WWII Allied gliders

[a425couple]

Here is some stuff.
It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
(basicly = not very often. If you have better specifics,
let me know.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_gliders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4A
"The Waco CG-4A was the most widely used United States
troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
Hadrian in British military service.
Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."

"Although not the intention of the Army Air Forces, gliders were generally
considered expendable by high-ranking European theater officers and
combat personnel and were abandoned or destroyed after landing.
While equipment and methods for extracting flyable gliders were
developed and delivered to Europe, half of that equipment was rendered
unavailable by certain higher-ranked officers.[citation needed]" ((!!))
One company made "2418 Units at $14,891 dollars each."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa
"The Airspeed AS.51 Horsa was a British World War II ---
Number built over 3,600
With up to 30 troop seats,-- Instead of troops, the AS 51 could
carry a jeep or a 6 pounder anti tank gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aircraft_Hamilcar
The General Aircraft Limited GAL. 49 Hamilcar or Hamilcar Mark I
was a large British military glider --- which was designed to carry
heavy cargo, such as the Tetrarch or M22 Locust light tank. --
Number built 344 Unit cost £50,000
Hamilcars were only used on three occasions ---
When the glider was carrying tanks or other vehicles, common practice
was that their engines would be started in the air, usually just prior to
the glider casting off from the tug; special exhaust ducts were fitted to
the glider to expel exhaust fumes. The Tetrarch and M22 Locust light
tanks were so large that they barely fit inside the glider, and as such
their
crews stayed inside the tank for the duration of the flight. Once the glider
landed, ----- If the swing door was jammed after the glider had landed,
it was possible for tanks to break through the unopened forward fuselage
and drive straight out of the glider, which occurred in both airborne
operations where Hamilcars transported tanks."

[a425couple]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...

> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not very often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_gliders

(Big snip)

Wierd gliders from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa
"200 AS 52 Horsas were also to be constructed to carry bombs.
A central fuselage bomb bay holding four 2,000 lb or two 4,000 lb
bombs was fitted into the standard Horsa fuselage. The concept
of towing bombs was dropped as other bombers became available"

I do not understand this planned concept.
Was it for low level hits on very important targets with
clear expectation of low survival odds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Airborne_Transport_XCG-16A
Cross between flying wing and P-38.
Sad story!

[Michele]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:jjmb6...@news3.newsguy.com...

> Wierd gliders from:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa
> "200 AS 52 Horsas were also to be constructed to carry bombs. A central
> fuselage bomb bay holding four 2,000 lb or two 4,000 lb bombs was fitted
> into the standard Horsa fuselage. The concept of towing bombs was dropped
> as other bombers became available"
> I do not understand this planned concept. Was it for low level hits on
> very important targets with clear expectation of low survival odds?

It means that a Halifax or other bomber happening to have engines would tow
a Horsa, and that both the bomber and the glider-bomber would unload their
bombs in the usual way (indeed, that's supported by the fact that the Horsa
would have a bomb bay), presumably at the same time on the same target.
Of course the performance of this duo would be much worse than those of a
Halifax on its own; a very good reason not to try this.
There also seems to be a mistake in the description. I'd say it should read:
"The concept of towing _bombers_...".

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

It never ceases to amaze me how many strange ideas came out of the war.
There was Project Habbakuk (a huge aircraft carrier made of ice)> US
Army tried using bats to carry incendiary bombs. Germans tried to teach
dogs to talk and developed a rifle barel that could shoot around
corners...bomb-carrying gliders fit right into this area.

--
"The only two things that are infinite are the Univese and human
stupidity- and I'm not too sure about the former."--

Albert Einstein

[Jim H.]

I've read somewhere (dunno about the truth of it) that the Russians
tried training dogs to find their food under tanks. Then they strapped
mines with a detonator on top to the dogs' backs, and turned them
loose in proximity to German tanks. It supposedly failed, maybe
because German tanks don't smell like Russian tanks because of the
different lubricants, fuel, and/or crew food & hygiene. Instead of
blowing up German tanks, the dogs would wander around until they found
a familiar-smelling Russian tank.... sort of the land battle
equivalent of a circular running torpedo. Like I said, I have no
knowledge of the truth of this tale.

Jim H.

[a425couple]

"Jim H." <irond...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> On Mar 13, 10:31 pm, ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
>> It never ceases to amaze me how many strange ideas came out of the war.

> I've read somewhere (dunno about the truth of it) that the Russians
> tried training dogs to find their food under tanks. Then they strapped
> mines with a detonator on top to the dogs' backs,

That is true. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog
"the Soviets used their own diesel-engine tanks to train the dogs rather
than German tanks which had gasoline engines."
"At the Battle of Kursk, 16 dogs disabled 12 German tanks
which had broken through the Soviet lines of defense"

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Mar 13, 10:31 pm, ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
>

> It never ceases to amaze me how many strange ideas came

> out of the war......bomb-carrying gliders fit right into this area.

How about bomb-carrying balloons? The Japanese came up
with balloon bombs that used the jet stream to fly over the
Pacific with the intent of creating havoc along the west coast
of the U.S. That one actually worked but not to the extent that
Japan had hoped so they abandoned the project, perhaps too
soon. Had they continued it a bit longer into the dry season the
incendiary devices which the balloons carried along with fragmentation
bombs, could have touched off some very
serious forrest fires.

The project began in November of 1944 and lasted six months.
Altogether approx 9000 of these devices were launched from
Japan and were designed to fly at an altitude of 30-35000 feet
at an estimated jet stream speed of 100-200 miles per hour.
The gas bag was 33 feet in diameter and filled with hydrogen.
It was made of glued layers of parchment with an ingenious
system of atmospheric pressure valves and sand bags attached
to the basket which were timed to govern the balloon's descent
after the estimated time for it to have crossed the Pacific had
passed.

Brig. Gen. W.H. Wilbur, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Western
Defense Command during WWII, later estimated that about
10% of the 9000 had reached the North American continent
and showed up from Alaska, western Canada, and the U.S.
Pacific Northwest, to as far south as Mexico. The general
noted that nearly 200 "more or less" complete units had been
recovered, and that although as a weapon they had done no
real damage, the threat of "great damage was real" and they
had "marked a significant development in the art of war"
inasmuch as "for the first time missiles were sent overseas
without human guidance." [ Data and quotes are from an article
by General Wilbur which appeared in "V for Victory-America's
Home Front During WWii]

WJH

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 10:31 pm, ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:

> How about bomb-carrying balloons? The Japanese came up
> with balloon bombs that used the jet stream to fly over the
> Pacific with the intent of creating havoc along the west coast
> of the U.S. That one actually worked but not to the extent that
> Japan had hoped so they abandoned the project, perhaps too
> soon. Had they continued it a bit longer into the dry season the
> incendiary devices which the balloons carried along with fragmentation
> bombs, could have touched off some very
> serious forrest fires.

> The project began in November of 1944 and lasted six months.

Couple problems with timing, though. The Japanese began their launches
in November, because that's when the polar jet stream is strongest. However,
this is when the Pacific Coast is starting to receive its early rains,
with California following a month or so later. The strongest jet stream
is associated with the wet season.

Worse for the plan, the jet stream moves south during the rainy season,
and north during the drier season. However, the northern Pacific coast is
much wetter than most of California, and it's unlikely they could have
triggered any truly huge fires even in the summer, as they would have
been hitting north of Washington by then, which remains very wet most
of the year.

So, not a terrible idea, but it was unlikely to function as anything better
than terror weapon. And hydrogen was getting to be increasingly scarce in
Japan by that time.

Mike

[a425couple]

<mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message...

> wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:

>> How about bomb-carrying balloons? ---

>> Had they continued it a bit longer into the dry season the

>> incendiary devices --- could have touched off some very
>> serious forrest fires.
>
> Couple problems with timing, though. --- and it's unlikely they could have

> triggered any truly huge fires even in the summer, as they would have
> been hitting north of Washington by then, which remains very wet most
> of the year.

Respectfully, the above ("very wet most of the year") is an overstatement.
Serious forrest fires are often a problem in late summer in BC, Wash & Ore.

> So, not a terrible idea, but it was unlikely to function as anything
> better
> than terror weapon. And hydrogen was getting to be increasingly scarce in
> Japan by that time.

I believe the two main reasons the program ended were because the US
realized it was a fairly serious threat and #1 imposed censorship so Japan
would not know results, and #2 as this cite explains, took very serious
steps to eliminate the threat (make "hydrogen" "scarce").

http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/forensic_geology/japenese%20vengenance%20bombs%20new.htm
"The work of the MGU conclusively identified northeastern coastal Japan
as the source area for the sand ballast, and the likely point of launching.
Once these locations were revealed detailed photo reconnaissance were
made of the areas in early 1945 and the photo interpreters succeeded in
identifying two of the three plants producing hydrogen for the project in
vicinity of Ichinomiya. These plants were conclusively destroyed by
American B-29 bombers based in the Mariannas Islands in April 1945,
putting an end to the vengeance bomb project. "

(IMHO very nice diagrams & pictures & map at this site.)

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message...
> > wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
> >> How about bomb-carrying balloons? ---
> >> Had they continued it a bit longer into the dry season the
> >> incendiary devices --- could have touched off some very
> >> serious forrest fires.

> > Couple problems with timing, though. --- and it's unlikely they could have
> > triggered any truly huge fires even in the summer, as they would have
> > been hitting north of Washington by then, which remains very wet most
> > of the year.

> Respectfully, the above ("very wet most of the year") is an overstatement.
> Serious forrest fires are often a problem in late summer in BC, Wash & Ore.

North of Washington would have been BC, and while they have fires, Oregon's
are more common and larger. It's all relative, of course, but the farther
south, the drier the climate and the bigger the burns.

Late summer would have been August; by which time the Japanese weren't
doing any balloon bombing.

Mike

[Michael Emrys]

On 3/16/12 9:21 PM, mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> It's all relative, of course, but the farther
> south, the drier the climate and the bigger the burns.

East of the Cascades is also drier, both north and south as it lies in
the rain shadow. On the other hand, really dry areas tend not to be so
heavily forested.

Michael

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Well, there's still a high tree density in the dry areas, just not nearly
the underbrush. As you note, the eastern parts of those states are much
drier, and had a balloon made it that far it might have had a much more
spectacular effect. However, those areas are also sparsely populated, so
it would be unlikely to have much of an effect on the war effort.

Mike

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Mar 16, 10:16 am, "a425couple" wrote:
>
> I believe the two main reasons the program ended
> were because the US realized it was a fairly serious
> threat and #1 imposed censorship so Japan
> would not know results, and #2 as this cite explains,
> took very serious steps to eliminate the threat (make
> "hydrogen" "scarce").
>
> http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/forensic_geology

>/japenese%20vengenance%2... "The work of the MGU

> conclusively identified northeastern coastal Japan
> as the source area for the sand ballast, and the likely

> point of launching.....These plants were conclusively
> destroyed by American B-29 bombers....

>
> (IMHO very nice diagrams & pictures & map at this site.)

I agree. Your cite is an excellent one and substantiates
the General Wilbur site I referenced but with much more
detail. In the U.S. the secret was very well-kept that the
balloon bombs existed and even the media cooperated in
the censorship effort until almost near the end of the
operation when a woman and several children were killed
after finding a downed balloon near their picnic site, and,
curious as to what it was, started to move it and the bomb
exploded. I believe this caused a "leak" and it was
reported by some news sources.

However, Japan never got the word of whether or
not their balloon bombs were a success or falure. In
that connection it should be noted that Japan was not
too good at following up on important intelligence when
they did or could have, got the word.
One case in point was months before Pearl
Harbor when the German Embassy in Washington had
advised Berlin (which relayed the information to Tokyo)
that the Germans, had learned "through "absolutely
reliable sources" that the U.S. had broken the Japanese
coding system and had been reading messages between
Tokyo and its ambassador Oshima in Berlin.
This revelation was relayed back to Ambassador
Nomura in Washington who advised Tokyo that "the most
stringent precautions are taken by custodians of all codes
and ciphers." This apparently satisfied Tokyo which
disregarded the information as an unfounded rumor,
although it was true, of course, that we had been reading
their diplomatic traffic through the MAGIC system and even
read the above mentioned exchange between Nomura
and Tokyo.
Thereafter the U.S. took even stronger security
measures to protect knowledge of MAGIC from being
leaked. However, there was another occasion which
caused the U.S. code-breakers to be nervous and that one
involved a possible leak to the Japanese that we were
breaking their naval codes.
On June 7, 1942, as the Battle of Midway wound
down, a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune wrote a story
which appeared on the front page of that newspaper with the
headline, "Navy Had Word of Jap Plan to Strike at Sea"
followed by a text which read in part "...information in the
hands of the Navy Department was so definite...that...
guesses were even made that Dutch Harbor or Midway
might be targets."
Although the story did not directly refer to codes or
communications intelligence, the Navy feared that the
Japanese would realize that the "details could have come
only from a reading of their coded messages." As it was,
the Japanese failed to pick up on that knowledge also, and
just short of one year after Midway Navy code breakers were
able to decipher a Japanese message which led to the
interception and shoot-down of Admiral Yamamoto.
[For details see "The Codebreakers" by David Kahn.]

WJH

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I believe the two main reasons the program ended were because the US
> realized it was a fairly serious threat and #1 imposed censorship so Japan

Well, it wasn't really a threat, nor was it really cost-effective. If
you produce 9000 of a given weapon and manage to kill 6 people, you're
not going to win many wars.

And 5 of those killed were killed after the program was discontinued.

> http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/forensic_geology/japenese%20vengenance%20bombs%20new.htm

The wiki article is actually pretty good as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon

> "The work of the MGU conclusively identified northeastern coastal Japan
> as the source area for the sand ballast, and the likely point of launching.
> Once these locations were revealed detailed photo reconnaissance were
> made of the areas in early 1945 and the photo interpreters succeeded in
> identifying two of the three plants producing hydrogen for the project in
> vicinity of Ichinomiya. These plants were conclusively destroyed by
> American B-29 bombers based in the Mariannas Islands in April 1945,
> putting an end to the vengeance bomb project. "

And the balloons were assembled in various factories, from as far away as
Yamaguchi-ken (near Nagasaki.) There's a good article in Cook & Cook's
book _Japan At War_ which is an interview with one of the school girls
who worked in one of the balloon plants.

Mike

[David Wilma]

Big fires are possible in Washington and British Columbia depending on
the
dryness of the season. Fire is always a danger every summer west of
the
Cascades. The Japanese gamble that fires would siphon off resources
was
understandable and even a fair bet. It just didn't happen that way.
What did
happen was the expenditure of air defense resources after all chance
of
Japanese air attack was past. Aircraft that could have been deployed
to
the Pacific were kept stateside. But considering the size of U.S.
mobilization by '45 this was a small distraction.

[prewar my dad dated the lady who was killed by the bomb in Oregon]

[a425couple]

<mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message...

> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message...
>> > wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
>> >> How about bomb-carrying balloons? ---

>> > Couple problems with timing, though. --- and it's unlikely they could
>> > have
>> > triggered any truly huge fires even in the summer, as they would have
>> > been hitting north of Washington by then, which remains very wet most
>> > of the year.
>
>> Respectfully, the above ("very wet most of the year") is an
>> overstatement.
>> Serious forrest fires are often a problem in late summer in BC, Wash &
>> Ore.
>
> North of Washington would have been BC, and while they have fires,
> Oregon's
> are more common and larger. It's all relative, of course, but the farther
> south, the drier the climate and the bigger the burns.

"larger" & "bigger" !

It seems that you have a very Southern Pacific US centric
& biased point of view.

Let me inform you about the Big Blowup or the Big Burn.
It was a wildfire which burned about 3 million acres
(approximately the size of Connecticut) in northeast Washington,
northern Idaho (the panhandle), and western Montana.

That was more than 10 times larger than the "Largest recorded fire
in California history" (under 300,000 acres) !
Alaska had a forest fire that consumed 1.3 million acres.
Alberta had one that was 1.7 million acres.
The worst recorded fire in Oregon's history was 'only' 1 million acres.

> Late summer would have been August; by which time the Japanese weren't
> doing any balloon bombing.

And part of the reason they weren't, was that the US took the
threat very seriously, did forensic investigation, and targeted
bombing to degrade their ability (see earlier cite that you sniped).
Nobody could predict the date the war would end.

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message...
> > a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message...
> >> > wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
> >> >> How about bomb-carrying balloons? ---
> >> > Couple problems with timing, though. --- and it's unlikely they could
> >> > have
> >> > triggered any truly huge fires even in the summer, as they would have
> >> > been hitting north of Washington by then, which remains very wet most
> >> > of the year.
> >
> >> Respectfully, the above ("very wet most of the year") is an
> >> overstatement.
> >> Serious forrest fires are often a problem in late summer in BC, Wash &
> >> Ore.

> > North of Washington would have been BC, and while they have fires,
> > Oregon's
> > are more common and larger. It's all relative, of course, but the farther
> > south, the drier the climate and the bigger the burns.

> "larger" & "bigger" !

> It seems that you have a very Southern Pacific US centric
> & biased point of view.

Yeah, that's why I wrote " As you note, the eastern parts of those states are

much drier, and had a balloon made it that far it might have had a much more

spectacular effect." in response to another article.

Good catch.

In any event, I was describing the coast, and that has nothing to do with
"a very Southern Pacific US centric" nonsense.

> Let me inform you about the Big Blowup or the Big Burn.
> It was a wildfire which burned about 3 million acres

Yeah, it's on the wiki.

> > Late summer would have been August; by which time the Japanese weren't
> > doing any balloon bombing.

> And part of the reason they weren't, was that the US took the
> threat very seriously, did forensic investigation, and targeted
> bombing to degrade their ability (see earlier cite that you sniped).

I didn't "snipe" your article, and in fact have posted other references
(including the wiki article on balloon bombs) which re-enforce what both
of us have posted. I have no idea why you're imagining you're being
slighted. Much of what your reference included was also in the wiki
article.

> Nobody could predict the date the war would end.

Again, doesn't seem to have been very cost-effective for them, and without
tangible results, it's difficult to see them carrying it out for much
longer than they did.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

David Wilma <David...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Big fires are possible in Washington and British Columbia depending on the
> dryness of the season. Fire is always a danger every summer west of the
> Cascades.

Again, large fires are more common south along the coastal regions. It's
much drier, as it is east of the foothills in all coastal states.

> The Japanese gamble that fires would siphon off resources was
> understandable and even a fair bet. It just didn't happen that way.

I believe their goal was to create some sort of huge fire to threaten
US cities. This was unlikely, though the US would have been foolish
not to take

> What did
> happen was the expenditure of air defense resources after all chance of
> Japanese air attack was past. Aircraft that could have been deployed
> to the Pacific were kept stateside. But considering the size of U.S.
> mobilization by '45 this was a small distraction.

Yep. And a large expenditure of resources for Japan, which they could
not really afford.

> [prewar my dad dated the lady who was killed by the bomb in Oregon]

It's a small world, in strange ways sometimes.

Mike

[Bill Shatzer]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I believe the two main reasons the program ended were because the US
>>realized it was a fairly serious threat and #1 imposed censorship so Japan
>
>
> Well, it wasn't really a threat, nor was it really cost-effective. If
> you produce 9000 of a given weapon and manage to kill 6 people, you're
> not going to win many wars.
>
> And 5 of those killed were killed after the program was discontinued.

>>http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/forensic_geology/japenese%20vengenance%20bombs%20new.htm

All six victims died in May - a month after the Japanese had launched
their last balloon bomb.

Your source has it wrong about the date - it was May 5 and not March 5.

[Mario]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net, 01:10, domenica 18 marzo 2012:

>> I believe the two main reasons the program ended were because
>> the US realized it was a fairly serious threat and #1 imposed
>> censorship so Japan
>
> Well, it wasn't really a threat, nor was it really
> cost-effective. If you produce 9000 of a given weapon and
> manage to kill 6 people, you're not going to win many wars.

However it was the first inter-continental bombing.


--
H

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

:-)

Still, I wonder if there bombing raids originating in Europe and hitting
Africa.

In any event, certainly the first trans-oceanic bombing...

Mike

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Nope.

US Ninth Air Force B-24's from Benghazi, Libya attacked Ploesti in
Romania, as well as targets in taly and along the Med coast.

--
"The only two things that are infinite are the Universe and human

[Rich Rostrom]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:


> Still, I wonder if there bombing raids originating in Europe and hitting
> Africa.

I'm pretty sure that Axis planes from Sardinia
bombed Algiers and ports further east during
the North African campaign of 1942-1943.

There were also Allied raids from North Africa
against Europe.
--
| Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdes. |
| -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870. |

[Bill Shatzer]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Mario <ack...@ack.ack> wrote:
>
>>mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net, 01:10, domenica 18 marzo 2012:
>
>
>>>>I believe the two main reasons the program ended were because
>>>>the US realized it was a fairly serious threat and #1 imposed
>>>>censorship so Japan
>>>
>>>Well, it wasn't really a threat, nor was it really
>>>cost-effective. If you produce 9000 of a given weapon and
>>>manage to kill 6 people, you're not going to win many wars.
>
>
>
>>However it was the first inter-continental bombing.

> Still, I wonder if there bombing raids originating in Europe and hitting
> Africa.

The reverse certainly occured - the Ploesti raid originated from air
bases near Benghazi in Tripoli.

> In any event, certainly the first trans-oceanic bombing...

Depends, I suppose, on how you define "trans-oceanic". The US was flying
bombing raids from the Aleutians against the Japanese Kurile Islands as
early as mid-1943 - which crossed a significant hunk of the Pacific Ocean.

[Michael Emrys]

On 3/18/12 9:32 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> ...near Benghazi in Tripoli.

Mr. Picky feels obliged to point out that Benghazi is in Cyrenaica.

:D

Michael

[Michele]

<mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:jk5s58$osj$1...@haven.eyrie.org...

> Mario <ack...@ack.ack> wrote:
>> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net, 01:10, domenica 18 marzo 2012:
>

>

>> However it was the first inter-continental bombing.
>

> In any event, certainly the first trans-oceanic bombing...
>

SM.82 Marsupiale bombers flew from Greek islands (Europe) to Manamah,
Bahrein (Asia), and to do that they flew over the Med (Atlantic Ocean) and
the Persian Gulf (Indian Ocean). The damage to the refineries was really
minor (after all, they sent a staggering total of 4 bombers...). I think
this happened in 1940.

[MCGARRY]

Le 13/03/2012 00:17, a425couple a écrit :
> Here is some stuff.

> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not very often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
>

In the airborne museum at Ste Mere Eglise there's a photo of a C47
trying to recover a Waco glider. The special tow rope was hung across
between two poles, and the C47 would come along and hook on to this. The
shock on the glider pilot would have been horrendous. They didn't have
head rests in the giders.
I don't know if it was ever carried out successfully.
Horsa gliders were nearly allways damaged to some extent. The only bit
of original glider at Pegasus bridge is a short length of fuselage
frame. The whole one, visible at the museum, was made in 2004 following
the original plans made by AVRO. When they gave the plans to the
enthusiasts who made it, they told them not to try and fly, as they are
not airworthy. It's exactly the same as the 1944 gliders, which is a
good indication of the risks of just flying in them.


--
Audio Tour Guide d day Normandy
http://www.normandy-tour-guide.com
Driver guide Normandy
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Colin-McGarry-Normandy-Tour-Guide/191220338034

[Joe Osman]

Take a look at:
Austere recovery of cargo gliders
Joint Forces Quarterly / issue 48, 1st quarter 2008
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA516653

Joe

[MCGARRY]

That's an interesting document. Normandy had few recovered compared with
other theaters; Probably due to difficulty of landing in the hedgerow
country with out damage and the difficulty of having enough space to
take off again.

[Alan Nordin]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:17:01 AM UTC-4, MCGARRY wrote:
> Normandy had few recovered compared with
> other theaters; Probably due to difficulty of landing in the hedgerow
> country with out damage and the difficulty of having enough space to
> take off again.

Not to mention that most of the landing zones were active battle fields for some weeks to come.

Alan

[j...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <4f67705c$0$12524$ba4a...@reader.news.orange.fr>,

webma...@cpmac.com (MCGARRY) wrote:

> When they gave the plans to the enthusiasts who made it, they told them
> not to try and fly, as they are not airworthy.

Current standards for airworthiness certification are a lot stricter
than in the 1940s. For example, the C-47 is apparently not airworthy by
current standards, but has been grandfathered in.


--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

I'd say that an aircraft last built 67 years ago tha't still flying is
pretty darned airworthy.