B-17F formation over Schweinfurt, Germany, 17 August 1943 |
"I'm not kidding Chris, after we landed and parked the aircraft, we all got out and kissed the ground. I was never so happy to have a mission behind us as I was that day."What exactly is "flak" some of you may be asking (and it has nothing to do with the crap your boss gives you at work, though it is used that way). Flak is an acronym for the German word, and I hope you're sitting down juvat, for anti-aircraft cannon, Flugabwehrkanone. In other words, anti-aircraft artillery, or AAA as we modern types call it. This stuff -
All those black "puffs" are exploding shells. (Source) |
8.8 cm Flak 36 (Source) |
12.8 cm Flak mounted on a Flak tower (Source) |
Of course, there were these chaps as well -
Me-109G (Source) |
Fw 190 A-3 |
Of course the mighty B-17 Flying Fortress wasn't the only daylight bomber employed by the U.S. Army Air Force, there was also the B-24 Liberator -
B-24 Liberators assigned to the 446th Bombardment Group of the 8th Air Force |
The British had other ideas, they felt that daylight bombing would be too costly and wouldn't have enough of an effect on the Germans, both materially and morale-wise. So they would bomb at night and they would drop their bombs on wide areas of German cities. Their mainstays in RAF Bomber Command were the Lancaster and the Halifax -
Three 44 Squadron Avro Lancaster B.Is in 1942 |
Handley Page Halifax B.III |
The Americans depended on the firepower of their bombers flying in tight formations, defended by multiple .50 caliber machine guns located throughout the aircraft. The British, on the other hand, as they were flying at night, sent their bombers to their targets in a stream of aircraft. This was intended to prevent mid-air collisions, though this still occurred.
It's worth noting that the number of defensive machine guns aboard the B-17s and B-24s had an effect on the amount of bombs those aircraft could carry. While a B-17 could carry a bit over two tons of bombs on long range missions (the B-24 could carry a bit more), the Lancaster could carry as many as seven tons of bombs! (The Halifax slightly less.)
While the British still had flak to deal with, the fighter attacks weren't as intense as those which the Americans experienced. But they were, perhaps, rather a bit more terrifying as they could not see the German night fighters coming after them. Most of which were equipped with radar and were ground controlled to the intercept by an extensive support organization, equipped with very sophisticated radars.
Some of the enemy night fighter opposition -
Junkers Ju-88 (Source) |
Messerschmitt Me-110 (Source) |
Heinkel He-219 (Source) |
The British were right about the heavy losses suffered in daylight raids, not even the formidable armament of the B-17s and B-24s deterred the Luftwaffe fighter pilots, bomber losses mounted until this bird came along -
North American P-51D-5-NA Mustang #44-13926 from the 375th Fighter Squadron. |
Once the Fortresses and Liberators could be escorted all the way to their targets by the P-51, the Luftwaffe was doomed. They had to come up to defend their homeland, and they lost heavily. The effectiveness of the bombing campaign can perhaps be measured by the fact that during the morning of 6 June 1944, as the Allies were coming ashore, hundreds of friendly aircraft were overhead.
Two, count them, two Luftwaffe fighters were up over the beaches that morning and had precisely no effect on the landings. Not only had air superiority been achieved, the Allies had achieved air supremacy.
Right now I'm reading Big Week by James Holland, a very good book on the bombing campaign in Word War II. I can't imagine what those crews went through, both during the day and at night. Harrowing to say the least.
One of the very best fictional accounts I have ever read of the RAF's night bombing campaign is Bomber by Len Deighton. I can't recommend this one enough. Well written, you feel as if you're in the aircraft yourself. The bomber and the night fighter. (Yes, I provided Amazon links for both books, no, I don't own stock in Amazon. No, I don't wish I did. I don't do the stock market, don't believe in gambling of any form.)
One thing this enforced period of hunkering down at the manse has given me is that I have been finding time to read again. That has been rare over the past year or so. So I have been doing just that, I need to refresh my memories of those who went before. Brave men, on both sides.
I really need to read up on the bombing campaign against Japan. My knowledge there is extremely lacking!
When I was a young man, an older guy who lived near me spoke of the flak. He was a gunner on a B-24 and said that the clouds of flak were terrifying. As you wrote above, it was worse to him than the fighters. He made it back from the war, a little worse for wear, but he made it back, unlike many others. There is always the banter about who had it worse, the infantry, the armor, or the bomber crews. The reality of war, for those of us who have seen the elephant is that it's Hell and we all leave a piece of ourselves behind on the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteWell said LL, bravo.
DeleteGood stuff OAFS.
ReplyDeleteThanks STxAR.
DeleteI remember, from when I was a wee lad, six or seven years old, circa 1986... The first “adult” books I checked out from the library.
ReplyDeleteThe first was some Smithsonian illustrated picture book of airplanes, I think from the Air & Space museum.
The second.... was this book:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Flying_Fortress.html?id=aaZTAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_book_description
By far the most impactful thing I’ve ever read, on my impressionable young mind. And I still love B-17s, which didn’t change when I got to hitch a ride one one. (Also, I still remember how it smelled, and I still like “old library book” smell.)
I don’t remember this, but apparently when we moved a couple years later, I was FURIOUS that they wouldn’t give nine-year-old me an adult library card. What do you mean, you won’t let me check out the cool WWII history books?!
I read that book!
DeleteLove the Fort, grew up watching 12 O'Clock High with all that stunning actual footage from the war. Brilliant.
Nice synopsis Sarge. One of my dad's friends from work was in the Eighth Air Force, he was lucky enough to survive being shot down over Germany. A raid like Schweinfurt and 60 planes are gone, 600 men gone......
ReplyDeleteImagine that kind of losses in modern conflict... One day a peer or near-peer enemy will show up. And modern SAM systems are even deadlier than german flak...
DeleteNylon12 - Yeah, tough to take when your chances of flying enough missions to go home was very low.
DeletePaweł - Bear in mind that towards the end of Vietnam we were far more successful against SAMs than earlier. I know North Vietnam wasn't a "peer" enemy but their air defenses were the best the Russians had, they were trained by the Russians and I have no doubt they had Russian "advisors" as well. So in Vietnam it was a peer adversary up over Route Pack 6.
DeleteWe did have serious losses up there for the scale of forces committed. I have no doubt that any future war will be unlike anything we're ever seen before.
Yes, rumors abound that Russians flew some of the planes and crewed some of the sites. Just like they did in Korea.
DeleteThe only way to get good combat data from a non-peer ally is to have 'technical advisors.' Just like we had.
Exactly.
DeleteI used to work with a man who was a ball turret gunner on a B-17 over Europe. He didn't talk much about it but one of the stories he told us was as they were flying over Germany, the flak was so deep he swears he could have gotten out and walked back to England on it. One mission his ball turret was shredded, him not a scratch, but he had to be pulled back into the plane by his safety harness. Imagine that, hanging under a bomber over Germany.....Hardest man I ever worked for, nothing stressed the guy.
ReplyDeleteI suppose after such experience nothing in civilian life would even cause him to raise pulse...
DeleteCoffee Man - Ball turret?!?! Dear Lord, now that is a fellow who probably wouldn't be fazed by anything in civvie street.
DeletePaweł - Spot on.
DeleteInteresting you brought up the Pacific campaign. USAAF pretty much changed to British tactics until Iwo Jima was taken. Same reasons.
ReplyDeleteSame aircraft for escort.
DeleteI need to read more on the Pacific!
British tactics for the heavy bombers.
DeleteWe used medium and light bombers in ways they weren't ever meant to be used. Parachute bombing from 50' above, skip bombing ships and ground fortifications, and mounting a pack howitzer on a plane. Ever innovative.
That much I knew.
DeleteI understand the broad strokes of the Pacific War, it's the finer details I need to bone up on.
Well written, Sarge. As I was reading this I was going to mention Big Week. That was the intensive operation to clean out the Luftwaffe before DDay. But then you mentioned that next. 😁
ReplyDeleteThose raids in 1943 were terrible with attrition.
I remember seeing a movie with a limited run last year called into the cold blue.
The director took all of the unused film William Wyler made in filming the original, Memphis Belle , digitized it to restore the color, and it was a completely different movie but just as powerful.
And they interviewed today all of these 90 year old veterans that were in the eighth Air Force
I never will forget one who at age 19 was saying every time he went up he felt he was going out to be executed.
Losses were that terrible
I think in those times your odds of being seriously wounded or killed before your mandatory 21 missions or 25 missions-I forget which-were up was 1:3
And then Doolittle upped the requirement to 35 missions.
DeleteHe did something else important though. His predecessor mandated that escort fighters stay with the bombers. Dolittle said if you see fighters go after them.
DeleteWilliam - I watched The Cold Blue - gave me an even greater respect for those guys.
Deletejuvat - Sometimes you do what you have to do. When you don't have enough experienced crews...
DeleteWar's brutal calculus.
William - Even Der Dicke (The Fat Man) Göring made that mistake. Frustrated the German Jagdflieger no end.
DeleteObviously this post is right up my alley.
ReplyDeleteThe ever present flight equation of payload, distance, and fuel. Around the time of my dad's first mission (Jan 02, '45) the 8th Air Force started to eliminate one of the waist gunners and unnecessary. Also at some point, it occurred to them that on a clear day, everybody who could see those tight groups of contrails knew exactly who they were, what they were, and where they were headed, so what fire truckin' difference did it make what color they were, and why is each plane carrying a coupla hundred pounds of dried paint? Then you began to see more and more planes left unpainted. Here are a few examples of both. The second photo down is "A bit O' Lace" from my dad's group. The OD colored rudder is a salvage part from another plane.
https://www.flying-tigers.co.uk/2016/boeing-b-17-flying-fortress-new-models-and-august-bank-holiday-sale/
Decades ago, a leathery faced old farmer walked into our small business in Chico, CA. I had a 20mm round standing on the back edge of my work bench. Upon seeing it, he remarked "I've had plenty of those shot at me". Turned out he was Fred Rabo--
http://www.482nd.org/h2x-mickey
Fred was later shot down--
http://www.482nd.org/node/425
He was knocked unconscious by the explosion, thrown clear, came to while falling and pulled his ripcord. Both he and Lt. Morgan survived and became POW'S. Both are mentioned in this book--
https://www.amazon.com/Zemkes-Stalag-Hubert-Zemke/dp/1560980184/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Zemke&qid=1585319089&s=books&sr=1-1
And Milton Caniff did the nose art for A Bit O' Lace!
DeleteWhen I jumped to that site, damn, 909 is the first picture. Still breaks my heart that one. Far worse is that the FAA report indicates the Collings Foundation's safety procedures sucked. Really depressed me to hear that about the Collings Foundation, I lost some respect for them there. (They run the American Heritage Museum in Hudson, MA, a tank museum near and dear to me.)
Fred Rabo's name rang a bell, go to the link and sure enough, I've read of him before, and H2X "Mickey" as well.
Zemke was a stud!
As a side note, when I flew on 909... Right after we landed they started taking one of the engines apart to fix a bad cylinder.
DeleteMaintenance can be a BIG problem on older aircraft. DAMHIK
DeleteEspecially when the aircraft is being replace by newer, shinier, single engine jets, Neh, Sarge?
DeleteLet's talk about spare parts, or the lack thereof.
DeleteI remember those days well. But not fondly.
Heck, I was on my first assignment and trying to get experience. Hard to do when you’re in mobile control checking that your fellow pilots remembered to put their gear down. I had an exponentially more hours there than I did in the jet when I pcs’d at the end of the year. I blame the second worst president ever, Jimmah, First, well... his first name begins wit a F has a ck in the middle and ends with ing. Middle name begins with Obama.
DeleteBut that’s just me... being charitable.
Charitable indeed.
DeleteForgot to add--went wandering down the YouTube rabbit hole and learned something new--
ReplyDeleteThe B-29 'Hobo Queen'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKgQBpP5kVs
Wow, I'd never heard that story before. Thanks!
DeleteAnyone else remember the TV series, Air Power? Was my first intro to military aviation in video form. Was on the tube in glorious black and white around the time of my sixth birthday at the end of 1956. That was only 11 years after WW2 ended, dad and most neighbors were vets. There was also the Victory at Sea TV series a few years earlier that I saw in reruns.
ReplyDeleteThe bomber crews had big brass ones, for sure! Someone once opined that all the machine guns on them had really only one purpose - to give the crews a false sense of security so they'd take off in the thing.
Oddly enough I never saw Air Power nor Victory at Sea. Odd that.
DeleteMust go a'hunting!
All those MGs did make the Jagdflieger very nervous, that's a lot of fire power. Having flown in simulation against B-17s, they are not to be taken lightly. They're the prime reason the Germans switched to head on attacks as a matter of policy. It's also why the Forts (in the G and on I think) got a chin turret.
That many .50 cals gets your attention!
Victory at Sea Complete Series $5 on Amazon.
DeleteI remember watching it as a kid.
Well, there ya go!
DeleteThere went this weeks beer money!
DeleteYup, all those .50 cals. I have an account in a book somewhere about a lone Me-262 that attacked and shot down a P-51 above a formation of B-17's. The 262 then rolled on it's back and dove through the formation, taking a few shots on the way down. He missed. Then he zoom climbed up behind the formation and turned to attack from the rear. Alone.
DeleteYeah, he had everyone's attention now, and every gunner that could was tracking him, and counting the range to target. All those guns seemingly fired at once. The 262 literally flew into a wall of lead, and just disappeared in a white "poof".
juvat - Hahaha! (I'm well-stocked there.)
DeleteRHT447 - I believe it!
DeleteDid you know the USAAF made a fighter version of the B-17? Twin guns instead of single guns, the first remote chin turret (subsequently adopted by later Fort versions,) an additional dorsal turret, more gunners, more ammo (in the bomb bay.)
DeleteVery effective on the way in, but due to the added weight not being shed by dropping bombs, was not able to keep up on the way back.
It was the YB-40 Escort Fortress.
DeleteDid NOT know that.
DeleteThat's a LOT of .50 cals!
DeleteAnd significantly slower and shorter ranged than the bomber model. 12 went into operational test. The only tactic that worked for them was to surround the mission commander to protect him. They were pulled out of a combat role relatively quickly. Officially because Mustangs and fuel tanks were arriving in sufficient number. IMHO, that was augmented by their ineffectiveness.
DeleteYeah, the idea just didn't work.
DeleteThe concept was good. Implementation was a surprise to the Germans. Who then took vengeance upon the slower planes as the bomb-less bombers flew away from them.
DeleteNow go opposite. Take a plane, given the bombload of a medium bomber, and the range of a heavy bomber, pare it down to the bare minimum... And... You get the Mosquito. Fast enough to outpace fighters, nimble enough to dance with the devil, only losing 2 or 3. Rather than a wall of lead all around a plane, just go fast, really fast.
Speed is good. Speed, avionics and weapons are better.
DeleteBeans - The Mossie was outstanding.
Deletejuvat - Speed is life. Add in good avionics and weapons, then life is good.
DeleteDo you think those Bf 110s are hunting minelaying Stringbags?
ReplyDeleteInteresting, I wouldn’t think , giving the state of radar tech back then, that they’d get very good returns from the Swordfish. In the Eagle we’d have to practice intercepting the AN-2 Colt. That was a hard intercept as they were flying very close to the ground and very slow. The doppler radar had a hard time picking them out of ground return. It could be done, but was tricky. I’d think the Bf-110s would have a worse problem.
DeleteLooking closer, I am not sure those are Stringbags. Perhaps Soviet Night Witches, caught by the Bf 110s against the snow, on a moonlit night? Targets of opportunity?
DeleteYa Scott, not looking like Stringbags, might be a searchlight there also, 110"s defending air base or night intruding over a Soviet airdrome looking to down Soviets as they land?
DeleteScott - the painting is from the Eastern Front and those are Polikarpov Po-2s. Maybe even flown by the Night Witches.
DeleteThenque!
DeleteJuvat - In simulation I've flown against the PO-2, they are very slow and very maneuverable. Trying to shoot one down in an Me-109G was a colossal pain in the ass. You couldn't turn with them so you had to take your shot from farther out, which is tough. I wouldn't want to try that at night, doubt you'd get any return from them on the radar. But with the snow on the ground and with a bit of moon, then you can spot them.
DeleteI hate (but respect) the Polikarpov Po-2.
Nylon12 - Probably 110s defending a German air base.
DeleteSarge, Night was the only time they would fly, we expected their use was to try to infiltrate special forces by parachute. As I said, a difficult, but not insurmountable problem with practice....A LOT of practice.
DeleteAh, the Colt, saw one in Germany, flying over the base. Freaked me out at first, then I remembered that the Germans had picked some up from the eastern half of the country when the Commies folded.
DeleteI heard somewhere, in the way back of the middle of the last century, that in July of ‘45 the city of Kure was leveled by blockbusters.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. warned that the same would be accomplished at other cities, only more efficiently.
The Japanese chose to ignore the warning.
My ship visited Kure in ‘63 and they were still cleaning up.
We took a side visit to Hiroshima.
They’d been cleaned up by THE bomb, as had Nagasaki.
Another reason why I need to read up on the bombing campaign against Japan. My knowledge of that theater is woefully lacking.
Delete(Don McCollor)...I believe the B29 used in the bombing of Japan had other problems that lead to adopting night missions. At high altitude, they first discovered jet stream winds that ruined bombing accuracy and caused unexpected high fuel consumption (also, they had double banked engines that tended to quit or catch fire. The Japanese night fighters and AA defenses were not that good, so General LeMay (as in SAC) ordered the planes stripped of all weapons except the tail gun to fly missions at night at 5000 feet over target. Losses were less than had been occurring ditching from engine failure and running out of fuel. And I believe they mainly carried small bombs instead of "blockbusters". The 2-lb incendiary bomb was the most terrible weapon ever employed against cities until nuclear weapons were developed.
DeleteI had read by the time of Hiroshima most of the targets were already burned out and obliterated. In the firebombing of Tokyo in one night 100,000 were killed him
DeleteThe heat was so intense that it generated its own winds and actually sucked people into the flames
The book downfall goes into a lot of this by Richard Frank. The incendiaries were so devastating because of the wooden structures in Japan. And he had them fly low-sometimes only 1000 feet. A passage I’ll always remember is that witnesses on the ground could see the B-29s over the fires with the flames reflecting off of their aluminum skin
DeleteDon - Because of the nature of Japanese cities (a LOT of wooden construction), incendiaries were very effective.
DeleteI do remember LeMay ordering that. Also I know LeMay as I spent some time at SAC. The daughters started their schooling at LeMay Elementary, Offutt AFB, NE. SAC Headquarters.
(Don McCollor)...In Europe, the RAF had developed it into an art. Master Bomber (circling in a Lancaster high overhead controlling flare and target indicator aircraft [dropping cannisters filled with thousands of brilliant burning small pyrotechnics balls easily seen from the bombers - impossible to put out all of them out - green target, red not] and with flares to illuminate targets) would direct and coach the bomber stream. First a wave of 4000 and 8000 lb bombs to drive people into shelters, rip open buildings to provide fuel, and smash water mains. Then a wave of incendiary bombs. Then another wave of high explosive to drive the (surviving) fire fighters back into shelters, before more incendiary bombs rained down (repeated several times). It was the boast of Bomber Command that once they visited a city, there was no need to return...
DeleteAgainst Japan, the concept of just smashing and destroying any dwelling was implemented. Incendiary attacks, numbers of small bombs, medium bombs, blockbusters. Destroy, destroy and destroy. Continue until finished, start again. After the cities and towns, they were going to be going after the... farms. Aerial mines, incendiaries, defoliants (early version of Agent Orange,) just plain poison.
DeleteNothing subtle or nice about the Pacific bombing campaigns against the Japanese isles. LeMay may have been a sadistic bastige, but he was our sadistic bastige.
As to the B-29, it really was 'experimental' until late in the war. They rushed it into production before many serious issues were fixed. Like the engines had a tendency to catch fire. Many B-29s 'shot' themselves down due to engine fire. The remote gun systems were not up to snuff. The pressurized cabin was subject to rapid depressurization. Early fuselages had a tendency to twist. But we pushed it into production because we needed it. Too many aircrews were lost due to not having a more mature design. Need over want. It's a dark calculation to make. How soon do you release a design before you're really finished with it when you need it, knowing there were enough flaws to make it a dangerous design, and then work on fixing issues in future production and modifications?
DeleteBe extremely careful what you sow, for that you shall reap.
DeleteIndeed!
DeleteThe P-47 with tanks had the range (if one dropped the empty tanks) but were restricted by policy and not being able to drop the empty drop tanks. By '44, they had the range, especially after the longer-ranged models appeared.
ReplyDeleteBut, in typical Republic fashion, it was as a fighter-bomber that the USAAF pushed the -47 into, though the 56th FG still flew pursuit/escort missions in the P-47 to the end of the war, because they liked the Jug and the Germans hated it. The Jug was so much more powerful and able to withstand damage than the Mustang.
The Jug was a rugged sumbitch!
DeleteThere are two posts over at Chicago Boyz that really illuminate the use of fighter escorts in Europe and the P-51 vs P-47 debate.
ReplyDeleteSecond link is actually leads to a post at Quora on P-38 use:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/59169.html
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/60605.html
/
L.J.
Zemke's mutiny! I'm not a big Eaker fan.
DeleteFunny how the top air-to-air group wasn't equipped with the P-51, but with... P-47s. Zemke fought to keep his group flying the Jug till war's end. And his desire was proven by the kill ratio.
DeleteA good leader makes good men into great men.
As to the P-38s not being used to escort bombers, North African and, later, Italian based P-38s flew north to provide fighter escort deep over Germany.
DeleteBut, as usual, they didn't get the recognition.
Lt. Col. William Leverette led his squadrons deep into Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia and Austria to meet up with bombers from England and also escorting bombers from North Africa and, later, Italy.
As I understand it, it wasn't just policy: the pre-war "bomber mafia" had insisted that any aircraft with external attachment points that could carry a bomb (or a fuel tank) was a bomber and must be under their command. We didn't have a lot of fuel tanks because there was little use for them. Later models of the P-38s and P-47s could carry them when(!) they became available. Once properly equipped, they could cover the bombers all the way. Not to run down the Mustang, which was a great design (great performance and a lot quicker and cheaper to produce than the Lightning or Thunderbolt); but it didn't save the day for the Eighth Air Force. The combination of disposable fuel tanks, more and better fighter pilot training, and the shift from "close escort" to the offensive against enemy fighter formations before they could get in position did the trick. That, anyway, is what I've read from several sources. I understand that Hubert Zemke, previously mentioned, put himself far out on a limb by using offensive tactics well before they were officially approved. As my long-winded self, I must say that your statement about the B-17's defensive armament was endorsed by Luftwaffe ace Hanschen Philipp, "To take on twenty or thirty Russians, or to dog-fight with Spitfires, is a joy...but flying that long curve to go head-on against a box of Fortresses, all the sins of your life pass before your eyes". I think I recall that fairly accurately. Also, Martin Caidin's book, A Torch To The Enemy, gives an overview of the early air campaign against Japan; but it is harrowing reading. I think that word describes it.
ReplyDeleteI see someone provided a couple of excellent links, beating me to it
DeleteThe bomber mafia, sigh, nothing changes.
DeleteNo problem, L.J. got there first.
DeleteAre there any relatively accurate accounts of how many enemy fighters were shot down by our bombers?
DeleteThis pos discusses the situation but also talks about 'over claiming' by the bomber crews ...
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-gunners-aboard-B-17-bombers-in-WWII-manage-to-shoot-down-enemy-fighters
Everybody over claimed, fighters included. When you're dashing around the sky shooting at other aircraft, getting shot at, it's hard to keep track. The only way to track how many aircraft a bombing raid lost, or how many enemy fighters were shot down, is to look at the official records for losses. On the German side many of those records were lost as the war went on. They were trying to survive, not keep good records.
DeleteI don't think we'll ever really know for sure.
T'was while piloting a P-47 utilized as an escort fighter that my 1st cousin lt Gen (then an O-3) Carlos M. "Tote" Talbott single-handedly engaged (i.e. stumbled upon) an entire squadron of Bf-109s and managed to splash three in the hassle before being downed him-self. As he was coming down in his chute he noted the rest making a bee-line for his chute. He steeled himself for the worst but instead they each passed by single-file, each saluting him (presumably for his bravery and skilled airmanship). For his efforts Maurice was awarded the single-msn DSC.
ReplyDeleteImpressive!
DeleteIt is good to fight a civilized enemy. I miss those days.
DeleteI'll quibble on the civilized thing.
DeleteDachau, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, it's a long list...
Versus the Pacific? Rape of Nanking? Bataan Death March? Unit 731? I am sure your wife's older relatives will have not nice things to say about the civilized aspects of the Japs.
DeleteThough there were many atrocities, stupidities and just arse-holeness amongst the Germans, for the most part we could understand them and the way they did things. The Japanese? BEMs are more understandable as they are not of this earth (Bug Eyed Monsters...)
And then we get to the Norks and the ChiComs. And then the North Viets. And the proxy wars in sub-Sahara Africa. Castro-era Cubans. The Soviets.
Compared to them, the worst of the Nazis were just bad dudes. Which is scary. At least in Nazi-era Germany there were many who, privately, disagreed with the evils of the Nazis.
Heck, one of the things that turned off so many GIs in France was the two-facedness of the average Frenchman. One minute many are turning their own people in (admittedly, even before the war many French did not consider French-Jews to be real people, heck, going all the way back before the Dreyfuss Affair.) Funny how the past-time went from turning each other in (and, yes, resistance fighting, though normally that was a provincial thing rather than a city thing) and then after liberation it was back to the fun days of the French Revolution and playing the 'point the finger first game' against collaborators.
Scary that, after the shooting was over, many many GIs were more favorable of the Germans than the French.
Well, the French have always gone their own weird way.
Here's another odd duck, although it does have nice lines--
ReplyDeletehttps://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1757
She is odd looking, but pleasing all the same.
DeleteThe engines, being more forward than the regular radials, caused severe wing damage when pushed to full throttle. It was determined that it wasn't worth it to have a faster, heavier carrying Fortress, and thus put the stop on the whole thing.
DeleteDangit.
Curiously, after the war, when turboprops came into fashion, some civilians modified Forts with said turboprops, which necessitated stiffening the wings and cutting the tips off.
Did not know that.
DeleteThey did their work well. Before any major construction here in Germany, you have to check for UXO. There is a database of aerial photography and action reports they access. Sometimes, despite the effort, they aren't found until too late. When the rivers are low they regularly find bombs in the middle of big cities. It usually involves big evacuations for the EOD teams to do their underpaid work. Sometimes they die, victims of WW2. Something like 40,000 tons found per year. Dad grew up in Belgium during the war, lost friends to flak fragments coming back down again, he even had German 20mm fragments in him till he died. He and his mates used to break into the dispersed flak ammo storage dumps and break open the 88 rounds for the propellant sticks and use them as fireworks. At least the fliers went home to decent meals...
ReplyDeleteA nice rabbit hole to go down is The Battle of the Beams....hint hint...
Lots of unexploded ordnance in Europe, some dating back to WWI.
DeleteGood idea for a post Stefan!
The first year at Kadena, we lived about 100 yards ashore of one of the invasion beaches. Unfired ammunition was nothing special. However when my three year old son showed me an unexploded 81mm mortar shell, well, THAT got my attention. What further brought the point home was when I reported it to EOD and they said the’d get to it when they could. They interrupted my impending WTFO with “Sir, we’re currently working two separate Unexploded 2000 lb bombs in downtown Naha!” Ohhh! Brought the ferocity of that war quite closer. Yes it did.
DeleteRegularly found spent casings, bullets and fragments at Kwajalein. The occasional unexploded stuff was also found. Was snorkling one day off one of the islands north of Kwaj island, it was off Carlos island north of Ebeye, and swam up to and over a box of Jap handgrenades. Reported info to dad, dad reported info to the Army, Army sent some squids and grunts to go play with the box.
DeleteAh... the good old days.
Not everything which goes downrange goes boom immediately...
Delete(Don McCollor)...Your mention of June 6, 1944 brought to mind the account of Bert Stiles (a B17 copilot)in his book "Serenade to the Big Bird" of the briefing that morning: "...You are in support of ground troops"..."There will be 11,000 aircraft in this area"...You must stay on briefed course"..."No abortions"..."You can't go down...you can't turn left or right"...
ReplyDelete11,000 aircraft?!?! Having spent part of my career working on an airspace scheduling system, that is a HUGE deconfliction problem!
DeleteHence the instructions.
DeleteWell, yeah, if everyone does what they're told.
DeleteI have stories...
(Don McCollor)...this one was special....
Delete(Don McCollor)..Yes, that day in Britain, there was a plane landing or taking off every couple of seconds. Also why the planes were marked with "Invasion Stripes" for recognition? Any plane not wearing them would be assumed hostile and shot down. And belated thanks to all the ground crews who did all the paint jobs in day or two...For a white knuckle ride, have you ever heard of "Splasher Six"?...
Delete100th Bomb Group, I have seen that. Interesting book.
DeleteI still have a piece of flack on my desk. My crew chief gave it to me.
ReplyDeleteOuch!
DeleteA reminder of the fragility of existence.
One thing that I do not understand-it must’ve been a lack of production capability. But I read that the navy F4U corsair would’ve had the range that the mustang eventually had but they never made them for the army.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine olive drab corsairs flying in Europe?
The USAAF already had a Corsair equivalent. The P-47. Same engine, same-ish performance, at the time the F4U was coming into prominence so was the P-47N which had way enough fuel, as it was originally designed for bomber escort in the Pacific.
DeleteBy the time the -47N and the F4U were really available, we had already established fighter bases in France, which took out quite a lot of the issues with range.
Though, I admit, Corsairs over Berlin would have been a sight to behold. Though the Germans hated the P-38s and P-47s enough already.
DeleteNow that would have been interesting.
DeleteAnd, now that I have thought upon it, I remembered something, so off to google. And... the Royal Navy (Great Britain) had Corsairs flying off their flattops both in the Pacific and in Atlantic/European theaters. In fact, the Corsair was carrier qualified first in British service. Only after longer oleo struts were fitted to US Corsairs, in order to eliminate it bouncing, was it qualified in US service. Hmmm...
DeleteAll this talk about World War II bombers made me want to order the cold blue in Blu-ray on Amazon. It’s coming out April 7 for 20 some dollars. If you haven’t seen it I recommend you get a copy
DeleteOne other thing that I did not know happened.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Navy actually had an aviation presence off Norway with the British.
I met 2World War II fighter legends last year- Bud Anderson USAAF and dean Laird USN.
Laird flew Wildcats off the Ranger under a British admiral off Norway and he is the only Navy Ace to fly in both theaters
https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2019/06/01/a-talk-with-2-ww2-aces/
I didn't know that, pretty cool.
Delete