Battle of Midway

[Daryl]

Most of the movies made only show the USNavy in Midway. But
there were other branches involved just as heavy.

The US Marines greeted the Japanese Attack Force over Midway with
SB2 Dive Bombers being used as fighters. The SB2 was antiquated
but they engaged anyway and made quite an impact against the
attacking Japanese force. The Marines had a high loss rate but
the Japanese Air Attack wasn't the success the Japanese hoped for.

And don't forget the Army Ground Forces with their AA Guns. They
made quite a difference. The Japanese were trying to soften up
Midway for invasion.

The B-17 and B-26 Bombers were rushed to Midway. Right after the
long flight, the crews reformed and scrambled back into the air
without rest or sleep. They engaged the main Carrier Force
dropping bombs. After they dropped their loads, the Bombers
dropped very low and began strafing ships with their 50 cals.

It was quite a mess in the Air over the Carrier Force mixed with
AAF and Navy. This was all brought out by a intercepted Japanese
Message that was decoded. The US Intel had recently broken the
Japanese Code.

http://tvmoviesforfree.com/mel/department-of-defense/air-force-story-the-the-aaf-fights-back-april-july-1942-1953-video_2b0d67dfb.html

[R Leonard]

> http://tvmoviesforfree.com/mel/department-of-defense/air-force-story-...

No, you are not even close.

There are quite a few really good books on the subject you may wish to
peruse before you write further. I have a list if you’d like it.

There was neither a USMC, nor USN for that matter, aircraft with a SB2
designation in 1942. The VMSB-241 SBD and SB2U (perhaps that is what
you mean? Scout-Bomber-Type/Model 2-manyfactured by Vought - you need
all of it, the S, the B, the 2 AND the U) dive bombers stationed on
Midway had nothing to do with intercepting the attacking Japanese
strike aircraft, they were on their way to the Japanese carriers. The
Japanese strike was intercepted by a mix of 19 F2A and 6 F4F fighters
from VMF-221. Thirteen of the F2As were shot down, two of the F4Fs.
Another two F4Fs and five F2As were sufficiently damaged to be out of
commission. Japanese losses were in the neighborhood of nine or ten,
depending how you want to count, and certainly not even close to the
43 claimed by HQ MAG-22.

There were not US Army ground forces, with or without AA guns on
Midway. Midway was defended by Marines of the 6th Marine Defense
Battalion (reinforced with other USMC units). No US Army involved
except as ground personnel for the four B-26’s and seventeen B-17s
already forward deployed to the island before the battle.

Yes, forwarded to Midway before the battle. There was no rush of
going immediately into action upon arrival from Oahu. B-17s struck
the Japanese invasion force on the afternoon of 3 June (no hits), the
Japanese carrier force on 4 June (no hits) and the lone Japanese
cruiser force trying to get away on 5 June (no hits). ALL of these
were high level bombing missions (part of the reason for the dearth of
positive results) and involved no strafing of the ships being bombed.
The B-26 conducted a torpedo attack on the Japanese carriers on
morning of 4 June, also no hits (but neither did any other torpedo
dropped by a US plane in hopes of hitting a Japanese carrier). Two of
the B-26s were shot down; two made it back to Midway, but were pretty
shot up. There were fourteen pilots and crew KIA altogether, three
WIA. There were certainly some rounds tossed in the direction of
various Japanese ships, as well as defending Zero fighters, as the
B-26s were executing their torpedo runs, but no deliberate strafing
attacks.

There was no single decoded message that spilled the beans on the
Japanese attack, except, maybe, the famous “needs water” ruse. Rather
it was the accumulation of traffic, beginning in April and escalating
through May, which led the analysts at Pearl Harbor to believe a major
attack was coming and that the target was Midway. The water ruse was
used just to confirm the location. Ironically, up to the eve of
battle, the wonks in Washington were still worried about the blow
falling on the west coast or Hawaii itself.

R

[Daryl]

I provided a historical record made by the AAF. As in moving
pictures of the SB2s, B-17s, and B-26s that were filmed during
the actual battle.

The rest is snipped due to it trying to rewrite history that has
already been documented. Hate to break it to you but the actual
footage was presented. Not some person trying to rewrite history
to sell a friggin book.


--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[John Szalay]

Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in
news:jo7cpb$t21$1...@dont-email.me:

========================================================================
=======


Torpedo 8
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/4cbd23b1e74ea8d9_landing

(standing L-R Owens, Ensign Fayle, Waldron, R.A. Moore,
J.M. Moore, Evans, Teats, Cambell;
kneeling L-R Ellison, Kenyon, Gray, sole survivor Gay,
Woodson, Creamer & Miles)


After the battle of Midway, a press pool photographer was allowed
access to midway.. some of the images he took..

=================================================================

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/689eac628cdc3c3b_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/05d8ffd17f2b2889_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/fd08dee099d53c5b_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/180fed15231da9fd_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/dcde26029e0852c7_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/55dcb5759f7edc84_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/c1538e935574dd9e_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/3e9e5b149bb99359_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/720a7747320d3139_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/5cdedc00b906f760_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/c95411ee1db6f5d0_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/743f265ce9fd464a_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/f26a0c1a955f0e32_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/7fa600fd9e9010f2_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/b70576f81b547a43_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/0b69ce51c62c78f1_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/fc221d213090ceb4_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/9c5d8b3619414fee_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/32eccbb42444e618_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/cd91446dd343f83f_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/9a343dc5aa9f9325_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/8507f5756f60c4db_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/a1a012f1cd9bf242_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/d090fb23f7b7158e_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/1c407acf61daba3a_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/c951cad480624502_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/d88635340eb090f1_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/dcbc65342454a971_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/73220b7d33e394e1_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/534e520b39012b32_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/023f2d91907cf0b4_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/1fe6ca759dc00876_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/0f2afd19bd3b461c_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/cf2b2d7c3f41ca77_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/d0ec50965b53d9ec_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/934e3d9e1de6c359_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/a58f43819ea308d0_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/008af3a89d959c5b_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/47aab21f7dee1a3d_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/b98ed2b6598e384f_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/d9e321dba17aaae5_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/a38cc1186a243fc6_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/9d10c32b8c9b1232_landing
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/697885ded7d6bd1e_landing



Japanese Green Glass fishing net float on Midway
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/7738b4de97e97ee9_landing

used to find those on the beach in Hawaii by the hundreds
when I was a kid, all sizes & shapes.
still have one left hanging in the living room..
(they use plastic ones for the nets now, not near as nice..)

[John Szalay]

My favorite of the Midway pool photographs


http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/ff40ad47ff365b3d_landing

[Jim Yanik]

John Szalay <john.szalayATatt.net> wrote in
news:XnsA04C696833F0F...@216.196.97.142:

> Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in
> news:jo7cpb$t21$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Most of the movies made only show the USNavy in Midway. But
>> there were other branches involved just as heavy.
>>
>> The US Marines greeted the Japanese Attack Force over Midway with
>> SB2 Dive Bombers being used as fighters. The SB2 was antiquated
>> but they engaged anyway and made quite an impact against the
>> attacking Japanese force. The Marines had a high loss rate but
>> the Japanese Air Attack wasn't the success the Japanese hoped for.
>>
>> And don't forget the Army Ground Forces with their AA Guns. They
>> made quite a difference. The Japanese were trying to soften up
>> Midway for invasion.
>>
>> The B-17 and B-26 Bombers were rushed to Midway. Right after the
>> long flight, the crews reformed and scrambled back into the air
>> without rest or sleep. They engaged the main Carrier Force
>> dropping bombs. After they dropped their loads, the Bombers
>> dropped very low and began strafing ships with their 50 cals.
>>
>> It was quite a mess in the Air over the Carrier Force mixed with
>> AAF and Navy. This was all brought out by a intercepted Japanese
>> Message that was decoded. The US Intel had recently broken the
>> Japanese Code.
>>
>> http://tvmoviesforfree.com/mel/department-of-defense/air-force-story-
> th
>> e-the-aaf-fights-back-april-july-1942-1953-video_2b0d67dfb.html

I find it hard to believe that B-17's and B-26's engaged and bombed the Jap
carriers and their Zero fighter coverage. How many were shot down?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[R Leonard]

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and

> programs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just so we are clear here, Mr Happy.

1. Not one single bomb dropped by the AAF struck one single Japanese
ship in the course of the Battle of Midway.

2. There were no aircraft present designated as "SB2"

3. No one is selling a book or revising anything. USAAF propaganda
was exactly that, propaganda.

4. Footage is all interesting, I like it top, but if the commentary
is not correct, than that is it, incorrect commentary. Why would you
want to repeat what is not correct?

Tell me then, which US Army ground forces were present at the Battle
of Midway? Specifically, which US Army AA units. Please provide a
description of the aircraft "SB2", the units to which it was assigned
and which of the pilots were involved in the inteception of the
Japanese strike. What were the results of that interception?

You tell, what really happened at Midway?

[R Leonard]

On May 7, 10:36 am, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> John Szalay <john.szalayATatt.net> wrote innews:XnsA04C696833F0F...@216.196.97.142:

> dot com- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Two B-26s were shot down. None of the B-17s were shot down by
Japanese interceptors - so I guess the B-17s broke even, not hits, no
losses.

[Daryl]

Had the B-24 been available, it would have been it's job. And
the B-24 played havoc with ships of all kinds on both sides of
the pond. As well did the B-25, A-26, B-26. The only real thing
the B-24 brought to the plate was the range without having
special fuel tanks installed.

The advantage the B-17 had was speed. Load it light and it was
faster than the Zero. What was used was the A6M2 Type 0 Model 21
with about the same top speed as the B-17 with a light bomb load.
But the Never Exceed speed was lower than the B-17. Meaning,
head ons would have been needed to hit the B-17 of the time. And
with the F4Fs crawling all over the sky, headons were not to be
had. And a Zero flying flat out, level flight to hit a B-17 or
any of the bombers during the battle would be easy prey to the
Navy Fighters.

The Japanese had no prior warning meaning it was pretty well a
surprise attack on their main carrier force.

--

[Daryl]

No hits on Carriers. There were more targets than that including
tenders, cargo, destroyers, troop carriers, cruisers, etc..

According to your earlier post, the B-17s just couldn't be there
at all. Guess you changed your mind.

[Daryl]

On 5/7/2012 8:47 AM, R Leonard wrote:

Actually, one B-17 was shot down and another ditched due to lack
of fuel. It was later determined that none of the B-17s hit
their targets. But near misses made quite an interesting track
the ships had to do which reduced their AA fire accuracy.

But the B-26s fared better on the kill rate. No, no carriers
were sunk by the B-26 but there were some smaller ship kills.
The B-26 had the advantage over the B-17 that it carried torpedos.

Both types of bombers just added to the number of targets that
the limited number of defenders had to contend with. So I give
the B-17 a nod that it did contribute even it if meant it was a
target which reduced the number of defenders against the other
types. Not everyone can carry the ball.

[Keith W]

Nonsense

Four B-26's attacked, two were shot down before they dropped
their torpedo and the other two attacked a carrier and claimed
hits. They were incorrect, the only casualties were the injury of
two men manning the No.3 AA gun on the carrier Akagi as the
B-26 gunners strafed the carrier during the attack.

Keith

[Daryl]

Nonsense, My ass.

> Four B-26's attacked, two were shot down before they dropped
> their torpedo and the other two attacked a carrier and claimed
> hits. They were incorrect, the only casualties were the injury of
> two men manning the No.3 AA gun on the carrier Akagi as the
> B-26 gunners strafed the carrier during the attack.

Gee, and you said it was nonsense. Bagging an AA gun on a
Carrier means there are fewer AA Guns firing, doesn't it. Not
one AC can take credit for those sinkings. All (including the
bullet magnets) contributed. I said it before, not everyone gets
to carry the football and most don't get to do the touchdown
dance. Any QB that doesn't highly praise his Guards, Center and
Tackle doesn't last very long in the game.

[R Leonard]

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and

> programs.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I never changed my mind. You keep operating with incorrect
information.

NO, repeat, NO, bombs dropped by USAAF aircraft involved in the Battle
of Midway struck a single Japanese ship. Not one, carrier,
battleship, cruiser, destroyer, transport, oiler, nothing, not one was
hit by a USAAF dropped bomb.

The only ship that went under water as a result of USAAF bombs was a
US submarine which crash dived when straddled by bomb salvos dropped
by B-17s whose crews apparently thought the submarine was a Japanese
cruiser and so reported sinking same when their target swiftly
disappeared beneath the waves. They did not hit the submarine either.

Not some commentary from a movie, historical fact, not a single hit.
I’d be the first to note that the only photos of Japanese carriers
taken from a US aircraft during the battle were taken from a B-17, but
the maneuvering of the ships is apparent as are all the bomb salvos
missing their target.

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 10:14 AM, Keith W wrote:
>>>
>>> But the B-26s fared better on the kill rate. No, no carriers
>>> were sunk by the B-26 but there were some smaller ship kills.
>>> The B-26 had the advantage over the B-17 that it carried torpedos.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense
>>
>
> Nonsense, My ass.
>
>
>> Four B-26's attacked, two were shot down before they dropped
>> their torpedo and the other two attacked a carrier and claimed
>> hits. They were incorrect, the only casualties were the injury of
>> two men manning the No.3 AA gun on the carrier Akagi as the
>> B-26 gunners strafed the carrier during the attack.
>
> Gee, and you said it was nonsense. Bagging an AA gun on a
> Carrier means there are fewer AA Guns firing, doesn't it.

No the gun was back in action within 30 minutes

> Not
> one AC can take credit for those sinkings. All (including the
> bullet magnets) contributed.

The USAAF attacks didnt sink a single ship - this is a fact.

> I said it before, not everyone gets
> to carry the football and most don't get to do the touchdown
> dance. Any QB that doesn't highly praise his Guards, Center and
> Tackle doesn't last very long in the game.

Defending a sticky wicket doesn't win a test match.

Fact is the Japanese ships sunk at Midway were hit by carrier borne
aircraft. Deal with it.

Keith

[R Leonard]

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and

> programs.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No, not a single B-17 was shot down by Japanese fighters at Midway.
Not one.

B-17s at Midway:

All were drawn from 7th AF 5th BG(H)
From 42d BS - B-17E - no losses
From 431st BS - 7 B-17E - no losses
From 31st BS - 2 B-17E - no losses
From 72d BS - 1 B-17E - not lost
From 349th BS - 1 B-17D - not lost
From HQ 7th AF - 1 B-17E - not lost

The B-26’s despite the gallant effort of their crews in a role for
which their only training was discussions with USN PBY drivers about
dropping torpedoes from their planes, as stated scored not hits in
their attack on the Japanese carriers. Both of the surviving aircraft
were grounded upon return to Midway as too damaged for further combat
action. They flew no other missions during the battle. There were no
“smaller ship kills.”

The attacks over the Japanese Fleet: first the VT-8 TBFs and the
aforementioned B-26s making torpedo attack (no hits, 2 of 4 B-26’s
lost, 5 of 6 TBFs lost), and when the smoke clears from that, then
came VMSB-241 SBDs and SB2Us (incidentally, also no hits, 8 SBDs and 5
SB2Us lost). Then along come the B-17s (who had been diverted from a
mission to bomb the invasion force) and drop their bombs all over the
place, but as noted no hits, no losses.

A brief interlude and along comes VT-8 from Hornet and about a half
hour later VT-6 from Enterprise. VT-8 is wiped out except for one
pilot, 15 aircraft, 14 pilots and 15 gunners lost. VT-6 has three
planes which make it back, but only two remain serviceable. Nine VT-6
planes and their crews are lost.

Approximately 30 minutes later and along come VT-3 from Yorktown with
12 TBDs only two VT-3 planes survive their attack (no hits) and both
of those ditched just short of arrival back at the US carriers. Two
pilots, one crewman are rescued, one crewman died of wounds before
rescue. As the VT-3 attack unfolded down near the water, VB-3 arrives
and attacks Soryu, VS-6 and the majority of VB-6 attack Kaga, and a
single VB-6 section hits Akagi. All three Japanese carriers are put
out of action and will be eventually scuttled. Hiryu escapes but
would not survive the afternoon and was abandoned after being hit by
dive bombers from VS-6, VB-3, and VB-6 and sinks the next morning.

Point is there was a series of discrete individual attacks, each
separated by at least 20 to 30 minutes. The only time one could
believe the Japanese were suitably distracted was the combined VT-3
(with its VF-3 escort soaking up considerable Zero type attention as
well), VB-6, VS-6, and VB-3 attack . . . the B-17s were no where in
sight.

[R Leonard]

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and

> programs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

B-24s got involved in the action on 7 June 42 when MG Clarence Tinker
had the idea of a bombing mission to Wake. Four of the five planned
aircraft actually took off, (actually they were LB-30’s but hey, can’t
be too picky as this thread clearly demonstrates) none were able to
find the target. Tinker and his plane were never seen again and are
believed to have crashed at sea, probably on the way to the target and
probably closer rather than farther to Midway as the plane was seen to
slow and lose altitude some 30 minutes into the mission. The other
three LB-30s made it back to Midway and crews reported the loss of
Tinker’s plane. Oddly enough, Tinker, USAAC, was a friend of my
grandfather (a US Infantry colonel who retired in 1935) and my father
(USN fighter pilot type off Yorktown at Midway) oft remarked that he
remembered Tinker well and thought it a sad end to a good man.

[Daryl]

On 5/7/2012 11:13 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 10:14 AM, Keith W wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But the B-26s fared better on the kill rate. No, no carriers
>>>> were sunk by the B-26 but there were some smaller ship kills.
>>>> The B-26 had the advantage over the B-17 that it carried torpedos.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense, My ass.
>>
>>
>>> Four B-26's attacked, two were shot down before they dropped
>>> their torpedo and the other two attacked a carrier and claimed
>>> hits. They were incorrect, the only casualties were the injury of
>>> two men manning the No.3 AA gun on the carrier Akagi as the
>>> B-26 gunners strafed the carrier during the attack.
>>
>> Gee, and you said it was nonsense. Bagging an AA gun on a
>> Carrier means there are fewer AA Guns firing, doesn't it.
>
> No the gun was back in action within 30 minutes

In that 30 minutes, how many other attackers weren't shot it by
it? How about all of them.

>
>
>> Not
>> one AC can take credit for those sinkings. All (including the
>> bullet magnets) contributed.
>
> The USAAF attacks didnt sink a single ship - this is a fact.
>
>> I said it before, not everyone gets
>> to carry the football and most don't get to do the touchdown
>> dance. Any QB that doesn't highly praise his Guards, Center and
>> Tackle doesn't last very long in the game.
>
> Defending a sticky wicket doesn't win a test match.
>
> Fact is the Japanese ships sunk at Midway were hit by carrier borne
> aircraft. Deal with it.
>
> Keith

It was a huge team effort. Okay, all you REMFs, according to
Keith, you could have stayed home and been a Jodie.

[Dean]

On May 7, 11:22 am, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and
> programs.

B-17 top speed was 287mph vs Zero top speed of 331mph according to
Wiki.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%oTpr.7$IQ...@fx20.am4...
> ...> Fact is the Japanese ships sunk at Midway were hit by carrier

> borne
> aircraft. Deal with it.
>
> Keith

The submarine Nautilus reported attacking Soryu, but it appears the
torpedos hit Kaga and were duds.

jsw

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 11:13 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2012 10:14 AM, Keith W wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But the B-26s fared better on the kill rate. No, no carriers
>>>>> were sunk by the B-26 but there were some smaller ship kills.
>>>>> The B-26 had the advantage over the B-17 that it carried torpedos.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense, My ass.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Four B-26's attacked, two were shot down before they dropped
>>>> their torpedo and the other two attacked a carrier and claimed
>>>> hits. They were incorrect, the only casualties were the injury of
>>>> two men manning the No.3 AA gun on the carrier Akagi as the
>>>> B-26 gunners strafed the carrier during the attack.
>>>
>>> Gee, and you said it was nonsense. Bagging an AA gun on a
>>> Carrier means there are fewer AA Guns firing, doesn't it.
>>
>> No the gun was back in action within 30 minutes
>
> In that 30 minutes, how many other attackers weren't shot it by
> it? How about all of them.
>

Actually the gun was back in action for all of them

The B-26 attack occurred at 07.05

The remaining Midway aircraft attacked between 07.40 and 08.00
The USN aircraft didnt attack until 09.40

>>
>>
>>> Not
>>> one AC can take credit for those sinkings. All (including the
>>> bullet magnets) contributed.
>>
>> The USAAF attacks didnt sink a single ship - this is a fact.
>>
>>> I said it before, not everyone gets
>>> to carry the football and most don't get to do the touchdown
>>> dance. Any QB that doesn't highly praise his Guards, Center and
>>> Tackle doesn't last very long in the game.
>>
>> Defending a sticky wicket doesn't win a test match.
>>
>> Fact is the Japanese ships sunk at Midway were hit by carrier borne
>> aircraft. Deal with it.
>>
>> Keith
>
> It was a huge team effort. Okay, all you REMFs, according to
> Keith, you could have stayed home and been a Jodie.

It was a team effort but contrary to your claims the USAAF aircraft
achieved no hits beyond 2 minor injuries due to strafing. That is
no reflection on the brave men involved. The problem here is an
unwillingness to accept your claims are wrong.

Keith

[Keith W]

The B-17E which was the model used at Midway was a rather lighter and
less well armed and armoured aircraft than later models. According to
the USAF Museum it had a max speed of 317 mph but of more importance
is the cruising speed which was 226 mph.

The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than height.
At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese fighters could reach
their altitude but the flip side is that such high level bombing was rather
ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy bombers learned to attack
at low level.

Keith

[Daryl]

On 5/7/2012 12:48 PM, Keith W wrote:
> Dean wrote:
>> On May 7, 11:22 am, Daryl<dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2012 8:36 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The advantage the B-17 had was speed. Load it light and it was
>>> faster than the Zero. What was used was the A6M2 Type 0 Model 21
>>> with about the same top speed as the B-17 with a light bomb load.
>>> But the Never Exceed speed was lower than the B-17. Meaning,
>>> head ons would have been needed to hit the B-17 of the time. And
>>> with the F4Fs crawling all over the sky, headons were not to be
>>> had. And a Zero flying flat out, level flight to hit a B-17 or
>>> any of the bombers during the battle would be easy prey to the
>>> Navy Fighters.
>>>
>>> The Japanese had no prior warning meaning it was pretty well a
>>> surprise attack on their main carrier force.
>>>
>>> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com
>>> for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
>>> programs.
>>
>> B-17 top speed was 287mph vs Zero top speed of 331mph according to
>> Wiki.

The Zero of that model also had a never exceed speed of 275 mph.
The P-40 took advantage of that on numerous situations. Going
above 275 pretty much meant that the Zero was in jeopardy of
having it's wings fold inflight. Not a good thing.

>
> The B-17E which was the model used at Midway was a rather lighter and
> less well armed and armoured aircraft than later models. According to
> the USAF Museum it had a max speed of 317 mph but of more importance
> is the cruising speed which was 226 mph.

You use cruising speed to get there. But depending on the
mission profile and conditions, you may be below your cruise
speed or at your top speed or somewhere in between.

>
> The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than height.
> At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese fighters could reach
> their altitude but the flip side is that such high level bombing was rather
> ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy bombers learned to attack
> at low level.

By then, the B-24 had taken over the Maritime role and it was
more than a little affective against war ships, cargo ships and
even Subs.

I don't think it was the type of equipment that made the huge
difference. But it was the change in tactics on both sides of
the pond for bombers and all other types of Aircraft. Let's face
it, the Zero and it's followon were both tough to deal with. But
even the P-40 learned how to defeat them using the Zeros
weakpoints to the P-40s advantage.


--

[Daryl]

Since you have never been in a situation like this, I don't think
you will ever understand. But here goes one more time. Having
more targets than you have shooters means some of the shooters
will get through. And the Bullet Magnets are just as important
as the one that puts the Torpedo into the hull. Without the
Bullet Magnets, the Hero would have been bagged going in and you
would just have an utter failure. All were as important as
everyone else.

Since you have never been in any situation remotely close to that
I don't expect you to understand. You would make a lousy QB.

[R Leonard]

> Keith- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Correct.

And since the Japanese strike warning system consisted of Mk I
eyeballs augmented by optics, there was precious little time to react
to the appearance of bombers overhead at 20K feet. Not to mention
that there was no fighter direction system in place to vector anyone
already in the air for such an interception.

If some could be stirred, god forbid, to take the time to do a little
real research, it is fairly easy to find, internet-wise, the
statements of numerous Japanese particpants, all uniformly disdainful
of the attempts at level bombing by heavy bombers at Midway.

[R Leonard]

On May 7, 11:22 am, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and

> programs.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

And while the VF-6 escort circled around at 20K over the Japanese
carriers, unbeknownst the the escort leader, VT-8 from Hornet was
being slaughtered below. He finally decided they'd burned enough fuel
and headed back to Enterprise . . . all 8 of them.An hour or so later,
the VF-3 six-plane escort for VT-3 had their hands full just staying
alive. One of them did not. They did, as I recall, account for the
demise of at least 5, maybe 6, Zeros (don't feel like looking it up).
This action all took place between 3K & 5K feet.

Both times, no B-17s in the area. Only VF-6 escort would have been in
positon for the fantasy of protected B-17s, but gee, no Zeros up there
anyway. There was no plan or provision to support such an event, the
guys from VF-6 would have probably been very surprised to see B-17s
and, no doubt the B-17 folks would have been equally surprised to see
F4Fs. Surprise and loaded guns are not a good combination.
Importantly, there was no communications in common. Think of all the
effort that went into coordindating fighter cover for bombers in the
ETO . . . none of that was available. LT Gray leading the VF-6 escort
while VT-8s TBDs dropped one by one into the water could not even hear
the VT-8 call for help, they were on Hornet frequency and VF-6 was on
Enterprise. An apparent snap-of-the-fingers "this would have worked"
is mistaken, no, it would not work.

[Keith W]

Trouble is the bullet magnets of the Midway force were overhead
more than 2 hours before the main attack

> Since you have never been in any situation remotely close to that
> I don't expect you to understand. You would make a lousy QB.

You seem to think that war was a game of American football
it was not. Nor have I ever played quarterback, my role on
the field was second row forward and in rugby we had none
of that poncy padding.

Keith

[Keith W]

Rubbish, the A6M3, introduced in late 1941 could and did exceed
420 mph in a diving attack and was capable of 330 mph in
level flight. The real problem the Zero had at high speed was that
it became sluggish and unresponsive.

Note the USN repaired an A6M2 downed in the Aleutians and
reported that its maximum level speed was 335 mph at 16,000 ft

Between October 1942 and Febuary 1943 the city of Darwin
in northern Australia was raided 12 times. The RAAF deployed
75 Squadron equipped with P-40's but they were unable to reach
the high flying IJN bombers and their A6M escorts. The IJN
was able to raid with impunity until the arrival of one RAF and
two RAAF squadrons of Spitfires in March 1943.

>
>
>>
>> The B-17E which was the model used at Midway was a rather lighter and
>> less well armed and armoured aircraft than later models. According to
>> the USAF Museum it had a max speed of 317 mph but of more importance
>> is the cruising speed which was 226 mph.
>
> You use cruising speed to get there. But depending on the
> mission profile and conditions, you may be below your cruise
> speed or at your top speed or somewhere in between.
>
>
>>
>> The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than
>> height. At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese fighters could
>> reach their altitude but the flip side is that such high level
>> bombing was rather ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy bombers
>> learned to attack at low level.
>
>
> By then, the B-24 had taken over the Maritime role and it was
> more than a little affective against war ships, cargo ships and
> even Subs.
>

Indeed but it did that by attacking at around 1000 ft

Keith

Keith

[Daryl]

4 June, 1942 0732 hours B-17Es rejoins the main force to attack
the Mobile Force
4 June, 1942, 0805 B-17s divert to attack transports
4 June, 1942, 0810, Withdrew from the Battle due to lack of fuel

Now for the rest of the pack (not taking into consideration that
the Marines were fighting an overwhelming force and held their
own).

4 June, 1942, 0800 16 SBD-2s from VMSB-241 attack Hiryu.
0806 hrs Reported Carrier Planes arrive.

You can see that the battle began apprx 0800 and the Bombers were
there. The B-17E Bombers didn't withdraw until 0810. What the
B-17 did was draw off Japanese Caps. Just BEFORE the Carrier
planes got there. If nothing else, they put themselves out there
as bullet magnets for the CAP. And they stayed in that role
until 0810. Five minutes after the carrier based and B-26 attack
began. But, in your mind, that had no affect on the outcome.
You would make a very poor and short lived QB.

>
>> Since you have never been in any situation remotely close to that
>> I don't expect you to understand. You would make a lousy QB.
>
> You seem to think that war was a game of American football
> it was not. Nor have I ever played quarterback, my role on
> the field was second row forward and in rugby we had none
> of that poncy padding.

Since you have never been in either situation, you won't see what
the service members will see. And you won't win battles or
Football games either.

[Daryl]

I'll take your word on it.

>
> Both times, no B-17s in the area. Only VF-6 escort would have been in
> positon for the fantasy of protected B-17s, but gee, no Zeros up there
> anyway. There was no plan or provision to support such an event, the
> guys from VF-6 would have probably been very surprised to see B-17s
> and, no doubt the B-17 folks would have been equally surprised to see
> F4Fs. Surprise and loaded guns are not a good combination.
> Importantly, there was no communications in common. Think of all the
> effort that went into coordindating fighter cover for bombers in the
> ETO . . . none of that was available. LT Gray leading the VF-6 escort
> while VT-8s TBDs dropped one by one into the water could not even hear
> the VT-8 call for help, they were on Hornet frequency and VF-6 was on
> Enterprise. An apparent snap-of-the-fingers "this would have worked"
> is mistaken, no, it would not work.

The B-17s had already left the area. Your VF-6 showed up an hour
AFTER the battle began and the B-17s had already been withdrawn
due to fuel. One didn't make it back due to lack of fuel. VT-6
didn't arrive for the battle until AFTER 0930 hours when they saw
smoke and flew towards it. They arrived on station at 0940
hours. 1000 hours, VT6 F4Fs head back due to lack of fuel
without firing a shot. Without seeing a single seeing a single
US Attack. 5 or 6 VT6 SBDs do get off shots with their torps but
score no hits.

Although the VT-6 F4Fs were launched, they were never in the
battle, never fired a shot or encountered an enemy to fire at.




>


--

[Daryl]

Starting at Carrier level, I guess I will dive down to 20,000
feet and attack. Say, there just might be a movie in here
someplace. But it will be written by Jules Verne about a
fantastic Sub.

>
> Note the USN repaired an A6M2 downed in the Aleutians and
> reported that its maximum level speed was 335 mph at 16,000 ft

The Bombers were above 20,000 feet. You're trying to pull an
Euno here.

>
> Between October 1942 and Febuary 1943 the city of Darwin
> in northern Australia was raided 12 times. The RAAF deployed
> 75 Squadron equipped with P-40's but they were unable to reach
> the high flying IJN bombers and their A6M escorts. The IJN
> was able to raid with impunity until the arrival of one RAF and
> two RAAF squadrons of Spitfires in March 1943.

That was well after Midway. The Japanese weren't as high flying
going into the war. The Flying Tigers had few problems knocking
Japanese Bombers out of the sky with that inferior aircraft.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The B-17E which was the model used at Midway was a rather lighter and
>>> less well armed and armoured aircraft than later models. According to
>>> the USAF Museum it had a max speed of 317 mph but of more importance
>>> is the cruising speed which was 226 mph.
>>
>> You use cruising speed to get there. But depending on the
>> mission profile and conditions, you may be below your cruise
>> speed or at your top speed or somewhere in between.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than
>>> height. At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese fighters could
>>> reach their altitude but the flip side is that such high level
>>> bombing was rather ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy bombers
>>> learned to attack at low level.
>>
>>
>> By then, the B-24 had taken over the Maritime role and it was
>> more than a little affective against war ships, cargo ships and
>> even Subs.
>>
>
> Indeed but it did that by attacking at around 1000 ft

Up to 12,800 lb (5,800 kg) of bombs, mines, or torpedoes. Making
the PB4Y about the meanest thing any ship or boat could
encounter. But it didn't arrive in the Pacific until 6 Jan, 1945.


--

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:0UVpr.475147$yJ4.3...@fx07.am4...
> ...

>
> Rubbish, the A6M3, introduced in late 1941 could and did exceed
> 420 mph in a diving attack and was capable of 330 mph in
> level flight. The real problem the Zero had at high speed was that
> it became sluggish and unresponsive.
>

Designer Jiro Horikoshi on the April 1941 test pilot's death:
"During the second test, he dove again from about 4000 meters at an
angle of about 60 degrees. When it seemed he was starting to pull up
at about 1,500 meters, a large white fragment, which looked like a
sheet of paper, flew off from the left wing followed by a black
object."

The investigation estmated a speed of not more than 650 km/hr
(403MPH). After examining loosened wing skin on another aircraft they
realized that their aerodynamic flutter model did not properly account
for variations in stiffness, especially when portions of the skin had
wrinkled from g stress. The new calculations gave a critical flutter
speed of 600 km/hr (372). Balance tabs added to reduce the control
force at high speed had made the flutter problem worse.

To alleviate the problem they increased the thickness of the wing skin
and added stiffeners, but the diving speed still had to be restricted
to 670 km/hr (416) rather than the originally estimated 750 (466).

http://www.amazon.com/Eagles-Mitsubishi-Story-Zero-Fighter/dp/0295971681/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336423794&sr=1-2

jsw

[Keith W]

Trouble is that the aircraft of VMSB-241 launched from Midway

http://midway1942.org/docs/usn_doc_18.shtml

The first carrier attack was made by aircraft of VT-8
at 09.40, which is 90 minutes after the last Midway
aircraft left the area.

Do try and get something right there's a good chap.

Keith

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 2:03 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Rubbish, the A6M3, introduced in late 1941 could and did exceed
>> 420 mph in a diving attack and was capable of 330 mph in
>> level flight. The real problem the Zero had at high speed was that
>> it became sluggish and unresponsive.
>
> Starting at Carrier level, I guess I will dive down to 20,000
> feet and attack. Say, there just might be a movie in here
> someplace. But it will be written by Jules Verne about a
> fantastic Sub.
>
>
>>
>> Note the USN repaired an A6M2 downed in the Aleutians and
>> reported that its maximum level speed was 335 mph at 16,000 ft
>
> The Bombers were above 20,000 feet. You're trying to pull an
> Euno here.
>

Indeed they were and at that altitude they were unable to hit anything.

>
>>
>> Between October 1942 and Febuary 1943 the city of Darwin
>> in northern Australia was raided 12 times. The RAAF deployed
>> 75 Squadron equipped with P-40's but they were unable to reach
>> the high flying IJN bombers and their A6M escorts. The IJN
>> was able to raid with impunity until the arrival of one RAF and
>> two RAAF squadrons of Spitfires in March 1943.
>
> That was well after Midway. The Japanese weren't as high flying
> going into the war. The Flying Tigers had few problems knocking
> Japanese Bombers out of the sky with that inferior aircraft.
>

Well now the A6M3 was just as capable in June 1942 as it was
in October and the Flying Tigers didnt encounter many Zero's
as they were largely facing army aircraft. The high aaltitude
performance of the A6M2 was attested on the Akutan Zero

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The B-17E which was the model used at Midway was a rather lighter
>>>> and less well armed and armoured aircraft than later models.
>>>> According to the USAF Museum it had a max speed of 317 mph but of
>>>> more importance is the cruising speed which was 226 mph.
>>>
>>> You use cruising speed to get there. But depending on the
>>> mission profile and conditions, you may be below your cruise
>>> speed or at your top speed or somewhere in between.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than
>>>> height. At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese
>>>> fighters could reach their altitude but the flip side is that such
>>>> high level bombing was rather ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy
>>>> bombers learned to attack at low level.
>>>
>>>
>>> By then, the B-24 had taken over the Maritime role and it was
>>> more than a little affective against war ships, cargo ships and
>>> even Subs.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed but it did that by attacking at around 1000 ft
>
> Up to 12,800 lb (5,800 kg) of bombs, mines, or torpedoes. Making
> the PB4Y about the meanest thing any ship or boat could
> encounter.

The PB4Y-2 was just a navalized B-24, by the time they arrived
the IJN was to all intents extinct. Their first operations were
conducted from air bases on the recaptured Phillipines.

Most of the damage was done by the PB4Y-1 which was a
standard B-24

Keith

[Keith W]

Indeed and the A6M3 incorporated those changes.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jo9cm5$mp5$1...@dont-email.me...
> ...

> To alleviate the problem they increased the thickness of the wing
> skin and added stiffeners, but the diving speed still had to be
> restricted to 670 km/hr (416) rather than the originally estimated
> 750 (466).
>

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/zeke32.htm
"Surfaces of the wing, like those on the fuselage, are very smooth.
Skin panels ahead of the front spar appear unnecessarily small, but
those between spars are of normal size. Leading edge skin ;age is
.028; top surface between spars out to the cannon between ribs 7 and 8
is .035; from there to the tip, .027; lower surface between spars is
.024; and aft of the rear spar is .022. On the wing too, very small
flush rivets are used, most of them being 1/16-in. but some are as
small as 1/32-in."

The few skin and rib areas I was able to measure on a B-17 were at
least 0.040" thick.

jsw

[Bill Shatzer]

Daryl wrote:

> The Zero of that model also had a never exceed speed of 275 mph.

I think you're confusing knots with miles per hour. I've got a couple
sources which give the top speed (not VNE) of a Model 21 Zero as 275 kts.

But 275 kts would convert to something over 310 mph.

Mikesh in "Zero" generally agrees with the 275 kt top speed for the
model 21 but gives a "maximum speed limitation" as 340 kts (390 mph)
citing Information Intellegence Summary No. 85, "Flight Characteristics
od the Zero Fighter" Intellegence Service, US Army Air Forcea, December
1942.

Presumably, the "maximum speed" could be obtained in a shallow dive.
Allied test pilots routinely reported Zero speeds in excess of 300 mph
although noting that at those speeds, the controls became excessively
heavy and the aircraft was only marginally maneuverable.

[Daryl]

On 5/7/2012 4:03 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>
>> The Zero of that model also had a never exceed speed of 275 mph.
>
> I think you're confusing knots with miles per hour. I've got a
> couple sources which give the top speed (not VNE) of a Model 21
> Zero as 275 kts.

I very well might be.

>
> But 275 kts would convert to something over 310 mph.
>
> Mikesh in "Zero" generally agrees with the 275 kt top speed for
> the model 21 but gives a "maximum speed limitation" as 340 kts
> (390 mph) citing Information Intellegence Summary No. 85, "Flight
> Characteristics od the Zero Fighter" Intellegence Service, US
> Army Air Forcea, December 1942.
>
> Presumably, the "maximum speed" could be obtained in a shallow
> dive. Allied test pilots routinely reported Zero speeds in excess
> of 300 mph although noting that at those speeds, the controls
> became excessively heavy and the aircraft was only marginally
> maneuverable.

[Daryl]

On 5/7/2012 3:52 PM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 2:03 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rubbish, the A6M3, introduced in late 1941 could and did exceed
>>> 420 mph in a diving attack and was capable of 330 mph in
>>> level flight. The real problem the Zero had at high speed was that
>>> it became sluggish and unresponsive.
>>
>> Starting at Carrier level, I guess I will dive down to 20,000
>> feet and attack. Say, there just might be a movie in here
>> someplace. But it will be written by Jules Verne about a
>> fantastic Sub.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Note the USN repaired an A6M2 downed in the Aleutians and
>>> reported that its maximum level speed was 335 mph at 16,000 ft
>>
>> The Bombers were above 20,000 feet. You're trying to pull an
>> Euno here.
>>
>
> Indeed they were and at that altitude they were unable to hit anything.

And nothing was able to hit them either. Except, they drew the
Japanese CAP away from the real attackers.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Between October 1942 and Febuary 1943 the city of Darwin
>>> in northern Australia was raided 12 times. The RAAF deployed
>>> 75 Squadron equipped with P-40's but they were unable to reach
>>> the high flying IJN bombers and their A6M escorts. The IJN
>>> was able to raid with impunity until the arrival of one RAF and
>>> two RAAF squadrons of Spitfires in March 1943.
>>
>> That was well after Midway. The Japanese weren't as high flying
>> going into the war. The Flying Tigers had few problems knocking
>> Japanese Bombers out of the sky with that inferior aircraft.
>>
>
> Well now the A6M3 was just as capable in June 1942 as it was
> in October and the Flying Tigers didnt encounter many Zero's
> as they were largely facing army aircraft. The high aaltitude
> performance of the A6M2 was attested on the Akutan Zero

According to you, those that they did encounter should have
cleaned house on them since the Zero was so much better than the
P-40. It wasn't. The P-40 kept it's speed above the speed that
the Zero could attain when engaged. When the Flying Tigers were
disbanded and absorbed back into the US, their lessons went on to
take away almost every advantage the Zero once had. Even the
P-38J-25 and L that could turn inside the Zero with an
experienced pilot (By early 1945 almost ALL P-38 Pilots were
experienced) they still elected to keep it vertical. The F6F did
the same although it couldn't turn with a Zero. Using superior
speed doomed the Zero.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The B-17E which was the model used at Midway was a rather lighter
>>>>> and less well armed and armoured aircraft than later models.
>>>>> According to the USAF Museum it had a max speed of 317 mph but of
>>>>> more importance is the cruising speed which was 226 mph.
>>>>
>>>> You use cruising speed to get there. But depending on the
>>>> mission profile and conditions, you may be below your cruise
>>>> speed or at your top speed or somewhere in between.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than
>>>>> height. At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese
>>>>> fighters could reach their altitude but the flip side is that such
>>>>> high level bombing was rather ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy
>>>>> bombers learned to attack at low level.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By then, the B-24 had taken over the Maritime role and it was
>>>> more than a little affective against war ships, cargo ships and
>>>> even Subs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed but it did that by attacking at around 1000 ft
>>
>> Up to 12,800 lb (5,800 kg) of bombs, mines, or torpedoes. Making
>> the PB4Y about the meanest thing any ship or boat could
>> encounter.
>
>
> The PB4Y-2 was just a navalized B-24, by the time they arrived
> the IJN was to all intents extinct. Their first operations were
> conducted from air bases on the recaptured Phillipines.
>
> Most of the damage was done by the PB4Y-1 which was a
> standard B-24

Which was not used for much other than transport, bombing and
photo recon. It wasn't until the -2 was introduced that the
PB4Y-2 was introduced in 1944 that it got the ability to lay
mines and drop torpedos. The -2 raised havoc with the Uboats but
wasn't introduced into the Pacific until Jan 1945.

You can't count the ones in Hawaii. In 1944, what exactly were
they to attack? Maybe finish off where the Japanese ended Nov 7,
1941? Or reduce the fishing boats?

You are pulling a Euno on us now.

[Daryl]

And I denied this HOW? You are Eunoing once again.

>
> http://midway1942.org/docs/usn_doc_18.shtml
>
> The first carrier attack was made by aircraft of VT-8
> at 09.40, which is 90 minutes after the last Midway
> aircraft left the area.

I suggest you look at the figures again. Your "Carrier" Planes
was just another wave, simple as that.

>
> Do try and get something right there's a good chap.

Please stay out of the Military. If you do, make sure it's on
the OTHER side.

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 3:52 PM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2012 2:03 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish, the A6M3, introduced in late 1941 could and did exceed
>>>> 420 mph in a diving attack and was capable of 330 mph in
>>>> level flight. The real problem the Zero had at high speed was that
>>>> it became sluggish and unresponsive.
>>>
>>> Starting at Carrier level, I guess I will dive down to 20,000
>>> feet and attack. Say, there just might be a movie in here
>>> someplace. But it will be written by Jules Verne about a
>>> fantastic Sub.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note the USN repaired an A6M2 downed in the Aleutians and
>>>> reported that its maximum level speed was 335 mph at 16,000 ft
>>>
>>> The Bombers were above 20,000 feet. You're trying to pull an
>>> Euno here.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed they were and at that altitude they were unable to hit
>> anything.
>
> And nothing was able to hit them either. Except, they drew the
> Japanese CAP away from the real attackers.
>

No they didnt. the real attackers at that time were cut to pieces.
The carrier planes didnt turn up for another 90 minutes.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Between October 1942 and Febuary 1943 the city of Darwin
>>>> in northern Australia was raided 12 times. The RAAF deployed
>>>> 75 Squadron equipped with P-40's but they were unable to reach
>>>> the high flying IJN bombers and their A6M escorts. The IJN
>>>> was able to raid with impunity until the arrival of one RAF and
>>>> two RAAF squadrons of Spitfires in March 1943.
>>>
>>> That was well after Midway. The Japanese weren't as high flying
>>> going into the war. The Flying Tigers had few problems knocking
>>> Japanese Bombers out of the sky with that inferior aircraft.
>>>
>>
>> Well now the A6M3 was just as capable in June 1942 as it was
>> in October and the Flying Tigers didnt encounter many Zero's
>> as they were largely facing army aircraft. The high aaltitude
>> performance of the A6M2 was attested on the Akutan Zero
>
> According to you, those that they did encounter should have
> cleaned house on them since the Zero was so much better than the
> P-40.

Try reading for effect. The Flying Tigers did NOT fight zeros.
They were up against IJA units flying the Ki-21 bomber escorted
by Ki-27 fighters. The Ki-27 or Nate was an obsolescent aircraft
with fixed undercarriage and a max speed of 275 mph.

The Ki-27 was mauled not only by the P-40 but the RAF Hurricanes
and Brewster Buffaloes

> It wasn't. The P-40 kept it's speed above the speed that
> the Zero could attain when engaged. When the Flying Tigers were
> disbanded and absorbed back into the US, their lessons went on to
> take away almost every advantage the Zero once had. Even the
> P-38J-25 and L that could turn inside the Zero with an
> experienced pilot (By early 1945 almost ALL P-38 Pilots were
> experienced)

Utter nonsense, a P-38 pilot who tried to turn with a zero was
a dead duck, they used energy tactics.

<snip>

>>
>>
>> The PB4Y-2 was just a navalized B-24, by the time they arrived
>> the IJN was to all intents extinct. Their first operations were
>> conducted from air bases on the recaptured Phillipines.
>>
>> Most of the damage was done by the PB4Y-1 which was a
>> standard B-24
>
>
> Which was not used for much other than transport, bombing and
> photo recon.

Amazing eh , they mostly used bombers for bombing - quelle surprise

Keith

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 3:41 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>> You can see that the battle began apprx 0800 and the Bombers were
>>> there. The B-17E Bombers didn't withdraw until 0810. What the
>>> B-17 did was draw off Japanese Caps. Just BEFORE the Carrier
>>> planes got there. If nothing else, they put themselves out there
>>> as bullet magnets for the CAP. And they stayed in that role
>>> until 0810. Five minutes after the carrier based and B-26 attack
>>> began. But, in your mind, that had no affect on the outcome.
>>> You would make a very poor and short lived QB.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Trouble is that the aircraft of VMSB-241 launched from Midway
>
> And I denied this HOW?

By claiming that the presence of VMSB-241 proved that the B-17's
drew the CAP off the attacking carrier forces.

In fact the Japanese CAP ignored the B-17's , cut VMSB-21
to pieces and had ample time to refuel and rearm before the
carrier aircraft attacked.

> You are Eunoing once again.

This is called projection.

Keith

[Daryl]

On 5/8/2012 1:37 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 3:52 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2012 2:03 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish, the A6M3, introduced in late 1941 could and did exceed
>>>>> 420 mph in a diving attack and was capable of 330 mph in
>>>>> level flight. The real problem the Zero had at high speed was that
>>>>> it became sluggish and unresponsive.
>>>>
>>>> Starting at Carrier level, I guess I will dive down to 20,000
>>>> feet and attack. Say, there just might be a movie in here
>>>> someplace. But it will be written by Jules Verne about a
>>>> fantastic Sub.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the USN repaired an A6M2 downed in the Aleutians and
>>>>> reported that its maximum level speed was 335 mph at 16,000 ft
>>>>
>>>> The Bombers were above 20,000 feet. You're trying to pull an
>>>> Euno here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed they were and at that altitude they were unable to hit
>>> anything.
>>
>> And nothing was able to hit them either. Except, they drew the
>> Japanese CAP away from the real attackers.
>>
>
> No they didnt. the real attackers at that time were cut to pieces.
> The carrier planes didnt turn up for another 90 minutes.

You are having another Euno minute. The SBDs from Midway were
attacking at the same time the B-17s were. I already posted the
timeline. What's the matter, the real history not jive with your
version? And let's not mention the B-26s as well. Your Carrier
Planes were the second wave. The battle had been going on 90
minutes BEFORE they showed up.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Between October 1942 and Febuary 1943 the city of Darwin
>>>>> in northern Australia was raided 12 times. The RAAF deployed
>>>>> 75 Squadron equipped with P-40's but they were unable to reach
>>>>> the high flying IJN bombers and their A6M escorts. The IJN
>>>>> was able to raid with impunity until the arrival of one RAF and
>>>>> two RAAF squadrons of Spitfires in March 1943.
>>>>
>>>> That was well after Midway. The Japanese weren't as high flying
>>>> going into the war. The Flying Tigers had few problems knocking
>>>> Japanese Bombers out of the sky with that inferior aircraft.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well now the A6M3 was just as capable in June 1942 as it was
>>> in October and the Flying Tigers didnt encounter many Zero's
>>> as they were largely facing army aircraft. The high aaltitude
>>> performance of the A6M2 was attested on the Akutan Zero
>>
>> According to you, those that they did encounter should have
>> cleaned house on them since the Zero was so much better than the
>> P-40.
>
> Try reading for effect. The Flying Tigers did NOT fight zeros.
> They were up against IJA units flying the Ki-21 bomber escorted
> by Ki-27 fighters. The Ki-27 or Nate was an obsolescent aircraft
> with fixed undercarriage and a max speed of 275 mph.
>
> The Ki-27 was mauled not only by the P-40 but the RAF Hurricanes
> and Brewster Buffaloes

You left out the IL16 Soviet Fighter in Mongolia. The KI-27 was
used for a very short period against the Flying Tigers. It was
quickly replaced by Dec 7, 1941, by the Ki-37 which was similiar
to the A6M in all respects.

Against the Flying Tigers, the Tigers enjoyed a 15 to 1 kill
rate. The Brits didn't enjoy the 1 to 1. Add to the fact, the
P-40B used didn't even have a proper gunsight. It was delivered
to the Tigers without one. But that's another story.

>
>
>> It wasn't. The P-40 kept it's speed above the speed that
>> the Zero could attain when engaged. When the Flying Tigers were
>> disbanded and absorbed back into the US, their lessons went on to
>> take away almost every advantage the Zero once had. Even the
>> P-38J-25 and L that could turn inside the Zero with an
>> experienced pilot (By early 1945 almost ALL P-38 Pilots were
>> experienced)
>
> Utter nonsense, a P-38 pilot who tried to turn with a zero was
> a dead duck, they used energy tactics.

You are speaking with your utters once again. When the
P-38J-LO-25 was introduced, It could do something no other
Fighter could do. It used it's flaps to cause drag on the inside
wing and would use engine power by reducing power to the inside
engine and increase power to the outside engine making it the
highest turn rate of anything called a fighter at the time. When
the J-25 was introduced, there were very few "Inexperienced" P-38
pilots anymore. That same maneuver shocked the hell out of a
bunch of ME109 and FW190 Pilots as well. Usually, that shock was
fatal.

>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> The PB4Y-2 was just a navalized B-24, by the time they arrived
>>> the IJN was to all intents extinct. Their first operations were
>>> conducted from air bases on the recaptured Phillipines.
>>>
>>> Most of the damage was done by the PB4Y-1 which was a
>>> standard B-24
>>
>>
>> Which was not used for much other than transport, bombing and
>> photo recon.
>
> Amazing eh , they mostly used bombers for bombing - quelle surprise

Amazing that you are using the -2 stats for the -1. How Eunoisk
of you.

[Daryl]

On 5/8/2012 1:41 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 3:41 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>>> You can see that the battle began apprx 0800 and the Bombers were
>>>> there. The B-17E Bombers didn't withdraw until 0810. What the
>>>> B-17 did was draw off Japanese Caps. Just BEFORE the Carrier
>>>> planes got there. If nothing else, they put themselves out there
>>>> as bullet magnets for the CAP. And they stayed in that role
>>>> until 0810. Five minutes after the carrier based and B-26 attack
>>>> began. But, in your mind, that had no affect on the outcome.
>>>> You would make a very poor and short lived QB.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trouble is that the aircraft of VMSB-241 launched from Midway
>>
>> And I denied this HOW?
>
> By claiming that the presence of VMSB-241 proved that the B-17's
> drew the CAP off the attacking carrier forces.

Even 90 minutes later, the Japanese had to present a high Cap
which drew fighters from down low. In the end, it allowed for
more Carrier Based Fighters to get through.

>
> In fact the Japanese CAP ignored the B-17's , cut VMSB-21
> to pieces and had ample time to refuel and rearm before the
> carrier aircraft attacked.

Exactly where do you get that from? One of the main reasons that
the carrier based attack was successful was that half of the
Japanese Planes were on the carrier decks being rearmed. They
were changing from Ground Attack to Ship attack weapons. All
those bombs laying around on the deck made the destruction of the
carriers even more spectacular.

>
>> You are Eunoing once again.
>
> This is called projection.

This is called calling a spade a spade.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message
news:joau5i$dt$1...@dont-email.me...
> ...> You left out the IL16 Soviet Fighter in Mongolia. The KI-27

> was used for a very short period against the Flying Tigers. It was
> quickly replaced by Dec 7, 1941, by the Ki-37 which was similiar to
> the A6M in all respects.
>

Is this what you meant?
http://www.aviation-history.com/nakajima/ki43.html

"Although it lacked the Zero's top speed and wing-cannon punch, it
turned inside of it and climbed faster, ..."

jsw

[Daryl]

No. The KI-37 and the KI-43 are totally different AC. The KI-43
came later and was an interceptor capable of flying with anything
the Allies had. It was just too little too late for the
Japanese. The 43 was heavier, better armored, better armed, more
power per lb, sealed tanks and all the protective things one
would think of in a modern WWII Fighter. The 43 bagged quite a
few B-29s and a myriad of modern allied fighters including the
P-51. It was brought out to protect the Japanese Mainland late
in the war.

[Keith W]

Indeed and the SBD's were

1) Not operating from carriers
2) Failed to hit anything

> I already posted the
> timeline. What's the matter, the real history not jive with your
> version? And let's not mention the B-26s as well. Your Carrier
> Planes were the second wave. The battle had been going on 90
> minutes BEFORE they showed up.

Which was rather my point

That is rather unlikely given there was no such aircraft.

The replacement for the Ki-27 was the Ki-43 Oscar and it did
rather well against the P-40

> Against the Flying Tigers, the Tigers enjoyed a 15 to 1 kill
> rate. The Brits didn't enjoy the 1 to 1. Add to the fact, the
> P-40B used didn't even have a proper gunsight. It was delivered
> to the Tigers without one. But that's another story.
>
>>
>>
>>> It wasn't. The P-40 kept it's speed above the speed that
>>> the Zero could attain when engaged. When the Flying Tigers were
>>> disbanded and absorbed back into the US, their lessons went on to
>>> take away almost every advantage the Zero once had. Even the
>>> P-38J-25 and L that could turn inside the Zero with an
>>> experienced pilot (By early 1945 almost ALL P-38 Pilots were
>>> experienced)
>>
>> Utter nonsense, a P-38 pilot who tried to turn with a zero was
>> a dead duck, they used energy tactics.
>
> You are speaking with your utters once again. When the
> P-38J-LO-25 was introduced, It could do something no other
> Fighter could do. It used it's flaps to cause drag on the inside
> wing and would use engine power by reducing power to the inside
> engine and increase power to the outside engine making it the
> highest turn rate of anything called a fighter at the time. When
> the J-25 was introduced, there were very few "Inexperienced" P-38
> pilots anymore. That same maneuver shocked the hell out of a
> bunch of ME109 and FW190 Pilots as well. Usually, that shock was
> fatal.
>

Feel free to produce any evidence that pilots tried such
a silly manoeveur. I suspect they had more sense than to
put themselves in a situation where the enemy could beat
them just by turning the other way.

>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The PB4Y-2 was just a navalized B-24, by the time they arrived
>>>> the IJN was to all intents extinct. Their first operations were
>>>> conducted from air bases on the recaptured Phillipines.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the damage was done by the PB4Y-1 which was a
>>>> standard B-24
>>>
>>>
>>> Which was not used for much other than transport, bombing and
>>> photo recon.
>>
>> Amazing eh , they mostly used bombers for bombing - quelle surprise
>
> Amazing that you are using the -2 stats for the -1. How Eunoisk
> of you.

Trouble is I am not the one claiming that an aircraft introduced in Mid 1945
sank ships that were sent to the bottom in 1943 and 1944. Fact is by the
time the PB4Y-2 was introduced there wasnt much of a Japanese Navy
left and they spent most of their time as recon and ASR birds in which role
they were highly valued.

In 1945 the USN had 16 Liberator/PB4Y-1 squadrons and 8 PB4Y-2
squadrons some of which were still working up at the end of the war.
Additionally there were large numbers of Liberators in service with the
naval attack forces of the RAAF (8 Squadrons) , RAF , RCAF
and RNZAF

It was the Korean war in which the PB4Y-2 came into its own where
they not only flew in the maritime patrol role but also acted as target
illuminators for night time interdiction attacks by Corsairs and Tigercats

Keith

[Daryl]

On 5/8/2012 9:31 AM, Keith W wrote:

Enough of your trolling. Have a nice day.

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 9:31 AM, Keith W wrote:
>
> Enough of your trolling. Have a nice day.

Translation

Damn I have been backed into a corner again.

Keith

[Daryl]

You can stop trolling any time. This isn't a contest.

[Bill Shatzer]

Daryl wrote:


> No. The KI-37 and the KI-43 are totally different AC. The KI-43 came
> later and was an interceptor capable of flying with anything the Allies
> had. It was just too little too late for the Japanese. The 43 was
> heavier, better armored, better armed, more power per lb, sealed tanks
> and all the protective things one would think of in a modern WWII
> Fighter. The 43 bagged quite a few B-29s and a myriad of modern allied
> fighters including the P-51. It was brought out to protect the Japanese
> Mainland late in the war.

You're thinking of some other aircraft - the Ki-43 was the "Oscar" which
was introduced into service in early 1941. It was basically a JAAF
"Zero" with the same emphasis on manueverability and the same lack of
self-sealing gas tanks and armor. The Ki-43 was even more insufficiently
armed than the Zero, initially carrying only two rifle-caliber MGs.
Later models substituted one and ultimately two 12.7mm MGs for the
original twin 7.7mm MGs but even the last models carried only the two
heavy MGs.

It was quite incapable of bringing down a B-29 save by pure luck or a
ramming attack and was was mostly out of front line service, except in
China and in the Kamakazi role, by the time the B-29 raids commenced. It
was easy meat for any of the second generation of US fighters.

The Ki-37 was was a twin-engined fighter project ala Bf 110 which never
made it even to the prototype stage.

[Daryl]

Woops, I mistook it for the KI-44.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-44

You are right, the KI-43 was very similiar to the Zero but it
wasn't a Zero. It just got mistaken for it quite a bit.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message

news:job6c5$e27$1...@dont-email.me...

You have confused the Ki-43 with the Ki-44:
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_nakajima_ki-44.html
and the Ki-84:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-84
"Although the design itself was solid, the shortage of fuel,
construction materials, poor production quality, and lack of skilled
pilots prevented the fighter from reaching its potential."

jsw

[Daryl]

On 5/7/2012 1:10 PM, R Leonard wrote:

> On May 7, 2:48 pm, "Keith W"<keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dean wrote:
>>> On May 7, 11:22 am, Daryl<dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2012 8:36 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>>> The advantage the B-17 had was speed. Load it light and it was
>>>> faster than the Zero. What was used was the A6M2 Type 0 Model 21
>>>> with about the same top speed as the B-17 with a light bomb load.
>>>> But the Never Exceed speed was lower than the B-17. Meaning,
>>>> head ons would have been needed to hit the B-17 of the time. And
>>>> with the F4Fs crawling all over the sky, headons were not to be
>>>> had. And a Zero flying flat out, level flight to hit a B-17 or
>>>> any of the bombers during the battle would be easy prey to the
>>>> Navy Fighters.
>>
>>>> The Japanese had no prior warning meaning it was pretty well a
>>>> surprise attack on their main carrier force.
>>

>>>> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

>>>> for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
>>>> programs.
>>

>>> B-17 top speed was 287mph vs Zero top speed of 331mph according to
>>> Wiki.
>>

>> The B-17E which was the model used at Midway was a rather lighter and
>> less well armed and armoured aircraft than later models. According to
>> the USAF Museum it had a max speed of 317 mph but of more importance
>> is the cruising speed which was 226 mph.
>>

>> The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than height.
>> At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese fighters could reach
>> their altitude but the flip side is that such high level bombing was rather
>> ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy bombers learned to attack
>> at low level.
>>

>> Keith- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

> Correct.
>
> And since the Japanese strike warning system consisted of Mk I
> eyeballs augmented by optics, there was precious little time to react
> to the appearance of bombers overhead at 20K feet. Not to mention
> that there was no fighter direction system in place to vector anyone
> already in the air for such an interception.
>
> If some could be stirred, god forbid, to take the time to do a little
> real research, it is fairly easy to find, internet-wise, the
> statements of numerous Japanese particpants, all uniformly disdainful
> of the attempts at level bombing by heavy bombers at Midway.

I presented a factual historic film made by people that made the
history. The only thing you and one other brought to the plate
was your own opinions made from others opinions and insults. I
will stick with the historians that actually filmed it as it
happened and reported as it happened.

Now, get back under that bridge.

[Hal Murray]

In article <gOUpr.31$2R...@fx19.am4>,

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> writes:

>The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than height.
>At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese fighters could reach
>their altitude but the flip side is that such high level bombing was rather
>ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy bombers learned to attack
>at low level.

How low is low?

--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.

[Keith W]

Less than 1000 ft was not untypical

The Link below shows B-25's attacking a Japanese ship
during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BismarckSeaLowLevel.jpg



Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Hal Murray" <hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote in
message news:15udncK3weUybDTS...@megapath.net...

For the Fifth Air Force in New Guinea, "low" was paint scraped off the
tail of a B-17 on pullout and pages from a skip-bombed ship's logbook
found in a B-25's engine.

This shows parafrag bombs, General Kenney's personal invention, being
dropped on a Japanese airfield.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JSFURu5cL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Their fragments plus the massed 50 cal fire of B-25 and A-20 gunships
(another local invention) kept the defenders hiding in foxholes
instead of manning the AA guns. The attackers came in at treetop level
and opened fire 1000 yards out, giving no warning before the wave of
bullets swept the field. I read this in my father's unit history
instead of a quoteable Internet reference.

The only areas flat enough for airfields were in the low coastal and
river plains where the water table was too high to bury supplies, so
food etc remained on the surface vulnerable to bullets and bomb
fragments. The Japanese weren't nearly as well equipped as the US to
rapidly fortify remote airstrips.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Bulldozer_arrives_on_plane_at_Kaiapit_strip_1943.jpg

jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jodjbk$nk7$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> ...The Japanese weren't nearly as well equipped as the US to rapidly

> fortify remote airstrips.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Bulldozer_arrives_on_plane_at_Kaiapit_strip_1943.jpg
>
> jsw

This is the background for the photo and a tribute to Vesey's superb
Australian troops, who did much of the fighting in New Guinea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kaiapit

including inflicting the war's first defeat on Japanese infantry:
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_milne_bay.html

jsw

[Daryl]

On 5/9/2012 1:32 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Hal Murray wrote:
>> In article<gOUpr.31$2R...@fx19.am4>,
>> "Keith W"<keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than
>>> height.
>>> At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese fighters could
>>> reach their altitude but the flip side is that such high level
>>> bombing was rather ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy bombers
>>> learned to attack
>>> at low level.
>>
>> How low is low?
>
> Less than 1000 ft was not untypical
>
> The Link below shows B-25's attacking a Japanese ship
> during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea

That is a B-25. You were harping on the 4 engine Heavies.
Another Euno minute.


--

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message

news:jodn88$9j7$3...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/9/2012 1:32 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Hal Murray wrote:
>>> In article<gOUpr.31$2R...@fx19.am4>,
>>> "Keith W"<keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> How low is low?
>>
>> Less than 1000 ft was not untypical
>>
>> The Link below shows B-25's attacking a Japanese ship
>> during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea
>
> That is a B-25. You were harping on the 4 engine Heavies. Another
> Euno minute.

Bombers dropping conventionally have to stay above the danger zone of
their own bombs. General Kenney described several very low ground
strafing runs by the waist and ball gunners such as the B-24
Balikpapan oil tank and barracks attack but he didn't give specific
altitudes, or IIRC mention dropping parafrags from heavies. They had a
different field-expedient scheme that used altitude-sensitive
photoflash fuzes to detonate fragmentation bombs just above ground
level.

jsw

[Daryl]

I agree that later on, the Heavies dropped low to hit the more
"Difficult" targets. Early on, that would get you grounded for
sure. There was a huge shortage of Heavies in 1942. But by late
44 and early 45, there were thousands of them.

In the early part of the war for the US, it was, you broke it,
you bought it. Later, in the war, it was, Broke it, take another
one off the shelf.

[R Leonard]

> Now, get back under that bridge.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No, what you brought to the table was an Air Force propaganda movie.

Have you ever read the actual reports from units in the battle? I
have; you want copies?

Have you ever sat down to and broken bread, more than once, with
people like Dick Best, Bert Earnest, or Jimmie Thach? I have, more
than once, sitting right beside them, my house, their houses, or even
bending a few elbows in fun places like the NAS Pensacola Officers’
Club.

Do you even know who any of those guys are? Or Johnny Adams? or Dan
Sheedy? or Tom Cheek? John Greenbacker? Bill Surgi? Do you know
anyone at all who actually served at the Battle of Midway? I knew all
those guys and more, first name basis. Who do you know?

Anybody?

Anybody in your family actually in the battle?

With whom have you spoken in your lifetime who had actual
participation in the battle?

Who do you know personally who actually piloted an airplane and
engaged the Japanese in the battle?

All would be better than any glorified propoganda movie.

Don’t blather about people who were there and participated if you
don’t know anyone who actually did and only want to tout some “wasn’t
the air force great?” movie. As soon as you start down the road of
the Army Air Force accomplishments at Midway it is apparent you have
not a clue.

What Army AA units were stationed on the island? Specifically. You
made that statement, let’s see you back it up with some facts . . . or
can you simply not be bothered with the real facts.

No opinion here, Mr. Happy; I have probably forgotten more real
information about the Battle of Midway than the stories you’ve made
up.

[Jeff Crowell]

> Daryl wrote:
>> When the
>> P-38J-LO-25 was introduced, It could do something no other
>> Fighter could do. It used it's flaps to cause drag on the inside
>> wing and would use engine power by reducing power to the inside
>> engine and increase power to the outside engine making it the
>> highest turn rate of anything called a fighter at the time.

Keith W wrote:
> Feel free to produce any evidence that pilots tried such
> a silly manoeveur. I suspect they had more sense than to
> put themselves in a situation where the enemy could beat
> them just by turning the other way.

Much as I hate to appear to agree with anything Daryl has
said in this thread, this appears to be the Blind Pig
moment: I have read of P-38 pilots using asymmetric power
to achieve momentarily high turn rates (more like a slew
rate, really). Tommy McGuire is reputed to have used the
tactic, and of course he died doing it. So, there you go.

However, the bit above where D seems to suggest asymmetric
***flaps*** is utter bollocks as far as I know.


Jeff
--
"Fairness" is a concept invented by man. Nature doesn't believe in it.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jodoab$jih$1...@dont-email.me...

>
>>> The Link below shows B-25's attacking a Japanese ship
>>> during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea
>

> jsw

There were no free off-the-books B-17s or B-24s to hot-rod into low
level gunships:
http://www.ozatwar.com/cortesi.htm

only this patched-together hybrid that General Brett appropriated as
his own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swoose

jsw

[Daryl]

I stated fact as said by the Pilots interviewed. And I used
facts as stated by the people that were at Midway. I believe
them, not you. You can doubt if you wish but you weren't there.
And Keith definitely wasn't.

Your blind pig can just head for the market, if he can find it.

[Jim Yanik]

hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote in
news:15udncK3weUybDTS...@megapath.net:

20,000 ft. attack level means the B-17's were no threat to the carriers.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Daryl]

The clip I showed, there were some very near misses but none on
target. It's one thing to bomb a stationary target and another
to hit a zigging and zagging target that small from 20,000 feet.
But when the bomb load of 1000 lbs land that close to your
ship, you can just bet, you almost shit your pants.

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 1:32 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Hal Murray wrote:
>>> In article<gOUpr.31$2R...@fx19.am4>,
>>> "Keith W"<keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> The reason they were not attacked is less to do with speed than
>>>> height.
>>>> At 20,000 ft they could attack before the Japanese fighters could
>>>> reach their altitude but the flip side is that such high level
>>>> bombing was rather ineffective. Later in the war USAAF heavy
>>>> bombers learned to attack
>>>> at low level.
>>>
>>> How low is low?
>>
>> Less than 1000 ft was not untypical
>>
>> The Link below shows B-25's attacking a Japanese ship
>> during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea
>
> That is a B-25.

I know , I said it was in fact.

> You were harping on the 4 engine Heavies.
> Another Euno minute.

Try reading this book - you might actually learn something

World War II B-24 "Snoopers":
Low Level Anti-Shipping Radar Night Bombers in the Pacific Theater, 63rd
Squadron, 868th Squadron

Author Stephen M. Perrone

Then take a look at this photo of an RAF B-24 attacking a U-Boat

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RAF-II/img/UK-RAF-II-5.jpg

Is that low enough for you ?

Keith

[smharding]

Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>
>>>Utter nonsense, a P-38 pilot who tried to turn with a zero was
>>>a dead duck, they used energy tactics.
>>
>>You are speaking with your utters once again. When the
>>P-38J-LO-25 was introduced, It could do something no other
>>Fighter could do. It used it's flaps to cause drag on the inside
>>wing and would use engine power by reducing power to the inside
>>engine and increase power to the outside engine making it the
>>highest turn rate of anything called a fighter at the time. When
>>the J-25 was introduced, there were very few "Inexperienced" P-38
>>pilots anymore. That same maneuver shocked the hell out of a
>>bunch of ME109 and FW190 Pilots as well. Usually, that shock was
>>fatal.
>
> Feel free to produce any evidence that pilots tried such
> a silly manoeveur. I suspect they had more sense than to
> put themselves in a situation where the enemy could beat
> them just by turning the other way.

I understand skilled P-38 pilots were able to take advantage of very
favorable stall qualities of the aircraft in cutting corners in a
circling fight.

It was apparently called a "cloverleaf" which was a series of tight,
stall inducing turns that caused the aircraft to slide around more
than it would otherwise have done. The stall was very easily
recoverable by putting the nose down a bit, then repeat again.

Pilots also took advantage of their neutal torque roll to perform
steep climbing turns in the torque rolling direction of their LW
enemy to induce a snap roll at near stall speeds in the enemy
aircraft (the P-38 was a great climber).

It was a good way to get out of a bad situation in a sustained fight.


SMH

[Daryl]

Since the Bird that did the drop is not listed, this has what to
do with anything? Is this another Euno moment for you?

I read in your own cite where there were quite a few Heavies but
there were thousands of Medium and Light bombers and over 1000
fighter/bombers.

It was normal for a B-25/26, A-20, Mossie and Fighter bombers to
fly that profile. It was not normal for a heavy to fly that profile.

Now, show, in your cite, where it was a heavy bomber that did
that bomb run and shot that picture and what the date was.
Otherwise, we just write this off as an Euno moment.

[Keith W]

Against an Me-109 or an Fw-190 that is understandable. Both
have a performance that far exceeds that of the Japanese
fighters.

I have a hard time believing that when fighting an A6M2 or Ki-43
a good pilot would try to turn with the enemy when his advantage
lies in a far superior speed.

Keith

[Keith W]

Except of course it is captioned as a Liberator

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RAF-II/UK-RAF-II-5.html

> I read in your own cite where there were quite a few Heavies but
> there were thousands of Medium and Light bombers and over 1000
> fighter/bombers.
>
> It was normal for a B-25/26, A-20, Mossie and Fighter bombers to
> fly that profile. It was not normal for a heavy to fly that profile.
>

That turns out to be incorrect

> Now, show, in your cite, where it was a heavy bomber that did
> that bomb run and shot that picture and what the date was.
> Otherwise, we just write this off as an Euno moment.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RAF-II/UK-RAF-II-5.html

Read it and weep

Keith

[Daryl]

Not only would you make a bad general, poor archivists but you
would make a very dead pilot.

You forget, once again (or you are just ignorant of the fact)
that a fighter cannot ALWAYS pick how he enters into a fight. A
Zero could and did bounce late model P-38s from time to time.
And if the Zero has his energy built up, the P-38 has to do
something very fast to survive. He ain't firing guns, he's
firing Canons. One or two hits and it's over for the other
fighter. So you learn to do what you need to do to stay alive.
And late in the war, the P-38 Pilots were chalking up quite a
score on Zeros. But, if you were that P-38 pilot you would just
die. Most didn't just die. They put the 38 into a turn that the
Zero could not match or at least equal. Then you drop your nose
and put power on if you have the altitude. If not, you pour the
coals on and out accelerate him by a wide margin AFTER the turn.
That first turn belongs to the P-38 unless he's shot to hell
before it. Sort of like the F-15 bouncing the F-14. The first
turn belongs to the 14 and the 15 has to survive it. After that,
the 15 will rule. But the 15, first, has to survive the longer
ranged weapons and radar of the 14 as well as the fact the 14 can
make his first turn tighter than a 16 or an 18.

Dropping flaps and decelerating was one of the manuevers that the
P-38 did frequently when bounced. Drain off the speed almost
instantly, do a turn, or a climb, out accelerate the other guy
and either get out of dodge or put his guns on him.

You would make a really bad, dead fighter pilot not exercising
the strengths of your Aircraft. Actually, you wouldn't make it
past the first cut in the Candidates school.

[Daryl]

For early in the war, it's exactly correct. You started talking
about 1942 and the Pacific. Do try to stay on target.

>
>> Now, show, in your cite, where it was a heavy bomber that did
>> that bomb run and shot that picture and what the date was.
>> Otherwise, we just write this off as an Euno moment.
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RAF-II/UK-RAF-II-5.html

12 October 1942 - U-597 sunk by depth charges from Liberator H
15 October 1942 - (U-661 credited to Liberator H but postwar
analysis indicates an attack on U-615 caused no damage)
5 November 1942 - U-89 damaged near convoy SC 107 (but
initially believed to have sunk U-132)
8 December 1942 - (U-254 credited but postwar evidence
indicates sank in collision with U-221 near convoy HX 217)
10 December 1942 - U-611 sunk near convoy HX 217 by depth
charges from Liberator B
8 February 1943 - U-135 damaged near convoy SC 118
15 February 1943 - U-225 sunk by Liberator S near convoy SC 119
(but initially believed to be U-529)
21 February 1943 - U-623 sunk near convoy ON 166 by Liberator T

And exactly when in 1942 was your attack successful? Or was it a
hit using Depth Charges. Chances are, if you hit that close with
a depth charge it would, at a minimum, damage the U-boat. The
Kills weren't made with bombs even from that altitude. And we
are discussing heavy bombers bombing. Another Euno moment for you.



>
> Read it and weep

Just spill the milk and cry in it. You are wrong. You used a
MISS as an example. The majority of the kills by the B-24 out of
Iceland in 1942 were from depth charges. The other kill was when
a B-24 crashed into the U-boat.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E719E7A990...@216.168.3.44...

> Jim Yanik

This puts the B-17s in the Bismarck Sea battle at 7000 feet:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwari1/p/battle-of-the-bismarck-sea.htm

jsw

[Keith W]

The A6M had both cannon and machine guns you will find

> One or two hits and it's over for the other
> fighter. So you learn to do what you need to do to stay alive.

Throttling back and dropping the flaps is not it

> And late in the war, the P-38 Pilots were chalking up quite a
> score on Zeros. But, if you were that P-38 pilot you would just
> die. Most didn't just die. They put the 38 into a turn that the
> Zero could not match or at least equal. Then you drop your nose

> and put power on if you have the altitude. The

> If not, you pour the
> coals on and out accelerate him by a wide margin AFTER the turn.

Yey you claimed the pilot throttled back one engine and dropped
the flaps which will result in deceleration

> That first turn belongs to the P-38 unless he's shot to hell
> before it. Sort of like the F-15 bouncing the F-14. The first
> turn belongs to the 14 and the 15 has to survive it. After that,
> the 15 will rule. But the 15, first, has to survive the longer
> ranged weapons and radar of the 14 as well as the fact the 14 can
> make his first turn tighter than a 16 or an 18.
>
> Dropping flaps and decelerating was one of the manuevers that the
> P-38 did frequently when bounced.



> Drain off the speed almost
> instantly, do a turn, or a climb, out accelerate the other guy

Come now you cannot drop speed AND accelerate at the same time.
Please make your mind up.

Note that the only reference to such a tactic I have seen was by
Colonel Ervin Ethell when in Nov 1942 he found himself in
extreme trouble, at water level and penned in by multiple Luftwaffe
fighters.

Here is his version

<Quote>
Any fighter pilot will tell you that there's no worse place to be than low
and slow. Climbing and turning into the Germans would be a waste of time;
there were just too many, and they had the advantage of altitude and speed.
There were German crosses everywhere I looked, and it seemed that most of
them saw me at the same time. I began to think more about flying defensively
than offensively at that point; I was much more worried about saving my own
skin than getting theirs.

...

Desperation can make you creative, and when they began to make runs on me,
an idea popped into my head. I pulled hard into a right turn, chopped the
power on the right engine and rammed the throttle on the left engine to the
stop. The asymmetric thrust literally caused the airplane to pivot on its
right wingtip, which, at that moment, was right down in the waves of the
lake-and I mean literally touching the whitecaps.
</Quote>

Far from being a frequent tactic of choice it was a desperate move
undertaken
when nothing else would work. It was a crazy move that worked because the
German pilots saw following him as an uncessary risk as any slight error
would dip a wingtip
in the water causing a fatal crash.

Keith

[Daryl]

Which had three affects. It brought the bombs down to a level
where when you dropped a heavy load it became more affective AND
it drew the CAP up to the P-38 Fighters and it drew the Flak off
the lower flying Aircraft. Yes, even with some of the Flak being
drawn to 7000 feet, there was still plenty to go around at the
lower levels.

Let's also not minimize the defensive ability of the B-17 against
the attacking fighters as well. The CAP was just overwhelmed as
was the ships by the various light, medium, Torpedo, etc..

[Daryl]

No Sher Shitlock.

>
>
>> One or two hits and it's over for the other
>> fighter. So you learn to do what you need to do to stay alive.
>
> Throttling back and dropping the flaps is not it
>
>> And late in the war, the P-38 Pilots were chalking up quite a
>> score on Zeros. But, if you were that P-38 pilot you would just
>> die. Most didn't just die. They put the 38 into a turn that the
>> Zero could not match or at least equal. Then you drop your nose
>> and put power on if you have the altitude. The
>
>
>> If not, you pour the
>> coals on and out accelerate him by a wide margin AFTER the turn.
>
> Yey you claimed the pilot throttled back one engine and dropped
> the flaps which will result in deceleration

If you knew anything about flight, it would have to drop the
speed. You have to change something for something. No WWII
Fighter could go from so fast to so slow and still keep from
stalling like a P-38. And it's just not dropping the throttle on
the inside engine, you are also increasing the throttle on the
outside engine. It's very violent but was used.

>
>
>> That first turn belongs to the P-38 unless he's shot to hell
>> before it. Sort of like the F-15 bouncing the F-14. The first
>> turn belongs to the 14 and the 15 has to survive it. After that,
>> the 15 will rule. But the 15, first, has to survive the longer
>> ranged weapons and radar of the 14 as well as the fact the 14 can
>> make his first turn tighter than a 16 or an 18.
>>
>> Dropping flaps and decelerating was one of the manuevers that the
>> P-38 did frequently when bounced.
>
>
>
>> Drain off the speed almost
>> instantly, do a turn, or a climb, out accelerate the other guy
>
> Come now you cannot drop speed AND accelerate at the same time.
> Please make your mind up.

Beep, Troll Alert, Beep, Troll Alert.....

>
> Note that the only reference to such a tactic I have seen was by
> Colonel Ervin Ethell when in Nov 1942 he found himself in
> extreme trouble, at water level and penned in by multiple Luftwaffe
> fighters.

Against the Zero when it bounced you, you did what you needed to
do. Survive it and it's good. Don't and it's bad. Don't do
anything and you are just as dead.

>
> Here is his version
>
> <Quote>
> Any fighter pilot will tell you that there's no worse place to be than low
> and slow. Climbing and turning into the Germans would be a waste of time;
> there were just too many, and they had the advantage of altitude and speed.
> There were German crosses everywhere I looked, and it seemed that most of
> them saw me at the same time. I began to think more about flying defensively
> than offensively at that point; I was much more worried about saving my own
> skin than getting theirs.
>
> ...
>
> Desperation can make you creative, and when they began to make runs on me,
> an idea popped into my head. I pulled hard into a right turn, chopped the
> power on the right engine and rammed the throttle on the left engine to the
> stop. The asymmetric thrust literally caused the airplane to pivot on its
> right wingtip, which, at that moment, was right down in the waves of the
> lake-and I mean literally touching the whitecaps.
> </Quote>
>
> Far from being a frequent tactic of choice it was a desperate move
> undertaken
> when nothing else would work. It was a crazy move that worked because the
> German pilots saw following him as an uncessary risk as any slight error
> would dip a wingtip
> in the water causing a fatal crash.

A Expertine Pilot does such things and survives. Late in the
War, the P-38 had a ton of "Expertine" Pilots flying them. An
inexperienced pilot would have just died.

[Alistair Gunn]

Daryl twisted the electrons to say:

> Now, show, in your cite, where it was a heavy bomber that did
> that bomb run and shot that picture and what the date was.
> Otherwise, we just write this off as an Euno moment.

If Coastal Command wasn't having their Liberators attack from low level,
why on earth where some of them fitted with a battery of 4x 20mm cannon
under the nose?o

Secondly, how on earth would you successfully attack a crash diving
U-boat from high level anyway?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Daryl]

On 5/10/2012 12:22 PM, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
>> Now, show, in your cite, where it was a heavy bomber that did
>> that bomb run and shot that picture and what the date was.
>> Otherwise, we just write this off as an Euno moment.
>
> If Coastal Command wasn't having their Liberators attack from low level,
> why on earth where some of them fitted with a battery of 4x 20mm cannon
> under the nose?o
>
> Secondly, how on earth would you successfully attack a crash diving
> U-boat from high level anyway?

using bombs? NO. Using Depth Charges, yes. A B-24 didn't just
drop one bomb when it dropped on a ship. It would drop more than
one Depth Charge but the one closest to the sub would be the one
go off if it is a proximity fuse.

The claim is that the B-24 was affective dropping bombs at that
altitude. I already showed that it was the Depth Charges that
did the killing and one B-24 that crashed into a sub. No low
level bombs were used to kill any sub from the B-24s stationed in
Iceland during the time period claimed. That was definitely a

[Dean]

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and
> programs.

Depth charges didn't use proximity fuses did they? I thought they
used pressure fuses set for certain depths?

[Alistair Gunn]

Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
> On 5/10/2012 12:22 PM, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> > Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
> >> Now, show, in your cite, where it was a heavy bomber that did
> >> that bomb run and shot that picture and what the date was.
> >> Otherwise, we just write this off as an Euno moment.
> > If Coastal Command wasn't having their Liberators attack from low level,
> > why on earth where some of them fitted with a battery of 4x 20mm cannon
> > under the nose?o
> >
> > Secondly, how on earth would you successfully attack a crash diving
> > U-boat from high level anyway?
> using bombs? NO. Using Depth Charges, yes.

Cite please if you're going to claim successful high level attacks on
crash diving u-boats by B-24s, or anything else for that matter.

> It would drop more than
> one Depth Charge but the one closest to the sub would be the one
> go off if it is a proximity fuse.

Hint: Depth charges have hydrostatic pistols and not proximity fuses.

> The claim is that the B-24 was affective dropping bombs at that
> altitude.

I thought you where busy claiming that high level bombing by B-17s was an
effective attack method on the Kido Butai?

[Daryl]

On 5/11/2012 12:30 PM, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
>> On 5/10/2012 12:22 PM, Alistair Gunn wrote:
>>> Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
>>>> Now, show, in your cite, where it was a heavy bomber that did
>>>> that bomb run and shot that picture and what the date was.
>>>> Otherwise, we just write this off as an Euno moment.
>>> If Coastal Command wasn't having their Liberators attack from low level,
>>> why on earth where some of them fitted with a battery of 4x 20mm cannon
>>> under the nose?o
>>>
>>> Secondly, how on earth would you successfully attack a crash diving
>>> U-boat from high level anyway?
>> using bombs? NO. Using Depth Charges, yes.
>
> Cite please if you're going to claim successful high level attacks on
> crash diving u-boats by B-24s, or anything else for that matter.

Already did. Troll Alert!!

>
>> It would drop more than
>> one Depth Charge but the one closest to the sub would be the one
>> go off if it is a proximity fuse.
>
> Hint: Depth charges have hydrostatic pistols and not proximity fuses.

Then set them to 5 feet pressure would do the same thing.

>
>> The claim is that the B-24 was affective dropping bombs at that
>> altitude.
>
> I thought you where busy claiming that high level bombing by B-17s was an
> effective attack method on the Kido Butai?

Never made that claim. Keith in an Euno moment brought that up.
You are just trolling now.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Alistair Gunn" <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jojls3$na0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Daryl twisted the electrons to say:

>> ...>

>> It would drop more than
>> one Depth Charge but the one closest to the sub would be the one
>> go off if it is a proximity fuse.
>
> Hint: Depth charges have hydrostatic pistols and not proximity
> fuses.

I was going to call him out on that, but a few did have acoustic or
magnetic proximity fuses. Air-launched homing torpedos were a better
solution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_Mine

This has a little info on the Leigh light, rocket racks and the Mk24
torpedo, all for low-level attacks.
http://www.number59.com/new_59/liberator.html

jsw

[Daryl]

On 5/11/2012 2:38 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Alistair Gunn"<palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jojls3$na0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
>>> ...>
>>> It would drop more than
>>> one Depth Charge but the one closest to the sub would be the one
>>> go off if it is a proximity fuse.
>>
>> Hint: Depth charges have hydrostatic pistols and not proximity
>> fuses.
>
> I was going to call him out on that, but a few did have acoustic or
> magnetic proximity fuses. Air-launched homing torpedos were a better
> solution:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_Mine

When you base your info off a Trolls posts then you are just
trolling as well. But there were many different ways that the
B-24 did a kill on a U-boat. But bombs weren't one of them. All
but one kill was by either mines or torpedoes.

>
> This has a little info on the Leigh light, rocket racks and the Mk24
> torpedo, all for low-level attacks.
> http://www.number59.com/new_59/liberator.html

You will note that Keith is silent now. He has others to build
on his trolls and pour the fuel on the fire.

this is ended as far as I am concerned.

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 2:38 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Alistair Gunn"<palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jojls3$na0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
>>>> ...>
>>>> It would drop more than
>>>> one Depth Charge but the one closest to the sub would be the one
>>>> go off if it is a proximity fuse.
>>>
>>> Hint: Depth charges have hydrostatic pistols and not proximity
>>> fuses.
>>
>> I was going to call him out on that, but a few did have acoustic or
>> magnetic proximity fuses. Air-launched homing torpedos were a better
>> solution:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_Mine
>
> When you base your info off a Trolls posts then you are just
> trolling as well. But there were many different ways that the
> B-24 did a kill on a U-boat. But bombs weren't one of them. All
> but one kill was by either mines or torpedoes.
>

So depth charges were useless huh

ROTFLMAO

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message
news:jok29n$elv$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/11/2012 2:38 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Alistair Gunn"<palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >

> When you base your info off a Trolls posts then you are just
> trolling as well.

I tolerate your irritability and mental lapses because you were
exposed to fuel chemicals while performing your duty to your country.
That wasn't just a lucky guess when I suggested avgas. Prior to OSHA
and the EPA we chemists were on our own to understand and limit
hazards.
http://scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/neuropathy-due-to-organic-solvent-exposure-three-cases-reported-from-pahang-malaysia/
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/toluene.html

[Daryl]

****TROLL ALERT*****

[Daryl]

Based on a Trolls posts

*****TROLL ALERT*****

[Daryl]

On 5/11/2012 6:19 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

While you are trolling, there is some truth in it.

One of the reasons I was removed from the Flight Line was exactly
that. I had to avoid contact with ANY kind of fuel. And the
cleaning solutions (toluene is used in many high grade commercial
cleaning solvents was one of the reasons. Glad you posted
something that MANY AF and Navy types are afflicted with. Never
discount what a fool says for even a fool might be right once in
awhile.

While cancer hasn't been noted, the constant treatment of the
rash it left behind is literally a pain in the ass and legs.

Don't you feel ashamed of your trolling now?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <jokc6m$3p0$1...@dont-email.me>,

Tolulene is oftrn used as an octane booster, with a rich octane
equivalent >160, lean 93. I can smell it in 100LL.

[Daryl]

We were around Avgas all the time. Heaters, etc. all used it.
Who knew. The same goes for the Diesel Generators that got the
hearing pretty good. After protecting against the Turbines, it's
the other things you wouldn't even think of that gets you.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message

news:jokr8a$ha$1...@dont-email.me...
> ... We were around Avgas all the time. Heaters, etc. all used it.

> Who knew. The same goes for the Diesel Generators that got the
> hearing pretty good. After protecting against the Turbines, it's
> the other things you wouldn't even think of that gets you.

Between high school and college I worked in a leather factory, in the
lab developing synthetic replacements. One was nylon webbing
reinforced with urethane, which I applied by dissolving the Adiprene
resin and benzoyl peroxide catalyst in a vat of toluene and winding
the nylon through it onto a big drying reel.

As a result the air in that small room was completely saturated with
toluene vapor, despite the ventilation fans.

I learned to take a big gulp of air from outside and work for two
minutes on it. Fortunately I had been a distance runner on the track
team and have good lungs.

That's only one of a long list of bad jobs beginning chemists learned
to avoid, the hard way. OTOH when the EPA was formed to fix the
issues, instead they drove manufacturing and chemists' jobs overseas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Only one member of my graduating class found work within the field. I
was glad to take the Army's offer of a year of intense electronics
training.

jsw

[Alistair Gunn]

Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
> On 5/11/2012 12:30 PM, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> > Cite please if you're going to claim successful high level attacks on
> > crash diving u-boats by B-24s, or anything else for that matter.
> Already did. Troll Alert!!

Don't think you did, but seeing as your definition of troll appears to be
someone who doesn't instantly agree with you I'm not holding my breath.

> >> It would drop more than
> >> one Depth Charge but the one closest to the sub would be the one
> >> go off if it is a proximity fuse.
> > Hint: Depth charges have hydrostatic pistols and not proximity fuses.
> Then set them to 5 feet pressure would do the same thing.

Still doesn't make is a proximity fuse ...

> >> The claim is that the B-24 was affective dropping bombs at that
> >> altitude.
> > I thought you where busy claiming that high level bombing by B-17s was an
> > effective attack method on the Kido Butai?
> Never made that claim. Keith in an Euno moment brought that up.
> You are just trolling now.

So does this mean you're no longer claiming that having B-17s performing
an ineffectual high-level bombing attack more than 30 minutes before the
Navy strike aircraft turn up had a positive effect on the Battle of
Midway?

[Alistair Gunn]

Jim Wilkins twisted the electrons to say:

> "Alistair Gunn" <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jojls3$na0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> > Hint: Depth charges have hydrostatic pistols and not proximity
> > fuses.
> I was going to call him out on that, but a few did have acoustic or
> magnetic proximity fuses.

Really? The only exception to hydrostatic I was aware of was the
Hedgehog.

> Air-launched homing torpedos were a better solution:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_Mine

Well yeah, hence why they've generaly replaced depth charges these days!

> This has a little info on the Leigh light, rocket racks and the Mk24
> torpedo, all for low-level attacks.
> http://www.number59.com/new_59/liberator.html

Thanks for that link, I'd heard about the modified Coastal Command
Liberators with stub wings near the nose for carrying rockets but that
site had the first picture I'd ever seem of one!

[Jim Wilkins]

"Alistair Gunn" <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:joliqf$1bn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Jim Wilkins twisted the electrons to say:
>> "Alistair Gunn" <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jojls3$na0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> > Hint: Depth charges have hydrostatic pistols and not proximity
>> > fuses.
>> I was going to call him out on that, but a few did have acoustic or
>> magnetic proximity fuses.
>
> Really? The only exception to hydrostatic I was aware of was the
> Hedgehog.
>

http://www.ussslater.org/tour/weapons/dpthchrg/dpthchrg.html

Look at the paragraph above "Mark 6".

jsw

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <jokr8a$ha$1...@dont-email.me>,

The purple stuff, in addition to tolulene, also contained a lot of
benzene, which has a lean octane rating of 100; rich >160 to act as an
octane booster.

Benzene is on the carcinogen list, although I do not know how powerful a
carcinogen it is.

[Bill Shatzer]

Alistair Gunn wrote:

- snip -

> So does this mean you're no longer claiming that having B-17s performing
> an ineffectual high-level bombing attack more than 30 minutes before the
> Navy strike aircraft turn up had a positive effect on the Battle of
> Midway?

Well, in fairness, the B-17 attack did cause the Kido Butai to engage in
some rather extreme manuvering, which broke up its combat formation,
spread out the CAP and reduced the effectiveness and concentration of
the ships' defensive AA fire.

The positive effect was likely small but it was not totally absent.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/ww2_11/s_w16_00000011.jpg
http://www.dcmilitary.com/storyimage/DC/20110526/NEWS12/705269973/AR/AR-705269973.jpg

[Daryl]

Bill, you sure do find ways to counter the trolls. Let them go
on until the next time. They'll wind down sooner or later.
History is not their strong point.

The Bombers made quite a few of the Japanese ships go into
tirades of such. Otherwise, they become stationary targets and
the bombers will with a force that guarantees the total loss of
the ship. A 1000 lb bomb down the chimney ruins anyone's day.
It's tough to do a decent Flak Barrage when you are jinxing like
that.