Top World War II Planes

"...forever associated with the Kamikaze attacks on Pearl Harbor."

Shamefully, this is what Hollywood is doing to us - rewriting history.

Kamikaze pilots were not employed on the attack at Pear Harbor.

Kamikaze attacks were a last ditch effort at the end of WW II by Japan after their losses at Midway.

" Jeff Johnston is the Director of Marketing" ......................Who never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

The B-17 also participated in the battles of Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands. I have my father-in-laws' medals to prove it. (Numerous bronze battle stars for Midway, Guadalcanal and the Solomons.)

If you tried to tell him "In the South Pacific and North Africa, the B-17 was less successful..." you'd have gotten your nose bloodied before you'd finished that sentence.

devine wind

Also, the Zero was a copied design from the Howard Hughes H1-Racer.

The US F4U Corsair was used by the Navy to combat the Zero and with much success. It is a notable aircraft that deserves some attention.

The Corsair had impressive performance specs for its day…

Over 2,000 hp out of an 18-cylinder engine and a top speed of over 425 mph, the Corsair could carry two 1,000 bombs (besides a compliment of guns and cannons). It had six 50mm guns in the wings.

The Corsair claimed 2,140 air combat victories with only 189 losses (11:1).

"six 50mm guns in the wings"

Two inch guns, huh? Sure you didn't mean .50 cal?

Thanks. Yes. :-)

Corsair is by far the sexiest WWII airplane, and I fly one every time I log onto Aces High II, (multiplayer combat simulation). We have squad nights on Fridays, where about 350 players re-enact aspects of key aerial battles in WWII. Last Friday, I flew an SBD dive bomber, and scored a strong hit on a Japanese flattop. Other allies sunk that one, in a re-enactment of the battle of the Coral Sea. F4F's in our squad also flew escort.

Anyone interested in this sort of thing (that has time for a long learning curve), might be interested in downloading this game from www.hitechcreations.com.

Sorry for the plug. I have run into actual WWII veterans in that game, one of which flew F4F Wildcat in the Battle of Midway. He said they were way more afraid of sharks than the Japanese. I won't tell you how many letters to mothers he wrote after he became a squadron leader.

You have to do better research............ Your mixing drama that delutes historical facts

And you didn't even mentioned the Russians contributions.

You do need to do some more research.

What about the:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-84

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_C.202

or even:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAR_80

what about the russian flying tank?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2

are you American by any chance? ... just wondering. All you guys can say its the "Mustang" "The flying fortress" ... the bad guys "The Zero".

You Sir, lost an amazing opportunity of remaining silent ... just saying.

And that also ignores completely the British contributions: Mosquito, Lancaster?

And the amazing Spitfire:

_{(Google Image.)}

Or the Merlin engine.

on what it not only did for this plane, but also the P51.

Very true and as a side note my father in law was air plane tech in WW II and it was well recognized that the US Packard version of the RR Merlin was a better engine than the Rolls Royce model both in power and reliability.

I read the opposite online some time ago....I'll try and find out where it was.

After a lot of reading, the opinions come out at about 50/50 as which was best.

Certainly, the Merlin copies had to thank Rolls Royce for a fantastic design to start off with.....not just Packard!!

Here's one Packard built Merlin, Model V-1650:

http://www.militaryaviationmuseum.org/

My photo.

The P51 , ^{(I realize the link is on a Boeing Page and not North American, but its info is the point)} may only have been a footnote in history.......... The original engine North American Aviation put in it, was under sized...... It was the Brits that introduced the P51 to the Merlin....... it was also the Brits that gave it its name.

Also its a interesting story, about how North American Aviation came about designing it.....

loosely put, I believe the Brits were looking for a pane similar to the Curtiss P40 Warhawk,

And NAA said they could deliver a better plane.... and they did, with the exception of the original under power engine

P 38's were very successful in the Pacific yet did not fare as well in Europe. It is impossible to compare planes as each to some degree were developed for a specific role that they excelled in. Spitfire vs Mustang should never be tried due to design. Both excelled in intended role. I have to agree that those were the finest years of aviation as it pertains to man and his aeroplane.

That was because the Britain tried it after observing it, and the US sold them, but due to the fear of having the turbochargers falling into the wrong hands, the US did not include the turbochargers with the planes.

The Brits basically said the US gave them castrated P38's.

"due to the fear of having the turbochargers falling into the wrong hands, the US did not include the turbochargers with the planes"

Nope. Read Martin Caidin, The P-38: Fork-Tailed Devil. The Paxton superchargers, which were originally included to allow the Lightning to fly and fight at higher altitudes than anything anyone else had, had an unfortunate tendency to "run away" (Overspeed? Overpressure? I've never been sure.) and explode, with disastrous consequences for the pilot and the plane. Kelly tried to find a solution, until it was realized that the P-38 was so superb in the lower altitude roles, including ground support, that it wasn't all that necessary to include the supercharger. And since a good one couldn't be found quickly, that part of the design was scrapped.

No fear of it falling into enemy hands. The Germans (and for all I know, the Japanese) had undoubtedly better superchargers available already. Anybody ever looked at the statistics for the long road races run all over Europe in the "'tween war" years? Auto-Union and Mercedes, among other Germanic Marques, dominated many of the really punishing races, and superchargers played a big part in developing the necessary horsepower and longevity to sustain the 24 hour Grands Prix, such as Neurbergring and Le Mans, and the Mille Milla in Italy.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall that the Chevy Power-glide transmission was originally designed as a two speed supercharger drive for the P-51 Mustang.

Did I dream this?

That is possible......... must have been watch too much documentary's on WWII......

The P-38's in Europe were superb camera platforms for surveillance and after-action photos. In and out before the AA gunners could react.

Hooker

No doubt as it was a great platform I wonder just how it would function with a pair of Merlins, like the Mosquito. I always liked the idea of two engines as a get home factor with all scenarios considered and having the guns firing straight ahead instead of a convergence factor as with wing mounted guns.

I have no idea of how the Lightning would perform with other engines but I've always been a proponent of multi engines. That's why I finagled my way into Chinooks over lesser helicopters.

I was reading about no need for convergence. It is said that the P-38 could reliably hit out to 1000 yards where P-51's converged at 250. To bad the P-38 didn't have the roll capability to dogfight.

I guess the German's hated them anyway.

Hooker

Couldn't roll? Did you ever SEE one do a snap-roll. I watched one in Watsonville, CA do about 6 snap rolls when I was a kid, at an air show. Like grease. Quick. We used to say "slicker than snot on a brass doorknob". It was. And according to the specsheet on it, it used all original equipment, and was configured as originally built. BEAUTIFUL bird. Big, mean, and lethal looking.

But no guns. I really wanted to see what 4 .50s sounded like.

Yeah, I've seen them at the airshows. My favorite prop fighter!!!

It could roll. Just not as agile as the P-51's when they came online.

I've read that they maintained their dominance in the Far East because of their extended range capability that was needed over the Pacific.

Yeah, 4 M2 .50 guns and a 20mm autocannon!!

Hooker

we had P38's in Manitowoc, WI last year for an airshow..... what do you mean they can roll?

The issue, from what I've read, with the early variants of P-38's was that they were not as agile as other contemporary fighters such as the ME-109. Particularly in the roll axis. They were very heavy for their size and it supposedly took a bit for roll momentum to kick in. They also had performance issues in high speed dives.

Awesome P-38 analysis here

Hooker

As far as the high speed dives, I believe the 109's also had the problem where they could not pull out of them. at least the earlier one.

I have to read that link, when I have more time tonight, looks interesting.

I also believe, on take off, they have to close the side windows on the P-38 otherwise it created too much turbulence for take off.

The P-38 used the Allison V-1710

Not my photo.

this guy changed a few games..another Kelly Johnson gem!

This was the only serious issue with this plane but they lost a few pilots before the necessary improvements.

A major problem surfaced with the loss of control in a dive caused by aerodynamic compressibility. During late spring 1941, Air Corps Major Signa A. Gilke encountered serious trouble while diving his Lightning at high-speed from an altitude of 30,000 ft (9,120 m). When the airplane reached an indicated airspeed of about 320 mph (515 kph), the airplane's tail began to shake violently and the nose dropped until the dive was almost vertical. With great effort, Signa barely recovered from the dive and landed safely. The tail buffet problem was resolved after Lockheed installed fillets, where the cockpit joined the wing, to improve airflow.

However, seventeen months passed before engineers began to determine what caused the Lightning's nose to drop. They tested a scale model P-38 in the Ames Laboratory wind tunnel operated by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and found that shock waves formed over the wing when the airflow reached transonic speeds causing turbulence. Lockheed never remedied this problem, but the firm did install dive recovery flaps under each wing in 1944 to restore lift and smooth the airflow enough to maintain control when diving at high-speed.

This P 38 and the P 51 are true works of art in every sense.

"Lockheed never remedied this problem"

Not quite true either, and again, from Martin Caidin (great source of Info on the P-38, and in another of his books, the P-47, development process), they also moved the horizontal surfaces up on the tail to get them into a new area of the laminar air-flow over the wings. Because of the angle of attack in the original position, when the bird hit compressibility, the EFFECTIVE angle of attack on the stabilizer changed, which forced the nose-down pitch, in turn increasing speed, increasing pitch, etc.

One of the Lockheed test engineers was dispatched to the Pacific with the idea that he would see what was going wrong in the real world, and try to prove to the pilots that the bird could be recovered (It may be Gilke was the one, on assignment to Lockheed to develop the bird. I can't remember at this point and no longer have my copy of the book).

While he was in conversation with some pilots who were expressing their belief that the bird was a complete killer, but describing what had been happening, the Lockheed pilot told them he thought from what they were saying that it might be possible to push the plane FURTHER under, perform an outside loop in a dive, and recover, as long as he did it from enough altitude. The plane so far had only been recoverable from lower altitudes where it had not been able to generate enough speed to get solidly into compressibility. They laughed and said it couldn't be done, and he was nuts. He got up and left, and the next thing they heard was a P-38 in screaming dive. As they ran out to watch him auger in, he, instead, did exactly what he said he could do. It probably didn't make them any happier with the plane, as that would be a hairy maneuver in anyone's book, as well as giving a pilot a terrible "hangover headache" (I'd guess), but at least they knew they could recover if they had to dive from high altitude, as long as they kept their heads in the game.

I believe I also read a comment by another P-38 pilot from the era, that he had heard about that maneuver, and when his plane, a few weeks later, hit compressibility as he was diving to gain position on some enemy planes, he pushed it under, and as it hit the bottom of the dive, rolled it into a sloppy half-Immelman, so that he at least didn't suffer the full inversion effects at high G's. I don't remember if he said how the encounter developed from there, but I'd guess he was going away, fast, at that point, and working hard just to get it home. Come to think of it, that might not have been possible, anyway, since at the point he said he rolled it upright, it would have been at it's very nearly highest air-speed, and rolling it upright would certainly just have pushed it into another compressibility dive.

I was not there and took this info from Wikipedia however I have read a lot on this wonderful plane and the facts vary somewhat.

No doubt. Caidin does good research, but I'm sure he's not infallible. I've read a lot on them, too, but sooner or later one has to choose what one will believe about it all, since, as you say, "facts" vary.

A reverse Immelman is nothing but a split-S, so this was probably the correct move to "un-compress", since the trick is get air flow over the tail (elevators) again. Trim tabs should also help, but this messes up normal cruise trim (who cares, if you survive it?).

Loaded with bombs or not, this was one wicked beast in a dive. Best to know what your plan was to pull out before starting it.

Thanks for the clarification, James. I always wondered (but no, Andy Germany, I never looked it up, cause I didn't wonder that much, nor think it necessary) whether they were the same.

But, if the Lightning was already in compressibility, and was approaching the inverted part of its outside loop, wouldn't it's airspeed still be so high if it rolled upright, that the compressibility would just "shove it under" again? And if it did, it seems likely it would have lost so much altitude by that time, it couldn't survive a repeat of the earlier "1st 3/8 to 1/2 of an outside diving loop".

Am I wrong for some reason I don't see? I'm not a pilot, but thought I understood enough of the issue to get that. I can see I could be wrong, and I would like to understand this.

The idea to recover from compression with loss of <laminar> flow over control surfaces, is to find some way to waste E, since E is being converted to kinetic energy in a dive, with less potential energy being the result. Assume that any turn into the vertical is an E wasting move, further assume that counter rudder to bank is a big energy wasting move (this is why you crab in to reduce speed on final approach until you are slow enough to drop flaps. Another thing I love about corsairs, you can drop flaps and landing gear at 200 mph, whilst many other WWII era planes would not drop flaps until under 150 mph, and even then you could snap off the landing gear. Carrier landings = beefy landing gear, etc.

Having said all that, when the pilot starts his roll to inverted position, he should already have chopped throttle to minimum, and started apply rudder counter to the roll direction. Also, some P-38 models had what are known as dive flaps, and those will deploy at any speed. The dive flaps on a P-38 do not seem to do much about slowing the dive as they would for an SBD dive bomber, but what they will do is is allow the aircraft to turn. Plane is now in excellent position for upside down turn (split-S, only without the final roll, so it truly an outside bottom half loop. Scary? Hell yes. Does it work? I will experiment today and find out what conditions will allow it. Don't worry, it's all AI, and the model is really that good.

Never flew like that when I was piloting.

Rudder is only used to fly coordinated - the airflow along the aircraft fuselage should be equal and in line with the fuselage. Rudders do not steer the aircraft. It is a common misconception. The wings steer an aircraft.

Opposite (Counter) rudder is used to bring an aircraft out of a stall, which typically is when one wing loses lift and the aircraft turns into the direction of the stalled wing. Opposite rudder forces the aircraft to yaw away from the stalled wing, which increases airflow over the stalled wing to regain lift. The procedure is performed with a pitch forward maneuver to gain airspeed.

Roll is controlled by the ailerons, not the rudder. Ailerons are the pivoting control surfaces at the trailing edge of the wings. They also can be part of the flaps, but ailerons work in opposite directions (one goes up and the other goes down) whereas flaps always work in the same direction.

The only reason to crab an aircraft on approach is to mitigate a crosswind, not bleed off energy.

You can bleed off energy by the AOA (angle of attack) of the aircraft. When landing you essentially fly the aircraft to what is called the initial point on the landing strip at a set angle of descent and speed. When you get close to the ground you flare the aircraft by lifting the nose slightly to achieve level flight. Once you have flared over the runway you skim the aircraft a few feet above the runway until the aircraft does a controlled stall and lands. Carrier landings are a little different, you are trying to snag one of the arrester wires with a tail hook on the aft of the aircraft.

If you watch a carrier landing carefully you will notice that the pilot applies full throttle at the point of landing. They do this so that they can lift off again if the tail hook fails to grab.

OK here is the "result" of my simulation test of P-38L outside loop:

Conditions: 30,000 ft altitude over water, approximately 250 mph true speed into a head wind of 20 mph. (Wind is layered in the game, so this is a bit hard to account for, as all layers were traversed down below 14,000 to where wind "dies" off.) No bomb load, or rockets, but carrying full normal capacity of 50 cal and 20mm rnds. Fuel condition was approximate 75% after climb-out.

Nose over vertical chop throttle, apply dive brakes, and trim "down", push stick into the dive so plane begins to go inverted. During compression, not all control is lost, but mainly the larger surfaces are indeed ineffective. Dive brakes, no apparent effect (question the modeling of this in the game, although the thinking is they were for dive recovery during bombing, strafing, etc.) Plane went inverted horizontal (still in compression) at 12,000 ft. At this point, I allowed the plane to continue outside loop slightly upwards until control was restored. Once the P-38L rolled upright, throttle was again applied, trim reset, and I climbed "normally" up to combat altitude.

Thank you, James. Interesting, and that dovetails with what the first pilot I read had to say about his recovery. Where I thought it got a bit chancy was the pilot who said he rolled upright WITHOUT allowing the plane to traverse the first 1/2 of the outside loop, but basically, to avoid the negative Gs of the fully inverted bottom part of the curve, he stated (or implied, I read it too long ago to know) that he pulled it upright as he was still in the dive near the beginning of the inversion part at the bottom. To me, that seemed as though he not only would NOT have scrubbed any speed in the pullout at the other end of the inverted bottom part of the loop, but he would have gained even more speed than when he first entered compressibility, thus increasing the compressibility forces on his main wing section. Assuming that the strains didn't pull the plane apart (But those WERE tough planes, so that might not be a far-fetched assumption) is still seems he would just have compounded his problem with the compressibility dive, but at the expense of giving up the large altitude cushion with which he started.

Visualizing the inverted loop in its entirety as a 360 degree vertical circle (probably more oval, but circle will do for this), what you described doing, starting with 0 degrees at the top, is enter the dive from somewhere around 45 degrees, exit the dive from somewhere around 200-210 degrees, after rolling upright at around 190-195 (depending on exit point). What he seems to describe is entering at the same point, but rolling upright before even hitting 180 degrees, with the effect that he hasn't lost any appreciable speed gained in the 45 through 85 degree parts of the dive, where he'd be accelerating the most, under the force of gravity.

AND, though I didn't say this before, he did this in the early days of the Lightning's history, before it had effective dive brakes, and when it was at its worst for compressibility effects.

His process doesn't seem reasonable, but the one you tested seems to match what was explained by the Lockheed test pilot in theatre.

We have the capability of "filming" (recording) our rides in the arena where I play. I will have to go back and check some of the angles from external "God mode" view, along with the speeds. I do not think I was over 620 mph at any point, just a wild guess right now, but I was so fast, there is no way I had enough control to roll upright. Rather, I just had to put up with about -2G the whole time in the lower portion of the outside loop (so my cartoon pilot got a "hangover from hell").

Thanks for the interest.

Thanks, James.

"there is no way I had enough control to roll upright."

That kind of agrees with what I thought of his story. I expected there wouldn't be enough control to do it, but also, if he had, that it would likely just continue the whole compressibility issue without letup. No recovery by trying to roll out of it to avoid that negative G headache.

It took all the planes in all the hangers to win that war.

My photo.

Yes, we sent out a lot of good beagles......

"Top World War II Planes" What? Just 3 out of many. Looks like the author fell asleep shortly after starting. What about from USA: B-24, A-20/Havoc/Boston, B-25, F4U Corsair, Hellcat, Wildcat, P-38, P-47 and from Britain: Lancaster, Mosquito, Spitfire, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, Beaufighter. All played a vital part, as did many other types of aircraft.

"forever associated with the Kamikaze attacks on Pearl Harbor." My God, who writes these articles?

It's a lot complicated........... IMO, the Brits understandable didn't want a war, that was compounded by a false sense of security by its politics.

It's interesting enough, even though this post started out poorly, it is interesting how the members some very knowledgeable on WWII, some slightly so, actually made it rather interesting.

knowledge garnered from watching movies that embellish facts

that's dangerous....

I wrote a long response, discussing how the US entered the war, much of which has been distorted by those who want to rewrite history. The system would not allow me to post that.

Here is the short version: War is almost always about hatred, misunderstanding, bad diplomacy, or conflicts over natural resources. Exception: Julius Caesar went to war over an insult (or offense) to a distant relative, but even that might fall under hatred, or other underlying cause.

History will repeat itself (and apparently is now in Ukraine) when those men in leadership neither care nor remember the lessons gained at such a tremendously hard price. We never want war personally, however, it behooves all nations to be ultimately prepared for conflict. Unfortunately, we have impotent leadership, willing and able to do nothing.

The next time that happens, go back one step in your browser, copy the text and open a new reply window, paste the text there and submit it. It will be accepted.

The system times out, sometimes.

You probably was on it too long.....

This book The Art of War by Sun Tzu

This I believe is required reading at West Point...... if not it should be.

All of our leaders that were successful, in WWII used it AND applied it, Ike, Patton. unlike the Third Reich.

Also, it should be taught at business schools. It creates excellent leaders with no ambiguity and applied equally.

When its pick and choose, it becomes a wash...... which is also explianed.

"All of our leaders that were successful, in WWII used it AND applied it, Ike, Patton. unlike the Third Reich."

No they didn't. The Americans ... The Vietnam war was a "The art of war" style won war ... they were reading it and applying it at all levels. You guys were kicked out of there ...

Interesting, first off, it was WWII that I stated.

Secondly, the Vietnam war, this was a time where I knew and talked to some of the commanders about that war......... And you claim they followed 'The Art of War'. I don't believe you know what your are talking about of which I'll address later. This war was all politics. They did not nowhere come close to following 'The Art of War....... Btw, you either follow it, or you don't.... Anything in between is a wash. That is also address in the art of war.

And yes we were spanked..............

Thirdly, the war was directed and run through Washington.

Fourthly, the war in the Gulf in 1991 the control was put back to the commanders and not by Washington. (With one exception, and that was when General Swartzkof wanted to go right into Bagdad. The Commander in Chief George Bush said no.

And lastly, you seem very angry and seemly hold a grudge or at the very least, argue issues, because you have seemingly have no idea about Vietnam. Also for your information and from your response, how can you say that when you yourself never read 'The Art of War'?

In my opinion, Just because you can fool youself, does not mean that everyone is as foolish you.

"If the soldiers go in the field and loose the battle, its not their fault, its the commanders fault, they lost because they were not informed on the mission and or were not motivated" ... "fear the greatest motivator" .

Diplomacy can and will be used by an intelligent foe to stall you down and confuse. That's what they did or you did to yourself.

Beside, every major profile open conflict the Americans caused or went into after WW2 , starting with Korea, was a lose (here I exclude the invasion of Grenada and Panama, you guys won that :)

The Americans didn't win WW2, The Brits, the Russians, the French, the Norwegian, the Finish, the Polish, the Filipinos, the Chinese ... (hope you got the point here) altogether did. Like I said, every conflict the American "went" please read "caused" on their own was lost.

You are biased, angry, frustrated and confused.

You make no sense, and seem not to understand the subject at hand.

Patton drove tanks.

Soldiers walk.

Without the resources of the United States that were brought to bear in the air, we would be living in a different world, speaking a different language.

We're talking about those things in the sky. Airplanes. The fact that they fly off boats or dirt doesn't matter.

Airplanes is the subject.

Talking of language, I read somewhere that in a tie vote between English and German as the language for the original USA, a German cast the deciding vote for English!

Is it true?

This link says no:-

http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa010820a.htm

I haven't a clue either way.....but American has many German words in its "makeup" I have seen...."Angst, Kindergarten" to name just two....

We have a lot of various languages in our English........

It's interesting, I never heard that there was even was a vote for the language. We did have a lot of European settlers that with a large portion being German. The earlier settlers basically migrating here for freedom.

Where I grew up in Northeast Wisconsin, we were surrounded by an Irish Settlement to the west, Polish and a Swedish settlement to the North with the reminder a large German Settlement..... In the States a large population were of German descent in the northeastern of the country.

In Wisconsin, Milwaukee had a large German population, and it showed it with its Beer, Sausages and Architecture.. To a certain degree, they were even sympathetic to socialism.

It was interesting, that German WWII POW's that were sent here for the duration of the war. had worked in the fields harvesting processing the crops. There really was no ill will against them, it surprised a lot of the locals, that a good portion spoke good English........ most I believe even felt fortunate.

Our local newspaper would look back in its archives, and basically rehash it on its anniversaries. with things like 50 years ago today, 75 years ago today.

I have seen figures that claim that around a large % of US citizens have German ancestors.....50 million of them....

There is a German/American day and Germans don't need a visa for the USA, I do!!

See here:-

German_American

German/American Day .... HMMM. I'm 100% German ancestry, with my folks coming from Schleswig-Holstein. Born and raised in America, but my Grandparents all came over as children, and the pair I knew (my Dad was orphaned at 12) didn't speak a lot of English, and most was nearly incomprehensible due to the heavy accent and aged tongues.

I grew up in the Northwest, of Mennonite background, and, until now, never even heard of a German-American Day. come to think of it, though, I might have been a teenage obliviot, because my German class in High School used to go to the San Francisco Symphony once a year for German Classical performances. I just assumed it was cause we were a German Language class. I don't remember anyone, including the instructor, Herr Braun, ever bringing up a German-American Day, though.

When is it observed? Is it in the more heavily Germanic populated parts of the country, only?

German American Day

I found the above interesting. Though I'm of Slovenian descent my background is similar. My grandparents fled the Austro-Hungarian Empire to settle in Cleveland, the largest congregation of Slovenians outside the motherland.

My grandfathers spoke tolerable English, but my grandmothers, in typical tradition, never learned English. My parents spoke both Slovenian and English. I never learned Slovenian. There is still a very active Slovenian community in Cleveland.

Hooker

Hooker, where is Bridgewater? (I know, I could look it up, but by just asking, if you don't want me to know, I won't.)

I live in Burke, just outside Fairfax. Interesting that we both ended up in VA, from those backgrounds, and discussing G-A day here.

BTW, if Bridgewater is somewhere South-West of Richmond, my wife and I will be in Brookneal the first full weekend in April, to look at a piece of property there, and visit a couple of churches we heard about in the area. If you are close to Brookneal, maybe we can get together for a cup of coffee, or tea.

Over the last 50 years or so I was many time in the USA, up to 4 weeks at a time. It appeared to me then that there was a stigma attached to speaking "foreign" languages, especially the children of immigrants.....I knew many first or second generation Germans, none could speak German....Not a word!!! I wonder why these children were not given the chance to learn a second or third language......? Strange.

The emphasis for my generation and earlier was blending, not diversity. And, while I was taught German (in Germany), Spanish and French, I was never really interested in learning Slovenian.

Maybe if we had stayed in the community in Cleveland it would've been different. I have cousins up there that speak it.

Hooker

October 6th.

I thought that I had done 99% of the work needed, but it seems you are not much good at internet/Googling are you?

If you had done a simple internet search using "German American Day", you would have found this from Wiki:-

German-American_Day

Happy now?

Somewhat. Thank you.

I'm glad you returned to WWII.

There was more than one war going on...... Only a narrow mind would think it was just against the axis.......

also in 'The Art of War'

The Brits only won against the Germans and the axis, yet they lost their empire, prestige, military bases in the Caribbean as well as their wealth and technology.... Who got his?......... also covered in 'The Art of War'

And that is what was so hard for Churchill to do........ He had to use his options....... Which was also covered....

France..... Well, they were there also, in my opinion....

It was fortunate for Europe that Japan motivated the U.S. To force it to react when it did. And also fortunate for the U.S. That we still could react and retool in time for ourselves........ Again in my opinion

As far as you quoting from Sun Tzu, you sound like a manager I knew that always responds with the little quips and quotes to make himself sound intelligent..... Parrots do the same thing.

I think you should actually get the book Sun Tzu 'The Art of War' and read it....don't google it......... It'll help your understanding.....

"The art of war" allows for interpretation ... and this is how I read it ... you are biased, frustrated and confused ... keep your cool, you just lost a battle ... keep up the good work and you will loose the war.

Snigger!!!

Andy, stop antagonizing him, ......he can't help it he doesn't know.

Sorry.....

Sorry but I have to jump in here.

We were not spanked. The US military never lost a significant engagement, including Tet.

We, the majority of the military that were there, wanted to take the war to the North and end it. The politicians deferred and pulled us out. Then the pols gave away the country by refusing to abide by the treaty with the South when the North broke the treaty and invaded the south in 1975.

General Giap never understood why we didn't finish off the North when their 1972 Easter offensive was beaten back. They were done and ready to sue for peace but our pols let them regroup. Read General Giap's memoirs. It's all there.

My one goal in life is to straighten out all those who claim the US lost in Vietnam. We did not. We (the politicians) gave it away at the expense of over 58000 young Americans.

We now return this channel to discussion of the air war in WWII.

Hooker

Thank you for the details.

I thought spanked was a good descriptive mildly put term. In my opinion, the arm chair warrior (Politics) started in the Korea conflict...... (war).... and followed in the Vietnam.

And that I felt had a lot to do with the earlier F4 Phantom design....... or I should say, a lack of certain armament's.

As far as WWII,......... did the term FUBAR originate there or was it just applied there.

I liked your post, a lot of truth in it.

With regard to the comment:-

"Unfortunately, we have impotent leadership, willing and able to do nothing."

...... I think that some western leaders are quite happy to see Putin, "put in" the shit so to say!!!

Sadly many people are being killed to achieve this.....

Or from reading in excess of 1,000 histories of WWII, as well as histories of WWI, INSTEAD of watching TV (I never even SAW a TV till I was 10 years old, and I started reading at 4. Guess which habit I still have.) One thing I learned about reading to learn, though, is that you have to read EVERYONE on the subject, whether you like/agree with them or not, and find your own overall picture of the truth.

And what has amazed me throughout is how many Brits just stiffened their lip, and, despite Nevil Chamberlain and Lord Haw Haw (different times, I know) just kept soldiering on in the name of the Empire, and it's people, even with absolutely NO support from industry or Government. But Winston Churchill was an inspired choice of leadership for the British people. I truly believe he turned Britain around, even before the US Cavalry arrived.

that was the difference, Churchill lead.

And without Churchill, America may have supported Britain too late.

May have? Would have.

No, After Pearl Harbor we would have been put into the thick of things and had gotten involved....... but the priorities may have been different..

as I understand it, Roosevelt wanted to become involved, but the public was still had an isolationist attitude.

And it was agreed in advance Between Roosevelt and Churchill that when we (U.S.) did get involved, that Germany would take precedence.......when actually I think we were fighting two fronts at the same time. Which we were.......

Its interesting that the casualties we took in the pacific campaigns equaled and even surpassed the D-Day invasion, yet the D-Day invasion is in the forefront in history.

I'm sure a lot has to do with the number of nations evolved.

I don't think anyone wants war, certainly we (the Brits) and the USA didn't, plus many more.

I have been watching some programs about WW1 recently, very informative and interesting too...the Kaiser was off his chump due to the way he had been mishandled by Quacks trying to fix his deformed arm.....

Well I'm sure there will be some disapproval here, but, I enjoy watching the documentary's of on the WWII, And I started watching WWI,........ didn't get to the Kaiser thing.

But like WWII, it, not just one item to make a turning point on war, or anything else for that matter.