Subject: WWII-L Digest - 22 Jan 1995 to 23 Jan 1995

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:01:14 -0500

There are 41 messages totalling 1179 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Enola Gay.  Where was it? (3)
  2. INF: USN Chronology 01-23-95
  3. INF: 50 Years Ago - 24-JAN-1945
  4. 48 Hours - No Messages Received
  5. Farewell BBs (4)
  6. WEAP: Japanese Aerial Torpedoes of WWII (2)
  7. INFO-1942 DIEPPE RAID-Personal research
  8. ADMIN: Farewell discussion on BBs (2)
  9. Camoflage on ships (2)
 10. WEAP: Anti-tank guns, 1940
 11. Re[2]: Collaboration trial to be reopened
 12. WEAP: Battleships (3)
 13. <No subject given> (2)
 14. deaths of german pow (2)
 15. Enola Gay post-WWII
 16. 22d Hurtgen Epilogue (2)
 17. 25mm AT gun
 18. Auschwitz (3)
 19. Quality of US Tank Armor
 20. A-bomb, Should it have be...
 21. Bomb Pentration Data Needed
 22. SUB: Effectiveness
 23. INF: 3rd Army Chronology - 23Jan45
 24. BOOKS:  Reviews Wanted
 25. WHAT-IF: Pearl Harbor
 26. Inside The Third Reich-Speer

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 00:12:52 -0500
From:    Jim Bowman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Enola Gay.  Where was it?

I have a memory from my youth sometime in the late '50's.  We were on a
family trip, two lane blacktop.  I recall seeing a sign saying something like
"World War Two b-29 Enola Gay" with an arrow pointing toward a large barn
like structure about a hundred yards off the road.  Sticking out of a hole in
a pair of sliding doors was the tail of a B-29.  Was it ever store in this
fashion?  Or, am I confusing a memory with a photo or newsreel.

PS we were in Ohio or Indiana.

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 04:00:14 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 01-23-95

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

1945
01/23 Tue. Submarine BARB (SS-220) enters Namkwan harbor, China, and
           makes torpedo attack on Japanese auxiliary shipping.
           Submarine NAUTILUS (SS-168) delivers supplies to east
           coast of Mindanao, P. I.
            Japanese submarine sunk:
             I-48, by destroyer escorts CORBESIER (DE-438), CONKLIN
              (DE-439), and RABY (DE-698), off Yap Island, Caroline
              Islands,
              09 d. 45'N., 138 d. 20'E.

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:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 07:26:00 EST
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Enola Gay.  Where was it?

 >I have a memory from my youth sometime in the late '50's.  We were on a
 >family trip, two lane blacktop.  I recall seeing a sign saying something like
 >"World War Two b-29 Enola Gay" with an arrow pointing toward a large barn
 >like structure about a hundred yards off the road.  Sticking out of a hole in
 >a pair of sliding doors was the tail of a B-29.  Was it ever store in this
 >fashion?  Or, am I confusing a memory with a photo or newsreel.
 >
 >PS we were in Ohio or Indiana.

I was stationed at Andrews AFB just outside of Washington, DC in
1957-59.  When I first got there, part of an abandoned WWII
taxiway/runway had been converted to an area where the troops could
wash their cars (bring your own hose).  Next to this area was a
fenced off area with four aircraft:

1. The Swoose, a B-17C or D that had been in the Philippines when
the Japanese attacked and had fought in Australia before being
returned to the US.

2. The Enola Gay sans movable surfaces and engines.

3. The first Martin (?) jet bomber.

4. Another aircraft I cannot remember.

I believe all of these aircraft were moved to the Garber
restoration facility in Silver Hill, Maryland just a few miles down
the Suitland Parkway from Andrews prior to 1959.

The Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB, Fairborn, Ohio has
Bock's Car, the aircraft that dropped the A-bomb on Nagasaki.
Could this have been the aircraft you saw?

Now I have a question for some of you "older" guys on the list.
While I was at Andrews in 57-59, I travelled home to New Jersey
once in awhile via US 40 from Baltimore to the bridge over the
Delaware River and then picked up the  NJ Turnpike.  I remember
seeing some aircraft on a "farm" on the North side of US 40
somewhere between Havre de Grace, Maryland and New Castle,
Delaware.  Memory says it was a B-17 but being a dumb kid, I never
stopped to check it out.  Does this ring a bell with anyone????

Jack McKillop

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 07:39:48 EST
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 24-JAN-1945

On 24-JAN-1945, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - In the British 2nd Army sector, the 7th Armoured Division
overruns Weerd, Aandenberg and Montford. The 52nd Division completes the
capture of Heinsberg and occupies Haaren without opposition. The 43rd
Division takes Schleiden and Utterath. In the U.S. 1st Army sector, the
84th Division clears the remainder of its zone. The 75th Division takes
Aldringen, concluding its Salm River drive. The 18th Division takes
Moderscheid. In the 3rd Army sector, the 90th Division repels a predawn
attack northeast of Binsfeld. The 80th Division completes the capture of
Kautenbach and takes Alscheid and Enscherange. In the French 1st Army
sector, the II Corps launches a new offensive to extend the bridgehead over
the Ill River.

Eastern Front - The 2nd and 3rd White Russian Fronts make further progress
in East Prussia. In German Silesia, the 1st Ukraine Front overruns the
industrial centers of Oppeln and Gleiwitz. North of Breslau, elements clear
Trachenberg and across the Polish border, Rawicz.

Philippines - In the XIV Corps area, the 40th Division runs into stiff
resistance on a line of hills west of Bamban. In the I Corps area, elements
of the 25th Division attack San Manuel and against strong opposition gain
a toehold within the barrio. On Mindoro, the 21st Infantry moves into
Calapan.

Volcano Isalnds - Iwo Jima is the target of a coordinated air-naval
bombardment.

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

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 23:50:22 EST
From:    "Carl Wernke - [email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 48 Hours - No Messages Received

 Joe,

 No messages received since Friday, 20 Jan. What can be done to resolve the
 problem ?  It is now 2348 EST, 22 Jan 95.

 Carl Wernke

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:55:18 EST
From:    Richard King <[email-masked]>
Subject: Farewell BBs

I got into a discussion with a Navy guy once about battleships,
and whether they are obsolete. His quote: "A rowboat with a
missile launcher on it is more formidable than the NEW JERSEY."

Then he admitted that BBs are good where shore bombardment is
concerned.

I remember during the Falklands war that there was talk that
British ships were more at risk than a fleet using American
style battleships because the taller American ships provide
more defensive protection than British. I thought maybe they
would be a bigger target, but apparently a BB can detect
incoming and respond quicker. NOTE: I am just repeating what
I heard, and certainly am not an expert about BBs. However,
it is a very interesting subject. One wonders with aircraft
providing protection for you (AWACS, for instance), why the
height of your ship would matter, but Britain had ships lost
or damaged.

I have always found it fascinating when WWII equipment is being
used today, such as the fading BBs.

Best wishes,

Richard L. King, Reference Librarian, Vincennes (IN) Univ.
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:30:05 EST
From:    Roger Coon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Japanese Aerial Torpedoes of WWII

There is a book title _Battleship_ which deals with the sinking of the
the Repulse and the Prince of Wales.  Sorry I don't have an author as
I usually sell my books after reading them these days.
Brad Coon

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 15:24:38 +0000
From:    "H.G. Henry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: INFO-1942 DIEPPE RAID-Personal research

I sent this message out to the group in April 1994. I send it out again
in revised form for new list members or old ones who might want to comment.
_________________________________________________________________________

I am researching the 1942 Dieppe raid for my doctoral thesis under the
supervision of Professor Sir F. H. Hinsley. I am focusing on the
political/strategic background, decision-making, planning,intelligence,
execution, aftermath and historiography.

At the moment I am putting together a 'Dieppe database'(using Endnote
Plus f Bibliographical and Database program), comprising relevant
secondary and primary sources from the National Archives (Ottawa),
the the Directorate of History of the Department of National Defence,
(Ottawa), Imperial War Museum, National Maritime Museum and Public Record
Office (London). I have also over 1500 post-raid German photos, the majority
from the Bundesarchives (Koblenz) and ECPA (French Military Archives, Paris).

In 1993 in conjunction with AFTER THE BATTLE, I authored *DIEPPE THROUGH
THE LENS OF THE GERMAN WAR PHOTOGRAPHER.London: Battle of Britain Prints
International Ltd, 1993.* This gives a large-format photo and a tactical
account of each one of the Calgary Regiment tanks that landed during the
raid. Documents as well as interviews, from at least one crew member of each
tank, were used.

I have been in contact with Dieppe authors Brig-Gen Denis & Shelagh
Whitaker, Professors Brian Villa (U of Ottawa) and John P.
Campbell (U of McMaster), besides most of the relevant regimental and unit
veteran organizations. I have many interviews but am always looking for other
veterans to talk to.

I would be pleased to receive any information, questions, comments on the
operation and details on Dieppe veterans anybody might know.

Yours sincerely

Hugh G. Henry III,  MA

St John's College
University of Cambridge
Cambridge
CB2 1TP
UNITED KINGDOM
voice: (1223) 300163
fax: (1223) 337720

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:33:56 -0500
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: ADMIN: Farewell discussion on BBs

        While I sincerely find this debate interesting, I should
point out that modern naval doctrine does not fall in the purview
of this mailing list.  Please move the discussion to private mail
(but feel free to Cc: me!).  Thanks.
--
Joe Barone, WWII-L listowner
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:59:25 PST
From:    Perry Andrus <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Camoflage on ships

The PBS NOVA program on camo had something on this.  The polygonal
shapes actually worked quite well.  I think they were the end of WWI
or just after.

PA

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Camoflage on ships
Author:  World War II Discussion List <[email-masked]> at internet
Date:    1/20/95 11:38 AM

I remember seeing some pictures and reading about ships being painted with
polygonal shapes of grays and black to help break up their silhouettes when
viewed at sea (esp. from periscopes). So anyone have any more information on
these ships? Do designed the camo? how effective it was?

Thanks

T

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Townsend                    6th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Co. A.
[email-masked]
         In the future I plan to be present in the past.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:57:33 PST
From:    Perry Andrus <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Anti-tank guns, 1940

I concur, The Breaking Point was excellent.  The German infantry
crossed the Meuse at Sedan first and opened the bridgehead for the
tankers.

I read it twice related to the GD'40 game.  Some of the French tanks
in GD'40 have gun ratings that are too good based on Doughty.

They made it easy for the Germans.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: WEAP: Anti-tank guns, 1940
Author:  World War II Discussion List <[email-masked]> at internet
Date:    1/20/95 10:49 AM

Does anyone have any readily available information about the French 25 mm
anti-tank gun, apparently the standard gun for 1940?  How did it compare
to its contemporaries, i.e., the British 2 pounder and the German 37 mm?
Doughty, in THE BREAKING POINT: SEDAN 1940 AND THE FALL OF FRANCE,
talks about some of the limitations of the 25 mm (such as outranged by
the German tank guns), but I wonder if there were better weapons out there.

(BTW, I highly recommend THE BREAKING POINT, if you haven't read it.
Interesting information about how the French managed to do about everything
wrong and the Germans had incredible luck, as well as superior training,
tactics, and theory.  Confirms the importance of infantry as the decisive
element in battle.)

Tim J. Watts
Valparaiso University

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

Date:    Fri, 20 Jan 1995 14:00:56 PST
From:    Perry Andrus <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Collaboration trial to be reopened

LEts not strat a flame war but I have to strongly disagree w/ you
regarding Pearl.  Short and Kimmel made a lot of really poor decisions
and they were the commanders on the spot.  Is not there where the buck
is supposed to stop?

PA

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Collaboration trial to be reopened
Author:  World War II Discussion List <[email-masked]> at internet
Date:    1/20/95 11:58 AM

>Today, the court of appeal in Ghent has begun debating whether are
>revision of the trial of Irma Laplasse, shot in '45 after found guilty of
>collaboration, is justified. If the court concludes that there is
>sufficient new evidence --- it is argued that a key witness committed
>perjury --- the trial will be reopened at the court-martial in Brussels.
>
>The state is in favour of a revision, so it is likely that, 50 years after
>the execution, Irma Laplasse will be cleared of the charges against her...
>
Better they should retract the bullets and restore the 50 years... Maybe
they should discredit all who railroaded her, shoot the living and
dis-enter the dead to be dumped in a land fill somewhere as an example for
the future folks who want to make a name for themselves...
 We have a similar problem here with Adm Kimmel and General Short taking
the blame for Pearl Harbor, when in fact Gen. George C Marshall and Adm
Stark should own that distinction.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 11:03:28 -0500
From:    QUACK <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Japanese Aerial Torpedoes of WWII

How does one fire a torpedo?
Are wires attached  just before its slid in the tube?
How is the motor started?
Seems simple to some people but I'd like a little info.
Thanks, Ron

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 11:20:05 -0500
From:    Ron Babuka <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Farewell BBs

>
>I remember during the Falklands war that there was talk that
>British ships were more at risk than a fleet using American
>style battleships because the taller American ships provide
>more defensive protection than British. I thought maybe they
>would be a bigger target, but apparently a BB can detect
>incoming and respond quicker. NOTE: I am just repeating what
>I heard, and certainly am not an expert about BBs. However,
>it is a very interesting subject. One wonders with aircraft
>providing protection for you (AWACS, for instance), why the
>height of your ship would matter, but Britain had ships lost
>or damaged.

I would assume that since RADAR is a line of site radio wave that a taller
ship with is active radar dome mounted higher would be able to see farther
out over the horizon and the same would go with a passive detector
searching for targeting radar.  This would give some earlier warning but I
wouldn't have an idea if the hieght difference between an RN type 42 or 22
destroyer and an Iowa class battleship would make that much of a difference
with Mirages, Skyhawks, and Excocets.  One of the more apperant problems
the RN had in the Falklands was that they did not have any early warning
aircraft over the fleet.  I read Max Hastings account of the battle for the
Falklands and over and over ship commanders lambasted the lack of early
warning aircraft for protection.  The RN submarines, in addition to
enforcing the 200 mile exclusion zone, provided some form of early warning
by patroling off from Air Force bases near shore and sending messages back
to the fleet that Argentine aircraft had taken off in the direction of the
islands.  Hastings book does a very good job at examining the results of
many of the ecomically based decsions that the RN faced during it's
"rightsizing."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Babuka
Cornell University
CIT - Information Resources
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 254-6492

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 12:21:35 CCS
From:    Jorge Merino <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: Battleships

> 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.

I don't think that aircraft from carriers could replace the BBs for
launching Tomahawks, at least not now. There isn't any air-launched
version of the Tomahawk in service. At least two air-launched versions
were test-flown during the 70s, including the AGM-109H Tomahawk that
was intended for the A-6 Intruder and P-3 Orion, and another version
(AGM-109J, I believe), that was put in competition with the Boeing
AGM-86B, to be carried by the B-52G and H. As you know, USAF selected
the AGM-86B, so, the AGM-109 was cancelled.

The only active versions of the Tomahawk are the Navy ones (I believe
USAF retired their Tomahawks from Central Europe some years ago, and
has already dismantled them). All the Navy versions are launched from
ships, and the designation is BGM-109G, I believe.

If the Navy wants to launch Tomahawks from their carrier-borne aircraft,
they will have to revive the AGM-109 first.

Jorge Merino

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 20:12:45 +0300
From:    Ozgur Altinyay <[email-masked]>
Subject: <No subject given>

        First of all , I would like to thank everyone  who answered my question about the
use of the anti-ship missiles in the WW II. I am writing something about the deployment of
such missiles in the navies of the Third World navies and I think it will be a good intro
to the subject.
        Anyway, about the sad news of the retirement of the US BBs. I think they have a
few old Salem class CAs mothballed, are those also included in the scrapping plans ?
I dont think their name was mentioned in the news.
        I also remmber about a so-called strike cruiser type that was much
debated in the early 1980 thaht will mount heavy ASUW wepaons and 8inch guns
for shore bombartments. Perhaps USN will opt to develop such  as ship to
take over the role of the BBs. Another  options that I rember that was
talked  about was the use of a large supertanker type ship with artillery mounted
on it against the land target. Even if such a design is made  , I highly doubt the effectiveness
of the current 6 and 8 inch guns  against fortified works, and there is also the danger
of  a heavy anti-ship missile hit. I remember that USS Maryland -an older class than the Iowa
continued operation after being hit by a Kamikaze in the spring of 1945. Assuming ? that
A Kamikaze hit=a hit by a anti-ship missile, the BBs can fare better against the threat of
such missiles in the inventory of the 3rd world countries. I do not believe a non-armoured supertanker can get away with
a few hits from , say, AS-6 Kingfish somthing which Iran have now (They also have 16
Backfire bomber purchased from Ukraine).
        By the way does anyone know about the Montana class BB and Alaska class BCs that were
designed in the 1944s , yet never laid down. What was the proposed armament fit and armour
for them ?

Best regards.

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 13:39:05 -0500
From:    Keith Johnson <[email-masked]>
Subject: deaths of german pow

     An interesting book to read concerning the deaths of German POW in
Europe is:

     "Other Losses: the shocking truth behind the mass deaths of disarmed
German soldiers and civilians under General Eisenhower's command" by
James Bacque 1991

     German POW interned in the United States were also killed
intentionally. At a POW camp in Salina, Utah, a guard machine-gunned
prisoners of war sleeping in their tents, killing eight and wounding others.

     I have never come across a definitive work on the German POW
experience in the Soviet Union; however, for a history paper in college,
I researched this subject as best as I could. About 1 1/2 million died
during their internment and another 2 million are unaccounted for.

     Keith

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 14:01:22 -0500
From:    Scott C Stathis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Farewell discussion on BBs

>
>         While I sincerely find this debate interesting, I should
> point out that modern naval doctrine does not fall in the purview
> of this mailing list.  Please move the discussion to private mail
> (but feel free to Cc: me!).  Thanks.
> --
> Joe Barone, WWII-L listowner
> [email-masked]
>

  Joe

      I  know this your list and I hate to disagree but considering that
these BB's where created for the Second World War and are now in danger of
being destroyed I find the discussion very much with in the perview of this
list.

My opinion. 8--))

Scott Stathis
[email-masked]

Remember a good fighter pilot always, always, always:
CHECKS HIS 6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 18:27:00 UTC
From:    "Edward S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Farewell BBs

The seagoing dinosaurs did not enjoy a distinguished career fighting enemy
battleships as they were designed to do:

    BATTLESHIPS OF THE WORLD, 1866-1955

Built                                        545
                                           =====
 LOST IN ACTION OR OTHER WAYS:
 Wrecked, stranded, explosion, collision       24
 Scuttled                                      21  Scapa Flow 15, Toulon 3
 Aircraft                                      19  All WWII*
 Naval gunfire                                 17  Tsushima 6, Jutland 5
 Surface torpedo boats & DDs                   14  Pre WWI 3, WWI 5, WWII 6
 Submarines                                    13  WWI 10, WWII 3
 Mine                                          12  Dardanelles 7, Pt Arthur 3
 Frogmen, sabotage                              5
 Shore gunfire                                  4 Port Arthur 4
 Rammed                                         1
                                            -----
   TOTAL LOST                                130
                                            =====

Remainder were scrapped or used as targets.  About 12 kept as museum ships.

   Pearl Harbor; 3 salvaged)

Source: David Woodward, =Sunk: How the Great Battleships Were Lost= (London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1982)

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 14:33:09 EST
From:    "Dennis E. Sparks" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Enola Gay post-WWII

From: Jim Bowman <[email-masked]>

>I have a memory from my youth sometime in the late '50's.  We were on a
>family trip, two lane blacktop.  I recall seeing a sign saying something like
>"World War Two b-29 Enola Gay" with an arrow pointing toward a large barn
>like structure about a hundred yards off the road.  Sticking out of a hole in
>a pair of sliding doors was the tail of a B-29.  Was it ever store in this
>fashion?  Or, am I confusing a memory with a photo or newsreel.
>
>PS we were in Ohio or Indiana.

Sorry Jim, but it's very unlikely that it was "Enola Gay", although it
could well have been a B-29 marked to resemble her.

I just called Dave Menard at the USAF museum at Wright Patterson AFB to
check this out.  After WWII, "Enola Gay" remained with the 509th group.
Scheduled to take part in the Bikini test, it was grounded by mechanical
problems.  Later it was flown to Tucson, AZ for storage.  In June 1949,
it was flown to Chicago's Orchard Place AFB (later became O'Hare), where
it was on static display for an airshow on the 4th of July (Dave was
there!).  After Chicago, it was stored in Texas for several years before
being flown to Washington.  I've seen a published photograph of
"Enola Gay" at Chicago.  Look for a couple of C-47s in the background
of the photos that have the red band in the national insignia.  Also,
the building in the background is the Douglas factory, which was being
used to build C-54s at the time.

On a related subject, Dave told me that they had just obtained a color
photograph taken a few days before the Nagasaki mission.  It's a photo
of nose art on a C-54 at Tinian.  Visible in the far background is
"Bock's Car".  While the image is quite small, a red band is clearly
visible around the fuselage, not the green band as often depicted.
"Bock's Car" was retrieved from storage c.1961 and has been displayed
at the museum since then.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 15:20:48 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue

Hello, Rob!

Thanks for the answer to my question. You provided more than enough
info on this topic, and I really do appreciate it.

  But when you have heavy
> losses in a veteran outfit and get three squads of replacements do you
> consolidate the veterans into squads so that the replacements are together
> (and have to go through an initial blooding process until they learn
> the ropes) or do you break them up among the veteran squads so every
> one learns from earlier experiences.  That's the dilemma I believe
> we are faced with.

    I agree with that. However, if you had your druthers, it seems to
me  you would want to gain the maximum benefit from that experience,
you would add the replacements to those decimated experience squads
rather than combine them, as under combat conditions, your are then
faced with additional losses of experienced personnel, that may be
ill-afforded. Look at the experience of the Waffen-SS. The central
criticism of this outfit was that these highly-trained people could
have been better used if they had been spread around among other
units, other than the SS. This amounted to "putting all your eggs in
one basket".

That is a tough to be sure, but it seems to me that you could enhance
the chances of longevity of experienced personnel being reinforced
with inexperienced personnel, rather than following the example of
the Waffen-SS of consolidation.

    I appreciate your thoughts, and the above are mine, as well.

    Thanks again.

    Terry

>
> Hope this answers your question somewhat.  The comments above are my
> own.
>
> Rob Rush
>

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 15:26:51 CST
From:    Roel Vining <[email-masked]>
Subject: <No subject given>

In response to the questions regarding the Montana-class
battleships and Alaska-class battlecruisers,  I believe
the Montana-class were programmed with 12 16 inch guns
in four triple turrets, two forward and two aft.  The Alaska-
class battlecruisers carried nine 12 inch guns in triple
turrets, two fore and one aft.  At least that is what I
recall from earlier reading.

Another interesting note:  There were originally six Iowa-class
battleships laid down: the four that served, as well as the Illinois
and Kentucky.  Illinois and Kentucky wer laid down but never finished.
One of them (I believe Kentucky) was launched, and had parts of
her armour belt and barbettes added; the other never got off the
blocks.  I don't recall I ever heard what happened to them.

Roel Vining

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 17:35:39 CCS
From:    Jorge Merino <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Battleships

Ozgur Altinyay <[email-masked]> wrote:

>         Anyway, about the sad news of the retirement of the US BBs. I think
> they have a few old Salem class CAs mothballed, are those also included
> in the scrapping plans ?

Nobody has said that the Iowa BBs will be scrapped. They were only retired,
and I believe more than one will become floating museums. (And I hope so).
USS Salem is also preserved as a floating museum, but I don't remember where
to find her.

>         By the way does anyone know about the Montana class BB and Alaska
> class BCs that were designed in the 1944s, yet never laid down. What was
> the proposed armament fit and armour for them?

About Montana class BBs:

They were designed by 1940, and authorized 19 July 1940. The design was
basically an enlarged Iowa with an additional 16 inch gun turret. Here
are the proposed specs:

Displacement: 65,000 tons (full load)
Length: 903 feet
Beam: 120 feet
Armament: 12 x 16 inch guns

I believe the armor was to be similar to the Iowa's.

The five authorized ships were:

BB-67 Montana
BB-68 Ohio
BB-69 Maine
BB-70 New Hampshire
BB-71 Louisiana

All of them were cancelled 21 July 1943. None of them was ever laid down.

Hope this helps,

Jorge Merino

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 14:52:43 MST
From:    Eric Pass <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Camoflage on ships

The dazzle designs were used on Q-ships as well.

Eric ([email-masked])

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 15:39:11 CST
From:    Michael P LaForge <[email-masked]>
Subject: 25mm AT gun

the french hotchkiss-puteaux at gun also had a 2kg
HEAT projectile. since this was an over-calibre round,
it was slipped over the end of the muzzle and propelled with
a blank cartridge. Source: DST-1160G-514-78-Vol2, May 1978.

i'll be nomail until 6 Feb.

******************************************************************************
* Mike LaForge                                                               *
* U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosives Safety (USATCES)                 *
* Explosives Safety Logistics Division (ESL)                                 *
* Defense Environmental Restoration Program - Formerly Used Defense Sites    *
* (DERP-FUDS)                                                                *
* DSN: 585-8762  FAX: 585-6009  COMM: 815-273-8762                           *
******************************************************************************

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 17:44:26 -0500
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Auschwitz

On which exact date was Auschwitz liberated? I had a reader ask me why I
hadn't mentioned it in my column. Well the thing is I got to looking in my
main two sources and it isn't mentioned in either. I thought this strange.
My main source is the Army "green book" chronology volume. It covers all
the fronts pretty good. My backup source is "2194 Days Of War". Well I've
noticed that the authors of "2194 Days" must have also used the green book
as their main source also. The wording in alot of cases is almost
identical. "2194 Days" tends to summarize at a higher level though. I'm
just wondering why the "official" Army source wouldn't mention the
liberation. I looked in my local paper and it had an article about the
liberation but failed to mention the specific date. I wanted to see
exactly what the green book said on that day.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 17:59:34 EST
From:    Mike Fetters <[email-masked]>
Subject: Enola Gay.  Where was it?

Finally, a question that I can answer! The following is a brief history
of the Enola Gay and the Smithsonian....

July 3, 1949: Enola Gay is accepted by the Smithsonian Institution's
National Air Museum after being retrieved from storage at Davis-Monthan
AAFB in Arizona and flown to Park Ridge, Illinois, by Colonel Paul
Tibbets.

Jan. 12, 1952: Enola Gay is flown to Pyote Air Force Base, Texas, and
placed in temporary storage.

Dec. 2, 1953: Enola Gay is flown to Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland,
and placed in storage.

Aug. 10, 1960: Due to concern about the deterioration of the Enola Gay
(from weather and vandalism) the staff of the National Air Museum begin
disassembly of the Enola Gay.

July 21, 1961: Disassembled components of the Enola Gay are moved to the
National Air Museum storage facility (now the Paul E. Garber
Preservation, Restoration and Storage Facility) in Suitland, Maryland.

Dec. 5, 1984: Restoration of the forward fuselage of the Enola Gay
begins. Restoration of the forward fuselage was completed in 1988. Since
that time, the museum has also completed the restoration of the rear
fuselage (1992), two engines (1991, 1993), and the control surfaces
(1993). Restoration of the aircraft is expected to be completed in 1995.

August, 1993: President Clinton signs legislation authorizing the
Smithsonian to begin design and planning of an extension facility at
Dulles International Airport, Virginia.

Nov. 22-23 (11:30 p.m. - 1:30 a.m.), 1994: The forward fuselage of the
Enola Gay is transported from the Garber Facility to the National Air
and Space Museum.

The museum hopes to complete the extension at Dulles around the year
2000 or 20001. I can assure you that, at that time, the Enola Gay will
be the first artifact reassembled and put on display.

Thanks for the inquiry. Mike Fetters.

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:39:11 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Quality of US Tank Armor

I would appreciate help/references to better follow the quality problems
that were apparently found in early WW II tank armor castings. My
understanding is that prior to Oct '43, US cast hull Shermans had a problem
with brittle metal that caused the armor to be only about 75% as effective
as was thought. I was told that Hunnicutt's book on the Sherman had this
info, but when the Inter-Library Loaner came in, someone had carefully cut
those pages out w/ a razor blade [they were in the area of page 95]... I
have some documents that allude to the problem,but nothing that comes out
specifically and talks about it.
I know that cast armor is inherrently weaker [about 90% of rolled] than
equivalent rolled armor, but this is over and above that.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:38:46 EST
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: A-bomb, Should it have be...

Dear John,

Thanks for the follow up on Dr. Joy, I notice that Barton Bernstein
has another article on the bomb decision in the new FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
I haven't read it yet, but I doubt he has changed any views. I wonder
how he will deal with the medical figures, as he has always maintained
he has never seen a piece of paper that justified the higher numbers.

Thanks again,

Henry Sirotin

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:47:03 -0500
From:    Thoams Wildenberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Bomb Pentration Data Needed

Need information on the penetrating power of 500 vs 1000 lb aerial bombs
with respect to their ability to piercd deck amour.  I have read Okum's
early articles in Warship Int'l, but they're not much help to me.

Does anyone have access to this data or know an ordnance expert that can
help me?

Tom Wildenberg

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 18:48:29 -0600
From:    Cheryl Kaye Bryant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Auschwitz

On Mon, 23 Jan 1995, John Davis wrote:

> On which exact date was Auschwitz liberated?

John

I'm not sure this is the officially recorded date, but I believe it was
27 January 1945.

C.K.Bryant

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

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 20:03:40 EST
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: SUB: Effectiveness

Dear Cassady,

Will try to get some data on the Soviet economy c.1935-1945. It may
have to go snail mail: are you in the Pol Sci Dept. at UGA? Trouble
is that the contemporary numbers are often sheer propaganda, and
the somewhat more reliable post war data has often not been translated.
There are several economic histories of the USSR that have good
chapters on this- Alec Nove comes to mind.

The essays in MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS, at least the ones I can judge,
are generally excellent. I have the three volumes in hardcover,
bought new, and have never regretted the expense.

Regards,

Henry Sirotin

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:55:32 EST
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 3rd Army Chronology - 23Jan45

January 23, 1945
D-Day +231

-Divisional reassignments as per operational directive dated 19Jan45:
   1. XII Corps, 87th & 4th Inf Divs --> VIII Corps
   2. VIII Corps, 76th Inf Div --> XII Corps
   3. XX Corps, 95th Inf Div --> VIII Corps
   4. VIII Corps, 17th Airborne --> III Corps
   5. III Corps, 26 Inf Div --> XX Corps
   6. III Corps, 90th Inf Div --> VIII Corps

   Net result was to strengthen VIII Corps on the left flank with 5 divisions,
   leaving III and XX Corps with 2 divisions, and XII Corps with 4.

-XIX TAC destroyed or damaged 164 vehicles, and 29 gun positions

-35th Inf Div moved from Metz to 7th Army

-VIII Corps received 6 Artillery Battalions; 3 each from III & XII Corps

-Oil was becoming critical,... Thicker viscosities would be used in winter
 conditions.

***

Alan Wild, Sr. Prog/Analyst
ACC - Lippitt - URI
Kingston, RI  02881

I am the NRA.

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:57:54 EST
From:    "SGM Robert S. Rush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 22d Hurtgen Epilogue

Terry,
You just described the American Replacement System of World War II, and
the Confederate Replacement System as well :)  Now the problem is to determine
how long you take units out of the line to acclimatize the new soldiers.  And
at what level do you reconstitute?  That's the dilemma.  Almost makes me want
to go back to the square division of with four brigades. Two in Combat, one
in reserve and one reconstituting hard hit companies and battalions.  Both
the US and Germans tried reconstituting while in reserve.  More often as not
the reserve mission took priority and reconstitution stopped when things got
hot, re the 4th and 28th Infantry Divisions at the Bulge, and some of the
German Divisions around Hurtgen and Aachen, and on the Russian Front.
Any body else have any thoughts on this.

Rob

>    I agree with that. However, if you had your druthers, it seems to
>me  you would want to gain the maximum benefit from that experience,
>you would add the replacements to those decimated experience squads
>rather than combine them, as under combat conditions, your are then
>faced with additional losses of experienced personnel, that may be
>ill-afforded. Look at the experience of the Waffen-SS. The central
>criticism of this outfit was that these highly-trained people could
>have been better used if they had been spread around among other
>units, other than the SS. This amounted to "putting all your eggs in
>one basket".
>
>That is a tough to be sure, but it seems to me that you could enhance
>the chances of longevity of experienced personnel being reinforced
>with inexperienced personnel, rather than following the example of
>the Waffen-SS of consolidation.
>
>    I appreciate your thoughts, and the above are mine, as well.
>
>    Thanks again.
>
>    Terry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Hope this answers your question somewhat.  The comments above are my
>> own.
>>
>> Rob Rush
>>
>

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 20:14:28 EST
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Battleships

Didn't the Alaska class BC's go to war?

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

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 20:21:18 EST
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: deaths of german pow

Dear Keith,

I hope your college paper on the PoWs in Russia was better researched
than Bacque's OTHER LOSSES. The book is a farce, and was totally,
and I mean totally, wiped by a rebuttal volume edited by Stephen
Ambrose and published in '93 or early '94 by LSU Press.

Henry Sirotin

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 20:22:16 EST
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Farewell BBs

Say Ed, was the USS Oklahoma counted twice in that list?! :)

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

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 20:24:50 EST
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: BOOKS:  Reviews Wanted

Sorry to be making a habit of this, but....

Has anyone seen a review of T.V. Paul's _Assymetrical Conflict:  War
Initiation by Weaker Powers_ 1994, Cambridge Press?  I have read most of
it and will post some to the list(s), but I am only near a (very good)
science library, and don't have any social science sources to check out
reviews.  I would like to know how it has been received.

Anyone had a chance to read Doubler, Michael D. _Closing with the Enemy:
How GIs Fought the War in Europe, 1944-1945_?  Seems relevant to some of
our discussions.

Thanks in advance, and also, thanks for the help in the past!

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

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 20:29:31 EST
From:    Cassady Craft <[email-masked]>
Subject: WHAT-IF: Pearl Harbor

Just thinking about the long-term effects of the raid on Pearl Harbor on
Dec. 7, 1941.  Question and what if:  Knowing what you know now, if you
could advise Yammamoto whether to make the raid or not, what would you
advise.  Make it that war with the US will begin on that day; or if you
want, make it that you don't declare on the US.  Let's see what happens.

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

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 21:17:11 -0500
From:    Douglass Green <[email-masked]>
Subject: Inside The Third Reich-Speer

I am finishing my first read of Speer's book Inside the Third Reich. I saw
a peice to TV last night called 'Hitler's Henchmen' where they referred to
the book as self serving. I see some of that, but I also see Speer taking
responsibility for his actions/inactions during the war.

I would be most interested in other's views on this book. Thanks.

--
Douglass Green
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 23 Jan 1995 22:34:09 -0500
From:    David Rising <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Auschwitz

John, although it's probably no help to you, I think that the reason that
it's difficult to find the exact date for the liberation of Auschwitz is
that it was liberated by the Soviets as they pressed towards the
factories in the area. I don't they thought of it as much-- didn't even
mention that Jews were held there in their early releases about it. They
had too much of their own to hide also. Hope this helps give you an
excuse for your reader.
David Rising

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 22 Jan 1995 to 23 Jan 1995
*************************************************