Atomic Bombs and Bombers

Atomic Bombs and Bombers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

el cid again -> Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/1/2012 11:34:26 PM)
I have a request for a Downfall Scenario. That will take a long time - even if I attempt it - but I expect Series Six tests may last into the end game period - so why not set it up by looking at the wmd situation - at least in part? Two players in other mods who reached 1945 report (a) atomic bombs didn't work at all or (b) they worked but did little damage to the target. Another player - about to start test six A as Japan - wanted a Japanese atomic bomb option. He also wanted cw and bw. Now we have the Uji bw bomb already - and planes to deliver it - modeling Gen Ichii's Unit 731 Air Unit (JAAF refused to do his dirty work). But I am ignoring cw and bw on both sides otherwise for now - pending a better sense of how Uji works. The US and UK had substantial cw capability, and the US Army intended to use it on Japan for Olympic and Coronet (along with no less than 12 atom bombs). I think we can devise atomic bombs that are not atomic bombs in code terms. If the existing atomic bomb code is problematical - and not very effective even when it works - then it may be regular bombs will produce a reliable solution which, even if not as great in impact on everything in a target hex as a real atom bomb - at least are real nasty things. I think we can better model the real weapons and bombers than has been done by stock - significantly so. Another problem is that only 12 B-29s were made of the peculiar "Silverplate" version for atomic weapons and these had three different loadouts. Yet the 393rd Bomb Squadron has a strength of 15 machines. So I decided to revise its size to 12 - and to create two detachments - such that you get all three weapons loads. These include: B-29B Superfort UB = Uranium Bomb for Little Boy in the "main" squadron - with a strength of 2 of 12 planes B-29B Superfort IB = Implosion Bomb for Fat Man in the 1st detachment - with a strength of 4 of 4 planes B-29B Superfort PB = Pumpkin Bomb for the conventional HE form of Fat Man in the 2nd detachment - with a strength of 6 of 6 planes. The three variants produce at a rate of 1 UB, 2 IB and 3 PB per month from May, 1945 (when Silverplane planes began to be delivered). The weapons for them produce at a rate of 1 UB (from July), 2 IB (from August) and 10 PB (from June). These weapons weight 9,000 pounds (for UB) or 10,000 pounds (for IB and PB). Precise values are classified - but these are close and far better than the 20,000 pounds of stock. These bombers can fly with that load to what is normally extended range - so I redefined that as normal range - and gave them a much greater range with no bomb - for recon missions. All three planes are unarmed in defensive terms - because all Silverplate bombers had no guns. For weapons values - I used a variation of the RHS device definitions. I classified the Pumpkin Bomb as having the effect of a 6300 pound HE bomb - since it is filled with 6300 pounds of explosives - the rest of the weight being intended to simulate the Fat Man. In RHS that is a fairly impressive bomb in its own right - but nothing like an atom bomb. The soft effect is square root of 6300 times four (317) - the same function we use for other HE bombs. Accuracy is 10 - an RHS convention for conventional bombs (which do not vary much in hit probability - never mind the impression you might get from stock data). Penetration and anti-armor value is 58 - this isn't an anti-armor weapon and it is assumed to do its damage by blast at some distance from an actual hard target. The "atom bombs" are different. They have accuracy = 99 (up from 90 for stock) - it isn't that hard to hit with an atom bomb! They have a dud rate of 10% for uranium bombs (less complex, we felt it did not need testing) and 20% for plutonium bombs (more complex, we felt it needed testing). They have values US IB anti soft 6481 anti-armor 648 dud rate 20 production 2 from 8/45 weight 10000 Jap UB anti soft 4472 anti-armor 447 dud rate 10 production 1 from 8/45 weight 9000 US UB anti soft 5196 anti-armor 520 dud rate 10 production 1 from 7/45 weight 9000 The anti-soft value is square root of estimated yield in tons times 2000 - to put it on the standard RHS scale for HE. The anti-armor value is 10% of the anti-soft value. Effect = anti-soft value for atom bombs. A special version of the G8N can carry the Japanese bomb - provided of course it actually is produced. The US is guaranteed to get the silverplate B-29s - it is hard wired. Japan isn't guaranteed to get G8Ns - it depends on development - availability of engines - and actual production by an aircraft factory - all of which might fail. Another dimension of the matter is political and code. I defined the US Uranium Bomb in the existing atomic bomb slot. I left the 393rd Bomb Squadron in its slot (merely attaching planes to it in detachments 1 and 2 - resizing it to 12 planes - and assigning it the B-29B Superfort UB). This results in the peculiar situation that the main "squadron" has only 2 planes at full strength, but its detachments are both larger - at 4 and 6 respectively. The detachments get bombs defined in the additional air devices range - and with no special relationship to code. The UB production rate of 1 is identical to the stock atom bomb. IF stock bombs work - THEN the 393rd BS will work as defined by the manual - and ALSO you will get political penalties for their use. But use of Implosion bombs - or Japanese Uranium bombs - will NOT have any political effects. This is in part so we can test the existing code system - to see how often games have a situation as reported - no atom bomb actually worked? We might move the US uranium bomb somewhere else if it doesn't work at all. But with the US implosion bomb there is a hedge - we have another device that may work - sort of as IRL - more than one technology on the table.

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/1/2012 11:51:25 PM)
FYI there is fairly compelling evidence (albiet politically incorrect evidence strongly opposed by many, and officially repressed in Japan) that Japan had a fully developed uranium gun bomb. The design was described by three Manhattan Project scientists as "just like ours" - not too surprising given that Japan had successfully penetrated the University of California and Los Alamos - and likely had most of the information needed. Since Japan didn't have a source of plutonium, it didn't attempt a plutonium gun (like we did - Tall Man was our design; and like Germany did - its design surfaced in 2010; neither could work properly - but likely would have fizzled - yielding about 54 tons - which isn't nothing). There is less compelling but substantial evidence for a Japanese test (not dropped by bomber) in August, 1945 - from US Army intelligence. [However, the tested device either was a fizzile or not an atom bomb per se - the yield was small - so it might have been a radiological bomb. Japanese radiological bombs were discovered in 1950 in Korea by US Marines - and documentation supporting their design has surfaced since. RW bombs are more like bw or cw weapons - suffering from the same limitations - to which add they are radioactive - go figure! - and hurt people and things stored near them - so don't keep well once charged] Circumstantial evidence such weapons were contemplated exists in bomber programs to deliver them - notably the G8N - the G10N and the Ki-91. Finally - there is strong evidence for a working Japanese reactor project at Konan (Hungnam) Korea - compelling really insofar as it was operated by the Russians until 1948. It was associated with research for a propulsion plant and used as well to generate rw materials for rw bomb research - at least by the Russians - and probably by Japan. It was NOT used to make plutonium for bombs. The Japanese ONLY worked with uranium bomb designs - which are far simpler. The final evidence is in the form of briefings to the PM of Japan at every stage of US bomb development: the briefs were always timely and accurate. Seems it wasn't just the Russians who penetrated the Manhattan Project. [Germany had less success, but some. It got into Oak Ridge and got information related to uranium research and plans for a small heavy water plant.] In the 1990s I worked with authors and academics on both Axis atomic research projects. Unlike in the US - they failed to unify their research. Even so - the Japanese research was amazing - a kind of race we didn't know we were in - until 1945 - when a surrendered German submarine with cargo for Japan related to atomic research caused Gen Groves to realize they were in the game. The Japanese took a simpler road and their actual bomb design - at least its blueprints - was significantly more weaponized than Little Boy. That is, it was simpler, and possibly more reliable. [Uranium bombs are all pretty reliable - so that may not be a meaningful statement; the timing problems are far less severe - and the geometry problems vastly less - than with an implosion device. It was known that timing was a problem with the IB - so we didn't cut down the AA gun inside - trying to get more acceleration = higher speed = faster assembly. But it wasn't fast enough. The full sized gun meant a longer bomb - hence Tall Boy. The German idea was similar - but flawed in other ways - and may have lacked an initiator - so the yield might have been much lower even if it didn't fizzile. An initiator insures the first generation is more than one or two neutrons; you only get so many generations of chain reaction, so the bigger you start - the bigger the final yield is] Japan had five different atomic research programs at different points. The first one pre dates the US Manhattan Project, although not USN Uranium research - and had the same goal as USN: a propulsion plant. The formal Navy Park meeting findings - which are published in many places including The Making of the Atomic Bomb - called for a plant to run "factories" or "battleships."

YankeeAirRat -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 11:10:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again FYI there is fairly compelling evidence (albiet politically incorrect evidence strongly opposed by many, and officially repressed in Japan) that Japan had a fully developed uranium gun bomb. The design was described by three Manhattan Project scientists as "just like ours" - not too surprising given that Japan had successfully penetrated the University of California and Los Alamos - and likely had most of the information needed. Since Japan didn't have a source of plutonium, it didn't attempt a plutonium gun (like we did - Tall Man was our design; and like Germany did - its design surfaced in 2010; neither could work properly - but likely would have fizzled - yielding about 54 tons - which isn't nothing). There is less compelling but substantial evidence for a Japanese test (not dropped by bomber) in August, 1945 - from US Army intelligence. [However, the tested device either was a fizzile or not an atom bomb per se - the yield was small - so it might have been a radiological bomb. Japanese radiological bombs were discovered in 1950 in Korea by US Marines - and documentation supporting their design has surfaced since. RW bombs are more like bw or cw weapons - suffering from the same limitations - to which add they are radioactive - go figure! - and hurt people and things stored near them - so don't keep well once charged] Circumstantial evidence such weapons were contemplated exists in bomber programs to deliver them - notably the G8N - the G10N and the Ki-91. Finally - there is strong evidence for a working Japanese reactor project at Konan (Hungnam) Korea - compelling really insofar as it was operated by the Russians until 1948. It was associated with research for a propulsion plant and used as well to generate rw materials for rw bomb research - at least by the Russians - and probably by Japan. It was NOT used to make plutonium for bombs. The Japanese ONLY worked with uranium bomb designs - which are far simpler. The final evidence is in the form of briefings to the PM of Japan at every stage of US bomb development: the briefs were always timely and accurate. Seems it wasn't just the Russians who penetrated the Manhattan Project. [Germany had less success, but some. It got into Oak Ridge and got information related to uranium research and plans for a small heavy water plant.] In the 1990s I worked with authors and academics on both Axis atomic research projects. Unlike in the US - they failed to unify their research. Even so - the Japanese research was amazing - a kind of race we didn't know we were in - until 1945 - when a surrendered German submarine with cargo for Japan related to atomic research caused Gen Groves to realize they were in the game. The Japanese took a simpler road and their actual bomb design - at least its blueprints - was significantly more weaponized than Little Boy. That is, it was simpler, and possibly more reliable. [Uranium bombs are all pretty reliable - so that may not be a meaningful statement; the timing problems are far less severe - and the geometry problems vastly less - than with an implosion device. It was known that timing was a problem with the IB - so we didn't cut down the AA gun inside - trying to get more acceleration = higher speed = faster assembly. But it wasn't fast enough. The full sized gun meant a longer bomb - hence Tall Boy. The German idea was similar - but flawed in other ways - and may have lacked an initiator - so the yield might have been much lower even if it didn't fizzile. An initiator insures the first generation is more than one or two neutrons; you only get so many generations of chain reaction, so the bigger you start - the bigger the final yield is] Japan had five different atomic research programs at different points. The first one pre dates the US Manhattan Project, although not USN Uranium research - and had the same goal as USN: a propulsion plant. The formal Navy Park meeting findings - which are published in many places including The Making of the Atomic Bomb - called for a plant to run "factories" or "battleships." [image]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-gDgKFny6rSQ/T8m-uVkPImI/AAAAAAAAE5k/j3ZIOJU4wa0/s320/bullshitflag.jpg[/image] SHENNIGANS! I have enjoyed your wild conjuctures, logical leaps, and questionable research; however, this bit of horse puckey has pushed me from being amused to calling you out for being a bold-face liar! What are your sources for this list of horse puckey? False Hood #1: There is no evidence anywhere in either Navy Historical Records nor USMC History HQ records of US Marines discovery of Radiation weapons in the 1950's in Korea. The G-2 and S-2's of the 1st Marine Division and the rest of the US Marine Divisions assigned to X Corps during the Korean war were too busy trying to track the North Korea Army and later the Chinese People's Volunteer Army units as X Corps pushed north of out of Hungnam, after the Army had siezed the port earlier in the fall of 1950, towards the general UN drive Yalu. Prior to that from June of 1950 until the Inchon Landing the Marines were too busy being the buffer around the Pusan Pocket to even care or notice Radiological weapons left over from the time that the Japanese controlled the Korean Pennusila. False Hood #2: It wasn't until Operation Buster-Jangle in late 1951 (almost into 1952) that American military units and military intelligence units below Pentagon level that would have a chance to gain experience with nuclear warfare at the tactical level, all of which were part of the Desert Rock Exercises. Even then some of these tests were more along the lines of study so that BGen level officers and higher could experience and see what a "true" nuclear battlefield would look like. So to say that US Marines in 1950 would have recognized or even have had the tools or trained troops with in the normal TO&E to have understood what they stumbled in just screams BS. Let alone lets talk about how the area around Hungnam even five years later would have had a specific look to it if it had been exposed to a nuclear weapons test. People can travel to the Trinity site and see that the sands around the tower still has the glass look and texture to it. If you go to either Hiroshima or Nagaski even though the cities have risen above the devestation, in both of the peace parks one can find still the silohuttes "burned" into the concrete and some pock marks from the shrapnel caused by the winds. False Hood #3 The claim that the Japanese had a "fizzile" of a nuclear reaction while preforming a test came from a journalist named David Snell and he based that on the the supposed engagement and lost, which depending on the story with all or some portion of the crew of a B-29 named "Hog's Wild" or is it "Hawg's Wild" the name changes depending on which tin foil hat website you read. Snell wrote the story while still be assigned to the 24th Criminal Investigative Divison of the US Army; who were busy researching war crimes of the Japanese. The bomber in question was from the 20th AF out of Saipain and the official story is that it was on a humanitarin mission to drop supplies to POW's in the Hungnam camps. This B-29 was shot down by Soviet Air Force Yak-9s on the 29th of August, well after the official surrender decree was issued over the radio by the Emperor on the 14th of August and twenty days after the Soviets had invaded both Manchuria and the Korean Pennusila to gain as much as possible prior to a cease-fire agreement. This is where the tin-foil hatters get involved and can't keep thier damn stories straight. If the bomber in question was shot down on the 29th of August well after a cease-fire was ordered by the Emperor then how could a bunch of scientists, even rogue ones would have had the gall to violated the Emperor's word. Also considering that the Imperial Japanese Army transmitted in the clear from thier Tokyo HQ to the forces in China and Korea a surrender on the 19th of August, what gain would the IJA or even the IJN would have had to try and detonate a nuclear weapon well after the war was over? Also considering that men from the British Far East Armies (the lost men of Malay and Singapore) along with more then a few from China and Americans from the fight along the DEI were in thsoe POW camps being used as slave labor in the Korean Coal Mines. Yet, not a single damn one of them have ever remembered or announced seeing a nuclear detonation in the Hungnam area nor did any of them die from Radiation expsoure if they were even exposed to a critical event of a nuclear weapon "fizzle". False Hood #4 A working nuclear reactor in the Hungnam region of Korea never happened. It was never reported by either the Soviets nor UN overflight of the region during the war nor post war. The most that the Japanese were able to do there according to Richard Rhodes in his book on the history of developing a nuclear weapon, was that the Japanese never went down the physics of using "heavy water" as part of a nuclear weapon development. Instead even though the factory was built in 1926 it was primarly used to produce ammonia and ammonia nitrates for farming and military applications in 1926. So there never was nor any reliable evidence of a nuclear reactor that the Japanese had in Korea nor anyplace else within the Home Islands or any of the other captured lands. As to the Soviets running the place in the late 1940's, there is good evidence since they didn't have built yet in the immediate post war rebuilding period any heavy water production facilities and since the first Soviet bomb was detonated in 1949, that the Soviets used the heavy water factory there to supply thier own program until they built a heavy water factory within thier own borders to support Stalin's need for a nuclear weapon. False Hood #5 Operations Ni-Go and F-Go are the names from the official Imperial Japanese Goverment records on the development of nuclear weapons. Yet in all of the history of strategic weapons development from well respected and well trained historians/authors. All have stated that the the race was between the US, Nazis, and then in a fight for third and fourth was the Soviets and Japanese. The Japanese had some of the tech even with buyng a cycltron from Cal Berkley in 1939, but they couldn't wrap the science behind the seperation of the U-238 or even Plotium ions by any other method short of Thermal Diffusion. Thermal Diffusion is a complicated process that takes more energy and chemcials to produce anything useable. After starting the process in 1941 by Feburary of 1945 they science team had only produced about 11kilos of U-238 which wouldn't have sufficed for a weapon. Even with the tech transfers and some of the science papers from the German's the research labs in the center of Tokyo for the Japanese nuclear weapons projects were destroyed in the B-29 raids by the spring of 1945. F-Go wasn't able to get much further according to all reliable evidence then procuring some of the Heavy water and were independently trying to persue their own methods of Uranium enrichment at which even the end of the war wasn't able to get much further then some limited amount of Uranium. It isn't racist to admit it but even though they had some nuclear physics scientists on par with Bohr, Enstien, and the rest of the intial folks that lead to the Manhattan project; there is no evidence that the Japanese had the industrial base to support the development of the technology required for progress beyond inital labratory studies. False Hood #6As early as 1943 via MAGIC/ULTRA intercepts between the Japanese and the Germans did the Allied nations learn of both the attempts/progress of both the Germans and Japanese in Nuclear research. Not when the German U-boat pennet number U-234 which was captured shortly after Germany's surrender in 1945. The MAGIC intercepts talked of how the Japanese army was requesting assistance in procuring Uranium from the Germans to persue a Japanese nuclear weapon. So Allied intelligence knew almost 2 years before the tin foil hatters assume that the Japanese were conducting nuclear research. False Hood #7 Japanese Military Intelligence being able to penetrate University of California and Los Alamos research lab is utter BS. Los Alamos as a research site didn't exist until 1942 which when did the war start again? As to pentrating the research of U of Cal labs, considering that nuclear physics research was happening all over from M.I.T to Chicago to NYU to all up and down the UCal system it might be that the Japanese did have spies invovled in the research, but also considering that most nuclear physics research was theory only at the moment and most of it was crunching math to produce how to achieve a stable reaction of nuclear material. Even then after 1942 all nuclear research was consolidated at Los Alamos in a desolate portion of New Mexico and then there was the interinment of Japanese-American Citizens at the begining of 1942 which would have meant even after stable reactions were achieved at the U of Chicago reactor in December of 1942 the Chicago Pile, as the reactor was called, didn't last long before being moved to Argonne Metallurgy Labs in early 1943. Where it would have been hard pressed to explain why a Japanese looking person was hanging around the Great Lakes Region of Illinois in the war time without raising concern. Even if the tin-foil hatters claim as some do that there were traitors amongst the researchers there, more then likely they were spying for Soviets or the Germans and not the Japanese. I could go on with all sort of misinformation you have tossed into this to confuse some of the newbies but I am so annoyed at your sloppiness and your inability to properly cite or even reference any of the research you do or tidbits of information that I am seeing red. If you have any sources beyond the tin foil hatters you need to present this information in a standard research format that is APA, MLA or Chicago Research style so that everyone on these forums can do thier own review of your information. If you can't present any data then it is only logical to assume you are a liar and fraud, which only seems to call in question the research your doing on your mod for the game.

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 5:14:05 PM)
I did say politically incorrect, didn't I? And the strong emotions displayed here are actually fairly common. However, emotions have nothing to do with history. It is what it is. And indeed, objective writers use qualified language: you go too far. No evidence you have seen could be justified, no evidence anywhere is an assumption on your part - and in fact a quite false one. After looking at it you might still not like the conclusions others draw from it - but in no case could it honorably be said no evidence period. And note I did throw in a couple of cites - which you didn't bother to read - so you really are acting on assumption. You need to understand that I don't need to lie - there is nothing to gain from it and a good deal to lose. So I don't. No matter how unlikely you think what I say is - it is always true. Period. Until you come to terms with that, you are operating on a fundamentally false assumption and are always going to get it wrong. A wise man would ask for the evidence. And - if you like - you may visit me. I have several tens of thousands of pages of material not in books - almsot all of it published except for original documents - in addition to a colleciton of books on these matters. No matter what you think of the material - even you will not believe I set up publishers all over the world just to print it - especially as much of it is available on the market (with time to search and money to buy). Not that I intend to debate the matter - here or in person. If you already know there is nothing to any of it - nothing can change your mind. He who knows everything simply cannot learn - there is no room for more knowledge. But I will briefly address your points because I have been requested to. In order. One time. This is an FYI thread and not the place for extended technical debates. The good news is - I can talk about technical stuff all day and not once use technical terms undefined. I speak plain English - rare for a technical guy - and believe anyone who can't doesn't really understand the subject. But I used to read Scientific American cover to cover - just for vocabulary development. I use plain English as a modus operendi - to render material understandable. And I don't care about controversy. Truth isn't what you wish it were or were taught it was. It stands alone - above the fray - and only is revealed to those who don't already know everything. Surely I still am learning. I even cited at least one point - in pm discussion in the last 48 hours - where I was wrong. I have worked with authors on both German and Japanese atomic research - partly because I understand what today is called nuclear science - and partly because German is my second language and Japanese something like fifth or sixth. I long believed even declassified documents from US intelligence indicating a German atomic test could not mean there had been one - too much indicated to me they didn't get close. Yet finally someone went to Bornholm Island and actually measured with instruments - and wa la - I was wrong. I was astonished to see the material broadcast on the history channel about three years ago, visiting a friend in Seattle who knew I had worked on that material - and in fact was too conservative in my interpretation. I don't hide it when I get it wrong - it builds credibility to admit you are wrong and still learning. You should try it sometime.

JWE -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 5:32:39 PM)
Sid, you have been warned many times about this kind of behavior. YankeeAirRat was responding to a specific post, on your part. Stop your bull ** at once. If you don't, we will take those actions we warned you about a couple years ago. [ed] And besides being one of the AE developers (those that send you your "secret emails"), I might likely be a moderator, so be vewwy, vewwy, caweful. Because Brother Matt sent me your DD-214 and I know just exactly who, and how insignifigant, you really are. And you really don't want your little game clones to know that, do you?? [ed] Aw frikken crikey. So I'm trying to do a duck on the grill with ginger sauce and watch Heavy Metal 2000 on the big screen. Woof !!! And i gotta put up with this mentally disturbed nonsense, while I'm trying to do a **ed-out kinda duck skin sorta Beijing kinda thing?? Awww, dude !!!

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 6:07:09 PM)
Falsehood Number one: I first ran into the story as oral history, from a USMC mentor, then serving in 2/2. [If you don't speak Marine, 2/2 means Second Battalion, Second Marines. His unit was on board my ship - the last APA ever built for USN - and on deployment as the Caribbean Ready Battalion. In spite of the nominal Navy/Marine antagonism, I was more or less adopted by the Marines, respected by them, because of my interest in what they did. Aside from regarding soldiers as "the main battery of an amphibious ship" I was also - quite improperly - assigned to a landing party. Technicians are not supposed to be so assigned - the expensive technical training isn't supposed to be squandered in that way. But the CO believed that the radioman should be "able to fix the radio." Nonsense - no parts - no test equipment - no power to run the test equipment - how can a walking party have what it then too to fix stuff. In that day radios were big, heavy and hard to fix - we still fixed to the componant level - and that only in a shop. So the chief always assigned the newest, most junior, most expendable tech to the job - and naturally as it was my first assignment after school - and I was still a seaman - it was assigned to me. So I wanted to know tactical stuff - and the Marines said I "picked their brains"} Anyway - Marines love their own history. It was part of the way they were taught about their finest hour. I suppose the best way to get it the way they did is go to Marine basic - which is full of history - official and otherwise. In spite of the curious story - I simply filed it away with all the sea stories one hears in the Navy. We had a saying: What is the difference between a sea story and a fairy tale? A fairy tale begins with 'once upon a time' A sea story begins with 'this is no sh..' Otherwise, no difference. But that wasn't the end of it. I came across the story again, this time in writing. I no longer can separate precisely where I saw what - between books, articles, long letters between me and authors, and original documents? But the gist of the matter is that there is indeed some evidence, and the story is out there. There also probably are official records - in spite of the circumstances - the Marines did bother to take photographs and file a report - realizing whatever they had found should be reported. About the same time, another - related - site was subject to US action - USAAF bombing. There even was an official story - retracted a few days later - about the bombing. Not that the bombing didn't happen - but rather why it happend was retracted. Apparently the main Japanese research site at Hungnam was bombed - and it was identified as an atomic industrial target. And that is pretty clearly documented in Japan's Secret War by Robert K Wilcox - who is in daily contact on an email list of academics, authors and others interested in China and nearby countries, wmd and similar matters. He will no doubt confirm we have corresponded for years - and he sent me an autographed copy of his second edition as a sort of thank you - years ago. I am not sure about the Marines story being in there - I think we talked about that after his second edition was published - but some hint of it might be. Wilcox is a journalist who has had his own confrontations over the material - at least once on television - with a Japan apologist who denies any serious research. The Marine story dates from the retreat from Chosen - not a time when a great deal could be moved or experts brought in for technical evaluation. A lovely sort of tale which could, indeed, be a fabrication: after all - there was no proper forensic examination by independent experts - no material brought out we can look at - and it is in the country perhaps most difficult to visit in the entire world. Conventient. Yet most Japanese research - and its only pitch blende mine - were in Korea. If that means we can't believe it - simply because we can't go there now - then any investigation is over before it begins. And much of the good material I have isn't in English. I have a lovely biography of Nagouchi - the chief industrailist involved - who also held rank as a Rear Admiral in IJN and was formally governor of the district of NE Chosen (Japanese for Korea). He is the guy who started building a heavy water plant about the time fission was discovered - unknown to US intelligence - and who naturally had the edge in building a reactor fueled by natural uranium - no need to enrich because it would work with heavy water as a moderator. Yet if you cannot read Japanese - you cannot read his biography. Translating Japanese written to scholarly or legal or technical standards costs $2000-3000 a page - lower the more you have done at one time. It is not easy for native speakers (my daughter went to one of only 7 Japanese immersion schools in North America - right here where I live - the city tied with Portland for first place in schools where you can learn foreign languages as a child - and I found the staff - entirely native speakers - often unable to translate this word or that phrase; Eventuraly I spent a thousand dollars for an adacemic discount price on software - sold by a spin off of the CIA - to help - and it yields as many as 12 translations per word - with 5 or 6 being SOP. It can take years to master the material.] Circumstantial evidence convinces me the Marines story is substantially true - we probably lack details. The circumstantial evidence is that Japan indeed believed in and tried to field radiological bombs. One theory - published - concerns the possible mission of the First Submarine Flotilla - which surrendered at sea when the war ended. It was composed of four submarine aircraft carriers - two I-400 class and two smaller ones. After training for an attack on Gatun Lock (with mock up of the lock built) - its mission changed at the last minute - to bombing the B-29 base at Ulithi atol. I tend to believe that official story myself. Ki-67 bombers had - in tiny numbers - caused horrible effects bombing the assembled, fueled and armed B-29s just before take off. How much was classified for a long time. It is why we took Iwo Jima - needed to refuel the bombers en route to the target. After it fell, there could be no more such raids. But a pre dawn raid by submarine based bombers was possible. Most of the destruction didn't come from the bombs - there were just the match to light the fuel and explosives in the bombers. Once you hit just one - lots more would go. Lots more. But some authors have a theory that the real mission on that voyage was to hit San Francisco (or LA in some varations of the theory) with rw bombs. Philip Henshall is one - and he has several books on the matter. I have numbers of letters from him - a file folder full - in the days we corresponded. But he wanted to make money - and didn't like my practice of trading information for more information - and eventually stopped writing. Still - he is old school - wrote by hand - and you would not doubt his letters were not written by me. And of course you can read his books - which you are free to discount. He suffers from both the advantage and disadvantage of being a nuclear engineer. It is an advantage in his understanding the material. It is a disadvantage - British security officials went to his home to tell him what not to say in public. In UK there is a lot more control over classified material than here. So he does not print all the evidence he has. He likes to use things like archival documents from wartime records and site visits - his books are full of photographs of these - to examine physical evidence. His focus is, naturally, German research. Yet he discovered a German-Japanese connection - a formal agreement he says (I was not able to confirm it when I tried - because I do stuff like that; I like to confirm even published statements with original documents if possible) - and that was the reason U-234 had some kind of radioactive cargo when it surrendered at sea. Anyway - there is strong evidence Japan was in the rw business - something apologists for Japanese atomic reasearch do not like to admit. [Apparently if Japan was working on atom bombs and rw bombs, it might justify the attack on Hiroshima.] In fact, Henshall believes - and writes in his books - that it may be BECAUSE Groves learned about Japanese atomic research - after everyone assumed for years they were not in the game - that the decision to attack was finally implemented. For most of the war, the assumed target of a US bomb was Truk . But by the time it was ready, Truk was not a very good military target - isolated and without a big fleet present - and of little use to the enemy. Still - how we got from attacking a true military target (apologies to the Trukese here - they were not numerous enough to regard it as a civilian city) to attacking urban areas is an interesting question. I think it is related to the campaign of firebombing - used after precision attacks failed for technical reasons. Curtis LeMay unapologetically sought to burn out "every square mile of Japanese urban area" - never mind our nominal ideas about law (Germans were convicted at Nuremburg for terror bombing civilians at Rotterdam - 600 dead - although admittedly it was a civilian attack to cause the country to stop fighting - and it worked as intended). I don't agree with Henshall - but I also have not yet seen his formal diplomatic agreement in original form. I read German - if I ever see it - I might change my mind. Regardless of wether the First Flotilla was in fact on an a rw mission - or not - there is substantial evidence of Japanese rw work. The Russians kept their only working reactor going mainly to make rw materials until 1948 - and that is in the book by Wilcox - who only printed stuff from original documents, interviews or contemporary newspaper articles. The existence of the program suggests there may indeed have been a rw charging station near the only source of rw material - the reactor at what the Japanese called Konan. It is circumstantial evidence the Marines had no knowlege of - and would not have fabricated the story on the basis of. Since this is a brief response - I will let it go here. Since you already know everything, I have no doubt it matters not how much I write. I am writing by request - for the benefit of those willing to consider other materials. But I have enough material to spend years going through - and indeed I have spent years going over it with those interesting in assessing its merits and demirits. There is evidence - so the charge there is none - and that I lied saying so - is utterly false. I don't lie and I have made up nothing whatever. What I said I got from others - and I didn't just accept what I got without taking a lot of time to try to understand its signficance. And it isn't hard to verify at least that much - that there is evidence (even if you don't believe it) - that I worked with authors - and that I did take the time to try to understand it.

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 6:18:07 PM)
Falsehood No 2 - the Marines again. So nothing new here. But I will note that the story does not allege the Marines had any technical knowledge of what they found. All they had was a cave - which they did not destroy but sealed with explosives - and for which reason we may one day be able to go there and see for ourselves. It is one of two sites I intend to visit if DPRK (North Korea) falls. [The other is the alleged atomic bomb test site - and I will take measuring instruments - unless forbidden to do so by what I assume would be South Korean authorities] The Marines only knew enough to read a couple of signs - and to recognize this was a military site. So at least the story does not scream "falsehood" - most of what we know comes from things the men on the ground didn't know - making their report far more compelling. As a high school student, I got to visit the retired official US Army historian of the Korean War, a very controversial Maj Gen S. L. A. Marshall. He was a neighbor of my Aunt, and she felt I might like military history. I got to see the flies some allege he never had - interviews with soldiers he promised would never be allowed to get them in trouble - and to learn his methods. He taught that the best evidence is from the guys who were really there. He said secondary sources cannot compare to the guys who know what really happened. My own wartime experience was - reading in Time Magazine or Newsweek - to wonder "were we really there - how did they get this understanding of events?" Whatever the answer - it wasn't because they talked to the guys who really knew. Then, later in life, I became a field engineer: I learned to listen to the operators. They may not be deeply educated, but they didn't call because things were going as they wanted them to. No matter how outlandish what they say may be - try to understand what might lead them to say that? If you do - you may be able to fix their problem. I admit - I tend to respect what the eyewitnesses say - even in spite of understanding all the problems with eyewitness testimony. And yes - expert in nuclear matters they were not. But I never claimed otherwise - you seem to have assumed that all by yourself.

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 6:22:50 PM)
Falsehood No 3: You have correctly identified David Schnell as a source of the story of the alleged test. You have wrongly assumed (as ususal) the part about my reading web sites - I primarily work with documents - and otherwise in person - and not on the web. Never mind I am computer literate - I am so old that the web was not a source much of my life - and I don't have time to read a lot of sites to figure out what is wheat and what is chaff? I once tried to set a couple of such sites right - and found no interest in technical or other facts - the sites often exist to feed egos or for some other reason - and make no effort to get things right. So - good or bad - right or wrong - your assumption about my sources is the thing that is really false here. Indeed, I am not familiar with the Hog Wild crew or its misadventures and no part of what I have said is related to them. It pains me to agree with you - you are so unpleasant in your tone - but I do agree that an event on 29 August has nothing to do with the war. Unlike you, I do not assume you are a liar - and I assume your are correctly reporting the materials you summarize - and I do not have a problem with your assessment of them - although I would use more polite language than you do (it is good policy). Your primary error is to assume I was quoting them - which in fact isn't possible - I wasn't aware of them. But my working assumption is that you are telling the truth. I recommend it as a working assumption - by the way. If it isn't true - it will likely come out in due course.

JWE -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 6:37:12 PM)
Ya know, Sid, if you would stop the pretentious horse manure, that everybody out there knows is just that, you might, just might, get a bit of traction. But in general, you are an annoyance on these threads. I would request you go away and stay away. You have nothing to offer but what I can find in an Alien encounter forum. AE has nothing to offer for for you. And obviously, you have have nothing to offer for AE.

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 6:44:15 PM)
Falsehood No Four: The reactor at Hungnam. Actually - there were two - I think the first was really a sub critical reactor experiment but Sagane calls it simply a reactor in 1942 - described in records we have in the original and fairly widely described in published materials - as well as a supercritical follow on. The reactor experiment reference made it into one of Richard Rhode's two books (Orgins of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun) - and the reference makes clear they were about to go the next step. But possibly the best scholarly treatment of the matter is in The Two Koreas - which is explicit. I have written to its author, and got his response. There is also a formal reference in The Origins of the Korean War - Vol 2 I think - by an author I have met in person - but do not get along with. Cumings is a DPRK apologist (for cause - his wife is Korean and it permits him to travel - he was the very first Western academic allowed to visit North Korea). Cumings looks bad because he printed the communist view of the origins - that the war was started by the US and South Korea - and Soviet Archives disclosed the war was planned in Moscow by the Russian General Staff. I was the only person to attend his public seminar when he returned as the first Western academic allowed in the country - at the Henry M Jackson School of International Studies of the University of Washington - who was not a graduate student in one of his classes or a member of his family - and I think he didn't like my conservative appearance. He has never replied to a letter asking for documentation to support his scholarly work, and the parts describing atomic research are not cited in his books. [A good scholar, like Rhodes, will answer a written request for "how do you know that?" - and that is testimony - Rhodes did answer similar questions from me] But he is too incompetent technically to have made it up - and he says the Japanese program was in this area - and even that it was involved with thorium (although he doesn't understand what he says - he is quoting something). Taken as another indicator - you have Japan's Secret War, the Two Korea's, and The Origins of the Korean War - there is clear evidence in English easy to access. There is more in other places, not always in English, and not always published. But if you read Japanese I have an ISBN for you. And Wilcox says he will open his archive if someone wants to see what he got at Suiteland (the national archive site at the time he went there).

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 7:08:34 PM)
Falsehood number five. When I first studied things nuclear, I would have agreed with you. The popular histories all focused on a race between the UK/US and Germany. I would have assumed Japan was not a player - and that it lacked the industrial foundation required. Japan itself did a survey in the summer of 1942 and came to the opposite conclusion - it found it was better placed than Germany - although part of that might have been racist arrogance. But maybe not. It was a Japanese physicist who first proposed what we call the hydrogen bomb - something we later thought of - and split the develpment group into two factions - one for the current war and a "super" for later - eventually creating an entirely separate national laboratory. Over time I have discovered other things on that order. In a sense, it is true to say Japan lacked the industrial base. Everyone did in the nuclear industry sense - yet Japan had things Germany didn't. It had not one but two uranium refineries - the one in China at Shanghai - and Nagouchi's own in Korea. It had the largest heavy water production facility in the world - bigger than the one we thought was biggest at Norsk Hydro in Norway. It had been working for years and no one else had the quantity of heavy water Japan did. Our (and Canadian) research eventually came to similar conclusions - and Canada's CANDU reactor program - using natural uranium fuel - is one result of it. But Japan got there first. Today I would say, in retrospect, that Japan had an edge in scientists - it would calculate in theory what we only could measure. They made sometimes better decisions because they grasped the fundamentals well and early. Our program was led not by a theorist, but by an experimentalist - and supervised by an engineer. [I do not mean to say there is something wrong with measuring - I am a test engineer myself. But it is impressive when a physicist can tell you what works on theory alone BEFORE it is measured. Japan did that - over an over again.] Even so - it remains Japan didn't field atomic bombs - or radiological bombs - in time to affect the outcome of the war. That was due to several problems - including it really takes time to develop infrastructure (a typical uranium mine needs as much as a decade to come on stream - Japan did well to get one in a couple of years) - there was no handy source of fuel (like we had already in inventory in New York, or could go pick up in Africa - which we did in 1942 - or could develop like we had in Canaada) - and Japan's effort was divided - the Army and Navy had separate programs with separate goals. [The Army seems to have been first - with an idea also popular in Germany - and with us and the Russians post war - atomic powered aircraft. We spent two billion dollars EACH on reactors for planes, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles in the 1950s. Needless to say - being first was not enough - the goal was not achievable near term: eventually it led to our - and Russian - nuclear reactors used in space.] The Navy also gave priority to reactor (power plant) development (not reactors as weapons fuel sources - although eventually they decided to make rw materials that way - it was on too small a scale to really matter - not having been designed for that). The program to develop a bomb was only one - and not first fiddle as it was with the Manhattan Project. The combination of all those factors explain why - in just 2 or 3 years - they didn't get all the way. Yet they did remarkably well. Just as Japanese aircraft production - given their starting point - is far better than Germany's (see The Air War) - so its nuclear research got farther - and on less money - then Germany's did. So if you think there was a race with Germany - then there was more of one with Japan. it isn't popular to talk about in Japan, however. I got to work with academics on some reactor stuff - and we were promised that the materials would then go to official archives and we could cite them in publishable papers. But in the event official opposition prevailed - and allegedly the materials were "not preserved for lack of funding." Since they had been held for 50 years secretly - I suppose they might be back in that status as another possibility. But it is very unpopular to talk about in Japan. I have correspondence from a retired military officer at the National Diet Library who denies things even when you give him the actual documents - possibly becasue he is required to do so. No - we didn't do that - even if this says we did kind of thing. Anyway - your position is the conventional one. It just happens not to consider the evidence. The evidence is compelling. There was serious research - at least to the point of a working reactor ashore. I think there also may have been another that went to sea - but that is less compelling. Much of why I think so is based on US Army reports - as far afield as Panama and Germany. I trust US Army reports to he at least honest - even if in some respect flawed. Reasonable men may disagree about the seagoing reactor. But - if they look at the evidence - probably not about the one ashore.

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 7:17:16 PM)
Falsehood No 6?? You got carried away in the wrong direction here. It is not a falsehood at all - but a confirmiation of what I wrote. MAGIC intercepts, indeed, are a compelling source of orignal documents that substantiates there was an Axis atomic program on both sides of the world - somewhat in league with each other. It was probably too tightly held - but indeed it was known some kind of cargo was on U-234 before it was taken. I know a lot about this - spending a year trying to help an author understand the nature of the cargo - and finding help from one of the Oak Ridge scientists who lived near me. Philip Henshall likes to cite MAGIC intercepts - and there is an archive in UK he found them in - which indicate more is going on than non nuclear people might appreciate: as a nuclear engineer he can shed light on what tade in things like berillium really impllies? I wholly agree - there was material in Allied hands and the existence of a Japanese progrram should not have been a surprise. Yet probably it is like Pearl Harbor - what the right hand knows need not be what the left hand knows. For whatever reason Groves went ballistic at the first news of U-234 (he called it "U-235" in his outburst, according to his secretary - apparently thinking it was named in connection with the active isotope in atomic fuel). Sounds like real life to me. Sounds like big bureaucracy and security rules at work in a war - most secret and all that. I regard your citation of MAGIC intercepts to be confirmation YOU know there is confirmation of some of this stuff. If you want to believe more - I have more intercepts for you to read - sent to me by authors who spent time in the archives digging them out. But - there is no falsehood here - nor even disagreement. The only error is in your title!

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/2/2012 7:24:26 PM)
Falsehood No 7 is actually not so hard to show as you seem to think. One path was via a Spanish agent - who has published a book about it. Interviewed by the FBI - he was released and his intelligence (among other things about Pearl Harbor) was disregarded because Hoover didn't believe him. And you might not believe him either - Dusko Popov is a controversial sort of guy - who no doubt likes to look better in history than he should - and to make money selling his biography. But it remains, it was Japan that got a sample from the very first atomic pile - at the University of Chigago - sent all the way to Mexico - where it was measured by two scientists - who properly evaluated it was a very low level pile at a very early stage of research. You may believe that the Japanese gun bomb design looks like Little Boy by sheer accident - but it probably isn't. [I know - you don't know that a Japanese general was caught selling blueprints to the Russians - and that we invited a team already in Japan evaluating their atomic research to look at them - so you don't really believe that it looks so similar by accident. You never heard of those blueprints.] There is the matter of the bfiefs I cited - Japanese intel correctly kept the current PM informed of our project - throughout the war. These are on record. How do you explain that? They just guess good????

el cid again -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/3/2012 12:38:03 AM)
I have one small, English language reference which might be of interest to anyone wanting a comprehensive review of this material. It is by the Pacific War Research Society - a group I have not been able to track down to individuals - and which has only two products I am aware of: it might involve people of considerable stature promoting understanding in English of WWII Japanese history. At the time they wrote (1965 & 1972) both the subject of the other book (the attempt to take over the government by force, capture the Privy Seal, and rule by deception) and this one (atomic history) were still taboo subjects in Japan. In any case, the "author" (listed as such even in reference materials) is Pacific War Research Society. The book is called The Day Man Lost. Its focus is clearly Hiroshima, and its writers are probably anti-nuclear in general. Its review of Japanese atomic history is entirely inside traditional views - focused on the Navy program advised by Nishina (he was also an Army advisor on a different program you don't read so much about). Still - this is widely available material published 40 years ago with some important historical datum points in it. And indeed it identifies Sagane - a major player in the story - as well as naming many of those present at the Navy Technical Research Institute meeting - outlines the information given to the group - and their conclusions. It also describes a second meeting - and Prof Sagane's presentation (in 1942 note): "If, he said, the experimental reactor was increased so-and-so many times and if the volume of raw material was expanded by so-and-so many kilos, then so-and-so many grams of U-235 might be produced each second. Then, he went on, if several new reactors were constructed and operated around the clock, the grams of U-235 produced might be measured in terms of kilos." I will stop there with comments: 1) The writers probably do not think in English, and are probably not physicists or even technicians, and may not be using the ideal technical language to report. They are summarizing a report which seems to have been expunged of actual numbers - as is required when classified technical material is made public (so and so replacing the actual number for example). And they MIGHT have meant a different isotope - for example Plutonium - then known as "eka-uranium" in Axis countries - or see three below. 2) The CRITICAL point for this discussion is that Sagane is reporting the existance of some kind of reactor already - then - in 1942 - and prospects for increasing its size. The idea there never was a reactor in Japan is bunk. Even so I will yield a technical opinion this particular "reactor" was probably a "sub critical reactor experiment" - very like several we build (except ours used carbon blocks and uranium / uranium oxide blocks - and theirs used heavy water - a different moderator). We would build a "pile" (so called because it was a pile of blocks) - measure - and then calculate what it would take to reach critical mass. An even more similar experiment is the one in Germany at Haigersloch - in that it too used heavy water - and the chart of its output is posted today for you to see on the site (sealed in 1945 but now a museum). What the Professor was probably explaining was (first) the reason a larger reactor was needed and (second) the utility of several ones in producing some kind of fuel product. See three below. 3) At first blush a Western, technical thinker (like me for example) would guess the quote was confused - either mixing up that U-235 is CONSUMED by a natural uranium reactor vice PRODUCED by it - or giving the wrong isotope - substituting U-235 "eka uranium 239" (plutonium). [It helps to know what terms were then in use in those countries] But my considered opinion - in the context of all I know - is that the quote MEANT U-233. At the very first meeting at Navy Park (Navy Technical Institute) the matter of thorium was raised. If you put thorium in a reactor, you indeed PRODUCE U-233. And Asia is rich in thorium minerals, with an unusually small number of identified uranium minerals of sufficient grade to be worth exploiting. It is also my technical opinion - based on material from Korea (where most of the staff were legally Japanese but in fact Koreans, and some of them talked - to us or to the Russians and or to the later Korean governments) - that the Japanese atom bomb was, in fact, designed to use U-233. As late as 1952 the US Army contemplated atomic artillery shells made from it. It was not known during the war by most that it is "not suitable bomb fuel" (AEC finding). If this is true, and if they tried to make such a fuel work in a gun type device, it would almost certainly (better than 99% probability) result in a fizzile - it is too hot - and some atom would split prematurely - before "assembly" was optimum - before an initiator (if there was one) went off - resulting in a chain reaction of limited duration (measured in "generations" of follow on reactions until the point it physicall separated too much for more generations). It would explain the consistent references in Korean to "thorium bomb" - a term I once thought made no sense. Until a senior investigator for ONI said it was also an ALLIED term - highly classified during the war; there had been ALLIED research on the subject. And in Allied usage - "thorium" meant the original source of the fertile isotope - as distince from "uranium" - which is the source of both natural U-235 as well as of plutonium -239 that is made from U-238, the major isotope of natural uranium which is not good fuel. Anyway - I think the fuel "produced" by a Japanese reactor of interest to a meeting reviewing atomic science was likely U-233. Producing that in "kilograms" (vice micrograms or grams) would be needed to make a bomb. Since they could make a reactor without it - using natural uranium and the moderator they (alone in the world) had in quantity - it was not necessary to produce U-235 at all; indeed it is what drives most reactors - almost all (unless one uses plutonium from some other reactor later separated, or U-233 - neither of which has happened often anywhere). It is even possible the isotope U-235 is used deliberately - either because most lay readers will think it is the one that matters - or to avoid charges of disclosing classified information - or because they hate atomic science and don't want to give any help to anyone trying to build anything (common in Japan among those, like these writers, offended by Hiroshima). My considered guess is that the quote may be substantially a fair summary of what Sagane said - if one substitutes -233 for -235. My first guess was that "eka uranium -239" should have substituted for U-235. Take your pick. I do not suspect this material - which merely confirms what Rhodes wrote - and is confirmed by other authors in Korean history (The Two Koreas, Origins of the Korean War) - is somehow false or wrong. Post Script: In spite of a formal finding in 1953 that U-233 is not "suitable bomb fuel" (causing the US Army to change requirements for atomic shells from U-233 to U-235) - in 1955 the M.E.T. (Military Effects Test) did explode a U-233 core. It was not what was expected - but it did yield about 22 kt. This is something not widely known - and I only learned it yesterday - as a result of posting this. It may not mean it is suitable bomb fuel: for example it may not store well -and in our conception nuclear weapons are to put on the shelf - not use in the near term. But I think someone wanted to know if it would work in an implosion mechanism. In theory it should. It is in a gun it would not work - which indeed was needed for those early atomic shells because a gun was long like a shell, and the implosion devices were not yet that small in diameter. Like Plutonium - U-233 is too likely to emit at the wrong time, causing predetonation. So you need faster "assembly" - so the chance of a stray neutron happening just before complete assembly is acceptably low. Anyway - I just learned of the MET - and it is the only case I know of. [There might be a Russian one - they tended to duplicate our research in the 1950s.]

YankeeAirRat -> The Cid the Fraud being taught how to properly cite material (6/3/2012 8:25:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Blah.Blah..I don't cite anything because I heard it from drinking buddy's aunt's uncle's sister-in-law's great-great-grandfather's milkman so it must be true..for 11 posts Okay The Cid the Fraud let me help you out for a little bit. I saw eleven (11) posts from you with no, zero, nada, zilch citations as to where your getting your information short of some smoke and mirror stuff that is typical of the tin foil hatters in the history field. How to properly cite any works or even oral histories or archival materials come from style guides and it all depends on which style guide you use. Some of the more common are below with links to them. Most scientific, technical and even a large number of large corporations for research papers like to use the APA (long title is American Psychological Association) style since it gets to the point pretty fast for research papers/manuscripts/thesis/etc of all the other styles. Here is a link to an online version examples of the APA style as produced by the Online Writing Lab (aka OWL) from Prudue University. APA style a common example of how to cite for example from a book: quote: Friedman, N. (1983). U.S. aircraft carriers: an illustrated design history. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. to use a specific section from a book it would look like this: quote: HUNTINGTON, S. P. (19571972). Germany and Japan: Civil-Military Relations in Practice. The soldier and the state: the theory and politics of civil-military relations (pp. 124-124). Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press. (Original work published 1957) . A magazine article would look like this: quote: Osprey In the Catbird Seat. (2011, November 1). Proceedings, 137, 16-24. . While a Journal such as the JAMA or JFQ would look like this: quote: Doyle, M. K. (1977). The United States Navy: Strategy and Far Eastern Policy, 1931�1941. Naval War College Review, 29(Winter 1977), 52-60. Retrieved June 2, 2012, from http://www.usnwc.edu/NavalWarCollegeReviewArchives/1970s/1977%20Winter.pdf , note that this is also an example of how one might find an online example via an online database. A website citation would look like this: quote: USN Ships -- by Hull Number: APA/LPA -- Attack Transports. (1999, January 1). Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved June 3, 2012, from http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/shusn-no/apa-no.htm Finally, here is an example of how to use a newspaper article from the APA style: quote: Gates, D. (2012, March 6). Boeing delivers first P-8A anti-submarine Poseidon jet to Navy. Seattle Times, p. A12. . The only thing that APA doesn't support is interviews or oral histories. Why? Primarly because it is for science and technical fields; that being said interviews can be cited if they are cited first in a magazine, newspaper, Radio/TV/Motion Picture, or a book. The biggest thing just like any citation page is that the citations are listed in order of the author's name. Since your a big kid I shouldn't have to teach you the English Alphabet right? The next most common style is MLA or Modern Language style again a link to some common ways to produce an MLA paper and how to cite from the OWL at Purdue: Same examples again this time in MLA format. MLA is popular amongst the Liberal Arts and Humanities types in college for producing citations, manuscripts, thesis, etc. Book: quote: Friedman, Norman. U.S. aircraft carriers: an illustrated design history. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1983. Print. Specific chapter from a book: quote: HUNTINGTON, Samuel P.. "Germany and Japan: Civil-Military Relations in Practice." The soldier and the state: the theory and politics of civil-military relations. 1957. Reprint. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 19571972. 124-124. Print. A Magazine Article: quote: "Osprey In the Catbird Seat." Proceedings 1 Nov. 2011: 16-24. Print. A Journal : quote: Doyle, Michael K.. "The United States Navy: Strategy and Far Eastern Policy, 1931�1941." Naval War College Review 29.Winter 1977 (1977): 52-60. Naval War College Review Online Archives. Web. 2 June 2012. A Website: quote: "USN Ships -- by Hull Number: APA/LPA -- Attack Transports." Naval History and Heritage Command. Version 1.0. United States Navy, 1 Jan. 1999. Web. 3 June 2012. <http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/shusn-no/apa-no.htm>. A Newspaper article: quote: Gates, Dominic. "Boeing delivers first P-8A anti-submarine Poseidon jet to Navy." Seattle Times 6 Mar. 2012, sec. Business: A12. Print. An interview would be cited this way: quote: Engen, Donald. Interview by Paul Stillwell. Tape recording interview. 20 Aug. 1994. Then the other most popular form for history writers is the Chicago Manual of Style, here is a link to the actual full online version of that style manual, oh and I would say that the CMS online is a pay for service manual. Just fair warning. That said here are the same examples yet again in CMS format A Book: quote: Friedman, Norman. U.S. aircraft carriers: an illustrated design history. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1983. A section from a book: quote: HUNTINGTON, Samuel P.. "Germany and Japan: Civil-Military Relations in Practice." In The soldier and the state: the theory and politics of civil-military relations. 1957. Reprint, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 19571972. 124-124. A Magazine : quote: "Osprey In the Catbird Seat." Proceedings, November 1, 2011. A Newspaper: quote: Gates, Dominic. "Boeing delivers first P-8A anti-submarine Poseidon jet to Navy." Seattle Times, March 6, 2012, sec. Business. A website: quote: United States Navy. "USN Ships -- by Hull Number: APA/LPA -- Attack Transports." Naval History and Heritage Command. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/shusn-no/apa-no.htm (accessed June 3, 2012). A Journal: quote: Doyle, Michael K.. "The United States Navy: Strategy and Far Eastern Policy, 1931�1941." Naval War College Review 29, no. Winter 1977 (1977): 52-60. http://www.usnwc.edu/NavalWarCollegeReviewArchives/1970s/1977%20Winter.pdf (accessed June 2, 2012). An Interview: quote: Engen, Donald. Interview by Paul Stillwell. Tape recording. Annapolis, MD, August 20, 1994. Finally all of the standards agree upon this format as to cite information coming from the US National Archives and Records Administration or any US Governmental Archieves: Link to a pamphlet from the GAO and US NARA on citations of material So until you start to use some form of Citations to back up your wild acqusations and tin foil hat history, then I am going to say this nice and loud: YOUR A FRAUD AND ANY NEW PLAYER TO WITP:AE WHO READS YOUR POSTS SHOULD UNDERSTAND IT IS TIN-FOIL AND X-FILES STUFF Oh and it is pronounced as it is spelt as CHO-sin, not CHO-san like you have it in one of your rambles. Any serious history student of the United States Navy and Marine Corps would know that![:-] I would also suggest that you take a serious hard look at again as well at the names your throwing out. Brigade General Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall has been discredited by even the Historical Branch of the US Army, the US Army Command and General Staff College and any serious historian in the military field because of his seminal work appears to have been made completely up from whole cloth by him. CMS Citation: quote: Thomas, Evan . "A Myth of Military History - The Daily Beast." The Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/12/11/fire-away.html (accessed June 3, 2012). and that is but a tiny bit of the Lexius/Nexius hits that I have gotten on BGEN Marshall potentially being a fraud. So if you want to be assoicated with a fraud because your one as well, so be it.

Terminus -> RE: The Cid the Fraud being taught how to properly cite material (6/3/2012 1:43:56 PM)
These posts of yours, "YankeeAirRat", as well as the ones by "JWE" are not going to even register on Cid's radar. He spews out his hot air and the noise of it drowns out everything else. It's a waste of effort.

LoBaron -> RE: The Cid the Fraud being taught how to properly cite material (6/3/2012 2:14:23 PM)
Is this the Erich van D�niken Memorial Sit-In? When does the laser show start?

treespider -> RE: The Cid the Fraud being taught how to properly cite material (6/3/2012 3:05:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Is this the Erich van D�niken Memorial Sit-In? When does the laser show start? [sm=00000613.gif]

witpqs -> RE: The Cid the Fraud being taught how to properly cite material (6/3/2012 4:33:39 PM)
Yeah but maybe the war was started by The Aliens to cover up their transfer of technology to Japan? How else could they have developed This Secret Weapon so many years ahead of other nations,? Huh? [:D]

YankeeAirRat -> RE: The Cid the Fraud being taught how to properly cite material (6/3/2012 5:27:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus These posts of your, "YankeeAirRat", as well as the ones by "JWE" are not going to even register on Cid's radar. He spews out his hot air and the noise of it drowns out everything else. It's a waste of effort. Terminus, I know it probably isn't going to register. However, I am hoping is that some of the new folks to keep from being dragged away to Wackyland by a fraud researcher with tin-foil hat history. What I am betting on next is that he is going to find some unnamed and secret source that will have said the Japanese Ku-Go weapons were ready for use to prevent Op Olympic. Oh and LoBaron and Treespider, this isn't the Memorial show rather it is new show called "Welcome to Wackyland" we couldn't get enough funding for the memorial show. We do have a laser show and it will start on the nanosecond at 1200 and 0001 exactly, the show only happens on days that end in Z and only when it is absoultely sunny with temps above 80F/26c within 1000nm of your current location. So please remember to get your Devil's Popcorn which is popped daily and covered in Rooster Sauce and Wasabi sauce to enjoy the show.[:D]

Hortlund -> this has got to stop (6/3/2012 6:55:58 PM)
I dont care who you are. I dont care what you have contributed to this game. I dont care what right you think you have to talk to people like this. This has got to stop. That means you terminus. That means you JWE. This constant bullying of people on this forum is totally unacceptable. It doesnt matter how angry you are. It doesnt matter how annoyed you are. It doesnt matter how much you think someone else is an idiot. You dont act like that towards other people. This is a small community and a small forum. Lots of people here "know eachother", lots of people have a history, most people have a bunch of forum members they enjoy talking to, listen to and generally like. Most people also have a bunch of forum members they think are stupid/annoying/retarded. I work in politics. I meet people I think are idiots every day. Most likely they think Im an idiot right back. There is professional courtecy, everyone is polite, especially towards the ones we think are braindead. Your behavior is disgusting. There is nothing good in it, there is no class, no honor, nothing. I dont know how many people you have driven from these forums because of how you act and what you say. I know that you dont care, that you think the forum is better off without them. But that is wrong. This forum needs different opinions to survive. We as forum members need and want the discource, the disagreements, the arguments. Everyone gets angry from time to time, that is ok. Sometimes it might even be ok to call someone an idiot. But not all of the time, and not constantly against some posters that for some reason have gotten on your bad side. Terminus, who the hell do you think you are? I suspect you have some issues in real life that is causing all this bitterness, and makes you filled with anger and frustration that you take out on people here. Get a life. Go into therapy or whatever. Just stop poisoning these forums like you have done for the past years. JWE, Im expecting better of you. You are almost semi-official on this forum. Act like it.

DD696 -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/3/2012 7:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE [ed] And besides being one of the AE developers (those that send you your "secret emails"), I might likely be a moderator, so be vewwy, vewwy, caweful. Because Brother Matt sent me your DD-214 and I know just exactly who, and how insignifigant, you really are. And you really don't want your little game clones to know that, do you?? PJH - very well said. The bullies like to think that they run the forum, and simply the idea of JWE being a moderator - or much more likely, a self-proclaimed moderator, should give us all something to think about. I would never give a bully a club and don't believe that anyone with an ounce of common sense would either. Would you like me to send you my DD-214's now, John?

Terminus -> RE: this has got to stop (6/3/2012 8:16:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund Terminus, who the hell do you think you are? I could ask you the same thing.

dwg -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/3/2012 8:23:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE And besides being one of the AE developers (those that send you your "secret emails"), I might likely be a moderator, so be vewwy, vewwy, caweful. Because Brother Matt sent me your DD-214 and I know just exactly who, and how insignifigant, you really are. And you really don't want your little game clones to know that, do you?? This kind of post leaves me very uncomfortable. A prerequisite of a moderator, and I am one on other forums, is to remain above the conflicts you are trying to quash. Threatening someone, no matter how irritating you may find them, is completely incompatible with the moderator's role. I've challenged El Cid on his unsupported assertions, I'm hardly one of his supporters, but I find his posts less disturbing than ones like this. If you must respond to him, undermine his argument, not him.

JWE -> RE: this has got to stop (6/3/2012 8:26:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund JWE, Im expecting better of you. You are almost semi-official on this forum. Act like it. Yes, you are right. It was an old thing from back in the day. It was private and we'll take care of it privately. PH is quite right. Appologies to all concerned. J

Terminus -> RE: The Cid the Fraud being taught how to properly cite material (6/3/2012 8:46:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus These posts of your, "YankeeAirRat", as well as the ones by "JWE" are not going to even register on Cid's radar. He spews out his hot air and the noise of it drowns out everything else. It's a waste of effort. Terminus, I know it probably isn't going to register. However, I am hoping is that some of the new folks to keep from being dragged away to Wackyland by a fraud researcher with tin-foil hat history. What I am betting on next is that he is going to find some unnamed and secret source that will have said the Japanese Ku-Go weapons were ready for use to prevent Op Olympic. The point is that he's not doing anything illegal. And you or John or anybody else (myself included) don't get to play whack-a-mole on his head. The newbs will have to take care of themselves, like the rest of us did, on this very much unmoderated forum.

Buck Beach -> RE: this has got to stop (6/3/2012 9:25:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund JWE, Im expecting better of you. You are almost semi-official on this forum. Act like it. Yes, you are right. It was an old thing from back in the day. It was private and we'll take care of it privately. PH is quite right. Appologies to all concerned. J To quote Judge Joe Brown, "That's manning up" John.[sm=00000436.gif]

Hortlund -> RE: this has got to stop (6/3/2012 9:38:39 PM)
We all make misstakes sometimes JWE, but it takes a big man to admit making one in public like you just did. Thanks, that restored my good impression of you all the way.

dwg -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/3/2012 9:46:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again like Germany did - its design surfaced in 2010 So how come none of the leading German nuclear scientists knew anything about it? How come they all believed the amount of U-235 required to sustain a chain reaction was several orders of magnitude greater than it actually is? I take it you have read 'Operation Epsilon: The Farm Hall Transcripts', IOP Press/University of California, 1993?

dwg -> RE: Atomic Bombs and Bombers (6/3/2012 10:51:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again You need to understand that I don't need to lie - there is nothing to gain from it and a good deal to lose. So I don't. No matter how unlikely you think what I say is - it is always true. Period. Like the story a couple of weeks ago about the German intercepts of conversations between Churchill and Roosevelt over the transatlantic cable, ten years before the cable was capable of carrying voice conversation? Or the idea that Japan was trying to warn the US by delivering the declaration of war after the the attack on Pearl Harbour? You may not lie, but you repeatedly display unwarrantedly credulous belief in fringe areas of history, often already discredited ones, and then claim private sources when challenged to substantiate the claims. quote: I have several tens of thousands of pages of material not in books And unfortunately even if this is true the history of your claims here mean that people have substantial grounds to doubt your ability to objectively analyse original documents. quote: I was astonished to see the material broadcast on the history channel about three years ago Here's a handy tip, the quality of anything but specialist media when dealing with specialist subjects is embarrassingly bad, while many journalists, including some supposed specialists, are hired guns willing to advance any theory that will earn them a few pounds, or a few political points, or yield a good headline. I have experience of very visibly biased reporting, and just plain bad reporting, of high profile projects I've been directly involved in, by award winning specialist journalists considered to be at the forefront of their profession. But if you aren't directly involved in the work you simply have no means of knowing how bad the reporting is. Equally I've spent much of the past several years involved in countering openly biased press coverage of minority issues that is known to be causing a rise in hate crime, yet the media, even those working for leading papers, even those working for supposedly neutral channels like the BBC, are quite happy to keep repeating them, because they pander to public prejudices. Add those together, and you may want to reconsider how much unsupported credit you give to things you read in papers or books or see on the TV.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.955078