BS: Canadian Submarines

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Charmion at work
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 12:55 PM

Brucie, why are you holding your breath?

Surely you realize by now that each and every cabinet minister has a "correspondence unit" specifically charged with holding your letter or e-mail in limbo for a very long time before doing anything with it, and then sending you a reply that begins "So sorry it took us so long to answer your letter / e-mail [strike out where applicable], goes on to say nothing much of anything, and closes with effusive thanks for writing.

Why do I know this?

Because I am an editor in the Public Affairs branch at the Department of National Defence!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 10:54 PM

Bastards still haven't e-mailed me back.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:12 PM

A number of our (RN) boats had close encounters of the Russian kind particularly during the period 1970-1985.

Luckily no boat was lost as both British and US boats were playing where they shouldn't and the pesky Russians took umbrage when they thought they had found us.

But that is what boats are for, gathering intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 06:00 PM

"and it was discovered that at least one of the Upholders had a bent frame (indicating the sub had been involved in an undisclosed collision)."

No CarFax? LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:50 PM

hmm...that was a good rant yesterday...so much so that I didnt realize I was battering the PMnot the MP..ah well...all y'all knew what I meant I guess becasue no one came back saying they didnt hear Martin saying that...it was actually Conservative MP Dave Batters. New kid in town..trying to make a name I guess...I spose someone has to replace Elsie Wayne...GO Dave!..haha......Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:35 PM

Reel Brew,

Hang in. Over the years I have sent about seven letters to Ottawa about the disgraceful state of our military. I seldom receive answers. I am going to re-send tomorrow AM.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:22 PM

And a fine rant it is, ReelBrew. I hope that fire continues. It defines you as a caring, thinking person.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:22 PM

At least, RB, he's acknowledging the fact that someone has died.

Here in the US, all grieving is local and there is a lot of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:13 PM

well folks..its happened again..another POlitician using LT(N) Saunders as a political stab...I think its about cooth, respect...and this time it was an article written by non-other then MY PM!...Sad thing is..I voted for him..I respect him..I give his party money every month!...so...time for me to be the bad guy..really..can Politicians not find something better to bicker about? If Chris hadn't died no one would have batted an eye...it would have been "Canadian Military this...Canadian Navy that...Liberals blahblahblah.."..but now..the first words out are .."blame the liberals...oh...and..yeah..sorry about your loss Gwen"....grrrr....well thats my rant for the day...Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: grumpy al
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 02:33 PM

just been reading through some of the entries, I thought our armed forces got a rough deal but you Canadians sure have us beat! i am finding it really difficult to believe that another government could equal the ineptitude of the U.K. but from what has been written you got us beat again. I can only offer my condolences for what your nation is suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:27 PM

Well, at least she got a pamphlet. I didn't even get a "Dear Occupant" or a "KFO". (The K stands for Kindly.)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:12 PM

My mother once wrote our Representative about an issue she cared deeply about, voicing her concerns in a rational manner.

Her response was a pamphlet about why she would re-elect the guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:50 PM

Still no word. I feel so enfranchised.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:32 PM

I would suggest that because of the limited time a convetional submarine can remain dived they would only be used for coastal operations and not for under ice work.

Working under an ice cap is extremely dangerous in any submarine. In order to surface in an emergancy an area of thin ice needs to be found, a polnya.

Further it often takes several days to get into position under the ice. Submarines that do go under the ice go in quite long distances.

The SSK (conventional boats) would need to snort diesal every 4 days, and SSN can remain dived for weeks.

However an SSK is very quiet and can operate very effectivley against other submarines in its hunter killer role or to be used for tracking surface units of a 'hostile' nation without them being aware they are under observation.

Submarines are rarely used for flag waving, however back in the 60's when the Argentinians were contemplating an earlier invasion of the Falklands the first of the RN nuclear powered boats, HMS Dreadnought was sent down there and when it was in position it surfaced and allowed its presence to be known, the Argentinians backed off.

The Swedish company Kockums which designed the Collins class boats for the Aussie Navy have an option that allows an extra section containing a Stirling engine to be fitted into the boats. These are a type of closed cycle engine that can operate of fuel and air when dived and allow the boat to be propelled in a combination of both main battery propulsion and engine propulsion. They are very quiet too.

I do not understand why the Canadian Navy ended up with 18 year old boats when there are better option available.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 02:59 PM

Oh, yes, the Canadian drugs that don't meet American standards. Right. Gotta love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:26 PM

he's probably too busy trying to make a deal to sell Flu vaccines to G Dubbya.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:44 PM

Still heard nothing.

I love my government.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:10 AM

I dont think Quebec or the US is really an issue when it comes to the Security of the Country...Canada is "fan favoured" enough throughout the World that if in fact the US invaded Canada, the Global response would be great. And I do still think the UK would hepl us if need be, even despite my couple of weeks worth of rant. Recall if you will the Cod War in the early '90's. The UK voted in strong support of sending Royal Navy vessels to Canadian waters to support our mission in turning back the Spanish ships. I think the support would be the same if it mattered this day in age with an opposing force stronger the Spain.

Not sure what use a Sub in the Great Lakes would do but thats fine.

The Canadian Forces doesn't try to save money on Uniforms. In fact we spend more money and have among the most technically advance Combat uniforms in the World - Heat maintained to minimize infra-red and fire resistance, and computer generated patterns to break body formation. Even our plain old olives were pretty good Combats...Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:26 AM

If you're going to send people to fight, you have the obligation of outfit, train and support them as best you can. No expense is too great. You should give them the same things you yourselve would want.

It's been known for years that synthetic fibers are a disaster in burns. To use them in general-issue combat clothing simply to save money borders on the criminal.

Brucie, I doubt that you'll hear back. Politicians have too much else to do to listen to constituents.

I can understand why Canada might need submarines; I'd suggest four in the west, four in the east, and two in the north. I could even see deploying one of the eastern boats in the Great Lakes, but other than that I can't see deploying any others in the south. But again, to supply anything but the best is...well....

Years back I read in The Toronto Star an editorial piece about an invasion of the US by USSR special forces troops. Part of the response by the US was to send a force to Canada to "mop up" the parachutists who'd landed there because the Canadian forces couldn't do the job. I remember the line "The US says that its forces will be withdrawn when the danger of invasion is past."

I have also been in Quebec during one of its secessionsist spasms and discussing it with a Quebecois. He had never considered that neither US nor the rest of Canada would never permit the St. Lawrence Seaway to be under any control other than theirs and that they would send troops to insure such control. (He also had never considered that the Western Provinces would no longer have to subsidize oil products for Quebec, but that's another story.)

Big Brother Britain? Do you seriously believe that if the US invaded Canada that Britain would come to Canada's aid? I don't, not with Blair and Bush joined at the hip.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:20 AM

Teribus, thats a very good and valid point..however..the term "Sub Hunter" is also used on our City Class Destroyers, Sea King Helicopter, and Aurora Aircraft. They do their job flawlessly with the exception of the Sea King. The Govt also says the Subs are needed for coastal defence, security, and for the Depts. of Oceans and Fisheries, as well as Customs and the RCMP. Also shared purpose as the Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel (MCDV) and again, the Sea King and Aurora....Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:43 AM

One possible answer to your question regarding why Canada may feel the need for a submarine capability, and a convential capability at that would be that diesel-electric boats, particularly in coastal waters, are probably the best submarine hunters and killers going.

The Canadian Government bought four - more than enough to look after the entrance to the St.Lawrance seaway.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 11:02 PM

To quote Kissinger, "Countries do not have friends; countries have interests."

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:51 PM

I read that too, ReelBrew. I am disgusted! How dare they charge us for a recovery mission when it was the crappy junk they sold us. How arrogant can you be?

Seems that now that Blair and Bush are good buddies, Canada is just a poor relative. Maybe we always have been but this is going too far. I hope Canada continues to keep a safe distance away from both the U.S. and Britain. Obviously, neither can be trusted and they certainly aren't our friends.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:41 PM

Buying secondhand goods is often a false economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:25 PM

Just saw an article on Canoe News today suggesting the Brits are now doing up the bill for helping us out last week...nice guys that they are...God bless big brothers...suppose we should send them the bills for our debts from WWI and II?..I dare say the figure would be much greater then an Airmed Evac and a tow to port...Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:33 PM

Still no word from our leaders. Glad I wasn't holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:26 PM

Below is Scott Taylor's column in todays Halifax Herald. Scott is often regarded as the voice of the enlisted man who is not permitted a political voice of his own. He is held in high regard by the troops , but not by the brass or the government. He has just returned from Iraq where he was taken hostage. He now has the dubious distinction of being on of the few released with his head still on his shoulders.

            
Monday, October 18, 2004
                                          
The Halifax Herald Limited

    Stop kidding about capability

       By SCOTT TAYLOR / On Target
THE TRAGEDY aboard HMCS Chicoutimi has reopened the debate about
whether the Canadian government should proceed with the entire submarine acquisition program.
After a few initial comments that the much-plagued and long-delayed sub project would proceed despite this most recent setback, Defence Minister Bill Graham suddenly reversed course. Last Monday, after a quick inspection of the smoke-blackened interior of the disabled Chicoutimi, Graham announced that all options remained open - including the cancellation of the entire lease-to-own deal and even the possibility of lawsuits against the British government.
True to form, senior naval types immediately described Graham's position as "unnecessary" and they once again launched into their tired old tirade about Canada keeping "an underwater capability."
While some submariners may have been scared witless by the Chicoutimi
incident, and certainly the tragic death of Lieut. Chris Saunders has given the entire squadron cause for reflection, this elite community of sailors fears even more that they will soon be left without employment.
Many of them realize that the bargain-basement purchase of used British submarines is indicative of the Liberal government's lack of commitment to retaining "an underwater capability." The fact is that at a cost fast approaching $1 billion, the acquisition of four 18-year-old diesel-electric submarines can hardly be considered a worthwhile investment, let alone a bargain. Contrary to what the navy brass will try to tell a gullible public, submarines are not well-suited to enforce sovereignty (the flags are difficult to see underwater) and are even less useful as fishery enforcement vessels
(submarines and fishing nets are not a good mix).
There is modern technology available in the field of air-independent propulsion that would allow diesel-electric submarines a limited patrol range beneath the Arctic ice cap. However, by deciding to purchase these older British designs, there is no remote possibility of converting our "new" subs to take advantage of such developments.
So for the cost of $1 billion, not to mention the already escalating cost to operate these vessels, Canada would be able to mount limited underwater operations off two of our three ocean coastlines.
Both the U.S. and British navies were reportedly keen that Canada chose to purchase these used subs and to continue maintaining our "underwater capability." The reason for this is that our submariners have earned themselves a first-class reputation as skilled operators of diesel-electric submarines. Neither the British nor the Americans operate this type of sub anymore, as they have long since chosen to convert to the much more capable, strategic resource provided by nuclear submarines. The one drawback with this is that although nuclear subs are far more advanced in every aspect - speed, range, armament, etc. - they are also far noisier than diesel-electric boats.
While it is often noted by naval analysts that many so-called rogue nations maintain submarine fleets, none of these potential threats include subs with nuclear propulsion. Therefore it is imperative for British and U.S. warships to be able to detect and destroy diesel-electric subs. Having Canada provide an "underwater capability" that amounts to little more than a first-class training aid may seem like a godsend to our British and American allies, but it should raise a lot of serious questions among Canadian taxpayers.
Now that the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders has been added to the price tag, the truth about Canada's "underwater capability" should spark outrage. Our submariners should not have to make do with bargain-basement used junk that at the very best allows them to hone their skills while testing those of allied sailors. Canada does not have to worry about losing its "underwater capability" because it has long since become nothing more than a charade.   Are our sub crews top-notch professionals? Absolutely. But four diesel-electric subs on two coasts is neither a strategic resource nor a tactical deterrent. If the Canadian government is serious about protecting all three of our country's coastlines, it will dust off the old 1987 white paper that called for a 10-boatnuclear submarine squadron. Surprisingly, at the time the nuclear purchase was being debated, it was the U.S. - our ally that always insists we invest more on defence - that protested the loudest.
For once, Canada was going to have a strategic naval asset that would be capable of patrolling under the Arctic ice cap - and the U.S. was not pleased. It seems that as long as Canada pretends to have an "underwater capability," then everyone can simply go back to sleep.
Keep this in mind as the naval tub thumpers trumpet about in the weeks to come trying to save their controversial sub program: There is a big difference between keeping four old defective used submarines on the navy's active duty list and actually possessing an "underwater capability."
Our sailors deserve the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:01 PM

I can think of no better person for this role than our present Governor General of Canada, Adrienne Clarkson.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: RichM
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:38 PM

There has been a question in this thread, about the role and responsibilities of the Governor General of Canada.

"The Governor General's role is built on six major themes:

Representing the Crown in Canada
Promoting Canadian Sovereignty
Celebrating Excellence
Encouraging National Identity, National Unity and Moral Leadership "

source: role of the Governor General of Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:22 PM

Still no word from either my MP or my PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:53 PM

I just sent a copy of the letter to Rob Merrifield. He's my MP. Conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM

ReelBrew - Maybe it was trick photography, but I'm sure they showed Martin at the airport when the body came home to Canada. On second thought I guess thats not the funeral. He did, however, show some respect by meeting the plane.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:49 PM

Re in France on business: Wonder if he's using a Sea King in his travels?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Metchosin
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:28 PM

CN was sold off to private interests in 1995, ReelBrew, Canada no longer has a public rail company.

"The CN Commercialization Act was enacted into law on July 13, 1995 and by November 28, 1995, the federal government had
completed an initial public offering (IPO) and transferred all of its shares to private investors. Two key prohibitions in this legislation
include, 1) that no individual or corporate shareholder may own more than 15% of CN, and 2) that the company's headquarters must
remain in Montreal, thus maintaining CN as a Canadian corporation."

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 06:41 PM

Using commercial freighters for troop transport is not unusual.

Designing, building and maintaining ships specific to a task such as troop transport would be more expensive than leasing them as required.

During the Falklands War a good number of ships were ships taken up from trade, so called STUFT.

The British Army does however keep a number of vessels which are designed for use as tank and heavy weapon transport but these are much fewer in number and again they offer a cost benefit as leasing a merchant ship, and then cutting shipping routes into the hull and inside the ship itself would be prohibitively expensive.

About 8 years before the Falklands War the MOD decided that as a cost cutting exercise the blue naval working rig, called No.8's, and the overalls that were made of pure cotton would be replaced by a material that contained a high percentage of synthetic fibre.

During the war a good number of surface ships were hit and set on fire, the flash burns were made worse as the synthetic fibres melted into peoples skins. Another cock up by MOD bean counters.

Boots issued to the marines and army were the so called 'boot DMS', Boot direct moulded sole. These were of poor quality and led to many cases of trenchfoot in the boggy conditions. Some defence contractor was making money and probably providing funds to one of the political parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:11 PM

Wulf..well..interesting you mentioned that...alot of our equipt. is transported by Canadian NAtional Railway..yep..Gov't owned and operated..the ships used when sent across the Atlantic are owned by the Irving Family which is very strong in tied with the powering Gov't. The Irvings also own 3 of the ports used and owns rights to one ofthe major rail lines used once the equip. gets to Atlantic Canada. Definately not the cheapest option..but...back scratching works. The Irvings flew Martin and afew colligues to the Atlantic region and wined and dined them so well that the Opposition complained about it when wind got out about the trip...go figure...

Bruce...on the other hand...Martin is "on business" in France today apparently...busy guy, dont ya know!..;)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:31 PM

RB: Zip as yet. I will re-send tomorrow. Have sent twice so far. Saturday, I will send to the opposition. Maybe it can be addressed in the House. Have to see. Hurry up and wait--but we have both been there and done that. Hope you're well.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:04 PM

RB - I won't say I'm surprised. Maybe someone's got shares in (or is after a complementary directorship of) one of the carriers. But I'll stubbornly persist in asking my question - what's the cheapest option?

Commercial carriers will always rip you off, it's their business. Buy the ships & you have to maintain them even when you've no real use for them (which, in this scenario, must be often). Buy the carriage when you need it, air is waaaaaay faster than sea, & there are any number of reasons why the US might reasonably be more accomadating than businessmen. Surely it's got to be more cost effective than the alternatives. Or have your politicians got their heads stuffed up thei....

Ah! That's the point isn't it? I forgot for a moment that it's pollys making the decisions. Silly me! Forget I asked... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:41 PM

Wulfie...Canada continues to transport troops and equipment via commercial freight. Trains from central Canada to the Port Cities and then freighters across the pond...yep..expensive..yep we get ripped off....good deals for everyone..haha..

Definately a "Byer Beware" situation all. I still just sit and shake my head...makes no sense still..no matter hwo they twist it or who they point the finger at...

Bruce...still no word from Martin I am assuming?

Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:26 PM

Shang - Neither I nor Obie suggested using using subs to move troops & equipment. Obie was complaining that surface transport was more important than subs. I queried whether hiring air transport (given the capacity of military air transport these days) would not be more cost effective in the long run than buying troopships.

Obie - I'm still puzzled. Peacekeeping troops don't normally take in ultra-heavy equipment i.e. MBT's & heavy artillery. Anything short of an MBT certainly fits inside the likes of a Lockheed Galaxy, & surely the US would jump at the PR of transporting peace keeping troops, alongside the more muted PR of not ripping off their 'brothers', the Canucks, the way a commercial carrier (sea or otherwise) would...

I've got no figures, mind, I'm just going on gut instinct here. Either why, my sympathies still lie with the unfortunate Lt Saunders! :(

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:38 PM

The 'ultimate' cheapskate that OKed these subs was the Canadian people.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:31 PM

Surely they needed some sort of certificate of sea worthiness? The buyer would be responsible for that. Looks like the 'Buyer Beware' addage has a reason.

Sounds an awful way to die. Sympathies to the family and big shame on the cheap skate who ok'd these subs.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:22 AM

The ONLY bit of credit I can give to Bill Graham is he's technically only flushing someone else's shite down the drain. I think this Sub contract was Mr. Eggleton's work, wasn't it?...I'm sure he was Minister when the contract started....Yet another great idea..with our National state at the top of his priority of course!!

I dont think Martin went to the Funeral. He was in Halifax when Lt.(N)Saunder came home but he was in Europe meeting with Russians and Hungarians yesterday....Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:18 PM

Sold (good Lords forbidding) to the Irish

They probably would have reached a score, ten-fold.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM

Seems they have taken the other subs out of commission and are now wondering if the Brits did, in fact, f*** us around. I tend to think our Minister of Defense is just stupid. Paul Martin, however, is a business man and I think he will investigate this tragedy quite thoroughly. I don't think he will take it kindly, if we were sold junk.

To Martin's credit - at least he showed up for the funeral. How many funerals has Bush attended?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 12:49 PM

hey Bruce, maybe Paul is wearing a costume and marching with hte Strikers..haha.....Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:29 AM

Well, it's 10:30 AM in Ottawa and I ain't heard jack-shit from my Prime Minister. I am thinking maybe his office has a few other letters to deal with, huh? Later.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:45 AM

Sorry for the length.

"During the summer of 1942 Admiral Nimitz decided to employ Carlson's battalion ["Marine Raiders"] for its designated purpose. Planners selected Makin Atoll in the Gilbert Islands as the target. They made available two large mine-laying submarines, the Nautilus and the Argonaut. Each one could carry a company of raiders. The force would make a predawn landing on Butaritari Island, destroy the garrison (estimated at 45 men), withdraw that evening, and land the next day on Little Makin Island. The scheduled D-day was 17 August, 10 days after the lst Marine Division and the lst Raiders assaulted the lower Solomons. The objectives of the operation were diverse: to destroy installations, take prisoners, gain intelligence on the area, and divert Japanese attention and reinforcements from Guadalcanal and Tulagi. Companies A and B drew the mission and boarded the submarines on 8 August. Once in the objective area, things began to go badly. The subs surfaced in heavy rain and high seas. Due to the poor conditions, Carlson altered his plan at the last minute. Instead of each company landing on widely separated beaches, they would go ashore together. Lieutenant Oscar F. Peatross, a platoon commander, did not get the word; he and the squad in his boat ended up landing alone in what became the enemy rear. The main body reached shore in some confusion due to engine malfunctions and weather, then the accidental discharge of a weapon ruined any hope of surprise.

First Lieutenant Merwyn C. Plumley's Company A quickly crossed the narrow island and turned southwest toward the known enemy positions. Company B, commanded by Captain Ralph H. Coyt, followed in trace as the reserve. Soon thereafter the raiders were engaged in a firefight with the Japanese. Sergeant Clyde Thomason died in this initial action while courageously exposing himself in order to direct the fire of his platoon. He later was awarded the Medal of Honor, the first enlisted Marine so decorated in World War II. The raiders made little headway against Japanese machine guns and snipers. Then the enemy launched two banzai attacks, each announced with a bugle call. Marine fire easily dispatched both groups of charging enemy soldiers. Unbeknownst to the Americans, they had nearly wipeout the Japanese garrison at that point in the battle.

At 1130 two enemy aircraft appeared over the island and scouted the scene of action. Carlson had trained his men to remain motionless and not fire at planes. With no troops in sight and no contact from their own ground force, the planes finally dropped their bombs, though none landed within Marine lines. Two hours later 12 planes arrived on the scene, several of them seaplanes. Two of the larger flying boats landed in the lagoon. Raider machine guns and Boys antitank rifles fired at them. One burst into flame and the other crashed on takeoff after receiving numerous hits. The remaining aircraft bombed and strafed the island for an hour, again with most of the ordnance hitting enemy-occupied territory.   Another air attack came late in the afternoon.

The natives on the island willingly assisted the Americans throughout the day. They carried ammunition and provided intelligence. The latter reports suggested that enemy reinforcements had come ashore from the seaplanes and from two small ships in the lagoon. (The submarines later took the boats under indirect fire with their deck guns and miraculously sunk both.) Based on this information, Carlson was certain there was still a sizable Japanese force on the island. At 1700 he called several individuals together and contemplated his options. Roosevelt and the battalion operations officer argued for a withdrawal as planned in preparation for the next day's landing on Little Makin. Concerned that he might become too heavily engaged if he tried to advance, Carlson decided to follow their recommendation.

This part of the operation went smoothly for a time. The force broke contact in good order and a group of 20 men covered the rest of the raiders as they readied their rubber boats and shoved off. Carlson, however, forgot about the covering force and thought his craft contained the last men on the island when it entered the water at 1930. Disaster then struck in the form of heavy surf. The outboard engines did not work and the men soon grew exhausted trying to paddle against the breakers. Boats capsized and equipment disappeared. After repeated attempts several boat-loads made it to the rendezvous with the submarines, but Carlson and 120 men ended up stranded on the shore. Only the covering force and a handful of others had weapons. In the middle of the night a small Japanese patrol approached the perimeter. They wounded a sentry, but not before he killed three of them.

With the enemy apparently still full of fight and his raiders disorganized and weakened, Carlson called another council of war. Without much input from the others, he decided to surrender. His stated reasons were concern for the wounded, and for the possible fate of the president's son (who was not present at the meeting). At 0330 Carlson sent his operations officer and another Marine out to contact the enemy. They found one Japanese soldier and eventually succeeded in giving him a note offering surrender. Carlson also authorized every man to fend for himself -those who wished could make another attempt to reach the submarines. By the next morning several more boatloads made it through the surf, including one with Major Roosevelt.   In the meantime, a few exploring raiders killed several Japanese, one of them probably the man with the surrender note.

With dawn the situation appeared dramatically better. The two-man surrender party reported that there appeared to be no organized enemy force left on the island. There were about 70 raiders still ashore, and the able-bodied armed themselves with weapons lying about the battlefield. Carlson organized patrols to search for food and the enemy. They killed two more Japanese soldiers and confirmed the lack of opposition. The raider commander himself led a patrol to survey the scene and carry out the demolition of military stores and installations. He counted 83 dead Japanese and 14 of his own killed in action. Based on native reports, Carlson thought his force had accounted for more than 160 Japanese. Enemy aircraft made four separate attack during the day, but they inflicted no losses on the raider force ashore.

The Marines contacted the submarines during the day and arranged an evening rendezvous off the entrance to the lagoon, where there was no surf to hinder an evacuation. The men hauled four rubber boats across the island and arranged for the use of a native outrigger. By 2300 the remainder of the landing force was back on board the Nautilus and Argonaut. Since the entire withdrawal had been so disorganized, the two companies were intermingled on the submarines and it was not until they returned to Pearl Harbor that they could make an accurate accounting of their losses. The official tally was 18 dead and 12 missing.

Only after the war would the Marine Corps discover that nine of the missing raiders had been left alive on the island. These men had become separated from the main body at one point or another during the operation. With the assistance of the natives the group evaded capture for a time, but finally surrendered on 30 August. A few weeks later the Japanese beheaded them on the island of Kwajalein.

The raid itself had mixed results. Reports painted it as a great victory and it boosted morale on the home front. Many believed it achieved its original goal of diverting forces from Guadalcanal, but the Japanese had immediately guessed the size and purpose of the operation and had not let it alter their plans for the Solomons. However, it did cause the enemy to worry about the potential for other such raids on rear area installations. On the negative side, that threat may have played a part in the subsequent Japanese decision to fortify heavily places like Tarawa Atoll, the scene of a costly amphibious assault later in the war . At the tactical level, the 2d Raiders had proven themselves in direct combat with the enemy. Their greatest difficulties had involved rough seas and poor equipment; bravery could not fix those limitations. Despite the trumpeted success of the operation, the Navy never again attempted to use submarines to conduct raids behind enemy lines."

The Navy currently used subs to infiltrate SEALS and other special operations units.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:43 AM

I never suggested that troops be carried in subs. My point was that troop carriers should have been purchased by the navy instead of subs.
Yes, we can move troops faster by air, and we do that. The trouble is that they arrive at the destination without the equipment that they need. In the past military equipment shipped in private bottoms has been held hostage while international companies fight over shipping rates.
Canada's place in the world since WW2 has been as a peacekeeper in the worlds hotspots. In this we operate, not unilaterally, but under the U.N. Canadians take great pride in their "blue berets". It is to move them and their equipment that these ships are needed. The other great task that we ask of our navy and air force is search and rescue. If they are to put their life on the line to save others they should have the finest equipment available.
Canada considers itself a nation of peace and subs are for the most part a weapon of offense. We have no great desire to sink enemy shipping or to sneak undetected into the waters of other nations, or to launch missles at another nation.
Under NATO our navy has undertaken a sub detection role and the main purpose of these boats is to play the fox in the hunt, for training. I am not saying that this is not important to do, but to put a priority on limited resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 04:52 AM

Perhaps a song from a well known ex-submariner would be appropriate here - Diesel & Shale - Cyril Tawney.

Sadly of course, Six Feet of Mud would also be appropriate.