Japan's High Tide

[Rick the Librarian]

The crashed bomber, I believe is a G3M "Nell", not a Martin.

[Rick the Librarian]

Philippines trophy

1.1" anti-aircraft mount used on Corregidor - taken off the cruiser USS Houston. It used a Crosley auto engine to power the mount.

[Rick the Librarian]

Engaging Stuart tank...Burma

Almost certainly a "posed" picture.

[Rick the Librarian]

Clark Field wreckage

What is the airplane to the right in the 2nd photo?

Douglas O-46A - used in the late 1930s by the 2nd Observation Squadron, and later as "hacks" by several other squadrons.

[Rick the Librarian]

An absolutely remarkable group of pictures!

[Phaing]

Philippines trophy

1.1" anti-aircraft mount used on Corregidor - taken off the cruiser USS Houston. It used a Crosley auto engine to power the mount.

From Houston?
That ship wasn't much for luck, was it?

That must be the guns used to cover the gap between the 50-cals and the 3" AA gun's minimum fuse setting.
The US didn't have much for good AAA at the start, did we?

[paulrward]

Hello Mr. RicktheLibrarian ;

Post by Rick the Librarian » 04 Jul 2014 08:10

The crashed bomber, I believe is a G3M "Nell", not a Martin.


I must respectfully disagree. It has a single tail. The G3M had a twin vertical tail. It is a Martin B10 / B12, a squadron of which were in service in the Philippines at the outbreak of the war. A sad end for such a trend setting aircraft of the 1930s.

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

[Kay Dee]

Removed duplicate post.

[Kay Dee]

I must respectfully disagree. It has a single tail. The G3M had a twin vertical tail. It is a Martin B10 / B12, a squadron of which were in service in the Philippines at the outbreak of the war. A sad end for such a trend setting aircraft of the 1930s.
Respectfully ; Paul R. Ward

Realise I am very very very late to the table here but...........................just for the (historical) record Paul, you are, just as respectfully, wrong/mistaken. As two previous poster have stated it is (very obviously and irrefutably) a G3M, which even a cursory inspection/comparison of the planes in question should tell. As a matter of fact, I don't see a single item that would lead one to believe it was a Martin, but several that prove beyond doubt it isn't, so I am simply bewildered at your misidentification Paul.

But don't take my word for it, let your eyes do the walking. In the original picture / 'new' schematic below, using the prescribed angle of the dangle you will see;
1) The very top of the port tail fin (of a G3M/Nell), the stbd one being out of the pic.
2) 'Front'/stbd side of the tear drop shaped semi-circular main gun blister (of a Nell). Martin's is rectangular in shape.
3) Open centre-line circular 'see-through' upper dorsal 'hatch' (of a Nell). Martin does not have one.
4) Open port side cockpit 'hatch' (of a Nell - note example for comparison). Martins cockpit is raised above fuselage - whereas Nell's continues flush with fuselage - and Martins cockpit opens by sliding back, not opening to side as Nell's does.

Note; In the comparison Martin/Nell pics the Martin image has been 'flipped' horizontally so both images show 'same' perspective.

And to Peter H; what a FANTASTIC set of photos. Hence a very late THANKS for posting!! There a few more images than the above that deserve comment - if for no other reason than for the historical record - which I will do when I have time. But again, thanks for posting the images!

[paulrward]

Hello Mr. Dee ;

I am sorry, I thought the photo that was being referred to was posted by " Peter H » 15 Jul 2013, 00:27 --- Clark Field wreckage "

and was :

Wrecked B 10 Clark Field.jpg

Sorry about the confusion;'

Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

[OldBill]

One of the reasons this is such a fine site is that almost without exception we are able to disagree with each other here and it doesn't degenerate into the normal internet fracas. Kudos to both Rick and Kay Dee for being adult's and gentlemen! I'd enjoy bending my elbow with the two of you while we discuss/argue history and have a few rounds.

[OldBill]

Philippines trophy

1.1" anti-aircraft mount used on Corregidor - taken off the cruiser USS Houston. It used a Crosley auto engine to power the mount.

From Houston?
That ship wasn't much for luck, was it?

That must be the guns used to cover the gap between the 50-cals and the 3" AA gun's minimum fuse setting.
The US didn't have much for good AAA at the start, did we?

It was my great privilege to have as a neighbor for some years an old sailor who was a gun captain on a 1.1" AA gun (amongst others) during WWII. He held a very high opinion of the gun, and said it would "tear the shit out of Zero's" (I'll leave it to you to imagine his grin as he said it) and based on my experience and reading, I think the 1.1 was unfairly maligned. From what I can tell it's greatest fault was that it was maintenance intensive, and with wartime expansion of the armed forces, the institutional knowledge of what to do to properly maintain it wasn't there. I'm not saying the Bofor's wasn't a superior weapon, it was, being in many respects simpler and easier to maintain, with a heavier projectile and longer range. But the 1.1 wasn't as bad as many make it out to be IMO.

[Truct]

being born in 1943 and of course since then the revelations have come thick and slow ,but i realise the Japanese had had a bloody nose against the Soviets.But why didnt japan invade from the east when Barbarossa took place in 1941?

[Phaing]

being born in 1943 and of course since then the revelations have come thick and slow ,but i realise the Japanese had had a bloody nose against the Soviets.But why didnt japan invade from the east when Barbarossa took place in 1941?

Opportunism.

Easier pickings to the south, and more profitable ones.
But of course, they made new enemies while leaving an old enemy intact in their backyard.
Turned ou to be the wrong thing to do, didn't it?

[Zaf1]

Japanese navy patrol boat in a creek in China