Subject: WWII-L Digest - 21 Jan 1995 to 22 Jan 1995

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 00:00:23 -0500

There are 16 messages totalling 573 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Ref: Last Battlewagons
  2. Farewell BB's (Mighty Mo) (2)
  3. INFO
  4. INF: 50 Years Ago - 23-JAN-1945
  5. WANT: VFW/AL HQ
  6. INF: USN Chronology 01-22-95
  7. Farewell BB's (4)
  8. TRIV: Pacific Armor
  9. 50TH: HELPING THE
 10. HELP: Locating USAF personnel
 11. A-bomb, Should it have be...
 12. SUB: Effectiveness

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

Date:    Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:59:35 CST
From:    "SCHERRER, TIM" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ref: Last Battlewagons

In my Navy News I received today--the four remaining Battleships on the
Navy list have been sticken from it.  These are the New Jersey, the
Iowa, the Wisconsin and the fabled Missouri.  They are to be disposed of
accroding to disposal laws, however civilian agencies and municipalities
can take possession of them.  TAS

************************************************************************
*  Tim A. Scherrer          "You'll be fighting WWII for the rest of   *
*  Facilities Supervisor     your life", Ron Scherrer, 1971            *
*  WP:816-785-5253                                                     *
*  HP:816-665-6704                                                     *
*  ID# [email-masked]                             *
************************************************************************

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 01:10:24 -0500
From:    Jim Bowman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Farewell BB's (Mighty Mo)

She is across Puget Sound from Seattle at this time.  Bremerton WA and Pearl
Harbor are the leading contenders to become her final port.

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 05:52:00 UTC
From:    John Cantley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INFO

Hello everyone, figuring out the Listserv's. Have been on the Milhst-L for
awhile and thought I'd check out my special interest. I have been
researching quite a bit on WWII weapon systems, the problem I'm having is
finding information on production techniques. I know about some microfiche
at the National Archives (in German), about the German production levels and
some Strategic Bombing documents (where). In particular I'm looking for
information concerning how long it took to build different weapons. How
long, from start to finish, did it take to build a Pzkpfw IVe or the 8.8-cm
Flak 37, etc...

I'm looking for all countries.

John Cantley
 Student of WWII history

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 08:09:50 EST
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 23-JAN-1945

On 23-JAN-1945, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - In the British 2nd Army sector, the 7th Armoured Division
is still held up by strong German resistance near Montfort. The 52nd
Division clears the Aphove area with little difficulty and begins the
assault on Heinsberg. The 43rd Division takes Straeten and Scheifendahl
with ease. In the U.S. 1st Army sector, the 84th Division captures Ourthe.
The 7th Armoured Division takes St Vith. Southwest of St Vith, the 75th
Division takes Maldingen and Braunlauf. The 30th Division secures Weisten,
Crombach and Neundorf. In the 3rd Army sector, elements of the 6th Armoured
Division take Biwisch and Trois Vierges. Units of the 90th Division occupy
Basbellain and Binsfeld. The 4th Division takes Fuhren. Units of the 87th
Division occupy Wasserbillig. The Germans are mounting a strong
counterattck in the XX Corps area against the 94th Division and regain
Berg. In the French 1st Army sector, the 1st Moroccan Division crosses the
Ill River between Ilhaeusern and Illwald. The U.S. 3rd Division continues
driving south toward Canal de Colmar.

Eastern Front - In northeast East Prussia, the 3rd White Russian Front
takes Wehlau. The 2nd White Russian Front captures Ortelsburg and
progresses toward Elbing. The 1st White Russian Front takes the Polish
cities of Bromberg and Kalisz. The 1st Ukraine Front reaches the Oder River
line near Breslau on a 37-mile front. Germans fighting toward the Danube in
Hungary force the Russians from Szekesfehervar. The 2nd Ukraine Front goes
on the offensive north of Miskolc and in conjunction with the 4th Rumanian
Army take a number of Czehoslovakian towns.

Philippines - In the XIV Corps area, units of the 40th Division run into
opposition at Bamban but secure the town, airfield and a crossing site over
the Bamban River. Bamban is not far from Clark Airfield. Other units take
Concepcion. Fierce fighting is taking place in the I Corps area, east of
the beachhead.

Burma - A convoy from Ledo starts forward From Myitkyina toward China.
Units of the British 36th Division reach Twingge.

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

Sources: "United States Army in World War II, Chronology 1941-1945" compiled
by Mary H. Williams, Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of
the Army, "2194 Days of War" by Cesare Salmaggi and Alfredo Pallavisimi,
"Facts On File Yearbook 1945, Person's Index Of World Events" edited by R.L.
Lapica.

Copyright 1995 by John B Davis, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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                Cary, North Carolina              [email-masked]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 11:32:00 -0600
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WANT: VFW/AL HQ

I'm assuming that if I wanted to locate all of the VFW or American Legion
Posts in an area, the best place to go would be their respective headquarters
and ask for a list.  :-)

If I'm correct on that assumption, would anyone happen to have those addresses
handy?

--
Robert J. Granvin
Southern Minnesota Wing Confederate Air Force

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 04:00:18 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 01-22-95

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

1945
01/22 Mon. Aircraft from fast carrier task force (Vice Adm. J. S.
           McCain) strike Japanese shipping, airfields, and other
           installations in the Ryukyu Islands.

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

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 14:23:35 EST
From:    William Lippert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Farewell BB's

On Sat, 21 Jan 1995 16:42:09 -0800 Steve New said:
>
>The truth is that the major mission of the BB, to attack and destroy
>enemy fleets, just doesn't fit into modern Navy doctrine, and the
>expense of carrying these ships on duty can't be justified.
>
>--
>
>Steve L. New
>[email-masked]
>Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

    The expenses may be too costly to justify the maintenance of the ships,
but their role as coastal support ships cannot be forgotten.  In situations
such as Somalia or Haiti, it is necessary to have firepower available in
minutes - not days as in a Tomahawk or ten, twenty minutes as with aircraft,
but one or two minutes that only artillery can provide.  It is not always
possible, however, to have artillery on the ground and so off-shore ships
is the only other option.  One problem with aircraft is that they can only
carry so many bombs and stick around for so long.  Imagine if we'd had
the Missouri outside of Somalia!  But alas! what the most powerful enemy could
not do peacetime budgets can.

William Lippert
The American University

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 17:11:29 EST
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIV: Pacific Armor

David Glantz did two wrappered monographs on Manchuria '45 in the Leavenworth
Papers series- title was either AUGUST STORM or AUTUMN STORM, pts 1 and 2.
I think Ray Garthoff did a long article on the Manchurian ops that was
reprinted in a compilation of his pieces he edited under the title
SINO-SOVIET MILITARY RELATIONS, but it may not have much detail specifically
on armor ops. Progress Publishers issued an abridged English translation
of the standard Soviet work on the campaign, titled FINAL, but the Progress
editions often leave out "irrelevant detail," like detailed OBs, maps,
and anything else we would die for. That may be it in English.

Henry Sirotin

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 17:22:12 EST
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 50TH: HELPING THE

The first Soviet bomb was exploded in August 1949, well after Czechoslovakia
was subjugated and the Berlin blockade ended. A nuclear threat by Truman
probably played a role in forcing the Russians out of northern Iran in 1946.
The bottom line was that Stalin was probably prepared to risk war where
he saw the *vital* interests of the Soviet state threatened, but not
elsewhere.

Some notes re this thread: the US was in no position to fight in Europe
before the early 1950s, and did not have a real nuclear deterrent force
before 1948. The Russians had no real nuclear capability vs Europe
before about 1953-4, and none vs the US before about 1964, unless you
count weapons smuggled in on freighters and/or submarines.

Henry Sirotin

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 14:55:23 -0800
From:    Steve New <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Farewell BB's

You wrote:

>
>On Sat, 21 Jan 1995 16:42:09 -0800 Steve New said:
>>
>>The truth is that the major mission of the BB, to attack and destroy
>>enemy fleets, just doesn't fit into modern Navy doctrine, and the
>>expense of carrying these ships on duty can't be justified.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Steve L. New
>>[email-masked]
>>Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.
>
>
>
>    The expenses may be too costly to justify the maintenance of the
>ships, but their role as coastal support ships cannot be forgotten.  In
>situations such as Somalia or Haiti, it is necessary to have firepower
>available in minutes - not days as in a Tomahawk or ten, twenty minutes
>as with aircraft, but one or two minutes that only artillery can
>provide.

Amphibious operations are not spur of the moment operations.  The Navy
will have aircraft covering the beachhead ahead of the actual landings,
and maintain them above the operations as long as they are required.
Even in Somalia there were F-14s and helicopter gunships patrolling the
skys before, during and after the landings.

>It is not always possible, however, to have artillery on the ground and
>so off-shore ships is the only other option.  One problem with aircraft
>is that they can only carry so many bombs and stick around for so long.

We still have ships with guns available to support amphibious
operations, there were two destroyers in Mogadishu harbor supporting the
landings, we just don't have ships with 16" guns anymore.

> Imagine if we'd had the Missouri outside of Somalia!  But alas! what
>the most powerful enemy could not do peacetime budgets can.

I don't know what the Missouri would have done outside of Mogadishu that
couldn't have been done by the ships that were there, except maybe block
the harbor.

>William Lippert
>The American University

>Steve, (gotta make this a history topic...hmmm) in 1993, the Navy came
>out with ...From the Sea, which redefines the role of the Navy from
>deep water LOC control to "littoral" warfare--power projection.  Seems
>to me, with the decline in deck space devoted to Marine a/c, and the
>absense of Harrier follow ons, the sea services would want an artillery
>platform that could fire from, oh, say 800km out (Tomahawks), 40miles
>out (Harpoons) or 18 miles out (16 inch guns).  Now, we all know that
>back in history, there are cases of destroyers, subs, etc. firing all
>but one of these things.  Problem: in recent history (whew!), the
>nations on the littoral that you might have to deal with became
>relatively more sophisticated as far as military technology goes (Stark
>comes to mind in a historical sense).

>Now everyone knows the historical drawbacks to military drawback, it
>draws-back what you can do with what and how well you can do it.  One
>of the things that the Marines will not have when fulfilling their role
>from the sea is adequate fire support.  Even with their noted,
>historical superiority in coordinating air and land, and ability to
>maneuver from the sea.  Why would the powers that be reject the history
>books and roll the dice on the subject of firepower needs for forcible
>entry?  And maybe as important, (although I cannot think of a
>historical example) a survivable one?  After all, who would
>not want to be on the Iowa rather than, say the Arleigh Burke or Stark,
>when one of those sneaky littoral states gets one through the defense?

>All may reply to the query, how does the Navy plan to fulfill its role
>without fire support capability (and I know that we don't have
>minesweepers, but let's fudge)... off the list if you think that it is
>not history.

>Thanks in advance!

>Cassady Craft
>e-mail [email-masked]
>or
>[email-masked]

I can't speak with expertise on the subject, since the Navy doesn't
keep me privy to their war plans, but it appears that they don't
expect to have any Okinawa, or Normandy size amphibious operations
in the future.  It seems that the Navy considers the Mogadishu
landings as the prototype of future amphibious operations.

Consider the ability that the Navy now has available to it to
"soften up" a landing zone (i.e., we know that the enemy is dug in
in the area surrounding our LZ, but we don't know exactly where).

        1.  The Harrier isn't, and never was an option for this
mission.  It just doesn't have the carry capacity to flatten large
areas.  This is not to disparage the Harrier, it is excellent at
close ground support, where a forward air controller assigned to a
ground force can guide it in to a specific target that is giving
the ground forces too much trouble.

        2.  The Tomahawk and AMRAM have the same problem.  Neither
carries a massive warhead, they depend on pinpoint accuracy to
destroy their targets with smaller warheads.

        3.  F-14 Srike Fighters and F-18 attack aircraft can lift
and deliver a large amount of dumb bombs (especially when compared
to their WWII counterparts) and heavy use of these aircraft prior
to an assault landing could approximate a good thrashing by 16"
guns.  The problem is that the number of planes available will
severely limit the size of the beachead that can be adequately
"softened up".  Add to this the risk of loss of aircraft, and more
importantly aircrews, due to anti-aircraft fire, bad carrier
landings, maintenance faults etc. and they certainly are not more
efficient than the BB "for this specific mission".

        4.  Another option would be to have the Air Force use it's
B-52 forces dropping iron bombs like they did in Kuwait against
the Republican Guard.  Very effective in the carpet bombing role
(some parts of Vietnam still look like the backside of the moon)
but again, far more expensive than a BB for this specific mission.

        5.  The big problem is that to have a BB (or four)
available for that mission if and when it comes up, you have got
to keep these ships active daily, and this is where the economics
fail the battleships.  They are expensive to operate, they require
huge crews, and they really aren't multi-mission ships anymore.
The only thing they can do better than anything else is shoot up a
beachead, and we just don't do much of that anymore.

        6.  The planners in the Pentagon have the mission to
determine how best to project power overseas within the budget
constraints imposed on them.  Without big, fat defense budgets,
BBs can't be supported.  The same trade-off has prevented the Navy
from recreating its fleet of minesweepers.  The mission can be
performed almost as well, when required, by helicopters, and the
same helicopters can be used for other purposes when your ships
aren't encountering mines.

        7.  As long as the budget deficit and partison politics
continue to constrict defense spending, you won't see ships like
the BBs in service again.  The attacks are now beginning on the
CVNs.  Critics claim that smaller attack carriers can accomplish the
same mission at less cost, and make less attractive targets in the
bargain.  Of course, these are the same critics who demanded that we
replace the F-111s in Europe with A7s, because pound for pound A7s
carried ordnance to the target at less than 1/2 the cost of F-111s.
Perfect if the enemy agrees only to fight in daylight and good weather.

        8.  The sad point is that we do live in a constrained
environment.  Every piece of hardware had better perform a necessary
role, and do so economically, if it is to survive.  Otherwise it will be
displaced by secondary options.

--

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

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 16:00:07 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Farewell BB's

Steve,
I must disagree...
>Battleships are just too manpower intensive to fit into the modern Navy.
>I'm sure that the members of this list are aware of the economic
>constraints currently plagueing all the services.  Keeping skilled
>manpower and properly deploying forces is one of the Navy's current
>problems.  They can keep 2 or 3 vessels at see with the crew of one BB.
maybe two, the crew is *WAY* down to around a thousand men or less, most of
the WW II crew was for the long gone 20 mm and 40 mm guns. The other point
is that a BB can still do what all those newer ships cannot... Provide
*effective* bombardment on multiple targets, well inland *and* be a lot
less affected by enemy return fire... one hit on a FFG (1-3") or a new DD
(2-5") is major damage, God forbid we need to risk an Aegis Cruiser (2-5")
for shore bombardment!

>Tomahawks can be successfully fired from destroyers, guided missile
>cruisers, and even submarines.  The only advantage that BBs had in that
>mission was a huge store of missiles, and if the mission includes
>hitting lots of targets without waiting to reload, then we can use the
>aircraft from the carriers.

Excuse me, but they also have 16" guns than cannot be jammed by EM
radiation and which are a lot cheaper than Tomahawks... Also as proved in
recent actions, Tomahawks and other fancy munitions don't do well against
hardened dug in targets [we are talking yards of reinforced concrete and
tens of feet of earth, not the wimpy concrete block crap]- BBs were
designed to deal with this sort of protection. Sadam's bunker was
impervious to bombs until the AF did a crash Bomb building out of old Army
8" gun barrels-pure old fashioned thicknesses of massive materials are
going to be in vogue again if we don't get our collective heads out of
rectal defilade, because we can't deal with it effectively! ask the
Syrians... bombs weren't a problem, 9 rounds of 16" [w/ modern position
plotting] caused them to move the remaining units out of danger.

>The truth is that the major mission of the BB, to attack and destroy
>enemy fleets, just doesn't fit into modern Navy doctrine, and the
>expense of carrying these ships on duty can't be justified.

Actually they can do this better than most other ships too, You can have
any other ship to do sea control with and I'll take 1 IOWA class BB... lets
see who survives best. Do you think Kirov will do better? HMS Inflexible?
Surley not a lone Carrier - I like them , but now you need a 6,000 man
crew, 95,000 ton ship to deal with me... I'll take it! Armor and Protection
are worth a lot, especially since there is so little that can attack it
effectively any more. The Exocet will leave a small divot in BB class
armor, the big soviet missles are no better than the projectiles the ship
was designed to with stand... the only death I see is in the Navy's brains.

Jim O'Neil      They don't pay me enough to fight fair!

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 19:48:25 PST
From:    Jim Brady <[email-masked]>
Subject: HELP: Locating USAF personnel

All,

   I desperately need some guidance on how I might quickly locate
current *and* retired USAF personnel. I'm trying to find one
Theodore (Ted) Greims, don't know rank or unit, but he was stationed near Sacramento in the
early 70s and was last thought to be in Oklahoma.

  I'm also interested in any net resources or good  phone contact for any office or organization
you think would be useful in this regard.

  Finally, since I see these type of requests occaisionally, I don't think the list would mind if you
all take this as a general invitation to list contacts for making contacts in *all* branches of the
service.

  Thanks to all!

  -- Jim

PS (To old pals wondering `Is that the same Jim Brady from Texas?' the answer is Yes, but I'm
now in Chicago.)

 -----------------------------------
Name: Jim Brady
E-mail: [email-masked]

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

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 19:48:37 -0500
From:    Thoams Wildenberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: A-bomb, Should it have be...

How about forwarding same to I. Michael Heyman, Secretary of Smithsonian
via Mike Fetters.  I think maybe Mr. Heyman needs educating.!

On Sat, 21 Jan 1995, John Sloan wrote:

> HI all,
> As promised, on the 17th I asked Dr Robert Joy, who teaches the history of
> military medicine at the National Military Medical univ and knows more about
> this topic than anyone I can think of, about the medical annexes for the
> plans for invasion of Japan.. For those who want to do research, the medical
> annexes for both operation plans are in the archives and Bob Joy has studied
> them. He told me the military planning was for an estimated 35% casulaties of
> the invasion force within 30 days.  In addition he noted that some 4000
> kamakazi pilots were believed to be prepared in Japan. Also, an interesting
> item I had not realized, the losses for naval personel on ship were greater
> at Iwo Jima than the losses of army and marines ashore. I find this hard to
> believe, but that is what I was told. There is an interesting article on Iwo
> Jima in the last issue of "Military History" magazine.  Thus there was great
> concern that an invasion of Japan would generate considerable loss of entire
> ships as well as among troops ashore. It seems to me that the actual content
> of such military planning documents is a more reliable source for what the
> professional thinking at the time was in comparison to the various conversatio
> ns of high level dignitaries that are cited in much of the current newspaper
> articles.
>
> best wishes
>
> john sloan
> [email-masked]
>

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:04:19 EST
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: SUB: Effectiveness

Was someone making a comment on the book _Military Effectiveness_ 3vols.
ed. by Allan R. Millett and Williamson Murray?  If so, would you repeat
it--also an invitation for other comments.  Thanks!

Cassady Craft
e-mail [email-masked]
or
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 17:59:13 -1000
From:    Jim Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Farewell BB's (Mighty Mo)

San Francisco and Charleston, SC are also competing for the Missouri.

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

On Sat, 21 Jan 1995, Jim Bowman wrote:

> She is across Puget Sound from Seattle at this time.  Bremerton WA and Pearl
> Harbor are the leading contenders to become her final port.
>

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

Date:    Sun, 22 Jan 1995 23:27:49 -0500
From:    Jim Bowman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Farewell BB's

Just watched the U. of Wisconsin's documentary on the history of the USS
Wisconsin.  They quoted a million dollars a day operating cost for the BB
during the gulf action.  The decomissionings were for economics.

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 21 Jan 1995 to 22 Jan 1995
*************************************************