WWI Digest 2981 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) RE: Contest Etiquette by "Michael Kendix" 2) RE: Contest Etiquette by Crawford Neil 3) Re: PE Parts Set Update by "Lance Krieg" 4) New images online by "Matt Bittner" 5) Re: New images online by Allan Wright 6) What was this 'confidential' SPAM? by "DAVID BURKE" 7) Re: Contest Etiquette by "DAVID BURKE" 8) Re: What was this 'confidential' SPAM? by Allan Wright 9) Re:Most Importants by John_Impenna@hyperion.com 10) Re: Most important ? by Mark Miller 11) RE: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 by Brent Theobald 12) Re: Most important? by GRBroman@aol.com 13) Re: Most important ? by "Michael Kendix" 14) Re: Most important ? by "Michael Kendix" 15) RE: Most important? by "Graham Hunter" 16) Re: Most important ? by TomTheAeronut@aol.com 17) Re: Most important ? by TomTheAeronut@aol.com 18) Re: Most important? by "Dale Sebring" 19) Re: Most important ? by TomTheAeronut@aol.com 20) Re: Most Important? by KarrArt@aol.com 21) Re: Most Important? by KarrArt@aol.com 22) Re: Most important ? by GRBroman@aol.com 23) RE: Most important? by Mark Miller 24) Re: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 by "aa8." 25) Re: Most important ? by Mark Miller 26) a Dolphin and a spammer was RE: What was this 'confidential' SPAM? by "Gaston Graf" 27) Re: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 by Shane & Lorna Jenkins 28) Rotary engine mounted weapon by "Brian Nicklas" 29) RE: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 by Brent Theobald 30) Re: Most Important? (F2B Brisfit legacy) by "Mark Shannon" 31) Rumpler Internal Designations by "Graham Nash" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:07:04 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: >From: Crawford Neil >Yes but does it matter what the underside looks like? Certainly >it wouldn't matter enough to me, to make me want to pick up your >Farman F40. The farman can be picked up easily by holding it between the thumb and forefinger at the front of the nacelle/fuselage. there's no wires and that's how I lift it. Maybe when I entered it the judges simply looked underneath it by just looking at it from a low down angle, crouching on the ground. I don't know because I don't like to watch them judging my kits - sure to bring bad luck:). Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:29:13 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: I bet it won! /Neil > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Kendix [mailto:mkendix@hotmail.com] > Sent: den 16 januari 2001 15:13 > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette > > > >From: Crawford Neil > > >Yes but does it matter what the underside looks like? Certainly > >it wouldn't matter enough to me, to make me want to pick up your > >Farman F40. > > The farman can be picked up easily by holding it between the > thumb and > forefinger at the front of the nacelle/fuselage. there's no > wires and > that's how I lift it. Maybe when I entered it the judges > simply looked > underneath it by just looking at it from a low down angle, > crouching on the > ground. I don't know because I don't like to watch them > judging my kits - > sure to bring bad luck:). > > Michael > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:42:47 -0600 From: "Lance Krieg" To: Subject: Re: PE Parts Set Update Message-ID: SP says: "I am still awaiting the arrival of the Fotocut ... booklet." Whoa! sent that out weeks ago, to a number of people. Some of them arrived, to be sure. Steve, contact me off-list to confirm the address. Lance ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:18:15 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: New images online Message-ID: <200101161518.HAA18026@swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net> I just uploaded David Calhoun's latest - an Albatros D.V and an SSW D.III. Well done, Dave! Also let me take this time to remind listee's to please only send things you want on the site during the week. Both Al and I do *not* update the site on the weekend, and at least for me I have email coming through a T1 during the week. Matt Bittner WW1 Modeling Site Assistant Editor :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:30:12 -0500 (EST) From: Allan Wright To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: New images online Message-ID: <200101161530.KAA08093@pease1.sr.unh.edu> > I just uploaded David Calhoun's latest - an Albatros D.V and an SSW > D.III. Well done, Dave! > > Also let me take this time to remind listee's to please only send > things you want on the site during the week. Both Al and I do *not* > update the site on the weekend, and at least for me I have email coming > through a T1 during the week. You can send weekend submissions to me, but they will be ignored until I get back to the office on Monday. FYI. It does keep my mailbox from filling up if you wait and send them during the week though. Much appreciated. -Allan =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | "I Played the Fool" - Southside Johnny University of New Hampshire +-------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:36:45 -0600 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: What was this 'confidential' SPAM? Message-ID: <005b01c07fd3$a673ae40$42ec79a5@com> Hi David, Are you referring to that ridiculous message that I got twice yesterday? Did the whole List get it? When I checked the return address, it was to another address, not the List's. Hey Allan, have the enemy found a way around the perimeter defenses? DB ...who almost replied to the jerk to chew him out for insulting my intelligence! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:45:56 -0600 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: <005c01c07fd3$a7464080$42ec79a5@com> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:41 AM Subject: Re: Contest Etiquette > In a message dated 1/15/01 2:25:19 PM EST, lance.krieg@amerus.com writes: > > << My last contest entry was moved, by an unknown hand, >> > At the last Battleship contest (I know I keep mentioning it, but I want folks to show up - Mar. 10 in Mobile, AL), my modus operandi was to call out the name of the modeler to have him move his stuff. At least at the beginning, before the tables got really crowded. Then I did it myself, with the reult that I accidentally broke a model while moving it. I felt like a real boob, even though the guy was nice (it was some car model). One way to be safe is to put your model on a sizeable, sturdy base. Gives the judge something to hold on to without touching the model. Many times one can merely slide the base along to make room. People who are non-contest staff who are caught touching models get one warning and one warning only. Then they are removed with the most force neccessary. I expect to be dealing with adults, and I expect them to behave as such. When I am in a contest as an entrant, and I need to make space, and there isn't a base that I can nudge GENTLY and touching the model itself is required, I call on one of the Contest Staff. I waited 15-20 minutes in Dallas at the Nats to get one to help me move stuff. But then again, I'm a Nice Guy.... DB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:57:24 -0500 (EST) From: Allan Wright To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: What was this 'confidential' SPAM? Message-ID: <200101161557.KAA08358@pease1.sr.unh.edu> Um...I don't think I got a copy.... -Allan > Hi David, > > Are you referring to that ridiculous message that I got twice yesterday? > Did the whole List get it? When I checked the return address, it was to > another address, not the List's. > Hey Allan, have the enemy found a way around the perimeter defenses? > DB =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | "I Played the Fool" - Southside Johnny University of New Hampshire +-------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:53:01 -0500 From: John_Impenna@hyperion.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re:Most Importants Message-ID: Hi Folks, I agree with Todd: most important aircraft Fokker Eindecker. Garros's plane provided the inspiration, but the E-III was the first practical fighter aircraft produced in significant numbers. Everything that came later was based on the premise of countering that plane. I also agree that Oswald Boelcke was the most important fighter pilot. I think he can pass MvR for one simple reason: he was MvR's teacher. No Boelcke, No MvR, or certainly not as the great pilot he ultimately became. Boelcke's ideas and tactics laid the groundwork for air-to-air combat even as we know it today. Regards, John ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 2001 08:30:50 -0800 From: Mark Miller To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: <20010116163050.17821.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net> On Mon, 15 January 2001, TomTheAeronut@aol.com wrote: > "Strategic bombing" and Guilio Douhet's theory of terrorizing the population > by so doing has accomplished diddly squat in every war it has ever been tried > in, including the most recent ten years ago. The total accomplishment of > Douhet's pipe dream was to make holes in a lot oif real estate, knock down > buildings, and massively piss off populations (rather than terrorize them) so > much so that the wars have probably been made longer rather than shortened by > popular support for the regime - whether it was Churchill or Hitler - being > bombed. > > Had the RAF and the USAAF been willing to go after the "panacea target" (as > "Bomber" Harris called anything that didn't involve burning German civilians > out of their homes) of the German oil industry in 1942 (when they had the > technology to do so) that would have shortened the war, as it did when they > finally did it in the summer of 1944. All the Combined Bomber Offensive > accomplished in the short run was the loss of a lot of intelligent, educated > aircrew, and the bankruptcy of Britain spending all that money on those holes > surrounded by aluminum into which they poured money, known as Lancasters and > Halifaxes (and to us as B-17s and B-24s.) > > "Tactical bombing", i.e., aerial activity connected to some achievable goal, > has always been the only effective use of air power. > > Frankly, the 20th Century would have been well-served by a certain Caproni > bomber being blown out of the sky with the loss of all aboard before Douhet > could set pen to paper. > > Tom Cleaver I must agree with most of this, IMHO strategic bombing is an inherently evil concept. And ineffective as well, the idea of breaking the enemy populace's will to fight always backfires. well.... almost always what about Hiroshima? whether or not you agree or disagree with the dropping of the bomb - It did shorten the war Personaly I don't know why they couldn't of bombed mount Fuji or something - just a demonstration of the weapons power - without vaporizing anybody But then again - I wasn't there and it was a different world a VERY nasty buisness all around, no matter how you look at it Mark Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.altavista.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:35:24 -0600 From: Brent Theobald To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 Message-ID: <4B9386E83999D411997100508BAF206A79EC3A@stamail.telecom.sna.samsung.com> Howdy! You know me. I don't kid around. Some of those Staaken kits bring an unreal amount of money on Ebay. There's idiots with too much money ruining it for the rest of us. Later! Brent -----Original Message----- From: Shane & Lorna Jenkins [mailto:sljenkins@tac.com.au] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 8:12 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 Brent Theobald wrote: > It's still not as bad as some of the $300 Contrail Staakens out there. WHAT!!!!! You're joking aren't you?? I got mine for approx AUD$30.00 only last year. Bloody hell, this means if I stuff something up (more than likely), I'll have to scratchbuild ;-) Shane the Younger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:46:17 EST From: GRBroman@aol.com To: Subject: Re: Most important? Message-ID: <97.fecaba3.2795d4d9@aol.com> In a message dated Mon, 15 Jan 2001 9:09:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Steven M.Perry" writes: << An afterthought on the most important.: Who invented the relief tube? Cpt James "Puddles" O'Hanlon, DSC, MBE ;) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:10:04 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: >From: Mark Miller > >Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! >http://www.shopping.altavista.com Mark: Are you still using Alta Vista? I understood they were no longer offering free internet. Have I missed something? Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:10:57 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: Sorry about that prior post, it was meant to be for Mark Miller alone. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:10:21 -0600 From: "Graham Hunter" To: Subject: RE: Most important? Message-ID: <000001c07fe7$9818a9e0$fa0101c0@grahamh> -----Original Message----- Matt Bittner What would listee's consider the most important aircraft of the first world war? Regardless of how I feel about the type, I would opt for the Nieuport 11. Why? I would have to agree. IMHO the D.VII was a refinement of the Nieuport design. Graham H. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:26:40 EST From: TomTheAeronut@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: <9.fb9040c.2795ec60@aol.com> In a message dated 1/16/01 4:24:30 AM EST, Neil.Crawford@volvo.com writes: << but in that case why does your air-force still fly B1, B2 and B52, is everyone in Pentagon nuts? >> Actually, making it to General in the American military involves either being nuts or a knave nowadays. As a famous American President once noted, "you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time." (and I am now beginning to doubt his point about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time) In the case of military politics in the US, it's a case of both: you fool "all of the people" (i.e., cadets at the Air Force Academy) "some of the time" (in their religious indoctrination classes, aka "History of the Air Force 100"). They then go on to a career in the AF and eventually become officers at the Pentagon, where they fool "some of the people" (Congressmen and Senators) "all of the time" (with the kind of reports that can only be created at "Versailles on the Potomac"), resulting in contracts for B-1s, B-2s, and other completely unnecessary items, spread among the electoral districts of the 50 most powerful members of the House of Representatives, who are then re-elected for "bringing home the bacon" (jobs) and become even more powerful. It's now known as the MICC (for Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex) by military reformers. It works under Democratic or Republican administrations and results in such bastardizations as the F/A-18 Hornet, an airplane that has *never* met the original specifications that called it into existence and has only survived due to Northrop being taken over by McDonnell-Douglas, with its contracts now spread among the congressional districts of the top 100 as well as the states of the members of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, and the specifications have been "dumbed down" to where that collection-of-spare-parts-flying-in-formation can become the only fixed-wing aircraft found in carrier air wings. You will notice that, now that Grumman no longer exists to spread the wealth around, the F-14 - the finest dogfighter of its generation - is swiftly being replaced by a second-rate pile of politically-acceptable scrap aluminum. America: we have the finest politicians money can buy!! Sorry for the ot rant. TC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:32:39 EST From: TomTheAeronut@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: In a message dated 1/16/01 4:24:30 AM EST, Neil.Crawford@volvo.com writes: << Also I don't think the technology was really ready in 1942, the RAF would probably just have lost even more bombers than they did. >> Get hold of Max Hastings's truly wonderful "Bomber Command," Dial Press, 1979 (unfortunately no ISBN quoted). The commanders of the RAF - other than Hugh Dowding, the man who saved England and was sacked for so doing, having demonstrated the bankruptcy of "official mythology" within the RAF - were all raised in the "Trenchard tradition." "Bomber" Harris, who should have been sacked for insubordination as early as the summer of 1943, was merely the most thorough demonstration of the moral/political/intellectual bankruptcy of Douhetism. TC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:43:03 -0700 From: "Dale Sebring" To: Subject: Re: Most important? Message-ID: <001301c07fec$29301400$3eb58dd0@main> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 9:51 AM Subject: Re: Most important? > In a message dated Mon, 15 Jan 2001 9:09:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Steven M.Perry" writes: > > << An afterthought on the most important.: > > Who invented the relief tube? > > Cpt James "Puddles" O'Hanlon, DSC, MBE MOST EXCELLENT......ROTFLMAO Thanks for making my day! :-) Have a great one. Best regards, Dale ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:45:11 EST From: TomTheAeronut@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: In a message dated 1/16/01 11:33:34 AM EST, albatros1212@altavista.com writes: << what about Hiroshima? >> Hiroshima, while it did accomplish the goal of ending the war - though there is a stong and well-argued opinion that there was no necessity of invading Japan since we controlled everything around it and the air above it and could simply have cut them off from the outside world and sat back to await the inevitable surrender - is also the proof of the bankruptcy of Douhetism, since the only way to make the theory work is to completely destroy everything. Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:59:05 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <13.1024c8aa.2795f3f9@aol.com> In a message dated 1/15/01 10:32:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, smperry@mindspring.com writes: << RK: Glad to hear you're feeling better. Been missing seeing your posts. Your protracted bout is no doubt due to an allergy to canvas that can only be cured with massive styrene exposure. sp >> One of these days! Right now, for the first time in a couple of years, I have all the work cleared out that I owe people, and I get to paint a little bit of what I want to....and there will be a couple of on-topic pictures- THEN maybe a little 3D model building ( the paintings are just 2D model building, the main difference being that generally, I don't have to sweat cockpit detail as much!) RK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:59:03 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <75.efa2eab.2795f3f7@aol.com> In a message dated 1/15/01 10:29:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, smperry@mindspring.com writes: << > an "anti-developement" might be the Bristol F2B- which led to the ME110, > Bell Airacuda and other extravagant heavy fighter designs of the 30s. The > Bristol was great, but it's children were ne'er-do-wells Don't know Robert, I wouldn't call the Phantom a ne'er-do-well. And a fair portion of it's success is due to the same teamwork required to complete the mission that characterized the F.2b. Not to mention both were rugged, powerful airframes. >> I agree- The Phantom and others that came before and after were good airplanes and were effectively used. But some of those grandiose 30s designs were maybe ahead of their times, or just plain wrongly used, or were designed without a clue about what might really make a great large fighter. The Bristol seems to be one of those once-in-a-generation flukes- the right combination of power,armament and manueverability- coupled with the discovery of it's ability to fight, not just another two-seater. Machines like the Me110 were an attempt to duplicate the Bristol's success, but without a clue about what made the Bristol so good, as if somebody looked at the Bristol and and said "hmmmmmm- two seats, good fighter, if a little large......". When jet power came along, the idea of the large fighter again became feasible. Oh- all bets are off in regard to night (later all weather)fighters, where the somewhat sluggish performance of the 110 and others wasn't quite so critical. I mainly picked the Me110 because of an article I read long long ago and it mentioned that the Bristol's success was taken into consideration and was part of the inspiration behind the 110. RK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:00:52 EST From: GRBroman@aol.com To: Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: In a message dated Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:33:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, Mark Miller writes: I must agree with most of this, IMHO strategic bombing is an inherently evil concept. And ineffective as well, the idea of breaking the enemy populace's will to fight always backfires. Hey guys, I think you all are confused on terms. Strategic bombing refers to bombing in support of strategic objectives, and is often highly successfull. Destruction of Iragi command and control during the Gulf and daylight precision raids against German petroleum targets are examples of successes (more strikes against the German power grid could have been devastating). You guys seem to be confusing the term strategic bombing with "area bombing" and "carpet bombing" which were championed by "Bomber" Harris and Curtis LeMay in WWII. Although they are a subsets of strategic bombing, they are not good definitions of what strategic bombing actually means. Tactical bombing is in support of operations at the battalion through Corps level usually. Strategic bombing supports Army, Theater and National objectives. Bombing the marshelling yards behind the German lines in WWI would be tactical bombing. HP 0/400 raids against BASF at Ludwigshafen would be an early example of stratg! ic bombing and Gotha and Zeppili n raids against London would be examples of area, carpet or terror bombing. If I may be permitted a slightly (?) ot example using the Gulf war. (Hey, if I was old enough to fight in WWI, I would have gone with an OT example). Tactical bombing generally occured in the Kuwait area of operations against Iraqi defenses, staging areas, log bases, etc. Strategic bombing was used to isolate Kuwait from Iraqi control and reinforcement, such as dropping the bridges over the Euphrates, destruction of command and control and elimination of the air threat. I trust this helps to show that Strategic bombing is not an inherently evil concept. It is a valid military doctrine. I do. however, question the doctrine of terror bombing as a legitimate means of waging war, going all the way back to WWI. Glen ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 2001 11:01:54 -0800 From: Mark Miller To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: RE: Most important? Message-ID: <20010116190154.26725.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net> On Tue, 16 January 2001, "Graham Hunter" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > Matt Bittner > What would listee's consider the most important aircraft of the first > world war? Regardless of how I feel about the type, I would opt for > the Nieuport 11. Why? > > I would have to agree. IMHO the D.VII was a refinement of the Nieuport > design. > > Graham H. Huh? are you talking about the Foker DVII? I don't see the connection other than that they were both biplanes could you please explain your rational ? Mark Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.altavista.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:59:45 -0000 From: "aa8." To: Subject: Re: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 Message-ID: <005101c07ff6$fde68800$f1193c3e@tinypc> Hello Brent I couldn't agree more. I recently sold a whole load of Contrail kits (not the Staaken which is the only thing from that range that I want) at the IPMS Nationals at Telford. I marked most of them at a around five quid each. The most expensive being the Victoria/Valentia multi kit (about 18 quid) by 10.30am on the first day they'd all gone. If we really want the Staaken we would all be better of lobbying Aircraft in Miniature to re-release the kit. I know two or three of us have E-mailed them but if loads more of us tried and persisted it might keep their minds focused and they might think they might sell more than three. Just a thought Andy Jones P.S. I have some of the more cr*ppy Contrail kits still in the loft. I didn't have the front to sell them. If anybody body wants them, you can have them just cover the price of postage. Sorry about being slightly OFF TOPIC Here ----- Original Message ----- From: Brent Theobald To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:40 PM Subject: RE: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 > Howdy! > > You know me. I don't kid around. Some of those Staaken kits bring an unreal > amount of money on Ebay. There's idiots with too much money ruining it for > the rest of us. > > Later! > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shane & Lorna Jenkins [mailto:sljenkins@tac.com.au] > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 8:12 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 > > > Brent Theobald wrote: > > > It's still not as bad as some of the $300 Contrail Staakens out there. > > WHAT!!!!! You're joking aren't you?? I got mine for approx AUD$30.00 > only last year. Bloody hell, this means if I stuff something up (more > than likely), I'll have to scratchbuild ;-) > > Shane the Younger > ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 2001 12:09:05 -0800 From: Mark Miller To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: <20010116200905.16165.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net> On Tue, 16 January 2001, GRBroman@aol.com wrote: > Hey guys, I think you all are confused on terms. Strategic bombing refers to bombing in support of strategic objectives, and is often highly successfull. Destruction of Iragi command and control during the Gulf and daylight precision raids against German petroleum targets are examples of successes (more strikes against the German power grid could have been devastating). You guys seem to be confusing the term strategic bombing with "area bombing" and "carpet bombing" which were championed by "Bomber" Harris and Curtis LeMay in WWII. Although they are a subsets of strategic bombing, they are not good definitions of what strategic bombing actually means. Tactical bombing is in support of operations at the battalion through Corps level usually. Strategic bombing supports Army, Theater and National objectives. Bombing the marshelling yards behind the German lines in WWI would be tactical bombing. HP 0/400 raids against BASF at Ludwigshafen would be an early example of stratg! > ! > ic bombing and Gotha and Zeppili > n raids against London would be examples of area, carpet or terror bombing. If I may be permitted a slightly (?) ot example using the Gulf war. (Hey, if I was old enough to fight in WWI, I would have gone with an OT example). Tactical bombing generally occured in the Kuwait area of operations against Iraqi defenses, staging areas, log bases, etc. Strategic bombing was used to isolate Kuwait from Iraqi control and reinforcement, such as dropping the bridges over the Euphrates, destruction of command and control and elimination of the air threat. I trust this helps to show that Strategic bombing is not an inherently evil concept. It is a valid military doctrine. I do. however, question the doctrine of terror bombing as a legitimate means of waging war, going all the way back to WWI. > Glen Glen I stand corrected. Yes - I was refering to what you term "terror bombing" Which does seem to be often comfused with Strategic bombing Maybe this is because in ww2 the accuracy of the bombers was such that it was seemingly impossible to attack true strategic objectives without causing huge amount of civilian collateral damage. It also seems that there is some question as to whether stategic bombing in ww2 was successful on any level. The precision of modern day "smart" bombs does seem to have made the whole concept more acceptable and effective. mark Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.altavista.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:19:27 +0100 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: a Dolphin and a spammer was RE: What was this 'confidential' SPAM? Message-ID: DeeBee, if it made it to Luxembourg so it sure made it around the world. Replying to such people comes to nothing but revealing your true email address to them, hence chances are bad enough they will pester you even more with their crap. Better keep your mouth shut or or trash your keyboard or have somebody present to tie your hands behind your back to avoid you bringing yourself in trouble with your typing ;o). In the latter case you may keep your keyboard indeed. Back OT I want to tell the list that the actual edition (Feb. 2001) of AEROPLANE features 21 pages about the Sopwith Dolphin. I don't know if this information was already posted by other list members so I thought about informing you all. The Feb. edition is really a great one, featuring also a special section about WWII bomber Avro Lancaster as well as many other interesting news. Defintely worth a subscrition! happy modeling Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de > -----Original Message----- > From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of > DAVID BURKE > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:54 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: What was this 'confidential' SPAM? > > > Hi David, > > Are you referring to that ridiculous message that I got twice > yesterday? > > > Did the whole List get it? When I checked the return > address, it was to > another address, not the List's. > > Hey Allan, have the enemy found a way around the perimeter defenses? > > > DB > > ..who almost replied to the jerk to chew him out for insulting my > intelligence! > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:30:10 -0800 From: Shane & Lorna Jenkins To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 Message-ID: <3A65BA82.7D39BFCC@tac.com.au> Brent Theobald wrote: > > Howdy! > > You know me. I don't kid around. Some of those Staaken kits bring an unreal > amount of money on Ebay. There's idiots with too much money ruining it for > the rest of us. Hi, Yeah, was just the shock value there :-( Aw well, methinks one the best ways to get AIM to re-release it is by building the kits & showing the completed model as much as possible. This will have the benefit of raising the awareness of the kit, so that more people will write in requesting a re-release or better yet a plastic mould may even be forthcoming So, howsabout a German Giants theme for the next cookup then?? Lets be daring ;-) Shane the Younger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:30:52 -0500 From: "Brian Nicklas" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Rotary engine mounted weapon Message-ID: Help, list, Help! Trying to ID a strange weapon. Evidently a shotgun mounted on front of the shaft of a rotary engine, possibly a LeRhone. This did not fire through the shaft, it is mounted on front. We only have the weapon and the frontplate of the engine, which is very LeRhone-ish. It appears to have additional cooling louvers around the outer edge of the frontplate. Sorry for the dicey description, ("Don't follow your banter, Old Boy") but I'm passing along info third-hand. When I get a chance I'll look at the piece myself. Thanks, Brian Nicklas Archives Division, Room 3148 National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC 20560-0322 USA 1-202-357-3133 (telephone) 1-202-786-2835 (telefax) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:48:17 -0600 From: Brent Theobald To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 Message-ID: <4B9386E83999D411997100508BAF206A79EC3F@stamail.telecom.sna.samsung.com> Well we do have all those Fredrichshafen's I'm about to order from Modelbud Chorszy! :-) Later! -----Original Message----- So, howsabout a German Giants theme for the next cookup then?? Lets be daring ;-) Shane the Younger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:40:34 -0600 From: "Mark Shannon" To: Subject: Re: Most Important? (F2B Brisfit legacy) Message-ID: Power. That was the single problem. In WWI the envelope of performance was so relatively low that the addition of the weight of the extra man and gun gear did not make a difference in the overall performance. In the 1930's - 40's, the engines were reaching their peak for piston power. Engines were mass produced and standardized, so the two-seater had the same engine as the single seater (Battle, Defiant, Fulmar, vs. Spitfire and Hurricane) or two engines enlarged the whole to where it became 'awkward' close in (Me-110, Whirlwind, to some extent the P-38). With jets the power ratio was such that the addition a man made little difference in the whole picture, and then with the turbofan/turbojet engines, the weight of a person is the smallest change in payload calculation. Plus the use of the second person changed from gunner to information processor and switch manipulator � more of a flight engineer role. I don't think the Brisfit's legacy is entirely a dark one. It lead the way to the general purpose aircraft that could take care of itself in the whole variety of roles. .Mark. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:42:32 -0000 From: "Graham Nash" To: Subject: Rumpler Internal Designations Message-ID: Can any of the more knowledgable list members explain to me how Rumpler's internal designation system worked? Uncle Sniffy ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2981 **********************