Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
ORIGINAL: JWE
Ok, just seriously urinated on a trash-mouth pissant on the main boards. I'm ducking for cover, but I know Mynok just loves that stuff, so ...
The guy who really, really wanted to ensure you knew that ensigns should not be commanding CLs may also come looking for you JWE....
ORIGINAL: Mynok
ORIGINAL: JWE
Ok, just seriously urinated on a trash-mouth pissant on the main boards. I'm ducking for cover, but I know Mynok just loves that stuff, so ...
[:D] I prefer bouncing stupidity and idiots spouting off about things they have no experience with.
ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo
Tithe.
Instead of my usual drivel, I have a serious question today. Does anyone recall if the Washington Naval Treaty imposed any displacement limits on CVs? I was under the impression that it did not, but an article I read suggests that it does.
Thanks!
It did. Only two carriers per signatory nation could displace more than 27,000 tons and these could be no more than 33,000 tons. This was to allow reconstruction of battlecruisers.
Thanks T. But I thought the Lex and Sara displaced significantly more. [X(]
ORIGINAL: USS America
"A career as a fan-boy." [:D]
Thanks for starting my day off right, Martin. [8D]
ORIGINAL: stumanI was going to quote that guy about the Leander, ensigns, etc. But I thought that JWE might get mad and come beat me to death with a boat oar. So never mind.[:D]ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
The guy who really, really wanted to ensure you knew that ensigns should not be commanding CLs may also come looking for you JWE....
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo
ORIGINAL: Terminus
It did. Only two carriers per signatory nation could displace more than 27,000 tons and these could be no more than 33,000 tons. This was to allow reconstruction of battlecruisers.
Thanks T. But I thought the Lex and Sara displaced significantly more. [X(]
Treaty limit was 20,000 tons per CV..., but a clause was included to allow the conversion of two vessels already under construction to CV's at the behest of the Japanese and the Americans. These were the Lexington and Saratoga for the US and the Akagi and Amagi for the Japanese. Amagi's destruction in the 1923 earthquake resulted in the substitution of the Kaga.
Another such clause allowed the British to build the post WW I designed Nelson and Rodney while most participants were restricted to compleating BB's designed before any post-war tests were conducted.
Justice system 'failing veterans'
by BBC
More than 20,000 former servicemen and women are in prison, on probation or on parole in England and Wales, according to the probation officers' union Napo.
The figure, which includes 8,500 veterans in jail, is twice the number of troops serving in Afghanistan.
Napo warned that "support is not available of sufficient calibre" for ex-forces personnel.
But a Ministry of Defence spokesman said the "vast majority" made a successful return to civilian life.
Downing Street said the issue was at the "forefront of the prime minister's mind".
'Very macho'
According to Napo research, around 12,000 former Army, Navy and Air Force personnel with criminal convictions are on the Probation Service's books.
It says that almost one prisoner in 10 is ex-forces.
A study of 90 former personnel on probation or parole suggested that one-in-three suffered from chronic alcohol abuse while one-in 10 abused illegal drugs.
Among them, domestic violence accounted for one-in-three convictions while other violent crimes accounted for around one-in-five.
A quarter said they suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and others reported depression and behavioural problems.
Harry Fletcher, Napo's assistant general secretary, said the "very macho" culture of the services made it "very difficult to admit that you need help".
He said: "We've got to put effort into trying to divert as many veterans as possible from being in the justice system.
"It's the hidden kind of consequences of war. And I think there are things we can do to divert them away."
Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said the public would be "shocked" that so many former servicemen and women were in custody.
He added: "It is a disgrace that so many who have served their country are languishing in our prisons.
"No-one is above the law, but this government has failed to provide proper support to our troops on return home."
David Hill, chief executive of charity Combat Stress, said he was "not surprised" by the findings.
He added: "We think it is time for a fresh look, and we are keen to engage with ministers to progress this."
Susan Bickerton, chief executive of housing charity Norcare, said authorities needed to act quicker to deal with the "army of forgotten war veterans sleeping on sofas of friends and families, a number of whom can and do turn to crime in desperation".
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We take our duty of care for all offenders very seriously, irrespective of background.
"Our first priority is protecting the public, and by providing offenders with support and information which will aid their resettlement in the community, we reduce the risk that they will re-offend."
The MoD spokesman added that a National Audit Office report had found that 94% of ex-service personnel had found work within six months of leaving.
He added: "A small minority can face serious difficulties and we provide a wide range of support, before, during and after leaving the services, including the MoD's Prison In-Reach initiative."
Downing Street said it took the issue "enormously seriously".
A spokesman added: "We have a resettlement package for people leaving the forces to help them make the transition into civilian life as smoothly as possible.
"In 2008, the National Audit Office said the resettlement package was at the forefront of best practice."
