Raid on Polesti

[Ball]

They are clearly closer to the camera than the bombers.

Ok.... so even if they are...

What do you say about these tree's lining the canal, how high do you think they are? 350 feet?

[Krusty]

Masher, don't go looking like a tool yourself, either.

I can buy 100' off the ground. I don't buy 30. I don't buy less than 30. You might be right about my tree's age, but the size remains. It was prety damn tall and extremely scrawny at the same time. It was barely 2.5" diameter with the trunk, but as tall as my house. You can tell when a tree is young, the proportions aren't quite there yet. The trees in the photos look like fully grown trees. They should/would all be taller than a young sapling.

"The picture you are dispelling has your typical Evergreens (ranging from 25-35' tall and small Broadleafs (15-25' tall Maples that are NOT mature). The LARGEST tree is a 2-3 trunk Maple or Oak near the left side of the pic (that you chopped), which is the ONLY 50-60' tall tree in the entire picture."

Show me this tree in the photo. I don't know about you, but I've been living around evergreens for a long time. I see a damn sight more than "25-35" feet with 'em. You see a lot of them north of the Phoenix valley (drive up by Flagstaff) and here in Colorado they're abundant as well. I've seen some evergreens that are probably 80' tall up in the mountains (where humans haven't cut them down yet). My personal reference is that evergreens get tall as hell, and I'm sorry but just saying they're short when I've seen 'em tall, I'm going to believe my eyes.

When I drew up my little bitmap, I was being very generous. I was pointing out the idea, not the specific measurements. I used a very small tree size (erring on the side of caution), but even so, even using smaller trees, these planes are nowhere near 30' off the ground.

[Masherbrum]

At the instant that picture was TAKEN, they weren't, but who's to dispell the accounts that either before or after they WEREN'T at 30'?    Ack is useless, and so would small arms fire.   By the time fighters were scrambled they'd be long gone.

The heights given are VERY CLOSE to the heights in the PICTURE.   I've seen 100ft+ Sitka Spruce's and Northern Pine's in Washington and Oregon.   There are NOT any "mature trees" in that photo.   They appear to be mostly Maples and would definately fall into the "these were planted around the time the Oil Fields were completed."

I have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT some of those were at 30'.   Why?  I believe the Veterans, they don't lie.   ESPECIALLY Men from that Generation who fought in WWII and Korea, totally different breed of Men.

[Ball]

Originally posted by Krusty
When I drew up my little bitmap, I was being very generous. I was pointing out the idea, not the specific measurements. I used a very small tree size (erring on the side of caution), but even so, even using smaller trees, these planes are nowhere near 30' off the ground.

That was not the argument of this picture.  I pointed out your error.



I believe the tree he is referring to is on the near side of the canal in the bottom left of this picture, the top of it is at the bottom of the red line on the left.  that looks like a small tree, im guessing 20-30 feet.

Which makes the aircraft approximately 60 - 90 feet off the ground (remembering of course that all of the tree's are in the background), judging by the rear and highest aircraft.  The aircraft which took the photo is considerably lower.

[Krusty]

Ball, some of that looks like trees, and some of it like flames/smoke.

The bombers are most definitely NOT further than the trees! As you move something 2x out it is 1/4th as large. As you move it 3x out it is 1/9th as large. You cube the distance to get the relative size.

The clarity of focus and the quality of lenses at the time (ww2, camera technology not up to the level we've got today), and the focus across all depths seems to indicate this is not a telephoto lens, and fairly normal. The closest bomber is the closest object on the film.

The bomber behind it is 60% of its length. That means it's less than twice as far as the closest bomber. The furthest bomber is about 70% or so smaller than that one, indicating a steady spacing (a formation) of the bombers.

I put the furthest (smallest) bomber just at the closest shoreline. I estimate the river to be 150' wide. Not too wide. The wingspan of a B24 is more than 100', if you recall.

[Krusty]

I'm not sure what to think about the "close" tree. It doesn't really look like a tree to me. It does, yet it almost looks like it's hanging over the water (are those reflections in the water?). When I first viewed the photo I couldn't tell if it was a flak puff or a tree. It's rather abnormally skinny and tall for such a small cluster of branches for a tree. Most trees branch out low to the ground, unless they're grown in tubes without sunlight (and they go up before branching out) in experiments.

EDIT: Masher, they'd be the first to tell you they're just men. Mere mortals. They didn't do anything spectacular. Even today's soldiers, the only thing spectacular about them is that they choose to serve. These are men that drink, abuse wives, go to church, all kinds from every walk of life. These type of men also claim to have shot down folks that they didn't, or saw things that didn't happen, and so on. I'm not necessarily saying they lied, but they can be mistaken, especially when their life is at risk and could die any second of any mission.

For example, the quote posted earlier about flying past round hay bales, and shooting them with the dorsal gun. Probably didn't happen that way. Hay bales are fairly short, and even if they were pretty big, they'd have to be 15' tall for the TOP gun to be able to shoot 'em. He may have said it that way, but it doesn't add up to me. I'm not saying he's lying. I'm saying maybe he didn't describe it properly, or maybe he was thinking of something else.

[Ball]

Originally posted by Krusty
You are wrong, actually. The trees aren't foreground. Foreground would be the bombers. The trees are behind them.

Originally posted by Krusty
The bombers are most definitely NOT further than the trees!
....
I put the furthest (smallest) bomber just at the closest shoreline.
 

WTF?  So, the far bomber is over the edge of the canal, which is infront of the near trees.

[Krusty]

You seemed to imply that the closest trees were closer than the closest bomber. I disagreed. If that is NOT what you said, perhaps you worded it poorly. If that was not your thought, then my mistake. However, the approx. distance of the bombers was an unrelated estimation of distance based on relative size of the bombers.


EDIT: As for your Diel quote.... Did you ever stop to ask. What antennas? This is what I'm talking about. There are no "antennas" underneath a B-24. There is a single wire antenna that runs from the centerline from about the center of each bomb bay door (so mid point of each door) and only protrudes 3" or so from the belly. It doesn't stick down, and unless the grass and flowers were growing perfectly FLAT sideways, it probably wouldn't have got caught in this wire antenna.

[Ball]

Originally posted by Krusty
EDIT: As for your Diel quote.... Did you ever stop to ask. What antennas? This is what I'm talking about. There are no "antennas" underneath a B-24.

No i didnt, but since you mention it.



Are those "antennas"?

[Krusty]

Try looking up a B-24D, not the latest model Js with radar warning antennas on the nose.

[Ball]

I have never seen a D up close

These some?

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Krusty
Bodhi, you're an idiot. Why your post hasn't been skuzzified I don't know.
 

So I am idiot...  cool.  You are still wrong.  My bet the reason this has not been closed is that most everyone here knows you are full of crap, and are more than likely happy to see someone stand up to your factless discussions.

Originally posted by Krusty
As a reply to your juvenile explosion, I'm going to say this.

You want to know how tall a tree is? Step away from the GD computer and go outside and STAND NEXT TO ONE, dipchit. It's called reference. It's called "look at the freaking pictures YOU ARE USING AS SOURCES" and see what info is in the picture. Nowhere in any of the combat photos are the planes anywhere under 150 feet. The ONLY one that's under 100 feet is a training photo (and we all know that missions go off 100% exactly as they are trained for, right? Right.

I have been away from the computer all morning.  As a matter of fact, I was looking at the very trees you claim grow 80 feet in two years and are about 150 feet tall when they are adults....  Ya see, the funny thing is, we just spent a sizeable chunk of cash putting in Engleman Spruce, Limber Pine, and Colorado Blue Spruce.  One of the big topics of discussion was the height these types of evergreens grow, especially considering ou facility is on an airport.  For your facts, the Engleman average 30 to 50 feet tall, Limber's about 25 to 40 feet tall, and Colorado Blue Spruce grow from 15 to 80 feet tall.  Pretty far cry from a 150 foot tall.  So, as far as I am concerned Krusty, you are wrong again.  As for the combat photos, we have all seen them, we have all read eye witness accounts.  Most of the latter describe B-24's avoiding smoke stacks over Ploesti, ducking behind hills, and in some cases pulling up to avoid fences in fields.  All this done to increase the level of surprise, and limit exposure to flak.  Because the combat photos show the 24's low, far below the height of 12k feet you mentioned them bombing from, I will side with the people that were there, and the orders as printed.  

A good reference for tree heights, o factless one....
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/spfiles/SP517.pdf

Originally posted by Krusty
Do yourself a favor and stop trying to be something you're not. Right or smart, take your pick, but stop trying to be either.

Can you please translate that last sentence into something resembling coherent english?  I suspect you are trying to say that I do not know what I am talking about.  So be it, thats your perogative to live in a dream world, but I think that you should realise you are wrong as usual, and most of us are really sick of it.

[storch]

a 150 ft tall tree is wildly tall.  the tallest trees may be the sequoias at 435 feet, followed by eucalyptus trees on the island of tasmania these being about 210 feet tall.  I'd be surprised about 150 feet tall trees in europe and even further surprised by trees attaining those heights in anything less than centuries.  I'd be interested in seeing some info on these trees krusty.

[Platano]

A debate over how high the Bombers really were??


This thread makes me

[Krusty]

Ball: The 2 underneath are the ones I mentioned (they have a wire strung between them) and the one under the chin is some sort of pitot tube.

Tell me if you honestly believe anything could catch on these.

So a pilot says he had a piece of grass on a pitot tube (or caught in the wire). Was there widespread reports of grass stains on the bellies of hundreds of B24s landing after the mission? Were there widespread reports of all the paint being worn off from the prop tips from flying through fields so low the prop blades got worn down? Were there reports of the paint being scratched off the bellies all the way from stem to stern on numerous B24s?

So how does 1 piece of grass and 1 flower get there (and that pitot tube, whatever it is, is above the bottom of the fuselage)? Maybe it was blown there during taxi after the plane touched down? Who knows. I don't think they got it by FLYING through fields so low that they caught grass on themselves. At that point you've basically crashed the plane.