Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British

[Kevin Brooks]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
> >Date: 6/30/03 7:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >ir enough. Now jus take the P-51 out of the mix as though it never existed
> >>and see what you end up with.
> >
> >Look at what happened before it showed up. There was more going on
> >than just the Mustang.
> >
> >Gavin Bailey
> >
> -
>
> LIke what? The war actually began on D-Day. Everythig before that was a long
> list of trivial attacks like Dieppe that mostly failed.
>
> Arthur Kramer

I can't wait to hear the result of your trying to make such an
outlandish claim to a veteran who had been slogging his way along in
Italy, or who had fought with Eigth Army (BR) in North Africa, when
you try to dump that particular load of fecal matter on him. No to
mention the odd Russian who had already started slogging his way
towards Berlin before we managed to pull off the Normandy landings.
And how about those 8th AF types who were already seeing friends dying
in droves *before* D-Day? Any natural teeth you may still enjoy the
company of will likely be a brief memory should you feel a burning
desire to share such drivel with any of the above.

This reprehensible statement rivals your past mealymouthed mutterings
in regards to how those who served during WWII without seeing combat
in the air over Europe somhow don't meet up to your own high standards
of honorable conduct, how officers are much smarter than enlisted men,
groundcrews did not experience war, etc. Stick to talking about that
small, finite element of the war about which you may have a clue (B-26
air operations in Europe); everytime you meander from that topic you
further reveal how increasingly imbecilic you really are.

Brooks

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 6/30/03 11:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: k.net>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> >Tell us about your march from Normandy to the Elbe.
>> >
>>
>> At 10,000 feet and 50 times.
>>
>
>Interesting. I wouldn't have thought there was room to stand in the nose of
>a B-26.
>
>
>>
>> Now tell us about your combat experiences
>> wannabee.
>>
>
>I have none, all I know about it came from reading.


Yeah. It shows.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >I have none, all I know about it came from reading.
> >
>
> Yeah. It shows.
>

One cannot learn from reading?

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>Tell us about your good old days with the Africa Corps and the greatness of
>Hitler.

One grandfather got a free tour of North Africa, keeping RAF aircraft
flying: probably not wise to tell him the war hadn't started at that
point. It was a pretty real war to him and the men around him.

(Another started the war a couple of days before the UK, but then he was
a pilot with the Polish Air Force. You _definitely_ wouldn't have wanted
to tell him there wasn't really a war on...)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> One grandfather got a free tour of North Africa, keeping RAF aircraft
> flying: probably not wise to tell him the war hadn't started at that
> point. It was a pretty real war to him and the men around him.
>
> (Another started the war a couple of days before the UK, but then he was
> a pilot with the Polish Air Force. You _definitely_ wouldn't have wanted
> to tell him there wasn't really a war on...)
>

To know war one must serve as a B-26 bombardier. I'm sorry, but your
grandfathers just aren't qualified.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>>Date: 6/30/03 7:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>ir enough. Now jus take the P-51 out of the mix as though it never existed
>>>and see what you end up with.
>>
>>Look at what happened before it showed up. There was more going on
>>than just the Mustang.
>>
>>Gavin Bailey
>>
>-
>
>LIke what? The war actually began on D-Day. Everythig before that was a long
>list of trivial attacks like Dieppe that mostly failed.
>
Art, you can be a moronic old ******* sometimes.

My father was 35 years old when war broke out, and as he was a member of
the Territorial Army, was called up immediately. He was heavily involved
in the ack-ack organisation in Essex, a part of the world with which you
are familiar, right from the very start. The Battle of Britain was
fought right over his home.
He was posted to North Africa in 1942 as part of the Allied (that means
the British were there as well as the Americans) invasion force. He left
behind a pregnant wife, who gave birth to a premature baby at about the
time he was landing as part of Operation Torch. The baby died after 3
days, and my mother never really got over it. He also left behind a two-
year-old daughter. He spent the next 3 years as a REME officer
supporting the efforts and sacrifices of front-line troops, and only
came home some time after VE Day.

So don't give me that egotistical crap about "the war only started on D-
Day". You, and he, were only small cogs in a vast machine.

Dad never liked Americans, and sometimes I can see why.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: Peter Twydell
>Date: 6/30/03 1:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>

>So don't give me that egotistical crap about "the war only started on D-
>Day". You, and he, were only small cogs in a vast machine.


I meant to say the war in Western Euroe only started on D-day. Sorry I left
that out.
But vast machines are made up of small cogs. And better to have served, then
never to have served at all. Even as a small cog which I certainly was.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 6/30/03 1:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Tell us about your good old days with the Africa Corps and the greatness of
>>Hitler.
>
>One grandfather got a free tour of North Africa, keeping RAF aircraft
>flying: probably not wise to tell him the war hadn't started at that
>point. It was a pretty real war to him and the men around him.
>
>(Another started the war a couple of days before the UK, but then he was
>a pilot with the Polish Air Force. You _definitely_ wouldn't have wanted
>to tell him there wasn't really a war on...)
>
>--
>When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
>Paul J. Adam
>

I should have said the war in western europe. Sorry I left that out.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Cub Driver]

>Look at what happened before it showed up. There was more going on
>than just the Mustang.

What happened before the (extended-range) Mustang showed up? Well, the
German air force was shooting down so many B-17s and B-24s that it
looked possible that the 8th Air Force would have to give up
deep-penetration daylight raids into Germany, to the huge benefit of
Albert Speer and the German war effort.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Cub Driver]

> Marauders at low-medium altitude
>destroyed the beach defenses on their alloted targets.

One beach. Utah. There were other factors involved, but yes, the
American army suffered exactly 12 men killed in the initial landing at
Utah, and that was in part thanks to the Marauders operating at very
low level. Some said 500 feet, which is considerably below the pattern
altitude at the local airport.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 6/30/03 2:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>>Look at what happened before it showed up. There was more going on
>>than just the Mustang.
>
>What happened before the (extended-range) Mustang showed up? Well, the
>German air force was shooting down so many B-17s and B-24s that it
>looked possible that the 8th Air Force would have to give up
>deep-penetration daylight raids into Germany, to the huge benefit of
>Albert Speer and the German war effort.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
>Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub
>

You tell 'em Danny boy. (sigh)


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 6/30/03 2:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>> Marauders at low-medium altitude
>>destroyed the beach defenses on their alloted targets.
>
>One beach. Utah. There were other factors involved, but yes, the
>American army suffered exactly 12 men killed in the initial landing at
>Utah, and that was in part thanks to the Marauders operating at very
>low level. Some said 500 feet, which is considerably below the pattern
>altitude at the local airport.
>


What bomb Group was that?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Sunny]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> The Russians and the Germans fought hard an long and took great losses.
When we
> came in we marched from D-Day to the Elbe in a mere 11 months. Get the
point?

cough cough ahem, the fact that there were a few other allied countries
involved escape your notice?

[Sunny]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I meant to say the war in Western Euroe only started on D-day. Sorry I
left
> that out.
> But vast machines are made up of small cogs. And better to have served,
then
> never to have served at all. Even as a small cog which I certainly was.

While not decrying your military service, you come across as a bigoted
uniformed egotistical fool.
I hope I am wrong, but your stupid statements seem to prove me to be right.
(and before you start on me, I served in combat as an Infantryman in SVN.
Another war that didn't start only when the Americans got there)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
>
> cough cough ahem, the fact that there were a few other allied countries
> involved escape your notice?
>

Much about the war escaped his notice.

[The Enlightenment]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> > Marauders at low-medium altitude
> >destroyed the beach defenses on their alloted targets.
>
> One beach. Utah. There were other factors involved, but yes, the
> American army suffered exactly 12 men killed in the initial landing at
> Utah, and that was in part thanks to the Marauders operating at very
> low level. Some said 500 feet, which is considerably below the pattern
> altitude at the local airport.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)
>

The Germans at Utah had exactly one standing 88mm left and even that
jamned due to shrapnel damage so they had no choice but to surrender.

The Omaha defenses survived the high altitude bombardment by B17s
which I think was effected by cloud and winds. Another factor was the
12th Waffen SS division with experience on the Russian front having
been missed by allied intelligence and not being to far from the
scene.

[Kevin Brooks]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 6/30/03 12:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
> >...
> >> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >> >From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
> >> >Date: 6/30/03 7:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >> >ir enough. Now jus take the P-51 out of the mix as though it never existed
> >> >>and see what you end up with.
> >> >
> >> >Look at what happened before it showed up. There was more going on
> >> >than just the Mustang.
> >> >
> >> >Gavin Bailey
> >> >
> >> -
> >>
> >> LIke what? The war actually began on D-Day. Everythig before that was a
> long
> >> list of trivial attacks like Dieppe that mostly failed.
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >
> >I can't wait to hear the result of your trying to make such an
> >outlandish claim to a veteran who had been slogging his way along in
> >Italy, or who had fought with Eigth Army (BR) in North Africa, when
> >you try to dump that particular load of fecal matter on him. No to
> >mention the odd Russian who had already started slogging his way
> >towards Berlin before we managed to pull off the Normandy landings.
> >And how about those 8th AF types who were already seeing friends dying
> >in droves *before* D-Day? Any natural teeth you may still enjoy the
> >company of will likely be a brief memory should you feel a burning
> >desire to share such drivel with any of the above.
> >
> >This reprehensible statement rivals your past mealymouthed mutterings
> >in regards to how those who served during WWII without seeing combat
> >in the air over Europe somhow don't meet up to your own high standards
> >of honorable conduct, how officers are much smarter than enlisted men,
> >groundcrews did not experience war, etc. Stick to talking about that
> >small, finite element of the war about which you may have a clue (B-26
> >air operations in Europe); everytime you meander from that topic you
> >further reveal how increasingly imbecilic you really are.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
>
> And your combat experieces were?????

....not germane to the issue of your continued belittling of the
honorable service and sacrifices of others. You think this kind of
crap somehow makes you look bigger in others' eyes? Think again.

Brooks

>
> Arthur Kramer

[Kevin Brooks]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: Peter Twydell
> >Date: 6/30/03 1:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
>
> >So don't give me that egotistical crap about "the war only started on D-
> >Day". You, and he, were only small cogs in a vast machine.
>
>
> I meant to say the war in Western Euroe only started on D-day. Sorry I left
> that out.
> But vast machines are made up of small cogs. And better to have served, then
> never to have served at all. Even as a small cog which I certainly was.

Of course, what Art really means, based upon past exchanges, is that
he has a whole hierarchy of "cogs", and he invariably places his cog
above most others. He has said his ground crews had no idea of what
war was, that the folks who transported his armaments and fuel to his
base similarly had no idea, and that folks who entered the service,
served honorably, did what they were ordered to do (often despite
their own personal wishes) but never entered into aerial combat over
Europe were hardly even deserving of the title of "veteran", etc. he
apparently has a lot of missing teeth on that gear he keeps referring
to.

Brooks

>
> Arthur Kramer

[Dennis]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Look at what happened before it showed up. There was more going on
> >than just the Mustang.
>
> What happened before the (extended-range) Mustang showed up? Well, the
> German air force was shooting down so many B-17s and B-24s that it
> looked possible that the 8th Air Force would have to give up
> deep-penetration daylight raids into Germany, to the huge benefit of
> Albert Speer and the German war effort.
>

Problem with this analysis is that the attrition of the Luftwaffe had
already got to the back side of the curve prior to the P-51's introduction.
The P-38, for example, did a lot of damage, and was capable of deep escort.

--
--
Dennis Jensen
Author of "The Flying Pigs"
http://www.ebooks-online.com/ebooks/search.asp
NOW ONLINE

[Kevin Brooks]

Peter Twydell > wrote in message >...
> In article >, ArtKramr
> > writes
> >>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
> >>Date: 6/30/03 7:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >>ir enough. Now jus take the P-51 out of the mix as though it never existed
> >>>and see what you end up with.
> >>
> >>Look at what happened before it showed up. There was more going on
> >>than just the Mustang.
> >>
> >>Gavin Bailey
> >>
> >-
> >
> >LIke what? The war actually began on D-Day. Everythig before that was a long
> >list of trivial attacks like Dieppe that mostly failed.
> >
> Art, you can be a moronic old ******* sometimes.
>
> My father was 35 years old when war broke out, and as he was a member of
> the Territorial Army, was called up immediately. He was heavily involved
> in the ack-ack organisation in Essex, a part of the world with which you
> are familiar, right from the very start. The Battle of Britain was
> fought right over his home.
> He was posted to North Africa in 1942 as part of the Allied (that means
> the British were there as well as the Americans) invasion force. He left
> behind a pregnant wife, who gave birth to a premature baby at about the
> time he was landing as part of Operation Torch. The baby died after 3
> days, and my mother never really got over it. He also left behind a two-
> year-old daughter. He spent the next 3 years as a REME officer
> supporting the efforts and sacrifices of front-line troops, and only
> came home some time after VE Day.
>
> So don't give me that egotistical crap about "the war only started on D-
> Day". You, and he, were only small cogs in a vast machine.
>
> Dad never liked Americans, and sometimes I can see why.

Dear God, please do not judge us all on the basis of the mumblings of
folks like Art, the Tarvernaut, and those of similar ilk. We all have
our share of bad apples.

Brooks

[Andrew Chaplin]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 6/30/03 12:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
> >...

> >> LIke what? The war actually began on D-Day. Everythig before that was a
> >long
> >> list of trivial attacks like Dieppe that mostly failed.
> >
> >I can't wait to hear the result of your trying to make such an
> >outlandish claim to a veteran who had been slogging his way along in
> >Italy, or who had fought with Eigth Army (BR) in North Africa, when
> >you try to dump that particular load of fecal matter on him. No to
> >mention the odd Russian who had already started slogging his way
> >towards Berlin before we managed to pull off the Normandy landings.
> >And how about those 8th AF types who were already seeing friends dying
> >in droves *before* D-Day? Any natural teeth you may still enjoy the
> >company of will likely be a brief memory should you feel a burning
> >desire to share such drivel with any of the above.
> >
> >This reprehensible statement rivals your past mealymouthed mutterings
> >in regards to how those who served during WWII without seeing combat
> >in the air over Europe somhow don't meet up to your own high standards
> >of honorable conduct, how officers are much smarter than enlisted men,
> >groundcrews did not experience war, etc. Stick to talking about that
> >small, finite element of the war about which you may have a clue (B-26
> >air operations in Europe); everytime you meander from that topic you
> >further reveal how increasingly imbecilic you really are.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
>
> And your combat experieces were?????

Oh, grow up, Art, you've at least 75 years on this celestial orb.
You've set me off; watch and shoot.

My father, a Canadian resident in Britain, was conscripted (willingly)
into the Royal Navy in January 1940. He, and all his mates, fought
like ****! Fie, that you would devalue their effort. In *human* terms,
it was worth, second-for-second, everything your service was.
Second-for-second, in human terms, they contributed the same to the
defeat of the NAZIs. My father's class (b. 1919) at Lord William's
Grammar School was nearly wiped out à la the tradition of the Somme;
because he chose the navy he was one of the few who survived. He
sailed in the Atlantic and in the Indian, and not while it was easy --
part of his service was in a naval infantry battalion during the
invasion scare of 1940. It is a needless slight to your
brothers-in-arms -- cousins, allies, what ever you want to call them
-- to say that the war started on 6 June 1944.

Anyone who has even held a staff post knows that building an army is
like cultivating asparagus: you go back three years and dig. If you
want to wage a war, you start ten years prior. I will not say that
there was any wilful disregard of the impending storm in Europe on the
part of the U.S. When the U.S. might have been preparing for war, they
were fighting internal demons like the Great Depression. Polities
react to threats as they appear; for the U.S., the threat was not
apparent until later. Its citizens, however, should give credit to
those who did perceive the threat. They are right to chastise those
other polities (the UK and France) for not trouncing those threats
(the Rhineland in '36 and Czechoslovakia in '38) when it might have
saved, quite literally, a world of grief. However, the mistake once
made has to be lived with, and men like my father, ineligible to vote
or to influence effectively the course of event, inherited the hand
fate dealt them.

Anything that could reduce my father to silent tears on 11 November
was out of the normal course of human events; I think it was war, and
i rightly imagine much of it happened before D-Day. I suggest you read
carefully Charles Causeley's "Armistice Day":

I stood with three comrades in Parliament Square
November her freights of grey fire unloading
No sound from the city upon the pale air
Above us the sea-bell eleven exploding.

Down by the bands the burning memorial
Beats all the brass in a royal array.
But at our end we are not so sartorial:
Out of (as usual) the rig of the day.

Starry is wearing a split pusser's flannel
Rubbed, as he is, by the regular tide;
Oxo the ducks that he ditched in the Channel
In June, 1940 (when he was inside).

Kitty recalls his abandon-ship station,
Running below at the Old Man's salute
And (with a deck watch) going down for the duration
Wearing his oppo's pneumonia-suit.

Comrades, for you the black captain of carracks
Writes in Whitehall his appalling decisions
But as was often the case in the Barracks
Several ratings are not at Divisions.

Into my eyes the stiff sea-horses stare,
Over my head sweeps the sun like a swan.
As I stand alone in Parliament Square
A cold bugle calls, and the city moves on.

Art, come to Ottawa some time and I will give you a tour of how the
World Wars still create a turbulence beneath the surface of everything
that happens in the Canadian galaxy. Call me, I'm in the book.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
>
> My father, a Canadian resident in Britain, was conscripted (willingly)
> into the Royal Navy in January 1940. He, and all his mates, fought
> like ****! Fie, that you would devalue their effort. In *human* terms,
> it was worth, second-for-second, everything your service was.
> Second-for-second, in human terms, they contributed the same to the
> defeat of the NAZIs. My father's class (b. 1919) at Lord William's
> Grammar School was nearly wiped out à la the tradition of the Somme;
> because he chose the navy he was one of the few who survived. He
> sailed in the Atlantic and in the Indian, and not while it was easy --
> part of his service was in a naval infantry battalion during the
> invasion scare of 1940. It is a needless slight to your
> brothers-in-arms -- cousins, allies, what ever you want to call them
> -- to say that the war started on 6 June 1944.
>

I don't mean to be a stickler for accuracy, but Art didn't say the war
started on 6 June 1944, he said it began on D-Day. Art believes D-Day was
June 5th.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: av8r
>Date: 6/30/03 5:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Hi Art
>
>The following B-26 Marauder-equipped units of the 9th Air Force bombed
>Utah Beach:
>
>344th BG (Medium)
>386th BG (Medium)
>387th BG (Medium)
>
>A total of 290 Marauders dropped 550 tons of assorted ordnance on the
>beach with incredible accuracy. Bombing altitudes ranged from 1,600 to
>3,000 feet depending on the cloud base.
>
>As you know only 12 members of the 4th Infantry Division died on the
>beach. Surprisingly, this was less than the number who died while
>training back in England for the landing.
>
>Cheers...Chris


Chris,

Thanks for all that good stuff. I appreciate it. And thanks for putting the
344th first. We did lead the way for the 9th Air Force that morning. Do you
have any record of the 322nd having been there? I always thought they went in
with us. All and any material on the 344th on D-day is very welcome. My
experioenceis form the nose of "Wil;lie the Wolf" but I never read any books on
the subject./
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:19:23 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Even the Spitfire XVI was powered by the American-built
>>> Merlin.
>>
>>Yes, but that was the exception. AFAIK most of Packard's
>>production for the RAF was single-stage Merlins for bombers.
>
> And that was in September/October 1944, on one production line at the
> Castle Bromwich factory at a time when the British were still
> producing Mk IXs and Griffon-engined Mk XIVs. The Packard-Merlins in
> Lancaster B.IIIs and Kittyhawk IIs were much more significant in terms
> of their impact on British operational policy.

Gavin,
I don't wish to sound argumentative, but wouldn't it be more fair to
say that the Packard Merlins i Lancaster B.IIIs and various flavors
of Mosquito were more significant. I'm not trying to cut down the
Kittyhawk IIs again, but I think that everybody except, perhaps
those in the CBI Theater had pretty much decided by 1943 that P-40
based airframes weren't the best option available. As a point of
information, how long did teh Kittyhawk IIs stay in service? There
seemed to ba a rapid turnover of fighter types in North Africa in
'42 and '43, and I've seen information that indicates that the
Kittyhawk IIs in the RAAF Squadrons that wwere in North Africa were
replaces with Kittyhawk IIIs (P-40Ks and Ms) in relatively short
order. Could you please shed some light on this?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Wolfie]

"ArtKramr" wrote

> We did lead the way for the 9th Air Force that morning.

They sent the bombers in before the transports carrying the
82nd and 101st? Weren't those transports in the 9th?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> I never read any books on the subject.
>

It shows.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Ed Majden" > writes:
>
> "Richard Brooks" > > > >Long live the memory of the Spitfire and our
> Merlins!
>> > >> >
>> >
>> > The Spits are famed for winning the Battle of Britain. The Mustangs
> are
>> > famed for winning the war.
>>
>> Ahh, those Merlins again! ;-)
>>
>
> The P51 wasn't a high performance fighter until the Brits installed the
> RR Merlin in it. This increased speed and performance making the Mustang a
> top long range fighter.

You might want to look into that a little bit deeper. All P-51s, (and
A-36s, and F-6As) were pretty damned high performance in their effective
altitude bands, faster cruising adn better accelerating at high speeds
than the than the contemporary Spitfire Vs and IXs. (Long tange
cruise at about 170 mph IAS vice 160 mph IAS for the Spits note that
that's indicated airspeed, which is the Sea Level equivalant of the
airplane's True Airspeed, which is higher as altitude increases, due
to the decreasing air pressure at altitude.) At low altitudes, a
P-51A or A-36 were quite high performers, better even than the V1650-3
engined P-51Bs. They were quite capable of dealing with the Fw 190As
of the time. In the Mediterranean Theater, the lower critical
altitudes of the engines wasn't as much of a factor, most combat
taking place at altitudes below 15,000'. It's worth noting that,
until the introduction of the 2-stage/2-speed Merlin 61 in the Spit
IX, Merlin/SPitfire critical altitudes were dropping as well, from
16,000'+ for the Spit I's Merlin III, , to 13,000' for the Spit II's
Merlin XII, , to 9250' for the Merlin 45 on the Mk V, and, later 3700'
for the cropped supercharger Merlin 45M for the Spit L.F> V.
Merlin 45 engined Spit Vs, The Mistangs (and A-36s) could carry a
useful load as a fighter-bomber, and even without the extra fuselage
tank fitted to many B models, had an astonishing amount of range. The
first RAF firgters to reach Germany from Britain were Allison-engined
Mustang Is, in mid 1942, and they roamed all over Western Europe
shooting up whatever targets of opportunity came along.

> The Spits did not have the range to be an effective long range bomber escort
> but it was an excellent fighter. During the Battle of Britain the Spits
> generally went after the fighter while the Hurricanes dealt with the
> bombers.

The Spit certainly was an excellent fighter, and it had a lot of
stretch. I do find the claim that "Spitfires were sent after Figters
in the Battle of Britain, and Hurricanes after bombers" a bit dubious.
Especially with the command and control systems available at the time,
you don't get to pick and choose that way. Raides were intercepted by
whatever was available. The kill figures, vis-a-vis Fighters
vs. Bombers really don't differ all that much between Spitfires &
Hurricanes. What was more important was teh elimination of the
unweildy and worthless setpiece Fighter Attack tactics, which would
have casue crippling losses even if the RAF were flying Zeta Reticulan
Flying Discs. An excellent airplane doesn't make up for very bad tactics.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Wolfie"
>Date: 6/30/03 8:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" wrote
>
>> We did lead the way for the 9th Air Force that morning.
>
>They sent the bombers in before the transports carrying the
>82nd and 101st? Weren't those transports in the 9th?
>


Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the 9th on that
morning. If you live near Stansted airport, see the plaque dedicated to the
344th that states that we led the charge for the 9th that morning. Stansted
airport was built for the 344th. Thy cleared and leveled a cowpasture, threw
down a runway put up a load of Neissen huts and we had an instant airfield.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 6/30/03 8:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: k.net>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I never read any books on the subject.
>>
>
>It shows.


I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all about..

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Wolfie]

"ArtKramr" wrote

> >> We did lead the way for the 9th Air Force that morning.
> >
> >They sent the bombers in before the transports carrying the
> >82nd and 101st? Weren't those transports in the 9th?

> Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the
> 9th on that morning.

The AF has always considered transports carrying paratroops
to drops to be aircraft fulfilling a combat role. What other
definition for "combat aircraft" is realistic? Sure, they need
fighter protection (or to fly at night), but so do/did most
bombers...

> If you live near Stansted airport, see the plaque dedicated to the
> 344th that states that we led the charge for the 9th that morning.

Well, you know what they say about learning things from reading...

The 344th, AFAIK, led the *bombing* raids for the 9th on D-Day.

Doesn't the 9th AF Official History says a transport unit spearheaded
the 9th's efforts that day?

[Sunny]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
> >> I never read any books on the subject.
> >It shows.
> I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
> thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
about..

I suggest you read a few more books on the whole subject, to balance your
one eyed view.
Looking out from the nose of a medium bomber was not "what it was all
about".

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Kevin
Brooks > writes
>Peter Twydell > wrote in message news:<gs0Tf8A6MKA$EwjF
>...
<snip outrage>
>>
>> Dad never liked Americans, and sometimes I can see why.
>
>Dear God, please do not judge us all on the basis of the mumblings of
>folks like Art, the Tarvernaut, and those of similar ilk. We all have
>our share of bad apples.
>

I did say "sometimes".

I worked with Americans (and Texans) for many years, and found the vast
majority to be kind and friendly people. Just like every other
nationality I have known. As you said, every country has its share of
stupid, ignorant and downright irritating people (God save us from those
who are all three), so I don't judge whole nations on the evidence of a
few individuals.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 00:08:31 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

> It's worth noting that,
>until the introduction of the 2-stage/2-speed Merlin 61 in the Spit
>IX, Merlin/SPitfire critical altitudes were dropping as well, from
>16,000'+ for the Spit I's Merlin III, , to 13,000' for the Spit II's
>Merlin XII, , to 9250' for the Merlin 45 on the Mk V, and, later 3700'
>for the cropped supercharger Merlin 45M for the Spit L.F> V.
>Merlin 45 engined Spit Vs,

I'm not sure this is true for the Merlin XII and Merlin 45, as their
full throttle heights were higher than the Merlin III's. Do you mean
achieving maximum output (horsepower)?

>The Spit certainly was an excellent fighter, and it had a lot of
>stretch. I do find the claim that "Spitfires were sent after Figters
>in the Battle of Britain, and Hurricanes after bombers" a bit dubious.

Apparently this is what Park ordered in one of his tactical
instruction memos issued by 11 Group HQ. The pressures of timing
often prevented it, but Biggin Hill Spitfire units seemed to be
scrambled first to engage 109 escorts towards the end of the battle.

Fighting area attacks were cumbersome and outclassed by the more
flexible Luftwaffe fighter tactics, but they were designed to deal
with unescorted bombers, and as such they were as good a way of any of
organising cumulative attacks on aircraft which would probably survive
a single pass by an eight-gun .303 fighter. Of course, the real
environment was somewhat different from one where the fighters would
have the time to engage in luxuries such as formulaic and cumbersome
approaches to the enemy bombers.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 30 Jun 2003 21:56:02 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>I should have said the war in western europe. Sorry I left that out.

Fair enough, and I agree that the critical period in the west was
D-Day to V-E Day. Nonetheless, the real war existed beforehand. Like
Paul, I'd have been interested to see my great uncles reaction to
being told he wasn't fighting a real war after Hamburg, Peenemunde,
six trips to Berlin and being shot down in February 1944 on the way
back from Schweinfurt, costing the life of one of his crew.

I'm grateful for what you did, Art, but you weren't completely alone
in what you did. That takes nothing away from the risks you and your
crew and group ran and had to face every day to get your job done.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:56:38 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>>Look at what happened before it showed up. There was more going on
>>than just the Mustang.
>
>What happened before the (extended-range) Mustang showed up? Well, the
>German air force was shooting down so many B-17s and B-24s that it
>looked possible that the 8th Air Force would have to give up
>deep-penetration daylight raids into Germany, to the huge benefit of
>Albert Speer and the German war effort.

Escorted raids did not begin and end with the Mustang. Look at German
pilot losses in August-November 1943 before the Mustang showed up.
The Mustang accelerated a pre-existing dynamic. I'm not suggesting
that it didn't have a major impact, just that it tends to appropriate
too much of the credit for losses caused by a more diverse force.
Luftwaffe defeats over the battlefronts in the east, over Tunisia or
Sicily or Salerno were not inflicted by the Mustang.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:25:09 +0800, "Dennis" >
wrote:

>> What happened before the (extended-range) Mustang showed up? Well, the
>> German air force was shooting down so many B-17s and B-24s that it
>> looked possible that the 8th Air Force would have to give up
>> deep-penetration daylight raids into Germany, to the huge benefit of
>> Albert Speer and the German war effort.
>
>Problem with this analysis is that the attrition of the Luftwaffe had
>already got to the back side of the curve prior to the P-51's introduction.
>The P-38, for example, did a lot of damage, and was capable of deep escort.

Precisely. On balance the P-51 might have been better, or more
reliable (even then it had it's share of teething problems), but the
problem was recognised and was being addressed before it showed up.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Cub Driver]

>This increased speed and performance making the Mustang a
>top long range fighter.

The engine didn't improve the range. It took the addition of a big
fuse tank behind the pilot to do that.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:22:31 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>Gavin,
> I don't wish to sound argumentative, but wouldn't it be more fair to
> say that the Packard Merlins i Lancaster B.IIIs and various flavors
> of Mosquito were more significant.

Not really, look at the numbers supplied over time in 1942-43. More
Packard Merlins were going into Hurricane Xs for delivery to the
Russians than into Kittyhawks or Mosquitos. The Packard Merlins for
the Lanc III were certainly significant, as any holdups in supply
affected expansion of Lancaster production in 1943, and this generated
concern at high levels of the MAP (unlike almost anything to do with
the Mosquito) which indicates the importance attached to PM supply as
part of the heavy-bomber programme.

>I'm not trying to cut down the
> Kittyhawk IIs again, but I think that everybody except, perhaps
> those in the CBI Theater had pretty much decided by 1943 that P-40
> based airframes weren't the best option available.

Sure. I don't disagree with that, but they still had to fight with
what they got, not what they wanted. As it happens the Merlin
Kittyhawks provided the majority of the US fighter strength in the MTO
in 1942-1943 during the first Allied offensive operations to clear
North Africa and attack Italy. That's not insubstantial, although the
picture changes rapidly over time as other types appeared in greater
quantity and replaced the P-40F/L on the front line.

> As a point of
> information, how long did teh Kittyhawk IIs stay in service? There
> seemed to ba a rapid turnover of fighter types in North Africa in
> '42 and '43, and I've seen information that indicates that the
> Kittyhawk IIs in the RAAF Squadrons that wwere in North Africa were
> replaces with Kittyhawk IIIs (P-40Ks and Ms) in relatively short
> order. Could you please shed some light on this?

My information (which is limited on post-May 1943) is that the British
got one sizeable batch of P-40Fs which equipped 260 Squadron in the
DAF September/October 1942. These, plus some later arrivals, then
went on to equip 3 RAAF squadron and 260 Squadron had replaced it with
Kittyhawk IIIs by the spring of 1943 (some aircraft served in both
squadrons). 3 RAAF retained them into the summer of 1943 throughout
Sicily and the invasion of southern Italy. That's a reasonable
service life for aircraft which had been received nearly a year
earlier. The shortage of numbers, and the fact that they didn't get
any more supplied in quantity after November 1942 (as production
finished) meant that it was a minor type.

This seems equivalent to the service life of other variants of the
P-40 in RAF service, e.g. the Tomahawks in 112 Squadron which lasted
six months before replacement (July 1941 - January 1942), or the
Kittyhawks of 94 Squadron lasting six months before replacement
(January 1942 - May 1942).

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Cub Driver]

>Well, not exactly. The problem during that period was not the
>absence of the Mustang, but the failure to aggressively pursue
>the use of P-47s and P-38s as long-range escort fighters. The
>development of suitable drop tanks was being badly neglected,
>and the available fighters were not being effectively used.

Not so at all. (Surely you're not saying that drop tanks weren't being
used? Strewth, the P-40D of late 1941 had drop tanks!)

It was generally believed that it was impossible to give an existing
fighter the stretch to reach Berlin from Germany, and that an entirely
new fighter was needed. The oversized fuse tank in the Mustang was a
last resort, which happened to do the job (with drop-tanks to boot, of
course). As I recall the memoirs, the Mustang had a c of g so far aft
on the early part of a mission that the trim wouldn't compensate, but
the pilot had to use forward stick.

I doubt the 47 could ever have been adapted in this fashion, because
of its higher weight. And I'm not sure that the 38 was all that
effective defending bombers against 109s/190s on their home ground.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Cub Driver]

>Escorted raids did not begin and end with the Mustang. Look at German
>pilot losses in August-November 1943 before the Mustang showed up.
>The Mustang accelerated a pre-existing dynamic. I'm not suggesting
>that it didn't have a major impact, just that it tends to appropriate
>too much of the credit for losses caused by a more diverse force.
>Luftwaffe defeats over the battlefronts in the east, over Tunisia or
>Sicily or Salerno were not inflicted by the Mustang.

We're speaking of deep penetration. Where did those German pilot
losses take place--at what distance from the Allied fighter bases?

The Mustang's job was to enable bombers to reach Berlin, not Sicily, a
task that was indeed with the Spitfire's capabilities.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Cub Driver]

>The Omaha defenses survived the high altitude bombardment by B17s
>which I think was effected by cloud and winds.

The B-24s and B-17s had to drop through the clouds. To avoid hitting
American troops, they aimed conservatively, and as a consequence the
bulk of the explosives landed behind the German beach defenses.

At the altitude the B-26s bombed at Utah, rifle fire was a serious
obstacle.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:24:17 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>>Escorted raids did not begin and end with the Mustang. Look at German
>>pilot losses in August-November 1943 before the Mustang showed up.
>>The Mustang accelerated a pre-existing dynamic. I'm not suggesting
>>that it didn't have a major impact, just that it tends to appropriate
>>too much of the credit for losses caused by a more diverse force.
>>Luftwaffe defeats over the battlefronts in the east, over Tunisia or
>>Sicily or Salerno were not inflicted by the Mustang.
>
>We're speaking of deep penetration.

No, we're talking about German pilot attrittion. It's irrelevant
whether that occurred on deep-penetration missions,
shallow-penetration missions, or over the battlefront.

>Where did those German pilot
>losses take place--at what distance from the Allied fighter bases?

I don't understand this point. In any case, I don't have that
information. I presume Luftwaffe combat losses (as opposed to
non-combat losses) were largely inflicted by enemy aircraft, with
enemy fighters being the most significant individual factor.

>The Mustang's job was to enable bombers to reach Berlin, not Sicily, a
>task that was indeed with the Spitfire's capabilities.

Sure. But that's not what I'm arguing about. The war-winning
criticality attributed to the Mustang usually stems from the level of
loss inflicted on the German day fighter arm in the spring of 1944. I
merely want to point out that this critical level of attrition had
already been achieved before the Mustang showed up, and that there
were other aircraft and forces working in concert with the Mustang to
achieve this end.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes

snip
>
>Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the 9th on that
>morning. If you live near Stansted airport, see the plaque dedicated to the
>344th that states that we led the charge for the 9th that morning. Stansted
>airport was built for the 344th. Thy cleared and leveled a cowpasture, threw
>down a runway put up a load of Neissen huts and we had an instant airfield.

<Quibble>

Nissan Huts

</Quibble>

Mike

[Keith Willshaw]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, ArtKramr
> > writes
>
> snip
> >
> >Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the 9th on
that
> >morning. If you live near Stansted airport, see the plaque dedicated to
the
> >344th that states that we led the charge for the 9th that morning.
Stansted
> >airport was built for the 344th. Thy cleared and leveled a cowpasture,
threw
> >down a runway put up a load of Neissen huts and we had an instant
airfield.
>
> <Quibble>
>
> Nissan Huts
>
> </Quibble>
>
> Mike

Nissen Hut surely, named after Peter Norman Nissen as I recall.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 7/1/03 6:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: k.net>
>
>
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> <Quibble>
>>
>> Nissan Huts
>>
>> </Quibble>
>>
>
>Nissen Huts


Who cares as long as the roofs didn't leak and the pot bellied stoves didn'l
smoke up the place.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Wolfie"
>Date: 6/30/03 10:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" wrote
>
>> >> We did lead the way for the 9th Air Force that morning.
>> >
>> >They sent the bombers in before the transports carrying the
>> >82nd and 101st? Weren't those transports in the 9th?
>
>> Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the
>> 9th on that morning.
>
>The AF has always considered transports carrying paratroops
>to drops to be aircraft fulfilling a combat role. What other
>definition for "combat aircraft" is realistic? Sure, they need
>fighter protection (or to fly at night), but so do/did most
>bombers...
>
>> If you live near Stansted airport, see the plaque dedicated to the
>> 344th that states that we led the charge for the 9th that morning.
>
>Well, you know what they say about learning things from reading...
>
>The 344th, AFAIK, led the *bombing* raids for the 9th on D-Day.
>
>Doesn't the 9th AF Official History says a transport unit spearheaded
>the 9th's efforts that day?


Transports don't carry guns or bombs.T

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Sunny"
>Date: 6/30/03 11:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>> >From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> >> I never read any books on the subject.
>> >It shows.
>> I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
>> thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
>about..
>
>I suggest you read a few more books on the whole subject, to balance your
>one eyed view.
>Looking out from the nose of a medium bomber was not "what it was all
>about".


It was fo rme.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>Date: 7/1/03 1:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >

> should have said the war in western europe. Sorry I left that out.
>
>Fair enough, and I agree that the critical period in the west was
>D-Day to V-E Day. Nonetheless, the real war existed beforehand. Like
>Paul, I'd have been interested to

In Western Europe before D Day there were only impotent failed thrusts that led
to nothing. Dieppe for example. The moment the first Allied soldier set foot
on the Normandy beach, the end was in sight for Germany. We flew two missions
that day. You would have loved the fun.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>Date: 7/1/03 1:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>Escorted raids did not begin and end with the Mustang. Look at German
>pilot losses in August-November

True. we had a few misions where we got Spitfire esocrts. It went like this'
They would pick us up at about the bomb line. Sock in all around ur and stay
with us for a while. Then with a gallant wiggle of wings they would break of
and turn back, Gavin have you have any idea of what it feels like to be in
bomber heading into the Ruhr valley and watch your fighter escort go home and
leave you? No. You can't even know that feeling.You can understand it
intellectually, but you will never really know the feeling. The 51's took us
all the way in and all the way back. That was the difference.And in that
difference lay life and death.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 01 Jul 2003 14:26:35 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>In Western Europe before D Day there were only impotent failed thrusts that led
>to nothing.

Some my great-uncles "impotent failed thrusts":

30/31 January 1944. LM310. Berlin. Take off 1708. Landing 2343.

[534 aircraft dispatched, including 440 Lancasters. 33 aircraft lost,
32 of them Lancasters. This was Bomber Command's third raid on Berlin
over the past four nights. It was his eighth trip to Berlin]

Perhaps you might have loved the fun.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>Date: 7/1/03 1:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time

>Precisely. On balance the P-51 might have been better, or more
>reliable (even then it had it's share of teething problems), but the
>problem was recognised and was being addressed before it showed up.
>
>Gavin Bailey

On balance the attrition was in allied heavy bombers losses deep penetration.
The Luftwaffe lost relatively few fighters against heavy bombers over Berlin
with no fighter cover at all. Before the P-51, the Allied situation in the air
was a losing proposition for the bombers . I guess you have it have flown
bombers to fully understand that.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>Date: 7/1/03 6:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: k.net>
>>
>>
>>"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> <Quibble>
>>>
>>> Nissan Huts
>>>
>>> </Quibble>
>>>
>>
>>Nissen Huts

Wait! Wait! I corrected it!
>
>
>Who cares as long as the roofs didn't leak and the pot bellied stoves didn'l
>smoke up the place.

Did you manage to get them red-hot up to the ceiling?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 01 Jul 2003 14:41:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>That is of little comfort to those of us who didn't get the fighter cover we
>needed.

Unescorted daylight strategic bombing wasn't my idea, believe it or
not.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>Date: 7/1/03 7:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>Unescorted daylight strategic bombing wasn't my idea, believe it or
>not.
>
>Gavin Bailey

Mine either. At last we agree on something.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Corey C. Jordan]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:21:09 -0400, Cub Driver > wrote:

>And I'm not sure that the 38 was all that
>effective defending bombers against 109s/190s on their home ground.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
>Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Dan, the P-38s helped a great deal. Bomber losses dropped by 50% when escorted
by nothing more than two very under-strength P-38 Groups. Both the 20th and 55th
FGs suffered from large numbers of aborts due to engine problems, on some
missions as many as 30% of the P-38 force had to return to base with engine
failures. Yet, this tiny force (usually less than 60 fighters) did a great deal
to cut bomber losses to sustainable levels. As more P-51B/C Mustangs arrived,
the P-38s were able to share the "over target" escort duty, reducing the
terrible mismatch in numbers. By early 1944, the situation had reversed and the
Luftwaffe was finding itself badly out-numbered. Nonetheless, November and
December of 1943 were dangerous times to be flying the P-38 from Britain.

Ultimately, the P-38J, which was specifically engineered for tropical climates,
was unsuitable for high altitude duty over Europe in the dead of winter. It
wasn't until the Spring of 1944 that the P-38L rectified these deficiencies,
and by then the 8th Air Force was committed to the P-51. However, both the
9th and 15th Air Forces used the P-38L with good success. Unfortunately, the
P-38's development was mismanaged by Lockheed, the WPB and the USAAF.
It could have been a far more effective fighter at least a year sooner.

My regards,

Widewing
Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>Date: 7/1/03 7:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time

>How would you know? Did you fly B-17's on B-24's or A-20's? If not,
>apply your own rules of censorship and stop talking about anything
>other than your personal observations of the missions you flew on, and
>don't talk about anything else.
>
>Gavin Bailey

I request the same of you. Only talk about what you experienced. I guess we
won't be hearing much from you anymore. And I guess you are now the
sell-appointed censor of this NG telling guys what they can and can't talk
about. That will never happen.If you have a problem with that I invite you , no
urge you to add me to your killfile.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Your experience does not amount to the totality of air operations in
> World War Two. There were millions of people like you out there,
> doing their best in impossible circumstances at great risk.
>

You're right, of course, but Art will never understand that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
> thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
about..
>

If one cannot learn about the war by reading about it, then there's no point
in your writing about it.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 01 Jul 2003 15:08:07 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>I request the same of you.

You have been, for some time.

>Only talk about what you experienced. I guess we
>won't be hearing much from you anymore.

Remind me of your contemporary expertise on 100-octane fuel supply to
Britain in 1940. Didn't stop you voicing an opinion, so restrain your
hypocrisy.

> And I guess you are now the
>sell-appointed censor of this NG telling guys what they can and can't talk
>about.

You seem you enjoy that role far too much for me to deny it to you.

>That will never happen.If you have a problem with that I invite you , no
>urge you to add me to your killfile.

Be my guest. I have no intention of killfiling you, as respecting and
tolerating dissent is one of the things your fighting and risking your
life for has given me the luxury of trying out.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 01 Jul 2003 15:17:22 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>f course not. Equally, you'll never know the feeling of going up
>>against Fw 190s in an Airacobra or desperately trying to evade a Wild
>>Sau nightfighter over Berlin or clambering out of a landing craft in
>>the teeth of enemy machine-gin
>
>You are right. Tell me about it. II want to hear it form the horses mouth. No
>offense of course..

How did you learn to use the Norden? Did you design, buld and test it
yourself or did somebody else do it for you? In which case, don't
bother telling me about bomb-aiming and Norden issues, I'd rather have
it from the horses' mouth.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now you are getting silly.
>

Now you're confusing silliness with logic.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>Date: 7/1/03 8:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 01 Jul 2003 15:17:22 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>f course not. Equally, you'll never know the feeling of going up
>>>against Fw 190s in an Airacobra or desperately trying to evade a Wild
>>>Sau nightfighter over Berlin or clambering out of a landing craft in
>>>the teeth of enemy machine-gin
>>
>>You are right. Tell me about it. II want to hear it form the horses mouth.
>No
>>offense of course..
>
>How did you learn to use the Norden? Did you design, buld and test it
>yourself or did somebody else do it for you? In which case, don't
>bother telling me about bomb-aiming and Norden issues, I'd rather have
>it from the horses' mouth.
>
>Gavin Bailey
>

Gee, come to think about it I never did talk much about the Norden. There seems
to be zero interest in it. Are you sure you won't reconsider killfiling me?
Please.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[David Lentz]

ArtKramr wrote:

<snip>

> > should have said the war in western europe. Sorry I left that out.
> >
> >Fair enough, and I agree that the critical period in the west was
> >D-Day to V-E Day. Nonetheless, the real war existed beforehand. Like
> >Paul, I'd have been interested to
>
> In Western Europe before D Day there were only impotent failed thrusts that led
> to nothing. Dieppe for example. The moment the first Allied soldier set foot
> on the Normandy beach, the end was in sight for Germany. We flew two missions
> that day. You would have loved the fun.

In all fairness, Dieppe was a raid. It not intended to take and
hold territory, but rather only as a test of the German's
defenses. Dieppe did establish that any Allied invasion of
Europe would mean coming across the beach and not by capturing
and using a sea port.

Dieppe had its value, and its cost. Was it worth it? I don't
know.

David

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>Date: 7/1/03 8:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 30 Jun 2003 17:53:46 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>There were two constants on every mission. One was the 180mph cruise.
>
>How would you know? Did you handle the throttles and observe the ASI
>all the time? Did you calibrate the ASI youself? Did you experience
>cleaning and replacing the pitot head personally or did you pick that
>up third-hand?
>
>>The
>>second was the 4,000 pound bomb load.
>
>Did you measure the weight yourself to confirm this, or were you
>relying on other people to weigh & load the bombload?
>
>>I can still feel that 100 octane eating into my skin.
>
>How did you know it was 100 octane and not 100/115 or 130/150 or 87
>octane with the wrong dye? Does 100 octane provide a specific and
>unique dermatological irritation which you recognised? In which case,
>were you a qualified dermatologist to make that diagnosis in the first
>place?
>
>Gavin Bailey
>

I was the navigator as well as the Bombardier.. I calculated all ETA's on
180mph indicated converted to groundspeed to get ETA's. We calibrated our
airspeed indicators based on measured speed runs during shakedowns and
calibrated errors accordingly. I had a full set of instruments in front of me
at all times and watched them carefully. We had to hold airspeed to zero
tolerence to get bombing accuracy. We carried 8 500 pound bombs which I was
responsible for inspecting the loading, checking the arming wires for security
and making sure all the A=2 bomb shackles were properly installed.God, I never
dreamt you knew so little.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: David Lentz
>Date: 7/1/03 9:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> > should have said the war in western europe. Sorry I left that out.
>> >
>> >Fair enough, and I agree that the critical period in the west was
>> >D-Day to V-E Day. Nonetheless, the real war existed beforehand. Like
>> >Paul, I'd have been interested to
>>
>> In Western Europe before D Day there were only impotent failed thrusts that
>led
>> to nothing. Dieppe for example. The moment the first Allied soldier set
>foot
>> on the Normandy beach, the end was in sight for Germany. We flew two
>missions
>> that day. You would have loved the fun.
>
>In all fairness, Dieppe was a raid. It not intended to take and
>hold territory, but rather only as a test of the German's
>defenses. Dieppe did establish that any Allied invasion of
>Europe would mean coming across the beach and not by capturing
>and using a sea port.
>
>Dieppe had its value, and its cost. Was it worth it? I don't
>know.
>
>David
>

It was a terrible blow to Biritsh morale.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 01 Jul 2003 15:59:19 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

> Are you sure you won't reconsider killfiling me?
>Please.

Put your money where your mouth is. You claim to want to killfile me:
do so.

If you want to discuss something, talk about the "impotence" of my
relatives who were fighting the war long before you arrived on the
scene. Eight times to Berlin.

How many times did you do that?

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 01 Jul 2003 16:11:57 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>I was the navigator as well as the Bombardier.

Sorry, I thought I was in your killfile. Did you make your own maps,
or did others do that for you? Did you make your B-26 by hand in your
own garage, or did others do that for you? Who taught you to navigate
or use the Norden, or did you invent mathematics, geometry,
cartography and precision bombsight engineering yourself?

In short, where does the tyranny of your own experience end, and other
people begin?

> We carried 8 500 pound bombs which I was
>responsible for inspecting the loading, checking the arming wires for security
>and making sure all the A=2 bomb shackles were properly installed.

So you didn't weigh them, you just took it on trust that they weighed
500lbs?

>God, I never dreamt you knew so little.

You have no problems dismissing or demeaning literally millions of
people. I'm happy enough to be in their company. I'm still going to
thank you for what you did.

Gavin Bailey


--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:04:22 GMT, (The
Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

> More
>Packard Merlins were going into Hurricane Xs for delivery to the
>Russians than into Kittyhawks or Mosquitos.

Actually, on second thoughts, I'm not sure about that. I don't
actually have any figures for Hurricane X/P-40F deliveries in 1941-42
beyond what went to the Middle East and general statements reserving
the Canadian Hurricanes for Russia. I'm not sure if the P-40F's came
out of the original British Packard Merlin allocation, but apparently
the US P-40's came out of the American allocation (3,000 vs 6,000 to
the British).

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Stephen Harding]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On 01 Jul 2003 16:11:57 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >I was the navigator as well as the Bombardier.
>
> Sorry, I thought I was in your killfile. Did you make your own maps,
> or did others do that for you? Did you make your B-26 by hand in your
> own garage, or did others do that for you? Who taught you to navigate
> or use the Norden, or did you invent mathematics, geometry,
> cartography and precision bombsight engineering yourself?

You've made a fair point about personal experience versus historical
record, but you're really starting to sound asinine in this effort.

I think all will agree there is a place for history and a place for
personal experience. We can probably all agree reading something and
personally experiencing something are not equivalent.

We can probably all agree that being told our knowledge is inadequate
because it was not obtained by personal experience, or that your personal
experience is "wrong" or not general, based on someone's readings, can be
annoying in the extreme.

Leave it at that and move on. No killfiling required from anyone!


SMH

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:21:49 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


>If you want to discuss something, talk about the "impotence" of my
>relatives who were fighting the war long before you arrived on the
>scene. Eight times to Berlin.
>
>How many times did you do that?

He sure as hell wasn't freezing the ******** off himself on artic convoys
as my maternal grandfather was.


greg



--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:24:14 GMT, (The
Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

>>I was the navigator as well as the Bombardier.
>
>Sorry, I thought I was in your killfile.

I don't know about Art, but as of today you're in mine.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Cub Driver]

>> Nissan Huts
>>
>> </Quibble>
>>
>> Mike
>
>Nissen Hut surely, named after Peter Norman Nissen as I recall.

Yeah, the Nissan Hut was a lightweight job, which replaced the Datsun
Hut :)

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>>How did you learn to use the Norden? Did you design, buld and test it
>>yourself or did somebody else do it for you? In which case, don't
>>bother telling me about bomb-aiming and Norden issues, I'd rather have
>>it from the horses' mouth.

>Gee, come to think about it I never did talk much about the Norden.

I was listening...

>There seems
>to be zero interest in it.

It might be specialised, but some of us are interested.


Art, you and Gavin both have valuable information to share, acquired in
very different ways. I know you won't kiss and make up, but can you try
to find a way to live with your argument? I value both sources and would
hate to lose one or both.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:31:15 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>You've made a fair point about personal experience versus historical
>record, but you're really starting to sound asinine in this effort.

Thanks for your opinion. I note that you didn't make the point,
asinine or not.

>I think all will agree there is a place for history and a place for
>personal experience. We can probably all agree reading something and
>personally experiencing something are not equivalent.

Of course not. I'd never suggested that, although I get the suspicion
that's what Art thinks I believe. It also appears to be an approach
he has erroneously attributed to several other posters on this group,
at least two of which have posted in this thread. If the tone of the
posts annoys you or you find them "asinine", I suggest you take it up
with the poster responsible for initiating the exchange at that level.
I'm happy enough to discuss things on a rational level, and I
genuinely respect Kramer's experience and contribution, but that
appears insufficient to maintain a rational and respectful level of
exchange on his part.

Fine by me, if that's how he prefers it.

>We can probably all agree that being told our knowledge is inadequate
>because it was not obtained by personal experience, or that your personal
>experience is "wrong" or not general, based on someone's readings, can be
>annoying in the extreme.

I'd like to know where I've ever done this to anybody, let alone Art
Kramer in particular.

>Leave it at that and move on. No killfiling required from anyone!

This isn't the first instance of Art provoking such a reaction, and
your selectivity in responding is notable.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:11:40 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>>Sorry, I thought I was in your killfile.
>
>I don't know about Art, but as of today you're in mine.

I'm somehow reminded of your exchanges with Eric Schilling at this
point. Perhaps your tolerance of being unreasonably dismissed by
veterans is higher than mine. I still read his contributions and
yours (and even bought your book as a consequence).

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:50:36 +0100, Greg Hennessy
> wrote:

>>If you want to discuss something, talk about the "impotence" of my
>>relatives who were fighting the war long before you arrived on the
>>scene. Eight times to Berlin.
>>
>>How many times did you do that?
>
>He sure as hell wasn't freezing the ******** off himself on artic convoys
>as my maternal grandfather was.

Funnily enough the old boy had plenty of time for other people and
their experiences, and thought his worth passing on in writing - I've
got them in front of me now, although it's a shame he didn't leave
more.

I have nothing but respect for anybody who did the Murmansk run. Did
he record anything about his experiences? Time passes and the
memories pass away as they do.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Stephen Harding]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:31:15 -0400, Stephen Harding
> > wrote:
>
> >You've made a fair point about personal experience versus historical
> >record, but you're really starting to sound asinine in this effort.
>
> Thanks for your opinion. I note that you didn't make the point,
> asinine or not.

???
Never mind.

[snip]

> I'm happy enough to discuss things on a rational level, and I

Well your little "did you weigh the bomb load" "discussion" is not really
rational and becoming tedious in its repetition. No need kicking a dead
horse.

> This isn't the first instance of Art provoking such a reaction, and
> your selectivity in responding is notable.

Well I don't agree with Art's statements that only personal experience is
worth anything in comparison to learned experience. We'd never really
know anything if that were true.

But I will admit I'm a fan of Art's and have just come to accept that he
has very strong opinions about things that aren't going to be easily changed,
and so be it. No point getting flustered about it.

Consider yourself fortunate you are not French!


SMH

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>>From: David Lentz
>>In all fairness, Dieppe was a raid. It not intended to take and
>>hold territory, but rather only as a test of the German's
>>defenses. Dieppe did establish that any Allied invasion of
>>Europe would mean coming across the beach and not by capturing
>>and using a sea port.

>It was a terrible blow to Biritsh morale.

It also was the reason we were so insistent that D-Day absolutely could
not be in 1942 (imagine Dieppe repeated on a multi-divisional,
multinational scale) and that it was better to accept delay and go with
the best available strength in 1944, than make a brave speculative
effort in 1943.

Meantime, various people fought the Germans every way they could.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:

> >>
> >> I never read any books on the subject.
> >>
> >
> >It shows.
>
> I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
> thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all about..
>
> Arthur Kramer


Then I guess there is no point reading your writing.

Dave

[Dave Holford]

> >In all fairness, Dieppe was a raid. It not intended to take and
> >hold territory, but rather only as a test of the German's
> >defenses. Dieppe did establish that any Allied invasion of
> >Europe would mean coming across the beach and not by capturing
> >and using a sea port.
> >
> >Dieppe had its value, and its cost. Was it worth it? I don't
> >know.
> >
> >David
> >
>
> It was a terrible blow to Biritsh morale.
>
> Arthur Kramer




I don't think the Canadians were all that happy about it either Art.

Dave

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote: (among other stuff)
>
> We had to hold airspeed to zero tolerence to get bombing accuracy.
>
> Arthur Kramer


"zero tolerance" Now I'm really impressed!

Dave

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:22:31 -0400, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
>>Gavin,
>> I don't wish to sound argumentative, but wouldn't it be more fair to
>> say that the Packard Merlins i Lancaster B.IIIs and various flavors
>> of Mosquito were more significant.
>
> Not really, look at the numbers supplied over time in 1942-43. More
> Packard Merlins were going into Hurricane Xs for delivery to the
> Russians than into Kittyhawks or Mosquitos. The Packard Merlins for
> the Lanc III were certainly significant, as any holdups in supply
> affected expansion of Lancaster production in 1943, and this generated
> concern at high levels of the MAP (unlike almost anything to do with
> the Mosquito) which indicates the importance attached to PM supply as
> part of the heavy-bomber programme.

Ah. O.K. That makes sense. Did most of the Murricane X's go to the
Soviets? I suppose it makes sense. Were thay delivered via Alaska?

>>I'm not trying to cut down the
>> Kittyhawk IIs again, but I think that everybody except, perhaps
>> those in the CBI Theater had pretty much decided by 1943 that P-40
>> based airframes weren't the best option available.
>
> Sure. I don't disagree with that, but they still had to fight with
> what they got, not what they wanted. As it happens the Merlin
> Kittyhawks provided the majority of the US fighter strength in the MTO
> in 1942-1943 during the first Allied offensive operations to clear
> North Africa and attack Italy. That's not insubstantial, although the
> picture changes rapidly over time as other types appeared in greater
> quantity and replaced the P-40F/L on the front line.

I agree that there were a lot of P-40s in service in early '43. But
after that point, with Mustangs and Thunderbolts making their
appearancce, that that's what would be coming into the pipeline.
Of course, it took time.

>> As a point of
>> information, how long did teh Kittyhawk IIs stay in service? There
>> seemed to ba a rapid turnover of fighter types in North Africa in
>> '42 and '43, and I've seen information that indicates that the
>> Kittyhawk IIs in the RAAF Squadrons that wwere in North Africa were
>> replaces with Kittyhawk IIIs (P-40Ks and Ms) in relatively short
>> order. Could you please shed some light on this?
>
> My information (which is limited on post-May 1943) is that the British
> got one sizeable batch of P-40Fs which equipped 260 Squadron in the
> DAF September/October 1942. These, plus some later arrivals, then
> went on to equip 3 RAAF squadron and 260 Squadron had replaced it with
> Kittyhawk IIIs by the spring of 1943 (some aircraft served in both
> squadrons). 3 RAAF retained them into the summer of 1943 throughout
> Sicily and the invasion of southern Italy. That's a reasonable
> service life for aircraft which had been received nearly a year
> earlier. The shortage of numbers, and the fact that they didn't get
> any more supplied in quantity after November 1942 (as production
> finished) meant that it was a minor type.

That makes sense. The life of a WW 2 fighter in combat was rather
short. There was a heavy toll not only to enemy action, but there was
also the steady drumbeat of operational losses, and they'd ger well &
truly worn out from being run hard. I'd imagine that what was
happening was that 3 Sqn. RAAF was brought up to strength with what
was left over from 260 Sqn, as the numbers of both were cut down by
attrition.

> This seems equivalent to the service life of other variants of the
> P-40 in RAF service, e.g. the Tomahawks in 112 Squadron which lasted
> six months before replacement (July 1941 - January 1942), or the
> Kittyhawks of 94 Squadron lasting six months before replacement
> (January 1942 - May 1942).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>Date: 7/1/03 10:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 01 Jul 2003 15:59:19 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> Are you sure you won't reconsider killfiling me?
>>Please.
>
>Put your money where your mouth is. You claim to want to killfile me:
>do so.
>
>If you want to discuss something, talk about the "impotence" of my
>relatives who were fighting the war long before you arrived on the
>scene. Eight times to Berlin.
>
>How many times did you do that?
>
>Gavin Bailey
>

Now you are taking credit for what your relatires did? disgusting.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 7/1/03 1:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <h7r3gvo39q07n9klatqtrpfer69sp

>about the
>carnage at Omaha, and he'd melded it into his own memory. That's the
>problem with eyewitness testimony--it sometimes is actually a memory
>of a photograph you've seen or a thought you later had.

How does that effect books written from memory that everyone is now quoting.
(grin)


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 7/1/03 1:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>Art, you and Gavin both have valuable information to share, acquired in
>very different ways. I know you won't kiss and make up, but can you try
>to find a way to live with your argument? I value both sources and would
>hate to lose one or both.

Thanks for the kind words. Years ago when this NG was young it was filled with
WW II veterans of the air war over Germany. At least 2 B-17 pilots, one from
the Bloody 100th Bomb Group with incredible stories to tell. Some navigators
who had been to Ploesti in B-24's and a number of gunners from both B-24's and
B-17's. These men in relating their combat experiences were constantly and
uniforrmly attacked by a hords of wannabbees, many who had never even seen a
military aircarft much less flown in one. They were discounting what these
veterans relayed because they read somewhere that it was otherwise and they
were telling these veterans what war was "really like'. One by one the vets
left this NG in disgust.. I kept in contact with many of them and tried to
bring them back.One or two came back, but left when the wannebees struck again
time after time. But I am a different breed of altogether.. I will never be
dirven off by wannabees. Never in a million years. Many guys who have given me
the same crap over and over are now gone.I'm still here. And will be as long as
I can make it to the computer keyboard. The Luftwaffe couldn't get me. And the
wannabees don't stand a chance..

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: av8r
>Date: 7/1/03 2:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Hi ya Art!
>
>The 344th BG was the first group to attack Utah Beach. They bombed a
>number of German coastal artillery sites. The next group over Utah
>Beach was the 387th BG. Due to cloud cover, all bombing was carried out
>below the cloud base. As I indicated in my previous e-mail, the cloud
>base ranged from 1,650 ASL to 3,000 feet ASL. The 366th BG was the last
>to drop its ordnance, just a mere five minutes before the initial
>landings took place. They carpet bombed the area using 100 pound bombs
>that tore up the barbed wire and explode buried land mines, both
>anti-tank and anti-personnel. A beneficial side effect was that bombs
>created instant fox holes. They were deep enough for the assaulting
>ground forces to use yet not deep enough to hinder either the armored
>nor landing vehicles.
>
>Cheers...Chris


You said the magic words that make my blood run cold...100 pounders. (sheesh)We
carried 40 hundred pounders. 40 of the little *******s. Do you know how long
it takes to kick out 40 bombs by intervalometer flying straight and level with
your bomb bay doors open , low enough to take small arms fire?. A lifetime,
that's how long. Talk about time standing still. We used that same damned load
hitting the marshalling yards at Cologne, coming home full of small arms fire;
holes and dents. But those little *******s sure made short work of barbed wire
and railroad tracks and ties.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: Dave Holford
>Date: 7/1/03 5:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> I never read any books on the subject.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It shows.
>>
>> I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
>> thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
>about..
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>
>Then I guess there is no point reading your writing.
>
>Dave


Exactly my point. it is not for the faint of heart.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dave Kearton]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

<<Snippage>>

| dirven off by wannabees. Never in a million years. Many guys who have
given me
| the same crap over and over are now gone.I'm still here. And will be as
long as
| I can make it to the computer keyboard. The Luftwaffe couldn't get me. And
the
| wannabees don't stand a chance..
|
| Arthur Kramer
| Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
| http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



Hi Art and all,


As someone who appreciates all _constructive_ input, I've enjoyed most of
the messages in this thread......certainly the ones that generate light
instead of heat. Normally threads this long would have left me cold
ages ago.


The thread touches peripherally on all aspects of Usenet life, from the
freedom of speech that your constitution stipulates and that _most_ other
RAM members enjoy by default, to the simple aspects of netiquette and good
manners.


Personally, I wonder if any other generation would ever stand toe-to-toe in
a bleeding match like WWI or II as yours did. We've all become
accustomed to 'surgical' warfare with minimal casualties among our side or
the innocent bystanders, witness the protests about the civilian casualties
in OIF.


You've certainly earned the right to be heard and to exchange your opinions
with the others with a credibility that few others can match.
Sadly, there will be a day when first hand accounts are no longer available
and written histories are all that are left.

The imperative as I see it, is to
_reconcile_written_histories_with_first-hand_accounts - while we can.
The work of authors such as Ed and Gordon are aimed at their own specialist
areas of air warfare during the last 60 years.


I'm glad you're still here Art, dodging the grenades. I'm sure that in
person you're a crusty, irascible old fart - enjoy that while you can - we
do and that there are people online who will enjoy stirring you up.

Please bear in mind that people on various mountain tops can look into the
same valley and see things slightly differently.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Dave Kearton"
>Date: 7/1/03 8:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>Snippage>>
>
>| dirven off by wannabees. Never in a million years. Many guys who have
>given me
>| the same crap over and over are now gone.I'm still here. And will be as
>long as
>| I can make it to the computer keyboard. The Luftwaffe couldn't get me. And
>the
>| wannabees don't stand a chance..
>|
>| Arthur Kramer
>| Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>| http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>
>
>Hi Art and all,
>
>
>As someone who appreciates all _constructive_ input, I've enjoyed most of
>the messages in this thread......certainly the ones that generate light
>instead of heat. Normally threads this long would have left me cold
>ages ago.
>
>
>The thread touches peripherally on all aspects of Usenet life, from the
>freedom of speech that your constitution stipulates and that _most_ other
>RAM members enjoy by default, to the simple aspects of netiquette and good
>manners.
>
>
>Personally, I wonder if any other generation would ever stand toe-to-toe in
>a bleeding match like WWI or II as yours did. We've all become
>accustomed to 'surgical' warfare with minimal casualties among our side or
>the innocent bystanders, witness the protests about the civilian casualties
>in OIF.
>
>
>You've certainly earned the right to be heard and to exchange your opinions
>with the others with a credibility that few others can match.
>Sadly, there will be a day when first hand accounts are no longer available
>and written histories are all that are left.
>
>The imperative as I see it, is to
>_reconcile_written_histories_with_first-hand_accounts - while we can.
>The work of authors such as Ed and Gordon are aimed at their own specialist
>areas of air warfare during the last 60 years.
>
>
>I'm glad you're still here Art, dodging the grenades. I'm sure that in
>person you're a crusty, irascible old fart - enjoy that while you can - we
>do and that there are people online who will enjoy stirring you up.
>
>Please bear in mind that people on various mountain tops can look into the
>same valley and see things slightly differently.
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>
>Dave Kearton
>
>

Actually I am a rather mild mannered university (UNLV) student of the
humanities and constitutional law. I have been for the last 7 years and will
continue as long as I have the strength to get to class and understand what is
being said. Oh, this coming semester I will be adding Chaucer in middle English
to the schedule. And about that valley you were talking about.I look down into
and what I see is damned well what is there and don't you forget it. Of course
there is another other breed of men who won't look down into the valley at all.
They would rather read books about it.(grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dave Kearton]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
| >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
| >From: "Dave Kearton"
| >Date: 7/1/03 8:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
| >Message-id:
|
| >Snippage>>
| >

| to the schedule. And about that valley you were talking about.I look down
into
| and what I see is damned well what is there and don't you forget it. Of
course
| there is another other breed of men who won't look down into the valley at
all.
| They would rather read books about it.(grin)
|
| Arthur Kramer
|


Art, I was working all afternoon on that metaphor and you mangled it in one
paragraph. It's like the cake in McArthur park.


Never mind, we both made our point.




Cheers


Dave Kearton

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:58:27 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>???
>Never mind.

No, you're right, the exchange had become asinine before you
responded. I can't really argue with that.

>Well I don't agree with Art's statements that only personal experience is
>worth anything in comparison to learned experience. We'd never really
>know anything if that were true.

Agreed.

>But I will admit I'm a fan of Art's and have just come to accept that he
>has very strong opinions about things that aren't going to be easily changed,
>and so be it. No point getting flustered about it.

I should learn from your approach, I suspect.

>Consider yourself fortunate you are not French!

One flamewar at a time.... Bizarrely, I normally have some respect
his opinions even when I strongly disagree. It's his approach that
annoys, as I would suspect it would annoy him if other people regarded
his experiences with the same cavalier disregard he apparently views
other people's contributions to winning World War Two.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:52:18 +0100, Greg Hennessy
> wrote:

>Trying to track down his DoB in 1895 has been difficult. If I can get that,
>I maybe able to get my hands on his service records.

I found sifting the PRO for personal records a real pain, although the
staff are helpful (provided your a direct relative, I believe). Get
as much evidence from your mother as possible, assuming she got
whatever documentation would have come down from him & her mother.
Good luck.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 02 Jul 2003 02:37:48 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Now you are taking credit for what your relatires did? disgusting.

I suggest you take another look at how *you* characterised what he and
everybody else involved in fighting the war before D-Day were doing.
Let me know if you really believe your comments about him and millions
of others are appropriate or accurate.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 02 Jul 2003 04:17:57 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Oh, this coming semester I will be adding Chaucer in middle English
>to the schedule.

I assume you personally experienced a Medieval pilgrimage from
Southwark to Canterbury then. I look forward to reading "The
Bombadier's Tale" in the next edition of Chaucer.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Dave Kearton]

"Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
. 4...
| "Dave Kearton" > waxed lyrical
| :
|
| > Personally, I wonder if any other generation would ever stand
| > toe-to-toe in a bleeding match like WWI or II as yours did.
| > We've all become accustomed to 'surgical' warfare with minimal
| > casualties among our side or the innocent bystanders, witness the
| > protests about the civilian casualties in OIF.
| >
|
| Every generation wonders that about the succeeding generation. And when
| it comes to the crunch it seems to me that the people on the sharp end
| are rarely any different to those who did the job in WWI, WWII, Korea or
| anywhere else. It's the policy makers and public opinion that shapes what
| happens, not the infantryman or airman at the sharp end. I think we do
| these people a disservice by wondering these things.
|
| --
| --------
| Regards
| Drewe


A valid point.


I was however, musing at the general populace, not the guy on the sharp
end. There's little doubt that a disciplined defence force will do
what they've been trained to do. It's the unwashed masses that I
wonder about, how many casualties will a society suffer before they decide
that the cause just isn't worth it.



Regards



Dave Kearton

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" > wrote in
message ...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:50:36 +0100, Greg Hennessy
> > wrote:
>
> >>If you want to discuss something, talk about the "impotence" of my
> >>relatives who were fighting the war long before you arrived on the
> >>scene. Eight times to Berlin.
> >>
> >>How many times did you do that?
> >
> >He sure as hell wasn't freezing the ******** off himself on artic convoys
> >as my maternal grandfather was.
>
> Funnily enough the old boy had plenty of time for other people and
> their experiences, and thought his worth passing on in writing - I've
> got them in front of me now, although it's a shame he didn't leave
> more.
>
> I have nothing but respect for anybody who did the Murmansk run. Did
> he record anything about his experiences? Time passes and the
> memories pass away as they do.
>
>

Agree about the respect due to those people. Back in 1969 I was
stuck in hospital for a while and in the next bed was an ex merchant
seaman who had been on that run in WW2. He woke up several
times screaming with nightmares about that time. It seems he
had two ships torpedoed under him during the war but hey he
wasnt even a combatant by some people's standards not being in
the armed forces.

Keith

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:41:29 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>Agree about the respect due to those people. Back in 1969 I was
>stuck in hospital for a while and in the next bed was an ex merchant
>seaman who had been on that run in WW2. He woke up several
>times screaming with nightmares about that time. It seems he
>had two ships torpedoed under him during the war but hey he
>wasnt even a combatant by some people's standards not being in
>the armed forces.

????

IIRC, they were only paid up to the minute the ship they were on was
sunk. In effect, they got financially penalised for being torpedoed
and surviving. Unbelievable.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:37:59 -0400, av8r >
wrote:

>The 344th BG was the first group to attack Utah Beach. They bombed a
>number of German coastal artillery sites. The next group over Utah
>Beach was the 387th BG. Due to cloud cover, all bombing was carried out
>below the cloud base. As I indicated in my previous e-mail, the cloud
>base ranged from 1,650 ASL to 3,000 feet ASL. The 366th BG was the last
>to drop its ordnance, just a mere five minutes before the initial
>landings took place.

Chris, does your source say at what altitude the Marauders bombed
from? (I realize that they were stacked up.)

Art, what altitude do you think you bombed from?

thanks - Dan

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Drewe Manton]

"Dave Kearton" > waxed lyrical
:

> I was however, musing at the general populace, not the guy on the
> sharp end. There's little doubt that a disciplined defence
> force will do what they've been trained to do. It's the
> unwashed masses that I wonder about, how many casualties will a
> society suffer before they decide that the cause just isn't worth it.
>
>

I think it seems to be largely connected with the perceived threat.
Such large sections of the population here in the UK seemed opposed to
the Iraq adventure because they could perceive no immediate threat (no
matter *WHAT* Mr Blair told us!). US opinion was largely against getting
involved in WWII until Pearl Harbour, and it took Germany's continued
stomping all over Europe before we in the UK perceived the threat as
real. When there is a clear and obvious threat on the public's immediate
horizon things change, until then, for the large majority of the "great
unwashed" you're dealing in hypotheticals, and in those situations they
are far more resistant to getting involved and taking the casualties.
Just my take of course. . .

--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:28:49 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>> I don't remember ever doing this, even if you feel your dismissal of
>> the efforts of other participants in the war is an appropriate or
>> acceptable response to such behaviour.
>
>You didn't do that, I think it unlikely anyone did as Art describes.

It's a bit sad really, and sounds paranoid. I hope he finds what he
wants from veterans groups or lists, as it doesn't sound like he's
getting the audience he would prefer in r.a.m.

The starting point for this inanity was my repsonse to Dan Ford about
the Mustang and Spitfire "shooting aircraft down over Berlin". Art
went on, in response, to describe everything that happened in the west
before D-Day as "trivial" or "impotent thrusts that lead to nothing".
While this annoyed me, I initially responded with moderate followups
which included statements like:

"I'm grateful for what you did, Art, but you weren't completely alone
in what you did. That takes nothing away from the risks you and your
crew and group ran and had to face every day to get your job done."

This, of course,was immediately cut from Arts response, which was
characteristic of his standard "You weren't there so you know ****-all
about it" approach, which has been a staple of r.a.m. from at least
1998 and has been used to delegitimise numerous poster's contributions
since then.

I gave Art the option of responding to reasonable discussion over that
issue and make the effort to explain my motives:

"I'm not questioning your personal experience or trying to discount
it, I wish you could see that."

Or he could opt for a flamewar if he preferred. He clearly prefers to
cut the relevant rational discourse and go for a polarized flamewar.
The only explanation I can think of for this is deliberate trolling.

Gavin Bailey


--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" > wrote in
message ...
>
> It's a bit sad really, and sounds paranoid. I hope he finds what he
> wants from veterans groups or lists, as it doesn't sound like he's
> getting the audience he would prefer in r.a.m.
>
> The starting point for this inanity was my repsonse to Dan Ford about
> the Mustang and Spitfire "shooting aircraft down over Berlin". Art
> went on, in response, to describe everything that happened in the west
> before D-Day as "trivial" or "impotent thrusts that lead to nothing".
> While this annoyed me, I initially responded with moderate followups
> which included statements like:
>
> "I'm grateful for what you did, Art, but you weren't completely alone
> in what you did. That takes nothing away from the risks you and your
> crew and group ran and had to face every day to get your job done."
>
> This, of course,was immediately cut from Arts response, which was
> characteristic of his standard "You weren't there so you know ****-all
> about it" approach, which has been a staple of r.a.m. from at least
> 1998 and has been used to delegitimise numerous poster's contributions
> since then.
>
> I gave Art the option of responding to reasonable discussion over that
> issue and make the effort to explain my motives:
>
> "I'm not questioning your personal experience or trying to discount
> it, I wish you could see that."
>
> Or he could opt for a flamewar if he preferred. He clearly prefers to
> cut the relevant rational discourse and go for a polarized flamewar.
> The only explanation I can think of for this is deliberate trolling.
>

Agreed.

[[email protected]]

Dave Holford > wrote:

>
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> I never read any books on the subject.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It shows.
>>
>> I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
>> thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all about..
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>
>Then I guess there is no point reading your writing.
>
>Dave

The boys do seem to have a valid point here Art...I think you
might do well to retract that view or at least modify it
slightly. Don't worry, you won't be the first poster who's been a
bit wrong on this ng. :)
--

-Gord.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 7/2/03 1:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Dave Holford > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>>> >>
>>> >> I never read any books on the subject.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >It shows.
>>>
>>> I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
>>> thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
>about..
>>>
>>> Arthur Kramer
>>
>>
>>Then I guess there is no point reading your writing.
>>
>>Dave
>
>The boys do seem to have a valid point here Art...I think you
>might do well to retract that view or at least modify it
>slightly. Don't worry, you won't be the first poster who's been a
>bit wrong on this ng. :)
>--
>
>-Gord.
>
...Gord you don't understand. He said there is no point reaiding my writing.
This means that he won't read my writing and I will never hear froim him again,
I don't want to do or say anything that will change that decision on his part.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Cub Driver]

>Air University at Maxwell this fall. I'll go
>through the operational records of the three groups for that day and see
>what individual crews had to say about bombing altitudes.

I'd appreciate that, thanks!

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message k.net>...
> "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" > wrote in
> message ...
> >
> > It's a bit sad really, and sounds paranoid. I hope he finds what he
> > wants from veterans groups or lists, as it doesn't sound like he's
> > getting the audience he would prefer in r.a.m.
> >
> > The starting point for this inanity was my repsonse to Dan Ford about
> > the Mustang and Spitfire "shooting aircraft down over Berlin". Art
> > went on, in response, to describe everything that happened in the west
> > before D-Day as "trivial" or "impotent thrusts that lead to nothing".
> > While this annoyed me, I initially responded with moderate followups
> > which included statements like:
> >
> > "I'm grateful for what you did, Art, but you weren't completely alone
> > in what you did. That takes nothing away from the risks you and your
> > crew and group ran and had to face every day to get your job done."
> >
> > This, of course,was immediately cut from Arts response, which was
> > characteristic of his standard "You weren't there so you know ****-all
> > about it" approach, which has been a staple of r.a.m. from at least
> > 1998 and has been used to delegitimise numerous poster's contributions
> > since then.
> >
> > I gave Art the option of responding to reasonable discussion over that
> > issue and make the effort to explain my motives:
> >
> > "I'm not questioning your personal experience or trying to discount
> > it, I wish you could see that."
> >
> > Or he could opt for a flamewar if he preferred. He clearly prefers to
> > cut the relevant rational discourse and go for a polarized flamewar.
> > The only explanation I can think of for this is deliberate trolling.
> >
>
> Agreed.

Art's typical approach of denigrating the efforts and contributions of
others in order to somehow make his own seem more valiant or valuable
is unfortunate. He could be a good source for information specific to
his experiences, but his continual belittling of anything and
everything that does not involve B-26 operations in whatever group he
was in in the ETO merely makes him sound rather shrill and casts
doubts regarding his veracity on anything of value that he may
actually have to offer. Kind of sad, really.

Brooks

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>As an aside on the aside, one of the 386th BG crewmen I talked to told
>me with great feeling how he looked down from 1,000 feet or so to see
>the water at Utah beach choked with bodies of American infantry. As
>previously noted, only 12 men were killed in the initial assault on
>the beach. What he was remembering was what he'd heard about the
>carnage at Omaha, and he'd melded it into his own memory. That's the
>problem with eyewitness testimony--it sometimes is actually a memory
>of a photograph you've seen or a thought you later had.
>
>It takes both The Witness and a lot of cross-checking to sort out
>events. You need both, and even then you don't have the truth but only
>your best approximation.
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)
>

This is extremely on target, especially during a traumatic event.

It's why accident investigators take with a very large grain of
salt testimony from eye witnesses at an air accident. I read a
lot of NTSB and AIB reports and you'd be amazed at what some
people firmly believe actually happened. An aircraft fully
enveloped with fire crashing straight down when it was a rather
benign 'crash-landing' with no hint of fire. One woman (with a
good imagination?) described the 'Avianca' (?) crash at Chicago
(?) where she 'saw' the pilot 'standing' at one of the cockpit
windows 'waving a little red flag'...oookkk...

As you say, people subconsciously substitute events in their
memory for other events, readings, impressions. The mind is a
wonderous instrument but you must be aware of it's limitations
and various quirks.
--

-Gord.

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, "Gord
writes
>Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>>
>>As an aside on the aside, one of the 386th BG crewmen I talked to told
>>me with great feeling how he looked down from 1,000 feet or so to see
>>the water at Utah beach choked with bodies of American infantry. As
>>previously noted, only 12 men were killed in the initial assault on
>>the beach. What he was remembering was what he'd heard about the
>>carnage at Omaha, and he'd melded it into his own memory. That's the
>>problem with eyewitness testimony--it sometimes is actually a memory
>>of a photograph you've seen or a thought you later had.
>>
>>It takes both The Witness and a lot of cross-checking to sort out
>>events. You need both, and even then you don't have the truth but only
>>your best approximation.
>>
>>
>>all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)
>>
>
>This is extremely on target, especially during a traumatic event.
>
>It's why accident investigators take with a very large grain of
>salt testimony from eye witnesses at an air accident. I read a
>lot of NTSB and AIB reports and you'd be amazed at what some
>people firmly believe actually happened. An aircraft fully
>enveloped with fire crashing straight down when it was a rather
>benign 'crash-landing' with no hint of fire. One woman (with a
>good imagination?) described the 'Avianca' (?) crash at Chicago
>(?) where she 'saw' the pilot 'standing' at one of the cockpit
>windows 'waving a little red flag'...oookkk...
>
>As you say, people subconsciously substitute events in their
>memory for other events, readings, impressions. The mind is a
>wonderous instrument but you must be aware of it's limitations
>and various quirks.

Absolutely. I distinctly remember flying in an Anson 50 years ago and
having to wriggle past the guns in the upper turret. 5 years ago a
friend gave me a photograph of the same Anson at the same airfield taken
at about the same time. No guns. No turret.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[vincent p. norris]

>Chris, does your source say at what altitude the Marauders bombed
>from? (I realize that they were stacked up.)

Tomorrow's Thursday, the day a bunch of us old pilots have lunch at
the local American Legion. One of the bunch flew a B-26 on D-Day.

If he attends tomorrow, I'll ask him.

vince norris

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>>Date: 7/2/03 1:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Dave Holford > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I never read any books on the subject.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >It shows.
>>>>
>>>> I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
>>>> thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
>>about..
>>>>
>>>> Arthur Kramer
>>>
>>>
>>>Then I guess there is no point reading your writing.
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>The boys do seem to have a valid point here Art...I think you
>>might do well to retract that view or at least modify it
>>slightly. Don't worry, you won't be the first poster who's been a
>>bit wrong on this ng. :)
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>>
>..Gord you don't understand. He said there is no point reaiding my writing.
>This means that he won't read my writing and I will never hear froim him again,
>I don't want to do or say anything that will change that decision on his part.
>
>Arthur Kramer

Oh...I assumed that you wrote hoping that readers would read your
output. ... ??...hummm...no, there must be some error that I'm
making here...perhaps you could help me out a little?...you write
because...??.

Damn...I must be declining faster than I thought...
--

-Gord.

[Dave Holford]

" wrote:
>
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >>From: "Gord Beaman" )
> >>Date: 7/2/03 1:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>
> >>Dave Holford > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>ArtKramr wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I never read any books on the subject.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >It shows.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
> >>>> thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
> >>about..
> >>>>
> >>>> Arthur Kramer
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then I guess there is no point reading your writing.
> >>>
> >>>Dave
> >>
> >>The boys do seem to have a valid point here Art...I think you
> >>might do well to retract that view or at least modify it
> >>slightly. Don't worry, you won't be the first poster who's been a
> >>bit wrong on this ng. :)
> >>--
> >>
> >>-Gord.
> >>
> >..Gord you don't understand. He said there is no point reaiding my writing.
> >This means that he won't read my writing and I will never hear froim him again,
> >I don't want to do or say anything that will change that decision on his part.
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> Oh...I assumed that you wrote hoping that readers would read your
> output. ... ??...hummm...no, there must be some error that I'm
> making here...perhaps you could help me out a little?...you write
> because...??.
>
> Damn...I must be declining faster than I thought...
> --
>
> -Gord.


You're OK Gord, your memory still works well and you don't find it
necessary to denegrate anyone who fails to agree with you.

Art's the one who is fading fast; a shame since he has some useful facts
to pass on but they are becoming buried in his biases.



73
Dave

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 7/2/03 7:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time

>>
>>..Gord you don't understand. He said there is no point reaiding my writing.
>>This means that he won't read my writing and I will never hear froim him
>again,
>>I don't want to do or say anything that will change that decision on his
>part.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Oh...I assumed that you wrote hoping that readers would read your
>output. ... ??...hummm...no, there must be some error that I'm
>making here...perhaps you could help me out a little?...you write
>because...??.
>
>Damn...I must be declining faster than I thought...
>--
>
>-Gord.
>

I do want readers. My website has more than 33,000 hits so far with a dozen or
so emails a week for the last two years..All quite positive and complimentary.
But while all readers are equal, some are more equal than others.




Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh...I assumed that you wrote hoping that readers would read your
> output. ... ??...hummm...no, there must be some error that I'm
> making here...perhaps you could help me out a little?...you write
> because...??.
>

The error you made was in thinking that Art might retract a statement.

[Jack G]

Anybody else getting tired of this thread?

Jack
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> a...
> >
> > The P51 wasn't a high performance fighter until the Brits installed
> > the RR Merlin in it. This increased speed and performance making
> > the Mustang a top long range fighter.
> >
>
> All P-51s were high-performance fighters, the Merlin made it a
high-altitude
> fighter as well. It was the high performance of the Mustang I that
prompted
> the installation of the Merlin.
>
> Incidentally, while the British were the first to fly a Merlin Mustang,
they
> didn't win the race by a great deal. Rolls-Royce flew the first Merlin
> Mustang, a Mustang I with a Merlin 65, on October 13, 1942. North
American
> flew the XP-51B, a P-51 with a V-1650-3, on November 30, 1942. Before the
> first flight of a Merlin Mustang on either side of the Atlantic the USAAF
> had 1750 P-51B/Cs on order with NAA.
>
>

[The Enlightenment]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: (Gordon)
> >Date: 6/29/03 8:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> > the Ju 88 was arguably the best bomber in
> >>>service in Europe in 1940.
> >>
> >>You have just pinpointed Germany's problem in WW II. One of many.
> >>Arguably? Very arguably.
> >>
> >
> >Then which European bomber do you think outclassed the Ju 88 in 1940? Not
> >looking for an argument, Art, just your opinion. RAF pilots sure make it
> >sound
> >like the Ju 88 was more of a problem than, say, a 111. In contrast to the
> >Hampden Is and other RAF mediums in 1940, was the Ju 88 really all that
> >awful?
> >
> >v/r
> >Gordon
> >
>
>
> No no no. It was a good bomber. A very good bomber. But it has taken on a halo
> since the war it doesn't deserve.. It couldn't outrun fighters. It couldn't
> withstand heavy attacks like a B-26 could.. And the sad part is, that if it was
> the best bomber Germany had, it wasn't good enough. because they may have
> invaded England if they had long range heavies to destroy the RAF bases on
> the ground. None of the German bombers could do the long range job Germany
> needed done..German thinking about bombing basics was just wrong. The Americans
> and the Brits had it right from the get-go.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

By the end of 1942 Ju88 production shifted from mainly being a bomber
to that of night fighter or long range fighter to try and give a
little protection for the u-boats from air attack. Only 1000 Ju88
bombers were built in 1943 while about 4000 fighters were.

When the 1100hp Jumo 211 was replaced with a BMW801 radial or the Jumo
213 of about 1750hp the speed went up to 388mph for the streamlined
1944 Ju88S bomber and 360mph for the Ju88G-7 nightfighter with
microwave radar (it also had a ventral gun pack) or 340mph with the
draggy lichtenstein radar antena.

The Germans had intended to replace their bombers with 'Bomber B'.
The Ju288 was the winning proposal and would begining in 1942 have
carried 4 tons of bombs up to 408mph up to 2300 miles.

Clearly a powerfull weapon.

It was armed with 6 pairs of remote control guns in the tail, ventral
postion and dorsal postition. The tail guns were the Mk151/15 which
was the 15mm version of the Mk151/20 20mm cannon firing a narrower
bullet with the same cartridege to over power and outrange even the US
50 caliber Browning.

Bomber B failed becuase of technical difficulties on the Jumo 222 in
line star engine. I don't know why, as the engine doesn't look that
challenging. They apparently did get it in to production in 1944 for
a very short time.

The result was that some of the ideas of the Ju288 were taken and the
Ju88 was modified to become the Ju188 in the interim. It was only a
little faster at 320mph but was better armed yet clearly incapable of
penetraing enemy airspace alone on either the basis of speed or
armament.

It is invalid I think to directly to compare the Ju88 to the B26
Marauder. The German equaivalent was the Do 217. An aircraft more
lightly armed but faster (320mph with BMW801s or 340mph with DD603
engines).

Even if the Germans had beaut planes like Marauders I think they would
have been shot down in daylight raids. Without long range escorts all
bombers except the Mosquito would accumulate intollerable losses.

The Ju88 however was an accurate dive and slant bomber that with its
computing stuvi bombsight and automatic pullup could deliver big
1000kg bombs within 10 meters without dropping below 2000 meters
altitude. It was also considered manoeverable and could be thrown
fairly briskly around the sky. Another advantge was that it could
work on rough muddy fields; those big wheels rotated into the engine
pods. All things a B26 couldn't do. The B26 was considered less
suitable than the B25 in the pacific because it needed a pretty solid
runway.

The Ju88 also formed the basis of the Ju388. This was supposed to
become a high altitude night figher (to interecept B29s), high
altitude bomber and high altitude reconaisance machine. It had remote
controlled tail armament. Only Some 300 of the Ju388 reconaisance
version were built. They used a turbo supercharged version of the
BMW801 the BMW801TJ with a 5 piece intercooler behined the big radial.
Speed was something like 390mph at 40,000 feet.

Incidently the Ju88 was designed, in the detail by a Brit and an
American. Germany was short of sufficient engineers so Junkers hired
some on contract.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 2 Jul 2003 14:17:27 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

>Art's typical approach of denigrating the efforts and contributions of
>others in order to somehow make his own seem more valiant or valuable
>is unfortunate.

It's weird, and it raises some personal questions about his motivation
for posting. Why is this approach neccessary? Does he only want to
elicit vacuous sycophancy and uneccessary antagonisms? Is he really
unable to recognise the offensiveness of dismissing the contributions
of millions of other people, or hypocrisy of denigrating learning from
other personal experiences but making his own written accounts
available? The fact that he cuts these elements from his followups
indicates he's entirely aware of what he's doing. He clearly doesn't
want to tolerate any mmiddle-ground.

In any case the defensiveness and personal antagonisms are neccessary.
Who exactly runs this "Wannabe plot" to run veterans off r.a.m. or is
this just a fictious assumption on his part?

>He could be a good source for information specific to
>his experiences, but his continual belittling of anything and
>everything that does not involve B-26 operations in whatever group he
>was in in the ETO merely makes him sound rather shrill and casts
>doubts regarding his veracity on anything of value that he may
>actually have to offer. Kind of sad, really.

Indeed. The motivation for perpetuating this thread and continuing to
talk about this point on my side came on a personal level, as I heard
an old next-door neighbour of mine died yesterday. I never really saw
a lot of him, but he did encourage me, when I was much younger, to
learn about history and the war in particular. He never spoke about
his own service in Bomber Command, other than to show me a model of
his Lancaster, and maintained this silence even when he was approached
to record them a few weeks before his death, when he was in obviously
ailing health. Now his experiences have been lost for good. Still, I
never heard him denigrate Marauder aircrew or anybody else to
establish his own credentials. He was a broad enough character of a
man not to need those kind of childish games.

He was a good man, and a good neighbour. RIP John. Thanks.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 02 Jul 2003 20:41:50 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>..Gord you don't understand. He said there is no point reaiding my writing.

No, he question why you write about your experiences when you
apparently consider the end result of such activity (i.e. people
gaining some understanding of the experiences you went through) to be
valueless.

It's called hypocrisy, although I'm sure there's a reasonable
explanation, although any chance of coming across this becomes
increasingly unlikely as you distort the meaning of their statements.

>This means that he won't read my writing and I will never hear froim him again,
>I don't want to do or say anything that will change that decision on his part.

By all means continue to restrict the constituency of views you read
and respond to until it is sufficiently narrow for you.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 3 Jul 2003 07:52:33 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

>I recall watching an interview of a US fighter pilot who served in the
>ETO. He remarked as to how he had once returned from a mission in a
>rather surly mood and sanpped at his eager crewchief that the aircraft
>was not even clean. I watched this old vet crying outloud as he then
>recounted going out the next morning and finding his crewchief
>standing beside a spotless and completely rubbed down P-51 (IIRC), and
>seeing the man's hands chapped and bleeding from his efforts over the
>course of that apparently winter night. He said he decided then that
>he had been a fool and to never again belittle the efforts of those
>guys who supported him. Too bad that Art never learned that lesson.

Thanks for those examples. Most of the veterans I have spoken to or
interviewed seemed well in touch with the greater human issues
involved in war, and it's rare to find ones with such axes to grind on
then-unborn generations sixty years on. It probably doesn't merit
such attention, but it is fascinating to see how Art returns to the
same hobby horses, five years on. Only now the "wannabes" have
expanded from civilian warbird restorers to become anybody who
disagrees with his arrogant and egotistical dismissals of everybody
else who fought before him or elsewhere in the same war effort.

I've been reading and posting to this group intermittantly over the
same period, and I've seen him do it before, but it seems his
reflexive hostility is getting worse. He has previously (albeit
infrequently) made qualifications between his experience and that of
others. I'm fairly certain he avoids publically recognising when his
reaction has been appropriate or inaccurate, which takes me back to
the troll position.

Beside that, his impugning my motives for posting evidence of my
relative's experiences in the war which contradicted his assertions,
and his hypocrisy over the use of written records, are simply petty.

Mind you, on that level, if you look hard enough, you can find some
really special contradictions:

"What you read may be more accurate." - Art Kramer, 30 April 1998.

Almost worth a new signature file, I think. But enough of the
playground games for now.

Gavin Bailey


--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

[Andrew Chaplin]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
> <snip>
> Mind you, on that level, if you look hard enough, you can find some
> really special contradictions:
>
> "What you read may be more accurate." - Art Kramer, 30 April 1998.
>
> Almost worth a new signature file, I think. But enough of the
> playground games for now.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ;^)
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[[email protected]]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

>
>His own strawman. He once left the group with much fanfare--sort of
>reminded me of Nixon's old "you won't have me to kick around anymore"
>speech.

He did that (at one time at least) to punish me for taking him to
task when he indicated that the enlisted people in his crew
weren't intelligent enough to understand the workings of the then
new Nav system 'Gee' while the commissioned people grasped it
right away. I came down on him pretty hard...that kinda stuff
really ****es me off.

I'm certain that he thought that people would blame me for
'chasing a valuable asset' off. Some did indeed, and we got some
snarly posts aimed at me but I got a few posts and emails from
those who saw through his little trick too.

A few posts ago he made a big snarl about refusing to be driven
off 'never in a million years' or some-such...I had to bite my
tongue to avoid snarling back...

>Unfortunately, he came back, still spouting off his vitriolic
>rants. He has at one time or another claimed that groundcrews and
>support personnel did not serve with the same distinction as the
>aircrews, that those who followed their orders and did not see direct
>combat were somehow less deserving of being considered veterans, that
>enlisted personnel were somhow less intelligent than officers, etc.
>Each such claim has resulted in his own diminished reputation.
>

Exactly, and it's a God Damned shame...He's one of the few here
who've been there and DT. If he were a little less self-centered
and didn't **** people off so much then he'd be a great learning
tool for us who weren't called on back then.

Make no mistake, I admire and am thankful for what he did, but no
more than I admire any other member of the armed forces members
during those times.

I certainly do not admire him for his present personality, I find
him just short of being a jerk with his constant "Were you
there?".


--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>In message >, "Gord
writes
>>Cub Driver > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As an aside on the aside, one of the 386th BG crewmen I talked to told
>>>me with great feeling how he looked down from 1,000 feet or so to see
>>>the water at Utah beach choked with bodies of American infantry. As
>>>previously noted, only 12 men were killed in the initial assault on
>>>the beach. What he was remembering was what he'd heard about the
>>>carnage at Omaha, and he'd melded it into his own memory. That's the
>>>problem with eyewitness testimony--it sometimes is actually a memory
>>>of a photograph you've seen or a thought you later had.
>>>
>>>It takes both The Witness and a lot of cross-checking to sort out
>>>events. You need both, and even then you don't have the truth but only
>>>your best approximation.
>>>
>>>
>>>all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)
>>>
>>
>>This is extremely on target, especially during a traumatic event.
>>
>>It's why accident investigators take with a very large grain of
>>salt testimony from eye witnesses at an air accident. I read a
>>lot of NTSB and AIB reports and you'd be amazed at what some
>>people firmly believe actually happened. An aircraft fully
>>enveloped with fire crashing straight down when it was a rather
>>benign 'crash-landing' with no hint of fire. One woman (with a
>>good imagination?) described the 'Avianca' (?) crash at Chicago
>>(?) where she 'saw' the pilot 'standing' at one of the cockpit
>>windows 'waving a little red flag'...oookkk...
>>
>>As you say, people subconsciously substitute events in their
>>memory for other events, readings, impressions. The mind is a
>>wonderous instrument but you must be aware of it's limitations
>>and various quirks.
>
>Absolutely. I distinctly remember flying in an Anson 50 years ago and
>having to wriggle past the guns in the upper turret. 5 years ago a
>friend gave me a photograph of the same Anson at the same airfield taken
>at about the same time. No guns. No turret.
>
>Mike

I know!...I've had the same type of experiences (in nearly 70
years one has a LOT of experiences!)...isn't it shocking?, those
guns were so real to you that you could likely smell the oil and
gun-powder...and they existed only in your mind. Amazing indeed.
--

-Gord.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote:
>
> >
> >His own strawman. He once left the group with much fanfare--sort of
> >reminded me of Nixon's old "you won't have me to kick around anymore"
> >speech.
>
> He did that (at one time at least) to punish me for taking him to
> task when he indicated that the enlisted people in his crew
> weren't intelligent enough to understand the workings of the then
> new Nav system 'Gee' while the commissioned people grasped it
> right away. I came down on him pretty hard...that kinda stuff
> really ****es me off.

LOL! Your's was the case I was recalling in terms of his "NCO's are
not as smart as officers" crap. Heck, I ran into at least one NCO who
had his PhD, and a bunch of those who served with me often humbled me
by providing a more accurate analysis than what I was coming up with
at the time. Not to mention the PFC who, when we were all scratching
our heads trying to figure out how the heck to remove the loose, sandy
spoil from resulting from a shaped charge detonation (in preparation
for emplacing road cratering charges, and with a serious time crunch
dictated by the return of the SP arty unit in front of us conducting
an arty raid) when we found the posthole diggers just were not doing
the trick, quietly suggested, "Sir, how about we pour a little water
in their to get it to clump up?" Voila, the day was saved by a poor,
unprofessionaly edumacated PFC...

>
> I'm certain that he thought that people would blame me for
> 'chasing a valuable asset' off. Some did indeed, and we got some
> snarly posts aimed at me but I got a few posts and emails from
> those who saw through his little trick too.

I believe a lot of those who roll their eyes and shake their heads at
his more profound antics just keep quiet and hope he'll either come
back to earth or go away.

>
> A few posts ago he made a big snarl about refusing to be driven
> off 'never in a million years' or some-such...I had to bite my
> tongue to avoid snarling back...
>
> >Unfortunately, he came back, still spouting off his vitriolic
> >rants. He has at one time or another claimed that groundcrews and
> >support personnel did not serve with the same distinction as the
> >aircrews, that those who followed their orders and did not see direct
> >combat were somehow less deserving of being considered veterans, that
> >enlisted personnel were somhow less intelligent than officers, etc.
> >Each such claim has resulted in his own diminished reputation.
> >
>
> Exactly, and it's a God Damned shame...He's one of the few here
> who've been there and DT. If he were a little less self-centered
> and didn't **** people off so much then he'd be a great learning
> tool for us who weren't called on back then.
>
> Make no mistake, I admire and am thankful for what he did, but no
> more than I admire any other member of the armed forces members
> during those times.
>
> I certainly do not admire him for his present personality, I find
> him just short of being a jerk with his constant "Were you
> there?".

Or worse, his belittling of the efforts of the others who were serving
in another "there" and doing their jobs as expected of them. I note he
is up to his usual antics which follow his getting pasted for comments
such as the ones that initiated this last episode; I gather he is back
to publishing copies of his "I love Art" letters for the NG's benefit.
I think this points to the real reason he is so quick to denigrate the
efforts of others--he is sorely in need of propping up his own
self-image, so he figures that tearing down the records that others
have achieved, along with posting a few self-congradulatory messages,
will give him that ego-boost he so obviously needs.

The funny thing is that one of my first posts to this NG (a couple of
years back) was a rather sharp defense of Art against some (what I
considered then) disrespectful comments directed at him by another
poster. Didn't take long to learn that he was merely reaping what he
had already sewed.


Brooks

[vincent p. norris]

>If he attends tomorrow, I'll ask him.

He wasn't there today. I'll try to remembver to ask him next week or
whenever he shows up.

vince norris

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (JonB)
>Date: 7/6/03 9:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net>...
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > We stood to on the 5th for D--Day. as did a few hundred other outfits..
>It
>> was
>> > scheduled for the 5th. You really know nothing do you?.
>> >
>>
>> I know D-Day was June 6th. I'm sure you knew that at one time as well, but
>> sometime between 1944 and 2000 you came to "remember" D-Day as June 5th.
>
>Art's right. It was intended to be the 5th. They embarked and then
>they waited. On the 6th, they went. Every diary entry and letter home
>written at the time would have had it down as the 5th (if any date at
>all). It is only the 6th in retrospective news reports and history
>books that overlook the delay.
>

Of course those of us that were there stood to on the 5th. Others never
noticed. (sigh)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the
> 9th on that morning.
>

It appears you forgot you wrote, "We did lead the way for the 9th Air Force
that morning.", and not, "We did lead the way for 9th Air Force combat
aircraft that morning."

[Harry Andreas]

In article nk.net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the
> > 9th on that morning.

I just watched the PBS show on D-day last night.
It showed fleets of DC-3s carrying paras over occupied France.
Each aircraft full of weapons and combat troops.
I don't know if that makes them combat aircraft, but if I
was in the left seat getting shot at, I'd probably think so.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: (Harry Andreas)
>Date: 7/9/03 2:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article nk.net>,
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the
>> > 9th on that morning.
>
>I just watched the PBS show on D-day last night.
>It showed fleets of DC-3s carrying paras over occupied France.
>Each aircraft full of weapons and combat troops.
>I don't know if that makes them combat aircraft, but if I
>was in the left seat getting shot at, I'd probably think so.
>
>--
>Harry Andreas
>Engineering raconteur
>
Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
combat aircraft.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Felger Carbon]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>
> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay
makes them
> combat aircraft.

So, a Mossie bomber with no machine guns is not a combat aircraft?
Didn't I read on this NG recently that some Mossies had no guns, not
even forward-firing ones?

Not picking on you specifically, Art. The baloney has been sliced
_very_ thin by most postings to this thread! ;-)

[Wolfie]

"ArtKramr" wrote

> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
> combat aircraft.

The US's largest conventional bombs are dropped by
that well-known bomber, the C-130. The C-130 can
have a few guns added, too, I hear.

Herc drivers, the elite of the USAF!

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Wolfie"
>Date: 7/9/03 6:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" wrote
>
>> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
>> combat aircraft.
>
>The US's largest conventional bombs are dropped by
>that well-known bomber, the C-130. The C-130 can
>have a few guns added, too, I hear.
>
>Herc drivers, the elite of the USAF!


Shhhhh ! Bfdrvr will hear you.(grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Enlightenment]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: (Harry Andreas)
> >Date: 7/9/03 2:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article nk.net>,
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >
> >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the
> >> > 9th on that morning.
> >
> >I just watched the PBS show on D-day last night.
> >It showed fleets of DC-3s carrying paras over occupied France.
> >Each aircraft full of weapons and combat troops.
> >I don't know if that makes them combat aircraft, but if I
> >was in the left seat getting shot at, I'd probably think so.
> >
> >--
> >Harry Andreas
> >Engineering raconteur
> >
> > Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
> > combat aircraft.


German transports were equiped with defensive guns, so were Russian
ones (and still were till the 1990s althout the Copius tail turret of
Russian transports was generaly eventualy converted to a toilet.

Ju52s and the Giant Me323s had guns. Both were intercepted by
Marauders while trying to suppy rommels Africa Corps.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
> combat aircraft.
>

Paratroop laden transports could shoot back.

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British

> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
> combat aircraft.
>

So a Mosquito bombing Berlin is not a combat aircraft but a
Ju-52 armed with couple of machine guns is !

How bizarre

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 7/10/03 2:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
>>combat aircraft.
>
>Thank you, Art. Very succiently stated.
>
>There is a great confusion here between what is dangerous and what is
>combat, never mind what is a combat aircraft.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9


And of of course carrying a bombload is the equivalent of "shooting back".

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 7/9/03 11:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>
>> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
>> combat aircraft.
>>
>
>So a Mosquito bombing Berlin is not a combat aircraft but a
>Ju-52 armed with couple of machine guns is !
>
>How bizarre
>
>Keith

Not bizarre at all. Carrying a bombload is the same as "shooitng back" The
ability to harm the enemy is the active criteria.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Wolfie]

"ArtKramr" wrote

> Carrying a bombload is the same as "shooitng back" The
> ability to harm the enemy is the active criteria.

Nothing short of nuclear weapons harms the enemy
as much as troops on the ground. Are you under
the impression that D-Day is remembered because
of the interdiction missions flown? Most people
attribute its historical importance to the troops landed,
including those inserted by air.

Which brings us full-circle: The Ninth AF was led
into combat by a transport unit.

[Gordon]

>
>> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
>>combat aircraft.

So a Mosquito B. IV is a non-combat aircraft, because it cannot shoot?

C-47 = non-combat?
but a miserably-armed Ju 52/3m = combat a/c?

I would think that if you sent an aircraft into combat, that its a combat a/c.
Differences of opinion, I guess.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Wolfie]

"Gordon" wrote

> I would think that if you sent an aircraft into combat,
> that its a combat a/c.

That would seem to make sense, with the defining
words "sent into combat" (as compared to "happened
into combat accidentally.")

It's difficult to believe anyone would seriously consider
a C-47 (or whatever) on a mission to insert paratroops
in a combat zone not a "combat aircraft."

From the Air Force News Agency:

"On 6 Jun 44, [Captain Vito] Pedone and Lieutenant Colonel
Joel Crouch, led the tactical beginning for the liberation of
Europe. Their mission was to cross the enemy coast on the
west shore of the Cherbourg Peninsula, France at 0006 hours
on 6 Jun. At 0016 hours, their C-47 dropped 18 paratroopers
on Normandy beach."

Only "combat aircraft" fly tactical missions, IMO.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not bizarre at all. Carrying a bombload is the same as "shooitng back" The
> ability to harm the enemy is the active criteria.
>

Delivering armed paratroops fits that criterion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Funny I saw no transports ahead of me that morning.
>

They must have been quite far in front then.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>From: (Harry Andreas)
>>I just watched the PBS show on D-day last night.
>>It showed fleets of DC-3s carrying paras over occupied France.
>>Each aircraft full of weapons and combat troops.
>>I don't know if that makes them combat aircraft, but if I
>>was in the left seat getting shot at, I'd probably think so.

> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
>combat aircraft.

A lot of British Dakotas had VGO machineguns in the windows - does that
make them combat aircraft?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>Not bizarre at all. Carrying a bombload is the same as "shooitng back" The
>ability to harm the enemy is the active criteria.

Carrying a deadly payload counts: do _you_ want to tell the paratroopers
that you don't consider them to be dangerous? :)


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> A lot of British Dakotas had VGO machineguns in the windows - does that
> make them combat aircraft?
>

As did their American counterparts.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 7/10/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Not bizarre at all. Carrying a bombload is the same as "shooitng back" The
>>ability to harm the enemy is the active criteria.
>
>Carrying a deadly payload counts: do _you_ want to tell the paratroopers
>that you don't consider them to be dangerous? :)
>
>
>--
>When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
>Paul J. Adam
>
I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the bikes
combat vehlcles. And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we have
to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(sheesh)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 7/10/03 1:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>A lot of British Dakotas had VGO machineguns in the windows - does that
>make them combat aircraft?
>

Purely defensive. You can't win a war on the defense.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Purely defensive.
>

What was the reason bombers had guns?

[Wolfie]

"ArtKramr" wrote

> You can't win a war on the defense.

You can't win a war through the air alone, either,
short of nuclear annihilation.

Paratroop transports actually put troops on the ground
who *can* win the war. Ergo, they're more critical,
right?

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: "Paul J. Adam"
> >Date: 7/10/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In message >, ArtKramr
> > writes
> >>Not bizarre at all. Carrying a bombload is the same as "shooitng back"
The
> >>ability to harm the enemy is the active criteria.
> >
> >Carrying a deadly payload counts: do _you_ want to tell the paratroopers
> >that you don't consider them to be dangerous? :)
> >
> >
> >--
> >When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> > W S Churchill
> >
> >Paul J. Adam
> >
> I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the
bikes
> combat vehlcles.

Well know we call APC's combat vehicles

> And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we have
> to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(sheesh)
>

I'd suggest those pilots in WW2 who flew light aircraft in the
over enemy lines as artillery spotters were very definitely in combat.

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>Date: 7/10/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>Carrying a deadly payload counts: do _you_ want to tell the paratroopers
>>that you don't consider them to be dangerous? :)
> I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the bikes
>combat vehlcles.

The Japanese used bicycles to transport troops and did so very, very
effectively in 1942. If you can manoeuvre your force faster than the
enemy, who cares _how_ you do it?

>And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we have
>to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(sheesh)

I'd call a Piper Cub, or an Auster, doing artillery observation a
"combat aircraft" - the enemy recieving the fire are just as dead.

As is the pilot, if enemy AAA or fighters catch up with him.

If you're taking direct fire from the enemy, you're in combat. Hard to
argue with that definition.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 7/10/03 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>>Date: 7/10/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>Carrying a deadly payload counts: do _you_ want to tell the paratroopers
>>>that you don't consider them to be dangerous? :)
>> I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the
>bikes
>>combat vehlcles.
>
>The Japanese used bicycles to transport troops and did so very, very
>effectively in 1942. If you can manoeuvre your force faster than the
>enemy, who cares _how_ you do it?
>
>>And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we have
>>to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(sheesh)
>
>I'd call a Piper Cub, or an Auster, doing artillery observation a
>"combat aircraft" - the enemy recieving the fire are just as dead.
>
>As is the pilot, if enemy AAA or fighters catch up with him.
>
>If you're taking direct fire from the enemy, you're in combat. Hard to
>argue with that definition.
>

How do you feel about latrine orderlies?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Richard Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: (Harry Andreas)
> >Date: 7/9/03 2:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article nk.net>,
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >
> >> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Transports are not combat aircraft. We led the combat units of the
> >> > 9th on that morning.
> >
> >I just watched the PBS show on D-day last night.
> >It showed fleets of DC-3s carrying paras over occupied France.
> >Each aircraft full of weapons and combat troops.
> >I don't know if that makes them combat aircraft, but if I
> >was in the left seat getting shot at, I'd probably think so.
> >
> >--
> >Harry Andreas
> >Engineering raconteur
> >
> Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
> combat aircraft.

Very true Art, I met a woman who flew in VC10s from Brize at 500ft into
Sarajevo airport with just a 'bone dome' and 'flak jacket' as defence.

To think that once these airliners were used by BOAC and many other civilian
airlines.


Richard.

[Richard Brooks]

"Wolfie" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "ArtKramr" wrote
>
> > You can't win a war on the defense.
>
> You can't win a war through the air alone, either,
> short of nuclear annihilation.

Or flatulance in a closed room !



Richard.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> > >From: "Paul J. Adam"
> > >Date: 7/10/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >In message >, ArtKramr
> > > writes
> > >>Not bizarre at all. Carrying a bombload is the same as "shooitng back"
> The
> > >>ability to harm the enemy is the active criteria.
> > >
> > >Carrying a deadly payload counts: do _you_ want to tell the paratroopers
> > >that you don't consider them to be dangerous? :)
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> > > W S Churchill
> > >
> > >Paul J. Adam
> > >
> > I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the
> bikes
> > combat vehlcles.
>
> Well know we call APC's combat vehicles
>
> > And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we have
> > to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(sheesh)
> >
>
> I'd suggest those pilots in WW2 who flew light aircraft in the
> over enemy lines as artillery spotters were very definitely in combat.

You gotta wonder what he thinks of the guys who flew Dustoff missions
into and out of hot LZ's on a routine basis; I guess all of those
hours my brother logged, not to mention one shootdown, don't qualify
as "combat duty" in Artian World. And to think CWO Michael Novosel
(himself a former B-29 pilot from WWII who later reentered the service
to fly helos) got the MoH while flying just that kind of (unarmed)
mission for the 82nd Med Det in the RVN (and the MoH is reserved for
actions that take place *in combat*...Maybe Art thinks he can go take
it back from him?

Brooks

>
> Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >From: "Paul J. Adam"
> >Date: 7/10/03 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In message >, ArtKramr
> > writes
> >>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
> >>>Date: 7/10/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >>>Message-id: >
> >>>Carrying a deadly payload counts: do _you_ want to tell the paratroopers
> >>>that you don't consider them to be dangerous? :)
> >> I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the
> bikes
> >>combat vehlcles.
> >
> >The Japanese used bicycles to transport troops and did so very, very
> >effectively in 1942. If you can manoeuvre your force faster than the
> >enemy, who cares _how_ you do it?
> >
> >>And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we have
> >>to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(sheesh)
> >
> >I'd call a Piper Cub, or an Auster, doing artillery observation a
> >"combat aircraft" - the enemy recieving the fire are just as dead.
> >
> >As is the pilot, if enemy AAA or fighters catch up with him.
> >
> >If you're taking direct fire from the enemy, you're in combat. Hard to
> >argue with that definition.
> >
>
> How do you feel about latrine orderlies?

They no longer exist as a specialty (as if they ever did), nor do
those mess stewards you mentioned earlier (except maybe in the Navy,
and then they are usually sitting on the same *combat* ship as the
rest of the crew...). BTW, we no longer have blacksmiths serving with
the cavalry units, either...nor horses, for that matter.

Brooks

>
> Arthur Kramer

[Sunny]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you feel about latrine orderlies?

For **** sake, the military is all about being part of a team.

[Cub Driver]

> I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the bikes
>combat vehlcles. And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we have
>to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(she

I'm glad the Cub made it into the discussion!

There was in fact at least one L-4 armed with bazookas, three? on each
wing strut. Dunno if it was actually used in combat.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Andrew Chaplin]

Sunny wrote:
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > How do you feel about latrine orderlies?
>
> For **** sake, the military is all about being part of a team.

Exactly. Also, on individual service:

When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait."

-- John Milton
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 7/11/03 2:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>> I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the
>bikes
>>combat vehlcles. And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we
>have
>>to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(she
>
>I'm glad the Cub made it into the discussion!
>
>There was in fact at least one L-4 armed with bazookas, three? on each
>wing strut. Dunno if it was actually used in combat.
>


Never met a PIper Cub I didn't like. I have many hours stick time in cubs.
Have you ever flown a Feisler Storch? Sheesh. Now that ios an expirience.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[av8r]

Hi Dan

Yes a handful of Piper L-4's of the 4th Division in Northwest Europe
were equipped with this field improvisation. It involved strapping three
bazookas on the left strut of the aircraft. The pilot would fire them
by reaching out the window and hauling on a lanyard.

Here are a couple of interesting notes on the L-4 and its effectiveness.

(a) The L-4 was such a menace to the German Army, that if a soldier shot
one down, he was sent to the rear for 15 days leave,

(b) The L-4 engaged in air-to-air combat. No ****!!! 1st Lieutenant
Duane Francis was flying an L-4 when he encountered a Fielser Storch.
He and his observer began to exchange sire arms fire with the crew of
the Storch. Guess who won??? Yep, the crew of the L-4. Not only did they
shoot down the Storch, they landed and captured its crew. Talk about
the ultimate in humility.


(c) While piloting an L-4, 1st Lieutenant Alf Schultz threw his
aircraft around to violently, that it caused the pilot of the pursuing
Bf-109 to fly his fighter into the ground. I guess he was so intent on
shooting the little warbug down that he lost all situation awareness.
Akin to target fixation I would think.


Cheers...Chris

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>I'd call a Piper Cub, or an Auster, doing artillery observation a
>>"combat aircraft" - the enemy recieving the fire are just as dead.
>>
>>As is the pilot, if enemy AAA or fighters catch up with him.
>>
>>If you're taking direct fire from the enemy, you're in combat. Hard to
>>argue with that definition.
>
>How do you feel about latrine orderlies?

Wouldn't award them combat medals unless they took and returned enemy
fire.

Would definitely consider them key personnel, because it's a
twentieth-century innovation that armies lose more troops to enemy fire
than to disease. Bombardiers sick with gastro-enteritis are as useless
as dead bombardiers until they get well (and they need decent sanitation
to get better)

The idea that an army consisted of nothing but fighting men died a
hundred and fifty years ago, and for damn good reason. The downside is,
instead of every soldier being recruited to trail the puissant pike, a
lot of troops get hired for unglamorous, boring, unheroic jobs like
field sanitation, oil changes on engines, FOD walkdowns and cook duty.

War heroes they ain't - but the heroes stand on their shoulders. If they
weren't essential they'd have been given rifles and sent to the front
(which was the traditional method): and the side with the best logistics
wins.

Art, when did your unit ever cancel missions because you were short of
spares, or bombs, or avgas, or .50cal ammo? (The enemy did, frequently)

When did you scrub sorties because flight crew were malnourished or
diseased? Do you not realise how lucky you were, to have such tremendous
logistic capability backing you?

Men made sure that your aircraft never lacked fuel, bombs, spares or
ammunition, and its crew were fed and healthy. Keeping a B-26 fed and
watered strikes me as a challenging job. Keeping an airbase's latrines
sweet in summer is a challenge I'd personally shy from. But _someone_
has to do it and it seems someone did, which let you fly your missions.

You don't value latrine orderlies? Fine, dig and maintain your own.
Don't appreciate cooks? Feed yourselves. And so it goes. Doesn't take
long before you're too busy trying to survive, to fly missions
effectively.



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[John Halliwell]

In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
>And of of course carrying a bombload is the equivalent of "shooting back".

As did the V1 which was the start of this discussion, we seem to be
going round in circles...

--
John

[Mary Shafer]

On 10 Jul 2003 23:00:50 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

> BTW, we no longer have blacksmiths serving with
> the cavalry units, either...nor horses, for that matter.

That's not true, actually. One of the cavalry units, either the 1st
or the 7th, has horses at Ft. Riley. Eighteen horses, some mules, and
a dog, not to mention the associated personnel. You can find photos
and more information on the Web.

There's also a ceremonial Army unit, which provided Black Jack for
JKF's funeral, as well as the horses who pull the caisson for
funerals.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, ArtKramr
> > writes
> >>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
> >>From: "Paul J. Adam"
> >>I'd call a Piper Cub, or an Auster, doing artillery observation a
> >>"combat aircraft" - the enemy recieving the fire are just as dead.
> >>
> >>As is the pilot, if enemy AAA or fighters catch up with him.
> >>
> >>If you're taking direct fire from the enemy, you're in combat. Hard to
> >>argue with that definition.
> >
> >How do you feel about latrine orderlies?
>
> Wouldn't award them combat medals unless they took and returned enemy
> fire.
>
> Would definitely consider them key personnel, because it's a
> twentieth-century innovation that armies lose more troops to enemy fire
> than to disease. Bombardiers sick with gastro-enteritis are as useless
> as dead bombardiers until they get well (and they need decent sanitation
> to get better)
>
> The idea that an army consisted of nothing but fighting men died a
> hundred and fifty years ago, and for damn good reason. The downside is,
> instead of every soldier being recruited to trail the puissant pike, a
> lot of troops get hired for unglamorous, boring, unheroic jobs like
> field sanitation, oil changes on engines, FOD walkdowns and cook duty.
>
> War heroes they ain't - but the heroes stand on their shoulders. If they
> weren't essential they'd have been given rifles and sent to the front
> (which was the traditional method): and the side with the best logistics
> wins.
>
> Art, when did your unit ever cancel missions because you were short of
> spares, or bombs, or avgas, or .50cal ammo? (The enemy did, frequently)
>
> When did you scrub sorties because flight crew were malnourished or
> diseased? Do you not realise how lucky you were, to have such tremendous
> logistic capability backing you?
>
> Men made sure that your aircraft never lacked fuel, bombs, spares or
> ammunition, and its crew were fed and healthy. Keeping a B-26 fed and
> watered strikes me as a challenging job. Keeping an airbase's latrines
> sweet in summer is a challenge I'd personally shy from. But _someone_
> has to do it and it seems someone did, which let you fly your missions.
>
> You don't value latrine orderlies? Fine, dig and maintain your own.
> Don't appreciate cooks? Feed yourselves. And so it goes. Doesn't take
> long before you're too busy trying to survive, to fly missions
> effectively.

Very well put, Paul, and dead on target.

Brooks

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Mary Shafer
> writes
>On 10 Jul 2003 23:00:50 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
>wrote:
>
>> BTW, we no longer have blacksmiths serving with
>> the cavalry units, either...nor horses, for that matter.
>
>That's not true, actually. One of the cavalry units, either the 1st
>or the 7th, has horses at Ft. Riley. Eighteen horses, some mules, and
>a dog, not to mention the associated personnel. You can find photos
>and more information on the Web.
>
>There's also a ceremonial Army unit, which provided Black Jack for
>JKF's funeral, as well as the horses who pull the caisson for
>funerals.
>
>Mary
>
Jolts my memory...

Many years ago, the journalist Alistair Cooke asked a retired US Cavalry
colonel when was the last time horses were used by the US Army during
combat.
"On Bataan," came the reply. "We ate them."

Does the present US cavalry manual suggest such operational flexibility?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

> Mary Shafer > wrote in message
> >...
> > On 10 Jul 2003 23:00:50 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, we no longer have blacksmiths serving with
> > > the cavalry units, either...nor horses, for that matter.
> >
> > That's not true, actually.
>
> Yes it is, actually.
>
> One of the cavalry units, either the 1st
> > or the 7th, has horses at Ft. Riley. Eighteen horses, some mules, and
> > a dog, not to mention the associated personnel. You can find photos
> > and more information on the Web.
>
> As does B Trp 4th Cav Rgt (Memorial) at Huachuca, but those are not
> *real* cavalry units. If they are, please show me an MTOE listing
> horses as part of the current cavalry structure (as opposed to at best
> a TDA, and I doubt they even have that). B-4 CAV even has civilian
> members (as "associates"). And where is that MOS for
> blacksmith/ferrier, or horse trooper?
>
> >
> > There's also a ceremonial Army unit, which provided Black Jack for
> > JKF's funeral, as well as the horses who pull the caisson for
> > funerals.
>
> First, the 3rd Inf (Old Guard) is not a cavalry unit. Those horses are
> part of the Caisson Platoon (which harkens back to the days when
> horses were found in all branches, and especially in the field
> artillery).
>
> I kind of figured some nitpicker would jump on the Old Guard
> use--which is why I said "cavalry".
>

The Army does seem to maintain an inventory of spare parts for horses,
at least the after part.

[vincent p. norris]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:19:39 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>I'm glad the Cub made it into the discussion!

And I'm glad av8r remembered the incident I mentioned the other day,
in which a liaison a/c "shot" down a LW fighter.

There was also an incident in which a CAP a/c sank a German U-boat,
although the a/c was not a Piper Cub. I seem to recall it was a
Stinson, but I wouldn't bet on that.

vince norris

[Drazen Kramaric]

On 29 Jun 2003 17:04:35 GMT, (Gordon) wrote:


>Well, the Hampdens, Battles and their ilk were certainly a disaster, but I do
>agree that the German idea of a bomber primarily useful as a CAS asset was a
>huge flaw.

If your primary enemies (Poland, France) are on your borders, than
designing bomber that will help the army subdue the enemy in shortest
possible time looks like a good move to me.

> The German's prewar thinking was how to win battles, not sustain a
>nearly indefinite war - something both America and Russia could afford to do.

Germany could never win a nearly indefinite war against opponents who
enjoyed the command of the seas and access to resources Germany
lacked.

>I think its a very lucky thing that the man that would have insured the Germans
>possessed a heavy bomber died in the years leading up to the war. Without a
>strategic bomber, Germany never had a chance.

Strategic bombers were not needed to defeat Poland, nor France. They
weren't needed for invasion of USSR either. Germany did not posses
resources to build both, strategic bombers and tactical ones. They did
not have fuel for both. Given the historical reality, they picked the
weapon that matched their needs. Political map of Europe in June 1940
reflects this.


Drax
remove NOSPAM for reply

[Drazen Kramaric]

Hi Kevin!

On 10 Jul 2003 20:28:23 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

>And to think CWO Michael Novosel (himself a former B-29 pilot from WWII
>who later reentered the service to fly helos) got the MoH while flying just that
>kind of (unarmed) mission for the 82nd Med Det in the RVN (and the MoH
>is reserved for actions that take place *in combat*...

I am interested whether you can point me to more information about the
life and combat experience of Michael Novosel. His last name sound
Croatian (although it could be Slovak too) and he is all but unknown
in my neck of woods.

Best regards,

Drax

[Drazen Kramaric]

On 30 Jun 2003 18:07:40 -0700, (The
Enlightenment) wrote:


>The Omaha defenses survived the high altitude bombardment by B17s
>which I think was effected by cloud and winds. Another factor was the
>12th Waffen SS division with experience on the Russian front having
>been missed by allied intelligence and not being to far from the
>scene.

I guess you meant 352nd division. "Hitlerjugend" division had no
combat experience prior to Normandy capaign.


Drax

[PosterBoy]

Novosel's people came from Ribnik in Croatia.

He does a lot of speaking at MoH events.

Have you read his book?:
http://www.militaryink.com/books/2003/april/0891418024.htm

Couple of nice stories at:
http://www.nissipub.com/Vietnam/novosel.htm and
http://www.rotc.neu.edu/thelance/sp00/novosel.htm

His Email is (was?):



"Drazen Kramaric" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Kevin!
>
> On 10 Jul 2003 20:28:23 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
> wrote:
>
> >And to think CWO Michael Novosel (himself a former B-29 pilot from WWII
> >who later reentered the service to fly helos) got the MoH while flying
just that
> >kind of (unarmed) mission for the 82nd Med Det in the RVN (and the MoH
> >is reserved for actions that take place *in combat*...
>
> I am interested whether you can point me to more information about the
> life and combat experience of Michael Novosel. His last name sound
> Croatian (although it could be Slovak too) and he is all but unknown
> in my neck of woods.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Drax

[Alan Minyard]

On 10 Jul 2003 23:00:50 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
>> >Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>> >From: "Paul J. Adam"
>> >Date: 7/10/03 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >In message >, ArtKramr
>> > writes
>> >>>Subject: Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British
>> >>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>> >>>Date: 7/10/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >>>Message-id: >
>> >>>Carrying a deadly payload counts: do _you_ want to tell the paratroopers
>> >>>that you don't consider them to be dangerous? :)
>> >> I guess if thos troops got there on bicycles we would have to call the
>> bikes
>> >>combat vehlcles.
>> >
>> >The Japanese used bicycles to transport troops and did so very, very
>> >effectively in 1942. If you can manoeuvre your force faster than the
>> >enemy, who cares _how_ you do it?
>> >
>> >>And if a Piper Cub crashes and kills an enemy soldier we have
>> >>to designate the Piper Cub as a ground attack aircraft.(sheesh)
>> >
>> >I'd call a Piper Cub, or an Auster, doing artillery observation a
>> >"combat aircraft" - the enemy recieving the fire are just as dead.
>> >
>> >As is the pilot, if enemy AAA or fighters catch up with him.
>> >
>> >If you're taking direct fire from the enemy, you're in combat. Hard to
>> >argue with that definition.
>> >
>>
>> How do you feel about latrine orderlies?
>
>They no longer exist as a specialty (as if they ever did), nor do
>those mess stewards you mentioned earlier (except maybe in the Navy,
>and then they are usually sitting on the same *combat* ship as the
>rest of the crew...). BTW, we no longer have blacksmiths serving with
>the cavalry units, either...nor horses, for that matter.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer

The US Navy did away with the Steward rate about 20 years ago.

Al Minyard

[Andrew Chaplin]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> The US Navy did away with the Steward rate about 20 years ago.

For comparison:
http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/html/navy/careers/career_profiles/stew.html
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)