How accurate is the 'Tora,Tora,Tora' film?

[notawoowoo]

I confess all I know about the pearl harbor attack is from watching this excellent (IMHO) drama several times over the years on tv, and from following
some of the threads here about the attack...

Hence I wonder what the general opinion of Tora Tora Tora is here?

IMHO that film has got it essentialy right..especially the scene just before the attack where that last message to pearl from washington did not make it in time, due to bad short wave Navy radio conditions and the bureocrat idiot having it sent as a non emergency commercial telegram, ect..

From reading in the CT debate here I have noticed that HB's on this topic whilst unanimously crying that President FDR needed and wanted Japan to attack us and treasonusly sacrificied the thousands of Navy sailors for his goal of entering WW2 they allways miss these points.

1. FDR had been a Secretary of the Navy himself and was understandably quite fond of the Navy.
2. Given that the HB's are correct, that is that FDR conspired to goad and allow the Japanese Navy to attack Pearl,
IT CLEARLY WAS NOT NECCESSARY TO ALLOW THE JAPANESE NAVY TO SUCCEED!! Think about it..having Pearl adequately timely warned, with its fleet rushing out of harbor in time to intercept the incoming attack and destroy it in self defense would have certainly
roused the vast majority of Americans and Congress to without question enact the desired decleration of war...



So how strange is that, that one of the most honored and progressive US Presidents, whose masterfull leadership in large part saved the country from the depression through visionary progressive programs which saved millions of Americans from starvation ect..could also be as cunningly evil as Hitler and Stalin!!!???

Give me a break!!

thanks for letting me enter my neophyte 2 cents.

[Obviousman]

I don't know enough to answer most of your questions right now, but you have hit upon a number of interesting discussion points:

1. Most people would agree (IMO) that FDR wanted the US to support the British, if not actually enter the war on their side. I would go so far he was waiting for the right political climate to enter the war on the British side.

2. As you have said, it was not necessary to have a successful Japanese attack in order to justify either overt support or a declaration of war on the Japanese. A clear demonstration of Japanese intention would be sufficient to achieve (IMO) FDR's goals. This could be achieved by the repelling of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Increased vigilence in the form of exercises could have been organised during which (if the attack had been known) the "surprise" attack would be severely blunted, if not actually negated. This would have shown Japanese intent without loss of operational capability.

3. Allowing a Japanese attack would have been a terrible mistake in strategic thinking. That attack severely compromised the ability of US forces in the Pacific region to respond to Japanese military advances. It took years of the US industrial base working full-time, over-stretching of the Japanese logistic capability, and a couple of lucky tactical victories, in order for the US to overcome the disadvantage. Once again, it would have been better (if the attack plans had been known) to repel that attack, preserving US assets in the Pacific.

[captain swoop]

Also it relies on Hindsight to know that the Carriers were going to be the most important part of the fleet at a time when the Battleship was considered to be the most important.

[Obviousman]

Also it relies on Hindsight to know that the Carriers were going to be the most important part of the fleet at a time when the Battleship was considered to be the most important.

That's another interesting point; there was great debate about the importance of the carrier versus the battleship in that era. Battles such as Taranto and Coral Sea elevated the value of the carrier in strategic thinking, but that was still in the future (okay, Taranto was in 1940). Loss of the battleships at Pearl Harbour, in the minds of the predominently convential thinking US Naval chiefs, would have been a far greater blow than loss of carriers.

[Sam5]

IT CLEARLY WAS NOT NECCESSARY TO ALLOW THE JAPANESE NAVY TO SUCCEED!!

Of course.

[SpitfireIX]

Moderators--

Could you please merge this into the long Pearl Harbor thread?

[SpitfireIX]

FDR wanted the US to support the British, if not actually enter the war on their side. I would go so far he was waiting for the right political climate to enter the war on the British side.

I've read that Roosevelt's advisors had told him in September of 1941 that he had the votes in Congress for a declaration of war against Germany. He may have been waiting for a more favorable political climate in order to have a greater mandate to conduct the war as he saw fit; however, the main reason FDR did not ask for a declaration of war sooner was that his military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible, in order to give them more time to prepare.

Increased vigilence in the form of exercises could have been organised during which (if the attack had been known) the "surprise" attack would be severely blunted, if not actually negated. This would have shown Japanese intent without loss of operational capability.

In June, 1940, after Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, the War Department sent an order (http://www.amgot.org/phclausn.htm) to the commander in Hawaii that read as follows:



George C. Marshall
Immediately alert complete defensive organization to deal with possible trans-Pacific raid, to the greatest extent possible without creating public hysteria or provoking undue curiosity of newspapers or alien agents. Suggest maneuver basis. Maintain alert until further orders. Instructions for secret communications direct with Chief of Staff will be furnished you shortly. Acknowledge. [emphasis added]Unfortunately for the US, Marshall was out of Washington observing important maneuvers when the final round of warnings was sent to Pearl Harbor, and the orders sent were less explicit and less urgent.

Allowing a Japanese attack would have been a terrible mistake in strategic thinking. That attack severely compromised the ability of US forces in the Pacific region to respond to Japanese military advances.

How much help the battleships would have been in slowing the Japanese is debatable; however, the attack unquestionably created some major problems for the US in the Pacific.

[jrkeller]

Here are the goofs (http://imdb.com/title/tt0066473/goofs) in the movie. As you can see they are minor.

[Larry Jacks]

I first heard of the "Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory" from one one my high school teachers, a retired Air Force Colonel, over 30 years ago. He didn't say that he believed the conspiracy theory was true, meerly that it existed. On the face of it, if there were any substantive evidence of FDR letting the attack take place, it probably would've been destroyed decades ago. Personally, I don't believe it.

FDR knew that the Japanese were a problem but that Hitler was the real threat. How would letting the Japanese attack the US fleet at Pearl Harbor strengthen the case for going to war against Germany? Had Hitler not made the monumental blunder (one of many) of declaring war on the US, it might've been a hard sell for the US to declare war on Germany.

When Hitler declared on the US, he provided a long list of greviences. One of them was related to FDR ordering US Navy ships to escort British convoys long before Pearl Harbor. At least one of those ships, the USS Reuben James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)), was sank by a German U-Boat over a month before Pearl Harbor. Technically, those US escorts were an act of war against Germany.

[Astronot]

I remember reading a similar account of the message transmission years ago in a The Puzzle Palace (http://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-Americas-Intelligence-Organization/dp/0140067485). It is sometimes the case that the course of important events are shaped by mundane actions even if the CT don't want to believe it.

[MG1962A]

Here are the goofs in the movie. As you can see they are minor.


Ohh Ohh - they missed one. Prior to the attack there are a couple of close up character shots with the harbour in the background. Most of the naval vessels in those shots are the Australian Navy.

The producers of the film waited for a combined naval exercise to finish so the port would look fuller of warships than normal

[JonClarke]

Most of the naval vessels in those shots are the Australian Navy.

I don't think we had that big a navy, even in 1970

[Obviousman]

I don't think we had that big a navy, even in 1970

We were probably doing a RIMPAC; they have been going for quite some time.

[Neverfly]

this is (normal for me ) but a bit off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group
The Importance of the carrier was soon learned and now employes the Carrier Battle Group. its strategically interesting...
My Grandmother firmly Believed that Roosevelt knew in advance but allowed it to happen to Boost economy and Galvanize the American public into War.
The basic question in my mind is.. Why would any Leader ALLOW an attack that will Compromise the FLEET!? thats like taunting a guy into shooting you- so that you can fight him.
The basic Question of evidence comes down to interviewing Folks who are probably dead by now- or digging in Roosevelts oval office trash can- which im sure has been emptied by now...
the Question of Speculation comes down to - like the question i raised- and also Key power.
Did he have the Authority and respect of the nation to Declare war without instigation from outside Sources?
as i recall Roosevelt was Much respected and served FOUR terms in office...

[Neverfly]

OOPS- i meant this post to go into the Prediction of pearl Harbor thread. oh Well..

[Occam]

I don't want to open up a can of worms here but...
It would be a huge mistake to believe that a government, especially a wartime one, would not allow massive property destruction and the death of many civilians, including its own, if a political or strategic advantage was the perceived end result.

Consider what Churchill allowed at Coventry. Consider the almost total annihilation of the population of Dresden, not in any way a military target. Both cases were no more than the systematic mass murder of civilians, children and refugees etc. as pawns in a psychological game.

It is neither inconceivable, nor impossible that Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen, even engineered. Neither should 911 conspiracy theories be dismissed out of hand. Both events may well be exactly what the official story portrays - but any discrepencies in those stories should be rigorously examined, as should any conflicting material evidence. To do any less would be a disgrace.

History is written by the victors and political and social success is not a sure fire sign of a noble man. Smiling Joe Stalin was revered and idolised by the same people he murdered by the millions, as was Chairman Mao. To fool yourself that "it couldn't happen here" seems somewhat blinkered.

[Neverfly]

<chuckle- you just made the same mistake i did i think... i was reading both this thread and another Called Predictions of Pearl harbor- and i meant to post my reply there but i put it here instead- intentional or not - both our replies belong on that other thread. THIS one is about a Film of the events...
You make Good points- But Especially after Decades- the burden of proof can become EXCEEDNGLY difficult..exponentially i should say, as time passes...
Sometimes you can Only Accept what you cannot prove... and its hard.
But History is FULL of atrocities- the best we can do is maintain healthy skepticism inside even when we show complacency on the outside.
Results? the higher we demand security-the more freedoms we can lose...
To accuse a leader of "allowing" something to happen is like saying Why did God "allow" this to happen. You can almost always find a motive for the allowance and make the claim... You can loan a friend your car- and if someone rear ends him you can claim he ALLOWED it to happen- for whatever reason, but that doesnt really Mean A Whole lot...Our Presidents have a limit on time they can serve also too because an Inhumane presdient can be replaced by a Humane one that couldnt hold himself responsible for the deaths if he allowed it to occur.
Vote Wisely and gamble your luck...
We COULD gather evidence of a conspiracy- we COULD gather evidence of a plan.. But to gather evidence of whether he knew and allowed it would prove VERY difficult and we are only left with speculation. Of course an inquiry should be done if within reason- remember too the Fundamental of Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

[SpitfireIX]

Consider what Churchill allowed at Coventry.

This is a myth (http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=107). From an article on the Churchill Centre's web site:


Peter J. McIver
All concerned with the information gleaned from the intercepted German signals were conscious that German suspicions must not be aroused for the sake of ephemeral advantages. In the case of the Coventry raid no dilemma arose, for until the German directional beam was turned on the doomed city nobody knew where the great raid would be. Certainly the Prime Minister did not. The German signals referred to a major operation with the code name "Moonlight Sonata. . . ." during the afternoon before the raid I wrote in my diary (kept under lock and key at 10 Downing Street), "It is obviously some major air operation, but its exact destination the Air Ministry find it difficult to determine. . . ."

There is not even the thinnest shred of truth in Group Captain Winterbotham's story of Coventry. It is to be hoped that neither this incident nor a score of others with which Mr. Stevenson's book about "Intrepid" is gaudily bedizened are ever used for the purpose of historical reference.

Consider the almost total annihilation of the population of Dresden, not in any way a military target.

Dresden most certainly was a military target. From a US Naval War College paper entitled "Are We Beasts?": Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing" (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/npapers/np01/np1.pdf):


Christopher C. Harmon
There were other and more conventional military reasons for destroying the city. Dresden had become the center of German rail and road communications behind the southern half of the Eastern Front. Such logistical nodes had long been sought out by Allied bombers, and post-war examination . . . would find attacks on land transport targets to be among the most effective of the war. Then there was the most immediate reason . . . support for the Soviet armies. . . . Lastly, there was a related tactical purpose, one John Colville calls a principal factor in the decision: an (erroneous) intelligence report from the Soviets that one or possibly two German armored divisions had arrived at Dresden . . . [citations omitted]

Both cases were no more than the systematic mass murder of civilians, children and refugees etc. as pawns in a psychological game.

No. Although there is considerable evidence that Hitler's obsession with bombing enemy cities may have been fueled by his sadomasochistic personality, and both sides initially hoped that the bombing of civilian targets might break the enemy's will to continue fighting, such bombing also indirectly aided military operations, by occupying air-defense assets and civilian manpower that might have been employed elsewhere.

It is neither inconceivable, nor impossible that Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen, even engineered.

No, but it is completely illogical. Practically everything that conspiracists claim FDR gained by the attack on Pearl Harbor could have been gained by an unsuccessful attack, and destroying or crippling the Japanese strike force would have considerably aided the Allied war effort in both the Pacific and Europe (by allowing the US and Royal Navies to keep more ships and aircraft in the Atlantic).

Neither should 911 conspiracy theories be dismissed out of hand. Both events may well be exactly what the official story portrays - but any discrepencies in those stories should be rigorously examined, as should any conflicting material evidence. To do any less would be a disgrace.

Conspiracists are almost universally unqualified to conduct such examinations, and freqently refuse to accept the opinions of those who are so qualified.

History is written by the victors

Hogwash. The most popular history of the American Civil War was written by a southerner named Shelby Foote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Foote). This is simply a platitude spouted by revisionists in order to explain away the fact that their theories are rejected by the great majority of historians.

To fool yourself that "it couldn't happen here" seems somewhat blinkered.

Conspiracists frequently accuse debunkers of being "in denial." What we deny is that there is any significant, credible evidence for any popular conspiracy theory we've ever seen. We most certainly do not believe that "it couldn't happen here." Further, as you may have noticed, a significant number of the participants in this forum are not Americans. So they can hardly be accused of such denial.

[Larry Jacks]

Consider what Churchill allowed at Coventry.

This is a myth. From an article on the Churchill Centre's web site:

Thanks, Spitfire IX ( BTW: considered the best version of the plane by several top British fighter pilots).

I was about to respond to the Coventry claim but you beat me to it. Winterbottom was perhaps the first to say that Churchill allowed the bombing of Coventry in his book, "The Ultra Secret." However, later books such as "Most Secret War" by Dr. R. V. Jones disputed the claim pretty credibly, IMO. Jones mentioned that at that point in the war, only a small percentage of Ultra intercepts were broken in time to act upon. He specifically mentioned the problems with determining German air raid targets at the time. The British had to have specially equipped planes flying around to detect the presence of the German navigation beams in order to work out the target. It didn't always happen.

I've read several books about and by Dr. R. V. Jones and highly recommend them. He was truly a remarkable man and is the "Father of Electronic Countermeasures." He played a significant role in winning WWII.

[Occam]

That's a nice knee-jerk reaction there, Spitfire and I don't hope to change your mind in the slightest - but if you only read documentation that supports what you believe you'll never learn anything either. You nicely dismiss "conspiracists" as if they were a single unit of fruitcakes, instead of individuals from all walks of life, some of whom would believe anything and others who are uniquely qualified to question and challenge such discrepencies. It must be nice and comforting for you to be able to disregard all suggestions of conspiracy as fantasy. Nixon would have been gratified. But before you launch into another retort, you may wish to acknowledge that I was most certainly not accusing anyone here of being in denial, nor advocating any particular conspiracy theory. I suggested that discrepencies in official stories should be investigated rigorously. Personally, I would prefer that any investigation of anything be done by those most qualified, not the least.

As for Dresden,well, lightly mentioning "an (erroneous) intelligence report from the Soviets that one or possibly two German armored divisions had arrived..." neatly whitewashes the fact that Dresden was a hospital city for wounded soldiers. Not one military unit, not one anti-aircraft battery was deployed in the city. Together with the 600,000 refugees from Breslau who were fleeing from the Russians (whose policies regarding civilians are well documented), Dresden was filled with nearly 1.2 million people. Churchill was well aware of the reliability of such Russian intelligence and wasn't interested in targeting know military installations 60 miles outside of Dresden, because he had a bigger point to make. More than 700,000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people - one bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the centre of the city reached 1600 degrees centigrade. More than 260,000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted but those who perished in the centre of the city obviously couldn't be traced. Approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly and wounded soldiers were massacred in one attack.

No, but it is completely illogical. Practically everything that conspiracists claim FDR gained by the attack on Pearl Harbor could have been gained by an unsuccessful attack, and destroying or crippling the Japanese strike force would have considerably aided the Allied war effort in both the Pacific and Europe (by allowing the US and Royal Navies to keep more ships and aircraft in the Atlantic)

Sure - and practically everything gained by the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan could have been achieved in other ways, too. By all accounts, Japan was ready to surrender anyway and the list of American military experts who were against its use is very long - but it was the perfect opportunity to use the bomb and establish the US as the dominant world power.

As for history not being written by the victors, mentioning "popular" history hardly serves your point. In the "popular" history of the American civil war, how much attention is given to the concentration camps of Andersonville and Elmira, for example? Let's forget history and look at current news. How many Americans, for example, STILL think that Iraq was behind the attacks on September 11th, 2001? In Bush's "War on terror", where in Iraq are the terrorists? What justifies dropping hundreds of tons of depleted uranium onto the Middle East, poisoning it FOREVER? Oh right, you never see it on the news do you? - and CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox are well known for their impartial and unbiased reporting.

Spitfire, I am not qualified to speak for others as you seem to believe you are, nor am I a "conspiracist" or an idiot. There are conspiracy "theories" that boggle the mind with their jaw-dropping stupidity and which are clearly and demonstrably nonsense. That said, the blanket dismissal of every suggestion that challenges the comfortable official view of your world is not a healthy thing either. The crazed proponents of intelligent design use such tactics and it is essential that rational thinkers behave differently. Acceptance is not proof.

I apologise for inadvertently hijacking this thread. Tora Tora Tora? Great movie.

[Swift]

Occam,
Just a friendly piece of advice. You may wish to be careful with analogies to current events and the current administration in the US, it gets close to the prohibition on politics in this forum.

[Occam]

I stand corrected. I thought that a forum called "Conspiracy Theories" would be just the place for politics but, having just read the rules for posting, I see that it isn't unless it impacts upon astronomy and science. Mea Culpa

[Neverfly]

I stand corrected. I thought that a forum called "Conspiracy Theories" would be just the place for politics but, having just read the rules for posting, I see that it isn't unless it impacts upon astronomy and science. Mea Culpa

Occam yeah politics is Dirty:P
the forum grouping is Conspiracy theories but this thread is about The Film...
the OTHER thread i mentioned might have been a better place for these posts...
The SITE is about Astronomy
the Venture into Ground based conspiracie theories is "tolerated?" simply to allow the chance to refute them... but these folks still want to stay BASICALLY on track.

Hey can i confess?
I havent SEEN Tora Tora Tora.. i wandered in curious about what it was.. <chuckle> think i need to watch it before i can post SQUAT in this thread:P

[Swift]

I stand corrected. I thought that a forum called "Conspiracy Theories" would be just the place for politics but, having just read the rules for posting, I see that it isn't unless it impacts upon astronomy and science. Mea Culpa
It is a narrow line and the 9/11 stuff always runs close to the edge.
By the way, From where I Stand (http://www.loresinger.com/FWIS/index.php) is a good forum which is open to civil discussions on politics, religion, and adult stuff. A lot of BAUTers, including myself, hang out there too.

[Occam]

No worries. I like this place just fine. It's like a shelter from madness :D

[Neverfly]

No worries. I like this place just fine. It's like a shelter from madness :grin:

it IS refreshing to find a forum based on rational thinking and explanations isnt it? GRIN

[novaderrik]

i think that "Pearl Harbor" film from a few years ago was a remake of that film. i know it was a remake of one of those cool old WW2 films, anyways, and Afflec singlehandedly managed to make it unwatchable..

[MG1962A]

Originally Posted by MG1962A
Most of the naval vessels in those shots are the Australian Navy.

I don't think we had that big a navy, even in 1970


Well it wasn't THAT big, just happened that the assigned achorage was in the scene. This may have been influenced by still having the Vendetta and Vampire Large destroyers in service. Unlike their counterparts these were still all gun vessels - and looked nice and bristtley for the shot.

But at the time we still had two Aircraft carriers and attendent support vessels in service

[Obviousman]

But at the time we still had two Aircraft carriers and attendent support vessels in service

Well, an aircraft carrier (MELBOURNE) and a 'fast troop transport' (SYDNEY).

*sigh*
Those were the days....

[Conrad]

"As for Dresden,well, lightly mentioning "an (erroneous) intelligence report from the Soviets that one or possibly two German armored divisions had arrived..." neatly whitewashes the fact that Dresden was a hospital city for wounded soldiers. Not one military unit, not one anti-aircraft battery was deployed in the city. Together with the 600,000 refugees from Breslau who were fleeing from the Russians (whose policies regarding civilians are well documented), Dresden was filled with nearly 1.2 million people. Churchill was well aware of the reliability of such Russian intelligence and wasn't interested in targeting know military installations 60 miles outside of Dresden, because he had a bigger point to make. More than 700,000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people - one bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the centre of the city reached 1600 degrees centigrade. More than 260,000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted but those who perished in the centre of the city obviously couldn't be traced. Approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly and wounded soldiers were massacred in one attack."


Where on earth do you get this rubbish from! Ernst Zundel? David Irving? The IHR Big Book of Allied War Crimes?

The true number of dead at Dresden, as determined by the Germans themselves AT THE TIME, is @25,000. WTF is a "hospital city"? - a term I have never read until today. Dresden was a target by virtue of being a major road and rail hub, and having several military industries within it's boundaries. It hadn't been attacked previously because of it's distance and the lack of an escort fighter able to travel that far.

Also, you can't have it both ways. A city of 1.2 million people without ANY military presence? Do you honestly think the 3rd Reich left people to their own devices on a city-wide scale? Do you think the records of the wounded soldiers sent to Dresden from all over the Eastern Front were also kept in Dresden and destroyed there? Why have we never seen German historians bewailing those 250,000 missing German soldiers? Why - oh I give up.

oh - "Tora Tora Tora" - if you compare it to "Pearl Harbour" (Br. Spelling) then - why! - it's a documentary!

[Van Rijn]

Sure - and practically everything gained by the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan could have been achieved in other ways, too.


At much greater cost of life, and I can't even imagine the backlash when the American public found out that their family members had been sent off to fight and die when we had the chance to stop the war with a weapon we had spent incredible resources to develop. I have to wonder if I would have been born, since my father would probably have been sent on from Europe to Japan if the war had continued. He had been lucky to live that long.



By all accounts, Japan was ready to surrender anyway


Japan was hinting at surrender with conditions attached. At that point, only unconditional surrender was acceptable. And even with two nuclear bombs dropped, part of the Japanese leadership did not want to surrender. It could have easily gone the other way.



What justifies dropping hundreds of tons of depleted uranium onto the Middle East, poisoning it FOREVER?


Uhm, no. We've discussed this in another thread. DU is much less radioactive than uranium out of the ground, which itself isn't terribly radioactive. It is a heavy metal, like lead, but it just isn't that big a deal, except when you're actually being shot by a DU round.

[Occam]

DU is much less radioactive than uranium out of the ground, which itself isn't terribly radioactive. It is a heavy metal, like lead, but it just isn't that big a deal, except when you're actually being shot by a DU round.


You're very, very wrong there, I'm afraid. DU is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium but that is beside the point. Natural uranium is not being systematically and deliberately plastered all over the ecosystem is it?

I would handle a DU round with no qualms at all. I would not want to be with a hundred miles of its fallout - yes FALLOUT! When a DU round hits, the casing fragments into smaller and smaller pieces which are what punch through armour. In effect, the uranium "aerosols". While depleted uranium is relatively harmless outside the body, when the resultant superfine dust is ingested via breathing or swallowing it is extremely toxic and will lead to death or hideous long term health problems, especially to future generations. Since the radioactivity has a half life of about 4.5 billion years it is not going to go away any time soon. The US has a stockpile of more than 1 billion pounds of this crap and supplies it free of charge to munitions manufacturers.

Do a bit of simple research on the exponential rise of multiple cancers and horrific birth defects in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo etc - not to mention the same health problems arising in returning veterans of both Gulf conflicts.

For decades the use of Agent Orange in Viet Nam was lied about. Scores of "impartial scientists" were trolled out to convince us that dioxin was nothing to worry about. The military/industrial cabal has a long and sordid history of blatant lies and corruption. Do you think this is any different?

I appreciate that this is not a forum for political arguments but I cannot blithely ignore it when such biased, apocryphal platitudes are trotted out ad nauseum.

[Neverfly]

You're very, very wrong there, I'm afraid. DU is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium but that is beside the point. Natural uranium is not being systematically and deliberately plastered all over the ecosystem is it?


Do a bit of simple research on the exponential rise of multiple cancers and horrific birth defects in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo etc - not to mention the same health problems arising in returning veterans of both Gulf conflicts.

For decades the use of Agent Orange in Viet Nam was lied about. Scores of "impartial scientists" were trolled out to convince us that dioxin was nothing to worry about. The military/industrial cabal has a long and sordid history of blatant lies and corruption. Do you think this is any different?

I appreciate that this is not a forum for political arguments but I cannot blithely ignore it when such biased, apocryphal platitudes are trotted out ad nauseum.

Now i AM getting interested- i was in the Gulf..
But is this a New Thread?
this started on a thread about a films accuracy prtraying pearl harbor- this has deviated quite a bit...
Occam what basis do you have to use the word "Fallout"? you are suggesting that Depleted Uranium is being used in a way that makes it inhaleable.
but it wasnt Clear.. you said Resultant Superfine Dust- you mean from the impact of a DU Round? How much dust results from the impact? What are the odds of inhaling a portion OF that resultant dust?
Contrary to Movie deptictions- a person hit by a round does NOT Fly backwards- for every action there is a reaction- the firer of the weapon would ALSO fly backwords if the victim did too..
So you can base the odds on that a person within vicinity of impact isnt going to get "knocked out of the area".
Im going to havce to research this a bit
i was Artillary in the Army...

[Neverfly]

[QUOTE=Neverfly;892181
Contrary to Movie deptictions- a person hit by a round does NOT Fly backwards- for every action there is a reaction- the firer of the weapon would ALSO fly backwords if the victim did too..
So you can base the odds on that a person within vicinity of impact isnt going to get "knocked out of the area".
Im going to havce to research this a bit
i was Artillary in the Army...[/QUOTE]

to clarify -i seem unclear
Im assuming you mean Artillary Rounds used. not anything SMALL like from small weapons fire (would be news to me) :P

i think i typoed portraying too- "Jim!, im a Plumber not a typist!"

[fezzic]

I think the reference is a figure of speech. DU was used in anti-tank rounds for awhile since it was denser (and from what I read, some bonding problems were overcome) than the other material used for armor piercing rounds. I understand that anti-tank projectiles are no longer being made with DU as they found something else that works better but the existing rounds are still in inventory.

The most prevalent use was in the M1 tank AT rounds, in the 30mm cannon shells of the A-10 (for anti-armor), and I think for the Phalanx ship point defense system.

[Neverfly]

I think the reference is a figure of speech. DU was used in anti-tank rounds for awhile since it was denser (and from what I read, some bonding problems were overcome) than the other material used for armor piercing rounds. I understand that anti-tank projectiles are no longer being made with DU as they found something else that works better but the existing rounds are still in inventory.

The most prevalent use was in the M1 tank AT rounds, in the 30mm cannon shells of the A-10 (for anti-armor), and I think for the Phalanx ship point defense system.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabf.htm
Most my sources i read are Outside the internet- and i have too many projects going to research much or visit the library- but heres a basic link giving greater details on usage (Cavalry)
guess i need to go to the video store and rent Tora Tora Tora too LOL

[Van Rijn]

Perhaps this should be moved to another thread, but I'll respond to this here:


You're very, very wrong there, I'm afraid. DU is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium but that is beside the point. Natural uranium is not being systematically and deliberately plastered all over the ecosystem is it?


Well, yes, it is, from coal power plants. Anyway, it already is in the ecosystem.



I would handle a DU round with no qualms at all. I would not want to be with a hundred miles of its fallout - yes FALLOUT! When a DU round hits, the casing fragments into smaller and smaller pieces which are what punch through armour. In effect, the uranium "aerosols". While depleted uranium is relatively harmless outside the body, when the resultant superfine dust is ingested via breathing or swallowing it is extremely toxic and will lead to death or hideous long term health problems, especially to future generations.


Uranium is heavy, so it is a poor aerosol, even assuming it was optimally converted into an aerosol. It would be more dangerous in the lungs than ingested (most uranium ingested would simply be excreted without making contact with tissue) but most inhaled DU would also quickly be removed, and due to the low radioactivity, a large amount is required to affect cancer rates.

So, risk would be associated with heavy exposure, and I'm hard pressed to understand where that would occur under these circumstances.



Since the radioactivity has a half life of about 4.5 billion years it is not going to go away any time soon


Long half life = low activity. Long half lives are a good thing. The stuff you want to worry about are isotopes with short half lives, for instance the recently discussed polonium-210.

Don't forget that we are always exposed to radiation. You would need to significantly increase radiation exposure to affect cancer rates.



Do a bit of simple research on the exponential rise of multiple cancers and horrific birth defects in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo etc - not to mention the same health problems arising in returning veterans of both Gulf conflicts.


What is this research regarding cancer rates and birth defects? How did they determine the rise in cancer and birth defects? How did they show DU was causative? I've seen quite a few assertions, but a lack of solid research.

There does seem to be some evidence for increased health problems for Gulf War vets, but where was it shown that DU was the cause?



I appreciate that this is not a forum for political arguments but I cannot blithely ignore it when such biased, apocryphal platitudes are trotted out ad nauseum.

Uhm, how is this a political argument? I'm discussing the physical effects of DU. If you think it is a political argument, then you are letting your politics override your objectivity on the subject.

[Occam]

Yes, once again apologies for hijacking this thread. I was just replying to comments. Is there a better place for discussion of this subject?
Meantime, a handful of random links...
<Removed political links>

Uhm, how is this a political argument? I'm discussing the physical effects of DU. If you think it is a political argument, then you are letting your politics override your objectivity on the subject.
Personally I don't think it's a political argument - but it's not about a movie either and I've already been cautioned once. Objectivity is not an exclusive quality of those sharing your point of view and I get the impression you are trying to goad me. I'll not deny that my feelings on this matter run deep. That does not make me any less objective or more credulous. I am neither a doctor nor a physicist, though both have condemned and protested against the use of these weapons at the highest levels. If you are truly interested, look it up yourself, since whatever I present would likely be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

[Tinaa]

Occam you are new here so please stop and read the rules now. You will find them here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864

Please pay special attention to rule #12. The links you posted above were very political. This is not a warning, but do not post political content again!

[Neverfly]

Perhaps this should be moved to another thread, but I'll respond to this here:



Uranium is heavy, so it is a poor aerosol, even assuming it was optimally converted into an aerosol. It would be more dangerous in the lungs than ingested (most uranium ingested would simply be excreted without making contact with tissue) but most inhaled DU would also quickly be removed, and due to the low radioactivity, a large amount is required to affect cancer rates.

So, risk would be associated with heavy exposure, and I'm hard pressed to understand where that would occur under these circumstances.



Long half life = low activity. Long half lives are a good thing. The stuff you want to worry about are isotopes with short half lives, for instance the recently discussed polonium-210.

Don't forget that we are always exposed to radiation. You would need to significantly increase radiation exposure to affect cancer rates.

up til these point you make a good case. However i agree with Occam on one thing. Lack of evidence doesnt mean Dont look into the matter. Its OK to be suspiscious and check something out as long as you get the facts straight and dont assume. Who is going to prove today or tomorrow that DU is responisble? but due to (i hate to use this buzzword!!) "Awareness" people will ask- and an investigation will result..

What is this research regarding cancer rates and birth defects? How did they determine the rise in cancer and birth defects? How did they show DU was causative? I've seen quite a few assertions, but a lack of solid research.

There does seem to be some evidence for increased health problems for Gulf War vets, but where was it shown that DU was the cause? we want to know. you say lack of solid research then maybe that research should be done.




Uhm, how is this a political argument? I'm discussing the physical effects of DU. If you think it is a political argument, then you are letting your politics override your objectivity on the subject.
personally i think he was avoiding someone getting after him about being political in the form (c.y.a) but you, (and i think too), say its not political- Good News for Occam:p he read in the rules no politics thats all..
The point that started this WAY OFF topic on this thread was the simple question..
Is it REASONABLE that a rational person Will question what they have been "Told"? in the sense of the Movie Tora Tora Tora we are told through the medias eyes the history of events for example. But is it ACCURATE?
What i gathered from what Occam has said(accurace of his assertions aside) is that we SHOULD question what we are told and i AGREE.
Dispelling his possible inaccuracies is important too dont get me wrong- i had mine dispelled last day or so rather heatedly.

[Neverfly]

<chuckle and the hammer falls> i shouldnt have commented and waited on that :p

[Neverfly]

Occam if you scroll the page all the way down you will see Welcom, (your name) on the right and on the left Where You Are in the forum- Click Conspiracy theories and go to that page- then at the top you will see thread/thread starter

[Neverfly]

Occam if you scroll the page all the way down you will see Welcom, (your name) on the right and on the left Where You Are in the forum- Click Conspiracy theories and go to that page- then at the top you will see thread/thread starter

Son hit the mouse

Go to the bottom of the page and you will see NEW THREAD at the bottom
in between are the currently running threads

[JonClarke]

Well it wasn't THAT big, just happened that the assigned achorage was in the scene. This may have been influenced by still having the Vendetta and Vampire Large destroyers in service. Unlike their counterparts these were still all gun vessels - and looked nice and bristtley for the shot.

But at the time we still had two Aircraft carriers and attendent support vessels in service


Well, an aircraft carrier (MELBOURNE) and a 'fast troop transport' (SYDNEY).

*sigh*
Those were the days....

Am I showing my age to say that I have been on board the Daring class destroyers Vampire, Vendetta, Duchess, and the carriers Sydney and Melbourne? Mind you, I wasn't 19 at the time either. ;)

Still won't have been enough to fill Pearl Harbour though! :)

Jon

[Occam]

Anyhoo....
personally, the film is a favourite of mine and I believe tells the story better than any other. In my opinion, the 2001 movie Pearl Harbor was on a par with Titanic - lots of eye candy but ultimately a chick-flick :whistle:

I found an interesting review of the movie by someone who was there:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/

I can review this from a different perspective: my father was a Coast Artillery officer in the U. S. Army stationed at Fort Kamehameha, abutting Hickam Field, when the attack took place. He had his family with him, so my mother, my sister, and I also were involved. I was pre-kindergarten at the time, but have a good memory. Naturally, I've read extensively about the attack since.

Speaking personally, the attack in the film sounded real, though our mother kept me and my sister inside for much of the attack (we had to go outside to get evacuated from our quarters).

But that aside: the film mirrors historic events closely. However, (possibly a minor spoiler or two follow) there were some little points that had been added for the audience's sake.

The MAGIC machine, which was breaking the Japanese PURPLE cipher, did not have to be explained to either officer, but one did, so the audience would get the drift of what was happening. (The actual machine was the greatest cryptological feat of World War II, greater than Enigma, because it was developed from scratch by Frank Rowlett under the direction of William Friedmann.) The film was based in large part from the books of Professor Gordon W. Prenge, an historian who specialized in Pearl Harbor. Prenge interviewed many of the principals in the action, on both sides, and became friends with several.

This is the best film on Pearl Harbor. I got tapes for my mother and sister, both of whom shared my reaction to it.

[Gillianren]

Anyhoo....
personally, the film is a favourite of mine and I believe tells the story better than any other. In my opinion, the 2001 movie Pearl Harbor was on a par with Titanic - lots of eye candy but ultimately a chick-flick

And yet I haven't the slightest interest in seeing either of 'em.

[novaderrik]

Pearl Harbor mirrors Tora Tora Tora almost scene for scene, but with digital special effects instead of cool real WW2 footage.
not a bad flick, really- except for Afflec. i don't care if he's in every Kevin Smith flick- and was even quite good in a couple of them- i just can't stand most of his work.

[captain swoop]

Well, the Doolittle raid has its own film as well, 'Thirty Seconds over Tokyo'

Watch it if u can, its good.

[MrClean]

I had problems with Aflec in that movie too. I mean sure, his character really did go from flying in the fighters in the RAC to Pearl then to flying Bombers off the Hornet. But I found the part of him working with Einstein and heading up the Manhattan project to dropping both of the atomic bombs himself a bit of a stretch.

I saw the flic on HBO and like Titantic, what a load. I like how P-40's can fly knife edge between buildings for extended periods of time too. Somebody needs to take those CGI machines away from Hollywood and REQUIRE people to actually WRITE A SCRIPT!!!

Personally, I've stopped going to movies. I can make the popcorn at home.

[Tinaa]

Yes, once again apologies for hijacking this thread. I was just replying to comments. Is there a better place for discussion of this subject?
<Removed political links again>
Personally I don't think it's a political argument - but it's not about a movie either and I've already been cautioned once. Objectivity is not an exclusive quality of those sharing your point of view and I get the impression you are trying to goad me. I'll not deny that my feelings on this matter run deep. That does not make me any less objective or more credulous. I am neither a doctor nor a physicist, though both have condemned and protested against the use of these weapons at the highest levels. If you are truly interested, look it up yourself, since whatever I present would likely be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

Mod Note: Occam is supspended for 3 days for reposting political links after they were removed!

[SpitfireIX]

That's a nice knee-jerk reaction there, Spitfire

You evidently assume that any disagreement with your views must be a "knee-jerk reaction," and couldn't possibly be based on an extensive study of history.

if you only read documentation that supports what you believe you'll never learn anything either.

You have no idea of what I have or haven't read--again, you're just jumping to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you must be narrow-minded.

You nicely dismiss "conspiracists" as if they were a single unit of fruitcakes

99% of conspiracists have ruined it for the rest of them.

instead of individuals from all walks of life, some of whom would believe anything and others who are uniquely qualified to question and challenge such discrepencies.

I (and I suspect most others here) have yet to find a single conspiracist who is more than remotely qualified to investigate the events he or she claims are suspicious. Almost invariably the discrepancies (which exist in all real events) turn out to have innocent (or at least non-conspiriatorial) explanations, and the very few for which explanations cannot be determined are always greatly outweighed by the evidence for the accepted version of events.

It must be nice and comforting for you to be able to disregard all suggestions of conspiracy as fantasy. Nixon would have been gratified.

Straw man. I wrote that we've never seen any significant, credible evidence for any conspiracy theory. Most or all debunkers with whom I've come into contact accept that conspiracies are possible. And I'd suggest you drop the condescending tone, particularly as you've mischaracterized my comments.

But before you launch into another retort, you may wish to acknowledge that I was most certainly not accusing anyone here of being in denial, nor advocating any particular conspiracy theory.

You stated that "To fool yourself that 'it couldn't happen here' is somewhat blinkered." My response applies whether or not that was an accusation.

I suggested that discrepencies in official stories should be investigated rigorously.

Conspiracists, such as the producers of Loose Change, frequently claim that they are merely "asking questions." However, the questions are frequently loaded, and strongly imply the existence of a conspiracy.

Personally, I would prefer that any investigation of anything be done by those most qualified, not the least.

Again, conspiracists are invariably either totally unqualified or only marginally qualified to conduct such investigations.

As for Dresden,well, lightly mentioning "an (erroneous) intelligence report from the Soviets that one or possibly two German armored divisions had arrived..." neatly whitewashes the fact that Dresden was a hospital city for wounded soldiers. Not one military unit, not one anti-aircraft battery was deployed in the city.

You are totally ignoring Harmon's comments about Dresden's being a major transportation hub, because they destroy your claim that there was no military justification for the bombing.

Churchill was well aware of the reliability of such Russian intelligence and wasn't interested in targeting know military installations 60 miles outside of Dresden, because he had a bigger point to make.

You can't possibly know this; you are merely proclaiming your interpretation to be correct with no supporting evidence provided. Further, intelligence information is almost never 100% accurate or reliable, no matter what the source. Are you saying that the Soviets never provided the Western Allies with any accurate intelligence information?

More than 700,000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people - one bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the centre of the city reached 1600 degrees centigrade.

From a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II):


Wikipedia
[T]he size of the Dresden raid - in terms of numbers, types of bombs and the means of delivery - were [sic] commensurate with the military objective and similar to other Allied bombings. On February 23, 1945, the Allies bombed Pforzheim and caused an estimated 20,000 civilian fatalities; a raid on Tokyo on March 9/10 caused civilian casualties over 100,000. The tonnage and types of bombs listed in the service records of the Dresden raid were comparable to (or less than) throw weights of bombs dropped in other air attacks carried out in 1945. One contributing factor to the large loss of life in Dresden was the lack of preparation for the effects of air-raids by Gauleiter Martin Mutschmann, as the city did not expect to be bombed. When Braunschweig was bombed on nights of October 14 and 15 1944, [air-raid shelters] and well trained fire fighters saved 23,000 people from death in a firestorm. [emphasis added][citations omitted]

More than 260,000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted but those who perished in the centre of the city obviously couldn't be traced. Approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly and wounded soldiers were massacred in one attack.

As mentioned, the actual figure is estimated by reputable historians to be between 25,000 and 35,000. Further, I note that you neglected to include "able-bodied workers, many of whom were working in war production in and around Dresden" in your total.

Sure - and practically everything gained by the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan could have been achieved in other ways, too.

False analogy. Invading Japan would have cost many American lives, but alerting Pearl Harbor to the impending Japanese attack would have saved many American lives, not only on December 7, 1941, but also during the rest of the war, due to the serious damage to or destruction of the Japanese strike force.

By all accounts, Japan was ready to surrender anyway

No. As Van Rijn has pointed out, the Japanese were shopping for a conditional surrender, including a limited occupation, and the Japanese to try their own war criminals. Further, even after the atomic bombs were dropped, and the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, hard-line Army officers attempted to prevent the surrender by staging a military coup. Whether such a coup would have succeeded without the atomic bombs is unknowable, but the possibility certainly exists.

and the list of American military experts who were against its use is very long -

Many of these men felt that there was no military necessity to use the bombs--however, starving Japan out would have resulted in many more casualties, not only among Japanese civilians, but also among the populations of the areas still under Japanese control.

but it was the perfect opportunity to use the bomb and establish the US as the dominant world power.

It's quite clear that you have an ideological axe to grind--this does not tend to enhance your credibility.

As for history not being written by the victors, mentioning "popular" history hardly serves your point. In the "popular" history of the American civil war, how much attention is given to the concentration camps of Andersonville and Elmira, for example?

First, Andersonville and Elmira were prisoner-of-war camps, and not concentration camps. The conditions in many Union and Confederate camps were appalling by today's standards because of unexpected overcrowding and lack of knowledge of sanitation. Conditions in Confederate camps were generally worse due to chronic supply shortages.

Second, Turner Network Television produced a made-for-TV movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115097/) about Andersonville 10 years ago, and Andersonville was discussed in the immensely popular Public Broadcasting System documentary series The Civil War (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098769/).

Third, the treatment of Andersonville's commandant, Henri Wirz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wirz), has become a sort of cause celebre for certain Confederate irredentists.

<snip of inappropriate political diatribe>

Oh right, you never see it on the news do you? - and CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox are well known for their impartial and unbiased reporting.

All news sources have their partialities and biases, but you are clearly implying that these organizations are not interested in the truth. Hogwash. Further, I've seen news reports several times discussing polls showing that a majority of Americans believe Iraq was connected with the September 11 attacks. You evidently assume that this is due to American news organizations' failure to report The TruthTM; in fact it is due to the intellectual laziness of a significant portion of the US population.

Spitfire, I am not qualified to speak for others as you seem to believe you are

Any of the regular posters here who disagree with me will let us both know, I assure you.

nor am I a "conspiracist" or an idiot.

But your posts so far seem to be colored by ideology--as I said, this does not tend to enhance your credibility. Also, your attitude appears similar to that of another occasional poster here, Brumsen, who seems forever to be fence-sitting on various September 11 conspiracy theories, and who appears to believe that raw critical-thinking skills are at least as useful as relevant expertise in investigations such as the September 11 commission report.

There are conspiracy "theories" that boggle the mind with their jaw-dropping stupidity and which are clearly and demonstrably nonsense.

No argument here.

That said, the blanket dismissal of every suggestion that challenges the comfortable official view of your world is not a healthy thing either.

To reiterate, I, and I suspect most others here, have never seen any significant, credible evidence for any conspiracy theory. You appear to be equating this with dismissing the idea out of hand.

[Tinaa]

Occam is reinstated because I messed up. I'm not sure what happened. Occam you have my most sincere apology.

[Conrad]

I had problems with Aflec in that movie too. I mean sure, his character really did go from flying in the fighters in the RAC to Pearl then to flying Bombers off the Hornet. But I found the part of him working with Einstein and heading up the Manhattan project to dropping both of the atomic bombs himself a bit of a stretch.

I saw the flic on HBO and like Titantic, what a load. I like how P-40's can fly knife edge between buildings for extended periods of time too. Somebody needs to take those CGI machines away from Hollywood and REQUIRE people to actually WRITE A SCRIPT!!!

Personally, I've stopped going to movies. I can make the popcorn at home.

Here in the UK the RAC fix cars (them being the Royal Automobile Club)
The RAF, on t'other hand, fly big noisy things with wings.
Actually, Ben being in the RAC would be more realistic, wouldn't it?

[MG1962A]

Am I showing my age to say that I have been on board the Daring class destroyers Vampire, Vendetta, Duchess, and the carriers Sydney and Melbourne? Mind you, I wasn't 19 at the time either.

Still won't have been enough to fill Pearl Harbour though!

Jon


I dont think I am explaining this very well. The Australian element in the film was largely one scene. Two characters talking on a deck - in the background some of the Australian fleet.

When I said they waited for the exercise to be over. I meant in terms of all the navies that attended. Obviously the US component would dwarf the other navies, but it was one of the rare times that Pearl was genuinely packed, rather than just being busy.

Just out of curiosity Jon, did you used to edit a magazine many moons ago and perhaps live in the mountains?

[MrClean]

Here in the UK the RAC fix cars (them being the Royal Automobile Club)
The RAF, on t'other hand, fly big noisy things with wings.
Actually, Ben being in the RAC would be more realistic, wouldn't it?

My apologies, the f and the c are evidently too close on my keyboard, should have just typed Royal Air Corce.

And I wouldn't wish Ben on ANY organization.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Hey Mr. Clean, do you fly R/C Planes? I was wondering because of your avatar, it almost look like a pylon racer too...

[MrClean]

Simple Plastic Airplane Design (SPAD) Dart combat plane from 99. I can be found on the SPADworld.net billboard. This airplane is built from folded coroplast and PVC downspout and many are of this basic construction, but there are plenty of really pretty folded up Coro plans. Coroplast is that Plastic Cardboard you see all the time at the convenience store as Cigarette and Soda adds. Also, all those Lose Weight signs you see on the side of the road are usually made out of it. The political season gets us plenty of free wings thanks to the campaign signs which are shoved on every right of way.

Stop buy and let me show ya some cheap, fun and durable RC aircraft.

http://spadworld.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10161/Upright.JPG

[Sigma_Orionis]

Sounds Interesting I'll take a look around SPADword.net :)

Now back to our regularly scheduled topic...

Never saw any of the two movies but it a WWII war plane flying knife-edge for an extended period of time IS difficult to believe ;)

[MrClean]

Not in CGI it isn't. Then there's that wonderful serial 'Sky Captain' where the P-40 dives straight into the ocean and turns into a submarine. Just some minor modifications, but the same computer working it over. At least with Sky Captain it was supposed to be a cartoon and was, well, entertaining.

Lots of war footage in Tora^3, 30 seconds over Tokyo, Midway (if you can forgive the use of Corsair footage, the occasional Spit/BF/and other not operational fighter footage) I liked Bridges at Toko-Ri which was on again yesterday, but that was just because of the Korean era jets. The canyon sequences are right in par with the average Godzilla movie and there are quite a few areas that bother me, especially when the main character gets shot down at the end. He takes a hit on his straffing run and although everything is handling well, they know he is leaking either fuel or oil. So they maintain altitude when they know they have a ridge to get over to coast to the ocean. If you're losing fuel you might as well climb and get the altitude needed to glide when the fuel runs out, your going to lose it one way or the other. But then the last 15 minutes of the movie wouldn't be him trying to keep away from the Koreans, it would be about him trying to stay away from the sharks.

Anyways, a drama and not based on any real character and worth the price of admission on terrestrial tv.

[Doodler]

Japan was hinting at surrender with conditions attached. At that point, only unconditional surrender was acceptable. And even with two nuclear bombs dropped, part of the Japanese leadership did not want to surrender. It could have easily gone the other way.

The bomb didn't really impress the Japanese leadership. Really, this is a bushido culture that thinks dying in the Emperor's name is just hunky dorry. You think a bomb of any magnitude is going to impress fanatics? Think again.

The Japanese leadership was entirely too pragmatic to be impressed by a doomsday weapon. The final straw was the involvement of the Russian military. The invasion of their puppet regime in Manchuria, and I believe Sakhalin Island as well, pushed them to accept surrender to MacArthur. Being wiped out was nothing to them, potentially being occupied by the Russians after the drubbing the Japanese had dished out in the 1905 war? That would have put the fear of God into them. Remember they were backed into a corner AFTER the fall of Germany, so they weren't blind to how Europe was being handled in the aftermath of Hitler's fall. They wouldn't be blind to how differently the various Allied forces were treating the areas that were occupied. Once officially surrounded after Stalin got the courage to put the Russian military back up against the Japanese, given all those resources freed up by the fall of the Reich could NOT have been pleasant for the warlords. Better to hand it over to the US than risk having ANY part of Japan fall to Stalin.

The bomb didn't force the surrender, there were things MUCH worse than mushroom clouds to drive them to their knees.

[Ronald Brak]

So it was basically America's respect for human rights and fair treatment of defeated enemies that resulted in the surrender of Japan?

[Gillianren]

Last night, we were talking at dinner about the American tendency to see things as either/or. Maybe it was a combination of the atomic bombs and the Soviet threat that caused the Japanese military to surrender?

[Neverfly]

Last night, we were talking at dinner about the American tendency to see things as either/or. Maybe it was a combination of the atomic bombs and the Soviet threat that caused the Japanese military to surrender?

I agree completely... everything isnt always a nice Black or White. MANY factors can play a role in a decision- i can provide too many examples of my own decisions on this- so im sure the rest of you can too...

[Jim]

Last night, we were talking at dinner about the American tendency to see things as either/or. Maybe it was a combination of the atomic bombs and the Soviet threat that caused the Japanese military to surrender?

There were discussions within the Japanese government and military about a possible surrender, but such surrender would have to have favorable conditions, concessions from the Allies (US, UK, China). This would be achieved by inflicting heavy losses on the US when they invaded the main islands.

In late June, 1945, Japan approached the Soviet Union to act as go-between in negotiations with the Allies.

The US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6; the USSR invaded Manchuria and declared war on Japan on August 9. This may have been in part because Stalin saw the end for Japan was near, and he wanted his share of territory.

Had the US not used the bomb, US forces would have invaded the main islands. The Japanese civilians were already being trained in hand-to-hand combat and suicide tactics. The US could easily have lost 100,000 troops; and Japan, 1,000,000 troops and civilians.

There's a fairly good write-up on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

[jrkeller]

Here's a good source on the invasion plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall). The estimated casualties was on the order 300,000 for the invasion of two of the Japanese islands.

[captain swoop]

I watch flying movies for glimpses of flying jackets! lol i collect them. :)

[Graybeard6]

[snip] Lots of war footage in Tora^3, [snip] I liked Bridges at Toko-Ri [snip] Anyways, a drama and not based on any real character and worth the price of admission on terrestrial tv.

There was NO WW2 footage in "Tora, Tora, Tora". The Japanese planes were AT-6 Texans and Vultee "Vibrators" converted to look like Zeros (AT-6) and Vals & Kates ("Vibrators"). The US planes were all WW2 era veterans. Hawaii shooting started shortly after I arrived on Oahu in the summer of 1968, and the guys in my Ordnance Company really enjoyed watching the training flights which came right over the crater that contained our ammunition depot. The camera ship was a helicopter that literally flew rings around the planes to get different POVs.

I believe Michener based all the characters in "Toko-Ri" on real people; I know the Mickey Rooney character was based on Duane Thorin, who survived captivity in North Korea and wrote "A Ride to Panmunjom" about his experiences.

[MrClean]

You are correct, the footage was in Midway. They did use plenty of clips from Tora^3 in there as well. Just saw on of the Tora Kates last August at a local airshow. I don't know if they still have the group that goes around doing imitation invasions for the airshows, it was interesting.

[Larry Jacks]

I remember reading about how those planes were converted for the movie. They were sold afterwards for what today would be incredibly low prices. Back then, you could get a good T-6 or BT-13 for well under $20,000. You can't touch an airworthy T-6 for much under $200,000 today and BT-13s are very rare.

A retired pilot I know (and helped write his autobiography) told me that in 1960, he was offered the opportunity to buy 10 P-51 Mustangs, fully crated and still in preservative, for $2,000 each. They'd be worth well over a million dollars each today. He still kicks himself for not buying those planes back then. His retirement would be a lot more comfortable if he had.

[Jim]

Peter Ustinov told a story about a movie he made in the late '60s that was set during WWII. The production company needed some German war equipment. An Austrian approached Ustinov and said he could supply whatever they needed... for a price, of course.

He took Ustinov to an out-of-the-way warehouse that was full of German war equipment in prime condition... everything from tanks and 88mm guns to rifles, helmets, and boots.

Ustinov asked the man where he got it all. The man said he started stockpiling it in late 1944. After the landings at Normandy, it was obvious that Germany would lose. It was also obvious that the Allies would destroy every piece of German equipment they found.

But, it was just as obvious that a few years later, the Allies would want to make movies detailing their victory, and that they would need the very same German equipment they had earlier destroyed. So, he started collecting it.

Now, he was making his fortune renting it to the movie companies.

[Larry Jacks]

I've read that a lot of WWII movies up through the 1960s were shot in Spain because Spain kept a lot of German designs in service up until the early 1960s. For example, they kept a version of the He-111 bomber (reengined with Merlin engines) called the CASA 2.111 in service until 1965! Here's some good photos (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Frederick2000/He111/index.html) of the CASA version of the 111 that was used in the movie "Battle of Britain." You can tell it has the Merlin engine from the location of the exhaust ports (high for the Merlin, low for the German Jumo engines). Spain also kept license built (and Merlin powered) versions of the Me-109 in service until 1967, as seen here. (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Frederick2000/He111/index.html) These were designated as the HA-1112.

I may be wrong but Spain might have kept a lot of other German hardware (e.g. tanks) in their inventory as well. The movie "Patton" was shot in Spain, perhaps in part because they were still using the M-28 Pershing tank. According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patton_(film)):

The entire film was shot in Spain except for one scene in Tunisia where Patton visits Carthagenian ruins. The scenes set in Africa and Sicily were shot in the south of Spain while the winter scenes in France were shot near Madrid (where the production would rush when they were informed that snow had fallen).

...

The M-4 Sherman tank was used in large numbers in Patton's forces (with the M-26 Pershing becoming available very late in the war). Ironically, however, many of the tanks on both sides in the film were the M-47 and M-48 models of the Patton tank series of the 1950s, which were post World War II developments of the M-26, as they were the models used by the Spanish Army which assisted in the production of the film. There were few actual Word War II vintage tanks seen in the film except in archival newsreel footage.

[jt-3d]

...There were few actual Word War II vintage tanks seen in the film except in archival newsreel footage.

Yeah, that bugs me whenever I watch Patton. The He-111s almost make up for it though but it might have been better if they'd used more than two. Oh well, it's still a good movie.

[captain swoop]

Saving Private Ryan used a T-34 with a fake Tiger body on it.



France had a whole load of Panthers into the 60s and Syria was using Pz IVs into the 60s as well. Germany still uses the MG42

[Hogprint]

Occam posted:


The film was based in large part from the books of Professor Gordon W. Prenge, an historian who specialized in Pearl Harbor. Prenge interviewed many of the principals in the action, on both sides, and became friends with several.

You are correct Occam, Gordon W. Prange is probably the best reference work on Pearl. "AT DAWN WE SLEPT" is probably his best work and gives you insight on the Japanese mindset leading up to the attack.

Prange addresses the conspiracy theories in three chapters in the book. The biggest "conspiracy" is that the government was not going to allow Magic to be compromised. In Prange's own words:

"At this stage of the Pearl Harbor investigations not even confirmed atiadministration newspapers adopted the idea that Washington was guilty instead of Kimmel and Short; the thesis went no further than that Washington shared their guilt. Some, such as Knox's own paper, the Chicago Daily News, entered a plea for mercy: "...many people are thinking that the officers directly accused have already been punished enough by the knowledge that the responsibility for what happened was theirs." This may well have expressed Knox's personal opinion. No doubt he much preferred to drop the whole subject of Pearl harbor and get on with prosecuting the war. Then, too, he knew very well that valid courts-martial for Kimmel and Short were out of the question during the war because Magic and other highly classified material in all probability would be seriously compromised."

Also this during the hearings on the matter:

"On Friday, Sep 15, the day hearings began in San Francisco, the Washington Post called for an end to the secrecy shrouding Pearl Harbor, over which a "first-class political row" seemed to be brewing. "Wholly apart from the guilt or innocence of Kimmel and Short, the American people have a right to know the background of the Pearl harbor catastrophe. And there is no reason that we know of for keeping them in the dark." That was the problem. The press and public did not know the government's reason-Magic-for keeping the entire background under wraps."

[Eta C]

Welcome to the BAUT Hogprint! Nice avatar by the way. Baltimore schooner?

Prange's books are good, but there are some historians who feel thye are a bit apologetic for MacArthur. Clausen's book also suffers from a similar perceived bias. Of the Chicago papers the Tribune came closest to spilling the beans about Magic just before Midway. Not that they really had proof, but they certainly had an axe to grind. Of all the Pearl Harbor movies T3 probably comes closest in terms of accuracy. Of Patton I remember my Dad taking me to see it (rated R, I was about 13). His objective was to try and deglamorize the war. I'm not sure he suceeded, but the movie did make an impression on me regarding the way war can dehumanize people.

[publius]

His objective was to try and deglamorize the war. I'm not sure he suceeded, but the movie did make an impression on me regarding the way war can dehumanize people.

That objective was met with me by having a neighbor who fought in Okinawa as well as storming the beach on some other island. He was one who would talk about it, and tell it exactly the way it was. Okinawa was rough, to say the least. "Ever have to crawl over dead bodies?", he would sometimes ask as he started a story. Then there was the "shrunken heads" story, which I won't relate, other than they did try it with dead enemy -- they wanted to wear them around their necks.......

Then there's his "7 minutes to live" story about storming the beach. He was a corporal, and he had a red-headed LT who liked him as they shared red hair. When they were going to hit the beach, ol Red's first combat, the LT told him to look at his watch and make the most of the next 7 minutes because that was the average lifespan of their wave.

He said after an eternity, he looked at his watch and noted that just over 7 minutes had passed, and just about half of his platoon, including that LT he liked, were dead, Jim.

He said he still remembered the faces of the first Japanese he killed close up, but after that he became a blur. On Okinawa, he did a lot of up close killing.....he didn't care anymore, and sort of began to enjoy it. So much so, they sent him and some others through some "happy camp" he called it, as they were worried about reintegrating them. The other inmates just told him what magic phrases to say in answer to the psychologists questions, and he was soon out.

-Richard

[Eta C]

I know where you're coming from Richard. My Dad lived through the German occupation of Greece and the civil war that followed. He's told me some stories that left me scraping my jaw off the floor, and I'm sure there are some he still hasn't told me even now. The war certainly left him with no illusions. In the early 70's I was your typical American kid, even with Vietnam and casualty counts on the nightly news. Patton was very graphic for the early 70's and even with the anachronstic tanks and aircraft it did help me realize some of the human cost of war, both in terms of casualties and dehumanization of the participants.

[Obviousman]

Here are the goofs (http://imdb.com/title/tt0066473/goofs) in the movie. As you can see they are minor.

I noticed another goof (I just watched the DVD):

When taking off from the Japanese carrier, you can see the twin steam catapults in the deck. In an aerial view it also has an angled flight deck.

[Hogprint]

Thanks and glad to be a part of the community Eta C. That is a Bay schooner. Wish I had a date for it!

Prange floated another theory in the realm of conspiracy, but never elaborated on it or for that matter labeled it a "conspiracy". He suggested that Kimmel became a political pawn for the republicans at the time. If they could prove that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl they would have a prime issue to run on for the next election cycle and give FDR a black eye.

This may actually be the seed of this conspiracy.

[Doodler]

So it was basically America's respect for human rights and fair treatment of defeated enemies that resulted in the surrender of Japan?

The lesser evil. They took a chance with a devil they didn't know, rather than one they knew all too well.

[publius]

I know where you're coming from Richard. My Dad lived through the German occupation of Greece and the civil war that followed. He's told me some stories that left me scraping my jaw off the floor, and I'm sure there are some he still hasn't told me even now. The war certainly left him with no illusions. In the early 70's I was your typical American kid, even with Vietnam and casualty counts on the nightly news. Patton was very graphic for the early 70's and even with the anachronstic tanks and aircraft it did help me realize some of the human cost of war, both in terms of casualties and dehumanization of the participants.

There is another fellow around here who fought in Europe. He's still kicking, and probably is getting close to 90. He let a tractor run over him when he was a mere 80, starting it from the side like a nut and accidently knocking it in gear -- he was lucky as the ground was pretty soft and got away with just a couple of broken ribs.

Anyway, he is one who will not talk about it at all. He was in artillery unit, and got caught in the thick of things by surprise during the Battle of Bulge, they say. He absolutely will not say a word about it, his family says.

-Richard

[Count Zero]

I noticed another goof (I just watched the DVD):

When taking off from the Japanese carrier, you can see the twin steam catapults in the deck. In an aerial view it also has an angled flight deck.

I can write that one off: They were using an actual aircraft carrier (USS Yorktown - now on display in Charlston Harbor) for filming, and by the late '60s we didn't have any carriers that did not have angled decks and steam catapults.

The sorts of inaccuracies I noticed in this movie were generally things done for aesthetics. Two examples:

- The scene at radar station above Opana Point (on the northern tip of Oahu) was actually filmed on a bluff overlooking Hanauma Bay (on the southeastern tip of Oahu).

- The movie shows General Short (played by Jason Robards, who was actually a radioman aboard the cruiser USS San Francisco, in Pearl Harbor during the actual attack) in a tall, red and white control tower looking at where his army planes were parked on the edge of the field. This tower is actually on Ford Island, which was a naval air station at the time.

Here's a gaffe that's always mystified me: The Japanese film crew built large replicas of the battleship Nagato and the aircraft carrier Akagi on a beach somewhere. Both replicas look great. However, the actual Akagi was visually distinctive because it was one of only two carriers ever built (by anybody - the other CV was Hiryu) to have its island structure on the port side instead of to starboard. The replica has its island to starboard. IIRC, the model they used in the storm scene also had it to starboard. Since the Yorktown, which doubled as the Akagi for the launch scene had it to starboard, perhaps they wanted consistency - though I would have thought it would be relatively inexpensive to just flip the negative on those shots. OTOH, perhaps they were simply trying to avoid confusion, since even people who know a thing or two about carriers didn't know what made Akagi (and Hiryu) unique.

[jumbo]

played by Jason Robards, who was actually a radioman aboard the cruiser USS San Francisco, in Pearl Harbor during the actual attack
Robards was a radio man on the USS Honolulu i believe. You are right though he was present at the attack. He was also a navy cross recipient for later actions. I wonder if anyone else who worked on the film was at the original event?

[SpitfireIX]

Akagi was visually distinctive because it was one of only two carriers ever built (by anybody - the other CV was Hiryu) to have its island structure on the port side instead of to starboard.

This was done so that Akagi and Kaga (which formed Carrier Division 1 at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack) and Hiryu and Soryu (CarDiv 2) could maneuver in close formation during flight operations, because their landing patterns would not overlap. By the time the Japanese built Shokaku and Zuikaku (CarDiv 5) the idea had been abandoned.

[Count Zero]

Ah, I never heard an expanation of why this was so. Thanks!

[Neverfly]

Same here- i was wondering that same question

[JonClarke]

The standard landing pattern when island carriers were first conceived in 1918 or thereabouts involved a cockwise circuit (bow of the ship at 12). This meant that the island offset was to port. The first carriers with islands were HMS Eagle and Hermes. Earlier carries either had separate decks for and aft (Furious, Vindictive), or were flush deckers Argus).

The clockwise pattern was developed, as I understand, because the torgue generated by the rotary engines of many WWI aircraft make a cockwise turn easier than an anticlockwise one.

Jon

[jp173]

The standard landing pattern when island carriers were first conceived in 1918 or thereabouts involved a cockwise circuit (bow of the ship at 12). This meant that the island offset was to port. The first carriers with islands were HMS Eagle and Hermes. Earlier carries either had separate decks for and aft (Furious, Vindictive), or were flush deckers Argus).

The clockwise pattern was developed, as I understand, because the torgue generated by the rotary engines of many WWI aircraft make a cockwise turn easier than an anticlockwise one.

Jon

Actually, it's safer to make the clockwise turn. With single engine propeller aircraft, especially VERY POWERFUL single engine aircraft, torque pulls the plane to the left (at least with American planes, where the propeller spins clockwise as you face it from the cockpit). The combination of a left turn in the pattern, with high torque pulling the plane to the left, tends to make the plane flip over and crash.

However, with the island on the right (I can never remember, is that port or starboard), American planes make their patterns to the left, and the pilots have to fight the torque.

When the U.S. Navy took possession of the Cutlass (the one with the gull wings), the torque on that baby was so powerful that a number of pilots crashed making left turns (especially in wave-offs, where the factors combine to create the worst possible torque). It got so bad that the Navy gave the plane to the Marines (who were land-based) and essentially banned it from carriers. A few Navy squadrons continued to fly the Cutlass, but not many.

[Musashi]

I always remember the port/starboard relationship because port and left are the same length.

[Obviousman]

You mean the Corsair, F4U.

The Cutlass (known as the gutless Cutlass) was a swept-wing, twin tailed, carrier-based jet in the early 1950s.

[jp173]

You mean the Corsair, F4U.

The Cutlass (known as the gutless Cutlass) was a swept-wing, twin tailed, carrier-based jet in the early 1950s.

Oooops ... quite right. I should never try to get too technical on Friday nights after a long week at work.

[JonClarke]

Actually, it's safer to make the clockwise turn. With single engine propeller aircraft, especially VERY POWERFUL single engine aircraft, torque pulls the plane to the left (at least with American planes, where the propeller spins clockwise as you face it from the cockpit). The combination of a left turn in the pattern, with high torque pulling the plane to the left, tends to make the plane flip over and crash.

American planes. When the portside island was introduced there were no American carrier aircraft. WWI rotary engines also had very savage torque. the standard naval flighter when the first island carriers introduced was the Camel, with a rotary.


However, with the island on the right (I can never remember, is that port or starboard), American planes make their patterns to the left, and the pilots have to fight the torque.

Which raises the question, why did they not introduce starboard islands?



When the U.S. Navy took possession of the Corsair (the one with the gull wings), the torque on that baby was so powerful that a number of pilots crashed making left turns (especially in wave-offs, where the factors combine to create the worst possible torque). It got so bad that the Navy gave the plane to the Marines (who were land-based) and essentially banned it from carriers. A few Navy squadrons continued to fly the Corsair, but not many.

There were a number of issues with the early Corsair, inlcuding nasty spin characteristic, poor pilot visibility, dangerously poor cockpit ventilation, and over bouncy under carriage.

As you say,the USN gave up on the Corsair initially and focussed on the Hellcat, a much more tractable aircraft, although with less performance and growth potential. They passed the Corsair again onto the Marines, who liked them and the RN FAA, who were less than enthusiastic initially. However, lacking a long range fighter of their own and with few Hellcats being made available (USN had priority), they persisted with the Corsair and became the first to use it operationally from carriers. Eventually with the bugs worked out the USN came to use the Corsair in some numbers, at which point they started unloading Hellcats on the FAA.

Hellcats ceased production in 1945, but the Corsair continued in production until 1952, and eventually more were produced that the Hellcat (just). They were used post WWII by the French navy from its carriers also.

Jon

[sts60]

My favorite example of WWII warbird duty is the TBM Avenger, which last saw active duty* with... the Japanese Self-Defense Forces in the 60s.


*Active military duty. Some were used for firefighting into the 21st Century.

[Count Zero]

American planes. When the portside island was introduced there were no American carrier aircraft. WWI rotary engines also had very savage torque. the standard naval flighter when the first island carriers introduced was the Camel, with a rotary.

Which raises the question, why did they not introduce starboard islands?

Jon

Jon, the islands have always been to

S (http://www.springwood.co.uk/personal/dad/furious/hmsfurious_from_air.jpg)
T (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images2/Historic-13.jpg)
A (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/britain/carriers/invincible/arkroyal1.jpg)
R (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/italy/carriers/giuseppegaribaldi/giuseppegaribaldi2.jpg)
B (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/spain/carriers/principedeasturias/principedeasturias2.jpg)
O (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/thailand/images/911-photo13.jpg)
A (http://www.netmarine.net/bat/porteavi/cdg/photo14.jpg)
R (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/kuznetsov-DDSD9903360.JPG)
D (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/cvn-75_030114-n-3235p-503.jpg)

Only Akagi (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h73000/h73059.jpg) and Hiryu (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/japan/hiryu-3.jpg) had their islands to port.

[Neverfly]

Datburned Left-handed engineers!

[Donnie B.]

Heck, with those straight-deck carriers, you could have the island on either side you wanted. Just steam backward... ;)

[captain swoop]

I remember reading a very good autobiography by a Fleet Air Arm pilot, unfortunately I can't rememebr what it was, it was over 20 years ago, i will have to investigate. He was one of the first Corsair pilots to operate from a carrier, iit was in the Pacific. there is quite a good chapter on the early problemw with carrier operations. it was thought that the Corsair was impossible to operate but with the help of a carrier deck marked out on an airfield and lots of crashes and not a few dead pilots (even well into operations) they used them, they couldn't afford not to, it outclassed any other carrier aircraft.

[captain swoop]

Found it
# Hardcover: 240 pages
# Publisher: P Stephens (3 Sep 1979)
# ISBN-10: 0850593492
# ISBN-13: 978-0850593495

Amazon



hardback, second hand only (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Carrier-Pilot-Norman-Hanson/dp/0850593492/sr=8-13/qid=1168129929/ref=sr_1_13/026-3571461-7784417?ie=UTF8&s=books)

[jt-3d]

Everything except the title. :)

[captain swoop]

oops, iys called 'Carrier Pilot' It goes through his joining and pilot training in the US to his operational career in the Pacific.

[jumbo]

There were a number of issues with the early Corsair, inlcuding nasty spin characteristic, poor pilot visibility, dangerously poor cockpit ventilation, and over bouncy under carriage.
It had such bad spin characteristics it became know as the ensign eliminator.
The bouncy undercarriage was initially so severe the aircraft could potentially bounce totally over an erected crash barrier into the forward deck.
The plane also would sometimes float on landing. OK for a land airstrip but not what you want on a carrier.
The visibility was bad on landing due to the cockpit being at least 16 feet back but it was a change to the landing procedures that solve that one. The USN was flying straight in approaches to land or very nearly so in the final stages. It made the pilot unable to see either the deck or LSO very well. The Royal Navy flew a curved approach all the way to touchdown. This meant the pilot would be looking to the side of the obscuring nose until the last second and could land with far greater ease.

[captain swoop]

Yup, it's all in the book, Norman Hanson was one of the pilots that devised the landing.

[Larry Jacks]

When the U.S. Navy took possession of the Cutlass (the one with the gull wings), the torque on that baby was so powerful that a number of pilots crashed making left turns (especially in wave-offs, where the factors combine to create the worst possible torque). It got so bad that the Navy gave the plane to the Marines (who were land-based) and essentially banned it from carriers. A few Navy squadrons continued to fly the Cutlass, but not many.

The problem with torque was common to quite a few of the WWII piston engined fighters. For example, if a pilot was low and slow on approach and applied power too quickly, the torque could overpower the control of the ailerons and cause the plane to roll over - very unhealthy at low altitude. The key was to apply power slowly in order to maintain control. I first read about this problem back in the 1970s in an article about the wonder Polen Special (http://www.polenspecial.com/) homebuilt airplane. It had the same problem.

I remember reading years ago that Claire Chennault taught his AVG pilots to avoid turning combat with the Japanese Zero fighter at all costs, but if one was on your tail, to make a diving turn (I can't remember if it was to the right or to the left). The Zero was a lightweight fighter with a pretty powerful engine. It's turning performance against the torque was much less than with the torque and it could dive nearly as fast as a P-40, so it'd have a hard time following the maneuver.

Early Corsairs did have a lot of problems with carrier service but those were resolved eventually, as mentioned above. IIRC, the Corsair was the last American piston engined fighter to be produced and saw extensive service from carriers during the Korean War. It was a very tough plane able to dish out and absorb a lot of punishment.

[Eta C]

The torque problem was much more significant for aircraft built during WWI and the early 20's. These planes, such as the SPAD, had rotary engines. In these the crankshaft was fixed and the entire engine, cylinders and all, rotated around it. As the engine formed the greatest mass in the plane, the gyroscopic torque problem was immense. In the radial engines of the 30's and 40's gyroscopic torque may have been a minor factor, but not at the same level. First, the rotating mass was smaller (prop and crankshaft) and wasn't much different than what would be found in an in-line engine such as the RR Merlin. Also, the overall mass of the plane was greater compared to the engine, so the effect wouldn't be as large.

The primary problem with the Corsair was cockpit visibility and stability on landing. The Hellcat was superior in both categories and didn't give up that much on performance in comparison. Either was superior to the Zero, and given the Hellcat's superior stability on landing and ease of production, it's not a surprise the Navy went for them over the Corsair.

[jp173]

[QUOTE=Larry Jacks;898482It was a very tough plane able to dish out and absorb a lot of punishment.[/QUOTE]

There is a documented account of one Corsair pilot using his propeller to chew threw the tail of a Japanese Zero. I can't find the link at the moment, but as I recall, the Corsair's guns jammed, so the pilot just flew his Corsair up behind the Zero and let his prop eat the Zero's tail. The Corsair's prop was damaged, but the pilot made it back safely.

[captain swoop]

Corsairs have the biggest prop of any single prop aircraft.

[jp173]

There is a documented account of one Corsair pilot using his propeller to chew threw the tail of a Japanese Zero. I can't find the link at the moment, but as I recall, the Corsair's guns jammed, so the pilot just flew his Corsair up behind the Zero and let his prop eat the Zero's tail. The Corsair's prop was damaged, but the pilot made it back safely.

Somebody PLEASE tell me that I didn't write "chew threw" instead of "chew through".

Please??

Someone??

Anyone???

[fezzic]

The torque problem was much more significant for aircraft built during WWI and the early 20's. These planes, such as the SPAD, had rotary engines. In these the crankshaft was fixed and the entire engine, cylinders and all, rotated around it. As the engine formed the greatest mass in the plane, the gyroscopic torque problem was immense. In the radial engines of the 30's and 40's gyroscopic torque may have been a minor factor, but not at the same level. First, the rotating mass was smaller (prop and crankshaft) and wasn't much different than what would be found in an in-line engine such as the RR Merlin. Also, the overall mass of the plane was greater compared to the engine, so the effect wouldn't be as large.

Wow, learned something I didn't know before.

Rotary Engine animation (http://www.keveney.com/gnome.html)

I couldn't believe you were right until I found the description, surprisingly hard to find perhaps due to my choice of key words, and the animation. :surprised

[Neverfly]

i had never heard of a rotary engine either
i had no doubt Eta C knew what he was talking about...
But the IDEA sounded dumb.. why make the WHOLE engine move?

TY though fezzic for that link- it makes a lot more sense now (albeit i wouldnt use a rotary...)

[ktesibios]

The torque problem was much more significant for aircraft built during WWI and the early 20's. These planes, such as the SPAD, had rotary engines. In these the crankshaft was fixed and the entire engine, cylinders and all, rotated around it. As the engine formed the greatest mass in the plane, the gyroscopic torque problem was immense.

Actually, the SPAD VII and XIII were powered by non-rotary liquid-cooled Hispano-Suiza V-8 engines.

Here are a couple of photos of a restored SPAD XIII:

http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/Media/Spad13/8.html
http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/Media/Spad13/13.html

The first shows the engine installation and the second the complete plane. Note the exhaust pipes running along the side of the engine cowling and the radiator shutters in the front- neither of which would be found in a rotary engine.

A description of the SPAD VII and XIII:
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/SPAD-13/spad_info/spad_info.php

Several planes on both sides did use rotary engines; off the top of my head the Fokker E.1, the first WWI warplane to have a synchronized machine gun firing through the propellor arc, the Fokker Dr.1 triplane, which Manfred von Richthofen was flying at the time of his death and the Sopwith Camel, Snipe, Pup, Triplane and 1 1/2 Strutter.

Some of the rotary engines on both sides were identical- the German Oberursel U.II was a license-built clone of the French Le Rhone 9C, and some German planes flew with captured/salvaged Le Rhone and Gnome engines.

[Gillianren]

Somebody PLEASE tell me that I didn't write "chew threw" instead of "chew through".

Please??

Someone??

Anyone???

Wish I could . . . .

[Neverfly]

WAY WAY WAY off topic- But all the same..


Talking about WWI and Rotary engines- and then looking at the links ktesibios put up
i Started thinking about the Red Baron.
Now- History class had always painted an image of the Red baron as this sinister killing machine- the Villian..
However- in a casual - then what became quite an absorbing read- i learned Much more..
He was Just a KID!
he died at 25- before he even started a family
In reading his Autobiography and his Mothers statements- i learned too that he was a man of honor- that Carried the Weight of the deaths he caused- One who Refered to his Enemy- as his Friends- with the Utmost repsect for them- He often Attributed his success in battle- to Luck or Grace or fortune- rather than his own Skill.
I know off topic but Still a VERY Fascinating read- From the Perspective of a Soldier- i can so easily see the Similiarties- i was around the same age myself....................................
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/redbaron/mind.html
Germany Used him for Propaganda- Striking Fear into the Hearts of his enemy
However the True Richthofen was a very different person- Disenchanted and haunted.
Fogive the sway but i felt the need to share this one

[Gillianren]

All of which goes to show that you can't blindly trust either side's propaganda, I suppose. It's amazing how many people turn out to be nothing like the way they're portrayed.

[Van Rijn]

Somebody PLEASE tell me that I didn't write "chew threw" instead of "chew through".

Please??

Someone??

Anyone???

Mistakes happen. I would have gone back, edited the post, and noted "spelling" as the reason for the edit. Editing for spelling errors is certainly allowed. I often notice later that I used the wrong word, wrote a word twice, left a word out, or made some other mistake in a post.

[Neverfly]

All of which goes to show that you can't blindly trust either side's propaganda, I suppose. It's amazing how many people turn out to be nothing like the way they're portrayed.

true and thats part of my point
However
From a soldiers perspective it goes much deeper

There is No Glory nor Glamour in war. People watch Rambo and Missing In Action
HEROS...
but its not the reality at all- a soldier has CHOSEN to Carry the Weight of the dead.
Its very hard to describe but reading that history struck something deep within...
anyway.. WAY off topic but - i put it up so that Whoever chooses can get that inside glimpse at what that feels like to Continue the mission, to take.. and live the guilt later when all is quiet and the lights are out... and a Horse Pill couldnt get you to sleep....

[Larry Jacks]

But the IDEA sounded dumb.. why make the WHOLE engine move?

Those rotary engines had the highest power to weight ratio of piston engines at the start of WWI. They also had better cooling. Many early airplane engines were prone to overheating. A French company invented rotary engines before the war and licensed production to several other companies. That's why many French, British, and German planes used the engine. Later in the war, more conventional engines were used instead of the rotaries in most designs.

Those rotaries had a lot of issues, though. Most of them had only two speeds, on and off. The pilot controled the ignition with a kill switch. Coming in for a landing, they killed the engine for most of the descent but had to momentarily release the kill switch to run the engine and keep the plugs from fouling in case they needed to go around. This resulted in a "burrrrpp burrrppp" sound during landing, something Hollywood sound effects men often continued using in movies well into the 1930s when it no longer applied.

Torque was a problem, but gyroscopic forces were even stronger. Depending on the engine rotational direction, turning to one side made the plane want to pitch nose up and to the other direction nose down. At low speeds, this pitching action could be greater than the elevator's control. Killed a lot of low time pilots that way.

Most of the engines were lubricated with castor oil, causing some unfortunate side effects. Pilots often drank some pretty potent mixtures upon landing to avoid having the runs.

[MrClean]

i had never heard of a rotary engine either
i had no doubt Eta C knew what he was talking about...
But the IDEA sounded dumb.. why make the WHOLE engine move?


They were just happy to have something that worked. Remember, we hadn't been flying all that long and the power required just to fly these stick and paper airplanes was massive. You go from 12 something horsepower (I think I have more power in my Rototiller) that somehow got the Write flyer off the ground to 80-110 hp monsters of WWI to 1200-1500 hp Merlins in WWII just 30-40 years later, that's quite a jump. And like everything else, folks look at the steps and mis-steps of the past and wonder why we ever did it that way. But till something better comes along, that's the way we do it.

[Neverfly]

<chuckle>
relax guys
i was just saying when i first read it- the idea sounded dumb...
not much more to it than that
but reading up on it- these rotary engines are pretty impressive- yes we CAN do better now- but for the time- thats impressive engineering

[Eta C]

Actually, the SPAD VII and XIII were powered by non-rotary liquid-cooled Hispano-Suiza V-8 engines.

(snip....)

Several planes on both sides did use rotary engines; off the top of my head the Fokker E.1, the first WWI warplane to have a synchronized machine gun firing through the propellor arc, the Fokker Dr.1 triplane, which Manfred von Richthofen was flying at the time of his death and the Sopwith Camel, Snipe, Pup, Triplane and 1 1/2 Strutter.


You are, of course, right aobut the SPAD. My bad there. I think you can, however, add the Nieuport to the list of rotary powered planes. Like many ideas that seem dumb to us now, there were some valid engineering reasons for using a rotary engine. For instance, the radiators required for liquid cooling are one more subsystem to break, or be damaged in combat. Rotary's (and radials) being primarily air-cooled don't have that problem. It's a matter of choosing the bad side-effects one is willing to put up with.

[captain swoop]

Another problem with liquid cooling is that it's heavy, liquid has weight and then there is the radiator. Plus you need a pump which adds more weight and takes power from the engine and adds another point of failure

[Larry Jacks]

Another problem with liquid cooling is that it's heavy, liquid has weight and then there is the radiator. Plus you need a pump which adds more weight and takes power from the engine and adds another point of failure.

Looking past WWI to WWII when piston engines were much more developed, many liquid cooled engines were lighter than air cooled engines of the same power. They also were more compact, allowing for less drag if done properly. That's why so many WWII fighters used water cooled engines. In one notable case (the P-51), engineers were able to overcome the cooling drag and actually generate some positive thrust from the cooling airflow through the radiator.

Air cooled engines are much more robust when it comes to combat damage. A single bullet in the cooling system (such as the radiator) was enough to being down most liquid cooled fighters. By contrast, radial engined fighters like the P-47 could withstand a lot of damage to the engine and still survive. I know of at least one case of a P-47 that made it back to its base with a piston flapping in the breeze, its cylinder having been shot off.

For general aviation piston engines, air cooling has ruled for decades. However, there are notable exceptions such as the rear engine on Rutan's Voyager. It was a liquid cooled Continential engine. Then there's the revolutionary Diamond (http://www.diamondair.com/mainpage.php) DA-42 Twinstar, powered by two water cooled diesel engines. The performance and economy of that plane is astonishing.

[captain swoop]

U should say Liquid rather than water cooling. EG the Merlin uses Glycol and some German engines were oil cooled. Water on it's own in a light alloy block would cause corrosion.

[Larry Jacks]

Glycol is basically antifreeze. Pure glycol actually doesn't work as well as a 50/50 water/glycol mixture.

[JonClarke]

Air cooled engines are much more robust when it comes to combat damage. A single bullet in the cooling system (such as the radiator) was enough to being down most liquid cooled fighters. By contrast, radial engined fighters like the P-47 could withstand a lot of damage to the engine and still survive. I know of at least one case of a P-47 that made it back to its base with a piston flapping in the breeze, its cylinder having been shot off.

It took time for a leaky radiator to bring down a liquid cooled engine. How long depended on the size of the hole and the distance to an airfield. In practice there were many cases of liquid cooled aircraft making it back top base with considerable damage to the cooling system. The theoretically graater vulnerability of liquid cooled engtinese does not seem to have been a significant factor in operational losses, compared to loss of structural integrity and fire.

[Larry Jacks]

It took time for a leaky radiator to bring down a liquid cooled engine. How long depended on the size of the hole and the distance to an airfield. In practice there were many cases of liquid cooled aircraft making it back top base with considerable damage to the cooling system. The theoretically graater vulnerability of liquid cooled engtinese does not seem to have been a significant factor in operational losses, compared to loss of structural integrity and fire.

While I don't have access to statistics at the moment, I've read quite a few first person accounts from WWII pilots of the relative vulnerability of liquid verses air cooled engines back then. Liquid cooled planes would start to overheat quickly after their cooling systems were damaged because the liquid was under pressure and there wasn't a large surplus of coolant. It was very common for the engine to fail in less than 15 minutes after receiving damage and sometimes much faster than that depending on the size of the hole.

It's hard to directly compare the relative losses of planes like the P-47 verses the P-51 because they were used for different missions. The P-47 was designed as a high altitude fighter but had a range too short for most escort missions. With its heavy firepower and general ability to absorb small arms fire, the P-47 was mostly used for ground attack missions after D-Day. It performed this mission extremely well. P-51s were primarily designated for bomber escort missions but after Doolittle changed tactics (allowing fighters to go after the enemy instead of sticking with the bombers), many Mustangs also went after ground targets. Accounts that I've read indicate they suffered pretty high losses in that mission. All it took to bring one down was a well placed bullet in the radiator.

[fezzic]

A book on P-51s that I read noted that in fighter escort missions (April 1944) VIII fighter command's P-51s would lose 1 out of every 100 fighters on escort missions but lost 3 out of every 100 on ground attack missions.

Makes a certain amount of sense. In escort missions, the primary opponents to the P-51 would be other aircraft so, at any given time, the amount of fire a particular plane took would be limited to whoever it was fighting and maybe a few others. That would also change as the action continued.

In ground attack, the flak batteries weren't going anywhere (and usually weren't a priority target anyway) and could concentrate on anyone who flew into range. I think it was noted, in the book I read, that pilots learned to NEVER try a second round on any target (like an airbase that was defended) unless they accomplished all but total destruction on the first pass else the now alerted AA batteries would make it very dangerous for them.

[JonClarke]

While I don't have access to statistics at the moment, I've read quite a few first person accounts from WWII pilots of the relative vulnerability of liquid verses air cooled engines back then. Liquid cooled planes would start to overheat quickly after their cooling systems were damaged because the liquid was under pressure and there wasn't a large surplus of coolant. It was very common for the engine to fail in less than 15 minutes after receiving damage and sometimes much faster than that depending on the size of the hole.

It's hard to directly compare the relative losses of planes like the P-47 verses the P-51 because they were used for different missions. The P-47 was designed as a high altitude fighter but had a range too short for most escort missions. With its heavy firepower and general ability to absorb small arms fire, the P-47 was mostly used for ground attack missions after D-Day. It performed this mission extremely well. P-51s were primarily designated for bomber escort missions but after Doolittle changed tactics (allowing fighters to go after the enemy instead of sticking with the bombers), many Mustangs also went after ground targets. Accounts that I've read indicate they suffered pretty high losses in that mission. All it took to bring one down was a well placed bullet in the radiator.

One well placed bullet would bring down any fighter of the period. With liquid cooled engines, complete loss of coolant would cause rapid over heating, followed by engine failure. How likely this is the question! Not all radiator damage would be followed by rapid coolant loss, and much would depend on subtle design features such as size of coolant reservoirs, placement of radiators, and any protection. Losses caused by coolant loss need to be compared against those from all other causes.

The exellent combat record of the many WWII aircraft with liquid cooled engines, often in the extremely hazardous close support role (Ju-87 and FW190D, Hurricane and Typhoon, P-30 and P40, Pe-2 and Il-2) would indicate that it was not a major factor.

Jon

[JonClarke]

A book on P-51s that I read noted that in fighter escort missions (April 1944) VIII fighter command's P-51s would lose 1 out of every 100 fighters on escort missions but lost 3 out of every 100 on ground attack missions.

Makes a certain amount of sense. In escort missions, the primary opponents to the P-51 would be other aircraft so, at any given time, the amount of fire a particular plane took would be limited to whoever it was fighting and maybe a few others. That would also change as the action continued.

In ground attack, the flak batteries weren't going anywhere (and usually weren't a priority target anyway) and could concentrate on anyone who flew into range. I think it was noted, in the book I read, that pilots learned to NEVER try a second round on any target (like an airbase that was defended) unless they accomplished all but total destruction on the first pass else the now alerted AA batteries would make it very dangerous for them.

No to mention the fact that during close support missions there was a very real risk of flying into the terrain. Pilots often came back with greenery imbedded in the aircraft,

Jon

[JonClarke]

Yup, it's all in the book, Norman Hanson was one of the pilots that devised the landing.

Norman's book is an excellent read and widely quoted in histories. Initially FAA pilots were horrified by the Corsair (one pilot allegedly took one look and wrote up his will) but came to love it once its peculiarities became known.

Jon

[94z07]

1. Most people would agree (IMO) that FDR wanted the US to support the British, if not actually enter the war on their side. I would go so far he was waiting for the right political climate to enter the war on the British side.

FDR had the US actively involved in acts of war against both the Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany prior to Dec. 7th, 1941.



2. As you have said, it was not necessary to have a successful Japanese attack in order to justify either overt support or a declaration of war on the Japanese. A clear demonstration of Japanese intention would be sufficient to achieve (IMO) FDR's goals. This could be achieved by the repelling of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Increased vigilence in the form of exercises could have been organised during which (if the attack had been known) the "surprise" attack would be severely blunted, if not actually negated. This would have shown Japanese intent without loss of operational capability.

The prevailing wisdom was that air power was not sufficient to cause extensive damage.



3. Allowing a Japanese attack would have been a terrible mistake in strategic thinking. That attack severely compromised the ability of US forces in the Pacific region to respond to Japanese military advances. It took years of the US industrial base working full-time, over-stretching of the Japanese logistic capability, and a couple of lucky tactical victories, in order for the US to overcome the disadvantage. Once again, it would have been better (if the attack plans had been known) to repel that attack, preserving US assets in the Pacific.

I don't doubt that we received warnings of Japanese aggression that went unheeded. I will never believe that FDR let the Japanese hit us as part of some clever plan.

[mugaliens]

IMHO that film has got it essentialy right...

Coming from a Naval family, with a retired 06 as a father, and a friend of the family who was a 3-star who went through that mess, I'd have to say that I concur, mainly from the many overheard conversations at family gatherings over the years, conversations which were pretty candid, and while I didn't understand at the time, I remember word for word, and understand completely today.

That was an era where integrity was held in much higher regard than today, and where breaches in integrity were handled much more harshly. It's far less likely that anyone could have gotten away with the allegations back then, than now, and even now, most such allegations surface.

Personally, I think it's a CT's haven, but a realitist's reality.

[MrClean]

No to mention the fact that during close support missions there was a very real risk of flying into the terrain. Pilots often came back with greenery imbedded in the aircraft,

Jon

Which reminds me of another favorite move The Battle of Britain. I love the beginning of the movie where the BF-109's are strafing the field and even though I KNOW where they are and what direction they are coming from, my eye STILL refuses to pick up the lower fighter until he comes across the fence in the opening sequence. You wouldn't want to strafe that low unless you liked to pick fire and shrapnel out of your teeth.