D-Day

[BoomerSooner17]

Today is the 74th anniversary of the Normandy landings. Being a WWII history buff, I just thought it worth recognizing.

[Burnaby49]

It's receding into the past. Not a word in my daily paper.

Nothing demonstrated America's massive WWII production capacity more than their ability to essentially provide the D-Day landings with almost all of their shipping, tanks, food, and munitions while, almost simultaneously, conducting a massive naval invasion of the Marianas Islands half-way around the world.

[BoomerSooner17]

It's receding into the past. Not a word in my daily paper.

Nothing demonstrated America's massive WWII production capacity more than their ability to essentially provide the D-Day landings with almost all of their shipping, tanks, food, and munitions while, almost simultaneously, conducting a massive naval invasion of the Marianas Islands half-way around the world.

I'm always slightly amazed when I read accounts of P-47 Thunderbolts being bulldozed directly off the runway into a scrap heap at the end of the war, rather than being brought back to the States. The fact that the US could afford to destroy or abandon thousands of perfectly serviceable aircraft, vessels and vehicles, let alone build all of them in less than four years, is mind-boggling when one looks at modern military development and acquisition programs. >cough< F-35 Lightning >cough<

[BoomerSooner17]

I remember a CBS News special about D-Day. Then-President Obama was in Normandy honoring the anniversary and he was interviewed about his thoughts regarding the weight of the responsibility on FDR and Churchill's shoulders when they approved the operation. Obama said that he believed that the US could still conduct such an operation today, but I have my doubts about our ability to muster sufficient troops, transport ships, and landing craft. I have no doubt we would prevail if our enemy was using 1940's technology while we used helicopters and hovercraft, but not against a sophisticated network of anti-ship missiles, SAMs, and MiGs. I'm not even sure if the Army practices amphibious landings anymore; that's the Marine Corps' specialty, and they're relatively tiny.

[Burnaby49]

I'm always slightly amazed when I read accounts of P-47 Thunderbolts being bulldozed directly off the runway into a scrap heap at the end of the war, rather than being brought back to the States.

The p-47's service with the Army Air Force ended with WWII and the U.S. Army Air Force left them where they were because they didn't want them back. The Air Force continued post-war with the P-51 Mustang, a decision they regretted when the Korea war came along. The US made more P-47's than any other fighter but not for it's abilities as a fighter, the P-51 was better. However the P-47 was the best single-engine ground attack plane the allies had. It carried an immense load, was far more impervious to battle damage than the fragile P-51, and was a fully capable fighter after it unloaded its munitions. It was very heavily used post D-Day as close-in tactical ground support for US troops in Europe.

When Korea started the P-51 was useless as a fighter, the Mig-15 was overwhelmingly superior. But American jets were also useless as ground attack planes because of their very short range. When the North Koreans drove the American and ROC troops all the way down to Pusan the P-51 was pressed into duty as a ground attack aircraft and faced heavy losses because of it's inability to absorb much battle damage. The Navy was way better off because they still used the F-4U Corsair, an aircraft with the same redial engine as the P-47 and almost as rugged.

[wserra]

Posted without further comment:

We have a very strong relationship with the government of Germany. Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion. We obviously have a very long history with the government of Germany, and we have a strong relationship with the government of Germany.

- State Department spokesman (and former Fox News host) Heather Nauert, June 5, 2018.

[fortinbras]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq3gcTw50k8

[Burnaby49]

Posted without further comment:

We have a very strong relationship with the government of Germany. Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion. We obviously have a very long history with the government of Germany, and we have a strong relationship with the government of Germany.

- State Department spokesman (and former Fox News host) Heather Nauert, June 5, 2018.

Well there were those two little blips in 1917 and 1941 when Germany declared war on you. But these things happen even in the best relationships.

[Pottapaug1938]

I was born and raised, in a suburb of Boston, in a development of single-family homes. The streets and paths were named for servicemen, from the city, killed in World War II. My particular "Circle" (cul-de-sac) was named after an Army Lieutenant, killed in the Normandy hedgerows, a couple of weeks after D-Day.

[webhick]

Posted without further comment:

We have a very strong relationship with the government of Germany. Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion. We obviously have a very long history with the government of Germany, and we have a strong relationship with the government of Germany.

- State Department spokesman (and former Fox News host) Heather Nauert, June 5, 2018.

Well there were those two little blips in 1917 and 1941 when Germany declared war on you. But these things happen even in the best relationships.

Heather Nauert wasn't even a tickle in her daddy's pants in 1941. Hell, her daddy wasn't even a tickle in his daddy's pants in '41. But, I guess if Germany wants to preemptively declare war on an individual, who am I to argue?

[BoomerSooner17]

I'm always slightly amazed when I read accounts of P-47 Thunderbolts being bulldozed directly off the runway into a scrap heap at the end of the war, rather than being brought back to the States.

The p-47's service with the Army Air Force ended with WWII and the U.S. Army Air Force left them where they were because they didn't want them back. The Air Force continued post-war with the P-51 Mustang, a decision they regretted when the Korea war came along. The US made more P-47's than any other fighter but not for it's abilities as a fighter, the P-51 was better. However the P-47 was the best single-engine ground attack plane the allies had. It carried an immense load, was far more impervious to battle damage than the fragile P-51, and was a fully capable fighter after it unloaded its munitions. It was very heavily used post D-Day as close-in tactical ground support for US troops in Europe.

When Korea started the P-51 was useless as a fighter, the Mig-15 was overwhelmingly superior. But American jets were also useless as ground attack planes because of their very short range. When the North Koreans drove the American and ROC troops all the way down to Pusan the P-51 was pressed into duty as a ground attack aircraft and faced heavy losses because of it's inability to absorb much battle damage. The Navy was way better off because they still used the F-4U Corsair, an aircraft with the same redial engine as the P-47 and almost as rugged.

I believe that part of the problem was the Air Force's assumption that any future wars would be nuclear in nature. Such a conflict would require long-range fighters like the Mustang to escort B-29 bombers, but close air support and ground attack aircraft like the P-47 would be much less useful. Very fortunately for all of us, such a war has yet to occur.