Memories

[bill_harris1]

Some memories or something new for most of you. Ths is B-25G Mitchell

Bomber that I was Crew Chief on..It was unique in that it had a 75mm

cannon in the nose. It also had had thirteen 50 cal.mchines

guns,carried 2000 pounds of bombs. A very deadly weapon..We

participated in action in the Gilbert (Tarawa)Marshall and Mariana

Islands (Siapan)..We also bombed southern Japan from Okinawa. Flew

low level support for Marines on the invaion of Tinian twice a day.

They are only about one mile apart<div></div>

[nstock]

My Dad was stationed on Attu Island and has photos from there. I ought to scan them in and post a few.

[nstock]

Forgot to state.. Attu is at the end of the Aleutian chain in Alaska. He was there for the better part of 3 years.

[cappoldt]

Very interesting, and a neat photo.

 

So, um - taken with a Nikon?

[akira_sasaki1]

Actually, I'm curious as well about what photography equipment American GI's used during WW II. I've seem really interesting photographs from Europe and Asia, in color and B&W. I suppose they were not taken with Leica or Zeiss... What films were around back then?

[lukas_kisiel]

With all respect for you, Bill, what does this post have to do with Nikon equipment? Was it used for bombing Nikon factories in Japan?

[peter_nelson1]

<I>With all respect for you, Bill, what does this post have to do with Nikon equipment? Was it used for bombing Nikon factories in Japan?</I><P>

 

With all the old-tymers here waxing nostalgic about how they tearfully cling to their old film cameras because the digital ones demand too much attention and emit little mechanical voices telling them to precede every shot with a frezy of knob-twiddling, Bill probably thought that this was the <B>Nostalgia Forum</B> instead of the Nikon Forum.<P>

 

I'm sure analog bombers have their place, but I prefer the newer digital bombers - faster, more accurate, bigger payload.<P>

 

BTW, speaking of war, here's a true fact: in WWI the US Army classified nostalgia as a disease.

[lex_jenkins]

Pawel, Peter, please note that there are sections on the Nikon Forum for "Philosophy" (under which Bill classified his post) and "Photo Critique" but none for "Politics" or "Sarcasm".

[walterh]

Lex, depending on which end of a gun you are - the fine difference between philosophy and sarcasm may be obsured. I can understand how people can have tears in their eyes posting images of oldtimer cameras but have a hard time to follow the emotions when it comes to "a very deadly weapon". It may be a generation problem or perhaps some people learn through history and some do not.

[shoots]

From a local air show shot with an F100 and an 80-200 AFS. I think this is a B-17G, but I

could be wrong, anyone?

[cappoldt]

Walt, objectively speaking, that photo was taken during a time of incredible patriotism, where bravery was mixed with an anger towards a country that killed thousands in Pearl Harbor. Its nostalgia is understandable to the poster, as is his admiration of how well it served as a weapon over the skies of Tarawa and other blood-strewn lands, where countless more lives were lost while engaged in bitter warfare. Point is, hey, easy - open your mind a little - were you there?

 

As for the sarcasm, I think I started it - I have no idea why this post is in the Nikon forum - it's not clear if this was taken with a Nikon, or indeed there's a rather tasteless but deliberate irony to the post.

[lex_jenkins]

Being a veteran myself (Navy Corpsman, much younger than Bill and never in combat), I simply interpreted Bill's post and photo as being of straightforward historical interest. I don't see any irony or other implications in the phrase "very deadly weapon." It's a simple statement of fact, equivalent to "My D2H is a very heavy camera."

 

I don't try to question the motives of veterans who choose to share something of their experiences. My experiences are confined to non-wartime deaths - training accidents, etc. - and they don't make for pleasant dinnertime conversation. My favorite memories of serving with the Marine Corps as a Navy Corpsman were of playing racquetball, not of training for combat.

 

I expect it's the same for combatants. So when they find something that is, at least, not terribly unpleasant to discuss, such as the crew with whom they served, and have a photo to share, I'm grateful that they're still sane enough to continue to communicate on what most folks consider a normal basis.

 

Keep in mind, also, that many combatants don't have many opportunities to take photographs. So, in my opinion, it doesn't make much difference what equipment they use.

[greg s]

It's a neat photo. Can't begin to imagine the intensity of the experience no matter how many WWII film clips I see. I salute you Bill. -Greg-

[lukas_kisiel]

Lex, I was hoping _not_ to sound sarcastic. I was just a little amused to find the post in this section. BTW, how does one tell which section was a post posted under? I was assuming this one was posted under Nikon Equipment only. :)

 

And since I got your attention, Lex, thanks for sharing your D2H experience and lots of other valuable knowledge with us! I always find your thoughts very insightful and valuable.

[lex_jenkins]

Thanks, Pawel. I hope I didn't sound too much like a school marm or net nanny, which I sometimes tend to do.

 

Each forum has a list of sections either on a sidebar along the right side or toward the very bottom of the forum's home page.

 

The sections are intended to categorize threads for archival purposes to make it easier to research issues but unfortunately photo.net's database software doesn't really make efficient use of section categorization.

 

It also depends heavily on users properly classifying threads when they initiate them. I used to try to ensure that every thread in the b&w forums was properly classifed but it became incredibly time consuming. So now I categorize only the threads that I know from experience tend to be of long term interest.

[wayne_cornell2]

Thanks for sharing the photo, Bill.