Subject: WWII-L Digest - 20 Jul 1994 to 21 Jul 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 00:02:27 -0400

There are 35 messages totalling 1365 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. INF: USN Chronology 07-21-94
  2. WW2 in schools (3)
  3. [INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44 (7)
  4. INF: 50 Years Ago - 21-JUL-1944
  5. INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44 (2)
  6. Thanks for the info on the Iowas (3)
  7. Re[2]: Armor on Iowa Battleships
  8. MUSTANGS (2)
  9. PC at the Smithsonian (6)
 10. WWII in schools
 11. ADMIN: My thanks
 12. Hetzer TD's
 13. A-bomb, was: Re: PC at the Smithsonian (2)
 14. Invading America, (was PC at Smithsonian)
 15. INF:Books regarding British colonial troops in North Africa
 16. What they knew about radiation
 17. Japanese no big threat(!):  Hindsight run amuck.

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 01:30:48 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 07-21-94

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

1944
07/21 Fri. Naval attack force (Rear Adm R. L. Conolly) lands Marines
           and Army forces (Maj. Gen. R. S. Geiger, USMC) on Guam,
           Marianas Islands.  Assault is preceded by intensive naval
           gunfire and carrier-based aircraft attacks.
            United States naval vessel damaged:
             Submarine chaser SC-1316, by coastal mortar, Marianas
              Islands area,
              13 d. 24'N., 144 d. 39'E.

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

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 23:41:43 PDT
From:    "Stephen Casey (DLS)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WW2 in schools

From: Ken Koester  <[email-masked]>
To: Multiple recipients of list W.W.II-L  <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WW2 in schools
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 1994 1:51PM

On Wed, 20 Jul 1994 09:13:32 +1000 John Foster said:
>    The schools aren't all to blame. It illustrates the problem of general
>history courses in covering the time period involved with the time available.
>I am doing history with the 19 year olds this semester (Australia in the 20th
>Century) and WW2 gets two 1hour lectures and a 1hr tutorial, the same as
>Vietnam.

It's rough, all right.  Even a 20th century Europe class that topped out
more or less in 1960--ie, 60 years worth of history--gave only half a
dozen lectures or so to W.W.II, although quite a good buildup to the '30s &
the rise of fascism.  I took this 1 quarter class to be what a survey
class should be (-:

ken koester
[email-masked]

Speaking from a European point of view, W.W.II was the bloody
culmination of the previous twenty years. To understand the war you
must understand what lead up to it. For this reason you need to learn
about the carve up of Europe after the First World War, the effect that
this had on the peoples living in the affected areas and the rise of
Fascism and the other popular movements in Europe in the twenties and
thirties. Understand these and you will see their effects on Germany
primarily, but also on the other combatants. You will understand the
war better and see why the war started and was allowed to start.
Otherwise if you start at 1939 you will be studying the war in
isolation and only get quarter of the story. 1939-1945 was a series of
bloody disasters (at different times for at least one side in the
conflict) with amazing heroism abounding on all sides and practiced by
soldiers who no doubt all believed that they were doing the right
things for the right motives. Studying just the battles, the weaponry
and the diplomacy of the immediate war period is like studying D-Day
without looking at the build up to it. For that reason I can see
nothing wrong with spending the bulk of class time dealing with the
build up to the war and less time dealing with the hostilities
themselves. Another reason why more time should be spent on the build
up and less on the actual fighting is that if the students are going to
do any reading at all, they are more likely to read up on the battles
then to read up on the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany and how it was
mirrored in every other European country, although thankfully they did
not get into power in every other country.

Stephen Casey,
Dublin,
Ireland.

[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 06:59:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: [INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
FRIDAY, 21 JULY 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
  F-6, North American Mustang
  P-38, Lockheed Lightning
  P-39, Bell Airacobra
  P-40, Curtiss
  P-47, Republic Thunderbolt
  P-51, North American Mustang

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA (CBI) THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  BURMA-INDIA (Tenth Air Force): In Burma, 6 B-25s bomb the railroad at
Mohnyin and 1 hits the town of Naba. In India, the 434th Bombardment Squadron
(Medium), 12th Bombardment Group (Medium), moves from Madhaiganj Airfield to
Comilla with B-25s.

  CHINA (Fourteenth Air Force): 41 P-40s hit the town area, airfield, trucks,
river shipping, and troops at Changsha, trucks, horses, and junks at Sinshih,
and troop concentrations, artillery sites, and pillboxes at Hengyang.

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 486: 1,110 bombers and 795
fighters are dispatched in 4 forces to bomb targets in Germany, among them 4
aircraft plants and 2 ball bearing plants; 31 bombers and 8 fighters are
lost:
  1. Of 433 B-24s, 106 hit Munich, 93 hit Saarbrucken marshalling yards, 78
hit targets of opportunity, 54 hit Oberpfeffenhofen, 33 hit Neuabuing, 13 hit
Bullay Bridge, and 9 hit Schorndorf; they claim 10-2-0 Luftwaffe aircraft; 22
B-24s are lost, 3 are damaged beyond repair and 181 damaged; 1 airman is KIA,
7 WIA and 205 MIA. Escort is provided by 262 P-47s and P-51s; they claim
2-0-1 aircraft in the air and 3-0-10 n the ground; 5 P-51s are lost.
  2. Of 96 B-24s, 48 hit targets of opportunity, 17 hit Duren, 12 hit
Walldrun marshalling yard and 9 hit Indenboden; 2 B-24s are lost and 12
damaged; 20 airmen are MIA. Escort is provided by 109 P-47s and P-51s; they
claim 1-0-0 aircraft.
  3. Of 241 B-17s, 90 hit Regensburg/Obertraubling, 44 hit Regensburg/
Prufening, 40 hit Stuttgart and 18 hit targets of opportunity; 4 B-17s are
lost and 88 damaged; 2 airmen are KIA, 1 WIA and 38 MIA. Escort is provided
by 148 P-47s and P-51s; they claim 3-0-0 aircraft; 2 P-51s are lost.
  4. Of 340 B-17s, 99 hit Schweinfurt, 70 hit Ebelsbach, 59 hit Ludwigshafen,
13 hit Bad Kreuznach, 13 hit Ebelsbach, 13 hit targets of opportunity, 12 hit
Bad Munster, 12 hit Lachen, 12 hit Simmern marshalling yard, 8 hit Wurzburg,
and 5 hit Neckargemund; 3 B-17s are lost and 81 damaged; 1 airman is KIA, 3
WIA and 25 MIA. Escort is provided by 187 P-38s, P-47s and P-51s; 1 P-38 is
lost.
  Mission 487: 8 of 8 B-17s drop leaflets in France during the night; 1 B-17
is damaged.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): In France, weather prevents all
combat operations except for 1 fighter group which is dispatched on armed
reconnaissance but is recalled before reaching the Continent; Less than 15
reconnaissance and evacuation sorties are flown. In England, HQ 323d
Bombardment Group (Medium) and 453d, 454th, 455th and 456th Bombardment
Squadrons (Medium) move from Earls Colne to Beauliu with B-26s; and the
556th, 557th, 558th and 559th Bombardment Squadrons (Medium), move from
Chipping Ongar to Stony Cross with B-26s.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Fifteenth Air Force): 362 B-17s and B-24s hit targets
in Czechoslovakia; B-17s and B-24s bomb the Brux synthetic oil refinery;
B-24s also hit the marshalling yard at Mestre; 100+ other bombers are forced
to abort due to bad weather; P-38s and P-51s provide escort.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy, weather cancels medium
bomber operations; A-20s hit a supply dump while fighter-bombers attack rail
and road bridges in the Po Valley and hit rail lines N of the battleline
which is pushing into the Arno River Valley SE of Pisa; and the 111th
Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, XII Tactical Air Command, moves from
Follonica to Borgo, Corsica with F-6s (a detachment moves to Santa Maria).

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA, Seventh Air Force): P-47s attack enemy forces on
Tinian Island. 28 B-24s, staging through Eniwetok Atoll, pound Truk Atoll.
US Marines and Army troops land on Guam Island.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA [SWPA, Far East Air Force (FEAF)]: B-24s again pound
Yap Island, concentrating on the airfield; fighters, many dropping phosphorus
bombs on the bomber formation, attack fiercely but ineffectively; the B-24s
claim 7 fighters shot down. In New Guinea, B-24s bomb AA positions and the
airfield at Manokwari; A-20s hit barracks at Nabire; P-39s hit caves and
barge hideouts on the N coast of Biak Island and support ground forces along
the Verkam River; B-25s hit shipping at several points around the long
coastline of the Vogelkop Peninsula; B-25s and A-20s pound But, and P-39s
bomb a bridge nearby; P-47s follow with an attack on But and also hit Wewak
jetties and Kairiru Island. In Australia, the 531st Bombardment Squadron
(Heavy), 380th Bombardment Group (Heavy), moves from Long Strip to Darwin
with B-24s.

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 them.  |
|  [email-masked]  |                       FDR              |
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 07:51:11 -0500
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 21-JUL-1944

On 21-JUL-1944, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Eastern Front - The 3rd Baltic Front takes Ostrov. After crossing the river
     Bug, the 1st Belorussian Front splits into two columns. One column
     advances towards Brest-Litovsk; while the other advances towards Lublin.

Italian Front - In the British sector, the New Zealand 2nd Division and the
     South African 6th Armoured Division replaces units of the French
     Expeditionary Corps, which is being withdrawn from the line.

New Guinea - The Americans reinforce their positions on the river Driniumor.
     In a violent attack, the Japanese succeed in surrounding units of the US
     112th Cavalry near Afua.

Marianas - The 3rd Marine Division and parts of the 77th Infantry Division
     land on the west coast of Guam. The Marines go ashore near Asan and Agat
     and after overcoming moderate Japanese resistance establish a beachhead
     more than two miles wide and one mile deep. The infantry land near Agat
     to reinforce the southern beachhead. The Japanese garrison on Guam is
     some 12,000 strong.

The Homefront
-------------
Truman Nominated - Senator Harry S. Truman from Missouri gets the Vice
     Presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Truman is
     nominated on the second ballot by a vote of 1,031 to 105 over Vice
     President Henry A. Wallace who led on the first ballot. Truman is serving
     his tenth year in the Senate.

=============================================================================

Sources: "2194 Days of War" by Cesare Salmaggi and Alfredo Pallavisimi, "The
World Almanac Book Of WW II" by Peter Young, "United States Naval Chronology,
World War II" by Naval Historical Division - United States Navy, "Facts On
File Yearbook 1944, Person's Index Of World Events" edited by R.L. Lapica.

----------
John Davis  [email-masked]
Cary, N.C.
----------

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:18:31 -0400
From:    "Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44

>From Jack McKillop's daily 50 Years Ago Today USAAF posting:

  F-6, North American Mustang

  P-51, North American Mustang

(Much interesting stuff deleted, I allways take it home to read)

Is there a misprint here Jack?, I never noticed this before, perhaps I
should read these more closely than I have.

I thought the P-51 was the Mustang from North American, isn't the F-6
something else?

Not wanting to 'dis Mr. McKillop's superb postings! My day isn't complete
unless I depart the office with his daily posting under my arm.

(My wife REALLY enjoys my reading war stuff at home. But it sure beats dealing
with her mother!)       ;-)
                                                                Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven E. Pudlo  - [email-masked] |"Life may be a drag BUT
STC Programmer/Analyst - (203) 885-2343  |  it sure beats the only
Three Rivers Community-Technical College |           known alternative"
574 New London Turnpike                  |                     (S.E.P.)
Norwich, CT. U.S.A. 06360                |No one gets out of it alive..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:34:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44

 >>From Jack McKillop's daily 50 Years Ago Today USAAF posting:
 >
 >  F-6, North American Mustang
 >
 >  P-51, North American Mustang
 >
 >(Much interesting stuff deleted, I allways take it home to read)
 >
 >Is there a misprint here Jack?, I never noticed this before, perhaps I
 >should read these more closely than I have.
 >
 >I thought the P-51 was the Mustang from North American, isn't the F-6
 >something else?
 >
 >Not wanting to 'dis Mr. McKillop's superb postings! My day isn't complete
 >unless I depart the office with his daily posting under my arm.
 >
 >(My wife REALLY enjoys my reading war stuff at home. But it sure beats dealing
 >with her mother!)       ;-)
 >                                                                Steve
 >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 >Steven E. Pudlo  - [email-masked] |"Life may be a drag BUT

Steve,

The F-6 was the photo version of the P-51 Mustang.  The following
is from a post I did last year on photo recon aircraft in WWII.  If
anyone wants the entire list, give a shout.

Jack McKillop

F-6, NORTH AMERICAN MUSTANG (photo version of P-51)
---------------------------
F-6A-NA: 57 P-51-NAs fitted with two K24 cameras; armament retained. To
     P-51-1-NA.
F-6B-NA: 35 P-51A-NAs fitted with two K24 cameras; armament retained.
F-6C-NA: 71 P-51B-10-NAs fitted with two cameras in rear fuselage, (two
     K24s or a K17 and K22).
F-6C-NT: 20 P-51C-10-NTs fitted with two cameras in rear fuselage, (two
     K24s or a K17 and K22).
F-6D-NA: A number of P-51D-NAs converted.  To FP-51D in 1946 and RF-51D in
     1948.
F-6D-20-NT: 31 P-51D-20-NTs fitted with cameras in rear fuselage. To FP-51D
     in 1946 and RF-51D in 1948.
F-6D-25-NT: 70 P-51D-25-NTs fitted with cameras in rear fuselage. To FP-51D
     in 1946 and RF-51D in 1948.
F-6D-30-NT: 35 P-51D-30-NTs fitted with cameras in rear fuselage. To FP-51D
     in 1946 and RF-51D in 1948.
F-6K-5-NT: 57 P-51K-5-NTs fitted with cameras in rear fuselage. To FP-51K
     in 1946 and RF-51K in 1948.
F-6K-10-NT: 63 P-51K-10-NTs fitted with cameras in rear fuselage. To FP-51K
     in 1946 and RF-51K in 1948.
F-6K-15-NT: 43 P-51K-15-NTs fitted with cameras in rear fuselage. To FP-51K
     in 1946 and RF-51K in 1948.

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:12:15 -0400
From:    "Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WW2 in schools

Jim Benn writes .
>Anybody know if Sgt. Rock or any other WWII comic is still out there?
>Maybe we need to bring back Rock to "educate" kids.

Wasn't he the dude who used to talk to the ghost of General Sherman?

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

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 09:26:22 EDT
From:    Brian Nicklas <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44

Re: Mustangs
P is for Phighter
F is for Foto
The F-6 is the photo recon version of the Mustang.

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:46:41 EST
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Thanks for the info on the Iowas

        Thanks to those who answered my query on the Iowas' armor. I
should have mentioned the sources for believing the 18" thickness.  My
bibles as a kid were the early Janes Fighting Ships, Dreadnought, U.S.
Warships of World War 2 and later on Breyers Battleships and Battle-
cruisers.  I believe they all cite the 18" belt armor although Breyer
questions the displacement figures for both the Iowas and South
Dakotas.  So, I was curious as to how and when the truth came out.
        Now for the really interesting question, albeit a hypothetical
one.  In a one-on-one confrontation with the Yamato or the Musashi,
would an Iowa class ships superior fire-control, speed, and rate of
fire allowed it to emerge victorious?  My opinion is that if an Iowa
chose to stand and slug it out, it would lose, IF, the Yamato was
able to hit what it was shooting at.  I guess the big factor from
my point of view is the accuracy of the 18.1" guns.  I recall from
somewhere that the British 18" gun(s) on the Furious were not very
accurate.  Just a few thoughts :)
*************************************************
(Roger) Brad Coon            "Lions are basically
[email-masked]          scavengers of
[email-masked]    hyaena kills."
                              Hans Kruuk

Kill a lion, save a hyaena!
Boycott Disney lionist propaganda!
*************************************************

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 07:23:12 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Armor on Iowa Battleships

>What was the belt armor on the SOUTH DAKOTAs?
>Lou Coatney

Again, from "BATTLESHIPS. United States Battleships in World War II", Naval
Institute Press, 1976:

The armor design for the South Dakota class battleships:

Amidships
Belt armor 12.2" on 0.875" (inclined 19 degrees)
Lower belt armor 12.2" tapered to 1.0" on 0.875" (inclined 19 degrees)

Deck armor (centerline)
main     1.5"
second   5.0" + 0.75"
splinter 0.625"
third    0.3"

Deck armor (outboard)
main     1.5"
second   5.3" + 0.75"
splinter none
third    0.3"

Barbett armor
centerline 11.6"
sides 17.3"

Turret armor
face plates 18.0"
sides  9.5"
back plates 12.0"
roof plates 7.25"

Secondary gun armor
mounts 2.0"
handling rooms 2.0"

Conning tower armor
sides 16.0"
roof 7.25"
deck 4.0"
communications tube 16.0"

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

*                     *                     *
  May your nets be filled
  And your compass true
  May the wind and the wave be your friend
  May you stand the storm
  And the hand of the Lord
  Bring you safely to harbor again
            - Billy Sprague and Jim Weber
              The Blessing (of the Fleet)
*                     *                     *

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:35:49 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thanks for the info on the Iowas

Brad,

Here's some very educational design information for your hypothetical
Yamato question.  (Kind of lengthy).

Much more from "Battleships. United States Battleships in World War II."
Robert O. Dulin, Jr. William H. Garzke, Jr., Naval Institute Press.  1976.

Armor Protection.

Battleship armor protection, traditionally, was designed to withstand
attack by guns equal in caliber to those carried in the main battery.
Battlecruisers were given protection on the basis of widely varying
standards, ranging from essentially a battleship scale of protection down
to the requirement that the citadel be able to withstand shellfire from
heavy cruisers.

Side protection.  Early in the dreadnought era, side armor thickness was
the primary index of adequate protection, because the relatively close
ranges anticipated in combat made the likelihood of shells hitting the deck
negligible. As ordnance refinements increased the effective gun ranges,
there was a growing awareness of the need to provide deck armor systems.
Eventually the concept of the immunity zone as a criterion for the adequacy
of the armor suit of a ship was widely accepted.

The immunity zone defines the range band, for a specified gun fired from
directly on the beam of the target ship, within which the armor system is
theoretically immune to penetration.  The inner range limit is fixed by the
resistance of the belt armor, while the outer limit is established by the
resistance of the horizontal armor system.  Normally, the immunity zone
refers to the armored citadel of the ship, which encompassed essentially
the amidships half of the ship below the deck armor systems.

Belt armor.  Prior to the dreadnought era, belt armor had been fixed
vertically on the exterior sides of the hull amidships.  A few capital
ships at the end of the World War I era were completed with inclined side
armor systems, in an effort to improve the armor resistance owing to the
increased tendency of projectiles to ricochet harmlessly from the inclined
armor.  A  projectile striking an armor plate obliquely meets a greater
thickness of armor, but the effective thickness of the plate increases well
beyond this factor.  Thus, a plate inclined 15 degrees from the vertical is
equivalent to a vertical plate some 30 percent thicker than the inclined
plate.  On the other hand, a projectile striking an inclined plate
obliquely meets a smaller armored area than if the plate were vertical.
The inclined plate must be wider to present the same effective area to an
oncoming projectile (the ballistic data following describes the 16-inch gun
carried on the Japanese Nagato):

Range (yards)    Angle of fall    Vertical plate*      Inclined plate
                Degrees, Minutes   target width         target width (15d)
 10,936             6d58m             19.85'            21.4'  + 7.01%
 15,311            11d39m             19.6'             21.9'  + 9.56%
 21,872            21d39m             18.4'             23.0'  + 14.86%
 32,808            43d57m             14.4'             27.9'  + 39.6%

* vertical plate width 20'

At a firing range of 21,872 yards, an inclined plate (15 degrees from
vertical) seems some 30 percent thicker than a vertical one, yet it must be
only about 15 percent larger than a vertical plate of equivalent effective
area.  For similar resistance, the inclined plate saves about 10 percent of
the weight required by a vertical belt system.  As the firing range
increases, the inclined plate gradually loses its advantage, but it was the
closer ranges that were of importance to designers.  At longer ranges, the
horizontal protection is much more likely to be hit than the side
protection.

Deck armor.  The requirements for deck armor protection increased rapidly
during World War II, as aircraft bombs became progressively more powerful.
A 1944 German battleship design study stipulated 13.78 inches of deck
armor, as compared to 6.93 inches of armor on the Bismarck, completed only
a few years earlier.  Such massive protection could only be provided in
giant ships, and the full load displacement planned for "H-44" was 141,500
tons, as compared to 50,900 for the Bismarck.

As is evident from the preceding discussion, the rapid increase in required
deck armor protection made the problem nearly insoluble.  The only ships
that could carry such massive armor systems would have to be enormous, even
with respect to those actually built during the World War II era.  When
willing to forego the chances of near-miss damage (which could be
considerable with large, high-explosive bombs), modern aircraft with
armor-piercing bombs could defeat any conceivable armor system.

Similarly, although to a somewhat lesser degree, refined fire-control
systems greatly increased the chance of long-range shellfire penetrating
the deck armor.  The possible penetration of deck armor increases with
range, as the more nearly normal impact angle of the long-range shell is
coupled with increasing striking velocities because of the effects of
gravity.  At very long ranges, the striking velocity actually *increases*
as range is increased.

The effect of modern ordnance technology on battleship design was the
widespread acceptance of the "all-or-nothing" concept of protection, with
the heaviest possible protection concentrated over the most essential
areas, and the remainder of the hull and superstructure essentially
unprotected.

As far as resistance to penetration is concerned, it is pertinent to note
that a single deck of a given thickness provided considerably more
resistance than two decks of the same total thickness.  A given deck
composed of two layers of plating is intermediate in its resistance.
Hence, it was highly desirable to concentrate as much deck armor as
possible on one deck.

The problem of providing armor for gunnery positions above the citadel was
most difficult.  Main battery turrets and barbettes were generally
adequately armored, but secondary and machine gun mounts were given only
modest protection.  Weight penalties prevented heavy armor except for the
main battery; for example, 2-inch armor for a 5-inch gun mount totaled some
forty tons.  Machine gun positions were normally given token protection by
a shield of one-quarter or one-eighth inch thickness.

A tough yet flexible structure was vital to the effectiveness of the armor
systems.  The armor was designed to defeat projectiles by breaking them up,
deflecting them, or resisting the effects of their detonation.

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

*                     *                     *
  May your nets be filled
  And your compass true
  May the wind and the wave be your friend
  May you stand the storm
  And the hand of the Lord
  Bring you safely to harbor again
            - Billy Sprague and Jim Weber
              The Blessing (of the Fleet)
*                     *                     *

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:46:50 -0700
From:    Jack Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WW2 in schools

On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs. wrote:
> Jim Benn writes .
> >Anybody know if Sgt. Rock or any other WWII comic is still out there?
> >Maybe we need to bring back Rock to "educate" kids.

> Wasn't he the dude who used to talk to the ghost of General Sherman?

Nope.  That was the commander of the tank in the Haunted Tank stories in
GI Combat.  Forget his name.  Also, he talked to the ghost of General JEB
Stuart.

=========================================================================
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things  | [email-masked].
I cannot change, the courage to change the things |   washington.edu
I can and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those  | [email-masked]
people I had to kill because they pissed me off.  | aka Jack Brown
=========================================================================

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 11:52:37 EDT
From:    Allan Janus <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MUSTANGS

"P" is for fighters? Surely it stands for "Pursuit", which is what fighter
planes were originally called. A trivial point perhaps, but it's just as easy
to get it right, methinks.

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 09:23:00 PDT
From:    Julie Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Subject: PC at the Smithsonian

I have been reading this exchange w/interest.  Some of the answers are pretty
predictable but what Wendy had to say was to the point.  But it was Steve's an-
swer that stunned me.  Steve, are you seriously saying that somone alive in the
early 1940s in the continental USofA trully believed that America would be in-
vaded and conquered and that the "USA might disappear"?  Seriously?  By whom?
In 1942 who had the range? the personnell, the anything?  In Jan. '43 Germany
lost the war, it just took two more years for the news to sink in.  What could
Japan do to us in our own country?  Japan bombed Pearl Harbor & solved the pro-
blem of how we could finally get in the war but we fought her in Asia, as you
know.  We were fighting, in effect, a war of liberation on behalf of those
countries and colonies that Japan had invaded.  Say, we lost, an impossibility
since we were so overwhelmingly  superior in terms of anything it takes to pro-
secute a war and we would be able to grind Japan down no matter what, but for
the sake of argument, say we were defeated on the field to such a degree that
we sue for peace, then what?  Japan keeps what she has and . . . .

Philip K. Dick wrote a "parallel universe" novel w/the premise that Japan won
and that impossibility is what makes the novel so wierd from the start.  There
is a Brit novel about the '60s, its premise is that the US never got in,
Germany got to Moscow and so won and now in the mid 60s the US has to decide
whether to sign a trade agreement w/Germany.  That novel is in a way more
"realistic" because it suggests that the US would just have made due w/the
hand dealt.  The real point of that novel is that w/Germany in control of the
East, the Final Solution runs its full course, everything is closed down, and
w/no one left, there is no evidence.  So a man finds a record and has to get it
out and to the US and etc. . .  It's being made into a movie but I can't think
what the book is called.

The point is what could happen to the US from the outside?  Only when someone
else has the Bomb do we have to worry.  And that's something else, people knew
more about radiation than you seem to think.  Radiation had been used for can-
cer treatment since the turn of the century, all the half lives were understood
the type of explosion was understood.  That was the point of the Trinity test.
Enrico Fermi took bets before Trinity on whether they'd all be incinerated or
not at the test and he was the first to run out to ground zero as soon as it
was cool enough to walk to pick up the glass.  That's what has always made
Hiroshima slightly queasy, it didn't have to be a surprise.  It doesn't matter
what the Japanese did, we could have taken the high road and informed the Jap-
anese government--we were in contact with them--immediate, unconditional surren
der or we drop the Bomb.  It was an option.  But as you say, the context was
very complicated.  If the Japanese have any complaint it could be that they
were made guinea pigs in our struggle w/the Russians.

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:07:09 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44

> I thought the P-51 was the Mustang from North American, isn't the F-6
> something else?

The Mustang also saw service as F-51 and A-41 and F-6, with the last
being photo-reconnaissance. Where we would be without Fahey's little gray
book?

> Not wanting to 'dis Mr. McKillop's superb postings! My day isn't complete
> unless I depart the office with his daily posting under my arm.

Well, that clears up a mystery! I always wondered why this newsgroup was
so quiet on weekends: you guys are reading it at the office :-)

== dan

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:00:33 -0400
From:    Martha Wheless <[email-masked]>
Subject: WWII in schools

Hello all,
I speak as a recent participant in the battle to teach history
to American children  (or, at least to those in 1 school in Va. Beach.)
I taught in a junior high/middle school for 7 years.  My colleagues and
I often differed on how to fit 360+ years of history into less than
10 months of school.  I tended to move more quickly through the
early years (colonies, revolution, national period) and slow down
for the slavery and the Civil War.  I picked up the pace for
the later 1800s and then tried to throughly cover the 20th century.
I reasoned that many of the kids had a fairly good background in
the Native Americans, colonies and Revolution.  Unfortunately, a
small number would drop-out before their next dose of US History in
11th grade.  Therefore, I wanted to help them understand the world
they live in by teaching them about the 20th century.

I tried to reach the 20th century by February.  I then spent the
rest of the school year (to early June) on WWI, the Depression,
the rise of the dictators, WWII, etc. (you get the picture).  I
usually ended the year with Watergate and Vietnam.  (What a way
to end :-)  My colleagues followed their our pacing.  One spent
1 week on WWII.  Another spent 3 days.  One barely introduced
the war by the end of the year.  My point is that an individual
teacher can make a big difference in what the children learn.
And the difference is not only in how much time you give a subject
but in how alive and interesting you make history.  Can you
get one or two or ten students more interested; so they want to
go on and learn more, with or without your guidance.

Also I have decided that the teacher's expectations are important.
My principal once concluded one of her evaluations of my by saying:
"You expect a lot out of your students . . . and they try to
meet them."  She said this with a note of surprise in her voice.
I still havn't decided if this was a compliment or an indication
that she wanted me to lower my expectations.  But, I feel, that
if you don't expect a lot you end up with statements such as the
words of the pizza boy which started this discussion.

Believe me, I am not saying that I am the world's best teacher.
I do believe that individual teachers and parents need to instill
a sense of history in our children.  Or as Santayana said:
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Sorry for the long post.  Thanks for allowing my two cents.  I'm
available to continue the discussion, on or off line, if anyone
is interested.

Good-bye from stormy Virginia,
Martha Wheless
[email-masked]

PS I'm 38 :-)

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 20:18:24 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44

On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Dan Ford wrote:

> The Mustang also saw service as F-51 and A-41 and F-6, with the last
> being photo-reconnaissance. Where we would be without Fahey's little gray
> book?

A-36, of course. Is that Mr. Fahey's error, or yours? BTW, the P-51B was
at first known as XP-78.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:15:34 -0500
From:    GEORGE BAUER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: PC at the Smithsonian

In my opinion, Julie's view of 1939- 1941 is less than 20-20, even in hindsight.

Without making the case--others have made it better than I--please
check the size of the American military.  Size of military,
number of ships and planes and other weapons, military based industry, and
a few other things.  Consider the position of German and Japanese submarines.
Mix in a bit of the America Firsters. And talk to a few
people who lived in California in 1941.  Then factor in the move of
Nazism in Europe and of Japan in Asia in the 1930s.  Then examine
a map of the world after their potential conquests had taken place.

George Bauer
U.S.A.:  [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:17:08 -0400
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: ADMIN: My thanks

To all participants of the PC at the Smithonian discussion,

        Thank you!  Everyone has managed to keep the discussion on an
even keel with hardly a rant or a rave to be found!  Not only does it
increase the value of the discussion but it makes my job as list-owner
a heck of a lot easier!  It's refreshing to see people of such diverse
opinions keep a discussion lively and informative.  Thanks.

Regards,
Joe Barone, WWII-L list-owner
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:49:16 -0400
From:    "Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44

Writer/Hisrotian Extrodinaire Dan Ford writes:

>Well, that clears up a mystery! I always wondered why this newsgroup was
>so quiet on weekends: you guys are reading it at the office :-)

Oops! I guess the cat's out of the bag now. Now I'll actually have to
do some WORK. At least once in a while ;-)

That's a nice climate controlled office, Mr. Ford. Never too humid, never
too hot. With a hot coffee pot within easy reach! Eat yer heart out.

I propose remaning the Mustang the Alphabet Soup Plane. (I've allways liked
the P-51, though I've never flown)
                                                                :-)Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven E. Pudlo  - [email-masked] |"Life may be a drag BUT
STC Programmer/Analyst - (203) 885-2343  |  it sure beats the only
Three Rivers Community-Technical College |           known alternative"
574 New London Turnpike                  |                     (S.E.P.)
Norwich, CT. U.S.A. 06360                |No one gets out of it alive..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:33:44 -0500
From:    Bill Smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: PC at the Smithsonian

Read the newspapers from the 1942 period and you can get a fair sense
that more than a few people still had a fear of invasion.  This is not a
rational question -- range, personnel, etc., have nothing to do with the
civilian fears.  By 1943, this begins to change, but don't scoff at those
fears in 1941-42 -- the were very real, particularly on the coasts.

James McDonnell chose St. Louis to build his McDonnell Aircraft Company
in the late 1930s out of fear of vulerability to invasion or damage on
either coast.

Claire Chennault wrote many times about his fear of the vulnerability of
the Louisiana oil and gas refineries near the Gulf of Mexico.

On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Julie Jenkins wrote:

> I have been reading this exchange w/interest.  Some of the answers are pretty
> predictable but what Wendy had to say was to the point.  But it was Steve's an-
> swer that stunned me.  Steve, are you seriously saying that somone alive in the
> early 1940s in the continental USofA trully believed that America would be in-
> vaded and conquered and that the "USA might disappear"?  Seriously?  By whom?
> In 1942 who had the range? the personnell, the anything?  In Jan. '43 Germany

> The point is what could happen to the US from the outside?  Only when someone
> else has the Bomb do we have to worry.  And that's something else, people knew
> more about radiation than you seem to think.  Radiation had been used for can-
> cer treatment since the turn of the century, all the half lives were understood
> the type of explosion was understood.  That was the point of the Trinity test.
> Enrico Fermi took bets before Trinity on whether they'd all be incinerated or
> not at the test and he was the first to run out to ground zero as soon as it
> was cool enough to walk to pick up the glass.

Yes, the cast lots on whether the chain reaction would stop, and gave
odds on whether they were about to cause the end of the world.

Ask yourself this question -- If Fermi knew so much about radiation and
the effects of his weapon, why'd he run out and pick up what I would
suspect to be irradiated glass?

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:57:12 -0600
From:    "David N. Tanner" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Hetzer TD's

Can some one out there give me some good information on Hetzers,
specifically about their use on the eastern front. I've been under
the impression that they were used primarily on the western front and
would like to confirm that they were used in the east.

thanks
Dave Tanner
Vandy Uni
David N. Tanner
(615)-343-1250
Vanderbilt University
The Jean & Alexander Heard Library
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 23:18:00 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: A-bomb, was: Re: PC at the Smithsonian

On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Bill Smith wrote:

> Yes, the cast lots on whether the chain reaction would stop, and gave
> odds on whether they were about to cause the end of the world.

Actually, it was (at least for the largest part) a joke, but one that
irritated a lot of people :-/. They had carefully made the calculations
to check that the chain reaction would indeed stop!

> Ask yourself this question -- If Fermi knew so much about radiation and
> the effects of his weapon, why'd he run out and pick up what I would
> suspect to be irradiated glass?

'Run out' is not entirely correct. They used lead-shielded tanks...
They needed the debris to calculate the yield of the bomb.

To get back to the original question: In 1945 it was quite clear
to a lot of people, in the USA, Britain, Germany, Japan and some
other countries, that a nuclear weapon could in theory be
constructed. But not everybody was convinced that it would be a
practical weapon (some estimated critical masses in the order
of hundreds of tons), that the industrial background
existed to build one, or that it could be ready in time
to be used in the war.

The Japanese actually had a comittee, lead by a relative
of the the emperor, to asses the possibility that
the US would be able to use a nuclear weapon in the war.
They got the wrong answer...

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 17:24:07 EDT
From:    Richard Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Invading America, (was PC at Smithsonian)

Well Julie, I can come up with at least one person who thaught the US could be
invaded; my (God rest her Polish-Jewish soul) mother's mother.  She was a
reasonably educated immigrant, living in Brooklyn, who wouldn't let my mother
attend the University of Wisconsin in 1942 because it was too close to the west
coast :)  Now obviously Grandma Minnie's knowledge of geography was limited to
the Hudson River and points East; but the fear was there, regardless of its
basis in reality.

Taking the concern a step further, the Battle of the Atlantic was fought right
off the Carolina and New Jersey coasts, cities were blacked out, and Grandpa
and his WWI buddies were Air Raid Wardens.  Gotta go folks. closing time.

                                        Richard Kaplan
                                        Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 17:33:28 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MUSTANGS

> "P" is for fighters? Surely it stands for "Pursuit", which is what fighter

No, the "pursuit" terminology went out at least by 1942, but the P
designation remained to the end of the war. For example, the 23rd Pursuit
Group was so called during the negotations that went into its
substitution for the AVG Flying Tigers, but was officially the 23rd
Fighter Group when it was organized in July 1942.

I don't think any American referred to fighters as anything but that
during our participation in WWII, and I speak with the authority of a
plane-besotted 12-year-old boy who could identify them more easily than
he could identify automobiles.

            - Dan      <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 17:20:19 EDT
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: PC at the Smithsonian

As George eluded to, the fear was realistic and substantial, and aside
from the factual points which he brought out, consider the concepts of
technology and media. U-boats had already been used, chemical warfare
caused terror in WWI, tanks and airplane designs were being tuned by
a new breed of engineer. Industry had only recently gone through a
revolution in enhanced production.

The media had the issue of ethics on which to profit. My father,
who was on the carrier Roosevelt, mentioned that "everybody wanted to go...
Said he, "Kids,... couldn't wait."  I have come to understand the
feelings, and find as many of the WWIIers do, the realism behind the
media hype of the time that had everyone so "Gung Ho".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Wild, LAN MGR.  Father of 1.556           Voice:          (401) 792-2611
ACC - Lippitt - URI  American Legion Post 102. FAX:            (401) 792-5479
Kingston, RI  02881                            Bitnet:           AWild@URIACC
                                               Internet: [email-masked]

"When war is declared, Truth is the first casualty." -Arthur Ponsonby
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 17:42:15 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: PC at the Smithsonian

> swer that stunned me.  Steve, are you seriously saying that somone alive in the
> early 1940s in the continental USofA trully believed that America would be in-
> vaded and conquered and that the "USA might disappear"?  Seriously?  By whom?

Yes. Absolutely. Go to the library and read *Life* magazines for 1942.
Then go the Library of Congress and read the *Japan Times & Advertiser*
for the same year. We were seriously losing the Pacific War during the
winter of 1941-42 and both sides knew it. There is a picture in the JT&A
showing Japanese troops marching down the Mall in Washington. Gen Vinegar
Joe Stilwell's first WWII command was to defend California from invasion.
The first combat squadron of B-26 Marauders was sent to California for
the same purpose. The Japanese did not stop winning the war until Midway,
and nobody knew at the time that the turning point had been reached. The
Japanese landed successfully on U.S. soil in the Aleutians even as they
were losing their carriers at Midway.

            - Dan      <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:00:57 -0700
From:    Ed Kettler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44

Steven,

The 'F' indicates photographic recon plane.  Another example is F-10,
which was a photo recon version of the B-25

Ed Kettler                                       [email-masked]

On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs. wrote:

> >From Jack McKillop's daily 50 Years Ago Today USAAF posting:
>
>   F-6, North American Mustang
>
>   P-51, North American Mustang
>
> (Much interesting stuff deleted, I allways take it home to read)
>
> Is there a misprint here Jack?, I never noticed this before, perhaps I
> should read these more closely than I have.
>
> I thought the P-51 was the Mustang from North American, isn't the F-6
> something else?
>
> Not wanting to 'dis Mr. McKillop's superb postings! My day isn't complete
> unless I depart the office with his daily posting under my arm.
>
> (My wife REALLY enjoys my reading war stuff at home. But it sure beats dealing
> with her mother!)       ;-)
>                                                                 Steve
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven E. Pudlo  - [email-masked] |"Life may be a drag BUT
> STC Programmer/Analyst - (203) 885-2343  |  it sure beats the only
> Three Rivers Community-Technical College |           known alternative"
> 574 New London Turnpike                  |                     (S.E.P.)
> Norwich, CT. U.S.A. 06360                |No one gets out of it alive..
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:15:11 -0700
From:    Ed Kettler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thanks for the info on the Iowas

We just finished Command at Sea, a WW2 naval miniatures game, and found
that the major determining factor was hits per gun per minute.  The Mk13
radar was capable of directing fire out to the maximum range of the
16"/50 calibre guns on the Iowa class BBs.  The Yamato's radars were only
capable out to 12 nm, so the probability of the Iowa getting hits on the
Yamato was much greater (about 20%), assuming unlimited visibility and
calm seas.  If the Yamato hit Iowa, it would do more damage than Iowa
would do to the Yamato.  All things being equal, the Iowa could keep the
range open, and gradually reduce the combat effectiveness of her
opponent.  Closing in get better hit probabilities would only improve
Yamato's chances for victory, and reduce Iowa's.

Ed Kettler                                       [email-masked]

On Thu, 21 Jul 1994 [email-masked] wrote:

>         Thanks to those who answered my query on the Iowas' armor. I
> should have mentioned the sources for believing the 18" thickness.  My
> bibles as a kid were the early Janes Fighting Ships, Dreadnought, U.S.
> Warships of World War 2 and later on Breyers Battleships and Battle-
> cruisers.  I believe they all cite the 18" belt armor although Breyer
> questions the displacement figures for both the Iowas and South
> Dakotas.  So, I was curious as to how and when the truth came out.
>         Now for the really interesting question, albeit a hypothetical
> one.  In a one-on-one confrontation with the Yamato or the Musashi,
> would an Iowa class ships superior fire-control, speed, and rate of
> fire allowed it to emerge victorious?  My opinion is that if an Iowa
> chose to stand and slug it out, it would lose, IF, the Yamato was
> able to hit what it was shooting at.  I guess the big factor from
> my point of view is the accuracy of the 18.1" guns.  I recall from
> somewhere that the British 18" gun(s) on the Furious were not very
> accurate.  Just a few thoughts :)
> *************************************************
> (Roger) Brad Coon            "Lions are basically
> [email-masked]          scavengers of
> [email-masked]    hyaena kills."
>                               Hans Kruuk
>
> Kill a lion, save a hyaena!
> Boycott Disney lionist propaganda!
> *************************************************
>

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 15:16:05 -0700
From:    Ed Kettler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INF] USAAF 21 JUL 44

P is for Pursuit

Ed Kettler                                       [email-masked]

On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Brian Nicklas wrote:

> Re: Mustangs
> P is for Phighter
> F is for Foto
> The F-6 is the photo recon version of the Mustang.
>

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 17:52:26 -0400
From:    "Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: PC at the Smithsonian

Julie Jenkins <[email-masked]> writes;

>Steve, are you seriously saying that somone alive in the
>early 1940s in the continental USofA trully believed that America would be in-
>vaded and conquered and that the "USA might disappear"?  Seriously?  By whom?

If not, then it would be the first time in history that an army fought and lost
a war, and the victors, with patterns of conquest simply turned around and went
home. Any foreign occupation of the USofA (Nice term!) would be costly mainly
due to our huge arsenal of citizen arms, but would eventually hold without
and local counter to full scale mass arms, tanks, etc.

It would be folly, IMHO, to state that had we lost the war, on either front,
that the enemy wuold not be tempted to come on down, who would stop them? Our
government would surely be in trouble at home for losing in the first place,
and without our military, just who could stop an invading army?

>What could Japan do to us in our own country?

Probably the same thing they did in Nanking. Remember, our own army would be
destroyed, and we would be under a crushing war debt. Japan was clearly on
the road to conquest, and we were on the agenda.

>Say, we lost, an impossibility since we were so overwhelmingly  superior in
>terms of anything it takes to prosecute a war and we would be able to grind
>Japan down no matter what,

History is full of accounts about countries that lost wars they should have won.
Anytime a country goes to war, they face extinction should the hand of fate
favor the enemy. Superior weapons and/or tactics are what it takes to favor
victory, but luck also is required.

To state that the enemy (I include both Germany AND Japan) would sit tight
being content with their gains (had we lost) is ignorant of the patterns
displayed by both armies. They would simply not "keep what they have". That
is not the nature of agressors. Never has been.

No agressor nation has ever simply stopped expanding. They either implode,
or eventually meet someone to stop them. Witness Rome's attempts in England,
the Mongols, the French Empire, (and for that matter, the British). To expect
an agressor to stop being aggressive after a victory. Goes against the nature
of the beast.

>Philip K. Dick wrote a "parallel universe" novel w/the premise that Japan won
>and that impossibility is what makes the novel so wierd from the start.

Let's not fall into the trap of beleiving everything we read. Else I'll start
citing "Amerika", "Red Dawn", et al. Not quite the same, but showing a conquored
USofA (I really like that expression!)

>The point is what could happen to the US from the outside?  Only when someone
>else has the Bomb do we have to worry.

It is my understanding that both our WW-II enemies were hard at work rectifying
that oversight. Since we had virtually used up our supply of bombs, that point
would have been moot.

>But as you say, the context was very complicated.  If the Japanese have any
>complaint it could be that they were made guinea pigs in our struggle w/the
>Russians.

I agree the situation was complicated. But remember that we had an active Nazi
party in this country, and many Japanese sympathisers (Before Pearl Harbour).
Without our army to defend us, what would stop them? Inertia?

But I don't buy that argument that the bombs were dropped to impress the
Russians. Perhaps that was a side effect of their use, but I don't think it
could have been a driving force. I beleive that the bombings were a case of
a miltary commander doing his job: Using the means at his disposal to bring
about a victory with minimal cost to himself, and maximum cost to his enemies.

Apologies to Joe for such a long response. We WERE doing such a fine job!
Julie, you defended your point well. This is mine. Tis wonderful to disagree
intelligently with an intelligent person. Thank you for piquing my interest!

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

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 18:03:11 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INF:Books regarding British colonial troops in North Africa

"Non English speaking allies forgotten..."
        Depends where one lives.
Those gallant people are quite well-known and respected in Britain,
Canada, Australia, and elsewhere in the British Commonwealth.
        From your comments, wuch knowledge is somewhat limited in the USA.

--

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 20:05:43 -0500
From:    Bill Smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: What they knew about radiation

In light of posts regarding what was known about the possible
effects/side-effects of using the atomic bomb, from today's Associated
Press wire:

        WASHINGTON -- More than 7,600 military fliers and divers were
given nasal radium treatments in the mid-1940s to see if radium could
prevent ear ailments caused by severe pressure, documents show.
        Up until now, radium -- as a well-intended if misguided medical
treatment for military personnel and civilians -- has been in a different
category from the secretive radiation experiments that Americans were
unwitttingly subjected to during the Cold War.
        Nasal radium was commonly given to people in the 1940s, '50s, and
'60s to cure and prevent colds, adenoid and ear problems and hearing
loss.  Since then, thousands of former patients have blamed radium for
head and neck cancers, thyroid problems, brittle teeth, miscarriages and
other health problems.

To summerize the rest, 6,881 Army Air Force and 782 in the Navy were
dosed with radium BEFORE 1946.  Also it was used as a way to treat ear
problems.  Picking up the story:

        "It required very little time, interfered very little with combat
or training schedules, and most important did not interupt flying
activities," said a report on the Army Air Force study published in the
Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology in 1945.
        One report on the Navy study, which took place at the U.S.
submarine base in Groton, Conn., states that an experiment was performed
on submariners to better understand and develop radium treatments.
        "We conclude that radium is effective in about 9 out of 10 men,"
wrote Dr. Henry L. Haines and J. Donald Harris of New London in 1 1946
report in the annals.

So much for knowing what we were doing.

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 20:24:44 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Japanese no big threat(!):  Hindsight run amuck.

Julie Jenkins, THANK YOU, for epitomizing the "hindsight
  fallacy."

Who are YOU to judge what the generations alive at Pearl
  Harbor should/shouldn't have thought?  Read some news-
  papers from the moment, if you need to have the fear/
  hysteria of the moment verified.

You apparently have no idea just how lucky we have been,
  to avoid another world war and/or an incorrigible, mortal
  threat like the Nazis or Imperial Japanese.

Thanks for speaking up -- seriously.  It does help us all
  (on WWII-L) understand where each other is coming from.

Amazing!  :-)

Lou Coatney, Historian at Large.

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

Date:    Thu, 21 Jul 1994 20:31:07 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: A-bomb, was: Re: PC at the Smithsonian

That Japanese A-bomb committee had a meeting at Hiroshima
  the day before the Bomb was dropped, wherein members of
  the Japanese Army wanted to know how soon *they* could
  get one, to use on *us*!

Lou Coatney

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 20 Jul 1994 to 21 Jul 1994
*************************************************