Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Timerover51 last won the day on January 11

Timerover51 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

44 Excellent

About Timerover51

  • Birthday 10/24/1951

Recent Profile Visitors

407 profile views
  1. Greatest World War II General

    Mr. Whitehouse, I am fully aware of the record of the 9th Australian Infantry Division and its commander, Leslie Morshead. The United States Army Combat Studies Institute published the following study regarding the division. 9th Australian Division versus the Africa Corps: an infantry division against tanks -- Tobruk, Libya, 1941. It can be downloaded here: However, the Australians, while facing Rommel, had an existing base and defensive positions to work with, as well as being capable of being resupplied as one of Britain's major military efforts. The 1st Marine Division had only 2 of its 3 regiments, plus some additional troops up through late October of 1942, when the 7th Marine Regiment arrived. It had staged an amphibious landing, and then had the transports depart as a result of the Battle of Savo Island still loaded with most of the supplies. They were supported by a shoe-string logistic supply line, and were in a much worse climate for disease. They also had to put up with regular naval bombardments by the Japanese, including one case of 14 inch naval gun fire. Their situation was far more dire than the of the Australians, not counting the fact that if captured, their survival was quite questionable. The Marines did end up winning the battle, completely wrecking several Japanese units in the process. Again, it can be called a matter of opinion, but taking the Australians into account, I still view the 1st Marine Division that fought at Guadalcanal as the finest infantry division of World War 2.
  2. Greatest World War II General

    There is no correct answer for this, as the question is asked in a vacuum, with no additional requirements as to what level of command the questioner is looking for. I would add that a great commander takes into account the logistics support available before commencing an operation, and also the ability to command the troops of more than one nation effectively. I would also not limit it strictly to land commanders, as the Pacific War was primarily naval, with the land battles primarily taking place on islands. The logistics requirement eliminates all of the German officers, and the requirement of commanding forces from more than one nation all of the Russians. They also come up a bit short when it comes to logistics, but better than the Germans. I will stick with my original answer and add Omar Bradley along with Admiral Raymond Spruance. If you want a pure division commander, then Alexander Vandergrift of the 1st Marine Division at Guadalcanal, with the 1st Marines being the finest infantry division of the war.
  3. If your authors are going to write about the Pacific War, how about they get some actual knowledge of the Pacific War. The Japanese Army never, ever flew off of carriers at Midway or the Solomon Islands, and if fact, never operated from Rabaul. The Japanese Navy had it own air force, including land-based bombers in the Mistubishi Nell and Betty. The Japanese Army operated totally different aircraft which could never land on a carrier. When I read a statement like that quoted above, I ignore any more statements made by the author as he/she clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Perhaps get them to at least read some chapters of Samuel Eliot Morison;s short history of the U.S. Navy in World War 2, The Two-Ocean War. Asking them to actually read an account of the Battle of Midway, or the Solomon Islands Campaign, or the Battle of the Philippine Sea probably is asking too much. When that massive an error is published, I view with suspicion any article that you put online. In short, clean up your act and get someone who actually has a knowledge of World War 2 in the Pacific to edit the articles.
  4. That quiz is designed to make sure no one gets all correct. I do not like quizzes of that nature. I could easily make a quiz that would ensure no one got a single question correct. I do not teach that way, however.
  5. I posted a comment in the World War 2 section on the same issue. Having spent a lot of time studying the naval war in the Pacific, plus having visited Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands while looking for John F. Kennedy's PT-109, I was more than a bit upset by the comments under the Doolittle Raid.
  6. Having studied MacArthur's performance in the Philippines at the start of the war, along with his views on the defense of the Philippines prior to the war, then his performance in the initial stages of his command in Australia, and finally his performance following the Chinese Intervention in Korea in 1950, I view him as the most over-rated commander in U.S. history. There was never any explanation of why his air force was caught ON THE GROUND eight hours after being informed of the Pearl Harbor attack. When in Australia, in an attempt to get virtually every U.S. carrier in the Pacific assigned to his command in Australia, he bypassed the chain of command through Marshall and went to Churchill to ask Roosevelt for the carriers. He had already been told no by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As for Korea, he was fully ready to totally abandon the Korean Peninsula to the Chinese in total and complete panic. When things went the way Dug-Out Doug expected, he was very good, when he was surprised, Dug-Out Doug was very, very bad.
  7. 5 Kings Who Made Sparta a Military Great

    I am not sure why Leonidas is in this list. The Spartans had no compunction to essentially send him out on a suicide mission, which makes me think that he was not exactly thought well of at home. Not ever the Spartans would send their top commander out to die. Remember that pretty much the sole source for information on the Greek-Persian Wars is Herodotus. One man, one source, and whatever biases he brings to the table.
  8. In the most recent email of War History Online to arrive in my email box, the following quote appears in article "Three Suicidal Military Maneuvers That Were Actually Successful" Reading this comment makes me question any written by the author, as his knowledge of World War 2 history seems to be sadly lacking. By May of 1945, the Japanese Navy no longer existed as a fighting force. The battleship Yamato had already been sunk in its suicide mission to Okinawa by U.S. carrier aircraft between Japan and Okinawa. Exactly what does the author define as "Naval Success"? In the Battle of Midway, the U.S. Navy sank four Japanese carriers and decimated the Japanese naval pilot ranks, while loosing the Yorktown. The Guadalcanal Campaign cost each side 24 warships, the problem being for the Japanese that they never were able to replace those ships, while the U.S. replacements were sliding down the launching skids. U.S. submarines, despite unreliable torpedoes were wreaking havoc with the Japanese merchant fleet, and with reliable torpedoes, had by the Spring of 1945 had established a submarine blockade of Japan, even penetrating into the Sea of Japan. During the invasion of the Mariana Island, in June of 1944, the U.S. essentially wiped out the Japanese carrier air force in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, along with sinking 3 Japanese carriers, 2 by submarine and on by a carrier air strike. Most of the US carrier aircraft losses came when the planes ran out of fuel returning from a long-distance strike on the Japanese fleet. Then there was the Battle of Leyte Gulf, with three Japanese battleships sunk, including the Yamato's sister ship, the Musashi, along with several heavy cruisers and destroyers. By May of 1945, U.S. Navy carrier aircraft were hammering the Japanese Home Island airfields in tan effort to reduce Japanese Kamikaze attacks on the Okinawa invasion support force, Okinawa being invaded on April 1, 1945. In June of 1945, U.S. Navy and Royal Navy battleships were shelling Japanese coastal installations. If the U.S. Navy's successes did not start until after May of 1945 and the defeat of Germany, how was this possible? The answer was that the U.S. Navy's successes started in 1942, and by May of 1945 had rendered the Japanese Fleet impotent. For the Yamato's last sortie, she had to be fueled with Soybean Oil, as there was not enough standard petroleum bunker oil to fuel her.
  9. US Subs within Japanese Home waters

    Edward Beach, who wrote Run Silent, Run Deep served on board a couple of U.S. submarines in World War 2, and was well qualified to write them. Going through some of the patrol reports published in Samuel Morison's books History of United States Naval Operations in World War 2. there is the possibility that the set-up described in Run Silent, Run Deep actually occurred. The movie is based on the book by Beach of the same name. It is well worth reading.
  10. 1948 War for Israeli Freedom

    The Czech S199 was the ME-109 with a Junkers Jumo engine that the Czechs were building immediately after the war, so that would be a ME-109 derivative. The Egyptian Air Force was equipped by the British with British aircraft during World War 2, and the Egyptians continued to order British aircraft. Aside from the S199 Messerschmidt clone, no German aircraft were used by either side. Both sides did use the Spitfire, and if I remember correctly, there was some Spit on Spit air combat. The Israelis did use the B-17 for bombing raids, so you may have had Spitfire verses B-17 combats.
  11. Schedules

    I have looked at several personal account of World War 2 bomber crews, and basically there was not a set schedule. The timing was mission-dependent. The longer the mission, the earlier everyone was up and moving. The one account gives a breakfast before a mission against Bremen of flapjacks (made with powdered eggs), toast, jam, and coffee. The Quartermaster Corps did come up with a special menu for flight crews of non-gas causing foods to deal with extended times of high-altitude flight without pressurization. The following quote comes from a U.S. Navy handbook on in-flight feeding from 1945.
  12. US Subs within Japanese Home waters

    The following comes from Admiral Lockwood's book, page 73.
  13. 1948 War for Israeli Freedom

    I am back. The primary combat aircraft used by the Egyptian Air Force during Israel's War for Independence was the Spitfire in various models. That is based on William Green's Air Forces of the World 1958. The Iraqis were operating a small force of Hawker Fury fighters, which do not appear to have taken any part in the war, while the Syrians and Jordanians had no air force in place. The Israelis used B-17s smuggled out of the U.S., a small number of Spitfires, some Avia s 199 from Czechoslovakia (ME109a with Junker Jumo engines), and some T-6 Texan/Harvard armed trainers for combat aircraft. That from The Israeli Air Force by Bill Gunston.
  14. Schedules

    While this does not give you the schedules, this WW2 training film does show the nuts and bolts of getting a mission off of the ground. It can be downloaded for free at achive.org. It covers a US B-25 and B-17 mission over North Africa. https://archive.org/details/TF1-3337 I will check some of my books to see if they have the info that you are looking for. However, it will vary based on the distance to the target and the number of planes taking part. For US heavy bomber formations, the greater the number of planes on the mission, the longer ti took to get into final formation.
  15. Shooting Down Some Mustang Myths

    Some other interesting Mustang Facts. I have a detailed report on the fly-off the US did against a late-model Zero 52 captured on Saipan and flown against the P-38, the P-47, the P-51, the Corsair, the Hellcat, and the late-model Wildcat. The Navy planes could all maneuver better with the Zero than the Mustang. The Wildcat would have made a very good Zero clone in dissimilar aerial combat training. During World War 2, if a Mustang was hit over Europe, it had a 20 percent chance of getting home. If a P-47 was hit over Europe, it had a 40 percent chance of getting home. During the Korean War, when the Mustang was used primarily as a fighter-bomber on ground attack missions, its lost rate per sortie was 6 times that of the F-80 Shooting Star. The chief reason was the liquid cooling system being hit with consequent loss of coolant. The USAF gave serious consideration to replacing the Mustang with the F-47 (P-47) Thunderbolt, but did not have enough Thunderbolts left in operating condition, as well as not wanting to use two obsolescent piston-engine aircraft in the Korean Theater.