Sunday, May 24, 2009

Memorial Day Remembers







August 1 and August 17, 1943.
On the first date, Operation Tidal Wave set out from bases in North Africa: five groups of American B-24 Consolidated Liberators -- 178 aircraft -- for a planned low-level, surprise attack on the heart of Nazi Germany's source of oil for her economy and war machine: Ploesti, Rumania. The plan was to come in on radio silence, and launch a swift, surprise attack that would sunder Axis defenses at Ploesti, and put a serious crimp in German oil production and supply.
Tensions were high on the North African runways, and one Army Air Force chaplain remembered a young gunner leaning out of his B-24's gun position, prior to take-off, calling out to him, "Make contact for us, Padre".
The "Zero Raiders", as they were called, would need it. Few among those flying this mission had any illusions about the hazards ahead. The B-24 Liberator's forte was high altitude, daylight precision bombing, not a low level "barnstorming" style of attack.
Things began to go wrong shortly after take-off, and on the 7 hour flight to the target, the Zero Raiders had no knowledge that they were flying into one of the most heavily-defended zones in the world at that time, and worse, had been detected by the Germans, who had readied a deadly reception.
The planned different-directions/different targets approach went out the window, as the Zero Raiders arrived out of sequence, and flew into a cyclone of fire from both concentrated flak and determined German Me-109 fighters.
Flying down to 200 feet of altitude, the B-24s pressed on into chaos, sewing a load of fragmentation and incendiary chaos of their own, using their forward-firing .50 caliber machine guns to deadly effect as they were able, while watching plane after plane of their squadron mates exploding and being turned into flaming wrecks, going down into the maelstrom of exploding oil tanks and sheets of fire.
The raid was over in 27 minutes; Ploesti lost 42% of its production capacity for a few weeks.
The Zero Raiders lost 54 Liberators, with only 33 of the original 178 returning from the attack mission-capable. 310 American airmen were killed; 130 wounded; and around 100 went into Axis captivity for the duration of the war.
Sixteen days later, the Britain-based US Eighth Air Force put up a "maximum effort" of its own: two forces with two separate objectives. 146 B-17s would go after a massive ME-109 aircraft factory at Regensberg, Germany, while a larger force of 230 B-17s would go for a knock-out blow against Germany's ball-bearing production center, Schweinfurt. The Eighth Air Force did not as yet have fighters that could escort the bombers into Germany (nor were all Eighth Air Force commanders convinced such were needed at this point), so the plan was that the two attack groups would take off at roughly the same time, confusing and splitting the formidable German fighter defenses (about 400 ME 109s, as well as countless flak batteries defending both targets).
Not all of the Eighth's commanders felt their slowly-growing force was ready for a mission of this magnitude; but military and political pressure from Washington demanded "a show of force".
On the morning of August 17, 1943, the weather was prohibitive to impossible over the British-based American bomber bases. Nonetheless, the Regensberg force, led by Colonel Curtis LeMay, took off and headed for Regensberg; the Schweinfurt force, led by Brigadier General Robert Williams, was delayed several hours by weather, before taking off.
The results proved a turning point in the up-to-then philosophy of American bomber warfare.
First came LeMay's force bound for Regensberg. Soon as the American fighter escort turned back near the German border (at the limit of their fuel range), about 150 German fighters slammed head-on into the Flying Fortresses, attacking in wing-tip-to-wing-tip groups, firing and diving away almost too late; LeMay's formations began to bleed bombers an hour and a half short of their objective. But the force droned on, being hurt by and hurting their attackers with cones of fire from B-17's massed .50 caliber machine guns; over Regensberg, LeMay's innovation of "bombing on the leader" was used to deadly effect, as the ME-109 plant was hit dead-on and hard. Then the force turned and headed south to an eventual landing in the North African desert, taking punishment from German fighters swarming like angry hornets, to the Swiss Alps.
LeMay's force of 146 bombers was whittled down by 24; 240 American airmen were dead or missing, with countless more wounded, and additional planes unfit for further action.
The late-taking off force for Schweinfurt paid dearly for the decision to press on in the face of the hours-long delay: as their fighter escorts turned away at the German border, the co-pilot of the B-17 Piccadilly Lily saw dozens of "yellow nosed bastards" -- ME 109s -- assembling to attack the force head-on. It was the greatest aerial battle in history to that date: one force of heavily-armed bombers -- believed by their pre-war theorists to be capable of deep penetration missions against whatever the Germans could put up -- without fighter escort of their own; and the other force of about 300 of Germany's best fighter pilots, afraid of the "flying porcupines" as some called the fearsome B-17s, but determined to attack, scatter and rout this force before it could reach whatever target(s) in Germany they were destined to hit.
The B-17s were subjected to savage, relentless fighter attacks to the target and after, with dense batteries of 88mm flak guns taking up the intervening time: flaming pyres of B-17s marked the trail from the border to Schweinfurt and back. Still, squadron commanders held their bloodied formations together, as the Flying Fortresses bulled on through, dropped their loads on and around Schweinfurt, and doggedly fought their way out.
For the survivors of both sides, it was summed up by one bombardier, looking at the empty bunks of squadron mates that night: "did we win? Did we lose?" Many of the German pilots wondered amongst themselves the same thing: Luftwaffe commanders' pleas for reinforcements of men and planes fell on deaf ears in Berlin, a foreboding, as one leader said, of the terrible things to come from the skies in the months ahead.
While Schweinfurt was hit hard that day, the damage was much less fearsome and devastating than that achieved at Regensberg.
What was accomplished with the Schweinfurt attack, was that it finally became plainly evident to the pre-war bomber theorists that the theory of heavily-armed bombers not needing fighter escorts against the Luftwaffe, just didn't hold up. The Schweinfurt force lost 36 Fortresses that day. 360 men were dead or missing in the skies over Germany and France. Countless more were wounded, and dozens of Fortresses that survived the mission, would not be mission-capable for some days, if ever again.
The Regensberg-Schweinfurt double-strike had hurt the US Eighth Air Force, and grievously so.
But these missions -- Schweinfurt in particular -- proved the 'great awakening' to American air leaders. Only a few months later, a new aircraft would appear in the skies over Fortress Europa, a plane that German experts were certain -- and many Allied experts agreed -- that couldn't be built. A fighter plane capable to taking the bomber all the way to Berlin, and slaughtering the attacking Luftwaffe there. A plane that was seminal in paving the way for an absolute necessity prior to D-Day: air superiority in the skies over Normandy, and later, Germany.
That plane was the P-51 Mustang (one of which was flown by my late uncle, with the 383rd Squadron, 364th Fighter Group, Eighth Air Force).
After the war, no less an authority than Hermann Goering told American interrogators, in answer to the question "when did you realize the war was lost?", he responded "when your bombers came over Berlin with fighter escorts".
But that was still in the future in late '43. In the meantime, the road there was bloody and a long way from a foregone conclusion: in a raid against Munster, in late '43, the 100th Bombardment Group -- nicknamed "The Bloody Hundredth" -- lost all but one of their B-17s in the air on that mission, after the attack force was hit by almost two hundred defending German fighters. More tough missions, and bloody losses, would mark the eventually victorious and key American air war against both Germany and Japan.
The US Army Air Force -- and their compatriots in the Marine and Naval Air wings -- would sustain more than a quarter of the total casualties sustained by the US Military in World War II. To those who led the way -- especially those who died, teaching as they themselves learned, in the harshest combat conditions known to Man, then or since -- we remember you this Memorial Day.

19 Comments:

Blogger Sniffles and Smiles said...

This is quite a narrative...packed with all kinds of wonderful detail...Was your uncle your source? My son would thoroughly enjoy this! He is a military history buff...You told this with extreme finesse! It was not only informative but also very moving! Bravo! I applaud you! ~Janine

24 May, 2009 15:46  
Blogger Da Pixie said...

A wonderful reminder- it is good to see some still celebrate this weekend, and remember what it is here for. Have a God blessed Memorial Day, Skunk!

24 May, 2009 18:12  
Blogger Skunkfeathers said...

Janine: no, I learned more about my uncle's WWII time after his death, than before. Most of my knowledge comes from opening books and -- like your son -- being a military history buff ;) I've been reading books about WWII since the mid 60s. Kudos that your son takes the time to remember, too, as it is obvious you do ;)

Pixie: and to you as well, my bright young friend!

24 May, 2009 19:05  
Blogger Seane-Anna said...

What a great tribute, Skunky! At once exciting and poignant. We today are the beneficiaries of the hard won victories of the past, something worthless libtards like Jane will never understand. Thank God there are those Americans like you who DO understand and remind the rest of us just why we can live the lives we do. Great job, Skunkster!

24 May, 2009 19:49  
Blogger Seane-Anna said...

"Zero Raiders" and "The Bloody Hundredth" would make awesome names for a couple of cool, patriotic rock bands.

Any of you young 'uns wanna rock out for the USA?

24 May, 2009 19:52  
Blogger Little Lamb said...

Happy Memorial Day! :-)

24 May, 2009 20:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wonderful tribute to those who fought to keep our great nation free!

25 May, 2009 10:01  
Blogger Lawyer Mom said...

This was great, Skunk, and so well written. I'm going to forward it to a Marine buddy of mine.

25 May, 2009 13:06  
Blogger Skunkfeathers said...

LOL...a fly appeared in the comments ointment. A little disrespectful trollope spreading manure on Memorial Day.

Bad Jane. Penalty box for disrespect on a day our military veterans deserve better.

25 May, 2009 19:34  
Blogger Serena said...

A most excellent post commemorating the day. I hope you enjoyed a peaceful Memorial Day.

25 May, 2009 19:49  
Blogger Monica said...

Amen, Skunk.
I love ya, friend.

26 May, 2009 07:15  
Blogger Right Truth said...

We are truly blessed to have brave men and women who give their lives for our freedoms.

We are also lucky to have so many images and video from previous conflicts, even going back to the Civil War when cameras were something fairly new.

Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth

26 May, 2009 11:06  
Blogger Skunkfeathers said...

Ah, bad Jane again. You have no freedom to lie, slander and spread your low brow brand of hate here ;) My blog; my choice. Deal widdit.

26 May, 2009 17:55  
Blogger Skunkfeathers said...

You are correct on a more broad sense, Jane, when it comes to your comment on censorship (but not much else you said): censorship in society isn't a good thing. There are times and places in civilized society for modest forms of censorship, though the ideological battle lines on where that line is isn't always clear to either side.

But in a venue like this, censorship is practiced all the time. Some of the span of bloggers I read, practice some form of censorship, targetting off-color language or persons who just like to post offensive comments for the sake of doing so. The First Amendment is not absolute, just as you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one. I reckon you understand the reasoning behind that prohibition. So, too, no one who maintains a blog is forced to accept all comments, regardless of content. A free society doesn't force any freedom of anything on everyone. Freedom allows for lots of choices. Including what we choose to read, write, listen to, accept, question, deny or challenge.

Yes, I am censoring you here on this blog. You showed, at least to me, at SA's (as you call her) blog that you don't offer quality, quantitative, substantive debate; you offer borderline platitudes, insults, and what I take to be a steady stream of liberal nonsense.

I'll grant you that this is my opinion of your offerings, and my opinion, like anyones', is subjective, and a product of my own values and choices, just as yours are. While I'm sure we probably do agree on a few things, we have differing views on some seminal issues, and are likely irreconcilable in those views, especially in view of some of the heat that's gone to and fro.

Besides, why would you want to visit what you'd consider just another "conservative echo chamber"? You'll hear nothing here you like, and you'll change my core values and beliefs not a whit, even if you were to make a more reasoned, unemotional pitch. And I have no reason or desire to try to win you to my viewpoint.

I will say, not that I expect you to care about this next comment, but for the amount of verbiage you've thrown out lately, you really should start your own blog, Jane. You certainly have a lot to say, even if in my opinion, it's faulted and not well-researched. But to someone else of a closer philosophy to you, you might just be a voice they long to hear, and will enjoy following. You might find some inner release and enjoyment in making a fellow traveller's day.

Not that I have any advice to offer that you'd give a skunkfart for, and vice versa, Jane; but I'll throw it out there to you in parting, anyway. It's obvious that you want a voice in the great debate. The blogisphere always has room for one more. Reasonable people can agree to disagree on much, but can still agree at least on that.

So with that, I bid you a more civil adieu than we have recently exchanged in our very short acquaintance, Jane.

26 May, 2009 20:58  
Anonymous Jane said...

Skunk,

It is true that the only reason I came to your blog was out of anger after the very long (hateful and untrue) message you left me that completely did away with what ever political debate that was still occuring. The reason for so little substance in most of my comments and likewise in Seane-Anna's and later your's and others is because people take politics and their own views personally. I learned, much earlier than when I came to SA's blog that actual debate did not get through to her, she is too argumentative and ignorant. Gradually the posts became more offensive and the main objective wasn't to see another person's side in all of this, it was to make them feel how you perceived them to be (on both sides).

I really don't enjoy such "debates" and much rather have an actual exchange of ideas, such as I was having with JMK, until SA, being the immature child she is jumped in calling me a "bonehead", that to me is a catalyst and obviously I am going to respond in an offensive manner.

So of course what I have said is not well researched, its not that I can't, its that I won't go through all the trouble for people whose minds won't be changed in the slightest, for a person who boils everything down into tedious mostly personal argument.

So, I will try in the future to present my ideas in a more respectable way, but it's a two-sided street.

Goodbye,

Hopefully this will be the end to the low level exchanges that have existed between you and me. I am willing to concede my behavior and disrespect but I will not concede my beliefs.

27 May, 2009 14:48  
Blogger Skunkfeathers said...

Jane,

No need for you to concede your beliefs. We have here, in this country, a unique ability to have differing beliefs, and not get thrown in jail or shot for those differences. And that very foundation of what we are is what I want to see preserved.

I don't support your expressed ideology in many areas; in some, I downright loath it, just as I downright loathed the elements who attacked, smeared and demeaned soldiers coming back from Vietnam. Nor do I think you're absolutely wrong in all of your beliefs; I don't hold firm with conservative ideology on things like abortion, or the need to have a Constitutional amendment for prayer in schools and to sanctify marriage. Those are three areas the government really shouldn't be engaged in, in my view. But that's a deeper subject than I will cover now.

I will tell you that I come from five generations of Republicans: many of whom served this country proudly, both in wartime military service and public service. I'll challenge anyone to say that they had a hand in bringing this country down in any way, shape or form.

That said, I haven't been a registered Republican since '99; I have strong issues with both parties that make membership in either a nonstarter with me now. Still, I am more conservative, with a distinct leaning toward libertarian, than I could ever be liberal. That's just who I am.

I will finish with this: I do apologize to you for my harsh words at SA's blog. I'm usually better and more level-headed than that, though like you, I do at times get very passionate when I feel my beliefs and love of my country is under attack. I needn't tell you how outraged I was on 9/11; yet I didn't go out and seek a Muslim to kill. My sister's oldest niece married an Iranian, and he's as threatening to the US as a roll of soggy toilet paper.

That said, I won't banish your comments if you choose to make any further ones here. And I may engage you in the future if you say things elsewhere I don't agree with; but I will do so with more civility than we came to.

I think we both love our country; I just reckon we have differing ideas on where it should be going, and what it should be doing. A lot of folks in the article these comments footnote, died to allow you and I to have this discussion. I'll respect them to the day I die. May you as well.

Jane, if not friends, I can live with 'respectful adversaries' ;)

27 May, 2009 15:08  
Anonymous Jane said...

I come from a split background, mostly the men have been republican (with my father being more moderate) and the women have been democrat this goes back to my great grandparents on both sides. Like you I have had much of family that has served for this country, both liberal and conservative and it upset me greatly when SA painted liberals as anti-American as if they all spit on troops, etc. I understand that these people exist, but it isn't right that I should be guilty because I share the same wing of political belief as them.


"Jane, if not friends, I can live with 'respectful adversaries' ;)"

Sounds good to me but I think my present on these blogs isn't a good thing, I came for all the wrong reasons.

27 May, 2009 16:00  
Blogger Skunkfeathers said...

Well, only you know the reasons you came to these blogs; but my comment to you about doing one for yourself -- for what you consider the right reasons -- is valid. It's obvious you don't fear the written word, or expressing yourself.

But that's up to you. So is your visiting here. I'll understand if you choose not to, and will be fine if you choose to.

27 May, 2009 16:32  
Blogger JMK said...

That's a GREAT Memorial Day tribute and accounting of that story.....you really SHOULD write a (few) books.

Excellent writing.....I only wish I could write as well.

30 May, 2009 13:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home