Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How can I "BACON" this post as WELL as starring it "WINNER" ?Actually, the point you made about RAF Spitfires escorting early USAAF bomber raids is the icing on the cake for me. If the USAAF "bomber mafia" was so opposed to fighters, why did they ask for exactly that kind of support right from the very beginning?
Or maybe youtube ?The stupid ones are watching TikTok or Survivor or America's Got Talent.
All military organisations like to "paddle their own canoe". It was a combined effort and the RAF had no issue with doing it but it must have been a big step to ask. It gets little mention in the video because as you say, it blows the whole argument out of the water. Furthermore the suggestion that anyone in the USAAF wanted escorts to leave the bombers to the attentions of the LW is sick.Actually, the point you made about RAF Spitfires escorting early USAAF bomber raids is the icing on the cake for me. If the USAAF "bomber mafia" was so opposed to fighters, why did they ask for exactly that kind of support right from the very beginning?
All military organisations like to "paddle their own canoe". It was a combined effort and the RAF had no issue with doing it but it must have been a big step to ask. It gets little mention in the video because as you say, it blows the whole argument out of the water. Furthermore the suggestion that anyone in the USAAF wanted escorts to leave the bombers to the attentions of the LW is sick.
Guilty as charged.Sure they are. They just don't understand it. They sure think they do though.
Guilty as charged.
Love the reference.
And lived it.
There were all sorts of hard lessons to be learned most of them the hard way. One was figuring out what was going on and what had happened. When losses were low this was taken as a sign that things were working as planned. When losses were high a reason was found to explain it that could be solved with XYZ. No one considered that when losses were low they got lucky because of XYZ and high losses against an enemy that werent stupid and also learned from experience would be the norm. A lot had to be learned about the weather which isnt the normal joke conversation about British weather sending hundreds of aircraft into the air from fields that became fog bound or shrouded in low cloud killed a lot. On a documentary I watched years ago, it said the biggest and hardest lesson to learn was when to call a mission off because it was going FUBAR. Military ethos goes against it and many feared being disciplined if they did.The other factor is the learning process that happened. The USAAF B-17s and B-24s didn't start with operations to Berlin. They started with short, cross-channel raids where existing fighter resources could provide escort.
As ranges increased, it wasn't clear whether fighter escort was needed all the way to the target. Some of that had to be learned...the hard way. The Nazi Germany's air defences might have been merely a tough outer crust which, if a force could break through, would allow unescorted bombers free reign over enemy airspace.
In hindsight, that was a naiive perspective (if it ever existed). Attempts to operate B-17s and B-24s beyond the range of escorting fighters proved costly and the rest, as they say, is history. However, it requires more foresight than perhaps was present at the time to suggest those issues could have been identified without some tough, first-hand operational lessons.
Military ethos goes against it and many feared being disciplined if they did.
I vowed never to award a negative. I don't want to be dragged into this BUT:We are discussing the relative merits of two aviation communities where at one of those communities people who are not prepared to have a look at the content of the other one are writing it off as completely worthless.
It sounds to me like a lot of snobs who won't let someone into their club because they did not go to Oxford or Harvard.
Actually, the point you made about RAF Spitfires escorting early USAAF bomber raids is the icing on the cake for me. If the USAAF "bomber mafia" was so opposed to fighters, why did they ask for exactly that kind of support right from the very beginning?
I vowed never to award a negative. I don't want to be dragged into this BUT:
I never graduated college though my independent research in psychoactive substances is legendary.
I try to read through the tech stuff, though with little understanding. Those here patiently explain to me what I missed. For example, XBe02Drvr (a man with respectable aviation credentials) explained aerodynamic concepts to me using a paper airplane as an example. It worked. See the Groundhog thread.
I have been welcomed (and tolerated, mostly) by The Forum.
Drgndog, well, the man literally grew up with Mustangs.
Or maybe youtube ?
Furthermore the suggestion that anyone in the USAAF wanted escorts to leave the bombers to the attentions of the LW is sick.
mostlyTolerated?
mostly
Why ? How many have you ?Just out of interest, how many military aviation videos have you produced?
Which community is that ? It can't be this one as it should be obvious that many here have looked at the content of the other andWe are discussing the relative merits of two aviation communities where at one of those communities people who are not prepared to have a look at the content of the other one are writing it off as completely worthless.
Then why did you specifically ask me how many videos I have produced ?I am hardly writing anyone off for not producing a video.
I was quite clear in saying I would not be making one myself, so I am hardly going to be criticising others for not making one.
You are making things up.