Subject: WWII-L Digest - 17 May 1994 to 18 May 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 00:00:54 -0400

There are 26 messages totalling 876 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. INFO ME 410 and B-24 (4)
  2. The Magnus effect (3)
  3. INF: USAAF 18 MAY 44
  4. bombing of Auschwitz
  5. Nice Story
  6. Air Power in Southwest Pacific (Self-Sealing Tanks)
  7. Bombing
  8. Mussolini
  9. Nazis - left or right? (2)
 10. HIST: Nurses in combat zones
 11. INF: USN Chronology 05-18-94
 12. US Casualties Battle of Bulge vs. Pacific
 13. INF: Regia Marina, Part 1 (2)
 14. TRIV:  Spam (2)
 15. TRV: QUESTION REGARDING DEATH OF GENERAL STUMPFF
 16. SCI RE: Psyops WWII
 17. SCI (Psyops WWII)
 18. Re[2]: Air Power in Southwest Pacific (Self-Sealing Tanks)

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

Date:    Tue, 17 May 1994 21:35:10 -0700
From:    Henry Frummer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INFO ME 410 and B-24

The ME 410A-2/U2 was a night fighter.  It was fitted with SN-2
Lichtenstein radar and carried two MG 151 and two 30 mm Mk 108.  There
were many varients and what I could gather was that the night fighter was
not the most numerious or successful of the varients.  It was used as a
night fighter on both fronts.

Henry Frummer, a WWII buff with a large library,

On Tue, 17 May 1994, It's but a flesh wound. wrote:

> >I doubt that the installation of the SN-2 radar on the Me 410 would be
> >very practical; the clearance between the nose and propellers looks to
> >small for the antenna masts of the radar.
> >
> >There seems to have been some talk of building a nightfighter version in
> >the C-series; that had longer wings, more powerful engines, and twin-wheel
> >main landing gear. But no C-series aircraft were built.
> >
> >Emmanuel Gustin
>
>
>     ----------  End of Original Message  ----------
>
> No, the Me 410 was used in the war, but it was used in the evening, so it
> wasn't realy classified as a night fighter.  I don't remember if it had radar,
> or it's specififc arament, but it was rather impresive.
>         --  Mad Hatter
>

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 11:04:31 GMT
From:    Johannes van Vuren <[email-masked]>
Subject: The Magnus effect

When a cricket ball is made to spin around an axis perpendicular and vertical
to its forward motion, the ball swerves to one side due to the increase of
pressure on the one side. This is known as the Magnus effect.

Now, it is said that artillery shells swerve out too due to this effect. But
how can this work since the shell spins around an axis parallel to its motion
and not perpendicular to it. Spinning like that cannot cause the pressure to
increase on one side of the shell. Or am I missing something here?

Anyway, how did ww2 gun sights compensate for the Magnus effect, if at all?

Many thanks,
Johannes van Vuren,
Canterbury, England.

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 07:00:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USAAF 18 MAY 44

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
THURSDAY, 18 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:
  B-17, Boeing Flying Fortress
  B-24, Consolidated Liberator
  B-25, North American Mitchell
  C-47, Douglas Skytrain
  P-38, Lockheed Lightning
  P-39, Bell Airacobra
  P-40, Curtiss

AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  ALASKA (Eleventh Air Force): Over the Kurile Islands, a B-24 on weather
reconnaissance attacks a Japanese aircraft and 2 B-25s sink an auxiliary
vessel; another is sunk shortly before 2400 hours by 2 other B-25s.

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA (CBI) THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  BURMA-INDIA (Tenth Air Force): In Burma, 140+ fighter-bombers and 6 B-25s
pound numerous targets throughout the Mogaung Valley, concentrating on
bridges (at least 4 are knocked out) and support of ground forces in areas
around Myitkyina, Nanyaseik, Kamaing, Namkwin, Kazu, Lonkin and Katkyo; 8
B-25s knock out a Mu River bridge and damage Chaungu bridge approaches; 12
P-38s destroy several aircraft at Shwebo.

  CHINA (Fourteenth Air Force): In China, 6 B-25s and 12 P-40s pound barracks
and warehouse areas at Chienyangi, causing many fires; 30 P-40s support
ground forces in the Salween area, hitting troops and positions at Tengchung,
Tatangtzu, Mamien Pass and Luchiangpa; 12 B-24s bomb the towns of Lungling
and Tengchung; 25 Chinese-American Composite Wing (CACW) and Chinese Air
Force (CAF) P-40s attack trucks, armor, and troops at Chueh-shan and Loning,
causing widespread destruction.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Fifteenth Air Force): Almost 450 bombers, mostly with
fighter escort, hit targets in Rumania and Yugoslavia; both B-17s and B-24s
bomb the industrial area at Ploesti, Rumania and the marshalling yard at
Belgrade, Yugoslavia; the B-17s also hit the marshalling yard at Nis,
Yugoslavia; 300+ other bombers abandon the missions because of bad weather;
fighters strafe airfields at Nis and Scutari, Yugoslavia.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy, medium bombers continue
to hit rail bridges, bombing farther into the N of Italy and thus putting
more pressure on the strained German communications system; light bombers hit
storage areas; fighter-bombers continue close support to Allied ground
forces, hitting town areas, roads, enemy positions, railroads and numerous
other targets in the battle area, including points in or around Pico,
Pontecorvo. Fondi, Terracina, Ceccano, Pastena, San Giovanni Valdarno,
Perugia, Terni, Spoleto, Sant' Elpidio a Mare, Pedaso and N of Rome, as the
British Eighth Army completes the reduction of the Gustav Line in the Liri
River Valley with the capture of Cassino, while the US Fifth Army takes
Formia.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA, Seventh Air Force): B-25s based on Makin Island
bomb Taroa Island, Maloelap Atoll, rearm at Majuro Atoll and attack the same
target during the return flight to base.

SOUTH PACIFIC AREA (SOPAC, Thirteenth Air Force): On Bougainville Island, 10
P-39s hit barges off Porton; 40+ P-38s and P-39s pound a supply area N of
Mupuai.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA (SWPA, Fifth Air Force): In New Guinea, 100+ fighter-
bombers, A-20s, B-25s and B-24s pound targets of opportunity in the Wewak-
Hansa Bay area throughout the day; and 68th Troop Carrier Squadron, 433d
Troop Carrier Group, based at Nadzab sends a detachment to operate from Tadji
with C-47s.  B-24s hit targets of opportunity on Halmahera Island, Moluccas
Islands and bomb Bosnik. B-25s hit Larot, Celebes Islands and Saumlakki,
Tanimbar Island, Moluccas Islands.

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:    Wed, 18 May 1994 08:42:30 -0230
From:    OLAF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: bombing of Auschwitz

Those wishing to learn more about the rationale in bombing/not bombing
Auschwitz should try to look up a recent article by James H. Kitchens III
entitled "The Bombing of Auschwitz Re-examined." The article appeared in
_The Journal of Military History_ vol. 58, No. 2, April 1994, pp. 233-266.

Olaf Janzen
Corner Brook, Newfoundland

[email-masked]

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 07:15:54 EDT
From:    Ingalls Steven MAJ <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The Magnus effect

Mr. van Vuren writes:

>Now, it is said that artillery shells swerve out too due to this effect. But
>how can this work since the shell spins around an axis parallel to its motion
>and not perpendicular to it. Spinning like that cannot cause the pressure to
>increase on one side of the shell. Or am I missing something here?

Most artillery shells which are spin stabilized also experience a Magnus
effect.  Difficult to visualize here, but with forward velocity equal on both
sides of the round, the rotational speed will add to the total velocity on one
side and decrease the total velocity on the other - yes, even when the flight
path is 'near' parallel to the rounds' long axis.

Most exterior ballistics manuals will call the Magnus effect near zero as it is
countered in many cases by Coriolis forces.  I think there is a geographic
(latitude-longitude) effect on Coriolis, where Magnus is a function of
projectile velocity and spin rate.

>Anyway, how did ww2 gun sights compensate for the Magnus effect, if at all?

I don't know.  Modern firing tables for field artillery pieces include these
corrections in their firing data.

MAJ Stephen Ingalls
USMA, West Point
FLY ARMY!

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 07:21:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Nice Story

JOE,

I know this is not about World War II but it (1) is a nice story that helps
restore your faith in mankind and (2) it is about the military.

Jack McKillop

307.  Fishers house families
                             &    &    &
                             &    &    &
                             &    &    &
307.  Fishers house families
by TSgt. Gary Pomeroy
Air Force News Service
     WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Zachary Fisher's impact on the Air Force was felt
from coast-to-coast during a recent five-day span.
     The retired New York real estate executive-turned-philanthropist received
the Air Force's Exceptional Service Award from Air Force Chief of Staff
General Merrill A. McPeak at a ceremony in Washington May 7.
     Four days later, Fisher attended the dedication ceremony at Travis AFB,
California, for the 22nd Fisher House he and his wife Elizabeth have donated
to agencies within the Department of Defense.
     Fisher Houses provide temporary lodging at no cost to family members of
seriously ill patients in DOD medical facilities.
     "It was the Fishers' intention to be able to keep service families
together during periods of medical emergency or crisis, when they especially
needed the support of all the family members," said a Fisher House statement.
     "As we go through the hustle and bustle of today's life, it's easy to
overlook the hundreds of personal tragedies and struggles servicemembers and
their families go through everyday," said Air Force Secretary Sheila E.
Widnall at the Travis dedication.
     "Two people who don't overlook them are Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher.
And for that we owe them a great debt of gratitude."
     The Fisher House Foundation Inc. is a non-profit charitable organization
founded by the Fishers.  The houses are completely furnished and equipped,
including food for residents.
     The 5,000-square-foot (465-square-meters) Travis facility contains seven
bedrooms and is valued at about US$800,000, according to Travis officials.
     Air Force-based Fisher Houses are also located at Keesler AFB,
Mississippi, and Lackland AFB, Texas.  Plans are underway to open houses at
Andrews AFB, Maryland; Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; Scott AFB, Illinois; and
the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
     The first Fisher House was officially opened on June 23, 1991, at the
National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, by then-President Bush.
--

      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency
   |         |              Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /
   \ Bergman /
     \     /

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 07:29:09 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Air Power in Southwest Pacific (Self-Sealing Tanks)

> >
> >    From what I remember seeing, it looked like this:
> >
> >                        Outer Metal Casing
> >                        ------------------
> >                          Rubber Sealant
> >                        ------------------
> >                        Inner Metal Casing
> >

The first P-40s of course had no armor or self-sealing tanks. The French
bought some of these and the British took over the order in the summer of
1940. Designated Tomahawk Mk I. Used them as trainers and asked for two
more wing guns (total of four, plus two fifties in nose) plus pilot
armor and self-sealing tanks. Curtiss put a membrane around the outside
of the tanks. This was Tomahawk Mk II, which the US Army adopted as
Curtiss P-40B (I guess there never was an A model).

Of course it didn't work, so Curtiss put in an internal membrane =
Tomahawk IIB = P-40C. This was the plane flown by the AVG Flying Tigers
in Burma and by RAF 112 Sq and many other Commonwealth sqs in North Africa.

I thought it was just a rubber bag inside the tank? Then when reading of
Navy fighter planes c. 1942 I see the word "cells" and I picture several
such rubber bags lying side by side inside a metal tank. No? Also, I
thought that one way the self-sealing membrames worked was by contracting
as the gas was withdrawn.

The Japanese, after losing many bombers to the AVG in Burma, withdrew all
their army heavies in May 1942 to refit them with a system to inject
neutral gas (nitrogen, I think) to reduce the likelihood of explosion.

Cheers - Dan     <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 08:10:23 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bombing

>
> >> >I wouldn't be willing to risk it at ANY level.  BOMB! :)
> >>
> >> You wouldn't be of the "nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the
> >> dark school," by any chance, would you?  (-:
> >
> >Nah, I'm of the "Slap another magazine, in my trusty M16, all I want to see is,
> >bodies - bodies - bodies" school.... :)
>
>
>     ----------  End of Original Message  ----------
> Brother I hear you, but give me something that is even more American, and more
> forgiving than a '16 in rain, my trusty, (but not rusty) M1 carbines!!

Actually, that's just a lyric from a jody call.  I'll take an M1 Garand any day!

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 07:58:34 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Mussolini

On Tue, 17 May 1994 11:14:47 -0400 Barone said:
>. . . . From
>my limited reading, Italy was a mess after World War I.  For being one of the
>victors, this comes as a bit of a surprise.  Italy was slighted at the peace
>conference, acquiring a token parcel of territory from Austria-Hungary.

This depends.  Italy didn't suffer nearly as much as the other war powers,
after all, but did have to face the consequences of pre-war social problems
that had been deferred by the war.  As for the South Tyrol, I hesitate to
describe that as "token"; it's roughly the size of Alsace & very strategic
from the standpoint of Venice & the north Adriatic litoral.  (It also remains
a point of contention to this day, with armed resistance to Italian rule.
Too much to call it a guerrilla war, but a little more violent than, say,
the separationists in Quebec.)

>Further, one of the reasons for creating the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, and
>Slovenes (Yugoslavia) was to counter Italian domination of the Adriatic.  This
>is not the best way to make an ally happy.

Yes, the Allies were ambivalent about Italy because it entered the war late,
and wound up as a drain on their resources & potential weak spot, rather than
a reinforcement.  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.

>. . . . Remember, Mussolini came to power in 1922 and
>people didn't seem to be too upset with his reign.  He created public works
>projects (Rome still has the "SPQR" man-hole covers from one of his projects).

*Shrug*  What would you?  One could say the same of Hitler, after all.  It
seems to me that =Three Faces of Fascism= has a good discussion of Mussolini,
although it's been over 15 years since I read it--authored by, umm, Nolte?--
and you might try picking it up; it's fairly standard college reading, I
believe.

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 14:31:22 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INFO ME 410 and B-24

On Tue, 17 May 1994, Henry Frummer wrote:

> The ME 410A-2/U2 was a night fighter.  It was fitted with SN-2
> Lichtenstein radar and carried two MG 151 and two 30 mm Mk 108.  There
> were many varients and what I could gather was that the night fighter was
> not the most numerious or successful of the varients.  It was used as a
> night fighter on both fronts.

That is more or less what I too have read. But is it correct? There are
more examples of confusion or errors in the books on Luftwaffe aircraft
--- e.g. some report Ju 88C versions that didn't exist, and the Bf 109D
designation is reported for two very different aircraft. Do you, or
anyone else, have a photograph of the type? Any idea of production
numbers? Units that used it?

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 15:10:02 +0200
From:    Bengt Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Nazis - left or right?

>     If "right-wing" means *extremely* conservative, the NAZIs
>were hardly that.  They were nationalist and socialist.  The NAZI
>German economy was hardly free and open.  Totalitarianism -- of
>any kind -- is NOT conservative.
>
>Lou Coatney, Western Illinois University Library (til 30Jun94)

I don't think that "extremely conservative" is the only word you can
use to describe someone on the far right. I am absolutely no expert on
political ideologies, but I would think that "reactionary" is also
a possible term.

Totalitarianism, doesn't that include the past, and in some instances
the present, military regimes of Latin America and Africa. For instance,
would you label the Argentian regime during the Falklands war socialist?

Nazism consisted and consists of ideas from across the political spectrum
and it is perhaps difficult to place it on a left-right scale. In Shirer's
book "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" I found a definition of
socialist once used by Hitler in a speech. I will not attempt to translate
it back into English. I will only say that his definition of a socialist
was a person that put Germany and the German people first. That is hardly
the classical definition.

The Nazis as well as the Italian Fascists emphasized the strong leader. "Il
Duce" and "Der Fuehrer" can I suppose just as well find its roots in the
idea of the strong king, chosen by God to lead the country. Those kings and
emperors that once led Europe according to that principle can hardly be called
socialist. Marx was not looking for that sort of society. He was striving
for a society controlled by the working classes.

Bengt Nilsson
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 09:14:46 -0400
From:    Warren Thompson <[email-masked]>
Subject: HIST: Nurses in combat zones

There is recently published book dealing with what military
nurses experienced in Indochina: Barbara Deardorff et al., ANOTHER
KIND OF WAR STORY. For more information contact AKOWS @ 717-273-4756.

-- Warren Thompson

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 08:03:19 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 05-18-94

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

1944
05/18 Thu. United States Naval Base and Naval Air Station, Manus
           Island, Admiralty Islands, are established.

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

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 08:35:47 -0700
From:    Henry Frummer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INFO ME 410 and B-24

In the _Complete Book of World War II Combat Aircraft_ Angelucci &
Matricardi, there is a picture on page 149 of a Me 410 with what looks
like a Liechtenenstein C1 radar set.

I agree, you can't believe everything you read even if it is echoed in
several books.

On Wed, 18 May 1994, Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> On Tue, 17 May 1994, Henry Frummer wrote:
>
> > The ME 410A-2/U2 was a night fighter.  It was fitted with SN-2
> > Lichtenstein radar and carried two MG 151 and two 30 mm Mk 108.  There
> > were many varients and what I could gather was that the night fighter was
> > not the most numerious or successful of the varients.  It was used as a
> > night fighter on both fronts.
>
> That is more or less what I too have read. But is it correct? There are
> more examples of confusion or errors in the books on Luftwaffe aircraft
> --- e.g. some report Ju 88C versions that didn't exist, and the Bf 109D
> designation is reported for two very different aircraft. Do you, or
> anyone else, have a photograph of the type? Any idea of production
> numbers? Units that used it?
>
> Emmanuel Gustin
>

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 08:57:30 -0700
From:    Henry Frummer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: US Casualties Battle of Bulge vs. Pacific

The original quote in American Caesar by Manchester is:

"In his campaigns he was remarkably economical of human life-his total
casualties from Australia to V-J Day were fewer than those in the Battle
of the Bulge..."  A footnote goes on to say that MacArthur's casualty
rate for the period was 90,437.  The total casualties for the Battle of
the Bulge was 106,502.

It seems that Manchester conveniently leaves out MacArthurs original defeat
in the Philippines.  For several other reasons, this is a meaningless
statistic.  Perhaps comparing him with other Pacific theater commanders
would be more meaningful.  Another case of where a statistic may seem
like it is saying something until one applies thought.

Henry

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 13:16:43 -0400
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: Regia Marina, Part 1

        I sent these installments out about a year ago.  Since there are
probably a quite a few new readers, I thought I would post them again.  My
primary source for this information is "Regia Marina: Italian Battleships
of World War II" by Ermino Bagnasco and Mark Grossman.  I've cleaned them
up a bit but they haven't changed much from last year.  I would appreciate
feedback (via private email) on whether I should send out the additional
installments.  Of course, discussion generated by these articles is
encouraged!     - Joe
------------------------------------- Part 1 ----------------------------------

        The Italian navy came into existence shortly after the unification
of the country in 1861 with the amalgamation of the small navies of the
various states.  This young navy inherited ancient traditions but integration
was long and difficult.  The defeat at Lissa, in 1866, at the hands of the
Austrians was a serious blow to the Italians.  However, the Italo-Turkish
war of 1911 convinced the navy that it finally achieved real operational
experience.  This view was reinforced in World War I.  Despite these
successes, though, Italian naval operations had been limited to the use
of light forces and submarines in a closed sea, the Adriatic.  This did
not provide the navy with experience in high-seas operations against a
strong, well equipped adversary.  In 1940, the Regia Marina, though
equipped with modern ships, suffered grave deficiencies in technology,
organization, logistics, doctrine, and most importantly, real high-seas
experience.

        When Italy declared war on the Allies on June 10, 1940, the Italian
Navy had only two battleships combat ready, the "Conte di Cavour" and "Giulio
Cesare".  These ships comprised the 5th Division of the 1st Naval Squadron.
Both were World War I vintage ships which had been decommissioned in the
late 1920s only to be modernized and reactivated in the mid-1930s.  Despite
this modernization, though, both ships still were deficient in armor and
armament.  The more modern ships, "Littorio" and "Vittorio Veneto", making up
the 9th Division, had only been handed over by the shipyards and were still
undergoing training that would take another three months before they were
operational.  "Caio Duilio" and "Andrea Doria" were still in the yards, being
fitted out and undergoing trials and training.  "Duilio" would be ready at
the end of the summer, "Doria" by the end of the fall.  The other "Littorio"
class ships, "Roma" and "Impero", were still under construction.

        That the battleship force was so unprepared for war is convincing
evidence that the Italian declaration of war was prompted by political, not
military, considerations.  Another affect of the sudden declaration was that
large numbers of Italian merchant ships were unable to return home, being
captured or interned, significantly reducing available shipping.  Mussolini
believed that France would soon fall to the advancing Germans and the
capitulation of Great Britain would follow shortly thereafter.  Despite
France's collapse, however, Britain stood firm and rejected a negotiated
peace.  As a result, Italy became embroiled in a long and difficult conflict
with her armed forces, industry, and economic base totally unprepared.

        Allied strategy depended on the French Fleet playing a large role
in holding the Mediterranean.  France's withdrawal from the war meant that
there was now near parity between Italian and British naval forces in the
area.  The Italian Navy included two battleships (with four more nearly
ready), seven heavy and twelve light cruisers, about one hundred and twenty
destroyers and torpedo boats and over one hundred submarines.  These forces
were numerically superior to the British Mediterranean Fleet, based in
Alexandria, and Force H, a hastily constructed replacement for the French
Fleet, based in Gibraltar.  Together, these two British forces would have
been an imposing force but they rarely operated together because of
operational demands placed on each.

        The Italians were handicapped by the lack of aircraft carriers.
This was to have a significant and negative effect in numerous engagements
and on the course of the war.  British tactics were based on the use of
carrier-based aircraft in reconnaissance and strike roles.  All Italian
aircraft were controlled by the Regia Aeronautica which had resisted every
attempt to create a naval air arm and the building of carriers.  It was
Mussolini's opinion that the Italian peninsula served as a large carrier.
He failed to perceive the need for specially trained naval aviators or the
requirement for carrier aircraft to protect the fleet.  The need was finally
acknowledged in 1941 but the first Italian carrier, "Aquila", though ready
at the time of the armistice, never entered service.

        A brief period of relative quiet followed the first weeks after
Italy's entrance into the war, as the two navies assessed the situation.
However, the need for Italy to supply its forces in Libya and for Britain
to reinforce its forces in Egypt and Malta led to an early delineation
of naval strategy in the Mediterranean -- the interdiction of enemy
convoys and protection of friendly ones.  This became the objective of
numerous operations.

        The first major fleet action in the Mediterranean occurred on
July 9, 1940, in the waters of Point Stilo, off Calabria.  An Italian
squadron comprising the battleships "Cesare", "Cavour", 14 cruisers,
and numerous destroyers, came into contact with the British Mediterranean
Fleet.  This included the battleships "Warspite", "Malaya", and "Royal
Sovereign", aircraft carrier "Eagle", five light cruisers, and 14
destroyers.  The two squadrons were at sea escorting convoys; the Italians
were escorting one to Benghazi, and the British were escorting two -- one
to Malta, and one evacuating civilians from the island.

        Neither side fought the action with great zeal.  Contact between
the two forces occurred in a position favorable for the Italians, near
the Italian coast and in range of land-based bombers.

        Initially, there was a brief and inconsequential exchange of fire
between the cruiser forces.  At 3:53 PM, "Cesare" and "Cavour", each armed
with 10 12.6 inch guns, opened fire at a range of 26,400 meters against
"Warspite", which was in the van of the British battleships.  "Warspite"
returned fired, as did the other battleships.  At 3:59 PM, "Cesare" was
hit by a 15-inch shell from "Warspite" at extreme range which went through
the after smoke stack, exploding on the armored deck and causing a fire.
Four of her eight boiler rooms were filled with smoke, forcing them to
shut down, which reduced her speed to 18 knots.  Admiral Campioni, the
Italian commander, decided to break contact.  He ordered a destroyer
attack and continued firing with his aft guns, to cover his withdrawal.
Within half an hour, "Cesare" had worked back up to nearly 24 knots and
sailed to Messina for repairs while the rest of the fleet made for Taranto.

        The Battle of Point Stilo (known by the British as the Action off
Calabria) had no tactical winners or losers and neither side incurred
significant losses.  However, it demonstrated the inferiority of the
rebuilt Italian battleships compared to the heavier, better armed British
ships.  More importantly, it revealed the lack of Italian naval-air force
cooperation.  Though close to Italy, requested aircraft arrived late, failed
to cause any damage to the British and even mistakenly attacked the Italian
ships.  This contrasted markedly with the British use of carrier aircraft
from "Eagle" which were present throughout the engagement, harrying the
Italians.  These were used effectively though they did not achieve results
on this occasion.  A psychological ascendancy was gained by the British due
to this action, which they never relinquished, even in their desperate days
of 1942.

        This encounter might have had a different outcome, however.  The
9th Division, made up of "Veneto" and "Littorio", were in the final stages
of training and were nearly operational.  Admiral Bergamini, commander of
the 9th, requested permission to sail and add his ships' 15-inch guns to
the battle, but his request was denied.
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
I thought I told you to get me a good-lookin'
kid -- not this fat, sausage-chewin' wino!

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 13:41:46 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INF: Regia Marina, Part 1

Yes, please continue to post these!

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 14:03:59 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: TRIV:  Spam

Today is the 103rd anniversary of the birth of SPAM!

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 23:35:13 +0200
From:    John Ausland <[email-masked]>
Subject: TRV: QUESTION REGARDING DEATH OF GENERAL STUMPFF

  Oslo, May 18, 1994
  When Keitel signed the surrender documents at Berlin, General Hans Juergen
Stumpff was sitting to his right.  He was at that time Commander of the Air
Force.  Could anyone give me the date and circumstances of his death?
  Regards, John Ausland

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 13:50:19 -0500
From:    "Sidney W. Kitchel" <[email-masked]>
Subject: SCI RE: Psyops WWII

Archie T. Smith writes:
>                      Did the Allied powers use psychology operations
>during WWII?  If so, which theaters of operations? If both European and
>Pacific, were there any differences in methodology, delivery, etc?

        The answer is yes, the allies did use psychological warfare
distinguishable from deception. I know of ops in Europe and in China.
The OSS was very involved in this. You might seek books on OSS
operations to start with. The favorite op from China that I recall was
giving kids skirt guns containing a liquid that smelled like human
feces. The modus operandi was to get the liquid on a Japanese
officer's clothing. The hope was to embarrass the fellow and make him
in-effective for a time.
        Another, while not purely psychological but nonetheless having
a psychological element, involved a light-sensor triggered bomb placed
under railcars in northern Italy. The sudden darkening from entry into
a tunnel set off the bomb. The psychological element was in the sign
on the bomb which announced that it was a traffic control device of
the Reichs' railway and tampering with it was a major offense. I
believe that the bomb also employed backward screws, i.e. screws that
tightened to the left instead of the right.
        Of course, the standard psychological warfare technique was in
pamphlets delivered behind the lines.

                                                        --Sid
--
Sidney W. Kitchel      [email-masked], [email-masked]
Data Parallel Systems, Inc.  ============||  DPSI  ||===============
4617 E. Morningside Drive                             (812) 334-8100
Bloomington, Indiana,  47408  USA               FAX:  (812) 334-8121

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 12:38:55 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIV:  Spam

SPAM's 103rd birthday you say?
        *Thought* it always tasted a bit 'off'.

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 15:09:54 -0500
From:    Bill Smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: SCI (Psyops WWII)

I can't speak with documented knowledge on the use, but I do have one
first-hand story on use of what would loosely be construed as Psyops.  As
crackpot as this might seem, my high school football coach (USAAF) told
stories of his assignments as a "morale" officer.  Most amounted to his
acting like a mole to "get into" the heads of prospective pilots.  Also
talked about some OSS-ish intelligence work.

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 15:22:47 -0500
From:    Bill Smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Nazis - left or right?

On Tue, 17 May 1994, Lakeville Senior High wrote:

> I've got jump in here.  Part of the "left or right" debate is that people
> high school students think that the Nazis and Communists are the same
> thing.  We explain the differences by drawing a box where political and
> social freedoms run across the horizontal and economic system is measured
> across the verticle

A quick counter -- I've always pictured this in a circle.  Whatever point
you (or the mainstream of a nation) find yourself politically becomes the
center.  Depending on the keystones involved, say personal liberty and
private property, move to the right along the circle toward conservative
or to the left toward socialist.  At the opposite side of the circle the
politics meet at the antithesis of the keystones, say collectivism.  It's
cliche, but this visualization follows the old saw "so far to the left he
was right," and vice versa.

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

Date:    Thu, 19 May 1994 08:43:13 +1000
From:    Derek Monz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INFO ME 410 and B-24

> In the _Complete Book of World War II Combat Aircraft_ Angelucci &
> Matricardi, there is a picture on page 149 of a Me 410 with what looks
> like a Liechtenenstein C1 radar set.
>
  Thanks for the information, everyone, Now my interest is really up. I
would like to get any info on units that either used or were going to use it.

TIA.

[email-masked] Msc (Geology) 1994.
disclaimer: - I didn't do it!.

" In the beginning Boeing created the B-17 and they were pleased. It came to
pass that the United States Army Air Corps saw what Boeing had wrought and
they too were pleased, and they praised the big bird that Boeing had
brought forth. And it also came to pass that the Luftwaffe saw the B-17
and they were sorely afraid exclaiming loudly "oh woe is me, oh woe is
me"".
                            ((-------))
                                \o/
                                 |
                               _/ \_

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 18:46:37 PST
From:    "Jones, Scott T." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Air Power in Southwest Pacific (Self-Sealing Tanks)

     Dan Ford wrote...

     "I thought it was just a rubber bag inside the tank? Then when reading
     of Navy fighter planes c. 1942 I see the word "cells" and I picture
     several such rubber bags lying side by side inside a metal tank. No?
     Also, I thought that one way the self-sealing membranes worked was by
     contracting as the gas was withdrawn."

     Speaking while sitting under my Chemist hat... the rubber bags must
     have been on the outside of the tanks of fuel. If a polymer (or
     rubber) is subjected to a form of petroleum, it will soften and in
     most cases deteriorate. The self sealing tanks took advantage of this
     as follows...

     SCENARIO: Single round (.50 cal?) punctures tank. The round puts a hole
     into the fuel tank lining as well as the rubber surrounding it. The
     gasoline, (petroleum), is introduced to the rubber which, in turn,
     softens and "oozes" (tech term) into the hole to plug it. The hole
     would, I imagine, be of a conical form with the base at the point of
     entry into the tank. This would allow the rubber's plugging effect to
     occur more easily. While I expect my explanation to be shot down by
     Barry and his fellow physicists (no pun intended), I do believe it is
     accurate.

     Barry...?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Scott T. Jones                | "Just because you MAY do it, it doesn't
     Dahlgren, VA 22448  USA       |  necessarily mean that you SHOULD do it."
     Internet: [email-masked]  |                     -Thurgood Marshall
_____________________________________________________________________________

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

Date:    Wed, 18 May 1994 19:26:00 -0700
From:    Terry Yeung <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The Magnus effect

> Now, it is said that artillery shells swerve out too due to this effect. But
> how can this work since the shell spins around an axis parallel to its motion
> and not perpendicular to it. Spinning like that cannot cause the pressure to
> increase on one side of the shell. Or am I missing something here?
>
> Anyway, how did ww2 gun sights compensate for the Magnus effect, if at all?

        I wonder if this has anything to do with the effect with single-prop
aircraft.  Back in high school I took an aerospace science call where we
learned some basic aerodynamics and one of the thing we learned was I
think called 'P-spin' that occurred on single-prop aircraft.   On take-off
they have a tendancy to tend toward one side, so you have to push the stick
toward the other to keep straight.  I can't quite remember the physics behind
it buth I think it's because of the airflow around the nose generated by the
props.

--
Terry Yeung                             \ Internet: [email-masked]
Anime Expo '94 Registration Supervisor   \ Expo: [email-masked]

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 17 May 1994 to 18 May 1994
*************************************************