Subject: WWII-L Digest - 13 Nov 1993 to 14 Nov 1993

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 00:00:40 -0500

There are 7 messages totalling 217 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Reply to James Irwin
  2. Veterans' Day, 1993 and BBQs.
  3. Veteran's Day in Israel
  4. Enforcing History
  5. RAF vs USAAF heavy bombardment
  6. RAF vs USAAF/ Me ??? Nightfighters
  7. WEAP: Re: Long Lance Torpedo

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

Date:    Sun, 14 Nov 1993 14:37:12 CST
From:    Lou Coatney <[email-masked]>
Subject: Reply to James Irwin

Yes, I'd say morality was pretty well out the window in WWII, and the Axis
  were responsible for that.  Rape of Nanking, Bombing of Rotterdam,
  Holocaust, etc., etc.

Only deterrence prevailed, and that only because of demonstrated strength
  and ruthlessness by the Allies -- finally.  The Axis only became
  self-pitying and concerned with the morality of war once they were losing
  and suffering themselves.

I'm grateful my ancestors had the will and ability to do what was necessary
  for their/our/my survival.

Lou Coatney, WIU

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

Date:    Sun, 14 Nov 1993 14:42:57 CST
From:    Lou Coatney <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Veterans' Day, 1993 and BBQs.

Man!  What I would have given for a nice, hot BBQ on Christmas Eve, 1967!!

I'll go along with Veterans' Day just being for veterans and our
  dependents!

(I'll never forget the look on Dean Ribbeck's face at Augustana College in
  1970(?) when I suggested to him the College might set up a veterans'
  welcome picnic for the (few) veterans on campus and our pick of the coeds.
  He had this "Oh, my God!!  Now VETERAN demands?!" look of horror.)

...Still picking...

Lou Coatney

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

Date:    Sun, 14 Nov 1993 14:50:33 CST
From:    Lou Coatney <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Veteran's Day in Israel

Richard,
d
     Thanks for sharing that.  It does sound better, although having the
day off (for BBQs) is a pleasant reminder of the (family) happiness we were
serving/hoping for.  (At least, such are my memories.)

Lou

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

Date:    Sun, 14 Nov 1993 16:47:34 EST
From:    "William B. Thacker" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Enforcing History

> > However, with regard to David Irving, I can't believe that he has
> > fallen so low and into such disrepute. The German Government is right
> > to ask him to leave the country, and his adherence to such an
> > attitude is a disgrace to all concerned, and it does no honor to his
> > credentials.
>
> Having said that, I'll add that Irving has been sued in German court
> and fined for his calling the gas chamber at Auschwitz an "attrape"
> (mock up).  A German law forbids denying the holocaust and he was hit
> with a 15,000 DM (as I recall) fine for his public comments.  He
> appealed the decision and the judge hearing the appeal quadrupled the
> fine (yea! Justice prevails!).

German justice, perhaps.  Not mine.

I guess George Orwell's _1984_ is passe' now, but it should be required
reading for anyone who thinks the government ought to have the power to
declare the Truth and penalize those who disagree.  This particular example
might make that power look appealing, but think about it!

Should Christopher Columbus be honored as a gallant explorer or despised as
a genocidal invader?  Who on this list would care to have our beloved
Congress tell us, and fine or arrest anyone who disagrees?   Ideas, right
or wrong, and the ability to express them, are what freedom is about.  And
the ideas that are most important are often the ones the government doesn't
want heard.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker             AT&T Network Systems       attmail!att!cbemf!wbt
(614) 860-5294           Columbus, Ohio              [email-masked]
                      Humpty Dumpty was pushed!

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

Date:    Mon, 15 Nov 1993 08:22:51 +1000
From:    Derek Monz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RAF vs USAAF heavy bombardment

On Fri, 12 Nov 1993, Denis Ouellette, Indiana Univ wrote:

> One point to keep in mind is the relatively smaller size bombs and
> bomb loads dropped by US bombers.  Being on target doesn't help much
> if the munition isn't having much impact. (This point was made previosly
> with respect to the fact that the Germans found that many factories hit
> sustained only damage to the structure but most of the machine tools were
> left untouched - the reason - the inadequate 500 pound bombs used by the
> USSAF)
>
> Denis Ouellette

I read this too in two different sources.
     According to Brig Gen. Hayward S. Hansel Jr. ( commanding GEn XX AF
and XXI Bomber command). The Japanese noted that most of the bombs dropped
 by US bombers only damged the factory structure. They then "repaired" the
factory so that it still looked knocked out and continued production.
    But on a more relevant note Max Hastings in his book Bomber Command
says the same thing that germans were puzzled by the fact that a large
percentage of British and AAF bombs failed to explode. If they did then if
the machine tools in the factory didn't recieve a direct hit, the factory
could generally resume production once debris had been cleared.
 Anyway thats my two cents worth.

EMail: [email-masked]           Derek Monz @ JCU 1993
       Disclamer: - I didn't do it!
" If there is anything more important than my Ego.....
                 I want taken out and shot!"  (Zaphod Beablbrox (HHGTTG)).

                            ((-------))
                                \o/
                                 |
                               _/ \_

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

Date:    Mon, 15 Nov 1993 00:24:15 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RAF vs USAAF/ Me ??? Nightfighters

On Fri, 12 Nov 1993, Mike Long wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Nov 1993 10:02:35 -0330 Shawn Kenny said:
> >essential for daylight raids.  Also, not untill the Germans developed the
> >Me-?? night fighter did they encounter any major losses - the losses were
>
> This leads me to ask which of Germany's nightfighter types was the most
> successful. Me110? Ju88? I know they used Me110s Me210s Me262s Ju88s; what
> other types were used? Who was the most successful nightfighter pilot?

It was not the development of the aircraft, but the development of the
radar sets and adequate tactics that made the difference. For night
fighters, as far as I remember, they used:

Messerschmitt Bf 110 : intended as twin-engined heavy fighter, later
converted to night fighter. Performance suffered badly by the drag of the
antenna's, but it was fairly effective.

Junkers Ju 88 : Night-fighter versions of a fast bomber. The Ju 88 could
carry more equipment than the Bf 110, had good performance and surprising
maneuvrability. The Ju 88 finally replaced the Bf 110; it was probably
the most effective of the night fighters that were built in large numbers.

Heinkel He 219 Uhu : The He 219 was, after many doubts, built as a night
fighter. This was probably the best of the piston-engined night fighters,
but the Luftwaffe refused to order large-scale production.

Dornier Do 217 : Some night fighter versions of this medium bomber were
built, but they were too unwieldy and not liked by their crews.

Dornier Do 335, Messerschmitt Me 262, Focke-Wulf Ta 154, Junkes Ju 388 :
night fighters versions were designed and flown, but combat use was
minimal.

The Germans used also many day fighters, Me 109's and Fw 190's with a few
adaptations, as night fighters under the 'Wilde Sau' tactical concept:
they would be guided to the bomber stream by searchlights and the fire of
the bombardments.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Sun, 14 Nov 1993 19:03:52 EST
From:    "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: Re: Long Lance Torpedo

 To: Multiple recipients of List WWII-L ([email-masked])

 Mr.Todaka, Tokyo, Japan, an Imperial Japanese Navy weapons expert, stated in
 his letter to Mr.Norman Polmar, 28 Sept 1993, that it was his opinion the
 term of NAGAYARI (or Long Lance), probably originated in the United States
 rather than in Japan. He also stated the term of GYORAI (torpedo) was used
 in the IJN Combined Fleet (Rengo Kantai), and automatically meant the Type 93
 torpedo.
 Possibly someone on our side thought up the name. Maybe someone connected
 with Samuel Eliot Morison official History of the Navy in World WarII.
 The Japanese did not use nicknames of this kind with their weapons,usually.
 The torpedo was a Type 93 torpedo because it was adopted in the year 2593
 of the traditional calendar (1933). The Zero was called that because it was
 adopted in 2600 (last digit Zero), that is, 1940. Later in the war some
 aircraft got poetic names, but not in the 1930s. We had names like Aircobra
 and Wildcat, they just had designations like Type 99 Carrier-Borne Attack
 Airplane.
 U.S. Naval Technical Mission To Japan, March1946, "Japanese Torpedoes and
 Tubes, Article 1," did not mention Long Lance by name.
 We know the Japanese called the torpedo Type 93; the Japanese sources,
 moreover, indicated that the term NAGAYARI appears nowhere in Japanese
 studies.
 We need some American to step out of the historical shadows and say, I
 named the thing at such and such a time and it appeared first in such and
 such a study.
 QUESTION: Who gave the Long Lance its name, and why ?
 All comments are welcome !

 Carl Wernke
 [email-masked]

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 13 Nov 1993 to 14 Nov 1993
*************************************************