Warbird Information Exchange

Each post that you make only reveals how far out of touch you are with reality.

I wrote my thesis on Midway at Royal Military College of Canada. I don't think you have the ability to comprehend the importance of Midway or even the type of battle it was so I won't even attempt to educate your confused mind.

But obviously you are trolling.

!!!! Can you name three large-scale decisive naval battles from the past 500 years? (my quick list: Lepanto, Trafalgar ... and Midway; make it a list of five and I have to go to ancient Greek and Chinese history to fill out the list).

The most interesting thing to me about naval history is that there is so little large scale combat to be found. Countries spent so much of their national wealth over so much time to build a large navy that they became very reluctant to put it to risk. Besides Trafalgar, one is hard-pressed to find any battles between ships-of-the-line. In all WWII there were only two battleship-battleship engagements (the Bismark breakout and 2nd naval battle of Guadalcanal; Surigao Strait was more a battleship-battleship execution than a battle, and all of those were relatively small actions on the "epic" scale).

Midway was remarkable: One of the very few times in the past 2000 years where two naval countries put everything they could get together on the line, at a time when it could have gone either way, for one throw of the dice. The result was decisive, although some argue that Japan could have wiped the American Navy out at Midway and would still have lost the war. Midway and Stalingrad are the only regular additions to the 15 decisive battles list put together by Sir Edward Creasy in 1851, which I think is the widely agreed upon definition of epic. Tomahawk needs to be studying some history before making such general statements that show such a lack of large-scale perspective.

Of course, I am assuming that "epic" is meant to mean historically important. The word gets bandied about for small unit actions by Easy Company or PT-boats, but none of those actions likely influenced the course of the day let alone the war.

_________________
Kevin McCartney

You have got to be kidding... Warbirds aren't "revenue streams" or "gold-plated" by any stretch. Every single warbird on the planet operates at a loss. Their owners do so, be it an individual or a foundation, to keep history alive and because it's just a bit of fun. Organizations like The Planes Of Fame manage to eek out a small profit from an annual airshow in order to keep operating for another year. They manage due to their reputation and with the help of many, many volunteers.

Bottom line; nobody is getting rich off of warbirds. If you truly believe what you are saying than you have no idea what it takes to keep these machines flying. Believe me, it ain't about making money. Shops that restore and maintain these aircraft make a living, but it's not much more than can be earned by owning a Jiffy-Lube. Probably less.

Also, aren't you trying to organize an expedition to Greenland to recover P-38s? It's really not a good idea to be arrogant or burn bridges in the community, particularly if you're seeking "financial assistance"

-Andrew

Defending one's opinion is not trolling. I happen to believe the F2A is joke perpetrated on the U.S. Navy by Brewster. Their CEO was a war profiteer and con artist, plain and simple. Good men died because of it. It should be ridiculed, not revered. It should also act as a cautionary tale about our fundamentally flawed procurement system.

The Battle of Midway, while pivotal, certainly didn't alter the course of history for all mankind. The outcome of the war in the Pacific was never in doubt. The only variables were how long it would take to prosecute, and what the final cost would be, in terms of both lives and dollars. Midway was costly for both sides, and a tremendous gamble for the U.S. In the final analysis, we were very lucky that day. It could easily have gone the other way. The battle largely hinged on the efforts of one man, LCDR McClusky, and the tremendous sacrifice of VT-8. The sinking of the Japanese carriers was important, but we would have sunk them eventually, one way or another. Anyone who thinks the Japanese had any chance of ultimately winning the war is kidding themselves.

We went from Einstein's letter to F.D.R. in Aug.,1939, to dropping two A-bombs on Japan in Aug.,1945. That's only six years. We didn't start the war, but we most certainly knew how to finish it.

_________________
"There's nothing new under the sun. It's only new to you."

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

Perhaps not, but the tone of your post comes close.

As far as a "fundamentally flawed" procurement system...I'll disagree with you on that.
Yes, the US bought some turkeys like the Brewster Bermuda, but considering the USAAC/USAAF went from buying dozens, then hundreds of aircraft a year in the late 30s to hundreds of thousands of varying types (in a rapidly changing operational and technical environment) in '45, I think we did rather well.

And aside from a few missteps, the US has done well since. Where there has been problems, they've been of a technical nature...the failure of the Westinghouse J-40 engine which threw a huge wrench into the Navy air programs of the early-mid 50s...most notably the McDonnell F3D demon, comes to mind.

At the risk of getting insults (but this isn't the UK forum) I'd suggest comparing US procurement to the UK 's.
They bought lots of obsolete aircraft which remained in production well past their "best by" date.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Tomahawk: It appears you have been reading too much Walter Lord (1967) and none on the modern scholarship; you might as well be getting your information from 1942 newspapers. McClusky deserves credit for redirecting the search route, but then put his mission at risk by failing to follow protocol, which was that when two squadrons came upon two targets, the first squadron, in this case led by Richard Best, was to attack the target on the left. Best's squadron was already attacking his assigned target when McClusky attacked the same target, overkilling Kaga. Best - the man you do not mention - was at the end of his squadron's line of attack, saw the SNAFU and on his own authority sought a second target (Agaki, the flagship), which he destroyed with his own bomb.

VT-8 made a tremendous sacrifice, but the battle did not hinge on this. Read, for example, Shattered Sword, by Pearson and Tully. VT-8's attack was one of a number of events that complicated Nagumo's decision process, but was an hour before the Enterprise/Yorktown attacks and did not play a key role in delaying the spotting of the Japanese aircraft on the decks. (They actually were still below deck during the 10:30 attack).

You have been making a lot of statements that plainly say that you have only a superficial understanding of the topics at hand, and then criticize others who take you to task on these statements. Please read the literature more deeply.

_________________
Kevin McCartney

I am going to side with Tomahawk on the Midway issue.

Let's put it in context. The entire Pacific war was a sideshow in WWII. Japan's only goal in starting it was to slap the U.S. away from the empire it was building in Asia; to Japan's surprise, the U.S. reacted by making it a war of annihilation; and to the U.S.'s surprise, Japan fiercely dug in and took three years to concede, inch by inch and life by life, the territory it had won in three months. So there was a lot more bloodshed than either side expected, but the result could have been, and widely was, predicted before it began. And even with all the bloodshed, the Pacific war was not comparable in scale to either the eastern or western fronts in Europe taken individually, let alone together.

We do not yet have the historical distance from Midway to see it in context. We still parrot the wartime propaganda about it being the turning of the tide, when really there was no tide. Yes, there had to be a moment when the breaks first went against Japan and it became obvious that America's hugely larger military and economic strength was going to pound it into the ground, and Midway happened to be it. If it weren't Midway, it would have been some other engagement, most likely very near in time to when Midway occurred.

Midway is great cinematic drama and, as Old Iron says, the one occasion when the kind of carrier vs. carrier warfare that the major air-sea powers had been preparing for for 10 years actually occurred. But as Tomahawk says, it did not change materially the course of world history.

August

Folks in Australia, The Philippines, NZ, China as well as the families of several Americans lost who would beg to differ. Other than your quoted statement I'll agree with several of your observations though. Tomahawk's not that far off.

_________________
Zero Surprise!!...

tough crowd here via about Midway and the Pacific war. I can't believe anyone on wix would consider the Pacific war a foot note, a side show, and non important basically. But it's peoples opinions I guess.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

JohnB, I was referring to the system as a whole, not merely the aircraft portion. The history of the U.S. military is littered with examples. When one area gets scrutiny (jet engines, for example) things improve, but the system as a whole does not. The recent uniform camo pattern debacle is a perfect example.

McClusky's decision to continue the search and his judgment, in the opinion of Admiral Chester Nimitz, "decided the fate of our carrier task force and our forces at Midway ..." Yeah , I'm making this up as I go along...

McClusky FOUND the carriers, which was the point. The fact that he forgot his training in the heat of the moment is not all that unusual in battle. The resulting attack nonetheless mortally damaged three of the four carriers sunk in this battle. Here are the key points about Midway: Did we win? Yes. Were we very lucky that day? Yes. The rest is armchair quarterbacking. It was not a brilliantly conceived, flawlessly executed plan that won the day, it was mostly luck. Ours. Personal initiative, skill, and daring brought success, despite inadequate training and inferior equipment, as is all too often the case for the armed forces of the U.S.

This thread is way off topic now. What I want to know is: When did the wind shift, and the F2A stop being regarded as a POS? Is this some PC reaction by members of the "participation award" generation? In life there are winners and losers. You can separate them by their scorecard. The F2A had always been regarded as a loser, by those who were there to see it. Now, suddenly it gets redemption, based on what?

_________________
"There's nothing new under the sun. It's only new to you."

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

My personal thanks to those who risk condemnation to voice their support for my views. I'd rather be right than popular.

_________________
"There's nothing new under the sun. It's only new to you."

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

In terms of the original question and the point of this thread...

I think at least in the USA the F2A would be more rare. You can visit Dayton, OH and see an XB-70 but most Americans have never seen a Buffalo in person, only in pictures.

No need to thank anyone really. It's just an internet forum for chr*st sakes. One of far too many IMO and way too many people take these forums way too seriously (myself a few times as well, hence the bannings ) It's easy for people to sit in relative seclusion and throw out statements with really no consequence or accountability. That's sometimes the privilege that comes with playing on internet forums if you can call it that. Not too many people around here really know each other and many like to think they do to the point of disliking, ridiculing, trash talking etc someone they have never met and judging a person by what they type on a keyboard. (and stating it here frequently) Shame really but that's internet life for ya hence the "thick skin" nonsense all too often posted. As for bannings? haven't seen much of that lately. Guess I've just become boring or smarter, ha!

It's quite easy to be a hypocrite on an internet forum, happens all the time. Speak your mind but better be prepared to defend it. Good luck.

_________________
Zero Surprise!!...

Military historian John Keegan called it "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare.

I am surprised at how many posters here think finding the carriers was pure fluke. Crypto analysis and military intelligence played a key role in this victory and changed the methods of warfare for many generations to come.

Whether a plane is a POS or not really isn't the point. It's a plane, and thus simply by being a plane, it is cool. Warbirds aren't a zero-sum game. If someone chooses to restore or reproduce a Buffalo, it doesn't mean that another plane that would be more deserving (in your opinion) doesn't get restored because of that. If I had unlimited funds, would I restore a Buffalo? Probably not.

Why do we like and restore the various trainers from World War II? None of them ever fired a shot in combat, but they had a role in helping prepare pilots to take the fight to the enemy. The one role the Buffalo was successful with the Navy was as an advanced trainer until there were sufficient numbers of F4Fs available to fill that role.

While it's combat role with Marines was short, it was part of a very significant battle. The sacrifice of VMF-221 is often overlooked in the greater mosaic of the battle of Midway. Why shouldn't these pilots be honored, and what better way to honor these pilots than to display the plane they had to go to war with? It should also serve as a reminder to the American public that we can't make these mistakes again and allow our service men and women to face a numerically superior enemy with inferior equipment.

Personally, I believe the Naval Battles of Guadalcanal from November 12 - 15, 1942, and the corresponding actions on land were more of a "turning point" of the Pacific War than Midway. The Japanese never attempted to reinforce Guadalcanal again, and never attempted to take the offensive again. The advantage gained at Midway was largely erased by the torpedoing of Saratoga, torpedoing and sinking of Wasp and the sinking of Hornet at Santa Cruz. The difference was that American industry made good on these losses, and the Japanese could not. By the time Japanese fleet chose to sortie again, America's industrial might had already put together a fleet larger than both the Japanese and American sides at Midway.