What is a P-51M?

[GrauGeist]

Starting with the Beaker people.

And it's most likely that a shortage of bell-beakers caused their demise...

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Air 40/1096 Statistical Summary of 9th Air Force Operations 16 Oct 1943 to 8 May 1945 prepared by the 26th Statistical Control Unit. Page 7, D-Day,
"The overages of 663 tactical aircraft and the small overage in combat crews were quickly reduced when extensive operations were started. Combat losses immediately wiped out the excess fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, and insufficient replacements created a critical shortage which existed until V-E Day despite the fact that some groups were converted to aircraft models which had a larger replacement flow. An overage of bombers was maintained throughout the period of operations, however, mainly due to the flow of A-26 aircraft for the conversion of B-26 and A-20 groups.

The US Jerrican design (yes it was called a merrican) was with a spout.

Does your life revolve around being the most complete horse's ass conceivable? If so, You are extremely good. I dont recall Jerry Can/9th AF conversations from anyone but you. Is this a new variant of Forum Tourette's Syndrome?

Your anal fixation continues. What I am doing is returning the treatment you hand out, think of it as holding up a mirror for you to look into. Also look up the symptoms of Tourette and remember who has been doing the swearing. Since none of the comments deal with the ninth air force fuel supply, perhaps "but for your part in this dialogue, why don't you lurk for awhile until you see an opportunity to contribute to the base knowledge of the group?"

It's also odd that claiming that a fuel shortage "made fewer people come home". If they didn't have fuel to conduct a mission, then chances were good they wouldn't be lost.

People can still walk as part of an attack, Patton's quote about soldiers can eat their belts but tanks need gas comes to mind. Mission 1, pursuit operation against a disorganised opponent, mission 2 formal assault against an organised defence, compare average casualty rates.

Starting with the Beaker people.

Lets see now, pottery objects from pushing 30,000 years ago, potters wheel 8 to 6,000 years ago, Beaker People 4,500 years ago, need to go back further than them and then show they were using liquid fuel. One strand of thought is agriculture came into widespread use despite it usually being more work as it could provide a reliable source of grain for alcohol.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Regarding 9th AF ops post D-Day and drop in sorties, was this attributed to a fuel/manpower/plane shortage or were they simply running out of viable targets by October?

I'm unclear about the "People can still walk as part of an attack" statement. Sure they can, but on a mid 20th Century battlefield without armor/air support doesn't sound like a recipe for success, unless I'm not understanding your point on that, which is entirely possible.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Regarding 9th AF ops post D-Day and drop in sorties, was this attributed to a fuel/manpower/plane shortage or were they simply running out of viable targets by October?

I'm unclear about the "People can still walk as part of an attack" statement. Sure they can, but on a mid 20th Century battlefield without armor/air support doesn't sound like a recipe for success, unless I'm not understanding your point on that, which is entirely possible.

The drop off was due to a combination of matters, poorer weather, fewer daylight hours, supplies (fuel, bombs, aircraft, supplies to build airfields, locations where airfields could be supplied versus the front line), the drop off from the surge in summer, less so a lack of targets, given the Germans were still resisting. If anything if there was to be any advance air support was needed more due to the army supply problems, the understanding there would not be any further advance did cut support needs but that took a while.

The major army supply failure from the theatre's point of view was persisting in the standard supply system during much of the 1944 pursuit, wasting a great deal of time and effort setting up new dumps that were close to useless and then secondly assuming for at least a month after the pursuit had ended that the pause would soon end, so no point in building up a proper supply system that would soon be left behind again.

It was an interesting supply time, for example 10 October 1944, XX corps does a time on target artillery shoot using German 88mm guns and 105mm howitzers, Soviet 76.2mm guns, French 155mm howitzers and US 155mm howitzers.

Without fuel men can still advance on foot, if the enemy is disorganised enough, otherwise it becomes too costly.

 

[drgondog]

The drop off was due to a combination of matters, poorer weather, fewer daylight hours, supplies (fuel, bombs, aircraft, supplies to build airfields, locations where airfields could be supplied versus the front line), the drop off from the surge in summer, less so a lack of targets, given the Germans were still resisting. If anything if there was to be any advance air support was needed more due to the army supply problems, the understanding there would not be any further advance did cut support needs but that took a while.

The major army supply failure from the theatre's point of view was persisting in the standard supply system during much of the 1944 pursuit, wasting a great deal of time and effort setting up new dumps that were close to useless and then secondly assuming for at least a month after the pursuit had ended that the pause would soon end, so no point in building up a proper supply system that would soon be left behind again.

It was an interesting supply time, for example 10 October 1944, XX corps does a time on target artillery shoot using German 88mm guns and 105mm howitzers, Soviet 76.2mm guns, French 155mm howitzers and US 155mm howitzers.

Without fuel men can still advance on foot, if the enemy is disorganised enough, otherwise it becomes too costly.

What does this have to do with P-51M?

 

[GrauGeist]

What does this have to do with P-51M?

Nothing.

But it's a great opportunity to sound academic.

Next, we shall dwell on the great lawn chair shortage and why Patton didn't do more to provide them to his weary troops in winter of '44/'45.

Stay tuned for a 2,000 word, multi-part essay that examines this unfortunate incident.

 

[Peter Gunn]

What does this have to do with P-51M?

Eh, in all fairness you can say it's my fault, I asked Geoffrey those questions for clarification on an earlier post of his. He was just kind enough to respond to my inquiries.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Nothing.

What has this to do with the P-51M? Thanks for the pre supplied answer. So an off topic, zero content, personal attack is both the standard around here and popular.

the great lawn chair shortage and why Patton didn't do more to provide them to his weary troops in winter of '44/'45.

Since you asked. Try dry shoes and socks.

Wet/cold weather clothing shipments to Italy were so delayed the 34th division did not receive any until January 1944 and resorted to taking such items from wounded sent to the rear to equip the troops. The result of the lack of clothing was a major rise in trench foot, 25% of US casualties in Italy in the 1943/44 winter. It was not widely realised that spending all day in damp shoes and socks in cool weather would cause trench foot.

During November 1944 the Paris hospitals start to see a steady stream of cold injury patients, mainly trench foot, by week through November 1.3%, 4%, 20% and 24% of patients admitted are cold injury, some 45,283 cases. Trench foot "accounted for 9.25% of all the casualties suffered on the Continent." Warnings had been given but the seriousness of the problem had been discounted by the units. The standard combat boot was not waterproof but much of the problem was lack of simple precautions. Trench foot, joined the VD, AWOL and court martial rates as a measure of unit discipline.

During November 1944 Authorised US army stocks of winter clothing in the UK go to zero, units In the UK are directed to return overcoats and arctics so they can be sent to the front line troops. "Winterisation" supplies for the allied forces during November come to around 750,000 tons for items like clothing, building covered depots, proper hospitals and all weather airfields. For example an airfield for a British Wing/USAAF group required 650 to 3,500 tons of supplies, the best material was also the heaviest. Even if they were not flying P-51M.

It is not until January 1945 that the Mediterranean Theatre report on trench foot makes it to the European Theatre, and then only after a specific request.

 

[drgondog]

What has this to do with the P-51M? Thanks for the pre supplied answer. So an off topic, zero content, personal attack is both the standard around here and popular.

Since you asked. Try dry shoes and socks.

Wet/cold weather clothing shipments to Italy were so delayed the 34th division did not receive any until January 1944 and resorted to taking such items from wounded sent to the rear to equip the troops. The result of the lack of clothing was a major rise in trench foot, 25% of US casualties in Italy in the 1943/44 winter. It was not widely realised that spending all day in damp shoes and socks in cool weather would cause trench foot.

During November 1944 the Paris hospitals start to see a steady stream of cold injury patients, mainly trench foot, by week through November 1.3%, 4%, 20% and 24% of patients admitted are cold injury, some 45,283 cases. Trench foot "accounted for 9.25% of all the casualties suffered on the Continent." Warnings had been given but the seriousness of the problem had been discounted by the units. The standard combat boot was not waterproof but much of the problem was lack of simple precautions. Trench foot, joined the VD, AWOL and court martial rates as a measure of unit discipline.

During November 1944 Authorised US army stocks of winter clothing in the UK go to zero, units In the UK are directed to return overcoats and arctics so they can be sent to the front line troops. "Winterisation" supplies for the allied forces during November come to around 750,000 tons for items like clothing, building covered depots, proper hospitals and all weather airfields. For example an airfield for a British Wing/USAAF group required 650 to 3,500 tons of supplies, the best material was also the heaviest. Even if they were not flying P-51M.

It is not until January 1945 that the Mediterranean Theatre report on trench foot makes it to the European Theatre, and then only after a specific request.

Have you considered a.) setting up a separate thread, or b) establishing another website titled 'Not very interesting trivia but for non-aviation folks"?

 

[SaparotRob]

Have you considered a.) setting up a separate thread, or b) establishing another website titled 'Not very interesting trivia but for non-aviation folks"?

I wouldn't be interested.

 

[pbehn]

During November 1944 the Paris hospitals start to see a steady stream of cold injury patients, mainly trench foot, by week through November 1.3%, 4%, 20% and 24% of patients admitted are cold injury, some 45,283 cases. Trench foot "accounted for 9.25% of all the casualties suffered on the Continent." Warnings had been given but the seriousness of the problem had been discounted by the units.

During the Battle of the Bulge, no soldiers involved in the siege of Bastogne were admitted to Paris hospitals with trench foot, this really shows what can be done with a little effort eh?

 

[GrauGeist]

What has this to do with the P-51M? Thanks for the pre supplied answer. So an off topic, zero content, personal attack is both the standard around here and popular.

My dear Geoffrey,

I hesitate to point out the obvious, but it appears that someone must do it, so here we are.

You barge onto the forum with exhaustive posts that contain questionable figures, phrased in such a way as to make it seem academic while at the same time challenging others in the thread.

Than when a member responds with actual facts, you become defensive with "passive aggressive" quips.

The problem is, many of the members you're challenging are well researched authors with peer reviewed publications and they tried (at first) to help correct your information but you would have none of it, resorting instead, to tossing in "fluff" in order to cling onto your "vastly superior" position.

An old adage comes to mind here:
"You reap what you sow".

 

[wuzak]

This song has lots of M's in the title and chorus. Must be about the P-51M!

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

My dear Geoffrey,

I hesitate to point out the obvious, but it appears that someone must do it, so here we are.

You barge onto the forum

In returning the obvious, once someone is defined as "the problem" it really does not matter much what they do, as things are interpreted according to the label.

Barge is of course a value judgement, not arrived, started posting. Perhaps a definition of what new people are suppose to limit themselves to would be in order to define barge. Regarding your continued editorial about the quality of the information I report. You really need to provide actual examples, I note my mistake on when the first 2 P-51D were accepted, the definition of the P-51M I used came from a USAAF document, as noted, does that makes it my error? The response I received indicated this place might have one. So what was wrong with the say Halifax serial numbers and bomb loads for example?

So *every* time someone puts facts to me I go passive aggressive? I actually I return what I am served. You do reap what you sow.

The first challenge to some information I posted was finding two contradictory figures on the internet and calling that research resulting in a different number. When my mistake on the first two P-51D was found, I noted I was wrong and then thanked for the information. Here you are erasing that, saying I will not retract incorrect information and announcing I am thinking about being vastly superior. So when did people stop your version of helping me?

Does the fuel situation of the 9th Air Force amount to fluff, also what the army situation was? If they are not fluff, what is? The definition I seem to be receiving is information not wanted by a given individual.

So barge in, exhaustive posts (Who forces people to read them?), defensive, passive aggressive, no to corrections, fluffing and vastly superior. A judgement trying to pass itself off as advice on healthy living.

I have identified one published author I have challenged, and will probably continue to challenge, so who are the others? So what peer reviewed journals contain papers from people I have been interacting with?

If you had posted the message at the start using neutral language it would have had credibility, later not so much, but after your contribution of sniping from the side the credibility is zero, even if the language was neutral. All you have done is contribute to the low sgnal to noise ratio, go look at your previous message.

Anyway make it all my fault, the eternal ready market for someone else is entirely to blame, exaggerate the qualifications of those I am responding to, erase anything good I have done and anything bad others have done. Then call it advice. It comes across as a second batch of moderators, trying to stop unwanted discussions and by using so many personal attacks, people as well.

I wonder how many people reading this through have used an hysterical/whining/strident, perhaps sarcastic and so on, mental "bad guy" voice, not calm, the instant internal editorial decision made for "problems".

It all connects, the ultimate form of air superiority is your tank on their runway.

 

[pbehn]

It all connects, the ultimate form of air superiority is your tank on their runway.

That is one form. There were no tanks on runways over the Atlantic, the Bay of Biscay, the North Sea or the Med. Another form is when a foreign power puts huge human and military assets on your lawn and leaves it to you to defend them from the air, because you have superiority.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I gotta' admit fellas, I'm a little lost at some of the vitriol directed at G Geoffrey Sinclair and his posts. I've been reading them (as well as all the other posts) and while they can get rather long I really don't have a problem with them. G Geoffrey Sinclair perhaps citing sources might help with your posts (just my advice, take it or leave it).

Personally, I thought we were a tad bit more welcoming as a forum than what I've been seeing here, maybe I haven't read all the material he's posted and missed some but surely we're adult enough to not only be able to disagree but also not act like a gaming forum.

Sorry, that's just my two cents and I may be all wet but I look at this place as a haven of intelligence in a totally batsh!t crazy internet world, I'd hate for this forum to devolve from the high standards we've set for it (and had in the past).

 

[drgondog]

In returning the obvious, once someone is defined as "the problem" it really does not matter much what they do, as things are interpreted according to the label.

Barge is of course a value judgement, not arrived, started posting. Perhaps a definition of what new people are suppose to limit themselves to would be in order to define barge. Regarding your continued editorial about the quality of the information I report. You really need to provide actual examples, I note my mistake on when the first 2 P-51D were accepted, the definition of the P-51M I used came from a USAAF document, as noted, does that makes it my error? The response I received indicated this place might have one. So what was wrong with the say Halifax serial numbers and bomb loads for example?

So *every* time someone puts facts to me I go passive aggressive? I actually I return what I am served. You do reap what you sow.

The first challenge to some information I posted was finding two contradictory figures on the internet and calling that research resulting in a different number. When my mistake on the first two P-51D was found, I noted I was wrong and then thanked for the information. Here you are erasing that, saying I will not retract incorrect information and announcing I am thinking about being vastly superior. So when did people stop your version of helping me?

Does the fuel situation of the 9th Air Force amount to fluff, also what the army situation was? If they are not fluff, what is? The definition I seem to be receiving is information not wanted by a given individual.

So barge in, exhaustive posts (Who forces people to read them?), defensive, passive aggressive, no to corrections, fluffing and vastly superior. A judgement trying to pass itself off as advice on healthy living.

I have identified one published author I have challenged, and will probably continue to challenge, so who are the others? So what peer reviewed journals contain papers from people I have been interacting with?

If you had posted the message at the start using neutral language it would have had credibility, later not so much, but after your contribution of sniping from the side the credibility is zero, even if the language was neutral. All you have done is contribute to the low sgnal to noise ratio, go look at your previous message.

Anyway make it all my fault, the eternal ready market for someone else is entirely to blame, exaggerate the qualifications of those I am responding to, erase anything good I have done and anything bad others have done. Then call it advice. It comes across as a second batch of moderators, trying to stop unwanted discussions and by using so many personal attacks, people as well.

I wonder how many people reading this through have used an hysterical/whining/strident, perhaps sarcastic and so on, mental "bad guy" voice, not calm, the instant internal editorial decision made for "problems".

It all connects, the ultimate form of air superiority is your tank on their runway.

Most folks will go catatonic with glazed over eyes as you ramble through yet another dissertation going nowhere. You have a proclivity to use 10 words when one will do - and never summarize what you 'think' you are stating clearly.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Folks - let's limit the banter. Perhaps more substance and minimalizing word count might help.

 

[GrauGeist]

In returning the obvious, once someone is defined as "the problem" it really does not matter much what they do, as things are interpreted according to the label.

Barge is of course a value judgement, not arrived, started posting. Perhaps a definition of what new people are suppose to limit themselves to would be in order to define barge. Regarding your continued editorial about the quality of the information I report. You really need to provide actual examples, I note my mistake on when the first 2 P-51D were accepted, the definition of the P-51M I used came from a USAAF document, as noted, does that makes it my error? The response I received indicated this place might have one. So what was wrong with the say Halifax serial numbers and bomb loads for example?

So *every* time someone puts facts to me I go passive aggressive? I actually I return what I am served. You do reap what you sow.

The first challenge to some information I posted was finding two contradictory figures on the internet and calling that research resulting in a different number. When my mistake on the first two P-51D was found, I noted I was wrong and then thanked for the information. Here you are erasing that, saying I will not retract incorrect information and announcing I am thinking about being vastly superior. So when did people stop your version of helping me?

Does the fuel situation of the 9th Air Force amount to fluff, also what the army situation was? If they are not fluff, what is? The definition I seem to be receiving is information not wanted by a given individual.

So barge in, exhaustive posts (Who forces people to read them?), defensive, passive aggressive, no to corrections, fluffing and vastly superior. A judgement trying to pass itself off as advice on healthy living.

I have identified one published author I have challenged, and will probably continue to challenge, so who are the others? So what peer reviewed journals contain papers from people I have been interacting with?

If you had posted the message at the start using neutral language it would have had credibility, later not so much, but after your contribution of sniping from the side the credibility is zero, even if the language was neutral. All you have done is contribute to the low sgnal to noise ratio, go look at your previous message.

Anyway make it all my fault, the eternal ready market for someone else is entirely to blame, exaggerate the qualifications of those I am responding to, erase anything good I have done and anything bad others have done. Then call it advice. It comes across as a second batch of moderators, trying to stop unwanted discussions and by using so many personal attacks, people as well.

I wonder how many people reading this through have used an hysterical/whining/strident, perhaps sarcastic and so on, mental "bad guy" voice, not calm, the instant internal editorial decision made for "problems".

It all connects, the ultimate form of air superiority is your tank on their runway.

And yet again, you post a 1,000 word dissertation, in this case, with a vague intent on being an authoritative personage.

It's tiresome, pointless and quite honestly, no one cares. Surely I don't.

I have better things to do than bother with your exhaustive posts. You "seem" to have access to some databases, which is interesting, but then load it with questionable addendum, which you have refused to source when asked.

It boils down to the stark reality that you are most certainly NOT an authority, but rather a parrot of datum, who contrives to present it as an original work, with an occasional quote from one source or another.

I have no idea why you strayed from BritModeler, perhaps they grew tired of your bullshit as well?

 

[fubar57]

He was there yesterday and posted erroneous info as well