There was a story from the Vietnam War which sounds totally outlandish - a damaged USAF jet pushing another damaged jet via its tailhook (pressed up against a glass windshield of the pusher) as it leaked fuel and was in danger of crashing in enemy territory. But the account is real, despite sounding so improbable. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/pardos-push-how-an-f-4-pushe...
For WW2 air crews, I believe gun cameras were standard in many aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_camera), but for an ad hoc weapon like the one described in the article it would less likely, which makes witness accounts or other evidence so important.
My grandfather was in a US Navy salvage group in WWII. At the time, to verify an enemy vessel (especially subs) were sunk, they would send down divers in the old fashioned "heavy gear" suits to identify the vessels. They would also bring up proof, usually something that could be tied to the vessel, which could be a piece of military-grade equipment or even silverware engraved with the name of the ship.
> At the time, to verify an enemy vessel (especially subs) were sunk, they would send down divers in the old fashioned "heavy gear" suits to identify the vessels.
Just hope you don't sink someone over the Mariana Trench.
I doubt there were gun cameras installed on B-17s because:
1. I've seen a lot of WW2 aviation footage, and none appeared to be from B-17s.
2. The combat footage that exists for B-17s was shot(!) for the "Memphis Belle" documentary, and some footage for it left on the cutting room floor. This was filmed by a camera crew going along for the ride on several missions. Memphis Belle footage appears in countless WW2 documentaries.
3. My dad flew 32 missions in one and never mentioned gun cameras, though he did talk about them when he flew ground attack missions in the Korean War. I have a couple of them from his airplane that the military didn't want.
The article addresses a point that occurred to me when reading the Aviation Geek Club article: Air Force planes didn't land on carriers, so why would they have a tail hook? But according to the Wikipedia article, all F-4s were built with tail hooks since the plane was originally designed for the Navy and Marines and was not redesigned when the Air Force started using it.
>The article addresses a point that occurred to me when reading the Aviation Geek Club article: Air Force planes didn't land on carriers, so why would they have a tail hook?
Loads of air force aircraft have tail hooks ,they're used to stop the aircraft in an emergency
Please also appreciate that as a cadet at the Air Force Academy, you live and breathe these stories day and they out because they are real and absolutely insane. They are also taught as the types of things expected of us as military officers.
Worth reading about some of the insanity that Lt Lance Sijan went through before his
While it might have happened in a few rare circumstances, I guarantee that most enemy vessel sinkings were never verified by divers. The wrecks tended to be too deep for divers to reach regardless of equipment. During the war, divers were needed for more urgent taskings including salvage, construction, and maintenance.
Instead US submarines documented evidence of sinkings using a variety of other techniques. They had cameras attached to periscopes and for use on the bridge when surfaced. They could hear breakup noises on the hydrophones. And when possible they would pick up small pieces of floating wreckage. Errors were common.
After the war there was a major effort to reconcile sinking claims. The committee relied largely on seized enemy documents to verify what had actually been sunk and how.
PTSD is under treated if you can actually believe it.
I only recently realized I had it and just had decades of coping mechanisms. So there’s often a lot to unpack especially with high performing people before you can even start looking at it.
What a cool story! I just bought the book referred to in the article. Won't link, but search for "Bazooka Charlie" on an online book seller site. I'll give it to my dad when I finish it.
People online will prove that all kinds of things would never be possible, come up with explanations of why pictures are doctored or videos edited or CGI'ed, even calculate based on physics, and it has happened to me more than once that they could convince me of the impossibility of things I've witnessed myself.
Tells you something about what we think we know about history.
it's a really nice story, though the last few paragraphs really read like it was finished off with ChatGPT. Yes, yes, please don't lost such things, it detracts from the discussion...
Reminds me Desmond Doss and the movie Hacksaw Ridge: while certain elements were fictionalized for the purposes of telling a story on film, some actual events were left because no one would believe they were real and would come off as too fantastical:
> Other changes occur near the end of the film, when Doss is placed on a stretcher. In real life, Doss had another wounded man take his place on the stretcher. After treating the soldier, a sniper shot fractured Doss's arm, and he crawled 300 yards (270 m)[55] to safety after being left alone for five hours.[56] Gibson omitted that from the film because he felt that the audience would not find the scene believable.[57]
25 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 69.3 ms ] threadFor WW2 air crews, I believe gun cameras were standard in many aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_camera), but for an ad hoc weapon like the one described in the article it would less likely, which makes witness accounts or other evidence so important.
My grandfather was in a US Navy salvage group in WWII. At the time, to verify an enemy vessel (especially subs) were sunk, they would send down divers in the old fashioned "heavy gear" suits to identify the vessels. They would also bring up proof, usually something that could be tied to the vessel, which could be a piece of military-grade equipment or even silverware engraved with the name of the ship.
This is what the suits looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_diving_dress
Just hope you don't sink someone over the Mariana Trench.
1. I've seen a lot of WW2 aviation footage, and none appeared to be from B-17s.
2. The combat footage that exists for B-17s was shot(!) for the "Memphis Belle" documentary, and some footage for it left on the cutting room floor. This was filmed by a camera crew going along for the ride on several missions. Memphis Belle footage appears in countless WW2 documentaries.
3. My dad flew 32 missions in one and never mentioned gun cameras, though he did talk about them when he flew ground attack missions in the Korean War. I have a couple of them from his airplane that the military didn't want.
https://www.superstock.com/asset/crew-members-rd-bomb-group-...
The B-29's and B-26's were built from the factory with gun camera fixtures in their turrets as well.
That said, I've hard a hard time finding any footage from a B17.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardo%27s_Push
The article addresses a point that occurred to me when reading the Aviation Geek Club article: Air Force planes didn't land on carriers, so why would they have a tail hook? But according to the Wikipedia article, all F-4s were built with tail hooks since the plane was originally designed for the Navy and Marines and was not redesigned when the Air Force started using it.
Weird that he died a couple of weeks ago. But what a pilot.
Loads of air force aircraft have tail hooks ,they're used to stop the aircraft in an emergency
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-F16s-have-tail-hooks-even-thoug...
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that they have arresting gear on many runways for emergency use.
Worth reading about some of the insanity that Lt Lance Sijan went through before his
Instead US submarines documented evidence of sinkings using a variety of other techniques. They had cameras attached to periscopes and for use on the bridge when surfaced. They could hear breakup noises on the hydrophones. And when possible they would pick up small pieces of floating wreckage. Errors were common.
After the war there was a major effort to reconcile sinking claims. The committee relied largely on seized enemy documents to verify what had actually been sunk and how.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Army%E2%80%93Navy_Assess...
My father was affected by PTSD. He never treated it, and I think he never recovered. He was a war hero, and is buried in Arlington[0].
I have another friend who is a Vietnam vet (and also a decorated hero), and treated his PTSD. The difference is night and day.
My father was quiet, and never talked about the war. We're still not sure what earned him his stars.
My friend has absolutely no problem talking about his action. He's not boastful, but it doesn't bother him to talk about it.
[0] https://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/MikeMarshall.htm
I only recently realized I had it and just had decades of coping mechanisms. So there’s often a lot to unpack especially with high performing people before you can even start looking at it.
Tells you something about what we think we know about history.
> Other changes occur near the end of the film, when Doss is placed on a stretcher. In real life, Doss had another wounded man take his place on the stretcher. After treating the soldier, a sniper shot fractured Doss's arm, and he crawled 300 yards (270 m)[55] to safety after being left alone for five hours.[56] Gibson omitted that from the film because he felt that the audience would not find the scene believable.[57]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge