Reading the entire series, left me with the thought of "It was futile, so why?". I mean Guys climbing out to the trenches to attack literally minutes before the Armistice? And Dying? Why?
I'm going to write it off as "Fog of War", and refer to a couple of wars that didn't follow that model.
Fog of war. You NEVER know what the enemy is thinking. You may have good intel. You may have a strong feeling, but you never know for certain. Is he using the time in between now and the appointed time to bring in Reserves? Plan a different attack? Rest and Rearm?
To prevent that, in both WWI and WWII the Allies continued attacks until the official Armistice/Surrender was accomplished. But we seem to have forgotten that in our "wars" since.
How many bombing halts did that SOB, buried about 20 miles east of me, order to "entice" the North Vietnamese to come to the bargaining table? What would have happened if he'd continued to attack Hanoi and Haiphong in 1968 rather than halting them? I doubt it would have been worse than what actually happened.
Essentially the same goes for Korea, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan. Different specifics, but we negotiated at any cost rather than negotiated with our knife across there throat.
That however is my opinion. Unlike some, I encourage disagreement and discussion. It enlightens both sides.
So, having not done one of these posts in a while, I return to my old standby.
Permit me to introduce you to 1LT Raymond L Knight.
Source |
Mussolini is second from Left Source |
The situation for Germany and Italy, is obviously collapsing rapidly, at least in the Italian theater. (Things aren't going swimmingly in Western and Eastern Front for the Axis powers either. Japan is still hanging on by a thread, although Okinawa is in progress.)
Even with that encouraging assessment, Lt Knight is assigned to lead a flight of P-47 to strafe Ghendi airfield near Bergamo (about 30 NM ENE of Milan). It's pretty apparent that the Axis doesn't have a lot of fuel to conduct operations, so why undertake an extremely hazardous operation such as strafing an airfield?
Lt Knight and his crewchief, Sergeant Marvin Childers, with their Jug, "Oh Johnnie". Look at how big the P47 is! Source |
Strafing involves very low altitude, meaning you're within the range of virtually any weapon. It involves near level flight, because jinking low to the ground is difficult as altitude is all above you, and tracking the target is essential to successfully hitting it. So the only way to minimize the risk is high speed. However,while high speed minimizes tracking time for the bad guys (good), it also reduces accuracy for the pilot (not so good).
But if the enemy won't come to where you are, you must go to where the enemy is. Ergo, strafing.
Source Google Maps |
So, Lt Knight is given this mission of dubious worth to the Allied War Effort. How does he handle it?
He has the rest of the flight, hold well above the target, out of AAA range while he, the flight lead, dives down and makes a high speed pass to see if there are actually airplanes on the field and where on that field they may be.
Alone.
That pretty much defines Leadership in my book. He knows there's AAA down there, doesn't know if there are targets. Isn't going to risk other lives unnecessarily. So goes down to look see, alone.
Leadership.
Finding 8 aircraft on the field, he rejoins his flight and leads the attack, destroying 5 on the ground while his flight destroys 2 that got airborne.
He then returns to base and volunteers to lead another mission to Bergamo, leading a 4 ship. He again orders the others to remain high as he scouts the field. As he makes his pass, he discovers another group of aircraft but sustains heavy damage to his P47. However, he returns with his flight and makes 10 passes destroying 6 twin engine aircraft.
He is able to safely return to base.
The main fuel tank was in this general area. Source |
As he is returning to base, his virtually unflyable aircraft will not gain enough altitude to clear the Apennini Mountains and crashes, killing Lt Knight.
Two things struck me about this. One was previously discussed. While of dubious tactical value (the enemy aircraft were mostly unflyable), the missions were strategically necessary to keep pressure on the enemy until they actually surrendered.
The second thought was, at this point in the War, the Allies still were short on aircraft? Or was the aircraft important enough to risk your life because of a shortage in THIS theater?
Somehow, I think the latter.
By the way, his aircraft was named Oh Johnnie" after his wife.
The following video, while not very interesting (only 111+ views), does show the rugged terrain that the Lt and his aircraft tried to climb over.
Lt Knight's Citation:
"He piloted a fighter-bomber aircraft in a series of low-level strafing missions, destroying 14 grounded enemy aircraft and leading attacks which wrecked 10 others during a critical period of the Allied drive in northern Italy.
On the morning of 24 April, he volunteered to lead 2 other aircraft against the strongly defended enemy airdrome at Ghedi. Ordering his fellow pilots to remain aloft, he skimmed the ground through a deadly curtain of antiaircraft fire to reconnoiter the field, locating 8 German aircraft hidden beneath heavy camouflage. He rejoined his flight, briefed them by radio, and then led them with consummate skill through the hail of enemy fire in a low-level attack, destroying 5 aircraft, while his flight accounted for 2 others.
Returning to his base, he volunteered to lead 3 other aircraft in reconnaissance of Bergamo airfield, an enemy base near Ghedi and 1 known to be equally well defended. Again ordering his flight to remain out of range of antiaircraft fire, 1st Lt. Knight flew through an exceptionally intense barrage, which heavily damaged his Thunderbolt, to observe the field at minimum altitude.
He discovered a squadron of enemy aircraft under heavy camouflage and led his flight to the assault. Returning alone after this strafing, he made 10 deliberate passes against the field despite being hit by antiaircraft fire twice more, destroying 6 fully loaded enemy twin-engine aircraft and 2 fighters.
His skillfully led attack enabled his flight to destroy 4 other twin-engine aircraft and a fighter plane. He then returned to his base in his seriously damaged plane.
Early the next morning, when he again attacked Bergamo, he sighted an enemy plane on the runway. Again he led 3 other American pilots in a blistering low-level sweep through vicious antiaircraft fire that damaged his plane so severely that it was virtually nonflyable.
Three of the few remaining enemy twin-engine aircraft at that base were destroyed.
Realizing the critical need for aircraft in his unit, he declined to parachute to safety over friendly territory and unhesitatingly attempted to return his shattered plane to his home field. With great skill and strength, he flew homeward until caught by treacherous air conditions in the Appennines Mountains, where he crashed and was killed.
The gallant action of 1st Lt. Knight eliminated the German aircraft which were poised to wreak havoc on Allied forces pressing to establish the first firm bridgehead across the Po River; his fearless daring and voluntary self-sacrifice averted possible heavy casualties among ground forces and the resultant slowing on the German drive culminated in the collapse of enemy resistance in Italy."
Rest in Peace, Warrior!
Sources:
https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/raymond-l-knight/
https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/639610/knight-1st-lt-raymond-l-knight/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_L._Knight
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fknhx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Benito_Mussolini
Jug seriously damaged during one days' sortie and then flies same plane the next day....wonder how well repaired it was. Good supposition Juvat, planes must have been in short supply. 1st Lt. Knight minimized risks to his fellow fliers by his actions, flying alone, low over airfields where every imaginable gun would be spitting lead....... God Bless First Lieutenant Knight.
ReplyDeleteI can't confirm that it was the same plane that got shot up in the second sortie, only that it was his assigned aircraft in the third sortie. Assuming he flew that aircraft in the first, it may or may not have been quick turned to fly the second. If so, you've asked a good question.
DeleteGreat stuff! Thanks for the lesson.
ReplyDeleteI read a story about a '47 that flew into the second story of a stone house at the end of the runway in a very English fog. He banged his head, so was a bit dazed.... slid the canopy and stepped out into the room... The Thunderbolt could take a lot of punishment.
That kind of leadership is amazing. Out front, pulling the string, not pushing it.
As to the slob in the dirt out east of you, just look at what happened after Linebacker 2. The north came back to the table, and accepted the deal. Then, after Nixon quit, the congress swung hugely D, and they didn't honor the agreement. So instead of a second Korea, the north swept south, and west... And Cambodia, went too. Fullbright basically said, "Can't see it from my house." .... and millions more are fed to the Marxian Monster.... (from leadership to ignominious outcome in a couple years) And we do it over and over and over.....
"And we do it over and over and over....."
DeleteKinda makes you wonder if it's deliberate doesn't it?
"Kinda makes you wonder if it's deliberate doesn't it?"
DeleteOur second worst enemy are our politicians.
Thanks for the post.
Paul L. Quandt
Italy did get the short end of the stick for supply purposes. We never really wanted to go there, but Churchill did. I suppose we went in so that the Brits would go along with Overlord, at least that's why I've read here and there.
ReplyDeleteThe Jug was a tough bird, but eventually even the toughest aircraft will take enough damage where it just won't fly high anymore.
Lt Knight was definitely a lead from the front kind of guy. It's good to know the names and faces of these heroes. Thanks Juvat.
"The Jug was a tough bird, but eventually even the toughest aircraft will take enough damage where it just won't fly high anymore."
DeleteThuds come to mind...Oh, yeah, built by the same company. But we lost enough of them to confirm your hypothesis.
Lead from the front, what a concept!
Feeling any better?
Back at work, feeling much better thanks.
DeleteI won't need the hot spare, so you can add that to the frag order for next Monday if you wish.
Will do.
DeleteWell, in the Thud's defense, we would have lost a lot less of them if our forces were allowed to target the airfields, AAA, the rail connections between Com China and NVM, and bombed the harbor facilities and mined their rivers and harbors.
DeleteNo plane could survive in the combat envelope that the Thud performed best in. What was proven was how strong and over-built the Thud was. And what was surprising is that we didn't lose more.
Jug losses were very heavy in the ETO for pretty much the same thing. The Jug excelled at going low (like it excelled at everything it did) which meant it was very popular at air-to-ground, which put it in the same threat envelope that the Thud would be flying into in later years. (Funny, during the Korean War, they used Mustangs in the role that the Jug would have excelled at. Wonder what the politics behind that was all about. And while the USAF was using Mustangs, the USN and USMC were using Corsairs (which used the same engine as the Jug.) Weird, huh?)
I suspect the Korean War issue was a result of romantic familiarity with the Mustang by the AF Brass. Realize that the AF was transitioning from a Fighter Heavy force to SAC can win every war from now on. They also realized that the Mustang saved their bacon. Hence, what little money was devoted to CAS would be spent on the airplane they liked, ergo the Mustang.
DeleteNot much has changed since. (Cue LL's views of A-10 vs F-35)
@Juvat, the Thud was tough, but its hydraulics were its Achille's heel. Well, other than the single engine. Once you started losing hydraulic pressure, you were punching out sooner or later. Of course, given its originally designed mission (that of nuclear strike fighter) the lack of dual, independent hydraulic systems probably seems less important. A "hit" might be nuclear, in which case it doesn't matter how much redundancy it has. We learned those lessons with the A-10, but I fear we've forgotten them again. How much damage can an F-35 take before it plays lawn dart?
DeleteDon't know, and hope we don't find out, but......Supposedly it's advanced avionics will increase accuracy and range hopefully offsetting the single engine. I know, I know, Coach, "Hope is not a Course of Action."
Delete"...a lot less of them..."
DeleteFewer, AW, the correct word is fewer. It's a good word in the English language, one that more people need to become aware of. ( Yes, yes, I know that it is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. ) The less/fewer is one of my ( many ) bete noires.
Paul
Yup, Italy greese, and France got the short end of the stick. Logistics. Troops were needed everywhere. Europe, Asia, all had problems. Even as we we're winning. But, war only creates problems. Not memories that are fond. My wife complains sometimes of my my acive dreams of past expoits.
ReplyDeleteSouth France I'm assuming. Interestingly, it was the same way in the Pacific. The Northern route had the supplies and press, the Southern Route didn't have anything but MacArthur. Who knows what would have happened there if he hadn't been around to bludgeon his way through?
DeleteGeorge Marshall used to complain about the supply issues being made much worse by there being an European Theater of Operations, a Pacific Theater of Operations, and the U.S. Navy's private war with Japan, which consumed all the shipping tonnage needed for the other theaters.
DeleteTechnically, it’s impossible to hit “6 in a row out of the park, with a few grand slams amongst them” — only the first one could be a grand slam, there wouldn’t be any baserunners for the remaining 5.
ReplyDelete(Maybe some were Grand Slams and the others were “only” Tallboys?)
Ok, Technically, you're correct. Sheesh! :-)
DeleteTechnically speaking, a batter comes to the plate along with eight other batters. It is unlikely but not beyond the realm of possibility for a hitter to hit a grand slam on every plate appearance, as long as at least three other batters before him got on base and no more than two outs were registered.
DeleteI suppose it's how you define "in a row." In baseball "in a row" for a batter is for every plate appearance, remember, no man is an island. Or something.
Hey, how about those Red Sox?
But are there 8 co-bloggers, and did they all take their swings between Sarge appearances?
DeleteSPORTS METAPHORS ARE TERRIBLE. (Which is why I tried to bend it back around to large exploding things. Which are also terrible.)
Also I hate the Red Sox. Go Tribe!
DeleteYou might be able to tell, I didn't play much sports (organized anyhow) as a kid. Sandlot football and baseball were more fun.
Deletea bear, once again you have me on a technicality. I try to avoid sports metaphors, especially now that I seldom watch any of the games. I just can't stand the commercial nature of it.
DeleteI have yet to get LUSH out of the clubhouse and onto the field. ;)
Every team has a holdout
DeleteShe want's a better benefits package.
DeleteSo what you're saying, a bear, is that you kinda blew up your metaphors? Well, I guess you struck out on that one.
DeleteSo, Did Sarge have a good week....or what?
DeleteYeah, the “joke” kinda bombed.
DeleteNo, no, I chuckled, wholeheartedly, well, until I "savagely" attacked your metaphor.
DeleteIt's all fun and games until someone loses an eye...
Oh wait...
There is a sinister dimension to all war. We have failed to heed the words of Ike.
ReplyDeleteWhich one? He had a lot of them.
DeleteThank you for introducing Lt. Knight to us. A fine man, a fine leader. Reminds me of something Mush Morton would have done.
ReplyDeleteThe Jug. The plane took damage that would have left a Mustang down for the count, structurally, yet she flew. Lots of stories about this Republic product being strong like bull. Kinda the B-17 to the Mustang's B-24, in the ability to shrug off damage.
The Mediterranean/Italian front was always hind-tit compared to the ETO, and in some ways even behind the PTO. Who knew that forces from this theater even beach-assaulted southern France? Bueller? Bueller? The terrain that favored the creation of city-states and micro-nations before the Italian consolidation also favored the defender. Steep passes, very mountainous terrain, very narrow front, and the Italians had spent a lot of time fortifying, pre-war, large sections of their border and the critical passes from... the Germans (I don't think they ever forgot what Rommel did to them in WWI.) All those Italian defenses worked almost equally well against US forces during the Italian campaign.
By the way, Col. Leverette did say, one day when I asked, that he really liked Florida because there were no mountains. I think he got his fill of gross terrain features flying over and out of Italy, Korea and Vietnam. Flat. Flat is good. You have to work hard to run into a tree or telephone pole or buildings on flat terrain.
And I seem to remember Col. Leverette also talking about the nasty wind conditions around those very same Italian land features. So lots of nasty microclimatic changes, all pretty much making it hard to pilot a damaged kite.
Rest in Peace, Lt. Knight, and all the forgotten heroes of that nasty theater.
I'd agree about Italy vis a vis ETO/PTO. After reading this book, I'd say Italy was Neck in Neck with the SWP theater for suckage. Although CBI had sole ownership of last place.
DeleteNo, I actually think last place goes to the Aleutians/Alaskan front after the ImpJaps left. Starting out as hind teat and only got worse.
DeleteI apprenticed to a journeyman electrician that was in the Alaska fight. He was mean, bitter, and rough as a rasp. He gave it once, and I'd better not forget it. Not a tender spot in that old warrior. I figure he had to fight the weather AND the enemy, so it made him what he was.
DeleteI learned a lot from him. I owe him my current position. Thanks Mr. English. I really did learn a lot from you.
Beans, you're undoubtedly right.
DeleteSTxAR, You probably know who my mentor was. He used a lot of the same teaching techniques. Your last sentence is absolutely correct for me also.
DeleteFor any that might find my first sentence cryptic. Masthead, bottom row, 4th from the left.
Your confession to learning from one who went before shows you to be an honorable man. And THAT man was amazing. This is why I read everything written here. I've yet to see a screwball blather in the comments. And I measure myself against those I look up to (read just about every one here). I want to be the best man I can be. We learned to be MEN from MEN... I shudder to think what the H--- our country is producing now....
DeleteThanks
Delete"For any that might find my first sentence cryptic. Masthead, bottom row, 4th from the left."
DeleteI must confess my ignorance, juvat. I shall endeavor to rectify that state.
PLQ
The Jug was one of the reasons Grumman was known as the Ironworks. The birds took hits that would down a 'normal' bird, but they kept flying. Sadly, he couldn't bounce it off the mountain. Yes, he was a leader, and did his job. RIP sir, RIP!
ReplyDeleteNo, PK of the ground is virtually 100%. Luck plays 100% of the reason the PK is not 100%
DeleteExcellent article on the Jug...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/history/aircraft/p-47_thunderbolt_aviation_darwinism.html
That IS a good article, packed with good background info. Bookmarked for future reference. Thanks.
DeleteThe whole section of the plane that he is standing by, is full of turbocharger. The Jug was a Mighty Beast!
ReplyDeleteYes it was. Yet to see one fly though. I'll bet it's pretty striking.
DeleteYou never know what an a/c will eventually be used for despite its original design. The "Jug" was originally conceived as a high alt interceptor; the "Thud" as a low-level supersonic (hence the internal bomb-bay) nuke delivery sys. The "Iron Works" turned out some pretty versatile aircraft history shows! PS: My 1st cousin Lt Gen Carlos M. Talbott won the DSC (and a bunch of other shiny things) while flying the P-47 as a Capt in the ETO.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about that. The Eagle and Mud Hen are an example. Even the A-10 has done FAC work as well as CAS.
DeleteI remember you mentioning your Cousin a while ago. I think I'd have liked to met him.
"...Lt Gen Carlos M. Talbott won the DSC..."
DeleteTsk, tsk. You know better than that, vx. Sir.
Paul L. Quandt