GUTS!!

[brucev]

i don't know how you can say it doesn't look dangerous, pretty hard to judge the circumstances as a whole with one frame to look at.

[Brad]

Brad, calm down.
What I wrote before was:

It's easy to be an armchair critic, and I'm not criticising the pilots (they were in a dangerous environments with split second decision making)...

OK?

Well you also wrote:

The pic was 'written up' to enable an 'our brave boys' headline then (and now). Not arguing that they were brave, but it's an excess of guts available in this case - they probably didn't even make the tower leak...

And one can ask what was being missed while an obsolete fighter (parked, oh so attractively in the middle without camouflage or protection) was attracting the bullets? Something elsewhere on the field, safe? (Probably not, but...)

You have no earthly idea if this was mislabeled accidently, if the towers or field had been armed, were still armed or what. You have no idea what the pilots were facing as far as resistance. You don't even acknowledge the possibility that the pilots may very well have known they were attacking water towers and the public relations guys might have put the wrong word on the picture! Unless you find the guys that were flying the planes, you will never know. You just automatically assume that it must be blatant propaganda to get headlines.

Maybe they "didn't even make the tower leak" as you said. But while you are quite happy to question them sixty years after the fact, I'm betting you wouldn't have gone with them to try.

[JDK]

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.

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?

and questions the bravery of people in war over sixty years ago when they have

Never did. Thanks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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,

[JDK]

Can you cite sources which disprove it being a "flak tower"? Or is this version of history simply JDK trying to write his own novel? Shall we call it the "War According to JDK"? . I've heard other theories too, like that the Luftwaffe developed anti-gravity aircraft. Any theories on this?

Tell you what Chris, you get your number and nature of 109 accidents updated and right, and I'll bother to answer the above. I noted your absence to the 'restoration trends' thread after your data was checked. OK?

[airnutz]

Whoa guys!!!! There have been quite a few "logic jumps" to this point in the conversation.

There is NO proof, so far, that the photo in question IS a water tower..tho I believe that to be true.

Brad may be correct and the tower, may be, both a water tower AND a Flak position!

German anti-aircraft cannon, in this context, ran the light to heavy scale from 12.7mm to 128mm. I can give you a
more detailed explanation, but bear with me..I type slow.

(and I just was settling down to my first Cuervo and beer with the Deadhead radio hour when you guys started
going "round bend")

[JDK]

Some good points - to respond:

You have no earthly idea if this was mislabeled accidently,

No, you are right. My presumption is based on the nature of propaganda and PR. Balance of probability.

if the towers or field had been armed, were still armed or what. You have no idea what the pilots were facing as far as resistance.

No, again, fair comment. However the evidence we have doesn't support that. More evidence might change the story, sure.

You don't even acknowledge the possibility that the pilots may very well have known they were attacking water towers and the public relations guys might have put the wrong word on the picture!

Indeed! I did think that. (FWIW) No argument. I reckoned the post was long enough already...

Unless you find the guys that were flying the planes, you will never know.

Don't be such a faint heart! If it was worth pursuing, here's how you could do it. Follow up on the op data, and the combat reports. You could therefore track the location of the tower, and establish it it was / is a water tower. Unlike what they knew then, you'd possibly be able to establish if there was any enemy presence there, or if the tower was used for such purposes from local records, accounts and German records. It seems to be overlooked by some so far that this is Northern France or possibly the low countries - Occupied Europe, not Germany. Local activity in those two areas are very different.

You just automatically assume that it must be blatant propaganda to get headlines.

Trust me - all that analysis wasn't 'automatic'.

Maybe they "didn't even make the tower leak" as you said. But while you are quite happy to question them sixty years after the fact, I'm betting you wouldn't have gone with them to try.

Sorry, unquestioned history is bilge.

You have, as I've said, my respect. I did not question their courage - except to note it probably wasn't as needed there as it was elsewhere in their careers.

You have no knowledge or understanding of my courage (or lack of) and it is, fact, none of your business. That remark is out of line.

Yours,

PS - Is it a water tower? I think it is - try a google picture search for 'water tower, holland' or similar.

It's painted white, or a light colour. While camouflage might be useless, I'd rather not be the Pvt.Wermacht on top of one of them painted white...

[RyanShort1]

For those who just read James post - take a look at this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Water_towers_in_France.
Should answer most questions. I decided to go do a bit of digging on my own. Looks to me they are clearly water towers, question is were the Germans using some of them for military purposes... It'd be really great if we could find some primary source information from what the pilots were being briefed on as to flak targets. I still think that the pilots must've had some reason to think they were targets of value, and that not all of the captions were merely for propaganda purposes, though James could be entirely right on that point.

Ryan

[brucev]

interesting date on the photo i just noticed, 5-15-44. if i'm not mistaken water towers (and almost everything else) were specifically targeted in the weeks before D-day. The caption also says it was taken in occupied France, (assuming that is correct)...

on the other hand though there does appear to be a gap where the sides of the "water tank" should meet the roofline. At any rate whether that is a water tower or flak tower is irrelevant to the danger involved IMO

[RyanShort1]

Also, here follows a link to a book on P-51s that apparently references the subject. Perhaps someone with the book in their library could enlighten us further as to the source!

Preview in Google Books

Ryan

[JDK]

Please come in airnutz!

There is NO proof, so far, that the photo in question IS a water tower..tho I believe that to be true.

Brad may be correct and the tower, may be, both a water tower AND a Flak position!

I like Ryans evidence, thanks Ryan. It would be interesting to note when the stick-drum type of water tower came in - pre- or post- war.

No argument that it could be an opportunistic flack tower on a water tower. However the problem with armament up there (IMHO) is finding a clear field of fire in the structure.

I'd buy the 'other equipment' idea easier - radar, fire direction, bratwurst security store...

Interesting...

Last edited by JDK on Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[JDK]

interesting date on the photo i just noticed, 5-15-44. if i'm not mistaken water towers (and almost everything else) were specifically targeted in the weeks before D-day. The caption also says it was taken in occupied France, (assuming that is correct)...

Good point. Can you recall the source on that? I'd agree, FWIW.

on the other hand though there does appear to be a gap where the sides of the "water tank" should meet the roofline. At any rate whether that is a water tower or flak tower is irrelevant to the danger involved IMO

The gap is interesting, dunno what it cold prove though. We can see no barrels (on this side).

The danger - care to elaborate? IMHO, it's location is the critical thing - again, from what I can see, the danger is collision or target fixation, and, relatively speaking less risky than firing on the ground. Also, if it's not shooting back, that's one 'danger' removed.

All 'ifs' of course.

Cheers,

[A2C]

This is a water tower:

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/art ... obj=312613

JDK is speaking in terms of what he wants something to be, in my opinion. No sources on top of that.

[RyanShort1]

This is a water tower:

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/art ... obj=312613

JDK is speaking in terms of what he wants something to be, in my opinion. No sources on top of that.

A2C - are you TRYING to violate the "No personal attacks" stuff in Scott's rules? There's no reason to take this to a personal level. This shouldn't be "beat up JDK" night.

Check the link I posted. Perhaps the French don't know what they build!



Ryan

[brucev]

Good point. Can you recall the source on that? I'd agree, FWIW..

I'm quite certain I've read that as fact from more than one source but the best i can do from memory is "Thunderbolt Aces of the Ninth and Fifteenth Air Forces" by Jerry Scutts. I believe he writes briefly about strafing missions targeting water towers during the month before D-day.

The gap is interesting, dunno what it cold prove though. We can see no barrels (on this side).

I'd agree, its interesting but proves nothing by itself.

The danger - care to elaborate? IMHO, it's location is the critical thing - again, from what I can see, the danger is collision or target fixation, and, relatively speaking less risky than firing on the ground. Also, if it's not shooting back, that's one 'danger' removed.

All 'ifs' of course.

Cheers,

Aside from the dangers you mention, its just impossible to tell from the picture what the preverbial big picture there is. It may well be the best defended water tower in Europe. Theres just no way to know without more information. IMO however anyone who strapped into a fighter (to go fly 70ft above enemy territory while shooting and being shot at) needs a wheelbarrow.

[Tulio]

I've heard other theories too, like that the Luftwaffe developed anti-gravity aircraft. Any theories on this?

First, this - regarding the anti-gravity experiments [note that I do not say aircraft] by the Germans:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... d42&t=2823

7th August 2002, 14:03
Deino Deino is offline
Rank 5 Registered User

Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Germany
Posts: 792
Deino is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Deino
Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’ !?!? from Jane's
Is this from Star-Treck or a late April-joke .... regarding our weather in Germany it seems so .... but it's from Jane's !!!

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/ne ... _1_n.shtml

"



29 July 2002

Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’

By Nick Cook, JDW Aerospace Consultant, London

Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware.

As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing’s Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices in Russia and Finland. The approach, however, has been thwarted by Russian officialdom.

The Boeing drive to develop a collaborative relationship with the scientist in question, Dr Evgeny Podkletnov, has its own internal project name: ‘GRASP’ — Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion.

A GRASP briefing document obtained by JDW sets out what Boeing believes to be at stake. "If gravity modification is real," it says, "it will alter the entire aerospace business."

GRASP’s objective is to explore propellentless propulsion (the aerospace world’s more formal term for anti-gravity), determine the validity of Podkletnov’s work and "examine possible uses for such a technology". Applications, the company says, could include space launch systems, artificial gravity on spacecraft, aircraft propulsion and ‘fuelless’ electricity generation — so-called ‘free energy’.

But it is also apparent that Podkletnov’s work could be engineered into a radical new weapon. The GRASP paper focuses on Podkletnov’s claims that his high-power experiments, using a device called an ‘impulse gravity generator’, are capable of producing a beam of ‘gravity-like’ energy that can exert an instantaneous force of 1,000g on any object — enough, in principle, to vaporise it, especially if the object is moving at high speed.

Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10cm) wide beam’s ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km. Such a device, observers say, could be adapted for use as an anti-satellite weapon or a ballistic missile shield. Podkletnov declared that any object placed above his rapidly spinning superconducting apparatus lost up to 2% of its weight.

Although he was vilified by traditionalists who claimed that gravity-shielding was impossible under the known laws of physics, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) attempted to replicate his work in the mid-1990s. Because NASA lacked Podkletnov’s unique formula for the work, the attempt failed. NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama will shortly conduct a second set of experiments using apparatus built to Podkletnov’s specifications.

Boeing recently approached Podkletnov directly, but promptly fell foul of Russian technology transfer controls (Moscow wants to stem the exodus of Russian high technology to the West).

The GRASP briefing document reveals that BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin have also contacted Podkletnov "and have some activity in this area".

It is also possible, Boeing admits, that "classified activities in gravity modification may exist". The paper points out that Podkletnov is strongly anti-military and will only provide assistance if the research is carried out in the ‘white world’ of open development."


Any comments ... ???

Deino
__________________
Country: Germany

*****************

I have read that book several times, and to say the least, should leave one thinking about all the stuff that we don't know, and it only happened less than 100 years ago...

Saludos,


Tulio