Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sapling last won the day on February 3

Sapling had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. Thank. Will look.
  2. Thanks for the comment. Yes it probably somewhat sweeping but hardly an accusation. A comment on the "document" before me, yes. A statement on the commentators style and research, yes. Obviously, I follow the site but I tend to have a researchers outlook (engineering law), which fortunately my kids and grand kids follow, so the first answer to a issue/event/design or problem may not be the correct one and/or even free of extraneous thought which is why cross referencing is always recommended. Without going into a blow by blow pull down of the article a simple thought would be well kept in mind - there is a difference in planning and capability. They may have "planned" to use 12 nukes but did they have the capability? Or did the fire bombing of Tokyo in April really show the way for without the massive cash requirement of the nukes? It was certainly way more effective than the nukes in terms of bodies and buildings. Without wishing to be a smart-arse, the following is an interesting look at some of the extent of the "cost" of the nukes development:- https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/05/inside-the-secret-cities-that-created-the-atomic-bomb/559601/ Remember the site is semi-historical and some of the articles/comments are in fact quite enlightening.
  3. Once again the need to point out that a commentary, if made in a historical context< should do so and add a bibliography. In the article/commentary/opinion piece "The United States Actually Planned on Dropping 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan" a series of historical facts have been interwoven with personal rhetoric thereby voiding an interesting subject of overall fact - fake news, as our American cousins have a want. If something is an article/commentary/opinion piece this should be pointed out - not by passing an opinion off as fact. Some people take what appears on this site as historical fact. Some is, some isn't, and some is pure fiction with no historical viability. Opinions and commentary should be encouraged but with a factual datum point - not grandkids coming up and ask "Pop, we just read this but the books you have say different..."
  4. Sapling

    Fact checking

    No far from it. It was about "...a picture of U.S. servicemen in Dutch New Guinea, known now as Indonesia, in May 1944..." Wrong country, wrong government. "Papua New Guinea - an Australian administered territory. ... Papua New Guinea established its sovereignty in 1975." But more importantly there are more and more of these kinds of silly mistakes (?) appearing. Maybe taking a leaf out of Wikipedia's book and ask contributors for a bibliography would be wise.
  5. Sapling

    Fact checking

    In the story "Royal Fail At the Royal Mail: “Best of British” Stamp Collection Confusing D-Day Beaches With Indonesia" there is a statement "...a picture of U.S. servicemen in Dutch New Guinea, known now as Indonesia, in May 1944..." with a picture captioned "Marines of the 1st Marine Division display Japanese flags captured during the Battle of Cape Gloucester (New Guinea campaign)" Cape Gloucester is on New Britain which was a part of Papua New Guinea - an Australian administered territory. ( Papua New Guinea established its sovereignty in 1975. This followed nearly 60 years of Australian administration, which started during World War I. It became an independent Commonwealth realm in 1975 with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and became a member of the Commonwealth of Nations in its own right.) An interesting story with a massive distraction. Sadly this is happening way to often in way to many stories in War History Online. Is there anyway that some form of proof reading can be instituted?
  6. MacArthur/Halsey Masterpiece in the Pacific – Operation Cartwheel A commentary by David Baker. In essence interesting but very short of facts and research, not only of the actual history but the geography of the areas concerned and finalised by a jingoistic opinion. For example "... and by mid-September, the island of Lae was in American hands. " which is interesting because Lae is a town on Papua New Guniea - not an island - and a little bit more insight of the New Guniea campaign might have been worthwhile. The balance of the mistakes is to lengthy to cover but an interesting phase short changed by a one sided opinion opportunity.
  7. In '95 I actually had the privilege of meeting him in London Interesting 2 hours.
  8. Some thoughts from a bloke that actually flew pretty much every one of them...carrier ones included https://web.archive.org/web/20110609055958/http://www.theaviationindex.com/authors/eric-brown He was pretty much what got me into flying coupled with Keith Miller
  9. Sea Fury - 9 August 1952, FAA pilot Lieutenant Peter "Hoagy" Carmichael Royal Navy, his aircraft WJ232, downed a MiG-15. The first piston against jet success of the Korean War.F4U Corsair - September 10, 1952, Capt. Jesse G. Folmar of VMA-312 shot down a MiG-15. This was the last jet to fall to a piston engined fighter during the war.
  10. The Sea Fury in the Korean WarOn 8 August 1952, FAA pilot Lieutenant Peter "Hoagy" Carmichael Royal Navy downed a MiG-15 jet fighter in air-to-air combat, making the Sea Fury one of the few prop-driven fighter aircraft to shoot down a jet-powered fighter. Indeed, some sources claim a second MiG was downed, although most accounts do not mention this; either way, this is often cited as the only successful engagement by a British pilot in a British aircraft in the entire Korean War.The engagement occurred when his mixed flight of Sea Furies and Fireflies was engaged by eight MiG-15s, during which one Firefly was badly damaged while the Sea Furies were able to escape unharmed. A similar encounter the next day led to the Sea Fury fighters using their superior manoeuvrability to escape another MiG-15 "bounce" although one Sea Fury had to limp home to Ocean. To enable the Sea Furies to be recognised by friendly forces the aircraft were painted with markings similar to those used during D-Day.
  11. Up to a point. For instance speed and maneuverability could be, and was in a lot of cases, mutually countering. War zones can also be very tricky if you include the Brewster Buffalo with the Finns. Number built, if on an equal weight scale the Me 109 wins hands down. War zones is a real pearl, how do you divide the wars of Europe and the pacific? Over China, the Burmese theatre, the New Guinea/Borneo theatre, the naval operations, the Aleutians? And so on... What statistical weighting could you ascribe? The P-51 was a very good fighter but, if one is to take the word of test pilots and combat pilots that did fly comparisons with it, it wasn't the best. It wasn't the fastest, wasn't the most maneuverable, wasn't the most built, wasn't the most durable, wasn't the easiest to maintain, didn't fight in every war zone and so on. It was the gifted player destined not to have that certain Je ne sais pas quoi that lifted it to the world number one. Pleas don't ask me to guess which one was....
  12. https://www.youtube.com/embed/ie3SrjLlcUY
  13. An interesting view. http://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/two-ww2-russian_yak-3-fighters_wanaka-x.html
  14. That material is certainly a very good read. Interestingly it kinda goes back to my comment "Kills by "Aces" being the criteria/specification (if you will) surely the Messerschmidt 109 must be the clear winner. " albeit my terribly worded one. Obviously, the pilots are/were the difference. So even the (apparently) dreadful Buffalo could be a great war plane - with the right pilot. So the original question about what was the best fighter plane of WWII really has one main answer - any one of them if on the right day it had the right pilot and crew.
  15. An open ended question without defining specification. So I find it amusing that the P38 Lightning lobby use the number of kills by two "Aces", one with 38 and the other with 40 as the criteria/specification. Kills by "Aces" being the criteria/specification (if you will) surely the Messerschmidt 109 must be the clear winner. Roughly "...103 German fighter pilots shot down more than 100 enemy aircraft... " and "Roughly a further 360 pilots claimed between 40 and 100 aerial victories..." with a high percentage flying the 109 including Hartmann with 352 and Barkhorn with 301 but then again Ilmari Juutilainen of Finland got 54 in a 109 and interestingly 34 more in a Brewster Buffalo he ended with 94. So two "Aces" around 40 doesn't make a great aeroplane. Of interest after mentioning the Brewster the British Commonwealths highest "Ace", Marmaduke "Pat" Pattle, got 40 but in a Gloster Gladiator and latterly in a Hurricane.
  • Create New...