Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: VVV on December 12, 2006, 12:51:25 PM
-
I thought it would be really awesome if one of the scenarios on AH would be about Operation Titlewave. Imagine a bunch of B-24's flying 30 to 40 feet off the ground to attack an oil refinery, which is infested with ack and then have to fly back on fumes and while being attacked by 109's.
Just an idea for the community and the awesome staff who organizes AH events. :)
-
titlewave? polesti?
-
Sorry if I spelled Ploesti wrong. Here is a link about the mission.
http://www.ww2guide.com/oil.shtml
-
We ran that one back in Airwarrior. We also included the June 44 low alt P38 raid of the 1st and 82nd Fighter Groups.
All those 38s were something to see :)
-
Originally posted by VVV
I thought it would be really awesome if one of the scenarios on AH would be about Operation Titlewave. Imagine a bunch of B-24's flying 30 to 40 feet off the ground to attack an oil refinery, which is infested with ack and then have to fly back on fumes and while being attacked by 109's.
Just an idea for the community and the awesome staff who organizes AH events. :)
Just have REsmith on the opposing side, he'll "ordnance vulch" you guys to start.
-
I have a DVD set (WW2: Road to Victory.) It contains some interesting video and detail about the Ploesti raid. I'd be willing to participate.
-
I'd love to if we had an IAR to fly.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
I'd love to if we had an IAR to fly.
You jus Reminded me of the Grupul 7 Vanatoare Days for some reason :)
-
Originally posted by Treize69
I'd love to if we had an IAR to fly.
You and I are the only ones who wish this plane would be brought into AH. :)
-
All in due time.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing it.
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.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You and I are the only ones who wish this plane would be brought into AH. :)
DOnt forget me :D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I wouldn't mind seeing it.
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.
(http://www.tonbiesemaat.nl/heutsz/img/ploesti.jpg)
(http://www.b17sam.com/files/xb24s_ploesti.jpg)
(http://photos2.flickr.com/1979079_c2b88c6f17_m.jpg)
(http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~jaf/caf/pictures/ploesti1_640.gif)
(http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~jaf/caf/pictures/ploesti2_640.gif)
Right as usual.
-
Gotta check your Facts Krusty. Low alt practice flight for Ploesti
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1165972839_ploesti.jpg)
-
High enough to escape blast damage from their own drops, but very low, yes.
30 feet wouldn't be enough to clear many target buildings, although en route, im sure they went that low at times.
The one flying over the smoke stack is @ 200 feet up. Certainly low compared to the 15-20k they normally did.
Forgot to add: Its been done several times in AH with B-17s, dunno if they ever re ran it with B-24s. Was fun.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You and I are the only ones who wish this plane would be brought into AH. :)
not so... ;)
-
Sounds like a fun one!
<> VVV!
-
Originally posted by thndregg
I have a DVD set (WW2: Road to Victory.) It contains some interesting video and detail about the Ploesti raid. I'd be willing to participate.
you guys would not like what still around ploesti. you can still find lots parts and remains. around ploesti to this day. been there seen old rusting parts and half of planes in forrest. not great sight. most planes were burned beyond belief. listening to my father inlaw tell stories of romainians try to save those shot down, and if town save american mayor and his entire family shot. Even if he had nothing to do with hiding american. ploesti was a big mistake by americans. bad info they thought romainians wouldn't fire. well so did germans thats why no romainians manning guns.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Gotta check your Facts Krusty. Low alt practice flight for Ploesti
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1165972839_ploesti.jpg)
Krusty has never let little things like facts get in the way of his "all knowing" fantasy world... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by 96Delta
Sounds like a fun one!
<> VVV!
Bro!!!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I wouldn't mind seeing it.
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.
They had to come in low.
Thanks for the support Guppy and Treize :)
-
Is it possible that this can become a scenario? Just curious :cool:
-
Like I said, 30-40 feet is patently absurd. Aside from the "practice" photo, they're at least 100 feet or more. Those smokestacks themselves are probably 150 feet tall.
There's a big difference between 30 feet and 100 feet.
-
A much bigger difference between 100 feet and "up to 12 or 14k, if I recall properly" though. :rolleyes:
-
Krusty will never admit when he is wrong, he's too much of 733t WW2 historical facts genius and "all knowing" to do otherwise.... :rolleyes:
-
bodhi will openly admit he doesn't like anything I say, no matter what I say.
A B24 itself is 60+ feet long with a 100 foot wingspan. Flying "30-40" feet above the ground is literally HALF its length.
I'm the first to admit I don't know too much about Ploesti, and that I've only read a few things about it. I *DO* know, however, that even claiming that you run bombing missions at 30 feet is a false claim that you cannot back up. Look at the photos postd. Most of those look to be at least 250 feet. The one where the b24 is more distant looks at least 500-1000 feet, but hard to tell from the framing of the photo.
Even the lowest alt photo, the training photo, has them flying at least above the trees, which look to be 40+ feet tall, and the planes at LEAST 10+ feet above them.
Anything you say to the contrary is BS, Bodhi. Bombers cannot fly at 30 feet to a target, because most things sticking up from the ground (trees, buildings, power lines, smoke stakes, you name it) are 30 feet or more.
That was my point. I think it's self-evident. Quit flaming just because you're a BK.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
A much bigger difference between 100 feet and "up to 12 or 14k, if I recall properly" though. :rolleyes:
You misquote me on purpose. I had thought they were 4k or so, and I typed that much, and then said "but they were also scattered up to 12k or 14k" I never even IMPLIED they didn't fly below this. Please don't jump in with the retards in the BK clan. They hold irrational grudges and let it show every time they reply to me.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Like I said, 30-40 feet is patently absurd. Aside from the "practice" photo, they're at least 100 feet or more. Those smokestacks themselves are probably 150 feet tall.
There's a big difference between 30 feet and 100 feet.
There's a bigger difference between 100 and 3,000. That's not a grudge, that's simple math.
-
I was posting to refute an absurd claim, but you can't just say "Oh, 30 feet is absurd" without offering a more reasonable alternative. I wasn't sure, but I read something about the majority coming in around 4k. It was a long time ago, and I don't know if it's wrong or not. Regardless, my point centered around "30 feet" Sorry for the brevity of my initial reply. I'll try to clarify better from now on.
-
Krusty, didn't you read anything off the website I gave?
Just in case you didn't see it, here it is again. Read through it and then you'll realize why I said 30 to 40 feet. With all do respect, please stop criticizing without any real hard evidence.
-
http://www.ww2guide.com/oil.shtml#halpro
-
Here is a quote from this website: http://http://www.ww2guide.com/oil.shtml#halpro
"To achieve surprise, the B-24s, designed for high altitude attacks at 18,000-feet and above, attacked at 200-feet, with some formations ending up at 30 to 50 feet."
-
Sorry for the messed up link. Here it is.http://www.ww2guide.com/oil.shtml#halpro
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You and I are the only ones who wish this plane would be brought into AH. :)
I have never before heard of this plane. (http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2005/01/stuff_eng_profile_iar80.htm)
-
I never heard of that plane either scotty. She's a beauty.
Here is another link about Ploesti.
http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/usa/operationtidalwave.html
-
Hey Chuck if HT brings that plane to AH you should "un-Disband" Grupul 7 Vanatoare....... just a thought....
-
If we get the IAR, it'll be Grupul 9. Started out in IARs, ended up in 109s.
-
Originally posted by VVV
you'll realize why I said 30 to 40 feet. With all do respect, please stop criticizing without any real hard evidence.
I don't care WHAT website posts it. Use the gifts God gave you (logic and common sense) and if you don't have those, I'm sorry nobody can help you. None of the images so far have shown the B24s anywhere near "30" feet. Even the training one (the only one that comes close) has a margin of safety above trees that themselves are 40 feet or more.
The IAR 80 has been requested many times before. It would be nice, but not too different from a "poor-man's version" of the 190A. Less firepower, but slightly better manuverability.
It, like the Brewster, will get its day.... someday. My guess is "not anytime soon", but someday.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
If we get the IAR, it'll be Grupul 9. Started out in IARs, ended up in 109s.
If they EVER, I'll join :)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't care WHAT website posts it. Use the gifts God gave you (logic and common sense) and if you don't have those, I'm sorry nobody can help you. None of the images so far have shown the B24s anywhere near "30" feet. Even the training one (the only one that comes close) has a margin of safety above trees that themselves are 40 feet or more.
The IAR 80 has been requested many times before. It would be nice, but not too different from a "poor-man's version" of the 190A. Less firepower, but slightly better manuverability.
It, like the Brewster, will get its day.... someday. My guess is "not anytime soon", but someday.
Yeah, it only made mincemeat when encountered. It's not the plane, it's the "pilot". Just like then, and now.
-
The C2 also made mincemeat of its enemies, especially the 205. Not the BEST performer, slower and has worse alt performance, but the pilots sure knew how to use it!
-
I'm wondering how in the world did IARs decimate the allied fighters @ Polesti... The IAR is like 80 mph slower compare to 38s/47s/51s.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't care WHAT website posts it. Use the gifts God gave you (logic and common sense) and if you don't have those, I'm sorry nobody can help you. None of the images so far have shown the B24s anywhere near "30" feet. Even the training one (the only one that comes close) has a margin of safety above trees that themselves are 40 feet or more.
Krusty. Altitude at the IP was 500 feet for the race into the target. Some planes dropped as low as 30-40 feet as they sped away from Ploesti to try and avoid the flak.
So to be picky about it the bombing altitude was roughly 500 feet.
Early you suggested they were bombing from 3-4k as their low altitude with others stacked 12-14K.
That's inaccurate.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
We ran that one back in Airwarrior. We also included the June 44 low alt P38 raid of the 1st and 82nd Fighter Groups.
All those 38s were something to see :)
That was one of my favorite scenarios to fly in. I would definitely fly if we had it here!
-
It would be my pleasure to take your wings off for you! :cool:
-
I think someone should remind krusty that HTC moderates these forums and its not required for krusty to attempt to do so.
Krusty see rule #99- "dont be a smaktard"
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't care WHAT website posts it. Use the gifts God gave you (logic and common sense) and if you don't have those, I'm sorry nobody can help you. None of the images so far have shown the B24s anywhere near "30" feet. Even the training one (the only one that comes close) has a margin of safety above trees that themselves are 40 feet or more.
The IAR 80 has been requested many times before. It would be nice, but not too different from a "poor-man's version" of the 190A. Less firepower, but slightly better manuverability.
It, like the Brewster, will get its day.... someday. My guess is "not anytime soon", but someday.
Okay. Do you get the Military Channel? If so, please watch this. I'm not exaggerating the altitudes these B-24's were at. There is a show called WWII Battlefront and on December 19, they'll be showing a re-run of the Ploesti raid. This show is where I got must of my info from. Here is website for the time:
http://military.discovery.com/tvlistings/episode.jsp?episode=39&cpi=107683&gid=0&channel=MIL
I strongly urge you to watch.
My Regards,
VVV
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I'm wondering how in the world did IARs decimate the allied fighters @ Polesti... The IAR is like 80 mph slower compare to 38s/47s/51s.
For the most part, people talk about the IAR "decimating" allied fighters in relation to the June 10th, 1944 raid on Ploesti, Bucharest and Brasov by the 1st and 82nd FGs in which nearly 1/4 (23, although all claims filed by the ARR, Luftwaffe and AAA crews amounted to 51 claims) the attacking force was lost to enemy fighters- only 1 71st Squadron P-38 (Lt. Herbert "Stub" Hatch) made it home, and he was credited with 5 "Fw-190s", despite the fact that only 3 of the defending IAR-81Cs were in fact shot down in that fight, 8 P-38s shot down outright and 7 more not making it back to base for various reasons. The USAAF pilots claimed 33 kills that day, though only a total of 14 aircraft were lost over all of Romania that day, and most of those were non-combat types caught on the ground or at low level by the Lightnings. This incident is often referred to as "Black Sunday".
For one thing, the P-38s came in OTD, in formation, with the sun in their faces right over a defended airfield where the defenders had been alerted to their approach and had ample time to climb out and set an ambush.
For another, many (but by no means all) of the Vanatoari by 1944 were seasoned veterans of 3 years on the Eastern Front and 2 years of the USAAF attacks, so they new what they were doing, and they knew their aircraft. Plus they were defending their home base and fighting over their own territory, which tends to make people fight a bit harder.
Saying its a lightly armed Fw-190 isn't really a fair comparison, I think of it more like a radial engined Spit V. Four 7.7mm MGs and two MG-151s (in the IAR-81C and 81M) in the wings, a wing loading of 27.1 lb/ft² (to 28 lb/ft² on the Spit V) and top speed around 340 mph at 23,000 ft (to 370 for the SpitV).
Might do pretty well in the MW, or with 6 MGs and bombs in the EW.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
If we get the IAR, it'll be Grupul 9. Started out in IARs, ended up in 109s.
So is that a Yes???
or a mayb??
:D :D :D :D ;)
-
Oh, incidentally, no IAR is ever confirmed to have shot down a P-51. This from Denes Bernad, the leading english language author on the ARR in WWII.
And Plat... we'll just have to wait until we get the IAR and see.
Anyone wanna contribute to a collection for the case of scotch to bribe HT? :D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
bodhi will openly admit he doesn't like anything I say, no matter what I say.
No, I do not dslike everything you say. I dislike your wanton disregard for facts. You claim to use logic and all else, but when you are wrong, you back pedal and accuse others of being false and with out fact. This thread here is a prime example. You come out with a statement of the raiders bombing from 3-4k up to 12-14k and flat out say they weren't on the deck. You are full of crap. I called you on it, as did most others. Now you are pissed because your 15 yr old ego can't take being proven wrong.
Originally posted by Krusty
A B24 itself is 60+ feet long with a 100 foot wingspan. Flying "30-40" feet above the ground is literally HALF its length.
Bravo... you can divide by two. So, just because 30 feet is half it's length it can't fly at that level? What level of idiocy does that come from? You're now an expert in the capabilities of how low aircraft can fly too? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Krusty
I'm the first to admit I don't know too much about Ploesti, and that I've only read a few things about it. I *DO* know, however, that even claiming that you run bombing missions at 30 feet is a false claim that you cannot back up. Look at the photos postd. Most of those look to be at least 250 feet. The one where the b24 is more distant looks at least 500-1000 feet, but hard to tell from the framing of the photo.
You prove, other than your "logic based claims" that they din't fly at those flight levels. You again, don't know crap and are talking out your arse. STFU once in awhile, realise that you are not a historian, but instead are a kid that really needs to pick up a book and learn.
Originally posted by Krusty
Even the lowest alt photo, the training photo, has them flying at least above the trees, which look to be 40+ feet tall, and the planes at LEAST 10+ feet above them.
Anything you say to the contrary is BS, Bodhi. Bombers cannot fly at 30 feet to a target, because most things sticking up from the ground (trees, buildings, power lines, smoke stakes, you name it) are 30 feet or more.
That was my point. I think it's self-evident. Quit flaming just because you're a BK.
So you're also an expert arborist as well? How in the flipping hell do you know how high the frigging trees are near Polesti? Have you been there? Were you somehow able to conjure up a time warp and go back there to measure them at the time? This "know-it-all" game you like to play is rediculous and a bunch of crap that may impress your little friends, but the real world likes to see facts.
As for me calling you on it, it has nothing to do with being a BK. It has to do with disgust at how you can not just shut up and realise when you are wrong.
-
Originally posted by Platano
Hey Chuck if HT brings that plane to AH you should "un-Disband" Grupul 7 Vanatoare....... just a thought....
Originally posted by Treize69
If we get the IAR, it'll be Grupul 9. Started out in IARs, ended up in 109s.
If you do that in the AvA, please let me know . . . I'd be happy to wing with you guys again.:aok
If you'll have me, that is . . . :(
-
Originally posted by Krusty
bodhi will openly admit he doesn't like anything I say, no matter what I say.
A B24 itself is 60+ feet long with a 100 foot wingspan. Flying "30-40" feet above the ground is literally HALF its length.
I'm the first to admit I don't know too much about Ploesti, and that I've only read a few things about it. I *DO* know, however, that even claiming that you run bombing missions at 30 feet is a false claim that you cannot back up. Look at the photos postd. Most of those look to be at least 250 feet. The one where the b24 is more distant looks at least 500-1000 feet, but hard to tell from the framing of the photo.
Even the lowest alt photo, the training photo, has them flying at least above the trees, which look to be 40+ feet tall, and the planes at LEAST 10+ feet above them.
Anything you say to the contrary is BS, Bodhi. Bombers cannot fly at 30 feet to a target, because most things sticking up from the ground (trees, buildings, power lines, smoke stakes, you name it) are 30 feet or more.
That was my point. I think it's self-evident. Quit flaming just because you're a BK.
just go google type polesti and you see same planes hit smoke stacks because black smoke so thick.
-
Google "polesti" and you'll be directed to a spellchecker program.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Google "polesti" and you'll be directed to a spellchecker program.
Yeah, I am bad about foreign spelling.
As for Krusty, you still not going to admit you are wrong? Or does your silence mean what I think it does....
-
Thanks for the support Bodhi.
Have you seen that program on the Military Channel about the raid on Ploesti? It's really good. :)
-
Bodhi, you're an idiot. Why your post hasn't been skuzzified I don't know.
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.
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.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I wouldn't mind seeing it.
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.
The USAAF field order for the mission, they formed at medium alt, diving to 'Minimum' altitude, meaning treetop level.
Might wanna do a quick google search before posting stuff Krusty ;)
FIELD ORDER NO. 58
HEADQUARTERS
IX BOMBER COMMAND
APO 683, %
Postmaster
New York, N.Y.
28 July 1943
FIELD ORDER NO. 58
Maps: Plotting series and topographic charts of entire area - BENGASI, CORFU, BRACOV, CONSTANTA, INSTANBUL, CYPRUS.
1. a. See Intelligence Annex.
b. Friendly ground situation: no change.
2. The Ninth U.S. Air Force will attack and destroy the 7 principal oil refineries in the PLOESTI area on 1 August 1943 employing 7 target forces in a minimum altitude attack in order to deny the enemy use of the petroleum products processed in that area.
a. ASSEMBLY: On the line Site 7 - DRIANA - TOCRA, leading element to depart TOCRA at 0530 GMT.
b. ROUTE OUT: BENGASI - TOCRA - Northern tip of CORFU - PIROT - 43º50' N 23º43' E - PITESTI - IP - TARGET
ATITUDES: BENGASI to TOCRA to 38º20' N 20º08' E begin climb so as to cross CORFU at 10,000 feet until reaching PIROT. At PIROT begin descent so as to cross DANUBE at 3,000-5,000 feet. Remain at 3,000 to 5,000 feet until reaching PITESTI. From PITESTI to IPs maintain minimum altitude above terrain. From IP to target reduce altitudes to bombing level.
-
Yes, Ball, we've covered that, but thanks for specifics. Nowhere have they shown planes flying "30-40" feet. Well below 'minimum' levels.
-
When I say 30-40 feet, I don't mean it over the oil field itself. I'm saying they flew that alt on approach to the field to avoid flak and to ultimatley achieve the element of suprise. The ofcourse they would have to gain alt to avoid collision into any structures.
-
I cant remember which book it was i read, but it was about the Ploesti raid where the pilot actually had to pull up in order to avoid someone in a corn field...
Will try and dig it out.
-
this is a great pic: -
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050524-F-1234P-021.jpg
-
The view from the plane nearly obscured by the huge fireball in the background would be impressive, to say the least. I cannot imagine.
-
Walter Stewart had Utah Man down "... so low, I was pulling up over hedges. There were little round haystacks; one tipped over and there was an 88mm gun. A chicken coop was sitting there. The top went back and the sides went down, and now there were pompom guns. My top gunner fired at another chicken coop, and hens and feathers flew out; he got a real one!" Utah Man was heavily hit on the run in, but Stewart held the bomber steady and flew on, opening the bomb-bay doors, after which "there's no evasive action." His leader did the same but did not make it through the target. Stewart saw that the number-three engine of Hell's Wench was on fire and remembered Baker's statement of the day before: "If I go over that target in flames, I'm going over." The last Stewart saw of Hell's Wench, it "... tipped to the right and flew into a great big building."
by Air Vice-Marshal Ron Dick
Copyright Air Age Publishing Apr 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
That is one i have found, i know there are plenty more.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
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.
LOL i have just read this...
I love the justification that they did it in training but not in combat... yeah, better not take risks in a combat situation, that is what training is for, right?
:rofl
-
No question about it, that is a good picture. Were it color I might set it as my desktop background. However, don't confuse "close to the bottom of the frame" with "close to the ground".
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1166556174_alt_example.jpg)
Green between the camera angle and the black plane shows the perceived distance between the aircraft and the bottom of the frame. As you can see in the photo itself, the plane is about one plane's length from the bottom of the frame. We know the plane is about 18 feet tall and about 60 feet long. However, if you look at the front-view I drew up quickly, you have no idea where the frame of reference is. You could be 300 feet up, and it looks like 10.
When you look at the photo, you see many trees. They look fairly large, compared to the river and the hills/rocks around them. Saying the tree itselt is 50 feet would be on the low side. I had a 2-year old tree that was 30' tall (we planted it ourselves) but still so young it barely had a 2.5" diameter trunk. The trees in the photo look more mature and much older. If the ground were really where the photo ended, those trees wouldn't even be taller than the b24 itself. They'd be a measely 18', and an 18' tree is barely a sappling (no really, go out and look at trees). Hell my living room is about 18' wide. Imagine a tree laying on its side only going from one side of your room to the other, then stand it upright. It's a pretty pathetic tree.
If we say that the trees are at least 50' (I'd say 60-75, rough guess), then there's no way the plane is close to the ground, because even the closest trees are a much smaller scale than the b24 in the foreground.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
The view from the plane nearly obscured by the huge fireball in the background would be impressive, to say the least. I cannot imagine.
Indeed, if the trees in the photo are 60 or so feet (probably more) than that fireball stretches several hundred feet into the air! My GOD, can you imagine being anywhere near that?
Was that bombs ALONE, or did they set off an oil tank, or what??
-
3:00 P.M. (Ploesti Time)
Colonel Compton's Liberandos were flying southeast at heights of 5-10 feet above the rolling farmlands of Romania, when the Orthodox church spires of the Bucharest appeared in their cockpit windows. After conferring with Compton, General Ent broke radio silence to order the correction, turning the lead flight back north. The mission commander knew that his bombers were no longer lined up to cross the city from the west and attack the assigned target of Romana Americana (Target White 1). He and Compton again conferred and decided to lead the twenty-six remaining Liberators in an attack on Astra Romana (Target White 4) south of the city.
On the ground below, General Gerstenberg watched the three flights weaving delicately at top-speed in the confined and flak-filled space over Ploesti. He shook his head in amazement at the tactical prowess of the American attack, never realizing that the airmen were improvising after their plans for a single-formation, two-minute orderly assault by five waves, had fallen apart.
3:15 P.M. (Ploesti Time)
Johnson's "A Force" of the Eight Balls and John Kane's Pyramidiers emerged from their smoke-shrouded targets on the south side of Ploesti while the remainder of Johnson's bombers, the Eight Ball "B Force" neared its own. Their route south from the final I.P. at Floresti put their flight path three miles west of the city, beyond many of the major defensive positions. As they approached Brazi however, they were met by a withering hail of anti-aircraft and machine gun fire.
Twenty minutes earlier when Colonel Addison Baker had broken away from Compton's lead force to attack Ploesti, his Flying Circus had over-flown the very refinery Lieutenant Colonel Posey's twenty-one Liberators now targeted. The gunners around the Creditul Minier were well-prepared. It was these very guns that had taken such a heavy toll Addison Baker and his men, and the Axis gunners were eager for more.
Posey's Eight Balls executed their precision bombing on eleven pin-point targets in four waves, the valiant gunners raking enemy gun positions as 1,000 pound bombs hurtled into key buildings and boiler houses. "We were too low to miss," recalled bombardier George Hulpiau flying in D for Dog in the second wave assault. "We were five feet above the target." (The bombs were fitted with delayed action fuses to prevent them from exploding on impact only feet below the Liberator dropping them.)
Enemy fire was as heavy as it had been earlier and most of the bombers took multiple strikes. Posey's lead ship V for Victory, piloted by Captain John Diehl, took a direct hit from a 37-mm ground gun that tore away part of the bomber's tail and killed gunner Truett Williams. Similar damage was wreaked upon other bombers in the four waves, but in a manner that may well have validated Colonel Smart's original concept for the low-level mission, Target Blue suffered 100% damage beneath the bombs of twenty-one airships, without the loss of a single aircraft over target. Diehl climbed to 250 feet to clear the smokestacks, then dropped back down to low-level flight with the other pilots following. "We left at a very low level," he recalled. "People ask me what I mean by low level. I point out that on the antennas on the bottom of my airplane I brought back sunflowers and something that looked suspiciously like grass."
http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/09_ploesti.html
Need i go on?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Was that bombs ALONE, or did they set off an oil tank, or what??
it was a raid on a ****ing oil refinery, what do you think they were setting off?
this is a photo of the oil depot which exploded near london last year.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/in_pictures_buncefield_fuel_depot_blast/img/3.jpg)
judging by those 60 foot or more tree's, that guy must be 30 feet tall.
-
Ball, your sarcasm just proved my point. Obviously depth (or, distance) changes the size and relation to everything in the picture. This is what nobody has pointed out, and what I have tried to show you.
1 - You KNOW the height of a man
2 - you KNOW the rough height of a tree, or can guess.
3 - you KNOW that things further away look smaller.
so, using your existing references, you can TELL that in that photo, the person is a HELL of a long way away from the trees, and they are way the freaking hell out there.
Using the SAME system you can try to figure out how far the b24s are from the ground in some of the photos above. Only, with the bombers, you don't always have the spot of ground (the point you are measuring to, directly below the bombers) in the photo, so you can estimate but not be sure. In the top-down angle on the smokestack photo you have a much easier time of it.
A lot of folks see a bomber a fraction of an inch over trees and think "my god that's low!" but don't stop to look at the photo and realize the trees are way the frak off in the distance which means they're much further away. That type of deal.
It's like a logic lesson. Folks can reason for themselves, but sometimes when you point out the process they think "ooooh, I know that" -- they just didn't use the knowledge until it was pointed out.
-
I was joking... i never claimed that picture was below 150 feet anyway. I just said that it was a "great pic", you took that upon yourself to prove it's height.
I liked your little MS paint pic, one almost worthy of me, needs more "nook" tho.
lol.
-
I realize you didn't, but everybody before you did. I was thinking about doing it before, but nobody gave a crap about using their mental faculties, so I left the thread. Then I came back and found Bodhi (again) spewing trash talk from his rear-end. I figured maybe I really had to just spell things out with crayons for him :)
EDIT: by the way, way to mis-quote me by leaving out the "if I recall" in my original line, in your signature.
-
Since you were commenting on the photo, i took a closer look. As nice and as colourful as your MS paint one is... it is wrong.
Check out the angle of the photo, and where the tree tops in the foreground are. I wonder what took the photo? Maybe a Romanian farmer was climbing a tree and had his camera ready as those B-24's passed over?
Whatever it is... it is much lower than the aircraft in the picture :confused:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1166559925_30000feet.jpg)
Originally posted by Krusty
EDIT: by the way, way to mis-quote me by leaving out the "if I recall" in my original line, in your signature.
You wrote "For Your Information:" I took it as my information.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Indeed, if the trees in the photo are 60 or so feet (probably more) than that fireball stretches several hundred feet into the air! My GOD, can you imagine being anywhere near that?
Was that bombs ALONE, or did they set off an oil tank, or what??
Yeah, even at 400 feet of alt, it was commonplace for a B-24 to be seen flying over a target. Damn that is so HIGH!!! Imagine if they flew at 20,000+!!!!zOMFG!!!!111!!! Bombers don't drop bombs, they dropped leaflets on Ploesti while Voss and his "band of commandos overwhelmed the perimeter guards who gazed at the low level B-24's in awe while the commados set explosive Composition B on the oil tanks."
Originally posted by Krusty
I had a 2-year old tree that was 30' tall (we planted it ourselves) but still so young it barely had a 2.5" diameter trunk.
NO TREE on this Earth, can reach 30' in only 2 years (outside of Bamboo or Royal Empress, which are BOTH non-existant in the Region in question). I'm sorry but you bought a "Burlap bulb tree sapling" that was already in the process of growing for the previous 2-3 years. So you're AT LEAST looking at 5 year+ of growth. All of the Miracle-Gro in the world CANNOT allow a "tree to grow 30' in two years." No way in hell, and for the record I have a decent amount of horitcultural knowledge. 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 trees are the Maples or Oaks near the center of the picture which appear around 40' tall. Then look at the bomber to the immediate left of the foreground bomber, and you can see that it is ONLY 50-60' above the tree. Also, the "box of buffs" will vary between altitudes and the foreground bomber, is the LOWEST in the picture (around a 100-150ft). It does NOT require much common sense to relate the "camera angles" to "very good estimates of altitude". Also, take note of the two treetops below the foreground bomber, about the same apparent distances.
What you are missing is that the "height vantage point you are dispelling", is actually negated because you are not taking into view, the DISTANCE behind the Foreground Bomber. Looking at the provided picture that Bomber is CLOSE to ONLY 100' off of the ground, which is impressive for a HEAVY BOMBER.
Furthermore, you're pissing on "Veterans" EYEWITNESS accounts and looking like a tool. Krusty, you can debate the point all you want with your "picture depth perception" opinions. But who would the "one with common sense" believe? Someone who WAS THERE or has studied this raid a VERY LONG time, or you? I'd have to go with the former.
-
I also said "if I recall"
You are wrong, actually. The trees aren't foreground. Foreground would be the bombers. The trees are behind them. Also it looks like they are not treetops, but entire trees. The ground angle comes up fairly quickly (low angle) if you compare the point of the explosion with the trees around the river and the trees nearest the planes.
Also I did see those trees, and they were the trees I was using when I said "the closest to the bombers" Assuming they extend a little further past the frame of the photo, they are still barely taller than the height of the closest B24. The B-24 we know is 18 feet when on the runway, so a little less without gear. The tree we know (again, frame of reference for trees) is much more, yet they both appear to be about the same height, which means the tree is much further away.
EDIT: I did say FYI, but the FYI was that the bombers were NOT 30 feet. The "3-4k" had its own "if I recall". Don't mis-quote me to myself, please :)
-
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?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1166560544_tree.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1166560544_tree.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1166562979_cos_b-24j-3.jpg)
Are those "antennas"?
-
Try looking up a B-24D, not the latest model Js with radar warning antennas on the nose.
-
I have never seen a D up close
These some?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1166563781_ant1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1166563836_ant2.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
A debate over how high the Bombers really were??
This thread makes me :lol
-
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.
-
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please give a warm round of applause to...
Historian, aviator, horticulturist and optical expert...
...Krusty the Clown!
-
stuff it
-
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.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1166568128_do17z.jpg)
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
nice pic of one of the escorting 64 Squadron Mustangs which had so much trouble keeping up with the Mossies :)
(http://www.flensted.eu.com/1945images/450321shellmustang.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c326/m2dpost/monkeys.jpg)
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
-
I see the K-man is at it again.:D
Tilt those windmills .
Bronk
vvvvvvvvvv
-
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
-
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...
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c326/m2dpost/monkeys.jpg)
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
-
Originally posted by Big Mickey
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c326/m2dpost/monkeys.jpg)
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, i am the better looking one :D
-
Originally posted by Ball
: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
1) you were using that as simply another photo to show what appears to be extremely low-level flight. I was pointing out "it's not so low as you might think".
2) you were being an arse and using a coarse level of sarcasm and you know it. You basically accused me of saying everybody in the world is a liar. Scroll up and read your own post, in the context it was in (a response to my post). It's quite clear.
3) You have replied to my posts, but not "answered" them. For a while you engaged in debate, briefly. Then you brought out pilot quotes. I replied on a couple of those just to make a point, then you .. well see my "2" comment right above this.
4) unless you know the back story on that KC135 clip, don't use it as proof. He's going very fast and dips very low, but briefly, before pulling up in a steep climb. Maybe there was a malfunction, or a problem, and they had to pull out of a dive? Maybe it was a miracle they survived? If you don't know you can't say it's proof that modern military planes (large ones) fly low. You can't, really, anyways because it's only doing it for a few seconds before it pulls up.
You know what? All the name calling and insulting, I'm surprised you two haven't got this thread closed. I'm done with it. I don't care who claims it, unless you can prove it nobody's going to believe that those bombers flew 30 feet for any extended period of time. From a top gunner who supposedly shot at hay bales that normally don't get taller than a man, to a pilot that found a piece of grass stuck on a pitot tube, but no 60-foot-long smear of grass stain, neither of which is really possible as-told (in other words you don't know the entire story), nothing here has shown they flew scraping the ground (which would have almost killed them) or 30 feet and lower.
-
Stumbled upon this and Thought I'd share it...
Yak and P-51 fly-by (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEcT5cWm1bQ)
-
You posted just as I did platano.
Pretty cool clip, but again, over a runway, for a short period of time, in light nimble fighters. Hardly the same as B24s scraping their bellies on fields and shooting hay bales from the top gun (which does not depress below 0 degrees).
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You know what? All the name calling and insulting, I'm surprised you two haven't got this thread closed.
Seems to me that it was you doing the name calling.
Thank you for entertaining us in this thread, it has been a pleasure. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Platano
Stumbled upon this and Thought I'd share it...
Yak and P-51 fly-by (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEcT5cWm1bQ)
Nice clip, check this one: -
Wingspan +100 feet and length +100 feet!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xntzPg5x7m0&mode=related&search=
Another good one of the Vulcan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc5h_B-jrXM&mode=related&search=
-
So what would constitute proof to you Krusty? Eyewitness accounts apparently don't?
Photos of Libs on the deck all that will do it?
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Photos of Libs on the deck all that will do it?
Not in training, training doesn't count.
-
Originally posted by Ball
Not in training, training doesn't count.
:rofl
-
So, where are we at this point?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
So, where are we at this point?
We've found out that you are adopted.
Jaxxo was never your father and Stang says you are the best french kisser.
-
Originally posted by Kermit de frog
We've found out that you are adopted.
Jaxxo was never your father and Stang says you are the best french kisser.
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
So, where are we at this point?
What do you mean by "point"? One that is 30, 40, 50 or 100 posts into the thread? Or one that is 3k, 4K or 12K posts into the thread?
Freakin BK tard :rolleyes:
-
Frikkin looser NOE lamer milkrunning tards!
Good thing radar didn't spot them at 12k!
:lol
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
So, where are we at this point?
I really dont have a clue.
Although I have gathered that the borg collective is tangling with krusty. I am considering jumping in on krusty's behalf however I am pretty much to lazy to read the whole thread and/or go find facts about some raid that I care nothing about.
Perhaps tomorrow after work I will jump in and make some lame arse arguement just so that I can call the borg collective names...... then again maybe not.
Good luck Krusty, dont give up. Fight the good fight Broham.
Dave
-
Originally posted by Stang
Frikkin looser NOE lamer milkrunning tards!
Good thing radar didn't spot them at 12k!
:lol
Just because they "vulched Oil Tanks".......:noid
-
Originally posted by Krusty
1) you were using that as simply another photo to show what appears to be extremely low-level flight. I was pointing out "it's not so low as you might think".
Hey dilrod... ya might want to remember that the members of the raid were mostly occupied with combat roles. Photographers were volunteers. Very brave volunteers. As it was, most pilots and crew members came back with the same story.... low as could be (including grass stained) to avoid the volume of flak thrown at them.
Originally posted by Krusty
2) you were being an arse and using a coarse level of sarcasm and you know it. You basically accused me of saying everybody in the world is a liar. Scroll up and read your own post, in the context it was in (a response to my post). It's quite clear.
You of all people are the liar here. You have been proven wrong so many times I lose count. Whats up with this continued play of innocence? he world your 12 yr old arse lives in must be wonderfuly bliss. Especially without reality and facts getting in the way... oh wait... I see a 2 yr old 80 foot evergreen! :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Krusty
3) You have replied to my posts, but not "answered" them. For a while you engaged in debate, briefly. Then you brought out pilot quotes. I replied on a couple of those just to make a point, then you .. well see my "2" comment right above this.
Most posters here have provided fact (unlike your "expert observations") which are undisputed (other than in your misaligned twit of a brain) and to top it off, you have rebuked eyewitnesses as being wrong according to your skewed version of history...
Originally posted by Krusty
4) unless you know the back story on that KC135 clip, don't use it as proof. He's going very fast and dips very low, but briefly, before pulling up in a steep climb. Maybe there was a malfunction, or a problem, and they had to pull out of a dive? Maybe it was a miracle they survived? If you don't know you can't say it's proof that modern military planes (large ones) fly low. You can't, really, anyways because it's only doing it for a few seconds before it pulls up.
I can tell ya this much dipchit... I have flown low... and have come back with grass stains along with branches and knicks in a prop from my attempts at flying low. My instructor grounded me for a year when he saw the knicks and made me pay every red cent back for the repairs at the prop shop. I have also been in a B-25 that skimmed so low over a North Carolina field that we cut two swaths in the hay over a thousand feet long. The only reason we didn't go longer was to avoid a hill... after that we dropped back into a valley and literally came back with branches and residue in all areas of resistance.
Originally posted by Krusty
You know what? All the name calling and insulting, I'm surprised you two haven't got this thread closed. I'm done with it. I don't care who claims it, unless you can prove it nobody's going to believe that those bombers flew 30 feet for any extended period of time. From a top gunner who supposedly shot at hay bales that normally don't get taller than a man, to a pilot that found a piece of grass stuck on a pitot tube, but no 60-foot-long smear of grass stain, neither of which is really possible as-told (in other words you don't know the entire story), nothing here has shown they flew scraping the ground (which would have almost killed them) or 30 feet and lower.
Ok, so let me get this straight.... youa re now agreeing that they flew at 30 foot. Just not for extended periods of time.... :rofl
You're a class a touchhole. Your level of lies knows no bounds, and frankly, I used to think it funny to poke fun at your lies. Now it just disgusts me to think what damage your waste of flesh and bile is going to do to society.
-
Originally posted by Nomak
blah blah blah
translated to read:
I really hate anything the Blue Knights post. I am so full of envy and jealousy that I will lower myself to defending a liar to take a swipe at the Blue Knights. I really hope that every one really sees my wonderous contribution to the AH community through my non-centric outbursts of spew directed to make hate against the Blue Knights. Sadly I do not realise that HATE is what the Blue Knights crave.
Oh, btw, my surgery to try to go beyond being a eunuch failed horribly, and now I have to squat to pee.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
translated to read:
I really hate anything the Blue Knights post. I am so full of envy and jealousy that I will lower myself to defending a liar to take a swipe at the Blue Knights. I really hope that every one really sees my wonderous contribution to the AH community through my non-centric outbursts of spew directed to make hate against the Blue Knights. Sadly I do not realise that HATE is what the Blue Knights crave.
Oh, btw, my surgery to try to go beyond being a eunuch failed horribly, and now I have to squat to pee. [/QUOTE
SkyRock<---owns Bodhi..............but not at completely cutting a MoFo open and pouring salt in! :rofl
-
great thread havent laughed like that in ages
-
This tread and Benny Moores groundloops thread are actually more entertaining than playing the game recently.
Sad but true.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
This tread and Benny Moores groundloops thread are actually more entertaining than playing the game recently.
Sad but true.
Was just going to post something similar on this!
-
Originally posted by Nomak
I really dont have a clue.
Although I have gathered that the borg collective is tangling with krusty. I am considering jumping in on krusty's behalf however I am pretty much to lazy to read the whole thread and/or go find facts about some raid that I care nothing about.
Maybe you should read the thread first to find out what the discussion is about?
And yes, i agree, you are clueless.
-
I see the bk's have infested another thread.........
<----waits for the fishies
-
Ribbet.
-
um, this is like arguing over who won the football in 1943. you might know for sure what the end score was, but like hell anyone here is old enough to have a real certain clue what happened during the game.
bunch of know-it-all tryhards. :furious
-
This would be funny, except for all the sad stupidity and spinning involved.
-
is it considered cannibalism when the BKs eat each other? you guys want some curry?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
This would be funny, except for all the sad stupidity and spinning involved.
I agree Savage, When I first read that about the bombers being as high as 14K I was like, "did they have two raids on polesti?" There is actual footage shot from that raid from inside one of the bombers. Treetop level going in and coming out was the norm! Where there were no trees, it was grasstop level! :aok
-
OK went digging through all my books that had bits on Ploesti.
Some quotes showed up that speak specifically to height.
One of the 389th BG "Sky Scorpons" had bomb bay doors that wouldn't open. They dropped through the doors. They brought back corn stalks in the wreckage of the dangling bomb bay doors. That's gotta be below 30 feet. Not many 30 foot + corn stalks have I ever seen.
Bill Cameron of the 44th in "Buzzin Bear" "roared away from her bombs at 75 feet."
Jon Deihl of the "Flying Circus" was in the lead plane of his formation. "Diehl pulled up to 250 feet to clear smoke stacks and the bombs dropped as he cleared the obstructions and made for ground level again"
And this one that really seems to cover it.
"One B24 dipped a bit too low and plowed through a haystack. The pilot prudently raised his altitude to 30 feet."
-
Originally fabricated by krusty
Oh, FYI: The B24s weren't 30 feet off the ground
-
I'm now believe the "Ploesti Raid" was staged, just like the Apollo 13 landing.:noid
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
"One B24 dipped a bit too low and plowed through a haystack. The pilot prudently raised his altitude to 30 feet."
hate these 999000 wannabes.. hope the ack chewed them up.. stupid gamers :furious .
-
Just a bit more from another book. Note the mention in the caption of the cornstalks in the bomb bays again. This is a seperate reference to it in another book.
This guy looks kinda low in the image from the raid itself
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1166637475_lowalt.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Just a bit more from another book. Note the mention in the caption of the cornstalks in the bomb bays again. This is a seperate reference to it in another book.
This guy looks kinda low in the image from the raid itself
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1166637475_lowalt.jpg)
Never saw that pic before Cork. I'll never question "the vets that were there". If you DO, you may as well, piss on em.
Ploesti took apple and those that participate had enormous ones. "Cornstalks, etc", that is insane, and amazing. :aok
-
White knuckle excitement of the worst kind. I know corn stalks slapping on my jeep at 30 is loud. I'm trying to imagine what it's like in a giant popcan doing 200+.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
White knuckle excitement of the worst kind. I know corn stalks slapping on my jeep at 30 is loud. I'm trying to imagine what it's like in a giant popcan doing 200+.
I've got an 83 CJ7, whatcha got bro?
-
guppy pwned krusty
Megadud
Official BBS Dumb Debate Referee
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
OK went digging through all my books that had bits on Ploesti.
Some quotes showed up that speak specifically to height.
One of the 389th BG "Sky Scorpons" had bomb bay doors that wouldn't open. They dropped through the doors. They brought back corn stalks in the wreckage of the dangling bomb bay doors. That's gotta be below 30 feet. Not many 30 foot + corn stalks have I ever seen.
Bill Cameron of the 44th in "Buzzin Bear" "roared away from her bombs at 75 feet."
Jon Deihl of the "Flying Circus" was in the lead plane of his formation. "Diehl pulled up to 250 feet to clear smoke stacks and the bombs dropped as he cleared the obstructions and made for ground level again"
And this one that really seems to cover it.
"One B24 dipped a bit too low and plowed through a haystack. The pilot prudently raised his altitude to 30 feet."
Thank you Guppy. Nice reply buddy
-
Just to add a bit more. Forgot I had Phillip Ardery's book "Bomber Pilot" on my shelf.
He flew Ploesti.
He talks about their training and he said they set up a practice target that was 20 feet tall and would clear it by 5 feet. His comment was they flew so low that 'we almost got vertigo when we found ourselves flying above 500 feet."
"It was usual to see a three ship flight or a six ship squadron of big Libs scudding over the flast desert land actually four or five feet from the ground. Of course the lowest ships of those formations were about four or five feet off the ground while the highest were not over fifteen feet."
He also comments: "This was the type of flying every hot pilot dreamed of all his life, but it was the sort that had cost many hundreds of pilot's lives in the states.....When you go 200 mile per hour at an altitude of eight feet, you really know you are going 200 miles per hour."
Finally, he also comments how the formations 'pulled up' to clear the smoke stacks and bomb, before dropping back down to the deck. He had two fixed 50s in the nose and was shooting them at flak gunners in the hay stacks on the way out. Now that's low
Ardery was one of the Squadron Commanders in the 389th BG. Not gonna argue with him on that one :)
-
According to my calculations when a bomber crew is under stress 20,000ft can look like 30ft. So you see, the bombers were clearly at 20,000ft. Also that picture clearly isn't of polesti. I'm right, you are all wrong!
-
The Ploesti raid is well known because it was an unorthodox low level raid. arguing about if it was 30-40 feet or 200 in the beginning ending at 40 or just below 1000ft is nit picking which is beside the point.
-
Originally posted by VERTEX
The Ploesti raid is well known because it was an unorthodox low level raid. arguing about if it was 30-40 feet or 200 in the beginning ending at 40 or just below 1000ft is nit picking which is beside the point.
But pointing out that a "know-it-all" is wrong when he says they COULD NOT fly at 30 feet, that they were instead bombing from 3-4 thousand feet on up to 12k is not nitpicking.
It is the correction of a liar named Krusty.
-
Originally posted by Nomak
borg collective
That is Shane's intellectual property, do you have permission to use it?
-
Borg Kollective
OK, there is my version
-
Originally posted by Nomak
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
[/B]
Translated to read:
I am still a pathetic tool who runs the risk of a psychotic break if I do not get any attention. I like to pretend I am some great stick who flies cartoon airplanes and I loudly thump my chest any chance I get and claim to be "teh ghey teacher". When misguided people ask for my help, I back out of a firm commitment because I realise I do not want the people I so crave attention from to see that I am in danger of yet another psychotic episode.
I am nomak, greatest anklehumper of all times.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
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.
Sorry guys krusty is Right 3rd wave of bombers came in 8k to 10k on first mission in. Have completed debriefing of mission from Wright patterson Air base. The USAF museum has a wall telling of entire plan and results. BTW museum was amazing over 300 photo's taken. i'll post later just got home today.
-
Originally posted by rod367th
Sorry guys krusty is Right 3rd wave of bombers came in 8k to 10k on first mission in. Have completed debriefing of mission from Wright patterson Air base. The USAF museum has a wall telling of entire plan and results. BTW museum was amazing over 300 photo's taken. i'll post later just got home today.
The issue was whether any of the bombers were flying at 30 feet as the original poster stated. The answer was yes. The lead bomber, "Brewery Wagon" lead the run in at 20 feet and was shot down.
The bombers had to cross a mountain range on the way to the target that was 11K, but the run in was on the deck
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The issue was whether any of the bombers were flying at 30 feet as the original poster stated. The answer was yes. The lead bomber, "Brewery Wagon" lead the run in at 20 feet and was shot down.
The bombers had to cross a mountain range on the way to the target that was 11K, but the run in was on the deck
1 wave on deck 1 wave 1k 1 8 to 10k
impossible for anyone to know for sure lead bombers alt no one on board survived moot point
-
Originally posted by rod367th
1 wave on deck 1 wave 1k 1 8 to 10k
impossible for anyone to know for sure lead bombers alt no one on board survived moot point
Look at the debrief again, read the orders, and realise that many a/c came home with ground debris stuck in their aircraft from hedge hopping and noe flying so low, that eye witnesses reported pulling up to avoid fences and personnel in fields. Krusty said nothing was below 3 - 4k and trees were 150 feet high. Hell even claims to have a two year old 80' tall evergreen. :rolleyes:
Krusty was not right, not by a long shot. He is factless and a liar.
-
what exactly are you bodhi?
all i know is that for one person to be so negative and selfish spirited is hardly something a community needs more than a person who may cause history to be looked at again in a debate about ww2 aviation on a combat flight sim message board.
what is your purpose here? far as i can see all you do is find something or someone to gangbang. usually when the horse is already long dead.
merry christmas
-
Originally posted by rod367th
1 wave on deck 1 wave 1k 1 8 to 10k
impossible for anyone to know for sure lead bombers alt no one on board survived moot point
Some of Brewery Wagon's crew, including the pilot survived, so it isn't guess work.
Gotta check it again. All were low level. All five bomb groups practiced and bombed from low level
Liberandos lead by Brewery Wagon were the first wave. "The Liberators got as low as 20 feet"
Traveling Circus were second wave "The Circus closed up, 50 feet from the ground"
Pyramiders were third wave-All references are low level. One plane got too high at 1300 feet and was shot down.
Eight Balls were 4th "Buzzin Bear roared away from her bombs at 75 feet"
Sky Scorpions were 5th. All low level again. They had some ball turret equipped 24s and used them in the lead to chew up ground guns.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
what exactly are you bodhi?
all i know is that for one person to be so negative and selfish spirited is hardly something a community needs more than a person who may cause history to be looked at again in a debate about ww2 aviation on a combat flight sim message board.
what is your purpose here? far as i can see all you do is find something or someone to gangbang. usually when the horse is already long dead.
merry christmas
hey now!!! lighten up on my best BBS amway products purchaser, unless you want to step up to the plate and order some toothpaste or something!! merry christmas batty. :D
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
what exactly are you bodhi?
all i know is that for one person to be so negative and selfish spirited is hardly something a community needs more than a person who may cause history to be looked at again in a debate about ww2 aviation on a combat flight sim message board.
what is your purpose here? far as i can see all you do is find something or someone to gangbang. usually when the horse is already long dead.
merry christmas
Bat, as you know, I am not supposed to slam you on your random idiotic babblings, Skuzzy does not think it is good sport picking on the metally unstable. But, seeings that you, of all people, want to start something, lets put it this way. Krusty is a liar, and braggard. I hate both. I aim to point out each and every time he makes false statements. I did not start slinging the poo until he did, but I can and will finish it so he does not have a chance to divert attention from his false statements.
Now, for a compliment to you. You are not a liar, so far as I can discern, and your behavior has changed somewhat for the better. You still are quite deranged at times, and judging by your not too distant past on here, (keep in mind banned names Mechanic, and the previous numerals of your name) I suspect you lack more than a few important synapses to qualify as mentally sane. To say different would be to say that you were not frothing at the mouth every chance you could slam a BK thread or individual BK. Remember your long rant to Jaxxo on vox???
Either way, you need not start hanging defending the village idiot named Krusty, lest we start to confuse the two of you.
oh, and Merry Christmas to you too.
-
I see Christmas has been declared over.
-
lol is that all you got? im wasting my time. i dont argue on the internet with people who can write sentances proper and use punctuation.
krusty is not an idiot, hes not a liar, hes just evidently wrong about most things polesti.
christmas sure aint over for this mentaly deranged party goer, cheers down the hatch bottoms up all good night.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
i dont argue on the internet with people who can write sentances proper and use punctuation.
um... :lol
Bat, krusty may be a good guy in RL, and he may be your squaddie, but he's got a tendency to make things up. Shall we go back to the 350mph buffs that outrun all fighters? The bombers that he put 200+ rounds of 20mm into each without damage? I won't even bother rehashing his comments on ploesti. The guy makes **** up, period. If someone wants to label him a liar for that, that seems pretty reasonable to me.
Oh, and merry christmas to you as well. ;)
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
. . . If someone wants to label him a liar for that, that seems pretty reasonable to me . . .
A bit harsh IMO.
"Liar" implies he knows what he is talking about in the first place, and then utters an untruth anyway.
I think a more accurate description would be "occasionally speaks from ignorance coupled by an inability to admit he is wrong despite sound and copious evidence."
But, I admit, that is awfully wordy.
-
Originally posted by VVV
B-24's flying 30 to 40 feet off the ground
Fly in the MA. Drop-and-bail kids do that all the time ;)
Personally, I think it would be interesting, but the ack would have to be trippled I think.