Subject: WWII-L Digest - 24 Mar 1994 to 25 Mar 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 00:00:25 -0500

There are 42 messages totalling 1154 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Re[2]: INF: Ike's prewar carreer
  2. Merlin engines, Spanish Bf109s, etc. (fwd) (4)
  3. Veteran aircraft: to fly or to display
  4. The Last Spitfire
  5. re : USAAF
  6. Merlin engines, Spitfires, etc... (4)
  7. WEAP: Hurricanes & Spits (3)
  8. INFO:  New USGPO Catalog (3)
  9. Hurricanes, Spitfires, and Reply-to addresses
 10. MEDIA: Battle of Britain (5)
 11. INF: AVAILABILITY OF LETTERS HOME
 12. WEAP:  Daimler-powered Spitfire (3)
 13. REVIEW: Rohwehr & Hummelchen, _Chronology_
 14. The Great Escape
 15. Is there a 'Montgomery AFB'? (2)
 16. INFO: Herbert Schob
 17. Spitfires in IAF? (2)
 18. MOVIE
 19. <No subject given>
 20. problems with listserv (2)
 21. Re[2]: Is there a 'Montgomery AFB'?
 22. WEAP: Daimler-powered Spitfire
 23. Gen:Movies--Stalingrad

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

Date:    Thu, 24 Mar 1994 22:20:08 EST
From:    "Jonah Triebwasser, Adjunct Instructor,
         Marist Coll" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: INF: Ike's prewar carreer

>
>> What is a "Proceedings?"  A form of formal written account of
>> the Symposium?  Please explain further, and I will check out
>    In a word, yes. Usually after some event such as the one in which
>so many noted scholars participated, there would be a summation
>published after the event as a matter of record for the conference.
>This record would contain the gist of the points made and discussed.
>If there is such a record, I would like to obtain a copy. Please
>advise, and if there are expenses, please let me know.
>
Please post this information to the list. I (and perhaps others)
would also be interested in obtaining this document. Thank you.

Jonah Triebwasser
Adjunct Instructor
Marist College
Dyson Building (Adult Education)
Poughkeepsie, New York12601
Tel: (914) 575-3331, ext. 7037
E-Mail: [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 24 Mar 1994 18:16:28 -0600
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Merlin engines, Spanish Bf109s, etc. (fwd)

In message World War II Discussion List writes:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 1994, Robert J. Granvin wrote:
>
> > As far as Spitfires, they could still outperform much in the sky, though
> > they
> > didn't have the range.  They were easy and cheap to build and the entire
> > aircraft assembly structure was designed around them.  To convert to the
> > much
> > more complicated Mustang would have been unreasonable, especially since the
> > Spitfire continued to prove its role.
>
> I always understood that the Spitfire was NOT easy to build, nor cheap,
> because its design was uncompromised, while the P-51 was designed with
> large-scale production in mind. E.g. the main spar of the P-51 is a simple
> piece of profiled metal -- a L profile, if I remember correctly -- while
> the spar of the Spitfire is made up from a number of rectangular tubes
> fitting into each other. The Spitfire also has far more curved lines, that
> are difficult to manufacture.

That simple piece of profiled metal is costing us in excess of $95,000.

Simple and ease is a relative term, which I guess I should have been more
clear about.

It is easier for Britain to build Spitfires because their entire industry
was set up around the Spitfire, Hurricane, etc. etc. etc.  It is not an
easy process to shut down facilities and completely retool for a new
product.  The Spitfire was definitely not a dead aircraft, so there was
no motivation to shut down production in favor of something else.

Also, the retooling from/to metric/english systems ain't easy.  :-)

But, in all things, even the difficult becomes easy when you do enough of it.

>
> Spitfire production was 20351, that of the P-51 14819, but the production
> of the Spitfire was done on a longer time scale.

But the Spitfire was not always the top production model.  The Hurricane
was seen as far more interesting.  It just got a lot less press and
accolades during and after the war.  :-)  The Mustang for many years
after the war as a front-line aircraft.  When did the Spitfire production
end?  (I don't know -- I'm curious... Any answers?)

--
Robert J. Granvin                                             [email-masked]
University of Minnesota, School of Statistics
         "I'm my father?  I'm my mother?  I'm chipped beef on toast?"

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

Date:    Thu, 24 Mar 1994 21:35:28 -0600
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Merlin engines, Spanish Bf109s, etc. (fwd)

In message  writes:
> I'm pretty sure that the Zeros in Empire of the Sun were the
> converted Texans used originally in Tora x 3.  The CAF flys a
> number of them, including pseudo Val's and Kate's.  Last summer
> I finally got a close look at them at an airshow and was very
> disappointed--up close they look like Texans with a nose job!

That's basically what they are.  The unfortunate thing to remember is that
these airplanes were modified for a one-time mission.  They were not
intended to be preserved... In fact, most of them were expected to be simply
scrapped or sold for parts after the movie was done.  At that time, T-6s and
BT-13s were a dime a dozen.

The modifications were all made by Hollywood folks and were only done to look
good from a distance.  They were never meant to be examined close up.  :-)

During the production, the CAF and others worked towards at least saving
the aircraft and make use of them, which was successfully done.  Since that
time, some of the aircraft have been "spruced up" to at least be better close
up... After all, a lot of it is Bondo extensions....

> I also felt the famous Pearl Harbor attack put on by the CAF
> was pretty hoaky (Note:  this is not an attack on the CAF--just
> that aspect of their show)

I thought it was fairly reasonable, even though you can tell its a standard
routine just repeated several times to fill up time.  That's a safety factor,
of course.  On the other hand, the idea here is to tell a story, where the
airplanes are almost literally just part of the background.

Would like to see a better display, but there aren't many other places you'll
see that many warbirds in the air at one time... :-)

> Also, several models of P-51's werre used in the Making of
> Empire of the Sun.

I never saw the movie, other than clips.  All I've see were D models, though
at the time, one B and one A model were flying as well.

--
Robert J. Granvin                                             [email-masked]
University of Minnesota, School of Statistics
         "I'm my father?  I'm my mother?  I'm chipped beef on toast?"

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

Date:    Thu, 24 Mar 1994 23:05:56 +0000
From:    John Behrens <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Merlin engines, Spanish Bf109s, etc. (fwd)

On Thu, 24 Mar 1994, John E. Kollar wrote:

> But, everyone knows that the P-38 was king during the war. :)
> Or maybe the F4U, but the Hog was pretty unforgiving.
>
Depends on the theatre.  In Europe, it was actually the P-47 Thunderbolt
that did all the work, until the P51 came along later and stole all the
glory.  Thats right, the big old Jug was the primary frontline American
fighter until mid to late 43, when the P-51D's started showing up in
force.

                                John

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

Date:    Thu, 24 Mar 1994 23:01:01 +0000
From:    John Behrens <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Veteran aircraft: to fly or to display

> It is stated that "....the greatest loss of veteran aircraft has
> occurred with static aircraft through hangar fires".  Interesting...
> and when one throws in hurricanes....well....it appears that
> keeping them in flying condition may well be the best way to
> guarantee their survival.
>
> Bill
> [email-masked]
>

interesting point.  I know I'm game to seeing them flying for a long time
to come.  Nothing can compare to the sound of those big engines as they
roar by connected to those beautiful airframes.  While at the race last
weekend, there was a vendor there that sold tapes of the different races
at Reno a year or two ago.  They appearently mounted a mike on one of the
pylons and recorded the aircraft as they flew by.  The recordings are in
stereo, and to listen to them through a pair of headphones is, well...
incredable.

                                        John

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 01:35:52 CST
From:    Steve Alvin <[email-masked]>
Subject: The Last Spitfire

The final Spitfire, a Griffon powered F24 was delieverd in
1948.  Only 81 of the F24's were built, one squadron was equippedn
with this fighter in Hong-Kong and another 24 were moth-balled in
1952, but later scrapped.  The last Seafire was built in March,
1949.

The planned Spitfire replacement, the Vickers-Supermarine Spiteful
entired service in 1946.  It was powered by a 2,375hp Griffon
engine.  The F16 had a three stage blower system that allowed it
to reach a maximum speed of 494 mph!  The RAF received 373 Spite-
ful's.

--
Steve Alvin
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 10:19:00 CET
From:    Peter de Lange <[email-masked]>
Subject: re : USAAF

Jack, I love your series about the USAAF.
You wrote:

>WEDNESDAY, 8 MARCH 1944
>  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): In the Netherlands, 225+ B-26s
>attack Volkel Airfield once and Soesterberg Airfield twice in morning and
>afternoon missions.

That day, my mother was furies, not on the bombers, even not on the
Germans, but on that stupid men that construct the water supply-line
under the runway of Soesterberg AFB so we were out of water for 2 days.
That should happen a lot of times more in the coming months.
We liked that, it was the only way we know that the war was coming
closer and with that the liberation, but that stupid men......
She is still furies about that!
Peter de Lange

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 06:35:08 -0500
From:    Daniel Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Merlin engines, Spanish Bf109s, etc. (fwd)

Dan Ford      <e-mail: [email-masked]>

              <postal: 433 Bay Road, Durham NH 03824 USA>
              <voice or fax: +1-603-868-5850>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 18:16:28 -0600
From: Robert J. Granvin <[email-masked]>
To: Multiple recipients of list WWII-L <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Merlin engines, Spanish Bf109s, etc. (fwd)

In message World War II Discussion List writes:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 1994, Robert J. Granvin wrote:
>
> > As far as Spitfires, they could still outperform much in the sky, though
> > they
> > didn't have the range.  They were easy and cheap to build and the entire
> > aircraft assembly structure was designed around them.  To convert to the
> > much
> > more complicated Mustang would have been unreasonable, especially since the
> > Spitfire continued to prove its role.
>
> I always understood that the Spitfire was NOT easy to build, nor cheap,
> because its design was uncompromised, while the P-51 was designed with
> large-scale production in mind. E.g. the main spar of the P-51 is a simple
> piece of profiled metal -- a L profile, if I remember correctly -- while
> the spar of the Spitfire is made up from a number of rectangular tubes
> fitting into each other. The Spitfire also has far more curved lines, that
> are difficult to manufacture.

That simple piece of profiled metal is costing us in excess of $95,000.

Simple and ease is a relative term, which I guess I should have been more
clear about.

It is easier for Britain to build Spitfires because their entire industry
was set up around the Spitfire, Hurricane, etc. etc. etc.  It is not an
easy process to shut down facilities and completely retool for a new
product.  The Spitfire was definitely not a dead aircraft, so there was
no motivation to shut down production in favor of something else.

Also, the retooling from/to metric/english systems ain't easy.  :-)

But, in all things, even the difficult becomes easy when you do enough of it.

>
> Spitfire production was 20351, that of the P-51 14819, but the production
> of the Spitfire was done on a longer time scale.

But the Spitfire was not always the top production model.  The Hurricane
was seen as far more interesting.  It just got a lot less press and
accolades during and after the war.  :-)  The Mustang for many years
after the war as a front-line aircraft.  When did the Spitfire production
end?  (I don't know -- I'm curious... Any answers?)

--
Robert J. Granvin                                             [email-masked]
University of Minnesota, School of Statistics
         "I'm my father?  I'm my mother?  I'm chipped beef on toast?"

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 08:22:46 EST
From:    Aldo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Merlin engines, Spitfires, etc...

>But the Spitfire was not always the top production model.  The
>Hurricane
>was seen as far more interesting.  It just got a lot less press and
>accolades during and after the war.  :-)  The Mustang for many years
>after the war as a front-line aircraft.  When did the Spitfire
>production end?  (I don't know -- I'm curious... Any answers?)

I remember talking to a couple of men who grew-up in England during
the war, and like all boys of the age had a deep interest in war
aircraft; anyway they considered the Hurricane superior to the
Spitfire; indeed the Hurricane was the plane they claimed
won the battle of britan.   Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Aldo M. Hubert
                                           [email-masked]
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
800 Oakland Ave.
Greensboro NC 27412

Sic Friatur Crustum Dulce

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 14:53:57 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Merlin engines, Spitfires, etc...

On Fri, 25 Mar 1994, Aldo wrote:

> I remember talking to a couple of men who grew-up in England during
> the war, and like all boys of the age had a deep interest in war
> aircraft; anyway they considered the Hurricane superior to the
> Spitfire; indeed the Hurricane was the plane they claimed
> won the battle of britan.   Anyone have any thoughts on this?

The Hurricane was a more conservative design than the Spitfire. It used
the steel-tube and cloth technology of the biplane age. In fact the design
was first known as the 'Fury Monoplane', indicating that it inherited much
of the famous Fury biplane fighter. Sidney Camm had an evolutionary
appraoch to aircraft design.

For the industry of 1938, it was much easier to built and maintain in
large numbers than the Spitfire with its stressed-skin structure. There
was a far more larger number of Hurricanes in the RAF inventory when the
Battle of Britain began, despite combat losses in Norway and France (the
few Spitfires were always kept at home). Hurricanes did most of the
fighting, and destroyed over half the German aircraft lost, in the Battle
of Britain.

On the other hand, the Spitfire was certainly the superior fighter, faster
and more agile, with a much larger development potential. The Hurricane
was really inferior to the Bf 109E, but was sturdy and a good gun
platform, and had a wide-track undercarriage. The RAF tried (it was not
always possible) to counter the Bf 109s with Spitfires and to use the
Hurricanes to attack the bombers. Later some kind of policy developed that
kept the Spitfires were in Britain, while the less valuable Hurricanes
were sent to secondary theatres like the Middle- and Far East.  As soon as
possible, the Hurricane was gradually phased out. The survivors were very
useful as ground-attack aircraft, armed with rockets or 40mm cannon.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 08:59:11 EST
From:    Richard Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: Hurricanes & Spits

Reading real quickly in the Time-Life World War II series on the Battle of
Britain, the editors state that of 61 fighter squadrons, "nearly half" were
equipped with Hurricanes while only 20 had spits.  I realize that "nearly"
could even be 25, but the crux of the commentary compared the Hurricane's range
of 600 miles to the ME-109's 410 miles.  For the Germans that amounted to only
20 minutes time over England, less if you're taking evasive measures.
Because of its slower speed and manueverability, the Hurricane was used
primarily as a bomber interceptor, while the Spit became the dog-fighter.
Now I ask you; which is the more glamorous role?, add to that, which was the
"prettier" plane?

It seems to me that the role of the Hurricane compared to the Spitfire, which
did ultimately replace it; is somewhat akin to the glory and aura surrounding
the B-17 compared to the B-24.

                                        Richard Kaplan
                                        Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 09:00:39 EST
From:    Lowe Barrett MAJ <[email-masked]>
Subject: INFO:  New USGPO Catalog

WWII-L Listers:

This just came out.  USGPO is offering a free catalog entitled
"US Govt Books About Military History".

You can obtain a copy by writing:

Superintendent of Documents
Military History Catalog
Room 3095
Mail Stop:  SM
Washington, DC  20401

See ya,

Barry

Barrett F. Lowe               RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!
MAJ, IN
Dept of Physics, West Point  (e-mail:  [email-masked])

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 09:48:02 -0500
From:    Daniel Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Hurricanes, Spitfires, and Reply-to addresses

Is anyone else having the same problem I am, replying to messages posted
on the List? Before today, there was a "from" address and a "reply to"
address, with one being the list and the other being the poster. At least
with the software on my machine, this gave the option of replying on the
list or off. Now the addresses are the same.

With respect to Hurricanes winning the Battle of Birtain, I certainly
think that was true, but not really because it was the better plane,
merely because it was available in quantity in 1940.

By the fall of 1941 the RAF was sending Hurricanes in quantity to the Far
East. Since Asia sucked hind tit on everything, that suggests that at
least by mid-1941 the RAF considered the Hurricane less desirable than
the Spitfire.

No Spits fought in Malaya or Burma up until the fall of Burma.

As late as the summer of 1942, there was a Mohawk (P-36) squadron based
in India and flying missions into Burma. Canadian, I think. That shows
the priority the RAF gave to Asia.

Dan Ford      <e-mail: [email-masked]>

              <postal: 433 Bay Road, Durham NH 03824 USA>
              <voice or fax: +1-603-868-5850>

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 10:02:51 -0500
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: MEDIA: Battle of Britain

        I would like to mesh two current topics: the declining number of
vintage aircraft and the Battle of Britain.  I recently watched the movie,
"The Battle of Britain", and I was amazed at all the aircraft that were in
it.  To my untrained eye, the aircraft looked authentic.  My question is,
if they were authentic, did no one have any compunctions about destroying
them for the movie?  The opening scene has some Hurricanes being destroyed
on the ground and they didn't look like models or mock-ups.  The movie was
made in 1960 (early 60s, anyway) so there still may have been tons of the
airplanes lying around and no one considered their historical importance
at the time.  I had such a sinking feeling as I watched that scene (and
not for the reason that the movie-maker intended).
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
I thought you said three Shermans.  Those
nuts have brought half the army with them.

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 08:20:35 +0100
From:    John Ausland <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: AVAILABILITY OF LETTERS HOME

  Oslo, March 25.  There have been a number of queries, both on and off the
list, about how to get my book LETTERS HOME, following my posting the FRANCE
Magazine article about it.  Briefly, it is available in the US through Sidney
Kramer Books in Washington, DC, toll free number 1 800 423 2665.
  Anyone outside the US should send an EMAIL message to me.  I am now also
offering it on disk at half the price of the paper version, or $15.  This
contains all the text, photos, and maps.  The text can be printed.  I have used
the program Writer's Dream, which is very easy to use.
  Regards, John Ausland

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 10:29:39 -0500
From:    Ron Babuka <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Hurricanes & Spits

>Reading real quickly in the Time-Life World War II series on the Battle of
>Britain, the editors state that of 61 fighter squadrons, "nearly half" were
>equipped with Hurricanes while only 20 had spits.  I realize that "nearly"

One could get into many this was better than this kinds of arguments by
looking at the total number of aircraft downed, the types downed, and the
deployments of RAF aircraft, thus attempting to come up with an answer to
what aircraft won the Battle of Britain.   I think the more important
answer would be that the tactics and deployment of to complimentary
interceptor/fighters won the Battle of Britain.  The RAF was smart (or
lucky) enough to have two fighters that were both well designed to assist
each other in in their mission.   The RAF had a large number od Hurricanes
that were a very stable gun platform, had decent firepower, and were able
to absorb alot of battle damage - this made them perfect for going up
against Luftwaffe bomber forces.  The RAF also possesed a smaller number of
nimble Spitfires that could keep the smaller number of escorting fighters
busy and allow the Hurricanes to attack.    When the RAF was able to deploy
their forces in this manner - it ussually spelled a tough (or tougher) day
for the Luftwaffe.  When the RAF was not able to maximize the deployment of
their forces - then that is when it came down to pilot skill and the
abilities of the aircraft involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Babuka
Cornell University
CIT - Information Resources
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 254-6492

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 11:05:15 -0400
From:    "Dennis E. Sparks" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP:  Daimler-powered Spitfire

Actually, there was one Spitfire powered by a German engine.
A captured Spitfire (I'm not sure if it was a Mk V or IX) was
re-engined by the Luftwaffe with a Daimler Benz DB601 or DB605
engine to compare its performance against a similarly powered
Bf 109.  This was not #K5054, the prototype Spitfire, which as
Steve points out, was powered from the start with a Merlin I.
If I remember correctly , there is a a photo of the Daimler-powered
Spitfire, replete with oversized German markings in the
Squadron/Signal "In Action" book on the Spitfire.

The reverse was true, however.  The *first* Bf 109 was powered by
a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine, as the intended Jumo 211 wasn't
available.  The earliest production Bf 109s were powered by various
versions of the Jumo 211, but the aircraft was designed from the start
to allow fitting of the DB600 series engines, first introduced on the
Bf 109E model.

A final note:  The last of the Spitfire family (excluding the
Spitfire-derived Spiteful that Steve mentioned) was the Seafire 47,
which saw service in the Korean War.  Here's a brief comparison of
the first and the last of the breed, taken from Jeffery Quill's book
"Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story".

Spitire Mk Ia:  1030 hp Merlin III engine, top speed 362 mph, normal
fully loaded take off weight was 5820 lbs, range 575 miles.

Seafire Mk 47:  2350 hp Griffon 88 engine, top speed 452 mph, with
a range of up to 1475 miles, and a normal loaded take off weight of
10,300 lbs.  Maximum overloaded take off weight was an incredible
12,500 lbs.  This would be the equivalent of a fully loaded
Spitfire I carrying an additional 32 passengers, with each carrying
a standard 40 lb baggage allotment.

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

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 08:27:45 PST
From:    Alan Hepburn <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Merlin engines, Spitfires, etc...

Aldo Hubert writes:

"I remember talking to a couple of men who grew-up in England during
the war, and like all boys of the age had a deep interest in war
aircraft; anyway they considered the Hurricane superior to the
Spitfire; indeed the Hurricane was the plane they claimed
won the battle of britan.   Anyone have any thoughts on this?"

I don't know if the Hurry was considered superior, but the Spit
had a stronger airframe.  According to Len Deighton in "The Battle
of Britain" On 1 July 1940 Fighter command had at its disposal:

plane               total  serviceable
----------          -----  -----
Hurricane           463    347
Spitfire            286    160
Defiant              37     25
Blenheim            114     59

---

Alan Hepburn            "Freedom is increasingly defined as the accumulation
National Semiconductor   of rights and entitlements, and as a license for any
Santa Clara, Ca          form of self-gratification."
[email-masked]                                       Zbigniew Brzezinski

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 17:22:25 CET
From:    "LTC Donnell, Doug" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Merlin engines, Spitfires, etc...

The hurricane did win the battle of britain, if for no other reason than
sheer numbers.  I don't have the figures here but the number of hurricanes
for exceeded the spitfires.  I'm sure that others on the list will
be able to add numbers and performance details.
                               Doug Donnell

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 13:27:25 -0230
From:    OLAF <[email-masked]>
Subject: REVIEW: Rohwehr & Hummelchen, _Chronology_

Larry, we ran a review of Rohwehr & Hummelchen, _Chronology of
the War at Sea 1939-1945_ in the October 1994 issue of our
journal, _The Northern Mariner_. A copy of the review follows.

Olaf Janzen
Reviews Editor
_The Northern Mariner_

Department of History               Tel: (709) 637-6282
Sir Wilfred Grenfell College        FAX: (709) 639-8125
Corner Brook, Newfoundland          e-mail: [email-masked]
Canada
A2H 6P9

Jurgen Rohwer and Gerhard Hummelchen; trans. Derek Masters.
_Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945: The Naval History of
World War Two_. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1992. xiv +
432 pp., indices, abbreviations, glossary. US $49.95, cloth; ISBN
1-55750-105-X.

This work was first published in two volumes in 1972-74 and
quickly established itself as one of the major reference sources
for the naval history of World War II. However, like so many of
its contemporaries, its first edition no longer reflects our
current knowledge of this titanic struggle. The authors and their
publisher felt that it was imperative to issue an up-date which
would incorporate the results of the past two decades of research
on this period. Both of its collaborators are well known and very
active in researching the naval history of World War II --
although the publisher chose to omit the German umlaut from
Hummelchen's name!
     The main text is divided into seven distinct parts,
beginning with 19 August, 1939 and ending with an entry for 30
November, 1945. The information is presented in a year-by-year
format. There are essentially three types of entries: outlining
the events of a single day, full operations, or by theatre within
a definite time period. On those occasions when one event is
connected with another which happened earlier or later, the text
directs the reader to the appropriate entry. The main text is
heavily supported by seven indexes which greatly facilitate the
search for any specific individual, force, or ship mentioned.
Readers will benefit immensely from the preface, which outlines
the various international sources utilized in the creation of
this work. The authors have also very wisely incorporated a
detailed two-page combined glossary and list of abbreviations at
the front of this volume.
     For the most part, the entries are accurate, brief, and
crisp. Nevertheless, a few do require a second reading for com-
plete clarity. Readers who want to use this book to uncover
warship trivia will be somewhat disappointed because the authors
have deliberately ignored details such as warship launching,
completions or commissionings, as well as the dates of name
changes or even transfers from one navy to another. For example,
readers will only know that the HMS UGANDA was turned over to the
Canadian Navy between 12 June and 16 July, 1945. Even the date
that the German pocket-battleship DEUTSCHLAND was renamed LU"TZOW
is not indicated. The authors have also, perhaps wisely, decided
to steer clear of offering opinions on the war's few remaining
controversies. For example, they state that the HOOD was sunk in
an engagement with the BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN, without
assigning any credit to either ship. Perhaps the major drawback
of this edition is the complete lack of any illustrations, photo-
graphs, maps, or tables. This makes the work slightly more
tedious to read, but is consistent with a work designed to be
skimmed, or used as a quick reference.
     Apart from these minor criticisms, this new edition is a far
superior guide to the naval history of World War II. Readers will
certainly benefit from the major change in this edition, the
incorporation of details illustrating the impact of "Ultra" and
"Purple" on the operations of the Allies. Strangely, it appears
that this source of intelligence was exploited far more success-
fully against Germany than Japan in some ways. Even with the aid
of "Purple" intercepts, some US submarines were simply not able
to attack Japanese warships and merchantmen successfully.
Nevertheless, it is clear that without the information gleamed
from this source, the war would have lasted much longer. Overall,
readers will profit immensely from consulting this edition and it
must be considered a classic reference source on the naval
history of World War II.

                                              Peter K.H. Mispelkamp
                                              Pointe Claire, Quebec

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 10:09:20 PST
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INFO:  New USGPO Catalog

Many thanks, Barry, for the source address for US mil.hist books.
Regards.

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 10:13:43 PST
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA: Battle of Britain

Rest easy, Joe.
Those "Hurricanes" seen being destroyed in the ground in BOB, were
all replicas,
The real mass-demolition of Hurries, and all other types of kite,
was done 20 years earlier by the British and US governments.
So much for official sense of historical perspective...

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 12:17:05 -0600
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP:  Daimler-powered Spitfire

> Seafire Mk 47:  2350 hp Griffon 88 engine, top speed 452 mph, with
> a range of up to 1475 miles, and a normal loaded take off weight of
> 10,300 lbs.  Maximum overloaded take off weight was an incredible
> 12,500 lbs.  This would be the equivalent of a fully loaded
> Spitfire I carrying an additional 32 passengers, with each carrying
> a standard 40 lb baggage allotment.

Wow!

And this would solve all of our airshow staffing problems!

--
Robert J. Granvin                                             [email-masked]
University of Minnesota, School of Statistics
         "I'm my father?  I'm my mother?  I'm chipped beef on toast?"

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 12:32:37 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA: Battle of Britain

Hello, Joe!

>         I would like to mesh two current topics: the declining number of
> vintage aircraft and the Battle of Britain.  I recently watched the movie,
> "The Battle of Britain", and I was amazed at all the aircraft that were in
> it.  To my untrained eye, the aircraft looked authentic.  My question is,
> if they were authentic, did no one have any compunctions about destroying
> them for the movie?  The opening scene has some Hurricanes being destroyed
> on the ground and they didn't look like models or mock-ups.  The movie was
> made in 1960 (early 60s, anyway) so there still may have been tons of the
> airplanes lying around and no one considered their historical importance
> at the time.  I had such a sinking feeling as I watched that scene (and
> not for the reason that the movie-maker intended).

    Joe, Ballantine Books came out with a book just after that movie
was made in which the production of this movie was the sole topic. It
is called "The Battle of Britain: The Making of the Movie" by Leonard
Moseley. I can't recall specifically what it said about destroying
mockups, etc, but much detail was devoted to the controversy
surrounding it. Any aircraft destroyed in this movie were mockups,
not the originals. The German aircraft used in that movie were, of
course, Spanish with Merlin engines.

    That is my two cents' worth on it anyway, and I hope it helps.

    Terry

Terry Moore, Professor of German and French, Amarillo College
P.O. Box 447, Amarillo, Texas 79178, voice 806-371-5077
fax 806-371-5370

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 11:37:00 PST
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: The Great Escape

Today, March 25, is the 50th anniversary of the "great escape" in 1944
of Allied PWs from Stalag Luft III, Sagan, Germany.
The escapers, mostly of the Royal Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force,
left via a tunnel they had dug under the wire. Seventy-nine airmen got
out, and three of them (one Dutch, 2 Norwegian) eventually reached
freedom in England. All the remaining 76 escapers were recaptured. Adolph
Hitler personally ordered Himmler to have them executed. This was, of
course, a vile crime against the geneva Convention. 50 airmen were
shot out of hand by the SS, with pretence of reason or trial. (A lucky
26 managed to survive by being re-captured by the Luftwaffe).
        Today, The Great Escape's 50th anniversary is being commemorated
at Cenotaphs and war memorials throughout the British Commonwealth. Among
them, there was a ceremony at the National War Memorial, Ottawa, Canada.
We salute our 50 comrades who were martyrs to Nazi brutality; died in
the cause of freedom we all still enjoy by their sacrifice.
PER ARDUA AD ASTRA.

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 13:09:39 CST
From:    jesse carnes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Is there a 'Montgomery AFB'?

Hey all on WWII ;

Is there a Montgomery Air Force Base?
If so, located where?

Jesse Carnes("World's greatest lover of the B-17")
[email-masked]
LSU at Baton Rouge, LA
------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 14:40:37 EST
From:    Lowe Barrett MAJ <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INFO:  New USGPO Catalog

>Many thanks, Barry, for the source address for US mil.hist books.
>Regards.
>

Sidney,

My pleasure to share this.

Barry

Barrett F. Lowe               RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!
MAJ, IN
Dept of Physics, West Point  (e-mail:  [email-masked])

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 14:53:11 CST
From:    Steve Alvin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP:  Daimler-powered Spitfire

The last combat mission flown by a RAF Spitfire was by a P. R.
Model that flew over Malaya in 1954.  Some Spits may have soldiered
on in the R. Aux. A. F. for a little longer.

--
Steve Alvin
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 15:01:48 -0600
From:    "WILLIAM L. HUBER - SAA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA: Battle of Britain

Re: Movie Battle of Britain:

> ...... Any aircraft destroyed in this movie were mockups,
> not the originals. The German aircraft used in that movie were, of
> course, Spanish with Merlin engines.
>
> Terry Moore, Professor of German and French, Amarillo College

Howdy guys,

I had heard the Ju 87s were 3/4 sized replicas.  Is that true?  I
have never seen the movie - one of he few I've missed but true none
the less.  I'm gonna go see _Schindler's List_  tonight and I'm
wired!

Cheers, Bill Huber / [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 15:11:05 -0600
From:    "WILLIAM L. HUBER - SAA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Is there a 'Montgomery AFB'?

> Hey all on WWII ;
>
> Is there a Montgomery Air Force Base?
> If so, located where?
>
> Jesse Carnes("World's greatest lover of the B-17")
> [email-masked]
> LSU at Baton Rouge, LA
> ------------------------------------------------

Hi Jesse,

There is a Gunter AFB in Montgomery, Alabama but that's the only thing
I can think of.  Its the home of the Air Force History office and a
major computing center which is why I happen to know anything about
it.

Ciao, Bill Huber / computer weasel / [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 16:42:52 -0500
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA: Battle of Britain

Terry and all,

        Thanks for the comforting info!
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
You're a good man, Mulligan.

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 16:06:55 -0600
From:    "WILLIAM L. HUBER - SAA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INFO: Herbert Schob

>       I am curently making a 1/32 scale model of the Bf110G. I cam across a
> pilot who's aircraft sounded like it would be good to make. His name is
> Herbert Schob. He went from enlisted rank to that of Oberleutnant ( by
> mar 44). I haven't got much else on him, unfortunately so If anyone has
> any info on the man,his plane, his unit (ZG76) or the 110 in defending
> Germany in daylight I would like to hear from them.
>
> EMail:  [email-masked]  Msc (Geology)@ JCU 1993

Hi Derek,

I didn't see a follow up on this so I'll give you what I found.

Schob won the German Cross in Gold as an Oberfeldwebel and aircraft
commander in a Nachtjaeger Geschwader.  Date of award was 27 April
1942.  He won the Knights Cross as an Oberleutnant and aircraft
commander in II/ZG 76.  Date of that award was 9 June 1944.  He didn't
appear in my Luftwaffe Ranklist for 1945 so either he did not make
captain or was lost before that date.  The German Cross and Knights
Cross books normally indicate if the recipient died and in Schob's
case this is not indicated so I assume he finished the war as a 1st
Lt.

There is an excellent series on pilots who won the Knights Cross which
I do not possess but will acquire one day.  Maybe someone else on the
list may have it and can provide better data.  There is one more
reference that I can look up on the Ehren Pokal.  If you would like me
to check that I will - I just forgot that one when looking Schob up in
the others.

Cheers, Bill Huber / [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 16:58:58 EDT
From:    Pawel Kazmierczyk <[email-masked]>
Subject: Spitfires in IAF?

Hello,

Following the thread on the Spit, I recall hearing somewhere that
Isreal had Spitfires in its Air Force. Is it true?

Pawel

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 12:42:38 EST
From:    Bill Vasilion <[email-masked]>
Subject: MOVIE

           HI...

                 For those of you near Chicago I saw that Channell
          11 the public television station is showing the movie
                '49TH PARRELL'    LAWERENCE OLIVER.
          I will have the ol tape machine going tonight.........

              As far as the warbirds....since my father was in the
          army air corps, someday I would like to see them flying.
          I can understand the feeling some have for keeping them in
          musemums.....though I would rather see them there than have
          some person have his own private collection.

              I  am heading for Washington Dc. this easter week..so
        I hope to visit the air and space musuem again......This time I
         will have more interest in the warbirds..........

                        bill     [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 14:59:06 EST
From:    Bill Vasilion <[email-masked]>
Subject: <No subject given>

        Thank you Sidney..........

           I am glad that you sent that...........

       We too often forget that Freedom is a privlige not a right ....
       It it is a privilege to live in a country that believes in it.

           On another note.....yes I have seen the movie.......
        Is Paris burning.. it was very good. Also Life magazine did
        an interview with Gen Cholditz who did not blow up Paris.

           I am starting to reread the book.......again..........

       for the fifth or 6 th time................

                bill     [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 17:26:55 -0500
From:    GERHARD REMPEL <[email-masked]>
Subject: problems with listserv

Sorry to bother the List........
I am trying to take a breather and set my options to nomail, but the
durn ListServ tells me I am not subscribed!!!
Can someone help out....

Gerhard Rempel
GRempel@WNEC/Western New England College, Springfield, Ma 01119. USA

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 18:12:46 -0500
From:    Ronald A Wilson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Is there a 'Montgomery AFB'?

   Subject: Re: Is there a 'Montgomery AFB'? Re: Gunter AFB in
   Montgomery, Alabama.

   Gunter AFB is also the home of the AF Senior NCO Academy which
   has just completed a major upgrade adding a new auditorium,
   classrooms, etc.

   In the early 60's, Gunter was responsible for all USAF medical
   technician training and was the Basic Military Training for
   Medical personnel (BMTM). All doctors and nurses coming into
   the AF went there to learn how to salute without sticking
   their thumb in their eye and how to wear the uniform, etc.
   The base was (is?) about half a mile from a state penitentiary
   I remember giving trustees rides into Montgomery.  I was at
   Gunter for the AF Operating Room Technician school in early
   '63.  All med-tech and Dr. and RN school are now at Sheppard
   AFB Wichita Falls, Tx. Spent a year there also; met my wife of
   23 years there.

   Ron Wilson, CMSgt, USAFR
   Seattle

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 18:14:40 -0500
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: problems with listserv

Gerhard,

        I set it for you yesterday!  Are you still receiving mail?

                Joe

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 15:11:54 +0000
From:    John Behrens <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Hurricanes & Spits

> It seems to me that the role of the Hurricane compared to the Spitfire, which
> did ultimately replace it; is somewhat akin to the glory and aura surrounding
> the B-17 compared to the B-24.
>
>                                         Richard Kaplan
>                                         Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
>
Or the aura surrounding the P-51 compared to the P-47.

                                        John

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 15:25:42 +0000
From:    John Behrens <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Daimler-powered Spitfire

On Fri, 25 Mar 1994, Dennis E. Sparks wrote:

> Actually, there was one Spitfire powered by a German engine.
> A captured Spitfire (I'm not sure if it was a Mk V or IX) was
> re-engined by the Luftwaffe with a Daimler Benz DB601 or DB605
> engine to compare its performance against a similarly powered
> Bf 109.  This was not #K5054, the prototype Spitfire, which as
> Steve points out, was powered from the start with a Merlin I.
> If I remember correctly , there is a a photo of the Daimler-powered
> Spitfire, replete with oversized German markings in the
> Squadron/Signal "In Action" book on the Spitfire.

Don't keep us in suspense, how did the two aircraft compare when powered
by the same engine?  Anyone out there know or can get their hands on some
literature that would answer this question?  I will check the "In Action"
book on the Spit tonight to see the picture and if it contains the
answer.  Will update tomorrow.

                                        JOhn

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 20:47:46 CST
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Spitfires in IAF?

> Hello,
>
> Following the thread on the Spit, I recall hearing somewhere that
> Isreal had Spitfires in its Air Force. Is it true?

Me-109's too, if you are one of those that finds it kindof ironic...

--
Robert J. Granvin                                    Southern Minnesota Wing
[email-masked]                                       Confederate Air Force

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Mar 1994 23:21:58 -0500
From:    David Rising <[email-masked]>
Subject: Gen:Movies--Stalingrad

After having remained rather quiet about all the movie discussion lately,
and about all the bantering about Schindler's List (which was GREAT BTW),
I have but one question: hasn't anybody seen _Stalingrad_? I saw it at
the start of the year (Jan.) although it was released here in Toronto in
December. It was produced by the same people as _Das Boot_ (yes, it's
also in German with subtitles :)--I hate dubbed movies!!!), and is now,
perhaps, my favorite war movie. The uniforms/equipment/scenarios etc. all
seem to be a very close approximation of the real thing (from my
reading), and the plot (I'm sure you all know most of it from the title)
never lacks in it's 3hrs. Just surprised nobody's said anything about it
on the list. Was it only released in a few cities? Anyway, it's well
worth the 8 bucks or whatever a movie costs in your neck of the woods
($40.00 with girlfriend and confections here--aaak!)
David Rising

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 24 Mar 1994 to 25 Mar 1994
*************************************************