very many possibilities for the most historically significant ship in American naval history. Omitting Mayflower as not being a naval ship, we have Ranger and Bonhomme Richard of Revolutionary War fame, the USS United States and Constellation in the Quasi-War with France, USS Constitution in the War of 1812, CSS Virginia, USS Monitor, USS Hartford, USS Kearsarge, and CSS Hunley in the Civil War, USS Oregon in the Spanish-American War, USS Michigan (the first battleship with a superimposed main battery), and all the well-known American ships of WWII and beyond!

It is an incredibly pleasant topic of conversation!

Bill Morrison 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 4:58 PM
 Tracy White wrote:

Ranger with John Paul Jones. He brought the war home to the British and the ship helped turn opinion and bring assets back for the defense of the isles. 

Enterprise is a historically significant ship, I'm not dismissing her, but out situation in WWII was nowhere near as dire as it was during the revolution. 

Great nomination...
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 4:05 PM

Very good point Tracy. Japan's goal  during WWII against the US was to defeat them in battle and have the US negotiate a truce/armistace/cease fire, thus allowing Japan free reign over all the territories and resources captured in the opening months of 1942. An actual destruction of the US as a nation was never a goal or possibility.

I (not being as familiar with the Revolutionary War as with WWII) did not know that John Paul Jones and the Ranger had that much an effect upon that war. The birth of a nation itself being at stake, certainly raises any major contribution to a higher status.

Other ships first named here such as USS Maine, USS Arizona, or USS Misouri, are more symbolic figureheads than for actual wartime contributions. Psycologic rallying points, but little more.

 

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: EG48
Posted by Tracy White on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 2:58 PM

Ranger with John Paul Jones. He brought the war home to the British and the ship helped turn opinion and bring assets back for the defense of the isles. 

Enterprise is a historically significant ship, I'm not dismissing her, but out situation in WWII was nowhere near as dire as it was during the revolution. 

Tracy White Researcher@Large

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 1:52 PM

 searat12 wrote:
It appears to me that this may be a somewhat pointless question, as there are many ships of significant historical importance, but each is important for very diffferent reasons.  In other words, it is like discussing the proverbial apples and oranges, and I can only think that there will be little agreement as to which is more 'important' relatively than the others....... Perhaps you might re-phrase the question to be a bit more specific?

Mmmmmm...good point, but I didn't write "most important" I wrote "most historically significant"...Yeah, there will be different opinions and different points of view and reasons, but I'm not looking for concensus, I'm looking for a diversity of views...

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 1:26 PM
It appears to me that this may be a somewhat pointless question, as there are many ships of significant historical importance, but each is important for very diffferent reasons.  In other words, it is like discussing the proverbial apples and oranges, and I can only think that there will be little agreement as to which is more 'important' relatively than the others....... Perhaps you might re-phrase the question to be a bit more specific?
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 10:37 AM

 stikpusher wrote:
USS Enterprise, CV-6. She held the Line in the Pacific. At Midway, her Air Group sank 2 and shared in the sinking of 1 of the 4 Japanese carriers. Had her air group turned the wrong waay as Hornet's did, the battle would most likely have ended disastrously for the US.  Later during teh Guadalcanal Campaign her air group would again be instrumental in stopping the Japanese at the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz carrier battles as well as later flying from Henderson Field to assist in the defense of the island itself. The whole Pacific War almost certainly would have gone on far longer and bloodier without her contributions of 1942. Not to detract from the other gallant ships that helped hold the line and turn the tide as well, but the Enterprise was usually in the right place at the right time to make key contributions.

Great nomination...any other opinions???

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 2:10 AM
USS Enterprise, CV-6. She held the Line in the Pacific. At Midway, her Air Group sank 2 and shared in the sinking of 1 of the 4 Japanese carriers. Had her air group turned the wrong waay as Hornet's did, the battle would most likely have ended disastrously for the US.  Later during teh Guadalcanal Campaign her air group would again be instrumental in stopping the Japanese at the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz carrier battles as well as later flying from Henderson Field to assist in the defense of the island itself. The whole Pacific War almost certainly would have gone on far longer and bloodier without her contributions of 1942. Not to detract from the other gallant ships that helped hold the line and turn the tide as well, but the Enterprise was usually in the right place at the right time to make key contributions.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.