History Channel [Archive] - AviationBanter

Robert Sveinson

May 28th 08, 03:53 AM

"GC" > wrote in message
...
>A question to the group.
> Is the History channel distorting the facts?
> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
> Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab
> all)
> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
> not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

The USAAF had a different name for "carpet Bombing"
but it was the same thing. If one considers
that the weather in Europe is sufficiently bad
that if the USAAF didn't BOMB THROUGH
CLOUD (carpet bombing by another name)
they wouldn't have bombed at all.
There were many days when the USAAF
did their "precision bombing" using
H2S GEE GH and Oboe, the same as
the RAF. American bomb aimers using
these "precission blind bombing"
devices could no more pick out a factory
that should be bombed than could the RAF
bomb aimers.

If the sky was clear when the USAAF bombed,
ONLY the LEAD aircraft bombardier
aimed at the "precision target" and when he
"toggled" his bomb load, ALL the rest
of the bombardiers/toggliers dropped their
bombs. If you consider the horizontal
area covered by all the USAAF bombers
when they "toggled" their bombs one would
have to believe that the factory/military
target must have taken up a huge area
on the ground so that the USAAF could honestly
make the claim that "they only bombed
military targets"!

One should also mention that the lie
that the USAAF DIDN'T TARGET CIVILIANS
can be put to rest, because the escorting fighter
pilots were ORDERED to STRAF civilians
on their way home.

Bit of hypocracy involved one might say!

>
> They are a few of very many I can recall.

Glenn[_2_]

May 28th 08, 06:46 AM

Neil Hoskins

May 28th 08, 09:31 AM

"GC" > wrote in message
...
>A question to the group.
> Is the History channel distorting the facts?
> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
> Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab
> all)

Don't know.

> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..

Arguably. When they tried to target Sadam during the invasion of Iraq there
was some discussion of this. It turns out that Churchill was reluctant to
assassinate Hitler. Think about it: if it was legal for the USAF to attempt
to take out Saddam, would it also be legal for the Iraqi insurgents to send
a suicide bomber to London to target Blair? You have to be very careful
with the law and "OK" doesn't always equate to "legal".

> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
> not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>
Covered better than I could do by Robert. Personally, I feel very
uncomfortable when the Dams Raid is celebrated: it did very little to hamper
German industry but did kill an awful number of civilians; largely French
slave labourers IIRC. Arguably a terrorist attack.

Revisionist history should, in my view, like all forms of debate, be
encouraged. My own approach, though, is to keep my voice down when the
people who lived through it are still around. By modern standards, Harris's
"reap the whirlwind" policy was terrorist and genocidal, but then again, my
parents lived through the blitz, lost friends, saw civilian bodies being
dragged out of bombed buildings, etc, and therefore have a completely
different point of view.

®i©ardo

May 28th 08, 12:06 PM

GC wrote:
> A question to the group.
> Is the History channel distorting the facts?

Of course it isn't. It's just rewriting history to show the USA in a
very good light, and everyone else as being not so good, if they were
allies, and really bad, if they were the "enemy".

> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
> Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab all)
> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
> not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>
> They are a few of very many I can recall.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

May 28th 08, 12:36 PM

GC wrote:
>
> A question to the group.
> Is the History channel distorting the facts?
> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments
> .eg Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way
> not Rab all) The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an
> assassination..
> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
> bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>
> They are a few of very many I can recall.
>

The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing in
Rabaul during WW2.

Mitchell Holman

May 28th 08, 01:22 PM

GC > wrote in news:Xns9AAC7DCF6B15Biwwophotmailcom@
61.9.191.5:

> A question to the group.
> Is the History channel distorting the facts?
> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
> Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab
all)

Never heard that, is certainly an error

> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..

That's pretty much what it was.

> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
> not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

US raids on Berlin, RAF raids on Berlin - what's the difference?

>
> They are a few of very many I can recall.

Personally I have bigger problem with the way the market
their shows than the content. "The mystery of...", "the truth
is finally revealed", etc.

May 28th 08, 02:22 PM

Mitchell Holman > wrote in
:

> GC > wrote in news:Xns9AAC7DCF6B15Biwwophotmailcom@
> 61.9.191.5:
>
>> A question to the group.
>> Is the History channel distorting the facts?
>> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments
>> .eg Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way
>> not Rab
> all)
>
>
> Never heard that, is certainly an error
>
>
>> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
>
>
> That's pretty much what it was.
>
>
>> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
>> bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>
>
> US raids on Berlin, RAF raids on Berlin - what's the difference?
>
>
>>
>> They are a few of very many I can recall.
>
>
> Personally I have bigger problem with the way the market
> their shows than the content. "The mystery of...", "the truth
> is finally revealed", etc.
>
> Ah thats another of my gripes as well, the bigger better best approach.
My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program totally
ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision and
you could hear the disdain in the commentators tone when referring to the
RAF. This is not to denigrate the men who did the job, thanks to them I
am able to write this .......
I figured the shooting down of Yamamoto whilst obviously a payback was
done during wartime hence not an assassination but I see your point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

John Szalay

May 28th 08, 03:35 PM

GC > wrote in
:

> A question to the group.
> Is the History channel distorting the facts?
>

IMHO:
The history channel is Notorious for being inaccurate
both in facts and film...

Waldo.Pepper[_2_]

May 28th 08, 07:49 PM

I have plenty of video / film archived on mountains of discs / tape /
film even!

But I never let all that I have amassed stand in the way of reading a
book.

Watch the history channel all you want. As long as you use it
correctly - as inspiration to read all you can.

Waldo.

On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:35:09 -0500, John Szalay
> wrote:

>GC > wrote in
:
>
>> A question to the group.
>> Is the History channel distorting the facts?
>>
>
>IMHO:
> The history channel is Notorious for being inaccurate
>both in facts and film...

JR[_2_]

May 28th 08, 10:34 PM

On Wed, 28 May 2008 02:22:01 GMT, GC > wrote:

>A question to the group.
>Is the History channel distorting the facts?
>I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
>Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab all)
>The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
>B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
>not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>
>They are a few of very many I can recall.

I'm the channel is getting more and more "popular american", ie,
showing more and more only american-based fights, and those shown only
as goodie-goodie as possible...

Bob Harrington

May 28th 08, 11:38 PM

John Szalay > wrote in
2:

> GC > wrote in
> :
>
>> A question to the group.
>> Is the History channel distorting the facts?
>>
>
> IMHO:
> The history channel is Notorious for being inaccurate
> both in facts and film...

Y-y-you mean... there ~isn't~ a black hole in the Bermuda Triangle?!?

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=276744

;^}

Robert Sveinson

May 29th 08, 12:30 AM

"®i©ardo" > wrote in message
...
> GC wrote:
>> A question to the group. Is the History channel distorting the facts?
>
> Of course it isn't. It's just rewriting history to show the USA in a very
> good light,

Robin Neillands has a paragraph in one of his books
that states that all non-American participants
in WW II have been and are being airbrushed
out of history.

How about this bit of history about Normandy?

"The stategy developed, and plan prepared for Operation Overlord by the
Allied Ground Force Commander, the British General Sir Bernard Law
Montgomery, was *flawed* in concept and failed to work in practice.
Eventually, frustrated by the failure of Montgomery's strategy and the
caution
and timidity of the British and Canadian troops, American forces under
Generals Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton seized the initiative, revised
the plan, broke out in the West, drove back the German forces in
disarray, to win the Normandy battle-and the war.
All this they would have done much sooner if the British
and Canadians had not sat in their trenches drinking tea-American
historians never fail to mention tea-while the US forces did all the
fighting.
The outcome of the Normandy battle-so goes the allegation-would
have been far more conclusive if the aforesaid British and Canadians had not
been "timid" and "cautious" and "slow" at Falaise, thereby allowing
the German Army to escape across the Seine."

Some times referred to as "airbrushing" all non-american
fighting forces during WW II out of the scene!

Robert Sveinson

May 29th 08, 01:02 AM

"Neil Hoskins" > wrote in message
...

>
>> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
>> not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>>
> Covered better than I could do by Robert. Personally, I feel very
> uncomfortable when the Dams Raid is celebrated: it did very little to
> hamper German industry

German industry was seriously affected. The quick recovery
was because of the resources used to repair the damage.
The Todt Organisation was used inside Germany for the
first time, leaving the defences on the French coast
incomplete.
Agricultural land was scrubbed of all top soil for
miles below the dams and never again during
WW II did they produce any food for the Reich.

> but did kill an awful number of civilians; largely French slave labourers
> IIRC. Arguably a terrorist attack.

John Sweetman in his book The Dambusters Raid states that
approximaely 1,200 civilians were killed, most of them Russian
slaves, as well as citizens of occupied Europe.

The dams were repaired rather more quickly than the
British expected, made the more easy because
the RAF did not attempt to bomb the dams under repair.
Bomber Command, in spite of claims to the contrary,
was able to hit small targets from high altitude, and could
have bombed the dams from altitude whenever they wished.
Maintenance of aim was lost.

>
> Revisionist history should, in my view, like all forms of debate, be
> encouraged. My own approach, though, is to keep my voice down when the
> people who lived through it are still around. By modern standards,
> Harris's "reap the whirlwind" policy

The policy that governed the targetting of Bomber Commands raids
was formulated and dispatched to Bomber Command before Harris
took up his post at BC. He had NO input into that policy.

> was terrorist and genocidal,

Some author asked in his book about the air war against Germany
asked the question whether there is any difference between attacking
and killing men and women in Wermacht uniforms using the war
material and men and women in I.G.Farben/Ford/Opel uniforms, turning out the
war material.

IIRC his answer was NO!

> but then again, my parents lived through the blitz, lost friends, saw
> civilian bodies being dragged out of bombed buildings, etc, and therefore
> have a completely different point of view.
>

Robert Sveinson

May 29th 08, 01:04 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> GC wrote:
>>
>> A question to the group.
>> Is the History channel distorting the facts?
>> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments
>> .eg Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way
>> not Rab all) The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an
>> assassination..
>> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
>> bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>>
>> They are a few of very many I can recall.
>>
>
> The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing in
> Rabaul during WW2.

Also incorrect.
B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

>
>
>

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

May 29th 08, 01:12 AM

Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>
>> The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing
>> in Rabaul during WW2.
>
> Also incorrect.
> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
> bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>

No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s delivered
their bombs very accurately for that period.

Robert Sveinson

May 29th 08, 01:21 AM

"GC" > wrote in message
...

> My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program totally
> ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision

Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
the consumers of these so called facts who want their
fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
reputable historians who are at fault as well.

There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
heroic episode of the anti submarine war.

The final raid on the Tirpitz was made by 2 squadrons
of Lancasters each carrying 1 (one) bomb each of 12,000 lbs.
and scored 3 hits, causing the Tirpitz to roll over.
Rather a precision attack, one bomb each per
Lancaster rather than the SHOT GUN method using
many smaller bombs.

> I figured the shooting down of Yamamoto whilst obviously a payback was
> done during wartime hence not an assassination but I see your point.

As Yamamoto wore the military uniform of his country
I believe that he was a legitimate target.

There were some incomplete plans by the British
to assasinate Hitler, although nothing in the end was
done. These same British planners were not sad
at not being able to kill Hitler, as they believed
that Hitler alive suited their purposes more
than Hitler dead.
And he wore a military uniform as supreme commander
of the German armed forces.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Robert Sveinson

May 29th 08, 03:24 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>>
>>> The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing
>>> in Rabaul during WW2.
>>
>> Also incorrect.
>> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
>> bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>>
>
> No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s
> delivered their bombs very accurately for that period.

How accurately was that??
All the B-17s "toggle" their loads at the same
time and only ONE bombardier doing the aiming!
Bombs scattered over an area on the ground
equal to the area of the spread of the aircraft
in the air. Of course one can claim that at least one
or two of the hundreds of bombs dropped
hit the target so there is the proof of
"very accurately"!

The USAAF NEVER hit a target like the Tirptz,
Antheor Viaduct, various Gestapo headquartes,
Amiens prison, Saumur tunnel.

The Tirpitz, the Antheor Viaduct, Saumur Tunnel
were hit using ONE bomb
per aircraft, as opposed to the USAAF shotgun
method of bombing..

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#eaocar

The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view that
specific industries and services were the most promising targets in the
enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to be hit
accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word needs to be said
on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the war, the U. S. Army Air
Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development
and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in
bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin
point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach
such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many
limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke
screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated
defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver;
antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the
attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations
imposed on combat crew training after the war began.

It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation
attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. **Bombing patterns
resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets.**
The rest spilled over

on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy ranged
from poor to excellent.** When visual conditions were favorable and flak
defenses were not intense, bombing results were at their best.
Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations over Germany had to
be conducted under weather and battle conditions that restricted bombing
technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly. Conventionally the air forces
designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around
the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey
studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at
precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was
reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts for the
reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages of bombs
delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger tonnage was carried
than hit German installations.

®i©ardo

May 29th 08, 10:01 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>> The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing
>>> in Rabaul during WW2.
>> Also incorrect.
>> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
>> bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>>
>
> No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s delivered
> their bombs very accurately for that period.
>
>
But when it came to the crunch?

Don't forget that the initial Dresden raid was supposed to have been
flown by the Americans but they cried off because of bad weather, so the
RAF stepped into the gap and played the lead role. American "precision"
bombing in that same campaign also saw the Americans bomb Prague by
mistake, although I don't know how accurately they did that. It
certainly upset the Russians, who were in residence by that time!

Essentially the Norden bomb sight worked only in clear skies - not an
everyday thing in continental Europe, unlike California where it was
developed.

Also, to quote:

"The trouble was, precision was another Norden myth. From 20,000 feet,
2/3 of American bombs fell 1/5 of a mile or more from their targets --
even with the best of bombsights.

Meanwhile, the bombsight itself had been reclassified from secret to
merely confidential two years before Lang's infamy. In 1942 it was
downgraded to restricted, the lowest classification.

By then we were switching to the English tactic of saturation bombing. A
bomber armada flew over a city. The lead plane signaled the drop and
they pulverized everything below -- hoping to catch occasional military
targets in the general carnage."

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1004.htm
--
Moving things in still pictures!

arjay

May 29th 08, 10:51 AM

"Robert Sveinson" > wrote in message
...
> "GC" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program totally
>> ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision
>
> Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
> out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
> the consumers of these so called facts who want their
> fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
> reputable historians who are at fault as well.
>
> There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
> that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
> decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
> sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
> however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
> in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
> heroic episode of the anti submarine war.
>
> The final raid on the Tirpitz was made by 2 squadrons
> of Lancasters each carrying 1 (one) bomb each of 12,000 lbs.
> and scored 3 hits, causing the Tirpitz to roll over.
> Rather a precision attack, one bomb each per
> Lancaster rather than the SHOT GUN method using
> many smaller bombs.
>
>> I figured the shooting down of Yamamoto whilst obviously a payback was
>> done during wartime hence not an assassination but I see your point.
>
> As Yamamoto wore the military uniform of his country
> I believe that he was a legitimate target.
>
> There were some incomplete plans by the British
> to assasinate Hitler, although nothing in the end was
> done. These same British planners were not sad
> at not being able to kill Hitler, as they believed
> that Hitler alive suited their purposes more
> than Hitler dead.
> And he wore a military uniform as supreme commander
> of the German armed forces.

For what this is worth ...
The man wore a military uniform only between 1914 and 1918 when he served
with the16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment.
During WW 2 his uniform marked him as leader of the NSDAP. That is, it was
a party uniform. Contemporary photographs show Goebbels wearing much the
same uniform at many rallies.
Hitler's claim to command the German armed forces rested on his accepted
position as Leader of the whole German nation.
Churchill, on the other hand, wore military uniforms rather often. But (as
a lurker's passing acknowledgment that this is an aviation newsgroup) I
can't remember pics of him wearing an R.A.F. uniform showing a rank higher
than Air Commodore.

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

May 29th 08, 11:29 AM

Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>
>> No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s
>> delivered their bombs very accurately for that period.
>>
>
> How accurately was that??
> All the B-17s "toggle" their loads at the same
> time and only ONE bombardier doing the aiming!
> Bombs scattered over an area on the ground
> equal to the area of the spread of the aircraft
> in the air. Of course one can claim that at least one
> or two of the hundreds of bombs dropped
> hit the target so there is the proof of
> "very accurately"!
>

That's not how it was done. They did not release bombs simultaneously, each
bomber in formation released upon seeing the preceding bomber release its
bombs.

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

May 29th 08, 12:15 PM

®i©ardo wrote:
>>
>> No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s
>> delivered their bombs very accurately for that period.
>>
>>
> But when it came to the crunch?
>
> Don't forget that the initial Dresden raid was supposed to have been
> flown by the Americans but they cried off because of bad weather, so
> the RAF stepped into the gap and played the lead role. American
> "precision" bombing in that same campaign also saw the Americans bomb
> Prague by mistake, although I don't know how accurately they did
> that. It certainly upset the Russians, who were in residence by that
> time!
> Essentially the Norden bomb sight worked only in clear skies - not an
> everyday thing in continental Europe, unlike California where it was
> developed.
>

That's what I said.

>
> Also, to quote:
>
> "The trouble was, precision was another Norden myth. From 20,000 feet,
> 2/3 of American bombs fell 1/5 of a mile or more from their targets --
> even with the best of bombsights.
>

Which was very good compared to RAF night bombing accuracy.

Mitchell Holman

May 29th 08, 12:34 PM

"Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
@newsfe13.lga:

>
> "GC" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>
>> My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program
totally
>> ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision
>
> Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
> out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
> the consumers of these so called facts who want their
> fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
> reputable historians who are at fault as well.
>
> There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
> that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
> decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
> sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
> however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
> in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
> heroic episode of the anti submarine war.

For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
flight.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/

>
> The final raid on the Tirpitz was made by 2 squadrons
> of Lancasters each carrying 1 (one) bomb each of 12,000 lbs.
> and scored 3 hits, causing the Tirpitz to roll over.
> Rather a precision attack, one bomb each per
> Lancaster rather than the SHOT GUN method using
> many smaller bombs.
>
>
>
>> I figured the shooting down of Yamamoto whilst obviously a payback was
>> done during wartime hence not an assassination but I see your point.
>
> As Yamamoto wore the military uniform of his country
> I believe that he was a legitimate target.
>
> There were some incomplete plans by the British
> to assasinate Hitler, although nothing in the end was
> done. These same British planners were not sad
> at not being able to kill Hitler, as they believed
> that Hitler alive suited their purposes more
> than Hitler dead.
> And he wore a military uniform as supreme commander
> of the German armed forces.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

Neil Hoskins

May 29th 08, 04:41 PM

"Bobby Galvez" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Neil Hoskins wrote:
>
>> > The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
>>
>> Arguably. When they tried to target Sadam during the invasion of Iraq
>> there
>> was some discussion of this. It turns out that Churchill was reluctant
>> to
>> assassinate Hitler. Think about it: if it was legal for the USAF to
>> attempt
>> to take out Saddam, would it also be legal for the Iraqi insurgents to
>> send
>> a suicide bomber to London to target Blair? You have to be very careful
>> with the law and "OK" doesn't always equate to "legal".
>
> The whole point to "insurgents" is that they operate against governments.
> Nothing they do is "legal."
>
> BobbyG

Oh, I see. So the French Resistance were "illegal"? The Yugoslav
partisans? What about the soldiers of the American Revolutionary War? And,
since Hamas were democratically elected, presumeably anybody who opposes
them is an illegal insurgent? I see, that's all so simple, thanks for
explaining. Presumeably you're one of Dubya's top advisors?

Neil Hoskins

May 29th 08, 05:00 PM

"Robert Sveinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "®i©ardo" > wrote in message
> ...
>> GC wrote:
>>> A question to the group. Is the History channel distorting the facts?
>>
>> Of course it isn't. It's just rewriting history to show the USA in a very
>> good light,
>
> Robin Neillands has a paragraph in one of his books
> that states that all non-American participants
> in WW II have been and are being airbrushed
> out of history.
>
> How about this bit of history about Normandy?
>
> "The stategy developed, and plan prepared for Operation Overlord by the
> Allied Ground Force Commander, the British General Sir Bernard Law
> Montgomery, was *flawed* in concept and failed to work in practice.
> Eventually, frustrated by the failure of Montgomery's strategy and the
> caution
> and timidity of the British and Canadian troops, American forces under
> Generals Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton seized the initiative, revised
> the plan, broke out in the West, drove back the German forces in
> disarray, to win the Normandy battle-and the war.
> All this they would have done much sooner if the British
> and Canadians had not sat in their trenches drinking tea-American
> historians never fail to mention tea-while the US forces did all the
> fighting.
> The outcome of the Normandy battle-so goes the allegation-would
> have been far more conclusive if the aforesaid British and Canadians had
> not
> been "timid" and "cautious" and "slow" at Falaise, thereby allowing
> the German Army to escape across the Seine."
>

Now that really is scandalously insulting to the memory of the men who
fought and died in Operation Goodwood.

®i©ardo

May 29th 08, 08:12 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>> No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s
>>> delivered their bombs very accurately for that period.
>>>
>>>
>> But when it came to the crunch?
>>
>> Don't forget that the initial Dresden raid was supposed to have been
>> flown by the Americans but they cried off because of bad weather, so
>> the RAF stepped into the gap and played the lead role. American
>> "precision" bombing in that same campaign also saw the Americans bomb
>> Prague by mistake, although I don't know how accurately they did
>> that. It certainly upset the Russians, who were in residence by that
>> time!
>> Essentially the Norden bomb sight worked only in clear skies - not an
>> everyday thing in continental Europe, unlike California where it was
>> developed.
>>
>
> That's what I said.
>
>
>> Also, to quote:
>>
>> "The trouble was, precision was another Norden myth. From 20,000 feet,
>> 2/3 of American bombs fell 1/5 of a mile or more from their targets --
>> even with the best of bombsights.
>>
>
> Which was very good compared to RAF night bombing accuracy.
>
>

Not at all. If their bomb sights were useless because of local weather
conditions their accuracy was as good/bad as that of the RAF, as the
USAAF's H2X radar was somewhat imprecise.

Over Japan the USAAF just abandoned "precision" daylight bombing altogether.

http://www.tamblyn.net/academic_presentations/colgate_assignment.htm

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

May 29th 08, 11:39 PM

®i©ardo wrote:
>
> Not at all. If their bomb sights were useless because of local weather
> conditions their accuracy was as good/bad as that of the RAF, as the
> USAAF's H2X radar was somewhat imprecise.
>

Right. When the weather was poor USAAF bombing accuracy was similar to the
RAF, when the weather was good it was significantly better than the RAF.

Robert Sveinson

May 30th 08, 12:05 AM

Robert Sveinson

May 30th 08, 12:08 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>>
>>> No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s
>>> delivered their bombs very accurately for that period.
>>>
>>
>> How accurately was that??
>> All the B-17s "toggle" their loads at the same
>> time and only ONE bombardier doing the aiming!
>> Bombs scattered over an area on the ground
>> equal to the area of the spread of the aircraft
>> in the air. Of course one can claim that at least one
>> or two of the hundreds of bombs dropped
>> hit the target so there is the proof of
>> "very accurately"!
>>
>
> That's not how it was done. They did not release bombs simultaneously,
> each bomber in formation released upon seeing the preceding bomber release
> its bombs.

Well since you didn't read the following the
last time, here it is again.

The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view that
specific industries and services were the most promising targets in the
enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to be hit
accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word needs to be said
on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the war, the U. S. Army Air
Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development
and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in
bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin
point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach
such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many
limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke
screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated
defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver;
antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the
attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations
imposed on combat crew training after the war began.

It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation
attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. Bombing patterns
resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets.
The rest spilled over

on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy ranged
from poor to excellent. When visual conditions were favorable and flak
defenses were not intense, bombing results were at their best.
Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations over Germany had to
be conducted under weather and battle conditions that restricted bombing
technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly. Conventionally the air forces
designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around
the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey
studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at
precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was
reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts for the
reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages of bombs
delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger tonnage was carried
than hit German installations.

>
>

Robert Sveinson

May 30th 08, 12:16 AM

"®i©ardo" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>>> The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing
>>>> in Rabaul during WW2.
>>> Also incorrect.
>>> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
>>> bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>>>
>>
>> No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s
>> delivered their bombs very accurately for that period.
> But when it came to the crunch?
>
> Don't forget that the initial Dresden raid was supposed to have been flown
> by the Americans but they cried off because of bad weather, so the RAF
> stepped into the gap and played the lead role. American "precision"
> bombing in that same campaign also saw the Americans bomb Prague by
> mistake, although I don't know how accurately they did that.

Isn't their claim that they didn't damage Prague at all
because they spent all their acciracy
on the rails in Dresden.

They like to ignore their several ACCURATE bombing
of SEVERAL Swiss cities.

> It certainly upset the Russians, who were in residence by that time!
>
> Essentially the Norden bomb sight worked only in clear skies - not an
> everyday thing in continental Europe, unlike California where it was
> developed.
>
> Also, to quote:
>
> "The trouble was, precision was another Norden myth. From 20,000 feet, 2/3
> of American bombs fell 1/5 of a mile or more from their targets --
> even with the best of bombsights.
>
> Meanwhile, the bombsight itself had been reclassified from secret to
> merely confidential two years before Lang's infamy. In 1942 it was
> downgraded to restricted, the lowest classification.
>
> By then we were switching to the English tactic of saturation bombing. A
> bomber armada flew over a city. The lead plane signaled the drop and they
> pulverized everything below -- hoping to catch occasional military targets
> in the general carnage."
>
> http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1004.htm
> --
> Moving things in still pictures!

Robert Sveinson

May 30th 08, 12:20 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>
>>> No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s
>>> delivered their bombs very accurately for that period.
>>>
>>>
>> But when it came to the crunch?
>>
>> Don't forget that the initial Dresden raid was supposed to have been
>> flown by the Americans but they cried off because of bad weather, so
>> the RAF stepped into the gap and played the lead role. American
>> "precision" bombing in that same campaign also saw the Americans bomb
>> Prague by mistake, although I don't know how accurately they did
>> that. It certainly upset the Russians, who were in residence by that
>> time!
>> Essentially the Norden bomb sight worked only in clear skies - not an
>> everyday thing in continental Europe, unlike California where it was
>> developed.
>>
>
> That's what I said.

But did you also say that there were MORE days of bad weather,
overcast in the European theatre than there were days
of good/clear weather? No I don't see thgat anywhere.

How about the bombing of Prague when the USAAF was AIMING at
Dresden.

How about the bombing of several Swiss cities
when AIMING at targets (supposedly) in Germany?

>
>
>>
>> Also, to quote:
>>
>> "The trouble was, precision was another Norden myth. From 20,000 feet,
>> 2/3 of American bombs fell 1/5 of a mile or more from their targets --
>> even with the best of bombsights.
>>
>
> Which was very good compared to RAF night bombing accuracy.
>

Robert Sveinson

May 30th 08, 12:24 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>
>>> No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s
>>> delivered their bombs very accurately for that period.
>>>
>>>
>> But when it came to the crunch?
>>
>> Don't forget that the initial Dresden raid was supposed to have been
>> flown by the Americans but they cried off because of bad weather, so
>> the RAF stepped into the gap and played the lead role. American
>> "precision" bombing in that same campaign also saw the Americans bomb
>> Prague by mistake, although I don't know how accurately they did
>> that. It certainly upset the Russians, who were in residence by that
>> time!
>> Essentially the Norden bomb sight worked only in clear skies - not an
>> everyday thing in continental Europe, unlike California where it was
>> developed.
>>
>
> That's what I said.
>
>
>>
>> Also, to quote:
>>
>> "The trouble was, precision was another Norden myth. From 20,000 feet,
>> 2/3 of American bombs fell 1/5 of a mile or more from their targets --
>> even with the best of bombsights.
>>
>
> Which was very good compared to RAF night bombing accuracy.

RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
the USAAF if the target was vivible.

Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?

No! I have never heard of any!

>
>

Robert Sveinson

May 30th 08, 12:45 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>
>> Not at all. If their bomb sights were useless because of local weather
>> conditions their accuracy was as good/bad as that of the RAF, as the
>> USAAF's H2X radar was somewhat imprecise.
>>
>
> Right. When the weather was poor USAAF bombing accuracy was similar to
> the RAF, when the weather was good it was significantly better than the
> RAF.

You really haven't read the information below have you?

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#eaocar

The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view that
specific industries and services were the most promising targets in the
enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to be hit
accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word needs to be said
on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the war, the U. S. Army Air
Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development
and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in
bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin
point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach
such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many
limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke
screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated
defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver;
antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the
attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations
imposed on combat crew training after the war began.

It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation
attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. **Bombing patterns
resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets.**
The rest spilled over

on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy ranged
from poor to excellent.** When visual conditions were favorable and flak
defenses were not intense, bombing results were at their best.
Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations over Germany had to
be conducted under weather and battle conditions that restricted bombing
technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly. Conventionally the air forces
designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around
the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey
studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at
precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was
reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts for the
reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages of bombs
delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger tonnage was carried
than hit German installations.

>
>

Robert Sveinson

May 30th 08, 12:56 AM

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

May 30th 08, 01:09 AM

Robert Sveinson wrote:
>
> How about the bombing of Prague when the USAAF was AIMING at
> Dresden.
>
> How about the bombing of several Swiss cities
> when AIMING at targets (supposedly) in Germany?
>

You've confused target identification/navigation with bombing accuracy.

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

May 30th 08, 01:12 AM

Robert Sveinson wrote:
>
> RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
> the USAAF if the target was vivible.
>
> Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
> the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
> the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
> the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?
>

Yes.

>
> No! I have never heard of any!
>

That you haven't heard of any does not mean it didn't occur, it means you're
ignorant.

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

May 30th 08, 01:13 AM

Robert Sveinson wrote:
>
> You really haven't read the information below have you?
>

Yes, I have. Do you know who was on the survey?

>
> The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
> http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#eaocar
>
> The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view
> that specific industries and services were the most promising targets
> in the enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to
> be hit accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word
> needs to be said on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the
> war, the U. S. Army Air Forces had advanced bombing techniques to
> their highest level of development and had trained a limited number
> of crews to a high degree of precision in bombing under target range
> conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin point" and "pickle
> barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach such
> standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe.
> Many limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog,
> smoke screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which
> necessitated defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom
> of maneuver; antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time
> exposure of the attacking force in order to keep losses down; and
> finally, time limitations imposed on combat crew training after the
> war began.
> It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and
> formation attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure.
> **Bombing patterns resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on
> small precision targets.** The rest spilled over
>
>
>
>
> on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy
> ranged from poor to excellent.** When visual conditions were
> favorable and flak defenses were not intense, bombing results were at
> their best. Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations
> over Germany had to be conducted under weather and battle conditions
> that restricted bombing technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly.
> Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a
> circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of
> attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show
> that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision
> targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was
> reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts for
> the reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages
> of bombs delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger
> tonnage was carried than hit German installations.

arjay

May 30th 08, 01:48 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>
>> RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
>> the USAAF if the target was vivible.
>>
>> Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
>> the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
>> the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
>> the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?
>
> Yes.
>>
>> No! I have never heard of any!
>
> That you haven't heard of any does not mean it didn't occur, it means
> you're ignorant.

Then -- with respect -- it seems your place to provide enlightenment.
If Robert Sveinson is ignorant because he has not heard of "any" USAAF
achievements of precision strikes, one bomb per aircraft, in the ETO then
this implies that there were several such strikes. And your calling him
"ignorant" suggests you know of at least two of them.
Where, and when did they occur?

Robert Sveinson

May 30th 08, 02:10 AM

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
> @newsfe13.lga:
>
>>
>> "GC" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program
> totally
>>> ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision
>>
>> Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
>> out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
>> the consumers of these so called facts who want their
>> fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
>> reputable historians who are at fault as well.
>>
>> There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
>> that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
>> decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
>> sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
>> however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
>> in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
>> heroic episode of the anti submarine war.
>
>
> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
> flight.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/

I am surprised that you could find that one
what with the extensive air brushing out of any
British accomplishments.
I assume that you are stating that the British
did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
Air brush away!

Mitchell Holman

May 30th 08, 04:14 AM

"Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:euI%j.98$t07.25
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "GC" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program
>> totally
>>>> ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision
>>>
>>> Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
>>> out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
>>> the consumers of these so called facts who want their
>>> fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
>>> reputable historians who are at fault as well.
>>>
>>> There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
>>> that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
>>> decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
>>> sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
>>> however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
>>> in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
>>> heroic episode of the anti submarine war.
>>
>>
>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>> flight.
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/
>
> I am surprised that you could find that one
> what with the extensive air brushing out of any
> British accomplishments.
> I assume that you are stating that the British
> did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
> than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
> Air brush away!

No, just that British complaints about the inaccuracy
of "U-571" need to take into account their country's own
loose treatment of history.

And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
action that in fact Americans accomplished.........

Eric

May 30th 08, 05:34 AM

Neil...

Its all perception, in any war...

If resistance fighters were on your side and "win" they are heroes. If
those same resistance fighters were on the other side they were terrorists.

If resistance fighters were on the other side and "lose" they were
terrorists. If those same resistance fighters were on your side they were
heroes/martyrs..

"Neil Hoskins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bobby Galvez" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Neil Hoskins wrote:
>>
>>> > The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
>>>
>>> Arguably. When they tried to target Sadam during the invasion of Iraq
>>> there
>>> was some discussion of this. It turns out that Churchill was reluctant
>>> to
>>> assassinate Hitler. Think about it: if it was legal for the USAF to
>>> attempt
>>> to take out Saddam, would it also be legal for the Iraqi insurgents to
>>> send
>>> a suicide bomber to London to target Blair? You have to be very careful
>>> with the law and "OK" doesn't always equate to "legal".
>>
>> The whole point to "insurgents" is that they operate against governments.
>> Nothing they do is "legal."
>>
>> BobbyG
>
> Oh, I see. So the French Resistance were "illegal"? The Yugoslav
> partisans? What about the soldiers of the American Revolutionary War?
> And, since Hamas were democratically elected, presumeably anybody who
> opposes them is an illegal insurgent? I see, that's all so simple, thanks
> for explaining. Presumeably you're one of Dubya's top advisors?
>
>
>
>

®i©ardo

May 30th 08, 10:03 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>> How about the bombing of Prague when the USAAF was AIMING at
>> Dresden.
>>
>> How about the bombing of several Swiss cities
>> when AIMING at targets (supposedly) in Germany?
>>
>
> You've confused target identification/navigation with bombing accuracy.
>
>

So any target will do, right one or wrong one, as long as it is bombed
"accurately"?

"Precision" is an integral part of the equation, in that it implies that
the bomber crews knew where they were going and, having got there, knew
what they had to do.

That is NOT the situation with the bombing of Prague, Schaffhausen,
Zurich and Basel.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

®i©ardo

May 30th 08, 10:05 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>> RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
>> the USAAF if the target was vivible.
>>
>> Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
>> the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
>> the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
>> the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> No! I have never heard of any!
>>
>
> That you haven't heard of any does not mean it didn't occur, it means you're
> ignorant.
>
>
Why not give us a list of those targets.
--
Moving things in still pictures!

®i©ardo

May 30th 08, 10:21 AM

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:euI%j.98$t07.25
> @newsfe22.lga:
>
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
>>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>>
>>>> "GC" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program
>>> totally
>>>>> ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision
>>>> Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
>>>> out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
>>>> the consumers of these so called facts who want their
>>>> fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
>>>> reputable historians who are at fault as well.
>>>>
>>>> There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
>>>> that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
>>>> decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
>>>> sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
>>>> however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
>>>> in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
>>>> heroic episode of the anti submarine war.
>>>
>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>> flight.
>>>
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/
>> I am surprised that you could find that one
>> what with the extensive air brushing out of any
>> British accomplishments.
>> I assume that you are stating that the British
>> did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
>> than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
>> Air brush away!
>
>
> No, just that British complaints about the inaccuracy
> of "U-571" need to take into account their country's own
> loose treatment of history.
>
> And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
> Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
> action that in fact Americans accomplished.........
>

I noticed this review of U-571:

"Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre, Mostow's
(BREAKDOWN) submarine thriller pays earnest homage to the pluck and
determination of ordinary people forced to overcome extraordinary odds.
The mostly young and inexperienced crew of the S-33 is deployed on a top
secret, high-priority mission to intercept a disabled German u-boat (the
titular U-571) and capture the ship's encryption system--the Enigma--in
order to crack the Nazi's communication codes and hasten an allied
victory in the North Atlantic. Racing against a German rescue effort,
the S-33 stages a daring raid on the U-571. But after capturing the
U-571, the Americans find themselves its prisoner as they must pilot the
leaky, disabled vessel through hostile enemy waters. McConaughey (EDTV,
DAZED AND CONFUSED) leads a strong cast (Keitel - HOLY SMOKE, Paxton - A
SIMPLE PLAN) in this fast-paced, tense, submarine adventure."

Presumably "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre"
relates to rebranding all WW2 coups and victories as being down to the USA?

The big US propaganda machine was even at work in WWW2, possibly
starting with "Objective, Burma", to belittle the endeavours of their
allies, or to ignore them completely.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Mitchell Holman

May 30th 08, 12:47 PM

®i©ardo > wrote in news:mGP%j.75386$zc6.60120
@newsfe29.ams2:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:euI%j.98$t07.25
>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
>>>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>>>
>>>>> "GC" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program
>>>> totally
>>>>>> ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision
>>>>> Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
>>>>> out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
>>>>> the consumers of these so called facts who want their
>>>>> fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
>>>>> reputable historians who are at fault as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
>>>>> that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
>>>>> decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
>>>>> sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
>>>>> however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
>>>>> in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
>>>>> heroic episode of the anti submarine war.
>>>>
>>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>>> flight.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/
>>> I am surprised that you could find that one
>>> what with the extensive air brushing out of any
>>> British accomplishments.
>>> I assume that you are stating that the British
>>> did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
>>> than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
>>> Air brush away!
>>
>>
>> No, just that British complaints about the inaccuracy
>> of "U-571" need to take into account their country's own
>> loose treatment of history.
>>
>> And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
>> Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
>> action that in fact Americans accomplished.........
>>
>
> I noticed this review of U-571:
>
> "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre, Mostow's
> (BREAKDOWN) submarine thriller pays earnest homage to the pluck and
> determination of ordinary people forced to overcome extraordinary odds.
> The mostly young and inexperienced crew of the S-33 is deployed on a top
> secret, high-priority mission to intercept a disabled German u-boat (the
> titular U-571) and capture the ship's encryption system--the Enigma--in
> order to crack the Nazi's communication codes and hasten an allied
> victory in the North Atlantic. Racing against a German rescue effort,
> the S-33 stages a daring raid on the U-571. But after capturing the
> U-571, the Americans find themselves its prisoner as they must pilot the
> leaky, disabled vessel through hostile enemy waters. McConaughey (EDTV,
> DAZED AND CONFUSED) leads a strong cast (Keitel - HOLY SMOKE, Paxton - A
> SIMPLE PLAN) in this fast-paced, tense, submarine adventure."
>
> Presumably "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre"
> relates to rebranding all WW2 coups and victories as being down to the
USA?
>
> The big US propaganda machine was even at work in WWW2, possibly
> starting with "Objective, Burma", to belittle the endeavours of their
> allies, or to ignore them completely.
>

Was there a likewise "big British propoganda machine" to credit
their country with feats done by Americans, as in The Sound Barrier
and Bridge Over River Kwai?

Movies have always taking liberty with reality, and military
movies are no exception. Much ado about nothing if you ask me.

®i©ardo

May 30th 08, 01:38 PM

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> ®i©ardo > wrote in news:mGP%j.75386$zc6.60120
> @newsfe29.ams2:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:euI%j.98$t07.25
>>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>>
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
>>>>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "GC" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program
>>>>> totally
>>>>>>> ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision
>>>>>> Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
>>>>>> out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
>>>>>> the consumers of these so called facts who want their
>>>>>> fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
>>>>>> reputable historians who are at fault as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
>>>>>> that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
>>>>>> decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
>>>>>> sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
>>>>>> however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
>>>>>> in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
>>>>>> heroic episode of the anti submarine war.
>>>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>>>> flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/
>>>> I am surprised that you could find that one
>>>> what with the extensive air brushing out of any
>>>> British accomplishments.
>>>> I assume that you are stating that the British
>>>> did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
>>>> than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
>>>> Air brush away!
>>>
>>> No, just that British complaints about the inaccuracy
>>> of "U-571" need to take into account their country's own
>>> loose treatment of history.
>>>
>>> And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
>>> Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
>>> action that in fact Americans accomplished.........
>>>
>> I noticed this review of U-571:
>>
>> "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre, Mostow's
>> (BREAKDOWN) submarine thriller pays earnest homage to the pluck and
>> determination of ordinary people forced to overcome extraordinary odds.
>> The mostly young and inexperienced crew of the S-33 is deployed on a top
>> secret, high-priority mission to intercept a disabled German u-boat (the
>> titular U-571) and capture the ship's encryption system--the Enigma--in
>> order to crack the Nazi's communication codes and hasten an allied
>> victory in the North Atlantic. Racing against a German rescue effort,
>> the S-33 stages a daring raid on the U-571. But after capturing the
>> U-571, the Americans find themselves its prisoner as they must pilot the
>> leaky, disabled vessel through hostile enemy waters. McConaughey (EDTV,
>> DAZED AND CONFUSED) leads a strong cast (Keitel - HOLY SMOKE, Paxton - A
>> SIMPLE PLAN) in this fast-paced, tense, submarine adventure."
>>
>> Presumably "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre"
>> relates to rebranding all WW2 coups and victories as being down to the
> USA?
>> The big US propaganda machine was even at work in WWW2, possibly
>> starting with "Objective, Burma", to belittle the endeavours of their
>> allies, or to ignore them completely.
>>
>
>
> Was there a likewise "big British propoganda machine" to credit
> their country with feats done by Americans, as in The Sound Barrier
> and Bridge Over River Kwai?
>
You tell me. Don't forget this thread started about the extreme bias of
The History Channel and its rewriting of history in America's favour.

> Movies have always taking liberty with reality, and military
> movies are no exception. Much ado about nothing if you ask me.
>
>

--
Moving things in still pictures!

arjay

May 30th 08, 02:47 PM

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> ®i©ardo > wrote in news:mGP%j.75386$zc6.60120
> @newsfe29.ams2:
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:euI%j.98$t07.25
>>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
>>>>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>>>>> "GC" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...

<small snip>

>>>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>>>> flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/
>>>> I am surprised that you could find that one
>>>> what with the extensive air brushing out of any
>>>> British accomplishments.
>>>> I assume that you are stating that the British
>>>> did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
>>>> than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
>>>> Air brush away!
>>>
>>> No, just that British complaints about the inaccuracy
>>> of "U-571" need to take into account their country's own
>>> loose treatment of history.
>>>
>>> And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
>>> Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
>>> action that in fact Americans accomplished.........
>>
>> I noticed this review of U-571:
>>
>> "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre, Mostow's
>> (BREAKDOWN) submarine thriller pays earnest homage to the pluck and
>> determination of ordinary people forced to overcome extraordinary odds.
>> The mostly young and inexperienced crew of the S-33 is deployed on a top
>> secret, high-priority mission to intercept a disabled German u-boat (the
>> titular U-571) and capture the ship's encryption system--the Enigma--in
>> order to crack the Nazi's communication codes and hasten an allied
>> victory in the North Atlantic. Racing against a German rescue effort,
>> the S-33 stages a daring raid on the U-571. But after capturing the
>> U-571, the Americans find themselves its prisoner as they must pilot the
>> leaky, disabled vessel through hostile enemy waters. McConaughey (EDTV,
>> DAZED AND CONFUSED) leads a strong cast (Keitel - HOLY SMOKE, Paxton - A
>> SIMPLE PLAN) in this fast-paced, tense, submarine adventure."
>>
>> Presumably "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre"
>> relates to rebranding all WW2 coups and victories as being down to the
> USA?
>>
>> The big US propaganda machine was even at work in WWW2, possibly
>> starting with "Objective, Burma", to belittle the endeavours of their
>> allies, or to ignore them completely.
>
> Was there a likewise "big British propoganda machine" to credit
> their country with feats done by Americans, as in The Sound Barrier
> and Bridge Over River Kwai?

Sir -- as a land-bound lurker whose familiarity is mostly with things army,
and as an admirer of your contributions here and elsewhere, I raise a timid
hand in polite objection.
The British propaganda machine did nothing to slight or ignore American
efforts during WW2. (It could be argued that they didn't have the resources
for that approach, even if they wanted to take it.)
Meanwhile ®i©ardo's point about "Objective Burma" has some merit -- or at
least Churchill thought so. He was infuriated that such a film should be
released in the last year of the war itself, that the hero was played by
someone who had ducked military service, and that it implied U.S. paratroops
were responsible for the sort of action Wingate's Chindits had been
generating since 1942. Objective Burma was banned in England until
1952.

I remember seeing "The Sound Barrier" in the year of its release, and my
memories of it stretch back that far. If you have access to a VHS or DVD
home version, please correct me ... but ... the film presents a disclaimer
that it is a piece of fiction, and if despite that it seems more truthful
than most works of fiction then that may be due to the skill of the
director, David Lean; it was acknowledged in the film that the sound barrier
had already been overcome by an American aviator, without, as I remember,
any mention being made that the American aircraft was not jet- but
rocket-powered; and the whole thing is really about Geoffrey de Havilland's
fatal semi-success in the DH 108 Swallow, when he tickled Mach 1 but didn't
survive.

As to "Bridge Over the River Kwai" -- also a David Lean film, as you
noted -- if there's blame to be handed out, blame Pierre Boulle for writing
the hit novel on which the film is based, and for turning several
stiff-necked and stupid French army officers he had known in Indo-China into
the one stiff-necked and stupid English officer played by Alec Guinness.
The novel (and the film) were meant to outline the torments of the POWs
building the bridge, not glorify the heroism or achievement of those
destroying it. Besides -- the film has the bridge destroyed in 1943, and in
a manner that exploits cinematic story-telling. The actual destruction of
the bridge in 1945 by the 458th Heavy Bombardment Group, U.S.A.A.F, wouldn't
have made much of a movie.

®i©ardo

May 30th 08, 09:05 PM

arjay wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ®i©ardo > wrote in news:mGP%j.75386$zc6.60120
>> @newsfe29.ams2:
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:euI%j.98$t07.25
>>>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
>>>>>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>>>>>> "GC" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>
> <small snip>
>
>>>>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>>>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>>>>> flight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/
>>>>> I am surprised that you could find that one
>>>>> what with the extensive air brushing out of any
>>>>> British accomplishments.
>>>>> I assume that you are stating that the British
>>>>> did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
>>>>> than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
>>>>> Air brush away!
>>>> No, just that British complaints about the inaccuracy
>>>> of "U-571" need to take into account their country's own
>>>> loose treatment of history.
>>>>
>>>> And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
>>>> Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
>>>> action that in fact Americans accomplished.........
>>> I noticed this review of U-571:
>>>
>>> "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre, Mostow's
>>> (BREAKDOWN) submarine thriller pays earnest homage to the pluck and
>>> determination of ordinary people forced to overcome extraordinary odds.
>>> The mostly young and inexperienced crew of the S-33 is deployed on a top
>>> secret, high-priority mission to intercept a disabled German u-boat (the
>>> titular U-571) and capture the ship's encryption system--the Enigma--in
>>> order to crack the Nazi's communication codes and hasten an allied
>>> victory in the North Atlantic. Racing against a German rescue effort,
>>> the S-33 stages a daring raid on the U-571. But after capturing the
>>> U-571, the Americans find themselves its prisoner as they must pilot the
>>> leaky, disabled vessel through hostile enemy waters. McConaughey (EDTV,
>>> DAZED AND CONFUSED) leads a strong cast (Keitel - HOLY SMOKE, Paxton - A
>>> SIMPLE PLAN) in this fast-paced, tense, submarine adventure."
>>>
>>> Presumably "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre"
>>> relates to rebranding all WW2 coups and victories as being down to the
>> USA?
>>> The big US propaganda machine was even at work in WWW2, possibly
>>> starting with "Objective, Burma", to belittle the endeavours of their
>>> allies, or to ignore them completely.
>> Was there a likewise "big British propoganda machine" to credit
>> their country with feats done by Americans, as in The Sound Barrier
>> and Bridge Over River Kwai?
>
> Sir -- as a land-bound lurker whose familiarity is mostly with things army,
> and as an admirer of your contributions here and elsewhere, I raise a timid
> hand in polite objection.
> The British propaganda machine did nothing to slight or ignore American
> efforts during WW2. (It could be argued that they didn't have the resources
> for that approach, even if they wanted to take it.)
> Meanwhile ®i©ardo's point about "Objective Burma" has some merit -- or at
> least Churchill thought so. He was infuriated that such a film should be
> released in the last year of the war itself, that the hero was played by
> someone who had ducked military service, and that it implied U.S. paratroops
> were responsible for the sort of action Wingate's Chindits had been
> generating since 1942. Objective Burma was banned in England until
> 1952.
>
> I remember seeing "The Sound Barrier" in the year of its release, and my
> memories of it stretch back that far. If you have access to a VHS or DVD
> home version, please correct me ... but ... the film presents a disclaimer
> that it is a piece of fiction, and if despite that it seems more truthful
> than most works of fiction then that may be due to the skill of the
> director, David Lean; it was acknowledged in the film that the sound barrier
> had already been overcome by an American aviator, without, as I remember,
> any mention being made that the American aircraft was not jet- but
> rocket-powered; and the whole thing is really about Geoffrey de Havilland's
> fatal semi-success in the DH 108 Swallow, when he tickled Mach 1 but didn't
> survive.
>
> As to "Bridge Over the River Kwai" -- also a David Lean film, as you
> noted -- if there's blame to be handed out, blame Pierre Boulle for writing
> the hit novel on which the film is based, and for turning several
> stiff-necked and stupid French army officers he had known in Indo-China into
> the one stiff-necked and stupid English officer played by Alec Guinness.
> The novel (and the film) were meant to outline the torments of the POWs
> building the bridge, not glorify the heroism or achievement of those
> destroying it. Besides -- the film has the bridge destroyed in 1943, and in
> a manner that exploits cinematic story-telling. The actual destruction of
> the bridge in 1945 by the 458th Heavy Bombardment Group, U.S.A.A.F, wouldn't
> have made much of a movie.
>
>

Ah, an eloquent lurker.

Thank you for your well expressed comments.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Herman

May 31st 08, 12:48 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > schreef in bericht
m...
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>
>> RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
>> the USAAF if the target was vivible.
>>
>> Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
>> the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
>> the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
>> the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> No! I have never heard of any!
>>
>
> That you haven't heard of any does not mean it didn't occur, it means
> you're ignorant.
>

Any examples?
Calling people ignorant is not only rude, is also says something about
yourself.

Regards,
Herman

Robert Sveinson

May 31st 08, 01:08 AM

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:euI%j.98$t07.25
> @newsfe22.lga:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
>>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "GC" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program
>>> totally
>>>>> ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision
>>>>
>>>> Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
>>>> out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
>>>> the consumers of these so called facts who want their
>>>> fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
>>>> reputable historians who are at fault as well.
>>>>
>>>> There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
>>>> that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
>>>> decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
>>>> sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
>>>> however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
>>>> in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
>>>> heroic episode of the anti submarine war.
>>>
>>>
>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>> flight.
>>>
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/
>>
>> I am surprised that you could find that one
>> what with the extensive air brushing out of any
>> British accomplishments.
>> I assume that you are stating that the British
>> did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
>> than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
>> Air brush away!

> No, just that British complaints about the inaccuracy
> of "U-571" need to take into account their country's own
> loose treatment of history.

Air Brush In High Gear.

> And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
> Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
> action that in fact Americans accomplished.........

http://www.gunplot.net/kwairailway/siamburmarailway.html

Look at the table showing, if your *claim* is more than a fable,
that +-700 Americans built the death railway and the bridges. They
only lost 356 to the harsh conditions.
Makes one wonder what +-30,000 British, +-18,000 Dutch,
+-13,000 Australian pows with the losses of 6,540 British,
2,830 Dutch and 2,710 were doing at the time wouldn't you
say?

http://www.kanchanaburi-info.com/en/muang.html

Historical background: 'Death Railway'

In 1943 thousands of Allied Prisoners of War (PoW) and Asian labourers
worked on the Death Railway under the imperial Japanese army in order to
construct part of the 415 km long Burma-Thailand railway. **Most of these
men were Australians, Dutch and British** and they had been working steadily
southwards from Thanbyuzayat (Burma) to link with other PoW on the Thai side
of the railway. This railway was intended to move men and supplies to the
Burmese front where the Japanese were fighting the British. Japanese army
engineers selected the route which traversed deep valleys and hills. All the
heavy work was done manually either by hand or by elephant as earth moving
equipment was not available. The railway line originally ran within 50
meters of the Three Pagodas Pass which marks nowadays the border to Burma.
However after the war the entire railway was removed and sold as it was
deemed unsafe and politically undesirable. The prisoners lived in squalor
with a near starvation diet. They were subjected to captor brutality and
thus thousands perished. The men worked from dawn until after dark and often
had to trudge many kilometres through the jungle to return to base camp
where Allied doctors tended the injured and diseased by many died. After the
war the dead were collectively reburied in the War Cemeteries and will
remain forever witness to a brutal and tragic ordeal.

Don-Rak War Cemetery

This War Cemetery is also known as the Kanchanaburi War Cemetery. It is
located opposite Kanchanaburi's Railway Station on Saengchootoe Road. It
contains the remains of **6,982 Australian, Dutch and British** war
prisoners who lost their lives during the construction of the Death Railway.

Robert Sveinson

May 31st 08, 01:14 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>
>> You really haven't read the information below have you?
>>
>
> Yes, I have. Do you know who was on the survey?

Is this close enough?

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey was established by the Secretary
of War on November 3, 1944, pursuant to a directive from the late President
Roosevelt.

The officers of the Survey were:

Franklin D'Olier, Chairman.
Henry C. Alexander, Vice-Chairman.

George W. Ball,
Harry L. Bowman,
John K. Galbraith,
Rensis Likert,
Frank A. McNamee,
Paul H. Nitze,
Robert P. Russell,
Fred Searls, Jr.,
Theodore P. Wright, Directors.

Charles C. Cabot, Secretary.
The Table of Organization provided for 300 civilians, 350 officers and 500
enlisted men. The Survey operated from headquarters in London and
established forward headquarters and regional headquarters in Germany
immediately following the advance of the Allied armies.

>> The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
>> http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#eaocar
>>
>> The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view
>> that specific industries and services were the most promising targets
>> in the enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to
>> be hit accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word
>> needs to be said on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the
>> war, the U. S. Army Air Forces had advanced bombing techniques to
>> their highest level of development and had trained a limited number
>> of crews to a high degree of precision in bombing under target range
>> conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin point" and "pickle
>> barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach such
>> standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe.
>> Many limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog,
>> smoke screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which
>> necessitated defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom
>> of maneuver; antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time
>> exposure of the attacking force in order to keep losses down; and
>> finally, time limitations imposed on combat crew training after the
>> war began.
>> It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and
>> formation attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure.
>> **Bombing patterns resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on
>> small precision targets.** The rest spilled over
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy
>> ranged from poor to excellent.** When visual conditions were
>> favorable and flak defenses were not intense, bombing results were at
>> their best. Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations
>> over Germany had to be conducted under weather and battle conditions
>> that restricted bombing technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly.
>> Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a
>> circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of
>> attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show
>> that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision
>> targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was
>> reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts for
>> the reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages
>> of bombs delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger
>> tonnage was carried than hit German installations.
>
>

Robert Sveinson

May 31st 08, 01:16 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>
>> How about the bombing of Prague when the USAAF was AIMING at
>> Dresden.
>>
>> How about the bombing of several Swiss cities
>> when AIMING at targets (supposedly) in Germany?
>>
>
> You've confused target identification/navigation with bombing accuracy.

AAAAH! The USAAF were in fact AIMING at
the Swiss cities that they bombed.
I seeeeeee!

>
>

Robert Sveinson

May 31st 08, 01:17 AM

"®i©ardo" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>> How about the bombing of Prague when the USAAF was AIMING at
>>> Dresden.
>>>
>>> How about the bombing of several Swiss cities
>>> when AIMING at targets (supposedly) in Germany?
>>>
>>
>> You've confused target identification/navigation with bombing accuracy.
>
> So any target will do, right one or wrong one, as long as it is bombed
> "accurately"?
>
> "Precision" is an integral part of the equation, in that it implies that
> the bomber crews knew where they were going and, having got there, knew
> what they had to do.
>
> That is NOT the situation with the bombing of Prague, Schaffhausen, Zurich
> and Basel.

And these bomber fleets employed PATHFINDERS!

>
> --
> Moving things in still pictures!

Robert Sveinson

May 31st 08, 01:22 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>
>> RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
>> the USAAF if the target was vivible.
>>
>> Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
>> the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
>> the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
>> the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> No! I have never heard of any!
>>
>
> That you haven't heard of any does not mean it didn't occur, it means
> you're ignorant.

And your list of targets like the Tirpitz, Dortmund Ems Canal,
Saumur Tunnel, Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison and various
Gestapo headquarters that the USAAF PRECISELY bombed is
where?
Keep in mind that 4 of the above targets were hit
by Lancasters which carried ONLY 1 bomb,
so they didn't use the *shotgun* method.

>
>

Graham Sheldon

May 31st 08, 01:29 AM

Talking about "The Sound Barrier" as a work of fiction showing the British
achieving supersonic flight, I seem to recall reading/hearing somewhere that
in actual fact the British were well advanced in researching this and had
designed and built an aeroplane - the Miles M52 I think - which could well
have achieved this. Then the US and British Governments decided they would
pool their research to achieve it. So the British handed over all their
info to the US who then refused to hand over their info, due to "security
reasons". The British did not proceed any further but the US continued on
(now with the benefit of all the British research and design) and eventually
produce the Bell X-1 - which looks suspiciously like the Miles M52 - and do
the deed!

>>
>>>>>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>>>>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>>>>>> flight.
>>>>>>>
>>
>> I remember seeing "The Sound Barrier" in the year of its release, and my
>> memories of it stretch back that far. If you have access to a VHS or DVD
>> home version, please correct me ... but ... the film presents a
>> disclaimer
>> that it is a piece of fiction, and if despite that it seems more truthful
>> than most works of fiction then that may be due to the skill of the
>> director, David Lean; it was acknowledged in the film that the sound
>> barrier
>> had already been overcome by an American aviator, without, as I remember,
>> any mention being made that the American aircraft was not jet- but
>> rocket-powered; and the whole thing is really about Geoffrey de
>> Havilland's
>> fatal semi-success in the DH 108 Swallow, when he tickled Mach 1 but
>> didn't
>> survive.
>>
> --
> Moving things in still pictures!

Robert Sveinson

May 31st 08, 02:02 AM

®i©ardo

May 31st 08, 09:43 AM

Graham Sheldon wrote:
> Talking about "The Sound Barrier" as a work of fiction showing the British
> achieving supersonic flight, I seem to recall reading/hearing somewhere that
> in actual fact the British were well advanced in researching this and had
> designed and built an aeroplane - the Miles M52 I think - which could well
> have achieved this. Then the US and British Governments decided they would
> pool their research to achieve it. So the British handed over all their
> info to the US who then refused to hand over their info, due to "security
> reasons". The British did not proceed any further but the US continued on
> (now with the benefit of all the British research and design) and eventually
> produce the Bell X-1 - which looks suspiciously like the Miles M52 - and do
> the deed!
>
Sounds a bit like the atomic bomb development with Britain and Canada
having been major contributors, then being told to p*ss off by the Yanks.

The British, using Canadian uranium and plutonium and the worlds largest
stockpile of heavy water and hydro-electric power, had actually done the
majority of the leg-work already, leaving the American-funded Manhatten
Project to do the rest.

President Truman the reneged on FDR's promise to Churchill to share the
atom bombs.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>>>>>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>>>>>>> flight.
>>>>>>>>
>>> I remember seeing "The Sound Barrier" in the year of its release, and my
>>> memories of it stretch back that far. If you have access to a VHS or DVD
>>> home version, please correct me ... but ... the film presents a
>>> disclaimer
>>> that it is a piece of fiction, and if despite that it seems more truthful
>>> than most works of fiction then that may be due to the skill of the
>>> director, David Lean; it was acknowledged in the film that the sound
>>> barrier
>>> had already been overcome by an American aviator, without, as I remember,
>>> any mention being made that the American aircraft was not jet- but
>>> rocket-powered; and the whole thing is really about Geoffrey de
>>> Havilland's
>>> fatal semi-success in the DH 108 Swallow, when he tickled Mach 1 but
>>> didn't
>>> survive.
>>>
>> --
>> Moving things in still pictures!
>
>

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Graham Sheldon

June 1st 08, 12:15 AM

"®i©ardo" > wrote in message
...
> Graham Sheldon wrote:
>> Talking about "The Sound Barrier" as a work of fiction showing the
>> British achieving supersonic flight, I seem to recall reading/hearing
>> somewhere that in actual fact the British were well advanced in
>> researching this and had designed and built an aeroplane - the Miles M52
>> I think - which could well have achieved this. Then the US and British
>> Governments decided they would pool their research to achieve it. So the
>> British handed over all their info to the US who then refused to hand
>> over their info, due to "security reasons". The British did not proceed
>> any further but the US continued on (now with the benefit of all the
>> British research and design) and eventually produce the Bell X-1 - which
>> looks suspiciously like the Miles M52 - and do the deed!
>>
> Sounds a bit like the atomic bomb development with Britain and Canada
> having been major contributors, then being told to p*ss off by the Yanks.
>
> The British, using Canadian uranium and plutonium and the worlds largest
> stockpile of heavy water and hydro-electric power, had actually done the
> majority of the leg-work already, leaving the American-funded Manhatten
> Project to do the rest.
>
> President Truman the reneged on FDR's promise to Churchill to share the
> atom bombs.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>>>>>>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>>>>>>>> flight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> I remember seeing "The Sound Barrier" in the year of its release, and
>>>> my
>>>> memories of it stretch back that far. If you have access to a VHS or
>>>> DVD
>>>> home version, please correct me ... but ... the film presents a
>>>> disclaimer
>>>> that it is a piece of fiction, and if despite that it seems more
>>>> truthful
>>>> than most works of fiction then that may be due to the skill of the
>>>> director, David Lean; it was acknowledged in the film that the sound
>>>> barrier
>>>> had already been overcome by an American aviator, without, as I
>>>> remember,
>>>> any mention being made that the American aircraft was not jet- but
>>>> rocket-powered; and the whole thing is really about Geoffrey de
>>>> Havilland's
>>>> fatal semi-success in the DH 108 Swallow, when he tickled Mach 1 but
>>>> didn't
>>>> survive.
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Moving things in still pictures!
>>
>>
>
> --
> Moving things in still pictures!

I seem to remember also after WW2 the British were well advanced with jet
engine technology and virtually handed all the plans, etc over for the
Russians to have a look at. And then the world was shocked when the
Mig-15 showed up in Korea with a Russian copy of the British jet engine.
What is it with the poms? And then there was Duncan Sands (or however he
spells it) and his infamous white paper which destroyed the British aero
industry almost overnight...

Robert Sveinson

June 1st 08, 12:55 AM

"Graham Sheldon" > wrote in message
...
> Talking about "The Sound Barrier" as a work of fiction showing the
> British achieving supersonic flight, I seem to recall reading/hearing
> somewhere that in actual fact the British were well advanced in
> researching this and had designed and built an aeroplane - the Miles M52 I
> think - which could well have achieved this. Then the US and British
> Governments decided they would pool their research to achieve it. So the
> British handed over all their info to the US who then refused to hand over
> their info, due to "security reasons". The British did not proceed any
> further but the US continued on (now with the benefit of all the British
> research and design) and eventually produce the Bell X-1 - which looks
> suspiciously like the Miles M52 - and do the deed!

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0198a.shtml

Design of the M.52 was nearly complete by 1944, and the UK government
approved the construction of three prototypes. By the end of World War II in
mid-1945, the first prototype was over half-built and may have been ready to
begin flight testing within a year. Unfortunately, a new government had been
elected in 1945 when conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill was
defeated by the Labour party. The new Labour government felt that too much
money was being wasted on defense-related projects now that the war had been
won, and widespread funding cuts were instituted. One of the projects
eliminated was the M.52, cancelled in February 1946 by Sir Ben Lockspeiser,
the Director of Scientific Research

>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>>>>>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>>>>>>> flight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> I remember seeing "The Sound Barrier" in the year of its release, and my
>>> memories of it stretch back that far. If you have access to a VHS or
>>> DVD
>>> home version, please correct me ... but ... the film presents a
>>> disclaimer
>>> that it is a piece of fiction, and if despite that it seems more
>>> truthful
>>> than most works of fiction then that may be due to the skill of the
>>> director, David Lean; it was acknowledged in the film that the sound
>>> barrier
>>> had already been overcome by an American aviator, without, as I
>>> remember,
>>> any mention being made that the American aircraft was not jet- but
>>> rocket-powered; and the whole thing is really about Geoffrey de
>>> Havilland's
>>> fatal semi-success in the DH 108 Swallow, when he tickled Mach 1 but
>>> didn't
>>> survive.
>>>
>> --
>> Moving things in still pictures!
>
>
>

Robert Sveinson

June 1st 08, 01:06 AM

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...

>> The big US propaganda machine was even at work in WWW2, possibly
>> starting with "Objective, Burma", to belittle the endeavours of their
>> allies, or to ignore them completely.
>>
>
>
> Was there a likewise "big British propoganda machine" to credit
> their country with feats done by Americans, as in The Sound Barrier
> and Bridge Over River Kwai?

Tell us air brush "master" about the american contribution
to the building of the Burma-Thailand railway including the
bridges. Feel free to consult the tables below.

http://www.gunplot.net/kwairailway/siamburmarailway.html

Herman

June 1st 08, 03:05 AM

"arjay" > schreef in bericht
m...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>>
>>> RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
>>> the USAAF if the target was vivible.
>>>
>>> Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
>>> the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
>>> the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
>>> the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?
>>
>> Yes.
>>>
>>> No! I have never heard of any!
>>
>> That you haven't heard of any does not mean it didn't occur, it means
>> you're ignorant.
>
> Then -- with respect -- it seems your place to provide enlightenment.
> If Robert Sveinson is ignorant because he has not heard of "any" USAAF
> achievements of precision strikes, one bomb per aircraft, in the ETO then
> this implies that there were several such strikes. And your calling him
> "ignorant" suggests you know of at least two of them.
> Where, and when did they occur?
>

And suddenly it became very quiet.

Reason? The USAF only started using precision bombing in Vietnam (in the
sixties) when they realised that:
1. Carpet bombing did not make them very popular with the local people;
2. Carpet bombing ws not very effective;
3. Precison bombing was the only effective way of taking out specific
targets (the Paul Doumer bridge for instance).

Regards,
Herman

®i©ardo

June 1st 08, 09:54 AM

Graham Sheldon wrote:
> "®i©ardo" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Graham Sheldon wrote:
>>> Talking about "The Sound Barrier" as a work of fiction showing the
>>> British achieving supersonic flight, I seem to recall reading/hearing
>>> somewhere that in actual fact the British were well advanced in
>>> researching this and had designed and built an aeroplane - the Miles M52
>>> I think - which could well have achieved this. Then the US and British
>>> Governments decided they would pool their research to achieve it. So the
>>> British handed over all their info to the US who then refused to hand
>>> over their info, due to "security reasons". The British did not proceed
>>> any further but the US continued on (now with the benefit of all the
>>> British research and design) and eventually produce the Bell X-1 - which
>>> looks suspiciously like the Miles M52 - and do the deed!
>>>
>> Sounds a bit like the atomic bomb development with Britain and Canada
>> having been major contributors, then being told to p*ss off by the Yanks.
>>
>> The British, using Canadian uranium and plutonium and the worlds largest
>> stockpile of heavy water and hydro-electric power, had actually done the
>> majority of the leg-work already, leaving the American-funded Manhatten
>> Project to do the rest.
>>
>> President Truman the reneged on FDR's promise to Churchill to share the
>> atom bombs.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
>>>>>>>>>> showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
>>>>>>>>>> flight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> I remember seeing "The Sound Barrier" in the year of its release, and
>>>>> my
>>>>> memories of it stretch back that far. If you have access to a VHS or
>>>>> DVD
>>>>> home version, please correct me ... but ... the film presents a
>>>>> disclaimer
>>>>> that it is a piece of fiction, and if despite that it seems more
>>>>> truthful
>>>>> than most works of fiction then that may be due to the skill of the
>>>>> director, David Lean; it was acknowledged in the film that the sound
>>>>> barrier
>>>>> had already been overcome by an American aviator, without, as I
>>>>> remember,
>>>>> any mention being made that the American aircraft was not jet- but
>>>>> rocket-powered; and the whole thing is really about Geoffrey de
>>>>> Havilland's
>>>>> fatal semi-success in the DH 108 Swallow, when he tickled Mach 1 but
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> survive.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Moving things in still pictures!
>>>
>> --
>> Moving things in still pictures!
>
> I seem to remember also after WW2 the British were well advanced with jet
> engine technology and virtually handed all the plans, etc over for the
> Russians to have a look at. And then the world was shocked when the
> Mig-15 showed up in Korea with a Russian copy of the British jet engine.
> What is it with the poms? And then there was Duncan Sands (or however he
> spells it) and his infamous white paper which destroyed the British aero
> industry almost overnight...
>
>
Not *all* the plans. The Russians were provided with an example of the
Rolls Royce Nene and Derwent jet engines.

Britain handed over far, far more to America in that line.

America's first jet fighter, the XP-59A Airocomet, only got off the
ground thanks to the engine and technology provided by Britain.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

arjay

June 1st 08, 02:36 PM

"Herman" > wrote in message
.home.nl...
> "arjay" > schreef in bericht
> m...
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
>>>> the USAAF if the target was vivible.
>>>>
>>>> Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
>>>> the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
>>>> the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
>>>> the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> No! I have never heard of any!
>>>
>>> That you haven't heard of any does not mean it didn't occur, it means
>>> you're ignorant.
>>
>> Then -- with respect -- it seems your place to provide enlightenment.
>> If Robert Sveinson is ignorant because he has not heard of "any" USAAF
>> achievements of precision strikes, one bomb per aircraft, in the ETO then
>> this implies that there were several such strikes. And your calling him
>> "ignorant" suggests you know of at least two of them.
>> Where, and when did they occur?
>
> And suddenly it became very quiet.
>
> Reason? The USAF only started using precision bombing in Vietnam (in the
> sixties) when they realised that:
> 1. Carpet bombing did not make them very popular with the local people;
> 2. Carpet bombing ws not very effective;
> 3. Precison bombing was the only effective way of taking out specific
> targets (the Paul Doumer bridge for instance).

Well ... as to starting precision bombing only in Viet Nam ... not quite.
The U.S.A.A.F. did make a few attempts during WW2, largely prompted by
Germany's use of the anti-shipping Henschel glide bomb.
The U.S. developed and used two guided bombs -- the AZON (AZimuth ONly)
radio-controlled weapon and the Bat glide-bomb, which was radar-controlled.
The AZON was used, with limited success, in the ETO against a few bridges.
The device was a tail attachment for a standard 1,000-lb bomb, and it took
several hits from those things to knock down a bridge. No 'one bomb per
aircraft' successes there.
The AZON was also used in the PTO against bridges on the Burma railway.
Such reports as I can find indicate it usually took three or four hits to
knock down a bridge there. I can find nothing indicating how many were
dropped, but missed their targets, nor any identification of which bridges
were attacked.
The Bat glide-bomb -- which depended on centimetric radar, and thus couldn't
have been built without British research into the cavity magnetron -- was
not a great success. Intended as an anti-shipping weapon for the Pacific,
it kept hitting trees, coral reefs and anything large along a coastline.
The USAF did try some precision attacks during the Korean affair -- six
bridges were claimed destroyed by the so-called Tarzon bomb. That was an
improved AZON system attached to -- guess what? -- the British Tallboy bomb.

> Regards,
> Herman

arjay

June 1st 08, 02:38 PM

"®i©ardo" > wrote in message
...
> arjay wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ®i©ardo > wrote in news:mGP%j.75386$zc6.60120
>>> @newsfe29.ams2:
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:euI%j.98$t07.25
>>>>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
>>>>>>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>>>>>>> "GC" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...

<biggish snip>

>> As to "Bridge Over the River Kwai" -- also a David Lean film, as you
>> noted -- if there's blame to be handed out, blame Pierre Boulle for
>> writing the hit novel on which the film is based, and for turning several
>> stiff-necked and stupid French army officers he had known in Indo-China
>> into
>> the one stiff-necked and stupid English officer played by Alec Guinness.
>> The novel (and the film) were meant to outline the torments of the POWs
>> building the bridge, not glorify the heroism or achievement of those
>> destroying it. Besides -- the film has the bridge destroyed in 1943, and
>> in a manner that exploits cinematic story-telling. The actual
>> destruction of
>> the bridge in 1945 by the 458th Heavy Bombardment Group, U.S.A.A.F,
>> wouldn't have made much of a movie.
>
> Ah, an eloquent lurker.
>
> Thank you for your well expressed comments.

And thanks for your note of appreciation. I could only wish that my
comments had not been so hastily researched.
Novellist Pierre Boulle wrote his book without ever having been to the site
of the bridge in question.
Therefore he did not know 1) that there were actually two bridges, one wood,
one concrete and steel, both completed in 1943 or 2) that the bridges did
not cross the River Kwai (or Kwae) at all.
The railway followed that river for many miles, but in fact crossed a
tributary -- the Mae Khlung River.
Neither bridge was ever attacked by S.O.E. agents.
Both were destroyed in 1945 by aerial bombardment.
I erred in crediting the 458th Heavy Bombardment Group, U.S.A.A.F. That
unit saw action in the ETA as part of the 8th Air Force but never got to the
Pacific.
There is much confusion over who really destroyed the bridges, and at least
three competing claims are made.
Some votes have been cast for the 490th Bombardment Squadron, U.S.A.A.F.,
but they seem to have used B-25s in their raids.
7th Bomb Group, 10th U.S. Air Force, flying B-24s out of India, claims
hitting both bridges in February, 1945, making the steel bridge unusable but
only damaging the wooden structure. This was followed in April by a single
aircraft raid, a B-24 of the 436th Bombardment Squadron, which destroyed the
wooden bridge after several low-level passes and as many bombs.
And then there was Roy Borthwick, an RCAF flight lieutenant on loan to the
R.A.F.'s 159 Squadron near Calcutta. They flew B-24s, and Borthwick flew
one of eleven in a June, 1945 raid against those bridges (apparently both
repaired since the raids of February and April). Borthwick made five
passes, dropped a 1000-lb bomb on each, and destroyed a span of the steel
bridge.

I don't think anyone really knows who finally knocked the bridges down.
But it was Pierre Boulle and David Lean who made them famous -- so famous
that after 1957 tourists went to Thailand looking for the "Kwai River
Bridge."
That presented Thai tourism with a problem. There was no such bridge. They
only had the surviving, fully repaired steel-and-concrete Mae Khlung River
bridge.
So the tourist bureau solved the problem by renaming the river. The Mae
Khlung River became the Kwae Yai River.
The bridge, fully repaired, is still there -- now officially crossing the
River Kwai.

Herman

June 1st 08, 11:09 PM

"arjay" > schreef in bericht
m...
> "Herman" > wrote in message
> .home.nl...
>> "arjay" > schreef in bericht
>> m...
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
>>>>> the USAAF if the target was vivible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
>>>>> the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
>>>>> the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
>>>>> the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> No! I have never heard of any!
>>>>
>>>> That you haven't heard of any does not mean it didn't occur, it means
>>>> you're ignorant.
>>>
>>> Then -- with respect -- it seems your place to provide enlightenment.
>>> If Robert Sveinson is ignorant because he has not heard of "any" USAAF
>>> achievements of precision strikes, one bomb per aircraft, in the ETO
>>> then
>>> this implies that there were several such strikes. And your calling him
>>> "ignorant" suggests you know of at least two of them.
>>> Where, and when did they occur?
>>
>> And suddenly it became very quiet.
>>
>> Reason? The USAF only started using precision bombing in Vietnam (in the
>> sixties) when they realised that:
>> 1. Carpet bombing did not make them very popular with the local people;
>> 2. Carpet bombing ws not very effective;
>> 3. Precison bombing was the only effective way of taking out specific
>> targets (the Paul Doumer bridge for instance).
>
> Well ... as to starting precision bombing only in Viet Nam ... not quite.
> The U.S.A.A.F. did make a few attempts during WW2, largely prompted by
> Germany's use of the anti-shipping Henschel glide bomb.
> The U.S. developed and used two guided bombs -- the AZON (AZimuth ONly)
> radio-controlled weapon and the Bat glide-bomb, which was
> radar-controlled.
> The AZON was used, with limited success, in the ETO against a few bridges.
> The device was a tail attachment for a standard 1,000-lb bomb, and it took
> several hits from those things to knock down a bridge. No 'one bomb per
> aircraft' successes there.
> The AZON was also used in the PTO against bridges on the Burma railway.
> Such reports as I can find indicate it usually took three or four hits to
> knock down a bridge there. I can find nothing indicating how many were
> dropped, but missed their targets, nor any identification of which bridges
> were attacked.
> The Bat glide-bomb -- which depended on centimetric radar, and thus
> couldn't
> have been built without British research into the cavity magnetron -- was
> not a great success. Intended as an anti-shipping weapon for the Pacific,
> it kept hitting trees, coral reefs and anything large along a coastline.
> The USAF did try some precision attacks during the Korean affair -- six
> bridges were claimed destroyed by the so-called Tarzon bomb. That was an
> improved AZON system attached to -- guess what? -- the British Tallboy
> bomb.
>
You are quite right. Forgot about those attempts.
Even mr. McNicoll appears not to have heard of them.

In any case, this thread would seem to indicate that precision bombing
during WW2 was performed by the RAF rather than the USAAF.

Regards,
Herman

Herman

June 1st 08, 11:16 PM

"arjay" > schreef in bericht
m...
> "Herman" > wrote in message
> .home.nl...
>> "arjay" > schreef in bericht
>> m...
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> RAF accuracy was as good if not better than that of
>>>>> the USAAF if the target was vivible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did the USAAF precisely hit any target such as
>>>>> the TIRPITZ, the Dortmund Ems canal,
>>>>> the Saumur Tunnel, various Gestapo buildings,
>>>>> the Antheor Viaduct, Amiens Prison?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> No! I have never heard of any!
>>>>
>>>> That you haven't heard of any does not mean it didn't occur, it means
>>>> you're ignorant.
>>>
>>> Then -- with respect -- it seems your place to provide enlightenment.
>>> If Robert Sveinson is ignorant because he has not heard of "any" USAAF
>>> achievements of precision strikes, one bomb per aircraft, in the ETO
>>> then
>>> this implies that there were several such strikes. And your calling him
>>> "ignorant" suggests you know of at least two of them.
>>> Where, and when did they occur?
>>
>> And suddenly it became very quiet.
>>
>> Reason? The USAF only started using precision bombing in Vietnam (in the
>> sixties) when they realised that:
>> 1. Carpet bombing did not make them very popular with the local people;
>> 2. Carpet bombing ws not very effective;
>> 3. Precison bombing was the only effective way of taking out specific
>> targets (the Paul Doumer bridge for instance).
>
> Well ... as to starting precision bombing only in Viet Nam ... not quite.
> The U.S.A.A.F. did make a few attempts during WW2, largely prompted by
> Germany's use of the anti-shipping Henschel glide bomb.
> The U.S. developed and used two guided bombs -- the AZON (AZimuth ONly)
> radio-controlled weapon and the Bat glide-bomb, which was
> radar-controlled.
> The AZON was used, with limited success, in the ETO against a few bridges.
> The device was a tail attachment for a standard 1,000-lb bomb, and it took
> several hits from those things to knock down a bridge. No 'one bomb per
> aircraft' successes there.
> The AZON was also used in the PTO against bridges on the Burma railway.
> Such reports as I can find indicate it usually took three or four hits to
> knock down a bridge there. I can find nothing indicating how many were
> dropped, but missed their targets, nor any identification of which bridges
> were attacked.
> The Bat glide-bomb -- which depended on centimetric radar, and thus
> couldn't
> have been built without British research into the cavity magnetron -- was
> not a great success. Intended as an anti-shipping weapon for the Pacific,
> it kept hitting trees, coral reefs and anything large along a coastline.
> The USAF did try some precision attacks during the Korean affair -- six
> bridges were claimed destroyed by the so-called Tarzon bomb. That was an
> improved AZON system attached to -- guess what? -- the British Tallboy
> bomb.
>

Just a little nit-picking here:
The Henschel (HS-293?) was rocket powered if I recall correctly. It did have
wings but I'm not sure if it glided towards the target. The other
anti-shipping weapon introduced by the Germans was the Fritz-X wire-guided
bomb.
Both weapons enjoyed some succes and led to quite a bit of alarm among the
allies.

Regards,
Herman

Robert Sveinson

June 2nd 08, 12:35 AM

"®i©ardo" > wrote in message
...
> Graham Sheldon wrote:

>>
>> I seem to remember also after WW2 the British were well advanced with jet
>> engine technology and virtually handed all the plans, etc over for the
>> Russians to have a look at. And then the world was shocked when the
>> Mig-15 showed up in Korea with a Russian copy of the British jet engine.
>> What is it with the poms? And then there was Duncan Sands (or however
>> he spells it) and his infamous white paper which destroyed the British
>> aero industry almost overnight...
> Not *all* the plans. The Russians were provided with an example of the
> Rolls Royce Nene and Derwent jet engines.
>
> Britain handed over far, far more to America in that line.

And Britain's reward from the U$$A was the same
as the reward from the USSR!

>
> America's first jet fighter, the XP-59A Airocomet, only got off the ground
> thanks to the engine and technology provided by Britain.

Robert Sveinson

June 2nd 08, 01:03 AM

"arjay" > wrote in message
m...

> I don't think anyone really knows who finally knocked the bridges down.
> But it was Pierre Boulle and David Lean who made them famous -- so famous
> that after 1957 tourists went to Thailand looking for the "Kwai River
> Bridge."
> That presented Thai tourism with a problem. There was no such bridge.

Which is not to denigrate the lives lost building the
Burma-Thai railway, British, Australian, Dutch and native Burmese.
Oh and 360 americans.

The only claim that the Kwai Bridge existed was the following:

> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...

And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
action that in fact Americans accomplished.........

arjay

June 2nd 08, 03:42 AM

"Herman" > wrote in message
b.home.nl...
> "arjay" > schreef in bericht
> m...
>> "Herman" > wrote in message
>> .home.nl...
>>> "arjay" > schreef in bericht
>>> m...
>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>> Robert Sveinson wrote:

<snip for brevity>

> Just a little nit-picking here:
> The Henschel (HS-293?) was rocket powered if I recall correctly. It did
> have wings but I'm not sure if it glided towards the target.

Well ... once again, yes and no.
The Hs-293 was less a rocket-powered radio-controlled bomb with wings than a
controlled, winged, gliding bomb with a rocket engine having a very brief
burn.
The rocket motor gave the ordinance just enough kick to get it far enough
ahead of the launching aircraft for the operator to see the Hs-293 in
flight and guide the thing without having to shift his position. Without
that rocket boost the aircraft would overtake the bomb in flight.

> The other anti-shipping weapon introduced by the Germans was the Fritz-X
> wire-guided bomb.

Fritz-X was armour-piercing and intended for use against warships, and was
radio-controlled according to every source I can find.
The Hs-293 was meant for softer targets. There were plans for
wire-controlled and even TV-controlled variants, but none were deployed.

> Both weapons enjoyed some succes and led to quite a bit of alarm among the
> allies.

Indeed they did. The Hs-293 destroyed or damaged over two dozen allied
vessels.
The track record of the Fritz-X is even more impressive.
Find some of that, and a photo of the weapon, at
http://www.rafmuseum.org/cosford/collections/missiles/missile_info.cfm?missile_id=8.

> Regards,
> Herman

arjay

June 2nd 08, 03:50 AM

"Robert Sveinson" > wrote in message
...
> "arjay" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>> I don't think anyone really knows who finally knocked the bridges down.
>> But it was Pierre Boulle and David Lean who made them famous -- so famous
>> that after 1957 tourists went to Thailand looking for the "Kwai River
>> Bridge."
>> That presented Thai tourism with a problem. There was no such bridge.
>
> Which is not to denigrate the lives lost building the
> Burma-Thai railway, British, Australian, Dutch and native Burmese.

Of course not. Doing so was hardly my intention.
Boulle emphasized the suffering of the captives. Lean made
an adventure movie. People dying of malnutrition, dysentery and various
fevers do not make effective cinema.

> Oh and 360 americans.

And -- oh -- a relative handful of Canadians. We had two infantry
battalions helping to garrison Hong Kong in late 1941. Most of the
survivors were put to forced labour on what had been the Dutch East Indies.
Many of those were later transferred to the Japanese home islands. I don't
know how many were sent to Thailand/Burma.
The numbers of POWs of different nationalities forced to work on that
railway unavoidably reflected the relative strengths of the armed forces of
the allied nations in SE Asia in 1942.
Can't capture a lot of Americans if there aren't many there at the time.

> The only claim that the Kwai Bridge existed was the following:
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
> And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
> Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
> action that in fact Americans accomplished.........

Yes -- but Mitchell (whose contributions here I greatly value) has not
clarified which action he referred to.
Perhaps he meant the destruction, rather than the construction, of the
bridge(s).

Robert Sveinson

June 4th 08, 02:25 AM

"arjay" > wrote in message
m...

>
>> The only claim that the Kwai Bridge existed was the following:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>> And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
>> Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
>> action that in fact Americans accomplished.........
>
> Yes -- but Mitchell (whose contributions here I greatly value) has not
> clarified which action he referred to.
> Perhaps he meant the destruction, rather than the construction, of the
> bridge(s).

Is it "irony" or "farce" when some one claims
credit, (in all seriousness) for something which they know
nothing about except that it is creditted to some one
else in *fiction*?

eg: some american claiming to have done
some thing (believing the fiction to be true)
attributed to some one else (the British et al)
even if it is in a fictional account?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

arjay

June 5th 08, 01:13 PM

"Robert Sveinson" > wrote in message
...
> "arjay" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>>> The only claim that the Kwai Bridge existed was the following:
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...

It may have been better if I had replied to this when it first appeared.
Mitchell did not claim the bridge existed. For all we know, he has long
been aware of the two fundamental facts misrepresented in the novel and the
film -- that there were two bridges and not one, and that they didn't
actually cross the Kwai.
All Mitchell did was quote the title of the novel as if it were the title of
the film. See immediately below.

>>> And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
>>> Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
>>> action that in fact Americans accomplished.........
>>
>> Yes -- but Mitchell (whose contributions here I greatly value) has not
>> clarified which action he referred to.
>> Perhaps he meant the destruction, rather than the construction, of the
>> bridge(s).
>
> Is it "irony" or "farce" when some one claims
> credit, (in all seriousness) for something which they know
> nothing about except that it is creditted to some one
> else in *fiction*?

Once again -- Mitchell referred to "an action that in fact Americans
accomplished."
In the twin contexts of this newsgroup and this discussion, I take the word
"action" to refer to what used to be called 'a feat of arms' in more
romantic times.
Building a bridge -- or even two bridges -- is not a feat of arms.
But destroying it (or them) most certainly is.
The muddle of records and claims indicate that there were several air
strikes against the real bridges, and that one or both were repaired and
restored to use at least once -- which necessitated the second (and perhaps
third) strike.
There is only one claim that one strike was _not_ flown by a pilot of the
U.S.A.A.F. And in that case the aircraft was of American manufacture, the
organizing force was the R.A.F., and the pilot was a member of the R.C.A.F.

Mitchell may have weakened his case somewhat (if he was trying to make a
case at all) by countering the example of "Objective Burma," made during the
last year of the war, with a reference to two post-war films of obvious
fiction -- "The Sound Barrier" and "Bridge Over The River Kwai."
But with that reference he abandoned this thread, after two more sentences:
"Movies have always taking liberty with reality, and military
movies are no exception. Much ado about nothing if you ask me."

I believe we have made more than enough ado about this, even if the topic
isn't "nothing."
We are not in a discussion group. The focus, here, is pictures related to
aviation.
I delight in them, but can supply none. (Don't recall seeing any from you,
either.)
I'm going back to lurking.

hielan' laddie

June 8th 08, 07:27 PM

On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:22:01 -0400, GC wrote
(in article >):

> A question to the group.
> Is the History channel distorting the facts?

The Hitler Channel does little except distort the facts.

> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
> Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab all)

The Japanese landed in 1942, and stomped all over the Australian defenders.
No yanks anywhere near.

> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..

Yep.

> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
> not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

A B-17 carried the same bomb load as a Mosquito... and was far less accurate.
See further Operation Jericho. Compare and contrast to, well, any B-17 raid
ever made.

>
> They are a few of very many I can recall.

I watch the Hitler Channel strictly for amusement.

HiFlyer

June 8th 08, 09:52 PM

>
>> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
>> Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab all)
>
>The Japanese landed in 1942, and stomped all over the Australian defenders.
>No yanks anywhere near.

The Allies deternimed that the Rabaul Fortress was not worth the loss
of life and would fold if by-passed as they moved up the island
chains.

>
>> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
>
>Yep.

Yep (your agree) or Yep (I is a distortion)

If you agree why was it an assassination"

HF

hielan' laddie

June 9th 08, 01:12 AM

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:52:06 -0400, HiFlyer wrote
(in article >):

>
>>
>>> I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
>>> Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab all)
>>
>> The Japanese landed in 1942, and stomped all over the Australian defenders.
>> No yanks anywhere near.
>
> The Allies deternimed that the Rabaul Fortress was not worth the loss
> of life and would fold if by-passed as they moved up the island
> chains.

Yep. Rabaul was never invaded by the Allies. There were lots of air actions,
and lots of naval fighting close by, but no landings. (correction
requested...)

>
>>
>>> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
>>
>> Yep.
>
> Yep (your agree) or Yep (I is a distortion)
>
> If you agree why was it an assassination"

It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route and mounted
an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook example of an
assassination.

David B.

June 9th 08, 02:14 AM

hielan' laddie > ignorantly stated
:

> It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route and
> mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook example
> of an assassination.
>
>

And your problem with that is?????

Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?

The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
I think you should try another textbook or two.
Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.

Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
tend to agree with your "textbook example."

John B

June 9th 08, 02:26 AM

>
>> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
>> not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>
> A B-17 carried the same bomb load as a Mosquito... and was far less accurate.
> See further Operation Jericho. Compare and contrast to, well, any B-17 raid
> ever made.
>

The Light Night Striking Force of Mosquitos during one phase of the war made bombing raids to Berlin on 43 consecutive occasions without a break. Sometimes the same aircraft would make a second raid on the same night. The Light Night Striking Force flew 553 sorties during April 1943 for the loss of only one aircraft.

The LNSF used to operate in the most appalling weather and one night Air Vice Marshal Donald Bennett was visited by Mrs. Ogden Reid of the New York Herald Tribune. She had asked to witness the start of a raid. This distinguished lady of the American press arrived with a member of the British Government and was immediately driven to the end of the runway by Bennett. Fog caused heavy bomber raids to be cancelled but as the mist swirled around the signal caravan at the end of the runway Mosquitos could be seen taxying on from both directions to save time, lining up and taking off for Berlin in quick succession. She turned to Bennett and said, "I see they have got a bulge - they're carrying a "Blockbuster" aren't they?" She asked what it weighed and Bennett told her 4000 lbs which was 500 lbs more than a B-17 Flying Fortress could carry to Berlin. In any case, he pointed out; a Fortress would not accommodate a 4000 lb "cookie" because it was too large for its bomb bay. The famous Press lady pondered for a few moments before replying "I only hope the American public never realises these facts."

One young Mosquito pilot of those days was Wing Commander 1. G. Broom (later Air Marshal Sir Ivor Broom DSO, DFC and two bars, AFC). "We did 25 nights to Berlin. You could fly there and be back in the mess before the bar closed. We could carry more to Berlin with a crew of two in a Mosquito than could a Flying Fortress with a crew of ten. They had to fight their way there and back in daylight. We went fast at night, at 28,000 ft."

John B

Robert Sveinson

June 9th 08, 03:49 AM

"John B" > wrote in message ...

>
>> B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
>> not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?
>
> A B-17 carried the same bomb load as a Mosquito... and was far less accurate.
> See further Operation Jericho. Compare and contrast to, well, any B-17 raid
> ever made.
>

The Light Night Striking Force of Mosquitos during one phase of the war made bombing raids to Berlin on 43 consecutive occasions without a break. Sometimes the same aircraft would make a second raid on the same night. The Light Night Striking Force flew 553 sorties during April 1943 for the loss of only one aircraft.

The LNSF used to operate in the most appalling weather and one night Air Vice Marshal Donald Bennett was visited by Mrs. Ogden Reid of the New York Herald Tribune. She had asked to witness the start of a raid. This distinguished lady of the American press arrived with a member of the British Government and was immediately driven to the end of the runway by Bennett. Fog caused heavy bomber raids to be cancelled but as the mist swirled around the signal caravan at the end of the runway Mosquitos could be seen taxying on from both directions to save time, lining up and taking off for Berlin in quick succession. She turned to Bennett and said, "I see they have got a bulge - they're carrying a "Blockbuster" aren't they?" She asked what it weighed and Bennett told her 4000 lbs which was 500 lbs more than a B-17 Flying Fortress could carry to Berlin. In any case, he pointed out; a Fortress would not accommodate a 4000 lb "cookie" because it was too large for its bomb bay. The famous Press lady pondered for a few moments before replying "I only hope the American public never realises these facts."

January 1, 1945 to April 21, 1945

"A tally at this point showed that Berlin had been the target for close
on 3,900 sorties and that about 4,470 tons of bombs had fallen from the
Mosquitos of 8 Group on to the capital, between 1 January, 1945 and
21 April, 1945. One thousand four hundred and fifty-nine x 4,000 lb.

(1,459X 4,000 lbs.)
bombs were dropped on the city. In addition 71/88 Oboe Mosquitoes
bombed Berlin during April.

From: Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp & Michael J. F. Bowyer.

HiFlyer

June 9th 08, 07:29 PM

Only heads of state are protected by Convention rules. He was a
leading military leader of the war and was fair game.

HF

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:14:04 GMT, "David B." >
wrote:

>hielan' laddie > ignorantly stated
:
>
>
>> It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route and
>> mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook example
>> of an assassination.
>>
>>
>
>And your problem with that is?????
>
>Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
>Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
>Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
>Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?
>
>The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
>I think you should try another textbook or two.
>Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
>maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.
>
>Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
>had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
>tend to agree with your "textbook example."

hielan' laddie

June 9th 08, 09:06 PM

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:14:04 -0400, David B. wrote
(in article >):

> hielan' laddie > ignorantly stated
> :
>
>
>> It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route and
>> mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook example
>> of an assassination.
>>
>>
>
> And your problem with that is?????

Absolutely none.

>
> Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
> Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
> Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
> Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?
>
> The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
> I think you should try another textbook or two.
> Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
> maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.

'Casualty of war' would be if a few P-38s happened by and whacked some Bettys
and later on found out that they'd got Yamamoto; that's what happened to the
#1 Japanese fighter ace, Nishizawa Hiroyoshi. He was KIA while a passenger
aboard a bomber while en route to pick up replacement fighters, in a chance
encounter with some Hellcats. Totally unplanned, and the American fighters
had no idea that they'd just killed the #1 ace in the Pacific, with over 100
victories, mostly against American aircraft.

'Assassination' is when the mission is planned with the specific objective of
killing one particular person. There's a difference.

>
> Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
> had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
> tend to agree with your "textbook example."

Had he been shot down the way Nishizawa was, it would not have been an
assassination. He wasn't, and it was.

hielan' laddie

June 9th 08, 09:07 PM

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:29:19 -0400, HiFlyer wrote
(in article >):

> Only heads of state are protected by Convention rules. He was a
> leading military leader of the war and was fair game.
>
> HF

Which in no way alters the simple fact that the entire purpose of the
operation was to assassinate him.

David B.

June 9th 08, 10:09 PM

hielan' laddie > ignorantly stated
:

> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:14:04 -0400, David B. wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> hielan' laddie > ignorantly stated
>> :
>>
>>
>>> It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
>>> and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
>>> example of an assassination.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And your problem with that is?????
>
> Absolutely none.
>
>>
>> Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
>> Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
>> Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
>> Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?
>>
>> The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
>> I think you should try another textbook or two.
>> Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
>> maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.
>
> 'Casualty of war' would be if a few P-38s happened by and whacked some
> Bettys and later on found out that they'd got Yamamoto; that's what
> happened to the #1 Japanese fighter ace, Nishizawa Hiroyoshi. He was
> KIA while a passenger aboard a bomber while en route to pick up
> replacement fighters, in a chance encounter with some Hellcats.
> Totally unplanned, and the American fighters had no idea that they'd
> just killed the #1 ace in the Pacific, with over 100 victories, mostly
> against American aircraft.
>
> 'Assassination' is when the mission is planned with the specific
> objective of killing one particular person. There's a difference.
>
>>
>> Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
>> had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
>> tend to agree with your "textbook example."
>
> Had he been shot down the way Nishizawa was, it would not have been an
> assassination. He wasn't, and it was.
>
>

My apologies to the group to belabor the issue, but I *cannot* let this
pass!

Mr. laddie, using your logic, D-Day was an assassination as well, because
it was planned!

Further, that *plan* called Overlord's ultimate objective was to
eventually kill a particular German in Berlin. Take your argument to its
logical conclusion and you'll find Yamamoto was a "KIA" or "Casualty of
War." 180,000 Allied soldiers on June 6th of 1944 would take serious
exception to your statement.

Plans + execution = assassination? Please. That is WARFARE.

Maybe you should study the etymology of the word "assassin" and the
history of the "Assassins."

You can have the last word now, since that's it for me. Apologies again
to the group... Back to lurking.

hielan' laddie

June 10th 08, 01:24 AM

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:09:25 -0400, David B. wrote
(in article >):

> hielan' laddie > ignorantly stated
> :
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:14:04 -0400, David B. wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> hielan' laddie > ignorantly stated
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
>>>> and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
>>>> example of an assassination.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And your problem with that is?????
>>
>> Absolutely none.
>>
>>>
>>> Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
>>> Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
>>> Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
>>> Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?
>>>
>>> The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
>>> I think you should try another textbook or two.
>>> Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
>>> maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.
>>
>> 'Casualty of war' would be if a few P-38s happened by and whacked some
>> Bettys and later on found out that they'd got Yamamoto; that's what
>> happened to the #1 Japanese fighter ace, Nishizawa Hiroyoshi. He was
>> KIA while a passenger aboard a bomber while en route to pick up
>> replacement fighters, in a chance encounter with some Hellcats.
>> Totally unplanned, and the American fighters had no idea that they'd
>> just killed the #1 ace in the Pacific, with over 100 victories, mostly
>> against American aircraft.
>>
>> 'Assassination' is when the mission is planned with the specific
>> objective of killing one particular person. There's a difference.
>>
>>>
>>> Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
>>> had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
>>> tend to agree with your "textbook example."
>>
>> Had he been shot down the way Nishizawa was, it would not have been an
>> assassination. He wasn't, and it was.
>>
>>
>
>
> My apologies to the group to belabor the issue, but I *cannot* let this
> pass!
>
> Mr. laddie, using your logic, D-Day was an assassination as well, because
> it was planned!

It wasn't aimed at a single, specific, person. Operation Overlord was a plan
to get a lodgment on the French coast. It was not intended to kill any one
specific person. Not even 'Dolf.

>
> Further, that *plan* called Overlord's ultimate objective was to
> eventually kill a particular German in Berlin.

That wasn't the plan. The plan was for victory. If 'Dolf got dead in the
process, that was good. Otherwise, he'd have been up for trial with the rest
of the big nazis.

> Take your argument to its
> logical conclusion and you'll find Yamamoto was a "KIA" or "Casualty of
> War." 180,000 Allied soldiers on June 6th of 1944 would take serious
> exception to your statement.

Now you're just being silly.

>
> Plans + execution = assassination? Please. That is WARFARE.

A specific plan to kill one particular person. That's assassination.

>
> Maybe you should study the etymology of the word "assassin" and the
> history of the "Assassins."

I know... they were Muslim terrorists, high on hashish. That's where
'assassin' comes from.

>
> You can have the last word now, since that's it for me. Apologies again
> to the group... Back to lurking.

Bye.

HiFlyer

June 10th 08, 03:11 AM

"Assassination" carries a very negative connotation and is not used in
connection with modern warfare. To purposely bomb the command bunker
of an opposing force is certainly not "assassination", nor was the
practice of singling out the officers in the civil war or in naval
warfare to be picked off by snipers.

The ambush was unique, not unprecedented, and certainly not an
assassination.
HF.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:09:25 GMT, "David B." >
wrote:

>hielan' laddie > ignorantly stated
:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:14:04 -0400, David B. wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> hielan' laddie > ignorantly stated
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
>>>> and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
>>>> example of an assassination.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And your problem with that is?????
>>
>> Absolutely none.
>>
>>>
>>> Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
>>> Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
>>> Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
>>> Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?
>>>
>>> The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
>>> I think you should try another textbook or two.
>>> Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
>>> maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.
>>
>> 'Casualty of war' would be if a few P-38s happened by and whacked some
>> Bettys and later on found out that they'd got Yamamoto; that's what
>> happened to the #1 Japanese fighter ace, Nishizawa Hiroyoshi. He was
>> KIA while a passenger aboard a bomber while en route to pick up
>> replacement fighters, in a chance encounter with some Hellcats.
>> Totally unplanned, and the American fighters had no idea that they'd
>> just killed the #1 ace in the Pacific, with over 100 victories, mostly
>> against American aircraft.
>>
>> 'Assassination' is when the mission is planned with the specific
>> objective of killing one particular person. There's a difference.
>>
>>>
>>> Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
>>> had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
>>> tend to agree with your "textbook example."
>>
>> Had he been shot down the way Nishizawa was, it would not have been an
>> assassination. He wasn't, and it was.
>>
>>
>
>
>My apologies to the group to belabor the issue, but I *cannot* let this
>pass!
>
>Mr. laddie, using your logic, D-Day was an assassination as well, because
>it was planned!
>
>Further, that *plan* called Overlord's ultimate objective was to
>eventually kill a particular German in Berlin. Take your argument to its
>logical conclusion and you'll find Yamamoto was a "KIA" or "Casualty of
>War." 180,000 Allied soldiers on June 6th of 1944 would take serious
>exception to your statement.
>
>Plans + execution = assassination? Please. That is WARFARE.
>
>Maybe you should study the etymology of the word "assassin" and the
>history of the "Assassins."
>
>You can have the last word now, since that's it for me. Apologies again
>to the group... Back to lurking.

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

June 10th 08, 09:14 PM

Casey Tompkins wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 20:12:15 -0400, hielan' laddie
> > wrote:
>
>>>>> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
>
>> It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
>> and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
>> example of an assassination.
>
> ...So killling a soldier in a war zone is assassination?
>
> Does that mean that every japanese pilot shot down was assassinated?
> You might reply "Well, at least the pilot could fight back," but that
> would imply that shooting down any multi-place craft was also
> assassination, since only a fighter pilot (or gunner) could shoot
> back. Cargo planes didn't have guns, so I suppose by this logic that
> they were war crime victims.
>
> When Thomas Lanphier shot down a Zero over Guadalcanal, was he an
> assassin? If not, then how can you logically call him one for shooting
> down Yamamoto? Both targets were members of the Imperial Japanese
> Navy, and were in Navy combat aircraft.
>
> Recall that Admiral Yamamoto was in charge of the war against the
> United States at the time. The war was legally declared, and
> everything. The Admiral was in a military bomber, in a war zone: in
> this case flying from Rabaul to the Solomons.
>
> By this logic, an American or British infantryman who had a chance to
> shoot a German general in occupied France would also be an assassin.
>
> The fact that the Admiral was specifically targeted is irrelevant. Do
> you claim that (in my example above) Corporal O'Reilly -after randomly
> meeting Field Marshal Rommel in Normandy- is not an assassin if he
> shoots his opponent? Or is it acceptable to shoot an opponent during a
> random encounter, but not go looking for them? Does that mean the
> pilot who strafed Rommel (and very nearly killed him) was a war
> criminal? Or not?
>
> I recall Bill Mauldin remaking in his book "Up Front" that at least
> some NCOs/officers preferred not to wear obvious badges of rank while
> in the line, as enemy snipers tended to concentrate on them. Were the
> snipers assassins? Or were they military opponents trying to kill or
> defeat their enemy?
>
> The bottom line: Admiral Yamamoto was a member of the Imperial armed
> forces, was in charge of the war effort against the Allies, was flying
> in an armed military aircraft (bomber), from one Japanese military
> base to another Japanese military base, both of which were in a war
> zone.
>
> This was not an assassination.
>

It was by definition an assassination. Now move on.

HiFlyer

June 11th 08, 02:44 AM

Steven wants the last word, even if it is the wrong word. LOL

HF

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:14:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Casey Tompkins wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 20:12:15 -0400, hielan' laddie
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
>>
>>> It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
>>> and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
>>> example of an assassination.
>>
>> ...So killling a soldier in a war zone is assassination?
>>
>> Does that mean that every japanese pilot shot down was assassinated?
>> You might reply "Well, at least the pilot could fight back," but that
>> would imply that shooting down any multi-place craft was also
>> assassination, since only a fighter pilot (or gunner) could shoot
>> back. Cargo planes didn't have guns, so I suppose by this logic that
>> they were war crime victims.
>>
>> When Thomas Lanphier shot down a Zero over Guadalcanal, was he an
>> assassin? If not, then how can you logically call him one for shooting
>> down Yamamoto? Both targets were members of the Imperial Japanese
>> Navy, and were in Navy combat aircraft.
>>
>> Recall that Admiral Yamamoto was in charge of the war against the
>> United States at the time. The war was legally declared, and
>> everything. The Admiral was in a military bomber, in a war zone: in
>> this case flying from Rabaul to the Solomons.
>>
>> By this logic, an American or British infantryman who had a chance to
>> shoot a German general in occupied France would also be an assassin.
>>
>> The fact that the Admiral was specifically targeted is irrelevant. Do
>> you claim that (in my example above) Corporal O'Reilly -after randomly
>> meeting Field Marshal Rommel in Normandy- is not an assassin if he
>> shoots his opponent? Or is it acceptable to shoot an opponent during a
>> random encounter, but not go looking for them? Does that mean the
>> pilot who strafed Rommel (and very nearly killed him) was a war
>> criminal? Or not?
>>
>> I recall Bill Mauldin remaking in his book "Up Front" that at least
>> some NCOs/officers preferred not to wear obvious badges of rank while
>> in the line, as enemy snipers tended to concentrate on them. Were the
>> snipers assassins? Or were they military opponents trying to kill or
>> defeat their enemy?
>>
>> The bottom line: Admiral Yamamoto was a member of the Imperial armed
>> forces, was in charge of the war effort against the Allies, was flying
>> in an armed military aircraft (bomber), from one Japanese military
>> base to another Japanese military base, both of which were in a war
>> zone.
>>
>> This was not an assassination.
>>
>
>It was by definition an assassination. Now move on.
>

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

June 11th 08, 03:41 AM

HiFlyer wrote:
>
> Steven wants the last word, even if it is the wrong word. LOL
>

Actually, it appears that's what you want. Steven is correct, you will have
the last word when you respond to this message, incorrectly stating that he
is wrong. LOL!

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

June 11th 08, 10:45 AM

Casey Tompkins, aka Goober, wrote:
>
> "by definition?" Whose definition?
>

Word definitions are found in a book we call a "dictionary".

One you made up? I do so love the
> goobers who use ipse dixit for an argument.
>
> Let's see, here.
>
> From merriam-webster.com:
> 2: a person who commits murder; especially : one who murders a
> politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives
>
> From dictionary.die.net:
> One who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault; one
> who treacherously murders any one unprepared for defense.
>
> From yourdictionary.com:
> a murderer who strikes suddenly and by surprise: now generally used of
> the killer of a politically important or prominent person
>
> From my desktop Webster's New World Dictionary:
> a murderer who strikes suddenly; often, a hired killer.
>
> Generally the accepted definition of assassin involves targeting a
> *political* leader, and/or murder.
>

But not always, as your definition from dictionary.die.net illustrates; "One
who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault."

Here's a tip for you: Reading what you post before posting it may help
avoid appearing stupid.

HiFlyer

June 11th 08, 04:34 PM

Here's another truism: Swimming against the tide of public opinion is
rarely successful!!

Please don't expect love and kisses when you degrade our service men
and women!! They are not and never have been assassins!!

HF
Never agrue with an idiot, he'll drag youdown to his level and beat
you with experience.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:45:55 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Casey Tompkins, aka Goober, wrote:
>>
>> "by definition?" Whose definition?
>>
>
>Word definitions are found in a book we call a "dictionary".
>
>
>One you made up? I do so love the
>> goobers who use ipse dixit for an argument.
>>
>> Let's see, here.
>>
>> From merriam-webster.com:
>> 2: a person who commits murder; especially : one who murders a
>> politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives
>>
>> From dictionary.die.net:
>> One who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault; one
>> who treacherously murders any one unprepared for defense.
>>
>> From yourdictionary.com:
>> a murderer who strikes suddenly and by surprise: now generally used of
>> the killer of a politically important or prominent person
>>
>> From my desktop Webster's New World Dictionary:
>> a murderer who strikes suddenly; often, a hired killer.
>>
>> Generally the accepted definition of assassin involves targeting a
>> *political* leader, and/or murder.
>>
>
>But not always, as your definition from dictionary.die.net illustrates; "One
>who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault."
>
>Here's a tip for you: Reading what you post before posting it may help
>avoid appearing stupid.
>

redc1c4

June 11th 08, 07:39 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Casey Tompkins wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 20:12:15 -0400, hielan' laddie
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>>>> The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
> >
> >> It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
> >> and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
> >> example of an assassination.
> >
> > ...So killling a soldier in a war zone is assassination?
> >
> > Does that mean that every japanese pilot shot down was assassinated?
> > You might reply "Well, at least the pilot could fight back," but that
> > would imply that shooting down any multi-place craft was also
> > assassination, since only a fighter pilot (or gunner) could shoot
> > back. Cargo planes didn't have guns, so I suppose by this logic that
> > they were war crime victims.
> >
> > When Thomas Lanphier shot down a Zero over Guadalcanal, was he an
> > assassin? If not, then how can you logically call him one for shooting
> > down Yamamoto? Both targets were members of the Imperial Japanese
> > Navy, and were in Navy combat aircraft.
> >
> > Recall that Admiral Yamamoto was in charge of the war against the
> > United States at the time. The war was legally declared, and
> > everything. The Admiral was in a military bomber, in a war zone: in
> > this case flying from Rabaul to the Solomons.
> >
> > By this logic, an American or British infantryman who had a chance to
> > shoot a German general in occupied France would also be an assassin.
> >
> > The fact that the Admiral was specifically targeted is irrelevant. Do
> > you claim that (in my example above) Corporal O'Reilly -after randomly
> > meeting Field Marshal Rommel in Normandy- is not an assassin if he
> > shoots his opponent? Or is it acceptable to shoot an opponent during a
> > random encounter, but not go looking for them? Does that mean the
> > pilot who strafed Rommel (and very nearly killed him) was a war
> > criminal? Or not?
> >
> > I recall Bill Mauldin remaking in his book "Up Front" that at least
> > some NCOs/officers preferred not to wear obvious badges of rank while
> > in the line, as enemy snipers tended to concentrate on them. Were the
> > snipers assassins? Or were they military opponents trying to kill or
> > defeat their enemy?
> >
> > The bottom line: Admiral Yamamoto was a member of the Imperial armed
> > forces, was in charge of the war effort against the Allies, was flying
> > in an armed military aircraft (bomber), from one Japanese military
> > base to another Japanese military base, both of which were in a war
> > zone.
> >
> > This was not an assassination.
> >
>
> It was by definition an assassination. Now move on.

interesting dictionary you have there.

military combat operations are *not* assassinations, no matter how many times
you might claim they are.

redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

redc1c4

June 11th 08, 07:41 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Casey Tompkins, aka Goober, wrote:
> >
> > "by definition?" Whose definition?
> >
>
> Word definitions are found in a book we call a "dictionary".
>
> One you made up? I do so love the
> > goobers who use ipse dixit for an argument.
> >
> > Let's see, here.
> >
> > From merriam-webster.com:
> > 2: a person who commits murder; especially : one who murders a
> > politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives
> >
> > From dictionary.die.net:
> > One who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault; one
> > who treacherously murders any one unprepared for defense.
> >
> > From yourdictionary.com:
> > a murderer who strikes suddenly and by surprise: now generally used of
> > the killer of a politically important or prominent person
> >
> > From my desktop Webster's New World Dictionary:
> > a murderer who strikes suddenly; often, a hired killer.
> >
> > Generally the accepted definition of assassin involves targeting a
> > *political* leader, and/or murder.
> >
>
> But not always, as your definition from dictionary.die.net illustrates; "One
> who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault."
>
> Here's a tip for you: Reading what you post before posting it may help
> avoid appearing stupid.

however, reading what you post proves you *are* stupid.

redc1c4,
you might try a reading comprehension class for your problem...... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

redc1c4

June 11th 08, 07:43 PM

HiFlyer wrote:
>
> Here's another truism: Swimming against the tide of public opinion is
> rarely successful!!
>
> Please don't expect love and kisses when you degrade our service men
> and women!! They are not and never have been assassins!!
>
> HF
> Never agrue with an idiot, he'll drag youdown to his level and beat
> you with experience.

mocking them, OTOH, is usually entertaining...... %-)

redc1c4,
this one's a classic nut case.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

®i©ardo

June 11th 08, 09:11 PM

HiFlyer wrote:
> Here's another truism: Swimming against the tide of public opinion is
> rarely successful!!
>
> Please don't expect love and kisses when you degrade our service men
> and women!! They are not and never have been assassins!!
>
Fidel Castro would take great comfort from your words. Luckily
incompetence won the day, on many days.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Netko

June 12th 08, 11:30 AM

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:11:42 +0100, ®i©ardo wrote
(in message >):

>> Please don't expect love and kisses when you degrade our service men
>> and women!! They are not and never have been assassins!!
>>
> Fidel Castro would take great comfort from your words. Luckily
> incompetence won the day, on many days.

I didn't think the US military (as opposed to civilian arms of the
US government) were directly involved in any attempt to assassinate
Fidel Castro.

On the other hand, Saddam Hussein - were he alive today and
contributing to abpa - might want to mention 19 March and 7 April
2003 (al Dora and al Mansour respectively) as examples of
assassination attempts carried out by US forces.

Or does 'decapitation' not count as assassination?

--

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
tone, 'It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor
less'.

'The question is,' said Alice, 'Whether you can make words mean so
many different things'.

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'Which is to be master -
that's all'. "

--

®i©ardo

June 12th 08, 11:57 AM

Netko wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:11:42 +0100, ®i©ardo wrote
> (in message >):
>
>>> Please don't expect love and kisses when you degrade our service men
>>> and women!! They are not and never have been assassins!!
>>>
>> Fidel Castro would take great comfort from your words. Luckily
>> incompetence won the day, on many days.
>
> I didn't think the US military (as opposed to civilian arms of the
> US government) were directly involved in any attempt to assassinate
> Fidel Castro.
>
> On the other hand, Saddam Hussein - were he alive today and
> contributing to abpa - might want to mention 19 March and 7 April
> 2003 (al Dora and al Mansour respectively) as examples of
> assassination attempts carried out by US forces.
>
> Or does 'decapitation' not count as assassination?
>
> --
>
Is it worth losing your head over?

> "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
> tone, 'It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor
> less'.
>
> 'The question is,' said Alice, 'Whether you can make words mean so
> many different things'.
>
> 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'Which is to be master -
> that's all'. "
>

--
Moving things in still pictures!