4 ms·

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 g

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-pushed-a-crippled-f-4-to-safety/ 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 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_diving_dress

ceejayoz 3y ago
> 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.
globalise83 3y ago
Your grandpa probably saw some REALLY unnerving sights down there. I shudder to think about it.
WalterBright 3y ago
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.
- danielvf 3y ago
  Gun cameras on B-17's might have been a late war thing? Here's a photo of some B-17 crew members with new gun cameras in 1945: https://www.superstock.com/asset/crew-members-rd-bomb-group-check-machine-gun-camera-which/6145-48935277 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.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Interesting. The photo was in March, 1945, just before the end of the war. My dad's tour ended in late summer 1944.
pdonis 3y ago
Wikipedia also has an article on Pardo's Push: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardo%27s_Push 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.
- throwup238 3y ago
  The titular Bob Pardo passed away a few weeks ago. RIP o' brave airman!
- FredPret 3y ago
  What a crazy thing! Weird that he died a couple of weeks ago. But what a pilot.
- thedrbrian 3y ago
  >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 https://www.quora.com/Why-do-F16s-have-tail-hooks-even-though-they-dont-operate-from-carriers https://www.quora.com/Why-do-F16s-have-tail-hooks-even-thoug...
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > they're used to stop the aircraft in an emergency Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that they have arresting gear on many runways for emergency use.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  Some air force planes have tail hooks for landing with emergency arrestor gear on land.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
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
flir 3y ago
Riffing off the diving suit link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(diver) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(diver)
nradov 3y ago
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Army%E2%80%93Navy_Assessment_Committee?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Army%E2%80%93Navy_Assess...

ceejayoz 3y ago

> 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.

globalise83 3y ago

Your grandpa probably saw some REALLY unnerving sights down there. I shudder to think about it.

WalterBright 3y ago

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.

danielvf 3y ago
Gun cameras on B-17's might have been a late war thing? Here's a photo of some B-17 crew members with new gun cameras in 1945: https://www.superstock.com/asset/crew-members-rd-bomb-group-check-machine-gun-camera-which/6145-48935277 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.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Interesting. The photo was in March, 1945, just before the end of the war. My dad's tour ended in late summer 1944.

pdonis 3y ago

Wikipedia also has an article on Pardo's Push: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardo%27s_Push 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.

throwup238 3y ago
The titular Bob Pardo passed away a few weeks ago. RIP o' brave airman!
FredPret 3y ago
What a crazy thing! Weird that he died a couple of weeks ago. But what a pilot.
thedrbrian 3y ago
>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 https://www.quora.com/Why-do-F16s-have-tail-hooks-even-though-they-dont-operate-from-carriers https://www.quora.com/Why-do-F16s-have-tail-hooks-even-thoug...
- pdonis 3y ago
  > they're used to stop the aircraft in an emergency Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that they have arresting gear on many runways for emergency use.
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
Some air force planes have tail hooks for landing with emergency arrestor gear on land.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

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

flir 3y ago

Riffing off the diving suit link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(diver) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(diver)

nradov 3y ago

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Army%E2%80%93Navy_Assessment_Committee?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Army%E2%80%93Navy_Assess...