Not so fast. I’m aware what happens with airliners, but I think the last thing a fighter pilot would economise in is ammo - they’re pretty short on it as is and it’s mostly running out of ammo that limits aerial combat in this era. If we’re limiting our discussion to carrier takeoffs maybe, but that’s a tiny proportion of plane, or even fighter, takeoffs in WW2.
It is certainly more likely given the timing, and indeed the first known source mentioned above, but that doesn’t prove it. Like the earlier post I’d like to see the exact context the phrase was used in that book: if it referred to ammo belts then you’re right, if not then we’re still looking for that vital link.
Timing is wrong for WWII fighters- besides, the belt lengths were of many varying sizes, not 9 yards at all.
If it is related to ammo belt lengths, I’d guess it was coming fro shooting them off, as opposed to loading them in. The crew cheif loaded the guns (and the fule, and everything else), the pilot wasn’t usually involved to that extent- and the crew cheif knew how much ammo he put in- which as we have seen- wasn’t nine yards exactly and varied.
BUt it could be eyeballed or estimated at nine yards, so i can see some pilot or gunner talking about a target “I gave him the whole nine yards”. Timing is right for WWII, and thus we’d have to find which standard planes flew and how much ammo did they carry- and who that author hung out with. It’s no use talking about the Skyraider if she hung out with Jetboys.
I asked this in at least one of the other ninety-four godzillion threads: Why does the phrase have to mean anything at all? It’s not like etymologists are canvassing Mexican peasant kitchens for clues to the origin of “the whole enchilada.” Maybe it’s just one of those offhand phrases that stuck.
My guess is, correct me if I’m wrong, is that you’ve never served in the military? Trust me on this, a fighter pilot doesn’t get to decide anything. Nothing. His Chain of Command decides the target, ingress and egress, rules of engagement, his ammo, munitions, fuel, equipment, what maps and/or codebooks he carries and what color underwear he wears. No kidding. His name on the side of his cockpit? Yep, approved font and color per his CoC. Squadron emblems? Yep, approved by CoC. If an infantryman goes into combat, he is issued the amount of ammo his commander desires him to have. He doesn’t go into a buffet tent and choose what he wants. His weapon, basic load of ammo, number and types of grenades, body armor, helmet and the color of his underwear is what he is told to wear and what he is issued. This hasn’t changed.
Of course the answer could be staring us right in the face: Maybe it just sounds… poetic.
No, I haven’t which is why I used terms such as “I’d assume…”. But if it as you say and the pilot gets no choice, that destroys the entire theory, which was based around the gun-loader asking the pilot how much ammo he wanted loaded up.
I tend to agree with you. In addition, from some other Army phrases, including FUBAR and several others that aren’t initials, it could reference something we probably wouldn’t be able to discuss here anyway. Soldiers in combat tend to see irony in a lot of places…
Ok, I found a copy of “Doom Pussy.” The copy I have is a first print by Pocket Books in November 1967. The book was originally printed by Trident Press in February 1967.
I was only able to find the phrase twice. Both are on page 140 and is “The full nine yards.” It is being used to describe the full treatment from a French barber. The place is Da Nang and the author is with Nails and Smash of the 13th Bomb Squadron (Doom Pussy). Nails is actually the CO of the squadron.
IMO, the way the phrase is used sounds like it has been in use before Elaine Shepard put it into writing. I do agree (for what it’s worth) that it’s highly unlikely that it is from WWII…My reasoning is simple…think of all of the articles, stories and movies about fighter pilots in the 20+ years from WWII to Vietnam and the phrase never making it into print or film, just doesn’t make sense. Just my $.02.
Interesting. In “Doom Pussy” the term is used both to mean “all of it”, and also that one gets or gives the whole nine yards. But no use in the context “go the whole nine yards”, which would make sense in football. Thus I’m getting the sense that the soldiers were using the term in terms of giving the “whole nine yards” of something to the enemy. (US soldiers likely wouldn’t know the lengths of ammo belts, etc. of the enemy, so almost surely there must have been something the US had they could use against the enemy where “nine yards” of it meant the whole thing.)
Also, another thing against the notion of the term originating in WWII is if it was used then, and also used by the military 20 years later in Vietnam, then surely it would have had to have been in continuous use in the military in the intervening time. Thus if the term comes from WWII, not only did every reporter of that well covered war fail to mention it, but also every reporter in the next 20 years covering the US military. Plus every soldier avoided using it in print publicly outside of internal military correspondence, such as that appearance in that 1969 classified ad in a Florida newspaper. It isn’t like soldiers would consider using outside the military a slang phrase such as TWNY as if it were revealing some kind of military secret. Thus, the evidence points to a Vietnam era origin. And, I’m getting the sense this phrase must have been very commonly used within the military. No soldier placing a classified ad aimed at the general public a phrase that they knew was very obscure military slang used by just a few in the military. Its like whoever placed that ad thought the term was so common that all the world knew about it. This soldier just didn’t realize that while the term would have been universally recognized on base, the general public would have no clue what it meant. And since we have only 2 documented cites in print of this term being used before 1969, surely a non-military Joe Blow type reading the classified ads would have been stumped as to what the phrase meant.
I finally got my book and just started reading it. That expression seems like it’s mentioned several times in the book according to what I see other posters finding. The only reference I found so far (I’m in chapter III) has not been mentioned so far but also comes from the mouth of the same character, “Smash”, mentioned in Xgemina’s post.
So either “Smash” really likes that expression, or else the author really likes it and puts it in the mouth of several of her characters.
My copy is:
(hardcover) Trident Press, New York 1967, as far as I can tell a first edition
From Chapter 3, “Bien Hoa (Peaceful Shore)” p.54 in my copy
“Smash” Crandell is a major in the 13th B-57 squadron which rotates between Clark Air Base (Philippines) and Da Nang (Vietnam). We are talking about Smash’s marriage (he is now divorced):
There must be plenty of Air Force personnel still around that served in Vietnam at the time. It would be interesting to know if anyone has asked them for their recollections of the phrase. If anybody knows the truth of it they might.
Has anyone ever asked the author about the phrase? Or looked through her papers if she’s not still alive? (Authors all have papers, right? Lots and lots of papers.)
Note the “what he called”. Great googa-mooga! Could the bridal-veil theory have been right all along? Unprovable because it was never objective in the first place?
