OK more missing. Locksmithing and Engraving as well as Instrumentman(IM).
Nothing on optical stuff (R-Division periscopes) and no Torpedo Man 3&2 (TM)
Very surprised to see the Hydraulic stuff... That reminds me. Engineman books???
All the boatswain books from coxswain to engineman.
Nice to see this old stuff preserved. It is learned knowledge.
Not surprised that Damage Controlman books are missing.
Are the Damage Controlman books sensitive or something?
Damn, that would have been so interesting. I've had a few Wikipedia binges about naval battles, so I remember stories about damage control and how incredibly good the US Navy became at doing it. Seems like an interesting mix of engineering and action film type excitement.
No, they are available and damage control is widely taught to mariners worldwide. Many of the schools (academy) in the US rely on the old materials and Navy training clips from the archives
I could see some sensitivity there. How to save a sinking ship is learned knowledge. We are pretty good at it.
I think they all got water damaged.
Yeah you might think because they're a government organization they could never produce a good motion picture.
I have a very high opinion of the Navy. Well I doubt that I do compared to reality, but I know that I do compared to the media. According to Daniel Cussen, the Navy stays above the waterline at all times. Maybe sometimes it's close to the waterline but never does it drown. Other organizations go farther above that line, but they sink below it other times.
Now, perhaps if you see it as average distance above the waterline you can construct an argument that it's therefore better than the Navy.
No, because the Navy doesn't drown.
I don't care how high you float, the only real question is if you never drown.
The breadth of topics of WW2 field manuals and technical manuals is staggering. One of the manuals is essentially a list of other manuals, and there are a lot of them.
At least one manual has a reading level similar to "See Jane run", because of course they'd have had some soldiers being drafted who read at that level.
Books designed to actually impart knowledge are rare. Modern publishing is about spine size so a ton of filler.
So on the one hand I agree but equally these style of books can be extremely long winded and imprecise. It's the difference between training radio operators and training RF engineers.
I actually am building a little website for finding a balance between the two styles of writing, but it's really hard to get right.
I assume training follows with field repairs necessary to keep equipment running. With the miniaturization of tech, no one is going to be replacing chips or wires on boards, just swap the whole board with a spare.
Depends, because if you got the single components you can use them to repair multiple boards, while if you go the spare way you need to keep some spares for each specific board. So I think it's debatable whether the spare way is actually a better way or not. Maybe the best way would be a mix of the two: use a spare to be able to quickly repair the equipment but then later take the time to find out the single component that broke and replace it so the old board becomes a spare one. This way you can avoid having stacks of spares and you still have quick repairs.
As of 12 years ago, the CG was still using what looks to be the exact same basic electricity book (with the purple cover). I absolutely love that book and it really helped me understand electrical fundamentals.