Struma & Lancastria.

This is coolbert:

More "Hell Ships".

Thanks to the tips from a variety of sources in this case.

Again from that era of the Second World War [WW2] more instances of "Hell Ships". Those vessels, predominantly merchant shipping being impressed and used for military transport, the loss of life from sinking as a result of combat action extraordinary and prodigious.

Ships not adequate for the task over-loaded, over-burdened generally inadequate for the transport task, sometimes grossly so, "going to the bottom" as a result of combat action with almost a total loss of life, passengers and crew both perishing in numbers beyond belief.

1. The Struma.

Merchant vessel of antiquated design carrying Jewish refugees while en route to British Mandated Palestine attacked by Soviet submarines and sunk, the loss of life, crew and passengers almost COMPLETELY TOTAL, ONLY ONE SURVIVOR PULLED FROM THE WATER THE COMPLEMENT [passengers and crew combined] OF THE SHIP ABOUT EIGHT HUNDRED!!

"Holocaust at Sea: The Lone Survivor of the 'Struma'"

In 1942, a Soviet submarine in the Black Sea torpedoed and sank the Struma, a ship filled with almost 800 Jewish refugees headed from Romania to the Holy Land.

"near Istanbul, in the wee hours of February 24, 1942. That's when a Soviet submarine sank a Jewish refugee ship en route to what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. All told, 786 people, among them 101 children, either died instantly or slowly froze and drowned in the wintry water.
Only one of them made it."

AT THAT EXACT MOMENT THE STRUMA FLYING A NEUTRAL FLAG, SUNK NONETHELESS, STALIN HAVING GIVEN A SECRET ORDER TO SINK ALL NEUTRAL SHIPPING IN THE BLACK SEA!!

"The Struma was no more than a pile of junk. Built in 1867, this former luxury yacht had been sadly degraded to a cattle transport ship. The ship, originally meant for only 150 passengers, had been retrofitted to carry almost 800, in tiny wooden bunks on three low levels."

2. RMS Lancastria.

The Lancastria ferrying troops during Ariel, under attack by German combat aircraft, the Lancastria sinking with the loss of life immense, troops in the water furthermore bombed and strafed!!

"RMS Lancastria (later HMT Lancastria was a British Cunard liner commandeered by the UK Government for war, sunk on 17 June 1940 during World War II with the loss of over 4,000 lives, possibly many more. It is the greatest ever loss of life in the sinking of a single British ship, claiming more lives than the combined losses of the RMS Titanic and RMS Lusitania. It had also the highest death toll for UK forces in a single engagement in the whole of World War II."

"She was sunk off the French port of St. Nazaire while taking part in Operation Ariel, the evacuation of British nationals and troops from France, two weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation.

Ariel that evacuation from Normandy [1940] in the aftermath of Dunkirk, a British REVERSE amphibious operation deemed a success, with the exception of the sinking of the Lancastria!!

Even more surprising is that the full story of the Lancastria seems to remain a secret to this very day, the site NOT registered as a war grave, incredible in the extreme so many decades after the fact. AND WHY IS THAT?

"The British Government has refused to make the site a war grave under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 although documents obtained under Freedom of information legislation (FOIA) show that it could be done. Early in the 21st century the French Government placed an exclusion zone around the wreck site. In July 2007 another request for documents held by the Ministry of Defence related to the sinking was rejected by the British Government. The Lancastria Association of Scotland made a further request in 2009. They were told that release under the FOIA would not be given "

A PhD dissertation could be written with the subject of WW2 "Hell Ships" the topic. Seems this phenomenon was very widespread. British troops, German and Jewish refugees, Italian, American and British PoW, Asian impressed laborers.  They ALL seem to  have gone through the same terrifying ordeal, the loss of life stupendous and almost absolute in most cases.

coolbert.

Fall Gelb.

This is coolbert:

From that wiki entry for the Battle of France [1940], more evidence, that intelligence and analysis indicating a German armor attack through the Ardennes [Case Yellow], totally ignored by Gamelin, indicative of an attitude and pigheadedness to face reality, even when made manifest.

NOT ONLY British Royal Air Force [RAF] spotting the massive German armor formations in the Ardennes.

Other intelligence agencies having made clear to the French and allied forces their appreciation of the situation, the German plan of attack unorthodox PREPARATIONS OF WHICH EVEN WHEN OBSERVED AS UNHEEDED BY GAMELIN THE FRENCH GENERALISSIMO!!

1. The Belgians.

"In the winter of 1939–1940, the Belgian consul-general in Cologne had anticipated the angle of advance that Von Manstein was planning. Through intelligence reports, they deduced that German forces were concentrating along the Belgian and Luxembourg frontiers. The Belgians were convinced that the Germans would thrust through the Ardennes and to the English Channel with the aim of cutting off the Allied field armies in Belgium and north-eastern France."

2. The Swiss.

"In March 1940, Swiss intelligence detected six or seven Panzer Divisions on the German-Luxembourg-Belgian border. More motorised divisions had also been detected in the area. French intelligence were informed that the Germans were constructing pontoon bridges partially—about halfway—over the Our River on the Luxembourg-German border through aerial reconnaissance. The French military attaché in the Swiss capital—Bern—warned that the centre of the German assault would come on the Meuse at Sedan, sometime between 8 and 10 May. The report was dated 30 April. These reports had little effect on Gamelin."

Gamelin indecisive and lacking as to inspired dynamic action, unable to confront a changing situation with alacrity!

Dupuy again of the opinion that if three of those four French armies behind the Maginot Line had been deployed in time to meet the German offensive of 1940, the German would have without question stopped cold!! This of course not occurring and we all know the rest of the story.

The French too for a variety of reasons thinking DEFENSIVELY and content to leave to the German the initiative. That lack of dynamic response on the part of Gamelin most troubling.

coolbert.

Horseshoe.

This is coolbert:

From the PBS television series "Bullets, Boots and Bandages"and thanks to the BBC we have this most interesting item.

"Napoleon's failure: For the want of a winter horseshoe"

That army of Napoleon retreating from Moscow [1812] having their horse transport reduced to near zero, the animals as shod with the wrong horseshoes, organized transport in the traditional and normal manner of that period made negligible.

"Of all the challenges faced by generals through history, moving armies has been one of the greatest - and Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Russia 200 years ago illustrates just how badly things can go wrong when it is underestimated".

"Having entered Russia in June, and anticipating a short campaign, his [Napoleon] horses were still shod with summer shoes."

"But with the brutal Russian winter fast approaching, this tiny logistical oversight was to cost him dear. Winter horseshoes are equipped with little spikes that give a horse traction on snow and ice, and prevent it from slipping."

"Without them, a horse can neither tow a wagon uphill, nor use them as brakes on the way down."

There not being enough farriers [those craftsmen that shoe horses] and proper numbers of spiked horseshoes to fit the horses to begin with. An unanticipated calamity without mitigation the result.

During that period of the American Civil War an army of 100,000 men  requiring about 2,500 wagon loads of supply per day for sustainment, not even during conditions of battle!! WAGONS OF COURSE PULLED BY HORSES!

Fodder for the horses during the extreme cold of the Russian winter being nil, campaigns typically during the Napoleonic era [and that time of the American Civil War for that matter] traditionally ceasing during that time of cold!!

coolbert.

B61.

This is coolbert:

"not deploy new weapons"

"Obama accused of nuclear U-turn as guided weapons plan emerges"

Thanks to the Guardian for this alarming [at least to Europeans] headline.

"Plan to spend $10bn on updating nuclear bombs goes against 2010 pledge not to deploy new weapons, say critics"

"Under the plan, nearly 200 B61 gravity bombs stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey would be given new tail fins that would turn them into guided weapons that could be delivered by stealth F35 fighter-bombers."

Obama has broken his pledge? Is this so?

NO!!

Taking an already existing weapon and improving it so that weapon becomes more effective is not introducing a NEW WEAPON! My emphasis on the word NEW!

This sounds like those B61 atomic bombs being fitted, or at least with an ability to be fitted, on very short notice, with a JDAMs strap on kit. Allow the "dumb" bomb to become a "smart" guided munitions using GPS for guidance.

Atomic munitions just made better, that already EXISTING NUCLEAR WEAPON IMPROVED!

NOT a new weapon as that term generally, ordinarily and commonly understood.

For those favoring a reduction of nuclear stockpiles, this should be considered as a PLUS and not a negative. Because that B61 will now be MORE ACCURATE fewer will be needed as a deterrent. Existing stockpiles can be reduced in number.

NOR would I have to think that adding a strap on JDAMs kit to an already in-the-inventory atomic bomb is a violation of existing treaties and internationally agreed upon covenants. This is correct?

Keep in mind that since the late 1960's American nuclear warheads have been drastically reduced in number, that inventory of fitted and stockpiled atomic ordnance now only about 15 % of what it was forty years ago.

coolbert.

Seaplanes V.

This is coolbert:

Conclusion.

Sea Base!

Unclassified!

It is not like the United States Navy is not aware of the potentiality as posed by the military seaplane!

Here from an unclassified document as dated 2004 the seaplane envisioned as a valuable adjunct to naval operations taken into consideration.

That military seaplane more than anything else seen not as a combat warplane but as a long-range heavy-lift aircraft incorporated into the concept of the SEA BASE!

The sea base a combination of transport vessels, floating piers and facilities including the incorporation of the seaplane as a transport military aircraft!

"Use of Seaplanes and Integration within a Sea Base"

"14. ABSTRACT"

"A study to investigate the utility of seaplanes to support an offshore military Sea Base has been undertaken by the Center For Innovation In Ship Design. The potential use and importance of seaplanes for future sea-based military missions are discussed. The research outlines the history of seaplane development, their different modes of operation and associated enabling technologies."

Conclusion:

"It is evident from the study that seaplanes have a potential role in supporting seabasing through rapid and strategic deployment of troops, equipment, and logistic support. Seaplanes would certainly enhance Sea Base capability, providing a useful resource to achieve force closure, heavy lift logistic sustainment from the Sea Base to shore, and in-flight refueling."

BUT NOT THE SEAPLANE AS A COMBAT WARPLANE ABLE TO DELIVER ORDNANCE ON AN ENEMY TARGET, THAT SEAPLANE TENDER AND ASSOCIATED AIR WING ROAMING FREELY THE OCEANS OF THE WORLD PROJECTING POWER ON DEMAND!!

That long-range heavy-lift seaplane as a military transport the archetype from a much previous era the Convair Tradewind.

"The Convair R3Y Tradewind was an American 1950s turboprop-powered flying boat designed and built by Convair . . . a large flying boat using new technology developed during the war . . . the design should be developed into a passenger and cargo aircraft."

Tradewind able to "beach" and evidently having an amphibious capability with organic wheels?

 

Tradewind also in the transport mode that front end swinging open when the plane "beached", troops allowed egress forward this feature considered important.

Consider also the concept of the ultra heavy lift transport, originally conceived as not a seaplane but nonetheless perhaps could be made versatile enough to function as a flying boat [water tight hull] and operate in conjunction with a sea base.

That transport the Boeing Pelican. Heavy lift long range transport using wing-in-ground effect for additional lift. Massive airplane with extraordinary capacity, only a concept under study.

"The Boeing Pelican ULTRA (Ultra Large Transport Aircraft) was a proposed ground effect fixed-wing aircraft under study by Boeing Phantom Works."

Pelican flying over water at max height, very low, deriving additional lift from wing-in-ground.

"Intended as a large-capacity transport craft for military or civilian use, it would have a wingspan of 500 feet (150 m), a cargo capacity of 1,400 tons (1,300 metric tonnes), and a range of about 10,000 nautical miles (18,000 km). Powered by four turboprop engines, its main mode would be to fly 20–50 ft (6–15 m) over water . . . It would operate from conventional runways, with its weight distributed over 38 fuselage-mounted landing gears with 76 wheels."

"the Pelican Ultra would carry a maximum of 2.8 million pounds of cargo--that's 17 M1 battle tanks--for a distance of up to 3,000 miles. For longer-range missions of up to 10,000 miles, the aircraft could carry payloads of up to 1.5 million pounds [41 Stryker vehicles]."

The authors of the naval study did not anticipate the use of COMBAT seaplanes primarily functioning as stand-off delivery systems. A sea base could indeed function quite well as an "airfield" for an entire wing of combat sea planes again the cost only a fraction of a brand new "super" carrier. This all seems rather do-able to me.

coolbert.

Seaplane IV.

This is coolbert:

 

"no one ever said this was going to be easy"

The military combat seaplane continued.

Difficulties.

Military combat seaplanes UNDERSTOOD as not being an air superiority warplane. That much UNDERSTOOD from the start. Warplanes providing an adequate measure of performance, a partial alternative to the "super" aircraft carrier.

A system consisting of the planes themselves, a seaplane tender vessel and floating piers on demand.

The U.S. Navy for the fraction of the cost of a brand new "super" carrier able to proliferate the oceans of the world with seaplane tenders and an associated air wing. Power projection, brown, green, and blue water.

Military combat seaplanes primarily function in the stand-off mode, a delivery system able to fire on enemy targets with a variety of ordnance.

From a variety of forums the difficulties with the combat sea plane recognized and categorized as obstacles, problems and factors:

"Seaplanes And Flying Boats (What Are The Obstacles)"

A. Four obstacles that need to be overcome.

1) Calm water.

2) Take-off speed.

3) Safety. Landing and taking off on water is dangerous.screwing up a landing on floats, it'll ruin your day.

4) Availability . . . Neither Boeing nor Airbus would be likely to develop a new transport [combat] category aircraft for such a narrow market.

B. Additional problems.

1) salt water spray ingestion does not enhance engine life.

2) Any submerged log at or just below the surface might ruin the day

C. Performance factors.

1) the boat-hull would add weight and actually shorten the endurance.

2) Their main disadvantage [sea planes] came from the way in which the bulk of their floatation gear penalised their performance compared to other fighters.

Off-the-shelf commercially available sea planes converted to military use obviously not in the same performance category as a F-4 Phantom, a F-14 Tomcat, a F-18 Hornet or a F-35 Lightning. Modification and conversion not that difficult [?] for existing commercial single and dual engine sea planes, ordnance lifting capability adequate for a variety of weaponry already in the inventory?

Numbers [greater], adequacy, cost and availability as considerations are the key factors here? Pentagon planners and naval brass will not perceive the military seaplane as a "sexy" item. But again, understood not to be so from the start.

coolbert.

Seaplanes III.

This is coolbert:

Air superiority?

Here with the two instances since the end of the Second World War [WW2], seaplanes as conceived as AIR SUPERIORITY WARPLANES!

In both cases the designs and aircraft existing only as concepts and prototypes, never reaching the assembly line level of development.

Seaplanes able to take off and land from the water and able as well to engage in the air-to-air combat in the old fashioned manner, mano-a-mano dogfighting!

1. The Convair F2Y Sea Dart.

"The Convair F2Y Sea Dart was a unique American seaplane fighter aircraft that rode on twin hydro-skis for takeoff. It flew only as a prototype, and never entered production, but it is still the only seaplane to exceed the speed of sound."

"The Sea Dart began as Convair's entry to a 1948 U.S. Navy contest for a supersonic interceptor aircraft."

Sea Dart either landing or taking off. I am not sure which one.

 

Sea Dart a supersonic aircraft [only in a shallow dive] the entire project however coming to a sudden and tragic end the disintegration of the warplane during a demonstration test flight resulting in a CANCELLED program and quick!

"speeds in excess of Mach 1 were attained in a shallow dive with this aircraft, making it the only supersonic seaplane to date. . . . [the prototype however] disintegrated in mid-air over San Diego Bay, California, during a demonstration for Navy officials and the press, killing Convair test pilot Charles E. Richbourg when he inadvertently exceeded the airframe limitations."

Sea Dart in flight. Those "ski-like" devices can be retracted after the warplane becomes airborne?

2. The Saunder-Roe SR./A.1.

Jet powered English flying boat designed in those years immediate after the end of WW2. A flying boat possessing that water-proof hull, again, a project the intent was an air superiority fighter plane.

"The Saunders-Roe SR./A.1 was a prototype flying boat fighter aircraft designed and built by Saunders-Roe. It was tested by the Royal Air Force shortly after World War II."

The SR./A.1 a flying boat with water-proof hull.

The English with their long and successful naval history better than most understanding the advantages of the sea plane?

"In theory, seaplanes were ideally suited to conditions in the Pacific theatre, and could turn any relatively calm area of coast into an airbase. Their main disadvantage came from the way in which the bulk of their floatation gear penalised their performance compared to other fighters."

Other than these two examples the seaplane as an air superiority warplane no other instances exist?

"The bulk of their floatation gear penalised their performance compared to other fighters". This more or less seems to say it all?

coolbert.