P-39s, Zeros & A-24s

[Chris Mark]

Little item from my friend doing P-39 research:

7 P-39s escort 7 A-24s on an anti-shipping strike to Buna summer 1942. Flying
at 9,000 feet, 3 Zeros going the opposite direction at 11,000 feet spot them
and peel off in an attack. Descending dogfight ensues until Zeros break off at
4,000 feet. P-39 pilots make no claims, report no losses among themselves or
A-24s, which they catch up to as they make their bomb runs on a convoy of one
large and four small vessels escorted by one warship which they identify as a
destroyer. The flight home is uneventful, with no further enemy contact. They
confirm one bomb hit on the large ship, which seems to inflict no serious
damage, and six broad misses.
A-24s do not report any interception by Zeros on the way to the target and
mention no dogfight. Report attacking one 1,500 ton-class cargo ship in a
convoy of four 100-ton class coastal vessels and one subchaser escort. AA fire
downs one A-24 during the dive. This plane releases its bomb as it spins out
of control and crashes into the sea. No parachutes. It's bomb falls far from
the convoy. Five bombs bracket the large cargo vessel in a close pattern and
one strikes the ship amidships. This ship is left on fire, dead in the water,
heeled over and in a sinking condition. As they recover from their dives, the
A-24s are hit by Zeros. Two are shot down immediately, crashing in flames into
sea. Two more survive long enough to make it to the beach where they crash
land and the crews are observed to escape into the bush. A fifth is badly
damaged but manages to make it to an emergency strip where it crash lands.
Only one returns home.
The next day 4 B-25s go out to bomb the convoy but find no sign of it. Nor do
they see any debris or oil slick in the area of the A-24 attack. They were to
have a P-39 escort but it never shows up. They are intercepted by 6 Zeros
which circle them, then fly parallel to them for a few minutes performing slow
rolls before departing without making any attempt to attack. The B-25s sweep up
the Buna coast until they spot 6 beached barges being unloaded. They bomb and
strafe these, destroying them and the cargo offloaded onto the beach. They
report moderate AA fire, with one B-25 being holed several times and the
bombardier and co-pilot wounded. There is no fighter opposition.
The 6 P-39s dispatched as escorts report the B-25s are not at the rendevous
point so they proceed on a sweep of the Buna coastal area, discover Japanese
unloading 5 barges and strafe them, leaving all burning. They also strafe
supplies stacked on the beach and tents observed under trees just inland from
the beach, making repeated passes until expending all their ammunition. There
is no anti-aircraft fire. As they are departing they observe 9 Zeros
patrolling the beach at 6,000 feet but these make no aggressive moves and
maintain altitude.

If you were an intelligence officer evaluating these reports, what would you
make of them?


Chris Mark

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

Intel hasn't gotten much better since 1942.

WDA

end

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> Little item from my friend doing P-39 research:
>
> 7 P-39s escort 7 A-24s on an anti-shipping strike to Buna
summer 1942. Flying
> at 9,000 feet, 3 Zeros going the opposite direction at
11,000 feet spot them
> and peel off in an attack. Descending dogfight ensues
until Zeros break off at
> 4,000 feet. P-39 pilots make no claims, report no losses
among themselves or
> A-24s, which they catch up to as they make their bomb runs
on a convoy of one
> large and four small vessels escorted by one warship which
they identify as a
> destroyer. The flight home is uneventful, with no further
enemy contact. They
> confirm one bomb hit on the large ship, which seems to
inflict no serious
> damage, and six broad misses.
> A-24s do not report any interception by Zeros on the way
to the target and
> mention no dogfight. Report attacking one 1,500 ton-class
cargo ship in a
> convoy of four 100-ton class coastal vessels and one
subchaser escort. AA fire
> downs one A-24 during the dive. This plane releases its
bomb as it spins out
> of control and crashes into the sea. No parachutes. It's
bomb falls far from
> the convoy. Five bombs bracket the large cargo vessel in
a close pattern and
> one strikes the ship amidships. This ship is left on fire,
dead in the water,
> heeled over and in a sinking condition. As they recover
from their dives, the
> A-24s are hit by Zeros. Two are shot down immediately,
crashing in flames into
> sea. Two more survive long enough to make it to the beach
where they crash
> land and the crews are observed to escape into the bush.
A fifth is badly
> damaged but manages to make it to an emergency strip where
it crash lands.
> Only one returns home.
> The next day 4 B-25s go out to bomb the convoy but find no
sign of it. Nor do
> they see any debris or oil slick in the area of the A-24
attack. They were to
> have a P-39 escort but it never shows up. They are
intercepted by 6 Zeros
> which circle them, then fly parallel to them for a few
minutes performing slow
> rolls before departing without making any attempt to
attack. The B-25s sweep up
> the Buna coast until they spot 6 beached barges being
unloaded. They bomb and
> strafe these, destroying them and the cargo offloaded onto
the beach. They
> report moderate AA fire, with one B-25 being holed several
times and the
> bombardier and co-pilot wounded. There is no fighter
opposition.
> The 6 P-39s dispatched as escorts report the B-25s are not
at the rendevous
> point so they proceed on a sweep of the Buna coastal area,
discover Japanese
> unloading 5 barges and strafe them, leaving all burning.
They also strafe
> supplies stacked on the beach and tents observed under
trees just inland from
> the beach, making repeated passes until expending all
their ammunition. There
> is no anti-aircraft fire. As they are departing they
observe 9 Zeros
> patrolling the beach at 6,000 feet but these make no
aggressive moves and
> maintain altitude.
>
> If you were an intelligence officer evaluating these
reports, what would you
> make of them?
>
>
> Chris Mark

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Amazing story, and no doubt typical. I never regret reading the official and unofficial reports in Japanese as well as the Allied ones. Boy, I would not want to write any 'definitive' history of anything to do with the South Pacific campaign!

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Cub Driver]

On 13 Jul 2003 18:13:44 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:

>They are intercepted by 6 Zeros
>which circle them, then fly parallel to them for a few minutes performing slow
>rolls before departing without making any attempt to attack

Wonderful! I wonder how often such things happened? And what would be
the reason--that they were off on a mission & couldn't expend
ammunition, or they were returning with empty guns?


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

[Chris Mark]

>rom: Cub Driver look@my

>they were returning with empty guns?

Certainly a possibility. Even if they still had ammo for their cowl guns they
might have learned by that time in the war that attacking an alert and ready
B-25 formation with 30 cals was pretty pointless. The B-25 turret gunners
alone would have outmatched them. The C model had 3/4" steel plate armor
across the rear of the radio compartment bulkhead, thus protecting the interior
of the fuselage from gunfire from the rear. It would have easily stopped light
machinegun fire.

Somewhere I've got an account of a B-25-Zero duel. If I find it I'll post
pertinent parts. It was written by Hobart Skidmore. He was a combat
correspondent who probably saw a lot more of the air war than most air crew.
He was always ready to go and went out on night B-17 raids to Rabaul, B-25 and
B-26 raids against Lae and Salamaua, C-47 supply drops to Aussie troops on the
Kokoda Track, you name it.
I heard that many years after the war he began to suffer from nightmares about
his war experiences so terrible that they drove him to suicide. Don't know if
that is really true.


Chris Mark

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 7/14/03 1:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>he B-25 turret gunners
>alone would have outmatched them. The C model had 3/4" steel plate armor
>across the rear of the radio compartment bulkhead, thus protecting the
>interior
>of the fuselage from gunfire from the rear. It would have easily

Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!




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

[Chris Mark]

>From: artkramr@

>Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!

Look on the bright side. At least you could see where you were going! ; )




Chris Mark

[Jack]

(Chris Mark) wrote in message >...
> Little item from my friend doing P-39 research:
>
> 7 P-39s escort 7 A-24s on an anti-shipping strike to Buna summer 1942. Flying
>sniP>

> If you were an intelligence officer evaluating these reports, what would you
> make of them?

great post!

if I were an intelligence officer evaluating these reports, I'd:

credit any US loss reported by US sources.

credit any IJN loss reported by radio intercepts of IJN sources.

for intelligence purposes, discount by half any damage to IJN ships or
aircraft reported by US sources. report ship types per the A-24
reports, but with a caveat that numbers and types should probably be
downgraded.

for public relations purposes, fully credit all damage to IJN ships or
a/c reported by US sources.

I'd estimate that the Zeros were returning from a mission with empty
magazines, if they had the time to expend flying acrobatics around the
bombers but did not attack. Outbound on a mission they would
presumably be concerned with fuel resources.

I'd love to find out what the official IJN reports (if they still
exist) said.

[Lawrence Dillard]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> Little item from my friend doing P-39 research:

> 7 P-39s escort 7 A-24s on an anti-shipping strike to Buna summer 1942.
Flying
> at 9,000 feet, 3 Zeros going the opposite direction at 11,000 feet spot
them
> and peel off in an attack.

In the Summer of 1942, the USAAF was still rather weak on enemy a/c
identification. The enemy a/c may or may not have been "Zeros". But in
general, IJN fighter pilots are aggressive and believe they have the
superior a/c. An attack by smaller forces on a larger one is thus
believable. There would be many unanswered questions.

> Descending dogfight ensues until Zeros break off at
> 4,000 feet. P-39 pilots make no claims, report no losses among themselves
or
> A-24s,

The report as to the integrity of the P-39's formation can be taken as true.
However, their report as to possible losses or not among the A-24s must be
cross-checked, as they probably lost sight of their charges while engaged
with the Zeros. they were unaware of the A-24s' situation whilst engaged
with the Zeros.

> which they catch up to as they make their bomb runs on a convoy of one
> large and four small vessels escorted by one warship which they identify
as a
> destroyer.

Ship identification by USAAF pilots at this stage of the war is still weak.
Composition of enemy force should be cross-checked with A-24 pilots and if
possible a better description obtained. Often, army pilots identify smallish
enemy patrol boats as destroyers or as other types of ships, as a result.
Warship could indeed be a subchaser or a small patrol boat.


> The flight home is uneventful, with no further enemy contact. They
> confirm one bomb hit on the large ship, which seems to inflict no serious
> damage, and six broad misses.

Damage assessment should be cross-checked with that of A-24 pilots. The A-24
pilots were probably closer to the scene, after all. Report of uneventful
rtb will be found to be in conflict with report of the sole surviving
undamaged A-24.

> A-24s do not report any interception by Zeros on the way to the target and
> mention no dogfight.

Not unreasonable given the account received from the P-39 pilots. They could
be expected to lose sight of the P-39s and vice-versa assuming a dogfight
enroute indeed took place.

> Report attacking one 1,500 ton-class cargo ship in a
> convoy of four 100-ton class coastal vessels and one subchaser escort.

At this stage of the war, USAAF pilots often overestimated and falsely
identified the the size and type of enemy combatants. Further inquiry to pin
down a description of each vessel is indicated.

> AA fire
> downs one A-24 during the dive. This plane releases its bomb as it spins
out
> of control and crashes into the sea. No parachutes. It's bomb falls far
from
> the convoy.

AA fire success suggests the presence of either an enemy combat ship of some
size (subchaser or destroyer), or AA armament aboard the "large cargo ship".
ID of all enemy ships reported should be considered tentative.

> Five bombs bracket the large cargo vessel in a close pattern and
> one strikes the ship amidships. This ship is left on fire, dead in the
water,
> heeled over and in a sinking condition.

This report should be handled with care, as it sounds a bit overoptimistic.
P-39 report suggests a different outcome. Report of own losses by A-24s and
reasons therefor can be taken seriously.


> As they recover from their dives, the
> A-24s are hit by Zeros. Two are shot down immediately, crashing in flames
into
> sea. Two more survive long enough to make it to the beach where they
crash
> land and the crews are observed to escape into the bush. A fifth is badly
> damaged but manages to make it to an emergency strip where it crash lands.
> Only one returns home.

Sure contradicts the P-39 pilot reports in a big way. But the A-24 pilots'
account of own losses can be taken seriously. The fates of all seven A-24s
are accounted for in the A-24 report. Evidently the P-39 escort was not a
close escort and apparently they missed out on a lot of the action. Their
escort mission essentially failed, aas combat CAP and withdrawal support
apparently were not effected.


> The next day 4 B-25s go out to bomb the convoy but find no sign of it.
Nor do
> they see any debris or oil slick in the area of the A-24 attack. They
were to
> have a P-39 escort but it never shows up.

Not unreasonable for an airborne rendezvous to fail in those days,
especially if the escorts and bombers did not operate from the same
airfield. Signs of sinkings often do not persist for long in areas were
there are swift currents and strong winds. Navigation is also a suspect area
for USAAF pilots while over the ocean. The B-25 pilots actually may not have
been examining the location they believed they were.


> They are intercepted by 6 Zeros
> which circle them, then fly parallel to them for a few minutes performing
slow
> rolls before departing without making any attempt to attack. The B-25s
sweep up
> the Buna coast until they spot 6 beached barges being unloaded. They bomb
and
> strafe these, destroying them and the cargo offloaded onto the beach.

It would be difficult to draw any conclusions from the behavior of the enemy
a/c. Claims for damage or destruction must be cautiously evaluated,
especially in light of what is reported below. Attempt should be made to pin
down the timing of the attack.

> They
> report moderate AA fire, with one B-25 being holed several times and the
> bombardier and co-pilot wounded. There is no fighter opposition.

Some attempt should be made to assess provenance of the AA fire. Land-based
or ship-based?


> The 6 P-39s dispatched as escorts report the B-25s are not at the
rendevous
> point so they proceed on a sweep of the Buna coastal area, discover
Japanese
> unloading 5 barges and strafe them, leaving all burning. They also strafe
> supplies stacked on the beach and tents observed under trees just inland
from
> the beach, making repeated passes until expending all their ammunition.
There
> is no anti-aircraft fire.

Missed rendezvous is unremarkable. Their damage claim essentially duplicates
that of the B-25s. They do not report AA opposition, however, which is a bit
surprising, given the damage reported taken by one B-25. Attempt should be
made to ascertain the timing of the attack on the barges, etc., and to
comapre that with B-25s' account. (The barges might have been "beached" as a
result of an earlier attack by the P-39s. Signs of an earlier attack might
not be visible by the time the B-25s arrived. And AA could perhaps have been
belatedly arranged, in response to an earlier P-39 attack.)

> As they are departing they observe 9 Zeros
> patrolling the beach at 6,000 feet but these make no aggressive moves and
> maintain altitude.

Lucky for them, as they report that they had shot off all their ammo. Number
of enemy a/c reported must be treated with caution. How did the P-39 pilots
miss spotting them prior to committing to strafing runs and vice versa? Is
it possible these enemy a/c were the same spotted by the B-25s, Zeros which
closed the range but did not attack?

> If you were an intelligence officer evaluating these reports, what would
you
> make of them?

I'b be a bit confused, to say the least. But I'd make an attempt anyway to
compare and contrast the reports so as to come to some reasonable synthesis
of the reports.

Clearly, the pilots need more emphasis on properly effecting rendezvous as
well as on overwater navigation.

They should also be coached to take note of and possibly record any
occurrences during their mission, such as time and place of spotting or
engaging enemy a/c, time and place of bombing or strafing attacks, sources
of enemy AA, and ship identifications of all kinds.

They sould be counseled to be conservative in assessing the damage they've
inflicted on the enemy.

Doing all of this would add to their situational awareness (and of course
help the Intel officer do his job better).

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

(Jack) writes:

> (Chris Mark) wrote in message >...

> I'd love to find out what the official IJN reports (if they still
> exist) said.

Indeed! What a lovely puzzle history is, and there is much
satisfaction to be gained ffrom piecing it together again.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[L. P. LePage]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >rom: Cub Driver look@my
>
> >they were returning with empty guns?
>
> Certainly a possibility. Even if they still had ammo for their cowl guns
they
> might have learned by that time in the war that attacking an alert and
ready
> B-25 formation with 30 cals was pretty pointless. The B-25 turret gunners
> alone would have outmatched them. The C model had 3/4" steel plate armor
> across the rear of the radio compartment bulkhead, thus protecting the
interior
> of the fuselage from gunfire from the rear. It would have easily stopped
light
> machinegun fire.
>
> Somewhere I've got an account of a B-25-Zero duel. If I find it I'll post
> pertinent parts. It was written by Hobart Skidmore. He was a combat
> correspondent who probably saw a lot more of the air war than most air
crew.
> He was always ready to go and went out on night B-17 raids to Rabaul, B-25
and
> B-26 raids against Lae and Salamaua, C-47 supply drops to Aussie troops on
the
> Kokoda Track, you name it.
> I heard that many years after the war he began to suffer from nightmares
about
> his war experiences so terrible that they drove him to suicide. Don't
know if
> that is really true.
>
>
> Chris Mark

Saburo Sakai the number two Jap Ace was shot up by flying betreen two B-25's
as reported in his book
"SAMURAI" He spent months recovering and lost the use of one eye.
B-25's were treated with respect by the "Zeke's" as reported in the book on
B-25's in the Pacific campaign
"Warpath across the pacific" A very expensive book ($75) but GREAT photos of
the 8 50 cal's in the nose.

Larry

[Matt Wiser]

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote:
>Intel hasn't gotten much better since 1942.
>
>WDA
>
>end
>
>"Chris Mark" > wrote in
>message
...
>> Little item from my friend doing P-39 research:
>>
>> 7 P-39s escort 7 A-24s on an anti-shipping
>strike to Buna
>summer 1942. Flying
>> at 9,000 feet, 3 Zeros going the opposite
>direction at
>11,000 feet spot them
>> and peel off in an attack. Descending dogfight
>ensues
>until Zeros break off at
>> 4,000 feet. P-39 pilots make no claims, report
>no losses
>among themselves or
>> A-24s, which they catch up to as they make
>their bomb runs
>on a convoy of one
>> large and four small vessels escorted by one
>warship which
>they identify as a
>> destroyer. The flight home is uneventful,
>with no further
>enemy contact. They
>> confirm one bomb hit on the large ship, which
>seems to
>inflict no serious
>> damage, and six broad misses.
>> A-24s do not report any interception by Zeros
>on the way
>to the target and
>> mention no dogfight. Report attacking one
>1,500 ton-class
>cargo ship in a
>> convoy of four 100-ton class coastal vessels
>and one
>subchaser escort. AA fire
>> downs one A-24 during the dive. This plane
>releases its
>bomb as it spins out
>> of control and crashes into the sea. No parachutes.
> It's
>bomb falls far from
>> the convoy. Five bombs bracket the large
>cargo vessel in
>a close pattern and
>> one strikes the ship amidships. This ship
>is left on fire,
>dead in the water,
>> heeled over and in a sinking condition. As
>they recover
>from their dives, the
>> A-24s are hit by Zeros. Two are shot down
>immediately,
>crashing in flames into
>> sea. Two more survive long enough to make
>it to the beach
>where they crash
>> land and the crews are observed to escape
>into the bush.
>A fifth is badly
>> damaged but manages to make it to an emergency
>strip where
>it crash lands.
>> Only one returns home.
>> The next day 4 B-25s go out to bomb the convoy
>but find no
>sign of it. Nor do
>> they see any debris or oil slick in the area
>of the A-24
>attack. They were to
>> have a P-39 escort but it never shows up.
> They are
>intercepted by 6 Zeros
>> which circle them, then fly parallel to them
>for a few
>minutes performing slow
>> rolls before departing without making any
>attempt to
>attack. The B-25s sweep up
>> the Buna coast until they spot 6 beached barges
>being
>unloaded. They bomb and
>> strafe these, destroying them and the cargo
>offloaded onto
>the beach. They
>> report moderate AA fire, with one B-25 being
>holed several
>times and the
>> bombardier and co-pilot wounded. There is
>no fighter
>opposition.
>> The 6 P-39s dispatched as escorts report the
>B-25s are not
>at the rendevous
>> point so they proceed on a sweep of the Buna
>coastal area,
>discover Japanese
>> unloading 5 barges and strafe them, leaving
>all burning.
>They also strafe
>> supplies stacked on the beach and tents observed
>under
>trees just inland from
>> the beach, making repeated passes until expending
>all
>their ammunition. There
>> is no anti-aircraft fire. As they are departing
>they
>observe 9 Zeros
>> patrolling the beach at 6,000 feet but these
>make no
>aggressive moves and
>> maintain altitude.
>>
>> If you were an intelligence officer evaluating
>these
>reports, what would you
>> make of them?
>>
>>
>> Chris Mark
>
>
I'm not sure. In the days before gun-camera video, I don't know how they
got any good intel. Keep in mind that the 5th AF in Summer of '42 was still
operating on a shoestring, with what refugees from the Philippines and the
East Indies working with the reinforcements that were headed for Manila but
diverted to Australia-they were still getting things set up and running.
ULTRA might be a source to confirm the BDA, but was 5th AF cleared for it
at the time?

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

Cub Driver > wrote:
>On 13 Jul 2003 18:13:44 GMT,
>(Chris Mark) wrote:
>
>>They are intercepted by 6 Zeros
>>which circle them, then fly parallel to them
>for a few minutes performing slow
>>rolls before departing without making any attempt
>to attack
>
>Wonderful! I wonder how often such things happened?
>And what would be
>the reason--that they were off on a mission
>& couldn't expend
>ammunition, or they were returning with empty
>guns?
>
>
>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
It would be interesting to know if Saburo Sakai and his unit were the Zeroes
involved-Sakai did let a Dutch DC-3 go off Java-he flew alongside for a minute
and saw a little girl looking out a cabin window. Sakai then waved to the
girl and the flight crew, and then RTB.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Guy Alcala]

"L. P. LePage" wrote:

<snip>

> Saburo Sakai the number two Jap Ace was shot up by flying betreen two B-25's
> as reported in his book
> "SAMURAI" He spent months recovering and lost the use of one eye.

ISTR that Sakai was badly wounded (as above) when he attacked a flight of SBDs
which he mistook for Wildcats, near Guadalcanal on August 7th, 1942. No B-25s
involved.

Guy

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Guy Alcala > writes:

> "L. P. LePage" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Saburo Sakai the number two Jap Ace was shot up by flying betreen two B-25's
>> as reported in his book
>> "SAMURAI" He spent months recovering and lost the use of one eye.
>
> ISTR that Sakai was badly wounded (as above) when he attacked a flight of SBDs
> which he mistook for Wildcats, near Guadalcanal on August 7th, 1942. No B-25s
> involved.
>

I thought it said originally said TBFs in the book, but that in
retrospect it has emerged that no TBFs were around that day either, so
they must have been SBDs. Or was it the other way around?

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Guy Alcala]

Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:

> Guy Alcala > writes:
>
> > "L. P. LePage" wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Saburo Sakai the number two Jap Ace was shot up by flying betreen two B-25's
> >> as reported in his book
> >> "SAMURAI" He spent months recovering and lost the use of one eye.
> >
> > ISTR that Sakai was badly wounded (as above) when he attacked a flight of SBDs
> > which he mistook for Wildcats, near Guadalcanal on August 7th, 1942. No B-25s
> > involved.
> >
>
> I thought it said originally said TBFs in the book, but that in
> retrospect it has emerged that no TBFs were around that day either, so
> they must have been SBDs. Or was it the other way around?

That's my memory - Sakai thought they were TBFs. I used Eric Hammel's account in
his "Guadalcanal: The Carrier Battles," as most likely the best researched, and he
ID's them (with crew's names) as 8 SBDs from Enterprise.

Guy

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Yann D" ya

>Cowl guns ok, but the zero 21 also had 2x20mm wing guns
>So the truth must be elsewhere
>

Probably is.
I was thinking maybe the Zeros had expended their 20mm but still had ammo for
their light machineguns and decided it wasn't worth wasting on bombers when
their might be US fighters around that they would have to deal with and which
might be hurt by that light weaponry. Just idle speculation.


Chris Mark

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Yann D"

>I just remember Saburo Sakai wrote in his book (Samurai) that he did
>aerobatics overhead an US base just for fun. An the AA guns didn't fire at
>them either...

If this is in reference to the Moresby area in early 1942, AA guns didn't fire
because there weren't any. Some 90mm would have settled his hash.

>A little bit of fun in the middle of all this >violence maybe..




Chris Mark

[Alan Dicey]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!

I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
electrically heated clothing, but even so !

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
>From: Alan Dicey
>Date: 7/20/03 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>> Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!
>
>I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
>vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
>of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
>electrically heated clothing, but even so !
>


We also had electric suits but I never remember my Plexi fogging up. If it did
I could just open the little vent flap and let a180 MPH relative wind come in
and blow my maps, charts, calculators, E6B and Wheems plotters all over the
place. (sheesh)


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

[Guy Alcala]

ArtKramr wrote:

> >Subject: Re: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
> >From: Alan Dicey

<snip>

> >I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
> >vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
> >of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
> >electrically heated clothing, but even so !
> >
>
> We also had electric suits but I never remember my Plexi fogging up. If it did
> I could just open the little vent flap and let a180 MPH relative wind come in
> and blow my maps, charts, calculators, E6B and Wheems plotters all over the
> place. (sheesh)

Of course, you weren't flying at night several thousand feet higher (often at
contrail level) than a B-26 would be by day, and the tail turret wasn't facing into
a 180 IAS slipstream. Sometimes the U.S. heavies had the nose plexiglass (and the
cockpit windows) totally iced up as well. Flying at minus 50 to70F will do that,
even if the outside of the windows isn't iced up by flying in contrails. I've read
an account somewhere (I'm guessing in Elmer Bendiner's "Fall of Fortresses") where
he (B-17 nav) used the edge of his plotter to try and scrape the ice off the inside
of the windows in the nose, so that he could spot fighters approaching. The same
tool was passed up to the bombardier so he could clear the plexiglas nose cone for
the same reason, and maybe so he could see to bomb (can't remember if he was just a
"togglier" on that mission).

Removing the piece of plexiglass directly in the gunner's line of sight from the
tail turret on Lancs (and probably other British heavies) was, IIRC, attributed
first to Gibson's tail gunner Trevor-Roper (not Hugh, his brother Richard?), and
was soon widely imitated. It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if it's
a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen fighter,
I imagine I'd choose the latter.

Guy

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
>>From: Alan Dicey
>>Date: 7/20/03 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!
>>
>>I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
>>vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
>>of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
>>electrically heated clothing, but even so !
>>
>
>
>We also had electric suits but I never remember my Plexi fogging up. If it did
>I could just open the little vent flap and let a180 MPH relative wind come in
>and blow my maps, charts, calculators, E6B and Wheems plotters all over the
>place. (sheesh)
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I doubt that the Lanc gunners that he mentioned would be troubled
with slipstream blowing anything around.

--

-Gord.

[Gordon]

>It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
>was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if
>it's
>a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen
>fighter,
>I imagine I'd choose the latter.

Can you picture the scene from up there, open to the sky below? "Firewatching"
happened to a lot of RAF crews - overcome by the bizzare spectacle below them,
they had to make a conscious effort at times to not become mesmerized by the
view. Caught in the moment and suffering from sensory overload, it was easy
for gunner's scans for enemy nightfighters to break down at critical times.

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

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

[Guy Alcala]

Gordon wrote:

> >It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
> >was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if
> >it's
> >a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen
> >fighter,
> >I imagine I'd choose the latter.
>
> Can you picture the scene from up there, open to the sky below? "Firewatching"
> happened to a lot of RAF crews - overcome by the bizzare spectacle below them,
> they had to make a conscious effort at times to not become mesmerized by the
> view. Caught in the moment and suffering from sensory overload, it was easy
> for gunner's scans for enemy nightfighters to break down at critical times.

Both the stills and rare movie footage I've seen of night attacks are pretty
incredible, and as you say I think it would be easy to become distracted and forget
your primary job, at least until it became old hat. Of course, generally speaking
the inexperienced crews were the ones most likely to be shot down by fighters.

Guy

[Matt Wiser]

"Yann D" > wrote:
>I just remember Saburo Sakai wrote in his book
>(Samurai) that he did
>aerobatics overhead an US base just for fun.
>An the AA guns didn't fire at
>them either...
>A little bit of fun in the middle of all this
>violence maybe..
>
>
The Marines at Midway saw a Zero fly upside down across the atoll and they
noticed the pilot thumbing his nose-they held their fire, then a Marine Gunny
said "What the hell," and then opened up with a .50cal. Every gun that could
opened up on the Zero, and he plunged into the water.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>Guess we had an easier war down there at 8,000 feet.
>
>Arthur Kramer

That certainly makes a lot of sense...it would seem that there's
lots less problems to contend with down low.
--

-Gord.

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Gord Beaman"

>>Guess we had an easier war down there at 8,000 feet.

>That certainly makes a lot of sense...it would seem that there's
>lots less problems to contend with down low.

Flak aside.


Chris Mark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 7/21/03 11:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: "Gord Beaman"
>
>>>Guess we had an easier war down there at 8,000 feet.
>
>>That certainly makes a lot of sense...it would seem that there's
>>lots less problems to contend with down low.
>
>Flak aside.
>
>
>Chris Mark


Sometime the flak was aside, and sometimes it wasn't.

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

[Chris Mark]

>From: artkramr@aol.

>Sometime the flak was aside, and sometimes it wasn't.
>

LOL


Chris Mark

[Tony Williams]

(Chris Mark) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Yann D"
>
> >I just remember Saburo Sakai wrote in his book (Samurai) that he did
> >aerobatics overhead an US base just for fun. An the AA guns didn't fire at
> >them either...
>
> If this is in reference to the Moresby area in early 1942, AA guns didn't fire
> because there weren't any. Some 90mm would have settled his hash.

I doubt that - the heavy AA guns were only really effective against
aircraft flying a steady and predictable course, like bombers. A
fighter doing aerobatics would reduce the gunners to a nervous
breakdown :)

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition
website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 7/22/03 2:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>>That certainly makes a lot of sense...it would seem that there's
>>lots less problems to contend with down low.
>
>You're joking, right? (Irony is not a safe weapon on the internet. We
>can't hear the tone of your voice!)
>
>If it's safer down below, why did the B-17s and B-24s (not to mention
>the B-29s) go to all that effort to fly at 25,000 and 30,000 feet?
>

Ah Danny boy you can ask embarrassing questions can't you? No joke is safe
around here especially when couched in sarcasm. (sigh)

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Cub Driver wrote:
> Sometimes you remind me of the airport cat (whose name is Crash, by
> the way). Crash is a grouchy old orange male who looks out at us with
> slitted eyes. Sometimes he lets us pat him, more often not.
>
> One day a stranger came in and planted his hands on the counter to
> talk to George, the manager. Crash was sitting on the counter. He
> began to lick the stranger's hand. Three, four, five licks. Then
> WHOMP! He bit it.


Well, don't you wash your hands before YOU eat?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>>That certainly makes a lot of sense...it would seem that there's
>>lots less problems to contend with down low.
>
>You're joking, right? (Irony is not a safe weapon on the internet. We
>can't hear the tone of your voice!)
>
>If it's safer down below, why did the B-17s and B-24s (not to mention
>the B-29s) go to all that effort to fly at 25,000 and 30,000 feet?
>

C'mon Dan, Art sed it's safer, you really think that any regular
poster on here would dare to naysay him?...haven't tried it have
you?... :)
--

-Gord.

[Chris Mark]

>Tony.Williams@q

>Some 90mm would have settled his hash.
>I doubt that - the heavy AA guns were only really effective against
>aircraft flying a steady and predictable course, like bombers. A
>fighter doing aerobatics would reduce the gunners to a nervous
>breakdown :)

Do you really think he would have continued his antics once flak began bursting
in the general vicinity? Sakai may have been arrogant, but I doubt he was
stupid. All flak is addressed "To Whom It May Concern." It doesn't have to
have your name on it to give you a really bad day.


Chris Mark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 7/22/03 8:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Tony.Williams@q
>
>>Some 90mm would have settled his hash.
>>I doubt that - the heavy AA guns were only really effective against
>>aircraft flying a steady and predictable course, like bombers. A
>>fighter doing aerobatics would reduce the gunners to a nervous
>>breakdown :)
>
>Do you really think he would have continued his antics once flak began
>bursting
>in the general vicinity? Sakai may have been arrogant, but I doubt he was
>stupid. All flak is addressed "To Whom It May Concern." It doesn't have to
>have your name on it to give you a really bad day.
>
>
>Chris Mark


But sometimes it really looks as though it has your name on it.


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

[Cub Driver]

>Do you really think he would have continued his antics once flak began bursting
>in the general vicinity? Sakai may have been arrogant, but I doubt he was
>stupid. All flak is addressed "To Whom It May Concern." It doesn't have to
>have your name on it to give you a really bad day.

These stories always strike me as urban legend, or the WWII
equivalent. Every theater of operations has them. For the AVG Flying
Tigers, it was the crew chief at Mingaladon airport being strafed by
low-flying "Zeros" who threw a wrench at one and knocked it down.
Everyone seemed to believe this story, but it always seemed
fantastical to me.

This is not to say that tales of mad bravado can't ever be true. There
was a well-documented case in China where three Japanese pilots landed
on a Chinese base, destroyed some aircraft that hadn't come up to
challenge them, and took off again. That was in 1938 or thereabouts. I
suspect they got more cautious by 1942.

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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>Sometimes you remind me of the airport cat (whose name is Crash, by
>the way). Crash is a grouchy old orange male who looks out at us with
>slitted eyes. Sometimes he lets us pat him, more often not.
>
>One day a stranger came in and planted his hands on the counter to
>talk to George, the manager. Crash was sitting on the counter. He
>began to lick the stranger's hand. Three, four, five licks. Then
>WHOMP! He bit it.

That's not affection.

"First you baste the meat... then you eat it".


(Our cat does the exact same thing. Eagerly wants to be stroked and
loved, affectionately catches a hand and grooms it... then furiously
bites and claws it, both in that kitten-play mode that only breaks skin
by accident. She's nine years old but still likes her games)

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

Paul J. Adam