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

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 00:01:06 -0500

There are 23 messages totalling 772 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Waffen-SS (5)
  2. INF: USN Chronology 11-27-94
  3. Weaps: Battleships (2)
  4. INF: 50 Years Ago - 28-NOV-1944
  5. 22d in the Hurtgen 27 Nov 44
  6. Walter Model (2)
  7. What-if?-a double question (2)
  8. SS,German Resistance and concentration camps
  9. Hollywood in World War II
 10. Spitfire vs Mustang
 11. Weaps: RE: Battleships
 12. ACES:
 13. HOLLYWOOD IN WORLD
 14. SS,German Resistance and ...
 15. Conscientious Objectors
 16. "Fatherland"

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

Date:    Fri, 25 Nov 1994 08:33:35 MST
From:    Eric Pass <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Waffen-SS

I just ran across a reference to multi-national SS units in
Barry Leach's "German Strategy Against Russia: 1939-1941" which
I'm actually reading for fun!

He mentions Dutch, French and a couple of other nationalities.
His reference is "Das Heer".  I'm not familiar enough with the subject
to know whether this is a seminal work but I'd be happy yo provide
more information if requested.

Eric ([email-masked])

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 04:00:15 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 11-27-94

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

1944
11/27 Mon. Destroyers bombard Japanese positions at Ormoc Bay,
           Leyte P. I.; firing continues on 28 November.
           Japanese suicide planes attack and damage 1
           battleship and 2 cruisers in Leyte Gulf, P. I. Enemy
           aircraft also strike airfields and aircraft on the
           ground at Saipan, Marianas Islands.
           Organized enemy resistance on Peleliu, Palau Islands,
           ends.
            United States naval vessels sunk:
             Submarines ESCOLAR (SS-294) and Shark (SS-314),
              Pacific Ocean area, reported as presumed lost.
             Submarine chaser SC-744, by suicide plane, Leyte
              gulf area
              10 d. 44'N., 125 d. 07'E.
            United States naval vessels damaged, Leyte Gulf, P.
             I:
             Battleship COLORADO (BB-45), by suicide plane,
              10 d. 50'N., 125 d. 25'E.
             Light cruisers ST. LOUIS (CL-49) and MONTPELIER
              (CL-57), by suicide planes,
              10 d. 50'N., 125 d. 25'E.

Information compiled by U.S. Navy Historians.  For more information,
contact the Naval Historical Center at (202) 433-3940.
Archived by: Larry Jewell <[email-masked]>
Posted by:
Theron P. Keller
Logicon, Inc.
Dahlgren, VA  22448 USA
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 05:22:52 -0600
From:    Drew Halevy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Weaps: Battleships

(i hope that this question falls under the pervue of the list since the
ship in question was built in  1925)

This weekend I bought Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II, and on the
back is a photograph of the HMS Rodney. I noticed that the Rodney had a
unique config. for its main guns (see below) and I have a few questions
that I hope some of you might be able to answers-

                   ---[===]
            ---[===]   | |  ---[===]
   -------------------------------------------
    \            1      2        3

The Rodney has the unique layout of having all the turrets in the fore
part of the ship. This raises the following questions-

woulden't this layout present the following problems-

1. when a battleship fires in main guns, i know that the ship tends to move
sideways. In a standard config., you can fire fore-aft-fore and this
somewhat balance the sideways movement. If you fired all three turrets at
once on the Rodney, would the move sideways be magnified?

2. Would putting all the weight (turrets, armor belt, etc) in one place
effect the handling of the ship (is center of gravity an issue for a ship?)

3. Since all the turrets are forward, isen't the ship exposed aft, since
none of the turrets can transverse rear, since the superstructure is in
the way?

4. Since all the turrets are grouped together, isen't there more of a
risk of all three being knocked out be a direct hit on, say, number 2 turret?

If my questions are valid, then why was the ship built this way (in fact
two ships, the Nelson and the Rodney). Thanks in advance to all-Drew

Drew Philip Halevy      | I am become death
Grad Student            | The Shatterer of worlds
Department of History   | Waiting that hour
University of Arkansas  | That ripens to their doom
[email-masked]   | Trinity-July 1945

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 03:32:26 -0800
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 28-NOV-1944

On 28-NOV-1944, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - The first Allied convoy reaches Antwerp. The advance of the
VII and V Corps continues in the Inden river and Hurtgen forest sectors.
Units of the 95th Division cross the German frontier. The 101st Division
moves to Burbach to reinforce the 4th Armoured Division east of the river
Saar. In the US 7th Army sector, the French 2nd Armoured Division reaches
the Erstein sector, about 10 miles southwest of Strasbourg,  where it runs
into the German 19th Army and are brought to a halt.

Eastern Front - The Russian advance reaches Pecs after capturing Mohacs on
the Danube just north of the confluence of the Drava.

Italian Front - The British XIII Corps reaches Casola Valsenio.

Philippines (Leyte) - During the night the Japanese attack in force to
recapture Kilray Ridge. They succeed in capturing some ground and also cut
off some American units. The US 12th Cavalry Regiment advances very slowly
in the area of Mount Badian. The Japanese also attack towards the Buri and
Bayug airfields but are held up by the US XXIV Corps.

China - The Japanese 11th Army pushes northwards from Nanning in the
province of Kwangsi.

Burma - The Chinese 38th Divison puts pressure on the northern defences of
Bhamo.

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

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 and "Time" magazine.

Previous articles are archived at ftp.webcom.com in directory /pub/jbd/www
and can be accessed via the WWW by URL: http://www.webcom.com/~jbd/ww2.html.

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

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 10:54:27 EST
From:    "SGM Robert S. Rush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: 22d in the Hurtgen 27 Nov 44

22d Infantry in the Hurtgen Forest 27 November 1944

On the twenty-seventh, Lanham again ordered the 1st Battalion to close the gap
between the 2d and 3d Battalions.  Nothing had changed from the day before.
There still was only enough room to commit one company.  This time Baker
Company received the mission.

Halfway to the objective, Baker Company's attack was stopped by German
machine-gun crossfire and artillery when it attempted to cross the open ground.
 Casualties were heavy with the company losing fifty-four out of seventy-nine
soldiers, including the Lieutenant Donald Dickenson, the company commander, and
two other officers.  Seventeen of the eighteen men in the 1st Platoon were
killed or wounded.  The 2d Platoon tried to cross the same open ground and
received almost the same treatment, with only twelve coming back.  The
desperate fighting stopped only when a German medic helped carry a wounded
American back into the American lines.  The company reorganized and tried again
with the remaining thirty soldiers.

The advance resumed when Marcario Garcia, a Private First Class squad leader
who began the battle as a scout, single handedly destroyed one machinegun
holding up his company.  After being wounded by another machinegun, he went
back into the woods and destroyed it gun also.  The army later recognized his
bravery with the Medal of Honor.  The remaining soldiers of the company moved
forward to the neck of woods located just west of Grosshau, and dug in.

With Baker Company battling for its life, Lanham directed the 2d Battalion to
attack north against the flank of the resistance holding up the company.
Lieutenant Colonel Kenan ordered Easy Company, a quarter of a mile south of
Baker Company, to hurry to the assistance of the beleaguered company.  Easy's
company commander, Captain Donald Faulkner, left his company headquarters and
weapons platoon to hold the company's original position, and he and his three
rifle platoons, totaling about three officers and forty-five men, ran north to
the road.  In his diary, he wrote,

"We moved out at the double and down into a stream draw.  I thought "this is a
natural spot for a mortar concentration," and either the Kraut's had mental
telepathy or good observation, for immediately a heavy mortar concentration
swished in through the trees, smack dab on top of the command group.  My
runner, carrier, was injured at my side and Peters was killed next to me.  We
kept going and came in on the run to a picture of real carnage--arms,
equipment, dead and wounded, Jerrys and GIs strewn all through the woods.
Blasted trees, gaping shell holes, and the acrid smell and smoke of small arms
and mortar fire completed the terr. Company B remnants--2 lieutenants and 15 to
20 enlisted. . . .  This was no picnic."

The two companies in this attack totaled about seventy soldiers, less than two
full-strength platoons.  Although desperately undermanned, they continued to
move forward until it became impossible.

It appeared likely Baker and Easy Companies would be counterattacked like
Charlie Company had been the day before.  Lanham ordered the ground held at all
cost. The regiment and battalion headquarters made every effort to get armor
and anti-tank guns forward, but the tank and tank destroyer crews were
unwilling to move forward because they thought the road was not clear of mines.
 To prove the road clear, Lieutenant William Jourdan from the regiment's
Anti-Tank Company single-handedly drove a halftrack up to the front line
pulling an anti-tank gun.  Embarrassed by Jourdan, four tanks and two tank
destroyers then followed and took their place in the woods. After eleven days
in the forest, the 22d had established a continuous front at the edge of the
forest facing Grosshau, the regiment's second-day objective.

Although the 1st Battalion had conducted the main attacks on 26 and 27
November, the other two battalions, especially the 3d Battalion in the north,
continued to suffer heavy casualties from artillery.  Because of the reduced
strength in all of his regiments, General Barton shortened the regimental
sectors, leaving 22d with a sector only 1200 yards wide.

The 22d's losses were again heavy considering the modest gain.  One hundred and
fifty-two soldiers were reported killed, wounded or missing on the
twenty-seventh.  Actual casualties for 26 and 27 November amounted to 13
officers and 239 enlisted, or the equivalent of three of the companies
currently fighting in the forest. The division personnel officer (G1) sent 220
replacements to the regiment during the night.  Easy Company for the first time
moved replacements to the front without suffering a single casualty.  The 1st
Battalion was not so fortunate and reported almost half of the replacements
sent forward during the day as casualties.  Captain William Surratt, the Able
Company Commander, was evacuated when a 120mm mortar round landed beside his
foxhole.  By 27 November, more than half the soldiers in the regiment had
fallen; in fact almost as many replacements (1640) had arrived as there were
soldiers in all the rifle companies at full strength. (1737)

The terrible beating Lanham's soldiers were taking must have weighed heavily on
his mind.  When the VII Corps Commander, Major General J. Lawton Collins,
visited the 22d Command Post on the twenty-seventh, he asked Lanham how many
days of fight the regiment had left in it.  Lanham replied "About three, if
they are very rough days"  Later in the day when talking with Colonel Chance of
the 12th Infantry, Lanham expressed reservations about his regiment's chances
of success in attacking Grosshau:

"We haven't enough stuff to take Hill 90. . . . We are on edge of Grosshau. . .
.  Don't know how far we will get as enemy is looking down our throats from all
angles."

Lanham's comments to General Barton were of the same vein:

Blue [3d Bn] is battered pretty badly. . . . [Lanham] Believe that Blue's
effectiveness will cease after an hour and a half--getting shelled too
heavily--the town isn't anything.  If we get the town we will get beaten to
death.

Lanham was clearly attempting to forestall the attack on Grosshau.

The 22d awaited the order to attack Grosshau, but it did not come.  However,
everyone assumed that when the 12th Infantry came abreast on the left and the
5th Armored Division took Kleinhau, General Barton would order Grosshau taken.
North of Grosshau lay a ridgeline dominated by Hill 90, where German units were
able to both look down into the 22d's sector and cover Grosshau and its western
approaches.  From this hill the 1st and 3d Battalions lived under continual
observation and fire. Lanham dreaded the order because a crossfire from the
village and the hill would decimate any unit attacking Grosshau from the north,
just as a crossfire had ripped the 3d Battalion on 25 November.

>From Paschendale with Treebursts,

Rob Rush,

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 14:24:53 -0500
From:    Pulp-Fiction <[email-masked]>
Subject: Walter Model

Can anyone give me info on Fieldmarshall Walter Model.There is a biog on
him in German, i need one in english, any ideas?

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 13:05:11 -0500
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Waffen-SS

>
> Ok, I'll add a few lines to answer Christopher's mail :
>
> Christopher Morton <[email-masked]> writes:
> > >
> > > Christopher Morton <[email-masked]> writes:
> > >
> > > > As for the Charlemagne division, there was always considerable pro-Nazi
> > > > sentiment in France.  Remember, the French were sending the Germans Jews
> > y
> > > > didn't even ask for.
>
>
> The French Vichy regime collaborated is a great national shame which, yes,
> the French still find hard to digest and often try to avoid.
> Unlike the French, the Danes refused collaboration, the Danish police
> preferred to be interned rather than carry out orders to arrest the Jews
> -unlike the French police who obeyed-, and their King protested actively.
> So there is plenty for the French people to be ashamed of.
> However, cowardice and abandon of their folk cannot be equated with Nazism.

However, more than a few Frenchman shared at least some of the values of the
Nazis, especially those who joined the Milice and SS Regt. Charlemagne.

French cooperation with the Gestapo was seen as sufficient to warrant the
development of a suppressed version of the Erma EMP submachinegun, for use
almost exclusively by Vichy security forces.
>
> > > ruled the State at the time. Calling them "The French" is a gross error, an
> > > can be compared  with calling the KKK "The Americans". I am myself of a
> > > partly Jewish family and know no French Jews who view the French people
> > > as "considerably" pro-Nazi or antisemitic.
> > >
> > I think that they can as fairly be called the French as those who deported th
> > Japanese-Americans can be called the Americans.
>
>
> No. Laval, Deat, Doriot, Darnant, and other French racists, were never
> elected to power. Petain, brought to the fore by the elected 1936 Chamber
> of Deputies, is another matter, and a great French object of shame.
>
The point is, just as there were more than enough Americans willing to heard
the Japanese-Americans into concentration camps at bayonet point, there were
more than enough Frenchmen willing to do worse.

> I personally wouldn't conclude from the deportation of the Japanese-Americans
> that the Americans were racists. Similarly, that some Frenchmen deported
> Jews cannot lead to the hasty conclusion that the French were either.
> Things are more complex.

I WOULD conclude that racism was a strong force in the United States at the
time of the Japanese internment.  That was the ONLY rational explanation for
the internment... and the absence of a corresponding round up of
German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Hungarian-Americans, Romanian-Americans,
etc., etc., etc.

I don't have any problem admitting this.

> I will let you imagine a scenario. Germany invades the United States in 1944
> and sets up a puppet regime, sponsors the KKK leaders up the ladder of the
> administration and the police, and these newly-appointed high civil servants
> order the million American Jews to the camps. Can I later write that "The
> Americans were anti-semitic ?". This would be quite a grave distortion of
> History, by ignoring the nature of the body of governement.
>
Yes you could, because the KKK had wide popular support in the early and middle
parts of this century.  In a lot of Southern towns, you went to the POLICE
STATION to join the Klan.

> By such a vague word as "many" what do you mean exactly ? If you mean "most"
> you are certainly in error. If you mean "some" you are right.
>
Most and many are different words with different meanings.  I think that most
Germans (in excess of 50%) supported Hitler.  I think that many Frenchmen
(enough to get the jobs done) supported the Nazis.  That doesn't mean ALL, nor
does it mean one or two.

> Just saw figures that in September 1944, 60% of the French were in favour of
> acquitting Petain (!), while condemning Laval and others to Death. Is this
> enough to convince you that the bulk of the people were "confused" ?
>
I'd be more interested in the stated motivations.

> > > Remember that the French were predominantly anti-German at the time. Deat,
> > > Doriot and other French Nazis were sponsored by the Germans and never enjoy
> > > great popular support.
> > >
> > This is a matter of contention, hardly settled.
>
> No.
> What is a matter of strong contention, especially at the moment, is why the
> French reacted so little to such people's decisions, why they regarded them
> as "respectable citizens" for so long (the Mitterrand controversy, Francois
> Mitterrand - an anti-nazi -, having had a long friendship with Touvier,
> a pro-Nazi), and take so long to bring some to trial, and why France
> generated some Nazi sympathizers.
>
This is gone into extensively in the "New York Review of Books" article.

> That pro-Nazi movements represented minorities in France or that the majority of
> the French had little sympathy for the Germans has never been a "matter of
> contention" among Historians.
>
I never said that pro-Nazis were a majority.  I have said that they were a
significant minority.

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 16:00:26 -0600
From:    Drew Halevy <[email-masked]>
Subject: What-if?-a double question

Assuming that there was no atomic bomb and if George Patton had lived,
would he have fought in the Pacific, and how would he have done?-Drew

Drew Philip Halevy      | I am become death
Grad Student            | The Shatterer of worlds
Department of History   | Waiting that hour
University of Arkansas  | That ripens to their doom
[email-masked]   | Trinity-July 1945

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 14:10:31 -0800
From:    Jim Curry <[email-masked]>
Subject: Waffen-SS

Is anyone aware of any US citizens serving in the Waffen-SS?  I understand
attempts were made to recruit from American POWs. Also there may have been
Germans who had acquired  American citizenship,later returned to the Reich,
and joined the SS.  J.Lee Ready's fascinating book _Forgotten Axis_ implies
that there were Americans in the Waffen-SS but gives no names or details.
 It appears from Dmitri Volkogonov's recent researches that some American
citizens serving in the Wehrmacht were captured by the Russians.  Any
such persons would of course have been in serious trouble with the US
government, having committed  treason according to the definition written
into the Constitution.

Jim Curry

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

Date:    Mon, 28 Nov 1994 09:28:54 +1100
From:    John Foster <[email-masked]>
Subject: SS,German Resistance and concentration camps

     I was interested to read in the 50 year post about the anouncement in 1944
about the lage scale killing of people going on in the Reich. i had been
reading a book called "A Spy for God" which details the story of Kurt Gerstein
who as a Christian youth worker had been arrested and maltreated several times
over his vocal denigration of the authorities. He realised that such opposition
just resulted in arrest and death and wanted to do more that was effective. His
sister in law was one of the people from the assylums who were put to death and
he decided on a course of obtaining information to penetrate the veil of
secrecy prevailing and to get the German people to voice their opposition. To
this end he used bribes and family influence to join the SS and get through the
basic training. Because he was a mining engineer and had studied medicine he
was posted to the Hygiene institute of the SS where he worked and schemed to be
able to have influence. A typhoid epidemic in the east and his handling of the
crisis by developing decontamination units and water filters drew him to the
attention of the higher up and he was able to travel freely and used forged
documents to reroute trains and to visit and recruit various resistance groups
and personnel
     He was visited by Gunther of Eichmans staff and ordered in his capacity of
decontamination expert to procure prussic acid and take it to Belzec under
strict secrecy where he was called upon to witness train loads of Jews being
executed by carbon monoxide and was being asked to report on its efficiency vs
prussic acid used elsewhere. The mental anguish can be imagined and he
contemplated suicide. He decided that he could do more alive than dead and if
he was found out friends and family would die as well. Did he improve things to
make them more efficient and help people (more) die quickly or did he leave it
in the hands of those who had no compassion for added suffering. He destroyed
as much of the prussic acid as he could by declaring it leaking etc. He soon
realised he was powerless to gain public support ( who would dare print or
broadcast what he said). He got word to resistance groups of what was going on
(1942) and to the Swiss and to the Swedes and to the Pope hoping the allies
would drop leaflets all over Germany to alert the people of this horrible
secret. The papal nuncio through him out and did not want to hear,the Swiss
were afraid of endangering the Geneva convention and the Swedes of their
neutrality. The allies had there own reasons which eventually saw them as per
the announcement in 1944 that they would punish the criminals but did not seem
to want to help the victims. Gerstein felt deserted and trapped in hell.
    There are a few interesting things highlighted in this account. Sidney may
be interested in reading it as it will give some idea of the amount and type of
resistance in Germany and the difficulties involved and the treatmrnt by the
allies of those who were.
   Towards the end of the war he was told to procure enough prussic acid to
kill the population of Berlin twice over and it was to be secretly housed in
Berlin. He managed to change this to get it housed at the camps and gradually
started to use it up in secret and did not claim for its purchase so no records
of what he was doing reached SS headquarters and this was later to put him in a
bad light. Was this part of Hitlers final solution for the German people as
well? The hair that was being collected in the camps he was told was for
submarines and secret. Does anyone have any ideas what this was for.
   Finally he committed suicide in 1945 and his wife was subsequently refused a
pension for him being in the SS despite many witnesses testifying of his
clandestine activities. The message was he shouldn't have done something so
foolish but should have done nothing which summed up the conservative nature of
the people and their respect for authority that allowed the whole thing to
happen.
   For those dicscussing the waffen SS he reported that all branches of the
services were impressed in to the SS at the end as well as the belgians and
Dutch and these people had no choice but were regarded subsequently as just the
same as all the rest.
  Terry do you know anything about this man?
Regards
 john Foster

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 15:19:02 -0800
From:    Jim Curry <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: What-if?-a double question

I'm not sure there was enough room in the Pacific Theater for two prima
donnas--MacArthur and Patton 8-).  More seriously, Patton would have
had a hard time applying his cavalryman's talents on the Pacific
battlefields.  Patton didn't shine at the kind of fighting prevalent there
after 1944.  Digging diehard Japanese out of their defenses pillbox by
pillbox and bunker by bunker was not the kind of war he liked.  Patton
scorned fortifications--but his performance against the Metz fortress
complex late in 1944 was his least impressive in his career as a commander.
Jim Curry

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 15:30:39 -0800
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Waffen-SS

Arnaud...
        I support your views entirely. The large numbers of French who
made armed resistance against the German occupation should not be overshadowed
or tarnished by collaborateurs.
        Those who fought in the FFI (Maquis), the Communist resistance, and
as individuals helping Allied airmen escape capture at risk of their own
lives are a far mor typical symbol of the people of France during the Nazi
regime.
        It suits revisionists to lump all Frenchmen together -- patriots and
collaborateurs alike -- today, but any like yourself who has actual knowledge
may still hold your head high.

        Memories of the Maquis will endure long after the odious Milice or
the shameful Charlemagne SS.

Best regards -- Sidney Allinson.

--

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 15:34:49 -0800
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Hollywood in World War II

AS I recall, it was Francis Langford who travelled as singer with Bob Hope
doing USO tours to entertain sevicemen in WW2.
And, would you believe, Marlene Dietrich was a tireless traveller entertaining
US troops during the war. She had been wise enough to take American citizenship,
but word has it Marlene was on Adolph's hit-list for her efforts.

--

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 15:46:55 -0800
From:    Jim Curry <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Walter Model

Have you seen _Hitler's Generals_,edited by Corelli Barnett?  There is
a good chapter on Model in this book.  I don't think any book on Model
alone is available in English.
Jim Curry

On Sun, 27 Nov 1994, Pulp-Fiction wrote:

> Can anyone give me info on Fieldmarshall Walter Model.There is a biog on
> him in German, i need one in english, any ideas?
>

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

Date:    Mon, 28 Nov 1994 00:49:32 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Weaps: Battleships

On Sun, 27 Nov 1994, Drew Halevy wrote:

> If my questions are valid, then why was the ship built this way (in fact
> two ships, the Nelson and the Rodney). Thanks in advance to all-Drew

The Washington naval treaty put a limit on the size of battleships:
35,000 tons. It was thought at the time that this would help halting the
battleship arms race and prevent the usage of 16in guns. The British,
working strictly by the rules of the treaty (they were the only ones to do
so) managed to put 16in guns on Nelson and Rodney, despite the
displacement limit. Having all turrets up front, and practically cutting
of the ship aft of the bridge, saved a lot of weight.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Mon, 28 Nov 1994 00:18:36 GMT+1
From:    SYSTEM OPERATOR <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Waffen-SS

> > That pro-Nazi movements represented minorities in France or that the majori
> of
> > the French had little sympathy for the Germans has never been a "matter of
> > contention" among Historians.
> >
> I never said that pro-Nazis were a majority.  I have said that they were a
> significant minority.

This is very exact and makes out points meet.

(I'll be away for a few days and won't be able to reply to your posts.
Please don't take this for ignorance).

Cheers,
Arnaud.

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

Date:    Mon, 28 Nov 1994 12:39:37 EST
From:    David Murnain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Spitfire vs Mustang

>A quick question. Why could the American Mustang penetrate so far into
>German airspace, while the British Spitfire seemed to be confined to a
>purely defensive role?  My question is based on observations of both
>aircraft, which appear to be roughly the same size.
>Gordon Stock on David Rising's e-mail

Quick answer - fuel capacity. The Spitfire was physically smaller than the
Mustang (but not by much). Adding the extra fuel tanks caused the same
sort of stability problems as described in Steve New's post and the
carriage of the extra fuel was never cleared for operational use by fighter
squadrons. With the Mustang drop tanks and behind-the-seat tank as in
the Mustang the Spitfire could fly as far as a Mustang.

For details, read the book "Spitfire" by Jeffrey Quill (who was the test pilot
for most Spitfire variants.

David M.
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 28 Nov 1994 13:04:12 EST
From:    David Murnain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Weaps: RE: Battleships

>woulden't this layout present the following problems-
>
>1. when a battleship fires in main guns, i know that the ship tends to move
>sideways. In a standard config., you can fire fore-aft-fore and this
>somewhat balance the sideways movement. If you fired all three turrets at
>once on the Rodney, would the move sideways be magnified?

Not really an issue. This is the sort of thing that the designers would have
allowed for. Also, similar configurations were used by the French in their
battleships and battlecruisers ( 2 x 4-gun turrets forward.)

>2. Would putting all the weight (turrets, armor belt, etc) in one place
>effect the handling of the ship (is center of gravity an issue for a ship?)

The weight distribution wasn't the problem, but it seems that the large
bridge structure acted like a sail and in certain conditions caused some
odd handling. (At least one grounding incident was blamed on this feature.)

>3. Since all the turrets are forward, isen't the ship exposed aft, since
>none of the turrets can transverse rear, since the superstructure is in
>the way?

A Royal Navy ship running from the enemy! Never!  :^). But realistically,
firing only to the rear is a very unlikely scenario. Most battleships would
fight either end-on over the bows (and then only when trying to close
the range) or within their A-arcs (ie basically broadsides). Besides, the
Nelson and Rodney didn't have the speed to outrun their opponents.

>4. Since all the turrets are grouped together, isen't there more of a
>risk of all three being knocked out be a direct hit on, say, number 2 turret?

It was a risk, partly justified by being able to offer a slightly higher level
of protection by needing to cover a smaller area with armour. The logic
follows the idea that the perimeter of one large box is smaller than that
of two smaller ones.

>If my questions are valid, then why was the ship built this way (in fact
>two ships, the Nelson and the Rodney). Thanks in advance to all-Drew

The designs were based on the earlier G3 battlecruisers that were never
built. To get the same level of protection and use the same guns, size and

speed were sacrificed to comply with the Washington Treaty. (hence one
of the nicknames for the pair were "the cherry trees" - ie cut down by
Washington.

And if you think that the Rodney looks odd, you should take a look at
some of the G and M class design sketches -turrets amidships with none
aft etc.

For details, try 'British Battleships of WWII' (forget the authors, but
published by Arms and Armour Press), 'British Battleships 1918-1939' by
Burt, (also Arms and Armour Press), or one of the general books on
battleships, eg Conway's, or Bayer etc.

David Murnain
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Sun, 20 Nov 1994 11:33:03 -0800
From:    Terry Yeung <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACES:

At 12:29 AM 11/19/94 -0500, chris garcia wrote:
>if he had taken his offer, his life might have been different.  Hartmann
>later on went on to fly jets for the new Luftwaffe.  He is alive somewhere
>in Germany today.

        I believe Hartmann went on to become the first commander of the
German jet fighter squadron after he returned to Germany.  He died recently
(6 months or so?).
--
Terry Yeung                             \ Internet: [email-masked]
Anime Expo '95 Registration Supervisor   \ Expo: [email-masked]

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 22:04:13 -0500
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: HOLLYWOOD IN WORLD

Jack, I believe the singer was Frances Langford. I recall Bob Hope visiting us
in the 1st Marine Division on Pavuvu before Okinawa, I believe, but I don't
recall her being with him. Jerry Colonna and the rest of the gang were. Hope
was the only big name who ever visited us. Ben Frank

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 22:08:10 -0500
From:    Ellen Shepard <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: SS,German Resistance and ...

I am interested in the German Resistance, especially regarding any women's
involvement.  I am looking for any information on this.  I am also looking
for any surviving women who were involved in the resistance and the Holocast.
 Thank you.

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 22:16:39 -0500
From:    Ellen Shepard <[email-masked]>
Subject: Conscientious Objectors

I am looking for any information regarding how women were effected by
Conscientious Objectors.  For example:  Many CO's were sent to stay with
Quaker families.  Do you have any information?  Thank you?

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

Date:    Sun, 27 Nov 1994 23:18:29 -0500
From:    Ellen Shepard <[email-masked]>
Subject: "Fatherland"

Last night on HBO there was an important original movie "Fatherland" starring
Miranda Richardson and Rutger Hauer.  It answered the question:  What if
Hitler had won?  Please try and see this important movie.  In this
presentation the premise was the Hitler had won the war, all of Europe was
called Germania, Joseph Kennedy was President of America, Hitler and Kennedy
were allies, and the Holocast was kept a secret.

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

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