Please explain, Mr Churchill

[Greyshaft]

This is probably more of a general discussion post but it is Pacific specific so I thought I'd try my luck here.

On page 155 vol IV of his History of the Second World War Churchill quotes his own wartime correspondence as follows: (discussing the Japanese Fleet)

"Kuro, laid down in 1937, should have been finished in 1941. She is only now thought to have joined the fleet, a year later. Five years are assigned for Sasebo, but Maizuru is given only four years, How does this compare with the five ships of the King George V class, or the contemporary American vessels?" (italics are Churchills)

I know that Kure, Sasebo and Maizuru are Japanese Naval Yards but here Churchill is talking about them as if they are warships. Has anyone come across those names assigned to Japanese warships?

[Dutchgy2000]

Well... taking a wild guess (as i have nothing better to do). If this is the 1937 building programm he could be talking about the Yamato, Mushashi and Shinano. And we are talking Churchill here, so wouldn't surprise me if he was refering to them by the names of the naval yards he assumed they were being built at.

But like i said... wild guess.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Good explanation, but Winston guessed wrong twice - Yamato was laid down at Kure in 1937 okay, but Musashi was built at Mitsubishi DY at Nagasaki and the Shinano at Yokosuka DY.

[Freddy Fudpucker]

Maybe Churchill just didn't know what he was talking about. After attempting to read his 'History of the English Speaking Peoples' (I had to give up part way through due to his bias and wild innaccuracies), I came to the conclusion he wasn't a knowledgeable man.

[Speedysteve]

FF i'd say thats a bit of a blaze comment. Even Einstein would make some faux pas's. Was he knowledgeable?

[Speedysteve]

My thoughts on it are that in times of warfare much is kept secret or is misjudged. There are countless examples where one side would think something of the other and it became gospel at the time. E.G. The Allies thinking Zero's must be Germans

Regards,

Steven

[Tom Hunter]

Churchill's writing is primary source material. He writes what he knew at the time, if you have read other secondary historians who have had time to research and develop some synthesis it can be very interesting to see what we currently believe was going on Vs. what Churchill thought was going on at the time.

FF Churchill was a product of his time, and knew what people new then. I have not read History of E.S.P. but I would not be at all suprised if a) people know and understand more about that subject now than they did 80 years ago
b) Some of what we "know" now will turn out to be wrong or so heavily politicised as to be distorted beyond any resemblance of truth.

[Speedysteve]

Precisely Tom.

Take Iraq now. I'm almost certain there will be things that we 'know' now that in many years time will be dismissed as absolute bull.

Steven

[Brausepaul]

b) Some of what we "know" now will turn out to be wrong or so heavily politicised as to be distorted beyond any resemblance of truth.

Or it was distorted back then...history can be so intriguing.[:D]

[Greyshaft]

From the drift of this thread I guess that none of us know the answer to my original question:

I know that Kure, Sasebo and Maizuru are Japanese Naval Yards but here Churchill is talking about them as if they are warships. Has anyone come across those names assigned to Japanese warships?

[Hornblower]

I did a quick search and didn't find anything. SNLF yes, ships no. I know it was british practice to give there shore stations ship names, perhaps thats what old winny was going with?[8|]

[Brausepaul]

Or he wanted to point out the build capacity make a statement about short term build expectations?

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

This is probably more of a general discussion post but it is Pacific specific so I thought I'd try my luck here.

On page 155 vol IV of his History of the Second World War Churchill quotes his own wartime correspondence as follows: (discussing the Japanese Fleet)

"Kuro, laid down in 1937, should have been finished in 1941. She is only now thought to have joined the fleet, a year later. Five years are assigned for Sasebo, but Maizuru is given only four years, How does this compare with the five ships of the King George V class, or the contemporary American vessels?" (italics are Churchills)

I know that Kure, Sasebo and Maizuru are Japanese Naval Yards but here Churchill is talking about them as if they are warships. Has anyone come across those names assigned to Japanese warships?

I doubt it is anything more mysterious, than the fact that he and his government didn't know what their names really were and simply got the names wrong. I go along witht the notion that they were certainly Yamato class, as the Japs didn't build any other BBs for decades.

I am sure of one thing, the only one who could definatively answer you is the author of the quote...

[Terminus]

Well, the names of Japanese capital ships before the war were something of a mystery in the West. I mean, just look in Jane's and see the names they use!

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the names of Japanese capital ships before the war were something of a mystery in the West. I mean, just look in Jane's and see the names they use!

For those of us with a copy of Jane's, any chance of posting what names they used. Thanks.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the names of Japanese capital ships before the war were something of a mystery in the West. I mean, just look in Jane's and see the names they use!

For those of us with a copy of Jane's, any chance of posting what names they used. Thanks.

Yah, What he said...

All Jane's Fighting Ships did was (and not too mysteriously) mispell some names, or at least they are mispelled by how we comonly know them today.

for example:
Furutaka is listaed as "HURUTAKA" and Chokai is "TYOKAI"
It's not that big of deal really (no slam here intended Terminus)

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

This is probably more of a general discussion post but it is Pacific specific so I thought I'd try my luck here.

On page 155 vol IV of his History of the Second World War Churchill quotes his own wartime correspondence as follows: (discussing the Japanese Fleet)

"Kuro, laid down in 1937, should have been finished in 1941. She is only now thought to have joined the fleet, a year later. Five years are assigned for Sasebo, but Maizuru is given only four years, How does this compare with the five ships of the King George V class, or the contemporary American vessels?" (italics are Churchills)

I know that Kure, Sasebo and Maizuru are Japanese Naval Yards but here Churchill is talking about them as if they are warships. Has anyone come across those names assigned to Japanese warships?

This is page 175 Volume **** called Hinge of Faith. The above letter followed Winnie asking if it possible for the Japanese to build 9 capital ship and 2 large aircraft carrier at the same time. This probably illustrates intelligence not being perfect.

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: Big B


All Jane's Fighting Ships did was (and not too mysteriously) mispell some names, or at least they are mispelled by how we comonly know them today.

for example:
Furutaka is listaed as "HURUTAKA" and Chokai is "TYOKAI"
It's not that big of deal really (no slam here intended Terminus)

Well as the ship names were orginally Japanese, all Jane's have done, in those two examples at least, is use a slightly different way of writing the names in romaji than is currently widely used today. As long as they were consistent, it's no real problem. I'm still interested to see how Jane's listed the Yamato (no problem here I think), but the other two could possibly be spelt Sinano and Musasi. Hope somebody posts the names.

[eMonticello]

ORIGINAL: Freddy Fudpucker
I came to the conclusion he wasn't a knowledgeable man.

Contemporary accounts from eyewitnesses suggest otherwise.

'Recalling the prediction often quoted by Churchill that "there will always be an England", I wished there could always be a Churchill!' - Jimmy Byrnes

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: Big B


All Jane's Fighting Ships did was (and not too mysteriously) mispell some names, or at least they are mispelled by how we comonly know them today.

for example:
Furutaka is listaed as "HURUTAKA" and Chokai is "TYOKAI"
It's not that big of deal really (no slam here intended Terminus)

Well as the ship names were orginally Japanese, all Jane's have done, in those two examples at least, is use a slightly different way of writing the names in romaji than is currently widely used today. As long as they were consistent, it's no real problem. I'm still interested to see how Jane's listed the Yamato (no problem here I think), but the other two could possibly be spelt Sinano and Musasi. Hope somebody posts the names.

Just an FYI
The names in Jane's for Yamato and Musashi are - Yamato and Musashi
Now if someone out there has their hands on an original 1942 copy of Jane's - it may be different.
The only such original copy I can get my hands on are down at the library...not on my bookshelf.[:(]