David
Sat January 3, 2004 9:23pm
|
SPEAR Body Armor/Load Car
Function: Special Operations Forces Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR) is the United States Special Operations Command's modernization effort for the joint Special Operations Forces. SPEAR will focus on four areas of improvement in personal equipment from 1996-2005, including body armor and load carriage. SPEAR's Body Armor/Load Carriage System (BALCS) consists of body armor, an equipment load carrying subsystem, and a backpack subsystem.
Description: The BALCS maximizes ballistic protection, buoyancy compensation, and load carrying capacity, while minimizing the burdens of weight, bulk and heat stress.
The BALCS components are:
Body Armor: Provides protection against fragmentation, handgun, and rifle threats. The armor system contains a soft armor vest; front and back interchangeable upgrade plates, and modular neck and groin protection. The neutrally buoyant soft vest is available in four sizes (S-XL); plates are sized with the vest. Approximate weight of a Medium vest is 6.5 lbs.; the Medium plates are approximately 6 lbs. each.
Equipment Load Carrying Subsystem (ELCS): The modular pocketing and harness system (H-Harness or Vest) allows mission tailoring of load and system configuration. The ELCS is compatible with the SPEAR Body Armor and Backpack Subsystem, and provides optimum compatibility with individual equipment and weapons. The positive buoyant ELCS comes in one size, and features easy adjustments for shoulder, waist, and chest.
Backpack Subsystem: The modified commercial Backpack Subsystem contains a backpack, patrol pack, and butt pack. The backpack's state-of-the-art internal frame affords a stable platform sufficient to carry 120 pounds effectively. The backpack transfers load efficiently from the shoulders to the waist and provides adjustments to fit the 5th-95th percentile male SOF operator. The butt pack attaches to ELCS or the backpack; the patrol pack attaches to the backpack, and is compatible with the other SPEAR BALCS components. The one size subsystem weighs 17 pounds.
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 10:08pm
|
D-30 122mm Towed Howitzer
Function: 122mm towed howitzer.
Background:Introduced in 1963 as a replacement for the pre-WWII M-30 howitzer, the D-30 122mm howitzer is in service with more than 50 countries and variants are still in production in Russia.
The D-30 fires variable charge, semi-cased, multi-part ammunition. The D-30 is capable of firing a number of projectile types, including HE-fragmentation, illuminating, smoke, leaflet, flechette, and incendiary.
The D-30 is capable of firing a non-rotating, fin stabilized anti-tank HEAT round which gives the gun a limited anti-armor capability. A Rocket Assisted Projectile (RAP) has been fielded which would increase the gun's range from 15,300 meters to 21900 meters.
There are at least two chemical munitions available for the D-30. The Sarin projectile weighs 22.2 kg with 1.3 kg of Sarin agent. The Lewisite projectile weighs 23.1 kg with 3.3 kg of viscous Lewisite agent.
Description: The D-30 has a single axle with a unique three-trail carriage. When limbered for transport, the gun rests on the wheeled axle. Once set up, the gun is suspended on top of the three trail arms which give the gun a 360 degree traverse capability.
The gun's recoil mechanism is housed in an armored box on top of the barrel and there is a small armored shield fitted between the wheels that provides limited protection to the crew. Early versions of the gun were fitted with a multi-baffle muzzle break while later models have been fitted with a double baffle break.
The gun itself is semiautomatic, with a vertically-sliding, wedge-type breechblock. The D-30 can be towed by a truck (Ural-375 or ZIL-131) or armored tractor. It is towed muzzle-first by a large lunette just under the muzzle brake with its trails folded under the barrel.
General Characteristics, D-30 122mm Towed Howitzer
Length:
Limbered for travel
17.55 feet (5.4 meters)
Width:
6.12 feet (1.9 meters)
Height:
5.2 feet (1.6 meters)
Weight:
3.2 tons
Cruising Range:
450 kilometers
Towing Speed:
Maximum: 38mph (60kph)
Off-road: 16mph (25kph)
Emplacent time:
1.5 minutes
Displacement time:
3.5 minutes
Rates of Fire:
Maximum: 8 rounds per minute
Sustained: 4 rounds per minute
Maximum Range:
15 km with conventional projectiles.
22km with extended range RAP projectiles.
Introduction Date:
1963
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 10:15pm
|
BMP-1 APC
Function: Soviet Union's first tracked Armored Personnel Carrier.
Description: The BMP-1 is a tracked, amphibious, fully enclosed armored personnel carrier armed with a 73mm smoothbore cannon, one 7.62mm coaxial machine gun and the AT-3 SAGGER antitank guided missile (ATGM). The BMP-1 represents a significant improvement over the wheeled BTR series in all aspects, including mobility, firepower, and survivability. Fielded in 1966, the BMP-1 has been modified to serve as a common chassis for a number of additional vehicle types. No longer in production, the BMP-1 has been surpassed by the BMP-2 and 3 in both service in the Russian army as well as export abroad.
General Characteristics, BMP-1 Armored Personnel Carrier
Transmission:
Manual with five forward gears and one reverse
Engine:
6 cylinder diesel engine producing 290 horsepower
Length:
22 feet (6.7 meters)
Width:
9 feet (2.74 meters)
Height:
7 feet (2.13 meters)
Combat Weight:
14 tons
Cruising Range:
372 miles (600 kilometers)
Speed:
Maximum: 40 mph (65 kph), or 45 mph (70 kph) for limited periods
Cross Country: 28 mph (45 kph)
Obstacle Crossing:
Trench: 8.2 feet (2.5 meters)
Slope: 31 degrees
Crew:
Three: driver, gunner and commander (who serves as squad leader when the the infantry squad dismounts)
Armament:
Main: 73mm 2A20 smoothbore cannon
Secondary: One AT-3 SAGGER ATGM, one 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun
Ammunition:
40 73mm cannon rounds (fin stabilized HEAT only)
2,000 7.62mm machine gun rounds
Introduction Date:
1966
Variants:
BMP-A: Also known as the Model 1966, this was the original version of the BMP. It has a shorter bow compared to its successor, the BMP-1 and does not have a Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) protection system.
BMP-1: Also known as the Model 1976 this was the base production model from which all variants were designed.
BMP-1K: The command variant of the BMP-1. It differed from the BMP-1 in that it carried additional communications equipment and had the rifle firing ports welded shut. In addition the troop compartment was redesigned to accommodate folding tables and map charts. Can be used as a battalion level command vehicle.
BMP-1P: The AT-3 SAGGER ATGM has been replaced by the AT-4 SPIGOT ATGM. Additionally, smoke grenade launchers have been mounted on the turret rear.
BMP-1PK: Command variant of the BMP-1P. Similar to the BMP-1K, it has additional communications equipment and has been modified to serve as a command vehicle. BMP-R: Also known as the BRM, BRM-1 and BMP M1976, this variant serves as a cavalry recon vehicle. The turret is larger and has had ATGM launcher removed. The back deck of the hull has been redesigned with two smaller hatches rather than the four large ones found on the BMP-1.
BRM-1K: Also known as the BMP M1976/2 this variant is based off of the BRM-1 with the PSNR-5K (NATO designation TALL MIKE) battlefield surveillance radar mounted in the rear section of the turret. Also included in the vehicle's sensor package are the DKRM-1 laser rangefinder, ARRS-1 location device, IMP mine detector and 1PN33B night vision devices. For navigation the BRM-1K uses the TNA-1, IG11N gyro-compass and the 1T25 survey device.
BMP KShM: Also known as the BMP M1978 it is a heavily modified BMP-1K with additional communications gear and a telescoping radio antenna for increased transmission range.
BMP-SON: Also known as the PRP-3, this is a BMP-1 modified to serve as an artillery reconnaissance and fire support vehicle. The turret has been redesigned to include two forward opening crew hatches equipped with observation periscopes as well as a large spotting optics. A large telescoping optical device is mounted on the left rear corner of the turret. The 73mm gun has been removed and replaced by a 7.62mm machine gun. Mounted on the rear of the vehicle is the SMALL FRED (NATO designation) battlefield surveillance radar. As with the command variants, the BMP-SON has an augmented communications package. The BMP-SON has a crew of 5.
PRP-4: This is essentially an upgraded and improved version of the PRP-3 (BMP-SON). Externally, the only difference is an additional fairing on the right side of the turret.
IRM: Amphibious Engineer Reconnaissance Vehicle. Based on the BMP-1, it uses the BMP-1 engine and suspension in a new hull design. Designed to perform specialized engineer missions such as mine detection and river bottom reconnaissance the IRM has two retractable mine detection devices mounted low on the bow and rapidly deployable snorkel. The IRM is propelled through the water via two shrouded propellers.
BMP-PPO: A heavily modified BMP-1 designed to serve as a mobile training center. The turret has been removed and eight roof mounted cupolas each equipped with a TNPO-170 and type MK-4 observation device, have been installed for trainees under instruction.
OT-90: Czechoslovakian version of the BMP-1. The turret has been replaced with the standard Czechoslovakian APC turret, equipped with a 14.5mm machine gun and a 7.62mm machine gun, found on the OT-64 8x8 wheeled APC.
BVP-1: Czechoslovakian produced BMP-1.
DP-90: Maintenance/recovery version of the OT-90.
MP-31: Air defense version of the BMP-KShM mobile command post.
MU-90: Mine laying version of the OT-90. The turret has been removed and the opening covered by sheet steel.
SVO: Mine clearing version of the BMP-1. The turret has been removed and a hedgehog type launcher has been installed in the troop compartment.
VPV: Maintenance/recovery version of the BMP-1. The turret and troop hatches have been removed and a crane has been installed on the roof of the troop compartment.
VP-90: Reconnaissance version of the OT-90. Similar to the BMP-R in all other respects.
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 10:15pm
|
T-62 MBT
Function: Soviet front line MBT during the 1960s.
Background: The T-62 was introduced in 1961 to replace the T-55 as a Soviet front line main battle tank. In many respects, the T-62 represents a product improvement upgrade of the T-55; the T-62 uses the same 580hp V-12 diesel engine, the track, suspension, and drive train arrangement are essentially the same. The initial-run T-62 also shared the same NBC protection system and active infrared gunner's sight as the T-55. The T-62 uses the same fording components as the T-55 and is capable of fording to a depth of 1.4m without modification and to 5.5m with the snorkel kit. The T-62 is capable of producing onboard smoke by injecting vaporized diesel fuel directly onto the engine exhaust.
The T-62's real improvement lay in its 115mm smoothbore, high velocity cannon. With a muzzle velocity of over 1,600m/s, the T-62 has a nearly flat trajectory through its entire effective range, making the gun very accurate. Later production models incorporate a true NBC filtration/over-pressurization system, thus eliminating the need for the crew to wear protective masks while inside the tank, as well as a passive IR gunner's sight which eliminated the need for active infrared search lights which would reveal the location of the illuminating tank.
Although the Soviet Union ceased production of the T-62 in 1975, the T-62 still remains in front-line service with a number of countries world-wide.
Description: The T-62 is similar in appearance to the T-55. The T-62 uses the same "live track" design as the T-55. There are 5 large cast road wheels, with a distinctive gap between the third and fourth and the fourth and fifth road wheels. The track is all steel, the idler wheel is to the front, the drive sprocket is to the rear and there are no return rollers.
The turret is more egg or pear-shaped than dome-shaped, as with the T-55, and the attached infantry hand rails, if present, are both curved, as opposed to the straight and curved rails on the T-55.
The main IR searchlight is mounted on top of the turret, to the right of the main gun, as with the T-55, with one secondary searchlight mounted below the main light to the right of the gun and one mounted on the commander's cupola on the left side of the turret.
The 115mm smoothbore cannon uses the same trunion arrangement as with the T-55, substituting an armored mantlet for a canvas weather-resistant cover. The cannon has a bore evacuator mounted one third of the way down the gun tube and may be equipped with a thermal sleeve.
The T-62 employs the same coaxial PKT-T 7.62mm machine gun as the T-55 and is mounted to the right of the main gun. The 12.7mm DShK anti-aircraft machine gun is mounted at the loader's station.
As with the T-55, the T-62 does not use armored fuel cells. Instead, the fuel is stored in exposed tanks on the track fenders. The engine exhaust is expelled out the left rear side of the hull. Auxiliary fuel tanks may be attached to the rear of the hull.
General Characteristics, T-62 Main Battle Tank
Manufacturer:
Soviet Union
Transmission:
Automatic
Engine:
620hp liquid cooled V-12 diesel
Length. Gun Forward:
21.55 feet (6.63 meters)
Width:
11.44 feet (3.52 meters)
Height:
7.8 feet (2.4 meters)
Combat Weight:
41.5 tons
Cruising Range:
450 kilometers (650 kilometers with additional fuel tanks)
Speed:
Maximum: 28 mph (45 kph)
Fording:
Without Preparation:
4.55 feet (1.4 meters)
With Snorkel:
17.88 feet (5.5 meters)
Crew:
Four (Loader, driver, gunner, Tank Commander)
Armament:
Main:
115-mm smoothbore gun, 2A20
AT-10 Sheksna Cannon launched ATGM
Secondary:
One 12.7mm DShK anti-aircraft machine gun (loader's station)
One 7.62mm PKT-T coaxial machine gun
Ammunition:
40 main gun rounds, typically 12 HVAPFSDS rounds, 6 HEAT rounds, and 22 HE rounds
Sensors:
Drozd APS (T-62D)
Introduction Date:
1961
Variants:
T-62A: First production model of the T-62. Incorporates the 12.7-mm DShK anti-aircraft machine gun, which is mounted at the loader's station, and an improved two-axis gun stabilization system that gives the gunner limited a shoot-on-the-move capability.
T-62K: Command variant. In addition to having increased radio capabilities, the "K" model also possesses an inertial land navigation system. Using a gyroscopic compass and distance calculator this navigation system allows the commander to plot his location from a known point as well as display direction and distance to a plotted point.
T-62M: The T-62M is essentially an "A" model upgraded to the T-55M standard. Added the Soviet made Volna fire control system (dual-axis stabilization, laser range finder) as well as a cannon launched ATGM (AT-10 Sheksna.) Upgrades in armor protection include the 180o "bra" armor belt on the front half of the turret, track side skirts, and smoke grenade launchers.
T-62M1: "M" model without the through cannon ATGM capability. "-1" variants have replaced their standard power plant with the 780hp V-46 12 cylinder diesel engine from T-72 MBT.
T-62D: Variant with the Drozd APS in place of Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA.) Developed by the Soviet Union in 1977, the Drozd system was designed as an active defense against ATGMs and anti-tank grenades. The system was based on a number of millimeter-wave radar transceivers situated around the turret. The radar sensors would detect the approach of an ATGM and fire off short-ranged fragmentation rockets that were intended to shred the incoming missile. To prevent accidental discharge, the system was equipped with a filter to react only to objects flying at characteristic ATGM speeds. The four-barreled launchers were located on the forward part of the turret and only provided protection for the front 60? portion of the turret. To change the covered arc of coverage the crew would have to rotate the turret and orient the coverage cone on the threat.
T-62MK: Command variant of the T-62M.
T-62MV: "M" variant with ERA (either Kontakt or Kontakt-5 second generation) in place of the bra armor.
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 10:15pm
|
T-80 MBT
Function: Current Russian front line main battle tank (MBT).
Description: The T-80 MBT is a continuation of the T-64/T-72 series, retaining many similar features of the previous tanks. It is similar to the T-72 in that it retains the low silhouette, centrally mounted round turret with the commander seated to the right of the main gun and the gunner on the left. As with the T-72 the T-80 retains the use of the automatic loader, feeding ammunition from a 27 round circular magazine around the turret ring. Attached to the hull below the front slope is a toothed dozer blade. Beneath the blade are attachment points for the KMT-6 mine plow. The T-80 is the first Soviet design to incorporate a laser rangefinder as well as a gas turbine engine for increased automotive performance. The T-80 is currently in service with the Russian army and is slowly being replaced by the T-90.
General Characteristics, T-80 Main Battle Tank
Manufacturer:
KBTM, Omsk, Russian Federation
XKBM, Kharkov, Ukraine (T-80UD and T-84)
Transmission:
Automatic
Engine:
GTD-1250 gas turbine, 1250 horsepower (T-80U, T-80 originally equipped with the GTD-1000 delivering 1,100 horsepower)
Length. Gun Forward:
31.69 feet (9.66 meters)
Width:
12.00 feet (3.60 meters)
Height:
7.21 feet (2.20 meters)
Combat Weight:
46 tons
Cruising Range:
350 kilometers (600 kilometers with additional fuel tanks)
Speed:
Maximum: 43 mph (70 kph)
Cross Country: 30 mph (48 kph)
Obstacle Crossing:
Trench: 9.35 feet (2.85 meters)
Slope: 32 degrees
Fording:
Without preparation: 5.9 feet (1.8 meters)
With Snorkel: 16.4 feet (5 meters), or (39.4 feet (12 meters) with BROD-M system
Crew:
A three-man crew composed of a driver, gunner, and tank commander
Armament:
Main: 125mm 2A46M-1 main gun
Secondary: One 12.7mm NSVT anti-aircraft machine gun (commander's station), one 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun
Ammunition:
45 125mm Cannon rounds (combination of kinetic energy (SABOT), High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) shaped charge, High Explosive-Fragmentation (HE-FRAG), cannon launched AT-8 ATGM)
450 12.7mm machine gun rounds
1,000 7.62mm machine gun rounds
Sensors:
Shtora-1 countermeasures suite (T-80UK, T-80UM1)
Arena active protection system (T-80UM1, T-84)
Introduction Date:
1978
Variants:
T-80: Original production version. Fielded in 1978, equipped with the GTD-1000 gas turbine engine delivering 1100 horsepower. Utilized the same 125mm smoothbore cannon (2A46M-1) as the T-72 series but capable of firing the cannon launched, 9M177 Kobra ATGM (NATO designation AT-8 SONGSTER.) Tank is equipped with a 7.62mm PKT machine gun coaxial mounted on the right side of the cannon and a 12.7mm NSV machine gun mounted in the commanders cupola.
T-80B: First upgrade. Incorporates composite K ceramic armor in turret design to improve defense against kinetic energy (KE) penetrators. T-80BK is the command variant of the B model and has increased communications equipment. T-80BV: B model equipped with first generation reactive armor. At the time of its introduction, the application of reactive armor made the T-80 immune to all NATO ATGMs in production. The T-80BVK was the command variant of the T-80BV.
T-80U: First observed in 1989. Designated the M1989 SMT (Soviet Medium Tank). Modifications include a new turret design with improved frontal armor as well as the application of second generation explosive reactive armor. The AT-8 has been replaced by the cannon launched, laser guided 9M119 Refleks ATGM (NATO designation AT-11 SNIPER). Engine has been upgraded to the more powerful GTD-1250 gas turbine producing 1250 horsepower. The commander's weapon station has been redesigned to allow the firing of the 12.7 NSVT machinegun from within the turret. The T-80UK is the command variant of the T-80U. In addition to additional communications equipment, the T-80UK also fields the Shtora-1 countermeasures suite, an automated system combining an infrared jammer, laser warning system, and grenade discharging system.
T-80UM1: Incorporates new gunner's thermal sight as well as the Shorta-1 countermeasures suite and new Arena active ATGM protection system. Use of the Arena system precludes the need for the Kontakt-5 second generation reactive armor and so it has been removed.
T-80UD: Esentially a Ukrainian built version of the Russian T-80U. Major differences include the replacement of the gas turbine engine with a GTF V-12 diesel engine producing 1000 horsepower and the use of first generation reactive armor in pmace of the second generation Kontakt-5 ERA.
T-84: An improved version of the Ukrainian T-80UD incorporating the 6TD-2 diesel engine generating 1200 horsepower. In addition, the T-84 fields the Shtora-1 countermeasures suite and the ARENA active antimissile defensive system as well as the Ukrainian produced KBA-3 125mm smoothbore cannon and 28 round autoloader.
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 10:15pm
|
BTR-60 APC
Function: Soviet 1950 era wheeled APC.
Background: Introduced in 1963 as a replacement for the fully tracked BTR-50, the BTR-60 represents the first of a series of 8x8 wheeled APC that are still in production in the former Soviet Union. In terms of numbers produced, the BTR-60 was the most important vehicle in the Soviet Army and was issued to the Soviet naval Infantry. In addition, the BTR-60 has been supplied to most Warsaw Pact countries in addition to North Korea. The BTR-60 has also been manufactured in Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Initial BTR-60s were equipped with a single 12.7mm DShK machine gun and two PKT 7.62mm machineguns, all mounted forward of the personnel compartment. Later models used the standard Warsaw Pact APC weapons turret equipped with one KPV 14.5mm machine gun and one PKT 7.62mm machine gun. Power is supplied to all eight wheels by means of a unique twin engine/transmission arrangement. The BTR-60 uses two V-8 90hp gasoline engines and two separate transmissions; one supplies power to the 1st and 3rd axles and the other supplies power to the 2nd and 4th axles.
The BTR-60 is fully amphibious and does not require any preparation time. Steering, both on land and in the water, is provided by the forward two axles, which are also power assisted. Water propulsion is provided by a single rear mounted water jet.
Although the BTR-70 began to replace the BTR-60 in 1978, the BTR-60 has never been retired, and continues to serve in Russian reserve formations and numerous countries world-wide.
Description: The BTR-60 an all-wheeled 8x8 fully amphibious armored personnel carrier. The boat shaped vehicle is divided up into three sections: crew compartment, personnel compartment, and engine compartment. In early versions the personnel compartment is open topped; in later versions the entire vehicle is fully enclosed. The BTR-60 may be readily distinguished from the later 70/80/90 series by the presence of a single "automotive-type" muffler exhaust located on either side of the hull rear.
The BTR-60 "P" and "PA" variants are equipped with a single 12.7mm DShK machine gun and two PKT 7.62mm machineguns. These MGs are mounted forward of the personnel compartment, and require the gunners to be exposed while firing. Because of the size of the gunner's position, only two of the three MGs can be manned at any given time. The "PB" model is equipped with a small, one man, turret, mounted over the second axle that contains one KPV 14.5mm machine gun and one PKT 7.62mm machine gun.
In all models, the personnel compartment can only be accessed from the roof of the carrier. There are three infantry mounting steps on each side of the vehicle, mounted between the road wheels, and three additional mounting rails located on the hull above the steps. There is a large personnel compartment access hatch located on each side of the hull.
General Characteristics, BTR-60 Armored Personnel Carrier
Manufacturers:
Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
Transmission:
2x manual
Engine:
2x 90hp V-8 gasoline
Length:
23.47 feet (7.22 meters)
Width:
9.17 feet (2.82 meters)
Height:
6.7 feet (2.06 meters)
Combat Weight:
10.1 tons
Cruising Range:
500 kilometers
Speed:
Maximum: 50mph ( 80kph)
Off-road: 38mph (60kph)
Fording:
Fully amphibious without preparation
Crew:
Two (driver, gunner-commander)
12 passengers
Armament:
Main:
One 12.7mm DShK HMG (BTR-60P)
One 14.5mm KPV HMG (BTR-60PB)
Secondary:
Two7.62mm PKT-T MG (BTR-60P)
One 7.62mm PKT-T MG (BTR-60PB)
Introduction Date:
1961
Variants:
BTR-60P: Initial production model. The BTR-60P was open topped and armed with a single 12.7mm DShK machine gun.
BTR-60PA: Modified "P" model. Incorporates overhead cover for the personnel compartment. Because of space restrictions in the gunner's hatch, no more than two of the weapons can be manned at any given time.
BTR-60PB: Most widely fielded varient. Has increased overhead protection for passengers and crew and incorporates the standard Warsaw Pact APC weapons turret. This one-man turret houses one KPV 14.5mm machine gun and one PKT 7.62mm machine gun.
BTR-60PBK: Command variant with additional communications equipment.
BTR-60 PU: Armored command vehicle (ACV) variant for battalion level. The "PU" is open-topped and can be identified by its canvas roof, additional communication equipment and lack of weapons turret. The "PU" also has an easily recognizable dipole antenna that runs nearly all around the top of the vehicle.
BTR-60 PU-12 and -12M: "U" and "PU" variants used by air defense controllers and configured for ground to air communication.
BTR-60 R-975: Forward Air Control Vehicle (FACV). A modified BTR-60PB with sighting optics and laser designator installed in the turret in place of the weapons. Can also be identified by the large portable generator mounted on the rear of the vehicle.
MTP-2: Armored recovery vehicle.
R-145BM: ACV used ad Brigade level. Has increased radio range and communications capabilities.
ACRV 1V18: Artillery command and reconnaissance vehicle. The 1V18 is a command and observation vehicle (COP) while the 1V19 variant serves as an artillery fire direction center (FDC).
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 10:15pm
|
T-55 MBT
Function: Soviet front line MBT during the 1950s.
Background: Introduced in 1949, the T-54/55 is in service with more countries world-wide and in greater numbers than any other tank manufactured since World War II. The first new tank of the post-World War II Soviet Union, the T-54/55 can trace its lineage back to the IS series Stalin heavy tanks and the revolutionary T-34 medium tanks.
The T-54 entered production in the Soviet Union in 1947, and was fielded with Soviet ground forces in 1949. By 1958, the T-54 had undergone a number of improvements and modifications and was re-designated the T-55. The T-55 represents an evolution of the T-54 rather than a completely new design.
The T-55 was produced by the Soviet Union through 1981. In addition, the T-55 was also produced in China (where it was designated the Type 59), Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The T-55 is capable of fording to a depth of 1.4m without modification and to 5.5m with the addition of a snorkel kit. The T-55 is capable of producing onboard smoke by injecting vaporized diesel fuel directly onto the engine exhaust.
Though time and technology have rendered the T-55 obsolete as a front-line main battle tank, large numbers of 54/55s remain in service with militaries world-wide. The T-55 saw service in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and in Syria in 1970. In addition, it was the main battle tank used by the Arab forces during the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars. During the 1970s the T-54/55 also saw extensive use during the border wars in Africa. Since so many T-54/55s remain in service, many countries, such as Israel, Pakistan, and India offer upgrade packages to rebuild existing tanks using more modern, and in many cases Western, fire control components, thus extending their usable life even further.
There are currently seven production models of the T-54/55, and more than a dozen variants.
Description: The T-54/55 tank follows a conventional layout, with a dome-shaped turret centrally located on the hull and the engine mounted in the rear. The 54/55 has a crew of four; driver (located in the left hand side of the hull, forward of the turret) loader (right hand side of the turret) tank commander and gunner (both located on the left side of the turret.
The T-54/55 can be identified by the distinct gap between the first and second of its five large cast road wheels. The 54/55 uses steel track (this may be substituted for padded track in modified versions), a torsion bar "live track" suspension with no return rollers and a rear mounted drive sprocket. The T-55 does not use armored fuel cells. Instead, the fuel is stored in exposed tanks on the track fenders. The engine exhaust is expelled out the left rear side of the hull.
The 100mm cannon is centrally mounted in the turret. The cannon trunions are not protected by an armored mantlet, but rather a canvas sleeve that protects the mechanism from the elements. There is no fume extractor on the T-54, while the T-55 has a bore evacuator mounted on the muzzle of the gun.
There are two hatches on the top of the turret (loader's and tank commanders.) Both hatches open forward. In the T-54 the 12.7mm DShK AA MG is mounted in the commander's station; on the T-55 ("A" version and beyond) the machine gun is located in the loader's position.
Two infantry support rails (one straight, one curved) are affixed to the turret sides. These may be removed to accommodate ERA, APS or applique armor packages. If present the main IR searchlight will be mounted on top of the turret (to the left of the gun.) An additional searchlight may be mounted on the commander's hatch. If present, the laser rangefinder will be mounted externally on the top of the main gun itself.
Because the T-55 does not use synchronized optics for the main gun, another identifying characteristic of the T-55 is the large sighting oval on the left hand side of the turret next to the gun mantlet. The aperture on the right hand side of the turret is the firing port for the coaxial PKT-T machine gun.
General Characteristics, T-55 Main Battle Tank
Manufacturers:
Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Poland
Transmission:
Automatic
Engine:
580hp liquid cooled V-12 diesel
Length. Gun Forward:
20.15 feet (6.20 meters)
Width:
11.7 feet (3.60 meters)
Height:
7.54 feet (2.32 meters)
Combat Weight:
40.5 tons
Cruising Range:
500 kilometers (715 kilometers with additional fuel tanks)
Speed:
Maximum: 31 mph (50 kph)
Off road: 22 mph (35 kph)
Fording:
Without Preparation:
54.5 feet (1.4 meters)
With Snorkel:
17.9 feet (5.5 meters)
Crew:
Four (Loader, driver, gunner, tank commander)
Armament:
Main:
100mm rifled gun, D-10T2S
AT-10 Sheksna Cannon launched ATGM
Secondary:
One 12.7mm DShK anti-aircraft machine gun (loader's station.)
One 7.62mm PKT-T coaxial machine gun
Ammunition:
43 main gun rounds.
Sensors:
Drozd APS (T-55AMD, T-55AD Drozd)
Introduction Date:
1949
Variants:
T-54A: The initial production model of the T-54 tank. It has a bore evacuator at the end of the barrel for the 100mm gun, a stabilization system for the main gun (in the vertical plane only) and deep fording equipment. The turret is also equipped with a coaxially mounted PKT-T 7.62mm machine gun, and the tank commander's station is equipped with a 12.7mm DShK anti-aircraft machine gun.
T-54AK: Command tank variant of the T-54. The AK variant is a T-54A with long-range radio transmitting capability. The Polish model is the T-54AD.
T-54B: Equipped with active infra-red sights, giving the tank a limited night time fighting ability.
T-55: Essentially an upgraded T-54. The T-55 incorporates a more powerful water-cooled V-12 diesel engine. The cruising range has also been increased from 400km to 500km (range can be increased to 715km with the addition of auxiliary fuel tanks mounted on the rear of the hull.) The T-55 uses a new turret design, which incorporates an improve ventilation design and hatch design. The initial production T-55 did not have the 12.7mm DShK AA MG.
T-55A: Incorporates a new anti-radiation lining in the turret as well as a Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) air filtration system. The T-55A Model 1970 saw the re-introduction of the 12.7mm DShK AA MG, though it is now mounted at the loader's station.
T-55M: Added the Soviet made Volna fire control system (dual axis stabilization, laser range finder) as well as a cannon launched ATGM (AT-10 Sheksna.) Upgrades in armor protection included the addition of side skirts on the track, applique armor, as well as smoke grenade launchers. T-54s upgraded to the "M" standard were designated the T-54M
T-55AM: Adds an armor band around the front of turret for 180? coverage (similar to the T-72B "Dolly Parton" variant.)
T-55AMV: Substitutes Explosive Reactive Armor for the "bra" armor belt of the "AM" variant. Some variants have replaced the standard T-55 V-12 diesel with the 780hp V-46 12 cylinder diesel engine from T-72 MBT.
T-55AM2B: Czech version of T-55AMV with Czech built Kladivo fire control system.
T-55AM2: Variant of the T-55AM that incorporates all of the upgrades of the "M" and "AM" except for the Volna fire control system and cannon launched AT-10 ATGM.
T-55AM2P: Polish version of T-55AMV. Equipped with the Polish built Merida fire control system.
T-55AMD: T-55AMV incorporating the Drozd Active Protection System (APS) instead of ERA. Developed by the Soviet Union in 1977, the Drozd system was designed as an active defense against ATGMs and anti-tank grenades. The system was based on a number of millimeter-wave radar transceivers situated around the turret. The radar sensors would detect the approach of an ATGM and fire off short-ranged fragmentation rockets that were intended to shred the incoming missile. To prevent accidental discharge, the system was equipped with a filter to react only to objects flying at characteristic ATGM speeds. The four-barreled launchers were located on the forward part of the turret and only provided protection for the front 60? portion of the turret. To change the covered arc of coverage the crew would have to rotate the turret and orient the coverage cone on the threat.
T-55AD Drozd: Naval Infantry T-55A variant equipped with Drozd but not the Volna fire control system or ERA.
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 11:34pm
|
CG47 - Ticonderoga Class
Function: Surface Action Combatant with multiple target response capability.
Description: Based on the DD963 Spruance class destroyer hull, the Ticonderoga is the first non-nuclear cruiser since the CG26 Belknap class guided missile cruiser, commissioned in 1964. The Ticonderoga uses the same gas turbine propulsion system as the Spruance, though it lacks hull stabilizers and is equipped with supplemental Kevlar armor to provide additional protection in critical areas. With 27 cruisers slated for construction over a period of 14 years, construction was broken up into four separate "blocks" to take advantage of technological advancements.
Since the commissioning of the final Ticonderoga class cruiser (CG73 USS Port Royal) the class has undergone three technology "block" upgrades.
Block I: Includes CG47 and CG48. Block I represents the "baseline" design, incorporating fore and aft Mk 26 Mod 5 missile launchers, 2 SH-2F Seasprite LAMPS I ASW/Recon helicopters, and the AN/SPY-1A radar.
Block II: Includes CG49-CG51. Replaces the 2 SH-2F LAMPS I helicopters with 2 SH-60B Seahawk helicopters (LAMPS III.) In addition the RAST haul down helicopter landing system is also incorporated and SM-2MR Block II Standard missile is introduced.
Block III: Includes CG52-CG55. Mk 26 Mod 5 missile launchers are removed and replaced with fore and aft Mk 41 Mod 0 Vertical Launch Systems (VLS.) In addition, the Ticonderoga's anti-ship and land strike potential are increased with the introduction of VLS launched Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Block IV: Includes CG56-CG58. The class' ASW capabilities are improved with the addition of the SQQ-89(V)3 towed passive sonar array. Later retrofitted with UYK-43/44 combat information system.
Block V: Includes CG59-CG73. Encompassing the remaining cruisers, the Aegis radar is upgraded to the AN/SPY-1B and the combat information systems are upgraded to the UYK-43/44 standard.
Following the completion of class' production run, a number of weapon and electronic systems upgrades have been introduced, improving the combat and sensor capabilities of the class. The Block IV SM-2 has replaced the SM-2MR Block II, which, coupled with improved tracking ability, gives the class a Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD) capability. In addition, improvements have been made in Tomahawk guidance capabilities. In order to improve small craft targeting and tracking, the Mk 15 Mod 2 Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS) is being upgraded with thermal imaging units, though the weapon systems are slated to be replaced with the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM block I) beginning in 2001.
History: Commissioned on 22 January, 1983, the Ticonderoga represents a revolution in surface warfare ship design. Though similar in design to earlier ships (specifically the DD963 Spruance class destroyer), the Ticonderoga class differs in that its primary weapon system is not a weapon at all, but the powerful SPY-1 Aegis radar. Capable of acquiring, tracking, and engaging multiple targets simultaneously, the Aegis system sets a new standard in Surface and Anti-Air Warfare. Furthermore, the Aegis system can integrate itself with the weapon and combat information systems of other ships in the battle group, to coordinate and direct the actions of the entire group. This capability allows the Ticonderoga cruiser battle groups to operate effectively and for an extended period in any Anti-Air, Anti-Submarine, Anti-Surface or strike environment.
General Characteristics, Ticonderoga Class
Cost:
About $1 billion each
Builders:
Ingalls Shipbuilding: CG 47-50, CG 52-57, 59,62, 65-66, 68-69, 71-73
Bath Iron Works: CG-51,58,60-61,63-64,67,70
Power Plant:
4 General Electric LM 2500 gas turbine engines; 2 shafts with controllable reversible pitch propellers, 80,000 shaft horsepower total
Date Deployed:
January 22, 1983 (USS Ticonderoga)
Crew:
24 Officers, 340 Enlisted
Sensors:
Radars:
1 AN/SPY-1 phased array air search and fire control radar
1 AN/SPS-49 air search radar
1 AN/SPS-55 surface search radar
1 AN/SPS-64 surface search radar
1 AN/SPQ-9A gunfire control radar
4 AN/SPG-62 fire control illuminators
Sonars:
One AN/SQS-53 hull mounted sonar
One AN/SQR-19 towed array sonar
One AN/SQQ-89 ASW combat system
Countermeasures:
One Mk 36 Mod 2 Super Rapid-Blooming Off Board Chaff System (SRBOC)
One AN/SLQ-32(v)3 electronic warfare suite
One AN/SLQ-25 towed torpedo decoy (Nixie)
Length, Overall:
567 feet (172.82 meters)
Beam:
55 feet (16.76 meters)
Displacement:
9,600 long tons (9,754.06 metric tons) full load
Speed:
30+ knots (34.52+mph, 55.55+ kph)
Armament:
Guns:
Two Mk 45 5"/54 caliber Lightweight Gun Mounts
Torpedos:
Two Mk 32 Mod 14 triple torpedo tubes firing either the Mk 46 Mod 5 or Mk 50 ASW torpedoes
CG52 - CG73 Vertical Launch ASROC with Mk 46 Mod 5 or Mk 50 ASW torpedoes
Missiles:
Tomahawk cruise missiles
Standard 2MR Surface to Air missile
Vertical Launch ASROC torpedoes
CG47-CG51 Missiles launched from fore and aft twin rail launchers
CG52-CG73 Missiles launched from 2 forward mounted Mk 41 Vertical Launch Systems (VLS)
Two aft mounted Harpoon Missile Quad-Cannister Launcher
One Mk 15 Mod 2 Close-In Weapon System (2 mounts)
Aircraft:
Two SH-2 Seasprite (LAMPS) in CG 47-48
Two SH-60 Sea Hawk (LAMPS III)
Ships:
USS Ticonderoga (CG 47), Pascagoula, MI
USS Yorktown (CG 48), Pascagoula, MI
USS Vincennes (CG 49), Yokosuka, Japan
USS Valley Forge (CG 50), San Diego, CA
USS Thomas S. Gates (CG 51), Pascagoula, MI
USS Bunker Hill (CG 52), San Diego, CA
USS Mobile Bay (CG 53), Yokosuka, Japan
USS Antietam (CG 54), San Diego, CA
USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55), Norfolk, VA
USS San Jacinto (CG 56), Norfolk, VA
USS Lake Champlain (CG 57), San Diego, CA
USS Philippine Sea (CG 58), Norfolk, VA
USS Princeton (CG 59), San Diego, CA
USS Normandy (CG 60), Norfolk, VA
USS Monterey (CG 61), Norfolk, VA
USS Chancellorsville (CG 62), Yokosuka, Japan
USS Cowpens (CG 63), San Diego, CA
USS Gettysburg (CG 64), Norfolk, VA
USS Chosin (CG 65), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Hue City (CG 66), Mayport, FA
USS Shiloh (CG 67), San Diego, CA
USS Anzio (CG 68), Norfolk, VA
USS Vicksburg (CG 69), Mayport, FA
USS Lake Erie (CG 70), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Cape St. George (CG 71), Norfolk, VA
USS Vella Gulf (CG 72), Norfolk, VA
USS Port Royal (CG 73), Pearl Harbor, HI
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 11:34pm
|
FFG7 - Oliver Hazard Perr
Function: Guided Missile Frigate configured for Anti-Submarine and Protection of Shipping missions.
Description: Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigates were designed to function primarily as a cost effective ASW platform with limited Anti Air capabilities. Intended to provide open ocean escort of supply convoys and amphibious warfare ships in a low to medium threat environment, the O.H. Perry lacks the ability to perform multiple threat missions or to survive independently in high threat situations.
General Characteristics, Oliver Hazard Perry Class
Cost:
About $1 billion each
Builders:
Bath Iron Works
Power Plant:
Two General Electric LM 2500 gas turbines, 1 shaft with 1 reversable variable pitch screw, 41,000 shaft horsepower
Date Deployed:
December 17, 1977 (USS Oliver Hazard Perry)
Crew:
13 officers, 287 enlisted
Sensors:
Radars:
One AN/SPS-49 air search radar
One AN/SPS-55 surface search radar
One Mk 92 Fire Control System
Sonars:
One AN/SQS-53 hull mounted sonar
One AN/SQR-19 towed array sonar
One AN/SQQ-89 ASW combat system
Countermeasures:
One Mk 36 Mod 2 Super Rapid-Blooming Off Board Chaff System (SRBOC)
One AN/SLQ-32(v)3 electronic warfare suite
One AN/SLQ-25 towed torpedo decoy (Nixie)
Length, Overall:
453 feet (139.4 meters)
Beam:
45 feet (13.5 meters)
Displacement:
4,100 tons (4,165.80 metric tons) full load
Speed:
30+ knots (34.52+mph, 55.55+ kph)
Armament:
Guns:
One Mk 75 3"/62 caliber Lightweight Gun Mount
One Mk 15 Mod 2 Close-In Weapon System (1 mount)
Torpedoes:
Two Mk 32 Mod 14 triple torpedo tubes firing either the Mk 46 Mod 5 or Mk 50 ASW torpedo
Missiles:
Standard SM-1MR Surface to Air missile
Harpoon Anti Ship Missile
One Mk 13 Guided Missile Launcher (for Harpoon and Standard missiles)
Aircraft:
Two SH-60 Seahawk LAMPS III helicopters
Ships:
USS McInerney (FFG 8), Mayport, FA
USS Wadsworth (FFG 9), San Diego, CA
USS George Philip (FFG 12), San Diego, CA
USS Samuel Eliot Morison (FFG 13), Mayport, FA
USS Sides (FFG 14), San Diego, CA
USS Estocin (FFG 15), Norfolk, VA
USS John A. Moore (FFG 19), San Diego, CA
USS Boone (FFG 28), Mayport, FA
USS Stephen W. Groves (FFG 29), Pascagoula, MI
USS John L. Hall (FFG 32), Pascagoula, MI
USS Jarrett (FFG 33), San Diego, CA
USS Underwood (FFG 36), Mayport, FA
USS Crommelin (FFG 37), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Curts (FFG 38), San Diego, CA
USS Doyle (FFG 39), Mayport, FA
USS Halyburton (FFG 40), Norfolk, VA
USS McClusky (FFG 41), San Diego, CA
USS Klakring (FFG 42), Norfolk, VA
USS Thach (FFG 43), San Diego, CA
USS De Wert (FFG 45), Mayport, FA
USS Rentz (FFG 46), San Diego, CA
USS Nicholas (FFG 47), Norfolk, VA
USS Vandegrift (FFG 48), Yokosuka, Japan
USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG 49), Mayport, FA
USS Taylor (FFG 50), Mayport, FA
USS Gary (FFG 51), Yokosuka, Japan
USS Carr (FFG 52), Norfolk, VA
USS Hawes (FFG 53), Norfolk, VA
USS Ford (FFG 54), Everett, WA
USS Elrod (FFG 55), Norfolk, VA
USS Simpson (FFG 56), Norfolk, VA
USS Reuben James (FFG 57), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG 58), Norfolk, VA
USS Kauffman (FFG 59), Norfolk, VA
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG 60), Everett, WA
USS Ingraham (FFG 61), Everett, WA
|
|
David
Tue June 14, 2005 7:05am
|
INTERIM DOCTRINE CHEMICAL
INTERIM DOCTRINE CHEMICAL TOPICAL SKIN PROTECTION 14 NOV 90
|
|
David
Tue June 14, 2005 7:32am
|
PROTECTION AGAINST THE CH
PROTECTION AGAINST THE CHEMICAL BY PRODUCTS 21 FEB 91
|
|
David
Tue August 9, 2005 12:16pm
|
USS Yorktown CV 5 30 Sep
USS Yorktown CV 5 30 Sep 1937 7 Jun 1942
Anchored in Hampton Roads, Virginia, 30 October 1937.
displacement: 19,800 tons
length: 809 feet
beam: 83 feet 1 inch
draft: 28 feet
speed: 32? knots
complement: 2,919 crew
armament: 8 five-inch guns, 22 .50-cal. machine guns
Aircraft: 81-85
class: Yorktown
The third Yorktown (CV-5) was laid down on 21 May 1934 at Newport News, Va., by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co.; launched on 4 April 1936; sponsored by Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt; and commissioned at the Naval Operating Base (NOB), Norfolk, Va., on 30 September 1937, Capt. Ernest D. McWhorter in command.
After fitting out, the aircraft carrier trained in Hampton Roads and in the southern drill grounds off the Virginia Capes into January of 1938, conducting carrier qualifications for her newly embarked air group.
Yorktown sailed for the Caribbean on 8 January 1938 and arrived at Culebra, Puerto Rico, on 13 January. Over the ensuing month, the carrier conducted her shakedown, touching at Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands; Gonaives, Haiti; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Cristobal, Panama Canal Zone. Departing Colon Bay, Cristobal, on 1 March, Yorktown sailed for Hampton Roads and arrived there on the 6th and shifted to the Norfolk Navy Yard the next day for post-shakedown availability. After undergoing repairs through the early autumn of 1938, Yorktown shifted from the Navy Yard to NOB Norfolk on 17 October and soon headed for the Southern Drill Grounds for training.
Yorktown operated off the eastern seaboard, ranging from Chesapeake Bay to Guantanamo Bay, into 1939. As flagship for Carrier Division (CarDiv) 2, she participated in her first war game ? Fleet Problem XX ? along with her sistership USS Enterprise (CV-6) in February 1939. The scenario for the exercise called for one fleet to control the sea lanes in the Caribbean against the incursion of a foreign European power while maintaining sufficient naval strength to protect vital American interests in the Pacific. The maneuvers were witnessed, in part, by President Roosevelt, embarked in the heavy cruiser USS Houston (CA-30).
The critique of the operation revealed that carrier operations ? a part of the scenarios for the annual exercises since the entry of USS Langley (CV-1) into the war games in 1925 ? had achieved a new peak of efficiency. Despite the inexperience of Yorktown and Enterprise ? comparative newcomers to the Fleet ? both carriers made significant contributions to the success of the problem. The planners had studied the employment of carriers and their embarked air groups in connection with convoy escort, antisubmarine defense, and various attack measures against surface ships and shore installations. In short, they worked to develop the tactics that would be used when war actually came.
Following Fleet Problem XX, Yorktown returned briefly to Hampton Roads before sailing for the Pacific on 20 April. Transiting the Panama Canal a week later, Yorktown soon commenced a regular routine of operations with the Pacific Fleet. Operating out of San Diego into 1940, the carrier participated in Fleet Problem XXI that April.
Fleet Problem XXI ? a two-part exercise ? included some of the operations that would characterize future warfare in the Pacific. The first part of the exercise was devoted to training in making plans and estimates; in screening and scouting; in coordination of combatant units; and in employing fleet and standard dispositions. The second phase included training in convoy protection, the seizure of advanced bases, and, ultimately, the decisive engagement between the opposing fleets. The last pre-war exercise of its type, Fleet Problem XXI, contained two exercises (comparatively minor at the time) where air operations played a major role. Fleet Joint Air Exercise 114A prophetically pointed out the need to coordinate Army and Navy defense plans for the Hawaiian Islands, and Fleet Exercise 114 proved that aircraft could be used for high altitude tracking of surface forces ? a significant role for planes that would be fully realized in the war to come.
With the retention of the Fleet in Hawaiian waters after the conclusion of Fleet Problem XXI, Yorktown operated in the Pacific off the west coast of the United States and in Hawaiian waters until the following spring, when the success of German U-boats preying upon British shipping in the Atlantic required a shift of American naval strength. Thus, to reinforce the Atlantic Fleet, the Navy transferred a substantial force from the Pacific including Yorktown, a battleship division, and accompanying cruisers and destroyers.
Yorktown departed Pearl Harbor on 20 April 1941 in company with USS Warrington (DD-383), USS Somers (DD-381), and USS Jouett (DD-396); headed southeast, transited the Panama Canal on the night of 6 and 7 May, and arrived at Bermuda on the 12th. From that time to the entry of the United States into the war, Yorktown conducted four patrols in the Atlantic, ranging from Newfoundland to Bermuda and logging 17,642 miles steamed while enforcing American neutrality.
Although Adolph Hitler had forbidden his submarines to attack American ships, the men who manned the American naval vessels were not aware of this policy and operated on a wartime footing in the Atlantic.
On 28 October, while Yorktown, the battleship USS New Mexico (BB 40), and other American warships were screening a convoy, a destroyer picked up a submarine contact and dropped depth charges while the convoy itself made an emergency starboard turn, the first of the convoy's three emergency changes of course. Late that afternoon, engine repairs to one of the ships in the convoy, Empire Pintail, reduced the convoy's speed to 11 knots.
During the night, the American ships intercepted strong German radio signals, indicating submarines probably in the vicinity reporting the group. Rear Admiral H. Kent Hewitt, commanding the escort force sent a destroyer to sweep astern of the convoy to destroy the U-boat or at least to drive him under.
The next day, while cruiser scout-planes patrolled overhead, Yorktown and USS Savannah (CL-42) fueled their escorting destroyers, finishing the task just at dusk. On October 30, 1941, Yorktown was preparing to fuel three destroyers when other escorts made sound contacts. The convoy subsequently made 10 emergency turns while USS Morris (DD-417) and USS Anderson (DD-411) dropped depth charges, and USS Hughes (DD-410) assisted in developing the contact. Anderson later made two more depth charge attacks, noticing "considerable oil with slick spreading but no wreckage."
The short-of-war period was becoming more like the real thing as each day went on. Elsewhere on 30 October and more than a month before Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor, U-562 torpedoed the destroyer USS Reuben James (DD-245), sinking her with a heavy loss of life-the first loss of an American warship in World War II.
After another Neutrality Patrol stint in November, Yorktown put into Norfolk on 2 December and was there five days later when American fighting men in Hawaii were rudely awakened to find their country at war.
The early news from the Pacific was bleak: the Pacific Fleet had taken a beating. With the battle line crippled, the unhurt American carriers assumed great importance. There were, on 7 December, only three in the Pacific. USS Enterprise, USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3). While USS Ranger (CV-4), USS Wasp (CV-7), and the recently commissioned USS Hornet (CV-8) remained in the Atlantic, Yorktown departed Norfolk on 16 December 1941 and sailed for the Pacific, her secondary gun galleries studded with new 20-millimeter Oerlikon machine guns. She reached San Diego, Calif., on 30 December 1941 and soon became flagship for Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher's newly formed Task Force (TF) 17.
The carrier's first mission in her new theater was to escort a convoy carrying Marine reinforcements to American Samoa. Departing San Diego on 6 January 1942, Yorktown and her consorts covered the movement of marines to Tutuila and Pago Pago to augment the garrison already there.
Having safely covered that troop movement, Yorktown , in company with sistership Enterprise, departed Samoan waters on 25 January. Six days later, TF 8 built around Enterprise, and TF 17, built around Yorktown , parted company. The former headed for the Marshall Islands, the latter for the Gilberts ? each bound to take part in the first American offensive of the war, the Marshalls-Gilberts raids.
At 0517, Yorktown ? screened by USS Louisville (CA-28) and USS St. Louis (CL-49) and four destroyers ? launched 11 torpedo planes (Douglas TBD-1 Devastators) and 17 scout bombers (Douglas SBD-3 Dauntlesses) under the command of Comdr. Curtis W. Smiley. Those planes hit what Japanese shore installations and shipping they could find at Jaluit, but adverse weather conditions hampered the mission in which six planes were lost. Other Yorktown planes attacked Japanese installations and ships at Makin and Mili Atolls.
The attack by TF 17 on the Gilberts had apparently been a complete surprise since the American force encountered no enemy surface ships. A single, four-engined, Kawanishi E7K Mavis, patrol-bomber seaplane attempted to attack American destroyers that had been sent astern in hope of recovering planes over-due from the Jaluit mission. Antiaircraft fire from the destroyers drove off the intruder before he could cause any damage.
Later, another Mavis ? or possibly the same one that had attacked the destroyers ? came out of low clouds 15,000 yards from Yorktown . The carrier withheld her antiaircraft fire in order not to interfere with the combat air patrol (CAP) fighters. Presently, the Mavis, pursued by two Wildcats, disappeared behind a cloud. Within five minutes, the enemy patrol plane fell out of the clouds and crashed in the water.
Although TF 17 was slated to make a second attack on Jaluit, it was canceled because of heavy rainstorms and the approach of darkness. Therefore, the Yorktown force retired from the area.
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz later called the Marshalls-Gilberts raids "well conceived, well planned, and brilliantly executed." The results obtained by TFs 8 and 17 were noteworthy Nimitz continued in his subsequent report, because the task forces had been obliged to make their attacks somewhat blindly, due to lack of hard intelligence data on the Japanese-mandated islands.
Yorktown subsequently returned to Pearl Harbor and replenished there before she put to sea on 14 February, bound for the Coral Sea. On 6 March 1942, she rendezvoused with TF 11 ? formed around Lexington and under the command of Rear Admiral Wilson Brown ? and headed towards Rabaul and Gasmata to attack Japanese shipping there in an effort to check the Japanese advance and to cover the landing of Allied troops at Noumea, New Caledonia. However, as the two flattops ? screened by a powerful force of eight heavy cruisers (including the Australian HMAS Australia) and 14 destroyers ? steamed toward New Guinea, the Japanese continued their advance toward Australia with a landing on 7 March at the Huon Gulf, in the Salamana-Lae area on the eastern end of New Guinea.
Word of the Japanese operation prompted Admiral Brown to change the objective of TF 11's strike from Rabaul to the Salamana-Lae sector. On the morning of 10 March 1942, American carriers launched aircraft from the Gulf of Papua. Lexington flew off her air group commencing at 0749 and, 21 minutes later, Yorktown followed suit. While the choice of the gulf as the launch point for the strike meant that the planes would have to fly some 125 miles across the Owen Stanley mountains ? a range not known for the best flying conditions ? that approach provided security for the task force and ensured surprise.
In the attacks that followed, Lexington's SBD's from Scouting Squadron (VS) 2 commenced dive-bombing Japanese ships at Lae at 0922. The carrier's Torpedo Squadron (VT) 2 and Bombing Squadron (VB) 2 attacked shipping at Salamaua at 0938. Her fighters from Fighter Squadron (VF) 2 split up into four-plane attack groups: one strafed Lae and the other, Salamaua. Yorktown 's planes followed on the heels of those from "Lady Lex." VB-5 and VT-5 attacked Japanese ships in the Salamaua area at 0950, while VS-5 went after auxiliaries moored close in shore at Lae. The fighters of VF-42 flew over Salamana on CAP until they determined that there was no air opposition and then strafed surface objectives and small boats in the harbor. After carrying out their missions, the American planes returned to their carriers, and 103 planes of the 104 launched were back safely on board by noon. One SB3-2 of VS-2 had been downed by Japanese antiaircraft fire. The raid on Salamana and Lae was the first attack by many pilots of both carriers; and, while the resultant torpedo and bombing accuracy was inferior to that achieved in later actions, the operation gave the fliers invaluable experience which enabled them to do so well in the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway.
Task Force 11 retired at 20 knots on a southeasterly course until dark, when the ships steered eastward at 15 knots and made rendezvous with Task Group (TG) 11.7 (four heavy cruisers and four destroyers) under Rear Admiral John G. Crace, Royal Navy-the group that had provided cover for the carriers on their approach to New Guinea. Yorktown resumed her patrols in the Coral Sea area, remaining at sea into April, out of reach of Japanese land-based aircraft and ready to carry out offensive operations whenever the opportunity presented itself. After the Lae-Salamaua raid, the situation in the South Pacific seemed temporarily stabilized, and Yorktown and her consorts in TF 17 put in to the undeveloped harbor at Tongatabu, in the Tonga Islands, for needed upkeep, having been at sea continuously since departing from Pearl Harbor on 14 February 1942.
However, the enemy was soon on the move. To Admiral Nimitz, there seemed to be "excellent indications that the Japanese intended to make a seaborne attack on Port Moresby the first week in May." Yorktown accordingly departed Tongatabu on 27 April, bound once more for the Coral Sea. TF 11 ? commanded by Rear Admiral Aubrey W. Fitch, who had relieved Brown in Lexington ? departed Pearl Harbor to join Fletcher's TF 17 and arrived in the vicinity of Yorktown 's group, southwest of the New Hebrides Islands, on 1 May 1942.
At 1517 the next afternoon, two Dauntlesses from VS-5 sighted a Japanese submarine, running on the surface. Three Devastators took off from Yorktown sped to the scene, and carried out an attack that only succeeded in driving the submarine under.
On the morning of May 3, TF 11 and TF 17 were some 100 miles apart, engaged in fueling operations. Shortly before midnight, Fletcher received word from Australian-based aircraft that Japanese transports were disembarking troops and equipment at Tulagi in the Solomon Islands. Arriving soon after the Australians had evacuated the place, the Japanese landed to commence construction of a seaplane base there to support their southward thrust.
Yorktown accordingly set course northward at 27 knots. By daybreak on 4 May, she was within striking distance of the newly established Japanese beachhead and launched her first strike at 0701-18 F4F-3s of VF-42, 12 TBDs of VT-5, and 28 SBDs from VS and BY-5. Yorktown 's air group made three consecutive attacks on enemy ships and shore installations at Tulagi and Gavutu on the south coast of Florida Island in the Solomons. Expending 22 torpedoes and 76 1,000-pound bombs in the three attacks, Yorktown 's planes sank a destroyer (Kikuzuki), three minecraft, and four barges. In addition, Air Group 5 destroyed five enemy seaplanes, all at the cost of two F4Fs lost (the pilots were recovered) and one TBD (whose crew was lost).
Meanwhile, that same day, TF 44, a cruiser-destroyer force under Rear Admiral Crace (RN), joined Lexington's TF 11, thus completing the composition of the Allied force on the eve of the crucial Battle of the Coral Sea.
Elsewhere, to the northward, the enemy was on his way. Eleven troop-laden transports ? escorted by destroyers and covered by the light carrier Shoho, four heavy cruisers, and a destroyer ? steamed toward Port Moresby. In addition, another Japanese task force ? formed around the two Pearl Harbor veterans, carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku, and screened by two heavy cruisers and six destroyers ? provided additional air cover.
On the morning of May 6, 1942, , Fletcher gathered all Allied forces under his tactical command as TF 17. At daybreak on the 7th, he dispatched Crace, with the cruisers and destroyers under his command, toward the Louisiade archipelago to intercept any enemy attempt to move toward Port Moresby.
Meanwhile, while Fletcher moved northward with his two flattops and their screens in search of the enemy, Japanese search planes located the oiler USS Neosho (AO-23) and her escort, USS Sims (DD-409) and identified the former as a "carrier." Two waves of Japanese planes ? first high level bombers and then dive bombers ? attacked the two ships. Sims ? her antiaircraft battery crippled by gun failures ? took three direct hits and sank quickly with a heavy loss of life. Neosho was more fortunate in that, even after seven direct hits and eight near-misses, she remained afloat until, on the 11th, her survivors were picked up by USS Henley (DD-391) and her hulk sunk by the rescuing destroyer.
In their tribulation, Neosho and Sims had performed a valuable service, drawing off the planes that might otherwise have hit Fletcher's carriers. Meanwhile, Yorktown and Lexington's planes found Shoho and punished that Japanese light carrier unmercifully, sending her to the bottom. One of Lexington's pilots reported this victory with the radio message, "Scratch one flattop."
That afternoon, Shokaku and Zuikaku ? still unlocated by Fletcher's forces ? launched 27 bombers and torpedo planes to search for the American ships. Their flight proved uneventful until they ran into fighters from Yorktown and Lexington, who proceeded to down nine enemy planes in the ensuing dogfight.
Near twilight, three Japanese planes incredibly mistook Yorktown for their own carrier and attempted to land. The ship's gunfire, though, drove them off; and the enemy planes crossed Yorktown's bow and turned away out of range. Twenty minutes later, when three more enemy pilots made the mistake of trying to get into Yorktown's landing circle, the carrier's gunners splashed one of the trio.
However, the Battle of the Coral Sea was far from over. The next morning, 8 May, a Lexington search plane spotted Admiral Takagi's carrier striking force ? including Zuikaku and Shokaku, the flattops that had proved so elusive the day before. Yorktown planes scored two bomb hits on Shokaku, damaging her flight deck and thus preventing her from launching aircraft; in addition, the bombs set off explosions in gasoline storage tanks and destroyed an engine repair workshop. Lexington's Dauntlesses added another hit. Between the two American air groups, the hits scored killed 108 Japanese sailors and wounded 40 more.
While the American planes were bedeviling the Japanese flattops, however, Yorktown and Lexington ? -alerted by an intercepted message which indicated that the Japanese knew of their whereabouts ? were preparing to fight off a retaliatory strike. Sure enough, shortly after 1100, that attack came.
American CAP Wildcats slashed into the Japanese formations, downing 17 planes. Some, though, managed to slip through the fighters and the Kates that did so managed to launch torpedoes from both sides of Lexington's bows. Two "fish", tore into "Lady Lex" on the port side; dive bombers ? Vals ? added to the destruction with three bomb hits. Lexington developed a list with three partially-flooded engineering spaces. Several fires raged belowdecks, and the carrier's elevators were out of commission.
Meanwhile Yorktown was having problems of her own. Skillfully maneuvered by Capt. Elliott Buckmaster, her commanding officer, the carrier dodged eight torpedoes. Attacked then by Vals, the ship managed to evade all but one bomb. That one, however, penetrated the flight deck and exploded belowdecks, killing or seriously injuring 66 men.
Yorktown 's damage control parties brought the fires under control, and, despite her wounds, the ship was still able to continue her flight operations. The air battle itself ended shortly before noon on May 8, 1942; and within an hour, "Lady Lex" was on an even keel, although slightly down by the bow. Her damage control parties had already extinguished three out of the four fires below. In addition, she was making 25 knots and was recovering her air group.
At 1247, however, disaster struck Lexington, when a heavy explosion, caused by the ignition of gasoline vapors, rocked the ship. The flames raced through the ship, and further internal explosions tore the ship apart inside. Lexington battled for survival; but, despite the valiant efforts of her crew, she had to be abandoned. Capt. Frederick C. Sherman sadly ordered "abandon ship" at 1707. Her men went over the side in an orderly fashion and were picked up by the cruisers and destroyers of the carrier's screen. Torpedoes fired by USS Phelps (DD-361) hastened the end of "Lady Lex."
As Yorktown and her consorts retired from Coral Sea to lick their wounds, the situation in the Pacific stood altered. The Japanese had won a tactical victory, inflicting comparatively heavy losses on the Allied force, but the Allies, in stemming the tide of Japan's conquests in the South and Southwest Pacific, had achieved a strategic victory. They had blunted the drive toward strategic Port Moresby and had saved the tenuous lifeline between America and Australia.
Yorktown had not achieved her part in the victory without cost, but had suffered enough damage to cause experts to estimate that at least three months in a yard would be required to put her back in fighting trim. Unfortunately, there was little time for repairs, because Allied intelligence-most notably the cryptographic unit at Pearl Harbor ? had gained enough information from decoded Japanese naval messages to estimate that the Japanese were on the threshold of a major operation aimed at the northwestern tip of the Hawaiian chain ? two islets in a low coral atoll known as Midway.
Thus armed with this intelligence, Admiral Nimitz began methodically planning Midway's defense, rushing all possible reinforcement in the way of men, planes and guns to Midway. In addition, he began gathering his naval forces-comparatively meager as they were-to meet the enemy at sea. As part of those preparations, he recalled TF 16, Enterprise and Hornet (CV-8), to Pearl Harbor for a quick replenishment.
Yorktown, too, received orders to return to Hawaii; and she arrived at Pearl Harbor on 27 May 1942. Miraculously, yard workers there ? laboring around the clock ? made enough repairs to enable the ship to put to sea. Her air group ? for the most part experienced but weary ? was augmented by planes and flyers from Saratoga (CV-3) which was then headed for Hawaiian waters after her modernization on the west coast. Ready for battle, Yorktown sailed as the central ship of TF 17 on 30 May.
Northeast of Midway, Yorktown, flying Rear Admiral Fletcher's flag, rendezvoused with TF 16 under Rear Admiral Raymond A. Spruance and maintained a position 10 miles to the northward of the latter. Over the days that ensued, as the ships proceeded toward a date with destiny, few men realized that within the next few days the pivotal battle of the war in the Pacific would be fought. Patrols, both from Midway itself and from the carriers, proceeded apace during those days in early June. On the morning of the June 4, 1942, as dawn began to streak the eastern sky, Yorktown launched a 10-plane group of Dauntlesses from VB-5 which searched a northern semicircle for a distance of 100 miles out but found nothing.
Meanwhile, PBYs flying from Midway had sighted the approaching Japanese and broadcast what turned out to be the alarm for the American forces defending the key atoll. Admiral Fletcher, in tactical command, ordered Admiral Spruance, with TF 16, to locate the enemy carrier force and strike them as soon as they were found.
Yorktown's search group returned at 0830 June 4, 1942, landing soon after the last of the six-plane CAP had left the deck. When the last of the Dauntlesses had landed, a flight deck ballet took place in which the deck was spotted for the launch of the ship's attack group ? 17 Dauntlesses from VB-3; 12 Devastators from VT-3, and six Wildcats from "Fighting Three." Enterprise and Hornet, meanwhile, launched their attack groups.
The torpedo planes from the three American flattops located the Japanese carrier striking force but met disaster. Of the 41 planes from VT-8, VT-6, and VT-3, only six returned to Enterprise and Yorktown, collectively. None made it back to Hornet.
The destruction of the torpedo planes, however, had served a purpose. The Japanese CAP had broken off their high-altitude cover for their carriers and had concentrated on the Devastators, flying low "on the deck." The skies above were thus left open for Dauntlesses arriving from Yorktown and Enterprise. Virtually unopposed, the SBDs dove to the attack. The results were spectacular.
Yorktown's dive-bombers pummeled Soryu, making three lethal hits with 1,000-pound bombs that turned the ship into a flaming inferno. Enterprise's planes, meanwhile, hit Akagi and Kaga, turning them, too into wrecks within a very short time. The bombs from the Dauntlesses caught all of the Japanese carriers in the midst of refueling and rearming operations, and the combination of bombs and gasoline proved explosive and disastrous to the Japanese.
Three Japanese carriers had been lost. A fourth however, still roamed at large, Hiryu. Separated from her sisters, that ship had launched a striking force of 18 Vals that soon located Yorktown .
As soon as the attackers had been picked up on Yorktown's radar at about 1329, she discontinued the fueling of her CAP fighters on deck and swiftly cleared for action. Her returning dive bombers were moved from the landing circle to open the area for antiaircraft fire. The Dauntlesses were ordered aloft to form a CAP. An auxiliary gasoline tank ? of 800 gallons capacity ? was pushed over the carrier's fantail, eliminating one fire hazard. The crew drained fuel lines and closed and secured all compartments.
All of Yorktown's fighters were vectored out to intercept the oncoming Japanese aircraft, and did so some 15 to 20 miles out. The Wildcats attacked vigorously, breaking up what appeared to be an organized attack by some 18 Vals and 18 Zeroes. "Planes were flying in every direction," wrote Capt. Buckmaster after the action, "and many were falling in flames."
Yorktownand her escorts went to full speed and, as the Japanese raiders attacked, began maneuvering radically. Intense antiaircraft fire greeted the Vals and Kates as they approached their release points.
Despite the barrage, though, three Vals scored hits. Two of them were shot down soon after releasing their bomb loads; the third went out of control just as his bomb left the rack. It tumbled in flight and hit just abaft number two elevator on the starboard side, exploding on contact and blasting a hole about 10 feet square in the flight deck. Splinters from the exploding bomb decimated the crews of the two 1.1-inch gun mounts aft of the island and on the flight deck below. Fragments piercing the flight deck hit three planes on the hangar deck, starting fires. One of the aircraft, a Yorktown Dauntless, was fully fueled and carrying a 1,000-pound bomb. Prompt action by Lt. A. C. Emerson, the hangar deck officer, prevented a serious conflagration by releasing the sprinkler system and quickly extinguishing the fire.
The second bomb to hit the ship came from the port side, pierced the flight deck, and exploded in the lower part of the funnel. It ruptured the uptakes for three boilers, disabled two boilers themselves, and extinguished the fires in five boilers. Smoke and gases began filling the firerooms of six boilers. The men at number one boiler, however, remained at their post despite their danger and discomfort and kept its fire going, maintaining enough steam pressure to allow the auxiliary steam systems to function.
A third bomb hit the carrier from the starboard side pierced the side of number one elevator and explode on the fourth deck, starting a persistent fire in the rag storage space, adjacent to the forward gasoline stowage and the magazines. The prior precaution of smothering the gasoline system with CO2, undoubtedly prevented the gasoline's igniting.
While the ship recovered from the damage inflicted by the dive-bombing attack, her speed dropped to six knots; and then, at 1440, about 20 minutes after the bomb hit that had shut down most of the boilers, Yorktown slowed to a stop, dead in the water.
At about 1540, Yorktown prepared to get underway again; and, at 1550, the engine room force reported that they were ready to make 20 knots or better. The ship was not yet out of the fight.
Simultaneously, with the fires controlled sufficiently to warrant the resumption of fueling operations, Yorktown began fueling the gasoline tanks of the fighters then on deck. Fueling had just commenced when the ship's radar picked up an incoming air group at a distance of 33 miles away. While the ship prepared for battle ? again smothering gasoline systems and stopping the fueling of the planes on her flight deck ? she vectored four of the six fighters of the CAP in the air to intercept the incoming raiders. Of the 10 fighters on board, eight had as much as 23 gallons of fuel in their tanks. They accordingly were launched as the remaining pair of fighters of the CAP headed out to intercept the Japanese planes.
At 1600, Yorktown churned forward, making 20 knots. The fighters she had launched and vectored out to intercept had meanwhile made contact, Yorktown received reports that the planes were Kates. The Wildcats downed at least three of the attacking torpedo planes, but the rest began their approach in the teeth of a heavy antiaircraft barrage from the carrier and her escorts.
Yorktown maneuvered radically, avoiding at least two torpedoes before two "fish" tore into her port side within minutes of each other. The first hit at 1620. The carrier had been mortally wounded; she lost power and went dead in the water with a jammed rudder and an increasing list to port.
As the list progressed, Cmdr. C. E. Aldrich, the damage control officer, reported from central station that, without power, controlling the flooding looked impossible. The engineering officer, Lt. Cmdr. J. F. Delaney, soon reported that all fires were out; all power was lost; and. worse yet, it was impossible to correct the list. Faced with that situation, Capt. Buckmaster ordered Aldrich, Delaney, and their men to secure and lay up on deck to put on life jackets.
The list, meanwhile, continued to increase. When it reached 26 degrees, Buckmaster and Aldrich agreed that the ship's capsizing was only a matter of minutes. "In order to save as many of the ship's company as possible," the captain wrote later, he "ordered the ship to be abandoned."
Over the minutes that ensued, the crew left ship, lowering the wounded to life rafts and striking out for the nearby destroyers and cruisers to be picked up by boats from those ships. After the evacuation of all wounded, the executive officer, Cmdr. I. D. Wiltsie, left the ship down a line on the starboard side. Capt. Buckmaster, meanwhile, toured the ship for one last time, inspecting her to see if any men remained. After finding no "live personnel," Buckmaster lowered himself into the water by means of a line over the stern. By that point, water was lapping the port side of the hangar deck
Picked up by the destroyer USS Hammann (DD-412), Buckmaster was transferred to USS Astoria (CA-34) soon thereafter and reported to Rear Admiral Fletcher, who had shifted his flag to the heavy cruiser after the first dive-bombing attack. The two men agreed that a salvage party should attempt to save the ship since she had stubbornly remained afloat despite the heavy list and imminent danger of capsizing.
Interestingly enough, while the efforts to save Yorktownhad been proceeding apace, her planes were still in action, joining those from Enterprise in striking the last Japanese carrier ? Hiryu ? late that afternoon. Taking four direct hits, the Japanese flattop was soon helpless. She was abandoned by her crew and left to drift out of control and manned only by her dead. Yorktown had been avenged.
Yorktown, as it turned out, floated through the night; two men were still alive on board her ? one attracted attention by firing a machine gun that was heard by the sole attending destroyer, USS Hughes. The escort picked up the men, one of whom later died.
Meanwhile, Capt. Buckmaster had selected 29 officers and 141 men to return to the ship in an attempt to save her. Five destroyers formed an antisubmarine screen while the salvage party boarded the listing carrier, the fire in the rag storage still smoldering on the morning of June 6, 1942. USS Vireo (AT-144), summoned from Pearl and Hermes Reef, soon commenced towing the ship. Progress, though, was painfully slow.
Yorktown 's repair party went on board with a carefully predetermined plan of action to be carried out by men from each department-damage control, gunnery air engineering, navigation, communication, supply and medical. To assist in the work, Lt. Cmdr. Arnold E. True brought his ship, USS Hammann, alongside to starboard, aft, furnishing pumps and electric power.
By mid-afternoon, it looked as if the gamble to save the ship was paying off. The process of reducing topside weight was proceeding well ? one 5-inch gun had been dropped over the side, and a second was ready to be cast loose; planes had been pushed over the side; the submersible pumps (powered by electricity provided by Hammann) had pumped out considerable quantities of water from the engineering spaces. The efforts of the salvage crew had reduced the list about two degrees.
Unbeknownst to Yorktown and the six nearby destroyers the Japanese submarine I-158 had achieved a favorable firing position. Remarkably ? but perhaps understandable in light of the debris and wreckage in the water in the vicinity ? none of the destroyers picked up the approaching I-boat. Suddenly, at 1536, lookouts spotted a salvo of four torpedoes churning toward the ship from the starboard beam.
Hammann went to general quarters, a 20-millimeter gun going into action in an attempt to explode the "fish" in the water. One torpedo hit Hammann ? her screws churning the water beneath her fantail as she tried to get underway ? directly amidships and broke her back. The destroyer jackknifed and went down rapidly.
Two torpedoes struck Yorktown just below the turn of the bilge at the after end of the island structure. The fourth torpedo passed just astern of the carrier.
Approximately a minute after Hammann's stern disappeared beneath the waves, an explosion rumbled up from the depths ? possibly caused by the destroyer's depth charges going off. The blast killed many of Hammann's and a few of Yorktown's men who had been thrown into the water. The concussion battered the already-damaged carrier's hull and caused tremendous shocks that carried away Yorktown's auxiliary generator, sent numerous fixtures from the hangar deck overhead crashing to the deck below; sheared rivets in the starboard leg of the foremast; and threw men in every direction, causing broken bones and several minor injuries.
Prospects for immediate resumption of salvage work looked grim, since all destroyers immediately commenced searches for the enemy submarine (which escaped) and commenced rescuing men from Hammann and Yorktown. Capt. Buckmaster decided to postpone further attempts at salvage until the following day.
Vireo cut the towline and doubled back to Yorktown to pick up survivors, taking on board many men of the salvage crew while picking up men from the water. The little ship endured a terrific pounding from the larger ship but nevertheless stayed alongside to carry out her rescue mission. Later, while on board the tug, Capt. Buckmaster conducted a burial service, two officers and an enlisted man from Hammann were committed to the deep.
The second attempt at salvage, however, would never be made. Throughout the night of June 6, 1942, and into the morning of the 7th, Yorktown remained stubbornly afloat. By 0530 on the 7th, however, the men in the ships nearby noted that the carrier's list was rapidly increasing to port. Then, at 0701, on June 7, 1942, according to Capt. Buckmaster's official report, Yorktown "turned over on her port side and sank in 3,000 fathoms of water, her battle flags flying."
Yorktown (CV-5) earned three battle stars for her World War II service; two of them being for the significant part she had played in stopping Japanese expansion and turning the tide of the war at Coral Sea and at Midway.
But Yorktown's story does not end there. On May 19, 1998, noted underwater explorer Dr. Robert Ballard and his search and survey team on the National Geographic Battle of Midway expedition found Yorktown more than three miles deep in the Pacific. The expedition used the U.S. Navy's deep submergence support ship, Laney Chouest, and two underwater vehicles to locate and photograph the aircraft carrier on the ocean floor. One of the submerged vehicles was a Navy bottom-surveying robot called ATV (advanced tethered vehicle) which can see about 100 feet with video and still cameras. The carrier was found to be quite well preserved.
|
|
David
Fri August 26, 2005 1:22pm
Rating: 10
|
Declaration of Independen
Declaration of Independence (1776) (The official, signed Declaration of Independence)
Although the section of the Lee Resolution dealing with independence was not adopted until July 2, Congress appointed on June 10 a committee of five to draft a statement of independence for the colonies. The committee included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman, with the actual writing delegated to Jefferson.
Jefferson drafted the statement between June 11 and 28, submitted drafts to Adams and Franklin who made some changes, and then presented the draft to the Congress following the July 2nd adoption of the independence section of the Lee Resolution. The congressional revision process took all of July 3rd and most of July 4th. Finally, in the afternoon of July 4th, the Declaration was adopted.
Under the supervision of the Jefferson committee, the approved Declaration was printed on July 5th and a copy was attached to the "rough journal of the Continental Congress for July 4th." These printed copies, bearing only the names of John Hancock, President, and Charles Thomson, secretary, were distributed to state assemblies, conventions, committees of safety, and commanding officers of the Continental troops.
On July 19th, Congress ordered that the Declaration be engrossed on parchment with a new title, "the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states of America," and "that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress." Engrossing is the process of copying an official document in a large hand. The engrosser of the Declaration was probably Timothy Matlock, an assistant to Charles Thomson, secretary to the Congress.
On August 2nd John Hancock, the President of the Congress, signed the engrossed copy with a bold signature. The other delegates, following custom, signed beginning at the right with the signatures arranged by states from northernmost New Hampshire to southernmost Georgia. Although all delegates were not present on August 2nd, 56 delegates eventually signed the document. Late signers were Elbridge Gerry, Oliver Wolcott, Lewis Morris, Thomas McKean, and Matthew Thornton, who was unable to place his signature with the other New Hampshire delegates due to a lack of space. Some delegates, including Robert R. Livingston of New York, a member of the drafting committee, never signed the Declaration.
Transcript:
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
|
|
David
Fri August 26, 2005 1:23pm
|
Declaration of Independen
Declaration of Independence (1776) (The Dunlap Broadside: a printed version of the Declaration that was publicly distributed after the original was created)
Although the section of the Lee Resolution dealing with independence was not adopted until July 2, Congress appointed on June 10 a committee of five to draft a statement of independence for the colonies. The committee included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman, with the actual writing delegated to Jefferson.
Jefferson drafted the statement between June 11 and 28, submitted drafts to Adams and Franklin who made some changes, and then presented the draft to the Congress following the July 2nd adoption of the independence section of the Lee Resolution. The congressional revision process took all of July 3rd and most of July 4th. Finally, in the afternoon of July 4th, the Declaration was adopted.
Under the supervision of the Jefferson committee, the approved Declaration was printed on July 5th and a copy was attached to the "rough journal of the Continental Congress for July 4th." These printed copies, bearing only the names of John Hancock, President, and Charles Thomson, secretary, were distributed to state assemblies, conventions, committees of safety, and commanding officers of the Continental troops.
On July 19th, Congress ordered that the Declaration be engrossed on parchment with a new title, "the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states of America," and "that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress." Engrossing is the process of copying an official document in a large hand. The engrosser of the Declaration was probably Timothy Matlock, an assistant to Charles Thomson, secretary to the Congress.
On August 2nd John Hancock, the President of the Congress, signed the engrossed copy with a bold signature. The other delegates, following custom, signed beginning at the right with the signatures arranged by states from northernmost New Hampshire to southernmost Georgia. Although all delegates were not present on August 2nd, 56 delegates eventually signed the document. Late signers were Elbridge Gerry, Oliver Wolcott, Lewis Morris, Thomas McKean, and Matthew Thornton, who was unable to place his signature with the other New Hampshire delegates due to a lack of space. Some delegates, including Robert R. Livingston of New York, a member of the drafting committee, never signed the Declaration.
Transcript:
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
|
|
David
Tue August 30, 2005 12:50pm
|
Federalist Papers, No. 10
Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788)
The Federalist Papers, were a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," primarily in two New York state newspapers of the time: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal.
They were written to urge citizens of New York to support ratification of the proposed United States Constitution. Significantly, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. It is for this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were members of the Constitutional Convention, that the Federalist Papers are often used today to help understand the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.
A bound edition of the essays, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. A later edition, published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of the essays? publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist.
The essays featured here are Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 51. The former, written by James Madison, refuted the belief that it was impossible to extend a republican government over a large territory. It also discussed special interest groups. The later emphasized the importance of checks and balances within a government.
Transcript of Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788)
The Federalist Paper No. 10
The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
The Federalist No. X
To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
PUBLIUS.
The Federalist Paper No. 51
The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
The Federalist No. 51
To the People of the State of New York:
TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.
It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.
An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.
PUBLIUS.
|
|
|
The Patriot Files Forums
