Subject: WWII-L Digest - 29 Sep 1994 to 30 Sep 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 00:01:52 -0400

There are 66 messages totalling 2065 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Lufberry Circle (2)
  2. German Atomic Bomb
  3. <No subject given>
  4. German Atomic Bomb II
  5. German Atomic Bomb III
  6. INF: USN Chronology 09-30-94
  7. German Atomic Bomb IV
  8. Palau
  9. P-61s
 10. TAC: ?'Could still loose the war? (8)
 11. INF: Italian AIrcraft Engine
 12. WWII-L Digest - 28 Sep 1994 to 29 Sep 1994
 13. INF: More on Aero engines
 14. The P-61
 15. INF: 50 Years Ago - 01-OCT-1944
 16. WEAP: Eric Brown (2)
 17. [INF] USAAF 30 SEP 44
 18. [TRIV] Re: odd WWII air encounters (3)
 19. BOOKS: Liddle Hart, ... (2)
 20. P-61 (3)
 21. Odd Encounters (2)
 22. CR.32 and CR.42 armament
 23. Italians (2)
 24. BOOKS:Liddell Hart/Fuller
 25. TACT:Could they have won ? (6)
 26. MEDIA: Radio Memory (2)
 27. TRIV] Re: German-Japanese Tech Transfer (3)
 28. Help--weapons
 29. American Air Museum
 30. ADMIN: Heading it off at the pass
 31. Report: 50th MARKET-GARDEN
 32. German Military Vehicles
 33. WEAP: CA 310
 34. POL:Hiroshima
 35. *Red Ball Express*
 36. Swiss, Yugoslavian Bf 109s (2)
 37. HIST: Stalin's Moment of Weakness (was TACT:Could they have won ?)
 38. Ike & Bradley "locked up"
 39. DOOLITTLE COMMANDS  (fwd)
 40. Switzerland in WWII
 41. Downfall

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 01:16:21 -0500
From:    Bill Smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Lufberry Circle

FYI, since this string earlier brought up the spelling question, don't
forget it's Chennault, not Chenault

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 01:51:01 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: German Atomic Bomb

The following was taken from _Operation Epsilon:  The Farm Hall Transcripts._
Berkeley:  Univ. of Cal. Press, 1993.

I'm going to skip around to catch the highlights.  This may take the form of
several messages, because there is alot of good stuff here.
My comments are in parenthesis.

6-7 Aug. 1945
"After hearing the official announcement (of the dropping of the A-bomb) they
(the 10 German scientists held by the Anglo-Americans after VE Day) realised
that it was a fact.  Their first reaction, which I (Major T.H. Rittner) believe
was genuine, was an expression of horror that we should have used this
invention for destruction."

"Shortly before dinner on the 6th August I informed Proffessor Hahn (Otto Hahn)
that an announcement had been made by the BBC that an atomic bomb had been
dropped.  Hahn was completely shattered by the news and said that he felt
personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, as it
was his original discovery which had made the bomb possible....  With the help
of considerable alcoholic stimulant he was calmed down and we went down to
dinner where he announced the news to the assembled guests (other German
scientists)."

HAHN:  If the Americans have a uranium bomb then you're all second-raters.
Poor old Heisenberg....  They are fifty years further advanced than we.

HEISENBERG:  I don't believe a word of the whole thing....  I am willing to
believe that it is a high pressure bomb and I don't believe that it has
anything to do with uranium but that it is a chemical thing where they have
enormously increased the speed of the reaction and enormously increased the
whole explosion....  I consider it perfectly possible that they have about
ten tons of enriched uranium, but not that they can have ten tons of pure
U235.

HAHN:  But tell me why you used to tell me  that one needed 50kg of 235 in
order to do anything.  Now you say one needs two tons.

HEISENBERG:  I wouldn't like to commit myself for the moment...

"All the guests assembled to hear the official announcement at 9 o'clock.  They
were completely stunned when they realised that the news was genuine.  They
were left alone on the assumption that they would discuss the position and the
following remarks were made:"

HEISENBERG:  The point is that the whole structure of the relationship between
the scientist and the state in Germany was such that although we were not 100%
anxious to do it, on the other hand we were so little trusted by the state
that even if we had wanted to do it it would not have been easy to get it
through....  I would say that I was absolutely convinced of the possibility
of our making an uranium engine but I never thought that we would make a bomb
and at the bottom of my heart I was really glad that it was to be an engine
and not a bomb.  I must admit that.  (The scientists were concerned at this
point that the German people would think that they had betrayed them for not
developing a bomb like the Americans had.)

WIRTZ (Karl Wirtz):  I think it characteristic that the Germans made the
discovery and didn't use it, whereas the Americans have used it.  I must say
I didn't think the Americans would dare use it."

(Later, Hahn and Heisenberg talk privately, Heisenberg starts working on
the mechanics of how to build the bomb).
HEISENBERG:  In order to make 80 collisions, I must have a lump of a radius
of about 54 cm and that would be about a ton.

HAHN:  Wouldn't that ton be stronger than 20,000 tons of explosive?

HEISENBERG:  It would be about the same.  It is conceivable that they could do
it with less in the following manner.  They would take only a quarter of the
quantity but cover it with a reflector which would turn back the fast neutrons.
For instance lead or carbon and in that way they could get the neutrons which
go out, to come back again.  It could be done in that way.  It is possible for
them to do it like that.

HAHN:  How can they take it in an aircraft and make sure that it explodes at
the right moment?

HEISENBERG:  One way would be to make the bomb in two halves, each one of which
would be too small to produce the explosion....  The two halves would be
joined together at the moment of dropping when the reaction would start....
I would like to know what Stalin is thinking this evening.

(Interspersed through the entire discussion is views on post war politics,
Soviet ability to develop the bomb, and the possiblity of international
cooperation on atomic energy and bombs)

HEISENBERG:  I am still convinced that our objective was really the right one
....

(End of conversations recorded 6 August 1945).

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

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

Date:    Thu, 29 Sep 1994 23:53:44 PDT
From:    Peter Paiva <[email-masked]>
Subject: <No subject given>

SIGNOFF wwii

--

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 02:32:32 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: German Atomic Bomb II

The following was taken from _Operation Epsilon:  The Farm Hall Transcripts_.

7 August 1945 "The guests read the newspapers with great avidity.  Most of the
morning was taken up reading these."

WEIZSACKER (Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker):  History will record that the
Americans and the English made a bomb, and that at the same time the Germans,
under the Hitler regime, produced a workable engine.

8-22 August 1945

"The guests have recovered from the initial shock they received when the news
of the atomic bomb was announced.  They are still speculating on the method
used to make the bomb and their conversations on this subject, including a
lecture by Heisenberg, appear later in this report."

8 August 1945  "After reading the newspapers on 8 Aug, the following comments
were made:"

HEISENBERG:  I do not see how the reaction can take place in 8lbs. of some-
thing....  In 8 lbs they will surely get no chain reaction whatsoever.  But
still it may not necessarily be true what is written in the newspaper.

I still do not understand what they have done.  If they have this element 94
....  How they have obtained this element (94) is still a mystery....

"The following day (9 August 1945) the newspapers mentioned that the atomic
bomb weighed 200 kilos...." (talk about a breach in security!)

HARTECK (Paul Harteck):  Do you believe that it is true that this is the weight
of the bomb or that they wish to bluff the Russians?

HEISENBERG:  This has worried me considerably, and therefore this evening I
have done a few calculations and have seen that it is more probable than we
had thought on account of the substantial multiplication factors which one
can have with fast neutrons.  We have always calculated with a multiplication
factor of 1.1 because we had found this in practice with uranium.  If they
have a multiplication factor of 3 or 5 then naturally it is a different matter.
...  Then I can say, if the whole thing is only as big as the mean free path,
then one neutron which walks around therein once meets another and makes
three neutrons....

HARTECK:  What are these 100-200 kilos which are around it?

HEISENBERG:  This will be the reflector....  They must arrange it so that it
is at first taken apart into two pieces between which a reflector, of shall we
say lead or some other material, is placed, and then at the right moment this
lead will be pulled out and the thing clapped together.

Well how have they actually done it?  I find it is a disgrace if we, the
Professors who have worked on it, cannot at least work out how they did it.

Perhaps they are making this stuff (reative material) on a kilogram scale, and
if they then make a good reflector then they can work well with 1 or 2 kg.

(Lots of very technical physics goes on here--what the hell, I'll give you a
flavor of it!)

HAHN:  Yes, 235 is .7% of 238.  238 is obviously split by fast neutrons into
exact halves--also in exact halves not only.  But this exploitation into exact
halves is considerably smaller than for the normal fission products with fast
neutrons.  In this instance the Japanese for once published something original,
it appeared as if only these Japanese elements, as we have called them, came
out.  This is however not the case.  They are very much less than the others.

HARTECK:  I had only thought what is believed to be the highest.

HEISENBERG:  What could one have as the highest?

HAHN:  About 2 1/2 cms.

HEISENBERG:  No, what do you take as the cross-section?

HARTECK:  Tell me, what is the geometrical diameter, how big is it?

HEISENBERG:  The radius is .8 x 10 -12 power....In a mixture of 238 plus 235
the fission cross-section ratio is approximately 3.3....

(Will continue with Heisenberg's lecture on the 14th August 1945)

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 03:08:22 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: German Atomic Bomb III

The following was taken from _Operation Epsilon:  The Farm Hall Transcripts_.

"Heisenberg gave the following lecture on 14 August (1945) in which he
described his ideas of how the atomic bomb was made."

HEISENBERG:  I should like to consider the U235 bomb following the methods we
have always used for our uranium machine.  It then turns out in fact that we
can understand all the details of this bomb very well.  I will begin then by
recapitulating once more the chief data on U235.  I may repeat briefly what
happens in this bomb.  If a neutron is present in U235, it travels on and soon
meets a 235 nucleus.  Then two things can happen.  Either it is scattered
elastically or it causes a fission....  The process naturally goes on; the
neutron at some time meets a 235 and splits it.  In the fission, some
neutrons are produced.  These neutrons behave like the first, and so the chain
reaction goes on...for 2 or 3 neutrons would always result from each one by
fission....  The multiplication of neutrons is however in competition with
the process by which neutrons escape from the mass....(Heisenberg explains
physics stuff about nucleus cross sections, free paths, and reflector material)

We also see that it is expedient to surround it (ncore material) with something
which scatters as many neutrons as possible back, that is, which has as high
a scattering cross-section as possible (speculates as to whether lead, U238,
carbon, or graphite was used).

If on the other hand R (radius) is greater than R k subscript then mu is
positive, and the neutrons increase exponentially, that is the whole thing
explodes.  We see therefore that R k subscript is the critical size which the
uranium sphere must have as a minimum if the affair is to explode.

The explosion then follows exponentially with this time factor mu.  Now one
sees that this critical radius is rather sensitive to the value of the fission
cross-section:  If I assume the smallest value, .5, I get a critical mass of
12.7cm and if I assume the greatest, 2.5, I get 6.2 cm....

So I would like to propose the following interpretation, that what they have in
the middle is a mixture of 238 and 235:  such as 50% 235 and 50% 238, since
they are not likely to have produced really pure 235:  from this mixture...
they would have a sphere of radius say 8cm....

HAHN:  Lise Meitner says here something about heavy water.

HEISENBERG:  She certainly doesn't know anything.  Heavy water makes no sense
at all, since only processes with fast neutrons are involved and for fast
neutrons light water is just as good as heavy.....

A possible construction would be to have the hemisphere attached to an iron
cylinder, able to move in a gun-barrel, to be fired in this gun aginst the
other hemisphere held in the same way....  Then the whole explosion needs not
10 to the minus seven but 10 to the minus four seconds.  In this time the
affair would heat up so much as to come to 5000, 10000, or 20000 degrees.
As soon as I have these high temperatures the whole affair bursts apart....
So I must choose a sufficiently short time that it does not fly apart before.
I must estimate that, and what comes out is that the time should not be longer
than 10 to the minus 6 seconds, perhaps even (1/2) x 10 minus 6, but that is
about the limit.  One can reach that if the two hemispheres are shot together,
but not if they are merely brought together slowly.  I can say that there is a
critical separation, say 1 cm.  When they are more than 1 cm apart nothing at
all happens, it doesn't start.  When I have them closer than a cm apart it
goes off explosively.  This last cm is traversed in 10 minus 6 seconds....

The first thing that happens will be that the first 10 meters of air are
brought to white heat.  The first thing one will see will be a glowing ball
of about 20 meters diameter, glowing white because of the absorbed x-rays.
This radiation sends out further radiation again and so the affair gradually
spreads out.

WEIZSACKER:  Whereby though then to be sure only a small part of the radiation
is of that energy, as soon as the thing has come to reasonable temperatures
the greater part of the pressure is gas pressure, and the rest goes on as a
pressure wave.

HEISENBERG:  The surface of this uranium sphere thus radiates about 2000 times
more than the surface of the sun....  It would be interesting whether objects
could be knocked down by the pressure of the visible radiation.  This is quite
thinkable.

(Thus ended Heisenberg's lecture on how the Allies built the atomic bomb).

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 04:06:15 PDT
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 09-30-94

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

1944
09/30 Sat. Submarine NAUTILUS (SS-168) lands supplies and
           evacuates certain personnel from near Libertad,
           Panay, P. I.
            German submarine sunk:
             U-1062, by destroyer escort FESSENDEN (DE-142),
              mid-Atlantic area,
              11 d. 36'N., 34 d. 44'W.

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 04:14:13 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: German Atomic Bomb IV

Taken from _Operation Epsilon:  The Farm Hall Transcripts_.

The allied intelligence synopsis of the captive scientists:

OTTO HAHN:  The most friendly of the detained professors.  Has a very keen
sense of humour and is full of common sense.  He is definitely friendly
disposed to England and America.  He has been very shattered by the announce-
ment of the use of the atomic bomb as he feels responsible for the lives of so
many people in view of his original discovery.  He has taken the fact that
Professor Meitner has been credited by the press with the original discovery
very well although he points out that she was in fact one of his assistants
and had already left Berlin at the time of his discovery (Lise Meitner was
forced to leave the Third Reich because of her Jewish ancestory).

MAX von LAUE:  A shy, mild-mannered man.  He cannot understand the reason for
his detention as he professes to have had nothing whatever to do with uranium
or the experiments carried out at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.  He is rather
enjoying the discomfort of the others as he feels he is in no way involved.
He is extremely friendly and is very well disposed to England and America.

WALTHER GERLACH:  Has always been very cheerful and friendly, but from his
monitored conversations is open to suspicion because of his connections with
the Gestapo.  As the man appointed by the German Government to organise the
research work on uranium, he considers himself in the position of a defeated
general and appeared to be contemplating suicide when the announcement was
made.

WERNER HEISENBERG:  Has been very friendly and helpful ever since his
 detention.  He has taken the announcement of the atomic bomb very well indeed
and seems to be genuinely anxious to cooperate with British and American
scientists.

PAUL HARTECK:  A very charming personality.  Appears to be interested only in
his research work.  He has taken the announcement of the atomic bomb very
philosophically and has put forward a number of theories as to how it has been
done.

CARL FRIEDRICH von WEIZSACKER:  Outwardly very friendly and appears to be
genuinely cooperative.  He has stated, both directly and in monitored
conversations, that he was sincerely opposed to the Nazi regime and anxious
not to work on an atomic bomb.  Being the son of a diplomat he is something
of one himself.  It is difficult to say whether he is genuinely prepared
to work with England and America.

KARL WIRTZ:  A clever egoist.  Very friendly on the surface, but cannot be
trusted.  He will cooperate only if it is made worth his while.

ERICH BAGGE:  A serious and very hard-working young man.  He is completely
German and is unlikely to cooperate.

HORST KORSCHING:  A complete enigma.  On the announcement of the use of the
atomic bomb he passed remarks upon the lack of courage among his colleagues
which nearly drove Gerlach to suicide.

KURT DIEBNER:  Outwardly friendly but has an unpleasant personality and
cannot be trusted.

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 07:27:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Palau

I was reading the AP Newswire this morning and, since we have been
discussing Palau recently, I am condensing an article stating that
Palau will gain its indendance at 1301 hours local (0401 hours UTC)
on Saturday, 1 Oct 94.  The 16,000 inhabitants of the new country have
entered into a compact of free association with the US and the US
will continue to defend the new country and give it US$447 million
over the next 15 years.  Although composed over 200+ islands, only
8 of them are inhabited.

Self-rule  existed on Palau until 1885 when Spain claimed it; it
was sold to Germany in 1889 and the Japanese occupied it in 1914.
By 1935, there were more than 25,000 Japanese civilians on Palau
and they outnumbered the native population 4 to 1.  After WWII,
Palau became part of the US Trust Territory.  Other former members
of the Trust Territory are the Federated States of Micronesia, now
in free association with the US, and the Republic of the Marshall
Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands which is a US
commonwealth.

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 07:16:05 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: P-61s

Hello, Cassady!

I posted the history and combat record of this aircraft to the list
over a 1-2 month period last year. You might check the archive of
this list to locate it.

Terry

> How successful were they and what were they successful at?  How were they
> controlled?  How good was their radar?  Did they do the intruder thing, or
> just night fighters?  Were the Germans bombing alot at night?
> Sources?  Thanks a million--any embellishment is welcome, as long as its on
> the subject, not the stats/facts!
>
> Cassady Craft
> Department of Political Science
> University of Georgia
> e-mail [email-masked]
> or
> [email-masked]
>

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 08:07:49 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: ?'Could still loose the war?

On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 19:54:43 EDT Alan Wild said:
>Devastating, yes,... to many thousands of lives, and I don't care to
>minimize losses at all, but I can't see how strategically, and again,
>aside from The Bomb, it would have changed the outcome. If the offensive
>that was the bulge had any significant strength, it would've taken much
>longer than it did to root them out. Don't you think? The Germans were
>nearly out of fuel, replacement parts, ammo, etc,... weren't they? Their
>only hope was that they could perfect the bomb (something they were a year
>from, at least) or that Indiana Jones would fail to recover the Ark. ;-)

More like 2 or 3 years from--they were on the wrong track.  But I think
Adolf was looking for a political win.  The idea was to drive to Antwerp
& snuff out the entire Allied left wing, which would have also taken out
most of the British army.  The British had severe manpower shortages &
could not have replaced such a loss for some time to come.  Hitler probably
figured the Allies to start snapping at each other & the coalition to
become severely frayed, if not outright broken, Churchill forced from
office, maybe Roosevelt impeached, etc.

Militarily, such a loss would have been severe enough, though I strongly
doubt the remaining forces could have been driven from the continent
a la 1940.  It isn't even likely that the Allied forces would have been
trapped, as the German forces were outnumbered & would have had trouble
stopping a breakout.  They never did succeed in "flapping" the top
commanders--and that is half the value of blitzkrieg warfare, right?

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 08:17:49 EDT
From:    Burt Knight <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: Italian AIrcraft Engine

The strange part about the Italian Aircraft engines or lack thereof is that
Vospers, a british boat maker, based the Vospers Motor Torpedo Boat (MTB) design
upon two Savoia-Marchetti (sp?) aircraft engines (and one Ford V8 for low speed
cruise) as the best available engine of its type, rejecting the RollsRoyce
Merlin and other British engines.  The later Vosper Motor Gun Boat (MGB) was
equipped with the RR Merlin as the war had started and the SM engine was no
longer available.  The design of the MTB was such that the Merlin could not be
fitted and the RN was forced to hand make parts for the existing craft.  'Night
Action'

On Italy getting German aero engines-  Germany was hard pressed to make
sufficient engines for their own aircraft and couldn't spare them for anyone.
They did, however, license several types of German Aero engines to other
countries, including Switzerland, Spain, Sweden and Japan.  The Italians
apparently never asked.

There is one important note- aero engines were and remain basically hand-made.
None of the European combatants in 1940 were set up for more than basic
production lines with an inordinate amount of hand work.  The US Allison engine
was the first 'mass produced' power plant capable of powering a 'modern'
fighter.  When Packard began to build the Merlin, under license from
Rolls-Royce, the production levels went up but quality went down.  The British
did use Packard Merlins in some Marks of the Lancaster and Wellington bomber to
ease the strain on the RR Merlin supply but the squadrons thus equipped felt
slighted by the issue of inferior equipment.

A trivia note-  The first thing an experienced squadron maintenance crew did
when a Packard Merlin engined Mustang arrived was throw away the US Made spark
plugs and put British ones in their place.  They lasted longer and the engines
ran better.

BWK, ZiffNet Shareware Library, Cambridge, Ma
*Once you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow*

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 08:18:20 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: ?'Could still loose the war?

On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 21:15:28 EDT Cassady Craft said:
>About an earlier response from Ken K., it seems that the standard critique of
>Heisenberg in this situation is to point to the actual program, and say,"look,
>he didn't know how to build the bomb, he was going to drop a 'pile' on them."
                              <etc.>
>The pro-Heisenberg stance is to say he didn't want to build it,
>but could have at least done better (he probably didn't have the resources,
>anyway).  They point to the imprisonment and spying on the German scientists
>after the war, and the statements and actions I have mentioned before as
>proof.  I am interested to see what the article said, and to see if it was
>a review or reaction to _Heisenberg's War_.

Wish I'd kept the review now (-:  The reviewer--and maybe the book reviewed--
takes a third tack, ie, Heisenberg was a brilliant physicist, but not a nuts
and bolts man--and the latter was what was needed for the bomb.  In fact,
many, many of the latter were needed. . . and most of them had left Europe.
Given enough time & progress, Heisenberg could have figured out how to make
the fissionables to make the bomb, but the project was years behind the U.S.
one.  All I can say is that the book must have come out in '92 or '93 and
has to have been fairly well-known, because I've seen some allusions to it
elsewhere in the world, even if the damned title escapes me at the present (-:

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 08:35:35 EDT
From:    liPF03 UNDEFINED <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WWII-L Digest - 28 Sep 1994 to 29 Sep 1994

  Re:Drew Halevy

   The Swiss Bf109's were quite interesting, especially because of the
conflict with German planes crossing the border during the invasion
of France.  After they menaced (and maybe even shot down?) a few
German bombers that strayed over the line, Goering (in his classic
bombastic style) DELIBERATELY sent several bombers over the line
to show the Swiss what they could do with their 109's.  A few
bombers were at least forced to land, and I remember seeing a
picture of captured German pilots living in Switzerland until
they were returned in 1943 or so....  I know the Swiss 109's
are mentioned in Messerschmitt 109 at War.

      Kendall Miles
      [email-masked]                  You'll find no disclaimer here!
      Graduate Student--History
      University of South Carolina

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 09:42:00 EDT
From:    Burt Knight <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: More on Aero engines

You always remember one or two more additional facts after you send something.
This is a cultural comment that, IMHO, had a strong effect on aero engine
production and all other production, not only in Italy but throughout Europe
with the possible exception of the USSR.
Europe has tended towards the craftsman rather than the Production line. As late
as 1941, the standard issue British Military weapon was the Lee-Enfield Mk 1,
#3. Beautifully designed weapon with a very high standard of quality. The
problem was the amount of handwork and the skill involved in manufacture made
the price and time spent in manufacture prohibitively high.  The weapon was
redesigned in the late '30's to the #4, Mk1, a workable weapon but with a lower
finish quality.  The craftsmen were upset because the new weapon could be made
with far less skilled labor and Parliament almost killed the #4, Mk1 as
detrimental to labour.  It was successfully killed in India (Ishapore arsenal)
and in Australia and Indian and Australian Troops went to war with the #1, Mk 3.

The Same attitude prevailed in Aero engine production. Given the choice of high
quality or high production, the choice was for quality.  In 1940, the sole
source of crankshafts for RR Merlins was one shop.  That shop was severely
damaged in an air raid and production of Merlins STOPPED for a month.  the
Schweinfurt and Regensburg raids did have a devastating effect on aero engine
production for a short time- no ball bearings, no engines.  Engineers redesigned
the engine to minimize the need for the precision ball bearings and that
actually increased aero engine production by eliminating some of the 'quality' v
quantity bottleneck. Japan was never able to mass produce as the US could and,
to further the problems, skilled technicians were drafted off the production
lines and put in Combat units.  No deferments for skilled labour.

I believe Hitler said 'the Americans can produce fast cars but they'll never be
able to produce the number of airplanes and tanks they plan.' (definitely a
paraphrase!!).  That was not just blindness on his part but an example of the
cultural blindness that existed throughout Europe at the time.  BWK

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 08:44:19 -0500
From:    John Lundstrom <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Lufberry Circle

Mike,
        Your memory re: Dave McCampbell's nine-victory flight is far better
than mine. According to the account in Sims' Greatest Fighter Missions,
McCampbell and Brewer did get most of their 15 kills by picking off
stragglers and other unfortunates in a big gaggle of Japanese fighters. They
did get involved in a Lufbery with the Japanese and tried some head-ons, but
the Japanese soon ran low of fuel and headed back for land. The fight shows
how deplorable the Japanese fighters had become by 24 October 1944. I have
spoken with some Navy aces who told me that although most of the Japanese by
mid 1944 were inexperienced, you never knew whether you'd run into some
expert like Saburo Sakai and be in for the fight of your life.
                John Lundstrom

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 09:01:07 -0500
From:    Drew Halevy <[email-masked]>
Subject: The P-61

According to The Concise Guide to American Aircraft of World War II by
David Mondey,

"Black Widows were in service in Europe by July 1994 and shot down four
German bombers in thier first engagement. Subsequently a number of flying
bombs were destoryed during the V-1 offensive against Antwerp." p. 209
the book also has an illustration of a P-61A of the 422nd Night Fighter
Squadron, USAAF, bases at Scorton (UK) in Summer 1994.-Drew

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 07:12:46 -0700
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 01-OCT-1944

On 01-OCT-1944, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - The occupation of Calais is completed by the Canadian 3rd
Division. In the Antwerp sector, the Canadian 2nd Division begins to cross the
Antwerp-Turnhout canal and make for the Beveland peninsula.

Italian Front - The US II Corps begins the offensive against Bologna, meeting
heavy German resistance.

Greece - British commandos land on the Island of Poros. Greek forces,
incorporated into the British 8th Army, land at Levita, Lemmos and Mitilini.

The Homefront
-------------
Nimitz Asks For New War Effort - Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Chester W.
Nimitz has issued a statement calling for increased war production.

No Coffee Rationing - War Mobilization Director James F. Byrnes, acting to
stop rumors, says in Washington that rationing of coffee is not necessary now.

Browns Win Pinnant - On the last day of the season the St. Louis Browns win
the American League baseball championship, defeating New York 5-2 in St.
Louis.

Pro Football - Green Bay 27, Detroit 6.

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

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:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 09:14:48 -0500
From:    "Tim J. Watts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Eric Brown

Does anyone know if American-built carrier fighters tangled with Me-109's
during British airstrikes against the Tirpitz in Norway?
Tim J. Watts
Valparaiso University

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 09:28:11 -0500
From:    "Tim J. Watts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [INF] USAAF 30 SEP 44

Jack-
Do you know how the B-24's transported fuel?  Did they have some kind of
special bomb-bay fuel tanks and pump the fuel into tank trucks on the
receiving end?  Or did they just have to load up with 55-gallon drums?
Actually, I guess I have the same question for any plane in WW II carrying
fuel.
Thanks again for posting the daily chronolog and answering off the wall
questions from people like me.
Tim J.  Watts
Valparaiso University

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 10:01:06 CDT
From:    Robert Hohlt <[email-masked]>
Subject: [TRIV] Re: odd WWII air encounters

Sure Arnaud I would be interested in the Hellcats vs Fw's.

In the Book "The Big E" that I mentioned in one of my earlier
posts, I remember reading a few of the Wildcat or Hellcat pilots
stating in their after action report that they downed or fought
Me 109s with Japanese Meatballs painted on them.  I know that we
sent all sorts of military hardware to our allies.  So it would
certainly seem possible that Germany, Japan and maybe Italy would
also have some sort of Axis lend lease thing going.

I have read somewhere(?) that Germany did send Japan one or 2 U-Boats
for study or use as models for their submarines, and the Japanese turned
them into some sort of utility/training vehicles(?) and didn't even try to
copy them.

Emmanuel: First, thanks for the off line help you gave me regarding
the Meteor, Shooting Star and Kikka.  Very much appreciated.
Next,  just how did the Japanese come up with the Kikka design?
German Design plans or did they get a 262 for study?
They also had something like the Me 163 Komet.  Pictures look too close
to the Nazi Komet to be anything but a direct copy.

Anyone else ever read or hear of Axis swapping equipment/ lend lease?

Thanks in advance,

Robert Hohlt, Jr.

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 10:03:36 -0500
From:    "Sidney W. Kitchel" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: BOOKS: Liddle Hart, ...

John Sloan writes to the list:
>-re Hart and Fuller and your questions. - a short answer while I am on line.
> I have read a number of books by each and consider Fuller a genuine military
>historian of the first rank while Hart is (was) a self-promoter and

        Well, genuineness may be a hard qualifier to justify. Both
Fuller and Liddell Hart were amateur historians. Both wrote books on
military figures from ancient through modern times. I think we have to
place both into their surroundings to understand them. They both
suffered/benefited from their WWI experiences. They were friends, but
also competing authors. As an example, concerning the American Civil
War, Fuller chose to write on U.S. Grant and BLH wrote on W.T.
Sherman. As luck would have it, I am currently reading BLH's biography
of Sherman. BLH makes no pretense of being an academic hisorian, but
his writing is lively and clearly he has a firm grasp of and uses primary
sources. His analysis is colored by his WWI experience with semi-fixed
trench warfare, which influences him to value movement and the
indirect approach -- more than a current historian might do. However,
a current historian might also point to Desert Storm as a proof of the
methods that BLH valued. As to the self-promotion I cannot speak and
to be honest don't really care. Ego gets mixed up with a lot of
generalship and authorship. It's just one of the factors in making
someone's life. It, obviously, needs to be detected and evaluated.
        As to Fuller, I own his Grant book and one on Alexander the
Great. I find his style somewhat more stodgy than BLH's, but would
bring out the grano salis for both when considering their analysis of
historical strategy and tactics.

                                                        --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:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:53:10 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: ?'Could still loose the war?

On Fri, 30 Sep 1994, Ken Koester wrote:

> stopping a breakout.  They never did succeed in "flapping" the top
> commanders--and that is half the value of blitzkrieg warfare, right?

The BBC television (now that is a good source for comments on US
generals!) recently claimed that when Ike heard the news about Germans
operating in American uniforms behind the lines, he locked himself up in
Versailles (!) for eight days, and that Bradley did the same in Luxemburg.
Any comments? :-)

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:04:45 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: P-61

> Did the P-61 see action in the ETO?

The 422nd and 425th squadron of the 9th AF began flying operational missions
with the P-61 in July 1944.

> Why was a dedicated nightfighter developed by the US?

The decision was taken after a committee that had visited Britain brought
along reports on radar development. But they did it basically because they
needed one. For nightfighting, you want a twin-engined aircraft with a
crew of at least two, able to carry heavy equipment, fast and relatively
agile. The Germans had the Me 110 and Ju 88; the British had the
Beaufighter and Mosquito. But the US had a first no alternative than to
use the P-70 (a fighter version of the A-20 Havoc light bomber) and PV-1
Ventura; these aircraft proved to be totally unsuitable.

> Was the P-61 the only US a/c completely developed during the war

If you put the start of development at the time when specifications were
issued by the USAF, development of the P-61 began on 22 October 1940.
Specs for the B-29 were given in January 1940, for the P-47 in June. The
aircraft that made it to war service by the narrowest margin was probably
the P-80A jet fighter (two declared operational in Italy during the last
days of the war) and specs for that one were determined in May 1943.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 12:05:44 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Odd Encounters

     Robert Hohlt, Jr. writes:

     >I remember reading a few of the Wildcat or Hellcat pilots stating in
     >their after action report that they downed or fought Me 109s with
     >Japanese Meatballs painted on them.

     These reports have generally been interpreted as mis-identification of
     KI-61 Tony's, which had a similar appearance to the ME 109E.

     >Next,  just how did the Japanese come up with the Kikka design?
     >German Design plans or did they get a 262 for study?
     >They also had something like the Me 163 Komet.  Pictures look too
     >close to the Nazi Komet to be anything but a direct copy.

     The way I heard the story is that there were hardware samples of the
     ME 262 sent to Japan by U-Boat, but that the boat was sunk, and the
     Japanese had to work from the plans.  I don't know about the Me 163.

        Steve L. New                     .............................
        Weapon System Manager            .............................
        Battalion Countermine Set        ............ /\ .............
        U.S. Army TACOM AMSTA-IM-FR1D    ............/  \.............
        DSN: 786-5403  FAX: 786-7788     ............    .............
        EMAIL  [email-masked]   ............    .............

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:11:07 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: CR.32 and CR.42 armament

> could you double-check that one for me

Basic data as provided by Bill Gunston:  The CR.30, precursor of the
CR.32, had two 7.7mm or two 12.7mm. The CR.32 had two 12.7mm, with two
7.7mm added in the CR.32bis.  The CR.42 began with one 7.7mm and one
12.7mm; upgraded to two 12.7mm in the CR.42 bis and four 12.7mm in the
CR.42ter.

The Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm gun was belt-fed, weighed 28kg, and fired about 800
rds/min --- similar to the .50 Browning. I don't know how reliable it was,
or how bulky; but usually the ammunition boxes and feed system are far
larger than the gun itself.

Last but not least, the "Faith, Hope and Charity" story is an urban legend
-- no such names were ever used.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 12:14:06 -0500
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Italians

 I don't know why they didn't turn to the Germans before the start of the
war-- possibly the misleading success of their air effort in Spain, probably a llot to do with the severe economic problems & lack of foreign currency Italy
experienced during the 'thirties.  Also the question whether Germany, in the
midst of its own intensive military build-up, would have had the engines and
armament surplus to sell any (the Germans in the late 'thirties were buying
such items as air-launched torpedoes and Beretta submachineguns from the
Italians)... I do know that once the war began, and some of the inadequacies
of Italian armament became apparent, they did turn to the Germans, specifically
for the Daimler-Benz engines (DB 601 in the Macchi MC 202, Reggiane Re 2001:
DB 605 in the MC 205, Fiat G 55, and Re 2005) and the 20-mm MG 151 (mounted
in the last three fighters).

Regards

Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 12:23:23 -0500
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Eric Brown

Actually, you want to talk to Emmanuel or Terry Moore, who posted an excellent
series of posts on the P-61 about three months ago...

Regards

Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:29:49 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TRIV] Re: odd WWII air encounters

On Fri, 30 Sep 1994, Robert Hohlt wrote:

> In the Book "The Big E" that I mentioned in one of my earlier
> posts, I remember reading a few of the Wildcat or Hellcat pilots
> stating in their after action report that they downed or fought
> Me 109s with Japanese Meatballs painted on them.  I know that we

That were probably 'Tony' aircraft, Kawasaki Ki.61 Hien (Swallow). The
Ki.61 was at first mistaken for a Japanese copy of the Me 109; in fact
only the engine was a copy of the DB 601. The rest was an entirely
original design, the only Japanese WWII fighter with a liquid-cooled
engine. The Ha-40 was, BTW, unreliable; and the later Ha-140 development
was completely worthless. The Japanese built excellent radial engines, but
they had some problems with liquid-cooled ones...

Shipping large piles of equipment was impossible. There was some transfer
of equipment from Germany to Japan, but usually the Japanese would try to
copy the equipment themselves, or use it as pattern for own developments.
E.g. the engine mounting of a Fw 190 was studied by a Kawasaki team before
they created the radial-engined Ki.100 from the Ki.61. Apart from DB 601
and Fw 190 engines they also got 20mm cannon, some He 100 fighters, BMW
003 jet engines, and a pattern Me 163 with technical drawings (that
submarine carrying these was sunk.) Probably there was a lot more.

Additionally, a Me 109, He 100 or Fw 190 simply wouldn't have been
accepted as line equipment by the air forces: the Japanese standards for
handling and manoeuvrability were far higher.

> I have read somewhere(?) that Germany did send Japan one or 2 U-Boats
> for study or use as models for their submarines, and the Japanese turned
> them into some sort of utility/training vehicles(?) and didn't even try to
> copy them.

That can better be answered to other members of this list, I think. But it
might have to do with the different use they made of their submarines:
the Germans hunted for cargo ships, the Japanese for warships. Modifying a
Type VII (?) U-boat for the Japanese torpedoes could also have been
problematic.

> Next,  just how did the Japanese come up with the Kikka design?
> German Design plans or did they get a 262 for study?
> They also had something like the Me 163 Komet.  Pictures look too close
> to the Nazi Komet to be anything but a direct copy.

I'll check that.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 12:56:03 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: ?'Could still loose the war?

On Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:53:10 +0100 Emmanuel Gustin said:
>On Fri, 30 Sep 1994, Ken Koester wrote:
>
>> stopping a breakout.  They never did succeed in "flapping" the top
>> commanders--and that is half the value of blitzkrieg warfare, right?
>
>The BBC television (now that is a good source for comments on US
>generals!) recently claimed that when Ike heard the news about Germans
>operating in American uniforms behind the lines, he locked himself up in
>Versailles (!) for eight days, and that Bradley did the same in Luxemburg.
>Any comments? :-)

Prudence (-:  Still, Ike & Bradley didn't start ordering everyone back to
the boats in Normandy.  One could argue that this German version of
spetznaz was the most effective part of the Bulge operation, though (-:

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 13:00:30 -0500
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TRIV] Re: odd WWII air encounters

The "Me-109's" with red meatballs on them may have been Ki-61 "Hien" fighters.
I seem to recall this identification mistake was common when the Ki-61 first
came out-- no doubt due to the novelty of seeing a Japanese fighter with an
in-line instead of radial engine.

Regards

Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 13:43:38 +0200
From:    "A.Bouis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: BOOKS:Liddell Hart/Fuller

Hi John,

Thanks for your very interesting post and yes, I am interested in going further.

Indeed both both men are opinionated, and I must say I am a little surprised, people normally criticizing Fuller (mainly because he briefly adhered to the fascist party) and not Liddell Hart. These critics usually aim at the men,  and I would like to bring the discussion somewhere else, i.e. what do you think of  the content of the writings, esp. on WWII  ?
I must have read most of Fuller (and found his talent as a writer fascinating) , and he is by far the more opinionated of the two. Fuller advances lots of incendiary arguments, esp. against Churchill's and Roosevelt's conduct of WWII and often going against commonly accepted western views, and I would very much like to form an opinion on their truth or falsehood.
If you are interested, I will quote interesting passages of the books and we will discuss them on the list.

You also wrote 'Liddell Hart is of dubious veracity'. Where in his writings have you found falsehoods ?
 (I do not have 'The German Generals speak' but have read 'Strategy')

Arnaud.

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:08:02 +0200
From:    "A.Bouis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: TACT:Could they have won ?

Well, here is another opinion of my own (we seem qll to hqve a different one on hypothtical subjects ;-) ) :

I don't think the Germans could have turned the tide. I do not even see how they
had any real chance of winning the Bulge. It was by no means a close affair, just a complete failure. Look at the vast allied reserves in the area, Montgomery's powerful Army group, virtually not opposed at the time. even all the divisions still in France.
No, and even had they succeeded, the Allies had vast resources to mount a naval/air rescue/supply operation. It was no longer Dunkirk.
As you know, on 1 January 45 the Luftwaffe launched in an air "Bulge", which was a great success, smashing the allied airfields and 800 planes. It barely suppressed Allied Air power for one week and then the Allies recovered.
what of the V-1 and others ? The British had the Meteor, the Americans the P-80, plenty of other research, and soon the Atomic bomb. No chance, Adolf.

On the other hand, there is good reason to believe, as Albert Seaton says, that without the Western Allies not been at war, the Germans could have turned the tide in Russia in 1944. German production underwent a revolution in late '43-'44 and, for the first time in the war, went above Russian production. Same for quality. During 1944, the majority of German tanks and aircraft went to the WESTERN front, not the eastern front.
Just as well, the manstay of the Luftwaffe resources went to protect Germany aginst allied bombing. The germans produced 40,000 aircraft in '44, as many as the Soviets, whose quality was probably lower. Imagine them turning on the Russians alone before the loss of the oil.

Other opinions ?

Arnaud.

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 13:49:59 EDT
From:    Erik Kosberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA: Radio Memory

>(Can you tell I think the media behaves irresponsibly?)

On a certain level it's hard to blame the media
about those occasions when they are allowed
to report on military operations. The shameless
censoring by the military during the Gulf Oil War
of things that weren't going to jeopardize
Allied lives (such as the pilots watching porno
films before combat) should give us pause for
thought. The media were trusted to act
responsibly during WWII and Vietnam and they
did. Just because they report things that embarrass
the military doesn't mean they should be censored,
lied to, and spoon fed press briefings.

Erik Kosberg

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 13:49:56 EDT
From:    Brian Nicklas <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIV] Re: German-Japanese Tech Transfer

The Mitsubishi J8M Shusui was a copy of the Me 163B.  Two subs
carried the parts to Japan, one was sunk.  They had a portion
of parts, and a portion of plans.  Enough to do the job :-)
I was visited by a contingent of Japanese on Monday who are
digging up all they can on the J8M.  Some Univ. Profs.,
a journalist or two, and one of the Japanese engineers on
the project.  The big concern here was converting German
production to Japanese techniques.  But I think that in this
case it wasn't so hard as the idea of dispersed sub-assembly
points was common to both the 163 and the J8M (at least intended)
But the Planes of Fame in Chino, CA has a J8M, and that's where
they were headed next.  They said they would work up a publication,
and I hope they will find one of the Japanese publishers who works with
bi-lingual text.  Bob Mikesh published a "Monogram Close-Up" on the
Kikka that gave a great explanation of how it grew from the Me 262.
(Shrank really, it was smaller than a 262)
The J8M had a multi-piece canopy which looked thinner than the one-piece
windscreen of the 163, I wonder if the Japanese were not as adept
as the Germans in forming thick clear plexiglass?
I'll see if I can find the Kikka book, if I don't see a post
by Monday, I'll fill in some more details.

Brian Nicklas

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 14:00:46 -0500
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Help--weapons

        Could someone on the list take the time to post to me (over the list or
privately) the performance, armament, and other details of the Caproni Ca 310?
(I'm particularly interested in the export version furnished to Norway, but
general info on the aircraft would also be appreciated...I already have the
data for the Ca 309, 311, and 313)??

        Follow-up question:  does anyone out there know the composition of the
Norwegian Army and Navy air forces in April 1940.  I'd be particularly pleased
to know what types of aircraft they employed (in 1940) other than the above-
mentioned Caproni, the Gloster Gladiator, the Heinkel He 115 (and the Curtiss
Hawk 75, ordered but not delivered in time to fight the Germans).

        Thanks in advance for any help you can give

        Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 13:06:22 -0500
From:    GEORGE BAUER <[email-masked]>
Subject: American Air Museum

I have just received a letter soliciting contributions to the American Air
Museum.  Apparently, they want to build a memorial in England.

Does anybody know anything about this?

  =========================================================================
  | 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:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 14:30:46 -0400
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: ADMIN: Heading it off at the pass

> ... The media were trusted to act
> responsibly during WWII and Vietnam and they
> did.

        I don't want to see any discussion on the media during the
Vietnam War since that would go beyond the charter of this list and
would probably degenerate.  Thanks.
--
Joe Barone, WWII-L listowner
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 11:40:14 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Report: 50th MARKET-GARDEN

Jim...
        When in Paris, don't miss a visit to the National War Nuseum.
        Splendid place.
'Still remember when I arrived there with my wife. About the first exhibit
one sees, just inside the front door, is a glass case holding a stuffed
horse, once ridden by Napoleon.
        My wife sniffed, "Hmph better they'd stuffed Napoleon!"
:-)

--

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 13:15:00 EST
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: TACT:Could they have won ?

Arnaud,
        Interesting thoughts on Germany having the potential to defeat the
USSR if the other allies had not been in it.  I realize that we are playing
the what-if game here but I still hold to the belief that the Russians would
have defeated the Germans.  My reasons?  First the Russians were already
pushing the Nazis far back into central Europe with their ground forces.  I
am reminded that no matter how useful air power is, armies win wars (yes,
I know I am generalizing but it seems apt here.)  Secondly, much of that
great increase in production came about as a response to the Allied air
campaigns and was in the form of fighter air craft.  It can only be speculated
what direction production would have taken if Germany did not have to protect
their cities to the extent that they did.  That the Germans could not defeat
the Russians in the 1941-42 period is probably just as telling.  Here their
superiority in almost every military factor one can think of, was over
whelming.   Finally, I just don't believe that Stalin would have ever
quit.  Sacrifices probably meant at least as little to him as to Hitler
and he had a lot more people and land to sacrifice.
Just my 2 cents,
*****************************************************
Brad Coon                     Windows: the operating
[email-masked]          system for people who
[email-masked]    think even a Macintosh
                              is too fast.

Remember, only YOU can prevent political correctness!
******************************************************

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 11:52:45 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: BOOKS: Liddle Hart, ...

Steve...
        I agree with you thoroughly. Liddle Hart's books very well done.
        It seems he has rewcently incurred the wrath of some politically
correct buffoons, who took umbrage at an obscure point or other in his
writings. You will find that most of his trendy detractors have not burdened
themseves with the facts by bothering to actually *read* Hart.
        Too, Hart must be read within the context of his times.
Regards -- Sidney.

--

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 11:57:24 PDT
From:    Henry Herz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA: Radio Memory

In message <[email-masked]> World War II Discussion List
writes:
> >(Can you tell I think the media behaves irresponsibly?)
>
> On a certain level it's hard to blame the media
> about those occasions when they are allowed
> to report on military operations. The shameless
> censoring by the military during the Gulf Oil War
> of things that weren't going to jeopardize
> Allied lives (such as the pilots watching porno
> films before combat) should give us pause for
> thought. The media were trusted to act
> responsibly during WWII and Vietnam and they
> did. Just because they report things that embarrass
> the military doesn't mean they should be censored,
> lied to, and spoon fed press briefings.

Erik -

I agree that the military should not, in an ideal world, sensor embarassing
non-sensitive activities (like watching porn).  However, the military, like any
other organization, has a political side to it.  Should we expect the DoD to put
less "spin" on their news than we get from the White House, Congress, etc.?  Why
hold them to the higher standard?

Where I get steamed is when journalists report information that endangers (or
increases the danger to) soldiers.  For example, in the Falklands War, the
Argentinians were scoring hits on British ships, but many of the bombs failed to
explode.  The Royal Navy determined it was because the bombs were dropped from
such a low altitude (to reduce exposure to British SAMs and AAA) that the bombs
didn't have enough time to fuze.  Some British journalist tried to report that
kind of information.  Do you think the Brits back home have a burning need to
know such information at that point in time?  If so, is it worth getting a bunch
of sailors killed?  I say no!

My point is simply that journalists ought to show more restraint in both what
and when they report.  If it in any way threatens friendly troops, either don't
report it or report it with enough delay that the risk has evaporated due to
changing events.  I suggest a good rule of thumb is for journalists to act as if
their kids are serving with the front line troops.

-Henry

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 11:57:30 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: German Military Vehicles

Bill Huber...
        There is a really first-class display of tanks and armored vehicles
at The Royal Tank Corps Museum, Bovington, Hants., England.
        Where it all began...
Regards -- Sidney Allinson.
PS: A bit closer to you, is the Tank Display at Camp Borden, Barrie, Ontario,
Canada.

--

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 15:47:25 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: CA 310

   "The CA 310 was structurally and dimensionally very similar to the CA
    309.  The fuselage was slightly shorter at 40' 0.25''.  Empty and
    loaded weights were 6,730lb and 10,250lb.  Although a number of
    Libeccios (Southwest Wind) were built without armament, the standard
    array was 3 7.7mm machine guns, one flexible dorsal gun and two fixed
    forward firing guns in the wing roots.  Bomb load was 880lb.  Maximum
    speed was 218-227 mph depending on the engines and equipment, with a
    cruising speed of 177-196 mph, and a landing speed of 65 mph.  The CA
    310 had a ceiling of 22,960' and a range of 745-1025 miles.  It climbed
    to 6,560' in 6 min 40 sec, to 13,120' in 12 min 23 sec and to 16,400'
    in 15 min 32 sec."

    Source:

    Italian Civil and Military Aircraft 1930-1945
    Jonathan Thompson
    Aero Publishers, 1963

    The Norwegians also had 1 Hawker Fury with a Panther radial engine.

     Steve New

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 14:59:30 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TACT:Could they have won ?

Hello, Arnaud!

Would like to add my two cents' worth to this.

> I don't think the Germans could have turned the tide. I do not even see how they
> had any real chance of winning the Bulge.

    Even von Rundstedt and Model said the very same thing, but also
stated that a smaller version of the Bulge would be feasible. Of
course, Hitler did not listen to them.

 It was by no means a
close affair, jus
> t a complete failure.

    Yes, it was a complete failure, not just in military terms but
also politically at the time, as it exhausted the very last reserves
of the country and accelerated the downfall of the regime.

 Look at the vast allied reserves in the area, Montgomery's
>  powerful Army group, virtually not opposed at the time. even all the divisions
> still in France.
> No, and even had they succeeded, the Allies had vast resources to mount a naval/
> air rescue/supply operation. It was no longer Dunkirk.
> As you know, on 1 January 45 the Luftwaffe launched in an air "Bulge", which was
>  a great success, smashing the allied airfields and 800 planes.

    This was called "Operation Bodenplatte".

It barely suppre
> ssed Allied Air power for one week and then the Allies recovered.
> what of the V-1 and others ? The British had the Meteor, the Americans the P-80,
>  plenty of other research, and soon the Atomic bomb. No chance, Adolf.
>
> On the other hand, there is good reason to believe, as Albert Seaton says, that
> without the Western Allies not been at war, the Germans could have turned the ti
> de in Russia in 1944. German production underwent a revolution in late '43-'44 a
> nd, for the first time in the war, went above Russian production. Same for quali
> ty. During 1944, the majority of German tanks and aircraft went to the WESTERN f
> ront, not the eastern front.
> Just as well, the manstay of the Luftwaffe resources went to protect Germany agi
> nst allied bombing.

    When Hitler was forced to order the conversion of the production
lines to fighters in 1944, a fighter was produced at the rate of one
every 15 minutes.

 The germans produced 40,000 aircraft in '44, as many as the
> Soviets, whose quality was probably lower. Imagine them turning on the Russians
> alone before the loss of the oil.
>
> Other opinions ?

    Mine are above along with some facts.

    Terry

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 15:01:38 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIV] Re: German-Japanese Tech Transfer

Hello, Brian!

  I would be most interested in learning what you have to say about
the Japanese version of the Me-262. I have seen a photo of it, but it
has been many years since I have, and then at the time only that one.

Thanks.

Terry

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 15:19:09 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TACT:Could they have won ?

Hello, Brad!

I would like to add my two cents' worth to this.

> have defeated the Germans.  My reasons?  First the Russians were already
> pushing the Nazis far back into central Europe with their ground forces.

    The question I would have is when. This came later on but not in
1941.

 I
> am reminded that no matter how useful air power is, armies win wars (yes,
> I know I am generalizing but it seems apt here.)

    That is true but in 1941, had the Nazis been able to attack in
May instead of June, as planned, and had the leadership, and I mean
Hitler, had been more disciplined in his original plan, I don't see
how the Russians could have stopped the Germans. Moscow would most
certainly have fallen; Stalingrad and Kursk would never have
happened. Even as it was, Stalin was ready to throw in the towel, but
was only dissuaded by an intermediary.

 Secondly, much of that
> great increase in production came about as a response to the Allied air
> campaigns and was in the form of fighter air craft.  It can only be speculated
> what direction production would have taken if Germany did not have to protect
> their cities to the extent that they did.  That the Germans could not defeat
> the Russians in the 1941-42 period is probably just as telling.  Here their
> superiority in almost every military factor one can think of, was over
> whelming.

    Do you mean the Russians here?  Their generalship lacked much in
the way of professionalism in 1941-42 with the exception of officers
such as Zhukov, Chuikov, Chistyakov and others, and it would be many
more months if not 1-2 years before the Russians developed field
officers that compared to the quality of the Germans.

    Regarding superiority, that may be true, but the real question is
just what was the quality of that superiority? Real change didn't
come about until 1942-43.

 Finally, I just don't believe that Stalin would have ever
> quit.

    There is evidence (newly found in the Russian archives) to
suggest that Stalin was in fact ready to quit, but was only prevented
from doing so by the visit of a Bulgarian (?) emissary summoned to
the Kremlin to discuss the possibility of having Hitler halt his
invasion.

 Sacrifices probably meant at least as little to him
as to Hitler > and he had a lot more people and land to sacrifice.

    Certainly and this, of course was known by the Stavka and Stalin
and, of course to the German General Staff and Hitler.Thus Hitler's
idea of a blitz campaign to capture as much of the Russian force in
the West as possible before it had a chance to escape into the
Russian interior. A strength for the Russians and a weakness for the
Germans, as they had neither the manpower nor the resources to fight
for and occupy immense spaces in the Soviet Union.

    Thanks, Brad for allowing me my opinion.

    Terry

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 15:23:06 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: ?'Could still loose the war?

Hello, Emmanuel!

> The BBC television (now that is a good source for comments on US
> generals!) recently claimed that when Ike heard the news about Germans
> operating in American uniforms behind the lines, he locked himself up in
> Versailles (!) for eight days, and that Bradley did the same in Luxemburg.
> Any comments? :-)

    That is absolutely not true. In fact, Ike's staff tried to keep
him confined, if you will, but Ike would not hear of it. As for
Bradley, there is no evidence to support this. Security may have been
tightened, but his movements were not restricted.

Terry

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 15:28:55 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: POL:Hiroshima

Hello, Ken!

Thanks for the note.

> ?  Wasn't the U-235 bomb used first?  I don't think they could have had
> many doubts on that one at all; it was about as simple a device as can
> be imagined:  just a gun firing uranium bullets at a uranium target.
> The plutonium device was far more complicated and delicate an affair.

    I am sure you are right. My understanding was that the bomb was
an uncertain commodity in that it wasn't certain that it would work.
The first bomb was a U-235 weapon and of a simple concept. I had them
turned around in my mind. Sorry for that error on my part.

Terry

> ken koester > [email-masked]
>

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:35:04 -0400
From:    "Shelley A. McCoy" <[email-masked]>
Subject: *Red Ball Express*

Does anyone have any information (sources of photos, news stories,
veterans) about the 6th Armored Division Company *B* Supply Battalion, also
called Quarter Master Trucking company #3578 or the Red Ball Express?
TYIA
Shelley McCoy
Knoxville, TN

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:45:14 EDT
From:    "Dennis E. Sparks" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Swiss, Yugoslavian Bf 109s

Working without a net (books are at home, computer is at work)
and knowing that someone will kindly correct me if I'm wrong..  (-:

I don't believe there was much in the way of aerial combat between
Swiss AF Bf 109s and German aircraft.  The Swiss, BTW, had obtained
about 30? Bf 109s (roughly equivalent to E-3 models), signing the
purchase agreement before the start of the war.  They were later
able to supplement these with a further dozen Bf 109G-6s by agreeing
to destroy a captured Bf 110 night fighter.  In exchange for
preventing the Allies to examine the 110's radar, the German
government allowed the Swiss to purchase the 12 later 109s.

The Luftwaffe did encounter the Bf 109E in combat, however.  If I
recollect correctly, about 75 were sold to the Yugoslavians for
high grade ores.  When the pro-German government was overthrown,
the Germans conquered Yugoslavia more or less "en passant" on their
way to help Mussolini in Crete.  What air resistance the Yugoslavs
mustered was chiefly from the Bf 109s.

Dennis E. Sparks
[email-masked]
Lexington, Kentucky

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 15:52:27 EST
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: TRIV] Re: German-Japanese Tech Transfer

Japan was developing 2 differing Me-262 designs.  One, the Kikka, was
smaller than the Me-262 and its resemblence was more superficial.  The
other, whose name escapes me, was visually a dead ringer for the German
plane although it was larger.  This latter aircraft didn't get past
the design stage.  My information is from _Japanese Aircraft of the
Pacific War_, a wonderful book even if my copy is in dire need of
replacement.
*****************************************************
Brad Coon                     Windows: the operating
[email-masked]          system for people who
[email-masked]    think even a Macintosh
                              is too fast.

Remember, only YOU can prevent political correctness!
******************************************************

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:00:23 -0400
From:    Emery Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: HIST: Stalin's Moment of Weakness (was TACT:Could they have won ?)

On Fri, 30 Sep 94, Terry Moore wrote:

>There is evidence (newly found in the Russian archives) to
>suggest that Stalin was in fact ready to quit, but was only prevented
>from doing so by the visit of a Bulgarian (?) emissary summoned to
>the Kremlin to discuss the possibility of having Hitler halt his
>invasion.

I would certainly like any news you may have acquired regarding Stalin's
readiness to resign.  I am assuming that you are referring to the first
weeks of Barbarossa.  I've always read that it was Molotov who had
sought Stalin out at his dacha because of his disappearance in their
time of need.  Stalin, expecting to be arrested and shot for
incompetence, having been on a week long vodka binge I suppose,
says to Molotov, "So, you've come to arrest me."

I think that maybe the new documents you are referring to are Stalin's
attempts at seeking a negotiated peace with the Germans through an
emissary from the Bulgarian embassy.  He made this attempt after the
Battle of Stalingrad, when the German front stabilized and the Germans
counterattacked, retaking Kharkhov ( I believe it's Karkhov, the rail
hub south of Kursk).  Stalin was supposedly disheartened over the
thought of carrying on such a brutal slugfest that could, as far as he
could see it then, go on for many years, at a terrific cost.

I can always provide you with the quotes.  This stuff comes from my ever
fading memory. (:

If you have any additional information, or corrections to my  account,
please advise.

Emery

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:02:44 -0700
From:    John Holtz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ike & Bradley "locked up"

> >The BBC television (now that is a good source for comments on US
> >generals!) recently claimed that when Ike heard the news about Germans
> >operating in American uniforms behind the lines, he locked himself up in
> >Versailles (!) for eight days, and that Bradley did the same in Luxemburg.
> >Any comments? :-)
>
Inaccurate.  Ike's security chiefs DID make a fuss about his safety.
But Bradley moved about as he always did (and, indeed, was well known
for).  Hugh Cole's "Ardennes" (U.S. Army Official History) and Elstob's
"Hitler's Last Offensive" cover the movements of both these officers in
the first week of the counter-offensive.

jwh

--
John W. Holtz, Asst. Professor       INTERNET: [email-masked]
Sangamon State University Library       PHONE: (217) 786-6633
Springfield, IL  62794-9243               FAX: (217) 786-6208

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:06:40 EST
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: TACT:Could they have won ?

Terry,
        Always glad to hear another opinion.  I had not heard that
Stalin was ever considering throwing in the towel.  Now thats an
interesting what-if :)   Seriously, do you have a reference for the
Stalin/Bulgarian emissary episode.  This sounds like very interesting
stuff.
Thanks,
*****************************************************
Brad Coon                     Windows: the operating
[email-masked]          system for people who
[email-masked]    think even a Macintosh
                              is too fast.

Remember, only YOU can prevent political correctness!
******************************************************

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:12:58 -0700
From:    John Holtz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TACT:Could they have won ?

>
> I don't think the Germans could have turned the tide. I do not even see how they
> had any real chance of winning the Bulge. It was by no means a close affair, jus
> t a complete failure. Look at the vast allied reserves in the area, Montgomery's
>  powerful Army group, virtually not opposed at the time. even all the divisions
> still in France.
[snip!]
> Arnaud.
I concur.  The German attack did not have the logistical legs to make it
to the Meuse, even if it had been a country drive.  Even if they could
have captured the needed fuel, the ability to move it anywhere was
severely limited.  Many of the needed resources and transport assets
were on the east bank of the Rhine because of air interdiction and bomb
damage.  Finally, the units involved were not first class offensive
formations any longer.  Still exceedingly skilled in dogged defense and
active, limited ripostes, their assault tactics were very clumsy and
ultimately costly in the face of badly outnumbered (initially) but game
U.S. resistance.  Of course, anyone trying to fight armored divisions
down icy, narrow, rutted roads through woods in the dead of winter is
going to have some problems.

Peter Elstob explores the initial days of the attack very closely in his
book "Hitler's Last Offensive."  The German attack lost all chance of
any substantial success in these first 2-3 days.

jwh

--
John W. Holtz, Asst. Professor       INTERNET: [email-masked]
Sangamon State University Library       PHONE: (217) 786-6633
Springfield, IL  62794-9243               FAX: (217) 786-6208

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:17:52 -0400
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Swiss, Yugoslavian Bf 109s

Dennis E. Sparks <[email-masked]> writes:
> The Luftwaffe did encounter the Bf 109E in combat, however.  If I
> recollect correctly, about 75 were sold to the Yugoslavians for
> high grade ores.  When the pro-German government was overthrown,
> the Germans conquered Yugoslavia more or less "en passant" on their
> way to help Mussolini in Crete.  What air resistance the Yugoslavs
> mustered was chiefly from the Bf 109s.

        What?!?!?  Surely you mean Greece instead of Crete!  Also, I
believe Hitler would have gone into Yugoslavia regardless of events
in Greece simply to "punish" them.  The two operations were not
politically connected.
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
I thought you said three Shermans.  Those
nuts have brought half the army with them.

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:25:25 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: DOOLITTLE COMMANDS  (fwd)

Can anyone confirm this information.  Most of it came out of Doolittle's
recent autobiography, but the command arrangement is kind of fogged in.
Thanks,
Cassady Craft
Department of Political Science
University of Georgia
e-mail [email-masked]
or
[email-masked]
----------------------------Original message----------------------------

Some information on Doolittle:

Commanding General 12th AF North Africa 23 Sept 1942
Commanding General 15th AF Italy 1 Nov 1943
Commanding General 8th AF England 6 Jan 1944
Commanding General 8th AF Okinawa 17 July 1945

Here's how the command structure looked on 6 Jan 1944, as best I can tell.

                              SHAEF (Ike w/ Tedder as deputy)
                     ___________|_____________________________
                     |                                       |
                 AEAF (Leigh-Mallory)                 USSTAF (Spaatz)
    |         |          |             |                  |         |
Bomber      9th AF US   2nd AF Brit   TAC AF USS       8th AF US   Med AF
Command     Brereton    Coningham     Saville          Doolittle   Eaker
(Harris)                                                           |    |
                                                               12th AF  15th AF
                                                               Cannon   Twining

I'm going to post some of this on the net because I'm not sure of the exact
command arrangement between Spaatz and Eaker in regard to the 15th AF.

Hope this helps!

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:31:05 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: P-61

Thanks Emmanuel.  I have one more question.  It seems that the P-61 was an
excellent a/c for its role, but I haven't heard if it remained in service
after the war.  When did it leave service in the USAAF/USAF?  Did it operate
as an intruder also, i.e. bomb load.  I seem to remember from glancing
through Angelucci that it did.  Thanks--oh yeah, what took its place?

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:35:18 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Odd Encounters

Encounters with the 109 in the Pacific "occured" even be for the Hein Ki61
was operational.  I believe most authors attribute this to Allied airmen's
subconscious refusal to believe that the Japanese zero could be _so_ good.

I believe John Lundstrom will know if anyone.

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:38:13 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Italians

Mike, For Italy to turn to Germany for engines before the war would have been
politically difficult for two reasons.  1) Italy, not Germany was considered
the military power in Europe; 2) Mussolini was wary of Hitler, and tended to
see him as an usurper to his position as the leader of the fascist movement.

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

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:46:48 -0400
From:    Pascal Sauve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Switzerland in WWII

Altough officially neutral,what was Switzerland's involvement in WWII?

(in matters of covert operations...)

Pascal Sauve B.Sc.
Dept.of History
University of Montreal

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 20:47:00 UTC
From:    "Edward S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Downfall

Ken Koester wrote:
  > Clarify:  you believe that Truman would never have launched an invasion
  > [of Japan] in '45, '46, or any other reasonable date, or just not in
  > '45?  If the former, why do you think so & what do you think he would
  > have done or what would have happened instead?

  I can think of at least 8 reasons.  The scenario assumes we didn't use the
A-bombs and the Soviets didn't enter.  The hypothesis itself is difficult;
by the end of 1945 we would have had 4 atomic bombs.  The Soviet entry is
even more difficult to wish away.  Stalin had promised at Yalta to attack 3
months after the fall of Hitler, and there were rich spoils if he did.
Anyway, here goes.
  (1) The most comprehensive postwar analysis, the US Strategic Bombing
Survey composed of civilian and military experts, concluded that Japan would
have surrendered to a conventional siege and in all probability before 1
November 1945, the landing date of Downfall. Japan's situation was truly
dire: 60% of city areas burned out (USAF was down to cities of 30,000 or
less), 90% of shipping cut off, starvation looming, etc.
  (2) Japan was desperately seeking a diplomatic way out.  It was making
frantic appeals via Sweden, USSR, Switzerland, etc.  We knew this from code
intercepts and other sources.  They were ready to accept the Potsdam
Declaration (the latest iteration of our unconditional surrender demand) if
the emperor could remain on the throne.  Prominent US diplomats knowledgable
about Japan had been urging Truman to concede this. We did allow retention
of the emperor a few days =after= the unconditional surrender of 14 August.
It was reasoned then that diehards in Asia and the Pacific islands would
surrender more certainly if ordered by the emperor.  Also MacArthur felt he
could rule Japan better through the emperor.  It seems plausible that these
same reasons would have convinced Truman to concede on the emperor soon.
  (3) The unconditional surrender goal, adopted in 1943, was aimed primarily
at Germany.  Japan was an afterthought.  Germany's history and the evils of
the Nazis made destruction of the regime essential.  Japan's institutions,
and the limited US national stake in the Far East, made unconditional
surrender easier to compromise if the war continued much longer.  We clearly
had won, no matter what.  Japan was ready to accept occupation,
demilitarization, loss of its empire, etc.
  (4) Redeployment of US forces from Europe for invasion would have been
extremely unpopular politically. There were near-mutinous situations, e.g.,
commanding officers colluding to discharge veterans rapidly.  When Japan
surrendered, only some air force units had been redeployed.
  (5) It was a point of pride to some Japanese military leaders to outlast
Germany.  By late 1945 their honor would probably have been assuaged.
  (6) A typhoon in October wiped out the vital US advanced base on Okinawa,
the only one from which tactical aircraft could reach Japan.  This might
have delayed the landing until spring 1946, allowing more time for the other
factors to play out.
  (7) Truman, in his famous directive of 25 May to the Joint Chiefs, ordered
the PLANNING AND PREPARATION of the invasion.  He did not give the order to
launch it.  He reserved that decision to a later date.  (During the war,
many, many planned operations were scrubbed.)  After the war, naval and air
chiefs said they understood they would have a chance for a second look.  As
an aside, MacArthur was the strongest proponent of invasion in 1945, Truman
had a low opinion of him, and years later fired him.
  (8) Above all, the invasion casualties.  Truman said in his memoirs a half
million American deaths.  Churchill and Stimson said a million or more
allied casualties.  Nobody could guess how many Japanese casualties.  What
President, at the end of a long and successful war that had cost 300,000 US
lives in =ALL= theaters, would have found it politically desirable to pay
that butcher's bill when the enemy that was clearly defeated?  Especially a
new and politically unsure president.  Postwar studies "proved" much lower
casualties, probably correctly.  But the important thing was Truman's belief
at the time.
  My conclusion?  The siege would have continued until Japan surrendered,
quite likely after we conceded on the emperor.  My guess is within a few
more weeks.  But if the war did drag on into 1946 or beyond, I believe the
burden on the US to yield on the emperor rather than invade would have
become more and more the overwhelming political choice.
  Finally, I note that America's post-1945 wars were ended by negotiation.
Fights to unconditional surrender are rare in history.
  Edward S. Miller   [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 19:34:20 EDT
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: ?'Could still loose the war?

Smart idea, especially for Ike. He seems to be the king pin in the Allied
political agreements if not for orchestring their entirety, then for
permitting them.

-Al

.signature not found! Reformat hard drive? [Yn]

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 19:40:32 EDT
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: ?'Could still loose the war?

Ter said, and I paraphrase, that Ike refused to hide,...

Would he have acted so contrary to common sense in the face of potential
assassins?

-Al

.signature not found! Reformat hard drive? [Yn]

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:04:41 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: ?'Could still loose the war?

Terry, I concur...
        All contemporary reports in the ETO make it clear that General
Eisenhower was adamant he would not acknowledge any possible danger to
himself from Skortzeny's infiltrators during the Ardennes Breakthrough.
Ike was so determined not to skulk that he must have made it a bit of a
nightmare to his security officers.
Regards -- Sidney.

--

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

Date:    Fri, 30 Sep 1994 21:21:31 -0500
From:    Drew Halevy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: P-61

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

> the P-80A jet fighter (two declared operational in Italy during the last
> days of the war)

did the P-80A have any kills in Italy?-Drew

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 29 Sep 1994 to 30 Sep 1994
*************************************************