Subject: WWII-L Digest - 24 May 1993 to 25 May 1993

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 00:00:22 -0400

There are 29 messages totalling 836 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. First use of Napalm (2)
  2. USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System (15)
  3. USAAF 25 MAY 43
  4. The German Carrier Zepplin (2)
  5. German carrier aircraft (3)
  6. F-19 (was: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System) (2)
  7. F-19/F-117 (3)
  8. Enola Gay

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 08:49:48 +0100
From:    Mike Hoffmann <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: First use of Napalm

>  On another list there is a discussion going on about Napalm and it's first
> use.  Can someone here tell me Where and when? I would actually like to know
> first use in both ETO & PTO ( what about CBI?)

I hate it when this happens: I know I just read about this 2 days ago, but the
book is at home, while I'm at work...

If I remember correctly the first use of Napalm in the ETO was during Overlord,
where the Allies tried to bring down the garrison on one of the besieged
Channel islands (something starting with a "C" or "S" and a French name,
close to the coast).

Darn... :-)
Mike

--
Mike Hoffmann - Internet Administrator, Siemens-Nixdorf AG, SNI AP 712
INTERNET: [email-masked]
Or what if, God forbid, a show decides to drop GERMAN cuisine, a single portion
of which, scientists calculate, would create a crater the size of Lake Erie?
(Laugh if you will, but experts believe that Saddam Hussein has obtained
virtually all of the components necessary to construct a knockwurst.) (D.Barry)

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 03:03:45 -0400
From:    John Peterson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

     I have a question about this post that I hope someone can answer.
In the listing for the first field of the designation, the special-service
designation, the letter 'K' was designated as 'Ferret' and listed in use
only until 1947.  I always thought that the 'K' was the tanker designation,
ie KC-10, KC-135, KA-6D, etc.  Am I wrong or was this just overlooked?
(oops--the KA-6D is Navy, but the idea is consistent. Sorry! =) )

John Peterson
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 07:57:20 -0400
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

             I have a question about this post that I hope someone can answer.
        In the listing for the first field of the designation, the special-service
        designation, the letter 'K' was designated as 'Ferret' and listed in use
        only until 1947.  I always thought that the 'K' was the tanker designation,
        ie KC-10, KC-135, KA-6D, etc.  Am I wrong or was this just overlooked?
        (oops--the KA-6D is Navy, but the idea is consistent. Sorry! =) )

        John Peterson
        [email-masked]

The US Army/USAF have used at least five different designation
systems since the first aircraft was purchased in 1909.  The first
method was to call the aircraft by the manufacturers designation,
e.g., Wright Model B, etc.; this system was in effect until around
1919/1920.  The second system was similar to the current system but had
many subdivisions, e.g., PW for a pursuit aircraft with a water-cooled
engine.  The third system was the one I described in my post.  With
this system, the USAAF used the K-prefix for ferrets until the
fourth system was introduced in 1948 although I have yet to find any
aircraft that used the K-prefix.  In 1948, after the USAF had become
independent, they revised/deleted many codes, e.g., deleting A for
attack, changing P for pursuit to F for fighter, etc.  (Remember, until
1962 the USN/USMC/USCG had their own designation system so any changes
the USAF made were only applicable to USAF and US Army aircraft.)  When
tankers were introduced sometime after 1948, the K-prefix was added to
indicate that function.  The fifth and current system was introduced
in 1962 when all branches of the military adopted the USAF system
and the USN/USMC/USCG redesignated all of their aircraft, e.g.,
R4D's became C-47's.

Hope this helps.  If you need any additional information, please
contact me via e-mail.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Jack McKillop      |  Those who have long enjoyed such privileges |
|  Bellcore           |  as we enjoy forget in time that men have    |
|  Piscataway, NJ     |  died to win them.     FDR                   |
|  USA                |  [email-masked]                        |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 07:57:24 -0400
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: USAAF 25 MAY 43

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
TUESDAY, 25 MAY 1943
FTP SITES
  1. ftp.rutgers.edu in directory pub/wwii/usaf
  2. byrd.mu.wvnet.edu (129.71.32.152) in pub/history/military/airforce/
     wwii_chronology

AIRCRAFT MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT:
  B-24, Consolidated Liberator
  B-25, North American Mitchell
  P-38, Lockheed Lightning
  P-40, Curtiss
  Wellington, Vickers (RAF)

AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (Eleventh Air Force)
  In the Aleutians, 12 B-25's and 15 B-24's fly air-ground support and 4
B-24's and 20 P-38's fly air cover, all over Attu. 18 P-40's fly 1
reconnaissance and 2 attack missions to Kiska and Little Kiska.

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  BURMA-INDIA (Tenth Air Force)
    HQ 341st Bombardment Group (Medium) and it's 490th Bombardment
Squadron (Medium) transfer to Kurmitola, India. Group HQ transfers from
Chakulia, India while the 490th, which has been operating from Chakulia,
India since 20 May, transfers with B-25's from Ondal, India.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN (Ninth Air Force)
    B-24's attack the Messina, Italy ferry docks and railroad yards.

  WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN (Northwest African Air Force)
    In Sardinia during the night of 24/25 May, Wellingtons bomb the docks
and marshalling yard at Olbia. Northwest African Strategic Air Force
(NASAF) fighters, medium and heavy bombers bomb Portoscuso, Porto
Empedocle, Boccadifalco Airfield, Licata harbor, and Milo Airfield.
    In the Mediterranean, Northwest African Tactical Air Force (NATAF) and
NASAF P-40's and B-25's hit the airfield, shipping, and military
concentrations on Pantelleria Island.
    In Italy, NASAF fighter, medium and heavy bombers bomb Terranova, a
tunnel near Macomer, and Messina.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC THEATER OF OPERATIONS (Fifth Air Force)
  Single heavy bombers bomb coastal airfields and villages; in New Guinea
they hit Madang, Kakakog, and Simbang; in the Bismarck Archipelago, they
hit Cape Gloucester and attack barges off Gavuvu.

SOURCES:
AIR FORCE COMBAT UNITS OF WORLD WAR II, Office of Air Force History,
  Headquarters USAF, 1961, ISBN 0-912799-02-1
COMBAT SQUADRONS OF THE AIR FORCE, WORLD WAR II, Office of Air Force
  History, Headquarters USAF 1982
THE ARMY AIR FORCES IN WORLD WAR II: COMBAT CHRONOLOGY, 1941-1945 by the
 Office of Air Force History, Headquarters USAF, 1973
THE MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR DIARY by Roger A. Freeman, ISBN 1-85409-071-2

Jack McKillop
USAF (Airways and Air Communications Service)
1955-59

----------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Jack McKillop      |  Those who have long enjoyed such privileges |
|  Bellcore           |  as we enjoy forget in time that men have    |
|  Piscataway, NJ     |  died to win them.     FDR                   |
|  USA                |  [email-masked]                        |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 07:53:39 +0100
From:    Bob Smart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

>      I have a question about this post that I hope someone can answer.
> In the listing for the first field of the designation, the special-service
> designation, the letter 'K' was designated as 'Ferret' and listed in use
> only until 1947.  I always thought that the 'K' was the tanker designation,
> ie KC-10, KC-135, KA-6D, etc.  Am I wrong or was this just overlooked?
> (oops--the KA-6D is Navy, but the idea is consistent. Sorry! =) )
>
> John Peterson
> [email-masked]
You are possibly crossing several eras here There was a designater change in
the Army Air Force/ Air Force right after WW2 ( I think in 47) that dropped the
A- for attack/light bomber series changed P - for Pursuit to F for Fighter,
changed F for Photo Recon to R for Recon, and a bunch of other changes.
The K for ferret ( electronic snooping) probably became the E series (EB-29,
EC-135)

There was then the combining of all DoD numbering schemes in the early '60s
that didn't change to many Air Force designators but played havoc with the Army
& Navy systems. That is when the A3D became the A-3, the WF became the E-1, and
the A2F became the A-6. ( In the Air Force the F-110 became the F-4)

I beleive K originally stood for converted although every conversion it was
used with was to a tanker ( KB-29, KB-50) and most of it's use was on new built
aircraft as tankers ( KC-97, KC-135) I think eventually the system was
officially changed so K is the designator for tanker

I have a pretty complete list of both systems at home if you need it ( and no
one else posts it first :-))

Bob Smart ([email-masked])

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 07:50:02 EDT
From:    John Sherwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: First use of Napalm

I am anxiously awaiting your findings on the napalm issue.
Interesting enough, I discovered a few more clues as to who
the initial proponents of napalm were.  Apparently, one of the biggest
advocates of napalm was Horation Bond, the chief engineer of the
National Fire Protection Association. Bond claimed "it was
necessary for those of us familiar with fire destruction to try
to keep constant pressure on the Air Force and their scientific
advisors to get on with the business of exploiting fire attack
to bring about the end of the war."  The 8th Air Force, though, continued
to rely primarily on high explosives until the British fire bombing of
Hamburg. That raid convinced the 8th to employ more fire bombs. Hence,
from 250 tons in July of 1943, before the Hamburg raid, the weight of
incendiaries delivered by the 8th rose to 5000 a month by the end of 44
and peaked at 7,726 in March of 45.

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 10:32:51 -0400
From:    "M. Joseph Barone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

> In the Air Force the F-110 became the F-4.

Why were fighter numbers rolled back?  Did someone not like three
digits?  Why is there still an F-111 and F-117 (which isn't much
of an F!)?

Sorry for being off-topic.
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
You're a good man, Mulligan.

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 11:32:58 -0400
From:    John Peterson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

Bob and Jack:
     Thanks for the further explanation.  I had forgotten about the
consolidation in 1962 of all military designators.  I knew the USN and
USAF used to use differing designations, and I was pretty sure they
were the same now, but not positive.  I'd have looked it up, but all
my research material isn't mine, it belongs to my father! :)
Bob, I would like to see the listings of the systems, please do post
them when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it.
     Thanks again for clearing things up!

John Peterson
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 12:51:07 EDT
From:    S214000 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The German Carrier Zepplin

Hello Everyone,
I have a question that I hope someone can answer. I just recently dis-
covered a copy of Janes Fighting Ships from 1939 and noticed that the
Germans had built or were completing the construction of the carrier
Graf Zepplin. According to Janes it would carry 40 aircraft. My
questionwhat would the aircraft have been, whether in development or
modify current models  ie.. Me-109, Fw-190, etc.., and what happened to
the ship itself? Thanks, Mike Wilson, NMU

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 13:47:48 +0100
From:    Bob Smart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

> > In the Air Force the F-110 became the F-4.
>
> Why were fighter numbers rolled back?  Did someone not like three
> digits?  Why is there still an F-111 and F-117 (which isn't much
> of an F!)?
 The Navy already had Phantoms in use as F4H's, while the Air Force was just
beginning to introduce it as the F-110 ( I think the AF named it Spectre) as
part of the joint numbering scheme the Phantom series became the F-4 with the
Air Force model becoming the F-4C and the Navy model being F-4B.

There were some pretty bizarre numbering incidents as the services worked out
the joint numbering plan (Planes that were no longer in the inventory being
given numbers, new planes being given old series numbers)

>
> Sorry for being off-topic.
 Don't sweat it, things have been slow on the list :-)

Bob Smart ([email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 14:04:00 -0400
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

        > In the Air Force the F-110 became the F-4.

        Why were fighter numbers rolled back?  Did someone not like three
        digits?  Why is there still an F-111 and F-117 (which isn't much
        of an F!)?

        Sorry for being off-topic.
        --
        Joe Barone
        [email-masked]
        You're a good man, Mulligan.

The renumbering occurred in 1962 when the USN/USMC/USCG got smart
and adopted the USAF system of aircraft designations.  The Phantom
was a Navy aircraft and the USAF had borrowed some for testing and
designated them F-110.  In 1962, the Navy had to redesignate all
their aircraft to meet the USAF standard and the F4H Phantom
became the F-4; when the USAF finally bought some, they used the
universal designateion F-4 instead of F-110.  Since the F-111 was
strictly a USAF aircraft, it was never redesignated; same for the
F-117 however I think that security might also be involved, you know,
everything went back to a low number and there were no holes in the
numbering scheme so everyone will forget that we were in the hundreds
series before the rollback.

With this redesignation in '62, all counters were reset to "1" for
any aircraft not already ordered.  That's why we went from B-70 to
B-1, C-141 to C-5, T-45 to T-1, etc.

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 15:29:22 -0400
From:    John Peterson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

Bob:
     OK, you explained the F-110/F-4 question.  Do you (or anyone else)]
know what the happed to the 100 series?  Why is it still used in some
cases and not in others?  Are the F-117 and F-111 models left from the
time when they were used?  This has always confused me, since I thought
the 111 and 117 were fairly recent developments.  Or is it just that
the EF-111 is the newer elint version? Help!!!

John Peterson
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 15:45:08 -0400
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

        Bob:
             OK, you explained the F-110/F-4 question.  Do you (or anyone else)]
        know what the happed to the 100 series?  Why is it still used in some
        cases and not in others?  Are the F-117 and F-111 models left from the
        time when they were used?  This has always confused me, since I thought
        the 111 and 117 were fairly recent developments.  Or is it just that
        the EF-111 is the newer elint version? Help!!!

        John Peterson
        [email-masked]

This is Jack.

The F-111 design originated when MacNamara was SecDef under Kennedy
or Johnson so the basic F-111 is almost 30 years old.  This design
was to be MacNamara's answer to both the USAF and USN
fighter-bomber needs but only the USAF bought it.  The EF-111A
Sparkvarks were F-111A's that were upgraded into electronic
aircraft in the last 10 years.

I don't have enough info on the F-117 to determine when the
designation was first assigned.

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 15:05:04 -0400
From:    "Dennis E. Sparks" <[email-masked]>
Subject: German carrier aircraft

Regarding the question posted about what aircraft would have
been used on the Graf Zeppelin, Germany's aircraft carrier...

A number of Messerschmitt Bf 109T (T = trager, or carrier)
aircraft were constructed in anticipation of completion of the
Graf Zeppelin.  These were essentially a Bf 109E (-4?) with
tailhooks and extended, foldable wings.  With work stopped
on the ship, the aircraft were used as land based fighters in
Norway.

Fiesler (?) built a biplane dive bomber with folding wings,
(Fi 167 ?, sorry, I don't have my books here at work), but
I believe a navalized Junkers Ju 87 Stuka was proposed to
replace the biplane.

If you want, I'll look up details tonight and post them on
Wednesday.

Dennis E. Sparks
[email-masked]
Lexington, Kentucky

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 16:26:08 EDT
From:    S214000 <[email-masked]>
Subject: German carrier aircraft

Hi Dennis,
Yes, could you send the particulars about the aircraft. Where would I
beable to find pictures or drawings of these aircraft and the carrier?
Thanks, Mike@NMU

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 16:34:48 -0400
From:    Bob Smart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

> Bob:
>      OK, you explained the F-110/F-4 question.  Do you (or anyone else)]
> know what the happed to the 100 series?  Why is it still used in some
> cases and not in others?  Are the F-117 and F-111 models left from the
> time when they were used?  This has always confused me, since I thought
> the 111 and 117 were fairly recent developments.  Or is it just that
> the EF-111 is the newer elint version? Help!!!

As someone else eloquaontly explained there is some belief that the F-117 was a
security misdirection ( Testors actually marketed an F-19 stealth fighter model
that is way off base :-))

The F-111 is one of those that seemed to show that the Air Force didn't
completly go along with the renumbering. It was an early 60s program but I
thought it was started late enough that it should have gotten a new series
number. After all the Lockheed a-11 fighter direvitive was numbered YF-12 and I
believe it preceeded the F-111( what was the F-13 anyway :-) The EF-111 is just
a reuse of old airframes in a new role. I'm feeling old I remember seeing the
C-5 and the F-111 at an airshow at Dulles when they were both brand new.
We've become jaded seeing 747s and DC-10s. Fat Albert looked HUGE as it did
it's flyby. Lockheed had a Jetstar Biz-Jet doing a fly-by at the same time.
The Jetstar appeared to be screaming down the  show line. Then here comes Fat
Albert, lumbering along, looking like it is barely staying in the air. It
lumbers right past the Jetstar. As soon as the C-5 left the Jetstar in it's
wake the Jetstar appeared to be going fast again.

Oh well back to work

Bob Smart ([email-masked])

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 17:02:07 -0400
From:    John Peterson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

Bob:
    Uh oh!  You mentioned something ELSE I've been wondering about
(I do a lot of wondering :) ).  The F-19 -- what is it,is it real,'
does it exist only on paper????  Several years ago I remember Microprose
marketing a simulation for the "F-19 Stealth Fighter" --OK, I'll admit
I remember because I bought a copy!  Anyway, it looked quite different
than the F-117.  The only real place I recall seeing the F-19 mentioned
was in Tom Clancy's novel "Red Storm Rising", in which they were called
"frisbees".  But very little is said about them, and I know I've never
seen one, unlike the 117.  And in regards to the 117, why would a higher
number be for security purposes?  Or is it supposed to be psychological?
     Thanks to you and to Jack for answering my questions, and to
everyone else for putting up with them!!

Always curious,
John Peterson
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 17:25:28 +0100
From:    Bob Smart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: German carrier aircraft

> Hi Dennis,
> Yes, could you send the particulars about the aircraft. Where would I
> beable to find pictures or drawings of these aircraft and the carrier?
> Thanks, Mike@NMU

There is some pretty good information on the German & Italian carriers in
Aircraft Carriers by Polmar. This book dates from ~1970 and I wish my local
library had it. I used to use it all the time. Very good with lots of photos
of various 'weird configurations' ( Like the 'flexible deck' experiments of
the late 40s and C-130s landing on Forrestal class carriers)

Bob Smart  ([email-masked])

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 23:08:56 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

>     Uh oh!  You mentioned something ELSE I've been wondering about
> (I do a lot of wondering :) ).  The F-19 -- what is it,is it real,'
> does it exist only on paper????  Several years ago I remember Microprose
> marketing a simulation for the "F-19 Stealth Fighter" --OK, I'll admit
> I remember because I bought a copy!  Anyway, it looked quite different
> than the F-117.  The only real place I recall seeing the F-19 mentioned
> was in Tom Clancy's novel "Red Storm Rising", in which they were called
> "frisbees".  But very little is said about them, and I know I've never
> seen one, unlike the 117.  And in regards to the 117, why would a higher
> number be for security purposes?  Or is it supposed to be psychological?
>      Thanks to you and to Jack for answering my questions, and to
> everyone else for putting up with them!!

This F-117 problem has been on the net before -- maybe not (recently) on
this list. Many people are wondering.

The story that is mostly given is that the F-117 should have been the
F-19, but was renamed F-117 by coincidence. The origin of the number F-117
would be that (a) numbers 112 to 116 are Soviet aircraft that are used by
the USAF, or (b) Lockheed has the habit of assigning the number 117 to new
projects. (The latter seems a little buit unlikely to me). It is also
reported that radio-amateurs have heard a number 117 ask permission to
land, so 117 would have been a callsign.

Anyway, the number F-117 was probably assigned for security reasons.
Everybody used to think that the F-19 was the Stealth, so any document
labelled thus would have acquired unwanted attention... That the F-117 was
given a fighter rather than an attack designation might be a smokescreen
too, but an alternative explanation is that the USAF just doesn't like
attack aircraft --- the only A-designated aircraft originating with the
USAF since WWII is the A-10, and this is more liked by the US Army than
the USAF.

Most conjectural drawings, models and games claiming to show the Stealth
before it was unveiled were wrong. I believe they were based on the
imagination of a Japanese artist. Nothing to be ashamed of; even Jane's
reproduced a drawing. In general, they showed inboard-tilted rudders and
smooth lines. Seems the F-117 has its rudders canted outwards for better
control and angular lines because the software used for its development is
not capable of dealing with curves -- but that is only a rumour too.

Emmanuel

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 18:08:10 -0400
From:    John Peterson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

     Thanks Emmanuel, your explanation helped a lot.  One last question
and I'll shut up for the day :).  Is there an F-19 now, or was the
number just part of the stealth coverup?  And if it isn't real, why skip
it to build the new fighter being talked about (I forget if it was F-20
or -21)?
     Thanks again for the help!

John Peterson
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 16:18:03 MDT
From:    Steve Alvin <[email-masked]>
Subject: F-19 (was: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System)

On Tuesday 25 May, John Peterson wrote:

>     Uh oh!  You mentioned something ELSE I've been wondering about
> (I do a lot of wondering :) ).  The F-19 -- what is it,is it real,'
> does it exist only on paper????  Several years ago I remember Microprose
> marketing a simulation for the "F-19 Stealth Fighter"

This is my understanding of how the legend of the "F-19" came about.
In the early `80's a couple of what we know now were F-117's crashed.
The military would surround the crash site and not let anyone near.
It soon became apparent to the press that this most be a new type of
plane.  Also, at the same time, the first rumors of radar defeating
technology was being heard.  Since the last known fighter designation
was the F-18 Hornet, the press began to call the mystery plane the
F-19.  The Air Force never confirmed or denied the exsistance of the
F-19 Stealth.  They confused the issue even more by calling the
Northrup Tigershark (I think that was it's name) the F-20, hinting
that yes, there was an F-19.

Meanwhile, many model companies began to produce fanciful kit that
they called the F-19, further confusing the issue.  In addition,
Testors produced a Soviet stealth fighter, which was a total figment
of their imagination, but it confused things even more!

We now know that the designation F-19 was not used for the Stealth.

I asked an F-117 pilot at an airshow once how the designation came
about.  He told me this, & I have no way to verify the truth:

F-111 = F-111
F-112 = F-14
F-113 = F-15
F-114 = F-16
F-115 = YF-17
F-116 = F-18
F-117 = F-117

Steve Alvin
Dickinson State University
[email-masked]
**********************************************************************
*Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.--Proverb*
*Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat my class.-SA*
**********************************************************************

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 18:19:42 +0100
From:    Bob Smart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

> Bob:
>     Uh oh!  You mentioned something ELSE I've been wondering about
> (I do a lot of wondering :) ).  The F-19 -- what is it,is it real,'
> does it exist only on paper????  Several years ago I remember Microprose
> marketing a simulation for the "F-19 Stealth Fighter" --OK, I'll admit
> I remember because I bought a copy!  Anyway, it looked quite different
> than the F-117.  The only real place I recall seeing the F-19 mentioned
> was in Tom Clancy's novel "Red Storm Rising", in which they were called
> "frisbees".  But very little is said about them, and I know I've never
> seen one, unlike the 117.  And in regards to the 117, why would a higher
> number be for security purposes?  Or is it supposed to be psychological?
>      Thanks to you and to Jack for answering my questions, and to
> everyone else for putting up with them!!
>
> Always curious,
> John Peterson
> [email-masked]

Up until the F-117 project was made public no one really believed the US
military could keep a secret.  There were all sorts of leaks about a new
fighter that was invisable to radar as far back as at least the late 70's.
Aviation Week (Avleak) regularly had stories and even speculative line drawings
of these aircraft. There was a lot of speculation that the number would be F-19
(F-18 in production, F-20 was Nortrup Tigershark, F-21 was leased IAI Kfirs)

Model companies, software companies, authors followed the crowd. Smooth flowing
curves, no sharp edges, that was the prescription for stealth.

Well along comes this angular ugly looking black wedge that we were told had
been built in squadron quantities and deployed for several years. It was called
the F-117. There is one school of thought that says for administrative purposes
soviet equipment that had been acquired was given designators in the 11x range.
I have never seen a definitive list of F-112 to F-116. But assuming that to be
true anyone that happened across a reference to a secret aircraft designated
the F-117 would infer that it was just another acquired eastern block aircraft
and that it was being kept under wraps to try and keep the Soviets from knowing
what we had or that we had even gotten it (And every one would smirk because
EVERYONE KNEW THAT AMERICANS COULDN'T KEEP A SECRET!)

Well it worked

Bob Smart ([email-masked])

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 18:38:02 -0400
From:    John Peterson <[email-masked]>
Subject: F-19/F-117

     OK, now I understand it all!!
         *applause*
     I guess the F-19 is the real stealth, because it never appeared!!
It does surprise me even Clancy jumped on the F-19 bandwagon, but I
guess the government surprised everyone by keeping the secret.

John Peterson
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 26 May 1993 00:31:47 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System

> and I'll shut up for the day :).  Is there an F-19 now, or was the
> number just part of the stealth coverup?  And if it isn't real, why skip
> it to build the new fighter being talked about (I forget if it was F-20
> or -21)?

One possibility is that F-19 was assigned to the Stealth, and then dropped.
Another is that there is an F-19, but what would they use it for? Not
unlikely is that Northrop liked the F-20 number for marketing, and asked
to get it assigned to their F-5G.

Plainly: I don't know...

Emmanuel.

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 26 May 1993 08:26:48 -0500
From:    "Wilber Williams, Prentice Centre" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Enola Gay

I'm building a model of the B-29 "Enola Gay". I'm not sure if the tail fin
markings are correct. The decals with the kit have an "R" in a circle, but I
have several photos supposedly of "Enola Gay" with a forward pointing arrow in
a circle. One book about B-29's said that the arrow markings should have been
replaced by about May-June 1945. Can anyone tell me the correct tail fin
markings for "Enola Gay" during its mission to Hiroshima?

Wilber.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Wilber WILLIAMS                            [email-masked]      |
|Prentice Centre                            Telephone : +61 7 365 4232   |
|The University of Queensland               Facsimile : +61 7 365 4477   |
|Brisbane Qld 4072  AUSTRALIA                                            |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 21:10:42 +0100
From:    Bob Smart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: F-19 (was: USAAF Aircraft Desigantion System)

> I asked an F-117 pilot at an airshow once how the designation came
> about.  He told me this, & I have no way to verify the truth:
>
> F-111 = F-111
> F-112 = F-14
> F-113 = F-15
> F-114 = F-16
> F-115 = YF-17
> F-116 = F-18
> F-117 = F-117
>
>
I worked on F-15s from 1976-1982 I was with 1st TFW when they were being built
up with their initial F-15A & B and when these were replaced with C & D models
several years later. I worked on birds that were from block 7 ( The first
production batch) on up ( we actually had a few pre-production birds that were
used for training. I have NEVER seen anything (except the piece of e-mail this
is in response to) connect the F-15 to the F-113.  I haven't seen any
connection between the other ones mentioned either but I can state pretty
emphatically that the F-15 has no connection with the F-113. Sorry if I sound
loud and angry, I'm not angry at you., it's just that for once I feel
completely safe in taking an unequivical stance on a subject :-)

I have seen several sources that have tied the F-112 to F-116 with Eastern Bloc
Aircraft. none of my sources was official but I will say they were better than
AvLeak. Unfortunately I could never get direct matching of Soviet models to
F-11x numbers.

Bob Smart ([email-masked])

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 21:23:05 +0100
From:    Bob Smart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: F-19/F-117

>      OK, now I understand it all!!
>          *applause*
>      I guess the F-19 is the real stealth, because it never appeared!!
> It does surprise me even Clancy jumped on the F-19 bandwagon, but I
> guess the government surprised everyone by keeping the secret.

Why does it surpise you that Clancy accepted it? He has always said that he
works from sources available to everyone and that all he does is what any good
intelligence person does. He takes lots of sources, evaluates their
reliability, tries to corraborate with other reliable sources and make some
informed guesses from there.  A lot of folks with sources as good or better
than his made the same assumptions. On the flightline we knew about some
special assignments to a location that was at Nellis AFB but not at Nellis.
We knew what carreer fields were used and when some new capabilities were added
because new carreer fields were added to the list. None of this was secret,
It was closely held within the group but even these folks were fooled on some
things. I for one was of the belief that the program was older than an F-19
designator would indicate ( That would have been early to mid 70's, after the
failed YF-17 became the F-18) I thought it was really the F-13 ( first started
in mid 60's before the F-14 program broke away from the F-111 program.
One thing about the F-117 designator, since it is out of sequence there is no
direct way to put it into the chronological F progression. ( And where is the
F-13 :-))

Bob Smart ([email-masked])

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 26 May 1993 12:26:53 +1000
From:    Mick Fauchon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The German Carrier Zepplin

        Mike,

                The aircraft would have been Bf 109Ts (with folding wings,
no less, and a longer stroke tailwheel) and modified Ju 87s.
        The carrier itself was eventually scrapped, but I'll have to leave
it to someone else to fill you in on the details.

                                                Regards,

                                                Mick Fauchon.
                                                [email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 25 May 1993 23:14:00 EST
From:    "W.C. \"Rusty\" DIVENS" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: F-19/F-117

Well, there MUST be some connection.

I built one of those TESTORS F-19 models about 3 years ago...
and now I can't find the damn thing!  :^)

And let's not forget the re-spooling of the bombers to the B-1 and B-2.

Bill
N93774 (@vms.cis.pitt.edu)

------------------------------

End of WWII-L Digest - 24 May 1993 to 25 May 1993
*************************************************