Subject: WWII-L Digest - 25 Sep 1994 to 26 Sep 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 00:02:12 -0400

There are 41 messages totalling 1372 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. INF: USN Chronology 09-26-94
  2. Smithsonian/American Legion Press Releas (2)
  3. INF: 50 Years Ago - 25-SEP-1944
  4. HIST: The Bomb (and where were you?)
  5. 865th Avia. Eng. Battalion
  6. Smithsonian/American Legion Press Release
  7. PELELIU (2)
  8. INF: 50 Years Ago - 27-SEP-1944
  9. TRIVIA:Czech Army (2)
 10. MEDIA: Radio Memory
 11. aricraft arms (3)
 12. [WEAP] first jets comparison (5)
 13. POL: Hiroshima (5)
 14. WEAP: Gustav Geraet
 15. TRIV: Weapons in movie _The Cross of Iron_
 16. TRIV: Weapons in mov...
 17. WEAP: First jets comparison
 18. Gustav Geraet (2)
 19. book excerpt
 20. SCI re: Bletchley Park (2)
 21. GEN re: Navajo Code Talkers
 22. [INF] USAAF 27 SEP 44
 23. MEDIA: RADIO MEMOR (2)
 24. Terminology
 25. POL: HIROSHIMA

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 02:52:37 PDT
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 09-26-94

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

1944
09/26 Tue.  Japanese naval vessels sunk:
             Submarine I-175, by destroyer escort MCCOY REYNOLDS
              (DE-440), northeast of Palau Islands, Caroline
               Islands,
               09 d. 19'N., 136 d. 44'E.
             Minelayer AOTAKA, by submarine PARGO (SS-264), off
              Borneo,
              07 d. 00'N., 116 d. 00'E.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 06:58:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Smithsonian/American Legion Press Releas

J.M. Ruel writes:

 >Smithsonian now has a lady senator on their case and I believe they just might
 >revise the whole program.

The Senator is Nancy L. Kassebaum, a Republican, the junior Senator
from Kansas.

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 08:21:49 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INF: 50 Years Ago - 25-SEP-1944

On Sat, 24 Sep 1994 04:52:34 -0700 John Davis said:
>Operation Market Garden ends in failure. It is
>decided to evacuate as many as possible of the surviving British 1st Airborne
>paratroopers across the Rhine in small boats. During the night 2,400 of the
>10,000 landed get away. About 1,100 have been killed and 6,400 take prisoner.

About 75% casualties.  Did the British ever reconstitute the 1st Airborne, or
did they quietly distribute the survivors elsewhere?

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 08:24:05 -0400
From:    Warren Thompson <[email-masked]>
Subject: HIST: The Bomb (and where were you?)

I was 10 years old when the Bomb[s] was dropped. I had no inkling of what an
"atom bomb" really was, but I suspected that playing war with my friends was
about to become passe.

-- Warren Thompson
LEBANON VALLEY COLLEGE
Annville PA 17003

[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 07:33:42 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 865th Avia. Eng. Battalion

Hello, Bill!

> 865th Aviation Engineers
>
> They were in the Pacific theater and to date I've never found a unit
> history.  National Archives has precious little on this unit.  Any help?

    If someone else doesn't get this info to you sooner, I will post
it to you tomorrow.

    Terry

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 08:32:50 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Smithsonian/American Legion Press Release

On Sun, 25 Sep 1994 20:55:49 -0500 GEORGE BAUER said:
>We must constantly be vigilant to those who would revise history.

Nonsense.  History is a process of constant revision.  Surely no one is
naive enough to believe that the very first historian who tackles a historical
question automatically comes up with the "best" or the "right" answer?  If
no, then historians that follow necessarily revise the work of the former.

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 23 Sep 1994 11:51:41 EST5EDT
From:    "Dr. Tom Veve" <[email-masked]>
Subject: PELELIU

It has been a real pleasure reading all of the comments about Peleliu
from all concerned.  I recently left my USAR position as CDR, 317th
Mil Hist Det, 81st ARCOM, East Point, GA, and I had the pleasure of
attending two reunions of the 81st IN DIV in 1993.  The 81st Division
trained for two years before seeing their first combat in the
Palau Islands.  The vets are proud of their record and they wanted
everyone to know about their role in "mopping up" on Peleliu after
replacing the 1st MAR Division.  Of course, the mop up went on long
after the island was declared "secured."

At last year's El Paso reunion, one of the vets received his Bronze
Star (for saving
the life of his wounded LT), 49 years after the event.

Tom Veve
Assistant Professor of History
Dalton College
LTC, USAR

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 06:54:30 -0700
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 27-SEP-1944

On 27-SEP-1944, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - The US XX Corps (3rd Army) begins to attack the German
defenses at Metz.

Eastern Front - The German Army Group North is pushed back into a defensive
perimeter around Riga by the Leningrad Front and Baltic Front. The Germans
still retain a narrow corridor back into East Prussia. German resistance grows
stronger west of the Carpathians, north of Cluj.

Peleliu - The 321st Infantry, supported by the 7th Marines, attack the
Japanese on Mount Umurbrogol. Units of the 5th Marines mop up on Mount
Amiangal.

Angaur - The 322nd Infantry begins mopping up in the Lake Salome area.

The Homefront
-------------
Assault Craft Given Priority - Navy Secretary James V. Forrestal says that top
priority has been given to the production of assault transports and landing
ships for use against Japan. The Navy needs five of the ships every two days.
An Office of War Information report warns that military and civilian experts
predict that it will take 1.5 to 2 years after the defeat of Germany to defeat
Japan.

FBI Seizes 24 - The FBI has taken 24 more alleged members of the Nazi Party
into custody.

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

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:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 13:35:54 +0200
From:    "A.Bouis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: TRIVIA:Czech Army

In reponse to Tim's mail, I would give a few thoughts :

While the degree of mechanization of a society surely influences the development of its armoured forces, it has proven to be not so much in relation with their effectiveness.
Of importance may have been the fact that Hitler was a car-lover. He pushed Germany towards mechanization, and so here the man may have been as important as the society.
I read that the low degree of mechanization of the russian people was of some advantage in tank forces. many russian tank drivers, who did not know how to drive before the war, being much less road-bound than westerners.
The French and British, who had ample pre-war mechanization, were among the last to develop good armoured forces.

Arnaud Bouis.

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 07:46:00 PDT
From:    Jim Brady <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA: Radio Memory

---------------Original Message---------------

I'll return this to WWII:  then the press (for whatever reason)
refrained from even photogtographing FDR in a wheel chair or showing him
being helped from place to place.  They didn't have to; they just did!
So the press cannot claim to have always been as they are.  They used to
have a little judgment.

George Bauer

----------End of Original Message----------

George,

 The thing you're talking about is discretion, and they excercise it all the
time. Just before the Haiti invasion, all networks except NBC, plus numerous
independent newspapers, announced they would not be giving troop locations or
location of operations during the invasion. Of course, it never came to that;
still, no one had asked them to refrain. There are a lot of private decisions
media organizations and individual journalits make for the sake of soldiers
or of their country that they do not advertize.

As for FDR and presidential image, the media also chose, out of the same kind
of customary respect for the office, to ignore JFK's extracurricular
activities! Those days are long gone. Some of the loudest criticsm today of
the press is that it *doesn't* pursue what some politician-attackers now like
to call "character issues."

..It looks like this point went down with a mis-routed post over the
weekend, so at the risk of repetition, an interesting WWII case:

The press was asked often by FDR and lesser commanders during WWII to hold a
piece of news, or certain facts, and they did. But they have learned over
time, in peacetime and war, that such requests can be abused to cover SNAFUs,
etc.

 Perhaps the most egregious example was the Uboat campaign against US
shipping. In 1942, Uboats were having a "happy time" as they called it, right
off our Atlantic Coast. The Germans discovered a defenseless shipping
corridor, where boats were backlit by coastal cities for easy night sighting,
no warships impeded their shooting, and the only aircraft were spotter planes
 who never seemed to bring help. The situation was so attractive that Admiral
 Raeder dubbed it Operation "Hammerschlag" or some such and prepared to send
the majority of the Uboat force to America, convinced that it was there, and
not around England, that Germany could shut off supplies. He was deterred
when his Fuhrer insisted they go instead to the Mediterranean.

  The Pentagon implored the press not to report the sinkings, and the press
complied. Months and months went by while the military daudled with command
structure and made feeble or unorchestrated attempts to garner warships, most
of which had been directed to the Pacific. Meanwhile, ships went down,
sometimes as locals watched from the beaches. Burned, oil-coated sailors were
treated at hospitals. Yet nothing was reported, as requested. Most
notoriously, the city of Miami stayed lit, out of concern that tourists would
be panicked and business would suffer, and the Germans had an excellent
ambush spot for shipping coming around from the Gulf Coast.

  I'd like to hear what some members knowledgeable of this situation think.
In retrospect, it seems almost beyond imagination to think that a public
outcry wouldn't have put on the political pressure and hastened a response.
Which, of course, didn't happen (or happened too late?) in this case because
the press was compliant, and the American public -- and only the American
public -- was in the dark.

-- Jim Brady

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 10:18:14 -0400
From:    "J.M.Ruel" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Smithsonian/American Legion Press Releas

I was speaking of physically dead men not brain dead men and yes there are
voting " irregularities" abounding. We do not have a democracy we have a
republic. e-pluribis unim. Amen
JMR

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:46:30 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: aricraft arms

On Sat, 24 Sep 1994, Drew Halevy wrote:

> The biggest conventional cannon in a WWII aircraft was probably the 102mm
> weapon that the Italians fitted in the Piaggio P.108A, a four-engined
> bomber.
>
> what was the recoil like? and what were the desired targets of such a
> weapon. I think that some of the AC135 Gunships of Vietnam era (escuse me
> for going outside the time line) carried a 75mm that fired sideways out
> of the fusalage.-Drew

The recoil 'had no deleterious effect on handling', according the Air
International, January 1987. The cannon was installed aft and below the
cockpit, on a recoil-absorbing mount that was attached to a bulkhead aft
of the cockpit. The gun and 50 rounds of ammunition combined weighed over
two tons --- 1500kg for the gun, and 50 rounds of 20kg each. It was
positioned at a downward angle. They had to reinforce the nose plating,
because it was damaged by the blast; after that, everything was fine.
Muzzle velocity was 700m/sec, the shell weighed 13.75kg.

After the first test a series of firings was done to compile new firing
tables. The first P.108A aircraft still did not have a sighting system
when Italy surrendered. Had the war continued, then a ten-aircraft
anti-shipping unit would have been created: twelve aircraft were
prepared, six new-builts and six conversions of P.108B's. It says
something about the capability of the Italian industry... The single
P.108A was flown to Germany.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 11:02:43 CDT
From:    Robert Hohlt <[email-masked]>
Subject: [WEAP] first jets comparison

Hello everyone,

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

Yes I know there were many others but I am only asking for info on these 3.

Also, does anyone know if any Meteors ever tangled with any ME 262s?

Opinions welcomed.  Facts appreciated.  First hand knowledge
coveted.

Thanks in advance,

Robert Hohlt, Jr.

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 18:26:13 +0200
From:    "A.Bouis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: POL: Hiroshima

I am interested in knowing what was said in the "long discussion on Iroshima", because much of what I have read contends that the Japanese were trying to surrender just before and would have not continued anyway.

Also, just wish to say that revisionist has a different meaning (at least in this country) which is normally not applied to people professing simple criticism or opinions. Rather, a revisionist is a person who contests facts an events (for example, who denies the dropping of the Atomic bomb or the existence of the concentration camps). As it has a slightly offensive meaning, it should be used with care.
But maybe it has a different meaning in the US, I don't know.

Also Ben, I believe nobody denies that Japan acted evilly and ought to be vainquished; rather, all the criticism I have seen only runs on the fact that to win, a democracy used a mass terror weapon on a civilian population, with the escalation in the barbarization of warfare and the future in sight.
But I bet nobody denies that Olympic would have caused much higher losses, nor that the war was a just one.

Cordially,
Arnaud
(unwisely trodding in sensitive, flame-generating debates).

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 10:26:56 PDT
From:    Henry Herz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Gustav Geraet

>
> It then vanished completely never to be seen again. Three different
> versions at to its fate have been published. One states that the 80cm
> K(E) was returned to Essen and then cut up by the Allies, which is
> not substantiated by the reports on the examination of the Essen
> works after their capture; one avers that 2 wrecked equipments were
> found in the Russian zone of Germany, and the last that it was found
> in Bavaria by US Army troops; neither of which statements stands up
> to critical examination

I don't know if it is the same gun (although how many of these bad boys could
there have been?), but I recently saw a photo showing a 80 cm gun "knocked out
by allied aircraft".  There was an allied soldier sitting (rather humorously) on
the end of the barrel.  If this is the same gun, it means the Allies got it.

-Henry

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 10:58:18 PDT
From:    Henry Herz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: aricraft arms

In message <[email-masked]> World War II Discussion List
writes:
> A query-what was the largest armaments carried by Allied aircraft during
> WWII? The biggest I can think of is seeing a photo of a B25(?) with a
> 75mm in the nose. As a sub-question, what is the largest cannon carried
> in a fighter plane (such as a P-XX) thanks-Drew

I recall the Japanese had an aircraft with a 57mm cannon in the nose.

-Henry

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 11:01:34 PDT
From:    Henry Herz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIV: Weapons in movie _The Cross of Iron_

In message <[email-masked]> World War II Discussion List
writes:
> Hello, Chip!
> I've only seen this movie once on cable tv,several years ago.  One thing
> that struck me was that the Russian soldiers were shown wearing Italian
> helmets!  The prop and costume people must have been a little careless.
> Perhaps they were also sloppy about the weaponry each side carried.
> Jim Curry
>
Jim-

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.

-Henry

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 14:21:45 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [WEAP] first jets comparison

Let me jump in before Emannuel gives us all the dope (I like to check myself
against a walking encyclopedia).  262 was definitely the most maneuverable.
The first jet on jet combat occured in Korea--I can get the oops, no I can't
sources are in Georgia, I'm in new Mexico.  262 was best armed too, as has
been stated on this list recently--4 30mm cannon.  Meteor probably had
4 or maybe 6 20mm canon.  P-80 had 6 .50 cal mg's.  Whatelse?  Prop planes
shot down jets in both WW II and Korea (Corsair v. Mig 15).

Ok, Emannuel--set me straight.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 14:03:54 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [WEAP] first jets comparison

Hello, Robert!

> Also, does anyone know if any Meteors ever tangled with any ME 262s?

    To answer this question, the answer is no, even though the
English had them flying at the same time as the Me-262. The reason
for that was security. Such a technology was feared would land in
German hands, if any were shot down or lost to flameouts, etc.

    The Germans however, used the Ar-234 to drop bombs on England and
carry out reconnaissance flights. Of course, this occurred very
late in the war. Erich Sommer was the first pilot to ever fly a
bombing mission using the Ar-234 in WWII. He currently lives in
Australia.

    Will see what I can find to answer the other parts of your
question.

    Terry

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 14:06:05 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: aricraft arms

Hello, Ron!

Glad to hear from you again, and hope you had a great weekend.

> Was that the cannon or the Bell aircraft ;)

    I would be interested in the effect the weapons had on aircraft
performance. I can well imagine that there would be some significant
changes in performance to carry such weapons into combat. Would
be interested.

    Thanks.

    Terry

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:06:09 EDT
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: TRIV: Weapons in mov...

I've used both the PPSH-41 and the MP-40 in WWII re-enactments.
I have live fired the MP-40 on many occasions.

Some of the differences: The PPSH weighs a lot more than the MP-40. The PPSH
holds a lot more ammunition but the drum is very hard to reload i.e. you have
to keep still so you don't spill the bullets out of the drum. With the MP-40
you can literally reload on the run which I have done. The PPSH may fire too
fast although( I have never live fired one, only blanks). This might make it
too hard to achieve a first hit and keep the sights on the target it also
negates partially some of the extra ammunition of the drum magazine.

It was probably somewhat common for soldiers on the Russian front to use
rRussian weapons, particularily in the small units that were held back to
deliver counter-attacks.

Matthew Gajkowski

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 14:41:06 CCS
From:    Jorge Merino <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: First jets comparison

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.

>From memory, I only can state that the Me-262 had a very little range,
compared with the others, and I think the Lockheed P-80 was the most
maneuverable of them. Of course, I have to get into my books later at home :-)

> Also, does anyone know if any Meteors ever tangled with any ME 262s?

I understand that Meteors and Me-262 have never meet in combat during WW2.

Jorge Merino

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 14:26:41 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Gustav Geraet

Hello, Dave and others interested in the Gustav Geraet!

                         Projectiles

80 cm Sprenggrenate: fuzed Hbgr Z 40K
Weight: 4800 kg (10,584 pounds)/4.74 tons

This was a ballistic-capped shell of conventional design, with the
nose fuze beneath the cap and an extended striker rod connecting the
fuze mechanism with a plug at the tip of the cap. Three double
driving bands of sintered-iron were fitted with a single soft-iron
sealing ring of larger diameter behind them. The explosive content
was approximately 400 kg (882 pounds).

80 cm Gr. Be (Grenate Beton {Concrete Shell}) fuzed BdZ c/38
Weight: 7100 kg (15,656 pounds/6.97 tons)

This was of similar appearance to the high explosive shell but was
base fuzed, the shell having a concealed point beneath the ballistic
cap. The explosive content was approximately 200 kg (441 pounds).

                       Propelling Charge

Two charges were provided, one for the high explosive shell and one
for the anti-concrete shell. The charge was split into three
sections, the Hauptkart in a cartridge case, and Vorkarten 1 and 2 in
cloth bags. The Hauptkart was common to both shells, but the
Vorkarten were of different weights for the different shells and were
prominently marked "Fuer SprGr" or "Fuer Br Be" accordingly. It
appears that the standard charge was the Hauptkart and both
Vorkarten; some reports have spoken of a reduced charge for short-
range firing, presumably the Hauptkarte and one Vorkarte, but there
is no confirmation of this.

    Hauptkarte: 1050 kg (23,261 pounds) Gudol R P.
    Vorkart 1 (SpGr): 535 kg (1180 pounds) Gudol R P.
    Vorkart 1 (GrBe): 465 kg (1025 pounds) Gudol R P.
    Vorkart 2 (SpGr): 655 kg (1444 pounds) Gudol R P.
    Vorkart 2 (GrBe): 585 kg (1290 pounds) Gudol R P.

Total weight of charge fired with anti-concrete shell: 2100 kg (4631
pounds).

                  Primer

The percussion primer C/120 A was used.

                Case Identification Number

None: no case mark was used, for presumably none was necessary. The
case was 1300 mm (51.8 inches) long with a base diameter of 960 mm
(37.80 inches) and was difficult to confuse with any other.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:22:43 EDT
From:    "Dennis E. Sparks" <[email-masked]>
Subject: book excerpt

The following paragraphs are taken from the book "Legends, Lies and
Cherished Myths of American History", by Richard Shenkman, published
by William Morrow and Co., NY, 1988.  Would anyone care to comment
on their veracity?  I claim credit only for any typos.

Begin quote:
The chief confusion about the atomic bomb has to do with the decision
to drop it on Japan.  Paul Johnson, like many popular historians,
contends it was a necessity, disagreeable as it may have been, because
it undoubtably saved lives.  The claim is that but for the bomb, the
United States would have had to invade the Japanese islands and at
frightening cost; the military at the time estimated that such an
effort might cost up to a million American casualties and perhaps as
many as ten to twenty million Japanese deaths.

(The bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed fewer than half a million
people all told.)  Skeptics are assured that the Japanese intended to
fight to the last man, as indicated in a secret document approved by
the Japanese Supreme Council on June 6, 1945, which had revealed the
government's intention to "prosecute the war to the bitter end".
Further, it's said that Japan had made plans to dispatch ten thousand
so-called suicide planes, and in a desperation move, was prepared to
field a civilian militia of thirty million.

Yet doubt remains, not least because the United States government
itself concluded after the war we hadn't needed to drop the A-bombs.
In 1946 the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after an exhaustive
study, found that the Japanese were about to surrender when the bombs
hit.  "Based on detailed investigation of all the facts", says the
survey, "and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese
leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to
31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945,
Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been
dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no
invasion had been planned or contemplated."  On 20 June 1945, the
emporer and leading members of the Supreme War Direction Council had
secretlydecided to end the war.  John Kenneth Galbraith, a member of
the survey team, says that nothing more insurmountable than the
"usual bureaucratic lags" kept the Japanese from suing for peace
immediately.
End quote

I realize that the USSBS's conclusion was drawn after the war, and
therefore had no influence whatsoever on the wartime decision to use
the bombs.  My questions are more along the lines of -  Use of quotes
notwithstanding, is this an accurate summation of the USSBS conclusion,
and if so, has this conclusion withstood the test of time; is it still
judged to be correct?

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

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 14:46:02 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: POL: Hiroshima

Hello, Arnaud!

Since you posted this to the list, I would like to offer my two
cents' worth on this.

> I am interested in knowing what was said in the "long discussion on Iroshima", b
> ecause much of what I have read contends that the Japanese were trying to surren
> der just before and would have not continued anyway.

    The book "Japan's Longest Day" ( I can't think of the author's
name right now) goes into this with much detail. The Japanese were
indeed wanting to throw in the towel, but for three things. 1) Right-
wing extremist army factions wanted to fight to the very end and
they had much influence; 2) the refusal of Russia to act as
intermediary while Russia was still nominally neutral with Japan
during that period; 3) the Japanese Government's real concern of the
fate of their emperor after the cessation of hostilities, coupled
with the fact that the US itself insisted solely upon unconditional
surrender.

    Given the situation at the time, and had the bomb not been
dropped, we would have still had to contend with an invasion. The
only alternative to that would have been a total naval blockade which
had been in effect for many months prior to 1945. Under these
circumstances it would have taken perhaps years to starve them out
and still carry out operations against them.

> Also, just wish to say that revisionist has a different meaning (at least in thi
> s country) which is normally not applied to people professing simple criticism o
> r opinions. Rather, a revisionist is a person who contests facts an events (for
> example, who denies the dropping of the Atomic bomb or the existence of the conc
> entration camps). As it has a slightly offensive meaning, it should be used with
>  care.
> But maybe it has a different meaning in the US, I don't know.

    That has the same meaning here, too. Revisionism and criticism
are decidedly two different things, as you point out.

> Also Ben, I believe nobody denies that Japan acted evilly and ought to be vainqu
> ished; rather, all the criticism I have seen only runs on the fact that to win,
> a democracy used a mass terror weapon on a civilian population, with the escalat
> ion in the barbarization of warfare and the future in sight.

    Then so be it. The dropping of the A-bomb was a necessary evil,
but it had to be done, else the consequences of an invasion of the
country would have had a catastrophic effect on Japan and its
civilization, not to mention the horrible casualty figures sustained
by the invading force.

> But I bet nobody denies that Olympic would have caused much higher
losses, nor t > hat the war was a just one.

    Absolutely. Given the circumstances of the conflict, it was a
just one.

  Thanks for allowing my opinion.

  Any thoughts yourself?

  Terry

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:49:58 -0400
From:    "Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: POL: Hiroshima

Arnaud writes;

>I am interested in knowing what was said in the "long discussion on Iroshima", b
>ecause much of what I have read contends that the Japanese were trying to surren
>der just before and would have not continued anyway.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:25:27 -0500
From:    "Sidney W. Kitchel" <[email-masked]>
Subject: SCI re: Bletchley Park

Stephen Baldwin writes to the list:
>Sidney - does the book mention about the withholding from the Russuans of
>information gleaned on the Eastern Front? I have heard somewhere that we
>didn't want to help the Russians too much and so were selective with
>what we passed over to them.

        The book has very little to say about either the political
decision on what to offer the Soviets or the actual amount of
information obtained from Enigma sources. There are several references
that lead us to believe that some German Army and SS traffic from
the Eastern Front was broken, but very few details are given. There
were clearly difficulties especially with intercepts. The Ultra system
was set up to pass signals intelligence to mainly British and American
commanders. Bletchley Park was the kingpin of the Ultra system.
Hinsley and Stripp's book deals mainly with the technical details of
what was done at BP.

>Also - a number of people who worked in the hut for eastern front stuff
>ended up being famous spies for the Russians. Are these people mentioned?

        John Cairncross is mentioned in a couple of spots. Henry
Dryden admits to knowing him at Cambridge while both were members of
the Communist Party. None of the authors knew of the spying and cannot
report on it.

>FYI, There are plans afoot to turn Bletchley Park into a museum - it
>is not yet prepared, and has only within the last year or two been
>saved from the developers.

        Thanks for the info! Keep us posted. I'd love to visit when it
becomes possible.

                                                        --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:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:42:20 -0500
From:    "Sidney W. Kitchel" <[email-masked]>
Subject: GEN re: Navajo Code Talkers

Jerry Kasiowniak writes to the list:
>A question about Navajos (and other American Indians) in World War II:

>Were American Indians drafted during World War II?

        The Navajos were not. They were volunteers to the Marine
Corps. Philip Johnston, the son of a Christian missionary who was not
Indian, sold the Corps on using Navajos and a special code constructed
from the Dine language for tactical communications in the Pacific.
Here are the two books I have:

        Doris A. Paul, _The Navajo Code Talkers_, Pittsburgh: Dorrance
                Publishing Co., [1973].  ISBN: 0-8059-1870-1
                (I bought this at the Information Center at Canyon de
                 Chelly National Monument.)

        Kenji Kawano, _Warriors: Navajo Code Talkers_, [Flagstaff]:
                Northland Publishing Company, [1990].
                ISBN: 0-87358-513-5

        The other famous Indian communicators were Cherokees in
Oklahoma's Thunderbird Division. Some of them may well have been
drafted, but my guess is that most of them were volunteers. The
Cherokees operated in Europe against the Italians and Germans. In this
case, there was no code, but rather messages were spoken in Tsa-La-Gi
over radio and phone nets.

                                                        --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:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:47:50 -0500
From:    "Tim J. Watts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIVIA:Czech Army

Arnaud-
Good points.  The idea I proposed was what I got out of Sweet's book
IRON ARM: THE MECHANIZATION OF MUSSOLINI'S ARMY, 1920-1940 (1980).  I
think the point he was making was that anyone with enough money could
obtain armor and mechanized equipment to create an armored force, but
without a society sufficiently advanced to support it and develop it,
it would eventually wither on the vine.  I guess a modern example might
be Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War--Any 3rd world country
can create a force that looks tough on paper, but could well crumple
like paper against a more mechanized society's forces.

England and France did have pretty poor philosophies about the uses of
armor, but England, at least, eventually developed a satisfactory force.

BTW, Italy in WW II is a favorite topic of mine.  It's sort of hard to
cheer for a loser, but hey, if the war would have broke out in 1937,
Mussolini would have been Hell on Wheels. :-)
Tim J. Watts
Valparaiso University

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 17:24:57 -0400
From:    James E Irwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [WEAP] first jets comparison

In reply to the mail from <[email-masked]>...
>
>Hello everyone,
>
>I am looking for a comparison of PERFORMANCE/MANEUVERABILITY and
>DURABILITY between the ME 262, Gloster Meteor, and USAAF P-80 Shooting Star.
>
>Yes I know there were many others but I am only asking for info on these 3.
>
>Also, does anyone know if any Meteors ever tangled with any ME 262s?
>
>Opinions welcomed.  Facts appreciated.  First hand knowledge
>coveted.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Robert Hohlt, Jr.

Bob,

I'm sure others here will have the data for the Me 262 and the
Gloster Meteor right at hand.

Here's what I have on the P-80A:

        Span                    38'11"
        Length                  34'6"
        Height                  11'4"
        Wing Area               238 sq.ft.
        Empty Weight            7920 lb.
        Loaded Weight           14,500 lb.
        Max. Speed              558 mph
        Cruise Speed            410 mph
        Ceiling                 45,000 ft.
        Rate of Climb           4580 fpm
        Range                   540 mi.
        Power Plant             Allison J-33-A-11
                                4,000 lb. thrust

Hope this helps.

Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 James E. Irwin (Jim)                  Internet address:
 Defense Personnel Support Center        [email-masked]
 2800 S. 20th Street                   215-737-3678
 Philadelphia PA  19101-8419           Autovon 444-3678

                     "Never in the field of human conflict
                     was so much owed by so many to so few."
                               Winston S. Churchill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 17:04:16 PDT
From:    Jim Brady <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Gustav Geraet

---------------Original Message---------------
Hello, Dave and others interested in the Gustav Geraet!

                         Projectiles

80 cm Sprenggrenate: fuzed Hbgr Z 40K
Weight: 4800 kg (10,584 pounds)/4.74 tons

                       Propelling Charge

    Hauptkarte: 1050 kg (23,261 pounds) Gudol R P.
    Vorkart 1 (SpGr): 535 kg (1180 pounds) Gudol R P.
    Vorkart 1 (GrBe): 465 kg (1025 pounds) Gudol R P.
    Vorkart 2 (SpGr): 655 kg (1444 pounds) Gudol R P.
    Vorkart 2 (GrBe): 585 kg (1290 pounds) Gudol R P.

Total weight of charge fired with anti-concrete shell: 2100 kg (4631
pounds).

                  Primer

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

----------End of Original Message----------

Terry,

   Amazing. Were there any actual reports of what the performance was like?
Any anecdotal accounts? What kind of damage did this do? (gulp)

-- Jim Brady

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 22:52:14 +0000
From:    Gudmundur Helgason <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: SCI re: Bletchley Park

        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.

-Gudmundur Helgason

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 18:42:01 EDT
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: POL: Hiroshima

Arnaud, when we talk about revisionism in this country, it runs more along
the lines of the Charles Beard interpretation of the US Constitution as
a document that propogated a class system, or the argument that FDR had
secret knowledge of the upcoming strike at Pearl Harbor, but did not act
upon it because he "wanted" to get in the war so badly.

As to your statement that the atomic bomb was a method that the democracies
used as one of mass destruction, etc., 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?

This is not meant as a flame, so don't take it as such.  This is, however,
an important subject.  The totalitarians destroyed much humanity through
wanton destruction during the war--exterminations at times.  The "democracies"
(GB and US) did as well.  The point is, at least I think, is what do you do
with an enemy who has been defeated but won't surrender?  This is what
separates the Nazis from the Americans (sorry for this comparison, again).
The Nazis exterminated people who had surrendered.  So did the Russians after
the war (and during it, to).  The "democracies" weren't in this situation,
but the other.  The defeated enemy would not surrender (harder to make this
case in Europe, unless you are willing to accept the Germans sealed their
fate when they turned toward Leningrad and Kiev instead of pressing on to
Moscow in August of 1941).  As the Japanese would not surrender (and don't
forget, never did surrender on the same terms as the Germans), it took a
severe blow, many felt, to force the issue.  The atom bomb was that weapon.
Was it more destructive than anything else the US could have done?  No.
Was it more terrifying?  Certainly not to those affected by the incindiary
bombings in germany and Japan.

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.
If the Japanese are the "victims" of the atomic bombing, think how terrible
it would have been for them to have been the "victims" of an invasion.

I will stop here and allow anyone else their two cents worth, expecially
those who will revise " what I have said.  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?)

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

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:44:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: [INF] USAAF 27 SEP 44

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
WEDNESDAY, 27 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
  B-26, Martin Marauder
  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, 13 P-47s bomb the area near Katba;
30 P-47s in 5 flights hit ammunition stores and the town area of Myothit, and
attack Sinkin, Bhamo, and Ma-ubin; 7 other P-47s damage the approaches to a
railroad bridge at Nansiaung, 7 more hit a bivouac area at Pinwe, and 7 B-25s
pound Hsenwi. 10 B-24s fly fuel to Liuchow and Yungning, China. C-47s fly
200+ sorties to various points in CBI.

  CHINA (Fourteenth Air Force): In China, 40+ P-40s and P-51s on armed
reconnaissance attack communications targets, river shipping, buildings, and
troops in the Kiyang, Lungfukwan, Sungpai, Chuanhsien, Lingling, Paishui, and
Paoching areas.

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 650: 1,192 bombers and
678 fighters are dispatched to hit industrial and transportation targets in
W Germany and use PFF methods for all targets; 28 bombers and 2 fighters
are lost:
  1. 421 of 462 B-17s hit a secondary target (Cologne) and 10 others hit
Blatzheim; 1 B-17 is damaged beyond repair and 165 damaged; 3 airmen are KIA;
7 WIA and 1 MIA. Escort is provided by 221 P-47s and P-51s; they claim 5-0-0
aircraft in the air; 3 P-47s are damaged.
  2. 415 B-17s are dispatched to hit Ludwigshafen/Opau oil refinery (214) and
Mainz (171); 4 others hit targets of opportunity; 2 B-17s are lost and 142
damaged; 3 airmen are KIA, 9 WIA and 19 MIA. Escort is provided by 212 P-47s
and P-51s; they claim 1-0-0 aircraft in the air; 1 P-47 is damaged.
  3. 315 B-24s are dispatched to hit Kassel/Henschel aircraft plant (248); 35
also hit Gottingen; they claim 5-3-0 aircraft; 26 B-24s are lost, 6 damaged
beyond repair and 41 damaged; 20 airmen are KIA, 2 WIA and 245 MIA. Escort is
provided by 207 P-38s, P-47s and P-51s; they claim 25-0-6 aircraft in the air
and 5-0-1 on the ground; 2 P-51s are lost (pilots MIA), 1 P-51 damaged beyond
repair, and 2 P-38s and 2 P-47s damaged.
  Mission 651: 8 of 10 B-17s drop leaflets in France, the Netherlands and
Germany during the night.
  163 B-24s on a TRUCKIN' mission carry fuel to France.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): Fighters fly armed reconnaissance,
cover US First and Third Army forces in W Germany and E France and later fly
night patrols in Belgium, Luxembourg, and W German areas. In France, nearly
300 B-26s and A-20s abort missions due to weather; 8 manage to bomb a target
at Foret de Parroy. In Belgium, the 401st Fighter Squadron, 370th Fighter
Group, moves from Roye/Amy, France to Florennes/Juxaine with P-38s. In
France, the 586th Bombardment Squadron (Medium), 394th Bombardment Group
(Medium), moves from Tour-en-Bassin to Bricy with B-26s; the 644th
Bombardment Squadron (Light), 410th Bombardment Group (Light), moves from
Gosfield, England to Coulommiers with A-20s.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy during the night of 26/27
Sep A-20s bomb motor transport in the Po Valley; during the day bad weather
cancels medium bomber operations and restricts the XII Fighter Command; yet
fighter-bombers effectively support the US Fifth Army, especially on Monte
Oggioli, blasting defensive positions, troop concentrations, roads, and motor
transport, and cutting rail lines between Parma and Piacenza.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA)

  AAFPOA (Seventh Air Force): Saipan Island-based P-47s bomb and strafe Pagan
Island. 2 B-24s on armed reconnaissance hit Marcus Island. 14 Marshall
Islands based B-24s strike Truk Island.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA [SWPA, Far East Air Force (FEAF)]: B-24s bomb Menado
personnel and supply areas on Celebes Island. B-25s attack oil tanks at
Boela, Ceram Island and hit Old Namba Airfield on Buru Island. In New Guinea,
P-40s hit Ransiki, Kokas, and Warren Airfield and shipping in the Vogelkop
Peninsula area; HQ 375th Troop Carrier Group moves from Nadzab to Biak
Island; the 72d and 394th Bombardment Squadrons (Heavy), 5th Bombardment
Group (Heavy), move from Wakde Island to Noemfoor Island with B-24s. HQ 35th
Fighter Group moves from Owi, Schouten Islands to Morotai Island.

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

27/0046Z SEP

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 22:10:48 -0400
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA: RADIO MEMOR

Ira, the reason Peter Arnett could transmit from Baghdad is because he had a
satellite transmitter of CNN's own, and didn't have to use anything but Iraq's
electrical power, although I have no doubt that he had his own backup
generator. Ben Frank

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:20:21 -0500
From:    GEORGE BAUER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Terminology

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 02:29:38 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [WEAP] first jets comparison

On Mon, 26 Sep 1994, Cassady Craft wrote:

> Let me jump in before Emannuel gives us all the dope (I like to check myself
> against a walking encyclopedia).  262 was definitely the most maneuverable.
> The first jet on jet combat occured in Korea--I can get the oops, no I can't
> sources are in Georgia, I'm in new Mexico.  262 was best armed too, as has
> been stated on this list recently--4 30mm cannon.  Meteor probably had
> 4 or maybe 6 20mm canon.  P-80 had 6 .50 cal mg's.  Whatelse?  Prop planes
> shot down jets in both WW II and Korea (Corsair v. Mig 15).
>
> Ok, Emannuel--set me straight.

Gladly: It's Emmanuel, two m's and one n. :-)

The Meteor was designed to have six 20mm cannon, but in practice only four
were fitted, and the weight was made good by adding some weights to the
nose and the front rings of the engine cowlings! The reason was the poor
design of the two additional gun mounts: armourers had to remove them by
pulling them forward, when standing in front of the nose. Not a pleasant
thing to do with a jammed round in them!  The Me 262 had four 30mm cannon,
but these were a lightweight design, MK108, with a low muzzle velocity:
505m/sec. They were good for killing bombers, but their smaller range
would have been a disadvantage in fighter vs. fighter combat. On the other
hand, the Meteor suffered from directional 'snaking' --- many early jet
fighters did, because their tailfins were too big, the destabilising
effect of the prop was missing --- and that did not make it a good gun
platform until the introduction of a new tail in the Mk.8.  The six .50s
of the P-80 were obsolete, but that did not hamper its career much, since
it was mostly used as fighter-bomber in Korea.

Both the Me 262 and Meteor had engines in nacelles under the wing, partly
because a single jet engine would not have been powerful enough, but in
the first place to be able to easily introduce new engines. The engine of
the P-80 was buried in the fuselage, so the design was cleaner. The
engines of the Me 262 were probably the most advanced in design, because
they used radial compressors. But the Germans did no longer have access to
high-quality alloys; so they had to be overhauled frequently and
reliability was poor. The Me 262 did do well in the air, but at take-off
the aircraft was underpowered and landing was rather scary, not only
because of the allied fighters that raided their airfields, also because
of their high single-engine safety limits.  The British technology used by
the two allied fighters seems to have been more reliable, with better
developed centrifugal compressors.

The P-80 was fairly conventional, apart from its engine and a laminar flow
wing; the Meteor was also a low-risk development. The Me 262 seems to have
been aerodynamically the most advanced, but its slightly swept wing was in
fact not a consequence of aerodynamical research, so this can be
considered partly fortuitous. With a top speed of 870km/h the Me 262 was
faster than the Meteor Mk.III (795km/h) but the P-80A was a good match for
it (898km/h). The two allied fighters had a better ceiling and a larger
range.

All three fighters had a good development potential, accepted new engines
readily and were built in nightfighter versions. The Germans probably
wasted too much time in developing all kinds of experimental Me 262s.

The Me 262 was the only one to fight with other manned aircraft in WWII.
Some were shot down by allied piston-engined fighters that dived on them
from a advantageous position; probably more were lost to fighters that
raided the Me 262's airfields when they tried to land. In normal
conditions, a Me 262 escaped allied fighters easily. Jet fighters did not
encounter each other in combat in WWII. Even if they had, comparison would
have been difficult, because the Me 262s primary role was that of a bomber
interceptor --- something the allied needed less to worry about.  In WWII,
the only combat of the Meteor was in shooting down V-1s, and P-80s flew
some operational missions from Italy, but saw no combat. The first kills
of the P-80 were four Ilyushin Il-10 out of a formation of eight over
Korea, on 27 June 1950. The first jet-vs.-jet combat was on 7 November of
that year, a F-80C shooting down a MiG-15.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 22:19:51 -0400
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA: RADIO MEMOR

To add to this thread, the Washington Post this morning featured a story on the
confrontation in Haiti wherein 10 Haitians were killed. The story also says
that the Marines kept the press and civilians away from the scene of the
action. While I am a firm advocate of the freedom of the press, I am enough of
a bureaucrat/government employee who has dealt with classified material to also
firmly believe in a "need-to-know." I think that the Marines had to get things
sorted out before the hordes of press people crashed in, and as seen by the
some of the really stupid questions asked at the Desert Storm press
conferences, I have very little confidence in the ability of the average
newsman knowing just what to ask about, most of them having very little
knowledge of the military. I am not impressed by the Dan Rather-types, with
their shirt unbuttoned to show their hairy chests and their mouth unbuttoned to
display their ignorance as well as their desire to steal a scoop on the other
network news services. As I've said much earlier on this BBD, I have the
greatest respect for the Bob Sherrods, the Keyes Beeches, the Jim Lucases, and
others of their generation and professionalism, and I musn't leave out Ernie
Pyle, all of whom shared the dangers and same experiences as the fighting men
in combat. We don't have too many of them around today. I could go on, but
then, I've taken up too much of your time already.
Ben Frank

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 22:38:54 EDT
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: POL: Hiroshima

"Revisionism" as an historigraphical term predates WWII- it was used to
describe Harry Elmer Barnes and those who reinterpreted the origins and
follow-up to WWI.

The democracies used many mass terror weapons against civilian targets in
WWII: white phosphorous incendiaries were probably worse than nuclear
weapons, in terms of the horror to the individual. At least as many
civilians died in the March 1945 fire raid on Tokyo as in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki together, and most of them suffered far more than the
atomic casualties. Did the use of the bombs barbarize warfare, or prevent
a greater catastrophe? If they hadn't been used in 1945, would either or
both sides have been more ready to use them in, say, 1962, when hundreds
might have been fired in one round?

Henry Sirotin

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 22:59:01 -0400
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: PELELIU

It is generally accepted by students of the Peleliu campaign that the 81st did
an outstanding job and were welcomed by most of the 1st Marine Division, most
specially by the 1st Marines, which suffered great losses in attempting to
pierce the Umurbrogal Mountains. The one person who didn't want the Army
division was MajGen William H. Rupertus, 1st MarDiv CG, but he was quickly and
sharply overruled by Maj
Gen Roy S. Geiger the III Amphibious Corps commander, and appropriately so. Ben
Frank

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

Date:    Mon, 26 Sep 1994 22:59:15 -0400
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: POL: HIROSHIMA

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

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 25 Sep 1994 to 26 Sep 1994
*************************************************