Italian Midget Sub attack on New York harbour
Eugene Griessel
shipping in New York harbour, by an Italian midget submarine carried
there aboard the mother submarine Leonardo da Vinci, would have had
"psychological consequences out of all proportion to the damage
caused".
Would it have really? Assuming the Leonardo could have crossed the
Atlantic without encountering trouble - was New York harbour
unprotected in 1943? Nets, mines, patrols and underwater detection
devices? Even assuming a ship or two was torpedoed there would it
have caused the USA to break open the instant packs of sackcloth and
ashes or would it have merely gritted its teeth and got on with the
job at hand?
Eugene L Griessel
The only thing that hurts more than paying income tax,
is not having to pay income tax.
Joe Osman
According to page 263 of A Maritime History Of New York, Going Coastal,
Inc. (2004) it was mined, netted and had radar, hydrophones and (later)
magnetic detection loops in Ambrose Channel.
There's a little harbor defense museum in Brooklyn
(http://www.harbordefensemuseum.com/). Another place to ask would
probably be the site of the Coast Defense Study Group at
http://www.cdsg.org/.
Joe
Eugene Griessel
>
>According to page 263 of A Maritime History Of New York, Going Coastal,
>Inc. (2004) it was mined, netted and had radar, hydrophones and (later)
>magnetic detection loops in Ambrose Channel.
Thanks Joe, it's nothing less than I would have expected. If we in
South Africa had our lesser ports mined, netted, magnetic looped and
protected by coastal batteries I imagine nothing less for USA -
especially East coast ports after drumbeat.
Eugene L Griessel
It's not an addiction. It's just something I have to do ALL THE TIME.
-- David Bedno
renab...@aol.com
Eugene Griessel wrote:
SNIP
Prob'ly more than you wanna know, but what the hey...I've been
fascinated by American Coastal Defenses since when I was a kid and
being allowed to go exploring Fort Getty on Conanicutt Island in
Narrgansett Bay was the highlight of vacation every year...Hmmm, need
to renew my CDSG mmebership.
I've just been reading a piece which states that the planned attack on
shipping in New York harbour, by an Italian midget submarine carried
there aboard the mother submarine Leonardo da Vinci, would have had
"psychological consequences out of all proportion to the damage
caused".
SNIP
Usual breathless exaggeration that is commonly seen in the popular
press
Would it have really? Assuming the Leonardo could have crossed the
Atlantic without encountering trouble - was New York harbour
unprotected in 1943?
SNIP
Hell, no, it was one of the best defended ports in the world.
Take a look at this map which at looks at Long Island (Harbor Defenses
of Long Island Sound)
http://www.skylighters.org/camphero/locator.gif
her's the whole ball o' wax
Battery Name/Number/Caliber/Type Emplacement/Operation (NB=Not Built)
Type Emplacement
Excellent summary of emplacements
ca.ckwinfo.net/info/guns/index.html
BC = Barbette Carriage
http://honors.njit.edu/news/colloquium/previewf03/37img3bl.jpg
ca.ckwinfo.net/info/guns/index.html
a.ckwinfo.net/info/guns/100.jpghttp://ca.ckwinfo.net/info/guns/100.jpg
http://ca.ckwinfo.net/info/guns/100.jpg
BCLR = Long Range Barbette Carriage
http://www.cdsg.org/gunpics/mills12.gif
CBC = Casemented Barbette Carriage
http://andy_bennett.home.mindspring.com/images/16CASECLOSE.jpg
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/cabr/images/fig45.jpg
http://home.san.rr.com/sdmhg/L10gun.jpg
DC = Disappearing Carriage
http://www.nps.gov/archive/fowa/Image38.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/archive/prsf/coast_defense/harbor_defense_sf/images/cranstn_smold1.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/archive/prsf/coast_defense/harbor_defense_sf/images/cranstn_smold2.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/archive/prsf/coast_defense/harbor_defense_sf/images/lancastr_smold2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/Ft_Stark/12inch.jpg
BP = Balanced Pillar Mounting
P = Pedestal Mounting
http://www.cdsg.org/gunpics/casey3.gif
http://www2.hickam.af.mil/ho/gallery/Fort_Kam/Hawkins_3-inch_gun_sketch_3x2.jpg
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/cabr/images/fig12.jpg
http://andy_bennett.home.mindspring.com/images/mon-3-inch-scan.JPG
M = Mortar
http://www2.hickam.af.mil/ho/gallery/Fort_Kam/Battery_Way_Corregidor_12-inch_mortar_7x5.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/archive/prsf/coast_defense/harbor_defense_sf/images/stotsbrg_old3.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/archive/prsf/coast_defense/harbor_defense_sf/images/stotsbrg_old5.jpg
PM or K = 155-mm tractor drawn field pieces emplaced on either
"Panama Mounts (M1917/M1918 GPF) or "Kelly Mounts" (M2) allowing
rapid and wide traverse
http://ca.ckwinfo.net/info/guns/155.jpg
http://www.dangel.net/250thCoastArtillery/Makhnati155mm.jpg
http://www.kadiak.org/panama/kelly_mount.gif
F = Fixed (as opposed to mobile) 90-mm dual purpose coast defense and
AA weapons in shielded mounts
http://ca.ckwinfo.net/info/guns/90mm.jpg
SBC = Shielded Barbette Carriage
http://www.dangel.net/250thCoastArtillery/MakhnatiIslandGun.jpg
http://ca.ckwinfo.net/info/guns/200.jpg
Rod = Rodman
PNE = Pneumatic "Dynamite Gun" (A giant air gun) - USS Vesuvius
mounted three and used them to bombard Santiago in the Spanish War
GL = Gun Lift Carriage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Harbor Defenses of Long Island Sound
FORT MANSFIELD/ Napatree Point, R.I./ 1900 / state park/ KK
#114/ 2- 16"/ CBC/ NB/ near Watch Hill, original site at Ft. Terry
Wooster/ 2- 8"/ DC/ 1901-1917
Crawford/ 2- 5"/ BP /1901-1917
Connell/ 2- 5"/ P/ 1901-1917/ mostly destroyed, in surf
Other Connecticut sites
AMTB 915/ 2- 90 mm/ F/ 1943-1946/ Pine Island, state land
AMTB 914/ 2- 90 mm/ F /1943-1946/ Goshen Point, covered, Harkness State
Park
unnamed/ 4- 155 mm/ PM/ Oaks Inn Military Reservation
FORT H.G. WRIGHT/ Fishers Island/ 1899 /private/ MD, MC/ KKKK
Dynamite/ 1- 15"/ Pne/ Race Point
Clinton/ 8- 12"/ M/ 1902-1943/ partially buried
Butterfield/ 2- 12"/ DC/ 1901-1945/ partially. buried
Barlow/ 2- 10"/ DC/ 1901-193/ partially buried
Dutton/ 3- 6"/ DC/ 1901-1945/ partially buried
Hamilton/ 2- 6"/ DC/ 1905-1917
Marcy/ 2- 6"/ DC/ 1906-1917
#215/ 2- 6"/ SBC/ 1943-1946/ Race Point
Hoffman/ 2- 3"/ P/ 1906-1946
Hoppock/ 2- 3"/ P /1905-1946/ guns replaced once
AMTB 913/ 2- 90 mm/ F/ 1943-1946/ buried
Fishers Island (other sites)/ private/ KK
#111/ 2- 16"/ CBC/ 194?/ NA guns on site, Wilderness Pt. (Mt. Prospect)
#214/ 2 -6"/ SBC/ 194?/ NA Wilderness Point, built on
unnamed/ 4- 5"/ P + BP/ 1917-1919/ NB?, North Hill
New Hackleman/ 2- 3"/ P/ 1944-1946/ North Hill, from Constitution
AMTB 916/ 2- 90 mm/ F/ NB?/ East Point
FORT MICHIE/ Great Gull Island/ 1896-1948/ bird sanctuary/ MC/ KKK
J.M.K. Davis/ 1- 16" DC 1923-1945 ARF
Palmer/ 2- 12"/ DC/ 1900-1945
North/ 2- 10"/ DC/ 1900-1918 destroyed for Davis
Benjamin/ 2- 6"/ P/ 1908-1947
Maitland/ 2- 6"/ P/ 1908-1947
Pasco/ 2- 3"/ P/ 1905-1934
AMTB 912/ 2- 90mm/ F/ 1943-1946
FORT TERRY/ Plum Island/ USDA Animal Disease Lab/ MD, MC/ KKKK
Stoneman/ 8- 12"/ M/ 1901-1943
Steele/ 2 -10"/ DC/ 1900-1942
Bradford/ 2 -6"/ DC/ 1901-1944
Floyd/ 2- 6"/ DC/ 1906-1917
Dimick/ 2- 6"/ DC/ 1905-1917
#217/ 2- 6"/ SBC/ 194? NC
Kelly/ 1- 5"/ P /1900-1917/ partially buried
&/ 1- 4.7"/ A/ later replaced by 5" P
Hagner/ 2- 3"/ P/ 1906-1932 /mostly destroyed
Eldridge/ 2- 3"/ P/ 1906-1946
Dalliba/ 2- 3"/ P/ 1905-1946
Greble/ 2- 3"/ P/ 1905-1932
Campbell/ 2- 3"/ P/ 1905-1934/ partially destroyed
AMTB 911/ 2- 90 mm/ F/ 1943-1946 /Plum Island
unnamed/ 4- 155 mm/ PM
FORT TYLER/ Gardiner's Point Island/ former Navy target range/ K
unnamed/ 2- 8" Rod/ 1898/ NA partially destroyed
Edmund Smith/ 2- 8" DC/ 1898/ NA/ partially destroyed
&/ 2 -5"/ P/ 1898/ NA
CAMP HERO/ Montauk Point/ 1929/ FAA radar sta., state park/ KK
Dunn (#113)/ 2- 16"/ CBC 1944-1948/ entrances covered
#112 /2- 16"/ CBC/ 1944-1948/ entrances covered
#216/ 2- 6"/ SBC/ 1944-1947/ entrances covered
http://www.skylighters.org/camphero/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The eastern & southern sides were equally well protected -
particularly by Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook
The Harbor Defenses of Eastern New York (close in works superseded by
newer works farther out to sea under command of the Harbor Defenses of
Southern New York)
FORT SLOCUM/ Davids Island/ 1863-(1928)/ city property/ K
Haskin / 8-12" / M /1897-1919
Overton /8-12"/M /1897-1919/ Pit A destroyed
"Practice" / 2-8"/ Rod/ 1896-1899/ partially buried
Kinney/ 2-6"/ P/ 1904-1917/ destroyed, guns to Tilden
Fraser/ 2-5"/ P/ 1901-1917/ destroyed
FORT SCHUYLER/ Throg's Neck/ 1833-(1928)/ New York State Maritime
Acadamy/ MC/ K
Gansevoort/ 2-12"/ DC/ 1899-1935/ 1 empl. destr., 1 empl. buried
Hazzard/ 2-10"/ DC/ 1898-1930/ destroyed
Bell/ 2-5"/ BP/ 1900-1917/destroyed
Beecher/ 2-3"/ MP/ 1900-1920/ destroyed
FORT TOTTEN/ Willet's Point/ 1862-(1928)/ Army Base/ MD, MC/ KKKK
King/ 8-12"/ M/1900-1935/buried
Mahan/ 2-12"/ DC/ 1900-1918
Graham/ 2-10"/ DC/ 1897-1918
Sumner/ 2-8"/ DC/ 1899-1918
Stuart/ 2-5"/ BP/ 1899-1917
Baker/ 4-3"/ MP + P/ 1900-194?/ 2 M1903 P guns replaced during 1920s?
Burnes/ 2-3"/ P/ 1904-1946?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Harbor Defenses of Southern New York
FORT TILDEN/ Rockaway/ 1926-1945/Gateway National Recreation Area/ KKK
Harris/ 2-16"/BCLRA/ 1924-1948/ casemated WWII
Unnamed/ 4-12"/ M/ 1917-1919/at NAS Rockaway
Kessler (West)/ 2-6"/ P/ 1917-1947/ from Kinney, Slocum, rebuilt
1941-42
#220/ 2-6"/ P/ 1942-1946/ part. buried, NA?
Ferguson (East)/ 2-6"/ P/ 1917-1942/ from Burke, Hamilton, b uried
FORT HAMILTON/ East Narrows, Brooklyn/ 1831/ Army Post/ X(has remains
of Third System fort)
Piper/8-12"/M/1901-1942/ (all Hamilton emplacements have been destroyed
or buried for highway)
Brown/2-12"/DC/1902-
Doubleday/2-12"/DC/1900-1943/
Neary/2-12"/BC/1900-1937
Gillmore/4-10"/DC/1899-1942/originally 7 empl., 3 later designated
Spear
Spear/3-10"/DC/1898-1917
Burke/2-6"/P/1903-1917/guns to Tilden
Livingston/4-6"/DC/1905-1948/later 2-P, 2-DC (2 DC guns to West Point)
Johnston/2-6"/P/1902-1943///
Mendenhall/4-6"/DC/1905-1917
Griffin/2-4.7"/A/1899-1913/1 BC remains
&/2-3"/MP/1902-1920
&/2-3"/P/1903-1946
FORT WADSWORTH/West Narrows, Staten Is./1821/Gateway NRA, Federal
Housing/MD, MC/KKK
#115/2/16"/CBC/NB
Ayres/2/12"/DC/1901-1942/partially buried
Dix/2/12"/DC/1902-1944
Hudson/2/12"/DC/1899-1944/partially buried
Richmond/2/12"/DC/1899-1942/partially buried
Barry /2/10"/DC/1899-1918/
Upton/2/10"/DC/1899-1925/partially buried
unnamed/2/8"/Rod/1898/
Duane/5/8"/DC/1897-1915/magazines removed, 1 empl. destroyed
Barbour/2/6"/A/1898-1920/1 empl. buried
&/2/4.7"/A/1898-1920/1 empl. buried, 1 partially buried
Mills/2/6"/DC/1900-1943/both emplacements partially buried
#218/2/6"/SBC/1943 NA/-1958?
Catlin/6/3"/P/1904-1942
Bacon/2/3"/MP/1899-1918
Turnbull/6/3"/P/1903-1944/later 2 guns removed, partially buried
New Turnbull (#14)/4/3"/P/1942-1946/covered
FORT HANCOCK/ Sandy Hook, N.J. /1885/ Gateway NRA, USCG/ MD, MC/ KKKKK
Proving Ground/many - various/various/1890-1920/Proving Ground moved to
Aberdeen, 1920
Dynamite/2/15"/Pne/1896-1902/USCG shooting range
&/1/8"/Pne/1896-1902/mine casemate 1921
Potter/2/12"/GLC/1890-1907
McCook/8/12"/M/1898-1923/advanced HECP-HEDP post 1943
Reynolds/8/12"/M/1898-1918/
Alexander/2/12"/DC/1899-1943
Bloomfield/2/12"/DC/1899-1944
Richardson/2/12"/DC/1904-1944
Kingman/2/12"/BCLR/1922-1946/casemated 1943
Mills/2/12"/BCLR/1922-1946/casemated 1943
Halleck/3/10"/DC/1898-1944/one gun removed 1910s
Granger/2/10"/DC/1898-1940s/
Arrowsmith/3/8"/DC/1909-1921/partially destroyed
Peck/2/6"/P/1903-1946/guns & carr. relocated '43 to Gunnison site
Gunnison/2/6"/DC/1905-1943/extensively rebuilt for Peck's guns
Peck "II" /New Peck/guns from original Peck/1943-1946/(ex-Gunnison),
guns repl 1976 Still Empl., battery being restored
Engle/1/5"/BP/1898-1917/CRF built on empl.
unnamed/1/4.7"/P/1898/temporary (Schneider)
Urmston/6/3"/MP + P/1903-1944/2 guns later replaced with M1903 P
Morris/4/3"/P/1908-1946
New Urmston (#6)/2/3"/P/1942-1946/partially covered
AMTB #7/2/90 mm/F/1943-1946
AMTB #8/2/90 mm/F/1943-1946/on ex-Peck
Highlands Military Reservation, New Jersey (Navesink)/Hartshorne Woods
County Park /KK
Lewis (#116 )/2/16"/CBC/1944-1948/
unnamed/4/12"/M/1917-1920/only one empl. remains uncovered
#219/2/6"/SBC/1944-1949/
other sites/ ?
#117/2/16"/CBC/NB/Nigger Pt. (now JFK Airport)
#20, /2/3"/P/1942-1946/Rockaway Point
New Catlin (#18)/4/3"/P/1942-1946/Norton Point, buried
AMTB /2/90 mm/F/1943-1946/Rockaway Point
AMTB #19/2/90 mm/F/1943-1946/Norton Point, buried
AMTB/2/90 mm/F/1943-1946/Miller Field
AMTB #12/2/90 mm/F/1943-1946/Swinburne Island
Nets, mines, patrols and underwater detection
devices?
SNIP
All of the above plus Army controlled mines (detonated on command from
shore via cables - they had their own mineplaters)
http://patriot.net/~eastlnd2/amp42-43.jpg
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us%5Evfmp.gif
magnetic and acoustic detection loops, shore batteries ranging from
3-inch and 90-mm anti-torpedo boat batteries to 16-inch long rifles
intended to engage capital ships, aircraft patrols, etc, etc
The site below is an EXCELLENT one covering just about all aspects of
the defenses of New York Harbor, to include the pre and post-WW II
periods. Much of what is described here applies to the other
installations.
http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/highlands.html
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nR/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/37hancock/37images/37img4bl.jpg
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nR/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/37hancock/37images/37img3bl.jpg
Even assuming a ship or two was torpedoed there would it
have caused the USA to break open the instant packs of sackcloth and
ashes or would it have merely gritted its teeth and got on with the
job at hand
SNIP
In 1916, German saboteurs blew up about 1000 tons of munitions destined
for The Allies at the National Docks complex on Black Tom Island, part
of Jersey City, across the harbor from Manhattan. It provoked a
terrible revenge - lawyers. After the Armistice the Lehigh Valley RR,
owner of the National Docks, and other parties sued the German
government. They won their case and the Germans paid....in 1939.
mike
> Thanks Joe, it's nothing less than I would have expected. If we in
> South Africa had our lesser ports mined, netted, magnetic looped and
> protected by coastal batteries I imagine nothing less for USA -
> especially East coast ports after drumbeat.
Harbor Entrance Control Post
http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/hecp.html
District # ---- Station ----- Location ----------- Latitude - Longitude
1 -- Portland, ME -- Fort Williams -- (N43-37-15, W70-13-00)
1 -- Portsmouth, NH -- Ex-Coast Guard Station (Fort Stark, Battery
Kirk) -- (N43-02-30, W 70-42-00)
1 -- Boston, MA -- Fort Dawes -- (N42-21-30, W57-30)
1 -- Newport, RI -- Beavertail -- (N41-27-00, W71-24-00)
3 -- Fishers Island -- Fort HG Wright -- (N41-15-22.8, W72-01-23.9)
3 -- Staten Island, NY -- Fort Wadsworth -- (N40-36-15, W74-03-22)
4 -- Delaware -- Cape Henlopen (Fort Miles) -- (N38-47-39, W75-05-32)
5 -- Norfolk, VA -- Just outside Fort Story -- (N36-55-48, W76-00-42)
6 -- Charleston, SC -- Fort Moultrie -- (N32-45-33, W79-51-31)
7 -- Key West, FL -- To be established
8 -- Santa Rosa Island, FL -- (Fort Pickens, Battery Worth) --
(N30-19-30, W87-17- 30)
8 -- Galveston, TX -- Fort Point (Fort San Jacinto) -- (N29-20-00,
W94-44-37)
10 -- San Juan, PR -- (Fort Brooke, El Morro) -- (N18-28, W66-07)
10 -- Vieques Sound (Roosevelt Roads), PR -- Punta Algodones
11 -- San Diego, CA -- (N32-40-19, W117-14-24)
11 -- San Pedro, CA -- Fort MacArthur (Battery Leary and Merriam)
(N33-42-42, W118-17- 32)
12 -- San Francisco, CA -- Fort Winfield Scott (Dynamite Battery) --
(N37-48-08.3, W122-28- 32.7)
13 -- Columbia River -- Fort Stevens (Battery Mishler) -- (To be
established)
13 -- Puget Sound Area, WA -- Fort Worden -- (N48-08-30, W122-46-00)
Leo
Eugene Griessel wrote:
> I've just been reading a piece which states that the planned attack on
> shipping in New York harbour, by an Italian midget submarine carried
> there aboard the mother submarine Leonardo da Vinci, would have had
> "psychological consequences out of all proportion to the damage
> caused".
>
> Would it have really? Assuming the Leonardo could have crossed the
> Atlantic without encountering trouble - was New York harbour
> unprotected in 1943? Nets, mines, patrols and underwater detection
> devices? Even assuming a ship or two was torpedoed there would it
> have caused the USA to break open the instant packs of sackcloth and
> ashes or would it have merely gritted its teeth and got on with the
> job at hand?
>
I doubt that the US would have broken out the sackcloth and
ashes in 1943, but it would have caused some alarm and
disruptions to maritime operations as it did in Australia
a little earlier.
The attack on Sydney by Japanese midget subs in 1942 definitely
had an effect on the Australian psyche. Many children were moved
from Sydney to safer areas in country New South Wales as a
precaution, however whether that was caused by the sub threat
or the air raids on Darwin is debatable.
The threat also caused a disruption to maritime operations
around Australia at the time. Here's something from wiki (just as a
start) if anyone is interested...
The raid was the first time that Sydney had been attacked
by enemy military forces. It remains the only such attack
to have taken place. Although the raid lacked the psychological
impact of the air raids on Darwin several weeks earlier, and
it failed to sink any major warships, it nevertheless
represented a symbolic victory for Japan, soon after its setback
at the Battle of the Coral Sea.
More at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Sydney_Harbour
Eugene Griessel
>I doubt that the US would have broken out the sackcloth and
>ashes in 1943, but it would have caused some alarm and
>disruptions to maritime operations as it did in Australia
>a little earlier.
>
>The attack on Sydney by Japanese midget subs in 1942 definitely
>had an effect on the Australian psyche. Many children were moved
>from Sydney to safer areas in country New South Wales as a
>precaution, however whether that was caused by the sub threat
>or the air raids on Darwin is debatable.
>
>The threat also caused a disruption to maritime operations
>around Australia at the time. Here's something from wiki (just as a
>start) if anyone is interested...
>
>The raid was the first time that Sydney had been attacked
>by enemy military forces. It remains the only such attack
>to have taken place. Although the raid lacked the psychological
>impact of the air raids on Darwin several weeks earlier, and
>it failed to sink any major warships, it nevertheless
>represented a symbolic victory for Japan, soon after its setback
>at the Battle of the Coral Sea.
There are the definite differences that at that time Australia was
perceived to be extremely vulnerable to invasion or attack by Japan
while New York, at the time of the planned attack, was under no
potential threat of an invasion from either Germany or Italy.
Authorities and people under stress do overreact - we had a few
overflights by a Japanese submarine launched aircraft and the
authorities immediately ordered blackouts along the entire east coast
of South Africa.
I can remember my mother telling me that they were all aroused from
their barracks in the middle of the night, marched out onto the parade
ground and informed that the country was now at war with Japan. Japan
being about 8000 miles away at the time and Pretoria being a few days
from any conceivable coastline the Japanese may have landed on. Why
the dramatic announcement could not have been left till morning was
always a mystery to her!
Eugene L Griessel
I sometimes think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated
his ability.
David E. Powell
renab...@aol.com wrote:
> Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> Prob'ly more than you wanna know, but what the hey...I've been
> fascinated by American Coastal Defenses since when I was a kid and
> being allowed to go exploring Fort Getty on Conanicutt Island in
> Narrgansett Bay was the highlight of vacation every year...Hmmm, need
> to renew my CDSG mmebership.
(Snip some impressive links and data.)
Wow.. New Jersey had some serious firepower. There are some concrete
structures still extant in Cape May. Everything from heavy 12 and 10
inch cannons on down, and apparently a couple of 16 inchers. I saw a 16
inch coastal defense gun at Aberdeen Proving grounds. That gun is HUGE.
Apparently it took an even larger shell and charge than some of the
Battleships' 16 inchers did.
Leo
Of course. My post was more of a perspective from the other side of the
world.
> Authorities and people under stress do overreact - we had a few
> overflights by a Japanese submarine launched aircraft and the
> authorities immediately ordered blackouts along the entire east coast
> of South Africa.
>
When my (Lithuanian) family arrived in Western Australia in 1951 they
found work in a variety of country towns. Several local farmers and
their labourers wore conical hats when working outside. and had done so
since about 1942. Apparently, (or so the story goes), they did it in
the belief that the Japanese would be less likely to bomb "their own
kind".
TOliver
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160718966....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
My mother's family lived (and still lives in Galveston) and while dad was
off to China we spent much time there. Although I was quite young, I
certainly recall the massive fortifications of Fort Crockett and outworks
(one of which, a 12" gun emplacement, IIRC, still forms the foundation for
the high rise San Luis Hotel). I don't recall blackouts, but the
discussions of torpedoed tankers burning offshore were common enough to
remain in my memory.
In and out of NY harbor by sea several times during my active duty career, I
would have little confidence that a midget sub could easily penetrate the
Narrows, move up the harbor (unless tides were favorable and given the
distance, no midget was going to be moving with the tide all the way) and
manage to accomplish much with the modest payload available. The massive
harbor traffic (including numerous active harbor patrol craft) during WWII
would have made undetected passage (which would have to have been
accomplished at periscope depth) almost impossible. In my memory, it takes
at least 5 knots of available speed simply to deal with the tide which in a
couple of location could be scary for any small craft, especially a midget
running on batteries (or even snorting - well, give fantasy its due - on a
diesel, at least the HP available to a midget)
Sheeit, the Staten Island Ferry would have likely claimed credit for a
kill....
New York Harbor is so much larger and so removed from the open sea than most
non-mariners can appreciate. Recalling the surfaced-sub shellings of the
California coast by IJN boats, I would have thought that Long Beach/San
Pedro might have been more vulnerable to midgets. I seem to remember
references to nets and gates at San Diego, the most vulnerable of West Coast
Harbors. Puget Sound (distance and currents) and the Mouth of the Columbia
(the "Bar") were not midget sub friendly.
I never could have grasped just how small Taranto really was until my ship
made a port call there (and aviators/avatars from VA46 stole a small 18th
Cent. cannon from the gateway to the Italian Navy Officers' Mess, a grand
bit of NATO lesee majeste). While the Inner Harbor, mostly shallow offers
protection from the sea, midget subs and the like, the British air attack
becomes far more understandable after seeing the Outer Harbor, as vulnerable
as Pearl Harbor if not more so. Naples, is so big and such an open
roadstead as to appear vulnerable, but I suspect that the Italians kept even
major naval units inside the various moles. Certainly, a BB (or even 2)
could have easily tied up inside the mole at the Stazione Maritima.
Jack Linthicum
For whatever reasons the Japanese made their initial forays at the
entire Pacific coast and then left. At one time in Januray 1942 they
had nine ocean-going subs off the West coast deployed from Cape
Flattery (I-26) to San Diego (I-10). On intelligence that a U.S.
battleship group was transitting the Panama Canal they shifted several
boast south on January21. The total take was five cargo ships for
30,000 tons. I-17 shelled a pier and an oil well derrick near Santa
Barbara, listed by the Japanese in their reports as a "bombardment"
that did "heavy damage" to California. The victory disease caught the
Japanese and they pulled back. There were later "exploits" like I-25
shelling Fort Stevens in Oregon, in September I-25 launched an aircraft
that dropped two small bombs north of Brookings,
Oregon.http://www.portorfordlifeboatstation.org/article1.html
Later, on the way home, the I-25 sank a Russian submarine transiting
for Panama.
There were various tales and the movie 1941 is a compendium of what
many thought happened in January 1942 in Southern California. I was
told to sit behind the couch away from a large bay window while
searchlights tracked "something" in the Southern California sky. And AA
fired at it. Stories of the sub that shot at the oil derrick multiplied
until the sheriff of Orange County, a former USC football player, was
said to have crawled out of the Huntington Beach pier and shot at a
Japanese sub with his shotgun.
Then our neighbors, the Oshimos, were taken away because the
grandfather was said to be a member of the Black Dragon Society.
If the Japanese had deployed those nine subs with reliefs for a year
the whole West Coast would have been in a panic.
deem...@aol.com
At first, but things would've calmed down...like the East Coast
after Drumbeat.
Arved Sandstrom
news:1160691692....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> Prob'ly more than you wanna know, but what the hey...I've been
> fascinated by American Coastal Defenses since when I was a kid and
> being allowed to go exploring Fort Getty on Conanicutt Island in
> Narrgansett Bay was the highlight of vacation every year...Hmmm, need
> to renew my CDSG mmebership.
Well, I'm a coastal defences nut myself, so I know whereof you speak. Nice
post BTW - I saved it.
My interest in coastal defences goes back to my teens, and I started out by
focusing on the Halifax Defence Complex and radiated out from there. If I
travel someplace my trip is complete if I visit harbour defences and
suchlike, and at least as far as Nova Scotia is concerned there are probably
no coast defence structures of major significance that I haven't visited (if
they exist) or researched (extant or not). Actually, if push came to shove,
I'd have to admit to a fascination with fortifications in general, with a
specialty in coastal defences, with a super-specialization in harbour
defences. :-)
I've been vaguely aware of the CDSG, and I suppose I should join, seeing as
how it takes money to do what they do, and I've taken advantage of their
material from time to time. Given that their mandate is *primarily* the US
but not exclusively so, I suppose that if I wanted to see more Canadian
content I'd have to step up to the plate. In any case the US coastal
defences are also quite interesting (well, hell, coastal defences anywhere
are :-)).
I went so far with the Halifax problem as to examine the issues of attack
and defence some decades back, in rather excruciating detail, for all the
time periods going back to the mid-18th c. One of the most interesting parts
of the general harbour defence problem is examining the role of defending
ships; that these are quite essential is shown by the two successful sieges
of Louisbourg on Cape Breton. Halifax in turn, at earlier stages
particularly, also would not have had the wherewithal to defy an amphibious
landing and subsequent investiture of fortifications had such an attack
taken place when no reasonably strong British naval forces were present.
You've likely read it - this month's (Oct 2006) issue of Naval History has a
short article on Charleston's defences; IMHO the fortifications of that city
and their employment during the Civil War are of especial interest for
highlighting issues of attack and defence in that time period.
I have also an especial interest in Estonian defence matters, being an
Estonian. Among various Estonian language publications related to defence
that I've obtained, one in particular merits translation with respect to
this subject, as it covers Estonian coastal defence 1919-1940. The largest
guns in use there were 305mm (12 inch) - these were Tsarist Russian in
construction. The next smaller calibre in use was 9.2in (234mm); these are
of rather interesting provenance, as they are 9.2in guns of 50 calibres,
originally intended for the Chilean navy, and were obtained from Bethlehem
Steel Company in 1914 by the Russian Ministry of Marine (some ended up in
Finland, too, at a minimum). I'm tempted to think that these were BL Mk X
guns built under license by Bethlehem Steel, but I don't know it.
AHS
Jack Linthicum
I don't remember, were the Germans thought to be about to land on the
East Coast? The Japanese were certainly expected on the West Coast.
TOliver
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote >
>
> I don't remember, were the Germans thought to be about to land on the
> East Coast? The Japanese were certainly expected on the West Coast.
>
then the Dirty N*zis had been dissuaded from the beaches of the Scuppered
H'aisles, and given a bloody nose, succeeding largely through command
ineptitude, in Crete.
Saboteurs and 5th Columns were the "Word of the Day". A good feeling for
'Merkin reactions and actions can be gained by viewing the movies of the
period (through about 1944 when the focus begins to change), especially the
cheap "B" flics and cartoons.
The sub menace remained paramount for some time, especially for folks along
the coast for whom the entire panoply of ASW and Coast Defense was highly
visible.... My mother's father was Polish and Dutch Consul in Galveston,
and the "authorities" were constantly arresting and treating very severely
(Gitmo style?) Dutch and Polish nationals, especially mercant seamen, exiles
and desperate men whose lives had crashed around them. How many people
understand that the casualty rate among merchant seamen in WWII exceeded
that of the US military (by a lot)? I only discovered in the 3rd grade,
1947 or so that I had a Chinse classmate who lived only a few blocks away.
From 1942 until 1946, he apparently never left home, going outside only at
night, his parents fearful of his being mistaken for a Japanese, or
summarily mistreated as an Asian of undetermined origin.
One side note....April of '42 or so, we lived in Fred Astaire's Summer House
in Del Mar, while Dad served as Regimental Surgeon for the 69th Coast
Artillery (AA), HQed in the infield of the Del Mar race track. Obviously,
some possibility of Japanese air attack was considered possible.
Unfortunately, modern revisionist historians almost completely ignore the
"tenor of the times" in examining the inerning of Japanese and Japanese
Americans. Given the highly public and media-covered appaearances of N*zi
sympathizers, uniformed and field-musiced in NY and the Northeast, the
public to a large extent viewed and feared a subtrle and more secretive
unde4cover deviltry among the "Jap". Ethnic slurs, derogatory racial
comment? Watch a few cartoons of the time. Cartoons made by "Liberals" at
that! The press was full of Phillipine and Malayan 5th columns, real and
imagined (and in all honesty post war revisionism among Filipinos engaged in
no little "covering up", even though the islands could hardly have been said
the welcome the "Nips" (among the most popular ethnic slurs in wide use by
folks in low and high places).
TMO
Jack Linthicum
I had what turned out to be a "one day" scholarship to a college that
had been built on the coastal defense grounds of Point Loma. The only
lift I got was a tour of the by now deserted gun emplacements. Same
with the military reservation at Fort de Russey in Honolulu.
renab...@aol.com
David E. Powell wrote:
> renab...@aol.com wrote:
> > Eugene Griessel wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > Prob'ly more than you wanna know, but what the hey...I've been
> > fascinated by American Coastal Defenses since when I was a kid and
> > being allowed to go exploring Fort Getty on Conanicutt Island in
> > Narrgansett Bay was the highlight of vacation every year...Hmmm, need
> > to renew my CDSG mmebership.
>
> (Snip some impressive links and data.)
>
> Wow.. New Jersey had some serious firepower. There are some concrete
> structures still extant in Cape May. Everything from heavy 12 and 10
> inch cannons on down, and apparently a couple of 16 inchers.
Haven't been down that way in a long while, but you are correct. What
struck me were the surviving fire control installations - pretty hard
to conceal in such flat terrain
Here's the story on terms of workd and weapons....Note how the older
three forts were superseded by the two new ones. .A continuing theme in
American coast defense was the replacment of older close in works with
ones father out to sea. This was caused by longer ranges newer weapons
could accomplish and better fire control to take advantage of the
increased range. On the Delaware, eventually positions on Cape Henlopen
and Cape May closed off the mouth off the bay and allowed the older
works to be retired.
The Harbor Defenses of the Delaware
FORT MOTT/ Finns Point, N.J./ 1900/ state park/ KKK
Arnold/3/12"/DC/1899-1943
Harker/3/10"/DC/1899-1941 /guns and carr to Canada, guns still at
location in Canada
Gregg/2/5"/P/1901-1910
Krayenbuhl/2/5" /BP/1900-1918
Edwards/2/3"/CM/1902-1920
FORT DELAWARE/ Pea Patch Island/ 1847/ state park /MC/ KKK
Torbert/3/12"/DC/1901-194?/guns to Battery Reed, Puerto Rico
Dodd/2/4.7"/A/1899-1918/
Hentig/2/3"/P/1901-1942
Alburtis/2/3"/MP/1901-1920
Allen/2/3"/MP/1901-1920
FORT DuPONT/ Delaware City, Del. /1896 /assorted public agencies, state
park /MD, MC/ KKKK
Rodney/8/12"/M/1900-1941
Best/8/12"/M/1900-1941
Read/2/12"/BC/1899-1918/emplacements split, Btty Gibson located between
Gibson/2/8" /DC/1899-1917/one structure with Read
Ritchie/2/5"/P/1900-1917/destroyed
Elder/2/3"/P/1904-1922/relocated 1922 to Delaware Beach
Elder II/2/3"/P/1942-1942/Liston front range light
FORT SAULSBURY/ Slaughter Beach, Del./ 1902/ private, Wildlife Refuge/
KKK
Hall/2/12"/BCLR/1924-1945
Haslet/2/12"/BCLR/1924-1942/guns to Ft. Miles
Cape May M. R/ Cape May, NJ/ state park/ K
#223/2/6"/SBC /1944-1947/now in surf
AMTB #7/2/90 mm/F/1943-1946/now in surf
nnamed/4/155 mm/PM//in surf
temporary/1/6"/P/1917-1919/C.G. base east of town, destroyed
FORT MILES /Cape Henlopen /1940/ state park/ MD, MC/ KKK
Smith (#118)/2/16"/CBC/1943-1948/
#119/2/16"/CBC/NB
#519/2/12"/CBC/1944-1948/guns from Haslet, Ft. Saulsbury (replaced
#119)
unnamed/4/8"/RY//covered/buried
unnamed/4/8"/RY//covered/buried
temporary/1/6"/P/1917-1918/Cape Henlopen M.R. from Ft. St. Phillip
Herring (#221)/2/6"/SBC/1944-1948/earthen cover removed
Hunter (#222)/2/6"/SBC/1943-1947/
Exam/4/3"/P/1942-1946/mostly buried
AMTB #5A/2/90 mm/F/1943-1946/mostly buried
AMTB #5B/2/90 mm/F/1943-1946/1 block covered by parking lot
unnamed/4/155 mm/PM
Note the one surviving older work was Battery Hall with 2 X 12-inch
Long Range Barbetter Carriage. This mounting was designed to get longer
range weapons into service before the 16-inch became operational. It
took the old 12-inch amd mounted on a barbette carriage which just
about doubled the range of the disappearing mount versions. It was
regarded as teh best of the old mounts as was retained in service when
older ones weer retited.
By the WWII period, the Coast Artillery had standardized on four
weapons
1) 90-mm M1 on fixed dual purpose shielded pedestal mount for
anti-torpedo boat work (like then Italian attack on Malta which was
slaughtered by the British twin 6-pounders). A sbattery was comprised
of two fixed weapons and normally had two mobile M2 also assigned
(which was the reason it coudl depress pass zero, a raraity among AA
weapons) and two 36-mm or 40-mm light AA assigne das well
2) 6-inch on shileded barbette carruages to cover the Army's controlled
mainefields and prevent them from being swept, to cover secondary
approaches and minor harbor and to mserve as examination batteries
3) 155-mm M2 on Firing Platfoprm M1 ("Kelly Mount"). Tractor drawn guns
that could be repidly emplaced in tme of emergency to cover areas
without pemananet works either until such workd could be completed or
teh crisis ended and could accompany an expeditionary force to probvide
both heavy field artillery and quickly installed coast defenses for
captured ports
4) 16-inch Mk II or MK !!! on barbette mount to cove rmajor ports from
enemy capital ships
Many 6-inch and, especially, 16-inch were casemented against air attack
and naval gunfire
and many 16-inch were also provided with shields. Both wer empoyed in
two gun batteries (100 and 200 seies for 16 inch and 6-inch,
repsectively) of standardized design.
At the end of WII, the older weapons were scrapped and the newer ones
place din caretaker status until they scrapped in the early Fifities
I saw a 16
> inch coastal defense gun at Aberdeen Proving grounds.
http://www.skylighters.org/camphero/aberdeen.gif
That gun is HUGE.
> Apparently it took an even larger shell and charge than some of the
> Battleships' 16 inchers did.
The M1919 was simply the heaviest and most powerful gun ever built in
the US...But the weapon you saw mounted on a proof carriage at APG is
almost assuredly a Navy Mk 11 or Mk III
"The 16-inch gun, mounted on the M1919 carriage was the standard
major caliber weapon of the Coast Artillery after WW1, although some
12-inch guns were still being emplaced. There were various models of
the carriage (M1919M1, M1919M2, etc), and gun tubes (a wire-wound army
gun, and the more common built-up Navy gun). The expected maximum range
of the different tubes varied from 49,100 yards with the Army gun, to
45,150 yards with the slightly less powerful Navy gun. The Navy guns
were built for a class of battleships that was never constructed due to
the Washington Naval Treaty, and subsequently given to the Army for
emplacement as Coast Artillery."
However, only a few were made. In 1916 Congress passed legislation to
make the USN "Second to none". The centerpieces of this fleet were
to be the six BB's of the South Dakota class (not to be confused with
the WWII vessel) and the CC's of the Lexington class, all armed with
the USN's 16/50-inch (interservice cooperation on ordnance was a
dream many years inn the future - and we still haven't gotten
there),. Ordnance actually was the pacing item in capital ship
construction, taking longer than the hull and machinery. So the USN
promptly ordered the guns and went ahead with building the ships.
All of which showed commendable enterprise. Unfortunately, the vessels
in question were to be some of "Washington's Cherry Trees" -
being hacked down by the Treaty. As a result of BUORD's enterprise,
the USN was stuck with a number of finished or partially finished
weapons they couldn't use, so in a fit of generosity, they unloaded a
number of them on the Coast Artillery Corps. In it's turn, the Corps
looked at its projected budgets and swore eternal love to the USN's
weapons.
Segue to the late Thirties. BUORD decides to arm the projected Iowa and
Montana class BB's with - wait for it - 16/50-inch rifles. I
don't know whether the USN ever had to go cap in hand to the Army to
beg for the return of what it had so cheerfully given away, because the
incredible happened.
At the meeting of the General Board to approve the design of the Iowa
class before it went for final approval by the Secretary of the Navy,
it was discovered that the turret and barbette designed by BUORD would
NOT fit in the space allowed in the hull by BUSHIPS.
It turned out that BUORD had thriftily planned to use its remaining
stock of Mark 2 and 3 guns aboard the new vessels. The 16/50 inch guns
would require a larger barbette and turret than the 16/45, but nobody
bothered to tell BUSHIPS. In the mean time, BUSHIPS allotted the same
amount of space for the 16/50's as it would for the 16/45's and
didn't bother to check with BUORD to see if their assumption was
correct.
The admirals of the General Board were incredulous. BUORD and BUSHIPS
were only blocks apart in Washington DC and they hadn't talked to each
other ??
After the screaming died down, BUORD was told to go away and do
whatever it took to make the design fit in the space allowed. The
result was the Mark 7, a "lightweight" weapon which allowed the
dimensions of the turret and barbette to be shrunk enough to fit innth
space for a 16/45-inch.
"In the late 1930s, it was planned to use these weapons to arm the
Iowa class (BB-61) battleships but, through a comedy of errors, the
ship and the mounting designs were incompatible with each other. This
forced BuOrd into a new gun design and development for the Iowa class
battleships, which fortunately resulted in the excellent 16"/50 (40.6
cm) Mark 7.
As a result of these ship cancellations, most of these Mark 2 and Mark
3 guns wound up being used by the US Army as Coast Defense Artillery,
with 20 guns transferred in 1922-24 and all but three of the remaining
guns transferred in January 1941 following the Iowa fiasco. The Army
considered these guns to be excellent weapons in that role and used
them along with their own 16"/50 (40.6 cm) M1919. By August 1945 there
were forty of these ex-naval guns in active coast defense batteries."
"The original plans to build the first American 16-inch gun were
approved in 1895, and the first 16-inch gun was built by inch gun was
built by the Watervliet Arsenal, NY, in 1902. It was 39 feet long (35
caliber), 5 feet in diameter at the breech, had 1-50 to 1-25 gain twist
rifling (explained below), and weighed 284,000 pounds. It was tested at
the Sandy Hook Proving Ground, Fort Hancock, NJ, and returned to
Watervliet in 1917 for refurbishing. It was later sent to Battery
Newton, in Fort Grant, at the Panama Canal Zone and mounted in a
disappearing carriage until it was scrapped in 1943."
The second gun Model 1919, was a 50 caliber (66.6 feet long) gun with
1-32 rifling, which weighed 340,000 Lbs. This gun was mounted at
Battery JMK Davis, Fort Michie, Great Gull Island, NY, until it was
scrapped in 1943.
In 1917, Congress approved three sites to receive M1919 guns, Battery
Williston at Fort Weaver in Oahu, Hawaii, Battery Harris at Fort Tilden
in Rockaway, NY, and Battery Long at Fort Duvall near Boston, MA.
In 1922, twenty M1919 Mk II Navy guns were transferred to the Army, six
of these were installed between Fort Kobbe, Panama, and Oahu, Hawaii.
In 1938 six, 2 gun batteries were approved for the continental United
States. Twenty Batteries were in service at the end of WW2, and
eighteen more were incomplete or cancelled.
________________________________________
Different 16-inch Guns:
- 16" gun 35 caliber, gain twist rifling (only one
manufactured),Watervliet (installed at Battery Newton, Perico Island,
Panama).
- M1919 50 caliber, 1-32 rifling (only one manufactured), Watervliet
(installed Battery Davis, Ft. Michee, on a M1917 disappearing
carriage).
- M1919 M-II and M-III, 50 caliber (Army), Watervliet (used on barbette
mounts - six rifles appear to have been manufactured).
""The US Army's 16"/50 (40.6 cm) M1919 coastal defense gun was an
almost completely different design and was one of the few wire wound
guns ever built in the USA. It weighed nearly 24 tons (25 mt) more
than the Mark 2 and was about 0.5 calibers longer. A total of eight of
these guns were built with six being used in two-gun coastal defense
batteries, the first of which was installed during 1923-1924 at Battery
Williston, on the west side of the entrance to Pearl Harbor, "where
they had a field of fire that completely encircled the island of Oahu
[Hawaii] and reached beyond its shores at every point" - from "Seacoast
Fortifications of the United States." The other two batteries were
installed at Long Island, New York and at Boston, Massachusetts. All
other 16" (40.6 cm) coastal batteries used the former naval guns."
- M1920 16-inch Howitzer, four installed at Fort Story, VA (essentially
half a M1919 mounted on carriage derived from the gun carriage)
http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/armes/artillerie/5462.html
http://coastalguardians.com/howitzer.html
- Mk I Navy, 45 caliber (Colorado Class Battleships).
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk1.htm
- Mk II Navy, 50 caliber (South Dakota and Lexington classes)
"The Mark 2 was constructed of a liner, A tube, jacket, seven hoops,
four hoop-locking rings and a screw box liner. Mod 0 had increasing
twist while Mod 1 had uniform twist with a different groove pattern.
The Mark 3 was very similar, the only difference being that the Mark 3
had a one-step conical liner. Mark 3 Mod 0 had increasing twist while
Mod 1 had uniform twist. When cancelled in 1922, 71 guns including the
prototype had been completed and another 44 were in progress."
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk2.htm
- Mk II Navy (Army modified), two separate members, Watervliet.
- Mk II M1 Navy, different propelling charge, Watervliet
- Mark III, Navy
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk2.htm
- Mk III Navy (Army modified), minor differences with Mk II barrel
hoops and rings.
- Mk IV ?
- Mk V Navy, 45 caliber, rebuilt Mk I aboard Colorado class
"Used only on the USS Colorado (BB-45) class battleships, these guns
were reconstructed from the original 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 1 weapons
during the 1930s modernization of the battlefleet. The major
difference from the Mark 1 gun was the redesign of the chamber to
permit larger charges, a new liner with heavier taper carbon steel,
liner-locking ring and locking collar."
A later version, the Mark 8, was similar except that rifling was
uniform and the bore was chromium plated for increased life."
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk5.htm.
- Mk VI Navy, 45 caliber for North Carolina and South Dakota Class
battleships.
"An improved weapon when compared to the older 16"/45 (40.6 cm) gun
used on the Colorado class battleships, this weapon was a simpler,
lighter design. A major difference was that the mountings for these
guns were specifically designed to handle the 2,700 lbs. (1,224.7 kg)
AP Mark 8 projectile. This gun had a slight advantage over the 16"/50
(40.6 cm) Mark 7 in terms of deck armor penetration due to its lower
muzzle velocity... About 120 guns of all mods were manufactured, with
most being Mod 1.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm
-Mk VII Navy, 50 caliber for Iowa and Montana Class battleships,
Watervliet, Bethlehem, and Midvale.
"This was possibly the best battleship gun ever put into service.
Originally intended to fire the relatively light 2,240 pound (1,016.0
kg) AP Mark 5 projectile, the shell handling system for these guns was
redesigned to use the "super-heavy" 2,700 pound (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8
before any of the USS Iowa class (BB-61) battleships were laid down.
This heavier projectile made these guns nearly the equal in terms of
penetration power to the 46 cm (18.1") guns of the Japanese Yamato
class battleships, yet they weighed less than three-quarters as much.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
Mk VIII - Navy, 45 caliber, rebuilt Mk I aboard Colorado class
"A later version (of the Mark 5), the Mark 8, was similar except that
rifling was uniform and the bore was chromium plated for increased
life."
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk5.htm.
________________________________________
Carriages:
M1 no shield, 65 degree elevation, mechanical rammer
M2 2 inch shield, 47 degree elevation
M3 2 inch shield, new type elevation buffers, heavy floor beams
M4
M5
M1920 carriage for M1920 16-inch Howitzer
Article on US Army 16/50 guns
Ogden Johnson III
> At first, but things would've calmed down...like the East Coast
>after Drumbeat.
After 103 lines of extraneous material from previous posts in the
thread/subthread.
Please, stop being lazy and take the time to trim previous
material to only that necessary to put your reply in context.
Otherwise, you are telling us we are stupid and can't remember
what was said before in the thread.
We can remember the general run of the thread/subthread, we don't
need to see *all* of quoted in *every* post. Just the part/parts
that *you* are specifically responding to.
--
Ogden Johnson
(ne OJ III)
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and dot the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]
Ogden Johnson III
>I don't remember, were the Germans thought to be about to land on the
>East Coast? The Japanese were certainly expected on the West Coast.
After 107 lines of extraneous material from previous posts in the
thread/subthread.
To repeat what I said on my reply to the post you responded to.
dott.Piergiorgio
Naples, is so big and such an open
> roadstead as to appear vulnerable, but I suspect that the Italians kept even
> major naval units inside the various moles. Certainly, a BB (or even 2)
> could have easily tied up inside the mole at the Stazione Maritima.
During WWII, both Venetos was tied on the right side of the Stazione
Marittima, but the USS NJ I see moored on the S. Vincenzo mole, by the
side (the same mooring used by the Forrestal) AFAICT the Forrestal can
enter barely in the port: Sara and the other CV/CVN always was tied in
the gulf, outside the port proper.
Smaller Carriers, esp. the french Clemenceau & Foch, was ever moored on
the left side of the Stazione Marittima (L & R looking towards the sea,
back towards the Maschio Angioino Castle and Piazza Municipio)
the head of the Stazione Marittima was always used for FRAM DD and
DE/Frigates; CG, DDG was moored generally at the sides.
Today, with the shifting of the USN to Gaeta (IMHO a very worst harbour
security-wise) the Stazione Marittima is returned to the original role,
and is ever full of cruise liners, esp. in summer days.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
renab...@aol.com
Jim Watt wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2006 08:25:55 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Someone gave me this link recently which has an account
> of various Italian WW2 marine activities well presented
>
> http://www.regiamarina.net
>
>
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibne
t.com
SNIP
Jim, Thanks! Looks like an excelllent site. Book marked it so I can go
back and digest it at leisure over a 6-pack....
renab...@aol.com
Jim Watt wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2006 08:25:55 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Someone gave me this link recently which has an account
> of various Italian WW2 marine activities well presented
>
> http://www.regiamarina.net
>
>
Includung the proposed attack on New York.
Having read a deatiled account, let me make the followig comments
"{Borghese intended to bring war to the American continent by
conducting an action that would be demonstrative in nature and which
would have limited military value in damage inflicted, but enormous
value in terms of psychological effects. The plan, to which today we
have only limited documentation, called for the delivery of an
insidious weapon off Fort Hamilton to then have this craft navigate
upriver toward the Hudson River and deliver explosive charges to some
of the merchant ships docked along West Street. Due to the nature of
the harbor and the distance of New York from the nearest Axis-occupied
port, the use of human torpedoes was not only unsuited, but also
impractical."
1) The Leonardo Da Vinci would somehow have to sail undetected to a
point midway between Sandy Hook and Long Island - the entrance to
Ambrose Channel. This area was extensively patrolled by the ships and
aircraft of the Coastal Patrol.
2) Not so coincidentally, once at the entrance to Ambrose Channel, it
would be right between the two Advanced Harbor Entrance Control Posts
"The New York Harbor Entrance Control Post (HECP) was located at Fort
Wadsworth in Staten Island, NY. The Advance HECP #1 was located at Fort
Hancock, Sandy Hook, NJ, while the Advance HECP #2 was located at Fort
Tilden in Rockaway, NY
The Advance HECP #2 at Fort Tilden was used to identify ships
approaching the Ambrose Channel from the waters off Long Island, and to
keep fishing vessels and pleasure craft out of the restricted areas off
the shores of Fort Tilden. The Advance HECP #1 at Fort Hancock
performed similar duties on the West side of the Ambrose Channel. This
structure was built into the remains of Battery McCook (8, 12" Mortars,
1898-1923). Advance HECP went into operation on 6 August 1943 at Fort
Tilden, Rockaway Point, Long Island, New York, an Army fort constructed
at the time of World War I and greatly expanded during this war.
Preliminary surveys for the installation of this HECP unit considered a
structure on the top of the Half Moon Hotel, Coney Island, or the Army
Radar Tower, Fort Tilden, which had an elevation of 173 feet. Both
these sites, however were rejected in favor of its final location, as
more central for joint Army-Navy action.
This Unit was set up under orders of 11 December 1941, providing for
magnetic loop installations for New York Harbor. This station was
located at Atlantic Beach Coast Guard Station on Far Rockaway Inlet,
Atlantic Beach, Long Island. At this time the station was known as
Naval Unit -#2. Two magnetic loops were laid, known as Loops 3 and 4.
The shore equipment consisted of three fluxmeters, two in use and one
spare, and telephone communication to HECP at Fort Wadsworth. A
fluxmeter and visual watch was maintained by one chief and eight seamen
starting 14 March 1942.
All crossings on loops were reported by telephone to HECP and the
visual watch attempted to identify the ships making the signatures.
Because of technical difficulties experienced, due to nearby railroad
(discussed below,) it was decided to move the station from Atlantic
Beach to Fort Tilden. Concomitantly it was decided to improve the
procedure of reporting the movement of vessels in New York Harbor by
the establishment of two advance HECPS. Shortly after 17 September
1943, Naval Unit #2 became Naval Unit 3-B and was set up as an
organization separate from the Advance HECP #2, but working closely
with it. In place of the two unsatisfactory loops (Numbers 3 and 4)
originally laid from Atlantic Beach, three loops were laid with Fort
Tilden as the shore terminus. When completes the loop system had as its
approximated eastern edge, a line from the HECP Tower to the Ambrose
Lightship. The tail cables were brought into a bombproof shelter where
four fluxmeters were located. Subsequently it was decided to relay
three new loops in place of the original two. The new loops gave
excellent results.
Things just got worse for the Axis in 1943
""During WW II, the New York Harbor was monitored by two Advance
Harbor Entrance Control Posts (HECP), one located at Fort Hancock,
Sandy Hook, the other on the opposite side of the bay at Fort Tilden,
Rockaway. Both Advance HECPs were part of a complex harbor survey
system, which included radar, hydrophones and magnetic detection loops.
For harbor surveillance, both Advance HECPs were equipped with SCR-582
harbor surveillance radars. According to the available technical
descriptions, the SCR-582 was capable to detect surface targets (ships)
at night and poor visibility up to a range of 90 000 yards. Both
stations easily could monitor the Ambrose Channel."
The SCR-582 was a harbor surveillance radar set developed by the MIT
Radiation Laboratory during World War 2. This radar was designed to
detect the presence of ships and to determine the approximate range and
azimuth to the ship.
SCR-582 Specifications:
Range: 90,000 yds (45 nautical miles)
Frequency: 2.8 GHz
Peak Power: 50,000 watts
Antenna: 48 inch parabolic dish"
3) Then the Da Vinci, would have to sail up Ambrose Channel
"Ambrose Channel, the principal entrance, extends from the sea to
deep water in Lower Bay. Anchorage Channel, an extension of Ambrose
Channel, then leads through Upper Bay to The Battery. Hudson River
Channel continues northward from The Battery for about 5 nmi to West
59th Street, Manhattan. Project depth for these channels is 45 ft".
"Ambrose Channel, which is the newer and more important channel, was
completed April 17, 1914. It was a comparatively straight course in a
northwesterly and then northerly direction from deep water in the ocean
through the Lower Bay. It is 38,000 feet in length and 2,000 feet in
width, and has a depth of 45 feet at mean low water. The mean range of
tide is about 4.5 feet."
There is no way that an ocean going submarine could submerge in a depth
of 45 feet, so the whole approach to one of the most heavily defended
ports in the world - have I mentioned the minefields, booms and nets,
the inshore and harbor patrols - would bel on the surface. As this
would obviously be at night, you would have to navigate under blackout
conditions (by late 1942 the days of the "Happy Time" with lights
blazing on the shore was long gone.No, the blackout would have been far
from perfect, but enough to navigate by?) a 2000 foor wide channel with
shallows to either side and altough reasonably staright, it does hav
ethat bend in the middle.
3) The Da Vinci would then heave to - directly under the guns of Fort
Hamilton (!) in Brooklyn and across the Lower Bay from the guns of Fort
Wadsworth and the HECP on Staten Island - and flood down enough to
float off the two midgets from their deck cradles. They would proceed
on their way, while the Da Vinci cruised around the Lower Bay, no doubt
stopping for pizza - perhaps some of the crew would prefer subs - at
Uncle Luigi's on Staten Island while awaiting her brood's return.
4) The midget subs would penetrate the Narrows, directly between Staten
Island and Brooklyn, with its detection loop, boom and nets, all
covered by the guns of Forts Wadsworth and Hamilton and guarded by the
USCG harbor patrol ....I'm sorry, folks, I can't go on any longer.
Conclusion: A truly cunning plan, worthy of Pte Baldrick himself! As a
suicide mission it would take some beating. Ironically, it might have
shut down the Port of New York - until they managed to get the
shattered remains of the Da Vinci out of Ambrose Channel so ships could
pass freely again.
Class: Marconi
Type: Ocean-going Submarine (SO )
Displacement surfaced: 1191 t.
Displacement submerged: 1489 t.
Length: 70.04 m.
Width: 6.82 m.
Draft: 4.72 m.
Main engines: 2D3600 HP
Secondary engines: 2E1500 HP
Max surface speed: 18 knots
Max submerged speed: 8 knots
Fuel: t.
Range: 10550@8 110@3 miles
Main guns:
A/A/ guns: 4x13.2
Torpedoes: 8x533 mm.
Mines:
Complements: 7 + 50
Range was limited to about 70 miles, underwater speed was increased to
6 knots and maximum depth was tested up to 47 meters: quite an
achievement for such a small unit.
David E. Powell
By the way, 1941 is one of my favorite movies, though most people I know don't get it and don't take well to it. It's Spielberg's fun side and to me reflects him as a kid when he started getting into film. Also John Belushi is amazing, and seeing Toshiro Mifune and Christopher Lee play it straight is neat.