# WW2 Myths



## Joe2 (Nov 11, 2006)

If anyone has any interesting myths please put them here


----------



## Twitch (Nov 19, 2006)

Well one for sure is that ridiculous urban myth that the enemy would listen for the en-bloc clip retainer "ping" when it ejected on the last round of the M-1 Garand and they'd somehow rush in and kill the rifleman. Sillyest assed thing I ever heard of. As if during a firefight with your stunted hearing due to fire you'd be able to hear that 150 yards away much less jump up and run towards the guy!


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 21, 2006)

Spoken like a man who has been on the firing lines. I will never forget the first time the line started up while I was putting my gear away, had my earplugs out and someone cranked off the itty-bitty .223. Goddamn did that hurt.


----------



## k9kiwi (Nov 22, 2006)

Try it with a 7.62 SLR.

THAt will ring your bells for a week.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 22, 2006)

No thanks. I actually take my hearing pretty seriously. I've always wondered about people who keep hand cannons in their room for protection. So you stop the bad guy, but you are permanently deaf. Thus, I think the smaller...and perhaps less effective...rounds are a better choice for the homeowner. Besides .38spl, 9mm vs .357mag is shades of grey in my eyes at room distances. I can't imagine a full power .357mag lit off in the house. Good God.


----------



## k9kiwi (Nov 22, 2006)

*WHAT? Speak Up.*


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 24, 2006)




----------



## Smokey (Nov 24, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Well one for sure is that ridiculous urban myth that the enemy would listen for the en-bloc clip retainer "ping" when it ejected on the last round of the M-1 Garand and they'd somehow rush in and kill the rifleman. Sillyest assed thing I ever heard of. As if during a firefight with your stunted hearing due to fire you'd be able to hear that 150 yards away much less jump up and run towards the guy!




I read that it wasn't the spring but the empty magazine hitting hard ground. Is that just pure hokum?


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 24, 2006)

Yes. It was not a magazine, but an 8rd en-bloc clip. You pushed the whole clip into the chamber. If you fired 1 or 7 rds, you could not top off. Once 8rds were expired, the clip is ejected with a rather loud sound. However, if you have ever been on a firing line, a "sproing" is nothing compared to ordanance going off around you. It would be non-existent with the ringing in everyone's ears.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 25, 2006)

What about Hollywood?


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 25, 2006)

Oh right. Disregard my previous post.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2006)

The IJN carriers at Midway had their aircraft on deck, spotted, ready to launch when the US dive bombers caught them flat footed and destroyed them causing irreplacable losses of the pilots and aircrews......

Not true!


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 25, 2006)

The US actually built an experimental aircraft carrier out of an iceberg.

Help me out here guys. Other than thinking about it and how infeasible that would be, please tell me that was a myth.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2006)

They didn't build it, but they had the idea alright. The concept never came past a floating shed however, which btw sank


----------



## k9kiwi (Nov 25, 2006)

Cabinet Magazine Online - The Floating Island


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 25, 2006)

Leave it to the British! 

Excellent tale.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2006)

haha, never knew about that, what a fantastic idea! one problem though, other than possibly using arrester gear how do you safely stop an aircraft landing onto ice?


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2006)

Well AFAIK they planned on making a concrete runway. Btw the carrier itself wasn't made out of pure ice, it was a sort of wood/ice mix actually, called Pykrete.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2006)

Intersting stuff. I had never heard of this one.


----------



## k9kiwi (Nov 26, 2006)

I tried to convince the missus we could build houses out of it.

She wasn't really interested.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 29, 2006)

i have heard of that. But why didnt they make tanks out of the stuff?


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Dec 28, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> I can't imagine a full power .357mag lit off in the house. Good God.




That would wake everyone up


----------



## timshatz (Jan 2, 2007)

Myth that I heard...maybe true, most likely not. 

Germans built a fake airfield in France. Complete with wooden sheds, wooden aircraft, some fake and some real AAA. When they completed it, the British flew over and dropped a wooden bomb on it. 

Also heard it with the British building the Airfield and the Germans dropping the wooden bomb.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2007)

Knowing the British sense of humour, even during war, it might just be true. 

Mighta been the Germans I suppose though, if it's true at all.


----------



## R-2800 (Jan 2, 2007)

> Myth that I heard...maybe true, most likely not.
> 
> Germans built a fake airfield in France. Complete with wooden sheds, wooden aircraft, some fake and some real AAA. When they completed it, the British flew over and dropped a wooden bomb on it.
> 
> Also heard it with the British building the Airfield and the Germans dropping the wooden bomb.



that's funny even if it isn't true


----------



## Udet (Jan 2, 2007)

More myths (some have already been discussed here; some others have been debunked, but to some extent remain in public imagery):

(i) The Germans had to stop their aerial operations over England during 1940 as a consequence of unbearable losses. 

(ii) Defensive armament onboard German bombers during 1940 was inadequate while that fitted to allied heavy bombers was sufficient, or at least, much more better. (British heavy bombers retained their .303 cal machine guns throughout the entire war) 8) 

(iii) The G-6 version of the Bf 109 was inferior to any of their contemporay opponents.

(iv) The western allied air forces could replace their casualties with ease, while the Luftwaffe could not, so they had to sent pilots who could barely take off, navigate and land on mission, so to explain the horrific losses swalloed by the Luftwaffe during 1944/45.

(v) *Newer fresher myths:* the Poles moving forward filing their own claims pointing out the Luftwaffe had horrific losses during Fall Weiss (September 1939) at the hands of both their air force and AA batteries, at least high enough to put into doubt an alleged brilliant performance from German fliers during the attack against Poland. Soon you will have the yugoslavs, greeks and norweigans too claiming their forces nearly annihilated Luftwaffe units committed to the attacks against their countries.

(vi) World War Two is the sole and direct responsiblity of one individual: Adolf Hitler.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)

How about this one. America forced Japan into WWII by blockading Japan's ability to import oil, thus Japan was forced to take immediate retaliatory action to secure her energy needs.

A good myth is always veiled in some form of truth. No matter how slim. Otherwise the myth is not believable.


----------



## Hop (Jan 3, 2007)

> (i) The Germans had to stop their aerial operations over England during 1940 as a consequence of unbearable losses.



They certainly had to stop their large scale daylight operations because of unbearable losses.

The single engined fighter force had 856 serviceable fighters and 906 fit fighter pilots at the end of June 1940. At the end of December, that had fallen to 586 serviceable fighters and 711 fit fighter pilots.



> The western allied air forces could replace their casualties with ease, while the Luftwaffe could not, so they had to sent pilots who could barely take off, navigate and land on mission, so to explain the horrific losses swalloed by the Luftwaffe during 1944/45



This is largely true. From Strategy For Defeat by Williamson Murray:

"The increasing attrition of pilots forced the Germans to curtail training programs to fill empty combat cockpits . As a result, new pilots with less skill than
their predecessors were lost at a faster rate. The increasing losses, in turn, forced
the training establishments to produce pilots even more rapidly. Once they had
begun this vicious cycle, the Germans found no escape . One of the surest indicators
of the declining skill of German pilots after the 1940 air battles was the rising level
of noncombat losses (see Tables LXII through LXIV) . By the first half of 1943,
they had reached the point where the fighter force suffered as many losses due to
noncombat causes as it did to the efforts of its opponents ."

"By the beginning of 1942, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two entire air
forces . The result was that the Germans had to curtail their training programs to
meet the demands of the front for new pilots . By January 1942, of the pilots
available for duty in the fighter force, only 60 percent were fully operational, while
the number in the bomber force was down to 47 percent (see Table LXIX'3) . For the
remainder of the war, the percentage of fully operational fighter and bomber pilots
available, with few exceptions, remained below, and at many times substantially
below, the 70 percent level. Further exacerbating this situation was the fact that the
Germans were forced to lower their standards for a fully operational pilot as the war
continued . There was, one must note, no decisive moment in this decline in
expertise. Rather as Winston Churchill has suggested in another context, the
Luftwaffe had entered the descent from 1940 "incontinently, fecklessly. . . . It is a
fine broad stairway at the beginning but after a bit the carpet ends . A little further
on, there are only flagstones ; and a little further on, these break beneath your
feet . 1114 The graph for the number of training hours for new pilots clearly reflected
such a course (see Table LXX'5) . In the period through the late summer of 1942,
German pilots were receiving at least as many training hours as their opponents in
the RAF. By 1943, that statistic had begun a gradual shift against the Germans until
the last half of the year when Luftwaffe pilots were receiving barely one-half of the
training hours given to enemy pilots . In terms of flying training in operational
aircraft, the disparity had become even more pronounced: one-third of the RAF
total and one-fifth of the American total . But those Luftwaffe pilots who had
survived the attrition of the first air battles of the war had little difficulty defeating
new Allied pilots no matter how many training hours the latter had flown. In fact,
the ratio of kills-to-sorties climbed as those Luftwaffe pilots who survived built up
experience (see Table LXXI16). However, few German pilots survived the attrition
of the first war years, and thus the Luftwaffe became, in fact, two distinct forces: the
few great aces-the Hartmans, Galands, and Waldmans-and the great mass of
pilots who faced great difficulty in landing their aircraft, much less surviving
combat. Only 8 of Germany's 107 aces to score more than 100 victories joined their
squadrons after mid-1942"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Myth that I heard...maybe true, most likely not.
> 
> Germans built a fake airfield in France. Complete with wooden sheds, wooden aircraft, some fake and some real AAA. When they completed it, the British flew over and dropped a wooden bomb on it.
> 
> Also heard it with the British building the Airfield and the Germans dropping the wooden bomb.



it's more likely to be our wooden airfeild set up as a decoy in the Battle of Britain..........


----------



## timshatz (Jan 3, 2007)

Like I said, heard it both ways. A good joke gets passed around and changed all the time. A rule of comedy, if you hear somebody else telling a good joke, steal it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

It also could have been an allied airfield set up as a decoy during the build up to D-Day.


----------



## Raf ace (Jan 12, 2007)

Ive heard about Pyrete they wanted to make a carrier with one but it is to 
expensive it is invinceble


----------



## Joe2 (Feb 3, 2007)

Why not make a pykrete tank?


----------



## trackend (Feb 3, 2007)

A wet blanket hanging on a washing line can stop a .303 round (that was told to my old man in the home guard) he asked the sarg to stand behind one and let him prove it.


----------



## Cyrano (Feb 3, 2007)




----------



## timshatz (Feb 3, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> I've heard this absurd rumor about german/allied aviators projecting images of god and angels on clouds during the WW1. The intention was to get tired enemies to go over the edge and flee in panic.
> 
> Has anyone more information on this, it just seem so absurd that they could have fitted such equipment even on a Gotha bomber.
> 
> (Not exactly a WW2 myth, but this has been bothering me.)



Sounds bizzare. Not only do you have technical problems with getting the right image on the right cloud while somebody moving 100mph is looking in that direction. But what happens when the crew is mostly Jewish? Toss up Moses instead of Mary?

Odd.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2007)

Yeah that just does not sound possible to me. I dont know though stranger things have happened.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 3, 2007)

The myth that the Japanese couldn't be defeated in Jungle Warfare. Or the Afrika Corp was unbeatable in the Deserts. The Myth that all heavy guns in their emplacements defending Singapore could not fire inland. actually the guns could but its pointless firing an armour piercing shell towards a ground target. Another Myth concerning Singapore there were no intention of sending Armour to Singapore by ship to stem Japanese invasion down Malaya. The Myth that Japanese airmen were myopic. And a thread i began did the 6th Division 2nd AIF whistle and sing We are off to see the Wizard when they attacked Bardia in North Africa Campaign in 1941. but here are some factuals not myths. English and German Troops celebrated Christmas Eve and Day on the Western Front and temperorily called of hostilities to do so without orders during WW1 and soccer matches on occassions did occur. On occassions truces on the Gallipoli Battlefield occured to clear the wounded and the dead from the field. And a cricket match by Australians was played on what was called Shell Fire Green in full view of the Turks. another factual event from Gallipoli that the disembarkment of Troops from Gallipoli was a success and was better planned then the invasion and landings on 25th April 1915. Another comes from the Middle East Campaign. The Australians rather than let their Horses (Whalers) become livestock for local Arabs shot the horses instead as the Aussies had seen how the Arabs treated horses at the time and did all Arabs volunteer to fight with T E Lawerence. no they bloody didn't as the Aussies had problems with them whilst they the Aussies were fighting Turks


----------



## trackend (Feb 3, 2007)

This was not a myth but true. The US govenment namely Rooservelt recieved a letter from a guy regarding a plan to use millions of bats as tiny incendiary bombs in japan these would be dropped from a bomber and after a predetermind time (after they had be given enough time to roost in the eves of the mainly wooden buildings of Tokyo) the minature bombs they carried would burst into flame and set the buildings ablaze.
The plan was studied and got a lot nearer to actuality than many thought it would.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 3, 2007)

trackend said:


> This was not a myth but true. The US govenment namely Rooservelt recieved a letter from a guy regarding a plan to use millions of bats as tiny incendiary bombs in japan these would be dropped from a bomber and after a predetermind time (after they had be given enough time to roost in the eves of the mainly wooden buildings of Tokyo) the minature bombs they carried would burst into flame and set the buildings ablaze.
> The plan was studied and got a lot nearer to actuality than many thought it would.



I read about that one. They actually put it together and tried it out on an airbase in the Southwest. It was a fiasco. The test run had bats heading every which way and blowing stuff up. In a way, it worked. But it was decided to wierd to bother with when the conventional stuff seemed to work. 

Heard one from right after the Battle of Britain when the Germans were bombing at night. The Brits were trying to figure out a way to stop the German bombers. People were writting in all sorts of crazy ideas. One person, more than a little out there, wrote in" "Put a cat in the cockpit and shoot wherever the cat looks".

Forgot to mention they shoud put Moe, Larry and Shemp in the same plane with the cat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2007)

Like a Bat out of Hell.


----------



## Erich (Feb 3, 2007)

German Luftwaffe techs perfected what we now call UFO's..........

actually I did


----------



## joebong (Feb 3, 2007)

Twitch said:


> Well one for sure is that ridiculous urban myth that the enemy would listen for the en-bloc clip retainer "ping" when it ejected on the last round of the M-1 Garand and they'd somehow rush in and kill the rifleman. Sillyest assed thing I ever heard of. As if during a firefight with your stunted hearing due to fire you'd be able to hear that 150 yards away much less jump up and run towards the guy!



You're quite right of course, but it is sooo cool. I have a Garand, and on a range
everyone notices that sound, ya really feel like the big man on campus.


----------



## joebong (Feb 3, 2007)

A guy once had me fooled that a Sea Fury's radial was a two stroke engine. I believed that for years, after all he was an aviator and it did sound quite different from the Corsair at the same field.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2007)

"The Zero was the most maneuverable fighter of WW2."


----------



## Bf109_g (Feb 3, 2007)

Hi guys. 

I watched a programme about so-called "Foo Fighters" during World War Two, ages ago, and one of the encounters was during a bombing raid on Germany in 1943. The aircrew of an Avro Lancaster bomber saw a group of four or five coloured lights following the bomber stream for some time, then they simply vanished. They interviewed a lot of WW2 aircrew veterans, both British and American, who said they'd seen these "Foo Fighters", and said they thought that it
was some type of new German un-manned fighter; Germany's new secret weapon...


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 4, 2007)

Anything is possible I suppose Bf. On records my Father saw or claim to have seen a V2 being launched whilist he was on a Lanc raid with his Squadron will have to check on that and go back through his log books


----------



## Joe2 (Feb 4, 2007)

Heres one- the germans had a wierd AA shell that when it exploded, it looked like a lancaster blowing up. Not true, but the crews thought it was real.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 4, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> Anything is possible I suppose Bf. On records my Father saw or claim to have seen a V2 being launched whilist he was on a Lanc raid with his Squadron will have to check on that and go back through his log books




I've read of a bunch of guys who've seen the same thing. One guy was a P51 driver who saw one take off and head off into the wild blue. As I recall, they guy said it was miles away but very noticeable. 

If you're father saw one in a Lanc or Halifax, it must've been amazing. Especially at night.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 5, 2007)

Dad was Mid Upper Gunner on Lancaster. Tim


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 5, 2007)

The Myth that some Americans think WW2 was won by them exclusively. Sorry my American friends that one does get annoying to your Allies. No insult intended but after 65 odd bloody years one could throttle some ingnorant idiot who prattles that line too often without prior knowledge that the Allies to the US at the time were fighting and dying right alongside with US Troops Airmen and Sailors, The line that annoys me is the one if it wasn't for the USA Great Brtian would be speaking Germn. Needless to say the Luffwaffe had been defeated by the RAF over England and that Australia would be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for the USA. Obviously the Coral Sea battle was justifiably important but the Japs also decided to attack over land via the Owen Stanley ranges in PNG And at one time it was only Australian Trrops who turned the Japs back from taking Port Moresby. Due to the fact US Troops had not arrived in sufficient numbers to add to the PNG Camapign at the time


----------



## timshatz (Feb 5, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> Dad was Mid Upper Gunner on Lancaster. Tim



How many missions did he fly? Do a full tour?


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 6, 2007)

timshatz said:


> How many missions did he fly? Do a full tour?



Yes Tim he did 33 missions recorded in his log book but officialy only 31 recorded by operations 30 mission over Germany and 3 occupied Territories with 467 Squadron RAAF 5th Bomber Group Waddington England. No idea why 2 of the last missions were not recorded officially. But at the time i suppose my Father and his mates didn't care as the war was nearly over. I believe they were on leave for 6 days when war was declared over and they came back to base and got royally pissed and drunk


----------



## timshatz (Feb 6, 2007)

My hats off to him. We are where we are now because of men like your father.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 7, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> The Myth that some Americans think WW2 was won by them exclusively. Sorry my American friends that one does get annoying to your Allies.



I believe it's safe to say that over 80% of Americans think the Eastern Front was a side show and the entire war started on Dec 7 1941. Until there is a popular televised sitcom about The Blitz, North Africa or Stalingrad, not much will change.

I'm not sure propaganda is the right word. I think it's American isolation and entertainment all packaged in convenient doses. 

"The Minutemen slayed the Redcoats."
"The Calvary rescued the wagon trains."
"The reluctant warrior Yank beat the nasty Nazis and sneaky Japs."

It's what people want to believe because it makes good stories.

We need Mel Gibson to make more movies!... LOL

>>and save the typing ... rednecks! I am not anti-american. I am proud of (most) of the roles we've played in history<<


----------



## Udet (Feb 7, 2007)

You can argue as much as you wish...without the U.S.A. joining the fight neither Great Britain nor the Soviet Union -fighting independently or jointly- manage to beat Germany.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 7, 2007)

Udet said:


> You can argue as much as you wish...without the U.S.A. joining the fight neither Great Britain nor the Soviet Union -fighting independently or jointly- manage to beat Germany.



OH Lord....Who is arguing? Any dimwit would agree that America’s contributions were vital to Allied victory. Just as there are millions of dimwits that think the Soviets played a minor role and that the Brits and Anzac’s were along for the ride


----------



## Udet (Feb 7, 2007)

I´ll be honest with you comiso but what i´ve met so far is a clear majority of people who believe the USSR won world war two all by itself...


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 7, 2007)

Unfortunately Udet if it wasn't for our one time Soviet Allies becoming our Allies when it did. The war may have lasted longer than it did. When Germany attacked Russia in 1941 bringing Russia into the Allied camp so to speak to fight the Germans. The Allies would have faced up to some stiff opposition not only in Italy but also in France and North Africa with the inclusion of some 50 to 60 German Division fighting on the Western front against the Allies of Great Britian Her Commonwealth France and the USA. Normandy would possibley not have occurred nor the landings in Sicily or Italy or the campaigns in North Africa may have ended differently. Those German Divisions sent to fight in Russia after 1941 were tied down invading Russia and thank god they the Russians had joined the war against Germany. When the Russians eventually took Berlin in April 1945 they lost 300,000 plus troops taking the city of Berlin. Could or would the Allies sustained that amount of losses in just taking the capital of Germany? The answer possibley not if one goes on the idea of losses that the USA would have sustained in taking the Home Island of Japan. where estimated losses were to be expected of 1 million men.If the atomic bombs hadn't been used to end the War in the Pacific. Russia like the USA didn't win WW2 by themselves nor did England or her Commonwealth or France or the European Occupied Nations. it was a combination of all Allied Nations fighting a one common foes the Axis Forces of Germany Italy and Japan. But my original point was and not to insult our American friends but one does hear a lot the sheer ignorance or maybe the lack of education the phrases that annoys the Allies of the USA. I would dare say that all the contributors and forum members who come from the USA know better and are educated to the degree to debunk that myth entirely about the USA winning WW2 by themselves etc. Its just a small minority of less intelligent Americans or badly educated ones who know little and don't realize they are prattling ignorance and arrogance. I might remind you to Udet that the war began on 1st September 1939 not 7th December 1941. The US declared war on Japan on 8th december 1941. 2 days later Germany and Italy declared war on the US bringing the USA into the World War 2. Russia was invaded by Germany in mid 1941 with the start of Operation Barbarossa. Nearly 3 to 6 months before Pearl Harbour occured. The Russians incurred huge losses during Operation Barbarossa on their own territory and lost between 1 to 1.5 million men in the first few days of the invasion by Germany. This not only included men but also material tanks weapons artillery aircraft and every form of communication equipment that was available at the time to the Russians. The Russians virtually pushed back the Germans from the gates of Moscow back to Berlin. But the Russians also had to endure Stalingrad Seige, The lost of major oil producing areas around the Black Sea. but the Russians virtually also had to transport their heavy manufacturing equipment and factories to other parts of Russia beyond German Bombers and land forces and all of this with aid coming from England and the USA via the North Atlantic convoys or via supplies from the USA directly via the Aluetian Islands which that equipment had to travel from Asiactic Russia Siberian railways to European Russia which those supplies along with troops had to cross over 5000 miles of territory to enter the European War. Was Russias contribution any greater or any less than any other Allied Nation? No it wasn't but one has to remember that Russia at the time was fighting Germans on their own soil for nearly 3 1/2 years and how much of what I have passed to you Udet does the average US citizen know of the Russian Campaigns during WW2? I suspect very little my friend. But you Udet are different. You do know the history of WW2 and the contributions of the Allies to the USA during WW2. So it wasn't aimed at you my original post ok


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 7, 2007)

Udet said:


> I´ll be honest with you comiso but what I’ve met so far is a clear majority of people who believe the USSR won world war two all by itself...



Thats another discussion that would entail several "what if's?" 
 
I am talking about what is...

I'm certain that 40% of my co-workers, all with at least a 4 year degree, believe that the Russians fought on the same side as Germany. I'd also wager that 80% believe that the majority of the major land battles in Europe took place in only after the Americans arrived to save democracy and little French girls in 1944 with the our superior tanks.

If they even know there was an Eastern front, they have no concept of the scope.

I submit that this attitude is not born from blind arrogance or intentional propaganda, it's because of Americas isolation and entertainment industry. Many of our allies still have daily reminders of WW2. Pill boxes dot the countryside, war memorials and personal memories can't let people forget. They are educated by osmosis. 

We on the other hand, are primarily reminded by what ever tv show or movie that happens to be playing. Too many Yanks think that John Wayne won WW2 with his good-intentioned, hapless, English speaking allies nipping at the heals.

Nobody is disparaging America by acknowledging the tremendous team effort.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2007)

Unfortunate but true. Most Americans have a very slight knowledge of WW2 beyond "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers". Both are good flicks, but hardley representative of the last major world conflict. I believe there are several reasons for it, some are cultural, some are happenstance, some of geographic.

For starters, Americans are not really tuned into their history the rest of the world is. As a people, Americans tend to knock old things down rather than save them. In Europe, it is common for a house to be habitable for several hundred years. The US is more of a disposable society. As a consequence, what happened yesterday is considered old news and rarely worth bothering with. Today and tomorrow are more important. 

Secondly, the US was not materially affected by WW2. There were no effective bombing raids (the odd seaplane attack or balloon bombs were isolated incidents). Whereas Europe and the Far East lost entire cities almost routinely, US casualties on home ground due to bombing amounted to 6 dead from a balloon bomb in Oregon (not counting Pearl Harbor or Pacific Island fights). The affects of devestated cities becomes a major factor in the culture of a country. It is something you tell your kids about. For the US, the war happened "over there". It was beyond the horizon. 

The US fought a war of material. While the US did fight all over the globe, it supplied more than it fought. It really was the Arsenal for Democracy (Soviet Union notwithstanding). American equipment was used by every major (and every minor) military contingent in the war. In some cases, exclusively. American casualties were not as significant as our allies. But our supplies (in all realms) generally dwarfed that of other countries. 

Lastly, the US was the last player in a war (or more likely, a series of wars) that started in 1931 and finished in 1945. By the time the US showed up, all the major players BUT the US were already heavily engaged. With the exception of Japan, the US was a peripheral opponent to the Axis powers. 

Most of the real killing and dying in Europe was done by countries that had been at war with each other (off and on) for the previous 1000 years, and before that as tribes or smaller principalities. Old enemies, old grievences, new flags. Germany and Russia had been going at it, hammer and tongs, since 1200AD. The same could be said for China and Japan. Between those four players is where the majority of the dying took place. The US really didn't fit in those catagories. It's a country that was less than 200 years old at the time of the war. The same could be said for many of the Commonwealth countries. They weren't fighting a fight they had fought many times in the past. For the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, ect, this was a relatively new fight.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 7, 2007)

The fact is, I'm just trying to get a free place to stay in Europe or Oceania by bolstering our allies!


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The fact is, I'm just trying to get a free place to stay in Europe or Oceania by bolstering our allies!



Oh, in that case, GO EURO!
Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 7, 2007)

Well... I lived in Euro land for 2 years and loved it but I gotta say, one of the things I liked to most were all the Aussie and Kiwi ladies on their walk-a-bouts...

I may have to try the land where the water runs the wrong direction down the drain.


----------



## Udet (Feb 7, 2007)

timshatz:

I agree with you when you say most Americans know very little if anything regarding world war two...from Alaska all the way down to Chile and Argentina most people are clueless regarding the very basics of the war.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 7, 2007)

Udet said:


> timshatz:
> 
> I agree with you when you say most Americans know very little if anything regarding world war two...from Alaska all the way down to Chile and Argentina most people are clueless regarding the very basics of the war.



Agreed. When a revisionist historian starts tossing out some BS line, the ground swell against it is not as great as it could and should be. From the Bombing of Hiroshima to the Invasion of Iwo Jima to the decison not to bomb the Death Camps, actions taken or not taken are given sinister perspectives by individuals with an agenda and believed by the partisan and those too lazy to check it out for themselves. 

Given people's desire to forget and inability to understand the real fears and threats of the time, the lessons of history are watered down or changed to support present day short term political needs. We were very lucky in the last century. I do not believe we will be so lucky in the future.


----------



## Henk (Feb 7, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Unfortunate but true. Most Americans have a very slight knowledge of WW2 beyond "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers". Both are good flicks, but hardley representative of the last major world conflict. I believe there are several reasons for it, some are cultural, some are happenstance, some of geographic.
> 
> For starters, Americans are not really tuned into their history the rest of the world is. As a people, Americans tend to knock old things down rather than save them. In Europe, it is common for a house to be habitable for several hundred years. The US is more of a disposable society. As a consequence, what happened yesterday is considered old news and rarely worth bothering with. Today and tomorrow are more important.
> 
> ...



I will agree with you there, even more on the part of the Commonwealth part. The South African government of the time betrayed their people to go and fight with the country that killed so many of their people not even a 30 years old and at the end brought the country to its knees just to supply the war effort of a country that did not have enough to fight its own battles. The whole thing were bull. To help somone fight in something that has nothing to do with you.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 7, 2007)

Henk said:


> The whole thing were bull. To help somone fight in something that has nothing to do with you.



Should America said the same thing? As I recall there were no Swastikas over Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Henk (Feb 7, 2007)

Yes, but the whole thing how the US got involved with the war in the Europe was all bull, but Germany did declare war on the US and thus I can understand that. The US saved the whole war effort in Europe and thus won the whole war, but I did not refer to the US in that staement I was pointing out why the Government of South Africa helped the UK. It was only something that made the country even less and put it in a mini depresion.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 7, 2007)

I thought South African troops were restricted to continental Africa


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 7, 2007)

The difference with Commonwealth Countries like Australia New Zealand Canada and in some cases South Africa we were still tied to the crown as the Monarch was the Head of State for those Countries already mentioned. So in consquence if England was to declare war on Germany which she had done twice in the 20th century WW1 WW2 respectfuly of the consquence of the declaration of war by England Australia New Zealand Canada and South Africa declared war also on Germany. So what Cosmosis said that the Commonwealth Countries were like the USA being young countries of less than 200 years of colonial history etc made little difference accordingly to were the Commonwealth Nations stance was with other Countries relationships to England. For example Australia prior to becoming a Federated Nation as such sent Colonial Troops to not only South Africa in 1899 to fight in the Boer War but also sent contingents of Troops to fight in China during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. Previous to that Contigents of Australians from each Colonial State were sent to the Sudan and also the Maori Wars in New Zealand. So as you can imagine Cos the relative situation for Colonial or Commonwealth Governments and their Troops were somewhat different to that of the USA. However those events were in the past at the moment Australia New Zealand Canada and South Africa are effected by other treaties not necassarily with England and the attitudes in those countries has changed since WW1 and WW2 both politically and ethically


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 8, 2007)

Canada did not declare war on 3 Sept we declared war on the 10th as we waited for Parliment to convene


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2007)

Henk said:


> I will agree with you there, even more on the part of the Commonwealth part. The South African government of the time betrayed their people to go and fight with the country that killed so many of their people not even a 30 years old and at the end brought the country to its knees just to supply the war effort of a country that did not have enough to fight its own battles. The whole thing were bull. To help somone fight in something that has nothing to do with you.



Henk You obviously believe that South Africa should have kept out of the war. Can I ask what do you think would have happened to South Africa, if the British had lost?


----------



## Udet (Feb 8, 2007)

Ahhhh...but when it comes to myths no one can hold the candle to the red guys of the former USSR.

Possibly the nastiest, dirtiest and most ridiculous of all myths can be the whole portfolio collection of soviet claims regarding the performance of the VVS during the war...hands down, nothing will come close to match the soviet fairy tales.

I have the whole document of the official history of the VVS during the war, as published by the ministry of defence of the USSR in russian...also had the chance to read excerpts frome some translated version that by the way contained translation inaccuracies.

In spite of this i am not saying i discarded every piece of info contained in the document off hand...but let´s say 95% of the content is crap...

Depending on the kind of personality you are you might feel the document can either make you puke or have some of the greatest fun moments in your life. 

You could never imagine such a massive set of lies could have been published and presented as "official". We do know governments lie...one of the fundamental ventures of any administration -any country- is precisely to improve their methods to continue tricking the populace...yet the publishing of the paper definetly made the soviet ministry of defense look like some of the biggest clowns of XX century.

I will not comment on their lies regarding the training of the new pilots, the air combat tactics, etc. but they claim for instance the Luftwaffe was effectively "destroyed" during the summer of 1943. Period.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 8, 2007)

Udet said:


> but they claim for instance the Luftwaffe was effectively "destroyed" during the summer of 1943. Period.



Did anybody mention that to the Luftwaffe? They miss the memo or something?


----------



## Henk (Feb 8, 2007)

Glider said:


> Henk You obviously believe that South Africa should have kept out of the war. Can I ask what do you think would have happened to South Africa, if the British had lost?



The Germans did not have anything against the South African people or did they ever, they helped the Boer states during the Anglo Boer war and Hitler even said that the British robbed the Boer people of their freedom.

Well the US would get involved anyway to help the British so they would never have lost, but we sure as hell would not get the crap the other guys got.

Will you guys fight with someone or for someone who's country were responsable for your wife or your childs death in a consentration camp or that of your family?

I will sure as hell not, it still hurts today to think about it and to think 27 000 woman and children for those times are high.


----------



## aj4010 (Feb 8, 2007)

trackend said:


> This was not a myth but true. The US govenment namely Rooservelt recieved a letter from a guy regarding a plan to use millions of bats as tiny incendiary bombs in japan these would be dropped from a bomber and after a predetermind time (after they had be given enough time to roost in the eves of the mainly wooden buildings of Tokyo) the minature bombs they carried would burst into flame and set the buildings ablaze.
> The plan was studied and got a lot nearer to actuality than many thought it would.



Yes, have heard about this, often wondered.
But I can make you an otter you cant defuse.......


----------



## Hop (Feb 8, 2007)

> I will not comment on their lies regarding the training of the new pilots, the air combat tactics, etc. but they claim for instance the Luftwaffe was effectively "destroyed" during the summer of 1943. Period.



There's certainly some truth to that. From Williamson Murray, Strategy for Defeat:


> This attrition was only a foretaste of what happened in July and August.* In those
> two months, the Luftwaffe fought three great air battles and on each one of the three
> fronts the Germans lost more than 1,000 aircraft . * In combat units, the attrition
> rate reached a level that no military force could long sustain . Fighter losses were
> ...


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2007)

Henk said:


> The Germans did not have anything against the South African people or did they ever, they helped the Boer states during the Anglo Boer war and Hitler even said that the British robbed the Boer people of their freedom.
> 
> Well the US would get involved anyway to help the British so they would never have lost, but we sure as hell would not get the crap the other guys got.
> 
> ...



I can understand your feelings over the people who died in the concentration camps first set up by the British, something I would also condem, however your belief that Hitler would have left you alone, is I suspect, misplaced. Hitler had no problem crushing a number of countries that had done nothing to hurt him. He also hankered over the lost German Empire and South Africa with its strategic position and mineral reserves of all kinds would I believe have been high on his wish list for controlling if not invading.

Whatever the British did and I wouldn't hesitate to consider it a war crime in modern terms, 27,000 is nothing to what the Germans are likely to have killed had they decided to invade.


----------



## Henk (Feb 8, 2007)

When Hitler started to invade the whole of the EU the king of Lichtenstein called a meating with Hitler and asked Hitler please not to invade his country, Hitler agreed and also never did do so, but the King in gratatude gave the fleeing German soldiers a place to hide from the Soviet troops and never gave them to the Soviet Army.


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2007)

But Lichtenstein had no strategic, or economic value to him, South Africa has both.


----------



## k9kiwi (Feb 8, 2007)

South African forces fought alongisde Kiwi, Aussie, and Indian troops in the desert war and up through Italy.

The original two troops of the LRDG were Kiwis and South Africans, it was later they were joined by a Guards Troop.

Provided us Kiwis with someone else to beat at Rugby besides the Poms and Aussies.  

A traditon that continues to today.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 8, 2007)

The Germans never landed any troops in Britain..... but Napoleon did.


----------



## Udet (Feb 9, 2007)

Hop said:


> There's certainly some truth to that. From Williamson Murray, Strategy for Defeat:



No Hop there is not truth to that at all...the VVS neither destroy the Luftwaffe all by itself nor made any significant contribution for that to occur...

It´d appear you are clueless about the aerial warfare in the east and if you take a few seconds of your valuable time to re-read your posting, you might be surprised to discover that author you quoted agrees with me when i affirm the soviets lied big time when they claimed to "have destroyed" the Luftwaffe as early as mid 1943 "all by themselves".

No Hop. You are wrong -very-.

Ever heard of the aerial battles taking place over the Kuban until late 1943? Have you heard of the Luftwaffe strength in the sector...it might help you to know the VVS became uncapable of gaining air superiority in the sector...

But this is quite typical from you. When it comes to posting greatly manipulated numbers and statistics no one can beat you Hop.

Pretty much the same you do when you post your statistics of the BoB to make a case regarding the "horrific" losses of the Luftwaffe, all manipulated and distorted.

I do not blame you for having such a critical conflict of interest when posting here Hop. You can continue having fun playing and mingling your sources, stats and numbers.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 9, 2007)

I read some of Henks comments about South Africa but at the time the South African Government both during WW1 and later WW2 were pro British in most respects, hence that country of South Africa which was still by all accounts a Commonwealth Country by their Parliament was obligated to send troops to fight not only in WW1 but also WW2. Henk Hitler respected no treaties whatsoever and if he had one with South Africa at the time he would not have taken any notice of it regardless of past British Atroscities that occurred during th Boer War. He would have seen that as a reason to invade South Africa to use the excuse like he did previously with European Nations like Holland and Norway as an excuse to free Germanic Peoples from the terror of Colonial England etc. That would have been his excuse. His objectives would have been to secure the Kimberly Mining areas industrial diamonds etc or the abundancy of gold fields in your country plus arriable land for agriculture usage and a ready supply of Kaffirs to work the lot. In other words slave population of black africans.Do not make the assumption that he wouldn't do those things Hitler had already done similar things in Europe. So your claim is made by emotive reasons not on whether Herr Hitler was a nice Austrian Guy who would father Germanic attitudes in a western world


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> No Hop there is not truth to that at all...the VVS neither destroy the Luftwaffe all by itself nor made any significant contribution for that to occur...
> 
> It´d appear you are clueless about the aerial warfare in the east and if you take a few seconds of your valuable time to re-read your posting, you might be surprised to discover that author you quoted agrees with me when i affirm the soviets lied big time when they claimed to "have destroyed" the Luftwaffe as early as mid 1943 "all by themselves".
> 
> ...



Udet tone it down. His post did not warrant such hard words. You allways come back with insults and then you wonder why people have such harsh reactions to you.

You can get your point across without insulting and baiting people allright!

Tone it down and I mean it!!


----------



## Udet (Feb 9, 2007)

Adler i am not insulting Hop and i dont always come back with insults; it is just a fact he posts numbers and stats that boost his conflict of interest. 

I can and will tone it down but i am not insulting nobody and it is in fact the very first time i address Mr Hop like this.

I will understand, as i said, his huge conflict interest when he discusses everything that is RAF related, he is 50% blind but that is ok; but when he affirms "there is some truth to that..." referring to the eastern front case he is 100% lost.

Anyone taking a a closer looks to the sources and the stats he always posts regarding the comparison of RAF-Luftwaffe losses during the Battle of Britain can detect the agenda of Mr. Hop.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2007)

I will talke further with you in a PM.


----------



## bomber (Feb 9, 2007)

I find Henks opinions strange...

Sometime Henk in life you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils.

I'm just currious... how many relatives of South African people were actually living under the heels of Nazi occupation in Holland ?

How many relatives didn't starve to death because of the food drops at the end of the war ?

How may Relatives were fighting as free fighting people out of Britain during the war... or helped organise resistance by British secret service ?

Think of it as South Africans fighting to free them... not so much sideing with the British....

Who by the way gave Saf Efrika it's indepenance and didn't run an apartheid system for years on end....

When in glass houses don't throw stones..

Simon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2007)

He has got a point Henk.


----------



## Henk (Feb 9, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> I read some of Henks comments about South Africa but at the time the South African Government both during WW1 and later WW2 were pro British in most respects, hence that country of South Africa which was still by all accounts a Commonwealth Country by their Parliament was obligated to send troops to fight not only in WW1 but also WW2. Henk Hitler respected no treaties whatsoever and if he had one with South Africa at the time he would not have taken any notice of it regardless of past British Atroscities that occurred during th Boer War. He would have seen that as a reason to invade South Africa to use the excuse like he did previously with European Nations like Holland and Norway as an excuse to free Germanic Peoples from the terror of Colonial England etc. That would have been his excuse. His objectives would have been to secure the Kimberly Mining areas industrial diamonds etc or the abundancy of gold fields in your country plus arriable land for agriculture usage and a ready supply of Kaffirs to work the lot. In other words slave population of black africans.Do not make the assumption that he wouldn't do those things Hitler had already done similar things in Europe. So your claim is made by emotive reasons not on whether Herr Hitler was a nice Austrian Guy who would father Germanic attitudes in a western world





bomber said:


> I find Henks opinions strange...
> 
> Sometime Henk in life you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils.
> 
> ...






DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He has got a point Henk.




Ok, first off the Caffers like you reffer to them were working like slaves under the British government when the were in controle here and egverything you said Emac44 already were happening here and so thus it would thus have been normal day of live if Hitler took over like you described it.

Ok second off the Apartheid thing. I think the rest of the world have the whole thing backwords. Why? Well take it this way, who started the whole Apartheid bullsh*t? The British that were in controle planted the seed and let the Nasional Party grow it. The British did not give us independance, we demanded it from them. They later told us it was wrong to have a systum like apratheid. Well I learned the SA History and I did my own reseach on the topic and it all points back to the British Government. 

If you guys li8ved here in SA you would know what I mean. It is f*cked up in the sence that we have so many caltures here that it make it almoust impossibale to live together. The Apartheid systum was in some way right, but mostly wrong. They said give the Black people their own groudn to make it something, but they over populated the ground, they were mostly corrupt and demanded the Apartheid government spoon feed them. The blacks lived better during apartheid as how they live now.

No one from the out side knows what realy went on during the Apartheid years, they only believed what the TV showed them or what their governments told them. Our Economy were way better and everything went smooth, what has happend now?

Apartheid has turned around now in a so called "rainbow nation". Blacks get the jobs they can not do and steal from the poor, the blacks sit on their asses and do nothing and demand the tax payers must carry them. They get free electricaty, free water, no taxes, free home and demand more. They are laxy no good. The country that is ruled by black people that I can say is the best is Botswana. The rest are corrupt, no good, lazy oxygen thiefs.

If you guys take away your nationalty, your money and you live like a SA person must day to day you will see how it is, feel the pain and get pissed off over the bullsh*t that goes on here. 9 month old babys get raped, Farmers get killed just because they are not balck, the black chear on the streats "kill the farmer kill the boer" and they say everyone lives happy here together. The ANC are terrorest, nothing else. My mom works in the Justice department, the state, I see ho incompetent the blacks are that work with them. A person from anoether country said tath he can see how the Afrikaans people in SA are being surpressed by the black people. 

I did nothing to any of these blacks and my family has just been good for them on the farms and now I must suffer just because the Apartheid government did all of those sh*t. I have worked with these people they are lazy and no good do not want to WORK type of people, but you get great ones that want to make something of them selfs.

Sorry everyone to change the topic here, but I think the rest of the world do not see the big picture here, come and lice here I will invite you and I will show you how it is to be a non black person in SA.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 9, 2007)

Ok Henk how do you turn the statement I made about Hitler not observing Treaties with countries he had and he wouldn't observe one with South Africa into an aparthied statement. I mentioned a ready workforce of Kaffirs would be the slaves of a Germanic state of South Africa. And you turned around and immediatley blamed the British for the whole lot. One let me remind you off one thing Henk do not assume that you know what I think or whether I trust the media. 1 is I do not trust the media and 2 My knowledge of Commonwealth History and that does include South Africa is very extensive. I might not live in South Africa but well know similar occurences with former British Colonies and mandate territories have occured to the governmental processes in other countries. For example Henk the problems occuring in Zimbawae with Morgaby and the PNG Government in Port Moresby also Fiji and the Solomon Islands. So do not prattle of to me that we outside South Africa do not understand your problems. Are you also saying that it was strictly the English who were bigotted to the Kaffirs. How naive do you think I am Henk. Even by your own statements you classify some blacks as ok others not and in that it is classifying them by race my Boer friend. And if you really want to go down the historical traill about race. Mine is Scots Celtic from the Highlands of Scotland. Yes Henk I am a Jacobite a decendant of the Clans which fought the English from 10th Century to the 18th Century in Scotland. The Scots Henk like the Irish and the Welsh lost their language their homes their politics their families and their identity to the English over a 1000 years my friend so do not prattle about what the Boers had lost and regained after WW2 with your own governments coming to power. Did the English Government force the Afrikaan Governments to continue Apathied Governmental control of segegation of the Kaffirs in your society. I suppose its easy to blame others for your own mistakes without looking inside towards your own causes of mistrust and hatred for not only the English but to the Kaffirs as well. I have all good reasons to hate the English for my own Celtic Past but I do not and I am well aware that the ANC in South Africa wasn't universally supported by other Blacks in South Africa for example Inkarta Zulus had no love for the ANC or Nelson Mandala and his wife Winnie. Who by all accounts was a corrupt bitch inside the ANC organisation. And getting back to the history of Scotland for a minute. Do you think the Scots during those years of oppression by the English were not their own worse enemies with the mistrust and self promoting of various factions by Clan Chiefs like the Baille Clan MacDonalds and the Stewarts in Scotland along with the Bruces who contrieved to gain control over the various Clans and lands of the Scots and inter Clan reviallry. Henk how naive do you think I am to believe the Boers were lilly white and kind to the Kaffirs in all respects. As i am an Australian I have to acknowledge my Colonial Part played by my fellow countrymen and women upon the Australian Aborigine. So don't you dare come to me with your Boer Bullshit and prattle about the evil of the English when in reality Boers we no better the English in dealing with the the Kaffirs in your country. Dont come to me and say the Apartheid Government in South Africa only followed the example of the British prior to WW2 and WW1. Thats saying to me its not my fault but some one elses and not taking responsibilty for ones own actions. Boers like any one else have to be responsible for their own actions Henk. It seems Henk you are missing the message that those Kaffirs on the streets of South Africa are saying. Death to the Boers. Even though they are saying it in ignorance or blinded stupidity they do indeed hold the Boers responsible for some evils dealt upon them by your own people Henk, by the way Henk we in Australia have same problems with our own Aborigines but the message isn't being confused when the Aborigines say similar things to White Australians. Maybe Henk you need to learn more than propaganda Boer Bullshit and start appreciating what others went through under Colonial Rule of the British. You highlighted quiet well the negative effects of British Colonial rule but ignored the fact of British justice and legal systems under the British Colonial powers in Commonwealth Countries that the English imposed and the Industrial areas the British brought with them into countries like Australia Newe Zealand South Africa India and Canada and also the educational areas brought into those former colonies of the British Empire. Yes it was an Empire in all respects but in areas it had benevolence as well. Can that be said of Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) when the Dutch your cousins ruled Indonesia for 400 plus years until the Japanese invaded and the Indonesians fought and sougth self government from Holland. Or now are you going to tell me Henk your Boer cousins in Indonesia were very kind to the Bahassia Indonesians in 400 years of Dutch East India rule. You talk about 25,000 Boers men women and children herded up into concentration camps by the British in the Boer War. regrettable that occurred but when a Boer can come to me and explain a 1000 years of rape murder torture and the suppression of the heritage and culture that I spring from that was committed by the English in my Ancestrial Home then I may listen to your Boer Propaganda Bullshit. But according to your statements about the Boers versus the English your own blind hatred of anything British is apparent. Don't talk to me that in 2007 you still feel the pain of the Boer being deprived in South Africa since 1902 after the Boer War finished and the Concentration camps that sprung up under Lord Kitcheneer in South Africa along the Transvaal and the Velds of South Africa until such time you under stand the reasoning of Edward 1st known as Long Shanks and the Hammer of the Scots and of William of Orange the Duke of Cumberland who had Scots murdered on the battlefield of Culloden in 1746 after the Battle. Oh yes I forgot Duke of Cumberland may have had an English title but he was Dutch from the family of Hanover. He earned the title from the Scots calling him Stinking Billy a noxious weed found in Scotland along road sides in that Country. It seems Henk that you conviently forget the Boers intrusion into South Africa prior to the British coming to Cape Town and the rest of South Africa for your own convience and enshrine such Boer Historical events like the Long Trek into the Veldts of South Africa. Did Boers go into the Transvaal with peace and love for the Kaffirs with the Dutch Methodist Bibles in your wagons or was it rifles and muskets that were on hand to kill Kaffirs. Your fellow Boers immortalize that Trek but you forget what impact it had on the Kaffirs at the time for your own conviences. Did the English at the time see it as a Dutch Holiday carnival atmosphere that Boers went into the Veldts to do this regardless of how the Kaffirs felt at the time? so do not prach to me about how bad the English were towards the Kaffirs when the Boers had their own agendas in dealing with the Kaffirs. One thing I can not tolerate is blind prejudices and distortion of history Henk when by your own partial admission the Boers once controlling South African affairs continued by free will to carry on apartheid Governmental system upon the Kaffirs


----------



## Glider (Feb 10, 2007)

Henk said:


> Ok, first off the Caffers like you reffer to them were working like slaves under the British government when the were in controle here and egverything you said Emac44 already were happening here and so thus it would thus have been normal day of live if Hitler took over like you described it.
> 
> Ok second off the Apartheid thing. I think the rest of the world have the whole thing backwords. Why? Well take it this way, who started the whole Apartheid bullsh*t? The British that were in controle planted the seed and let the Nasional Party grow it. The British did not give us independance, we demanded it from them. They later told us it was wrong to have a systum like apratheid. Well I learned the SA History and I did my own reseach on the topic and it all points back to the British Government.
> 
> ...



I had to read this twice as I couldn't believe what was being said. To sum up.
a) South Africa demanded independance from Great Britain. 
b) We agreed to that and South Africa is independent. 
c) The UK and the rest of the world tell South Africa that Apartheid is not the way to run a country.
d) You blame the UK for the Apartheid approach that South Africa has chosen as an independent country. _That bit I cannot understand_
e) You say that the UK is responsible for all your problems and to prove it we should live in SA as you do and that would prove it
f) You say that life for the Blacks (not a word I would have chosen) was better under apartheid than now.

to e) and f) I suggest the following
e) SA has been independent for a long time now and other countires have developed significantly over that time. Sugggest you start with Singapore, a small country with no natural resorces worth mentioning. If you are stuck in the past after all this time then its your fault, not someone elses.
f) Suggest you try living as a black under apartheid and see how it feels before making bold statements.

PS I work with both coloured and white people from SA and its something that both have discussed a number of times. 

I now duck out of this unless we want to talk aircraft or related topics.


----------



## Hop (Feb 10, 2007)

> No Hop there is not truth to that at all...the VVS neither destroy the Luftwaffe all by itself nor made any significant contribution for that to occur...



No significant contribution?

In his summing up of the year up to August 1943, Murray wrote:


> The period between November 1942 and August 1943 was the last opportunity
> that the Luftwaffe had in the war to build up a reserve so that it could maintain air
> superiority at least over the Reich. The unwillingness of Germany's leaders, however, to trade space for time forced the Luftwaffe into a battle of attrition on the
> periphery . The results of those battles bled the German air force white.





> This attrition was only a foretaste of what happened in July and August. In those
> two months, the Luftwaffe fought three great air battles and on each one of the three
> fronts the Germans lost more than 1,000 aircraft . 119 In combat units, the attrition
> rate reached a level that no military force could long sustain . Fighter losses were
> ...





> By the beginning of 1942, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two entire air
> forces . The result was that the Germans had to curtail their training programs to
> meet the demands of the front for new pilots . By January 1942, of the pilots
> available for duty in the fighter force, only 60 percent were fully operational, while
> ...





> The resulting erosion in the Mediterranean and on the Russian front pushed the
> Luftwaffe's loss rates for the end of 1942 and the first half of 1943 towards a level of
> 20 percent per month





> The Luftwaffe attrition rate over the last three years ofthe war was extraordinarily
> high . Its impact on the German air force only began to become apparent in the
> summer of 1943 when it was arguably too late for the Germans to reverse trends that
> put them at an increasing disadvantage .





> The
> rate of attrition was such that bit by bit the Germans lost their technological
> superiority . Moreover, the quickened pace of attrition forced the Germans to
> produce aircraft that were qualitatively inferior in a desperate attempt to keep up
> ...




These are from The German Air Force versus Russia, 1943. That's a paper written by Generalleuntant Herman Plocher for the USAF in 1957.



> This constant commitment of all air forces to support the Army (usually in direct, and only rarely in indirect support missions) had the result that the Luftwaffe was worn down and bled white while participating in ground operations on the Eastern Front and was compelled to neglect its mission of operating against the enemy's sources of power.





> German fighter forces in the East gradually lost control of the air because of the steadily increasing numerical superiority of the Soviet air forces. For this reason alone they were no longer able to provide an adequately strong defense throughout the theater. Even the remarkable local successes which were achieved could not conceal this fact, and at the end of the year each of the large command areas in the East, Fourth Air Fleet sector (South), Sixth Air Fleet sector (Center), and First Air Fleet sector (North), had but a single fighter wing composed of two or three groups. On 31 December 1943 the actual total daylight fighter strength along the entire front, from the Black Sea to the arctic coast, was 385 aircraft, 306 of which were operational.





> It´d appear you are clueless about the aerial warfare in the east and if you take a few seconds of your valuable time to re-read your posting, you might be surprised to discover that author you quoted agrees with me when i affirm the soviets lied big time when they claimed to "have destroyed" the Luftwaffe as early as mid 1943 "all by themselves".



There's a problem, Udet. *You have changed your claim*. What you claimed the first time, and what I responded to, was:



> I will not comment on their lies regarding the training of the new pilots, the air combat tactics, etc. but they claim for instance the Luftwaffe was effectively "destroyed" during the summer of 1943. Period.



The words "have destroyed" were not there, rather "effectively destroyed", which isn't quite the same thing. The words "all by themselves" were not there at all.



> Ever heard of the aerial battles taking place over the Kuban until late 1943? Have you heard of the Luftwaffe strength in the sector...it might help you to know the VVS became uncapable of gaining air superiority in the sector...



There's a huge difference between a small sector and the entire front. More from Plocher:


> By early 1944 the Luftwaffe still had plenty of fight and was occasionally capable of sending out 1, 000 sorties a day on the Eastern Front. It was then in a situation of almost ridiculous air inferiority and might have been utterly destroyed in the East, except for the fact that the Russians did not normally employ their air forces independently, but continued to use them almost entirely in an offensive role in support of the Army.
> In 1941 the Luftwaffe had sent about 3, 000 first-line combat aircraft into action against Russia, but by 1944 it was unable to muster more than 2, 000 planes at best, and even this figure was highly deceptive, since, after late 1942, many of the aircraft listed as combat types in the Eastern Theater were biplanes of the 1930!s and other obsolete models. The striking force of the Luftwaffe was therefore not even two-thirds of what it had been in 1941 but was less than one-half.



Now, what I wrote originally is that there was "some truth" to the claim the Luftwaffe was "effectively destroyed" by 1943. That's true.



> Pretty much the same you do when you post your statistics of the BoB to make a case regarding the "horrific" losses of the Luftwaffe, all manipulated and distorted.



No, all quite accurate actually.



> I do not blame you for having such a critical conflict of interest when posting here Hop



A conflict of interest? Do you understand what a conflict of interest is? As examples, a lawyer representing client A in a case against B, when B is a close friend of the lawyer. Or a politician giving a contract to company A, and rejecting the bid of company B, when the politician's wife is a director of company A.

So what exactly do you mean by "conflict of interest"?


----------



## Henk (Feb 10, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> Ok Henk how do you turn the statement I made about Hitler not observing Treaties with countries he had and he wouldn't observe one with South Africa into an aparthied statement. I mentioned a ready workforce of Kaffirs would be the slaves of a Germanic state of South Africa. And you turned around and immediatley blamed the British for the whole lot. One let me remind you off one thing Henk do not assume that you know what I think or whether I trust the media. 1 is I do not trust the media and 2 My knowledge of Commonwealth History and that does include South Africa is very extensive. I might not live in South Africa but well know similar occurences with former British Colonies and mandate territories have occured to the governmental processes in other countries. For example Henk the problems occuring in Zimbawae with Morgaby and the PNG Government in Port Moresby also Fiji and the Solomon Islands. So do not prattle of to me that we outside South Africa do not understand your problems. Are you also saying that it was strictly the English who were bigotted to the Kaffirs. How naive do you think I am Henk. Even by your own statements you classify some blacks as ok others not and in that it is classifying them by race my Boer friend. And if you really want to go down the historical traill about race. Mine is Scots Celtic from the Highlands of Scotland. Yes Henk I am a Jacobite a decendant of the Clans which fought the English from 10th Century to the 18th Century in Scotland. The Scots Henk like the Irish and the Welsh lost their language their homes their politics their families and their identity to the English over a 1000 years my friend so do not prattle about what the Boers had lost and regained after WW2 with your own governments coming to power. Did the English Government force the Afrikaan Governments to continue Apathied Governmental control of segegation of the Kaffirs in your society. I suppose its easy to blame others for your own mistakes without looking inside towards your own causes of mistrust and hatred for not only the English but to the Kaffirs as well. I have all good reasons to hate the English for my own Celtic Past but I do not and I am well aware that the ANC in South Africa wasn't universally supported by other Blacks in South Africa for example Inkarta Zulus had no love for the ANC or Nelson Mandala and his wife Winnie. Who by all accounts was a corrupt bitch inside the ANC organisation. And getting back to the history of Scotland for a minute. Do you think the Scots during those years of oppression by the English were not their own worse enemies with the mistrust and self promoting of various factions by Clan Chiefs like the Baille Clan MacDonalds and the Stewarts in Scotland along with the Bruces who contrieved to gain control over the various Clans and lands of the Scots and inter Clan reviallry. Henk how naive do you think I am to believe the Boers were lilly white and kind to the Kaffirs in all respects. As i am an Australian I have to acknowledge my Colonial Part played by my fellow countrymen and women upon the Australian Aborigine. So don't you dare come to me with your Boer Bullshit and prattle about the evil of the English when in reality Boers we no better the English in dealing with the the Kaffirs in your country. Dont come to me and say the Apartheid Government in South Africa only followed the example of the British prior to WW2 and WW1. Thats saying to me its not my fault but some one elses and not taking responsibilty for ones own actions. Boers like any one else have to be responsible for their own actions Henk. It seems Henk you are missing the message that those Kaffirs on the streets of South Africa are saying. Death to the Boers. Even though they are saying it in ignorance or blinded stupidity they do indeed hold the Boers responsible for some evils dealt upon them by your own people Henk, by the way Henk we in Australia have same problems with our own Aborigines but the message isn't being confused when the Aborigines say similar things to White Australians. Maybe Henk you need to learn more than propaganda Boer Bullshit and start appreciating what others went through under Colonial Rule of the British. You highlighted quiet well the negative effects of British Colonial rule but ignored the fact of British justice and legal systems under the British Colonial powers in Commonwealth Countries that the English imposed and the Industrial areas the British brought with them into countries like Australia Newe Zealand South Africa India and Canada and also the educational areas brought into those former colonies of the British Empire. Yes it was an Empire in all respects but in areas it had benevolence as well. Can that be said of Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) when the Dutch your cousins ruled Indonesia for 400 plus years until the Japanese invaded and the Indonesians fought and sougth self government from Holland. Or now are you going to tell me Henk your Boer cousins in Indonesia were very kind to the Bahassia Indonesians in 400 years of Dutch East India rule. You talk about 25,000 Boers men women and children herded up into concentration camps by the British in the Boer War. regrettable that occurred but when a Boer can come to me and explain a 1000 years of rape murder torture and the suppression of the heritage and culture that I spring from that was committed by the English in my Ancestrial Home then I may listen to your Boer Propaganda Bullshit. But according to your statements about the Boers versus the English your own blind hatred of anything British is apparent. Don't talk to me that in 2007 you still feel the pain of the Boer being deprived in South Africa since 1902 after the Boer War finished and the Concentration camps that sprung up under Lord Kitcheneer in South Africa along the Transvaal and the Velds of South Africa until such time you under stand the reasoning of Edward 1st known as Long Shanks and the Hammer of the Scots and of William of Orange the Duke of Cumberland who had Scots murdered on the battlefield of Culloden in 1746 after the Battle. Oh yes I forgot Duke of Cumberland may have had an English title but he was Dutch from the family of Hanover. He earned the title from the Scots calling him Stinking Billy a noxious weed found in Scotland along road sides in that Country. It seems Henk that you conviently forget the Boers intrusion into South Africa prior to the British coming to Cape Town and the rest of South Africa for your own convience and enshrine such Boer Historical events like the Long Trek into the Veldts of South Africa. Did Boers go into the Transvaal with peace and love for the Kaffirs with the Dutch Methodist Bibles in your wagons or was it rifles and muskets that were on hand to kill Kaffirs. Your fellow Boers immortalize that Trek but you forget what impact it had on the Kaffirs at the time for your own conviences. Did the English at the time see it as a Dutch Holiday carnival atmosphere that Boers went into the Veldts to do this regardless of how the Kaffirs felt at the time? so do not prach to me about how bad the English were towards the Kaffirs when the Boers had their own agendas in dealing with the Kaffirs. One thing I can not tolerate is blind prejudices and distortion of history Henk when by your own partial admission the Boers once controlling South African affairs continued by free will to carry on apartheid Governmental system upon the Kaffirs



Mate I think you should vissot me her in South Africa and I will show you what I mean. I would love to show it for my self. Remember I give you everything that the black government even say is true and what they give as correct facts not just from the non black people.

So mate I think we take this to a other topic and chat more about this.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 10, 2007)

It is fine with me Henk. I perfer to drop this as it is not the avenue to discuss this and others may not approve of the subject at hand. I would dearly love to visit South Africa as it ties in significantly with Australia in more ways than one. Besides the Boer War. There are great sporting avenues like Cricket and Rugby to consider, Ok Henk lets agree to disagree and leave it at that


----------



## Henk (Feb 11, 2007)

Yes, but still would like to discuss this.


----------



## Glider (Feb 11, 2007)

There can be no doubt that the losses that the Germans suffered in Russia were very significant and with the casualties incurred on the other fronts stopped Germany from building up her reserves. Germany was stretched to far and was restricted to reacting to events and not carrying out any meaningfull long term plans.
It isn't fair I believe, to claim that any one front destroyed Germany's ability to win the air battle, it was a cumlative process.

Udet referred to the battles over Kuban in 1943, this only proves that Germany were able to concentrate its resources to get local superiority for a limited period. Germany was rightly known for its ability to get the most out of its resources.
A similar situation existed in WW1 where Germany could concentrate on a point in the line and have superiority but only at the cost of surrendering superiority over the majority of the front. This was the very reason for the formation of the famous WW1 Flying Circus's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Henk said:


> Yes, but still would like to discuss this.



Just start up another thread about it, and then this can stay WW2 myths.


----------



## Henk (Feb 11, 2007)

Well if Emac44 wanted to but he does not seem to go on with the conversation so it is cool.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 11, 2007)

Henk said:


> Well if Emac44 wanted to but he does not seem to go on with the conversation so it is cool.



Henk there is not a problem with discussing the debate whatsoever. but the forum is about WW2 Myths not about Governmental operations in South Africa or Australia or any other Commonwealth Nations and the problems of indiginous populations in those countries. So we can discuss it elsewhere if you like just not in this current Forum about WW2 Myths ok. Have already began a new thread under politics Commonwealth Nations Native Population Problems etc. So if you want to discuss this further Henk we shall go to the thread I started for that very purpose ok


----------



## joebong (Feb 12, 2007)

Taken from; Messerschmitt 262 by Ed Maloney Frank Ryan.
Notes from; Hans Langer, " We experimented with rocket assist devices in 1943.
While in flight, if we fired two bottles it would put us near mach 1, and with three bottles you would go into mach 1 in a level attitude." This next one has always bugged me. The Tiger 2 tank nearly indistructible has been speciously defamed as a ungainly, cumbersome fortress gun. Yet in its performance specs
it displays adequit albeit not stellar ability. Taken from; Osprey publications,
"King Tiger" by Tom Jentz Hillary Doyle, " The authors paid a visit to the Tiger
II(Fgst.Nr. 280273, produced in Oct 44) now located in La Gleize. Driving a modern car to the village on narrow, steep and sharply curved roads, had required frequent use of low gears. That TigerIIs had managed to make the same trip in winter was indeed an impressive testimony to both their manoeuvrability and mobility.


----------



## renrich (Feb 20, 2007)

In an earlier post on this thread someone stated that it was not true that the SBDs at Midway caught the IJN carriers with their flight decks full of armed A/C ready to take off for a strike. The best researched book I have ever seen on the activities of US Navy air at Midway is THE FIRST TEAM by John B Lundstrom, Naval Institute Press, 1984. He states that at 1020 the flagship Akagi gave the signal to launch planes. Ten or so minutes later the flight decks of the 4 carriers would have been clear of planes. At 1022 McClusky pushed over on the Kaga along with 24 other SBDs. At 1025 5 SBDs attacked Akagi just as the first fighters began to roll off her flight deck. They hit her with 2 1000 lb bombs. Leslie's SBDs attacked Soryu only minutes later. Her flight deck was shattered by 3 1000 lb bombs and her 18 carrier bombers exploded in flames. In her hangar 9 armed carrier attack planes scorched her insides. In 5 minutes the Japanese lost the battle of Midway. It doesn't sound to me that there is any myth there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2007)

renrich said:


> In an earlier post on this thread someone stated that it was not true that the SBDs at Midway caught the IJN carriers with their flight decks full of armed A/C ready to take off for a strike. The best researched book I have ever seen on the activities of US Navy air at Midway is THE FIRST TEAM by John B Lundstrom, Naval Institute Press, 1984. He states that at 1020 the flagship Akagi gave the signal to launch planes. Ten or so minutes later the flight decks of the 4 carriers would have been clear of planes. At 1022 McClusky pushed over on the Kaga along with 24 other SBDs. At 1025 5 SBDs attacked Akagi just as the first fighters began to roll off her flight deck. They hit her with 2 1000 lb bombs. Leslie's SBDs attacked Soryu only minutes later. Her flight deck was shattered by 3 1000 lb bombs and her 18 carrier bombers exploded in flames. In her hangar 9 armed carrier attack planes scorched her insides. In 5 minutes the Japanese lost the battle of Midway. It doesn't sound to me that there is any myth there.


My high school had an aeronautics class. The instructor was a former Dauntless gunner who participated in the Battle of Midway - his descriptions is just as most of our history books depict the battle.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 20, 2007)

This is taken from the US Navy webpage.

"In the hour after about 0930, U.S. Navy planes from the carriers Hornet (CV-8), Enterprise (CV-6) and Yorktown (CV-5) made a series of attacks, initially by three squadrons of TBD torpedo planes that, despite nearly total losses, made no hits. The sacrifice of the TBDs did slow Japanese preparations for their own strike and disorganized the defending fighters. Then, at about 1025, everything changed. Three squadrons of SBD scout bombers, two from Enterprise and one from Yorktown, almost simultaneously dove on three of the four Japanese carriers, whose decks were crowded with fully armed and fueled planes that were just starting to take off. In a few minutes, Akagi, Kaga and Soryu were ablaze and out of action."


----------



## timshatz (Feb 20, 2007)

Book that came out around Christmas of '05 says the decks were clear. Name of the book is "Shattered Sword" Good book, decent read. Also states that the Zeros were back on station by the time the Dive Bombers came as the Devastators were destroyed about an hour earlier. 

On a side note and one very good point mentioned in the book was about the Zero cap over the Japanese fleet. As the Japanese had no Radar, there was no radar direction. There was no fighter director (in it's infancy in the US fleet but still there). The Zero Cap was directed by the flight leaders. As such, it acted organically and was not directed by a central intercept command. In short, the Zeros acted much as white blood cells do when a foriegn bacteria invades a body. The Japanese ships would fire AAA at the ships which would alert the Zeros. As a consequence, any Zero that saw the AAA would react and head for the intruding bombers. There was no reserve, there were no waves of fighters attacking (producing a target rich environment). It was more of a bum rush, everybody into the pool and smother the incoming attack. The US Divebomber attacks came from different directions at the same time, unintentionally but very effectively exploiting the weakness of the Japanese Cap. 

So says the book. It was very interesting reading. 

On the other hand...

FBJ's teacher was there and saw it. Granted, any trial lawyer will tell you that memory is faulty, snap glimpses of an incident can be very error prone and as a tail gunner in an SBD, he was probably very busy and maybe too busy to make an accurate accessment. But he says the decks were full. The book says they were clear with a strike below decks on the way to be spotted.

But still, he was there. 

That's the part about history that gets to me. Two competing and very credible opinions of an account. One, researched to the hilt, the other, first person. 

Which one?


----------



## mkloby (Feb 20, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Book that came out around Christmas of '05 says the decks were clear. Name of the book is "Shattered Sword" Good book, decent read. Also states that the Zeros were back on station by the time the Dive Bombers came as the Devastators were destroyed about an hour earlier.
> 
> On a side note and one very good point mentioned in the book was about the Zero cap over the Japanese fleet. As the Japanese had no Radar, there was no radar direction. There was no fighter director (in it's infancy in the US fleet but still there). The Zero Cap was directed by the flight leaders. As such, it acted organically and was not directed by a central intercept command. In short, the Zeros acted much as white blood cells do when a foriegn bacteria invades a body. The Japanese ships would fire AAA at the ships which would alert the Zeros. As a consequence, any Zero that saw the AAA would react and head for the intruding bombers. There was no reserve, there were no waves of fighters attacking (producing a target rich environment). It was more of a bum rush, everybody into the pool and smother the incoming attack. The US Divebomber attacks came from different directions at the same time, unintentionally but very effectively exploiting the weakness of the Japanese Cap.
> 
> ...



Interesting. You have a good point, and I'd like to read the book. However, I would go with the US Navy's official historical account over a book, which seems to corroborate what many of the pilots, such as Joe's teacher, have stated.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2007)

No matter how you slice it, 4 Japanese carriers sunk that day....


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No matter how you slice it, 4 Japanese carriers sunk that day....




That's a BIG slice of Hell Yeah! Here's to the codebreakers and recon peeps that did their part....


----------



## trackend (Feb 21, 2007)

Agreed FBJ its the end result that counts in any battle.


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 21, 2007)

I will go by eye witness accounts. They were there others were not and at end of day 4 Jap Carriers got burnt like toast


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

Besides as you just said. Who really cares if the planes were on the deck or or not. The Carriers went down, nothing is taking off or landing from them again. 

I too go with eyewitness acounts over anything.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 21, 2007)

MKL, the book is very good. It goes into depth on the subject and is very well researched. While I agree with the majority of the posts on this subject (first person accounts get my vote in most cases, especially if they are not drunk and are trained observers- which a tail gunner would be in this case), the book goes into detail about the difference in the doctrine of the Japanese Carriers and US Carriers. The Japanese, unlike the US, did not use the forward part of the flight deck as a plane park. All aircraft were struck below immediately upon landing. Strikes were brought up on deck and launched, not serviced on deck. The aircraft that were seen taking off during the attack (at least one carrier, I think it was the Akagi, was reported to have aircraft taking off as the dive bombers rolled into their dives-this comes from multiple sources, Japanese and American) were being launched to reinforce/replace the cap. 

Here's a link to the Amazon post for the book. 

Amazon.com: Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway: Books: Jonathan Parshall,Anthony Tully

I think we will see a bunch of books like this in the future. As more and more of those who fought in WW2 leave us, the history of the event (and the events themselves) will be re-appraised. This can be good as it sometimes is the product of excellent research from unknown or ignored sources. Other times, it will be painful as the research will stink and the book will be written with political intent. Sadly, telling the two apart will not be an easy job as most layman are not particularly critical in their analysis ("They said it on TV so it must be true").


----------



## mkloby (Feb 21, 2007)

timshatz said:


> "They said it on TV so it must be true".



Not everything on TV is true???


----------



## renrich (Feb 21, 2007)

Lundstrom's book, THE FIRST TEAM (Pacific Naval Air Com bat from Pearl Harbor to Midway) is exhaustively footnoted with also a lengthy appendix. He even has the Bureau nos. of all fighter aircraft in Squadrons embarked Nov. 1941-June 1942. Many of the participants at Midway were interviewed and they are listed. Japanese records were consulted and are quoted. There is an interesting account of Jimmy Thach meeting with a torpedo squadron before the battle and trying to give them some tactics to use against the Zeros. Of course there is a lengthy account of how the Thach Weave was used successfully during the battle. Lundstrom has published a second volume called THE FIRST TEAM AND THE GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN( Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942) I have it also and it is as well researched as the other book. I would strongly recommend these two books to any serious student of WW2 in the Pacific.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 21, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Not everything on TV is true???



Only if George Cloony or Babs says it. Then, you can take it to the bank!


----------



## renrich (Feb 23, 2007)

Not a myth now but was during the war and after for a while was that Colin Kelly in a B17 sank the Haruna off the Philipines on the mission when he was shot down and killed. Also that many of the IJN ships that were sunk at Midway were sunk from high altitude by B17s.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 23, 2007)

renrich said:


> Not a myth now but was during the war and after for a while was that Colin Kelly in a B17 sank the Haruna off the Philipines on the mission when he was shot down and killed. Also that many of the IJN ships that were sunk at Midway were sunk from high altitude by B17s.


hence the naming of Kelly AFB


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2007)

renrich said:


> Not a myth now but was during the war and after for a while was that Colin Kelly in a B17 sank the Haruna off the Philipines on the mission when he was shot down and killed. Also that many of the IJN ships that were sunk at Midway were sunk from high altitude by B17s.



I haven't read much about B-17 anti-shipping success in the Pacific. Does any one have more info? What kind of bombs did they use against naval vessels? What type of Bomb run/formation? Success rate?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 23, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I haven't read much about B-17 anti-shipping success in the Pacific. Does any one have more info? What kind of bombs did they use against naval vessels? What type of Bomb run/formation? Success rate?



One of the few I have read about was a Japanese destroyer they hit during the Guadalcanal Campaign. Captain was up close to a sinking cargo ship, taking of survivors, when some B17s made a run on him from high altitude. He's been up and down the Slot plenty and thought nothing of it, having seen them miss by plenty before. Not this time. They clobbered his ship. When they picked him up and asked him about it, he said, "Every once and a while even the B17s get lucky". 

I'm sure they hit others, but not a lot. The whole idea that they could hit anything from 20K ft was just a snow job on Congress to get a 4 engined strategic bomber approved. Congress was against it so the Army billed it as being a Coastal Defense weapon. It worked enough for them to design and build some.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2007)

timshatz said:


> The whole idea that they could hit anything from 20K ft was just a snow job on Congress to get a 4 engined strategic bomber approved. Congress was against it so the Army billed it as being a Coastal Defense weapon. It worked enough for them to design and build some.



Yes, the footage of Billy Mitchel and crew sinking captured WW1 german vessels from altitude helped influence that thinking


----------



## renrich (Feb 24, 2007)

Yes you are exactly right. Not only could the Army bombers not hit much from 20000 ft but their skills on ship identification were not great. There were several IJN "battleships" bombed by B17s in December 1941 when, in fact, there were no battleships there at that time. Of course the US Navy had some of those same problems also and not just with aviators.


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Ok, most people think Britain was not invaded in WW2. WRONG! The Channel Islands where (and I think they still are) parts of Britain, but there closer to France and the place names are in French But the people are British.


----------

