Sleeping Beauty.

This is coolbert:

That Russian DP-64 weapon designed with the intent to defeat the asymmetric naval attacker of the American SEAL or Russian naval spetsnaz variety, combat swimmers and demolition team members using specialized underwater vehicles to approach the military warship or civilian vessel at anchorage.

Underwater miniature submarines of the type Motorized Submersible Canoe.

"The Motorised Submersible Canoe (MSC), nicknamed 'Sleeping Beauty', was built by British Special Operations Executive (SOE) during World War II as an underwater vehicle for a single frogman to perform clandestine reconnaissance or attacks against enemy vessels."

Called a "canoe" but in reality a miniature submarine, a submersible vehicle able to carry a naval saboteur to within range of a target, that diver attaching to the enemy warship or civilian vessel a limpet mine! And do so in a stealthy manner, almost undetectable!!

"The pilot could leave the Sleeping Beauty to swim and plant limpet mines on enemy ships"

MSC as used by the Rimau raiders during the Second World War [WW2]. Thought also having been given to the MSC paddled or sailed [or a combination of both] in the conventional sense as a normal above-water canoe, just in case those batteries went dead.

"The canoe can also be paddled or moved by raising the mast and erecting a sail."

There is an obvious evolutionary process that can be seen with the World War Two era naval irregular warrior? 1. Frog-men in wet suits swimming underwater with SCUBA. 2. Frog-men riding a modified torpedo. 3. Naval commando units using folding canoes. 4. Naval commando units using "wet' mini-submersibles.

The value of asymmetric warfare at sea is undeniable? One large and very expensive warship at anchorage rendered impotent and non-functional by an attack from one man, one small "canoe" and one limpet mine? YES, it is so!

coolbert.

DP-64.

This is coolbert:

Here from the wiki we have a description of a Russian one-of-a-kind weapon the specific purpose is to defeat the attack of the "frog-man ", the underwater combat swimmer, the under-water demolition operative, the saboteur attempting to destroy enemy ships while at anchorage.

The DP-64.

"The DP-64 is a Russian special-purpose double-barreled over/under grenade launcher designed to protect ships, dockyards, water development works, and other coastal installations from combat swimmers and naval special forces."

"these grenades act much like small depth charges, attacking submerged swimmers like true depth charges attack submersibles"

And from the web site: "Open Joint Stock Company 'V.A.Degtyarev Plant'”

"DP-64 grenade launcher is designated for protection of submarines in the above-water position, ships at external roadsteads, anchor stops and bases, for protection of water-development works and other sea and coastal installations against attacks of underwater combat swimmers."

The round as fired from the DP-64 analogous to a depth charge. Used against that military underwater combat diver whose mission is sabotage. Unconventional, asymmetric naval warfare as waged by American SEAL or Russian naval spetsnaz!

Developed by the Soviet in response to a lot of bad experience from that Angolan mis-adventure of the mid-1970's. Soviet, Cuban, and other communist nation flagged ships, civilian and military both [?] while at anchorage subjected to repeated successful attack and sabotage by underwater combat swimmers of unknown nationality [South African combat divers??]!!

That DP-64 a solution to a problem for which there was at the time no easy and instantaneous fix?

coolbert.

B.R. Myers.

This is coolbert:

The American professor, scholar, and observer of all things Korean B.R. Myers is being interviewed on National Public Radio [NPR] this evening.

Listen to the interview at the NPR web site:

"'A Look At North Korean Ideology' - - Robert Siegel talks to BR Myers, author of the book 'The Cleanest Race: How the North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters'"

At a time of upheaval [?], drastic [?] and unsettled change in North Korea [DPRK] the observations and comments of Myers are most germane? All American diplomats, general officers and persons concerned with the Korean scene should pay close attention to and heed the admonitions and teachings of B.R.?

B.R. iconoclastic but nonetheless enunciating well-thought-out positions that cannot be ignored.

"Brian Reynolds Myers . . .  is an American associate professor of international studies at Dongseo University in Busan, South Korea, a contributing editor for the Atlantic, and an opinion columnist for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal."

As extracted from the wiki entry for B.R.:

"'The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters' is an examination of North Korean propaganda, arguing that North Korea under Kim Jong Il was guided by 'a paranoid, race-based nationalism with roots in Japanese fascism.' Myers argues that North Korea's political system is not based on Communism or Stalinism, and that the juche ideology [self-reliance] is not really an ideology at all but a sham to establish Kim Il-sung's credentials as a thinker. More provocatively, Myers argues that the more recent post Cold War attempts to understand North Korea as a Confucian patriarchy based on the filial piety of Kim Jong-Il, and the dynastic transfer of power from his father are equally misguided, and that the North Korean leadership is maternalist rather than paternalist."

That North Korean populace even more so than the population of South Korea [ROK] that most racially pure and isolated group of people on the planet with almost NO outside admixture? Possessing a "paranoid race-based nationalism" the hatred of the perceived foreign invader [America] most [overwhelmingly so] strong.

It is THUS that the DPRK can best be understood??

From that wiki again some additional links to items by B.R. Myers:

"To Beat a Dictator, Ignore Him"

"North Korea Will Never Disarm"

"Mother of All Mothers - - The leadership secrets of Kim Jong Il"

A nation "paranoid" and having a "race-based nationalism" and ALSO possessing nuclear weapons makes for a bad mix? Undeniably so, and especially in the case when the man at the controls is a callow youth of less than thirty years of age!! B.R. Myers better than most understands the predicament as faced by the outside world for which there is no easy fix or amelioration!

coolbert.

Armor?

This is coolbert:

Back to the subject of spontaneous coal bunker fires - - such fires quite often causing it is believed explosions of a catastrophic nature as doomed HMS Vanguard, anchored  and moored, sunk to the bottom with almost all  hands, not under fire by the enemy.

My original intuitive thought that the Vanguard suffered from a design flaw. Those amidship turrets [Q and P one on either side of the ship] of big-bore naval guns meant a much increased risk of spontaneous magazine detonation, adjacent as the turrets were to the engine compartment and coal bunkers?

HMS Vanguard with the amidships turret port side visible.

This however does not seem to be the case. My intuition has again failed me? Even Bert can be wrong!

Placement of coal bunkers were an integral and important factor for additional armor protection? Those vital innards of the ship, the engine compartment, protected not only by steel armor but also by stores of coal? So it seems!!

From a web site devoted to the American pre-Dreadnought battleship USS Oregon [BB-3]:

"U.S.S. Oregon"

"As was typical for ships of this time period, coal bunkers were placed along the exterior hull of the ship to act as additional armor protecting the magazines. The proximity of the coal bunkers to the magazines created a danger that could result in the loss of the vessel. Spontaneous combustion of coal dust was not unusual, and a coal bunker fire could ignite an adjacent magazine"

USS Oregon no amidship turret.

"the practice of using coal bunkers as additional armor around the vital areas of a warship - engines, boiler rooms and magazines."

[during the epic voyage of the USS Oregon 1898 the Oregon did suffer a coal bunker fire that was extinguished!]

The danger of spontaneous coal bunker fire leading to possible and increased danger from spontaneous and catastrophic magazine detonation with a total loss of ship and crew was not only recognized from the get-go but was an accepted part of the design process?

Any devoted reader to the blog and expert on naval ships of the era care to comment on this?

coolbert.

Rules?

This is coolbert:

"If 'a thirty thousand dollar airplane can sink a forty million dollar battleship,' why build battleships?"

From that web site devoted to: B17-B24-comparison we have this extract:

"Boeing company came up with a design - using 1932 technology - to take a 1 1/2 tonne load over 400 miles to a target and return. The extreme distance was necessitated by the oceans around the USA . . . The bombers were being built to fly out and sink enemy ships before they could get close to the USA."

That mission as originally envisioned by the military planners for the B-17 bomber aircraft WAS NOT for the saturation bombing of enemy cities and dropping the bomb int he pickle barrel from 30,000 feet. That mission rather was to attack and sink enemy warships of the capital ship class as they approached the west and east coasts of the continental United States, the forty-eight contiguous states!

That very anti-ship mission for the high-altitude level bomber dropping ordnance on enemy warships controversial from the very start. A concept thought to be valid based upon the: "The Naval Bombing Experiments Off the Virginia Capes" - -  1921.

Derelict German warships from the era of World War One [WW1], moored, not under steam, not taking evasive action, sunk after repeated attacks by Army Air Corps level bombers [Navy and Marine Corps war planes also involved].

A submarine, destroyer, light cruiser and finally a dreadnought class German battleship going to the bottom after repeated bombing, ALBEIT WITH THE RULES AND PROTOCOLS AS ESTABLISHED IN ADVANCE BEING IGNORED BY THE ARMY AIR CORPS AVIATORS AND COMMANDERS!

[it was not without great difficulty that the German dreadnought Ostfriesland finally went to the bottom, staying afloat for a long time beyond what was expected and absorbing a lot of damage along the way.]

The high-altitude level bomber anti-ship bombing mission of the B-17 found to less than effective during the Second World War [WW2], those instances of such air strikes against Japanese warships found to be wanting in the extreme, the results very poor on a number of occasions! Ships under steam, taking evasive action very hard to hit from high altitude.

"B-17s in the Pacific War"

Battle of the Philippines [1941], Battle of Midway [1942] American airmen flying the maritime strike mission claiming extraordinary results which were not justified!

My understanding is that direct hits of bombs as dropped on warships is not needed to cause damage of a severe nature. Underwater explosions of a "close" nature can break loose riveted hull and cause flooding. A direct impact is not necessarily needed. Warships too have good damage control which mitigates and allows for management of damage minor or severe.

coolbert.

Global Consequences?

This is coolbert:

"Burning Questions with Global Consequences?"

These coal bunker spontaneous fires being more common than realized during that era of the steamship coal-fired boiler triple-expansion-engine both commercial and military also contributed in a major way to another ocean disaster that had GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES!

The sinking of the steam-ship Titanic! The Titanic on her maiden voyage going to the bottom, many aboard lost, the thing of legend!

From a variety of web sites:

1. "Coal Bunker Fire".

2. "Titanic Disaster: New Theory Fingers Coal Fire".

3. "COAL BUNKER FIRE -".

"The story regarding a fire in one of Titanic's massive coal bunkers is indeed true. The fire is believed to have burning when Titanic left Belfast, and it was not until two or three days later that it was finally extinguished, this being done by teams of firemen and trimmers digging out almost all of the coal to enable the seat of the fire to be doused. Some Titanic scholars believe that the intense heat of the fire could have led to some parts of the hull to be seriously weakened, and actually assisted in the break-up and sinking of the vessel."

That structure of the Titanic weakened to a degree by the expansion and contraction of the metal being first heated and then cooled in contact with the fire and the cold sea water both? Such a possibility cannot be dismissed?

Coal bunker fires of spontaneous in nature having global consequences - - The Spanish-American War and the sinking of the Titanic both having such an origin?

coolbert.

Spontaneous!

This is coolbert:

Thanks to McTodd we have this comment to the blog:

"mctodd said...
The loss of HMS Vanguard due to spontaneously combusting ammunition or propellant was not only not unique but also not as rare an event as you would think during that period. Modern so-called smokeless propellants were still relatively new, and totally safe manufacturing and storage techniques had yet to be finalised. Several British (Bulwark, Natal, Vanguard), French (Iena, Liberte) and Japanese (Mikasa, Mutsu) warships suffered catastrophic ammunition explosions (it is also arguable that the USS Maine was lost for such reasons in 1898). Oddly enough, no German warships were lost in this way, some writers suggesting that different manufacturing techniques accounted for this."

Spontaneous explosions of this sort were NOT rare! Far from it! More common than we like to think, as McTodd has commented. Even a constant and understood and troublesome worry for which precautions were taken, albeit not even as effective as desired.

Spontaneous combustion of stored coal leading to spontaneous explosion of ammunition stores perhaps even leading to a WAR! The Spanish-American War, The War of 1898 in large measure due to the destruction of the USS Maine, speculation even at the time that the sinking of the Maine was due to a spontaneous eruption of the ammunition magazine being the cause, but mentioned only in closed circles and then in whispered and hushed tones.

Here with some extracts from the most recent PDF document entitled: "Destruction of the Maine (1898)"

"Many ships, including the Maine, had coal bunkers located next to magazines that stored ammunition, gun shells, and gunpowder. Only a bulkhead separated the bunkers from the magazines. If the coal, by spontaneous combustion, overheated, the magazines were at risk of exploding."

"Fires from coal bunkers were frequent occurrences. From 1894 to 1908, more than 20 coal bunker fires were reported on U.S. naval ships."

"from 1895 to 1898, 13 other American ships had fires associated with spontaneous combustion in coal bunkers."

"within four hours a fire in the Maine’s coal bunker 'could have raised the temperature of the nearest canister of gunpowder (a mere four inches away on the other side of a quarter-inch-thick steel plate) to more than 645˚ — hot enough to ignite the powder, triggering a chain reaction in the adjacent magazines.'”

Spontaneous combustion in a coal bunker caused an unrecognized fire, that bulkhead separating the coal bunker from the ADJACENT ammunition magazine becoming overheated to a dangerous degree, the "big bang" totally without warning and catastrophic!!

The conclusion both in 1898 and in 1911 that the Maine was sunk by EXTERNAL explosion too are not without foundation. Many possible culprits lurk! Cuban freedom fighters, American interventionists, Spanish dissident officers included.

As for the German warships NOT suffering from such catastrophic explosions - - the German just compartmented their warships better and in a manner peculiar and particular to their entire methodology of naval warfare and ship design?

The truth is out there, it is just hard to find with absolute 100 %  certainty!

coolbert.