Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Jamgull t1_jcr4p36 wrote

I’m imagining him making hard eye contact with the enemy tail gunner while he mulches up the plane with that comically large propeller

493

MitsyEyedMourning t1_jcr6oyv wrote

Making dog bite noises as metal bits fly.

141

chronoboy1985 t1_jcrj49u wrote

“Om nom nom!”

62

[deleted] t1_jctfh72 wrote

[removed]

2

SarcasticSparky t1_jctjp4o wrote

I thought the same thing. There could have been other pilots to see, but the jammed guns and shredded prop may have been enough evidence.

6

NeroF t1_jcupehx wrote

They often had forward mounted "gun cameras" installed to document the engagements.

1

orhanGAZ t1_jcti2d9 wrote

I'm guessing from the description this was the Pacific theater thus a Japanese enemy aircraft. Is it possible they were still using wood to build their AC making this feat a little easier?

I thought I read this in history that it made the AC very fast and maneuverable, but frail compared to American AC. Philosophy was fighting to the death, less about returning from mission.

Please by all means correct me if I don't have my facts straight.

5

Rhaedas t1_jcty1kd wrote

I can say for certain that a Zero does not hold up well to a Sidewinder.

6

Psybor9 t1_jcu2v3k wrote

The Japanese Zero was made of duralumin, a secret special aluminum that didn’t provide armor but allowed the plane to be extremely maneuverable, it was almost half the thickness of the metal used in allied aircraft.

4

Jamgull t1_jcvptgd wrote

The control surfaces on the tail were fabric covered aluminium or wood. The tail itself was usually stressed skin aluminium over an aluminium frame. I think the key to doing this successfully is to approach very slowly, otherwise you will destroy your engine in the process of bringing down the enemy plane.

I have actually done this in the flight sim IL-2 1946, though those were against planes that didn’t have defensive gunners because that is frankly suicidal, and I don’t know how this real pilot didn’t just get shot.

3

Delamoor t1_jcvwr4h wrote

Gunner might have used all his ammunition before the pilot got close... Or the plane remained outside of his firing arc.

You would have to be pretty confident to get that close to an enemy bomber. Might have been lingering for a while.

2

orhanGAZ t1_jcx6sgr wrote

Thank you for your Insight and detail on the tail structure and materials

2

Komnos t1_jctya6p wrote

"Will it blend? That is the question!"

(moments later) "A6M 'Zero' dust. Don't breathe this!"

4

Dawnawaken92 t1_jctunph wrote

What kind of plane was he in?

3

[deleted] t1_jctypnt wrote

[deleted]

5

gemstun t1_jcu4jfs wrote

Also, cockpit of this pilots particular plane had to be specially modified to accommodate pilot’s extraordinarily large balls.

3

prophet001 t1_jcr16fb wrote

Naval Aviators are a very special breed of crazy.

456

annaoliveiraaaaazs t1_jcr1cl9 wrote

Being a Naval Aviator is like being a superhero, except instead of a cape, they have a flight suit and instead of an arch-nemesis, they have the laws of physics.

233

[deleted] t1_jcrbpt8 wrote

[deleted]

55

YallMindIfIJoin t1_jcry8b0 wrote

We need warp speed in two minutes or we are all dead

19

AdminsAreLazyID10TS t1_jcsard6 wrote

It is physically impossible to repair the drive in less than four weeks.

Does it in ninety seconds

30

thor561 t1_jcsftwb wrote

A good engineer always pads his estimates.

24

Kiyan1159 t1_jcsoth1 wrote

A good procrastinator always adds 20% to his time estimates.

11

Smartnership t1_jcto1yw wrote

> A good procrastinator always eventually gets around to adding 20% to his time estimates.

9

DigitalTraveler42 t1_jcr63ev wrote

It's more the laws of physics are their "kryptonite", because they definitely have arch-nemesis' in whoever the opposing pilots are, usually Ruzzian and Chinese these days.

13

phunktheworld t1_jcr9p3e wrote

Lol where is the US engaging in aerial combat with either of those countries? I don’t think there’s much dogfighting going on these days.

31

DigitalTraveler42 t1_jcrhzrc wrote

There's a lot of documented provocation on both China and Ruzzia's parts, there may not be anybody getting shot down currently, but there are absolutely tense moments, and that's what qualifies them as an arch-nemesis. Additionally, other air forces we're up against get their asses stomped, as they're usually flying outdated craft, China and Ruzzia are the only two non-NATO nations that have current generation craft, at least on paper.

−10

KoedKevin t1_jcra575 wrote

They were trained to do this to protect navy ships from air attack. There’s a story about a navy chaplain that was a Catholic priest complaining that it was a form of suicide and therefor a mortal sin. An aviator told the chaplain that they would do their best to get out of the plane as it went down so it wasn’t suicidal.

169

TheNotSoGreatPumpkin t1_jcuewyt wrote

Imagine clergy splitting hairs over what is and is not likely to be judged suicidal by God while you’re trying to win the world’s deadliest war.

I mean, just STFU, respectfully.

10

obscureferences t1_jcvaada wrote

Morale is critical in war. He needs to ask these kinda questions to do his job.

3

TheNotSoGreatPumpkin t1_jcvgbyc wrote

It’s understood, though I’m not sure morale is helped by being told you might be damned for eternity if your actions are too valorous.

1

obscureferences t1_jcvhr87 wrote

It's knowing that someone in the strategic process is sanctioning the morality of your actions specifically so you don't fear damnation.

2

Nukemind t1_jcs4pbp wrote

Look up the Sonderkommando Elbe. Nazi Germany, in the waning days of the war, had an entire special unit made to do just this. They would climb yo and use steel propellers to “prop chop” big bombers then bail out, often flying into the formation so the B-17s and 24s couldn’t shoot at them without risking hitting their Allie’s.

There was a great episode on it on the History channel in the early 2000’s. Luftwaffe’s Deadliest Missions from the show Dogfights.

27

manowtf t1_jcrojs0 wrote

Not only that. But the chances of survival if you went down at sea made them alnost as suicidial as kamikaze pilots, just not as deluded.

Bravest of the brave.

21

mindspork t1_jcsv3qc wrote

I'm surprised the Corsair could get off the ground what with his massive depleted uranium balls.

4

anhedonis539 t1_jcr7oe6 wrote

Honest question: how do acts like this get officially recognized/ awarded? I halfway assume there had to be a witness but certainly that can’t always be the case

176

bros402 t1_jcr96kl wrote

another pilot could've seen it - the fighting was very thick in WW2

153

GracefullyIgnorant t1_jcr9c4u wrote

It was very common for fighters to have gun cameras to confirm kills. Usually they'd start recording when the guns fired, but in some instances the pilots could activate them whenever. Otherwise there would be confirmation of a kill from a wingman, an observer on the ground, or even sometimes the enemy. In this instance, I'm sure there would be physical evidence as well, such as bits of Japanese plane stuck in the engine cowling!

128

dedjedi t1_jcs5i57 wrote

ground mechanic: wtf did you do to this plane bro

pilot: it was the darndest thing you see...

68

[deleted] t1_jcug8wt wrote

So there i was, munching up that Japanese planussy

−2

IAmBadAtInternet t1_jctkakg wrote

That’s exactly what happened, they found chunks of the tail wing in the cowling. And also the obvious damage to the prop.

3

Zalenka t1_jcsga2i wrote

"An inspection of the plane found pieces of the Japanese plane’s tail wheel embedded in the American fighter’s engine cowling. "

ouch

69

ccknboltrtre01 t1_jcrpoeu wrote

I feel like the damage to the propeller would be quite visible

50

Killeroftanks t1_jcs9hya wrote

Sometimes other pilots would see it.

However I am pretty sure 70% of these cases are completely made up, because pilots really like to prop up their kill counts, and landing with a destroyed prop would make you look stupid for hitting something, like another plane because you're too stupid to look around you, but its badass if you land back with a broken prop because you smashed an enemy plane with it, on purpose.

Fun fact about this, all throughout the Pacific many allied pilots would confirm Japanese kills because they saw the plane bank away and a smoke trail would follow afterwards, making the pilot believe they shot down a plane.

However the zero ( in this case) used a wep (or war emergency power, aka throwing nitrous into the engine to get a little bit more power out of it, but not actually that in this case) which threw out a lot of smoke.... So ya quite a few kills allied pilots made weren't actual kills. However with zero way of disputing it nothing can be done besides a blanket reduction of kills on reports, which no army will ever do, at least any public reports.

−27

BlackVisage t1_jcsbsvh wrote

Please cite your sources?

"I'm pretty sure" doesn't cut it making statements like that.

25

Something22884 t1_jctbja2 wrote

It's funny because he is making up the alleged fact that other people also make stuff up.

4

Killeroftanks t1_jct5bim wrote

There are none.

There could never be a source like that, however it doesn't take a genius to put together the notion that pilots, who in general have a track record of overestimating their kills, would also alter stories to make themselves look better.

Because again coming back to base with a broken prop because you were an idiot doesn't look good, but ramming into a plane does. Don't mind the fact the facts of the story doesn't make fucking sense.

Also I could say the same thing to you, where are your sources that back up the fact it happened, were there other pilots who saw, did they find the wreckage of the enemy plane? Did the ramming plane survive and could be analyze it to see if it indeed ran someone.

Likely all that is gone to history. The plane scrapped, all the pilots either dead or never saw anything, the enemy plane just doesn't exist when it smacked the land or water. And all you got for a source, is the pilot itself.

−10

BlackVisage t1_jcte38h wrote

You can add me, everyone who downvoted you and likely most people that read your response to the probably, staggeringly larger number of people who think you are full of shit.

5

Puterjoe t1_jctvv2j wrote

‘Doesn’t take a genius’

Yup, you are a great example of this statement.

4

yesgirlsusereddit t1_jcrdf1p wrote

If this happened in a movie, I would say they had gone too far to be believable. It's one of those "truth is stranger than fiction" moments

141

[deleted] t1_jcrurqe wrote

Kinda like how they omitted some things from Hacksaw Ridge because they thought no one would believe it was true.

46

nickyurick t1_jcs3g7w wrote

Like what for example

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE

18

[deleted] t1_jcs3szg wrote

“He treated himself for shock and dressed his own wounds, rather than having another medic emerge from safety to help. Five hours later, someone finally arrived with a stretcher. But when Doss saw a soldier in need, he rolled off, surrendered his stretcher, and started patching up his comrade. While Doss was waiting for more help to arrive, a sniper suddenly shot and shattered all of the bones in his left arm. (Hacksaw Ridge director Mel Gibson left this part out of the film because he felt that it was so heroic that audiences wouldn’t even believe that it had really happened.)”

81

Xendrus t1_jcsby9n wrote

Well fuck him for thinking so little of his audience's intelligence. The people that cared enough to check would have found the truth, the people too lazy to, screw em.

−15

OldKingCanary t1_jcse6ef wrote

This happens all. the. time. It's been a very common thing with movies based on real live events. Real life doesn't have to follow storytelling rules and the stories are often seen as bullshit by viewers because no one bothers to check.

44

american-titan t1_jcsfqza wrote

"Of course truth is stranger than fiction, fiction actually has to make sense." - Mark Twain

39

oomio10 t1_jctjz4j wrote

nothing stopping people from doing that anyways

6

Xendrus t1_jctke8w wrote

Yes but it detracts from the genuineness of the film.

−4

Flapjack_ t1_jcru84w wrote

Reminds me of the ending of Fury that a lot of people consider unrealistic, and it's definitely a stretch, but Audie Murphy did the exact same thing except the tank he was in was on fire.

36

jlees88 t1_jct9vjf wrote

Another soldier did it in Iraq a few years ago. He was unfortunately killed in action during that fire fight.

6

FlyingMacheteSponser t1_jcs7kei wrote

You can land a plane that's lost all engine power though (and/or your prop), but without your tail you're screwed.

13

PickyNipples t1_jcry1ax wrote

Same. I’m no engineer but I would have imagined a prop would take too much damage way before it chopped through another plane. And I definitely would not expect the whole plane to survive. Though tbf im not even sure what these planes looked like. Obviously I’m not saying it isn’t possible, just that it sounds too crazy to believe!

12

davesoverhere t1_jcs2dk7 wrote

The plane was reconnaissance, so it could have used stretched canvas to skin much of the plane instead of metal.

10

DistortoiseLP t1_jcr7qi9 wrote

My guy actually did the thing I always imagine whenever I look at propeller planes and see a flying blender.

36

elZaphod t1_jcrbeqc wrote

That’s like something from a Looney Tunes cartoon, amazed it worked!

17

spiritplumber t1_jcra3ki wrote

If anything ever needed a Sabaton song, it's this.

12

ulyssesfiuza t1_jcr7rrs wrote

Any information about what was the japanese bomber? How could a propeller win against a (probable) metal frame? Fantastic!

9

Genetics-13 t1_jcronj8 wrote

Well, the tail gunner compartment would be glass and metal straps, the propeller would win the battle.

The rest.. he wouldn’t really need to destroy the tail, just damage the flaps on the tail and make the Japanese plane become unmenuverable.

19

ulyssesfiuza t1_jcrw9ru wrote

Just by having a tail gunner tell me that it is something more substantial than a Zero.

10

Genetics-13 t1_jcrwkdq wrote

The article says it was a recon plane. Many times they are built lighter to be able to stay in the air longer. But i didn’t really look into this

8

phumanchu t1_jcs6h9l wrote

1

guimontag t1_jcsmxhx wrote

It was this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ki-45

full description of the event: > > On 10 May 1945 over Okinawa, Marine First Lieutenant Robert R. Klingman and three other pilots of VMF-312 climbed to intercept an aircraft they identified as a Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu ("Nick") twin-engined heavy fighter flying reconnaissance at 25,000 feet (7,600 m), but the "Nick" began climbing higher. Two of the FG-1D Corsairs ceased their pursuit at 36,000 feet (11,000 m), but Marine Captain Kenneth Reusser and his wingman Klingman continued to 38,000 feet (12,000 m), expending most of their .50 caliber ammunition to lighten their aircraft. Reusser scored hits on the "Nick's" port engine, but ran out of ammunition, and was under fire from the Japanese rear gunner. Klingman lined up for a shot at a distance of 50 feet (15 m) when his guns jammed due to the extreme cold. He approached the "Nick" three times to damage it with his propeller, chopping away at his opponent's rudder, rear cockpit, and right stabilizer. The Toryu spun down to 15,000 feet (4,600 m) where its wings came off. Despite missing five inches (13 cm) from the ends of his propeller blades, running out of fuel and having an aircraft dented and punctured by debris and bullets, Klingman safely guided his Corsair to a deadstick landing.[47] He was awarded the Navy Cross.[48]

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Robert_R._Klingman

15

tovarishchi t1_jcrs62d wrote

I couldn’t find anything about how this particular plane was made, but the famous zeros were mostly made of a thin aluminum alloy, which would be easily bent out of usable shape, if not destroyed entirely by a much thicker aluminum propeller on the Corsair.

7

Wesjohn2 t1_jcsb64l wrote

On 10 May 1945 over Okinawa, Marine First Lieutenant Robert R. Klingman and three other pilots of VMF-312 climbed to intercept an aircraft they identified as a Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu ("Nick") twin-engined heavy fighter flying reconnaissance at 25,000 feet (7,600 m), but the "Nick" began climbing higher. Two of the FG-1D Corsairs ceased their pursuit at 36,000 feet (11,000 m), but Marine Captain Kenneth Reusser and his wingman Klingman continued to 38,000 feet (12,000 m), expending most of their .50 caliber ammunition to lighten their aircraft. Reusser scored hits on the "Nick's" port engine, but ran out of ammunition, and was under fire from the Japanese rear gunner. Klingman lined up for a shot at a distance of 50 feet (15 m) when his guns jammed due to the extreme cold. He approached the "Nick" three times to damage it with his propeller, chopping away at his opponent's rudder, rear cockpit, and right stabilizer. The Toryu spun down to 15,000 feet (4,600 m) where its wings came off. Despite missing five inches (13 cm) from the ends of his propeller blades, running out of fuel and having an aircraft dented and punctured by debris and bullets, Klingman safely guided his Corsair to a deadstick landing.[47] He was awarded the Navy Cross.[48]

5

hillo538 t1_jcrpjzh wrote

This happened all the time around ww2, on the first day of the invasion of the ussr 7 different pilots crashed their planes into German ones after running out of ammunition, one during the first hour. Most of them survived it because they did like the guy in this post and maneuvered it.

Polish pilots would also do it, and Japan had infamously used the same concept but without the chance of survival in the kamikazee attacks

During the Battle of Britain iirc a British pilot had gotten acclaim for doing the same thing, towards the end of the war the nazis had even organized pilots who were supposed to crash.

I didn’t know before today however that the us had done it. It is pretty intuitive though, they mention a lot of the people that i mentioned had figured this move out on their own

3

bdizzzzzle t1_jcrzdtm wrote

What a shitty thumbnail in the article! If you Google him this exact picture is of him holding the broken propeller.

3

Chief-_-Wiggum t1_jcsvxv2 wrote

Dogfight equivalent to a knife kill in an open battle field. Surprised the plane can take off with balls that big.

3

DanYHKim t1_jcr8lka wrote

I've really only seen this in cartoons!

2

Kriznick t1_jcs2l3u wrote

Didn't call it the "Bent-Winged Bitch" for no reason. Navy corsairs and their pilots were fucking nuts.

2

sailorjerry134 t1_jcswhsx wrote

Too close for guns, I'm switching to propeller!

2

Zenith251 t1_jcuirnw wrote

Good judgement call. Either the gunner takes him down, or he potentially takes them both down with a slim chance he'd make it out alive.

2

rilloroc t1_jcrcm2u wrote

He is a man of focus, commitment, and sheer fucking will

1

GForceHangover t1_jcs3neb wrote

The pilot also received free beers for life.

I mean, I’d buy that guy a beer.

1

vicemagnet t1_jcs7aqp wrote

That tailgunner must have been a descendant of a stormtrooper

1

Cat_Behemoth t1_jcs7fa9 wrote

This tactic was much more often used at Eastern front in WW2

1

sudo-netcat t1_jcs8t8o wrote

I'm imagining the propeller making tablesaw noises while it eviscerated the tail like some Looney Tunes shit.

1

snagboy15 t1_jcsothe wrote

That is some true bravery.

1

akl78 t1_jct82np wrote

A longer article someone else linked here mentioned he landed with severe damage including two very bent propeller blades. Also the others in his wing were in the same fight.

1

Tbkssom t1_jcthcta wrote

Aerial melee combat

1

psion1369 t1_jcti6uu wrote

Anybody know what kind of plane it was that for chewed up?

1

GenericUsername19892 t1_jctu86n wrote

The fucking balls to make a melee kill on a plane with a plane…

1

A_very_nice_dog t1_jcu2jqw wrote

As drones become more and more mainstream, it’ll be weird that there was this blip in history where people fought in the flies like this. Strange to think.

1

The_mingthing t1_jcuiios wrote

Here comes the airplane wooom nomnomnomnom

1

Kladderadingsda t1_jctmcd8 wrote

Even if the other plane is only made out of wood and fabric- how is this possible? The rotor surely broke, did it not?

0

BenZed t1_jcubaop wrote

What’s with the comments? Yall never heard of melee mode?

0

xxDankerstein t1_jcrceei wrote

Why haven't we seen this in a movie yet?

−1

areolegrande t1_jcrx9lp wrote

Yeah, I don't think air-to-air-melee combat is what they meant when they say dogfights lol

Mission accomplished? Kinda stupid tho tbh.

−2