Believe it or not - facts about WW2

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pford:

For example, I know for a fact that there is intellegent life on Titan. Now please prove me wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good one.

The dificulties of proving the negative...

[eba]

With regard to the use of tracers, my Dad told me that his B-26 squadron experimented with eliminating tracer rounds from their loadouts on the theory that the gunners might have a better chance of hitting a fighter if there were no tracers to give away the fact that they were being shot at. After trying it in a couple of missions over Italy, however, everyone quickly and unanimously agreed it was a bad idea. Why? Because the German fighters tended to hold their attack runs much longer and pass much closer to the bombers if they didn't know they were being shot at. It seems the tracers had a nice deterent effect.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Good one.

The dificulties of proving the negative...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference being I do not care enough to prove him wrong, hence it is a moot issue.

If I took issue with his statement, then it behooves me to refute it. I am not sure where he got the idea that "proof" entered into the equation at all. I certainly never claimed that anyone should disprove anything, since proof is in the realm of math, and hecen not really relevant to a discussion about history.

You all are over-reacting a bit.

Jeff

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pford:

Obligating someone to disprove a statement is a fallicy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and you would be right if I asked him to disprove something. Since I didn't, I will call your shifting the burden of proof and raise you one strawman.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I can be skeptical about a so called fact, especially when it is presented without any supporting references.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you can. So can he. So can I. In fact, I am skeptical of the fact in question. For that amtter, I am skeptical about most of the facts mentioned in this thread.

It is another thing entirely to claim it is false because you find it distasteful, and do not really provide any more reason than that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If anything,it behooves the person making the statement to prove its voracity, not vise versa.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. But he did not say "I find that difficult to believe, please provide some evidence." He said "That is offensive, and I do not believe it".

Which is fine, but it is not exactly convincing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

For example, I know for a fact that there is intellegent life on Titan. Now please prove me wrong.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would I care what you believe about life on Titan?

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Giftig]

Coincidence is a wonderful thing (and dude, you blew the punchline, missed the wording lol). Anyway, I recall in 1980 seeing this list with a number of other things added to show that Reagan would be assassinated. Naturally, it is now somewhat truncated lol.

Anyway, there are any number of odd coincidences that can be pulled out of common relationships. For example, I believe it was Martin Gardner who derived the major numbers and dates of Christian dogma from the relations found between parts of a bicycle. Just goes to show that humans are good at finding patterns, but rather poor at interpreting them.

[GI Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Epée:

21. The MISS ME was an unarmed Piper Cub. While spotting for US

artillery her pilot saw a similar German plane doing the same thing. He

dove on the German plane and he and his co-pilot fired their pistols

damaging the German plane enough that it had to make a forced landing.

Whereupon they landed and took the Germans prisoner. I don't know where

they put them since the MISS ME only had 2 seats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't speak much on some of the other ones, but I can from this one. I had just read an article out of my WWII magazine and remembered it from seeing this. Here's the story on this one:

The pilot of the unarmed Piper L-4 called Miss Me!? was 1st Lt Merritt Francies and his observer was Lt William Martin. They were on an artillery spotting mission for the 5th Armored Division, aka Patton's Ghost Troops, or the First Army Wedge or Ninth Army Spearhead. (They were some of the names given to the 5th Armored Division as it was kept secret as possible for security reasons until it reached Germany.)

The spotting mission took place about 100 miles West of Berlin. The pilot of the L-4 spotted a German Fiesler Fi-156 Storch artillery spotting plane about 200 feet above some trees. They (The Americans) were above the German aircraft.

1st Lt Francies radioed his HQ and informed them they were about to give combat. Having the advantage of altitude, they dove and fired out of the side door of their plane with their Colt .45's. They fired into the windshield, fuel tanks and right wing of the Storch.

The rest of it, and I quote:

"After the Storch pilot made a low turn, the plane's right wing hit the ground, and the plane cartwheeled and came to rest in a pasture. Setting down nearby, the Americans ran to the downed plane.

The German pilot dived behind a huge pile of sugar beets to hide from them, but the (German)observer, who had been hit in the foot, fell to the ground. When Francies removed the observer's boot, a .45 slug fell out. Then Martin fired warning shots that brought the pilot to his feet, hands raised. Francies confiscated the pilot's wings and Luftwaffe shoulder insignia, as well as a Nazi battle flag.

'I never found out their names, Francies later recalled. They could have been important for all I know. We turned them over to our tankers about 15 minutes later after the injured man thanked me many times for bandaging his foot. I think they thought we would shoot them.' "

So, as you can see, they never took the prisoners in the plane, they merely turned them over to their advancing tank column. And from the article, there is also apparently an excerpt of this action in Corneilius Ryan's "The Last Battle".

Lt Francies recieved his second DFC (Distinguished Flying Cross) for this action.

My source that I used for this was

World War II Magazine, February 2000 issue.

Pages 18-24.

A very interesting article.

GI Tom

------------------

To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of wierd sandwich.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teamski:

Anyways, as far as German Airborne divisions being droppable. In addition to the well known losses at Crete of paratroopers, where would you get the aircraft to even try a division size drop? The Germans were WELL short of any transports due to losses over the Med such as the Palm Sunday Massacre. Add in the desperate measures trying to relieve the Stalingrad pocket. The Germans were using large numbers of HE-111s to fill the gaps......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting but irrelevant to the question at hand. The Luftwaffe had plenty of drop-qualified troopers even if they lacked the planes to drop them from.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie:

From the photos that I've seen the Graf Spee sank to only about the level of it's deck. The depth of water in the Plate estuary was one of Langsdorf's (Capt. of the G.S.) concerns when contemplating what to do after he was bottled up in Montivideo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen those photos too, but have also seen photos depicting the scene as I described. I ascribe the difference to the decks awash photos being taken *while* the ship was going down, before it touched bottom, but there might some question about the tides too. I have no information regarding maximum high tide vs. minimum low tide for those waters.

Michael

[Slapdragon]

Epée may want to site the source here to aid in historical support and or refutation. This list is taken directly from Dunnigan, James F. and Albert A. Nofi (1994). Dirty Little Secrets of World War Two. William Morrow: New York. Dunnigan is rather well known for his ability to take complex facts and simplify them. Sometimes he goes to far, and sometimes he hits the mark well historically, but his use of factoids (started in "How to Make War") make him easy to read. Sort of like "History Light".

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg:

Yep the Army had more ships than the Navy,(technically) Every LST,LSI,landing craft,FSI

and Floating dock was under Army control, and there were hundreds of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now hang on there a second. I know that at least some, indeed most, LSTs, LCIs, LSIs, LCMs, etc., etc. were owned and crewed by the Navy. Some of smaller craft, though owned by the Navy, were crewed by the Coast Guard (which is absorbed by the Navy during wartime anyway). In fact, I believe only a very few of those kinds of craft and ships were ceded to the Army.

Michael

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silesian-jaeger:

Taken from "World War II Almanac" by Robert Goralski:

THE FIRST SHELLING OF THE U.S. MAINLAND

"Japanese submarine I-17 shelled the Elwood oil field west of Santa Barbara, California, in the early evening hours of Feb. 23, 1942.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, that was it! My grandmother lived in LA back then, and actually has a picture of herself (and several other gawkers) standing next to an empty oil-storage tank with a ragged hole blown in the side. She said it was a Japanese sub that did it, but I never knew which one...

[WendellM]

eba,

"With regard to the use of tracers [...] the German fighters tended to hold their attack runs much longer and pass much closer to the bombers if they didn't know they were being shot at."

A good point. I know that, as the Germans, I get a lot more "friendly" with the bombers in EAW if I don't seem to be targeted - nice to hear historical confirmation.

Similarly I'm more aggressive in presenting my tanks/panzers in CM until a "Gun?" makes its presence known. Then I naturally wish I hadn't been so adventuresome .

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 09-06-2000).]

[GriffinCheng+]

Well, the tracer thing can also be found in the first chapter of the book "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" by Robert L. Shaw.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0870210599/o/qid=968232296/sr=8-2/ref=aps_sr_b_1_4/002-5934466-5321638

I am not sure if it is true but it sounds reasonable.

BTW, only less than 10% of all WW2 US enlisted fighter pilots were qualified as "ace" for 5 or more confirmed kills. I remember a phrase that goes like this: "In air combat, there are only two: the fighter and the target".

Griffin.

------------------

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Epée:

The US 8th Air Force shot down 6,098

fighter planes, 1 for every 12,700 shots fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems like HMGs were pretty crappy against aircraft then. (Especially if considering that the claimed kills are overrated...)

Just my observation

Olle

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The difference being I do not care enough to prove him wrong, hence it is a moot issue.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One would ask then, if one doesn't care enough to follow through, why weigh in at all? The "I COULD prove you wrong... if I wanted to..." attitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If I took issue with his statement, then it behooves me to refute it. I am not sure where he got the idea that "proof" entered into the equation at all.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure where one would get the idea of "proof" being needed... oh wait. This was you wasn't it?

"If you think it is untrue, then it behooves you to say so, and refute it with something more substantial than your sense of pride."-Jeff Heidman

Seems to mean you need "proof" to "refute it with something more substantial".

Cav

------------------

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

--Bertrand Russell

"God is always with the strongest battalions."

--Frederick the Great

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

--Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."

--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-06-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Not sure where one would get the idea of "proof" being needed... oh wait. This was you wasn't it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it wasn't. You should get a dictioanry and look up the word "proof" and the word "refute".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

"If you think it is untrue, then it behooves you to say so, and refute it with something more substantial than your sense of pride."-Jeff Heidman

Seems to mean you need "proof" to "refute it with something more substantial".

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even remotely. I said nothing about proof, and you just did a fine job of showing that I said nothing about proof. I can refute all sorts of things without a need to "prove" anything.

Which is a good thing, since "proof" is generally impossible to come by in anything but very limited systems, such as mathematics.

So try not to read what you want into what people say. It would be better for everyone you communicate with if you responded to what they say rather than what you wished they would say.

Jeff Heidman

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Seems like HMGs were pretty crappy against aircraft then. (Especially if considering that the claimed kills are overrated...)

Just my observation

Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but they were designed more to dissuade attack than to actually shoot down enemy a/c (fighter pilots have to have something to do!)

My Grandfather was a bombardier in a B-17F in '43 (shot down by flak in October, spent the rest of the war in a POW camp, but that's another story). I recall him telling me that once they tried putting extra tracers in the nose guns to dissuade frontal attacks (which were a real problem for the -17Fs to handle). In 14 missions the entire crew of his plane only claimed 2 a/c downed and another 2 damaged, but they got the bombs through, which was the whole point.

------------------

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[infohawk]

Regarding Heidman v CavScout,

Heidman doesn't seem to be making any sense. CavScout's arguments are sound.

Keep fighting for reason CavScout!

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by infohawk:

Regarding Heidman v CavScout,

Heidman doesn't seem to be making any sense. CavScout's arguments are sound.

Keep fighting for reason CavScout!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL.

Looks like we have a cheerleader. Do you were a nice skirt?

Jeff Heidman

[kmead]

In reference to the commentary on Frenchmen in the service of the German army, I recall reading a book possibly called Soldier that was written by a conscripted Frenchmen who served in the Gross Deutschland division on the eastern front. It detailed his entire sevice as I recall (twenty some odd years ago), rather gripping.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Not even remotely. I said nothing about proof, and you just did a fine job of showing that I said nothing about proof. I can refute all sorts of things without a need to "prove" anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said "refute it with something more substantial than your sense of pride". Exactly what were you insinuating then if not proof?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Which is a good thing, since "proof" is generally impossible to come by in anything but very limited systems, such as mathematics.

So try not to read what you want into what people say. It would be better for everyone you communicate with if you responded to what they say rather than what you wished they would say.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Deja Vu... soon you will be arguing what "is" is...

Cav

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

You said "refute it with something more substantial than your sense of pride". Exactly what were you insinuating then if not proof?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something more substantial than his sense of pride, kind of like exactly what I said.

Do you want an example? How about something like "What a bunch of crap. I happen to know that Dugan fudged hius numbers when he came up with those figures."

See, evidence. No proof though.

Are you claiming that the only way to refute something is to prove it incorrect? That would be a logical fallacy.

Jeff Heidman

[Spook]

Jeff/CavScout:

I'm not qualified to be judgemental to either of you, given that I acted like a jackass in a "skirmish" with Fionn a month ago. But keeping that event in perspective, I can express the hope that the both of you will still keep your discussion here on a civil note.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

Jeff/CavScout:

I'm not qualified to be judgemental to either of you, given that I acted like a jackass in a "skirmish" with Fionn a month ago. But keeping that event in perspective, I can express the hope that the both of you will still keep your discussion here on a civil note.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, at this point, I think the entire debate is stupid enough to give up on.

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Do you want an example? How about something like "What a bunch of crap. I happen to know that Dugan fudged hius numbers when he came up with those figures."

See, evidence. No proof though.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have a different definition of "evidence" then.

Cav