On the way

Thanks for the tip. I will check the tide table for sure. I would much rather walk over there. The Bayeaux tapestry is also on our to do list.

Will be making a pilgrimage to the D Day sites in Normandy for the first time in my life. Looking forward to it, but unfortunately, not able to spend a month and a half there. LOL. Only have 3 days and part of a 4th day here. The plan is to rent a car in Paris and drive out there. Will arrive in the area in the evening. Since I am a Canadian now, I plan to visit Beny Sur Mer Canadian Cemetery as a must do. I understand there is a Canadian monument at Les Place des Canadiens ( or something like that), which should be visited at night when it's lighted up. What other must see/do places that I should go to in these 3 days. I have ruled out Pont Du Hoc. Too far. And I need to devote at least half a day to go to Mont St Michel because the wife says so. LOL. Thanks in advance for any advise.

Yeah that is really high. At this rate, it's almost inevitable that some B-17 losses were mainly caused by friendly fire.

That is easy. If u are digging 0.5in slugs out of your B-17 bulkhead, pilot seats, dead bodies of your crew, etc. u sure as hell knew u weren't shot at by German fighters or P-51s.

Yeah, and even if there were killed and wounded by friendly fire, it would have been bad publicity to make it known. Morale was already bad enough in outfits like the 100th Bomb Group, without stories of their own guys shooting each other up.

I thought so too. Those pics and old film u see of damaged B-17 and B-24, some of that damage could be caused by their own comrades.

Finished watching Masters of the Air (twice). LOL. I was curious. The bomber formations were supposed to keep as tight a formation as possible. When under attack by Luftwaffe fighters, and returning fire, I would think there was a high chance of gunners hitting other bombers in their formation. Are there any stats on losses suffered this way? Were gunners trained to hold fire when enemy planes fly through their formation?

Is napalm still in the US Air Force inventory? If the Air Force can achieve even temporary air superiority over the battlefield, those Russians entrenched in treelines and groves would be perfect for a napalm strike. You wouldn't need friendly infantry going fox hole to fox hole close quarter to weed them out.

With the capability of the US Army battlefield surveillance (eg. usage of drones, sensors, recon planes and UAV, satellite, etc.), and the ability to bring long range precision artillery and rockets onto detected enemy formations, that should eliminate many mini drone teams, especially if they are embedded with infantry.

The Ukrainian air defense at the start of the war was moderate at best, but still performed well, especially in the battle of Hostomel. Where they downed Russian helos and some fixed wing planes. Since then, they have been supplemented by Western man portable SAM missiles and guns like the Gepard. I would say they are much improved since the start of the war. The Russians seem to have improved their overall AD too.

The Ukrainians have no stealth aircraft. I think u have to factor this in. I fully expect the US to use F-35 in their strike package and neutralize SAM and radar sites. I think the combination of heavy UAV (Reaper and Global Hawk) and stealth aircraft will neutralize any Russian air defence system.

Watching all the vids online about the destruction of Ukrainian and Russian weapon systems, I can't help but notice there are some missing elements that don't necessarily apply to a modern military: 1) Tanks hit at range by ATGW, Drones, hand held weapon systems etc. - Can this really happen to a modern army whose tanks are equipped with APS of one variant or another? I don't think any western army would deploy armour if it was not equipped with some form or active protection system. 2) Tanks being destroyed by drones dropping an explosive into an open hatch - Like who the heck would do that in a battle field. U button up your tank for days if you have to. Is this lack of discipline on the part of Russian tankers? 3) Aircraft being shot down - Generally speaking these have been Russian origin aircraft and helos operated by both sides. For whatever reason, their chaff/flare dispenser systems either don't function or are not effective. Will US and Western aircraft be that vulnerable too? I hope not. I would think Western air forces ECMs are better, as is their SEAD capabilities. 4) Targets of Opportunity - I would think western forces would do a lot better destroying convoys in the open, Russian airbases in the Crimea, naval ports and ships, etc. I think a modern western army or coalition could have attained air superiority over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine by now. If it was the US Army and not the Ukrainian military, this would have been over months ago.

Yeah, that's well put. The accuracy is one thing, and I am sure the new scopes they have on it has a lot to do with it. We used an iron sight on the Mk2, and it had a crappy range. Beyond that, the types of ammo they have developed for it is something else. Think about it. An 84mm tandem warhead grenade weighing a total of 1.8kg can blow off the tank's reactive armor and then proceed to penetrate 500mm RHA. There are early 105mm tank ammo that couldn't do that.

The Mk 2 can use any ammo today.

It's essentially the same, made with lighter weight alloys and fitted with a (IIRC) a 3X scope. In fact, the salesperson told me that all current ammo can be used in the older Mk2. that is absolutely amazing.