Author Topic: Raid on Polesti  (Read 4746 times)

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #90 on: December 19, 2006, 04:40:17 PM »
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please give a warm round of applause to...

Historian, aviator, horticulturist and optical expert...

...Krusty the Clown!
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #91 on: December 19, 2006, 04:41:50 PM »
stuff it

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #92 on: December 19, 2006, 04:43:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
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.


I doubt that they were actually there, i know oldies like to make up stories to prove a point... but the fact is that they DID fly at ultra low level over the farmlands going into Ploesti, not that crap that you have been saying.

As for your statement that they trained at a lower level than they went into combat, that is utterly ridiculous and sums up your entire argument really.

You base your argument on what you think rather than what happened.

Aircraft DID fly that low during the war, these guys were fighting for their lives and would take whatever risks they had to...  Check out this photograph of Do-17's over the English Channel.


Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #93 on: December 19, 2006, 04:44:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please give a warm round of applause to...

Historian, aviator, horticulturist and optical expert...

...Krusty the Clown!


:rofl :rofl

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #94 on: December 19, 2006, 04:51:40 PM »
NO no no no, don't compare German bombers crossing the channel with us bombers flying 10 feet over FIELDS inland.

We all know you can fly 5 feet off the ground if there's absolutely nothing there, like there is with water. Flying so low through CORN FIELDS that you have to dodge farmers? BS. Flying low over water? Not BS. Don't try that. We're talking about flying through a hilly, tree-covered country side, then through a large industrial factory, all below the height of your own aircraft.

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #95 on: December 19, 2006, 04:55:59 PM »
What about the Mosquito crews that flew below rooftop level through the streets of Copenhagen, was that all made up too?  Maybe the guy that hit the Church tower will tell you what happened?

If anything flying across flat fields would be easier than flying over the english channel.  You get more depth perception and the channel is one of the most violent seas in the world (ask the spanish).

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #96 on: December 19, 2006, 04:58:34 PM »
nice pic of one of the escorting 64 Squadron Mustangs which had so much trouble keeping up with the Mossies :)


Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #97 on: December 19, 2006, 05:00:19 PM »
The pathetic thing here, is that Krusty is wrong, has been proven wrong, denies the statements made by true WW2 vets (of course they were wrong, they were there), and has yet to prove anything of value besides his patently false statements.  Yet he still continues on like the broken factless record he is.  

Tell ya what krusty, lets see your 2 yr old 80 foot tall evergreen.  I believe Guiness wants you to fill in some paperwork.  :rolleyes:

Gawd I hate liars.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #98 on: December 19, 2006, 05:07:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty

Oh, FYI: The B24s weren't 30 feet off the ground. That's patently absurd, as most buildings are higher than that. By "low" they were talking 3-4k, but the bombers were scattered across different altitudes, up to 12 or 14k, if I recall properly.



Krusty, this is the quote that started you down this path.  You said no one was on the deck and that they were 3-4K at the lowest and the rest 12-14K

This is wrong.

The pilot of "Buzzin Bear" flown by Cpt. Bill Cameron had asked the RAF Flak gunners who they'd shoot at first on a low level attack. They said the highest.  He took his plane down "as low as he dare" and made it out.

They expected 50% casualties.  It was a one of a kind mission.  Seems to me the Dambusters Lancasters flew their famous raid at 60 feet at night and at a specific speed to be able to get the bombs to work correctly.  They pulled it off, not sure why you seem so persistant in arguing this one.

Bottom line is the Ploesti raid was low level on the deck with planes down to 30-40 feet trying to get through.  Lloyd Hughes MOH was won at Ploesti.  He was a mass of flames and had to pull up to try and give any of his crew time to bail.  two bailed but all died.  He sure as heck wasn't at 3-4K

Just let it go.  You got this one wrong.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #99 on: December 19, 2006, 05:13:22 PM »
Ball you arse, I said that either they didn't describe things properly, or that perhaps you mis-read them, or perhaps they misunderstood some of the details. Show me the GD grass stains on the bellies of the B24s after the mission. It's such a novel thing there should be thousands of photos of this after such a novel mission. Show me the paint stripped off from the millions of pieces of grass brushing against the B24 bellies at 200mph. There's a difference between "low" and "oh God, oh God, we're doomed, I'm sorry crew I've killed us all!!! *splat*"

I've said this, and I stick by it. All the twisting you want won't change that I've said this, and not some exaggerated version like you're pretending I said.

As for your P51: Look at the size of the windows. Including the sky light. Yes that Pony is low, yes it took guts. No it's not about to hit the rooftop. The P51 has a 37' wingspan, but in the photo it's each wing is only as tall as the 6 to 8 foot tall window. That puts the P51 3 times further out from the photo than the edge of the rooftop.

You seen the photo of the 3-foot long spider monkey in Iraq?

Looks like it, but the actual spider is around 8-10 inches, and it was eating another spider (doubling its length) and it was shot using a wide angle lens, and all of it has been debunked on snopes.com.

You just try to mis-represent photos for your own claims. Hell you've even stopped debating it, which is the reason I returned to this post. You're just patting Bodhi on the back now. Ugh.. I hope it's on the back. *shudder*

Regardless, yes they were "low" but they were NOT suicidal. It doesn't do any nation good to have its pilots die before they reach the objective.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #100 on: December 19, 2006, 05:14:36 PM »
Guppy, in the first post I said "if I recall" and since have said I was wrong about that.

They're harping about 3-4k and we've moved past that. My point, always was and still is, that 30 feet is absurd.

Offline Big Mickey

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 90
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #101 on: December 19, 2006, 05:17:41 PM »
Okay, so I have read the arguments presented here and being as I have a photographic background I need to add that there are some things that are being missed here. First off you have no idea what lens was used to create the image that is spurring on this debate over height of B-24s.

Without knowing that you can not define the height of the trees which means you can not define the height of the bombers. Despite the fact that you are all professional arborists as well as historians. So.... let me help bring this to a conclusion for all of you...

Lets assume for the sake of argument that the lens that was used is a 35mm lens at an F-stop of 2.4. Lets also assume, for the sake of argument, that the lens was at its fullest wide angle setting. This would place the glass 2.365 MM from the focal plane of the film.

Again we are going to have to do some assuming here and say that the image was taken from a distance of 150 feet from the aircraft in the foreground.

Okay a starting point... We can now take the distance of the bomber and divide that by the distance from the film that the glass in this supposed camera is. After making these calculation we come up with the following conclusion...





















This thread is reminicent of the above two monkeys trying to .... a football!!

Notice I used the international type of football to insure our cross the pond friends get the full effect :aok

Big Mickey

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #102 on: December 19, 2006, 05:19:16 PM »
I see the K-man is at it again.:D


Tilt those windmills .




Bronk


vvvvvvvvvv
See Rule #4

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #103 on: December 19, 2006, 05:20:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty


:rofl

I never said it was below rooftop, i said it was a nice picture.

I said that oldies like to exaggerate things, but they DID fly at ultra low level - i am not saying that they were flying at 250mph skidding along the grass.

i have answered each of your statements with a counter argument and facts wherever possible...  i have hardly been an arse.

I guess KC135's cant do low level passes either?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2RZGw3Lh3s

Offline Platano

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1325
Raid on Polesti
« Reply #104 on: December 19, 2006, 05:20:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Big Mickey
Okay, so I have read the arguments presented here and being as I have a photographic background I need to add that there are some things that are being missed here. First off you have no idea what lens was used to create the image that is spurring on this debate over height of B-24s.

Without knowing that you can not define the height of the trees which means you can not define the height of the bombers. Despite the fact that you are all professional arborists as well as historians. So.... let me help bring this to a conclusion for all of you...

Lets assume for the sake of argument that the lens that was used is a 35mm lens at an F-stop of 2.4. Lets also assume, for the sake of argument, that the lens was at its fullest wide angle setting. This would place the glass 2.365 MM from the focal plane of the film.

Again we are going to have to do some assuming here and say that the image was taken from a distance of 150 feet from the aircraft in the foreground.

Okay a starting point... We can now take the distance of the bomber and divide that by the distance from the film that the glass in this supposed camera is. After making these calculation we come up with the following conclusion...





















This thread is reminicent of the above two monkeys trying to .... a football!!

Notice I used the international type of football to insure our cross the pond friends get the full effect :aok

Big Mickey




:rofl :rofl
Army of Muppets


Fly Luftwaffe.