1,492
edits
Difference between revisions of "Common Questions and Answers"
Common Questions and Answers (view source)
Revision as of 04:51, 13 March 2022
, 04:51, 13 March 2022Add Footnotes & References
m (Delete Extra Spaces) |
(Add Footnotes & References) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
However, in the event of an electric failure, the turret can be operated manually. If this occurs, the Handbook warns: “No fire interruption is provided when the turret gun is fired manually, consequently the gunner must exercise care in pointing the gun so as not to fire into tail and wing surfaces.”<ref name="PHFOITBM" /> | However, in the event of an electric failure, the turret can be operated manually. If this occurs, the Handbook warns: “No fire interruption is provided when the turret gun is fired manually, consequently the gunner must exercise care in pointing the gun so as not to fire into tail and wing surfaces.”<ref name="PHFOITBM" /> | ||
There is one other scenario in which a gunner could inadvertently shoot his own airplane: ammunition cook off. This refers to the situation in which the heat the guns build up from firing could ignite the powder in the bullet casing. While there was no protection against this in the TBM, the B-25 did incorporate an additional safety feature in the event this occurred. On the top of the fuselage there were two small bumps that were directly in line with the guns from the top turret when it was trained directly rearwards. If cook off occurred, these devices – known as “ricochet generators” – would hopefully cause the bullet from the gun to be deflected away from the airplane. The reason this extra effort was taken in the B-25 and not the TBM was because the tail gunner was in the top turret’s field of fire – and while it is one thing to accidentally hit one’s own plane, it is quite another to accidentally shoot one’s own crew. | There is one other scenario in which a gunner could inadvertently shoot his own airplane: ammunition cook off. This refers to the situation in which the heat the guns build up from firing could ignite the powder in the bullet casing. While there was no protection against this in the TBM, the B-25 did incorporate an additional safety feature in the event this occurred. On the top of the fuselage there were two small bumps that were directly in line with the guns from the top turret when it was trained directly rearwards. If cook off occurred, these devices – known as “ricochet generators” – would hopefully cause the bullet from the gun to be deflected away from the airplane.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Goebel |first1=Greg |title=The North American B-25 Mitchell |url=http://www.airvectors.net/avb25.html |website=AirVectors |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=1 October 2019}}</ref>{{efn|Interestingly, this source notes: “Crew enthusiasm for such ‘ricochet generators’ was not great, and the bumps were often removed in practice.” It seems to suggest that there was little expectation that they would be effective. Indeed, given the power of a .50 caliber round, the idea that a piece of aluminum would do much seems ridiculous. However, it should be pointed out that, according to the name of the device, its goal was not to stop the round, but to cause it to ricochet off in a different direction and given the distance between the bump and the tail it would not take much deflection for it to be successful.}} The reason this extra effort was taken in the B-25 and not the TBM was because the tail gunner was in the top turret’s field of fire – and while it is one thing to accidentally hit one’s own plane, it is quite another to accidentally shoot one’s own crew. | ||
=== How do the wings on the TBM fold? === | === How do the wings on the TBM fold? === | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
=== Did World War II aircraft carriers have catapults? === | === Did World War II aircraft carriers have catapults? === | ||
All American non-escort class aircraft carriers had at least one aircraft catapult. However, catapults were not as widely used as they are today. Furthermore, some of the catapults were in unusual locations – such as those in the hangar deck that fired perpendicular to the centerline of the ship. | All American non-escort class aircraft carriers had at least one aircraft catapult. However, catapults were not as widely used as they are today. Furthermore, some of the catapults were in unusual locations – such as those in the hangar deck that fired perpendicular to the centerline of the ship.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Rogoway |first1=Tyler |title=The Crazy Aircraft Carrier Hangar Catapults of World War II |url=http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11821/the-crazy-aircraft-carrier-hangar-catapults-of-world-war-ii |website=The Drive |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=27 June 2017}}</ref> | ||
=== What happened to spent bullet casings and belt links? === | === What happened to spent bullet casings and belt links? === | ||
Before answering this question, it is important to distinguish between fixed and flexible mounted guns. Fixed guns cannot be moved and are aimed by turning the entire airplane. They are usually mounted in the wings or nose. Flexible guns can be moved and are aimed by moving the gun itself. An example of this is the tail gun position on a B-25. | Before answering this question, it is important to distinguish between fixed and flexible mounted guns. Fixed guns cannot be moved and are aimed by turning the entire airplane. They are usually mounted in the wings or nose. Flexible guns can be moved and are aimed by moving the gun itself. An example of this is the tail gun position on a B-25. | ||
During World War II, fixed gun positions on aircraft almost always ejected the bullet casings and links out of the bottom of the aircraft. In rare cases they were collected, such as with the wing gun on the T-6, but this was the exception rather than the rule. | During World War II, fixed gun positions on aircraft almost always ejected the bullet casings and links out of the bottom of the aircraft. In rare cases they were collected, such as with the wing gun on the T-6, but this was the exception rather than the rule.<ref>{{cite book |title=Erection and Maintenance Instructions for Airplanes Army Model AT-6 Series; Navy Models SNJ-3, SNJ-4, SNJ-5 and SNJ-6; British Models Harvard IIA and III |date=1945 |url=http://app.aircorpslibrary.com/document/viewer/4mt6jw1 |access-date=13 March 2022}}</ref>{{efn|This was only practicable on the T-6 because the gun involved was a .30 caliber. The bullet casings from a .50 caliber would have been far too large.}} | ||
Similarly, in many flexible gun positions, the spent bullet casings simply fell to the floor. | Similarly, in many flexible gun positions, the spent bullet casings simply fell to the floor. | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
However, there were instances where drop tanks were used in this manner. During attacks on the Japanese garrison on the island of Rota in the Mariana Archipelago, Marine Corps Corsairs used drop tanks to destroy a vegetable garden. To solve the problem of ignition, after the first wave of aircraft dropped their belly tanks a second wave fired incendiary rounds into the pooled liquid. The strike was also almost certainly made at low altitude, negating the accuracy problem. | However, there were instances where drop tanks were used in this manner. During attacks on the Japanese garrison on the island of Rota in the Mariana Archipelago, Marine Corps Corsairs used drop tanks to destroy a vegetable garden. To solve the problem of ignition, after the first wave of aircraft dropped their belly tanks a second wave fired incendiary rounds into the pooled liquid. The strike was also almost certainly made at low altitude, negating the accuracy problem. | ||
Quite in contrast to their use as weapons, Germany dropped leaflets informing Polish civilians that the large objects they were finding were actually not bombs, but fuel tanks. | Quite in contrast to their use as weapons, Germany dropped leaflets informing Polish civilians that the large objects they were finding were actually not bombs, but fuel tanks.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Felton |first1=Chuck |title=WW2 Paper Drop Tanks |url=http://www.feltondesignanddata.com/id19.html |website=Chuck’s Cardboard Model Aircraft |access-date=13 March 2022}}</ref> | ||
=== How many flying [given aircraft] are there? === | === How many flying [given aircraft] are there? === | ||
It is hard to say with certainty, since the number fluctuates regularly. However, one good metric to use are the reunions and gatherings that have attempted to invite as many aircraft of a certain type as possible. | It is hard to say with certainty, since the number fluctuates regularly. However, one good metric to use are the reunions and gatherings that have attempted to invite as many aircraft of a certain type as possible. | ||
Some 76 P-51s, or versions thereof, attended the 2007 Gathering of Mustangs and Legends in Columbus, Ohio. | Some 76 P-51s, or versions thereof, attended the 2007 Gathering of Mustangs and Legends in Columbus, Ohio.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Jackson |first1=David D. |title=2007 Gathering of Mustangs and Legends, Columbus, OH Airshow Warbirds |url=http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/rickenbackerairshow2007.htm |website=Warbirds and Airshows |access-date=13 March 2022}}</ref>{{efn|Some of the number included F-51s and CA-18s.}} | ||
A total of 22 B-25s attended the 2012 Doolittle Raider Reunion at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. It was quite likely the largest gathering of B-25s since World War II – surpassing even the 17 flying airplanes assembled in 1970 for the filming of the movie Catch-22. | A total of 22 B-25s attended the 2012 Doolittle Raider Reunion at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bardua |first1=Rob |title=22 B-25 Mitchell Bombers Plan to Take Part in Tribute to Doolittle Tokyo Raiders |url=http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294748 |website=National Museum of the US Air Force |access-date=13 March 2022 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20120419201902/http:/www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294748 |archive-date=19 April 2012 |date=21 March 2012}}</ref> It was quite likely the largest gathering of B-25s since World War II – surpassing even the 17 flying airplanes assembled in 1970 for the filming of the movie Catch-22.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Thompson |first1=Scott A. |title=The 18 Catch-22 B-25s |url=http://www.aerovintage.com/catchb25.htm |website=Aero Vintage Books |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=13 January 2018}}</ref>{{efn|The movie actually used 18 B-25s, but one intentionally burned for a scene in the movie was barely flyable.}} | ||
11 TBMs attended the 2018 TBM Avenger Salute to Veterans in Peru, Illinois.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Morehead |first1=Greg |title=3rd Annual TBM Gathering – Avengers and Veterans, Warbirds and Patriots Invade Illinois |url=http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/3rd-annual-tbm-gathering-70-tons-of-turkeys-invade-illinois.html |website=Warbirds News |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=24 May 2018}}</ref> Although only 7 TBMs ended up actually being able to make it, for the 2017 reunion as many 16 airplanes originally verbally committed, meaning the total number of flying TBMs was at least that high.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Conrad |first1=Hank |title=TBM Avenger at the 2017 Gathering |url=http://www.hankconrad.com/tbm-avenger-2017-gathering |website=Hank's Blog |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=20 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=TBM Avenger Gathering Promises To Be Even Bigger In 2017 |url=http://airshowstuff.com/v4/2017/tbm-avenger-gathering-promises-to-be-even-bigger-in-2017 |website=AirshowStuff |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=23 April 2017}}</ref> | 11 TBMs attended the 2018 TBM Avenger Salute to Veterans in Peru, Illinois.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Morehead |first1=Greg |title=3rd Annual TBM Gathering – Avengers and Veterans, Warbirds and Patriots Invade Illinois |url=http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/3rd-annual-tbm-gathering-70-tons-of-turkeys-invade-illinois.html |website=Warbirds News |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=24 May 2018}}</ref> Although only 7 TBMs ended up actually being able to make it, for the 2017 reunion as many 16 airplanes originally verbally committed, meaning the total number of flying TBMs was at least that high.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Conrad |first1=Hank |title=TBM Avenger at the 2017 Gathering |url=http://www.hankconrad.com/tbm-avenger-2017-gathering |website=Hank's Blog |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=20 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=TBM Avenger Gathering Promises To Be Even Bigger In 2017 |url=http://airshowstuff.com/v4/2017/tbm-avenger-gathering-promises-to-be-even-bigger-in-2017 |website=AirshowStuff |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=23 April 2017}}</ref> | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
=== Did the phrase “the whole nine yards” really come from the length of machine gun belts in World War II? === | === Did the phrase “the whole nine yards” really come from the length of machine gun belts in World War II? === | ||
No, there is attested usage of the phrase, or a very similar variation, that predates World War II. | No, there is attested usage of the phrase, or a very similar variation, that predates World War II.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Schuessler |first1=Jennifer |title=The Whole Nine Yards About a Phrase’s Origin |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/books/the-whole-nine-yards-seeking-a-phrases-origin.html |access-date=13 March 2022 |work=New York Times |date=26 December 2012}}</ref> | ||
=== Did WASPs ferry airplanes overseas during World War II? === | === Did WASPs ferry airplanes overseas during World War II? === | ||
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
It is illustrative that as early as December 1940 this claim was both being exaggerated and questioned. One news article notes that in recent retellings, the altitude in the quote had increased from 10,000 to 30,000 feet and the pickle barrel had been replaced with a “flower pot”.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wiley |first1=Don |title=Wings for America |work=Auburn Journal and Placer County Republican |date=12 December 1940 |page=10}}</ref> Another states that “the accuracy claims in stories published six months or so ago about the Sperry bombsight seems to have been greatly overdrawn”.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Pickle Barrel Upsets |work=Billings Gazette |date=6 December 1940 |page=4}}</ref> A third from February 1940 – presumably one of the ones being referred to above – makes the unrealistic claim that the Sperry bombsight allows a bomber to drop bombs “while the plane is actually maneuvering, banking, rolling, etc.”<ref>{{cite news |last1=Reed |first1=Paul L. |title=How Anti-Aircraft Guns Outsmart Bombing Planes |work=Nebraska State Journal |date=12 December 1940 |page=10}}</ref> | It is illustrative that as early as December 1940 this claim was both being exaggerated and questioned. One news article notes that in recent retellings, the altitude in the quote had increased from 10,000 to 30,000 feet and the pickle barrel had been replaced with a “flower pot”.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wiley |first1=Don |title=Wings for America |work=Auburn Journal and Placer County Republican |date=12 December 1940 |page=10}}</ref> Another states that “the accuracy claims in stories published six months or so ago about the Sperry bombsight seems to have been greatly overdrawn”.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Pickle Barrel Upsets |work=Billings Gazette |date=6 December 1940 |page=4}}</ref> A third from February 1940 – presumably one of the ones being referred to above – makes the unrealistic claim that the Sperry bombsight allows a bomber to drop bombs “while the plane is actually maneuvering, banking, rolling, etc.”<ref>{{cite news |last1=Reed |first1=Paul L. |title=How Anti-Aircraft Guns Outsmart Bombing Planes |work=Nebraska State Journal |date=12 December 1940 |page=10}}</ref> | ||
While these stories apparently describe the earlier “Sperry [S-1] bombsight” and not the later “Norden”, they do capture the general spirit of the times and the sense that the rumor mill surrounding both of them had taken off. | While these stories apparently describe the earlier “Sperry [S-1] bombsight” and not the later “Norden”, they do capture the general spirit of the times and the sense that the rumor mill surrounding both of them had taken off.{{efn|The Navy was apparently keen to differentiate between the earlier Sperry and later Norden.<ref>{{cite news |title=Navy Guards ‘Mr. X,’ Inventor of Secret Bombsight |work=Elmira Star-Gazette |date=26 November 1940}}</ref>}} | ||
The reality was that accuracy was far worse. In 1943, “only 16 percent of bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the aiming point”. By 1945, however, this had increased to 60 percent. | The reality was that accuracy was far worse. In 1943, “only 16 percent of bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the aiming point”. By 1945, however, this had increased to 60 percent. | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
It is important to note, however, that despite the excessive secrecy, the security measures during the war were taken seriously and sincerely believed by most servicemen. | It is important to note, however, that despite the excessive secrecy, the security measures during the war were taken seriously and sincerely believed by most servicemen. | ||
An illustrative example of the difference between fact and fiction can be found in the instructions on what to do with the bombsight in the event the bomber was shot down. The bombardier handbook did dictate that the bombsight be destroyed and that the correct method was to shoot it three times with a pistol and then throw it overboard. However, contrary to what is often claimed, the bombsight itself incorporated no provision for an incendiary device to “melt it into an unusable lump of metal”. Aircraft did sometimes carry such AN-M14 incendiary grenades, but the manual clearly states that they are intended for “DESTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PLANE”, not the bombsight. | An illustrative example of the difference between fact and fiction can be found in the instructions on what to do with the bombsight in the event the bomber was shot down. The bombardier handbook did dictate that the bombsight be destroyed and that the correct method was to shoot it three times with a pistol and then throw it overboard. However, contrary to what is often claimed, the bombsight itself incorporated no provision for an incendiary device to “melt it into an unusable lump of metal”. Aircraft did sometimes carry such AN-M14 incendiary grenades, but the manual clearly states that they are intended for “DESTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PLANE”, not the bombsight.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Moore |first1=Tim |title=Bombardier’s Oath |url=http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/bombardiers-oath.47596 |website=WW2Aircraft.net |access-date=13 March 2022 |date=20 November 2017}}</ref>{{efn|Post includes copies of pages from a 1944 “Handbook for Bombardiers” with instructions for “Destruction of Confidential Equipment”.}} | ||
Furthermore, it is worth noting that these type of instructions are in no way isolated to the Norden bombsight or heavy bombers. For example, handbooks for ground based radio sets included similar language on when and how to destroy the equipment to prevent enemy capture.<ref>{{cite book |title=Handbook of Maintenance Instructions for Radio Transmitter BC-640-A and Radio Transmitter BC-640-B |date=1943 |page=vi |url=http://www.bunkerofdoom.com/mil/BC640AB1943.pdf}}</ref> | Furthermore, it is worth noting that these type of instructions are in no way isolated to the Norden bombsight or heavy bombers. For example, handbooks for ground based radio sets included similar language on when and how to destroy the equipment to prevent enemy capture.<ref>{{cite book |title=Handbook of Maintenance Instructions for Radio Transmitter BC-640-A and Radio Transmitter BC-640-B |date=1943 |page=vi |url=http://www.bunkerofdoom.com/mil/BC640AB1943.pdf}}</ref> | ||