Ode To the Wildcat

 

I figured I would do a post on a fighter that to my mind never really got it's accolades because she was overshadowed by her more powerful sibling the F6F Hellcat.  I always liked the simple lines of the Wildcat, and in the hands of a good pilot, she could hold her own against the newer fighters that the Japanese had and she went toe to toe with the most feared Japanese fighter, the legendary "Zero". 

This is a prewar/early WWII version.  The "Red" meatball in our national insignia  was removed shortly after the war started.  There was fear of target misidentification in the haze of combat since the Japanese used the "meatball" on their national insignia.

Despite its slightly odd origins, the Grumman F4F Wildcat was one of the most valuable fighter planes in the US arsenal of WWII.

 Go to the Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, they will let you "touch" the airplane...The museum is well worth the visit.

The design for the Wildcat started out as a biplane, as they were still around for many years between the world wars. It was redesigned as a monoplane in 1936, but retained many of the features of its previous design, giving the Wildcat its distinctive, slightly squat look.

Another of the Wildcat’s visually distinctive features was its entirely riveted fuselage. It gave it an industrial look that was at odds with the canvas-covered planes of WWI. Welded or flattened rivets were beginning to be used to make the planes of the 1930s and 40s more aerodynamic.

 The Arrestor hook shown lowered was to snag the Arrestor cable that was strung across the deck of the carrier to show the plane down and stop it before it crashed into the other airplanes that were in front of the carrier

The Wildcat was designed and commissioned as a carrier-borne fighter. The relatively new and distinctive use of aircraft carriers was increasingly important, as the world’s most powerful militaries started to use air power for victory at sea. The limited space available for taking off and landing and storage of planes on ships created new design challenges. It meant a different sort of fighter was needed at sea.

Although the Wildcat would become a symbol of American air power, it was first purchased by the French, who placed an order in early 1939.

Later that year, the US Navy followed suit. In August 1939, they placed their first order for F4Fs with Grumman.

XF4F-3 prototype Wildcat in flight, 21 July 1939.

With the fall of France, the F4Fs destined to join the French Navy were diverted to Britain reaching Britain’s Fleet Air Arm in July 1940.

Like the Curtiss P-40, the F4F was given different nicknames by the British and Americans. Most people remember it by its more dynamic American name, the Wildcat. Initially known to the British as the Martlet, in January 1944, they too adopted the Wildcat name.

The F4F packed quite a punch due to its extensive arsenal. It carried six machine-guns in its wings and could also carry two bombs or six rockets. Its firepower made it popular with the crews flying it.

Less popular with pilots was the F4F’s handling. It was considered a tricky fighter to control both on the ground and in the air. For the pilot who could master it, the F4F was well worth the effort, as it was very maneuverable, a vital asset in the fast-moving action of dog fights.

One of the main features of the F4F-4 were the Sto-Wing-design folding wings, a Grumman patented design.

The F4F had a maximum speed of 332 miles per hour. It was not one of the fastest planes of the war, but neither was it the slowest.

The F4F could fly to around 34,700 feet, climbing at 2,000 feet per minute toward its top altitude.

The F4F was a tough plane to bring down. It had a self-sealing fuel tank and armor plating that gave it greater endurance than many of its opponents.
The self-sealing tank was particularly crucial to the survival of a plane. Without it, a bullet through the fuel tank could turn it into a fireball or force a plane to crash due to lack of fuel. Self-sealing meant that it took a cannon shot to inflict such devastation.

Capt Thatch had developed the "Thatch Weave" to help the Wildcat fighters in their dogfights against the more nimble, but much more fragile Zero.

Wildcat of VF-6 testing out machine guns aboard USS Enterprise, 10 April 1942.

The first Martlets in British service joined No.804 Squadron in the Orkney Islands, north of Scotland. They were used to control routes from the North Sea to the Atlantic. In December 1940, two Martlets shot down a German plane, making them the first American-built, British-piloted aircraft to do so in WWII

The first F4Fs to go to sea in wartime were Martlets of No.802 Squadron. Operating from on board HMS Audacity on September 20, 1941, they shot down a German Focke-Wolf 200 which was following their convoy.

Martlet fighters on the flight deck of HMS Formidable, 1940s.

The F4F was involved in the extensive action in and around the Mediterranean. The Royal Naval Fighter Unit deployed Martlets over the Western Desert in Africa, where they fought Italian planes in the fall of 1941. They tangled with the Italians again in August the following year while escorting supply ships around Malta.
Further south, Martlets fought against Vichy French planes over Madagascar in May 1942.

By the time America joined the war in December 1941, the F4F was the most common plane on American aircraft carriers. It was also popular among US Marine Corps units based on land. Until the arrival of the Hellcat in 1943, it was the US Navy’s only carrier-borne fighter. It played a critical role in many of the Navy’s most important actions.

One of the most important land bases that Wildcats operated from was Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. The site of the first offensive operations of America’s Pacific war, it was where many Wildcat successes occurred. One eight-plane flight achieved 72 aerial victories in the space of only 16 weeks.

The leader of the group, Captain Joe Foss, was one of the most successful pilots ever to get behind the controls of a Wildcat. During the fighting at Guadalcanal, he destroyed 26 Japanese planes, five of them in one day. For his remarkable achievements, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Watercolor of U.S. Marine Captain Joe Foss shooting down a Zero over Guadalcanal in October 1942.

Despite its many successes, the Wildcat struggled against Japanese Zeros. The US Navy phased it out in favor of the F6F Hellcat in 1943.

Wildcats of Taffy 3 taking off to strafe the Japanese fleet attacking it, the Japanese fleet included the IJN Yamato, the largest battleship ever built.  According to reports, the Japanese were stunned by the resistance and the Americans throwing themselves at the enemy with such abandon, the fighting spirit of the Americans forced the Japanese to withdraw thereby saving General McAuthur's beachhead in Leyte Gulf

The last Wildcat victory of the war took place over Norway in March 1945. Wildcats of the British No.822 Squadron shot down four German Messerschmitt Bf109s

The Different Opponents Faced By The British Victorian Army.

 

I decided to do some history stuff rather than political stuff.

I bought a book in the early 90's called "The Zulu Wars" and a bit later a book called "The khaki and the Red". These books were fascinating to read the different history and battles that the Victorian era British army faced in defending the empire and "PAX BRITANNIA".   Those books along with a book I used in college called "The Defense of Duffers Drift" which talked about small unit tactics during the Boer war.  Some of the stuff was no longer relevant but it encouraged critical thinking.  One of my favorite movies is "Zulu", having the British soldiers stand and fight the word I remember from the movie was "Get some good pikeman", for the use of the bayonet would be needed.

As I recall part of the British soldier to deal and adapt was part of the Victorian heritage that was prevalent at the time, the British soldiers and the culture believed that they were superior to everyone because they were British, it was part of the DNA.  For this reason they pushed the sphere of influence to a point where it was said that "The Sun never sets on the British Empire".  Also I remembered another movie with Michael Caine and Sean Connery "The man who would be King"

It is a different time and I wonder what a Britisher from back then would think about the empire today and the problems that the British are having from the E.U and the invasions of the "Kiffirs" from the subcontinents., They probably would be appalled

Maintaining your status as a global power is no easy thing. The British Victorian Army was one of the best equipped and most experienced in the world, its forces active from North Africa to the South Pacific. But while this gave many British soldiers useful experience, it also created unique challenges for them, their commanders and the politicians putting them into the field.
The British army was the same wherever they went, but their opponents were wildly different, each one presenting a new combination of skills, tactics, and weaponry for the British to overcome.

1. Egyptian Nationalists

By 1879, the Egyptian government was massively corrupt, inefficient, and favorable to Europeans over locals. Even the law gave better protection to wealthy Europeans in the country than its native inhabitants. France and Britain in particular held huge sway.
Egyptian nationalists led by Colonel Ahmed ‘Urabi seized control of the country, seeking to bring about democratic reforms that would take power away from the elite and reduce foreign influence. France refused to intervene. Britain, on the other hand, used the death of 50 Europeans in riots to justify an invasion in 1882, whose real purpose was the defense of economic interests.
The forces they faced were trained and equipped by Europeans and fought like a regular army. But the British proved superior, defeating ‘Urabi at the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir and taking control of Egypt.

2. Ashanti

The defeat of the Ashantees, by the British forces under the command of Coll. Sutherland, July 11th, 1824.

As in Egypt, the British fought the Ashanti Empire, located in modern Ghana, for control of economic resources. They wanted to control gold from the region, and ownership or favorable peace treaties could prevent other European powers from getting involved.
The Ashanti were primitively armed but experienced and smart at fighting in local terrain. Launching ambushes out of the hills and jungle, they gained the element of surprise and often outflanked their opponents.
The downside of Ashanti tactics was a lack of cohesion and close order discipline. In the face of increasingly accurate rifles, dispersed troops were more vulnerable than they had been a century before. Unable to break British formations, they were repeatedly defeated.

3. Zulus

Perhaps the most famous of Britain’s colonial opponents, the Zulu Empire was defended by warriors called impis. Tough and aggressive, they could run for miles before charging into battle and overwhelming their opponents with short stabbing spears. They were also highly disciplined, able to maneuver swiftly and coherently on command and willing to throw themselves in waves against the enemy.
To gather together various territories in southern Africa, the British needed to conquer the Zulus. They sent an ultimatum that triggered the war and then invaded Zulu lands.
The Zulus achieved an early victory at Isandlwana, where appalling leadership crippled the British  forces. The famous defense of Rorke’s Drift followed, in which 150 British and colonial troops fought off 3-4,000 Zulus in a desperate engagement.

Defense of Rorke’s Drift.

Despite these early events, the ferocity, tenacity, and courage that had served the Zulus so well were not enough to let Spears beat modern guns. By the final Battle of Ulundi, courageous charges were creating massive casualties for little gain. However, the war had shaken British confidence, teaching some not to under-estimate a technologically inferior force.

4. Maoris

Hone Heke cuts down the flagstaff on Flagstaff Hill at Kororāreka.

A similar lesson was taught in the New Zealand Wars (1845-1872). With settlers spreading across New Zealand, and the colonial authorities backing them against the native Maoris, many locals took up arms to resist.
The Maori way of warfare was the polar opposite of that used by the Zulus. Impi tactics were flowing and aggressive, adapted to fight other African tribes. Those of the Maoris were stationary and defensive, adapted to counter European guns. Creating fortified earthen strongholds called pā, the Maoris held off British and then colonial militia troops, firing from well-prepared defensive positions, forcing the attackers into costly advances. Though the result was once again domination by white colonials, fighting was nowhere near as decisive as in the Zulu Empire.

5. Xhosa

Resistance fighters defend a stronghold in the forested Water Kloof during the 8th Xhosa war of 1851. Xhosa, Kat River Khoi-khoi, and some army deserters are depicted.

The Zulus were not the only natives the British fought in their attempt to unite southern Africa. Further, east, the Xhosa also resisted, triggering the Ninth Xhosa War (1877-9)
Unable to beat the well-equipped British in open battle, the Xhosa retreated to the Amatola Mountains. Here they fought a guerrilla war, making use of the terrain to launch a string of ambushes. By never presenting the British with a target and always withdrawing when put under pressure, they prevented the invaders from gaining an advantage. It was only by building a string of fortifications and creating an elaborate system of mounted pursuit that the British beat them.

6. Mahdists

The Battle of Omdurman.

The Mahdists in Sudan faced the British with a different challenge in the 1880s and 1890s. Believing their leader Muhammad Ahmad to be the Mahdi, a prophesied Islamic religious leader, they fought with fanatical fervor against foreign influence.
This religious fervor led to frontal assaults even more determined than those of the Zulus. Though these served the Mahdists well early on, they were no match for well-prepared troops equipped with the latest guns. It was such a force that broke them finally broke them at Omdurman in 1898.

7. Boers

Boer militiamen at Spionkop.

While many opponents used elements of guerrilla warfare against the British, the Boer version came closest to what we see in the modern world. The descendants of Dutch settlers, the Boers became caught up in the British attempt to unify southern Africa, and like the natives they resisted.
Smart, accurate marksmen with talented leaders who understood European warfare, they were foes unlike any others the British had faced. They were able to gain large armies and adapt elements of guerrilla warfare to the battlefield, defeating the British in bloody confrontations as well as small actions.
Ultimately, the Boers were undone not by their enemies’ superior tactics or leadership. Indeed, British leadership in the war was often among the worst in history. Yet even the tenacious Boers could not defeat the superior resources of the British Empire, and sheer weight of numbers eventually wore them down

"Why The Left Seems To Win"

 I had posted this back in 2016...and I see what is going on now in the Culture wars and the TDS and the Donks flirtation with the democratic socialist and I am seeing more of the parallels..Sobering

I saw this here and I had wondered "why does the left seem to win despite supporting the most morally bankrupt system in history, they seem to always come out on top.  I read this and it helped explain a bit of it.  I am sure there is more here than the article shows, but it is a start.    The pics are from google and my stash in my folder.

W.M. Briggs asks why the Right is in constant retreat in the face of those we could easily defeat:

Why does the Left always win? Easiest answer in the world! They fight. They shoot to kill. They hang traitors. They do not retreat unless faced with overwhelming forces. They say “The hell with the rules.”
…Instead of fighting, we surrender apologetically when pushed, and as we fade we mouth words about accompanying people on their “spiritual journey” or “My Constitution guarantees free speech.”

He captures the basics. The following might be a useful expansion on his diagnosis without changing his prescription:

• The Left is unreasonable. The Right strives for an orderly, polite and morally good society. For that reason, they tend to think that other people are inclined toward being reasonable as well. The Left on the other hand views civilization as its enemy because the Left aspires to replace civilization because it views civilization without Leftism as the antithesis of good. Rightists will try to appeal to Leftists’ better natures, make compromises and keep order, which only strengthens the Left by legitimizing them and giving them a healthier society to parasitize.

• The Left is unrealistic. The Right cares about the consequences of its actions; the Left cares about the ideological appearance and social popularity of its actions, and this concern displaces any cares about consequences in reality. This liberates Leftists from the additional burden of knowing anything about what they are doing. Their one mode of thought is to say something that other people like to hear, and then using the power of the group, to force it to be implemented.
  
  
  
  
• The Left appeals to monkey dynamics. Leftists ideas are more socially correct than Rightist ideas, because the ideal of the Left is equality and the Right favors hierarchy, and social situations value only universal inclusion so that the members of that social group can feel stable because there is no tension, competition or conflict. This is an illusion but one that humans can no more resist than magpies can turn away from shiny objects. The idea of everyone being included and having a share makes humans have warm happy feelings inside — this is actually their brains turning off and their bodies preparing for animal death, as if recognizing the triumph of a predator — and so they will choose it every time. This is why any social group which is not policed by a hierarchy will drift Leftward.
  
  
  
• The Left recognizes no distinction between war and peace. Rightists will never understand that for the Leftist, ideology is all. It is how they socialize, organize their thinking, justify any self-esteem they have, and find other people. It is their reason for existing. Often it is the only thing that makes them feel good besides drugs, drink and sex. Since the high does not last, they pursue it compulsively. Since it must be right for them to feel good, any dissent or non-conformity is viewed as competition and rigorously pursued so the Leftist can feel good again. Therefore, the Leftist is always at war, and has no patriotism or loyalty to heritage because Leftism is organized in benefit of the individual and rejects any larger organization system, with an exception made for the herd because a crowd enforces individual rights by removing accountability.
  
  
  
  
• Leftists base their self-image on total victory, not decency. Rightists like to think that they are appreciated for their strong, sober, wise and measured moral presence. Leftists have no such illusion. They know that people respect that which they fear, and that which gives them handouts, and they achieve this by installing a struggle toward ultimate victory. This forces everyone in the group into conformity and justifies lavish lifestyles for those sacrificing their time to the war effort.
  
  
  
  

In the future, if humanity survives, volumes will be written about the psychology of Leftism. It is an individualistic genre that manifests through collectivism because collectives are built around the idea of every individual having an equal part and reward. This creates a semi-suicidal mentality because life can only be lived through external factors, denying the inner parts of the human psychology, which creates robotic, zombie-like ideological warriors for whom life is misery and the only respite is found through destroying enemies.

10 Reasons the DSA are not the Fringe, but the Heir Apparent

 

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are collecting election victories across the Country. As they do, certain Establishment Democrats are distancing themselves from the DSA. However, the plain truth is that the DSA is a natural extension of the modern Democrat Party.

Keep in mind that the policies of the DSA include support for the Green New Deal, trans rights, labor rights and union organization, universal childcare, defunding if not the elimination of the police, publicly funded healthcare and antiwar positions. To support all of that, their candidates have vocally supported taxing the rich.

The DSA builds its ranks through community organizing, protests, and its high-profile elected leaders, such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, U.S. Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), and others. Its website asks viewers to “Start your own DSA chapter!”

If all of the above sounds familiar, it is because they are natural extensions, if not actual, mainstream positions of the Democrat Party.

Take a look.

1. The Green New Deal. Support for the Green New Deal is featured prominently on the DSA website. It was public policy during the Biden and Obama Administrations. Nearly every Democrat in Congress supported it. Thus, DSA’s current support of it can hardly be considered extreme among Democrats.
2. Universal healthcare. The DSA supports universal, government-provided healthcare. Thirty years ago, publicly funded healthcare among Democrats was championed by Hillary Clinton. It was known as Hillarycare.(Thank goodness it went down in flames) President Obama advanced that concept with Obamacare. Countless Congressional Democrats support publicly funded universal healthcare today – and not just to U.S. citizens. Leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for President Gavin Newsom gives it to many, including those here illegally. Obviously, the DSA’s current support of universal healthcare can hardly be considered extreme among Democrats. Indeed, the DSA is late to the Democrats’ universal healthcare party.(I call it "Rationed care", once you are a certain age, it sucks to be you.)
3. The Antiwar Party. The DSA is against the war in Iran and Gaza. It is nearly the official position of the Democrat Party to be against the Iran War and Gaza. Since the 1960s, the Democrats have been the anti-war power to one degree or another. Once again, the DSA’s position is either plainly the same or a natural extension of the modern Democrat Party.(I called them apologist for the Soviet Union back in the day, fellow leftist I suppose)
4. The Tax The Rich Party. The Socialists of the DSA support taxing the rich. Meanwhile, the Democrats uniformly demand the rich pay their “fair share.” Biden regularly chanted that mantra, as did Obama, as do Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), AOC and Mamdani — despite the top 10 percent of income earners paying over 75 percent of the federal income tax. Gavin Newsom, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders all support a wealth tax. Sanders nearly won the Democratic nomination in 2020 before it was wrested from him, and Newsom and Warren are considered very mainstream Democrats. Thus, the DSA’s tax position is hardly outside mainstream Democrat thinking.
5. Trans Rights. Support for trans rights is featured prominently on the DSA website. It was the official policy of the Biden and Obama Administrations to advance trans rights and he appointed a trans individual as assistant secretary of health. Gavin Newsom publicly rebuked the recent Supreme Court Decision on trans rights, and California still champions trans rights. Congressional Democrats put forth the Transgender Bill of Rights and the Equality Act and repeatedly voted against Republican bills to protect women’s sports. In other words, and once again, the DSA’s position is in line with most federally elected Democrats.
6. Community Organization and Protests. One strategy of the Democrats is countless public demonstrations, including paid protestors, against all things Trump and ICE. Indeed, the Democrats are the Party of Protests as they were in the 1960s. The DSA follows that model along with Obama’s community organization model and support of Labor issues. 
7. Defund the Police/Open Border. Kamala Harris, the last Democrat nominee for President, supported defunding the police, as have countless Democrat officials across the nation over the last decade. The same can be said of open borders. The DSA’s support of police defunding and open borders is right in line with that thinking.
8. Anti-Israel Position. While not all Congressional or Senate Democrats are anti-Israel, a great many are. According to MS NOW, recent polling showed that “somewhere between 72% and 77% of Democrats believe that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.” A good deal of the anti-Israel, if not antisemitic, sentiment is reflected on the liberal schools' campuses of America, including many a protest. Indeed, DSA candidates often take that sentiment to new heights. Nevertheless, it is a sentiment that resides firmly in the Democrat Party.
9. Anti-American views. Recent polling has found that Democrats’ pride in America has plummeted to historic lows. Mamdani chose July 3rd to sit at George Washington’s desk to express his disdain for America. Other DSA candidates have also expressed intense anti-America views, aligning themselves with Democrats across the Country.
10. Socialism. Finally, a “firm 32% of Democrats indicated they like democratic socialist” politicians, and, “among self-described liberal Democrats, 52% like politicians who identify as democratic socialists," according to a report from the New York Post