text:
The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, fought during 25–27 October 1942, sometimes referred to as the Battle of Santa Cruz or in Japan as the Battle of the South Pacific (Japanese: 南太平洋海戦 Minamitaiheiyō kaisen), was the fourth carrier battle of the Pacific campaign of World War II. It was also the fourth major naval engagement fought between the United States Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy during the lengthy and strategically important Guadalcanal campaign. As in the battles of the Coral Sea, Midway, and the Eastern Solomons, the ships of the two adversaries were rarely in sight or gun range of each other. Instead, almost all attacks by both sides were mounted by carrier- or land-based aircraft.
In an attempt to drive Allied forces from Guadalcanal and nearby islands and end the stalemate that had existed since September 1942, the Imperial Japanese Army planned a major ground offensive on Guadalcanal for 20–25 October 1942. In support of this offensive, and with the hope of engaging Allied naval forces, Japanese carriers and other large warships moved into a position near the southern Solomon Islands. From this location, the Japanese naval forces hoped to engage and decisively defeat any Allied (primarily U.S.) naval forces, especially carrier forces, that responded to the ground offensive. Allied naval forces also hoped to meet the Japanese naval forces in battle, with the same objectives of breaking the stalemate and decisively defeating their adversary.
The Japanese ground offensive on Guadalcanal was underway in the Battle for Henderson Field while the naval warships and aircraft from the two adversaries confronted each other on the morning of 26 October 1942, just north of the Santa Cruz Islands. After an exchange of carrier air attacks, Allied surface ships retreated from the battle area with one carrier sunk[6] (Hornet) and another heavily damaged (Enterprise). The participating Japanese carrier forces also retired because of high aircraft and aircrew losses, plus significant damage to two carriers (fleet carrier Shōkaku and light carrier Zuihō).
Santa Cruz was a tactical victory and a short-term strategic victory for the Japanese in terms of ships sunk and damaged, and control of the seas around Guadalcanal. However, Japan's loss of many irreplaceable veteran aircrews proved to be a long-term strategic advantage for the Allies, whose aircrew losses in the battle were relatively low and quickly replaced.
On 7 August 1942, Allied forces (primarily U.S.) landed on Japanese-occupied Guadalcanal, Tulagi, and the Florida Islands in the Solomon Islands. The landings on the islands were meant to deny their use by the Japanese as bases for threatening the supply routes between the U.S. and Australia, and to secure the islands as starting points for a campaign with the eventual goal of neutralizing the major Japanese base at Rabaul while also supporting the Allied New Guinea campaign. The landings initiated the six-month-long Guadalcanal campaign.[7]
After the Battle of the Eastern Solomons on 24–25 August, in which the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise was heavily damaged and forced to travel to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for a month of major repairs, three U.S. carrier task forces remained in the South Pacific area. The task forces included the carriers USS Wasp, Saratoga, and Hornet plus their respective air groups and supporting surface warships, including battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, and were primarily stationed between the Solomons and New Hebrides (Vanuatu) islands. At this location, the carriers were charged with guarding the line of communication between the major Allied bases at New Caledonia and Espiritu Santo, supporting the Allied ground forces at Guadalcanal and Tulagi against any Japanese counteroffensives, covering the movement of supply ships to Guadalcanal, and engaging and destroying any Japanese warships, especially carriers, that came within range.[8]
The area of ocean in which the U.S. carrier task forces operated was known as "Torpedo Junction"[9] by U.S. forces because of the high concentration of Japanese submarines in the area.[10]
On 31 August, USS Saratoga was torpedoed by Japanese submarine I-26 and was out of action for three months for repairs.[11][12] On 14 September, USS Wasp was hit by three torpedoes fired by Japanese submarine I-19 while supporting a major reinforcement and resupply convoy to Guadalcanal and almost engaging two Japanese carriers Shōkaku and Zuikaku (which withdrew just before the two adversaries came into range of each other's aircraft). With power knocked out from torpedo damage, Wasp's damage-control teams were unable to contain the ensuing large fires, and she was abandoned and scuttled.[13]
Although the U.S. now had only one operational carrier (Hornet) in the South Pacific, the Allies still maintained air superiority over the southern Solomon Islands because of their aircraft based at Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. However, at night, when aircraft were not able to operate effectively, the Japanese were able to operate their ships around Guadalcanal almost at will. Thus, a stalemate in the battle for Guadalcanal developed—Allies delivering supplies and reinforcements to Guadalcanal during the day, and the Japanese doing the same by warship (called the "Tokyo Express" by the Allies) at night—with neither side able to deliver enough troops to the island to secure a decisive advantage. By mid-October, both sides had roughly an equal number of troops on the island.[14] The stalemate was briefly interrupted by two large-ship naval actions. On the night of 11–12 October, a U.S. naval force intercepted and defeated a Japanese naval force en route to bombard Henderson Field in the Battle of Cape Esperance. But just two nights later, a Japanese force that included the battleships Haruna and Kongō successfully bombarded Henderson Field, destroying most of the U.S. aircraft and inflicting severe damage on the field's facilities.[15] Although still marginally operational, it took several weeks for the airfield to recover from the damage and replace the destroyed aircraft.[citation needed]
The U.S. made two moves to try to break the stalemate in the battle for Guadalcanal. First, repairs to Enterprise were expedited so that she could return to the South Pacific as soon as possible. On 10 October, Enterprise received her new air group (Air Group 10) and on 16 October, she left Pearl Harbor; and on 23 October,[16] she arrived back in the South Pacific and rendezvoused with Hornet and the rest of the Allied South Pacific naval forces on 24 October, 273 nmi (506 km; 314 mi) northeast of Espiritu Santo.[17]
Second, on 18 October, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Allied Commander-in-Chief of Pacific Forces, replaced Vice Admiral Robert L. Ghormley with Vice Admiral William Halsey, Jr. as Commander, South Pacific Area: this position commanded Allied forces involved in the Solomon Islands campaign.[18] Nimitz felt that Ghormley had become too myopic and pessimistic to lead Allied forces effectively in the struggle for Guadalcanal. Halsey was reportedly respected throughout the U.S. naval fleet as a "fighter".[19] Upon assuming command, Halsey immediately began making plans to draw the Japanese naval forces into a battle, writing to Nimitz, "I had to begin throwing punches almost immediately."[20]
The Japanese Combined Fleet was also seeking to draw Allied naval forces into what was hoped to be a decisive battle. Two fleet carriers—Hiyō and Jun'yō, as well as the light carrier Zuihō—arrived at the main Japanese naval base at Truk Atoll from Japan in early October and joined Shōkaku and Zuikaku. With five carriers fully equipped with air groups, plus their numerous battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, the Japanese Combined Fleet, directed by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, was confident that it could make up for the defeat at the Battle of Midway.[21] Apart from a couple of air raids on Henderson Field in October, the Japanese carriers and their supporting warships stayed in the northwestern area of the Solomon Islands, out of the battle for Guadalcanal and waiting for a chance to approach and engage the U.S. carriers. With the Japanese Army's next planned major ground attack on Allied forces on Guadalcanal set for 20 October, Yamamoto's warships began to move towards the southern Solomons to support the offensive and to be ready to engage any enemy ships, especially carriers, that approached to support the Allied defenses on Guadalcanal.[22]
From 20 to 25 October, Japanese land forces on Guadalcanal attempted to capture Henderson Field with a large-scale attack against U.S. troops defending the airfield. The attack was decisively defeated with heavy casualties for the Japanese during the Battle for Henderson Field.[23]
Incorrectly believing that the Japanese army troops had succeeded in capturing Henderson Field, the Japanese sent warships toward Guadalcanal on the morning of 25 October to support their ground forces on the island. Aircraft from Henderson Field attacked the convoy throughout the day, sinking the light cruiser Yura and damaging the destroyer Akizuki.[24]
Despite the failure of the Japanese ground offensive and the loss of Yura, the rest of the Combined Fleet continued to maneuver near the southern Solomon Islands on 25 October with the hope of encountering Allied naval forces in battle. The Japanese naval forces now comprised four carriers, because Hiyō had suffered an accidental, damaging fire in her engine room on 22 October that forced her to return to Truk for repairs.[25]
The Japanese naval forces were divided into three groups: The "Advanced" force consisted of the carrier Jun'yō, plus two battleships, four heavy cruisers, one light cruiser, and 10 destroyers, and was commanded by Vice Admiral Nobutake Kondō in heavy cruiser Atago; the "Main Body" consisted of Shōkaku, Zuikaku, and Zuihō plus one heavy cruiser and eight destroyers, and was commanded by Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo aboard Shōkaku; and the "Vanguard" force contained two battleships, three heavy cruisers, one light cruiser, and seven destroyers, and was commanded by Rear Admiral Hiroaki Abe in battleship Hiei. In addition to commanding the Advanced force, Kondo acted as the overall commander of the three forces.[26]
On the U.S. side, the Hornet and Enterprise task groups, under the overall command of Rear Admiral Thomas Kinkaid, swept around to the north of the Santa Cruz Islands on 25 October searching for the Japanese naval forces. The U.S. warships were deployed as two separate carrier groups, each centered on either Hornet or Enterprise, and separated from each other by about 10 nmi (19 km; 12 mi). A U.S. PBY Catalina based in the Santa Cruz Islands located the Japanese Main Body carriers at 11:03. However, the Japanese carriers were about 355 nmi (657 km; 409 mi) from the U.S. force, just beyond carrier aircraft range. Kinkaid, hoping to close the range to be able to execute an attack that day, steamed towards the Japanese carriers at top speed and, at 14:25, launched a strike force of 23 aircraft. But the Japanese, knowing that they had been spotted by U.S. aircraft and not knowing where the U.S. carriers were, turned to the north to stay out of range of the U.S. carriers' aircraft.[27] Thus, the U.S. strike force returned to their carriers without finding or attacking the Japanese warships.[28]
Carrier action on 26 October: first strikes
At 02:50 on 26 October, the Japanese naval forces reversed direction and the naval forces of the two adversaries closed the distance until they were only 200 nmi (370 km; 230 mi) away from each other by 05:00.[29] Both sides launched search aircraft and prepared their remaining aircraft to attack as soon as the other side's ships were located. Although a radar-equipped PBY Catalina sighted the Japanese carriers at 03:10, the report did not reach Kinkaid until 05:12. Therefore, believing that the Japanese ships had probably changed position during the intervening two hours, he decided to withhold launching a strike force until he received more current information on the location of the Japanese ships.[30]
At 06:45, a U.S. scout aircraft sighted the carriers of Nagumo's main body.[31] At 06:58, a Japanese scout aircraft reported the location of Hornet's task force.[32] Both sides raced to be the first to attack the other. The Japanese were first to get their strike force launched, with 64 aircraft, including 21 Aichi D3A2 dive bombers, 20 Nakajima B5N2 torpedo bombers, 21 A6M3 Zero fighters, and two Nakajima B5N2 contact aircraft on the way towards Hornet by 07:40.[33] This first strike was commanded by Lieutenant Commander Shigeharu Murata, while the fighter cover was led by Lieutenants Ayao Shirane and Saneyasu Hidaka. Also at 07:40, two U.S. SBD-3 Dauntless scout aircraft, responding to the earlier sighting of the Japanese carriers, arrived and dove on Zuihō. With the Japanese combat air patrol (CAP) busy chasing other U.S. scout aircraft away, the two U.S. aircraft were able to hit Zuihō with both their 500-pound bombs, causing heavy damage and preventing the carrier's flight deck from being able to land aircraft.[32]
Meanwhile, Kondo ordered Abe's Vanguard force to race ahead to try to intercept and engage the U.S. warships. Kondo also brought his own Advanced force forward at flank speed so that Junyō's aircraft could join in the attacks on the U.S. ships. At 08:10, Shōkaku launched a second wave of strike aircraft, consisting of 19 dive bombers and five Zeros, and Zuikaku launched 16 torpedo bombers and four Zeros at 08:40. The second strike leader was Lieutenant Commander Mamoru Seki, while the fighter cover was led by Lieutenant Hideki Shingo. Thus, by 09:10 the Japanese had 110 aircraft on the way to attack the U.S. carriers.[34]
The U.S. strike aircraft were running about 20 minutes behind the Japanese. Believing that a speedy attack was more important than a massed attack, and because they lacked fuel to spend time assembling prior to the strike, the U.S. aircraft proceeded in small groups towards the Japanese ships, rather than forming into a single large strike force. The first group—consisting of 15 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers, six Grumman TBF-1 Avenger torpedo bombers, and eight Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters, led by Lieutenant Commander William J. "Gus" Widhelm from Hornet—was on its way by about 08:00. A second group—consisting of three SBDs, nine TBFs (including the Air Group Commander's), and eight Wildcats from Enterprise—was off by 08:10. A third group—consisting of nine SBDs, ten TBFs (including the Air Group Commander's), and seven F4Fs from Hornet—was on its way by 08:20.[35]
At 08:40, the opposing aircraft strike formations passed within sight of each other. Lieutenant Hidaka's nine Zuihō Zeros surprised and attacked the Enterprise group, attacking the climbing aircraft from out of the sun. In the resulting engagement, four Zeros, three Wildcats, and two TBFs were shot down, with another two TBFs and a Wildcat forced to return to Enterprise with heavy damage.[36] The remaining Zuihō Zeros, having exhausted their ammunition, withdrew from the action.
At 08:50, the lead U.S. attack formation from Hornet spotted four ships from Abe's Vanguard force. Pressing on, the U.S. aircraft sighted the Japanese carriers and prepared to attack. Three Zeros from Zuihō attacked the formation's Wildcats, drawing them away from the bombers they were assigned to protect. Thus, the dive bombers in the first group initiated their attacks without fighter escort. Twelve Zeros from the Japanese carrier CAP attacked the SBD formation, shot down two (including Widhelm's, though he survived), and forced two more to abort. The remaining 11 SBDs commenced their attack dives on Shōkaku at 09:27, hitting her with three to six bombs, wrecking her flight deck and causing serious damage to the interior of the ship. The final SBD of the 11 lost track of Shōkaku and instead dropped its bomb near the Japanese destroyer Teruzuki, causing minor damage.[37] The six TBFs in the first strike force, having become separated from their strike group, did not find the Japanese carriers and eventually turned back towards Hornet. On the way back, they attacked the Japanese heavy cruiser Tone, missing with all their torpedoes.[38]
The TBFs of the second U.S. attack formation from Enterprise were unable to locate the Japanese carriers and instead attacked the Japanese heavy cruiser Suzuya from Abe's Vanguard force but caused no damage. At about the same time, nine SBDs from the third U.S. attack formation—from Hornet—found Abe's ships and attacked the Japanese heavy cruiser Chikuma, hitting her with two 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs and causing heavy damage. The three Enterprise SBDs then arrived and also attacked Chikuma, causing more damage with one bomb hit and two near-misses. Finally, the nine TBFs from the third strike group arrived and attacked the smoking Chikuma, scoring one more hit. Chikuma, escorted by two destroyers, withdrew from the battle and headed towards Truk for repairs.[39]
The U.S. carrier forces received word from their outbound strike aircraft at 08:30 that Japanese attack aircraft were headed their way.[40] At 08:52, the Japanese strike force commander sighted the Hornet task force (the Enterprise task force was hidden by a rain squall) and deployed his aircraft for attack. At 08:55, the U.S. carriers detected the approaching Japanese aircraft on radar—about 35 nmi (65 km; 40 mi) away—and began to vector the 37 Wildcats of their CAP to engage the incoming Japanese aircraft. However, communication problems, mistakes by the U.S. fighter control directors, and primitive control procedures prevented all but a few of the U.S. fighters from engaging the Japanese aircraft before they began their attacks on Hornet.[41] Although the U.S. CAP was able to shoot down several dive bombers, most of the Japanese aircraft commenced their attacks relatively unmolested by U.S. fighters.[42]
At 09:09, the anti-aircraft guns of Hornet and her escorting warships opened fire as the 20 untouched Japanese torpedo planes and remaining 16 dive bombers commenced their attacks on the carrier.[43] At 09:12, a dive bomber placed its 551 lb (250 kg), semi-armor-piercing bomb dead center on Hornet's flight deck, across from the island, which penetrated three decks before exploding, killing 60 men. Moments later, a 534 lb (242 kg) "land" bomb struck the flight deck, detonating on impact to create an 11 ft (3.4 m) hole and kill 30 men. A minute or so later, a third bomb hit Hornet near where the first bomb hit, penetrating three decks before exploding, causing severe damage but no loss of life.[44] At 09:14, a dive bomber was set on fire by Hornet's anti-aircraft guns; the pilot, Warrant Officer Shigeyuki Sato, deliberately crashed into Hornet's stack, killing seven men and spreading burning aviation fuel over the signal deck.[45]
At the same time as the dive bombers were attacking, the 20 torpedo bombers were also approaching Hornet from two different directions. Despite suffering heavy losses from anti-aircraft fire, including Lieutenant Commander Murata, the torpedo planes planted two torpedoes into Hornet's side between 09:13 and 09:17, knocking out her engines. As Hornet came to a stop, a damaged Japanese dive bomber approached and purposely crashed into the carrier's side, starting a fire near the ship's main supply of aviation fuel. At 09:20, the surviving Japanese aircraft departed, leaving Hornet dead in the water and burning.[46] Twenty-five Japanese and six American aircraft were destroyed in this attack.[47]
With the assistance of fire hoses from three escorting destroyers, the fires on Hornet were under control by 10:00. Wounded personnel were evacuated from the carrier, and an attempt was made by the heavy cruiser USS Northampton under Captain Willard A. Kitts to tow Hornet away from the battle area. However, the effort to rig the towline took some time, and more attack waves of Japanese aircraft were inbound.[48]
Carrier action on 26 October: post-first strike actions
Starting at 09:30, Enterprise landed many of the damaged and fuel-depleted CAP fighters and returning scout aircraft from both carriers. However, with her flight deck full, and the second wave of incoming Japanese aircraft detected on radar at 09:30, Enterprise ceased landing operations at 10:00. Fuel-depleted aircraft then began ditching in the ocean, and the carrier's escorting destroyers rescued the aircrews. One of the ditching aircraft, a damaged TBF from Enterprise's strike force that had been attacked earlier by Zeros from Zuihō, crashed into the water near the destroyer USS Porter. As Porter rescued the TBF's aircrew, she was struck by a torpedo, perhaps from the ditched aircraft, causing heavy damage and killing 15 crewmen.[49] After the task force commander ordered the destroyer scuttled, the crew was rescued by the destroyer USS Shaw which then sank Porter with gunfire (08°32′S 167°17′E / 8.533°S 167.283°E).[50]
As the first wave of Japanese strike aircraft began returning to their carriers from their attack on Hornet, one of them spotted the Enterprise task force (which had just emerged from a rain squall) and reported the carrier's position.[52] The second Japanese aircraft strike wave, believing Hornet to be sinking, directed their attacks on the Enterprise task force, beginning at 10:08. Again, the U.S. CAP had trouble intercepting the Japanese aircraft before they attacked Enterprise, shooting down only two of the 19 dive bombers as they began their dives on the carrier. Attacking through the intense anti-aircraft fire put up by Enterprise and her escorting warships, the bombers hit the carrier with two 551 lb (250 kg) bombs and near-missed with another (the first of these was released by Lieutenant Keiichi Arima's aircraft). The bombs killed 44 men and wounded 75, and caused heavy damage to the carrier, including jamming her forward elevator in the "up" position.[53] Ten of the nineteen Japanese bombers were lost in this attack, including Lieutenant Commander Seki's, with two more ditching on their return.[54]
Twenty minutes later, the 16 Zuikaku torpedo planes arrived and split up to attack Enterprise. One group of torpedo bombers was attacked by two CAP Wildcats which shot down three of them and damaged a fourth. On fire, the fourth damaged aircraft purposely crashed into the destroyer Smith, setting the ship on fire and killing 57 of her crew. The torpedo carried by this aircraft detonated shortly after impact, causing more damage. The fires initially seemed out of control until Smith's commanding officer ordered the destroyer to steer into the large spraying wake of the battleship USS South Dakota, which helped put out the fires. Smith then resumed her station, firing her remaining anti-aircraft guns at the torpedo planes.[55]
The remaining torpedo planes attacked Enterprise, South Dakota, and cruiser Portland, but all of their torpedoes missed or failed, causing no damage. The engagement was over at 10:53; nine of the 16 torpedo aircraft were lost in this attack.[56] After suppressing most of the onboard fires, at 11:15 Enterprise reopened her flight deck to begin landing returning aircraft from the morning U.S. strikes on the Japanese warship forces. However, only a few aircraft landed before the next wave of Japanese strike aircraft arrived and began their attacks on Enterprise, forcing a suspension of landing operations.[57]
Between 09:05 and 09:14, Jun'yō had arrived within 280 nmi (320 mi; 520 km) of the U.S. carriers and launched a strike of 17 dive bombers and 12 Zeros.[58] As the Japanese main body and advanced force maneuvered to try to join formations, Jun'yō readied follow-up strikes.[59] At 11:21, the Jun'yō aircraft arrived and dove on the Enterprise task force. The dive bombers scored one near miss on Enterprise, causing more damage, and one hit each on South Dakota and light cruiser San Juan, causing moderate damage to both ships. Eight of the 17 Japanese dive bombers were destroyed in this attack, with three more ditching on their return.[60]
At 11:35, with Hornet out of action, Enterprise heavily damaged, and the Japanese assumed to have one or two undamaged carriers in the area, Kinkaid decided to withdraw Enterprise and her screening ships from the battle.[61] Leaving Hornet behind, Kinkaid directed the carrier and her task force to retreat as soon as they were able. Between 11:39 and 13:22, Enterprise recovered 57 of the 73 airborne U.S. aircraft as she retreated.[62] The remaining U.S. aircraft ditched in the ocean, and their aircrews were rescued by escorting warships.[63]
Between 11:40 and 14:00, the two undamaged Japanese carriers, Zuikaku and Jun'yō, recovered the few aircraft that returned from the morning strikes on Hornet and Enterprise and prepared follow-up strikes. It was now that the devastating losses sustained during these attacks became apparent. Lt. Cmdr. Masatake Okumiya, Jun'yō's air staff officer, described the return of the carrier's first strike groups:
We searched the sky with apprehension. There were only a few planes in the air in comparison with the numbers launched several hours before... The planes lurched and staggered onto the deck, every single fighter and bomber bullet holed ... As the pilots climbed wearily from their cramped cockpits, they told of unbelievable opposition, of skies choked with antiaircraft shell bursts and tracers.
Only one of Jun'yō's bomber leaders returned from the first strike, and upon landing he appeared "so shaken that at times he could not speak coherently".[64]
At 13:00, Kondo's Advanced force and Abe's Vanguard force warships together headed directly towards the last reported position of the U.S. carrier task forces and increased speed to try to intercept them for a warship gunfire battle. The damaged carriers Zuihō and Shōkaku, with Nagumo still on board, retreated from the battle area, leaving Rear Admiral Kakuji Kakuta in charge of the Zuikaku and Jun'yō aircraft forces. At 13:06, Junyō launched her second strike of seven torpedo planes and eight Zeros, and Zuikaku launched her third strike of seven torpedo planes, two dive bombers, and five Zeros. At 15:35, Junyō launched the last Japanese strike force of the day, consisting of four bombers and six Zeros.[65]
After several technical problems, Northampton finally began slowly towing Hornet out of the battle area at 14:45, at a speed of only five knots. Hornet's crew was on the verge of restoring partial power[66] but at 15:20, Jun'yō's second strike arrived, and the seven torpedo planes attacked the almost stationary carrier. Although six of the torpedo planes missed, at 15:23, one torpedo struck Hornet mid-ship, which proved to be the fatal blow. The torpedo hit destroyed the repairs to the power system and caused heavy flooding and a 14-degree list. With no power to pump out the water, Hornet was given up for lost, and the crew abandoned ship. The third strike from Zuikaku attacked Hornet during this time, hitting the sinking ship with one more bomb. All of Hornet's crewmen were off by 16:27. The last Japanese strike of the day dropped one more bomb on the sinking carrier at 17:20.[67]
After being informed that Japanese forces were approaching and that further towing efforts were infeasible, Admiral Halsey ordered the Hornet sunk. While the rest of the U.S. warships retired towards the southeast to get out of range of Kondō's and Abe's oncoming fleet, destroyers USS Mustin and Anderson attempted to scuttle Hornet with multiple torpedoes and over 400 shells, but she still remained afloat. With advancing Japanese naval forces only 20 minutes away, the two U.S. destroyers abandoned Hornet's burning hulk at 20:40. By 22:20, the rest of Kondō's and Abe's warships had arrived at Hornet's location. The destroyers Makigumo and Akigumo then finished Hornet with four 24 in (610 mm) torpedoes. At 01:35 on 27 October 1942, she finally sank[68] at approximately 08°38′S 166°43′E / 8.633°S 166.717°E. Several night attacks by radar-equipped Catalinas on Jun'yō and Teruzuki, knowledge of the head start the U.S. warships had in their retreat from the area, plus a critical fuel situation apparently caused the Japanese to reconsider further pursuit of the U.S. warships. After refueling near the northern Solomon Islands, the ships returned to their main base at Truk on 30 October. During the U.S. withdrawal from the battle area towards Espiritu Santo and New Caledonia, while taking evasive action from a Japanese submarine, South Dakota collided with destroyer Mahan, heavily damaging the destroyer.[69]
Both sides claimed victory. The Americans stated that two Shōkaku-class fleet carriers had been hit with bombs and eliminated. Kinkaid's summary of damage to the Japanese included hits to a battleship, three heavy cruisers, a light cruiser, and possible hits on another heavy cruiser.[70] For their part, the Japanese asserted that they sank three American carriers, one battleship, one cruiser, one destroyer,[71] and one "unidentified large warship".[72] Actual American losses comprised the carrier Hornet and the destroyer Porter, and damage to Enterprise, the light cruiser San Juan, the destroyer Smith and the battleship South Dakota.[73]
The loss of Hornet was a severe blow for Allied forces in the South Pacific, leaving Enterprise as the one operational, but damaged, Allied carrier in the entire Pacific theater. As she retreated from the battle, the crew posted a sign on the flight deck: "Enterprise vs Japan".[74][75][76] Enterprise received temporary repairs at New Caledonia and, although not fully restored, returned to the southern Solomons area just two weeks later to support Allied forces during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.[77] There she played an important role in what turned out to be the decisive naval engagement in the overall campaign for Guadalcanal when her aircraft sank several Japanese warships and troop transports during the naval skirmishes around Henderson Field.[78][79] The lack of carriers pressed the Americans and Japanese to deploy battleships in night operations around Guadalcanal, one of only two actions in the entire Pacific War in which battleships fought each other,[80] with South Dakota again being damaged while two Japanese battleships were lost.[78]
Although the Battle of Santa Cruz was a tactical victory for the Japanese in terms of ships sunk, it came at a high cost for their naval forces, as Jun'yō was the only active aircraft carrier left to challenge Enterprise or Henderson Field for the remainder of the Guadalcanal campaign.[81] Zuikaku, despite being undamaged and having recovered the aircraft from the two damaged carriers, returned to home islands via Truk for training and aircraft ferrying duties, returning to the South Pacific only in February 1943 to cover the evacuation of Japanese ground forces from Guadalcanal.[82] Both damaged carriers were forced to return to Japan for extensive repairs and refitting. After repair, Zuihō returned to Truk in late January 1943. Shōkaku was under repair until March 1943 and did not return to the front until July 1943, when she was reunited with Zuikaku at Truk.[83]
The most significant losses for the Japanese Navy were in aircrew. The U.S. lost 81 of the 175 aircraft that were available at the start of the battle; of these, 33 were fighters, 28 were dive-bombers, and 20 were torpedo bombers. Only 26 pilots and aircrew members were lost, though.[84] The Japanese fared much worse, especially in airmen; in addition to losing 99 aircraft of the 203 involved in the battle, they lost 148 pilots and aircrew members, including two dive bomber group leaders, three torpedo squadron leaders, and eighteen other section or flight leaders.[85] The most notable casualties were the commanders of the first two strikes – Shigeharu Murata and Mamoru Seki. Forty-nine percent of the Japanese torpedo bomber aircrews involved in the battle were killed, along with 39% of the dive bomber crews and 20% of the fighter pilots.[86] The Japanese lost more aircrew at Santa Cruz than they had lost in each of the three previous carrier battles at Coral Sea (90), Midway (110), and Eastern Solomons (61). By the end of the Santa Cruz battle, at least 409 of the 765 elite Japanese carrier aviators who had participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor were dead.[87] Having lost so many of its veteran carrier aircrew, and with no quick way to replace them—because of an institutionalized limited capacity in its naval aircrew training programs and an absence of trained reserves—the undamaged Zuikaku and Jun'yō were also forced to return to Japan because of the scarcity of trained aircrew to man their air groups. Although the Japanese carriers returned to Truk by the summer of 1943, they played no further offensive role in the Solomon Islands campaign.[78][88]
Admiral Nagumo was relieved of command shortly after the battle and reassigned to shore duty in Japan. He acknowledged that the victory was incomplete:
[T]his battle was a tactical win, but a shattering strategic loss for Japan ... Considering the great superiority of our enemy's industrial capacity, we must win every battle overwhelmingly in order to win this war. This last one, although a victory, unfortunately, was not an overwhelming victory.[89]
In retrospect, despite being a tactical victory, the battle effectively ended any hope the Japanese Navy might have had of scoring a decisive victory before the industrial might of the United States placed that goal out of reach. Historian Eric Hammel summed up the significance of the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands as, "Santa Cruz was a Japanese victory. That victory cost Japan her last best hope to win the war."[78] Military historian Dr. John Prados offers a dissenting view, asserting that this was not a Pyrrhic victory for Japan, but a strategic victory:
By any reasonable measure the Battle of Santa Cruz marked a Japanese victory—and a strategic one. At its end, the Imperial Navy possessed the only operational carrier force in the Pacific. The Japanese had sunk more ships and more combat tonnage, had more aircraft remaining, and were in physical possession of the battle zone... Arguments based on aircrew losses or who owned Guadalcanal are about something else—the campaign, not the battle.[90]
In Prados' view, the real story of the aftermath is that the Imperial Navy failed to exploit their hard-won victory.[91] Relentless night actions waged by destroyers and light cruisers in "the slot" with heavy cruisers and battleships likewise operating outside the slot around Guadalcanal, in concert with continued Japanese submarine operations are the obvious tactical choice to press on the Japanese advantage at this point. Yet none of this could do more than delay the eventual overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces due to a much greater industrial base.
See also
- Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service
- Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II
- United States Navy in World War II
WWII carrier-versus-carrier engagements
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 373. Breakdown of aircraft by type: 63 Grumman F4F Wildcats, 47 Douglas SBD Dauntless, and 26 Grumman TBF Avengers. The "136" number doesn't include Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses based at Espiritu Santo (who played a small part in the battle) or any seaplanes in the area.
- ^ Kongō, Haruna, Hiei, Kirishima. See "Order of Battle – Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands". Retrieved 21 September 2009.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 373. Breakdown of aircraft by type: 87 A6M Zeros, 68 Aichi D3A dive bombers, 57 Nakajima B5N torpedo bombers, and one Yokosuka D4Y command and control aircraft.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 401; Lundstrom, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 456. Breakdown of deaths: Hornet 118, Enterprise 44, Smith 57, Porter 15, Pensacola 3, South Dakota 2, Morris 1, and 22 aircrew. Four U.S. aircrew members were captured by the Japanese. Total U.S. aircraft losses included 32 Wildcats, 31 SBDs, and 18 TBFs.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 400–401; Peattie, pp. 180, 339; and Lundstrom, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 454. Japanese deaths from damage to Zuihō aren't known. Known Japanese deaths are: 60 on Shōkaku, 190 on Chikuma, seven on Teruzuki, and 148 aircrew. Total Japanese aircraft losses included 27 Mitsubishi A6M Zeros, 40 dive bombers, 29 torpedo bombers, and 1 Yokosuka D4Y. The aircrew losses included 55 from Shōkaku, 57 from Zuikaku, 9 from Zuihō, and 27 from Junyō.
- ^ Rogers, James (12 February 2019). "Wreck of WWII aircraft carrier USS Hornet discovered in the South Pacific". Fox News. Retrieved 12 February 2019.
- ^ Hogue, Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal, pp. 235–236.
- ^ Hammel, Eric (1997). Carrier Clash: The Invasion of Guadalcanal & and the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, August 1942. Pacifica Press. ISBN 0-935553-20-7. p. 106.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 335.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 6–7.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 10–12.
- ^ After this incident the then U.S. carrier task force commander Frank Jack Fletcher was relieved of his command and reassigned to shore duty for the remainder of the war. Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 204–205
- ^ Evans, Japanese Navy, pp. 179–180; Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 24–41. Battleship North Carolina and destroyer O'Brien were also hit by torpedoes during the same attack. O'Brien later sank as a result of the torpedo damage, and North Carolina was under repair at Pearl Harbor until 16 November 1942.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 19–21, 84–85.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 316–319.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 154–155.
- ^ McGee, The Solomons Campaigns, p. 145.
- ^ McGee, The Solomons Campaigns, p. 134.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 334.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 150.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 146–149.
- ^ Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, pp. 124���125. According to Hara, the Japanese believed that U.S. Navy forces were likely to be in the Solomon Islands area because they had read a report from the United Press dated 20 October that stated that the United States Navy was preparing for a major sea and air battle in the South Pacific.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 95–97.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 103–106. The force consisted of Japanese cruiser Yura, and destroyers Akizuki, Harusame, Murasame, and Yūdachi (Parshall, Imperial Japanese Navy Page. Combinedfleet.com). Although Hammel says that it was a supply convoy, Parshall says that it was a bombardment force. Akizuki went to Japan for repairs, which were completed on 16 December 1942. This incident is usually considered a separate action from the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands.
- ^ Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, p. 124.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 374–375.
- ^ Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, p. 127.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 163–174.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 186.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 381.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 187.
- ^ a b Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 382.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 191–192.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 383.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 198–199.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 384–385. Only the Wildcat was safely recovered.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 213–223.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 387–388.
- ^ Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, p. 132; and Parshall, The Imperial Japanese Navy Page. Chikuma was under repair at Truk and later Kure, Japan, until January 1943.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 235.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 235–239.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 385.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 249–251. Hornet's screening ships included heavy cruisers Northampton and Pensacola, light cruisers San Diego and Juneau, and six destroyers.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 253–356.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 386; Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 262–267.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 269–271.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 386; Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 284.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 271–280.
- ^ Hammel, Eric (1987). Guadalcanal: The Carrier Battles. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. pp. 411–413.
- ^ Evans, Japanese Navy, p. 520; Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 388–389; Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 299.
- ^ Fahey, The Ships and Aircraft of the United States Fleet, p. 5.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 283.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 300–313.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 390; Lundstrom, Guadalcanal Campaign, pp. 418, 446.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 390–391. Smith eventually went to Pearl Harbor for repairs, which were completed in February 1943.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 391.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 335–337.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 330–331; and Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 391.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 331.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 391–393; Lundstrom, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 437. Anti-aircraft fire from battleship South Dakota was credited with 26 of the total of 99 enemy planes the Americans claimed in the battle. South Dakota, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) U.S. Dept. of Navy.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 395.
- ^ Lundstrom, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 444. One U.S. aircraft, flown by Hornet's Air Group Commander, was able to reach a U.S. airbase at Espiritu Santo.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 345–352.
- ^ Lundstrom, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 446.
- ^ Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, pp. 129–131; Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 357–358.
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 395–396.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, pp. 359–376.
- ^ Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 380.
- ^ Evans, Japanese Navy, p. 520; Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 399. Mahan returned to action on 9 January 1943.
- ^ Prados, Islands of Destiny: The Solomons Campaign and the Eclipse of the Rising Sun [Kindle version], Chapter III.
- ^ Belote & Belote, Titans of the Seas, p. 150
- ^ The Japanese counted two cruisers sunk. Okumiya and Horikoshi, Zero!, p. 274
- ^ Office of Naval Intelligence (1943). "The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, 26 October 1942". Combat Narrative. Publications Branch, Office of Naval Intelligence, United States Navy. Archived from the original on 13 May 2006. Retrieved 17 May 2006.
- ^ USS Enterprise CV-6 – 1942.
- ^ USS Enterprise CV-6 at Pacific Wrecks.com.
- ^ Battle 360, Episode 5: Enterprise versus Japan. The History Channel, 2008.
- ^ Tillman, Enterprise, pp. 132–134.
- ^ a b c d Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 384.
- ^ Tillman, Enterprise, pp. 134–144.
- ^ The second clash between battleships in the Pacific was the October 1944 Battle of Surigao Strait, the last such battle in history.
- ^ See Tully, Anthony P., IJN Jun'yō: Tabular Record of Movement, combinedfleet.com, 2013.
- ^ Tully, Anthony P., "IJN Zuikaku ("Happy Crane"): Tabular Record of Movement", combinedfleet.com, September 2010.
- ^ Parshall & Tully, Imperial Japanese Navy Page (Combinedfleet.com), Shokaku & Zuiho.
- ^ Lundstrom, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 456.
- ^ Hornfischer, Neptune's Inferno: The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal, p. cxx
- ^ Frank, Guadalcanal, pp. 400–440; Hammel, Carrier Strike, p. 381; and Lundstrom, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 454.
- ^ Peattie, pp. 180 & 339. The aircrew losses included 55 from Shōkaku, 57 from Zuikaku, 9 from Zuihō, and 27 from Jun'yō.
- ^ Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, p. 135.
- ^ Hara, Japanese Destroyer Captain, pp. 134–35
- ^ Prados, John (2012). Islands of Destiny: The Solomons Campaign and the Eclipse of the Rising Sun. NAL. p. 158. ISBN 978-0451238047.
- ^ Prados, Islands of Destiny: The Solomons Campaign and the Eclipse of the Rising Sun, p. 159.
- Belote, James J. and William M. Belote (1975). Titans of the Seas. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-010278-0.
- Bergerud, Eric M. (2001). Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific. New York: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3869-7.
- Evans, David C. (Editor) (1986). "The Struggle for Guadalcanal". The Japanese Navy in World War II: In the Words of Former Japanese Naval Officers (2nd ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-316-4.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
- Fahey, James C. (1983). The Ships and Aircraft of the United States Fleet (reissue ed.). New York: Ships and Aircraft. ISBN 0-87021-636-8.
- Frank, Richard B. (1990). Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle. New York: Penguin Group. ISBN 0-14-016561-4.
- Hammel, Eric (1997). Carrier Clash: The Invasion of Guadalcanal & and the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, August 1942. Pacifica Press. ISBN 0-7603-2052-7.
- Hammel, Eric (1999). Carrier Strike: The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, October 1942. Pacifica Press. ISBN 0-7603-2128-0.
- Hara, Tameichi (1961). Japanese Destroyer Captain. New York & Toronto: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-27894-1.
- Hornfischer, James (2011). Neptune's Inferno: The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal. Random House.
- Lundstrom, John B. (2005). The First Team And the Guadalcanal Campaign: Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942 (New ed.). Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-472-4.
- McGee, William L. (2002). The Solomons Campaigns, 1942–1943: From Guadalcanal to Bougainville – Pacific War Turning Point. 2 (Amphibious Operations in the South Pacific in WWII). BMC Publications. ISBN 0-9701678-7-3.
- Peattie, Mark R. (1999). Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power 1909–1941. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-664-X.
- Okumiya, Masatake, Jiro Horikoshi, and Martin Caidin. Zero! New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1956.
- Tillman, Barrett (2012). Enterprise: America's Fightingest Ship And The Men Who Helped Win World War II. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1439190876.
Further reading
- D'Albas, Andrieu (1965). Death of a Navy: Japanese Naval Action in World War II. Devin-Adair Publishing. ISBN 0-8159-5302-X.
- Dull, Paul S. (1978). A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941–1945. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-097-1.
- Lacroix, Eric; Wells, Linton (1997). Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-311-3.
- Morison, Samuel Eliot (1958). The Struggle for Guadalcanal, August 1942 – February 1943, vol. 5 of History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0-316-58305-7.
- Parkin, Robert Sinclair (1995). Blood on the Sea: American Destroyers Lost in World War II. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81069-7.
- Poor, Henry Varnum; Mustin, Henry A.; Jameson, Colin G. (1994). The Battles of Cape Esperance, 11 October 1942 and Santa Cruz Islands, 26 October 1942 (Combat Narratives. Solomon Islands Campaign, 4–5). Naval Historical Center. ISBN 0-945274-21-1.
- Rose, Lisle Abbott (2002). The Ship that Held the Line: The USS Hornet and the First Year of the Pacific War. Bluejacket Books. ISBN 1-55750-008-8.
- Smith, Douglas V. (2006). Carrier Battles: Command Decision in Harm's Way. U.S. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-794-8.
- Stafford, Edward P. (2002). The Big E: The Story of the USS Enterprise. Paul Stillwell (Introduction) (reissue ed.). Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-998-0.
- Stille, Mark (2007). USN Carriers vs IJN Carriers: The Pacific 1942. New York: Osprey. ISBN 978-1-84603-248-6.
- Stille, Mark (2012). Santa Cruz 1942: Carrier duel in the South Pacific. New York: Osprey Publishing; Osprey Campaign Series #247. ISBN 978-1-84908-605-9.
External links
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands.
- Cagney, James (2005). "Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands". HistoryAnimated.com. Archived from the original (javascript) on 3 May 2006. Retrieved 17 May 2006., Interactive animation of the battle
- Chen, C. Peter (2004–2006). "Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands". World War II Database. Archived from the original on 23 March 2006. Retrieved 17 May 2006.
- Horan, Mark. "Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands – 26 October 1942". Order of Battle. Archived from the original on 17 May 2006. Retrieved 17 May 2006.
- Hough, Frank O.; Ludwig, Verle E.; Shaw, Henry I. Jr. "Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal". History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II. Archived from the original on 27 June 2006. Retrieved 16 May 2006.
- Lanzendörfer, Tim. "The Battle of Santa Cruz". The Pacific War: The U.S. Navy. Retrieved 17 May 2006.
- Parshall, Jon; Hackett, Bob; Kingsepp, Sander; Nevitt, Allyn. "Imperial Japanese Navy Page". Archived from the original on 13 June 2006. Retrieved 14 June 2006.
- Shepherd, Joel (1998–2003). "1942 – Santa Cruz". USS Enterprise CV-6. Archived from the original on 25 April 2006. Retrieved 17 May 2006.
- "Flash animation of The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, October 26, 1942". Archived from the original on 27 October 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2012.


text:
While fertilizer subsidies have become increasingly common across the world to stimulate supply and use of fertilizers, it remains unknown whether or not these policies are appropriate for the challenge of feeding an ever-growing population – 10 billion people by 2050. In many developed economies, fertilizer subsidies have been replaced by various fertilizer support programs. Will fertilizer subsidies remain effective as we try to eradicate global hunger and poverty while preserving the environment?
"Fertilizer Subsidies — Which Way Forward" is an analysis of fertilizer subsidies in five Asian countries (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan) and four sub-Saharan countries (Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Tanzania) conducted by the Fertilizer Association of India (FAI) and the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC). The analysis is an attempt to understand the impact of fertilizer subsidies on the countries' fiscal budgets, on productivity and nutrient management, and on the efficiency of fertilizer production, distribution, and consumption.
The analysis is intended to help policymakers better understand the impact of fertilizer subsidies by documenting their diversity and effectiveness across a variety of economies and geographical regions. In each section, the global structure of the fertilizer sector is presented along with country reviews and developments of fertilizer subsidy programs in the selected countries with an emphasis on years from 2000 to 2013. The country-specific sections also include lessons learned and suggestions on how to move forward.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dr. Al Koller on The Space Show
Dr. Al Koller, of SpaceTEC, was recently interviewed by Dr. David Livingston on The Space Show. Dr. Koller spent the 1 and ½ hour interview discussing the founding and purpose of SpaceTEC, the importance of aerospace technicians and the need for national certification, and also discussed the uncertain future of America's Human Space Flight program. You can listen to the interview here.


text:
Mesh Strap Mules
Item No. CK1-60050856
Please select a size
Select Size
An essential pair of everyday sandals every girl needs in her shoe collection. These mesh strap mules are the desk-to-date pair you can turn to for instant style elevation. Pair them with a blazer and jeans combo to look effortlessly put together.
- Chunky heel
- Material: Faux leather & mesh
- Heel height (cm): 8
Shipping & returns
Standard Delivery: within 6 - 9 working days
Express Delivery: within 3 - 5 working days
Find out more about our Returns & Exchanges
All orders are currently shipped out from Singapore


text:
Sure – use Excel if you want to. No shame in that. But AT LEAST turn on the Auto-Filters. You'll thank me later.
OR…. use an actual database. Right now I am really happy with Google Fusion tables. I basically took my Excel list, exported it as a .csv file, imported it into Fusion Tables and went from there. It's amazingly powerful and customizable, and much easier to deal with than a raw MySQL database (which is what I was using for a while).
Whatever program you go with, make it more than a list of stuff.
Too often we think of the library file as a way to store stuff and find it later. While that is true it is MUCH more helpful to think of the library as a ministry and planning resource! Come up with the questions you are often trying to answer when planning, and figure out the best way to represent the answers to those questions in your music library data file.
For example – I often can remember the melody line of a hymn before I can think of the name of the text or the tune. So, it is helpful for me to quantify the melody into a searchable term. "Holy, Holy, Holy" (NICAEA) opens with the following incipit: 113355 (do, do, mi, mi, sol, sol), so I entered that numeric code into an "Incipit" column and can now search for that melody. And, a neat side benefit is that as the database grows and you search it for incipits, you will discover similar melodic contours in hymns that you never ever thought of as being related.
This link will take you to the public version of my Google Fusion Tables database – the subset that contains only hymns. Play with that and search by incipit in your browser. It's pretty cool.


text:
Select your language:
Total items:
View cart and checkout
Continue Shopping
Braun Multiquick hand blenders are versatile, effortless and indispensable kitchen helpers at your service.
MultiQuick 5 Fit Hand Blender MQ5064BK
MultiQuick 9 Hand blender MQ9087X
Whether you are seeking ultimate perfection or simply the quickest way through your pile of ironing, Braun has just the steam iron for you.
TexStyle 3 Steam Iron SI 3054
For those who appreciate German technology and quality, Braun introduces the new
CareStyle 5: It has the potential to become your wardrobe's best friend! Whatever
your ironing needs or expectations, the clever iCare technology actually thinks and
works for you with smart textile protection to make your ironing experiences quicker and easier.
CareStyle 5 Steam Station IS 5145BK
CareStyle 7 Pro steam station - IS 7156
CareStyle 7 steam station - IS 7144
Smart elegance for your unmistakable way of cooking.
Everyone who begins the adventure of cooking ultimately chooses their own distinct path, so Braun has developed a range of high-quality tools to match anyone's personal style and skill in the kitchen. The ID Collection lets you follow your own lead – with both design and functionality engineered to integrate into your culinary landscape. Intuitively easy, powerful and versatile, these machines make healthy cooking fast and easy.By harnessing the power of simplicity, this high-performance series of appliances features intelligent functions to guarantee success. Smart programs allow you to simply select a program and come back when the work is done. These modern machines offer easy-to-handle options for the ultimate in cooking convenience and versatility that keeps up with any desire.As powerful as these tools are, they don't upstage the cook or draw attention to themselves, and their timeless look is at home in any kitchen or dining room. This progressive design language combined with Braun's advanced technologies guarantee perfect performance and results that speak for themselves – unmistakably Braun!Only Braun could bring you such a combination of functional elegance, which makes fine cooking easy and intuitive. Every machine in the ID Collection: hand blender, spin juicer, jug blender, food steamer and food processor – lets you create and experiment, inspiring your own individual way of cooking for results that are unmistakably you!
Sign up to receive a 10% discount code, plus special offers, private sales events, exciting news and fun tips
You're in! You will receive an email with your special discount code shortly. *Only one promotion code can be applied per order. Promotion codes are not applicable to "Clearance" or "Factory Second" products.
DeLonghi Australia Pty Limited ABN 49 104 012 857
Postal Address: PO Box 4540 Casula Mall NSW 2170 Australia
Address: Unit 3, 43 Lyn Parade Prestons NSW 2170 Australia
Ph:1800 126 659 Fax:1800 007 289
Braun is a registered trademark of Braun GmbH, Germany used under license by De'Longhi Appliances S.r.l


text:
Brown Dress Sneaker
Brown Dress Sneaker
Brand: Fabian Couture Group International
Product Code: SO-NSBR-095-M
Availability:In stock
$69.99 69.99
Have a question?
Size Chart
Click the button below to view our sizing charts for tuxedos, suits, and accessories for men and boys.
- Faux leather upper
- Lace up closure
- Round toe
- White rubber sole
- Cushioned footbed for all day comfort
- Available in black and brown


text:
Professional Negligence Claims – Three Things to Consider Before Pressing Ahead
You may be aware that you're able to make a claim for compensation if you're the unfortunate victim of medical negligence, but did you realise that you can contest the work of a number of other professional individuals? If you've had professional involvement in any aspect of your life which has resulted in damage to you, your family or your business, you may have the basis for a professional negligence claim in Australia.
Take a look at three considerations to bear in mind before deciding to go ahead with a professional negligence claim:
1. Accidents do happen
Unfortunately, there are many occasions where an unfortunate incident occurs which could not have been reasonably predicted or prevented by professional foresight.
The standard of care looks at whether a reasonable person would have done (or not done) the same thing in the same circumstances. While it can be tempting to blame, for example, an accountant if your business collapses, they may have acted appropriately in the circumstances and other, unexpected factors were to blame.
2. A successful professional negligence claim can't turn back the clock
Although financial compensation is always welcome, it can't undo the outcome that professional negligence has created. The legal process can be protracted as well as emotionally draining. A payout after legal proceedings is by no means a certainty.
If you decide to proceed, it's wise to consult with a supportive, experienced lawyer who can provide the professional empathy and technical expertise that's required.
3. Get legal advice as soon as possible
If you believe that a professional organisation or individual has been negligent in their dealings with you, it's important to get legal advice as soon as possible after the event. Professional negligence is a complex legal area that requires considerable skill to negotiate successfully.
If you feel you have grounds to sue a professional for negligence, the first thing to do is book a consultation with a lawyer who specialises in professional negligence to obtain further information on:
- whether you have a basis for a legal claim,
- your options, and
- your likely chance of success.
Its important that you don't delay as time limits apply to bringing a professional negligence claim. The sooner a lawyer can give you advice and/or start preparing your case, the more likely it is that you will be able to progress in the right direction.


text:
The real reason to avoid jQuery
Or How to avoid common SPA pitfalls when using 3rd party plugins This is a cross post of blog post I wrote and published for IsleOfCode on January 26, 2016 here. In the past few years, I've read countless blog posts, twitter rants and medium exposés detailing how jQuery isn't necessary, and why you should just write with "native" JavaScript. I disagree with these posts, because there are still a number things which jQuery handles which are not easy to replicate quickly unless you know the edge cases you need to handle. There is, however, a very major reason to avoid jQuery, and i…Read more »


text:
After an exciting self-titled album debut, Outboxx are surely no longer a Bristol secret. Releasing tunes on mostly local labels (BRSTL, Idle Hands, Immerse), their sound seems rooted in the autonomous currents of the city. Whether it's hip hop loops or jamming in funk bands, Jacob Martin and Matthew Lambert have made good use of their prior experiences, merging into a recognizable duo full of gleaming bass and blissed-out melodies. Their bold versatility is on shining display on the aforementioned album, delving into darker alleys, joining a fresh wave of UK producers examining the swung low end of the spectrum. Outboxx also signify one of interesting recent shifts in the loose Bristol underground, where house/techno seem to be the sound where most people's ears are pointed toward. In anticipation of their performance at Echo Festival this weekend, LWE corresponded with the duo via email about their work methods, their influences, and their ever-changing live set.
Musically speaking, you guys come from quite different backgrounds. Matt, you've been playing keys for years in several funk bands, and Jake's first foray into music production was making hip-hop beats. How did you two meet up and get the idea of Outboxx as a common project?
Jake: We met through Naomi Jeremy. I was making some music by myself and was really getting more and more into house but lacked the musical ability to be able to actually write the kinda music I wanted to. So when I met Matt and found out he played keys it made sense to have a jam and see what happened.
Matt: Yeah it was kinda by chance but we started jamming together and making house music I guess, first thing we did ("Kate Libby") was in our first session and it got signed to Immerse the same day… so it kinda started up from there!
These two backgrounds have shown to be crucial in your musical expression, as well. How much of it is pure improvization and how much of it is strict song-writing, with a clear formal goal in mind?
Matt: I'd say we never really have a goal in mind, we just take it where we see fit.
Jake: Yeah, if we ever plan to have a session to write a certain thing it never works out. We always end up writing the opposite to the plan or something.
Matt: I guess it depends on mood as well, and the weather. Obviously there is an element of structure but not at all rigid, to be honest Jake usually deals with that side of it.
Jake: I basically start out playing with some field recordings, samples, and hardware, etc., getting a beat together and then Matt jams over the top at the same time until we hit a loop we are both feeling. In that way I guess it's all improvisational at the start but obviously to finish a tune you need to start thinking about the structure after the initial idea is down.
On your self-titled album, there are many gentle textures in the background, dusty vinyl crackles and looped field recordings. But it's all really quieted down. Is this a part of a certain aesthetic of yours or just a side-effect of your production process?
Matt: I'd say a bit of both really. We're both drawn to that low-fi crunchy sound but also try and use as much outboard equipment as possible to keep with that warm sound we're trying to create. If you start out with a bunch of field recordings and textures it gives you like a platform to build.
Jake: Yeah, I hate starting a project from silence so it's nice to start with some hiss in the background or some looped sounds. We have always used field recordings in our music, random recordings from around Bristol etc. It adds character and kinda humanizes the music if that makes sense.
Now the Bristol question. Dub and a bass-heavy heritage have become synonymous with the city, it's certainly difficult not to draw influences from them. Even you yourselves have released music mostly through Bristol outlets. But how much did this latest incarnation of soundsystem culture really affect you guys, musically?
Matt: I'd say it changed my perception of music in a way, like I suppose dubstep was some of the first electronic music that I really got into and realized that you can do a lot with a little. You can create sounds and atmospherics rather than just melodies and rhythms, and I guess I was looking at it from more of a musician's background. You can't help but be influenced by the sounds you hear around you; me and Jake both have good mates who are really into the dub/dubstep music.
Jake: Personally it changed everything for me. When I first got to Bristol I got really into the dubstep scene, it was exciting. Dubstep was like the genre that brought every other scene together: house, techno, drum 'n' bass, whatever background people had were now making this new kind of music. So it had a real nice community vibe which I think has never really left Bristol since. I can't really comment on before that as I wasn't here but what I saw affected me musically in a really positive way. The friendly atmosphere surrounding sound system culture makes it really enjoyable to actually get involved in the music scene.
At the same time, it's known that Bristol has always been more than just bass hub. It seems to me your music partially echoes some of the early purveyors of the Bristol sound, known for including many different genres, with a focus on slower rhythms. Do you think this renewed interest in house is a part of a natural breathing cycle in the city?
Matt: I think what's popular in underground music always seems to change at an ever increasing rate. Bristol has loads of micro scenes or something so yeah it definitely has more to it than just a bass hub. I suppose house has always been there too and it's interesting with people coming back to the template and making their own stamp. I guess it could be part of cycle, it's too hard to tell really.
Jake: I think that renewed interests are really important in terms of the movement of music in a city, it helps keep things exciting — a new group focus for individual producers to draw from. So in that respect I guess any change in musical focus and output of a city is part of the natural breathing cycle, yeah.
Now that people's ears are bent more towards house and techno, do you think it's easier to present your formative influences when DJing? What does your DJing sound like?
Matt: It depends what crowd you play to and what time you are playing. I guess a lot of my personal influences are probably too deep to play out for most nights so it's always really special when presented with an opportunity to do that. I'd also say that my formative influences stretch further than purely house and techno.
Jake: Recently we played in London for a Don't Be Afraid party which was an amazing night. We played quite early so got a chance to dig deep and play a wider variety of music and everyone seemed to really enjoy it. It's hard to say if that's due to people's ears being bent towards house and techno because that was a real room of heads who have probably been listening to house and techno for a long time. As the house scene gets more and more popular it kinda works in both ways. Some parties you have a crowd loving everything you play and another time a crowd just wants a sound that we're not feeling. We just turn up, play some records we love and hope people enjoy it too.
I heard you also started with live shows, and there's a short clip of Naomi Jeremy performing with you on Boiler Room. Tell us more about your set-up and how it works.
Jake: The live set is constantly building. It started out as a live PA with us DJing and Naomi singing and then we introduced keys, samplers, etc. The plan is to be constantly changing and building the set. I'd hate to have one set we do everywhere over and over again. I'd get bored. Hopefully each time people see the live set there will be something new. Also Naomi is amazing; it's great to be able to get her on stage with us. I think she really brings a lot to the live performance, she has her own delay and effects units which she runs her vocals through and dubs her own vocals live. It's cool.
Matt: I think the live set gives us more of a chance to go deeper at the start and build from there. It's an amazing opportunity for me to actually jam on the keyboard and give some live character to the set.
Naomi appears on the new album, too. There are two songs, on which she accompanies your arrangements with discernable lyrics. Is this approach to song-writing something you'll continue in the future?
Matt: I think you can't really make a "song" without a vocalist, and Naomi really adds meaning to our stuff. We're looking forward to collaborating more in the future and hopefully making a solo EP for Naomi.
The tunes at the end of Outboxx are sometimes slow and very spacious, even for house music standards. Is it a reaction to a contemporary current of people making music at a slower tempo, with a dark edge and more bass?
Matt: I wouldn't say it's a reaction to any contemporary current; I'd say we have always looked to the past for inspiriation.
Jake: The album was really a chance for us to experiment a bit more. I love music with space so I guess it make sense that that has come through in our music. I think current music is obviously going to be an inspiration to what we do as that's what we are surrounded by.
There's a Pev & Hodge 12″ out on Punch Drunk that's indicative of some of those uncharted bass/techno hybrids. Do you intend to expand in those territories as Outboxx, as well?
Matt: I guess we'll wait and see what comes out of the studio in the future. I really like that release though.
Jake: No idea, I guess see what happens when we get in there. We haven't had an opportunity to get into the studio recently which is frustrating. When we do I think the focus right now should be to get some more music done with Naomi and some new versions and edits of released tunes to do in the live set.
Do you have any more releases in the pipeline this year?
Yeah, We've got a Futureboogie release coming up and a couple of remixes to do which we're both excited about. We love doing remixes — it's like taking apart a puzzle and inventing a new one.
Last message to LWE readers?
Matt: Check out Outboxx.co.uk for more info and thanks for reading/listening.


text:
There's a case to be made that Alternative Country, or Alt-Country as it's more often called, hasn't ever really been a legit genre. One will be hard-pressed to get any of the artists lumped in with the moniker to claim it as their sonic home, and even the original journalistic voice of the hard-to-define style, No Depression, cited its own confusion when it claimed, on each issue; that it covered "Alternative country music (whatever that is)."
With the successful insurgence of the (also hard to sonically define) Americana movement of the past decade where artists as divergent as Roseanne Cash, Ryan Bingham, Allen Toussaint, Jason Isbell, Levon Helm (R.I.P.) and Shovels and Rope have been embraced, arguing that Alt-Country as a genre-tag is still needed will be a tough one to win.
Since the mid-1990's, when The Old 97's and Whiskeytown were young pups while Uncle Tupelo split into two different bands that would both certainly become influential, many prominent acts have started their recording careers with the raw, rootsy vibe of Alt-Country, only to juke into different directions later. Neko Case, the musically adventurous Virginia-born artist who began by twanging her way into indie hearts over a decade ago is hitting the Granada Theater on Thursday night, so we thought it would be a good time to take a look at a few killer bands that were once considered Alt-Country, but now fail to come close to the genre that maybe never was.
5. Neko Case - We'll start with the star of Thursday night's show. Indeed, her 2002 debut, Blacklisted (released on arguably the label that best represented what Alt-Country sounded like in the 1990's golden days), and her 2004 live record The Tigers Have Spoken contain dustiness and robust vocals that fit well within the Alt-Country distinction, but with 2006's crtical favorite, Fox Confessor Brings the Flood, unique song structures and a greater focus on ambiguous story-telling took her musical path into an indie-flavored direction from which she hasn't returned. Her 2009 Middle Cyclone and last year's The Worse Things Get, The Harder I Fight, The Harder I Fight, the More I Love You, are remarkably versatile albums that indeed tease those who wish she would bring the country back, but both offerings are way too ambitious to be cornered.
4. My Morning Jacket - The proggy, psychedelic arena-rockers began as a scuffed-up group of southern boys playing southern music through a grizzled filter of hazy folk-rock. On their 1999 debut, The Tenessee Fire, their alt-country leanings are clear in tunes such as the lo-fi jangly gem "Evelyn Is Not Real." By the time the band's commercial breakthrough album, 2005's Z, came around, the Jim James-led group of Kentuckians were in an eclectic psych mode pretty hard. Which is where the y have remained and continue to challenge and progress.
3. Kathleen Edwards - In terms of the artists we're taking a look at, Edwards, the proud Tom Petty fan and even prouder Canadian, is the one whose overall body of work may have taken a bit of a misstep as she wandered away from her somewhat angry Alt-Country beginnings. Failer, her 2003 debut is a must-have for its dangerously vulnerable lyrical content and stories of screwed-up people. The goodness continued with 2005's Back to Me, which increased the poetic and musical grit that shook off the disc. After her 2011 divorce from long-time guitar player Collin Cripps, Edwards shacked-up with the patchiest beard in indie rock, Justin Vernon, and offered up 2012's Voyageur. It's a great listen and Edwards bravely and believably bares her pain and questions for all to see, but it lacked the force and urgency of her previous works. The music on the album is flavored with a somber indie-intensive tone. That's not to say she needs to go back to her folk-rock origins, but few would complain.
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to the Observer's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Dallas's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
2. Ryan Adams - Adams became famous as the screwed-up leader of North Carolina's Whiskeytown, which was an Alt-Country powerhouse. Their 1997 Stranger's Almanac album is a pure classic. In fact, more than a few will tell you that Adams' solo debut, 2000's brilliant Heartbreaker, is in a hallowed, top handful of Alt-Country albums of all-time. But since 2001's slicked-up, breakthrough record, Gold, Adams has been a tough nut to predict. Whether it's '80s Replacements-style rock, Grateful Dead-inspired roots-rock, or just plain old mediocre rock, Adams has been firmly entrenched in the generic singer-songwriter camp for some time. In 2011, Adams released the beautiful Ashes and Fire, which some deemed as Alt-Country, but it wasn't. It's a simple, but elegant, album that just happens to be performed on an acoustic guitar.
1. Wilco - The greatest example of the types of acts were discussing here. Wilco is the Jeff Tweedy side of the splintered Uncle Tupelo. They began with music that attempted to travel the same road as his previous band had. Wilco's debut album, A.M. wasn't as warmly welcomed as the debut from his former bandmate Jay Farrar's band Son Volt was. Still, it certainly had its share of fine Alt-Country moments in "Should've Been in Love," and "Box Full of Letters." In 1999, the group teamed with Billy Bragg to interpret Woody Guthrie lyrics into newly arranged folk songs for the landmark Mermaid Sessions record. While that album stands as a seminal work, the group grew weary of sonic limitations and began to expand. The eye-opening Summerteeth, their 1999 "proper band record," seemed to lose some old fans, but as the years progressed, the group's size has continued to grow into international headliners, just as their musical range has increased with each album.


text:
Spiritual Guidance
Innate Wisdom
Shamanic Healing
by Dianna Hardy
First written 10th March, 2019 for Between Fire & Ice
You may also want to read: Shamanic Witchcraft
Witch is a loaded word - the oppressive (and patriarchal) history of different cultures all have their part to play in that. Witch means different things in different countries, and in some, it still means torture and death for the one who holds that namesake (or the scapegoat who's labelled with it against their will). Therefore, "witch" still means to put yourself in the path of persecution by those who would benefit from your downfall.
It is not legal to be a witch in all countries. In the UK it is legal, but only since the repeal of The Witchcraft Act in 1951, before which time you could still be fined and imprisoned for displaying any type of connection with Spirit, whether healing, or divination.
So, first of all, this is what "witch" means to me:
Let's not forget how far we've come and how many (mainly women) have suffered at the hands of patriarchy, and let's not forget that in our forward-thinking, 21st Century world, the tide can turn in an instant. Anyone who thinks that's not possible only needs to look at what's going on in western society right now. Laws can be changed in the blink of eye on the tide of (often instigated) public opinion, leaving far too many people thinking it's all right for children - babies and toddlers - to be taken from their families (as just one example).
In 2019. Not 1951.
So, I use the word witch when I refer to myself, in part because we need to be mindful of the changes in society that seep in when we're not looking, trying to oppress us in the guise of "protection". It's a reminder to myself. And it's a reminder to anyone who finds my use of the word jarring. Good. Work on that. The witch has been in that place of oppression before. Let's do everything we can to make sure we don't go there again.
In terms of origins, there doesn't seem to be a set one for the word "witch". Look at the Online Etymology Dictionary for a reference; check out Power in the Name: The Origin and Meaning of the Word "Witch", by Michael Dilts for another.
To me, a witch is a:
Wise Woman
August 2020


text:
Meet Charlie Parry, Kona Homes GO TO GUY for everything! When we say Charlie is knowledgable, we mean he is the Broker we consistantly go to whenever an issue arises that is not clear cut. He gathers the facts, weights them and the ethics involved to find the best possible path. We met Charlie when he was President of the West Hawaii Association of Realtors. He is a respected member of our profession who has brokered for a number of large companies. We are so very pleased he has chosen to work at our slower pace so he can give our agents and clients all the time and attention they need.
Charlie is an excellent sales person, but his first love is really training agents and managing transactions for a successful outcome. He has created a perfect place at Kona Homes for fresh agents as well as those who are nearly overwhelmed by too much success too fast. They never have to worry that clients or their paperwork will suffer, Charlie makes sure their work is perfect. Our agents never feel intimidated about going to him with questions when something new comes up. His answers and advice are always laced with kindness and concern.
No matter which Kona Homes Expert you are working with, Charlie is right there backing them up. On rare occasions he steps out of the office to work with a lucky client one-on-one. Then he dazzeles them with the qualify of his service.
Narrow Charlie's search of the island below. If you have questions about which area or agent might work best for you, give Charlie a call.


text:
Paragraph 7 romaji:
atarashii step! umi dashite miyou yo
atarashii step! fumidashite miyou yo
(Japanese reads: 踏み出して)
Translation should change from
"Take a new step! Let's try and head out to the ocean. "
to something like:
"A new step! Let's step forward."
Paragraph 14:
make the same change (both romaji and translation).
Paragraph 7 romaji:
Small typo: oen -> ouen (it's correct elsewhere in the song)
Paragraph 8 romaji:
tamasu yori wa zutto tamasareta tte
damasu yori wa zutto damasareta tte
(Kanji reading of 騙す should be だます, not たます; checked by listening to the song also.)
Paragraph 9 Kanji/Hiragana:
Pretty sure she says 頑張ってるった, which makes more sense than the random "塗" anyway. (Romaji transliteration is already correct)
I think the translation for 塗り直せる 私でいたいんだ ("I want to be here to fix it") seems suspect, but I'm not sure what it should be instead...


text:
Ceol na Mara, Ardnamurchan
Ceol na Mara, meaning 'Sound of the Sea' in Gaelic, is a comfortable bungalow in the tiny village of Branault, on the north coast of the Ardnamurchan peninsula. The spacious, homely living room has an open fire and floor to ceiling French windows, leading out onto a decking area with table and chairs and a large garden. The perfect spot for an evening drink while admiring beautiful sea views out to the Small Isles and the Cuillins of Skye. Just a short walk away are the lovely, sandy beaches of Kilmory and five miles to the south is the village of Kilchoan, where there is a shop, pub and ferry to the Isle of Mull. The area provides plenty of opportunities for wildlife watching and exploration of the dramatic and rugged coastline.
Please Note: Ceol na Mara is at the end of a shared track, the first steep part of the track needs to be driven slowly, with care (first gear) and is not suitable for cars with a low chassis. On arrival with a heavy laden car, some passengers could walk, to lighten the load.
On one level: Small porch, large kitchen/dining area and living room with open fire. One double bedroom, one twin bedroom, two single bedrooms. Bathroom with bath, toilet and washbasin. Garden: Large garden and wooden decking area with seating to enjoy amazing views out to the Small Isles.
Distances to Local Attractions
5.7 mi Puffin Coffee – WiFi
6 mi Kilchoan Hotel – WiFi
6.3 mi Ferry Stores – local shop and fuel
5.9 mi Play Park and Kilchoan Community Centre- WiFi, Tearoom,Tourist Information, GP Surgery
6.2 mi Kilchoan Pier Ferry to Tobermory
6.5 mi Community Garden – selling fresh local produce
11 mi Sanna Beach
12 mi Ardnamurchan Lighthouse, Cafe
Plan of Ceol Na Mara (not to scale)
On one level: Small porch, large kitchen/dining area and living room with open fire. One double bedroom, one twin bedroom, two single bedrooms. Bathroom with bath, toilet and washbasin.
Garden: Large garden and wooden decking area with seating to enjoy amazing views out to the Small Isles.
Saturday Arrival
- Flexible out of season
Spectacular Sea Views
Dogs Welcome
Private Water Supply
Electricity Inclusive
Linen & Towel Hire
Sleeps 6
- One double bedroom
- One twin bedroom
- Two single bedrooms
- – Bath and WC
- Bath with overhead shower, WC
Living Room
- Open fire
- Sky TV, DVD, CD, Radio
Kitchen Diner
- Electric cooker
- Washing machine
- Microwave
- Fridge
- Freezer
- Cafetiere
- Iron and ironing board
- Hair dryer
- Pay phone
- Front decking with table and chairs
Back Porch
- Tumble dryer
Check in time:16.00 – Check out time:10.00
Arrivals: High Season – Saturday, Low Season – Flexible Arrival Dates and Short Lets
Optional Linen and Towel Hire: £15 Double £10 Single. Please order when making your booking. If you wish to bring your own linen, the double bed needs a double duvet cover, along with your own undersheet and pillow cases.
Tea towels, kitchen hand towel and bath mats provided.
Dogs: £20 per Dog – Maximum of 2 Dogs
Open Fire: Fuel and firelighters are provided for your first night, more can be purchased at the Kilchoan shop.
Private water supply: Water can be discoloured at times although it is safe to drink. Scottish Water test this annually, however we would advise boiling the water before consumption. Alternatively bottles of water can be purchased from the local shop in Kilchoan or pick some up en route.
Parking for 2 or more cars.
How to get to Ceol na Mara – PH36 4LG After you pass Ben Hiant and Loch Mudle turn right at the junction, signposted Kilmory and Ockle. At the bottom of the hill, fork right at the junction, also signposted Kilmory and Ockle. Cross the burn and take the next right after Branault Cottage. Go over the cattle grid, past the Steading Holidays sign, and travel up the road to the last house. Ceol na Mara is at the end of a shared road.
Check Availability
Guest Reviews
The most incredible views and a great location
"This house had everything we needed for a week in Ardnamurchan. The track to the house from the road is a bit rough, but we managed. The water is a bit brown, but that's the peat, and makes it part of being in this part of the world.
A lovely beach was within walking distance, and the rest of the peninsula has more than enough to fill our time.
We would thoroughly recommend the cottage – perfectly clean on arrival, and the suggestion of getting the veg box was really helpful."
reviewed 16th of September 2017
"The house is in an area of outstanding beauty and has a breathtaking view, short walk to the beach, good driving distance to the shop, watching the golden eagle from the terrace."
"We had a great week with rain on only two days but even that did not stop us going for walks. The peace, quiet and gentle pace of life in Kilmory is one of life's treasures. , "


text:
mtp31.jpg 212.05K 9 downloads
OS X Mavericks Transformation/UX Pack 3.1
- Seamless installation and uninstallation giving users safe transformation
- Easily configurable in single click with intelligence Metro UI design
- Designed for all editions of Windows XP/Vista/7/8/8.1 including Server Editions
- Genuine OS X Mavericks/iOS 7 system resources
- Smart system files updating with auto-repair and Windows Update friendly
- UxStyle memory patching
- Lion Frame UI including Aero/Mac features for XP and non-Aero system
- OS X Mavericks/iOS 7 themes, wallpapers, user pictures and logon screen
- OS X Dock emulation with pre-configured docklets optimized for stability/performance
- Dashboard and Spaces with shortcut keys configured
- Launchpad access from desktop corner and Dock configured
You can run this program again to re-configure or uninstall. Tasks will be done after reboot.
UxStyle memory patching: http://www.uxstyle.com
Mac Lion 3.0 for Windows XP: http://HeyItPaul.deviantart.com
Aqua SL for Windows Vista: http://Lukeedee.deviantart.com
The Lion Visual Style for Windows 7: http://pddeluxe.deviantart.com
Lion for Windows 8/8.1: http://neiio.deviantart.com
Flurry screensaver: http://www.maddogsw.com/flurry
Windows 7 system files resources base: http://sagorpirbd.deviantart.com
Windows XP/Vista system files resources base: http://asilaydyingdl.deviantart.com
iOS 7 icons: http://iynque.deviantart.com
RocketDock: http://www.rocketdock.com
StandaloneStack: http://www.chrisnsoft.com
XWidget/XLaunchpad: http://www.xwidget.com
TrueTransparency: http://www.pngfactor...rueTransparency
VirtuaWin: http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net
WinaeroGlass: http://www.winaero.com
LeftSider: http://hsiw.web.fc2.com
Y'z Shadow: http://yzapps.blog24.fc2.com
Thanks to:
Apple.com for their amazing OS, OS X Mavericks.
Steve Jobs for his inspiring passion and dedication that set Apple and us to where we're here today.
ThemeMyPC.com for providing official mirror and hosting.
And to you for using OS X Mavericks Transformation Pack
If you like this product, share it with your friends.
Website: http://www.WindowsXLive.net
Contact: email@example.com
Author: Mr. Windows X
-Added hot screen corner activation as optional feature
-Added some system programs that could be missing in Windows
-Added Yosemite as new default wallpaper in upcoming WWDC event (10.10?)
-Changed expanding Computer's items in Dock to always be stack UI
-Fixed installation error on Windows XP x64 Edition OS
-Fixed invisible Taskbar tray arrow in Windows 7
-Fixed system booting up with classic theme in some cases (Should also fix black screen)
-Fixed UxStyle's infamous black screen bug that has been identified and dealt with recently
-Added emergency.bat file in Windows\UXBackup folder for power user to fix boot issues from recovery
-Added F4 key shortcut for Launchpad activation
-Added Glass transparency support for Windows 8/8.1 with WinaeroGlass
-Added LiveTuner recommendation (Highly recommended to try since it's safe and reversible)
-Added removing Windows 8/8.1's Ribbon UI in system files modification
-Added system files update checking to prevent conflicts with Windows update
-Changed Aero Frame UI to be enabled by default if DWM is not detected or running
-Changed programs' font back to Lucida Sans Unicode
-Changed Left side OS X caption buttons program to LeftSider (Fixing 8/8.1 compatibilities)
-Fixed font problems with Helvetica Neue in some websites like Facebook
-Fixed replacing system files that could potentially cause freezing black screen on some cases
-Fixed system files modification problems in Windows 8/8.1 from previous version
-Improved DWM detection method using API command
-Removed hot screen corner activation as it interrupts gaming experiences
-Updated Windows 8/8.1 theme with neiio's Lion theme
-Updated XWidget to version 1.91
-Added more OS X Mavericks wallpapers
-Added Windows 8.1 support
-Fixed breaking some full-screen apps in Windows 8
-Fixed Facebook font problems by substituting Lucida Grande font with Lucida Sans
-Removed Internet Explorer system files modification in Windows 7/8/8.1 (Breaking IE11)
-Removed Branding system files modification in Windows 8/8.1 (Breaking activation)
-Replaced Lucida Grande font option with Segoe UI
-Updated UxStyle supporting Windows 8/8.1 for both x86/x64 now
-Updated XWidget to version 1.881
-Initial release
For people who prefer to use safe and risk-free version, please consider using OS X Mavericks UX Pack instead. It doesn't involve system files modification so everything is safely reversible.
OS X Mavericks Transformation Pack 3.1
OS X Mavericks UX Pack 3.1


text:
When experiencing some kind of pain, many people tend to use over-the-counter medications and prescription drugs such as Ibuprofen.
Even though these drugs can sometimes provide short-term effects, they do not have the ability to treat the root cause of the pain and can only cause side-effects.
So, instead of using these drugs which can be quite expensive, why don't you try some natural remedies and see the incredible benefits they can provide?
There are many natural anti-inflammatory remedies that can effectively reduce the pain in your joints and knees. The best part is that they are cheap and will provide better results than most of the over-the-counter medications.
All you need is a few ingredients that are easily available and you can start preparing them at your home! So, check out the recipes below, and finally, you can say goodbye to the terrible pain in your joints and knees!
1. Rosemary
Rosemary is a potent aromatic herb usually used in aromatherapy and numerous dishes. It contains ursolic acid, a powerful compound which has the ability to reduce pain and fight joint infections.
Check out the recipe below to find out how to use rosemary against joint and knee pain:
Needed Ingredients:
- 2 cups of water
- 200 gr. of rosemary
Boil the water and add the rosemary. Let it simmer for 20 minutes then leave it to cool and strain it. For best results, you should drink 2 cups of this tea a day.
2. Horsetail
Horsetail is a potent anti-inflammatory agent that is rich in various vitamins and minerals beneficial for reducing pain.
It is recommended to drink 2 cups of horsetail tea on a daily basis and within a short period of time, you will experience significant relief.
3. Turmeric
Turmeric is known as one the best natural pain relievers. When combined with the spice saffron, it is even more beneficial against any kind of pain. Check out the recipe below to find out how to use it:
Needed Ingredients:
- 1 tablespoon of powdered turmeric
- 1 tablespoon of saffron
- 3 cups of water
- 3 tablespoons of organic honey
Boil the water and add the turmeric and saffron. Let it simmer for 10 minutes. Leave the mixture to cool down then add the honey. It is recommended to drink this remedy during the day.
It will reduce the inflammation and you will no longer experience pain in your knees and joints.
4. Ginger
Ginger is also one of the best-known natural pain relievers. You can use ginger in different ways. Check out our recipe below:
Needed Ingredients:
- 200 gr. of grated ginger root
- 2 cups of water
- 2 tablespoons of honey
Boil the water and add the ginger. Let it simmer for 20 minutes. Let the tea cool down then make sure to strain it and add the honey. In order to get the best results, you should drink this tea 2-3 times a day.
5. Flaxseeds
Flaxseeds have strong anti-inflammatory properties and are a great source of important nutrients that can improve your digestion and strengthen your immune system.
They have a rich content of omega-3 fatty acids which can relieve inflammation and reduce the pain. You should take 2 tablespoons of ground flaxseeds a day.
They can be added to yogurt, salads, or smoothies. It is not recommended to cook them because the high temperatures can destroy the important nutrients and reduce the effect.
6. Cherries
Cherry juice possesses potent anti-inflammatory properties, so this is the main reason why many athletes in the USA tend to drink cherry juice before and after workouts.
Cherry juice will help your muscles recover. Check out the recipe below:
Needed Ingredients:
- 300 gr. of cherries
- 250 ml. of water
- 250 gr. of brown sugar
Blend the cherries and water. Put the juice in a pot and add the brown sugar. Simmer the mixture on low heat so the sugar will dissolve and stir constantly for 20 minutes.
Pour the mixture into a glass bottle and place it in the fridge. Add the cherry syrup into a glass of cold or hot water and drink it before and after you exercise. This will prevent muscle cramps and pain.
Source and References:


text:
About the Firm
Straughn & Turner, P.A. traces its beginnings back to 1950, the year the law firm was founded by Jack Straughn (1925-2000). In the mid-1950s, Straughn & Turner moved to 255 Magnolia Avenue SW, where this Winter Haven law firm remains today.
Winter Haven Community Involvement
Our roots in Winter Haven run deep, and community service has always been a significant part of our company culture. Over our many years, we have been involved with a wide variety of local projects and organizations, including:
• American Cancer Society • Polk State College Foundation • Grace Lutheran Church • Winter Haven Hospital • Greater Winter Haven Chamber of Commerce • Main Street Winter Haven • City of Winter Haven Planning Commission
Community Leadership
Our firm's attorneys have also dedicated themselves to a number of community leadership roles, including:
• Winter Haven Hospital Board of Directors Chair • Greater Winter Haven Chamber of Commerce Board President • Winter Haven Bar Association President • Winter Haven Planning Commission Chair • Grace Lutheran Church Board President • Polk State College Foundation Chair • Polk State College Board of Trustees Chair • Tenth Judicial Circuit Nominating Committee Member
60 Years of Experience in Winter Haven
At Straughn & Turner, we've been building relationships based on integrity and trust for more than 60 years, so our clients know they can rely on the counsel they receive.
Many of our employees have been with Straughn & Turner for 15, 21 and even 25 years. We are an experienced Winter Haven law firm providing an extremely high level of long-term knowledge and commitment.