Bits and Pieces Volume III

What a splendid affair! The Navy at its best with style, pride and panache even though depleted by savage political cuts. I was in Mercury [P7R] getting fit after major abdominal surgery in Haslar in December 1976, but soon to join HMS Tiger as part of FOF2 Staff for a Jubilee cruise around half the world [to Australia and back and lots of countries in between], at that time called GROUP 6 DEPLOYMENT under the Flag of Rear Admiral Martin La Touche Wymess. Whilst in Mercury, I was co-opted onto the Petersfield Silver Jubilee Celebration Committee, and subsequently gave the commentary on the heath in Petersfield, where the Navy supplied a major part of the celebration, specifically, the Brickwoods [a Brewery] field-gun competition. During this period, my wife and I involved our family [local and distant] in all aspects of the Review, taking them to see the ships at anchor in MFV'S [motor fishing vessels]; being on the Round Tower to view the Britannia leaving harbour with HM The Queen on the deck; securing excellent viewing positions for the Southsea Common display and the Jubilee fireworks which were ignited over the beach adjacent to the Common. It was a time of great, sincere and spontaneous rejoicing, and all who witnessed the event were emotionally involved to a degree of overt patriotic fervour. We, as a nation, love our Queen, and we showed it in great style and commitment. What follows, is the programme of the event, with the usual generous picture gallery. The whole affair was outstandingly presented, so much so, that it left us, the audience, with lasting memories of that historic and patriotic event when Her Majesty was left in no doubt that the people of Portsmouth/Gosport/Southsea, greatly loved her and were eager to celebrate her 25 years as our Monarch. What better caterer/organiser/host/service [whatever] than the ROYAL NAVY to make sure that these celebrations met the aspirations of the loyal people of Hampshire and the many thousands from outside the area who travelled to witness the event.

To understand the dimensions and ramifications of the disaster of the Russian submarine Kursk, it helps to know something about its homeport region. The Kola Peninsula, that stencils the southern coastline of the Barents Sea, is a frigid and forbidding region, inherently melancholy, with an unequivocal air of detachment about it. Geographically well fortified, it is flush with submarine bases, ports, bunkers, command posts, shipyards and, at last count, 100 derelict, decommissioned nuclear submarines. 50,000 nuclear fuel clusters from former nuclear reactors are stored under inferior, supposedly temporary conditions. The land is rich in natural resources like timber, minerals and fish, but lean in permutation. Once contributors of the Soviet State, derelict cowsheds, broken-down trucks and tractors litter the interior, all now relics of so many ruined collective farms. Towns wither along with their populations. Life moves at a glacial rate in this frigid climate, where the people have long learned to rely on themselves, while they wait for better days and the grave.

The Kursk, commissioned in 1995, sank on August 12th 2001 with 118 people aboard in 354 feet of water in the Barents Sea. An Akula Class [Typhoon] type 939a nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine [SSGN]. Typhoon class submarines are mammoth, by far the world's biggest submarine, 560.9 feet long and 78.7 feet wide, weighing 14,000 tons. Its double, skillfully insulated hull construction makes it nearly indestructible, it would take more than a single heavy torpedo ever to sink one. If that behemoth had collided with a NATO submarine, as Defence Minster, Marshal Ignor Sergevev insinuated, the Kursk would have unquestionably prevailed over the smaller allied adversary. Its outer hull contains missiles, torpedoes and other stores, and with a total of 5 separate pressure vessels within the outer pressure hull, the sub would absorb a lot of energy before the inner hull ever fractured.

She was the star of the largest naval exercise the Russian Northern Fleet has staged in a decade, being observed by two U.S. Los Angeles class attack submarines some 50 miles from the scene, along with several other allied monitoring vessels. She was conducting exercises in mock sinking of American submarines and aircraft carriers. She had loaded at her homeport of Murmansk, 28 torpedoes and 24 cruise missiles, known to NATO as SS-N 19N shipwreck. These missiles can carry a conventional 1,600 pound warhead or nuclear warhead that can pack a punch equal to half a million tons of TNT. That fateful morning, she was observed testing one of these missiles, with the 1,600 pound conventional warhead, scoring a direct hit on a target 200 miles away.

At precisely 07:28:27 GMT, US navy hydro-acoustics picked up the first blast, then at least a twice as powerful second explosion at 07:30:42. Based on examination of the sonar data, the second one was actually several, nearly simultaneous detonations and was equal to 5 tons of TNT. It nearly deafened the sonar operators, and shock waves were registered at seismic stations 2,000 miles away. The controversy today is what caused these detonations and what it could all mean in terms of strategic defence for both the West and for Russia.

Speculation turns around a torpedo accident, one reason being the sub was at periscope depth when the calamity began, which is the level at which a submarine usually fires it torpedoes. Reports also state that weapon-firing exercises were in progress and Moscow sources corroborate that the Kirsk was testing a new weapon system and that might well have been the cause of the accident. Former vice president and now governor of the region, Alexander Rutskoi, confirmed it when he said two high-ranking military officers had told him that civilian military experts were aboard the Kursk to test new torpedoes. They could have been testing either of two types of weapons, an upgrade of the Squall or the newer Stallion.

The latter is a new highly secret weapon known as the 100-RU Veder missile, NATO code-named: SS-N-16A Stallion. It utilizes silver battery driven propellers to send it out from the submarine to a safe distance before a liquid fuelled rocket engine kicks in to send the missile to the surface. From there it flies under rocket power at supersonic speed until just above its target, where it ejects a lightweight-torpedo with a parachute and a 200 pound explosive warhead, that slowly drops into the water, which then homes in on the submarine. It can be armed with a mini-nuclear warhead and can engage targets at depths of up to 500 metres.

The Shkval [Squall] is an amazingly fast torpedo-type weapon, developed by the hydro-aerospace systems department of the Moscow Sergo Ordzhonikidze Aviation Institute. Most torpedoes go about 35-45 knots; the fastest allied one being the UK Spearfish, which has a maximum speed of 75 knots. The Squall can travel at 200 knots and it is rumoured that newer models can reach an astonishing speed of 260 knots! It was back in 1994, that Russian reports first surfaced regarding an anti-submarine missile called Shkval, a rocket propelled, supercavitation weapon, 533 mm in diameter and 8.23m long, that could attack targets at a depth of 400m and at ranges of up to 12km.

To understand supercavitation, one needs to understand the principles of cavitation. Cavitation is the formation of a partial vacuum in a liquid as a result of the passage through it of a swiftly moving object. It reduces the water pressure along its surface, forming bubbles of various sizes, depending on the size and shape of the object. Supercavitation occurs when, instead of bubbles, a cavity is created by the low-pressure region, which reduces hydrodynamic drag. Which means with a submerged object completely contained in such a gaseous envelope, the resulting reduction in drag translates into very high speeds. The shape of the nose of the weapon, the velocity and the static water pressure determine the shape of the gas cavity. One of the most efficient methods to create this envelope is by deflecting the exhaust forward and out of the nose section of the weapon. Since there is no direct contact between the projectile and the water, incredible velocity can be attained.

The drawbacks are that only straight-line trajectory is feasible, [as any course change would collapse the envelope], as well as the substantial sound factor. The target easily detects the considerable noise the weapon creates; only its speed compensates for its lack of stealth. Nowadays, in submarine warfare, mutual detection is nearly simultaneous and usually at relatively short distances. The subs circle each other like aircraft trying to get into a position to shoot a torpedo. The target ship takes evasive action when it hears the conventional torpedo heading its way. But, with this supercavitation missile, it does not have time to take evasive action. The kinetic energy of the missile on impact can negate the warhead requirement. There are no known countermeasures, putting western navies at a severe disadvantage. And to add additional menace, the Shkval can carry a tactical nuclear warhead incorporating a timer to destroy an enemy sub, torpedo, large surface ship, or even a land target.

Russian submarine specialist, Vladimir Gundarov wrote in the Russian military's newspaper, the Kursk was retrofitted 2 years ago, at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, with a potentially dangerous torpedo-launching technology against the wishes of many high-ranking navy officials. The expensive silver battery and propeller system was replaced by a new but risky technology using a gas stream to propel the torpedo out of its tube. When the weapon is triggered, liquid fuel is ignited, producing a gas that shoots the torpedo out of the tube. At the same time they replaced the torpedo fuel with modern [UGST] duel purpose, liquid monopropellant which has a nitrate ester energetic ingredient that can be very unstable and have a low flash point and impact resistance unless chemical stabilizers are used to prevent the problem. The new torpedoes are difficult to store and dangerous to handle, the plus side was that they are cheap to make.

An American businessman and retired naval intelligence officer Edmund Dean Pope, was arrested on April 3rd on charges of espionage and held since in Moscow's grim Lefortovo prison. He faces up to 20 years prison if convicted. He was arrested by the Federal Security Service [FSB] while allegedly attempting to buy technical, classified documentation relating to ballistic missiles and torpedoes in the arsenal of Russia's submarine fleet from Professor Anatoliy Babkin, a department head of rocket engineering at the Bauman Moscow State Technical University. Babkin is considered by the FSB to be an agent recruited by an American intelligence agency. [He could also have been turned]. On the same day, the FSB arrested Pope's associate and head of Energy Science and Power System Division, State College, Penn, USA, Professor Daniel H. Kiely. He had joined Pope in Moscow to offer technical advice.

The laboratory headed by Dr Kiely designs and develops torpedoes for the US Navy. 68 years old Dr Kiely was interrogated as a witness then released and allowed to return to the United States on "humanitarian" grounds and for the sake of good bilateral relations. Pope remains to this day [2002] in prison.

Examinations of the physical and seismic evidence, the fact that the torpedo section of the bow was blown open, leaving an enormous hole on her starboard side, and the two explosions 2 min. 15 secs apart, strongly suggests a torpedo accident caused the sinking. The fact that the second blast was considerably more powerful than the first one, implies that a torpedo failed to leave the tube, perhaps because the liquid ignited prematurely , causing the first detonation. The second twice as powerful blast occurred when the warhead blew up and consequently exploded several other torpedoes, explaining the almost simultaneous multi-explosions. The ship had no opportunity to save itself, the massive hole and blast damage certainly crippled the whole structure, the sudden intense expansion in air pressure and flooding left no chance for survivors. The "boomer" didn't pitch down; it just fell to the seafloor 354 feet down like a rock!

Because of the shortages of cash flow and essential supplies that status of the assets of the Russian Northern Fleet is very unreliable and can hardly be seen as commensurate to a superpower: as they know it. Their nuclear submarines appear to be the favoured operational priorities, no doubt because they consider them so important to home defence. Russia's fleet or aging nuclear submarines has dwindled to 50, and even fewer are operational due to a lack of spare parts and bad maintenance. With their defence budget for next year at $7.43 billion they will find it hard to maintain that level of readiness. Moreover, the budget shortage makes them look for quick fixes for those "silver bullet" solutions which in turn provoke inherent pitfalls. Just as an injection of a tranquilliser calms the distraught briefly, entails risks and does nothing to alleviate the cause of the suffering likewise; a strategy of injecting inadequate funds into the Russian navy can increase the likelihood of an accident, is only transiently beneficial and creates a paranoiac syndrome resulting in such a reflex action as the Pope affair. They are very concerned by their fragile hold on national security and every secret counts.

Without an efficient industrial and maintenance base there is no cure in sight. Maintenance is critical in peacetime operations as it is to sustaining ones' armed forces in time of war. Furthermore, the "Soviet reaction" during and after the Kursk disaster does not harbour much hope of serious change in the future. Paradoxically, the Kursk was scheduled to escort a Russian flotilla to the Mediterranean later in the year [2001] in a show of force intending to symbolise the rebirth of Russia as a world power. The Kursk tragedy brings to mind the Marquis de Custine's abrasive but penetrating observations: "The Russians have rotted before they have ripened".

There is nothing more boring than being on passage on the open sea. Conversely, there is something exciting about navigating waterways where at least one side of the ship has a view of the coastline. To have views to both sides of the ship is exciting, but to have close and spectacular views is something very special, and rare! This page deals with waterways with views to port and starboard, and at close range.

The Panama Canal provides such a spectacle, albeit, much of the same vista particularly in the transit NNW from Pacific to Atlantic oceans. However, high jungle greenery clusters clinging to precipitous rocks are preferable to acres of water with no apparent bounds. I have travelled through this canal twice, the last time in submarine Auriga heading home from 2 years in Singapore in 1968. Below are statistics of the Canal and a map showing the route, entry's and exit's. Unlike every other 'sea-way' canal in the world, this one has a portion through which a vessel is pulled along by a railway engine through locks. You have to be quick or you would miss the pull, for it is only for a short distance! This canal circumvents the need to travel around Cape Horn.

Panama Canal (Sp., Canal de Panamá), canal joining the Atlantic and Pacific oceans across the Isthmus of Panama. Running from Cristóbal on Limón Bay, an arm of the Caribbean Sea, to Balboa, on the Gulf of Panama, the canal is slightly more than 64 km (40 mi) long, not including the dredged approach channels at either end. The minimum depth is 12.5 m (41 ft), and the minimum width is 91.5 m (300 ft).

Location and Structure

The approach to the canal from the Atlantic is along 7.2 km (4.5 mi) of dredged channel. The canal then proceeds for 11.1 km (6.9 mi), veering slightly westward before reaching the Gatun Locks. Ships are lifted 25.9 m (85 ft) by these three locks, to the level of Gatun Lake. The lake was formed as a result of the damming of the Chagres River by the Gatun Dam, which adjoins the locks. The Gatun Locks open directly into one another and are double, as are the other locks, so that one ship can be raised while another is being lowered. All the lock chambers on the Panama canal have a length of 305 m (1,000 ft) and a width of 33.5 m (110 ft).

From the Gatun Locks the canal passes through Gatun Lake in a southern and south-eastern direction to the mouth of Gaillard Cut (formerly called Culebra Cut), an excavated channel 13 km (8.1 mi) long. At the end of the Gaillard Cut is the Pedro Miguel Lock, which has a drop of 9.4 m (31 ft). The lock borders Miraflores Lake, which is 16.8 m (55 ft) above the level of the Pacific. The canal passes 2.1 km (1.3 mi) through Miraflores Lake and reaches the two Miraflores Locks. These locks lower ships to Pacific tidewater level. From the Miraflores Locks the canal runs 4 km (2.5 mi) to Balboa on the Gulf of Panama, from which a dredged channel extends approximately 8 km (5 mi) out into the bay. In addition to the canal itself, auxiliary facilities include the Madden Dam on the Chagres River, which provides a reservoir to maintain the level of Gatun Lake during the dry season; breakwaters to protect the channels at either end of the canal; hydroelectric plants at the Gatun and Madden dams; and the Panama Railway that extends 76.6 km (47.6 mi) from Colón at the Atlantic end of the canal to the city of Panamá on the Pacific.

In 1991 more than 12,500 commercial vessels, carrying more than 164 million metric tons of cargo, passed through the canal. Transit time through the canal is seven to eight hours.

History

Interest in a short route from the Atlantic to the Pacific began with the explorers of Central America early in the 16th century. Hernán Cortés, the Spanish conqueror of Mexico, suggested a canal across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; other explorers favoured routes through Nicaragua and Darién. The first project for a canal through the Isthmus of Panama was initiated by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who in 1523 ordered a survey of the isthmus. A working plan for a canal was drawn up as early as 1529, but was not submitted to the king. In 1534 a local Spanish official suggested a canal route close to that of the present canal. Later, several other canal plans were suggested, but no action was taken.

Renewed Interest

The Spanish government subsequently abandoned its interest in the canal, but in the early 19th century the books of the German scientist Alexander von Humboldt revived interest in the project, and in 1819 the Spanish government formally authorized the construction of a canal and the creation of a company to build it. Nothing came of this effort, however, and the revolt of the Spanish colonies soon took the control of possible canal sites out of Spanish hands. The republics of Central America subsequently tried to interest groups in the United States and Europe in building a canal, and it became a subject of perennial debate in the US Congress. The discovery of gold in California in 1848 and the rush of would-be miners stimulated US interest in digging the canal, resulting in the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Various surveys made between 1850 and 1875 indicated that only two routes were practical, the one across Panama and that across Nicaragua. In 1876 an international company was organized; two years later it obtained a concession from the Colombian government— Panama was then part of Colombia—to dig a canal across the isthmus.

US Involvement

The international company failed, and in 1880 a French company was organized by Ferdinand Marie de Lesseps, the builder of the Suez Canal. His company went bankrupt in 1889. US interest in an Atlantic-Pacific canal, however, continued. In 1899 the US Congress created an Isthmian Canal Commission to examine the possibilities of a Central American canal and to recommend a route. The commission first decided on the Nicaraguan route, but reversed its decision in 1902 when the Lesseps company, reorganized, offered its assets to the United States at a price of $40 million. The US government negotiated with the Colombian government to obtain a strip of land 9.5 km (6 mi) wide across the isthmus, but the Colombian Senate refused to ratify this concession. In 1903, however, Panama revolted from Colombia. That same year the United States and the new state of Panama signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty by which the United States guaranteed the independence of Panama and secured a perpetual lease on a 16-km (10-mi) strip for the canal. Panama was to be compensated by an initial payment of $10 million and an annuity of $250,000, beginning in 1913. The figure was later revised upwards.

Construction

In 1905 the Isthmian Canal Commission decided to build a canal with locks rather than a sea-level channel, and this plan was approved by the US Congress the following year. President Theodore Roosevelt put the construction work under the direction of the US Army Corps of Engineers; Colonel George W. Goethals was named to head the project.

The construction of the canal ranks as one of the greatest engineering works of all time. It was estimated that the canal would be completed in ten years; however, it was in operation by the summer of 1914. The construction involved not only excavating an estimated 143 million cu m (175 million cu yd) of earth, but also sanitizing the entire canal area, which was infested with the mosquitoes that spread yellow fever and malaria. The sanitation work was undertaken by Colonel William C. Gorgas of the US Army Medical Corps, who virtually eliminated the diseases. An unexpected difficulty in the actual construction was the prevalence of slides of earth from the banks of the canal, particularly in the Gaillard Cut. Reexcavation after such slides added about 25 per cent to the estimated amount of earth moved. The final cost of the canal was $336 million.

The widening of the Gaillard Cut from 91.5 m (300 ft) to a width of 150 m (600 ft) was completed in 1970. It permitted, for the first time, two-way passage through the entire cut.

New Treaties

In 1977 the United States and Panama agreed on two new treaties to replace their 1903 agreement. These treaties provided for Panama's sovereignty over the Canal Zone shortly after their ratification and its control of the canal itself at the beginning of 2000, but left the United States the right to defend the canal's neutrality even thereafter. The treaties took effect in 1979.^[1]

The Suez Canal is a much less attractive affair, unless you like sand; miles after miles of it. I have travelled through this canal on three occasions, the last being in the cruiser Tiger in 1977 heading for the east and then back again. It is singularly boring except for seeing the occasional abandoned piece of artillery used between the Arabs and the Israelis over several wars since 1947. The canal works on a system of by-passes where ships travel in southbound or northbound convoys pulling over and waiting in lakes [bitter lakes] until there is navigable room for them to continue their journey. This canal addressed the shipping requirement of Mediterranean to Red Sea and vice versa thereby circumventing the need to travel around Cape of Good Hope. By tradition, warships always travel at the rear of the convoy. Again the explanation and map below tell one of the route and geography of the canal. It runs between Port Said and Port Suez.

Suez Canal, artificial waterway running north to south across the Isthmus of Suez in north-eastern Egypt; it connects Port Said on the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez, an arm of the Red Sea. The canal provides a shortcut for ships operating between European or American ports and ports located in southern Asia, eastern Africa, and Oceania, by avoiding the need to sail around Africa.

Physical Description

The Suez Canal is about 163 km (101 mi) long. The minimum bottom width of the channel is 60 m (197 ft) and ships of 20 m (64 ft) draft can make the transit. The canal can accommodate ships as large as 150,000 dead weight tons fully loaded. It has no locks, since it connects two points at sea level, with no high ground in between. The canal utilizes three bodies of water—Lake Manzala, Lake Timsah, and the Bitter Lakes (the latter is actually one continuous body of water)—and is not the shortest distance across the isthmus. Most of the canal is limited to a single lane of traffic, but several passing bays exist, and two-lane bypasses are located in the Bitter Lakes and between Al-Qantarah and Al Isma‘ìlìyah. A railway on the west bank runs parallel to the canal for its entire distance.

The Canal passage and the History
The Canal has actually been built and rebuilt many times, but only now when trade depends so heavily on it does it not fall to negligence. The first to have the idea of connecting the Red and Mediterranean Seas was the Pharaoh Necho in Sixth Century BC. He did not complete it, however during the Persian Invasion of Egypt (also Sixth Century BC), King Darius I ordered the Canal completed.
The canal consisted of two parts. One part linked the Red Sea to the Great Bitter Lake, and a second linked the Lake with one of the Nile branches in the Delta.
The Canal served as a shortcut between Europe and India until the Ptolemic Era (367-47 BC) but then fell to disrepair. It was re-dug during the rule of the Roman Emperor Trajan (98-117 AD), and later re-dug by the Arab ruler Amr Ibn-Al-Aas (around 700 AD).
Yet again it fell to disrepair and was completely abandoned after the trade route around Africa was discovered by the Europeans. Around 1800, Napoleon's Engineers brought back the idea of the Suez Canal.
However, the measurement the French Engineers made determined that there was a difference in 10 meters in the altitudes of the seas, and a large area would be flooded if the construction was carried out.
Later, the calculations were proved to be wrong, and Ferdinand de Lesseps undertook the construction. He was granted a decree by the Khedive Said of Egypt to run the Canal for 99 years after it was completed.
The Canal's construction began in 1854 and was carried out by mostly Egyptian workers in conditions similar to slave labor.
The Canal was completed around 1867 and was inaugurated on November 17, 1869. M. de Lesseps is known as the father of the Suez Canal because of his work. If you would like to learn more about the construction of the Suez Canal.
Ferdinand de Lesseps was sole controller of the Canal, but he sold shares to many French gentry, and the Khedive also held quite a bit. The sum of these shares was the Suez Canal Company. In 1874, Benjamin Disraeli took office as British Prime minister.
Disraeli was interested in buying part of the Suez for Britain, but so were several other countries. The biggest opposition would come from the French shareholders, but the French knew something that nobody else did. They knew that the Khedive had spent the country's surplus money and needed cash fast.
The Khedive had decided that if someone were to offer, he would sell his 177.2 shares of the Suez Canal Company. Since the French didn't think anybody else knew, they took their time raising the money. They did not know that Disraeli was a friend to the world's largest banker at the time, Baron Lionel de Rothschild. Rothschild knew of the Khedive's financial state and when Disraeli asked about it, he told. Disraeli then also asked if he could get a loan for 4 million British pounds to buy the shares, and Rothschild agreed.
He immediately sent a courier to propose the buy to the Khedive. French, Turkish, and Russian spies all discovered this information and sent their own people but it was too late. Disraeli had already bought the Khedive's shares. He then convinced the Queen and Parliament to pay off his debt to Rothschild. Britain controlled the Suez Canal for 84 years until President Nasser of Egypt nationalized it.
The Canal is 120 miles long, and it is the longest canal in the world without locks.

Control of the Canal

Under the terms of an international convention signed in 1888, the canal was opened to the vessels of all nations without discrimination, in peace and in war. However, Great Britain considered the canal vital to the maintenance of its maritime power and colonial interests, especially communication with India. By the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, Great Britain acquired the right to maintain defence forces in the Suez Canal Zone, thus assuming command of the canal approaches. For most of the time after the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine in 1948, the Egyptian government prohibited the transit of vessels to and from Israel.

Egyptian nationalists demanded repeatedly that Great Britain evacuate the Suez Canal Zone, and in 1954 the two countries signed a seven-year agreement that superseded the 1936 treaty and provided for the gradual withdrawal of all British troops from the zone. By June 1956 all British troops had departed, and Egypt took over the British installations.

Nationalization

On July 26, 1956, shortly after the United States and Great Britain withdrew their offers to help finance the construction of the Aswan High Dam, the Egyptian government seized the Suez Canal in accordance with a decree of nationalization issued by President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser announced that Egypt planned to use the proceeds from the operation of the canal to finance the dam. On October 29, 1956, Israel invaded Egypt. Two days later, British and French military units attacked Egypt for the announced purpose of ensuring free passage through the canal. In retaliation, Egypt sank 40 ships in the canal, effectively blocking it. Through the intervention of the United Nations (UN), a truce was arranged in November, and by the end of the year Israeli, French, and British forces were withdrawn from the area. Following removal of the sunken vessels by a UN salvage team, the Egyptian government reopened the canal in March 1957. In 1958 Egypt and its nationalized canal company reached agreement on terms of a financial settlement for the canal, and by 1962 final payments had been made to the original shareholders.

The Suez Canal continued to figure prominently in the conflicts between Egypt and Israel during the 1960s and 1970s. It was closed during the Six-Day War of 1967, when several vessels were sunk in the waterway, blocking the shipping lanes. The canal was reopened in June 1975, after an international task force had cleared it of obstacles. Late that year Egypt permitted nonmilitary goods to and from Israel to pass through the waterway. Unrestricted Israeli use of the canal was secured in the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979.

The Kiel Canal is about as pretty as you can get! I have travelled this waterway on several occasions with the RN and with the German Navy also. I did it again onboard the ocean cruiser "MV Ocean Majesty" in June of 2004. My best transit was in HMS Tintagel Castle returning to Portland after a visit to Aarhus in Denmark. There is much to see and enjoy. You will have seen that Panama is 41 miles long, Suez is 100 miles long and Kiel comes in at a goodly distance of 60 miles with just two locks, one at each end to check tides. It runs from the North Sea to the Baltic Sea and allows the passage of very big ships.

Nord-Ostsee Kanal, also Kiel Canal, artificial waterway in north-western Germany, linking the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The canal extends in a north-eastern direction across the state of Schleswig-Holstein from Brunsbüttelkoog, near the mouth of the Elbe River, to Kiel, on the Baltic. The canal is very level, and has locks only at its ends to accommodate North and Baltic sea tides. Constructed between 1887 and 1895 and subsequently enlarged, the canal is about 97 km (60 mi) long, 102 m (335 ft) wide, and 11 m (36 ft) deep. The canal shortened the distance between the North and Baltic seas by about 322 km (200 mi) and eliminated the difficult passage around Jutland. It was internationalized by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919

There are other waterways, but I have not traversed them. They tend to be shallow or difficult to navigate by comparison and include such canals as the Caledonian [in Scotland] and the Magellan Straits in South American.

Magellan, Ferdinand (Portuguese, Fernão de Magalhães; Spanish, Fernando de Magallanes) (c. 1480-1521), Portuguese navigator and explorer, the first European to cross the Pacific Ocean and the first person to circumnavigate the globe.

Magellan was born in Sabrosa, northern Portugal, of a noble Portuguese family. At the age of 12 he went to court as page to Queen Leonora, consort of the Portuguese King John II. In 1505 Magellan went on the first of several naval voyages to India, helping two successive viceroys, Francisco de Almeida and Diego Lopez de Sequira, to wrest control of key Indian trading ports from the Arabs. In 1509 he and his friend Francisco Serrão were involved in an unsuccessful attempt to take the Malayan port of Malacca (now Melaka). Serrão, and possibly Magellan, went on to Tenate in the Moluccas (then called the Spice Islands) in 1511-1512, marking the beginnings of a lucrative trade in cinnamon and nutmeg. Magellan returned to Portugal in 1512, was promoted to captain, and fought against the Moors in Morocco, where he received wounds that left him lame for life. After his request for an increase in his royal allowance was rejected by Emanuel, King of Portugal, who was indifferent also to Magellan's proposal for a voyage to the Moluccas, Magellan renounced his Portuguese nationality and in 1517 offered his services to the King of Spain, Charles I (later Holy Roman Emperor Charles V).

Magellan had learnt from a variety of sources that the South American continent was probably not joined to the conjectured Great Southern Continent, and that it was likely that the riches of the Far East might be attained by sailing westward around the tip of South America. The route eastward was controlled by Portugal under the terms of the Treaty of Tordesillas. This had laid down a Line of Demarcation, to the east of which the Portuguese were given title, and to the west the Spanish. Since Portugal was strengthening its grip in the East Indies, it was clearly in Spain's interest to establish the position of the corresponding demarcation line on the opposite side of the earth, in case any of the lucrative territories there fell within their zone. Nobody was certain which side of this line the Moluccas lay. The Spanish crown was quick to endorse Magellan's plans and finance came from the German banking firm, the House of Fuggers.

On September 20, 1519, Magellan sailed from Sanlúcar de Barrameda with five ships and some 250 men. Following the coast of Africa to Sierre Leone, they crossed the Atlantic and reached South America, exploring the Brazilian coast and in February 1520 reaching the Río de la Plata estuary (which because of its size he mistook for the southern end of the continent). Here he sighted a mountain and shouted “Monte video” (“I see a mountain”) so giving the name to the city, founded two centuries later, which became the capital of Uruguay. On March 31, as the southern winter was beginning, his fleet put into what is now Port San Julián, on the southern coast of Patagonia, where it remained for nearly six months. During that period the crew came to resent their Portuguese captain and a mutiny occurred, forcing Magellan to execute the ringleader. One of his ships was wrecked surveying the coast of Patagonia. On October 21, 1520, Magellan sailed into the passage to the Pacific Ocean that is now named after him, the Strait of Magellan. It took 38 days to navigate the treacherous strait, and the crew of the San Antonio deserted and returned to Spain. Fires were seen along the shores to the south, causing Magellan to name this land Tierra del Fuego (land of fire). After a journey of 530 km (330 mi), on November 28, 1520, his three ships sailed into the ocean, which Magellan named “Pacific” (meaning “peaceful”) because of its calmness. They sailed northward along the west coast of South America, and then set out westward across the Pacific. Magellan's exact route is not known but he sailed north of the many islands of the South Pacific, only sighting the barren outcrops of the Tuamotu Archipelago (the Islands of Disappointment). By now they were running desperately short of food and fresh water, and many died of scurvy. The survivors resorted to chewing boiled leather, rats, and sawdust before reaching Guam in the Mariana Islands on March 6, 1521. They had been out of sight of land for 100 days. The natives were friendly and enabled them to resupply, but there was a tendency to pilfering , a cultural misunderstanding which led Magellan to call the islands the Ladrones (the Islands of Thieves).

Sailing westward in search of the Moluccas, perhaps not realizing he was far to the north of them, after 10 days Magellan became the first European to see the Philippines, landing on the island of Cebu on April 7. There he made an alliance with the ruler of the island and agreed to aid him in an attack on the inhabitants of the neighbouring island of Mactan. Magellan was killed on April 27 during the Mactan expedition by a group of islanders led by their chief, Lapu-Lapu.

Following Magellan's death, one of the vessels in his fleet was burned by its crew to prevent it being taken, but the other two escaped and reached the Moluccas on November 6, 1521. One of the vessels, the Victoria, commanded by Juan Sebastián del Cano, completed the circumnavigation of the globe, arriving at Seville, by way of the Cape of Good Hope route, on September 8, 1522.

Although Magellan did not live to complete the voyage, he did circumnavigate the globe (if he made the 1511 journey to the Moluccas) by passing the easternmost point he had reached on an earlier voyage.

The cargo of spices carried back to Spain by the Victoria alone paid for the expenses of the expedition. The passage through the Strait of Magellan was too long and difficult to be a practical route from Europe to the Moluccas, however, and Spain sold her interests there to Portugal. Nevertheless, the voyage laid the foundation for trade across the Pacific between the New World and the East, and although Spain did not immediately recognize the importance of the Philippines, before the end of the century Manila had become the greatest Spanish trading centre in the East.

Magellan's circumnavigation, together with the earlier voyages of Vasco da Gama and Christopher Columbus, finally re-established in the popular imagination of Europeans that the world was a sphere, and demonstrated that the world's oceans were linked (since ancient Greek times Europeans had thought the Indian Ocean was landlocked). In addition, Magellan enabled cartographers for the first time to make an estimate of the true size and shape of South America, and the full vastness of the Pacific Ocean.

For many a long year now I have had a piece of naval history sitting outside my dining room which I purchased for £20 from a local follies shop. I have always been very proud of it and my dear wife has kept the brass work gleaming, just as it would have been when the piece was operational. I own many naval antique pieces and recently, whilst taking an inventory prior to moving house, I took detailed notes, and, as it were, studied the artefact with a zeal as never before. Over the years we have used the dinner gong [?] to call the family to dine in the dining room [especially at Christmas times] and I have always wondered about its origin, the stewards who would have banged it and the officers who would have responded to its call. However, today [6th September 2002] it 'hit me'. The very top bar shouted at me. It is clearly and without doubt two oak leaves set either side of an oak apple, and can only belong to HMS Royal Oak. Since the last Royal Oak was sunk at Scapa Flow and is a war grave, one assumes that no artefact has ever been removed from her hull. Therefore did it belong to the 1892 Royal Oak which was scrapped in 1914? The gantry for the 'gong' is made of heavy thick solid brass and the 'gong' itself is a 4"shell casing. The striking piece lays horizontally across the shell casing towards the top supported by two hook/arms mounted on each vertical upright. The whole thing sits on a sturdy wooden base which is again, clearly the original. The original striking piece is missing and we use a realistic alternative piece. Petersfield in Hampshire, the town in which I purchased this item, is well known for the many admirals who lived [and still do] in the surrounding villages. It is conceivable that this piece was taken as a keep-sake by a senior officer in the Royal Oak, and upon his death, sold to a buyer who was not au fait with what he/she had purchased, and thus it became a folly instead of a naval antique. The shell casing has the following markings. There is a WD Arrow underneath which is the letter N and below it a figure 2 and below that the date 8 12 03 [well spaced out]. Then on the other side of the shell cashing there is CFRRF where the letter C is larger than the FRRF: KN where K is larger than N: the letter A inside a circle: a strange letter N followed by a figure 8 and a strange E without its top [or an upside down and back to front F] followed by a 3. I assume that this shell comes from the turn of the century and was never fired in anger. I am attaching three photographs for any visitor to study. They are big pictures [in excess of 1.2MB] on purpose as a thumb nail would not be clear enough. I would love to know whether or not my observation is correct! Please use scroll bars as necessary. Incidentally for historians per se, the background to the pictures [taken in my kitchen] is the original Victorian lincrusta dating from 1898.

Recently, in very early January 2007, I decided to ask the experts about the shell case used to form the 'gong'. I emailed the Curator of the Naval Explosion Museum at Gosport Hampshire. What she told me could change all my understandings of what I own, and it is now HIGHLY PROBABLE that this is a wardroom dinner-gong used on the 1916 HMS Royal Oak which was sunk at Scapa Flow in 1939.

From this official information we see that the shell, manufactured in 1903 was fired and re-used several times before being discarded as scrap ready to melt down for a new casting. Now since the 1892 Royal Oak was decommissioned in 1912 and scrapped in 1914, and the shell casing used to make the wardroom dinner-gong could have easily survived [firing, four re-filling stages, four further firings, dis-used and awaiting scrap/re-casting etc] the 13 period between manufacture and the building of the new Royal Oak, it is more probable that the shell case was used to make the gong for the 1916 Royal Oak than for the 1892 Royal Oak.

For the many thousands of you who do not have access to the Portsmouth local media, keep your eye on this web site for all the details about the BIG CELEBRATION http://www.port.nmm.ac.uk

From time to time we stumble across places of naval interest. Occasionally, we find places in traditional naval areas for dining and socialising which have style and panache and which offer an ambiance not readily found in the majority of restaurants. Moreover, there are many good hotels in areas adjacent to the sea which, at best, make a less than satisfactory effort in displaying naval [merchant as well as Royal] artefact for the pleasure of the 'naval' visitor. Image therefore, my glee and surprise to find an establishment which offers the lot and in good measure, so much so, that one visit would not suffice to view the array of naval artefact displayed. It is rich in pictures and photographs of Royal Navy ships beyond belief, offering what must be a unique collection of first and second world war vessels.

The food, wines and service are superb, and there is even a smoking restaurant and a non smoking restaurant ensuring that both "camps" can enjoy their meal without complaint or discomfort. There is also a front of hotel patio, tailor made for a pre dinner drink or an alfresco meal. It is but a few marching paces from the waters edge.

I have no vested interest in the establishment, but having dined there, I couldn't leave without telling you about this naval treasure.

The establishment is the SEAVIEW HOTEL which can be found in the HIGH STREET, SEAVIEW, ISLE OF WIGHT. PO34 5EX. Seaview is the town one sees when looking towards the island from Southsea [just behind NO MAN'S LAND Fort] with Bembridge down to its left and Ryde over to its right. The telephone number is 01983 612711 FAX 01983 613729 e-mail reception@seaviewhotel.co.uk website http://www.seaviewhotel.co.uk

[Worse things happen at sea!]

In the year 1703 [incidentally the Portsmouth Main Dockyard Gates were erected in 1711 at 12 foot wide and stood there for 232 years until 1943, when they were widened to 22 feet, and the first man to become a famous admiral to see them, who joined the navy one year later in 1712, was Admiral Anson] there occurred a storm of such tremendous violence that it is recorded as being the greatest and most destructive ever known in the history of the British Isles. The damage was on an almost cosmic scale – like some gigantic air raid – and it gained the title “The Great Storm”. On land the effects were appalling and at sea they were disastrous. The fact they were worse at sea brought about the saying “Worse things happen at sea”. Over 10,000 seamen were lost, a third of which were men of the Royal Navy. The fury of the storm was concentrated into a few hours between midnight and dawn of the 26^th and 27^th November. Before its dreadful climax, the storm had been blowing for a fortnight and anchorages were packed with shipping. In the Downs, besides hundreds of merchant vessels there were a number of warships, including the Channel Squadron, some 13 ships, commanded by Rear Admiral Sir Basil Beaumont of The Blue. The storm raged throughout the Downs and after its passing, the Squadron, which before had been safe in its moorings, was gone. In the worst disaster ever experienced by the Royal Navy in home waters, an entire fleet was lost, when one vessel after another drove ashore on the Goodwins or foundered along the coast. Four of the larger ships lost on the Goodwins were the flagship MARY, of 60 guns and 272 men; RESTORATION with 386 men; NORTHUMBERLAND with 253 men, and STIRLING CASTLE with 349 men, all of 70 guns. Of the first vessel there was one survivor, from the second and third, none, and from the last, seventy.

Table of Contents for Bits and Pieces