Page 1 of 2
Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:55 am
by Scott_USN
I seen the best ever documentary on the Air War in the Pacific today. It was all original film and gun footage except for a few animated maps. Great narration and footage even color footage. B-25s at wave top blasting away with the .50 cals to exploding gun camera footage.
No experts with their annoying opinions just an hour of Pacific War.
Clash of Wings: Battle of Bismark Sea.
Although it covered the entire war from Bismark to the end including all the planes and some tactics. Was really good and will get your WiTP motivation going.
All I could think of at the end was "WTF was the Japanese thinking?"
Its a series on the Military Channel if you get a chance to catch it is well worth watching. There are several others that I hope to catch also.
Oh and not sure if this was the right place to post this..
http://military.discovery.com/tv-schedu ... 26.17361.x
Clash of Wings
Return to the Pacific
TV-PG, CC
U.S. aircraft out-muscled Japanese fighters during the Battle of the Bismark Sea. The gull-winged Corsair was referred to by the Japanese as the whispering death.
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:39 am
by m10bob
Just when you think you have studied it all...
Just yesterday I read the part of Bergerud' FIRE IN THE SKY dealing with the 5th AF and the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, and I learned skip-bombing by the Allies not only was truly born there, but was an on-going,consistent tactic from then on against Japanese shipping.
Seems the Brits had been doing it prior to Pearl Harbor, and it was a natural thing for the Aussies and Americans to expound on it.
Pappy Gunn and Gen Kenney went for it in a big way and removed the bombardier from the B 25, replacing that whole compartment with big .50 cal MG's,(14 to a B 25!).
When employed against shipping the effect was devastating.
Since it was a standard tactic, too bad it cannot be employed that often in game without taking horrendous morale hits, and the ever present chant of "unfairness" by the human opponent.[;)]
BTW, Bergerud's book gives the Beaufighter the title of "most-feared anti-shipping strafer".
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:44 am
by saj42
Beaufighter is under-rated by the game - morale hit for low level attacks and no rockets [:(]
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:14 pm
by DuckofTindalos
And it was the Beaufighter, NOT the Corsair, that the Japs called the "Whispering Death".
The F4U was called the "Whistling Death". I've seen this mistake made too many times now...[:@]
And neither name can be conclusively linked to the Japanese; they're both suspected to have been invented by Allied propaganda.
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:38 pm
by Charbroiled
What???? Allied media inventing and sensationalizing the news???? I'm shocked!![X(]
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:51 pm
by ny59giants
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:07 pm
by Charbroiled
Some years ago, someone showed me an article of what a news report of the Battle at Midway might look like if it was written by todays media. It made it sound like the US got it's tail kicked, while still being factually correct. I wish I had kept a copy.
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:13 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: Terminus
And it was the Beaufighter, NOT the Corsair, that the Japs called the "Whispering Death".
The F4U was called the "Whistling Death". I've seen this mistake made too many times now...[:@]
And neither name can be conclusively linked to the Japanese; they're both suspected to have been invented by Allied propaganda.
And in truth it was most likely the allied press who called the Beaufighter whispering death. There are no records of the japanese doing it.
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:27 pm
by DuckofTindalos
I could have sworn that was what I just said...[8|]
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:30 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Some years ago, someone showed me an article of what a news report of the Battle at Midway might look like if it was written by todays media. It made it sound like the US got it's tail kicked, while still being factually correct. I wish I had kept a copy.
Been posted two or three times on the forum... Not funny.
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 5:18 pm
by panda124c
ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: Terminus
And it was the Beaufighter, NOT the Corsair, that the Japs called the "Whispering Death".
The F4U was called the "Whistling Death". I've seen this mistake made too many times now...[:@]
And neither name can be conclusively linked to the Japanese; they're both suspected to have been invented by Allied propaganda.
And in truth it was most likely the allied press who called the Beaufighter whispering death. There are no records of the japanese doing it.
I came across this name reading about the North African Campaign, where the Beaufighter were employed at 50' (feet) for strafing missions, it is suppose to be attributed to the design (accidental) of the engine exhaust, the engine exhaust sound is blocked by the cowling so you don't hear the engine until after the A/C has passed over you.
The nick name for the Corsair is suppose to come from the sound made in a dive because of the bent wing shape.
Who knows, find me a Beaufighter and a Corsair to fly and I'll be happy to test it out. [:D]
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:22 pm
by Scott_USN
It seems you are correct about "Whistling Death" they most likely got it confused. According to the show the Japanese fighter pilots named the F4U the best fighter they had to face. Either way the F4U was a hell of a plane. The F4U didn't need much propaganda.
Anyway good show worth it just for the camera footage.
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:29 am
by RUPD3658
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Some years ago, someone showed me an article of what a news report of the Battle at Midway might look like if it was written by todays media. It made it sound like the US got it's tail kicked, while still being factually correct. I wish I had kept a copy.
I think this is what you were referring to:
Midway Island Demolished. Yorktown, destroyer sunk.
Many US planes lost
June 7, 1942
The United States Navy suffered another blow in its attempt to stem the Japanese juggernaut ravaging the Pacific Ocean. Midway Island, perhaps the most vital U.S. outpost, was pummeled by Japanese Naval aviators. The defending U.S. forces, consisting primarily of antique Buffalo fighters, were competely wiped out while the Japanese attackers suffered few, if any, losses.
In a nearby naval confrontation, the Japanese successfully attacked the Yorktown which was later sunk by a Japanese submarine. A destroyer lashed to the Yorktown was also sunk.
American forces claim to have sunk four Japanese carriers and the cruiser Mogami but those claims were vehemently denied by the Emporer's spokeman.
The American carriers lost an entire squadron of torpedo planes when they failed to link up with fighter escorts. The dive bombers had fighter escort even though they weren't engaged by enemy fighters. The War Dept. refused to answer when asked why the fighters were assigned to the wrong attack groups. The Hornet lost a large number of planes when they couldn't locate the enemy task force. Despite this cavalcade of errors, Admirals Fletcher and Spruance have not been removed.
Code Broken
The failure at Midway is even more disheartening because the U.S. Navy knew the Japanese were coming. Secret documents provided to the NY Times showed that "Magic" intercepts showed the Japanese planned to attack Midway, which they called "AF".
Obsolete Equipment
Some critics blamed the failure at Midway on the use of obsolete aircraft. The inappropriately named Devastator torpedo planes proved no match for the Japanese fighters. Even the Avengers, its schedule replacements, were riddled with bullets and rendered unflyable. Secretary of War Stimson dodged the question saying simply: "You go to war with the Navy you have, not the Navy you want or would like to have". Critics immediately called for his resignation.
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:22 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Some years ago, someone showed me an article of what a news report of the Battle at Midway might look like if it was written by todays media. It made it sound like the US got it's tail kicked, while still being factually correct. I wish I had kept a copy.
I think this is what you were referring to:
Midway Island Demolished. Yorktown, destroyer sunk.
Many US planes lost
June 7, 1942
The United States Navy suffered another blow in its attempt to stem the Japanese juggernaut ravaging the Pacific Ocean. Midway Island, perhaps the most vital U.S. outpost, was pummeled by Japanese Naval aviators. The defending U.S. forces, consisting primarily of antique Buffalo fighters, were competely wiped out while the Japanese attackers suffered few, if any, losses.
In a nearby naval confrontation, the Japanese successfully attacked the Yorktown which was later sunk by a Japanese submarine. A destroyer lashed to the Yorktown was also sunk.
American forces claim to have sunk four Japanese carriers and the cruiser Mogami but those claims were vehemently denied by the Emporer's spokeman.
The American carriers lost an entire squadron of torpedo planes when they failed to link up with fighter escorts. The dive bombers had fighter escort even though they weren't engaged by enemy fighters. The War Dept. refused to answer when asked why the fighters were assigned to the wrong attack groups. The Hornet lost a large number of planes when they couldn't locate the enemy task force. Despite this cavalcade of errors, Admirals Fletcher and Spruance have not been removed.
Code Broken
The failure at Midway is even more disheartening because the U.S. Navy knew the Japanese were coming. Secret documents provided to the NY Times showed that "Magic" intercepts showed the Japanese planned to attack Midway, which they called "AF".
Obsolete Equipment
Some critics blamed the failure at Midway on the use of obsolete aircraft. The inappropriately named Devastator torpedo planes proved no match for the Japanese fighters. Even the Avengers, its schedule replacements, were riddled with bullets and rendered unflyable. Secretary of War Stimson dodged the question saying simply: "You go to war with the Navy you have, not the Navy you want or would like to have". Critics immediately called for his resignation.
Thank you....How true, point taken...................
I have a theory on how to win wars quickly.
Each day the war continues, kill one journalist covering the war.
Lemme see..what was it Sherman said about the press???
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:46 am
by DuckofTindalos
Like I said, not funny... Or even interesting...
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 12:04 am
by dwwindsor
Absolute hogwash. While we merrily execute journalists engaged in the exercise of their constituitional rights shall we also abolish the right of those to speak with whom we disagree?
"I have a theory on how to win wars quickly.
Each day the war continues, kill one journalist covering the war."
What a truly reprehensible and thoroughly unamerican atitude.
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 12:17 am
by ChezDaJez
Like I said, not funny... Or even interesting...
Unfortunately, very true though.
Chez
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 12:46 am
by ChezDaJez
Absolute hogwash.
Is it? When was the last time you saw a news story emphasizing the positive that is happening in Iraq?
Journalists report the tragedies of war because that's what their editors want. The good news gets buried if reported at all. After all, good stories don't sell papers.
It upsets me that the majority of stories are centered around combat casualties. The headlines scream "US serviceman killed in firefight in IRAQ!" Every soldier's death is reported as though it were a defeat for our forces. "3000+ dead, when will it end?"
What you don't hear about is the story leading to his death. You don't hear that this soldier's outfit was engaged in humanitarian aid that insurgements didn't want delivered. Or that the soldiers were conducting a sweep after a car bombing in a civilian marketplace. Or that the operation they were engaged in was a success.
That's not to say the reports of combat casualties should be minimalized. They shouldn't. But let's have the full picture. The government isn't the only organization that slants the truth to fit their needs.
Chez
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 2:10 am
by Scott_USN
ORIGINAL: dwwindsor
Absolute hogwash. While we merrily execute journalists engaged in the exercise of their constituitional rights shall we also abolish the right of those to speak with whom we disagree?
"I have a theory on how to win wars quickly.
Each day the war continues, kill one journalist covering the war."
What a truly reprehensible and thoroughly unamerican atitude.
Unamerican? Most of these so-called Journalist with an agenda today would have been in jail for the duration of the war in WWII America. It was not allowed and FDR had sweeping powers to make it so.
You can't win a war with a 5th column of massive media picking at everything the military needs to do to win. The media has no right to cause harm with the right to free press comes a huge responsibility.
Most of the newspapers in WWII self censored they felt it was their duty and for the good of the war effort. However if they didn't the government would have. Some were jailed.
Although I agree that killing them is not the answer some of the garbage you see in the media today is nothing short of enemy propaganda.
RE: Clash of Wings
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 4:10 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: dwwindsor
Absolute hogwash. While we merrily execute journalists engaged in the exercise of their constituitional rights shall we also abolish the right of those to speak with whom we disagree?
"I have a theory on how to win wars quickly.
Each day the war continues, kill one journalist covering the war."
What a truly reprehensible and thoroughly unamerican atitude.
You mis-spelled Constitution, and American is capitalized.................
I took an oath to defend both.
