OT - P-47 Thunderbolt Video

[DuncanLang]

Interesting video of 362 Fighter Group, a P-47 unit in Europe in WWII. Video was originally B&W, but apparently was later "color enhamced."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &pr=googsl

[wdolson]

That footage was shot in color.  The Navy got lots of good publicity with the color movie about the Yorktown that the USAAF started provided color film to their photo units in the field hoping to put together something as successful as the Yorktown movie (I think it was called Fighting Lady). 

My father was a combat photographer in the Pacific.  He said it was failed from the start because on a carrier a lot of the action comes to you, whereas in the air force, the base is safely behind the lines.  He got some combat footage from the nose a B-25, but it wasn't as dramatic as the stuff the Navy had.

Bill

[Anthropoid]

That is a very cool video. Thanks.

[tocaff]

A country that went to war in the '40s with color film was a reflection of wealth.

[wdolson]

Early color film was difficult to work with.  It had a shorter shelf life than B&W film and I believe the emultion layers sometimes separated.   B&W film has one layer, color has three: cyan, magenta, and yellow (the negative equivalents of red, blue, and green).

There is existing color German and British film from that era too.  The US has a lot more color footage in its archives.  PBS and the History Channel have both had series on WW II in color that used some of this film from the National Archives.  It is a measure of the resources the US had at its disposal that it could afford the infrastructure to shoot in color during that time.  The photographic people needed extra training, you had to expect that some of the film was going to go bad before use, and it was much more expensive to produce.  The US also led the world in film technology before the war.  Eastman Kodak was the dominant power in photographic film for virtually all of the 20th century.  So the US had  lead in color film technology.

Also note, before the war, Fantasia and the Wizard of Oz had been done in color.  It was a whizz bang thing, but it was around.

Bill

[niceguy2005]

What I wouldn't have given to fly one of those....

[Gem35]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

What I wouldn't have given to fly one of those....

Your spot in the threadwar game perhaps? Hmmmm??[;)]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

What I wouldn't have given to fly one of those....

Your spot in the threadwar game perhaps? Hmmmm??[;)]

Ok, you come up with a P-47 I can fly and I'll give up my spot in Threadwar. [;)]

For that matter a P-40, P-38 or even a P-39 would do. [:D]

[Jaroen]

Nice video, thank you for sharing!

What struck me as odd are some scenes where the aircraft are firing at "ordinary" buildings which succeedingly happen to blow up. Good example at 2:47! Now what pilot would decide to fire at any which building which happens to be in the area? None! So assuming there's good reason to shoot the building, looks like an ammo dump, this leads to the conclusion some intelligence has been gathered concerning these objects. By the French resistance perhaps? Together with the excellent recon job by the pilots, must be very hard to spot one specific single building, I find it amazing to watch it all put into operation successfully.

Does anyone know more about such cooperation between the resistance in France and the allied forces? Or is it perhaps a result from intelligence gathering by aerial photography? Or both of course!?

[MadmanRick]

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

Nice video, thank you for sharing!

What struck me as odd are some scenes where the aircraft are firing at "ordinary" buildings which succeedingly happen to blow up. Good example at 2:47! Now what pilot would decide to fire at any which building which happens to be in the area? None! So assuming there's good reason to shoot the building, looks like an ammo dump, this leads to the conclusion some intelligence has been gathered concerning these objects. By the French resistance perhaps? Together with the excellent recon job by the pilots, must be very hard to spot one specific single building, I find it amazing to watch it all put into operation successfully.

Does anyone know more about such cooperation between the resistance in France and the allied forces? Or is it perhaps a result from intelligence gathering by aerial photography? Or both of course!?

I could be wrong, but the 362nd Fighter Group was based at Etain-Rouvres (misspelled in the video) Air Base in France from November '44 and I am pretty sure that the targets they were flying against were no longer in France, but in Belgium, Holland and mostly Germany. Also, once the Allies moved out of France in late '44, pretty much any and everything was a target, including nondescript buildings (probably on the edge of airfields or other high value targets). Since the main mission for tactical fighter groups such as the 362nd was close air support, they pretty much went out on a daily basis searching for targets of opportunity and in support of ground troops at the FEBA. I don't believe that they received the same kinds of intel that bomber groups received. The battle was a bit too fluid for them to get those kinds of intel, at least on a daily basis.

[patrickl]

Thanks for the link! Those pilot didn't need guided missiles and smart bombs - they are pin point accurate![&o]

[Jaroen]

@Madman - I wasn't aware of any specifics on the 362nd Fighter Group, thanks. You're right about that free roaming role I think but this doesn't explain the shooting of that bulding in the video to me. I find it very hard to believe any pilot to fire on just any house just for the chance Germans might be present. Would you say from the video that house was anywhere close to some target? Maybe but it doesn't show. So it's my thinking there's more to that specific action than what meets the eye. I think it was known to be an ammo dump. Because fighter/bombers were more accurate in destroying small targets it isn't like they were never tasked with precision attacks which included precise planning. That planning usually included all intel from all possible sources and a known ammo dump would definately be on the target list.

And isn't it so that ground troops had some airforce liaison personnel present to direct air support? That might be an explanation. It's very hard for a pilot to find such targets without proper direction or intel. Radio messages are probably not very descriptive (time constraints etc) but it was used. Were there any other devices used in designating targets??? Smoke signals?

And since when do houses explode so violently? It's not some Hollywood movie, right?  [;)]

[John Lansford]

It's entirely possible that the buildings being strafed had been spotted by recon as being used for storage or some other purpose earlier, too.  Since they were conducting ground support missions they could have been directed onto them by ground troops too.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

And since when do houses explode so violently? It's not some Hollywood movie, right? [;)]

Sure?
Imho most scenes in the film are staged. But it is nice to watch and made quite well.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

It's entirely possible that the buildings being strafed had been spotted by recon as being used for storage or some other purpose earlier, too. Since they were conducting ground support missions they could have been directed onto them by ground troops too.

I think in at least a couple instances those explosions were rockets being fired. However, that one building seemed to blow sky high.

[MadmanRick]

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

@Madman - I wasn't aware of any specifics on the 362nd Fighter Group, thanks. You're right about that free roaming role I think but this doesn't explain the shooting of that bulding in the video to me. I find it very hard to believe any pilot to fire on just any house just for the chance Germans might be present. Would you say from the video that house was anywhere close to some target? Maybe but it doesn't show. So it's my thinking there's more to that specific action than what meets the eye. I think it was known to be an ammo dump. Because fighter/bombers were more accurate in destroying small targets it isn't like they were never tasked with precision attacks which included precise planning. That planning usually included all intel from all possible sources and a known ammo dump would definately be on the target list.

And isn't it so that ground troops had some airforce liaison personnel present to direct air support? That might be an explanation. It's very hard for a pilot to find such targets without proper direction or intel. Radio messages are probably not very descriptive (time constraints etc) but it was used. Were there any other devices used in designating targets??? Smoke signals?

And since when do houses explode so violently? It's not some Hollywood movie, right? [;)]

As far as Germany went, everything was considered a target. During World War II distinctions were not made for civilian targets and military targets, it was all "fair game". Therefore a building could (and did) hide troops, supplies and ammunition, therefore it was targeted. Just as the heavy bombers did with carpet bombing citys and the like.

Regarding liaison between ground and air forces, there were some rudimentary systems in place (mostly vhf radio), but nowhere near the level of Vietnam-era close air support and later. There were, to my knowledge, some Air Corp FACs (Forward Air Controllers) but most, if not all were of the airborne variety (in Piper Cubs etc.) As far as target marking goes, there was little in the way of that during WWII. I think mostly what you had was perhaps friendly troops marking their forward positions with smoke, but no capability that I am aware of, for marking enemy targets. The black and white invasion stripes, were added to Allied aircraft after some friendly aircraft were shot down and it was decided that they would aid in identifying friend vs. foe. There was also some attempt at marking friendly vehicles, but not with much success (that actually remains a problem even today).

The way I understand the uses of tactical air in Europe in 44-45, basically these guys just went out and flew around in an area, destroying targets as they went. They may have gotten really general instructions such as fly to this railyard or airbase, but most of it was simply "interdiction" and they destroyed whatever they came across, rather than specific targets. There was some use of what would be known today as "close air support", but it was reserved for major operations (such as Cobra or Market Garden) and not a day in and day out task.

P.S. I was a FAC in the USAF for 6 years from '78 to '84 and I am much more conversant with those tactics, although I am aware of some of the history of close air support, but not all, by any means.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: MadmanRick


The way I understand the uses of tactical air in Europe in 44-45, basically these guys just went out and flew around in an area, destroying targets as they went. They may have gotten really general instructions such as fly to this railyard or airbase, but most of it was simply "interdiction" and they destroyed whatever they came across, rather than specific targets. There was some use of what would be known today as "close air support", but it was reserved for major operations (such as Cobra or Market Garden) and not a day in and day out task.

P.S. I was a FAC in the USAF for 6 years from '78 to '84 and I am much more conversant with those tactics, although I am aware of some of the history of close air support, but not all, by any means.

My understanding is that a lot of the tactical ground missions were like you described, but the "area" could be very specific. For instance the orders might be proceed to the intersection of two country roads and destroy what is there, which often was a relief column, supply convoy, etc. However, sometimes orders could be very specific, such as blow up the shack that handles the switching at rairoad junction XYZ. This quite literally may have been a shack.

This was usually done on the basis of "recent" intel, recent meaning it was collected in the last few days or weeks.

[wdolson]

Forward Area Controllers were introduced in France in 1944.  The practice spread to all theaters soon after this.  During daylight hours, the 9th AF would always have some P-47s airborne and milling about behind the line.  The FAC was usually a 9th AF fighter pilot who had reached his maximum mission count and been taken off flying duties.  He would be embedded with the troops, with special radio equipment to communicate with the airborne elements. 

There were several ways to point out targets to the airborne elements.  One way was to lay out brightly colored fabric in a sort of arrow pointing to the target.  The father of my chiropractor when I lived in Seattle had been a P-51 pilot in the Pacific in 1945.  He had to do a stint as a FAC at Okinawa and he found it terrifying.  He said the fighters would start firing over friendly lines, so there would be a hail of hot .50 casings moving fast falling on the troops' heads.  Putting out the fabric under fire was also a high risk proposition.

By Vietnam, the FAC had evolved, but the modern FAC can trace his (or her) lineage back to the fighter pilots who risked all embedded with the infantry in WW II.

Bill

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Forward Area Controllers were introduced in France in 1944. The practice spread to all theaters soon after this. During daylight hours, the 9th AF would always have some P-47s airborne and milling about behind the line. The FAC was usually a 9th AF fighter pilot who had reached his maximum mission count and been taken off flying duties. He would be embedded with the troops, with special radio equipment to communicate with the airborne elements.

There were several ways to point out targets to the airborne elements. One way was to lay out brightly colored fabric in a sort of arrow pointing to the target. The father of my chiropractor when I lived in Seattle had been a P-51 pilot in the Pacific in 1945. He had to do a stint as a FAC at Okinawa and he found it terrifying. He said the fighters would start firing over friendly lines, so there would be a hail of hot .50 casings moving fast falling on the troops' heads. Putting out the fabric under fire was also a high risk proposition.

By Vietnam, the FAC had evolved, but the modern FAC can trace his (or her) lineage back to the fighter pilots who risked all embedded with the infantry in WW II.

Bill

I always thought forward spotting duty of any sort must be kind of tough be it artillery or FAC.

My dad doesn't talk much about his military experience. All he will say is that he was in the artillery in Korea. He has told me that he did forward spotting. According to him the Army found out he could do math so they gave him a slide rule and stuck him in a fox hole...and I'm not sure he ever forgave them for it. [:D]

The above story is quite interesting. THe pilot hit his number of missions so they rewarded him by putting him on the ground under fire????[X(] I think my response would be no thanks I'll keep flying my P-47 up here where it's relatively safe.

[wdolson]

Bill Dunn, who was the first American ace (Eagle Squadron) was pulled into the USAAF and flew P-47s with the 9th AF.  When he reached the end of his tour, he expected to be sent back home, but instead they offered him a choice between being a FAC in France, or China.  He chose China because at least he could get some leave stateside.  As it was, the war was almost over by the time he got to China.  Unfortunately, the civil war started brewing up and they wouldn't let him go home.  He remained as a military advisor to Chaing Kai Chek's forces for another year.  By the time he finally got home, his wife was ready to divorce him.

Bill