World War II according to Helldiver

thats my major quib as well, all you hear is "amercia won the war" etc they didnt, they helped but they sure as hell didnt win it on their own!! :banghead:

I didn't read anywhere in this thread anyone stating that. Or did I miss something? Same goes for Bazz: I don't think Helldiver implied such a thing.....

:wavey:

Cees
 
Its just the same for the RAF ....

In the early days the Hurricane shot down more Luftwaffe planes that all other defences combined, but the Spitfire gets all the glory. The Imperial War Museum archives have something like 8,000 hours of footage on the Spitfire and about 500 hours of footage on the Hurricane.

For Bomber Command the Halifax gets overlooked in favour of the Lancaster. Ask any Canadian veteran of Bomber Command. Most flew in Halifaxes. Not that I don't get a lump in my throat every time I see the BBMF Lanc flying overhead, its just a shame that there are no Halifaxes still flying.

Then there's the old chestnut:

America was late for WWI
America was late for WW2
So America is going to make sure its absolutely on time for WW3

All in good fun ..... anyone who has forgotten the air forces sacrifice during WW2 need only visit the glass wall of remembrance outside the American Air Museum at Duxford, or the RAF Memorial at Runnymede

http://aam.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.1755

http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/othermems_Run.htm

Alastair
 
You'll get no debate from me on this one

Ditto. Fully agree. Great stuff Helldiver. Fascinating lesson on how time, the media and myth can color and skew our understanding of history.
 
It was not my intent to slight the British part in the war. Not at all. I was merely talking about the US aircraft.
As far as the English part, the Hurricane seemed to overshadow the Spitfire. It got better press. It's angular looks looked like a fighter. The Spitfire looked like a speedster. The Wellington, the Halifax and the Hudson bombers were covered much more than the Lancaster's. Also The Mosquito and the Tempest got a lot of publicity. This is just from the American experience.
As far as the enemy aircraft was concerned, the FW-190 was heard about by the returning fliers along with the Me-110. The Me-109 was just thought of as being a minor irritation. Not much was ever heard about the Me-262 until after the war was over.
Japanese aircraft would be the Zero. That's about it and it seemed that it was contained very quickly. The senseless Kamikaze attacks were covered. We just couldn't understand why anybody would take on such an idiotic way to die. I still can't understand it.
It was brought home when the Carrier USS Franklin limped into Bayonne, N.J. with a permanent list to starboard.

By the way, I have to print large in order to see my mistakes. I have Macular Degeneration plus cataracts. My left eye is practically useless. I can only see fussy variations in light. The right eye is better but it still take large print colored blue. That's why I put down these thoughts before I couldn't see anything.
 
during BOB we made all our own aircraft, trained our crews and pretty much stopt the german advance.

Well if it wasn't for the Dutch airforce shooting down a lot of German 110's and Ju-52's during early May of 1940, the chances of a German invasion would have been much greater. The Germans simply lacked the equipment for an invasion in June.

The reason the B-17 got more publicity was that it flew mostly over 'fortress Europe' which was a more compact and densly populated battlefield compared to the Pacific where the Liberator was the most used bomber. Spreading propaganda was more important over here and the B-17 played a bigger part in the war over Europe than the B-24 did, though we do know the Liberator from the bombing of the Rumanian oilfields.
The range and speed of the B-24 were important over the Pacific, while the structural strength of the B-17 was vital over the heavily defended cities of Europe.

The Halifax may have been the better bomber in general, but the Lancaster got it's fame from the dambuster raids and the ability to carry just about everything including the 22,000 pound grand slam bombs.
 
How about if we re-title the thread "America's Role In World War II According To Helldiver" :mixedsmi:
 
I didn't read anywhere in this thread anyone stating that. Or did I miss something? Same goes for Bazz: I don't think Helldiver implied such a thing.....

:wavey:

Cees

i never said helldiver did, its one of my bad traits then whenever i see something talking about ww2 i always seem to say it :redf:
 
I met a fellow about a decade ago, a Canadian boy from the prairies who had served in the US Navy. There was no work around home for him in the late 'thirties, so he found a way to get down to the 'States and enlisted in whatever he could find. The navy took him in, I believe he was around nineteen at the time.

He spent a few years running some sort of coastal patrol in a small boat based out of San Francisco. Then Pearl Harbour happened.

He was re-assigned to landing craft, and spent the rest of the war commanding a variety of LC's througout the island hopping campaign.

Leo's memories indicate that he may have beached his boat at every second island landing. Notable among his recollections are that of moving his boat slowly through the dark of Iron Bottom sound, picking up survivors "during" a major naval engagement.

Another is the sound of Japanese bombers gliding down the hillside of an island to strike a group of landing craft tied up in a lagoon. Their idea may have been that the inland hillside was so steep and close to the lagoon, that an attack from that direction would not be suspected. They were right.

The only sound Leo heard was the whisper of their props as the twin engine craft appeared overhead from an impossible direction.

The next was the explosions of ordinance, the roar of radial engines as the pilots slammed open their throttles, and gunfire as the American boys realized what was happening and opened up in defence. Leo said they were all just kids. In his early twenties, he was the "old man" of the lot. They had felt safe in that lagoon, and most were busy enjoying a little time off, splashing around in the tropical waters. He said a lot of those kids died right then.

Leo's survival was based on his experience. While the other skips had felt the lagoon was safe, had simply tied up and let there crews relax, Leo felt apprehensive. He had moved his LC to the other end of the lagoon, moored it in the shade of overhanging trees, and ordered his crew to maintain watch.

Even then, they never saw the bombers coming.

Assuming that he had possibly memorized some recognition charts, I asked Leo what sort of bombers they were. He looked at me funny, and said simply, "Mitsubishis!!"

A few more question, and I realized that he and his peers had refined aircraft recognition to an economical art. According to Leo:

All Japanese bombers or twins were Mitsubishis.

All Japanese fighters were Zeros.

All American fighters were Grummans, or Corsairs. ( Easy to see the bent wings.)

All flying boats were PBY's. ( He may have had a name for small craft like Kingfishers, but I negelected to ask...)

Single engine bombers were Avengers ( He couldn't believe how loud they were!) and twins were B-25's.....but he said he almost never saw those.

I asked him about P-51's or Liberator bombers, he snorted, and said he'd seen them only in magazines.

Whenever I meet folks who have survived events like the Second World War, no matter who they are, I go out of my way to make time, and ask about their experiences. It's more than a fascination with the event. For me, it's about learning human nature, about how people learn to adapt, survive, and make decisions under unimaginable circumstance.

From children to housewives to servicemen, I've listened to countless recollections spaning Berlin to London to Amsterdam and Jakarta during WW2. Mind boggling stuff. Helldiver, my respects and my thanks for every word you post.

Please don't mind that I post words on Leo's behalf, he's not here to do the talking anymore.
 
Of course a very famous personality, Brig. Gen Jimmy Stewart ret. commanded and flew in a B-24 squadron in WW2 over Europe.
 
Tank You Hell Diver for giving us all a chance to be free in this country today, I have just a small comment..if I may. I see so much of the term "B-25 Mitchell" In January 1942 Lt Col Doolittle always refered to the B-25 as just "The B-25 Airplane" in his correspondence for preperations of the Tokyo Raid. Having talked with a North American employee who was on the design team for the NA-62 (prototype B-25) he said that the B-25, B-25A, B-25B, and the first production block of the B-25C were just refered to as the B-25...thats all.

Cheers

Casey
 
Tank You Hell Diver for giving us all a chance to be free in this country today, I have just a small comment..if I may. I see so much of the term "B-25 Mitchell"

Cheers

Casey

I think the name might've come from our side of the pond,
RAF (and RN) were very good at adding names to 'imported' aircraft types, the P-51 for example only gained its' 'Mustang' epithet on joining the RAF, likewise the 'Catalina'
'Wildcat' ,'Baltimore' and 'Harvard' to name but a few.

ttfn

Pete

(RAF ret'd)
 
Personally I think Helldiver is absolutely right. I don't think any war has winners or losers. War is just a stupid conflict which could have been avoided when we had been as intelligent as we humans often pretend to be.

Huub
 
Personally I think Helldiver is absolutely right. I don't think any war has winners or losers. War is just a stupid conflict which could have been avoided when we had been as intelligent as we humans often pretend to be.

Huub


Very well stated Huub . An excellent definition .

Rich
 
Personally I think Helldiver is absolutely right. I don't think any war has winners or losers. War is just a stupid conflict which could have been avoided when we had been as intelligent as we humans often pretend to be.

Huub
Any logical human being would agree. The quote of General Robert E. Lee clarifies the point: "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it" The problem is as always there are those despots and tinhorns around the globe small and large who in the past, present, and future who will lead a path of destruction and human misery. We must always be prepared to deal with such threats or at some point we may end up with them in our own back yards again as history has so sadly shown us. Nearly every instance of a horrific conflict in modern history was brought on by being in a position of weakness thus tempting an aggressor. Colonel Arthur "Bull" Simons memorial at Fort Bragg, NC has a quote on the side of it stating: "History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight, someone who has the will to fight will take over"... In the case of WW2, there was no amount of negotiating, appeasing, or anything else that was going to prevent the likes of Hitler or Tojo from carrying out all that they did. The world was still in the midsts of a lingering great depression at the time and military spending was low and the Axis leaders new it. That is one of the prime reasons me maintain the large military structure we have nowadays as a deterance as much as possible. But it isn't worth anything unless there is a true will to use it if the need arises. That is the key.

I want to say with kind regards to Helldiver a great thankyou for sharing your thoughts with us. Many of my own family served in WW2 and wars prior and since. What you guys accomplished was great and not a day goes by that I go without thinking of it. Same of our allies, ALL OF THEM! The victory that was achived was one that brought an end to a horrible conflict restoring peace and freedom to many souls. Our goal in these times should be one of never forgetting the past and those who lived and gave great sacrifice during those dark moments in history and to do all we can to prevent it from happening again.

:medals:
 
Oh goody, a "food fight!"

B-17F / B-17G

Of the 8000 B-17Gs produced, how many didn’t serve in WW-II? I’d be surprised if the number is greater than 0. So that’s, once again, more than twice the number of B-17Es and Fs combined. So how on Earth can 3000 B-17Fs have flown more missions than 8000 B-17Gs?


PRB,
I'd have to slightly disagree with you there... towards the end of the war, planes of all types were rolling off assembly lines and never saw any action of any kind... As a matter of fact, there is not a single B-17G flying that saw any combat in Europe or elsewhere... Same can be said about many flying warbirds today.

And I would have to agree with Bomber for the most part... I think as a culture we tend to pay more attention to what is more 'sexy'.... For myself the B-17 is by far and wide the better looking of the bombers... but I am also a bit biased................:wiggle:



-Witt
 
Even though I'm gonna stir things up around here...

Apart from all the unnecessary, ashaming, shocking, stupid and pointless atrocities that happened "behind" the scenes and the idiots who were in charge, I wouldn't have minded if we had won the war.

But then again, I think it's better that things turned out how they turned out.
Lots of lessons were learned from WW2 which benefited humanity one way or another.



P.S: A good plane doesn't automatically make a good pilot. See finnish Buffalo aces. Bad plane, excellent pilots.
 
PRB,
I'd have to slightly disagree with you there... towards the end of the war, planes of all types were rolling off assembly lines and never saw any action of any kind... As a matter of fact, there is not a single B-17G flying that saw any combat in Europe or elsewhere... Same can be said about many flying warbirds today. ...

Good point, Witt! Interesting!
 
Nothing implied, just up to mischief. :mixedsmi: It was a level of co-operation that won the thing in the end. Something we would do well to emulate today.
 
Time for my spin on this post, speaking from the perspective of an aviation enthusiast and historian.



A review of whats available for WWII aircraft for Flight Simulators shows a war upside down.


For instance, all you see is B-17Gs. Not so. Most of the war it was the B-17Fs without that useless and ugly chin gun. The B-17G was an overweight pig.

The B-17G chin turret was designed to combat a problem that was being encountered during the early phase of the U.S. daylight bombing campaign against Germany. There was little in the way of protection in the nose of the B-17 as originally designed. The Germans quickly discovered this and began making head on attacks. Most B-17's in the field were modified to add one or two forward facing machine guns. Boeing tackled this problem with technology, the electrically driven Bendix turret. It was a solution, albeit an ungainly and expensive one, but that's what Boeing did to address the problem.

The reason we see the B-17G represented in flight sims is because that's what we see as airworthy Flying Fortresses. The majority of B-17G's flying today saw no combat, but were the last ones off the production line and the war in Europe ended before they could be deployed. So that's what we see in the air today and odds are that's what most flight simmers will want to have on their computer.


The SBD is featured when it was the SB2C that won the war. The SBD only lasted for the first 18 months of the war. The SBD was too slow, couldn't fold it's wings, took up too much space, had lousy defensive power and couldn't carry enough bombs. Easy target for the Zeros.

The Douglas SBD served until VJ day with the USMC and last saw combat with the USN in June of 1944 during the Battle of the Phillippine Sea, far more than 18 months into the U.S. war effort. The SB2C was intended to replace the SBD, but had many developmental problems that delayed its production. The SB2C did not see combat until November 1943, giving it a total of 22 months of combat duty.


Everyone flies the P-51 and yet the P-47 out flew and out gunned the 51 and it had a better survivability. The same number of P-51s were built as there were P-47s. Vastly greater damage was done to the enemy by the P-47.. In most cases the 51s would come back without firing their guns. The P-47 always came back with their guns empty.


Once again, there are simply far more restored P-51's than P-47's in the air today. The P-47 was an outstanding fighter at high altitude and also excelled at ground attack, but after the war it was the P-51 that was used in air racing and the Air Force wanted sexy, fast fighters for its image.


The popular belief is it was the F4-U Corsair flown by US Marines won the war in the Pacific. No so. Most of the enemy planes destroyed was by F6-F's flown by the US Navy.


The Marines were a very small contingent flying out of the islands in the South Pacific, notably Guadalcanal. I blame “Baa Baa Black Sheep” for this fallacy.

Initially, the F4U proved less than suitable for carrier duty, so it was given to the USMC to replace their outdated F4F's. The USN used the F6F to very good effect and it had better forward visibility on the deck and when flying the landing pattern. It was also more docile at slow speeds and was generally better for carrier landings. Late in 1944, the USN found itself with plenty of F6F's, but short of pilots, so they ordered six USMC Corsair squadrons to be deployed aboard carriers. These USMC Corsair units performed quite well in the skies over Japan and the Corsair performed at least as well as the F6F.

As for the tv show, anyone that believes that version of "history" has never opened a real history book. I expect those who watched that show and enjoyed the flying scenes ended up doing a little reading and discovered the real story of VMF-214 and the war in the Solomon Islands.


The B-24 has been lost in history and yet there were more of them than the B-17. They carried a much bigger bomb load. It was faster that the B-17 and had a much greater range. Too many movies about the 8th air force I guess.

The B-17, being a more rugged aircraft, outlasted the B-24 and after the war there was little need for civilian owned B-24's. The B-24 was a great bomber, but the B-17 had more potential for civilian uses. I also think the B-17 is a bit easier to fly, likely due to is larger wing area.


The B-29s finished the war. But it was the “Blue Airplanes” that the Japanese feared. It was the Navy planes that would come and strafe the streets. They would cheer the B-29s since they told they were returning Japanese aircraft.

I'll have to take your word on this, I've not had the opportunity to talk to any Japanese who were there. I know that B-29's blasted and burned away many cities in Japan.


So you young kids can have the war any way you want to. You will call out references written by guys that weren't even born when the war was going on and have there own agendas. The worse is Wikipedia.

I don't know what to say. Anyone can choose what to believe
, but official combat records are pretty irrefutable.


All I can say, I was there and it the best that an 80+ year old memory can do.[/quote]

All I can say, I wasn't there, I'm just a 43 year old lifetime aviation and history nut.
 
Back
Top