Never thought i'd click that many pictures !!!

I was fooling around in illustrator

experimenting in text displacement effects

St Paul's Bay in Malta. Lovely sunset, but the foreground was giving me grief, so cloned the sky, flipped and rotated and added a displacement map for the water.

© Steve Kelley 2008

 

View west towards New Jersey & Pennsylvania from the Rockefeller Center (Top of the Rock) in New York City (NYC).

 

To view in larger sizes and to download, purchase, or license please click here: Images from the Top of the Rock...

 

HDR - Nikon d300

Version 1, inspired by a presentation at my camera club yesterday. It would have been rude not to play with some software.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other ships of the same name, see USS Saratoga.

USS Saratoga (CV-3)

Saratoga underway in 1942, after her lengthy refit

History

United States

Name: USS Saratoga

Namesake: Battle of Saratoga

Ordered:

 

1917 (as a battlecruiser)

1922 (as an aircraft carrier)

 

Builder: New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden, New Jersey

Laid down: 25 September 1920

Launched: 7 April 1925

Commissioned: 16 November 1927

Reclassified: 1 July 1922 to aircraft carrier

Struck: 15 August 1946

Identification: Hull number: CC-3, then CV-3

Nickname(s): Sara Maru, Sister Sara

Honors and

awards: 8 battle stars

Fate: Sunk by atomic bomb test, 25 July 1946

Badge: Saratoga's ship's insignia

General characteristics (as built)

Class & type: Lexington-class aircraft carrier

Displacement:

 

36,000 long tons (37,000 t) (standard)

43,055 long tons (43,746 t) (deep load)

 

Length: 888 ft (270.7 m)

Beam: 106 ft (32.3 m)

Draft: 30 ft 5 in (9.3 m) (deep load)

Installed power:

 

180,000 shp (130,000 kW)

16 water-tube boilers

 

Propulsion:

 

4 shafts

4 sets turbo-electric drive

 

Speed: 33.25 knots (61.58 km/h; 38.26 mph)

Range: 10,000 nmi (19,000 km; 12,000 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)

Complement: 2,791 (including aviation personnel) in 1942

Armament:

 

4 × twin 8-inch (203 mm)/55 cal guns

12 × single 5-inch (127 mm)/25 cal guns anti-aircraft

 

Armor:

 

Belt: 5–7 in (127–178 mm)

Deck: .75–2 in (19–51 mm)

Gun turrets: .75 in (19 mm)

Bulkheads: 5–7 in (127–178 mm)

 

Aircraft carried: 78

Aviation facilities: 1 Aircraft catapult

 

USS Saratoga (CV-3) was a Lexington-class aircraft carrier built for the United States Navy during the 1920s. Originally designed as a battlecruiser, she was converted into one of the Navy's first aircraft carriers during construction to comply with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. The ship entered service in 1928 and was assigned to the Pacific Fleet for her entire career. Saratoga and her sister ship, Lexington, were used to develop and refine carrier tactics in a series of annual exercises before World War II. On more than one occasion these included successful surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. She was one of three prewar US fleet aircraft carriers, along with Enterprise and Ranger, to serve throughout World War II.

 

Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Saratoga was the centerpiece of the unsuccessful American effort to relieve Wake Island and was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine a few weeks later. After lengthy repairs, the ship supported forces participating in the Guadalcanal Campaign and her aircraft sank the light carrier Ryūjō during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons in August 1942. She was again torpedoed the following month and returned to the Solomon Islands area after repairs were completed.

 

In 1943, Saratoga supported Allied forces involved in the New Georgia Campaign and invasion of Bougainville in the northern Solomon Islands and her aircraft twice attacked the Japanese base at Rabaul in November. Early in 1944, her aircraft provided air support during the Gilbert and Marshall Islands Campaign before she was transferred to the Indian Ocean for several months to support the British Eastern Fleet as it attacked targets in Java and Sumatra. After a brief refit in mid-1944, the ship became a training ship for the rest of the year.

 

In early 1945, Saratoga participated in the Battle of Iwo Jima as a dedicated night fighter carrier. Several days into the battle, she was badly damaged by kamikaze hits and was forced to return to the United States for repairs. While under repair, the ship, now increasingly obsolete, was permanently modified as a training carrier with some of her hangar deck converted into classrooms. Saratoga remained in this role for the rest of the war and was used to ferry troops back to the United States after the Japanese surrender in August. In mid-1946, the ship was a target for nuclear weapon tests during Operation Crossroads. She survived the first test with little damage, but was sunk by the second test.

 

Contents

 

1 Design and construction

1.1 Flight deck arrangements

1.2 Propulsion

1.3 Armament

1.4 Fire control and electronics

1.5 Armor

1.6 Structural changes

2 Service history

2.1 Inter-war period

2.2 World War II

2.2.1 Guadalcanal campaign

2.2.1.1 Battle of the Eastern Solomons

2.2.2 1943

2.2.3 1944

2.2.4 1945

2.3 Postwar years

3 Awards and Decorations

4 Notes

5 References

6 External links

 

Design and construction

 

Saratoga was the fifth US Navy ship named after the 1777 Battle of Saratoga, an important victory during the Revolutionary War.[1] She was originally authorized in 1916 as a Lexington-class battlecruiser, but construction was placed on hold so that higher-priority anti-submarine vessels and merchant ships, needed to ensure the safe passage of men and materiel to Europe during Germany's U-boat campaign, could be built. After the war the ship was extensively redesigned to incorporate improved boiler technology, anti-torpedo bulges, and a general increase in armor protection based on British wartime experiences.[2] Given the hull number of CC-3, Saratoga was laid down on 25 September 1920 by New York Shipbuilding Corporation of Camden, New Jersey.[1]

Saratoga on 8 March 1922, after her construction had been suspended. There are circular barbettes on blocks on her deck, which would have been used for the battlecruiser's main battery

 

In February 1922, before the Washington Naval Conference concluded, the ship's construction was suspended[3] when she was 28 percent complete.[4] She was ordered to be converted to an aircraft carrier with the hull number CV-3 on 1 July 1922.[1] Her displacement was reduced by a total of 4,000 long tons (4,100 t), achieved mainly by the elimination of her main armament of eight 16-inch (406 mm) guns in four twin gun turrets (including their heavy barbettes, armor, and other equipment).[5][6] The main armor belt was retained, although it was reduced in height to save weight.[7] The hull generally remained unaltered, as did the torpedo protection system, because they had already been built and it would have been too expensive to alter them.[8]

 

The ship had an overall length of 888 feet (270.7 m), a beam of 106 feet (32.3 m), and a draft of 30 feet 5 inches (9.3 m) at deep load. Saratoga had a standard displacement of 36,000 long tons (36,578 t), and 43,055 long tons (43,746 t) at deep load. At that displacement, she had a metacentric height of 7.31 feet (2.2 m).[5]

 

Christened by Mrs. Curtis D. Wilbur, wife of the Secretary of the Navy, Saratoga was launched on 7 April 1925 and commissioned on 16 November 1927, under the command of Captain Harry E. Yarnell.[1] She was nicknamed by her crew Sister Sara and, later, Sara Maru.[9] In 1942, the ship had a crew of 100 officers and 1,840 enlisted men, and an aviation group totaling 141 officers and 710 enlisted men.[5] By 1945, her crew totaled 3,373, including her aviation group.[10]

Flight deck arrangements

 

The ship's flight deck was 866 feet 2 inches (264.01 m) long and had a maximum width of 105 feet 11 inches (32.28 m).[5] Her flight deck was widened forward and extended 16 feet (4.9 m) aft during her refit in mid-1941.[11] When built, her hangar "was the largest single enclosed space afloat on any ship"[12] and had an area of 33,528 square feet (3,114.9 m2). It was 424 feet (129.2 m) long and no less than 68 feet (20.7 m) wide. Its minimum height was 21 feet (6.4 m), and it was divided by a single fire curtain just forward of the aft aircraft elevator. Aircraft repair shops, 108 feet (32.9 m) long, were aft of the hangar, and below them was a storage space for disassembled aircraft, 128 feet (39.0 m) long. Saratoga was fitted with two hydraulically powered elevators on her centerline. The forward elevator's dimensions were 30 by 60 feet (9.1 m × 18.3 m) and it had a capacity of 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg). The aft elevator had a capacity of only 6,000 pounds (2,700 kg) and measured 30 by 36 feet (9.1 m × 11.0 m).[12] Avgas was stored in eight compartments of the torpedo protection system, and their capacity has been quoted as either 132,264 US gallons (500,670 l; 110,133 imp gal) or 163,000 US gallons (620,000 l; 136,000 imp gal).[13]

Saratoga landing aircraft, 6 June 1935

 

Saratoga was initially fitted with electrically operated arresting gear designed by Carl Norden that used longitudinal wires intended to prevent the aircraft from being blown over the side of the ship, and transverse wires to slow the aircraft to a stop. This system was authorized to be replaced by the hydraulically operated Mk 2 system, without longitudinal wires, on 11 August 1931. Four improved Mk 3 units were added in 1934, giving the ship a total of eight arresting wires and four barriers intended to prevent aircraft from crashing into parked aircraft on the ship's bow. When the forward flight deck was widened, an additional eight wires were added there to allow aircraft to land over the bow if the landing area at the stern was damaged.[14] The ship was built with a 155-foot (47.2 m), flywheel-powered, F Mk II aircraft catapult, also designed by Norden, on the starboard side of the bow.[5][12] This catapult was strong enough to launch a 10,000-pound (4,500 kg) aircraft at a speed of 48 knots (89 km/h; 55 mph). It was intended to launch seaplanes, but was rarely used; a 1931 report counted only five launches of practice loads since the ship had been commissioned. It was removed some time after 1936.[15]

 

Relatively few changes were made during the war to Saratoga's aircraft-handling equipment. Her crew removed her forward arresting wires in late 1943, although their hydraulic systems were not removed until her refit in mid-1944. At that time she received two Type H hydraulic catapults mounted in her forward flight deck to handle the heavier aircraft entering service. Before the war, plans were made to replace the aft elevator with a 44-by-48-foot (13.4 m × 14.6 m) model, but manufacturing delays and operational demands prevented this from ever happening. By mid-1942, the increasing size and weight of naval aircraft exceeded the capacity of the aft elevator and it was locked in place. It was removed in March 1945 to save weight and the opening in the flight deck was plated over. The machinery for the forward elevator was scheduled to be upgraded before the war, but this was not done until mid-1944. A new, 44-by-48-foot lightweight forward elevator identical to those used in the Essex-class carriers was installed in March 1945.[16]

 

Saratoga was designed to carry 78 aircraft of various types, including 36 bombers,[17] but these numbers increased once the Navy adopted the practice of tying up spare aircraft in the unused spaces at the top of the hangar.[18] In 1936, her air group consisted of 18 Grumman F2F-1 and 18 Boeing F4B-4 fighters, plus an additional nine F2Fs in reserve. Offensive punch was provided by 20 Vought SBU Corsair dive bombers with 10 spare aircraft and 18 Great Lakes BG torpedo bombers with nine spares. Miscellaneous aircraft included two Grumman JF Duck amphibians, plus one in reserve, and three active and one spare Vought O2U Corsair observation aircraft. This amounted to 79 aircraft, plus 30 spares.[5] In early 1945, the ship carried 53 Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters and 17 Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bombers.[19]

Propulsion

 

The Lexington-class carriers used turbo-electric propulsion; each of the four propeller shafts was driven by two 22,500-shaft-horsepower (16,800 kW) electric motors. They were powered by four General Electric turbo generators rated at 35,200 kilowatts (47,200 hp). Steam for the generators was provided by sixteen Yarrow boilers, each in its own individual compartment.[20] Six 750-kilowatt (1,010 hp) electric generators were installed in the upper levels of the two main turbine compartments to provide power to meet the ship's hotel load (minimum electrical) requirements.[21]

 

The ship was designed to reach 33.25 knots (61.58 km/h; 38.26 mph),[5] but Lexington achieved 34.59 knots (64.06 km/h; 39.81 mph) from 202,973 shp (151,357 kW) during sea trials in 1928.[20] She carried a maximum of 6,688 long tons (6,795 t) of fuel oil, but only 5,400 long tons (5,500 t) of that was usable, as the rest had to be retained as ballast in the port fuel tanks to offset the weight of the island and main guns.[22] Designed for a range of 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km; 12,000 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph),[5] the ship demonstrated a range of 9,910 nmi (18,350 km; 11,400 mi) at a speed of 10.7 knots (19.8 km/h; 12.3 mph) with 4,540 long tons (4,610 t) of oil.[22]

Armament

 

The Navy's Bureau of Construction and Repair was not convinced when the class was being designed that aircraft could effectively substitute as armament for a warship, especially at night or in bad weather that would prevent air operations.[23] Thus the carriers' design included a substantial gun battery of eight 55-caliber Mk 9 eight-inch guns in four twin gun turrets. These turrets were mounted above the flight deck on the starboard side, two before the superstructure, and two behind the funnel, numbered I to IV from bow to stern.[24] In theory the guns could fire to both sides, but it is probable that firing them to port would have damaged the flight deck.[25] They could be depressed to −5° and elevated to +41°.[10]

 

The ship's heavy anti-aircraft (AA) armament consisted of twelve 25-caliber Mk 10 five-inch guns which were mounted on single mounts, three each fitted on sponsons on each side of the bow and stern.[26] No light AA guns were initially mounted on Saratoga, but two twin .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun mounts were installed in 1929. They were unsuccessful,[27] but only the mount on the roof of Turret II was replaced by two .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns by 1934. During the ship's August 1941 overhaul, four 50-caliber Mk 10 three-inch AA guns were installed in the corner platforms. Another three-inch gun was added on the roof of the deckhouse between the funnel and the island. In addition, a number of .50-caliber machine guns were added on platforms mounted on her superstructure. The three-inch guns were just interim weapons until the quadruple 1.1-inch gun mount could be fielded, which occurred during a brief refit at the Bremerton Navy Yard in late November 1941.[28]

 

While receiving temporary repairs at Pearl Harbor in January 1942, Saratoga's eight-inch turrets, barbettes and ammunition hoists were removed; they were replaced by four twin 38-caliber five-inch dual-purpose gun mounts in February at Bremerton. New barbettes were built and the ammunition hoists had to be returned from Pearl Harbor. The older 25-caliber five-inch guns were replaced at the same time by eight more dual-purpose guns in single mounts. As the new guns were heavier than the older ones, only two could be added to the corner gun platforms; the space formerly used by the third gun on each platform was used by an additional quadruple 1.1-inch mount. In addition 32 Oerlikon 20 mm cannon were installed, six at the base of the funnel and the others distributed along the sides and rear of the flight deck. When the ship's repairs were completed in late May, her armament consisted of 16 five-inch guns, nine quadruple 1.1-inch gun mounts and 32 Oerlikon 20-millimeter (0.79 in) guns.[29]

 

After the ship was again torpedoed in August 1942, her 1.1-inch gun mounts were replaced by an equal number of quadruple Bofors 40 mm mounts while she was under repair at Pearl Harbor. Her light anti-aircraft armament was also increased to 52 Oerlikon guns at the same time. In January 1944 a number of her 20 mm guns were replaced by more Bofors guns, many of which were in the positions formerly occupied by the ship's boats in the sides of the hull. Saratoga mounted 23 quadruple and two twin 40 mm mountings as well as 16 Oerlikon guns when she completed her refit.[30]

Fire control and electronics

 

The two superfiring eight-inch turrets had a Mk 30 rangefinder at the rear of the turret for local control, but the guns were normally controlled by two Mk 18 fire-control directors, one each on the fore and aft spotting tops.[24] A 20-foot (6.1 m) rangefinder was fitted on top of the pilothouse to provide range information for the directors.[10] Each group of three 5-inch guns was controlled by a Mk 19 director, two of which were mounted on each side of the spotting tops. Plans were made before the war to replace the obsolete Mk 19 directors with two heavier Mk 33 directors, one each on the fore and aft five-inch spotting tops, but these plans were cancelled when the dual-purpose guns replaced the main armament in early 1942.[26]

 

Saratoga received a RCA CXAM-1 early warning radar in February 1941 during a refit in Bremerton. The antenna was mounted on the forward lip of the funnel with its control room directly below the aerial, replacing the secondary conning station formerly mounted there. She also received two FC (Mk 3) surface fire-control radars in late 1941, although these were both removed along with her main armament in January 1942. The new dual-purpose guns were controlled by two Mk 37 directors, each mounting an FD (Mk 4) anti-aircraft gunnery radar. When the 1.1-inch guns were replaced by 40 mm guns in 1942, the directors for the smaller guns were replaced by five Mk 51 directors. A small SC-1 early warning radar was mounted on the rear lip of the funnel during 1942. A SG surface-search radar was mounted on the foremast at the same time.[31]

 

During the ship's refit in January 1944, her electronics were modernized. The CXAM was replaced by an SK model and the SC-1 was replaced by an SC-3. The forward SG was supplemented by an additional SG-1 mounted on a short mast at the aft end of the funnel. A lengthier overhaul in mid-1944 provided the opportunity to revise the radar arrangements. The SK radar was moved to the rebuilt foremast and the forward SG radar was replaced by an SG-1 mounted at the top of the foremast. An SM-1 fighter-control radar was mounted in the SK's former position and new antennas were added to the FD radars to allow them to determine target height. The SC-3 was replaced by an SC-4 in early 1945.[32]

Armor

 

The waterline belt of the Lexington-class ships tapered 7–5 inches (178–127 mm) in thickness from top to bottom and angled 11° outwards at the top. It covered the middle 530 feet (161.5 m) of the ships. Forward, the belt ended in a bulkhead that also tapered from seven to five inches in thickness. Aft, it terminated at a seven-inch bulkhead. This belt had a height of 9 feet 4 inches (2.8 m). The third deck over the ships' machinery and magazine was armored with two layers of special treatment steel (STS) totaling 2 inches (51 mm) in thickness; the steering gear was protected by two layers of STS that totaled 3 inches (76 mm) on the flat and 4.5 inches (114 mm) on the slope.[33]

 

The gun turrets were protected only against splinters with .75 inches (19 mm) of armor. The conning tower was armored with 2–2.25 inches (51–57 mm) of STS, and it had a communications tube with two-inch sides running from the conning tower down to the lower conning position on the third deck. The torpedo defense system of the Lexington-class ships consisted of three to six medium steel protective bulkheads that ranged from .375 to .75 inches (10 to 19 mm) in thickness. The spaces between them could be used as fuel tanks or left empty to absorb the detonation of a torpedo's warhead.[33]

Structural changes

 

While under repair after being torpedoed in January 1942, Saratoga received a 7-foot-2-inch (2.2 m) bulge on the starboard side of her hull.[34] This was primarily intended to increase the ship's buoyancy, improve stability and allow her full fuel capacity to be utilized. The bulge was estimated to increase her metacentric height by 3 feet (0.9 m) and decrease her speed by one-quarter of a knot.[35] It was also used to store additional fuel oil and increased her capacity to a total of 9,748 long tons (9,904 t).[22] At the same time, her funnel was shortened by 20 feet (6.1 m) and her tripod foremast was replaced by a light pole mast to reduce her topweight.[36]

 

All of these changes, including the lengthening of the flight deck, increased Saratoga's full-load displacement in 1945 to 49,552 long tons (50,347 t). Her overall length increased to 909.45 feet (277.2 m) and her beam, at the waterline, to 111 feet 9 inches (34.1 m), too wide to use the Panama Canal.[37]

Service history

Inter-war period

 

Saratoga was commissioned one month earlier than her sister ship, Lexington. As the ship was visually identical to Lexington, her funnel was painted with a large black vertical stripe to help pilots recognize her. She began her shakedown cruise on 6 January 1928 and five days later Marc A. Mitscher landed the first aircraft on board. Later that month, the rigid airship Los Angeles was refueled and resupplied when she moored to Saratoga's stern on 27 January. That same day, the ship sailed for the Pacific via the Panama Canal, although she was diverted briefly en route to carry Marines to Corinto, Nicaragua, before joining the Battle Fleet at San Pedro, California, on 21 February.[1] On 15 September, Captain John Halligan, Jr. relieved the newly promoted Rear Admiral Yarnell.[38]

Saratoga (with black stripe) at Puget Sound Navy Yard, alongside Lexington and Langley in 1929

 

In January 1929, Saratoga participated in her first fleet exercise, Fleet Problem IX, a simulated attack on the Panama Canal. These exercises tested the Navy's evolving doctrine and tactics for the use of carriers. The ship was detached from the fleet with only the light cruiser Omaha as escort and made a wide sweep to the south to attack the canal, which was defended by the Scouting Fleet and Lexington, from an unexpected direction. Although the carrier was spotted by two defending ships before she launched her air strike, her aircraft were deemed to have destroyed the canal locks. Saratoga was "sunk" later the same day by an airstrike from Lexington.[39] Captain Frederick J. Horne assumed command on 20 April.[40] The following year, Saratoga and Langley were "disabled" by a surprise attack from Lexington in Fleet Problem X in the Caribbean. Saratoga returned the favor shortly afterward in Fleet Problem XI, further demonstrating the vulnerability of carriers to aerial attack.[41] Following the exercises, Saratoga participated in the Presidential Review at Norfolk, Virginia in May and then returned to San Pedro.[1] Captain Frank McCrary relieved Horne on 5 September 1930.[42]

USS Los Angeles ties up aboard Saratoga in January 1928, the first time a rigid airship had been moored to an aircraft carrier

 

Saratoga was assigned, together with Lexington, to defend the west coast of Panama against a hypothetical invader during Fleet Problem XII in February 1931. While each carrier was able to inflict some damage on the invasion convoys, the enemy forces succeeded in making a landing. All three carriers then transferred to the Caribbean to conduct further maneuvers, including one in which Saratoga successfully defended the Caribbean side of the Panama Canal from a staged attack by Lexington. Rear Admiral Joseph M. Reeves baited a trap for Lexington's captain, Ernest J. King, with a destroyer and scored a kill on Lexington on 22 March while the latter's aircraft were still searching for Saratoga.[43] The 1932 movie Hell Divers was filmed aboard the ship and starred Wallace Beery and a young Clark Gable as a pair of competing aircraft gunners assigned to VF-1B.[44]

 

During Grand Joint Exercise No. 4, Saratoga and Lexington were able to launch an airstrike against Pearl Harbor on Sunday, 7 February 1932, without being detected. The two carriers were separated for Fleet Problem XIII which followed shortly afterward. Blue Fleet and Saratoga were tasked to attack Hawaii and the West Coast defended by Lexington and the Black Fleet. On 15 March, Lexington caught Saratoga with all of her planes still on deck and was ruled to have knocked out her flight deck and have badly damaged the carrier, which was subsequently judged sunk during a night attack by Black Fleet destroyers.[45] Captain George W. Steele assumed command on 11 July 1932. While en route from San Diego to San Pedro, the ship briefly ran aground off Sunset Beach, California on 17 August. Captain Rufus F. Zogbaum, Jr. (son of the famous illustrator) relieved Steele, who was ordered to immediately retire, on 1 January 1933.[46]

 

Before Fleet Problem XIV began the following month, the Army and the Navy conducted a joint exercise simulating a carrier attack on Hawaii. Lexington and Saratoga successfully attacked Pearl Harbor at dawn on 31 January without being detected. During the actual fleet problem, the ship successfully attacked targets in and around Los Angeles and San Francisco although she was damaged by opposing ships during the latter attack.[47] Scenes from the 1933 Joe E. Brown film comedy Son of a Sailor were filmed aboard Saratoga and featured flight deck musters of the ships' company.[48] Fleet Problem XV returned to the Gulf of Panama and the Caribbean in April–May 1934; the participating ships of the Pacific Fleet remained in the Caribbean and off the East Coast for more training and maneuvers until they returned to their home bases in November.[1] Captain Kenneth Whiting relieved Zogbaum on 12 June, after the conclusion of the fleet problem.[49]

Saratoga launching aircraft on 31 May 1934 during her Atlantic deployment

 

Captain William F. Halsey assumed command on 6 July 1935 after the conclusion of Fleet Problem XVI.[50] From 27 April to 6 June 1936, she participated in a Fleet Problem in the Panama Canal Zone where she was "sunk" by opposing battlecruisers and later ruled to have been severely damaged by aircraft from Ranger.[51] During Fleet Problem XVIII in 1937, Saratoga, now under the command of naval aviation pioneer John H. Towers, covered an amphibious assault on Midway Atoll and was badly "damaged" by Ranger's aircraft.

 

The 1938 Fleet Problem again tested the defenses of Hawaii and, again, aircraft from Saratoga and her sister successfully attacked Pearl Harbor at dawn on 29 March. Later in the exercise, the two carriers successfully attacked San Francisco without being spotted by the defending fleet.[52] Captain Albert Cushing Read relieved Towers in July 1938. During Fleet Problem XX in 1939, the carrier remained off the West Coast as part of Task Force (TF) 7 with the battleship Arizona and escorts under the command of Rear Admiral Chester Nimitz to maintain a presence in the Pacific. From 2 April to 21 June 1940, she participated in Fleet Problem XXI, and her aircraft, together with those from Lexington, "damaged" the carrier Yorktown in an early phase of the exercise.[53]

 

From 6 January to 15 August 1941, Saratoga underwent a long-deferred modernization at the Bremerton Navy Yard that included the widening of her flight deck at her bow and the installation of additional antiaircraft guns and a CXAM-1 radar. The ship began a refit a few days later that lasted until late November, further revising the anti-aircraft armament and added a FC radar.[54]

World War II

 

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Saratoga was entering San Diego Harbor to embark her air group, which had been training ashore while the ship was refitting. This consisted of 11 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat fighters of VF-3 (under the command of Lieutenant Jimmy Thach), 43 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers of VB-3 and VS-3, and 11 Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bombers of VT-3. The ship also was under orders to load 14 Marine Corps Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo fighters of VMF-221 for delivery in Oahu. The following morning the ship, now the flagship of Carrier Division One, commanded by Rear Admiral Aubrey Fitch, sailed for Pearl Harbor. Saratoga arrived at Pearl on 15 December, refueled, and departed for Wake Island the following day. The ship was assigned to Task Force (TF) 14 under the command of Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher; VF-3 had been reinforced by two additional Wildcats picked up in Hawaii, but one SBD had been forced to ditch on 11 December.[55]

 

She then rendezvoused with the seaplane tender Tangier, carrying reinforcements and supplies, and the slow replenishment oiler Neches. Saratoga's task force was delayed by the necessity to refuel its escorting destroyers on 21 December, before reaching the island. This process was prolonged by heavy weather, although the task force could still reach Wake by 24 December as scheduled. After receiving reports of heavy Japanese carrier airstrikes, and then troop landings, TF 14 was recalled on 23 December, and Wake fell the same day. On the return voyage, Saratoga delivered VMF-221 to Midway on 25 December. The ship arrived at Pearl on 29 December and Fletcher was replaced as commander of Task Force 14 by Rear Admiral Herbert F. Leary the following day. Leary made Saratoga his flagship and Fitch was transferred to a shore command that same day. The task force put to sea on 31 December and patrolled in the vicinity of Midway.[56]

 

Saratoga, about 420 nautical miles (780 km; 480 mi) southwest of Pearl Harbor on 11 January 1942, was heading towards a rendezvous with USS Enterprise when she was hit by a torpedo fired by the I-6. The explosion flooded three of her boiler rooms, reduced her speed to a maximum of 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph) and killed six of her crewmen. The ship's list was soon corrected and she reached Pearl two days later.[57] While undergoing temporary repairs there, her four twin eight-inch gun turrets were removed for installation in shore batteries on Oahu.[58] Saratoga then sailed to the Bremerton Navy Yard on 9 February for permanent repairs. She embarked 10 Wildcats of the VF-2 Detachment and all of VS-3 with its Dauntlesses for self-protection on the voyage.[59]

 

While under repair, the ship was modernized with an anti-torpedo bulge, her anti-aircraft armament was significantly upgraded and more radars were added.[36] Douglas was relieved on 12 April and Saratoga was temporarily commanded by her executive officer, Commander Alfred M. Pride, until Captain DeWitt Ramsey assumed command a month later.[60] Saratoga departed from Bremerton on 22 May, bound for San Diego. She arrived there on 25 May and began loading aircraft and supplies while waiting for her task force commander, Admiral Fitch, to arrive from the South Pacific. On 30 May Admiral Nimitz, now commander-in-chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, ordered Captain Ramsey to expedite his departure for Pearl Harbor, even if Fitch had not yet arrived. The ship sailed from San Diego on 1 June carrying 14 Wildcats of VF-2 Detachment and 23 Dauntlesses of VS-3; in addition she carried four Wildcats, 43 Dauntlesses and 14 Avengers as cargo. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on 6 June, the final day of the Battle of Midway. After refuelling, Saratoga departed the following day with the mission to ferry replacement aircraft to the carriers that survived the battle. The ship carried a total of 47 Wildcats, 45 Dauntlesses, five Devastators and 10 Avengers, including her own air group.[61] Admiral Fletcher (whose flagship Yorktown had been sunk during the battle) came aboard on 8 June and made Saratoga his flagship.[62] The ship rendezvoused with the other carriers on 11 June and transferred 19 Dauntlesses, the five Devastators and all of the Avengers to them.[63] When the ship reached Pearl on 13 June, Fletcher and his staff disembarked; Admiral Fitch rendezvoused with the ship the next day. He became commander of Task Force 11 on 15 June, when Nimitz reorganized his carriers. From 22 through 29 June, Saratoga ferried 18 Marine Dauntlesses of VMSB-231 and 25 Army Air Corps Curtiss P-40 Warhawks to Midway Island to replace the aircraft lost during the battle. Fletcher relieved Fitch as commander of TF 11 the following day.[64]

Guadalcanal campaign

Main article: Guadalcanal Campaign

Saratoga operating off Guadalcanal

 

In late June, the Allies decided to seize bases in the southern Solomon Islands with the objective of denying their use by the Japanese to threaten the supply and communication routes between the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. They also intended to use Guadalcanal and Tulagi as bases to support a campaign to eventually capture or neutralize the major Japanese base at Rabaul on New Britain. Admiral Nimitz committed much of the Pacific Fleet to the task, including three of his four carrier task forces. They fell under the command of the recently appointed Vice Admiral Robert L. Ghormley, commander of the South Pacific Area.[65]

 

On 7 July, Task Force 11 departed Pearl for the Southwest Pacific; it consisted of Saratoga, four heavy cruisers, Astoria, New Orleans, Minneapolis and Vincennes, and was escorted by seven destroyers. Also assigned were three replenishment oilers and four fast transports converted from old four-stack destroyers. The carrier embarked 90 aircraft, comprising 37 Wildcats, 37 Dauntlesses and 16 Avengers. TF 11 and TF 18, centered around the carrier Wasp, rendezvoused south of Tongatapu on 24 July and they met the remaining forces, including Enterprise's TF 16, assigned to Operation Watchtower three days later south of the Fiji Islands. The entire force of 82 ships was organized as Task Force 61 and commanded by Fletcher. On 30 July, Saratoga and the other carriers provided air cover for amphibious landings on Koro Island and practiced air strikes as part of the rehearsals for the planned invasion of Guadalcanal, Tulagi, and nearby islands.[66]

A damaged Grumman TBF-1 Avenger makes a landing aboard Saratoga in August 1942

 

The Allied force successfully reached the Solomon Islands without being detected by the Japanese because of thick fog and haze. Saratoga launched 24 Dauntlesses and a dozen Wildcats early on 7 August to attack targets on Guadalcanal. Her air group commander, Commander Harry D. Felt, coordinated the attack over the island, which also included eight Wildcats from Enterprise's VF-6. The aircraft focused on the nearly complete airfield at Lunga and dispersed the two construction battalions building it. This allowed the 1st Marine Division to capture it (renaming it Henderson Field) without resistance. For the rest of the day, the carriers provided a combat air patrol (CAP) over the transports and themselves while their other aircraft provided air support for the Marines as needed.[67]

 

The Japanese struck back quickly and launched 27 Mitsubishi G4M ("Betty") medium bombers, escorted by 17 Mitsubishi A6M Zero ("Zeke") fighters, against the Allied forces. Among the escorting pilots were several aces such as Tadashi Nakajima, Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, and Saburō Sakai. Failing to spot the carriers, the bombers attacked the transports and their escorts, defended by eight Wildcats from Saratoga's VF-5. The Zeros shot down five Wildcats without losing any of their own, but the Americans shot down at least one G4M and damaged a number of others. The bombers failed to hit any Allied ships. About an hour later, nine Aichi D3A ("Val") dive bombers attacked the transport groups. Also based in Rabaul, they were on a one-way mission with a minimal payload of two small 60-kilogram (132 lb) bombs each because the distance to Guadalcanal exceeded their combat range; the pilots were expected to ditch at Shortland Island on the return leg where a Japanese seaplane tender could pick them up. By the time they arrived, the American CAP had been reinforced to 15 Wildcats from VF-5 and VF-6. Realizing that they had been spotted and that they could not reach the vulnerable transports before they were intercepted by the defending fighters, the Japanese attacked two of the escorting destroyers. They lightly damaged one destroyer with a direct hit, but the Americans shot down five of the attackers without loss to themselves.[68]

 

The Japanese attacked the transports again the following day, but none of Saratoga's aircraft were involved. Concerned about his declining fuel reserves and worried about air and submarine attacks after losing 20% of his fighters, Fletcher requested permission from Ghormley to withdraw one day early to refuel. This was granted and Fletcher's carriers were mostly out of range by the morning of 9 August. This meant that the transports lacked air cover, but the only Japanese airstrike of the day specifically targeted the carriers and ignored the transports entirely. Fletcher loitered southeast of the Solomons, waiting for the Japanese carriers that signals intelligence told him were en route to be spotted. He rendezvoused with the aircraft transport Long Island on 19 August and covered her approach to Guadalcanal. The ship was carrying Marine aircraft for Henderson Field and successfully flew them off the next day. Fletcher returned to the Solomons on 21 August after escorting Long Island to safety and remained in the vicinity for the next several days to provide cover for two transports resupplying the Marines. American aircraft shot down several Japanese reconnaissance aircraft during this time and the Japanese concluded that one or more American carriers were operating southeast of Guadalcanal.[69]

Battle of the Eastern Solomons

Main article: Battle of the Eastern Solomons

Enterprise (foreground) and Saratoga (rear) near Guadalcanal, December 1942. A Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber is visible between the two carriers.

 

The presence of American carriers nearby firmed up Japanese plans to land troops on Guadalcanal on 24 August, covered by the fleet carriers Shōkaku and Zuikaku and the light carrier Ryūjō. A force of Japanese troop transports was detected on the morning of 23 August some 300 nautical miles (560 km; 350 mi) north of Guadalcanal. Fletcher was not originally inclined to attack them until another force of two transports was spotted at Faisi later that morning. He changed his mind and ordered Saratoga to launch her airstrike of 31 Dauntlesses and six Avengers in the early afternoon at very long range. They could not locate the Japanese convoy in poor visibility because it had reversed course shortly after spotting the American reconnaissance aircraft. The aircraft lacked the range to return to their carrier and they were ordered to land at Henderson Field and return the following morning.[70]

 

The Japanese failed to locate the American carriers during the day and Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo, commander of the First Carrier Division, ordered Ryūjō, escorted by the heavy cruiser Tone and two destroyers, to attack Henderson Field, as per Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's orders. American aircraft located the Ryūjō task force the following morning as it approached within aircraft range of Guadalcanal, as well as other enemy ships, but failed to spot the fleet carriers. Fletcher delayed his attack until further reconnaissance aircraft failed to find the other Japanese carriers and his own aircraft returned from Henderson Field. In the meantime, Ryūjō had launched her own airstrike against Henderson Field, although they inflicted little damage while losing seven out of 21 aircraft during the attack.[71]

 

Saratoga launched an airstrike against Ryūjō's task force in the early afternoon that consisted of 31 Dauntlesses and eight Avengers; the long range precluded fighter escort. While those aircraft were en route, a number of reconnaissance aircraft from Enterprise spotted and attacked the Japanese formation. They inflicted no damage and the Japanese CAP shot down one Avenger. Saratoga's aircraft sighted the carrier shortly afterward and attacked. They hit Ryūjō three times with 1,000-pound (450 kg) bombs and one torpedo; the torpedo hit flooded the starboard engine and boiler rooms. No aircraft from either Ryūjō or Saratoga were shot down in the attack.[72] The carrier capsized about four hours later with the loss of 120 crewmen.[73]

 

About an hour after Saratoga launched her airstrike, the Japanese launched theirs once they located the American carriers. Shōkaku contributed 18 D3As and nine Zeros while Zuikaku launched nine D3As and six Zeros. Reconnaissance SBDs from Enterprise spotted the 1st Carrier Division shortly after the Japanese airstrike had taken off and five of Shōkaku's Zeros stayed behind to deal with the Dauntlesses as they attacked Shōkaku. The Dauntlesses survived the attack by the Zeros, but their spot report was garbled and the enemy's location could not be understood. This incident prompted Nagumo to launch a follow-on airstrike with 27 D3As and nine Zeros.[74]

 

The first airstrike attacked the ships of TF 16 which was initially defended by fighters from VF-6. Once radar spotted the incoming Japanese aircraft, both carriers launched all available fighters. Enterprise was badly damaged by three bomb hits, but the Japanese lost 19 dive bombers and four Zeros to the defending fighters and anti-aircraft fire. They claimed to have shot down a dozen Wildcats although the Americans lost only five, of which two belonged to VF-5; some of the American losses were reportedly due to friendly anti-aircraft fire. In turn, the American fighters claimed to have shot down 52 Japanese aircraft, 15 more than the Japanese committed to the attack. The second Japanese airstrike failed to locate the American carriers.[75]

 

Right before the Japanese attack, Saratoga launched a small airstrike of two Dauntlesses and five Avengers to clear her flight deck and these planes found and damaged the seaplane tender Chitose with near misses that also destroyed three Mitsubishi F1M reconnaissance floatplanes. Two Avengers were forced to make emergency landings, but they shot down one Zero from Shōkaku. After recovering their returning aircraft, the two American carriers withdrew, Enterprise for repairs and Saratoga to refuel the next day. Before the former departed for Tongatapu for temporary repairs, she transferred 17 Wildcats and six Avengers to Saratoga as replacements for the latter's losses.[76]

 

Fletcher rendezvoused with TF 18 east of San Cristobal on the evening of 26 August and transferred four Wildcats to Wasp the next day to bring the latter's fighters up to strength. TF 17, with the carrier Hornet, arrived on 29 August. Two days later, a torpedo from I-26 struck Saratoga on her starboard side, just aft of the island. The torpedo wounded a dozen of her sailors, including Fletcher, and it flooded one fireroom, giving the ship a 4° list, but it caused multiple electrical short circuits. These damaged Saratoga's turbo-electric propulsion system and left her dead in the water for a time. The heavy cruiser Minneapolis took Saratoga in tow while she launched her aircraft for Espiritu Santo, retaining 36 fighters aboard. By noon, the list had been corrected and she was able to steam under her own power later that afternoon.[77]

 

Saratoga reached Tongatapu on 6 September and flew off 27 Wildcats for Efate once she arrived.[78] The ship received temporary repairs there and sailed for Pearl on 12 September, escorted by the battleship South Dakota, New Orleans and five destroyers. Task Force 11 reached Pearl on 21 September and Saratoga entered drydock the following day for more permanent repairs. Captain Ramsey was promoted on 27 September and replaced by Captain Gerald F. Bogan.[79]

 

Task Force 11, now commanded by Rear Admiral Ramsey, sailed from Pearl Harbor, bound for Nouméa, New Caledonia, via Viti Levu, Fiji, on 12 November 1942 with Saratoga as his flagship. The other ships of the task force consisted of New Orleans, the fleet oiler Kankakee and six destroyers. The carrier had on board the Wildcats of VF-6, Dauntlesses of VB-3 and VS-6, and the Avengers of VT-3. The ships dropped anchor in Fiji on 22 November, except for New Orleans, which immediately left for Nouméa, escorted by two destroyers. The cruiser was replaced by the light anti-aircraft cruiser San Juan on 29 November and the task force sailed for Nouméa on 1 December. After they arrived on 5 December, one of Saratoga's main turbines required repairs which lasted until 13 December.[80]

1943

 

On 23 January 1943, Saratoga launched 18 Wildcats of VF-3, 24 Dauntlesses of VB-3 and VS-3, and 17 Avengers of VT-3 for Henderson Field, retaining 16 Wildcats and 15 Dauntlesses for self-defense. The next day they attacked the Japanese airfield at Vila, Solomon Islands after it had been bombarded by four Allied light cruisers. The aircraft returned to the carrier without loss later that afternoon.[81] Captain Bogan slipped and badly injured himself on 29 March so Captain Henry M. Mullinnix assumed command on 7 April.[82]

Saratoga in 1943 or 44.

 

With the withdrawal of Enterprise in early May, Saratoga became the only operational American fleet carrier in the South Pacific. Task Force 14, as her group was now known, was reinforced by the anti-aircraft cruiser San Diego on 3 May and by the British fleet carrier Victorious on 17 May.[83] At this time Saratoga embarked 34 Wildcats of VF-5, 37 Dauntlesses of VB-3 and VS-3 and 16 Avengers of VT-8.[84] Ramsey's force was intended to provide distant cover for the impending landings on New Georgia and to prevent intervention by any Japanese carriers. The two carriers spent some weeks familiarizing each other with their capabilities and tactics and Ramsey decided to take advantage of each carrier's strengths. He ordered that the Avengers of 832 Squadron be exchanged for 24 Wildcats from VF-3 as Victorious had difficulty operating the large Avenger and the British carrier possessed better facilities for coordinating fighter operations than Saratoga; the latter retained a dozen Wildcats for self-defense and escort duties. Fortunately, Ramsey never got a chance to test his reorganization as the Japanese carriers made no effort to attack the American transports.[85] Ramsey was relieved on 26 July and replaced by Rear Admiral Frederick C. Sherman.[86] Victorious sailed on 31 July for home and left eleven Avengers behind as reserves for Saratoga.[87]

 

Carrier Air Group 12 was assigned to Saratoga in lieu of Carrier Air Group 3 and flew aboard on 1 August. It was composed of VF-12, VB-12 and VT-12;[86] the fighter and dive bomber squadrons each had 36 aircraft and the torpedo bomber squadron had half that number. Grumman F6F Hellcats replaced the Wildcats formerly used.[88] The task force was redesignated as Task Force 38 on 4 August and Captain John H. Cassady relieved Mullinix on 22 August after the latter was promoted. The ship was based at Havannah Harbor, Efate and Espiritu Santo from August through November. While refueling at sea on the night of 12 October, Saratoga collided with the oiler Atascosa, damaging three of her 20-millimeter guns on her port side. On 22 October, she was joined by the light aircraft carrier Princeton.[89]

 

On 27 October, Task Force 38 provided air cover for the invasion of the Treasury Islands, part of the preliminary operations for the invasion of Bougainville Island scheduled a few days later. On the morning of 1 November, Saratoga's aircraft neutralized Japanese airfields at the northern end of the island and on Buka Island. They destroyed 15 Japanese aircraft while losing three Hellcats, one Dauntless, and two Avengers to all causes. While the task force was refuelling on 3–4 November, reconnaissance aircraft discovered Japanese cruisers massing at Rabaul and Admiral Halsey ordered Task Force 38 to attack them with maximal force before they could engage the transports at Bougainville. This translated into an attack group of 23 Avengers and 22 Dauntlesses, escorted by every available fighter on board the two carriers on 5 November; CAP over the carriers was provided by fighters flying from New Georgia.[90] The attack caught the Japanese by surprise and badly damaged four heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and a destroyer[91] for the loss of only nine aircraft to all causes.[92]

 

Saratoga and Princeton attacked Rabaul again on 11 November in conjunction with three carriers of Task Group 50.3. They attacked first, but inflicted little damage due to poor visibility; the other carriers were more successful and further damaged the ships at Rabaul.[93] Task Force 38 returned to Espiritu Santo on 14 November.[94] Now known as Task Group 50.4, Saratoga and Princeton were tasked as the Relief Carrier Group for the offensive in the Gilbert Islands. As part of the preliminary operations, they attacked Nauru on 19 November, destroying two fighters and three G4Ms on the ground. As the carriers were withdrawing, they were unsuccessfully attacked by eight more G4Ms, shooting down half of their attackers. TF 50.2 was not attacked during the battle and Saratoga transferred a number of her aircraft to replace losses aboard the other carriers before departing for Pearl Harbor on 30 November.[95] She arrived on 4 December and off-loaded her aircraft and stores before proceeding to San Francisco where she arrived on 9 December for a refit and augmentation of her anti-aircraft guns.[96]

1944

Saratoga docked at Pearl Harbor, June 1945

 

Saratoga's refit was completed on 2 January 1944 and she arrived at Pearl Harbor on 7 January. The ship, now the flagship of Rear Admiral Samuel Ginder, commander of Task Group 58.4, sailed from Pearl Harbor on 19 January with Langley and Princeton, to support the invasion of the Marshall Islands scheduled to begin on 1 February.[97] Her air group at this time consisted of 36 Hellcats of VF-12, 24 Dauntlesses of VB-12 and eight Avengers of VT-8.[98] As part of the preliminary operations, aircraft from the Task Group attacked airfields at Wotje and Taroa on 29–31 January, radio stations at Rongelap and Utirik Atoll on 1 February,[99] and then attacked Engebi, the main island at Eniwetok Atoll, from 3 to 6 February, refuelled, and attacked Japanese defenses at Eniwetok again from 10 to 12 February. They provided air support during the entire Battle of Eniwetok which began on 17 February with landings at Engebi and continued until the islands were secured on 24 February. They then protected the Allied forces there until 28 February when land-based aircraft assumed that role.[100]

 

On 4 March, Saratoga departed Majuro with an escort of three destroyers to reinforce the Eastern Fleet in the Indian Ocean and allow it to attack Japanese-controlled territory. She rendezvoused at sea on 27 March with the British force and arrived at Trincomalee, Ceylon, on 31 March.[101] During the next two weeks, the carriers conducted intensive training and rehearsing with the fleet carrier Illustrious for an attack on the port city of Sabang (Operation Cockpit) scheduled for 19 April. For this operation, Saratoga mustered 27 Hellcats, 24 Dauntlesses and 18 Avengers. The carrier launched 24 Hellcats, 11 Avengers and 18 Dauntlesses while Illustrious contributed 17 Fairey Barracuda bombers and 13 Vought F4U Corsair fighters. The attack caught the Japanese by surprise and there was no aerial opposition, so the escorts strafed the airfield and destroyed 24 aircraft on the ground. The port facilities and oil storage tanks were heavily damaged and one small freighter was sunk for the loss of one Hellcat to flak. The Japanese attempted to attack the fleet with three G4Ms as it was withdrawing, but the CAP shot down all three bombers. Sailing from Ceylon on 6 May, the task force attacked the oil refinery at Surabaya, Java, on 17 May after refueling at Exmouth Gulf, Australia. Little damage was inflicted on the refinery and only one small ship was sunk for the loss of one of VT-3's Avengers.[102] Saratoga was relieved from its assignment with the British the next day and ordered back to Pearl.[103]

 

The ship arrived at Pearl on 10 June and remained for several days before departing for Bremerton to begin an overhaul scheduled to last several months. Captain Cassady was relieved by Captain Thomas Sisson on 22 June although he was only briefly in command before Captain Lucian A. Moebus assumed command on 31 July. Saratoga completed her post-refit sea trials on 13 September and arrived at the Naval Air Station Alameda on 16 September to begin loading 85 aircraft, 1500 passengers and cargo bound for Pearl Harbor. She departed San Francisco two days later and arrived on 24 September. The ship was assigned to Carrier Division 11 which was tasked to train night fighter pilots and to develop night tactics and doctrine. Rear Admiral Matthias Gardner made Saratoga his flagship on 10 October. Four days later, the ship was accidentally rammed by her plane guard destroyer Clark, gashing the port side of her hull. Operations were immediately cancelled and she returned to port for temporary repairs. Permanent repairs were made during a brief refit during the first week of November. Carrier qualification and other training continued through most of January 1945.[104]

1945

 

On 29 January 1945, Saratoga departed Pearl Harbor for Ulithi Atoll to rendezvous with the Enterprise and form a night fighter task group (TG 58.5/Night Carrier Division 7) along with Enterprise, to provide air cover for the amphibious landings on Iwo Jima. She arrived on 8 February[105] with the 53 Hellcats and 17 Avengers of Carrier Air Group (Night) 53[19] aboard and sailed two days later.[105]

Saratoga hit by a kamikaze, 21 February 1945

 

The carrier force carried out diversionary strikes on the Japanese home islands on the nights of 16 and 17 February, before the landings began. Saratoga was assigned to provide fighter cover while the remaining carriers launched the strikes on Japan, but in the process, her fighters raided two Japanese airfields. The force fueled on 18 and 19 February, and the ship provided CAP over Iwo Jima on 19–20 February.[106] The following day, Saratoga was detached with an escort of three destroyers to join the amphibious forces and carry out night patrols over Iwo Jima and nearby Chichi Jima. Taking advantage of low cloud cover and Saratoga's weak escort, six Japanese planes scored five bomb hits on the carrier in three minutes; three of the aircraft also struck the carrier. Saratoga's flight deck forward was wrecked, her starboard side was holed twice and large fires were started in her hangar deck; she lost 123 of her crew dead or missing as well as 192 wounded. Thirty-six of her aircraft were destroyed. Another attack two hours later further damaged her flight deck.[107] Slightly over an hour later, the fires were under control, and Saratoga was able to recover six fighters; she arrived at Bremerton on 16 March for permanent repairs.[108]

 

Because of Saratoga's age and the number of modern carriers in service, the Navy decided to modify her into a training carrier. The aft elevator and its machinery was removed, the opening was plated over and the forward elevator was replaced with a larger model. Part of the hangar deck was converted into classrooms.[109] While the ship was still under repair Captain Frank Akers assumed command on 27 April. The post-refit machinery trials on 12 May revealed some problems with one turbine, and an explosion in one 5-inch gun wounded eleven men and wrecked the mount. The full-power trials were completed on 20 May and a new mount was loaded aboard to be installed at Pearl. The ship sailed for NAS Alameda a few days later where she picked up 60 aircraft, 1,200 passengers and some trucks for delivery in Pearl. Saratoga arrived on 1 June and became the flagship of Rear Admiral Ralph F. Jennings, commander of Carrier Division 11. She resumed carrier qualification training on 3 June until she returned to the dockyard on 10 June for the installation of her replacement five-inch gun mount. Jennings transferred his flag to another carrier from 11 to 30 June. She continued training carrier pilots after the Japanese surrender until 6 September.[110] Over the span of the ship's 17-year career, Saratoga's aviators landed on her deck 98,549 times, then the record for the most carrier landings.[1] Saratoga received eight battle stars for her World War II service.[111] After the war, the ship took part in Operation Magic Carpet, the repatriation of American servicemen from the European, Pacific, and Asian theaters. She left Hawaii on 9 September with 3,712 Navy officers and enlisted men bound for the United States. In the course of the operation, she returned 29,204 veterans, the highest total for any individual vessel.[1]

Postwar years

Saratoga sinking after Test Baker

 

Saratoga was surplus to postwar requirements with the large numbers of Essex-class carriers in service,[1] and she was assigned to Operation Crossroads on 22 January 1946. This was a test conducted at Bikini Atoll to evaluate the effect of the atomic bomb on ships. Captain Stanhope Ring assumed command on 6 March, but was relieved on 2 June by Captain Donald MacMahan. The ship hosted comedian Jack Benny's radio show on 21 April, while Saratoga was berthed in San Francisco before her departure for Bikini.[112]

 

Operation Crossroads began with the first blast (Test Able), an air burst on 1 July 1946. Saratoga survived the explosion with only minor damage, including the ignition of the teak of her flight deck. A skeleton crew boarded Saratoga the following day to prepare her for the next test on 25 July. The ship was sunk by Test Baker, an underwater blast which was detonated under LSM-60 400 yards (370 m) from the carrier. The explosion literally blew the ship out of the water, knocked everything off her flight deck and knocked most of her funnel onto the flight deck.[113] She was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 15 August 1946.[1]

 

In recent years, the submerged wreck, the top of which is only 50 ft (15 m) below the surface, has become a scuba diving destination, one of only three carrier wrecks accessible to recreational divers (the others are the Oriskany, in the Gulf of Mexico, and HMS Hermes, off Batticaloa in Sri Lanka.)[114] After a hiatus of several years, dive trips resumed in 2011.[115]

The ability of adults living in times of conflict and displacement to provide nurturing care for their children may be hampered by their own experiences of trauma, compounded by economic hardship and social isolation.

 

For these reasons, the sessions teach parenting skills like positive discipline, tips on how to provide emotional support to their children, and stress management so to maintain healthy environments at home.

 

Other parents help in community engagement on the importance of education.

 

They do home visits when some children miss school to raise awareness among parents.

 

© Njouliaminche Zedou / IRC, 2021. All rights reserved. Licensed to the European Union under conditions.

rafayanes.com/blog/ruta-gallina-pelada-2-321-m-els-100-cims/

The circuit in the Displacement Current diagram is shown wrapped up into a ball. Instead of the current flowing in one dimension (through the wires), it now flows in three dimensions. The discharging capacitor is labeled Co in this drawing.

 

The red sphere is the 'top' plate of the left capacitor in the Displacement Current drawing. The pink sphere is the top plate of the right capacitor. The dark gray region between represents the resistor and the blue surfaces represent the bottom plates of the capacitors.

 

Current flows radially through the resistor, R and around the blue surface from the north pole to the south pole. The displacement current flows radially outward through the capacitors.

 

The Poynting vector field flows from inside Co (out through the hole at the bottom) and into R and C.

Due to the protracted conflict in Syria, numerous internally displaced people have sought refuge in camps across northern Syria. Despite the temporary shelter and basic services being provided, living conditions remain very challenging.

The Tel Samen camp situated in the north of Raqqa city hosts more than 6,600 internally displaced people, mostly older people, women, and children.

 

© European Union, 2023

Designer: Dickies

Builder: Dickies of Tarbert, Scotland

Year: 1936

Location Devon

Length on deck: 44'

Beam: 11'4

Draft: 6'

Tonnage(TM): 17.8 Displacement

£110,000

Full Specification

 

An exceptional and rare boat which combines all the features regarded as classic and representative of the great period of wooden yacht construction and presented in very fine condition.

 

Length on deck: 44’

Beam: 11’4”

Draft: 6’

Tonnage: 17.8 tons displacement.

 

Designed and built by Dickies of Tarbert on the west coast of Scotland. Of the three Dickie brothers one took over the old family firm in Tarbert, another moved south across the water to Bangor in N Wales and a third brother was apprenticed to the great William Fife in his drawing office. At the time, Dickies was held in the same high regard as Alfred Mylne and the now great William Fife’s yard.

The design is a proper long keeled, sea-worthy hull inspired by the Scottish fishing boat type with a full canoe stern, sharp almost vertical stem, good free-board and full mid-ships sections.

The mid-ships wheel-house is a wonderful construction built in to the step in the deck, multi-faceted forward, cabin entrance each side and a shallow coach-roof running aft to a lovely deep well-sheltered little cock-pit.

All deck fittings are in bronze and original but she has also been intelligently modernised with modern nav lights and equipment to bring her up to expected modern standards.

 

Built in the Tarbert yard in 1936, the yard must have been delighted to land this high spec order and she was undoubtedly a very expensive yacht indeed.

 

Tunnag has passed through our hands several times in the last 35 years so we are quite familiar with her. For the last few years she has been in local ownership here in Dartmouth, the owner first apprenticed to Moodys as a boat builder and later building high tech one-off race yachts in his own yard so well qualified to bring a quality boat up to top condition. They are justifiably proud of the yacht but as time goes on they are finding that a smaller yacht with more sail would suit them better now.

 

Construction.

The construction is robust, almost fishing boat strength planked in proper old 1 ¼” Burma teak, and finished varnished in the topsides from new, anti-fouled below the w/l. Even much of the inside of the hull is varnished!

The frames are grown oak all through at approx 3’ centres, doubled in futtocks, side pinned with single steam bent oak intermediates.

The long oak keel carries an external iron ballast keel over most of the length and especially reaching right forward to the rise of the stem so that any contact with a hard surface would be taken on the iron, not the wood – a thoughtful touch.

In present ownership the keel bolts have been inspected.

Sea-cocks removed, stripped and any dubious replaced.

 

The strap floors are in massive angle shape wrought iron which does not rust like mild steel even if it is galvanised, side bolted to the frames which avoids the problem of corrosion of bolts through the planking.

In present ownership most of the floors have been removed from the boat, epoxy tarred and replaced on a bedding compound with new bronze bolts through the frames – an exceptional and essential job with most boats of this vintage.

The topsides are raised forward from the mid-ships step in the deck to give increased head-room in the forward accommodation and fitted with 3 large bronze port holes each side.

Interestingly, there is a small port hole each side mid-ships in the topsides to give some light and air to the engine room.

The wheel-house and after coaming are all teak with bronze port holes.

The coach-roof deck is sheathed probably originally with canvas and painted with cream non-slip deck paint between varnished teak margins. The after cabin entrance from the cock-pit has a sliding hatch and twin full length doors to the cock-pit.

 

Fastenings:

The planking is fastened to the main frames with bronze dumps and to the steamed intermediates with copper nails. Close study shows the Scottish way of clenching the nails rather than riveting over roves.

 

Deck.

The deck is yacht laid in solid teak which means the planking is swept round the shape of the hull and joggled into a king plank forward and aft.

Traditionally caulked and payed, the deck was originally secret fastened and has been largely refastened with screws from above, dowled over.

The rudder stock head projects through the aft deck with a removable bronze cap to take an emergency tiller.

Steering is by traditional spoked teak wheel and cables to a quadrant on the stock under the aft deck.

In present ownership new cables and tubes fitted.

Cast bronze stanchion posts all round carry 2 stainless steel guard wires. A modern stainless steel pulpit and push-pit have been added for safety. The step in the deck edge in way of the gate either side has a cast bronze cap with the yacht’s name – a lovely touch.

Hefty mooring cleats fitted either side forward and aft and a cruciform cleat mid-ships by the step in the deck, essential to take a mid-ships spring when berthing and so often missing on yachts.

To back up the cleats she has a massive oak Sampson post on the fore deck and the aft deck and even each side at the break in the deck.

A very substantial bronze fabrication over the stem spreads the loads of the chain over the twin chain rollers.

A modern electric windlass may look slightly out of place but like other details on this yacht makes her far more practical for regular use. A CQR anchor when hauled in stows neatly on the chain roller removing the necessity to lift a heavy anchor over the pulpit.

Small thoughtful details like the twin bronze fairleads on the capping both sides saves damage to the capping by mooring lines.

In present ownership the deck seams have been raked out, the seams repayed with butyl rubber compound and the decks coated with Semco, a wood protector and water-proofing product which has the advantage of sealing the seams against any possible leaks.

 

Rig.

A bermudian ketch rig on varnished spruce masts and spars gives a useful sail area of around 200 square feet with the headsail on a roller furler, a 2-reef mainsail and a small mizzen.

Stainless steel standing rigging to internal bronze chain plates.

In present ownership the masts have been stripped and revarnished, the standing and running rigging have all been replaced and new blocks fitted.

  

Sails.

A very good, clean suit of cream sails in polyester comprising:

Mainsail – not new but in very good condition

Mizzen – not new but in very usable condition

Genoa on roller furling gear – as new condition

Jib – in excellent condition

New small, loose-footed, boomless mizzen serves to weather-cock the boat at anchor – Dart Sails, 2014

Sail covers to main and mizzen.

New runing rig.

 

Engine.

Gardner 3LW 47hp 3-cylinder diesel engine installed new in 1965.

Gardner U2 2:1 gearbox with usual Gardner wheel control at the helm and separate throttle lever.

Conventional centre-line shaft carried in a plummer block with conventional inboard stuffing box and a new outer shaft bearing in 2002.

New double greasers to plummer blocks

3-blade prop.

This Gardner is a superb machine, slow revving, quiet, smooth and very reassuring with the reputation for a very long life and almost infinitely rebuildable – a proper marine diesel engine.

Max speed 8.5knts

Fuel consumption approx 5 litres per hour at her most economic cruising speed of 7 knts.

In present ownership the engine has had a thorough service – seals and impellors renewed etc.

The owner before last who bought the yacht through Wooden Ships, a skilled engineer, did a major rebuild on this engine and like all Gardners it has given total and reliable service.

 

Tanks

Diesel: 110 gallons in 2 stainless steel tanks, one each side of the engine room.

New twin Racor filters fitted with change-over valve. All pipe-work renewed.

Engine room in pristine condition with steel chequer plate floors, all exceptionally clean with very good access all round.

 

Water: 200 gallons fresh water in 2 tanks.

New pressurised water system with new calorifier tank in the engine room heated by the engine cooling water and with 240v immersion heater.

In present ownership the plumbing and hot water system have all been replaced.

New water filtration pump and tap at the galley sink.

  

Electrics

The yacht operates on a 24v circuit with 12v supply to certain instruments.

240v supply from shore power or generator.

 

Generator. Hyundi 3.6kw remote start diesel generator mounted in a varnished teak box on deck behind the wheel-house to give as silent and odour-free operation as possible.

The generator is coupled to a Victron 3KW inverter mounted in a stainless tray in the engine room with 4 x 110amp/hr batteries.

55amp engine belt driven alternator fitted new in 2013 charges the batteries

4 x 12v domestic batteries

4 x 12v engine start batteries

2 x 12v windlass batteries

Sterling battery management system

240v ring main with shore power connection

In present ownership the yacht has been largely rewired and new electrical panel fitted.

  

Accommodation.

The interior of this yacht is exceptional, all very original and panelled in polished teak. The teak in the bulkhead panels and the door panels is carefully chosen to give matching grain pattern in every one as was the way with all the best classic yachts.

The interior of the yacht is divided into 4 areas – a fore peak cabin with full length single berth to stbd and up and down smaller berths to port.

Bulkhead to chain locker forward. Fore peak entrance hatch over.

All panelled in varnished teak with white painted deck-head.

Bulkhead door to the next aft compartment with galley surface to starboard and gimballed Taylors 041 2-burner, grill and oven gas cooker in a lined recess to port.

The galley has been recently refitted and is a clean modern area with an L-shaped white formica surface with a twin sink, hot/cold tap, salt water tap and chromed Patay manual fresh water pump. Sink drains overboard.

Cup racks above. Cave locker in the work surface.

12v/240v Waeco fridge under the work surface

In present ownership the galley has been rebuilt, new fridge and cooker fitted.

 

Aft again into the magnificent saloon cabin, all varnished teak joinery with shelves and glass fronted lockers each side.

Port side dinette with buttoned light brown leather upholstery and varnished table, drops down to make a double berth.

Settee berth to stbd with fabric covered cushions. Back rest lifts and suspends as a Pullman berth.

6’ head-room. White painted deck-head. Varnished teak sole boards. Classic gimballed chrome lights on the bulkheads. Lots of stowage under the settees.

Main mast against the forward bulkhead.

 

Centre-line steps up to the wheel-house with the engine room below. All varnished teak wheel-house. Step up to exit door either side. Traditional spoked teak wheel. All nav instruments well displayed and visible. Seating aft.

 

Aft port corner of wheel-house, winding stair down to the saloon cabin.

Electrical switch-board hidden behind a small door as you go down the steps, easily reached from the wheel-house.

Lobby at the bottom of the companionway.

Heads compartment to stbd with Jabsco sea toilet, shower with teak grating in the tray, lockers under the side deck.

In present ownership the heads has been refitted and a new sea-toilet installed.

Door to engine room on the centre-line between heads and companionway.

Bulkhead door to the aft cabin. Single berth to port, tight double berth to stbd.

Centre-line companionway up to the aft cock-pit.

Webasto hot air diesel fired central heating sited in the engine room, new 2013

  

Inventory.

 

Navigation. Ground tackle.

Constellation binnacle compass at the helm Muir 24v windlass

Navman chart plotter. New Lewmar Delta anchor

New Lowrance Elite 5 sounder Min 80 meters chain.

Fixed Sailor VHF radio. Long anchor warp.

Sailor radio receiver

Neco auto-pilot on the wheel. Warps and fenders.

 

This is one of those boats you cannot just walk past, a boat which attracts attention wherever she goes, a classic in every sense of that over-used word yet still a very practical and usable boat.

After the work done in present ownership the next owner will take over a wonderful yacht and the continuing pleasure in the conservation of our maritime heritage.

 

2 July 2017. Padding: Relatives assist (lying on the floor) Nyanom Gay, 26 years old and mother of 4 children, after being infected with malaria in Padding, Jonglei, South Sudan, on July 2, 2017.

Fighting between Government and opposition forces last April pushed thousands of civilians to displace to Padding and Lankien, both still under opposition control. The massive displacement, that duplicated the population, brought an outbreak of cholera and a serious need of health assistance, drinking water and food distribution among the population, according to the local leaders.

Photo by Albert Gonzalez Farran - AFP - www.albertgonzalez.net

At Eagle Lakes Park, Naples, Florida, one osprey chick has fledged and the other two are still in the nest (in the evening of April 16th). So what does the attentive adult do? Why he starts bringing sticks to the nest of course!!!!

Geometric landscape displacement tutorial 😍😍😍 here: ift.tt/1Xt6Fit

A displaced woman washes a child in public in the squalid, crowded camp that sprang up when people from the Nuer tribe rushed into the protected military compound for safety.

UNHCR/ K.McKinsey/ January 2014

22. February 2007, Trincomalee, Sri Lanka.

Image copyright © Agron Dragaj 2007.All rights reserved. (images on this site can not be downloaded and used without written permission of Agron Dragaj).

 

A young boy gazes on, the look of hope in his eyes clearly evident as his father is interviewed by UNHCR officials. Although he was born into displacement, the boy and his family are now among many beneficiaries of UNHCR's scheme to provide houses in Muthunagar the displaced living with host families. His family can finally experience the joy living in a home of their own.

A child holds a weapon belonging to his father as he stands with his family who were displaced from their home, during a protest in Baghdad December 10, 2006. Shi'ite militias attacked Sunni homes in Baghdad's religiously mixed Hurriya district on Saturday, Interior Ministry officials and witnesses said. More than 30 families fled after the militias torched homes and killed at least one person, witnesses and officials said. REUTERS/Ali Jasim (IRAQ)

Another of the FMOM project.

This is actually the first thing I put together when I had the idea, so I just utilized a self portrait I'd taken a couple weeks ago just to see how an image with text applied to a wall would work out.

 

flic.kr/p/2iWztvh

Realizing a Dream to dealing with developers......After a revealing trip to Bruges in 2008, Hughes Songe decided to come and draw a new project, in his architectural lifetime, here to make the dream opening up to new changes and variations of ArchiTouch...

The path guides the displacements and makes an identifiable interaction with a form of inner illumination. It is easier to use the poem "Right angle" for the strategies of urban development, Le Corbusier and Cerda have invented or reinvented?The path guides the displacements and makes an identifiable interaction with a form of inner illumination. It is easier to use the poem "Right angle" for the strategies of urban development, Le Corbusier and Cerda have invented or reinvented?

The Plan Obus (obtuse) or checkered (damned) to facilitate the division of the territory and the application of rules of prospect between buildings, Perret in Le Havre followed the same systematic logic. Today we come to a profound dichotomy, which consists in making us believe that architects are thinkers. They live in a closed vase and celebrate the beauty of Le Havre! They even succeeded in classifying a failure of urban planning as a world heritage of mankind?

Yet this city located on the edge of the ocean has a square plan that lets the wind rush and the width of the streets is not for nothing! Just look at the old map of Le Havre to understand its subtlety! Trade in Le Havre comes down to shopping centers and a lot of verbal or advertising communication. We share the pride of his mayor and his patriotic attachment, but we can not intellectually defend the idea of a city designed for the brothers Perret!

Do not forget that the three brothers were accomplices of family enrichment! One was Banquier, the other king of concrete and the third architect-town planner. Fortunately, the new laws in the process of going to the assembly would have forbidden this kind of practice.

. The arrogance of the architects and the council of order set up under Philippe Pétain with the Nazis' approval was never questioned and for good reason! Finally it is more simplistic but more efficient to divide the ground with a square?

The compass requires much more intellectual dexterity? Yet cities that work well are doing well! And in circles, they resemble Paris or Strasbourg or Lille. Centrifugal cities are often classified as medieval cities, yet they are the pride of heritage and attract many tourists.

Shopping centers will soon be the dinosaurs, they will not have resisted the Internet and the need to root in the face of the globalization of cultural values. The failure of Luc Besson's film in the USA 🇺🇸 is proof! France is exporting when it carries its DNA, Hollywood imitation is not an option, nor is the imitation of New York or Shanghai. The Chinese failed in Shanghai because they forgot their fengshui,

Retail trade is developing well in these cities and especially since the establishment of pedestrian centers. The generalization of vehicles will accentuate this trend and a return to our roots of worship.

It is, however, a phenomenal tool for managing the territory. Urbanism or geomancy or fengshui should blend into a new discipline? The art of building cities that still smell the territory and avoid Hollywood cloning or Le Corbusier? This guy should be treated like Adolf Hitler, so he is responsible for the suicidal and fundamentalist suburbs of the fundamentalism that was born in his radiant cities.

Another fundamentalist of modern thought is Emile Aillaud, the divine creator of the Grande Borne (Grand Borgne) a building of one kilometer without passages !!! We must deplore the lack of self-criticism in our profession of architect and the too great tendency of journalists to intellectualize the void, the void or the plant walls and look at the fourth facades on the roofs with pollution? Vegetables with lead?

Re-read Françoise Choay Utopia and Reality. Finally in 1970 already the same questions were asked! Architects' design and façade materials are nothing but artifice, they always dress cubes and the new streets are always at right angles.

Hughes Songe

 

Claire Carriou and Olivier Ratouis reconsider the theoretical sources of sustainable urban planning from the standpoint of the history of urban-planning doctrines. They show that the references in question are no longer constrained by the classic categories (“culturalism” and “progressivism”) established by Françoise Choay on the basis of textual analyses of planning and development treaties.

  

Several conclusions can be drawn from this table:

 

Thinking about urban planning in terms of models, once decried, seems to be making a comeback among planners, especially as the importance of sustainable development becomes ever clearer? Whether they are “modelling” energy consumption, collecting “best practices” in urban planning or creating “labels” for sustainable neighbourhoods, experts in the field are calling, more or less directly, for regulatory – or even standardised – measures and instruments that can be used (and, ideally, reproduced) to build today’s cities. At this point, we should like to call into question the characteristics of the doctrines of sustainable urban planning. In this regard, any notion of a “model” cannot be considered without reference to the works of the philosopher Françoise Choay, which constitute the primary classification approach in this field, and in particular to her founding work, Urbanisme, utopies et réalités. Une anthologie (Choay 1965), which is still widely used as a textbook and remains an essential reference 50 years after it was first published. But are its constituent categories suited to describing and qualifying new schools of thought in sustainable development? And is sustainable urban planning nothing more than a model, in Choay’s sense of the term? These questions are, of course, vast in their scope. We shall aim, therefore, not to investigate each and every aspect of them, but rather to provide some initial clarifications on certain points.

 

1. A utopia without a model. The charters of sustainable urban planning are neither an updated reformulation of culturalism and progressivism, nor the re-expression of these models in hybrid forms. They differ more fundamentally still in that references to utopia – a cardinal component of the models as defined by Françoise Choay – appear in a much more ambivalent form. In both charters, the link with utopia is more multifaceted, more complex, almost contradictory, even. On the one hand, the intention is to take the city in its current state (or the city that is already there) as the starting point. In the 1994 charter, the city is perceived as a specific ecosystem whose “trade-offs” need to be carefully balanced. The role of urban planning, while the preserve of local authorities, seems to be more about circumspection than decision-making. The Aalborg + 10 charter of commitments, on the other hand, favours more “energetic” interventions on the part of local authorities, albeit combined with the idea of improving the existing city – for example, by making use of abandoned spaces – rather than envisaging a new city. [4] Nevertheless, the salient characteristics of a utopia, as defined by Choay, can be found here. For instance, the 1994 charter is presented as the founding text for a new way of developing the city that breaks with previous practices. It is written as if this were a new, undiscovered field where no relevant initiatives or references exist, placed within the typical three-part structure for demonstrating utopias: denouncing the contemporary evils of urban society, criticising the planning and development tools used up to that time, and new proposals for intervention (without rejecting the currently existing city). It is true that neither of the two charters puts forward a spatial model to be reproduced, as the idea is to improve the existing city; however, more indirectly, via benchmarks for action and technical tools, they present a “shared vision” of the city of the future, as indicated in the Aalborg + 10 commitments. The imaginary dimension – the image of the new, dreamed city that is at the heart of the utopian approach – is very much present, albeit less formalised.

 

2. From spatialist ideology to technicist and management-based ideology? More generally, the common principles set out in the charters tend to distance themselves from the premises put forward by texts focused on the concept of “models”. These premises were supported by the spatialist ideology, correlated to utopia, to be understood as the belief that taking action that affects space reforms both individuals and social conditions. The Aalborg charters offer no comparable entry point. First of all, spatial aspects are not presented as the main vector for action affecting the city, as a significant number of actions are of an intangible nature and concern day-to-day practices, consumption and management choices. Above all, the meaning attached to interventions affecting the city differs. The notion of progress and, more generally, social reform, which was one intended outcome of urban-planning action in the models, is barely touched upon. What are significantly more visible, however, are the more modest aims of making urban society fairer, reducing inequalities and emphasising solidarity – but not radically transforming society. The spatialist ideology of the models was built, moreover, backed up by the belief that science and technology had the power to change the world (Friedmann 1989). In the charters, the use of technology is always very much present: multiple indicators, standards, indices and guidelines, intended to provide tools for urban management, are mentioned. However, when envisaged in this way, tools and techniques tend to go beyond their role as simple decision-making aids and begin to contain with them the meaning and purpose of action affecting the city, at the risk of losing the spirit of social reform. Accordingly, in the shadow of the official line on the sustainable city, we can see the emergence of an “ideology with scientistic and technological connotations” (Lévy 2009, p. 148), the aim of which would appear to be to limited to management and “management-based urban planning”. There comes a point where we begin to ask ourselves, in this case, whether sustainable urban planning can still form the basis for a belief in improving the human condition. Is it presented as an urbanism of disillusionment? Or as a form of urban planning that is the lesser of two evils or an apophatic urbanism (Chalas 1998) pleading the case for the city of the disenchantment of the world announced by Max Weber (1959)?

 

3. Between the infinity of development and the finiteness of nature. The relationship to time and temporality represents another point of divergence. As we have seen, the importance of the historic models lies in their ability to anticipate, for a given city image, the social changes that the decision-makers wish to see implemented. The responses proposed by culturalism and progressivism diverge, depending on whether the image of the ideal city is sought in the past or in the future. Nevertheless, both models share the idea of indefinite possibilities for rebuilding and improving the urban and social world. Sustainable development, as portrayed by the charters, is presented as breaking with this vision of history. Rather, it is now a question of managing and “preserving” present resources and acting “responsibly” for future generations. Sustainability, unlike the projection of a utopian order, acknowledges the impact of present actions on the future, based on the idea that each and every action may cause a proportionate amount of destruction later on. Here, there is also the implied threat that the natural world has its limits – symbolised by the finiteness of its resources, in particular fossil fuels – that replaces the view of the world as an inexhaustible store wellspring. However, the charters do not deconstruct the premise of development (whether economic, social or human), now described as sustainable, or indeed the prospect of growth, both of which are by their very essence limited (Burbage 2013). The use of the notions of “investment” and “capital” with regard to nature clearly reflects this. In this regard, the charters appear to be compromises, midway between a perception of history as an endless process and an approach that raises awareness of its limits.

 

4. Governance: expertise and participation. Lastly, this table highlights the emergence, in both Aalborg charters, of new questions concerning governance that were not taken into account by Françoise Choay’s categories. And yet a re-examination of Choay’s texts reveals that both models opened the way for new professions embodied by experts-cum-demiurges, mostly architects. In the two charters, the expert figure is less prominent, but the importance of knowledge and skills backed up by technology is a key premise. Furthermore, local authorities and citizens have a new role to play. Sustainable urban planning, according to the text of the charters, is depicted as a collective action conducted at local level, with strong emphasis placed on the participatory dimension.

 

Sustainable urban planning and local communities

 

Sustainable urban planning cannot be attached directly to either of the two “historic” models established by Françoise Choay. The differences concern both the characteristics taken into consideration in the analysis of the doctrines (the determining factors, several of which stand out in particular, such as economics and governance) and the role of models in urban planning. Although sustainable development is sometimes described as a new utopia, can the same be said for sustainable urban planning? What is at play here when a fourth dimension – space – appears alongside the usual trinity of economy, society and environment? For while sustainable urban planning, like sustainable development, establishes the principle of a break with the past, space does not play the same key role in social change as was the case in the culturalist and progressivist doctrines. In sustainable urban planning, the approaches adopted are focused on local communities and the locus is granted a tremendous freedom of action.

 

Furthermore, there are significant differences in the way sustainable urban planning addresses questions such as the status of the authors of its doctrine (in other words, theoreticians), the role and uses of written texts, and the link between theory and practice. The collective dimension dominates here, as shown by the central role played by charters, which was not the case with the great authors identified by Françoise Choay. Consequently, it appears that the categories proposed by Choay deserve to be reconsidered, at the very least in terms of their extensions and continuations, and perhaps also in terms of the capacity of these canonical statements to integrate later urban doctrines into a more general history of urban development.

Transcending culturalism and progressivism

 

Do the 1994 and 2004 Aalborg Charters look more towards the culturalist model or the progressivist model? Or do they offer something else entirely? To answer these questions, our initial approach was to see whether and in what ways texts on sustainable urban planning meet the differentiating criteria defined by Françoise Choay (utopia, technology, social structure, nature, etc.); we then considered whether these texts provide new criteria in this respect. The summary table below is the fruit of this analysis and is based on Françoise Choay’s own works and the texts of the two Aalborg Charters.

The two historic models of urban planning: culturalism and progressivism

 

We shall first of all return to the approaches adopted by Françoise Choay. In Urbanisme, utopies et réalités, which established the theoretical landscape for urban planning in France, the author develops the broad strokes of a history of theories and doctrines in urban planning, and presents a classification of these theories and doctrines. She defends the idea that the proposals for urban developments that are formulated as urban planning was emerging as a discipline, in the late 19th century, present the specificity of offering models “of spatial projections, of images of the city of the future”, in response to what was perceived at the time to be the physical and social disorder of the industrial city. These “models” were conceived in a context marked by the great importance attached to social progress, technology and the benefits of science, where the ambition to radically transform the world by acting on physical spaces was widespread. They are the result of a utopian approach, that is to say an approach “that is deployed in the imagination” (p. 15). [1] Françoise Choay makes a distinction between two kinds of “images of the city of the future”, which she calls “models”: the “progressivist” model and the “culturalist” model, to which a third can be added, the “naturalist” model, which she subsequently leaves aside. By turning to the concept of “models”, Choay seeks to “underline both the exemplary value and the reproducible nature of the proposed constructions.”

 

The two main models differ in that they “are oriented according to the two fundamental directions of time – the past and the future – in order to take on the characteristics of nostalgia or progressivism.” On the one hand, the doctrines associated with the culturalist model imagine an urban future with references that are images of the past; on the other, the references associated with the progressivist model are cut off from thr past and propose a future of images of a burgeoning modernity. Camillo Sitte, Ebenezer Howard and Raymond Unwin – all three of whom were at the origin of theories on garden cities – are presented as the key figures of culturalism. Le Corbusier and members of the CIAM (Congrès internationaux d’architecture moderne, or International Congresses of Modern Architecture), after Tony Garnier, appear to be the most representative authors of the progressivist approaches. Several determining factors differentiate the two models, in addition to the time-related aspects already mentioned: the relationship to technology, links to nature, and social structure, for example. The validity (or otherwise) of these categories during the period studied by the author is not relevant here, however. Moreover, the book can also be read as a manifesto in a context where urbanistic functionalism was being challenged. And by deconstructing the doctrines – which sometimes means developing, and even slightly embellishing, arguments against them – the book, to its credit, no longer creates certainties but rather incorporates them into a history of ideas and, as a result, re‑evaluates them. The question that we wish to consider here is whether the culturalist and progressivist models are still useful for describing what appear to be new urban “models”, and whether, ultimately, their continued relevance is challenged by sustainable development.

 

Charters: guidelines for sustainable urban planning

 

This question poses methodological problems, in particular regarding how to transpose the approach adopted by Françoise Choay to the present day in order to analyse urban-planning styles. Choay used analyses of operations-oriented and practical texts on the city and urban planning, at least for those texts covering the period in which urban planning had become an independent professional field (from the start of the 20th century). The texts in question included manifestos or practical publications presenting new ways of thinking about the city and its reform, written by those she considered “great authors” within the confines of the discipline at the time. For indeed it is these authors who enabled her to define her categories. We shall consider two of these authors in particular, namely Ebenezer Howard (1850–1928), inventor of the garden-city doctrine, and Le Corbusier (1887–1965), theoretician of the Modernist Movement. With both of these authors, three characteristics that form the basis of their exceptional auras dominate:

 

the production of an elaborate, highly coherent, renowned and well-publicised doctrine;

the existence of a large-scale – or even international-level – group and network that distributes and circulates their ideas from the outset;

the creation of urban units that meet established doctrinal protocols – even when deviations from the models are identified.

Today, however, do we not encounter difficulties in identifying comparable authors in the field of sustainable urban planning? Indeed, while sustainable planning and development is the subject of a large number of written works, none of them stands out anywhere near as clearly. Today, sustainable urban planning has no equivalent to Howard or Le Corbusier. And though some have tried (see, for example, Rogers and Gumuchdjian 1997), none has satisfied the three characteristics stated above: there is no work comparable to Garden Cities of To‑morrow (Howard 1902) or the Athens Charter [2] (Le Corbusier 1943) that sets out the new doctrine. Sustainable urban planning has no bible of its own. And yet, presentations of doctrines exist. Various authors from academic and professional circles have proposed essays on the sustainable city, described different operations (eco-neighbourhoods in particular), produced appraisals of such measures, and, in certain cases, even written guidelines for action designed as collections of best practices. [3]

 

Among this abundance of literature, however, a small number of texts can be identified as key reference works. They are not by “great authors” such as those analysed by Françoise Choay, as they are collective works. Nevertheless, they have some of the same characteristics, particularly in terms of dissemination and publicisation. These texts immediately resonated with a wide audience and were shared across a broad international network, giving rise to projects that were directly inspired by them. Today, they are references for planning practitioners. One prime example that springs to mind is the Aalborg Charter, signed in 1994, and its later revisions. These texts will therefore be at the heart of this initial analysis – bearing in mind that they represent but one approach to sustainable urban planning, albeit an important one in structural terms.

 

The Aalborg Charter was the result of a conference organised by the European Commission and associations of local and municipal authorities following the publication of the EC’s Green Paper on the Urban Environment in 1990. Since the Brundtland Report (1987), the First Assessment Report of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 1990 and the vote to adopt the Agenda 21 programme in Rio in 1992, sustainability and the environment have become subjects of public concern. The European Conference on Sustainable Cities and Towns held in Aalborg in 1994 also sought to apply to urban areas a number of theories and recommendations relating to sustainable development that until then were considered supranational concerns with stakes that were essentially environmental, economic and even social, with the result that the conference would later be referred to by some as an “urbanistic turning point” (Maréchal and Quenault 2005). The conference brought together representatives from 80 European cities and 600 participants (including civil servants, academics, well-known environmentalists and activists) with the aim of discussing and defining the founding principles of sustainable urban planning. The result of these discussions was the Charter of European Sustainable Cities and Towns Towards Sustainability, also known as the Aalborg Charter, summarised a number of principles for common action, which the signatory cities made a commitment to respect. A federative network was formed and began to develop. In 2004, a second conference – “Aalborg + 10” – took place to revise the previous charter. At the end of the conference, over 500 cities had ratified the 10 “Aalborg Commitments” (Emelianoff and Stegassy 2010).

 

www.metropolitiques.eu/Is-there-a-model-for-sustainable.html

 

Le chemin guide les déplacements et fabrique une interaction identifiable à une forme d'illumination intérieure. Il est plus facile d'utiliser le poème de "L'angle droit " pour les stratégies du développement urbain, Le Corbusier et Cerda ont inventé ou réinventé?

Le Plan Obus ( obtus) ou en damier ( damné) pour faciliter la division du territoire et l'application des règles de prospect entre les bâtiments, Perret au Havre a suivi la même logique systématique. Nous arrivons aujourd'hui à une dichotomie profonde, elle consiste à nous faire croire que les architectes sont des penseurs ? Ils vivent en vase clos et célèbrent la beauté du Havre! Ils ont même réussi à faire classer un échec de l'urbanisme au patrimoine mondial de l'humanité ? Pourtant cette ville située au bord de l'océan possède un plan carré qui laisse le vent s'engouffrer et la largeur des rue n'y est pas pour rien ! Il suffit de regarder l'ancien plan du Havre pour comprendre sa subtilité ! Le commerce du Havre se résume à des centre commerciaux et à beaucoup de communication verbale ou publicitaire. Nous partageons la fierté de son maire et son attachement patriotique mais nous ne pouvons défendre intellectuellement l'idée d'une ville conçue pour les frères Perret?

N'oubliez pas que les trois frères ont été complices d'enrichissement familial ! Un était Banquier, l'autre roi du béton et le troisième architecte-urbaniste. Heureusement, les nouvelles lois en cours de passage à l'assemblée auraient interdites ce genre de pratique..

. L'arrogance des architectes et le conseil de l'ordre mis en place sous Philippe Pétain avec l'aval des nazis n'as jamais été mis en cause et pour cause! Finalement c'est plus simpliste mais plus efficace de diviser le sol avec une équerre ?

Le compas demande beaucoup plus de dextérité intellectuelle ? Pourtant les villes qui marchent bien tournent bien! Et en rond, elle ressemblent à Paris ou à Strasbourg ou à Lille. Les villes centrifuge sont souvent rangée au titre de villes moyenâgeuses, pourtant elles font la fierté du patrimoine et attirent de nombreux touristes.

Le commerce de détail se développe bien dans ces villes et surtout depuis la création des centres pour piétons. La généralisation des véhicules va accentuer cette tendance et un retour vers nos racines cultuelles .

  

Les centres commerciaux seront bientôt les dinosaures, ils n'auront pas résisté à l'Internet et aux besoins d'enracinement face à la globalisation des valeurs culturelles. L'échec du film de Luc Besson au USA 🇺🇸 en est la preuve! La France 🇫🇷 s'exporte quand elle transporte son ADN , l'imitation hollywoodienne n'est pas une option, pas plus que l'imitation de New York ou de Shanghai. Les chinois ont échoué à Shanghai parce qu'il ont oublié leur fengshui ?

C'est pourtant un outil phénoménal pour aménager le territoire. L'urbanisme ou la geomancie ou le fengshui devrait se fondre dans une nouvelle discipline ? L'art de bâtir des villes qui sentent encore l'odeur du territoire et éviter le clonage hollywoodien ou de Le Corbusier ? Ce gars devrait être traité comme Adolf Hitler , tellement il est responsable des banlieues suicidaire et fondamentaliste de l'intégrisme qui est né dans ses cités radieuses.

Un autre intégriste de la pensée moderne, c'est Emile Aillaud , le divin créateur de la Grande Borne ( Grand Borgne) un bâtiment de un kilomètre sans passages!!! Il faut déplorer l'absence d'autocritique dans notre métier d'architecte et la trop grande tendance des journalistes à intellectualiser le néant, le vide ou les murs végétaux et regarder les quatrièmes façades sur les toits avec la pollution ? Les légumes au plomb ?

Relire Francoise de Chouyai ! Utopie et Réalité. Finalement en 1970 déjà on se posait les mêmes questions ! Le design et les matières de façades des architectes ne sont qu'un artifice, ils habillent toujours des cubes et les rues nouvelles sont toujours à angle droit.

Bernawy

   

Lost in action on 30 April 1915

  

Dimensions and weights

  

Displacement

•726 tonnes (submerged)

•599 tonnes (surfaced)

  

Length

181 feet

 

Beam

22 feet 6 inches

 

Draught

22 feet 6 inches

 

Performance

  

Speed

•10 knots (submerged)

•15 knots (surfaced)

  

Complement

Crew

35

 

Propulsion

  

Machinery

2 sets of 8 cylinder diesel engines, battery driven electric motors

 

Horsepower

•550 (submerged)

•1,750 (surfaced)

  

Armament

  

Torpedoes

4 x 18-inch torpedo tubes

 

Awards

  

Battle Honours

•RABAUL 1914

•DARDANELLES 1915

   

HMAS AE2 commissioned at Portsmouth, England, on 28 February 1914 under the command of Lieutenant Commander Henry Hugh Gordon 'Dacre' Stoker, RN. Her crew of 35 comprised officers and sailors from both the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy.

  

Accompanied by her sister submarine, AE1 (Lieutenant Commander Thomas Besant, RN), the two vessels sailed from England for Australia on 2 March 1914 reaching Sydney 83 days later on 24 May. Sixty days had been spent at sea and some 13,000 miles covered; a record for submarines at that time.

 

Following the outbreak of World War 1 in August 1914, AE2 and AE1 were ordered to join Australian naval and military forces assigned to capture the German colonies in New Guinea. Stoker and his crew took part in the occupation of New Britain, culminating in the capture and surrender of Rabaul on 13 September 1914 and the general surrender of the New Guinea territories on 22 September 1914.

 

A key duty assigned to the two submarines throughout the operation was to guard St George's Strait, lying between New Britain and New Ireland, and defend the RAN fleet from the approach of any enemy ships. It was during one such patrol on 14 September that AE1 disappeared with all hands. A search was ordered for the missing submarine using all available ships but after three days it was called off, with no trace of the ill-fated submarine being found.

 

On 4 October 1914 AE2 proceeded to Suva to join Admiral Patey's force (HMA Ships Australia (I), Sydney (I), Encounter, Warrego (I) and the French light cruiser, Montcalm) which was under orders to counter any threat posed from the German cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which had attacked the French Society Islands on 22 September and were still at large. Following three uneventful weeks based at Fiji, AE2's service in the Pacific came to an end when she was detached on 8 November with orders to return to Sydney, where she duly arrived on 16 November.

 

Following a brief maintenance period, AE2 departed Sydney on 19 December en route for Albany in Western Australia where she joined the second convoy of AIF troops assembling in King George's Sound. The convoy of 17 transports sailed on 31 December for Suez via Colombo. There were no other escorting warships on this occasion and whenever possible AE2 was taken in tow. On 28 January 1915 the convoy arrived in Suez following what was, for the the crew of the submarine, a long and uncomfortable passage across the Indian Ocean, through the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea.

 

Arriving in the Mediterranean, AE2 was attached to the British squadron engaged in the Dardanelles campaign. Prior to 25 April 1915 (Anzac Day), her part in operations was minimal, but that changed when Vice Admiral de Robeck, Commander-in-Chief Eastern Mediterranean Fleet, ordered AE2 to attempt to force a passage through the 35 mile long, heavily fortified Dardanelles Strait and enter the Sea of Marmara. If successful she was to 'run amok' and prevent enemy shipping transitting between the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles from re-supplying Turkish troops on the Gallipoli peninsula.

 

All previous attempts by Allied submarines to pass through the heavily mined strait had failed and there was myriad obstructions, natural and artificial, that stood between success and failure. In his report Lieutenant Commander Stoker reflected:

 

'Having proceeded from the anchorage off Tenedos, I lay at the entrance off the Dardanelles until moonset and at about 2:30 am on 25th April entered the straits at 8 knots. Weather calm and clear. As the order to run amok in the Narrows precluded all possibility of passing through unseen, I decided to travel on the surface as far as possible.'

 

Searchlights continually swept the Strait but AE2 continued unmolested until 4:30 am when batteries opened fire from the northern shore. The submarine dived and began her passage through the minefield. Wires, from which the mines were moored, continually scraped AE2's sides for the next half hour. Twice she surfaced in the minefield to make observations. At 6:00 am she was within two miles of the Narrows submerged at periscope depth. The sea was flat calm. Forts on both sides of the Narrows sighted her and immediately opened heavy fire. Stoker, watching through his periscope, observed a number of ships and decided to attack a small cruiser of the PEIK-E-SHETHEK type. His report continued:

 

'At a range of three hundred yards I fired the bow tube at her. One of the destroyers was now very close, attempting to ram us on the port side, so at the moment of firing I ordered 70 feet. A last glance, as the periscope dipped, showed the destroyer apparently right on top of us, and then, amidst the noise of her propeller whizzing overhead, was heard the big explosion as the torpedo struck'.

 

After a brief interval underwater Stoker decided to risk a look around.

 

'As the vessel was rising, she hit bottom and slid up on to the bank to a depth of ten feet, at which depth a considerable portion of the conning tower was above water. Through the periscope I saw that the position was immediately under Fort Anatoli Medjidieh.'

 

The fort opened fire and for some minutes shells fell on all sides until efforts to refloat her succeeded. AE2 then slid into the safety of deep water. The relief on board the submarine proved brief and it was not long before AE2 was again stranded.

 

'Through the periscope I judged the position to be immediately under Serina Burnu, and I further observed two destroyers, a gunboat, and several small craft standing close off in the Straits firing heavily and a cluster of small boats which I judged to be picking up survivors of the cruiser.'

 

'As my vessel was lying with inclination down by the bows I went full speed ahead. Shortly afterwards she began to move down the bank, bumped, gathered way and then bumped very heavily. She, however, continued to descend and at 80 feet I dived off the bank. The last bump was calculated to considerably injure the vessel, but as I considered my chief duty was to prove the passage through the Straits possible, I decided to continue.'

 

Shortly afterwards AE2 again rose to periscope depth. She was seen to be approaching Nagara Point. On all sides she was surrounded by pursuit craft. Each time she showed her periscope the destroyers tried to ram her and each time she eluded them. At last in an attempt to shake the enemy off Stoker decided to lie on the bottom on the Asiatic shore to await developments.

 

All day, 25 April, AE2 lay in 80 feet of water while the searching enemy ships passed and repassed overhead. Once she was hit by a heavy object being trailed along the bottom. At 9:00 pm she rose to the surface to charge batteries. All signs of shipping had vanished.

 

At 4:00 pm on 26 April, AE2 proceeded on the surface up the Straits. Stoker commented:

 

'As soon as light permitted, I observed through periscope, two ships approaching - both men-o-war. Sea was glassy calm and I approached with periscope down. On hoisting periscope I observed ship on line of sight of port tube. I immediately fired but ship altered course and the torpedo missed. I discovered I had fired at the leading ship and found it impossible to bring another tube to bear on second ship (a battleship Barbarossa class) with any chance of success. I therefore did not fire.'

 

'I continued on course through the Straits, examined the Gallipoli anchorage, found no ship worthy of attack and so proceeded in the Sea of Marmora, which was entered about 9:00 am.'

 

About 9:30 am AE2 sighted several ships, but since only six of her eight torpedoes remained Stoker decided not to fire until he was certain his target was a troop transport.

 

'With this intention I dived close to the foremost ship - a tramp of about 2,000 tons. Passing about 200 yards abeam of her I could see no sign of troops; but as I passed under her stern she ran up colours and opened rifle fire at the periscope. I dived over to the next ship and attacked at 400 yards with starboard beam torpedo. The torpedo failed to hit.'

 

Half an hour later AE2 surfaced and spent the rest of the day on the surface, charging batteries and making good defects. Shortly after dark she was attacked by a small anti-submarine vessel and throughout the night of 26/27 April she was attacked on several occasions shortly after surfacing.

 

At dawn on 27 April she sighted a ship escorted by two destroyers. Evading the escort, she manoeuvred into position at 300 yards but this time the torpedo refused to leave the tube. A destroyer tried to ram, forcing a hurried dive. Nothing else was sighted that day. The following night Stoker rested his crew on the bottom of Artaki Bay. Twice on 28 April she made attacks only to see the torpedoes narrowly miss the target.

 

'At dawn on 29 April I dived towards Gallipoli and observed a gunboat patrolling ahead of Strait off Eski Farnar Point. Dived under gunboat down Strait, and returned up Strait showing periscope to give the impression that another submarine had come through. Destroyers and torpedo boats came out in pursuit; having led them all up towards Sea of Marmora, I dived back and examined Gallipoli anchorage but found nothing to attack.'

 

AE2 then proceeded out into the Sea of Marmora pursued by anti-submarine units. She surfaced half an hour later, spotted the gunboat, fired and missed by one yard.

 

On the same day, off Kara Burnu Point, she met HMS E14, the second British submarine to successfully pass through the Dardanelles. A new rendezvous was arranged for 10:00 am the following day.

 

On the night of 29/30 April, AE2 lay on the bottom north of Marmora Island. Arriving at the rendezvous at 10:00 am she sighted a torpedo boat approaching at high speed. Stoker commented on subsequent events:

 

'Dived to avoid torpedo boat; whilst diving sighted smoke in Artaki Bay, so steered south to investigate. About 10:30 the boat's nose suddenly rose and she broke surface about a mile from the torpedo boat. Blew water forward but boat would not dive. Torpedo boat firing very close and ship from Artaki bay, a gunboat was also firing; flooded a forward tank and boat suddenly assumed big inclination down by the bows and dived very rapidly. AE2 was only fitted with 100 foot depth gauges. This depth was quickly reached and passed. After a considerable descent the boat rose rapidly, passed the 100 foot mark and in spite of efforts to check her broke the surface stern first. Within seconds the engine room was hit and holed in three places. Owing to the inclination down by the bow, it was impossible to see torpedo boat through the periscope and I considered any attempt to ram would be useless. I therefore blew main ballast and ordered all hands on deck. Assisted by LEUT Haggard, I then opened all tanks to flood the sub and went on deck. The boat sank in a few minutes in about 55 fathoms, in approximate position 4 degrees north of Kara Burnu Point at 10:45 am. All hands were picked up by the torpedo boat and no lives lost.'

 

Thus AE2's game of hide and seek was brought to an end, and her Commanding Officer and crew were on their way to spend the next three-and-a-half years in a Turkish prison camp. Four ratings died in captivity.

 

In early 1996, Mr Selçuk Kolay, director of the Rahmi Koç Museum in Istanbul, discovered what he believed to be the wreck of AE2 lying in 86 metres of water. With the assistance of an Australian diving team, which visited Turkey to dive on the wreck in October 1997, it was determined that the wreck was that of an old steamer.

 

After a further thorough side-scan sonar and magnetometric survey of the reported scuttling site of the AE2, Mr Kolay located AE2 in June 1998, lying in 72 metres of water, and was first dived upon the following month. An Australian dive team again visited Turkey in October 1998, with further dives confirming the identification of AE2.

   

blender terrain displacement test

Noor is five years old. He suffers from paralysis in his right arm since he was born (Erb's palsy). Handicap International (HI) is helping Noor to get his mobility back thanks to physiotherapy sessions to strengthen his arm. In this picture, Noor in rehabilitation session with Asala, physiotherapist for HI.

 

Photo credit: HI/Frederik Buyckx Dec 2014

Photo by George Rodger

 

An easy conversion 2>3D

Three's a crowd.

 

View On Black

Tokyo, Japan.

Concerns about being displaced by luxury condos predate the current decade. Document 1469, Published Document Collection, Seattle Municipal Archives.

this is not a photoshop trick

HMS ADBIEL : N21

Displacement: 1460 tonnes full load

Length 265 ft, Beam 38 ft 6 ins, Draught 10 ft.

Propulsion: Two shafts driven by 18-cylinder Paxman diesel engines, 2,960 bhp

Speed: 16 knots.

Ships Company: 98, plus additional MCM staff for exercises and operations.

Navigational Radar: Type 978

Armament: Offensive 44 mines, Defensive single Bofors 40/60 cannon.

 

Designed as a Headquarters and Support Ship for mine counter measure forces and exercise minelayer. Workshops & spares embarked enable mine counter measures ships to operate well away from home bases.

ABDIEL was (at time of photo) the only operational minelayer in the Royal Navy.

Built at Thornycroft’s Woolston shipyard she was commissioned on 17th October 1967, being finally paid off in 1988 and sold for scrapping.

Photo : 21 Sept 1980 at Harwich

 

Syrian refugee camp near the south border of Turkey

Using one image as a displacement map for another one.

 

View more: MY WEBSITE | BEHANCE | SAATCHI ART | TWITTER

I was playing about on photoshop today at college and I learnt how to do displacement mapping. It's actually really simple to do and you can get some awesome results too! :D

Rusty barrels that a Syrian family used for drinking water can now be used to water a vegetable garden. Photo: Jessica Cope/Medair.

This theme ‘Displacement’ investigated the theme of both rural and urban erosion. To demonstrate my ideas, people were displaced in these carefully selected run down environments, placement was not always the decision of the photographer; an array of figures scattered into the landscape made for a surreal experience. This displacement is to signify how the economy can change and reshape lives as simply as the wind changing direction. The impact throughout time of an economic down turn can dramatically impact on the lives of those who live in both urban and rural communities. As banks and creditors tighten their belts, more and more businesses both big and small face the consequences. As large supermarkets are eager to continue their capitalist profiteering decide to source products abroad at cheaper rates, local farms and small businesses face closure unable to meet such cheap supply and demand. It is paradoxical as ordinary people no longer able to afford the finest foods or luxuries of organic produce seek cheap fodder for their hungry brood driving down prices even more.

 

These beings in the landscape stand still, only their heads moving back and forth, up and down, like standing to attention; attention to what their minds exude, maybe this twenty second capture allows them to forget all the troubles in the world or maybe they are shaking their heads in annoyance at their current situation. The sequence of the head movement suggests hidden identity and emphasizes the subject’s vulnerability and instability. I have always allowed the viewer to perceive what they wish to perceive, the title stands purposely structured in brackets so that the viewer is open to other interpretations. To create the illusion of levitation I photographed the space twice from the same tripod position, first with the objects and figures and then without. In Photoshop The Buckets and ladders etc. where replaced with the same space of the empty Photograph. The sepia filter juxtaposes the old with modern times. Reminiscent of time long gone; capturing the uncertainty of the atmosphere.

 

The decision to represent my thoughts at night – with the stars above, illustrates the magnitude of the problem, and closure of everything at night adds to a sense of fear of it all. Nightmares and sleepless nights go hand in hand with anxieties and troubled minds. I appear in some of my photographs deliberately to show my concerns about the environment and indeed my own employment in the future. It also adds for a more spiritual and meaningful work for myself as an artist.

This theme ‘Displacement’ investigated the theme of both rural and urban erosion. To demonstrate my ideas, people were displaced in these carefully selected run down environments, placement was not always the decision of the photographer; an array of figures scattered into the landscape made for a surreal experience. This displacement is to signify how the economy can change and reshape lives as simply as the wind changing direction. The impact throughout time of an economic down turn can dramatically impact on the lives of those who live in both urban and rural communities. As banks and creditors tighten their belts, more and more businesses both big and small face the consequences. As large supermarkets are eager to continue their capitalist profiteering decide to source products abroad at cheaper rates, local farms and small businesses face closure unable to meet such cheap supply and demand. It is paradoxical as ordinary people no longer able to afford the finest foods or luxuries of organic produce seek cheap fodder for their hungry brood driving down prices even more.

 

These beings in the landscape stand still, only their heads moving back and forth, up and down, like standing to attention; attention to what their minds exude, maybe this twenty second capture allows them to forget all the troubles in the world or maybe they are shaking their heads in annoyance at their current situation. The sequence of the head movement suggests hidden identity and emphasizes the subject’s vulnerability and instability. I have always allowed the viewer to perceive what they wish to perceive, the title stands purposely structured in brackets so that the viewer is open to other interpretations. To create the illusion of levitation I photographed the space twice from the same tripod position, first with the objects and figures and then without. In Photoshop The Buckets and ladders etc. where replaced with the same space of the empty Photograph. The sepia filter juxtaposes the old with modern times. Reminiscent of time long gone; capturing the uncertainty of the atmosphere.

 

The decision to represent my thoughts at night – with the stars above, illustrates the magnitude of the problem, and closure of everything at night adds to a sense of fear of it all. Nightmares and sleepless nights go hand in hand with anxieties and troubled minds. I appear in some of my photographs deliberately to show my concerns about the environment and indeed my own employment in the future. It also adds for a more spiritual and meaningful work for myself as an artist.

A series of battles centred on the strategic Ramadi district in Al-Anbar governorate, have had a devastating humanitarian impact on the civilian population.

 

The UN estimates that since 15 May 2015 – when a second wave of fighting escalated in Ramadi – more than 69 000 people have fled their homes seeking safety elsewhere in the country.

 

Photo credit: REUTERS/Stringer

 

With route 149 being progressively converted to New Routemaster, some of the 11-registered VDL DB300/Wright Gemini 2 allocated to the route are moving from Tottenham Garage to Enfield to replace older vehicles on routes 307 and 349. DW432, still sporting its AR garage codes, is seen in High Barnet on Friday 13th November.

Unable to comprehend the exact nature of this attack by the powerful light people turned to the familiar and those with a fetish for nude ladies looked to the Rolex clock over the jewellery shop but even she was transformed and the clock itself was constantly vacilating between its old self and a wristwatch

Displacement of train carriage bodies to different manufacturing halls with a special vehicle. Technical data at the end of the video. A cool note on the type label: Operating instructions have to be followed! Stadler has two of such vehicles in Altenrhein. Switzerland, May 20, 2017.