Subject: WWII-L Digest - 31 Oct 1994 to 1 Nov 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 00:01:23 -0500

There are 65 messages totalling 2920 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Marine Corps Birthday (6)
  2. student report on veteran's day
  3. Pacific Books (4)
  4. Concealment of tank farms by USN (fwd)
  5. HIST: Veterans Day
  6. 49,000 lb Bomb (6)
  7. Number of Missions Flown? (2)
  8. Worst type of service - was Re: fighter pilots
  9. INF: 50 Years Ago - 02-NOV-1944
 10. Fuel Over the Hump
 11. Home: US: Illinois at war
 12. bersagliere(sp!) (5)
 13. Normandy
 14. WEAP:  CVE-114
 15. WEAP:  CV-19 USS Hancock (2)
 16. Naval Ships lost to weather (3)
 17. WEAP:  CVE-75  Hoggatt Bay
 18. fighter pilots (2)
 19. Worst Job in WW-II
 20. WEAP: 49,000 lb bomb
 21. REF/TAC MacArthur & Philippines
 22. ADMIN: Introduction to WWII-L
 23. Soviet infantry (2)
 24. Question
 25. Untold Stories f/ABTF, Pt. 14
 26. WEAP: CVE-114
 27. BOOKS on the Pacific
 28. HYPO"The big what"
 29. WEAP: V-weapons
 30. Old 59
 31. what if-the atlantic wall
 32. Help for Veterans Day Speech
 33. question-- aircraft (3)
 34. Untold Stories
 35. [INF] USAAF 2 NOV 44
 36. Hisler successor
 37. CVE-114
 38. USMC Birthday
 39. Pearl Harbor
 40. MARINE CORPS BIRTHDAY

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

Date:    Mon, 31 Oct 1994 20:57:44 -1000
From:    Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Marine Corps Birthday

Hey Ben,  time to remind all the non-Marines that they only have 8 more
shopping days to remember us on the Marine Corps Birthday  (10 November
1776 for those of you who don't know).

****************************************************************************
Jim Adams                       [email-masked]
Cultural Resource Manager
USS Arizona Memorial, NPS       (808) 422-2771  extension 130
1 Arizona Memorial Place
Honolulu, Hawaii 96818
****************************************************************************

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

Date:    Mon, 31 Oct 1994 21:14:54 -1000
From:    Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: student report on veteran's day

Jack McKillop; here are some comments for you to forward on.

1.      Jim Adams, Hawaii, USMC, Captain.  No actual wars, served from 1972-1988

qestion 1.      Veteran's Day is appropriate.  Memorial Day and 4th of
July are related in some ways too.

question 2.     I don't think we need any more reminders - heck in my
case I have received  alot of good benefits from GI Bill and disability
pension, etc.  What might help is just for people to remember that
Veterans day is there, and that our vets are here all the time.

question 3.  I was not actually in any wars, my time was "in between."
We did have those pesky little episodes though, Grenada, Beirut, etc.
This brings up  a point though, don't forget that most veterans did not
fight in wars, even when a war was going.  Still though, sacrifices are
made by those and they should not be forgotten.  Just because someone
enlists and his "country does not send him off to war does not mean he is
any less patriotic.  It isn't his fault she or he was "left out."  There
are still countless hours sitting on ships spinning wheels in the middle
of the ocean, or sitting off the coast of some country because maybe you
will go in.  Lots of  isolated deserts and jungles, etc. that US service
people have the "pleasure" of spending their time in.

question 4.     No  change to the date.

question 5.     Yes.

****************************************************************************
Jim Adams                       [email-masked]
Cultural Resource Manager
USS Arizona Memorial, NPS       (808) 422-2771  extension 130
1 Arizona Memorial Place
Honolulu, Hawaii 96818
****************************************************************************

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

Date:    Mon, 31 Oct 1994 21:58:39 -1000
From:    Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Pacific Books

A new book due out next week is by John Costello (author of *The Pacific
War 1941-1945*, contributor to *"And I Was There"*, and others).  It is
titled *Days of INFAMY*. It is about the other day of infamy on Dec 7th,
1941, the attack on the Phillipines and its relationship to Pearl Harbor.

Have not read it yet, but John Costello was here last week to tell our
staff and visitors about it.  He is highly critical of MacArthur and his
loss of the Phillipines that day.  He points out how Admiral Kimmel and
General Short were held accountable for their "negligience" at Pearl
Harbor, but how MacArthur skated out of any responsibility for the loss
that he  was responsiible for on the same day, and he had the advance
warning.  The Philippines were not attacked for several hours later, and
MacArthur was fully aware that Pearl Harbor had been attacked.  No alert.

This book apparently takes a much more Pacific wide perspective on the
DAy of Infamy and reminds that it was not just Pearl harbor.  After
talking to Costello I am very much looking forward to reading this book.
He is planning on returning to Pearl Harbor for Dec 7th this year and
will do book signings and talks.

****************************************************************************
Jim Adams                       [email-masked]
Cultural Resource Manager
USS Arizona Memorial, NPS       (808) 422-2771  extension 130
1 Arizona Memorial Place
Honolulu, Hawaii 96818
****************************************************************************

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

Date:    Mon, 31 Oct 1994 22:07:02 -1000
From:    Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Concealment of tank farms by USN (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 21:47:01 -1000 (HST)
From: Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
To: tcc admin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Concealment of tank farms by USN

There were two tank farms at Pearl Harbor.  In the navy yard were tanks,
out in the open for the daily fuel requirments.  Up in the hills over
looking, in an area referred to as Red Hill, was a secret underground
storage area.  The construction of Red Hill was begun prior to the war in
anticipation.  It was designed to store the war stock for the Pacific
Fleet.  All construction was underground.  They dug tunnels in from the
side of the mountain and constructed the tanks inside.  Nothing was above
ground.  The tunnels are connected by underground rail; one line is three
miles long that goes from the main farm down into Pearl Harbor.

Red Hill is still used today.  Last year I received a tour of the
facility and it is amazing.  I forget the total number of tanks, and
their size, but it is biggggg.

The construction was a secret job.  My understanding was that the wraps
were kept on it pretty tight talking to locals around here from the
time.  Where it was was not a populated area at the time (compared to now).

As far as the Japanese...  First there attack plan targeted the fleet.
That was their interest, to sink the fleet, and the priority was the
carriers.  The first two waves were all against the ships in port.  A
third wave was tentatively scheduled that would have targeted shore
installations and the ship yard, and presumeably the exposed fuel  tanks,
but this wave was cancelled.

Further, the author John Costello, was at the Memorial last week and we
discussed this.  He feels also that the Japanese missed a prime
opportunity (as we all do) by not targeting the fuel.  He argues that the
Japanese just did not realize  how vital the fuel was too the US.  They
undervalued our fuel needs and had the false impression that the US was
the land of opportunity and plenty and that we would not miss the fuel,
that we had a limitless supply.

Lucky US that the Japanese thought we were one big gas station.

PS - regarding walking the ground in Okinawa; I can relate to your
feelings.  I had three tours in Okinawa in the 70's and 80's and always
felt the same thing, wondering what had happened on the piece of terrain
I was on at the time.  Sometimes running night patrols in the NTA or CTA
or checking guard posts when OOD could be spooky if I let my mind wander
too much.

****************************************************************************
Jim Adams                       [email-masked]
Cultural Resource Manager
USS Arizona Memorial, NPS       (808) 422-2771  extension 130
1 Arizona Memorial Place
Honolulu, Hawaii 96818
****************************************************************************

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 03:21:33 -0500
From:    John Sloan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: HIST: Veterans Day

Thanks to Steve New for posting the piece about Rememberance day. I had the
honor and pleasure of serving several years as liaison to MOD in Whitehall
and I can tell our American list members there is nothing here quite like the
British commemoration and recognition of the sacrifice of the WWI dead.
best wishes

john sloan

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 06:58:37 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: 49,000 lb Bomb

     > Hello, Steve!

     > Are you certain of that? Are you certain that is not a typo? I never
     > heard of that, and there wasn't an aircraft large enough or strong
     > enough to carry that kind of weight in WWII. There is something
     > wrong with the info here.

     > Terry

     Terry,

     Believe me, I'm just as confused as you are, but my source, being a
     photo-journal, showed a picture of this monster, sans fins, hanging
     nose down from a gantry crane, beside a man and a 500 lb bomb, while
     the photo legend said 49,000 lb.

     I haven't measured it out, but based on the size of the other two
     objects in the picture, the bomb case, from nose to fin attachment
     point, appears to be 35 to 40 feet long.

     As for developing bombs that can't be used, wasn't the original Grand
     Slam bomb limited in its effectiveness because there were no aircraft
     available that could drop it from high enough an altitude that it
     reached its proper terminal velocity?

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:10:00 EST
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Birthday

 >Hey Ben,  time to remind all the non-Marines that they only have 8 more
 >shopping days to remember us on the Marine Corps Birthday  (10 November
 >1776 for those of you who don't know).
 >
 >****************************************************************************
 >Jim Adams                       [email-masked]
 >Cultural Resource Manager
 >USS Arizona Memorial, NPS       (808) 422-2771  extension 130
 >1 Arizona Memorial Place
 >Honolulu, Hawaii 96818
 >****************************************************************************

And what would you like for your birthday??????

-------------------------------------------------------------------
|  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:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:11:47 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Number of Missions Flown?

     > I don't know. If I take Clostermann for example, from 1943 to 1945
     > he flew 432 combat missions. This makes about a mission every two
     > days. If you consider the periods of leave, in hospital, etc....the
     > sortie rate is probably higher. Does anyone have statistics to bring
     > us about this ?

     > Arnaud.

     Arnaud,

     Don't get caught up in the numbers alone.  A 90-120 minute mission in
     an FW-190/BF-109/Spitfire/Hurricane doesn't compare 1 on 1 to 6 hour
     missions in P-47s, 8 hour missions in P-38s and 11 hour missions in
     P-51s.  Not to mention the mission hours times for the bombers &
     transports.

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:32:21 EST
From:    "SGM Robert S. Rush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Worst type of service - was Re: fighter pilots

If you look at killed and missing in action, the submarine service and pilots
probably have a higher percentage coming home.  If you look at total casualties
the infantry has to be considered worse by far.  There were 66 Infantry
Divisions formed for WWII (not including the Airborne or Cavalry).  There were
211200 soldiers by Table of Organization and Equipment (9,600 in each div) in
the divisions.  There were 115,514 KIA, 446,838 WIA, 29,413 MIA (Total 591,766
or 280% of authorized strength).  And this does NOT include Non battle
casualties.

A specific example:
In the eleven months and two days of combat the 22d Infantry Regiment of the
4th Infantry Division in the European Theater suffered 9359 battle casualties
Killed and Wounded.  Non Battle casualties were also high.  The 4th Infanty
Division reported 13,091 as non battle casualties.   Although no records
listing non battle casualties by regiment have been found, a proportional
share of 4,000 would make the Regiment's total casualties more than 13,000
for the eleven month period.  If we assume a replacement for each casualty,
this means a total of over 16,000 soldiers served with the regiment in action;
and 81 percent, regardless of time in the unit, became casualties of one
sort or another.

References:  Report of Activities AGF (Army Ground Forces) World War II, 1946
Twenty Second Infantry Regiment Battle Casualties World War II, Compiled by
Robert Rush, 1994

I should have mentioned an infantry regiments strength was 3200, with 1737
serving in rifle companies (which suffered 84% of all infantry casualties)
You can work the math, 500 percent casualties in eleven months is about right.

Hope this helps
Rob Rush

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:37:00 EST
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Books

Jim Adams writes:

 >A new book due out next week is by John Costello (author of *The Pacific
 >War 1941-1945*, contributor to *"And I Was There"*, and others).  It is
 >titled *Days of INFAMY*. It is about the other day of infamy on Dec 7th,
 >1941, the attack on the Phillipines and its relationship to Pearl Harbor.
 >
 >He points out how Admiral Kimmel and
 >General Short were held accountable for their "negligience" at Pearl
 >Harbor, but how MacArthur skated out of any responsibility for the loss
 >that he  was responsiible for on the same day, and he had the advance
 >warning.

Advance warning!  Boy, that is putting it mildly!

As I remember, the troops in the Philippines got the word about the
Pearl Harbor attack between 0300 and 0400 hours local.  General
Brereton, Commanding General of the Far East Air Force, went to
MacArthur's HQ with a plan to use the B-17s in the Philippine
Islands to attack the Japanese bases on Formosa.  The planes were
to be fueled and armed and ready to go at daybreak.  MacArthur said
NO because the Philippines were a Commonwealth of the U.S. and as
such, an attack on the U.S. did not mean an attack on the
Philippines or some such legal gobbledygook.  (Any lawyers out
there who can explain this reasoning or even if it was legal or
perhaps sound????)

Anyway, the AAF got their aircraft off the ground in the morning
and they flew around waiting to attack something.  Unknown to the
Americans, the Japanese airfields on Formosa were fogged in and they
could not takeoff at daybreak as the plan called for so they were
a few hours late in getting off the ground  and did not arrive in
the Philippines until about 1200 hours local.  By that time, the AAF
fighters (or pursuit aircraft in those days) were low on fuel and
had landed to refuel; it was also chow time and I have often wondered
if the peacetime regime had something to do with the debacle that
followed.  While the Americans were eating, the Japanese aircraft
arrived over Nichols, Clark, Iba, etc. airfields, and unopposed,
went about blowing up the airfields, aircraft, servicing facilities,
etc., and that helped to seal the fate of the Philippines.

Jim, I am looking forward to reading this new book.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 04:34:14 -0800
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 02-NOV-1944

On 02-NOV-1944, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - On Walcheren the British 157th Brigade relieves units of the
Canadian 2nd Division. The I Corps captures Flushing. The 104th Division
establishes a bridgehead in the area of Standdaarbuiten. In the XIII Corps
sector, the 7th Armoured Divison opens an offensive to drive the Germans from
the Canal du Nord.

Italian Front - In the British 8th Army sector, the 128th Brigade replaces the
10th Indian Division, which is sent into reserve.

Philippines (Leyte) - The Americans complete the second phase of their
campaign with the occupation of the Leyte Valley. In the X Corps sector,
the 1st Cavalry Division and 24th Infantry Division converge on Carigara,
on the north coast.  In the XXIV Corps sector, the 382nd Infantry is
engaged in combat west of Dagami.

Peleliu - As the weather improves, the Americans renew their attacks to
eliminate the Japanese resistance on Mount Umurbrogol; they do not have
very much success however.

Burma - In the northwest, the 5th Indian Division eliminates a Japanese
stronghold south of Tiddim.

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

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.

Previous articles are archived at ftp.netcom.com in directory /pub/jbd and can
be accessed via the WWW by URL: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jbd/ww2.html. If you
have difficulty accessing the Netcom FTP server, please keep trying because it
stays very busy.

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

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 06:43:36 -0600
From:    Cheryl Kaye Bryant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Birthday

On Mon, 31 Oct 1994, Jim Adams wrote:

> Hey Ben,  time to remind all the non-Marines that they only have 8 more
> shopping days to remember us on the Marine Corps Birthday  (10 November
> 1776 for those of you who don't know).

Jim,
I wonder if that means we here at Western Illinois University should
prepare to celebrate it - considering that we are the only civilian
school that has permission to use the name Leathernecks for their sports
teams.

C.K. Bryant

*******************************************************************
"The Riskier the road, the greater the profit."    / C.K. Bryant
        The 62nd Rule of Acquisition               / W.I.U. English
*******************************************************************

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:55:34 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fuel Over the Hump

     This is a topic that has come up in the past.

     Mentioned on last nights Weekday Wings.  When B-29s were used to ferry
     fuel from India over the hump to their bases in China they burned 3
     gallons of fuel for every gallon they delivered.

     War is not an efficient enterprise.

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 14:02:00 +0100
From:    Peter de Lange <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Home: US: Illinois at war

  Hello, Terry!

Wooden tires.
A lot of people used them, but they were far from populair.
They lasted not so long for several reasons,
   - the wood "disapeared" on the road, some people try to keep them
     in condition by putting nails in it.
   - some people prefere to use the wood for cooking
     ( no electric, no gaz, co coal , only wood but no forest.
       if we see 2 trees together we say "look a forest" )
   - our bicycle  was stolen by a  razzia  and then
     you don't need a replacement for tires.

Peter de Lange

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:04:35 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Books

Hello, Jim!

Great post and thanks for the info on the forthcoming book.

  He is highly critical of MacArthur and his
> loss of the Phillipines that day.  He points out how Admiral Kimmel and
> General Short were held accountable for their "negligience" at Pearl
> Harbor, but how MacArthur skated out of any responsibility for the loss
> that he  was responsiible for on the same day, and he had the advance
> warning.  The Philippines were not attacked for several hours later, and
> MacArthur was fully aware that Pearl Harbor had been attacked.  No alert.

    I am glad someone is finally going to address this issue. It has
always been a puzzle to me that MacArthur escaped public scrutiny
from the mistakes committed in the Philippines that were the sole
responsibility of MacArthur. I guess the shock of the PH attack, the
publicity surrounding that, as you know, overshadowed the attack  in
the Philippines. It makes one wonder sometimes, if the press wasn't
being manipulated back then in light of what happened. Just
a thought.

> This book apparently takes a much more Pacific wide perspective on the
> DAy of Infamy and reminds that it was not just Pearl harbor.  After
> talking to Costello I am very much looking forward to reading this book.
> He is planning on returning to Pearl Harbor for Dec 7th this year and
> will do book signings and talks.

    Sounds interesting, and I would look forward to reading his book.

    Thanks again for the post.

    Terry

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:15:28 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 49,000 lb Bomb

Hello, Steve!

Thanks for the response.

>      Believe me, I'm just as confused as you are, but my source, being a
>      photo-journal, showed a picture of this monster, sans fins, hanging
>      nose down from a gantry crane, beside a man and a 500 lb bomb, while
>      the photo legend said 49,000 lb.

    Very interesting to say the least! I hadn't heard of that, and I
am not certain that anyone else has.

>      As for developing bombs that can't be used, wasn't the original Grand
>      Slam bomb limited in its effectiveness because there were no aircraft
>      available that could drop it from high enough an altitude that it
>      reached its proper terminal velocity?

    That may be, but the Lancaster was modified to carry it, and
could do so. To date, I haven't been able to find out very much about
this weapon, but I am certain that there were problems with
delivering it.

    If you find out anything else about the huge bomb, please post
it. I can't understand why development would proceed on a weapon or
bomb that had little or no chance of ever being used unless it was
developed for research purposes.

    Thanks again, and all the best.

    Terry

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 08:22:17 -0500
From:    COHEN <[email-masked]>
Subject: bersagliere(sp!)

                    Can anyone please provide me with a brief history
of the Bersagliere, a unit which fought in World War II and other of Italy's
earlier wars. Why are they considered an elite unit? What are their major
battle honors? Also are they the unit that wears some sort of feather
in their caps and whose band plays and runs at double time at the same
time? Thanks in advance for any information
                                  Harold Cohen
                                  Ithaca College

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:25:48 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Normandy

Hello, Drew!

Here goes with some more titles dealing with the Normandy Invasion.

                     Paperback

D-Day by R. W. Thompson
Six Armies in Normandy by John Keegan
The Secret of D-Day by Gilles Perrault
The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan
The Far Shore by Rear-Admiral Edward Ellsberg
Invasion 1944 by Hans Speidel
Invasion-They're Coming by Paul Carrell
D-Day by David Howarth
10,000 Eyes by Richard Collier

                     Hardback

Invasion Journal Pictorial by Georges Bernard (French/English)
Published overseas by Heimdal Books
Crusade in Europe by Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eisenhower's Lieutenants by Russell F. Weigley
The Patton Papers 1940-1945 by Martin Blumenson
Soldier by Matthew B. Ridgway
The Trail of the Fox by David Irving
My Three Years with Eisenhower by Captain Harry Butcher, USNR
Eisenhower was my Boss by Kay Summersby-Morgan
Kriegsgeschichte der 12th SS Panzergrenadier Division "Hitler Jugend
by Hubert Meyer
Blood and Honor: History of the 12th SS Panzergrenadier Division
"Hitler Youth" 1943-1945
Die 12. SS Panzerdivision-HJ by Herbert Walther

Hope this has been of interest. More tomorrow.

Terry

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 08:44:06 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP:  CVE-114

     Brian Nicklas
     National Air and Space Museum
     Archives Division
     202-357-3133
     [email-masked]

     Sorry Brian, I don't have anything on CVE-114.

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 08:49:28 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP:  CV-19 USS Hancock

     Hi Jorge,

     I don't have anything on CV-43 or CV-14, hopefully someone else can
     help there.

But here is CV-19:

From: Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, Vol. III, 1968, Navy
Department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Naval History
Division, Washington, D.C.

HANCOCK (CV-19)

dp. 27,100;
l. 888':
b. 93', ew. 147' 6";
dr. 28' 7";
s. 33 k.;
cpl. 3,448;
a. 12 5", 44 40-mm., 59 20-mm., ac. 80 plus;
cl.  ESSEX

The fourth HANCOCK (CV-19) was laid down as TICONDEROGA 26 January
1943 by the Bethlehem Steel Co., Quincy, Mass., renamed HANCOCK 1
May 1943, launched 24 January 1944; sponsored by Mrs. DeWitt C.
Ramsey, wife of Rear Admiral Ramsey, Chief of the Bureau of
Aeronautics, and commissioned 15 April 1944, Captain Fred C. Dickey
in command.

After fitting out in the Boston Navy Yard and shakedown training
off Trinidad and Venezuela, HANCOCK returned to Boston for
alterations 9 July. She departed Boston 31 July en route to Pearl
Harbor via the Panama Canal and San Diego, and from there sailed 24
September to join Admiral W. F. Halsey's 3d Fleet at Ulithi 5
October. She was assigned to Rear Admiral Bogan's Carrier Task
Group 38.2.

HANCOCK got underway the following afternoon for a rendezvous point
375 miles west of the Marianas where units of Vice Admiral
Mitscher's Fast Carrier Task Force 38 were assembling in
preparation for the daring cruise to raid Japanese air and sea
bases in the Ryukyus, Formosa and the Philippines. Thus enemy air
power was paralyzed during General MacArthur's invasion of Leyte.
When the armada arrived off the Ryukyu Islands 10 October 1944,
HANCOCK's planes rose off her deck to wreak destruction upon
Okinawan airfields and shipping. Her planes destroyed 7 enemy
aircraft on the ground and assisted in the destruction of a
submarine tender, 12 torpedo boats, 2 midget submarines, 4 cargo
ships, and a number of sampans. Next on the agenda were Formosan
air bases where 12 October HANCOCK's pilots downed six enemy planes
and destroyed nine more on the ground. She also reported one cargo
ship definitely sunk, three probably destroyed, and several others
damaged.

As they repelled an enemy air raid that evening, HANCOCK's gunners
accounted for a Japanese plane and drove countless others off during
7 hours of uninterrupted general quarters. The following morning her
planes resumed their assault, knocking out ammunition dumps, hangars,
barracks, and industrial plants ashore and damaging an enemy
transport. As Japanese planes again attacked Americans during their
second night off Formosa, HANCOCK's antiaircraft fire brought down
another raider which splashed about 500 yards off her flight deck. On
the morning of the third day of operations against this enemy
stronghold HANCOCK lashed out again at airfields and shipping before
retiring to the southeast with her task force. As the American ships
withdrew a heavy force of Japanese aircraft roared in for a parting
crack. One dropped a bomb off HANCOCK's port bow a few seconds before
the carrier's guns splashed her into the sea. Another bomb penetrated
a gun platform but exploded harmlessly in the water. The surviving
attackers then turned tail, and the task force was thereafter
unmolested as they sailed toward the Philippines to support the
landings Leyte.

On 18 October she launched planes against airfields and shipping at
Laoag Aparri, and Camiguin Island in Northern Luzon. Her planes
struck the islands of Cebu, Panay, Negros, and Masbate, pounding
enemy airfields and shipping. The next day she retired toward
Ulithi with Vice Admiral John S. McCain's Carrier Task Group 38.1.

She received orders 23 October to turn back to the area off Samar
to assist in the search for units of the Japanese fleet reportedly
closing Leyte to challenge the American fleet and to destroy
amphibious forces which were struggling to take the island from
Japan. HANCOCK did not reach Samar in time to assist the heroic
escort carriers and destroyers of "Taffy 3" during the main action
the Battle off Samar but her planes did manage to lash the fleeing
Japanese Center Force as it passed through San Bernardino Straits.
HANCOCK then rejoined Rear Admiral Bogan's Task Group with which
she struck airfields and shipping in the vicinity of Manila 29
October 1944. During operations through 19 November, her planes
gave direct support to advancing Army troops and attacked Japanese
shipping over a 350-mile area. She became flagship of Fast Carrier
Task Force 38, 17 November 1944 when Vice Admiral McCain came on
board.

Unfavorable weather prevented operations until 25 November when an
enemy aircraft roared toward HANCOCK in a suicide dive out of the
sun. Antiaircraft fire exploded the plane some 300 feet above the
ship but a section of its fuselage landed amidships and a part of
the wing hit the flight deck and burst into flames. Prompt and
skillful teamwork quickly extinguished the blaze and prevented
serious damage.

HANCOCK returned to Ulithi 27 November and departed from that
island with her task group to maintain air control over enemy
airfields on Luzon to prevent enemy suicide attacks on amphibious
vessels of the landing force in Mindoro. The first strikes were
launched 14 December against Clark and Angeles Airfields as well as
enemy ground targets on Salvador Island. The next day her planes
struck installations at Masinloc. San Fernando, and  Cabatuan,
while fighter patrols kept the Japanese airmen down. Her planes
also attacked shipping in Manila Bay.

HANCOCK encountered a severe typhoon 17 December and rode out the
storm in waves which broke over her flight deck, some 55 feet above
her waterline. She put into Ulithi 24 December and got underway 6
days later to attack airfields and shipping around the South China
Sea. Her planes struck hard blows at Luzon airfields 7 and 8 January
and turned their attention back to Formosa 9 January hitting
fiercely at airfields and the Tokyo Seaplane Station. An enemy
convoy north of Camranh Bay, Indochina, was the next victim with 2
ships sunk and 11 damaged. That afternoon HANCOCK launched strikes
against airfield at Saigon and shipping on the northeastern bulge
of French Indochina. Strikes by the fast and mobile carrier force
continued through 16 January, hitting Hainan Island in the Gulf of
Tonkin, the Pescadores Islands, and shipping in the harbor of Hong
Kong. Raids against Formosa were resumed 20 January 1945. The next
afternoon one of her planes returning from a sortie made a normal
landing, taxied to a point abreast of the island, and disintegrated
in a blinding explosion which killed 50 men and injured 75 others.
Again outstanding work quickly brought the fires under control in
time to land other planes which were still aloft. She returned to
formation and launched strikes against Okinawa the next morning.

HANCOCK reached Ulithi 25 January where Vice Admiral McCain left the
ship and relinquished command of the 5th Fleet. She sortied with the
ships of her task group 10 February and launched strikes against
airfields in the vicinity of Tokyo 16 February. During that day her
air group downed 71 enemy planes, and accounted for 12 more the
next. Her planes hit the enemy naval bases at Chichi Jima and Haha
Jima 19 February. These raids were conducted to isolate Iwo Jima
from air and sea support when marines hit the beaches of that island
to begin one of the most bloody and fierce campaigns of the war.
HANCOCK took station off this island to provide tactical support
through 22 February, hitting enemy airfields and strafing Japanese
troops ashore.

Returning to waters off the enemy home islands, HANCOCK launched her
planes against targets on northern Honshu, making a diversionary
raid on the Nansei-Shoto islands 1 March before returning to Ulithi
4 March.

Back in Japanese waters HANCOCK joined other carriers in strikes
against Kyushu airfields, southwestern Honshu, and shipping in the
Inland Sea of Japan, 18 March 1945. HANCOCK was refueling destroyer
HALSEY POWELL 20 March when suicide planes attacked the task force.
One plane dove for the two ships but was disintegrated by gunfire
when about 700 feet overhead. Fragments of the plane hit HANCOCK's
deck while its engine and bomb crashed the fantail of the destroyer.
HANCOCK's gunners shot down another plane as it neared the release
point of its bombing run on the carrier.

HANCOCK was reassigned to Carrier Task Group 58.3 with which she
truck the Nansei-Shoto islands 23 through Z7 March and Minami Daito
Jima and Kyushu at the end of the month.

When the 10th Army landed on the western coast of Okinawa 1 April
HANCOCK was on hand to provide close air support. A suicide plane
cartwheeled across her flight deck 7 April and crashed into a group
of planes while its bomb hit the port catapult to cause a tremendous
explosion. Although 2  men were killed and 71 wounded, heroic
efforts doused the fires within half an hour enabling her to be
back in action before an hour had passed.

HANCOCK was detached from her task group 9 April and teamed to Pearl
Harbor for repairs. She sailed back into action 13 June and left
lethal calling cards at Wake Island 20 June en route to
the Philippines. HANCOCK sailed from San Pedro Bay with the other
carriers 1 July and attacked Tokyo airfields 10 July. She continued
to operate in Japanese waters until she received confirmation of
Japan's capitulation 15 August 1945 when she recalled her planes
from their deadly missions before they reached their targets.
However planes of her photo division were attacked by seven enemy
aircraft over Sagami Wan. Three were shot down and a fourth escaped
in a trail of smoke. Later that afternoon planes of HANCOCK's air
patrol shot down a Japanese torpedo plane as it dived on a British
task force. Her planes flew missions over Japan in search of
prison camps, dropping supplies and medicine, 25 August. Information
collected during these flights led to landings under command of
Commodore R. W. Simpson which brought doctors and supplies to all
Allied prisoner of war encampments.

When the formal surrender of the Japanese Imperial Government was
signed on board battleship MISSOURI, HANCOCK's planes flew overhead.
The carrier entered Tokyo Bay 10 September 1945 and sailed 30
September, embarking 1,500 passengers at Okinawa for transportation
to San Pedro,  California, where she arrived 21 October. HANCOCK
was fitted out for  "Magic Carpet" duty at San Pedro and sailed for
Seeadler Harbor, Manus, Admiralty Islands, 2 November. On her
return voyage she carried 4,000 passengers who were debarked at San
Diego 4 December. A week later HANCOCK departed for her second
"Magic Carpet" voyage, embarking 3,773 passengers at Manila for
return to Alameda, Calif., 20 January 1946. She embarked Air Group
7 at San Diego 18 February for air operations off the coast of
California. She sailed from San Diego 11 March to embark men of
two air groups and aircraft at Pearl Harbor for transportation to
Saipan, arriving 1 April 1946. After receiving two other air groups
on board at Saipan, she loaded a cargo of aircraft at Guam and
steamed by way of Pearl Harbor to Alameda, Calif., arriving 23
April 1946. She then steamed to Seattle, Wash., 29 April to await
inactivation. The proud ship decommissioned and entered the
reserve fleet at Bremerton, Wash.

HANCOCK commenced conversion and modernization to an attack aircraft
carrier in Puget Sound 15 December 1951 and was reclassified CVA-19,
1 October 1952. She recommissioned 15 February 1954, Captain W. S.
Butts in command. She was the first carrier of the United States
Fleet with steam catapults capable of launching high performance
jets.

She was off San Diego 7 May 1954 for operations along the coast of
California that included the launching 17 June of the first
aircraft to take off a United States carrier by means of a steam
catapult. After a year of operations along the Pacific coast that
included testing of Sparrow I and Regulus missiles and Cutlass jet
aircraft, she sailed 10 August 1955 for 7th Fleet operations
ranging from the shores of Japan to the Philippines and Okinawa.
She returned to San Diego 15 March 1956 and decommissioned 13 April
for conversion that included the installation of an angled flight
deck.

HANCOCK recommissioned 15 November 1956 for training out of San
Diego until 6 April 1957 when she again sailed for Hawaii and the
Far East. She returned to San Diego 18 September 1957 and again
departed for Japan 15 February 1958. She was a unit of powerful
carrier task groups taking station off Taiwan when the Nationalist
Chinese islands of Quemoy and Matsu were threatened with Communist
invasion in August 1958. The carrier returned to San Diego 2 October
1958 for overhaul in the San Francisco Naval Shipyard, followed by
rigorous at sea training out of San Diego. On 1 August 1959, she
sailed to reinforce the 7th Fleet as troubles in Laos demanded the
watchful presence of powerful American forces in water off southeast
Asia. She returned to San Francisco 18 January 1960 and put to sea
early in February to participate in a new demonstration of
communications by reflecting ultra-high-frequency waves off the
moon. She again departed in August to steam with the 7th Fleet in
waters off Laos until lessening of tension in that area permitted
operations ranging from Japan to the Philippines.

HANCOCK returned to San Francisco in March 1961, then entered the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for an overhaul that gave her new
electronics gear and many other improvements. She again set sail
for Far Eastern waters 2 February 1962, patrolling in the South
China Sea as crisis and strife  mounted both in Laos and in South
Vietnam. She again appeared off Quemoy  and Matsu in June 1962 to
stem a threatened Communist invasion there,  then trained along the
coast of Japan and in waters reaching to Okinawa.  She returned to
San Francisco 7 October 1962, made a brief cruise to the  coast of
Hawaii while qualifying pilots then again sailed 7 June 1963  for the
Far East.

HANCOCK joined in combined defense exercises along the coast of
South Korea, then deployed off the coast of South Vietnam after the
coup which resulted in the death of President Diem. She entered the
Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard 16 January 1964 for modernization
that included installation of a new ordnance system, hull repairs,
and aluminum decking for her flight deck. She celebrated her 20th
birthday 2 June 1964 while visiting San Diego. The carrier made a
training cruise to Hawaii, then departed Alameda 21 October 1964
for another tour of duty with the 7th Fleet in the Far East.

HANCOCK reached Japan 19 November and soon was on patrol at Yankee
Station in the Gulf of Tonkin. She remained active in Vietnamese
waters fighting to thwart Communist aggression until heading for
home early in the spring of 1965.

November found the carrier steaming back to the war zone. She was
on patrol off Vietnam 16 December; and, but for brief respites at
Hong Kong, the Philippines, or Japan, HANCOCK remained on station
launching her planes for strikes at enemy positions ashore until
returning to Alameda, Calif., 1 August, 1966. Her outstanding
record during this combat tour won her the Navy Unit Commendation.

Following operations off the West Coast, HANCOCK returned to
Vietnam early in 1967 and resumed her strikes against Communist
positions. After fighting during most of the first half of 1967,
she returned to Alameda 22 July and promptly began preparations for
returning to battle.

HANCOCK was awarded the Navy Unit Commendation and received four
battle stars for service in World War II.

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:46:52 -0600
From:    Joe Pohlmann <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 49,000 lb Bomb

        I do believe that there was an aircraft that could carry it.  I would
assume that the B-29 could carry such a monster (notice I used the word
"assume") since I have pictures of B-29's carrying two 22,000 lb Grand Slams
slung outside of the bomb bay between the fuselage and the inboard engines (I'm
not saying it flew, as this was a ground photo).

        What d' ya' think?

        Joe Pohlmann
        ([email-masked])

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 09:00:58 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Naval Ships lost to weather

     >Hi Steve,

     >I read in NIMITZ (E.B. Potter) that ADM Nimitz was forced to
     >implement standing orders that task force commanders consider the
     >smallest ship of the task
     >force when traveling through inclement weather.  If I remember
     >correctly, several destroyers foundered as a result of crossing the
     >front of a hurricane/typhoon in order to acheive more strategic
     >position.  Do you have any details on this? Like which ships were
     >lost, and how many sailors perished?  I haven't been able to find out
     >anything else on this in any research materials I've come across.
     >Thanks in advance.

     >Joe Robinson

     Sorry Joe,

     I know that I've read the same information somewhere, but short of
     looking up the history of individual DD/DEs I can't think of where
     you'd find specifics.

     I do recall photographs of Essex class CVs listing ~ 60 deg to port
     due to bad weather, and can imagine what that would do to a frigate or
     DD/DE.

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 09:03:27 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP:  CVE-75  Hoggatt Bay

From: Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, Vol. III, 1968, Navy
Department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Naval History
Division, Washington, D.C.

HOGGATT BAY (CVE-75)

dp. 7,800;
l. 512' 3";
b. 65';
ew. 108' 1";
dr. 22' 6";
s. 19 k.;
cpl. 860;
a. 1 5", 16 40-mm.;
cl. CASABLANCA

HOGGATT BAY (CVE-75) was launched under Maritime Commission contract by
Kaiser Co., Inc., Vancouver, Wash., 4 December 1943. Originally
classified AVG-75, she had been reclassified ACV-75, 2 August 1942.
Sponsored by Mrs. Victor Sundrik, she was reclassified again to CVE 75,
15 July 1943 and commissioned at Astoria, Oreg., 11 January 1944,
Captain W. V. Saunders in command.

After intensive training off the California coast, HOGGATT BAY
transported aircraft and crews to Pearl Harbor 10-25 March 1944. Upon
her return and further training in antisubmarine work, she sailed 1 May
for Pearl Harbor and Majuro. The combination of escort carriers and
destroyers had proven itself effective against submarines in the Battle
of the Atlantic, and was now to be used in the Pacific against the
Japanese. HOGGATT BAY and a group of destroyers and destroyer escorts
patrolled in the southwest Pacific 26 May-19 June with notable success.
Intrepid ENGLAND scored a kill on RO-105 31 May and TAYLOR sank RO-111
with depth charges and gunfire 11 June. These operations and those of
other groups did much to reduce Japanese submarine interference with the
invasion of the Marianas.

Returning to the patrol area a brief stay at Eniwetok, HOGGATT BAY's
group provided air support and cover for the Marianas operation 5 July-9
August, after which the ships returned to Manus. Next on the timetable
of Pacific conquest was Peleliu, a valuable air base for further
advances, and HOGGATT BAY sortied 1 September to furnish antisubmarine
protection and search planes for the invasion. For nearly 2 months the
escort carrier cruised these seas south and west of the Marianas in
support of American operations. SAMUEL S. MILES, a member of her group,
sank I-177 3 October, and later in the month planes from HOGGATT BAY
helped provide air cover for crippled HOUSTON as she struggled toward
Ulithi.

The ship arrived Ulithi 28 October, and sailed 10 November to provide
air support for the developing campaign in the Philippines. This was
followed by amphibious exercises in Huon Gulf, New Guinea, in
preparation for the Lingayen Gulf operations. Arriving Manus 20 December
1944, HOGGATT BAY joined the great task force which departed from that
and other staging bases in late December for Lingayen Gulf. The voyage
through the Philippines was a perilous one, as the Japanese attacked
with their last desperate weapon, the suicide plane. Crewmen on HOGGATT
BAY and the other ships fought continuously after 3 January, downing
many of the attackers, but OMMANEY BAY was lost and other ships damaged.
Arriving Lingayen Gulf 6 January, HOGGATT BAY sent her carrier planes in
to support the landings and destroy strong points despite suicide
attacks; this vital work continued until 17 January, when the ship set
course for Ulithi, and then San Diego.

The veteran escort carrier returned to San Diego 15 February 1945, and
after much-needed repairs sailed 6 April to join the vast fleet arrayed
off Okinawa in support of the invasion. She arrived Okinawa 8 May via
Pearl Harbor and Ulithi and immediately took station south of the island
to lend her aircraft to the carrier air forces engaged in the operation.
Her planes flew direct support missions, photographic flights, and
supply drops during the period 8 May-24 June.

HOGGATT BAY arrived Leyte Gulf 27 June 1945 and after a month of
training sailed 28 July for Adak, Alaska. The surrender came while the
carrier was en route, however and the planned operation was replaced by
occupation plans. After her arrival 18 August, HOGGATT BAY sailed for
Ominato. She arrived September and supported the occupation of Hokkaido
and northern Honshu. During this period aircraft from the ship
discovered many Japanese prison camps, and the ship had the pleasure of
evacuating Lieutenant Colonel Devereux, Marine Commander at Wake Island
when captured by the Japanese. HOGGATT BAY also participated in the
occupation of Aomori before anchoring in Tokyo Bay 27 September.

The escort carrier departed Tokyo 30 September and after brief service
with the "Magic Carpet" fleet returned to Boston and decommissioned 20
July 1946. Placed in the Atlantic Reserve Fleet, Boston, the ship was
re-classified CVHE-75, 12 June 1955 and AKV-25, 7 May 1959. She was sold
for scrap 31 March 1960.

HOGGATT BAY received five battle stars for World War II service.

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 08:30:40 -0600
From:    Drew Halevy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: fighter pilots

As I read answers to my own question, I started to think about u-boat
crews. I know that the Germans (from watching Das Boot) lost 30,000 of
40,000 submariners. Does any other branch match this fatality rate of
75%?-Drew

Drew Philip Halevy      |  Well we're waiting here in Allentown
Grad Student            |  For the Pennsylvania we never found
Department of History   |  For the promises our teachers gave
University of Arkansas  |  If we worked hard
[email-masked]   |  If we behaved-            Billy Joel

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 08:40:29 -0600
From:    Drew Halevy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 49,000 lb Bomb

Could there be the pyschological effect of building a bomb that large.
can you just guess what the response was back in Berlin when they saw the
first spy photo of this "superbomb" (Mein Gott, if they can build a bomb
this large they must have a plane this large!) Perhaps the forced
diversion of resources to counter a percieved threat that never came was
the real purpose of this weapon.-Drew

Drew Philip Halevy      |  Well we're waiting here in Allentown
Grad Student            |  For the Pennsylvania we never found
Department of History   |  For the promises our teachers gave
University of Arkansas  |  If we worked hard
[email-masked]   |  If we behaved-            Billy Joel

> >      As for developing bombs that can't be used, wasn't the original Grand
> >      Slam bomb limited in its effectiveness because there were no aircraft
> >      available that could drop it from high enough an altitude that it
> >      reached its proper terminal velocity?
>

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 09:41:07 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 49,000 lb Bomb

     >I do believe that there was an aircraft that could carry it.  I would
     >assume that the B-29 could carry such a monster (notice I used the
     >word "assume") since I have pictures of B-29's carrying two 22,000 lb
     >Grand Slams slung outside of the bomb bay between the fuselage and
     >the inboard engines (I'm not saying it flew, as this was a ground
     >photo).

     >What d' ya' think?

     >Joe Pohlmann
     >([email-masked])

     Could it carry it?

     Probably, if the B-29 could carry the Bell X-1 and X-2 A/C externally
     to 30,000 ft, it could probably have lifted this bomb, externally.

     But then,

        Would the weight and induced drag so limit the performance of the
     A/C that it would have difficulty surviving in combat?

        What possible target required such a weapon?

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 10:12:24 EST
From:    Patrick D Marsden <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: fighter pilots

>
> As I read answers to my own question, I started to think about u-boat
> crews. I know that the Germans (from watching Das Boot) lost 30,000 of
> 40,000 submariners. Does any other branch match this fatality rate of
> 75%?-Drew
>

I seem to remember some Soviet infantry formations which consistantly
had 75% or higher fatality rate PER YEAR through out the whole war.
I don't believe the numbers hold up when all infantry units are averaged
but there were certain divisions which seemed to be repeatedly slaughtered
by the Germans.  Of course there were units among all branches which were
annihilated, but apparently certain Soviets units were continuously
bleed white only to receive an infusion of replacements and head back
to the front to do it all again.  I can't remember the exact formations
though (sources are at home).  :(

patrick
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 10:15:06 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Worst Job in WW-II

     While I have a lot of sympathy for both the line infantry and the
     naval vessel hole gangs, my personal choice for worst job in WW-II
     goes to the ME-163 pilot.

        1.  You sit between a tank of C-STOF and a tank of T-STOF.  A leak
     in either tank releases chemicals that are lethal to you, a leak in
     both tanks can cause the plane to explode.

        2.  You take off from unfinished fields, chock full of volatile
     liquids, using a dropable dolly that has a tendency to bounce back and
     strike the A/C at a critical moment.

        3.  If you make it into the air safely, you are expected to attack
     a bomber stream at relative closing speeds of 350 mph (tail chase) to
     850 mph (head on attack), acquire a target and fire in the few seconds
     you have before everyone has passed each other.  Remembering that you
     are now a glider, you are then expected to zoom-climb into a position
     for another attack, if possible.

        4.  After you've lost the majority of your speed, you get to land
     back on that unprepared field on a single ski!  Your tanks full of
     volatile fumes, P-51s and P47s stalking your base, (and you without
     fuel available to turn and fight).  If you're lucky, you won't ignite
     the remaining fumes with the roughness of your landing, but there is a
     good possibility that you'll break your back.

        5.  Finally, if you have survived all this, you get the chance to
     do it again tomorrow.

     Anyone got a Tums?

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:47:15 -0800
From:    John Riegsecker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Naval Ships lost to weather

>     >Hi Steve,
>
>     >I read in NIMITZ (E.B. Potter) that ADM Nimitz was forced to
>     >implement standing orders that task force commanders consider the
>     >smallest ship of the task
>     >force when traveling through inclement weather.  If I remember
>     >correctly, several destroyers foundered as a result of crossing the
>     >front of a hurricane/typhoon in order to acheive more strategic
>     >position.  Do you have any details on this? Like which ships were
>     >lost, and how many sailors perished?  I haven't been able to find out
>     >anything else on this in any research materials I've come across.
>     >Thanks in advance.
>
>     >Joe Robinson

This sounds like the first typhoon that hit Halsey's Task Force 38 off the
Phillipines.  I recall that several of the destroyers were low on fuel, not
properly ballasted and capsized.  The details would be in Morison.

John Riegsecker                                 (206) 756-3566
Dept of Mathematics and Computer Science        [email-masked]
University of Puget Sound

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 10:49:13 EDT
From:    "Steve L. New" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: 49,000 lb bomb

     >> Would the weight and induced drag so limit the performance of the
     >>  A/C that it would have difficulty surviving in combat?

     >I can see no difficulty in combat survival.  What saved 'the
     >Tremendous Bulls' was the inability of Japanese Interceptor aircraft
     >to climb to the altitudes B-29s used.  The few designs that could
     >were plagued by engine problems and were underarmed.  BWK

     The problem is, with a 49,000 lb bomb mounted externally, the B-29
     wouldn't have been able to reach the high altitudes that protected it
     from most Japanese interceptors.  When mounting the Bell X-1
     externally, the best altitude the B-29 could achieve was 30,000 ft.
     Again, I don't know how badly this bomb would effect performance, but
     it certainly would.

    Steve L. New
    [email-masked]
    Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 07:27:45 -0800
From:    John Riegsecker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP:  CV-19 USS Hancock

>From   Steve L. New

>The fourth HANCOCK (CV-19) was laid down as TICONDEROGA 26 January
>1943 by the Bethlehem Steel Co., Quincy, Mass., renamed HANCOCK 1
>May 1943, launched 24 January 1944; sponsored by Mrs. DeWitt C.
>Ramsey, wife of Rear Admiral Ramsey, Chief of the Bureau of
>Aeronautics, and commissioned 15 April 1944, Captain Fred C. Dickey
>in command.

I've noticed several of these ships had their names changed prior to
completion.  I was under the impression it was considered bad luck to
change the name of a ship?  Is that true and the navy is just not
superstitious?

John Riegsecker                                 (206) 756-3566
Dept of Mathematics and Computer Science        [email-masked]
University of Puget Sound

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 11:38:44 -0500
From:    "Mr. Scott Hannon" <[email-masked]>
Subject: REF/TAC MacArthur & Philippines

Terry writes:
>    I am glad someone is finally going to address this issue. It has
>always been a puzzle to me that MacArthur escaped public scrutiny
>from the mistakes committed in the Philippines that were the sole
>responsibility of MacArthur.

You may be interested in _Fallen Stars_, editted by Brian Bond
and published by Brassey's maybe 2 years ago. This is a collection
of somewhat scholorly articles all dealing with "fallen stars" -
supposedly great generals and the battles that they botched. Mac
is covered in a chapter on the Fall of the Philippines.

It's been a couple years since I read it, but the author wasn't
too harsh with Mac about the Dec 8 air raid...in part because the
exact facts of the case are hard to determine, and also because
so much of the disaster was due to bad luck or other factors outsides
Mac's control. For instance, the article mentions that some versions
of events say that Brereton reported to Mac drunk, and thus was
refused permission to see Mac by his staff until he'd sobbered up.
And Brereton had stalled on following thru on Mac's orders of weeks
earlier to move the bombers to the south. Brereton reported a
different version of events.

In the authors opinion, the main mistakes by MacArthur during the
Phillipines 1942 campaign were: (again, from memory)

1) Believing the Philippine Army was in any shape to fight. They
   were not....*extremely* poorly equipped and undertrained. Mac had
   more-or-less built up the Philippine Army on his own without
   approval from Washington (they'd simply written off the islands.
   His only partial ally was the USAAF...but they saw the Philippines
   as an nice advanced bomber base to hit Japanese targets, and were
   not interested in using their aircraft to defend the islands).
   Mac was aware his army was not ready, but he vastly overestimated
   their battle-worthiness. He had 7 (?) divisions on Luzon, but
   basically only the US division (the elite Philippine Scouts, plus
   some much smaller units) were fit to fight. The war came at least
   a year (or two) too early for his army.

2) Acting on point (1) above during the Lingayen gulf landing.
   Rather than following the old "fall back to Bataan" plan, he
   attempted to drive the Japanese into the sea. He thus moved
   much/most of his troops supplies *forward* towards the landing
   site to engage the enemy. But most of his troops immediately
   routed at the sound of gun-fire, and Mac was faced with
   hurriedly changing over to the old Bataan plan. The forward
   position of supplies meant much were over-run or had to be
   destroyed before they could be moved to Bataan. Much of the
   nearly useless Philippine Army troops managed to make it to
   Bataan, thereby putting a heavy strain on food supplies.
   Eventually there was something like 10 thousand deserters
   in the Bataan hills, creating a serious bandit problem behind
   the front lines!

3) Re-organizing the leadership of the Philippine Army right
   after the rout at Lingayen gulf. This was very badly timed,
   and led to "I'm in chare here and I say retreat"/"No, I'm
   in charge and I say we hold" yo-yo maneuvers and lack of
   co-ordination in acting on plans.

Scott.
Scott Hannon, Tue Nov 1 1994 ([email-masked])

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 11:37:41 -0500
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: ADMIN: Introduction to WWII-L

Last Revision: 3 October 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I've added a new flag and ftp sites of archives.  Let me know if I've missed
any sites.  Thanks.  - Joe]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Welcome to WWII-L, a list dedicated to the discussion of the greatest
cataclysm of the Twentieth century (and, hopefully, the last.)  My name is
Joe Barone and I am the listowner.  I can be reached at [email-masked].

        WWII-L will be self-moderated.  This means that each of you will
always try to remember that there is a human being on the other end of the
wire, and the "Golden Rule" is rule number one!

        Our subject is HUGE and not everyone will be interested in everything
that moves over the list.  To ease YOUR burden of sorting the items you wish
to read, I offer the following "flags".  They will go FIRST on the Subject:
line.  (This section will be enforced when traffic gets heavy, otherwise
members may use their discretion on the matter.)

EDU   For discussion of aspects of teaching about the war.
SCI   For discussion of science and technology; may overlap with WEAP.
WEAP  For talk of weapons, usage of weapons, and "My favorite weapon."
POL   Political discussions, such as the effects of the Yalta Conference.
TAC   Tactical and Strategic discussions, "Island hopping vs. Single axis"
REF   References, review, where-to-buy, etc.
INF   Tables of Organization, raw data, chronologies, etc.
DOC   Reproductions of documents, Declarations of War, Speeches, Treaties, etc.
GEN   "Let's find a category for this."
TRV   For you trivia buffs. Try to stump everyone.
VET   For reunions, VA announcements, Legislation affecting veterans.
HOME  For discussions of events on the "Homefront".  To help distinguish
      WHICH homefront we're talking about, use the following format:
      HOME:US for the U.S.A.,
      HOME:GER for Germany, and so forth.
NOST  For nostalgia items, such as trips to battle sites, historical
      recreations, museum information, where to buy badges and hats, etc.
ADMIN For listowner use, to post introduction and related material.
      Responses to these articles are welcome, but only listowner
      should originate an "ADMIN" article.
WANT  For trading, suggestion on stores worth visting, etc.  Please offer to
      send more information via e-mail rather than posting an entire inventory.
MEDIA To review and report TV and other media "events".
NEWS  For reproductions of newspaper, magazine, and other articles from the
      period under discussion.  Present day news items should be post under
      "MEDIA".
ARC   For discussion of on-line resources and materials, such as those avail-
      able via ftp or gopher.  Discussion of the WWII-OLA (On-Line Archives
      should be posted under this flag.)
TROUBLE  Error messages from a site or address. Last chance to contact me
      before I'm forced to delete you! Anyone who knows the member in question
      is urged to contact them and have the problem corrected.
| WHAT-IF  For discussing scenarios of what may have happened if things had
|       been just a wee bit different.  Situations must have their roots in
|       history and reality rather than flights of fancy.

        Some items will overlap, of course, but the main thrust of the item
should be clear.  Try not to ask so many questions in a single post that the
flags become inoperative.  Several short posts are preferable to one long one,
and are easier to answer and quote.  You should change the flag in the subject
line if the thread takes a new direction.  If you reply to a posting which
didn't have a flag, please insert the proper flag.  (This can help categorize
the subject for people who have to download the mail via slow modem, one of
the main reasons for having the flags at all.)

        Threads have been known to mutate so that the Subject: line no longer
gives any indication of the content of the message.  I ask that you check
the Subject: line when replying to a message and change it to something
more appropriate if this is the case.

        Since messages may arrive at sites out of order, it's always a good
idea to quote portions of a previous message that you are responding to.
This does not mean that the entire message with headers should be included,
but those lines that are relevant.  It helps if proper attribution (who
said the quoted material) is given.  Also, try to avoid quoting large
tracts of text and simply adding an "I agree!" line with no additional
information.  A good rule of thumb is not to have more quoted text than
new material.  Of course, content is always more important than style so
these suggestions may not apply.

        Abbreviations are another subject that needs attention.  While many
of us will be comfortable with the most arcane and obscure acronyms and
abbreviations, many of the readers of this list are here to learn more about
the war and will have trouble decyphering your articles if they are packed
with "LAH", "CinCUS", "StuG III", etc.  PLEASE expand these terms at least
once in your post.

        Similarly, since this list is primarily in English, could we please
translate the "foreign" terms?  A long discussion on "Kido Butai" or
"Wacht-am-Rhine" without an explantion of the terms isn't polite if we
exclude part of the list because they have no clue as to the meaning of
the terms.  The converse should also be remembered: English is not the
primary language of many members of the list.  Usenet short-hand should
also be expanded once to avoid redundant traffic explaining what such
abbreviations as BTW mean ("by the way").

        Now we come to the REALLY hard part.

        Some subjects have been beaten to death or evoke strong emotional
responses.  However, I realize that they'll come up from time to time.
If you feel that the following topics must be addressed, ensure that your
wording is precise; consider the responses that it might evoke; and use
the topics flag.  It is not my duty to censor any pertinent topic from this
list, but these topics should be handled carefully.  Failure to do so may
result in "flame wars" which will *not* be tolerated on this list.  The
mailing list suffered through one flame war pertaining to the second topic
below.  It nearly killed the list so I am loath to see if the list can
tolerate another.  Also, in regards to the Holocaust, there is another
mailing-list, HOLOCAUS-L, devoted to the topic so readers should subscribe
to that list for a more thorough discussion of that topic.  The current
list of topics are:

        1. The Holocaust.
        2. Internment of Japanese-Americans in the US.

        Also, while conspiracy theories were all the rage during in the 1970s
and 1980s, they're rather passe now.  Their novelty is gone and there is little
or no evidence to support them.  Occam's razor applies here: don't attribute
to malice the results of ignorance.  Accordingly, the following topics are
discouraged:

        1. Did Roosevelt know about the coming attack on Pearl Harbor and
           intentionally do nothing in order to drag the US into the war?
        2. Did Churchill allow the bombing of Conventry to occur in order
           to protect the secret of Ultra?

        While on the topic of touchy topics and flame wars, there are a
few individuals in the world who delight in posting the most assinine
assertions for the sole purpose of enraging the more serious members of a
group.  These people seem to derive pleasure seeing how much traffic they
can generate.  A subset of this group may actually believe the preposterous
things that they are claiming.  Regardless of such an individual's
motivation, though, if a message angers you, I ask that you not respond
immediately, if at all.  First, you would probably be playing right into
their hands and, secondly, nearly every other sensible person will have
the same response as your own.  I try to stay on top of this list in order
to prevent such flame wars, but propogation delays make it impossible for
me to react instantaneously.  Hopefully, I'll have the wisdom to discern
"flamebait" from an actual desire to debate an unpopular theory.

        One last item, STATE YOUR REFERENCES!  You're in tough company here.
| Members include historians, published authors, and at least three veterans
| (which I consider our most prized asset).  Some of the folks in this list
| are VERY sharp, and you'll end up with egg on your face if you haven't done
| your homework.

        Normally the listserv will want you to subscribe from your own account
rather than having me add you to the list.  This allows the software to confirm
mailing routes as I don't always get your full address in the mail.

        Contact me if listserv gives you any problems and we'll seek a solution.

SUBSCRIPTION INFOMATION:

ALL Messages are to go to:

[email-masked] (internet)
listserv@ubvm                (bitnet)

Send the following commands  in the body of the message.

To SUBSCRIBE:
subscribe wwii-l (your name)

To UNSUBSCRIBE:
unsubscribe wwii-l

To turn mail off for a period without unsubscribing:
set wwii-l nomail

To turn mail back on when ready:
set wwii-l mail

To Digest (have all postings sent in one mailing per day):
set wwii-l digest

To restore normal mail (undigest the list.)
set wwii-l mail

To confirm that your posting has been sent to the list:
set wwii-l ack

To get a copy of your posting sent to you:
set wwii-l repro

(Ack will send you a note saying "your file has been succesfully distributed,
and repro will send a copy back to you of your posting..

To retrieve logfiles for WWII-L send mail to [email-masked] or
                                             listserv@ubvm (for bitnet)
with this message in the body:
get wwii-l log9407c

This file will contain all the postings sent to the list in the third week
of July, 1994.

The files are held for two months and broken down by seven day periods (which
usually don't coincide with the calendar "week".  Thus you might see this
kind of entry

WWII-L LOG9407A  (for 01-07 July, 1994)
WWII-L LOG9407B  (for 08-14 July, 1994)
WWII-L LOG9407C  (for 15-21 July, 1994)

You can also get the files by ftp if you have access.  FTP into
ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu and cd to WWII-L.  The files are in ascii format
and the machine is case sensitive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a tip on getting older messages from the listserver:

        One of the features of the listserver is the database search.  This
allows the user to search for any subject and print either an index of the
"hits" or the articles themselves.  For instance, if you mail the command
sequence below to "[email-masked]" or "[email-masked]"
it will send you an index of all articles in the archive that deal with
weapons (the WEAP: tag).  (The usefulness of the subject flags discussed
earlier should be apparent now.)

        One member of the list used the old example that accompanied this
introduction and notified me that it didn't work.  Below is the correct
sequence of commands to search the database.  I've tried it so I can
vouch for its utility.

//      JOB Echo=No
Database Search DD=Rules
//Rules DD *
search WEAP: in WWII-L
index
/*

        If you change the word "index" to "print" it will return you a
copy of the articles themselves.  You can start with the listserv command,
"info database" and receive a complete set of instructions for using the
database. These instructions are not trivial and are a bit voluminous
but they are thorough and will help you get what you want.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|       Several members of the list provide daily updates of events that
| occurred 50 years ago.  Much of this information is archived.  Below are
| the addresses for retrieving archives of this information and much more.
|
| COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES is archived at two 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
|
| 50 YEARS AGO TODAY is archived at:
|
|   1. ftp.netcom.com, in directory /pub/jbd
|
| 50 YEARS AGO OF NAVAL ACTIVITIES and other historical goodies:
|
|   1. byrd.mu.wvnet.edu in directory /pub/history and all subdirectories
|
|       To access these archives, connect to the desired system, enter
| "anonymous" when prompted for login ID, then enter your Internet mail
| address when prompted for password.
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I haven't suffciently confused you, send me e-mail and I'll finish
the job. :-)  I can be reached at the following address:

Joe Barone, WWII-L Listowner
[email-masked]
W: (401) 842-4054
Always wit' da negative waves, Moriarty!  Always wit' da negative waves!

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 10:56:43 -0600
From:    Drew Halevy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Soviet infantry

were there not also penal batallions who had a choice of fight or die?-Drew

Drew Philip Halevy      |  Well we're waiting here in Allentown
Grad Student            |  For the Pennsylvania we never found
Department of History   |  For the promises our teachers gave
University of Arkansas  |  If we worked hard
[email-masked]   |  If we behaved-            Billy Joel

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 12:01:57 -0500
From:    Ron Babuka <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Naval Ships lost to weather

>>     >Hi Steve,
>>
>>     >I read in NIMITZ (E.B. Potter) that ADM Nimitz was forced to
>>     >implement standing orders that task force commanders consider the
>>     >smallest ship of the task
>>     >force when traveling through inclement weather.  If I remember
>>     >correctly, several destroyers foundered as a result of crossing the
>>     >front of a hurricane/typhoon in order to acheive more strategic
>>     >position.  Do you have any details on this? Like which ships were
>>     >lost, and how many sailors perished?  I haven't been able to find out
>>     >anything else on this in any research materials I've come across.
>>     >Thanks in advance.
>>
>>     >Joe Robinson
>
>This sounds like the first typhoon that hit Halsey's Task Force 38 off the
>Phillipines.  I recall that several of the destroyers were low on fuel, not
>properly ballasted and capsized.  The details would be in Morison.
>
>

My father served on the U.S.S. Allen M. Sumner (DD-692) and several of the
destroyers that were sunk and or heavily damaged were in their Destroyer
Squadron.  The storm was the most violent weather by far that he had ever
seen in his 4 years in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  During this storm
he was at battle stations in the main battery director which is the highest
manned point on a Destroyer.  He remembers the ship listing so much and
waves breaking so high that the entire side of the ship laying in contact
with water and the waves traversing his director.  To this day he says that
he was more terrified in this storm than any of the three years of combat
he saw.  The captain of the ship pulled out of position that he was
assignedand tucked the destroyer in behind a CVE and used it as a swell and
wave break.  At the end of the storm the number two main battery was pushed
5 feet into the hull from the force of the waves crashing into the ship.
As he said "I can at least shoot back at a kamikaze".  To this day I think
more ships were lost in the typhoon than any one single action (but I could
be wrong on that).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Babuka
Cornell University
CIT - Information Resources
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 254-6492

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 11:29:07 -600
From:    Lowell Rick Cox <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Question

>Jack McKillop
>
>
>From: [email-masked] (Thomas J Helferty)
>Subject: Student report on Veteran's Day
>Date: 30 Oct 1994 20:10:14 -0500
>Organization: Drexel University
>
>I'm doing a report for school on Veteran's Day.  If you could be
>of any assistance to me, please answer the following questions.
>The due date for this report is Nov 3, so I appreciate your
>prompt responses.
>Please include your name, state, branch of service, rank, and which
>war you were involved with. Thank you very much for your help.
>
>1.      Do you feel that Veteran's Day honors our veteran's properly?
>If not, what would you think is appropriate?
>
>2.      What other types of honors do you deserve that you are not now getting?
>
>3.      Pertaining to whichever war you were in, did it end the way you feel
>it should have?
>
>4.      Do you think the date of Veteran's Day should be changed?
>If so, to what date?
>
>5.      Do you feel that one day a year is enough to commemorate the
>veteran's of this country?
>
My name is Lowell R. Cox Jr.  But I prefer Rick.  Illinois.  U.S. Army 1977
to 1985 (Sergeant), Army Reserve 1986 to 1990 (Sergeant), Illinois National
Guard 1990 to present (Sergeant).  I managed to miss all the excitement
during my many years in the military.  Just lucky I guess, I was with the
2nd ACR on the Czech border and with the 24th ID as part of the Rapid
Deployment Force.

To answer your questions;

1. I don't see much attention to Veterans Day.  Most people, especially
our youngsters, only see it as a day off from school.  I feel that our nation
as a whole takes the military for granted, which as history shows can be
terrible in a time of crisis.

2. I don't think honors are what any Vet wants.  I know guys with so much
fruit salad on their chests that I wonder how they can stand up with it all.
Most of them are humble men who don't see themselves as anything
special.  I think it's more a matter of how Americans look at the profession
of arms, and how they treat (react to) those who are/were in the military.

3. The closest thing to a war that has occured during my time was Desert
Storm.  Iraq invaded Kuwait 2 days before my unit (part of 85th Div. TNG)
went to annual training at Ft. Bliss TX.  Rumor control went nuts.  I watched
the 3rd ACR and 11th ADA BDE load and start to depart for Saudi.  I was
pleased with the way our troops handled the situation, I just wish that
Hussein had not been in power when we pulled them back out.

4. The date is fine.

5. I might add some type of acknowdgement of each services birthday.  We
have seen some posts relating to the USMCs birthday coming up soon.
How many people in the U.S. know why we have different services, and
what they specialize in?  This could be a day that would honor each service
in turn, both the Vets and those still in uniform.  I don't feel this needs to
be a National Holiday, but there should be some official attention besides
the ways the services celebrate the days themselves.

Good Luck with your report!

Toujours Pret!

Rick Cox     [email-masked]
Ameritech National Customer Service Center
Hoffman Estates, IL  USA

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:50:24 GMT+1
From:    SYSTEM 0PERATOR <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Books

mc killop <[email-masked]> writes:

> such, an attack on the U.S. did not mean an attack on the
> Philippines or some such legal gobbledygook.  (Any lawyers out
> there who can explain this reasoning or even if it was legal or
> perhaps sound????)

Oh, just taking a book, it says this (translated from French):
"General Brereton, commanding the Air Force, requested from General
Sutherland, Mc Arthur's chief of Staff, the authorization to bomb Takao,
on Formosa.... Shortly later, Sutherland communicated to Brereton Mc Arthur's
refusal. Brereton insisted but Mc Arthur remained inflexible, unwilling to
take the responsibility of engaging hostilities, thus conforming to the
wishes of General Marshall".

Hope it partly answered your question. It looks strangely similar to
Stalin's "paralysis" on 22 June 41, blatantly attacked, yet refusing
to retaliate.

Cordially,
Arnaud.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:43:00 GMT+1
From:    SYSTEM 0PERATOR <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Number of Missions Flown?

"Steve L. New" <[email-masked]> writes:

>      Arnaud,
>
>      Don't get caught up in the numbers alone.  A 90-120 minute mission in
>      an FW-190/BF-109/Spitfire/Hurricane doesn't compare 1 on 1 to 6 hour
>      missions in P-47s, 8 hour missions in P-38s and 11 hour missions in
>      P-51s.  Not to mention the mission hours times for the bombers &
>      transports.
>
>     Steve L. New
>     [email-masked]
>     Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

Very right. Thanks for straightening my reasoning out. One thing I had always
wondered why Bomber Command seldom flew carpet bombing missions, but aside
from the ammunition problem, I understand bomber missions were scarcer and
couldn't be done round-the-clock.

Arnaud.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 13:16:43 EST
From:    Doug McCabe <[email-masked]>
Subject: Untold Stories f/ABTF, Pt. 14

                   Ohio University Electronic Communication

   Date:  19-Oct-1994 04:47pm EST

     To:  Remote Addressee                     ( _MX%"[email-masked]" )

   From:  Doug McCabe                                Dept:  Library
          MCCABE                                   Tel No:  (614) 593-2715

Subject:  Untold Stories f/ABTF, Pt. 14

    [This is the last installment and, like the last one, this combines two
    topics: Dutch Reaction and The Other Side.  Perhaps, after a bit of
    rest for these worn fingers, I shall start Untold Stories from the
    other two books.]

         "In the Reichswald, clearly visible from Groesbeek, stood a fire
    watching tower and the Groesbeek population thought that the Germans
    used it for observation purposes - which was probably not true, the
    tower being a very easy target.  But I decided to tell the American
    commander about the people's anxiety and the officer invited me to come
    back the next afternoon at 14.oo hours.  At exactly that time on
    September 26 a cannon shot was fired.  Nothing happened.  A second shot
    rang out.  Nothing.  And then a third.  The tower was gone and the
    civilains felt a lot better."
                   - Burgomaster Jhr. van Grotenhuis van Onstein, Groesbeek

         "I administered the last sacraments to two Americans who were
    lying in an elevated farm in the middle of the dropping zone.  This wa
    quite a hazardous trip because the area was constantly under German
    shell fire.  There were fox holes all over the dropping zone and now
    and again an American head would emerge and shout, 'Father, cover!' and
    I, who knew nothing about shells, would simply fall flat on my face.
    Although the farm was dangerously located, it received no direct hits.
    Nevertheless, I was relieved to get home safely, cycling, walking, and
    crawling in turns on the way back."
                                            - Father HLM Hoek, Groesbeek

         "When the 82nd Airborne captured me near Groesbeek I was lined up
    against a house.  I had heard all about the tough paratroopers in their
    baggy pants and I wondered what they were going to do to me.  They dug
    their rifles in my ribs and shouted, 'Schnell, schnell.'  I wondered
    why I should hurry just to get shot.  There were only 16 of us and
    after we had been searched we were pushed into a barnyard where we
    joined another 16.  We were kept under guard and that night I got my
    first corned beef and biscuits and C-rations.  The next afternoon there
    was a German counter-attack and we got away.  I was subsequently taken
    prisoner again by the Canadians.  After the war I escaped East Germany
    and was granted an American visa in 1952.  I saved up to go to the
    States and joined the 82nd Airborne."
                                  - Cpl. HS Ullmann, 10th SS Panzer Div.

         "My men and I walked within the confines of a wood.  Suddenly we
    stopped short.  We had reached the edge of the wood and in front of us
    was a large clearing.  We had stopped just in time because the most
    amazing sight met our eyes.  The field was covered with gliders and
    paratroopers were dashing about, getting equipment together, unloading
    the cargo gliders.  I could not get over what I saw.  Jeeps, guns,
    ammunition, all sorts of equipment, were unloaded.  I also saw Dutch
    civilians hastening to greet the paratroopers and to offer their
    services.  My lieutenant was beside himself: he actually wanted to
    attack but I told him it would be useless.  As we watched, the
    paratroopers lined up and marched off in a direction back to the Maas.
    I felt somehow abandoned."
                                  - MSgt. Jakob Moll, III Grenadier Regt.

    And, that's it folks.

    Doug

Received:  01-Nov-1994 01:16pm

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 13:26:49 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: bersagliere(sp!)

        The bersaglieri originated in the Sardinian Army (precursor of the
united Italian Army) in the 1840's.  The name translates roughly as
"sharpshooters," and they were considered an elite force from their inception.
Among other honors, a bersaglieri regiment played a prominent role in the
capture of Rome during the Italian wars of unification (1870).  The distinctive
badge of bersaglieri troops is a black cockerel feather worn on the left side
of the headgear (in WW2, this applied to the steel helmet and the soft African
"sun helmet" hat as well).  Their other easily recognizable quirk is that
bersaglieri never march like ordinary troops-- they always move at a running
double-time trot (makes bersaglieri bands a big favorite in international drum
and bugle competitions).
        I don't know a lot about their WW1 combat record, but can flesh in a
lot off the top of my head regarding WW2.  The bersaglieri, being considered an
elite organization (and backed by a strong and involved veterans' organization)
had the pick of the hardiest recruits and the best young officers.  They were
known for their dash, high morale, and excellent physical condition-- besides
the running march, bersaglieri were celebrated for their speed and endurance on
bicycles, which was a prime form of locomotion for these light, fast troops
during the inter-war years.
        Bersaglieri were organized into independent regiments, ranging from
1,800 to 2,700 men in strength.  The regiment normally consisted of two rifle
battalions and a weapons support battalion (plus an independent 170-man
motorcycle company attached to regimental HQ).  Infantry weapons were generally
of poor quality, as in the Italian Army at large.  The basic weapon of the
bersaglieri soldiers was the toy-like Mannlicher-Carcano TS ("Truppo Speciale")
carbine, a six-shot bolt action weighing only 5.5 lbs, but virtually useless
beyond point-blank range, with support machineguns being the (bipod-mounted)
Breda M30 and the (tripod-mounted) Fiat-Revelli M35.  Bersaglieri units did
however have more heavy support weapons than regular infantry units of
corresponding size, especially in terms of antitank equipment (which was in
critically short supply in most of the rest of the Italian Army).  The weapons
battalion of the bersaglieri regiment usually had at least one company (4, 6,
or 8 guns, but usually six) of 47-mm antitank guns and one or more companies of
81-mm mortars (six per company).  Bersaglieri rifle battalions were
additionally supplied in many cases with the 20-mm Solothurn antitank rifle, an
expensive import which was seldom seen in other Italian units (although the
table of organization called for three in every battalion).  Some bersaglieri
regiments also contained detachments of 20-mm Breda AA guns.
        During WW2, Bersaglieri fought on literally every front in which the
Italians were engaged.  In North Africa, the independent 10th Bersaglieri Regt
made its combat debut in January 1941 outside Derna, where a bold charge across
open ground caught the attention of the British, suffering over 100 casualties
but inducing the enemy to advance with considerably more caution.  The same
10th Bersaglieri were the first to attack the British roadblocks when the
Italian 10th Army found itself surrounded at Beda Fomm in Feb '41 (again the
attack was more brave than effective).
        I should mention here that there was a bersaglieri regiment more or
less permanently attached to each Italian armored and "celere" division (the
latter a mixed formation of fast light troops, also containing two or three
regiments of horse cavalry and a light tank battalion).  Thus the 1st
Bersaglieri was part of the "Centauro armored division, 8th Bersaglieri the
Ariete armored division, and 12th Bersaglieri Regt belonged to Littorio Armored
Division.  Likewise, 3rd Bersaglieri Regt was included in the "Amadeo D'Aosta"
celere division, 6th Bersaglieri in the "Emmanuele Filiberto" division, and
11th Bersaglieri Regt in the "Eugenio di Savoia" celere div.  The Littorio
fought in the brief invasion of France, in Yugoslavia, and in North Africa
(its combat debut there in June '42) till destroyed at second El Alamein.
Ariete fought in North Africa from February '41 till destroyed 11/42.  Centauro
spearheaded the Italian invasion of Greece in 10/40 and fought there until the
end of the campaign (most of the time in Albania), did anti-partisan duty in
Yugoslavia in the second half of '41, and fought in North Africa from 11/42
(actual combat debut there in December) till the Axis surrender in May '43.
All three "celere" divisions participated in the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in
April '41 (where like Littorio they had a spearhead role in the Italian 2nd
Army), the "Eugenio di Savoia" and its 11th Bersaglieri remaining there until
1943, while the "Amadeo D'Aosta" campaigned in Russia in 1941-42, and the
6th Bersaglieri Regt was also later detached for independent service and sent
to the eastern front.
        To return to a quick survey of independent bersaglieri units, a
bersaglieri battalion spearheaded a German-led effort to close off
(successfully) the first corridor into Tobruk established by the Allies during
the "Crusader" offensive (Nov-Dec '41); a bersaglieri battalion led an attack
on the key position of "Kidney Ridge" at second El Alamein on Oct 25, 1942
(gaining positions on the slope but failing to carry the summit, in fighting
which Rommel, a witness, described by saying "rivers of blood were poured out
over miserable scraps of land, which in peacetime even the poorest Arab would
never have bothered about"); and the 5th Bersaglieri battalion overcame the
final resistance of the US forces holding the southern side of Kasserine Pass
in Feb '43 in Tunisia (the battalion's commander was killed in the attack, and
the German commander of the battle group on the spot praised the Italian
"elan").  By the time of second El Alamein two more independent bersaglieri
regiments, the 7th and the 9th, were holding positions in the Axis front lines.
The 10th Bersaglieri returned to action in Tunisia, where its quick reaction
foiled an Allied commando raid west of Tunis in Dec '42.  The survivors of this
unit, now down to about a battalion, and the remnants of Centauro's 5th
Bersaglieri were still putting up a tough defense as part of a mixed Axis
battle group on the extreme northern flank as late as the start of May.
        In Albania, bersaglieri were among the first reinforcements to the
front when the Italian plan went wrong.  The 1st Bersaglieri, backed by an
additional machinegun battalion, slowed the Greek progress in the Pindus region
the first week of Nov 40, the 2nd Bersaglieri joined the tank regiment of
Centauro to stop the Greeks cold for a week in fierce fighting at the exits of
the Delvinaki Pass later in the month, and the 4th Bersaglieri Regt was
deployed to the heights shielding Koritza.  The 21st Bersaglieri Regiment
arrived in time to participate in the failed Italian offensive of March '41.
        As I said, bersaglieri fought on all fronts.  Three bersaglieri
battalions were at Keren in East Africa, where the Italians held off a superior
British force for 57 days.  In addition to the four bersaglieri regts in the
Littorio and the three "celere" divisions, the independent Zara Bersaglieri
Battalion fought in Yugoslavia virtually from start to finish.  In Sicily
(July '43) 10th Bersaglieri, again reconstituted from the sizable reserves most
bersaglieri units possessed, held on for a week near Agrigento, while the 177th
Bersaglieri Regt formed part of the "Schreiber Battle Group" (despite the
Germanic name this was an Italian formation, under General Ottavio Schreiber),
which put up some of the fiercest resistance of any Italian formation during
the Sicilian campaign, not being totally eliminated until after July 20th.
Reserve elements of the 177th Bersaglieri fought against the Germans in Rome
during the brief attempt of the Italians to hold the city after surrendering to
the Allies in Sept '43 (some of these bersaglieri simply left their barracks
and marched to the sound of the guns).  Even after the armistice, the small
Italian Liberation Corps allowed to operate alongside the Allies consisted
largely of bersaglieri (at least in its first months of operation), and these
troops gave a good account of themselves in the Monte Longo area in Dec '43,
capturing a couple of key hills and withstanding German counterattacks that
included armor.
        Hope this gives you some idea.  I wish i could recommend a good single
source but any info I have is a melange of culling references from a lot of
different readings.

Regards

Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 12:35:16 -0600
From:    Greg Kelley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: CVE-114

Brian & Steve--

noticed your message on USS RENDOVA (CVE-114); there's an entry on the
RENDOVA in volume 6 of the DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN NAVAL FIGHTING SHIPS,
but I only saw a reply saying nothing on, so I don't know what sort of info
you're in need of.  RENDOVA was a Commencement Bay class CVE that was
built too late for service in WW2 (commissioned 22nd October 1945) but
did serve in the Korean War.  Decommissioned 1955, reserve status until
struck (& probably scrapped) 1971.

Do you need service record?  I can try typing in the entry from DOANFS
but it'll take a while.  Otherwise general specs would be quicker.

Please advise.  Aircraft carriers are a bit out of my league; the closest
thing the Royal Rumanian Navy got to carriers were seaplanes (though the
ALMAZ did get close to Constanta during its WW1 service)

                                          Glad To Be Of Service!

                                          Greg Kelley
                                          St. Paul Public Library
                                          [email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 16:37:30 GMT+1
From:    SYSTEM 0PERATOR <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: BOOKS on the Pacific

For those of French language or wanting to improve their French, here is
another book on the Pacific War :
LA GUERRE DU PACIFIQUE (2 tomes, over 800 pages total), Bernard Millot

A true specialist of the subject and excellent teller (by far the best book
I've found in ten years, I have photocopied the 800 pages entirely as it is
out of print).
The book focuses on the fighting, not on the political aspect. Extensive OB's
are provided, but I find it somewhat lacking in maps, and a bit old (1968).

Other books in print by the same author (Editions Lariviere):
LA BATAILLE DE MIDWAY
LA BATAILLE AERONAVALE DES MARIANNES (both full of photographs and very
precise text)
LAS CHASSEURS AMERICAINS DE LA GUERRE DU PACIFIQUE
L'AVIATION DU SUD-VIETNAM

Arnaud

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 14:56:27 -0500
From:    "Rudolph W. Hauschild" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: HYPO"The big what"

In terms of "outnumbered in any real sense", the global nature of the British
and French empires also enabled them to draw on global resources,troops from
North Africa, India...also raw materials. The Germans were also on the
offensive which normal doctrine usually calls for a 3 to 1 ratio. I doubt
that they ever came close to this ratio except in very local
attacks(schwerpunkts). In terms of troops and tanks, Germany was slightly
outnumbered by the allies in 1940 while having an edge in the air. Germany
was able to win in 1940 by high speed and risky ops despite the nervousness
of AH and the general staff. The allies were still leading from the rear,
with the result that orders were outdated upon reception.
One major reason for the collapse of the Red Army in 41 was the offensive
dispositions of the army. Stalin would have liked to see SEELOWE go ahead so
that the Brits and Germans were both weakened. Whichever way sealion went,
Germany would have been heavily preoccupied in the west.
German arty was mediocre except for some of the very limited SPGs. However,
the tanks and aircraft stood up to anything the allies had. The PZKW III and
IV were good designs that were upgraded throughout the war. The IV was
designed in 1935(?) and served until the end of the war. It was the equal of
the M4 and not that inferior to the T34. The V and VI were both excellent
tanks with some limitations, but both gave more than they got. As an aside,
the T34 called by many the best tank of the war was also the most destroyed
tank of the war. The panzertruppe were tacticly better than the Red Army and
so were able to inflict great losses on T34 formations.
In AC, the FW190 and the BF109 were both in the same class as the spits,
P51s, P47s...Even the 109, also a mid 30s design, in the hands of a Hartman
or a Galland could hold their own in 45.
I've read alot about the different delays for Zitadelle but not the one about
the jews, but what would have happened if Mansteins plan to drive up the
middle instead of the expected pincer movement was implemented.
The vast amounts of prisoners (Ruhr, Tunisia..) were pretty much men with
clubs(rifles w/o ammo).
While the Red Army was far better in 44 and 45, they still relied on quantity
over the Wehrmacht. Even in Berlin where many of the defenders weren't even
German, the Russians took massive casualties. This was when a German AT
vehicle was a guy on a bike with a panzerfaust. Also many defeats in the east
were against the allied to Germany troops(Hungarian, Romanian, Italian) that
were used in flank positions so that the German troops could fight at the
schwerpunkt(Stalingrad).
I think that Rommel in the cauldron at Gazala or Manstein in the retreat from
Stalingrad were under far more pressure from both the enemy and from AH than
Patton was from the US gov.
I feel that the interference from Hitler cannot be minimized. Someone like
Manstein or Guderian could have halted the Red Army had they had control of
the Wehrmacht instead of the OKW. Stalin probably would have made a seperate
peace with Hitler if Hitler would have wanted to. Since the majority of
German forces were in the east, what would have happened in the west if
substantial reinforcements were made available in France. The Abomb scenario?
The attacks against odds were local attacks. The major operations you mention
(Kursk Ardennes) were too much for what resources Germany had left at that
time. In both, the resources could have been put to better use as per
Guderians plans for the panzer reserves and Gallands for the Luftwaffes
JagdGeschwader.

Rudi

Lets get more specific, these general topics make me ramble all over and I
start to get incoherent.(?)

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 21:08:05 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: V-weapons

I've found a book titled 'V-bombs on Antwerp' in the local library. The
77-page book is written by Jos Cels, but it really centers around the
photographs of Frans Claes, who was then, in 1944, the only one allowed to
photograph the V-bomb hits.

Between 7 October 1944 and 30 March 1945, there were 3709 hits (of which
2448 V-1s) in the arrondissement Antwerp, which is rather larger than the
city of Antwerp itself. 515 hit city and port of Antwerp, of which 259
V-1s. No more 150 V-1s and 152 V-2s hit the actual target, the docks and
harbour installations. The agglomeration of Antwerp is roughly elliptical
of shape, with a largest cross-section (now) of about 10km --- over three
times as much if you count all docks in, but many were built after the
war. Judging from the map, the V-bomb hits were divided equal over an area
with a cross-section of about 75km. Many were shot down; almost 90% of the
V-1s fell to the AAA -- that fired 968.183 rounds from 556 guns. Despite
the V-bombs, the first allied convoy arrived on 28 November 1944.

These are the picture captions. They usually do not mention the type of
missile. Of course only the more serious hits are included.

When                Where               Killed Wounded Missing Houses  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 Oct 1944 09.45   Schilderstraat         32     45              43    V-2
22 Oct 1944  8.     Mestputteke            13     70              28    V-2
28 Oct 1944 18.20   Bontemantelstraat      71     80              85
 6 Nov 1944 13.50   Gasstraat              28     58              34
11 Nov 1944 16.14   Breydelstraat          51     56              18
11 Nov 1944 17.04   Van Trierstraat        25     46              34
16 Nov 1944 11.16   Durletstraat           36    123     3        15
16 Nov 1944         Kolonielaan            10     13              Youth hostel
16 Nov 1944 14.02   Beschavingsstraat      12     32               9
19 Nov 1944  5.58   Welvaartsstraat         9     22              30
27 Nov 1944 10.55   Lange Nieuwsstraat     18     64              21
27 Nov 1944         Frankrijklei          154    309
28 Nov 1944 10.30   Wetstr.-Regentstr.     11     27              36
 9 Dec 1944 11.37   St. Bernardsestwg.     42     94              43
 9 Dec 1944 15.04   Meir                   24     45              14
14 Dec 1944 11.05   Twee Netenstraat        6     26              10     V-2
14 Dec 1944 22.35   Scheldestraat          56     21     4        37
15 Dec 1944  4.10   Adm. de Boisotstraat   21      7              47
16 Dec 1944 15.20   De Keyserlei          567    291              11
18 Dec 1944 14.30   Durletstraat            5      9              28
21 Dec 1944  5.03   Italielei               7      1              12
22 Dec 1944  2.05   Somersstraat            8      4              37
 2 Jan 1945 22.     Vrijdagmarkt           29     41              53     V-1
25 Jan 1945 11.27   Gasstraat               7     35              32
26 Jan 1945 12.15   Lange Loobroekstraat    5     18
28 Jan 1945  0.21   Van Maerlantstraat      6     10               7
 5 Feb 1945 12.39   Van Straelenstraat     15     20              44
 7 Feb 1945 21.40   Nijverheidsstraat      62     86              26
16 Feb 1945  8.59   Westraat               13     14              33
18 Feb 1945 12.44   Lombaardvest           15     21              29
27 Feb 1945 20.34   Lange Klarenstraat     13     17              21
 6 Mar 1945 23.04   St. Jozefstraat        35     66              27
 7 Mar 1945 15.58   Korte Herentalsestr.    4     19               5
 8 Mar 1945  8.59   Solvijnstraat          15     21              15
21 Mar 1945  3.03   Zandvlietstraat        14     14              19

The number of houses destroyed should be interpreted with some care. Some
of these were real houses, with two or three floors, almost always built
in a row and destroyed simultaneously, and other were appartments in
larger blocks. Some were flattened totally, others just made inhabitable.
E.g. the second hit of 9 Dec 1944 hit a seven-floor building on a street
corner, smashed in on the second and third floor, destroying almost
everthing on those levels --- but from the outside the upper floors seem
to have been almost undamaged. In one occasion, a V-1 hit the Boerentoren
('Farmers tower', one of the higher buildings) and made a gap of 7 meter
diameter cross-section between the fourth and fifth floor, but military
observers on the 26th floor were unaware of this! The explosion
nevertheless destroyed 30 nearby houses. The hit of 16 December was on
Cinema Rex; the victims were enjoying a Buffalo Bill western...

This were not the only war victims in Antwerp, of course. An allied
bombardment on 5 April 1943 of the Ehrla factory, that revised German
aircraft engines, missed the target almost entirely but killed 936 people
and wounded 1350.  And on 29 April 1942, a chemical plant in Tessenderlo
exploded, killing 228 people and injuring 2100.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 13:00:20 -0600
From:    "Tim J. Watts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Old 59

When an aircraft was war weary or replaced by later marks or models, was
there a plan on how to recycle them?  That is, were early model P-40's
shipped back to the US and melted down, for example?  Or were they allowed
to rot in theater?  Did the Germans do something similar with ME-109's
that were replaced by later models?  Just wondering if anyone knew, since
there were a lot of aircraft that became obsolete during the war.

Tim J. Watts
Valparaiso University

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 14:59:12 -0600
From:    Drew Halevy <[email-masked]>
Subject: what if-the atlantic wall

I have started reading Steven Ambrose's D-Day, and I had a what-if
question. In the book, he states that some German generals wanted to hold
their forces in reserve (specifically tanks) and the most likely points
for an Anglo-American landing (spec. Calis). what if the German generals
had

1. correctly guessed the landing site
2. had concentrated their best/strongest forces
3. had had some sort of air power to use against the landings.

would the Germans have stopped the landings, or would we have simple
worn them down, albeit at a much higher price.-Drew

Drew Philip Halevy      |  Well we're waiting here in Allentown
Grad Student            |  For the Pennsylvania we never found
Department of History   |  For the promises our teachers gave
University of Arkansas  |  If we worked hard
[email-masked]   |  If we behaved-            Billy Joel

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 15:20:37 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: bersagliere(sp!)

Hello, Harold!

Will see what I can find. The Bersaglieri were mountain troops and
wore distinctive head gear, etc. Will look into it for you, but it
may take literally a day or two, as I am busy with school and I have
a meeting tonight I must attend. Will get back with you, if someone
else hasn't.

Terry

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 15:25:26 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: bersagliere(sp!)

Hello, Harold!

I see that Mike has already e-mailed you a very good post on this. I
will continue to see what I can find, but will only send what I can
add to this excellent post.

Terry

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 14:28:53 EST
From:    "SGM Robert S. Rush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Help for Veterans Day Speech

I have been asked to give a Veterans Day Speech in Chisolm, Minnesota.
My initial thoughts were to take vignettes occurring during World War
II, Korea, Viet Nam and Desert Storm that happened on 11 November.

If any members of the list have any suggestions or events to tell
please send me a post.

Thanks in advance
Robert Rush

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 15:38:08 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 49,000 lb Bomb

Hello, Joe!

> assume that the B-29 could carry such a monster (notice I used the word
> "assume") since I have pictures of B-29's carrying two 22,000 lb Grand Slams
> slung outside of the bomb bay between the fuselage and the inboard engines (I'm
> not saying it flew, as this was a ground photo).

    Since you are asking for opinions. I don't think even the B-29
could have carried this bomb without significant modifications, and I
mean major ones. Even if it could get off the ground, it would
require a longer runway to gain enough speed before it could and,
once airborne, performance would be affected to the detriment of the
aircraft and crew.

    Thanks for allowing my opinion.

    Terry

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 16:41:02 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: question-- aircraft

In recent reading (C.A. MacCartney's "October 15th: A History Of Modern Hungary
1929-45") I came across references to two types of German-designed aircraft
produced in Hungary under a joint armaments production plan, and I am completelyunfamiliar with the types mentioned.  Anyone out there ever hear of the Me-102
or the FW-58??  These apparently began volume production in 1943.  At first I
thought the Me-102 was a typo for the Me-109 (which the Hungarians both used andbuilt under license), but it appears twice within two pages the same way, and onone of these pages there is a footnote referring to the Me-109F correctly
(hey, Greg, they're saying the Hungarian air force got stuck with a batch of
second-hand Me-109F's that your Rumanian fly-boys had already worn out!!).
So I'm confused.  I also thought it could be a typo for the Me-210, which the
Hungarians also built, but that type is also correctly referred to in the same
sentence as the "me-102" Most of these Me-102's, BTW, were built for German,
not Hungarian, use...  So if anybody out there can tell me if such an aircraft
as the Me-102 or the Focke-Wulf 58 existed, and/or give me some basic performance specs, I'd be my usual grateful self...

Thanks in advance

Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 16:39:21 -0500
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: bersagliere(sp!)

Robert T. Moore <[email-masked]> writes:
> Will see what I can find. The Bersaglieri were mountain troops and

Those were the Alpini.
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
You're a good man, Mulligan.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 16:36:50 -0500
From:    Georges Grenon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Birthday

> >Hey Ben,  time to remind all the non-Marines that they only have 8 more
> >shopping days to remember us on the Marine Corps Birthday  (10 November
> >1776 for those of you who don't know).
>>
Is the Marine birthday 10 November 1776 or 1775

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:06:01 -0500
From:    David Rising <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Untold Stories

Thanks to Doug for these great and lengthy posts. They were fantastic
reading. Cheers,
David Rising

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:13:02 EST
From:    Brian Nicklas <[email-masked]>
Subject: question-- aircraft

The Fw 58 was known as the "Weihe" and was an equivalent to the Beech C-45.
It was used as a bomber trainer, liason, light transport, air-sea rescue
spotter.  Low-wing monoplane, retractable gear, small engines.
Also used in South America!  (Built under lic. there)
I can find no mention of a Me 102.
Ref- Willy Messerschmitt - Pionier der Luftfahrt und des Leichtbaues
H Ebert, JB Kaiser, K Peters - Bernard & Graefe Verlag Bonn.
German Aircraft of the Second World War - Smith & Kay, Putnam, London

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 23:26:31 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: question-- aircraft

On Tue, 1 Nov 1994, Mike Yaklich wrote:

> In recent reading (C.A. MacCartney's "October 15th: A History Of
> Modern Hungary
> 1929-45") I came across references to two types of German-designed aircraft
> produced in Hungary under a joint armaments production plan, and I am
> completely unfamiliar with the types mentioned.  Anyone out there ever
> hear of the Me-102
> or the FW-58??  These apparently began volume production in 1943.  At first I

The Fw 58 'Weihe', designed before WWII, was a twin-engined utility
aircraft, also used as trainer. It had two Argus As 10 air-cooled inline
engines, a crew of two, and could carry five passengers at a modest speed
of 265km/h. Range about 800km, ceiling 5400m.

I've never heard of a Me 102, or any other German WWII aircraft with the
number 102. Maybe the Me 108? That was a single-engined low-wing liaison
aircraft, with tail and wing similar to that of the Me 109. Many were
bilt in other countries.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 16:50:52 -0600
From:    Greg Kelley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Soviet infantry

In reference to Soviet penal battalions---

If memory serves, there were indeed field disciplinary i.e. penal
formations serving in the Red Army during the war.  As I recall they were
virtually death-sentence units, where the troops were unarmed and
escorted (prodded, forced, whatever) into battle by NKVD guards, to
either clear minefields or draw fire from enemy positions.  Very short
terms of duty--very high loss rate.

A series of three or four paperback novels about the exploits of one of
these battalions was published in England back in the late 1970's or
early 1980's, but all I remember was that they were SO bad that I gave up
before finishing the first title (and I've actually read Leo Kessler!).
  I mean, BAD-- lousy writing, wrong tech details, poor plot.  Nowhere near
 the level of Sven Hassel's series on the 27th Penal Panzer Regiment.

                                          Glad To Be Of Service!

                                          Greg Kelley
                                          St. Paul Public Library
                                          [email-masked]

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 21:14:00 EST
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: [INF] USAAF 2 NOV 44

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
THURSDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 1944
FTP SITES
  1. ftp.rutgers.edu in directory pub/wwii/usaf
  2. byrd.mu.wvnet.edu (129.71.32.152) in pub/history/military/airforce/
     wwii_chronology

AIRCRAFT MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT:
  B-17, Boeing Flying Fortress
  B-24, Consolidated Liberator
  B-25, North American Mitchell
  B-29, Boeing Superfortress
  C-47, Douglas Skytrain
  F-5, Lockheed Lightning
  F-6, North American Mustang
  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.

AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  ALASKA (Eleventh Air Force): In the Kurile Islands, 4 B-24s bomb Suribachi
on Paramushiru Island and Onnekotan Island; 4 B-25s on a photo and offensive
sweep bomb targets at Torishima Island and Hayakegawa setting fire to 15
buildings, including a cannery.

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA THEATER

  CHINA THEATER (Fourteenth Air Force): 100+ P-40s, P-51s, and P-38s on armed
reconnaissance over SW and SE China and N French Indochina attack targets of
opportunity in the Lungling and Mangshih, China area, knock out bridge at
Dara, Thailand and hit Nantingshun and Pinglo, China; in China, the fighter-
bombers also damage 4 factories at Kweilin, hit tanks and troop
concentrations N of town, attack targets of opportunity near Pinglo, Tahsu
and E of Yungfu, and the airfield, barracks, town area, and trains at Gia
Lam, French Indochina. In China, the 11th Bombardment Squadron (Medium),
341st Bombardment Group (Medium), moves from Yang Tong to Yangkai with B-25s;
the detachment of the 491st Bombardment Squadron (Medium), 341st Bombardment
Group (Medium), operating from Liuchow with B-25s, returns to base at
Yangkai.

  INDIA-BURMA THEATER (Tenth Air Force): In Burma, 80+ P-47s hit a variety of
targets; the fighter-bombers bomb a bridge at Ho-hko, support ground forces
at Myothit, bomb supply dumps at Namdaungmawn, personnel and supply areas at
Naungletgyi and Mawtaung, knock out a bridge at Meza, hit nearby railroad
cars, attack airfields at Nawnghkio and Sinlanzu and strike boats and boxcars
S of Katha; 8 B-25s knock out 2 bridges at Tangon and Tantabin; a single B-25
bombs Indaw; transports fly 268 sorties to forward areas; HQ Tenth AF moves
from New Delhi, India to Myitkyina. In India, the 6th Fighter Squadron
(Commando), 1st Air Commando Group, based at Asansol, India with P-47s, sends
a detachment to operate from Cox's Bazar; the 317th Troop Carrier Squadron
(Commando), 2d Air Commando Group, arrives at Sylhet from the US with C-47s.

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

  AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (IX Troop Carrier Command): In France, HQ 440th Troop
Carrier Group moves from Le Mans to Orleans; the 302d Troop Carrier Squadron,
441st Troop Carrier Group, moves from St Marceau to Dreux with C-47s.

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): HQ Eighth AF is ordered to
increase the size of the 406th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), VIII Fighter
Command, the night leaflet squadron, as the liberation of Europe and the
conquest of Germany accelerate.
  2 missions are flown.
  Mission 698: 1,174 bombers and 968 fighters in 5 forces are dispatched to
hit synthetic oil installations in C Germany and rail targets at Bielefeld,
Germany; an estimated 500 Luftwaffe fighters meet the bombers at Merseburg
and the AAF claims 163-40-52 Luftwaffe aircraft; 40 bombers and 16 fighters
are lost:
  1. 460 B-17s are dispatched to the Leuna oil installation at Merseburg
(383) using PFF; targets of opportunity are Halle (23), Wolfenbuttel (13) and
other (17); they claim 6-2-2 aircraft; 12 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond
repair and 339 damaged; 3 airmen are KIA, 13 WIA and 101 MIA. The Ninth AF
provides 31 of 34 P-38s and 433 of 483 P-51s as escort; they claim 46-3-10
aircraft in the air and 25-0-0 on the ground; 8 P-51s are lost (pilots MIA).
  2. 223 B-17s are dispatched to the Leuna oil installation at Merseburg
(210) using PFF; 5 others hit targets of opportunity; they claim 30-33-25
aircraft; 26 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair and 152 damaged; 11
airmen are WIA and 260 MIA. Escort is provided by 209 of 245 P-51s; they
claim 56-2-15 aircraft; 6 P-51s are lost (5 pilots MIA).
  3. 208 B-24s are dispatched to hit Bielefeld; 172 hit the primary, a
bridge, 10 hit the secondary, the marshalling yard, and 9 hit the town; all
attacks are with GH and visual; 17 B-24s are damaged. Escort is provided by
143 of 146 P-47s; 2 P-47s are lost.
  4. 131 of 146 B-24s hit the Rauxel oil installations at Castrop using GH; 1
B-24 is lost and 23 damaged; 1 airman is KIA, 2 WIA and 10 MIA. Escort is
provided by 37 of 40 P-47s without loss.
  5. 137 B-17s are dispatched to hit an oil installation at Sterkrade (107);
20 others hit the secondary, the Rheine marshalling yard; 1 B-17s is lost and
52 damaged; 9 airmen are MIA. Escort is provided by 20 of 20 P-47s without
loss.
  Mission 699: 3 B-17s and 5 B-24s drop leaflets during the night over the
Netherlands and Germany.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): In Germany, 147 bombers of the 9th
Bombardment Division, with fighter escort, attack rail bridges at Mayen,
Euskirchen, Bullay, Konz-Karthaus, and Trier. Fighters attack bridges, fly
armed reconnaissance and night patrol, and provide support for ground forces
in frontline areas.  In France, the 162d Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron,
363d Tactical Reconnaissance Group, moves from Dijon to Azelot with F-6s and
P-51s.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Fifteenth Air Force): Bad weather curtails operations.
In Austria,  5 B-17s bomb the Moosbierbaum oil refinery, while 2 others hit
an airfield N of the city and bomb Klagenfurt. 6 P-38s fly weather
reconnaissance missions.  All other operations are cancelled.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy, clouds over the Po
Valley prevent medium bomber operations; XXII Tactical Air Command aircraft
are also grounded due to unserviceable fields and bad weather over Italian
battle areas.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA)

  AAFPOA (Seventh Air Force): 11 Saipan Island, Mariana Islands-based B-24s
bomb Chichi Jima Island; 3 from Guam Island, on armed reconnaissance, hit
Marcus Island in the North Pacific Ocean.

  HQ AAF (Twentieth Air Force): 17 Mariana Islands-based B-29s bomb the
submarine pens on Dublon Island, Truk Atoll, Caroline Islands.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA [SWPA, Far East Air Force (FEAF)]: In the Philippine
Islands, B-24s over Ormoc Bay on Leyte Island attack a Japanese convoy,
claiming 1 transport sunk and another damaged; P-38s hit smaller shipping in
Ormoc Bay, strafe vehicles from Ormoc to Valencia, Mindanao Island, and bomb
San Enrique; on Mindanao Island, B-25s pound Matina, Libby, Davao and Likanan
Airfields; the 17th Reconnaissance Squadron (Bombardment), 71st Tactical
Reconnaissance Group, arrives at Tacloban, Leyte Island from Biak Island with
B-25s; the 432d Fighter Squadron, 475th Fighter Group, arrives at Dulag,
Leyte Island from Biak Island with P-38s. During the night of 2/3 Nov B-24s
bomb Makassar on Celebes Island, concentrating on the wharf area. The 17th
Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron, 4th Photographic Group
(Reconnaissance), arrives on Morotai Island from Guadalcanal Island, Solomon
Islands  with B-25s and F-5s (detachments are operating from Bougainville
Island, Solomon Islands and Sansapor, New Guinea).

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

02/0214Z NOV

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 21:21:28 EST
From:    William Lippert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Hisler successor

On Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:19:43 GMT-6 Robert T. Moore said:
>Hello, Greg!
>
>Would like to add a thought here to your fine post.
>
>> Heydrich as Fuehrer??  An intriguing, if frightening concept.  I suppose
>> it would depend on what year Hitler dies (and what Heydrich is up to
>> other than serving as a pincushion for horsehair in Prague)  I would
>> guess that prior to, say, 1941, Heydrich was still too much of a small
>> bit player to carry that sort of weight.
>
>    Not really. Please don't forget the reason why Heydrich was sent
>to Prague,i.e. to get him out of Berlin. Heydrich kept a dossier on
>all the ranking Nazis and/or anyone else he felt required such
>attention.
>
>
> Certainly by 1942 he would be a
>> factor to figure in such matters, but I'd think more along the line of as
>> a likely successor (or maybe ally/adversary) to Himmler.
>
>    Yes and no to that. Perhaps to Himmler for certain, but with
>goods on all those around him, it would have been a simple matter to
>play one off on the other (similar to what Stalin did in Russia in
>the 1920's) to come out on top. There is no doubt, given Heydrich's
>gift and craft for security matters, that he could very easily wound
>up succeeding Hitler, even if it amounted to a struggle for power.
>
>
> A fun line to
>> pursue would be an ascending Heydrich 1942-on, with Himmler losing out
>> and ultimately replaced, all while Hitler's still alive.  THEN if/when
>> something happens to Hitler, Heydrich would be higher up in the chain of
>> command.
>
>    I don't think it would have really mattered. Heydrich was a very
>powerful and influential person, even at the level he occupied.
>
>Terry

   I feel the need to add to this discussion because my friend is in Prague
and should be going to see that turn where Heydrich was assinated.
   When Hitler was removed from power is the most essential element of this
debate.  From 1933-1940 or so, the other Nazi big-wigs had too much power
and influence.  Not to detract from Heydrich's abilities, but Goebbels,
Himmler, Hess, and particularly Goering had the advantage of being public
figures and somewhat liked.  In these days, Heydrich was a shadowman.  As
totalitarian as Germany was, I think in 1940 the German people would have
had an indirect say as to who took over - and my first guess would be
Goering, particularly as Hitler had more or less articulated this.
   But by 1942 or definitely 1943, the German people were more or less
apathetic to who was in charge - the most important thing was making it
through alive and seeing a good end to the war.  Thus, popularity would
play a lesser role.  In this case, it is likely that Heydrich could have
taken over, though the fact that he never really commanded a large following
either in the public or the Party cannot be forgotten.  All of his accomlishmen
ts were based on his intellect and will - these are not enough to take over
a country.
   Someone mentioned that he was so powerful that he was shafted with the
Czech protector job.  This is not true as he still retained his job as
Reich Central Security Office director at the same time.  From 0600 - 1300
he would work in Prague and then he'd fly into Berlin for a while.  When
he got bored, he'd take some combat flights using his status as a Luftwaffe
reservist.
   In conclusion, Heydrich probably would not have come to power any earlier
than 1942, when the began to take turns for the worst and the bigwigs were
being discredited.  Even then, I'm not sure he would have wanted that power,
though I could be wrong here.  What I wonder most of all is: could he have
changed the fate of the Reich and what kind of Fuhrership would he have?

William Lippert
The American University

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 21:37:00 EST
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: CVE-114

The following are the highlights in the life of Rendova Bay (CVE-114).

 9 Jul 42: Commencement Bay Mosser Bay, Aircraft Escort Vessel No. 114
           (AVG-114) authorized
20 Aug 42: Redesignated Mosser Bay, Auxiliary Aircraft Carrier No. 114
           (ACV-114)
15 Jul 43: Redesignated Mosser Bay, Escort Aircraft Carrier No. 114
           (CVE-114)
 6 Nov 43: Renamed Rendova (CVE-114)
15 Jun 44: Keel laid as Rendova (CVE-114) at Todd-Pacific Shipyards, Inc.,
           Tacoma, Washington
25 Jan 45: Ship launched
22 Oct 45: Ship commissioned
   Apr 46: On West Coast as stationary flagship of CARDIV 15 until early
           1947
       47: Commences operations on West Coast and Hawaii
   Apr 48: Transports aircraft to Turkey via the Panama Canal
   Jul 48: Returns to West Coast, via Suez Canal, Indian and Pacific
           Oceans
   Aug 48: Cruise to Tsingtau, China
   Jan-Apr 49: In Western Pacific
   Oct 49: On the West Coast
27 Jan 50: Ship decommissioned
 3 Jan 51: Ship recommissioned
   Aug 51: At Yokosuka, Japan, Okinawa and Kobe, Japan; embarked VMF-212
           with F4U Corsairs and flew combat missions in Korea
   Dec 51: Returned to West Coast
   Jan 52: Training operations off the West Coast
   Sep 52: Participated in A-bomb test in the Marshall Islands\
       53: Placed in commission in reserve and continued training
           operations off West Coast
       54: Returned to active fleet; deployed to W Pacific as a
           hunter-killer carrier
  Jun-Oct 54: On the West Coast
 2 Feb 55: Decommissioned
 7 May 59: Reclassified Cargo Ship and Aircraft Ferry No. 15 (AKV-14)
 1 Apr 71: Name struck from Naval Register

As I said, this is a brief summary.  There is a little more information in
Volume VI of the DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN NAVAL FIGHTING SHIPS and I can scan
it in and send it to whomever wants it.  Please advise.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
|  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:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:47:53 -1000
From:    Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Birthday

On Tue, 1 Nov 1994, Georges Grenon wrote:

> > >Hey Ben,  time to remind all the non-Marines that they only have 8 more
> > >shopping days to remember us on the Marine Corps Birthday  (10 November
> > >1776 for those of you who don't know).
> >>
> Is the Marine birthday 10 November 1776 or 1775
>
It is 10 November 1775.  It was called the Continetal Marines then.

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:52:48 -1000
From:    Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Marine Corps Birthday

On Tue, 1 Nov 1994, Cheryl Kaye Bryant wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Oct 1994, Jim Adams wrote:
>
> > Hey Ben,  time to remind all the non-Marines that they only have 8 more
> > shopping days to remember us on the Marine Corps Birthday  (10 November
> > 1776 for those of you who don't know).
>
>
> Jim,
> I wonder if that means we here at Western Illinois University should
> prepare to celebrate it - considering that we are the only civilian
> school that has permission to use the name Leathernecks for their sports
> teams.
>
> C.K. Bryant

That is a good enough reason to me to celebrate the Birthday.  Besides,
I had a SSgt Bryant that worked for me once, so there is another
connection for you.

Aloha>

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:59:24 -1000
From:    Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: USMC Birthday

MC Killop asked what I wanted for my birthday.

since the Marine Corps was founded in a bar, Tun's Tavern in
Philadelphia, it is "historically" appropriate to take any Marine out to
your local gin mill and hoist a few in honor of all past and present Marines.

Semper Fi

****************************************************************************
Jim Adams                       [email-masked]
Cultural Resource Manager
USS Arizona Memorial, NPS       (808) 422-2771  extension 130
1 Arizona Memorial Place
Honolulu, Hawaii 96818
****************************************************************************

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 18:03:35 -1000
From:    Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Pearl Harbor

Today I was thinking of a historical paradox.  As I stood on the back
lawn of the Arizona Memorial Visitors' Center I watched a Japanese
destroyer with her rising sun naval battle ensign sail past the
Memorial.  Yesterday's enemies are todays friends; todays friends are
tomorrows enemies.

****************************************************************************
Jim Adams                       [email-masked]
Cultural Resource Manager
USS Arizona Memorial, NPS       (808) 422-2771  extension 130
1 Arizona Memorial Place
Honolulu, Hawaii 96818
****************************************************************************

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

Date:    Tue, 1 Nov 1994 23:35:29 -0500
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: MARINE CORPS BIRTHDAY

Jim, you will be sent a mebership application for the Marine Corps Historical
Foundation from Quantico. I received your honors thesis today and have given it
to an Edson's Raider to read. He is a volunteer in the Center. Also, today I
sent out your copy of "Herringbone Cloak--GI Dagger." Enjoy. Ben Frank

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 31 Oct 1994 to 1 Nov 1994
************************************************