• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

test please delete

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Notes

    1. ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 306–7.
    2. ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 100–101
    3. ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 100.
    4. ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 121. Breakdown of Allied deaths by ship: Quincy-389, Vincennes-342, Astoria-235, Canberra-85, Ralph Talbot-14, Patterson-10, and Chicago-2. Although Jarvis was sunk later on August 9 with the loss of her entire crew of 233, this loss is usually considered a separate action from the battle. Chicago was under repair until January, 1943. Ralph Talbot was under repair in the U.S. until November, 1942. Patterson was repaired locally.
    5. ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 117. Breakdown of Japanese deaths by ship: Chōkai-34, Tenryū-23, and Kinugasa-1. Although Kako was sunk the next day (August 10) before reaching home port at Kavieng with 71 personnel killed, this loss is usually considered a separate action from the battle. All of the other damage to the Japanese cruisers was repaired locally.
    6. ^ Hogue, Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal, p. 235-236.
    7. ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 14.
    8. ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 621–24.
    9. ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, pp. 14–15.
    10. ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 90–103.
    11. ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 80.
    12. ^ Hammel, Carrier Clash, p. 99.
    13. ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 104–5; Frank Guadalcanal p. 94; and Morison Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 28.
    14. ^ Lundstrom, Black Shoe Carrier Admiral, p. 368-385.
    15. ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 59
    16. ^ Newcomb, The Battle of Savo Island p. 13. The Eighth Fleet was also known as the Outer South Seas Force and included Cruiser Divisions 6 and 18.
    17. ^ Dull, Imperial Japanese Navy, pp. 193–94. After the two transports were recalled, one of them, Meiyo Maru, was sunk near Cape St. George, Bougainville at 21:25 on August 8 by S-38 with the loss of 373 personnel. This loss is usually regarded as a separate action from the Battle of Savo Island.
    18. ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 43–44. Japanese night battle preparations included the use of lookouts intensively trained for night operations, specially designed optical devices for nighttime observation, the long-range Type 93 torpedo, use of battleship and cruiser-carried floatplanes to drop flares, and frequent and realistic fleet night training exercises.
    19. ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 19
    20. ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 126.
    ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

    Comment


      #
      # ^ Toland, John, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, Random House, 1970, p. 355
      # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 88. The floatplanes launched by Mikawa included three Aichi E13A "Jakes" and one Kawanishi E7K2 ``Alf``. One Jake was shot down by aircraft from USS Wasp, and its crew was killed. (Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 129).
      # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 139–50. The misidentification of two of Mikawa's cruisers as seaplane tenders by the first Hudson may have been because of the wide dispersal of the Japanese warships; also, the Hudson's crew sighted a floatplane returning. The first Hudson's report was not received by radio because the Fall River station was shut down at that time for an air raid alert. When the second Hudson tried to radio its sighting of Mikawa's force, Fall River refused to receive the report and rebuked the Hudson's crew for breaking radio silence. Loxton calls the claims by Morison, Dull, Richard Newcomb, and other historians that the first Hudson crew made no attempt to radio their sighting report, routinely and leisurely completed their patrol, and then "had tea" before submitting their report at Milne Bay an "outrageous rumor" and "calumny" that is at odds with what he found in his research.
      # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 20.
      # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 89–92.
      # ^ Dull, Imperial Japanese Navy, p. 195.
      # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 99.
      # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 80–81.
      # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 32
      # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 96–97.
      # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 165–66.
      # ^ Dull, Imperial Japanese Navy, p. 197. Dull says the time was 00:44, Loxton 00:53 (Shame of Savo, p. 171), Morison 00:54 (Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 35), and Frank says 00:50 (Guadalcanal, p. 103).
      # ^ a b Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 36.
      # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 103.
      # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 171.
      # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 103. Morison claims that Blue later sighted a "Japanese auxiliary schooner" in that same area but gives no supporting evidence for why he or Blue believed that the schooner was of Japanese nationality (Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 55). Loxton states that Blue found the schooner to be "harmless" (Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 216).
      # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 171–73.
      # ^ Dull, Imperial Japanese Navy, p. 197.
      # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 103–4.
      # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 176–77.
      ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

      Comment


        # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 178.
        # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, pp. 36–37.
        # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 104.
        # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 179–80.
        # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 206–7.
        # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 37.
        # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 180–84.
        # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 105. Frank doesn't believe that Japanese torpedoes hit Canberra and doesn't discuss the possibility that Allied torpedoes hit the ship.
        # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 185–205. Loxton firmly believes that Canberra was hit by a torpedo from Bagley, citing survivor accounts, ship's records, and damage assessments. Morison (Struggle for Guadalcanal, pp. 37–38.) states that Canberra was hit by two torpedoes on the starboard side but believes they were of Japanese origin.
        # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 39.
        # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 213.
        # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 105–6.
        # ^ a b Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 107.
        # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 207.
        # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, pp. 38–39.
        # ^ Dull, Imperial Japanese Navy, p. 199. Chicago's crew witnessed the gun battle between Jarvis and Yunagi (Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 208).
        # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 208.
        # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 107–8.
        # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, pp. 40–47.
        # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 217–21.
        ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

        Comment


          # Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, pp. 41–44. Astoria's captain's exact words upon arriving on the bridge were, "Topper, I think we are firing on our own ships. Let's not get excited and act too hasty! Cease firing!" Astoria's gunnery officer replied to this command with, "For God's sake give the word to commence firing!" The captain, after witnessing Chōkai's fourth salvo straddle his ship, declared, "Whether our ships or not, we will have to stop them. Commence firing!" (Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 226–27.)
          # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 231.
          # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 111–13.
          # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 47.
          # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 225–28.
          # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 114.
          # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, pp. 50–51.
          # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 115.
          # ^ Dull, Imperial Japanese Navy, p. 201.
          # ^ Toland, John, ibid, p. 362
          # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 237–39.
          # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 53.
          # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 117–18.
          # ^ Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, pp. 57–59.
          # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, pp. 250–53. Jarvis shot down two of the attacking Japanese aircraft, whose crews weren't recovered.
          # ^ Dull, Imperial Japanese Navy, p. 203.
          # ^ Murray, War to be Won, pp. 211–15.
          # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 121.
          # ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 122.
          # ^ Shanks, Sandy, The Bode Testament: Author's Interview, [1] and Hackett, CombinedFleet.com.
          # ^ Loxton, Shame of Savo, p. 267.
          # ^ a b Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 123.
          ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

          Comment


            References

            * D'Albas, Andrieu (1965). Death of a Navy: Japanese Naval Action in World War II. Devin-Adair Pub. ISBN 0-8159-5302-X.
            * Dull, Paul S. (1978). A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-097-1.
            * Frank, Richard B. (1990). Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle. New York: Penguin Group. ISBN 0-14-016561-4.
            * Hammel, Eric (1999). Carrier Clash: The Invasion of Guadalcanal & The Battle of the Eastern Solomons August 1942. St. Paul, MN, USA: Zenith Press. ISBN 0-7603-2052-7. Book review:[2]; online views of selections of the book:[3]
            * Kilpatrick, C. W. (1987). Naval Night Battles of the Solomons. Exposition Press. ISBN 0-682-40333-4.
            * Lacroix, Eric; Linton Wells (1997). Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-311-3.
            * Loxton, Bruce; Chris Coulthard-Clark (1997). The Shame of Savo: Anatomy of a Naval Disaster. Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd. ISBN 1-86448-286-9.
            * Lundstrom, John B. (2006). Black Shoe Carrier Admiral: Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal. Annapolis:: Naval Institute Press. SBN 1-59114-475-2.
            * Morison, Samuel Eliot (1958). The Struggle for Guadalcanal, August 1942 – February 1943, vol. 5 of History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0-316-58305-7.
            * Murray, Williamson; Allan R. Millett (2001). A War To Be Won: Fighting the Second World War. United States of America: Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-00680-1.
            * Newcomb, Richard F. (1961 (Reissue 2002)). The Battle of Savo Island: The Harrowing Account of the Disastrous Night Battle Off Guadalcanal that Nearly Destroyed the Pacific Fleet in August 1942. New York: Owl Books. ISBN 0-8050-7072-9.
            * Warner, Denis Ashton; Peggy Warner & Sadao Senoo (1992). Disaster in the Pacific: New Light on the Battle of Savo Island. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-256-7.
            ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

            Comment


              Schmalkaldic War

              The Schmalkaldic War (German: Schmalkaldischer Krieg) refers to the short period of violence from 1546 until 1547 between the forces of Charles V and the Schmalkaldic League within the domains of the Holy Roman Empire.

              The war began when Maurice, the Duke (and later, Elector) of Albertine Saxony, invaded the lands of his rival in Ernestine Saxony, John Frederick, for political reasons (both rulers were protestant). As John Frederick was co-founder of the Schmalkaldic League, his allies joined him in a fight against the Catholics, including Charles V, who sided with Maurice.

              John Frederick quickly liberated Ernestine Saxony with his army, in Württemberg at the time. He then proceeded to occupy Albertine Saxony and Bohemia. Because the protestants of Bohemia did not provide military assistance, as he had hoped for, the imperial forces of Charles V forced him into retreat. Due to disagreement in strategy, the League's defenses were routed on April 24th, 1547, at the Battle of Mühlberg, where John Frederick was taken prisoner. After the battle, which determined the result of the war, only two cities continued to resist: Bremen and Magdeburg. Both cities refused to pay the fines Charles imposed on them while avoiding takeover. This eventually led to the Battle of Drakenburg on May 23, 1547.

              Although the imperial forces were victorious over the protestant forces of the Schmalkaldic League, the ideas of Martin Luther had spread over the empire such that they could not be suppressed with physical force. Official religious settlement arrived 8 years later in the form of the Peace of Augsburg.
              ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

              Comment


                Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica

                The Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Latin: "mathematical principles of natural philosophy", often Principia or Principia Mathematica for short) is a three-volume work by Isaac Newton published on July 5, 1687. It contains the statement of Newton's laws of motion forming the foundation of classical mechanics as well as his law of universal gravitation. He derives Kepler's laws for the motion of the planets (which were first obtained empirically).

                In formulating his physical theories, Newton had developed a field of mathematics known as calculus. However, the language of calculus was largely left out of the Principia. Instead, Newton recast the majority of his proofs as geometric arguments.

                It is in the Principia that Newton expressed his famous Hypotheses non fingo ("I feign no hypotheses").
                ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

                Comment


                  The beginnings of the scientific revolution

                  Nicolaus Copernicus had firmly moved the Earth away from the centre of the universe with the heliocentric theory for which he presented evidence in his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the revolutions of the heavenly spheres) published in 1543. The structure was completed when Johannes Kepler wrote the book Astronomia nova (A new astronomy) in 1609, setting out the evidence that planets move in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus, and that planets do not move with constant speed along this orbit. Rather, their speed varies so that the line joining the centres of the sun and a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. To these two laws he added a third a decade later, in his otherwise forgettable book Harmonices Mundi (Harmonies of the world). This law sets out a proportionality between the third power of the characteristic distance of a planet from the sun and the square of the length of its year.

                  The foundations of modern dynamics was set out in Galileo's book Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Dialogue on the two main world systems) where the notion of inertia was implicit and used. In addition, Galileo's experiments with inclined planes had yielded precise mathematical relations between elapsed time and acceleration, velocity or distance for uniform and uniformly accelerated motion of bodies.

                  Descartes' book of 1644 Principia philosophiae (Principles of philosophy) stated that bodies can act on each other only through contact: a principle that induced people, among them himself, to hypothesize a universal medium as the carrier of interactions such as light and gravity—the aether. Another mistake was his treatment of circular motion, but this was more fruitful in that it led others to identify circular motion as a problem raised by the principle of inertia. Christiaan Huygens solved this problem in the 1650s and published it much later.
                  ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

                  Comment


                    Newton's role

                    Newton had studied these books, or, in some cases, secondary sources based on them, and taken notes entitled Quaestiones quaedam philosophicae (Questions about philosophy) during his days as an undergraduate. During this period (1664–1666) he created the basis of calculus, and performed the first experiments in the optics of colour. In addition he took two crucial steps in dynamics: first, in the course of an analysis of the impact between two bodies, he deduced correctly that the centre of mass remains in uniform motion; second, he made his first, but mistaken, analysis of circular motion assuming that there must exist a (repulsive) centrifugal force. At this time, the central notion of inertia still remained outside his understanding. He summarized this work in a note that he called "The lawes of Motion" (preserved in the Cambridge University Library as the Additional MS 3958).

                    Over the following years, he published his experiments on light and the resulting theory of colours, to overwhelmingly favourable response, and a few inevitable scientific disputes with Robert Hooke and others, which forced him to sharpen his ideas to the point where he composed sections of his later book Opticks already by the 1670s. He wrote up bits and pieces of the calculus in various papers and letters, including two to Leibniz. He became a fellow of the Royal Society and the second Lucasian Professor of Mathematics (succeeding Isaac Barrow) at Trinity College, Cambridge.

                    In the plague year of 1665, Newton had already experienced the famous revelation under an apple tree in Woolesthorpe, which led him to conclude that the strength of gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance, by substituting Kepler's third law into his derivation of the centrifugal force (muddled as it was through his misunderstanding of the nature of circular motion in The lawes of motion).

                    Hooke, in 1674, wrote Newton a letter (later published in 1679 in his book Lectiones Cutlerianes) through which Newton first understood of the role of inertia in the problem of circular motion— that the tendency of a body is to fly off in a straight line, and that an attractive force must keep it moving in a circle. In reply Newton drew (and described) a fancied trajectory of a body, initially with only tangential velocity, falling towards a centre of attraction in a spiral. Hooke noted this error and corrected it, saying that with an inverse square force law the correct path would be an ellipse, and made the exchange public by reading both Newton's letter and his correction to the Royal Society in 1676. Newton tried a rearguard action by giving the orbits in various other kinds of central potentials in another letter to Hooke, thus showing his mastery over the method. In 1677, in a conversation with Christopher Wren, Newton realized that Wren had also arrived at the inverse square law by exactly the same method as he.
                    ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

                    Comment


                      Reflections on what can be deduced from common sense about aspects of circular motion brought him to his concept of "absolute space". In the Principia Newton presents the example of a rotating bucket to show that in everyday life it can readily be discerned that in a rotating motion another factor besides the motion relative to other objects is involved.

                      Newton had still not completed all the steps in the construction of the Principia by 1681, when a comet was observed to turn around the sun. The astronomer royal, John Flamsteed, recognised the motion as such, whereas most scientists believed that there were two comets, one that disappeared behind the sun, and another that appeared later from the same direction. The correspondence between Flamsteed and Newton showed that the latter had not appreciated the universality of the law of gravity.

                      This was the state of affairs when Edmund Halley visited Newton in Cambridge in August 1684, having rediscovered the inverse-square law by substituting Kepler's law into Huygens' formula for the centrifugal force. In January of that year, Halley, Wren and Hooke had a conversation where Hooke claimed to not only have derived the inverse-square law, but also all the laws of planetary motion. Wren was unconvinced, and Halley, having failed in the derivation himself, resolved to ask Newton. Newton said that he had already made the derivations but could not find the papers. Matching accounts of this meeting come from Halley and Abraham De Moivre to whom Newton confided.
                      ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X