Subject: WWII-L Digest - 23 May 1994 to 24 May 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 00:01:14 -0400

There are 34 messages totalling 1189 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. WEAP: Artillery (2)
  2. D-DAY: Which is it? (4)
  3. INF: USN Chronology 05-24-94
  4. 25 Pounder in an Anti-tank role? (3)
  5. D-Day Program to remember
  6. [INF] USAAF 24 MAY 44
  7. WEAP: Anglo-American ArmoUr deficient? (3)
  8. GEN: Channel Islands
  9. [SCI/POL/GEN/???] First word on the Zero.
 10. Thanks
 11. cOMPUTER GAMES
 12. scope/swing (3)
 13. First word on the Zero. (2)
 14. A momentary pause
 15. "Home Front topics"
 16. [NOST] Grim Reapers' Ole Moe. (3)
 17. [GEN] Computer games and simulations
 18. Criteria of Greatness
 19. Pointe-du-Hoc
 20. mortars
 21. Formerly Used Defense  Sites Info

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 00:30:24 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Artillery

> Artillery (howitzer?) -- Typically an indirect fire weapon (Long Range)(though t
> hey can be
> direct firing as well).  I'm not sure of the distinction between Artillery and
> Howitzer, Maybe Artillery is rifled, howitzer smooth bore?

Gun: Generally a high velocity low trajectory weapon of large caliber.  Also
called rifles.

Howitzer: A large caliber weapon of trajectory intermediate between guns and
mortars.  Usually of relatively low velocity.  Mortars generally fire at an
angle greater then 45deg., howitzers less than 45deg.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 01:15:01 CDT
From:    "Drake E. Gearheart" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: Artillery

The howitzer is a breech loaded, high velocity, low tradjectory direct and indi
rect fire weapon.  WWII calibers were from 75mm (pack howitzer used by Airborne
) to the 208mm (8-inch) howitzer in the US TOE (and still in use).  Ranges coul
d be in the 10-20km area.  They had variable time, quick and delayed fuze setti
ngs and ordanance was usually White Phosphorous, High Explosive and Starshell.

Typical missions were fire suppression, preparatory barrage, smoke, illuminatio
n and  targets of opportunity.  Primary limitation was dead space.  If the targ
et was on the reverse slope of a terrain feature, in a trench or at a lower
level than the gun and there was no line of fire, then the target was not engag
able.  The guns on naval vessels would be howitzers.  Howitzers were grouped in
artillery battalions containing on avg. 3 batteries which were themselves compo
sed of maybe 3 sections of 3-4 guns.  Line units would have access to maybe
1 or 2 batteries for support, while a preparatory barrage of 10-20 mins may
utilize several batteries or battalions.  The danger area for a 155mm Howz is
200m.

Mortars are indirect fire, muzzle loaded guns with fixed firing pins.  A shell
is dropped down the tube and fires when it strikes the pin.  Unlike howitzer
shells which look like a big bullet and the powder is inside a cartridge or sep
arate bags, a mortar round has an explosive charge and fins like a rocket.  Ext
ernal charges are attached to the fins and are removed as determined by target
range.

Mortars are not considered artillery as they are organic (owned by) companies
and battalion HQ's in the infantry and armor branches.  They provide these
lines units with a permanent source of indirect fire support since there is nev
er enough artillery to go around.

Calibers range from 40-180mm.  82mand below are man-portable.  Their ranges are
from 100m up to about 5000m.  Due to the low velocity of the rounds, variable
charge setting in relation to elevation of the tube, targets in trenches, behin
d hills (reverse slope) and in thick woods/or jungle could be hit.  The angle t
hat the round approached the target could be varied, thus penetrating the tree
tops or canopy.  Fuze settings were either quick (contact) or delayed.  Ordanan
ce is WP, HE or Starshell.  Danger area for a 81 mm mortar is 50m

A recoilless rifle (Bazooka, Panzerfaust, RPG-7, LAW) fires a rocket out of a t
ube with the rear open.  As the blast escapes (hence to recoil) the round is pr
opelled forward.  I know the US Bazooka caliber only, which was 90mm.  RR's wer
e used as bunker busters and to allow the infantryman a means to defeat armor.
Rounds were Shaped Charge High Explosive (HEAT).

Hope this helps.

Drake E. Gearheart |
History/U.S. Army Infantry 84-91
Kansas University

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 10:14:00 CET
From:    Peter de Lange <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: D-DAY: Which is it?

> Pont du Hoc
> or
> Pont du Hoe?
Pointe du Hoc!

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 01:15:52 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 05-24-94

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

1944
05/24 Wed. Submarine NARWHAL (SS-167) lands men and supplies on
           Samar, P. I.
            Japanese naval vessels sunk:
             Submarine RO-116. by destroyer escort ENGLAND (DE-
              635), north of Bismarck Archipelago,
              00 d. 53' N., 149 d. 14' E.
             Frigate IKI, by submarine RATON (SS-270),
              Netherlands East Indies area,
              01 d. 17' N., 107 d. 50' E.

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

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 09:16:42 GMT
From:    Johannes van Vuren <[email-masked]>
Subject: 25 Pounder in an Anti-tank role?

In the Imperial War Museum in London they used to have a 25 Pounder gun as part
of the artillery exhibition. I noticed that this gun had two gun-sights. The
one was the normal periscope type sight and the other was a telescope sight,
suggesting that the 25 pounder was used in an anti-tank role. Well, at least
in a direct sight firing role.

Does anyone know how effective the 25 pounder was in this role? Indeed how
often were ww2 field guns used in anti-tank roles? Why hadnt the British and
Americans developed a gun similar to the famous German 88mm?

Many thanks,
Johannes van Vuren,
Canterbury, England.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 07:33:04 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: D-Day Program to remember

Here's the Wall St Journal review of the program John Ausland mentioned:

---- By Dorothy Rabinowitz Source: WJ Date: May 19, 1994 Time: 02:11 am

                    Wednesday, May 25
             The American Experience: D-Day

  Charles Guggenheim's documentary draws on roughly the same materials as all
the many D-day films soon to be shown -- namely official archival footage and
interviews with veterans. What makes his film stand out is Mr. Guggenheim's
wonderfully relentless focus on transmitting the drama of the event as it was,
unmodulated and uninterrupted by interviews or any other contemporary reflections
or pictures. He wanted that extraordinary morning of our past put before us with
no di.
stractions, and the hour-long film that results shines with that
determination. Voice-over commentaries, from those who took part in Operation Overlord,
are heard -- but only the voices.
  The pictures are  the whole show, and what pictures they are -- most of them
pristine in their clarity, and, because of that, unforgettably revealing. Up
close, unsmudged and perfect in detail, they are precisely what the Army
filmmakers caught, for instance, of the faces of the Americans -- most not yet tried
in battle -- marching off the troop transports that took them to England and,
ultimately, the beaches of Normandy. The writer-producer of this documentary has
won numerous filmmaking prizes -- and deserves to get another one for this. The
essential facts of the invasion and planning are succinctly sketched, the
script eloquent -- never more so than in its closing tribute to the men who, as Mr.
Guggenheim writes, had out of a nation of millions "been selected to represent
us on the beach that day."
  -- 9-10 p.m. EDT, on PBS. PBS air dates and times vary so check local
listings.

- Dan           They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
                Age shall not weary them, nor time condemn.
                At the going down of the sun and in the morning
                We will remember them.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 07:41:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: [INF] USAAF 24 MAY 44

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
WEDNESDAY, 24 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
  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): 2 bombers fly weather and photo reconnaissance
over Shimushu Island and bomb the Matsuwa Island area.

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA (CBI) THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  BURMA-INDIA (Tenth Air Force): In Burma, 20+ P-40s in the Myitkyina
vicinity destroy 8 barracks buildings and knock out a railway bridge and a
machinegun post; a single B-24 bombs Gwa in the Arakan area.

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 367: 1,106 bombers and 602
fighters are dispatched on visual attacks on airfields in the Paris area and
PFF and visual bombing of Berlin; 33 bombers and 10 fighters are lost; the
fighters claim 33-7-6 Luftwaffe aircraft:
  1. 616 B-17s are dispatched to Berlin; 464 hit the primary, 34 bomb Nauen,
13 bomb Rechlin and 6 bomb targets of opportunity; 33 B-17s are lost, 1 is
damaged beyond repair and 256 damaged; 4 airmen are KIA, 24 WIA and 482 MIA.
  2. 490 B-24s are dispatched to bomb airfields at Melun (168 bomb) and Orly
(151 bomb); 58 bomb Pix Airfield and 23 comb Creil Airfield; 33 B-24s are
damaged.
  Escort is provided by 144 P-38s, 178 P-47s and 280 P-51s; P-38s claim 6-0-2
Luftwaffe aircraft and P-51s claim 27-7-4; 1 P-38, 1 P-47 and 8 P-51s are
lost; 1 P-51 is damaged beyond repair; 1 P-38, 1 P-47 and 4 P-51s are
damaged; 1 pilot is WIA and 10 MIA.
  Mission 368: 222 fighter are dispatched to attack rail bridges in France;
  1. 74 P-47s are dispatched to hit bridges at Creil (44 bomb) and Verberie
(28 bomb); 1 P-47 is damaged.
  2. 124 P-51s, escorted by 24 P-51s, are dispatched to bomb bridges at
Beaumont-sur-Oise (59 bomb) and Soissons (34 bomb); 29 also hit St.
Leger/Albert Airfield; they claim 3-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft in the air and
2-0-1 on the ground; 3 P-51s are lost and 6 damaged; 1 pilot is WIA and 3
MIA.
  Mission 369: 4 of 4 B-17s drop 2.54 million leaflets on France and Belgium
without loss.
  3 B-24s are dispatched on CARPETBAGGER operations without loss.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): In France, 450+ B-26s attack
airfields, coastal defenses and V-weapon sites; and P-38s and P-47s dive-bomb
4 landing fields.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Fifteenth Air Force): 620+ bombers attack targets in
targets in Austria and Italy; B-17s bomb the Avisio, Italy railroad viaduct
and Atzgersdorf, Austria aircraft components factory; B-24s bomb airfields at
Wollersdorf, Bad Voslau, Graz and Munchendorf, Austria; escorting fighters
fly 250+ sorties; enemy fighter opposition is especially heavy against the
B-24s attacking Bad Voslau, downing 6 heavy bombers.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy, medium, light and
fighter-bombers fly numerous sorties in support of the rapidly advancing
ground forces and in attacks against rail lines, bridges and roads in NC
Italy; medium bombers hit at least 5 bridges, create several road blocks and
cause havoc in communications to the N of the battle area; light bombers
blast a bivouac area; fighter-bombers have great success in attacks on motor
transports, mainly in the battle area, and in conjunction with Royal Air
Force (RAF) aircraft destroy 300+ and damage as many more.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA, Seventh Air Force): B-25s from Makin Island pound
Wotje and Jaluit Atolls, using Majuro Atoll as a shuttle base for rearming
between the strikes. B-25s based at Engebi Island hit Ponape Island.

SOUTH PACIFIC AREA (SOPAC, Thirteenth Air Force): In the Rabaul area of New
Britain Island, 19 P-38s, P-40s and 22 B-25s attack Hospital Point gun
positions; 2 other B-25s hit the town of Rabaul; fighter patrols hit various
targets of opportunity in the Rabaul area and S New Ireland Island. In the
Solomon Islands, 51 P-39s, P-40s, and P-38s, and a single B-24, attack
various targets on Buka-Bougainville Islands including Buka Airfield, E
Bougainville coastal bridges, and Cape Lalahan radar station.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA (SWPA, Fifth Air Force): In New Guinea, A-20s hit
airfields at Namber and Kamiri; 200+ A-20s, P-38s, P-47s, P-39s and B-25s
continue to blast targets of opportunity in the Wewak-Hansa Bay area
throughout the day.

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:    Tue, 24 May 1994 08:10:01 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Anglo-American ArmoUr deficient?

On Mon, 23 May 1994 17:06:07 -0400 Mr. Scott Hannon said:
>>>     In head-to-head firepower, the Germans (usually) had the
>>>advantage in Europe in 1944, but an intelligent Allied commander
>>>used his mobility to maneuver and negate that.
>>
>>Which implies that the Allied commander realized that he didn't have the
>>best tanks.
>
>Not necessarily. IMO it indicates the Allies developed appropriate tactics
>for defeating enemy armor with the weapons available. No sense engaging in
>macho head-to-head frontal assaults if other tactics work better.

Well, I suppose this is *narrowly* true--if you can't penetrate the frontal
armor except at rock-throwing range, then I guess other tactics *do* work
better (-:  But if my *only* option is to manoeuver for a side or even
rear shot, then I wouldn't turn around and argue that I have the better
tank.  After all, those tactics are equally open to my adversary.

>Also, according to US doctrine, US tanks were not supposed to be used in
>the AT role...there were TD units (equipped with M-10 and M-36) for that.

I don't know much about the TD units, admittedly.  But they couldn't have
been judged as worth the trouble; they disappeared after the war, right?

>In 1944 the Germans made the decision to build Panthers as their MBT.
>While a fine tank, it was expensive to make...IMO too much so for a MBT
>and thus as a rather inefficient use of German resources.

Well, by 1944 they had no choice in the matter; the Pzkw IVh couldn't be
upgraded much further & wasn't about to cut it as an MBT on the east front.
What might have made a lot more sense was simply to copy the T-34, with
upgraded optics & radio, back in 1942.  The upgrade to an 88 gun would
have been fairly simple at the appropriate time.  Some of the generals
favored that course--Guderian maybe?--but "Teutonic pride" wouldn't
stand for it, I guess (-:

You are quite right that the Germans lost the quantity vs. quality argument.

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 13:41:40 +0200
From:    John Ausland <[email-masked]>
Subject: GEN: Channel Islands

Joe Barone asked why the Allies did not liberate the Channel Islands before the
end of the war.  For the same reason that they did not liberate some of the
French ports, such as St. Nazaire.  It would take too many troops, which were
needed elsewhere.  The islands did the Germans no good and were not needed by
the Allies.

A better question is: why did Hitler insist on holding on to them, when they
served him no useful purpose?  His generals would like to have used the troops
on the mainland, but Hitler insisted on keeping the islands, as a way of
embarrassing Churchill.  He commented to one of his generals that he was a good
general but did not understand politics.

>From the allied point of view, it was better to have these forces on the islands
than to have to fight them on the mainland.  Hence, once again, Hitler did us a
favor, as he did, for example, by keeping all those troops in Norway.

  Regards, John Ausland/Oslo Norway

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 09:41:25 EDT
From:    Doug McCabe <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: D-DAY: Which is it?

    Not that this will be the true and final proof but... we have hanging
    in the Cornelius Ryan Room here at the Library an 8' x 3' map Ryan
    taped together from French topographic section maps of the Normandy
    coast.  I would guess the date of the map to be ca. 1955.  At great
    personal risk I just stood on the arms of two chairs to look as closely
    as glasses and a long nose will allow and here is what I read:  Pointe
    du Hoe.

    BTW #1:  Ryan covered this map with all kinds of grease-pencil markings
    such as where various German headquarters were located, the rubber
    dummy paratrooper landing zones, attack lanes and troop assignments for
    the beaches, Pluskat's first-sighting-of-the-invasion-fleet bunker, and
    the depth of penetration for each beach at 2400 hours on D-Day.

    BTW #2:  Hidden away in the Ryan files until just a few weeks ago, when
    li'l ol' me "discovered" them, were eight photographic negatives.
    Rushed to the lab for printing I saw in positives confirmation of what
    I thought we had: the best - two photos of Omaha Beach shortly after
    H+110; second best - four photos in the embarkation area of the London
    Fire Brigade ladders modified with BAR's to provide fire-support to the
    Rangers assulting Pointe du Hoe; and two photos in the embarkation area
    of Gen. Wyman of the 1st Infantry Division.

    The two photos of Omaha Beach were taken on "Easy Red" sector, the same
    sector Robert Capa, the famous war photographer, landed.  Perhads the
    most recognized photo was his shot of the demo man in the water
    surrounded by anti-landing craft poles and the photo rushed and out of
    focus.  Some of you will know that of the one hundred six photographs
    Capa took on Easy Red, all but eight were destroyed by a lab technician
    in London.  That's what makes these two photos in the Ryan Collection
    (I think) rare and most exciting.  It appears the photographer simply
    turned left and snapped a shot, then turned right and snapped a shot.
    Both are taken laying flat on belly on the shingle, half-way between
    the water and the seawall.  The left shot includes an Lt. propped up on
    his side in the foreground, a soldier walking on the beach, another
    soldier approaching the top of the shingle line, most other soldiers
    lying FoB, a landing craft on the water, and a Sherman tank (with the
    high engine scoops) approaching the top of the shingle line.  The right
    shot is a lot less clear but includes the front of a Sherman coming out
    of the water with an odd proturbance (wedge-shapped scoop?) attached to
    the front of it.  The Fire Brigade ladder shots include a closeup of
    the top which has three BAR's mounted just above a convenient metal
    plate I would guess was intended to protect against small arms fire.
    These ladders were mounted to DUKWs and driven up to the base of the
    Pointe.

    BTW #3:  I and a colleague are presently setting up a major exhibit
    here at the Library using the Ryan Collection.  It's called "Untold
    Stories From..." and features funny, sad, tragic, and horrorifying
    stories and photos Ryan collected through his research and did not use
    in his books _The Longest Day_, _A Bridge Too Far_, and _The Last
    Battle_.  In September we will put up two displays and an exhibit in
    The Netherlands for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of
    MARKET-GARDEN.  To get ready for these exhibits I have read through
    over 2,000 files to find quotes and photos.  (I have also gone from
    plain glasses to tri-focals in one jump and I fear I'm dangerously
    close to being type-cast as a one-collection blathering idiot.)

    Perhaps the main reason Ryan's books were and are so popular came from
    his use of the personal stories of "real" people from all the
    nationalities involved in the battles.  Sure, he told you what unit
    moved where and what the generals were about, but who can forget
    "Dutch" Schultz and "Dixie" Deans?  What I'm getting at is that after
    having plowed through this collection I'm more sold on it's greatness.
    You want from the gut stuff - it's here.

    Doug
    [email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 08:58:43 -0500
From:    Bill Smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [SCI/POL/GEN/???] First word on the Zero.

On Mon, 23 May 1994, Robert Hohlt wrote:

> Was there anything similar (back in 1930s - 1940s) to the modern
> world air shows where all the nations capable of manufacturing
> and selling aircraft got together and showed off?

        The great spectator airshows of the 1930s -- Cleveland, Miami
All-American Air Races -- attracted international pilot participation,
but not manufacturers in the sense you're thinking of.  They also
attracted a lot of foreign observers.

> If there were such air shows the US Military powers should have
> seen Japanese pilots flying their airplanes and realized
> that the Japanese airplanes and Japanese flyers were very good.

        I've never run across a reference to Japanese pilots or observers at the
big shows.  However, the Nationalist Chinese did make the rounds in
1936-37.

> During the early war years with Japan in China, our ambassadors
> and spys, sent back reports on the capabilities of Japanese
> aircraft and pilot skill right???

        Sure, Chennault sent back one of the first written reports on the
Zero, as well as many other Japanese aircraft.

> I doubt any amount of information would have changed any opinions.
> You give them data on the Zero they dismiss it.  Show them that
> (early) Japanese pilots were as skilled as anyone they dismissed
> that too.

        Bingo.

> We percieved them as having inferior flying skills and machines
> (being inferior humans) just as they greatly miscalculated our
> resolve to wage war and defeat them.

        You're confusing two issues -- a "Yellow" racism and a lack of
professional respect for Japanese pilots.  For example, Chennault often
wrote how much he despised the Japanese, even as early as the 1920s
during his posting to Hawaii.  He speculated in the 1920s that the
Japanese were America's main threat and a threat to Pearl (ooh, don't
conspiracy advocates love that line).  In this regard, Chennault was
racist.
        HOWEVER, he had great respect for the ability of the Japanese pilots,
althought not much for their tactics.  I do not think you could find a
lot of support for the idea that those who had some knowledge of the
Japanese lacked respect for their ability.
        The heart of the matter here is poor intelligence, and/or the lack of
willingness to recognize a threat that should receive intelligence focus.

> Yep, thank GOD for Jimmy Thach/Thatch and US aircraft that could take
> a beating.

And, perhaps more importantly, thank God for an American industrial base
that could overwhelm an enemy with limited resources.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 10:22:03 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: D-DAY: Which is it?

On Tue, 24 May 1994 09:41:25 EDT Doug McCabe said:
>    Not that this will be the true and final proof but... we have hanging
>    in the Cornelius Ryan Room here at the Library an 8' x 3' map Ryan
>    taped together from French topographic section maps of the Normandy
>    coast.  I would guess the date of the map to be ca. 1955.  At great
>    personal risk I just stood on the arms of two chairs to look as closely
>    as glasses and a long nose will allow and here is what I read:  Pointe
>    du Hoe.

I just checked a 1963 National Geographic atlas:  Pointe du Hoc (-:
If I were serious about this, I guess I'd look for pre-war topos, or at
least inquire as to the provenance of both of the above maps.

On linguistic grounds, I'd opine that "Hoe" is highly unlikely.  You find
the "oe" combo in words such as "oeuvre" or "coeur", but always with "u"
as you see, and never at the end of the word--it isn't very common in any
case.  "Oc" isn't exactly common, either, except it is in next-door
Brittany.  If you remember that Brittany and Normandy aren't part of the
linguistic heartland it begins to make more sense.  Also, "du Hoc"
*sounds* better in French than "du Hoe", because of the potentially awkward
break between "du" and the "H".  "Pointe d'Hoe" you might convince me of (-:
I'm not a linguist, and obviously this isn't conclusive proof (-:

>    . . . . Some of you will know that of the one hundred six photographs
>    Capa took on Easy Red, all but eight were destroyed by a lab technician
>    in London.

Yes, they were developed in soup at 100 degrees or so.  The emulsion partly
or totally melted off most of the negatives, and the grain and contrast
got jacked up the wazoo on the 8 survivors.  Capa surely would have preferred
to get the rest of the shots intact, but the effect of the grainy, high
contrast shots is eerily effective for the subject matter.  Occasionally,
Capa's misadventure is cited in photo books/classes as an example of how
one can special effect B/W photos.  Of course, you are putting those
negatives into archival storage, right? (-:

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 09:49:49 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 25 Pounder in an Anti-tank role?

Johannes,

     I believe the 25# was 77mm.  It was apparently the British
equivalent of the "French 75."  It was too low-velocity for
true anti-tank and too small for (WWII) artillery.  The American
105mm howitzer was superior, in that regard.  As you probably
know, the 25# had a rotation base intended to ensure accuracy/
consistency.  I suspect, though, that the added weight in
transportation more than detracted for whatever advantage there
was.

     Actually, the British *did* have a high-velocity anti-
aircraft weapon, which they briefly experimented with, as an
antitank gun:  The 3.7-inch/90mm AA gun.  Like the German 88,
it was very effective (at the King's Cross in the June 1942
fall of Tobruk), but very exposed (to detection, shellfire,
and crew casualties).  I remember something about "a
dinosaur on the desert," in profile.  :-)

     The 17-pounder, soon to come into action, was far
superior with its low/antitank silhouette, appropriate
ammo, etc.

Lou Coatney, Western Illinois University Library (til30Jn94)

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 11:22:50 EDT
From:    Mike Long <[email-masked]>
Subject: Thanks

Hey guys,
Thanks to everyone who re-sent the P61 information that I had destroyed.
'preciate it.

Michael Long
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
196 AUDITORIUM ROAD, U-138    |   BITNET: [email-masked]
STORRS, CONNECTICUT, USA      | INTERNET: [email-masked]
                   06269-3138 |    PHONE: (203) 486-1352

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 08:34:08 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 25 Pounder in an Anti-tank role?

The British and Americans did develop a gun every bit as good as the
German 88mm gun. The only, and crucial, difference is that the Germans
*used* their (originally anti-aircraft) 88 also as an anti-tank gun.
The Allies for whatever reason kept their powerful AA guns pointed at the

skiy.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 08:45:44 -0700
From:    Jim Benn <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: D-DAY: Which is it?

Doug:
Thanks for the interesting post on D-Day and the Ryna collection at your
library.  My question is, which library and where?  I assume Ohio from
your email address, but can you give us some more specifics?  I'm going
to be in the Columbus area in a few weeks and would like to see the map
if you're close.  Thanks, and congratulations on finding the photos!

Jim.

 *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*> Jim Benn  [[email-masked]] <*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
 |-=[        Auto-Graphics, Inc.       ]=[      /~~)       /~~)           ]=-|
 |-=[        8 West Main Street        ]=[     (__(_UTO - (__/RAPHICS     ]=-|
 |-=[        Niantic, CT  06357        ]=[              .___/             ]=-|
 *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*>  PHONE: 800-733-6939 = FAX: 203-691-0183  <*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 11:58:02 -0400
From:    Emery Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: cOMPUTER GAMES

Hello simbuffs!

>On Fri, 20 May 1994, Burt Knight wrote:
>
>> Looking for the 'BEST' shareware game about DDay.  Any suggestions??

On 23 May, Walt O'Hara replies:

>Keep looking.
>
>If you want to pop for a commercial game, try the UTAH BEACH and
>GOLD,JUNO, SWORD editions of V for Victory.
>

        I would like to know of any good shareware wargames, besides
RUSFRONT on Byrd.
        Also, those "V for Victory" games are pretty good.  I guess what
you'd call its "AI" is weak, but that only matters the most when you are
playing the PC.  Are there any other games for the PC that compare in
quality and scope?

        Thanks,

        Emery Ford

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 09:07:18 -0700
From:    Susan Browning <[email-masked]>
Subject: scope/swing

When I subscribed I was hoping to get a description of the scope of this
list; do you guys ever discuss home front matters (sociological,
folklore, cultural) and music of the time? I'm trying to gather terms or
phrases used in swing music for a swing lexicon. If anyone has any
favorites out there, let me know! Thanks!

*********************************************************
   "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!"
       (be boppa doop be boppa doop be boppa doop)
    Susan Browning  [email-masked]  (713)739-6868
*********************************************************

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 13:02:47 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: First word on the Zero.

On Tue, 24 May 1994, Bill Smith wrote: > HOWEVER, [Chennault] had great
respect for the ability of the Japanese pilots, > althought not much for
their tactics.  I do not think you could find a > lot of support for the
idea that those who had some knowledge of the > Japanese lacked respect
for their ability. > The heart of the matter here is poor intelligence,
and/or the lack of > willingness to recognize a threat that should receive
intelligence focus.

(Oh dear. I guess I'm no supposed to use the "justify" key in this
application.)

My favorite example of should-have-been knowledgable people being wildly
and probably willfully wrong about Japanese air power is the December
1941 issue of a U.S. aviation magazine, with a photo caption reading:

"While the Japanese have shown little originality in design, they have
shown considerable ingeniousness in adapting others nations' planes to
their own uses and building them in large quantities. RIGHT: These
Mitsubshi 98 fighter planes are obsolete by American or European
standards, as is shown by the fixed landing gear. However, the Japanese
have been able to overcome the fact that their planes are of inferior
quality by maintaining overwhelming numerical superiority."

The "98" fighter plane looks like a scout or light bomber, possibly the
same "Val" that did so much damage at Pearl. While the magazine was in
preparation, the Curtiss plant at Buffalo was turning out 10 P-40s a day.
Mitsubishi was still operating at a rate of one Zero per day.

- Dan           They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
                Age shall not weary them, nor time condemn.
                At the going down of the sun and in the morning
                We will remember them.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 10:18:10 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: scope/swing

Hi, Susan...
Us guys do indeed discuss home-front topics.  When they are broached.
So broach away.  :-)
        Swing tunes? You'll probably get all manner of suggestions from
this list.  But why not do it the easy way?
Step into a good record store, and go to the Swing section. Probably
be oodles of info right on the record jackets. (If you haven't done that
already, of course.)
Good

hunting.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 13:16:00 -0400
From:    "Mr. Scott Hannon" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Anglo-American ArmoUr deficient?

Ken Koester writes:
> But if my *only* option is to manoeuver for a side or even
> rear shot, then I wouldn't turn around and argue that I have the better
> tank.  After all, those tactics are equally open to my adversary.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes and no...my point was that US tanks had certain advantages over
their German counterpoints....tactics evolved to the make best use
of the advantages (superior mobility and greater numbers) and minimize
the disadvantages (generally inferior armor and frequently an inferior
gun as well). The Germans could *not* adopt, or easily counter, US
tactics. I am *not* saying one Sherman is better than one Panther.

> ... TD units ... couldn't have been judged as worth the trouble; they
> disappeared after the war, right?

Yes, sort of...US tank doctrine and battlefield reality were two different
things, and the (over-) reliance on TDs was unpopular with the guys in the
Shermans for obvious reasons. While not exactly a failure, it wasn't seen
as entirely satisfactory either, and after the war TDs were more-or-less
dropped from US thinking (Sherman tanks ended up replacing the attached TD
battalion in infantry divisions!). Fun enough, the US eventually ended up
reviving the German idea of super-tank as MBT (ala the M1).

>>In 1944 the Germans made the decision to build Panthers as their MBT.

> Well, by 1944 they had no choice in the matter; the Pzkw IVh couldn't be
> upgraded much further & wasn't about to cut it as an MBT on the east front.

I disagree. The Pz IV and StG were still adequate for taking on the
western Allies. As for the USSR, right, the T-34 out-classed both, but
not by much. Considering that sheer numbers were so important to Allied
(western and Soviet) success, IMO a better German production stratgey
would have been to maximize production of OK tanks (like Pz IV and StG)
as the MBT. These might have been produced at a 2-to-1 ratio over
Panthers. Limited production of heavier tanks/TDs could have provided
the means to defeat the occasional enemy heavy tank (ala the heavy TD
and Tiger battalions).

> What might have made a lot more sense was simply to copy the T-34, with
> upgraded optics & radio, back in 1942.

Apparently it is significantly easier to start from scratch than to
literally "copy" a foreign tank. I vaguely recall a T-34 copy (sort of)
was the competitor to Panther, but but got canned before going to trials
even though it looked promising.

Scott.
Scott Hannon, Tue May 24 1994 ([email-masked])

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 13:38:19 -0400
From:    Steven VEST <[email-masked]>
Subject: A momentary pause

Folks:

    I just wanted you to know that I'll be disappearing off of your
screens sometime in the next couple of days.  I've taken a job at Wayne
State in Detroit and I'll be relocating over the next few days.  My first
day at Wayne State is June 6. (Unless the weather is bad over the
Channel).  God knows how long it will take me to get an account there.
With luck I'll be back in a couple of weeks.  Till then...

Best,

    Steven

==========================[email-masked]===========================
= Steven Vest: Head, Off Campus Lib. Services: Nova University, Ft. Ldl, FL =
= Two broken tigers, on fire in the night, flicker their souls to the wind. =
=                                     Al Stewart--Past, Present and Future. =
===============No statements made here reflect Nova University===============

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 12:52:54 CDT
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: scope/swing

> Hi, Susan...
> Us guys do indeed discuss home-front topics.  When they are broached.
> So broach away.  :-)
>         Swing tunes? You'll probably get all manner of suggestions from
> this list.  But why not do it the easy way?
> Step into a good record store, and go to the Swing section. Probably
> be oodles of info right on the record jackets. (If you haven't done that
> already, of course.)
> Good
> hunting.

Or ya should've come to South St. Paul and joined a thousand other people
for our annual Spring "USO" hangar dance.

Or mark your calendar for September 17 when we do it again.  :-)
[And show off our new PBY-6A Catalina... :-)]

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

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 13:36:27 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: "Home Front topics"

Susan, are you referring to ... pinups?!  :-)

Lou Coatney

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 14:35:06 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Anglo-American ArmoUr deficient?

On Tue, 24 May 1994 13:16:00 -0400 Mr. Scott Hannon said:
>. . . . The Germans could *not* adopt, or easily counter, US
>tactics. I am *not* saying one Sherman is better than one Panther.

Yes, but that was how this all started, by Lou saying or implying just
that.  You've sort of inherited his side, unless you are staking out a
different corner (-:  As for tactics, you are going to have to be a lot
more detailed, because I just don't believe for a moment that a Panther
was any slower than a Sherman.

>> Well, by 1944 they had no choice in the matter; the Pzkw IVh couldn't be
>> upgraded much further & wasn't about to cut it as an MBT on the east front.
>
>I disagree. The Pz IV and StG were still adequate for taking on the
>western Allies. As for the USSR, right, the T-34 out-classed both, but
>not by much.

I think I'd prefer a T34-85 to a PzIVh any day.  With the JSIIs and IIIs
in the wings, the Germans would have been in serious trouble on the field.
I don't think there is any way they could have made quantity make up the
difference.

>. . . . maximize production of OK tanks (like Pz IV and StG)
>as the MBT. These might have been produced at a 2-to-1 ratio over
>Panthers.

Again, I'd like to see a rigorous analysis of production capability before
buying that big a bulge--it certainly doesn't show up in my =Second Front=
computer game! (-:

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 20:59:12 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: First word on the Zero.

On Tue, 24 May 1994, Dan Ford wrote:

> My favorite example of should-have-been knowledgable people being wildly
> and probably willfully wrong about Japanese air power is the December
> 1941 issue of a U.S. aviation magazine, with a photo caption reading:
>
> "While the Japanese have shown little originality in design, they have
> shown considerable ingeniousness in adapting others nations' planes to
> their own uses and building them in large quantities. RIGHT: These
> Mitsubshi 98 fighter planes are obsolete by American or European
> standards, as is shown by the fixed landing gear. However, the Japanese
> have been able to overcome the fact that their planes are of inferior
> quality by maintaining overwhelming numerical superiority."

That was not so wildly off, it was just too old knowledge. This was
precisely what the Japanese did while they were building their own
industry: they used aircraft, designs and engineering teams from western
manufacturers (Sopwith, Heinkel, Dewoitine, Seversky). In 1941, they were
building the second generation of indigenous designs. One of the designs
that competed with the Nakajima Ki.27 --- and probably a more advanced one
--- was made by a French engineering team. The Ki.27 was still in service
in large numbers in Dec. 1941, and it was a fighter with fixed landing
gear, Nakajima type 97.

It was not an error to assume that the Japanese were technologically
behind; in fact, it was quite correct. During WWII the Japanese were
seriously disadvantaged by their lack of understanding of the new
technology: radar, pressure cockpits, turbosuperchargers, all those
developments were missing. Aircraft as the A6M and Ki.43 were certainly
not the most advanced aircraft in the world; it is probably more correct
to say that they were a lucky combination of obsolete technology and an
obsolete doctrine about air warfare.

What Western observers failed to aknowledge is that their own military
didn't have the latest developments either. In late 1941, Japan had the
largest and most powerful forces it could afford (and its economy was
already suffering from it), the US was still having a peacetime military
that was basically the _weakest_ it could afford to have, and the British
forces were busy in Europe. Even so, the Japenese successes were achieved
with remarkably weak forces --- don't forget that most of their army was
fighting in China.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 14:23:41 CDT
From:    Robert Hohlt <[email-masked]>
Subject: [NOST] Grim Reapers' Ole Moe.

Have any of you been to the Champlin Fighter museum in Mesa, AZ?

I am looking for decals, caps, coffee cups or anything with VF-10
Jimmy Flatley's "Grim Reapers" on it.  On the back cover of Peter
Mersky's book on the Grim Reapers there is a short story about the
museum.  I am hoping that one of you has been there.  If so, does
it have a souvenir shop? Does anyone know the phone number?

Please don't be insulted.  I am not interested in VF-101 stuff.
Just WW2 and propellers please.

thanks

Robert Hohlt, Jr.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 14:45:20 CDT
From:    Robert Hohlt <[email-masked]>
Subject: [GEN] Computer games and simulations

Emery Ford and others,

Since too much is never enough, on the subject of computer
games, I am interested in the Pacific war simulations.

I already have and swear by Gary Grigsbys' Pac War.  I also
have his Carrier Strike game.  Have any of you played the
new version of Carriers at War, and Battles of the South
Pacific by OOP(?).  How do they measure up?

What is Action Stations like?

Is 360s Victory at Sea still in the works?

regards,

Robert Hohlt, Jr.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 17:02:17 EDT
From:    Ingalls Steven MAJ <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Criteria of Greatness

Steve and others...

This is an interesting vein of discussion to me.

>I guess it is not possible to get a general who is both a great
>tactician and also personable, having a degree of compassion, and a
>grasp of the politics of war.

How about Bradley or Schwarzkopf (perhaps Doenitz)?

MAJ Stephen Ingalls
USMA, West Point
FLY ARMY!

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 17:06:00 EST
From:    Don Bowden <[email-masked]>
Subject: Pointe-du-Hoc

        I visited said point last fall and "Hoc" is what all the roadsigns
say. One thing that struck me was how far the place is from the landing
beaches. In particular it is screened from Omaha beach by another point
which is between and several miles away. Also it is across the estuary
from Utah beach which is barely visible in the distance. I haven't tried
to measure the distances on a map, but the Pointe-du-Hoc to landing beach
distances must have been considerable.

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 17:10:00 EST
From:    Don Bowden <[email-masked]>
Subject: mortars

        I am sure you experts can help me. I keep noticing that news reporters,
such as are reporting about Bosnia, keep talking about people being hit by
"mortars". I always thought that the mortar was the tube, etc. from from
which mortar bombs or shells were project or fired. Wouldn't being hit by a
mortar literally mean that someone had been klunked with a long cylindrical
metal object-- hardly pleasant, but it wouldn't explode?

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 13:47:05 CDT
From:    Michael P LaForge <[email-masked]>
Subject: Formerly Used Defense  Sites Info

        DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM (DERP) for FORMERLY
        USED DEFENSE SITES (FUDS)

          The DERP was established by Section 211 of the Superfund
        Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and is codified in
        Sections 2701-2707 of Title 10 of the United States Code.  The
        U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosives Safety (USATCES),
        in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
        Rock Island District, has been supporting the U.S. Army Engineer
        Division, Huntsville (USAEDH) with that part of the program
        which addresses the removal and remedial clean-up activities
        of ordnance and explosives waste (OEW) at FUDS.

             Primary support provided by USATCES is conduct of an
        Archives Search Report (ASR) for each assigned site. The ASR
        includes an historical records search and review, site
        inspection (SI), technical ordnance evaluation, and preparation
        of a technical report.  An integral part of this process is the
        historical records search and review conducted for each site by
        a member of the FUDS Historical Records Research Team.
        Federal, State, and Local governmental agencies as well as
        other persons and offices are contacted to obtain information
        used during SIs and in the preparation of the technical report.
        Report information includes the following:  site history, kinds
        of ordnance used at the site, locations of ordnance and/or
        explosives waste, impact areas, range fans, climate, hydrology,
        geology, historical aerial photographs, current aerial
        photographs, site maps, newspaper articles, previous studies,
        environmental assessments, ownership--including plat maps,
        records of real estate transactions showing War Department,
        Navy Department, or Department of Defense (DOD) usage, boring
        logs, cultural resources--including endangered species and
        interviews with knowledgeable persons.
             Former installations and locations to be inspected from
        April 1994 through the end of the fiscal year are:

           Tullahoma Bombing Range              Shelbyville, TN
           Motlow Range                         Tullahoma, TN
           Traverse City Naval Air Station      Traverse City, MI
           Camp Waterloo Correctional Facility  Grass Lake, MI
           Grand Rapids National Guard          Grand Rapids, MI
             Target Range
           Camp Gordon Rifle Range              Marietta, GA
           Camp Gordon Artillery Range          Marietta, GA
           McCook Air Force Base                McCook, NE
           Scottsbluff Moving Target Range      Scottsbluff, NE
           Cape May Battery Site                Cape May, NJ
           National Defense Storage Depot       Curtis Bay, MD
           Butler Point AMTB Battery            Marion, MA
           Anti-Aircraft Battery--Belmont Hill  Belmont, MA
           Keystone Ordnance Works              Geneva, PA
           Scioto Ordnance Plant                Marion, OH
           Beavertail Point Naval Center        Jamestown, RI
             (Ft Burnside)
           Fort Getty                           Jamestown, RI
           Martha's Vineyard Naval Air Station  Vineyard Haven, MA
           Fort Church Military Reservation     Little Compton, RI
           Fort Preble                          Scarboro, ME
           Peaks Island Military Reservation    Portland, ME
           Fort Stark                           New Castle, NH
           Fort Carson Maneuver Area            Colorado Springs, CO
           Port Angeles Combat Range            Port Angeles, WA
           Fairbanks Anti-Aircraft Artillery    Fairbanks, AK
             Site #2
           Gambell Site                         St. Laurence Island, AK
           Tobyhanna Army Depot                 Tobyhanna, PA
           York Naval Ordnance Plant            Springettsbury, PA

             Any information on these installations, to include correspondance
and conversation with persons assigned to these sites would help immensely.
Please forward material, information or suggestions to:
        Director,
        U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosives Safety
        ATTN: SMCAC-ESL
        Savanna, IL  61074-9639

Forwarded materiels will be returned promptly.

                 Commercial:  (815) 273-8739
                 DSN: 585-8739

Email addresses for our researchers are:

[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

******************************************************************************
* Mike LaForge, QASAS                                                        *
* U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosive Safety (USATCES)                  *
* Explosive Safety Logistics Division (ESL)                                  *
* Defense Environmental Restoration Program - Formerly Used Defense Sites    *
* (DERP FUDS)                                                                *
* DSN: 585-8762  FAX: 585-8769  COMM: 815-273-8762                           *
******************************************************************************

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 18:45:07 EDT
From:    SKIP WILDER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [NOST] Grim Reapers' Ole Moe.

Robert,
        I've been to the Champlin Fighter Museum in Mesa, AZ, again as
recently as this past March.  They have a magnificent collection of WWII
fighters as well as a rather extensive gift shop.  Suggest you contact area
code 602 information for their telephone number.
        Regards,

 -----------------------------------------------------------
 |    Skip Wilder              |                           |
 |    [email-masked]      |"The road to hell is paved |
 |    FAX (703)528-2103        | with good intentions."    |
 |    McLean, Virginia, U.S.A. |                           |
 -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Tue, 24 May 1994 18:26:32 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [NOST] Grim Reapers' Ole Moe.

Robert Hohlt...
        Is the GRIM REAPERS outfit you mention the same USAF squadron
that flew B-26's on Interuder missions over North Korea?   If so, I
am having a vet of the outfit visit me this coming weekend -- Sgt.
Lucien Thomas, most decorated air-gunner of the SAF (also ex-RAF,
ex-RCAF in WW2 before transferring to USAAF.)
His GRIM REAPERS served in the Korean War.
Let me know.
Regards.

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 23 May 1994 to 24 May 1994
*************************************************