Subject: WWII-L Digest - 8 May 1994 to 9 May 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 00:01:07 -0400

There are 33 messages totalling 947 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. World War 1 List
  2. INF: USN Chronology 05-09-94
  3. P-61 Black Widow
  4. REF: TIME LIFE BOOKS ON WWII?
  5. German paratroopers dropped sans chutes?
  6. MASONS IN WW-II (2)
  7. The Great Escape
  8. HIST: "Freemasonry" (2)
  9. Recoilless guns (10)
 10. HIST: More on Freemasonry and Nazis
 11. WWI-L
 12. Tiny Tim rocket
 13. SYMPOSIUM:  CALL FOR PEOPLE AND PAPERS
 14. SYMPOSIUM: CALL FOR PEOPLE AND PAPERS
 15. C-SPAN D-Day Show
 16. P-61 radar
 17. recoilless guns and misc. (3)
 18. remove user from list
 19. Order of Battle
 20. Leon Degrelle

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 08:41:02 BST
From:    Stephen Baldwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: World War 1 List

Ladies and Gentlemen!

I understand an "advert" was sent out to MILHIST-L and WWII-L for
WWI-L. There is a slight (but vital) correction to be made.
The name of the list is WWI-L and NOT WWI.

I know several have tried to subscribe to WWI and have had rather
a distressing experience. If you try again and subscribe to WWI-L,
the floodgates of blessing will engulf you....

If anyone continues to experience problems, give me a shout (privately
of course).

best wishes,

Steve Baldwin
[email-masked]
list co-owner, WWI-L

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 01:34:18 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 05-09-94

UNITED STATES NAVY CHRONOLOGY
from:
//byrd.mu.wvnet.edu/pub/history/military/wwii/naval_chronology/chr44.txt

1944
05/09 Tue.  United States naval vessel sunk:
             Submarine chaser PC-558, by submarine torpedo,
              38 d. 41' N., 13 d. 43' E.

Theron P. Keller
Logicon, Inc.
Dahlgren, VA  22448 USA
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 07:26:00 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: P-61 Black Widow

Hello, Aldo, Emmanuel and Peter!

Here goes with some more info on the P-61A.

With tests still going on as to what color was best for night
fighters, the first P-61As off the assembly line were delivered in
the standard Army Air Corps camouflage of olive drab uppersurfaces
over neutral gray undersurfaces. Internally, the P-61A had the welded
magnesium alloy tail booms of the XP/YP-61 replaced by booms made of
aluminum. The first production P-61A rolled off the Hawthorne
assembly line during October 1943 fitted with the four-gun dorsal
turret.

With the serious tail buffet problem still unsolved and with a
pressing requirement for the turrets for the B-29 program making them
increasingly difficult to obtain, Northrop decided to delete the
dorsal turret from production P-61As beginning with the 38th
aircraft. Although the turret was not fitted, the aircraft were
completed with all necessary wiring installed so that the turret
could be refitted if they became available later.

Removal of the turret gunner's seat, the turret and the gun-sighting
equipment saved over 1600 pounds giving the P-61A an additional three
miles per hour in speed over the YP-61. Minor changes took place
throughout the P-61A production. Beginning with the 46th production
aircraft, the 2000 hp R-2800-10 engines with the 2250 hp R-2800-65
engines and aircraft with the new engines were designated P-61A-5s.
The P-61A-10 featured engines with water injection to boost power for
short periods in combat. The P-61A-11 was the first Black Widow to
have provision for underwing pylons (capable of carrying 165 gallon
fuel tanks or 1000 lb bombs).

More later or tomorrow.

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:    Mon, 9 May 1994 08:45:21 EDT
From:    Lowe Barrett MAJ <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: REF: TIME LIFE BOOKS ON WWII?

>Some time ago(circa 1976?) Time Life published a multivolume set
>of books ( 9.5" by 11.5" ) on the 2nd World War. Lavish illustrations,
>short articles, et cetera. Titles like "Battle of Britain" "Prelude to
>War", "The Rising Sun", "Home Front U.S.A." and so forth.
>
>     Can anybody please give me a list of all the titles and/or tell me how
>many volumes there were?
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>          Rob George
>

Rob,

I got all of these way back when.  There are 39 titles, in order:

Prelude to War
Blitzkrieg
The Battle of Britain
The Rising Sun
The Battle of the Atlantic
The War in the Desert
Russia Besieged
The Home Front:  USA
China-Burma-India
Island Fighting
The Italian Campaign
Partisans and Guerrillas
The Second Front
Liberation
Return to the Phillipines
The Air War in Europe
The Resistance
The Battle of the Bulge
The Road to Tokyo
Red Army Resurgent
The Nazis
Across the Rhine
War Under the Pacific
War in the Outposts
The Soviet Juggernaut
Japan at War
The Mediterranean
Battles for Scandinavia
The Secret War
Prisoners of War
The Commandos
The Home Front:  Germany
Italy at War
Bombers Over Japan
The Neutrals
Victory in Europe
The Fall of Japan
The Aftermath:  Europe
The Aftermath:  Asia

Hope this helps,

Barry

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

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 08:47:51 EDT
From:    Lowe Barrett MAJ <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: German paratroopers dropped sans chutes?

>     A Question.....
>
>Somewhere I read that the Germans dropped paratroopers into the snow out
>of lowflying aircraft on the Russian front sans parachutes.   Is this true?
>

I rechecked all of my sources, and couldn't find this. I do know I saw it
somewhere.

In David Glantz's special study (published by the COmbat Studies Institute
at Ft. Leavenworth), mentioned the Soviets doing an air landing operation
in the snow where the aircraft didn't have skiis so once they went in they were
stuck, but nothing about jumping without parachutes in the snow.

Sorry,

Barry

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

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 08:50:38 -0400
From:    "Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs." <[email-masked]>
Subject: MASONS IN WW-II

Does anyone have any knowledge on how freemasons were treated on both
sides during the war?

I undertstand there were many who fought on both sides with distinction.

I also heard a rumor that Hitler was a mason. Any confirmation/denials?

Thanx                                                           Steve

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven E. Pudlo  - [email-masked] |"Life may be a drag BUT
STC Programmer/Analyst - (203) 885-2343  |  it sure beats the only
Three Rivers Community-Technical College |           known alternative"
574 New London Turnpike                  |                     (S.E.P.)
Norwich, CT. U.S.A. 06360                |No one gets out of it alive..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 09:04:23 -0400
From:    William Newbold Ely III <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The Great Escape

On Sun, 1 May 1994, Sidney Allinson wrote:

> BILL ELY..
>         For solid information about the tunneling at Stalag Luft III,
> see THE GREAT ESCAPE, by Paul Brickhill. Very authentic. Published
> soon after the actual events, with first-hand accounts of the RAF/RCAF
> participants. I knew Wally Floody (he died a few years ago), who had
> been a hard-rock miner in Northern Ontario before he joined the RCAF.
> Wally planned the Stalag Luft III tunnel, and helped excavate it. He
> later was the technical advisor on the movie version. (You should have
> heard his language whenever mention was made of that fictional Steve
> McQueen USAAF character in he movie!  :-)  )  Anyway, Wally Floody
> spoke highly of the Brickhill book, especially for the way it captured
> the actual atmosphere in the Stalag at the time.
> Regards.
>
        Hi! Thanks for your reply!  Also to others who have replied,
especially Dr. Moore!  I will reply to each of them at my earliest
convenience.
        Yes, I do have all the books mentioned, as such as Brickhill's
The Great Escape (1950) and Durand's Stalag Luft III.  It looks like that
I was not clear enough on what I am looking for.  I need information or
maps that pinpoint the location of the three tunnels before I go to Sagan
(now Zagan, Poland about 3 hours east of Berlin) again.  Each of the two
times I went there, I could not locate the tunnels' openings although
they have been sealed. Perhaps the surviving Stalag Luft III'ers may help
with this.  I asked everyone there but no one knew where the tunnels were.
        I also visited the Sagan train station where many of the 76 camp
escapees boarded trains.  In 1987 (under Communist rule), no photos were
allowed there.  Later in 1992, the "no photos" sign was found to be removed.
I do have the local map of Polish Zagan (German Sagan) but it but it does
not mention or pinpoint the exact location of the three tunnels.
        Back to the point, I need to have the right information before
returning to Sagan and touching exactly where the openings of the 3
tunnels were. Help me out?  Thanks to all who reply!

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 09:18:34 -0400
From:    Warren Thompson <[email-masked]>
Subject: HIST: "Freemasonry"

The Nazis officially banned Freemasonry, in part because they thought it had
Jewish origins. Hitler likely was never a member, though he had connections
to other "secret" organizations.

-- Warren Thompson

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 14:30:13 GMT
From:    Johannes van Vuren <[email-masked]>
Subject: Recoilless guns

Some expert please explain the principle behind the recoilless gun. Why were
these guns developed and to what extent were they used in ww2. I was always
puzzled by how the rearward momentum is dissipated so as to make the gun
truely recoilless.
Many thanks,
Johannes van Vuren.
Canterbury, England.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 10:00:35 -0400
From:    Warren Thompson <[email-masked]>
Subject: HIST: More on Freemasonry and Nazis

In Oct 1934, Adolf Eichmann went to work in the main office of the
Sicherheitsdienst in Berlin. His first assignment there was in the
Amt or Abteilung that dealt with Freemasons.

-- Warren Thompson

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 10:13:59 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Recoilless guns

>
> Some expert please explain the principle behind the recoilless gun. Why were
> these guns developed and to what extent were they used in ww2. I was always
> puzzled by how the rearward momentum is dissipated so as to make the gun
> truely recoilless.

They were developed precisely because there were applications where a
conventional closed breach cannon couldn't be effectively used.

Davis guns were mounted on flying boats during WWII.  A 1" gun on a flex mount
would likely demolish a Martin in flight!  The Davis gun was a way to get an
effective and reasonably accurate weapon on board which could be used against
surfaced submarines.

Another example is Jeep mounted guns.  You aren't going to fire a conventional
106mm gun from a Jeep.

The drawback is of course SERIOUS backblast plus lower velocity.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 15:18:37 BST
From:    Stephen Baldwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: WWI-L

FYI
to subscribe to WWI-L
please email [email-masked]
leave the subject line blank
and type the following message

SUBSCRIBE WWI-L your name

eg

SUBSCRIBE WWI-L Stephen Mark Baldwin

that's it.

Steve Baldwin
list co-owner
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 16:04:06 GMT
From:    Johannes van Vuren <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Recoilless guns

Thanks Cristopher, for that reply. But please explain how these guns
actually work. I can imagine that various holes are needed in the rear part
of the barrel etc. Probably very simple once one gets the hang of it.

Johannes van Vuren

<They were developed precisely because there were applications where a
<conventional closed breach cannon couldn't be effectively used.

<Davis guns were mounted on flying boats during WWII.  A 1" gun on a flex mount
<would likely demolish a Martin in flight!  The Davis gun was a way to get an
<effective and reasonably accurate weapon on board which could be used against
<surfaced submarines.

<Another example is Jeep mounted guns.  You aren't going to fire a conventional
<106mm gun from a Jeep.

<The drawback is of course SERIOUS backblast plus lower velocity.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 11:10:14 -0400
From:    "John E. Kollar" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Recoilless guns

When a projectile is fired, a force acts on the shell to send it spirally
of to its doom (or someone elses), because of the law of equal yet
opposite reactions, an equal force is expended against the place from
where the shell was fired from, which is normally the chamber of a gun,
and thus is shown in recoil from the weapon.  With a recoilless gun, the
chamber does not have a rear end, instead there is a solid chunk of
material, call it the anti-projectile, which is seated in it's own short
'barrel', so that the force that acts against the projectile to shoot it
acts against the anti-projectile to send it out the other end of the
rifle.  Because the recoil force is used to move the anti-projectile
it is not expended against the weapon, and thus causes no recoil.

Same principle applies why rocket and missile launchers have no recoil.

John E. Kollar

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 16:50:31 BST
From:    Stephen Baldwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Recoilless guns

John E. Kollar writes
>       When a projectile is fired, a force acts on the shell to send it spirally
>       of to its doom (or someone elses), because of the law of equal yet
>       opposite reactions, an equal force is expended against the place from
>       where the shell was fired from, which is normally the chamber of a gun,
>       and thus is shown in recoil from the weapon.  With a recoilless gun, the
>       chamber does not have a rear end, instead there is a solid chunk of
>       material, call it the anti-projectile, which is seated in it's own short
>       'barrel', so that the force that acts against the projectile to shoot it
>       acts against the anti-projectile to send it out the other end of the
>       rifle.  Because the recoil force is used to move the anti-projectile
>       it is not expended against the weapon, and thus causes no recoil.
>
Hi John!
Thanks for an informative post. A good explanation for the "non techies"
amongst us. The anti-recoil must itself move in it's barrel yes?
This must surely reduce the efficiency of the forward thrust of the
shell?? What sort of efficiency loss ratio would we be talking about?
(if that's how it is measured)?

Steve Baldwin
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 12:19:30 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Recoilless guns

>
> When a projectile is fired, a force acts on the shell to send it spirally
> of to its doom (or someone elses), because of the law of equal yet
> opposite reactions, an equal force is expended against the place from
> where the shell was fired from, which is normally the chamber of a gun,
> and thus is shown in recoil from the weapon.  With a recoilless gun, the
> chamber does not have a rear end, instead there is a solid chunk of
> material, call it the anti-projectile, which is seated in it's own short
> 'barrel', so that the force that acts against the projectile to shoot it
> acts against the anti-projectile to send it out the other end of the
> rifle.  Because the recoil force is used to move the anti-projectile
> it is not expended against the weapon, and thus causes no recoil.

That is ONE method of recoilless operation, used in the current Armbrust,
WWI Davis gun and pre-war German aviation experiments.

In actual practice, a SOLID counter mass is usually NOT used as it would
present nearly as much danger as the projectile.  What is USUALLY used is
a mass of material which disentegrates or disperses quickly, so as to
lessen the danger to friendly troops and equipment.  The Armbrust uses
shards of plastic.  The Davis gun used lead shot packed in grease.

One of the German large aircraft mounted guns used a very heavy steel cartridge
case.  I believe that that was the system which when test, blew the tail off
of the aircraft on which it was mounted.

Most common systems use blowout panels in the cartridge case which divert a
portion of the propellant gases rearward.  U.S. systems usually use panels
in the walls of the case.   I believe the German and British systems used a
blowout section in the base.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 10:12:50 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: HIST: "Freemasonry"

Hitler did ban Freemasonry in his Germany, as you say.
However, his main reason was because of Freemasonry's high ideals,
its international collectiveness, and standards of good behaviour.
There was story extant in Masonic circles, that the Hamburg Lodge of
Masons arranged to save its historic memorabilia by somehow getting
it to the Main Lodge of the Scottish Rite (FM) in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Rumor had it that this was contrived by dropping the memorabilia and
records by parachute from a Luftwaffe aircraft in 1940, with a message
to the effect, "Please hold these for us in safe-keeping until after
the war is over".  However, that sounds so hazardous for the health of
any german airman involved, as to be questionable. Still, the story
stands that the Hamburg Lodge's records etc. were 'somehow' sent and
held by the Edinburgh Lodge until after the war, when they were returned
for re-opening of German Freemason's lodges.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 10:16:12 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MASONS IN WW-II

AH definitely was not a Freemason.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 13:11:16 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Recoilless guns

>
> Thanks Cristopher, for that reply. But please explain how these guns
> actually work. I can imagine that various holes are needed in the rear part
> of the barrel etc. Probably very simple once one gets the hang of it.

There are two basic versions.

The British and German guns used large nozzles to direct the backblast.

The U.S. and Soviet guns used much smaller and less obtrusive venting.

The base or side panels blow out of the cartridge, and the gas and debris
are vented rearward like a rocket thrust, neutralizing recoil.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 10:22:15 -0400
From:    "Dennis E. Sparks" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Tiny Tim rocket

Adding to Emmanuel Gustin's reply regarding the Tiny Tim rocket...

This information was taken from the book "Marine Mitchells in WWII"
by Jerry Scutts (1993, Phalanx Publishing, ISBN 0-9625860-9-9).

The Tiny Tim was used operationally by Marine squadron VMB-612,
who flew PBJ-1Js (Marine designation for the B-25J).  Their aircraft
were rigged with locally produced external mounts to carry two of
the rockets underneath the fuselage, directly under the bomb bay.

On 30 May 1945, the squadron received TDY movement orders for
Okinawa (from Iwo) to initiate the Tiny Tim in combat.  Six PBJs
had been modified for Tiny Tim operation by June, and calibration
and test firings commenced.  Training flights with live Tim firings
on a rock situated at the NE end of Iwo had exhausted all stocks
by 16 July.  The firings of these 27 Tims indicated that the
previously determined launch range of 1000 yards at 500 feet altitude
were optimistic, as aircraft were being hit by debris.  The launch
range was modified to 1350 yards at 700 feet.  Trials indicated that
carrying the two rockets imposed a 10 knot penalty on the Mitchell.

The first Tiny Tim mission was conducted on the night of 21/22 July,
but no suitable targets were found.  Tiny Tim missions began in
earnest on 11 August (after Nagasaki).  About ten such missions were
flown before the end of the war.  Hostilities ceased on 15 August,
and after four days of stand-down, the Tiny Tim program continued.
Nine more Tiny Tims were expended to compile range tables and
confirm rocket trajectories for future training use.  The other
Marine PBJ squadrons were decommisioned in November 1945, leaving
VMB-612 as the last PBJ squadron.  After returning to the US, the
squadron was decommissioned on 14 March 1946 at USMC Auxiliary Air
Station Oak Grove in North Carolina.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 13:24:19 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Recoilless guns

> Hi John!
> Thanks for an informative post. A good explanation for the "non techies"
> amongst us. The anti-recoil must itself move in it's barrel yes?
> This must surely reduce the efficiency of the forward thrust of the
> shell?? What sort of efficiency loss ratio would we be talking about?
> (if that's how it is measured)?

To give you an idea, I'm unaware of ANY recoilless weapon which relies upon
kinetic energy for a kill.  Almost all of the use HEAT or HESH(HEP) warheads
for target effect on armored targets.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 13:58:37 -0400
From:    "Mr. Scott Hannon" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Recoilless guns

> ... please explain the principle behind the recoilless gun. ...
> I was always puzzled by how the rearward momentum is dissipated so as
> to make the gun truely recoilless.

Momentum is a vector; ie it has magnitude and direction. Thus to make
a recoilless gun, you must balence the forward and rearward momuntums.

One way to do thus is to use two projectiles in the barrel with the
expanding gas between them...one projectile comes out the front and the
other comes out the rear. Obviously this technique isn't too popular.

Another way to do it is to use one projectile, but balances forward
momentum by redirecting most of the propellnmg gas out the rear.
Sort of like:

        -----------------------------\
                 exhust               \
        -----------------------------\ \-----------------
        | breech                    vents             muzzle
        -----------------------------/ /-----------------
                 exhust               /
        -----------------------------/

When the cartridge is fired, the gas expands and starts propelling
the projectile forward (pushed by the expanding gas, also going forwards).
Due to inertia, the reward travel of the gun is minimal at this time.
After some brief period of time, the projectile has achieved much of
its final velocity and travels down the barrel past the vents. At that
time, most/much of the expanding gas now enters the vents and reverses
direction, heading toward the rear. This basically provides a rocket-like
forward thrust which acts to counter the rearward recoil imparted during
the initial portion of the firing. By careful consideration of projectile
and gas mass and velocity, it is possible to acheive a balance (ie
recoilless).

This type of weapon is of limited popularity due to the huge back-blast
and limited projectile velocity. However, due to the lack of much recoil
they do not need heavy mechanical recoil mechanisms and thus the guns
can be installed on lighter mounts. They are thus frequently used by
"light" troops....they were poplar in Vietnam with the NVA for providing
direct fire support.

Scott.
Scott Hannon, Mon May 9 1994 ([email-masked])

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 10:44:05 -0700
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: SYMPOSIUM:  CALL FOR PEOPLE AND PAPERS

>sorry for any cross-posts
>
>
>                               CALL FOR PAPERS
>
>"EXPLORING THE CHALLENGES OF CONFLICT:  ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES IN THE 20TH
>CENTURY WORLD"
>
>AN INTERDISCIPLINARY GRADUATE STUDENT/FACULTY SYMPOSIUM
>Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
>November 4-5, 1994
>
>The theme of the fourth annual NAU Graduate Student Interdisciplinary
>Symposium (GSIS) is CONFLICT IN THE 20TH CENTURY. GSIS organizers invite
>graduate students, faculty, and non-academics to attend and to submit
>abstracts of papers you would like to present at this year's symposium.
>
>possible topic areas include, but are not limited to:
>
>Conflict and Community in Urban Areas
>Violence and Non-violence as Means of Social Change
>Power Relations:  Social, Economic, and/or Political
>Environmental Conflict, Problems, and Alternatives
>"Legitimate" Violence:  Language, Institutions, and/or War
>Gender Conflicts, Issues, and Alternatives
>Technologies for Violent and Non-violent Uses
>Crime and Societies Response to Crime
>Racial and Ethnic Identities and Conflict
>International Conflict: Military, Economic, and Otherwise
>Conflict as Witnessed in Art, Music, or Literature
>
>THE DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACTS IS AUGUST 1, 1994
>
>
>Please send abstracts (250 words plus title) and requests for additional
>information on the symposium to:
>
>     Matt Lindstrom, Co-Chair, GSIS
>     Department of Political Science, NAU Box 15036
>     Flagstaff, AZ 86011
>     (602)  779-5695
>     Email:  [email-masked]
>
>THANKS, MATT

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 10:09:13 -0700
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: SYMPOSIUM: CALL FOR PEOPLE AND PAPERS

>sorry for any cross-posts
>
>
>                               CALL FOR PAPERS
>
>"EXPLORING THE CHALLENGES OF CONFLICT:  ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES IN THE 20TH
>CENTURY WORLD"
>
>AN INTERDISCIPLINARY GRADUATE STUDENT/FACULTY SYMPOSIUM
>Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
>November 4-5, 1994
>
>The theme of the fourth annual NAU Graduate Student Interdisciplinary
>Symposium (GSIS) is CONFLICT IN THE 20TH CENTURY. GSIS organizers invite
>graduate students and faculty to attend and to submit abstracts of papers you
>would like to present at this year's symposium.
>
>possible topic areas include, but are not limited to:
>
>Conflict and Community in Urban Areas
>Violence and Non-violence as Means of Social Change
>Power Relations:  Social, Economic, and/or Political
>Environmental Conflict, Problems, and Alternatives
>"Legitimate" Violence:  Language, Institutions, and/or War
>Gender Conflicts, Issues, and Alternatives
>Technologies for Violent and Non-violent Uses
>Crime and Societies Response to Crime
>Racial and Ethnic Identities and Conflict
>International Conflict: Military, Economic, and Otherwise
>Conflict as Witnessed in Art, Music, or Literature
>
>THE DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACTS IS AUGUST 1, 1994
>
>
>Please send abstracts (250 words plus title) and requests for additional
>information on the symposium to:
>
>     Matt Lindstrom, Co-Chair, GSIS
>     Department of Political Science, NAU Box 15036
>     Flagstaff, AZ 86011
>     (602)  779-5695
>     Email:  [email-masked]
>
>THANKS, MATT

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 15:05:24 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: C-SPAN D-Day Show

Hello, Jack!

> For those of you in the US and Canada, a show entitled REMEMBERING D-DAY
> will be shown on C-SPAN on Saturday and Sunday, May 7 and 8, at 1:00 PM
> EDT.  I have not seen it so have no idea of what it is about.

    I saw it all. It was great and I recorded much of it. Thanks for
the tip.

    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:    Mon, 9 May 1994 15:06:16 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: P-61 radar

Hello, Jack!

I will be posting some info on that radar unit installed on the P-61
that resulted in its nose being extended 8 inches.

More later.

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:    Mon, 9 May 1994 15:48:14 CDT
From:    Robert Hohlt <[email-masked]>
Subject: recoilless guns and misc.

1. It sounds as if the recoilless rifles and cannons could have
found a good home on the Navy dirigibles used for ASW duty along
the coasts.  Certainly if any craft would have been susceptible to the
recoil of regular weapons it would have been the lightly constructed
Navy blimps. Opinions?

Also, anyone know how much airspeed was lost everytime a B-25
(special construction) fired its nose mounted 75mm cannon in flight?

2. In the WW2 era, the Navy used to have dedicated antiaircraft ships,
i.e., the Atlanta class and the Oakland class cruisers.  In the modern
day navy, are the antiaircraft weapons so good (computer guided chain
driven rapid fire guns and surface to air missiles) that there is no
need for an antiaircraft ship?  Hypothetical: Given 2 modern CV task
forces launching air/missile strikes against each other.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 15:16:11 CDT
From:    "Shirley N. Daniels" <[email-masked]>
Subject: remove user from list

Please remove my name from subscriber list

                          Shirley N. Daniels

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 15:30:15 +0200
From:    YARBROUGH James L <[email-masked]>
Subject: Order of Battle

Does anybody outthere have an order of battle for the US and Soviet
forces at the end of WWII?

Yarbrough James [email-masked]
________________________________________________________

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

Date:    Tue, 10 May 1994 00:45:11 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Recoilless guns

On Mon, 9 May 1994, Stephen Baldwin wrote:

> Thanks for an informative post. A good explanation for the "non techies"
> amongst us. The anti-recoil must itself move in it's barrel yes?
> This must surely reduce the efficiency of the forward thrust of the
> shell?? What sort of efficiency loss ratio would we be talking about?
> (if that's how it is measured)?

If we limit ourselves to basic physics, leaving aside pratical
considerations as drag, friction, barrel rifling, limited length of
barrels, gas leaks and others, the energy transfer is determined by the
law of conservation momentum: ms * vs + mr * vr = 0, and the law of
conservation of energy:  1/2 ms vs^2 + 1/2 mr vr^2 = E. The speed of the
shell is can then be written as :

                   E(explosion)
  vs = sqrt(   --------------------  )
                1              ms
                - * ms * ( 1 + -- )
                2              mr

where E is the energy supplied by the explosion, ms the mass of the shell,
and mr the mass of the recoil weight. So you see that the heavier the mass
that absorbs the recoil, the better the efficiency --- normals guns have
always an advantage, because then the entire aircraft absorbs the recoil.
If you expell backwards a weight equal to that of the shell, the speed of
the shell will be 30% lower; if the recoil weight is half of that of the
shell, the loss is 42%, and so on. To reduce your losses to 10%, you have
to use a weight 4.25 times as heavy as the shell...

Of course, if you are considering recoilless guns, then these are big
guns, with heavy shells... And you don't really want to double the weight
of your ammunition supply.  An alternative is to expell the hot gases
backwards, instead of a special recoil weight; then you are reducing,
rather than eliminating, the recoil. But the more you reduce the recoil,
the worse your efficiency.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 16:01:24 +0200
From:    YARBROUGH James L <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: recoilless guns and misc.

1.  The back-blast just might have poked holes in the blimp.
1a.  Not exactly, but a friend of mine told me he thought the plane was
hit and going to crash the first time the pilot fired.  (He was a
turret-gunner.)
2.  The Aegis-class ships are dedicated ack-ack (so to speak) ships.
At least that's according to the Navywho uses that excuse for building
more.
2h.  Take the US forces in any modern Carrier duel.  9 out of 10 at
least.  Who else has a carrier worth a hoot anyway???
________________________________________________________
1. It sounds as if the recoilless rifles and cannons could have
found a good home on the Navy dirigibles used for ASW duty along
the coasts.  Certainly if any craft would have been susceptible to the
recoil of regular weapons it would have been the lightly constructed
Navy blimps. Opinions?

Also, anyone know how much airspeed was lost everytime a B-25
(special construction) fired its nose mounted 75mm cannon in flight?

2. In the WW2 era, the Navy used to have dedicated antiaircraft ships,
i.e., the Atlanta class and the Oakland class cruisers.  In the modern
day navy, are the antiaircraft weapons so good (computer guided chain
driven rapid fire guns and surface to air missiles) that there is no
need for an antiaircraft ship?  Hypothetical: Given 2 modern CV task
forces launching air/missile strikes against each other.

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 19:38:50 -0700
From:    "Office TH325, Extension 3566" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Leon Degrelle

I have just finished reading John Toland's "The Last 100 Days".  He
talks about a man named Leon Degrelle who was the leader of the Rexist
party in Belgium and volunteered for the SS.  At the end of the war he
escaped to Norway where he had a meeting with Quisling.  Following
Toland's account, a pilot wearing a high Gernan decoration picked him up
and flew him to Spanmin where they crashed for lack of fuel.

1.  Who was Degrelle that he was given such preferential treatment?

2.  What happened to him?

My apologies if this has been discussed before, but I don't recall
seeing it on the list before.

John Riegsecker
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
University of Puget Sound

[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 9 May 1994 23:20:53 -0400
From:    "Mark A. Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: recoilless guns and misc.

In response to the 2nd part of your message:

The problem of sea-skimming anti-ship missile attack against modern warships
is considered to remain the most serious problem facing surface warships
today.  While slow-speed missiles like Exocet and Harpoon remain difficult
to counter even by such modern anti-missile systems like the British
"Seawolf" anti-missile missile, European "Goalkeeper" 30mm gatling gun,
and U.S. "Phalanx" 20mm system, current and future high-speed missiles
(mach 2+) promise to be nearly impossible to intercept.  The problem with
previous and current generations of Russian (ex-Soviet) anti-ship missiles
is less acute, because they fly at altitudes sufficient for AEGIS to
destroy them.  In fact, multiple reports suggest that the USSR was so
scared of AEGIS that it prompted them to develop their notorious (and
apparently quite effective) type 65 "wake-following" torpedoes largely
to get "under" the AEGIS air defense umbrella.
   So, yes, there is still a need for air defense ships; one, could, I
suppose, see the current generation of USN cruisers and destroyers
("Ticonderoga" and "Arleigh Burke") AEGIS ships as the equivalent of the
WW2 class AA cruisers of the Atlanta and Juneau classes, but I think that
any such parallel breaks down due to the different technologies involved.
                             Cordially,
                              Mark.

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 8 May 1994 to 9 May 1994
***********************************************