Subject: WWII-L Digest - 26 Sep 1994 to 27 Sep 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 00:02:01 -0400

There are 31 messages totalling 1114 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. book excerpt
  2. Terminology (5)
  3. POL: HIROSHIMA (3)
  4. Gustav Geraet (4)
  5. TRIV: Weapons in movie _The Cross of Iron_
  6. INF: 50 Years Ago - 28-SEP-1944
  7. Lufberry Circle (6)
  8. [WEAP] first jets comparison (3)
  9. INF: USN Chronology 09-27-94
 10. POL:Hiroshima (2)
 11. TRIV: Weapons in movies
 12. SCI re: Bletchley Park (2)
 13. [INF] USAAF 28 SEP 44

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 23:59:54 EDT
From:    John Sloan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: book excerpt

Two comments quickly on Dennis' quotation on WWII Japan
1. The US bombing survey opinion on probable Japanese surrender was based on
expectation of continued major FIREBOMBING to continue until they did
surrender.  With vastly more Japanese casualties.
2. The US has been using the stock of Purple Heart medals made to pass out to
the casualties expected in the invasion ever since WWII - that is all the
several hundred thousand in Korea and Vietnam and Gulf War etc and they still
have a large stockpile.
enough for now

john sloan
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:35:34 -0700
From:    Ed Kettler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Terminology

A Lufbery Circle is a defensive manuver where the planes fly in a
circle.  If an enemy plane tries to attack a plane in the circle, the
plane behind the target aircraft usually has a pretty good shot at the
attacker.  Works pretty well in a gun environment or rear quarter heat
seeker missile shots, but probably wouldn't work too well if the attacker
had all aspect heat seekers or radar guided missiles.

The tactic was developed by the US ace Raoul Lufbery, French Lafayette
Escadrille and US Air Service, WW I.

An excellent book is Robert L. Shaw's Fighter Combat: Tactics and
Manauvering, US Naval Institute.

Hope that helps!

Ed Kettler                                       [email-masked]

On Mon, 26 Sep 1994, GEORGE BAUER wrote:

> Does the term "luftberry circle" or something similar ring a bell with
> anybody?  I think it has something to do with an aerial operation.
>
> Can anybody help?  Thanks
>
>
>   =========================================================================
>   | DR.  GEORGE R. BAUER             | INTERESTS:                         |
>   |                                  | Computers in Business & Education. |
>   | Recently returned from my second | Education:  Curriculum development.|
>   |   extended stay in Prague.       |    International Education, TEFL.  |
>   | Working on second book about     | Central Europe:  Post revolution   |
>   |   Prague and new Czech Republic  |    economic, social, political     |
>   |   and a book about the B-25      |    problems and opportunities.     |
>   |   in WWII.                       | B-25 in WWII.                      |
>   | E-Mail:                          | Free lance writing and editing.    |
>   |   USA:  [email-masked]    | Stamp collecting.                  |
>   |         [email-masked] |                                    |
>   =========================================================================
>

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 16:07:31 +1000
From:    Mick Fauchon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Terminology

        George,

> Does the term "luftberry circle" or something similar ring a bell with
> anybody?  I think it has something to do with an aerial operation.

        If it has to do with aerial operations, my informed guess is that
it would have to do with Raoul Lufberry, who began his flying career in
World War 1.

        As usual, I'm open to correction.......80)

                                                                Cheers,

                                                                Mick.

--                                                                          --
Mick Fauchon                          | Internet: [email-masked]
Reference Section, Auchmuty Library   | Ph  (intl+61+49) 215861
University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA    | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833

     MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
     M                                                                   M
     M  Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!"      M
     M                                                                   M
     M  Yosemite Sam   : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M
     M                                                                   M
     MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 01:33:16 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: POL: HIROSHIMA

A couple of further notes on the usage of the atomic bombs--and then an attempt
to move the discussion a little.

I mentioned how terrible it would have been for Japan if it would have been
invaded (someone else on the list, I can't find who, said their society would
have been destroyed), which brings to mind the "costs" that Germany incured
because it _couldn't_ (and didn't) sue for the same peace terms as Japan.
Germany was invaded, on top of being the "victim" of strategic bombing, and
occupied, parts of it raped, murdered and dismantled, and had to undergo
disunion for 50 years!  Consider what may have been Stalin's motive for coming
into the war against Japan.  Sure, yes, they were old enemies, etc.  But
the political facts of the matter at VE day (and this caused lots of trouble in
the Poland situation after the war) was that if you didn't shed blood taking
territory, then you would not be invited to sit as a conquering power (Italy
was the first case Stalin pointed to).

I have even heard one Diplomatic History professor proclaim that the US wanted
the russians in the war in the Pacific just in case the invasion had to take
place--let the russians "bleed the Japanese dry," too, I suppose.  But if this
had of happened, the "victimisation" of the Japanese would have been much
greater as they would have been forced to undergo the dismanling that the
eastern parts of Europe went through (as it was, the russians tooks some
disputed islands to the north).  The Russians still have the land that they
got from Japan, even after they left Germany!

Japan was obviously a strategic asset in the powt-war competition that many
could already forsee.

Now to move on a little bit, consider that the impetus behind the Manhattan
Project was not the excellent assets in the field of physics that the Japanese
had, but the Germans.  Interwar physics is largely a European affair--with
great strides made by many German physicists.  During the early conceptual
stage of the bomb, scientist who often had been forced to leave Germany were
and remained the biggest pushers of the project.  Their intent, to beat the
Germans to the bomb--and you can't help but feel tha6t they had to have wanted
to use it on the Nazis as well.  This argument is made even stronger when you
remember that late in the war, when Moe Burg (former Red Sox catcher with a
new book out--reviews?) and the OSS found the German "atomic bomb" project
papers and some of the scientists, many     of the emigre and American
physicists lobbied to stop working on the bomb--the German program was that
far behind.  Which leads to the second thing I want to do with this posting.

What I want to know is what the listleute from Germany (and Europe) think
about the German atomic bomb project and that most controversial figure (or
should I say "uncertain"), Werner Heisenberg.  There is some controversy in
the historical scholarship as to whether Heisenburg was a bumbling Nazi
who couldn't build the bomb, or if he was an incredible humanitarian who didn't
build the bomb--and tried to make a deal with the Americans during the war for
no one to build it.  The most recent thing that I have read on the subject is
_Heisenberg's War_ which is very pro-Heisenberg (and is thus very provacative).
Since living in Los Alamos, where you can imagine that they do have every
book ever written on the atomic bomb subject, I have picked up a copy of the
"Farm Hill Transcripts", but haven't had a chance to dig into them yet.
It certainly looked like the German atomic bomb project was a reactor.  Legend
is (and this is why the Farm Hill transcripts) that Heisenberg, while being
kept "at the Queen's discretion" after the war, when told of the blast yeild
of the Hiroshima bomb, immediately told another physicist that the core would
have to be the size of a grapefruit and later that night, held a seminar in
which he practically designed the entire weapon.  If so, he was no bumbling
fool--and it stretches the crediblity to think he was a bumbling physicist.

Comments?

Cassady Craft
Department of Political Science
University of Georgia
e-mail [email-masked]
or
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 02:11:28 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Terminology

Mick, I believe Raol _ended_ his career in WW I, also!

Cassady Craft
Department of Political Science
University of Georgia
e-mail [email-masked]
or
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 16:45:33 +1000
From:    Mick Fauchon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Terminology

        Cassady,

> Mick, I believe Raol _ended_ his career in WW I, also!

        Terminal balloon-busting?
        As I said, I'm always open to correction. 80)

                                                        Cheers,

                                                        Mick.

--                                                                          --
Mick Fauchon                          | Internet: [email-masked]
Reference Section, Auchmuty Library   | Ph  (intl+61+49) 215861
University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA    | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833

     MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
     M                                                                   M
     M  Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!"      M
     M                                                                   M
     M  Yosemite Sam   : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M
     M                                                                   M
     MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 09:02:32 BST
From:    Stephen Baldwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Gustav Geraet

>That is it for this topic. Any questions, please let me know. I will
>be posting other info on related topics.

>Thanks for asking and hope this has been of interest.
>Terry

Very many thanks for the story Terry- good stuff.
cheers

steve b
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 18:01:27 +0900
From:    Akira Takiguchi <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIV: Weapons in movie _The Cross of Iron_

Henry Herz <[email-masked]>:
>In most cases, Hollywood does what is least expensive with regard to props.

     Right, but _The Cross of Iron_ is not a Hollywood picture.  It is an
Anglo-German production.

Akira Takiguchi  ATSON, Inc.

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 04:44:13 -0700
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 28-SEP-1944

On 28-SEP-1944, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - The Canadian 3rd Division penetrates the defences of Calais.

Eastern Front - The Russian 57th Army moves from Vidin in Bulgaria into
Yugoslavia.

Peleliu - The 5th Marines land on the islet of Ngesebus and Kongauru and begin
to clear them of the Japanese. On Peleliu itself, a war of attrition starts
against the Japanese positions in the central northern area of the island.

Angaur - Mopping up continues in the Lake Salome area.

The Homefront
-------------
Navy Women's Bill Signed - President Roosevelt has signed a bill permitting
the women's reserve of the Navy, Coast Guard and Marines to serve anywhere in
the western hemisphere.

Train Wreck - Eight people have been killed when a Chicago & Northwestern
passenger train and a freight train crash on the outskirts of Missouri Valley,
Iowa.

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

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

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

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 08:16:02 -0400
From:    Bob Smart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Lufberry Circle

>From: Ed Kettler <[email-masked]>
>Subject:      Re: Terminology
>
>A Lufbery Circle is a defensive manuver where the planes fly in a
>circle.  If an enemy plane tries to attack a plane in the circle, the
>plane behind the target aircraft usually has a pretty good shot at the
>attacker.  Works pretty well in a gun environment or rear quarter heat
>seeker missile shots, but probably wouldn't work too well if the attacker
>had all aspect heat seekers or radar guided missiles.
>
>The tactic was developed by the US ace Raoul Lufbery, French Lafayette
>Escadrille and US Air Service, WW I.
>
>An excellent book is Robert L. Shaw's Fighter Combat: Tactics and
>Manauvering, US Naval Institute.
>
>Hope that helps!
>
>Ed Kettler                                       [email-masked]

It has been lots of years now but I believe Robert Scott in _God_Is_My_Copilot_
talks about the Japanese using this tactic in China.  If I remember correctly
he felt that it was an outdated tactic that did not help at all against slashing
diving attacks that the P-40 could make.  It worked in WW I because aircraft
were not capable of diving at high speed onto the circle to pick out a single
victim.  The circle worked when most manuevering was primarily horizontal and
at fairly slow closure rates.

Bob Smart ([email-masked])

On Mon, 26 Sep 1994, GEORGE BAUER wrote:

> Does the term "luftberry circle" or something similar ring a bell with
> anybody?  I think it has something to do with an aerial operation.
>
> Can anybody help?  Thanks
>
>
>   =========================================================================
>   | DR.  GEORGE R. BAUER             | INTERESTS:                         |
>   |                                  | Computers in Business & Education. |
>   | Recently returned from my second | Education:  Curriculum development.|
>   |   extended stay in Prague.       |    International Education, TEFL.  |
>   | Working on second book about     | Central Europe:  Post revolution   |
>   |   Prague and new Czech Republic  |    economic, social, political     |
>   |   and a book about the B-25      |    problems and opportunities.     |
>   |   in WWII.                       | B-25 in WWII.                      |
>   | E-Mail:                          | Free lance writing and editing.    |
>   |   USA:  [email-masked]    | Stamp collecting.                  |
>   |         [email-masked] |                                    |
>   =========================================================================
>

------- End of Forwarded Message

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 07:25:52 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Gustav Geraet

Hello, Steve!

Glad to hear from you, as always, and hope you are well.

>
> Very many thanks for the story Terry- good stuff.

    I am glad you enjoyed the info. More will be forthcoming on other
topics.

    All the best.

    Terry

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 09:20:45 EDT
From:    Richard Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Lufberry Circle

Based on Scott's observations about the effectiveness of the circle, and high
speed dives, wouldn't the Thatch Weave be the logical successor as a defensive
tactic?

                                        Richard Kaplan
                                        Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 14:34:43 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [WEAP] first jets comparison

On Mon, 26 Sep 1994, Robert Hohlt wrote:

> I am looking for a comparison of PERFORMANCE/MANEUVERABILITY and
> DURABILITY between the ME 262, Gloster Meteor, and USAAF P-80 Shooting Star.

A first-hand account of the Me 262 was given by an experienced test pilot,
i.e. Eric 'Winkle' Brown, who has flown the Me 262 after the war (it would
be more difficult to mention an aircraft he has NOT flown). He commented
that the Me 262 was the most formidable combat aircraft of WWII, despite
having flown also the Spitfire, Mosquito, Mustang, Zero, Fw 190, Corsair,
Hellcat,...

But the German pilots he spoke to were somewhat apprehensive of it, mostly
because of the unreliable engines. Total engine life was only 25 hours,
with a TBO (time before overhaul) of 10 hours.  Single-engine safety speed
was 290km/h, so engine failures were, to put it mildly, dangerous; the
accident rate was high. If one engine was cut at 260km/h the Me 262 turned
and dived uncontrollably, unless action was undertaken within two
seconds. The axial engines were technologically more advanced than
British centrifugal designs, with a better response, and more efficient.

The Me 262 had two 900l fuel tanks, and two auxiliary tanks, one 600l and
one 170l. Fuel was 87 octane mixed with five percent oil. Cockpit layout
was neat but complex; to procedure to start the engines was very complex
and taxiing required care not to overheat the engines. The take-off run
was long, because the Me 262 was a bit underpowered. Above 300km/h
performance and handling became pleasant. It was advised not to reduce
engine revs below 6000/min above 9000m, because they would flame out and
could not be restarted above 4000m.

The Me 262 was fast, but pilots were told not to exceed 960km/h in a dive
below 8000m and 900km/h above that altitude. Above Mach 0.83 the Me 262
became nose heavy, and violent buffeting set in. The Me 262 had some
directional snaking, just like the Meteor and Vampire; attempts to improve
it by removing the top part of the rudder had some effect, but increased
single-engine safety speed to 320km/h --- unacceptable. The shape of the
fin was slightly modified, and this alleviated the pronblems. Otherwise,
the Me 262 was docile and responsive, with a roll rate of 360 degrees in
3.8sec at 645km/h and 1525m. Landing was set in at 400km/h to lower the
undercarriage, lowering flaps at 350km/h and touching down at 200km/h. The
landing run was long.

The first Me 262 lost in combat was forced to land on 28 August 1944, when
Lt. Lauer was forced to land by fighters of the 8th AF. The Me 262 was
only really vulnerable at landing, however. Over 1200 were deliverd to the
Luftwaffe, but most of these probably were never flown, simply because
there were no pilots. Rather a lot of time was wasted on experimental
versions, such as: nightfighter versions (a few operational), a version
armed with a 50mm cannon, a version with a rocket booster in the tail, a
fuel tank that was towed behind the aircraft. An innovation that was
highly effective was the R4M folding-fin rocket armament.

Type              Me 262A-1a
Manufacturer      Messerschmitt
Designer          W. Voigt
First flight      18 July 1942 (jet engines only)
Engines           2 * Junkers Jumo-004B-1
                  900kg static thrust
Wing Span         12.51m
Length            10.60m
Height             3.83m
Wing Area         21.70m2
Empty Weight      4420kg
Normal weight     6396kg
Max. Weight       7130kg
Max. Speed        827km/h at sea level
                  853km/h at  3000m
                  870km/h at  6000m
                  856km/h at  8000m
                  820km/h at 10000m
Climb              20m/sec
                   11m/sec at 6000m
                    5.5m/sec at 9000m
                    6000m in 6.8min
                    9000m in 13.1min
                   10000m in 26min
Range              480km at sea level
                   850km at 6000m
                  1050km at 9000m
Armament          4 * 30mm MK 108,
                  two with 100 rounds
                  two with  80 rounds
                  R4M rockets

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

After beginning the work on the E28/39 single-engined experimental jet
aircraft, first flown on 15 May 1941, Gloster proposed a twin-engined jet
fighter to the RAF, and this was accepted in November 1940. The RAF had
demanded four or six 20mm Hispano cannon; because the early jet engines
--- the Whittle W1 --- were not very powerful, a twin-engined design was
needed. Determined to get the project going, the RAF ordered no less than
12 prototypes, some of which would be used as engine test aircraft. The
original name of the aircraft was Thunderbolt, but this was later changed
to Meteor to avoid confusion with the P-47.

In July 1942 the Meteor was ready, but there were no airworthy engines,
and only taxying trials were possible, and a few careful 'hops'. The first
Meteor to fly had the Halford H1 engine --- designed, built and tested
within 12 months, without previous experience on jet engines! --- on 5
April 1943. The version with the Halford engine was known as the Mk.2; the
Mk.1 had the original Rover W2B engine, developed from the W1. All Meteors
had centrifugal engines with a large cross section --- nearly 50 inch for
the H1, 43 inch for the W2B --- and thus bulky nacelles, except the one
with serial DG204, that had axial Metropolitan-Vickers F2 engines. These
engines were underdeveloped however, and DG204 was lost when the engines
disintegrated in flight.

The first test flight was cut short because test pilot M. Daunt found that
the Meteor had directional 'snakings' above 260km/h and could not be kept
straight above 370km/h. Directional instabiliy would remain a problem
troughout most of the Meteor's career. The worst was cured by introducing
metal-covered ailerons.

The six guns with 120 rounds that were installed in the first armed Meteor
were later replaced by four guns with 150 rounds each.

The Meteor Mk.1 entered service in July 1944, just in time to be used
against the V-1. Eventually 16 of the 20 Mk.1s built entered service. Top
speed was 660km/h at 9800m, not very good and well below the potential of
the design; the Meteor could be dived up to Mach 0.84 safely. (A limit of
Mach 0.78 was imposed in squadron service for the Mk.4.) The well-know
Roland Beamont wrote that the Meteor Mk.1 had heavy controls, restricited
manoeuvrability, poor view from the cockpit, and very restricted
endurance, that is 35 minutes. He preferred the Tempest, the only points
in favour of the Meteor being a tricycle undercarriage and a 70mph speed
advantage at low altitude. In fact he did not consider the Mk.1 to be
suitable for combat.

The first V-1 was downed on 4 August 1944. The first major production
variant was the Meteor F.3 with the more powerful R.R. Welland engine;
this also introduced an 'all-round vision' canopy inspired on that of the
Fw 190. The latest Mk.3s had longer, aerodynamically more efficient engine
nacelles. Heavier engines, additional equipment and the removal of two
guns meant that the Mk.3 had to carry 518lb of ballast in the nose. (This
increased to 1000lb on the post war Mk.4. It was eliminated by the
redesign that created the Mk.8.) Roland Beamont did not like the Mk.3 much
more than the Mk.1, feeling that at the fast speeds that were the
advantage of the Meteor over more conventional aircraft, the controls were
too heavy for a fighter.

Mike Retallack, who trained on the Meteor F.8 in the late 1950s, found
that the Meteor was "a very robust aircraft but felt like a car in
overdrive; things happended rather sluggishly". Single-engined flying was
dangerous, and killed many pilots, partly because they tended to shut down
an engine entirely, instead of throttling it back. An 'individual critical
speed' was determined in training, between 120 knots and 125 knots, based
simply on leg power --- how much pressure one could apply on the rudder!
Normal landing safety speed was 160 knots. Spinning was severely
restricted, more than two rotations could become irrecoverable.

The Meteor was not used on the continent until 1945; and then it was
forbidden to overfly enemy territory. The Meteor used its cannon mainly
for ground attacks, and hopes to meet the Me 262 were not rewarded. The
Meteor had a long post-war career, 3875 were built in the UK, the
Netherlands and Belgium. There were no less than 34 versions, including
'long-nosed' nightfighter versions.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 07:02:16 PDT
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 09-27-94

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

1944
09/27 Wed. Submarines NARWHAL (SS-167) and STINGRAY (SS-186)
           land supplies on north coast of Mindanao, P, I., and
           east coast of Luzon, P. I., respectively.
            Japanese naval vessel sunk:
             Coast defense vessel NO. 10, by submarine torpedo,
              East China Sea,
              29 d. 26'N., 128 d. 50 E.

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

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 23:16:26 +0900
From:    Akira Takiguchi <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Gustav Geraet

One trivia about _Dora_ is why it was called Dora.  One of my sources say
that it is named after the wife of the designer (Erich Mueller).  Taube
says that it is a short form of "Donner und Doria".  Which is correct?

References: _Deutsche Eisenbahn Geschuetze_ Taube 1990
            _German Small Arms And Weapons of W.W.II_ vol.3 Shino et al 1991

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 16:40:27 +0200
From:    "A.Bouis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: POL:Hiroshima

Very glad to see there haven't been flames, and that this list so far respects opinions, so I'll add other cents :

Steven writes :
I don't know which Japanese you are referring to, bu the Japanese High
Council refused to surrender until the Emporer directed them to. That
"trying to surrender" only cost us two Atom bombs. Not to mention the
collateral damage.
For example,
'Before the conference assembled, all the messages between Tokyo and Moscow were deciphered in Washington, and on 13th July the following dispatch from the foreign minister to Sato came through :"See Molotov before departure for Postdam...convey his Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war...Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace".' (Fuller, The Conduct of War)

.. And Cassidy writes :
well....I would consider the fire
bombing of what, Dresden was it?, or Tokyo and every other Japanese city to
be more of the same.  In actuality, the atomic bombs killed fewer than the
conventional" raids on Tokyo.  Why is one more massively destructive than
the other when they weren't much different as far as actual destruction
goes?  Second, was it terror when the Japanese leaders or people realized
that this destruction was wrought by one bomb?  What difference did it make
whether there were fleets of B-29s (and the 8th AF on the way) or just one?
Well, none. I totally agree that if ones condemns the Hiroshima bombing, so can he condemn Dresden and the Bomber Harris philosophy. The problem, as you point out, is not one of whether the bomb was atomic or incendiary, one or by the thousand. Rather it is the wanton killing of enemy civilians, not military targets, to achieve military ends.
It is easy to see that the Western powers have since changed their philosophies, while not officially regretted Hiroshima and Dresden (probably because it would have made the Axis look like victims, while they committed worse acts). No one would dared firebombing the Iraki population to force the issue, even had Saddam Hussein not been beaten. Extreme care is now taken by Western governements to state that they only attack military targets (see the Baghdad bunker affair). So was it not fifty years ago. Clearly, American minds have changed, though the dictatorships haven't, which is a testimony to the fairness and humanity of the former.
Those in leadership positions in this country wanted to try anything available
in order to end the war before an invasion was necessary.  An invasion would
have cost "X" (you fill in the blank) number of lives, and probably "3X" or
even "Xcubed" Japanese lives.  It would have been a terrible thing for all.
Excellent point. Because it exemplifies the problem, which looks like the classic dilemma of efficiency versus morality. Just as torturing an enemy soldier may save the lives of your comrades, nuking his civilians may have saved lots of lives. This does not remove the barbarity of the act, and the conscience pangs every human should decently have for performing it.
A point where I disagree is that "Those in leadership positions in this country wanted to try anything available in order to end the war before an invasion was necessary". The Administration refused to negociate anything with Japan. Had they accepted to leave the Emperor on his throne or enabled him to "save face", according to Truman's secretaries of State (Stimson, R.C.Grew), in all probability the war would have ended by 1945, before Russian intervention, and the disastrous consequences it entailed.
The one thing he could not do was to order his people to surrender unconditionally, and thereby acquiesce in becoming a war criminal, to be placed in trail, or shot at sight (in accordance with the Morgenthau plan, when all captured war criminals had to be shot, and the President expressed himself in favor of "execution without trial"). The final irony is that Hiro Hito remained.

My motto is the same as Ben
Franklin's, "I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death
your right to say it."  (doesn't sound like Franklin--is it?)
...excellent motto :-)

I am sorry for the bad editing of my posts, I have a prehistoric editor (raw UNIX mail). I hope it isn't too much trouble.

Arnaud Bouis
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 10:17:39 CDT
From:    Robert Hohlt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [WEAP] first jets comparison

Thanks to all for the info on the early jets.  I knew
this was the place go.

Sincerely,

Robert Hohlt, Jr.

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 11:33:17 -0400
From:    Joe Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIV: Weapons in movies

Henry Herz <[email-masked]> writes:
> In most cases, Hollywood does what is least expensive with regard to props.
> I get annoyed every time I see US Shermans with German crosses painted on
> them.  One notable exception is Kelly's Heroes in which the Germans actually
> have Tiger I (PzKw VIa) tanks and (as I recall) German halftracks and
> Kubelwagons.

This is the best praise to the props people of "Kelly's Heroes".  Most of
German vehicles weren't authentic, they were merely modified Allied AFVs.
The fact that most people are fooled by their work is a credit to their
attention to detail.  The Tigers are actually T-34 chassis.  The Hanomags
were M-3 halftracks.  (The telltale signs are the roadwheels.) The
Kubelwagens were probably real.
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
It's a Mark 6!  And we got her by the ass!

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 10:41:25 -0500
From:    GEORGE BAUER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Lufberry Circle

Thanks to those who wrote me about the Lufberry Circle.

  =========================================================================
  | DR.  GEORGE R. BAUER             | INTERESTS:                         |
  |                                  | Computers in Business & Education. |
  | Recently returned from my second | Education:  Curriculum development.|
  |   extended stay in Prague.       |    International Education, TEFL.  |
  | Working on second book about     | Central Europe:  Post revolution   |
  |   Prague and new Czech Republic  |    economic, social, political     |
  |   and a book about the B-25      |    problems and opportunities.     |
  |   in WWII.                       | B-25 in WWII.                      |
  | E-Mail:                          | Free lance writing and editing.    |
  |   USA:  [email-masked]    | Stamp collecting.                  |
  |         [email-masked] |                                    |
  =========================================================================

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 12:06:32 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Lufberry Circle

Thatch Weave was also a horizontal tactic.  Don't see how it could handle
a high speed, diving attack either.

Cassady Craft
Department of Political Science
University of Georgia
e-mail [email-masked]
or
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 12:16:23 -0500
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Gustav Geraet

I've read of one instance at Sebastopol where the Dora equipment (800mm)
supposedly destroyed a Russian ammo dump buried 103 feet underground.

Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 12:05:40 -0800
From:    Julian E Gomez <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: POL:Hiroshima

>Well, none. I totally agree that if ones condemns the Hiroshima bombing, so
>can he condemn Dresden and the Bomber Harris philosophy. The problem, as you
>point out, is not one of whether the bomb was atomic or incendiary, one or
>by the thousand. Rather it is the wanton killing of enemy civilians, not
>military targets, to achieve military ends.

Was it "wanton"? Could somebody briefly reiterate why Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were targeted? I suspect they had strategic value; why waste all
that firepower?

"I was a precocious child and obviously destined to be a scientist."

        Dr. Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
        Apple Computer, Inc.  408/862-1289 or 996-1010
        [email-masked]  [email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 15:07:51 -0500
From:    John Lundstrom <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Lufberry Circle

The Thach Weave was specifically designed to deal with high speed diving
attacks from the rear. The key element was timing, knowing when to turn
toward your threatened wingman to get him to turn toward you. Such a quick
turn offered the opposing fighter, once committed to the dive, only a full
deflection shot (60 to 90 degrees), making it very difficult for the
attacker to draw enough lead to hit. The Lufbery circle was only defensive,
useful if the attacker tailed in behind one of the fighters. The Thach weave
offered much more chances for counterattacks, particularly as the U.S.
Navy's fighter pilots knew how to make deflection shots. The Thach Weave
also allowed the fighters to move on instead of just circling.
                John Lundstrom

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 16:27:01 -0400
From:    David Rising <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: POL: HIROSHIMA

On Mon, 26 Sep 1994, Ben Frank wrote:

> Arnaud, thanks for your comments, and I agree wholeheartedly with you that
> revisionist historians, most of whom are of a leftward leaning bent, are to be
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> criticized severely and their works looked at very closely, because I don't
> trust their statistics or conclusions. Ben Frank

While I agree with everything else you say, I'd have to disagree with
your premise on revisionists all being leftist. Most "revisionists" whom
I've encountered are neo-Nazi's who are denying the Holocaust. Just my 2c.
David Rising

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 17:14:12 -0500
From:    "Sidney W. Kitchel" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: SCI re: Bletchley Park

Gudmundur Helgason writes to the list:
>        Is the Sharkhunters newsletter the only source that doubts the BP
>'breaking' of Enigma? I never knew how complex Enigma was until I read
>that info, FAR too complicated to be broken at that time it seems (if they
>broke THAT with these lousy machines they had then NO modern code seems secure
>against the Cray computers). This hint of a German officer simply *selling*
>the keys to the allied seems more probable to me.

        I haven't heard or read of the selling incident. However, luck
and planned operations did contribute. A couple of times during the
war German ships or subs were captured before they sank or before the
Enigma machine and keys could be destroyed. The British also planned
and executed raids on the weather ships the Germans operated in
the North Atlantic specifically to seize keys. These captures usually
provided short-term help until the time of the captured keys ran out.
        The Naval Enigma was particularly difficult because the Navy
was much more disciplined than the German Army and Air Force. Many
breaks of keys came from procedural errors made during message
encoding and transmission. Also the German Navy eventually added a
fourth rotor to the basic Enigma design that made it more hard to
crack.
        As to the need of Cray computers, luckily that amount of
computing power was not needed. The fundamental breaking of the Enigma
machine was mathematical and based on bad German habits. The design of
the Enigma machine itself provided some avenues for attack. For
example, the Army and Luftwaffe Enigma did not allow a letter to
encypher into itself. This became an important fact of the
mathematical analysis. Long German phrases that often appeared in
messages such as the "keine besonderen Ereignisse" of the Milner-Barry
quotation or standard openings of daily messages such as
"Wettervorhersage Deutsche Bucht" ("weather forecast German Bight")
provided standard cribs in breaking new keys.
        The attitude shown in the Sharkhunters newsletter is exactly
the wrong one for real communication security. The right attitude is
to doubt your own system and try to assay if the enemy is reading it.

                                                        --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:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 18:04:16 -0500
From:    Drew Halevy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [WEAP] first jets comparison

Ditto for me, I would like to thank all who had information concerning
the size of cannons. Thanks again-Drew

Drew Halevy
Department of History
University of Arkansas
[email-masked]

On Tue, 27 Sep 1994, Robert Hohlt wrote:

> Thanks to all for the info on the early jets.  I knew
> this was the place go.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Robert Hohlt, Jr.
>

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 20:10:15 EDT
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: SCI re: Bletchley Park

Mr. Sidney W. Kitchel <[email-masked]> said:

>Gudmundur Helgason writes to the list:
>>        Is the Sharkhunters newsletter the only source that doubts the BP
>>'breaking' of Enigma? I never knew how complex Enigma was until I read
>>that info, FAR too complicated to be broken at that time it seems (if they
>>broke THAT with these lousy machines they hadthen NO modern code seems secure
>>against the Cray computers). This hint of a German officer simply *selling*
>>the keys to the allied seems more probable to me.
>
>        I haven't heard or read of the selling incident. However, luck
>and planned operations did contribute. A couple of times during the
>war German ships or subs were captured before they sank or before the
>Enigma machine and keys could be destroyed. The British also planned

The German Navy had an entirely different "logical" method of scambling the
tumblers, of which there were any from 3 to 8 depending upon the model.

>and executed raids on the weather ships the Germans operated in
>the North Atlantic specifically to seize keys. These captures usually
>provided short-term help until the time of the captured keys ran out.
>        The Naval Enigma was particularly difficult because the Navy
>was much more disciplined than the German Army and Air Force. Many
>breaks of keys came from procedural errors made during message
>encoding and transmission. Also the German Navy eventually added a
>fourth rotor to the basic Enigma design that made it more hard to
>crack.

The Naval method was pre-determined by Doernitz's staff, and was
stricly different than the German diplomatic corp which used obsenities
and Holywood stars/lines as keys.

>        As to the need of Cray computers, luckily that amount of
>computing power was not needed. The fundamental breaking of the Enigma
>machine was mathematical and based on bad German habits. The design of
>the Enigma machine itself provided some avenues for attack. For
>example, the Army and Luftwaffe Enigma did not allow a letter to
>encypher into itself. This became an important fact of the
>mathematical analysis. Long German phrases that often appeared in
>messages such as the "keine besonderen Ereignisse" of the Milner-Barry
>quotation or standard openings of daily messages such as
>"Wettervorhersage Deutsche Bucht" ("weather forecast German Bight")
>provided standard cribs in breaking new keys.

My info is based on the Nova program... committed to what memory I have.
I hope I have not been redundant, although I fear I have. I wanted to
elucidate. bye ;-)

-Al

Calm down; it's only ones and zeros.

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 20:37:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: [INF] USAAF 28 SEP 44

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
THURSDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 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
  C-47, Douglas Skytrain
  P-38, Lockheed Lightning
  P-40, Curtiss
  P-47, Republic Thunderbolt
  P-51, North American Mustang

NOTE: A number in parenthesis after a target name indicates the number of
bombers attacking.

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA (CBI) THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  BURMA-INDIA (Tenth Air Force): In Burma, 4 P-47s bomb and strafe Mawhun and
Nansiaung. 21 B-24s fly fuel to Liuchow, Yungning, and Kunming, China.

  CHINA (Fourteenth Air Force): In China, 26 B-24s pound the town of Samshui;
31 B-25s attack the towns of Taochuan and Shangchiebshou, Tien Ho and White
Cloud Airfields at Canton, and river and road traffic around Lingling,
Siangtan, and Chuchou; 100+ P-40s, P-51s, and P-38s on armed reconnaissance
attack numerous targets of opportunity including bridges, town areas, troops,
and road, rail, and river traffic throughout inland SE China and, on a
smaller scale, in SW China and in French Indochina.

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

  AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (IX Troop Carrier Command): In France, HQ 439th Troop
Carrier Group and the 91st, 92d and 94th Troop Carrier Squadrons move from
Juvincourt to Lonray with C-47s; the 95th, 96th and 97th Troop Carrier
Squadrons, 440th Troop Carrier Group, move from Reims to Le Mans with C-47s.

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 652: 1,049 bombers and 724
fighters are dispatched to hit oil and military vehicle factories in C
Germany using PFF means; they claim 37-8-18 Luftwaffe aircraft; 34 bombers
and 7 fighters are lost:
  1. 445 B-17s are dispatched to hit the Magdeburg/Rothensee oil refinery
(23); 359 hit the secondary at Magdeburg and 35 hit targets of opportunity;
they claim 10-7-5 aircraft; 23 B-17s are lost, 2 damaged beyond repair and
126 damaged; 8 airmen are WIA and 208 MIA. Escort is provided by 263 P-38s
and P-51s; they claim 24-0-13 aircraft in the air and 1-0-0 on the ground; 5
P-51s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair and 4 damaged; 5 pilots are MIA.
  2. 342 B-17s are dispatched to hit the Merseburg/Leuna oil refinery (301);
10 others hit targets of opportunity; 10 B-17s are lost, 4 damaged beyond
repair and 251 damaged; 4 airmen are KIA, 15 WIA and 92 MIA. Escort is
provided by 212 of 231 P-51s; they claim 2-1-0 aircraft in the air; 1 P-51 is
lost (pilot MIA).
  3. 262 B-24s are dispatched to hit the Kassel/Henschel motor transport
plant (243); 1 hits a target of opportunity; 1 B-24 is lost and 86 damaged;
10 airmen are MIA. Escort is provided by 171 of 195 P-47s; 1 P-47s is lost
and 3 damaged; 1 pilot is MIA.
  Mission 653: 4 B-24s and 6 B-17s drop leaflets in France, the Netherlands
and Germany during the night.
  194 B-24s fly a TRUCKIN' mission to France with fuel.
  The 374th, 375th and 376th Fighter Squadrons, 361st Fighter Group, move
from Bottisham to Little Walden, England with P-51s.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): In France, bombers hit the defended
area of Foret de Parroy; fighters escort bombers, attack railroads W of the
Rhine River, fly sweeps and armed reconnaissance in Arnhem, the Netherlands
(from which British airborne troops have relinquished their hold because of
strong German opposition), the Koblenz, Strasbourg, Karlsruhe, and Mannheim,
Germany areas, and support US First and Third Armies in E France and W
Germany. Night patrols continue over Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany. In
France, HQ 50th Fighter Group moves from Laon to Lyons/Bron; HQ 410th
Bombardment Group (Light) moves from Gosfield, England to Coulommiers; the
645th and 647th Bombardment Squadrons (Light), 410th Bombardment Group
(Light), moves form Gosfield, England to Coulommiers with A-20s.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Fifteenth Air Force): Bad weather cancels bombing
operations, limiting missions to weather reconnaissance.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy, weather grounds A-20s
and medium bombers; fighter-bombers, operating on a reduced scale bomb
Bologna and hit roads and rail lines at 4 locations.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA)

  AAFPOA (Seventh Air Force): B-24s from Saipan Island bomb naval
installations at Chichi Jima Island. P-47s bomb defenses on Pagan Island.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA [SWPA, Far East Air Force (FEAF)]: On Celebes Island,
B-25s on a shipping sweep attack small vessels off Kairatoe and A-20s bomb
Langoan Airfield. P-38s hit barge and the town area at Pajahi in the Moluccas
Islands. In New Guinea, P-47s pound Manokwari Airfield.

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              |
-------------------------------------------------------------------

28/0039Z SEP

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 19:22:35 -0700
From:    Ed Kettler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Lufberry Circle

The Thach Weave had two supporting elements turn towards each other,
which would cause the bouncing plane to fly in front of the guns of the
supporting element.  While not decisively engaging the attacker, this
could force the attacker to break off.  John Lundstrom in the First Team
does an excellent job describing the development and use of the tactic.

Ed Kettler                                       [email-masked]

On Tue, 27 Sep 1994, Cassady Craft wrote:

> Thatch Weave was also a horizontal tactic.  Don't see how it could handle
> a high speed, diving attack either.
>
> Cassady Craft
> Department of Political Science
> University of Georgia
> e-mail [email-masked]
> or
> [email-masked]
>

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 23:15:19 -0400
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: POL: HIROSHIMA

David, you are entirely right. I got carried away with the subject. Of course
those who deny the Holocaust are revisionists. In fact, anybody who denies
commonly accepted and proved facts is, in fact, a revisionist, and so
revisionists come in all sizes and all colors. Thank you for correcting me. Ben
Frank

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

Date:    Tue, 27 Sep 1994 20:30:31 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Terminology

George...
        The term refers to Raul Lufbery, an American volunteer in the
French Air Force Lafayette Escadrille.
        He was an oustanding fighter pilot, whose death was oddly
symbolic.  His aircraft destroyed in mid-air by a German plane, Lufbery
fell to earth (no parachutes then) and smashed into the garden of a
French cafe, only a few yards away from the new American commander,
general Pershing.
Regards -- Sidney Allinson.

--

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 26 Sep 1994 to 27 Sep 1994
*************************************************