Subject: WWII-L Digest - 18 May 1994 to 19 May 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 00:01:59 -0400

There are 31 messages totalling 1107 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Italy and Mussolini
  2. INF: USN Chronology 05-19-94
  3. MAGNUS EFFECT AND ARTILLERY FIRE
  4. The Magnus effect
  5. INF: USAAF 19 MAY 44
  6. P-Factor and props
  7. Monty and D Day (3)
  8. TRIV] Police Dogs and Victory Cabbages
  9. Rommel's book
 10. MUSSOLINI (2)
 11. [TAC] Russo-Japanese Border Clashes (8)
 12. NOST: D-Day Reenactment in Chicago
 13. WWII Russo-Japanese clashes *and* Katyn in Weinberg?
 14. INF: Regia Marina, Part 2
 15. ARC byrd, and other research sites
 16. GEN: Another warbird on the circuit
 17. Nomonhan Incident (Russo-Japanese border war)
 18. NPR looking for historian: Norman Inv.
 19. Nanking
 20. Re[2]: MUSSOLINI
 21. Re[2]: Monty and D Day

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 02:29:19 -0500
From:    "WILLIAM L. HUBER - SAA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Italy and Mussolini

> On Mon, 16 May 1994, Stefano Ruberto wrote:
>> Was Benito Mussolini the greatest politic of this century???
>
> no

        This type of response is indicative of the short shrift that Italy's
role always receives.  Personally, I wouldn't mind hearing some discussion on
Mussolini's political achievements as well as his (obvious) failures.

He created public works
projects (Rome still has the "SPQR" man-hole covers from one of his projects).
Sure, the fellow was a demagogue and ultimately ruined his country, but that
shouldn't mean that discussions should be treated lightly.  As I said, though,
my reading and knowledge are limited so I would appreciate any elaborations
>from others rather than simply dismissing Mussolini and Italy out-of-hand.
Thanks.
--
Joe Barone

Hi Folks,

Just a word or two.  Having lived in Italy from 1990-92 I can say from
first hand experience that Mussolini is well though of in Southern
Italy.  Fascist monuments are everywhere and every manhole and sewer
cover has a fascist insignia on them.  In private homes portraits of
Mussolini can be found even today.

This feeling has given rise to Mussolini's grand daughter's political
rise lately.  Allesandra Mussolini is running for political office
under the fascists and doing pretty well.  She is a fox too.  Her aunt
is Sophia Loren and Allesandra is a model professionally (prior to her
entry into politics).

Italy always did have interesting polititions.  Chicolina, who was
voted into parliament used to deliver her speeches while stripping
nude on the podium.  She ran under the party of Love.  The translation
of Chicolina is "the little fleshy one".  Nobody cared much about sex
scandals surrounding her because she was an admitted prostitute when
she was running for office!

Cheers Bill Huber / [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 01:26:10 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 05-19-94

UNITED STATES NAVY CHRONOLOGY
from:
//byrd.mu.wvnet.edu/pub/history/military/wwii/naval_chronology/chr4(4,5).txt

1944
05/19 Fri. James Forrestal of New York, Under Secretary of the
           Navy since 1940, becomes Secretary of the Navy.
           Aircraft from carrier task group (Rear Adm. A. E.
           Montgomery) bomb Marcus Island; attack continues on
           20 May.
            Japanese submarine sunk:
             I-16, by destroyer escort ENGLAND (DE-635), Solomon
             Islands area
             05 d. 10' S., 158 d. 10' E.
            German submarine sunk:
             U-960, by destroyers NIBLACK (DD-424), LUDLOW (SS-
             438), and British aircraft, western Mediterranean
             area,
             37 d. 20' N., 01 d. 35' E.

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

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 15:06:59 +0200
From:    John Ausland <[email-masked]>
Subject: MAGNUS EFFECT AND ARTILLERY FIRE

  I was not aware of the Magnus effect but will note that there are several
factors affecting the flight of an artillery shell, including wind.  Since these
are difficult, even impossible, to measure in the field, we tried always to
register our guns.  That is, we figured out the adjustments we had to make to
hit a known point on the ground from a given gun position.
  Furthermore, a great deal of our fire was conducted by forward observers, who
could see the target (or target area) and make the necessary adjustments.  If
this was not possible from the ground, we used observers in small aircraft.
  In any event, howitzer shells fall over a large area, so it is not possible to
fire them with any great precision.
  Once, however, I did watch an officer with a large caliber gun unit conduct
fire against a pillbox.  I was amazed at the precision with which he could
direct the shells.  (He was experimenting.  While the shells did not damage the
pillbox much, it must not have been much fun to be inside.)
  Regards, John Ausland/Oslo Norway

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 07:40:10 EDT
From:    Ingalls Steven MAJ <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The Magnus effect

Terry Yeung writes...

>        I wonder if this has anything to do with the effect with single-prop
>aircraft.

No it doesn't.  There is some torque applied to a single-engine aircraft
fuselage we normally call 'torque effect'.  Many manufacturers counter this
small induced moment by canting the vertical stabilizer at a small angle to the
airflow.

>think called 'P-spin'

We also experience a phenomena known as 'P-factor' in single-engine aircraft
which you normally see at high angle of attack flight.  The thrust line of the
engine is displaced laterally off the longitudinal axis of the aircraft,
creating a requirement for pedal input.

MAJ Stephen Ingalls
USMA, West Point
FLY ARMY!

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 08:03:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USAAF 19 MAY 44

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
FRIDAY, 19 MAY 1944
FTP SITES
  1. ftp.rutgers.edu in directory pub/wwii/usaf
  2. byrd.mu.wvnet.edu (129.71.32.152) in pub/history/military/airforce/
     wwii_chronology

AIRCRAFT MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT:
  A-20, Douglas Havoc
  A-36, North American Apache
  B-17,   Boeing Flying Fortress
  B-24, Consolidated Liberator
  B-25, North American Mitchell
  B-26, Martin Marauder
  P-38, Lockheed Lightning
  P-39, Bell Airacobra
  P-40, Curtiss
  P-47, Republic Thunderbolt
  P-51, North American Mustang

AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  ALASKA (Eleventh Air Force): A B-24 flies armed reconnaissance over
Shimushu and Ketoi Islands, Kurile Islands.

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA (CBI) THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  BURMA-INDIA (Tenth Air Force): In Burma, A-36s, P-40s, P-51s and a few
B-25s fly 140+ attack sorties against various targets in the Mogaung Valley,
concentrating on gun positions in the Myitkyina area; 8 B-25s damage railroad
tracks in the Myingatha-Saye area and 16 P-38s hit the airfield at Nawnghkio.

  CHINA (Fourteenth Air Force): In China, 31 fighters support ground forces
in the Salween area at Chiangtso, Watien, and Mamien Pass; 4 P-40s knock out
a bridge at Shweli, Burma, 13 P-40s bomb and strafe the Puchi area and 16
P-40s and P-38s damage a bridge at Tayeh and hit military installations and
other buildings at Yangsin; 11 P-51s bomb a village near Anking, causing
large explosions and fires; 2 B-24s on a sea sweep seriously damage 2
freighters S of Hong Kong; 16 Chinese-American Composite Wing (CACW) P-40s
pound trucks, tanks and troops in the Ichang-Tangyang-Loyang area and attack
river traffic at Itu on the Yangtze River.

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 358: 888 bombers and 700
fighters are dispatched to hit targets in Germany; very heavy cloud cover
forces the bombers to use H2X PFF methods; Luftwaffe resistance is heavy and
28 bombers and 19 fighters are lost; the fighters claim 77-0-33 Luftwaffe
aircraft:
  1. 588 B-17s are dispatched to Berlin; 495 hit the primary, 49 hit the port
area at Kiel and 1 hits a target of opportunity; 16 B-17s are lost, 2 damaged
beyond repair and 289 damaged; 3 airmen are KIA, 16 WIA and 137 MIA.
  2. 300 B-24s are dispatched to the industrial area at Brunswick; 272 hit
the primary and 1 bombs a target of opportunity; 12 B-24s are lost and 64
damaged; 1 airman is KIA, 8 WIA and 119 MIA.
  Escort is provided by 155 P-38s, 182 P-47s and 363 P-51s of the Eighth Air
Force and 264 Ninth Air Force aircraft; the P-38s claim 0-0-2 Luftwaffe
aircraft in the air and 1-0-0 on the ground, the P-47s claim 29-0-16 in the
air and 2-0-0 on the ground and the P-51s claim 41-0-5 in the air and 4-0-10
on the ground; 4 P-38s, 4 P-47s and 11 P-51s are lost; 2 P-38s are damaged
beyond repair; 5 P-38s, 4 P-47s and 7 P-51s are damaged; 17 pilots are MIA.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): In France, about 290 B-26s and A-20s
bomb coastal defenses, port area, railway battery, and NOBALL (V-weapon)
targets; 125+ others fail to bomb because of extremely thick haze; about 300
P-47s dive-bomb targets.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Fifteenth Air Force): 500+ bombers hit communications
targets, ports, and oil storage in NE, C, and, W Italy; B-17s hit oil storage
facilities at Porto Marghera and railroad bridges at Casarea, Latisana and
Rimini; B-24s hit port areas at La Spezia and Leghorn; fighters fly 250+
sorties in support. These operations are notable for the absence of enemy
fighter opposition.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy, medium bombers hit
railroad bridges in NC Italy while light bombers bomb an ammunition dump;
fighter-bombers continue support to Allied forces advancing rapidly N and W,
blasting the road network in the battle area and hitting motor transport,
bridges, town areas, and targets of opportunity, in areas around San Giovanni
Valdarno, Pastena, Vallecorsa, Terracina, Fondi, Pistoia and elsewhere.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA, Seventh Air Force): B-25s based on Engebi Island hit
Ponape Island and B-25s from Makin Island hit Nanru Island.

SOUTH PACIFIC AREA (SOPAC, Thirteenth Air Force): 40+ P-39s, P-38s and P-40s
hit Makada Island, Bismarck Archipelago. 16 B-25s bomb gun positions and
supply area at Talili Bay, New Britain Island. On Bougainville Island, 20 AAF
fighters and a few US Navy (USN) aircraft bomb huts and bridges at Monoitu,
Porton, Toborei, Moisuru and Tsimba.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA (SWPA, Fifth Air Force): In New Guinea, B-24s, A-20s
and P-38s hit airfields and shipping in the Manokwari-Noemfoor Island area;
other B-24s pound beach defenses at Bosnik on Biak Island and hit the area
between Bosnik and Mokmer; 270+ A-20s, P-47s, P-38s and B-25s continue to
blast Wewak, knocking out radar and radio stations and attack targets of
opportunity from Wewak to the Hansa Bay area.

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

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

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

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 08:12:33 -0500
From:    "W.C. (RUSTY) DIVENS" <[email-masked]>
Subject: P-Factor and props

The 'P-factor" referred to is a phenomenon that a prop
aircraft encounters during a climb.

It is due to the differential angles of attack of the prop blades
relative to the direction of travel.

If you visualize looking in profile at a propellor...from the
side of the aircraft it may lok like an "X"..with one blade
being the \ part of that 'x' and
the other being the / part.

Imagine the aircraft climbing left to right across the screen.

Now in a climb, the "X" is inclined so that the '\' blade is
actually at a steeper angle of attack relative to the motion of the
aircraft...(which in a climb is NOT a vector parallel to the
longitudinal axis, as the aircraft is not 100 % efficient in a climb).
The other blade (the /) is at a shallower angle of attack.  Therefore
there is less 'pull' exerted by this blade and the aircraft tends
to turn towards that blade.

In level flight the effect is negligible, as the speed of the
aircraft makes the relative vector of flight closely parallel to
the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, and both blades of the prop
are 'pulling' with the same (or nearly the same) force.

Bill
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 14:01:50 BST
From:    Stephen Baldwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Monty and D Day

Ladies and Gentlemen!

I had the privilege of going to a lecture last night given by
Alistair Horne, one of Britain's foremost military historians.
The subject was Monty, D-Day, and Afterwards. I was reminded
of our discussions a while back on Monty, especially with respect to
El Alamein, and the widely differing amounts of esteem in which this
man is held both here and in the US. Horne has just written a book
about Monty, and I thought those interested in the discussion before,
might like a summary of what Horne said (in a _very_ English accent :-))

- he repeated what is widely known - that Monty was a loner, had
  a very strict upbringing, and was rather an abrasive chap.
- he is criticised in the US for being too cautious (compared with "Ol
  Blood and Guts"), and rather rude.
- He took a close interest in his troops and had the ability to inspire
  great loyalty, and high morale

The D Day expedition was Britain's last great military feat, and
_on the actual day of the landings_, contrary to what one might
expect with all the current celebrations and remembrances,
"other" forces outnumbered the US contingent. (He quoted 57,000 US
personnel v 75,000 British, Canadian etc if my memory serves me correctly).
The Royal Navy provided the vast majority of the naval backup, and out
of 11,500 planes that took part, 6,500 were from the USAF. [The
balance of forces tipped heavily towards US majority from that point
onwards]

D Day was a remarkably harmonious occasion but soon after, big
differences began to emerge between the US and other allied commanders.
Horne has said what many on this list have said - that Ike was the
best choice for overall command and possessed great diplomatic
skills which were essential. His strategy of pushing forward along the
entire front was not so sensible according to Horne.

Anyway, Horne mentioned that, during the interwar years, it was very
rare for there to be any contact between the British and US army staffs
which might account for some of the bad feeling (neither side was
used to eachother). Horne also mentioned the WWI influence - in
particular the lack of leading from anywhere near the front by
many commanders in that conflict. Monty was determined he was going to
be up in the action, and, around Caen, his HQ was only about 3 miles
from the front. This tendancy, said Horne, damaged his relationships with his
superiors because, coupled with his own solitary way of life, he
became somewhat detached from the politics of command.

At least as far as D Day was concerned, he viewed the combination of
Monty and Patton as complementary rather than contradictory. Patton
commanded the forces to Monty's right, closer to the Cherbourg peninsula
and was the great mobile exponent. Monty's forces drew a large part of
the Germans' forces into a slogging match around Caen thereby relieving
the pressure on Patton as he geared himself up for his breakout.

Horne suggested that both commanders fought "to their strengths" as
it were - Patton being mobile and decisive, Montgomery grinding the
enemy down.

As soon as the opportunity came for questions, I was first in with
a summary of criticisms from this group on the net from our previous
discussion. Was Monty a great commander? Yes he was a great motivator
who cared about his men - and this was emphasised by Horne and other
members of the audience. Afterwards, over a glass of wine, I reput
my question. I was more interested in his tactical/strategic abilities..
Horne said that he was a good army commander but hardly waxed lyrical
on this point.  Nevertheless, Monty, according to Horne, was a great army
commander.
[ASIDE I mentioned Correli Barnet's "nothing at all good to say about
Monty" in The Desert Generals and Horne said that Barnet had acknowledged
Monty's abilities in the European theatre]
[Is Barnet still alive?? I have heard the name but not read any of his
stuff and know next to nothing about him]

I would therefore like to pose the question to you. What are the components
of greatness vis-a-vis military command?

well, this was a long one...
I look forward to feedback...

Steve Baldwin
[email-masked]

PS on the subject of D Day in 1943, Horne said that it would have
been a disaster - Even 6 June 1944 Monty hadn't enough landing craft
to enable landings that would have facilitated a wide
sweep around Caen, and would have enabled its capture earlier.
There were even fewer landing craft in 1943....

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 09:03:21 EDT
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: TRIV] Police Dogs and Victory Cabbages

Dear Mr. Holt,   I would love to help you with your request but the best that
I can do is try to find another telephone number for you within the Smithsonian
Institution.  Most likely N. M of American History would be the place to start.
I don't know if you know this but when you said "I asked the Smithsonian
Institution and they said go ask the LOC"do you realize how large the SI is?
You should have said Dr. or sos and so said now there is a handle on blame.
We have collections, facilities, offices, labratories and museums all over the
world not just in Washington.  It is like you blamed the entire organization
for not helping you with your info request.
Sometimes I can't find something in our libraries either and then I either try
the LOC or Inter Library Loan.  But I did say I would try to assist you and I
shall try.

>From the 1994 SI tel. dir.
Here are 2 to try:  Of course they would probly shoot me if they knew I was
                    giving out there and tele. #s :)

Curator of American Music (AmHist) 202-357-1707
Curator of Armed Forces History (AmHist) 202-357-4848

I just gave you numbers because each curator is a specialist and may not be
able to answer you question but pass you to another more qualified to assist yo
u in your endeavor.

Good Luck!

H. A. Kurt Luginbyhl
Scientific Computer Specialist
National Museum of Natural History
Washington D.C. 20560

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 08:44:26 -0500
From:    "WILLIAM L. HUBER - SAA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel's book

Ken asks:

> ...  A certain Erwin Rommel won no small measure of fame on this
> front, as I remember from =Infantry Attacks!= --By The Way, does anyone know
> where I could score a copy of that?  There was a translation on the stands
> 4 or 5 years ago, but it disappeared before I could grab it.
>
> ken koester

Hi Ken,

You can contact Mr. Jack Hatter at:

Volume Control
955 Sandy Lane
Warminster, PA  18974-2643    phone (215) 674-0217

He had several copies last time I contacted him at around $20 each.  I
ordered several books from him for Akira and one of them was _Infantry
Attacks_ by Rommel.

BTW, I got a note from Akira last night saying that he is busy but
intends to rejoin the list when he finishes his current work
assignment.  Several folks have asked me about him so I thought I'd
pass it along.

cheers, Bill Huber / [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 10:21:38 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MUSSOLINI

Hello, All!

One comment on this below.

> On Mon, 16 May 1994, Stefano Ruberto wrote:
>
> > Was Benito Mussolini the greatest politic of this century???
> >
> no

    Check out Churchill's comment and/or thought on Mussolini's
accomplishments made in 1935. He certainly thought so, but the answer
above is correct.

    My two cents' worth on this and thanks.

    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:    Thu, 19 May 1994 10:26:01 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Monty and D Day

Hello, Steven!

I would like very much to comment on your lengthy post, and will at a
later date. I am tied up right now, but will get back to you. I will
also be posting more on the P-61.

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:    Thu, 19 May 1994 10:42:26 CDT
From:    Robert Hohlt <[email-masked]>
Subject: [TAC] Russo-Japanese Border Clashes

On May 7, one Emery Ford wrote:

> Howdy folks,

>        I'm reading _A_World_At_Arms_ and the author describes briefly
> the border clashes between the Soviet and Japanese Armies.  Can anyone
> give a clear picture as to the scale, duration and intensity of these
> skirmishes?

Wasn't there also a naval battle(s) fought between the Japanese and
Russian (Soviet?) navies.  Apparently won decisively by the
Japanese?  Did these events take place in the same time frame as
the border clashes or are they unrelated?

Curious,

Robert Hohlt, Jr.

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 10:52:26 CDT
From:    Tim not Timothy Scherrer <[email-masked]>
Subject: NOST: D-Day Reenactment in Chicago

I received some information regarding the D-Day reenactment in Chicago.

It will be held at Montrose Beach/Harbor.  Friday is a set-up
day---Saturday is the event day--with the first event being the Allied
Pass in review at 1000hrs.  Landing Crafts are boarded at 1100hrs as
well as the air activity begins.  The landing starts at 1200hrs and goes
until 1300hrs when the memorial service is scheduled.  The campsites
stay open all afternoon and close at 1930hrs.

Confriemd to attend are 4 LCMS, 1 Higgins Boat, 5 DUKW's (Guess they
robbed the Dells) and a tank may be landed if the lake conditions
support it.  Ships confirmed include a 100 foot Coast Guard Bouy Tender,
the USS Estotian (Guided Missle Cruiser), the USS Manatra (35' training
vessel) and possibily a French warship. Aircraft include 2 B-25's, 1
C-47, 3 p-51's, 2 SNJ Trainers and a L2B Spotter aircraft.

Special legislation is being passed by the Illinois Legislature and
special rules are being implemented by the City of Chicago to allow
fully automatic weapons to be present at the event.

I am planning on Ramada Rangering it (hotel) on Fri and Sat nights, but
I'll be there all day Sat for the event.

I also have some information on the Ft. Story, VA event, which will be
larger than the Midwestern event if someone would like for me to post
it.  The Ft. Story event is expecting 1000 allied reenactors and 600
Krauts.

TAS

************************************************************************
*  Tim A. Scherrer          "You'll be fighting WWII for the rest of   *
*  Facilities Supervisor     your life", Ron Scherrer, 1971            *
*  WP:816-785-5253                                                     *
*  HP:816-665-6704                                                     *
*  ID# [email-masked]                             *
************************************************************************

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 09:16:41 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MUSSOLINI

Regrettably, Churchill also made another comment on Mussolini.
        The story has it that at a 1938 dinner meeting, von Ribbontrop
warned Churchill, "You realize, it there is war, Italy will be on
Germany's side."
        Churchill said, "That's only fair. They were on our side last
time".
:-)
Maybe it was just a story...

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 11:11:48 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WWII Russo-Japanese clashes *and* Katyn in Weinberg?

Robert,

     Is this Gerhard Weinberg's book?  What does he say about
the Katyn Massacre?  (We don't have a copy at hand here.)  I
have heard that he claims FDR actually initialled the copy of
British Ambassador (to Poland's Government-in-Exile in London)
O'Malley's secret memorandum, documenting/attesting Soviet
responsibility for Katyn.  Is this true?

     My thesis "went to press" only hours before I heard this.

     I didn't think the Soviet and Japanese navies clashed
before August 1945 and the abortive Soviet landing attempts
in the Kuriles.  (I remember reading a report that 3
Japanese Zeros achieved/assured air supremacy for the IJN!)

Lou Coatney, Western Illinois University Library (til 30Jn94)

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 12:26:09 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TAC] Russo-Japanese Border Clashes

>
> > Howdy folks,
>
> >        I'm reading _A_World_At_Arms_ and the author describes briefly
> > the border clashes between the Soviet and Japanese Armies.  Can anyone
> > give a clear picture as to the scale, duration and intensity of these
> > skirmishes?
>

The "Nomonhan Incident" of 1939 was a fullscale border war between Soviet
forces in Siberia and Japanese forces in Manchuria. It included the
largest tank battle since WWI and a major aerial campaign. The Japanese
were badly blooded, and their experience at Nomonhan may well have played
a part in their decision in 1941 not to take advantage of Germany's
invasion of the Soviet Union to grab off Siberia, and instead to move
south against the Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch Indies. Almost
nothing written about this in English save for a scholarly and lengthy
book by a prof at San Diego State whose name slips my mind. (I can get it
if you're interested.)

Cheers - Dan     <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 12:38:57 -0400
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: Regia Marina, Part 2

        On the night of November 11, 1940, the British carried out a
daring and well-planned attack on the Italian fleet anchorage at Taranto.
Taranto is located in Southeast Italy, on the western side of the "heel"
of the Italian boot, on the Gulf of Taranto on the Ionian Sea.  All six
of the Italian battleships of the 5th and 9th Divisions were in port on
the night of the attack.  The new British armored carrier, "Illustrious",
approached undetected to within 170 miles of the base and launched two
strikes of torpedo-carrying Swordfish aircraft, some of which were from
the complement of "Eagle".

        At 11:14 PM, the 12.6-inch gun battleship, "Conte di Cavour"
was hit by one torpedo in her port bow between her number 1 and 2 turrets.
A minute later, the battleship, "Caio Duilio" was hit by a torpedo in her
starboard bow just behind her number 1 turret.  At the same time, the
15-inch gun battleship, "Littorio", was hit by three torpedoes: two in
her starboard bow and one in her port stern.  The British used flares to
illuminate the harbor and only two of the twenty-one aircraft were shot
down, both to anti-aircraft fire.

        "Littorio" and "Duilio" were moored in shallow water and were
run aground, down by the bows, to prevent their sinking.  "Cavour",
however, was moored in deeper water and the decision to run her aground
was made too late.  She listed to starboard and sank with only her
superstructure and main turrets above water.

        The next day, the undamaged ships, "Guilio Cesare", "Vittorio
Veneto", and "Andrea Doria" (which was still not fully operational),
were transferred to Naples while Taranto's defenses were upgraded.

        Salvage operations began immediately on the damaged ships.
"Littorio" and "Duilio" had held up relatively well and refloating
them was not particularly difficult and was accomplished within a
month.  "Littorio" would be fully repaired in a little over 4 months
and "Duilio" in 6 months.  "Cavour", however, suffered far more damage
and required a significant amount of lightening before she could be
raised.  In fact, "Cavour" would never see action again and was still
undergoing repairs in Trieste at the time of the armistice.

        Despite the losses at Taranto, the Italian Navy still had the
material wherewithal and desire to bring the British forces to combat.
This was demonstrated on November 27, 1940, when the encounter off Cape
Teulada (known by the British as the Battle of Spartivento) occurred.

        Concluding that the Italian losses at Taranto precluded
intervention, the British planned to run a convoy across the
Mediterranean.  On November 17, British reconnaissance sighted
Italian units at sea, alerting the Royal Navy that battleships
were still operational.  It was decided that the planned convoy
required a heavy escort, and Force H, including the battlecruiser,
"Renown, and the carrier, "Ark Royal", was to cover the convoy to
a point southwest of Sardinia.  Units of the Mediterranean Fleet,
including the battleship, "Ramilles", would then join the escort
and upon reaching Cape Bon, Force H would retire.

        On November 26, the Italian Fleet sailed, after being alerted
of British activity.  It was made up of "Veneto", "Cesare", six heavy
cruisers and 14 destroyers.  British forces, except for the presence of
the carrier, were nearly equal to this.  The Italian force was ordered
to the southwest of Sardinia on the morning of November 27.

        Admiral Campioni's freedom of movement was greatly limited by
orders from Supermarina (Regia Marina HQ) that he was not to engage the
enemy and risk his battleships, except under favorable conditions.  This
caution, after the events of Taranto, is understandable; however, Admiral
Campioni acted with excessive prudence.

        Due to poor reconnaissance information, the admiral concluded
that he was outnumbered and sought to avoid contact with the British,
though they were in close proximity.  However, Italian and British
cruisers sighted each other at great range.  The Italians fired with
great accuracy and the cruiser, "Berwick", was hit almost immediately.
In return the Italian destroyer, "Lanciere", was damaged by the British.
Admiral Campioni was still convinced of the need to withdraw while the
British cruisers tried to press home the attack.  Aircraft were launched
from "Ark Royal" but all of their attacks were unsuccessful.  The British
cruisers came on, but when they closed to within range of the 15-inch
guns of "Veneto", they quickly broke off the encounter.  Once again, an
inconsequential action had been fought.  The British could claim victory,
though, since the convoy had not been interdicted.

        The action again emphasized poor Italian naval-air force
cooperation.  Despite being close to Sardinia, no fighter cover was
provided to the Italian force and requested aircraft were late, just
as they had been in the Battle of Point Stilo.  The laborious Italian
chain of command required the commander at sea to request aircraft.
This request was sent to Supermarina which assessed it and then passed
it on to Superaero (Regia Aeronautica HQ) which also assessed the
situation and took what it considered to be the appropriate action.
This prevented prompt responses and robbed the commander at sea of
the support actually required.
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
I'm not interested in defenders, I'm interested in hotels, OK?  Hey,
look, you have to think of us as tourists.  I don't want any military
information, I just want to know which hotel is the most comfortable.

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 12:49:10 EDT
From:    Lowe Barrett MAJ <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TAC] Russo-Japanese Border Clashes

Robert Hohlt asked about Russo-Japanese naval clashes:

The classic battle was the Battle of Tsushima where the Japanese
Navy decisively defeated the Russian Navy.  This was in 1904 or 1905
(I can't remember the exact year of the top of my head).  Admiral
Togo was the Japanese commander.  This battle had a great influence
on Admiral Yamamoto and the Japanese idea of fighting a decisive naval
engagement.

None occured that I know of during WW2.

Barry

>On May 7, one Emery Ford wrote:
>
>> Howdy folks,
>
>>        I'm reading _A_World_At_Arms_ and the author describes briefly
>> the border clashes between the Soviet and Japanese Armies.  Can anyone
>> give a clear picture as to the scale, duration and intensity of these
>> skirmishes?
>
>
>Wasn't there also a naval battle(s) fought between the Japanese and
>Russian (Soviet?) navies.  Apparently won decisively by the
>Japanese?  Did these events take place in the same time frame as
>the border clashes or are they unrelated?
>
>
>Curious,
>
>
>Robert Hohlt, Jr.
>

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

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 12:03:23 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Monty and D Day

>
> - he repeated what is widely known - that Monty was a loner, had
>   a very strict upbringing, and was rather an abrasive chap.
> - he is criticised in the US for being too cautious (compared with "Ol
>   Blood and Guts"), and rather rude.

David Eisenhower in *Eisenhower* frequently has occasion to point out
that the obsession with casualties was general throughout the British
high command, including Churchill, and not limited to Montgomery. In part
because Britain had been at war longer, in part because she was still
traumatized by the bloodletting of 1914-1918, and in part because of a
cold calculation that if she was to play any part in the postwar world
she had conserve resources.

Eisenhower by contrast had sent comparatively few men to their deaths.

>
> The D Day expedition was Britain's last great military feat, and
> _on the actual day of the landings_, contrary to what one might
> expect with all the current celebrations and remembrances,
> "other" forces outnumbered the US contingent. (He quoted 57,000 US
> personnel v 75,000 British, Canadian etc if my memory serves me correctly).

I don't know about D-Day especially, but residents of the UK were a
minority of "British" forces in most theaters of WWII. There were five
divisions in the first assault wave: one U.S., a composite U.S.
division, one Canadian division, and two British divisions. So right away
you have a minority of UK divisions. (Even in 1944 the Canadians would
not wanted to have been included as British.) And I will bet there were
significant numbers of "Empire" troops, especially Indian, in those two
British divisions.

Cheers - Dan     <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 12:20:37 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TAC] Russo-Japanese Border Clashes

Alvin Coox wrote the definitive book on N(whatever).

In the early 70's he helped with the research for the classic
  old wargame on Khalkin Gol, published by Simulations Design
  Corporation of (San Diego?) California.

Lou Coatney

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 13:49:23 -0400
From:    Ron Babuka <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TAC] Russo-Japanese Border Clashes

>south against the Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch Indies. Almost
>nothing written about this in English save for a scholarly and lengthy
>book by a prof at San Diego State whose name slips my mind. (I can get it
>if you're interested.)
>

In "Blood, Tears, and Folley" author Len Deighton spends about 15 to 20
pages on this conflict in reference to the background training that Zukhov
(sp?) benefited from and perhaps a reason why the Japanese did not
instagate hostilities with the Soviet Union.  I would have posted some
reference information from the book but alas it is out on loan to a friend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Babuka                                         National Warplane Museum
Cornell University                                 Geneseo, New York
CIT - Information Resources
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 254-6492

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 10:50:51 -0700
From:    Henry Frummer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TAC] Russo-Japanese Border Clashes

The naval incident that you are refering to took place during the
Russo-Japanese war 1904-5.  The major naval battle was TSUSHIMA and the
Russians were soundly defeated.

A lot more can be said about it but a history book would do better.

Henry

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 13:41:36 -0500
From:    Bill Smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: ARC byrd, and other research sites

In response to a post a few days ago to Larry Jewell, I'd like a little
more info on byrd.'s resources.  I'm new to using the net as a research
tool, and think there's got to be more than making my secondary source
searches faster than thumbing the card catalog.

Here's a couple of other questions:
        Are any of the finding aids for any of the major collections
        (ie, NAMRB, LC) available on-line?

        Are archivists at these sites on the net?  Seems quicker to send
        e-mail requests and responses?

As a point of reference, I'm searching for period diplomatic and aviation
records.

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 13:51:50 -0500
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: GEN: Another warbird on the circuit

The Southern Minnesota Wing just got a new addition to its fleet to complement
our favorite B-25 Mitchell - Miss Mitchell.

CAF Headquarters just assigned us a newly acquired PBY-6A Catalina.  Historical
research is just beginning, but we already know it spent some time in France.
It may never have gotten into combat, but it also appears it may have been
converted before leaving the states into a long-range transport or other purpose
aircraft.  This conversion could possibly have been done after returning from
overseas as well.

In any case, we're ironing out a few details and hope to have it in South St.
Paul by mid-June, after hitting a couple of airshows up along the way.

BTW: We're also looking for sponsors and donors, of course :-).  We need to
raise $30,000 to fill out the minimum fund balance as soon as humanly possible
in order to protect us against the 1,100 hour engine sitting on one side...

Anyone got a spare 1830-92 sitting around?  All donations ARE tax deductible,
mind you... :-)

The PBY is actually larger than the B-17 in all dimensions except for length,
where the B-17 beats it by 10 feet.  Wingspan is 104 feet and height is 21 feet.

Gonna be fun.  Anyone want to join up as a swabbie crew?  :-)

[I just can't get used to looking at the nose of the plane and calling it a
"bow" and everytime you enter it coming face to face with an _anchor_.]

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 16:06:50 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Nomonhan Incident (Russo-Japanese border war)

Okay, the best I can find is a series entitled *Japan's Road to the
Pacific War* and specifically the volume entitled *Deterrent Diplomacy:
Japan, Germany, and the USSR, 1935-1940* edited by James William Morley,
published by Columbia Univ Press 1976. Translations from a Japanese
series, possibly in a newspaper. Sect 2 of that volume is "The
Japanese-Soviet Confrontation, 1935-1939" by a respected historian Hata
Ikuhiko (family name first). Translation by Alvin D. Coox. (I think Coox
wrote a book about Nomonhan, but maybe I am conflating this translation
with another book he wrote about WWII.)

Some highlights: Japan admitted 17,000 casualties. There were several
previous skirmishes, as the subtitle suggests. The Japanese appear to have
been the aggressors. As in China, the local commanders seemed to be in
charge, against the wishes of the politicians in Tokyo. In 1938, the
Russians threw several divisions and hundreds of planes, tanks, and heavy
guns into a battle that badly damaged the Japanese 19th Div. Smarting
from this, the Japanese (and especially the ubiqitous Col Tsuji Masanobu)
planned a punitive expedition in Jul 1939. The Russians geared up slowly
and began their counteroffensive in Aug under none other than Gen Georgi
Zhukov. Smashed the Japanese. Ceasefire Sept 15.

Cheers - Dan     <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 16:42:48 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TAC] Russo-Japanese Border Clashes

>
> On May 7, one Emery Ford wrote:
>
> > Howdy folks,
>
> >        I'm reading _A_World_At_Arms_ and the author describes briefly
> > the border clashes between the Soviet and Japanese Armies.  Can anyone
> > give a clear picture as to the scale, duration and intensity of these
> > skirmishes?
>
>
> Wasn't there also a naval battle(s) fought between the Japanese and
> Russian (Soviet?) navies.  Apparently won decisively by the
> Japanese?  Did these events take place in the same time frame as
> the border clashes or are they unrelated?

No, you're thinking of the Battle of Tsushima, which was fought between
the IMPERIAL RUSSIAN Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy during the
Russo-Japanese War.  1905 or '06 I believe.

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 15:31:12 -0800
From:    "Joseph R. Boeke" <[email-masked]>
Subject: NPR looking for historian: Norman Inv.

I saw this on soc.history.war.misc (the USENET newsgroup).  All replys to
the author...

- Joe
  [email-masked]

> In the next few weeks, you'll be hearing a lot on National Public Radio
> about D-Day. Well, we're always looking for different angles on a story,
> so Weekend All Things Considered is looking for a historian to discuss the
> Norman Invasion of England.  Ideally, this person would be able to talk
> about not only that defining moment in history... but also compare it to
> D-Day.  [yeah, I know, air support wasn't a big deal in 1066!] Compare, I
> say, in a loose way, of course!  Too bad Barbara Tuchman is not alive,
> she'd be perfect.  What do you all think?  Any angles/questions we should
> think about?
>
> Thanks for the help... we're trying to interview someone next week..
> London would be great, as we have a bureau there.
>
> --
> Rich Dean
> Weekend All Things Considered
> [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 15:50:12 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TAC] Russo-Japanese Border Clashes

An odd turn of events took place because of the fact Russia and Japan
were not combatants throughout the Second World War.
American ships took advantage by hoisting the Soviet Red Flag while
transporting military stores to USSR via Vladivostok and other Siberian
seaports.  Though the Japanese knew very well what was going on, they
were too concerned about an inconvenient new war front with Russia opening
up, they let the American supply ships through without hindrance. Used to
drive the Germans bonkers!

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 16:50:37 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Nanking

Well, somebody here *said* this would happen...
        News item in The Weekly Telegraph, May 10, 1994:
   "The Japanese Prime Minister has sacked Justice Minister Shigeto Nagamo for his claims that the 1937 'Rape Of Nanking' never happened.
   Nagamo is a 71-year-old carer soldier who retired as chief of staff in 1980,
recently told the Japanese press:  "I believe the Nanking massacre never
happened, and it was a complete fabrication".
   His remark caused all manner of outrage through other Asian countries,
complete with egg-throwings at Japanese embassies, and mass street demonstrations. A Member of the South Korean National Assembly said: "There are 120 million people in Japan, so inevitably there will be one or two as stupid as this guy".

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 21:43:12 EDT
From:    "Jonah Triebwasser, Adjunct Instructor,
         Marist Coll" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: MUSSOLINI

>
>    Check out Churchill's comment and/or thought on Mussolini's
>accomplishments made in 1935. He certainly thought so, but the answer
>above is correct.
>
Terry - Don't leave us in suspense! What did Churchill say in '35?
I know in '41 he called Il Duce "the crafty, cold-blooded, black-hearted
Italian...the Italian Quisling...this whipped jackal..." Hardly what I
would call terms of endearment! Regards - Jonah

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, 19 May 1994 21:56:57 EDT
From:    "Jonah Triebwasser, Adjunct Instructor,
         Marist Coll" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Monty and D Day

>David Eisenhower in *Eisenhower* frequently has occasion to point out
>that the obsession with casualties was general throughout the British
>high command, including Churchill, and not limited to Montgomery. In part
>because Britain had been at war longer, in part because she was still
>traumatized by the bloodletting of 1914-1918, and in part because of a
>cold calculation that if she was to play any part in the postwar world
>she had conserve resources.

Perhaps our UK colleagues could comment on this thought:
Might not Churchill's concern with high casualty numbers have been to
avoid a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons and the collapse
of the war-time coalition government?

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

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 18 May 1994 to 19 May 1994
*************************************************