Übercorsair and übercap

[Big B]

ORIGINAL:

Hehehe... but this is new "Politicaly Correct" policy and we must adhere... [8D]

Couldn't you have phrased that another way? Nothing wrankles more than the thought of "PC" [;)]

[Charbroiled]

Other F4F drivers, like Marion Carl ....

The mention of Marion Carl's name reminded me of the sad events that ended his life:

ROSEBURG, Oregon -- Retired Major General Marion Carl, a World War II ace and postwar test pilot considered the "Chuck Yeager of the Marine Corps,'' was shot to death in a robbery at his home by a man who kicked in his door.

The 82-year-old Carl, one of the Marines' most highly decorated aviators, was shot in the head Sunday night. His wife, Edna, suffered a glancing shotgun blast to the head.

Sheriff's deputies Monday searched for the gunman in the wooded hills nearby. Monday afternoon, authorities issued a warrant for the arrest of Jesse Stuart Fanus, a 19-year-old from the area who has a record of arrests on charges including drunken driving, burglary and criminal trespass.

"It's a hell of a way to lose a great American hero,'' said retired Marine Col. Denis J. Keily, spokesman for the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation in Pensacola, Fla. "I guess it's a statement of our times.''

Mrs. Carl told police that a young man who was wearing sunglasses and had a German shepherd with him kicked in the front door, asked for money and her car keys, and shot her husband when he confronted the intruder.

The gunman stole $200 to $400 and drove off in the couple's car. Mrs. Carl said there may have been another person outside because there was a commotion in the driveway.

The car was abandoned about five miles away, and a patrolman found the dog walking about a mile from the car.

"It appears to be totally random -- random and irrational and not thought out,'' sheriff's Detective Joe Perkins said.

Carl's flying exploits spanned from World War II to Vietnam, that included 18.5 aerial victories.

In 1942, the Oregon native became the first Marine fighter ace, downing three Japanese bombers and a fighter plane over Guadalcanal. He ended his stint at Guadalcanal with 11.5 combat aircraft destroyed, according to the National Museum of Naval Aviation.

After the war, Carl became a Navy test pilot, setting a world speed record of 651 mph on Aug. 25, 1947, at Muroc Field, now Edwards Air Force Base, in California. But his fame was fleeting and soon forgotten.

Yeager, the Air Force's top test pilot, wrested away the title of world's fastest human by breaking the sound barrier two months later, also at Muroc. He flew a Bell X-1 rocket plane at Mach 1.07 -- 700 mph -- on Oct. 14.

In 1953, Carl set a world altitude record of 83,235 feet and two years later flew U-2 photo reconnaissance missions over China.

He returned to combat during the Vietnam War, commanding the 2nd Marine Air Wing. He retired in 1973 with 13,000 flying hours, a Navy Cross with two Gold Stars, the Legion of Merit with three Gold Stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross with four Gold Stars and the Air Medal with 13 Gold Stars.

[decaro]

When it comes to Japanese aircraft development, you have me at a disadvantage. However, consider the following public domain "cut and paste" re the development of the A5M Claude, which I assume is the precurser to the A6M Zero:

In 1932, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) issued a requirement for a new naval carrier fighter, and in response a Mitsubishi design team under Jiro Horikoshi developed the "1MF10" fighter, which had a strong resemblance to the American Boeing P-26 "Peashooter" fighter, being a low-wing monoplane, with a metal fuselage and fabric-covered wings; an open cockpit; an air-cooled radial engine, driving a two-bladed fixed wooden propeller; fixed landing gear; twin 7.7 millimeter (0.303 caliber) machine guns in the upper lip of the engine cowling; and a telescopic tube gunsight.

The first of two prototypes performed its initial flight in March 1933. The second prototype followed shortly after and differed from the first by replacing the strut-braced main landing gear with main gear in spats. The 1MF10 was an unlucky aircraft. It failed to meet IJN performance requirements and both prototypes were lost in crashes. It did, however, give Horikoshi and Mitsubishi a basis for further work.

In 1934, the IJN issued another request for a carrier fighter, and Mitsubishi and Horikoshi came up with a new design, the "Ka-14", with the same overall configuration as the 1MF10 but cleaner, and featuring all-metal construction, an inverted gull wing, and a Nakajima Kotobuki 5 nine-cylinder radial providing 410 kW (550 HP). The initial prototype performed its first flight on 4 February 1935. The prototype exceeded its speed requirements, but it had a number of handling problems.

As a result, the inverted gull wing was replaced in the second prototype by a flat wing with a slight outboard dihedral. The second prototype also featured an uprated Kotobuki 3 radial with 475 kW (640 HP). Four more prototypes were built that were similar to the second prototype, differing in small details and being used to evaluate a variety of engine fits. Following successful trials, the IJN approved production of the type as the "A5M1" or "Type 96 Carrier Fighter Model 1", powered by a Kotobuki-2-KAI-1 engine with 430 kW (580 HP).

Looking at photos of these two planes, the A5M is the spitting image of the earlier P-26, at least from the outside. Is this just a coincidence?

And if the lineage of the A6 goes thru the A5, and the same team that deveolped both planes was "inspired" by the US P-26 design for its A5 prototype, how original is the A6?

To paraphrase Ecclesiastes, it looks like "there's nothing new under the (rising) sun."

[Dino]

I'm sure it has something to do with Wright brothers, too.

EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget Newton.

[mdiehl]

I know Thach's report was included in one of the USN's Sept/October assessments. I thought it had been written some time in August after Thach had chased it around for a while. Didn't know he'd written it right after Midway.

The business of the Zeros "bonus" justified by the fact they were engaging a "shocked and demoralized" opponent is flat out wrong. Nor was the absence of a purely defensive doctrine a particular problem for the F4Fs. Thach may well have been annoyed or even angry about the perceived deficiency of the F4F, but not everyone agreed with Thach, and his annoyance did not reduce his willingness to engage nor his effectiveness in combat.

After all, that is WHY the initial direct confrontations between the USN and IJN slightly favored the Allies. It's not like Yorktown F4F drivers had to think up something new. Despite Thach's complaints, their kill ratio vs the Zero favored the USN, not the Japanese. And that, if anyone cares about data, is why the whole business about the Japanese having both better pilots and better planes doesn't stand up to any rational test.

I maintain that the Zero and F4F were "roughly comparable" and their pilots "about the same" at least as one can judge it by data. The open question to me remains "How, really, in terms of actual losses, did the Japanese fare against army pilots?" And the second question is "Why?"

Strategic isolation of Allied forces in the Malaya/Indonesia/Burma area, long years of outstanding pre-war Japanese operational prep, pre-war deployment of assets, reserves, and logistics, and a high operational tempo do, I suspect, account for Japanese success, rather than any kind of qualitative superiority in men or material.

The second claim is that Japanese naval pilots had a range advantage. Technically true I think. But when you look at the air strikes they launched it did not seem to help them all that much against USN CVs. It probably made the biggest difference when striking land bases like PH. Midway, and Darwin. At least that's how it seems to me.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: veji1

ORIGINAL: herwin

In real fighter versus fighter combat in the Pacific, there was no advantage in outnumbering your opponent by a significant margin. The number of losses on each side was proportional to the strength of the weaker side. In a study based on the work reported in Morse and Kimball, I found evidence that this also applied to fighter versus bomber engagements. In WiTP terms, a CAP much larger than the strike being intercepted was a waste of sorties.

This is quite interesting, could you be a bit more specific, ie give simple examples so that slooooowww minds like me can understand ? Thanks.

The OR studies indicate that engagements rarely involved more than one aircraft from each side, and defending aircraft weren't engaged more than once (if that). So adding aircraft to the CAP didn't increase the number of engagements once all the strike aircraft were matched up.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Thach may well have been annoyed or even angry about the perceived deficiency of the F4F, but not everyone agreed with Thach, and his annoyance did not reduce his willingness to engage nor his effectiveness in combat...

From Lundstrom:
[page 300] Coral Sea provided the US naval fighter pilots
with the introduction to the vaunted Japanese Zero fighter. VF-2 and VF-42
pilots respected the enemy fighter, particularly it's tremendous
maneuverability, BUT the Mitsubishi's DID NOT intimidate them. On the basis
of their first combat experiences, the pilots felt their Grumman F4F-3
Wildcats were equal to the Zero in speed and climbing ability and SUPERIOR
in firepower and protection, being only inferior in maneuverability.
Flately stated their feelings best: "The F4F-3 properly handled can best the enemy
carrier based fighters encountered so far. This includes the Type Zero"
---------------
The F4F-3s principal defect, they thought, was radius of action. The
escort fighters, in particular VF-2s troops, got into trouble on May 8
because they had throttled back to save fuel. In that condition they were
just not prepared to face enemy fighters.

[Big B]

Edit:
misread Dr Herwin's point. nevermind![:'(]

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Other F4F drivers, like Marion Carl ....

The mention of Marion Carl's name reminded me of the sad events that ended his life:

ROSEBURG, Oregon -- Retired Major General Marion Carl, a World War II ace and postwar test pilot considered the "Chuck Yeager of the Marine Corps,'' was shot to death in a robbery at his home by a man who kicked in his door.

The 82-year-old Carl, one of the Marines' most highly decorated aviators, was shot in the head Sunday night. His wife, Edna, suffered a glancing shotgun blast to the head.

Sheriff's deputies Monday searched for the gunman in the wooded hills nearby. Monday afternoon, authorities issued a warrant for the arrest of Jesse Stuart Fanus, a 19-year-old from the area who has a record of arrests on charges including drunken driving, burglary and criminal trespass.

"It's a hell of a way to lose a great American hero,'' said retired Marine Col. Denis J. Keily, spokesman for the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation in Pensacola, Fla. "I guess it's a statement of our times.''

Mrs. Carl told police that a young man who was wearing sunglasses and had a German shepherd with him kicked in the front door, asked for money and her car keys, and shot her husband when he confronted the intruder.

The gunman stole $200 to $400 and drove off in the couple's car. Mrs. Carl said there may have been another person outside because there was a commotion in the driveway.

The car was abandoned about five miles away, and a patrolman found the dog walking about a mile from the car.

"It appears to be totally random -- random and irrational and not thought out,'' sheriff's Detective Joe Perkins said.

Carl's flying exploits spanned from World War II to Vietnam, that included 18.5 aerial victories.

In 1942, the Oregon native became the first Marine fighter ace, downing three Japanese bombers and a fighter plane over Guadalcanal. He ended his stint at Guadalcanal with 11.5 combat aircraft destroyed, according to the National Museum of Naval Aviation.

After the war, Carl became a Navy test pilot, setting a world speed record of 651 mph on Aug. 25, 1947, at Muroc Field, now Edwards Air Force Base, in California. But his fame was fleeting and soon forgotten.

Yeager, the Air Force's top test pilot, wrested away the title of world's fastest human by breaking the sound barrier two months later, also at Muroc. He flew a Bell X-1 rocket plane at Mach 1.07 -- 700 mph -- on Oct. 14.

In 1953, Carl set a world altitude record of 83,235 feet and two years later flew U-2 photo reconnaissance missions over China.

He returned to combat during the Vietnam War, commanding the 2nd Marine Air Wing. He retired in 1973 with 13,000 flying hours, a Navy Cross with two Gold Stars, the Legion of Merit with three Gold Stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross with four Gold Stars and the Air Medal with 13 Gold Stars.

What a sad story...[:(][:(][:(]

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

I see that some people still didn't grasp the fact that Matrix forum is about info and not about people (and name calling)... sad...

Yep.

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Of course, you wouldn't know anything about how the game really works, would you?

Of course, the main question that these Steakhouse Morons

Never argue with an idiot.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Ask your storm trooper, Diehl.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


you are just another asshat.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Would you "proud morons" please take this "discussion" someplace else! Maybe back "under the porch" or "behind the outhouse" or some other fitting location.


Actually, I used the term "proud morons", not "Steakhouse Morons". I was referring to the "moronic" nature and the wish that you would go somewhere else with it. Sorry if you felt insulted..., but if you play with the morons you risk being tagged with the same brush.

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Next time mdiehl needs help, tell him to send a real dog, not a chihuahah.

"Of course, you wouldn't know anything about how the game really works, would you?" to mdiehl hit a raw nerve, that's too bad. I would think a Steakhouse Moron would have a thicker skin.

And the winner is:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

You see, most of the discussions conducted on this board are conducted civilly. If you are a regular poster, you will see that most disagreements do not result in the type of posting that you and your kind bring. We normally don't resort to name calling

Now I do recall saying, "Only a moron would argue that experience doesn't matter" in response to an mdiehl posting. That's normally as close to name calling as I tend to get

[8|]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

ORIGINAL: TheElf


Do tell...I'll extend the same courtesy to you that I have to Mdeihl. I don't know you from Adam, but you tend to harbor some of the same angst that I do. I bet we'd see eye to eye on a lot of things if we weren't talking about history(yes I AM talking history now). I've been forthcoming on my credibility vis a vis my professional qualifications. You've alluded to the same possibilty. I am standing by to establish a mutual respect...

Well I will admit you conduct yourself with more professionalism and military bearing than some of the peanut gallery around here, so that's a good start.

But then there's this:

One personal note, and I hold this as very important when reading Mdeihl's or now your posts. As a Naval aviator and fighter pilot, what I find a bit offensive is the ease with which you speak about a conflict where truly talented, humble, yet heroic men fought a Highly skilled adversary flying arguably the best fighter of the early war in a mediocre, underpowered however armed and armored, dog of an airplane. Specifically the F4F-4. In some way I feel you diminish their accomplishments by casually stating something absurd like "mobs of veteran expertly trained samurai died screaming in their superior A6Ms at the hands of dumb ass American aviators and their obsolete aircraft". That is a personal opinion formed from professional experience and operating in a world today that is slowly but surely beginning to look like Vietnam

In case you haven't noticed, there's some people here who are of the opinion that american aviators were a bunch of bums flying pieces of junk, and were really no match for the mighty Imperial Japanese Navy. Having been around quite a while now, I find this to be a common attitude among certain left leaning european college boys. Their overall attitude can be summed up as "the Americans sucked and their equipment was trash, and they only won because they cheated by producing more of their inferior equipment than the more deserving axis powers did'

I recall being called a "racist" by a certain Ursa Major when I dared to suggest the Germans were not the most innovative and a successful producers of military hardware in aller zeit. I've also been called everything but a good dog for my racist endorsements of obviously inferior American infantry weapons such as the M-1 and the BAR.[8|] "Everybody knows" the sturmgewehr and the MG-42 were vastly superior firearms; the Russians won world war II all by themselves; the American army in Europe only faced third rate "stomach battalions" while it was the British who heroically defeated the elite SS, and so on ad nauseum.

This sort of thing is the usual level of the discussion around here, and one of the reasons M'Deihl has been ostracised by some of the more "enlightened". And while myself and M'deihl most certainly don't agree on everything, he is infinitely more knowlegable on the subject of aviation history than most.

Well this is a start, but why are you holding back re: your military aviation background?

I accept that as a compliment. Is there any other way?

American aviators a bunch of bums?: Certainly not. Under-prepared in general, surprised by capability of IJN and AF yes. USN was most capable and definitely a match for IJN. Only thing holding them back from dominating them was the F4F.

F4F Junk?: Certainly not, but it was less well endowed than it should have been, and in critical areas. I was a survivable airplane, but fighter pilots do not want to just survive, they want to kill the enemy in droves.

All the bad blood: I'm not sure how that applies to me. I've had relatively few problems with people on this forum, whether I agree with them or not. My rule, be nice until it's time to not be nice...(name the actor and the movie)

If Mdeihl feels that way it's likely because he can bring it on himself. All he needs to do is back up his claims with sources, and data, and perhaps acknowledge people when they make valid points rather than condescending...that is just my objective opinion, because I generally agree in principle, but hold some different points. Saying he is infinitely more knowledgeable here is ignoring quite a few smart people who really do know a thing or two. I'd say he is as knowledgeable as any one else here.

I'm not European, nor left leaning by the way, but I like to avoid politics here.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Doctrine? - he was outnumbered flying an escort mission.

Correct, and he was forced to fly with only one division and one half. These numbers were forced on him at the last minute, he wanted 2 full divs in order to test his weave, unfortunately it likely would not have mattered since he had not had more than a few minutes to chalk talk it with the members of his flight.

Later USN doctrine for the F4F held that close escort was not favorable to the F4F's strong points. High escort was necessary to afford the Wildcat altitude from which to dive on the Zero as they had dived on him at 2500'. He never should have been put in the position he was in, but many factors contributed to this particular case, not the least of which was the lack of a clear cut doctrine that highlighted the F4Fs strengths.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

My rule, be nice until it's time to not be nice...(name the actor and the movie)

Classic 80's B-Movie... Road House, "starring" Patrick Swayze...

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Dino
I'm sure it has something to do with Wright brothers, too.
EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget Newton.

Some years ago, I spent almost 6 months in Bosnia to help ensure that you and your neighbors were "civil" w/one another.

But by your post, I see things haven't changed much on your side of Republika Serbska.

[Dino]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Dino
I'm sure it has something to do with Wright brothers, too.
EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget Newton.

Some years ago, I spent almost 6 months in Bosnia to help ensure that you and your neighbors were "civil" w/one another.

But by your post, I see things haven't changed much on your side of Republika Serbska.

Joe D.
This one is across the "no politics" line.

We've been quite lenient with everyone on this thread - allowing plenty of "mud-slinging" opportunities. But the political line is a hard line. So let's not go there again.

Thanks.

Joe Wilkerson

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: TheElf




Well this is a start, but why are you holding back re: your military aviation background?

I'm not holding back. I had a short and undisquished career as an Army enlisted observer on an aircraft no one's ever heard of - the Grumman OV-1, plus the ubiquitious helicopters. I put my wings in a desk drawer thirty some years ago. Seventies era surveillance systems and a lot of time in NOE dead reckoning navigation is of little relevance here.

If Mdeihl feels that way it's likely because he can bring it on himself. All he needs to do is back up his claims with sources, and data, and perhaps acknowledge people when they make valid points rather than condescending...that is just my objective opinion, because I generally agree in principle, but hold some different points. Saying he is infinitely more knowledgeable here is ignoring quite a few smart people who really do know a thing or two. I'd say he is as knowledgeable as any one else here.

And there's a solect few individuals here who claim to be knowledgeable about aviation history and the dynamics of flight who are not. The "I got 400 flight hours passing coffee to the CAG in my P-3" argument leaves me less than impressed. I'm even less impressed with "you don't own a computer game; hence you know nothing about the history of naval aviation" It just don't get any lamer than that. There's computer games and there's real life history. The two have little in common.

I believe everybody has a right to their opinion and that's how I run my own humble little board. You might be interested in Paul Vebber's little suite at the MCS He's also a naval officer, part of the Matrix staff, and that's his little retreat from the forum rat race. He runs it and he's free to do as he pleases there, which is just the way he likes it.

[wdolson]

I see that some people still didn't grasp the fact that Matrix forum is about info and not about people (and name calling)... sad...

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHA! [:D]

That was a good one! Seriously, I read that and now you owe me a new keyboard.

The Matrix Forums have ALWAYS been about the users and conflict. The Forums are always at a low boil and oft times they explode.

Oh, the stories I could tell about this place. [;)]

I have seen my share of user conflict here, but I wouldn't say the forums are about that. I come here to discuss the game and historical aspects. I have often debated various issues, but I don't see any point in name calling.

My question is, OK, if some people perceive this forum as being about user conflict, why? What's the point? What is accomplished calling somone a moron? I just don't get it.

Bill

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
... My question is, OK, if some people perceive this forum as being about user conflict, why? What's the point? What is accomplished calling somone a moron? I just don't get it.

Nothing is accomplished by it; it's done simply because it's alllowed, i.e., there's no "no moron" line.

but I'm going to have to familiarize myself w/this forum's "rules"; with all the name calling here, I didn't think there were any restrictions except one's own good taste.

My bad.

[David Heath]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

ORIGINAL: TheElf




Well this is a start, but why are you holding back re: your military aviation background?

I'm not holding back. I had a short and undisquished career as an Army enlisted observer on an aircraft no one's ever heard of - the Grumman OV-1, plus the ubiquitious helicopters. I put my wings in a desk drawer thirty some years ago. Seventies era surveillance systems and a lot of time in NOE dead reckoning navigation is of little relevance here.

If Mdeihl feels that way it's likely because he can bring it on himself. All he needs to do is back up his claims with sources, and data, and perhaps acknowledge people when they make valid points rather than condescending...that is just my objective opinion, because I generally agree in principle, but hold some different points. Saying he is infinitely more knowledgeable here is ignoring quite a few smart people who really do know a thing or two. I'd say he is as knowledgeable as any one else here.

And there's a solect few individuals here who claim to be knowledgeable about aviation history and the dynamics of flight who are not. The "I got 400 flight hours passing coffee to the CAG in my P-3" argument leaves me less than impressed. I'm even less impressed with "you don't own a computer game; hence you know nothing about the history of naval aviation" It just don't get any lamer than that. There's computer games and there's real life history. The two have little in common.

I believe everybody has a right to their opinion and that's how I run my own humble little board. You might be interested in Paul Vebber's little suite at the MCS He's also a naval officer, part of the Matrix staff, and that's his little retreat from the forum rat race. He runs it and he's free to do as he pleases there, which is just the way he likes it.

Guys

We do things a little bit different here. Anything starts up here even a little and I will just banning who I feel the trouble makers are. Its been nice and quiet here and its going to stay like that.

David