Brad wrote:
And how long were you in the military James? How many times have you flown into combat? How many times have you been shot at? Ohhh that's right....
None, none, none and so what? This isn't a military service only website. I can at least read and figure out what people are saying, not react to my presumptions.
Quote:
I just love when a person who gets their knowledge from a book comes along
Quite a lot of books, actually, and some without pictures and quite big words I had to look up, too. I also do quite a bit of primary research, and funnily enough, talking to people who've done a lot of things has taught me not to take the captions at face value.. Of course YOU know all the PR photos sent out by the USAF are correct, and tell the full story, don't you?
Quote:
and questions the bravery of people in war over sixty years ago when they have
Never did. Thanks.
Quote:
NO IDEA AT ALL what the person in the plane or on the ground was doing or thinking.
It's not called the fog of war for nothing. It's actually
easy to have a better idea of the history than someone in the middle of it. The trick, (for the guy on the ground), or as an observer, is being able to interpret the evidence - not just react. That's why good leaders and good historians are rare - that takes brains to analyse data.
Quote:
I am so dang tired of people like you trying to rewrite history because it's not recorded quite the way you'd like to see it. It's often because you just don't think it could have happened that way.
So perhaps we should believe it's a flak tower even though it's not? Shall we discuss the Emperor's new clothes?
I don't know what shape history 'should be' but I'm well aware the biggest noise comes from those who don't like to have their sacred cows challenged.
I ABSOLUTELY agree that preconception is a problem. From anyone.
Quote:
It's true that the picture probably isn't a "flak tower" in the traditional sense but that doesn't mean it wasn't a dangerous place to be attacking. Maybe the public relations people just didn't get the caption right.
It's a water tower. It's not a flak tower. It may have been dangerous to attack. But we don't have ANY evidence except a caption to imply that.
Quote:
Neither you nor anybody else has any idea what might have been on top of that tower. Probably wasn't a FLAK cannon but it might have been a kraut with a machine gun.
It may have a person or gun or something on top. There's no evidence there is, and what we can see in the pic (in time the pilots did not have) we can see nothing to indicate it's got anyone there.
Yes, leisurely hindsight, no, not invalid.
Quote:
You don't know what was on the ground below the tower behind the fence. Might have been a bunch of krauts with guns. You don't know if the guy who's plane shot this footage was the tenth guy in a row to attack this target. You don't know if the guy strafeing the plane on the ground was taking out the last target.
Neither do you. Which is why I was interested in Jack's original post and Ryan's further items. I simply asked a few questions and posed a couple of hypotheses. If proven wrong by further data (rather than rants
not based on what I said) I'll change my hypothesis. I don't mind if you agree or not, I just put it forward for discussion.
It's not about being right, better, brave or clever, just discussion. OK?
Quote:
You don't know if that D-520 just landed and was being destroyed so it couldn't be serviced and put back in the air.
Hence my post with a big 'or not' at the end. We don't know. What I do know is that it's in the colours of an advanced trainer, or the
Curcus Rozarius It could still have a pilot in it, making it a well-worthwhile target.
Quote:
Even if that is just a water tower it is called a target of opportunity. You destroy the bad guy's ability to make war. Taking out his water supply is often a big part of that puzzle.
Sure. 50 cal on thick circular reinforced concrete? Might not even get through. It's a pre-war (therefore civilian) tower, I
think.
It's for water for irrigation, going on the landscape we can see. First effect, if damaged, is the loss of crops, affecting the civilian population, and later, directly and indirectly, the occupying Germans and their ability, as you say.
Could anyone figure that out in a split second lining up? Of course not. No criticism. Never said it wasn't a legitimate target.
But another thought. It's a basic, whether in police work, security, conjuring and military practice to provide a dummy or a distraction to secure the safety of something else.
Don't go for the obvious target, it may be booby trapped, it may just be there to take your eye to stop you looking where you would otherwise.
Again, a criticism of these pilots? Not specifically, because we don't know enough - but the principle is worth mentioning.
Quote:
You may question the "guts" of the man in the P-47 and his kind that were able to operate from your percieved version of a safe place out of the mud, but I dare say you wouldn't be qualified to flush out the man's reliefe tube at the end of the day.
1. I didn't question anyone's 'guts'. Get your facts right before attacking me.
2. The guys in the mud (unlike fighter pilots) tended to have a robust opinion about the flyboys. Doesn't mean they were right, but if we are talking about revisionism, let's not carefully forget lowly soldiers' general grumbles about the air force in most nations most of the time - in most countries. (Yes, of course co-operation is usually good, and appreciated. But, OTOH, bad things also happen both ways. It's the nature of war.)
3. Don't be nasty, show otherwise with fact and analysis. It was just a hypothesis. It's more likely to be true, from the evidence, than the original caption - but that's not a big deal.
4. You are right, I'm not qualified to flush out the relief tube. So what? But I am paid to research, analyse and write about aviation history. Because I think it worthwhile, I share some of my knowledge, skill and experience here for free. Or we can have a website where everyone just repeats the same old rubbish.
I have the utmost respect for what you do, Brad, and you have my respect for your decisions and work. I believe it was a genuine misunderstanding, but we all have to work of what the thing really says, NOT what we think it said because we didn't read properly. That applies to military manuals, running our countries or discussing a split second action in a long war.
This seems appropriate about reacting, knowledge and thinking... See:
http://www.archive.org/details/PrivateSnafuSnafuperman
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
. I've heard other theories too, like that the Luftwaffe developed anti-gravity aircraft. Any theories on this?
There have been quite a few "logic jumps" to this point in the conversation.
